ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 WORLD BANK GROUP © 2017 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433; Telephone: 202-473-1000; www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved 1 2 3 4 20 19 18 17 This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The Ĕndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarilĄ reĕect the views of The World Bank, its Board of xecutive Directors, or the governments theĄ represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracĄ of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on anĄ map in this work do not implĄ anĄ ¿udgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of anĄ territorĄ or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are speciĔcallĄ reserved. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGOϳ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bĄ/3.0/igo. hnder the Creative Commons Attribution license, Ąou are free to copĄ, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial purposes, under the following conditions: Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: World Bank. 2017. Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1021-3. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO Translations—If Ąou create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should ÌÓí• –ÓÌ泜 â œ‰ÌÓªĔ–³‰ÅtÓâŜ‰ÌÂíâ‰Ìæʼní³ÓÌϡc° tÓâŜ‰ÌÂ氉ÅÅÌÓí• ų‰•Å  for any content or error in this translation. Adaptations—If Ąou create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Third-party content—The World Bank does not necessarilĄ own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of anĄ third-partĄ-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solelĄ with Ąou. If Ąou wish to re-use a component of the work, it is Ąour responsibilitĄ to determine whether permission is needed for that re-use and to obtain permission from the copĄright owner. xamples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, Ĕgures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to the World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, hSA; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. ISBN (paper): 978-1-4648-1021-3 ISBN (electronic): 978-1-4648-1022-0 DOI: 10.1596/978-1-4648-1021-3 ii Cover image: В%armers Carket Ϟ15Г © 9ulie %ord Oliver, www.¿uliefordoliver.com. hsed with the permission of 9ulie %ord Oliver. %urther permission required for reuse. Cover design: Base Three Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been requested. Contents Foreword v Acknowledgments vi About Enabling the Business of Agriculture viii Abbreviations xx 1. Overview 1 2. Seed 16 3. Fertilizer 26 4. Machinery 36 5. Finance 46 6. Markets 56 7. Transport 66 8. Water 76 9. Information and communication technology 86 10. Environmental sustainability 94 11. Gender 100 12. Land 108 13. Livestock 120 Appendix A - CethodologĄ 128 Appendix B - Topic data notes 131 Appendix C - Additional waĄs of presenting the data 162 Appendix D - Other research 165 Country tables 175 Local experts 240 iii ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 iv Sunĕowers. SoĔa, Bulgaria. Photo: Boris Balabanov / World Bank. Foreword Sustainable agricultural development is one of the most powerful tools to end extreme povertĄ and boost shared prosperitĄ. Agriculture is the economic and social mainstaĄ of some 500 million smallholder farmers, and in developing countries, the sector is the largest source of incomes, ¿obs and food securitĄ. Sustainable, inclusive growth in the agriculture and food sectors creates ¿obsЁon farms, in markets, cities, towns and villages, and throughout the farm-to- table food production and consumption chain. Seen against the backdrop of an increasing world population that is expected to reach nine billion bĄ 2050, rising food demand is estimated to increase bĄ at least 20ј globallĄ over the next 15 Ąears with the largest increases pro¿ected in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and ast Asia. Boosting the productivitĄ, proĔtabilitĄ and sustainabilitĄ of agriculture is essential for Ĕghting hunger and povertĄ, tackling malnutrition and boosting food securitĄ. In short, the world needs a food sĄstem that can feed everĄ person, everĄ daĄ, everĄwhere with a nutritious and affordable diet, delivered in a climate-smart, sustainable waĄ. To achieve this goal, we need to be more productive and efĔcient in the waĄ we grow food, while building the resilience of both farmers and food supplĄ chains while simultaneouslĄ reducing the environmental footprint of the agriculture and food sectors. This process requires policies and regulations that foster growth in the agriculture and food sectors, well-functioning markets, and thriving agribusinesses that make more food available in rural and urban spaces. In pursuit of these ob¿ectives, we are pleased to present the World Bank GroupЕs Enabling the Business of Agriculture (EBA) 2017, the third in a series of annual reports. The predominant focus of the BA pro¿ect is to measure and monitor regulations that affect the functioning of agriculture and agribusinesses. This ĄearЕs report provides analĄsis and results for 62 countries representing all regions and income groups, and covers the following topic areas: seed, fer- tiliĉer, machinerĄ, Ĕnance, markets, transport, information and communication technologĄ, and water. Two additional topicsЁland and livestockЁare being developed, and initial results are presented in this report. Two overarching themesЁgender and environmental sustainabilitĄЁare included in the BA analĄsis with a view to promoting inclusive and sustainable practices. Despite the inherent complexitĄ of agricultural sĄstems and the differing regional and countrĄ contexts in which ag- riculture and agribusiness performance needs to be evaluated, globallĄ comparable data and indicators offer mean- ingful tools that can enable countries, policĄ makers and stakeholders to identifĄ barriers that impede the growth of agriculture and agribusinesses, share experiences and develop strategies to improve the policĄ environment anchored in local contexts. The BA indicators and analĄsis presented here not onlĄ help strengthen the information base that can be used for informed policĄ dialogue but can also encourage regulations that ensure the safetĄ and qualitĄ of agricultural inputs, goods and services while minimizing costs to make more food available to more people. Robust, effective and efĔcient regulatorĄ sĄstems are essential components of well-functioning agriculture and food FOREWORD markets. In turn, such sĄstems can help achieve the twin goals of the World Bank GroupЁending povertĄ bĄ 2030 and boosting shared prosperitĄЁas well as the Sustainable Development Goals. In keeping with the ob¿ectives of earlier reports, we offer these Ĕndings as a public good that can help advance knowledge and understanding of the criticallĄ-important role that the agriculture and food sectors can plaĄ in accelerating sustainable development for the beneĔt of all. v Augusto Lopez-Claros Juergen Voegele Director, Global Indicators Group Senior Director, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Group World Bank Group Acknowledgments Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 was prepared team received additional written comments from under the leadership of Preeti S. Ahu¿a and %ederica Oliver Braedt, Juan Buchenau, Poonam Gupta, Julian Saliola, with the support of César Chaparro-Yedro, Tea Lampietti, Daniel Lederman, Mohamed Medouar, Trumbi— and %arbod YousseĔ, working under the gener- Michael Morris, Balakrishna Menon Parameswaran, al direction of Augusto López-Claros, Ethel Sennhauser Sa¿¿ad Ali Shah, Ra¿u Singh, Adama Toure and Martien and 9uergen soegele. During this cĄcle, %arbod YousseĔ Van Nieuwkoop. The team is also grateful for valuable led the operationalization of the Enabling the Business comments and reviews provided bĄ colleagues across of Agriculture indicators, working with client facing the World Bank Group, in particular those in the 62 teams across a number of Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Group countrĄ ofĔces and those work- client countries. The team would also like to acknowl- ing on several keĄ areas investigated bĄ the report. edge the support of Melissa Johns. Current and former The team would especiallĄ like to acknowledge the team members included Yulia Amanbaeva, Dinah hard work of the following individuals in the countrĄ Bengur, Liwam Berhane, Arturo Francisco Bonilla Merino, ofĔce who helped distribute questionnaires and val- Lila Melissa Cardell, Rong Chen, Dariga Chukmaitova, idate the data: Asma Ben Abdallah, Abimbola Adubi, Davida Louise Connon, CĄriane Coste, ;laus Deininger ArusĄak AlaverdĄan, Mustafa Alver, Amadou Ba, Mariam Nealon Devore, Sarah Diouri, Raian Divanbeigi, Soha Bamba, Julia Barrera, Husam Beides, SĄlvie Bossoutrot, Eshraghi, Leopoldo Fabra, Pilar Fernández, Felix Frewer, Blessings Botha, Melissa Brown, Nabil Chaherli, Mudita Fernanda Barros Gabbert, Arnau Gallard-Agusti, Bill Chamroeun, LadisĄ Chengula, Purna Bahadur Chhetri, Garthwaite, Tulia Gattone, Slavena Georgieva, Lucia You¿in Choi, ;evin Crockford, Catherine DoodĄ, Svetlana Gruet, Graham HamleĄ, Maureen Itepu, Edna MassaĄ Edmeades, Yanina Ermakova, Time Hapana Fatch, ;allon, Marina ;aĄumova, Milan ;ondi—, Maksat Noreen Grace Fernandes, Xavier Furtado, Augusto ;orooluev, Alva ;retschmer, Robert de lЕEscaille, Jean Garcµa, Andrew Goodland, Sameer GoĄal, Artavazd Philippe Lodugnon Harding, Wisambi Loundu, Valerie HakobĄan, Alexandra Horst, Geeeun Jang, Chakib Marechal, Thibault Meilland, Julia Navarro, Esperanza Jenane, ;wang Chul Ji, Frauke Jungbluth, Min Jae ;ang, Pastor Núñez de Castro, Nina Paustian, Aditi Poddar, ;atie ;ennedĄ Freeman, Wansup ;im, Hans ;ordik, Sobir Ana Marµa Santillana Farakos, Sara Savastano, ;aterĄna ;urbanov, Soo Yeon Lim, Thomas Lubeck, Omar LĄasse, Schroeder, Justin Lee Schwegel, Gabriel Simoes Gaspar, SeenithambĄ Manoharan, Chanhsom ManĄthong, ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Bungheng Taing, Sam¿hana Thapa, GeĄi heng and Mohamed Medouar, Michael Morris, Aimee Mpambara, Yucheng heng. JoĄce MsuĄa, Linda Mukwavi, Alex Mwanakasale, Valens Mwumvaneza, Srinivasan Ananthan Nallappa, Assisting with data collection were: Joshua AhĄong, Jan Ni¿hoff, Aifa NЕDoĄe Nione, Dorota Agata Nowak, Rebecca Louise Barnes, Vinicius Beraldo, Sabhanaz Patience NĄenpan, Francisco Obreque, Pierre Olivier, Siddharth Dixit, Rashid DiĄa, Ran¿ia Duan, Fadia Balakrishna Menon Parameswaran, Fernando Paredes, HaĄee, Luka ;alandarishvili, ;enan ;arakulah, Garri Manivannan PathĄ, Doina Petrescu, Nodira Pirmanova, ;asparov, Yousra ;halil, GregorĄ La Rocca, Atul Menon, TatĄana Ponomareva, Maria Theresa Xuinones, Tim Behrad Nazarian, Teresa Peterburs, Lochard Philozin, Robertson, Marina SahakĄan, Sheu Salau, YeĄande Jason Pierce, Gaurav R. Pradhan, Rustam Rakhmetov, Sangho, Elena Savinova, Manievel Sene, Bekzod Juan Manuel Ramµrez Roldán, LeekĄung Shim, Charnae Shamsiev, Animesh Shrivastava, Sarah Simons, Rita Supplee, Nan Tang, Alexander Troncoso, yinĄu Weng, Soni, Heinz Strubenhoff, Raquel Ore¿as Tagarro, ;ristina Wienh×fer, Dou hang and Yang hao. The Hardwick Tchale, Talim¿an hrazov, Bela Varma, Griselle team is grateful to local consultants who supported Felicita Vega, Son Tanh Vo, Bobo¿on Yatimov and SergiĄ data collection or helped the team during coun- or Ą a. vi trĄ visits: Faiza Hesham Hael Ahmed (Jordanϳ, ;ali Sankar Ghosh (Indiaϳ, Jocellin ;Ąe Hoan Lee (Republic The team also beneĔted from comments and discus- of ;oreaϳ, ;rit Pattamaro¿ (Thailandϳ and Macarena sions with experts from both inside and outside the Vio (Chile). World Bank Group. The team is especiallĄ grateful to Simeon D¿ankov, who provided extensive comments Punam Chuhan-Pole, Richard Colback, Carlos A. da on the report draft and methodologĄ. Comments Silva, Andrais Horvai, Ed ;eturakis, Oksana NagaĄets, were also received from: hlrich Adam, Guillaume Harideep Singh and Patrick Verissimo reviewed Agede, Esteban Alcade, OĄa Pinar Ardic Alper, Jamie the full draft report and provided feedback. The Anderson, Patrice Annequin, Maria Antip, Joshua Ariga, Jackie Atkinson, ;en Bagstad, Jennie Barron, Todd Mario SaslavskĄ, Aguiratou Savadogo-Tinto, Rachel Benson, Julio Berdegue, Franck Berthe, Stephen Biggs, Sberro, Carl-Stephan Schaefer, Susanne Scheireling, Jos Bi¿man, hao Bing, Florentin Blanc, Dave Bledsoe, Harris Selod, Bambi Semroc, Orlando Sosa, Jitendra Ademola Braimoh, Carl Bruch, Juan Buchenau, Balu Srivastava, San¿aĄ Srivastava, Victoria StanleĄ, Leanne Bumb, Stefano Burchi, Francois Burgaud, Jacob Burke, Stewart, NancĄ Sundberg, Simon Sunderland, Tahira Christina ;atharina Busch, Peter Button, Fabrizio SĄed, Sanna Liisa Taivalmaa, Virginia Tanase, Michael Cafaggi, Thomas Cantens, David Casanova, Rita Cestti, Tarazi, Jessica Troell, Muhabbat Turdieva, ;ees van Lawrence Clarke, Rick ClaĄton, Joseph Cortés, GillĄ der Meer, Panos Varangis, Peter Veit, Francesco Cowan, Gaspar Csaba, BarneĄ Curtis, Richard Damania, Versace, José Viegas, Martin Ward, Hugo Wilson, Julie Valerie DЕCosta, Morgane Danielou, Roger DaĄ, Arsala Wo¿tulewicz, Justin Yap, William Young, Winston Yu and Deane, Walter de Boef, Theo de Jager, Bénédicte LeroĄ Andrew aeske. de la Bri§re, Ale¿andro lvarez de la Campa, Philip de Leon, Erik De Ridder, Romano DeVivo, Brigitte The Enabling the Business of Agriculture program was Dias Ferreira, Eugenio Díaz-Bonilla, Luz Berania Díaz developed in partnership with several donors, whose Ríos, CherĄl Doss, Ian John Douglas Gillson, Carel du funding and support makes this report possible: the Marchie Sarvass, Marsha Echols, Hanan El-Youssef, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Department I ¿eoma Emenan¿o, Natalia Federighi, Stephane Forman, for International Development (DFID), the Danish Francis Fragano, Carlos Francia, Bill Gain, Pierre Jean MinistrĄ of Foreign Affairs, the hnited States AgencĄ Gerber, Tan¿a ;. Goodwin, Jean-Christophe Gouache, for International Development (hSAID) and the Rodrigo Gouveia, Lars Nikola¿s Grava, Alison GrifĔth, Government of the Netherlands. Caren Grown, Nora Ourabah Haddad, Adelaida Harries, Nagara¿a Rao Harshdeep, Terhi Havimo, Catherine The Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 outreach HaĄes, Paul Hazen, Martin Hilmi, Stephen Hodgson, strategĄ is being executed bĄ a communications team Nathalie Hoffman, David Hong, Mombert Hoppe, Ivo led bĄ Indira Chand and Sarwat Hussain, supported Hostens, Jens Hügel, Wilfried Hundertmark, Ankur bĄ ia Morales. The development and management of Huria, Sarah Iqbal, Robert Ireland, ;rista Jacobs, Ishrat the Enabling the Business of Agriculture website and Jahan, Peter Jeffries, Chakib Jenane, Scott Justice, technical services were supported bĄ Andrés Baquero Ben¿amin ;aufman, Jari ;auppila, Rochi ;emka, Elshad Franco, Fengsheng Huang, ;unal Patel, Vinod ;umar ;hanalibaĄli, Josef ;ienzle, ;aoru ;imura, Henriette Vasudevan Thottikkatu and Hashim ia. ;olb, Holger ;raĄ, Charles ;unaka, Andrea ;utter, Andrze¿ ;wiecinski, Abdelaziz Lagnaoui, Ingo Lang, The report was edited bĄ Dina Towbin and designed bĄ Steven LawrĄ, Francois Le Gall, Isabel López Noriega, Base Three LLC. Youlia Lozanova, Antonio Francisco Lucas, Valerio ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Luchessi, Javier Mateo-Sagasta, Fran McCrae, Leslie Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 beneĔted McDermott, Madeleine McDougall, Emma McInerneĄ, from the generous input of a network of more than Gerard McLinden, Ruth Meizen-Dick, Hailu Mekonnen, 3,932 local partners, including legal experts, business Grant Milne, Michael Morris, Victor Mosoti, GoeffreĄ associations, private sector representatives, farmersЕ Mrema, Mohinder Mudahar, A¿ai Nair, Claudia Nari, organizations, academics, government ofĔcials and Patricia Neenan, Trevor Nicholls, Alan Nicol, Marion other professionals activelĄ engaged in the policĄ, Niland, Beatriz Oelckers, Francois Onimus, Jean-Pierre legal and regulatorĄ requirements in the 62 countries Orand, David Orden, Theresa Osborne, Washington covered this Ąear. Please note that the data published Otieno, María Claudia Pachón, María Pagura, RoĄ in the report and online represent a uniĔed response Parizat, Judith PaĄne, Douglas Pearce, Ana Peralta, based on the answers the team received from various vii Marco Pezzini, Patrick Philipp, Stephen Francis respondents and sources, and are not attributed to Pirozzi, Caroline Plante, Natalia PshenichnaĄa, Justin anĄ particular respondent. Wherever possible, an- Rakotoarisaona, Douglas Randall, Maurice Rawlins, swers were corroborated bĄ ofĔcial fee schedules, Jean Regis, William Rex, Claudia Ringler, Ben Rivoire, laws, regulations and public notices. The names of Felipe Targa Rodríguez, Loraine Ronchi, Jiang Ru, those wishing to be acknowledged individuallĄ are Eliana Carolina Rubiano Matulevich, Ignacio Ruiz listed at the end of the report and are available at: Abad, Philippe Sabot, Sebastián Sáez, Salman M. A. http://eba.worldbank.org. Salman, Namal Samarakoon, Bexci Sánchez, Daniel About Enabling the Business of Agriculture ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 viii Since 2013, Enabling the Business of Agri- Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 is the third culture (EBA) has collected data on laws report in the series. The data can be used bĄ govern- ments, investors, analĄsts, researchers and others and regulations that impact the business interested in this component of the enabling agribusi- environment for agriculture. The analĄsis ness environment to assess countriesЕ performance on has Ąielded some important results, such the topics measured, as well as to identifĄ regulatorĄ as: EBA countrĄ data have been used to good practices that can be found around the world. open dialogues on regulatorĄ reform with Enabling the Business of Agriculture builds on the governments across several countries in Doing Business methodologĄ and quantiĔes regulatorĄ Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia; indica- practices and legal barriers that affect the business of agriculture. Doing Business has pioneered a unique tions of interest from other development approach for comparing countriesЕ performances on agencies in ¿oining forces with the World the regulatorĄ environment; the results are notewor- Bank; engagement with a range of vital thĄЁmore than 2,900 regulatorĄ reforms have been stakeholders from the private sector to documented since 2004 in 190 countries around the world. But the Doing Business focus has been on small civil societĄ to academia; and continued and medium enterprises located in the largest busi- enhancement of the methodologĄ. ness cities.1 Businesses that operate in and around agriculture face additional constraints to enter and operate in the market and often deal with stricter regulatorĄ controls related to registration and qualitĄ ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE control of their service and/or goods. Recent shifts in population and food demand have made it all the more paramount that a countrĄЕs regulatorĄ frame- works and institutions enable farmers to produce and deliver more and safer food. How does regulation impact the agriculture sector? What can governments do to improve the access of farmers to essential inputs and services that increase their productivitĄ in an environmentallĄ sustainable manner? How can smallholders be helped to raise their socio-economic well-being while facilitating their inte- gration with value chains? What can governments do to ix facilitate entrepreneurs and agribusinesses to thrive in a sociallĄ and environmentallĄ responsible waĄ? ;itabi Tea Processing FacilitĄ, Rwanda. Photo: AϣMelodĄ Lee / World Bank. Governments can help bĄ establishing appropriate successful regulatorĄ reform has contributed to regulatorĄ sĄstems that ensure the safetĄ and qualitĄ increased supplĄ and lower prices in the seed and of agricultural goods and services without being costlĄ mechanization markets in Bangladesh and TurkeĄ, in or burdensome overall so as to discourage Ĕrms from the fertilizer sector in Bangladesh, ;enĄa and Ethiopia, entering the market. Excessive regulation makes Ĕrms and in the maize industrĄ in Eastern and Southern move to the informal economĄ2 and generates high un- Africa, among others. A series of legal, institutional and emploĄment.3 PoorlĄ-designed regulations impose high administrative reforms in the 1990s led to a wide range transaction costs on Ĕrms thus reducing trade volumes,4 of improvements in MexicoЕs water resource manage- productivitĄ5 and access to Ĕnance. Creating an enabling ment. Vietnam introduced Land hse Rights CertiĔcates environment for agriculture is a prerequisite to unleash in 1993, which increased the securitĄ of land tenure for the sectorЕs potential to boost growth, reduce povertĄ farmers and gave rise to more land area devoted to and inequalitĄ, provide food securitĄ and deliver envi- long-term crops. ronmental services.6 Among other factors, government policies and regulations plaĄ a keĄ role in shaping the Agricultural production has unique and evolving di- business environment through their impacts on costs, mensions through which it interacts with relevant laws risks and barriers to competition for various plaĄers in and regulations. These dimensions include, for exam- the value chains.7 BĄ setting the right institutional and ple, regulations of agricultural input markets such as regulatorĄ framework, governments can help increase seed and fertilizer, and regulations that enable small- the competitiveness of farmers and agricultural entre- scale and remote farmers to access Ĕnance as well preneurs, enabling them to integrate into regional and as qualitĄ, sanitarĄ and phĄtosanitarĄ standards and global markets. trucking licenses.13 Over the past decade a branch of economic literature has highlighted the signiĔcant impact of business What does Enabling the Business regulations on economic performance.8 It is crucial to of Agriculture measure? have regulations that can lower risk bĄ enabling farm- ers to operate in a context where the outcomes of their Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 presents data decisions are more predictable. Governments need that measure legal barriers for businesses operating in to strike the right balance between correcting market agriculture in 62 economies and across 12 topic areas. It failures through regulations and minimizing the costs provides quantitative indicators on regulation for seed, that those regulations impose on economic agents. This fertilizer, machinerĄ, Ĕnance, markets, transport, water, balance is essential for agriculture, but it is also par- and ICT (table 1). Two overarching themesЁgender and ticularlĄ challenging. It is not unusual for governments environmental sustainabilitĄЁcontinue to be included to implement too-stringent agricultural regulations,9 in the report analĄsis to ensure that the messages which impose excessive compliance costs for agricul- developed bĄ EBA encourage inclusive and sustainable tural Ĕrms and make them more prone to remaining practices. This Ąear scoring was piloted for the land ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 (or becoming) informal.10 The agriculture sectorЕs de- topic for 38 countries in which data were collected. The pendence on land, which is a Ĕnite resource and binds data for the remaining 24 countries will be collected its growth to productivitĄ gains, underscores the impact next Ąear and the team will reĔne the methodologĄ of regulations on areas such as land tenure and price further. EBA also collected data on the livestock topic, volatilitĄ. Farmers face considerable risk due to their focusing on veterinarĄ medicinal products (VMPs). The susceptibilitĄ to exogenous elements and from extreme report explains the methodologĄ and provides some or erratic weather, insects, rodents and other pests, and insight from data collection for VMPs, but future edi- diseases. WhatЕs more, this uncertaintĄ is exacerbated tions will expand the topical coverage to include the bĄ the inherent volatilitĄ of agricultural markets.11 areas of animal feed and genetic resources. Reducing transaction costs imposed bĄ regulations is Two tĄpes of indicators emerge: legal indicators and imperative in agriculture. Transport costs can make up  ªĔ–³ Ì–Ą³Ìœ³–‰íÓâæϡ= «‰Å³Ìœ³–‰íÓâæ are derived from one-third of the farm gate price in some Sub-Saharan a reading of the laws and regulations. In a few instanc- African countries and can prevent farmers from special- es, the data also include some elements which are not izing in the goods where theĄ have a competitive ad- in the text of the law but relate to implementing a good x vantage.12 In addition to transport, improving access to regulatorĄ practiceЁfor example, online availabilitĄ of reliable and affordable information and communication a fertilizer catalogue. ªĔ–³ Ì–Ą ³Ìœ³–‰íÓâæ reĕect the technologĄ (ICT) services is vital to a global food and time and cost imposed bĄ the regulatorĄ sĄstemЁfor agriculture sĄstem that is able to achieve its potential. example, the number of procedures and the time and cost to complete a process such as certifĄing seed for Regulations that can lower risk bĄ enabling farmers sale in the domestic market. Data of this tĄpe are built to operate in a context where the outcomes of their on legal requirements and cost measures are backed decisions are more predictable are crucial. In fact, bĄ ofĔcial fee schedules when available. Table 1 | What Enabling the Business of Agriculture measures—12 areas of regulation studied TOPIC WHAT IS MEASURED SEED > Time, cost and requirements to register a new seed variety > Protection and licensing of plant breeder rights > Quality control of seed in the market FERTILIZER > Time, cost and regulation for fertilizer registration > Quality control of fertilizer in the market > Requirements for importing fertilizer > Time, cost and requirements for tractor registration, inspection and maintenance MACHINERY > Time, cost and requirements for tractor testing and standards > Requirements for importing tractors FINANCE > Requirements for establishing and operating deposit-taking microĔnance institutions and Ĕnancial cooperatives > Requirements for third-party agents to provide Ĕnancial services and provision of e-money by nonĔnancial institutions > Use of agriculture relevant assets as movable collateral and availability of credit information on small loans and from non-bank institutions MARKETS > Establishment and operation of producer organizations > Phytosanitary requirements on management and control of pests and diseases > Documents, time, cost and requirements for domestic trade and export of agricultural goods TRANSPORT > Time, cost and requirements to operate commercial trucks > Time, cost and requirements for cross-border transport WATER > Water use permits > Water resource management ICT > Licensing of mobile operators LAND (pilot scoring for 38 countries) ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE > Coverage and relevance of land records > Public land management > Gender disaggregation of land records > Leasing of land between private parties > Procedural safeguards in case of expropriation LIVESTOCK (not scored) > Requirements to register veterinary medicinal products > Requirements for importing veterinary medicinal products > Requirements for labeling of veterinary medicinal products ENVIRONMENTAL (not scored) SUSTAINABILITY > Conservation of plant genetic resources > Access and sustainable use of plant genetic resources > Water quality management > Soil health management xi GENDER (not scored) > Availability of gender-disaggregated data > Restrictions on women’s employment and activity > Women’s participation and leadership in collective institutions > Non-discrimination provisions Sources: EBA database; Doing Business database. How are EBA indicators selected? indicators and include the following additional mea- sures: expansion of the livestock topic to include ar- The choice of the indicators developed for the eight eas of animal feed and genetic resources; expansion scored topics was guided by a review of academic of the gender cross-cutting area; reĔnement of the literature. The scoring choices of each indicator were land scoring methodology; and development of an informed by extensive consultations with key stake- ВImplementation EfĔciency IndexГ to complement holders, including civil society organizations, partner and provide additional policy insights alongside the institutions, practitioners, public and private sector current regulatory indicators. The reĔnement and se- representatives, researchers and technical experts. lection of indicators will undergo a thorough internal The team is working on developing background pa- review and collect feedback from various stakeholders pers for each topic to establish the importance of the from within the World Bank Group as well as from ex- regulations that EBA measures in each topic area for ternal participants. Already in place is a broad-based important outcomes such as agricultural output. technical advisory committee with specialists from the private sector, academia, governments and the World The Enabling the Business of Agriculture methodology Bank Group. provides a quantitative assessment of the regulations in each of the selected topics. The methodology, how- ever, considers more than the number of regulations How are countries selected? and does not promote deregulation. For example, higher scores are given for stricter labeling and pen- Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 covers 62 alty rules related to fertilizer or seed quality control countries in seven regions (map 1). Selection criteria since the laws and regulations need to set appropriate have been used to determine the countries included in standards in these areas to ensure health and food the study, ensuring adequate representation of all re- safety. Higher scores are also given for the efĔcient gions and different levels of agricultural development. application of regulations, such as affordable and To select a sample of countries where an assessment timely tractor registration requirements. Countries that of regulatory framework for agribusiness would be perform well on the EBA topics are those that balance meaningful, the team did an analysis of the agricul- proper enforcement of safety and quality control while ture sector’s importance by looking at two contribu- avoiding burdensome and costly requirements that tionsЁto GDP and to employment. Countries with small could discourage private sector development. agricultural sectors (deĔned as less than USЧ1 billion) were excluded unless the population employed in ag- Going forward, it is envisaged that the selection of riculture is more than 100,000 people. The countries topics and related indicators will build on the current were then grouped by geographic regions (using World Map 1 | Geographical coverage of Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 xii EBA15 pilot countries EBA16 countries added EBA17 countries added This map was produced by the Cartography Unit of the World Bank Group. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other IBRD 42732 information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of the World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, FEBRUARY 2017 or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Table 2 | Example of calculating Colombia’s distance-to-frontier (DTF) score for fertilizer TOPIC/INDICATOR DATA DTF SCORE FRONTIER Fertilizer 81.58 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 6 85.71 7 Time to register fertilizer a new fertilizer product (days) 45 96.39 11 97.73 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% GNI pc) 7.83 99.07 0 Fertilizer quality control index (0-7) 6 85.71 7 Fertilizer imports (0-7) 4 57.14 7 Source: EBA database. Bank country classiĔcations) and agricultural transfor- Agriculture topics (seed, fertilizer, machinery, Ĕnance, mation (grouping inspired by the World Development transport, markets, water and ICT). For legal indicators, Report 2008). This process produced the following the frontier is set at the highest possible value, even if geographic groups: Eastern Europe and Central Asia; no country currently obtains that score. For efĔciency East Asia and PaciĔc; Latin America and the Caribbean; indicators, the frontier is set by the highest performing Middle East and North Africa; South Asia; Sub-Saharan country. Africa; and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) high-income countries. The Enabling the Business of Agriculture uses a simple av- agricultural transformation groups developed are eraging approach for topic indicator scores to arrive at deĔned as either: agriculture-based countries (where the topic score. Each topic measures different elements agriculture employs more than 25ј of the workforce of the enabling agribusiness environment and the DTF and agriculture value added contributes more than scores and rankings for each topic vary considerably. 25ј to the GDP); transforming countries (where agri- Colombia, for example, has a DTF score of 92.10 for culture employs more than 25ј of the workforce and Ĕnance, 88.89 for ICT, 85.52 for water and 81.58 for fer- agriculture value added contributes less than 25ј to tilizerЁindicating it is very near the frontier in these the GDP); or urbanized countries (where agriculture topics (see table 2). At the same time, it has a DTF score employs below 25ј of the workforce and agriculture of 73.92 for transport, 70.08 for markets, 63.19 for seed value added contributes less than 25ј to the GDP). and 38.16 for machineryЁshowing areas where better regulatory practices can be adopted. In selecting the Ĕrst 10 pilot countries, and for sub- sequent expansion of the dataset to 40 and to 62 The topic DTF scores are sorted from highest to low- countries this year, the team aimed to include as many est and assigned a ranking from 1 to 62. The ranking ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE agriculture-based, pre-transition and transition coun- complements the distance to frontier by providing in- tries, with a few important urbanizing and high-income formation on the country’s performance on EBA topics countries from diverse geographical regions to allow relative to the other countries’ performance on the EBA to measure and showcase good regulatory practices indicators in this particular year. It should be noted, for each of the topic areas. given the composition of the indicators, that the scores and rankings are measurements of a particular set of regulations and do not necessarily assess the sum How is the distance-to-frontier score of all elements that shape the regulatory framework calculated? studied. A signiĔcant development in this year’s report is the reĔnement of the scoring methodology. For the Ĕrst How are the data collected? time, Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 pres- ents both topic scores, using the distance-to-frontier Enabling the Business of Agriculture indicators are (DTF) method pioneered by Doing Business and topic based on primary data collection through standard- rankings. The DTF score benchmarks countries with re- ized questionnaires completed by expert respondents xiii spect to regulatory best practice, showing the absolute in each country as well as the team’s own analysis distance to the best performance on each Enabling of the relevant laws and regulations. Once the data the Business of Agriculture indicator, and can help in are collected and analyzed, several follow-up rounds tracking the countries’ absolute level of performance address and clear up any discrepancies in the answers and how it improves over time. The DTF score mea- the respondents provide, including conference calls, sures the distance of each country to the frontier, written correspondence and country visits. Each year which represents the best performance observed the team travels to the countries where it is hardest in each indicator for eight Enabling the Business of to collect data remotely. For the last two years, the team has traveled to about 20ј of the sample coun- revenues and expenditures, is also very inĕuential tries. During the EBA2017 data collection period, the when determining a country’s overall enabling envi- team visited these 13 countries: Armenia, CÖte d’Ivo- ronment. In many countries around the world, foreign ire, India, Jordan, Republic of ;orea, ;yrgyz Republic, exchange restrictions can be a major impediment to Liberia, Malawi, Morocco, Nepal, Russian Federation, doing business. These factors are not captured by the Sri Lanka and Tajikistan. The data are then reviewed Enabling the Business of Agriculture indicators but are using desk research and follow-up with respondents. well covered by other data initiatives that should be The preliminary data are validated through World used together with the data presented to present a Bank focal points in each country ofĔce. The data fuller picture of the enabling environment. are then aggregated into indicators which allow for further analysis and comparisons, and contribute to In many developing countries, many aspects of agri- the report writing phase. The report undergoes peer cultural activity, from employment to the production review with internal and external reviewers, as well as and sale of goods, occur through informal channels. all relevant global practices and regions before it is Burdensome regulations and lack of transparency, released to the public (Ĕgure 1). could be one reason for this, as could the quality of institutions, extension services and physical infra- Chosen from the private sector, the public sector and structure. For example, regardless of the quality of civil society, respondents include Ĕrms, academia, Ĕ- transport regulations, lack of road infrastructure is a nancial institutions, professional associations, farmer major barrier to transporting agricultural goods from organizations and government ministries and agen- the farm to markets. However, these elements are cies. These individuals and organizations are chosen also not measured by the Enabling the Business of because of their knowledge of their countries’ laws Agriculture indicators. and regulations. Involving various experts increases the data accuracy by balancing the possible biases Enabling the Business of Agriculture has deliberately of different stakeholders. Reaching out to both the chosen to focus the indicators presented in this report private and public sectors helps compare the perspec- on measuring laws and regulations that affect agribusi- tives of all parties. Those wishing to be recognized are ness Ĕrms that provide agricultural inputs, goods and acknowledged in the =Ӗ‰Åăß âíæ section at the end services. The indicators constructed reĕect elements of the report. that are under the direct inĕuence of the government and can be compared across countries. Enabling the Business of Agriculture data are collected in a standardized way to ensure comparability across The chosen methodological approach has its beneĔts countries and over time. Following the methodological and limitations. The data presented are comparable foundations of Doing Business, questionnaires use a and based on standardized assumptions. This meth- standard business case with assumptions about the odology has proven to be successful in stimulating legal form of the business, its size, its location and the reform activity and allows countries to compare their ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 nature of its operations for each topic applied for all performance on speciĔc areas to other countries but countries (table 3). Assumptions guiding respondents also to monitor progress over time. Using standardized through their completion of the survey questionnaires scenarios, however, can generalize and exclude some vary by topic (see appendix B). In addition, in the inter- important context-speciĔc information. To address est of comparability, the values in the assumptions are some of these limitations, the data presented in this not Ĕxed values but proportional to the country’s gross report and any recommendations that stem from it national income (GNI) per capita. The data in this re- must be interpreted together with other important port are current as of June 30, 2016, and do not reĕect datasets as well as country relevant information. any changes to the laws or administrative procedures after that date. What’s next? What does Enabling the Business of Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 presents Agriculture not measure? scored indicators for eight topics in 62 countries around the world and introduces initial data col- xiv Many elements affect a country’s enabling environ- lected for livestock, land, gender and environmental ment for agribusinesses. The political situation in a sustainability. The team will use the 2017 year to dis- country, for example, can greatly inĕuence its attrac- seminate the data and Ĕndings, reĔne and synthesize tiveness to business and investors. Social aspects, indicators, expand topic and country coverage, and such as literacy and overall education levels and life hold discussions with various stakeholders on the expectancy, are also important indicators. A country’s best ways going forward. The main areas for devel- economic performance, measured by factors such as opment identiĔed relate to strengthening the pro- inĕation, unemployment, income growth, government cesses for obtaining relevant feedback on: indicator Figure 1 | Data collection, review and analysis 9D 01 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN 02 %ЈCz DATA COLLECTION > Questionnaires emailed to respondents in countries > Data collected by email and telephone > Country visits to verify data and recruit respondents 9hDЈh& 03 DATA REVIEW > Desk review of available resources, including country laws and reports > Follow-up with respodents to verify data > Data quality checked > Data shared for validation with World Bank country ofĔces 04 ]VЈJc ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE DATA ANALYSIS > Data aggregated using scoring rules to create indicators > Data trends identiĔed > Methodology reĔned JcЈ 05 REPORT WRITING AND REVIEW > Writing of key Ĕndings > Peer review of report and data > Decision meeting and clearance by World Bank management xv 06 FEB PUBLIC RELEASE OF REPORT AND DATA > Dissemination of report and country engagement development and reĔnement; country selection and Country coverage is also expected to expand and even- criteria used for future scale up; identifying countries tually cover between 80 and 100 countries. where subnational analysis would be relevant and de- veloping a subnational methodology. Feedback is welcome on the data, methodology and overall project design to make future Enabling the Future reports will allow the team to monitor progress Business of Agriculture reports even more useful. of countries in each of the topic areas by tracking reg- Feedback can be provided on the project website: ulatory reforms that affect the indicators measured. http://eba.worldbank.org. Table 3 | EBA questionnaires use a standard business case with assumptions ASSUMPTIONS USED TO STANDARDIZE THE BUSINESS CASE SEED The seed variety: > Is a maize variety developed by the private sector. > Is being registered for the Ĕrst time in the country. > Has not been registered in any other country.a FERTILIZER The business: > Is a private sector company. > Is domestically registered in the country. > Imports fertilizer to sell in the country. > Has registered at least one new fertilizer product in the country. The fertilizer product: > Is a new chemical fertilizer product. > Is produced in a foreign country. > Is being registered for marketing purposes. MACHINERY The business: > Is a private sector company (manufacturer, dealer or distributor of agricultural machinery). > Is registered as a business in the country. > Imports agricultural tractors into the country. The machinery: ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 > Is a two-axle/four-wheel drive agricultural tractor designed to furnish the power to pull, carry, propel or drive implements. FINANCE C³–âÓĔ̖̉ ³Ìæí³íòí³ÓÌæϴC%.æϵϛ > Can take deposits, lend and provide other Ĕnancial services to the public. > Are licensed to operate and supervised by a public authority. > Countries identiĔed as having a high level of Ĕnancial inclusion are not measured under the MFI indicator.b Financial cooperatives: > Are member-owned, not-for-proĔt cooperatives that provide savings, credit and other Ĕnancial services to their members. Agent banking: > Is deĔned as the delivery of Ĕnancial services through a partnership with a retail agent (or correspondent) to extend Ĕnancial services to locations where bank branches would be xvi uneconomical. > Countries identiĔed as having a high level of Ĕnancial inclusion are not measured under the agent banking indicator.b Electronic money: > Is stored and exchanged through an electronic device and not associated with a deposit account at any Ĕnancial institution. MARKETS The business: > Performs general agricultural trading activities. > Does not directly engage in agricultural production, processing or retail activities. > Does not operate in a special export processing zone. The export product and trading partner: > Is a combination of a plant-based agricultural product group and a partner country which represents the highest Ĕve-year average export value, based on UN Comtrade 2009Ђ13 data. The shipment: > Is transported via a 20-foot full container-load. > Weighs 10 metric tons or US Ч10,000, whichever is most appropriate. > All packing material that requires fumigation (such as wood pallets) is assumed to be treated and marked with an approved international mark certifying that treatment. TRANSPORT The business: > Is a private business entity or natural person whose core business is transporting goods by road for commercial purposes. > Has met all formal requirements to start a business and perform general industrial or commercial activities. > Has a maximum of Ĕve trucks; each truck has two axles and a maximum loading capacity of 15MT (metric tons). Trucks comprise a traction unit and a trailer. > Transports agricultural products within the country, including perishable products. It does not transport fertilizers, pesticides, hazardous products or passengers. > Carries out cross-border transport services with its largest agricultural border-adjacent trading partner. > The company’s main ofĔce is located in the country’s largest business city. > The trucks were Ĕrst registered in the largest business city less than six months ago. > All employed drivers have the domestically required driver’s license to drive a 15MT vehicle. The transported product: > Is based on UN Comtrade’s 2009Ђ13 Ĕve-year average export value of major plant product groups. The cross border trading partner: > Is based on UN Comtrade’s 2009Ђ13 Ĕve-year average trade value of major plant product groups, as well as on a border-adjacent criterion. ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE WATER The water user: > Is a farm growing crops. > Is a medium-sizec farm for the country, with land area that falls between 2 and 10 hectares. > Uses mechanical means to individually abstract water for irrigation. > Is not located in a broader irrigation scheme. The water sourced: > Is a river located 300 meters away from the farm; or > Is a groundwater well located on the farm. ICT The mobile operator: > Is a private company. > Provides telecommunications services such as voice, SMS (Short Message Service) and data. Note: xvii a. If maize varieties are not being developed by the private sector in the country, an imported maize variety is considered, which may have been previously registered elsewhere. b. High level of Ĕnancial inclusion is deĔned are those countries that score 0.8 or higher, as measured by the average of the normalized value of the FINDEX variables Вaccount at a Ĕnancial institution (ј of rural adult population)Г and Вaccount at Ĕnancial institution (ј of adult population).Г Countries under this classiĔcation are as follows: Denmark, Greece, Italy, ;orea, the Netherlands and Spain. c. If medium-size farms in the country, as prescribed in any ofĔcial farm-size classiĔcation system, deviate signiĔcantly from this given range, any exemption from permit requirements that may otherwise apply to small farms (for example, exemptions for smallholders or subsistence farmers) are not considered. d. The choice between surface water and groundwater as a source for irrigation water is made based on the predominant irrigation water source for the country, based on the most recent available data from FAO Aquastat for the percentage of area equipped for irrigation by surface water and groundwater. NOTES Byerlee, D., A. De Janvry and E. Sadoulet. 2009. “Agriculture for Development: Toward a New 1 Djankov 2016. Paradigm.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 1 (1): 15Ђ31. 2 Bruhn 2011; Branstetter et al. 2014. Christy, R., E. Mabaya, N. Wilson, E. Mutambatsere and 3 Amin 2009. N. Mhlanga. 2009. “Enabling Environments for Competitive Agro-Industries.” In Agro-Industries 4 Djankov, Freund and Pham 2010; Hoekman and for Development, edited by: C. Da Silva et al., pp. Nicita 2011. 136-85. Wallingford, U;: CABI. 5 Barseghyan 2008. Cullinan, C. 1999. “Law and Markets: Improving the Legal Framework for Agricultural Marketing.” FAO 6 Byerlee, de Janvry and Sadoulet 2009. Agricultural Services Bulletin 139, Rome. 7 Cullinan 1999; Diaz-Bonilla, Orden and Diaz-Bonilla, E., D. Orden and A. ;wiecinski. 2014. ;wieciÍski 2014; Hafeez 2003; Christy, Mabaya, “Enabling Environment for Agricultural Growth Wilson, Mutambatsere and Mhlanga 2009. and Competitiveness: Evaluation, Indicators and Indices.” OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries 8 Djankov, McLiesh and Ramalho 2006; Jalilian, Papers, No. 67. OECD, Paris. ;irkpatrick and Parker 2007; Loayza and Servén 2010. Divanbeigi, R. and F. Saliola. 2016. “Regulation and the Transformation of Agriculture.” Working Paper pre- 9 Diaz-Bonilla, Orden and ;wieciÍski 2014; USAID sented at FAO Conference on Rural Transformation, 2015; Divanbeigi and Saliola 2016. Agricultural and Food System Transition. 10 Loayza, Servén and Sugawara, 2009. Djankov, S. 2016. “The Doing Business Project: How It Started: Correspondence.” Journal of Economic 11 Aimin 2010. Perspectives, 30 (1): 247Ђ48. 12 World Bank 2007; Gollin and Rogerson, 2014. Djankov, S., C. Freund and C. S. Pham. 2010. “Trading on Time.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 92 13 Divanbeigi and Saliola 2016. (1): 166 Ђ73. Djankov, S., C. McLiesh and R. M. Ramalho. 2006. REFERENCES “Regulation and Growth.” –ÓÌÓ˳–æ= íí âæ 92 (3): ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 395 Ђ 401. Aimin, H. 2010. ВUncertainty, Risk Aversion and Risk Management in Agriculture.” Agriculture and Gollin, D. and R. Rogerson. 2014. “Agriculture, Roads, Agricultural Science Procedia 1: 152Ђ56. and Economic Development in Uganda.” In African Successes: Sustainable Growth, edited by Amin, M. 2009. ВLabor Regulation and Employment S. Edwards, S. Johnson and D. N. Weil, chapter 2. in India’s Retail Stores.” Journal of Comparative Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Economics 37 (1): 47Ђ61. Hafeez, S. 2003. c°  ªĔ–‰–Ą Óª Y «òʼní³ÓÌæ ³Ì Barseghyan, L. 2008. ВEntry Costs and Cross-Country Developing Countries. New York: United Nations. Differences in Productivity and Output.” Journal of Economic Growth 13 (2): 145Ђ167. Hoekman, B. and A. Nicita. 2011. “Trade Policy, Trade Costs, and Developing Country Trade.” World Branstetter, L. G., F. Lima, L. J. Taylor and A. VenŒncio. Development 39 (12): 2069Ђ079. 2014. ВDo Entry Regulations Deter Entrepreneurship xviii and Job Creation? Evidence from Recent Reforms Jalilian, H., C. ;irkpatrick and D. Parker. 2007. “The in Portugal.” The Economic Journal (July 16): 805Ђ32. Impact of Regulation on Economic Growth in Developing Countries: A Cross-Country Analysis.” Bruhn, M. 2011. “License to Sell: The Effect of Business World Development 35 (1): 87Ђ103. Registration Reform on Entrepreneurial Activity in Mexico.” Review of Economics and Statistics 93 (1): Loayza, N. and L. Servén, eds. 2010. Business Regulation 382Ђ86. and Economic Performance. Washington, D.C: World Bank. Loayza, N., L. Servén and N. Sugawara. 2009. “Informality in Latin America and the Caribbean.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series. World Bank, Washington, DC. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2015. “Agribusiness Regulation and Institutions (AGRI) Index.” USAID, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE xix Abbreviations AML/CFT Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting Financing of Terrorism ANTAM Asian and PaciĔc Network for Testing of Agricultural Machinery CAR capital adequacy ratio CDD customer due diligence CEMA Comité Européen des groupements de constructeurs du machinisme agricole CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor CSAM Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization DTF distance-to-frontier DUS distinctiveness, uniformity and stability EAC East African Community EBA Enabling the Business of Agriculture ECA Europe and Central Asia ENTAM European Network for Testing of Agricultural Machines ePhyto electronic phytosanitary certiĔcate FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (of the UN) FOPS falling object protection structures GHz gigahertz GNI gross national income ICID International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage ICT information and communication technology ICTA Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología ICWE International Conference on Water and the Environment IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFFCO Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute INERA Institute for Environment and National Research (Burkina Faso) IPPC International Plant Protection Convention IRU International Road Transport Union ISF International Seed Federation ISTA International Seed Testing Association ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture xx IWMI International Water Management Institute IWRM integrated water resources management KYC know your customer LPI Logistics Performance Index MENA Middle East and North Africa MFI microĔnance institution NASFAM National Smallholder Farmers’ Alliance of Malawi NGO nongovernmental organization OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OIE World Organisation for Animal Health PBR plant breeders’ rights PCGS partial credit guarantee system PRA pest risk analysis RML Reuters Market Light ROPS roll-over protection structures SACCO savings and credit cooperatives SDG Sustainable Development Goal SMEs small and medium enterprises SMS Short Message Service SSA Sub-Saharan Africa TFP total factor productivity UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the PaciĔc UPOV International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants VCU value for cultivation and use VMP veterinary medicinal products VRC variety release committee WAMU West African Monetary Union WTO World Trade Organization WUOs water user organizations ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS xxi xxi ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 1 Overview The global food system plays a central To meet the challenges ahead, food systems must not role in meeting the World Bank Group’s only be able to provide food security to the growing world population but they must also deliver diverse, twin goals of eliminating extreme pover- nutritious diets that are affordable and accessible to ty and boosting shared prosperity. End- all. Improved agricultural productivity must be cou- ing poverty will not be possible without pled with increased resilience to climate change and raising the incomes of the rural poor, reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, for agriculture to deliver on its full potential, value chains which account for 78ј of poor people must be strengthened, smallholder linkages to mar- worldwide.1 Schultz remarks that “most kets improved and agribusiness expanded.6 of the world’s poor people earn their The agricultural sector is a signiĔcant source of em- living from agriculture, so if we knew ployment, even as countries traverse different stages the economics of agriculture, we would of agricultural structural transformation. Globally, know much of the economics of being 30ј of all workers are employed in farming, while in poor.”2 Moreover, some 800 million peo- low-income countries the share is 60ј. As economies grow and develop, the importance of agribusiness ple currently suffer from hunger across relative to farming increases, leading to signiĔcant the globe3 and the demand for greater opportunities for employment growth and value add- variety and better quality food from a ed.7 Central to achieving this will be the investments, growing, urbanized population contin- performance and success of key players across ag- ricultural value chainsЁfrom farmers, to input and ues to increase. Agriculture has a strong service providers, to large and small agricultural record as an instrument for poverty re- businesses. duction and can lead growth in agricul- Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 (EBA17) aims ture-based countries.4 In fact, growth to foster a more conducive environment for agribusi- originating from agriculture has been ness. By providing key data on regulatory frameworks two-to-four times more effective at re- that are globally comparable and actionable, it ducing poverty than that originating strengthens the information base that can be used for policy dialogue and reform. Such efforts can stimulate from other sectors.5 private sector activity and lead to more efĔcient and OVERVIEW effective agricultural value chains. 1 A produce farm in Chimaltenango, Guatemala. Photo Maria Fleischmann / World Bank. Table 1.1 | List of EBA indicators “LEGAL” INDICATORS “EFFICIENCY” INDICATORS SEED > Plant breeding > Time and cost to register new varieties > Variety registration > Seed quality control FERTILIZER > Fertilizer registration > Time and cost to register a new fertilizer product > Quality control of fertilizer > Importing and distributing fertilizer MACHINERY > Tractor operation > Time and cost to obtain type approval > Tractor testing and standards > Time and cost to register a tractor > Tractor import FINANCE > Branchless banking > Movable collateral > Non-bank lending institutions MARKETS > Producer organizations > Documents, time and cost to export > Plant protection agricultural goods > Agricultural trade TRANSPORT > Trucking licenses and operations > Time and cost to obtain trucking licenses > Cross-border transportation > Time and cost to obtain cross-border licenses WATER > Integrated water resource management > Individual water use for irrigation ICT > Information and communication technology EBA focuses on legal barriers for businesses that oper- Countries with more agribusiness-friendly ate in agriculture in 62 countries and across 12 topics, regulations ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 including seed, fertilizer, machinery, Ĕnance, markets, transport, water, information and communication EBA scores countries based on both the quality and technology (ICT), environmental sustainability, gender, efĔciency of their regulatory systems, through two ag- land and livestock. EBA’s dataset features two types of gregate measures per topic: (i) the distance-to-frontier indicators (table 1.1). Legal indicators primarily reĕect (DTF) score or absolute distance of a country to the the text of laws and regulations8 and assess their best performance on each topic (see appendix A); and conformity with a number of global regulatory good (ii) the topic ranking that results from ordering DTF practices. EfĔciency indicators measure the trans- scores (see table 1.2). action costs that Ĕrms have to bear to comply with national regulations on the ground. Transaction costs Agriculture’s relevance varies signiĔcantly across are expressed in time or monetary units, such as the countries. Based on the World Development Report time and cost needed to comply with requirements on 200810 and combining data on agriculture’s contri- agricultural exports. bution to GDP and the share of active population dedicated to agriculture, EBA categorizes countries After a pilot exercise conducted in 2013Ђ14 covering 10 into three groups: agriculture-based, transforming 2 countries,9 EBA16 included 40 countries and six scored and urbanized. Urbanized countries are on average topics: seed, fertilizer, machinery, Ĕnance, markets and at the frontier of good regulatory practices across transport. In EBA17, country coverage is expanded to all EBA topics (Ĕgure 1.1). They are followed by trans- 62 countries with two new topics added to the scoring: forming countries. Agriculture-based countries have water and ICT. In addition, efĔciency indicators mea- more room to improve the quality of their regulatory suring transaction costs are expanded and scored for frameworks and decrease transaction costs. However, the Ĕrst time. agriculture-based countries have shown on average a Figure 1.1 | Urbanized countries show better agriculture regulations than transforming and agriculture-based countries 100 90 80 70 EBA17 DTF score 60 50 40 AGRICULTURE BASED AGRICULTURE BASED AGRICULTURE BASED AGRICULTURE BASED AGRICULTURE BASED AGRICULTURE BASED AGRICULTURE BASED AGRICULTURE BASED 30 TRANSFORMING TRANSFORMING TRANSFORMING TRANSFORMING TRANSFORMING TRANSFORMING TRANSFORMING TRANSFORMING 20 URBANIZED URBANIZED URBANIZED URBANIZED URBANIZED URBANIZED URBANIZED URBANIZED 10 0 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT WATER ICT Source: EBA database. Note: EBA countries are divided into three groups. Urbanized countries have a contribution of agriculture to GDP below 25ј and a share of active population in agriculture below 25ј; transforming countries have a contribution of agriculture to GDP below 25ј and a share of active population in agriculture over 25ј; agriculture-based countries have a contribution of agriculture to GDP over 25ј and a share of active population in agriculture over 25ј. The EBA17 distance-to-frontier (DTF) score is the average of the DTF scores of the following topics: seed, fertilizer, machinery, Ĕnance, markets, transport, water and information communication and technology (ICT). The correlation between EBA scores and agricultural transformation phase is 0.61. better or similar performance compared to transform- This performance is mainly due to Ĕeld testing (not ing countries in the Ĕnance, water and transport topics required in best practice countries) and the delays and are closing the gap on markets. ;enya, Malawi and associated with the Gazette notiĔcation. Poland has Mozambique have comprehensive legislation regulat- the most comprehensive and efĔcient regulations on ing water use permits. Burkina Faso, CÖte d’Ivoire and tractor operation, import, testing and standards, but Ethiopia are among the top 10 countries in terms of the lacks a regulatory framework for warehouse receipts to efĔciency in obtaining a cross-border trucking license. complement the existing collateral regime to obtain a loan for agricultural production, as well as legislation Countries’ regulatory quality is associated with eco- on deposit-taking microĔnance institutions (MFIs). nomic growth11 and levels of development.12 High- income countries have better agribusiness regulations Following OECD high-income countries, Europe and as measured by EBA,13 and this outcome is shown across Central Asia as well as Latin America and the Caribbean all topics. However, there are exceptions; some coun- regions show a number of good regulatory practices. tries perform better on EBA indicators than what their For example, all countries in Europe and Central Asia income level may suggest. That is the case of Vietnam have implemented good regulatory practices on tractor for fertilizer, machinery and transport; ;enya for seed, imports, not requiring import permits or importers to Ĕnance, water and ICT; and ;yrgyz Republic for Ĕnance, register in addition to their general business license. In markets and machinery. On the other hand, despite its addition, both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are very solid regulations on ICT operating licenses and among the top Ĕve countries globally in the fertilizer plant protection, Chile does not have a framework for area, due to best practice regulation on registration OVERVIEW fertilizer registration or tractor type approval. and quality control. The fertilizer registration process takes about one month in both countries, and costs In terms of regions, OECD high-income countries have only 0.5ј and 5.3ј income per capita, respectively. The on average the most agribusiness-friendly regulation ;yrgyz Republic ranks in the top 15 for markets and (Ĕgure 1.2). They all share regulation that promotes machinery, showing efĔcient processes for exporting quality control, facilitates trade and enables entry agricultural goods and tractor registration, but it is and operations in agricultural markets. Spain ranks placed in the bottom 10 for seed and transport due 3 among the top six countries globally in all eight EBA- to the lack of regulations on seed quality control and scored topics. However, OECD high-income countries trucking licenses. The Russian Federation performs also have room for improvement. Romania is among well in EBA’s machinery, water, and ICT topics. the top three performers globally in terms of regu- lations for transport, machinery and ICT, but it takes Countries from Latin America and the Caribbean have more than three years to register a new fertilizer comprehensive regulation on Ĕnancial inclusion and product, while the global average is below one year. water management. In fact, Colombia and Mexico score Table 1.2 | Country rankings on EBA topics by economies SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT WATER ICT ARMENIA 28 53 30 52 23 56 5 31 BANGLADESH 54 35 49 23 21 45 56 37 BENIN 55 61 53 41 34 50 38 31 BOLIVIA 25 45 52 13 22 15 43 30 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 56 1 34 60 11 32 6 31 BURKINA FASO 57 56 32 41 37 12 47 59 BURUNDI 40 42 50 59 55 30 33 52 CAMBODIA 38 26 44 48 46 34 37 43 CAMEROON 58 48 37 51 41 31 44 52 CHILE 29 54 28 46 9 46 28 15 COLOMBIA 27 8 45 1 17 10 3 9 CÔTE D’IVOIRE 30 45 35 18 60 19 49 22 DENMARK 3 3 8 37 6 3 24 6 EGYPT, ARAB REP. 37 33 26 56 49 61 55 57 ETHIOPIA 39 59 25 27 51 21 34 62 GEORGIA 13 21 42 39 19 38 48 6 GHANA 48 34 38 16 54 59 30 22 GREECE 14 9 5 4 5 14 12 1 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 GUATEMALA 26 10 57 24 14 58 58 21 HAITI 61 58 43 54 57 62 57 43 INDIA 21 18 21 15 43 49 53 18 ITALY 4 6 11 6 4 4 10 6 JORDAN 22 17 33 62 25 22 41 22 KAZAKHSTAN 35 15 9 50 16 55 18 22 KENYA 7 43 29 10 59 16 4 12 KOREA, REP. 8 14 19 12 10 39 9 11 4 KYRGYZ REPUBLIC 53 19 14 8 13 56 36 43 LAO PDR 59 27 59 47 35 26 40 59 LIBERIA 62 62 60 35 62 59 61 31 MALAWI 50 44 23 20 33 41 19 50 MALAYSIA 45 50 18 28 40 54 45 22 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT WATER ICT MALI 52 23 61 41 44 44 50 52 MEXICO 24 24 51 9 3 20 2 9 MOROCCO 20 51 17 57 24 8 8 18 MOZAMBIQUE 23 47 47 25 30 33 21 22 MYANMAR 34 30 62 61 53 51 62 37 NEPAL 46 41 36 34 28 52 52 43 NETHERLANDS 1 7 7 17 1 9 20 1 NICARAGUA 44 11 48 36 20 36 23 43 NIGER 49 55 55 45 39 17 39 43 NIGERIA 42 31 16 22 48 43 46 37 PERU 10 52 58 2 27 5 11 15 PHILIPPINES 11 22 13 33 38 37 17 37 POLAND 5 2 1 21 7 24 13 1 ROMANIA 6 28 3 11 12 2 7 1 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 18 20 12 38 18 40 15 15 RWANDA 60 38 41 7 47 27 32 50 SENEGAL 36 60 54 41 36 35 42 37 SERBIA 19 4 2 40 8 13 14 12 SPAIN 2 5 6 3 2 1 1 1 SRI LANKA 47 36 39 58 58 48 54 59 SUDAN 41 56 27 53 61 47 59 57 TAJIKISTAN 51 49 22 55 32 6 35 56 TANZANIA 17 37 40 5 56 25 22 18 OVERVIEW THAILAND 32 16 24 29 52 53 60 31 TURKEY 12 13 4 32 29 28 51 31 UGANDA 31 40 31 31 45 18 26 22 UKRAINE 33 32 15 26 26 42 29 43 5 URUGUAY 9 25 56 19 15 11 25 37 VIETNAM 43 12 10 30 31 7 27 12 ZAMBIA 16 39 46 14 50 23 16 22 ZIMBABWE 15 29 20 49 42 29 31 52 Source: EBA database. among the top 10 countries globally within these two In Sub-Saharan Africa, there is great variation across topics. For example, Colombia has developed compre- countries measured and topics. In the region, 7 of the 21 hensive rules enabling non-bank correspondents to countries do not have a clearly designated government provide Ĕnancial services on behalf of a commercial agency to conduct pest surveillance, and only Senegal bank; Mexico has developed a modern and compre- and Tanzania have a publicly available database with hensive water regulatory framework anchored by the information on plant pests and diseases. However, 1992 National Water Law, although some implementa- last year Sub-Saharan African countries adopted more tion challenges remain. Some countries in the region regulatory reforms in plant protection than in other lag behind in several areas. Guatemala lacks a general regions. ;enya is the best performer on EBA indicators framework for tractor type approval and registration, in the region. It is among the 5 top performers in the and trucking licenses, despite solid fertilizer quality water topic, thanks to a series of regulatory reforms control and plant protection regulations. on water resource management and a permit system that started in 2002 with the introduction of a new The regions lagging behind on EBA scores are: South Water Act. On the other hand, the country still has Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and East Asia and PaciĔc. great potential to improve its regulatory framework on On average, countries from these regions have less fertilizer registration and plant protection, as well as than half of the regulatory good practices promoted to streamline the process related to exporting agricul- by EBA. This situation mainly affects regulations relat- tural products. In East Asia and PaciĔc, Vietnam shares ed to quality control and operations in the different international best practices in the areas of fertilizer agricultural markets that EBA measures. It is most registration (from the legal and efĔciency standpoint), time-consuming to complete the process of exporting efĔciency of tractor registration and type approval, agricultural goods in Sub-Saharan African countries, as well as trucking licenses both for domestic and taking 6.0 days on average, and the documents are cross-border transportation. most expensive in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, costing 2.5ј income per capita. The process for obtain- Benin, Arab Republic of Egypt, Haiti, Liberia, Myanmar, ing tractor type approval is the lengthiest and most Sri Lanka and Sudan are the countries with the greatest expensive in South Asia (270 days and 604ј income room for improvementЁon averageЁin all areas that per capita, versus 21 days and 7ј income per capita in EBA measures. For example, Haiti, Liberia and Myanmar East Asia and PaciĔc). This year EBA conducted a pilot (all conĕict-affected countries) do not have any of the study in India for all EBA topics to track subnational good regulatory practices on plant protection and very differences and will build on it for future data collec- few in the areas of integrated water resource manage- tion and analytical work (box 1.1). ment, Ĕnancial inclusion or trucking licenses. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Figure 1.2 | OECD high-income countries rank highest on EBA, followed by Europe and Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean 100 77 GLOBAL AVERAGE 55 EBA17 DTF score 60 56 50 49 47 45 6 0 OECD Europe Latin America Middle East East Asia Sub-Saharan South Asia high-income & Central Asia & Caribbean & North Africa & Pacific Africa Source: EBA database. Note: The EBA17 distance-to-frontier (DTF) score is the average of the DTF scores of the following topics: seed, fertilizer, machinery, Ĕnance, markets, transport, water and information communication and technology. EBA and regulatory quality measures are in place, laws also tend to be better en- forced (Ĕgure 1.3). The EBA overall DTF score provides a synthetic measure of the quality and efĔciency of countries’ regulatory environment for agriculture. Its results are well cor- ªĔ–³ Ì–ĄϚáò‰Å³íĄ–ÓÌíâÓÅϚÓß â‰í³ÓÌæ related with other measurements of regulatory quality and trade for the whole economy, such as the regulatory quality component of the Worldwide Governance Indicators Legal indicators in the eight EBA-scored topics can (WGI) and Doing Business,14 which measures regulatory be distributed across three cross-cutting categories, quality and efĔciency for businesses that perform gen- namely: (i) operations indicators that measure the eral industrial or commercial activities. requirements for local companies to enter the mar- ket and develop agribusiness activities;16 (ii) quality One potential criticism relates to the fact that what is control indicators that assess regulations governing written in the books does not necessarily reĕect what plant protection, water resource management, safe- happens in practice. In this regard, the relationship ty standards for agricultural machinery and quality between EBA and the WGI rule of law component15 control associated with seed, fertilizer and truck was analyzed and noted that where good regulatory operators;17 and (iii) trade indicators that measure Box 1.1 | Subnational EBA study in India For the Ĕrst time, EBA conducted a subnational management is largely decentralized to the state pilot study to assess how sensitive EBA indicators level. Across the four states, only Odisha has estab- are to differences among different locations within lished the legal foundation for a water use permit a country. Four Indian states were selected: Bihar, system that applies to farms that are medium-size or Maharashtra, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh. For topics larger. In only two out of the four states (Maharashtra where EBA considers a case study that assumes and Odisha) does the legal framework include man- that the company operates in the country’s largest dates for the establishment of basin-level institu- business city, the following cities were selected on tions, and only Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh set a the basis of population data: Patna (Bihar), Mumbai legal requirement for the preparation of basin plans (Maharashtra), Bhubaneswar (Odisha) and Lucknow and the creation and maintenance of a registry of (Uttar Pradesh). When discrepancies were found water users. Within the environmental sustainability across Indian states in speciĔc topics, Maharashtra topic, plant genetic resources aspects are managed data were considered as the proxy for India for the at the national level, but some differences persist cross-country results presented in this EBA17 report. in soil health management; namely, only Odisha and Maharashtra have a speciĔc mandate for the The main result of this pilot study is that while development of land use plans. Other areas, such the legal and regulatory framework for agriculture as producer organizations, are regulated by both and agribusiness is largely harmonized across the central and state-level governments. country, some differences emerge regarding the implementation of administrative procedures by The time and costs to comply with government state-level or local government agencies. regulations vary across the four states in some EBA topics. For example, registering a tractor costs 500 Laws governing entry and operations, quality control Rupees and takes seven days in Bihar, while it costs and trade for fertilizer, machinery, seed, transport only 200 Rupees and takes two days on average in OVERVIEW and Ĕnance are either federal or state-level with Uttar Pradesh. Also the cost of tractor roadworthiness very similar provisions across states. For example, in inspection is higher in Bihar (300 Rupees) than in the the Ĕnance area, the Federal Guidelines for Engaging other three states (200 Rupees). The cost to obtain of Business Correspondents 2010 and the Payment a truck-level state permit in Maharashtra is slightly and Settlement Systems Act 2007 apply to all Indian lower (18,300 Rupees) than in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh states, providing global best practice for the branch- (both at 20,000 Rupees) or Odisha (23,000 Rupees). less banking indicator. However, Ĕnancial coopera- While regulations related to plant protection and 7 tives are governed by state-level laws; they are simi- export documents remain national, phytosanitary lar across the four states analyzed, lacking a deposit certiĔcates are issued by local government ofĔces. insurance system and disclosure requirements. There are other speciĔc state-level licenses and per- mits, such as those related to domestic agricultural Some differences exist in the area of water and markets and inter-state transport. environment. Under India’s Constitution, water Figure 1.3 | Higher EBA scores are associated with better performance in other measures of regulatory quality EBA17 DTF score EBA17 DTF score 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 WGI Rule of Law score WGI Regulatory Quality score Sources: EBA database; Worldwide Governance Indicators. Note: The correlation between the EBA17 distance-to-frontier (DTF) score and the rule of law score is 0.61. The correlation is signiĔcant at a 5ј level after controlling for income per capita. The correlation between the EBA17 DTF score and the regulatory quality score is 0.69. The correlation is signiĔcant at a 1ј level after controlling for income per capita. The EBA17 DTF score is the average of the DTF scores of the following topics: seed, fertilizer, machinery, Ĕnance, markets, transport, water and information and communication technology. trade restrictions related to the export of agricultur- There is also a high correlation between the three legal al products, the import of fertilizer and tractors, and dimensions combined (operations, quality control and cross-border transport rights.18 EfĔciency indicators trade) and the efĔciency of the processes captured measure the time and cost needed to comply with the (Ĕgure 1.4), showing that solid regulatory frameworks processes measured by EBA.19 tend to be present in countries that also have efĔcient processes. However, there are exceptions, for example: EBA indicators advocate for regulations that promote ef- Malawi has laws related to seed and fertilizer registra- Ĕcient regulatory processes that support agribusinesses tion containing some key elements on the books, but while at the same time ensuring safety and quality con- it is the country where it is most expensive to register trol. The importance of the three cross-cutting EBA legal both new seed varieties and fertilizer products. In Sri ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 categories plus efĔciency indicators has been clearly Lanka, on the other hand, while regulatory procedures stated,20 however, it is not clear whether they are entire- such as tractor registration and trucking licensing are ly compatible with one another or if success in one may efĔcient and affordable, the country’s laws and regula- come at the expense of another. Data show that rules tions are not robust enough in some areas covered by that facilitate entry and operations in the market are EBA, as shown by the lack of legislation on agent bank- compatible with regulations that promote safety and ing activities or operation of warehouse receipts. Both quality control (table 1.3). These rules are complements the quality and the efĔciency dimensions of business rather than substitutes. And countries with higher regulations, as captured by the EBA indicators, show scores on operations and quality control tend also to signiĔcant correlations with countries’ agricultural pro- have more effective trade requirements. ductivity. On average, agricultural productivity is higher Table 1.3 | Correlation across EBA cross-cutting dimensions OPERATIONS QUALITY CONTROL TRADE 8 QUALITY CONTROL 0.86 TRADE 0.63 0.67 EFFICIENCY 0.68 0.70 0.46 Source: EBA database. Note: All correlations are signiĔcant after controlling for income per capita. %³«òâ ͱϟʹӁâ «òʼníÓâĄáò‰Å³íĄ‰Ìœ ªĔ–³ Ì–Ą«Ó when transaction costs are lower and countries adhere hand-in-hand to a higher number of regulatory good practices.21 Each EBA indicator measures a different aspect of the ͱͷâ «òʼníÓ⥠ªĔ–³ Ì–Ąæ–Óâ  agricultural regulatory environment. The DTF scores 100 and associated rankings of a country can vary, some- times signiĔcantly, across indicator sets. However, the 80 correlation among any pair of EBA indicators is positive and ranges between 0.13 and 0.68. For example, solid 60 and efĔcient rules on plant protection and trade in ag- ricultural products are associated with better rules for 40 importing and controlling the quality of essential agri- cultural inputs, such as fertilizer (Ĕgure 1.5). Reforms in 20 different areas that EBA measures are complementary. 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Nondiscriminatory measures ͱͷâ «òʼníÓâĄáò‰Å³íĄæ–Óâ  The design and implementation of nondiscriminatory Source: EBA database. and inclusive laws and regulations are key to encour- aging competition, boosting investor conĔdence and Note: The correlation between EBA17 regulatory quality scores and EBA17 regulatory efĔciency scores is 0.76. The correlation is signiĔcant facilitating agricultural investments in the long run.22 at a 1ј level after controlling for income per capita. The regulatory quality score captures the robustness of laws and regulations related to seed registration, fertilizer registration, tractor operation, testing and EBA data assess the existence of nondiscriminatory standards, and agricultural trade, as well as trucking licenses and cross- measures in agricultural laws and regulations that can border transportation. The regulatory efĔciency score measures the time and costs to complete the regulatory processes that correspond to the assist domestic, foreign or small-scale private sector areas covered by the aforementioned regulatory quality score, including operators in doing business, as well as the ones that registering a new seed variety, registering a new chemical fertilizer product, registering a tractor, obtaining a tractor type approval, acquiring can promote women’s participation in certain agri- per-shipment agricultural export documents and obtaining domestic and cultural activities. Such measures include allowing cross-border trucking licenses. the private sector to register fertilizer, granting plant breeders’ rights or transport licenses based on the same rules for domestic and foreign applicants, estab- lishing an affordable capital requirement to create a Ĕ- Figure 1.5 | Countries with better regulations on nancial cooperative or creating a quota or mechanism markets also perform better in fertilizer to promote women’s participation in leadership roles in producer organizations (see appendix C). EBA17 markets score Spain has in place the highest number of the nondis- criminatory measures in agriculture (Ĕgure 1.6). Out of 100 the 29 good practices that EBA covered, more than 27 are included in its agricultural laws and regulations, 80 with only a few legal obstacles that prevent domestic or small-sized companies from engaging in operations 60 in the agriculture sector. Sub-Saharan African coun- 40 tries including Tanzania and ambia are also among OVERVIEW the top performers in this area. For example, there is 20 no minimum capital requirement to establish a pro- ducer organization in Tanzania, and ambia grants 0 transport, backhauling, triangular and transit rights to foreign transport companies. On the other hand, coun- 0 20 40 60 80 100 tries such as Haiti, Malaysia and Myanmar have greater EBA17 fertilizer score potential for improvement. For example, in Malaysia, 9 Source: EBA database. foreign companies are not yet allowed to obtain a trucking license, and in Haiti, non-bank businesses Note: The correlation between the EBA17 markets score and the EBA17 fertilizer score is 0.60. The correlation is signiĔcant at a 1ј level after cannot issue e-money. controlling for income per capita. Figure 1.6 | Spain has the most nondiscriminatory agricultural laws and regulations, while Haiti has the greatest potential for improvement Number of good practices related to nondiscrimination 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Spain Poland Greece Italy Netherlands Romania Tanzania Zambia Kenya Colombia Denmark Uruguay Malawi Bolivia Mozambique Mali Rwanda Burundi Zimbabwe Niger Philippines Georgia Morocco Kazakhstan Mexico Tajikistan Vietnam Bosnia and Herzegovina Peru Uganda Ghana Senegal Nicaragua Turkey Kyrgyz Republic Chile Bangladesh Côte d'Ivoire Korea, Rep. Guatemala ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Lao PDR Serbia Russian Federation Sudan Nigeria Cameroon India Armenia Benin Burkina Faso Cambodia Nepal Ukraine Jordan Egypt, Arab Rep. Liberia Sri Lanka Thailand Ethiopia Myanmar 10 Malaysia Haiti Domestic private sector aspect (number of good practices) (out of 14) Foreign private sector aspect (number of good practices) (out of 8) Small businesses aspect (number of good practices) (out of 4) Gender aspect (number of good practices) (out of 3) Source: EBA database. Access to information Jordan (upper-left quadrant of Ĕgure 1.8, in red), while it may not be the primary focus for countries with an Research suggests that easier access to regulatory already robust legal framework combined with smaller information is associated with greater quality of busi- challenges related to inter-annual water resources ness regulation and less corruption.23 Farmers and variability, such as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the agribusinesses, many of them located in remote rural Netherlands or Vietnam (lower-right quadrant of Ĕgure areas, could potentially save signiĔcant time and cost if 1.8, in green). they had the possibility to comply with administrative processes electronically or access information such as EBA data also relate to the international context registries and ofĔcial fees online. through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by United Nations Member States to guide EBA measures good practices related to the accessi- policies and regulations on the development agenda bility of information in the agriculture sector. These for the next 15 years. Agriculture connects all 17 SDGs practices range from the availability of catalogues, da- and is at the core of SDG1 and SDG2, which call for tabases and fee schedules that can inform the private ending extreme poverty and hunger. The link between sector of regulatory processes and help them make EBA and the SDGs is twofold: on the one hand, the SDG business decisions, to the provision of e-services in- targets were considered in the reĔnement of EBA’s cluding online issuance of the phytosanitary certiĔcate indicators; on the other hand, speciĔc data points or electronic application for the renewal of transport from EBA may serve as metrics for tracking countries’ licenses, as well as legal obligations to disclose infor- progress on SDG objectives (box 1.2). mation including the effective interest rate of loans issued by Ĕnancial cooperatives (see appendix C). Conclusion OECD high-income countries on average have the high- est number of good practices related to access to reg- EBA’s main objective is to measure and benchmark reg- ulatory information (Ĕgure 1.7). In all eight countries, ulations that impact agribusiness globally. It can serve there is publicly available information such as water as a tool for countries to take stock of their current resource monitoring results, regulated quarantine pest regulatory environment and promote change. Higher lists and ofĔcial fee schedules for seed certiĔcation. income and urbanized countries tend to have more In other regions, however, greater effort is needed to agribusiness-friendly regulations, although there are make regulatory information more accessible to the numerous exceptions. Most countries have some good public. For example, in Sub-Saharan Africa and the practices but EBA indicators also highlight areas that Middle East and North Africa, where 24 countries were could be improved. A good way to start is through the studied, half of the countries’ laws do not specify a introduction of regulations that promote quality control method for calculating the water abstraction charge, and nondiscrimination, efĔcient administrative proce- and only Kenya and Mozambique currently have an dures and access to information. EBA data demonstrate online fertilizer catalogue. that all these objectives are compatible. The next chap- ters show how they can be achieved. Putting EBA data in context EBA data are collected and analyzed following stan- dardized case studies, and the same EBA indicators are presented for all 62 countries, aiming at ensuring comparability across countries and time. However, it OVERVIEW is essential for policymakers to interpret EBA scores in conjunction with more detailed contextual information to better prioritize the policy areas in need of reform. For example, among the potential contextual data available for water, the level of inter-annual water variability or the level of water stress could be im- 11 portant factors to consider when deĔning regulatory priorities on water resources management and permitting systems for irrigation water use, as mea- sured by EBA. In certain cases, reform towards a more comprehensive legal framework could take on higher importance in countries with low EBA water scores and high inter-annual variability, such as Haiti, India and Figure 1.7 | OECD high-income countries on average have the most good practices related to access to regulatory information Average number of good practices related to access to information 20 related to access to information Number of good practices 16 GLOBAL AVERAGE 9 10 10 8 8 7 6 0 OECD Europe Latin America East Asia South Asia Middle East Sub-Saharan high-income & Central Asia & Caribbean & Pacific & North Africa Africa Source: EBA database. Figure 1.8 | Use of water variability data to inform regulatory priorities Normalized EBA water score 0.5 JORDAN 0.4 HAITI 0.3 0.2 INDIA Normalized interannual variability ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 0.1 0 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 12 BOSNIA AND NETHERLANDS HERZEGOVINA -0.4 VIETNAM -0.5 Sources: EBA database; FAO Aquastat/WRI 2016. Note: Interannual variability is an indicator of the variation in water supply between years, created by the World Resources Institute (WRI). It ranges from 0Ђ5, where 0 is lowest and 5 is highest (most variable). For plotting, both interannual variability values and EBA water scores have been normalized to a scale between -0.5 and 0.5. Box 1.2 | Sustainable Development Goals on EBA topics EBA has links to a number of Sustainable resources.” EBA measures the existence of a nation- Development Goals (SDGs), including Target 1.4 al genebank or collection system for plant genetic (Access to Basic Services), Target 2.5 (Genetic resources, their data’s availability online as well as Diversity of Cultivated Plants), Target 6.3 (Improving the access by private companies to the germplasm Water Quality), Target 6.4 (EfĔcient and Sustainable preserved in the gene banks (Ĕgure 1.2.1). Water Withdrawals), Target 6.5 (Integrated Water Resource Management), Target 9.3 (Enterprise SDG Targets 6.4 and 6.5 call for efforts to “substan- Access to Financial Services) and Target 9c (Access tially increase water-use efĔciencyϛand ensure to Information and Communications Technology), sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater” among others. as well as the implementation of “water resources management at all levels.” EBA measures the regu- For example, SDG Target 2.5 calls to “maintain the lation of water use permits, the legal requirements genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plantsϛand and establishment in practice of basin institutions, their related wild species, including through sound- basin plans, water resource inventories and water ly managed and diversiĔed seed and plant banksϛ user registries. However, a big gap remains between and promote access to and fair and equitable shar- the legal mandate and the implementation in prac- ing of beneĔts arising from the utilization of genetic tice in many countries (Ĕgure 1.2.2). Figure 1.2.1 | Wide regional variations observed in the establishment of national genebanks Percentage of EBA17 countries with a national genebank GLOBAL AVERAGE OECD Middle East East Asia South Asia Europe Latin America Sub-Saharan high-income & North Africa & Pacific & Central Asia & Caribbean Africa Source: EBA database. Figure 1.2.2 | Implementation gap in water information is higher in lower-income countries Share of countries 100% 89% 85% 77% 71% 46% 63% 38% OVERVIEW 13 High income Upper-middle income Lower-middle income Low income Legal mandate to create an inventory Evidence of inventory currently available online Source: EBA database. NOTES 17 The full list of EBA indicators under the quality control category is as follows: seed quality control, 1 World Bank 2015. quality control of fertilizer, tractor testing and standards, plant protection and integrated water 2 Schultz 1980. resource management. 3 FAO, IFAD and WFP 2015. 18 The full list of EBA indicators under the trade category is as follows: importing and distributing 4 World Bank 2007. fertilizer, tractor import, agricultural trade and cross-border transportation. 5 World Bank 2015. 19 The full list of EBA indicators under the efĔciency 6 Ibid. category is as follows: time and cost to register new seed varieties; time and cost to register a new fertil- 7 Ibid. izer product; time and cost to obtain type approval; time and cost to register a tractor; documents, time 8 Some data points under these indicators refer to and cost to export agricultural goods; time and cost good practices related to the accessibility of in- to obtain trucking licenses; and time and cost to formation in the agriculture sector (see section on obtain cross-border licenses. “access to information” in this overview). 20 Ciccone and Papaioannou 2007; Klapper, Laeven 9 Ethiopia, Guatemala, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, and Raghuram 2006; Fisman and Sarria-Allende the Philippines, Rwanda, Spain, Uganda and 2010. Ukraine. 21 Divanbeigi and Saliola 2016. 10 World Bank 2007. 22 OECD 2014; United Nations 2013. 11 Eifert 2009; Divanbeigi and Ramalho 2015. 23 Geginat and Saltane 2016. 12 Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson 2005; Aghion and Durlauf 2009. REFERENCES 13 The correlation between the EBA17 overall DTF score and income per capita is 0.65. Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson and J. A. Robinson. 2005. “Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long- 14 The correlation between EBA17 DTF score and the Run Growth.” Handbook of Economic Growth 1A, ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Doing Business17 DTF score is 0.75. The correlation 386 Ђ 472. is signiĔcant at a 1ј level after controlling for in- come per capita. Aghion, P. and S. Durlauf. 2009. “From Growth Theory to Policy Design.” Working Paper 57. Commission on 15 The rule of law indicator captures perceptions of Growth and Development, Washington, DC. the extent to which agents have conĔdence in and abide by the rules of society and in particular the Ciccone, A. and E. Papaioannou. 2007. “Red Tape and quality of contract enforcement, property rights, Delayed Entry.” Working Paper 758. European the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood Central Bank, Frankfurt am Main. of crime and violence (http://info.worldbank.org/ governance/wgi/index.aspx#doc). Divanbeigi, R. and F. Saliola. 2016. “Regulation and the Transformation of Agriculture.” Working Paper pre- 16 The full list of EBA indicators under the operations sented at FAO Conference on Rural Transformation, category is as follows: plant breeding, variety reg- Agricultural and Food System Transition. istration, fertilizer registration, tractor operation, 14 branchless banking, movable collateral, non-bank Divanbeigi, R. and R. Ramalho. 2015. “Business lending institutions, producer organizations, truck- Regulations and Growth.” Policy Research Working ing licenses and operations, individual water use Paper 7299. World Bank, Washington, DC. for irrigation and ICT. Eifert, B. 2009. “Do Regulatory Reforms Stimulate Investment and Growth? Evidence from the Doing Business Data, 2003Ђ07.” Working Paper 159. Center for Global Development, Washington, DC. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) and WFP (World Food Programme). 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress. Rome: FAO. Fisman, R. and V. Sarria-Allende. 2010. “Regulation of Entry and the Distortion of Industrial Organization.” Journal of Applied Economics 13 (1): 91Ђ111. Geginat, C. and V. Saltane. 2016. “ДOpen for Business?’Ё Transparent Government and Business Regulation.” Journal of Economics and Business 88: 1Ђ21. Klapper, L., L. Laeven and R. Raghuram. 2006. “Entry as a Barrier to Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Financial Economics 82: 591Ђ629. OECD. 2014. Policy Framework for Investment in Agriculture. Paris: OECD Publishing. Schultz, Theodore W. 1980. "Nobel Lecture: The Economics of Being Poor." Journal of Political Economy 88(4): 639-651. United Nations. 2013. World Economic and Social Survey 2013: Sustainable Development Challenges. New York: United Nations. World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. ЁЁЁ. 2015. Ending Poverty and Hunger by 2030. Washington DC: World Bank. OVERVIEW 15 16 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Seed Tests completed in Uganda in 2015 Seed is the most important input in crop production. revealed that seeds sold as hybrid In most countries, seed supply systems are dual, being characterized as informal (or farmer-managed) and maize in local markets were often not formal. Informal systems are based on small-scale as advertised; less than half of the farmers’ own efforts to save seeds from their crops, seeds were authentic hybrid seeds. High and by farmer-to-farmer gifts, exchanges, and trade. yielding seed must be made available Informal seed systems provide a rich diversity of seed, including varieties that are relevant to farmers and to and ultimately adopted by farmers adapted to local weather conditions. They also offer to increase their productivity and meet dynamic channels of seed distribution that can reach growing global food demand. However, the most remote farming communities. Finally, they are vital to support biodiversity and resilience against inauthentic and poor quality hybrid seeds climate shocks.2 Formal seed systems were built on sci- can result in smaller harvests, which entiĔc breeding developed at the beginning of the 20th ultimately affects farmer’s proĔtability. century by academic research and corporate breeding. In Uganda, farmers make the decision Breeding associated with these systems led to an in- crease of yields, due to a considerable improvement of to invest in hybrid seed expecting seed’s agricultural productivity, a greater resistance to an improvement of their yield. This insect pests and diseases, and tolerance to drought or expectation justiĔes the higher price paid ĕood.3 Formal seed systems generate new varieties that for these seeds compared to traditional are then released for multiplication and distribution. Informal seed systems are also an important source varieties. If the expected yield is not met, of seed. Since farmers use both formal and informal farmers are likely to reject hybrid seed.1 channels to source their seeds in most regions, points To avoid such a scenario, in August 2016 of integration must be identiĔed to achieve seed se- curity in a balanced seed system that includes formal the government of Uganda launched a and informal players. The EBA seed indicators focus campaign to reduce counterfeit seed in on the formal seed system due to the greater avail- the market. ability of comparable data. Formal seed systems are more uniform and are centralized around institutions. The activities performed across the system have been covered by treaties and other international standards. In contrast, informal seed systems are deĔned by the SEED diversity of practices implemented across countries, or even across regions of the same country. Nevertheless, this year the EBA environmental sustainability topic piloted new indicators that measure innovative prac- tices that support the circulation of seed produced by 17 farmer-managed seed systems. This data, available on the EBA website (http://eba.worldbank.org), measure practices relevant outside of the formal seed system. Sifting seeds in a Ĕeld along Red River in northern Vietnam. Photo: Quy-Toan Do / World Bank. EBA is committed to developing indicators that support hybrid seed of good quality and avoid unnecessary an integrated approach to strengthening seed systems delays. This indicator measures how functional and and promote economic growth and poverty reduction. inclusive the release process is, and the availability In line with this commitment, the seed indicators will of information on new varieties. In particular, it covers be reĔned in future years to include practices tested the acceptance of testing data from foreign authorities, this year in the environmental sustainability indicators, the composition of the variety release committee (VRC) as well as expand the coverage of regulatory aspects and the existence and frequency of its meetings, and relevant to the informal seed sector. the availability and maintenance of an online variety catalogue. In addition, this indicator provides data on the time and cost involved for the private sector when What do the seed indicators measure? registering a new maize variety with the government, from application to Ĕnal release. Seed indicators measure laws and regulations appli- cable to the development, release and quality control Seed quality control: The quality of seed is crucial for of seed, all of which are crucial to increasing the avail- the adoption of new varieties by farmers. Only hybrid ability and quality of seed reaching the farmer (table seeds of good quality can increase yields, ensure 2.1). The seed indicators are organized as follows: adaptability to climate change and therefore justify higher prices. The seed quality control indicator focus- Plant breeding: The development of new varieties is es on the quality control process that follows the re- essential to the strength of seed systems. Innovative lease and multiplication of new varieties. It measures breeding can increase plant resistance to climate practices such as ofĔcial fee schedules, the existence change, lead to higher yields and stimulate an increase of a requirement to perform post-control tests, record- in private sector competitiveness. Among other factors, keeping to ensure traceability of breeding materials having a legal environment that grants intellectual and labeling. Finally, this indicator measures the exis- property rights over plant materials is vital to encour- tence of third-party accreditation or self-accreditation age private sector investments in the seed sector.4 to allow nonpublic sector actors to complement the This indicator measures the existence of a regulatory government during the certiĔcation process. framework granting and protecting breeder’s rights, the duration of the protections granted, the existence of discrimination between national and foreign breeders How do countries perform on the seed seeking protection, the availability of a list of protected indicators? varieties and the right to license protected varieties. In addition, the indicators cover access to materials Overall, countries’ performances across indicators are essential for innovative breeding such as early gener- varied. Among the three indicators under the seed top- ation seed developed by the public sector, germplasm ic, the plant breeding indicator has the most regulatory stored in publicly managed genebanks, and genetic good practices adopted across countries. Plant variety ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 materials imported for research purposes. protection laws and registries are in place in countries with the strongest and least burdensome seed regu- Variety registration: The variety release process lations such as the Netherlands and Uruguay, as well should ensure transparent rules for the release of as in others with weaker seed laws such as Burundi, Table 2.1 | What do the seed indicators measure? PLANT • Existence, duration and terms of plant variety protection BREEDING • Right to license protected varieties and availability of information on protected varieties • Access to germplasm, breeder and foundation seed VARIETY • Legal requirements to register a new seed variety and information accessibility, including time and cost 18 REGISTRATION • Acceptance of testing data from foreign authorities • Variety release committee and availability of online variety catalogue listing registered varieties • Breeders’ requirement to ensure the traceability of breeding materials SEED QUALITY • Publically available fee schedule for certiĔcation CONTROL • Third-party accreditation or self-accreditation for certiĔcation activities • Labeling requirements and penalties for mislabeled seed containers Source: EBA database. Table 2.2 | Where are seed regulations stronger conserved by public authorities. Regarding the region’s and less burdensome and where are they not? registration process efĔciency, more than one-third of Sub-Saharan African countries studied are not regis- STRONGEST WEAKEST tering any improved seed5 at all. The registration cost AND MOST EFFICIENT AND LEAST EFFICIENT for a new maize variety in Sudan is among the highest 1 NETHERLANDS 58 CAMEROON across all countries studied, with an average cost rep- resenting 621ј income per capita. Seed quality control 2 SPAIN 59 LAO PDR processes lack transparency in the region since many countries do not have ofĔcial fee schedules for certi- 3 DENMARK 60 RWANDA Ĕcation activities that the government performs, and in nearly half of the countries, third-party certiĔcation 4 ITALY 61 HAITI is not permitted. Sub-Saharan African countries are closely followed by East Asian and PaciĔc and South 5 POLAND 62 LIBERIA Asian countries, whose performance on the seed indi- cators is also driven by a limited adoption of the reg- Source: EBA database. ulatory good practices measured by the seed quality control indicator. However, several countries stand out Sudan and Tajikistan (table 2.2). In Burundi, a 2016 de- within the Sub-Saharan Africa region with seed topic cree introduced a legal framework for the protection of scores above the global average. In Kenya, for example, plant varieties and created a register of protected va- the legal framework provides tools for the protection of rieties administered by the National OfĔce of Control new varieties and access to early generation seeds and and CertiĔcation of Seed. Nonetheless, there is still germplasms. The registration process is not restricted room for improvement, even in countries with a topic to the public sector and VRCs meet as often as neces- score above the global average such as Georgia, which sary, which results in a registration time that is among has adopted most of the regulatory good practices the shortest across all countries studied. Furthermore, of the plant breeding indicators and the seed topic both Burundi and Rwanda adopted new legislation on in general, but does not yet have a list of protected the protection of plant varieties this year, which may varieties available publically. lead to the creation of publically available registries. Overall, OECD high-income countries perform the best in the EBA seed indicators. Most countries have What are the regulatory good practices? inclusive release systems. But in Greece and Poland nongovernmental representatives are underrepre- Box 2.1 highlights regulatory good practices and some sented in VRCs. In addition, seed producers applying countries that implement these practices. for registration in these countries need to comply with additional procedures after the VRC’s decision to Allowing partnerships between the public and release the new variety. These additional steps affect the private sector in the performance of seed- the efĔciency of their registration process, among related activities the longest in the region. For most countries studied, additional efforts are required to have a strong and Scaling the formal seed sector is critical for countries inclusive quality control process. It is less the case wishing to increase the availability of hybrid seed of for OECD high-income countries, which have most of good quality.6 To do so, private sector participation the regulatory good practices measured by the seed must be encouraged. In many countries, public re- quality control indicator. Seed producers complying search takes the lead in areas such as pre-breeding, with mandatory certiĔcation have access to transpar- germplasm conservation, and crop and resource man- ent costs and collaborate with the public authority to agement. Therefore, it is essential that the private SEED perform certain certiĔcation activities themselves. In sector has access to the outcome of public research as Denmark, Italy and Spain, accredited seed companies well as to the genetic resources that the public sector perform their Ĕeld inspections, sampling and lab test- conserves, to support their own breeding efforts.7 Seed ing and then label seed themselves. However, in Chile companies can improve the production of breeder and and Korea, plant breeders have not yet been required foundation seed in the case of limited public capacity. to retain records on the plant reproductive materials Among the 62 countries studied, 38 allow private seed 19 that they use. companies to produce breeder and foundation seed of local public varieties and to access germplasm con- Sub-Saharan African countries perform the lowest served in public genebanks. For example, in Vietnam overall in the EBA seed indicators. Intellectual prop- and Kenya, the law does not include any prohibition erty rights are often neglected, as one-third of the for the production of breeder and foundation seed, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa do not grant any pro- while in Guatemala, breeders wishing to produce them tection of plant materials or any access to germplasm are required to sign an agreement with the Instituto Box 2.1 | What are the regulatory good practices? REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR SEED IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE PLANT Intellectual property rights over plant materials are granted BREEDING and protected by law without discrimination based on the ITALY, ROMANIA nationality of the applicant. Varieties subject to intellectual property rights are listed in a CHILE, KENYA, POLAND publicly available document. Companies are not legally prevented from producing breeder UKRAINE, VIETNAM, ZIMBABWE and foundation seed of local public varieties. Germplasms conserved in public genebanks are accessible to DENMARK, GEORGIA, SPAIN companies. Intellectual property right over plant materials can be legally EGYPT, ARAB REP., KOREA, REP. licensed to another party for production and sale of the variety. No government testing (other than phytosanitary) is required to ARMENIA, UGANDA import germplasm for the development of new varieties. VARIETY Testing results from foreign authorities are accepted as ofĔcial REGISTRATION ITALY, MOZAMBIQUE data for registration purposes. A legally established variety release committee meets regularly and balances public and private sector participation in the KENYA, SPAIN, URUGUAY evaluation and registration of new varieties. An up-to-date variety catalogue is available online and includes NIGERIA, PERU agro-ecological zones suitable for each variety listed. Variety registration is efĔcient and affordable. KOREA, REP., THAILAND SEED QUALITY OfĔcial fee schedules are available for certiĔcation activities CONTROL CAMBODIA, CAMEROON that the public authority performs. Plant breeders are required to ensure the traceability of their ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 BURUNDI, SERBIA plant reproductive materials for at least two years. Private seed companies and/or third parties may be accredited RUSSIAN FEDERATION, ZAMBIA to perform certiĔcation activities. A percentage of certiĔed seed is subject to post-control tests by the national seed authority yearly, and seed is removed from GHANA, MOROCCO the market if standards are not met. The law requires the labelling of seed containers and provides BOLIVIA, INDIA, JORDAN for a penalty for the fraudulent sale of mislabeled seed bags. Source: EBA database. 20 de Ciencia y Tecnología (ICTA). In Benin, Burkina Faso, certiĔed seed to farmers in a timely manner.8 Laws can Cameroon, Lao PDR, Nicaragua and Peru, public re- allow the accreditation of private laboratories, private search and genetic resources that the public sector inspectors and university centers to lessen the burden conserves are not accessible to the private sector. on the public sector. Among the 62 countries stud- ied, 36 countries have laws that allows private seed Partnership between the public and private sectors companies and third parties to be accredited for cer- should not stop with breeding. The VRC is responsible tiĔcation activities usually performed by the national for testing new varieties for registration and approving authority. In Romania, since 2002, individuals and seed it for further commercial production and distribu- companies can be accredited to carry out Ĕeld inspec- tion. To ensure that testing criteria are developed by tion and sampling, to test seed quality and to issue all stakeholders, nongovernmental representatives certiĔcation documents under Ministry of Agriculture (associations of seed companies, nongovernmental supervision. The accreditation is subject to training organizations [NGOs] or farmer associations) should and to compliance with standards that the Ministry be included in the VRC routine operations. Among the sets. In Cambodia, Nigeria and Sri Lanka, as well as in 62 countries studied, 38 countries require the partici- 16 other countriesЁmainly low-income and lower-mid- pation of nongovernmental representatives when de- dle-income countriesЁ only the national authority can ciding whether to release a new variety or not (Ĕgure perform the mandatory certiĔcation. 2.1). Among these countries, nine require an equal or higher number of nongovernmental representatives Implementing regulatory good practices over governmental ones. In the Netherlands, for ex- ample, the largest seed producer in Europe and where The ideal regulatory environment for the seed sector is there are more than twice as many nongovernmental a clear legal framework supported by functioning insti- representatives compared with public sector repre- tutions and efĔcient procedures. The law establishing sentatives in the VRC, the time to register a new variety institutions and granting rights should be enforced is among the shortest across countries. In Denmark, in practice. Similarly, practices implemented without the largest exporter of seed globally, only one of the a legal framework may not always be beneĔcial to all 11 members of the VRC is a government representative. seed sector actors in the absence of clear implemen- In contrast, Ethiopia, Mexico and Russian Federation, tation criteria. Among the 45 countries where public which do not have associations of seed companies, research institutes license public varieties to seed NGOs or farmer associations in their VRC, have among companies for production and sale, 13 countries do so the longest registration time. in the absence of clear rules. In 2016, the Institute for Environment and National Research in Burkina Faso In many developing countries, the lack of personnel (INERA) designed a framework agreement on future and other resources lead to long delays in seed cer- public-private partnerships for the production of ini- tiĔcation and testing, which impede the delivery of tial classes of seed. Figure 2.1 | Nongovernmental representation in variety release committees (VRCs) 56 VRC LEGALLY 9 ESTABLISHED Half or more are nongovernmental representatives SEED NO 6 29 Less than half are nongovernmental LEGALLYЈ representatives ESTABLISHED 21 VRC 18 Only governmental Source: EBA database. representatives The release process for a new variety is prescribed in requirements follow most of the good practices iden- the country’s seed law and usually involves an eval- tiĔed. The VRC is functional, meets monthly and does uation of the new variety through testing, review of not require additional procedures to release the new the result by a decision body and registration in an variety after its decision. Despite these regulatory good ofĔcial catalogue. Among the 62 countries studied, 56 practices, however, the variety registration process in establish a VRC tasked with reviewing the test results Nicaragua is the third most expensive across all coun- of any new maize variety, before its registration and tries, equivalent to 787ј income per capita, and has the release. In Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina sixth lengthiest procedure that lasts 650 calendar days. Faso, Cambodia, Mali and Rwanda, the VRC provided for in the law does not appear to meet in practice, CertiĔcation processes designed to ensure seed qual- while they are a prerequisite to the availability of seed ity have been identiĔed as having a negative effect in countries where registration is mandatory. With the and as impeding the development of the seed supply exception of few countries such as Georgia or Italy, chain,9 due to delays in the government’s performance where regulatory good practices go hand-in-hand of certiĔcation activities. Accreditation mechanisms with a streamlined and low-cost variety registration are intended to allow seed companies or third parties process, a large number of countries have adopted to assist the public authority in certifying seed. Among lengthy procedures that are likely to result in delays in the 62 countries studied, more than half of them have seed delivery to the farmer. created a legal framework for third party or self-ac- creditation. However, only 31 countries accredit indi- Fourteen countries, most of them in Sub-Saharan viduals or companies for Ĕeld inspections, sampling, Africa, do not have any private seed companies regis- lab testing or labelling. For example, in Armenia, Serbia tering new maize varieties, despite appropriate regula- and Uganda, seed companies or third parties have not tions being in place. In Niger, the seed law establishes been accredited despite the existence of regulation. a strong regulatory framework, which includes a VRC with the participation of all stakeholders and meetings Ensuring seed quality in the market on a quarterly basis, as well as a variety catalogue available online. However, the country still has no pri- Regulations establish mechanisms that guarantee vate seed companies that register new maize varieties. farmers’ access to hybrid seed of quality for their crop production. Hybrid seeds, when used properly and to- In a number of countries, VRCs are functioning with gether with other inputs like fertilizer, have proven to varied stakeholder participation and regular meetings increase farmers' yield by 12Ђ15ј.10 A registered seed’s but the registration process is still burdensome to seed genetic purity, identity and a given minimum quality producers because of its length or cost (Ĕgure 2.2). level must be found in the seed sold if that seed is For example, in Nicaragua the registration regulatory ultimately to reach the farmer’s Ĕelds and improve ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 %³«òâ ͲϟͲӁ% þ–ÓòÌíâ³ æ°‰ý •Óí°æíâÓÌ«â «³æíâ‰í³ÓÌâ «òʼní³ÓÌæ‰Ìœ‰Ì ªĔ–³ Ìíâ «³æíâ‰í³ÓÌßâӖ ææ Score difference 100 Weaker variety Equally strong Stronger variety 80 registration seed registration registration regulations regulations regulations 60 •òí ªĔ–³ Ìí ‰Ìœ ªĔ–³ Ìí •òí³Ì ªĔ–³ Ìí process process process 40 20 0 -20 22 -40 -60 2 Cambodia Myanmar Sri Lanka Korea, Rep. Serbia Bolivia Nepal Nigeria Italy India Uganda Greece Ukraine Mexico Romania Côte d'Ivoire Zambia Poland Kenya Jordan Armenia Egypt, Arab Rep. Georgia Mozambique Turkey Philippines Russian Federation Chile Vietnam Senegal Malawi Nicaragua Ghana 13 Source: EBA database. Farmers harvest their crops near Kisumu, Kenya. Photo: Peter Kapuscinski / World Bank. yields. Research has shown that farmers will not adopt Zimbabwe. By contrast, more than half of the countries new technologies such as improved seed varieties studied do not require labels to include information when they do not expect any economic return due to relating to repacking or relabeling of seed containers. low-quality seed.11 Post-control tests assess the qual- Repacking and relabeling information allows the buyer ity of certiĔed seed to verify that the seed’s varietal to retrace certiĔed seeds to their seed lots. Finally, a purity has been maintained. Among the 62 countries large majority of countries have seed laws that include surveyed, half of them require the performance of a penalty for sale of mislabeled seed to discourage the these tests whether in the Ĕeld or in laboratories. circulation of fake seeds. Among them, 10 countries have seed laws that require the national authority to test a minimum percentage of certiĔed seed annually (Burundi, Denmark, Ghana, Conclusion Greece, Morocco, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and Turkey). Introducing and implementing seed quality and assur- ance are challenging. This process requires a robust Labelling standards and sanctions for the fraudulent legislative framework, sufĔcient Ĕnancial resources, sale of mislabeled seed containers can also improve well-trained inspectors, capable laboratories and rele- seed quality at the retail level. A labelling system al- vant legal mandates to conduct post-control tests and lows farmers to know what they are buying and from market inspections. Countries that implement such SEED whom, making producers and distributors account- systems take a signiĔcant step towards a more com- able for the seed container content. Standardized petitive and commercially-oriented agricultural sector labels can improve farmer’s conĔdence in the seed in that has access to improved varieties and increased circulation. Among 62 countries studied, 5 do not have crop yields. Moreover, such countries reduce the risk a legal requirement to label seed containers for sale. of fake and low-quality seed entering the market, Most of them require labels to include the producer which can otherwise undercut crop yields and lead to 23 name and address, the crop name, the class of seed reduced food supply or even shortages. and the minimum germination percentage, which is necessary for the farmer to make an informed deci- sion on which variety to purchase. Other information such as the production year, the minimum purity percentage or the existence of a chemical treatment may also be required, such as in Ghana, Mexico or NOTES Fita, A., A. Rodríguez-Burruezo, M. Boscaiu, J. Prohens and O. Vicente. 2015. “Breeding and Domesticating 1 Bold et al. 2015. Crops Adapted to Drought and Salinity: A New Paradigm for Increasing Food Production.” 2 Keith Virgo 2016. Frontiers in Plant Science (6): 978, November. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00978. 3 Fita et al. 2015. Prabhala, Pr. et al. 2015. “Early Generation Seed Study.” 4 Fernandez-Cornejo. 2004. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the United States Agency for International Development 5 Only maize seed is considered for the hypothetical (USAID). USAID, Washington, DC. case study assumption used to standardize the variety registration indicator. Smale, M., D. Byerlee and T. Jayne. 2011. “Maize Revolutions in Sub-Saharan Africa.” World Bank 6 Prabhala et al. 2015. Policy Research Working Paper 5659. World Bank, Washington, DC. 7 Bishaw and van Gastel 2009. USAID (United States Agency for International 8 USAID 2016. Development). 2016. “Southern Africa Regional Seed Sector Assessment.” USAID, Washington, DC. 9 Smale et al. 2011. Virgo Keith. 2016. Correspondence, December 20. United 10 Abate, de Brauw, Minot and Bernard 2015. Kingdom. 11 Bold et al. 2015. REFERENCES Abate, Gashaw Tadesse, A. de Brauwm, N. Minot, and T. Bernard. 2015. The Impact of the Use of New Technologies on Farmers’ Wheat Yield in Ethiopia: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01462. International Food Policy and Research Institute, Washington, DC. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Bishaw, Zewdie and A. J. G. van Gastel. 2009. “Variety Release and Policy Options.” In Plant Breeding and Farmer Participation, edited by S. Ceccarelli, E. P. Guimar’es and E. Weltizien, 565Ђ88. Rome: FAO. Bold, T. et al. 2015. “Low Quality, Low Returns, Low Adoption: Evidence from the Market for Fertilizer and Hybrid Seed in Uganda.” Kennedy School Faculty Research Working Paper Series. Harvard University, Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. 2004. “The Seed Industry in U.S. Agriculture: An Exploration of Data and Information on Crop Seed Markets, Regulation, Industry Structure, and Research and Development.” United 24 States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 25 SEED 26 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Fertilizer In Western Kenya most farmers grow Fertilizer is credited with increasing global yields of maize, predominantly for subsistence. food crops by 40Ђ60ј,2 and no region has been able to boost agricultural growth without increasing its The average farmer plants just under one use.3 The Green Revolution, which can be attributed to acre of maize during the “long rains” from the use of fertilizers and improved seeds, has had a March to July, and again during the less dramatic impact on the food supply and incomes of productive “short rains” from August until many developing countries. During the past 40 years the world witnessed an extraordinary period of crop January. Using only one-half teaspoon of productivity and was able to overcome chronic food fertilizer per plant would increase yields deĔcits. However, the use of fertilizers and other chem- by about Ч26 per acre and cost only Ч20 ical inputs has increased soil erosion and acidiĔcation and groundwater pollution.4 To counter this unwelcome per acre. After accounting for the extra development, care is necessary to prevent soil damage, labor associated with fertilizer use, the environmental pollution or adulterated fertilizer use, fertilizer rate of return is around 70ј a while continuing to increase the much-needed use of year, a worthwhile investment.1 fertilizer in certain regions. Low productivity in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa is associated with the limited adoption of fertilizer.5 In West Africa, for example, where soil nitrogen and phos- phorus contents are low, fertilizer use between 2002 and 2009 was at an average of 5 kg/ha, signiĔcantly less than the recommended 50 kg/ha.6 While fertilizer use has dramatically increased in some countries such as Burkina Faso, from 0.4 kg/ha of arable land in 2002 to 14.3 in 2013, and in Ghana from 3.7 to 35.8 during the same time period, little change has occurred in other countries such as Niger, which has barely moved up from 0.6 to 0.7kg/ha.7 Furthermore, low fertilizer use not only restricts yields today, but also promises future productivity declines due to the ongoing depletion of FERTILIZER soil nutrients.8 27 Portrait of Abou amid millet stalks in southwest Niger. Photo: Stephan Gladieu / World Bank. Fertilizer use in developing countries is constrained cannot be imported, manufactured, distributed, sold by a number of factors, particularly high prices and or used unless it has been registered with a designat- unavailability that often reĕect unsatisfactory procure- ed authority. Registration of fertilizer products ensures ment practices, inefĔcient administrative procedures the safe entry of new products into the market as gov- and inadequate infrastructure. Limited understanding ernments are able to provide market oversight through among farmers of fertilizer use hampers more wide- a registration scheme and test the fertilizer’s impact spread fertilizer uptake.9 Some major challenges that on soil, human health and the environment. Moreover, impact farmers stem from the lack of new and inno- product registration gives farmers conĔdence in the vative fertilizer products in the market, cumbersome products that they are using. This indicator measures import procedures that can discourage businesses the following: from importing and adulterated or contaminated fertilizer products. Adulteration or contamination can Registration requirements. The requirement to regis- lead smallholders to doubt the value and importance ter fertilizer products, the types of entities required to of fertilizers if their potency and effects are compro- register products, types of fertilizer products required mised.10 In more serious cases, fertilizer adulteration to be registered and any time-limitations on fertilizer can reduce crop growth, affecting output in ways that registration. lead to food and income insecurity and may be envi- ronmentally harmful. Registration procedures. Procedures, time and cost to register a new fertilizer product. Policies and regulations that enable the sector to grow and producers to maximize their potential, for exam- Fertilizer catalogue. The existence of an ofĔcial fertiliz- ple, can often come into conĕict with concerns regard- er catalogue with a list of registered fertilizers, and its ing soil health and water contamination. Nevertheless, availability online. strong regulations that enable increased fertilizer ac- cess are essential to increase yields. As a result, as in Re-registration of fertilizer products. The requirement any other industry, the debate remains on appropriate to re-register a product previously registered in anoth- regulation levels. er country. Importing and Distributing Fertilizer: Fertilizer pro- What do the fertilizer indicators measure? duction is energy intensive, and the industry beneĔts from economies of scale as well as low costs of raw The fertilizer indicators measure laws and regulations materials. It is no surprise, therefore, that the world’s on the registration, import and quality control of fer- production capacity is concentrated in a few countries. tilizer products, all of which are crucial to increasing With just Ĕve countries11 producing half or more of the fertilizer access (table 3.1). The indicators cover the global supply of the most common types of fertilizer, following areas: simple and uncomplicated import procedures are es- ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 sential to fertilizer access in the majority of countries Registering Fertilizer: In most countries, fertilizer around the world. This indicator focuses on: Table 3.1 | What do the fertilizer indicators measure? REGISTERING • Legal requirements to register a new fertilizer product and information accessibility FERTILIZER • Time and cost to register a fertilizer product IMPORTING • Entities allowed to import fertilizer products AND • Requirement for a company to register as a fertilizer importer DISTRIBUTING FERTILIZER • Requirement of import permits to import fertilizer products 28 • Entities allowed to distribute fertilizer products QUALITY CONTROL OF • Labeling requirements for fertilizer bags FERTILIZER • Prohibition and penalties for the sale of mislabeled and open-bag fertilizer Source: EBA database. Entities that are allowed to import and distribute at the EU-level.13 OECD high-income and Europe and fertilizer: Entities allowed to import and distribute fer- Central Asia countries demonstrate strong regulations tilizer, including the private sector, nongovernmental applicable to importing and distributing fertilizerЁ organizations, and producers organizations. high-performing countries typically only require a one-time import registration at the company level and Import registration: The requirement to register as a do not require any per-shipment import permits. fertilizer importer and any time limits on the validity of the import registration. The countries, from lowest to highest, with the worst performance on the fertilizer indicators include Import permits: The need to obtain an import permit Liberia, Benin, Senegal, Ethiopia, Haiti, Sudan, and to import fertilizer products, any per-shipment or Burkina Faso, along with Niger. These countries have volume limitations applicable to the permit, any time rudimentary regulatory frameworks for registering limits on the validity of the permit and total time and fertilizer. Countries that performed poorly with respect cost to obtain the permit. to regulations for importing and distributing fertilizer are primarily located in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Quality Control of Fertilizer: The potential damage Middle East and North Africa regions, where the re- caused by adulterated fertilizer, typically not apparent newal period for importer registrations are shorter and until months after application, undermines trust in import permits are expensive and valid for a shorter fertilizer quality and discourages farmers from using period of time. Ethiopia received the lowest score of fertilizer at all.12 Quality control and inspection meth- all 62 countries on importing and distributing fertilizer ods, as well as punishments for breaking laws, vary because the private sector is prohibited from engaging signiĔcantly across the world. However, a minimum in any such activities. The lowest scores in the quali- set of standards to increase fertilizer quality control ty control indicator, also found predominantly in the can be applied in all countries and across regions and Sub-Saharan Africa region, are driven by the absence income groups. This indicator measures: of laws prohibiting mislabeled and open-bag fertilizer, the lack of appropriate penalties and the absence of Labelling and packaging requirements: The obligation labeling requirements in at least one of the ofĔcial to label fertilizer bags and speciĔc labeling require- languages of the country (table 3.2). ments, including language and label content. SigniĔcant variation was found across countries with Mislabeled and open-bag fertilizer: The prohibition respect to the efĔciency and complexity in registering of and establishment of penalties against the sale of fertilizer products. The time and cost to register a mislabeled and open-bag fertilizer. new fertilizer product are lowest on average in OECD high-income and upper-middle-income countries, and highest in low-income countries (Ĕgure 3.1). For exam- How do countries perform on the fertilizer ple, it takes on average 330.7 calendar days to register indicators? Bosnia and Herzegovina performs the best on the fer- tilizer indicators this year, due to strong regulations in all areas; it has one of the most inexpensive and least Table 3.2 | Where are fertilizer regulations strong and burdensome fertilizer registration procedures, and reg- least burdensome, and where are they not? istration also does not expire and is not subject to pe- riodic fees. In addition, all registered fertilizer products STRONGEST WEAKEST are included in a catalogue that is accessible online, AND MOST EFFICIENT AND LEAST EFFICIENT FERTILIZER creating further transparency for industry stakehold- ers. Bosnia and Herzegovina performs particularly well 1 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 58 HAITI on the importing and distributing fertilizer indicator; for example, importer registration is a one-time-only 2 POLAND 59 ETHIOPIA requirement and no per-shipment import permits ap- 3 DENMARK 60 SENEGAL ply. On quality control measures, fertilizer bags must comply with comprehensive labeling requirements in 29 4 SERBIA 61 BENIN at least one of the country’s ofĔcial languages, and mislabeled and open bags are prohibited and subject 5 SPAIN 62 LIBERIA to penalties, encouraging further fertilizer quality control. EU countries also performed well across all fertilizer indicators, with Denmark, Greece, Italy, Poland Source: EBA database. and Spain all receiving among the top 10 scores, prin- cipally due to strong rules adopted and harmonized a fertilizer product in the 62 countries sampled, rang- Y œò– œĔ Åœí æí³Ì«ªÓ⪠âí³Å³ĉ ââ «³æíâ‰í³ÓÌ ing from 1205 days in Romania to 11 days in Uruguay. This stark difference in time is driven principally by Registering new fertilizer products is a good practice lengthy Ĕeld testing. Across the 62 countries sampled, because it ensures that a country has control over the average cost to register a new fertilizer product is what fertilizers are used within its borders. Registration 171.7ј of income per capita, and it is most expensive schemes and the oversight they provide are helpful in in Malawi, totaling 3030.5ј of income per capita. It is giving farmers assurance that inadequate nutrients, cheapest in Spain where it is free. heavy metals or other residues found in fertilizer prod- ucts do not contaminate crops, animals and the envi- ronment. However, registration procedures should be What are the regulatory good practices? time and cost efĔcient to ensure that new products can reach the market in a timely manner. Although controls Box 3.1 highlights regulatory good practices and some are necessary to prevent soil damage, environmental countries that implement these practices. pollution or adulterated fertilizer use, certain lengthy %³«òâ ͳϟͱӁ=ÓþЄ³Ì–ÓË –ÓòÌíâ³ æ°‰ý í° ËÓæí³Ì ªĔ–³ Ìí‰Ìœ–ÓæíÅĄßâӖ ææ æíÓâ «³æí â‰Ì þª âí³Å³ĉ â product Average time Average cost (calendar days) (income per capita) 700 717% 800% 600 600% 500 588 400 400% 300 324 200 284 200% 100 15% 10% 184 115% 0 0% Low income Lower-income Upper-middle income High income Time Cost ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Source: EBA database %³«òâ ͳϟͲӁÓòÌíâ³ æþ³í°Ĕ ÅœЄí æí³Ì«ßâӖ œòâ æí ÌœíÓ°‰ý °³«° âí³Ë ‰Ìœ–ÓæííÓâ «³æí âª âí³Å³ĉ â products Average time Average cost (calendar days) (income per capita) 600 400% 536 500 300% 400 319% 300 200% 30 200 125 100% 100 16% 0 0% Field testing No Ĕeld testing Time Cost Source: EBA database. Box 3.1 | Example of regulatory good practices for fertilizer REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR FERTILITZER IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE REGISTERING FERTILIZER Fertilizer product registration is inexpensive, is not subject to DENMARK, SERBIA periodic fees and does not expire. An ofĔcial fertilizer catalogue listing all registered fertilizers is INDIA, SPAIN available online. Chemical fertilizer registration includes an application to BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, register and lab sample analysis, and excludes Ĕeld testing due POLAND to limited additional beneĔts. Re-registration of a fertilizer product is not required if it is already registered in another country that is part of a regional GREECE, ITALY agreement or approved in the regional catalogue. IMPORTING All entities, including the private sector, nongovernmental & DISTRIBUTING organizations and producer organizations, can import and CHILE, KENYA FERTILIZER distribute fertilizer. All entities are required to register as importers, and COLOMBIA, KOREA, REP. registration is inexpensive and does not expire. Import permits are not required or they are imposed only at the trader level, with no volume, shipment or time limits, and they RUSSIAN FEDERATION, SPAIN are inexpensive and simple to obtain. QUALITY CONTROL OF FERTILIZER Fertilizer must be packed in sealed bags and labeled in at least one of the country’s ofĔcial languages, including details such as MEXICO, SERBIA brand name, content, origin, manufacturing and expiration date, safety instruction, etc. Regulations prohibit the sale of mislabeled and open fertilizer bags, and impose penalties on those who fail to comply with MOROCCO, ROMANIA set standards. Source: EBA database. and expensive procedures such as Ĕeld testing are not this procedure, the average cost in income per capita deemed necessary as part of an effective registration is 319% (63% if outliers Malawi, Nepal, Tanzania and process. Three complimentary nutrients (nitrogen, Ukraine are excluded), compared to 16% in countries phosphorus, and potash) have been extensively tested that do not require Ĕeld testing. The average time to and used for over a century, with general agreement on register a new fertilizer product in countries requiring FERTILIZER the required balance that will maximize production.14 Ĕeld testing is 536.35 days, in contrast to 125.1 days in Practitioners report that a simple soil analysis can be countries where this requirement does not exist. used to determine if the product is suitable for that agro-ecological zone, and there is general consensus Streamlined import permit requirements on which fertilizer to use for particular crops. As a re- sult, Ĕeld tests for these ingredients only drive up the Among the 62 countries studied, 22 countries do not time and cost of fertilizer registration, with little added impose any import permit requirements, nine of which 31 value (Ĕgure 3.2). are in Europe and Central Asia, and six are OECD high-income countries.15 Several countries in Sub- Of the 48 countries that actually practice fertilizer Saharan Africa (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire and Kenya) product registration, 21 require Ĕeld testing, the major- and in Latin America and the Caribbean (Haiti and ity of which are in Sub-Saharan Africa (7), South Asia (4), Peru) do not require an import permit and can serve and Europe and Central Asia (6). In countries requiring as good examples for other countries. Fertilizer in bags, preparing for rice growing in rice Ĕeld, Bangkok, Thailand. Photo: Shutterstock. In 20 of the 39 countries that require import permits, per-shipment import permit that expires within a those permits are valid for less than 12 months. If an month. Bangladesh and Nigeria impose a different import permit is required, the least burdensome option kind of restriction by requiring per-shipment import are blank permits with no volume, shipment or time permits with a particular volume quota that is valid limits that are affordable and simple to obtain. Blank for 12 months. Not all 23 countries impose such limited permits with time validities of 12 months or more grant time framesЁSenegal requires a blank permit that is importers ĕexibility in terms of the departure and arriv- valid for 48 months and Benin’s blank permit is valid ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 al time of shipments, and allow companies’ decisions for 24 months. with respect to the volumes and prices to be based on commercial interests. Twelve countries impose blank Closing the gap between fertilizer registration permits with no volume restrictions, the majority of law and practice which are in Sub-Saharan Africa (5) and the Middle East and North Africa (3). The majority of these countries Of the 62 countries studied, 48 legally require fertilizer have a permit validity of more than 12 months. products to be registered before they can be imported and sold in the country. Some countries, such as those Per-shipment import permits with short time validities in the EU, perform well on the fertilizer registration pose several problems. First of all, they limit the im- indicator because they have strong legal frameworks porter’s negotiating power, as the import permit is at- in place and there is a low-cost process to register tached to a speciĔc shipment (and therefore volume) fertilizer products that is streamlined and efĔcient. that cannot be changed once the permit is issued. However, many other countries lag behind despite a Furthermore, short time validities force companies to strong legal framework, either because businesses do negotiate purchases within very speciĔc time periods not register fertilizer products in practice or because 32 and, in some instances, they also present logistical the registration process is so onerous as to discourage complications, such as the permit expiring before the the registration of new fertilizer products altogether.16 fertilizer is shipped from one place to another. Six countries either have no observable practice in Twenty-three countries still impose per-shipment terms of the registration of fertilizer products or only import permits, and four countries impose permits by allow the public sector to register fertilizer products. volume. Burundi and Sudan require a per-shipment In Burundi, Mozambique and Tajikistan, although the import permit with a two-month validity, whereas private sector is permitted to register new fertilizer Bolivia, Nicaragua, Tanzania and Vietnam require a products, no products were registered last year. In %³«òâ  ͳϟͳ Ӂ % þ –ÓòÌíâ³ æ °‰ý  •Óí° æíâÓÌ« ª âí³Å³ĉ â â «³æíâ‰í³ÓÌ â «òʼní³ÓÌæ ‰Ìœ ‰Ì  ªĔ–³ Ìí â «³æíâ‰í³ÓÌ process Score difference Weaker Stronger Equally strong fertilizer fertilizer fertilizer registration registration registration 60 regulations but regulations and regulations but  ªĔ–³ ÌíßâӖ ææ  ªĔ–³ ÌíßâӖ ææ ³Ì ªĔ–³ Ìí 40 process 20 0 -20 -40 -60 Lao PDR Sri Lanka Kazakhstan Uruguay Cambodia Zimbabwe Jordan Myanmar Zambia Rwanda Nigeria Philippines Kyrgyz Republic Guatemala Nicaragua Mali Turkey Egypt, Arab Rep. Thailand Ghana Serbia Vietnam Bosnia and Herzegovina Spain Colombia Russian Federation Korea, Rep. Denmark Uganda Georgia Poland Greece Italy Bolivia Ethiopia India Bangladesh Romania Kenya Mexico Tanzania Tajikistan Ukraine Nepal Burundi Malawi Mozambique Source: EBA database. Bolivia, Ethiopia and Kenya, the law permits only the Conclusion public sector to register new fertilizer products. There are many opportunities for countries to imple- Several other countries have strong legal frameworks ment laws and regulations that improve access to fer- in place for registration but use complicated registra- tilizer, promote fertilizer use, and increase agricultural tion processes, including the total time (in calendar productivity. Regulatory best practices may be difĔcult days) and cost (as a percentage of income per cap- to achieve in certain regions in the short term due to a ita) to register a new fertilizer product (Ĕgure 3.3). mix of factors, including the absence of laws and lack For example, although Malawi’s regulatory framework of institutional capacity for implementation. However, performs above average as compared with other coun- certain practices can facilitate regulatory and market tries, the practical experience for private sector actors efĔciency and thus increase fertilizer access. While registering fertilizer products in the country results in fertilizer registration ensures the safe entry of fertil- it receiving one of the lowest ratings on this compo- izer products into the market, efforts should be made nent. Malawi follows regulatory good practices such to make the process as efĔcient as possible, while as requiring fertilizer product registration and having maintaining quality control. Ensuring that fertilizer no time limitation to the fertilizer product registration. registration is not held up by procedures such as Ĕeld FERTILIZER However, Malawi has the fourth lengthiest and the testing, which has been deemed unnecessary in most most expensive fertilizer registration process out of all cases, can go a long way in cutting time and cost and 62 countries, taking 913 days and 3030.48% of income encouraging the entry of new fertilizer products into per capita to register. Similarly, while Nepal’s registra- a market. Furthermore, streamlining import permits tion laws also perform above average, their practical can facilitate timely fertilizer entry into a country and application is relatively lengthy and costly; it takes help avoid time-consuming paperwork and logistical 1,125 days, and 645.2% of income per capita to register complications. 33 a new fertilizer product in Nepal. NOTES REFERENCES 1 Duĕo et al. 2011. African Union. 2006. “Abuja Declaration on Fertilizer for an African Green Revolution.” African Union, Abuja, 2 Hoyum 2012. Nigeria. 3 African Union 2006. Beaman, Lori et al. 2013. “ProĔtability of Fertilizer: Experimental Evidence from Female Rice Farmers 4 Savci 2012. in Mali,” American Economic Review, 103 (3): 381-86. 5 Gregory and Bumb 2006. Duĕo, Esther et al. 2011. “Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence 6 Keyser et al. 2015. from Kenya.” American Economic Review 101 (6): 2350 Ђ390. 7 World Development Indicators: Agricultural Inputs, Fertilizer Consumption (kilograms per hectare of Duĕo, Esther et al. 2008. “How High are Rates of Return arable land), (accessed November 7, 2016), http:// to Fertilizer? Evidence from Field Experiments in data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS. Kenya.” American Economics Review 98 (2): 482-88. 8 Beaman et al. 2013. Gregory, D. I. and B. L. Bumb. 2006. “Factors Affecting Supply of Sub-Saharan Fertilizer in Africa.” 9 Duĕo et al 2008. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 24. World Bank, Washington, DC. 10 Pullabhotla and Ganesh-Kumar 2012. Hoyum, Raymond. 2012. “Nepal Fertilizer and Nutrient 11 Canada, China, India, the Russian Federation and Assessment.” Summary report. United States the United States are the largest fertilizer produc- Agency for International Development, Washington, ers in the world. DC. 12 Pullabhotla and Ganesh-Kumar 2012. IFDC (International Fertilizer Development Center). 2010. “Rapid Appraisal of Fertilizer Quality in 13 Council Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of 13 October Cambodia.” IFDC, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, USA. 2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to fertilisers [2003] OJ L 304/1. Keyser, J. C. et al. 2015. “Towards an Integrated Market for Seeds and Fertilizers in West Africa.” Working 14 World Bank 2016. Paper 93630. World Bank, Washington, DC. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 15 Import permit data are not presented for Ethiopia Pullabhotla, H. and A. Ganesh-Kumar. 2012. “Review of because only the public sector is allowed to import input and output policies for cereals production and distribute fertilizer products. in Bangladesh.” IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) Discussion Paper 01199. IFPRI, 16 Ibid. Washington, DC. Savci, S. 2012. “An Agricultural Pollutant: Chemical Fertilizer.” International Journal of Environmental Science and Development 3 (1): 77Ђ80. World Bank. 2016. Breaking Down Barriers: Unlocking Africa’s Potential Through Vigorous Competition Policy. Washington, DC: World Bank. 34 35 FERTILIZER 36 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Machinery Each year during plowing season, Leela Farm machines are indispensable to modern agricul- Rajput used to hire 15 laborers to work ture. Some of the most signiĔcant increases in farming productivity have been achieved as a direct result of from dawn until dusk every week pre- agricultural machines.2 Agricultural mechanization of- paring his 10-hectare plot in the north- fers the ability to increase agricultural productivity by western Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. bringing more land under cultivation and by improving This year, he will use a tractor instead. the timeliness of operations, thereby enabling markets for rural economic growth and improving rural liveli- With the machine, he expects to Ĕnish hoods.3 By enhancing the efĔcient utilization of inputs the job in a single day. Indian agricul- such as seeds, fertilizers, plant protection chemicals ture is belatedly engaged in a mechan- and irrigation water, and expanding cultivated areas, agricultural mechanization can greatly enhance farm- ical revolution, boosting productivity in ing proĔtability and reduce human drudgery. This a sector that has long relied on cheap change can make farming a more viable and attractive labor to tend crops in the world’s sec- commercial enterprise, particularly for youth, and pro- ond most populous country. Job oppor- mote rural employment. Furthermore, the beneĔts of agricultural machinery become particularly important tunities in cities have drained the pool as the demand for food, Ĕber and fuel continues to of workers in villages. “I just can’t Ĕnd rise against a backdrop of expanding urbanization and enough people to do the hard work in increased constraints on land and water resources.4 the Ĕelds anymore,” says Mr. Rajput. He Despite its beneĔts, mechanization levels still vary adds that the tractor helps bring more widely across the globe. In the countries studied for women into the workforce by making EBA 2017, high mechanization levels are observed in the work less physically demanding.1 European countries, with penetration rates of 1,300 tractors per 100 square kilometers of arable land, as in the case of Poland.5 By contrast, low mechanization levels persist in many developing countries, particu- larly in Sub-Saharan Africa, with penetration rates as low as 2.24 tractors per 100 square kilometers of arable land, as in the case of Mali. In many regions, mechani- zation’s low contribution to agricultural development MACHINERY is partly due to the fragmented policy approaches tak- en by governments on mechanization issues.6 Despite its high cost and high proĔle, agricultural machinery is an input like any other and the policies, laws and regulations impacting the industry affect the way in which mechanization inputs are made available on the market, including their accessibility, commercial 37 viability and safety. For example, most countries to- day leave the importation and sale of tractors to the private sector. However, the public sector continues to be involved in matters related to licensing, inspection and testing, and other areas of regulation regarded as being in the public interest. Men stacking hay onto a tractor, Macedonia. Photo: World Bank. What do the machinery indicators measure? the enforcement of road, safety and tax regulations. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of the tractor Agricultural tractors are used as a proxy to measure ĕeet in many countries is not safe for operation due laws and regulations that may restrict tractor imports to poor maintenance and a lack of repairs.7 Therefore, and operations, as well as the quality requirements most countries require that tractors be inspected at applicable to imported tractors (table 4.1). Agricultural regular intervals to identify faults and conduct re- tractors were chosen for their relevance and com- pairs, which can, in turn, improve tractor performance. parability, given that tractors are imported and used Agricultural tractors can have a life span of 5 to 30 around the globe, unlike other forms of machinery that years, but they can be kept operational only through are region or crop speciĔc. The machinery indicators regular servicing.8 Therefore, it is essential that farm- are organized as follows: ers have access to tractor service and maintenance, and spare parts. A regulatory framework that promotes Tractor imports: This indicator measures aspects re- efĔciency and reduces transaction costs for tractor lated to importing agricultural tractors, including the registration and roadworthiness checks, while at the ability of private sector companies to import and sell same time ensuring control and safety, can enhance tractors, and the procedures for registering as a trac- the uptake of machinery and protect tractor users. tor importer and for obtaining an import permit. Few developing countries manufacture agricultural equip- Tractor testing and standards: This indicator mea- ment and machinery domestically. As a result, demand sures the legal and practical dimensions of tractor must be met through imports, typically handled by the testing, the prevailing tractor type approval9 process private sector though sometimes managed through in a country (including the associated procedures, government imports. Even where the private sector is time and costs) as well as tractor performance and involved, however, tractor importation procedures can operator safety standards. Standardization and tractor be cumbersome and time consuming for businesses, testing systems alone cannot boost mechanization due to unnecessary or inefĔcient bureaucracy. This growth. However, appropriate testing and streamlined inefĔciency negatively impacts the process and in- type approval procedures for agricultural tractorsЁun- creases transaction costs and delivery times. An efĔ- dertaken in conformity with established national or cient and inexpensive process can greatly ease supply international standardsЁcan increase the safety and constraints for tractor importers and improve tractor technical reliability of tractors, reduce the environ- distribution in a country. mental and social cost inĕicted by substandard trac- tors, and increase farmers’ access to safe, reliable and Tractor operations: This indicator measures the legal efĔcient machinery.10 While the absence of testing and and practical dimensions of registering agricultural standards may help encourage growth in agricultural tractors and completing inspections of in-use tractors, mechanization in the short-term, it risks problems as well as the requirement that tractor dealers provide emerging in the future.11 Therefore, a thorough testing after-market tractor service and parts. Registering and evaluation of a tractor’s performance, its quality, ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 agricultural tractors not only establishes ownership durability and safety, should be required. rights over the purchased tractor but it also facilitates Table 4.1 | What do the machinery indicators measure? TRACTOR • The private sector’s ability to import and sell tractors IMPORTS • Importer registration and renewal requirements, including registration validity • Import permit requirements, including permit type, cost and validity • Tractor registration requirements TRACTOR • Roadworthiness inspection of in-use tractors, including inspection cost OPERATIONS 38 • Provision of after-market service and parts • Time and cost of tractor registration • National and international standards applied in the country TRACTOR TESTING AND • Tractor type approval requirements, including testing, validity and international recognition STANDARDS • Requirement of protective structures and seatbelts • Time and cost of type approval Source: EBA database. Figure 4.1 | The number of tractors per 100 square kilometers of arable land is highest in countries that score well in EBA machinery legal indicators Tractors per 100 sq km of arable land 700 629 600 500 475 400 300 217 200 100 104 45 0 Lower Higher Countries sorted by machinery score, quintiles Sources: FAOSTAT, EBA database. Note: The correlation is 0.52 between the machinery score and the number of tractors per 100 square kilometers of arable land from the FAOSTAT dataset. The correlation is signiĔcant at a 5% level after controlling for income per capita. How do countries perform on the The quality of regulations and practices in the tractor machinery indicators? operations and the tractor testing and standards indi- cators vary greatly across countries. The three coun- The countries that score high on the machinery indi- tries within the Middle East and North Africa region cators tend to have higher tractor penetration rates (Egypt, Jordan and Morocco) and most OECD high-in- (Ĕgure 4.1). Certainly, there are several factorsЁsuch come countries covered have robust regulations on as speciĔc mechanization policies and market reali- tractor operation that require tractors to be registered tiesЁthat affect the agricultural machinery sector and and inspected for roadworthiness. Most of these coun- contribute to the adoption of tractors for agricultural tries also make the provision of after-market parts production. However, the enabling regulatory environ- and services a statutory requirement, ensuring road ment for agricultural machinery and the efĔciency with safety and security to customers. OECD high-income which governments are implementing laws and regu- countries and countries in the Europe and Central Asia lations are important precursors for a well-functioning region score highest on tractor testing and standards, tractor market. Countries with the highest score on the machinery top- Table 4.2 | Where are machinery regulations ic, such as Poland, Romania, Serbia and Turkey, share æíâÓÌ« æí‰ÌœËÓæí ªĔ–³ ÌíϠ many common features (table 4.2). These countries fa- cilitate streamlined import procedures, making it easy STRONGEST WEAKEST MACHINERY for tractor importers to introduce their products to the AND MOST EFFICIENT AND LEAST EFFICIENT market, while at the same time promoting adequate control and inspections to ensure that tractors meet 1 POLAND 58 PERU quality, durability and safety standards. The coun- tries with the lowest scores, such as Liberia, Mali and 2 SERBIA 59 LAO PDR Myanmar, each demonstrate room to adopt many of the identiĔed good practices. For example, importing 3 ROMANIA 60 LIBERIA 39 tractors is cumbersome in these countries and stan- dards with regards to quality, performance and safety 4 TURKEY 61 MALI are not established or followed. Regulations on tractor registration, type approval, roadworthiness inspection 5 GREECE 62 MYANMAR and tractor maintenance provision are weak or absent in these countries. Source: EBA database. as most of them require tractors to be tested and type permits. Among the 17 countries where import permits approved, while at the same time mutually recognizing are required, only Bangladesh, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivo- the certiĔcations issued by other countries. By con- ire, Ethiopia and the Philippines allow permits with no trast, countries in the Latin America and Caribbean restrictions in terms of quantity or number of ship- region score low in this indicator because regulations ments, and the permits have a validity of 12 months. on tractor testing, as well as tractor performance and By comparison, Lao PDR and Myanmar require that safety standards, are not established. importers apply for a permit for each tractor shipment and the permit validity is only three months, making Although the scores on tractor imports do not vary as it comparatively burdensome for tractor importers to much across countries as for tractor operation and introduce their products to the market. tractor testing and standards, differences do exist. The 8 OECD high-income countries12 and the 11 countries in The data also shows that many countriesЁalmost all Europe and Central Asia13 region have implemented all of them low-income or lower-middle-income coun- the good practices identiĔed under the tractor imports triesЁrequire private companies to register as tractor indicator. For example, these countries do not require importers in addition to the general business license. importers to register in addition to the general busi- Countries may have introduced this requirement to ness license, and import permits are not required in monitor trade ĕows and the quality of imported goods, these regions. By comparison, countries in Middle East but the process should be efĔcient and affordable to and North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa regions have limit its impact on trade ĕows. In half of the countries lower tractor imports indicator scores. where this procedure is required, the registration is The data show that countries that score higher on indeĔnite and does not have to be repeated. But in 14 tractor imports and operations also tend to have stron- countries, the registration has to be renewed after a ger laws on tractor testing and standards. Scores also number of years or after half a year, as in the case of indicate that regulatory efĔciency on the one handЁas Colombia. While the registration renewal is automatic deĔned by the time and cost involved in complying with in four countries, tractor importers in six Sub-Saharan target regulationsЁand tractor quality control regula- countries, and in Bangladesh, Colombia, Myanmar and tions on the other, tend to be complements rather than Sri Lanka have to undergo the entire process of regis- substitutes. Countries with a strong legal framework al- tration renewal each time. so often have less burdensome procedures in terms of time and cost associated with tractor registration and tractor type approval (Ĕgure 4.2). What are the regulatory good practices? Figure 4.2 | Countries with strong regulatory ªâ‰Ë þÓâÂæ³ËßÅ Ë Ìíí° ³âʼnþæËÓâ  ªĔ–³ ÌíÅĄ Box 4.1 highlights regulatory good practices and some ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 countries that implement these practices. C‰–°³Ì âĄâ «òʼníÓ⥠ªĔ–³ Ì–Ą Safeguard availability and timely delivery of agricultural tractors through streamlined 100 import procedures 80 Complex import formalities impede the ĕow of interna- tional trade and increase the time and cost to import.14 60 Nevertheless, many countries continue to require per- mits as a prior condition for the importation of trac- 40 tors. Where permits do exist, the application process should be as efĔcient and cost-effective as possible, 20 the validity should be unlimited and there should be no restrictions in terms of quantity of tractors or num- 0 ber of shipments. 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 Among the 62 countries studied, 17 require importers Machinery - strength of regulations to obtain permits to import tractors. Sometimes, im- port permits are intended to provide assurance on the shipment quality15 or to limit the quantity of imports to Source: EBA database. protect local manufacturing. None of the OECD high-in- Note: The correlation between the machinery legal and efĔciency scores come and Europe and Central Asian countriesЁmany is 0.62. The correlation is signiĔcant at the 1% level after controlling for income per capita. of them manufacturers of tractorsЁrequire import Box 4.1 | What are the regulatory good practices for machinery? REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR MACHINERY IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE TRACTOR IMPORTS Businesses are not required to register as importers, beyond general business registration requirements. In countries where DENMARK, KOREA, REP., NIGERIA importer registration is required, the registration validity is indeĔnite or registration renewal is automatic. Importers do not have to apply for an import permit each time they want to import. In countries where the import permit is required, it is a time-efĔcient, low-cost process. The permit is a COLOMBIA, ITALY, TANZANIA blanket document (without any restrictions in terms of volume or number of shipments) with unlimited validity. TRACTOR OPERATIONS Tractor registration is required for on-the-road-use only, and BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, the process is affordable and efĔcient MALAWI, POLAND Regular inspections of in-use tractors are mandatory, affordable and undertaken in reasonable intervals (frequency of every two TURKEY, ZIMBABWE years). Tractor dealers must provide after-market service and parts. JORDAN, MALAYSIA, ROMANIA TRACTOR TESTING AND STANDARDS Countries have established national tractor performance and operator safety standards or follow established international SERBIA, UKRAINE standards. Countries require tractors to be type approved before entering their market to ensure that the tractor conforms to the legal standards (such as safety, material, dimensional and performance standards) where it is being sold. Tractor type INDIA, MOROCCO approvals and test reports issued by an authority in another country are recognized. If tractor tests are undertaken in a local testing center, the process is efĔcient and affordable. The tractor type approval is not time limited, provided that the NIGERIA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION speciĔcations of the tractor remain unchanged. Source: EBA database. MACHINERY Facilitate tractor durability by requiring tractor roadworthiness testing mandatory. The data roadworthiness inspections and tractor after- show that none of the countries in the Latin America market service and parts and Caribbean region require inspections, with the exception of Chile and Haiti, while all four countries do Most countries require vehicles to be maintained in South Asia (Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka). in safe, roadworthy condition for them to be used European Union countries still have different require- on their roads. Given that agricultural tractors are ments with regards to roadworthiness inspections of 41 increasingly used to replace trucks in local transport tractors. As of May 2018, however, the European Union activities and for commercial road haulage purposes, will be harmonizing the minimum requirements for tractors in many countries are subject to roadworthi- mandatory periodic roadworthiness tests for tractors ness inspections at regular intervals. The tests are with a maximum design speed exceeding 40km/h used conducted at an authorized test center and typically for haulage on public roads. include testing of the brake and steering systems, vision features, noise pollution and other features. Among those countries that require roadworthiness Of the 62 countries studied, about half make regular inspections, the period between required tests varies Tractor. Aurangabad, India. Photo: Simone D. McCourtie / World Bank. greatly. For example, in Burkina Faso, Malaysia and and construction alone are not sufĔcient to judge and Uganda, the test is required every half-year. By contrast, select a machine designed for a certain operation.18 in India the test is done only every Ĕve years. Experts As such, a thorough testing and evaluation should be suggest, however, that inspections should occur every required of the tractor performance, quality, durability two years.16 Only Ĕve countriesЁPoland, Romania, and safety. Spain, Turkey and ZimbabweЁtake this approach. The cost of inspections also varies across countries, rang- Tractor tests are typically undertaken in conformity ing from 0.2% income per capita in OECD high-income with established national or international standards.19 countries, to 6.5% income per capita in Sub-Saharan Tractor performance and tractor operator safety stan- ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 African countries. dards ensure that only high-quality machines enter a country’s supply chain and they provide unbiased Countries that mandate roadworthiness inspections information to manufacturers and consumers of trac- should logically also ensure that farmers have access tors. Among the 62 countries studied, it is mostly coun- to appropriate repair services and spare parts. All too tries in the Europe and Central Asia region and OECD often, tractor operators do not have any support if a high-income countries that have established national machine breakdown occurs, and tractor “graveyards” performance and safety standards or that enforce in- can still be found in many countries.17 Tractor dealers ternational tractor standards. are not legally required to provide tractor maintenance and repair in the majority of countries studied for EBA Tractor type approval is mandatory in about half the 2017, with the exception of OECD high-income coun- sample countries. All OECD high-income countries tries or those located in the Middle East and North (with the exception of Chile) and European and Central Africa region. Asian countries (with the exception of Georgia) have this requirement, along with India, Morocco, the Guarantee high-quality tractors by requiring Philippines, Vietnam and 10 countries in Sub-Saharan 42 type approval and testing of tractors in Africa. It should be noted that while the type approval conformity with established standards is legally mandated in these countries, there appears to have been no such practice in Armenia, Kyrgyz Agricultural tractors are imported from various coun- Republic and Tajikistan. tries. Although tractors are designed to satisfy a range of conditions, a machine produced in one country may The procedures involved in tractor type approval vary or may not suit another country because of the pre- across countries, and the associated time and cost vailing edaphoclimatic conditions. The tractor design are consistently higher in countries where multiple Figure 4.3 |Time and costs for tractor type approval vary across regions Average time Average cost (calendar days) (income per capita) 300 700% 270 600% 250 604% 500% 200 400% 152 150 272% 300% 100 84 71 200% 65% 50 166% 31 100% 150% 20 7% 0 0% South Asia OECD Sub-Saharan Europe Middle East East Asia high-income Africa & Central Asia & North Africa & Pacific Time Cost Region Source: EBA database. Note: Latin America and Caribbean countries are excluded because tractor type approval is not mandatory in the countries studied in this region. procedures are required (Ĕgure 4.3). While it is im- Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Morocco, Uganda portant that governments implement regulations in a and ZimbabweЁrecognize type approval certiĔcations time- and cost-efĔcient manner, a minimum number issued in other countries. In the European Union, a of steps should be involved to thoroughly test and tractor that is tested by a designated testing facility evaluate a tractor and its performance. Tests should and type approved by an authority in a member coun- include laboratory testing and the issuance and pub- try is automatically recognized and accepted in other lication of a test report. Many countries also test the member countries without the need for further testing. tractor in the Ĕeld, a procedure that is practiced in The approval has unlimited validity and renewed test- all OECD high-income countries (with the exception ing is not required, provided that the speciĔcations of of Chile, where type approval is not required), as well the tractors are the same. as in Cameroon, India, Kazakhstan, Malawi, Nigeria, the Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, As outlined above, multiple testing or certiĔcation of Sudan, Turkey and Ukraine. agricultural tractors represents a burdensome endeav- or for companies in many countries. In Kazakhstan, Testing of agricultural tractors ensures the quality of Kyrgyz Republic, the Philippines, Russian Federation tractors and their suitability for country conditions. and Ukraine, the tractor type approval process has to be Nonetheless, some of the main challenges traders repeated after Ĕve years and in India after three years. face are costly and lengthy testing or certiĔcation of MACHINERY tractors, often duplicated across countries. Valuable business time and money could be saved if a tractor Conclusion could be tested once and the results accepted in oth- er markets for the tractor to be type approved.20 The An agricultural machinery procedural framework that mutual recognition of conformity assessment results is balances control and efĔciency requirements can help strongly encouraged by the World Trade Organization facilitate and ease the availability of tractors for agri- (WTO) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and is cultural production. Countries such as Poland, Serbia 43 already operational in a number of existing networks and Romania demonstrate that regulatory efĔciency in Europe and Asia and PaciĔc with regards to machin- on the one handЁas deĔned by the time and cost ery testing.21 Such a model could be applied in Africa. involved in complying with target regulationsЁand tractor quality control regulations on the other, tend to The 22 countries in which tractor type approval is be complementary and are important precursors for a requiredЁmost of them OECD high-income countries well-functioning tractor market. and countries in Europe and Central Asia, but also in NOTES 21 (1) The OECD Tractor Codes are a popular example of a standardization, testing and certiĔcation sys- 1 Mukherji 2013. tem under the umbrella of an intergovernmental organization; (2) the European Network for Testing 2 Reid 2011. of Agricultural Machines (ENTAM) is an agreement between different countries aimed at implement- 3 Sims and Kienzle 2006. ing standardized performance, safety and environ- mental tests of agricultural machinery and tools; 4 CEMA-European Agricultural Machinery 2014. and, (3) the Asian and PaciĔc Network for Testing of Agricultural Machinery (ANTAM), launched in 2013, 5 Food and Agriculture Data (FAOSTAT). FAO, Rome, aims at promoting “harmonization of testing codes http://faostat.fao.org/. and standards of agricultural machinery applied in the region that address quality, performance, occu- 6 FAO and UNIDO 2008. pational safety and environmental sustainability of agricultural machinery” (UN-CSAM 2016). 7 Houmy et al. 2013. 8 Clarke 2000. REFERENCES 9 Type approval (or “homologation”) is the ofĔcial Animaw, A. T., J. A. Mutegi Nkanya, J. M. Nyakiba and T. recognition given by a national authority or agen- H. Woldemariam. 2016. “Agricultural Mechanization cy that certiĔes that the tractor conforms to the and South-South Knowledge Exchange: What Can prevailing regulatory, technical and safety require- Ethiopian and Kenyan Policymakers Learn from ments in the country. Before the tractor can be Bangladesh’s Experience?” International Food sold on the market and before reaching the farmer, Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. the manufacturer (or an agency on behalf of the manufacturer) must complete its type approval Clarke, L. J. 2000. “Agricultural Mechanization Strategy and be certiĔed by third-party veriĔcation that its Formulation, Concepts and Methodology. Roles design, construction and performance respect the of the Private Sector and the Government.” FAO, country’s regulations and standards. Rome. 10 UNESCAP/CSAM 2015. Comité Européen des groupements de constructeurs du machinisme agricole (CEMA). 2014. “Advancing 11 Animaw et al. 2016. Agricultural Mechanization in Africa.” CEMA, Brussels. http://cema-agri.org/publication/ 12 The eight OECD high-income countries included in advancing-agricultural-mechanization-africa. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 this year’s report are Chile, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Korea, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Council of the European Union. 2014. “Council Adopts the Roadworthiness Package.” Council of the 13 The 11 countries in the Europe and Central Asia European Union, Brussels. http://www.consilium. region included in this year’s report are as fol- europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ lows: Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, trans/141818.pdf. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkey and Ukraine. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development 14 WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures Organization). 2008. “Agricultural Mechanization 1995. in Africa: Time for Action. Planning Investment for Enhanced Agricultural Productivity.” Report of an 15 UNCTAD 2012. Expert Group Meeting. FAO and UNIDO, Vienna. 16 Council of the European Union 2014. Houmy, K., L. J. Clarke, J. E. Ashburner and J. Kienzle. 44 2013. “Agricultural Mechanization in Sub-Saharan 17 Houmy et al. 2013. Africa. Guidelines for Preparing a Strategy.” FAO, Rome. 18 Tilakaratna 2005. 19 OECD 2012. 20 WTO 2016. Mukherji, B. 2013. “India’s Farmers Start to Mechanize Amid a Labor Shortage.” The Wall Street Journal, New Delhi, India. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1 0001424052702304441404579121313326574626. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2012. “OECD Standard Code for the OfĔcial Testing of Agricultural and Forestry Tractor Performance.” OECD, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/ tad/code/Code%202%20-%20Final.pdf. Reid, J. F. 2011. “The Impact of Mechanization on Agriculture.” The Bridge Vol. 44. https://www.nae. edu/Publications/Bridge/52548/52645.aspx. Sims, B. G. and J. Kienzle. 2006. “Farm Power and Mechanization for Small Farms in Sub-Saharan Africa; Agricultural and Food Engineering Technical Report.” FAO, Rome. Tilakaratna, H. M. 2005. “Country Report Sri Lanka. For the 1st Session of the Technical Committee.” Asian PaciĔc Centre for Agricultural Engineering and Machinery, New Delhi. UN (United Nations)-CSAM (Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization), Asian and PaciĔc Network for Testing of Agricultural Machinery (ANTAM). 2016. “About Us.” CSAM, Beijing. http:// www.antam-network.net/2016/about-us/. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2012. “UNCTAD Coding System or Trade Control Measures.” UNCTAD, Geneva. http://unctad.org/Sections/ditc_tab/docs/ ditc_tab_Coding2012_en.pdf. UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the PaciĔc)/ CSAM (Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization). 2015. “ANTAM Standard Codes for Testing of Power Tillers.” CSAM, Beijing. WTO (World Trade Organization). 2016. “Technical Information on Technical Barriers to Trade.” WTO, MACHINERY Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.wto.org/en- glish/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_info_e.htm. 45 46 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Finance GADCO, a major rice processor in West Finance is a key element of agricultural development. Africa, buys rice from thousands of small- Farmers require working capital, seasonal loans, and medium- to long-term credit to Ĕnance production, holder farmers. In the past, farmers had harvest, storage, transport and marketing. In addition to travel, sometimes long distances, to to loans, farmers need access to payment services to the GADCO ofĔces to receive payment in expand operations. In this regard, reduction of rural cash. However, in 2013, GADCO partnered poverty and increases of total per capita output can be achieved through enhancements in rural credit.2 with Tigo, a leading mobile operator in However, rural and agricultural Ĕnance are among the the region, to compensate farmers via most challenging Ĕelds of Ĕnancing. Agricultural pro- mobile payments. Today farmers beneĔt duction activities are seasonal, weather-dependent and spatially dispersed, making agricultural loans from the convenience of accessing their riskier and costlier than loans for business activities money via agents who are available 24 operated in urban locations. Formal Ĕnancial insti- hours a day, rather than waiting in line at tutions, especially commercial banks, have limited a bank, and from the simplicity of buying reach in rural areas.3 Furthermore, farmers often have difĔculty obtaining loans due to inadequate collater- mobile airtime directly with their Tigo- al. In developing countries, 78% of the capital stock Cash virtual wallet, rather than having to of business is in the form of movable assets such as buy and load airtime from a scratch card. machinery, equipment or receivables, yet most Ĕnan- Furthermore, because GADCO distributes cial institutions do not consider these assets as good sources of collateral.4 monthly account statements, the pro- gram improves farmers’ ability to moni- Innovation in the design and provision of Ĕnancial tor their accounts.1 services improves access to Ĕnance. Regulations need to be adapted to allow Ĕnancial institutions, mobile operators and retailers to explore new services and partnership models, while protecting the integrity of transactions and the safety of customers’ deposits.5 Therefore, a strong legal framework is necessary to increase access to Ĕnancial services. Laws and regu- lations should also provide farmers with the ability to FINANCE use movable collateral to obtain a loan, while protect- ing lenders. 47 Farmers in Kaolack, Senegal. Photo: Daniella Van Leggelo-Padilla / World Bank. t°‰íœÓí° Ĕ̖̉ ³Ìœ³–‰íÓâæË ‰æòâ Ϡ  ß â‰í³ÓÌ ‰Ìœ «Óý ẩ̖  Óª Ĕ̖̉³‰Å –ÓÓß â‰í³ý æϡ J This sub-indicator focuses on the regulatory frame- EBA Ĕnance indicators measure laws and regulations work for Ĕnancial cooperatives including the minimum that affect access to Ĕnancial services for farmers and requirements for their establishment, prudential agribusinesses (table 5.1). ratios, the ability to merge and consumer protection requirements similar to those measured for MFIs. The indicators are organized as follows: Branchless banking: Branchless banking, which con- Non-bank lending institutions: This indicator mea- sists of agent banking and e-money, can play an im- sures the regulatory framework for deposit-taking portant role in providing Ĕnancial services to clients microĔnance institutions (MFIs) and Ĕnancial cooper- who are traditionally excluded from formal Ĕnancial atives. MFIs and Ĕnancial cooperatives are important services.7 Strong regulations on branchless banking providers of Ĕnancial services to agribusinesses and protect against the loss of customer funds,8 fostering a farmers, especially those that cannot access Ĕnancial positive customer experience that creates trust in the services through commercial banks.6 system. Operation and prudential regulation of MFIs. This Agent banking. This sub-indicator focuses on the sub-indicator measures the requirements to establish regulations that allow third-party agents to provide an MFI and prudential regulations including minimum Ĕnancial services on behalf of Ĕnancial institutions. It capital adequacy ratios and provisioning rules, as well covers the minimum standards to qualify and operate as consumer protection requirements focusing on as an agent, exclusivity of agent contracts, the range interest rate disclosure and enrollment in a deposit of Ĕnancial services agents can provide and Ĕnancial insurance system. institution's liability for agent actions. c‰•Å ͵ϟͱӁt°‰íœÓí° Ĕ̖̉ ³Ìœ³–‰íÓâæË ‰æòâ Ϡ Operation and prudential regulation of MFIs • Prudential rules (capital adequacy ratio, minimum capital, loan loss provisioning) • Loan size limits NON-BANK • Consumer protection (effective interest rate disclosure, deposit insurance) LENDING INSTITUTIONS Jß â‰í³Ó̜̉«Óý ẩ̖ ÓªĔ̖̉³‰Å–ÓÓß â‰í³ý æ • Prudential rules (minimum capital, prudential standards) ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 • Consumer protection (effective interest rate disclosure, deposit insurance) • Ability to merge Agent Banking • Minimum standards to operate as an agent and services offered by agents • Exclusivity of agent contracts BRANCHLESS • Financial institution liability for agent actions BANKING E-money • License requirements (interoperability, internal controls, consumer protection mechanisms) for non-Ĕnancial institution e-money issuers • Safeguards for customer funds Warehouse receipts • Elements of a valid warehouse receipt 48 • Performance guarantees MOVABLE • Receipt negotiability COLLATERAL Legal rights and credit information • Security interest granted to movable assets and future assets • Collateral registry • Credit information from non-bank institutions Sources: EBA database, Doing Business database. E-money. This sub-indicator covers the regulations for c‰•Å ͵ϟͲӁt° â ‰â Ĕ̖̉ â «òʼní³ÓÌææíâÓÌ« æí the provision of e-money by non-Ĕnancial institution ‰––Ó✳̫íÓí° Ĕ̖̉ ³Ìœ³–‰íÓâæϠ issuers. It covers licensing and operational standards, as well as requirements on safeguarding customer STRONGEST WEAKEST funds and deposit insurance protection. 1 COLOMBIA 58 SRI LANKA Movable collateral: The movable collateral indicator focuses on provisions relating to the use of collateral 2 PERU 59 BURUNDI categories that are relevant to agricultural enterprises and smallholders. A warehouse receipts system creates 3 SPAIN 60 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA the possibility for using agricultural products (such as crops) as collateralЁfarmers deposit products in a 4 GREECE 61 MYANMAR licensed warehouse in exchange for a warehouse re- ceipt, which they can use to obtain a bank loan. 5 TANZANIA 62 JORDAN Warehouse receipts. This sub-indicator measures spe- Source: EBA database. ciĔc legal provisions governing the use of warehouse receipts as movable collateral. It covers the elements of a valid warehouse receipt, performance guarantees among themselves, suggesting that countries rarely and receipt negotiability. score universally well on the indicators. For instance, Uganda has comprehensive legislations regulating the Legal rights and credit information. This sub-indicator operation of warehouse receipts, but it lacks a regula- takes some of the measures of legal rights of borrowers tory framework for agent banking activities and does and lenders with respect to secured transactions and not allow non-Ĕnancial institutions to issue e-money. depth of credit information from the Doing Business– Getting Credit topic. It covers regulation on movable Between March 2015 and June 2016, a total of 16 coun- collateral, security rights on future and after-acquired tries conducted regulatory reforms to align with cer- assets, and the depth of credit information on small tain good practices (box 5.1) in areas that are measured loans and availability of credit information from non- by the Ĕnance indicators. E-money was the area with bank institutions. the highest number of reforms: nine countries in Sub- Saharan Africa (SSA) (Ghana, Tanzania, West African Monetary Union [WAMU] members,9 and Zambia), and +ÓþœÓ–ÓòÌíâ³ æß âªÓâËÓÌí° Ĕ̖̉  Myanmar reformed their e-money laws. Other reforms indicators? in the past year include Côte d’Ivoire, which adopt- ed a new law regulating warehouse receipts; Ghana Countries from OECD high-income and the Latin and Mozambique adopted new legal frameworks for America and the Caribbean regions perform the best agent banking; and Myanmar adopted a new banking on the Ĕnance topic, driven largely by the strength of regulation. regulations on MFIs and Ĕnancial cooperatives, and a regulatory environment that enables branchless bank- In addition to enacting legislative reforms and regu- ing. Most OECD high-income countries have established lations to enable agriculture Ĕnancing, countries also a comprehensive regulatory environment for Ĕnancial explored other policy measures such as state-spon- cooperatives and regulations that enable branchless sored Partial Credit Guarantees Schemes (PGCSs) and banking, mainly for e-money. Meanwhile the Europe mandatory lending quotas to promote agricultural and Central Asia region earned the second highest Ĕnance. There is strong evidence suggesting that FINANCE score on the movable collateral indicator including the the simple existence of a PCGS does not guarantee Doing Business–Getting Credit indicator and regulation increased lending to the agriculture sector and that of warehouse receipts. Although low-income countries lending quotas for agriculture lead to low proĔtability score poorly on average, Tanzania emerged as one for banks and high non-performing loans.10 As coun- of the top Ĕve performers in the Ĕnance indicators try context and implementation details signiĔcantly (table 5.2). Tanzania earned high scores for its regu- affect the results of such policies, EBA did not score lations on MFIs and Ĕnancial cooperatives, as well as this data. Data collected show that 18 of the 62 coun- 49 its warehouse receipt regulations, which describe the tries studied have a PCGS specialized for agricultural elements of a valid receipt and require the warehouse loans lent by commercial banks. The SSA region has operator to provide multiple performance guarantees. the highest number of countries (6 of 21) with PCGSs, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (4). Only At the indicator level, countries’ scores on non-bank eight countries, mostly in SSA, allow MFIs to partici- lending institutions, branchless banking and movable pate in the scheme. For lending quotas, only seven collateral indicators do not correlate signiĔcantly countries have policies requiring commercial banks to Óă͵ϟͱӁt°‰í‰â í° â «òʼníÓ⥫ÓӜßâ‰–í³– æªÓâĔ̖̉ Ϡ REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR FINANCE IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE DJDЈD; LENDING MFIs can take deposits and maintain a capital adequacy ratio INSTITUTIONS (CAR) that is equal to or slightly higher than the CAR for banks. CAMBODIA, KENYA, PERU, MFIs also disclose the full cost of credit to loan applicants and TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA participate in a deposit insurance system. Financial cooperatives disclose the full cost of credit to loan BOLIVIA, COLOMBIA, MEXICO, applicants, participate in a deposit insurance system and can POLAND merge to create a new Ĕnancial cooperative. BRANCHLESS BANKING Financial institutions can hire agents to provide services on their behalf. Regulations identify minimum standards to qualify and operate as an agent; allow agents to offer a wide range ETHIOPIA, INDIA, MEXICO, PERU of services such as cash-in, cash-out, bill payment, transfers, account opening and “Know Your Customer” due diligence; and hold Ĕnancial institutions liable for agent actions. Non-Ĕnancial institutions can issue e-money. Regulations specify minimum licensing standards for non-Ĕnancial institution e-money issuers (such as existence of internal control mechanisms that comply with anti-money laundering CÔTE D’IVOIRE, DENMARK, and combatting the Ĕnancing of terrorism lawsЁAnti-Money ROMANIA, SERBIA, SPAIN Laundering and Combatting Financing of Terrorism (AML/ CFT)Ёand consumer protection and recourse mechanisms) and require e-money issuers to safeguard customer funds in a prudentially regulated Ĕnancial institution. MOVABLE COLLATERAL ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 A legal framework exists for a warehouse receipts system. Regulations require warehouse operators to obtain either insurance, pay into an indemnity fund or Ĕle a bond with the ROMANIA, TURKEY, UGANDA, regulator to secure performance of obligations as an operator; UKRAINE, ZAMBIA deĔne the elements of a valid warehouse receipt; and allow both paper and electronic receipts. A legal framework exists for secured transactions that grant security interest in movable and future assets. Credit information can be distributed by non-banking institutions COLOMBIA, MEXICO, RWANDA such as retailers and borrowers can access their data through the credit bureau or credit registry. 50 Sources: EBA database , Doing Business database. Figure 5.1 | Strong regulation for deposit-taking MFIs enables agribusiness activities Percentage of adult population 35 30 32.7 25 20 15 10 12.5 12.9 5 5.0 0 Borrowed to start, operate, or expand Received payments for agricultural products a farm or business in the past year Countries that do not have a legal Countries with a strong legal framework for deposit-taking MFIs framework for deposit-taking MFIs Sources: EBA database; Findex database. Note: Countries with a strong legal framework for deposit-taking microĔnance institutions (MFIs) are those that have a score standing in the Ĕrst quartile of the MFI scores. Countries classiĔed with a high level of Ĕnancial inclusion are not measured under the MFI and agent banking indicators. Countries that score 0.8 or higher, as measured by the average of the normalized value of the Findex variables “account at a Ĕnancial institution (% of rural adult population)” and “account at a Ĕnancial institution (% of adult population),” are classiĔed as having a high degree of Ĕnancial inclusion. Countries under this classiĔcation are as follows: Denmark, Greece, Italy, Korea, Rep., the Netherlands and Spain. Lao PDR, Liberia, Morocco and Mozambique are not included in the sample as data are missing from the Findex database. lend a percentage of their portfolio for the purposes of of a legal framework that limits risk-taking of depos- promoting agricultural activitiesЁnamely, Bangladesh, it-taking institutions. These regulations are risk man- Bolivia, India, Nepal, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and agement tools that ensure that Ĕnancial institutions Zimbabwe. Bolivia is the only country that also re- are well-capitalized in the event of a Ĕnancial shock. quires MFIs to lend a percentage of total loans to the Given their tendency to have riskier portfolios and agricultural sector. higher operating costs,12 a good practice for regulating deposit-taking MFIs is to establish capital adequacy What are the regulatory good practices? requirements and provisioning rules that are equal to or slightly more aggressive than those of commercial Box 5.1 highlights regulatory good practices and some banks.13 Among the 33 countries with a legal framework countries that implement these practices. for deposit-taking MFIs, nearly 90% include capital adequacy requirements for MFIs. In contrast, countries Adopting a tiered approach for regulating have adopted diverse risk management practices for œ ßÓæ³íЄí‰Â³Ì«Ĕ̖̉³‰Å³Ìæí³íòí³ÓÌæ regulating Ĕnancial cooperatives. While 26 out of the 56 countries with a legal framework for Ĕnancial coop- The non-bank lending institution indicator measures eratives have established minimum capital adequacy consumer protection and prudential regulation for de- requirements for Ĕnancial cooperatives, the remain- posit-taking MFIs and Ĕnancial cooperatives. Countries ing 30 have adopted various other risk management with a strong legal framework for deposit-taking MFIs practices, such as establishing a minimum liquidity FINANCE in particular tend to have a higher share of the adult requirement or a maximum credit exposure. population that borrows to start, operate or expand a farm or business, or received payment related Increasing consumer protection through deposit- to agribusiness products (Ĕgure 5.1). This situation insurance scheme and transparency in pricing suggests that strengthening the legal framework for deposit-taking MFIs has great potential for enabling Financial consumer protection ensures that customers 51 agribusiness activities.11 receive clear information on products and services to allow them to make informed decisions, and increases In establishing a regulatory framework for depos- trust in the banking system. Regulations can help im- it-taking institutions, it is a good practice to adopt a prove consumer understanding of terms and products tiered approach that corresponds with the Ĕnancial and increase market competition by requiring Ĕnancial institution’s risk portfolio. Prudential regulation such institutions to disclose the effective interest or full cost as capital requirements, capital adequacy ratio (CAR) of credit to the customer. While 76% of countries studied and loan loss provisioning are important components require commercial banks to disclose the full cost of %³«òâ ͵ϟͲӁÓòÌíâ³ æí°‰íʼn–Ââ «òʼní³ÓÌæí°‰í Ì‰•Å ÌÓÌЄí≜³í³Ó̉ÅĔ̖̉³‰Åæ âý³– ßâÓý³œ âæíÓß âªÓâË branchless banking Share of countries 100% 100% 96% 80% 81% 85% 60% 67% 89% 54% 40% 46% 44% 56% 54% 62% 20% 25% 29% 23% 33% 0% Low income Lower-middle Upper-middle High income Low income Lower-middle Upper-middle High income income income income income Countries with a legal framework for e-money Countries with a legal framework for agent banking ÓòÌíâ³ æí°‰í‰ÅÅÓþÌÓÌЄĔ̖̉³‰Å³Ìæí³íòí³ÓÌæ Countries that allow individuals to act as banking agents to issue e-money Source: EBA database. Note: Countries classiĔed with a high level of Ĕnancial inclusion are not measured under the agent banking indicator. If a country earns a score of 0.8 or higher, as measured by the average of the normalized value of the Findex variables “account at a Ĕnancial institution (% of rural adult population)” and “account at a Ĕnancial institution (% of adult population),” it is classiĔed as having high degree of Ĕnancial inclusion. Countries under this classiĔcation are Denmark, Greece, Italy, Korea, Rep., the Netherlands and Spain. credit to customers, only 39% require MFIs to disclose transaction costs for customers.16 In the past year, 10 this information (42% for Ĕnancial cooperatives). These countries reformed their e-money regulations includ- requirements are either embedded in the legal frame- ing Ghana, Tanzania and Zambia. Of the 56 countries work regulating the speciĔc Ĕnancial institution or can that now have laws on e-money, only two-thirds allow be found in the general consumer protection laws. non-Ĕnancial institutions to issue e-money. In ad- dition, only 15 of the 27 countries with laws on agent In addition, although a majority of countries (69%) banking allow individuals, as well as businesses, to act require traditional banks to participate in a deposit as banking agents (Ĕgure 5.2). insurance scheme, only 14 countries also require MFIs and only 11 countries require Ĕnancial cooperatives14 Ghana scores well in branchless banking due to ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 to participate in a deposit insurance system. Mexico amendments to both its “Agent Guidelines” and its is one of the countries that scores highest on the “Guidelines for E-money Issuers in Ghana, 2015.” The non-bank lending institutions indicator and it requires new “Agent Guidelines” allow both individuals and both MFIs and Ĕnancial cooperatives to participate in businesses to operate as agents and increases the a deposit insurance system. number of minimum standards required to qualify as a bank agent. The “Guidelines for E-money Issuers in ³ý âæ³íĄÓªĔ̖̉³‰Åæ âý³– ßâÓý³œ âæ³Ì Ghana, 2015” allow non-Ĕnancial institutions to issue branchless banking operations e-money and provide high standards such as a mini- mum capital requirement, existence of internal control Strengthening regulation on branchless banking oper- mechanisms to comply with anti-money laundering ations such as e-money and agent banking promotes and combatting of Ĕnancing terrorism (AML/CFT) greater Ĕnancial inclusion. Countries with an enabling standards and consumer protection mechanisms to legal framework for branchless banking activities tend obtain a license. In addition, in 2015, WAMU countries to have a higher share of adult population with an strengthened their e-money regulations when they account at a Ĕnancial institution.15 E-money and agent adopted a regulation governing the conditions and 52 banking beneĔt farmers by enabling them to receive terms of e-money issuers’ activities in WAMU. The reg- payments through mobile phone-based accounts or ulation set new requirements for interoperability and via a local agent rather than having to travel to a Ĕ- consumer protection measures to obtain a license as nancial institution or to a producer to obtain payment, an e-money issuer. Previously there were no such re- which reduces transaction costs and the risks associ- quirements. The regulation also strengthens consumer ated with holding cash. protection standards for e-money issuers by requiring Countries should adopt branchless banking frame- 100% of consumers’ funds to be safeguarded in a pru- works that include a wide array of Ĕnancial service dentially regulated Ĕnancial institution. providers, as this encourages competition and reduces Figure 5.3 | Most countries require at least one performance guarantee in a warehouse receipts system 24 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES 12 12 One performance guarantee NO PERFORMANCE 11 GUARANTEE Two performance guarantees 1 Three performance guarantees Source: EBA database. Reducing risk through performance guarantees Conclusion for warehouse receipts Financial regulations are rarely established to serve A performance guarantee is a requirement placed certain sectors. Instead, a comprehensive Ĕnancial on a warehouse operator to secure performance of regulatory environment can have beneĔcial effects for obligations as an operator. Performance guarantees all sectors, including agriculture. reduce both the depositor’s risk in depositing goods in a warehouse and the bank’s risk in lending against For example, regulations that are appropriate to the a warehouse receipt.17 Therefore, a strong legal portfolio risks and operating characteristics of MFIs framework for warehouse receipts includes at least and Ĕnancial cooperatives are essential to ensure their one performance guarantee. The Ĕnance topic mea- smooth operation serving generally across all sectors. sured the existence of the following three types of Having these regulations in place is particularly import- performance guarantees, namely: 1) Ĕling a bond with ant for agriculture because it enables these institutions the regulator; 2) paying into an indemnity fund; and 3) to better provide credit and Ĕnancial services to small- insuring the warehouse and stored goods against Ĕre, holder farmers and agribusinesses who are usually theft and natural disasters. Among the 36 countries excluded from traditional banking credit or services. with a legal framework for warehouse receipts, 24 Kenya and Vietnam are among the countries that have require at least one performance guarantee, among established either the same or slightly more stringent which 11 countries require two (Ĕgure 5.3). Requiring requirements on the capital adequacy ratio and pro- warehouse operators to insure the warehouse and visioning rules for MFIs, as compared with commercial FINANCE stored goods against theft and natural disasters is banks. In response to the recent boom in branchless the most common form of performance guarantee, banking activities, regulations are needed to engender with almost 60% of countries requiring insurance, trust and transparency in such systems, promote inno- including Colombia, Ethiopia and Romania. Filing a vation, as well as minimize risk, protect customers and bond with the regulator is the second most common ensure system stability. The majority of OECD high-in- form of performance guarantee, with 28% of countries come countries have established legislation regulating 53 requiring this option. e-money activities, which helps to create a level playing Ĕeld for Ĕnancial institutions and non-Ĕnancial in- stitutions that are active in this area. With regards to movable collateral, comprehensive legal frameworks on secured transactions and warehouse receipts, such as in Rwanda, allow borrowers to use their agricultural assets to obtain essential credit. NOTES 15 The correlation is 0.46 between EBA17 Ĕ- nance-branchless banking score and the FINDEX 1 CTA 2015. data on the percentage of adult population having an account at a Ĕnancial institution. The correla- 2 Burgess and Pande 2005. tion is signiĔcant at 5% level after controlling for GNI per capita. 3 Rabobank Nederland 2005. 16 Tarazi and Breloff 2011. 4 Alvarez de la Campa 2011. “While in the developing world 78% of the capital stock of a business enter- 17 Wehling and Garthwaite 2015. prise is typically movable assets such as machinery, equipment or receivables and only 22% immovable property, Ĕnancial institutions are reluctant to ac- REFERENCES cept movable property as collateral.” Alexandre, C., I. Mas and D. Radcliff. 2011. “Regulating 5 Alexandre, Mas and Radcliffe 2011. New Banking Models to Bring Financial Services to All.” Challenge Magazine 54 (3): 116Ђ34. 6 CGAP 2012. Alvarez de la Campa, A. 2011. “Increasing Access to 7 Mahmood and Sarker 2015. Credit through Reforming Secured Transactions in the MENA Region.” Policy Research Working Paper 8 Dias and McKee 2010. 5613. World Bank, Washington, DC. 9 EBA17 covers the following 6 WAMU members: Burgess, R. and R. Pande. 2005. “Can Rural Banks Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger and Reduce Poverty? Evidence from the Indian Social Senegal. Banking Experiment,” American Economic Review 95 (3): 780Ђ95. 10 Rani and Garg 2015. CGAP (Consultative Group to assist the Poor). 2012. 11 The correlation is 0.55 between the EBA17 Ĕnance “A Guide to Regulation and Supervision of indicator score of MFI and the FINDEX data on the MicroĔnance: Consensus Guidelines.” CGAP, percentage of adult population that have borrowed Washington, DC. to start, operate or expand a farm or business. The correlation is 0.58 between the EBA17 Ĕnance CTA. 2015. “Mobile Payments: How Digital Finance Is indicator score of MFI and the FINDEX data on the Transforming Agriculture.” Technical Centre for percentage of adult population that have received Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, Wageningen. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 payment related to agribusiness products. Both correlations are signiĔcant at 1% level after con- Dias, D. and K. McKee. 2010. “Protecting Branchless trolling for GNI per capita. Banking Consumers: Policy Objectives and Regulatory Options.” CGAP Focus Note 64, 12 CGAP 2012. September. CGAP, Washington, DC. 13 Ibid. Mahmood, R. and S. Sarker. 2015. “Inclusive Growth through Branchless Banking: A Review of Agent 14 Countries classiĔed with a high level of Ĕnancial Banking and its Impact.” Journal of Economics and inclusion are not measured under the agent bank- Sustainable Development 6 (23). ing and MFI indicators. If a country earns a score of 0.8 or higher as measured by the average of the Rabobank Nederland. 2005. “Access to Financial normalized value of the FINDEX variables “account Services in Developing Countries.” Economic at a Ĕnancial institution (% of rural adult popula- Research Department, Rabobank Nederland, tion)” and “account at a Ĕnancial institution (% of Netherlands. 54 adult population),” it is classiĔed as having high degree of Ĕnancial inclusion. Countries under this Rani, S. and D. Garg. 2015. “Priority Sector Lending: classiĔcation are Denmark, Greece, Italy, Korea, the Trends, Issues and Strategies.” International Netherlands and Spain. Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) 4 (1), January. Tarazi, M. and P. Breloff. 2011. “Regulating Banking Agents.” CGAP Focus Note 68, March. CGAP, Washington, DC. Wehling, P. and B. Garthwaite. 2015. “Designing Warehouse Receipt Legislation: Regulatory Options and Recent Trends.” Prepared in collaboration with the Development Law Service of the FAO Legal OfĔce. FAO, Rome. FINANCE 55 56 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Markets COEXPHAL, founded by 17 agricultural Market accessibility is vital to the growth and pros- cooperatives in 1977, is the Association perity of agribusiness, and the surrounding regula- tory environment has a direct effect on the ability of of Fruit and Vegetable Producers of farmers to bring their products to market and respond Almería in southeast Spain. Throughout to growing global food demand. However, agricultural the years, it has provided a wide range products, such as fruits and vegetables, cereals or of services and helped its members im- commodities such as tea, coffee and cocoa beans, cannot be marketed until companies have satisĔed plement innovative changes in produc- relevant legal requirements, including registrations, tion and processing activities. For ex- licenses and memberships, and products have met ample, to address food safety and plant safety and quality standards.2 health concerns, COEXPHAL established Trade is facilitated where licensing requirements and its own laboratory to perform quali- export procedures are less burdensome, time-consum- ty testing and analysis for farmers and ing and costly. Furthermore, commercially-oriented cooperatives, facilitating compliance agricultural production requires strong plant protec- tion regulations that ensure reliable pest management with horticultural product standards in in the Ĕeld and robust inspection and veriĔcation destination markets. It also led the im- practices at the border.3 Pest and disease outbreaks plementation of integrated pest man- can lead to infested products, reduced yields or even agement strategies to encourage more crop failures, all of which compromise the ability of producers to achieve consistent production levels and sustainable production practices. As a meet phytosanitary standards in destination markets.4 result, COEXPHAL now has market ac- The 2015 outbreak of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa cess in 43 countries, represents 65% of in Italy’s Salento region, for example, affected more than 1 of the 11 million olive trees there. Buffer and exports and 70% of fruit and vegetable containment zones have been established to stop the production in Almería, and can directly bacteria from spreading, but Italian olive and olive oil sell consumer-ready products to large production is projected to drop in the coming years.5 buyers such as supermarket chains.1 Regulatory good practices include a clear mandate for national plant protection authorities to conduct pest surveillance and for farmers to report unusual pest MARKETS occurrences, to promptly deal with any outbreaks and manage endemic pest populations.6 57 A fruit and vegetable stand in Kampala, Uganda. Photo: Arne Hoel / World Bank. Market access can also be enhanced when farmers par- and memberships to operate in the domestic and/or ticipate in producer organizations, such as cooperatives export market, phytosanitary certiĔcation procedures and other forms of associations, which can aggregate and the time and cost to obtain mandatory, agricul- production and facilitate compliance with regulatory ture-speciĔc, per-shipment export documents.10 requirements. In addition, producer organizations en- able farmer members to achieve economies of scale Plant protection: Strong plant protection frameworks that can, in turn, result in more proĔtable and stable protect crops from pests and diseases by regulating market participation.7 In Europe, producer organizations the processes and practices to which agricultural prod- process and market 60% of agricultural commodities ucts may be subjected during production, processing and about 50% of input supply.8 In Brazil, cooperatives and trade.11 This indicator measures key aspects of are responsible for 37% of agricultural GDP, and in Egypt, phytosanitary legislation on the management and 4 million farmers earn their income through cooperative control of pests and diseases, including the existence membership.9 and accessibility of pest lists and information, pest surveillance and reporting obligations, risk analysis and risk-based inspections on agricultural imports. What do the markets indicators measure? Producer organizations: Not only can producer organi- EBA markets indicators measure laws and regulations zations enable members to access inputs at lower costs, that impact access to agricultural markets for produc- but they can also facilitate sales, negotiate long-term ers and agribusinesses (table 6.1). The indicators are agricultural contracts and enter high-value, reliable val- organized as follows: ue chains for the beneĔt of their members.12 This indi- cator measures key issues relating to the establishment Agricultural trade: Agricultural trade plays an import- and operation of producer organizations, including cap- ant role in securing greater quantity, wider variety ital and membership requirements, proĔt distribution, and better quality food at lower prices. Trade also government involvement, nondiscrimination, measures creates economies of scale, establishes and strength- to promote female participation and procedures to es- ens product value chains, facilitates the transfer tablish a producer organization. of technology and attracts foreign investment. This indicator measures regulatory requirements on trade Additional data on contract farming were collected but in agricultural products, including price controls and not scored and are presented in appendix D. auction requirements, mandatory trader-level licenses Table 6.1 | What do the markets indicators measure? ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 • Domestic price controls AGRICULTURAL • Auctions and/or Ĕxed market places TRADE • Licenses, memberships or registration requirements to trade in the domestic market and export • Per-shipment export documents (number, time and cost) • Existence of a designated agency to conduct pest surveillance on plants PLANT • List of regulated quarantine pests and pest databases PROTECTION • Legal obligation and penalties on land owners/users to report pest outbreaks • Existence of designated agency to conduct pest risk analysis (PRA) • Publicly available PRA reports (online) and risk-based phytosanitary import inspections • Registration process (statutory time for registration; reasons for rejection) • Minimum capital requirements to establish a producer organization 58 PRODUCER • Rules on membership (legal and natural persons, nationality, government) ORGANIZATIONS and nonmember participation • Nondiscrimination requirements and gender-equality promotion • Distribution of proĔts and dividends Source: EBA database. Table 6.2 | Where are markets regulations strongest Uganda, the new 2015 Plant Protection and Health Act ‰ÌœËÓæí ªĔ–³ ÌíϠ provides that phytosanitary import inspections can now be carried out on a risk-management basis. Finally, the STRONGEST WEAKEST AND MOST EFFICIENT AND LEAST EFFICIENT list of regulated quarantine pests for the Government of Sudan is now available on the International Plant 1 NETHERLANDS 58 SRI LANKA Protection Convention (IPPC) website, as is the case for Nicaragua, which is the only country outside of Sub- 2 SPAIN 59 KENYA Saharan Africa that improved on the plant protection indicator this year. 3 MEXICO 60 CÔTE D’IVOIRE Regarding the total time and cost to obtain per-ship- 4 ITALY 61 SUDAN ment documents to export agricultural products, OECD high-income countries have the most streamlined pro- 5 GREECE 62 LIBERIA cessЁon average, it costs 0.0% income per capita and takes 0.4 days (Ĕgure 6.1). For example, due to regional Source: EBA database. integration in the European Union (EU), companies do not have to obtain any additional agriculture-speciĔc How do countries perform on the markets documents when trading products between EU mem- indicators? ber states. In East Asia and PaciĔc, South Asia and Sub- Saharan Africa, however, at least two documents are Countries do not perform uniformly across the markets required for each shipment. It is most time-consuming indicators (table 6.2). For example, the 2013 Cooperative to complete the process in Sub-Saharan African coun- Societies Act of Tanzania sets out a number of regula- tries, taking 6.0 days on average, and the documents tory good practices that can facilitate the capitaliza- are most expensive in South Asia and Sub-Saharan tion and growth of producer organizations, such as the Africa, costing 2.5% income per capita on average. provision of nonmember shares and dividends that That said, the Government of Kenya has taken steps to can be freely established, which place the country’s reform and improve the export process. Not only did performance on the producer organizations indicator the Government of Kenya reduce the ofĔcial fees for above the global average. However, to obtain the four the phytosanitary certiĔcate, but it also abolished the documents required to export agricultural products requirement to obtain an export release order and pay from Tanzania, it takes 16 days and costs 4.3% income a special tea levy to the Tea Directorate, which was pre- per capita, which is more cumbersome and costly than viously imposed on a per-shipment basis. other Sub-Saharan African countries. At the commodity level, the process to obtain the For OECD high-income countries such as Chile, even if mandatory documents to export perishable products they are among the top performers on average, there (for example, fruits and vegetables) is on average more is potential for improvement in their rules governing efĔcient and less costly than that for exports of cereals producer organizations, such as the adoption of time- and cash crop products such as coffee, cocoa and tea, frames for the review of applications to establish a which are more often subject to speciĔc export permits producer organization and potential for nonmembers and additional safety and quality control procedures. to invest in producer groups. Among the three indicators under the markets topic, What are the regulatory good practices? country performance with respect to plant protection regulations varies the most. The phytosanitary legisla- Box 6.1 highlights regulatory good practices for markets MARKETS tion of the Netherlands, Poland and Spain showcases and some countries that implement such practices. almost all the good practices covered by this indicator, whereas the laws of Haiti, Liberia and Myanmar do not ]í⠉Ëų̳̫ß°ĄíÓæ‰Ì³í‰âĄ– âí³Ĕ–‰í³ÓÌ include any. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the region that per- procedures forms the worst on this indicator, 7 of the 21 countries do not have a clearly designated government agency The sanitary and phytosanitary rules, technical to conduct pest surveillance and only Senegal and standards and product regulations that importing 59 Tanzania have a publicly available database with infor- countries apply to agricultural products often lead mation on plant pests and diseases. Nevertheless, last to lengthy and costly export processes, including year more countries in Sub-Saharan Africa adopted complex phytosanitary inspection and certiĔcation regulatory reforms in the area of plant protection than procedures in the exporting country.13 Improving the countries in other regions. The Government of Rwanda efĔciency of these processes can reduce the burden introduced a new plant protection law, which creates on the export businesses and potentially encourage obligations on citizens to report pest outbreaks. In larger volumes of trade. Figure 6.1 | The cost to obtain per-shipment export documents for agricultural products is highest in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa Average time Average cost (calendar days) (income per capita) 7.0 3.0% 6.0 6.0 2.5% 5.0 2.5% 2.5% 2.0% 1.7% 2.0% 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.3 1.5% 3.0 2.8 2.3 0.8% 1.0% 2.0 0.7% 1.0 0.5% 0.4 0.0 0.0% 0.0% South Asia Sub-Saharan East Asia Middle East Latin America Europe OECD Africa & Pacific & North Africa & Caribbean & Central Asia High-income Time Cost Source: EBA database. Note: Data on time to obtain per-shipment export documents are not available for Ghana, Haiti, Malaysia and Zimbabwe. Data on cost to obtain per-shipment export documents are not available for Liberia. These cases were excluded from the calculation of the averages by region. Phytosanitary certiĔcation procedures, in particular, Chile, Kenya, Korea, and the Netherlands also have the are subject to duplicative, costly and inefĔcient pro- capacity to generate, issue and send phytosanitary cer- cesses due to the need for product inspection and, at tiĔcates in electronic form (ePhyto); these certiĔcates times, sampling and laboratory testing. To increase ef- can be sent electronically to destination countries that Ĕciency in a phytosanitary certiĔcation system, having have ePhyto systems in place. The ePhyto mechanism an electronic means to initiate the phytosanitary cer- allows for the exchange of phytosanitary certiĔcates tiĔcation process and allowing for on-site inspection between governments based on bilateral agreements; and issuance of the certiĔcate, would allow products it can increase the security and efĔciency of govern- ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 to be packed and sealed in the same place as the ment certiĔcation processes and, in turn, facilitate inspection and certiĔcate issuance are carried out. trade. In Chile, for example, electronic phytosanitary This process would reduce associated transport and certiĔcates are used for agricultural exports to China. logistics costs, and allow for immediate shipment for The system was initially tested with grapes and, due to export. In countries that have electronic systems and its success, was later rolled out to all fruit and vege- allow on-site inspection and issuance of phytosanitary table products. However, this was only made possible certiĔcates, the time and cost to obtain a phytosanitary through sustained bilateral efforts to standardize the certiĔcate are lower than in those that still only allow electronic exchange of information and ensure that for paper-based applications and offsite inspection software interfaces could communicate directly with and certiĔcate issuance (Ĕgure 6.2). one another in a secure and timely manner.15 In an effort to facilitate the expansion of ePhyto globally, the IPPC Secretariat recently launched the Global ePhyto Of the 62 countries studied, 19 provide for an elec- Solution project to develop a standardized approach tronic means to initiate the phytosanitary certiĔcation to the security and method of exchange of certiĔcates, process, which includes either email or the use of an to ensure that all of their contracting parties are able 60 online portal. In 33 countries, applications continue to easily use ePhyto processes.16 to be submitted in hard copy form to the nearest plant protection ofĔce or electronic systems are not Open agricultural markets currently working.14 The ability of plant protection ofĔcers to conduct inspections and issue phytosani- Government regulation on a tradeable commodity is tary certiĔcates on-site where products are produced, likely to have some impact on trade and particularly on processed, packaged and/or stored is possible in only costs, risk and barriers to competition.17 Policy and reg- 19 countries. ulatory factors that are important to agricultural trade Box 6.1 | Regulatory good practices for markets REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR MARKETS IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE AGRICULTURAL TRADE Price controls are not imposed on agricultural products and agricultural products do not have to be sold at an auction or in BANGLADESH, PHILIPPINES a speciĔc marketplace. Applications for phytosanitary certiĔcates may be submitted CHILE, KENYA electronically or an ePhyto system is in place. The ofĔcial fee schedule for the phytosanitary certiĔcate is COLOMBIA, KAZAKHSTAN published online or in the law. It is efĔcient and affordable to obtain the mandatory per- GUATEMALA, JORDAN shipment documents to export agricultural products. PLANT PROTECTION The list of regulated quarantine pests and information on pests MEXICO, TURKEY and disease are available online. Owners and occupiers of land and/or crop owners are required KYRGYZ REPUBLIC, MOZAMBIQUE to report any pests occurring on their land. A speciĔc government agency or unit is designated to conduct BOLIVIA, ROMANIA pest surveillance. A speciĔc government agency or unit is designated to conduct KOREA, REP., VIETNAM pest risk analysis and the results are made available online. Phytosanitary import inspections may be conducted on a risk- MOROCCO, NICARAGUA management basis. PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS Minimum capital requirements, if any, are low relative to a CAMEROON, MALAWI country's income per capita. Decisions to register producer organizations must be issued within a timeframe speciĔed in the law and rejections are CAMBODIA, COLOMBIA explained to the applicants. The rate of dividends that can be paid to member or nonmember shares is not capped, and proĔts or surpluses may URUGUAY, ZAMBIA be distributed to members in the form of shares. MARKETS Membership is available to both domestic and foreign, natural and legal persons, although government membership is ARMENIA, KAZAKHSTAN prohibited. Limitations on membership that disparately impact women do not exist and measures are in place to promote women’s GREECE, KENYA 61 participation. The principles of open membership and nondiscrimination BURKINA FASO, MALI apply. Source: EBA database. %³«òâ ͶϟͲӁ.í³æ–° ‰ß â‰Ìœª‰æí âíÓӕ퉳̉߰ĄíÓæ‰Ì³í‰âĄ– âí³Ĕ–‰í ³Ì–ÓòÌíâ³ æí°‰í°‰ý  Å –íâÓ̳– ßâӖ ææ æ³Ìßʼn– ‰Ìœí°‰í–‰Ì–Ó̜ò–í³Ìæß –í³ÓÌæ‰Ìœ³ææò – âí³Ĕ–‰í æÓÌЄæ³í  Average time Average cost (calendar days) (income per capita) 3.0 2.0% 2.5 1.8% 1.6% 2.0 2.5 1.2% 1.5 1.9 1.9 0.8% 1.0 0.5% 0.3% 0.5 0.4% 0.0 0.0% Both electronic application Either electronic application Neither electronic application and on-site issuance or on-site issuance nor on-site issuance Time Cost Notes: Data on electronic application of phytosanitary certiĔcates are not available for Egypt, Arab Rep., Senegal, Serbia, Spain, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine and Uruguay. Data on on-site issuance of phytosanitary certiĔcates are not available for Ghana and Sudan. These cases were excluded from the calculation of the averages. include unpredictable and/or discretionary policies, their products often via auction and/or using com- price controls, and non-tariff barriers such as complex mission agents. Around 7,500 mandis currently exist, licensing systems.18 each being regulated by different state-level laws and covering various agricultural products.20 Although Price volatility, particularly in essential commodities licenses do not apply to farmers or other sellers of such as grains or high-value exports such as cocoa, agricultural products, buyers have to obtain various coffee or tea, is a traditional driving force behind gov- licenses depending on their particular activity, and ernment regulation, particularly price controls, with traditionally each license is attached to a physical the ultimate goal being to keep food prices low or to unit or space in the market. Thus, when all units are ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 ensure farmers receive a minimum guaranteed price occupied, no new licenses can be issued. Of the four for their outputs. Price controls have been a common Indian states studied in EBA 2017, only Bihar has abol- policy choice due to the social stigma surrounding oth- ished the mandi system (in 2006) in an effort to open er assistance mechanisms, such as direct payments. up the market and reduce the role of middlemen. In However, a broad evidence base now exists to show Maharashtra, although the mandi system is still in that price controls can artiĔcially increase production, place, a 2006 legal reform allowed for direct market- distort the land market, raise prices for consumers ing contracts between agribusinesses and farmers, as and disrupt international trade. Indeed, both manda- well as for new private market areas to be established tory and recommended prices are considered to have by individual businesses. market distorting effects.19 Although the majority of countries do not have any explicit price controls in Facilitating the establishment of producer place, 14 operate some form of mandatory price con- organizations trol mechanism on fruits, cereals or other traditional cash-crop commodities such as cocoa, coffee and tea, Producer organizations can be a useful vehicle to and 9 of those countries are located in Sub-Saharan achieve market integration for their members. At the 62 Africa (Ĕgure 6.3). outset, ease of establishment can be a major obstacle to the development of producer organizations in the In some cases, regulations prescribe the mode and rural economy. Governments may establish minimum location for agricultural trade, for example, via auction capital requirements to address undercapitalization and/or at a Ĕxed physical marketplace. Auction re- issues, which are especially prevalent among agricul- quirements apply in 6 of the 62 countries. In addition, tural cooperatives. However, minimum capital require- in India, the majority of state governments operate a ments directly hinder entrepreneurship and business strict “mandi” system, which involves mandatory, Ĕxed growth, and capital formation is a major challenge for physical markets where farmers are required to sell smallholder farmers. Where a minimum amount of Figure 6.3 | Almost one-quarter of the countries Figure 6.4 | The majority of countries do not impose æíòœ³ œ³ËßÓæ ‰«â³–òÅíòâ Єæß –³Ĕ–ßⳖ –ÓÌíâÓÅæϚ minimum capital requirements primarily on cereals and cash crops 2 Egypt, Arab Rep. 6 Haiti 52 10 India 45 Italy Korea, Rep. 6 Morocco Philippines Romania Serbia Turkey Countries that do not Countries that have price Countries without Countries that set out have price controls controls on cash crops minimum capital minimum capital requirements to requirements Countries that have price Countries that have price establish a producer to establish a producer controls on fruits controls on cereals organization organization Source: EBA database. Source: EBA database. Notes: Data on price controls are not available for Haiti, Malaysia and Zimbabwe. capital is required, it should be relatively low so that special legal framework, however, cooperatives and farmers can still afford to consolidate.21 Within the other types of agricultural entities are thriving, with a sample of 62 countries, 10 impose minimum capital high market share of around 65% in the agricultural requirements on producer organizations, ranging from sector, and cooperatives are altogether responsible for 0.1% income per capita in Egypt, to 1,616.9% income per around 10% of GDP.25 A similar situation exists in the capita in Korea (Ĕgure 6.4). Only two of these coun- Netherlands, where the regulation of cooperatives is tries are OECD high-income countries, and there is also minimal. no regional or income-based trend among the others (Egypt, Haiti, India, Italy, Korea, Morocco, Philippines, Romania, Serbia and Turkey). In 2016, Greece abol- Conclusion ished the previous minimum capital requirement of 10,000 Euros. Open markets that are unencumbered by unnecessary, overly complex or costly regulatory requirements are In Korea the minimum capital requirement to establish an important component of a dynamic agricultural a producer organization is signiĔcantly higher than in sector. Government policies and regulations that im- other countries, which operates as a severe barrier to pose burdensome marketing requirements on traders the establishment of new agricultural cooperatives. or exporters, as seen in India, or compromise pest Historically, the Korean agricultural cooperative sector management and control, can reduce farmers’ in- developed largely under government guidance and come. Furthermore, they inhibit agribusinesses from MARKETS direction, and through the network of the National developing efĔcient value chains that can meet the Agricultural Cooperative Federation.22 More than 2 food demands of large, urbanizing populations, both million farmers are currently members of the 1,134 domestically and overseas. Producer organizations can cooperatives in Korea, comprising the majority of the help farmers to consolidate and play a more powerful country’s farming population.23 role in the marketplace; where such organizations are underdeveloped, governments may wish to consider 63 In Denmark, no minimum capital requirements ap- adopting or amending relevant laws to enable their ply. No speciĔc legislation on cooperatives or other establishment and operation as commercial entities producer groups exists, and such entities are subject protected from government involvement. to the same laws as other commercial entities. As a result, the regulatory framework leaves producer organizations to adopt statutes that best Ĕt their activity and establish their own principles of cooper- ative governance.24 Notwithstanding the absence of a NOTES 14 No data were received for 10 countries (Egypt, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, 1 http://ica.coop/en/media/co-operative-stories/ Uganda, Ukraine and Uruguay). coexphal-uniting-farmers-moving-forward. 15 Since 2005, the year before the Chile-China FTA 2 In the context of the markets indicator, membership entered into force, exports of agricultural goods re- requirements refer to the obligation, for exporters, to corded an average annual growth of 73% from 2005 be members of a speciĔc association or organization to 2014, reaching a record USЧ739 million in 2014 to obtain the right to export the selected product or (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile 2015). agricultural products more generally. 16 The IPPC will develop both a Global ePhyto Hub that 3 International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) receives and transfers certiĔcates from National 2012; World Bank 2012. Plant Protection Organizations and a generic web- based ePhyto system that will allow countries with 4 Murina and Nicita 2014. limited IT capacity to access the Hub and participate in ePhyto exchanges. The initial pilot phase to test 5 The bacterium slowly kills trees by restricting the Hub and generic web-based system involves 15 the supply of water from the roots of a tree to countries and will be carried out in 2017 (IPPC 2016). its branches and leaves. http://www.nytimes. com/2015/05/12/world/europe/fear-of-ruin-as- 17 Tothova 2009; Divanbaegi and Saliola (forthcoming). disease-takes-hold-of-italys-olive-trees.html. 18 Chapoto and Jayne 2009. 6 International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) 2012. 19 World Bank 2007; http://www.econlib.org/library/ Enc1/AgriculturalPriceSupports.html#; OECD 2015. 7 IFAD 2012. 20 Kapur and Krishnamurthy 2014. 8 Cogeca 2010. 21 Dreher and Gassebner 2013; Van Stel, Storey and 9 Aal 2008; http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/ Thurik 2007. item/93816/icode/. 22 Kim 2013. 10 Brookings 2012. Agricultural products are deĔned and grouped as cash crops, cereals, fruits and veg- 23 National Agricultural Cooperative Federation Annual etables according to the Harmonized Commodity Report 2015. Description and Coding System 1996 version (HS ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 96). All data are sourced from the UN Comtrade 24 Pyykk×nen, Bckman and Kauriinoja 2012. Database, using the export data from 2009Ђ13. For each country, the combination of the product and 25 Groeneveld 2016; http://www.agricultureandfood. the partner country which represents the highest dk/р/media/lf/tal-og-analyser/aarsstatistikker/ Ĕve-year average export value (in U.S. dollars) is facts-and-Ĕgures/facts-and-Ĕgures-2016/facts- selected. In addition, for countries where cash crops and- Ĕ gures-rev2.pdf. are selected as the export product, the HS 4-digit product within the category that is exported the most to the partner country is used for studying REFERENCES the legal and regulatory requirements. For example, coffee exports to the United States is selected for Aal, M. H. A. 2008. “The Egyptian Cooperative Movement: Colombia since coffee is the top product in the cash Between State and Market.” In Cooperating Out of crop category and the USA is Colombia’s main trad- Poverty: The Renaissance of the African Cooperative ing partner. Movement, edited by P. Develtere, I. Pollet and F. Wanyama. 241Ђ63. Geneva: ILO. 64 11 Prévost 2010. Arias, P., D. Hallam, E. Krivonos and J. Morrison. 2013. 12 Moïsé et al. 2013; Arias et al. 2013. “Smallholder Integration in Changing Food Markets.” FAO, Rome. 13 ITC 2015. Brookings Africa Growth Initiative. 2012. “Accelerating Growth through Improved Intra-African Trade.” Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Chapoto, A. and T. S. Jayne 2009. “The Impacts of Kim, S. 2013. “The Cooperative Movement in Korea.” Trade Barriers and Market Interventions on Journal of Global Business Research 25 (2). Hankuk Maize Price Predictability: Evidence from Eastern University of Foreign Studies, Seoul. and Southern Africa.” Draft Working Paper 102. Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile. 2015. Economics Department of Economics Michigan “Analisis de las relaciones comerciales entre State University. Chile y China en el marco del Tratado de Libre Comercio.” https://www.direcon.gob.cl/wp-con- Cogeca. 2010. Agricultural Cooperatives in Europe: Main tent/uploads/2015/08/AN--LISIS-RELACIONES- Issues and Trends. Brussels: Cogeca. COMERCIALES-CHILE-CHINA.pdf. Divanbeigi, R. and F. Saliola. Forthcoming. “Regulation Moïsé, E. et al. 2013. “Estimating the Constraints to and the Transformation of Agriculture.” Working Agricultural Trade of Developing Countries.” OECD Paper presented at FAO Conference on Rural Trade Policy Paper 142. OECD, Paris. Transformation, Agricultural and Food System Transition. Murina, M. and A. Nicita. 2014. “Trading with Conditions: The Effect of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Dreher, A. and M. Gassebner. 2013. “Greasing the Measures on Lower Income Countries’ Agricultural Wheels? The Impact of Regulations and Corruption Exports.” Policy Issues in International Trade on Firm Entry.” Public Choice 155: 413Ђ32. and Commodities Research Study Series No. 68. UNCTAD, Geneva. Groeneveld, H. 2016. “Doing Co-operative Business Report Methodology and Exploratory Application National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (NACF). for 33 Countries.” Tilburg University and 2015. “Annual Report.” NACF, Seoul, Korea. International Co-operative Alliance. https:// ica.coop/en/media/library/publications/ OECD. 2003. Multifunctionality: The Policy Implications. doing-co-operative-business-report. Paris: OECD. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). ЁЁЁ. 2015. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and 2012. The International Year on Cooperatives 2012. Evaluation 2015 – Highlighted. Paris: OECD. Rome: IFAD. Prévost, D. 2010. “Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Technical International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Barriers to Trade in the Economic Partnership 1997. “Guidelines for Surveillance.” International Agreements between the European Union and the Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 6. IPPC, ACP Countries.” International Centre for Trade and Rome. Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva. ЁЁЁ. 2012. “IPPC Strategic Framework 2012Ђ2019: Pyykk×nen, P., S. Bckman and H. Kauriinoja. 2012. Celebrating 60 Years of Protecting Plant Resources “Support for Farmers’ Cooperatives; Country from Pests.” IPPC, Rome. Report Denmark.” Wageningen UR, Wageningen. ЁЁЁ. 2016. “The Global ePhyto Solution.” IPPC ePhyto Tothova, M. 2009. “The Trade and Trade Policy Steering Group, v1.0. IPPC, Rome. Implications of Different Policy Responses to Societal Concerns.” OECD Food, Agriculture and International Trade Center (ITC). 2015. “The Invisible Fisheries Working Papers, No. 20. Paris: OECD. MARKETS Barriers to Trade: How Businesses Experience Non- Tariff Measures.” ITC, Geneva. van Stel, A., D. J. Storey and A. R. Thurik. 2007. “The Effect of Business Regulations on Nascent Jouanjean, M.-A. 2013. “Targeting Infrastructure and Young Business Entrepreneurship.” Small Development to Foster Agricultural Trade and Business Economics 28: 171. Market Integration in Developing Countries: 65 An Analytical Review.” Overseas Development World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008: Institute, London. Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Kapur, D. and M. Krishnamurthy. “Understanding Mandis: Market Towns and the Dynamics of India’s ЁЁЁ. 2012. “Africa Can Help Feed Africa: Removing Rural and Urban Transformations.” CASI Working Barriers to Regional Trade in Food Staples.” Paper Series, Number 14-02, 10/2014. Center World Bank, Washington, DC. for the Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 66 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Transport Small trucking companies in Java, Indo- Reliable and affordable food transport logistics ser- nesia offer relatively cheap services but vices are essential to enable agricultural producers to reach consumers in growing urban areas. As such, at the expense of service reliability and transport can be considered a critical factor for urban often with the resulting late delivery of food availability. Good transportation systems are re- goods. Strengthening the legal frame- quired to minimize the time lag between harvest, pro- work by establishing a road transport cessing and retail,2 and provide adequate temperature control to preserve the quality and shelf life of per- licensing system that imposes certain ishable products as they are transported to markets.3 minimum quality standards, including Food losses during transport are frequently due to me- professional certiĔcation for drivers chanical injury, spillage or leakage, which typically go unrecorded.4 In addition, transport inefĔciencies may and regular vehicle technical inspec- decrease the food supply to local markets and reduce tions, can reduce overall road transport farmer proĔts.5 costs by 7%, according to a recent em- pirical study. Indonesian road transport Access to efĔcient transport logistics as part of mod- ern supply chains has been found to increase farmer is responsible for more than 90% of all income by 10 to 100%.6 Transport costs can account for freight and is the largest contributor to one-third of the price of agriculture inputs in some high logistic costs in the country. Such Sub-Saharan African countries,7 which can lead to high costs cause remote areas to expe- higher food prices. High marketing costs discourage farmers from commercializing their production8 and rience more volatile food prices.1 can be traced back to poor road quality, isolation from markets, lack of vehicles and inefĔcient trucking logis- tics. Transportation services are also critical in mature economies like the United States, where the majority of domestic agricultural freight is still transported by road and agriculture is the largest user of freight trans- portation.9 For instance, trucks transport food supplies for more than 80% of US cities and communities.10 TRANSPORT 67 Kigali Seed Plant, Rwanda. Photo: A'Melody Lee / World Bank. What do the transport indicators measure? Special regulations applicable to the transport of agri- food products. Given the potential impact of transport EBA transport indicators measure the legal and regula- conditions on food safety and hygiene, transport reg- tory framework that affects the provision of commercial ulations should include rules applicable to agriculture road transportation services for agricultural products, and food products. The data cover aspects such as ve- including licenses, quality of trucking operations and hicle refrigeration, insulation, co-mingling prohibitions cross-border transportation (table 7.1). and mandatory cleaning protocols, among others. The indicators are organized as follows: Transport documents. Road transport documents facilitate and standardize transactions, and have the Trucking licenses and operations: Competition among capacity to increase trade and reduce risks and infor- truck service providers is key to curbing transport mality. A strong legal framework will institute written prices, increasing service quality and mitigating road documents deĔning the conditions of carriage and a transport inefĔciencies.11 This indicator assesses the description of goods transported. extent to which regulations provide for a clear, trans- parent and efĔcient system for accessing and oper- Pricing and freight allocation mechanisms. Price- ating in the domestic transport sector. Strong legal setting or quantitative mandatory guidelines distort systems reconcile the ease of accessing the market the market and restrain competition. The data focus with minimum quality criteria to ensure food safety on the presence of legally-binding queueing systems and environmental protection. This indicator covers or mandatory road transport prices. the following: Cross-border transportation: Allowing foreign trucks Licensing regimes for transport operators. Excessive to transport third-country cargo is one means of im- or cumbersome regulation for market entry can lower proving trade and transport.14 Increasing the exposure Ĕrm productivity12 and promote concentration.13 Thus, of domestic truck operators to wider regional compe- easing the process to obtain licenses for transport tition has also been cited as a determinant in lowering vehicles and operations is considered to be among the transport prices in Southern Africa.15 The cross-border most important ways to improve trade and transport. transportation indicator measures the following: The data cover the different licensing regimes, their time and cost requirements, and the existence of on- Cross-border licensing. The data cover the legal and line platforms for submitting a license application. regulatory framework governing cross-border trans- port between each country and its largest trading Nontechnical requirements to obtain a truck license. partner, including transport rights granted to foreign UnjustiĔed license requirements can artiĔcially limit companies and cross-border licenses applicable to competition among transport providers and ultimate- foreign trucks. ly lead to higher transport prices and lower service ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 quality. The data examine the existence of potentially Limitations to foreign competitors. Despite regional discriminatory or unnecessary requirements relating and international efforts to liberalize trucking sectors, to nationality, company size, operational capacity, pro- quantitative and operational restrictions to foreign fessional afĔliation or gender, among others. competition still exist. These data identify potential Table 7.1 | What do the transport indicators measure? • Type of license required to offer third-party trucking services domestically and ease of application TRUCKING process LICENSES AND • Nontechnical requirements and total time (calendar days) and cost (in % of income per capita) to OPERATIONS obtain a domestic license • Transport regulations speciĔc to agriculture and food products 68 YJ]]ЈJYY • Foreign operator transport rights and operational limitations on foreign truck operations TRANSPORTATION • Cross-border licensing and total time (calendar days) and cost (in % of income per capita) to obtain a cross-border license Source: EBA database. Figure 7.1 | Better performance on EBA transport’s of harmonized regulations (table 7.2). Egypt, Ghana, market access indicators is associated with higher Haiti, the Kyrgyz Republic and Liberia perform poorly logistic capacity on the transport indicators due to their domestic and cross-border trucking regulations; they do not require EBA transport a license at the company level, they do not establish norms for the transport of perishable products and 100 they do not have any rules on cross-border transport. 80 Regarding the time to obtain licenses, it generally 60 takes longer to obtain a license in high-income OECD countries where company-level licenses are used, as 40 compared with low-income countries where individual truck-level licensing is predominant (Ĕgure 7.2). Truck- 20 level licenses can generally be issued faster because fewer quality standards apply. However, the average 0 cost in countries with company-level licenses is almost 0 20 40 60 80 100 Ĕve times lower than that of low-income countries. In Poland, for example, domestic company-level licens- LPI es take 90 days and cost 1.8% of income per capita Sources: EBA database; World Bank Logistics Performance Index (LPI) on average to be processed, while in Uganda it takes database. only one day but almost 6% of income per capita to Note: The correlation between the EBA transportЂindicator 1 score obtain a domestic truck-level license. In addition, even and the overall LPI is 0.57. The correlation is signiĔcant at 5% level after controlling for income per capita. though shorter times are recorded for truck-level li- censes, countries with company-level licenses tend to compensate operators with longer license validities; for example, Ĕve years is the average validity across limitations such as quotas on the number of cross-bor- the 21 countries operating a company-level system, der licenses that can be issued and mandatory corri- as compared with one year for truck-level licenses. dors through which foreign trucks must operate. In certain cases, companyЂlevel licenses may also be unlimited (Colombia, Mexico, Serbia or Spain). Additional data on quality control for truck operations were collected but not scored, and are presented in appendix D. Table 7.2 | Where are transport regulations strongest How do countries perform on the transport and least burdensome, and where are they not? indicators? Countries that perform well on the trucking licenses STRONGEST WEAKEST AND MOST EFFICIENT AND LEAST EFFICIENT and operations indicator also tend to have greater lo- gistics capacity, according to the Logistics Performance 1 SPAIN 58 GUATEMALA Index (LPI)16 (Ĕgure 7.1). As the most common type of transportation in developing countries, road transport 2 ROMANIA 59 GHANA is an essential precursor for effective general transpor- tation. Country performance for trucking licenses and 3 DENMARK 59 LIBERIA TRANSPORT operations follows a distribution pattern similar to the LPI, thus implying an underlying relationship between 4 ITALY 61 EGYPT, ARAB REP. the quality of road transport market access regulations and the overall quality of trade logistics infrastructure. 5 PERU 62 HAITI Both indicators exhibit similar trends by income levels. High-income OECD countries perform better on the Source: EBA database. 69 transport indicators due to an efĔcient regulatory framework for truck licenses and domestic operations, a comprehensive system for ensuring the quality of truck operations and a high degree of openness to foreign competition. Particularly, Spain, Romania, Denmark and Italy display the strongest performance on the regulations measured, driven by a strong body Figure 7.2 | Stricter licensing requirements in high-income countries drive up the time required to obtain a license, but licenses are less costly Average time Average cost (calendar days) (%GNI pc) 40 12% 35.7 36.4 35 10% 11.0% 30 25.7 8% 25 20 6% 15 5.2% 4% 10 4.2% 5 5.8 0.8% 2% 0 0% Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income High income Time Cost Source: EBA database. Note: 49 of the 62 countries require a company-level license, a truck-level license, or both. The remaining 13 countries do not have any licensing requirements. Income- level grouping by country includes the following: low-income countriesЁBenin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe; lower-middle-income countriesЁBangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, India, Kenya, Lao PDR, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Vietnam and Zambia; upper-middle-income countriesЁBosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Romania, Serbia and Thailand; and high-income countriesЁDenmark, Greece, Italy, Korea, Rep., Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Uruguay. Turkey was excluded from its income grouping (upper-middle income) for graphing purposes given its extreme values for cost required. What are the regulatory good practices? no licensing schemes, which have none. While vehi- cle-speciĔc requirements such as vehicle registration, Box 7.1 highlights regulatory good practices and some technical inspections and third-party insurance are countries that implement these practices. common to all licensing types, operator requirements such as minimum Ĕnancial capacity, good repute, per- Company-level licenses promote stronger manent establishment and professional competence quality standards for managers and drivers are predominant in compa- ny-level license regimes. Company- and truck-level licensing regimes differ with ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 respect to the number of vehicles allowed under each Only one-third of the countries that EBA surveyed license, license validity, the obligation for operators to require a company-level license for truck operators. register and often the requirement that operators and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Korea, Morocco, Rwanda, managers are certiĔed. Acknowledging that the best li- Tajikistan, Turkey and Vietnam adopted company-level censing systems may be tailored to local circumstanc- licensing regimes during the past 15 years. Burkina es, company-level licenses are generally regarded as Faso,18 Côte d’Ivoire19 and Serbia20 have recently re- stronger systems to promote both market entry and formed their laws to move to a company-level system. quality-based standards in the transport sector.17 For example, while operators in Colombia beneĔt from Improving cross-border transport and foreign the ĕexibility of a company-level license system that competition allows for whatever ĕeet size may be commercially desirable, truck operators in Tanzania must obtain High transport prices and low service quality have individual truck licenses for each vehicle they want to been attributed to the lack of competition in the do- operate. mestic market in Africa.21 In landlocked countries in the Western, Southern and Central African region, trans- 70 Company-level licenses establish stricter quality port costs can contribute as much as 26% to import standards on operators than truck-level or deregu- costs,22 which is more than three times the amount lated systems (see EU example in box 7.2). Across the in developed economies.23 Increasing foreign partici- 62 countries studied, company-level licenses require, pation in trucking and logistics services can help to on average, over six out of nine good practice qual- increase competition, reduce prices and improve the ity criteria, a substantially higher number than the quality of such services in the agriculture sector.24 In requirements that exist for truck-level licenses, which Lao PDR, for example, eliminating the domestic truck- have four quality criteria in place, or countries with ing cartel and abolishing restrictions on backhauling Box 7.1 | What are the regulatory good practices for transport? REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR TRANSPORT IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE TRUCKING LICENSES AND Operating licenses are applied for at the company level and OPERATIONS the process of obtaining a domestic license is efĔcient and ETHIOPIA, TURKEY affordable. Licensing requirements do not discriminate on the basis of nationality, gender, professional afĔliation or operational ITALY, ROMANIA capacity. Truck operating requirements and necessary procedures are public and available online, and electronic platforms COLOMBIA, SRI LANKA for submitting license applications and processing online payments are available. Written road transport documents are required in transport CÔTE D’IVOIRE, KOREA, REP. transactions. Agriculture and food products are subject to special road NICARAGUA transport regulations. Truck service prices and freight allocation are freely determined NIGERIA, ZAMBIA by the contracting parties. Vehicles must complete periodic and mandatory technical and GEORGIA, INDIA emissions inspections. Third-party liability insurance policy and vehicle registration BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, certiĔcates are mandatory and must accompany all trucks. POLAND YJ]]ЈJYY TRANSPORTATION Foreign truck operators are granted transport rights similar to domestic operators and are not limited by quotas or mandatory NETHERLANDS, SERBIA routes when operating in the domestic market. Truck operators are required to have a license when performing cross-border transport and the process of obtaining a cross- PERU, RUSSIAN FEDERATION border license is efĔcient and affordable. Source: EBA database. TRANSPORT Box 7.2 | The EU example Through Regulation (EC) 1071/2009 and 1072/2009, market access to any EU Member State, constitutes the EU adopted a harmonized, company-level a source of inspiration for other countries in the 71 license system based on a common set of quality Europe and Central Asia (ECA), Middle East and North conditions with which all EU truck operators must Africa (MENA) and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) regions, comply permanently. The criteria include sound which still rely predominantly on truck-level or no Ĕnancial capacity, good repute and professional license regimes. Some countries such as Burkina competence for managers and permanent estab- Faso or Côte d’Ivoire are in the process reforming lishment. This approach, which grants unrestricted their truck-level licensing schemes accordingly. by foreign trucking companies led to a 20% reduction granted to trading partners under regional agreements in road transport prices.25 However, cross-border com- is 20% higher than its bilateral equivalent. Moreover, petition is typically hampered by restrictions on cab- quotas to the number of cross-border licenses issued otage operations26 or on services from third countries and the existence of speciĔc transit corridors are not covered by a bilateral agreement. all limitations that are less frequent under regional agreements than under bilateral ones (20% and 14% Openness to foreign competition can be measured by lower, respectively). The East African Community (EAC)29 the number of rights granted to foreign truck opera- is a good example of a regional trade agreement that tors. While more than 92% of countries allow certain harmonizes truck licensing requirements; the agree- basic transport rights (transport and backhaul), others, ment guarantees four of Ĕve transport rights and such as triangular27 and cabotage rights, are allowed in removes quantitative or qualitative limitations on the only 68% and 13%Ёof the countries surveyed, respec- number of trucks licensed in any of the Ĕve EAC mem- tively (Ĕgure 7.3). Across the EBA sample, only Korea, ber countries that can operate in the domestic market Malaysia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand do not of another member. allow trucks registered in their largest trading partner to enter their territory at all. Cabotage rights, the most Strong transport regulations promote food permissive regime for foreign operators, are observed safety and reduce food waste in only eight countries, namely: Denmark, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Spain.28 In developing countries, 40% of food losses occur at Even in these countries, cabotage rights are subject to the post-harvest and handling stages of the value certain limitations such as the maximum number of chain, including degradation and spillage from poor cabotage operations and speciĔc time limits. transportation conditions.30 Strong legal frameworks for agricultural transport include speciĔc provisions Regional trade integration dynamics can also stimulate for the transport of agri-food products. These provi- cross-border transport by harmonizing market access sions include rules such as mandatory refrigeration criteria and establishing most-favored nation clauses. standards, special insulation and rooĔng conditions, The data show that countries regulating cross-border cleaning protocols, special labelling requirements transport through regional transport agreements and a prohibition on comingling of certain items, all record a higher number of good practices than coun- of which seek to prevent foodborne diseases and tries doing so bilaterally. While 90% of countries with contamination, avoid spillage and ensure the quality a regional agreement in place require a cross-border of the products being transported. Countries with license, only 65% do so when regulated bilaterally. stronger regulations pertaining to food products have Similarly, the average number of transport rights a much lower incidence of food waste.31 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Figure 7.3 | Higher income countries tend to be more open to foreign truck competition Share of total countries measured 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 72 0% Transport rights Backhauling Transit Triangular Cabotage Transport rights Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income High income Source: EBA database. Figure 7.4 | A vast majority of low-income countries have not adopted any agri-food transport regulations while most high-income countries have done so Share of countries measured 100% Mandatory cleaning 90% and disinfection protocols 80% Loading and unloading speciĔc procedures 70% SpeciĔc packaging, sealing 60% and stowage conditions Prohibition of comingling 50% of certain items 40% Vehicle cooling, refrigeration or controlled-temperature 30% Special conditions related 20% to rooĔng and ĕooring 10% None 0% Low income Lower-middle Upper-middle High income income income Source: EBA database. Only 38% of the economies studied have implemented Conclusion speciĔc regulations that seek to ensure food safety during transportation. The prevalence of agri-food Strong and efĔcient truck licensing frameworks that transport regulations is predominant in high- and up- are nondiscriminatory, transparent and conditional per-middle-income economies (Ĕgure 7.4). A very small on minimum quality standards, can play an important number of countries in the low- and lower-middle-in- role in leveling the playing Ĕeld for transport service come tiers, including Cameroon, Guatemala, India, providers and ultimately contribute to better access to Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Senegal and Tajikistan, have such services in rural areas. As suggested by the EU such rules in place. For example, since 2010 Nicaragua example, opening up truck service markets to foreign has imposed speciĔc requirements for safe transport competition is another important regulatory compo- including vehicle refrigeration speciĔcations, cleaning nent that can reduce fragmentation, stimulate the protocols, loading and unloading procedures and adoption of improved standards and reduce overall mandatory documentation requirements.32 transport costs. Other low- and middle-income countries limit such regulations to one or two particularly relevant com- modities for that country, rather than the agri-food sector more broadly. For instance, Cameroon recently issued a regulation dealing with the safe transport of cocoa and the Russian Federation has speciĔc regula- tions on wheat safety. TRANSPORT 73 NOTES 20 Serbia will fully harmonize its licensing system to EU requirements by February 2017. The new com- 1 Meeuws 2014. pany-level license will establish quality criteria including good repute, CertiĔcate of Professional 2 Bourne 1977. Competence (CPC) for drivers and managers, Ĕnan- cial capacity standards and a more generous valid- 3 Jedermann et al. 2014. ity, and will remove the limitation to the number of trucks. 4 Tefera 2012. 21 Teravaninthorn et al. 2009. 5 Lundqvist et al. 2008. 22 MacKellar et al. 2000. 6 World Bank 2008. 23 Raballand et al. 2008. 7 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 8 Gebremedhin et al. 2012. 25 Record et al. 2014. 9 Casavant et al. 2010. 26 By deĔnition, cabotage rights are deĔned as fol- 10 Ibid. lows: a truck registered in country A is able to pick up agricultural goods in country B and deliver them 11 Teravaninthorn et al. 2009. to a different point in country B. 12 Barseghyan 2008. 27 By deĔnition, triangular rights are deĔned as fol- lows: a truck registered in country A is able to pick 13 Fisman et al. 2004. up agricultural goods in country B and transport them to be delivered into country C (assuming for- 14 World Bank 2010. eign country B is the Ĕnal destination of the foreign truck). 15 Raballand et al. 2008. 28 Cabotage rights in EU countries are granted on the 16 LPI is a World Bank knowledge product measuring basis of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1072, 2009. In logistic “friendliness” perceptions as reported by the case of Serbia, instead, cabotage rights are freight forwarders and express carriers. The 2016 granted on the basis of a speciĔc permit issued by edition provides data on 160 countries, 60 of which the Ministry following the “Act on the Transport of ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 are also part of EBA. Goods by Road.” 17 The transport topic categorizes licenses based on 29 The East African Community is a regional inter- level: company, truck, both company and truck or governmental organization with headquarters in the absence of a license. Arusha, Tanzania and it currently comprises the fol- lowing countries: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania 18 Burkina Faso recently established a company-level and Uganda. licensing system, in force since October 2016. The new license will comprise quality criteria to access 30 FAO 2011. the market and have a validity of Ĕve years. With the new regulation, each truck operator will be able 31 Food losses in European countries where food to have an unlimited number of trucks under the safety transport regulations are extended are 9% license. for tubers, 0.5% for milk, 5% for fruits and vegeta- bles and 1% for oilseeds and pulses; compared to 19 In 2015, Côte d’Ivoire introduced a company-level- 18%, 11%, 9% and 8% for Sub-Saharan Africa; 14%, 74 based operator licensing system with clear quality 6%, 10% and 3% for Latin America; and 19%, 6%, 9% criteria to access the profession. The decree and 12% for South and South-East Asia, respective- also establishes strategic plans containing an ly (FAO 2011). estimation of the demand for transport services, a registry of licensed operators and their ĕeets, 32 “Norma técnica obligatoria nicaragüense de req- and user satisfaction rates, among others. As a uisitos para el transporte de productos alimenti- result of this reform, Côte d’Ivoire is now the best cios,” NTON 03 079-08, enacted in 2008 and in force performer in the “trucking licenses and operations” since 2011. sub-indicator of the ECOWAS region. REFERENCES Record, R. et al. 2014. “Lao PDR - Trade and Transport Facilitation Assessment.” World Bank, Washington, Barseghyan, L. 2008. “Entry Costs and Cross-Country DC. Differences in Productivity and Output.” Journal of Economic Growth 13: 145Ђ67. Tefera, T. 2012. “Post-harvest Losses in African Maize in the Face of Increasing Food Shortage.” Springer Bourne, M. C. 1977. “Post Harvest Food Losses Ђ The Science & Business Media B.V. and International Neglected Dimension in Increasing the World Food Society for Plant Pathology, Food Sec. 4 (2): 267Ђ77. Supply.” New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, New York. Teravaninthorn, S. and G. Raballand. 2009. Transport Prices and Costs in Africa: A Review of the Main Casavant, K. et al. 2010. “Study of Rural Transportation International Corridors. Washington, DC: World Issues.” US Department of Agriculture, Washington, Bank. DC. World Bank Group. 2008. Agriculture for Development. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United World Development Report. Washington, DC: World Nations). 2011. “Global Food Losses and Food Waste Bank. Ђ Extent, Causes and Prevention.” FAO, Rome. ЁЁЁ. 2010. Trade and Transport Facilitation Assessment: Fisman, R. and V. Sarria-Allende. 2004. “Regulation of A Practical Toolkit for Country Implementation. Entry and the Distortion of Industrial Organization.” Washington, DC: World Bank. NBER Working Paper 10929. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA. Gebremedhin, B. and M. Jaleta. 2012. “Market Orientation and Market Participation of Smallholders in Ethiopia: Implications for Commercial Transformation.” Paper presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE), August 18Ђ24. Jedermann, R., M. Nicometo, I. Uysal and W. Lang. 2014. “Reducing Food Losses by Intelligent Food Logistics.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 372 (2017): 1Ђ20. Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture and D. Molden. 2008. “Saving Water: From Field to Fork Ђ Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain.” SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI, Stockholm. MacKellar, L., A. W×rg×tter and J. W×rzand. 2000. “Economic Development. Problems of Landlocked Countries.” Working Paper 14. Institut für H×here Studien (IHS), Vienna. TRANSPORT Meeuws, R. 2014. “How the Road Freight Transport Sector Can Contribute to the Reduction of Logistics Costs in Indonesia.” Report commissioned by the Government of Indonesia for the World Bank. World Bank, Washington, DC. 75 Raballand, G., C. Kunaka and B. Giersing. 2008. “The Impact of Regional Liberalization and Harmonization in Road Transport Services: A Focus on Zambia and Lessons for Landlocked Countries.” Policy Research Working Paper 4482. World Bank, Washington, DC. 76 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Water For the past nine years, Caroline has been Water is an essential input for crop production and growing rice on a four-hectare plot of vital to the task of increasing yields and feeding the world’s growing population. Farmers must have access land in a sprawling area of rice production to sufĔcient quantities of water, at an adequate quality near the banks of a river. Until recently, level and at the appropriate time and location, for crop irrigation water pumped from the river production to be commercially viable. The availability allowed her to add an extra season of of water for crop production depends on many fac- tors: water scarcity, pollution, climate variability and rice production per year, almost doubling increased demand for alternative uses. These factors her prior annual income. However, this necessitate improvements in water management. year, the water level is signiĔcantly lower At the farm level, although rain-fed agriculture remains than average, and Caroline doesn’t think predominant in many climates across the world,2 she can grow anything this season. increased crop production in developing countries Some neighboring farmers believe that is expected to be achieved predominantly through upstream users are extracting more than irrigation. Irrigated land can be as much as twice as productive as nearby rain-fed land, and in developing their allocated share of the river’s water. countries irrigated agriculture already provides for ap- Caroline agrees and notes that several proximately half of crop production, while comprising large farms and industrial plants have only 20% of all arable land.3 However, the availability appeared upstream in the past few years, of water for irrigation is constrained both by climatic conditions and the effectiveness of public water man- but when she complained to the local agement. Moreover, any increase in the use of water for river basin ofĔce tasked with allocation irrigation has important consequences for the overall decisions, an ofĔcial told her that they water balance and the broader environment. It is also important to recognize that farmers’ access to water don’t have information on those usersЁ for irrigation is also impacted by legal frameworks that they “just sell water.” She is now concerned extend beyond the direct relationship between regu- that her water permit is useless.1 lators and water users to include measures affecting the resource itself as well as the infrastructure used to deliver water to the place of use at the time needed.4 WATER 77 Water Projects, Lesotho. Photo: John Hogg / World Bank. What do the water indicators measure? How do countries perform on the water indicators? The water indicators measure key elements within the legal and regulatory frameworks that impact farmers’ Countries that have developed a strong legal frame- access to sufĔcient quantities of water, at an adequate work for IWRM also tend to have a strong legal frame- quality level and at the time and location needed for work for individual water use for irrigation, with top- crop production (table 8.1). The indicators are orga- and middle-scoring countries only displaying minor nized as follows: deĔciencies across the range of features covered by the water indicators. In these countries, the most com- Integrated water resources management: Water mon gaps include the absence of mandates to period- scarcity and degradation present signiĔcant practical ically update plans and information systems, limited constraints to both irrigation and agricultural devel- promotion of water conservation and efĔciency, and opment.5 In addition, while irrigation poses a variety of the absence of water use permit trading. In contrast, beneĔts for agricultural growth such as increased crop countries with weaker frameworks tend to have one or production, it can also heavily impact the availability more concentrated areas of weakness impacting their of water resources. To this end, integrated water re- frameworks, rather than across-the-board weakness. sources management (IWRM) promotes a view towards For example, Nepal’s legal framework for broader managing water in conjunction with land and other in- water resources management is largely absent with terconnected resources to achieve equitable and sus- no planning or information systems in place, but it is tainable use.6 This indicator measures the regulatory relatively more comprehensive in supporting individu- framework applicable to water management in each al water use for irrigation; in contrast, the opposite is country, including the establishment of institutions true in Bangladesh and Mali where water use permit at the basin level, water planning, the development of requirements for medium-size farms are currently information systems and water resource protection.7 absent, but their water resource management frame- works are relatively stronger. Individual water use for irrigation: Systems for water use permits are critical tools for managing and allo- Spain’s legal framework represents the most com- cating water resources, including water for agriculture.8 prehensive enabling framework for water manage- Effective water use permit systems provide secure ment and use. Overall it provides for strong legal rights to water users and allow resource managers to mechanisms that drive integrated water resources review existing water uses and make meaningful al- management (such as institutional frameworks, water location decisions in pursuit of broader planning and inventorying and monitoring activities). In addition, it management goals.9 This indicator measures require- provides for a dynamic permit system for water use ments for water use permits, as well as the quality of activities that facilitates transfer of water permits and these permit requirements by examining public notice other mechanisms that allow the system to adapt in requirements, transfers, water use charges and en- response to changed circumstances (table 8.2). ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 forcement measures. Table 8.1 | What do the water indicators measure? INTEGRATED • Institutional mandates to manage water at basin levels WATER • Water planning at the national and basin levels RESOURCES MANAGEMENT • Information systems on water resources and water use to support management decisions • Resource protection mechanisms in cases of depletion or pollution 78 • Abstraction and use permit requirements for medium-size farms (2Ђ10 hectares) INDIVIDUAL WATER USE FOR • Transfers of active permits separate from land transactions IRRIGATION • Charging for the abstraction and use of water resources • Enforcement of permit-related obligations Source: EBA database. Figure 8.1 Countries with more variable water availability tend to have stronger legal frameworks Average EBA water score 100 74 69 56 48 29 0 4 - 5 (1) 3 - 4 (4) 2 - 3 (11) 1 - 2 (39) 0 - 1 (7) Interannual Variability Index (FAO/WRI) Sources: EBA database; FAO Aquastat/WRI 2016. Note: Sample size in parentheses. A normalized indicator of the variation in water supply between years, created by WRI, ranges from 0-5, where 0 is lowest and 5 is highest (most variable). Correlation coefĔcient is 0.335, signiĔcant at 1% level after controlling for gross national income per capita. Context-speciĔc concerns that may impact a country’s outdated colonial-era legislation. In response to rap- regulatory priorities include inter-annual water vari- idly growing demand and overexploitation, Mexico has ability and water stress issues related to population developed comprehensive legislation anchored by the growth and/or water scarcity. Countries with higher 1992 National Water Law.10 In contrast to both Kenya water variability tend to have developed stronger and Mexico, Denmark’s relative abundance of stable, legal frameworks for water management and use in high-quality water resources and the absence of acute response (Ĕgure 8.1). Both Kenya and Mexico, for ex- water stress issues11 may be one factor to explain why ample, perform well on the water indicators, which their legal framework for water management and use illustrates how challenges identiĔed in a country’s is currently less comprehensive than that of either water resources situation can be a driver to adopt a Kenya or Mexico. strong legal framework for water management and use. Recognizing its water variability challenges, Kenya began a series of legal and regulatory reforms in 2002 What are the regulatory good practices? with the introduction of a new Water Act (Cap. 372) and supporting regulations that upgraded and repealed Box 8.1 highlights regulatory good practices and some countries that implement these practices. Table 8.2 | Where are water regulations strongest? Informed institutions and planned water management STRONGEST WEAKEST Institutional entities that manage water at the level WATER of basins and aquifers are a critical component of 1 SPAIN 58 GUATEMALA IWRM and the starting point for improved planning, management and allocation of water among different 2 MEXICO 59 SUDAN water users.12 Across the countries studied, many have created institutional entities that manage water at 3 COLOMBIA 60 THAILAND the level of basins and aquifers, but fewer have taken 79 steps toward the planning and information systems 4 KENYA 61 LIBERIA necessary to sufĔciently inform those institutions and water users. 5 ARMENIA 62 MYANMAR Approximately three-quarters of the countries stud- ied have enacted legal provisions that require the Source: EBA database. Box 8.1 | What are the regulatory good practices for water? REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR WATER IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES Institutions exist with an adequate legal mandate to manage MANAGEMENT GREECE, KENYA water at the appropriate geographical scale. Water planning is carried out at the national and basin levels and involves public consultation, periodic updating and NETHERLANDS, SERBIA monitoring planning. Systems, such as an inventory of water resources and a water user registry, are publicly available, providing information on DENMARK, KOREA, REP. water availability, location, and use and any changes over time. Quality standards exist for irrigation water, and the government MEXICO, SPAIN can restrict water use in cases of depletion and pollution. Legally mandated quotas are in place to ensure the participation and involvement of water users and women in RWANDA, TANZANIA water management. INDIVIDUAL WATER USE FOR A mandatory permit system applies to water abstraction and IRRIGATION use by medium-size and larger farms (larger than 2 hectares). Laws and regulations should set out the application procedure, ITALY, TANZANIA permit duration and public notice requirements for new applications. Water permits are transferableЁseparate from landЁand the procedural rules are clearly stated in the law. Certain ARMENIA, CHILE ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 limitations, such as notiĔcation requirements, also apply to avoid subverting the water allocation and planning process. Water users pay for the quantity of water resources used, and governments are obligated to set and collect fees for the use of PERU, RUSSIAN FEDERATION water resources. Individuals keep records, and the government is given powers MEXICO, PHILIPPINES to conduct inspections for permit compliance. Noncompliance with core water management and/or use KAZAKHSTAN, MALAWI obligations is an offense. 80 Source: EBA database. Figure 8.2 | Basin planning and water information systems Number of countries 50 47 44 40 36 38 35 30 20 13 10 0 Basin planning Water inventory Water use registry IWRM component Legal mandate Implementation Source: EBA database. Note: Availability of plan, inventory or registry information online is taken as veriĔable proxy indicator for implementation. IWRM ц integrated water resources management. establishment of institutions to manage water at the decisions to invest in irrigation development. But, river basin level. Of those countries, 87% have actually whereas approximately 76% of the countries studied established at least one of these institutions. Those mandate the completion of an inventory of available countries that have a legal mandate but have not yet water resources, only 56% currently have any inven- created any basin institutions tend to have relatively tory information made publicly available online (see recent legislative or regulatory enactments, such as Ĕgure 8.2). Similarly, although 61% of the countries Cambodia (2015), Malawi (2013), Rwanda (2013) and studied require the creation and maintenance of a Turkey (2012). Overall, 77% of all countries studied have registry of water users, only 21% currently make any at least one basin-level water management institution registry-related information publicly available online. in place, taking into account those that have such en- For example, although more than half of low-income tities without a legal mandate. Of those countries that countries currently require a registry of water users, do not have a legal mandate to establish basin institu- none of them currently makes any registry information tions, 47% have them in practice, including Cameroon, available online. Ghana, Senegal and Uganda. However, without a clear anchor in the legal framework, the role and impact of The shared nature of water resources makes farmers these institutions are typically restricted to consensus dependent on institutions to monitor the ongoing sta- building, rather than exercising the necessary func- tus of water resources and to take actions to protect tions for planning and allocation of water resources. water resources from water depletion and pollution. These regulatory activities are critical because once Effective water planning and information systems resources have become degraded, recovery is com- WATER guide water allocation decisions and thereby beneĔt plex and expensive, and at times impossible.14 Of the farmers by helping to reduce the likelihood of situa- countries studied, 66% mandate monitoring of both tions where resources are over-allocated and irrigation water availability and water quality. However, far fewer needs go unmet.13 Of the countries studied, 44 require of these countries require the government to actively water planning at the basin level and 36 have actually publicize monitoring information. Overall, only 40% of completed at least one basin plan to date. To make the countries studied require water monitoring results 81 good water planning decisions, water managers must to be made publicly available. In conjunction with in- have sufĔcient information about the current state ventory and registry information, publication of mon- of available resources, as well as the future demand itoring results helps to inform farmers about where it from existing and potential water users. Furthermore, is reasonable to invest in irrigation and has important making information about water resources and wa- broader implications for the long-term ability to track ter users available online helps to inform on-farm protection of water-related ecosystems. Protecting farmer investments through publish notice of pending water applications to allow transparent permit systems for comments for 30 days prior to making a Ĕnal de- cision. Only 27 of the countries studied have this legal Strong water use permit systems beneĔt farmers by requirement and only 21 of those set a mandatory min- helping to ensure access to water in the face of po- imum length for public notice. Recordkeeping require- tentially competing demands and strained resources. ments for water users are an additional transparency Moreover, at the broader level, as agriculture accounts feature intended to facilitate water management and for approximately 70% of water withdrawals globally support water managers as they try to ensure sustain- and up to 90% in some country contexts,15 water use able water withdrawals. Romania provides an example permit systems are a critical tool for managing and of this good practice, as its water law requires water allocating water resources, including water for agri- users to meter the quantity of water abstracted and culture.16 Accordingly, an overwhelming majority of keep records to be periodically submitted to the over- countriesЁ82%Ёhave put in place water use permit seeing agency, which in turn must compile and make systems that are applicable to irrigation water use that information publicly available. Only 45% of coun- on medium-size farms17 (Ĕgure 8.3). Of the remaining tries studied have set a recordkeeping requirement in 11 countries that do not require permits, four (Benin, their legal framework. Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire and India) have instituted a partial system that requires these users to declare VâÓËÓí³Ì« ªĔ–³ Ì–Ą‰Ìœ–ÓÌæ âý‰í³ÓÌí°âÓò«° their water use, but offering no allocation control to resource pricing water resource managers. The Ĕnal seven countries (Bangladesh, Guatemala, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, In response to water scarcity concerns and increasing Myanmar, Thailand and Turkey) do not have either re- demand, many countries are establishing the legal quirement for individual water use for irrigation. foundation necessary to charge user fees for the individual abstraction of water resources. An appro- SigniĔcant variations are observed with respect to priate fee structure is one tool for water managers to the quality of permit systems used to manage water promote efĔcient water use and water conservation, withdrawals and those features that directly impact in- but, to this end, it is especially important to tailor any vestment security for water users. For example, permit proposed legal approach to the speciĔc country con- systems should require public notice of a new permit text, as deĔned by socioeconomic factors, the needs of application before a decision is made, which promotes smallholders and the most vulnerable water users, and transparency and seeks to protect the rights of existing the general proĔle of water users and farm sizes in the water users. Thus, for example, Armenia’s 2002 Water country.18 Nonetheless, when tailored to each country’s Code requires the agency issuing water permits to context, managing water as an economic good can ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Figure 8.3 | Widespread adoption of permit systems Figure 8.4 | Legal foundation to calculate water for sustainable management of water withdrawals pricing 82% 48% Countries studied Countries studied that require water use that have a legal foundation 82 permits for irrigation for the calculation on medium-sized farms of water resource pricing Source: EBA database. Source: EBA database. Terraced rice paddies near a Red Zao village, northern Vietnam. Photo: Tran Thi Hoa / World Bank. lead to efĔcient and equitable use, as well as pro- Conclusion mote water conservation.19 Morocco’s legal framework demonstrates good practices in this Ĕeld by placing Water-related challenges vary widely between coun- both an obligation on the user to pay charges and an tries. One of the most important qualities of a country’s obligation on the agency to collect charges, as well as regulation for water management is the ability to meet by clearly deĔning how charges are calculated. In 40 the speciĔc needs presented by the relevant country of the countries studied, the legal framework requires (and even basin) context. Nevertheless, while allowing medium- and large-size farms to pay a charge for water for adequate tailoring, comprehensive laws and effec- WATER resources abstraction, but in only 29 of those countries tive institutions generally contain a common range of does the legal framework specify the method for calcu- tools and systems that allow for resilience in the face of lating the charge due (Ĕgure 8.4). challenging and/or changing conditions, such as water scarcity, ĕuctuations in availability or growing demand. Comprehensive regulation also supports the long-term durability of core practices for water management and 83 use, which in the absence of a legal mandate may be compromised by future challenges related to available funding and/or political will. NOTES REFERENCES 1 Adapted from Mdee et al. 2014. Burchi, S. and A. D’Andrea. 2003. “Preparing National Regulations for Water Resources Management: 2 IWMI 2007. Principles and Practice.” Legislative Study 80. FAO, Rome. 3 FAO 2011. Cap-Net. 2008. “Integrated Water Resources 4 OECD 2010. Management for River Basin Organizations.” UNDP, Pretoria. 5 IFAD Ђ UNEP 2013; HLPE 2015. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2012. “A Land Enriched 6 Integrated water resources management can be by Water.” http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/ deĔned as “a process which promotes the coor- sustainable-projects/a-land-enriched-by-water. dinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2011. “State economic and social welfare in an equitable man- of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food ner without compromising the sustainability of and Agriculture: Managing Systems at Risk.” FAO/ vital ecosystems.” (GWP 2010). Earthscan, Rome. 7 Vapnek et al. 2009. ЁЁЁ. 2013. “Aquastat: Mexico.” http://www.fao.org/ nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/MEX/index. 8 Permits can also be referred to as licenses, con- stm. cessions, or authorizations, all of which convey a "water right"Ёthat is, a right to use water, subject to ЁЁЁ. 2015. “Aquastat: Kenya.” http://www.fao.org/nr/ the terms and conditions of the grant. (See Burchi water/aquastat/countries_regions/ken/index.stm. and D’Andrea [2003], chapter 1 [1]). Grey, D. and C. W. Sadoff. 2006. “Water for Growth and 9 Cap-Net 2008. Development.” In Thematic Documents of the IV World Water Forum. Comision Nacional del Agua, 10 Grey and Sadoff 2006. Mexico City. 11 Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2012; OECD 2015. GWP (Global Water Partnership). 2010. “What Is IWRM?” http://www.gwp.org/The-Challenge/ 12 Vapnek et al. 2009. What-is-IWRM/. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 13 Pegram et al. 2013. High Level Panel on Water. 2016. “Action Plan.” https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/docu- 14 Vapnek et al. 2009. ments/11280HLPW_Action_Plan_DEF_11-1.pdf. 15 HLPE 2015. HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition). 2015. “Water for Food Security 16 Burchi and D’Andrea 2003. and Nutrition: A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the 17 “Medium-size farms” are deĔned as being between Committee on World Food Security.” FAO, Rome. 2 and 10 hectares in area in the case study assump- tions used for data collection. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2012. “Water and Food Security.” IFAD, Rome. 18 Johansson et al. 2002. IFAD Ђ UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 19 Tsur 2004; Rogers et al. 1998. 2013. “Smallholders, Food Security and the 84 Environment.” IFAD, Rome. IWMI (International Water Management Institute). 2007. “Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture.” IWMI/Earthscan, Colombo/London. Johansson, R. C., Y. Tsur, T. L. Roe, R. Doukkali and A. Dinar. 2002. “Pricing Irrigation Water: A Review of Theory and Practice.” Water Policy 4: 173Ђ99. Mdee, A., E. Harrison, C. Mdee, E. Mdee and E. Bahati. 2014. “The Politics of Small-Scale Irrigation in Tanzania: Making Sense of Failed Expectations.” Future Agricultures Working Paper 107. http://www.future-agricultures.org/ publications/research-and-analysis/1915- the-politics-of-small-scale-irrigation-in-tan- zania-making-sense-of-failed-expectations/ Ĕ le. OECD. 2010. “Sustainable Management of Water Resources in Agriculture.” OECD, Paris. ЁЁЁ. 2015. “Water Resources Allocation. Denmark.” https://www.oecd.org/denmark/Water- Resources-Allocation-Denmark.pdf. Pegram, G., L. Yuanyuan, T. Le Quesne, R. Speed, L. Jianqiang and S. Fuxin. 2013. “River Basin Planning: Principles, Procedures and Approaches for Strategic Basin Planning.” UNESCO, Paris. Rogers, P., R. Bhatia and A. Huber. 1998. “Water as a Social and Economic Good: How to Put the Principle into Practice.” Global Water Partnership/ Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Stockholm. Tsur, Y. 2004. “Economic Aspects of Irrigation Water Pricing.” Canadian Water Resources Journal 30 (1): 31Ђ46. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ pdf/10.4296/cwrj300131. UNEP. “Kenya Water ProĔle.” http://www.unep.org/de- wa/Portals/67/pdf/Kenya.pdf. Vapnek, J., B. Aylward, C. Popp and J. Bartram. 2009. “Law for Water Management: A Guide to Concepts and Effective Approaches.” Legislative Study 101. FAO, Rome. WATER 85 Information and Communication Technology ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 86 In Kerala, a state in western India, 72% of Almost half of the global population lives in rural adults eat Ĕsh at least once a day. Fur- areas, where access to communications can be signiĔ- cantly more difĔcult. Mobile-broadband networks (3G ther, over one million people are directly or above) reach 84% of the global population, but only employed in the Ĕsheries sector. Between 67% of the rural population worldwide; in Africa, only 1997 and 2001, mobile phone service was about 25% of the population is using the internet.2 In introduced throughout Kerala. In a short Nepal, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Bangladesh and Myanmar less than 20% of the population is beneĔting from the period of time, the adoption of mobile use of mobile internet.3 phones by Ĕshermen and wholesalers was associated with a dramatic reduc- The ability to connect to the internet in remote areas using mobile devices can make a signiĔcant difference tion in price dispersion and the complete to farmers in terms of their food security and com- elimination of waste. In particular, vari- mercial viability. It can provide them with a wide range ation of prices across Ĕsh markets de- of opportunitiesЁfrom obtaining real-time data on clined from 60Ђ70 to 15% or less. Waste, market and transport prices, to information on seed varieties, pests and farming techniques, as well as averaging 5Ђ8% of daily catch before mo- basic information on the weather and analytical and bile phones, was completely eliminated. management tools for production and marketing pro- As a result, Ĕshermen’s proĔts increased cesses.4 Ultimately, the use of mobile applications and on average by 8%.1 other information and communication technology- INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT-) enabled services can stimulate access to markets and increase the income of smallholder farmers by improving agricultural productivity, reducing costs for input suppliers and enhancing traceability and qual- ity standards.5 For example, Indian farmers using the Reuters Market Light (RML) mobile information service, which reports on market prices, have beneĔted from an average increase in income of 5Ђ15%.6 87 Telecommunications in Cambodia. Photo: Chhor Sokunthea / World Bank. The most signiĔcant impediment for smallholder farm- How do countries perform on the ICT ers to fully exploit the beneĔts of ICT in agriculture is indicator? the network coverage gap due to a lack of infrastruc- ture and underdeveloped mobile networks. Policies The higher quality of the licensing and regulation is and regulations should aim at closing this gap. One associated with higher mobile internet market penetra- strategy to address these gaps is to establish a uni- tion (Ĕgure 9.1).8 Low-income countries in Sub-Saharan versal access fund, which is a multi-source Ĕnancing Africa display mobile internet market penetration lev- mechanism to support ICT infrastructure development els below 20%, as compared to mobile internet market in rural areas. In addition, reducing regulatory burdens penetration levels above 60% for OECD high-income can encourage private sector investment. Cumbersome countries. Due to high capital investments required regulatory frameworks, such as two-layer licensing to expand mobile networks, higher income countries requirements, can hinder competition and inhibit the achieve faster universal access to ICT services. creation of innovative solutions that are responsive to users’ needs. This situation can prevent price re- Countries with stronger ICT regulations under the EBA ductions and the wider use of new, efĔcient technol- ICT indicator (table 9.2) tend also to perform well on ogies. Transparency creates greater predictability for the GSMA’s Mobile Connectivity Index,9 which measures mobile operators that have to take decisions on huge the strength of key enabling factors in a country (infra- infrastructure investments and thereby encourages structure, affordability, consumer readiness, content) the expansion of networks to remote areas in a more to support universal adoption of the mobile internet sustainable manner. (Ĕgure 9.2). This result suggests that an enabling regulatory What does the ICT indicator measure? environment can contribute to better access to ICT services. European Union countries are among the The ICT indicator measures laws, regulations and top performers on both the ICT indicator and Mobile policies that promote an enabling environment for Connectivity Index, reĕecting the signiĔcant harmoni- the provision and use of ICT services, particularly in zation efforts undertaken as part of the Digital Single rural areas. Given the signiĔcant capital investments Market Strategy initiative. The EU policy framework has required to provide ICT access in underserved areas,7 been directed towards the creation of sound regulatory mobile operators often have no incentive to invest in systems for electronic communications with simpliĔed network rollouts to remote areas without regulatory and inclusive rules that promote competition.10 The EU stimuli. As a result, network coverage gaps continue to member states have transposed the provisions of the affect predominantly rural areas where populations, Authorization Directive 2002/20/EC into their national income levels and potential proĔt margins are rela- laws and regulations. tively low. The ICT indicator measures regulatory good practices that can provide some of these incentives In contrast, countries that have implemented few reg- ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 (table 9.1). It focuses on the licensing framework and ulatory good practices perform relatively poorly on the assesses the type of licensing regime used in a country, ICT indicator. For example, Ethiopia’s low performance the validity of the operating license, the public avail- is explained by the absence of technology and service ability of operating license costs, spectrum allocation neutrality, and the lack of liberalization in the mar- strategies and the predictability of renewal conditions ket, among other factors. The HerĔndahl-Hirschman for operating and spectrum licenses. Additional data Index, measuring market concentration on a scale of 0 on universal access funds were not scored and are (evenly distributed competition) to 10,000 (no compe- presented in the appendix D. tition), for Ethiopia is 10,000,11 reĕecting the absence of Table 9.1 | What does the ICT indicator measure? • Type of licensing regime • Technology and service neutrality 88 • Validity of operating license INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION • Public availability of operating license costs TECHNOLOGY • Predictability of renewal conditions for operating and spectrum licenses • Allocation of low frequency spectrum and digital dividend • Voluntary spectrum trading • Infrastructure sharing Source: EBA database. Figure 9.1 | Countries with high mobile internet market penetration also perform better on the ICT indicator ICT score 100 84 61 52 39 0 High market penetration Medium market Low market penetration Very low market (> 60%) penetration (40% to 60%) (20% to 40%) penetration (< 20%) Mobile internet market penetration Sources: EBA database; GSMA. Note: Total unique mobile internet subscribers is expressed as a percentage share of the total market population. The correlation between the mobile internet market penetration and the ICT score is 0.66. The correlation is signiĔcant at 1% level after controlling for income per capita. Figure 9.2 | Countries performing well on the Mobile Table 9.2 | Where are ICT regulations strongest? Connectivity Index have stronger ICT regulations INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY STRONGEST WEAKEST Mobile Connectivity Index 1 GREECE 57 EGYPT, ARAB REP. AND SUDAN 100 1 NETHERLANDS 59 BURKINA FASO 80 1 POLAND 59 LAO PDR 60 1 ROMANIA 59 SRI LANKA 40 1 SPAIN 62 ETHIOPIA 20 0 Source: EBA database. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Note: Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Spain all perform the same ICT score and are thus tied at the 1st position. Burkina Faso, Lao PDR and Sri Lanka all 89 receive the same score. Sources: EBA database; GSMA. Note: The correlation between the Mobile Connectivity Index (GSMA) and the ICT score is 0.70. The correlation is signiĔcant at 1% level after controlling for income per capita. market competition in the telecommunications sector. business. As a result, general authorization regimes In fact, the Ethiopian Telecommunications Corporation increase competition by reducing barriers to entry and has the monopoly on telecommunications services in simplifying the regulatory process, and reduce admin- Ethiopia and there is little incentive to improve con- istrative costs for regulators. nectivity. This situation is reĕected in the relatively low number of mobile cellular subscriptions in the country Only 10 countries out of the sample studied implement (42.76 per 100 people).12 a general authorization regime (Colombia, Denmark, Georgia, Guatemala, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Spain). In all 10 countries, administrative What are the regulatory good practices? charges associated with general authorization regimes are publicly available. Furthermore, in most cases (Italy Box 9.1 highlights regulatory good practices and some being an exception),14 the validity of general authoriza- countries that implement these practices. tion is indeĔnite, which eliminates any uncertainty sur- rounding license renewal. In contrast, individual licens- General authorization regimes foster es are prone to regulatory uncertainty and ambiguity competition over licensing fees, renewal conditions and/or univer- sal access obligations. Twenty-one of the 52 countries Traditionally, a licensing regime has been applied to au- that impose individual licenses do not publish online thorize mobile operators to provide telecommunication the exact fees associated with obtaining an operating services. Due to rapid technological development and license. In 12 countries the renewal conditions of the the convergence of networks and services, a more open operating licenses are also not clearly articulated in authorization framework is considered to be a good the existing regulations, and in 10 countries the validity practice (box 9.1). General authorization regimes allow of the individual operating license is less than 15 years. any telecommunication provider to offer electronic Such uncertainties regarding fees, renewal conditions communications services, subject to general conditions and relatively short license terms make infrastructure applicable to all providers in the sector. They take the investments riskier for mobile operators and thus deter form of either open, license-exempt entry or simple no- investments into rural areas that are more challenging tiĔcation requirements13 to start a telecommunications in terms of their commercial viability. Box 9.1 | What are the regulatory good practices for ICT? REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR ICT IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 A general authorization regime is in place. COLOMBIA, DENMARK A technology and service neutrality principle is applied. THE NETHERLANDS, SERBIA The validity of the operating license is more than 15 years. CAMBODIA, MEXICO Operating license costs are transparent. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, KENYA Renewal conditions for operating and spectrum licenses are TANZANIA, THAILAND predictable. Low frequency spectrum is allocated to mobile operators. KOREA, REP., VIETNAM Digital dividend bands are licensed to mobile operators. ROMANIA 90 Voluntary spectrum trading is allowed. CHILE, INDIA Passive and active infrastructure sharing are allowed. MALAYSIA, POLAND Source: EBA database. Figure 9.3 | Digital dividend promotes greater cover- Figure 9.4 | Voluntary spectrum trading facilitates age for rural areas • íí â‰ÅÅӖ‰í³Ó̜̉ËÓâ  ªĔ–³ Ìíòæ Óªâ æÓò■æ 39% 27% Countries studied Countries studied that have already that allow voluntary assigned the digital dividend spectrum trading by to mobile operators mobile operators Source: EBA database. Source: EBA database. Promote greater coverage for rural areas introduction of new services. The countries studied í°âÓò«° ªĔ–³ Ìíæß –íâòËˉ̉« Ë Ìí have various regulatory approaches towards spectrum trading, although generally voluntary spectrum trading To provide mobile services, telecommunication net- is associated with higher levels of development. Only work providers have to obtain permission from the gov- 17 of the 62 countries allow the practice, including all ernment to use radio frequencies or electromagnetic 8 OECD high-income countries (Ĕgure 9.4). No low-in- spectrum waves to operate within a network. EfĔcient come countries and no countries located in the Sub- spectrum management by the government incentivizes Saharan Africa region have implemented voluntarily INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY private sector investments to rollout networks to rural spectrum trading. The countries that do not allow and remote areas. If mobile operators are permitted voluntarily spectrum trading are operating in less to use digital dividend bands, deployment costs are open telecommunication markets and in many cases reduced, as fewer base stations are needed to cover do not implement the principle of technology and ser- the same geographic area. As such, good spectrum vice neutrality that allows any service to be provided management that allows for a digital dividend to be and any technology to be deployed within suggested licensed to mobile operators is useful for rural areas frequency bands. where population density is low and rollout costs are high.15 Among the 62 countries studied, only 24 have licensed the digital dividend spectrum to mobile oper- Conclusion ators (Ĕgure 9.3). No countries studied in the East Asia and PaciĔc or the Sub-Saharan Africa regions have The type of licensing framework and efĔciency of licensed the digital dividend to mobile operators. In spectrum allocation can play important parts in contrast, all OECD high-income countries have licensed encouraging the private sector to invest and rollout a digital dividend to mobile operators. mobile networks in remote areas. The experience of EU countries suggests that greater liberalization of the In addition to digital dividend use, good spectrum telecommunications sector, including the introduction 91 management also allows for voluntary spectrum trad- of general authorization regimes, supports ubiquitous ing, “a mechanism whereby rights and any associated connectivity. EfĔcient spectrum management is another obligations to use spectrum can be transferred from regulatory stimulus than can provide beneĔts to mobile one party to another in the market.” This process can network operators through lower deployment costs and facilitate more efĔcient allocation and use of scarce innovation opportunities, and to the end user in terms spectrum resources, and foster innovation and the of greater access to ICT services. NOTES REFERENCES 1 Jensen 2007. GSMA. 2015. Mobile Internet Usage Challenges in Asia— þ‰â Ì ææϜ =³í â‰–Ą ‰Ìœ =Ӗ‰Å ÓÌí Ìíϡ London: 2 ITU 2016. GSMA. 3 GSMA 2015. ЁЁЁ. 2016. Unlocking Rural Coverage: Enablers for Commercially Sustainable Mobile Network 4 World Bank 2016. Expansion. London: GSMA. 5 World Bank 2012. Hawthorne, R. 2015. “Economic Regulation and Regulatory Performance in the Electronic 6 Vodafone Foundation 2015. Communications Sector: Key Themes for African Regulators.” The African Journal of Information and 7 Kendal and Singh 2012. Communication 14: 3Ђ8. 8 GSMA Intelligence Database 2016. https://www.gs- InfoDev and ITU (International Telecommunication maintelligence.com/. Mobile internet market pen- Union). 2016. ICT Regulation Toolkit. http://www. etrationцtotal unique mobile internet subscribers ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/home. expressed as a percentage share of the total mar- ket population. Mobile internet means any activity ITU. 2008. “Spectrum Sharing.” Discussion Paper GSR that consumes mobile data (for example, mobile 2008. ITU, Geneva. applications for farmers). ЁЁЁ. 2016. ITU Facts and Figures 2016. Geneva: ITU. 9 There is a strong positive correlation between Mobile Connectivity Index (GSMA) and the EBA ICT Jensen, Robert. 2007. “The Digital Provide: Information score (0.70). The correlation is signiĔcant at 1% lev- (Technology), Market Performance and Welfare el after controlling for income per capita. in the South Indian Fisheries Sector.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3): 879Ђ924. 10 See European Commission (2016), Telecoms, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/ Kendall, Jake and Nirvikar Singh. 2012. “Internet Kiosks telecoms. in Rural India: Gender, Caste and Location.” Review of Market Integration, 4(1): 1Ђ43. 11 See GSMA Intelligence Database (2016), https:// www.gsmaintelligence.com/. Picot, A., N. Grove, F. K. Jondral and J. Elsner. 2009. “Why the Digital Dividend Will Not Close the Digital ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 12 See World Bank Open Data (2015), http://data. Divide.” InterMedia 39: 32Ђ37. worldbank.org/. United Nations, Department of Economic and 13 In a simple notiĔcation system, “[s]ervice providers Social Affairs, Population Division. 2014. World are required only to provide the regulator with Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. CD-ROM notiĔcation of the start and termination of the Edition. http://esa.un.org/Unpd/Wup/CD-ROM/ provision of services or the operation of a network” Default.aspx. (InfoDev and ITU 2016). Vodafone Foundation. 2015. “Connected Farming 14 The validity of simple notiĔcation in Italy is 20 in India. How Mobile Can Support Farmers’ years. Livelihoods.” Vodafone Group, Newbury, U.K. 15 Picot et al. 2009. World Bank. 2012. Agricultural Innovation Systems – An Investment Sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank. 92 ЁЁЁ. 2016. World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. Washington, DC: World Bank. 93 INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY 94 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Sustainability Environmental Tar spot complex (TSC), a disease af- Agriculture uses a range of natural resources that in- fecting maize crops, has decimated the clude water, soil and plant genetic resources. The qual- ity and availability of these resources are fundamental yields of farmers in the high valleys to sustain production and respond to increasing global in Mexico. Most of the maize varieties food demand. However, farming can also contribute to planted in Mexico are susceptible to it, the depletion of natural resources including the loss of which means that farmers’ have to pay biodiversity, pollution of soil and water resources, and accelerated rates of soil erosion. for fungicides throughout the year to protect their crops. Developing a variety Despite its dependence on diverse genetic resources, that is resistant to TSC is an environmen- modern farming can pose a challenge for the preser- vation of biodiversity. The increased use of improved tally and economically sustainable alter- seed varieties over local varieties, together with envi- native. Testing carried out from 2011 to ronmental degradation, urbanization and land clearing 2014 successfully identiĔed two local va- have contributed to genetic erosion. It is estimated rieties with outstanding genetic disease that during the last century nearly 75% of plant genetic diversity has been lost, as farmers have replaced their resistance and scientists are now using genetically richer local varieties with genetically uni- them to develop germplasms with a view form, high-yielding varieties.2 to make them available to breeders by 2017. This process will help produce new As the largest user of water resources globally, the agricultural sector consumes approximately 69% varieties that combine the higher yields of all water withdrawn3 and accounts for 36% of the of elite lines with local varieties’ resis- land surface that is suitable for crop production.4 For tance to TSC, to reduce fungicide use and example, chemical pesticides can pollute surface and groundwater through leaching and run off, causing improve farmer’s productivity.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY negative effects in aquatic ecosystems and human health. Furthermore, deforestation and poor agricul- tural practices such as over cultivation and excessive grazing and water use can contribute to land degrada- tion and desertiĔcation.5 A study conducted in Brazil shows that pasture and agricultural expansions have been the main causes of deforestation in the Amazon between 2000 and 2006.6 Mitigating the impact of farming on the environment is an important challenge to guarantee the long-term sustainability of agricultural production. 95 Landscape of Ĕelds and homes, Indonesia. Photo: Curt Carnemark / World Bank. What do the EBA environmental Water quality management: Agriculture is a major sustainability indicators measure? cause of the degradation of surface and groundwater resources. Erosion and chemical runoff, such as nitrate The EBA environmental sustainability indicators mea- pollution from excessive use of fertilizers and intensive sure the legal and regulatory framework applicable livestock rearing,10 affect water quality. Data cover the to the management and sustainable use of natural institutional framework and regulations aimed at min- resources that are vital for agricultural production. The imizing the contamination of water bodies from agri- data cover the following areas: cultural activities, such as buffer zones and setbacks, and regulations on hazardous and obsolete pesticides. Conservation of plant genetic resources: The conser- vation of a diverse pool of genetic resources supports Soil health management: Land use plans allow gov- future crop production, since the development of ernments to assess all current and potential uses in adapted and improved seed varieties relies on the use a territory and adopt the land use structure that best of genetic variability, mainly found in local varieties meets users’ needs11 while safeguarding valuable re- and crop wild relatives.7 Data in this area cover the laws, sources for future generations. Soil quality indicators regulations and policies that address the conservation are useful to better understand and monitor the im- of plant genetic resources in national genebanks.8 It pact of soil management practices.12 Data are collected also includes alternative conservation mechanisms on the legal and institutional frameworks applicable to at the farm and local level, such as community seed land use planning and soil monitoring. banks, diversity fairs or participatory plant breeding. These alternatives allow farmers to participate in the Some insights emerging from the data conservation, breeding and circulation of diverse seed. Plant genetic resources Access and sustainable use of plant genetic resourc- es: Farmers will preserve diverse genetic resources Improved seed varieties can provide signiĔcant ben- depending on the commercial value such resources eĔts to farmers such as higher yields, resistance to can command in the market. Regulations and policies certain diseases and more stable production. The de- that facilitate the commercialization of seeds of local velopment of these modern varieties relies on the use varieties through registries9 or simpliĔed registration of genetic variability. National genebanks play a critical requirements are important ways to increase the avail- role in the preservation of genetic diversity, performing ability of these genetically rich varieties in markets. important functions such as the provision of genetic Data cover laws and regulations that facilitate the cir- material to researchers, breeders and farmers for the culation of seed in the informal sector, by recognizing development of new plant varieties or rebuilding agri- farmer’s rights to reuse seed from their own harvests, cultural production after conĕicts or natural disasters. and establish clear rules for accessing plant genetic Among the 62 countries studied, 32 countries have resources. established a national genebank. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 %³«òâ ͱͰϟͱӁÅ³Ë³í œÌò˕ âÓª–ÓòÌíâ³ æ°‰ý ‰œÓßí œʼnþæí°‰íæß –³Ĕ–‰ÅÅĄâ «òʼní í° –ÓËˠ△‰Å³ĉ‰í³ÓÌ of local varieties 16 Countries that have adopted ʼnþæí°‰íæß –³Ĕ–‰ÅÅĄ â «òʼní í° –ÓËˠ△‰Å³ĉ‰í³ÓÌ of local varieties 96 46 Countries that have not adopted laws í°‰íæß –³Ĕ–‰ÅÅĄâ «òÅ‰í  the commercialization of local varieties Source: EBA database. Figure 10.2 | Land use planning mandates are less frequent in the Middle East and North Africa, Europe and Central Asia, and South Asia 100% 100% with land use planning mandates 88% 71% 67% Percentage of countries 64% 50% OECD East Asia Latin America Sub-Saharan Middle East Europe South Asia high-income & Pacific & Caribbean Africa & North Africa & Central Asia Source: EBA database. In addition to conserving plant genetic resources, marketing of certain crop varieties that are adapted genebanks also publish information associated with to local conditions and threatened by genetic ero- the plant material conserved to facilitate its use by sion. Other countries with similar exceptions include potential users.13 Among the 32 countries that have es- Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Peru, Thailand and Uruguay. tablished a national genebank, 16 publish information In Uruguay, for example, the range of genetic heteroge- associated with their activities online. Although most of neity allowed for local varieties during testing is higher these countries are OECD high-income and upper-mid- than for conventional varieties and VCU tests are not dle-income countries, BoliviaЁa lower-middle-income required. country that recently joined the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Water quality management Ёhas a national genebank holding 18,434 collections of signiĔcant value to agricultural biodiversity, detailed As stated above, agricultural production is a principal information on which is available online.14 cause of surface and groundwater resources degra- dation. Forest buffers, a type of restrictions on land The commercialization of local varieties has been rec- use, can address pollution caused by pesticides and ognized as a pathway to enhance the utilization and excess fertilizers by functioning as Ĕlters that trap sed- ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY conservation of diverse genetic resources.15 Registries16 iment, excess nutrients, pesticides and other chemical or simpliĔed registration requirements can facili- contaminants that would otherwise reach water sourc- tate the commercialization of seed of local varieties. es.18 These practices are infrequently adopted by the Registering local varieties in order to integrate them countries studied; only 26 countries have regulations into formal channels can result in increased availabil- that provide for buffer zones or setbacks adjacent ity of diverse seed in the market. to water bodies, most of which are high-income and upper-middle-income countries. In Rwanda, for exam- To be registered and accepted for commercialization, ple, the law on environmental protection speciĔcally most countries require a new variety to pass tests restricts agricultural activities within 10 meters of that evaluate distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability streams and rivers, and 50 meters of lakes; instead, (DUS) and value of cultivation and use (VCU). However, these areas have been reserved for protection and as these tests are not appropriate for local varieties, conservation activities. which are genetically heterogeneous and adapted to 97 local conditions, laws should provide for certain ex- Pesticides should also be controlled to guard against ceptions.17 Only one-quarter of the countries studied water and soil pollution. Because their ingredients explicitly support this practice (Ĕgure 10.1). Of these, are toxic and have the potential to harm human and Denmark, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, ecosystem health,19 governments should establish Romania and Spain, and as European Union (EU) legal frameworks that regulate their distribution and members, have implemented EU Directive 2008/62/EC use, especially in the case of hazardous pesticides.20 establishing certain exceptions for the acceptance and Fifty-seven of the countries studied (92%) have Sifting grain. India. Photo: Ray Witlin / World Bank. regulations that restrict the distribution and manage- agricultural soil. While land use planning is mandated ment of hazardous pesticide products. A large majority in all high-income OECD countries and East Asian and of high-income and upper-middle-income countries PaciĔc countries, it is less common in other regions also impose speciĔc rules to deal with obsolete or such as South Asia, where only Nepal and India have unwanted pesticides, which remain hazardous to the such regulations (Ĕgure 10.2). In India, where land use environment if improperly stored or disposed of. The planning is regulated by state-level governments, two adoption of this practice is less common in regions of the studied states, Odisha and Maharashtra, man- such as Sub-Saharan Africa, where only 12 of the 21 date the development of land use plans, while Bihar ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 countries studied have regulations addressing obso- and Uttar Pradesh do not make it a requirement. India lete pesticides, and South Asia, where only one of the is also implementing a soil monitoring program at the four countries studied has such regulations in place. national level that aims to provide farmers with rele- Regulations on this issue vary, from an obligation to vant data on soil health. include disposal methods on the pesticide label in Tanzania, to specialized facilities or collection services to safely collect and dispose of pesticides in Denmark Conclusion and India. Agriculture depends on the availability of certain nat- Soil health management ural resources that are essential production inputs. In this context, the preservation of soil, water and plant Land use plans allow governments to assess all cur- genetic resources must remain a policy priority for rent and potential uses in a territory and adopt the governments and form part of their broader efforts land use structure that best meets users’ needs,21 to increase agricultural productivity. In particular, reg- while safeguarding valuable resources for future gen- ulations that protect soil and water quality from the 98 erations. Soil quality data provide useful information negative effects of fertilizers, pesticides and intensive that governments, farmers and other stakeholders can livestock rearing are necessary to maintain vital eco- use to monitor the impact of agricultural activities systems and guarantee the availability and utility of and inform land management decisions and farming these resources for future generations. Institutions practices.22 and regulations that safeguard diverse plant genetic resources are also crucial to ensure that the agricul- Forty-eight of the countries studied have regula- tural sector can respond to increased food demand tions mandating the development of land use plans, and changing environmental conditions. and 50 countries have an authority that monitors NOTES FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1999. “Women: The Key to Food Security.” 1 Johnson et al. 2016. Rome: FAO. 2 FAO 1999. ЁЁЁ 2014. “Genebank Standards for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.” FAO, Rome. 3 http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/tables/ WorldData-Withdrawal_eng.pdf. ЁЁЁ 2016. “Bolivia Joins the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.” 4 Bruinsma 2003. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/news/ detail-events/en/c/448725/. 5 Horrigan et al. 2002. ЁЁЁ and WHO (World Health Organization). 2016. 6 Barona et al. 2010. “International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management. Guidelines on Highly Hazardous 7 Ford-Lloyd et al. 2011. Pesticides.” FAO and WHO, Rome. 8 Genebanks are repositories where genetic material of Ford-Lloyd, Brian V. et al. 2011. “Crop Wild RelativesЁ plants is stored and preserved in forms such as seeds Undervalued, Underutilized and Under Threat?” or cuttings. BioScience 61 (7): 559Ђ65. 9 Spataro and Negri 2013. Gautam, J. C. and K. Pant. 2011. “Commercialization and 10 Morris et al. 2003. Market Linkages for Promoting the Use of Local Rice Varieties: A Nepalese Case Study.” In The Economics 11 Van Lier and De Wrachien 2002. of Managing Crop Diversity On-farm, edited by E. Wale, A. G. Drucker and K. K. Zander, 111Ђ21. London: 12 Arshad and Martin 2002. Earthscan. 13 FAO 2014. Horrigan, L., R. S. Lawrence, and P. Walker. 2002. “How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the 14 FAO 2016. Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial 15 Gautam and Pant 2011. Agriculture.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (5): 445Ђ56. 16 Spataro and Negri 2013. Johnson, J., T. Molnar and M. Willcox 2016. “Ancient Maize 17 Paavilainen 2009. Varieties Provide Modern Solution to Tar Spot Complex.” Retrieved from http://maize.org/ancient- 18 Aguiar et al. 2015. maize-varieties-provide-modern-solution-to-tar- spot-complex/ 19 Horrigan et al. 2002. Morris, B. L. et al. 2003. “Groundwater and its Susceptibility 20 FAO and WHO 2016. to Degradation: A Global Assessment of the Problem 21 Van Lier and De Wrachien 2002. and Options for Management.” Early Warning and Assessment Report Series, RS. 03-3. United Nations ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 22 Arshad and Martin 2002. Environment Programme, Nairobi. Paavilainen, K. 2009. “National Policies and Support Systems for Landrace Cultivation in Finland.” REFERENCES In òâÓß ‰Ì =‰Ìœâ‰– æϛ JÌІ%‰âË ÓÌæ âý‰í³ÓÌϜ Management and Use. Bioversity Technical Bulletin Aguiar, T. R. Jr. et al. 2015. “Nutrient Removal Effectiveness No. 15. Bioversity International, Rome. by Riparian Buffer Zones in Rural Temperate Watersheds: The Impact of No-Till Crops Practices.” Spataro, G. and V. Negri. 2013. “The European Seed Agricultural Water Management 149: 74Ђ80. Legislation on Conservation Varieties: Focus, Implementation, Present and Future Impact on Arshad, M. A. and S. Martin. 2002. “Identifying Critical Landrace on Farm Conservation.” Genetic Resources Limits for Soil Quality Indicators in Agro-Ecosystems.” and Crop Evolution 60: 2421Ђ430. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88: 153Ђ60. 99 Van Lier, H. N. and D. De Wrachien. 2002. “Land Use Barona, E., N. Ramankutty, G. Hyman and O. Coomes. 2010. Planning: A Key to Sustainable Development.” Paper “The Role of Pasture and Soybean in Deforestation presented at the XXX International Symposium Actual of the Brazilian Amazon.” Environmental Research Tasks on Agricultural Engineering. Opatija, Croatia, = íí âæ 5 (2): 1Ђ9. March 12Ђ15. Bruinsma, J., ed. 2003. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. An FAO Perspective. London, UK: Earthscan Publications. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 100 Gender Livinesi Mateche has always depended Identifying and analyzing the direct and indirect reg- on farming as the main source of income ulatory barriers to women’s full participation in the agricultural sector are essential to increasing produc- in her home, located in the Mchinji dis- tivity among women. Underlying constraints include trict of Malawi. As she sought to improve unequal access to Ĕnance, land and agricultural inputs her farming techniques, she joined the such as improved seeds, fertilizer and machinery. In National Smallholder Farmers’ Alliance addition, traditional norms may impact the utility of agricultural resources for women. The private sector of Malawi (NASFAM), the largest inde- has a role to play in addressing some of those con- pendent smallholder-owned member- straints, and examples abound of agricultural and agri- ship organization in the country. During business companies that have designed creative ini- tiatives to lift certain obstacles (box 11.1). In addition to the next planting season, she beneĔted those private sector-led efforts, regulatory initiatives from NASFAM’s farmer-to-farmer training are needed to secure land tenure for women, provide program and learned good agricultur- Ĕnancial inclusion and market access, and increase al practices to improve crop quality and women’s access to crucial agricultural inputs.2 yields. Her membership beneĔts went In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, although wom- beyond increased productivity. Thanks en make up around 40% of the agricultural labor to NASFAM’s capacity to procure in bulk force, their agricultural productivity lags far behind.3 the members’ produce and transport Controlling for plot size and geographic factors, the gender productivity gap is estimated to be 66% in them to points of sale domestically and Niger and 23% in Tanzania.4 Not only does the gen- abroad, Livinesi found more proĔtable der productivity gap carry direct social and economic commercial outlets for her production consequences for women farmers, but it also has a signiĔcant impact on the economy. In Malawi and and her earnings increased substantial- Tanzania, for example, lower female productivity is ly. Through her membership, Livinesi was estimated to cause annual losses of Ч100 million and able to improve her farming operation’s Ч105 million, respectively. For those same countries, production and marketing prospects.1 experts also estimate that closing the gender produc- tivity gap could increase crop output up to 8.1% and 3.9%, respectively.5 Research conducted in Burkina GENDER Faso further suggests that, at the household level, reallocating some agricultural inputs, and notably fer- tilizers, from the plots farmed by men to those farmed by women could lead to a 6% increase in output.6 Finally, closing the gender gap in agricultural pro- ductivity could lift tens of thousands of people out of 101 poverty.7 Wheat harvest in central India. Photo: Scott Wallace / World Bank. Box 11.1 | How can the private sector support gender equality and increase women’s role in agribusinesses? A 2015 report indicated that Ч12 trillion could drivers in the coffee estates. In Mali there is a pro- be added to global income by 2025 by advancing gram that seeks to address women’s participation women’s equality through the public, private in agricultural leadership roles, by offering women’s and social sectors acting to close the gender gap. producer organizations farming tools and addition- Correspondingly, agribusinesses have been engaged al training free of charge.a in numerous projects targeting women, including their role and inĕuence in agriculture. For example, Food conglomerates and other food companies one project aims to help women overcome barri- are increasingly demanding that the raw materials ers in cocoa farming communities in Côte d’Ivoire, they purchase are produced sustainably and in a where only 4% of the cocoa farmers are women. The gender-sensitive manner. For example, one project project provides female-only training to farmers to reviewed women’s role in the cocoa value chain help them improve their agriculture and business in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. The project was based skills, as well as offering gender-sensitive trainings on the recognition that women’s leadership at all for rural development agents. In Zambia, another levels is required to achieve transformative change project runs a training program for female tractor in the sector.b a. Woetzel et al. 2015; http://www.cargill.com/connections/empowering-women-cocoa-farmers-in-Cote-dIvoire/index.jsp; http://olamgroup.com/sustain- ability/gender-hub/agri-employment-women/just-jobs-boys/; http://www.louisdreyfusfoundation.org/en/what-we-do/micro-farming-initiatives-africa/ program-support-female-smallholders-their-daily-farming-providing-them-training-and-equipment/. b. http://insights.careinternational.org.uk/publications/women-s-leadership-in-cocoa-life-communities. How can the EBA indicators help female agricultural products will beneĔt from streamlined farmers? procedures to obtain all the necessary documents, such as phytosanitary and quality certiĔcates, in less Although not all EBA indicators are speciĔcally de- time and at a lower cost. Minimizing entry require- signed to capture differences in legal and regulatory ments such as export licensing and mandatory mem- treatments between men and women, they all mea- berships will also facilitate women’s access to export sure aspects of the business environment that matter opportunities. Furthermore, EBA indicators on inputs for all participants along agricultural value chains, measure the regulatory constraints for registering new regardless of gender. The EBA indicators measure the seed varieties, fertilizer products and agricultural trac- business environment for farmers and agribusinesses tors. Regulations that ease the burden on importers in the context of inputs (seed, fertilizer and machin- and dealers can make such inputs more readily avail- ery), Ĕnance, markets, transport, information and com- able and affordable in remote regions, and thus more ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 munication technology (ICT), water and land, and are accessible to women farmers. relevant to the economic and social advancement of those involved in those sectors. Among them, women Member-based rural organizations can beneĔt from an improved business environment as measured by EBA indicators, through at least four Rural women can also beneĔt from and be empowered channels, namely: 1) streamlined procedural and oper- through member-based organizations such as pro- ational requirements for businesses; 2) member-based ducer organizations (measured by the markets topic), rural institutions; 3) innovation for Ĕnancial inclusion; Ĕnancial cooperatives (measured by the Ĕnance topic) and 4) land use and ownership. and water users’ associations (measured by the water topic), all of which help their members overcome ob- Streamlined procedural and operational stacles relating to access to productive capital (seed, requirements for businesses fertilizer, machinery and water), access to markets or access to Ĕnance. For example, where laws and Streamlining the agribusiness environment, lifting regulations facilitate the establishment, operations cumbersome procedures and minimizing procedural and capitalization of agricultural sales cooperatives, 102 costs and delays can beneĔt farmers. Nevertheless, women can beneĔt from a regulatory environment the beneĔts that could accrue to women are partic- that enables them to create, join and take leadership ularly signiĔcant due to their proportionately higher positions in such entities.9 numbers in the agricultural sector, and the low-quality capital, information and time resources to which they .ÌÌÓý‰í³Ó̪ÓâĔ̖̉³‰Å³Ì–Åòæ³ÓÌ typically have access.8 EBA markets indicators, for ex- ample, measure some of the transaction costs for ex- Several studies suggest that low Ĕnancial inclusion porting agricultural goods. Women who wish to export rates for women not only constrain agricultural productivity but also reduce food security, nutrition in their reporting obligations. In only 6 of the 62 coun- and education investments.10 Accessing appropriate tries studied, however, are commercial banks required Ĕnance continues to be a signiĔcant challenge for to disaggregate their loan portfolio information by women. For example, in Uganda, although 38% of all gender. The same obligation applies to deposit-taking registered companies are owned by women, only 9% MFIs in 14 of the 33 countries where MFIs are allowed of credit is accessible to them; and in Kenya, where to take deposits (Ĕgure 11.1). women own 48% of micro and small enterprises, only 7% of credit is accessible to them.11 Women generally The land topic provides information on the availabil- face legal impediments, discriminatory bank practices ity of gender-disaggregated data on land ownership and male-favored cultural assumptions that limit their across 38 countries. In 18 of those countries, land access to suitable Ĕnancial services.12 The fact that registries gather gender-disaggregated data for indi- women usually do not possess assets that could serve vidually and jointly-registered land. as collateral also reduces access to Ĕnance, as does the lack of formal credit institutions in rural areas.13 Restrictions to women’s employment and MicroĔnance institutions (MFIs) are a crucial alterna- activity tive to traditional credit providers and banks, and the majority of MFI clients in many regions of the world are Regulations restricting women’s participation in certain women.14 Financial cooperatives can also provide an al- professions actually deny income-generating opportu- ternative to commercial banks. EBA Ĕnance indicators nities to women and shrink the pool of workers that encourage the creation of a regulatory environment for Ĕrms can employ. Identifying employment restrictions MFIs and Ĕnancial cooperatives, and they analyze the in the agricultural and agribusiness sector can com- range of assets that banks accept as collateral. plement the sectors already identiĔed by the Women, òæ³Ì ææ‰Ìœí° =‰þ dataset, including construction, Land use and ownership factory work, metalworking and mining. EBA collected data on employment restrictions in the context of han- Land is one of the most essential elements for agricul- dling pesticides or fertilizers, driving trucks and using ture, and therefore any limitations on land use or own- agricultural tractors. ership by women also restrict the economic autonomy of women and compromise agricultural productivity.15 Among the countries surveyed, Kyrgyz Republic and Less than 20% of agricultural landholders worldwide Vietnam both prohibit women from handling fertil- are women.16 Insecure land tenure for women discour- izers and operating tractors. Egypt, and the Russian ages Ĕnancial and physical investments to improve Federation also impose restrictions on handling fertil- the quality of land for production, and compromises izer and tractor use, respectively. the ability of women to pledge land as collateral to obtain Ĕnancing.17 EBA land data measure leasing of land, public land management, procedural safeguards Figure 11.1 | Are commercial banks and MFIs required in case of expropriation, gender disaggregation of land to collect gender-disaggregated data? records and relevance of land recordsЁimplementing good policies and regulatory practices in these indi- cators can help improve women’s use and access of Number of countries agricultural land. 60 54 50 What gender-relevant data were collected this year? 40 GENDER The following areas of research were chosen for cov- 30 erage in EBA 2017: availability of gender-disaggregated data, restrictions on women’s employment and activ- 20 18 ity, women’s participation and leadership in collective 14 groups and nondiscrimination legal provisions. These 10 6 103 questions build on Ĕndings from the Women, Business ‰Ìœ í°  =‰þ dataset, which already identiĔes many 0 relevant constraints.18 Commercial banks MicroĔnance institutions Availability of gender-disaggregated data Yes No Source: EBA database. Regulation can ensure banks and MFIs collect gen- der-disaggregated data by including such requirements Figure 11.2 | Do quotas or other mechanisms exist Women’s membership and participation in pro- to promote women’s leadership in member-based ducer organizations institutions? Limitations on the ability of women to become mem- bers of organizations such as agricultural cooperatives compromise their ability to capitalize and commercial- 8 YES ize their produce, and turn smallholdings into proĔt- able agribusinesses. Strong laws and regulations stipulate mandatory mem- bership criteria that cooperatives apply to all member applicants, to avoid the development of bylaws that may restrict women’s participation. Membership criteria requiring land ownership or full-time farm 54 employment, or restricting membership to heads of household or to one member per household, have a NO tendency to limit women’s access to member-based institutions on a de facto basis.19 Of the 62 countries surveyed, only 4 countries (India, Russian Federation, Rwanda and Serbia) require that producer organization membership be limited to one member per household. In Nigeria, cooperative members must have legal own- Source: EBA database. ership over land. On the other hand, a new agricultural cooperative law adopted in Greece in April 2016, now Note: Member-based institutions cover producer organizations, Ĕnancial co- operatives, and water user organizations. All of the 62 countries covered have allows women-only cooperatives to be established enacted speciĔc legislation to govern producer organization or have at least with only 5 female founding members, compared to some mention of producer organization in their broader legal framework, 56 have done so for Ĕnancial cooperatives, and 44 have done so for water user regular cooperatives where 20 members are required. organizations. In addition to quotas, other mechanisms to promote women’s leadership include general mentions of gender balance for board selection and composition. A country is considered to have such quota or other mechanism in Encouraging women to hold leadership positions in place if any of those applies to at least one of the three member-based institu- local organizations also plays an important role in tions under consideration. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 104 Women create terrace, Rwanda. Photo: A'Melody Lee / World Bank. Figure 11.3 | Do producer organizations have to comply with the principle of nondiscrimination? 28 YES 34 22 Yes, and gender is a protected NO category 6 Yes, but gender is not a protected category Source: EBA database. promoting gender equality. Quotas can establish the to promote the integration of women in cooperatives necessary critical mass of women as members and through speciĔc programs and campaigns. leaders to engender change in policy and the institu- tional culture and lead to more productive, proĔtable In other countries the constitution contains a nondis- organizations. Eight of the 62 countries surveyed crimination clause. According to the Women, Business (Greece, India, Kenya, Korea, Nepal, Nicaragua, Rwanda, ‰Ìœí° =‰þ database, 42 countries from the EBA sam- and Spain) have proactive policies to promote women’s ple have legal protection against discrimination, 28 of participation in the leadership of such groups (Ĕgure which mention gender as a protected category.21 11.2). In most cases, a quota is used and set out in applicable legislation. This is the case in India, where most state cooperative laws have a legally mandated Conclusion minimum requirement regarding the number of women to be included in cooperative managing committees. As they assess the overall business environment for Similarly, in Kenya, the 2010 Constitution mandates that agriculture and agribusiness, EBA indicators cover a no more than two-thirds of the members of elective or range of regulatory and procedural aspects that have a appointive bodies, including cooperatives boards, shall direct impact on women working as producers and at be of the same gender. other levels of the agricultural value chain. New data were collected this year to highlight some areas where Nondiscrimination regulations can have a more direct impact on wom- en’s productivity and opportunities for advancement. EBA also collected data on whether speciĔc laws on Those areas include the availability of sex-disaggre- producer organizations, Ĕnancial cooperatives and gated data with regard to banking and land transac- water user organizations require them to adhere to tions, the existence of legal restrictions to women’s GENDER principles of nondiscrimination and if gender is speci- employment in agriculture-related activities and the Ĕed as a protected category.20 existence of legal obstacles to women’s participation in membership-based organizations such as producer In the laws directly applicable to producer organizations, organizations, Ĕnancial cooperatives and water users’ legal protection against discrimination is provided in 28 associations. Progress on these areas as well as across of the countries studied. Among those, 22 speciĔcally EBA indicators in general can improve women’s pros- 105 provide that gender-based discrimination is prohibited pects and participation in agricultural value chains (Ĕgure 11.3). For example, Mexico’s Law on Cooperatives and ensure that women are on an equal footing with provides that cooperatives must guarantee equality men. It is hoped that through a mix of existing agri- in rights and duties among members and equality for cultural policies becoming more gender-inclusive, and women. Similarly, Nicaraguan and Bolivian laws estab- the designing of new policies that are gender-targeted, lish the principle of gender equality as applicable to co- constraints will be lifted and the particular needs of operative operations. Nicaragua requires cooperatives women in agriculture will be better met. NOTES REFERENCES 1 http://www.wfo-oma.com/women-in-agriculture/ African Development Bank Group. 2015. Africa Gender case-studies/the-story-of-livinesi-mateche.html. Equality Index 2015. Abidjan: African Development Bank. 2 UN Women 2016. Almodovar-Reteguis, N., K. Kushnir and T. Meilland. 2011. 3 Palacios-Lopez, Christiaensen and Kilic 2015. “Mapping the Legal Gender Gap in Using Property and Building Credit.” http://wbl.worldbank.org/~/ 4 O’Sullivan et al. 2014. media/WBG/WBL/Documents/Notes/Legal- Gender-Gap-in-Using-Property-and-Building- 5 FAO 2011. Credit.pdf. 6 Duĕo 2012; Udry 1996. Clugston, C. 2014. “The Business Case for Women’s Participation in Agricultural Cooperatives.” 7 World Bank 2015. http://hungercenter.wpengine.netdna-cdn. com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ACDI-VOCA- 8 Simavi, Manuel and Blackden 2010. Leland-CDP-Paraguay-Business-Case-for-Women- Participation-Agricultural-Cooperatives.pdf. 9 http://www.fao.org/gender/gender-home/gen- der-insight/gender-insightdet/en/c/164572/; Duĕo, Esther. 2012. “Women Empowerment and Clugston 2014. Economic Development.” Journal of Economic =³í â‰íòâ  50 (4): 1051-1079. 10 World Bank 2015; African Development Bank Group 2015. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture 2011. Women in Agriculture: 11 African Development Bank Group 2015. Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Rome: FAO. 12 OECD 2016. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural). 2010. 13 World Bank 2009. “Promoting the Leadership of Women in Producers’ Organizations.” Special Session of the Third Global 14 Almodovar-Reteguis, Kushnir and Meilland 2011. Meeting of the Farmers’ Forum. IFAD, Rome. 15 OECD 2014. Kenney, N. and A. de la o Campos. 2016. “Developing Gender-Equitable Legal Frameworks for Land ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 16 UN Women 2016. Tenure.” FAO Legal Papers No. 98. FAO, Rome. 17 OECD 2016; African Development Bank Group 2015. OECD. 2014. “Social Institutions & Gender Index 2014 Synthesis Report.” OECD, Paris. 18 c° tÓË ÌϜòæ³Ì ææ‰Ìœí° =‰þ indicator, using property, is extremely useful in determining some ЁЁЁ. 2016. “Women’s Roles in the West African Food constraints women face related to land use and System: Implications and Prospects for Food ownership. For example, according to this dataset, Security and Resilience.” West African Papers, No. in about 20% of the EBA sample countries, the law 3. OECD Publishing, Paris. does not give men and women equal inheritance rights. O'Sullivan, M., A Rao, R. Banerjsee, K. Gulati, and M.Vinez 2014. “Levelling the Field: Improving 19 Prakash 2003. Opportunities for Women Farmers in Africa.” World Bank Group, Washington, DC. 20 A nondiscrimination provision is based on the prin- 106 ciple of fairness and equality under the law. It pro- Palacios-Lopez, A., L. Christiaensen and T. Kilic. hibits discrimination in the treatment of members 2015. “How Much of the Labor in African Agriculture in regardless of gender, profession, income and so Is Provided by Women?” Policy Research on. For instance, it may include language requiring Working Paper, No. WPS 7282. World Bank Group, fair terms for women and men when joining as a Washington, DC. member or applying for a loan. Prakash, D. 2003. “Rural Women, Food Security and 21 See wbl.worldbank.org. Agricultural Cooperatives.” Rural Development and Management Centre, New Delhi. Simavi, S., C. Manuel and M. Blackden. 2010. Gender Dimensions of Investment Climate Reform: A Guide for Policy Makers and Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank. Udry, C. 1996. “Gender, Agricultural Production, and the Theory of the Household.” Journal of Political Economy, 104 (5): 1010-1046. UN Women. 2016. “Women’s Empowerment Through Climate-Smart Agriculture.” UN Women, New York. Woetzel, J. et al. 2015. “How Advancing Women’s Equality Can Add Ч12 trillion to Global Growth.” McKinsey Global Institute Report, September. World Bank. 2009. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank. ЁЁЁ. 2015. “The Cost of the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda.” Working Paper. World Bank Group, Washington, DC. GENDER 107 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 108 Land ProĔts per hectare on maize-cassava Secure tenure provides incentives for land-attached farms vary widely across similar plots investments to enhance productivity of land use and discourage unsustainable practices (such as soil min- cultivated by different families in the Ak- ing) that generate negative effects. The deĔnition of wapim region of southern Ghana. Most of land rights and avenues to access it affect equality of the land cultivated by farmers in these opportunity, women’s bargaining power, households’ villages is under the ultimate control of ability to bear risk and their sense of identity. If land can be transferred and markets are sufĔciently liquid a paramount chief and is allocated local- and their functioning not impeded by other market ly through the matrilineage leadership. imperfections, it is ideal collateral that can allow Insecure land tenure is associated with those previously excluded to access Ĕnancial markets. However, impediments to land market functioning greatly reduced investment in land fer- can undermine the ability to use land as collateral in tility. Individuals who are not central to Ĕnancial markets and make it more difĔcult for en- the networks of social and political pow- trepreneurs, small or large, to access land to develop er that permeate these villages are much entrepreneurial activities.2 more likely to have their land expropri- By allowing the productive use of land by individuals ated when it is fallow. As a consequence, moving out of the agricultural sector, land rentals or farm productivity for these individuals sales can contribute to structural transformation. Land is correspondingly reduced. Women are records are also indispensable to effectively manage public land in rural areas and to plan and Ĕnance ur- rarely in positions of sufĔcient political ban expansion in a way that is associated with higher power to be conĔdent of their rights to density rather than sprawl. Moreover, without well-de- land. So women fallow their plots less Ĕned land rights, it is difĔcult to provide incentives for production of environmental amenities. than their husbands and achieve 30% lower yields.1 LAND Klaus Deininger authored this chapter. Constructive input and comments from steering committee members Julio Berdegue (RIMISP), Dave Bledsoe (Landesa), Theo de Jager (Pan-African Farmers Association), Elshad Khanalibayli (UN-ECA 109 Working Party on Land Administration), Steve Lawry (CIFOR), Father Francis Lucas (Asian NGO Coalition) and Peter Veit (World Resources Institute) throughout the process are gratefully acknowledged. The village of Ait Sidi Hsain, near Meknes, Morocco. Photo: Arne Hoel / World Bank. What do the land indicators measure? any transfer of state land for commercial purposes (ex- cluding social concerns) should be via public auction. If EBA land indicators measure laws and regulations that applicable, development conditions, means of veriĔca- impact access to land markets for producers and agri- tion, or sanctions for noncompliance should be clearly businesses (table 12.1). The indicators are organized as stipulated with key contractual provisions public and follows: open to independent third-party monitoring. Coverage, relevance, and currency of land records: Equity and fairness: This indicator measures the ex- This indicator measures the extent to which relevant tent to which gender aspects of land are considered and up to date documentation of land rights is avail- in policy-making, land can be accessed via rental or able for all. A key purpose of land records is to ensure sales markets, and land rights are protected against land owners are conĔdent enough about their rights expropriation without fair compensation. As a basic being protected to make long-term investments in ag- asset, equal treatment for different types of land own- riculture and transfer them to others, if they decide to ers or users is important, whether by gender or type of take up nonagricultural opportunities. documentation. Coverage and ease of use. This sub-indicator measures Gender-differentiated recording and reporting. This if land records provide information on ownership and sub-indicator measures regulations on monitoring the location of land in an integrated fashion. Broad cov- gender dimension of land rights to lay out the foun- erage is essential for land records to support access dation for identifying the magnitude of this gap and to Ĕnance and transferability, and to protect existing assess if measures to close it are having any effect. rights from an equity point of view. Moreover, to pre- Even if gender equality is guaranteed constitutionally, vent disputes over boundaries or overlaps, and allow the extent to which such principles are translated into use of records for planning, land rights documentation practice may be lagging. needs to include a clear reproducible description of boundaries together with the written record that is Freedom of leasing. This sub-indicator focuses on updated in case of transfer or subdivision. regulations and restrictions on leasing. While the fact that land also provides an important social safety net Visibility of restrictions on land records. This sub-indi- may lead communities to restrict the ability to perma- cator assesses the extent to which restrictions relating nently transfer land,4 leasing is critical for structural to a land parcel are evident on the record. Ensuring transformation and restrictions on its use may not on- that all relevant restrictions are visible on the record is ly drive many efĔciency-enhancing land transactions key to ensure that, before entering into contractual re- underground, enhancing insecurity for lessors (often lationships involving a parcel of land, interested third single women), but also restricting the scope for more parties need not conduct time-consuming and costly effective land use. searches and inquiries. Complete records also reduce ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 conĕict and speed up dispute resolution. Procedural safeguards in case of expropriation. This sub-indicator measures regulations to ensure that ex- State land management: The indicator measures how propriation is limited to public purpose, implemented state-owned land, such as forests, parks, road reserves transparently and with effective appeals mechanisms.5 and other public spaces are identiĔed and thus can be While provision of infrastructure and reallocation of protected against encroachment.3 The issue is particu- agricultural land for industry and urban expansion can larly acute in low-income settings where laws stipulate provide signiĔcant social beneĔts, having to fear land that all land not explicitly registered or occupied by being expropriated without adequate compensation private partiesЁwhich are often farmlandsЁbelongs to or due process can undermine investment incentives, the state. lead to over-acquisition of land from a social point of view, and precipitate conĕict. Often, expropriation Record information on state-managed land. This threats imply that peri-urban land is not used for high sub-indicator measures whether state land is identi- value crops as in China6 or Nigeria. Ĕed and mapped, and whether a Ĕeld-based process is put in place before any land is transferred. Failure 110 to have them may render large parts of the population How do countries perform on the land vulnerable to dispossession and affect willingness to indicators? invest in the land. Overall scores for the 38 countries in the EBA land Transfer of state land for commercial use. This sub-in- sample point towards wide variation in performance dicator measures if regulations governing the transfer across countries (Ĕgure 12.1). OECD countries rank of state land for commercial use ensure a transparent highest, followed by Europe and Central Asia where process. To ensure that state land is put to its best use, large sums were invested in land administration Table 12.1 | What do the land indicators measure? Coverage and ease of use • Type of system for archiving information on land ownership • Type of system for archiving maps COVERAGE, • Link between property ownership registry and mapping system RELEVANCE AND CURRENCY OF • How immovable property is identiĔed RECORDS FOR PRIVATE LAND Visibility of restrictions on land records • Online linkage to bans for registering mortgages • Online linkage to enter public encumbrances • Online linkage for the judiciary to record civil disputes pertaining to a parcel Record information on state-managed land • State land is registered • State land is mapped STATE LAND • Field-based process MANAGEMENT Transfer of state land for commercial use • Public tender mechanism • Transparency and monitoring of contractual obligations Gender dimension of land records • Gender information kept at the registry • Regular reporting on gender-disaggregated statistics Freedom of leasing • Standardized lease contracts EQUITY • Negotiation on rental rates AND FAIRNESS • Legal restrictions on minimum duration on the leases Procedural safeguards in case of expropriation • Eligibility of compensation • Out-of-court arbitration process • Market value compensation (land, improvements, standing crops) • Appeal process • Safeguard on compensation Source: EBA database. LAND 111 Figure 12.1 | Values of EBA land scores at the country level EBA17 land score 100 80 60 AVERAGE 39 40 20 0 Denmark Netherlands Russian Federation Georgia Kyrgyz Republic Armenia Morocco Ukraine Spain Malaysia Peru Korea Colombia Vietnam Mexico Egypt Philippines Ghana Lao PDR Nepal Burkina Faso Sudan Zambia Uganda Niger Benin Sri Lanka Tajikistan Ethiopia Malawi Senegal Burundi Mozambique Nigeria Myanmar Haiti Bosnia and India - Bihar Source: EBA database. infrastructure over the last decade. Although scores difference in coverage of land records, which is low- are lowest for Sub-Saharan Africa, strengthening the est for agricultural land in most countries. Figure regulatory environment for land governance can lead 12.3 shows that, conditional on coverage, digitization to considerable gains also in other regions such as of textual and spatial records can have high returns, South and East Asia or Latin America. especially for low-income countries. Less than 20% of sample countries in the low-income category have Figure 12.2 displays the scores for the three land textual and spatial records digitized, limiting the scope sub-indicators by income group. With the possible ex- for land data integration. ception of upper-middle-income countries, scores are ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 lowest for management of state land, suggesting that, In many of the countries where coverage with digital in the short term, improved mapping and demarcation records is low, paper records may either be outdated together with processes for transferring state land for or overlap with each other, in which case they may pro- commercial use that are more transparent and rely on vide little tenure security. In high-potential agricultural independent monitoring offer opportunities for signiĔ- areas or urban settings, record digitization should cant gains. Given the increased scrutiny of supply chain be prioritized and combined with rigorous quality governance by private sector institutions, especially checking and, in case there are issues, a participatory Ĕnanciers, such measures could provide opportunities low-cost process of systematic registration to update to attract investment into the sector. records and expand coverage, following the example of Rwanda. In rural areas with lower levels of agricultural While low-income countries score reasonably well on potential, limited market activity and communal gover- equity and inclusion, they differ markedly from the rest nance structures that are still functional, registration in terms of coverage, quality and relevance of records. of individual plots may be neither desirable nor cost Recent technological improvements in IT and earth ob- effective. Recording of community boundaries together servation provide a basis for rapid improvement and with clarifying internal management structures and 112 leapfrogging in this area, ideally followed by state land modalities for recording of land rights and transfers, registration. may bring social and economic beneĔts by securing rights, providing the basis for negotiation with outsid- Coverage, relevance and currency of records for ers and allowing a transition towards more sophisti- private land cated systems as and when the need arises. Data from the Doing Business land administra- All the top performing countries have digitized and in- tion quality indicator point towards a considerable tegrated textual records and cadastral maps as well as Figure 12.2 | Values of EBA land sub-indicators by Figure 12.3 | EBA sub-scores for relevance of land countries’ income group records by countries’ income group High income High income Upper-middle Upper-middle income income Lower-middle Lower-middle income income Low income Low income 0 2 4 6 8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 EBA land score Relevance of land records Record State land Equity and Textual records Spatial records Textual and spatial relevance management inclusion digital/scanned digital/scanned records integrated Source: EBA database. Source: EBA database. mechanisms to ensure that material changes in rights Equity and inclusion are recorded, be it transfer of ownership via sale or in- heritance or creation of a link to ensure that mortgages Figure 12.5 displays information on values for three or a civil dispute involving a speciĔc land parcel is auto- key sub-scores under the equity and fairness sub- matically reĕected in the registry. Alerting third parties indicator, namely: (i) if there is gender-differentiated of such changes minimizes the potential for fraud and monitoring of land rights; (ii) whether registered and obviates the need for costly and socially wasteful exam- unregistered land are compensated equally (or all ination of rights by each party. land is registered so that the question does not arise); and (iii) the expropriation process and, in particular, State land management associated valuations can be contested. Key indicators of the state land management quality Data suggest that in the low-income countries in the (Ĕgure 12.4) point towards a considerable gap between EBA 2017 sample, the scope of receiving compensation high- and upper-middle-income countries and the rest for unregistered land that is equal to what would be in terms of the share of state land that is registered received for registered land is much lower, despite and mapped and the extent to which such records are the fact that in such countries most land remains publicly available. While all of the former have most of unregistered, the scope for market-based transfers for their state land mapped and most of them have such land acquisition is more limited and regulations often rights registered and maps publicly available, this is the require expropriation of land to transfer it to investors.7 case only for less than 20% of the lower-middle and Although a higher share of low- and lower-middle- LAND low-income countries in the sample. income countries allows appeals against valuations, there is little administrative support for such appeals Similarly, stark differences emerge for the extent to to be successful. which state land transfers are by public tender, key contract provisions are publicly available and compli- With economic development and expansion of oppor- 113 ance is monitored. Differences along these dimensions tunities for nonagricultural employment, opportunities are likely to not only reduce prices received by the for (long-term) land leasing will be important to en- public but also land use efĔciency on land subject sure that rural areas allow (young) farmers with higher to such transfers. It may also jeopardize countries’ skills to expand and invest in more capital-intensive ability to attract investment by investors whose supply production methods. Leasing is also an important chains are subject to scrutiny either from customers way for women to access land. Regulatory barriers to or Ĕnanciers. leasing or the high cost of entering into/registering Figure 12.4 | EBA sub-scores for quality of state land Figure 12.5 | EBA sub-scores for equity by countries’ management by countries’ income group income group High income High income Upper-middle Upper-middle income income Lower-middle Lower-middle income income Low income Low income 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 State land management sub-score Equity sub-score Registration Mapping of Maps of state Gender dimension Registered and Valuation can of state land state land land are public is monitored unregistered land be appealed compensated equally Source: EBA database. Source: EBA database. such transfers may prevent these transactions from an issue corrected before the national roll-out.8 The happening. The incidence of leasing restrictions has reĔned process led to demarcation and registration been reduced and many countries report availability of the country’s 11.5 million parcels in less than three of standard leases to reduce the transaction cost of years at USЧ 6 per parcel,9 improving investments in engaging in such transactions. Still, some changes go land and tree planting, females’ tenure security and in the other direction; for example, Ukraine imposed functioning of land rental markets.10 The registry can a seven-year minimum duration for any lease to be be accessed online by Banks or local staff (via mobile registered. The ensuing immediate and massive drop phones) and viewed by investors; potential increments in the number of registered leases, from more than in urban residential land tax revenue due to having 140,000 to some 30,000 per month, illustrates that a complete register alone are more than sufĔcient to ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 regulation can set important repercussions. recoup the program cost in less than a decade.11 Focusing on communities allowed Mexico to regularize What are the regulatory good practices? more than 60 mn. hectares in slightly more than a decade. A Ĕrst step involved recognizing communities’ Good practice examples for each of the main areas of legal personality and establishing mechanisms for emphasis are provided in box 12.1 and some cases are internal self-governance (general assembly, executive, described in more detail below. and an oversight committee). Once approved by the assembly, land registration then involved ofĔcials Registration of land rights and computerization working with members to identify plot owners, resolv- of land registry information ing pending disputes in speciĔcally created courts, and creating a map with boundaries of individual or Land tenure regularization in Rwanda illustrates the communal plots for approval by the assembly that scope for combining modern technology and partici- triggered issuance of certiĔcates to all rights-holders. patory processes and the multiple beneĔts form land It enhanced productivity,12 investment, economic and 114 registries. Following passage of the 2004/5 land policy migration opportunities, especially for those with weak and organic land law, a three-year pilot in 2007-10 rights or lower endowments.13 on some 15,000 parcels helped design locally imple- mentable low cost and participatory processes. This Sequential computerization of land registration in the helped double the rate of investment in soil conser- Indian state of Andhra Pradesh helped to make infor- vation while tripling it for female-headed households mation on land rights accessible and thus increased who suffered from higher insecurity. Land rights by mortgages by 18% and credit volume by 10.5%.14 legally married women improved, although those without marriage certiĔcate were negatively affected, Box 12.1 | Good Practices for Land REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR LAND IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE COVERAGE, RELEVANCE, AND Private land rights are registered and mapped for land owned MEXICO, RWANDA CURRENCY OF individually or by groups. RECORDS FOR PRIVATE LAND Textual and spatial records are maintained digitally and GEORGIA integrated, and can be easily accessed by all interested parties. Mortgages and disputes pertaining to a land parcel are visible INDIA on the record and can be entered online by banks or the courts. PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT State land is fully mapped and registered. KOREA, REP., NETHERLANDS Encroachment is monitored regularly and actively. DENMARK State land transfers for commercial use are by transparent public tender, and a Ĕeld-based process is used to ascertain BRAZIL absence of competing land claims and obtain occupants’ informed consent. A list of state land transfers as well as key contractual provisions (for example, prices, expected use and land PERU development plans) are public and independently monitored. EQUITY AND FAIRNESS Land ownership information is recorded by gender and VIETNAM regularly monitored. Standardized contracts for land leasing are available and there INDIA are no speciĔc restrictions on land leasing. If not all land is registered, three is no difference in the compensation paid in case of acquisition between registered PERU and unregistered land. Source: EBA database. LAND 115 Public land management in Peru and Brazil Widespread past abuses of expropriation for political purposes led Peru to impose constitutional rules to Peru shows that transparent public state land auctions limit expropriation to tightly deĔned public purpose. can enhance transparency and efĔciency of land use. New regulations introduced to implement the rules Once the auction is initiated, the intention to divest the require Congressional authorization for any expro- land and the terms of the bidding are published for priation and voiding it if the state is not the direct at least 90 days. Bidders must prequalify by posting a beneĔciary or if land has not been transferred to the bond of at least 60% of the minimum bid price plus intended use within 24 months so that land reverts intended investment. Auctions of 235,500 hectares back to the original owner.25 brought almost Ч50 million in investment to Peru’s coastal regions over the last 15 years, generating large What are other areas of research? numbers of jobs and underpinning the country’s emer- gence as a major force in high-value agro-exports. Group rights: As a cost-effective way to cover large areas, group rights have long played a role to protect To limit deforestation due to area expansion, Brazil’s right to indigenous areas and signiĔcantly contribute Forest code long required that, in environmentally sen- to conserving natural resources.26 Pilots all over the sitive areas, a certain share of each property be kept world to demarcate communal rights in a comprehen- under forest, though impact remained limited to weak sive participatory way are currently underway and the enforcement. A shift to satellite-based monitoring of main issue is the extent to which results from such land use changes together with local enforcement initiatives enjoy legal recognition. In fact, if regulations in 2004 was, in 2008, complemented with a decision and laws are fashioned appropriately, there is scope for to make preferential credit access conditional on expanding such approaches to support comprehensive demonstrated compliance with environmental norms. and cost-effective demarcation of the outer boundary In 2005-09, this is estimated to have helped avoid of villages. If linked to adoption of clear approaches to 73,000 km2 of deforestation.15 In Brazil’s Para state, within-group governance, this could be linked to mech- use of such information by the private sector drove anisms for internal management of rights to individual adoption of the environmental cadaster16 and further agricultural or house plots and avenues for greater reductions in deforestation.17 As a result, a tripling of formalization if and when the need arises. A highly pol- the Amazon’s cattle herd and a six-fold increase of icy relevant approach would be to identify the cost, in area planted to soy since 1990 was associated with a terms of time and motion, of acquiring a document to decline in deforestation to about one third of the 1990 certify group rights on a demand-driven basis. level, effectively decoupling soy and beef production and deforestation.18 Cost of conducting a survey: High survey standards and anachronistic requirements open the door to dis- Equity and inclusion through gender re- cretion and increase the cost of conducting surveys, cording standard leases and regulations on and constrains the scope for registry expansion and ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 expropriation currency as it drives transactions underground. To ad- dress this, professionals have long recommended a “Ĕt While Vietnam’s 1993 Land Law made rights more for purpose” approach to surveying as a measure that secure by introducing CertiĔcates to allow farmers to could provide enormous beneĔts, to improve coverage trade, transfer, rent, bequeath or mortgage land use and reduce informality.27 Working with professional rights with positive economic impact,19 women were associations to establish benchmarks that can then be often left out partly because the nature of the forms. pilot tested in a range of countries would have a high Regulation requiring two spaces implied that, by 2015, return and allow to address a key bottleneck. more than 70% of certiĔcates were issued jointly, over- coming gender discrimination20 and improving wom- Linking to national parameters: All the three indica- en’s bargaining power and educational attainment of tor groups include elements that relate to national their children.21 systems and are easy to assess. Doing so through the Doing Business registering property indicator, to Many Indian states historically imposed rent ceilings be complemented with more speciĔc assessment of or outlawed leasing. But instead of beneĔt them as aspects related to the agricultural sector, will greatly 116 intended, this is driving tenantsЁoften poor womenЁ strengthen the ability to use EBA results for global underground, making them more vulnerable, reducing comparison and in relevant policy dialogues. productivity22 and investment23 and causing owners to leave large tracts of land idle. To address this, Government drafted model legislation and contracts that are being considered for implementation in sev- eral Indian states.24 Factory workers producing fresh fruit in Nsawan District, Ghana. Photo: Dominic Chavez/World Bank. Conclusion The above discussion suggests that ways to make quick records for managing public land, ensuring equal improvements differs somewhat between countries treatment of women as well as owners of registered LAND in the high- and low-income groups. The former can and non-registered land, and from moving existing score quick wins by ensuring integration of textual land records to a digital platform to identify issues and spatial elements of land records, making these that need to be addressed to ensure transparency and available to economic actors and other government explore opportunities for expansion in high potential departments, ensuring that an appropriate regulatory areas to protect existing right holders, allow them to framework allows different actors to harness beneĔts transfer their land to higher uses as appropriate, and 117 from this infrastructure, and closely monitor elements provide investment incentives. Based on digitization of its expansion, including the gender dimension. of existing records and review of the regulatory framework, approaches to enhance coverage in a By comparison, for most low- and lower-middle-income participatory and low-cost way can then be identiĔed countries, enormous short-term advances can be made and carefully piloted, with the scope for larger roll-out by improving the regulatory framework and associated in the medium term. NOTES REFERENCES 1 Goldstein and Udry 2008. Ali, D. A., K. Deininger and M. Goldstein. 2014. “Environmental and Gender Impacts of Land 2 The difĔculty of accessing land for enterprise Tenure Regularization in Africa: Pilot Evidence from development has emerged as one of the main Rwanda.” Journal of Development Economics. 110 complaints by private sector operators in a large (0): 262Ђ75. number of enterprise surveys in African countries. Ali, D. A., K. Deininger, M. Goldstein and E. La Ferrara. 3 Kaganova and McKelar 2006. 2015. “Investment and Market Impacts of Land Tenure Regularization in Rwanda.” World Bank 4 Andolfatto 2002. Policy Research Paper. Washington, DC. 5 Tagliarino 2016. Ali, D. A., K. W. Deininger and M. Duponchel. 2016. “Using Administrative Data to Assess the Impact 6 Deininger and Xia 2016. and Sustainability of Rwanda’s Land Tenure Regularization.” Policy Research Working Paper 7 Deininger and Byerlee 2011. 7705. World Bank. Washington, DC. 8 Ali et al. 2014. Andolfatto, D. 2002. “A Theory of Inalienable Property Rights.” Journal of Political Economy 110 (2): 382Ђ93. 9 Nkurunziza 2015. Assuncao, J., C. Gandour and R. Rocha. 2015. 10 Ali et al. 2015. “Deforestation Slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: Prices or Policies?” Environment and Development 11 Ali et al. 2016. Economics 20 (6): 697Ђ722. 12 de Janvry et al. 2015. de Janvry, A., K. Emerick, M. Gonzalez-Navarro and E. Sadoulet. 2015. “Delinking Land Rights from 13 Valsecchi 2014. Land Use: CertiĔcation and Migration in Mexico.” American Economic Review 105 (10): 3125Ђ149. 14 Deininger and Goyal 2012. Deininger, K., S. Jin and H. K. Nagarajan. 2008. “EfĔciency 15 Assuncao et al. 2015. and Equity Impacts of Rural Land Market Restrictions: Evidence from India.” European 16 Gibbs et al. 2016. Economic Review 52 (5): 892Ђ918. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 17 L’Roe et al. 2016. Deininger, K. and D. Byerlee. 2011. Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can It Yield Sustainable and Equitable 18 Pacheco 2016.  Ì ĔíæϢ Washington, DC: World Bank. 19 Do and Iyer 2008. Deininger, K., H. Selod and A. Burns. 2011. Improving &Óý ẩ̖  Óª =‰Ìœ ‰Ìœ ææӖ³‰í œ D‰íòâ‰Å 20 Newman et al. 2015. Y æÓò■æϛ c°  =‰Ìœ &Óý ẩ̖  ææ ææË Ìí Framework. Washington, DC: World Bank. 21 Menon et al. 2014. Deininger, K. and A. Goyal. 2012. “Going Digital: Credict 22 Deininger et al. 2008. Effects of Land Registry Computerization in India.” Journal of Development Economics 99 (2): 236Ђ43. 23 Deininger et al. 2013. Deininger, K., J. Songqing and V. Yadav. 2013. “Does 118 24 Haque 2016. Sharecropping Affect Long-Term Investment? Evidence from West Bengal’s Tenancy Reforms.” 25 Deininger et al. 2011. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (3): 772 Ђ 90. 26 Miranda et al. 2016. 27 Enemark et al. 2014. Deininger, K. and F. Xia. 2016. “Gender-Differentiated Pacheco, P. 2016. “Public and Private Actions for Shifting Impacts of Tenure Insecurity on Agricultural Towards Sustainable Production of Beef and Palm Productivity in Malawi’s Customary Tenure System.” Oil.” Paper presented at the 17th Annual World Bank World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. World Conference on Land and Poverty, Washington, DC. Bank, Washington, DC. Tagliarino, N. K. 2016. “Encroaching on Land and Do, Q. T. and L. Iyer. 2008. “Land Titling and Rural Livelihoods: How National Expropriation Laws Transition in Vietnam.” Economic Development and Measure Up against International Standards.” Cultural Change 56 (3): 531Ђ79. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Enemark, S., K. C. Bell, C. Lemmen and R. McLaren. Valsecchi, M. 2014. “Land Property Rights and 2014. “Fit for Purpose Land Administration.” A joint International Migration: Evidence from Mexico.” publication of the International Federation of Journal of Development Economics 110: 276Ђ90. Surveyors and the World Bank, Frederiksberg, DK. Gibbs, H. K. et al. 2016. “Did Ranchers and Slughterhouses Respond to Zero-Deforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon?” ÓÌæ âý‰í³ÓÌ = íí âæ 9 (1): 32Ђ42. Goldstein, Markus and Christopher Udry. 2008. “The ProĔts of Power: Land Rights and Agricultural Investment in Ghana.” Journal of Political Economy, 116(6): 981-1022. Haque, T. 2016. “Report of the Expert Committee on Land Leasing.” Niti Aayog, New Delhi. Kaganova, O. and J. McKelar. 2006. “Managing Government Property Assets: International Experiences.” Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC. L’Roe, J., L. Rausch, J. Munger and H. K. Gibbs. 2016. “Mapping Properties to Monitor Forests: Landholder Response to a Large Environmental Registration Program in the Brazilian Amazon.” =‰Ìœ hæ  VÓų–Ą 57: 193Ђ203. Menon, N., Y. van der Meulen Rodgers and H. Nguyen. 2014. “Women’s Land Rights and Children’s Human Capital in Vietnam.” World Development 54: 18Ђ31. Miranda, J. J. et al. 2016. “Effects of Protected Areas on Forest Cover Change and Local Communities: Evidence from the Peruvian Amazon.” World LAND Development 78: 288Ђ307. Newman, C., F. Tarp and K. van den Broeck. 2015. “Property Rights and Productivity: The Case of Joint Land Titling in Vietnam.” 91 (1): 91Ђ105. 119 Nkurunziza, E. 2015. “Implementing and Sustaining Land Tenure Regularization in Rwanda.” In How .ÌÌÓý‰í³ÓÌæ ³Ì =‰Ìœ œË³Ì³æíâ‰í³ÓÌ Y ªÓâË Improve on Doing Business, edited by T. Hilhorst and F. Meunier, 10Ђ19. Washington, DC: World Bank. 120 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Livestock Today Johnson is a successful cattle Livestock is one of the fastest-growing agricultural farmer in Garissa in northeastern Kenya. sub-sectors in the world, accounting for around 40% of agricultural output in the developing world.2 The term He started his business in 2006, but it of livestock is used in this report to refer to domestic almost did not make it. In 2006 Kenya or domesticated animals that are raised mainly for and its neighbors, Somalia and Tanzania, agriculture purposes and includes, for example, large experienced an outbreak of the Rift Valley ruminants such as cattle, small ruminants such as goats, as well as pigs and poultry.3 Aquaculture is not Fever diseaseЁan infectious animal considered by the livestock topic. disease that can also be transferred to humans. Johnson lost a signiĔcant Livestock is a main source of income for one in Ĕve people across the globe.4 Livestock infectious diseases, number of his cattle herd. He was not therefore, pose a signiĔcant risk to that contribution if alone in experiencing the destructive left unchecked. Estimates suggest that these diseases impact of the disease outbreak. By the are responsible for more than 20% of livestock produc- end of the outbreak in 2007, the economic tion losses globally.5 Furthermore, approximately 70% of all new human diseases are zoonotic, transferring loss in Kenya was estimated to have between animals and humans, and mostly originating been greater than USЧ9.3 million, due to from animals.6 the ban on livestock trade and the forced quarantine of animals.1 Thankfully, the Maintaining animal health is thus central to the global food system’s stability and safety. Readily available disease was contained within a year; preventative and curative veterinary medicinal prod- Johnson purchased more cattle and was ucts (VMPs) can minimize the negative economic able to continue with his business. impact of diseases and safeguard the livelihoods of millions of farmers around the world.7 However, VMPs (biologicals and pharmaceuticals) have to be used in the correct circumstances and in accordance with prescribed conditions and dosages if they are to be truly effective. If not, for example, their use can lead to increased drug resistance and illness in humans due LIVESTOCK to drug residues in consumed animal foods.8 Further, open borders, inadequate legal frameworks and poor law enforcement can lead to counterfeit and substan- dard VMPs in the market.9 121 Cattle grazing in Ta Kuti village, Nigeria. Photo: Arne Hoel / World Bank. Comprehensive regulations on the manufacture, reg- and create severe registration backlogs of products istration, import, distribution, sale and/or administra- awaiting marketing authorization.15 In addition, the pri- tion of livestock medicinal products can contribute to vate sector’s knowledge of and trust in the registration establishing a reliable market supply of effective and process inĕuence the decision to supply markets with safe VMPs.10 Since research and development in the VMPs and whether to participate in the legally mandat- veterinary medicine sector is expensive, specialized ed registration process.16 and time consuming, most manufacturing facilities are established and owned by large companies located in Registration output. The registration system can speciĔc regions of the world.11 While large companies produce a registry of authorized VMPs and tempo- represent the bigger market share of VMP manufactur- rarily protect proprietary data submitted during the ing, a diversiĔed mix of private sector entities supply registration process for newly developed products. the marketЁlarge companies, small and medium en- The registry’s existence has legal consequences, giv- terprises (SMEs), breeders’ organizations, and veteri- en that most countries require that products must narians. Given this dominant role of private sector in be registered prior to market entry and circulation.17 the development, manufacturing and market supply of Time-bound proprietary data provides incentives for VMPs, it is important that regulations are streamlined innovation and research and development.18 Unlike and efĔcient in order not to discourage them from human medicinal products, the Ĕnancial return for entering and operating in markets.12 VMPs can be signiĔcantly less, given the lower sales prices and potentially smaller market size, especially Access to effective and safe VMPs is just one critical for the market for small animals.19 input into livestock production. Other key production inputs are feed resources, productive animal breeds Authorization of importers: In many countries, the and veterinary services. While the focus of the live- main supply of VMPs comes from outside the country stock topic in EBA17 is on VMPs, the topic will be further and import licenses are a useful way to impose min- developed in the coming years to assess the impact imum safety and qualiĔcation requirements on the of regulations on other relevant issues in livestock companies inolved. The data collected cover import production. Once a more comprehensive data set is restrictions such as types of entities allowed to import established, an adequate livestock scoring methodol- VMPs and whether importers are required to employ ogy will be developed and implemented. specialized staff. Marketing of VMPs: Labeling requirements on market- What does the veterinary medicinal ed VMPs are critical to ensuring their proper handling products topic cover? and administration. In addition, knowing what diseases are present in a country, their geographic location and The data collected cover regulations impacting the pri- the size of the livestock populations threatened are vate sector’s ability to supply the market with effective all key factors in determining resource mobilization of ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 and safe VMPs. Data assess regulatory requirements for VMPs.20 In particular, data assess: registration, importation and marketing of VMPs: Labeling of marketed VMPs. VMPs are often adminis- Registration of VMPs: Registration, or marketing au- tered by veterinarians and farmers; as such, adequate thorization, is a critical step in a country’s control sys- labeling is of paramount importance. 21 tem for VMPs. Most countries require VMP registration before it can be manufactured, imported, distributed Information availability on animal diseases. The pri- and sold.13 Data were collected on: vate sector can use information in a national disease database, beyond data available on transboundary Institutional structure. Literature suggests that a coun- diseases and zoonosis (diseases transferable from try’s ability to provide effective regulatory institutions animals to humans) found in World Organization for is an important determinant of how well markets Animal Health (OIE) and regional databases, to make function.14 Having multiple government institutions distribution and sales decisions and to explore new involved in the registration process can create a bur- market niches. den for the private sector, especially when roles and 122 responsibilities are not clearly deĔned and the appli- Some good practice examples are showcased in box cants are required to interact with multiple different 13.1. institutions. Registration process. Data points assess the existence of obstacles and good practices during the registration process. Unclear and irrelevant registration require- ments often lead to delays in the registration process Box 13.1 | Good practices for veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) REGULATORY SOME COUNTRIES WHICH GOOD PRACTICES FOR VMPS IMPLEMENT THE PRACTICE REGISTRATION OF VMPS ALL EBA COUNTRIES EXCEPT: There is both a regulatory framework and an institution actively BURUNDI, HAITI, LAO PDR, registering VMPs. MOZAMBIQUE AND RWANDA Dossiers are required to be checked for completeness prior to DENMARK, MEXICO, NIGERIA, the start of an evaluation to ensure all required documents are POLAND, RUSSIA, SPAIN AND included. TURKEY Applicants are provided with information on the number of BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, days within which a VMP will be registered and expectations are GEORGIA AND GHANA adhered to. Information on registration requirements and the registry of COLOMBIA, ITALY, MOROCCO AND VMPs are easily accessible to the public. ZIMBABWE MARKETING OF MEDICINAL Labeling requirements are comprehensive and provide MALAYSIA, NICARAGUA, PERU PRODUCTS distinction between what information is required to be on the AND SERBIA outer and immediate package.a Withdrawal periods are required on VMP labels to protect DENMARK, ITALY AND consumers of animal products. NICARAGUA Source: EBA database. a Outer packaging is the packaging into which the immediate packaging is placed (for example, the box), while immediate packaging is the container or any other form of packaging that is in direct contact with the medicinal product (for example, the vial or bottle). Some insights emerging from the data of the relevant authority. In Malawi, there is no func- tioning publicly accessible website. The three EBA Ensuring the predictability of registration countries not requiring VMP registration do not have a systems for VMPs legal framework and are either in the process of devel- oping a framework or are yet to commence the process The VMP registration system’s predictability inĕuences (Burundi, Lao PDR and Mozambique). private sector decisions to supply a market with VMPs using the legally mandated process.22 Ease in accessing Given the requirement to register products prior to information on registration requirements and the VMP market introduction and circulation, it is also important registry, conĔdence that all necessary documentation that an applicant is able to easily access information LIVESTOCK are included in the application package (dossier) and on products already authorized for market circulation awareness of the timeframe by which the registration in a country. Of the 57 countries actively registering is intended be completed, are all factors that can con- VMPs, a registry is available online in 37 countries, 21 tribute to the predictability of the registration process. of which are high-income or upper-middle-income countries. Only 12 lower-middle-income countries and It is vital that applicants are aware of all the registra- 4 low-income countries provide a registry on the regis- tion requirements and are able to easily obtain such tering authority’s website. 123 information. Of the 59 countries legally requiring VMP registration, 5 countries do not provide information on In most countries, during the dossier evaluation pro- dossier requirements on the website of the authority cess, each time the regulatory authority requires addi- mandated to register VMPs (Haiti, Malawi, Rwanda, Sri tional information from an applicant, the registration Lanka and Tajikistan). In Rwanda, the registration pro- process is put on a hold. To limit this outcome, the cess is yet to start. In Haiti (currently not registering application package (dossier) can be checked for com- products), Sri Lanka and Tajikistan, documentation pleteness prior to the start of evaluation. Sixteen EBA specifying dossier requirements is not on the website sample countries indicate either in a legally-binding Chicken farm near Santander, Colombia. Photo: Charlotte Kesl / World Bank. document or in a non-legally binding guideline, that Adhering to the expected registration time limit can dossiers will be checked for completeness. In Mexico, be challenging in some countries. In comparing the for example, the 2012 Regulation of the Federal Law on timeframe between the expected and actual reg- Animal Health (a legally binding document) explicitly istration time, regulators could potentially use the addresses issues concerning the checking of dossiers difference to assess the efĔciency and quality of the for completeness. Another example is Armenia, which registration process. In addition, the difference could does not directly state such requirement in a legal be used by applicants to hold the regulatory authority document, but rather indicates the checking for com- accountable. pleteness in non-legally binding registration guidelines ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 from the authority. In addition, these countries also Safeguarding animal and human health by provide timeframes within which the applicant can be comprehensively labeling VMPs sold contacted for missing documents prior to the start of evaluation. These timeframes range from 3 days in the Labeling requirements help to ensure that drugs are Kyrgyz Republic to 60 days in Bosnia and Herzegovina. properly used. The legal requirement can provide in- formation on the characteristics of the product, such The awareness of how long the registration process as the list of active substances per dosage or weight, can take allows the private sector to plan the market the proper handling and storage conditions for the introduction of products accordingly. The expected product, the proper use of the product and route of registration times are an estimation by regulatory au- administration and information to ensure consumer thorities of how long the process can take based upon protection such as the withdrawal period. The with- the registration process adopted in a country. Some drawal period is the time between the last administra- countries implement a detailed registration complete tion of medicine to the animal and the production and with the testing of products, while others may rely on marketing of animal foods for consumption.23 Following the use of reference countries and other parameters, appropriate withdrawal periods for VMPs reduces the 124 thus sometimes explaining the shorter expected reg- risks to human health associated with drug residues in istration time. Thirty-eight countries currently provide products such as meat, milk, eggs and honey.24 Only 27 a time limit for the registration process in a legally out of the 60 countries studied require that withdrawal binding document or a non-legally binding guide- periods are included on the labeling of VMPs (Ĕgure line. The time limit ranges from 30 days (Cambodia) 13.1). This number includes all high-income countries to 365 days (Jordan and Kenya) for biologicals and and the majority of upper-middle-income countries. pharmaceuticals. Only 2 out of 16 low-income countries, or 13% of this income group, have this requirement. Figure 13.1 | Few countries require withdrawal periods on veterinary medicinal product labels % of countries within each income group requiring withdrawal period on VMP labels 100% 45% 55% 62% 36% 13% Countries that require Countries that do not withdrawal period on require withdrawal Low income Lower-middle Upper-middle High income VMP labels period on VMP labels income income Source: EBA database. Note: No data were received for Egypt and Tajkistan on the requirements of withdrawal periods on VMP labels. The total sample is distributed as follows: high-income (9), upper-middle-income (13), lower-middle-income (22), and low-income (16) countries. VMPцveterinary medicinal product Facilitating the market distribution of VMPs The situation is also similar in South Asia, where only using national animal disease information Nepal has an electronically accessible database. systems The outbreak of animal diseases directly impacts Conclusion animal and human health. Therefore, it is important for countries to have a functioning animal disease The level of transparency, predictability and efĔciency surveillance and information system in place to miti- of relevant regulatory systems is critical to private sec- gate the risk of disease outbreaks. One important di- tor decisions to supply a market with VMPs, and thus mension of such a system is the existence of national can affect the availability of effective and safe VMPs databases that can be used to monitor and track local in the market. While capacity and systems to control outbreaks.25 Sophisticated systems follow not only VMPs may vary in countries, it is vital that information those diseases that are required to be notiĔed to the needed to adhere to regulatory requirements is read- World Organization for Animal Health (principally dis- ily available and that the processes do not delay nor eases that impact trade and are transboundary),26 but discourage market supply. It is also equally important also diseases that may be endemic to a local livestock that there is adequate infrastructure to assess the population. National disease databases can be pro- effectiveness and safety of VMPs, and effective mecha- vided and maintained by national veterinary author- nisms to ensure both animal and human safety in the LIVESTOCK ities and include information on when a disease was context of VMP use. identiĔed, its geographic distribution and spread. The private sector can then use such databases to make distribution decisions and understand the potential size of the market for a VMP. EBA data suggest that lower-middle and low-income 125 countries have serious gaps in terms of animal disease information systems that are publicly accessible on- line. At the regional level, Sub-Saharan Africa has the fewest countries with animal disease databases publi- cally available on the responsible authority’s website. None of the 21 Sub-Saharan African countries studied have an animal disease database available online. NOTES REFERENCES 1 Muga et al. 2015. Beyene, T. 2015. “Veterinary Drug Residues in Food- Animal Products: Its Risk Factors and Potential 2 Livestock Global Alliance 2016. Effects on Public Health.” Veterinary Science and Technology (2016) 7:1. 3 FAO 2010. European Commission. 2011. “Better Regulation 4 Livestock Global Alliance 2016. of Veterinary Pharmaceuticals: How to Put in Place a Simpler Legal Framework, Safeguarding 5 OIE nd (a). Public and Animal Health While Increasing the Competitiveness of Companies.” Report on the 6 Wang et al. 2014. European Commission’s Public Online, Brussels. 7 Roth 2011. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1999. “Manual on Livestock Disease Surveillance and Information 8 Beyene 2015. Systems.” FAO, Rome. 9 Kinglsey 2015; Luseba 2015. ЁЁЁ. 2010. “World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2010.” FAO Statistical Development 10 OIE 2016; Fingleton 2004. Series No. 11. FAO, Rome. 11 HealthforAnimals 2012. Fingleton, J. 2004. “Legislation for Veterinary Drugs Control.” FAO legal papers 38: 17Ђ18. 12 Fingleton 2004. HealthforAnimals. 2005. “The Marketing Authorization 13 Ibid. Process for Veterinary Medicinal Products in Europe.” Originally published under International 14 Julilian et al. 2007. Federation for Animal Health (IFAH), Brussels. 15 Smith 2013; European Commission 2011. ЁЁЁ. 2012. “The Protection of Registration Data for Existing and New Veterinary Medicinal 16 HealthforAnimals 2005. Products.” http://healthforanimals.org/resourc- es-and-events/resources/papers/132-the-pro- 17 Fingleton 2004. tection-of-registration-data-for-exist- ing-and-new-veterinary-medicinal-products.html. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 18 European Commission 2011. Jones, K. E. et al. 2008. “Global Trends in Emerging 19 Roth 2011. Infectious Diseases.” Nature 451: 990Ђ93. 20 FAO 1999. Julilian, H., C. Kirkpatrick, and D. Parker. 2007. “The Impact of Regulation on Economic Growth in 21 Fingleton 2004. Developing Countries: A Cross-Country Analysis.” World Development 35 (1): 87Ђ103. 22 HealthforAnimals 2005. Kingsley, P. 2015. “How Fake Animal Medicines Threaten 23 The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has African Livestock.” World Economic Forum, https:// developed guidelines to estimate the necessary www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/how-fake-ani- withdrawal period for speciĔc veterinary drugs in mal-medicines-threaten-african-livestock/. order to avoid excess residues in animal foods (OIE 2013). Livestock Global Alliance. 2016. “Livestock for 126 Sustainable Development in the 21st Century.” 24 Beyene 2015. http://www.livestockdialogue.org/Ĕleadmin/ templates/res_livestock/docs/2016/LGA- 25 FAO 1999; OIE nd (b). Brochure-revMay 13th.pdf. 26 http://www.oie.int/en animal-health-in-the-world/ oie-listed-diseases-2016/. Luseba, D. 2015. “Review of the Policy, Regulatory and Administrative Framework for Delivery of Livestock Health Products and Services in West and Central Africa.” GALVmed, http://www.galvmed. org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/East-Africa- Review-of-Policy-Regulatory-and-Administrative- Framework-for-Delivery-of-Livestock-Health- Products-and-Services-March-2015.pdf. Muga, G. et al. 2015. “Review Article: Sociocultural and Economic Dimensions of Rift Valley Fever.” Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 92 (4): 730Ђ38. OIE (World Organization for Animal Health). 2016. “Terrestrial Animal Health Code: Volume 1.” OIE, Paris. ЁЁЁ. 2013. “Estimation of the Withdrawal Period in Edible Tissues.” OIE, Paris. ЁЁЁ. nd (a). “Feeding the World Better by Controlling Animal Diseases.” http://www.oie.int/for-the-media/ editorials/detail/article/feeding-the-world- better-by-controlling-animal-diseases/. ЁЁЁ. nd (b). “Veterinary Medicinal Products and Vaccines: Indispensable Tools for any Effective Animal Health and Welfare Policy.” OIE, Paris, http:// www.oie.int/en/for-the-media/editorials/detail/ article/veterinary-medicinal-products-and-vac- cines-indispensable-tools-for-any-effective-ani- mal-health-and/. Roth, J. 2011. “Veterinary Vaccines and their Importance to Animal Health and Public Health.” Procedia in Vaccinology 5: 127Ђ36. Smith, M. 2013. “The Role of Veterinary Medicine Regulatory Agencies.” Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. int. Epiz. 32 (2): 393Ђ408. Wang, L. and G. Crameri. 2014. “Emerging Zoonotic Viral Diseases.” Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 33 (2): 569Ђ81. LIVESTOCK 127 APPENDIX A Methodology Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2017 (EBA 2017) country visits. For the EBA 2017 data collection, the presents indicators and data that measure regulations team traveled to 14 countries to verify data and recruit that affect the business in and around agriculture. In respondents. The data in this report are current as of the project’s third year, the team collected data in 62 June 30, 2016. countries in the following 12 topic areas: seed, fertilizer, machinery, Ĕnance, markets, transport, water, informa- Legal indicators tion and communication technology (ICT), land, envi- ronmental sustainability, gender, and livestock. Eight Legal indicators emerge from a reading of the laws and of the topics were scored this year and are presented regulations. In a few instances, the data also include below. The other four will be expanded, reĔned and some elements which are not in the text of the law but potentially scored in future years. relate to implementing a good regulatory practiceЁfor example, the online availability of a fertilizer catalogue. The team identiĔed good regulatory practices for each EBA Methodology topic area. The individual questions or regulatory di- mension are assigned numerical scores ranging from EBA 2017 data are collected in a standardized way. 0 to 1 (see topic data notes, below, for details). The The team designs questionnaires for each topic area scores of the different indicators within one topic are and administers them to experts in each country. The also averaged into a topic score. questionnaires use a hypothetical, standardized case scenario to ensure comparability across countries. The ªĔ–³ Ì–Ą³Ìœ³–‰íÓâæ standard business case with assumptions about the legal form of the business, its size, its location and the EfĔciency indicators reĕect the efĔciency of the regu- nature of its operations for each topic applied for all latory systemЁfor example, the number of procedures countries. Assumptions guiding respondents through and the time and cost to complete a process such as their completion of the survey questionnaires vary by certifying seed for sale in the domestic market. Data of topic and are presented in more detail in appendix B. this type are built on legal requirements, and the cost In addition, in the interest of comparability, the values measures are backed by ofĔcial fee schedules, when ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 in the assumptions are not Ĕxed values but propor- available. Time estimates often involve an element of tional to the country’s gross national income (GNI) per judgment by respondents who routinely administer capita. the relevant regulations or undertake the relevant transactions. To construct the time estimates for a Once the data are collected and analyzed, several fol- particular regulatory process, such as completing the low-up rounds address and resolve any discrepancies requirements to import fertilizer, the process is broken in the answers the respondents provide, including down into clearly deĔned steps and procedures. The through conference calls, written correspondence and time to complete these steps is veriĔed with expert Country assumptions and characteristics Region and income group are assigned the “regional” classiĔcation as OECD EBA 2017 uses the World Bank regional and income high income. 128 group classiĔcations, available at http://data. worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-groups. &âÓææ̉í³Ó̉Å.̖ÓË ϴ&D.ϵß â–‰ß³í‰ While the World Bank does not assign regional EBA 2017 uses 2015 income per capita as published classiĔcations to high-income countries, regional in the World Bank’s World Development Indicators averages presented in Ĕgures and tables in the re- 2016. Income is calculated using the Atlas method port include countries from all income groups. For (current U.S. dollars). For cost indicators expressed the report, high-income Organisation for Economic as percentage of income per capita, 2014 GNI in U.S. Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries dollars us used as the denominator. respondentsЁthrough conference calls, written corre- To mitigate the effects of extreme outliers in the dis- spondence and visits by the teamЁuntil there is con- tributions of the rescaled data for efĔciency indicators vergence on a Ĕnal answer. The speciĔc rules followed (for example, very few economies need more than 954 by each topic on deĔning procedures, time and cost days to complete the procedures to register a fertilizer estimates are described below. product), the worst performance is calculated after the removal of outliers. The deĔnition of outliers is based on the distribution for each component indicator. To Distance-to-Frontier and Topic Rankings simplify the process two rules were deĔned: the 95th percentile is used for the indicators with the most About distance-to-frontier score dispersed distributions (including the time and cost indicators), and the 99th percentile is used for the EBA 2017 presents two aggregate measures per topic: number of documents (for example, the number of (i) the distance-to-frontier scores and (ii) the topic documents required to export agricultural products). rankings that results from ordering distance-to-fron- No outlier is removed for legal indicators scores (such tier scores. as seed quality control and assurance, tractor testing and standards, or producer organizations). The distance-to-frontier score benchmarks economies with respect to regulatory best practice in each topic, In the second step for calculating the distance-to-fron- showing the absolute distance to the best performance tier score, the scores obtained for individual indica- on each EBA indicator. tors for each country are aggregated through simple averaging into one distance-to-frontier score for each The distance-to-frontier score captures the gap be- topic: fertilizer, seed, machinery, Ĕnance, markets, tween a country’s performance and a measure of best transport, water, and ICT. EBA 2017 uses the simplest practice across the entire sample of 27 indicators for method: it gives equal weight to each of the topic eight EBA topics (land, environmental sustainability, components or indicators. The only exception are livestock and gender indicators are excluded). For efĔciency indicators, where the distances to frontier transport, for example, the Russian Federation has the associated with the time, cost and documents are shortest time (1 day) to obtain a cross-border license combined and averaged to build a single efĔciency required for domestic trucks in the partner country; indicator. In the area of registration of a new seed Denmark has the highest number of regulatory good variety, the team has made sure that countries are practices in terms of trucking licenses and operations not penalized by their geographical conditions, and (10.8 out of 11). different distance-to-frontier scores are established for countries with one or two cropping seasons. The complete list of indicators is presented in table A.1, below. EBA indicators are divided into legal and If no data could be obtained for a speciĔc data point, efĔciency indicators. In efĔciency indicators, the time, such data point was excluded from the corresponding cost and documents required to conduct a speciĔc DTF indicator score in that country. If more than half administrative procedure (such as the registration of the data points could not be obtained for a par- of a new fertilizer product) are combined to build a ticular legal or efĔciency indicator, that indicator was single indicator. excluded from the calculation of the DTF topic score in that country. Calculation of the topic distance-to-frontier score Calculating the topic’s distance-to-frontier score for A country’s distance-to-frontier score is indicated on a each country involves two main steps. In the Ĕrst scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst per- step individual component indicators are normalized formance and 100 the frontier. The difference between a APPENDIX A to a common unit where each of the 27 component country’s distance-to-frontier score in 2016 and future indicators is rescaled using the linear transformation score will illustrate the extent to which the country has (worstЂy)/(worstЂfrontier). In this formulation the closed the gap to the regulatory frontier over time. And frontier represents the best performance on the indi- in any given year the score measures how far a country cator across all countries. The best performance and is from the best performance at that time. the worst performance are established based on the data collected as of June 2016. For legal indicators such 129 as branchless banking indicator in the Ĕnance topic, or the plant protection indicator in the markets topic, the frontier score is set at the highest possible value and the worst performance corresponds to the worst possible score. For efĔciency indicators, a score of 0 is assigned in cases of “No practice” and “N/A” (see topic data notes). Table A.1 | What is the frontier in regulatory practice? INDICATORS FRONTIER WORST PERFORMANCE SEED Plant breeding index (0Ђ10) 10 0 Variety registration index (0Ђ8) 8 0 Seed quality control index (0Ђ12) 12 0 Time to register new varieties (days) 298a; 166b 860a; 716b Cost to register new varieties (% income per capita) 0.0 969.7a; 268.3b FERTILIZER Fertilizer registration index (0Ђ7) 7 0 Quality control of fertilizer index (0Ђ7) 7 0 Importing and distributing fertilizer index (0Ђ7) 7 0 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 11 954 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 0.0 845.8 MACHINERY Tractor operation index (0Ђ5) 5 0 Time to register a tractor (days) 1 27 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.0 37.0 Tractor testing and standards (0Ђ8) 8 0 Time to obtain type approval (days) 4 279 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 0.5 560.9 Tractor import (0Ђ5) 5 0 FINANCE Branchless banking Agent banking index (0-5) 5 0 E-money index (0-4) 4 0 Movable collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5 0 Doing Business getting credit index (0-8) 8 0 Non-bank lending institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 7 0 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 7 0 MARKETS Producer organizations index (0Ђ13) 13 0 Plant protection index (0Ђ8) 8 0 Agricultural trade index (0Ђ9) 9 0 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 0 4 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 0 11 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 5.2 TRANSPORT Trucking licenses and operations index (0Ђ11) 11 0 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 1 80 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.0 31.8 Cross-border transportation index (0Ђ9) 9 0 Time to obtain cross-border licenses (days) 1 60 130 Cost to obtain cross-border licenses (% income per capita) 0.0 60.3 WATER Integrated water resource management index (0Ђ29) 29 0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0Ђ20) 20 0 ICT Information and communication technology index (0Ђ9) 9 0 Note: a. For countries with one cropping season. b. For countries with two cropping seasons. The report team welcomes feedback on the methodology. All the data and sources are publicly available at http://eba.worldbank.org. APPENDIX B Topic data notes Seed The seed indicators aim to identify obstacles affecting technical experts. All procedures are counted that are the timely release and production of high-quality seed legally or in practice required for the seed company to by the formal seed supply system, by examining the release a new variety of seed. Procedures are consec- regulatory environment for plant breeding, registration utive but can be simultaneous. of new varieties and seed quality control. Time Three indicators have been developed: Time is recorded in calendar days and captures the 1. Plant breeding. median duration of each procedure. The time span for 2. Variety registration. each procedure starts with the Ĕrst Ĕling of the appli- 3. Seed quality control. cation or demand, and ends once the last procedure required to release a new seed variety on the market The seed topic has four types of respondents: (i) seed has been fulĔlled, such as the listing in the national producers and seed companies; (ii) national and re- catalog or gazette. Any tests performed by the seed gional seed associations; (iii) government authorities company prior to Ĕlling an application are not count- (for example, the Ministry of Agriculture); and (iv) ac- ed. The minimum time for each procedure is one day. ademics. The data are collected through surveys sent The calendar days for distinctiveness, uniformity and to contributors from Washington, DC, and completed stability (DUS) and value for cultivation and use (VCU) with calls, emails and interviews that are conducted tests are determined based on the number of testing with respondents during country visits. Responses from seasons required by the authority and the number of contributors are crosschecked by reviewing the applica- cropping seasons existing in the country, as follows: ble laws and regulations. Desk research and literature review are also performed to verify certain data points. Countries with two cropping seasons per year: • If one season is required by law to perform the tests, To make the data comparable across countries, several 135 days are counted for the testing procedure. assumptions about the new variety to be registered • If two seasons are required by law to perform the are used. Furthermore, only certain procedures are tests, 275 days are counted for the testing procedure. captured by EBA data, and speciĔc rules are used to This accounts for the two seasons of 135 days each calculate time and cost. More detail on each issue, and 5 days to account for the time needed to plow including the scoring methodology for each data point and prepare the land before the next cropping sea- (table B.1) and speciĔc terms, is set out below. son (135њ5њ135 ц 275 days). Assumptions about the variety Countries with one cropping season per year: The variety: • If one season is required by law to perform the tests, APPENDIX B • Is a maize variety developed by the private sector. 182 days are counted for the testing procedure. • Is being registered for the Ĕrst time in the entire • If two seasons are required by law to perform the country. tests, 547 days are counted for the testing procedure. • Has not been registered in any other country. This accounts for the full calendar year including one season (365 days) and an additional testing season Note: In exceptional cases when maize varieties are not (182 days). being developed by the private sector in the country, 131 we consider imported maize variety, which may have Cost been previously registered elsewhere. Only ofĔcial costs are recorded, including fees and taxes. In the absence of fee schedules, a government Procedures ofĔcer’s estimate is taken as an ofĔcial source. In the A procedure is deĔned as any interaction of the seed absence of government ofĔcer’s estimate, estimates by company’s owner, manager or employees with external seed companies are used. If several seed companies parties, including any relevant government agencies, provide different estimates, the median reported value lawyers, committees, public and private inspectors and is applied. Professional fees (for example, notary fees) are only included if the company is required to use organization based in Geneva, Switzerland. Its mission such services. All costs are recorded as a percentage of is to provide and promote an effective system of plant the country’s income per capita. variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants for the beneĔt SpeciĔc terms of society. To be a member, the law of a country must Basic/foundation seed has been produced under the conform to the standards of the 1991 Act of the UPOV responsibility of the maintainer according to the gen- Convention. The country can also have an observer erally accepted practices for the maintenance of the status after having ofĔcially expressed an interest in variety and is intended for the production of certiĔed becoming a UPOV member and in participating to the seed. Basic or foundation seed must conform to the sessions of the Council. To date, 74 states have member appropriate conditions set by regulations, and the ful- status and 57 states have observer status. Ĕllment of these conditions must be conĔrmed by an ofĔcial examination. s‰Åò  ªÓâ òÅí³ý‰í³ÓÌ ‰Ìœ hæ  ϴshϵ testing is per- formed to assess whether a variety has characteristics Breeder/pre-basic seed is directly controlled by the and properties that affect improvement in the cultiva- originating or sponsor plant breeding institution, Ĕrm tion or in the utilization of the harvest or its products or individual, and is the source for the production of in comparison to the existing listed varieties. seed of certiĔed classes. s‰â³ íĄϴhVJsœ Ĕ̳í³ÓÌϵ is a plant grouping within a ³æí³Ì–í³ý Ì ææϜh̳ªÓâ˳íĄ‰Ìœ]퉕³Å³íĄϴh]ϵí æí³Ì« single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, which, is performed to compare candidate varieties for regis- irrespective of whether the conditions for the grant of tration with varieties already listed in seed register, on a breeder’s right are fully met, can be: these qualities: • DeĔned by the expression of the characteristics • Distinctness (UPOV deĔnition): A variety shall be resulting from a given genotype or combination of deemed distinct if it is clearly distinguishable in at genotypes; least one character from any other variety whose ex- • Distinguished from any other plant grouping by the istence is a matter of common knowledge at the time expression of at least one of the said characteristics; of Ĕling the application for registration. and • Considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for • Uniformity (UPOV deĔnition): A variety shall be being propagated unchanged. deemed to be uniform if, subject to the variation that may be expected from the particular features of its Variety catalog is a list of varieties that have been reg- propagation, it is sufĔciently uniform in its relevant istered and released by a national authority and can characteristics. be produced and marketed in a country or region as certiĔed seed. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 • Stability (UPOV deĔnition): A variety shall be deemed stable if its relevant characteristics remain un- s‰â³ íĄ â Å ‰æ  –ÓË˳íí   ϴsYϵ decides whether a changed after repeated propagation by the method new variety can be registered and introduced on the that is normally used for the particular variety. domestic market. Post-control tests are performed to ensure that the Note: In addition to the initial consultations with seed variety is true to its varietal identity and that the plants experts, the team received technical support from must conform to the characteristics of the variety listed Joseph Cortes and Adelaida Harries. The World Seed by the national catalog at the time of its registration. Project, which is a combined effort from the OECD Seed Scheme, the Food and Agriculture Organization ]  œ – âí³Ĕ–‰í³ÓÌ (Organisation for Economic Co- (FAO), International Seed Testing Association (ISTA), ISF operation and Development [OECD] deĔnition) is the (International Seed Federation) and UPOV, also provided quality assurance process during which seed intended technical expertise for the development of the indicator for domestic or international markets is controlled and methodology. inspected by ofĔcial sources to guarantee consistent 132 high quality for consumers. Fertilizer Traceability is the ability to document the history of the origin, production, participants and handling steps The fertilizer indicators measure regulatory bottle- involved in the seed production. necks limiting access to fertilizer. The indicators also focus on operational and economic constraints, as UPOV is the International Union for the Protection well as the implementation of legislation affecting the of New Varieties of Plants, an intergovernmental fertilizer industry. Three indicators have been developed, as follows: has received the Ĕnal document, such as the fertilizer 1. Fertilizer registration. registration certiĔcate. It is assumed that the compa- 2. Importing and distributing fertilizer. ny’s owners, managers or employees have had no prior 3. Quality control of fertilizer. contact with any of the ofĔcials. The fertilizer topic area has three main types of respon- Cost dents: i) fertilizer companies, ii) relevant government The cost captures ofĔcial fees and taxes associated authorities (for example, the ministry of agriculture), with the relevant licenses, permits and certiĔcates, and iii) agricultural input dealer associations. The along with their required documents. All costs are questionnaire targets all three groups of respondents, recorded as a percentage of the country’s income per whereby the time and motion component is typically capita. answered by the private sector. Data was collected through face-to-face, by phone, or email interviews SpeciĔc terms with respondents. Fertilizer registration is the process of registering a fertilizer product or blend with the public sector, during To make the data comparable across countries, sever- which fertilizer intended for markets is controlled and al assumptions about the company and the fertilizer inspected by ofĔcial sources to guarantee consistent product are used. Furthermore, only certain proce- high quality and safety for consumers. dures are captured by EBA data, and speciĔc rules are used to calculate time and cost. More detail on each Fertilizer product is any product containing nitrogen, issue, including the scoring methodology for each data phosphorus, potassium, or any recognized plant nu- point (table B.2) and speciĔc terms, is set out below. trient element or compound that is used for its plant nutrient content. Assumptions about the fertilizer company The fertilizer company: Importer registration is a government-issued license • Is a private entity (company, a nongovernmental authorizing a company to import. The import registra- organization [NGO] and/or a farmer organization or tion is not to be confused with a sales license, which cooperative); authorizes the company to sell fertilizer. • Is registered in the country; • Imports fertilizer to sell in the country; Import permit is a document issued by a government • Has registered at least one new fertilizer product in agency authorizing the importation of fertilizer prod- the country. ucts into its territory. An import permit can either be a blank permit with no restrictions, or impose volume, Assumptions about the registered fertilizer shipment or time limits. The fertilizer: • Is a new chemical fertilizer productЁa fertilizer product is any product containing nitrogen, phos- Machinery phorus, potassium or any recognized plant nutrient element or compound that is used for its plant The machinery indicators measure regulatory barriers nutrient content. and associated practices limiting access and use of • Is produced in a foreign country. agricultural tractors by farmers. In particular, the in- • Is being registered for marketing purposes. dicators capture the requirements for tractor import, registration and inspection, tractor testing, the prevail- Procedures ing approval process, as well as tractor performance APPENDIX B A procedure is deĔned as any interaction of the com- and operator safety standards. pany’s owners, managers or employees with external parties, for example, government agencies, lawyers, The following three indicators were developed: auditors, notaries and customs or border authorities. 1. Tractor imports. It includes all procedures that are ofĔcially required 2. Tractor operation. for the business to legally perform its described ac- 3. Tractor testing and standards. tivities, such as registering and importing fertilizer. 133 Interactions among owners, managers and employees The machinery topic area has Ĕve types of respon- are not counted as procedures. dents, namely: i) tractor companies (tractor manu- facturers, local dealers and distributors); ii) industry Time associations; iii) tractor testing centers; iv) government Time is recorded in calendar days and captures the authorities, such as the ministry of agriculture or the median duration of each procedure. The time span ministry of transport; and, v) national agricultural for each procedure starts with the Ĕrst Ĕling of the research institutes. Data were collected through inter- application or demand, and ends once the company views with respondents. To make the data comparable across countries, several Roll-over protection structures (ROPS) are attached to assumptions about the machinery company and the the tractor frame and come as either two-post Ĕxed machinery product are used. Furthermore, only certain or foldable, four post, or as an integral part of a ROPS procedures are captured by EBA data, and speciĔc cab. They generally will limit a side overturn to ninety rules are used to calculate time and cost. More detail degrees (90ӊ) and will provide an important safety on each issue, including the score assigned to each zone for the operator provided the operator is wearing data point (table B.3) and speciĔc terms, is set out a seat belt. Seat belts should not be used when a fold- below. able ROPS is down or when a Ĕxed ROPS is removed. Assumptions about the importing business Type approval (also called homologation) is the ofĔ- The business: cial recognition given by a national authority or agency • Is a private sector company (manufacturer, dealer or that certiĔes that the tractor conforms to the country’s distributor of agricultural machinery). prevailing regulatory, technical and safety require- • Is registered as a business in the country. ments. Before the tractor can be sold on the market • Does not operate in an export processing zone or and before reaching the hands of the farmer, the in an industrial estate with special import or export manufacturer (or an agency on behalf of the manufac- privileges. turer) must complete its type approval/homologation • Uses the most-used seaport for importation of trac- procedure and be certiĔed by third-party veriĔcation tors in the country. If the country is land-locked, it is that its design, construction and performance respect assumed that the most-used border posts are used. the country’s regulations and standards. Assumptions about the machinery product: The machinery product: Finance • Is a two-axle or four-wheel drive agricultural tractor. • Has more than 20 engine horsepower. The Ĕnance indicators measure laws and regulations • Is designed to furnish the power to pull, carry, pro- that promote access to a range of Ĕnancial services, pel or drive implements. with a focus on areas that are particularly relevant for • All self-propelled implements are excluded. potential customers in rural areas. These customers are partially or fully excluded from traditional Ĕnan- A tractor is used as a proxy to assess the enabling reg- cial services due to factors such as their geographical ulatory framework and the practices impacting access location or available type of collateral. and use of agricultural tractors for farm mechanization. Three indicators have been developed: Procedures 1. Non-bank lending institutions. Procedures capture any required company interaction Ϙ Operation and prudential regulations of microĔ- with external parties, such as ministries, government nance institutions (MFIs). ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 agencies, testing centers, accredited labs and so on to Ϙ Operation and governance of Ĕnancial obtain a tractor type approval/homologation. Internal cooperatives. interactions among owners, managers and employees 2. Branchless banking. within the company do not count as procedures. • Agent banking. • Electronic money (e-money). Time 3. Movable collateral. Time is recorded in calendar days and captures the • Warehouse receipts. average duration of the company interaction with rel- • Doing Business–Getting Credit. evant agencies to obtain the tractor type approval or to obtain required licenses, permits and certiĔcates. Data for the Ĕnance indicators are obtained from three main types of respondents: Ĕnancial sector supervisory Cost authorities, Ĕnancial lawyers, and legal ofĔcers of Ĕ- Cost captures ofĔcial fees and taxes associated with nancial institutions. Data collections include interviews the tractor type approval/homologation or the licens- conducted during country visits directly with respon- es, permits and certiĔcates, along with their required dents, followed by rounds of follow-up communication 134 documents. All costs are recorded as a percentage of via email and conference calls with respondents as the country’s income per capita. well as with third parties. Data are also veriĔed through analyses of laws and regulations, including a review of SpeciĔc terms public information sources on banking law, warehouse Falling-object protective structures (FOPS) are a sys- receipt law, Ĕnancial institutions law and others. More tem attached to the tractor to protect the operator detail on each indicator, including the scoring method- from falling objects such as branches, rocks, and other ology for each data point (table B.4) and speciĔc terms, falling objects. is set out below. (SACCOs) in some countries; and, ii) cooperative banks 1. Non-bank lending institutions that take deposits from and lend to the public, and are regulated under the main Ĕnancial institution laws and This indicator measures regulations relevant to de- supervised by the central bank. The Ĕnancial cooper- posit-taking MFIs and Ĕnancial cooperatives. Countries ative indicator does not measure cooperative banks with a high level of Ĕnancial inclusion will be scored but only small Ĕnancial cooperatives to be consistent only based on data on Ĕnancial cooperatives, while with the topic’s emphasis on small-scale lending and the rest of the countries will be scored based on data Ĕnancial inclusion. on both MFIs and Ĕnancial cooperatives. Finance indi- cators are designed to measure laws and regulations that promote access to Ĕnancial services for potential 2. Branchless banking customers that are partially or fully excluded from The second indicator includes aggregated data related traditional Ĕnancial services. In particular, the MFI and to agent banking and e-money. In this case, countries agent banking indicators focus on supporting the pro- with a high level of Ĕnancial inclusion will be scored vision and proliferation of Ĕnancial services to those only based on data on e-money, whereas the rest who are excluded from traditional banking system. of the countries will be scored based on both agent These indicators are not applicable to countries with a banking and e-money. high level of Ĕnancial inclusion where agribusinesses and smallholder farmers have few obstacles accessing the formal Ĕnancial sector. Therefore, those countries 3. Movable collateral are not measured under these indicators and the For the third indicator all countries will be scored on corresponding data for those countries are shown as data on warehouse receipts. Data points from the “N/A” (not applicable). Doing Business-Getting Credit indicator, including data on security interest granted to movable assets and The threshold used to establish what countries fall future assets, collateral registry, and credit informa- under those with a high level of Ĕnancial inclusion tion from non-bank institutions, will be added to this has been determined as the average of the normal- indicator. ized values (0Ђ1) of two variables, namely: “account at a Ĕnancial institution (% of rural adult population),” SpeciĔc terms and “account at a Ĕnancial institution (% of adult Agent banking is the delivery of Ĕnancial services population) based on the World Bank Findex data- through a partnership with a retail agent (or corre- base. Following this approach, those countries with a spondent) to extend Ĕnancial services to locations number higher than 0.8 on the average of normalized where bank branches would be uneconomical. values of the above-mentioned two variables will be identiĔed as countries with high level of Ĕnancial inclu- Capital adequacy ratio (CAR) is a measure of the sion. Countries under this classiĔcation are Denmark, amount of a bank’s total capital expressed as a per- Greece, Italy, Korea, the Netherlands and Spain. centage of its risk-weighted assets. To make the data comparable across countries, several Effective interest rate is the annual interest rate plus assumptions about the Ĕnancial institutions are used, all fees associated with the administration of the loan as follows: to the client. It is a symbol of the total cost of the loan to the client. Proxies for the effective interest rate are Assumptions about the Ĕnancial institutions the annual percentage rate or the amortization table/ C³–âÓĔ̖̉ ³Ìæí³íòí³ÓÌæϴC%.æϵϛ MFIs are Ĕnancial in- schedule for the loan. stitutions that specialize in the provision of small-vol- APPENDIX B ume Ĕnancial services (such as credit, deposits and E-money refers to money that is stored and exchanged loans) to low-income clients. MFIs can take deposits, through an electronic device. E-money is regulated lend, and provide other Ĕnancial services to the public and does not necessarily need to be associated with a and are licensed to operate and are supervised by a deposit account at any Ĕnancial institution. Examples public authority. include electronic funds transfers and payments pro- cessed through mobile phones or prepaid cards. Financial cooperatives: Financial cooperatives are 135 member-owned, not-for-proĔt, cooperatives that Deposit-taking MFIs are Ĕnancial institutions special- provide savings, credit, and other Ĕnancial services izing in the provision of small-volume Ĕnancial services to their members. There are typically two types of (for example, credit, deposits and loans) to low-income Ĕnancial cooperatives, namely: i) small Ĕnancial coop- clients, which can take deposits, lend and provide oth- eratives that provide services only to their members; er Ĕnancial services to the public and are licensed to are typically supervised by either the central bank, the operate and supervised by a public authority. department of cooperatives, or the ministry of Ĕnance; and are referred to as savings and credit cooperatives Negotiable receipt allows the transfer of ownership during country visits directly with respondents and by without having to physically deliver the commodity. email and teleconference calls from Washington, DC. DÓÌІĔ̖̉³‰Å³Ìæí³íòí³ÓÌ•òæ³Ì ææ æ are those that do Details on the methodology for each indicator, includ- not hold a Ĕnancial institution license, including tele- ing the score assigned to each data point (table B.5) coms, post ofĔces, or other businesses licensed by the and speciĔc terms, are set out below. central bank/Ĕnancial supervisory authority to issue e-money. 1. Agricultural trade Provisioning rules determine how much money banks To make the data on agricultural trade more compa- must set aside as an allowance for bad loans in their rable across countries, several assumptions about the portfolios. The share of a loan that must be covered business, the agricultural products, trading partner by provisioning can either be the full loan amount or and shipment are used. Furthermore, only certain the part that is not secured by collateral (unsecured requirements are captured by EBA data, and speciĔc share). rules are used to calculate time and cost. Y‰í³Óæ íÓ  Ìæòâ  Ĕ̖̉³‰Å æ퉕³Å³íĄ can include the Assumptions about the business liquidity ratio, capital adequacy ratio, solvency ratio, The business: credit to deposit ratio, assets to liabilities ratio, stable • Performs general agricultural trading activities. funding ratio, net loan receivables to total assets, and • Does not directly engage in agricultural production, others. Countries address the issue of stability of Ĕ- processing or retail activities. nancial cooperatives using different criteria, therefore • Does not operate in a special export processing zone. all the above ratios can be included in this measure. Assumptions about the traded product and trading Warehouse receipts are documents issued by ware- partner house operators as evidence that speciĔed commod- A theoretical product and trading partner are selected ities are of a stated quantity and quality, deposited ªÓâ ‰–°–ÓòÌí⥕‰æ œÓÌÓªĔ–³‰Å ăßÓâíæí‰í³æí³–æ³Ì or stored at particular locations by named depositors accordance with the following rules: and owned by the beneĔciary of the receipt issued. • The traded products are deĔned and grouped as cash Where supported by an appropriate legal framework, crops, cereals, fruits and vegetables according to warehouse receipts can serve as a form of collateral to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding obtain a loan from Ĕnancial institutions and facilitate System 1996 version (HS 96). future sales. • All data are sourced from the UN Comtrade Database, using the export data from 2009Ђ13. • For each country, the combination of the product and Markets the partner country selected represents the highest ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Ĕve-year average export value (in US dollars). For The markets indicators monitor and analyze laws and example, cereal exports to Zimbabwe is selected for regulations that can impact smallholder producers Zambia. In addition, the HS 4-digit product within and agribusinesses when accessing domestic and for- the category that is exported the most to the partner eign agricultural markets for their products. country is used for studying the speciĔc legal and regulatory requirements. For example, coffee exports Three indicators have been developed: (the top product within the cash crop category) to the 1. Agricultural trade. United States is selected for Colombia. 2. Plant protection. 3. Producer organizations. Assumptions about the shipment The shipment: Markets indicators have Ĕve main types of respon- • Is transported via a 20-foot full container-load. dents: (i) government agencies responsible for ag- • Weighs 10 metric tons or costs US Ч10,000, whichever ricultural trade, plant protection and cash crops; (ii) is most appropriate. private-sector agribusinesses producing and trading • All packing material that requires fumigation (such 136 agricultural products in domestic and/or international as wood pallets) is assumed to be treated and markets, and related trade/export associations; (iii) marked with an approved international mark certify- farmers’ organizations, including unions, federations, ing that treatment. cooperatives and other similar entities; (iv) chambers of commerce; and (v) lawyers. Data were collected from Requirements to trade these respondents using three different surveys: one A “requirement” for purposes of the study is any le- for the public sector and two for the private sector. gally required qualiĔcation or document that must be Data were collected through interviews conducted obtained by the business to buy or sell the selected product in the domestic market or export the product If time is obtained only in working days, the data are to the trading partner. These requirements may apply converted to calendar days based on the assumption to the trader (for example, a selling/buying license, pe- that there are Ĕve working days per week and the riodic export registration, mandatory memberships, and procedure starts on a Monday. It is assumed that the so on) or to the export consignment on a per shipment company’s owners, managers or employees have had basis (for example, phytosanitary certiĔcate, quality no prior contact with any of the ofĔcials and that the certiĔcate, and so on). These requirements involve in- company completes each procedure to obtain the doc- teractions with external parties, including government ument without delay on its side. agencies, inspectors and other relevant institutions. Buyer-driven requirements such as private laboratory The following principles apply to how time to obtain tests are not considered for purposes of the study. documents is measured: • It is assumed that the minimum time required for The following principles apply to the requirements each document is one day, except for documents recorded: that can be fully obtained online, for which the time • Only requirements speciĔc to the product group (or required is recorded as half a day. the top exported sub-product within that group) and • Although multiple documents may be obtained (and agricultural products more generally are captured. related processes completed) simultaneously, the Customs, commercial and shipping documents that process to obtain each document cannot start on the are not speciĔc in this way are not measured (for same day (that is, simultaneous processes start on example, certiĔcate of origin, export declaration, bill consecutive days). of lading, letter of credit, and so on). • If the process to obtain a document can be accelerat- • Mandatory membership of a public or private entity ed for an additional cost and is available to all types is included if it is required to obtain and exercise the of companies, the fastest legal process is chosen and right to export the selected product or agricultural the related costs are recorded. Fast-track options ap- products more generally. plying only to Ĕrms located in an export processing • Trader-level licenses include any document or action zone or to certain accredited Ĕrms under authorized that is required to obtain and exercise the right to economic operator programs are not taken into buy or sell the product in the domestic market or ex- account. port overseas, including registration or accreditation requirements and traditional licenses. Cost • Documents are collected on a per shipment basis, The cost includes all ofĔcial fees and fees for legal and one document includes both application and or professional services if such services are required completion of the process (for example, obtain a phy- by law to complete the qualiĔcation requirement or tosanitary certiĔcate or obtain a quality certiĔcate). obtain a document. Service fees (for example, those charged by fumigation companies) are only included > Where multiple documents are obtained si- if the company is required by law to use such services. multaneously, they are recorded as separate Traditional (scheduled) border taxes/tariffs are not documents but time is adjusted to reĕect their captured. Other special charges or taxes that apply to simultaneity. the export product or sub-product, or the export of ag- > The mandatory documents required by both the ricultural products generally, are included only where country studied and the selected trading partner they result in the issuance of a stand-alone mandatory are included. document to export or are conditional to obtain an- > Both public and private fumigation certiĔcates other mandatory document to export. are excluded if they are not required by the laws of either the country studied or the selected Where possible, laws, regulations and fee schedules are APPENDIX B trading partner. Only fumigation that is required used as sources for calculating costs. In the absence of for the product itself is captured, and separate fee schedules, estimates by the public/private sector fumigation for packaging prior to its purchase/ respondents are used. If several respondents provide use is not included. different estimates, the median reported value is ap- plied. In all cases the cost excludes bribes. All costs Time are recorded as a percentage of the country’s income Time is recorded in calendar days and captures the per capita. 137 median duration to obtain each mandatory document to export on a per shipment basis. Time to complete 2. Plant protection membership requirements or to obtain trader-level licenses is not captured. The time span for each doc- Plant protection encompasses regulations, policies ument starts with the Ĕrst Ĕling of the application or and institutional frameworks that affect plant health demand, and ends once the company has received the in a country, including domestic pest management Ĕnal document, such as the phytosanitary certiĔcate. measures as well as phytosanitary controls at the border. In cases where relevant regulations are speciĔc to be taken against it.” It consists of three stages: initi- to a product or product group, those applicable to the ating the process for analyzing risk; assessing pest risk; selected traded product are used. and managing pest risk. 3. Producer organizations Phytosanitary measures include “[a]ny legislation, regulation or ofĔcial procedure having the purpose to Producer organizations are also known as agricultural prevent the introduction and/or spread of quarantine cooperatives, farmers’ cooperatives, farmers’ organiza- pests, or to limit the economic impact of regulated tions or producer associations. A producer organization non-quarantine pests.” is deĔned as a formal, voluntary, jointly-owned and democratically controlled organization established Regulated quarantine pest refers to “[a] pest of po- for the economic beneĔt of agricultural producers by tential economic importance to the area endangered providing members with services that support farming thereby and not yet present there, or present but not activities, such as bargaining with customers or pro- widely distributed and being ofĔcially controlled.” viding inputs, technical assistance, or processing and marketing services. Transport To render data on producer organizations comparable across countries, the following case study is used to The transport indicators measure regulatory and select the most appropriate legal form in each country: administrative constraints affecting the provision of reliable and sustainable commercial road transport Several agricultural producers wish to pool their pro- services. duction within a producer organization to sell it on the spot market or through long-term sales contracts The following two sub-indicators have been developed: with buyers (“the transaction”). The principal function of the organization is to pool and sell the members’ 1. Truck licensing. production, and the organization takes ownership of 2. Cross-border transportation. the produce in question. Data were collected through interviews conducted The following principles also apply: during country visits directly with respondents, by • Voluntary and open membership; email and teleconference calls from Washington, DC, • Democratic member control (“one member, one vote”); and by local staff in the different target countries. The • Joint-ownership by members; and, topic mainly targeted private sector respondents in- • Created to support and promote the economic inter- cluding trucking associations, trucking companies and ests of its members through joint economic activity. lawyers; and to a lesser extent, public sector respon- dents including ministries of transport, road transport ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 If different forms of producer organizations exist in regulatory authorities and ministries of infrastructure. a country’s laws, the one which obtains the highest Even though the questionnaire targeted both groups of aggregated score under the producer organizations respondents, time and cost information was typically indicator is selected for inclusion in the dataset. answered by the private sector. SpeciĔc terms To make the data comparable across countries, several DeĔnitions below are adapted from the International assumptions about the trucking company, its environ- Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) website (http:w- ment and scope of cross-border operations are used ww.ippc.int) and the International Standards for Furthermore, only certain procedures are captured Phytosanitary Measures No. 5 Glossary of Phytosanitary by EBA data, and speciĔc rules are used to calculate Terms, adopted by the IPPC. time and cost. More detail on each issue, including the scoring methodology for each indicator (table B.6) and Å –íâÓ̳– ß°ĄíÓæ‰Ì³í‰âĄ – âí³Ĕ–‰í  ϴ V°ĄíÓϵ is the speciĔc terms, is set out below. electronic version of a phytosanitary certiĔcate in XML format. All the information contained in a paper phy- Assumptions about the business 138 tosanitary certiĔcate is also in the ePhyto. ePhytos can The business: be exchanged electronically between countries or the • Is a private entity or natural person whose core busi- data can be printed out on paper. ness is transporting goods by road for commercial purposes; Pest risk analysis (PRA) is deĔned as “[t]he process of • Has met all formal requirements to start a busi- evaluating biological or other scientiĔc and economic ness and perform general industrial or commercial evidence to determine whether a pest should be regu- activities; lated and the strength of any phytosanitary measures • Is located in the country’s largest business city; • Has a maximum of Ĕve trucks; each truck has two ax- Validity les and a maximum loading capacity of 15 MT (metric Validity is measured for domestic and cross-border tons); truck licenses. Validity is expressed in years. • Transports agricultural products within the country, including perishable products, and it does not trans- SpeciĔc terms port fertilizers, pesticides, hazardous products or Backhauling rights: For example, when a truck reg- passengers; istered in country A is able to transport agricultural • The trucks were Ĕrst registered in the largest business goods into country B for sale, load other goods in city less than six months ago; the “trucks” comprise a country B and carry them back to country A. tractor unit and a trailer; • All employed drivers have the domestically required Bourse de fret: A platform in which freight supply and driver’s license to drive a 15 MT vehicle; and, demand are made publicly available for the purposes • Carries out cross-border transport services with its of freight access and allocation, often in the form of largest agricultural border-adjacent trading partner. online service offered by a private company. Assumptions about the “reference” product  âí³Ĕ–‰í  Óª «ÓӜ â ßòí  Óâ  áò³ý‰Å Ìíϛ An ofĔcial The “relevant” product selection was based on UN document issued by a competent judicial or adminis- Comtrade’s 2009Ђ13, Ĕve-year average export value of trative authority certifying that the trucking company major plant product groups, and mirror data in cases was not convicted for a serious criminal offence or had where data were not sufĔcient. For example, cereals not incurred in a penalty for a serious infringement of constitute the reference-product for Bolivia and toma- rules relating to road transport. toes are the ones for Morocco. A list of each country’s reference product is available in the Country Data Cabotage rights: For example, when a truck registered tables. in country A is able to pick up agricultural goods in country B and deliver them to a different point in Assumptions about the cross border trading partner country B. This partner selection was based on UN Comtrade’s 2009Ђ13, Ĕve-year average trade value of major plant Company-level license or permit: A special authoriza- product groups (and mirror data when needed), as tion required for established companies or individuals well as on a border-adjacent criterion. The partner to legally transport goods (different from general busi- selection methodology was used as a proxy for deĔn- ness registration). It allows the company to operate ing the largest trading partner by truck, in the absence several trucks under the same license. of transport data disaggregated by mode of transport (sea, air, rail or road). It is also assumed the agricul- Consignment note: A transport document attesting the tural products being shipped to and from the largest nature and quantity of the goods transported when trading partner were produced locally, not imported. taken into charge by the carrier and attesting the de- For instance, the largest trading partner of Burundi is livery to the consignee. Tanzania. A list of each country’s largest trading part- ner is available in Country Data tables. &Óý âÌË Ìí â «³æí⥠Óâ ÌÓí³Ĕ–‰í³ÓÌ – âí³Ĕ–‰í Ϝ Óâ equivalent: An ofĔcial document issued by a compe- Time tent administrative authority certifying registration in Time was recorded in calendar days and captures the a road transport body. median duration of obtaining the required company or truck license, excluding preparation time. The timespan Queuing system: A practice by which freight is sequen- starts once all required documents have been submit- tially allocated by trucking associations/unions or the APPENDIX B ted to the relevant authority and ends once the compa- government. ny has received the Ĕnal document. It is assumed that the company’s owners, managers or employees have Transit rights: For example, when a truck registered in had no prior contact with any of the ofĔcials. country A is able to travel through country B to deliver agricultural goods into country C (assuming foreign Cost country B is the Ĕnal destination of the foreign truck). Costs capture only ofĔcial costs required by law, in- 139 cluding fees and taxes. Fee schedules in transport laws Transport/Import rights: For example, when a truck and regulations have been used as legal basis when registered in country A is able to transport agricultural available, and an estimation from qualiĔed contribu- goods produced in its country into country B for sale. tors in the alternative scenario. It is assumed that all documents have been submitted in the timely and Triangular rights: For example, when a truck registered correct form. All costs are recorded as a percentage of in country A is able to pick up agricultural goods in the country’s income per capita. country B and transport them to be delivered into country C (assuming foreign country B is the Ĕnal des- the case study farm does not qualify for any exemption tination of the foreign truck). from permit requirements that may otherwise apply to small farms (such as exemptions for smallholders or Truck-level license or permit: This is a special autho- subsistence farmers). rization required for a truck to legally transport goods (different from vehicle registration or technical inspec- Assumptions about the water source tion certiĔcates). A truck-level license regime requires The water source: an individual transport license or permit for each truck. • Is a river located 300 meters away from the farm; or • Is a groundwater well located on the farm. Water The choice between surface water and groundwater as a source for irrigation water is made based on the The water indicators measure laws and regulations predominant irrigation water source for the country, that promote sustainable, inclusive and efĔcient gov- determined using Food and Agriculture Organization ernance of water resources, with a particular focus on (FAO) 2016 AQUASTAT data. The majority of EBA coun- the use of water for irrigation. tries predominantly use surface water for irrigation; those with predominant groundwater use for irrigation Two indicators have been developed: are: Bangladesh, Denmark, India, Jordan, Nicaragua 1. Integrated water resources management. and the Netherlands. 2. Individual water use for irrigation. SpeciĔc terms Water indicators have three main types of target re- Abstraction and use permit refers to the right to spondents: (i) lawyers specialized in water law and abstract and use a certain deĔned quantity of water environmental law, both from private practice and the resources. Depending upon the country context, per- public sector; (ii) technical specialists in the Ĕeld of mits may alternatively be referred to as authorization, water resources management, typically from the public license, right, concession and so on. For consistency, sector; and (iii) academic experts. The questionnaire the term “permit” shall be used here. targets all three groups of respondents, whereby the legal questions are typically answered by lawyer Basin institutions are specialized entities that deal respondents, and implementation questions are typi- with the water resource management issues in a par- cally answered by technical specialists and academic ticular river basin, lake basin, or aquifer.1 experts. Data collection includes interviews conducted directly with respondents during country visits, fol- Charges refers to a fee or tax to abstract a certain lowed by rounds of follow-up communication via email volume of water as a natural resource, rather than a and conference calls with respondents, as well as with service charge for provided water or a one-time ad- ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 third parties. Data are also veriĔed through analysis ministrative application fee. of laws and regulations and a review of publicly-avail- able sources of information on water management and Water conservation refers to preservation and main- permits. tenance of the quantity and quality of water (surface and/or groundwater). To make data for the individual water use for irriga- tion indicator comparable across countries, several t‰í â ªĔ–³ Ì–Ą means to minimize water wastage in assumptions about the water user and water source order to use the minimum amount of water required to are used. More detail, as well as the score assigned to perform a speciĔc function. each data point (table B.7) and speciĔc terms, is set out below. Water stress “occurs when the demand for water ex- ceeds the available amount during a certain period or Assumptions about the water user when poor quality restricts its use.”2 The water user: • Is a farm that grows crops. Transfer refers to when holders of water abstraction 140 • Is a medium-sized farm for the country, with land and use permits may sell, assign, trade, lease or other- area that falls between 2 and 10 hectares. wise transfer to a third party their permit. • Uses mechanical means to individually abstract water for irrigation. • Is not located in a broader irrigation scheme. ICT If medium-sized farms in the country, as prescribed The information and communication technology (ICT) in any ofĔcial farm-size classiĔcation system, deviate indicator measures laws, regulations and policies that signiĔcantly from this given range, it is assumed that promote an enabling environment for the provision and use of ICT services, with a particular focus on rural areas. The ICT indicator focuses on the regulations and policies to improve access to ICT services. The ICT topic area has three main types of respon- dents, as follows: i) mobile operators; ii) ICT and/ or telecommunication regulatory authorities; and iii) telecommunication lawyers. The questionnaire targets all three groups of respondents. Data were collected through interviews conducted during country visits directly with respondents and also by email and teleconference calls from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and Washington, DC. The data points below (table B.8) measure the legal requirements to operate as a mobile service provider that offers core mobile services which include voice, SMS (Short Message Service) and/or data. SpeciĔc terms Active infrastructure sharing requires operators to share elements of the active network layer including, for example, radio access nodes and transmission. Digital dividend is the amount of spectrum made available by the transition of terrestrial television broadcasting from analog to digital. Operating license is a license that authorizes the pro- vision of telecommunications services. Passive infrastructure sharing is the sharing of space or physical supporting infrastructure which does not require active operational coordination between net- work operators. Service neutral is any service that can be offered in the used frequency band. Technology neutral is any available technology to date that can be employed to provide a certain service in the used frequency band. Voluntary spectrum trading is a mechanism whereby APPENDIX B rights and any associated obligations to use spectrum can be transferred from one party to another by way of a market-based exchange for a certain price. 141 1 See for example, Global Water Partnership. 2013. River basin organizations. http://www.gwp.org/en/ToolBox/TOOLS/INSTITUTIONAL-ROLES/ Creating-an-Organisational-Framework/River-basin-organisations/. 2 European Environment Agency. Water Stress. http://www.eea.europa.eu/ themes/water/wise-help-centre/glossary-deĔnitions/water-stress. Table B.1 | Scoring methodology for seed indicators INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED PLANT This indicator A score of 1 if yes BREEDING measures the 1. There is a regulation governing plant breeders’ rights regulatory good A score of 0 if no practices identiĔed as supporting the plant 2. The duration (in years) of the plant breeders’ rights A score of 1 if the protection lasts at least 20 years breeding process. (PBR) A score of 0 if the protection lasts less than 20 years 3. Conditions to beneĔt from plant breeders’ rights do A score of 1 if conditions do not differ not differ between national and foreign applicants A score of 0 if conditions differ A score of 1 if yes 4. A list of protected varieties is publicly available A score of 0 if no 5. Companies are legally allowed to produce breeder/ A score of 1 if yes pre-basic seed of local public varieties for use in the domestic market A score of 0 if no 6. Companies are legally allowed to produce founda- A score of 1 if yes tion/basic seed of local public varieties for use in the domestic market A score of 0 if no 7. Companies are obtaining access to germplasm pre- A score of 1 if yes served in publically managed gene banks A score of 0 if no 8. Plant breeding rights can be licensed to another A score of 1 if yes party for production and sale of the variety A score of 0 if no 9. There are public research institutes in the country A score of 1 if yes that license public varieties to companies for pro- duction and sale in the domestic market A score of 0 if no 10. Companies importing germplasm for the devel- A score of 1 if government testing is not required opment of new varieties are required to undergo government testing (other than phytosanitary tests) A score of 0 if yes, government testing is required VARIETY This indicator 1. DUS testing data from other countries’ authorities A score of 1 if yes REGISTRATION measures the are accepted as ofĔcial data for the purpose regulatory good of registration A score of 0 if no practices identiĔed as supporting the 2. The law establishes a variety release committee A score of 1 if yes efĔcient registration (VRC) in the country A score of 0 if no and release of a locally developed A score of 1 if governmental and nongovernmental rep- new seed variety into resentatives (that is, seed associations, seed companies) the domestic market. constitute one-half or more of the VRC It also measures 3. The composition of the legally mandated VRC the efĔciency of the A score of 0.5 if nongovernmental representatives are in- includes the private sector registration process cluded in the committee but constitute less than one-half ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 through case studies. A score of 0 if nongovernmental representatives are not included in the VRC or the VRC does not exist A score of 1 if the VRC meets on demand or at least once per cropping season 4. The frequency of VRC meetings A score of 0 if the VRC meets less than once per cropping season, or if the VRC does not meet at all 5. A variety can be commercialized immediately after A score of 1 if yes the decision of the VRC A score of 0 if no A score of 1 if yes 6. A catalog listing new registered varieties is publicly A score of 0.5 if the variety catalog is not available online available online A score of 0 if the variety catalog does not exist 7. The variety catalog speciĔes agro-ecological zones A score of 1 if yes suitable for the variety. A score of 0 if no 142 8. The frequency with which the variety catalog A score of 1 if the catalog is updated each cropping season is updated A score of 0 if the catalog is updated less than once a year Total time required for all legally mandated procedures is aggregated and presented in calendar days. 9. Time to register a new maize variety A score of 0 if there is no requirement to register or if the registration is not done in practice Total cost for all legally mandated procedures is aggregat- ed and presented in % of income per capita. 10. Cost required to register a new maize variety A score of 0 if there is no requirement to register or if the registration is not done in practice (continued) INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED SEED QUALITY This indicator 1. There is an ofĔcial fee schedule for seed certiĔcation A score of 1 if yes CONTROL measures legally activities performed by the competent public mandated processes authority A score of 0 if no and practices of seed certiĔcation. A score of 1 if the plant breeder is required to retain: (i) records of the plant reproductive material or (ii) both records of the plant reproductive material and of their 2. Plant breeders are required to ensure the suppliers traceability of the plant reproductive material used A score of 0.5 if the plant breeder is required to retain records of their suppliers A score of 0 if neither are required A score of 1 if more or equal to two years 3. Time in years during which plant breeders are legally A score of 0.5 if less than two years obliged to keep the traceability records A score of 0 if no obligation 4. There is a legal framework for the accreditation of A score of 1 if yes private seed companies and/or third parties for the performance of certiĔcation activities A score of 0 if no 5. Private seed companies and/or third parties (non- A score of 1 if yes governmental institutions) are accredited in practice for the performance of certiĔcation activities A score of 0 if no 6. The following seed certiĔcation activities can be per- formed by an accredited seed company/third party: a. Field inspection A score of 0.25 for each of the listed activities b. Sampling c. Lab testing d. Labelling A score of 1 if both laboratory and Ĕeld post-control tests are required or if only Ĕeld post-control tests are required 7. The competent public authority is required to per- A score of 0.5 if only laboratory post-control tests are form post-control tests on certiĔed seed required A score of 0 if neither are required 8. A minimum percentage of certiĔed seed must be A score of 1 if yes subject to post-control tests A score of 0 if no A score of 1 if the law imposes the withdrawal of the seed and a formal request to comply with applicable standards, 9. The competent public authority is required to take or if the law only provides for a formal request to comply measures in the case of noncompliance with the with applicable standards varietal purity standards A score of 0.5 if the law imposes the withdrawal of the seed A score of 0 if none are required A score of 1 if yes 10. Seed containers must be labeled A score of 0 if no 11. Seed container labels must provide the following information: APPENDIX B a. Name and address of seed producer b. Crop species c. Class of seed d. Net weight A score of 1 if 8 or more if the label requirements must be e. Lot number included in the label: f. CertiĔcate number A score of 0 if less than 8 143 g. Germination (minimum %) h. Purity (minimum %) i. Year of production j. Repacking or relabeling k. Chemical treatment on the seed 12. There is a penalty for the fraudulent sale of A score of 1 if yes mislabeled seed bags A score of 0 if no Table B.2 | Scoring methodology for fertilizer indicators INDICATOR SUB-INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED FERTILIZER Fertilizer This indicator measures 1. Private entities are required to register A score of 1 if yes REGISTRATION registration the legal requirements new fertilizer products to sell them in the (legal) to register a fertilizer country A score of 0 if no and the extent to which public information on 2. The following type(s) of fertilizer products registered products must be registered: A score of 0.5 for each category that must be is available through a. Chemical or mineral fertilizer products registered fertilizer catalogues. b. Organic fertilizer products 3. Field testing is not required to register a A score of 1 if Ĕeld testing is not required fertilizer product A score of 0 if Ĕeld testing is required 4. A lab sample analysis is required to register A score of 1 if yes a fertilizer product A score of 0 if no A score of 1 if yes A score of 0.8 if time-limited and validity is equal to or greater than 10 years 5. The validity of the chemical fertilizer prod- A score of 0.4 if time-limited and validity is uct registration is not time-limited less than 10 years A score of 0 if fertilizer products are not re- quired to be registered by law or if the private sector is not allowed to register fertilizer products 6. An ofĔcial catalogue listing all registered fertilizer products in the country is publicly A score of 1 if yes available online 7. Re-registration of a fertilizer product is not required in the country if it has already pre- viously been registered in another country A score of 1 if re-registration is not required that is part of an agreement or approved in the regional catalogue Fertilizer Building up on legal Total time required for all legally mandated registration requirements to register procedures is aggregated and presented in in practice fertilizer, this indicator 1. Total time to register a fertilizer product calendar days (efĔciency) captures the time and cost needed to A score of 0 if there is no requirement to regis- comply with the legal ter or if the registration is not done in practice requirements to register Total cost required for all legally mandated a fertilizer. procedures is aggregated and presented in % 2. Total cost to register a fertilizer product of income per capita A score of 0 if there is no requirement to regis- ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 ter or if the registration is not done in practice IMPORTING As fertilizer production 1. Private entities are allowed to import fertil- AND is concentrated in A score of 0 if any of the restrictions apply izer products into the country to sell them DISTRIBUTING only a few countries, FERTILIZER requiring most others A score of 1 if yes, or the time limit is greater to rely on imports, or equal to 10 years these data focus on the private sector’s role A score of 0.5 if importer registration is and the requirements 2. Private entities are required to register as time-limited and the time is greater or equal for importing and importers to import fertilizer products but to 5 years distributing fertilizer. the registration is not time-limited A score of 0 if the company doesn’t have to register as an importer or if the company has to register and registration is time-limited to less than Ĕve years 3. Private entities are not required to obtain A score of 1 if no permit is required an import permit to import fertilizer prod- A score of 0.5 if a blank permit is required ucts. If an import permit is required, the 144 permit is a blank import permit without a A score of 0 if a permit is required with per volume restriction shipment or volume restrictions A score of 1 if no permit is required 4. If an import permit is required, the time A score of 0.5 if validity is equal or greater validity of the import permit is at least 12 than 12 months months A score of 0 if validity is less than 12 months (continued) INDICATOR SUB-INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED A score of 1 if no permit is required A score of 0.5 if the cost is equal or less than 5. The ofĔcial cost to obtain an import permit 50% of income per capita is equal or less than 50% income per capita A score of 0 if the cost is more than 50% of income per capita A score of 1 if no permit is required 6. The time it takes to obtain the import A score of 0.5 if less or equal to 14 calendar permit is less or equal to 14 calendar days days A score of 0 if more than 14 calendar days 7. Private entities are allowed to distribute A score of 1 if yes fertilizer products in the country QUALITY These indicators CONTROL OF focus on labeling 1. The law requires labeling of fertilizer con- A score of 1 if yes FERTILIZER requirements, tainers legislation on the sale of mislabeled and open 2. The law requires that labeling must be in at fertilizer containers, and A score of 1 if yes least one of the country’s ofĔcial languages practices in monitoring fertilizer quality. 3. The law establishes that the label must provide the following: a. brand name b. net weight or volume c. content description A score of 1 if 10 or more label requirements d. name of the manufacturer are included in the label e. contact information of the manufacturer A score of 0.5 if between 5 and 9 label require- ments are included in the label f. country of origin A score of 0 if less than 5 label requirements g. name of the importer are included in the label or if no label is h. contact information of importer required i. manufacturing date j. expiration date k. safety instructions l. storage instructions m. registration number 4. If the fertilizer law prohibits the sale of A score of 1 if yes mislabeled fertilizer bags 5. If the law establishes a penalty for the sale A score of 1 if yes of mislabeled fertilizer APPENDIX B 6. If the fertilizer law prohibits the sale of fertilizer products from opened bags or A score of 1 if yes containers 7. If the law establishes a penalty for the sale of fertilizer products from opened bags or A score of 1 if yes containers 145 Table B.3 | Scoring methodology for machinery indicators INDICATOR SUB-INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED TRACTOR Tractor imports This indicator A score of 1 if companies are not required to register as IMPORTS examines importers the private 1. Companies are not required to register machinery as importers of agricultural tractors. If A score of 0.5 if the registration is required but the validity is sector’s ability the registration is required, the validity indeĔnite or greater than or equal to 10 years to import is indeĔnite or greater than 10 years A score of 0 if the registration is required and the validity is agricultural less than 10 years tractors, importer A score of 1 if the registration is not required or the registra- registration 2. If registration is required and limited to a certain number of years, the registra- tion is automatically renewed and renewal requirements, tion is automatically renewed A score of 0 if registration renewal is required and import permit A score of 1 if import permit is not required requirements. 3. An import permit is not required to A score of 0.5 if the import permit is required and the cost is import agricultural tractors. smaller or equal to 25% of income per capita If a permit is required, the cost is less than 25% of income per capita A score of 0 if the import permit is required and the cost is greater than 25% of income per capita A score of 1 if the permit is a blank permit, or if the import 4. If an import permit is required, it is a permit is not required blank import permit without volume or A score of 0 if the import permit is required for each tractor other restrictions shipment or the permit is limited to a certain number of tractors annually A score of 1 if the import permit has unlimited validity or if the import permit is not required 5. If an import permit is required, it is A score of 0.5 if the permit has a validity of 12 months or valid for a period of at least 12 months longer A score of 0 if the permit has a validity of less than 12 months TRACTOR Tractor This indicator A score of 1 if registration is required for use on public roads OPERATIONS operations evaluates the 1. According to the law, tractors must be only (legal) requirement registered once imported if they will be of tractor A score of 0.5 if registration is required for all usage used on public roads registration, A score of 0 if registration is not required roadworthiness inspections of A score of 1 if the roadworthiness inspection is required and in-use tractors, the cost is less than or equal to 2% of income per capita and provision 2. According to the law, in-use tractors of after-market have to be inspected for roadworthi- A score of 0.5 if the roadworthiness-inspection is required parts and ness/road-Ĕtness and if the cost of and the cost is greater than 2% of income per capita services. inspection is affordable A score of 0 if the roadworthiness-inspection is not required or it is not done in practice ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 A score of 1 if inspection is required for all types of tractors 3. The roadworthiness inspection is A score of 0.5 if inspection is required for speciĔc types of required for all types of tractors tractors A score of 0 if no inspection is required A score of 1 if yes 4. If the roadworthiness inspection is A score of 0.5 if renewal is required and the period between required, the results are valid for more roadworthiness tests is less than two years or greater than than two years but less than four years four years A score of 0 if renewal is not required A score of 1 if both tractor after-market service and parts must be provided 5. Tractor dealers must provide tractor A score of 0.5 if either tractor after-market service or parts after-market service and parts must be provided A score 0 if neither tractor after-market nor parts must be provided 146 Tractor Building on the Total time required for all legally mandated procedures is registration legal indicator aggregated and presented in calendar days in practice with regards 1. Total time to register a tractor (efĔciency) to tractor A score of 0 if there is no requirement to register or if the registration, registration is not done in practice this indicator measures the Total cost for all legally mandated procedures is aggregated time and the and presented in % of income per capita cost required 2. Total cost to register a tractor A score of 0 if there is no requirement to register or if the to register a registration is not done in practice tractor. INDICATOR SUB-INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED TRACTOR Tractor testing This indicator A score of 1 if international standards are used TESTING and standards examines 1. National and/or international tractor AND (legal) national and A score of 0.5 if national standards are used standards are used in the country STANDARDS international A score of 0 if no standards are used tractor standards, the 2. If national and/or international tractor legal framework standards are used in the country, the A score of 0.33 is assigned to each of the standards that is applicable to following standards are included: included. testing and the type of approval > operator safety standards A score of 0 if none of the three standards are used or there of tractors, are not national and/or international standards used in the > tractor performance standards and safety country standards. > engine emission standards 3. Tractors are required to obtain the type A score of 1 if yes approval before they can be marketed in the country A score of 0 if no 4. To obtain the type approval, the follow- ing procedures are required: A score of 0.33 is assigned to each requirement > tractor testing in a test laboratory A score of 0 if the type approval is not required or it is not > the issuance of the test report done in practice > the publication of the test report 5. The country recognizes the tractor A score of 1 if yes type approvals issued by authorities in other countries A score of 0 if no 6. The country recognizes tractor test A score of 1 if yes reports by the tractor manufacturer for the issuance of the type approval A score of 0 if no A score of 1 if yes 7. The type approval has unlimited valid- A score of 0.5 if limited to Ĕve or more years ity provided that the speciĔcations of the tractor do not change A score of 0 if less than Ĕve years or the type approval is not required A score of 1 if ROPS or FOPS are required in combination with seatbelts 8. The national regulations/standards require tractors to be equipped with A score of 0.33 if neither ROPS or FOPS nor seatbelts are protective structures, such as roll-over required protection (ROPS) structures or falling A score of 0 if ROPS or FOPS are required and seatbelts are object protection (FOPS) structures, not required and seatbelts A score of 0 if seatbelts are required and ROPS or FOPS are not required Tractor testing Building on the Total time for all legally mandated procedures to obtain the in practice legal indicator 1. Time to obtain the tractor type type approval is aggregated and presented in calendar days (efĔciency) with regards to approval tractor testing A score of 0 if there is no requirement to obtain type approval and the type or if the tractor type approval is not done in practice approval, this indicator measures the time and the Total cost for all legally mandated procedures to obtain the cost required type approval in % of income per capita to test an 2. Cost to obtain the tractor type approval APPENDIX B agricultural A score of 0 if there is no requirement to obtain type approval tractor and or if the tractor type approval is not done in practice obtain a tractor type approval. 147 c‰•Å ϟʹӁ]–Óâ³Ì«Ë í°ÓœÓÅÓ«ĄªÓâĔ̖̉ ³Ìœ³–‰íÓâæ INDICATOR SUB-INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED DJDЈD; Operation and This indicator measures 1. The country allows and regulates deposit-taking MFIs LENDING prudential the regulatory INSTITUTIONS regulation framework for deposit- 2. There is a minimum capital requirement to establish an MFI of MFIs taking MFIs. 3. The regulated minimum capital adequacy ratio for MFIs is at (operations)a least equal to, or no more than 2 percentage points higher, than the capital adequacy ratio for commercial banksb 4. Loan sizes of MFIs are: not limited to a speciĔc amount; or are greater than 10 times the gross national income (GNI) per capita if there is a speciĔc amount; or are a percentage A score of 1 if yes for each of capital, equity or depositsc question 5. MFIs must disclose the effective interest rate or a proxy to loan applicants 6. MFIs are required to fully provision a delinquent, unsecured loan after the same number of days required for commer- cial banks, or within half the number of days required for commercial banks 7. MFIs are required to subscribe to a deposit insurance system Operation and This indicator measures 1. There is a law regulating Ĕnancial cooperatives, or there is a governance the regulatory speciĔc section of a general cooperatives law that regulates of Ĕnancial framework for Ĕnancial the governance and operation of Ĕnancial cooperatives cooperatives cooperatives. (operations) 2. There is a minimum capital requirement to establish a Ĕnancial cooperative 3. A minimum number of members is required to establish a Ĕnancial cooperative A score of 1 if yes for each 4. Ratios are deĔned in the law to ensure the Ĕnancial stability question of Ĕnancial cooperatives 5. Financial cooperatives must disclose the effective interest rate or a proxy to loan applicants 6. Financial cooperatives must subscribe to a mandatory deposit insurance system 7. Two or more Ĕnancial cooperatives may merge or amalgam- ate into a new Ĕnancial cooperative BRANCHLESS Agent banking This indicator 1. There exists a legal framework to regulate agent banking BANKING (operations)d measures the entry A score of 1 if yes activities and operational requirements for agent 2. Whether there are minimum standards to qualify and op- banking. erate as an agent in the following areas: 1) can either be an operating/established business or an individual; 2) has to A score of 0.2 for each standard have Ĕnancial soundness; 3) has no criminal record; 4) has ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 to have real-time connectivity to a commercial bank; and 5) location A score of 1 if yes A score of 0.5 if only non-exclu- 3. Agents can enter into both exclusive and non-exclusive sive contracts are allowed contracts with Ĕnancial institutions A score of 0 is assigned if only exclusive contracts are allowed 4. The types of services that agents can offer on behalf of a bank includes: a. cash deposits; b. cash withdrawals; c. transfer of funds to other customers’ accounts; A score of 0.125 for each service d. bill payments; that can be offered e. balance inquiry; 148 f. opening a deposit account; g. collection/processing of loan application documents; h. know your customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) procedures 5. Commercial banks are liable for the acts of commission and omission of agents providing Ĕnancial services on A score of 1 if yes their behalf (continued) INDICATOR SUB-INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Electronic This indicator measures 1. E-money is deĔned and regulated money the legal framework (e-money) for e-money, in 2. Non-Ĕnancial institution businesses are allowed to issue (operations) particular, the entry e-money A score of 1 if yes for each and operational 3. Non-Ĕnancial institution e-money issuers are required to question requirements for non- keep customer’s funds safeguarded and deposited in a Ĕnancial institution trust at a fully prudentially regulated Ĕnancial institution e-money issuers. under which funds are held on behalf of clients A score of “1*1/4” if the capital requirement is less than 101 times the GNI per capita, but greater than 0 A score of “2/3*1/4” if the mini- mum capital is equal to or great- 4. There are four requirements for non-Ĕnancial institution er than 101 times the income per businesses to receive a license to issue e-money: capita, but less than 501 a. an initial capital requirement; for the initial capital re- A score of “1/3*1/4” if the mini- quirement, countries are divided into four groups (1, 2/3, mum capital is equal to or great- 1/3 and 0) based on the country’s capital requirement as er than 501 times the income per a multiple of its income per capita capita, but less than 901 A score of 0 if the minimum capital requirement is equal to or greater than 901 times the income per capita or if there are no provisions on the minimum capital requirement b. interoperability with other existing electronic money payment/transfer systems c. existence of internal control mechanisms to comply with A score of 1/4 if the law states Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting Financing of the requirement and 0 if it does Terrorism (AML/CFT) laws, standards and measures not d. consumer protection measures such as consumer recourse mechanisms, consumer awareness programs, and so on (continued) APPENDIX B 149 a Countries with a high level of Ĕnancial inclusion are not measured under the operation and prudential regulation for MFIs sub-indicator. b The methodology adopts the Basel Committee recommendation in “MicroĔnance activities and the Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision” and the Inter- national Development Bank’s Jansson et al. (2004) “Principles and Practices for Regulating and Supervising MicroĔnance” report in establishing a CAR that falls within 2-3 percentage point of commercial banks or in the range of 10% to 15%. c In some countries, the maximum loan an MFI can extend is limited to a percentage of deposits or a percentage of core capital. This language is included in risk management regulations, intended to limit the exposure of the institution to a single borrower. For countries with this type of loan limitation, EBA 2017 considers it “no limit” because the currency value corresponding to that percentage is so high as to present no effective limit to borrowers. d Countries with high level of Ĕnancial inclusion are not measured under the agent banking sub-indicator. INDICATOR SUB-INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED MOVABLE Warehouse This indicator measures 1. There is a law regulating the operation of warehouse COLLATERAL receipts the regulatory receipts or the regulation of warehouse receipts is included (operations) framework facilitating in other general legislation the use of agricultural commodities as 2. Warehouse operators are required to Ĕle a bond with the collateral. regulator, pay into an indemnity fund to secure perfor- A score of 1 if yes for each mance by him of his obligations as a warehouse operator, question or are required to insure the warehouse or the stored goods against Ĕre, earthquakes, theft, burglary or other damage 3. Warehouse receipts are negotiable A score of 1 is assigned if the law allows both paper-based and electronic warehouse receipts, and if electronic warehouse receipts are explicitly mentioned 4. The types of warehouse receipts that are legally valid: in the regulation paper-based, electronic or both A score of 0.5 is assigned if the law allows only paper-based receipts A score of 0 is assigned if ware- house receipt is not recognized or used 5. Information that must be listed on a warehouse receipt for it to be valid. There are four details measured, namely: > date of issuance or serial number A score of 0.25 for each piece > location of storage of information that needs to be listed > description of goods in storage, (for example, type, quality and harvest) > information on security interest over the goods (for example, a certiĔcate of pledge) Doing This indicator measures 1. There is a legal framework for secured transactions that BusinessЂ the legal rights of grant security interest in movable assets Getting Credit borrowers and lenders (operations)e with respect to secured 2. The law allows businesses to grant a non-possessory transactions and the security right in a single category of movable assets without reporting of credit requiring a speciĔc description of collateral information. A total of eight data points 3. The law allows businesses to grant a non-possessory secu- from the indicator’s rity right in substantially all of its assets, without requiring sub-indices (Ĕve data a speciĔc description of collateral ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 points from the strength 4. Security rights are granted to future or after-acquired of legal rights sub- assets, and they extend automatically to the products, index and three data proceeds or replacements of the original assets points from the credit A score of 1 if yes for each information sub-index) 5. Existence of a collateral registry for movable assets in oper- question are included. ation for both incorporated and non-incorporated entities, that is uniĔed geographically and by asset type, with an electronic database indexed by debtor’s name 6. The credit information is distributed from retailers or utility companiesЁin addition to data from banks and Ĕnancial institutions 7. Credit information includes data on loan amounts below 1% of income per capita 8. There is a legal framework that allows borrowers to access their data in the credit bureau or credit registry 150 e Doing BusinessЂGetting Credit data are used as secondary data. Table B.5 | Scoring methodology for markets indicators INDICATOR ]hЈ.D.cJY DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED AGRICULTURAL Agricultural This indicator measures 1. There are no price controls in the sector TRADE trade (legal) regulatory requirements of the selected product (explicit price applicable to the control regulations are considered, A score of 1 if price controls do not exist domestic trade and including those that apply only to govern- A score of 0 if price controls exist export of agricultural ment purchases. Recommended prices products. are not included) 2. Sales and purchases of the selected A score of 1 if sales and purchases do not have to product do not have to occur at an occur at an auction or a Ĕxed market auction or a Ĕxed (electronic or physical) A score of 0 if sales and purchases have to occur marketplace at an auction or a Ĕxed market 3. Traders do not have to obtain a trad- er-level license to buy/sell the selected A score of 1 if the license is not required product or agricultural products more A score of 0 if the license is required generally in the domestic market 4. Exporters do not have to be a member of a speciĔc association or organization A score of 1 if membership is not required to obtain the right to export the selected product or agricultural products more A score of 0 if the membership is required generally 5. Exporters do not have to obtain a trader-level export license to export the A score of 1 if the license is not required selected product or agricultural products more generally to the selected trading A score of 0 if the license is required partner 6. Phytosanitary certiĔcate applications may A score of 1 if yes be submitted electronically 7. Phytosanitary certiĔcates may be gen- erated, issued and sent in an electronic A score of 1 if yes form (for example, an ePhyto system is in place) 8. Phytosanitary certiĔcates may be issued on-site where the selected product is A score of 1 if yes produced, processed, packaged, stored and so on A score of 0.5 is assigned to each of the following: > The ofĔcial fee schedule is available on a 9. The ofĔcial fee schedule for the phy- government website. tosanitary certiĔcate is publicly available > The ofĔcial fee schedule is available in legislation. Agricultural This indicator measures 10. Total number of mandatory documents Total number of mandatory, agriculture-specif- trade (time and the number, time and required to export the selected product ic documents is aggregated and presented in motion) cost of agriculture- to the selected trading partner number form and product-speciĔc documents to export agricultural products. 11. Total time to obtain the mandatory doc- Total time required to obtain the mandatory, uments required to export the selected agriculture-speciĔc documents is aggregated and product to the selected trading partner presented in calendar days APPENDIX B 12. Total cost to obtain the mandatory doc- Total cost required to obtain the mandatory, uments required to export the selected agriculture-speciĔc documents is aggregated and product to the selected trading partner presented in % income per capita (continued) 151 INDICATOR ]hЈ.D.cJY DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED PLANT This indicator examines 1. A speciĔc government agency or unit PROTECTION the strength of the is designated by law to conduct pest A score of 1 if yes domestic plant surveillance on plants protection framework by considering the legal 2. The government or national plant obligations applicable protection agency maintains a list of A score of 1 if yes to domestic pest regulated quarantine pests management. A score of 0.5 is assigned to each of the following: 3. The list of regulated quarantine pests > The list of regulated quarantine pests is is publicly available on a relevant uploaded to the IPPC website. government website and uploaded to the IPPC website > The list of regulated quarantine pests is made available on a relevant government website. 4. A pest database that contains details on the pests present in the country is available on a government website and contains the following features: A score of 0.25 is assigned to each of the features a. pictures available in the pest database b. host information c. current status d. potential treatment methods A score of 1 if yes 5. Land owners/users are obligated to A score of 0.5 if land owners/users are obligated report pest outbreaks to the government, to report pest outbreaks to the government, but and penalties are in place for non- there are no penalties for noncompliance compliance A score of 0 if land owners/users are not obligated to report pest outbreaks to the government 6. A speciĔc government agency or unit is designated by law to conduct pest A score of 1 if yes risk analysis (PRA) for imports of plant products 7. The PRA reports are publicly available A score of 1 if yes online 8. Phytosanitary inspections on imports of plant products may be carried out on a A score of 1 if yes risk basis ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 (continued) 152 INDICATOR ]hЈ.D.cJY DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED PRODUCER This indicator measures A score of 1 if there is no minimum capital ORGANIZATIONS the laws applicable to requirement the creation of producer organizations, their A score of 0.5 if the minimum capital requirement 1. There is no minimum capital requirement growth, efĔciency and is equal to or less than 1 time the income per to establish a producer organization inclusiveness. capita A score of 0 if the minimum capital requirement is greater than 1 time the income per capita A score of 1 if foreign natural persons are explicitly 2. Foreign natural persons may be members allowed to be members or if there is no prohibi- of a producer organization tion on their membership (for example, the law is silent) A score of 1 if both domestic and foreign legal persons may be members A score of 0.8 if all domestic legal persons are allowed to be members but foreign legal persons are prohibited A score of 0.6 if only certain domestic legal per- 3. Domestic and foreign legal persons may sons are allowed to be members and foreign legal be members of a producer organization persons are not prohibited A score of 0.4 if only certain domestic legal per- sons are allowed to be members and foreign legal persons are prohibited A score of 0 if legal persons are not allowed to be members 4. The government may not own shares in a A score of 1 if government shares in a producer producer organization organization is prohibited 5. There is no cap on the dividends paid on A score of 1 if there is no cap on dividends member shares 6. ProĔts may be distributed in the form of A score of 1 if yes. shares A score of 1 if nonmember shares are allowed and there is no cap on dividends 7. Nonmembers may own shares in a pro- A score of 0.8 if nonmember shares are allowed ducer organization and there is no cap on and there is a cap on dividends dividends A score of 0 if nonmember shares are not allowed or if the law is silent on the issue of nonmember participation A score of 1 if there is a time limit and it is equal to or less than 10 days A score of 0.75 if there is a time limit and it is 8. An application to register a producer or- equal to or less than 30 days ganization must be reviewed and decided A score of 0.5 if there is a time limit and it is equal upon within an explicit time limit set out to or less than 60 days in the law A score of 0.25 if there is a time limit and it is more than 60 days A score of 0 if there is no time limit 9. The designated regulating authority must explain its reasons for rejecting an appli- APPENDIX B A score of 1 if yes cation to establish a producer organiza- tion 10. The open membership principle applies A score of 1 if yes to producer organizations (continued) 153 INDICATOR ]hЈ.D.cJY DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED PRODUCER 11. Women’s membership in a producer ORGANIZATIONS organization is not restricted by any (continued) additional requirements, such as: a. legal ownership over land b. only one member per household A score of 1 if none of the listed restrictions exist c. a married woman has to receive her husband’s authorization before join- A score of 0 if any of the listed restrictions exist ing a producer organization d. other legal restrictions that might apply to female members and limit their participation in producer organizations 12. A quota or other mechanism is established by law to promote women in producer organizations, such as: a. a gender quota for the board of directors of producer organizations A score of 1 if any of the listed quotas exist b. a gender quota for the supervisory committee of producer organizations c. other gender-related quotas or mechanisms applicable to producer organizations This question is scored in two parts: For the constitution: A score of 0.5 if the constitution contains a clause on nondiscrimination and it mentions gender A score of 0.3 if the constitution contains a clause on nondiscrimination, but it does not mention gender A score of 0 if the constitution does not con- 13. The constitution and the law on producer tain a clause on nondiscrimination organizations contain provisions on non- discrimination and both mention gender For the law on producer organizations: as a speciĔcally protected categoryf A score of 0.5 if the law requires producer organizations to comply with the principle of nondiscrimination and it mentions gender ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 A score of 0.3 if the law requires producer organizations to comply with the principle of nondiscrimination, but it does not mention gender A score of 0 if the law does not require producer organizations to comply with the principle of nondiscrimination 154 f The 2016 data of Women, Business and the Law Ђ Accessing Institutions are used as secondary data. The speciĔc data points included: (1) whether the constitution contains a clause on nondiscrimination or not; and (2) if it exists in the constitution, whether the nondiscrimination clause mentions gender or not. Table B.6 | Scoring methodology for transport indicators INDICATOR ]hЈ.D.cJY DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED TRUCK Truck licensing This indicator measures 1. Type of license legally required to transport goods A score of 1 if only the company- LICENSING (legal) the regulatory and commercially in the domestic market: level license is required normative framework and associated efĔciency a. License at the company level A score of 0.5 if both company- to access and operate level and truck-level licenses are b. License at the truck level domestically within the required or only the truck license road freight transport c. Both at the company and truck level licenses is required service market. Overall, the indicators determine d. No license required A score of 0 if no license is required the extent to which legal A score of 1 if yes foundations provide for a clear, transparent 2. Validity of the relevant domestic license(s) is at least A score of 0 if the validity is less and efĔcient system for Ĕve years than Ĕve years or N/A accessing the market, Note: If the country does not require a domestic Note: If a country has “both” licens- guarantee a level playing license, the score of this question will read “N/A” es, a score of 1 if both licenses have Ĕeld for competition, and (not applicable) a validity of at least Ĕve years, and dedicate special legal provisions for transporting a score of zero if otherwise agriculture and food products. 3. Citizenship requirements do not apply to obtain a license (foreign nationals or businesses are allowed A score of 1 if yes to obtain the relevant licenses) A score of 0 if no or N/A Note: If the country does not require a domestic license, the score of this question will read “N/A” 4. The law does not establish any of the following additional requirements to obtain a license: a. Maximum number of trucks covered under the license b. Maximum transported tonnage c. Geographical operational limitations A score of 1 if no additional d. Minimum number of trucks under the license requirements e. Licenses are only issued to members of a A score of 0 if any additional truckers’ association or professional body requirement or “N/A” f. Licenses cannot be issued to women g. Obtain government registry or notiĔcation certiĔcate Note: If the country does not require a domestic license, the score of this question will read “N/A.” 5. Documents required by law when transporting goods by road domestically include: A score of 1 if documents listed a. Written contract describing the conditions of under both (a) and (b) are required carriage, including carrier’s liability for loss, A score of 0.5 if yes only to either damage or delay (a) or (b) b. Consignment note, packing list, bill of lading, A score of 0 if no documents are waybill, commercial invoice or any other ofĔcial required by law when transporting document describing the goods shipped, their origin and destination 6. The law establishes speciĔc regulations related to A score of 1 if yes the transport of perishable agriculture products or foodstuffs, or related to the reference product A score of 0 if no 7. The law considers the following aspects as part of APPENDIX B regulations for the transport of agri-food products: a. Special conditions related to covering/rooĔng and ĕooring/insulation to protect loads from external and internal contaminants b. Vehicle cooling, refrigeration or controlled- temperature aspects A score of 0.166 for each aspect regulated c. Prohibition of co-mingling of certain items 155 A score of 0 for each aspect not d. SpeciĔc packaging, sealing and stowage regulated conditions for the goods transported A score of 0 if “N/A” e. Loading and unloading speciĔc procedures f. Mandatory cleaning and disinfection protocols and routines of truck container Note: If the country has no speciĔc regulations for agricultural or food products, the score of this question will read “N/A” (continued) INDICATOR ]hЈ.D.cJY DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED TRUCK A score of 1 if the registry is LICENSING 8. There is a public registry of licensed transport available online or by other means operators (ofĔcial gazette, phone, certiĔed (continued) agent, billboards at public authority, Note: If the country does not require a domestic and so on) license, the score of this question will read “N/A” A score of 0 if no or “N/A” A score of 1 if the requirements are 9. Public availability of requirements that companies published on a government website must fulĔll to obtain or renew a road transport or available by other means (ofĔcial license gazette, phone, certiĔed agent, billboards at public authority, and Note: If the country does not require a domestic so on) license, the score of this question will read “N/A” A score of 0 if no or “N/A” 10. The application or renewal for a license can be sub- mitted electronically A score of 1 if yes Note: If the country does not require a domestic A score of 0 if no or “N/A” license, the score of this question will read “N/A” 11. Freight is allocated through direct contracting between a producer or trader and a trucking service A score of 1 if yes provider Truck licensing This indicator measures (time and cost) the procedural efĔciency Total time required to obtain the (time and cost required) relevant license is presented in of the licensing systems calendar days in place in a country, as perceived by the relevant A score of 0 if there is no license road transport operators. 12. Total time required to obtain a domestic license required Note: If “both” licenses are required, their times and costs are aggre- gated. Total cost to obtain the relevant license is presented in % of income per capita 13. Total cost required to obtain a domestic license A score of 0 if there is no license Note: If the country does not require a domestic required license, the score of this question will read “N/A” Note: If “both” licenses are required, their times and costs are aggre- ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 gated. (continued) 156 INDICATOR ]hЈ.D.cJY DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED YJ]]ЈJYY Cross-border This indicator measures TRANSPORTAЈ transport license the completeness of 1. Transport rights are granted to foreign transport A score of 1 if yes TION (legal) the legal and regulatory companies or trucks registered in the trading partner A score of 0 if no framework governing cross-border transport between a given country and its largest trading 2. Backhauling rights are granted to foreign transport A score of 1 if yes partner. Overall the companies or trucks registered in the trading partner A score of 0 if no indicators aim to assess whether a country’s national regulatory 3. Triangular rights are granted to foreign transport environment encourages A score of 1 if yes companies or trucks registered in the trading cross-border transport. partner A score of 0 if no 4. Transit rights are granted to foreign transport A score of 1 if yes companies or trucks registered in the trading partner A score of 0 if no 5. Cabotage rights are granted to foreign transport A score of 1 if yes companies or trucks registered in the trading partner A score of 0 if no A score of 1 if transit rights are not 6. Transport rights are not speciĔc to certain transit speciĔc routes or corridors. A score of 0 if transit rights are speciĔc 7. A cross-border license is required for foreign trucks A score of 1 if yes to operate in your country. A score of 0 if no 8. The validity of the cross-border license required A score of 1 if yes when operating in trading partner is at least Ĕve years. A score of 0 if the validity is less than Ĕve years, N/A, or if the license Note: If the country does not require a cross border constitute a “single-entry” permit license, the score of this question will read “N/A.” 9. The law does not establish an ofĔcial limit or quota on the number of cross-border licenses granted. A score of 1 if yes Note: If the country does not require a cross-border A score of 0 if no or “N/A” license, the score of this question will read “N/A.” Cross-border This indicator measures licensing (time the procedural efĔciency Total time required to obtain the and cost) (time and cost required) cross border license is presented in of the licensing systems calendar days in place in a country, as perceived by the relevant A score of 0 if there is no license road transport operators. required or if licensing does not 10. Total time required to obtain a cross-border license This license refers to apply in practice trucks going from the Note: If the country is considered home country to the an “island country”,a this question largest trading partner. is not taken into account for the Ĕnal score. APPENDIX B Total cost required to obtain the cross-border license is presented in % of income per capita A score of 0 if there is no license 11. Total cost required to obtain the cross-border license required or if the licensing is not 157 in income per capita applied in practice Note: If the country is considered an “island country”,a this question is not taken into account for the Ĕnal score. Note: The truck licensing indicator refers exclusively to domestic operations. In contrast, the cross-border transport indicator refers to transport operations undertaken between a given country and its largest neighboring agricultural trading partner. a “Island countries” include Korea, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. Table B.7 | Scoring methodology for water indicators INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED? HOW IT IS SCORED INTEGRATED This indicator measures legal 1. The establishment of basin institutions is provided for in the A score of 1 if yes WATER mandates to undertake the law. RESOURCES core activities and features MANAGEMENT that comprise modern water A score of 1 if at least one basin 2. Number of basin institutions existing management, including the institution exists establishment of basin-level 3. A speciĔc government agency or unit is designated by law to institutions, water planning, the A score of 1 if yes manage groundwater development of information systems, and source protection. A score of 1 if the law provides for all 4. Basin institutions have the following remits: of the listed remits a. special purpose government A score of 0.5 if the law provides for b. advisory at least one of the listed remits c. stakeholder consensus A score of 0 if the law provides for none of the listed remits 5. The internal organizational structure for basin institutions is set out in the law 6. Water users must be represented in basin institutions A score of 1 if yes 7. A national water plan is required 8. Individual basin plans are required 9. The following speciĔc components must be included in basin plans: a. resource description and categorization A score of 1 if the legal framework b. uses requires all of the listed components c. pollution sources A score of 0.5 if at least three of the listed components are required d. protected areas A score of 0 if none of the listed e. drought/ ĕood plan components are required f. economic analysis g. long-term objectives 10. Water users must be consulted during the development of basin plans A score of 1 if yes 11. Basin plans must be periodically updated in accordance with a mandatory timeline provided for in the law A score of 1 if at least one plan has 12. Number of basin plans completed been completed 13. An order of priority for water allocation between different A score of 1 if yes types of users is required ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 A score of 1 if the legal framework requires the development of a water resources monitoring plan 14. A water resources monitoring plan is required, including the and provides for each of the listed following components: components: a. criteria for monitoring locations A score of 0.5 if the legal framework requires the development of a b. criteria for monitoring frequency water resources monitoring plan c. monitoring objectives and provides two of the listed components d. reference test/ measurement methods A score of 0 if the legal framework does not require the development of a water resources monitoring plan 15. Monitoring plans must be periodically updated in accordance A score of 1 if yes with a mandatory timeline provided for in the law A score of 1 if the legal framework requires monitoring both water 158 resources quantity and quality A score of 0.5 if the legal framework 16. Public monitoring of water resources quantity and quality is requires monitoring of only one required aspect or the other (quality or quantity) A score of 0 if the legal framework does not require monitoring of water resources (continued) INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED? HOW IT IS SCORED INTEGRATED 17. There is a legal obligation to make monitoring results publicly WATER available RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 18. Monitoring results are publicly available in practice (online) (continued) 19. There is a legal obligation to create an inventory of water resources 20. The inventory of water resources must be periodically updated in accordance with a mandatory timeline provided for in the law 21. There is a legal obligation to make water inventory data A score of 1 if yes for each question publicly available 22. Water inventory data are publicly available in practice (online) 23. There is a legal obligation to create a registry of water users 24. There is a legal obligation to make the water users registry publicly available 25. The water users registry is publicly available in practice (online) 26. Special measures may be imposed in cases of water stress A score of 1 if all of the listed 27. The following special measures may be imposed in cases of measures may be imposed by the water stress: government a. restricted issuance of new water use permits A score of 0.5 if at least one of the listed measures may be imposed by b. curtailment of existing water use permits the government c. restricted issuance of new construction / activity permits A score of 0 if none of the listed with impacts on water resources measures may be imposed by the government 28. Water conservation and efĔciency are promoted through the A score of 1 if the legal framework following features in the law: promotes water conservation and a. mandate for the government to promote conservation efĔciency and provides all of the and efĔciency features listed. b. incentives A score of 0.5 if the legal framework provides at least two of the listed c. obligation to adopt improved water use practices features d. promotion of less water-intensive crops A score of 0 if the legal framework does not promote water conservation e. obligation to implement a mechanism to quantify and efĔciency efĔciency A score of 1 if the legal framework 29. Water quality standards for use in irrigation are set out in the prescribes all the listed water law and include the following parameters: standards for use in irrigation a. coliforms A score of 0.5 if the legal framework includes at least two of the listed b. salinity parameters c. nitrates A score of 0 if the legal framework d. phosphates does not prescribe water quality standards for use in irrigation (continued) APPENDIX B 159 INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED? HOW IT IS SCORED INDIVIDUAL This indicator measures legal A score of 1 if a permit is requiredw WATER USE requirements for water abstraction FOR and use permits, as well as the 30. A permit or declaration before abstracting and using water for A score of 0.5 if only a declaration is IRRIGATION depth and quality of these permit irrigation is required required requirements by examining public A score of 0 if neither are required notice requirements, transfers, water use charges, and obligations 31. Permit issuance must comply with an applicable basin plan and enforcement. 32. Detailed procedures to acquire a new abstraction and use permit are set out in the law 33. There is a public notice obligation for new permit applications 34. A minimum time length applies to public notice 35. Public notice for new permit applications must be via a A score of 1 if yes for each question speciĔc medium (for example, a newspaper, government website, billboard and so on) 36. Water abstraction and use permits are subject to a maximum time duration set out in the law 37. Legal framework speciĔes streamlined renewal procedures 38. Legal framework allows permit transfer A score of 1 if notiĔcation is required 39. NotiĔcation or approval by the government is required before A score of 0.5 if approval is required a permit can be transferred A score of 0 if neither notiĔcation nor approval is required 40. Detailed procedures for permit transfer are set out in the law 41. Charges apply based on the amount of water resources abstracted for irrigation 42. A speciĔc government agency or unit is designated by law to set charges for water abstraction A score of 1 if yes 43. A method for calculating the water abstraction charge is provided in the law 44. A speciĔc government agency or unit is designated by law to collect charges for water abstraction 45. Standard permit conditions include the following: a. volume/rate of withdrawal A score of 1 if the legal framework speciĔes all of the listed conditions. b. place of abstraction A score of 0.5 if only three of the c. place of use listed conditions are speciĔed ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 d. purpose of use A score of 0 if none of the listed e. return ĕows conditions are speciĔed f. quality of returned water 46. Record keeping on the quantity of water abstracted is required A score of 1 if yes A score of 1 if the government has all listed inspection powers 47. The government has certain inspection powers to ensure permit compliance, including: A score of 0.5 if the government has only general inspection powers or a. demand users to produce relevant documentation two of the listed speciĔc inspection b. enter premises powers c. take measurements A score of 0 if the government has neither general nor speciĔc inspec- tion powers A score of 1 if the law prescribes 48. SpeciĔc offenses in violation of permit-related obligations are speciĔc offences and includes all the prescribed in the law, including: listed speciĔc offenses. 160 a. using water without a required permit or declaration A score of 0.5 if the law declares that b. failure to comply with permit conditions any water-related violation will be considered an offense or prescribes c. misrepresenting or omitting information to regulators only two of the speciĔc offenses listed d. hindering investigators or disabling monitoring equipment A score of 0 if neither general nor spe- e. constructing water abstraction points without permission ciĔc offenses are prescribed in the law 49. Before it can curtail permits, the government is required to A score of 1 if yes make a formal declaration of drought or emergency Table B.8 | Scoring methodology for ICT indicator INDICATOR DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED ICT These data measure countries’ ICT 1. Operators offering core mobile A score of 1 if a simple notiĔcation is required or an licensing framework, validity and trans- services do not require a license to operating license is not required parency of associated costs. The data operate or a simple notiĔcation to also cover spectrum management and the regulatory agency is allowed A score of 0 if an individual license is necessary to operate infrastructure sharing. 2. The licensing framework for mo- A score of 1 if yes bile operators offering core mobile A score of 0.5 if technology or service neutral services is technology and service neutral A score of 0 if neither technology nor service neutral 3. The validity (in years) of the operating license for mobile A score of 1 if yes operators offering core mobile services is equal to or greater than A score of 0 if no 15 years A score of 1 if available online or if license not required 4. The operating license costs, including Ĕrst-time fee and/ A score of 0.5 if available in hard copy or annual fees, if applicable, are A score of 0.25 if available upon individual written request publicly available A score of 0 if not publicly available 5. The renewal conditions for A score of 1 if yes, for both operating and spectrum licenses operating and spectrum licenses for mobile operators offering core A score of 0.5 if yes, for operating or spectrum licenses mobile services are stated in laws and/or regulations A score of 0 if neither operating nor spectrum licenses 6. Digital dividend has been licensed A score of 1 if yes in practice to mobile operators A score of 0 if no 7. Low frequency spectrum (below 1 A score of 1 if yes GHz [gigahertz]) has been licensed in practice to mobile operators A score of 0 if no 8. Voluntary spectrum trading among A score of 1 if yes operators is allowed by law A score of 0 if no A score of 1 if both passive and active infrastructure sharing A score of 0.75 if active infrastructure sharing 9. Infrastructure sharing between mobile operators is legally allowed A score of 0.5 if passive infrastructure sharing A score of 0 if neither passive nor active infrastructure sharing APPENDIX B 161 APPENDIX C Additional ways of presenting the data This appendix highlights two additional ways of pre- senting certain components of the EBA dataset. Good practices related to nondiscriminatory measures and access to information are included in EBA topic scores. For example, the private sector’s eligibility to import fertilizer products is included in both the non- discriminatory measures and the fertilizer topic score. Similarly, the existence of an online seed variety cata- log is captured by both the access to information and the score of the seed topic. Nondiscriminatory measures The data on nondiscriminatory measures were collect- ed across six EBA topics (table C.1). The total score of the 29 questions reĕects the number of good practices related to nondiscrimination. These questions are also part of the corresponding topic and are scored based on the same methodology detailed in the data notes. Access to information The data on access to information were collected across seven EBA topics (table C.2). The total score of the 21 questions reĕects the number of good practices related to access to information. These questions are ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 also part of the corresponding topic and are scored based on the same methodology detailed in the data notes. 162 Table C.1 | Data on nondiscriminatory measures by topic GOOD PRACTICES BY TOPIC SEED Conditions to beneĔt from plant breeders’ rights do not differ between national and foreign applicants Companies are legally allowed to produce breeder/pre-basic seed of local public varieties for use in the domestic market Companies are legally allowed to produce foundation/basic seed of local public varieties for use in the domestic market Companies are obtaining access to germplasm preserved in publically managed genebanks There are public research institutes in the country that license public varieties to companies for produc- tion and sale in the domestic market The composition of the legally mandated variety release committee (VRC) includes the private sector Private seed companies and/or third parties (nongovernmental institutions) are accredited in practice for the performance of certiĔcation activities The following seed certiĔcation activities can be performed by an accredited seed company/third party: (a) Ĕeld inspection; (b) sampling; (c) lab testing; (d) labelling FERTILIZER Private entities are required to register new fertilizer products to sell them in the country Private entities are allowed to import fertilizer products into the country to sell them Private entities are allowed to distribute fertilizer products in the country FINANCE A minimum number of members is required to establish a Ĕnancial cooperative There is a minimum capital requirement to establish a Ĕnancial cooperative NonĔnancial institution businesses are allowed to issue e-money MARKETS There is no minimum capital requirement to establish a producer organization Foreign natural persons may be members of a producer organization Domestic and foreign legal persons may be members of a producer organization The open membership principle applies to producer organizations Women’s membership in a producer organization is not restricted by any additional requirements A quota or other mechanism is established by law to promote women in producer organizations The constitution and the law on producer organizations contain provisions on nondiscrimination and both mention gender as a speciĔcally protected category TRANSPORT Citizenship requirements do not apply to obtain a license (foreign nationals or businesses are allowed to obtain the relevant licenses) APPENDIX C The law does not establish requirements regarding minimum number of trucks or gender to obtain a license Transport rights are granted to foreign transport companies or trucks registered in the trading partner Backhauling rights are granted to foreign transport companies or trucks registered in the trading partner Triangular rights are granted to foreign transport companies or trucks registered in the trading partner 163 Transit rights are granted to foreign transport companies or trucks registered in the trading partner Cabotage rights are granted to foreign transport companies or trucks registered in the trading partner WATER Water users must be represented in basin institutions Table C.2 | Data on access to information by topic GOOD PRACTICES BY TOPIC SEED A list of protected varieties is publicly available A catalog listing new registered varieties is publicly available online There is an ofĔcial fee schedule for seed certiĔcation activities performed by the competent public authority FERTILIZER An ofĔcial catalogue listing all registered fertilizer products in the country is publicly available online FINANCE Financial cooperatives must disclose the effective interest rate or a proxy to loan applicants MARKETS Phytosanitary certiĔcate applications may be submitted electronically Phytosanitary certiĔcates may be generated, issued and sent in an electronic form (for example, an ePhyto system is in place) The ofĔcial fee schedule for the phytosanitary certiĔcate is publicly available The list of regulated quarantine pests is publicly available on a relevant government website and uploaded to the IPPC website A pest database that contains details on the pests present in the country is available on a government website and contains features including pictures, host information, current status and potential treatment methods The pest risk analysis (PRA) reports are publicly available online The designated regulating authority must explain its reasons for rejecting an application to establish a producer organization TRANSPORT There is a public registry of licensed transport operators The application or renewal for a license can be submitted electronically WATER Water users must be consulted during the development of basin plans Monitoring results are publicly available in practice (online) Water inventory data are publicly available in practice (online) ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 The water users registry is publicly available in practice (online) Public notice for new permit applications must be via a speciĔc medium (for example, a newspaper, government website, billboard and so on) A method for calculating the water abstraction charge is provided in the law ICT The operating license costs, including Ĕrst-time fee and/or annual fees (if applicable), are publicly available 164 APPENDIX D Other research Fertilizer Information on import and sale restrictions was also collected, including import bans on speciĔc fertilizer The fertilizer topic collected data on additional areas types or products and country of origin. In addition, including competition, import and sale restrictions, EBA looked at temporal import restrictions, compa- subsidies and extension services. These areas were not ny-level import quotas, restrictions on sales based on scored since the evidence was anecdotal or no best the type of products and geographical restrictions. In practices could be identiĔed to generate scores and terms of speciĔc fertilizer types or product restrictions, trends at the global level. EBA found that most restrictions were based on health hazards that could be related to organic or bacterial Several questions were asked on competition issues, content in the fertilizer product. EBA also found that particularly if entities other than private companies some countries restrict fertilizers based on the coun- are allowed or required to follow the same proce- try of origin and that subsidy programs often included dures as private companies to register, distribute or speciĔc conditions on imports. In general, no other re- import fertilizer products. Evidence showed that in strictions were found in terms of products, geography most instances the required procedures were uni- or time of import. form across countries for the private sector and other entities such as nongovernmental organizations Data were collected on subsidies, including the ex- (NGOs) and producer organizations/cooperatives. istence of subsidy schemes, subsidy targets (such Different requirements existed only under special cir- as crops, products, farmer type or gender), subsidy cumstances, most notably under subsidy programs, administration models (reduced prices or vouchers) or where producer organizations were owned by the and timely duration of implementation (exit strategy). government and thus enjoyed the same privileges as Although the data were not scored since there is no the public sector. established best practice, EBA aims to contribute to Figure D.1 | The majority of subsidy schemes are targeted and located in Sub-Saharan Africa Number of countries 16 14 2 12 10 13 APPENDIX D 8 6 1 4 2 165 4 1 1 1 3 3 0 Sub-Saharan Europe South Asia Latin America East Asia Middle East OECD Africa & Central Asia & Caribbean & Pacific & North Africa high-income Countries with subsidy schemes that are targeted Countries with subsidy schemes that are not targeted Source: EBA database. Produce market in Guatemala. Photo: Maria Fleischmann / World Bank. the overall policy discourse by disseminating the in- tractors and spare parts were all investigated, but not formation collected thus far. included in the Ĕnal score. Twenty-eight out of 62 countries surveyed have a sub- Tractor hiring and rental services are crucial aspects of sidy scheme in place, among which half are in Sub- agricultural mechanization, given that not all farmers Saharan Africa (Ĕgure D.1) The concentration of subsidy have the resources to invest in agricultural machinery, schemes in Sub-Saharan Africa is undoubtedly linked nor the need given the small size of their plots. Renting to the fact that countries in the region are among the and hiring services therefore become the most realistic lowest consumers of fertilizer overall.1 As part of the option for many farmers. In the majority of cases, these debate on the effectiveness of subsidies, some coun- services are provided by private machinery owners and tries are moving towards “smart” subsidies that have public hiring services have been largely unsuccessful.4 clear goals and targets.2 Targeted fertilizer subsidy The data collected show that most of the countries ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 schemes often include more than one type of target. studied have some form of tractor hiring or rental Of the 15 Sub-Saharan African countries, 12 target sub- services available, either offered by public operators, sidies by crop and 11 target by speciĔc type of fertilizer private companies or individual tractor owners. The product. Ten of the countries also target the schemes services offered typically include plowing, harrowing, based on the type of farmers, and four target based planting and harvesting, with plowing being the service on the region. For example, in Malawi, subsidies tar- that is available in most countries. Given that tractor get beneĔciaries such as maize and tobacco farmers, hiring and renting is generally not regulated by gov- and there is an exclusive poverty reduction objective ernment, this aspect of agricultural mechanization was through a program that focuses on smallholder farm- excluded from the topic scoring. ers with food security issues. In Senegal, subsidies target small-scale family production of rice, maize, Access to Ĕnance is another major impediment to im- sorghum, millet, fonio, groundnuts, sesame, onion, proving agricultural productivity in developing coun- tomato and watermelon.3 tries. Most farmers cannot afford to buy a tractor with- out Ĕnancial assistance and many banks are reluctant to Ĕnance agricultural businesses due to associated 166 Machinery risks. EBA Ĕndings on available tractor Ĕnancing mech- anisms are largely perception based and therefore Data were collected on additional areas that are critical have not been included in the scored indicators for to the machinery sector but that were ultimately not this year’s machinery topic. However, the data collect- included in the topic scoring either because only anec- ed indicate that of the three categories of Ĕnancial dotal evidence was found, international best practices assistance consideredЁ(i) banks (private or public); (ii) for these areas are not fully developed or government leasing companies; and (iii) supplier creditЁsupplier regulation is not always of direct relevance. Tractor credit stands out as the most restricted across regions. hire and rental services, Ĕnancing, taxes and duties on According to respondents, access to credit from banks and leasing companies is also a major impediment in loans, as well as misallocation of credit and distort- East Asia and PaciĔc and Sub-Saharan Africa regions, ed market dynamics.6 Nevertheless, some countries and respondents in other regions indicated moderate employ such interventions to support agri-Ĕnance. availability of these Ĕnancing mechanisms. Data collected show that seven countries have policies requiring commercial banks to lend a percentage of Taxes and import duties imposed on agricultural ma- their portfolio for the purpose of promoting agricultur- chinery and spare parts have a direct bearing on the al activitiesЁnamely, Bangladesh, Bolivia, India, Nepal, cost of tractors and create an unproductive Ĕnancial the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. The required burden on tractor maintenance. The data show that percentage ranges from 2.5% of a bank’s total loans about one-fourth of countries studied levy low or no each year in Bangladesh, to 25% of total loans per year import duties on agricultural tractors, but high duties in Bolivia and the Philippines. Bolivia is the only coun- on replacement parts. This process has an adverse ef- try that also requires MFIs to lend a percentage of all fect on the maintenance and repair of tractors because loans to agriculture. it increases operational costs and, in turn, hinders tractor utilization among farmers. The data collected also indicate that the prevailing tax regulations often Transport lead to ambiguity and confusion over which tractor parts are tax exempted, as some parts are also used in The transport topic collected data on other areas of the automotive industry, which typically attracts higher relevance to the transport sector, including exclusions import duties. from licensing, electronic platforms, and quality criteria to address social and environmental concerns, although these areas could not be scored due to the absence of Finance global best practices or low variance among countries. This year the Ĕnance topic collected data on additional Countries often allow for various exceptions to trans- areas that are critical to agricultural Ĕnance, but for port licensing requirements, such as in cases where which international best practices are not fully devel- vehicles have a loading capacity less than 3.5 tons and oped. Partial credit guarantee systems (PCGSs) and where operators are transporting goods less than 10 ki- agricultural lending quotas are two areas the Ĕnance lometers or on their own account.7 Too many licensing topic studied, but did not score. requirements may generate high compliance costs for operators and lead to increased informality. Data show PCGSs can be a powerful tool to increase credit to that out of 39 countries having at least one exception agriculture. They reduce the risk that Ĕnancial insti- to regular licensing requirements, 20 exempt operators tutions take when lending to farmers and agribusi- who transport goods on their own account, 15 exempt nesses by acting as a collateral substitute, wherein certain vehicles based on loading capacity and 7 ex- “if the borrower fails to repay, the lender can resort empt transporting goods over short distances. Because to partial repayment from the guarantor.”5 However, the need for these exceptions depends signiĔcantly on the simple existence of a PCGS does not guarantee in- the speciĔc country context, the data were not scored. creased agriculture sector lending; rather, PCGS design and implementation have direct effects on program Electronic platforms can streamline processes and sustainability and effectiveness. Because there is no facilitate the authorization of transport licenses, par- “one-size-Ĕts-all” design for PCGSs, the team chose not ticularly cross-border licenses, by allowing transport to score this data. The data collected show that 18 of operators to apply for licenses and process payments the 62 countries studied have a PCGS speciĔc to agri- remotely. Such systems can also reduce transport cultural loans issued by commercial banks. Only two costs and contribute to transparency. Only two coun- APPENDIX D high-income countries (Italy and Korea) have PCGSs. tries, Denmark and Spain, have electronic platforms in Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest place for processing cross-border licenses. number of countries (6) with PCGSs, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (4). Among the 18 countries The use of certain quality and safety criteria to obtain with PCGSs for loans issued by commercial banks, only a trucking license and access the market may also be 8, most of which are located in Sub-Saharan Africa, also used by governments to counteract market failures allow microĔnance institutions (MFIs) to participate in and address negative externalities for society and 167 the credit guarantee systemЁnamely Bolivia, Colombia, the environment. The International Road Transport Ethiopia, Mali, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, and Rwanda. Union (IRU) states that “quality criteria of the access The Ĕnance topic also collected data on the imple- to the profession should always remain the core of any mentation of mandatory quotas to encourage credit relevant legislation.”8 Such requirements can include in the agricultural sector. There is strong evidence the obligation for managers and drivers to obtain that suggest lending quotas for agriculture lead to specialized training, demonstrate Ĕnancial standing low proĔtability for banks and high nonperforming or possess a certiĔcate of good repute. Good vehicle standards include valid vehicle technical or emissions methodological constraints and the lack of recognized inspections certiĔcates, third-party liability insurance regulatory best practices. and a vehicle registration certiĔcate. The concept of contract farming covers many different Bosnia and Herzegovina, Morocco and Thailand have types of arrangements. Typically, a farmer or a group of strong legal frameworks that establish conditions farmers commits to provide, at a future date, an agreed to qualify for a truck license and operate a truck in quantity of a speciĔc product that meets certain qual- public roads, including regular technical and emis- ity standards. In turn, the buyer commits to buy the sions inspections, professional standards for truck product and, usually, to support production through owners or mandatory third-party insurance. While the supply of farm inputs, the provision of credit, land some countries such as Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire preparation and/or the provision of technical advice.9 and Serbia have embarked on a series of reforms to improve the qualiĔcations of their truck operators Evidence suggests that contract farming has been in use and thereby the quality of trucking services, others since at least the 19th century across various countries such as Sudan or Zimbabwe do not have trucking and sectors. Over time, contract farming has become regulations that ensure certain minimum standards more widespread and several studies indicate that it are met to guarantee the formality or professionalism now governs more than one-third of agricultural pro- of operators. Countries with comprehensive licensing duction in the United States, three-quarters of Brazil’s systems tend to have better quality control mecha- poultry production and 40% of Vietnam’s rice sales; it nisms for operators, suggesting that countries can has also emerged as a growing practice in China, India, promote market entry while improving standards in Latin America and several African countries.10 The the sector. Countries such as Guatemala, Kyrgyzstan global spread of contract farming stems from a range and Tajikistan do not have a minimum set of basic re- of factors, but particularly from changes in consumer quirements such as third-party liability insurance or preferences and needs prompted by rising incomes technical inspections. Guatemala is the only country and increased urbanization. This trend has led agri- in which technical inspections are not mandatory for cultural buyers to demand more from producers in heavy trucks, while Georgia established them in early terms of supply regularity, as well as safety and quality 2016, bringing its regulatory framework in line with standards. Contract farming serves as a coordination other countries in the Eastern Europe and Central model whereby the supply of agricultural products is Asia region. timely, in sufĔcient quantity and of sufĔcient quality, and farmers can secure an outlet for their products Technical inspections are an important component and receive the inputs, credit and technical assistance of transport operations since they ensure safety and necessary to meet buyer requirements.11 From a de- roadworthiness, and reduce negative externalities velopment perspective, contract farming has sparked particularly related to the environment. If techni- the interest of donors, multilateral organizations and cal inspection certiĔcates are valid only for a short governments of developing countries as a way to link ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 period of time, however, this can increase costs for small-scale farmers to domestic and foreign markets, truck operators and may amount to rent-seeking in a thereby contributing to poverty reduction.12 country. Across the 61 countries mandating periodic vehicle technical inspections, 43 require inspections The main challenge involved in developing a global to be repeated annually, 13 require every 6 months, indicator on contract farming relates to the lack of and the remaining six have various other validity pe- consensus on regulatory best practices, and this riods. Given the different standards and procedures stems from the diverse and complex nature of con- involved in each country’s vehicle inspections, there tract farming arrangements in each country context. is no internationally accepted best practice in terms For example, Morocco’s law on contrats d’agrégation of the validity of technical inspection certiĔcates. For agricole provides for highly formalized contract farm- example, some countries may impose a relatively low ing arrangements concluded between a contractor maximum age requirement for the truck at the time of (“agrégateur”) and several producers (“agrégés”) applying for a license, and in such cases the validity around a value-addition unit (“unité de valorisation”) of the technical inspections tends to be longer than in for designated products.13 By contrast, in Cambodia, countries where trucks are generally older and require individual producers and buyers can conclude agri- 168 more frequent checking. cultural production contracts for any type of crop or animal product, and those contracts may take the form of market-speciĔcations contracts, production-man- Markets agement contracts or resource-providing contracts.14 These contract farming laws differ in scope as they This year the markets topic continued to collect data pursue policy goals that are context-speciĔc, such as on regulations impacting contract farming arrange- the focus on value-addition investments in the case ments, but determined not to assign any scores due to of Morocco. Local fruit stand, Armenia Photo: Flore de Préneuf / The World Bank. Furthermore, only a minority of countries has adopted Another key issue in the contract farming context laws and regulations that speciĔcally address contract relates to contract duration. Because agricultural pro- farming arrangements: 9 of the 62 countries analyzed duction contracts may require signiĔcant investments this year have such rules, while the remaining 53 rely and the crop production cycle may require a long-term solely on general contract law and default rules that relationship, a legal obligation to comply with a min- Ĕll contractual gaps.15 There is no evidence to indi- imum duration can make up for a lack of or unclear cate that contract farming arrangements do better or contractual agreement on the timeframe to carry out worse depending on whether speciĔc regulations exist. certain performance obligations.20 Only 3 of 62 coun- Proponents of the general contract law approach argue tries studied in EBA17 establish a minimum duration that the parties themselves are best-placed to deĔne for agricultural production contracts and all of them the contractual terms in their business relationships.16 have adopted laws that speciĔcally address contract In this context, soft law instruments, such as recom- farming arrangements. In Morocco,21 for example, ag- mendations or codes of practices, may be more suit- gregation contracts must be concluded for a duration able than government regulations to promote fair and of at least Ĕve years, with the possibility to terminate efĔcient contractual practices between producers and them, while in India (Maharashtra),22 the mandatory buyers of agricultural products.17 However, comparing minimum duration is set at one cropping season, with- and assessing those types of private sector- or civil out the possibility to terminate. society-led soft law instruments go beyond the scope Four of the nine countries with speciĔc contract farming of EBA’s focus on regulatory indicators. rules have also established special commodity- or sec- tor-speciĔc institutions that offer alternative dispute Among the nine countries that have adopted contract resolution mechanisms to enforce agricultural con- farming regulations, certain “better” practices were iden- tracts. Such tailored mechanisms can be particularly APPENDIX D tiĔed. For example, all countries but Zimbabwe explicitly beneĔcial due to the sector-speciĔc knowledge and ex- require contracts to be in writing, although in Zimbabwe pertise developed by the institution.23 In Cambodia, for the obligation on buyers to submit detailed schedules example, the Contract-based Agricultural Production of their contractual agreements to the Agricultural Committee, which is composed mostly of public sector Marketing Authority could serve the same purpose representatives, is mandated to help solve any con- as written contracts.18 By contrast, of the 53 countries ĕict or problem in the implementation of agricultural where contract farming arrangements are governed by production contracts.24 In Zimbabwe, the Grain and 169 general contract law, only 8 require that the agricultural Oilseeds Technical Committee, in which private sector production contract be made in writing and 6 have the stakeholders are largely represented, determines any same requirement for contracts above a certain amount. disputes arising from grain and oilseeds contracts, Written contracts can improve the clarity, completeness, and its decisions can be appealed to the Agricultural and enforceability of the parties’ rights and obligations, Marketing Authority Board.25 and they serve an important evidentiary purpose in the context of any related court proceedings.19 Figure D.2 | Strongest regulation of water user organizations (WUOs) evident in lower-middle-income countries Number of countries 13 13 10 9 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income High income Establishment process Membership, and rights and responsibilities of members Responsibilities Management structure and powers Source: EBA database. Water ICT This year, the EBA water topic collected exploratory This year the information and communication tech- data on collective water use in irrigation schemes nology (ICT) topic collected data on additional areas and, although it will not be scored this year, this in- that impact access to ICT in rural areas, but ultimately formation will inform the future development of a these areas were not scored due to the importance collective water use indicator, to mirror the current of country context or because government regulation individual water use indicator. Across countries, many is not always of direct relevance. Universal access or farms rely on large-scale, publicly provided irriga- service funds, programs aimed at reducing the cost of ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 tion schemes to supply water, and one trend in this smartphone devices, and tariff plans to address the realm is the development of water user organizations usage needs of rural subscribers were some areas that (WUOs). Alternatively known as irrigation associations, the ICT topic investigated. user associations, or water user associations, WUOs may be deĔned as “non-governmental organizations The “last mile” of telecommunication infrastructure that farmers and other water users form to manage in rural areas is typically provided at a very high cost, an irrigation system at the local or regional level.”26 which, in some cases, may not be commercially justi- Among the countries studied, 14 have enacted speciĔc Ĕable based on projected use and potential economic independent legislation to govern WUOs and another impact.27 Mobile and broadband service providers in 31 have at least some mention of WUOs in their broad- rural areas often face high capital requirements and er legal frameworks. Further information was collected operating expenses, and have few incentives to invest on the establishment process, responsibilities, powers given the relatively low rate of return as compared with and membership requirements for decentralized man- more densely populated areas. One of the key chal- agement of irrigation infrastructure (Ĕgure D.2). lenges for governments, therefore, is to put in place appropriate Ĕnancing mechanisms to support ICT de- 170 Moving forward, the water topic aims to further ex- velopment in rural areas. plore issues related to transboundary waters that span national borders and the interface between Universal access/service funds are one of the most customary practices and legislative requirements popular mechanisms for generating funds from mul- for water management and use by smallholders. As tiple sources, including contributions from mobile a starting point, this year the water topic collected operators, international organizations and government data on exemptions from permit requirements for budgets. Mobile operators contribute to the universal smallholders. This area will be explored for possible access/service funds as part of their mandatory uni- expansion in coming years. versal service obligations. In most countries, universal Figure D.3 | Universal Access/Service Fund exists in 36 countries Countries with an operational ... those where the fund ...those where details of universal access/service fund... has disbursed funds Ĕnanced projects are publicly available 5 26 9 36 22 31 Yes No Source: EBA database. access/service funds are created for ICT development Although governments often take the lead in initia- projects that differ from country-to-country, depend- tives to stimulate ICT access for undeserved commu- ing on overarching policy goals. nities, the private sector can also play a signiĔcant role. In Malaysia, for example, to accelerate the Well-managed universal access/service funds help uptake of mobile broadband services, the Malaysian to expand ICT coverage in otherwise commercially Communications and Multimedia Commission intro- unviable areas, but it is critical that the funds col- duced the “Smart Device with Internet Package” initia- lected through the universal access/service funds are tive in 2014. The program aims at offering smartphones directed towards the development of ICT projects.28 for subscribers in rural areas at a lower-than-retail Failures to disburse money point to weak governance price along with a mobile data subscription for one and accountability structures in fund management year.35 In India, the private sector has taken a greater and resource allocation.29 EfĔcient management of role in expanding coverage to rural areas. Given the universal access/service funds is demonstrated by high proportion of the population living in rural areas disbursing the money collected in a meaningful and and the proportionately low mobile internet market transparent manner.30 Similar to this, details on a uni- penetration, mobile operators have an incentive to versal access/service fund’s projects and procedures unlock a high potential subscribers’ market. In a recent should be provided to the public. Of the 62 countries effort to increase coverage in remote areas, in 2008 studied, 36 have established a fund. Among these, Ĕve Bharti Airtel Limited and the Indian Farmers Fertilizer countries (Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) launched a joint venture and Niger) have operational funds that have never dis- that offers daily services tailored to farmers, including bursed money for ICT development projects (Ĕgure D.3). unique value-added services (for example, mobile ap- Nine of the 36 countries with such funds (Guatemala, plications) on commodity prices, farming techniques, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, weather forecasts, dairy farming, animal husbandry, APPENDIX D Turkey and Zambia) do not make any information on rural health initiatives and fertilizer availability. Within projects Ĕnanced by the fund public.31 the framework of this venture, Bharti Airtel provides lowered calling rates for calls between IFFCO mem- Affordability greatly impacts the uptake of ICT tech- bers.36 As a result an estimated 200,000 new rural nologies in the agriculture sector. The high costs of connections are activated per month.37 Similarly, in ICT solutions, including the costs of mobile devices 2015 telecommunications operator BSNL Maharashtra (particularly smartphone devices) and mobile service developed the Maha Krishi Sanchar planЁa speciĔ- 171 charges, can be prohibitive for smallholder farmers,32 cally designed, prepaid mobile tariff plan covering all reducing their ability to capitalize on the beneĔts of farmers and employees of the State Department of mobile agriculture. Although countries differ in their Agriculture. needs and approaches to tackle affordability gaps, tar- geted interventions to alleviate costs can be critical in expanding farmers’ access to ICT.33 This is particularly the case in countries with large rural populations and high poverty levels.34 NOTES 19 UNIDROIT, FAO and IFAD 2015. 1 FAOSTAT database. 20 Ibid. 2 Minde et al. 2008. 21 Arr¤té n°3073-14 du 8 septembre 2014 Ĕxant les formes et les modalités d’approbation des projets 3 Druilhe and Barreiro-Hurlé 2012. d’agrégation agricole et de délivrance des attesta- tions d’agrégation agricole. 4 Kienzle et al. 2013. 22 Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 5 Zander, Miller and Mhlanga 2013. (1963) (as amended). 6 Rani and Garg 2015. 23 UNIDROIT, FAO and IFAD 2015; World Bank 2014. 7 “Own account” designates a company transporting 24 Sub-Decree on Contract Farming, No. 36 of 24 its own goods and using its own means to do so, February 2011. as opposed to offering the service commercially to third parties. 25 Agricultural Marketing Authority (Grain, Oilseed and Products) By-laws, 2013 (Statutory Instrument 140 8 International Road Transport Union 2007. of 2013). 9 UNIDROIT, FAO and IFAD 2015. 26 Vapnek et al. 2009. 10 Da Silva 2005. 27 World Bank 2011. 11 UNIDROIT, FAO and IFAD 2015. 28 ITU 2013. 12 FAO 2013. 29 Williams 2016. 13 Dahir nӊ1-12-15 du 25 chaabane 1433 (17 juillet 2012) 30 GSMA 2013. portant promulgation de la loi n°04-12 relative à l’agrégation agricole; Arr¤té conjoint du ministre de 31 Magiera 2009. l’agriculture et de la p¤che maritime, du ministre de l’intérieur et du ministre de l’économie et des 32 GSMA 2015a. Ĕnance n°3073-14 du 12 kaada 1435 (8 septembre 2014) Ĕxant les formes et les modalités d’appro- 33 FAO and ITU 2016. ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 bation des projets d’agrégation agricole et de délivrance des attestations d’agrégation agricole. 34 GSMA 2015b. 14 Sub-Decree on Contract Farming, No. 36 of 24 35 EBA data, http://www.skmm.gov.my/Sectors/ February 2011; A “market-speciĔcation contract” Universal-Service-Provision/Distribution-of-all- speciĔes marketing information about demand, projects-by-State.aspx. quality, timing, and price, a “production-manage- ment contract” covers those speciĔcations and 36 EBA data, http://www.airtel.in/about-bhar- also speciĔes the cultivation practices necessary ti/media-centre/bharti-airtel-news/ to achieve quality, timing, and price, and a “re- corporate/pg_iffco+and+bharti+airtel+- source-providing contract” covers those speciĔ- join+hands+to+usher+in+the+second+green+revo- cations and also includes the provision of credit, lution+to+bene Ĕ t+millions+of+rural+consumers. inputs and/or extension services (FAO 2013). 37 GSMA 2016a. 15 UNIDROIT, FAO and IFAD 2015. 172 16 World Bank 2014. REFERENCES 17 UNIDROIT, FAO and IFAD 2015. Da Silva, C. 2005. “The Growing Role of Contract Farming in Agri-food Systems Development: Drivers, 18 Agricultural Marketing Authority (Grain, Oilseed and Theory and Practice.” FAO (Food and Agriculture Products) By-laws, 2013 (Statutory Instrument 140 Organization), Rome. of 2013), Art. 9(2)b. Druilhe, Z. and J. Barreiro-Hurlé. 2012. “Fertilizer Trends, Issues and Strategies.” International Subsidies in Sub-Saharan Africa.” ESA Working Journal of Management and Social Sciences Paper No. 12-04. FAO, Rome. Research (IJMSSR) 4: (1), January. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2013. UNIDROIT, FAO, and IFAD. 2015. “UNIDROIT/FAO/IFAD “Contract Farming for Inclusive Market Access.” Legal Guide on Contract Farming.” UNIDROIT, FAO FAO, Rome. and IFAD, Rome. FAO and ITU (International Telecommunication Union). Vapnek, J., B. Aylward, C. Popp and J. Bartram. 2009. “Law 2016. E-agriculture Strategy Guide. Piloted in Asia for Water Management: A Guide to Concepts and V‰–³Ĕ–ÓòÌíâ³ æϡ Bangkok: FAO and ITU. Effective Approaches.” Legislative Study 101. FAO, Rome. GSMA. 2013. “Universal Service Fund Study.” GSMA, London. Williams, I. 2016. “Co-Financing of Bottom-Up Approaches towards Broadband Infrastructure ЁЁЁ. 2015a. “Agricultural Value-added Services (Agri Development: A New Opportunity for Universal VAS): Market Opportunity and Emerging Business Service Funding.” Journal of NBICT 1: 39Ї64. Models.” GSMA, London. World Bank. 2011. ICT in Agriculture, Connecting ЁЁЁ. 2015b. “The Mobile Economy. Sub-Saharan Africa Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks, and 2015.” GSMA, London. Institutions. e-Sourcebook. Report 64605. Washington, DC: World Bank. ЁЁЁ. 2016. “Case Study. IFFCO Kisan Agriculture App. Evolution to Data Driven Services in Agriculture.” ЁЁЁ. 2014. An Analytical Toolkit for Support to GSMA, London. Contract Farming.” Washington, DC: World Bank. International Road Transport Union. 2007. “IRU Position Zander, R., C. Miller and N. Mhlanga. 2013. “Credit on Access to the Profession of Road Passenger Guarantee Systems for Agriculture and Rural and Goods Transport Operator - Approved by Enterprise Development.” FAO, Rome. the IRU General Assembly in Geneva on 13 April 2007.” Informal document N°1 for the 101st session, Geneva. ITU (International Telecommunication Union). 2013. Universal Service Fund and Digital Inclusion for All. Geneva: ITU. Kienzle, J., J. Ashburner and B. G. Sims. 2013. “Mechanization for Rural Development: A Review of Patterns and Progress from Around the World.” Rome, FAO. Magiera, S. 2009. “Managing Universal Service Funds for Telecommunications. An ASEAN Manual for Output- Based Aid.” United States Agency for International APPENDIX D Development (USAID). Minde, I., T. S. Jayne, E. Crawford, J. Ariga, and J. Govereh. 2008. “Promoting Fertilizer Use in Africa: Current Issues and Empirical Evidence from Malawi, Zambia, and Kenya.” ReSAKSS Working Paper 13. 173 International Crops Research Institute for the Semiarid Tropics (ICRISAT), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pretoria, South Africa. Rani, S., and D. Garg. 2015. “Priority Sector Lending: 174 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Country Tables COUNTRY TABLES 175 General Water Transport Country Country Name Region Income Group Predominant Water Reference product Code Source for Irrigation (FAO Aquastat) ARM Armenia Europe & Central Asia Lower middle income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. apricots) BDI Burundi Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Coffee BEN Benin Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Cashew nuts BFA Burkina Faso Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Cashew nuts BGD Bangladesh South Asia Lower middle income Groundwater Nuts BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina Europe & Central Asia Upper middle income Surface Water Vegetables (e.g. cucumbers) BOL Bolivia Latin America & Caribbean Lower middle income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. buckwheat) CHL Chile High income: OECD High income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. grapes) CIV Côte d’Ivoire Sub-Saharan Africa Lower middle income Surface Water Cocoa beans CMR Cameroon Sub-Saharan Africa Lower middle income Surface Water Cocoa Beans COL Colombia Latin America & Caribbean Upper middle income Surface Water Coffee DNK Denmark High income: OECD High income Groundwater Cereals (e.g. barley) EGY Egypt, Arab Rep. Middle East & North Africa Lower middle income Surface Water Fruit (e.g. grapefruit) ESP Spain High income: OECD High income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. mandarins) ETH Ethiopia Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Coffee GEO Georgia Europe & Central Asia Upper middle income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. wheat) GHA Ghana Sub-Saharan Africa Lower middle income Surface Water Cocoa beans GRC Greece High income: OECD High income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. grapes) GTM Guatemala Latin America & Caribbean Lower middle income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. bananas) HTI Haiti Latin America & Caribbean Low income Surface Water Fruits IND India South Asia Lower middle income Groundwater Cereals (e.g. rice) ITA Italy High income: OECD High income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. apples) JOR Jordan Middle East & North Africa Upper middle income Groundwater Vegetables (e.g. tomatoes) KAZ Kazakhstan Europe & Central Asia Upper middle income Surface Water Cereals KEN Kenya Sub-Saharan Africa Lower middle income Surface Water Tea KGZ Kyrgyz Republic Europe & Central Asia Lower middle income Surface Water Beans KHM Cambodia East Asia & PaciĔc Lower middle income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. rice) KOR Korea, Rep. High income: OECD High income Surface Water Vegetables (e.g. pepper) LAO Lao PDR East Asia & PaciĔc Lower middle income Surface Water Coffee LBR Liberia Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Cocoa beans LKA Sri Lanka South Asia Lower middle income Surface Water Tea MAR Morocco Middle East & North Africa Lower middle income Surface Water Vegetables (e.g. tomatoes) MEX Mexico Latin America & Caribbean Upper middle income Surface Water Vegetables (e.g. tomatoes) MLI Mali Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. mangoes) MMR Myanmar East Asia & PaciĔc Lower middle income Surface Water Beans MOZ Mozambique Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. bananas) ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 MWI Malawi Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Tea MYS Malaysia East Asia & PaciĔc Upper middle income Surface Water Vegetables NER Niger Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Vegetables (e.g. onions) NGA Nigeria Sub-Saharan Africa Lower middle income Surface Water Cocoa beans NIC Nicaragua Latin America & Caribbean Lower middle income Groundwater Coffee NLD Netherlands High income: OECD High income Groundwater Vegetables (e.g. tomatoes) NPL Nepal South Asia Low income Surface Water Cardamoms PER Peru Latin America & Caribbean Upper middle income Surface Water Coffee PHL Philippines East Asia & PaciĔc Lower middle income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. bananas) POL Poland High income: OECD High income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. wheat) ROM Romania Europe & Central Asia Upper middle income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. wheat) RUS Russian Federation Europe & Central Asia Upper middle income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. wheat) RWA Rwanda Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Tea SDN Sudan Sub-Saharan Africa Lower middle income Surface Water Carob gum SEN Senegal Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. rice) SRB Serbia Europe & Central Asia Upper middle income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. maize) 176 THA Thailand East Asia & PaciĔc Upper middle income Surface Water Vegetables (e.g. cassava) TJK Tajikistan Europe & Central Asia Lower middle income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. dried apricots) TUR Turkey Europe & Central Asia Upper middle income Surface Water Fruits (e.g. mandarins) TZA Tanzania Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Cashew nuts UGA Uganda Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Coffee UKR Ukraine Europe & Central Asia Lower middle income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. maize) URY Uruguay Latin America & Caribbean High income Surface Water Soya beans VNM Vietnam East Asia & PaciĔc Lower middle income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. rice) ZMB Zambia Sub-Saharan Africa Lower middle income Surface Water Cereals (e.g. maize) ZWE Zimbabwe Sub-Saharan Africa Low income Surface Water Tea Markets Trading partner Product group HS 4-digit Product Trading Partner Georgia Fruit Stone fruit, fresh (apricot, cherry, plum, peach, etc.) Russian Federation Tanzania Cash crop Coffee, coffee husks and skins and coffee substitutes Switzerland Nigeria Fruit Coconuts, Brazil nuts and cashew nuts, fresh or dried India Côte d’Ivoire Fruit Coconuts, Brazil nuts and cashew nuts, fresh or dried Singapore India Fruit Nuts except coconut, Brazil and cashew, fresh or dried India Serbia Vegetable Cucumbers and gherkins, fresh or chilled Croatia Argentina Cereal Buckwheat, millet and canary seed, other cereals United States Argentina Fruit Grapes, fresh or dried United States Ghana Cash crop Cocoa beans, whole or broken, raw or roasted Netherlands Congo, Rep. Cash crop Cocoa beans, whole or broken, raw or roasted Netherlands Ecuador Cash crop Coffee, coffee husks and skins and coffee substitutes United States Germany Cereal Barley Germany Libya Fruit Citrus fruit, fresh or dried Saudi Arabia France Fruit Citrus fruit, fresh or dried Germany Somalia Cash crop Coffee, coffee husks and skins and coffee substitutes Germany Russian Federation Cereal Wheat and meslin Armenia Côte d’Ivoire Cash crop Cocoa beans, whole or broken, raw or roasted Netherlands Bulgaria Fruit Grapes, fresh or dried Germany El Salvador Fruit Bananas, including plantains, fresh or dried United States Dominican Republic Fruit Dates, Ĕgs, pineapple, avocado, guava, fresh or dried United States Nepal Cereal Rice Iran, Islamic Rep. France Fruit Apples, pears and quinces, fresh Germany Syrian Arab Republic Vegetable Tomatoes, fresh or chilled Syrian Arab Republic Uzbekistan Cereal Wheat and meslin Azerbaijan Uganda Cash crop Tea Pakistan Kazakhstan Vegetable Vegetables, leguminous dried, shelled Turkey Vietnam Cereal Rice France China Vegetable Vegetables nes, fresh or chilled Japan Thailand Cash crop Coffee, coffee husks and skins and coffee substitutes Japan Côte d’Ivoire Cash crop Cocoa beans, whole or broken, raw or roasted Germany India Cash crop Tea Russian Federation Spain Vegetable Tomatoes, fresh or chilled France United States Vegetable Tomatoes, fresh or chilled United States Senegal Fruit Dates, Ĕgs, pineapple, avocado, guava, fresh or dried Burkina Faso China Vegetable Vegetables, leguminous dried, shelled India South Africa Fruit Bananas, including plantains, fresh or dried South Africa Tanzania Cash crop Tea South Africa Indonesia Vegetable Vegetables nes, fresh or chilled Singapore Nigeria Vegetable Onions, shallots, garlic, leeks, etc., fresh or chilled Ghana Niger Cash crop Cocoa beans, whole or broken, raw or roasted Barbados Costa Rica Cash crop Coffee, coffee husks and skins and coffee substitutes United States Germany Vegetable Tomatoes, fresh or chilled Germany India Cash crop Nutmeg, mace and cardamons India Colombia Cash crop Coffee, coffee husks and skins and coffee substitutes Germany COUNTRY TABLES Vietnam Fruit Bananas, including plantains, fresh or dried Japan Germany Cereal Wheat and meslin Germany Hungary Cereal Wheat and meslin Spain China Cereal Wheat and meslin Egypt, Arab Rep. Uganda Cash crop Tea Kenya Egypt, Arab Rep. Cash crop Locust beans, seaweed, sugar beet, cane, for food Germany Mali Cereal Rice Mali Romania Cereal Maize (corn) Romania Malaysia Vegetable Manioc, arrowroot, salep etc, fresh, dried, sago pith China 177 China Fruit Fruit, dried, nes, dried fruit and nut mixtures Russian Federation Iraq Fruit Nuts except coconut, brazil and cashew, fresh or dried Germany Kenya Fruit Coconuts, Brazil nuts and cashew nuts, fresh or dried India Kenya Cash crop Coffee, coffee husks and skins and coffee substitutes Switzerland Poland Cereal Maize (corn) Egypt, Arab Rep. Brazil Cash crop Soya beans China China Cereal Rice Philippines Zimbabwe Cereal Maize (corn) Zimbabwe South Africa Cash crop Tea South Africa ARMENIA EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 62.19 28 Fertilizer 28.57 53 Machinery 53.66 30 Finance 35.86 52 Markets 64.87 23 Transport 18.43 56 Water 82.54 5 ICT 55.56 31 SEEDa | DTF Score 62.19 Rank 28 MARKETS | DTF Score 64.87 Rank 23 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.3 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.5 Time to register new variety (days) 587 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 18.5 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 2.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 28.57 Rank 53 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 18.43 Rank 56 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 2.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 2.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 53.66 Rank 30 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 3 WATER | DTF Score 82.54 Rank 5 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.3 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 22.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 5.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 17.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) No practice Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) No practice ICT | DTF Score 55.56 Rank 31 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 35.86 Rank 52 178 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. BANGLADESH SOUTH ASIA LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 34.27 54 Fertilizer 54.25 35 Machinery 30.44 49 Finance 56.71 23 Markets 66.10 21 Transport 45.03 45 Water 14.66 56 ICT 50.00 37 SEEDa | DTF Score 34.27 Rank 54 MARKETS | DTF Score 66.10 Rank 21 Plant breeding index (0-10) 6.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 1.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.1 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 54.25 Rank 35 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 45.03 Rank 45 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 945 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 58.8 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 3 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 2.5 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 4.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 30.44 Rank 49 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.0 WATER | DTF Score 14.66 Rank 56 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 17 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 8.3 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 8.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 0.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 50.00 Rank 37 Tractor import index (0-5) 1.5 ICT index (0-9) 4.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 56.71 Rank 23 Branchless Banking 179 Agent banking index (0-5) 4.7 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. BENIN ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 32.81 55 Fertilizer 14.58 61 Machinery 25.83 53 Finance 43.35 41 Markets 56.14 34 Transport 36.32 50 Water 43.15 38 ICT 55.56 31 SEEDa | DTF Score 32.81 Rank 55 MARKETS | DTF Score 56.14 Rank 34 Plant breeding index (0-10) 5.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 1.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 14.58 Rank 61 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 36.32 Rank 50 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 40 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 0.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 19.7 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) No practice MACHINERY | DTF Score 25.83 Rank 53 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) No practice Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.0 Time to register a tractor (days) N/A WATER | DTF Score 43.15 Rank 38 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) N/A Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 18.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 2.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 4.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 55.56 Rank 31 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 43.35 Rank 41 180 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. BOLIVIA LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 64.41 25 Fertilizer 39.29 45 Machinery 25.83 52 Finance 67.48 13 Markets 65.51 22 Transport 70.31 15 Water 35.52 43 ICT 58.33 30 SEEDa | DTF Score 64.41 Rank 25 MARKETS | DTF Score 65.51 Rank 22 Plant breeding index (0-10) 7.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 10.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 4.0 Time to register new variety (days) 517 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 24.5 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 7.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 1.9 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 39.29 Rank 45 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 1.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 70.31 Rank 15 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 5 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.2 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 10 MACHINERY | DTF Score 25.83 Rank 52 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 6.2 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.5 WATER | DTF Score 35.52 Rank 43 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) No practice Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) No practice Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 9.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 2.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 8.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 58.33 Rank 30 Tractor import index (0-5) 4.5 ICT index (0-9) 5.3 FINANCE | DTF Score 67.48 Rank 13 Branchless Banking 181 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.7 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 6.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 7.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 32.08 56 Fertilizer 96.16 1 Machinery 51.41 34 Finance 23.33 60 Markets 74.89 11 Transport 57.44 32 Water 81.47 6 ICT 55.56 31 SEEDa | DTF Score 32.08 Rank 56 MARKETS | DTF Score 74.89 Rank 11 Plant breeding index (0-10) 7.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 2.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 4.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.3 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 96.16 Rank 1 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 6.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 57.44 Rank 32 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 31 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 6.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 0.5 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 90 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 6.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 6.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 38 MACHINERY | DTF Score 51.41 Rank 34 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 6.8 Tractor operation index (0-5) 1.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 7 WATER | DTF Score 81.47 Rank 6 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 13.4 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 25.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 5.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 15.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 55.56 Rank 31 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 23.33 Rank 60 182 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 0.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.3 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 6.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 0.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. BURKINA FASO ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 28.96 57 Fertilizer 23.21 56 Machinery 52.63 32 Finance 43.35 41 Markets 54.63 37 Transport 72.23 12 Water 31.16 47 ICT 27.78 59 SEEDa | DTF Score 28.96 Rank 57 MARKETS | DTF Score 54.63 Rank 37 Plant breeding index (0-10) 2.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 2.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 5.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 2.2 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 23.21 Rank 56 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 72.23 Rank 12 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 1 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 3.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 1 MACHINERY | DTF Score 52.63 Rank 32 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 3.3 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 WATER | DTF Score 31.16 Rank 47 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 30 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 5.6 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 13.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 3.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 3.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 4 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 11.1 ICT | DTF Score 27.78 Rank 59 Tractor import index (0-5) 1.5 ICT index (0-9) 2.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 43.35 Rank 41 Branchless Banking 183 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. BURUNDI ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 50.10 40 Fertilizer 41.67 42 Machinery 30.00 50 Finance 23.51 59 Markets 39.93 55 Transport 59.17 30 Water 48.41 33 ICT 38.89 52 SEEDa | DTF Score 50.10 Rank 40 MARKETS | DTF Score 39.93 Rank 55 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 3.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 3.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 4 Seed quality control index (0-12) 8.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 4 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 3.1 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 41.67 Rank 42 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 59.17 Rank 30 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) No practice Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) No practice Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 1 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 4.6 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 6.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 1 MACHINERY | DTF Score 30.00 Rank 50 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 76.9 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 Time to register a tractor (days) No practice WATER | DTF Score 48.41 Rank 33 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) No practice Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 8.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 13.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 38.89 Rank 52 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 3.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 23.51 Rank 59 184 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 0.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 1.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. CAMBODIA EAST ASIA & PACIFIC LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 51.80 38 Fertilizer 65.82 26 Machinery 39.76 44 Finance 40.95 48 Markets 49.43 46 Transport 53.45 34 Water 44.70 37 ICT 44.44 43 SEEDa | DTF Score 51.80 Rank 38 MARKETS | DTF Score 49.43 Rank 46 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 2.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.0 Time to register new variety (days) 407 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 17.3 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 6 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 5.2 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 65.82 Rank 26 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 53.45 Rank 34 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 152 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 107.8 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 8 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 5.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 37.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 7 MACHINERY | DTF Score 39.76 Rank 44 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 22.5 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 WATER | DTF Score 44.70 Rank 37 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 14 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 22.5 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 16.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 6.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 44.44 Rank 43 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 4.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 40.95 Rank 48 Branchless Banking 185 Agent banking index (0-5) 3.6 E-money index (0-4) 0.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 7.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 6.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 0.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. CAMEROON ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 24.69 58 Fertilizer 37.50 48 Machinery 46.30 37 Finance 36.31 51 Markets 53.05 41 Transport 58.87 31 Water 35.26 44 ICT 38.89 52 SEEDa | DTF Score 24.69 Rank 58 MARKETS | DTF Score 53.05 Rank 41 Plant breeding index (0-10) 3.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 10.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 3.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 4.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 2.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 8 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.7 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 37.50 Rank 48 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 58.87 Rank 31 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.8 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 65 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 2.3 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 7.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 60 MACHINERY | DTF Score 46.30 Rank 37 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 1.4 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 Time to register a tractor (days) No practice WATER | DTF Score 35.26 Rank 44 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) No practice Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 4.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 6.5 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 11.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) 90 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 270.7 ICT | DTF Score 38.89 Rank 52 Tractor import index (0-5) 2.0 ICT index (0-9) 3.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 36.31 Rank 51 186 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. CHILE OECD HIGH INCOME HIGH INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 61.77 29 Fertilizer 26.79 54 Machinery 54.70 28 Finance 42.62 46 Markets 76.41 9 Transport 44.44 46 Water 55.17 28 ICT 72.22 15 SEEDa | DTF Score 61.77 Rank 29 MARKETS | DTF Score 76.41 Rank 9 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 7.0 Time to register new variety (days) 848 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 7.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 12.5 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 4.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 26.79 Rank 54 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 44.44 Rank 46 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 7 MACHINERY | DTF Score 54.70 Rank 28 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.0 Tractor operation index (0-5) 4.0 WATER | DTF Score 55.17 Rank 28 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 4 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.6 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 17.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 10.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 72.22 Rank 15 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 6.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 42.62 Rank 46 Branchless Banking 187 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 6.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. COLOMBIA LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 63.19 27 Fertilizer 81.58 8 Machinery 38.16 45 Finance 92.10 1 Markets 70.08 17 Transport 73.92 10 Water 85.52 3 ICT 88.89 9 SEEDa | DTF Score 63.19 Rank 27 MARKETS | DTF Score 70.08 Rank 17 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.1 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.0 Time to register new variety (days) 591 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 53.4 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 6.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 4 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.4 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 81.58 Rank 8 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 6.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 73.92 Rank 10 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 45 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 8.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 7.8 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 60 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 3.2 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 7.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 15 MACHINERY | DTF Score 38.16 Rank 45 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.8 Tractor operation index (0-5) 1.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 2 WATER | DTF Score 85.52 Rank 3 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 1.1 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 23.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 18.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 88.89 Rank 9 Tractor import index (0-5) 3.0 ICT index (0-9) 8.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 92.10 Rank 1 188 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 4.5 E-money index (0-4) 3.7 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 8.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 7.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. CÔTE D'IVOIRE ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 60.20 30 Fertilizer 39.29 45 Machinery 47.44 35 Finance 60.37 18 Markets 31.67 60 Transport 68.00 19 Water 25.60 49 ICT 61.11 22 SEEDa | DTF Score 60.20 Rank 30 MARKETS | DTF Score 31.67 Rank 60 Plant breeding index (0-10) 6.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 2.0 Time to register new variety (days) 368 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 2.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 137.2 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 11 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 3.1 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 39.29 Rank 45 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 68.00 Rank 19 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 3 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 5.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 15.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 2 MACHINERY | DTF Score 47.44 Rank 35 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 3.9 Tractor operation index (0-5) 1.5 WATER | DTF Score 25.60 Rank 49 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) N/A Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) N/A Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 10.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 6.7 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 3.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) 18 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 40.5 ICT | DTF Score 61.11 Rank 22 Tractor import index (0-5) 1.5 ICT index (0-9) 5.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 60.37 Rank 18 Branchless Banking 189 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.9 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. DENMARK OECD HIGH INCOME HIGH INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 85.32 3 Fertilizer 92.23 3 Machinery 81.82 8 Finance 45.83 37 Markets 78.82 6 Transport 88.89 3 Water 60.91 24 ICT 94.44 6 SEEDa | DTF Score 85.32 Rank 3 MARKETS | DTF Score 78.82 Rank 6 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 7.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 7.0 Time to register new variety (days) 690 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 7.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 7.4 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 0 Seed quality control index (0-12) 12.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 0 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 92.23 Rank 3 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 6.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 88.89 Rank 3 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 31 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 10.8 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 0.4 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 30 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 6.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 9.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 30 MACHINERY | DTF Score 81.82 Rank 8 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.0 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.0 Time to register a tractor (days) No data WATER | DTF Score 60.91 Rank 24 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.1 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 23.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 7.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 8.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) No data Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) No data ICT | DTF Score 94.44 Rank 6 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 8.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 45.83 Rank 37 190 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) N/A E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 7.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) N/A Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 0.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. EGYPT, ARAB REP. MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 52.57 37 Fertilizer 56.76 33 Machinery 55.32 26 Finance 29.64 56 Markets 47.34 49 Transport 13.38 61 Water 15.95 55 ICT 33.33 57 SEEDa | DTF Score 52.57 Rank 37 MARKETS | DTF Score 47.34 Rank 49 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 1.5 Time to register new variety (days) 599 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 184.3 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 2.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 4.3 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 56.76 Rank 33 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 13.38 Rank 61 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 314 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 1.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 19.8 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 1.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 4.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 55.32 Rank 26 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 4.0 WATER | DTF Score 15.95 Rank 55 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 1 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 1.9 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 2.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 2.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 5.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 33.33 Rank 57 Tractor import index (0-5) 2.0 ICT index (0-9) 3.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 29.64 Rank 56 Branchless Banking 191 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 3.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. ETHIOPIA ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 51.07 39 Fertilizer 19.64 59 Machinery 55.95 25 Finance 52.96 27 Markets 45.69 51 Transport 66.89 21 Water 46.94 34 ICT 11.11 62 SEEDa | DTF Score 51.07 Rank 39 MARKETS | DTF Score 45.69 Rank 51 Plant breeding index (0-10) 6.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 10.6 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 1.0 Time to register new variety (days) 620 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 3.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 77.8 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 4.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 3 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 2.5 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 19.64 Rank 59 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 1.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 66.89 Rank 21 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 1 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 5.5 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 0.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 4.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 1 MACHINERY | DTF Score 55.95 Rank 25 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 5.5 Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 2 WATER | DTF Score 46.94 Rank 34 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 1.9 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 12.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 4.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 10.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) No practice Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) No practice ICT | DTF Score 11.11 Rank 62 Tractor import index (0-5) 3.0 ICT index (0-9) 1.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 52.96 Rank 27 192 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 4.6 E-money index (0-4) 0.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 1.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. Recent research Non-bank Lending Institutions estimates that 59.3% of Ethiopian famers’ households used non-commercial MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 maize seed for planting during the 2011/2012 season. (Sheahan, M. and Barrett, C.B., 2016. Ten striking facts about agricultural input use in Sub- Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 Saharan Africa. Food Policy.) GEORGIA EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 71.42 13 Fertilizer 68.44 21 Machinery 41.81 42 Finance 44.11 39 Markets 67.91 19 Transport 48.50 38 Water 29.83 48 ICT 94.44 6 SEEDa | DTF Score 71.42 Rank 13 MARKETS | DTF Score 67.91 Rank 19 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 7.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 5.5 Time to register new variety (days) 581 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 0.0 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 4.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 3 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.3 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 68.44 Rank 21 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 48.50 Rank 38 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 730 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 2.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 16.7 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 7.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 3 MACHINERY | DTF Score 41.81 Rank 42 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.8 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.5 WATER | DTF Score 29.83 Rank 48 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 1 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.7 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 11.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 4.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 94.44 Rank 6 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 8.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 44.11 Rank 39 Branchless Banking 193 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 2.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 7.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. GHANA ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 46.46 48 Fertilizer 55.44 34 Machinery 46.27 38 Finance 62.43 16 Markets 40.18 54 Transport 16.16 59 Water 54.53 30 ICT 61.11 22 SEEDa | DTF Score 46.46 Rank 48 MARKETS | DTF Score 40.18 Rank 54 Plant breeding index (0-10) 4.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 5.9 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.0 Time to register new variety (days) 757 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 2.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 1091.6 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 8.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) No data Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 1.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 55.44 Rank 34 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 16.16 Rank 59 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 231 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 1.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 377.0 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 5.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 2.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) No practice MACHINERY | DTF Score 46.27 Rank 38 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) No practice Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 30 WATER | DTF Score 54.53 Rank 30 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 10.1 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 13.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 2.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 12.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 61.11 Rank 22 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 62.43 Rank 16 194 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 4.2 E-money index (0-4) 3.5 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 6.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. GREECE OECD HIGH INCOME HIGH INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 70.43 14 Fertilizer 81.57 9 Machinery 83.39 5 Finance 85.83 4 Markets 80.65 5 Transport 71.25 14 Water 73.66 12 ICT 100.00 1 SEEDa | DTF Score 70.43 Rank 14 MARKETS | DTF Score 80.65 Rank 5 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.9 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.0 Time to register new variety (days) 729 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 8.7 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 0 Seed quality control index (0-12) 9.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 0 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 81.57 Rank 9 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 7.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 71.25 Rank 14 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 186 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 8.8 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 2.4 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 60 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 6.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 3.1 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 9.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 60 MACHINERY | DTF Score 83.39 Rank 5 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 3.8 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.0 WATER | DTF Score 73.66 Rank 12 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 4 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.1 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 27.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 7.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 10.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 35 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 1.2 ICT | DTF Score 100.00 Rank 1 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 9.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 85.83 Rank 4 Branchless Banking 195 Agent banking index (0-5) N/A E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) N/A Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 7.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. GUATEMALA LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 64.04 26 Fertilizer 80.36 10 Machinery 18.83 57 Finance 55.89 24 Markets 72.15 14 Transport 18.31 58 Water 10.34 58 ICT 63.89 21 SEEDa | DTF Score 64.04 Rank 26 MARKETS | DTF Score 72.15 Rank 14 Plant breeding index (0-10) 5.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.0 Time to register new variety (days) 166 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 1.9 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 6.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.2 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 80.36 Rank 10 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.8 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 18.31 Rank 58 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 113 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.2 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 1.2 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 4.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 18.83 Rank 57 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.0 Time to register a tractor (days) N/A WATER | DTF Score 10.34 Rank 58 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) N/A Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 6.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 0.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 63.89 Rank 21 Tractor import index (0-5) 4.5 ICT index (0-9) 5.8 FINANCE | DTF Score 55.89 Rank 24 196 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 4.5 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 7.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 3.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. HAITI LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 10.00 61 Fertilizer 21.43 58 Machinery 41.79 43 Finance 32.65 54 Markets 35.58 57 Transport 7.83 62 Water 12.20 57 ICT 44.44 43 SEEDa | DTF Score 10.00 Rank 61 MARKETS | DTF Score 35.58 Rank 57 Plant breeding index (0-10) 4.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 4.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 0.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 0.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) No data Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 0.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) No data Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 1.6 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 21.43 Rank 58 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 7.83 Rank 62 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 1.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 0.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 2.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 41.79 Rank 43 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 WATER | DTF Score 12.20 Rank 57 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 5 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 40.8 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 2.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 3.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 44.44 Rank 43 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 4.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 32.65 Rank 54 Branchless Banking 197 Agent banking index (0-5) 3.7 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 2.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. Recent research MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 estimates that 94.7% of the seed used by farmers in Haiti in 2010 were sourced in the informal seed sector. (McGuire, S. and Sperling, L., 2016. Seed Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 systems smallholder farmers use. Food Security, 8(1), pp.179-195.) INDIA SOUTH ASIA LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 66.60 21 Fertilizer 69.59 18 Machinery 59.56 21 Finance 66.10 15 Markets 52.53 43 Transport 41.22 49 Water 17.63 53 ICT 66.67 18 SEEDa | DTF Score 66.60 Rank 21 MARKETS | DTF Score 52.53 Rank 43 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.2 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.0 Time to register new variety (days) 397 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 98.7 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 4.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 8 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 2.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 69.59 Rank 18 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 5.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 41.22 Rank 49 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 804 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 9.3 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 17.1 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 8 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 24.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 2.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 59.56 Rank 21 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 7 WATER | DTF Score 17.63 Rank 53 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.2 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 9.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 3.8 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 0.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 270 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 604.4 ICT | DTF Score 66.67 Rank 18 Tractor import index (0-5) 4.5 ICT index (0-9) 6.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 66.10 Rank 15 198 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 4.9 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 5.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 3.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. ITALY OECD HIGH INCOME HIGH INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 81.55 4 Fertilizer 85.09 6 Machinery 71.41 11 Finance 81.07 6 Markets 81.85 4 Transport 86.31 4 Water 74.09 10 ICT 94.44 6 SEEDa | DTF Score 81.55 Rank 4 MARKETS | DTF Score 81.85 Rank 4 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 7.0 Time to register new variety (days) 624 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 5.6 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 0 Seed quality control index (0-12) 10.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 0 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 85.09 Rank 6 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 6.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 86.31 Rank 4 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 450 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 9.8 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 11.2 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 30 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 6.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.7 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 9.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 30 MACHINERY | DTF Score 71.41 Rank 11 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.2 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.0 WATER | DTF Score 74.09 Rank 10 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 6 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.4 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 20.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 7.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 15.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 170 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) No data ICT | DTF Score 94.44 Rank 6 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 8.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 81.07 Rank 6 Branchless Banking 199 Agent banking index (0-5) N/A E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) N/A Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. JORDAN MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 66.34 22 Fertilizer 70.61 17 Machinery 51.45 33 Finance 4.17 62 Markets 63.93 25 Transport 66.83 22 Water 37.33 41 ICT 61.11 22 SEEDa | DTF Score 66.34 Rank 22 MARKETS | DTF Score 63.93 Rank 25 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 5.9 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 4.5 Time to register new variety (days) 514 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 57.8 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.1 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 70.61 Rank 17 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 66.83 Rank 22 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 45 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 0.9 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 4 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 15.5 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 5.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 4 MACHINERY | DTF Score 51.45 Rank 33 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.5 Tractor operation index (0-5) 4.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 1 WATER | DTF Score 37.33 Rank 41 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 20.2 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 11.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 1.2 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 7.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 61.11 Rank 22 Tractor import index (0-5) 4.5 ICT index (0-9) 5.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 4.17 Rank 62 200 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 0.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 0.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. KAZAKHSTAN EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 53.65 35 Fertilizer 73.14 15 Machinery 81.44 9 Finance 36.73 50 Markets 70.84 16 Transport 19.44 55 Water 65.73 18 ICT 61.11 22 SEEDa | DTF Score 53.65 Rank 35 MARKETS | DTF Score 70.84 Rank 16 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 10.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 5.5 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 7.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 4.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 5 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.6 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 73.14 Rank 15 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 2.9 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 19.44 Rank 55 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 246 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.7 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 11.7 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 5.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 4.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 81.44 Rank 9 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 WATER | DTF Score 65.73 Rank 18 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 10 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.0 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 20.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 6.2 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 12.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 15 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 6.9 ICT | DTF Score 61.11 Rank 22 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 36.73 Rank 50 Branchless Banking 201 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 5.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 3.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. KENYA ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 79.24 7 Fertilizer 41.07 43 Machinery 53.81 29 Finance 74.33 10 Markets 32.98 59 Transport 68.69 16 Water 85.04 4 ICT 77.78 12 SEEDa | DTF Score 79.24 Rank 7 MARKETS | DTF Score 32.98 Rank 59 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.9 Variety registration index (0-8) 7.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 1.5 Time to register new variety (days) 322 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 3.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 123.2 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 4 Seed quality control index (0-12) 6.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 4 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 5.6 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 41.07 Rank 43 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 1.5 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 68.69 Rank 16 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 1 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 2.2 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 6.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 10 MACHINERY | DTF Score 53.81 Rank 29 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 14.9 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 7 WATER | DTF Score 85.04 Rank 4 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 2.0 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 22.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 2.7 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 18.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 77.78 Rank 12 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 7.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 74.33 Rank 10 202 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 4.2 E-money index (0-4) 4.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 5.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. Recent research MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 7.0 estimates that 82.3% of the seed used by farmers in Kenya in 2011 were sourced in the informal seed sector. (McGuire, S. and Sperling, L., 2016. Seed Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 7.0 systems smallholder farmers use. Food Security, 8(1), pp.179-195.) KOREA, REP. OECD HIGH INCOME HIGH INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 77.46 8 Fertilizer 74.05 14 Machinery 59.88 19 Finance 67.88 12 Markets 75.40 10 Transport 47.48 39 Water 74.83 9 ICT 83.33 11 SEEDa | DTF Score 77.46 Rank 8 MARKETS | DTF Score 75.40 Rank 10 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.9 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 5.8 Time to register new variety (days) 298 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 7.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 2.0 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 5.3 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 74.05 Rank 14 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.5 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 47.48 Rank 39 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 459 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 6.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 25.0 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 20 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.1 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 0.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 59.88 Rank 19 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 1.0 WATER | DTF Score 74.83 Rank 9 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) N/A Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) N/A Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 26.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 7.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 12.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) 45 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 8.0 ICT | DTF Score 83.33 Rank 11 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 7.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 67.88 Rank 12 Branchless Banking 203 Agent banking index (0-5) N/A E-money index (0-4) 2.2 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.3 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 5.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) N/A Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. KYRGYZ REPUBLIC EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 36.44 53 Fertilizer 69.38 19 Machinery 64.98 14 Finance 78.61 8 Markets 72.60 13 Transport 18.43 56 Water 46.21 36 ICT 44.44 43 SEEDa | DTF Score 36.44 Rank 53 MARKETS | DTF Score 72.60 Rank 13 Plant breeding index (0-10) 7.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 5.5 Time to register new variety (days) 970 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 219.4 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 2.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.7 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 69.38 Rank 19 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.8 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 18.43 Rank 56 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 357 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 2.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 21.4 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 64.98 Rank 14 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 2 WATER | DTF Score 46.21 Rank 36 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 1.5 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 21.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 5.5 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 4.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) No practice Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) No practice ICT | DTF Score 44.44 Rank 43 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 4.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 78.61 Rank 8 204 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 4.1 E-money index (0-4) 3.5 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 6.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. LAO PDR EAST ASIA & PACIFIC LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 20.94 59 Fertilizer 65.70 27 Machinery 14.83 59 Finance 41.07 47 Markets 55.17 35 Transport 64.38 26 Water 40.95 40 ICT 27.78 59 SEEDa | DTF Score 20.94 Rank 59 MARKETS | DTF Score 55.17 Rank 35 Plant breeding index (0-10) 4.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 3.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 4.5 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 0.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 3 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 4.8 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 65.70 Rank 27 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 64.38 Rank 26 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) No data Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 6.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 0.5 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 37 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 5.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 6.1 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 30 MACHINERY | DTF Score 14.83 Rank 59 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.3 Tractor operation index (0-5) 1.0 WATER | DTF Score 40.95 Rank 40 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) No practice Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) No practice Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 16.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 5.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 27.78 Rank 59 Tractor import index (0-5) 2.5 ICT index (0-9) 2.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 41.07 Rank 47 Branchless Banking 205 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 6.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. LIBERIA ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 7.50 62 Fertilizer 8.93 62 Machinery 13.29 60 Finance 46.13 35 Markets 20.49 62 Transport 16.16 59 Water 4.31 61 ICT 55.56 31 SEEDa | DTF Score 7.50 Rank 62 MARKETS | DTF Score 20.49 Rank 62 Plant breeding index (0-10) 3.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 5.4 Variety registration index (0-8) 0.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 0.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 2.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 4 Seed quality control index (0-12) 0.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 7 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) No data FERTILIZER | DTF Score 8.93 Rank 62 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 16.16 Rank 59 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 1.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 0.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 2.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) No practice MACHINERY | DTF Score 13.29 Rank 60 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) No practice Tractor operation index (0-5) 1.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 5 WATER | DTF Score 4.31 Rank 61 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 92.1 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 2.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 0.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 55.56 Rank 31 Tractor import index (0-5) 0.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 46.13 Rank 35 206 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 4.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 5.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. MALAWI ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 45.30 50 Fertilizer 39.83 44 Machinery 56.67 23 Finance 58.27 20 Markets 56.86 33 Transport 46.44 41 Water 65.56 19 ICT 41.67 50 SEEDa | DTF Score 45.30 Rank 50 MARKETS | DTF Score 56.86 Rank 33 Plant breeding index (0-10) 5.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.0 Time to register new variety (days) 579 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 2038.1 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 6.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 2.8 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 39.83 Rank 44 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.5 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 46.44 Rank 41 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 913 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 3030.5 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 1 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 5.5 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 4.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 56.67 Rank 23 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 4.0 WATER | DTF Score 65.56 Rank 19 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 15 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 8.3 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 17.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 5.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 14.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 240 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 428.6 ICT | DTF Score 41.67 Rank 50 Tractor import index (0-5) 3.0 ICT index (0-9) 3.8 FINANCE | DTF Score 58.27 Rank 20 Branchless Banking 207 Agent banking index (0-5) 2.5 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 5.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. Recent research MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 estimates that 68.8% of the seed used by farmers in Malawi in 2011 were sourced in the informal seed sector. (McGuire, S. and Sperling, L., 2016. Seed Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 systems smallholder farmers use. Food Security, 8(1), pp.179-195.) MALAYSIA EAST ASIA & PACIFIC UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 47.80 45 Fertilizer 33.93 50 Machinery 60.32 18 Finance 52.15 28 Markets 53.06 40 Transport 28.28 54 Water 33.49 45 ICT 61.11 22 SEEDa | DTF Score 47.80 Rank 45 MARKETS | DTF Score 53.06 Rank 40 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 4.9 Variety registration index (0-8) 3.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 4.0 Time to register new variety (days) 561 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 3.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 7.0 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 0.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) No data Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 33.93 Rank 50 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 28.28 Rank 54 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.2 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 44 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 4.2 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 0.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 60.32 Rank 18 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 4.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 7 WATER | DTF Score 33.49 Rank 45 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.2 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 10.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 2.7 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 6.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 61.11 Rank 22 Tractor import index (0-5) 4.5 ICT index (0-9) 5.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 52.15 Rank 28 208 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 4.4 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 6.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. MALI ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 36.99 52 Fertilizer 66.76 23 Machinery 8.83 61 Finance 43.35 41 Markets 51.78 44 Transport 45.05 44 Water 24.44 50 ICT 38.89 52 SEEDa | DTF Score 36.99 Rank 52 MARKETS | DTF Score 51.78 Rank 44 Plant breeding index (0-10) 4.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 2.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 5.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 4.1 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 66.76 Rank 23 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.5 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 45.05 Rank 44 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 90 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 124.4 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 3 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 3.8 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) No practice MACHINERY | DTF Score 8.83 Rank 61 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) No practice Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.0 WATER | DTF Score 24.44 Rank 50 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) N/A Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) N/A Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 12.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 1.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 38.89 Rank 52 Tractor import index (0-5) 2.0 ICT index (0-9) 3.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 43.35 Rank 41 Branchless Banking 209 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. MEXICO LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 64.66 24 Fertilizer 66.62 24 Machinery 26.88 51 Finance 76.54 9 Markets 83.08 3 Transport 67.99 20 Water 91.25 2 ICT 88.89 9 SEEDa | DTF Score 64.66 Rank 24 MARKETS | DTF Score 83.08 Rank 3 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 7.0 Time to register new variety (days) 621 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 7.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 16.2 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 7.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.3 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 66.62 Rank 24 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 6.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 67.99 Rank 20 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 765 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 7.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 11.5 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 30 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 4.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 30 MACHINERY | DTF Score 26.88 Rank 51 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 3.1 Tractor operation index (0-5) 1.0 Time to register a tractor (days) No data WATER | DTF Score 91.25 Rank 2 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) No data Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 29.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 3.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 16.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 88.89 Rank 9 Tractor import index (0-5) 2.5 ICT index (0-9) 8.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 76.54 Rank 9 210 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 4.2 E-money index (0-4) 0.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 8.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 6.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 7.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. MOROCCO MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 67.87 20 Fertilizer 32.14 51 Machinery 60.33 17 Finance 29.00 57 Markets 64.22 24 Transport 79.89 8 Water 76.59 8 ICT 66.67 18 SEEDa | DTF Score 67.87 Rank 20 MARKETS | DTF Score 64.22 Rank 24 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.5 Time to register new variety (days) 584 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 18.1 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 6.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 4 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.5 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 32.14 Rank 51 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 79.89 Rank 8 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 6.2 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 6 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 5.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 6.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 1 MACHINERY | DTF Score 60.33 Rank 17 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.0 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.5 WATER | DTF Score 76.59 Rank 8 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 1 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 1.3 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 20.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 5.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 16.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 31 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 272.0 ICT | DTF Score 66.67 Rank 18 Tractor import index (0-5) 3.0 ICT index (0-9) 6.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 29.00 Rank 57 Branchless Banking 211 Agent banking index (0-5) 2.6 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 0.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. MOZAMBIQUE ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 65.68 23 Fertilizer 38.93 47 Machinery 34.58 47 Finance 55.10 25 Markets 59.52 30 Transport 54.91 33 Water 63.36 21 ICT 61.11 22 SEEDa | DTF Score 65.68 Rank 23 MARKETS | DTF Score 59.52 Rank 30 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.1 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 5.0 Time to register new variety (days) 582 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 86.2 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 6.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 7 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 2.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 38.93 Rank 47 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 54.91 Rank 33 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) No practice Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) No practice Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 3 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 19.5 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 3 MACHINERY | DTF Score 34.58 Rank 47 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 58.5 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 20 WATER | DTF Score 63.36 Rank 21 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 14.6 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 15.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 2.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 15.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 61.11 Rank 22 Tractor import index (0-5) 4.5 ICT index (0-9) 5.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 55.10 Rank 25 212 Branchless Banking 3.9 Agent banking index (0-5) 1.0 E-money index (0-4) Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.8 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 2.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. MYANMAR EAST ASIA & PACIFIC LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 54.60 34 Fertilizer 61.64 30 Machinery 2.83 62 Finance 22.92 61 Markets 42.33 53 Transport 30.19 51 Water 2.59 62 ICT 50.00 37 SEEDa | DTF Score 54.60 Rank 34 MARKETS | DTF Score 42.33 Rank 53 Plant breeding index (0-10) 7.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 3.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 0.0 Time to register new variety (days) 306 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 26.6 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 4 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 1.2 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 61.64 Rank 30 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 30.19 Rank 51 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 41 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 1.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 7.3 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 7 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.1 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 1.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 2.83 Rank 62 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.0 WATER | DTF Score 2.59 Rank 62 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) N/A Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) N/A Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 1.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 0.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 50.00 Rank 37 Tractor import index (0-5) 0.5 ICT index (0-9) 4.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 22.92 Rank 61 Branchless Banking 213 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 1.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 3.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. NEPAL SOUTH ASIA LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 47.31 46 Fertilizer 45.46 41 Machinery 47.21 36 Finance 46.31 34 Markets 60.60 28 Transport 29.77 52 Water 22.97 52 ICT 44.44 43 SEEDa | DTF Score 47.31 Rank 46 MARKETS | DTF Score 60.60 Rank 28 Plant breeding index (0-10) 4.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.9 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 4.0 Time to register new variety (days) 611 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 0.0 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 1.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.7 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 45.46 Rank 41 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 29.77 Rank 52 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 1125 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 645.2 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 2 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 5.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 38.2 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 3.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 47.21 Rank 36 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 2 WATER | DTF Score 22.97 Rank 52 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 4.6 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 1.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 8.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 44.44 Rank 43 Tractor import index (0-5) 4.0 ICT index (0-9) 4.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 46.31 Rank 34 214 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 3.6 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. NETHERLANDS OECD HIGH INCOME HIGH INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 88.00 001 Fertilizer 83.33 007 Machinery 81.83 007 Finance 61.31 0017 Markets 87.61 001 Transport 76.47 009 Water 64.27 20 00 ICT 100.00 001 SEEDa | DTF Score 88.00 Rank 1 MARKETS | DTF Score 87.61 Rank 1 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 7.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 8.0 Time to register new variety (days) 556 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 8.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 13.7 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 0 Seed quality control index (0-12) 12.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 0 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 83.33 Rank 7 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 5.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 76.47 Rank 9 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 9.8 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 56 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 6.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.9 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 9.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 56 MACHINERY | DTF Score 81.83 Rank 7 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.9 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.0 WATER | DTF Score 64.27 Rank 20 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 1 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.1 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 23.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 7.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 9.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) No data Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) No data ICT | DTF Score 100.00 Rank 1 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 9.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 61.31 Rank 17 Branchless Banking 215 Agent banking index (0-5) N/A E-money index (0-4) 2.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 2.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) N/A Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. NICARAGUA LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 47.92 44 Fertilizer 78.20 11 Machinery 33.03 48 Finance 45.94 36 Markets 66.29 20 Transport 51.56 36 Water 61.98 23 ICT 44.44 43 SEEDa | DTF Score 47.92 Rank 44 MARKETS | DTF Score 66.29 Rank 20 Plant breeding index (0-10) 7.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.4 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.0 Time to register new variety (days) 650 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 786.9 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 1.4 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 78.20 Rank 11 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.8 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 51.56 Rank 36 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 28 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 8.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 82.5 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 7 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 4.5 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 4.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 33.03 Rank 48 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 1.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 10 WATER | DTF Score 61.98 Rank 23 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 5.6 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 20.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 11.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 44.44 Rank 43 Tractor import index (0-5) 3.5 ICT index (0-9) 4.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 45.94 Rank 36 216 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 3.6 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.3 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. NIGER ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 45.42 49 00 Fertilizer 25.00 55 00 Machinery 20.83 55 00 Finance 43.01 45 00 Markets 53.11 39 00 Transport 68.20 0017 Water 41.85 39 00 ICT 44.44 43 00 SEEDa | DTF Score 45.42 Rank 49 MARKETS | DTF Score 53.11 Rank 39 Plant breeding index (0-10) 4.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 8.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 2.0 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 5.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 2.4 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 25.00 Rank 55 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 68.20 Rank 17 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 2 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 9.6 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 1 MACHINERY | DTF Score 20.83 Rank 55 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 9.6 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.0 WATER | DTF Score 41.85 Rank 39 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) N/A Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) N/A Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 10.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 9.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 44.44 Rank 43 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 4.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 43.01 Rank 45 Branchless Banking 217 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. NIGERIA ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 48.82 42 Fertilizer 57.79 31 Machinery 63.07 16 Finance 57.21 22 Markets 49.24 48 Transport 46.30 43 Water 32.03 46 ICT 50.00 37 SEEDa | DTF Score 48.82 Rank 42 MARKETS | DTF Score 49.24 Rank 48 Plant breeding index (0-10) 3.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 2.0 Time to register new variety (days) 367 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 197.9 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 7 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.5 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 57.79 Rank 31 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 46.30 Rank 43 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 225 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 6.0 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 1 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 1.4 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) No practice MACHINERY | DTF Score 63.07 Rank 16 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) No practice Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 14 WATER | DTF Score 32.03 Rank 46 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 9.9 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 13.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 5.7 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 3.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 105 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 99.0 ICT | DTF Score 50.00 Rank 37 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 4.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 57.21 Rank 22 218 Branchless Banking 3.7 Agent banking index (0-5) 3.8 E-money index (0-4) Movable Collateral 0.0 Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 6.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. Recent research Non-bank Lending Institutions 4.0 estimates that 76% of Nigerian famers’ households used non-commercial MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 3.0 maize seed for planting during 2010/2011 season. (Sheahan, M. and Barrett, C.B., 2016. Ten striking facts about agricultural input use in Sub-Saharan Financial cooperatives index (0-7) Africa. Food Policy.) PERU LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 72.49 10 Fertilizer 30.36 52 Machinery 18.50 58 Finance 86.67 2 Markets 61.28 27 Transport 84.75 5 Water 73.79 11 ICT 72.22 15 SEEDa | DTF Score 72.49 Rank 10 MARKETS | DTF Score 61.28 Rank 27 Plant breeding index (0-10) 7.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.2 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 5.0 Time to register new variety (days) 357 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 21.3 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 8.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 11 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.7 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 30.36 Rank 52 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 84.75 Rank 5 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 7.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 3 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 2.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.4 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 7.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 7 MACHINERY | DTF Score 18.50 Rank 58 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.0 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.0 WATER | DTF Score 73.79 Rank 11 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) N/A Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) N/A Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 22.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 1.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 14.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 72.22 Rank 15 Tractor import index (0-5) 4.0 ICT index (0-9) 6.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 86.67 Rank 2 Branchless Banking 219 Agent banking index (0-5) 4.3 E-money index (0-4) 3.7 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 8.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. Recent research estimates that 92.8% of the maize seed used for planting Non-bank Lending Institutions during the 2010/2011 season in Peru were non-certiĔed seed. MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 7.0 (Lapeña, I., 2012. La Nueva Legislación de Semillas y sus implicancias para la agricultura familiar en el Perú. Serie de Política y Derecho Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 3.0 Ambiental. Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental, (26).) PHILIPPINES EAST ASIA & PACIFIC LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 72.28 11 Fertilizer 67.52 22 Machinery 68.10 13 Finance 48.38 33 Markets 53.47 38 Transport 49.88 37 Water 67.28 17 ICT 50.00 37 SEEDa | DTF Score 72.28 Rank 11 MARKETS | DTF Score 53.47 Rank 38 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 5.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 2.0 Time to register new variety (days) 570 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 1.5 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 5.3 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 67.52 Rank 22 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 49.88 Rank 37 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 134 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 9.2 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 235 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 3.8 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) No practice MACHINERY | DTF Score 68.10 Rank 13 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) No practice Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 11 WATER | DTF Score 67.28 Rank 17 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.0 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 18.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 5.2 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 14.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 30 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 12.6 ICT | DTF Score 50.00 Rank 37 Tractor import index (0-5) 3.0 ICT index (0-9) 4.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 48.38 Rank 33 220 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.6 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 2.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. POLAND OECD HIGH INCOME HIGH INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 81.52 5 Fertilizer 93.76 2 Machinery 91.04 1 Finance 58.08 21 Markets 78.64 7 Transport 65.37 24 Water 73.41 13 ICT 100.00 1 SEEDa | DTF Score 81.52 Rank 5 MARKETS | DTF Score 78.64 Rank 7 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 7.8 Time to register new variety (days) 699 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 15.2 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 0 Seed quality control index (0-12) 11.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 0 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 93.76 Rank 2 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 7.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 65.37 Rank 24 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 60 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 8.8 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 15.7 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 90 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 6.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 1.7 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 9.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 90 MACHINERY | DTF Score 91.04 Rank 1 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 19.4 Tractor operation index (0-5) 5.0 WATER | DTF Score 73.41 Rank 13 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 2 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.4 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 23.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 7.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 13.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 60 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 220.5 ICT | DTF Score 100.00 Rank 1 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 9.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 58.08 Rank 21 Branchless Banking 221 Agent banking index (0-5) 4.1 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 7.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. ROMANIA EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 81.11 6 Fertilizer 64.67 28 Machinery 88.82 3 Finance 72.41 11 Markets 73.24 12 Transport 90.96 2 Water 80.91 7 ICT 100.00 1 SEEDa | DTF Score 81.11 Rank 6 MARKETS | DTF Score 73.24 Rank 12 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.3 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.5 Time to register new variety (days) 654 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 23.2 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 0 Seed quality control index (0-12) 11.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 0 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 64.67 Rank 28 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.8 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 90.96 Rank 2 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 1205 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 9.8 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 46.3 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 15 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 6.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 2.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 9.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 15 MACHINERY | DTF Score 88.82 Rank 3 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 2.0 Tractor operation index (0-5) 5.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 30 WATER | DTF Score 80.91 Rank 7 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.4 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 23.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 8.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 16.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 30 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 7.7 ICT | DTF Score 100.00 Rank 1 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 9.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 72.41 Rank 11 222 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 3.4 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 7.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. RUSSIAN FEDERATION EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 68.41 18 Fertilizer 69.18 20 Machinery 69.08 12 Finance 45.77 38 Markets 68.11 18 Transport 47.21 40 Water 70.73 15 ICT 72.22 15 SEEDa | DTF Score 68.41 Rank 18 MARKETS | DTF Score 68.11 Rank 18 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 7.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 6.5 Time to register new variety (days) 716 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 7.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 0.0 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 4 Seed quality control index (0-12) 4.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 4 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.2 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 69.18 Rank 20 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.8 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 47.21 Rank 40 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 330 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.7 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 59.6 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 1 MACHINERY | DTF Score 69.08 Rank 12 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.1 Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.0 WATER | DTF Score 70.73 Rank 15 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 5 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.4 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 20.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 6.2 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 14.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 189 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 558.6 ICT | DTF Score 72.22 Rank 15 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 6.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 45.77 Rank 38 Branchless Banking 223 Agent banking index (0-5) 3.6 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. RWANDA ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 20.21 60 Fertilizer 52.58 38 Machinery 43.37 41 Finance 80.63 7 Markets 49.30 47 Transport 62.70 27 Water 50.00 32 ICT 41.67 50 SEEDa | DTF Score 20.21 Rank 60 MARKETS | DTF Score 49.30 Rank 47 Plant breeding index (0-10) 6.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 1.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 0.5 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 3.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 1.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 1 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 52.58 Rank 38 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 1.9 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 62.70 Rank 27 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 730 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 2.0 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 7 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 21.5 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 6.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 1 MACHINERY | DTF Score 43.37 Rank 41 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 28.6 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 2 WATER | DTF Score 50.00 Rank 32 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 153.7 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 14.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 1.5 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 10.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 41.67 Rank 50 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 3.8 FINANCE | DTF Score 80.63 Rank 7 224 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 3.7 E-money index (0-4) 3.9 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 8.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. SENEGAL ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 52.80 36 Fertilizer 17.86 60 Machinery 25.15 54 Finance 43.35 41 Markets 54.65 36 Transport 51.57 35 Water 35.73 42 ICT 50.00 37 SEEDa | DTF Score 52.80 Rank 36 MARKETS | DTF Score 54.65 Rank 36 Plant breeding index (0-10) 7.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.5 Time to register new variety (days) 561 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 708.5 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 5.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 3 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 3.8 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 17.86 Rank 60 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 51.57 Rank 35 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 6.8 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 12 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 1.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 2.8 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) No practice MACHINERY | DTF Score 25.15 Rank 54 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) No practice Tractor operation index (0-5) 1.0 WATER | DTF Score 35.73 Rank 42 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 5 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.6 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 5.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 10.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 50.00 Rank 37 Tractor import index (0-5) 0.5 ICT index (0-9) 4.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 43.35 Rank 41 Branchless Banking 225 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 4.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. SERBIA EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 68.38 19 Fertilizer 91.92 4 Machinery 89.11 2 Finance 43.75 40 Markets 76.80 8 Transport 71.97 13 Water 72.93 14 ICT 77.78 12 SEEDa | DTF Score 68.38 Rank 19 MARKETS | DTF Score 76.80 Rank 8 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 7.0 Time to register new variety (days) 604 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 6.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 0.4 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 7.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.2 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 91.92 Rank 4 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 5.8 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 71.97 Rank 13 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 22 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 6.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 5.3 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 30 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 1.6 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 7.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 30 MACHINERY | DTF Score 89.11 Rank 2 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 4.3 Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 2 WATER | DTF Score 72.93 Rank 14 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 5.6 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 22.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 8.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 14.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) 30 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 2.7 ICT | DTF Score 77.78 Rank 12 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 7.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 43.75 Rank 40 226 Branchless Banking 0.0 Agent banking index (0-5) 4.0 E-money index (0-4) Movable Collateral 5.0 Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) Non-bank Lending Institutions 0.0 MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. SPAIN OECD HIGH INCOME HIGH INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 86.65 2 Fertilizer 91.10 5 Machinery 83.23 6 Finance 86.67 3 Markets 87.08 2 Transport 91.70 1 Water 94.53 1 ICT 100.00 1 SEEDa | DTF Score 86.65 Rank 2 MARKETS | DTF Score 87.08 Rank 2 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 10.8 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 7.8 Time to register new variety (days) 598 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 9.3 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 0 Seed quality control index (0-12) 12.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 0 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.0 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 91.10 Rank 5 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 5.8 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 91.70 Rank 1 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 90 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 9.8 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 0.0 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 4 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.2 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 9.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 25 MACHINERY | DTF Score 83.23 Rank 6 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.5 Tractor operation index (0-5) 4.5 WATER | DTF Score 94.53 Rank 1 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 5 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.6 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 28.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 7.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 18.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) 451 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 32.2 ICT | DTF Score 100.00 Rank 1 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 9.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 86.67 Rank 3 Branchless Banking 227 Agent banking index (0-5) N/A E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 5.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) N/A Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 7.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. SRI LANKA SOUTH ASIA LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 47.10 47 Fertilizer 53.82 36 Machinery 46.18 39 Finance 28.67 58 Markets 33.85 58 Transport 42.43 48 Water 16.68 54 ICT 27.78 59 SEEDa | DTF Score 47.10 Rank 47 MARKETS | DTF Score 33.85 Rank 58 Plant breeding index (0-10) 4.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.9 Variety registration index (0-8) 3.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 2.0 Time to register new variety (days) 298 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 2.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 0.0 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 2.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 4 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 7.1 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 53.82 Rank 36 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 2.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 42.43 Rank 48 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 365 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 3.7 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 2 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 2.7 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 0.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) N/A MACHINERY | DTF Score 46.18 Rank 39 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) N/A Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 3 WATER | DTF Score 16.68 Rank 54 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 3.3 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 7.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 2.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 1.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 27.78 Rank 59 Tractor import index (0-5) 3.0 ICT index (0-9) 2.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 28.67 Rank 58 228 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.7 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 3.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. SUDAN ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 49.34 41 Fertilizer 23.21 56 Machinery 54.87 27 Finance 33.93 53 Markets 30.56 61 Transport 43.36 47 Water 10.17 59 ICT 33.33 57 SEEDa | DTF Score 49.34 Rank 41 MARKETS | DTF Score 30.56 Rank 61 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 1.5 Time to register new variety (days) 654 Agricultural trade index (0-9) No data Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 620.7 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 4.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 21 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 6.1 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 23.21 Rank 56 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 0.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 43.46 Rank 47 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) N/A Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 1.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) N/A Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 7.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 14 MACHINERY | DTF Score 54.87 Rank 27 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 2.4 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.5 WATER | DTF Score 10.17 Rank 59 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 7 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 29.8 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 3.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 5.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 2.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) 45 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 146.6 ICT | DTF Score 33.33 Rank 57 Tractor import index (0-5) 1.5 ICT index (0-9) 3.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 33.93 Rank 53 Branchless Banking 229 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 2.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 2.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. TAJIKISTAN EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 42.40 51 Fertilizer 36.79 49 Machinery 58.15 22 Finance 32.14 55 Markets 58.05 32 Transport 84.09 6 Water 46.81 35 ICT 36.11 56 SEEDa | DTF Score 42.40 Rank 51 MARKETS | DTF Score 58.05 Rank 32 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 4.5 Time to register new variety (days) No practice Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) No practice Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 4.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 6 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 4.3 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 36.79 Rank 49 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 2.3 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 84.09 Rank 6 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) No practice Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 9.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) No practice Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 2 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 2.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.4 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 5.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 1 MACHINERY | DTF Score 58.15 Rank 22 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 5.1 Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 10 WATER | DTF Score 46.81 Rank 35 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 1.5 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 17.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 4.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 7.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) No practice Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) No practice ICT | DTF Score 36.11 Rank 56 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 3.3 FINANCE | DTF Score 32.14 Rank 55 230 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 2.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 7.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 3.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. TANZANIA ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 68.91 17 Fertilizer 52.84 37 Machinery 44.38 40 Finance 84.85 5 Markets 37.88 56 Transport 65.13 25 Water 62.67 22 ICT 66.67 18 SEEDa | DTF Score 68.91 Rank 17 MARKETS | DTF Score 37.88 Rank 56 Plant breeding index (0-10) 9.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 9.7 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.0 Time to register new variety (days) 333 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 3.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 65.1 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 4 Seed quality control index (0-12) 6.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 16 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 4.3 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 52.84 Rank 37 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 65.13 Rank 25 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 578 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 3.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 983.1 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 3 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 7.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 4.7 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 6.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 14 MACHINERY | DTF Score 44.38 Rank 40 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 22.0 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.5 WATER | DTF Score 62.67 Rank 22 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 3 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 20.7 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 17.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 3.5 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 13.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 66.67 Rank 18 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 6.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 84.85 Rank 5 Branchless Banking 231 Agent banking index (0-5) 4.1 E-money index (0-4) 3.7 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. Recent research Non-bank Lending Institutions estimates that 70.2% of Tanzanian famers’ households used non-commercial MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 6.0 maize seed for planting during the 2010/2011 season. (Sheahan, M. and Barrett, C.B., 2016. Ten striking facts about agricultural input use in Sub- Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 Saharan Africa. Food Policy.) THAILAND EAST ASIA & PACIFIC UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 56.87 32 Fertilizer 71.65 16 Machinery 56.53 24 Finance 52.11 29 Markets 44.63 52 Transport 29.08 53 Water 6.03 60 ICT 55.56 31 SEEDa | DTF Score 56.87 Rank 32 MARKETS | DTF Score 44.63 Rank 52 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 5.0 Variety registration index (0-8) 3.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.0 Time to register new variety (days) 327 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 7.3 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 6 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.7 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 71.65 Rank 16 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 5.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 29.08 Rank 53 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 100 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 2.0 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 45 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.8 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 0.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) No practice MACHINERY | DTF Score 56.53 Rank 24 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) No practice Tractor operation index (0-5) 3.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 1 WATER | DTF Score 6.03 Rank 60 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 0.2 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 3.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 1.8 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 0.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 55.56 Rank 31 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 52.11 Rank 29 232 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 3.4 E-money index (0-4) 3.5 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.8 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 2.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. TURKEY EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA UPPER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 72.07 12 Fertilizer 74.10 13 Machinery 88.69 4 Finance 49.06 32 Markets 59.95 29 Transport 62.61 28 Water 24.14 51 ICT 55.56 31 SEEDa | DTF Score 72.07 Rank 12 MARKETS | DTF Score 59.95 Rank 29 Plant breeding index (0-10) 6.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 5.1 Variety registration index (0-8) 6.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 7.0 Time to register new variety (days) 646 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 28.8 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 10.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 3 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.4 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 74.10 Rank 13 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 5.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 62.61 Rank 28 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 50 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 8.7 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 1.7 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 4 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 5.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 83.5 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 7.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 6 MACHINERY | DTF Score 88.69 Rank 4 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 334.1 Tractor operation index (0-5) 4.5 WATER | DTF Score 24.14 Rank 51 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 2 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 2.4 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 14.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 6.7 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 0.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) 90 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 102.1 ICT | DTF Score 55.56 Rank 31 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 49.06 Rank 32 Branchless Banking 233 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.4 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. UGANDA ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 57.82 31 Fertilizer 46.75 40 Machinery 53.21 31 Finance 50.30 31 Markets 50.44 45 Transport 68.17 18 Water 58.58 26 ICT 61.11 22 SEEDa | DTF Score 57.82 Rank 31 MARKETS | DTF Score 50.44 Rank 45 Plant breeding index (0-10) 7.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 6.9 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 3.0 Time to register new variety (days) 523 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 4.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 0.0 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 4 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.3 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 46.75 Rank 40 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 3.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 68.17 Rank 18 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 663 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 215.3 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 1 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 5.9 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 2.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 6.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 2 MACHINERY | DTF Score 53.21 Rank 31 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 29.9 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.0 Time to register a tractor (days) 9 WATER | DTF Score 58.58 Rank 26 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 16.3 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 11.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 5.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 15.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) No practice Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) No practice ICT | DTF Score 61.11 Rank 22 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 50.30 Rank 31 234 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 5.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. Recent research Non-bank Lending Institutions estimates that 63.4% of Ugandan famers’ households used non- MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 commercial maize seed for planting during the 2010/2011 season. (Sheahan, M. and Barrett, C.B., 2016. Ten striking facts about agricultural Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 3.0 input use in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy.) UKRAINE EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 56.44 33 Fertilizer 57.62 32 Machinery 63.75 15 Finance 53.27 26 Markets 61.35 26 Transport 46.42 42 Water 54.61 29 ICT 44.44 43 SEEDa | DTF Score 56.44 Rank 33 MARKETS | DTF Score 61.35 Rank 26 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.4 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 4.5 Time to register new variety (days) 714 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 25.4 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 3 Seed quality control index (0-12) 3.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 5 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.9 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 57.62 Rank 32 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.8 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 46.42 Rank 42 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 325 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 2.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 845.8 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) N/A Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) N/A Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 6.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 7.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 10 MACHINERY | DTF Score 63.75 Rank 15 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 3.2 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.5 WATER | DTF Score 54.61 Rank 29 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 6 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 2.2 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 15.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 4.8 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 11.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) No data Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 219.7 ICT | DTF Score 44.44 Rank 43 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 4.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 53.27 Rank 26 Branchless Banking 235 Agent banking index (0-5) 3.1 E-money index (0-4) 1.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 6.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. URUGUAY LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN HIGH INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 76.46 9 Fertilizer 65.88 25 Machinery 20.00 56 Finance 59.07 19 Markets 71.68 15 Transport 72.33 11 Water 59.40 25 ICT 50.00 37 SEEDa | DTF Score 76.46 Rank 9 MARKETS | DTF Score 71.68 Rank 15 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 10.1 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 4.5 Time to register new variety (days) 305 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 5.0 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 8.3 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 2 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 0.2 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 65.88 Rank 25 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 72.33 Rank 11 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 11 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 12.6 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 2 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 4.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.0 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 6.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 33 MACHINERY | DTF Score 20.00 Rank 56 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.0 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.0 Time to register a tractor (days) N/A WATER | DTF Score 59.40 Rank 25 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) N/A Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 18.5 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.0 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 11.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 50.00 Rank 37 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 4.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 59.07 Rank 19 236 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 3.7 E-money index (0-4) 3.5 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 4.3 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 3.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 0.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 5.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. VIETNAM EAST ASIA & PACIFIC LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 48.31 43 Fertilizer 74.87 12 Machinery 74.18 10 Finance 51.19 30 Markets 58.34 31 Transport 79.99 7 Water 58.53 27 ICT 77.78 12 SEEDa | DTF Score 48.31 Rank 43 MARKETS | DTF Score 58.34 Rank 31 Plant breeding index (0-10) 6.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 8.3 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 5.5 Time to register new variety (days) 901 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 3.5 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 406.2 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 2 Seed quality control index (0-12) 5.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 3 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 1.9 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 74.87 Rank 12 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 6.0 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 79.99 Rank 7 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 15 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.0 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 5.2 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 3 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 5.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 0.5 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 7.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 2 MACHINERY | DTF Score 74.18 Rank 10 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 0.5 Tractor operation index (0-5) 2.0 WATER | DTF Score 58.53 Rank 27 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 10 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 3.5 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 18.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 4.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 11.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) 11 Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) 0.5 ICT | DTF Score 77.78 Rank 12 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 7.0 FINANCE | DTF Score 51.19 Rank 30 Branchless Banking 237 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 0.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 6.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 6.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. ZAMBIA ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOWER MIDDLE INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 69.36 16 Fertilizer 52.29 39 Machinery 35.01 46 Finance 66.22 14 Markets 45.92 50 Transport 66.59 23 Water 67.93 16 ICT 61.11 22 SEEDa | DTF Score 69.36 Rank 16 MARKETS | DTF Score 45.92 Rank 50 Plant breeding index (0-10) 8.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 10.3 Variety registration index (0-8) 5.5 Plant protection index (0-8) 2.0 Time to register new variety (days) 544 Agricultural trade index (0-9) 5.0 Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 70.1 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 4 Seed quality control index (0-12) 8.0 Time to export agricultural goods (days) 9 Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 2.4 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 52.29 Rank 39 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 2.9 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 66.59 Rank 23 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 210 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 4.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 226.6 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 46 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.5 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 4.2 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 2.5 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 6.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 1 MACHINERY | DTF Score 35.01 Rank 46 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 7.8 Tractor operation index (0-5) 0.5 Time to register a tractor (days) 16 WATER | DTF Score 67.93 Rank 16 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 7.6 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 22.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 0.3 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 12.0 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 61.11 Rank 22 Tractor import index (0-5) 5.0 ICT index (0-9) 5.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 66.22 Rank 14 238 Branchless Banking Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 3.8 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 5.0 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 6.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 5.0 Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 4.0 a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. ZIMBABWE ]hЈ]+YD%Y. LOW INCOME DTF score Rank Seed 69.65 15 Fertilizer 61.86 29 Machinery 59.81 20 Finance 38.75 49 Markets 52.99 42 Transport 62.27 29 Water 52.28 31 ICT 38.89 52 SEEDa | DTF Score 69.65 Rank 15 MARKETS | DTF Score 52.99 Rank 42 Plant breeding index (0-10) 10.0 Producer organizations index (0-13) 7.5 Variety registration index (0-8) 4.0 Plant protection index (0-8) 2.0 Time to register new variety (days) 607 Agricultural trade index (0-9) No data Cost to register new variety (% income per capita) 41.2 Documents to export agricultural goods (number) 1 Seed quality control index (0-12) 8.5 Time to export agricultural goods (days) No data Cost to export agricultural goods (% income per capita) 1.2 FERTILIZER | DTF Score 61.86 Rank 29 Fertilizer registration index (0-7) 4.4 TRANSPORT | DTF Score 62.27 Rank 29 Time to register a new fertilizer product (days) 15 Trucking licenses and operations index (0-11) 5.5 Cost to register a new fertilizer product (% income per capita) 15.9 Time to obtain trucking licenses (days) 5 Quality control of fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cost to obtain trucking licenses (% income per capita) 14.7 Importing & distributing fertilizer index (0-7) 3.0 Cross-border transportation index (0-9) 4.0 Time to obtain cross-border license (days) 7 MACHINERY | DTF Score 59.81 Rank 20 Cost to obtain cross-border license (% income per capita) 17.6 Tractor operation index (0-5) 4.5 WATER | DTF Score 52.28 Rank 31 COUNTRY TABLES Time to register a tractor (days) 3 Cost to register a tractor (% income per capita) 18.8 Integrated water resource management index (0-29) 18.0 Tractor testing and standards index (0-8) 4.7 Individual water use for irrigation index (0-20) 8.5 Time to obtain type approval (days) N/A Cost to obtain type approval (% income per capita) N/A ICT | DTF Score 38.89 Rank 52 Tractor import index (0-5) 4.0 ICT index (0-9) 3.5 FINANCE | DTF Score 38.75 Rank 49 Branchless Banking 239 Agent banking index (0-5) 0.0 E-money index (0-4) 0.0 Movable Collateral Warehouse receipts index (0-5) 3.5 Doing Business - getting credit index (0-8) 5.0 Non-bank Lending Institutions a. The indicators apply to the formal seed system only. Recent research MicroĔnance institutions index (0-7) 4.0 estimates that 77.3% of the seed used by farmers in Zimbabwe in 2009 were sourced in the informal seed sector. (McGuire, S. and Sperling, L., 2016. Seed Financial cooperatives index (0-7) 3.0 systems smallholder farmers use. Food Security, 8(1), pp.179-195.) Local Experts GLOBAL KWS Fruit Armenia OJSC Prudence CJSC Hovik Hovhannisyan ªâ³–‰= «‰ÅD íþÓâ =³Ë‰«â‰³Ì Nerses Aghababyan ƳІc Å –ÓËs³ý‰ ÅÅІCc] AGCO Merck Animal Health ]ß –C‰æ°== Ralf Iirikyan C â³‰Å=íœϡ Vladimir Akopov Axiata Group Berhad Ministry of Transport and Unitrans Communication Bayer Animal Health Monsanto Heghine Armenyan Arman Karapetyan Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Oikocredit Alvina Avagyan Armenia Tree Project Health GmbH Olam International Lucineh Kassarjian Fruit Armenia OJSC Cargill One Acre Fund Anna Avagyan CARD Agro Service Artak Khachatryan  Ìí³Å=‰þ Seed Co ACBA Credit Agricole Bank CJSC ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ– Ìí âÓª]Ó³ÅϜ Ceva Santé Animale Sociedad Química y Minera Angelika Baghramyan Agrochemistry and Choong Ang Vaccine (SQM) Melioration Agrarian Farmer’s Association Samvel Kroyan =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ Soil Health Consortia for of Armenia CIRAD Eastern and Southern Africa Hrachia Berberyan â퉫âÓ== Arthur Ktrakyan Comité Européen Syngenta Center for Agribusiness and des groupements de Rural Development (CARD) ]%.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉ÅhJ== The Regional Environmental Sergey Chakhmakhchyan Arsen Kuchukyan constructeurs du machinisme Center for Central and Eastern agricole (CEMA) Europe (REC) ]%.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉ÅhJ== ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ– Ìí âÓª]Ó³ÅϜ ComCashew/GIZ Hovhannes Chamsaryan Agrochemistry and Tractors and Farm Equipment Melioration Deutsche Gesellschaft =íœϡ + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Albert Markosyan für Internationale Rajiv Gandhi Trammo ]=Ó«³æí³–æ Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) Д&â  Ì=‰œЕ== Davit Marutyan UNDP Tigran Gharajyan %==‰þ&âÓòß Virbac D‰í³Ó̉Å Ìíâ ªÓâ= «³æʼní³ý  =V³ß â Fruit Armenia OJSC Regulation PIU Yara Gor Gharibyan Gnel Mayilyan Elanco Animal Health Zoetis ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ– Ìí âÓª]Ó³ÅϜ Fruit Armenia OJSC Food and Agriculture Agrochemistry and Elena Mizzoyan ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Organization of the United Melioration Nations Hunan Ghazaryan ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ– Ìí âÓª]Ó³ÅϜ ARMENIA Agrochemistry and Freshfel Europe ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ– Ìíâ Óªâò«‰Ìœ Melioration C=‰þ%³âË Medical Technology Expertise Grata International Anzhela Mkrtchyan (SCDMTE) Armenian State Agrarian HealthforAnimals Lilit Ghazaryan ]ß –C‰æ°== University Ashot Mnatsakanyan + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Euroterm Center for Agribusiness Vahe Ghazaryan Prudence CJSC and Rural Development HM.Clause Edward Mouradian Foundation (CARD) Ministry of Agriculture of the International Co-operative Republic of Armenia Ministry of Agriculture of the Central Bank of Armenia Alliance (ICA) Vardan Ghushchyan Republic of Armenia &â  Ì=‰Ì «â³–òÅíòâ‰Å Artur Nikoyan International Fertilizer Ayele NGO Assistance Association (IFA) Erik Grigoryan câ‰Ìæ=Ó«³æí³–‰ò–‰æòæ== +â‰æ°ÂĄ«³== Egishe Ovannisyan International Fertilizer ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ– Ìí âÓª]Ó³ÅϜ Development Center (IFDC) C Ìí³æ=‰þV= Agrochemistry and Ministry of Agriculture of the Melioration Republic of Armenia International Grain Trade Regional Environmental Robert Grigozyan Anahit Ovsenyan Coalition (IGTC) Centre for the Caucasus 240 Yerevan State University National Academy of Sciences International Road Transport Republic of Armenia Ministry Heghine Hakhverdyan Davit Pipoyan Union (IRU) - Global of Nature Protection Partnership for Sustainable Association of International Prudence CJSC Transport (GPST) ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ– Ìí âÓª Road Carriers of Armenia Karine Pogosyan Agrobiotechnology (AIRCA) International Water Herbert Hambardzumyan Armenia Tree Project Management Institute (IWMI) ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ– Ìí âÓªs « í‰•Å  Alla Sahakyan and Industrial Crops Armenia Tree Project International Women’s Coffee Arthur Harutyunyan Ministry of Agriculture of the Alliance (IWCA) State Committee of Water Republic of Armenia Economy of the Ministry of Healthy Garden Cooperative Samvel Sahakyan John Deere Agriculture of the Republic of Gevorg Harutyunyan Armenia Armenian National University WAVE Foundation Ministry of Agriculture Cabinet Agbantou of Architecture and Anwar Hossain Md. Nasiruzzaman Saïdou Agbantou Construction Vilik Sargsyan Md. Moqbul Hossain Bangladesh Bank Ministère de l’Agriculture, de Abu Farah Md. Nasser l’Elevage et de la Pêche Ayele NGO Mohammad Iqbal Hossain Ludovic Franck Agbayahoun Nane Shahnazaryajn Advance Animal Science Co. =íœϡ Autorité de Régulation S Hossain & Associates Environmental Impact Nazmina des Communications Sanwar Hossain Monitoring Center Electroniques et de la Poste Gayane Shahnazaryan Bangladesh Chemical (ARCEP) ‰æí ẩÌÂ=íœϡ Industries Corporation Géraud-Constant Ahokpossi Ali Reza Iftekhar ]³‰íâ‰Ìæ=Ó«³æí³– MostaĔzur Rahman Patwary Artur Stepanyan Bangladesh Chemical Bénin Gold Cashew Industries = «‰–Ą= «‰ÅÓâßÓâ‰í  Michel Kouvi Akognon Industries Corporation International Center for Tameem Rahman Mohammed Iqbal Agribusiness Research and ‰•³Ì íY‰ĔÂÓòϡʼn•³ Education Gentry Pharmaceuticals Agnila RaĔkou Alabi VÓþ â]Ӗ³‰ÅÌí âßâ³æ æ=íœϡ Vardan Urutyan =³Ë³í œ Md. Nazrul Islam Tuwhidur Rahman Centrale d’Achat des Intrants Karine Yesayan ASA Agricoles (CAIA) S Hossain & Associates Yessoufou Alamon Md. Hamidul Islam Sheikh Rajib Bangladesh Fruits, Vegetables Almo et Fils BANGLADESH & Allied Products Exporters .=íœϡ Mohamed Alitonou Subrata Ranjan Das .=³Ë³í œ Association Direction Générale de l’Eau Md. Monjurul Islam Ministry of Agriculture Tchokpohoué Allomasso Axiata Group Berhad Abdur Razzaque Bangladesh Chemical Djima Aly  Ì«‰ÅJý â栉æ=íœϡ Industries Corporation =‰Åc  â]  œ=³Ë³í œ Monirul Islam M Abdur Razzaque ‰•³Ì íY‰ĔÂÓòϡʼn•³ Rajdhani Enterprise Aum Rockas Amoussouvi Bangladesh Bank Bangladesh Agricultural ‰æít æí]  œæ.̜³‰Výíϡ=íœϡ Nazrul Islam Research Institute &.]Y=&¡Óˉí³áò Ϝ Habib Abdur Rahman Kshirode C Roy Ingénierie et Développement Gentry Pharmaceuticals ‰æí ẩÌÂ=íœϡ S. Judicaël Azon =³Ë³í œ Bangladesh Agricultural NaĔs Ahmed Reajul Islam Research Institute Direction Générale de l’Eau Bangladesh Agricultural Arun Saha Félix Azonsi Bangladesh Chemical Development Corporation Industries Corporation Department of Agricultural Olaogou Phirmin Biaou (BADC) Saidul Islam Extension (DAE) Aziz AKM Abdul Shoumen Saha Cabinet d’avocats de Maître ‰æí ẩÌÂ=íœϡ C «‰V°‰âˉ=³Ë³í œ Chiba Pulchérie Natabou Saiful Islam Bangladesh Agricultural Md. Nurul Alam David Binouyo Research Council International Fertilizer Bangladesh Agricultural Md. Salam Orabank Benin Development Center (IFDC) Research Council Nicole Bopke Ishrat Jahan C³ÅÂĄt‰Ą]°³ß̫߳=³Ì æ S. M. Khorshed Alam ϴVýíϡϵ=íœϡ Orabank Benin C í‰ÅϴVýíϡϵ=íœϡ WAVE Foundation Mohammad Solaiman Hervé Borna Humayun Kabir Mohsin Ali Cϡ]ϡÅ Ą‰Ìí âßâ³æ =íœϡ Université d’Abomey-Calavi Dhaka District Judge Court =‰Åc  â]  œ=³Ë³í œ Md. Mostafa Talukder Augustin Chabossou Hossain Md. Nazmul Karim Mahbub Anam Bangladesh Bank Senaigroup University of Malaya =‰Åc  â]  œ=³Ë³í œ Md. Amir Uddin Senakpon Tadjou Clotoe Mohammad Ershadul Karim Shah Mohammad AreĔn NN Agro Trade Association PEBCo-BETHESDA Raihan Khalid & Associates = «‰–Ą= «‰ÅÓâßÓâ‰í  Md. Nazim Uddin François Coco Abu Raihan M. Khalid Jennifer Ashraf Microcredit Regulatory Université d’Agriculture de Bangladesh Bank Department of Agricultural Authority Kétou Md. Enamul Karim Khan Extension (DAE) Mohammad Yakub Hossain Jean Timothée Claude Codjia Anjan Chandra Mandal Advance Animal Science Co. C³ÅÂĄt‰Ą]°³ß̫߳=³Ì æ CNS-Maïs/PPAAO Bénin INRAB LOCAL EXPERTS =íœϡ + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ ϴVýíϡϵ=íœϡ Romuald A. Dossou Munzur Murshid Khan Rajiv Gandhi Golam Zilani Orabank Benin Bangladesh Rice Research Dr. Kamal Hossain & Modeste Elegbede Institute Associates Moin Ghani Md. Maniruzzaman BENIN Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche HSBC Université d'Abomey-Calavi c° Vâ Ë³ â‰ÌÂ=³Ë³í œ Felix Gbaguidi François de Maricourt Enoch G. Achigan-Dako Shamim Habib Senaigroup Choong Ang Vaccine ComCashew/GIZ Advance Animal Science Co. Romain Gbodogbe =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ William Agyekum Acquah 241 =íœϡ Juver Membrebe Ministère de l’Agriculture, de Aminul Haque Université d'Abomey-Calavi l’Elevage et de la Pêche =‰Åc  â]  œ=³Ë³í œ Appolinaire Adandonon Victorin Gbogbo Gentry Pharmaceuticals Abdul Awal Mintoo =³Ë³í œ Pierre Adisso Antoine Loffa Homeky Lutful Hoque Advance Animal Science Co. =íœϡ CNS-Maïs/PPAAO Bénin INRAB Université d'Abomey-Calavi Md. Sirajul Hoque Ahmed Moinuddin Khandker Adolphe Adjanohoun Carlos A. Houdegbe Moyeenudin Department of Agricultural ComCashew/GIZ Cabinet Agbantou Extension (DAE) ‰æí ẩÌÂ=íœϡ Mary Adzanyo Marcel Hounnou Monir Hosen Usman Rashed Muyeen Cabinet Agbantou ComCashew/GIZ Indacochea & Asociados &=Ó«³æí³–æ]ϡYϡ=ϡÓųý³‰ Silas Hounsounou Rita Weidinger Úrsula Font Silvia Quevedo Agence de Développement de CNS-Maïs/PPAAO Bénin INRAB Entidad Ejecutora de Medio Quintanilla, Soria & Nishizaw la Mécanisation Agricole Chabi Gouro Yallou Ambiente y Agua (EMAGUA) – Soc. Civ. Guy Omer C. Hountondji Ministerio de Medio Ambiente Gabriel Ribera Requena Cajou Bénin Export y Agua (MMAyA) Kesse & Associates Karl Affo Yenakpon María Eugenia Gamboa Nina Fundación PROINPA Kesse Ekwueme Ilodi Wilfredo Rojas Ministère de l’Agriculture, de Deutsche Gesellschaft +=Óòâ³ â l’Elevage et de la Pêche für Internationale C.R. & F. Rojas Abogados Onwuegbu Jiaji Cosme Zinse Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) Diego Fernando Rojas Moreno Humberto Gandarillas Ministère de l’Agriculture, de Universidad Mayor de San Antezana l’Elevage et de la Pêche Simón Guillaume Kimba BOLIVIA + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Ana María Romero Cooperativa de Ahorro y Rajiv Gandhi African Climate Policy Centre Monsanto Bolivia (ACPC) - UN Economic ⡜³íÓ9 æóæD‰ĉ‰â ÌÓϜ=휉ϡ Alejandro Rossi Banco de Desarrollo Commission for Africa Productivo Instituto Nacional de Helvetas Swiss Baba A. Rivaldo Kpadonou Iván Garrón Innovación Agropecuaria y Intercooperation Ministère de l’Agriculture, de Forestal (INIAF) Carlos Saavedra Instituto Nacional de l’Elevage et de la Pêche Innovación Agropecuaria y Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Fundación para el Desarrollo Byll Orou Kperou Gado Forestal (INIAF) Agropecuaria e Inocuidad Tecnológico Agropecuario de Alimentaria (SENASAG) Edwin Iquize Villca Emmanuel Lougbegnon los Valles Sociedad Industrial y Claudia Sainz Institut National des Yara Comercial de Riego y Recherches Agricoles du Salame, Tejada & Asociados Entidad Ejecutora de Medio «â³–òÅíòâ‰]³–â‰=휉ϡ Bénin (INRAB) Soc. Civ. Ambiente y Agua (EMAGUA) – Cesar Iriarte Salaues Toussaint Mikpon Iván Salame Ministerio de Medio Ambiente Deutsche Gesellschaft González-Aramayo Groupement des Exploitants y Agua (MMAyA) Jacques Alcoba Barba für Internationale Agricoles du Bénin Viceministerio de Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) Franck Monkoun Telecomunicaciones Sistemas de Riego Valley S.A. Christopher Klinnert Ariel Salvatierra AgroBénin Isaac Alfaro &=Ó«³æí³–æ]ϡYϡ=ϡÓųý³‰ Hervé Nankpan Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural Universidad Mayor de San Fabrizio Leigue Rioja y Tierras Cabinet d’avocats de Maître Simón Indacochea & Asociados Lucio Tito Villca Chiba Pulchérie Natabou Mercedes Alvarez Ichín Ma Chiba Pulchérie Natabou William Torrez Sistemas de Riego Valley S.A. Rolando Aparicio CY=ÓÌæòÅíÓâ æ Bioversity International Urenda Abogados S.C. Sergio Diego Martínez Sognigbe N’Danikou Manuel Urenda Vâ ý³í]ϡYϡ=ϡ Calbimonte Ministère de l’Agriculture, de Francisco Balanza Asociación de Proveedores de Deutsche Gesellschaft l’Elevage et de la Pêche Insumos Agropecuarios (APIA) Vâ ý³í]ϡYϡ=ϡ für Internationale Charafa Olahanmi Marco Villarroel Luis Balanza Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) Global Veterinary Agency Hernán Montaño Gonzales Becerra de la Roca Donoso & Carlos Quenum æӖ³‰œÓæ]ϡYϡ=ϡ Estudio Moreno Baldivieso BOSNIA AND ComCashew/GIZ Mauricio Becerra de la Roca Ramiro Moreno Baldivieso HERZEGOVINA ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Mohamed Issaka Salifou Donoso Estudio Moreno Baldivieso Sociedad Industrial y Andrés Moreno Gutiérrez Banking Agency of the =‰•Óâ‰íӳ⠜ЗÌ‰ÅĄæ  Republic of Srpska Régionale et d’Expertise Comercial de Riego y «â³–òÅíòâ‰]³–â‰=휉ϡ Estudio Moreno Baldivieso Sociale ]߉°Ó=‰þJªĔ–  Gonzalo Blanco Luis Moreno Gutiérrez Gansari Sanni Estudio Moreno Baldivieso Ministry of Agriculture, Water Université de Parakou C.R. & F. Rojas Abogados Management and Forestry of José Manuel Canelas Schütt Rodrigo Moreno Gutiérrez Emmanuel Tôn’dénan Sekloka the Federation of Bosnia and Becerra de la Roca Donoso & Deutsche Gesellschaft Herzegovina =‰•Óâ‰íӳ⠜ЗÌ‰ÅĄæ  Eldin Alikadi— æӖ³‰œÓæ]ϡYϡ=ϡ für Internationale Régionale et d’Expertise Ibling Chavarria Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) Sociale h̳ý âæ³íĄÓª‰Ì¿‰=ò‰ Jimmy Navarro Scott Afouda Servais Alix Marina Anti— Universidad Mayor de San Andrés Aagro Consultora Mercados Café logistique Ministry of Foreign Trade and René Chipana Rivera Bolivianos Gabriel Sounouvou Economic Relations of Bosnia Alberto Ospital C.R. & F. Rojas Abogados and Herzegovina Action pour la Promotion des Gorana Baèevi— Sergio José Dávila Zeballos Blackwood Consulting Corp / Initiatives Communautaires Abogados Alidou Takpara Bašo d.o.o. Asociación de Proveedores de Hugo Alvaro Otero Gambarte Insumos Agropecuarios (APIA) Nermin Baèi— Association PEBCo-BETHESDA 242 María Reina Durán Achával Instituto Nacional de Pascal Tamegnon ]߉°Ó=‰þJªĔ–  Innovación Agropecuaria y Cámara de Exportadores Forestal (INIAF) Jesenko Behlilovi— Association PEBCo-BETHESDA Bignon Elvis Espérat Tossa Camex Bolivia lvaro Otondo Maldonado Ministry of Foreign Trade and Beatriz Espinoza Calderón Economic Relations of Bosnia ]].=Ó«³æí³áò  ícâ‰ÌæßÓâí Agrónomo Armando FerruĔno Jaime Palenque and Herzegovina Komabou Tozo Fahro Belko Coqueugniot Orabank Benin D³•ÓÅ=휉ϡ Fundación para el Desarrollo Dorian Pereyra ]‰¿³—œýÓ‰íæ‰%³âˉ Marie-Lydie Vigan Ognjen Bogdani— Tecnológico Agropecuario de Bioversity International los Valles Viceministerio de Telecomunicaciones hІ=.D; Raymond Vodouhe Miguel Florido Slavko Bogdanovi— Gustavo Leandro Pozo Vargas Sjemenarna d.o.o. Esad Mahir &≳̠]Y= Direction Générale des Ivan Boènjak Boureima Bado Ressources en Eau ]‰â‰˜ ý³—‰Ìœ&‰ĉ³• «Óý³— Nadine Naré/Ouérécé Administration of Bosnia and =‰þĄ âæϴ]&=ϵ ]ÓíⳉІ]ϡϡYϡ= Herzegovina for Plant Health Harun Novi— Soumahila Bamba Union Nationale des Protection Producteurs d’Anacarde Mirjana Brzica Ministry of Agriculture, Water Autorité du Bassin de la Volta Eloi Nombré Management and Forestry of Eléonore Bélemlilga Hydro-Engineering Institute the Federation of Bosnia and Cabinet d’Avocats M. Kopiho Sarajevo Herzegovina Fisconsult-Bitié & Associés H.Lamoussa Ouattara Selma engi— Halil Omanovi— Adama Bitié Ministère de l’Agriculture United Nations Development Ziraat Bank Société Nationale et des Aménagements Programme Ensar Osmi— d’aménagement du Territoire Hydrauliques Jovanka Cetkovi— et de l’Equipement Rurale Moussa Ouattara h̳ý âæ³íĄÓª‰Ì¿‰=ò‰ Tassére Bouda United Nations Development Nataèa Paèali— Programme de Renforcement Program CB Énergie œ ʼn&Óòý ẩ̖ =Ӗ‰Å  Raduèka Cupa— ]‰â‰˜ ý³—‰Ìœ&‰ĉ³• «Óý³— Arnaud Chabanne œË³Ì³æíâ‰í³ý ϴVY&=ϵ =‰þĄ âæϴ]&=ϵ Moussa Ouedraogo University of Sarajevo Saida Porovi— Ministère de l’Eau, des Hamid ustovi— Aménagements Hydrauliques Relwendé Marc Ouedraogo Administration of Bosnia and et de l’Assainissement ‰âæsӗ œϡÓϡÓϡ Herzegovina for Plant Health Moustapha Congo Direction Générale de Nikola Daka Protection l’Aménagement du Radenko Radovi— Rémi Coulibaly Territoire et de l’Appui à Ministry of Agriculture, Water la Décentralisation (DGAT) Management and Forestry of ]‰¿³—œýÓ‰íæ‰%³âˉ Association TIN BA Souleymane Ouedraogo the Federation of Bosnia and Aleksandar Saji— Yempabou Coulidiati Herzegovina Société de Développement du ]‰â‰˜ ý³—‰Ìœ&‰ĉ³• «Óý³— =‰‰Ĕ]³â‰;þ³ Ó«Ó=]; Dragana Divkovi— Pôle de Développement de =‰þĄ âæϴ]&=ϵ Boureima Dambre Bagré (Bagrépôle) Administration of Bosnia and Emina Sara˜evi— Yacouba Ouedraogo Société de Commercialisation Herzegovina for Plant Health C;%=³œ â et Transit Protection Fédération Nationale Dċavid Sefjovi— Yaya Dembélé Ivana Djeri— des Industries de Société de Développement du l'Agroalimentaire et de C‰â³—ӆÓϡ=‰þ%³âË University of Sarajevo Pôle de Développement de Transformation du Burkina Amina Djugum Selim _kalji— Bagré (Bagrépôle) (FIAB) Ministry of Foreign Trade and Mamadou Cellou Diallo Dieudonné Pakodtogo Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economic Relations of Bosnia Ministère des Infrastructures, Société Nationale Management of Republic of and Herzegovina du Désenclavement et des d'Aménagement du Territoire Srpska Admir Softi— Transports et de l'Equipement Rurale Nenad Djuki— Pierre Sanon ]߉°Ó=‰þJªĔ–  Mamadou Diallo The Customs Sector of the Emir Spaho + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Centre d’Arbitrage de Indirect Tax Authority Médiation et Conciliation de ]߉°Ó=‰þJªĔ–  Rajiv Gandhi Miro Dċakula Ouagadougou (CAMC-O) Mehmed Spaho Université de Ouagadougou G. Moussa Savadogo + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ ]‰¿³—œýÓ‰íæ‰%³âˉ Amidou Garane Rajiv Gandhi Ministère des Enseignements Dragan Stijak Chambre de Commerce et Secondaire et Supérieur ]‰â‰˜ ý³—‰Ìœ&‰ĉ³• «Óý³— Agricom d.o.o. d’Industrie du Burkina Faso Mahamadou Sawadogo =‰þĄ âæϴ]&=ϵ Murat Sulj— (CCI BF) Adis Gazibegovi— Service national des Djakaridja Gnamou Regional Environmental Semences du Burkina Faso Bios Center for Central and Eastern Institut de l’Environnement Abdoulaye R. Semdé Adis Hodċi— Europe (REC) et de Recherches Agricoles Lejla _uman (INERA) Organisation des +ò泗=‰þJªĔ–  Zacharia Gnankambary Transporteurs Routiers du Nusmir Huski— Agricom d.o.o. Faso (OTRAF) Ministry of Agriculture, Water Mirza Tahirovi— Telecel Faso El Hadj Kassoum K. Simpore Management and Forestry of Philippe Goabga =‰ÌœY «³æíâĄJªĔ– Óªí°  Ministère de l’Agriculture the Federation of Bosnia and LOCAL EXPERTS Sarajevo Municipal Court United Bank for Africa et des Aménagements Herzegovina Ekrem Toèi— Burkina (UBA Burkina) Hydrauliques Alma Imamovi— Innocent K. Hien Mariam Some Transkop doo ]߉°Ó=‰þJªĔ–  Dejan epi— Ministère de l’Agriculture ComCashew/GIZ Admir Jusufbegovi— et des Aménagements Youssoufou Sore AgroMehanika d.o.o. Hydrauliques h̳ý âæ³íĄÓª‰Ì¿‰=ò‰ Ivana Zlopaèa Aline Kaboré Bureau National des Sols Danijela Kondi— ϴhD]J=ϵœòòâ³̉%‰æÓ Banking Agency of the UMECAP Ibrahima Sory Fodié Kébé Federation of Bosnia and BURKINA FASO Ministère de l’Agriculture Herzegovina (FBA) 243 FAGRI de l’Hydraulique et des Edvard Kotori— = ă–ÓÌæòÅí Issaka Kolga Recherches Halieutiques Administration of Bosnia and ComCashew/GIZ Evariste Tapsoba Fisconsult-Bitié & Associés Herzegovina for Plant Health William Agyekum Acquah Akim Dramane Konaté Chambre de Commerce et Protection ComCashew/GIZ d’Industrie du Burkina Faso Sladjana Kreètalica ]ÓíⳉІ]ϡϡYϡ= Mary Adzanyo (CCI BF) Minata Koné Franck Tapsoba AgroDar s.p.z Aldin Kuduzovi— United Bank for Africa Organisation des GGTI Motors Burkina (UBA Burkina) Transporteurs Routiers du Issaka Tapsoba Hydro-Engineering Institute Valentin Akue Faso (OTRAF) Sarajevo Issoufou Maïga Tarik Kupusovi— Pan African Institute for + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ International Fertilizer E@A Consultant Firm Development Rajiv Gandhi Development Center (IFDC) Ham Kimkong Norbert François Tchouaffé Alexis Ntamavukiro Tchiadje PAIOSA - Institutional Institute of Technology of and operational support Association des transporteurs Cambodia (ITC) Ministère de l’Agriculture programme for the internationaux du Burundi Sarann Ly de l’Hydraulique et des agricultural sector (ATIB) Recherches Halieutiques Patrick Henri Eric Ntangaro +]=‰þ%³âËӆÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ Salif Tentica Tayseng Ly ]  œÓϡϜ=íœϡ AgriProFocus Ministère de l’Eau, des Noëlla Isine Jean Paul Nzosaba Choong Ang Vaccine Aménagements Hydrauliques =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ et de l’Assainissement Terimbere Société de Seed Co Juver Membrebe Karim Traore Transport Kasaija Patrick Banage Emmanuel Karikurubu Royal University of Agriculture Ministère de l’Agriculture Bureau Burundais de Sarom Men et des Aménagements Ministère de l’Agriculture et Normalisation de l’Élevage Eric Ruracenyeka Vӆ泉=‰þ%³âË Hydrauliques Sovannith Nget Seydina Oumar Traore Lucien Masabarakiza Chambre Sectorielle des Association for Peace and Transporteurs et Transitaires Ministry of Agriculture, ComCashew/GIZ Forestry and Fisheries Rita Weidinger Human Rights du Burundi Camille Munezero Aimé Rwankineza Uwimana Op Pich =‰‰Ĕ]³â‰;þ³ Ó«Ó=]; Vӆ泉=‰þ%³âË Seydou Soungalo Yameogo Institut des Sciences Ministère de l’Agriculture et Agronomiques du Burundi de l’Élevage Allen Prak ETY GTZ (ISABU) Eliakim Sakayoya Seng Hong Heng Import Jean Pierre Yaméogo Dieudonné Nahimana Banque Commerciale du ăßÓâíӆcâ‰ÌæßÓâíÓϡϜ=íœϡ Chambre de Commerce et Compagnie de Gérance du Burundi (Bancobu) Hi Seng Sam d’Industrie du Burkina Faso Coton Gaspard Sindayigaya Cambodia Development (CCI BF) Pierre Claver Nahimana PAIOSA - Institutional Resource Institute (CDRI) Emmanuel Yoda Sreymom Sam Confédération des and operational support Agro Productions associations des producteurs programme for the Channa Samorn Jonas Yogo agricoles pour le agricultural sector Co-operative Association of développement (CAPAD) Jorre Vleminckx Direction Générale des Cambodia (CAC) Jean Marie Ndayishimiye Aménagements et du Vong Sarinda Développement de l’Irrigation Ministère de l’Eau, de (DGADI) l’Environnement, de CAMBODIA German Cooperative and Raiffeisen Confederation Adolphe Zangre l’Aménagement du Territoire Axiata Group Berhad (DGRV) Cambodia et de l’Urbanisme Partenariat National de l’Eau Hardy Schneider Emmanuel Ndorimana ]³í°³æ‰Â=‰þÓªĔ–  Léila Nakié Zerbo RMA Group (Cambodia) Ministère de l’Agriculture et Telecommunication Regulator United Bank for Africa Michael Sela Keo de l’Élevage of Cambodia (TRC) Burkina (UBA Burkina) Schadrack Nduwimana Kong Hour Rice Mill Import SaĔatou Zonou Ministry of Agriculture, ăßÓâíÓϡϜ=íœϡ ]J&]c=;³â³Ë³âÓ Forestry and Fisheries Leanhour Seng Samuel Nibitanga Saruth Chan BURUNDI Société de Commercialisation Angkor Green Investment and Kong Hour Rice Mill Import ăßÓâíÓϡϜ=íœϡ des Intrants Agricoles et des  ý ÅÓßË ÌíÓϡϜ=íœϡ ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Ministère de l’Eau, de Thyse Seng Services Divers (SOCEASED) Sopheak Chan l’Environnement, de Fiston Nikiza Amru Rice (Cambodia) l’Aménagement du Territoire Ministry of Agriculture, ÓϡϜ=íœϡ et de l’Urbanisme Christian Aid Forestry and Fisheries Saran Song Emery Ninganza Sinh Chao •=³ý ]ÓÅòí³ÓÌæ Eloge Bapfunya Amret Service du Catalogue National Ministry of Agriculture, Seng Sophin Pou Sovann des espèces et variétés Forestry and Fisheries CòĄ‰Ì«Ó=‰þ%³âË végétales Saintdona Chea °òÌ«ßÓâc‰³Ì«ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Jean-Claude BarakamĔtiye Désiré Niragira Chung Por Taing One Acre Fund Amret •=³ý ]ÓÅòí³ÓÌæ Ly Cheapiseth Multico MS (Cambodia) Co., Leger Bruggeman Brice Niyondiko =íœϡ Autorité de Régulation de la Cambodia Trucking Hartono Tiodora MUTEC Filière Café (ARFIC) Association (CAMTA) Fabien Niyongere Bayon Heritage Holding Marius Bucumi Sok Chheang &âÓòßÓϡϜ=íœϡ PAIOSA - Institutional Projet d’Appui à Ministry of Agriculture, Chan Vannak and operational support ÅЗ.Ìí Ìæ³Ĕ–‰í³ÓÌ íŽʼn Forestry and Fisheries programme for the %= Valorisation Agricoles du Meng Chhun agricultural sector Daniel Wein Burundi (PAIVA-B) Etienne Niyonzima + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Daniel Burinkio 244 Rajiv Gandhi = VâÓ«â‰ËË D‰í³Ó̉ÅßÓòâ International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) la Sécurité Alimentaire et National Bank of Cambodia CAMEROON le Développement Rural de Bomakara Heng Leone Comin Advans Cameroun S.A l’Imbo et du Moso FSTE Fonds de Solidarité Gérard Niyungeko Vӆ泉=‰þ%³âË &³ª‰Ë‰]Y= des Travailleurs de Pagnawat Heng Banque de la République du Ministère de l’Elevage, des l’Enseignement Burundi UNDP Bernard Désiré Ntavumba Pêches et des Industries Simplice Nsabiyumva Phearanich Hing Animales Ministère de l’Agriculture et Ahmadou Alkaissou Emmanuel Nshimirimana Bun & Associates de l’Élevage Sophealeak Ing Prosper Dodiko Centre National d'Etudes Cameroon Universidad de Concepción Instituto Nacional et d'Experimentation du  Ìíòâ³ÓÌ=‰þ&âÓòß Jose Luis Arumi de Investigaciones Machinisme Agricole Carl Mbeng Agropecuarias (INIA) Raphael Ambassa-kiki Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero Fernando Ortega African Cocoa & Coffee (SAG) Albert Apan Farmers’ Marketing Rodrigo Astete Rocha José Manuel Ortíz Alonso Organization - ACCFMO Conseil Interprofessionnel Des Sylvanus Ngene Nekenja Grasty Quintana Majlis & Cía. Ministerio de Agricultura Societes D’Assainissement Au Catalina Baeza Rodrigo Pérez Cameroun (CISAC) Pierre Marie Ngnike Ndjib Bahoya Bahamondez, Alvarez & Francisco Pichott IRAD - Institut de  « âæ=휉ϡ  Ìíòâ³ÓÌ=‰þ&âÓòß recherche agricole pour le Felipe Bahamondez Grasty Quintana Majlis & Cía. Carine Bella Foe développement Hugo Prieto Eddy Léonard Ngonkeu Barros & Errázuriz Abogados Jing & Partners Pedro Pablo Ballivian Searle Bahamondez, Alvarez & Mangaptche Bayee Besong  « âæ=휉ϡ GIC AGRIPO - Agriculteurs Ministerio de Agricultura Cynthia Provoste Comité des Pesticides Professionnels du Cameroun Carlos Barrientos d’Afrique Centrale Philippi Prietocarrizosa & Uría Adeline Ngo-Samnick María Paz Pulgar Benoît Bouato Brokering Abogados GIC AGRIPO - Agriculteurs Marlene Brokering  Ìíòâ³ÓÌ=‰þ&âÓòß Schumacher JĔ–³Ì‰œ æíòœ³ÓæĄVÓÅµí³–‰æ Professionnels du Cameroun Agrarias (ODEPA) Keseena Chengadu Emilienne Ngo-Samnick ‰â ĄĄµ‰ϡ=휉ϡ Eduardo Ramirez Express Cargo Sarl ° œ ÓÓß â‰í³ý h̳ÓÌ=íœϡ Guillermo Carey Benga Nomen Christopher ‰â ĄĄµ‰ϡ=휉ϡ (CHEDE) Julio Recordon Francisco Caroca Diaz Michael Njume Ebong Yannick Wilfreid Djemeni Alessandri Abogados Ministerio del Medio ‰‰í –°C=íœϡ Ambiente National d'Etudes et Felipe Cousiño Hauxstable Nomen d'Experimentation du Jaime Rovira Machinisme Agricole Araya & Cía. Abogados GIC AGRIPO - Agriculteurs Georges Ela Ela Inés De Ros Casacuberta ‰â ĄĄµ‰ϡ=휉ϡ Professionnels du Cameroun Miguel Saldivia Pascal Nondjock POCH Centre National d'Etudes et d'Experimentation du Romina Echaíz Transportes Cono Sur y Cía. Union Bank of Cameroon Machinisme Agricole ]ϡ=ϡ Victor Noumoue Cubillos Evans Abogados Ernest Ela Evina Oscar Aurelio Santamaria Rafael Fernández Osses ų̳áò s í=‰%‰òÌ ò  Ìíòâ³ÓÌ=‰þ&âÓòß Centre Ministerio de Agricultura Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero Leopoldo Jeremias Esesa Mba Françoise Chantal Ntsama Rodrigo Figueroa (SAG) Ada Ayangma Gajardo & Rodríguez Alvaro Sepúlveda Luque  Ìíòâ³ÓÌ=‰þ&âÓòß Comité des Pesticides Abogados ‰â ĄĄµ‰ϡ=휉ϡ William Fonkeng d’Afrique Centrale Patricio Gajardo Alfonso Silva Salomon Nyassé Fimex International SA + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Cooperativa de Riego Christian Fosso Pan African Institute for Rajiv Gandhi Cristian Soto Development Ministère de l’Elevage, des Norbert François Tchouaffé Pamela Grandon Universidad de Chile Pêches et des Industries Tchiadje Gerardo Soto Mundaca Animales German Illanes Zéphyrin Fotso Kamnga Institut de Recherches DIAgua Derecho e Ingeniería Araya & Cía. Abogados Géologiques et Minières Alejandra Tagle + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ del Agua (IRGM) Rajiv Gandhi Pablo Jaeger Cousiño Fantong Wilson Yetoh Marcel Thevenot - Sills Ministère de l’Agriculture et Pablo Manríquez León International Institute of Alessandri Abogados du Développement Rural Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Alicia Undurraga Pellegrini François Gandji Ing. Recursos Naturales Cameroon Renovables Martin Yemefack ‰â ĄĄµ‰ϡ=휉ϡ Albert Ichakou Denisse Márquez Rafael Vergara Jing & Partners Zangue and Partners ‰â ĄĄµ‰ϡ=휉ϡ Serges Zangue Grasty Quintana Majlis & Cía. Paul T. Jing Eduardo Martin Lucy Young LOCAL EXPERTS =Dsc GHR Consulting Universidad de Chile Emmanuel Zogo Araya & Cía. Abogados Jean-Philippe Kazi Eduardo Martínez Gabriela Zepeda Zangue and Partners ‰â ĄĄµ‰ϡ=휉ϡ Bertrand Kuimo CHILE Raúl Mazzarella COLOMBIA Transport Expert Ministerio de Agricultura Christophe Magloire Lessouga Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG) Víctor Medina Federación Nacional de Etoundi Cafeteros de Colombia Soquimich Comercial S.A. SQM ‰â ĄĄµ‰ϡ=휉ϡ Agence de Régulation des Felipe Meneses Instituto Colombiano Télécommunications Agropecuario (ICA) 245 Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero Jean René Loumou Nono (SAG) Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero Alejandra Aburto (SAG) Ministerio de Transporte Projet d’Amélioration de la Roberto Mir Competitivité Agricole Aurora Amigo Vasquez Yara Guy Parfait Maga Brokering Abogados Araya & Cía. Abogados Angelina Morales Asociación Nacional de Comité des Pesticides Jorge Arab Médicos Veterinarios de d’Afrique Centrale Araya & Cía. Abogados Colombia (AMEVEC) Josian Edson Maho Yalen Araya & Cía. Abogados Sebastián Norris Víctor Acero Matías Araya Evelyne Mandessi Bell Daniela Olfos .Ìæí³íòíÓ& Ó«âŠĔ–Ó«òæíµÌ =‰þ%³âË Codazzi Evelyne Mandessi Bell Germán Darío lvarez Lucero Garrigues Superintendencia Financiera Philippi, Prietocarrizosa y Uría Ministère des Ressources Nicolás Angulo Rodríguez de Colombia Javier Valle Zayas Animales et Halieutiques Samir Alejandro Kiuhan Cisse Diarra Óˠ△‰Åœ Y³ «Óæ=휉ϡ Vásquez Invasa Maquinaria S.A.S. Felipe Ardila Jorge Vargas ANASEMCI - Association =V³ß âC‰âíµÌ ĉD ³â‰ nationale des semenciers de Philippi, Prietocarrizosa y Uría Abogados Brigard & Urrutia Abogados Côte d’Ivoire Isabella Ariza Murillo Andrea Londoño S.A.S Azi Leopold Diby Lina Vargas Fabian Bedoya Ministerio de Ambiente y Ministère de l’Agriculture Desarrollo Sostenible Holland & Knight Kouadio Jean Esse Corporación Ecoversa José Vicente Zapata Lugo Margarita Lopera Javier Tomás Blanco Freja Syndicat National des Ministerio de Agricultura y María Jimena Zuluaga Villegas Transporteurs Professionnels Garrigues Desarrollo Rural de Côte d’Ivoire Roberto Borrás Polanía Nelson Enrique Lozano Castro Soumaila Fofana Ministerio de Ambiente y Jhon Mármol CÔTE D’IVOIRE + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Desarrollo Sostenible Advans Rajiv Gandhi Ximena Carranza Hernández =V³ß âC‰âíµÌ ĉD ³â‰ Abogados BK & Associés Proparcom Geomarine Ingenieros Camilo Martínez Beltrán Elisabeth Aho Aude Viviane Goulivas-Calle Consultores Andrés Felipe Carvajal CasaToro Automotriz S.A. BK & Associés Générale de Produits Hernan Mejía Agricoles (GPA) Simplice Houphouët Parra Rodríguez Sanín S.A.S. Alejandro Castilla Kouamé Ahoussou Brigard & Urrutia Abogados Université Félix Houphouët- S.A.S PolyPompes Ivoire Boigny Parra Rodríguez Sanín S.A.S. Sergio Michelsen Aka Alexandre Allouko Jean Patrice Jourda Carlos Andrés Castilla Universidad Distrital Francisco Ministère d’Etat et de Ministère des Ressources =V³ß âC‰âíµÌ ĉD ³â‰ José de Caldas l’Agriculture, Direction des Animales et Halieutiques Abogados Ivonne Astrid Moreno Horta Productions Vivrières et de la Louis Ketremindie Juan Sebastián Celis Sécurité Alimentaire Parra Rodríguez Sanín S.A.S. Centre National de Recherche Federacion Nacional de Bertin Anon Francisco Javier Morón López Agronomique (CNRA) Comerciantes de Colombia Olam Ivoire Sarl Edmond Kouablan KofĔ ϴ%D=Jϵ 9Óæ¡=ÅÓ⠜‰‰Ë‰–°ÓӆÓ Sara Cristina Illidge Augustin Apetey Juan Manuel Ojeda Oikocredit Générale de Produits Yves Komaclo Cruz & Asociados Ministerio de Ambiente y Julián Camilo Cruz González Agricoles (GPA) Desarrollo Sostenible Société Coopérative Kamel Assaf Carlos Augusto Ospina Bravo Anouanzè-Douekoue Asociación Colombiana de Générale de Produits Kan Marcel Konan Propiedad Intelectual .Ìæí³íòíÓ& Ó«âŠĔ–Ó«òæíµÌ Juan Carlos Cuesta Quintero Agricoles (GPA) Codazzi Ministère des Transports Yannick Assouma Julio Cesar Palacios Rodríguez Yao Godefroy Konan Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Agence Nationale d’Appui au Johnier Pavas Ministère d’Etat et de Daniel Debouck Développement Rural l’Agriculture, Direction des Centro Internacional de Evrard Yao Attoh Productions Vivrières et de la Maria Luisa Eslava Agricultura Tropical BK & Associés Sécurité Alimentaire Michael Peters Lucien Kouamé Asociación Colombiana de Eric Bably Propiedad Intelectual Ministerio de Ambiente y ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Afrique Emergence et Générale de Produits Raisha Gamba Desarrollo Sostenible Investissements SA Agricoles (GPA) Andrés Pinilla Olivier Kouamé + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Fahan Bamba Rajiv Gandhi Instituto de Investigación y Ministère de l’Environnement, Syndicat National des Desarrollo en Agua Potable, Transporteurs Professionnels Garrigues de la Salubrité Urbaine et du Saneamento Básico y de Côte d’Ivoire Camilo Gantiva Hidalgo Développement Durable Conservación del Recurso Koné Mery Marina Céline Bayeba Philippi, Prietocarrizosa y Uría Hídrico Juan Fernando Gaviria Inés Restrepo Tarquino INADIS (Inter Afrique Negoce Côte d’Ivoire Agri Guzmán Et Distribution) Jean Thierry Oura Parra Rodríguez Sanín S.A.S. Jules Bayile Brigard & Urrutia Abogados Bernardo Rodríguez Ossa BK & Associés S.A.S CFAO Equipement Eléonore Pokou Ministerio de Ambiente y Juan Camilo Gómez Kahou Boehi Bi Desarrollo Sostenible Oikocredit Ivanagro S.A. Paula Andrea Rojas Olam Ivoire Sarl Sol§ne Prince Agbodjan Fredy Alberto Gómez Arouna Coulibaly Garrigues Oikocredit Bustamante Adriana Rojas Tamayo Ministère de l’Economie Frank Rubio Ministerio de Ambiente y Numérique et de la Poste Brigard & Urrutia Abogados Orange Desarrollo Sostenible Ibrahim Coulibaly S.A.S Lacina Soumahoro Francisco Gómez Montes 246 Esteban Rubio Ministère de l’Economie Gelber Gutiérrez Palacio Commission de l’Union Numérique et de la Poste Corporación Ecoversa Economique et Monétaire Henri Danon Asociación Nacional de Gloria Helena Sanclemente Ouest Africaine (UEMOA) Empresas Transportadoras Zea Cabinet Jean-François Assiongbon T¤ko-Agbo de Carga por Carretera Chauveau Instituto Colombiano Ministère de l’Environnement, (ASECARGA) Guillaume Dauchez Agropecuário (ICA) de la Salubrité Urbaine et du Jairo Herrera Murillo Mc Allister Tafur Garzón Ministère de l’Economie Développement Durable =V³ß âC‰âíµÌ ĉD ³â‰ Numérique et de la Poste Yannick Alain Troupah 9Óæ¡=ÅÓ⠜‰‰Ë‰–°ÓӆÓ Abogados Dadie Roger Dede Gustavo Tamayo Ministère des Transports Luis Eduardo Hoffmann Delvalle Roger Tia Yangba Ministère de l’Environnement, ITD Trade Association for the Matouk Bassiouny Ministry of Water, Irrigation de la Salubrité Urbaine et du Danish Road Transport of Mahmoud Bassiouny and Energy Développement Durable Goods Kiĕe Alemayehu Kahantayé Aude Zeta Jacob Christian Nielsen Hegazy & Associates Muhammad El Haggan Ethiopian Institute of Yara Agricultural Research Mogens Nielsen ]°‰Å‰Â‰ÌĄ=‰þJªĔ–  Melaku Alemu DENMARK Emad El Shalakany Danish Transport and Habtamu Assefa Danish AgriFish Agency Construction Agency Agricultural Engineering Jan Persson Research Institute Ministry of Agriculture and Danish Agro Ahmed El-Behery Natural Resources Holst, Advokater Weldehawariat Assefa Yara National Water Research Sanaz Ranjbaran Center Ministry of Environment, Technical University of Danish Energy Agency Talaat El-Gamal Forest and Climate Change Denmark (DTU) Rikke Rosenmejer Addissu Gebremedhin Atsibha Peter Bauer-Gottwein c‰°ÓòÌ=‰þJªĔ–  DAKOFO (The Danish Grain- Ahmed Elkady Ethiopia Commodity Exchange DAKOFO (The Danish Grain- and Feed-Trade Association) Abenet Bekele and Feed-Trade Association) Ministry of Agriculture and Claus Saabye Erichsen AsbjÛrn BÛrsting =‰ÌœY –ʼnˉí³ÓÌ Ministry of Agriculture and âòòÌӆ+¿ ¿Å =‰þ%³âË Islam Farahat Natural Resources Danish Medicines Agency Jakob Echwald Sevel Abebaw Belay AsbjÛrn Brandt ]°‰â‰þĄӆ]‰â°‰Ì=‰þ%³âË Danish AgriFish Agency Ahmad Farghal Moenco Quality Machinery Danish AgriFish Agency JÛrgen SÛgaard Hansen Branch Merete Buus Baker & McKenzie Ashetu Biruk Danish AgriFish Agency Aya Fasih Technical University of Maria Lillie Sonne International Center for Denmark (DTU) + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Agricultural Research in the Claus Davidsen Aalborg University (AAU) Rajiv Gandhi Dry Areas (ICARDA) Esben Munk Sorensen Zewdie Bishaw Johansson & Kalstrup Baker & McKenzie Flemming Davidsen Holst, Advokater Mohamed Ghannam HD Ethiopian Coffee Trading Jakob SÛrensen V= Danish Seed Council ]°‰Å‰Â‰ÌĄ=‰þJªĔ–  Nils Elmegaard Bech-Bruun Dawit Daniel Nada Hafez Per Speyer Mellemgaard Ethiopian Agricultural Aalborg University (AAU) El Waha Mining & Fertilizers - Stig Enemark Gorrissen Federspiel Business Corporation Wamfert Michael Steen Jensen Maru Degefa Ahmed Hamdy El Maadawy + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Rajiv Gandhi YÛÌÌ ӆ=ò̜«â Ì National Bank of Ethiopia Hegazy & Associates Andreas Tamasauskas Solomon Desta Walid Hegazy Danish Society for Nature Conservation YÛÌÌ ӆ=ò̜«â  Ethiopian Biodiversity Agricultural Engineering Susanne Herfelt Ian Tokley Institute Research Institute Motuma Didita Rania Ibrahim Geological Survey of Denmark Horten and Greenland (GEUS) Ethiopian Road Transport Advokatpartnerselskab Orange Egypt Anker Lajer HÛjberg Authority Mads Broe Trustrup Sherif Issa Yibeltal Dubale Horten ]°‰â‰þĄӆ]‰â°‰Ì=‰þ%³âË Advokatpartnerselskab International Water Omar Khattab Poul Hvilsted EGYPT, ARAB REP. Management Institute (IWMI) Baker & McKenzie Teklu Erkossa =³Ë‰«â‰³Ìϴ ÌˉâÂϵ ]°‰â‰þĄӆ]‰â°‰Ì=‰þ%³âË Ahmed Omar Thomas Bisgaard Jacobsen + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ United Hybrid International Ministry of Agriculture and Rajiv Gandhi The Danish Nature Agency =‰ÌœY –ʼnˉí³ÓÌ Eva Juul Jensen Nacita Company International Water Shaza Omar Naguib Abadir Management Institute (IWMI) Geological Survey of Denmark c‰°ÓòÌ=‰þJªĔ–  Gebrehaweria Gebregziabher and Greenland (GEUS) Fayoum University Maged Said Lisbeth Flindt JÛrgensen Mahmoud Mohamed Ali Ethiopian Coffee Growers and Abdel-Azim Nubafarm Exporters Association LOCAL EXPERTS ;‰Ëˠ≜ýÓ‰í Ìϧ=‰þ%³âË Mohamed Shaban Yilma Gebrekidan Poul Schmith Arab Company for Agricultural Jakob Kamby Production ]°‰Å‰Â‰ÌĄ=‰þJªĔ–  Moenco Quality Machinery Ahmed Abdelhamid Khaled Sherif Branch COWI A/S Alehegn Gebru Ulf Kjellerup Tanta Motors Soliman, Hashish & Partners Amr Aboufreikha Frédéric Soliman Civet Coffee International Danish AgriFish Agency Trading Enterprise Birgitte Lund c‰°ÓòÌ=‰þJªĔ–  c‰°ÓòÌ=‰þJªĔ–  Teklay Glibanos Moamen Adel Nermine Tahoun Bech-Bruun Walid Aly Ministry of Water, Irrigation Louise Lundsby Wessel Hegazy & Associates and Energy 247 Tarek Aoun Phil Zager Semunesh Golla Danish Society for Nature Conservation AGREEN - Green Egypt for Addis Ababa University Rikke Lundsgaard Agricultural Investment Co Seifu Kebede Gurmessa Ali Ashour ETHIOPIA Søholt Gods International Water Inger Mikkelsen Agricultural Engineering Ethiopian Agricultural Management Institute (IWMI) Research Institute Transformation Agency (ATA) Fitsum Hagos Bech-Bruun Samar Attaher Birkneh Abebe Jes Anker Mikkelsen International Water United Hybrid International Ministry of Agriculture and Management Institute (IWMI) Mostafa Badr Natural Resources Alemseged Tamiru Haile Mulugeta Abera International Water Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Environment and Environmental Protection Management Institute (IWMI) Natural Resources Protection, Natural Resources Protection, Agency (EPA) Amare Haileslassie Water Resources Management Water Resources Management Florence Agyei-Martey Service Service Haftom Kesete Kahsay Eliso Barnovi Mariam Makarova =y Akinloye Ajayi Teshome Gabre-Mariam Georgian Trans Expedition Georgian National Ó‰Ì=‰þJªĔ–  =íœϡ Communications Commission William Amanfu Mahlet Kassa Levan Berdzenishvili Tamar Marghania Ministry of Food and Ethiopian Agricultural ==‰þJªĔ–   –° âí==V Agriculture, Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) Nino Bolkvadze Nicola Mariani Engineering Services Samuel Keno Directorate National Food Agency Aleksandr Moseshvili Kate Amegatcher Ministry of Environment, Asmat Buachidze Forest and Climate Change òæ³Ì ææ= «‰Åò⠉òϴ=ϵ Environmental Protection Selam Kidane Abebe ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ–Y æ ‰â–° Ìí âÓª Maya Mtsariashvili Agency (EPA) Agriculture Daniel S. Amlalo Ethiopian Agricultural Mirian Chokheli Association for Farmers Transformation Agency (ATA) Rights Defense, AFRD-EUFRAS Ministry of Food and Henok Melaku National Food Agency Georgia Agriculture (MoFA) Levan Dumbadze Kakha Nadiradze Imoro Amoro Bekure Melesse JSC MFO Crystal Ethic Capital Water Resources Commission Ministry of Water, Irrigation Malkhaz Dzadzua Levan Nanskani Ben Yah Ampomah and Energy Bayu Nuru Mohammed c â≠DÓýÓ== National Food Agency National Communications David Egiashvili Bezhan Rekhviashvili Authority Kedir Musema Robert Apaya .æ≫⠠Ì=íœϡ .æ≫⠠Ì=íœϡ Ethiopian Institute of Irakli Eradze Ilya Shapira ϡϡ=ϡϡϴæí ÅÅ ßß³‰° Agricultural Research = «³æʼní³ý ÓòÌæ Åϵ Tilahun Nebi .æ≫⠠Ì=íœϡ C –°‰Ì³ĉ‰í³ÓÌ== Estelle Appiah Levan Gachechiladze Paata Shekeladze Teshome Gabre-Mariam Savanna Seed Services Ó‰Ì=‰þJªĔ–  + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Georgian Farmers’ ÓËß‰ÌĄ=³Ë³í œ Obsa Shiferaw Rajiv Gandhi Association Adingtingah Apullah Patrick Edvard Shermadini Ethiopian Agricultural National Food Agency =y Transformation Agency (ATA) Marina Ghvinepadze EXPERTO Consulting Beverly Asamoah Kefyalew Sisay Keti Sidamonidze  –° âí==V University of Ghana Ethiopian Agricultural Archil Giorgadze Association of Flour Isaac Asante Transformation Agency (ATA) Producers of Georgia Addisu Tadege EXPERTO Consulting Levan Silagava African Fertilizer and Ludovic Girod Agribusiness Partnership IWCA - Ethiopia Chapter Georgian National (AFAP) Emebet Tafesse Bitew National Environmental Communications Commission Isaac Asare Agency Rati Skhirtladze Genet Tassew Gizo Gogichaishvili =y Santa Trans International Soji Awogbade Ministry of Water, Irrigation Agromotors Transport and Energy Akaki Gogsadze Mamuka Tevzadze Joseph Adongo Awuni Sisay Teklu òæ³Ì ææ= «‰Åò⠉òϴ=ϵ =V=‰þ%³âË Robin-Huws Barnes ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Ethiopian Institute of Nino Gotsireli Tamar Tsitsishvili Agricultural Research V‰ÌІªâ³–‰Ì]‰ý³Ì«æӆ=ӉÌæ Fentahun Mengistu Tiruneh =V=‰þ%³âË òæ³Ì ææ= «‰Åò⠉òϴ=ϵ Kwaku D. Berchie Nana Gurgenidze Mariam Vashakidze Bahir Dar University-Institute Ministry of Food and Óª=‰ÌœœË³Ì³æíâ‰í³ÓÌ  –° âí==V FINCA Bank Agriculture (MoFA) Daniel Weldegebriel Ambaye Nana Gvazava Vusal Verdiyev Kyofa Boamah C æĔÌc‰ª ææ ӆææӖ³‰í æ = «‰ÅV‰âíÌ âæææӖ³‰í œ FINCA Bank Kwame Nkrumah University Mekidem Yehiyes ϴ=Vϵ== David Zarandia of Science and Technology, Jaba Gvelebiani Agricultural Engineering YA Coffee Roasters Department Sara Yirga Woldegerima  –° âí==V Emmanuel Y.H. Bobobee Tamar Jikia GHANA JʼnË&°‰Ì‰=³Ë³í œ EXPERTO Consulting Wuni Zaligu Development Eric Asare Botwe GEORGIA Gvantsa Kakhurashvili Association Ziblim Abdul-Karim Ministry of Food & Agriculture, Agrimatco ==‰þJªĔ–  Agricultural Engineering Levan Kantaria SARI - The Savanna International Road and Services Directorate Agricultural Research Institute Transport Union (IRU) òæ³Ì ææ= «‰Åò⠉òϴ=ϵ George K.A. Brantuo Mashark S Abdulai David Khaindrava &c&âÓòß=íœϡ YϡϡӜ¿Ó =‰þJªĔ– æ 248 Ministry of Food and Giorgi Abjandadze  –° âí==V Raymond Codjoe Agriculture (MoFA) Ana Kostava Ebenezer Aboagye National Environmental Ghana Irrigation Development Agency «â³–ÓË== Authority (GIDA) Óò̖³ÅªÓâ]–³ Ìí³Ĕ–‰Ìœ Marine Arabidze Ketevan Kublashvili Francis Danquah Ohemeng Industrial Research (CSIR) Alliance Group Holdings Lawrence Aboagye Misa Darko, Keli-Delataa & Co. Georgian Farmers Union Raul Babunashvili Aieti Kukava John Darko Institute of Agricultural ==‰þJªĔ–  Research + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Ketti Kvartskhava Kwame Afreh-Nuamah Rajiv Gandhi USAID Feed the Future Maxwell Agbenorhevi Environmental Protection V‰ÌІªâ³–‰Ì]‰ý³Ì«æӆ=ӉÌæ Hellenic Telecommunications Ministry of Environment, Agency (EPA) Felix Yartey and Post Commission (EETT) Energy & Climate Change Peace Gbeckor- Kove Ioanna Kontopoulou Vassiliki Maria Tzatzaki Mercer & Company University of Ghana Ebenezer Yaw Gyamerah ;Óòí‰Å³œ³æ=‰þ%³âË V.ATTIS Business Consulting Kwame Gyan Nikos Koritsas =íœϡ Kwame Nkrumah University of Eleftherios Vagenas Centre for Human Rights, Science and Technology Hellenic Agricultural University of Pretoria Eric Yeboah J⫉̳ĉ‰í³ÓÌДCcYЕ DJCJ]=‰þ%³âË Michael Gyan Nyarko Evangelos Korpetis Maria Vastaroucha Foresight Generation Club Seed Producers Association of Albert Yeboah Obeng OTE S.A sâĄæÓßÓòÅÓæ=‰þJªĔ– æ Ghana (SEEDPAG) Ilias Kotsopoulos Socrates Vrysopoulos Thomas Havor Hellagrolip S.A. Greece âÓþÌcâ‰ÌæßÓâíӆ=Ó«³æí³–æ=íœϡ GREECE Theodora Kouloura ;Óòí‰Å³œ³æ=‰þ%³âË Ghassan Husseini Nikos Xenoyiannis Z & A Consulting Engineers Public Power Corporation S.A. National Communications Ioannis Kouvopoulos Greek Biotope / Wetland Authority Rahmata Issahaq-Pelpuo Centre (EKBY) Yara Hellas S.A. GUATEMALA Eftyhia Alexandridou Nikos Kyriakidis M&B Seeds Asociación Gremio Químico Panhellenic Exporters .ų‰æ&ϡ̉«ÌÓæíÓßÓòÅÓæ=‰þ Ben Kemetse Association (PEA) ĔâË Berger, Pemueller & Kimathi & Partners Nikolaos Archontis Persa Lampropoulou Asociados Augustine Kidisil Machinery Importers’ - Hellenic Telecommunications Disagro Maquinaria Kimathi & Partners Representatives’ Association and Post Commission (EETT) (MIRA) GremiAgro Kimathi Kuenyehia Evagelia Liakopoulou Savvas Balouktsis Superintendencia de Bancos Kimathi & Partners Zeus Kiwi SA World Wildlife Fund de Guatemala Sefakor Kuenyehia Christina Manossis Georgios Chasiotis Ministerio de Ambiente y Reindorf Chambers Margaropoulos & Associates - DJCJ]=‰þ%³âË Recursos Naturales Kizzita Mensah ]–³ Ìí³‰= «³æ=‰þ%³âË Georgios Chatzigiannakis Alvaro René Aceituno Ibañez Nikolaos K. Margaropoulos Mercer & Company  ßÓæӆz‰ÌÌÓßÓòÅÓæ=‰þ Semillas S.A. Andrew Mercer Michalopoulou & Associates Firm Jesús Alcázar Andrade Ioanna Michalopoulou Water Resources Commission SoĔa Chatzigiannidou Asociación de Organizaciones Eric Muala National Technical University I.K. Rokas & Partners de los Cuchumatanes of Athens Mercer & Company Maria Demirakou (ASOCUCH) Maria Mimikou Kwabena Nimakoh Sergio Romeo Alonzo Recinos Ministry of Rural Development Geodis Calberson GE Institute of Agricultural and Food Arias & Muñoz Anthony Narlis Research Gerasimos Dendrinos Jorge Luis Arenales de la Roca George Nkansah Oduro Ministry of Rural Development ;&=‰þ%³âË Duwest and Food JʼnË&°‰Ì‰=³Ë³í œ Sotirios Douklias Pedro Arias Maria Oikonomou Kennedy Ntoso ;&=‰þ%³âË Asociación SHARE  ßÓæӆz‰ÌÌÓßÓòÅÓæ=‰þ Kimathi & Partners Elizabeth Eleftheriades David Arrivillaga Firm Sarpong Odame Stefanos Panayiotopoulos Ministry of Rural Development Carrillo & Asociados Plant Protection and and Food Axel Beteta ;Óòí‰Å³œ³æ=‰þ%³âË Regulatory Services Ioannis Fermantzis EfĔe Papoutsi Ministerio de Ambiente y Directorate (PPRSD) - Ghana National Bank of Greece Recursos Naturales Samuel Okyere Incofruit-Hellas Kyriaki Flesiopoulou Maritza Yaneth Campos George Polychronakis Mercer & Company Fuentes Jeffrey Osei Mensah Ministry of Rural Development National Technical University and Food X.=ќͶ•Ó«‰œÓæ of Athens Private Transport Association Maria Fotiadou-Talidourou Alejandro CoĔño Alexandros Psomas of Ghana GEFRA Cordón Ovalle & Asociados Asamoah Owusu-Akyaw I.K. Rokas & Partners LOCAL EXPERTS George Frangistas Carlos Roberto Cordón Ioannis Rokas Ghana Investment Fund for Krumme Electronic Communications + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ ;&=‰þ%³âË Rajiv Gandhi Bufete Olivero S.A. -GIFEC Konstantinos Serdaris Pablo Antonio Coronado Philip Prempeh National and Kapodistrian KEPA-ANEM Bonilla Reindorf Chambers University of Athens Neoklis Stamkos Maria Gavouneli Ministerio de Economía de Kweki Quaynor Ahlijah Ministry of Rural Development Guatemala DJCJ]=‰þ%³âË and Food Maura de Muralles Constantine Hadjiyannakis Komninos Stougiannidis Elizabeth Tetteh Ministerio de Ambiente y 249 Elizabeth Rosebud Afua Alifo National Technical University I.K. Rokas & Partners Recursos Naturales Tetteh of Athens Harris Synodinos Nestor Franciso Fajardo Maria Kapetanaki Herrera JʼnË&°‰Ì‰=³Ë³í œ Cooperative Bank of Karditsa Isaac Sackey ;Óòí‰Å³œ³æ=‰þ%³âË Panagiotis Tournavitis Organismo Internacional Ioannis Kaptanis Regional de Sanidad Ministry of Food and OTE S.A Agropecuaria (OIRSA) Agriculture (MoFA) Margaropoulos & Associates - Nadia Trata Lauriano Figueroa Simeon Salakpi ]–³ Ìí³‰= «³æ=‰þ%³âË Kyriaki Karakasi ;&=‰þ%³âË Especialista en Sostenibilidad Environmental Protection Kimon Tsakiris Ambiental y Agronegocios Agency (EPA) Giovanni Fernando García Lovelace Sarpong Barrios ӳ̫í≜ &ò‰í Ë‰Å‰]ϡ=ϡ Duwest ‰•³Ì í=³æ扜  Hammurabi & Solomon Christian Josué Girón Carreto Armando Soto Salim Succar Shweta Bharti Bufete Olivero S.A. Superintendencia de Bancos Basant Agro Tech Enrique Goicolea de Guatemala Akshay Bhartia Jorge Eduardo Soto Guzmán INDIA Asociación SHARE Specstra Inc. Guillermo González Yc=yІííÓâÌ Ąæ‰í=‰þ Agra Mandi Smita Bhatia Enrique Toledo-Cotera Superintendencia de Bancos Agricultural and Processed National Federation of State de Guatemala Yc=yІííÓâÌ Ąæ‰í=‰þ Food Products Export Cooperative Banks Roberto Giovanni González Enrique Toledo-Fernandez Development Authority Subrahmanyam Bhima (APEDA) Técnica Universal, S.A. (Tecun Raghavendra Birur Kalleshappa Guatemala) & ÓІ° Ë=‰•æ Herver López HAITI Tractors and Farm Equipment Maharashtra State =íœϡ Maquinaria y Equipos S.A. National transport services Agricultural Marketing Board Vijayakumar Browning Miguel Manzo S.A. (NATRANS S.A) National Bank for Agriculture The Fertiliser Association of Instituto de Ciencia y Société de coopération and Rural Development India Tecnología Agrícola (ICTA) pour le développement Tapan Chanda international (SOCODEVI) Odisha State Agriculture María de los Angeles Mérida Marketing Board India Gúzman Truck Out Services c³Ì í‰V°‰âˉVýíϡ=íœϡ SGS India Bufete Olivero S.A. Vipin Chandan Northwater Consulting Maria Haydee Monge Uttar Pradesh State James K. Adamson Nippon Express Agriculture Markets Board Aragón & Aragón Rishi Chauhan Cabinet Jude Baptiste et Lizeth Morales s³Ëí‰=‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æ Associés Ratnagiri Seeds and Farm Ministerio de Ambiente y Jude Baptiste Neeraj Choubey Ankit Trading Company Recursos Naturales Ankit Agarwal ‰•³Ì í=³æ扜  Delhi Test House Ernesto Moscoso Michelle Bien-Aimé Sonia Chugh =‰ă˳c≜³Ì«ÓËß‰ÌĄ Aragón & Aragón Harish Agarwal Jean-Marie Binette Ministry of Road Transport & Pedro Aragón Muñoz University of Delhi Highways Agronomes et Vétérinaires Superintendencia de Bancos Akash Anand Abhay Damle Sans Frontières de Guatemala Marie Bonnard Commissionerate of Karla Gabriela Muñoz National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Agriculture, Maharashtra Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Bufete Olivero S.A. % œ â‰í³ÓÌÓª.̜³‰=íœϡ Krushnarao Deshmukh Resources Naturelles et du Stefano Olivero (NAFED) Développement Rural Pradeep Deshmukh Montès Charles Bhaviya Anand Bufete Olivero S.A. Raúl Andrés Olivero Arroyo Yashodeep Deshmukh Banque de la République ]ĄÌ« Ìí‰.̜³‰=íœϡ d’Haiti Seetharam Annadana &Åӕ³ÓÌ.̜³‰Vâ³ý‰í =³Ë³í œ Serca S.A. Víctor Orantes Robinson Charles Dibyendu Kumar Dey M.V. Kini & Co. Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Nivedita Atre Indian Council of Agricultural Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales Ressources Naturelles et du Research (ICAR) Indian Farmers Fertiliser Olivia Orellana Alas Développement Rural Shiv Kumar Dhyani ÓÓß â‰í³ý =³Ë³í œϴ.%%Jϵ Pierre Frisner Clerveus ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 U.S. Awasthi =ò–ÂÌÓþ‰â«ÓV‰– âæӆ Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Agrícola (ICTA) Darbouco Movers Suryoday Micro Finance Albaro Dionel Orellana Jehan H. Dartigue Vijay Dixit =³Ë³í œ Polanco R Baskar Babu Suryoday Micro Finance Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Ministerio de Agricultura, Ressources Naturelles et du =³Ë³í œ Uttar Pradesh State Ganadería y Alimentación Développement Rural Yogesh Dixit Cooperative Bank Guillermo Austreberto Ortiz Pierre Guito Laurore Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai National Bureau of Plant Aldana Genetic Resources Ministère de l’Agriculture, des M/s. Bal Roadlines Bufete Olivero S.A. Resources Naturelles et du S.C. Dubey Daya Singh Bal Manuel Pérez Développement Rural Alix Jacques .D.=tV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ==V M/s. Bal Roadlines Carrillo & Asociados Sneha Dubey Malkit Bal Mélida Pineda ‰•³Ì í=³æ扜  Nephtalie Jacques Uttar Pradesh Cooperative M/s. Bal Roadlines Ana Gabriela Platero Midence Department Ranjit Singh Bal Foratech Environnement S.C. Dwivedi Frutas Tropicales de Gerald Jean-Baptiste M.K. Exports Guatemala S.A. (FRUTESA) .D.=tV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ==V Manoj Barai Gloria Elena Polanco Banque de la République Varsha G.S. d’Haiti Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Dirección General de Jean Armand Mondelis + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ ÓËß‰ÌĄVâ³ý‰í =³Ë³í œ 250 Transportes Rajiv Gandhi (Mahyco) Alfredo Porres FAO Rajendra Barwale Ankit Trading Company Aloys Nizigiyimana Ministerio de Ambiente y Sunil Garg Indian Council of Agricultural Recursos Naturales Jérôme Pennec Research (ICAR) State Institute for Ricardo Galiazo Serrano Shashikumar Bhalla Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Management of Agriculture Amaya Resources Naturelles et du Mukesh Gautam Trilegal X.=ќͶ•Ó«‰œÓæ Développement Rural Ashish Bhan Translational Research María Isabel Sierra Dávila Emmanuel Prophète Platform for Veterinary V°Ó Ì³ă= «‰Å Duwest Concordia University School Biologicals (TRPVB) Aditya Bhargava Cristina Son Óª=‰þ Dhinakar Raj Gopal Ryan Stoa cCc=‰þVâ‰–í³–  Dòßòâ+ ³«°íæVâ³ý‰í =³Ë³í œ Nisamuddin Khan Indian Farmers Fertiliser Swati Gore Arunesh Kishorepuria ÓÓß â‰í³ý =³Ë³í œϴ.%%Jϵ =c%ÓӜæ=íœϡ Arabinda Roy National Seed Association of Ministry of Agriculture and J.S. Oberoi India Farmers’ Welfare Ministry of Commerce & Kalyan Goswami Ashwani Kumar .D.=tV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ==V Industry, Government of India Shiju P V S.P. Roy All India Transporter’s Welfare Neeraj Associates Association Neeraj Kumar Department of Agriculture Pune District Central R.K. Gulati and Farmers Empowerment Cooperative Bank ;‰òí³ÅĄ‰= «‰Å]ÓÅòí³ÓÌæ (Govt. of Odisha) Sanjaykumar S. Bhosale Zodiac Pharma Nishant Kumar Pradeep Paikray Ramyakeerthi Gundlapalle ]Ó°‰Ì=‰ÅÓËËӜ³íĄ Karu Kirana Shop Panda Associates C‰Ì‰« Ë ÌíVýí=íœϡ M/s. Indore Agra Prabhat Kumar K.N. Panda Sandeep Sabharwal Roadways(Regd.) Devendra Gupta Drinking Water Expert Odisha Byabasayee All India Transporter’s Welfare Ravindra Kumar Mahasangh Association All India Motor Transport Sudhakar Panda Deepak Sachdeva Congress (AIMTC) International Co-operative Naveen Kumar Gupta Alliance (ICA) Government of Odisha JʼnË«âÓ.̜³‰=íœϡ Santosh Kumar Susanta Kumar Panda Sanjay Sacheti University of Delhi Neeraj Gupta Central Integrated Pest Yara C‰°‰â‰æ°íâ‰]í‰í ϜJªĔ– Óª Management Centre, Uttar Binaya Kumar Parida the Transport Commissioner Hammurabi & Solomon Pradesh Mubeen Patel Satish B. Sahasrabudhe Rashmi Gupta Umesh Kumar Shri Bahubali Transport Chandragupt Institute of The Amritsar Transport Indian Farmers Fertiliser Mahesh Patil Management Patna ÓËß‰ÌĄϴVscϡϵ=íœϡ ÓÓß â‰í³ý =³Ë³í œϴ.%%Jϵ Debabrata Samanta S. K. Gupta Yogendra Kumar Global AgriSystem Gokul Patnaik Regional Plant Quarantine Regional Plant Quarantine   ¿æ°  í‰ÅY æ ‰â–°Výíϡ=íœϡ Organization (Maharashtra) Organization (Maharashtra) Nandkumar Kunchge &Åӕ³ÓÌ.̜³‰Vâ³ý‰í =³Ë³í œ Sunil Kumar Peram N Sathyanarayana K L Gurjar C³–âӖ° Ë]³Åų â=‰• Neeraj Associates National Federation of State Ajit Lagoo JªĔ– Óªí° câ‰ÌæßÓâí Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh Rishi Saxena Cooperative Banks Hanamashetti J.S. Ministry of Chemicals and State Coromandel Fertilizers Ganga Phal Sanjay Saxena National Federation of State Sushil K Lohani Cooperative Banks (NAFSCOB) Y‰ÅÅĄC‰âÂ= «‰Å TransportMitra Services Hanamashetti J.S. All India Motor Transport Rupendra Porwal Vâ³ý‰í =íœϡ Congress (AIMTC) Mahima Semwal Sinha, AZB & Partners Amrit Lal Madan College of Agriculture, Dapoli Rishabhdev Jain S. S. Prabhudesai Confederation of Indian Pithampur Bombay Roadways Industry M/s. Indore Agra Amrit Lal Madan Co-operative House Building ӆ%³Ì‰Ì– ÓâßÓâ‰í³ÓÌ=íœϡ Ankur Seth Roadways(Regd.) Prashant Dev Jengaria Chambers of Ritin Rai Bhagwati Prasad Mahindra Jayant Malik Sagar Shah M/s. Indore Agra Coromandel Roadways(Regd.) .D.=tV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ==V Ravi Prasad Global AgriSystem Preeti Jengaria J. Mandakini S.K. Sharma John Deere Jhyamlal Jajodia cCc=‰þVâ‰–í³–  Sunny Prasad V°Ó Ì³ă= «‰Å Purvasha Mansharamani Yashna Shrawani Ministry of Agriculture and Retired Associate Professor, Farmers’ Welfare Sinha, AZB & Partners t=C.Ϝòâ‰Ì«‰•‰œ Global AgriSystem Vijay Kumar N. Kale Pallavi Meena Pradeep Purandare B.K. Sikka Yara ;°òæ°³Y‰Ë °‰â³=‰Åϴ;Y=ϵ Chambers of Ritin Rai All India Transporter’s Welfare Sanjiv Kanwar Rakesh Mehrotra Ritin Rai Association Choong Ang Vaccine Mahindra Pradeep Singal Deepak Fertilizers S. Kartik =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ Ramesh Ramachandran Bihar Truck Owners Juver Membrebe LOCAL EXPERTS Centre for Sustainable Association National Collateral Chandragupt Institute of Agriculture Bhanu Sekhar Prasad Singh C‰Ì‰« Ë Ìí] âý³– æ=³Ë³í œ ϴDC=ϵ Management Patna G. V. Ramanjaneyulu Indian Council of Agricultural Sanjay Kaul Babu Lal Mishra ųý³â‰̳ˉÅ+ ‰Åí°=íœϡ Research (ICAR) S.K.Tractors Rupesh Rane Kanchan Kumar Singh Trilegal Richa Kaushal Suneel Mishra Orissa State Seeds ]ò≿âÓß斳 Ì– æ=íœϡ Bihar Agricultural Marketing ÓâßÓâ‰í³ÓÌ=³Ë³í œ P.P Singh Tractors and Farm Equipment =íœϡ Board Joyti Ranjan Misra UP Seed Development Corp. T. R. Kesavan Sushil Kumar Mishra Centre for Technology Rishi Raj Singh 251 Neeraj Associates Swastik Transport Corporation Alternatives for Rural Areas D«â³]  œæVýíϡ=íœϡ Sunayana Khare Rajkumar Misra Bakul Rao S.P Singh ‰â«Ó‰ââ³ âæϴ.̜³‰ϵ=³Ë³í œ Ministry of Road Transport & Chambers of Ritin Rai International Co-operative Raman Khosla Highways Prateek Rath Alliance (ICA) Sanjay Mitra Radhakrishna Foodland Pvt. Savitri Singh Mahindra Kislay Kishor cCc=‰þVâ‰–í³–  =íœϡ V°Ó Ì³ă= «‰Å Kaushik Moitra Bipin Reghunathan Sawant Singh Technik Corp Industries Pvt =íœϡ Ministry of Road Transport & M.V. Kini & Co. Ashish Kishore Highways Els Reynaers Leena Nandan Tariq Agricultural Machinery Genio Civile Catania National Research Council Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Manufacturers Association Sonia Berretta Institute of Biosciences and Cappelli & Partners (AMMA-India) Bioresources (CNR-IBBR) Edward Ruggeri Surendra Singh Rete Semi Rurali Gaetano Laghetti Riccardo Bocci Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei c‰í‰° Ë³–‰Åæ=³Ë³í œ DcC]íòœ³Ó= «‰Å ææӖ³‰íÓ (FEEM) Narendra Kumar Singhal Regional Agency for Francesca Leonelli Silvia Santato Agriculture and Forestry =c%ÓӜæ=íœϡ ϴY]%ϵϜ=Ó˕‰âœĄY «³ÓÌ =V³ß â = «‰Ì– ýýӖ‰í³ææӖ³‰í³ Ashutosh Kumar Sinha Stefano Brenna Andrea Leonforte Luca Geninatti Satè Ranu Sinha Biolchim S.P.A. =³Ë‰«â‰³Ì.í‰ÅĄ Ministry of Agriculture, Leonardo Cacioppo Elisa Lombardi Alimentation and Forestry Sinha, AZB & Partners Policies (MiPAAF) Shuchi Sinha Sapienza University of Rome Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Federico Sòrgoni Federico Caporale ==V Sinha, AZB & Partners Simone Lucatello Jones Day Pragya Sood Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Francesco Squerzoni Cappelli & Partners Italian National Institute for Agriculture Directorate Antonella Capria Environmental Protection and Svlitana Stepanuik C.P Srivastava Research (ISPRA) =V³ß â Stefano Lucci =³Ë‰«â‰³Ì.í‰ÅĄ National Federation of State Germana Cassar Luciano Tosi Cooperative Banks (NAFSCOB) Italian National Institute for Bhima Subrahmanyam Jones Day Environmental Protection and National Research Council Bruno Castellini Research (ISPRA) Institute of Biosciences and All India Rice Exporters Bioresources (CNR-IBBR) Anna Luise Association (AIREA) Regional Agency for Giovanni Giuseppe Vendramin R. Sundaresan Agriculture and Forestry National Research Council ϴY]%ϵϜ=Ó˕‰âœĄY «³ÓÌ Institute of Biosciences and = «‰Ì– ýýӖ‰í³ææӖ³‰í³ Maharashtra Agro Industries Beniamino Cavagna Alice Villari Bioresources (CNR-IBBR) Development Corporation Regional Agency for Benedetta Margiotta Nicola Zanotelli Dilip Suryagan Agriculture and Forestry University of Udine Zodiac Pharma (ERSAF) Antonio Massarutto Tara Chand Tak Mariangela Ciampitti Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, JORDAN University of Delhi Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Usha Tandon Cappelli & Partners The Jordan Exporters and ==V Luna Maria Mignosa Producers Association for Daniele Consolo Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt Fruit and Vegetables (JEPA) & Caroe Pavia e Ansaldo Uniontrasporti Luca Montolivo Shardul J. Thacker ••‰ææ³=‰þJªĔ–  Iolanda Conte Alaa Abbassi ]í‰í = ý Å%‰âËC‰–°³Ì âĄ Italian National Institute for DY.]íòœ³Ó= «‰Å  Environmental Protection and Training and Testing Institute Jordan Tractor & Equipment Gennaro d’Andria Research (ISPRA) Anand Tripathi Co DcC]íòœ³Ó= «‰Å ææӖ³‰íÓ Michele Munafò Emad Abu Baker Ministry of Agriculture and Ada Lucia De Cesaris Farmers’ Welfare Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Ministry of Environment Prabhat Verma Council for Agricultural (FEEM) Izzat Abu Hammra Research and Agricultural Jaroslav Mysiak Reserve Bank of India Jordan Cooperative Economics Analysis (CREA) Biolchim S.P.A. N. S. Vishwanathan Corporation Flavio Roberto De Salvador Barbara Novak Dina Abul Ghanam ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Seed Industries Association of Piselli & Partners Jones Day Ministry of Agriculture Maharashtra Gianni Marco Di Paolo Tommaso Pepe Ahmad Akour S.D. Wankhede Council for Agricultural Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Tata Institute of Social 9ϡYϡϡœýӖ‰í æӆ= «‰Å Research and Agricultural (FEEM) Sciences (TISS) Consultants Economics Analysis (CREA) Carlos Dionisio Pèrez Blanco Sachin Warghade Main Al Kurdi Petra Engel FederUNACOMA (Italian Barcelona Seeds &Åӕ³ÓÌ.̜³‰Vâ³ý‰í =³Ë³í œ Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Machinery Raed Mohammad Al Qatanani Niraj Warke Alimentation and Forestry Manufacturers Federation) Policies (MiPAAF) Marco Pezzini Ministry of Environment Bruno Caio Faraglia Ahmad Al Qatarneh ITALY Pavia e Ansaldo National Research Council Institute of Biosciences and Jordan University of Science Assomela Elena Felici Bioresources (CNR-IBBR) and Technology Domenico Pignone Munir Al Rusan DY.]íòœ³Ó= «‰Å  Union Transporti Angela Addessi Antonello Fontanili Piselli & Partners =‰Ìœcâ‰ÌæßÓâíY «òʼníÓ⥠Emilia Piselli Commission Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Ministry of Agricultural, Food Khawla Al-Aboushi Cappelli & Partners and Forestry Policies Piselli & Partners Luca Amicarelli Antonio Frattarelli Pierluigi Piselli Ministry of Agriculture 252 Emad Alawad University of Catania Italian National Institute for Piselli & Partners Alessandro Ancarani Environmental Protection and Ioana Pricopi Al Qawafel Agro Research (ISPRA) Mohammad Al-Bess Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Fiorenzo Fumanti FederUNACOMA (Italian Cappelli & Partners Agricultural Machinery .Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Åòæ³Ì ææ= «‰Å Camilla Andreini + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Manufacturers Federation) Associates Rajiv Gandhi Ing Fabio Ricci Eman Aldabbas Cleary Gottlieb Steen & +‰Ë³ÅíÓÌ==V DY.]íòœ³Ó= «‰Å  University of Catania Telecommunications Gianluca Atzori Serena Guglielmo Giuseppe Rossi Regulatory Commission Abdullmalik Al-Eassawi C «‰â³æ=íœϡ Renato Benintendi Ministry of Agriculture Eversheds Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates and Bank Astana Nada Al-Frihat Lana Habash = «‰ÅÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ Lyazzat Sagyndykova Kareem Zureikat Water Authority of Jordan =‰Ìœcâ‰ÌæßÓâíY «òʼníÓ⥠Kcell JSC Rashed Alhadidi Commission Irina Shol Zuhair Hattar HM Clause (Jordan) KAZAKHSTAN =³Ì‰« ӆC³Ìœ Nabeel Alkhatib Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates and Saida Shukurova = «‰ÅÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ ÓËæc≜ ==V Telecommunications Lubna Hawamdeh Korvet Agro Regulatory Commission Delta Bank Emiliya Sim Al-Ansari Almashakbeh German Jordanian University C%JДâÌòâ⠜³íЕϜ==V Institute of Botany and Muna Hindiyeh Jordan Valley Authority Phytointroduction Ministry of Information Nassra Almaslah Jaradat & Associates Gulnara Sitpaeva and Communication of the Abdullah Jaradat The National Center for Republic of Kazakhstan Daua Agricultural Research and The University of Jordan Yerkin T. Saiduldin The Ministry of Agriculture of Extension (NCARE) Emad Karablieh Kazakhstan °³Ë] âý³– ==V Nasab Alrawashdeh Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates and Yuriy Nikolaevich Tyuleikin Grata International Ministry of Agriculture = «‰ÅÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ Lola Abdukhalykova Bank Astana Monther Alrefai Rakan Kawar Daniyar Uspanov  Ìí³Å=‰þϴªÓâË âÅĄÓų•â³ The National Center for Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates and =‰þϵ Kazakh Research Institute of Agricultural Research and = «‰ÅÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ Zhanar Abdullayeva Agriculture and Plant Growing Extension (NCARE) Layan Khrais Jamal Alrusheidat Minura Yessimbekova MUGAN Arab Potash Company Ilgar Agalar ;‰ĉß°Óæß°‰í == Central Bank of Jordan Rashing Lubani Ghadeer Alsmadi Darhan Zekenov Bank Kassa Nova Atwan & Partners Leila Akiltayeva  ÌíÓÌæ;‰ĉ‰Â°æí‰ÌϜ==V Ministry of Agriculture Yazan Mansour Hazim Al-Smadi Vassiliy Zenov The Ministry of Agriculture of Central Bank of Jordan Kazakhstan Centre for Sustainable The National Center for Aya Maraqa Zhanargul Aytumkanbetova Production and Consumption Agricultural Research and Extension (NCARE) The National Center for ZulĔra Zikrina ;‰ĉß°Óæß°‰í == Maha Al-Syouf Agricultural Research and Erik Baimurzaev Extension (NCARE) Ministry of Agriculture Naem Mazahrih Khaled Al-TalaĔh Grata International KENYA Assel Batyrbayeva Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates and East Africa Tea Trade Central Bank of Jordan = «‰ÅÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ Institute of Botany and Association Fadi Al-Tayyan Luma Mdanat Phytointroduction Sergei Chekalin Advanta Seed International Jordan Tractor & Equipment Choong Ang Vaccine Asfaw Ageru Co =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ Grata International Amin Amireh Juver Membrebe Shaimerden Chikanaev +Cʼnòæ ; ÌĄ‰=³Ë³í œ Sebastian Alix ËÓæ°= «‰Å] âý³– æӆ Jordan Tractor & Equipment Institute of Botany and Arbitration Co Phytointroduction Kenya Tea Development Ibrahem Amosh Hazem Momani Liliya Dimeyeva Agency John Bett Naqel Transport & Investment Central Bank of Jordan + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Barter Company Adnan Naji Rajiv Gandhi B.M. Musau & Co. Advocates Jamal Abu Amro Mathias Botany Jordan Valley Authority Grata International Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates and Ghassan Obeidat Zarina Iskakova Jomo Kenyatta University of = «‰ÅÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ Agriculture and Technology Mohammad Amro Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates and Grata International Henry Bwisa = «‰ÅÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ Marina Kahiani Ministry of Agriculture Majdi Salaita Enid Chelangat Kholoud Aranki Meirambek Karazhigitov HM Clause (Jordan) University of Eldoret %‰³œ³=‰þ%³âË Moayad Salameh The Ministry of Agriculture of Michael Chelulei LOCAL EXPERTS Howayda Arikat Kazakhstan Arab Potash Company Nurlan Serikbayevich Karimov Grace Chilande Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates and Jafar Salem = «‰ÅÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ Bank Kassa Nova ]  œÓϡ=³Ë³í œ Khaled Asfour The University of Jordan Nurlan Kosakov John Derera Amer Salman HM Clause (Jordan) Kazakhstan + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Tom Atens Kemapco Arab Fertilizers & «âÓ]í‰â&≳Ì== Rajiv Gandhi ° Ë³–‰Åæ.̜òæíâ³ æ=íœϡ Oleg Kunayev Jordan Tractor & Equipment Bishara Sayegh Gumbo & Associates Co Grata International Erick Gumbo Gladys Daccache The National Center for Leila Makhmetova FSD Kenya 253 Agricultural Research and HM Clause (Jordan) Extension (NCARE) Olzha Holding Francis Gwer Ala’a Dweik Yahya Shakhatreh Eduard Matveev Coulson Harney Advocates Fresh Yield International Ministry of Environment Institute of Botany and Richard Harney Basil El-Deek Belal Shqarin Phytointroduction Tansari Murtazayeva Kenya Agricultural %‰³œ³=‰þ%³âË Telfah Trading Company Productivity Project (KAPP) Ahmad Faidi Sami Telfah Asian Credit Fund Edwin Ikitoo Dzhalol Murzakhmetov + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Suhail Wahsheh National Environment Rajiv Gandhi Ministry of Agriculture Management Authority Marat Saduov Joyce Imende Coulson Harney Advocates J⫉̳ĉ‰í³ÓÌϴ;=YJϵ DÓÌ«æ‰Ìc≜³Ì«ÓϡϜ=íœϡ =  ӆ;Ó Dominic Indokhomi Desterio Nyamongo Keum Sub Park DÓÌ«þÓÓ³ÓÓϡϜ=íœϡ =‰ÌœJЗ=‰Â æ.̖ϡ Nile Basin Initiative Korea Real Estate Research Ignatius Kahiu John Rao Nyaoro Optipharm Corp. Institute Sungkyu Park Kaplan & Stratton Kenya Plant Health VòÌ«ÌÓÌ«ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Sarah Kiarie-Muia Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) =  ӆ;Ó Rural Development Ivan Obare John Pool Kenya Plant Health Administration National Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) Egerton University Institute of Agricutural Sciences TYM Esther Kimani Gilbert Obati HyunBin Shin ‰ ;³Ëӆ=  == World Agroforestry Center =zC.YV+YCz Jong Sik Bang ‰ ;³Ëӆ=  == (ICRAF) Elly Obonyo Wook Yoo =  ӆ;Ó Zakayo Kinyanjui Chemagro International Seung Hoon Choi Kim & Chang B.M. Musau & Co. Advocates =³Ë³í œ Tae Hyun Yoon National Agricultural Evelyn Kyania Henry Ogola Cooperative Federation (NACF) =  ӆ;Ó Kenya Seed Company John Omiti Noelle Compton Won Yoon Alphonse Laboso Kaplan & Stratton Water Management zòŖ°ÓÌ== Eric Maghas Tegei Phillip Onyango Information System Yonghee Yoon  Ìí âϜC³Ì³æíâĄÓª=‰ÌœϜ Kenya Agricultural and Gikera & Vadgama Advocates Infrastructure, and Transport =³ý æíӖÂY æ ‰â–° Stephen Ouma Hyun Gyo Jung J⫉̳ĉ‰í³ÓÌϴ;=YJϵ KYRGYZ REPUBLIC Nesbert Mangale Jomo Kenyatta University of National Agricultural Agriculture and Technology Cooperative Federation (NACF) 9]«â³Ë‰í–Ó=íœϡ Maseno University Robert Owino Gwangseog Hong State Communications Agency Dominic Marera Global Water Partnership Korea International Trade under the Government of National Environment George Sanga Association (KITA), Jeonbuk Kyrgyz Republic Management Authority Center Coulson Harney Advocates ARIS Catherine Mbaisi Sungchul Hwang John Syekei Azizbek Abdiev East African Seed Company - Kim & Chang Gikera & Vadgama Advocates Mol Tushum Kenya In Hwan Jun Punit Vadgama Ilyas Abdirashit Nicholas Mengich Tong Yang Moolsan - Reinder van de Meer International Center for Soil World Agroforestry Center Machinery Division Fertility and Agricultural (ICRAF) Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Youngsun Kang Development Alice Muchugi Production Institute Korea Environment Institute (KEI) Dilshod Abdulhamidov Kenya Agricultural and (KEVEVAPI) Hojeong Kim Jane Wachira =Óâ Ìĉ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ%³âË =³ý æíӖÂY æ ‰â–° Kim & Chang Myrzagul Aidaralieva J⫉̳ĉ‰í³ÓÌϴ;=YJϵ í°³–‰Åc ‰V‰âíÌ âæ°³ß=íœϡ Anne Muriuki Hyun-Yong Leo Kim Joseph Wagurah Ministry of Agriculture and Seoul National University Melioration of the Kyrgyz B.M. Musau & Co. Advocates Gumbo & Associates Kyeong Uk Kim Republic Benjamin Musau Collins Wanjala Makhmira Akhmetova African Conservation Tillage zòŖ°ÓÌ== Coulson Harney Advocates Kyoung Yeon Kim Kompanion Financial Group Network (ACT) ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Nerima Were Ulanbek Akimkanov Weldon Mutai ;J=ӆ=Óâßϡ B.M. Musau & Co. Advocates Martin Ko =Óâ Ìĉ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ%³âË AGMARK Edmond Wesonga Niyaz Aldashev James Mutonyi Korea Environment Institute (KEI) Kompanion Financial Group ‰â«³ÅÅ; ÌĄ‰=³Ë³í œ Byung Kook Lee Damir Alymbek Ralph Mwadime KOREA, REP. =  ӆ;Ó State Inspectorate for South Eastern Kenya Animal and Plant Quarantine Han Kyung Lee Veterinary and Phytosanitary University Agency Safety Moses Mwangi Korea Development Institute Ruslan F. Beishenkulov 泉]  œÓϡϜ=íœϡ ÓÓß â;Іâ‰Ìœæ=³Ë³í œ Hojun Lee International Fertilizer Jeremiah Mwangu °Ó•³ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Kim & Chang Development Center Egerton University Chungnam National James Geechul Lee Hiqmet Demiri Lenah Nakhone University Korea Rural Community OJSC "Commercial Bank MEA Fertilizers Foundation of Agri. Tech, Corporation (KRC) KYRGYZSTAN" Daniel Ndegwa Commercialization & Transfer Sung-Hee Lee Ruslan Derbishev (FACT) Kenya Plant Health Dongcheon Foundation =Óâ Ìĉ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ%³âË Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) FSS Financial Supervisory Takgon Lee Samara Dumanaeva 254 Faith Ndunge Service Kim & Chang Department of Cadastre and ÓÓß â;Іâ‰Ìœæ=³Ë³í œ Korea Deposit Insurance Yoon Jeong Lee Registration of Rights on Charles Ndungu Corporation Immovable Property under zòŖ°ÓÌ== the State Registration Service Igeria & Ngugi Advocates =]CíâÓÌ Young Jo Lee of Kyrgyz Republic Benson Ngugi Bakytbek Dzhusupbekov Ministry of Agriculture, Food Samsung C&T Gikera & Vadgama Advocates and Rural Affairs Stanislav Pak + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Michael Njuguna Rajiv Gandhi Ministry of Environment Syngenta Kenya Agricultural and Hee Young Park hųí‰== =³ý æíӖÂY æ ‰â–° D+c≜³Ì«ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Vasiliy Gorbachev Seed Association of LAO PDR Department of Agriculture J.D Tranding, Inc. Kyrgyzstan Extension and Cooperatives Ben T. Nyepon Abdul Hakim Islamov ϡ]ϡcâ‰ÌæßÓâíÓϡϜ=íœϡ (DAEC), Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry t³ Ì–Ó=³• â³‰Ϝ=íœϡ Mol Tushum c.=Ó«³æí³–æÓϡϜ=íœϡ Viengkham Sodahak Samuel Oduro Asare Abdirashit Halmurzaev Jòíæ߉ÌÓÅÓý Ìæ=³Ë³í œ Phounsavat Souphida Environmental Protection =Óâ Ìĉ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ%³âË ϴJ=ϵ Agency of the Republic of Kymbat Ibakova ;VÓϡϜ=íœϡ =³• â³‰ c³ÅŠ ӆ&³••³Ìæ=‰ÓÓϡϜ=íœϡ Khambor Sypaseuth Levi Z. Piah Kompanion Financial Group Bolot Ibraimov ‰ÌÂÓªí° =‰ÓVY =‰ÓVâ Ë³ â.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ Premier Resource Santi Bounleuth JªĔ–  Ansu Sirleaf State Inspectorate for Arpon Tunjumras Veterinary and Phytosanitary =‰Ó=‰þӆÓÌæòÅí‰Ì–Ą&âÓòß Premier Resource Safety Siri Boutdakham  ß‰âíË ÌíÓª=³ý æíӖ Mohamed Sirleaf Bolot Jumanaliev and Fisheries, Ministry of Agroforex Company Ministry of Agriculture Agriculture and Forestry hÓª=ДææӖ³‰í³ÓÌÓª Francis Chagnaud Sizi Z. Subah Sounthone Vongthilath Suppliers (Producers and Sypha Chanthavong =³• â³‰c Å –ÓËËò̳–‰í³ÓÌæ ³æíⳕòíÓâæϵЕ Marat Keldibek uulu Authority =‰ÓVâ Ë³ â.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ JªĔ–  LIBERIA Joe Sumo =Óâ Ìĉ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ%³âË Nawika Charoenkitchatorn ÓÅÅÓ⡪Ⳗ‰=Ó«³æí³–æ =³• â³‰c Å –ÓËËò̳–‰í³ÓÌæ Evgeny Kim Authority %= YІ=Y Salym Finance Kolubahzizi T. Howard Agnès Couriol Mainuddin Ahmed Mirlan Kulov Environmental Protection =‰ÓVâ Ë³ â.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ  Ìíâ‰Å‰ÌÂÓª=³• â³‰ϴ=ϵ UNDP Agency of the Republic of JªĔ–  Jay Brown Talaibek Makeev =³• â³‰ Bounyong Dalasone Jerry T. Toe Association of the J.D Tranding, Inc. TABI -The Agro-Biodiversity Steve B. Davis International Road Transport =³• â³‰c Å –ÓËËò̳–‰í³ÓÌæ Initiative Operators of the Kyrgyz Authority Christopher Flint =³• â³‰Y ý Ìò òí°Óâ³íĄ Republic (AIRTO-KR) T. Emmanuel Tomah Isabel Diggs Beknazar Mamytov Ministry of Natural Resources =³• â‰í³ÓÌӖӉ and Environment =³• â³‰Y ý Ìò òí°Óâ³íĄ State Inspectorate for Sheikh A. Turay Phousavanh Fongkhamdeng Max Teah Duncan Veterinary and Phytosanitary Safety Environmental Protection International Water tY.V=³• â³‰ Adyl Nurbaev Agency of the Republic of Management Institute (IWMI) Bildi Elliot =³• â³‰ Oulavanh Keovilignavong Seed Support Project &=]òæ³Ì ææ Johansen T. Voker Rutgar Persson CPC-Bolaven Plateau Coffee Gabriel Fadairo &â  ÌĔ Åœ=³• â³‰.̖ϡ Producers Cooperative State Agency on Environment Farmers Union Network of Hussein Wazni Tobe Khamphankeothavee Protection and Forestry under =³• â³‰ the Government of the Kyrgyz CARI - Central Agricultural UNU Institute for Integrated Josephine Francis Republic Research Institute Management of Material Asel Raimkulova Access Bank Walter Wiles Fluxes and Resources (UNU- %=JY]ϵ Vezele Gbogie Rijk Zwaan Kyrgyz Republic =³• â³‰c Å –ÓËËò̳–‰í³ÓÌæ Mathew Kurian Ministry of Transport Authority Aibek Rasidov Erasmus Gongar Harry T. Yuan, Sr. c° =³ý³Ì«=‰ÌœÓËß‰ÌĄ Ministry of Agriculture and Laut Lee Gro Green Melioration of the Kyrgyz Republic Ralph Hamm Ekaterina Sakhvaeva Philippe Leperre MALAWI Khankeo Oupravanh Price Trading Inc. ‰â«ÓC‰Ì‰« Ë Ìí=Ó«³æí³–æ Kompanion Financial Group Charles Hopkins =íœϡ Jamil Sargymbaeva Thavisith Phanakhone =³• â³‰VâӜò– C‰â í³Ì«  ß‰âíË ÌíÓª=‰Ìœ Foreign Investors Association Department of Agriculture ÓâßÓâ‰í³ÓÌϴ=VCϵ Resources Conservation Iskender Sharsheyev Extension and Cooperatives Kenneth Kafumba (DAEC), Ministry of Agriculture Malawi Investment and Trade LOCAL EXPERTS Kisa and Forestry =³• â³‰Y ý Ìò òí°Óâ³íĄ Centre (MITC) Iurii Sukhinin Sengchanh Phetkhounluang Eric Kamara Ministry of Transport and Mol Tushum C³–âÓĔ̖̉ ææӖ³‰í³ÓÌ  Ìíâ‰Å‰ÌÂÓª=³• â³‰ϴ=ϵ Public Works Patta Tajibaev Pamouane Phetthany Mussah Kamara Opportunity Bank Malawi Credit Union ABN Ministry of Agriculture and YІ=Y Maria Taranchieva Forestry Tapan Kumar Karmaker 9‰Ë æ%³ÌʼnĄϴʼnÌíĄâ ϵ=íœϡ Yatkeo Phoumidalyvanh Gro Green Chipulumutso Bakali State Seed Testing Agency of the Kyrgyz Republic ‰ÌÂÓªí° =‰ÓVY Prince T. Kollie Agricultural Trading Company Dmitri Ten Visone Saysongkham =íœϡ 255 Omega Supply Chain Abdallah Mansour Christopher Beya =Óâ Ìĉ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ%³âË Sinouk Coffee Jibek Tenizbaeva Sinouk Sisombat One Acre Fund Access Bank Friederike Moeller Joshua Cauthen CJSC Atrium Holding Viladeth Sisoulath Baktybek Tumonbaev Centre for Environmental Ministry of Natural Resources Agro Inc. Tupin Morgan Policy & Advocacy Uran Tursunaliev and Environment William Chadza Phingsaliao Sithiengtham World Council of Credit hÓª=ДææӖ³‰í³ÓÌÓª Unions (WOCCU) Knight & Knight Suppliers (Producers and Patrick Muriuki Noel Chalamanda ³æíⳕòíÓâæϵЕ Gulnara Uskenbaeva Sukambizi Association Trust Seed Trade Association of Ministry of Transport and Academy of Sciences Malaysia Austin Changazi Malawi (STAM) Public Works, Department Chia Hur Loh John Lungu ÓªYӉœc≪Ĕ–]‰ª íĄ‰Ìœ Mike Chigowo Services Shearn Delamore & Co. ETC Agro Tractors and Andrew Sandula Krystle Lui Savjani & Co. .ËßÅ Ë Ìíæ=íœϡ Ricky Chingota Madhu Madaka Seed-Tech IGS Consultant Wilson Shaba Che Abdullah Md. Rejab Patrick Mphatso Chinguwo Biodiversity Conservation Initiative Seed Co Department of Aboriginal Reserve Bank of Malawi Development Leonard Manda Settie Simwawa Mtchaisi Chintengo Md. Daud Md. Zin Felix Mangani Ministry of Agriculture, Pharmacy, Medicines and Chooi & Company Irrigation and Water Poisons Board (PMPB) CІ=³ý æíӖÂÓÌæòÅí‰Ìíæ David Ong Development, Department of Edwin Chipala Lawrence Matiasi Agricultural Research Services ]°ÓÓÂ=³ÌӆÓ Seed Services Unit, Charles Singano Environmental Affairs Jalalullahl Othman Department of Agricultural Department Research Services John Mawenda Ging Yang Siew James Chipole MALAYSIA ]°ÓÓÂ=³ÌӆÓ 9‰Ë æ%³ÌʼnĄϴʼnÌíĄâ ϵ=íœϡ Agricultural Trading Company Ross McDonald Axiata Group Berhad Ainin Wan Salleh =íœϡ George Chisembe =³ÅÓÌ«þ h̳ý âæ³íĄÓª Bank Negara Malaysia Tay & Partners Agriculture & Natural Joe Yee Yap â‰ÌĔ Åœh̳ý âæ³íĄ Y æÓò■æϴ=hDYϵ Green World Genetics Sdn. Brighton Chunga Wezi Mhango Bhd. AGRA Biodiversity Conservation International Islamic MALI Asseta Diallo Initiative University - Malaysia Africa Trade & Industry Godwin Mkamanga system + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Malaysia Co-operative Rajiv Gandhi Department of Agricultural Societies Commission of Orange Mali Research Services Malaysia Peacock Seeds Chandiona Munthali Syngenta Foundation Felix E. Jumbe Malaysian Communications Reserve Bank of Malawi and Multimedia Commission SCS International =³ÅÓÌ«þ h̳ý âæ³íĄÓª Hains Munthali Marlène Amegankpoe Agriculture & Natural Universiti Kebangsaan Y æÓò■æϴ=hDYϵ Malawi Communications Malaysia Sasakawa Africa Association Vernom Kabambe Regulatory Authority (MACRA) Abou Berthe Sime Kubota Sdn. Bhd. Patrick Bennett Musiyapo Pharmacy, Medicines and Abd Halim Abd Karim Coordination Nationale des Poisons Board (PMPB) Seed Services Unit, Organisations Paysannes Godfrey Kadewele Wong & Partners Department of Agricultural Abdramane Bouare Faez Abdul Razak Research Services Kalima Attorneys MicroCred Hastings Musopole Shearn Delamore & Co. Justin Kalima Fanta Dembele Dhinesh Bhaskaran Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, SCS International Irrigation and Water Tay & Partners Irrigation and Water Moussa Syvlain Diakité Development Hong Yun Chang Development, Department of Readwell P. Musopole Direction Nationale du Génie Agricultural Research Services Tay & Partners David Kamangira Rural ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 =³ÅÓÌ«þ h̳ý âæ³íĄÓª Pei Yin Chuar Agriculture & Natural Hantlé Diarra Ministry of Agriculture, Y æÓò■æϴ=hDYϵ Malaysian Transport Institute Irrigation and Water Ministère du Développement Macdonald L. Mwinjilo (MITRANS) Development, Department of âòâ‰ÅϜJªĔ– œ ßâÓí –í³ÓÌœ æ Nasruddin Faisol Water Resources Reserve Bank of Malawi végétaux Sidney Kamtukule Fund Mzama + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Lassana Sylvestre Diarra Rajiv Gandhi Ministry of Transport and +=&âÓòß Ministère de l’Agriculture Public Works, Department Oliver Nakom ]°ÓÓÂ=³ÌӆÓ Alhouseïni Hamo Dicko ÓªYӉœc≪Ĕ–]‰ª íĄ‰Ìœ Julian George Services Kwame Ngwira Mali Protection des Cultures Anne Kandoje Behn Meyer Agricare (M) Sdn. (M.P.C) BVM Enterprises Bhd. Messotigui Diomande Shire Rver Basin Management Poya Njoka Albert Heng Program SFN/ABN Rex M. Kanjedza George Nthache Tay & Partners M. Djibrilla Wei En Hoong Chisomo Kapulula Ministry of Agriculture, + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Irrigation and Water Juruukur Tanahair Rajiv Gandhi =³ÅÓÌ«þ h̳ý âæ³íĄÓª Development Shahabuddin Ibrahim Agriculture & Natural Machpherson Nthara USC Canada Y æÓò■æϴ=hDYϵ Malaysian Transport Institute Abdrahamane Goïta Samson Katengeza Ministry of Agriculture, (MITRANS) 256 Sidi Keïta Irrigation and Water Harlina Suzana Jaafar Ministry of Agriculture, Development, Department of Institut d’Economie Irrigation and Water Agricultural Research Services Shearn Delamore & Co. Rurale (IER), Ministère de Development Austin Phiri Meyven Khor l’Agriculture de l’Elevage et de Hendrex Wycliffe la Pêche Kazembe-Phiri Seed Co Shearn Delamore & Co. Dellings Phiri Christina Kow Hamidou Konare Ministry of Agriculture, Institut d’Economie Irrigation and Water Ministry of Agriculture, Wong & Partners Irrigation and Water Mark Lim Rurale (IER), Ministère de Development l’Agriculture de l’Elevage et de Sangwani Khosa Development, Department of Agricultural Research Services Union Harvest Sdn. Bhd. la Pêche Lawrent Pungulani Mohd Tohit Liri Mama Koné Housseini Maiga Gonzalez Calvillo S.C. Vera y Asociados Moreno Rodríguez y Asoc. S.C Leopoldo Burguete-Stanek Daniel Gómez Gerardo Moheno Gallardo Cabinet d’Avocats Nassar et Collaborateurs &⠠̕ â«câ‰òⳫ==V González & Asociados Dirección General de Sanidad Eric Nassar Pablo Callarisa José Juan González Márquez Vegetal Ana Lilia Montealegre Lara â–̳ Å]Y= t°³í ӆ‰æ ==V Comisión Nacional para el Amadou Ongoiba Antonio Cárdenas Arriola Conocimiento y Uso de la Financiera Nacional de Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Desarrollo Agropecuario, Autorité Malienne Comisión Nacional Forestal Fabiola Alejandra González Rural, Forestal y Pesquero de Régulation des (CONAFOR) Páez Antonio Eliceo Mora Téllez Télécommunications/TIC et Jesús Carrasco Gómez des Postes (AMRTP) Servicio Nacional de t°³í ӆ‰æ ==V Samba Sow Cervantes Sainz Abogados .Ìæß ––³ÔÌĄ âí³Ĕ–‰–³ÔÌœ  Pedro Morales Gomez Luis A. Cervantes Muñiz Semillas (SNICS) â–̳ Å]Y= Rosalinda González Santos Moreno Rodríguez y Asoc., S.C Moctar Oumar Tall Comisión Nacional del Agua José Rodrigo Moreno Claudia Esther Coria-Bustos Jáuregui y Del Valle S.C. Rodríguez Mali Protection des Cultures Pérez Haydeé Montserrat González (M.P.C) Tavira Cervantes Sainz Abogados Moussa Tekete Fideicomisos Instituidos en Paulina MorĔn Relacion con la Agricultura- Govea, Mercado Béjar S.C. Oumar Tounkara FIRA Javier Govea Soria Automotriz Agrícola e José Antonio Cortés Industrial Saturno S.A de C.V. Coordination Nationale des Barrientos Von Wobeser y Sierra S.C. Mario Muñiz Flores Usagers des Ressources Edmond Frederic Grieger Naturelles du Bassin Niger AGROVANT Escudero Comisión Nacional para el Nouradine Zakaria Toure Mercedes Cortés Sánchez Conocimiento y Uso de la Financiera Nacional de Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Vesta Industries Pronatura México A.C. Desarrollo Agropecuario, Oswaldo Oliveros Galindo Amadou Traoré Eduardo Cota Corona Rural, Forestal y Pesquero Flor de Luz Guadalupe t°³í ӆ‰æ ==V Instituto Tecnológico Superior Pilar Orozco Fernández Hernández Barrios de Felipe Carrillo Puerto MEXICO Ivonne Cruz Fideicomisos Instituidos en &⠠̕ â«câ‰òⳫ==V Relacion con la Agricultura- Fernando Osante Transcooler México Bufete de la Garza S.C. Alejandro Aboytes José Mario De la Garza FIRA Jones Day Marroquín José Onésimo Hernández José Jesús Pérez Alcántar Comisión Nacional para el Bello Conocimiento y Uso de la BGBG Abogados Servicio Nacional de Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Carlos J. Díaz Sobrino Bufete de la Garza S.C. .Ìæß ––³ÔÌĄ âí³Ĕ–‰–³ÔÌœ  Francisca Acevedo Edgar Hernández Castillo Semillas (SNICS) BGBG Abogados Felipe de Jesús Pérez de la Comisión Nacional Forestal David Duran Molina Govea, Mercado Béjar S.C. Sergio Eduardo Herrera Torres Cerda (CONAFOR) José Armando Alanís de la Asociación Mexicana de Servicio Nacional de Semilleros Comisión Nacional para el Rosa .Ìæß ––³ÔÌĄ âí³Ĕ–‰–³ÔÌœ  Alejandra Elizalde Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Semillas (SNICS) Comisión Nacional para el Banco de México Elleli Huerta Julio César Pérez de la Cerda Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Alan Elizondo &⠠̕ â«câ‰òⳫ==V Comisión Nacional del Agua Vicente Arriaga Martínez Arturo Pérez Estrada González Calvillo S.C. Orlando Jaimes Martínez Basham, Ringe y Correa S.C. Luis Alberto Esparza Romero Comisión Nacional para el Ritch, Mueller, Heather y Mariana Arrieta Maza Conocimiento y Uso de la Basham, Ringe y Correa S.C. Nicolau S.C. Ricardo Evangelista García Mario Enrique Juarez Noguera Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Jáuregui y Del Valle S.C. Rosa Maricel Portilla Alonso Luis Alberto Balderas =Ôß ĉ&‰â–µ‰‰ÌÓ•Ó«‰œÓæ =‰ß³æ‰]ϡϡœ ϡsϡ Fernández Romo Paillés Abogados S.C. Paul Tonatiuh Justo Juárez Arturo Flores Dario Preisser Rentería Basham, Ringe y Correa S.C. Jones Day Rodolfo Barrreda Alvarado Asociación Mexicana de Ritch, Mueller, Heather y Jimena Kuri Izquierdo Nicolau S.C. Semilleros A.C. Iniciativa para el Desarrollo Leopoldo Fragoso Montes Romo Paillés Abogados Mario Puente Raya Ambiental y Sustentable S.C. Marco Antonio Larios LOCAL EXPERTS Daniel Basurto González Comisión Nacional Forestal BGBG Abogados Escalante Miguel Gallardo Guerra (CONAFOR) Foliego Comisión Nacional para el Francisco Quiroz Acosta José Carlos Bautista Fideicomisos Instituidos en Conocimiento y Uso de la Relacion con la Agricultura- Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Comisión Nacional Forestal BGBG Abogados FIRA Jorge Larson Guerra (CONAFOR) Carlos A. Bello Hernández Rafael Gamboa González Jorge Rescala Pérez Denisse Blanck =Ôß ĉ&‰â–µ‰‰ÌÓ•Ó«‰œÓæ + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ S.C. Romo Paillés Abogados Jones Day Rajiv Gandhi Juan Fernando López Maria Esther Rey Carrillo Paulina Bracamontes Centro Mexicano de Derecho Von Wobeser y Sierra S.C. Moreno Rodríguez y Asoc. S.C 257 Belmonte Ambiental (CEMDA) Sofía López Casarrubias Daniel Fernando Reyes Instituto Tecnológico Superior Gisselle García Manning Morales de Felipe Carrillo Puerto Bufete de la Garza S.C. Ritch, Mueller, Heather y Rodrigo López González Jurídica Especialistas de Diego Ramon Briceño Nicolau S.C. Occidente Domínguez Asociación Nacional de Isaías Rivera Rodríguez Héctor A. Garza Cervera Comisión Nacional para el Comercializadores de Fertilizantes Fideicomisos Instituidos en Conocimiento y Uso de la Ritch, Mueller, Heather y Juan Fernando Martinez Relacion con la Agricultura- Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Nicolau S.C. FIRA Caroline Nicole Laura Burgeff Alessandra Gaytán Comisión Nacional del Agua Carlos Ernesto Rodríguez D´Hondt Grisell Medina Laguna Gómez Iniciativa para el Desarrollo Association Professionnelle du HHH - Avocats Barloworld Agriculture Ambiental y Sustentable S.C. Transport et de la logistique Radja Hjiaj Tom Holloway Edith Romero Juárez œòDÓâœϴhYc=Nord) El Mootamid Abbad HHH - Avocats Couto, Graça & Associados Romo Paillés Abogados Andaloussi Ahmad Hussein (CGA) Rafael Romo Corzo Cristina Hunguana Groupe Delassus Charaf Corporation Ritch, Mueller, Heather y Madid Abdelilah Amine Kandil 9=œýÓ«‰œÓæ Nicolau S.C. Zara Jamal Alejandra Sosa Sayarh & Menjra Cabinet &.cYD]=J& d'Avocats Mohamed Karaouane Eduardo Mondlane University Jones Day Mohamed Ali Abou Ali Dinis Juizo Héctor R. Tinoco Jaramillo Agence Nationale de RESING Réglementation des câ‰ÌæßÓâí æ=‰Å«Ą Asesoría Biofarmacéutica Mohamed AbouĔrass Télécommunications (ANRT) Luis Junaide Lalgy Especializada Samira Khallouk Héctor Tinoco-García Mohamed Akchati African Fertilizer and Université Chouaib Doukkali, Agribusiness Partnership &⠠̕ â«câ‰òⳫ==V Ministère de l'Economie et des Faculté des Sciences (AFAP) Luis Torres Finances Kamal Labbassi Alcides Lampiao Aziz Alouane Garrigues México S.C. Socopim Premium Group % ẩ̜‰=Óß æӆææӖ³‰œÓæ Roberto Torres Khadija Arif Aziz Mchich Advogados Fernanda Lopes Comisión Nacional del Agua Institut Agronomique et Sayarh & Menjra Cabinet Dalia Aide Treviño Paz Vétérinaire Hassan II d'Avocats Ministry of Agriculture El Houssain Baali Mehdi Megzari (MINAG) Centro Mexicano de Derecho Anastacio Luis Ambiental (CEMDA) Dris Barik Université Hassan II- Adriana Trigueros Hernández Casablanca Astros AGIP Mohamed Ali Mekouar Elcidio Madeira Dirección General de Sanidad SoĔa Bekkali Vegetal Fédération Agricultural Research Institute Francisco Javier Trujillo Association Marocaine des Interprofessionnelle of Mozambique (IIAM) Arriaga Importateurs du Matériel Marocaine de production et Ricardo Maria Agricole (AMIMA) d’exportation des Fruits et Casas Sombra y Pos Cosecha Chakib Ben El Khadir =¡«òË æ ]CV‰âíÌ âæϜ=œ‰ϡ Marino Valerio Ahmed Mouĕih Espirito Santo Monjane Ahmed Bentouhami Govea, Mercado Béjar S.C. Centre de Travaux Agricole de Bordalo Mouzinho Nomar Uriel Valladares Ministère de l'Equipement, du Berchid Agricultural Research Institute Castaño câ‰ÌæßÓâí íœ ʼn=Ó«³æí³áò  Mohamed Nebras Lala Bahija Boucetta of Mozambique (IIAM) Centro Mexicano de Derecho Sayarh & Menjra Cabinet Paulino Munisse Ambiental (CEMDA) Maroc Agroveto Holding d'Avocats Anaid Velasco Hanane Boumehdi c ââ‰%³âˉ=œ‰ Omar Sayarh Simon Norfolk Confederación Nacional de Institut Agronomique et Association des Freight Propietarios Rurales Vétérinaire Hassan II Caixa Comunitária de Forwarders du Maroc Jaime Vences El Hassane Bourarach C³–âÓĔ̙̉‰æ Rachid Tahri Marino José Pascoal Vera y Asociados Groupe Delassus Ministère de l'Economie et Luis Vera Morales Rabab Choukrallah Caixa Comunitaria de des Finances C³–âÓĔ̖̉‰æ Adamas Avocats associés Hicham Talby Servicio Nacional de Enoque Raimundo Changamo ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 .Ìæß ––³ÔÌĄ âí³Ĕ–‰–³ÔÌœ  Pauline Coune Maroc Agroveto Holding AgriFocus Semillas (SNICS) Faouzi Talhi Adamas Avocats associés Fernando Sequeira Manuel Rafael Villa Issa Philippe de Richoufftz Houria Tazi Sadeq Companhia do Vanduzi Transporte.mx JªĔ– D‰í³Ó̉Åœ ]¡–òâ³í¡ Amos Ubisse Clemente Villalpando Sanitaire des Produits =Ôß ĉ&‰â–µ‰‰ÌÓ•Ó«‰œÓæ Alimentaires (ONSSA) MOZAMBIQUE Adriaan van den Dries S.C. Amina El Ghafki 9Ó°Ì  â ϴVíĄϵ=íœϡЄ]ò• % ẩ̜‰=Óß æӆææӖ³‰œÓæ Andoni Zurita Ministère de l'Economie et des Saharan Africa Advogados Finances Joaquim Vilanculos Abdelaziz El Jai =Ó̉«âÓCә‰Ë•³áò Ϝ=œ‰ϡ MOROCCO Autoridade Moçambicana de Figes Pannar Fertilizantes (AMOFERT) Bayer Crop Science Lamya El Mernissi Carlos Zandamela Agricultural Research Institute HHH - Avocats Figes of Mozambique (IIAM) Mohamed El Mernissi Suzie Aly INRA - Institut National de MYANMAR Recherche Agricole Institut Agronomique et SOCREMO - Banco de Vétérinaire Hassan II C³–âÓĔ̙̉‰æϜ]Y= ò‰Ì CÓââ³æӆ] Åý‰Ë==V Ministère de l’Agriculture et Moha El-Ayachi Ben Botha 258 de la Pêche Maritime CĄ‰Ìˉâ=³ý æíӖÂ% œ â‰í³ÓÌ + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Grace Chilande Ministère de l'Energie, Guiding Star Mon News Rajiv Gandhi Journal des Mines, de l'Eau et de Paulo Ferreira l'Environnement Association Marocaine des Ko Ko Aung Importateurs du Matériel Caixa Comunitária de SONACOS - Société Nationale C³–âÓĔ̙̉‰æ DB Schenker Agricole (AMIMA) Nay Aung de Commercialisation des Nima Guitouni Italino Francisco Semences MC&A Sociedad de Advogados Myanmar Containers Truck HHH - Avocats Association (MCTA) Zohra Hasnaoui Yϡ= Pedro Gonçalves Paes U Thet Aung UN Habitat Myanmar International Shangrila Agro World Plant Protection Directorate, Myint Aye Freight Forwarders Tara Baskota Ministry of Agricultural Association Development Matthew Baird Aung Khin Myint Nepal Agricultural Research Rajiv Das Rajbhandari Council (NARC) %= Yezin Agricultural University Bhola Basnet Plant Protection Directorate, Viacheslav Baksheev (YAU) Ministry of Agricultural Theingi Myint Community Self Reliance Development %= Centre (CSRC) Dilli Ram Sharma Jaime Casanova ]°‰ÌC‰þCĄ‰ ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Jagat Basnet U Myo Myint Post Harvest Management + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ National Cooperative Bank Directorate, Ministry of Rajiv Gandhi %= =³Ë³í œϴD=ϵ Agricultural Development Mya Myint Zu Upendra Dahal Sabnam Shivakoti %= William Greenlee Deloitte Chhetry & Associates P.C. Suva Transport Aung Myo Lwin Samindra Dhowj G.C Dipesh Shrestha Convenience Prosperity Co., =íœϡ Myanmar Containers Truck + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Ministry of Science, Gerhard Hartzenberg Association (MCTA) Rajiv Gandhi Technology and Environment U Tin Myo Win Jagdish Bhakta Shrestha Harmony Myanmar Agro Bioversity International &âÓòßÓϜ=íœϡ Myanmar Containers Truck Devendra Gauchan Vishokarma Auto Mart Min Aung Hein Association (MCTA) Shiva Shrestha U Soe Naing Alternative Herbal Products Swanyee Group (AHP) Trade and Export Promotion U Than Win Hlaing Allen & Gledhill (Myanmar) Govinda Ghimire Center ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Rajendra Singh San Tin Htar Trade and Export Promotion Minn Naing Oo Nang Sang Hom Center Ministry of Agricultural Green Avenue Consult Ishwari Prasad Ghimire Development Golden Plain Agricultural Myanmar Madhusudan Singh Basnyat Products Cooperative Society Nepal Agricultural Research Robert Htun Nwe =³Ë³í œ Council (NARC) Nepalese Telecommunications Kywe Htay Myanmar International Krishna Hari Ghimire Authority (NTA) - Rural ÓÌæòÅí‰ÌíæϴCC.ϵϜ=íœϡ Telecommunication Section + â–òÅ æ=Ó«³æí³–æ PSM Global Consultants Pvt. Myo Nyunt Ambar Sthapit Win Htike =íœϡ Deloitte Madhab Raj Ghimire Puwa Mai Alaichi Nursery ]&]ϴCĄ‰Ìˉâϵ=³Ë³í œ Nwe Oo Mon Firm Aung Kyaw Htoo United States Environmental Nanda Kumar Subba Mon-Region Social Protection Agency (EPA) Posts and Development Network (MSDN) Santosh Raj Ghimire Nepal Herbs and Herbal Telecommunications Hlaing Hteik Soe Products Association Department Bal Krishna Joshi Than Htun Aung Forest Resource Environment (NEHHPA) Development And National Cooperative Bank Yubraj Subedi Allen & Gledhill (Myanmar) =³Ë³í œϴD=ϵ Conservation Association Bandevi Vet Pharma ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Saroj Joshi (FREDA) Dibesh Thapa Ayush Jhunjhunwala Khin Lay Swe Pradhan, Ghimire and State Agricultural Institute ææӖ³‰í æVýíϡ=íœϡ Plant Protection Directorate, ActionAid Ministry of Agricultural Lay Lay Khaing Aadittya Kansakar Boon Thein Development Allen & Gledhill (Myanmar) Kathmandu University Dinesh Babu Tiwari %= ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Bishal Khanal Ei Ei Thein Department of Agriculture Eugene Kuan V]C&Åӕ‰ÅÓÌæòÅí‰ÌíæVýíϡ=íœϡ Rajendra Uprety Village Integrated Rakhine Coastal Region Damodar Khanal Development Association Nepal Agricultural Research Conservation Association San Thein Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) (RCA) Maung Kyi Council (NARC) Shree Prasad Vista Mon-Region Social Development Network (MSDN) Ujjawal Kushwaha Ministry of Agriculture, Kyaw Thi Ha Shangrila Agro World =³ý æíӖ‰̜.âⳫ‰í³ÓÌ San Kyi Lobsang Lama NETHERLANDS Mon-Region Social LOCAL EXPERTS Development Network (MSDN) Agro Enterprise Centre (FNCCI) Dutch Federation of Allen & Gledhill (Myanmar) Sein Ti Pradip Maharjan Agricultural Machinery ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Jun Yee Lee Producers (FEDECOM) San Tin Htar Choong Ang Vaccine Shwe Zin Toe Hla =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ Ministry of Infrastructure and ]°‰ÌC‰þCĄ‰ ÓϡϜ=íœϡ Nyan Lin Juver Membrebe the Environment Wageningen UR Joep van den Broek Institute for Sustainable The Greenery Ministry of Agriculture, =³ý æíӖ‰̜.âⳫ‰í³ÓÌ Agriculture Nepal (INSAN) Vallenduuk Advokaten U Han Thein Maung Puspa Lal Moktan NEPAL =³Ë‰«â‰³ÌòâÓß  259 Choong Ang Vaccine Nirdhan Utthan Bank Huub Beelen =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ Åų œ=‰þ] âý³– æ Janardan Dev Pant Juver Membrebe Chandramani Adhikari Centre for Genetic Resources, Institute of Agriculture and the Netherlands (CGN) %= Sharad Adhikari Animal Science Martin Brink Nay Chi Min Maung Krishna Kumar Pant Institute for Sustainable Panteia BV Swanyee Group Agriculture Nepal (INSAN) Nepal Agricultural Research Arnaud Burgess Zaw Min Sein Kiran Amatya Council (NARC) Krishna Prasad Paudyal DÓâíÓÌYÓæ %òŕⳫ°í==V + â–òÅ æ=Ó«³æí³–æ Nirdhan Utthan Bank Nikolai de Koning Aung Min Thein Iswar Atreya Prachanda Pradhan Culterra NICARAGUA CAFENICA IFDC Leon Fock Ligia López Feyikemi Adurogbangba AGROFORMA + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Red de Agua y Saneamiento =y Rajiv Gandhi Asociación de Productores y de Nicaragua (RASNIC) Akinloye Ajayi Exportadores de Nicaragua Xiomara del Socorro Medrano Utrecht University Y Ì‰æ– Ì– = «‰Å Herman Kasper Gilissen CISA AGRO Paula Novo Practitioners and Arbitrators Olatubosun Akanmidu Van Iperen International Comisión Nacional de Olam Nicaragua S.A. Joanne Grafton C³–âÓĔ̉Ìĉ‰æ Andrés Ospina Mejía National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology Naktuinbouw CATIE Federación de Cooperativas (NACGRAB) Kees Jan Groenewoud Amílcar Aguilar Carrillo para el Desarrollo (FECODESA Sunday E. Aladele Yϡ=ϡϵ Kadaster Semillas S.A. Adolfo Javier Pasquier Luna National Centre for Genetic Linda Heerdt Jesús Alcázar Andrade Resources and Biotechnology García & Bodán Attorneys & (NACGRAB) Utrecht University CATIE ÓòÌæ ÅÅÓâæ‰í=‰þ Olabisi Alamu Andrea Keessen Estela Clotilde Alemán Jessica Porras Mercado Templars Naktuinbouw CAFENICA Solomon Alo Henk Lange García & Bodán Attorneys & Ruben Poveda ÓòÌæ ÅÅÓâæ‰í=‰þ Etisalat AKD María Alejandra Aubert Revetsa Valentine Amadi Yorko Langerak Walter Ramos Universidad Nacional Agraria ‰•òâ‰C³–âÓĔ̖̉ ‰Ì DÓâíÓÌYÓæ %òŕⳫ°í==V lvaro Benavides González Arias & Muñoz =³Ë³í œ Floortje Nagelkerke Ana Teresa Rizo Manir Aminu Olam Nicaragua S.A. Ministry of Economic Affairs Emerson Carlos University of Northern Nigerian Communications Najim Ouelaouch Colorado Commission (NCC) Formunica Sarah Romano Stibbe N.V. Josephine Amuwa Lizbeth Castillo Rogier Raas Consortium Taboada & Sefton Fross Federación de Cooperativas Asociados Stibbe N.V. Olayemi Anyanechi para el Desarrollo (FECODESA Alfonso José Sandino Granera Soeradj Ramsanjhal Yϡ=ϡϵ %.ІVâÓߖÓËC‰³Â‰âĔ Blanca Castro Briones CISA AGRO Oluwatosin Ariyo Adrianus Rijk Carlos Fernando Vargas St. Thomas University School Maquipos S.A. Montealegre Aluko & Oyebode Óª=‰þ Jorge Luis Centeno B. Ina Arome VYJJYYϡ=ϡ Keith Rizzardi ChamAgro Roberto Villegas Federal Ministry of Agriculture Kadaster William Chamorro and Rural Development Eduardo Zamora Mabel Arwoh-Ajumobi Ruben Roes Agrovet Market Animal Health Isaac Antonio Chavarría Irias Naym Zamora University of Nigeria Naktuinbouw Ad Toussaint Charles Asadu Organismo Internacional Café Nor Regional de Sanidad Frederik Zeuthen IITA - West Africa Seeds and Plant Propagation Material, Ministry of Economic Agropecuaria Robert Asiedu Affairs Juan Agustín Chavarría V + â³í‰« ‰ÌÂ=³Ë³í œ Marien Valstar Olam Nicaragua S.A. NIGERIA Olugbenga Awe ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Van Iperen International Alba Cruz =‰%‰Ą íí C³–âÓĔ̖̉ ‰Ì =y Erik Van den Bergh Universidad Nacional de Federal Ministry of Agriculture Soji Awogbade AKD Ingeniería (UNI) and Rural Development Sergio Gámez Guerrero National Water Resources Gerrit van der Veen Ahmed Adekunle Institute Utrecht University + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Jackson, Etti & Edu Olusanjo Bamgboye Willemijn van Doorn-Hoekveld Rajiv Gandhi Morenike Ademiju Hadejia Jama'are Komadugu Naktuinbouw García & Bodán Attorneys & Olam Nigeria Yobe Basin Trust Fund Kees Van Ettekoven ÓòÌæ ÅÅÓâæ‰í=‰þ Green Ademola Hassan Bdliya Terencio García Montenegro Centre for Genetic Resources, Federal Ministry of Agriculture Bayer CropScience Nigeria the Netherlands (CGN) Olam Nicaragua S.A. and Rural Development Akongs Dankande Theo van Hintum Alfonso González Majasan Ademola Etisalat DÓâíÓÌYÓæ %òŕⳫ°í==V García & Bodán Attorneys & HT - Agro Ibrahim Dikko Gijs van Leeuwen ÓòÌæ ÅÅÓâæ‰í=‰þ Yomi Adeniyi Denisse Gutiérrez WEIR Utrecht University Technical Centre for Gabriel Ekanem Helena van Rijswick CAFENICA Agricultural and Rural Martha Estela Gutiérrez Cruz Federal Ministry of Agriculture Cooperation (CTA) Naktuinbouw and Rural Development 260 Federación de Cooperativas Matthew Adetunji John van Ruiten Adamu Eloji para el Desarrollo (FECODESA Jackson, Etti & Edu GroentenFruit Huis Yϡ=ϡϵ George Etomi and Partners Adekunle Adewale Peter Verbaas Rolando Herrera Torrez George Etomi âˉ¿‰âÓD³« â³‰=³Ë³í œ Centre for Genetic Resources, Instituto Nicaragüense de òų–D³« â³‰=³Ë³í œ Tokunbo Adewale Toriola the Netherlands (CGN) Telecomunicaciones y Correos Nick Ezeh Bert Visser ϴc=JYϵ Cocoa Association of Nigeria Edmundo Lacayo Castillo Templars Segun Adewumi Olusegun Stibbe N.V. Mojisola Fashola Jaap Willeumier Rodolfo Jose Lacayo Ubau Sefton Fross + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Oluwatobi Adeyemo Kadaster Olam Nicaragua S.A. Rajiv Gandhi Rik (H.J.) Wouters Martha Leiva Ecobank Nigeria Federal University of Coopec Kokari Estudio Olaechea Ayorinde Ishola Agriculture, Abeokuta Yahouza Maman Christian Arauco Adeyinka Sobowale Aluko & Oyebode Institut National de la Ilender Corp Oyinkansola Karunwi Seed Co West Africa Recherche Agronomique du Mauricio Alfredo Arcelles Elliot Tembo Niger (INRAN) Porras Ahmadu Bello University Abdoulaye Mohamadou Muhammed TawĔq Ladan NatCom Development & Estudio Ávila & Abogados .Ìý æíË Ìí=³Ë³í œϴDí Åϵ Banque Agricole du Niger Lucia Patricia vila Bedrega David Olakunle Ladipo II Damian Udeh Maman-Lawal Mossi Bagodou Estudio Ávila & Abogados Aluko & Oyebode Federal Ministry of Agriculture Ferme Semencière Ainoma Víctor vila Cabrera Oghogho Makinde and Rural Development Aïchatou A. Nasser Sadiq Umar Instituto Nacional de G. Elias & Co. Institut National de la Innovación Agraria (INIA) Bibitayo Mimiko Bayer CropScience Nigeria Recherche Agronomique du Roger Becerra Gallardo Caleb Usoh Niger (INRAN) ÓÌí³Ì Ìí‰Å=Ó«³æí³–æ=³Ë³í œ Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Mahamane Nasser Laouali Mike Mornu Abogados FAO Oscar Benavides Agricultural Research Council NIGER Judicael Pazou of Nigeria æíòœ³ÓcÓââ æĄcÓââ æ=‰â‰ Yarama Dakwa Ndirpaya Negoce International Niger Jérôme Pennec Abogados Johana Benites Federal Ministry of Water Institut National de la Université de Maradi Resources Recherche Agronomique du Mahamane Saadou Estudio Avila & Abogados Felicia Irima Ngaji-Usibe Niger (INRAN) Mario Camoirano Garaventa Saidou Addam Kiari FAO Ridan Farms Kuje Maman Sani Amadou Amadou Saley Estudio Ferrero Abogados Perpetual Nkechi Nwali Fabiola Capurro Chambre de Commerce, Airtel Niger Ecobank Nigeria d'Industrie et d'Artisannat du Karimou Salifou Andina Freight S.A.C Peter Obah Niger Renatto Castro Maliki Barhouni Ferme Semencière Ainoma Templars Mahaman Salifou Ministerio de Agricultura y Chike Obianwu Institut National de la Riego Recherche Agronomique du FAO Fernando Castro Verástegui Sefton Fross Mbodji Serigne Enovwor Odukuye Niger (INRAN) Issoufou Adam Boukar Iriarte & Asociados íòœ œϥýӖ‰íæC‰â–= ³°‰Ì Jessica Cerna National Agricultural Seed & Collaborateurs Ministère de l’Agriculture Council Idrissa Tchernaka Payet, Rey, Cauvi, Pérez Maman Chekaraou Philip O. Ojo Abogados Banque Agricole du Niger Ministère de l’Hydraulique et Vanessa Chávarry Potato Farmers Association of de l’Assainissment Abdoulaye Djadah Nigeria (POFAN) Abdourahamane Elhadji Ministerio del Ambiente Daniel Okafor Direction Générale de la Aboubacar Touraoua Milagros Coral ]  œ âí³Ĕ–‰í³ÓÌXò‰Å³íĄ Protection des Végétaux Abdou Alimatou Douki Ministère des Transports Rey & de los Ríos Abogados Control, NASC Attaoulahi Zakaouanou Gustavo Victor de los Ríos Sunday Folarin Okelola Fédération des coopératives Woolls =y maraîchères du Niger (FCMN- Niya) =‰ĉÓϜ YÓˉ҉ӆ&‰«Å³òªĔ Nicola Okolo Abdoussalam Douma PERU Abogados Fátima de Romaña Brass Fertilizer Asociación Nacional del Ben Okoye + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Transporte Terrestre de Carga Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Rajiv Gandhi (ANATEC) Abogados Aluko & Oyebode Institut National de la Juan Carlos Del Busto Jesutofunmi Olabenjo Cooperativa Agraria de Cafés Recherche Agronomique du Especiales de Yapaz Bajo ÓÓß â‰í³ý‰]ÓÅӆ‰ª¡=휉ϡ Y Ì‰æ– Ì– = «‰Å Niger (INRAN) - COPACEYBA Javier Domínguez Practitioners and Arbitrators Maman Garba Oluwaseun Olanrewaju ÓâßÓ≖³ÔÌ=hͺͺ]ϡϡϡ Instituto Nacional de Association Nationale des Coopératives des Innovación Agraria George Etomi and Partners Instituto Nacional de Professionnels de la Filière Lucía Elsa Pajuelo Cubillas Akasemi Ollor Innovación Agraria LOCAL EXPERTS Oignon =‰ÌœÅų‰Ì–  Falus Biotech International Abdoul Aziz HanaĔ Cissé Organismo Supervisor de Victor Endo D³« â³‰=íœϡ la Inversión Privada en Adefalujo Olumide Ministère de l’Hydraulique et c Å –ÓËò̳–‰–³ÓÌ æІJ].Vc= =‰ĉÓϜ YÓˉ҉ӆ&‰«Å³òªĔ de l’Assainissment Abogados  ÅÅòʼnÌíD³« â³‰=³Ë³í œ Attahirou Ibrahim Karbo Tropic-X S.A.C. Cinthya Leticia Escate Olugbenga Owolabi Direction Générale de Universidad Nacional Agraria Ampuero George Etomi and Partners l’Agriculture =‰CÓų̉ Miranda&Amado Abogados Veronica Oyedeji Ado Kanta Estudio Álvarez Calderón Nelly Espinoza Campos Y Ì‰æ– Ì– = «‰Å FAO Fanny Patricia Aguirre Garayar 261 =ÅÓ̉ӆòæí‰Ë‰Ìí  Practitioners and Arbitrators Lassaad Lachaal Ministerio de Agricultura y Abogados Olaseni A. Oyefeso Avocat à la Cour Riego María del Pilar Falcón Castro Brass Fertilizer Oumarou Mainassara José Luis Alarcón Tello Grupo Drogavet Sanjay Patel Promotion des Filières Estudio Álvarez Calderón Freddy Farfán Olam Nigeria Animales et de la Qualité- Alfonso lvarez Calderón Estudio Jurídico Monteblanco Kazeem Salaudeen Ministère des Resources Yrigoyen & Asociados Animales Janet Fernañdez George Etomi and Partners Adam Kade Malam Gadjimi Agrovet Market S.A. Ibifuro Sekibo Giovanna Anchorena Farvet FAO Manolo Fernañdez Bachir Maliki Ministerio de Agricultura y VÓÌí³Ĕ–³‰h̳ý â泜‰œ Rey & de los Ríos Abogados Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Riego Católica del Perú y Héctor Ignacio Zúñiga Luy Gatmaitan Verónika González Riva Universidad Peruana de Franco Aristotle G Larcina Ciencias Aplicadas Sergio David Goshima Zamami John Richard Pineda Galarza Angara Abello Concepcion PHILIPPINES Y «‰Å‰ӆâòĉ=‰þJªĔ– æ Percy Grandez Barrón =ÅÓ̉ӆòæí‰Ë‰Ìí  ϴY=tϵ Atlas Fertilizer Corporation Abogados Everlene O. Lee VÓÌí³Ĕ–³‰h̳ý â泜‰œ Juan Prado Bustamante Department of Environment Católica del Perú (PUCP) Soiltech Agricultural Products Jorge Armando Guevara Gil and Natural Resources Miranda & Amado Abogados Corporation Jose Miguel Puiggros Otero Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Ester Lupisan Ilender Corp Luis Gutiérrez Gatmaitan Estudio Jurídico Monteblanco ³Ë ӆý³Óí‰=‰þ%³âË Ruben P Acebedo II & Asociados ϴ=c=‰þϵ Jan Hendriks Javier Quiniones ³Ë ӆý³Óí‰=‰þ%³âË Marie Kris Madriaga Universidad Nacional Agraria ϴ=c=‰þϵ Unión Nacional de Choong Ang Vaccine =‰CÓų̉ Ramon Alikpala Transportistas Dueños de =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ Elizabeth Consuelo Heros Camiones del Perú – UNT University of the Philippines Juver Membrebe Aguilar Javier Marchese Quiroz =Óæ‰ÒÓæ Soiltech Agricultural Products Estudio Olaechea Nestor Altoveros Autoridad Nacional del Agua Corporation Jose Antonio Honda (ANA) Pilipino Banana Growers and Dan Oñate Ministerio del Ambiente José Aurelio Ramírez Garro Exporters Association Inc. Puno & Peñarroyo Nancy Huillchuanaco (PBGEA) C. Vet. Agro Gianna Maree Penalosa Stephen Antig Iriarte & Asociados María Violeta Ramírez Jiménez Puno & Peñarroyo Erick Americo Iriarte Ahon VòÌӉ̜VòÌÓ=‰þJªĔ– æ Agrovet Market S.A. Fernando S. Peñarroyo John Maynard G. Atotubo Miranda & Amado Abogados Jimena Del Risco VòÌӉ̜VòÌÓ=‰þJªĔ– æ Josue Greeg Jaen Palomino Angara Abello Concepcion America Móvil Perú S.A.C. - Claro Roderico V. Puno Y «‰Å‰ӆâòĉ=‰þJªĔ– æ Invetsa Juan Rivadeneyra ϴY=tϵ Puno & Peñarroyo Edgardo Landa Barsallo Blesie Mae P. Bustamate Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Ramiila Quinto =‰ĉÓϜ YÓˉ҉ӆ&‰«Å³òªĔ Abogados Angara Abello Concepcion Department of Information Abogados Luis Carlos Rodrigo Y «‰Å‰ӆâòĉ=‰þJªĔ– æ and Communication Julián Li ϴY=tϵ Agrovet Market S.A. Technology (DICT) Annelisse Rodríguez J. Alessandra G. Cochico Alana Ramos Estudio Jurídico Monteblanco & Asociados Correa Trucking Cooperativa Norandino VòÌӉ̜VòÌÓ=‰þJªĔ– æ Jany Mamani Ferdinand Correa Clever Rojas Hernández Graciello Timothy Reyes Unión Nacional de ³Ë ӆý³Óí‰=‰þ%³âË Oikocredit Board of Agricultural Transportistas Dueños de ϴ=c=‰þϵ Frank Rubio Engineering Camiones del Perú – UNT Ronald Dime Ariodear C. Rico Luis Alberto Marcos Bernal ŠË‰â‰œ Óˠ△Óœ =³Ë‰ Roger Rubio Department of Environment Asia Trans International Inc. Equipo de Derecho Ambiental and Natural Resources Bong Ronquillo - EDERA Unión Nacional de Edwin Domingo Carmen Nadine Márquez Transportistas Dueños de Department of Information Muñoz Camiones del Perú – UNT Philippines Provincial Road and Communication Management Facility (PRMF) ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Raquel Salcedo Technology (DICT) Ministerio de Comercio Nelson Doroy Alberto Salvador Exterior y Turismo (MINCETUR) Instituto Nacional de Shane Martínez del guila Innovación Agraria (INIA) East-West Seed Company, Inc. Puno & Peñarroyo Rosa Angélica Sánchez Díaz Bel Enriquez Edward Santiago Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agraria (SENASA) æíòœ³ÓcÓââ æĄcÓââ æ=‰â‰ Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas East-West Seed Company, Inc. Pedro Molina Abogados Nestor A. Espenilla, Jr. Mary Ann Sayoc Karina Seminario Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Philippines Provincial Road Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Abogados Ministerio del Ambiente Management Facility (PRMF) Maria Cynthia Sison Fiorella Monge Manuel Silva Repetto Ananias ДBhong’ Fernandez Jr Soiltech Agricultural Products Estudio Jurídico Monteblanco Ministerio del Ambiente Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Corporation & Asociados Natalia Soto Gatmaitan Rene So Sandro Monteblanco Alan C Fontanosa FAO Agri Component Corporation Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Gonzalo Tejada + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Rodolfo H. Tamayo Abogados Rajiv Gandhi Carlos Monteza Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Angara Abello Concepcion Abogados Agricultural Machinery Testing Y «‰Å‰ӆâòĉ=‰þJªĔ– æ æíòœ³ÓcÓââ æĄcÓââ æ=‰â‰ Francisco Tong and Evaluation Center ϴY=tϵ Abogados Darwin Iaranguren Eusebio V. Tan Ernesto Alonso Naveda Oikocredit 262 Philippines Provincial Road Cavero Carina Torres Management Facility (PRMF) Ministerio del Ambiente Payet, Rey, Cauvi, Pérez Rex Kinder POLAND Adrian Fernando Neyra Abogados Palomino Carlos Alberto Torres Mariño Sycip Salazar Hernandez & International Cooperation Gatmaitan Department, Agricultural Universidad Nacional de San Comité de Semillas de Rose Marie M. and Food Quality Inspection Antonio Abad del Cusco =‰Ë•‰Ą áò  King-Dominguez (IJHARS) Ramiro Ortega Dueñas Mario Valencia Hernádez National Irrigation Kancelaria Adwokatów i æíòœ³ÓcÓââ æĄcÓââ æ=‰â‰ Rodrigo, Elías & Medrano Administration (NIA) Y‰œ–ÔþVâ‰þÌĄ–°=³ß³Íæ³ӆ Abogados Abogados Bonifacio Labiano Walczak s.c Mauricio Paredes Contreras Úrsula Zavala Institute of Technology and Jagiellonian University Lorena Ciobanu National Institute of Research =³ª ]–³ Ì– æ Piotr Szwedo Development for Machines Bogdan Bak fò–‰•Œâ– ‰ӆæӖ³‰ð³³ and Installations designed to WKB Wiercinski, Kwiecinski, Sergiu Cretu Agriculture an ÓˉÍ泉Ââĉ þæ³V‰Å³Ì‰ Baehr Ion Pirna (DZP) Sergiusz Urban câ Å ‰=‰þJªĔ–  Maciej BiaÊek Adrian Dorin Decianu Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ BNT Neupert Zamorska & Iulian Popescu Regional Environmental Partnerzy sp.j. Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ Center for Central and Eastern Dominika Izabela Wagrodzka Monia Dobrescu Clifford Chance Badea SCA Europe (REC) Loredana Ralea t‰âœĄÍæ³ӆV‰âíÌ âæ Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ MichaÊ Brennek Dominik WaÊkowski Maria Dosan National Administration ÓˉÍ泉Ââĉ þæ³V‰Å³Ì‰ "Romanian Waters" t°³í ӆ‰æ ==V fò–‰•Œâ– ‰ӆæӖ³‰ð³³ (DZP) Adrian Riti Grzegorz J. Wsiewski Ciprian Dragomir Daniel Chojnacki DcCJ]VY= Kancelaria Prawna Piszcz, Peli Filip SCA Fundusz Mikro Cristina Rosu Elizabeth Sarbu Norek i Wspólnicy sp.k. Ioan Dumitraëcu Magdalena Dulczewska Monika Witt Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ ³â³æ&Óâ‰Ì=‰þ%³âË + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Alina Solschi BNT Neupert Zamorska & Daniela Dunel-Stancu Rajiv Gandhi Partnerzy sp.j. KPMG Peli Filip SCA PIMR - Industrial Institute of Jakub WoliÍski Laura Toncescu M‹d‹lina Fildan Agricultural Engineering Julia Goscianska-Lowinska John Deere Polska Sp. z o.o. câ Å ‰=‰þJªĔ–  + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Stanislaw Wolski Cristina Trelea Rajiv Gandhi ÓˉÍ泉Ââĉ þæ³V‰Å³Ì‰ (DZP) Plant Breeding and A.R.C.P.A. Romanian Grain Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ Tymon Grabarczyk Acclimatization Institute Traders Association George Ghitu (IHAR) Vasile Varvaroi Yara Marcin ZaczyÍski fò–‰•Œâ– ‰ӆæӖ³‰ð³³ Olaf Günther-Borstel Gabriela Vasiliu-Isac Bogdan Halcu t‰âœĄÍæ³ӆV‰âíÌ âæ Y&tYӖʉþæ³&≖ĉĄÂ³ Izabela ZieliÍska-BarÊoČek JDs=t ].]JYÓˉ̳‰]ϡYϡ=ϡ tæßÔÅ̳–ĄœþÓ‰–‰]ßÔʉ Miruna Vlad Andreea Hincu Jawna Vetoquinol Biowet Sp. z o.o. Wojciech ZieliÍski ӉÌí‰Ϝ&³œ ³æ³æӖ³‰í³³=‰þ Wioletta GwizdaÊa =‰þJªĔ– +‰í «‰Ì Firm Andreea Iancu Squire Patton Boggs Krisztina Voicu Igor G. Hanas Iuliana Ionescu ROMANIA Institute for Control of Misiewicz, Mosek & Partners Åˉ¿ӆŕòííÓâÌ Ąæ‰í=‰þ Veterinary Biological Products National Authority for Alice Ionica and Medicines =‰þJªĔ–  Management and Regulation Valentin Voicu Anna Kluczek-Kollár in Communications (ANCOM) Peli Filip SCA Squire Patton Boggs Mihaela Ispas National Bank of Romania RafaÊ Kozerski Romanian Association of RUSSIAN State Institute for Variety Testing c° JªĔ– ªÓâY «³æíâ‰í³ÓÌÓª and Registration (ISTIS) Producers and Importers of Agricultural Machinery- APIMAR FEDERATION Medicinal Products, Medical Devices and Biocidal Products c‰«³â³ÓÌæòÅí³Ì«]ϡYϡ=ϡ Mihai Ivascu Ministry of Agriculture of the Anna Kucharska Russian Federation Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ Peli Filip SCA Institute of Technology and Ana Maria Abrudan Monica Lancu Olam Russia =³ª ]–³ Ì– æ Leszek Labedzki National Institute of Research JDs=t JâⳖÂϴ.]ϵ== Development for Machines Catalina Raluca Lazar Polska Izba Gospodarcza Vavilov Institute of General and Installations designed to Maisadour Semences Maszyn i Urzadzen Rolniczych Genetics Agriculture and Food Industry YÓˉ̳‰]ϡYϡ=ϡ (PIGMIUR) Andrei Anatolievich Isabela Alexandru Lucian Melut Patryk Lajstet Pomortsev Åˉ¿ӆŕòííÓâÌ Ąæ‰í=‰þ Peli Filip SCA John Deere Polska Sp. z o.o. MSU Eurasian Center on Food Nicoleta Almaj Murariu Anca Mitocaru Miroslaw Leszczynski Security Reff & Associates SCA Aleksey Belugin LOCAL EXPERTS PIMR - Industrial Institute of National Sanitary Veterinary Silvia Axinescu and Food Safety Authority Agricultural Engineering Association of International Jan Radniecki Ministry of Agriculture and Rodica Morcov Road Carriers (ASMAP) Rural Development Olga Brovkina t‰âœĄÍæ³ӆV‰âíÌ âæ ].]JYÓˉ̳‰]ϡYϡ=ϡ Doina Baiculescu Costin Motoiu Martyna Robakowska 9Ó°Ì  â Yòæ== Åˉ¿ӆŕòííÓâÌ Ąæ‰í=‰þ Anatoly Chuchkov Y&tYӖʉþæ³&≖ĉĄÂ³ Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ Sorina Baroi Mona Muéat tæßÔÅ̳–ĄœþÓ‰–‰]ßÔʉ &ÓÅíæ•Å‰í=V Jawna Peli Filip SCA Ekaterina Dedova Agrium - Agroport Romania Wojciech RocÊawski Cristina Barticel S.A. Beiten Burkhardt Rechtsanwälte Ofelia Nalbant 263 Dentons Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ ϴííÓâÌ ĄæІ‰íІ=‰þϵ Ewa Rutkowska-Subocz Andrei Boaca Ekaterina Dudina ;t]] Ë³Ìí ]ϡYϡ=ϡ ;t]=Ӗ°ÓþVÓÅæ‰ =‰þJªĔ– +‰í «‰Ì Doriana Nitu FGBNU Rosinform Agrotech Agnieszka Sasiadek Beatrice Bostan Vyacheslav Fedorenko Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ Dentons Còé‰íӆæӖ³‰ð³³ Andrei Ormenean + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Agnieszka SkorupiÍska Gheorghe Buta Rajiv Gandhi ;t]=Ӗ°ÓþVÓÅæ‰ Misiewicz, Mosek & Partners Reff & Associates SCA Codru Paun Syngenta =‰þJªĔ–  Alexandru Campean Sergey Goncharov PaweÊ Szkodlarski JDs=t =V³ß âYòæ=³Ë³í œ Equity Juris Chambers %.]C³–âÓĔ̖̉ ]¡Ì¡«‰Å Programme Semencier Vyacheslav Khorovskiy Casandra Kabagyema Philippe Couteau d'Afrique de l'Ouest/ West Africa Seed Programme 9Ó°Ì  â Yòæ== Rwanda Natural Resources Institut Sénégalais de (PSAO/WASP) Denis Klimanov Authority (RNRA) Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Adama Keita Vincent de Paul Kabalisa Diby Dia Valery Kolesnikov Finkone Transit S.A. Equity Juris Chambers Crédit Mutuel du Sénégal (CMS) Doudou Charles Lo Russian Grain Union Cynthia Kankindi Baye Djiga Diagne Aleksandr Vladimiroich Université Cheikh Anta Diop Korbut Rwanda Natural Resources Institut Sénégalais de de Dakar (UCAD) Authority (RNRA) Recherches Agricoles Hélène Diakher Madioune V.V. Dokuchaev Soil Science Dismas Karuranga Demba Diakhate Institute Université Cheikh Anta Diop Daniil Kozlov Equity Juris Chambers Industries Chimiques du de Dakar (UCAD) Diane Kayitare Sénégal (ICS) Ibrahima Mall Beiten Burkhardt Rechtsanwälte Alassane Diallo ϴííÓâÌ ĄæІ‰íІ=‰þϵ Seed Co Institut de Recherche pour le Alexey Kuzmishin Roland Kayumbu Cellou Diallo Développement (IRD) Dominique Masse Anton Lachinov Rwanda Natural Resources Conseil Ouest et Centre Authority (RNRA) Africain pour la Recherche et Sahélienne d’entreprise de Russian Veterinary Boniface Mahirwe le Développement Agricoles distribution en agrobusiness Association (CORAF/WECARD) ϴ]]Y=ϵ Sergey Lakhtyukhov Jean Pierre Mubiligi Yacouba Diallo Kande Moulaye Association of International Paul Joseph Mugemangango Organisation pour la Mise Direction de la Protection Road Carriers (ASMAP) en Valeur du Fleuve Sénégal Shagasha Tea Company des Végétaux, Ministère Andrey Lokhov (OMVS) =³Ë³í œ de l'Agriculture et de Malang Diatta l'Équipement Rural 9Ó°Ì  â Yòæ== Robert Muhirwa Roman Medvedev Abdoulaye Ndiaye Université Cheikh Anta Diop Rwanda Natural Resources de Dakar (UCAD) Crédit Mutuel du Sénégal Choong Ang Vaccine Authority (RNRA) Moctar Diaw (CMS) =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ Renatha Mujawayezu Juver Membrebe Mouhamed Ndiaye Université Cheikh Anta Diop National Bank of Rwanda de Dakar (UCAD) Rokhaya Ndiaye Rosagromash Association Elonie Mukandoli Moustapha Diène - Russian Association of Oikocredit International Crédit Mutuel du Sénégal Agricultural Machinery Bassirou Dione Geoffrey Musyoki (CMS) Producers Thiouba Diop Ndiaye Natalia Negrebetskaya Coumba Nor Thiam Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Oumar Diop Ordre National des Géomètres = «‰ÅÓËß‰ÌĄ‰æí== Authority (RURA) Jean Baptiste Mutabazi Experts du Sénégal (O.N.G.E.S) Alexei Pulik ISRA (Institut Sénégalais de Samba Ndongo Recherches Agricoles) = «‰ÅÓËß‰ÌĄ‰æí== Gisakura Tea Company Pape Madiama Diop Institut Sénégalais de Surana Radnaeva Philippe Nahayo Recherches Agricoles Crédit Mutuel du Sénégal (CMS) ]í‰í  âí³Ĕ–‰í³ÓÌòí°Óâ³íĄ Rwanda Agriculture Board Yacine Badiane Ndour Cheikh Bara Diouf Belgorod (RAB) Claver Ngaboyisonga Cabinet d'Avocat Maître Sergei Resetnik Union Internationale pour Moustapha Ndoye la Conservation de la Nature CMS International BV K-Solutions & Partners Moustapha Ndoye (UICN) Artem Rodin David Ngirinshuti ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Modou Diouf Kader Fanta Ngom Integrites Yara Industries Chimiques du Sahélienne d’entreprise de Pavel Rusetskiy Peter Ngugi Sénégal (ICS) distribution en agrobusiness National Bank of Rwanda Santosh Dorak ϴ]]Y=ϵ Integrites Andrey Ryabinin Gerard Nsabimana Lansana Niabaly Institut Sénégalais de National Bank of Rwanda Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Conseil Ouest et Centre Korma and Rationy NN Bernard Nsengiyumva Alioune Fall Africain pour la Recherche et Sergey Ivanovich Sovelyev le Développement Agricoles Innocent Nzeyimana Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) (CORAF/WECARD) Aboubakar Njoya RWANDA Seed Co Cheikh Alassane Fall Kasaija Patrick Banage TSTC Senegal Transafrica Container + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Oikocredit Rajiv Gandhi Adja Aminat Sabara Diop câ‰ÌæßÓâí=íœϡ Ndaru Abdul Frank Rubio Direction Générale des Impôts Compagnie Agricole de Saint- National Bank of Rwanda =Óò³æœò]¡Ì¡«‰Å]ϴ]=ϵ et des Domaines (DGID) KCB Bank Rwanda Macodou Sall Alexis Bizimana Bernard Rugira François Grandry John Bosco Talemwa Coumba Nor Thiam Institut Sénégalais de Grace Chilande Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Sall Ibrahima IFDC Esperance Uwimana Moussa Sall 264 Jeanne d'Arc Nyaruyonga Initiative Prospective Agricole Rwanda Agriculture Board et Rurale =V]=Ӆþ Yþ‰Ìœ‰CÓòÌ퉳Ìc ‰]Y= (RAB) Ibrahima Ka Léon Patrice Sarr Jean Pierre Dukuzumuremyi Ruganzu Vicky Ministère de l'Agriculture et FAO Senegal Jean Rwihaniza Gapusi de l'Equipement Rural Makhfousse Sarr ‰ÅíÓÌYþ‰Ìœ‰=íœϡ SENEGAL Samba Ka Institut Sénégalais de Henry Gitau Ministère de l'Environnement Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Amafrique Suarl Saër Sarr et du Développement Durable Ministry of Agriculture and Mamadou Kande Initiative Prospective Agricole Animal Resources et Rurale Leon Hakizamungu Cheikh Oumar Ba Association sénégalaise pour IPM - Association of Environmental Protection Uría & Menéndez la promotion de l’ irrigation et Manufacturers of Tractors and Agency Carlos de Cárdenas Smith du drainage (ASPID) Agricultural Machinery Dragana Vidojevi— Ndongo Sène Vaso Labovi— Rafael de Sádaba Regulatory Agency for Conseil Ouest et Centre Agricom Company Group Electronic Comunications and 9ӆ&‰âⳫò æϜ]ϡ=ϡVϡ Africain pour la Recherche et Strahinja Lali— Postal Services Alfredo Fernández Rancaño le Développement Agricoles Sanja Vuk˜evi—-Vajs Plant Protection Directorate + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ (CORAF/WECARD) Rajiv Gandhi Paul Senghor Sladjana Luki— =‰þJªĔ– ò̳— Nemanja uni— University of Novi Sad Miguel García Carretero Direction Générale des Impôts et des Domaines (DGID) Milan Martinov =‰þJªĔ– ò̳— Vodafone España S.A.U. Alle Badou Sine Tijana Zuni— Mari— Yara Matías González Matforce Stevan Mesarovi— Navatrans Mamadou Sow RTI DOO NOVI SAD SPAIN Miguel ngel González Goran Mickovi— Cabrejas PNE Senegal Ameropa Antoine Diokel Thiaw Plant Protection Directorate Universidad de Sevilla Nebojèa Milosavljevi— Dirección General de Sanidad Nuria Hernández-Mora Cabinet Habibatou Touré de la Producción Agraria Habibatou Touré Opportunity Bank Serbia Uría & Menéndez Dejan Milovanovi— Dirección General del Catastro Marta López Narváez GERA Papa Saër Wade 9‰âÓæʼný â̳.Ìæí³íòí  Grupo AN Cuatrecasas Gonçalves Miodrag Milovanovi— Pereira CAURIE Micro Finance John Deere Spain Fernando Mínguez Hernández André Roland Youm Business Association of Ministerio de Agricultura, ÓÅ «³ÓJĔ–³‰Åœ .Ì« Ì³ âÓæ =V]=Ӆþ Agricultural Machinery Alimentación y Medio de Telecomunicación (COIT) Ndèye Khady Youm Importers and Exporters – Ambiente (MAGRAMA) Noelia Miranda Santos A.M.I. Novi Sad Djordje Mièkovi— Ministerio de Economía y 9ӆ&‰âⳫò æϜ]ϡ=ϡVϡ Competividad SERBIA Agroglobe Juan Muguerza Odriozola Biljana Pavkov Ministerio de Fomento Association for Transport Ministerio de Agricultura, and Telecommunication of Environmental Protection Alimentación y Medio Yara Chamber of Commerce and Agency Ambiente (MAGRAMA) Industry of Serbia Filip Radovi— Asociación Nacional de Don José Eugenio Naranjo Maquinaria Agropecuaria, Chicharro Syngenta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestal y de Espacios Verdes Environmental Protection ÓÅ «³ÓJĔ–³‰Åœ .Ì« Ì³ âÓæ (ANSEMAT) ;‰â‰ÌÓý³—ӆD³ÂÓų—=‰þ%³âË Sneċana Sav˜i—-Petri— de Telecomunicación (COIT) Ignacio Ruiz Abad Stefan Antoni— Adrián Nogales Escudero Ministry of Agriculture and Serrano y Acosta Abogados =‰þÓªĔ– ÓªcÓ˳æʼný_ò̿‰ Environmental Protection Gómez-Acebo & Pombo María Jesús Acosta Pina Jelena Bajin Milena Savi— Ivanov •Ó«‰œÓæ]ϡ=ϡVϡ Uría & Menéndez José Luis Palma Fernández University of Novi Sad University of Novi Sad Isabel Aguilar Alonso Milena Be˜eli—-Tomin Lazar Savin Asociación Comercial Española Uría & Menéndez de Fertilizantes (ACEFER) AGRO-Ferticrop d.o.o. =³Ë‰«â‰³Ì] â•³‰ Juan Pardo Carolina Albuerne González Dragana Blagojevi— Miroslav Sidor Ministerio de Agricultura, Cuatrecasas Gonçalves hІ=.D; University of Novi Sad Pereira Alimentación y Medio Slavko Bogdanovi— Mirko Simiki— Luis Pérez de Ayala Ambiente (MAGRAMA) Regulatory Agency for Victoria Montemayor Alvarado Syngenta Serbia Estación Experimental de Aula Electronic Comunications and Pavle Sklenar Dei - CSIC Universidad de Murcia Postal Services Enrique Playán Santiago Manuel lvarez Zoran Brankovi— ]í‰ÌÂÓý³—‰ÌœV‰âíÌ âæ=‰þ Carreño JªĔ–  â‰â & æí³ÔÌ]ϡ=ϡhϡ University of Novi Sad Nebojèa Stankovi— Enrique Alfonso Ramos =³Ë‰«â‰³Ì.•¡â³–‰Ϝ]ϡϡ Boċo Dalmacija Carlos Alvarez Fernandez YÓ‰æ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ%³âË Cobo Serrano Abogados LOCAL EXPERTS =³Ë‰«â‰³Ì] â•³‰ Vuk Stankovi— Teresa Reíllo Sáez Uría & Menéndez Aleksandar Devi— Francisco Arróspide Baselga Ministry of Agriculture and Universidad de Alicante 9‰âÓæʼný â̳.Ìæí³íòí  Environmental Protection Millan Requena Casanova Universidad CEU Cardenal Duèan uri— Slavoljub Stanojevi— Herrera Cuatrecasas Gonçalves Ivana Filipovi— Adela M. Aura Larios de Milan Stefanovi— Pereira Medrano Elicia Rodríguez Puñal + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Opportunity Bank Serbia Rajiv Gandhi H.M. Clause Ibérica S.A.U. Marko Stupar Agencia Española de Rafael Bonet Pertusa Medicamentos y Productos Ministry of Agriculture and =‰þÓªĔ– ÓªcÓ˳æʼný_ò̿‰ 265 Polytechnic University of Sanitarios (AEMPS) Environmental Protection Tomislav _unjka Catalonia Consuelo Rubio Dragana Godjevac Obradovi— Genera Serbia Lucila Candela Lledó Asociación Nacional de Senad Hopi— Dejan Tadi— Cobo Serrano Abogados Obtentores Vegetales (ANOVE) YÓ‰æ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=‰þ%³âË Diego Cobo Serrano Elena Sáenz «âÓ=³Ì Ìí‰â Nikola Ili— Dragan Terzi— Cuatrecasas Gonçalves Serrano y Acosta Abogados Ministry of Agriculture and Pereira Javier Serrano García Opportunity Bank Serbia Environmental Protection Ivan Tomi— Alberto Cortegoso Vaamonde â‰â & æí³ÔÌ]ϡ=ϡhϡ Maja Je˜menica Semillas Guadalquivir Enrique Alfonso Soriano Waterconsult Miroslav Tomin Olivier Crassous SRI LANKA Choong Ang Vaccine + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Ministry of Energy and Water =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ Rajiv Gandhi Resources ]â³=‰Ì‰Óò̖³ÅªÓâ Juver Membrebe Agricultural Research Policy Ministry of Animal Resources National Bank of Tajikistan (CARP) ϡ=ϡӆ%ϡ ]‰â‰Ë and Fisheries (MARF) Sanuji Munasinghe Ibtisam A. Goreish J9]D;].&J= 9‰Ì‰í°‰Â氉Ì&í =íœϡ Sarob Asoka Ajantha Julius & Creasy Mahmoud Elsheikh Omer & Ashwini Natesan Associates - Advocates Seed Association of Tajikistan ]â³=‰Ì‰t‰í âV‰âíÌ âæ°³ß Asmaa Hamad Abdullatif Kusum Athukorala Sudath Perera Associates ]  œ%‰âË=‰í³ªCòâӜÓý Sudath Perera Emirates Islamic Bank Julius & Creasy Amr Hamad Omar Óų•â³=‰þ%³âË Menaka Balendra ]â³=‰Ì‰Óò̖³ÅªÓâ«â³–òÅíòâ‰Å Zhanyl Abdrakhmanova Research Policy (CARP) ĉí‰Ì=‰þ%³âË F.J. & G. De Saram Thilina Premjayanth Tayeb Hassabo JYJ.檉â‰=íœϡ Buwaneka Basnayake Firdavs Abdufattoev =.YD‰æ³‰ CTC Group Ceylon Grain Industries Rohan Samarajiva Izzeldin Hassan Tajik Academy of Agricultural M. Ziard Caffoor Sciences (TAAS) Geethani Samarasinha Nelein Engineering & Spare Hukmatullo Ahmadov ϡ=ϡӆ%ϡ ]‰â‰Ë V‰âíæÓϡϜ=íœϡ Savantha De Saram s ítÓâŜϴVscϵ=íœϡ Mohamed Alhadi Ibrahim Óų•â³=‰þ%³âË K. Sancheeswaran Hudzhanazar Aslamshoev Ajantha De Silva University of Bahhry Sumudu Senanayake Guma Komey ]í‰í ÓË˳íí  ªÓâ=‰Ìœ Dave Tractors & Combines Management and Geodesy ϴVýíϵ=íœϡ Sudath Perera Associates Mahmoud Elsheikh Omer & Achithri Silva of the Republic of Tajikistan Anil de Silva Associates - Advocates ϴ]=C&ϵ Tarig Mahmoud Elsheikh University of Peradeniya C³Ì³æíâĄÓª=³ý æíӖ Mukaddas Edgorova Omer Dunu Arachchige Nimal and Rural Community Development Institute of Agricultural Dharmasena Transnile for Trade & Aruni Tiskumara Economics Agriculture Ëß³â c ‰æVýí=íœϡ Tanzila Ergasheva Faisal Mohamed Ali Sahampathy Dissanayake Environment Foundation =³Ë³í œϴ%=ϵ Ministry of Energy and Water Mahmoud Elsheikh Omer & F.J. & G. De Saram Chamila Weerathunghe Resources Associates - Advocates Chamal Fernando Raftor Eralievich Hotamov Ehab Mohamed Fadul C³Ì³æíâĄÓª=³ý æíӖ Asian Development Bank and Rural Community ==CJϤâý‰ÌœϤ Darfur Development and (ADB) Development Shahnoz Ikromi Reconstruction Agency (DDRA) Harsha Fernando Chandani Ganga Wijesinghe Harum Mukhayer United States Agency for ϡ=ϡӆ%ϡ ]‰â‰Ë International Development Mai Agro Mayuri Fernando (USAID) Alnazeer Naser SUDAN Obid Islomov Heladiv Jˠ╠ʼní³=‰þ%³âË Rohan Fernando Alpha Group State Unitary Enterprise NaĔsa Omer Registration of Immovable + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ CTC Group Property (SUERIP) Al Osman Industries Rajiv Gandhi Muhammed Abass Akram Kahorov Hussam Osman Seed and Planting Material Jˠ╠ʼní³=‰þ%³âË Association of Veterinarians ĉí‰Ì=‰þ%³âË Development Center Arif Abdelsalm of Tajikistan Malaz Osman ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 D. J. L. Sunil Govinnage Mahmadnazar Kashkuloev Ahmed M. Adam Central Bank of Sudan The Colombo Tea Traders' Dalal Salih Tajik Research Institute of Soil Central Bank of Sudan Association Sciences Mohammed Ali Hettiarachchi Hemaratne National Telecommunications Bobisho Kholov ĉí‰Ì=‰þ%³âË Corporation (NTC) IFAD Sami Salih ABBAT – Tajik Association of Inaam Attiq Anura Herath Road Transport Operators Fews Net Harvest Hybrid Seed Co. Larisa Kislyakova ]  œ âí³Ĕ–‰í³ÓÌӆVʼnÌí Yahia Awad Elkareem Mahmoud Seddon Protection Center State Unitary Enterprise Keerthi Hettiarachchi Y‰³•‰câ‰Ìæ=íœϡ Mahmoud Elsheikh Omer & Registration of Immovable Sarah Badreldin Associates - Advocates Property (SUERIP) Julius & Creasy Amel M. Sharif Mumin Kurbonaliev Ranila Hurulle Grace Chilande Central Bank of Sudan Grata International Ganasiri Jayaratne University of Khartoum Mohamed Siddeg Nurlan Kyshtobaev Mohamed Salih Dafalla Hayleys Agriculture Holdings Y‰³•‰câ‰Ìæ=íœϡ Dilnavoz Sarbozovich Malakbozov =íœϡ PASED Vickram Swaminath Chathuranga Udayal Kumara Salah Elawad Grata International Kamoliddin Mukhamedov s ítÓâŜϴVscϵ=íœϡ Y‰³•‰câ‰Ìæ=íœϡ 266 S. Kumarathas Shaimaa Elfadil TAJIKISTAN Y]hc‰¿³Â«âÓ= ‰æ³Ì« Batir Muminov ]D]% œ â‰í³ÓÌ=íœϡ University of Khartoum Committee on Environmental Navindra Liyanaarachchi Elnour Elsiddig Protection under the ==CJϤâý‰ÌœϤ Government of the Republic Shoira Muzaffarovna Sadykova C.I.C. Seed & Foliage Ministry of Agriculture and of Tajikistan Waruna Madawanarachchi Forestry Bahriddin Najmudinov Adil Yousif Eltaib Delegation of the European International Water Union to the Republic of CJSC Agrotechservice Management Institute (IWMI) Alnuha Company Tajikistan Farhod Namozov Herath Manthrithilake Moneim Elyas Ministry of Agriculture CJSC Agrotechservice ϡ=ϡӆ%ϡ ]‰â‰Ë CTC Group Jalolidin Nuraliev Hasanthie Manukulasooriya Sami Freigoun J9]Д«âÓ³Ìý æ핉ÌÂЕ =‰Â YòÂþ‰‰æ³Ìt‰í â °‰ÌœÅ â‰Ìœc°ÓÌ«І Â=‰þ Ministry of Food, Agriculture Suhrob Odinayev Board JªĔ– æ ‰Ìœ=³ý æíӖ Florence H. Mahay Sarunporn Chaianant Taha Asikoglu National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center University of Dar es Salaam ]³ÅÂ= «‰ÅÓϡϜ=íœϡ ‰ÂˉÂýò‰íÅ´ÂöâÓæò Neimatullo Safarov Amos Enock Majule Jason Corbett Nazl´ Baéak Ay´k Tajik Academy of Agricultural Ministry of Agriculture, Food °‰ÌœÅ â‰Ìœc°ÓÌ«І Â=‰þ Aegean Agricultural Research Sciences (TAAS) Security and Cooperatives JªĔ– æ Institute (AARI) Saiddzhamol Saidov Rebecca Mawishe Nopamon Thevit Intralib Lerzan Aykas Grata International c‰Ìĉ‰Ì³‰JªĔ–³‰Å]  œ Department of Agricultural ‰âʼnæ=‰þ Kanat Seidaliev  âí³Ĕ–‰í³ÓÌ.Ìæí³íòí ϴcJ].ϵ Extension Burçin Barlas Dorah May Dares Kittiyopas National Association of CC‰ý³Ó«ÅòӆʼnÌ=‰þ Derkhan Farms Mkono & Co. Advocates Sasivara Laohasurayodhin JªĔ–  Azizbek Sharipov Kasha Mchaki Ayça Bayburan Choong Ang Vaccine National Biodiversity and Ministry of Agriculture, Food =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ ³–‰Â=‰þÓªĔ–  Biosafety Center Security and Cooperatives Juver Membrebe Vahit Bicak Khisravshoh Shermatov Katemani Mdilly HM Clause ‰«Å‰Ą‰Ìӆz‰Å–³Ì=‰þ%³âË Ministry of Agriculture National Plant Genetic Jack Metzelaar Nurettin Emre Bilginoglu Saimahmad Shohzoda Resources Centre Margaret J. Mollel °‰ÌœÅ â‰Ìœc°ÓÌ«І Â=‰þ ‰«Å‰Ą‰Ìӆz‰Å–³Ì=‰þ%³âË ABBAT – Tajik Association of JªĔ– æ Hasan Can Caglayan Road Transport Operators Ministry of Agriculture, Food Kobchai Nitungkorn Makhmadali Mirzoevich Security and Cooperatives General Directorate of State Shokirov Joyce Mosile Raweekit Phutthithanakorn Hydraulic Works Cuma Çakmak D‰ĉâ³æ°ÓӆC³âĉÓ ý=‰þ%³âË s=C=‰þ Kasetsart University Sherzod Sodatkadamov Clara Mramba Kobkiat Pongput University of Istanbul Hacer Düzen ]ÓËÓÌ%‰âˉ– ýí³Â‰== Ministry of Agriculture, Food National Bureau of Shamsullo Turdiev Security and Cooperatives Agriculture Commodity and Zimas Ziraat Makinalari Jubilant Mwangi Food Standards Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Tassnee Pradyabumrung Turgut Ekinci s³– Vâ æ³œ ÌíϥæJªĔ–  TANZANIA Martha Ngalowera Royal Irrigation Department ‰âʼnæ=‰þ Chaiwat Prechawit Deniz Eren =ÓÌ«âÓc‰Ìĉ‰Ì³‰=íœϡ Julius Ningu Ministry of Agriculture and Turkish Association of ETC Agro Tractors and Ministry of Agriculture, Food Cooperatives Agricultural Machinery & .ËßÅ Ë Ìíæ=íœϡ Security and Cooperatives Bhumisak Rasri Equipment Manufacturers Praveen Chandra Twalib Njohole (TARMAKBIR) °‰ÌœÅ â‰Ìœc°ÓÌ«І Â=‰þ Baran Erié Grace Chilande John Nkoma JªĔ– æ Supattra Sathornpornnanon John Deere Ikra Educational Training Bank of Tanzania Nzgür Baris Eryüz Centre (IETC) Kened Abel Nyoni °‰ÌœÅ â‰Ìœc°ÓÌ«І Â=‰þ Rosemary Olive Mbone Enie JªĔ– æ + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Selian Agricultural Research Jessada Sawatdipong Rajiv Gandhi + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Institute (SARI) Rajiv Gandhi George Sayula ‰æíІt æí]  œYÓ°=³Ë³í œ Anadolu Tohum Uretim ve Sonia Song Pazarlama A. Tanzania Truck Owners ‰æíªâ³–‰Ì=‰þ°‰Ë• âæ Fabrice Gaujour Association Thomas Sipemba Royal Irrigation Department Emmanuel Kakuyu Lertchai Sri-anant Baker & McKenzie / Esin ].Ìý æíÓâæ=íœϡ Attorney Partnership Mkono & Co. Advocates Chetna Soochak Thai Transportation & Dogan Gultutan Evarist Kameja =Ó«³æí³–æææӖ³‰í³ÓÌ Ministry of Agriculture, Food Suratin Tunyaplin ] â‰ßòý³Ì=‰þJªĔ– æ Deutsche Gesellschaft Security and Cooperatives Cangur Gunaydin für Internationale George Swella ;DY&âÓòßÓϡϜ=íœϡ Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) Praew Twatchainunt Kubota Turkey Sylvand Kamugisha Selian Agricultural Research Cihan Gürel Institute (SARI) °‰ÌœÅ â‰Ìœc°ÓÌ«І Â=‰þ LOCAL EXPERTS Tanzania Truck Owners Rose Ubwe JªĔ– æ Turkish Association of Association Kanokkorn Viriyasutum Agricultural Machinery & Valeriana Kitalima Directorate of Food Safety, Equipment Manufacturers Tanzania Food and Drug (TARMAKBIR) ææӖ³‰í³Ó̪Óâ=‰þ‰ÌœœýӖ‰–Ą Authority (TFDA) ªÓâV‰æíÓâ‰Å³æíæϴ=Vϵ Raymond Wigenge TURKEY Selami Ileri Elifuraha Laltaika General Directorate of State Association of International s=C=‰þ Hydraulic Works Norton Rose Fulbright Freight Forwarders (UND) Nicholas Zervos Merve 4élek Adam Lovett Sah International Transport =³Ë‰«â‰³ÌcÓ°òË.æʼn°ý  Selian Agricultural Research 267 Aegean Agricultural Research lâ í³Ë]‰Ìϡc³–ϡϡ` Institute (SARI) THAILAND Institute (AARI) Aysegul Iyidogan Charles Lyamchai AIS Neée Adanacio¬lu Akbank University of Dar es Salaam Bank of Thailand ;DІ]= Mehmet Karabuga James Lyimo Volkan Akan =³Ë‰«â‰³Ì Olam Turkey Selian Agricultural Research Soil, Fertilizer and Water Hakan Karadag Institute (SARI) ]³ÅÂ= «‰ÅÓϡϜ=íœϡ Resources Central Research Stephen Lyimo Institute Thai Fertilizer and Agricultural Suat Akgül Yara Supplies Association Alexandre Macedo Pimol Buranachon Ministry of Transportation, Baker & McKenzie / Esin Uganda Soil Health ]ÓâÓí³&≳ÌC³ÅÅ âæ=íœϡ Maritime Affairs and Attorney Partnership Consortium Rose Omaria Communications Can Sozer Frederick Musisi Kabuye Taner Karakulah Seed Co Aegean Agricultural Research Uganda Communications Kasaija Patrick Banage John Deere Institute (AARI) Commission (UCC) Burkay Karter Necla Taé Irene Kagwa-Sewankambo Olseeden Agriculture Uganda =³Ë³í œ Ankara University Baker & McKenzie / Esin Pinnacle Enviro Consult Samuel Powell Süleyman Kodal Attorney Partnership John Kameri Ochoko Hilal Temel CR Amanya Advocates & ‰ÂˉÂýò‰íÅ´ÂöâÓæò Makerere University Solicitors Emre K×mürcü Pekin & Pekin Emmanuel Kasimbazi Claire Amanya Rukundo Elif Tolunay Kakeeto ] â‰ßòý³Ì=‰þJªĔ– æ African Union of Aybala Kurtuldu ] â‰ßòý³Ì=‰þJªĔ– æ Conservationists «â³þÓâÂæh«‰Ìœ‰=íœϡ Yigitl Turker Raymond Katebaka Abraham Salomon Black Sea Exporters' Association Union of Assocation of National Agricultural Shonubi, Musoke & Co. `ahin Kurul Groundwater Irrigation Research Organisation Alan Shonubi Cooperatives (NARO) CC‰ý³Ó«ÅòӆʼnÌ=‰þ Halis Uysal Kaizzi Kayuki Ministry of Water and JªĔ–  Environment (MWE) Orhan Yavuz Mavio¬lu John Deere 9cV –òų‰âÓÌæòÅíϴhϵ=íœϡ Callist Tindimugaya Hakan Yildiran Esther Kibodyo S.E.P. GIDA SAN VE TIC. AS Ministry of Agriculture, Rasim Murtazaoglu Hydropolitics Association of Ministry of Water and Animal Industry and Fisheries Turkey Environment (MWE) (MAAIF) Iskenderun Fertilizer Industry Dursun Yildiz Duncan Kikoyo Ephrance Tumuboine Inc. Cemal Olgun CC‰ý³Ó«ÅòӆʼnÌ=‰þ JʼnËh«‰Ìœ‰=³Ë³í œ National Agricultural JªĔ–  Luis Lopez Research Organisation Turkish Association of Ali Sina Yurtsever (NARO) Agricultural Machinery & Atlas Cargo System Wilberforce Tushemereirwe Equipment Manufacturers ] â‰ßòý³Ì=‰þJªĔ– æ Tabitha Luggule (TARMAKBIR) Serap Zuvin ° Ë³ß°‰âϴhϵ=íœϡ `enol Nnal Seed Co Annick Uytterhaegen Ingabire Marie Aimee John Deere National Agricultural Cem Oner UGANDA Heifer International Research Organisation William Matovu (NARO) Ministry of Food, Agriculture Ecosystems Green Consult Balton Eva Zaake ‰Ìœ=³ý æíӖ =DÌ íh«‰Ìœ‰ Agnes Mbabazi Kabwisho Yaéar Orhan Heifer International Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Ì«³Ì  â³Ì«]ÓÅòí³ÓÌæϴhϵ=íœϡ Joshua Zimbe ‰ÂˉÂýò‰íÅ´ÂöâÓæò Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) Jim Middleton Nigar Özbek C³Ì³æíâĄÓª=‰ÌœæϜ+Óòæ³Ì« Erkunt Traktor Sanayii A.S. and Urban Development Africa Coffee Academy UKRAINE Bayram Tar´k Ozeler Robert Mugenyi Musenze National Bank of Ukraine Ministry of Water and C‰æí â.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=íœϡ CC‰ý³Ó«ÅòӆʼnÌ=‰þ Environment (MWE) Roderick Mwesigye Ostchem JªĔ–  AĔfe Nazl´gül Özkan D‰í³Ó̉Å«âÓC‰–°³Ì âĄ=íœϡ National Union of Coffee Pogorilogo Research and ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 University of Istanbul Agribusinesses and Farm Development Institute One Acre Fund Halil Murat Özler Enterprises Rashida Nakabuga =‰ýâĄÌÓýĄ–°ӆV‰âíÌ âæ National Drug Authority (NDA) Olam Turkey Roman Blazhko Noel Aineplan Ufuk Özongun Shonubi, Musoke & Co. Hellen Nakiryowa æí‰ßÓý=‰þĄ âæ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å ]ÓâÓí³&≳ÌC³ÅÅ âæ=íœϡ Ministry of Food, Agriculture =‰þ&âÓòß Florence Apolot ‰Ìœ=³ý æíӖ ISOC Uganda Eugene Blinov Murat Sahin Makerere University Lillian Nalwoga æí‰ßÓý=‰þĄ âæ.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å Richard Asaba Bagonza Pekin & Pekin Seed Co =‰þ&âÓòß Irmak Samir Y×rüko¬lu CR Amanya Advocates & Christine Namara Ievgenii Boiarskyi Solicitors =³Ë‰«â‰³ÌcÓ°òË.æʼn°ý  National Agricultural Vasil Kisil & Partners Dorcus Bayiga lâ í³Ë]‰Ìϡc³–ϡϡ` Research Organisation Alexander Borodkin Cenk Saracoglu ]ÓâÓí³&≳ÌC³ÅÅ âæ=íœϡ (NARO) Brenda Namulondo Sayenko Kharenko William Enyagu Ministry of Food, Agriculture Nazar Chernyavsky ‰Ìœ=³ý æíӖ + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Uganda Coffee Federation Betty Namwagala Andriy Demydenko Ali Osman Sar´ Rajiv Gandhi National Agricultural D&YííÓâÌ Ąæ‰í=‰þ University of Istanbul USAID Feed the Future Research Organisation Dmytro Donenko Hüseyin Selçuk Andrew Gita 268 (NARO) Ukrainian Agribusiness Club CC‰ý³Ó«ÅòӆʼnÌ=‰þ C‰æí â.Ìí ẩí³Ó̉Å=íœϡ Angella Nansamba (UCAB) JªĔ–  Tumwebaze Hannington h&J%=íœϡ Yevgeniy Dvornik Irmak Seymen Makerere University Kailash Natani Monsanto Ministry of Food, Agriculture Andrew Isingoma Elija Nkusi Vitaliy Fedchuk ‰Ìœ=³ý æíӖ Serkan Soykan JʼnËh«‰Ìœ‰=³Ë³í œ Ministry of Agriculture, KWS Suresh Iyer Animal Industry and Fisheries Oleksandr Fedorov General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works cJ%â ³«°í] âý³– æ=íœϡ (MAAIF) + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Nüvit Soylu James Jolly Robert Ojala Rajiv Gandhi KWS ³&=‰þ%³âË Estudio Bado, Kuster, Zerbino Dirección Nacional de Aguas Volodymyr Gopchak Oksana Pakhar & Rachetti Ximena Lacués Alvaro Carrau C]‰Ë âÓÌC–; Ì̉==V Aleksey Pukha & Partners Corporación de Maquinaria Olena Grabarchuk Aleksandra Pavlenko Guyer & Regules Felipe Lecueder Florencia Castagnola =³Ë‰«â‰³ÌhÂ≳̠== Aleksey Pukha & Partners Sinervia Tatiana Henry Aleksey Pukha Dirección Nacional de Aguas Miguel Lezama Rodolfo Chao =³Ë‰«â‰³ÌhÂ≳̠== C]‰Ë âÓÌC–; Ì̉==V Guyer & Regules Oleg Khekalo Vitaliy Radchenko Instituto Nacional de Elisa Martínez Investigación Agropecuaria Asters Asters (INIA) Coswin S.A. Alexey Khomyakov Vadym Samoilenko Federico Condón Priano Winston Martínez =³Ë‰«â‰³ÌhÂ≳̠== =‰ýâĄÌÓýĄ–°ӆV‰âíÌ âæ Saudu Bergstein Abogados Olga Khranovska Dmytro Savchuk Mauricio D'Acunti Leonardo Melos Ukrainian Agribusiness Club Monsanto Guyer y Regules Miguel Mosco (UCAB) Kateryna Shchytnyk Javier Delgado Vitaliy Kordysh Universidad de la República State Service for Geodesy, Guyer y Regules Juan José Olivet Asters Cartography and Cadaster Gustavo Di Genio Roman Kostenko Rostyslav Shmanenko Mayfer S.A. Corporacion de Maquinaria Fernando Orique =.ch]=‰þ%³âË KWS Ignacio Erro Arthur Kotenko Viktoriya Taran Guyer y Regules Y ßó•Å³–‰C³–âÓĔ̉Ìĉ‰æ]ϡϡ Marcos Payssé Association of International Road Yara Rosana Fernández Carriers of Ukraine (AsMAP) Sergii Topolnyi Guyer & Regules Konstantin Kovalenko Estudio Bado, Kuster, Zerbino Sebastián Pérez Domínguez ICT-Zahid & Rachetti Institute of Hydraulic Roman Volkov Sinervia Jorge Fernández Reyes Ì«³Ì  â³Ì«‰Ìœ=‰Ìœ Diego Petruccelli Reclamation ===]hÂ≳̠ Barraca Jorge W. Erro S.A. Ivan Yeremenok Asociación Uruguaya de Peter Kovalenko Marcelo Ferreira Caminos ===]hÂ≳̠ Aleksey Pukha & Partners Ministerio de Ganadería, Gisele Pingaro Lesia Kravchuk Nataliia Zaika Agricultura y Pesca Ferrere Abogados Ukrainian Agribusiness Club Gervasio Finozzi Project "Capacity María Clara Porro Development for Evidence- (UCAB) Fischer & Schickendantz Alexander Zhemoyda Ministerio de Ganadería, •‰æ œ=‰Ìœ‰Ìœ«â³–òÅíòâ‰Å Juan Federico Fischer Agricultura y Pesca Policy-Making in Ukraine" =‰ýâĄÌÓýĄ–°ӆV‰âíÌ âæ Guyer y Regules María Laura Rabuñade Sergiy Kubakh Olena Zubchenko Federico Florín Universidad de la República ³&=‰þ%³âË Fischer & Schickendantz Mercedes Rivas Tatyana Kuzmenko Federico Formento Yara URUGUAY Cibeles S.A. Jiménez de Aréchaga, Viana & Daniel Salada Vadim Levkovsky Guyer & Regules Brause Anabela Aldaz Agronegocios del Plata Asters Laura Freiría Piñeiro Valeria Sasso Tamara Lukanina Jiménez de Aréchaga, Viana & Cámara Mercantil de Brause Guyer & Regules =‰ýâĄÌÓýĄ–°ӆV‰âíÌ âæ Productos del País Nicolás Herrera Alonso Santiago Theoduloz Olha Lyubun Gonzalo González Piedras CIEMSA Dirección Nacional de Aguas State Service for Geodesy, Ferrere Abogados Fernando Bacigalupo Roberto Torres Castro Cartography and Cadaster José María Grondona Dmytro Makarenko Guyer & Regules Fischer & Schickendantz Claro Diego Baldomir Juan Ignacio Troccoli Sayenko Kharenko Barbara Grunfeld Orest Matviychuk Dirección Nacional de Aguas Ana María Vidal Universidad Católica del Lourdes Batista D&YííÓâÌ Ąæ‰í=‰þ Uruguay Bergstein Abogados Kyrylo Medvediev Rodrigo Guerra LOCAL EXPERTS INASE - Instituto Nacional de Silvina Vila Guillama Semillas Company MAIS Moreno Botta Guerra Carrau Ferrere Abogados Daniel Bayce Mykola Melnyk Enrique Guerra Daneri María Eugenia Yavarone Bragard & Durand Abogados ICT-Zahid Universidad de la República Instituto Nacional de Florencia Berro Michael Myaleshka Jorge Hernández Investigación Agropecuaria Guyer & Regules (INIA) C]‰Ë âÓÌC–; Ì̉==V Guyer y Regules Matías Bordaberry María S. Zerbino Tetiana Mykhailenko Nicolás Herrera INASE - Instituto Nacional de Project "Capacity Ministerio de Ganadería, Semillas Development for Evidence- Federico Boschi Agricultura y Pesca VIETNAM 269 •‰æ œ=‰Ìœ‰Ìœ«â³–òÅíòâ‰Å Mariana Hill Policy-Making in Ukraine" Bragard & Durand Abogados Vietnam Seed Trade Denys Nizalov Universidad de la República Association Jean Jacques Bragard María José Viega &J=t Estudio Bado, Kuster, Zerbino Yara Sergiy Oberkovych INASE - Instituto Nacional de Le Duy An & Rachetti Semillas Graciana Buffa Asters María José Juncal Vietnam Seed Trade Pavlo Odnokoz INASE - Instituto Nacional de Association Fischer & Schickendantz Tran Manh Bao Semillas D&YííÓâÌ Ąæ‰í=‰þ Irene Kasprzyk Gerardo Camps Pavlo Oliinyk Vu Linh Chi Plant Resources Center ZAMBIA University of Zambia + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Pham Hung Cuong Augustine Mulolwa Rajiv Gandhi ªâ³–‰= «‰ÅD íþÓâÂϴ=Dϵ Trung Chinh Dao Department of Forestry =JV; Zambia Revenue Authority Lishomwa Mulongwe Dave Garnett Petrovietnam Fertilizer and Chemicals Corporation ÓÓß&âÓòßϴϵ=íœϡ Ministry of Agriculture and Hussein Ranchhod & Co. Sang Dau Cao Michael Chanda =³ý æíӖ = «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Gregory M. Mululuma Terence Hussein s³ í]  œÓϡϜ=íœϡ Óâßòæ= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Tung Do Thanh Rebecca Chansa Óâßòæ= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Varichem Pharmaceuticals Muchinda Muma Portia Kampota Vietnam Northern Food Zenith Business Solutions Corporation - VINAFOOD 1 Chisanga Perry Chansongo NASCU Zambia WaterNet Quach Manh Dzung Ngosa Mumba Krasposy Kujinga Grace Chilande + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Zambia Agricultural Research Hussein Ranchhod & Co. Rajiv Gandhi Sydney Chisenga Institute (ZARI) = «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Moses Mwale Yeukai Kundodyiwa Ministry of Agriculture and Musa Dudhia and Co. Rural Development (MARD) Madaliso Daka University of Zambia Dube, Manikai & Hwacha Dao Ha Thanh Elias Mwambela Edwin Manikai AGRA National University of Hanoi Asseta Diallo ]  œÓϡ‰Ë•³‰=íœϡ Dube, Manikai & Hwacha Vo Hung Dang Floyd Mwiinga Milanda Manjengwah Zambia Fertilizers Tilleke & Gibbins Consultants Raajendran Ganapathi Zambia Agricultural Research World Agroforestry Centre =³Ë³í œ Institute (ZARI) Livai Matarirano + æí â³Ó斳 Ì– æ=³Ë³í œ Thomas J. Treutler Godfrey Mwila Rajiv Gandhi Coopers Animal Health Choong Ang Vaccine Zambia Agricultural Research Morgan Matingo NWK Agri-Services =‰•Óâ‰íÓâ³ æÓϡϜ=íœϡϴsϵ Institute (ZARI) Nsondo Hamulondo C°³æ°³= «‰ÅVâ‰–í³–  Juver Membrebe Dickson Ng'uni Cephas Mavhondo Water Resources Management Nguyen Thi Ngoc Hue Zambia Fertilizers Authority (WARMA) University of Zimbabwe Jay Pandoliker Marubeni Vietnam Company Rowen Jani Sheunesu Mpepereki =³Ë³í œ Óâßòæ= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Óâßòæ= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Bellah Mpofu Dang Nguyen Mabvuto Sakala Jacqueline Jhala The Dariu Foundation Óâßòæ= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Ministry of Agriculture, Óâßòæ= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Mechanisation and Irrigation Hanh Nguyen Abigail Shansonga Caroline Johnstone Development (MAMID) Institute for Water and Óâßòæ= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Claid Mujaju Department of Water Affairs Environment (IWE) Lupiya Simusokwe Jonathan Kampata Mushoriwa Corporate Nguyet Thi Nguyen University of Zambia Attorneys NASCU Zambia Indochine Counsel Emmanuel Tembo Ronald Farai Mushoriwa William Kanyika Thi Hong Duong Nguyen c9= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Waterkings Environment Chapwa Kasoma ;]+s³ í̉ËÓϡϜ=íœϡ Judith Tembo Consultancy Tuan Diep Nguyen World Wildlife Fund Webster M. Muti Loreen Katiyo Bejo Zaden Ministry of Agriculture, Uyen Nguyen Zambia Agricultural Research ZIMBABWE Mechanisation and Irrigation ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2017 Institute (ZARI) Development (MAMID) Van Hong Nguyen Postal and Maimouna S. Abass Luangala Charles Mutimaamba Telecommunications Hiep PK Cafe Regulatory Authority of Atherstone & Cook Óâßòæ= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Hiep Pham Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) Arthur Mutsonziwa Fumanikile Lungani Syngenta William Bain & Company Hussein Ranchhod & Co. Export Trading Group Thuyen Pham Quang +ÓŜ³Ì«æVâ³ý‰í =³Ë³í œ = «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Andrew Lunt Shadha Omar Yara Ministry of Agriculture, Zambia Agricultural Research Mehdi Saint-Andre Mechanisation and Irrigation Dube, Manikai & Hwacha Institute (ZARI) Development (MAMID) Mutsa Remba Bach Giang Tran Mutinta Malambo Judith Banana Musa Dudhia and Co. Zimbabwe National Water Tilleke & Gibbins Consultants Cowspace Technologies (Pvt) Emmanuel Manda Authority (ZINWA) =³Ë³í œ =íœϡ Michael James Tumbare Giang Tran Paul Chatikobo Óâßòæ= «‰ÅV≖í³í³ÓÌ âæ Chileshe G. Mange Medicines Control Authority of Deutsche Gesellschaft Department of Research and Zimbabwe (MCAZ) für Internationale Specialist Services Musa Dudhia and Co. William Wekwete Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) Wilfried Chifamba Harriet Mdala Kien Tran-Mai ]  œÓϡ=³Ë³í œ ]  œÓÌíâÓʼn̜ âí³Ĕ–‰í³ÓÌ University of Zimbabwe Denias Zaranyika 270 Center for Sustainable Regis Chikowo Institute (SCCI) Development of Water Resources Francisco Miti and Climate Change Adaptation University of the (CEWAREC) Department of Water Affairs Witwatersrand Dao Trong Tu Ngosa Howard Mpamba Claudious Chikozho TRG International NASCU Zambia Grace Chilande Rick Yvanovich Febian Mubuyaeta