ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 COMPARING REGULATORY GOOD PRACTICES © 2016 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved 1 2 3 4 19 18 17 16 This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory 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 specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo. Under the Creative Commons Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial purposes, under the following conditions: Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: World Bank Group. 2016. Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016: Comparing Regulatory Good Practices. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0772-5. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO Translations—If you 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 not be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation. Adaptations—If you 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. Third-party content—The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party-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 solely with you. If you wish to re-use a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that re-use and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to the Publishing and Knowledge Division, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. ISBN (paper): 978-1-4648-0772-5 ISBN (electronic): 10.1596/978-1-4648-0781-7 DOI: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0772-5 Cover image: “Farmers Market #1” © Julie Ford Oliver, www.juliefordoliver.com. Used with the permission of Julie Ford Oliver. Further permission required for reuse. Cover design: Communications Development Incorporated. iii CONTENTS Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... viii About Enabling the Business of Agriculture ..................................................................................................................................................................xi 1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Seed —Strengthening seed systems.............................................................................................................................................................................12 3. Fertilizer —Improving supply and quality.................................................................................................................................................................. 19 4. Machinery—Expanding mechanization while ensuring quality and safety ...................................................................................................27 5. Finance —Expanding access to financial services.................................................................................................................................................. 34 6. Markets—Enabling access.............................................................................................................................................................................................43 7. Transport—Making transportation more reliable and affordable .....................................................................................................................53 8. EBA topics under development...................................................................................................................................................................................63 Appendix A Methodology...................................................................................................................................................................................................76 Appendix B Topic Data Notes ............................................................................................................................................................................................79 Appendix C Alternative ways of presenting the data .............................................................................................................................................. 106 Country Tables .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 108 Local Experts .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................149 Boxes 1.1 Several good regulatory practices have been identified across topic areas ............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Good practices for involving the private sector in developing new varieties ......................................................................................... 14 2.2 Good practices for evaluating and registering new varieties ....................................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Good practices for countries requiring mandatory certification .................................................................................................................17 3.1 Good practices for fertilizer registration..............................................................................................................................................................21 3.2 Good practices for fertilizer import requirements ..........................................................................................................................................23 3.3 Good practices for fertilizer quality control .......................................................................................................................................................24 iv ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 4.1 Good practices for tractor dealer requirements ............................................................................................................................................. 30 4.2 Good practices for tractor import requirements ..............................................................................................................................................31 4.3 Good practices for tractor standards and safety ..............................................................................................................................................31 5.1 Good practices for MFI regulations .....................................................................................................................................................................36 5.2 Good practices for credit union regulations ......................................................................................................................................................37 5.3 Good practices for agent banking regulations ..................................................................................................................................................38 5.4 Good practices for e-money regulations............................................................................................................................................................39 5.5 Good practices for warehouse receipt systems...............................................................................................................................................39 6.1 Good practices for phytosanitary regulation ................................................................................................................................................... 46 6.2 Good practices for regulations related to agricultural producers...............................................................................................................47 7.1 Good practices for road transport licensing systems ....................................................................................................................................55 7.2 Transport rights definitions.....................................................................................................................................................................................59 Figures 1 Data collection, verification and analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... xv 1.1 Regional performance on EBA indicators ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 In Sub-Saharan Africa, countries show different levels of regulatory good practices ........................................................................... 5 1.3 High-income countries have regulations in place that reflect a higher regulatory quality .................................................................. 5 1.4 Urbanized countries have a better EBA performance than transforming and agriculture-based countries .................................. 6 1.5 Countries with smarter regulations on market operations also promote quality control..................................................................... 7 1.6 Better rules on market operations are associated with more efficient trade requirements ................................................................ 7 1.7 Regions with similar rules show different costs for registering a new seed variety ............................................................................... 8 1.8 Regions with similar rules have different time durations in fertilizer registration ................................................................................... 8 1.9 Agribusiness rules in Greece are the least discriminatory, while Ethiopia, Lao PDR and Myanmar have potential to improve ...... 9 1.10 Specific information on requirements for agribusiness are most accessible in Denmark and Spain and least accessible in Rwanda ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Countries mostly score better on seed development and certification indicators, while seed registration proves more challenging ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................13 2.2 The lower-middle-income and low-income countries show the greatest variation in official registration costs .......................15 2.3 In the majority of countries studied with a variety release committee, the private sector is involved in the variety release process ............................................................................................................................................................................................................17 2.4 EBA countries with mandatory maize certification predominantly restrict its implementation to public sector actors ..........17 3.1 Sixteen countries have overall fertilizer scores above the sample average ........................................................................................... 20 CONTENTS v 3.2 The time to register new fertilizer products ranges from 15 to 1,125 calendar days ............................................................................22 3.3 Registration takes less time but is most costly in countries where it needs to be done only once .................................................23 3.4 The cost to register as an importer ranges from 0 to 57.5% of income per capita ..............................................................................24 3.5 Over half of the surveyed countries do not prohibit the sale of open fertilizer bags—and those that do, do not always have a penalty for it ...................................................................................................................................................................................................25 4.1 Denmark, Greece, Spain, the Philippines and Poland have the top five scores in the aspects measured by the machinery topic ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................28 4.2 The cost to register imported tractors is highest in Sudan ..........................................................................................................................29 4.3 Mozambique and Bangladesh impose high costs on importers of agricultural tractors ....................................................................32 5.1 The Kyrgyz Republic is the only country that scores above average on all five indicators ................................................................35 5.2 Almost half the countries that allow MFIs to take deposits require a higher capital adequacy ratio for MFIs than for commercial banks ......................................................................................................................................................................................................37 5.3 Countries are at different stages of developing legal frameworks to regulate agent banking activities .......................................38 5.4 Three of the five top performers on regulations related to warehouse receipts are in Sub-Saharan Africa ............................... 40 6.1 EBA markets scores overall and by indicator ................................................................................................................................................... 44 6.2 Time to obtain per-shipment export documents is greater in low-income and lower-middle income countries on average, and it varies greatly within income group ........................................................................................................................................45 6.3 Obtaining a phytosanitary certificate is less expensive in high-income countries, but takes less time in upper-middle-income countries ...........................................................................................................................................................................47 6.4 Cash crops are subject to more trader licensing and membership requirements than other product groups and thus to higher costs ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 6.5 Similar trader licensing and membership requirements are imposed in countries where cash crops are studied ................... 49 6.6 It is on average faster and less expensive to complete per-shipment documents when exporting to regional or bilateral trading partners ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 7.1 High-income countries tend to have more regulations that promote market access and operations and cross-border transport ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54 7.2 Transport license systems vary across regions ................................................................................................................................................55 7.3 Truck-level licenses are issued more expeditiously than other regulated systems ..............................................................................56 7.4 Company licenses are more cost-effective than other licensing systems ..............................................................................................56 7.5 Company-license systems record greater user satisfaction ........................................................................................................................57 7.6 The cost of technical inspection is not a constraint in most countries, but some disparity is observed in its relative cost ......58 7.7 Only a few countries allow cabotage ...................................................................................................................................................................59 7.8 Regulations in OECD high-income countries demonstrate greater openness to cross-border competition, while countries in South Asia and East Asia and the Pacific tend to limit the scope of operations for foreign firms .......................... 60 8.1 More people have bank accounts in countries that allow branchless banking.......................................................................................71 vi ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Map 1 Geographical coverage of Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 .......................................................................................................... xiv Tables 1 Assigning scores to legal and regulatory dimensions helps governments define good practices ...................................................xii 2 Time and motion indicators reflect the efficiency of administrative processes related to a country’s regulatory system ....... xiii 3 EBA questionnaires use a standard business case with assumptions ..................................................................................................... xvi 1.1 Colombia, Denmark, Greece, Poland and Spain score above average in all EBA topics ....................................................................... 2 2.1 Variety release committees meet after each cropping season in most countries................................................................................ 16 3.1 Cost and time to register a new fertilizer ...........................................................................................................................................................22 4.1 Countries where post-sale services are required by law.............................................................................................................................. 30 8.1 EBA topic areas focus on constraints relevant to women’s participation in agribusiness ..................................................................69 A.1 Legal indicators per topic and cross-cutting category ...................................................................................................................................77 A.2 Time and motion indicators per topic and cross-cutting category............................................................................................................77 B.1 Scoring methodology for seed ............................................................................................................................................................................... 81 B.2 Scoring methodology for fertilizer ....................................................................................................................................................................... 84 B.3 Scoring methodology for machinery .................................................................................................................................................................. 88 B.4 Scoring methodology for finance ..........................................................................................................................................................................92 B.5 Scoring methodology for markets ....................................................................................................................................................................... 99 B.6 Scoring methodology for transport ....................................................................................................................................................................103 C.1 Discrimination of agribusiness regulations data by topic .......................................................................................................................... 106 C.2 Accessibility of agribusiness regulatory information data by topic .........................................................................................................107 vii FOREWORD Augusto Lopez-Claros The challenge of feeding a world population of 9 billion people by 2050 can be met only Director through vibrant, productive, profitable and sustainable food and agriculture sectors, par- Global Indicators Group ticularly in developing countries, where the bulk of food is grown and consumed. Similarly, World Bank Group well-functioning agricultural markets and agribusinesses that are inclusive and efficient— and that optimize the sustainable production and distribution of food—are essential for a food-secure future for all. Juergen Voegele Senior Director The numbers relating to the agriculture and food sectors are stark and the challenges Agriculture Global Practice multifaceted. Currently, more than 800 million people go to bed hungry every day. Food World Bank Group demand is projected to rise globally by at least 20% over the next 15 years, with the largest increases in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and East Asia. At the same time, agriculture is both a contributor to climate change, accounting for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, and is adversely affected by it. Agricultural value chains need to be dynamic, productive and efficient if the sector is both to thrive in the face of climate change and to be part of the solution. The World Bank Group’s Enabling the Business of Agriculture (EBA) project measures and monitors regulations that affect the functioning of agriculture and agribusiness. The ulti- mate aim is to promote smart regulations that ensure efficient processes that support thriving agribusinesses as well as safety and quality control. Building on the findings of a pilot phase last year, the World Bank Group is pleased to pres- ent this first full edition of Enabling the Business of Agriculture: Comparing Regulatory Good Practices. It provides analysis and results from 40 countries, covering all world regions and all income groups. Eighteen indicators, covering six topics, have been developed to address various aspects relating to production inputs and market enablers that facilitate farmers, firms and pro- ducers to sell their goods and services. The indicators measured in this year’s report cover seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, transport and markets. Four additional topics—land, water, livestock, and information and communication technology—are under development and will be included in next year’s report. Two overarching themes— environmental sus- tainability and gender—have also been explored so that the indicators being developed encourage inclusive and sustainable practices. Given the significant public interest in the EBA project, and as part of its commitment to openness and transparency, the EBA team continues to seek input from relevant stake- holders and experts to further strengthen the research methodology and analytics as well as expand country coverage. We invite you to provide comments on the EBA website at http://eba.worldbank.org/. As the international development community accelerates efforts to achieve the new Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDGs 1 and 2, which call for ending extreme poverty and hunger by 2030, sustainable development of the food sectors and agriculture must be at the front and center of the global community’s response. This publication and its findings contribute to that overall effort. Augusto Lopez-Claros Juergen Voegele viii ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 was prepared jointly by Group country offices and those working on several key areas the World Bank’s Agriculture Global Practice, under the general investigated by the report. The team would especially like direction of Juergen Voegele, Ethel Sennhauser, Preeti Ahuja to acknowledge the hard work of the following individuals in and Mark Cackler and the Development Economics Vice Pres- the country offices who helped distribute questionnaires and idency’s Global Indicators Group, under the general direction validate the data: Faten Abdulfattah, Nada Abou-Rizk, Ruvejda of Augusto Lopez-Claros. Federica Saliola and Farbod Youssefi Aliefendic, Moustafa Alver, Luis A. Aviles, Amadou Ba, Purna managed the project, with the support from Tea Trumbic, Cesar Bahadur Chhetri, Tran Bao Thi Nguyen, Julia Barrera, Raul Chaparro-Yedro and Raian Divanbeigi. The team would like to Barrios, Amina Beidari Bertho, Aurelien Beko, Oliver Braedt, acknowledge the support of Indermit Gill and Melissa Johns. Olena Bychyk, Barbara Calvi, Mudita Chamroeun, Marie Gene- Current and former team members included Dinah Bengur, vieve Compaore, Luis Constantino, Tesfahiwot Dillnessa, Hadi- Liwam Berhane, Gerawork Bizuneh, Martha Branigan-Sutton, dia Djimba, Hosna Ferdous Sumi, Carlos Francisco Siezar, Larisa Rong Chen, Dariga Chukmaitova, Davida Louise Connon, Côme Fugol, Augusto Garcia, Patricia Gutierrez, Mistre Hailemariam Dechery, Robert de l’Escaille, Nuria de Oca, Nealon Devore, Mekuria, Michael Hamaide, Amani Haque, Jairi Hernandez, Sarah Diouri, Margarita Diubanova, Soha Eshraghi, Julia Isabel Van Hoang Pham, Chris Jackson, Kutemba Kambole, Leszek Navarro Espinal, Leopoldo Fabra, Felix Frewer, Taras Gagalyuk, Kasek, Gwladys Nadine Isabelle Kinda, Krista Kroff, Seenith- Arnau Gallard-Agusti, Bill Garthwaite, Gabriel Simoes Gaspar, amby Manoharan, Chanhsom Manythong, Joanna Mariscal, Slavena Georgieva, Jean Philippe Lodugnon Harding, Pilar Jano, Kunduz Masylkanova, Mohamed Medouar, Tania Meyer, Marketa Jonasova, Edna Kallon, Marina Kayumova, Milan Manolo Morales, Mayela Murillo, Alice Museri, Aymen Kondic, Maksat Korooluev, Alva Kretschmer, Valerie Marechal, Musmar Ali, Belinda Mutesi, Alex Mwanakasale, Judith Mziray, Jason McMann, Thibault Meilland, Arturo Francisco Bonilla Clarisse Nhanbangue, Anne Njuguna, Francisco Obreque, Alice Merino, Charlotte Merten, Nina Paustian, Aditi Poddar, Anis R. Ouedraogo, Bigyan Pradhan, Maria Theresa Quinones, Nikos Ragland, Kateryna Schroeder, Justin Lee Schwegel, Samjhana Schmidt, Daniel Sellen, Tara Shrestha, Vatthana Singharaj, Thapa, Yasmine Umutoni, Marielle Lily Walter, Lechi Zhang Bintou Sogodogo, Heinz Strubenhoff, Tamara Sulukhia, Sugata and Yucheng Zheng. Assisting with data collection were Ayuen Talukder, Tam Thi Do, Miss Thiri, Shewaye Yalew Shumye and Ajok, Ibrahim Alturki, Omar Alzayat, Yulia Amanbaeva, Sasha Sergiy Zorya. Comments on the report were received from: Boshart, Luiza Casemiro, Esperanza Pastor Núñez de Castro, Alejandro Alvarez de la Campa, Jamie Anderson, Maria Antip, Salma Ehsan Cheema, Maria-Magdalena Chiquier, Marie-Lily Oya Pinar Ardic Alper, Joshua Ariga, Raimonds Aronietis, Sarat Delion, Timila Dhakhwa, Laura Diniz, Iana Djekic, Xiaquan Fang, Babu Gidda, Derek Baker, Thomas Bauer, Keith Belk, Todd Cecile Ferro, Albina Gasanbekova, David William Green, Megan Benson, Shawki Bhargouti, Jos Bijman, Zhao Bing, Florentin Hyndman, Tatiana Ivanicichina, Parviz Jabarov, Gulnur Kerim- Blanc, Marcel Bruins, Balu Bumb, Victor Bundi Mosoti, Stefano kulova, Julian Koschorke, Yuhan Liu, Felipe Magofke, Charlotte Burchi, Francois Burgaud, Jacob Burke, Christina Katharina Filiz Merten, Yedesdes Y Mudessir, Meirzhan Myrzaliyev, Trang Busch, Frederic Bustelo, Yi Cai, Jo Caldihon, David Casanova, Nguyen, Maria Antonia Quesada Gamez, Parvina Rakhimova, Julie Caswell, Lawrence Clarke, Rick Clayton, Mark Constan- Byron Sacharidis, Valentina Saltane, Stephanie Samayoa, Atik tine, Joe Cortes, Gily Cowan, Barney Curtis, Morgane Danielou, Kiran Shah, Bungheng Taing, Herve Tchakoumi, Hulya Ulku, Roger Day, Alexandra de Athayde, Philip de Leon, Claus Deblitz, Jedadiah Douglas Winter, Xiao, Beibei Yan, Cem Berk Yolbulan, Klaus Deininger, Chistopher Delgardo, Hans Dellien, Brigitte Diana Zeng, Geyi Zheng, Jingwen Zheng and Lilin Zheng. The Dias Ferreira, Eugenio Diaz-Bonilla, Grahame Dixie, Carel team is grateful to local consultants who supported data collec- du Marchie Sarvass, Stefano Duilgheroff, Indira Ekanayake, tion or helped the team during the EBA team’s country visits: Jorge Escurra, Natalia Federighi de Cuello, Erick Fernandes, Arun Saha (Bangladesh), Sidiki Soubeiga (Burkina Faso), Fitsum Vincenzo Ferraiuolo, Francis V. Fragano, Ade Freeman, Francois Aregawi (Ethiopia), Mohammad Issa Mousa (Jordan), Olay- G. Le Gall, Pierra Jean Gerber, John Gibson, Ian John Douglas vanh Singvilay (Lao PDR), Tidiane Diarisso (Mali), Moham- Gillson, Tanja K. Goodwin, Naoki Goto, Lars Nikolajs Grava, med Bajeddi (Morocco), Dalfino Hoster Guila (Mozambique), David Groenfeldt, Arian Groot, Vincent Guyonnet, Thomas Khin Sw Swe Aye (Myanmar) and Mohamed Osman Hussein Hammond, Craig Hanson, Adelaida Harris, Robert John Hatton, (Sudan). The team is grateful for administrative assistance to Terhi Havimo, Tazeen Hasan, Norbert Henninger, Thea Hilhorst, Maisha Hyman, Rose Gachina, Monique Pelloux and Ramon Martin Hilmi, Marlynne Hopper, Jens Hügel, Ankur Huria, Yndriago. Sarah Iqbal, Juan Carlos Izaguirre, Devra Jarvis, Peter Jeffries, Chakib Jenane, David John, Scott Justice, Jari Kauppila, John Andrew Goodland, Chris Jackson, Aart Kraay and Patrick C. Keyser, Josef Kienzle, Kaoru Kimura, Olivia Kiratu, Matthew Verissimo reviewed the full draft report and provided feedback. Kirk, Justin Kosoris, Musa Kpapa, Dilip N. Kulkarni, Charles The team is also grateful for valuable comments and reviews Kunaka, Andrea Kutter, Andrzej Kwiecinski, Lloyd Le Page, provided by external experts as well as colleagues across the Zvi Lerman, Steven Lonergan, Isabel Lopez Noriega, Youlia World Bank Group, in particular those in the 40 World Bank Lozanova, Dibungi Luseba, Nathaniel Makoni, John McDermot, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix Michael McGowan, Ruth Meizen-Dick, Frederic Meunier, Niels The Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 outreach strategy is Morel, Nancy Morgan, Mohinder Mudahar, Jorge Munoz, Ajay being executed by a communications team led by Indira Chand Nair, Shankar Narayanan, Nick Nwakpa, Francois Onimus, and Sarwat Hussain, supported by Hyun Kyong Lee and Zia David Orden, Theresa Osborne, Washington Otieno, Maria Morales. The development and management of the Enabling Claudia Pachon, Maria Pagura, Enrique Pantoja, Roy Parizat, the Business of Agriculture website and technical services were Valentina Paskalova, François-Marie Patorni, Judith Payne, supported by Varun V. Doiphode, Andres Baquero Franco, Andrew Peters, Patrick Philipp, Ugo Pica-Ciamarra, Caroline Fengsheng Huang, Kunal Patel, Rajesh Sargunan, Vinod Plante, Natalia Pshenichnaya, Markus Reinisch, Alain Reocreux, Vasudevan Thottikkatu and Hashim Zia. Romano Righetti, Philippe Benjamin Rivoire, Loraine Ronchi, Max Rothschild, Judith Rudolph, Marieta Sakalian, Salman M. The report was edited and designed by Communications A. Salman, Aguiratou Savadogo-Tinto, Sara Savastano, Susanne Development Incorporated, led by Bruce Ross-Larson and Scheierling, Andres Seargent, Harris Selod, Carlos Sere, Bekzod including Joe Caponio, Mike Crumplar, Lawrence Whiteley and Shamsiev, Walter Simon de Boef, Melvin Spreij, Victoria Stan- Elaine Wilson. ley, Nancy Sundberg, Johan Swinnen, Virginia Tanase, Michael Tarazi, Felipe Targa Rodriguez, Dhanaraj Thakur, David Tipping, The Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 report benefited Muhabbat Turdieva, Joyce M. Turk, Laurian Unnevehr, Kishor from the generous input from a network of more than 2,500 Uprety, Anke van den Hurk, Kees van der Meer, Kristine Van local experts, including lawyers, business associations, private Herck, Suzanne van der Velden, Panos Varangis, Grégoire sector representatives, farmers’ organizations, academics, Verdeaux, Francesco Versace, Laura Villamayor, Bert Visser, government officials and other professionals actively engaged Brian Wickham, Joshua Seth Wimpey, Bruce Wise, Justin Yap, in the policy, legal and regulatory requirements in the 40 coun- Winston Yu and Ivan Zavadsky. tries covered during the second year. Please note that the data published in the report and online represent a unified response The Enabling the Business of Agriculture program was developed based on the answers the team received from various respon- in partnership with several donors, whose funding and support dents and sources and are not attributed to any particular makes this report possible: the Bill & Melinda Gates Founda- respondent. Wherever possible, answers were corroborated tion, the Department for International Development (DFID), the by official fee schedules, laws, regulations and public notices. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the United States Agency The names of those wishing to be acknowledged individually for International Development (USAID) and the Government of are listed at the end of the report and are made available on the the Netherlands. website at: http://eba.worldbank.org. xi ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE Agriculture and the business created Clear and accessible laws foster a busi- women in the topics covered. Because by it are major sources of income and ness environment that benefits all mar- of agriculture’s dependence on natural employment for a large share of the ket players—from farmers, including the resources, the environmental sustain- world’s people. Vital for food securi- more vulnerable such as female farmers ability topic investigates plant genetic ty and poverty reduction, the business and smallholders, to consumers and resources and water resources man- of agriculture affects rural livelihoods large investors. But when regulations are agement. Both will be developed further everywhere. too complex, unpredictable or discrim- next year. inatory, they raise costs and cut incen- Growing food demands call for greater tives to enter formal and competitive The choice of indicators was guided attention to strategies to develop the markets. A World Bank study in Ethiopia by a review of academic literature and business of agriculture. Indeed, meet- in 2012 showed that a weak regulatory case studies and by consultations with ing the rising food demand of a global system that fails to guarantee seed qual- key stakeholders, including civil society population expected to reach 9  billion ity results in farmers paying higher pric- organizations, partner institutions, prac- people by 2050 is a major challenge — es for seed of suboptimal quality, with titioners, public and private sector rep- even more so in the face of increasingly yields up to 50% lower than expected. 3 resentatives, researchers and technical adverse natural conditions.1 The evolu- In Mali agricultural cereal traders ranked experts. tion of urban food demand in developing regulatory uncertainty among the tough- regions illustrates the need for agricul- est barriers to market entry.4 Regulations are the bedrock of a coun- tural value chains and institutional set- try’s enabling environment. Well-de- tings that are both more efficient and signed laws and regulations—supported more effective. What does Enabling the Business of by strong institutions and efficient Agriculture 2016 measure? administrative procedures—are neces- An enabling environment for the busi- sary for agriculture to prosper. ness of agriculture is critical to respond Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 to evolving market trends. It includes enables policymakers to identify and The Enabling the Business of Agriculture macroeconomic and sector-specific analyze legal barriers for the business of methodology targets smart regula- laws, policies, regulations, support ser- agriculture and to quantify transaction tion in each of the measured areas for vices, information structures and labor costs of dealing with government regu- inputs and enablers. Smart regulation force preparedness. It sets the stage for lations. Ten topics have been developed —striking the right balance in ensuring all business activities that have to do with to cover different aspects of production proper enforcement of essential safe- producing goods on farms and transport- inputs and market enablers: seed, fertil- ty and quality control while avoiding ing them to processors and consumers. izer, machinery, finance, markets, trans- excessive regulatory burdens for value Understanding this environment can port, information and communication chain players—is good for the business help create policies that facilitate doing technology (ICT), land, water and live- of agriculture. It can improve services business in agriculture and increase the stock. Two overarching themes—gender and products and lower costs. EBA con- investment attractiveness and competi- and environmental sustainability—have siders more than the sheer number of tiveness of countries. 2 been investigated to ensure that the indi- regulations and does not necessarily cators being developed encourage inclu- promote deregulation. In fact, several Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 sive and sustainable practices. Although indicators, such as fertilizer quality con- measures regulations that impact firms women are 43% of the global agricultur- trol and domestic plant protection, pro- in the agribusiness value chain, provid- al workforce, they face many constraints mote more regulation since the laws and ing data and analysis that allow policy that limit their participation in agricul- regulations need to set appropriate stan- makers to compare their country’s laws tural value chains. This report includes dards in these areas to ensure health and and regulations with those of others. a review of issues that are restrictive for food safety. xii ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 provide governments with defined Comparative results on countries’ laws presents two types of indicators. De good practices that can inform policy- and regulations help identify weakness- jure or “legal” indicators stem direct- making and trigger reforms based on es and highlight ways to overcome them. ly from reading the laws and regula- the examples of other countries. The The scores were developed at the indi- tions to measure their quality. De facto scoring groups various data points for cator, topic and cross-cutting category or “time and motion” indicators reflect all six topics around three cross-cutting levels (table 1). The rules for scoring each the efficiency of a country’s regulatory categories: question are described by topic in the environment— such as the number of Topic Data Notes (appendix B). procedures and the time and cost to • Operations indicators measure the register fertilizer products, register seed requirements for local companies to Time and motion indicators, although for sale and export agricultural goods. enter the market and conduct agri- presented and analyzed in the report, are All indicators were designed using business activities. not assigned a particular score (table 2). specific rules that are applied equally The reason is that some processes are across countries to ensure that the data • Quality control indicators measure clearly necessary, as with the tests for are comparable. the regulations governing plant evaluating and registering new seed vari- protection, the safety standards for eties and the technical review by a vari- A key development presented in this users of agricultural machinery and ety release committee, while others may year’s report is the scoring methodol- the quality control associated with be redundant, as with additional ministe- ogy for legal indicators on six topics: seeds and fertilizer products. rial approval after the technical review. seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, Since the times for taking the tests markets and transport. This methodol- • Trade indicators measure trade depend both on regulations and country ogy assigns scores to certain legal and restrictions on exporting agricul- cropping seasons, it would be unfair to regulatory dimensions and serves one tural products, importing fertilizer penalize countries for their geographical of the main objectives of the Enabling and tractors and transporting goods conditions. The individual good practices the Business of Agriculture project: to across borders. have been singled out and scored under TABLE 1 Assigning scores to legal and regulatory dimensions helps governments define good practices OPERATIONS QUALITY CONTROL TRADE Seed registration (0–100) SEED SCORE SEED Seed development and (0–100) certification (0–100) Fertilizer quality control Fertilizer import requirements FERTILIZER SCORE FERTILIZER Fertilizer registration (0–100) (0–100) (0–100) (0–100) Tractor dealer requirements Tractor standards and safety Tractor import requirements MACHINERY MACHINERY (0–100) (0–100) (0–100) SCORE (0–100) Microfinance institutions (0–100) Credit unions (0–100) FINANCE SCORE FINANCE Agent banking (0–100) (0–100) E-money (0–100) Warehouse receipts (0–100) MARKETS SCORE MARKETS Production and sales (0–100) Plant protection (0–100) (0–100) Cross-border transportation TRANSPORT TRANSPORT Truck licenses (0–100) (0–100) SCORE (0–100) OPERATIONS SCORE QUALITY CONTROL SCORE TRADE SCORE (0–100) (0–100) (0–100) ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE xiii TABLE 2 Time and motion indicators reflect the efficiency of administrative processes related to a country’s regulatory system QUALITY OPERATIONS TRADE CONTROL Seed registration: SEED Procedures, time and cost Fertilizer registration: Fertilizer imports: FERTILIZER Procedures, time and cost Cost of import permit and importer registration for importers of fertilizer Tractor imports: MACHINERY Cost of import permit and importer registration for importers of tractors FINANCE Agricultural exports: MARKETS Documents, time and cost (per shipment) Truck licenses: TRANSPORT Time, cost and validity of company licenses, truck permits and vehicle inspections the legal indicators. They were grouped The data in this report are current as 3). Assumptions guiding respondents in the categories on operations and trade of March 31, 2015, and do not reflect through their completion of the survey requirements. The methodology on time any changes to the laws or administra- questionnaires vary by topic (see Topic and motion indicators will be further tive procedures after that date. Figure 1 Data Notes in appendix B). In addition, in developed next year. shows the steps in the process from data the interest of comparability, the values collection to public release. in the assumptions are not fixed values Building on findings presented in the but proportional to the country’s gross 2015 progress report covering 10 coun- Chosen from the private sector, the pub- national income (GNI) per capita. tries, Enabling the Business of Agricul- lic sector and civil society, respondents ture 2016 covers 40 countries in seven include firms, academia, financial insti- regions (map 1). 5 Different criteria have tutions, professional associations, farm- What does Enabling the Business of been used to select the countries, includ- er organizations and government min- Agriculture not measure? ing ensuring adequate representation of istries and agencies. These individuals all regions and different levels of agricul- and organizations know their countries’ Many elements that shape a country’s tural development. Data collection will laws and regulations and how they affect enabling environment are not captured be further scaled up to 60 countries in people involved in agriculture. Involving by Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016. various experts increases the accuracy of indicators. Broader macro-level aspects the data by balancing the possible bias- pertaining to the political, social and eco- es of different stakeholders. So reaching nomic spheres of a country, for example, How are the data collected? out to both the private and public sectors shape the climate of its economy, but are helps compare the perspectives of all not now an area that EBA covers. Enabling the Business of Agriculture indica- parties. tors are based on primary data collection Policies, institutions, infrastructure through standardized questionnaires Enabling the Business of Agriculture data and support services— many shaping completed by expert respondents in are collected in a standardized way to a country’s capacity to implement and each target country. Once the data are ensure comparability across countries enforce its regulations—are also key collected and analyzed, several follow-up and over time. Following the method- determinants of the enabling environ- rounds address and clear up any discrep- ological foundations of Doing Business,6 ment that Enabling the Business of Agri- ancies in the answers the respondents questionnaires use a standard business culture 2016 has not targeted. Other vari- provide, including conference calls and case with assumptions about the legal ables characterizing the market— such written correspondence. The preliminary form of the business, its size, its loca- as prices, stock market trends, govern- answers are then finalized and shared tion and the nature of its operations for ment expenditures and investments— with governments for further validation. each topic applied for all countries (table are not directly comparable and require xiv ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 MAP 1 Geographical coverage of Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other 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, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. IBRD 42022 | NOVEMBER 2015 GSDPM Map Design Unit Russian Federation Denmark Poland Ukraine Bosnia Kyrgyz & Herz. Georgia Spain Rep. Turkey Tajikistan Greece Morocco Jordan Nepal Myanmar Lao P.D.R. Bangladesh Mali Niger Vietnam Guatemala Sudan Nicaragua Burkina Cambodia Philippines Faso CôteGhana Sri Ethiopia Lanka d’Ivoire Colombia Uganda Kenya Rwanda Burundi Tanzania Zambia Bolivia Mozambique Pilot countries Chile Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 a methodology outside the scope of Benchmarking has its benefits and limita- What is in this year’s report? EBA’s current capacity. While EBA is tions. Quantitative data and benchmarks interested in expanding into these areas, can be effective in stimulating debate This year’s report presents the main they are not covered by this report’s about policy, enhancing the ability of results of the team’s effort over the indicators. policymakers to assess progress over last 12 months to collect and analyze time and making meaningful international new data and to develop indicators that Much activity in rural areas, from comparisons. But using assumptions to can help governments make informed employment to the production and sale ensure global coverage and comparabil- decisions about the enabling environ- of goods, happens through informal ity across countries can generalize and ment for agribusiness activity in their channels. The complexity of regulations exclude some context-specific informa- countries. and the time and cost they impose, could tion. To address some of these limitations, be reasons for this, as could the quality understand what regulatory reforms are Feedback is welcome on the data, of institutions, extension services and most effective and see how these issues methodology and overall project design physical infrastructure. The current focus are shaped by the context, data must be to make future Enabling the Business of of indicators presented in this report is consistently collected over a number of Agriculture reports even more useful. on measuring official laws and regula- years to combine global benchmarks with Feedback can be provided on the project tions and not these other areas. context-specific information. website: http://eba.worldbank.org. ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE xv FIGURE 1 Data collection, verification and analysis Step Questionnaires emailed to local respondents in the 1 measured countries Step Data collected by email, telephone, or personal interviews 2 Step Data consolidated and analyzed 3 Selected data verified through desk reviews of available Step resources, including country laws reviewed by legal experts 4 Multiple rounds of follow-up conducted with questionnaire Step respondents to validate data 5 Data aggregated using various scoring methodologies to Step construct indicators 6 Data shared for validation and review with governments and Step World Bank Group country offices 7 Enabling the Busines of Agriculture 2016 report and indicators Step peer reviewed 8 Enabling the Busines of Agriculture 2016 report and indicators Step cleared by World Bank Group management 9 Public launch of Enabling the Busines of Agriculture 2016 Step report and online database 10 xvi ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 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 that has been developed by the private sector. Is being registered for the first time in the country. Has not been registered in any other country. If maize varieties are not being developed by the private sector in the country, is an imported maize variety, which may have been previously registered elsewhere. FERTILIZER The business: Is a fertilizer importer. Imports fertilizer to sell in the country. Has registered at least one new fertilizer product in the country. Does not operate in an export processing zone or an industrial estate with special import or export privileges. The fertilizer product: Is a new chemical fertilizer product that has not previously been registered in the country. MACHINERY The business: Is an importer or dealer of agricultural tractors. Does not operate in an export processing zone or an industrial estate with special import or export privileges. The tractor: Is a new or second-hand two-axle/four-wheel drive (4WD) tractor. FINANCE High-income countries are not measured by the finance topic. Microfinance institutions: Can take deposits, lend and provide other financial services to the public. Are licensed to operate and supervised by a public authority. Credit unions: Are member-owned, not-for-profit financial cooperatives that provide savings, credit and other financial services to their members. (continued) ABOUT ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE xvii TABLE 3 EBA questionnaires use a standard business case with assumptions (continued) ASSUMPTIONS USED TO STANDARDIZE THE BUSINESS CASE MARKETS The business: Performs general agricultural trading activities. Does not operate in a special export processing zone. The contracted product: Is the most produced non-processed non-cereal product in terms of gross production value (current million U.S. dollars).a The export product and trading partner: Is defined and grouped as cash crops, cereals, fruits and vegetables according to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System 1996 version (HS 96).b For each country, the combination of the product and the partner country that represents the highest five-year average export value (in U.S. dollars) is selected. The shipment: Is transported via a 20-foot full container-load. Weighs 10 metric tons. Is assumed to comply with any fumigation requirement for the packing material (such as wood pallets), treated and marked accordingly. TRANSPORT The business: Is a limited liability company. Is 100% domestically owned. Has between 5 and 10 employees. Owns a maximum of five trucks and each truck has two axles and a loading capacity of 20 metric tons.c Rents a garage. Transports agricultural products within the country, including perishable goods. Does not transport fertilizers, pesticides or any hazardous products. Note a. All data are sourced from FAOSTAT, using the production data of 2012 (the latest available year). Cereal crops are excluded from the analysis because they are less suitable for agricultural production contracts due to certain characteristics, including the high risks of side-selling due to well-developed local or export markets, the reduced need for technical assistance in order to meet market specifications and the smaller price differentials at each point in the supply chain. b. All data are sourced from the UN Comtrade Database, using the export data from 2009–13. c. A truck is defined as one tractor unit, excluding the trailer. xviii ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Notes References Staatz, J.M., J. Dioné and N. Dembélé. 1989. “Cereals Market Liberalization 1. FAO 2009. Diallo, B., N. Dembélé and J. Staatz. in Mali.” World Development 17 (5): 2010.  “Analyse des prix de pari- 703–18. 2. FAO 2013. té en Afrique de l’Ouest: Le cas du riz depuis la crise de 2007–2008. World Bank. 2005. Doing Business 2006: 3. World Bank 2012. Rapport de synthèse proviso ire.” Creating Jobs . Washington, DC: Food Security Collaborative Working World Bank. 4. Diallo and others 2010; Staatz and Paper 57243, Michigan State Uni- others 1989. versity, Department of Agricultural, ———. 2012. Agribusiness Indicators: Ethi- Food and Resource Economics. opia. Washington, DC: World Bank. 5. Pilot countries were Ethiopia, Gua- temala, Morocco, Mozambique, FAO (Food and Agriculture Organiza- Nepal, the Philippines, Rwanda, tion). 2009. How to Feed the World Spain, Uganda and Ukraine. For by 2050. Rome: FAO. more information on the EBA 2015 progress report, please visit http:// ———. 2013. Enabling Environments for eba.worldbank.org. Agribusiness and Agro-industries Development: Regional and Country 6. http://www.doingbusiness.org. Perspectives. Rome: FAO. 1 1. OVERVIEW The Enabling the Business of Agricul- mislabeled fertilizer bags. At the same Colombia displays strong and efficient ture 2016 report covers 40 countries time, countries that allow the private fertilizer registration norms, laws that in seven regions. Ten topics have been sector (including foreigners) to import support financial inclusion and ade- developed to measure regulations that fertilizers or do not require re-registra- quate market regulation, but still has low can impact firms in the agribusiness tion if the product has been already reg- safety standards for machinery. Poland value chain, providing data and analy- istered in another country are also seen has the top score for regulations related sis that allow policy makers to compare as following good practices and given to cross-border transport, seed devel- their country’s laws and regulations high scores. opment and certification and fertilizer with those of others. A scoring method- quality control, but lacks certain regu- ology that is based on good practices Smart regulations can improve products lations for warehouse receipts, which in relevant regulatory dimensions has and services and lower costs for agri- would complement the existing collater- been developed for 6 of the 10 topics businesses. Specific country examples in al regime to obtain a loan for agriculture measured: seed, fertilizer, machinery, the agricultural sector show the impact production. finance, markets and transport; the of good regulatory reform on improving remaining topics (land, water, livestock the supply and lowering the prices in the Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ghana, Myanmar and ICT) will be further developed and seed and mechanization markets in Ban- and Niger score below average on all scored next year. gladesh and Turkey, 3 in the fertilizer sec- topics (red or dark red in table 1.1), which tor in Bangladesh,4 Kenya5 and Ethiopia6 suggests there is room for improvement Enabling the Business of Agriculture pro- and in the maize industry in Eastern and in adopting the identified good practic- motes smart regulations that ensure Southern Africa,7 among others. es across several topics (box 1.1). But in safety and quality control while at the most countries the performance is more same time promote efficient regulatory But apart from these country-specif- mixed — there are a number of good reg- processes that support agribusiness- ic examples, there are few data that ulatory practices and at the same time es. Regulation in agriculture is justified can help to better understand the link areas for improvement. Bosnia and Her- to address market failures and protect between regulations and agricultural zegovina has solid regulations for plant safety, health and the environment. But productivity on a global scale. Extensive protection and fertilizer but lacks regu- some governments do not tackle these literature on the matter focuses on the lations for credit unions and e-money. issues through appropriate regulation. existence or quantity of regulations, but Morocco and Mozambique have weak Regulations may introduce burdensome few studies look at the quality of those regulations in agricultural finance but procedures that shift economic activi- regulations.8 EBA attempts to fill this gap strong regulations for the registration, ty to greater informality and corruption by assessing regulatory quality across a certification and development of new without even attaining the original objec- wide range of countries, thus providing seed varieties. Vietnam has strong reg- tives.1 So it is important to assess the effi- a basis to understand how regulations ulations for fertilizer quality control and ciency and quality of specific regulations. affect economic outcomes. plant protection, but lags in requirements The EBA methodology highlights smart for tractor dealers and safety standards regulation in each of the measured areas. for machinery. This methodology has been informed by Where are agribusiness regulations an extensive literature review and con- smarter? sultations with experts. How do regions perform? A color coding system displays a syn- For chemical fertilizers, for example, thetic measure of a country’s EBA score The regulatory quality and efficiency of controls are necessary to prevent dam- in a particular topic to signal a country’s OECD high-income countries stand out age to the soil and adulterated fertiliz- adoption of good practices and areas in all topics as measured by EBA , fol- er use but excessive tests that prolong where improvement is needed (table 1.1). lowed by Latin America and the Carib- fertilizer registration for years and cost bean and Europe and Central Asia (fig- thousands of dollars are difficult to Colombia, Denmark, Greece, Poland and ure 1.1). South Asia and Sub-Saharan defend. 2 Similarly burdensome import Spain score above average in all topics Africa show levels of regulatory strength procedures, which require fertilizer measured (dark green or green in table that are lower or equal to the EBA glob- importers to make purchases months 1.1).9 In general, these countries have a al average across all measured areas. in advance, can hinder market access. higher number of smart regulations in The two countries in the EBA sample EBA assigns higher scores to countries the topics covered. Although they share from the Middle East and North Africa with laws requiring the labeling of fertil- a substantial number of good practices, region—Jordan and Morocco— combine izer and prohibiting the sale of open or they also have room for improvement. fairly strong regulations on seed and 2 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE 1.1 Colombia, Denmark, Greece, Poland and Spain score above average in all EBA topics COUNTRY SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT BANGLADESH BOLIVIA BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA BURKINA FASO BURUNDI CAMBODIA CHILE N/A COLOMBIA CÔTE D’IVOIRE DENMARK N/A ETHIOPIA GEORGIA GHANA GREECE N/A GUATEMALA JORDAN KENYA KYRGYZ REPUBLIC LAO PDR MALI MOROCCO MOZAMBIQUE MYANMAR NEPAL NICARAGUA NIGER PHILIPPINES POLAND N/A RUSSIAN FEDERATION N/A RWANDA SPAIN N/A SRI LANKA SUDAN TAJIKISTAN TANZANIA TURKEY UGANDA UKRAINE VIETNAM ZAMBIA  Top performing countries, defined as those with topic scores above 85, indicating a high number of good practices in place as measured by EBA.  Countries with a score above the sample average in a particular topic.  Countries with a score below the sample average in a particular topic.  Countries with topic scores below 30, indicating a low number of good practices. High-income countries—Chile, Denmark, Greece, Poland, Russian Federation and Spain— are not measured under EBA finance indicators (see Topic Data Notes in appendix B). OVERVIEW 3 BOX 1.1 Several good regulatory practices have been identified across topic areas Seed Fertilizer Machinery ✓ Variety release committee with ✓ Efficient and affordable fertilizer ✓ Streamlined import procedures to representation of the private sector, registration for companies, without the facilitate timely availability and delivery which meets shortly after each need for re-registration. of agricultural tractors. cropping season. ✓ Timely availability of fertilizer by the ✓ Appropriate testing of agricultural ✓ The availability online of an official private sector through streamlined machinery to ensure imported tractors variety catalog updated after each import procedures. suit country conditions. cropping season and specifying agro- ✓ Good quality fertilizer by requiring ✓ Tractor registration and appropriate ecological zones. appropriate labeling and prohibiting after-sales service to improve tractor ✓ Availability of initial seed classes to the open fertilizer bags. durability. private sector, which is granted access ✓ Compliance with national and to breeder and foundation seed, and international performance standards to to material stored in the national gene ensure high-quality tractors. bank. ✓ Enforcement of safety standards such ✓ In countries where the certification as roll-over protective structures and is compulsory, official fee schedules seatbelts. for certification activities are publicly available, and nongovernmental inspectors and/or laboratories can be accredited to carry out part or all of seed certification activities. Finance Markets Transport ✓ Effective microfinance institutions by ✓ Robust phytosanitary protection ✓ Promotion of fair competition and balancing supervision and the ability to framework, including national professionalism by establishing quality take deposits. surveillance activities, pest lists, pest criteria for access to the transport risk analysis and domestic and import sector through efficient licensing and ✓ Reliable credit unions complying with quarantine procedures. mandatory technical inspections. disclosure and liquidity standards. ✓ Efficient and affordable requirements ✓ Increased competition in the domestic ✓ Payments and other financial services to export major agricultural products, market by reducing additional accessible digitally and through retail including membership, licensing and discriminatory requirements and agents. per-shipment documentation. granting transport rights to foreign ✓ Electronic receipts issued by trucking companies. ✓ Laws that do not obstruct the warehouse operators that farmers can production or sale of agricultural goods ✓ Reduced market distortions by pledge to secure a loan. domestically and a legal environment discouraging queueing systems and that facilitates the establishment and price interventions and promoting commercial operations of farmers’ freight exchange platforms for road organizations. transport services. ✓ Facilitation of cross-border transport by harmonizing or mutually recognizing road transport standards among regional trading partners. 4 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 1.1 Regional performance on EBA indicators Average score on EBA topics (0—100) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 N/A 0 Seed Fertilizer Machinery Finance Markets Transport East Asia & Pacific Europe & Central Asia OECD high income Latin America & Caribbean Middle East & North Africa South Asia Sub -Saharan Africa Global average Source: EBA database. Note: The EBA sample covers countries in East Asia and the Pacific (5), Europe and Central Asia (7), Latin America and the Caribbean (4), Middle East and North Africa (2), OECD high income (5), South Asia (3) and Sub-Saharan Africa (14). OECD high-income countries are not measured under the finance topic. markets, with insufficient legal coverage topics than lower-income countries (fig- What is the relationship between in finance. ure 1.3). The correlation found between efficiency and the quality of country income levels and average scores regulations? Variation is also observed among coun- is quite strong across topics.12 tries within a region. In Sub-Saharan EBA captures three key aspects of the Africa, Kenya and Tanzania perform The relevance of agriculture in an econo- agribusiness sector: operations, quality above average, driven mainly by their my varies significantly across countries. control and trade (see Methodology in good regulations in place for machinery EBA uses a classification of agricultur- appendix A). Better regulation for mar- and finance, while Niger and Burundi are al transformation that combines agri- ket access contributes to firm creation, among the countries with fewer good culture’s contribution to GDP and the market efficiency and competition,14 practices in agribusiness regulation over- share of population dedicated to agricul- with concrete evidence in the agricul- all (figure 1.2). ture. The countries are divided in three tural sector.15 Well-designed regulations groups: agriculture-based, transforming improve outcomes while enhancing and urbanized.13 Urbanized countries agricultural productivity.16 Efficient rules How do agribusiness regulations have on average smarter regulations on exports and imports can improve vary across levels of income and for agribusiness than transforming and the quantity, quality and variety of food agricultural development? agriculture-based countries (figure 1.4). at lower prices.17 While the importance As more data are collected over time, of these three areas has been demon- A country’s regulations are linked to its measuring agribusiness regulations and strated, it is not clear whether they growth10 and development.11 High-income reforms may shed light on the relation- come at the expense of each other— countries have better agribusiness regu- ships among regulations, economic whether rules that promote easy and lations across the areas measured by EBA growth and agricultural transformation. nondiscriminatory entry into the market OVERVIEW 5 FIGURE 1.2 In Sub-Saharan Africa, countries show different levels of regulatory good practices Average score on EBA topics (0—100) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Kenya Tanzania Global Burundi Niger average Source: EBA database. FIGURE 1.3 High-income countries have regulations in place that reflect a higher regulatory quality Average score on EBA topics (0—100) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income High income Lowest Highest Income group average Source: EBA database. Note: The EBA sample covers high-income (6), upper-middle-income (4), lower-middle-income (19) and low-income (11) countries. are compatible with rules that enhance complements rather than substitutes. corresponding time and cost compo- safety and quality control. And countries with higher scores on nents. Countries with stronger regula- operations also tend to have effective tions for market operations in a particular EBA data clearly show that countries and more streamlined trade require- area display different levels of efficiency performing well on operations across ments (figure 1.6). in those processes. While some regions topics also have strong laws for qual- pay an efficiency cost (in actual cost ity control (figure 1.5). Good regula- EBA also measures the efficiency of or time) to put the regulations in place, tions promote quality while helping administrative procedures, such as fer- others combine regulatory strength with the market work efficiently; they are tilizer and seed registration, with their procedural efficiency. 6 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 1.4 Urbanized countries have a better EBA performance than transforming and agriculture-based countries Average score on EBA topics (0—100) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Urbanized Transforming Agriculture -based Lowest Highest Group average Source: EBA database. Note: EBA countries are divided into three groups. Urbanized countries have a contribution of agriculture to GDP below 25% and a share of active population in agriculture below 25%: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Georgia, Greece, Jordan, Kyrgyz Republic, Morocco, Nicaragua, Poland, Russian Fed- eration, Spain and Ukraine. Transforming countries have a contribution of agriculture to GDP below 25% and a share of active population in agriculture over 25%: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guatemala, Lao PDR, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Turkey, Vietnam and Zambia. Agriculture-based countries have a contribution of agriculture to GDP over 25% and a share of active population in agriculture over 50%: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. In registering new seed varieties, for these benefits depend on a wide range Alternative ways of presenting the data in example, firms in Latin America and the of factors including regulatory measures appendix C). Caribbean pay a much higher cost than to improve both the business climate and firms in the Middle East and North Africa the effective competition; for low-in- In general, countries perform well in to adhere to similar rules that guarantee come and middle-income countries it is terms of nondiscrimination, with an aver- an effective and safe registration process essential to avoid discriminating against age of 14 of 18 good practices embed- (figure 1.7). Companies in South Asia different types of investors.19 ded in the countries’ relevant laws and spend more time than those in East Asia regulations. Greece, Denmark, Georgia, and the Pacific to comply with similar To measure regulatory discrimination Poland, Spain and Zambia have the high- requirements (in regulatory quality) to against the private sector, EBA data cover est number of nondiscriminatory regula- register fertilizer products (figure 1.8). the eligibility of private companies to tions in place while Ethiopia, the Lao Peo- import machinery, register fertilizer, pro- ple’s Democratic Republic and Myanmar duce breeder or foundation seeds and be have the fewest (figure 1.9). More than Are agribusiness regulations accredited in seed certification. The data 95% of countries allow the private sec- discriminating against the private also cover the possibility for foreign com- tor to import tractors and fertilizers, but sector, foreign or small companies? panies to import fertilizers or perform only a third allow them to carry out the transport activities in the country. And seed certification process. While 38 Participation and investment in agricul- they cover a minimum capital require- countries allow foreign companies to ture by private sector enterprises—big or ment to start a farmers’ cooperative or transport goods into their country from small, domestic or foreign— can gener- a minimum number of trucks to estab- outside, only 4 allow them to transport ate such benefits as higher productivity lish a trucking company, which could goods between two locations within the and access to capital and markets.18 But impede small players in the market (see country. OVERVIEW 7 FIGURE 1.5 Countries with smarter regulations on market operations also promote quality control EBA quality control score 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 EBA operations score Source: EBA database. Note: The figure compares the operations score with the quality control score. The correlation between the two scores is 0.70. The correlation is significant at 1% after controlling for income per capita. The operations score is an average of the scores of indicators classified in the operations category. The quality control score is an average of the scores of indicators classified under the quality control category. FIGURE 1.6 Better rules on market operations are associated with more efficient trade requirements EBA trade score 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 EBA operations score Source: EBA database. Note: The figure compares the operations score with the trade score. The correlation between the two scores is 0.59. The correlation is significant at 1% after controlling for income per capita. 8 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 1.7 Regions with similar rules show different costs for registering a new seed variety 3.0 Cost to register a new seed variety 2.5 (% income per capita) Latin America & Caribbean 2.0 Sub -Saharan Africa 1.5 East Asia & Pacific 1.0 Europe & Central Asia South Asia 0.5 Middle East & North Africa OECD high income 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 Seed registration score Source: EBA database. FIGURE 1.8 Regions with similar rules have different time durations in fertilizer registration 900 Time to register a new 800 fertilizer product (calendar days) South Asia 700 600 500 Sub-Saharan Africa Europe & Central Asia 400 300 200 East Asia & Pacific Latin America & Caribbean 100 Middle East & North Africa OECD high income 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Fertilizer registration score Source: EBA database. OVERVIEW 9 FIGURE 1.9 Agribusiness rules in Greece are the least discriminatory, while Ethiopia, Lao PDR and Myanmar have potential to improve Greece 18 Denmark 17 Georgia 17 Poland 17 Spain 17 Zambia 17 Myanmar 10 Lao PDR 9 Ethiopia 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Number of good practices related to nondiscrimination Source: EBA database. Is regulatory information accessible regulatory processes and the catalogs Rwanda (with only one) and Burundi, for agribusiness? of registered seed varieties or fertilizer Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia and Ghana (with products. Also taken into consideration two) can still improve to make regula- Access to information about agribusi- is whether the information and services tory information more accessible for ness regulations and requirements is also are accessible online or electronically participants in the agribusiness value important. Across topics, EBA data mea- (see Alternative ways of presenting the chain (figure 1.10). While 75% of the sure whether governments make regula- data in appendix C). countries have official catalogs listing tory information available to the public, new seed varieties or fertilizer prod- such as the specific licensing require- Denmark and Spain comply with 9 ucts, fewer than half make them avail- ments, the official fee schedule of various of the possible 10 good practices. able online. 10 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 1.10 Specific information on requirements for agribusiness are most accessible in Denmark and Spain and least accessible in Rwanda Denmark 9 Spain 9 Poland 8 Turkey 8 Bolivia 7 Philippines 7 Burundi 2 Côte d'Ivoire 2 Ethiopia 2 Ghana 2 Rwanda 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of good practices related to access to information Source: EBA database. Notes agricultural inputs includes Lio and 13. See note in figure 1.4. Liu (2008) and Kraay and others 1. Clark 2014; Van Stel and others (2010), using governance indicators 14. Ciccone and Papaioannou 2007; 2007. produced by Kaufmann and others Klapper and others 2006; Sarria- (2006) in 199 countries. Allende and Fisma 2004. 2. Gisselquist and Van Der Meer 2001. 9. High-income countries — Chile, 15. See papers cited in endnote 2–6 for Denmark, Greece, Poland, Rus- examples. 3. Gisselquist and Grether 2000. sian Federation and Spain—are not measured under the EBA finance 16. See endnote 8. 4. Lio and Liu 2008. indicators. 17. Moïsé and others 2013. 5. Freeman and Kaguongo 2003. 10. Divanbeigi and Ramalho 2015; Eif- fert 2009. 18. FAO 2014. 6. Spielman and others 2011. 11. Acemoglu and others 2005; Aghion 19. Global Harvest Initiative 2011; FAO 7. Langyintuo and others 2010. and Burlauf 2009. 2012. 8. Literature on the association 12. The correlation between income between quality of regulation and per capita and the average of EBA the productivity of considered scores in the 6 topics is 0.59. OVERVIEW 11 References Freeman, H.A., and W. Kaguongo. 2003. Langyintuo, A.S., W. Mwangi, A. Dial- “Fertilizer Market Liberalization and lo, J. MacRobert, J. Dixon and M. Acemoglu, D., J. A. Robinson and S. John- Private Retail Trade in Kenya.” Food Baziger. 2010. “Challenges of the son. 2005. “Institutions as a Funda- Policy 28 (5–6): 505–18. Maize Seed Industry in Eastern and mental Cause of Long-Run Growth.” Southern Africa: A Compelling Case Handbook of Economic Growth 1A: Gisselquist, D., and J. Grether. 2000. for Private-Public Interventions to 386–472. “An Argument for Deregulating the Promote Growth.” Food Policy 35 Transfer of Agricultural Technologies (4): 323–31. Aghion, P., and S. Burlauf. 2009. “From to Developing Countries.” The World Growth Theory to Policy Design.” Bank Economic Review 14 (1): 111–27. Lio, M., and M.C. Liu. 2008. “Governance Working Paper 57, Commission on and Agricultural Productivity: A Growth and Development. Gisselquist, D., and C. Van Der Meer. Cross-National Analysis.” Food Policy 2001. “Regulations for Seed and 33 (6): 504–12. Ciccone, A., and E. Papaioannou. 2007. Fertilizer Markets: A Good Prac- “Red Tape and Delayed Entry.” tice Guide for Policymakers.” Rural Moïsé, E., C. Delpeuch, S. Sorescu, N. Working Paper 758, European Cen- Development Working Paper 22817, Bottini and A. Foch. 2013. “Estimat- tral Bank, Frankfurt am Main. World Bank, Washington, DC. ing the Constraints to Agricultural Trade of Developing Countries.” Clarke, G. 2014. “Does Over-Regulation Global Harvest Initiative. 2011. Enhancing OECD Trade Policy Paper 142, Lead to Corruption? Evidence from Private Sector Involvement in Agricul- OECD, Paris. a multi-country firm survey.” Aca- ture and Rural Infrastructure Develop- demic and Business Research Institute ment. Washington, DC: Global Har- Sarria-Allende, V., and R. Fisma. 2004. LV14025. vest Initiative. “Regulation of Entry and the Dis- tortion of Industrial Organization.” Divanbeigi, R., and R. Ramalho. 2015. Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay and M. Mastru- Working Paper 10929, National “Business Regulations and Growth.” zzi. 2006. “Governance Matters IV: Bureau of Economic Research, Cam- Policy Research Working Paper Governance Indicators for 1996– bridge, MA. 7299, World Bank, Washington, DC. 2004.” Working Paper, Washington, DC: World Bank. Spielman, D.J., D. Kelemwork and D. Eiffert, B. 2009. “Do Regulatory Reforms Alemu. 2011. “Seed, Fertilizer and Stimulate Investment and Growth? Klapper, L., L. Laeven and R. Raghuram. Agricultural Extension in Ethiopia.” Evidence from the Doing Business 2006. “Entry as a Barrier to Entre- Ethiopia Strategy Support Program Data, 2003–07.” Working Paper preneurship.” Journal of Financial Eco- II Working Paper 020, IFPRI, Addis 159, Center for Global Development, nomics 82: 591–629. Ababa. Washington, DC. Kraay, A., D. Kaufmann and M. Mastru- Van Stel, A., D. J. Storey and A. Roy Thur- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organiza- zzi. 2010. The Worldwide Governance ik. 2007. “The Effect of Business tion). 2012. The State of Food and Indicators: Methodology and Analyt- Regulations on Nascent and Young Agriculture 2012: Investing in Agricul- ical Issues. Washington, DC: Brook- Business Entrepreneurship.” Small ture for a Better Future. Rome: FAO. ings Institute. Business Economics 28 (2): 171–86. 12 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 2. SEED STRENGTHENING SEED SYSTEMS Imagine a farmer, Jelena, who sustains her family by growing corn and vegetables. A newly formed variety release committee will release improved seed varieties in her country. With this reform, Jelena will also be able to consult an online variety catalog indicating which varieties perform best in her region. All seed sold in the country will be certified to ensure quality. With improved seed varieties, subsistence farmers like Jelena can increase the yield and quality of their crops so that they can sell the surplus on the domestic market. EBA seed indicators measure laws and sector. In some countries regulations committee, the content, availability regulations on the development, eval- limit the private sector’s role in the devel- and frequency of the variety cat- uation, release and quality control of opment of new seed varieties, preventing alogue updates and the time and improved seed varieties. Improved vari- companies from accessing initial classes cost to register a new variety (which eties are a key technology for improving of seeds. The EBA 2015 progress report is not scored). agricultural productivity.1 Smart regula- presented Ethiopia, where the public tion of the seed sector can ensure that sector’s monopoly consistently resulted • Seed development and certifi- laws and regulations do not obstruct the in shortages of initial seed classes for cation. This indicator measures timely introduction of improved varieties smallholder farmers and agribusinesses. 3 the protection of plant breeders’ to the market. Regulations that limit the private sector’s rights, the access to initial classes access to initial classes of seed or genetic of seed and germplasms, the licens- Seed registration, the first seed indicator, resources stored by national gene banks ing systems for public varieties and was selected for study because burden- reduce the resources available to the additional testing requirements for some and inconsistent regulations can private sector for developing new variet- materials imported for research reduce the number of improved varieties ies.4 In addition, protecting the property and development. In addition, this that are released and eligible for com- rights of seed developers spurs further indicator addresses the availability mercialization. In countries that require innovation.5 of an official fee schedule for certifi- registration of new seed varieties, replac- cation and whether third parties can ing burdensome regulations with smart The second component of this indicator perform it. ones—preventing long and costly proce- captures aspects of the seed certifica- dures while guaranteeing quality seed— tion process. The aim of mandatory seed The EBA country scores vary from 28 to can make improved varieties available to certification is ensuring the genetic puri- 94 points over all 40 countries (figure farmers in a timely manner and in suffi- ty and varietal identity of seed varieties. 2.1). This variation in scores has to do cient quantity for planting. 2 Smarter reg- But when the process is government-run, with the performance of the countries in ulations that include the private sector overburdened public authorities and non- both the seed registration and the seed in the release process will provide more transparent bureaucracy can delay the development and certification indicators. transparency and incentivize the private commercialization of new varieties and Overall countries tend to score better in sector to release new varieties in the give rise to corruption. One way to ensure the latter, which focuses on the protec- country. the transparency of the certification is tion of plant breeder rights, the access through the public availability of costs to genetic material and initial classes of Seed development and certification, the associated with government-run certi- seed and quality controls. Nevertheless, second seed indicator, is comprised of fication. Seed certification by nongov- some countries are exceptions, Bangla- two components — development and ernmental inspectors and laboratories desh, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethio- certification. The first component mea- reduces the burden on the public sector pia, Ghana, Kenya, Lao PDR, Nepal, Nic- sures regulations that support the private and speeds the certification process. aragua and Turkey score higher on the sector’s involvement in developing new seed registration indicators. varieties. This is particularly important The data cover the following areas: since public sector investments in agri- Countries can score lower or higher for cultural research, including plant breed- • Seed registration. This indicator different reasons. For the lowest per- ing, have declined in many countries measures the efficiency of the regis- formers, such as Bosnia and Herzegov- since 1997, leaving the task to the private tration, including the variety release ina, Ghana, Niger, Rwanda and Uganda, SEED 13 FIGURE 2.1 Countries mostly score better on seed development and certification indicators, while seed registration proves more challenging EBA seed scores 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sri Lanka Ukraine Mali Ghana Guatemala Rwanda Tajikistan Greece Zambia Tanzania Nicaragua Lao PDR Nepal Spain Bangladesh Cambodia Côte d'Ivoire Kenya Turkey Denmark Bolivia Colombia Myanmar Vietnam Georgia Kyrgyz Republic Chile Morocco Russian Federation Uganda Philippines Ethiopia Burkina Faso Bosnia and Herzegovina Niger Poland Jordan Sudan Mozambique Burundi Seed score Seed registration score Seed development and certification score Source: EBA database. the low scores are often from a lack of activities (when required). They also sources from which private plant breed- implementation of laws and regulations. support the involvement of private sec- ers can access initial classes of seed Laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ghana, tor initiatives in the seed systems. But a produced by the public sector supports Niger and Rwanda establish variety good score does not mean those coun- private plant breeders’ involvement in release authorities, but in practice the tries cannot improve in certain aspects. the country’s plant breeding system. But authorities are not operational. In addi- In Chile, Denmark and the Philippines restrictive regulations can obstruct new tion, the lack of transparency in manda- the national catalogs listing registered variety development by the private sector. tory procedures also hurts a country’s seed varieties do not offer information on overall score. In four of the five lowest agro-ecological zones. Moreover, Kenya In practice links between the private and scoring countries (Ghana, Niger, Rwanda does not have an official fee schedule public sectors take several forms—from and Uganda), certification of cereal crops for the certification of seed varieties and producing breeder and foundation seed is mandatory, but there is no official fee Mozambique’s national catalog listing developed by public sector breeders schedule for the certification performed registered seed varieties is neither avail- and made available to private breeders by the public sector. able online nor updated according the to implementing licensing systems that country’s cropping seasons. allow private breeders to use local pub- Chile, Denmark, Kenya, Mozambique lic varieties to multiply and market their and the Philippines perform the best seed. Allowing private breeders access overall, all with scores over 80 in both Links between private and public to genetic materials stored in the nation- the seed registration and the seed devel- sector breeding activities are al gene banks also supports effective opment and certification indicators. In greater in the OECD high-income collaboration between private and pub- these countries, good seed laws are in countries surveyed lic actors. These practices help private place and include provision for the flex- breeders acquire varieties developed ibility of the variety release commit- Plant breeders create new seed varieties or conserved by the public sector and tee, the transparency and efficiency of by crossing and selecting specific ben- benefit from greater resources for their seed registration and seed certification eficial traits. Increasing the number of breeding activities (box 2.1).6 14 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 In Bangladesh, Bolivia, Guatema- la, Morocco, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and BOX 2.1 Good practices for involving the private sector in Ukraine the cost is well below 40% of developing new varieties income per capita. But outliers such as Nicaragua, Sudan and Vietnam, where • Should grant and protect plant breeders’ rights. costs reach 834%, 722% and 426% of income per capita respectively, make • Should allow private companies to use local public varieties to lower-middle-income countries the produce breeder/pre-basic seed and foundation/basic seed for the income group with the most expensive domestic market. registration for a new variety of seed. • Should conserve germplasm in national public gene banks and make There is also great variation among them accessible to the private sector for research and development low-income countries. In Nepal and of new seed varieties. Uganda registering a new variety is free, whereas registration costs reach 79% and 89% of income per capita in Ethiopia • Should allow local public varieties to be licensed to private sector and Mozambique. companies for multiplication and commercialization in the domestic market. Most countries have variety release • Should facilitate the import of nonregistered materials for research committees and development. At the end of the registration process, the variety release committee (VRC) approves the results of several years of new variety development by plant breed- Regulations that best support private varieties on laboratory shelves rather ers in line with VRC standards. 8 But a sector involvement in the breeding than in crop fields. requirement to register a new variety of system are found in Cambodia, Chile, seed that is not supported by rules that Colombia, Georgia, Greece, Jordan, ensure a flexible and effective process Kenya, Morocco, Mozambique, the Phil- Registration costs vary the most may discourage breeders from releasing ippines, Poland, Spain and Sudan. among the lower-middle-income new varieties. Of the 40 countries sur- and low-income countries veyed, 39 legally mandate the establish- By contrast, of the 40 countries sur- ment of a VRC (although in Bangladesh, veyed, 9 do not grant the private sec- In countries where registration is com- Guatemala and the Philippines registra- tor access to breeder seed of local pulsory, a new variety of seed must pass tion of cereal varieties is not mandatory). public varieties (Bangladesh, Burkina specific tests commonly performed over Among them, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Faso, Ghana, Lao PDR, Mali, Nica- one or more cropping seasons. The first Cambodia and Niger have yet to estab- ragua, Niger, Tajikistan and Turkey). tests are intended to measure the vari- lish their VRCs in practice. To reduce Nor do Burkina Faso, Lao PDR and ety’s distinctiveness, uniformity and sta- delays affecting the release of improved Nicaragua grant access to founda- bility (DUS). In most countries, a new varieties into the market and the farm- tion seed of local public varieties. variety of seed must also pass the value ers, the registration and release process So breeders and seed companies are for cultivation and use (VCU) tests, which needs to allow seed companies to start likely to market fewer seed varieties.7 identify the advantage of the new seed producing the newly released variety for over already-registered varieties. The data the next cropping season (box 2.2). In Countries such as Myanmar, the Rus- from these tests are reviewed by a scien- practice, this means that the release of sian Federation, Tanzania, Ukraine and tific committee, which either releases the a new variety by a VRC should be pos- Zambia impose minor limitations, such variety or advises another official body sible before each cropping season starts. as preventing private companies from that the variety is eligible to be released. Among the surveyed countries, 7 have importing materials for research and a VRC that is fully flexible and meets on development of new varieties without Across income groups, relative registra- demand, and 22 have a VRC that meets further government field-testing. Sim- tion costs are the lowest among high-in- after each cropping season (table 2.1). ilarly, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina come countries (figure 2.2). Registration Registration applicants are thus informed and Denmark do not have systems for costs among countries in this group about the VRC decision far enough in licensing public varieties to private seed show little variation — except in Russia, advance to start production. enterprises for production and sale in the where registering up to five new varieties domestic market. Such practice often a year is free—with costs as a percent of In addition to the frequency of VRC hampers commercialization of variet- income per capita at 6% in Chile, 7% in meetings, EBA seed indicators measure ies bred by public sector institutes and Poland, 8% in Denmark, 9% in Greece the involvement of the private sector universities, leaving newly developed and 10% in Spain. in the variety release decision-making. SEED 15 FIGURE 2.2 The lower-middle-income and low-income countries show the greatest variation in official registration costs Cost (% income per capita) Income group average 800% 700% 600% 500% 400% 300% 200% 100% 0% Sri Lanka Ethiopia Tanzania Cambodia Nepal Uganda Nicaragua Vietnam Kyrgyz Republic Côte d'Ivoire Zambia Myanmar Ukraine Guatemala Turkey Greece Russian Federation Mozambique Sudan Kenya Bolivia Morocco Bangladesh Colombia Spain Denmark Poland Chile Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle High income income Source: EBA database. In practice, the representation of other additional administrative formalities Zambia have variety catalogs, but they stakeholders within the VRC may raise must be satisfied for the variety to be are not updated after each cropping sea- private sector confidence in the variety released. In Kenya a registration appli- son, so information about new varieties registration and release process. Of the cant will be delayed on average 31 days is not released as soon as it is available. 36 countries with an established VRC, in releasing a new variety. Colombia, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lao PDR, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Russia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Once released, the information relating Guatemala, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Vietnam do not to new varieties should be accessible, Nepal, Niger, Russia, Tajikistan, Tanzania, include representatives of the private reliable and useful.9 EBA seed indicators Ukraine and Vietnam have national vari- sector (figure 2.3). measure accessibility through the avail- ety catalogues that specify agro-ecologi- ability of an online version of the national cal zones—areas indicated by the nation- In addition to the VRC review and deci- variety catalog listing the latest varieties al seed registration authority as regions sion, countries may require addition- released in the country. Of the 40 sur- in which growers can expect optimal al formalities that delay the release of veyed countries, 30 have a national vari- results for specific seed varieties. Spec- the new variety without providing any ety catalog, but only 19 make it available ifying agro-ecological zones enables additional technical verification. In 14 online. Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, agricultural producers to use new seed of the surveyed countries, the decision Ethiopia, Georgia, Jordan, Kenya, the varieties properly according to the soil, of the VRC does not automatically lead Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Mali, Moroc- landform and climatic characteristics of to the release of the variety. In practice, co, Mozambique, Niger, Tanzania and their farms, increasing crop yields. 16 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 bodies in charge of inspections, testing and labeling. While this may slow the BOX 2.2 Good practices for evaluating and registering new certification process, it can also improve varieties the quality of new seed varieties. • Should include both private and public sector representatives in the Regulations that allow accreditation of VRC. nongovernmental inspectors or labora- tories to carry out certain certification • VRC should meet after each round of DUS/VCU tests. activities can reduce potential delays caused by an overburdened public • Should allow new seed varieties to be released immediately after a authority (box 2.3). This option allows favorable decision of the VRC. accredited private companies to support the public sector in the certification pro- cess, increasing the speed and efficiency • Should maintain an up to date national variety catalog listing, with of quality control and ensuring that qual- agro-ecological zones and available online. ity seed is delivered to market on time.11 Seed companies and other private insti- tutions can be accredited to carry out part or all of the maize seed certification process in Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, Den- TABLE 2.1 Variety release committees meet after each cropping season in mark, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Kenya, most countries Niger, Spain, Tanzania, Vietnam and Zambia. VARIETY RELEASE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE COUNTRIES COUNTRIES Conclusion Meets on demand 7 Bangladesh, Bolivia, Colombia, Strengthening seed systems through Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Lao PDR, smart regulations is an essential compo- Nepal nent to the creation of an enabling envi- Meets after each cropping 22 Chile, Denmark, Ethiopia, ronment for the business of agriculture. This year’s findings show that laws and season Greece, Jordan, Kyrgyz Republic, institutions are mostly in place, but with Mozambique, Myanmar, some differences in the developed indi- Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, cators and challenges in implementation Russian Federation, Spain, Sri of the laws. There is room for improve- Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, ment in all countries surveyed, such as: Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam, Zambia • Transparent variety release proce- dures allowing new varieties to be Does not meet after each 1 Morocco available in time for farmers and cropping season other stakeholders. In Bolivia the Established but does not meet 6 Burkina Faso, Burundi, Georgia, variety release committee includes Ghana, Mali, Rwanda an equal number of public and pri- vate sector representatives, and Not established 4 Bosnia and Herzegovina, meets on demand to prevent delays Cambodia, Guatemala, Niger in the release of the new variety. Source: EBA database. • Laws that protect plant varieties developed by plant breeders to ensure sustained breeding efforts Seed quality certification in laboratory analysis, packaging and label- in the country. Tanzania, which surveyed countries is mainly ing. Most countries surveyed (31 of 40) already had a law granting and pro- government-run establish a mandatory government-run tecting the rights of plant breeders seed certification system for cereal seed over their new varieties, became Seed certification subjects registered (figure 2.4). While quality control offered bound by the 1991 UPOV Act in seed to controls and inspections, before by government-run systems can ensure November 2015. it reaches farmers and other agricultur- the quality of seed sold in the country, al producers.10 Certification processes efforts may also be hindered by the lim- • A legal environment that facili- commonly include field inspections, ited resources available to regulatory tates the private sector’s access to SEED 17 FIGURE 2.3 In the majority of countries studied with a variety release committee, the private sector is involved in the variety release process BOX 2.3 Good practices for countries requiring Number of countries mandatory certification • Should provide for an option for companies 6 (self-accreditation) and private institutions 11 (third-party accreditation) to be accredited for the performance of part or all of the certification 19 process. • Should provide seed producers with official fee schedules that detail the costs associated with the No private sector certification performed Less than half private sector by the public authority. Half or more private sector Source: EBA database. FIGURE 2.4 EBA countries with mandatory maize certification predominantly restrict its implementation to public sector actors Number of countries 19 9 31 12 No mandatory certification Third party accreditation not available Mandatory certification Third party accreditation available Source: EBA database. 18 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 initial classes of seed and materi- genetic purity and identity (USDA Period 2009–2013. C/48/7 prepared als for research and development 2009, 1). by the Office of the Union. and involves private sector compa- nies in the multiplication and com- 5. Fernandez-Cornejo 2004. King, J., A. Toole and K. Fuglie. 2012. mercialization of public varieties. “Complementary Roles of the Public In Côte d’Ivoire the seed law allows 6. King and others 2012. and Private Sectors in U.S. Agricul- nongovernmental entities to be tural Research and Development.” accredited by ministerial decree for 7. In Nicaragua no Plant Variety Pro- Economic Brief 19, U.S. Department the multiplication of plant materials. tection title was approved in 2013 of Agriculture Economic Research and a total of five Plant Variety Pro- Service, Washington, DC. • A quality control system that tection titles were in force at end of provides transparent costs and 2013; UPOV 2013. Langyintuo, A.S., W. Mwangi, A.O. Diallo, options for the accreditation of J. MacRobert, J. Dixon and M. Bän- third party inspectors or laborato- 8. Tripp 1997. ziger. 2008. An Analysis of the Bot- ries. In Burkina Faso the fee payable tlenecks Affecting the Production and for seed quality control is provided 9. Rohrbach, Howard and Zulu 2004. Deployment of Maize Seed in Eastern by law and proportional to produc- and Southern Africa. Harare, Zimba- tion area. 10. Aidoo and others 2014. bwe: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. Improving laws and regulations that 11. Gisselquist and Van Der Meer 2001. affect the development, evaluation, Rohrbach, D., J. Howard and E. Zulu. release and quality control of improved 2004. “Harmonization of Seed Laws varieties is an important step. Research References and Regulations in Southern Africa.” shows that improved seeds account for In Seed Trade Liberalization in Sub- about 30–50% of the increase in pro- Aidoo, R., J. Osei Mensah, B. Fenni Saharan Africa, eds., David Rohr- ductivity and enhancing profitability of Omono and V. Abankwah. 2014. bach and Julie Howard. Michigan farmers. The seed topic data can inform “Factors Determining the Use of State University, International Crops discussions on strengthening seed sys- Certified Maize Seeds by Farmers in Research Institute for the Semi-Arid tems, indicating regulatory obstacles to Ejura-Sekyedumasi Municipality in Tropics (ICRISTAT). the timely release of quality seed along Ghana.” World Journal of Agricultural with other factors, including limited pub- Sciences 2 (5): 84–90. Tripp, R. 1997. “Seed Regulatory Frame- lic sector capacities and the socio-eco- work and the Availability of Crop nomic conditions of farmers. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. 2004. “The Seed Varieties.” In Easing Barriers to Move- Industry in U.S. Agriculture: An ment of Plant Varieties for Agricultural Exploration of Data and Information Development, eds., David Gisselquist Notes on Crop Seed Markets, Regulation, and Jitendra Srivastava. Washing- Industry Structure, and Research and ton, DC: World Bank. 1. Tripp 1998. Development.” Agriculture Informa- tion Bulletin 786, U.S. Department ———. 1998. “Regulatory Issues: Varietal 2. Langyintuo and others 2008. of Agriculture Economic Research Registration and Seed Quality Con- Service, Washington, DC. trol,” In Seed Industries in Developing 3. Enabling the Business of Agriculture Countries, ed., M.L. Morris. Lynne 2015. Gisselquist, D., and C. Van Der Meer. Reinner Publishers, Boulder, Colora- 2001. “Regulations for Seed and do, USA. 4. Breeder seed is seed directly con- Fertilizer Markets: A Good Prac- trolled by the originating or spon- tice Guide for Policy Makers.” Rural USDA (United States Department of soring plant breeding institution, Development Working Paper 22817, Agriculture). 2009. “Understanding firm or individual that is the source World Bank, Washington, DC. Seed Certification and Seed Labels.” for the production of seed of the Plant Materials Technical Note 10, certified classes. Foundation seed is International Union for the Protection of U.S. Department of Agriculture Nat- a progeny of breeder or foundation New Varieties of Plants. 2013. Plant ural Resources Conservation Ser- seed, handled to maintain specific Variety Protection Statistics for the vice, Alexandria, LA. 19 3. FERTILIZER IMPROVING SUPPLY AND QUALITY A farmer wants to diversify her crops by growing different vegetable products. The fertilizer she has been using until now does not work well with this particular set of vegetables. The agro-input dealer in her village has told her that none of the fertilizers available provide the proper suite of nutrients for her vegetable crops. A fertilizer company is registering a new fertilizer product in the country suited for the vegetables she plans to grow, but burdensome regulations require the company to interact with multiple agencies to register the product and conduct fertilizer testing so that a national committee can approve the application. This whole process takes more than seven years and the farmer will have to wait until then before she can access this new fertilizer that can increase her yield. EBA fertilizer indicators measure laws procedures should be time- and cost-ef- process eases access to the market while and regulations on the registration, ficient to ensure that new products reach informing the government of the play- import and quality control of fertilizer the market in a timely manner. If regis- ers in the market within its borders.7 But products. They address factors import- tration becomes lengthy and expensive, import permits obstruct trade by compli- ant to companies importing and selling it can distort competition by limiting the cating the import process and increasing fertilizer products, farmers using qual- number of players and products in the the required time and cost. This prac- ity fertilizer products to increase their market. This indicator also measures the tice often creates bottlenecks between productivity and governments pursuing transparency of the registration system the companies and dealers supplying regulations that ensure the quality of by examining catalogs listing registered farmers. 8 Since import procedures vary products and effectiveness of fertilizer fertilizer products and whether they are across countries, this indicator aims to markets. available online. highlight the balance between control and efficiency needed to ensure a strong In many countries, fertilizer products The second indicator, fertilizer import market for fertilizer. must be registered before they can be requirements, measures regulations sold commercially. Registration of fer- for importing fertilizer. Import require- The third indicator, fertilizer quality con- tilizer products is important because it ments are important because fertilizer trol, assesses government regulations brings new and innovative products to production is concentrated only in a few and practices on preventing poor qual- the market while ensuring safety and countries, so most must rely on imports.3 ity fertilizer products from reaching the quality. This is because fertilizer is subject to market. Adulterated, low quality and economies of scale at every stage of the counterfeit fertilizer products can stunt The first indicator, fertilizer registration, supply chain, requiring vast amounts of crop growth and development,9 lead- measures the requirements to regis- capital and raw materials to produce.4 ing to lower crop yields, lower farmer ter a fertilizer product for the first time Understanding import requirements and incomes, increased food and income and whether the registration is limited the associated time and costs allow for insecurities and even environmental to a time period. Fertilizer registration a better knowledge of the market. This problems. This indicator also address- ensures that governments have control indicator measures whether the private es labeling requirements— important over what types of fertilizers enter the sector is allowed to import and sell fertil- because labeling fertilizer bags increases market. It is important to provide market izer products. Allowing the private sector market certainty (since consumers know oversight through a registration scheme, to engage in the domestic market for fer- what types of products they are buying). since the effects of farm inputs may tilizer can result in more efficient markets Labeling requirements give important only become apparent long after they and lower prices. 5 More private sector information about a bag’s contents and are used.1 Inadequate nutrients, heavy participation in the market increases the name of its producer. In addition, metals or other residues found in fertil- fertilizer access and use, which in turn the indicator looks at rules on the sale of izer products can contaminate crops, raises crop yields and cuts reliance on open and mislabeled fertilizer containers. animals and humans. 2 Farmers should heavy food imports.6 This indicator also Governments should act to ensure that be given assurance that the products addresses the cost and time to obtain fertilizer labels correspond to the content they use will not contaminate their crops import registrations and permits. A quick inside their containers to guarantee trust and the environment. But registration and inexpensive import registration between buyers and sellers.10 Aside from 20 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 mislabeling, the sale of open fertilizer practices for monitoring fertilizer procedures varies significantly across bags can also be harmful to consumers, quality. countries, with the time needed to reg- as they are susceptible to adulteration, ister a new fertilizer product ranging hurting crop yields, reducing farmers’ Across the 40 countries surveyed, fer- between 15 and 1,125 calendar days, and profits and increasing food insecurity.11 tilizer regulations range from the more the cost ranging from 0% to 1,064.5% of strict and highly protective, limiting mar- income per capita. The EBA fertilizer data cover the follow- ket access, to the weaker or seemingly ing areas: nonexistent; neither of the two extremes Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colom- is desirable. Bosnia and Herzegovina, bia, the EU countries (Denmark, Greece, • Fertilizer registration. This indica- Poland, Greece, Colombia and Spain are Poland and Spain), Kenya, Turkey and tor measures the requirements to the top 5 performers in the regulatory Rwanda are the best performers in terms register a fertilizer product for the areas measured by the fertilizer topic of the fertilizer import requirements first time, whether the registration (figure 3.1). measured. Regulatory bottlenecks for is limited to a time period and the importing fertilizer, such as licensing existence and accessibility of an Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, requirements, are less costly and oner- official fertilizer catalog. Greece and Poland have the strongest ous in these countries than in the EBA and most efficient regulations for fertil- 16 sample average. In Sub-Saharan Afri- • Fertilizer import requirements. izer registration. In these countries, the ca, both Kenya (a lower-middle-income This indicator focuses on the private private sector is required to register fer- country) and Rwanda (a low-income sector’s role and the requirements tilizer products, registration of fertilizer country) are among the best performers for importing fertilizer, including the products has no time limit and registered globally, offering good examples to other costs of registering as an importer fertilizer products are listed in an official countries in the region that are not per- of fertilizer and obtaining an import catalog that is accessible online. Thir- forming as well. permit. ty-three of the 40 countries surveyed require the private sector to register The differences among countries are • Fertilizer quality control. This fertilizer. But only 17 of those have reg- less apparent in fertilizer quality control. indicator measures labeling require- istrations that either have no time limit Twelve of the 40 countries surveyed ments, rules on the sale of open and or have one that lasts at least 10 years. require labeling fertilizer containers mislabeled fertilizer containers and For fertilizer registration, the number of and prohibit the sale of mislabeled and FIGURE 3.1 Sixteen countries have overall fertilizer scores above the sample average EBA fertilizer scores 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Greece Sri Lanka Guatemala Lao PDR Bosnia and Herzegovina Poland Colombia Spain Denmark Ukraine Tanzania Mali Vietnam Georgia Jordan Russian Federation Turkey Côte d'Ivoire Nicaragua Kyrgyz Republic Bolivia Sudan Burundi Myanmar Rwanda Ghana Cambodia Nepal Philippines Zambia Uganda Bangladesh Morocco Kenya Burkina Faso Mozambique Chile Niger Tajikistan Ethiopia Fertilizer score Fertilizer registration Fertilizer import requirements Fertilizer quality control Source: EBA database. FERTILIZER 21 opened fertilizer bags. All countries require labeling and most prohibit the sale of mislabeled products. But 22 of BOX 3.1 Good practices for fertilizer registration the 40 countries do not prohibit the sale of open fertilizer bags—a practice • Should require private companies to register fertilizer products. The that is common because of affordability, registration would ideally be valid indefinitely. but not recommended because it ham- pers the ability to ensure high-quality • In countries where the registration is limited to a specific time fertilizer. period, the validity should be at least 10 years. • In countries where the registration is limited to a specific time Registration takes less time but is period, the renovation of application should be automatic. most costly in countries where it needs to be done only once • Develop efficient and affordable fertilizer product registration. Registering new fertilizer products is a good practice because it ensures that • Should list registered fertilizer products in an official catalog that is a country has control over what fertil- accessible online. izers are used within its borders (box 3.1). Controls are necessary to prevent soil damage, environmental pollution or adulterated fertilizer use.12 And product registration allows countries to increase is the longest, as it can take place over is necessary have a much lower cost market awareness, compile and share many seasons, prolonging the registra- to register a product for the first time information with the public and guaran- tion process for several years. (85.9% of income per capita), as do tee human, animal and environmental automatic-registration countries (3.7% safety. The time it takes to register fertiliz- of income per capita) (figure 3.3). er products also depends on the type Countries may require companies to of registration. Registration takes less register fertilizer products in three ways: time but is most costly in countries Only four countries require once in a lifetime, re-applying for regis- where it needs to be done only once. companies to register as an tration periodically or having the reg- Indeed, in countries where firms do not importer of fertilizer but do not istration automatically renewed after a need to re-register fertilizer (once-in-a- require import permits certain time. Having to register fertiliz- lifetime registration), the registration of er products once in a lifetime or having a new fertilizer product takes less time Registering import companies allows the registration automatically renewed — on average 154.3 calendar days — countries to monitor the supply of reduces the burden on companies by not ranging from 31 calendar days in Bosnia imported fertilizer products (box 3.2). requiring them to have to go through the and Herzegovina to 578.5 in Tanzania. Having simple and affordable registra- process again. Registering a new fertilizer product for tion processes is a good practice that the first time takes on average 324.6 allows competition and facilitates market It takes on average 258 calendar days calendar days in countries where a new access.13 Import permits are primarily to register a fertilizer product in the 40 application is needed to re-register. desirable for controlling potentially dan- countries sampled, ranging from 15 cal- And where re-registering is automatic, gerous chemicals— such as ammoni- endar days in Vietnam to 1,125 in Nepal the time for registering a new fertilizer um nitrate, a chemical that can be used (figure 3.2). Countries that take the least product is the highest—398 calendar for producing explosives. But onerous time usually require fewer procedures days. requirements for obtaining import per- — usually an application for registra- mits obstruct trade and create unneces- tion and a content verification report in It is most expensive to register a fertiliz- sary burdens for importers.14 the form of lab samples. Among these er product in countries with once-in-a- countries are Denmark, Guatemala, lifetime registration, costing on average All studied countries except Ethiopia Nicaragua, Spain and Vietnam. Coun- 179.7% of income per capita. Among allow domestic companies to import tries where fertilizer product registra- countries with once-in-a-lifetime reg- fertilizer products for their sale. Ethio- tion takes the longest require several istration, Bosnia and Herzegovina is the pia only allows domestic companies to procedures, usually including an appli- least expensive, with a negligible cost. import fertilizer products for self-con- cation for registration, content verifica- Tanzania is the most expensive, averag- sumption, a practice only carried out by tion report in the form of lab samples, ing 1,064.5% of income per capita, due large agro-industries. Bangladesh, Cam- field testing, an environmental report, to expensive costs for field testing, which bodia, Ethiopia, Myanmar, the Philippines approval by a national committee and alone costs 1,050% of income per cap- and Sudan are the only countries that publication in the official gazette or jour- ita and takes 570 calendar days (table prohibit foreign companies from import- nal. Of these procedures, field testing 3.1). Countries where re-application ing fertilizer products. 22 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 3.2 The time to register new fertilizer products ranges from 15 to 1,125 calendar days Time to register a new fertilizer product (calendar days) Income group average 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Spain Turkey Nepal Mali Sudan Colombia Ghana Philippines Jordan Poland Zambia Ukraine Tanzania Uganda Nicaragua Bangladesh Georgia Sri Lanka Vietnam Myanmar Denmark Kyrgyz Republic Greece Russian Federation Guatemala Bosnia and Herzegovina Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle High income income Source: EBA database. TABLE 3.1 Cost and time to register a new fertilizer COST TO REGISTER A NEW FERTILIZER (% OF GNI PER CAPITA) TIME TO REGISTER A NEW FERTILIZER (DAYS) The least expensive… … and the most expensive The fastest… … and the slowest Spain 0% Tanzania 1,064.5% Vietnam 15 Nepal 1,125 Jordan 0.3% Ukraine 717.3% Sudan 29 Bangladesh 951 Guatemala 0.4% Uganda 258.9% Nicaragua 30 Georgia 765 Bosnia and Kyrgyz Denmark 0.4% Zambia 241.5% 31 730 Herzegovina Republic Bosnia and 0.5% Ghana 89.2% Denmark 31 Uganda 691 Herzegovina Source: EBA database. FERTILIZER 23 FIGURE 3.3 Registration takes less time but is most costly in countries where it needs to be done only once 500 200% 179.7% 400 160% Cost (% income per capita) Time (calendar days) 300 120% 85.9% 200 398.0 80% 324.6 100 40% 154.3 3.7% 0 0% Lifetime Re-application needed Automatic Time to register a new fertilizer (days) Cost to register a new fertilizer (% income per capita) Source: EBA database. Twenty-five of the 40 countries stud- ied require the private sector to regis- ter as an importer of fertilizer, and 12 BOX 3.2 Good practices for fertilizer import requirements of the 40 do not require companies to obtain import permits. Only 4 countries • Should allow fertilizer products already registered in another — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Côte d’Ivo- country (with good policies, regulations and quality and standards ire, Ghana and Kenya — follow both requirements) to be imported without needing to be re-registered good practices. In countries where in the importing country. companies are required to register as fertilizer importers and obtain import • Should allow private companies (including foreign ones) to import permits, the cost varies substantially fertilizer for own use and sale. across countries. To register as a fer- tilizer importer, the cost ranges from • Should require private companies to register as importers of free of charge to 57.5% of income per fertilizer in order to sell it. The registration would ideally not be capita (figure 3.4). Bolivia, Bosnia and limited to a specific time period. Herzegovina, Colombia, Mali, Nepal and Zambia are the six countries that require fertilizer importers to regis- • In countries where the registration is limited to a specific time ter and where the registration is free, period, the validity should be at least 10 years. which is considered a good practice. In import permits, the cost variation is • The cost of the registration should be affordable. smaller, ranging from no cost to 13% of income per capita. • Should allow private companies to import fertilizer without needing to obtain a special permit. A majority of countries prohibit • In countries where a permit is required, the permit should not be mislabeled fertilizer containers and limited to a specific time period. only one-third penalize the sale of open bags • The cost of the permit should be affordable. Labeling fertilizer helps to ensure qual- ity control (box 3.3).15 All surveyed countries except Tajikistan require companies to label fertilizer containers 24 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 3.4 The cost to register as an importer ranges from 0 to 57.5% of income per capita Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer by country Income group average 60 50 Cost (% income per capita) 40 30 20 10 0 Mali Bangladesh Nepal Sri Lanka Myanmar Ghana Rwanda Zambia Nicaragua Burkina Faso Jordan Sudan Côte d'Ivoire Kenya Colombia Bolivia Uganda Bosnia and Herzegovina Mozambique Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income Source: EBA database. in order to sell them. And all surveyed BOX 3.3 Good practices for fertilizer quality control countries except Turkey have laws pro- hibiting companies from selling misla- • Should require labeling of fertilizer containers (bags, bottles). beled fertilizer. Allowing open fertilizer bags to be sold is not a good practice. • The regulations should specify the requirement to include the Common in many counties where farm- fertilizer brand name, net weight or volume and a description ers cannot afford to purchase entire of the content on the label. bags of fertilizer, the sale of fertiliz- ers in open bags can be harmful since • Should prohibit the sale of mislabeled fertilizers. they are susceptible to adulteration — affecting crop yields, potentially reduc- ing farmers’ profits and leading to food • A penalty for the sale of mislabeled fertilizers should be insecurity.16 Instead, markets should established in the regulations. adapt to offer smaller bags. Over half the surveyed countries do not prohibit • Should prohibit the sale of opened fertilizer containers. the sale of open fertilizer bags (figure 3.5). Of the countries that prohibit the • A penalty for the sale of opened fertilizer containers/bags sale of open fertilizer bags, only four should be established in the regulations. — Denmark, Lao PDR, Sri Lanka and Turkey— do not establish penalties for companies that do so. FERTILIZER 25 FIGURE 3.5 Over half of the surveyed countries do not prohibit the sale of open fertilizer bags—and those that do, do not always have a penalty for it Percentages on the prohibition and penalties against the sale of open fertilizer bags (number of countries) 13 22 17 4 Law prohibits the sale of opened fertilizer containers/bags Law does not prohibit the sale of opened fertilizer containers/bags Law establishes penalty for the sale of opened fertilizer containers/bags Law does not establish penalty for the sale of opened fertilizer containers/bags Source: EBA database. Conclusion • Compulsory labeling and packag- 3. Hernandez and Torero 2011, 2013. ing requirements, which promote A strong and competitive fertilizer mar- the sale of high-quality fertilizer. 4. World Bank 2015. ket is extremely important to a country’s Vietnam’s exemplary regulations for agricultural sector since this input great- ensuring quality fertilizer establish 5. Gisselquist and Van Der Meer ly influences farm productivity. Several effective labeling mechanisms and 2001. external factors not measured by EBA , penalize mislabeled and opened such as international commodity and fertilizer bags. 6. World Bank 2015. shipping prices, have a strong influence on the industry. But the regulatory envi- Regulatory reforms are not easily accom- 7. Gisselquist and Van Der Meer ronment also determines the health of plished and do not occur overnight. 2001. the fertilizer market. EBA aims to pro- The complexity of the fertilizer sector mote smart regulations that enable com- demands smart regulations that balance 8. AGRA 2014; Keyser 2012; World petitive markets in the fertilizer sector, the needs of a competitive sector while Bank 2012. such as: ensuring safety and quality for human health and the environment. The fertiliz- 9. Fintrac 2014; Liverpool-Tasie and • Efficient and affordable fertilizer er topic measures regulations pertinent others 2010; Mujeri and others 2012; product registration for compa- to companies and farmers in the areas of Pullabhotla and Ganesh- Kumar nies. Colombia sets a good example product registration, import and quality 2012; Visker and others 1996. with clear registration regulations control. These indicators can be used by and efficient procedures. governments pursuing to improve their 10. Gisselquist and Van Der Meer laws and regulations to enable a compet- 2001. • Streamlined import procedures itive fertilizer sector. for the private sector, which allow 11. World Bank 2010. for timely availability of fertilizer. Kenya’s import regulations allow Notes 12. Gisselquist and Van Der Meer the private sector to import fertil- 2001. izer products through an efficient 1. World Bank 2015. import registration and licensing 13. Gisselquist and Van Der Meer system. 2. Rutgers University 2006. 2001. 26 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 14. AGRA 2014; Keyser 2012; World Patterns, and Pricing Behavior.” IFPRI Paper 08, Global Development Net- Bank 2012. Discussion Paper 01058, Interna- work, New Delhi. tional Food Policy Research Institute 15. Gisselquist and Van Der Meer 2001. (IFPRI), Washington, DC. Pullabhotla, H., and A. Ganesh-Kumar. 2012. “Review of Input and Out- 16. World Bank 2010. ———. 2013. “Market Concentration and put Policies for Cereal Production Pricing Behavior in the Fertilizer in Bangladesh.” IFPRI Discussion Industry: A Global Approach.” Agri- Paper 01199, International Food Pol- References cultural Economics 44 (6): 723–34. icy Research Institute (IFPRI), New Delhi. AGRA (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Keyser, J. C., M. Elitta, G. Dimithe, Africa). 2014. “Improving Fertilizer G.  Ayoola, and L. Sene. 2012. Rutgers University. 2006. “Public Health Supplies for African Farmers.” Brief “Counting the Costs of Compliance Concerns with Hazardous Materials 2, AGRA, Nairobi, Kenya. with Trade Requirements from a in Fertilizers.” The Soil Profile 16. Rut- Value Chain Perspective: Evidence gers, NJ: Rutgers University. Fintrac. 2014. Assessment of the Enabling from Southern Africa.” Africa Trade Environment for Cross-Border Trade of Policy Notes 32, World Bank, Wash- Visker, C., D. Rutland and K. Dahoui. 1996. Agricultural Inputs. Thailand, Vietnam ington, DC. The Quality of Fertilizers in West Afri- and Cambodia. Washington, DC: ca (1995). Muscle Shoals, Alabama: USAID/Enabling Agriculture Trade Liverpool-Tasie, S. L.O., A. A. Auchan and International Fertilizer Development (EAT). A. B. Banful. 2010. “An Assessment Center (IFDC). of Fertilizer Quality Regulation in Gisselquist, D., and C. Van Der Meer. Nigeria.” Nigeria Strategy Support World Bank. 2010. Africa Development 2001. “Regulations for Seed and Program Report 09, Internation- Indicators 2010: Silent and Lethal: How Fertilizer Markets: A Good Prac- al Food Policy Research Institute Quiet Corruption Undermines Africa’s tice Guide for Policymakers.” Rural (IFPRI), Abuja. Development Efforts. Washington, Development Working Paper 22817, DC: World Bank. World Bank, Washington, DC. Mujeri, M. K., S. Shahana, T. T. Chowd- hury and K. T. Haider. 2012. “Improv- ———. 2012. Africa Can Help Feed Africa: Hernandez, M. A., and M. Torero. 2011. ing the Effectiveness, Efficiency Removing Barriers to Regional Trade “Fertilizer Market Situation: Market and Sustainability of Fertilizer Use in Food Staples. Washington, DC: Structure, Consumption and Trade in South Asia.” Policy Research World Bank. 27 4. MACHINERY EXPANDING MECHANIZATION WHILE ENSURING QUALITY AND SAFETY Tractor accidents can be fatal and have direct economic consequences for poor farmers. Imagine a farmer who spends all of the family savings to buy a new tractor in hope of improving her farmland and increasing productivity. One day while working the field, she approaches a steep hill, and the tractor rolls over and fatally crushes her. Stricter quality control and safety regulations such as requiring roll-over protective structures and seatbelts on tractors could prevent these accidents and avoid the economic loss that her family must endure. EBA machinery indicators measure of prerequisites that must be ensured at a global industry, with tractors manu- obstacles facing dealers who import the machinery dealer level that direct- factured on one continent and sold on tractors for sale. Besides meeting the ly impact the availability of high-quality another, 6 international standards also requirements for import and registra- tractors. To enable the private machin- help facilitate international trade.7 tion, the indicators also measure the ery sector and promote farm mechani- regulations on standards and safety for zation services to farmers, appropriate The third indicator for EBA machinery operators of tractors. Regulations on government institutions responsible for focuses on the requirements for import- imports, standards and safety and other standards, health and safety need to be ing agricultural tractors. Local manufac- requirements for introducing mechan- in place.3 Having national or regional cen- turing of agricultural tractors is concen- ical technology to the market affect the ters for impartial testing and evaluation trated in a few countries and the majority availability of appropriate machinery to of agricultural machinery is a good prac- of countries rely on imports. Inefficient farmers and agribusinesses. Agricul- tice. Conforming with established nation- and costly import licensing obstructs tural machines can increase production al or international standards, these tests trade in many countries, making it dif- since they are labor-saving and direct- ensure the quality of tractors and their ficult for tractor importers to introduce ly increase yields and production1 with suitability to country conditions. Tractor their products in the market. Balanc- more efficient operations that can culti- registration is another area where there ing control and efficiency requirements vate more land. 2 Agricultural mechani- are significant differences between coun- eases importing machinery. zation spurs rural economic growth and tries. Lengthy and expensive procedural ultimately improves rural livelihoods. requirements stifle competition, limiting Several other factors that are currently the players and products in the market. not measured—such as specific mech- The EBA machinery indicators use agri- Providing after-sales services—sales of anization policies and market realities cultural tractors as a proxy to assess the spare parts and training on how to use a —also affect the agricultural machinery regulations for agricultural machinery. tractor safely and correctly—are equal- sector. Among the major constraints to Agricultural tractors are the most repre- ly important. Having domestic support increased levels of mechanization are sentative form of agricultural machinery facilities that offer parts and repairs is an the poor access of farmers to agricultur- and are used at different stages of agri- element of successful mechanization.4 al technologies (mainly as a result of the cultural production, from land prepa- high cost of mechanization inputs) and ration to harvest. The use of tractors Tractor standards and safety, the sec- the low purchasing power of smallhold- around the globe make tractor-related ond EBA machinery indicator, addresses er farmers to acquire machinery. These indicators comparable across countries, national and international standards on factors limit both the demand by farmers unlike other forms of machinery specific tractor performance and safety and how and the supply of machinery, which, in to certain crops or regions. countries ensure that only high-qual- turn, keeps prices high and stifles com- ity machines enter their supply chain5 petition. 8 Also important, however, are Tractor dealer requirements, the first and that consumers are given unbiased the unfavorable regulations that machin- indicator for EBA machinery, was select- information about tractors. Given that ery suppliers face in many countries and ed for study because there are a number the agricultural machinery industry is which is the main focus of the current 28 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 indicators. The indicators encourage the including the private machinery on regulations for standards and safety adoption of smart regulations that enable sector’s role and the required pro- but insufficient import requirements. competitive markets in the agricultural cedures to import. The five countries with the lowest scores machinery sector while ensuring tractor across all three indicators are Lao PDR, quality and safety. For the machinery topic the laws and reg- Myanmar, Nepal, Niger and Vietnam— ulations appear strongest in EU countries each demonstrating room to adopt many The data cover the following areas: (Denmark, Greece, Poland and Spain) of the good practices identified by EBA. and in the Philippines (figure 4.1). All five • Tractor dealer requirements. countries share a substantial number of These indicators measure legal good practices. Denmark, Greece and Most countries targeted require requirements for suitability test- Spain have strong regulations related to tractors to be registered, but the ing of agricultural tractors, specific tractor dealer and import requirements. cost varies licensing required to operate a trac- The Philippines has strong regulations for tor, and warranties and post-sale tractor standards and safety. The Kyrgyz Registering agricultural tractors is a services that must be provided at Republic is among the top performers in good practice, among others, because the retail level. regulations for tractor import require- it establishes ownership rights over the ments but performs below average on purchased tractor and facilitates the • Tractor standards and safe- standards and safety. The two countries enforcement of road, safety and tax ty. These indicators look at legal surveyed in the Middle East and North regulations. Many tractor manufactur- requirements for operational safe- Africa —Jordan and Morocco — score ers recommend that original equipment ty and performance standards of slightly better than the sample average, manufacturer (OEM) engines or drive- tractors. but vary on some indicators. Jordan has train components be registered, and higher scores tractor import requirements in doing so, provide tractor owners the • Tractor import requirements. but performs below average on standards opportunity to extend the standard war- These indicators look at aspects and safety and on tractor dealer require- ranty periods for their machine, but this of importing agricultural tractors, ments, while Morocco has higher scores procedure is not required in all surveyed FIGURE 4.1 Denmark, Greece, Spain, the Philippines and Poland have the top five scores in the aspects measured by the machinery topic EBA machinery scores 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Greece Russian Federation Ukraine Lao PDR Denmark Spain Philippines Poland Kyrgyz Republic Kenya Turkey Morocco Uganda Tajikistan Tanzania Colombia Sudan Côte d'Ivoire Georgia Bosnia and Herzegovina Chile Jordan Rwanda Nicaragua Guatemala Burkina Faso Sri Lanka Ghana Bolivia Burundi Mali Niger Myanmar Mozambique Zambia Bangladesh Ethiopia Cambodia Vietnam Nepal Machinery score Tractor dealer requirements Tractor import requirements Tractors standards and safety Source: EBA database. MACHINERY 29 countries. Of the 40 countries, 27 private companies to obtain proof of suit- Turkey—require that dealers of agricul- require companies to register imported ability of tractors, costing from 1.1% of tural tractors provide reparation services machinery, and only in Denmark is regis- income per capita in the Kyrgyz Republic and supply spare parts if needed. Colom- tration free. In the other 26 countries the to 765% in Tanzania. bia also requires that machinery dealers registration cost for imported tractors provide training on how to use a tractor. ranges from 0.03% of average income None of the surveyed countries require per capita in the Philippines to 34.7% in Few countries studied require after- that machinery dealers provide training Sudan (figure 4.2). sales services by law on the maintenance of tractors (table 4.1). Farmers in many countries do not have Few countries require importers to access to machinery after-sales services, Requirements for import licensing test machinery limiting their access to maintenance or and permits and incurred costs vary spare parts. This is especially relevant in significantly across countries Some countries have machinery test- countries where there is little control on ing and evaluation centers to determine the quality of imported goods, which can Few developing countries manufacture what machinery is suited to country con- lead to the import of substandard trac- agricultural equipment and machines ditions and can enhance the productivity tors.10 Requiring that tractor dealers pro- domestically. So machinery acquisitions of farmers.9 Typically carried out accord- vide after-sales services is a good prac- rely on imports—usually handled by the ing to standards established by national tice since it gives more security to buyers private sector. Many countries require authorities or international standard- (box 4.1). Only seven of the countries companies to register as machinery ization organizations, these tests help studied legally require after-sales ser- importers. This is a good practice because farmers compare and select machinery. vices. Five of them — Colombia, Den- it gives public authorities a better under- Of the 40 surveyed countries, 12 require mark, Greece, the Philippines and standing of trade flows in the country and FIGURE 4.2 The cost to register imported tractors is highest in Sudan Cost to register imported agricultural machinery (% income per capita) 40% 34.7 35% Average cost (% income per capita) 30% 24.1 25% 20% 18.4 15.4 15% 13.1 10.1 10.3 10% 8.1 8.6 8.8 9.2 7.0 5.7 5% 3.7 2.3 2.8 0.03 0.1 0.6 0.7 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 0 0.5 0.5 0% Greece Sri Lanka Denmark Philippines Poland Russian Federation Chile Spain Ukraine Burkina Faso Colombia Morocco Kyrgyz Republic Ethiopia Kenya Zambia Ghana Bosnia and Herzegovina Mozambique Bangladesh Nepal Nicaragua Tanzania Uganda Jordan Cambodia Sudan Source: EBA database. 30 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 of income per capita. In Morocco and Rwanda, obtaining an import permit BOX 4.1 Good practices for tractor dealer requirements is free, while in Bangladesh the cost is over 40% of income per capita. Seven • Should require compulsory testing of tractors in conformity with countries— Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, established standards. Ethiopia, Jordan, Myanmar, the Philip- pines11 and Sudan—impose both the cost • The test/proof of suitability should be affordable. for registration as importer and the cost of import permit. • Should require tractor registration. Most countries lack safety • The registration should be affordable and the process efficient. regulations that prevent injuries to machinery operators • Should require tractor manufacturers or dealers to provide post-sale services, including: Safety guidelines for machinery oper- ators are a good practice because they • repairing tractors. can prevent or reduce worker injury and damage to machinery, saving lives and • replacing or returning poor quality tractors. costs. Seat belts and roll-over protec- tive structures have proven to be “99% • supplying spare parts. effective in preventing death or serious injury in the event of tractor roll-overs” in • training users in operating tractors. the United States.12 Since tractors often operate on uneven ground, a roll-over is a constant risk for workers.13 But many safety measures are not required by law in most surveyed countries. Only nine coun- ensures the quality of imported goods in the Philippines to minimal or no cost tries require tractors to be equipped with (box 4.2). In addition, importers may be in Sri Lanka (0.2% of income per capi- roll-over protective structures: Denmark, required to obtain a permit each time ta), Jordan (0.3% of income per capita) Greece, Poland and Spain, Kenya, the Phil- they wish to import tractors. But import and Bolivia, Mali and Nicaragua (free of ippines, the Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. permits can often be used as trade bar- charge). Mozambique levies a striking riers, creating costly burdens for import- cost of 880.6% of income per capita on ers. Among the 14 countries that require importer registration (figure 4.3). Conclusion machinery importers to be registered, the incurred costs vary. They range from Among the 13 countries that require Agricultural mechanization improves more than 35% of income per capita import permits, the average cost is 4.6% agricultural productivity, thereby enabling TABLE 4.1 Countries where post-sale services are required by law REPAIR OF WARRANTY ON SUPPLY OF SPARE TRAINING ON TRACTORS TRACTORS PARTS TRACTOR OPERATION COLOMBIA     DENMARK    GREECE    JORDAN  MOROCCO  PHILIPPINES   TURKEY    Source: EBA database. MACHINERY 31 • Guarantee high-quality tractors by requiring compliance with BOX 4.2 Good practices for tractor import requirements national and international perfor- mance standards. Fifteen of the 40 • Should allow private companies, including foreign firms, to import studied countries have established new and second-hand tractors, as well as spare parts for sale. national standards for agricultur- al tractors, and 10 stipulate that • Should require pre-shipment inspections of agricultural tractors imported tractors should conform at the port of export in order to verify quality, quantity, price and to international standards. classification of the imported good. • Ensure safety of tractor operators • Should require private companies to register as importers of by enforcing safety standards agricultural tractors. The registration should not be limited to a such as roll-over protective struc- restricted time period. tures and seatbelts. Regulations in Kenya stipulate that agricultural tractors must be fitted with a roll- • In countries where the registration is limited to a specific time over protection structure (ROPS) period, the validity should be at least 10 years. and require that seatbelts must be fitted where a ROPS structure is in • The cost of the registration should be affordable. use (box 4.3). • Should allow private companies to import agricultural tractors Laws and regulations that promote both without an import permit. control and efficiency requirements can help facilitate and ease the availability • In countries where the permit is required, the permit should of machinery for agricultural produc- not be limited to a restricted time period. tion. The machinery topic identifies and measures several key regulatory con- • The cost of the permit should be affordable. straints that can hinder farmers’ access to appropriate machinery. The topic uses agricultural tractors as a proxy to assess the regulations for agricultural machinery. These actionable indicators markets for rural economic growth and • Facilitate tractor durability by are intended as a starting point for dis- improving rural livelihoods. There is still requiring tractor registration and cussion with policymakers on possible much to be done in countries to improve appropriate after-sales service. ways to address regulatory constraints the enabling environment for success- In Colombia appropriate after-sales and inefficiencies that might obstruct the ful agricultural mechanization and move services must be provided at the expansion of mechanization, the quality toward the good practices identified, tractor dealer level. It is also required of imported tractors and safety of tractor such as: that tractors must to be registered; operators. the registration can be obtained • Safeguard availability and timely within two days at a minimal cost. delivery of agricultural tractors through streamlining import pro- cedures. In Bolivia registering as a tractor importer has no cost, and importers are not required to get BOX 4.3 Good practices for tractor standards and safety a permit each time they wish to import tractors. • Should require that manufacturers of agricultural tractors comply with national quality and performance standards. • Ensure that imported tractors suit country conditions by requiring • Should require that national tractor standards be in accordance testing of agricultural machinery. with international standards (International Organization for In the Kyrgyz Republic regulations Standardization, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and require that tractors be tested to Development). ensure their suitability to country conditions, as well as their compli- • Should require that agricultural tractors be equipped with a fixed ance with established performance roll-over protective structure and seatbelts. standards. The cost of the test is minimal. 32 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 4.3 Mozambique and Bangladesh impose high costs on importers of agricultural tractors Cost to register as an importer of agricultural machinery (% income per capita) 880.6% 34.9% 22.1% 18.1% 3.8% 4.3% 4.7% 0.3% 0.9% 2.8% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% Mail Bolivia Sri Lanka Nicaragua Jordan Myanmar Ethiopia Côte d'Ivoire Burkina Faso Sudan Guatemala Bangladesh Philippines Mozambique Cost to obtain a permit to import agricultural machinery (% income per capita) 41.3% 4.4% 1.9% 1.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0% 0% 0.1% Rwanda Morocco Lao PDR Jordan Burkina Mali Ethiopia Russian Sudan Myanmar Bangladesh Faso Federation Source: EBA database. Note: Countries that require companies to register as an importer of agricultural machinery: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Jordan, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Sudan. Countries that require companies to obtain a permit to import agricultural machinery: Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lao PDR, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar, the Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda and Sudan. Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Philippines were excluded from the lower figure because the price of the import permit for agricultural machinery is calculated as a percentage of the customs value. MACHINERY 33 Notes References: world.” Integrated Crop Management 20. 1. Houmy and others 2013. Faleye, T., A.J. Farounbi, O.S. Ogundipe and J.A. Adebija. 2014. “Testing Murphy, D., and D. Buckmaster. 2015. 2. FAO and UNIDO 2008. and Evaluation of Farm Machines: “Rollover Protection for Farm Tractor An Essential Step for Developing Operators.” Cooperative Extension 3. Sims and Kienzle 2009. Mechanization in Nigeria.” Inter- E-42, University Park, PA: Pennsyl- national Research Journal of Agricul- vania State University College of 4. FAO and UNIDO 2008. tural Science and Soil Science 4 (2): Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural 47–50. and Biological Engineering. 5. Sims and Kienzle 2009. FAO and UNIDO. 2008. “Agricultural OECD (Organisation for Economic 6. Ingle 2011. Mechanization in Africa: Time for Co-operation and Development). Action. Planning Investment for 2014. OECD Standard Codes for the 7. OECD 2014. Enhanced Agricultural Productivity.” Official Testing of Agricultural and For- Report of an Expert Group Meeting estry Tractors. Paris: OECD. 8. Kienzle 2013. January 2008, Vienna, Austria: FAO and UNIDO. Sims, B. 2006. “Addressing the Challeng- 9. Faleye and others 2014 es Facing Agricultural Mechaniza- Houmy, K., L. Clarke, J. Ashburner and J. tion Input Supply and farm product 10. Sims 2006. Kienzle. 2013. “Agricultural Mech- processing.” Agricultural and Food anization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Engineering Technical Report 5, 11. The Philippines was excluded from Guidelines for Preparing a Strate- FAO, Rome. the graph 4.3 because the price of gy.” Integrated Crop Management 22. the import permit for agricultural Rome: FAO. Sims, B., and J. Kienzle. 2009. “Farm machinery is calculated as a per- Equipment Supply Chains. Guide- centage of the costumes value. Ingle, C. 2011. Agricultural Tractor Test lines for Policymakers and Service Standards in America. Washing- Providers: Experiences from Kenya, 12. Murphy and Buckmaster 2015. ton, DC: The Catholic University of Pakistan and Brazil.” Agricultural and America. Food Engineering Technical Report 7, 13. Springfeldt 1996. FAO, Rome. Kienzle, J., J. Ashburner and B. Sims. 2013. “Mechanization for Rural Springfeldt, B. 1996. “Rollover of Tractors Development: A review of pat- —International Experiences.” Safety terns and progress from around the Science 24. 34 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 5. FINANCE EXPANDING ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES Imagine a successful farmer, Sophia, whose farm is in the Morogoro region of Tanzania. Sophia exercises great discipline by making sure she saved a substantial part of the money from selling her crops to pay for inputs and school fees as well as to deal with emergencies. But since there are no banks nearby in the Morogoro region, Sophia, like most farmers in the region, keeps her savings at home, where they are at risk of theft. This is about to change for Sophia and the other farmers since banks can now hire local agents that represent them where their branches fail to reach. Sophia will be able to deposit and withdraw cash, pay bills, transfer funds and obtain loans without needing to travel hours to the closest bank. And access to formal providers will offer a wider range of financial services as well as safer and less expensive transactions. EBA finance indicators measure the qual- products, prudent regulations flexible to The fifth indicator for EBA finance ity of laws and regulations that promote the different activities farmers engage addresses warehouse receipt systems. access to financial services and support in can cut the costs of financial services Farmers often lack traditional collater- the development of agricultural enter- and foster financial inclusion.4 Regula- al, such as houses or cars, required to prises. Regulations that ensure the sta- tions also include consumer protection obtain a loan. Warehouse receipt sys- bility of the financial system and protect regulations that ensure that customers’ tems enable farmers to obtain financing customers while promoting innovative savings are safely handled. by using their newly harvested crop as ways of delivering financial services help collateral. Strong regulations protect the meet the financial needs of farmers and Formal financial markets fail to reach interests of both depositors and lenders agribusinesses.1 The finance indicators most smallholder farmers in developing and help build trust in the system. They address factors important to custom- countries5 who live far from urban cen- ensure transparency and predictabil- ers excluded from traditional financial ters and cannot afford high transaction ity required to attract customers and services due to their geographical loca- costs. 6 Agent banking and e-money, financial institutions to use or accept the tion or the type of collateral they have measured under the third and fourth agricultural commodities as collateral.10 available. indicators for EBA finance, offer farm- The data11 cover the following areas: ers in rural locations access to financial Regulation and supervision of micro- services without needing to travel far to • Microfinance institutions (MFIs). finance institutions (MFIs) and credit a bank. In agent banking agents provide This indicator covers the regu- unions, the first two indicators for EBA financial services on behalf of a bank in lations for deposit-taking MFIs. finance, were chosen for study because areas where the bank’s branches do not It measures the requirements to MFIs and credit unions are important reach. Non-bank e-money issuers can establish an MFI, prudential regu- providers of microcredit and other finan- provide payments, transfers and sav- lations including minimum capital cial services to those who cannot access ings for those excluded from the formal adequacy ratios and provisioning financial services through commercial financial system.7 Regulation has not rules imposed on MFIs, as well as banks. 2 They provide savings and credit caught up with the rapid development consumer protection requirements for farmers and agribusinesses to pur- of these new ways for delivering finan- focusing on interest rate disclosure chase fertilizer and seed and pay for cial services. Legal uncertainty and and enrollment in a deposit insur- crop marketing, storage and transport. nontransparency impede the growth of ance system. But many countries lack an appropriate the market. 8 Regulators need to strike a legal framework to regulate and super- balance between maximizing the oppor- • Credit unions. This indicator mea- vise those institutions. 3 While overly tunities for agent banking and e-mon- sures the existence and content burdensome requirements on MFIs and ey while minimizing the risks that they of credit union regulations includ- credit unions drive up the cost of their bring.9 ing the minimum requirements to FINANCE 35 establish a credit union, prudential systems, including insurance and Many countries impose overly ratios and consumer protection other performance guarantee strict regulations on microfinance requirements similar to those mea- requirements for warehouse oper- institutions and lack regulations sured for MFIs. ators and the form and content to ensure the financial stability of required for legally valid receipts. credit unions • Agent banking. This indicator focuses on the regulations for Colombia has the highest score on EBA MFIs and credit unions provide access to allowing third party agents to pro- finance indicators, due to strong regu- credit and savings for customers unable vide financial services on behalf of lations on credit unions, e-money and to obtain loans or open accounts at commercial banks. It includes the warehouse receipts (figure 5.1).12 Colom- commercial banks— due to geographic minimum standards to qualify and bia’s credit union regulations set mini- location, a lack of credit history or low operate as an agent, type of con- mum ratios to ensure financial stability credit-worthiness. Whereas MFIs take tract between commercial banks and require transparency in loan pricing. deposits from the public, credit unions and agents, the range of financial E-money regulations set minimum stan- provide financial services to members services agents can provide and dards for licensing and require issuers and often at lower cost than banks and bank liability for agent actions. to safeguard customer funds and ware- MFIs.13 Both MFIs and credit unions reach house receipts regulations allow both customers in rural areas who are normal- • Electronic money (e-money). This paper and electronic receipts. ly excluded from traditional banks. indicator measures the regula- tions for the provision of e-money The Kyrgyz Republic is the only coun- MFI regulations have to be more strin- by non-bank issuers. It covers the try that scores above average on all gent than those for banks.14 MFIs have licensing and operational standards, five indicators. Other countries in the higher administrative costs for each as well as requirements on safe- top 10 show vast differences in their dollar lent given the limited volume and guarding funds collected by non- financial regulations. Kenya achieves value of microloans. And their portfoli- bank e-money issuers. the top score on electronic money but os tend to be confined to loan products has no system for warehouse receipts. with substantially similar risks, limiting • Warehouse receipts. This indicator Although the Philippines scores 100 on the room for diversifying portfolio risk. covers the existence and scope of credit unions, there is no regulation for Microloans have higher default risk since rules regulating warehouse receipt agent banking. they are not secured by collateral and the FIGURE 5.1 The Kyrgyz Republic is the only country that scores above average on all five indicators EBA finance score (0—100) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Guatemala Vietnam Ghana Ukraine Georgia Côte d'Ivoire Burkina Faso Lao PDR Tajikistan Mali Niger Cambodia Nicaragua Sri Lanka Kyrgyz Republic Turkey Tanzania Kenya Bolivia Rwanda Zambia Nepal Uganda Mozambique Sudan Myanmar Jordan Colombia Philippines Bangladesh Ethiopia Burundi Morocco Bosnia and Herzegovina Source: EBA database. Note: High-income countries—Chile, Denmark, Greece, Poland, Russian Federation and Spain—are not measured under EBA finance indicators. 36 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Africa. Regulations in these countries do not set a minimum capital requirement BOX 5.1 Good practices for MFI regulations to establish an MFI and include overly restrictive provisioning schedules for • Should require MFIs to maintain a capital adequacy ratio (CAR) that them. These countries also have no man- is equal to or slightly higher than the CAR for commercial banks. datory deposit insurance systems. • Should require provisioning schedules for unsecured MFI loans to While a majority of EBA countries that be similar to or slightly more aggressive than those for commercial allow MFIs regulate them prudently, banks. credit unions are not regulated to the same extent. Although credit unions • Should require MFIs to disclose the full cost of credit to loan take deposits from and lend to only their applicants. members, they should be subject to appropriate regulations to ensure finan- cial stability and protect the deposits of • Should require MFIs to participate in the deposit insurance system. their members (box 5.2). 22 Credit union regulations tend to have various finan- cial stability requirements ranging from liquidity and reserve ratios to stable credit-worthiness of borrowers is hard are required to do so only when a loan funding ratios—sometimes including a to assess. But overly restrictive regula- has been overdue for one year. minimum CAR. Twenty-three of the 30 tions can reduce loans to MFI customers, countries with credit unions regulate hindering access to financial services.15 A capital adequacy ratio (CAR) mea- such ratios, and 8 require credit unions Smart MFI regulations should secure the sures a financial institution’s ability to to adhere to a minimum CAR. financial stability of MFIs while protect- withstand portfolio losses from nonper- ing consumers, yet not be so restrictive forming loans. 20 Regulators impose min- Transparent loan pricing helps custom- as to reduce lending (box 5.1). imum CARs to protect depositors and ers determine whether they can afford promote the stability of financial insti- a loan. 23 Requiring financial institutions Among the 30 countries measured by tutions. Proportionately higher CARs to disclose a loan’s effective interest the microfinance indicator, 24 allow MFIs should be required for deposit-taking rate to a borrower protects consum- to take deposits from the public while 6 MFIs given their riskier portfolios and ers from loans with unfair or abusive do not.16 MFIs that take deposits can higher operating costs. But CARs that terms, 24 which is especially important offer more services to customers than are too high can reduce the number for low-income and low-literate cus- credit-only institutions, such as savings of loans granted. 21 Of the 24 countries tomers. 25 But of the 22 countries that accounts, which enable the poor to man- where MFIs are allowed to take depos- have regulations for both MFIs and age emergencies better, smooth con- its, 8 require the same CARs for MFIs credit unions, only 11 require both types sumption and take advantage of invest- and commercial banks (figure 5.2). Nine of institutions to disclose the effective ment opportunities. Deposit mobilization countries impose discriminative rules interest rate to customers. Another also gives MFIs a stable channel to scale against MFIs by requiring that minimum 4 require only MFIs to disclose their up operations and outreach.17 CARs be at least three percentage points effective interest rates, while 2 require higher than required for commercial only credit unions to disclose. The Once a loan becomes delinquent, finan- banks. Three countries set lower CAR remaining 5 do not require either MFIs cial institutions must set aside reserves requirements for MFIs, putting MFIs at or credit unions to disclose the effective (“provisions”) — usually a percentage of greater risk for financial instability. interest rate. the loan’s value —in case the borrower is unable to repay. Although provisioning Tajikistan scores the highest in this area, The Kyrgyz Republic, the Philippines helps MFIs maintain stability in case of where minimum CAR requirements and Tanzania score highest on the cred- loan losses, requiring MFIs to provision for MFIs are the same as for banks and it unions indicator. Regulations in these too much too quickly leaves less money both are bound by common provisioning countries set prudent requirements that available to grant new loans. MFIs rules. It also features strong consumer guarantee the financial stability of cred- should be bound by similar or slightly protection measures such as requiring it unions and include consumer protec- more aggressive provisioning rules than MFIs to disclose the full cost of credit to tion measures. All require appropriate commercial banks.18 Of the 24 countries loan applicants and requiring MFI partic- minimum capital requirements and a that allow MFIs to take deposits, 14 have ipation in the deposit insurance system. low minimum number of members to similar provisioning rules for MFIs and These requirements promote customer establish credit unions. And they set commercial banks, while 9 overly bur- confidence in microfinance institutions minimum ratios for financial stability for den MFIs.19 In Ghana MFIs are required while ensuring financial stability. credit unions. Each ensures transparen- to reserve 100% of the value of an unse- cy in loan pricing by requiring that credit cured microfinance loan if the loan has Of the 6 lowest scoring countries on unions disclose loans’ effective interest been overdue for 150 days, while banks the MFI indicator, 5 are located in West rates to prospective borrowers. FINANCE 37 FIGURE 5.2 Almost half the countries that allow MFIs to take deposits require a higher capital adequacy ratio for MFIs than for commercial banks CAR Percentage points CARMFI > CARCOMMERCIAL BANK CARMFI = CARCOMMERCIAL BANK CARMFI < CARCOMMERCIAL BANK 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Burkina Faso Lao PDR Côte d'Ivoire Mali Niger Zambia Tanzania Uganda Vietnam Ghana Kenya Rwanda Sudan Tajikistan Bolivia Nepal Kyrgyz Republic Ethiopia Burundi Cambodia Philippines CAR required for MFI CAR required for commercial bank Source: EBA database. Note: The capital adequacy ratio (CAR) is defined as an institution’s total capital to risk weighted assets. It aims to prevent institutions from taking excess leverage and becoming insolvent in the process. International regulation recommendations encourage commercial banks to maintain a minimum CAR of 8% to safeguard against portfolio losses. Excessively high minimum CARs can reduce lending capacity and appetite of an institution. By contrast, a minimum CAR that is too low can result in financially unstable institutions. Therefore, a good practice is for MFIs to have equal to or slightly higher minimum CARs than commercial banks. There is no minimum CAR required for MFIs in Bangladesh, Mozambique and Myanmar. The financial sector is more inclusive in countries with BOX 5.2 Good practices for credit union regulations branchless banking laws • Establish appropriate minimum capital requirements to establish Few banks open branches in rural areas credit unions. because population density is much lower than in cities and the limited cus- • Should define the minimum number of members to establish a tomer base hardly justifies the costs of credit union in regulations. operating a new branch. Rapid ICT devel- opment has spurred new ways to deliv- • Should require credit unions to adhere to minimum ratios for er financial services without relying on financial stability such as capital adequacy and liquidity ratios. a local bank. Agent banking, also called branchless banking, relies on agents that provide services to rural customers • Should require credit unions to disclose the full cost of credit to loan through retail points while remotely con- applicants. nected to a bank in a city. Alternatively, payments and deposits can be made electronically through mobile phones or 38 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 debit cards (e-money). Both e-money agents.30 This ensures oversight of agents Of the 28 countries that have regulations and agent banking offer farmers more and increases customer confidence. on e-money, 16 allow businesses to issue economical ways to access financial ser- Among the 11 countries measured, only e-money without having to hold a bank- vices so that they do not need to travel Ghana and Ukraine do not hold commer- ing license (box 5.4).32 While these busi- far to a bank branch. 26 cial banks liable for the acts of their agents. nesses still need adequate supervision, obtaining a banking license can be costly Of the low-income and lower-middle-in- While both agent banking and e-money and is likely to deter innovative actors come countries covered, only 11 regulate enable inexpensive and accessible finan- from entering the market. agent banking. 27 Among them, 7 adopt cial services by lowering delivery costs, the good practice of allowing both exclu- e-money allows customers to access Kenya’s strong e-money regulations sive and nonexclusive contracts between savings, payments and transfers through are reflected in the country’s top score. agents and financial institutions, while mobile phones. 31 Thanks to high standards for licensing the remaining 4 prohibit exclusive con- tracts (figure 5.3). Exclusive contracts promote innovation by granting banks a monopoly over an agent. Nonexclusive BOX 5.3 Good practices for agent banking regulations contracts allow agents to provide ser- vices for multiple financial institutions, • Should identify minimum standards to qualify and operate as an increasing access to financial services. 28 agent, such as real-time connectivity to the commercial bank. It is good practice to allow agents to offer • Should allow agents to enter both exclusive and nonexclusive a wide variety of financial services (box contracts with financial institutions. 5.3). 29 Although most of the 11 countries measured allow agents to provide cash • Should allow agents to offer a wide range of services such as cash- deposits, withdrawals, transfers and bill in, cash-out, bill payment, account opening and processing of loan payments, only in Bangladesh and Ghana documents. can clients open a deposit account through an agent. • Should hold commercial banks liable for the actions of their agents. Finally, it is good practice to hold com- mercial banks liable for the actions of their FIGURE 5.3 Countries are at different stages of developing legal frameworks to regulate agent banking activities 7 19 11 4 Countries with a legal framework on agent banking Countries without a legal framework on agent banking Countries allow both exclusive and nonexclusive contracts Countries do not allow both exclusive and nonexclusive contracts Source: EBA database. Note: Thirty countries measured under the agent banking indicator include Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, the Philippines, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam and Zambia. FINANCE 39 Performance guarantees — such as requirements that warehouse receipt BOX 5.4 Good practices for e-money regulations operators file a bond with the regulator, pay into an indemnity fund and insure • Should allow both banks and non-bank businesses to issue the warehouse and stored goods against e-money. theft, burglary and natural disasters— increase user confidence in the ware- • Should specify minimum licensing standards for non-bank e-money house receipt system. 37 Furthermore, issuers, such as: insuring a warehouse and the goods inside reduces a bank’s risk in lending • internal control mechanisms that comply with anti-money against a warehouse receipt, which may laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/ incentivize banks to extend credit. 38 Of CFT) laws. the 15 countries with warehouse receipt laws, 12 require the warehouse opera- tor to insure the warehouse and stored • consumer protection measures and recourse mechanisms. goods, but only 7 require that the oper- ator file a bond or pay into an indemnity • Should require e-money issuers to safeguard and ring-fence fund. customer funds by holding funds in a separate account at a regulated financial institution. Of the 15 countries with laws regulating warehouse receipts, 5 score 100 on the warehouse receipt indicator, all having enacted specific warehouse receipt laws non-bank e-money issuers, regulations enable farmers and agricultural produc- in the past 15 years. Three of the 5 are protect customers against fraud by ers to use agricultural commodities as in Sub-Saharan Africa: Ethiopia, Uganda imposing anti-money laundering and collateral for a loan. 35 And secure and and Zambia. 39 Turkey and Ukraine also combating the financing of terrorism reliable warehouse receipt systems can score full points. (AML/CFT) controls and require e-mon- enable farmers to extend the sales peri- ey issuers to have consumer protection od beyond the harvesting season (box Uganda’s Warehouse Receipt System Act measures, such as consumer recourse 5.5). 36 of 2006 and Warehouse Receipt Regula- mechanisms. And they require issuers tions of 2007 have created an enabling to safeguard customer funds by setting Comprehensive warehouse receipt reg- environment for the use of warehouse aside 100% of what is owed to custom- ulations are still limited for the industry. receipts as collateral for loans. The laws ers, so that money is readily accessible Only 15 of the 34 countries measured create licensing standards for warehouse when the customers want to convert under the warehouse receipts indicator operators, including a requirement to file their e-money back to cash. have laws regulating warehouse receipt a bond with the warehouse authority to systems (figure 5.4). ensure fulfillment of duties and a second The relevance of e-money for financial inclusion is shown by Global Findex data on the share of the poor population with an account at a financial institution. 33 This correlates positively with the licens- BOX 5.5 Good practices for warehouse receipt systems ing standards imposed on non-bank e-money providers as measured by the • Should require warehouse receipt operators to file a bond with finance indicators, suggesting that in the regulator or pay into an indemnity to secure performance of countries with strong e-money laws, a obligations as an operator. higher share of the population is finan- cially included. 34 Regulations in these • Should require that warehouse and stored goods be insured against countries typically combine clear mini- fire, earthquakes, theft, burglary and other damage. mum capital requirements with internal AML/CFT controls and consumer pro- • Should require that both electronic and paper-based receipts be tection measures. valid. Few countries regulate warehouse • Should define the information required to be stated on a receipt, receipt systems including the location of storage, the quantity and quality of goods and the information on security interest over the goods, such as the Many farmers in emerging economies certificate of pledge. lack traditional collateral required to access credit, so warehouse receipts can 40 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 5.4 Three of the five top performers on regulations related to warehouse receipts are in Sub-Saharan Africa Score on warehouse receipts (0—100) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Turkey Uganda Ukraine Zambia Philippines Tanzania Bolivia Guatemala Nicaragua Georgia Kyrgyz Republic Ethiopia Colombia Bangladesh Bosnia and Herzegovina Source: EBA database. Note: High-income countries—Chile, Denmark, Greece, Poland, Russian Federation and Spain are not measured under the warehouse receipts indicator. Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Lao PDR, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan and Vietnam do not have any regulations for warehouse receipts. requirement that all stored goods are for commercial banks and requires requires non-bank e-money issuers fully insured against loss by fire and other microfinance institutions to partici- to have internal control mechanisms disasters. The law defines the content pate in a deposit insurance system. to comply with AML/CFT laws and of a valid warehouse receipt and allows standards and to safeguard 100% of receipts to be negotiable. • Establishing minimum prudential customer funds. and consumer protection stan- dards for credit unions. The Phil- • Fostering a legal environment that Conclusion ippines’ credit union regulations set raises confidence in the ware- a low minimum number of mem- house receipts system and the Increasing access to financial services is bers to establish a credit union and use of agricultural commodities key to helping farmers smooth volatile require credit unions to disclose as collateral for loans. In Ugan- income flows, better allocate risk and their effective interest rate to loan da warehouse operators must pay increase production. The EBA finance applicants. into an indemnity fund and insure results show that there is opportunity in the warehouse and stored goods many countries to improve laws and reg- • Creating an enabling environ- against theft and damage. ulations and move towards good practic- ment for commercial banks to es, such as: hire agents to perform financial An enabling regulatory environment can services. The agent banking regula- improve access to financial services for • Implementing standards for micro- tions in the Kyrgyz Republic require farmers and agribusinesses. The chal- finance institutions that ensure agents to have real-time connec- lenge is to strike a balance between stability and protect customers, tivity to the commercial bank and stability of the financial sector and pro- yet are not so restrictive as to limit hold commercial banks liable for the tecting customers, while increasing access to financial services. Ken- actions of their agents. access to financial services. The finance ya’s microfinance regulations set a topic focuses on a small set of regula- loan provisioning schedule that is • Allowing non-bank financial insti- tory indicators that measure lending slightly more aggressive than that tutions to issue e-money. Colombia constraints for microfinance institutions FINANCE 41 and credit unions, the entry and opera- widely used in high-income coun- Greece, Jordan, Spain, Turkey, tional requirements for agent banking tries. Additional indicators will be Poland and Russia) are not mea- and non-bank e-money issuers and the designed to account for regulations sured under the agent banking sub- regulations for using warehouse receipts governing relevant financial ser- indicator since bank branch pen- as collateral. These indicators can help vices in high-income countries next etration is high and branches are policymakers identify where regulatory cycle. accessible in rural locations in those reforms can improve access to finance countries. for farmers and agribusinesses. 12. Colombia, along with all high-in- come and upper-middle-in- 28. Muthiora 2015. come countries, is not measured Notes under the MFI and agent banking 29. Tarazi and Breloff 2011. subindicators. 1. CABFIN 2001. 30. Ibid. 13. WOCCU 2011. 2. CGAP 2012. 31. Gutierrez and Singh 2013; Jack and 14. CGAP 2012. Suri 2011. 3. Nair and Kloeppinger-Todd 2007. 15. CGAP 2012; Cull, Demirgüç-Kunt 32. High-income countries (Chile, Den- 4. IFC and GPFI 2011. and Morduch 2009. mark, Greece, Poland, Russia and Spain) are not measured under the 5. Besley 1998. 16. High-income and upper-middle-in- EBA finance indicators. come countries (Bosnia and Herze- 6. Poulton, Kydd and Doward 2006. govina, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, 33. Demirgüç-Kunt and others 2014. Greece, Jordan, Spain, Turkey, 7. Lauer and Tarazi 2012. Poland and Russia) are not mea- 34. The correlation between the per- sured under the MFI subindicator centage of poor population having 8. Kumar and others 2006. since commercial banks serve the an account at a financial institution needs of the majority of the popula- and the score on standards to be 9. Alexandre, Mas and Radcliffe 2010. tion in these countries. licensed as an e-money issuer is 0.35. The correlation is significant 10. Ammar and Ahmed 2014. 17. CGAP 2003. at the 5% level after controlling for income per capita. 11. High-income countries — Chile, 18. CGAP 2012. Denmark, Greece, Poland, Russia 35. Hollinger, Rutten and Kirakov 2009. and Spain are not measured under 19. Myanmar does not set a provision- the EBA finance indicators and data ing schedule for microfinance loans. 36. Lacroix and Varangis 1996. for those countries are shown as “N/A.” The EBA finance indicators 20. Capital adequacy ratio is defined as 37. Wehling and Garthwaite 2015. were designed to measure laws and a financial institution’s total capital regulations that promote access to risk-weighted assets. 38. Ibid.; Kiriakov and the QED Group, to financial services for potential LLC 2007. customers that are partially or fully 21. CGAP 2012. excluded from traditional financial 39. Only 4 of 14 Sub-Saharan Afri- services. This is not applicable to 22. Branch and Grace 2008. can countries have laws regulating high-income countries whose agri- warehouse receipt systems. businesses and smallholder farmers 23. Chien 2012. have few obstacles accessing the formal financial sector. Data from 24. The annual percentage rate (APR), References the Global Findex database show an amortization table, or the total that, on average, more than 80% cost of credit including interest and Alexandre, C., I. Mas and D. Radcliffe. of the population of high-income other charges were used as proxies 2010. “Regulating New Banking countries in the EBA sample have for the effective interest rate. Models that Can Bring Financial Ser- an account at a formal financial vices to All.” Challenge Magazine 54 institution. In addition, high-income 25. Chien 2012. (3): 116–34. countries have developed alterna- tive financial instruments to those 26. Jayanty 2012. Ammar, A., and E. M. Ahmed. 2014. covered by EBA finance indicators. Microfinance and Mobile Banking For instance, instead of warehouse 27. High-income and upper- middle- Regulatory and Supervision Issues. receipt financing, term financing income countries (Bosnia and Her- Melaka, Malaysia: Multimedia and working capital financing are zegovina, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, University. 42 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Besley, T. 1998. “How Do Market Failures Conductive to Mobile Banking? Lacroix, R., and P. Varangis. 1996. “Using Justify Interventions in Rural Credit Empirical Evidence from Findex Warehouse Receipts in Developing Markets?” In International Agricultur- Data.” Policy Research Working and Transition Economies.” Finance al Development, eds., C.K. Eicher and Paper 6652, World Bank, Washing- and Development 33 (3): 36–39. J.M. Staatz. ton, DC. Lauer, K., and M. Tarazi. 2012. “Super- CABFIN (Improving Capacity Building in IFC (International Finance Corporation) vising Non-bank E-money Issuers.” Rural Finance). 2001. “An Analyt- and GPFI (Global Partnership for CGAP Brief, CGAP, Washington, DC. ical Framework for Regulation and Financial Inclusion). 2011. Scaling up Supervision of Agricultural Finance.” Finance for Agricultural SMEs. Wash- Muthiora, B. 2015. Enabling Mobile Money Agricultural Finance Revisited Series ington, DC: World Bank Policies in Kenya: Fostering a Digital 4, CABFIN, Rome. Financial Revolution. London: GSMA. Jack, W., and T. Suri. 2011. “Risk Sharing CGAP (Consultative Group to Assist the Benefits of Mobile Money.” George- Nair, A., and R. Kloeppinger-Todd. 2007. Poor). 2003. Microfinance Consensus town University and Massachusetts “Reaching Rural Areas with Finan- Guidelines: Developing Deposit Services Institute of Technology. cial Services: Lessons from Financial for the Poor. Washington, DC: CGAP. Cooperatives in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Jayanty, S.K. 2012. “Agency Banking: New Kenya, and Sri Lanka.” Agricultural ———. 2012. A Guide to Regulation and Frontiers in Financial Inclusion.” and Rural Development Discussion Supervision of Microfinance. Wash- Infosys Finacle Thought Paper, Ban- Paper 35, World Bank, Washington, ington, DC: CGAP. galore, India. DC. Chien, J. 2012. “Designing Disclosure Kiriakov, K.D., and the QED Group, LLC. Poulton, C., J. Kydd and A. Doward. 2006. Regimes for Responsible Financial 2007. “Necessary Conditions for “Overcoming Market Constraints Inclusion.” Focus Note 78, CGAP, an Effective Warehouse Receipts on Pro-Poor Agricultural Growth in Washington, DC. Activity.” United States Agency for Sub-Saharan Africa.” Development International Development Con- Policy Review 24 (3): 243–27. Cull, R., A. Demirgüç-Kunt and J. Mor- cept Paper, USAID, Washington, duch. 2009. “Does Regulatory DC. Tarazi, M., and P. Breloff. 2011. “Regulat- Supervision Curtail Microfinance ing Banking Agents.” Focus Note 68, Profitability and Outreach?” Poli- Kumar, A., A. Nair, A. Parsons and CGAP, Washington, DC. cy Research Working Paper 4748, E.  Urdapilleta. 2006. “Expanding World Bank, Washington, DC. Bank Outreach through Retail Part- Wehling, P., and B. Garthwaite. 2015. nerships: Correspondent Banking “Designing Warehouse Receipt Demirgüç-Kunt, A., L. Klapper, D. Singer in Brazil.” Working Paper 85, World Legislation: Regulatory Options and and P. Van Oudhuesden. 2014. “The Bank, Washington, DC. Recent Trends.” Prepared in collab- Global Findex Database 2014: Mea- oration with the Development Law suring Financial Inclusion around the Hollinger, F., L. Rutten and K. Kiriakov. Service of the FAO Legal Office. World.” Policy Research Working “The Use of Warehouse Receipt Rome: FAO. Paper 7255, World Bank, Washing- Finance in Agriculture in Transition ton, DC. Countries.” FAO Working Paper pre- World Council of Credit Unions sented at the World Grain Forum (WOCCU). 2011. Model Law for Gutierrez, E., and S. Singh. 2013. “What 2009, St. Petersburg, Russian Feder- Credit Unions. Madison, Wisconsin: Regulatory Frameworks Are More ation: FAO. WOCCU. 43 6. MARKETS ENABLING ACCESS Huy, a farmer in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta region, suspects a virus outbreak on his farm. If Huy reports the threat to the local plant protection authority, he can receive the necessary treatments to contain the outbreak and minimize the impact on his crop. So when the harvest comes he can fulfill his obligations as a member of an agricultural cooperative, pooling his production with other farms to sell to a local rice trader. Huy and his fellow farmers in the cooperative are interested in exporting to more profitable foreign markets, but they face several obstacles in the process. Besides preparing export documents and conducting expensive quality testing in order to sell in destination markets with more stringent product standards, they must first obtain a Certificate of Eligibility for the Rice Export Business issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade—principally to state-owned enterprises and for a limited time only. EBA markets indicators measure regu- the plant health requirements in destina- The third indicator for EBA markets latory obstacles agribusinesses face in tion markets. addresses the requirements for export- producing, marketing and exporting agri- ing agricultural products. Regulatory cultural products, as well as the strength Production and sales, the second EBA bottlenecks—such as special licenses, of plant protection measures. markets indicator, is comprised of three registration and export documentation components. The first component looks —can raise transaction costs associated Regulations on producers, buyers and at the regulation of agricultural sales and specifically with exports and discourage exporters of agricultural goods can purchases. Such regulations can take private investment in marketing and stor- affect business growth and, in turn, the form of licensing and registration age capacity.7 Delays in obtaining man- the growth of the agricultural sector requirements for the sale or purchase datory export documents can reduce as a whole. Plant protection regulation, of certain agricultural products, or may overall export volumes due to damage or the first indicator for EBA markets, was involve special registration requirements deterioration, especially for time-sensi- selected for study because reliable pest for agricultural production contracts. 4 tive agricultural products.8 management and robust pest control at Such licenses can impose an addition- the border go hand-in-hand with strong al regulatory hurdle and hinder market The data cover the following areas: agricultural sectors.1 Unmanaged and access opportunities for smallholder undocumented pest populations lead to farmers. A second component ana- • Plant protection. This indicator crop failures, smaller harvests and con- lyzes the regulation of farmers’ coop- measures key aspects of domestic taminated products, hindering market eratives. Farmers’ cooperatives help plant protection regulations, includ- access at home and abroad. 2 But where producers overcome regulatory hur- ing surveillance and pest reporting governments require pest surveillance dles and achieve economies of scale. 5 obligations, the existence and avail- activities by plant protection authori- Cooperatives allow members to access ability of quarantine pest lists, pro- ties and impose reporting obligations inputs at a lower cost through aggregate vision for pest risk analysis and risk- on the private sector, pest outbreaks purchases of seeds and fertilizers and based border inspections, domestic can be dealt with promptly and crop to use collectively owned equipment, containment and border quarantine damage minimized. Using this informa- such as tractors, harvesters and stor- procedures. tion to prepare pest lists and conduct age facilities. Farmers’ cooperatives can pest risk analyses enables governments also offer members services to facilitate • Production and sales. This indica- to regulate cross-border agricultural sales, negotiate long-term agricultural tor addresses issues that can have trade in a cost-effective manner, nego- contracts and enter lucrative and reli- an effect on the enabling environ- tiate access to foreign markets for their able value chains.6 A final component ment for producers and other agri- producers and issue valid and reliable of this second indicator addresses the businesses in a country. It considers phytosanitary certificates for exports. 3 enforceability of mediated settlement (i) product-specific licenses to sell Producers and exporters rely on the agreements and the ease of resolving or purchase agricultural products, guarantees of phytosanitary certificates contractual disputes outside traditional (ii) the ability of farmers coopera- to show that their products comply with courts. tives to establish, merge and take 44 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 out loans and (iii) the enforceabil- and sales than for plant protection. For Although the scores for production and ity of mediated settlement agree- example, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Mali, sales do not vary as much across coun- ments, which is a preferred method Myanmar, Rwanda and Uganda all have tries as for plant protection, differenc- of resolving disputes stemming from scores for production and sales that es exist. In Nepal there are no licensing agricultural production contracts. are 50 or more points higher than their requirements for potato production or scores for plant protection. Countries in purchase, while Sri Lanka requires coco- • Agricultural exports. This indi- Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia and the nut producers and buyers to register cator, which is not scored, mea- Pacific have the lowest scores for plant annually with the Coconut Development sures requirements on agricultural protection. In Sub-Saharan Africa most Authority. Some countries may impose exports, including mandatory mem- countries do not have a list of regulated potentially burdensome requirements on berships, trader-level licenses and quarantine pests, which is a key element producers. Nicaragua requires coffee pro- per-shipment documentary require- when negotiating with trading partners ducers to be registered to produce and sell ments, including the time and cost and for managing pests domestically. coffee. And in Morocco producers must to obtain these documents. Countries in East Asia and the Pacific meet certain minimum capital require- tend not to allow risk-based phytosanitary ments to establish a farmers’ cooperative. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Colombia, inspections on import consignments. Imposing additional burdens and compli- Greece, Poland and Spain have the high- ance costs can limit market access. est scores on markets indicators overall, The strength of plant protection regu- with only minor differences observed with lation varies greatly across countries. Roughly half of the countries surveyed respect to regulations impacting agricul- Denmark and Chile have robust plant impose at least one trader licensing or tural production and sales (figure 6.1). protection regulations, including pest membership requirement on export- Countries lagging behind on the overall surveillance and reporting obligations, as ers and there is no significant variation score tend to have more divergent results well as pest containment and quarantine among countries across income groups. with respect to each indicator, with the procedures in relevant laws. These coun- Fourteen countries require one mem- majority of countries receiving higher tries carry out pest risk analyses and bership or license to export the selected scores for the indicator on production make pest lists publicly available. product, while Kenya, Morocco and Sri FIGURE 6.1 EBA markets scores overall and by indicator EBA markets scores 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sri Lanka Ukraine Mali Ghana Rwanda Guatemala Tajikistan Greece Zambia Nicaragua Tanzania Lao PDR Nepal Bangladesh Spain Cambodia Côte d'Ivoire Turkey Kenya Denmark Bolivia Myanmar Colombia Vietnam Kyrgyz Republic Georgia Morocco Chile Russian Federation Uganda Philippines Ethiopia Bosnia and Herzegovina Burkina Faso Niger Poland Jordan Sudan Mozambique Burundi Markets score Production and sales Plant protection Source: EBA database. MARKETS 45 Lanka require two and Ghana requires slightly below the average in upper-mid- than 1,200,000 Lao kip (9.4% of income three. dle-income countries. per capita) to obtain the phytosanitary and fumigation certificates, although they are In low-income and lower-middle-income In some countries exporters face lengthy issued in just 3 days, below the average countries, traders also face longer delays processes and high costs to obtain export of lower-middle-income countries. Con- to obtain the documents required for documents, as in Zambia, where a cere- versely, a Russian cereal trader spends each export shipment (figure 6.2). On al trader must spend roughly 11 days and only 1,190 Russian rubles (0.3% of income average, it takes about twice as much 1,135 Zambian kwacha (10.8% of income per capita) but waits about 12 days to time to obtain per-shipment export doc- per capita) to get all the required docu- obtain a phytosanitary certificate, a quality uments in low-income and lower-mid- ments, including phytosanitary and fumi- certificate, a fumigation certificate and a dle-income countries than in upper-mid- gation certificates. Cambodian cereal trad- health certificate. dle-income and high-income countries. ers face similar hurdles, spending about 7 But significant variations exist within days and over 350,000 Cambodian riels each income group. Obtaining the doc- (8.6% of income per capita) to obtain a Strong plant protection frameworks uments takes over 10 days in Tanzania phytosanitary certificate, fumigation cer- correspond with low time and cost (low income), Zambia (lower middle tificate and a quantity and weight certifi- to obtain a phytosanitary certificate income) and the Russia (high income); cate before they can export. But a fast pro- it only takes 2 days in Burkina Faso, cess may also coincide with high costs. In Plant protection frameworks consist Mozambique and Nepal (all low income), Lao PDR a coffee trader has to spend more primarily of “phytosanitary measures,” FIGURE 6.2 Time to obtain per-shipment export documents is greater in low-income and lower-middle-income countries on average, and it varies greatly within income group Average time (calendar days) Income group average 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sri Lanka Tanzania Mali Niger Burkina Faso Nepal Zambia Ghana Kenya Tajikistan Georgia Ukraine Myanmar Lao PDR Philippines Vietnam Nicaragua Guatemala Turkey Russian Federation Greece Cambodia Burundi Mozambique Bolivia Kyrgyz Republic Bangladesh Colombia Bosnia and Herzegovina Jordan Chile Denmark Poland Spain Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle High income income Source: EBA database. Note: Data on time to obtain per-shipment export documents are not available for Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Morocco, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda. These cases were excluded from the calculation of the averages by income group. 46 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 which refer to any legislation, regulation or official9 procedure to protect plant health and prevent the introduction and BOX 6.1 Good practices for phytosanitary regulation spread of pests, diseases, or disease-car- rying or disease-causing organisms and • Should require plant protection agencies to conduct pest limit their economic impact.10 Pest lists surveillance. allow exporting countries to issue phyto- sanitary certificates tailored to foreign • Should require producers and land users to report outbreaks of market requirements and facilitate trade pests. negotiations by indicating whether spe- cific pests are present in each country.11 • Should establish a publicly available pest database that lists pests The list of regulated pests is publicly present in the country and their current distribution and status to available for more than half the countries help land users to monitor and treat pests. measured. Chile, Denmark and Spain have more advanced pest databases • Should establish a list of regulated quarantine pests and make available online that list the status and available on the website of the International Plant Protection geographic distribution of pests in the Convention. country. Phytosanitary measures applied to • Should mandate pest risk analysis by law or officially task a unit to imports of agricultural and other plant conduct it. products at the border—such as inspec- tions, sampling and laboratory testing • Should allow phytosanitary import inspections on a risk- and quarantine procedures—safeguard management basis. the domestic agricultural sector against the entry, establishment and spread • Should address both domestic containment and border quarantine of pests and diseases across borders. procedures in relevant legislation. But since border agencies have limited resources to inspect and control every import consignment, pest risk analy- sis (PRA) can be used to differentiate between consignments based on risk with lower costs to obtain a phyto- or selling potatoes for commercial ends and impose border controls accordingly sanitary certificate for export, while the must register with the Agriculture, Fish- at a higher or lower rate (box 6.1).12 PRA certification process takes the least time eries and Food Authority. And in Tur- evaluates biological or other scientific to complete in upper-middle-income key, producers must register with the and economic evidence, often specif- countries (figure 6.3). authorities to enter an agricultural pro- ic to a commodity or country of origin, duction contract. to determine whether a pest should be regulated and the strength of any phyto- The enabling environment for Agricultural production and marketing sanitary measures to be taken against production and sales varies across capacity can be improved through coop- it.13 Of the 40 countries studied, 31 pro- countries erative arrangements among farmers, vide for a PRA procedure in legislation, or but excessive initial capital requirements have a designated unit to carry out PRA. Many governments impose special can make it harder for smallholder farm- Seventeen countries allow phytosanitary licensing regimes on the domestic mar- ers to establish a cooperative in the first import inspections to be carried out at a keting of certain agricultural plant prod- place (box 6.2).16 Furthermore, limita- reduced frequency based on PRA: Boliv- ucts. These requirements can deter- tions on the commercial operations of ia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, mine whether farmers are permitted farmers’ cooperatives— raising funds Denmark, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, to sell regulated crops, or if those crops from third parties such as commercial Guatemala, Jordan, the Kyrgyz Republic, can be bought only by licensed buyers. banks, or merging with other farmers’ Mozambique, Poland, Russia, Spain, Tan- Of the 40 countries covered, 9 require cooperatives—hinder growth and mar- zania, Turkey and Ukraine. registration or licensing to sell or pur- keting potential.17 Of the 40 countries chase agricultural products or enter studied, most do not restrict third-par- The strength of phytosanitary protec- agricultural production contracts.15 In ty loans or mergers between farmers’ tion regulations can also affect wheth- Tanzania, sweet potato producers must cooperatives. But in Morocco, the Phil- er agribusinesses meet phytosanitary be registered with the authorities to ippines and Turkey the law establishes requirements in destination markets, as sell their produce. In the Philippines, a minimum capital requirement for the they enable producers to meet certain purchasers of coconut products need creation of a cooperative. This require- minimum standards and demonstrate a license from the Philippine Coconut ment is highest in Turkey, where share- compliance.14 Strong plant protection in Authority. In Kenya, anyone engaged in holders are required to form a minimum high-income countries also corresponds collecting, transporting, storing, buying capital of 50,000 Turkish lire, equivalent MARKETS 47 FIGURE 6.3 Obtaining a phytosanitary certificate is less expensive in high-income countries, but takes less time in upper-middle-income countries Average time Average cost (calendar days) (% income per capita) 2.5 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 2.0 1.2% 1.0% 1.5 1.0% 0.8% 1.0 2.0 2.2 1.3 2.0 0.6% 0.4% 0.5 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0 0% Low income Lower-middle Upper-middle High income income income Average time (calendar days) Average cost (% income per capita) Source: EBA database. Note: The EBA sample covers high-income (6), upper-middle-income (4), lower-middle-income (19) and low-income (11) countries. determination and arbitration, offer means to resolve disputes more prompt- BOX 6.2 Good practices for regulations related to agricultural ly and effectively than traditional court producers procedures, and as a result preserve business relationships and livelihoods.19 • Should allow sales of plant products without product-specific Whereas the cost, length and complex- licensing. ity of traditional court procedures can heighten disagreements, ADR facilitat- • Should allow farmers to establish cooperatives without minimum ed by a neutral third party is more con- capital requirements. sensual, collaborative and practical in nature. 20 • Should allow farmer’ cooperatives to raise capital through loans from third-party sources. The legal force of any settlement agree- ment reached through ADR can be an important consideration for parties • Should allow farmer’ cooperatives to grow through mergers. seeking dispute settlement. Of the 40 countries surveyed 22 allow settlement • Should enable prompt and effective dispute resolution through agreements reached through extra- enforceable mediated settlement agreements. judicial mediation to have the same enforceability as a court decision. In 8 of those countries a settlement agreement reached through extrajudicial mediation automatically has the same binding force to 219.2% of income per capita, just to Disagreements can be potentially fatal as a court judgment. Four of those coun- register and establish a cooperative.18 for production contracts, which rely on tries are located in Latin America and long-term positive relationships and the Caribbean (Bolivia, Chile, Colombia In marketing agricultural products, dis- may account for all current and pro- and Nicaragua). In the remaining 14 the agreements may arise between farmers jected sales for farmers. Alternative settlement agreement can be filed with and buyers over prices, product qual- dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, a court or notarized to acquire the same ity or delays in delivery or payment. such as mediation, conciliation, expert enforceability as a court judgment and 48 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 bind the parties accordingly. Six of those product type, cash crops stand out as to export tea. The situation is similar in countries are located in Sub-Saharan being subject to more membership and Rwanda, where the associated costs Africa, 2 in East Asia and the Pacific, 2 licensing requirements to export, increas- are equivalent to $1602.30 (246.5% of in the Middle East and North Africa, 1 in ing the associated costs (figure 6.4). 21 income per capita). Europe and Central Asia and the remain- ing 3 are OECD high-income countries. Similar trader-level licensing and mem- For coffee —the cash crop selected for In 18 countries a successful extrajudicial bership requirements are imposed in the Burundi, Colombia, Ethiopia, Lao PDR, mediation can result in a settlement countries where cash crops were studied Nicaragua and Uganda —all countries agreement with the binding value of a (figure 6.5). In Kenya, Rwanda and Sri except Lao PDR impose an export license contract between the parties. In case of a Lanka, where tea was selected as the or its equivalent. Coffee exporters in breach, enforcement would thus require export product, exporters must maintain Colombia must register with the Regis- civil litigation first to establish the valid- membership of and pay annual fees to tro Nacional de Exportadores de Café. ity of the agreement (or contract) and a specific organization to source tea for Exporters in Ethiopia must obtain a cer- then to establish a breach. Thirty-eight export through an auction in the respec- tificate of competence from the Ministry countries offer the opportunity to seek tive country. Exporters might also have of Agriculture and Rural Development mediation during the course of judicial to register or obtain an export license every year. Despite similarities in licens- proceedings upon a referral by the court from a public agency responsible for ing regimes, the incurred costs vary or at the parties’ own initiative. affairs related to tea. In Kenya tea export- greatly among countries. They range ers must register annually with the Tea from greater than 85% of income per Directorate to obtain the right to export capita in Burundi and Uganda to minimal More trader-level export and be members of the East African Tea or no cost in Ethiopia (1.6% of income requirements apply to cash crops Trade Association to purchase tea at per capita), Colombia (free of charge) than to other product groups the Mombasa Tea Auction. In Sri Lanka and Nicaragua (free of charge). both an annual export license issued by Many governments impose trader-level the Sri Lanka Tea Board and a pass to Between the two countries where EBA licensing regimes on the export of agri- the Colombo Tea Auction from the Cey- studied cocoa bean exports, Ghana cultural products. When analyzed by lon Chamber of Commerce are required has established more requirements for FIGURE 6.4 Cash crops are subject to more trader licensing and membership requirements than other product groups and thus to higher costs Number of Cost requirements (% income per capita) 1.4 80% 1.2 70% Average number of trader licensing and 60% membership 1.0 requirements 50% 0.8 40% 0.6 Average cost of 30% trader licensing and membership 0.4 requirements 20% (% income per capita) 0.2 10% 0 0% Cash crops Fruits Vegetables Cereals Source: EBA database. Note: Cash crops were studied for Burundi (coffee), Colombia (coffee), Côte d’Ivoire (cocoa), Ethiopia (coffee), Ghana (cocoa), Kenya (tea), Lao PDR (coffee), Nepal (nutmeg, mace and cardamom), Nicaragua (coffee), Rwanda (tea), Sri Lanka (tea), Uganda (coffee). Data on cost of trader-level licensing and membership requirements are not available for Morocco and Tanzania, which were excluded from the calculation of the averages by product group. MARKETS 49 FIGURE 6.5 Similar trader licensing and membership requirements are imposed in countries where cash crops are studied Cost Number of requirements (% income per capita) 3 300% 250% 2 200% 150% 1 100% 50% 0 0% Ghana (cocoa beans) Lao PDR Côte d'Ivoire (cocoa beans) (Coffee) (nutmeg, mace (tea) Sri Lanka (tea) Rwanda (tea) Burundi Colombia (Coffee) Ethiopia (Coffee) Nicaragua (Coffee) Uganda (Coffee) (Coffee) Nepal and cardamom) Kenya Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) Trader licensing and membership requirements (cost, % income per capita) Source: EBA database. exporters than Côte d’Ivoire. In Ghana tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in documentation, if they choose to export cocoa exporters must be members of the goods, services and finances between the same consignment to a non-EU Federation of Cocoa Commerce and are participating countries. 22 They have country, it takes on average two days required to obtain an export license from grown in number and coverage in recent and 0.2% of income per capita to com- the Ghana Cocoa Board as well as an years and may extend to “the integra- plete the required documents. 25 In other annual accreditation by the Plant Protec- tion and improvement of transport and countries the time and cost associated tion and Regulatory Services Directorate, trade logistic systems, strengthening of with mandatory document requirements leading to a cumulative cost equivalent infrastructure, harmonization of institu- are generally lower when exporting agri- to approximately $2,345.60 or 150.3% tional arrangements and practices and cultural products to regional or bilateral of income per capita. In Côte d’Ivoire, by improvement in behind-the-border poli- trading partners (figure 6.6). 26 contrast, an export license granted by cies and regulations that impose a bur- the Conseil du Café-Cacao costs roughly den on business activity.”23 They often $198.30 or 12.8% of income per capita, streamline customs procedures and Conclusion and is the only requirement imposed on remove export licenses and other border the trader level. measures; in complex arrangements they Improving access to markets for agri- can facilitate harmonized and mutually cultural producers is crucial for develop- recognized standards. As such, they can ing a country’s agricultural sector. The Per-shipment requirements have a increase market access for agribusiness- analysis shows that there is still plenty of lower time and cost under a bilateral es in relevant countries and strengthen room for countries to improve their laws or regional agreement cross-border value chains. 24 and regulations and move towards good practices identified, such as: Regional and bilateral economic integra- The EU countries measured (Den- tion through preferential trade agree- mark, Greece, Poland and Spain) illus- • Strong phytosanitary protection ments (PTAs) typically reduces the trate this integration. While agribusi- legislation governing national sur- number of per-shipment requirements nesses in these countries can export veillance for pest lists, pest risk to export. PTAs aim to reduce or remove to other EU countries without special analysis and domestic and import 50 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 6.6 It is on average faster and less expensive to complete per-shipment documents when exporting to regional or bilateral trading partners Average cost (% income per capita) Average time (calendar days) 6.2 4.3% 2.0% 2.5 No trade agreement Either regional or bilateral No trade agreement Either regional or bilateral agreement agreement Source: EBA database. Note: Relevant bilateral and regional trade agreements between studied countries and the selected trading partner were not identified for the following 14 countries: Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine. Data on time to ob- tain per-shipment export documents are not available for Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Morocco, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda. Data on cost to obtain per-shipment export documents are not available for Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Morocco and Uganda. These cases were excluded from the calculation of the averages. quarantine procedures. Plant • Efficient and affordable require- streamlined, productive and profitable protection laws and regulations in ments to export major agricultural agricultural sector. Nepal require the government to products, including membership, conduct pest surveillance and pest licensing and per-shipment doc- risk analysis and make a list of reg- umentation. In Guatemala fruit Notes ulated quarantine pests publicly exporters are not required to obtain available. a license or become a member 1. International Plant Protection Con- of a specific organization before vention 2015; International Plant • Laws that do not obstruct the they can export and the process to Protection Convention 2012; Lesser production or sale of agricultural obtain the per-shipment mandatory and Moïsé-Leeman 2009; World goods domestically. Thirty-one documents is efficient, costing only Bank 2012. of the 40 countries studied do not 0.2% of income per capita. require a product-specific license to 2. Murina and Nicita 2014. engage in an agricultural production Identifying good regulatory practices is contract, or to sell or purchase the challenging when dealing with the agri- 3. International Plant Protection Con- contracted product. cultural sector because, besides facil- vention 1997. itating production, market access and • A legal environment that supports cross-border trade, regulation is also 4. An agricultural production contract farmers’ cooperatives. In Zam- needed to protect domestic produc- is a contract where “the producer bia there is no minimum capital tion and the environment from pests undertakes to produce and deliver requirement to establish a farm- and diseases. The markets topic identi- agricultural commodities in accor- ers’ cooperative, which facilitates fies certain regulatory constraints that dance with the contractor’s spec- farmer coordination activities and can hinder agricultural production and ifications. The contractor, in turn, reduces the initial investment need- sale. These indicators are a starting undertakes to acquire the product ed. Cooperatives are also allowed to point for discussion with policymakers for a price and generally has some merge and take out loans from third on addressing such regulatory con- involvement in production activities parties. straints and working towards a more through, for example, the supply of MARKETS 51 inputs and provision of technical available year). Cereal crops are trading partner. Agricultural trade advice.” See UNIDROIT, FAO and excluded from the analysis because is defined as import and export IFAD 2015. they are less suitable for agricultural of plant-based products, includ- production contracts due to several ing cash crops, cereals, fruits and 5. Farmers’ cooperatives are also characteristics, including high risk vegetables, according to the Har- known as agricultural cooperatives, of side-selling given well-developed monized Commodity Description farmers’ cooperatives or produc- local or export markets, less need and Coding System 1996 version ers’ associations. A farmers’ coop- for technical assistance to meet (HS 96). All data are sourced from erative is defined as a voluntary, market specifications and poor the UN Comtrade Database, using jointly-owned and democratically potential for price differentials. the import and export data from controlled association of farmers 2009–13. For each country, the created to support and promote the 16. For additional information on min- cross-border partner country that economic interests of its members imum capital requirements appli- represents the highest five-year through joint economic activity, cable to firms, please see Doing average agricultural trade value (in including, but not limited to, pro- Business. http://www.doingbusiness US$) is selected. duction, processing and marketing .org/data/exploretopics/starting of agricultural products. If different -a-business/good-practices. types of farmers’ organizations exist References in a country, those that most closely 17. FAO 1998; Von Pischke and Rouse adhere to this definition are select- 2004. Arias, P., D. Hallam, E. Krivonos and J. ed for study. Morrison. 2013. Smallholder Integra- 18. In the Philippines the minimum tion in Changing Food Markets. Rome: 6. Arias and others 2013; FAO 2013. capital requirement is 60,000 Phil- FAO. ippine peso (39.6% of income per 7. World Bank 2012; Pannhausen and capita), and in Morocco it is 700 Asian Development Bank. 2013. Mod- Untied 2010; Comprehensive Afri- Moroccan dirhams (2.7% of income ernizing Sanitary and Phytosanitary can Agriculture Development Pro- per capita). Measures to Facilitate Trade in Agri- gramme (CAADP) 2009. cultural and Food Products: Report on 19. UNIDROIT, FAO and IFAD 2015. the Development of an SPS Plan for the 8. Djankov, Freund and Pham 2006. CAREC Countries. Mandaluyong City, 20. Dixie and others 2014. Manila, Philippines: Asian Develop- 9. “Established, authorized or per- ment Bank. formed by a National Plant Protec- 21. EBA defines and groups agri- tion Organization.” International cultural products as cash crops, Comprehensive African Agriculture Plant Protection Convention 2005. cereals, fruits and vegetables Development Programme (CAADP). according to the Harmonized Com- 2009. Framework for African Food 10. International Plant Protection Con- modity Description and Coding Security. Midrand, South Africa: vention 2005. Erratum. This defini- System 1996 version (HS 96): cash CAADP. tion should be understood to super- crops (HS 09, HS 1201-HS 1206, sede and correct that in Enabling the HS 1210, HS 1212, HS 1801); cereals Dixie, G., M. Jonasova, L. Ronchi, A. Ser- Business of Agriculture 2015. (HS 10); fruits (HS 08); vegetables geant, P. Jaeger and J. Yap. 2014. (HS 07). “An Analytical Toolkit for Support 11. International Plant Protection Con- to Contract Farming.” Agriculture vention 2003. 22. World Bank 2013. and Environmental Services Internal Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. 12. International Plant Protection Con- 23. World Bank 2013. vention 2004. Djankov, S., C. Freund and C. S. Pham. 24. World Bank 2008. 2006. “Trading on Time.” Policy 13. International Plant Protection Con- Research Working Paper 3909, vention 2007. 25. Data for exports from European World Bank, Washington, DC. Union countries to third countries 14. Asian Development Bank 2013. are available on the EBA website: ———. 1998. “Agricultural Cooperative eba.worldbank.org. Development: A Manual for Train- 15. For each country, this finding ers.” Rome: FAO. is based on the most produced 26. The bilateral and regional agree- non-processed non-cereal product ments included in our analysis International Plant Protection Conven- in terms of gross production value are those covering agricultur- tion. 1997. “Guidelines for Surveil- (current million US$). All data are al trade and concluded between lance.” International Standard for sourced from FAOSTAT, using the studied countries and their larg- Phytosanitary Measures No. 6. production data of 2012 (the latest est cross-border agricultural Rome: FAO. 52 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 ———. 2003. “Guidelines on Lists of Reg- of Protecting Plant Resources from Development and Food Security in Sub- ulated Pests.” International Standard Pests.” Rome: FAO. Saharan Africa. Eschborn, Germany: for Phytosanitary Measures No. 19. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Rome: FAO. ———. 2015. “Plant Pest Surveillance.” Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) mbH. IPPC Technical Resources 7. Rome: ———. 2004. “Guidelines for a Phytosan- FAO. UNIDROIT, FAO and IFAD. 2015. “UNI- itary Import Regulatory System.” DROIT/FAO/IFAD Legal Guide on International Standard for Phy- Lesser, C., and E. Moïsé-Leeman. 2009. Contract Farming.” Rome: UNI- tosanitary Measures No. 20. Rome: “Informal Cross-Border Trade and DROIT, FAO and IFAD. FAO. Trade Facilitation Reform in Sub- Saharan Africa.” OECD Trade Policy Von Pischke, J.D., and J. G. Rouse. 2004. ———. 2005. “Glossary of Phytosani- Working Paper 86, OECD, Paris. New Strategies for Mobilizing Capital in tary Terms.” International Standard Agricultural Cooperatives. Rome: FAO. for Phytosanitary Measures No. 5. Murina, M., and A. Nicita. 2014. “Trading Rome: FAO. With Conditions: The Effect of Sani- World Bank. 2008. World Development tary and Phytosanitary Measures on Report 2009: Reshaping Economic ———. 2007. “Framework for Pest Risk Lower Income Countries’ Agricultural Geography. Washington, DC: World Analysis.” International Standards Exports.” Policy Issues in Internation- Bank. for Phytosanitary Measures No. 2. al Trade and Commodities Research Rome: FAO. Study Series 68, UNCTAD, Geneva. ———. 2012. Africa Can Help Feed Africa: Removing Barriers to Regional Trade ———. 2012. “IPPC Strategic Framework Pannhausen, C, and B. Untied. 2010. in Food Staples. Washington, DC: 2012–2019: Celebrating 60 Years Regional Agricultural Trade for Economic World Bank. 53 7. TRANSPORT MAKING TRANSPORTATION MORE RELIABLE AND AFFORDABLE A young and dynamic entrepreneur, Guillaume, owns a truck and transports cereals for rural smallholder farmers to nearby markets. He is committed to provide reliable services to his clients by keeping his truck in good condition. He has the required truck-level transport license presenting his technical inspection and insurance certificates. But he finds it hard to expand his business with all the competition from formal and informal operators offering transport services below minimum quality and safety standards. As a certified driver and licensed truck operator, Guillaume would like his customers to be able to distinguish professional truckers ensuring certain standards from informal competitors. The government is aware of the situation and is working on improving the current licensing system to establish certain professional minimum standards. EBA transport indicators measure laws formal road transport services, cutting carrier liabilities—improves cross-border and regulations that affect commercial the revenue collected from the trans- transport service quality and efficiency. road transport services. The indicators port sector. Smart regulations balance address factors that could potential- the need for safety and quality standards The data cover the following areas: ly benefit farmers and agribusinesses without becoming too burdensome and through more competitive and bet- excessively restricting small and for- • Truck licenses. This indicator ter regulated services that enable the eign companies in the market. The pro- addresses the different licens- transport of agricultural products to the cess for obtaining licenses or permits ing regimes for commercial road market. for transport equipment and operations transport services in the domestic should be clear, transparent and efficient. market, the extent to which license With growing demand for food and Making it easier to obtain licenses for requirements and applications are increasing export opportunities in region- transport equipment and operations is available online, the additional legal al trade, farmers will need to transport an important way to improve trade and requirements to obtain a license their produce to these markets to ben- transport. 3 or permit and the price and freight efit from their potential. High transport allocation regulations affecting costs increase the price farmers pay for Cross-border transport, the second domestic road transport services. In inputs and decrease their income, which indicator for EBA transport, measures addition, data has been collected on decreases the incentive to invest in their restrictions to foreign transport com- the time, cost and validity required farms.1 Regulations affect the availability, panies providing cross-border services. for transport licenses and the cost efficiency, effectiveness, reliability and Permit and quota restrictions obstruct and validity of mandatory technical safety of transport services. 2 regional trade integration. 4 Increasing inspections. foreign participation in trucking and Truck licenses, the first indicator for EBA logistics is one way to improve the quali- • Cross-border transport. This transport, has been selected for study ty and competitiveness of transport ser- indicator measures restrictions to as licenses promote reliable and safe vices available to agribusinesses. Allow- cross-border transport including transport services. Truck licenses cre- ing foreign logistics services and foreign the regulation of carrier’s liabilities, ate a level playing field for road trans- trucks to transport third-country cargo rights of foreign trucking companies port operators by regulating access to eases trade. 5 Backhauls and long travel to transport agricultural goods in the profession and setting safety and times from waiting and idling during trips the country, and existence of quo- environmental standards. Countries create inefficiencies that also raise trans- tas on number of transport rights with few or no qualitative market entry port prices.6 Harmonizing and mutually granted. criteria are dominated by many small, recognizing technical and procedural often informal businesses. Informality standards between countries—such as Countries such as Denmark, Greece, hampers the viability and efficiency of axle load limits, technical inspections and Poland and Spain score better than most 54 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 on both transport indicators, with regu- others—especially in cross border trans- should be a key objective of any trans- lations in place that lead to a more favor- port. For example, Kenya and Uganda are port regulation.7 Regulation affects the able enabling regulatory environments more open to foreign competition than competition and efficiency of transport for transport operators (figure 7.1). They Cambodia and Ethiopia. services, as well as their availabili- have transparent regulations and neither ty, reliability and safety. 8 Competition impose discriminatory criteria to obtain a Low-income countries have weaker reg- improves service quality and lowers license nor interfere with freight alloca- ulations for cross-border transportation transport prices,9 but imperfect com- tion and price setting—making it easier because they often grant fewer transport petition accounts for 35% of national for foreign transport operators to enter rights to trucking companies from their transport costs in Central America.10 and operate in the domestic market. main neighboring trading partner, lim- Lower prices and reliable services iting foreign transport operators in the increase the profit margin for farm- Countries that score poorly often strug- domestic market. But some countries ers, which they can reinvest in other gle with the trade-off between the need are leveraging regional integration to production-related activities. for a more formal and professional sec- gradually harmonize regional transport tor and the availability of administrative regulations and ease cross-border trade. Company licenses promote more formal and institutional resources. Transport Although Tanzania’s transport license and professional transport sectors by regulators seek to promote the sector’s regulations restrict foreign transport regulating access to the profession, set- professionalization by establishing qual- operators, they allow transport compa- ting standards for transport operations, ity standards and other requirements for nies from other East African Community collecting revenue based on business obtaining a license. But limited enforce- (EAC) countries to offer more services. profits, compiling more detailed data on ment and institutional capacity hinders the trucking industry and facilitating the progress. Low-income countries tend enforcement of labor regulations (box to have regulations with lower quali- Company road transport licensing 7.1). ty standards for operator licenses and promotes better transport more price-setting and freight alloca- operations They provide a level playing field to tion mechanisms, hurting their trans- promote competition based on com- port indicator scores. But some low-in- Introducing and enforcing quality cri- mon criteria. They also ease establish- come countries perform better than teria to enter the transport sector ing and enforcing certain minimum FIGURE 7.1 High-income countries tend to have more regulations that promote market access and operations and cross-border transport EBA transport scores 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sri Lanka Mali Ukraine Ghana Kyrgyz Republic Rwanda Guatemala Tajikistan Bosnia and Herzegovina Greece Zambia Nicaragua Tanzania Lao PDR Nepal Bangladesh Cambodia Spain Côte d'Ivoire Turkey Kenya Denmark Bolivia Myanmar Colombia Vietnam Georgia Morocco Chile Russian Federation Uganda Philippines Ethiopia Burkina Faso Niger Jordan Poland Sudan Mozambique Burundi Transport score Truck licenses Cross-border transport Source: EBA database. Note: The EBA transport aggregate ranking is constructed by combining two subindicators: truck licenses and cross-border transport. TRANSPORT 55 Of the 40 countries measured, 12 require a company license only, 16 require a truck BOX 7.1 Good practices for road transport licensing systems license only, 4 require both company and truck licenses and 8 require no company • Should require licenses to access the sector and provide truck or truck licenses. services to establish minimum conditions and requirements such as technical inspection certificates. Company licenses are prevalent in OECD high-income countries, and truck licens- • Should not include discriminatory requirements for licenses, such es are mostly seen in Sub-Saharan Afri- as nationality, membership in a trucking organization and minimum ca. Most countries in Europe and Central operational capacity. Asia do not require either a company or a truck license for domestic operations • Should establish quality criteria such as good repute, financial (figure 7.2). standing and professional competence to obtain a transport license, preferably by implementing a company-level license. High-income countries have the largest share of company-license regimes. Such licensing trends suggest that transition- • Should make licensing requirements transparent and accessible and ing toward a company-license regime collect and update road transport data. is not an easy task. Such systems may imply other regulatory reforms, such as • Should promote market-based price-setting mechanisms and labor law reforms that set standards for freight allocation systems. the access to the profession of licensed drivers or corporate tax code reforms associated with a company license. Another challenge for lower-income quality standards more than truck Licenses are also crucial to guarantee countries is the cost of investing in the licenses, 11 which can be appropri- certain safety standards since truck- enforcement of higher and more complex ate regulatory instruments to set ing involves heavy and sophisticated quality standards. But some low-income basic trucking service standards, machinery requiring training and regular countries—such as Rwanda and Ethiopia especially in more informal markets. maintenance. —have company-license systems. FIGURE 7.2 Transport license systems vary across regions Share of total countries 100% 14% No license 90% 25% 20% 80% 40% 70% 57% Both company 60% and truck licenses 50% 20% 50% 100% 71% 40% 80% Truck license 14% 30% 20% 40% 29% Company license 10% 25% 14% 0% East Asia & Europe & Central Latin America & OECD high South Asia Sub -Saharan Pacific Asia Caribbean income Africa Source: EBA database. Note: The Middle East and North Africa is excluded from the sample as EBA does not cover a representative number of countries (only Jordan and Morocco). 56 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Online availability of transport as truck regimes.16 But company licens- Countries with company-license systems regulations and license applications es must comply with a wider number record higher absolute costs than coun- is not widespread of technical and qualitative prerequi- tries with truck-license systems. But rela- sites such as applicant’s proof of good tively, company licenses are only slightly Transparency and information are crucial repute, financial capacity, professional costlier than truck licenses (figure 7.4). to enable citizens to monitor the quality competence, operational capacity and And given that company licenses are valid of government services.12 Accessing and fulfillment of tax obligations. So process- longer than truck licenses, their yearly cost understanding the requirements for a ing time in company systems tends to is considerably lower. Company-license license ensures a predictable business be longer than in truck systems—where systems strike a good balance between environment for transport operators. It technical and qualitative prerequisites the standards of quality established and also enables them to demand better reg- are more limited (figure 7.3). the efficiency of the issuance procedure. ulatory quality and reduces potential for discretionary practices by public officials. FIGURE 7.3 Truck-level licenses are issued more expeditiously than other Evidence from the Asia-Pacific Econom- regulated systems ic Cooperation (APEC) suggests that increasing the transparency of transac- tion costs could raise intra-APEC trade Average time to obtain a license by 7.5%.13 (calendar days) In many countries transport regulations are not easily accessible, evident in the 44.9 number of countries still not publishing their transport regulations on govern- ment websites. And of the 24 countries publishing licensing requirements online, only 5 offer applicants an online plat- form to submit their license applications. Despite the costs and resources to set up such platforms, they can make licens- ing easy and accessible for applicants far from an application office. Greater transparency is also associated with less 8.4 discrimination in entry. Countries that do not impose discriminatory requirements Company license Truck license to obtain a license —such as nationality, mandatory association membership and Source: EBA database. minimum operational capacity criteria— also have the most transparency.14 FIGURE 7.4 Company licenses are more cost-effective than other licensing systems Company licenses set higher standards for truck operators at no License Cost (% income per capita) significantly higher cost Transport regulations that strike the right balance between ensuring enforcement 8% of essential safety and quality standards 7% and avoiding excessive regulatory bur- dens for transport operators can lead to both better transport services and lower costs. Professional standards and certifi- cation for logistics service providers are important parts of an effective logistics sector. But quantitative and economic regulations of transport services that do not have an explicit and objective justifi- cation should be cut.15 Company license Truck license Obtaining a company license takes lon- ger than in other licensing systems such Source: EBA database. TRANSPORT 57 Linking Logistics Performance Index are important. Post-harvest losses due low-income countries it costs more of (LPI) data with EBA transport licensing to transport conditions or accidents income per capita than in high-income categories reveals that countries with can cause a significant loss of income countries. The average time to obtain a company-license systems record greater for farmers. To improve road safety and technical inspection certificate (a few transport service satisfaction (as mea- reliability of services, countries need an hours) and the average validity of these sured by perceptions of freight forward- efficient system of technical inspections. certificates (six months) are similar ers on the competence and quality of Regular inspections can ensure that vehi- across the 40 countries. service provided by road transport ser- cles in operation are properly maintained vice providers) than countries with other to ensure their safety and durability.18 licensing systems (figure 7.5).17 Truck Frequent and systematic vehicle tests Few countries are truly open to licenses record the lowest satisfaction make roads safer and reduce the number international competition coming rates of any licensing regime (as mea- of accidents.19 from their largest trading partner sured by the percentage of respondents reporting high satisfaction), supporting Regular inspections are mandatory in all Harmonizing and liberalizing regional the assumption that market entry qual- countries except Georgia, where techni- road transport services exposes nation- ity criteria in company-license systems cal inspections will become mandatory al service providers to wider regional improve the professionalism of road only in 2017. And in high-income coun- competition. And that can lead to lower transport operators. tries such as EU members, the regula- transport tariffs, higher efficiency and tor monitors the quality of the technical higher transport quality. 20 EBA transport inspection by introducing minimum stan- indicators measure the number of trans- The costs of technical inspections dards and certifying centers that ensure port rights granted to truck companies vary across countries compliance with the requirements. But registered in the largest neighboring in countries without such regulations, agricultural trading partner (box 7.2 and One of the key obstacles to an efficient the technical inspection quality relies figure 7.7). road transport sector is the condition of on each service provider, so the risk of a vehicles, especially trucks. Trucks in poor low-quality inspection is higher. Additional transport rights denote an condition lead to unreliable services and increased freedom of movements and high operating costs from breakdowns The average cost of a (first-time) tech- operations allowed to foreign firms willing and repair work. This affects road safe- nical inspection is 2.9% of income per to do business in the domestic market. In ty and the environment—for example, capita, ranging between 0.1 and 13.9% spite of the efforts to facilitate cross-bor- through higher emissions. For users of (figure 7.6), and thus is not a constrain- der transport, there is a wide dispari- road transport services, reliable services ing factor in most countries. But in ty in actual openness to cross-border FIGURE 7.5 Company-license systems record greater user satisfaction 80% 70% High satisfaction 60% (good or very good) Satisfaction rate 50% 40% Medium satisfaction (average) 30% 20% Low satisfaction 10% (bad or very bad) 0% Company license Truck license Both Neither Licensing system Sources: EBA database, LPI database. Note: Graph developed based on question 19-1 of the 2014 LPI Survey. The LPI collects data in 33 of the 40 EBA countries. 58 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 7.6 The cost of technical inspection is not a constraint in most countries, but some disparity is observed in its relative cost 220 14% Techincal Inspection cost (% income per capita) 200 12% 180 Tecnical inspection cost (US$) 160 10% 140 8% 120 100 6% 80 60 4% 40 2% 20 0 0% Lao PDR Russian Federation Sri Lanka Greece Guatemala Niger Chile Nepal Zambia Denmark Spain Bolivia Philippines Poland Nicaragua Jordan Vietnam Kenya Kyrgyz Republic Ukraine Bosnia and Herzegovina Turkey Tanzania Rwanda Ghana Burkina Faso Tajikistan Bangladesh Morocco Colombia Cambodia Ethiopia Myanmar Mali Mozambique Côte d'Ivoire Burundi Uganda Sudan Cost (US$) Cost (% income per capita) Source: EBA database. Note: Regular vehicle inspections are mandatory in all countries except Georgia, where technical inspections will only become mandatory in 2017. competition. Only four countries (Den- price of transport services, prompting transport indicator. 23 Granting for- mark, Greece, Poland and Spain) grant more producers to participate in regional eign companies access to the domes- foreign companies the same transport value chains. tic market—for example, by allowing entitlements as they do to domestic importing and backhauling—increases firms, and even in such cases there are Regulations in the EU countries measured cross-border trade and competition. But limitations (figure 7.7). 21 But when grant- (Denmark, Greece, Spain and Poland) many obstacles to cross-border transport ing transport rights to foreign companies demonstrate greater openness to com- result from a lack of harmonization or lack governments should make sure that for- petition from truck operators from their of mutual recognition of a variety of tech- eign trucks and transport firms comply largest neighboring agricultural trading nical standards, such as axle-load limits, with the same standards required to partner as they grant on average all five truck dimensions and driver’s licenses. domestic operators. Only in such a way transport rights measured by EBA. South So, bilateral and multilateral agreements will licenses maintain minimum safety Asia (Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka) granting transport rights should also and quality service standards and provide is the least open region with an average address the harmonization and mutual a level playing field for competition. of 1.3 rights granted (figure 7.8). Basic recognition of transport standards that transport rights are granted in 38 of the hinder cross-border transport. Public The East African Community promotes 40 countries surveyed, except Myanmar access to the respective information on cross-border transport openness by and Sri Lanka. 22 But 18 countries have a transport rights and applied transport harmonizing standards on road trans- quota on the number of permits granted. standards should be a fundamental part portation and standardizing license More open transport increases trade, as of harmonization. requirements. A larger market and great- shown by the correlation between mer- er competition benefit local producers chandise exports and regional liberal- Greater regional integration and easier by improving the quality and cutting the ization as measured by the cross-border trade and transit practices reduce entry TRANSPORT 59 BOX 7.2 Transport rights definitions • Transport rights: A truck registered in country A is allowed to transport goods produced in its country to country B for sale. • Backhauling rights: A truck registered in country A is allowed to load goods in country B and transport them back to Country A. • Transit rights: A truck registered in country A is allowed to travel through country B to deliver goods in country C. • Triangular rights: A truck registered in country A is allowed to pick up goods in country B and transport them to country C. • Cabotage rights: A truck registered in country A is allowed to pick up goods in country B and transport them to a different point in country B. FIGURE 7.7 Only a few countries allow cabotage liabilities or a waybill, as in ECOWAS and the European Union. Farmers can use such transport documents to claim loss- es from transport. Transport 95% Conclusion Backhauling 93% Improving access to reliable and afford- Triangular 85% able transport for agricultural producers is key to developing and strengthen a Transit 75% country’s agricultural sector. There is still plenty of room for countries to improve their laws and regulations and move Cabotage 10% towards good practices identified, such as: 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Share of total countries measured • Strong licensing systems to access the road transport sector based on minimum requirements Source: EBA database. such as vehicle technical inspec- tion certificates. Tanzania’s 2012 Note: Transport rights are entitlements granted by domestic transport authorities to trucking compa- ‘Goods carrying vehicle’ regulations nies registered in the largest neighboring agricultural trading partner. For this study, transport rights are establish clear binding principles to categorized along five basic rights or freedoms. Cabotage rights imply that foreign companies are granted obtain and maintain a truck license, treatment similar to domestic truck companies. Cabotage rights are only allowed in Denmark, Greece, including valid vehicle registration Poland and Spain. cards, vehicle third-party liabili- ty insurance, vehicle inspection report from an authorized inspec- costs for transport service operators in a free market essential. Allowing cabo- tor or copy of employment contract landlocked countries. 24 So, achieving tage rights and optimizing capacity can between the driver and the licensee. efficient cross border transport by reduc- improve efficiency and reduce environ- ing transit times and transport costs mental damage. 26 • Eliminate discriminatory require- is another major objective for regional ments to obtain road transport economic communities. 25 OECD coun- Some regional economic communi- licenses, such as a certain nation- tries that are also EU members are the ties also require contracting parties ality, membership in a trucking only countries that allow cabotage, engaged in international transactions to organization and minimum oper- which the European Commission labels sign a document acknowledging carrier ational capacity. Through its 2003 60 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 FIGURE 7.8 Regulations in OECD high-income countries demonstrate greater openness to cross-border competition, while countries in South Asia and East Asia and the Pacific tend to limit the scope of operations for foreign firms Transport rights 5 4 3 2 1 0 Greece Guatemala Lao PDR Denmark Kenya Bolivia Myanmar Vietnam Georgia Chile Uganda Sri Lanka Mali Ukraine Ghana Burkina Faso Niger Rwanda Poland Tajikistan Jordan Zambia Sudan Tanzania Nicaragua Nepal Mozambique Russian Fed. Kyrgyz Rep. Spain Cambodia Bangladesh Côte d'Ivoire Turkey Bosnia and H. Colombia Burundi Morocco Philippines Ethiopia OECD high income Europe & Central Asia Middle East & North Africa South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America & Caribbean East Asia & Pacific Regional group average Source: EBA database. decree regulating merchandise road of Transport consolidates all laws, laws and regulations are also needed public transport, Morocco ensures regulations, directives, decrees, to protect clients, consumers and the any citizen with a nationally-con- notifications or resolutions pertain- environment from unsafe, unreliable and stituted company can offer trucking ing to road transport and makes polluting transport. The transport topic services, ruling out the necessity to them easily accessible on their gov- identifies and measures several key reg- be a member of a transport associa- ernmental website. ulatory constraints that can hinder farm- tion or to have a minimum fleet size. ers and agribusiness firms from reaping • Promote market-based price-set- the benefits of growing urban and rural • Establish company licenses that ting mechanisms and freight markets in which to sale their production. enforce qualitative criteria such allocation systems. Nicaragua’s These actionable indicators can be used as good repute, financial standing 2005 ‘General road transport law’ as a starting point for discussion with and professional competence. In provides a solid legal foundation policymakers on ways to address reg- 2014 Turkey reformed their trans- to guarantee that the conditions of ulatory constraints that might obstruct port regulations to create K1-type carriage including pricing and cargo efficient and quality transport for agri- licenses requiring operators to pro- quantities are solely determined by cultural producers, buyers and exporters. vide proof of minimal working cap- the contracting parties without any ital ($3,500), maximum fleet age external interference. (20 years) and national certification Notes for managers. Reforming laws and regulations is a chal- lenge for policymakers given the com- 1. Staatz and Dembélé 2007. • Make licensing requirements plexity of the transport sector. Identify- more transparent and accessible, ing good regulatory practices is difficult 2. Lema and others 2008. and collect and update road trans- when dealing with agricultural transport port statistics. Colombia’s Ministry because besides ensuring efficiency, 3. World Bank 2010. TRANSPORT 61 4. World Bank 2010. 15. World Bank 2010; This is known as 21. Granting cabotage rights to truck the ‘regulatory guillotine’ concept, in companies coming from the larg- 5. World Bank 2010. which all regulations affecting a cer- est agricultural neighboring trading tain sector or transaction are pub- partner is equivalent to giving for- 6. Araya, Pachón and Saslavsky 2012. licly listed and then automatically eign transport firms national treat- rescinded if an explicit justification ment with regard to transport oper- 7. International Road Transport Union for the regulation is not provided ational freedom. 2007. within a certain time frame. The ‘economic regulations’ mentioned 22. Sri Lanka transports goods interna- 8. Lema, de Veen and Abukari 2008. in this context by the World Bank’s tionally mostly by air or water. Trade and Transportation Facili- 9. Teravaninthorn and Raballand tation Assessment toolkit would 23. EBA cross-border transport indica- 2009. include issues such as transpor- tors measure the number of trans- tation price controls, quantitative port rights granted to the largest 10. Osborne, Pachon and Araya 2014. limits on the provision of trucking neighboring agricultural trading services and so on. partner, including mandatory carri- 11. Company license: Specific licenses er’s liabilities documents. granted to established companies to 16. Company license: Specific licenses legally offer domestic road transport granted to established companies 24. World Bank 2014. services. For the purposes of this to legally offer domestic road trans- study general business registration port services. For the purposes of 25. Runji 2015. licenses are not considered. Instead, this study general business regis- a company-level license is a specific tration licenses are not considered. 26. European Commission 2006. permit required exclusively for the Instead, a company-level license is provision of road transport services. a specific permit required exclusive- A transport license at company level ly for the provision of road trans- References generally allows to operate several port services. A transport license trucks under the same license. Truck at company level generally allows Araya, G., M. C. Pachón and D. Saslavsky license: Truck licenses are licenses to operate several trucks under the 2012. “Road Freight in Central granted to each truck to legally trans- same license. Truck-level license : America: Five Explanations to High port goods in the domestic market. Truck-level licenses are licenses Costs of Service Provision.” Back- For the purposes of this study vehi- granted to each truck to legally ground Paper, World Bank, Wash- cle registration certificates or road transport goods in the domestic ington, DC. worthiness/technical inspection market. For the purposes of this certificates are not considered, as study vehicle registration certifi- Cuerden, R., M.J. Edwards and M.B. Pitt- these are usually not specific to the cates or road worthiness/techni- man. 2011. “Effect of Vehicle Defects provision of road transport services. cal inspection certificates are not in Road Accidents.” Transport considered, as these are usually Research Laboratory Limited. Pub- 12. Geginat and Saltane 2014. not specific to the provision of road lished Project Report PPR565. transport services. 13. Helble and others 2007. European Commission. 2006. Road Trans- 17. The LPI is a World Bank project port Policy: Open Roads across Europe. 14. Data analysis demonstrates a mod- published every two years since Brussels: European Commission. erate positive correlation (0.27) 2007 and measuring logistics per- between transparency (defined in formance or the on-the-ground Geginat, C., and V. Saltane. 2014. “Trans- this analysis by the scores obtained efficiency of trade supply chains. parent Government and Business to the questions: “Are the license/ The 2014 edition covers 160 coun- Regulation Open for Business?” Pol- permit requirements publicly avail- tries and compiles information from icy Research Working Paper 7132, able online?” and “Can the appli- approximately 1,000 respondents, World Bank, Washington, DC. cation for a license/permit or its providing a total of around 5,000 renewal be submitted electronical- country assessments (website: Helble, M., B. Shepherd and J. S. Wilson. ly?” Each country is ranked high, http://lpi.worldbank.org/). 2007. “Transparency, Trade Costs, medium or low based on their scores and Regional Integration in the Asia in both questions) and additional 18. IRU 2011. Pacific.” Policy Research Working requirements considered as dis- Paper 4401, World Bank, Washing- criminatory (mandatory association 19. Cuerden, Edwards and Pittman ton, DC. membership, minimum operational 2011. capacity or nationality criteria). This International Road Transport Union. correlation is 5% significant when 20. Raballand, Kunaka and Giersing 2007. “IRU Position on Access to the controlling for income per capita. 2008. Profession of Road Passenger and 62 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Goods Transport Operator.” Position Liberalization and Harmonization in Teravaninthorn, S., and G. Raballand. Paper, IRU, Geneva. Road Transport Services: A Focus on 2009. “Transport Prices and Costs in Zambia and Lessons for Landlocked Africa: A Review of the International Lema, C., J. de Veen and M. Abukari. Countries.” Policy Research Working Corridors.” Policy Research Working 2008. “Comprehensive Review Paper 4482, World Bank, Washing- Paper 46181, World Bank, Washing- of IFAD Rural Roads, Travel and ton, DC. ton, DC. Transport (RTT) Experiences, 1994– 2007.” International Fund for Agri- Runji, J. 2015. “Africa Transport Policy World Bank. 2010. Trade and Transport cultural Development. Performance Review: The Need for Facilitation Assessment: A Practical More Robust Transport Policies.” Toolkit for Country Implementation. Osborne, T., M. C. Pachón and G. E. Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Pol- Washington, DC: World Bank. Araya. 2014. “What Drives the High icy Program Discussion Paper 103, Price of Road Freight Transport in World Bank, Washington, DC. ———. 2014. “Improving Trade and Central America?” Policy Research Transport for Landlocked Develop- Working Paper 6844, World Bank, Staatz, J., and N. Dembélé. 2007. “Agri- ing Countries: A Ten-Year Review.” Washington, DC. culture for Development in Sub- World Bank–United Nations report Saharan Africa.” Background Paper in preparation for the 2nd United Raballand, G., C. Kunaka and B. Giers- for the World Development Report Nations Conference on Landlocked ing. 2008. “The Impact of Regional 2008. Developing Countries (LLDCs). 63 8. EBA TOPICS UNDER DEVELOPMENT In this second year of the EBA proj- Information and communication ICT licensing framework, validity ect, some topics have been refined and technology and associated costs. The data restructured and several new topic areas also cover spectrum manage- added. The information and commu- Mobile phones and the internet are ment, retail price regulations and nication technology (ICT) topic area powerful tools for farmers today. When quality standards, with a particu- was piloted during the first year of the connecting to the internet from remote lar emphasis on standards in rural EBA project and restructured this year areas, farmers can access key resourc- areas. to include data about policies and regu- es such as real-time data on market and lations on mobile and internet services. transport prices, information on seed • Government strategies to improve The land topic was expanded to include varieties, pests and farming techniques access to ICT services in rural new areas on tenure security, land sales as well as several tools for production areas. These data describe govern- and lease markets. Given the nature of and marketing. Better information and ment policies and measures to facil- the land topic and the legitimate inter- communication technologies facilitate itate ICT in rural areas, including ests involved, further consultations farmers’ access to markets, particular- universal access and service funds, will be carried out and some new areas ly to improved seed varieties and fer- which use contributions from multi- could be included next year, such as tilizers. 2 So, many governments now ple sources to finance the expansion the cost of registering group rights, the disseminate information and provide of network coverage and mobile time and cost of land surveying process, extension services in rural areas using services. the procedural safeguards in case of the internet, mobile applications and text expropriation and the management of and voice services, alongside more tradi- • Agricultural e-extension ser- land records. These developments will tional channels of communication such vices. These data address how the contribute to a more balanced scoring as the radio and extension agents. government provides agricultural methodology.1 information, particularly on market This multifaceted approach gives policy- prices and weather. Two new topic areas were developed makers an opportunity to interact with this year: water and livestock. Water is the farming community and develop Licensing regimes in the ICT sec- an essential input to agricultural produc- more targeted regulatory and policy tor. Licenses are an effective tool for tion, and the security and proper man- interventions for agribusinesses. Appro- governments — not only to regulate agement of water rights is essential to a priately designed ICT regulations can competition and generate revenue, but well-functioning agricultural sector. Live- ensure market liberalization and com- also to define the obligations of market stock is another area where governments petition in the ICT sector, leading to fair players on matters relevant to farmers design regulations to ensure the supply, retail prices, more high-quality mobile and agribusinesses, such as rural cov- safety and quality of animal production services and greater mobile market erage. Obtaining a license to offer tele- inputs. A scoring methodology for these penetration. 3 By contrast, burdensome communication services is costly and two topic areas will be developed in the licensing requirements can hinder com- may obstruct entry for mobile operators. next EBA cycle. petition and innovative mobile services EBA data on ICT collected this year show solutions responsive to users’ needs. how licensing regimes vary among the Two cross-cutting themes were intro- 40 EBA countries. Individual licenses duced and analyzed this year— gender EBA ICT indicators measure laws, regu- are most prevalent. 4 Only 7 countries and environmental sustainability. The lations and policies addressing ICT ser- have implemented a general authoriza- gender analysis presented below shows vices in rural areas. The indicators focus tion regime for mobile cellular services. 5 how the data collected on several rel- on the institutional framework for service Compared with other licensing regimes, evant indicators can be interpreted providers to operate and expand mobile the general authorization regime has through the lens of gender.  The envi- networks and government strategies to greater transparency and competition, ronmental sustainability theme crosses improve farmers’ access to ICT services as well as lower costs, since it creates a several existing topics— mainly seed and agricultural information. level playing field among providers and and water—to assess practices that pro- simplifies the regulatory process.6 In all tect natural resources for agricultural • Licensing regimes in the ICT sec- 7 countries costs are publicly available production. tor. These data measure countries’ online. 64 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Government strategies to improve development.13 Land is a key factor of productivity for different market actors access to ICT services in rural areas. agricultural production, and for many at different levels of economic develop- The “last mile” of telecommunication rural families it is the most valuable asset ment. The administrative mechanisms infrastructure in rural areas is usually they possess. But in many countries the that guide them must be transparent and expensive, and the resulting benefits do vast majority of agricultural land lies out- easily navigable. 25 not always make up for the costs.7 Gov- side formal legal protection.14 To encour- ernments differ in how they address this. age investments that can increase pro- • Land tenure security. These data The solutions include tying coverage and ductivity, rights to land must be secure include information on the types quality requirements to licenses, offer- and transferable. Indeed, landowners of land tenure granted by countries ing tax breaks to providers that cover will be willing to invest more to improve (private or public ownership), the hard-to-reach areas, requiring mobile production, such as “planting perennials formalization of informal rights of operators to offer social tariffs to eligible and establishing irrigation,” 15 when they individuals and communities and customers in rural areas and setting up believe their land will be protected from the security that land registration universal access funds for infrastructure conflicting claims and expropriation.16 provides. or other outreach projects. Security of tenure can be guaranteed • Land sales and lease markets. Universal access funds are popular in through formal mechanisms, such as Impediments to transferring land developing countries since they gener- state-granted titles and state-backed and registering such transfers ate funds from multiple sources, includ- legal enforcement. It can also be guaran- (whether leases or sales) reduce ing contributions from mobile operators teed through community-administered the likelihood of efficiency-enhanc- and international organizations, as well customary tenure, where the state rec- ing exchanges. These data address as direct funds from the government ognizes customary rights as legitimate how land sale and lease markets budget. 8 They help expand ICT cover- and protects them.17 Legal frameworks function, including government age in otherwise commercially unviable must recognize all legitimate land rights restrictions on land sales such as areas.9 But establishing the funds, col- (including informal and customary rights price controls, land ownership ceil- lecting contributions, selecting projects, where applicable), enable their recorda- ings, minimum farm sizes and other disbursing funds and monitoring and tion and ensure their protection.18 Cus- restrictions on the ability of individ- evaluating the impact of projects require tomary land tenure continues to play a uals and companies to buy, sell or capable administrators and transparent large role in agricultural production in lease land. organizational structures.10 Of the 40 many countries and statutory recogni- countries studied, 24 have a universal tion of customary land tenure regimes Land tenure security. Of the 40 coun- access fund that has started collecting can help protect agricultural producers tries surveyed, 32 recognize private funds. Despite having a universal access from conflicting claims to customary ownership of land. In the remaining 8 fund in place, 4 countries (Bangladesh, land and government expropriation.19 countries all land is owned by the state, Burkina Faso, Kenya and Niger) have This is important as population growth, but the government allows for long-term never disbursed funds for ICT projects. increased international investment and leases or land use rights. The difference volatile commodity markets contribute between the two is blurred by because Agricultural e-extension services. to the scarcity of productive agricultural not all leases are based on market rates Information asymmetries between par- land, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. 20 and land use rights often come with an ticipants in agricultural value chains annual fee. Five of these 8 allow for per- can impede farmers’ access to markets, Secure, transferable tenure enables the petual land rights of some form: Ethiopia, especially in developing countries.11 use of agricultural land as collateral, Mozambique, 26 Myanmar, Lao PDR and Access to information enables farmers to which can increase access to credit and Tajikistan. Of the remaining 3, Vietnam participate in value chains, scale up pro- agricultural investment. 21 Where mar- provides for use rights of up to 50 years duction and increase revenues.12 E-ex- kets operate smoothly, land transfers (or 70 years for larger investments) and tension services can address the infor- (through sale or lease) can operate to Tanzania27 and Zambia both allow use mation deficit farmers face in remote allocate land efficiently. 22 This is critical rights of up to 99 years. Thirty-nine of areas and empower them to engage for skilled farmers seeking to expand and 40 countries allow for land rights to be more in agricultural production and mar- invest in more intensive production and used as collateral for accessing credit. 28 keting. In 22 of the countries studied, for those seeking to exit farming to be In Ethiopia, while holders of perpetual governments provide agricultural e-ex- able to invest the value of their land in use rights cannot mortgage them, those tension services, mainly for market pric- other economic sectors. holding leases to land use rights can es and weather. use them as collateral. In Zambia, too, EBA land indicators measure the rights leaseholders can use their lease rights as of individuals and firms to register, use collateral. Land and transfer agricultural land and the administration of the procedures that First-time registration of informally held Access to agricultural land and the legal give effect to these rights. Security of land rights is important to ensure land and regulatory regimes underpinning tenure 23 and transferability of rights 24 tenure security, particularly in develop- that access are fundamental to economic are important for increasing agricultural ing countries. Thirty-one countries allow EBA TOPICS UNDER DEVELOPMENT 65 individuals to register agricultural land at least one restriction on the sale of land the legal security of water use per- rights for the first time based solely on (minimum size of subdivision, maximum mit systems by examining public open, exclusive and notorious posses- number of hectares, setting minimum notification requirements, permit sion of the land. 29 Six countries in the or maximum prices) and 7 countries duration and compensation for study allow for registration of land use impose at least two of them. And 17 curtailment of rights, the scope of rights after possession for a statutorily countries restrict registration to leases application of the permit system stated period, even though they do not spanning a minimum number of years. that exempts small-scale agricul- recognize private ownership. Of the 40 ture and the system’s efficiency and countries surveyed, 24 allow for the first- sustainability by examining pricing time registration of customary rights Water water as a resource. including 13 of 14 Sub-Saharan African countries. Three countries (Denmark, Access to irrigation water is directly • Decentralized irrigation man- the Kyrgyz Republic and Rwanda) have connected to the success of farmers agement. Decentralized mecha- registered all privately held land plots at and agribusinesses: a sufficient and sta- nisms for the governance of water the immovable property registry, and the ble water supply can lead to larger crop resources and infrastructure, such first-time registration process is no lon- yields and more reliable production pat- as WUAs, can improve system effi- ger applicable. 30 terns. The highest crop yields from irriga- ciencies and allow farms to have a tion are more than twice those from rain- greater role in the decisions affect- Countries adopt different ways of fed agriculture, and the use of irrigation ing their access to water. 34 These addressing first time registrations of land can increase crop yields by 100–400%. 31 data measure the extent to which rights, but the processes can generally Irrigation systems are thus critical to the legal framework enables WUAs be classified as either judicial or admin- meeting the increasing global demand to manage irrigation infrastructure, istrative, depending on which type of for food. 32 by granting them the authority to body does the formalization. Chile has decide on water allocations, set both a judicial and an administrative Access to irrigation water can be con- and collect fees and monitor and process depending on the value of the strained by its depletion and pollution. enforce rules. They also measure land. The cost of first-time registration Insufficient or inappropriate regulation WUA membership restrictions and also follows one of two general regimes can also lead to the mismanagement of whether WUAs are included in —a flat rate or a percentage of the land’s water resources and hamper access to broader decisions on basin planning value. Some countries have both. While irrigation water for both small and large and water resource management. collecting taxes is important, it can dis- agricultural producers. 33 For example, courage the formalization of informal if legal rights surrounding the use of Permits for water use. For commercial rights if it exceeds the actual cost of land water are insecure, agribusinesses could farms of all sizes the security of water registration. reduce or forgo investments because rights affects farmers’ decisions for of concerns that water supplies will be investing, producing crops and locating Land sales and lease markets. Private unreliable or insufficient to meet pro- commercial operations. 35 A water use ownership of land is not a requirement duction targets. Similarly, the absence of permit system either recognizes existing for land markets to operate efficiently. In decentralized governance mechanisms— water use rights or creates new water 39 of 40 countries those who hold rights such as water user associations (WUAs) use rights. Of the countries studied 35 to agricultural land can lease those rights to manage irrigation infrastructure—may have a permit system for both surface to other agricultural producers. For the 8 prevent some farmers from securing water and groundwater use. 36 Only Jor- countries without private land ownership, equitable access to water and limit their dan and the Kyrgyz Republic require the 3 (Myanmar, Lao PDR and Tajikistan) ability to voice grievances and resolve permit system only for groundwater, and allow buying and selling perpetual use water-related disputes. 3 countries have no formal permit sys- rights. In Tanzania, Vietnam and Zambia tem for water use. Such legal gaps could no perpetual rights exist—only long-term EBA water indicators measure the qual- send negative signals to investors and use rights or leases, which can be sub- ity of laws and regulations that affect commercial farms about a higher risk in leased. In Ethiopia perpetual use rights the ability of both small and large com- securing enough water for planned crop exist but cannot be sold, though they can mercial farms to get access to adequate production operations. Almost half the be leased for up to 15 years if the lessee quantities of water at the times and plac- EBA countries (19) have a statutory obli- engages in “mechanized agriculture.” In es needed for crop production, through gation for the authority issuing permits Mozambique the constitution prohibits appropriate irrigation infrastructure and to publicly announce new permit applica- any dispossession of land whether sale, decentralized institutions. tions for both surface water and ground- lease or mortgage. Although private water use, enhancing transparency for property ownership is allowed in Ukraine, • Permits for water use. Effective existing and potential water users on the there has been a moratorium on sales of water use permit systems provide allocation of water resources. The trans- agricultural land since 2004. secure rights to water users and parency of a permit system contributes allow resource managers to ensure to the security of water rights by sharing Governments often restrict the sale and sufficient water supply for future information of interest to water users and lease of land. Nineteen countries impose crop cycles. These data measure reducing the potential for disputes. 66 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 A long duration for water use permits and infrastructure, implementing local trade offers substantial market oppor- can also enhance the security of water participatory management systems, 44 tunities for actors in the livestock value use rights. In EBA countries the dura- mainly through WUAs, which should be chains, including input suppliers. This tion of water use permits varies from 2 supported by a strong legal framework.45 calls for direct support of policymakers years in Burundi to 75 years in Spain. The Five EBA countries have introduced full in designing and implementing regula- average duration is approximately 20 specific legislation on WUAs. Another tions. Laws and regulations addressing years for both surface water and ground- 26 countries have specific provisions the development and conservation of water. Across regions, OECD high-in- for WUAs in their laws and regulations genetic resources, the availability and come countries had the longest average for sectors such as water, irrigation and quality of veterinary medicinal products permit duration, and Sub-Saharan Africa agricultural development. The remaining and the supply of safe feed resources can the shortest. Farmers are more likely to 9 countries have no specific legal recog- ensure production efficiency and create make bigger investments with long dura- nition of WUAs, which are subject to the an environment for high-quality input tion permits. But governments need to general framework for associations or throughout the livestock production pro- balance that incentive with the need to cooperatives. cess. 52 Regulations that encourage the conserve and protect water resources. 37 genetic improvement of livestock breeds Fourteen countries— including Ghana, Among the 31 countries that have spe- that are more efficient at converting feed the Philippines and Turkey— have leg- cific provisions or full legislation on to body mass can increase productivity islation that gives the granting agency WUAs, several features have to do with and reduce feed expenditures, cutting discretion to determine the duration at the establishment and internal organiza- production costs. 53 In this respect, gene the time of issuance. While this gives the tion of WUAs.46 In 16 countries the law banks are important for conserving resource manager flexibility to set permit explicitly permits WUAs to establish, genetic material for current and future durations based on resource planning monitor and enforce their own rules in breeding activities. 54 needs, it could reduce predictability and areas such as water use, fee payment thus increase investment risks for com- and infrastructure maintenance. Also in EBA livestock indicators measure the mercial farms. 16 countries (a different set) the law per- supply, safety and quality of animal pro- mits WUAs to directly collect irrigation duction inputs. Data also focus on the A formal permit requirement, despite fees for infrastructure maintenance; in 12 existence and quality of such infrastruc- its benefits, can impose a large burden of them fees are freely set by the WUA ture as databases, gene banks and test- on smallholder farmers and granting to cover expenses. This legal autonomy ing laboratories. agencies alike. Formal permit require- and cost recovery ensure that WUAs ments are not appropriate for all water have sufficient capacity and powers to • Livestock genetic resources. Reg- users in all contexts. 38 Some countries improve and maintain the infrastructure ulating livestock genetic resources exempt some categories of small-scale that brings water to commercial farms. facilitates breeding by encouraging water users from the obligation to obtain Despite sharing the previously men- farmers to select for specific traits a permit, based on specific thresholds tioned good practices, Spain and Tanza- while ensuring the conservation or defining characteristics, 39 such as the nia exclude leaseholders and other land of local animal breeds. The data volume of water used, land area, intend- users that are not registered owners describe the legislative framework ed water use, means of water extraction from membership. for breed improvement (such as and recognized customary water rights. genetic evaluation), registration Twelve EBA countries have exemptions of new breeds and recognition of that can facilitate water access for small Livestock breeder organizations. Data also commercial farms using surface water cover functioning gene banks (16 for groundwater).40 Livestock production accounts for up to for conserving livestock genetic 40% of global agriculture GDP, trending material. In response to water scarcity concerns toward 50–60%.47 Fueled by a surge in and increasing demand, many countries global demand, livestock production is • Animal disease prevention and impose fees on the use of water resourc- growing faster than any other agricultural veterinary inputs. Prevention and es. An appropriate fee structure is often production.48 Over the last 30 years pop- control of animal diseases and avail- considered to allocate water efficient- ulation growth, urbanization and rising ability of quality livestock medic- ly and promote water conservation, 41 incomes have steadily increased global inal inputs are key to a sustainable though the specific systems vary signifi- consumption of animal protein. For exam- commercial livestock sector. The cantly across countries.42 Twenty-eight ple, global consumption of meat increased data collected cover accessibility to EBA countries allow authorities to charge from 30 kg per capita in 1980 to 40 kg per national databases on livestock dis- permit holders for surface water used capita in 200549 and to 42.9 kg per capita eases and registration of veterinary (29 for groundwater).43 in 2012.50 The fastest growth in produc- medicinal products and veterinary tion and consumption has been in devel- vaccines. Decentralized irrigation manage- oping countries, particularly in Asia.51 ment. In recent decades many coun- • Safety of animal feed resources. tries have taken steps to decentralize Such a steady increase in global live- Safe livestock feed increases animal the governance of water resources stock consumption, production and productivity and improves animal EBA TOPICS UNDER DEVELOPMENT 67 health, thus reducing production Environmental sustainability conservation59 is mainly used for costs for livestock producers and wild species, including CWRs in contributing to the safety of food Mitigating the negative effects of agri- wild habitats.60 of animal origin. The data cover cultural production on natural resources, the regulation of feed resources, such as soil, water and plant resources, • Sustainable use of plant genetic including standards for the pro- is one of the biggest challenges facing resources. These data measure the duction, composition and safety agriculture today. Not only are these regulations that either promote or of feed. They also cover labeling resources required for sustaining pro- inhibit the increased use of genet- requirements for animal feed and duction, but their careful maintenance ically diverse plants, the possibility the accreditation of feed testing is essential for global food production to of commercializing seeds of land- laboratories. match population growth. So regulations races,61 and the rights granted to that facilitate increased agricultural pro- farmers over farm-saved seeds. Livestock genetic resources. Only 23 duction while adhering to environmen- countries regulate breeding activities, tal good practices can enable farmers • Access to plant genetic resourc- and fewer than half have a comprehen- around the world to produce more with- es. These data measure the rules sive breeding law that covers breed out depleting resources. of access applicable to germplasm improvement (genetic evaluation and held publicly by gene banks or by performance testing), new breed regis- As a result of the Green Revolution, plant communities. tration (herd bookkeeping and pedigree genetic diversity has declined among certificate) and recognition of breeding domesticated species since 1960, par- • Regulation of agricultural activi- organizations (registration and accred- ticularly the intraspecies diversity in ties. These data measure whether itation). Of the 40 countries surveyed farmers’ fields and farming systems. The good agricultural practices are pro- only 17 have a gene bank with function- main cause of this genetic erosion is the moted through such laws and reg- ing cryogenic storage capacity. Of the 23 increased use of improved seed variet- ulations as promoting cover crops, countries that do not have a gene bank, ies instead of more genetically diverse siting livestock operations relative 18 are low-income or lower-middle-in- local varieties. 56 But the development of to water sources and creating buf- come countries. Bosnia and Herzegovina, improved seed varieties relies on the use fer zones between agricultural lands Chile, Greece, Jordan and the Russia are of genes found in local varieties and wild and water sources. the only high-income and upper-mid- relatives of domesticated crops. Without dle-income countries without a national the genes from these crop wild relatives • Integrated water resource man- gene bank. (CWRs), many useful traits would not agement. These data measure exist in today’s improved seed varieties. 57 whether water resources are Animal disease prevention and vet- managed in an integrated way at erinary inputs. The cost associated for Water is another natural resource crucial the watershed level or, for trans- submitting an application package for to sustainable agricultural production but boundary water management, registration and market authorization is under increasing pressure from inten- through bilateral or multilateral low in Nepal, at only $2, while in Greece sified agricultural production and the structures. it is high, at $16,500. 55 The time regula- associated pollution.58 By 2030 there will tors take to review such applications and be a deficit of 40% between expected • Monitoring water resources. issue a decision also varies greatly. In the water withdrawals and existing supplies, These data measure the quantity Kyrgyz Republic it takes only 3 days for and this will reach 50% for a third of the and quality of water monitoring for authorities to review a dossier and issue world’s population, mostly in developing both surface and groundwater. Spe- a decision, whereas in West African Eco- countries. Adopting policies and legisla- cifically, the data report on water nomic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) tion that address growing water scarcity resource inventories and water countries it can take up to 400 days and is essential for agriculture, which takes quality standards. in Tanzania 548 days. 85% of water withdrawals in developing countries. Some interesting results were collected Safety of animal feed resources. this year in 29 EBA countries62 to set the While most EBA countries regulate feed EBA environment indicators measure foundation for further indicator develop- resources, coverage of different focus laws and regulations that safeguard the ments next year. areas prescribed by international guide- long-term availability and use of natural lines is limited. Of the 35 countries that resources for agricultural production. Conservation of plant genetic resourc- regulate animal feed resources, only 15 es. All 29 countries have a national plan address all four areas included in the • Conservation of plant genetic for the conservation and sustainable Codex Alimentarius Code of Practice for resources. These data measure use of biological diversity, including Good Animal Feeding, while 33 address the regulations and institutions for plant genetic diversity.63 Among them, at least one of the four areas. Burundi, conserving plant genetic resourc- only 13 have established a national plant Ghana, Lao PDR, Rwanda and Uganda es. Ex situ conservation conserves inventory specifically documenting are the five countries that do not regulate plant genetic resources outside landraces or crop wild relatives of cul- animal feed resources. their natural habitats, while in situ tivated plants. For ex situ conservation, 68 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 all countries studied report having func- Regulation of agricultural activities. address the quality of water for domestic tioning gene banks or collection sys- Regulation or policy guidance on good use rather than for irrigation (the case in tems. But while all EBA countries in East agricultural practices can transform only 11 of those countries). Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central production methods and contribute to a Asia and Latin America and the Carib- more environmentally sustainable agri- bean regions have gene banks set by culture in the long term. Among EBA Gender law, only one-third of the Sub-Saharan countries 10 have laws or policies provid- countries and none of the South Asian ing for a minimum distance of separation Women make up 43% of the global agri- and Middle Eastern and North African between any livestock facility and nearby cultural workforce, with large region- countries do. surface water bodies. Sixteen address al and national variations.69 Yet due to the establishment of buffer zones adja- constraints that prevent them from fully Sustainable use of plant genetic cent to agricultural land to prevent nutri- participating in agricultural value chains, resources. Informal seed systems must ent run-off into surface water bodies. they continue to be unrecognized as be retained alongside formal seed sys- And 15 regulate laws or policies address- farmers, producers and agropreneurs.70 tems, given the significant contribution ing cultivation and irrigation on steeply They have less decision-making power of informal seed systems to genetic sloping soils. Europe and Central Asia is over basic assets, inputs and services, diversity and the ability of both to com- the only region where more than half of including land, livestock, labor, technol- plement each other.64 All countries have the surveyed countries have policies or ogy, education, extension and financial seed laws that focus predominantly laws addressing the use of cover crops.66 services. Due to their remote location on formal seed systems and most are and lack of formal education, they have silent on the production and commer- Integrated water resource manage- less direct access to markets. cialization of landraces. One exception ment. Eighteen surveyed countries have is the European Directive 2008/62 (for laws establishing watershed commis- If women had the same access to pro- the protection of crops threatened by sions, which enable integrated manage- ductive resources as men, they could genetic erosion and adapted to region- ment of the upper and lower parts of a increase yields on their farms by al and local conditions), implemented watershed. 67 All mainland countries 20–30%. That could raise total agricul- by Denmark, Greece and Spain, which surveyed have transboundary water tural output in developing countries and formally establishes specific proce- resources, and all are signatories to reduce the number of hungry people in dures to market landraces. Twenty-one regional or bilateral agreements for their the world by 12–17%.71 Yet recent stud- countries have laws that allow farmers management and use. While most of ies in Africa have shown that, even with to save and use harvested seeds of an the transboundary agreements establish equal access to improved seed and fertil- improved variety. Uganda also allows authorities to address cost and benefit izer, yields of women farmers are lower the exchange of those seeds among sharing, 68 Chile, Denmark and Turkey than those of male farmers. So other farmers. And four countries allow those do not have a separate management factors beyond access can influence seeds to be saved, used, exchanged and authority for such waters. the effectiveness of these resources for sold. women, such as legal restrictions, lack Monitoring water resources. Monitor- of information, social norms, market fail- Access to plant genetic resources. ing surface water and groundwater avail- ures and institutional constraints.72 Breeders and farmers often rely on ability can avoid overexploitation and be genetic material found in other coun- used to develop early warning systems Reforming laws that directly affect wom- tries to develop new varieties, so genetic for shortfalls and to design mitigation en’s capacity to own and manage prop- resources must be shared to sustain food measures. Nineteen EBA countries have erty, conduct business, open accounts production and overcome diseases and laws that require monitoring both the in own names and otherwise use public climate change. Globally 18 countries quality and quantity of surface water institutions and services increases wom- have a law that regulates access to plant and groundwater by a national authori- en’s economic empowerment and par- genetic resources. In Latin America and ty. Most EBA countries (26 of 29) have ticipation in agricultural value chains.73 the Caribbean access is subject to the national inventories for surface water In 155 countries laws treat women dif- issuance of a permit. In 7 EBA countries and 21 for groundwater. In total, 14 coun- ferently from men, and in 100 countries the conditions applicable to the issu- tries (Bangladesh, Colombia, Denmark, women face gender-based job restric- ance of those permits differ for national Ethiopia, Greece, Jordan, Kenya, Mozam- tions.74 In Russia a woman cannot drive and foreign applicants. The Internation- bique, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, a truck carrying agricultural produce—a al Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia) share all constraint relevant to EBA since one of for Food and Agriculture requires its four good practices—laws requiring both the indicators looks at market access members to facilitate access to crops surface water and groundwater monitor- and operations for trucking service com- identified as the most relevant to human ing and national inventories for both sur- panies. Some countries restrict wom- consumption.65 Twenty-two EBA coun- face water and groundwater. Twenty-two en’s ability to be considered a head of tries are signatories, but only Jordan, EBA countries have laws that establish an household, which can prevent them from Kenya, Morocco, Poland, Spain, Tanzania authority to develop water quality stan- getting financial assistance or becom- and Zambia have satisfied this specific dards, and 25 countries legally set these ing part of decision-making bodies, requirement. standards. But the standards typically like water user associations or farmer EBA TOPICS UNDER DEVELOPMENT 69 cooperative boards, two areas measured regulations to operate limit the prod- activities— improving economic devel- by EBA indicators. Not getting finance ucts and services offered by agricultural opment and social welfare.77 prevents women from overcoming the resource and service providers leading to initial costs of entering certain value higher prices, again hurting women more Interesting insights can emerge by ana- chains—the costs can be in money or because they have less capital and fewer lyzing EBA data with other gender spe- time. Not being part of decision-making assets. A lack of input dealers and finan- cific datasets. EBA data supports the bodies means that policymakers may cial services in remote locations can be finding that there is a positive relation- not address women’s specific issues a constraint for many women producers ship between regulations that allow bank and constraints. In some countries laws who want to engage in business activi- agents and mobile money and increased restrict married women’s ability to travel ties but cannot afford to travel to major account ownership among men and outside the home, register a business or cities. women in rural areas (figure 8.1).101 Eas- open a bank account.75 ing market entry and operation require- How can EBA indicators be used to ments for microfinance institutions and Beyond direct legal discrimination some regulate agribusiness inclusively? credit unions could help provide financial rules and regulations can hurt women services to women without access due more because they typically have less EBA indicators address constraints to bank lending policies. And expanding access to information, greater restric- women in agribusiness (table 8.1). Gov- women’s ability to use different types of tions of time and capital and more con- ernments could implement laws and reg- movable goods as collateral, including straints to institutional access.76 High ulations to directly or indirectly enhance warehouse receipts, could increase their costs of market entry and burdensome female participation in economic chances to secure a loan. TABLE 8.1 EBA topic areas focus on constraints relevant to women’s participation in agribusiness EBA TOPIC SPECIFIC CONSTRAINT FOR WOMEN Fewer than 20% of landholders worldwide are women. They often face legal constraints in owning and inheriting land, LAND which often disadvantage them when claiming land after a divorce or the death of a husband or father. In 35 countries the law treats female surviving spouses differently from male spouses.78 Beyond the direct legal discrimination, burdensome and opaque land administration procedures increase the cost and time to register transfers of ownership for both men and women—though this can be more prohibitive for women, who generally have less time and capital. In Ethiopia, Ghana and Rwanda women’s lack of land tenure security could be one reason for the lower productivity of their agricultural plots.79 EBA land indicators aim to improve regulations on tenure security and ease restrictions on land right transfers. Women’s limited access to water for agriculture is linked to their limited access to land and inheritance rights. As a WATER result of insecure land rights, women can be marginalized in water user associations and farmers’ organizations, which often formalize farmer access to water. In many instances restrictions for association membership are based on land ownership, and membership is limited to the head of the household only.80 Such bylaws exclude women since many women do not own land and men are the heads of households. Women can also be barred from decision-making positions within such organizations, based on the same discriminatory restrictions. But it is important for women to be on the boards of user associations and farmers’ organizations since they can inform gender-sensitive water management practices.81 EBA water indicators address the legal frameworks that enable water user associations to make decisions affecting all users of water and irrigation in the country. (continued) 70 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE 8.1 EBA topic areas focus on constraints relevant to women’s participation in agribusiness (continued) EBA TOPIC SPECIFIC CONSTRAINT FOR WOMEN Many countries struggle with low use of agricultural inputs, reducing farmers’ productivity and livelihoods. But women SEED, FERTILIZER face unequal access to inputs due to several factors, including a lack of credit, property ownership and appropriate AND MACHINERY extension services. In other words, gender differences in access to land and credit cause gender differences in access to inputs. Female-headed households are less likely to use fertilizer than male-headed households, with differences ranging from 25 percentage points to 3 percentage points. The same goes for machinery use between men and women, from 20 percentage points to less than 1 percentage point across countries.82 In addition to using fewer inputs, women tend to use lower quality inputs, either due to capital constraints or a lack of information. And women tend to use inputs incorrectly more often than men do. This is partly due to the fact that extension services are tailored to men, and women often receive second-hand information or lack access to extension service providers due to cultural norms.83 Insecure land rights and credit constraints mean that women seldom own the land they farm and generally have smaller plots than men. So they have fewer incentives to use agricultural inputs and technology.84 EBA indicators of inputs measure the market constraints for seed, fertilizer and tractors. Regulations that ease the burden on importers and dealers of these inputs can make them more readily available and affordable in remote regions, and thus more accessible to women farmers. Improving the quality control of fertilizer, seeds and machinery is also key to ensuring that increased input use boosts women’s productivity. It can be easier for women to acquire livestock than land, especially poultry and smaller ruminants.85 Rural women LIVESTOCK account for two-thirds of livestock keepers.86 But empirical evidence, national statistics and data on the role of women in livestock value chains are scarce, making it difficult to draw conclusions on the specific constraints women face in the livestock sector. Women have fewer rights of ownership over livestock and its means of production in Sub- Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa regions. They have more control over animals in Latin America and the Caribbean and East Asia and the Pacific.87 Other gender-specific concerns for women in livestock production or service provision include cultural norms, unequal control over production and access to information on disease prevention.88 EBA livestock indicators measure factors affecting the supply, safety and quality of animal production inputs. They also focus on the existence and quality of specific infrastructure such as gene banks, testing laboratories and databases. The legal framework surrounding animal genetic resources and food security can benefit women livestock keepers. The share of female farmers who have access to credit is, on average, 5 to 10 percentage points lower than for male FINANCE farmers. Women face discriminatory legal provisions or bank practices dictated by cultural norms, which require women to seek the approval of a male guardian before their loan application can be processed. And when credit requires collateral, women are disadvantaged relative to men because they have less land to secure a loan.89 In addition, delivery channels of financial services may inadequately serve women, especially in rural areas.90 EBA finance indicators measure laws and regulations for microfinance institutions, credit unions and branchless banking such as agent banking and electronic money. The indicators account for alternative sources for movable collateral, such as warehouse receipts. All five can help improve financial inclusion and the access women have to financial resources. Transport services and the quality of roads enable those in rural areas to reach markets, purchase inputs and sell TRANSPORT goods. The cost of transport and lack of affordable options can be a particular constraint for women. In addition to their lack of capital to procure these services, the lack of service providers can also increase the time they have to spend working outside the home.91 EBA transport indicators look at constraints on the market access and operation of trucking companies, including servicing demand using foreign-owned trucks. Removing or reducing these constraints could benefit women by reducing costs of transport and increasing the availability of transport services in a country. (continued) EBA TOPICS UNDER DEVELOPMENT 71 TABLE 8.1 EBA topic areas focus on constraints relevant to women’s participation in agribusiness (continued) EBA TOPIC SPECIFIC CONSTRAINT FOR WOMEN The participation of female producers in agricultural value chains depends on many factors.92 Owning sufficiently MARKETS large parcels of land, which women lack, is often a prerequisite to enter contract farming arrangements with buyers. Women make up a minority of participants in contracted production as diverse as barley and sugar in South Africa, tea and horticulture in Kenya, rice, sorghum and sunflower in Uganda and French beans in Senegal.93 With limited access to credit, female producers can also be constrained in their capacity to invest in better inputs and equipment, which in turn affects their ability to upgrade processes and product to meet buyers’ requirements for quantity and quality.94 The benefits of social capital, such participation in farmers’ cooperatives or professional associations range from facilitating access to inputs and equipment to sharing market information and to strengthening links with buyers.95 Women are less likely to participate in farmer-based organizations and female leadership is even rarer.96 Social norms, time constraints and high membership fees may limit women’s willingness and capacity to participate. Reducing the transaction costs of obtaining the documents required for export, such as phytosanitary and quality certificates, can help resource-constrained producers, especially female farmers. Lowering the fees to join professional organizations such as commodity boards or acquire mandatory licenses can also facilitate female producers’ access to social capital and marketing opportunities. And enabling regulations for cooperative creation and growth can help women leverage collective action in agricultural production and marketing. The positive impact of ICTs on farmers’ access to production and marketing information and services—potential ICT and real—is well documented.97 It also raises hope for addressing the information needs of women farmers for new farming practices, crop management, market prices and marketing opportunities.98 But women are less likely than men to own a mobile phone, for example.99 They have less access to ICTs because of illiteracy, cultural attitudes against women’s access to technology and a reluctance to patronize cyber cafés, often owned and visited by men.100 Rural women may also lack access to ICT infrastructure, such as mobile phone networks, outside the main urban centers. EBA ICT indicators investigate licensing regimes and regulations for service provider operations that affect the availability of ICT services in the country—and government strategies and initiatives to increase access and use of ICT services in rural areas. Indicators of e-extension services can help in analyzing the ICT-supported provision of agriculture-relevant information, such as weather forecasts and market prices, for the benefit of both women and men. FIGURE 8.1 More people have bank accounts in countries that allow branchless banking Account at a financial institution, female (% age 15+) Account at a financial institution, male (% age 15+) 63.5 53.9 36.8 29.4 26.8 22.7 23.6 25.0 Agent banking and e-money Agent banking allowed, E-money allowed, agent Agent banking and e-money not allowed e-money not allowed banking not allowed allowed Sources: EBA database; Global Findex Database 2014. 72 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Notes 14. USAID Land Tenure and Resource 30. Doing Business database. Management Office 2013. 1. For information about areas cov- 31. FAO 1996; FAO 2002. ered by the ICT and land indicators 15. Coudouel and Paternostro 2006. during the first year of the EBA proj- 32. FAO 2002; FAO 1996; Schoengold ect please visit the website: http:// 16. Besley 1995. and Zilberman 2007. eba.worldbank.org. 17. Coudouel and Paternostro 2006. 33. Vapnek and others 2009. 2. Ogutu, Okello and Otieno 2014. 18. Committee on World Food Security 34. Alternatively known as irrigation 3. The UN Broadband Commission 2012. associations, user associations, or study of 165 countries between water user organizations, WUAs 2001 and 2012 showed that coun- 19. Knight 2010. may be defined as “nongovernmen- tries with stronger competition had tal organizations that farmers and average broadband penetration 20. Idem. other water users form to manage 1.4% higher for fixed line broadband an irrigation system at the local or and up to 26.5% higher for mobile 21. Feder and Tongroj 1987. regional level (Vapnek and others broadband than noncompetitive 2009). markets (Broadband Commission 22. Deininger 2003. 2013). 35. Ausness 1983. 23. Idem. 4. Under an individual licensing regime 36. Many of these countries undertook every service provider is required to 24. Lerman, Csaki and Feder 2002. reforms in the past 50 years to cre- obtain a separate individual license ate formal permit systems (Van in order to offer a specific service 25. Crabtree-Condor and Casey 2012. Koppen and others 2014). using specific technologies. Exact definitions vary across countries. 26. DUATs obtained through occu- 37. Ausness 1983. Compare also with terminology in pancy are perpetual, while DUATs InfoDev and International Telecom- obtained by grant are limited to 50 38. Van Koppen and others 2014. munication Union 2015a. years. 39. Van Koppen and others 2014. 5. General authorization regimes pro- 27. In Tanzania customary rights of vide greater flexibility than individu- occupancy can be perpetual, though 40. The case study used for purposes al licenses. They are technology and they are customarily administered. of data collection involved a mixed service neutral and providers meet- Granted rights of occupancy are subsistence and commercial farm ing certain minimum requirements limited to 99 years. It should also on a 2 hectare plot, with more than are permitted to offer a wide range be noted that a separate land gov- 30 years of similar use of water. of telecommunication services. ernance regime exists in Zanzibar. 41. ICWE 1992. 6. InfoDev and International Telecom- 28. Land holders in Mozambique are munication Union 2015. prohibited by Article 109 of the 42. Briscoe 1996; Johansson and others Constitution from mortgaging land, 2002; Rogers and others 1998. 7. World Bank 2011. though they can mortgage any improvements to the land. 43. Data on water fees were not collect- 8. Mobile operators typically contrib- ed this year. ute a percentage of their gross reve- 29. When used in this context, “notori- nue to a universal access fund. ous” is a legal term of art. It means 44. Garces-Restrepo and others 2007; that it is well known that the person Groenfeldt 2000; Salman 1997; 9. InfoDev and International Telecom- is in possession of the land. In the Vapnek and others 2009. munication Union 2015; Interna- context of “adverse possession” in tional Telecommunication Union most legal systems the possession 45. Vapnek and others 2009; Hodgson (ITU) 2013. must fulfill five elements: 1. Open 2009. (not hidden) 2. Exclusive (others are 10. Ladcomm Corporation 2013. not also in possession) 3. Notori- 46. Hodgson 2009. ous (well-known) 4. Adverse (con- 11. Ogutu, Okello and Otieno 2014. trary to the legal interests of a third 47. Steinfeld and others 2006. party) 5. For a statutorily stated 12. Qiang and others 2011. duration of time. Here, because the 48. IAASTD 2009. land does not belong to a third party 13. Cotula, Quan and Toulmin 2006. the 4th element is dropped. 49. FAO 2009a. EBA TOPICS UNDER DEVELOPMENT 73 50. FAO 2015. Lanka; Sub-Saharan Africa— Burkina 78. Women, Business and the Law Faso, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethio- database. 51. Thornton 2010. pia, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Mozam- bique, Niger, Tanzania, Uganda, 79. World Bank and ONE 2014. 52. FAO 2010a. Zambia. 80. FAO 2002. 53. Lamb and others 2013. 63. All 29 countries are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 81. Idem. 54. FAO 2012a, 2012b. (CBD) and have adopted a National Biodiversity Strategy Plan (NBSAP). 82. World Bank 2011a. 55. The World Organization for Animal The CBD reports that most CBD Health (OIE) requires that countries member countries (94%) have 83. World Bank and ONE 2014. provide information on animal dis- adopted such plans; https://www eases, but this is only for notifiable .cbd.int/nbsap/. 84. World Bank 2011a. diseases. 64. Louwaars, de Boef and Edeme 2013. 85. Njuki and Miller 2012. 56. FAO 1997. 65. The International Treaty on Plant 86. FAO 2012c. 57. Louwaars and de Boef 2012. Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture facilitates the exchange 87. See “Women Livestock Managers in 58. Resulting among others from the and conservation of plant genetic the Third World: a focus on techni- over-application of chemical or materials, as well as the fair sharing cal knowledge” at http://www.ifad organic fertilizers. of benefits from their use. To ensure .org /gender/thematic/livestock easy access to those crops that are /live_ap2.htm. 59. FAO 2009b. most relevant to human consump- tion, it created the Multilateral 88. FAO 2012c. 60. In-situ conservation also includes System (MLS) of Access and Ben- the conservation of traditional and efit Sharing for seeds. Appendix 1 of 89. Quisumbing and others 2014. locally adapted varieties of crops the ITPGRFA identifies the priority on farm (referred to as on-farm crops that are important for food 90. Dermish and others 2011 conservation). security and on which countries are interdependent (FAO 2009b). 91. World Bank 2011a. 61. Landraces and crop wild relatives are generally genetically diverse and 66. FAO 2010b. 92. Rubin and Manfre 2014. therefore are important for plant genetic resources for food and agri- 67. FAO 2007. 93. Idem. culture. Landraces are domesticated plants that have developed unique 68. UN-Water 2008. 94. Idem. characteristics through repeated in situ grower selection and thus 69. FAOSTAT database. 95. Meinzen-Dick and others 2014. are often closely associated with a specific geographical location and 70. World Bank 2011a. 96. Idem. traditional farming systems. Crop wild relatives are undomesticated 71. FAO 2011. 97. World Bank 2011b. species that are closely related to crops and whose traits are of poten- 72. World Bank and ONE 2014. 98. World Bank 2015b. tial benefit for crop improvement (Maxted and others 2013). 73. FAO 2011; Quisumbing and others 99. Quisumbing and others 2014. 2014; World Bank 2007. 62. The EBA country sample for envi- 100. World Bank 2011b. ronmental sustainability includes 74. For the latest data, see: http://wbl the following 29 countries: East Asia .worldbank.org. 101. Allen and others 2012. and the Pacific— Cambodia, Lao PDR, the Philippines, Vietnam; Europe and 75. World Bank 2015a. Central Asia — Denmark, Greece, References Poland, Russia, Spain, Turkey; Latin 76. Simavi, Maul and Blackden 2010. America and the Caribbean —Bolivia, Allen, F., A. Demirgüç-Kunt, L. Klapper Chile, Colombia; Middle East and 77. World Development Report 2012; and M. S. Martinez Peria. 2012. North Africa —Jordan, Morocco; World Bank 2011; World Bank and “Foundations of Financial Inclusion.” South Asia— Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri ONE 2014. Policy Research Working Paper 74 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 6290, World Bank, Washington, Rome Declaration on World Food Garces-Restrepo, C., G. Muñoz and D. DC. Security. Rome: FAO. Vermillion. 2007. “Irrigation Man- agement Transfer: Worldwide Ausness, R. 1983. “Water Rights Leg- ———. 1997. The State of the World’s Plant efforts and results.” Water Report islation in the East: A Program for Genetic Resources for Food and Agri- 32, FAO, Rome. Reform.” William & Mary Law Review culture. Rome: FAO. 24: 547–90. Groenfeldt, D. 2000. “A Global Consen- ———. 2002. Crops and Drops: Making sus on Participatory Irrigation Man- Besley, T. 1995. “Property Rights and the Best Use of Water for Agriculture. agement.” In Case Studies in Partic- Investment Incentives: Theory and Rome: FAO. ipatory Irrigation Management, eds., Evidence from Ghana.” Journal of David Groenfeldt and Mark Svend- Political Economy, 103 (5): 903–37. ———. 2007. Why Invest in Watershed sen. Washington, DC: World Bank. Management? Rome: FAO. Briscoe, J. 1996. “Water as an Economic Hodgson, S. 2009. “Creating legal space Good: The Idea and What It Means ———. 2009a. The State of Food and Agri- for water user organizations: trans- in Practice.” Proceedings of the Six- culture 2009: Livestock in the Balance. parency, governance and the law.” teenth Congress of the International Rome: FAO. Legislative Study 100, FAO, Rome. Commission on Irrigation and Drain- age, Cairo: 177–201. ———. 2009b. International Treaty  on IAASTD (International Assessment of Plant Genetic Resources for  Food Agricultural Knowledge, Science Broadband Commission. 2013.  The State and Agriculture (ITPGRFA): 2; 45–6. and Technology for Development). of Broadband 2013: Universalizing Rome: FAO. 2009. “Agriculture at a Crossroads.” Broadband. Annual Report. Broad- Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: band Commission: Geneva. ———. 2010a. Livestock Sector Policies and IAASTD. Programs in Developing Countries: A Committee on World Food Security. 2012. Menu for Practitioners. Rome: FAO. ICWE (International Conference on Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsi- Water and the Environment). 1992. ble Governance of Tenure of Land, Fish- ———. 2010b. “Green Manure/Cover Dublin Statement on Water and Sus- eries, and Forests. Rome: FAO. Crops and Crop Rotation in Conser- tainable Development. Dublin: ICWE. vation Agriculture on Small Farms.” Cotula, L., J. Quan and C. Toulmin. Integrated Crop Management InfoDev and International Telecommu- 2006.  “Better Land Access for the 12–2010. Rome: FAO. nication Union. 2015. ICT Regulato- Rural Poor Lessons from Experience ry Toolkit. Available at: http://www and Challenges Ahead.” Paper pre- ———. 2011. The State of Food and Agricul- .ictregulationtoolkit.org. sented at the conference “Agrarian ture 2010–11: Women in Agriculture: Reform and Rural Development,” Closing the Gender Gap for Develop- ITU (International Telecommunication Porto Alegre, Brazil, March 7–10. ment. Rome: FAO. Union). 2013. “Universal Service Fund and Digital Inclusion for All Coudouel, A., and S. Paternostro. 2006. ———. 2012a. “Cryoconservation of Ani- Study.” Universal Service Fund Study Analyzing the Distributional Impact mal Genetic Resources.” Animal June 2013, ITU, Geneva. of Reforms. Washington, DC: World Production and Health Guidelines Bank. 12. Rome: FAO. Johansson, R. C., Y. Tsur, T. L. Roe, R. Doukkali and A. Dinar. 2002. “Pric- Crabtree-Condor, I., and L. Casey. 2012. ———. 2012b. Conservation and Sustain- ing Irrigation Water: A Review of Lay of the Land. ActionAid Interna- able Use under the International Trea- Theory and Practice.” Water Policy 4: tional: Johannesburg. ty. Rome: FAO. 173–99. Deininger, K. 2003. “Land Policies for ———. 2012c. Passport to Mainstreaming Knight, R. 2010.  “Statutory Recognition Growth and Poverty Reduction.” Gender in Water Programmes: Key of Customary Land Rights in Afri- Policy Research Report, World Bank, Questions for Interventions in the Agri- ca.” Legislative Study 105, FAO Legal Washington, DC. cultural Sector. Rome: FAO. Office, Rome. Dermish, A., C. Kneiding, P. Leishman and ———. 2015. “Meat Consumption.” Rome. Ladcomm Corporation. 2013. “Universal I. Mas. 2011. “Branchless and Mobile http://www.fao.org /ag /againfo Service Fund Study.” Prepared for Banking Solutions for the Poor: A /themes/en/meat/background.html. GSMA by Ladcomm Corporation: Survey of the Literature.” Innovations 237–8. 6 (4). Feder, G., and T. Onchan. 1987. “Land Ownership Security and Farm Invest- Lamb, C. G., T. E. Black, K. M. Bischoff FAO (Food and Agriculture Organiza- ment in Thailand.” American Journal of and V. R.G. Mercadante. 2013. “The tion). 1996. World Food Summit: Agricultural Economics 69 (2): 311–20. Importance of Feed Efficiency in the EBA TOPICS UNDER DEVELOPMENT 75 Cow Herd.” University of Florida— for Agriculture and Rural Develop- UN-Water. 2008. “Transboundary Waters: North Florida Research and Educa- ment.” ICT Sector Unit, World Bank, Sharing Benefits, Sharing Respon- tion Center, Marianna, FL, 106–7. Washington, DC. sibilities.” Thematic Paper. Zarago- za, Spain: United Nations Office to Lerman, Z., C. Csaki and G. Feder. 2002. Quisumbing, A. R., R. Meinzen-Dick, T. Support the International Decade for “Land Policies and Evolving Farm L. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. Beh- Action ‘Water for Life’ 2005–2015. Structures in Transition Countries.” ram and A. Peterman. 2014. Gender Policy Research Working Paper, in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge USAID Land Tenure and Resource Man- World Bank, Washington, DC. Gap. Springer Netherlands. agement Office. 2013. “Property Rights and Resource Governance Louwaars, N. P. and W. S. de Boef. 2012. Rogers, P., R. Bhatia and A. Huber. 1998. Country Profile: Ghana.” USAID “Integrated Seed Sector Devel- “Water as a Social and Economic Country Profile. Washington, DC: opment in Africa: A Conceptual Good: How to Put the Principle into USAID. Framework for Creating Coherence Practice.” Technical Advisory Com- Between Practices, Programs and mittee Background Paper 2, Global Van Koppen, B., P. van der Zaag, E. Policies.” Journal of Crop Improvement Water Partnership, Stockholm. Manzungu and B. Tapela. 2014. 26 (2012): 48. “Roman Water Law in Rural Africa: Rubin, D., and C. Manfre. 2014. “Promot- The Unfinished Business of Colonial Maxted, N., J. M. Brehm and S. Kell. ing Gender-Equitable Agricultural Dispossession.” Water International 2013. Resource Book for Preparation Value Chains: Issues, Opportunities 39 (1): 49–62. of National Plans for Conservation and Next Steps.” In Gender in Agri- of Crop Wild Relatives and Landrac- culture, Closing the Knowledge Gap, Vapnek, J., B. Aylward, C. Popp and J. Bar- es. Birmingham, UK: University of eds., Agnes R. Quisumbing, Ruth tram. 2009. “Law for Water Man- Birmingham. Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André agement: A Guide to Concepts and Croppenstedt, Julia Behram and Effective Approaches.” Legislative Meinzen-Dick, R., J.A. Behrman, L. Pandol- Amber Peterman, 287–313. Study 101, FAO, Rome. felli, A. Peterman and A. Quisumbing. 2014. “Gender and Social Capital for Salman, S. M.A. 1997. “The Legal Frame- World Bank. 2007. World Development Agricultural Development.” In Gender work for Water Users’ Associations: Report 2008: Agriculture for Develop- in Agriculture, Closing the Knowledge A Comparative Study.” World Bank ment. Washington, DC: World Bank. Gap, eds., Agnes R. Quisumbing, Technical Paper 360, Washington, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, DC, World Bank. ———. 2011a. World Development Report André Croppenstedt, Julia Behram 2012: Gender Equality and Develop- and Amber Peterman. Schoengold, K., and D. Zilberman. 2007. ment. Washington, DC: World Bank. “The Economics of Water, Irrigation, Njuki, J., and B. Miller. 2012. “Livestock and Development.” In Handbook of ———. 2011b. ICT in Agriculture: Connecting and Gender; Achieving Pover- Agricultural Economics 3, eds., Robert Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks, ty Alleviation and Food Security Evenson and Prabhu Pingali. and Institutions. E- Sourcebook. Report Through Livestock Policies that Ben- Number 64605. Washington, DC: efit Women.” GALVmed Economic Simavi, S., C. Manuel and M. Blackden. World Bank. Paper, University of London Royal 2010. Gender Dimensions of Invest- Veterinary College, London. ment Climate Reform. Washington, ———. 2015a. Women, Business and the Law DC: World Bank. 2016. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ogutu, S. O., J. J. Okello and D. J. Otieno. 2014. “Impact of Information and Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. ———. 2015b. Supporting Women Agro- Communication Technology-based Castel, M. Rosales and C. de Haan. Enterprises in Africa with ICT. A Fea- Market Information Services on 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Envi- sibility Study in Zambia and Kenya. Smallholder Farm Input Use and ronmental Issues and Options. Rome: Report 93077-AFR. Washington, Productivity: The Case of Kenya.” FAO. DC: World Bank. World Development 64 (December 2014): 311–21. Thornton, P. 2010. “Livestock Production: World Bank and ONE. 2014. Levelling Recent Trends and Future Pros- the Field: Improving Opportunities for Qiang, C. Z., S. C. Kuek, A. Dymond and S. pects.” Philosophical Transactions of Women Farmers in Africa. Washing- Esselaar. 2011. “Mobile Applications the Royal Society B 365 (1554) ton, DC: World Bank. 76 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 APPENDIX A METHODOLOGY Enabling the Business of Agriculture mea- established by the relevant laws and products, as well as importing fer- sures regulations that can improve mar- regulations. Topics cover the following tilizer and tractors (given the lack of ket access for producers, providing data cross-cutting categories. production in many countries) and and analysis that allow policymakers to cross-border transport rights; compare their country’s policies, regu- • Operations measures the require- lations and market conditions with those ments for local companies to enter Similar to the topic scores, each country of others. Data covers 40 countries in the market (such as the registration has also a score for each cross-cutting the following 11 areas: seed, fertilizer, of seeds and fertilizer products, category, averaging their scores in the machinery, finance, markets, transport, licensing of trucking companies or specific indicators belonging to that cat- land, information and communication requirements to start a MFI) and egory (table A.1). technology (ICT), water, livestock and develop their respective agribusi- environmental sustainability. Six of the ness activities (such as the rules topics were chosen for scoring and governing operations of producers Time and motion indicators are presented below. The other 5 will and farmers organizations, activ- go through further refinement and be ities allowed for agent banking or Time and motion data refer to the effi- scored next year. freight allocation for transportation ciency of the regulatory system —for of agricultural products); example, the number of procedures The data for all sets of indicators pre- and the time and cost to complete a sented are current as of March 31, 2015. • Quality control focuses on reg- process such as certifying seed for sale ulations governing plant protec- in the domestic market. Data of this The report team welcomes feedback on tion, safety standards for users of type are built on legal requirements the methodology. All the data and sourc- machinery or quality control for and cost measures are backed by offi- es are publicly available at http://eba seeds and fertilizer products. cial fee schedules when available. Time .worldbank.org. estimates often involve an element of • Trade looks into the trade restric- judgment by respondents who routine- tions for exporting agricultural ly administer the relevant regulations or Legal indicators Legal indicators emerge from a reading of the laws and regulations. In this case, the team identified good regulatory prac- Country assumptions and characteristics tices for each topic area. The individual questions are assigned numerical scores Region and income group ranging from 0 to 1 (see topic notes below for details). For each indicator Enabling the Business of Agriculture uses the World Bank regional and developed, the scores of individual ques- income group classifications, available at http://data.worldbank.org tions are averaged and multiplied by 100, /about/country-and-lending-groups. While the World Bank does resulting in a final score ranging from 0 not assign regional classifications to high-income countries, regional to 100. The scores of the different indi- averages presented in figures and tables in the report include countries cators within one topic are also averaged from all income groups. For the report, high-income OECD countries are into a topic score (0–100). assigned the “regional” classification as OECD high income. Most of the EBA topics constitute an Gross national Income (GNI) per capita individual per se market; the key actors in those markets are governed by a set of Enabling the Business of Agriculture 2016 uses 2014 income per capita rules that facilitate or hinder their busi- as published in the World Bank’s World Development Indicators 2015. ness activities as they affect their market Income is calculated using the Atlas method (current U.S. dollars). For entry and operations both locally and cost indicators expressed as percentage of income per capita, 2014 gross internationally. At the same time, those national income (GNI) in U.S. dollars us used as the denominator. key actors need to respect the neces- sary safety standards and quality con- trol in a sector as sensitive as agriculture APPENDIX A 77 TABLE A.1 Legal indicators per topic and cross-cutting category OPERATIONS QUALITY CONTROL TRADE Seed registration (0–100) SEED SCORE SEED Seed development and (0–100) certification (0–100) Fertilizer Import requirements FERTILIZER FERTILIZER Fertilizer registration (0–100) Fertilizer quality control (0–100) (0–100) SCORE (0–100) Tractor dealer requirements Tractor standards and safety Tractor import requirements MACHINERY MACHINERY (0–100) (0–100) (0–100) SCORE (0–100) Microfinance institutions (0–100) Credit unions (0–100) FINANCE SCORE FINANCE Agent banking (0–100) (0–100) E-money (0–100) Warehouse receipts (0–100) MARKETS SCORE MARKETS Production and sales (0–100) Plant protection (0–100) (0–100) Cross-border transportation TRANSPORT TRANSPORT Truck licenses (0–100) (0–100) SCORE (0–100) OPERATIONS SCORE QUALITY CONTROL SCORE TRADE SCORE (0–100) (0–100) (0–100) undertake the relevant transactions. To The time to complete these steps is ver- on defining procedures, time and cost construct the time estimates for a par- ified with expert respondents—through estimates is described in the following ticular regulatory process, such as com- conference calls, written correspon- pages. Time and motion indicators are pleting the requirements to import fer- dence and visits by the team — until presented and analyzed in the report, tilizer, the process is broken down into there is convergence on a final answer. but are not assigned a particular score clearly defined steps and procedures. The specific rules followed by each topic (table A.2). The reason is that some TABLE A.2 Time and motion indicators per topic and cross-cutting category OPERATIONS QUALITY CONTROL TRADE Seed registration: SEED procedures, time and cost Fertilizer registration: procedures, time and Fertilizer import requirements: FERTILIZER cost cost of import permit and importer registration for importers of fertilizer Tractor import requirements: MACHINERY cost of import permit and importer registration for importers of tractors FINANCE Agricultural exports: documents, time and cost MARKETS (per shipment) Truck licenses: TRANSPORT time, cost and validity of company licenses, truck permits and vehicle inspections 78 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 processes follow good practices, such individual good practices have been sin- The methodology on time and motion as the tests for evaluating and register- gled out and scored under the legal indi- indicators will be further developed next ing new seed varieties and the technical cators. Since the time for taking the tests year. review by a variety release committee, depends not only on regulations but also while others may be redundant, such on the country’s cropping seasons, it The following assumptions and defini- as an additional formal approval by a would be unfair to penalize countries for tions were used to make the data com- minister after the technical review. The their specific geographical conditions. parable across countries. 79 APPENDIX B TOPIC DATA NOTES Seed evaluation and registration process are days). A registration process is consid- made. ered completed once the new variety EBA seed indicators seek to identify the has been released and commercial pro- obstacles affecting the timely intro- Assumptions for evaluation and registration duction can start. Any tests performed duction and production of high-quality of new maize varieties by the company prior to filling an appli- seed from formal sources, by examining cation are not counted. It is assumed availability of initial seed classes, require- The variety: that the company’s owners, managers ments for the evaluation and registration or employees have had no prior contact of new varieties and seed quality control • Is a maize variety that has been with any of the officials. requirements. developed by the private sector. In most countries, a new variety must Two sets of indicators have been • Is being registered for the first time pass standard tests in order to be developed: in the entire country. released. Those tests are needed to evaluate the variety’s distinctiveness, • Seed registration. • Has not been registered in any other uniformity and stability (DUS tests) and country. its value for cultivation and use (VCU • Seed development and certification. tests). The time required by law to per- • In exceptional cases when maize form these tests is often based on the Seed indicators have four main types varieties are not being developed number of cropping seasons required of respondents: (i) seed producers and by the private sector in the country, to test different aspects fully. This pres- companies, (ii) seed associations, (iii) is an imported maize variety, which ents a methodological challenge in how relevant government authorities (such may have been previously regis- the time is accounted and compared as a ministry of agriculture seed author- tered elsewhere. because countries can have one or two ity) and (iv) academia. In addition, local cropping seasons per calendar year and international technical experts from Procedures depending on their geography. In addi- donor-funded seed programs and non- tion, a cropping season in a country with governmental organizations were also A procedure is defined as any interaction one season per calendar year tends to consulted. Data were collected through of the seed company’s owner, manag- last longer than one in a country with interviews conducted during country vis- er, or employees with external parties, two seasons per year (estimated to 135 its directly with respondents as well as including any relevant government agen- days in countries with one season and by email and teleconference calls from cies, lawyers, committees, public and 182 days in countries with two seasons). Washington, DC. private inspectors and technical experts. So the time needed for the tests differs All procedures that are legally or in prac- by climate. Responses from respondents were cross- tice required for the seed company to checked by reading the applicable laws register a new seed variety are count- The time for tests requiring a specified and regulations to the extent that these ed. Procedures are consecutive but can number of cropping seasons is measured were available. Secondary research was be simultaneous, such as the tests that in the following way: also performed when necessary, such as need to be performed to evaluate the the verification of information via recent- new variety. Countries with two cropping seasons per ly published literature and online search- calendar year (two testing seasons per es. In addition to the initial consultations Time year): with seed experts, the team received technical contributions on the methodol- Time is recorded in calendar days and • If one season is required by law ogy, data selection and the interpretation captures the median duration neces- to perform the tests, 135 days are of the regulations from Joseph Cortes sary to complete each procedure. It counted for the testing procedure.1 and Adelaida Harries. Lloyd Le Page also is assumed that the minimum time provided technical expertise on the indi- required for each procedure is one day. • If two seasons are required by law cator methodology. Although procedures such as testing to perform the tests, 275 days are may take place simultaneously, they can- counted. This accounts for the 2 To make the data comparable across not start on the same day (that is, simul- seasons of 135 days each and 5 countries, several assumptions about the taneous procedures start on consecutive days to account for the time needed 80 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 to plow and prepare the land before certified seed. Basic or foundation seed UPOV is the International Union for the the next cropping season (135 + 5 + must conform to the appropriate con- Protection of New Varieties of Plants, an 135 days) ditions in the regulations and the fulfill- intergovernmental organization based ment of these conditions must be con- in Geneva, Switzerland. Its mission is to • If three seasons are required by law firmed by an official examination. provide and promote an effective system to perform the test, 500 days are of plant variety protection, with the aim counted. This accounts for a full cal- Breeder/pre-basic seed is directly con- of encouraging the development of new endar year including two seasons trolled by the originating or sponsor plant varieties of plants for the benefit of soci- (365 days) and an additional testing breeding institution, firm or individual, ety. To be a member, the law of a coun- season (135 days). and is the source for the production of try must conform to the standards of the seed of certified classes. 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention. The Countries with one cropping season per country can also have an observer status calendar year (one testing season per Distinctiveness, Uniformity and Stability after having officially expressed an inter- year): (DUS) testing is a test performed to com- est in becoming a member of UPOV and pare candidate varieties for registration participating in the sessions of the Coun- • If one season is required by law to with varieties already listed in seed reg- cil. To date, 71 countries have a member perform the tests, 182 days are ister on these qualities: status and 57 countries, an observer counted for the testing procedure. 2 status. • Distinctness (UPOV definition): A • If two seasons are required by law variety shall be deemed distinct if it Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) is a by law to perform the tests, 547 is clearly distinguishable in at least test performed to assess whether a vari- days are counted. This accounts for one character from any other vari- ety has characteristics and properties the full calendar year including one ety whose existence is a matter of that affect improvement in cultivation season (365 days) and an addition- common knowledge at the time of or in the utilization of the harvest or its al testing season (182 days). filing the application for registration. products in comparison to the existing listed varieties. • If three seasons are required by law • Uniformity (UPOV definition): A to perform the test, 912 days are variety shall be deemed to be uni- Variety (UPOV definition) is a plant counted. This accounts for two full form if, subject to the variation that grouping within a single botanical taxon calendar years including one season may be expected from the particu- of the lowest known rank, which, irre- (365 + 365 days) and an additional lar features of its propagation, it is spective of whether the conditions for testing season (182 days). sufficiently uniform in its relevant the grant of a breeder’s right are fully characteristics. met, can be: Costs • Stability (UPOV definition): A vari- • Defined by the expression of the Only official costs are recorded, includ- ety shall be deemed stable if its characteristics resulting from a ing fees and taxes. In the absence of fee relevant characteristics remain given genotype or combination of schedules, a government officer’s esti- unchanged after repeated propaga- genotypes. mate is taken as an official source. In the tion by the method that is normally absence of a government officer’s esti- used for the particular variety. • Distinguished from any other plant mate, estimates by seed companies are grouping by the expression of at used. If several seed companies provide Seed certification (OECD definition) is the least one of the said characteristics. different estimates, the median reported quality assurance process during which value is applied. Professional fees (nota- seed intended for domestic or interna- • Considered as a unit with regard to ries, lawyers or accountants) are only tional markets is controlled and inspect- its suitability for being propagated included if the company is required to ed by official sources to guarantee con- unchanged. use such services. All costs are indicated sistent high quality for consumers. This in U.S. dollars and as a percentage of the process involves: (i) controlling the seed Variety catalog is a list of varieties that country’s income per capita. in previous generations, (ii) conducting have been registered and released by a field inspections during the multiplica- national authority and can be produced Specific terms tion process to ensure there is little con- and marketed in a country or region as tamination and that the variety is true to certified seed. Basic/foundation seed has been produced type, (iii) growing samples of the known under the responsibility of the maintain- seed in control plots to ensure that the Variety release committee is the commit- er according to the generally accepted progeny is conform to the characteristics tee that decides whether a new variety practices for the maintenance of the vari- of the variety and (iv) testing the seed can be registered and introduced on the ety and is intended for the production of quality in laboratories. domestic market. APPENDIX B 81 TABLE B.1 Scoring methodology for seed INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Seed registration This indicator looks at 1. The law establishes a variety release A score of 1 if yes (operations) the legally mandated committee (VRC) in the country processes and 2. The composition of the legally A score of 1 if private and public sectors are practices required to mandated variety release committee equally represented (or if majority of private sector introduce a locally includes the private sector members) developed new A score of 0.75 if private sector representation maize variety into the between ½ and ¼ domestic market A score of 0.5 if private sector representation between ¼ and 1/8 A score of 0.25 if private sector representation between 1/8 and 0 A score of 0 if no private sector representation or no variety release committee 3. The variety release committee A score of 1 if the VRC meets on demand, or at (VRC) meets regularly in practice least twice a year in a country with 2 crop seasons or at least once a year in a country with 1 crop season A score of 0 if the VRC meets once a year in a country with 2 crop seasons or less than once a year in a country with 1 crop season, or if the VRC does not exist or meet at all 4. A variety can be commercialized A score of 1 if yes. immediately after the This question has double weight (2/8) with regard to recommendation of the VRC the other questions of this indicator ( 1/8) 5. The country has a variety catalog A score of 1 if yes. listing new varieties and if it is A score of 1/2 if a variety catalog exists but it is not available online available online 6. The catalog specifies agro-ecological A score of 1 if yes zones suitable for plantation of each listed variety 7. The variety catalog is updated A score of 1 if the catalog is updated twice or more frequently a year if the country has 2 crop seasons, or if the catalog is updated once a year if there is one crop season A score of 1/2 if the catalog is updated once a year if the country has 2 crop seasons. A score of 0 if the catalog is updated less than once a year irrespective of the number of crop seasons 8. Total procedures to evaluate and Not scored register a new variety 9. Total time to evaluate and register a new variety 10. Total cost to evaluate and register a new variety (continued) 82 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.1 Scoring methodology for seed (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Seed This indicator 1. The country currently implements A score of 1 if yes development measures the legal regulation governing plant breeders’ and certification requirements for the rights (operations) production of initial 2. Private enterprises are eligible to seed classes and the produce breeder/pre-basic seed of certification of new local public varieties for use in the varieties domestic market 3. Private enterprises are eligible to produce foundation/basic seed of local public varieties for use in the domestic market 4. Private sector can access germplasm from the national gene bank 5. Materials for research and development of new varieties can be imported without further government field testing 6. There is an established system for licensing public varieties to private seed enterprises for production and sale in the domestic market 7. The regulations allow for a private A score of 1 if yes. For countries that do not allow institution or seed companies this practice, this question is not counted when to be accredited to carry out the aggregating the indicator scores (bonus point) certification process 8. There is an official fee schedule A score of 1 if yes established for seed certification activities carried out by the public sector APPENDIX B 83 Fertilizer estate with special import or export only included if the company is required privileges. to use such services. All costs are indi- EBA fertilizer indicators measure laws cated in U.S. dollars and as a percentage and regulations on the registration, The destination port for importation of of the country’s income per capita. import and quality assurance of fertil- fertilizers is the most used port in the izer products. The indicators focus on country. If the country is landlocked, it Specific terms areas that are important for companies is assumed that the most used border who want to import and sell fertilizer in posts are employed. Blend is any combination or mixture of a country. fertilizer products. The fertilizer: Three sets of indicators have been Fertilizer form is the form in which the developed: • Is a new chemical fertilizer product fertilizer is presented, for example, liq- that has not previously been regis- uid, granules, powder, spikes, tablets or • Fertilizer registration. tered in the country. pellets. • Fertilizer quality control. Procedures Fertilizer product is any product contain- ing nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, or • Fertilizer import requirements. A procedure is defined as any interac- any recognized plant nutrient element or tion of the company’s owners, managers compound that is used for its plant nutri- Fertilizer indicators have three main types or employees with external parties, for ent content. of respondents: (i) fertilizer companies, example, government agencies, law- (ii) relevant government authorities (for yers, auditors, notaries and customs or Fertilizer types are as follows: example, the ministry of agriculture) and border authorities. It includes all proce- (iii) agricultural input dealer associations. dures that are officially required for the • NPK is composed of three main The questionnaire targets all three groups business to legally perform its described elements: Nitrogen (N), Phospho- of respondents, whereby the time and activities, such as registering and import- rus (P) and Potassium (K), each motion component is typically answered ing fertilizer. Interactions among owners, of these being essential in plant by the private sector. Data were collect- managers and employees are not count- nutrition. ed through interviews conducted during ed as procedures. country visits directly with respondents • Urea is a form of nitrogen fertilizer and also by email and teleconference Time with an NPK (nitrogen-phospho- calls from Washington, DC. rus-potassium) ratio of 46–0-0. Time is recorded in calendar days and To make the data comparable across captures the median duration of each • DAP, diammonium phosphate, is countries, several assumptions about the procedure. The time span for each pro- the world’s most widely used phos- fertilizer company and the fertilizer prod- cedure starts with the first filing of the phorus (P) fertilizer. uct are used, as detailed below: application or demand and ends once the company has received the final doc- • MAP (Monoammonium phosphate). Assumptions about the business and regis- ument, such as the fertilizer registration tered fertilizer certificate. It is assumed that the com- • MOP, Muriate of Potash, is the most pany’s owners, managers or employees common form of potash. The business: have had no prior contact with any of the officials. • Potash or fertilizer potassium (K), • Is a fertilizer importer. sometimes called “potash.” Costs • Imports fertilizer to sell in the • Ammonium Nitrate is a salt of country. Only official costs required by law are ammonia and nitric acid that is recorded, including fees and taxes. If widely used in fertilizers. The sub- • Has registered at least one new fer- possible, the relevant fee schedule or stance can be used in explosive tilizer product in the country. calculation formula should be indicat- compounds, which is why many ed (for example, as a percentage of the countries have imposed specific • Does not operate in an export company’s capital). Professional fees regulations for its transport, storage processing zone or an industrial (notaries, lawyers or accountants) are and handling. 84 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.2 Scoring methodology for fertilizer INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Fertilizer As many countries 1. The private sector is required to A score of 1 if yes registration require fertilizer to register fertilizer (operations) be registered before they can be sold 1a. The registration is not limited to a A score of 1 if yes commercially, this specific time period or re-application indicator measures is not needed required procedures for 1b. If registration is limited to a specific A score of 0.75 if equal to or greater than 10 years fertilizer registration time period, the following scores are A score of 0.5 if greater than or equal to 5 years, assigned and less than 10 years A score of 0.25 if greater than or equal to 2 years and less than 5 years A score of 0 if less than 2 years 1c. The renovation of application is A score of 1 if yes, or if the renovation is not automatic required 2. There is an official fertilizer catalogue A score of 1 if yes listing all registered fertilizer 3. The catalogue is accessible online A score of 1 if yes 4. Total number of procedures legally Not scored required to register a new fertilizer product 5. Total time to register a new fertilizer Not scored product 6. Total cost to register a new fertilizer Not scored product (continued) APPENDIX B 85 TABLE B.2 Scoring methodology for fertilizer (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Fertilizer quality This indicator 1. The fertilizer law requires labeling of A score of 1 if yes control (quality focuses on labeling fertilizer containers (bags, bottles) control) requirements, legislation on the sale 1a. The following scores are assigned A score of 1/3 is assigned to each of the following of mislabeled and open with regard to the label content elements: fertilizer containers, • Brand name and practices in • Net weight or volume monitoring fertilizer • Content description quality 2. The fertilizer law prohibits the sale of A score of 1 if yes mislabeled fertilizer bags 2a. The fertilizer law establishes a A score of 1 if yes penalty for the sale of mislabeled fertilizer 3. The fertilizer law prohibits the sale of A score of 1 if yes opened fertilizer containers/bags 3a. The fertilizer law establishes a A score of 1 if yes penalty for the sale of opened fertilizer containers/bags (continued) 86 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.2 Scoring methodology for fertilizer (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Fertilizer import As fertilizer production 1. A fertilizer product that has A score of 1 if yes requirements is concentrated in previously been registered in another (trade) only a few countries, country does not need to be re- requiring most others registered in the country to rely on imports, this 2. The private sector is allowed to A score of 1 if yes indicator focuses on import fertilizer in the country for its the private sector’s role own use and the requirements 3. The private sector is allowed to A score of 1 if yes for importing fertilizer import fertilizer in the country in order to sell it 4. Foreign firms are allowed to import A score of 1 if yes fertilizer in order to sell it 5. The private sector is required to A score of 1 if yes register as an importer of fertilizer in order to sell it. The registration is not limited to a specific time period 5a. If registration is limited to a specific A score of 0.75 if equal to or greater than 10 years time period, the following scores are A score of 0.5 if greater than or equal to 5 years assigned. and less than 10 years A score of 0.25 if greater than or equal to 2 years and less than 5 years A score of 0 if less than 2 years or the importer registration is not required 5b. Cost of the registration Not scored 6. The private sector is required to A score of 1 if no obtain an import permit to import fertilizer 6a. If import permit is required, the A score of 0.8 if permit is not limited to a specific following scores are assigned time period A score of 0.6 if valid for 12 months or longer A score of 0.4 if valid for 6 months or longer and less than 12 months A score of 0.2 if valid for longer than 1 month and less than 6 months A score of 0 if valid for 1 month or less 6b. Cost of the import permit Not scored APPENDIX B 87 Machinery machinery company and the machinery possible, the relevant fee schedule or product are used, as detailed below: calculation formula should be indicat- EBA machinery indicators measure ed (for example, as a percentage of the obstacles facing tractor dealers wishing Assumptions about the business and the company’s capital). In cases where no to import tractors for sale. Besides meet- agricultural tractor official costs are in place, the median of ing the requirements for import and reg- the responses from respondents is com- istration, the indicators also measure the The business: puted. Professional fees (notaries, law- regulations for standards and safety. yers or accountants) are only included if • Is an importer or dealer of agricul- the company is required to use such ser- Three sets of indicators have been tural tractors. vices. All costs are indicated in U.S. dol- developed: lars and as a percentage of the country’s • Does not operate in an export income per capita. • Tractor dealer requirements. processing zone or an industrial estate with special import or export Specific terms • Tractor standards and safety. privileges. Agricultural tractor means a two- or four- • Tractor import requirements. The destination port for importation wheel drive type vehicle or track vehicle of tractors is the most used port in the of more than 20 engine horsepower, Machinery indicators have four main country. If the country is landlocked, it designed to furnish the power to pull, types of respondents: (i) agricultural is assumed that the most used border carry, propel or drive implements that machinery manufacturers, (ii) import- posts are employed. are designed for agriculture. All self-pro- ers, (iii) machinery dealers and (iv) rel- pelled implements are excluded. evant government authorities (such as The tractor: the ministry of agriculture). Data were Roll-over protection structures (ROPS) are collected through interviews conduct- • Is a new or second-hand two-axle/ attached to the tractor frame and come as ed during country visits directly with four-wheel drive (4WD) tractor. either two post fixed or foldable, four post, respondents and also by email and tele- or as an integral part of a ROPS cab. They conference calls from Washington, DC. Costs generally will limit a side overturn to ninety degrees (90°) and will provide an import- To make the data comparable across Only official costs required by law are ant safety zone for the operator provided countries, several assumptions about the recorded, including fees and taxes. If the operator is wearing the seat belt. 88 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.3 Scoring methodology for machinery INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Tractor dealer This indicator 102. Requirement to obtain proof of A score of 1 if proof of suitability is required and requirements measures legal suitability for the import of new the cost is below 10% of GNI per capita (operations) requirements with agricultural tractors and associated A score of 0.75 if proof of suitability is required regard to suitability cost. and the cost is equal to or greater than 10% and testing of agricultural less than 25% of GNI per capita tractors, specific A score of 0.5 if proof of suitability is required and licensing required to the cost is equal to or greater than 25% of GNI per operate a tractor, as capita and less than 50% of GNI per capita well as warranties and post-sale services that A score of 0.25 if equal to or greater than 50% of must be provided at GNI per capita the retail level A score of 0 if proof of suitability is not required 103. Requirement to register the tractor A score of 1 if registration is required and has no once the machine is imported and cost, or the cost is lower than 2% of GNI per capita associated cost A score of 0.75 if registration is required and the cost is equal to or greater than 2% of GNI per capita and lower than 5% of GNI per capita A score of 0.5 if registration is required and the cost is equal to or greater than 5% of GNI per capita and lower than 10% of GNI per capita A score of 0.25 if registration is required and the cost is equal to or greater than 10% of GNI per capita A score of 0 if registration is not required 104. Requirement of a special operator’s A score of 1 if yes license in order to operate an agricultural tractor 105. Requirement that producers and A score of 0.2 is assigned to each of the following sellers of agricultural tractors are post-sale services responsible for providing post-sale • Repair of tractors services. The following scores are • Replace or return poor quality tractors assigned with regard to the provision • Supply of spare parts of post-sale services • Train users on the use of tractors • Train users on maintenance of tractors (continued) APPENDIX B 89 TABLE B.3 Scoring methodology for machinery (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Tractor standards These indicators look 106. Requirement that tractors must A score of 1 if yes and safety at legal requirements be equipped with a fixed roll-over (quality control) with regard to protective structure (ROPS) operational safety and 107. Exemption from this requirement A score of 1 if yes performance standards if the owner provides proof by the of tractors. A score of tractor manufacturer that the tractor 1 is assigned for each was not designed to be fitted with of the following 6 data a ROPS points 108. Requirement that tractors must A score of 1 if ROPS and seatbelts are required be equipped with a seatbelt. The A score of 2⁄3 if ROPS are required and seatbelts following scores are assigned are not required A score of 1/3 if neither ROPS nor seatbelts are required A score of 0 if ROPS are not required and seatbelts are required 109. Establishment of sanctions for A score of 1/3 is assigned to each of the following owners of agricultural tractors that • Establishment of sanctions for lack of fail to comply with safety standards seatbelts • Establishment of sanctions for lack of ROPS • Establishment of sanctions for not being in possession of an operator’s license 110. Requirement that manufacturers A score of 1 if yes and sellers of agricultural tractors comply with national quality and performance standards 111. Requirement that tractor standards A bonus point is assigned to those countries that must be in accordance with have this requirement international standards (e.g. International Organization for Standardization, ISO) (continued) 90 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.3 Scoring methodology for machinery (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Tractor import These indicators look 112. The private sector is allowed to A score of 1 if yes requirements at aspects of importing import new agricultural tractors (trade) agricultural tractors and harvesters, 113. The private sector is allowed to A score of 1 if yes including the private import second-hand agricultural machinery sector’s tractors role and the required procedures to import 114. The private sector is allowed to A score of 1 if yes import spare parts for agricultural tractors 115. Requirement for pre-shipment A score of 1 if yes inspections of new agricultural tractor 116. The private sector is required to A score of 1 if yes register as an importer of agricultural tractors. The registration is not limited to a specific time period 117. If registration is limited to a specific A score of 0.75 if equal to or greater than 10 years time period, the following scores are A score of 0.5 if equal to or greater than 5 years assigned and less than 10 years A score of 0.25 if equal to or greater than 2 years and less than 5 years A score of 0 if less than 2 years, or registration is not required 118. Cost of the registration Not scored 119. The private sector is not required to A score of 1 if yes obtain an import permit to import agricultural tractors 120. If import permit is required, the A score of 0.8 if permit is not limited to a specific following scores are assigned time period A score of 0.6 if permit is valid for 12 months or longer A score of 0.4 if permit is valid for 6 months or longer and less than 12 months A score of 0.2 if permit is valid longer than 1 month and less than 6 months A score of 0 if permit is valid for 1 month or less 121. Cost of the import permit Not scored APPENDIX B 91 Finance Credit unions: Credit unions are mem- Examples include electronic funds trans- ber-owned, not-for-profit financial coop- fers and payments processed through EBA finance indicators measure laws eratives that provide savings, credit and mobile phones or prepaid cards. and regulations that promote access to a other financial services to their members. range of financial services, with focus on There are typically two types of financial Microfinance institutions (MFIs) are finan- areas that are relevant for potential cus- cooperatives: (i) small financial cooper- cial institutions specializing in the provi- tomers that are partially or fully excluded atives that provide services only to their sion of small-volume financial services from traditional financial services due to members and are typically supervised (credit, deposits, loans) to low-income factors such as their geographical loca- by either the central bank, the depart- clients, which can take deposits, lend and tion or available type of collateral. ment of cooperatives, or the ministry provide other financial services to the of finance —they are referred to as sav- public and are licensed to operate and Five sets of indicators have been ings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs) supervised by a public authority. developed: in some countries, and (ii) cooperative banks that take deposits from and lend Negotiable receipts allow a transfer of • Microfinance institutions (MFIs). to the public and are regulated under the ownership without having to physically main financial institution laws and super- deliver the commodity. • Credit unions. vised by the central bank. The credit union indicator measures small financial Non-bank businesses are those that do • Agent banking. cooperatives to be consistent with the not hold a banking license, including tele- topic’s emphasis on small-scale lending coms, post offices or other businesses • Electronic money (e-money). and financial inclusion. licensed by the central bank or financial supervisory authority to issue e-money. • Warehouse receipts. Specific terms Provisioning rules determine how much Finance indicators have three main types Agent banking is the delivery of finan- money banks must set aside as an allow- of respondents: financial sector super- cial services through partnership with a ance for bad loans in their portfolios. The visory authorities, financial lawyers and retail agent (or correspondent) in order share of a loan that must be covered by legal officers of financial institutions. to extend financial services to loca- provisioning can either be the full loan Data collection includes interviews con- tions where bank branches would be amount or the part that is not secured by ducted during country visits directly uneconomical. collateral (unsecured share). with respondents, followed by rounds of follow-up communication via email and Capital adequacy ratio is a measure of a Ratios to ensure financial stability can conference calls with respondents as bank’s total capital expressed as a per- include liquidity ratio, capital adequacy well as with third parties. Data are also centage of its risk-weighted assets. ratio, solvency ratio, credit to depos- verified through analyses of laws and it ratio, assets to liabilities ratio, stable regulations, including review of public Credit unions are member-owned, not- funding ratio, net loan receivables to total sources of information on banking law, for-profit financial cooperatives that pro- assets and others. Countries address the warehouse receipt law, financial institu- vide savings, credit and other financial issue of stability of credit unions using tions law and others. services to their members. different criteria, therefore all the ratios above can be included in this measure. Assumptions about the financial Effective interest rate is the annual inter- institutions est rate plus all fees associated with the Warehouse receipts are documents issued administration of the loan to the client. It by warehouse operators as evidence that Microfinance institutions (MFIs): MFIs is a symbol of the total cost of the loan to specified commodities are of stated are financial institutions that specialize in the client. Proxies for the effective interest quantity and quality, deposited or stored the provision of small-volume financial rate are the annual percentage rate or the at particular locations by named deposi- services (such as credit, deposits and amortization table/schedule for the loan. tors and owned by the beneficiary of the loans) to low-income clients. MFIs can receipt issued. Where supported by an take deposits, lend and provide other E-money refers to money that is stored appropriate legal framework, warehouse financial services to the public and are and exchanged through an electronic receipts can serve as a form of collateral licensed to operate and supervised by a device and not associated with a depos- to obtain a loan from financial institu- public authority. it account at any financial institution. tions and facilitate future sales. 92 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.4 Scoring methodology for finance INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Microfinance This indicator 1. The economy allows and regulates A score of 1 if yes institutions measures the deposit-taking MFIs (operations)3 regulations for deposit- 2. The regulated minimum capital taking MFIs adequacy ratio for MFIs is at least equal to, or no more than 2 percentage points higher, than the capital adequacy ratio for commercial banks 3. Loan sizes of MFIs are not limited to a specific amount or are greater than 10 times the GNI per capita if there is a specific amount4 4. The law requires MFIs to disclose the effective interest rate or a proxy to loan applicants 5. MFIs are required to fully provision a delinquent unsecured loan after the same number of days required for commercial banks, or within half the number of days required for commercial banks 6. The law requires MFIs to subscribe to a deposit insurance system 7. Minimum capital required to A score of 1 if the mandatory capital requirement establish an MFI. Scores are divided is greater than 0 but less than 201 times the GNI into four groups (1, 2⁄3, 1/3 and 0) per capita of the country based on each country’s minimum A score of 2⁄3 (0.66) if the mandatory capital mandatory capital requirement as a requirement is equal to or greater than 201 times, multiple of GNI per capita. Threshold but less than 501 times the GNI per capita values are determined based on A score is 1/3 (0.33) if the minimum mandatory distribution capital requirement is equal to or greater than 501 times the GNI per capita, but less than 1001 times the GNI per capita A score of 0 if the minimum mandatory capital requirement is equal to or greater than 1001 times the GNI per capita of the country or if there is no provisions on minimum capital requirement (continued) APPENDIX B 93 TABLE B.4 Scoring methodology for finance (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Credit unions This indicator 1. The economy has a law regulating A score of 1 if yes for each question (operations) measures the credit unions, or there is a specific regulations for credit section of a general cooperatives law unions that regulates the governance and operation of credit unions 2. 30 or fewer members are required to establish a credit union 3. The law defines ratios to ensure financial stability of credit unions 4. The law requires credit unions to disclose the effective interest rate or a proxy to loan applicants 5. Minimum capital required to A score of 1 if the mandatory capital requirement establish a credit union. The scores is greater than 0 but less than 11 times the GNI per are divided into four groups (1, 2⁄3, capita of the country 1 /3 and 0) based on each country’s A score of 2⁄3 if the mandatory capital requirement minimum mandatory capital is equal to or greater than 11 times, but less than 51 requirement as a multiple of GNI times the GNI per capita per capita. Threshold values are A score of 1/3 if the minimum mandatory capital determined based on distribution requirement is equal to or greater than 51 times the GNI per capita, but less than 101 times the GNI per capita A score is 0 if the minimum mandatory capital requirement is equal to or greater than 101 times the GNI per capita of the country or if there is no provisions on minimum capital requirement (continued) 94 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.4 Scoring methodology for finance (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Agent banking This indicator 1. There exists a legal framework to A score of 1 if yes (operations)5 measures the entry regulate agent banking activities and operational requirements for agent 2. Whether there are minimum A score of 1/3 for each standard banking standards in order to qualify and For example: A score of 1 if the law states all three operate as an agent in the following of the minimum standards as requirements to areas: 1) has to be an operating/ qualify and operate as an agent. If the law states established business, 2) has to have only two out of three of the minimum standards, positive financial records, 3) has the score is 2/3 to have real-time connectivity to a commercial bank. Each standard is weighted equally with a score of 1/3 3. Type of contracts that agents can A score of 1 is assigned if agents are allowed to enter with financial institutions enter both exclusive and nonexclusive contracts A score of 1/2 is assigned if only nonexclusive contracts are allowed A score of 0 is assigned if only exclusive contracts are allowed 4. The types of services agents can A score of 1/7 for each service offer on behalf of a bank. This data point looks at 7 services: cash deposits, cash withdrawals, transfer of funds to other customers’ accounts, bill payments, balance inquiry, opening a deposit account and collection/processing of loan application documents. Each of the above services is equally weighted and worth 1/7 of a point 5. Whether commercial banks are A score of 1 if the legislation states that liable for the acts of commission commercial banks are liable and omission of agents providing A score of 0 if they are not liable financial services on their behalf (continued) APPENDIX B 95 TABLE B.4 Scoring methodology for finance (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Electronic money This indicator 1. E-money is allowed A score of 1 if yes for each question (e-money) measures the 2. Non-bank businesses are allowed to (operations) legal framework issue e-money for e-money, in 3. Non-bank e-money issuers are particular the entry required to keep a minimum of liquid and operational assets to safeguard customer funds requirements for non- 4. The requirements for non-bank A score of “1 * 1/4” if the capital requirement is bank e-money issuers businesses to receive a license less than 101 times the GNI per capita but greater to issue e-money. The four than 0 requirements are: A score of “2⁄3 * 1/4” if the minimum capital is equal • an initial capital requirement; for to or greater than 101 times the GNI per capita but the initial capital requirement, less than 501 countries are divided into four A score of “1/3 * 1/4” if the minimum capital is equal groups (1, 2/3, 1/3, 0) based on the to or greater than 501 times the GNI per capita but country’s capital requirement as less than 901 a multiple of its GNI per capita A score of 0 if the minimum capital requirement is equal to or greater than 901 times the GNI per capita or if there is no provisions on minimum capital requirement • interoperability with other A score of 1/4 if the law states the requirement existing electronic money and 0 if it does not payment/transfer systems • existence of internal control mechanisms to comply with Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) laws, standards and measures • consumer protection measures such as consumer recourse mechanisms, consumer awareness programs, etc. Each of the above services is equally weighted with a score of ¼. (continued) 96 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.4 Scoring methodology for finance (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Warehouse This indicator 1. The economy has a law regulating A score of 1 if yes for each question receipts measures the the operation of warehouse receipts, (operations) regulations facilitating or the regulation of warehouse the use of agricultural receipts is included in other general commodities as legislation collateral 2. Warehouse operators are required to file a bond with the regulator or pay into an indemnity fund to secure performance by him of his obligations as a warehouse operator 3. Warehouse operators are required to insure the warehouse or the stored goods against fire, earthquakes, theft, burglary or other damage 4. Warehouse receipts are negotiable 5. Types of warehouse receipts that are A score of 1 is assigned if the law allows both legally valid: paper-based, electronic paper-based and electronic warehouse receipts or both and if electronic warehouse receipts are explicitly mentioned in the regulation A score of 1/2 is assigned if the law allows only paper-based receipts A score of 0 is assigned if warehouse receipt is not recognized or used 6. Information that must be listed Each piece of information counts for 1/4 of a point on a warehouse receipt for it to be For example, a score of 1 is assigned if all 4 pieces valid. There are 4 details measured: of information are required to be listed on the location of storage, amount in receipt for it to be legally valid storage, description of goods (type, A score of ¾ is assigned if only 3 above the pieces quality and harvest) and information of information are required to be listed on the on security interest over the goods receipt, and so on (certificate of pledge) APPENDIX B 97 Markets the reduced need for technical assis- or document that must be obtained by tance to meet market specifications and the exporter (Company A) in order to EBA markets indicators measure obstacles reduced price differentials at each point export the selected product to the trad- faced by agribusinesses in the production in the supply chain. ing partner. These requirements may and marketing of agricultural products apply to the trader (annual export license and when accessing foreign markets. Phy- Assumptions about the business or mandatory memberships) or to the tosanitary regulations that favor agricul- consignment on a per shipment basis tural trade through the promotion of plant The business: (phytosanitary certificate or fumigation and crop health are also assessed. certificate). These requirements involve • Performs general agricultural trad- interactions with external parties, includ- Three sets of indicators have been ing activities. ing government agencies, inspectors, developed: laboratories and other relevant insti- • Does not operate in a special export tutions. All requirements mandated in • Plant protection. processing zone. the law in order to complete the export transaction outlined by the case study • Production and sales. Assumptions about the export product and are taken into account, even if they may trading partner be avoided in certain cases. Buyer-driven • Agricultural exports. requirements or documents are not con- The export products are defined and sidered for purposes of the study. The Markets indicators have six main types grouped as cash crops, cereals, fruits following principles apply to the require- of respondents: (i) government agencies and vegetables according to the Har- ments recorded: (responsible for trade, customs, plant monized Commodity Description and protection and cash crops), (ii) private Coding System 1996 version (HS 96). • Only requirements specific to the producers, processors and exporters of All data are sourced from the UN Com- export product group (or the top agricultural products (both domestic trade Database, using the export data exported subproduct within that and multinational companies) and relat- from 2009–13. For each country, the group) and agricultural products ed trade/export associations, (iii) farm- combination of the product and the part- more generally are captured. Cus- ers’ organizations, including unions, ner country that represents the highest toms procedures or documentary federations, cooperatives and other sim- five-year average export value (in U.S. requirements that are not specific ilar entities, (iv) chambers of commerce, dollars) is selected. For example, cereal in this way are not measured (cer- (v)  lawyers and (vi) freight forwarders export to Zimbabwe is selected for Zam- tificate of origin, generalized system and customs brokers. Data were collect- bia. In addition, for countries where cash of preferences (GSP) certificate, ed from these respondents using four crops are selected as the export product, export declaration, commercial, different surveys: two for the public sec- the HS 4-digit product within the catego- shipping or transport documents, tor and two for the private sector. Data ry that is exported the most to the part- letter of credit and so on). were collected through interviews con- ner country is used for studying the legal ducted during country visits directly with and regulatory requirements. For exam- • Mandatory membership of a public respondents and also by email and tele- ple, coffee export to the United States is or private entity is included if it is conference calls from Washington, DC. selected for Colombia since coffee is the required to obtain and exercise the top product in the cash crop category right to export the selected prod- To render data on production and sales and the United States is Colombia’s main uct or agricultural products more as well as agricultural export more trading partner. generally. comparable across countries, several assumptions about the business, the Assumptions about the shipment • Trader-level export licenses include agricultural products and the trading any document or action that is partner are used, as detailed below: • Is transported via a 20-foot full required to obtain and exercise the container-load. right to export, including registra- Assumptions about the contracted product tion or accreditation requirements, • Weighs 10 metric tons. or traditional licenses. The contracted product is defined as the most produced non-processed non-ce- • All packing material that requires • Documents are collected on a per real product in terms of gross production fumigation (such as wood pallets) is shipment basis and one docu- value (current million U.S. dollars). All assumed to be treated and marked ment includes both application and data are sourced from FAOSTAT, using with an approved international mark completion of the process (phyto- the production data of 2012 (the latest certifying that treatment. sanitary certificate, quality certifi- available year). Cereal crops are excluded cate from a private laboratory). from the analysis because they are less Requirements to export suitable for agricultural production con- • Where multiple documents are tracts due to high risks of side-selling in A “requirement” for purposes of the obtained simultaneously, they are well-developed local or export markets, study is any legally required qualification recorded as separate documents 98 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 but time is adjusted to reflect their applying only to firms located in an exist in a country’s laws, that which simultaneity. export processing zone or to certain most closely adheres to this definition is accredited firms under authorized selected for study. • The mandatory documents required economic operator programs are by both the country studied and not taken into account. Inspections on a risk-management basis the selected trading partner are involve an import monitoring programme included. Costs where the monitoring (the number of consignments inspected) is established • Both public and private fumigation The costs include all official fees and fees on the basis of predicted risk through certificates are excluded if they are for legal or professional services if such pest risk analysis (PRA). not required by the laws of either services are required by law to complete the country studied or the select- the qualification requirement or obtain Mediation is an ADR process in which ed trading partner. Only fumigation a document. Service fees (charged by a neutral mediator helps the parties that is required for the product itself fumigation companies or private labora- discuss and find a mutually acceptable is captured and separate fumigation tories) are only included if the company solution. The mediator’s role is strictly for packaging prior to its purchase is required by law to use such services. facilitative; he or she does not decide and use is not included. Traditional (scheduled) border taxes in favor of one party or another, but and tariffs are not captured. Other spe- guides the parties toward a consensual Time cial charges or taxes that apply to the resolution. export product or subproduct, or the Time is recorded in calendar days and export of agricultural products general- Pest risk analysis (PRA) is defined as “[t] captures the median duration to obtain ly, are included only where they result in he process of evaluating biological or each mandatory document to export on the issuance of a stand-alone mandato- other scientific and economic evidence a per shipment basis. Time to complete ry document to export or are needed to to determine whether a pest should be membership requirements or to obtain obtain another mandatory document to regulated and the strength of any phyto- trader-level licenses is not captured. export. sanitary measures to be taken against The time span for each document starts it.”6 It consists of three stages: initiating with the first filing of the application or Where possible, laws, regulations and the process for analyzing risk, assessing demand and ends once the company has fee schedules are used as sources for pest risk and managing pest risk. received the final document, such as the calculating costs. In the absence of fee phytosanitary certificate. It is assumed schedules, estimates by public and pri- Phytosanitary measures include “[a]ny that the company’s owners, managers vate sector respondents are used. If legislation, regulation or official proce- or employees have had no prior con- several respondents provide different dure having the purpose to prevent the tact with any of the officials and that the estimates, the median reported value introduction and/or spread of quarantine company completes each procedure to is applied. In all cases the cost excludes pests, or to limit the economic impact of obtain the document without delay on its bribes. All costs are indicated in U.S. dol- regulated non-quarantine pests.”7 side. The following principles apply to the lars and as a percentage of the country’s documents coded: income per capita. Plant protection encompasses regula- tions, policies and institutional frame- • It is assumed that the minimum Specific terms works that affect plant health in a time required for each document country, including domestic pest man- is 1 day, except for documents that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is agement measures as well as phyto- can be fully obtained online, for any litigation process or procedure, other sanitary controls at the border. which the time required is recorded than adjudication by a presiding judge as half a day. in court, in which a neutral third party Production and sales encompasses regu- assists in or decides on the resolution of lations, policies and institutional frame- • Although multiple documents may the issues in dispute. works that impact the production, be obtained (and related process- processing, marketing and sales of agri- es completed) simultaneously, the Farmers’ cooperatives are also known as cultural products in a country. process to obtain each document agricultural cooperatives, farmers’ orga- cannot start on the same day (that nizations, or producers’ associations. Regulated quarantine pest refers to “[a] is, simultaneous processes start on A farmers’ cooperative is defined as a pest of potential economic importance consecutive days). voluntary, jointly-owned and democrat- to the area endangered thereby and not ically controlled association of farmers yet present there, or present but not • If the process to obtain a document created to support and promote the eco- widely distributed and being officially can be accelerated for an additional nomic interests of its members through controlled.”8 cost and is available to all types of joint economic activity, including, but companies, the fastest legal pro- not limited to, production, processing Settlement agreement is a mutually cess is chosen and the related costs and marketing of agricultural products. If acceptable solution found by the parties are recorded. Fast-track options different types of farmers’ organizations upon conciliation or mediation. APPENDIX B 99 TABLE B.5 Scoring methodology for markets INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Plant protection This indicator looks 1. There is an obligation on the national A score of 1 if yes (quality control) at the strength of plant protection agency or another the domestic plant government agency to carry out pest protection framework surveillance activities on plants in by considering the legal your country obligations applicable 2. There is an obligation on producers/ to domestic pest land owners to monitor and management report outbreaks of pests to the government 3. The government or national plant protection agency maintains a list of regulated quarantine pests that is accessible to the public 4. The list of regulated quarantine pests is uploaded to the IPPC website 5. A pest database that contains details on the pests present in your country, such as their current status, geographical distribution and/or treatment, is available on a government website 6. Pest risk analysis (PRA) is provided for in the law OR there is a designated unit in the government to carry out PRA 7. Phytosanitary inspections on imports of plant products may be carried out on a risk basis 8. Phytosanitary legislation covers both domestic containment and import/ export quarantine procedures at the border (continued) 100 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.5 Scoring methodology for markets (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Production This indicator Please note that questions 1 and 2 on A score of 1 if no and sales measures legal licenses are based on the selected (operations) requirements contracted product: with regard to the 1. The producer or seller requires a establishment and license to sell the contracted product activities of farmers’ or to engage in an agricultural cooperatives, the ease production contract of engaging in contract 2. The contractor needs a license to farming arrangements purchase the contracted product or and resolving related engage in an agricultural production disputes contract 3. Farmers’ cooperatives can seek loans A score of 1 if yes or lines of credits provided by non- members 4. Farmers’ cooperatives can merge 5. Minimum capital requirement to A score of 1 if there is no minimum capital establish a farmers’ cooperative requirement A score of 0.25 if the minimum capital requirements is equal to or less than 1 times the income per capita A score of 0 if the minimum capital requirement is greater than 1 times the income per capita 6. Mediation/conciliation can be A score of 1 if yes attempted after the start of judicial proceedings upon either court- referral or application of the parties 7. Enforceability of a settlement A score of 1 if the settlement agreement has the agreement reached through an same enforceability as a court decision extra-judicial and/or extra-arbitral A score of 0.5 if the settlement agreement can negotiation, conciliation or mediation acquire the same enforceability as a court decision upon submission to a judicial body or upon notarization A score of 0 if the settlement agreement is enforceable only under the laws of contract (continued) APPENDIX B 101 TABLE B.5 Scoring methodology for markets (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Agricultural This indicator looks 1. Exporters do or do not have to be a Not scored export (trade) at the mandatory member of a specific association or requirements to export organization in order to obtain the the selected product right to export the selected product to the selected trading or agricultural products more partner at the trader generally level and per shipment 2. Exporters do or do not have to obtain a trader-level export license in order to export the selected product or agricultural products more generally to the selected trading partner 3. Total number of mandatory documents required to export 4. Total time to obtain mandatory documents required to export 5. Total cost to obtain mandatory documents required to export 102 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Transport • Does not transport fertilizers, pes- between a producer or trader ticides or any hazardous products. and a trucking company. EBA transport indicators measure reg- ulatory and administrative constraints The information on transport licenses • Direct contracting is facilitated affecting the market access and oper- and permits refers exclusively to domes- by a “freight exchange” (plat- ations of reliable and sustainable com- tic operations. The section on cross-bor- form in which freight supply mercial road transport services and the der transportation assumes trade is and demand are made public regulatory requirements for cross-border undertaken with the largest neighboring to all actors). transportation. agricultural trading partner. • Regulated market : Freight allocation Two sets of indicators have been Time is influenced or organized by a third developed: party. Time is recorded in calendar days and • Truck licenses. captures the median duration of obtain- • Queuing system (“tour de rôle”): ing the required company or truck freight allocation practice • Cross-border transportation. license. The timespan starts once all by which freight is sequen- required documents have been submit- tially allocated by trucking Transport indicators used two differ- ted to the relevant authority and ends associations, unions or the ent questionnaire versions targeting: once the company has received the final government. (i) private sector respondents— mainly document. The minimum time to obtain trucking associations, trucking compa- a company or truck license is one day. It Cross-border transportation: nies, freight forwarders, lawyers; and (ii) is assumed that the company’s owners, public sector respondents—mainly min- managers or employees have had no • Transport rights: A truck registered in istries of transport, road transport regu- prior contact with any of the officials. Country A is able to transport agri- latory authorities and ministries of infra- cultural goods produced in its coun- structure. Data were collected through Cost try into Country B for sale. interviews conducted during country visits directly with respondents, by email Costs capture only official costs required • Backhauling rights : A truck regis- and teleconference calls from Washing- by law, including fees and taxes. Trans- tered in Country A is able to trans- ton, DC and by local staff in the different port laws and regulations have been port agricultural goods into Coun- target countries. used as legal basis when available, and try B for sale, load other goods in an estimation from respondents have Country B and carry them back to To make the data comparable across been used when not. In such cases where Country A. countries, several assumptions about the no official costs are in place, the median trucking company and its environment of responses is computed. This section • Transit rights: A truck registered in were made, as detailed below: assumes all documents have been sub- Country A is able to travel through mitted correctly. All costs are indicated Country B to deliver agricultural Assumptions about the business in U.S. dollars and as a percentage of the goods into Country C. country’s income per capita. The business: • Triangular rights: A truck registered Validity in Country A is able to pick up agri- • Is a limited liability company. cultural goods in Country B and Validity is measured for company and transport them to be delivered into • Is 100% domestically owned. truck licenses and for technical inspec- Country C. tions. Validity is expressed in years. • Has between five and 10 employees. • Cabotage rights: A truck registered Specific terms in Country A is able to pick up agri- • Owns a maximum of five trucks; cultural goods in Country B and each truck has two axles and a load- Freight allocation: deliver them to a different point in ing capacity of 20 metric tons.9 Country B. • Deregulated market : Market actors • Rents a garage. can freely interact with each other. • Transports agricultural products • Freight allocation occurs within the country, including perish- through direct contracting able goods. APPENDIX B 103 TABLE B.6 Scoring methodology for transport INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Truck licenses This indicator 1. Type of licensing regime required for a A score of 1 if only company license (operations) categorizes the company to legally transport agricultural required different licensing products in the domestic market A score of 0.5 if both company and truck regimes to provide licenses are required commercial road A score of 0.25 if only registry, franchise/ transport services in public concession or truck license is the domestic market. required It also measures the extent to which A score of 0 if no license is required license requirements This question has double weight (2/7) and application with regard to the other questions of this submissions are indicator (1/7) available online, 2. Online availability of license or permit A score of 1 if yes additional legal requirements requirements to obtain This question is not scored for countries a license/permit and without a license or permit price and freight 3. Availability of an electronic submission A score of 1 if yes allocation regulations platform for license or permit application or This question is not scored for countries affecting road transport renewal without a license or permit services in the 4. Additional requirements for obtaining the A score of 1 if none of the following is a domestic market relevant licenses, permits, inspections requirement to obtain a license / permit: and certificates with regard to nationality, (a) membership to an association, (b) membership with a trucking association or being of a specific nationality and (c) operational size certain operational size (number of trucks) A score of 2⁄3 if one is required A score of 1/3 if two are required A score of 0 if all three are required to obtain a license or permit 5. Government regulation of prices for A score of 1 if no agricultural road transport service 6. Presence of a queuing system (also known A score of 1 if no as a “tour de rôle”) binding for all trucking companies and used to access or allocate freight in the country Licenses and permits 1. Total time to obtain a license at company level Not scored to transport agricultural products by truck 2. Total cost to obtain a license at company level 3. Validity of the license at company level 4. Total time to obtain a permit or license at truck level 5. Total cost to obtain a license or permit at truck level 6. Validity of the permit or license at truck level 7. Total cost of a vehicle technical inspection 8. Validity of vehicle technical inspection (continued) 104 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 TABLE B.6 Scoring methodology for transport (continued) INDICATOR (CATEGORY) DESCRIPTION WHAT IS MEASURED HOW IT IS SCORED Cross-border This indicator 1. Requirement of a written contract A score of 1 if yes transportation measures the acknowledging carrier’s liabilities in cross- (trade) restrictions to cross- border transportation transactions border transport 2. The right of foreign trucking companies A score of 1 if yes including the regulation registered in the largest agricultural trading of carrier’s liabilities partner to transport goods into the country 3. Existence of quotas on the number of A score of 1 if no transport right permits granted A score of 0 if yes or if no transport rights granted 4. The right of foreign trucking companies A score of 1 if yes registered in the largest agricultural trading partner to transport goods back from the country (backhauling) 5. The right of foreign trucking companies A score of 1 if yes registered in the largest agricultural trading partner to transport goods from the country into a third country (triangular rights) 6. The right of foreign trucking companies A score of 1 if yes registered in the largest agricultural trading partner to transit through the country 7. The right of foreign trucking companies A score of 1 if yes registered in the largest agricultural trading partner to transport goods between two points within the country (cabotage) APPENDIX B 105 Notes percentage of core capital. This lan- 7. International Plant Protection Con- guage is included in regulations for vention 2005. p. 17. 1. Based on the average growing time risk management, intended to limit for medium-maturing varieties of the exposure of the institution to a 8. International Plant Protection Con- maize. single borrower. For countries with vention 2005. p. 18. this type of loan limitation, EBA con- 2. Seasons in countries with one sea- siders it “no limit” because the cur- 9. A truck is defined as one tractor son per calendar year tend to last rency value corresponding to that unit, excluding the trailer. longer. percentage is so high as to present no effective limit to borrowers. 3. High-income and upper-middle-in- Reference come countries are not measured 5. High-income and upper-middle-in- under the MFI indicator. come countries are not measured 2005. “Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms.” under the agent banking indicator. International Standard for Phyto- 4. In some countries, the maximum sanitary Measures No. 5. Rome: loan an MFI can extend is limited 6. International Plant Protection Con- FAO. to a percentage of deposits or a vention 2005. p. 16. 106 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 APPENDIX C ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF PRESENTING THE DATA The following are two alternative ways of of the foreign firms to import fertilizer six EBA topics (table C.1). For each ques- presenting EBA data. The questions used (within discrimination of agribusiness tion, countries where the nondiscrimina- to build the accessibility of agribusiness regulations) belongs to the fertilizer tory feature under study is in place are regulatory information and discrimina- import requirements (trade) indicator, assigned a score of 1; those without such tion of agribusiness regulations scores so it is part of the fertilizer score and the features are assigned a score of 0. The are questions also used to build the top- trade score. total score of the 18 questions reflects ics and cross-cutting categories scores. the number of good practices related to For example, a seed variety catalogue nondiscrimination. These questions are (within accessibility of agribusiness reg- Discrimination of agribusiness also part the corresponding topic and ulatory information) also belongs to the regulations score. seed registration (operations) indicator, so it is part of the seed score and the The data on discrimination of agribusi- operations score. Similarly, the eligibility ness regulations were collected across TABLE C.1 Discrimination of agribusiness regulations data by topic GOOD PRACTICES BY TOPICS 1. The mandatory participation of private sector representatives in seed variety release committee 2. The eligibility of private enterprises to produce breeder/pre-basic seed of local public varieties for use in the domestic market 3. The eligibility of private enterprises to produce foundation/basic seed of local public varieties for use in the domestic SEED market 4. The accessibility of germplasm from the national gene bank for the private sector 5. The existence of a system for licensing public varieties to private seed enterprises for production and sale in the domestic market 6. The eligibility of the private sector to be accredited to carry out the certification process 7. The eligibility of the private sector to register fertilizer FERTILIZER 8. The eligibility of the domestic firms to import fertilizer in order to sell it 9. The eligibility of the foreign firms to import fertilizer in order to sell it 10. The eligibility of the private sector to import new agricultural tractors and harvesters MACHINERY 11. The eligibility of the private sector to import second-hand agricultural tractors and harvesters 12. The eligibility of the private sector to import spare parts for agricultural tractors and harvesters FINANCE 13. The eligibility of non-bank businesses (businesses that do not hold any financial institution license) to issue e-money MARKETS 14. The absence of minimum capital requirements to establish a farmers’ cooperative 15. In addition to company and/or truck level licenses as well as technical inspections, the absence of other requirements regarding nationality, membership with a trucking association or operational size for a transport operator to offer commercial road transport services in the domestic market 16. The eligibility of foreign trucking companies registered in the country’s largest agricultural trading partner to TRANSPORT transport goods into the country 17. The eligibility of foreign trucking companies registered in the country’s largest agricultural trading partner to transport goods back from the country (backhauling) 18. The eligibility of foreign trucking companies registered in the country’s largest agricultural trading partner to transport goods between two points within the country (cabotage) APPENDIX C 107 Accessibility of agribusiness across five EBA topics (table C.2). For score of 0. The total score of the 10 ques- regulatory information each question, countries where the infor- tions reflects the number of good prac- mation accessibility feature under study tices related to access to information. The data on accessibility of agribusiness is in place are assigned a score of 1; those These questions are also part the corre- regulatory information were collected without such features are assigned a sponding topic and score. TABLE C.2 Accessibility of agribusiness regulatory information data by topic GOOD PRACTICES BY TOPICS 1. The existence of a seed variety catalog listing new varieties SEED 2. The online availability of the seed variety catalog 3. The existence of an official fee schedule for seed certification activities carried out by the public sector 4. The existence of an official catalog listing all registered fertilizer FERTILIZER 5. The online availability of the fertilizer catalog 6. The legal requirement for credit unions to disclose their effective interest rate or the annual percentage rate to loan FINANCE applicants 7. The existence of a list of regulated pests MARKETS 8. The availability of a database on a government website that lists pests present in the country, their current distribution and/or status 9. The online availability of the transport license/permit requirements TRANSPORT 10. The existence of an electronic procedure to apply and/or renew the transport license/permit 108 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 COUNTRY TABLES The team collected data in 40 countries in the following 11 areas: seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets, transport, land, information and communications technology (ICT), water, livestock and environmental sustainability. Six of the topics were chosen for scoring and are presented in this section. BANGLADESH SOUTH ASIA 109 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 70.8 52.8 38.1 60.1 80.4 60.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 70.8 SEED 84.4 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 2a Procedures (number) 3a Time (days) 0.0a Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 57.1 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 52.8 FERTILIZER 45.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 7 Procedures (number) 951 Time (days) 702.6 (65.1) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 46.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 238.2 (22.1) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 38.1 MACHINERY 37.5 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 63.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 238.2 (22.1) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 446.6 (41.3) Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 60.1 FINANCE 57.1 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 60.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 100 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 58.3 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 80.4 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 75.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 1 Time to prepare export documents (days) 6.0 (0.6) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 60.7 TRANSPORT 64.3 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 3.5 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 30.0 (2.8) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 3 Validity of truck permit (years) 10.7 (1.0) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 57.1 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 60.6 51.7 55.7 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. Registration is not available for maize varieties. Private companies can, at their discretion and at no cost, list maize varieties in the national catalogue. This is what the procedures and time capture. BOLIVIA LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN 110 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 84.4 63.3 38.3 65.3 81.3 67.9 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 84.4 SEED 81.3 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 517 Time (days) 711.3 (25.1) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 87.5 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 63.3 FERTILIZER 20.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) N/Aa Procedures (number) N/Aa Time (days) N/Aa Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 70.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 0 Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) No data Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 38.3 MACHINERY 25.0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 0 Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 65.3 FINANCE 66.7 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 93.3 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 91.7 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 75.0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 81.3 MARKETS 100 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 62.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 2 Time to prepare export documents (days) 54.0 (1.9) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 67.9 TRANSPORT 64.3 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 4.5 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 10.0 (0.4) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 10 (0.4) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 59.8 56.4 74.9 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The private sector is not required to register fertilizer. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA 111 UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME 42.0 94.4 44.0 18.1 93.8 71.4 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 42.0 SEED 12.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 71.4 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 94.4 FERTILIZER 100 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 2 Procedures (number) 31 Time (days) 23.3 (0.5) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 0 Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 44.0 MACHINERY 37.5 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 27.8 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/Aa Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 18.1 FINANCE N/A b ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) N/A b ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 54.2 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 93.8 MARKETS 100 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 87.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 1 Time to prepare export documents (days) 26.7 (0.6) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 71.4 TRANSPORT 71.4 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 60 Time to obtain company license (days) 266.7 (5.6) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 10 Validity of company license (years) 30 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 33.3 (0.7) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 10 Validity of truck permit (years) 60.0 (1.3) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 61.5 71.8 73.8 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. 10% of customs value. b. Upper-middle-income countries are not measured under the microfinance institutions indicator and agent banking indicator. BURKINA FASO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 112 LOW INCOME 54.2 43.9 40.6 37.2 58.9 60.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 54.2 SEED 65.6 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 42.9 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 43.9 FERTILIZER 0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) N/Aa Procedures (number) N/Aa Time (days) N/Aa Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 65.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 2.0 (0.3) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 2.0 (0.3) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 40.6 MACHINERY 37.5 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 77.5 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 30.4 (4.3) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 2.0 (0.3) Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 37.2 FINANCE 42.9 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 60.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 83.3 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 58.9 MARKETS 92.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 25.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 2 Time to prepare export documents (days) 19.2 (2.7) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 60.7 TRANSPORT 50.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 1 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 21.0 (3.0) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of truck permit (years) 87.0 (12.3) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 45.3 32.8 71.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The private sector is not required to register fertilizer. BURUNDI SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 113 LOW INCOME 53.8 62.2 35.6 21.3 60.7 53.6 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 53.8 SEED 21.9 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 85.7 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 62.2 FERTILIZER 60.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 60.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) No data Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 35.6 MACHINERY 33.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 60.0 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) No data Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 21.3 FINANCE 66.7 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 40.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 60.7 MARKETS 71.4 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 50.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 3 Export documents per shipment (number) 6 Time to prepare export documents (days) 3.0 (1.1) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 240.7 (89.2) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 53.6 TRANSPORT 35.7 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 1 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 12.0 (4.5) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of truck permit (years) 18.1 (6.7) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 45.9 43.3 63.8 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. CAMBODIA EAST ASIA & PACIFIC 114 LOW INCOME 68.8 57.2 26.5 32.0 67.9 57.1 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 68.8 SEED 37.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 407 Time (days) 187.0 (18.5) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 57.2 FERTILIZER 45.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 3 Procedures (number) No data a Time (days) 506.5 (50.1) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 60.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) No data Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) No data Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 26.5 MACHINERY 6.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 32.0 FINANCE 85.7 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 74.3 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 67.9 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 50.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 3 Export documents per shipment (number) 7 Time to prepare export documents (days) 86.6 (8.6) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 57.1 TRANSPORT 57.1 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 10 Time to obtain company license (days) 365.2 (36.2) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 2 Validity of company license (years) 3.5 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 11.0 (1.1) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 26.8 (2.7) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 57.1 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 49.1 41.1 61.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. No data on application for registration, but approval by committee takes 56 days. CHILE OECD HIGH INCOME 115 HIGH INCOME 93.8 43.3 43.3 N/Ab 93.8 65.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 93.8 SEED 87.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 848 Time (days) 920.8 (6.2) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 43.3 FERTILIZER 0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) N/Aa Procedures (number) N/Aa Time (days) N/Aa Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 63.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 20.1 (0.1) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 43.3 MACHINERY 50.0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/Ab FINANCE - ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) - ∆ Credit unions (0–100) - ∆ Agent banking (0–100) - ∆ Electronic money (0–100) - ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 93.8 MARKETS 100 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 87.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 1 Time to prepare export documents (days) 0c Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 65.7 TRANSPORT 60.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 15.4 (0.1) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 60.8 55.8 67.1 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The private sector is not required to register fertilizer. b. High-income countries are not measured under the finance topic. c. The cost is 0.002 US$ (0.0001% of income per capita) COLOMBIA LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN 116 UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME 75.0 91.1 50.0 89.4 93.8 78.6 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 75.0 SEED 50.0 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 591 Time (days) 4,526.4 (58.2) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 91.1 FERTILIZER 100 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 3 Procedures (number) 48 Time (days) No data Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 73.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 0 Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 31.3 (0.4) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 50.0 MACHINERY 70.0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) No data Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 89.4 FINANCE N/Aa ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 93.3 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) N/Aa ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 91.7 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 83.3 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 93.8 MARKETS 100 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 87.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 4 Time to prepare export documents (days) No data b Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 0 Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 78.6 TRANSPORT 71.4 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 57 Time to obtain company license (days) 268 (3.4) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) Indefinite c Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 156.4 (2.0) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 2 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 85.7 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 84.3 66.9 75.2 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. Upper-middle-income countries are not measured under the microfinance institutions indicator and agent banking indicator. b. The cost of document 1 (phytosanitary certificate) is $33.9 (0.4% of income per capita). The cost of document 2 (quality certificate) could not be obtained. c. Has to be validated every year. CÔTE D’IVOIRE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 117 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 54.7 64.4 45.4 37.7 58.0 60.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 54.7 SEED 59.4 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 368 Time (days) 2,082.2 (134.2) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 50.0 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 64.4 FERTILIZER 60.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 59.5 (3.8) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 45.4 MACHINERY 25.0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 27.8 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 59.5 (3.8) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 37.7 FINANCE 42.9 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 60.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 85.4 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 58.0 MARKETS 78.6 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 37.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 3 Export documents per shipment (number) No data Time to prepare export documents (days) No data Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 198.3 (12.8) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 60.7 TRANSPORT 50.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 1 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 49.6 (3.2) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 2 Validity of truck permit (years) 87.1 (5.6) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 51.0 44.0 73.8 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. DENMARK OECD HIGH INCOME 118 HIGH INCOME 87.5 82.2 80.7 N/Aa 85.7 100 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 87.5 SEED 87.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 690 Time (days) 4,640.5 (7.6) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 87.5 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 82.2 FERTILIZER 80.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 2 Procedures (number) 31 Time (days) 267.7 (0.4) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 83.3 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 80.7 MACHINERY 86.7 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 72.2 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/Aa FINANCE - ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) - ∆ Credit unions (0–100) - ∆ Agent banking (0–100) - ∆ Electronic money (0–100) - ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 85.7 MARKETS 71.4 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 100 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 0 Export documents per shipment (number) 0 Time to prepare export documents (days) 0 Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 667.5 (1.1) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 100 TRANSPORT 100 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 27 Time to obtain company license (days) 0 Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 10 Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 190.5 (0.3) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 100 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 85.1 85.2 88.9 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. High-income countries are not measured under the finance topic. ETHIOPIA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 119 LOW INCOME 58.9 34.4 28.5 59.8 55.4 52.4 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 58.9 SEED 75.0 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 4 Procedures (number) 620 Time (days) 488.9 (88.9) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 42.9 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 34.4 FERTILIZER 20.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) N/Aa Procedures (number) N/Aa Time (days) N/Aa Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 16.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 28.5 MACHINERY 18.8 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 60.0 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 15.3 (2.8) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 5.2 (0.9) Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 59.8 FINANCE 47.6 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 60.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 91.4 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 100 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 55.4 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 25.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 3 Export documents per shipment (number) No data b Time to prepare export documents (days) 80.9 (14.7) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 9.0 (1.6) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 52.4 TRANSPORT 61.9 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 1 Time to obtain company license (days) 34.6 (6.3) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 19.4 (3.5) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 42.9 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 50.9 32.8 39.8 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The private sector is not required to register fertilizer. b. The time to obtain document 1 (phytosanitary certificate) is 1 day, and the time to obtain document 3 (fumigation certificate) is 1 day. The time to obtain document 2 (quality certificate) could not be obtained. GEORGIA EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA 120 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 75.0 68.9 44.4 37.7 86.6 65.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 75.0 SEED 62.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 534 Time (days) No data Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 87.5 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 68.9 FERTILIZER 90.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 765 Time (days) 260.6 (7.0) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 50.0 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 44.4 MACHINERY 33.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 33.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 37.7 FINANCE 0 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 80.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 50.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 58.3 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 86.6 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 87.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 5 Time to prepare export documents (days) 95.6 (2.6) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 65.7 TRANSPORT 60.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) N/A Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 63.6 56.9 68.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. GHANA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 121 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 40.6 59.4 39.2 41.7 71.4 65.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 40.6 SEED 43.8 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 757 Time (days) No data Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 37.5 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 59.4 FERTILIZER 45.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 4 Procedures (number) 255 Time (days) 1,445.4 (89.2) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 158.4 (9.8) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 39.2 MACHINERY 37.5 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 41.7 FINANCE 42.9 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 80.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 60.5 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 71.4 MARKETS 92.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 50.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 3 Export documents per shipment (number) 8 Time to prepare export documents (days) 5.9 (0.4) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 3 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 2,435.6 (150.3) a Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 65.7 TRANSPORT 60.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 99 (6.1) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 52.9 43.3 68.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The total cost excludes the cost of Ghana’s Cocoa Export License, which could not be quantified and was recorded as “variable” based on contributor responses and the applica- ble regulations. GREECE OECD HIGH INCOME 122 HIGH INCOME 73.4 93.3 74.6 N/Aa 90.2 92.9 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 73.4 SEED 46.9 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 729 Time (days) 1,911.4 (8.7) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 93.3 FERTILIZER 100 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 7 Procedures (number) 211 Time (days) 1,282.4 (5.8) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 80.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 135.0 (0.6) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 74.6 MACHINERY 83.8 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 73.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/Aa FINANCE - ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) - ∆ Credit unions (0–100) - ∆ Agent banking (0–100) - ∆ Electronic money (0–100) - ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 90.2 MARKETS 92.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 87.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 0 Export documents per shipment (number) 0 Time to prepare export documents (days) 0 Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 809.9 (3.7) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 92.9 TRANSPORT 85.7 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 60 Time to obtain company license (days) 674.9 (3.1) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 10 Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 141.7 (0.6) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 100 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 87.2 86.9 82.2 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. High-income countries are not measured under the finance topic. GUATEMALA LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN 123 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 71.0 66.9 40.6 46.3 86.6 72.9 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 71.0 SEED 56.3 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 4 Procedures (number) 166 Time (days) 67.5 (2.0) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 85.7 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 66.9 FERTILIZER 35.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 2 Procedures (number) 105 Time (days) 12.5 (0.4) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 65.8 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) No data Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) No data Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 40.6 MACHINERY 25.0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 622.6 (18.1) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 46.3 FINANCE 0 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 40.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 91.4 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 75.0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 86.6 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 87.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 1 Time to prepare export documents (days) 6.3 (0.2) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 72.9 TRANSPORT 60.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 100 (2.9) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 85.7 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 53.8 66.9 78.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. JORDAN MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA 124 UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME 71.0 67.8 42.1 21.7 83.9 66.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 71.0 SEED 56.3 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 85.7 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 67.8 FERTILIZER 70.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 3 Procedures (number) 36 Time (days) 15.0 (0.3) a Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 13.6 (0.3) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 13.6 (0.3) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 42.1 MACHINERY 36.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 76.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 13.6 (0.3) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 13.6 (0.3) Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 21.7 FINANCE N/A b ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 40.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) N/A b ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 83.9 MARKETS 92.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 75.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 1 Time to prepare export documents (days) 2.7 (0.1) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 TRANSPORT 61.9 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 3 Time to obtain company license (days) 203.3 (3.9) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of company license (years) 1 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 521.7 (10.1) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 40.7 (0.8) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 58.9 51.7 71.6 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. Cost of application for registration is $15, but cost of lab report is unknown. Approval by the National Committee is free. b. Upper-middle-income countries are not measured under the microfinance institutions indicator and agent banking indicator. KENYA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 125 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 90.6 50.0 57.2 72.9 50.9 75.0 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 90.6 SEED 93.8 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 321 Time (days) 1,798.5 (140.5) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 87.5 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 50.0 FERTILIZER 0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) N/Aa Procedures (number) N/Aa Time (days) N/Aa Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 327.0 (25.5) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 57.2 MACHINERY 43.8 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 61.1 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 72.9 FINANCE 90.5 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 86.7 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 87.1 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 100 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 50.9 MARKETS 64.3 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 37.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 4 Export documents per shipment (number) 6 Time to prepare export documents (days) 130.8 (10.2) b Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 2 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 1,602.3 (125.2) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 75.0 TRANSPORT 78.6 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 1 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 32.7 (2.6) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 10.9 (0.9) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 58.3 55.1 73.8 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The private sector is not required to register fertilizer. b. The total cost excludes the cost of document 4 (export release order), which requires payment of an ad valorem levy (1% of ex-warehouse price for tea exports sold at the tea auction). KYRGYZ REPUBLIC EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA 126 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 48.9 63.9 63.9 79.8 80.4 72.9 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 48.9 SEED 40.6 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 970 Time (days) 2,850.7 (228.1) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 57.1 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 63.9 FERTILIZER 75.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 730 Time (days) 277.9 (22.2) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 50.0 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 63.9 MACHINERY 75.0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 33.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 79.8 FINANCE 61.9 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 100 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 91.4 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 87.5 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 58.3 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 80.4 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 75.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 2 Time to prepare export documents (days) 10.1 (0.8) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 72.9 TRANSPORT 60.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 12.4 (1.0) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 85.7 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 70.7 52.8 78.6 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. LAO PDR EAST ASIA & PACIFIC 127 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 45.5 60.6 20.0 34.3 83.9 69.0 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 45.5 SEED 62.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 28.6 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 60.6 FERTILIZER 45.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 4 Procedures (number) No data Time (days) 7.9 (0.5) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 83.3 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 53.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 3.1 (0.2) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 20.0 MACHINERY 0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 53.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 1.2 (0.1) Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 34.3 FINANCE 66.7 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 80.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 83.9 MARKETS 92.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 75.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 3 Time to prepare export documents (days) 151.0 (9.4) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 69.0 TRANSPORT 66.7 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 30 Time to obtain company license (days) 24.4 (1.5) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of company license (years) 7 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 67.2 (4.2) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 2.4 (0.2) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 47.4 55.0 59.4 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. MALI SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 128 LOW INCOME 56.0 71.1 27.8 37.2 55.4 67.9 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 56.0 SEED 40.6 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 71.4 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 71.1 FERTILIZER 80.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 4 Procedures (number) 90 Time (days) No data Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 0 Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 3.0 (0.4) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 27.8 MACHINERY 0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 76.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 0 Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 3.0 (0.4) Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 37.2 FINANCE 42.9 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 60.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 83.3 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 55.4 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 25.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 3 Time to prepare export documents (days) 19.8 (2.7) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 67.9 TRANSPORT 64.3 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 3 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 31.6 (4.4) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 34.6 (4.8) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 53.9 32.8 71.6 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. MOROCCO MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA 129 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 85.9 50.4 52.0 0 72.3 60.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 85.9 SEED 71.9 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 585 Time (days) 469.9 (15.6) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 50.4 FERTILIZER 0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) N/Aa Procedures (number) N/Aa Time (days) N/Aa Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 94.4 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 56.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 52.0 MACHINERY 55.0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 44.4 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 56.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 0 FINANCE 0 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 72.3 MARKETS 82.1 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 62.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) No data b Time to prepare export documents (days) No data c Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 2 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) No data Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 60.7 TRANSPORT 50.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 3 Time to obtain company license (days) 0 Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) Indefinite d Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 47 (1.6) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 45.5 67.1 61.6 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The private sector is not required to register fertilizer. b. The time to obtain document 1 (phytosanitary certificate) is 3 days. The time to obtain document 2 (inspection certificate) could not be obtained. c. The cost of document 1 (phytosanitary certificate) is $17.6 (0.6% of income per capita). The cost of document 2 (inspection certificate) could not be obtained. d. License is revoked if any of the pre-requirements are not fullfiled. MOZAMBIQUE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 130 LOW INCOME 90.6 46.1 42.5 29.8 83.9 60.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 90.6 SEED 81.3 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 7 Procedures (number) 582 Time (days) 500.0 (79.4) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 46.1 FERTILIZER 30.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 50.0 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 58.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 200.0 (31.7) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 81.6 (13) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 42.5 MACHINERY 37.5 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 5548.1 (880.6) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 29.8 FINANCE 57.1 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 66.7 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 83.9 MARKETS 92.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 75.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 2 Time to prepare export documents (days) 13.4 (2.1) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 60.7 TRANSPORT 64.3 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 2.5 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 130.5 (20.7) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 5 Validity of truck permit (years) 34.4 (5.5) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 57.1 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 57.5 43.9 66.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. MYANMAR EAST ASIA & PACIFIC 131 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 53.6 61.9 21.4 24.6 42.0 22.6 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 53.6 SEED 50.0 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 306 Time (days) 445.1 (35.1) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 57.1 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 61.9 FERTILIZER 45.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 3 Procedures (number) 42 Time (days) 122.4 (9.6) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 40.8 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 55.6 (4.4) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 55.6 (4.4) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 21.4 MACHINERY 0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 57.5 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 11.1 (0.9) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 55.6 (4.4) Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 24.6 FINANCE 42.9 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 80.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 42.0 MARKETS 71.4 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 12.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 4 Time to prepare export documents (days) 20.3 (1.6) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 22.6 TRANSPORT 31.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 11.5 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 2.2 (0.2) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 51.7 (4.1) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 14.3 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 37.6 39.7 37.5 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. NEPAL SOUTH ASIA 132 LOW INCOME 55.8 57.2 21.0 50.0 81.3 44.0 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 55.8 SEED 68.8 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 611 Time (days) 0 Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 42.9 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 57.2 FERTILIZER 45.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 3 Procedures (number) 1125 Time (days) 49.4 (6.8) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 60.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 0 Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 83.9 (11.5) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 21.0 MACHINERY 6.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 50.0 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 50.0 FINANCE 57.1 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 93.3 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 74.3 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 81.3 MARKETS 100 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 62.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 2 Time to prepare export documents (days) 5.3 (0.7) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 44.0 TRANSPORT 45.2 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 2 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 303.7 (41.6) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 0.3 Validity of truck permit (years) 1.0 (0.1) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 42.9 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 50.4 45.3 51.0 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. NICARAGUA LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN 133 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 54.9 64.4 41.5 31.2 67.0 75.0 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 54.9 SEED 81.3 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 650 Time (days) 15,265.0 (834.2) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 28.6 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 64.4 FERTILIZER 35.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 2 Procedures (number) 30 Time (days) 1,600.0 (87.4) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 58.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 50.0 (2.7) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 25.0 (1.4) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 41.5 MACHINERY 31.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 80.0 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 0 Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) No data Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 31.2 FINANCE 0 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 60.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 70.8 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 67.0 MARKETS 71.4 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 62.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 2 Time to prepare export documents (days) 28.9 (1.6) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 0 Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 75.0 TRANSPORT 64.3 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 7.5 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 94.3 (5.2) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 5 Validity of truck permit (years) 12.1 (0.7) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 85.7 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 48.0 58.6 74.7 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. NIGER SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 134 LOW INCOME 43.8 42.2 24.4 36.8 54.5 60.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 43.8 SEED 37.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 50.0 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 42.2 FERTILIZER 0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) N/Aa Procedures (number) N/Aa Time (days) N/Aa Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 60.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 39.9 (9.3) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 24.4 MACHINERY 0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 36.8 FINANCE 42.9 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 60.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 81.3 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 54.5 MARKETS 71.4 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 37.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) 3 Time to prepare export documents (days) 10 (2.3) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 60.7 TRANSPORT 50.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 1 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 39.9 (9.3) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of truck permit (years) 0.3 (0.1) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 33.7 36.9 66.0 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The private sector is not required to register fertilizer. PHILIPPINES EAST ASIA & PACIFIC 135 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 92.2 57.2 68.7 72.6 52.7 65.5 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 92.2 SEED 84.4 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6a Procedures (number) 571 a Time (days) 0.0 a Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 57.2 FERTILIZER 65.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 3 Procedures (number) 114 Time (days) 108.9 (6.0) b Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 40.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) No data Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) No data Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 68.7 MACHINERY 53.8 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 72.2 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 80.0 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 1200 (34.9) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A c Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 72.6 FINANCE 85.7 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 100 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 89.6 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 87.5 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 52.7 MARKETS 67.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 37.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 3 Time to prepare export documents (days) 97.3 (2.8) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 113.5 (3.3) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 65.5 TRANSPORT 59.5 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 235 Time to obtain company license (days) 136.1 (4) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 5d Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 12.8 (0.4) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 68.5 58.8 63.8 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. Registration is not mandatory, therefore we do not account for non-mandatory costs. b. The cost of application for registration and field testing is $108.9 but there is no data on the lab reports. c. 10–20% of import value. d. Licenses can be issued with varying validity from a minimum of 1 year up to a maximum of 5 years. POLAND OECD HIGH INCOME 136 HIGH INCOME 78.1 94.4 66.7 N/Aa 90.2 92.9 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 78.1 SEED 56.3 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 699 Time (days) 979.2 (7.1) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 94.4 FERTILIZER 100 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 4 Procedures (number) 60 Time (days) 219.8 (1.6) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 MACHINERY 66.7 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 66.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/Aa FINANCE - ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) - ∆ Credit unions (0–100) - ∆ Agent banking (0–100) - ∆ Electronic money (0–100) - ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 90.2 MARKETS 92.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 87.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 0 Export documents per shipment (number) 0 Time to prepare export documents (days) 0 Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 92.9 TRANSPORT 85.7 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 90 Time to obtain company license (days) 249.5 (1.8) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 15 Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 78 (0.6) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 100 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 84.7 84.7 83.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. High-income countries are not measured under the finance topic. RUSSIAN FEDERATION EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA 137 HIGH INCOME 67.0 67.6 64.7 N/Ab 80.4 65.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 67.0 SEED 62.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 716 Time (days) 0a Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 71.4 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 67.6 FERTILIZER 75.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 424 Time (days) 9,059.9 (68.6) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 61.1 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 64.7 MACHINERY 56.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 77.8 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 60.0 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 168.3 (1.3) Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/Ab FINANCE - ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) - ∆ Credit unions (0–100) - ∆ Agent banking (0–100) - ∆ Electronic money (0–100) - ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 80.4 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 75.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 4 Export documents per shipment (number) 12 Time to prepare export documents (days) 33.4 (0.3) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 65.7 TRANSPORT 60.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 34.6 (0.3) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 68.8 71.3 66.0 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. Registering up to five varieties in a year is free of charge. b. High-income countries are not measured under the finance topic. RWANDA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 138 LOW INCOME 27.7 61.7 41.1 59.1 56.3 71.4 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 27.7 SEED 12.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) No practice Procedures (number) No practice Time (days) No practice Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 42.9 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 61.7 FERTILIZER 45.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) No data Time (days) 14.9 (2.3) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 73.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 29.8 (4.6) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 41.1 MACHINERY 33.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 33.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 56.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 59.1 FINANCE 61.9 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 73.3 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 87.1 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 72.9 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 56.3 MARKETS 100 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 12.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 1 Export documents per shipment (number) No data a Time to prepare export documents (days) 0.3 (0.0) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 1,602.3 (246.5) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 71.4 TRANSPORT 71.4 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 7 Time to obtain company license (days) 158.5 (24.4) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 29.8 (4.6) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 56.1 37.5 67.1 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The time to obtain document 1 (phytosanitary certificate) is 2 days. The time to obtain document 2 (quality certificate) could not be obtained. SPAIN OECD HIGH INCOME 139 HIGH INCOME 81.3 86.1 69.6 N/Aa 90.2 97.6 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 81.3 SEED 62.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 598 Time (days) 2,841 (9.6) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 86.1 FERTILIZER 75.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 1 Procedures (number) 90 Time (days) 0 Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 69.6 MACHINERY 68.8 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 73.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/Aa FINANCE - ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) - ∆ Credit unions (0–100) - ∆ Agent banking (0–100) - ∆ Electronic money (0–100) - ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 90.2 MARKETS 92.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 87.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 0 Export documents per shipment (number) 0 Time to prepare export documents (days) 0 Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 0 Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 97.6 TRANSPORT 95.2 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 3.5 Time to obtain company license (days) 50.9 (0.2) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) Indefinite b Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 94.9 (0.3) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 100 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 82.6 86.9 83.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. High-income countries are not measured under the finance topic. b. Has to be validated every 2 years. License is revoked if any of the pre-requirements are not fulfilled. SRI LANKA SOUTH ASIA 140 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 53.6 72.2 40.1 30.3 41.1 36.9 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 53.6 SEED 50.0 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 4 Procedures (number) 298 Time (days) 0 Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 57.1 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 72.2 FERTILIZER 80.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 3 Procedures (number) 187 Time (days) 73.5 (2.2) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 83.3 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 53.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 147.0 (4.3) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 40.1 MACHINERY 18.8 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 26.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 75.0 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 7.4 (0.2) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 30.3 FINANCE 0 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 60.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 91.7 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 41.1 MARKETS 57.1 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 25.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 3 Export documents per shipment (number) 4 Time to prepare export documents (days) 273.2 (8) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 2 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 222 (6.5) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 36.9 TRANSPORT 73.8 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 1.5 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 101.1 (3.0) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 15.1 (0.4) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 0 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 52.3 45.0 42.8 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. SUDAN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 141 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 76.6 63.3 45.9 27.1 61.6 65.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 76.6 SEED 53.1 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 654 Time (days) 12,554.3 (721.5) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 63.3 FERTILIZER 80.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 4 Procedures (number) 29 Time (days) 65.9 (3.8) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 43.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 82.4 (4.7) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 33.0 (1.9) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 45.9 MACHINERY 50.0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 44.4 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 43.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) 82.4 (4.7) Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 33.0 (1.9) Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 27.1 FINANCE 85.7 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 50.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 61.6 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 37.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) No data a Time to prepare export documents (days) 41.9 (2.4) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 65.7 TRANSPORT 60.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 205.9 (11.8) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 63.2 49.5 52.7 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The time to obtain document 1 (phytosanitary certificate) is 7 days. The time to obtain document 2 (fumigation certificate) could not be obtained. TAJIKISTAN EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA 142 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 56.7 40.6 47.8 32.0 74.1 78.6 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 56.7 SEED 56.3 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) No data Procedures (number) No data Time (days) No data Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 57.1 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 40.6 FERTILIZER 55.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) No data Procedures (number) No data Time (days) No data Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 0a ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 47.8 MACHINERY 50.0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 26.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 32.0 FINANCE 95.2 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 40.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 74.1 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 62.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 6 Time to prepare export documents (days) 62.9 (5.9) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 78.6 TRANSPORT 85.7 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 30 Time to obtain company license (days) 111.0 (10.5) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 5.0 b Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 138.8 (13.1) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 60.9 29.7 68.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. According to the Law On Production and Safe Use of Pesticides and Agrochemicals (03/07/2012), quality control is not regulated. b. Not less than 5 years. TANZANIA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 143 LOW INCOME 71.9 75.0 51.4 74.2 54.5 67.9 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 71.9 SEED 56.3 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 333 Time (days) 652.1 (70.1) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 87.5 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 75.0 FERTILIZER 60.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 578.5 Time (days) 9,899.5 (1,064.5) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 65.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) No data Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) No data Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 51.4 MACHINERY 37.5 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 33.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 74.2 FINANCE 71.4 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 100 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 87.1 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 87.5 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 54.5 MARKETS 71.4 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 37.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 4 Export documents per shipment (number) 13 Time to prepare export documents (days) 39 (4.2) a Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) No data Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 67.9 TRANSPORT 64.3 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 3 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 47.4 (5.1) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 29.6 (3.2) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 63.2 56.9 73.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. The total cost excludes the cost of document 3 (radioactivity analysis certificate), which is approximately 0.3% of the FOB value of the goods exported. TURKEY EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA 144 UPPER-MIDDLE INCOME 76.6 66.7 54.3 79.7 69.6 83.3 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 76.6 SEED 78.1 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 646 Time (days) 3,367.3 (31.0) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 75 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 66.7 FERTILIZER 70.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 3 Procedures (number) 50 Time (days) 180.7 (1.7) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 50.0 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 80.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) No data Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) No data Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 54.3 MACHINERY 46.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 50.0 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 79.7 FINANCE N/A a ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 60.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) N/A a ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 79.2 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 100 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 69.6 MARKETS 64.3 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 75.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 3 Export documents per shipment (number) 3 Time to prepare export documents (days) 19 (0.2) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 0 Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 83.3 TRANSPORT 81.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 4 Time to obtain company license (days) 4280.5 (39.5) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 5 Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 142.7 (1.3) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 85.7 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 69.6 58.3 77.5 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. Upper-middle-income countries are not measured under the microfinance institutions indicator and agent banking indicator. UGANDA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 145 LOW INCOME 44.2 56.4 51.0 46.3 58.9 75.0 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 44.2 SEED 31.3 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 523 Time (days) 0a Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 57.1 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 56.4 FERTILIZER 45.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 691 Time (days) 1,708.9 (258.9) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 57.5 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 379.8 (57.5) Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 51.0 MACHINERY 56.3 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 83.3 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 46.3 FINANCE 66.7 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 40.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 100 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 58.9 MARKETS 92.9 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 25.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 4 Export documents per shipment (number) No data Time to prepare export documents (days) No data Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 569.6 (86.3) Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 75 TRANSPORT 78.6 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 1 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 41.8 (6.3) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 76 (11.5) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 60.5 35.0 70.8 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. a. In practice, the National Agriculture Research Organization (NARD), which is in charge of registration , has not been charging fees for these procedures. UKRAINE EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA 146 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 74.1 80.6 62.7 41.6 86.6 65.7 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 74.1 SEED 62.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 714 Time (days) 1,136.4 (31.9) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 85.7 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 80.6 FERTILIZER 75.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 325 Time (days) 25,537.2 (717.3) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 62.7 MACHINERY 43.8 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 77.8 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 41.6 FINANCE 0 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 40.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 42.9 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 25.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 100 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 86.6 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 87.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 3 Export documents per shipment (number) 5 Time to prepare export documents (days) 31.2 (0.9) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 65.7 TRANSPORT 60.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 39.3 (1.1) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 71.4 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 63.4 88.4 68.3 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. VIETNAM EAST ASIA & PACIFIC 147 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 62.5 70.0 24.4 45.3 80.4 54.8 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 62.5 SEED 62.5 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 6 Procedures (number) 901 Time (days) 8,050.8 (426.0) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 62.5 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 70.0 FERTILIZER 60.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 3 Procedures (number) 15 Time (days) 50.0 (2.6) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 100 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 50.0 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 20.0 (1.1) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 24.4 MACHINERY 0 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 6.7 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 45.3 FINANCE 71.4 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 80.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 75.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 0 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 80.4 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 75.0 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 2 Export documents per shipment (number) 3 Time to prepare export documents (days) 38.5 (2.0) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) 0 Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 54.8 TRANSPORT 81.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) 3 Time to obtain company license (days) 9.2 (0.5) Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) 7 Validity of company license (years) N/A Time to obtain truck permit (days) N/A Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of truck permit (years) 16.1 (0.9) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 0.5 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 28.6 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 55.7 60.6 48.4 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. ZAMBIA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 148 LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME 70.3 56.7 39.2 51.3 61.6 67.9 SEED FERTILIZER MACHINERY FINANCE MARKETS TRANSPORT 70.3 SEED 53.1 ∆ Seed registration (0–100) 5 Procedures (number) 544 Time (days) 1,045.0 (59.4) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 87.5 ∆ Seed development and certification (0–100) 56.7 FERTILIZER 40.0 ∆ Fertilizer registration (0–100) 4 Procedures (number) 211 Time (days) 4,249.8 (241.5) Cost in US$ (% income per capita) 66.7 ∂ Fertilizer quality control (0–100) 63.3 ◊ Fertilizer import requirements (0–100) 0 Cost to register as an importer of fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 183.0 (10.4) Cost to obtain an import permit for fertilizer in US$ (% income per capita) 39.2 MACHINERY 37.5 ∆ Tractor dealer requirements (0–100) 13.3 ∂ Tractor standards and safety (0–100) 66.7 ◊ Tractor import requirements (0–100) N/A Cost to register as an importer of tractors in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Cost to obtain an import permit for tractors in US$ (% income per capita) 51.3 FINANCE 66.7 ∆ Microfinance institutions (0–100) 40.0 ∆ Credit unions (0–100) 0 ∆ Agent banking (0–100) 50.0 ∆ Electronic money (0–100) 100 ∆ Warehouse receipts (0–100) 61.6 MARKETS 85.7 ∆ Production and sales (0–100) 37.5 ∂ Plant protection (0–100) 5 Export documents per shipment (number) 11 Time to prepare export documents (days) 190.6 (10.8) Cost of export documents in US$ (% income per capita) 0 Trader licensing and membership requirements (number) N/A Cost of licenses and membership in US$ (% income per capita) 67.9 TRANSPORT 50.0 ∆ Truck licenses (0–100) N/A Time to obtain company license (days) N/A Cost to obtain company license in US$ (% income per capita) N/A Validity of company license (years) 90 Time to obtain truck permit (days) 17.6 (1.0) Cost to obtain truck permit in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of truck permit (years) 5.2 (0.3) Cost to obtain vehicle technical inspection in US$ (% income per capita) 1 Validity of vehicle inspection (years) 85.7 ◊ Cross-border transportation (0–100) 55.8 39.2 71.9 OPERATIONS (∆) QUALITY CONTROL (∂) TRADE (◊) The operations score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery, finance, markets and transport indicator scores indicated with a ∆. The quality control score is an average of seed, fertilizer, machinery and markets indicator scores indicated with a ∂. The trade score is an average of fertilizer, machinery and transport indicator scores indicated with a ◊. 149 LOCAL EXPERTS GLOBAL RESPONDENTS Rozina Afroz, Bangladesh Agricultural Altaf Hossain, Directorate General of Drug Research Institute Administration (DGDA) Africa Legal Network (ALN) Iftekhar Ahmed, Bangladesh Agricultural Amjad Hossain, Bangladesh Agricultural AGCO Research Institute Research Institute Baker & McKenzie Vinay Ahuja, DFDL Anwar Hossain, WAVE Foundation Bayer Animal Health Shahid Akbar, Bangladesh Institute of ICT Israil Hossain, Bangladesh Agricultural Bayer CropScience in Development (BIID) Research Institute Ceva Santé Animale Lamisa Alam, Kamal Hossain & Associates Md. Sanwar Hossain, S Hossain & Associates Clifford Chance S. M. Khorshed Alam, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council Mohammad Iqbal Hossain Colibri Law Firm Saiful Alam, Ministry of Water Resources Shahadat Hossain, ACDI/VOCA DFDL Mohsin Ali, WAVE Foundation S. M. Jahangir Hossain FINCA Shah Mohammad Arefin, Lal Teer Seed Nazmul Huda, Bangladesh Society of Seed GALVmed Limited Technology Hester Biosciences Limited Jennifer Ashraf, Legacy Legal Corporate Arif Imtiaz, OGR Legal IFDC Law firm Mohammad Iqbal, Bangladesh Chemical John Deere Mohammed Ayub, Rural Development Industries Corporation Academy (RDA) KWS M. Amir-UI Islam, Amir & Amir Law Abdul Halim Bhuiyan, Bangladesh Associates, member of Lex Mundi Merial Agricultural Development Corporation Md. Monjurul Islam Monsanto (BADC) Md. Nazrul Islam, Bangladesh Bank OLAM Sharif Bhuyian, Kamal Hossain & Associates Raisul Islam, Kamal Hossain & Associates One Acre Fund Ahnaf Chowdhury, Kamal Hossain & Md. Tariqul Islam, Bangladesh Agricultural Pioneer Associates Research Institute SQM Md. Mozammel Ali Chowdhury, Young Mohammed Khairul Islam, Jagorani Chakra Syngenta Power in Social Action Foundation (JCF) Syngenta Foundation Ahmed Zaker Chowdhury, Kamal Hossain Towhidul Islam, Legacy Legal Corporate & Associates Law firm Tilleke & Gibbins Subrato Dey, ADESH Ishrat Jahan, International Fertilizer VimpelCom Development Center (IFDC) Chowdhury Md. Feroz Bin Alam, Vodafone Group Plc Bangladesh Bank Md. Abdul Jalil, Land Records and Survey Yara Department, Ministry of Land Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Ahmed Kafiluddin, Bangladesh Fertilizer Bishwojit Ghosh, Jagorani Chakra BANGLADESH Association Foundation (JCF) Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute A. Z. M. Momtazul Karim, Department of Golam Zilani, Milky Way Shipping Lines Agricultural Extension (DAE) Hatim Industries Ltd. (Pvt.) Limited Abu Raihan Muhammed Khalid, Raihan Karnaphuli Fertilizer Co. Ltd (KAFCO) Md. Osman Goni, OGR Legal Khalid & Associates Microcredit Regulatory Authority (MRA) Aminul Haque, Advance Animal Science Md. Anwar Hossain Khan, Department of Co. Ltd. Md. Joynal Abedin, Ministry of Local Agricultural Extension (DAE) Government, Rural Development and Aminul Haque, Come To Save Cooperative Munzur Murshid Khan, Advance Animal Cooperatives (CTS) Science Co. Ltd. 150 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Md. Abdul Malek, Bangladesh Agricultural Md. Wahiduzzaman, Jagorani Chakra Fabrizio Leigue Rioja, AG Logistics Research Institute Foundation (JCF) Ichín Ma, Indacochea & Asociados Moin Ghani, Kamal Hossain & Associates Quazi Ludmila Zaman, Amir & Amir Law Sergio Diego Martínez Calbimonte, Marcal Associates, member of Lex Mundi Ahmed Moinuddin, Advance Animal Consultores Science Co. Ltd. Marco Antonio Torrico Navia, BOLIVIA Md. Rezwan Molla, Bangladesh Viceministerio de Telecomunicaciones Agricultural Research Institute Instituto Nacional de Innovación Álvaro Otondo Maldonado, Instituto Agropecuaria y Forestal (INIAF) Mohamm Monsured Nacional de Innovación Agropecuaria y La Autoridad de Supervisión del Sistema Forestal (INIAF) Md. Abu Fazal Munif, Legacy Legal Financiero (ASFI) Corporate Law firm Jaime Alfredo Palenque Quintanilla, Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Tierras Association of Agricultural Input Suppliers Nujhat Naeem, Banglalink Digital (APIA) Communications Ltd. Nibol Ltd. María Laura Paz G., Indacochea & Afrina Naznin, Legacy Legal Corporate Law Sociedad Anónima Comercial Industrial Asociados firm (SACI) Rodrigo Peña Md. Aminur Rahman, Ministry of Local Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria Government, Rural Development and e Inocuidad Alimentaria (SENASAG) Gustavo Pozo Vargas, Viceministerio de Cooperatives Telecomunicaciones Viceministerio de Desarrollo Rural y Md. Mizanur Rahman, Ministry of Local Agropecuario Silvia Quevedo, AG Logistics Government, Rural Development and Yara Pablo Quispe, Trucks Logistics Cooperatives Mauricio Becerra de la Roca Donoso, Carlos Quitón Md. Moshiar Rahman, Bangladesh Road Becerra de la Roca Donoso & Asociados SRL Transport Authority Blanca Roca, CTG Andrea (Genética José Campero, Instituto Nacional de Líquida) PIC Pulak Rangan Shaha, Ministry of Innovación Agropecuaria y Forestal (INIAF) Agriculture Carlos Saavedra, HELVETAS Swiss Magaly Castillo Tamayo, Naandanjain Intercooperation Bazlur Rashid, Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) Remi Castro Ávila, SENASAG Carlos Sanabria, ATT Bolivia Md. Abdur Razzaque, Ministry of Maritza Céspedes, Biogénesis-Bagó Gabriela Santucho, SUR CARGO S.R.L. Agriculture Gonzalo Colque, Taller de Iniciativas Larry Serrate, AgroNáyade Quazi Rezaul Islam, Ministry of Local en Estudios Rurales y Reforma Agraria Pablo Stejskal, Stejskal & Asociados Government, Rural Development and (TIERRA) Cooperatives Alvaro Tufiño Sergio José Dávila Zeballos, C.R.&F. Rojas Durlave Roy, Northern Agro Services Ltd Abogados Marcos Vargas Caravallo, Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria Sheikh Saiful Rajib, S Hossain & Associates Diego Fernando Rojas Moreno, C.R.&F. Rojas Abogados David Wilson, Instituto Nacional de Kalidas Sarkar, Department of Livestock Reforma Agraria Services (DLS), Ministry of Fisheries and Úrsula Font, Indacochea & Asociados Livestock José Noel Zamora, Banco Prodem S.A. Humberto Gandarillas, Deutsche Shafique Shafiquzzaman, Maxwell Stamp Gesellschaft für Internationale Ltd Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Sreekanta Sheel Carlos L. Gerke, Estudio Jurídico Gerke, Soc. Banking Agency of the Republic of Srpska Civ. Kuri Siddique, Kamal Hossain & Associates Banking Agency of the Federation of Bosnia Alberto Guzmán, AGC Consultora and Herzegovina (FBA) S. K. Sinha, ASA Jorge Guzmán, Banco Prodem S.A. MCO EKI Mashrufa Tanzin, Rural Development Academy (RDA) Alonso Indacochea, Indacochea & AgroDar s.p.z. Asociados Ashraf Uddin, Pedrollo nk Ltd. State Veterinary Office of Cesar Iriarte, Sociedad Industrial y Bosnia-Herzegovina Md. Amir Uddin, Bangladesh Bank Comercial de Riego y Agricultura Sicra Ltda. Snežana Akulović, Direction for the Plant Nashir Uddin, Biswas Agrovet Ltd. Jose Nelson Joaquin, Universidad Protection Read Uddin, Jus Counsel Autónoma Gabriel René Moreno LOCAL EXPERTS 151 Eldin Alikadić, Ministry of Agriculture, Aleksandar Sajić, Sajić Advokatska Firma Boukaré Bikienga, Comité Water Management and Forestry of the Interprofessionnel du Riz du Burkina (CIRB) Zlatan Salihović, Communications Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Regulatory Agency Mamoudou Birba, Le Cadre d’Action des Marina Antić, University of Banja Luka Juristes de l’Environnement Emina Saračević, Saračević and Sadina Bina, MCO EKI Gazibegović Lawyers (SGL) Adama Bitie, Fisconsult-Bitié & Associés Stevan Dimitrijević, Karanović & Nikolić Nadžida Sarić, Communications Regulatory Boukary Boly, Société d’Exportation du Faso Agency (SEFA) Amina Djugum, Marić & Co. Law Firm Tanja Savičić, Karanović & Nikolić Issaka Bougoum, SN Ranch du Koba BF Dražen Marić, Euro Part HB d.o.o Selim Škaljić, University of Sarajevo Mamadou Boukouma, Ministère des Nusmir Huskić, Huskić Law Office Infrastructures, du Désenclavement et des Mehmed Spaho, Spaho Law Office Jesenka Jahić, Ministry of Agriculture, Transports Water Management and Forestry of the Dragan Stijak, Sajić Law Office Yves Bertrand Capo-Chichi, Agriculture et Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Vladimir Šušnjar, EKO-BeL Laktaši Artisanat, Agence pour la promotion de la Ljubiša Kačavenda, InfoMap Novi Grad Petite et Moyenne Entreprise Bojana Tkalčić – Đulić, Advokatska Kenan Karahasanović, Ministry of kancelarija Tkalčić-Đulić, Prebanić, Rizvić, Halidou Compaoré, Institut de Agriculture, Water Management and Jusufbašić-Goloman l’Environnement et des Recherches Forestry of the Federation of Bosnia and Agricoles (INERA) Vojislav Trkulja, University of Banja Luka Herzegovina Arnaud Chabanne, CB Énergie Ismet Velić, Ismet Velić Law Firm Almin Karamehić, EKO-BeL Laktaši Laurent Compaoré Larisa Velić, High Judicial and Prosecutorial Ivana Karanović, Karanović & Nikolić Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HJPC) Konkourou Coulibaly, AGRIMOTOR Smiljana Knežević, Plant Health Protection Željko Žepić, Transkop Tuzla Gertrude Marie Mathilda Coulibaly/ Administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina Zombré, Millénium Challenge Account Danijela Kondić, University of Banja Luka BURKINA FASO Yempabou Coulidiati, Association TIN BA Meliha Kovačević, Communications ACFIME-CREDO Amadou Dao Regulatory Agency Centre International de Recherche- Philippe d’Arondel de Hayes, Houet Select Smiljana Kraljević, Ministry of Agriculture, Développement sur l’Elevage en Zone Water Management and Forestry of the Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Subhumide Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Mamadou Cellou Diallo, Bagrépôle Chambre d’Agriculture du Burkina Faso Tarik Kupusović, Hydro-Engineering Amidou Garane, Université de Institute Sarajevo Ministère de l’Agriculture Ouagadougou Dajana Legin-Dedić, Microcredit Valentin Akue, United Bank for Africa Henri Girard, Terre Verte Foundation Sunrise Burkina (UBA Burkina) Philippe Goabga, Telecel Faso Branko Marić, Marić & Co. Law Firm Sienou Al Hassan, Tropic Agro Chem Michel Havard, CIRAD Vladimir Markuš, Karanović & Nikolić Laeticia Aoue/Some, Juris-Gouv International Consulting SARL Dioyel Laeticia Hetie, Juris-Gouv Dragan Mataruga, Republic of Srpska International Consulting SARL Inspectorate Diallo Ali Badara, Union Nationale des Producteurs de Coton du Burkina Innocent Hien, United Bank for Africa Dragana Mehmedović, AMFI Association Burkina (UBA Burkina) Léon Badiara, Genetic Center Ena Mesihović, Huskić Law Office Etienne Kabore, Bagrépôle Boureima Bado, GRAINE sarl Ensar Osmić, Ziraat Bank Félicité Kaboré, Maison de l’Entreprise du Didier Balma, Institut de l’Environnement et Enida Pecikoza, Ministry of Agriculture, Burkina Faso Recherches Agricoles (INERA) Water Management and Forestry of the Lassiné Kaboré, Ministère des Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Theodore Bele, Direction Générale des Infrastructures, du Désenclavement et des Aménagements et du Développement de Amer Ramić, Advokatska kancelarija Ramić Transports l’Irrigation (MAH) Amer Saidou Kabré, AGRODIA Frédéric Belem, United Bank for Africa Adela Rizvić, Advokatska kancelarija Burkina (UBA Burkina) Issaka Kanazoe, Airtel Burkina Faso S.A. Tkalčić-Đulić, Prebanić, Rizvić, Jusufbašić-Goloman Patinde Marie Louise Eléonore Bélemlilga, Bonaventure Kéré, Syndicat National des The Volta Basin Authority Transporteurs Routiers de Voyageurs du Philippe Sabot, Merial Burkina (SNTRV-B) 152 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Georges Kiénou, Union Nationale des Bationo Rakissiwinde, Conseil Burkinabé Assiongbon Têko-Agbo, Commission de Producteurs de Riz du Burkina Faso des Chargeurs (CBC) l’Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest (UNPR-B) Africaine (UEMOA) Philippe Sabot, Merial Lancina Ki, West African Economic and Salif Tentica, Ministère de l’Agriculture Adaman Sanfo, MCA Monetary Union (UEMOA) de l’Hydraulique et des Recherches Pierre Sanon, Société Nationale Halieutiques Diara Kocty/Thiombiano, Centre National d’aménagement du Territoire et de de Multiplication des Animaux Performants Ali Traoré, Conseil Burkinabé des Chargeurs l’Equipement Rurale (CMAP) (CBC) Daouda Sanou, Airtel Burkina Faso S.A. Amoulyakar Arnaud Koné, United Bank for Ibrahima Traoré, Ministère des Africa Burkina (UBA Burkina) Issouf Sanou, Fédération Nationale des Infrastructures, du Désenclavement et des Organisations Paysannes (FENOP) Transports Joachim Koné, Cyfu Agro Jacob Sanou, Institut de l’Environnement et Karim Traoré, Monsanto Mahamane Miampo, Agence pour la de Recherches Agricoles (INERA) promotion des exportations du Burkina Hamma Yacouba, Institut International (APEX) Irene Sare/Kanzie, Autorité de Régulation d’Ingénierie de l’Eau et de l’Environnement des Communications Electroniques et des Issoufou Maïga, Organisation des Jean Pierre Yaméogo, ETY-GTZ Postes (ARCEP) Transporteurs Routiers du Faso (OTRAF) Blaise Yoda, Ministère de l’Agriculture Moumini Savadogo, Union Internationale Dibi Millogo, Partnenariat National de l’Eau de l’Hydraulique et des Recherches pour la Conservation de la Nature (UICN) Halieutiques Charles Adolphe Nanema, Ministère Aoua Sawadogo, Réseau des caisses de l’Agriculture de l’Hydraulique et des Jonas Yogo, Agro Productions populaires du Burkina Faso (RCPB) Recherches Halieutiques Roger Zangré, Ministère de la Recherche Daouda Sawadogo, Réseau des caisses Nadine Naré, Ministère de l’Agriculture scientifique et de l’Innovation populaires du Burkina Faso (RCPB) de l’Hydraulique et des Recherches Rufive Zougrana, Conseil Burkinabé des Halieutiques Maliki Sawadogo, Ministère des Chargeurs (CBC) Infrastructures, du Désenclavement et des Aristide Ongone Obame Transports Ochuko Patrick Otoba, Saso Industries Neerbewendin G. Sawadogo, Agence BURUNDI Abou Simbel Ouattara, Moablaou S.A. pour la Promotion de la Petite et Moyenne Banque de la République du Burundi Entreprise Agriculture et Artisanat Laurent Ouedraogo, Direction de la (APME2A) NAHA S.U. modernisation et de la mécanisation agricole (DMMA) Saïdou Sawadogo PPFO Fertilizer Mahamadi Ouedraogo, Ministère de la Abdoulaye R Semdé, Ministère des Rubeya & Co Advocates Recherche scientifique et de l’Innovation Ressources Animales (MRA)Ministère des Daudi Amani, African Promotion Company Ressources Animales (MRA) Maïmouna Ouedraogo, Union Nationale (APROCO) des Producteurs de Riz du Burkina Faso El Hadj Kassoum K. Simpore, Organisation Albert Arakaza (UNPR-B) des Transporteurs Routiers du Faso (OTRAF) Donatien Bahimenda, Collectif Modibo Ouedraogo, Agriculture et des Producteurs des Semences du Artisanat, Agence pour la promotion de la Ansenekoun Désiré Some, Ministère des Burundi (COPROSEBU) Petite et Moyenne Entreprise Ressources Animales (MRA) Jean-Claude Barakamfitiye, Muyango Law Mohamed Ouedraogo, Sudconseil François Some, Bolloré Africa Logistics Firm T. Jeremy Ouedraogo, Ministère de la Albert Soudre, Ministère des Ressources Leger Bruggeman Recherche scientifique et de l’Innovation Animales (MRA) Marius Bucumi, Autorité de Régulation de Yassia Ouedraogo, UCOBAM Roland A. Sow, Bolloré Africa Logistics la Filière Café (ARFIC) Emma Palm, Ministère de l’Agriculture Laurent Stravato, iDE Ménard Bucumi, CRDB Bank de l’Hydraulique et des Recherches Kalga Tanga, Saso Industries Halieutiques François Butoke Yamine Tangongosse, AGRODIA Souleymane Pindé, Ministère des Leone Comin, International Fertilizer Ressources Animales (MRA) Evariste Tapsoba, Ministère de l’Agriculture Development Center (IFDC) de l’Hydraulique et des Recherches Brahima Rabo, Union des Chauffeurs Christophe Gahungu, Water, Climate and Halieutiques Routiers du Burkina (UCRB) Development Programme for Africa Issaka Tapsoba, GGTI Motors LOCAL EXPERTS 153 Fidèle Gahungu, Office national de contrôle Dieudonne Nahimana, Institut des Sciences François Nkurunziza, Armajaro Burundi et de certification des semences (ONCCS) Agronomiques du Burundi (ISABU) S.U.R.L. Paul Gatin, SHER Ingénieurs-conseil Jonathan Nahimana, Econet M. Louise Nsabiyumva, Caisse Coopérative d’Epargne et de Crédit Mutuelle (CECM) Hakizimana Anselme, ATRIDA Joseph Nahayo, Forum des Organisations de Producteurs Agricoles du Burundi Emmanuel Nshimirimana, BIRATURABA Richard Havyarimana, Forum des (FOPABU) Organisations des Producteurs Agricoles du Eric Ntangaro, Association des Burundi (FOPABU) Gérard Ndabemeye, Ministère de transporteurs internationaux du Burundi l’Agriculture et de l’Élevage (ATIB) Clodette Inarukundo, Inarukundo Claudette Cyprien Ndayishimiye, Réseau des Daniel Ntawurishira, SODETRA Ltd. Boris Ininahazwe, Banque de Crédit de institutions de microfinance au Bujumbura Philomène Ntiharirizwa, Twitezimbere Burundi-RIM Desire Irakoze, Leo (U-Com) Adelin Ntungumburanye, Chambre Prosper Ndihokubwayo, Deutsche Fédérale de Commerce et d’Industrie du Flora Irakoze, Banque Nationale de Gesellschaft für Internationale Burundi Développement Économique Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Jean Claude Ntwari, Office national de Patrick Itangishaka, SDV Transami - Bolloré Emmanuel Ndorimana, Ministère de l’Eau, contrôle et de certification des semences Africa Logistics de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement du (ONCCS) Territoire et de l’Urbanisme Richard Kaderi, African Promotion Emery Nukuri, Université du Burundi Company (APROCO) Christian Nduwayo, Cabinet de Maître Placide Gatoto Boland Rasquinha, Pharma Bolena Louise Kamikazi, WISE Gilbert Nibigirwe, Gilbert & Partners Ena Rasquinha, Pharma Bolena Ferdinand Kantungeko Cyriaque Nibitegeka, Nibitegeka Advocates Roland Brian Rasquinha, Alchem Béatrice Kanyange, Ministère de l’Eau, de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement du Claver Nigarura, Rubeya & Co Advocates Alice Remezo, Milk Chel Territoire et de l’Urbanisme Alice Nijimbere, Mkono & Co Théodomir Rishirumuhirwa, Agrobiotec Emmanuel Karikurubu, Ministère du Fiston Nikiza, Société de Commercialisation Lauren Rosenberg, Long Miles Coffee Transport des Intrants Agricoles et des Services Prosper Ruberintwari, Food and Agriculture Arnaud Kimana, Ministère de l’Agriculture Divers (SOCEASED) Organization of the United Nations (FAO) et de l’Élevage Emery Ninganza, Christian Aid Déogratias Rurimunzu, Agence Bernard Kinyata, Receka Inking Pascal Niyingabo, Direction des Titres de Régulation et de Contrôle des Festus Ciza alias Kigazi, Association pour fonciers et du Cadastre national Télécommunications (ARCT) la promotion des Palmiculteurs du Burundi Alfred Niyokwishimira, Ministère de Salvator Ruzima (APROPABU) l’Agriculture et de l’Élevage Philippe Sabot, Merial Ida Marie Mabushi, Diamond Trust Bank Régine Mireille Niyongabo, Muyango Law Burundi (DTB) Steve Sahabo, CofiCo s.a. Firm Damien Macumi, Programme National Eliakim Sakayoya, Ministère de l’Agriculture Célestin Niyongere, Institut des Sciences Foncier et de l’Élevage Agronomiques du Burundi (ISABU) René Madebari, ENSafrica Annick Sezibera, Confédération des Fortunate Niyonkuru, Muyango Law Firm associations des producteurs agricoles pour Béatrice Maregeya, Ministère de Emmanuel Niyonzima le développement (CAPAD) l’Agriculture et de l’Élevage Melchiade Niyonzima, General Trading and Alexis Sinarinzi, Agence de Régulation et de Renilde Masunku, African Promotion Transport (GTT) Contrôle des Télécommunications (ARCT) Company (APROCO) Grégoire Nkeshimana, Direction des Titres Alexandre Sindayigaya, Diamond Trust Deusdedit Mchomba, CRDB Bank fonciers et du Cadastre national Bank Burundi (DTB) Jean Marie Vianney Musangwa, Turame Albert Nkunumana, Direction des Titres Community Finance S.A. fonciers et du Cadastre national CAMBODIA Astère Muyango, Muyango Law Firm Pierre Claver Nkunzabagenzi, Hope Fund Boost Riche (Cambodia) Co., Ltd Bruce Mwile, CRDB Bank Laurent Nkurikiye, BUCOFCO Chuan Wei (Cambodia) Co. Ltd. Leopold Nahawenimana, Direction des Eric Nkurunziza, Université Lumière de DFDL Titres fonciers et du Cadastre national Bujumbura Heifer International 154 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Hartono Tiodora, Multico MS (Cambodia) Pamela Grandon Fisheries Co Ltd Hermes Guerrero, Ministerio de Bienes P&A Asia Nacionales CHILE Sithisak Law office Nelson Gutierrez Gonzalez, Conservador de Centro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Bienes Raíces de Coronel Telecommunication Regulator of Cambodia Rural (RIMISP) (TRC) Marcelo Huenchuñir Gómez, Fundación Fondo Esperanza Banigualdad Lotfi Allal, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) National Customs Service Camila Lavin, Carey Lawyers Maros Apostol, Thaneakea Phum Limited Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias Alejandro León, Universidad de Chile (TKL) (ODEPA) Francisco Lobos, Asociación Gremial Ravindranath Balakrishnan Salinas y Fabres S.A Chilena de Empresarios del Transporte Internacional de Cargas por Carretera Sopheak Chan, Angkor Green Investment Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG) and Development Co., Ltd Ivan Marambio Soquimich Comercial S.A. SQM Sam Ol Chhim, Central Law Firm Eduardo Martin, Carey Lawyers Maria Fernanda Almendras Arriagada, Martin Desautels, DFDL Elecnor Chile S.A Raul Mazzarella, Carey Lawyers H. Naryth Hem, BNG Legal Edmundo Araya, Asociación de Felipe Meneses, Carey Lawyers Exportadores de Frutas de Chile A.G. Kimsreng Kong, Ministry of Environment Sebastián Norris, Araya & Cía Abogados (ASOEX) Kundi Lay, Co-operative Association of Mario Olivares, Cooprinsem Matías Araya, Araya & Cía Abogados Cambodia (CAC) Carolina Olivares Agurto, Transportes Rodrigo Astete Rocha, Servicio Agrícola y Hun Lak, Mekong Oryza Trading Co., Ltd Olivares Ganadero (SAG) Andy Lay, City Rice Import Export Co., Ltd Matias Orfali Pedro Pablo Ballivian, Barros & Errázuriz Robert Lay, City Rice Import Export Co., Ltd Abogados Rodrigo Orlandi Arrate, Boreal Gestión Inmobiliaria Limitada Joseph Lovell, BNG Legal Andres Bittner, Chilolac René Pinochet Chateau, Novafeed Menghak Phem, Royal University of Marlene Brokering, Brokering & Luarte Agriculture Abogados Loreto Poblete F., Quinzio Abogados Sokla San, P&A Asia Law Firm Carlos Browne, Brokering & Luarte Sebastian Querol Rodriguez, Ministerio de Abogados Bienes Nacionales Buon Sarakmony, SETHAVITOU Notary Public of The Kingdom of Cambodia Carlos Bustos, Quinzio Abogados Maria Teresa Quirke Arrau, Quirke & Cia Vong Sarinda, Co-operative Association of Miguel Canala-Echeverria, Asociación Julio Recordon, Carey Lawyers Cambodia (CAC) de Exportadores de Frutas de Chile A.G. Roberto Saelzer, Universidad de (ASOEX) Saruth Chan, Ministry of Agriculture, Concepción Forestry and Fisheries Maricela Canto, National Association of Miguel Saldivia, Carey Lawyers Seed Producers of Chile (ANPROS) Chanvireak Seng, DFDL Alfonso Silva, Carey Lawyers Alberto Cardemil, Carey Lawyers Leanhour Seng, Kong Hour Rice Mill Import José Miguel Stegmeier Schmidlin, Sociedad Export Co., Ltd Claudia Castillo, Quinzio Abogados Agrícola de Bio Bio AG. Thyse Seng, Kong Hour Rice Mill Import Magaly Castillo Tamayo, Naandanjain Rodrigo Benitez Ureta, Baker & McKenzie Export Co., Ltd Lohengrin Cortés Cea Álvaro Varas, Araya & Cía Abogados Say Sony, PRASAC Microfinance Institution Inés De Ros Casacuberta, Araya & Cía Ltd Rafael Vergara, Carey Lawyers Abogados Sovan Meas, BNG Legal Jaime Zaldumbide, Carey Lawyers Tamara Del Río Yon Sovann, Bayon Cereal Co., Ltd Sebastián R. Donoso, Sebastián Donoso y COLOMBIA Tayseng Ly, HBS Law Firm & Consultants Asociados Abogados Asociación Nacional de Médicos Yap Thoeurn, Cambodian Farmer Patricio Gajardo, Gajardo & Rodríguez Law Veterinarios de Colombia (AMEVEC) Association Federation of Agricultural Firm Producers Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café Enrique Garcés B., R&Q Ingeniería S.A. - Cenicafé LOCAL EXPERTS 155 Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Camilo Pardo, Unidad de Restitución de Fataye Akamou, Ministère de l’Agriculture Colombia Tierras Louise Akanvou, Centre National de Financiera América Jorge Alejandro Pinzon Recherche Agronomique Instituto Colombiano Agropecuário (ICA) Dora Inés Rey Martínez, Unidad de Eric Bably, BK & Associés Planificación de Tierras Rurales (UPRA) Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural Binde Binde, Africa Trans-Logistics (INCODER) Jackeline Rincón C., Bancamía S.A., Banco International de las Microfinanzas Yara Bob Clark, Société TECHNOSERVE Andrés Ramón Rodríguez, Gómez-Pinzón Andrew Abela, Abela Maldonado & Tata Dagnono, SCPA Bilé-Aka, Brizoua-Bi Zuleta Asociados Abodagos & Associés Bernardo Rodriguez Ossa, Parra Rodríguez Miguel Achury Jimenez, Bancamía S.A., Henri Danon, Ministère de la Poste et Sanín SAS Banco de las Microfinanzas des Technologies de l’Information et de la Juan Pablo Rodríguez Suárez, Bancamía Communication Massiel Alvarez Alarcón, Bancamía S.A., S.A., Banco de las Microfinanzas Banco de las Microfinanzas Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Carlos Ignacio Rojas Gaitán, Asociación Felipe Ardila, Comercial de Riegos Kouadio Jean Esse, Ministère de Nacional de Exportadores de Café de l’Agriculture Luis Fernando Cataño Córdoba, Federación Colombia (ASOEXPORT) de Empresas Transportadoras de Carga de Soumaiga Farrouna, Syndicat National des Oscar Romero Guevara, Unidad de Colombia (FEDETRANSCOL) Transporteurs de Côte d’Ivoire Planificación de Tierras Rurales (UPRA) Juan Fernando Cifuentes, Ministerio de N’Datien Séverin Guibessongui, Cabinet Esteban Rubio, Brigard & Urrutia Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural ICT Consulting Ricardo Sabogal, Unidad de Restitución de Miguel Cortés Mendieta, Asociación Peter Harlech Jones, GALVmed Tierras Nacional De Empresas Transportadoras De Bachir Hervé Dissou, Agro Afrique Carga Por Carretera (ASECARGA) Amparo Scorcia Simplice Houphouët, BK & Associés Julián Camilo Cruz González, Cruz & Guillermo Tejeiro, Brigard & Urrutia Asociados Kinèdèni Koukouni Kignelman Koné, SCPA Carlos Umaña Trujillo, Brigard & Urrutia KONE-N’GUESSAN-KIGNELMAN Société Freddy Diez, Procam SA Camilo Valencia, Camilo Valencia Civile Professionnelle d’Avocats Diego Escobar, Abonamos Abogados Edmond Koffi, Centre National de Pedro Fuentes, Ministerio de Agricultura y Jorge Vargas, Invasa Maquinaria S.A.S. Recherche Agronomique Desarrollo Rural Irene Velandia, Brigard & Urrutia Nestor Kouakou Koffi P. German Dario Arias Juan Hernando Velasco Lozano, Unidad de Kan Marcel Konan, Société Coopérative Alberto Gomez Mejia, Red Nacional de Planificación de Tierras Rurales (UPRA) Anouanzè-Douekoue Jardines Botánicos de Colombia Jorge Enrique Vélez García, Sekou Konaté, Foncier Rural, Ministère de Ana Patricia Heredia Vargas, Ministerio de Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro l’Agriculture Salud y Protección Social Augustin Kone, Ministère de Jairo Herrera Murillo, Asociación Nacional l’Environnement, de la Salubrité Urbaine et CÔTE D’IVOIRE De Empresas Transportadoras De Carga du Développement Durable Por Carretera (ASECARGA) Callivoire Michel Kouakou, Centre National de Martha Jama, Operadores del Campo, S.A Chambre de Commerce & d’Industrie de Recherche Agronomique Côte d’Ivoire Juan Nicolas Laverde, Brigard & Urrutia Sylvain Kouakou, Ministère de l’Agriculture Ministère de l’Agriculture Luis Fernando Macías Gómez, Macías Bamba Moussa Mahan, Mahan Group Gómez Asociados Abogados MTN Industries Jairo Alonso Mesa Guerra, Office National de Développement de la N’Guessan M’Bahia, Africa Pure Superintendencia de Notariado y Registro Riziculture (ONDR) Technology Juana Micán, Brigard & Urrutia Syndicat National des Transporteurs de Jean Patrick N’doume, Office Ivoirien des Côte d’Ivoire Chargeurs (OIC) Sergio Michelsen Jaramillo, Brigard & Urrutia Audrey Abouo, SCPA Bilé-Aka, Brizoua-Bi Boni N’Zue, Centre National de Recherche & Associés Agronomique Julieth Andrea Navarrete Fernández, Corpoica Allouko Aka Alexandre, PolyPompes Ivoire Jean Thierry Oura, CÔTE D’IVOIRE AGRI 156 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Philippe Sabot, Merial Ulf Kjellerup, COWI A/S Belachew Yirsaw Alemu, Institute of Land Administration Idrissa Seynou, Ministère de l’Agriculture Louise Lundsby Wessel, Bech-Bruun Abenezer Asfaw, Boot Coffee Consulting & Didier Medard Sossah, Bureau national Birgitte Lund, Danish AgriFish Agency Training d’études techniques et de développement Michael Svane, DI Transport (BNETD) Fikadu Asfaw, Fikadu Asfaw and Associates Jakob Møgelvang, Danish AgriFish Agency Law Office Lacina Soumahoro Mark Villingshøj Nielsen, Bech-Bruun Getenesh Ashenafi, Agricultural Input Assiongbon Têko-Agbo, Commission de Supply Enterprise l’Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Peter Odifier, G.O. Transport & Spedition Africaine (UEMOA) A/S Girmaye Ayalew, Global Africa Jean Philippe Touré, Versus Bank Per Olsen, Danish Agriculture and Food Workneh Ayalew, Ethiopian Agricultural Council Transformation Agency (ATA) Kalifa Touré, Office Ivoirien des Chargeurs (OIC) Henning Otte Hansen, The Royal Danish Aga Amsalu Ayana, Integrated Seed Sector Agricultural Society Development Jessica Nanou Waota, SCPA Bilé-Aka, Brizoua-Bi & Associés Peter Pedersen, Fasterholt Maskinfabrik Ashinafi Ayenew, Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute Stanislas Zézé, Bloomfield Investment Jan Persson, Danish Transport Authority Corporation Million Bekere, Cooperative Bank of Oromia Robin Philip, Bruun & Hjejle Law Firm Emmanuella Zoro, AnyRay & Partners Diliba Beyene, Oromia International Bank Kenny Rasmussen, Ministry of Justice Zewdie Bishaw, International Center for Anders Refsgaard, COWI A/S DENMARK Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas Alexandre Latif Schleimann-Jensen, (ICARDA) Danish Agency for Digitisation Bech-Bruun Andrea Bues, Leibniz Institute for Regional Danish AgriFish Agency Anders Ankær Sørensen, Danish AgriFish Development and Structural Planning (IRS) Danish Agro Agency Moti Cheru, Veterinary Drugs and Feed Danish Business Authority Jakob Sørensen, Holst Administration and Control Authority (VDFACA) Danish Veterinary and Food Administration Søren Stenderup Jensen, Plesner Aberra Debelo, Sasakawa Global 2000 Finanstilsynet (The Danish FSA) Andreas Tamasauskas, Ronne & Lundgren Ephrem Demeke, Ethio Telecom Nykredit Bank A/S Mette Thomsen, Danish AgriFish Agency Asaminew Deribew, Commercial Bank of Yara Lise Viftrup, Danish Environmental Ethiopia Protection Agency, Ministry of the Hans Abildstrøm, Horten Environment Motuma Didita, Ethiopian Biodiversity Advokatpartnerselskab Institute Mathias Neumann Andersen, Department ETHIOPIA Yibeltal Dubale, Ethiopian Road Transport of Agroecology, Climate and Water, Aarhus Authority University Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) Fikadu Dupasa, Limu Inara Farmers Multi- Lidde Bagge Jensen, The Danish Nature purpose Cooperative Union Agency Tigray Agricultural Research Institute Tesfa-alem Embaye, Mekelle University Marie Blanner, The Danish Nature Agency Teshome Gabre-Mariam Bokan Law Office Dilnesa Fentahun Niels Borum, Lexsos Advokater Muradu Abdo Srur, Addis Ababa University Adugna Fite, Oromia Agriculture Bureau, Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Tigistu Abza, Ministry of Agriculture Participatory Small scale Irrigation Håkun Djurhuus, Bech-Bruun Achamyeleh Gashu Adam, Institute of Land Development Program (PASIDP) Administration Peter Fenger, Bryggeriforeningen (Danish Teshome Gabre-Mariam Bokan, Teshome Brewers Association) Melaku Admassu, Pioneer Hi-bred Seeds Gabre-Mariam Bokan Law Office Ethiopia P.L.C Søreen Kolind Hvid, Seges P/S Teklay Glibanos Gebrehiwot, Mochaland Alishume Ahimed, Ethiopian Biodiversity PLC Eva Juul Jensen, The Danish Nature Agency Institute Zelalem Gebretsadik, Veterinary Drugs and Julie Bak, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Bassam Alayyat, Alayyat Group Ethiopia Feed Administration and Control Authority Fisheries of Denmark (VDFACA) Amsalu Alemayehu, Wasasa Jakob Kamby, Kammeradvokaten LOCAL EXPERTS 157 Alehegn Gebru, Moenco Kalitiy Machinery Dagninet Yimenu, Damtit Vet Pharma Tamar Mtvarelidze, Caucasus Environment Branch Trading Co. NGO Network Seyoum Getachew, Ethiopian Agricultural Teshome Yohannes, Buusaa Gonofaa Kakha Nadiradze, Association for Farmers Transformation Agency (ATA) Microfinance Share Company Rights Defense Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Emiru Zewdie, ALPPIS Eka Naobishvili, Ministry of Agriculture Fikremariam Ghion, Ethiopian Biodiversity Tewodros Zewdie, Ethiopian Horticultures Sophio Natroshvili, BGI Legal Institute Producers and Exporters Association Nana Phirosmanashvili, Association for Yodit Gurji, Fikadu Asfaw and Associates Farmers Rights Defense Law Office GEORGIA Irakli Pipia, DLA Piper Kedir Bushira Hassan, Addis-Vet-Pty Ltd/ Colibri Law Firm Rusudan Gergauli, LPA Law Firm PLC Tea Abramidze, Notary Chamber of Philippe Sabot, Merial Abdulmen Ibrahim Georgia Nino Sesitashvili, BLC Law Office Haftom Kesete, Haftom Kesete Kahsay Law Tina Adamia, Caucastrans Express Ltd Office Ilya Shapira, Isragreen LLC Giorgi Begiashvili, Begiashvili & Co Kibret Alemayehu, Dejen Cross Border Irakli Sokolovski, Dechert LLP Alexander Bolkvadze, BLC Law Office Level 1-A Freight Transport Owners Nino Suknidze, DLA Piper Association Archil Chachkhiani, VTB Bank Rusudan Tchkuaseli, BLC Law Office Teshome Lakew, Ministry of Agriculture Zurab Chkheidze, Begiashvili & Co Tamar Tevdoradze, BGI Legal Gezahegne Lemma, Alpha Truckers Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Association Nino Tevzadze, Caucasus Environment Malkhaz Dzadzua, MFO Crystal NGO Network Hailu Leta, Aggar Micro Finance S.C. David Egiashvili, National Agency of Public Tamara Toria, Georgian Farmers’ Patrick Maluku, Monsanto Registry Association Getnet Yawkal Mebratu, Mebratu Levan Gachechiladze, Isragreen LLC Bela Tskhvediani, VTB Bank Henoki Melaku, Ethiopian Agricultural Nata Ghudushauri, LLC MFO Credo Nino Zambakhidze, Georgian Farmers’ Transformation Agency (ATA) Archil Giorgadze, Dechert LLP Association Zelalem Mesele, ZK flowers P.L.C Lasha Gogiberidze, BGI Legal Kedir Musema, Ries Engineering GHANA Levan Gotua, Begiashvili & Co Robson Mutandi, The International Fund for Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) Irakli Gvilia, BLC Law Office Agricultural Development (IFAD) Shawbell Consulting Nana Janashia, Caucasus Environment Mearaf Nur, Mearaf Bedru Law Office NGO Network OLAM Philippe Sabot, Merial Vakhtang Janezashvili, BGI Legal Samuel Achaw Ofosu, Veterinary Council Manaye Abera Shagrdi Rusudan Kacharava, Terra DeNovo LLC Adingtingah Apullah Patrick, Savanna Seed Eleni Shiferaw, Ethiopian Biodiversity Services Company Limited Nino Kharitonashvili, Notary Chamber of Institute Georgia Prince Afful, EB-ACCION SLC Getachew Shimels, GAWT International Nino Khopheria, Notary Chamber of Georgia Maxwell Agbenorhevi, USAID Feed the Business PLC Future David Khrikadze, BDO Legal Ermias Teshome, Ethiopian Agricultural Anthony Akunzule, Veterinary Services Transformation Agency (ATA) Avtandil Korakhashvili, National Academy Directorate, Ministry of Food and of Sciences of Georgia Misikire Tessema, Ethiopian Biodiversity Agriculture (MoFA) Institute Ana Kostava, Dechert LLP Martin Ali, Ministry of Food and Fekadu Tilahun, Ethiopian Agricultural Tamar Mamporia, DLA Piper Agriculture (MoFA) Transformation Agency (ATA) Nicola Mariani, Dechert LLP Emmanuel K.M. Alognikou, International Daniel Weldegebriel Ambaye, Institute of Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) Ekaterina Meskhidze, National Agency of Land Administration Public Registry William Amanfu Netsanet Woldekidan, Awash International Irakli Mgaloblishvili, Mgaloblishvili, Kipiani, Daniel S. Amlalo, Environmental Protection Bank Dzidziguri (MKD) Agency 158 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 David Andah Ben Nyamadi, Irrigation Development Maria Giannakaki, Karageorgiou & Authority, Ministry of Food and Agriculture Associates Patrice Annequin, International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) Kwame Oppong-Anane, Opporhu Anthony B. Hadjioannou, Kyriakides Agricultural and Rural Development Georgopoulos Law Firm Kwasi Anokurang-Budu, EB-ACCION SLC Consultancy Ltd. Stavros Karageorgiou, Karageorgiou & Asamoah Owusu-Akyaw, Private Transport Isaac Kofi Osei, Mechanical Lloyd Co. Ltd. Associates Association of Ghana Richard Osei-Amponsah, University of Ioannis Karavokyris, G. Karavokyris & Issac Asare, AGRA Ghana Partners Consulting Engineers s.a. Emelia Desiree Atta-Fynn, EB-ACCION SLC Francis Owiredu, Advans Ghana Savings Nikolaos Kondylis, N. Kondylis & Partners William Awuku Ahiadormey, Agricare and Loans Law Office Limited Gyasi Poku, Indchem Royal Ltd. Ioanna Kontopoulou, Hellenic Johnson Kwadzo Badzi, EB-ACCION SLC Telecommunications and Post Commission George Prah, Ministry of Food and (EETT) Kwaku D. Berchie, Pan-African Savings & Agriculture (MoFA) Loans Ilias Kotsopoulos, OTE S.A Philippe Sabot, Merial Charles A. Biney, The Volta Basin Authority Theodora Kouloura, Hellenic Fertilizers and Elizabeth Rosebud Afua Alifo Tetteh, Erat Chemicals ELFE s.a. Isabel Boaten, AB & David Services Georgia Kourakli Goh Charles, Vodafone Ghana George Agyemang Sarpong, G.A. Sarpong & Co. Marinos Kritsotakis CK Djan-Suleiman, Zaklan Consult Emmanuel Kaaviele Tinsari, Lands Irene C. Kyriakides, Kyriakides Raymond Codjoe, R.A.Codjoe Law Offices Commission Georgopoulos Law Firm Wilson Darkwah, Irrigation Development Isaac Yaw Azadagli, Agricultural Persa Lampropoulou, Ilias G. Authority, Ministry of Food and Agriculture Development & Mechanization Limited Anagnostopoulos Law firm Siegfried Kofi Debrah, International (ADEMEC) Evagelia Liakopoulou, Hellenic Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) Albert Yeboah Obeng, Foresight Generation Telecommunications and Post Commission Bazaanah Fidelis, Ghana Cooperative Club (EETT) Credit Unions Association (CUA) Spiros Livieratos, Hellenic Peace Gbeckor-Kove, Environmental GREECE Telecommunications and Post Commission Protection Agency (EETT) Ministry of Rural Development and Food Sergio Godoy, Yara Christina Manossis, ZEUS KIWI SA Mediterranean Plant Conservation Unit, Michael Gyan Nyarko, AB & David Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Evangelia Mantzou Chania (MAICh) Peter Harlech Jones, GALVmed Marinos Kandylis, Olympias SA Tampakis Fresh Co International Transport Abdul Razak Haruna, Alfayi Co. Ltd Yara Ioanna Michalopoulou, Michalopoulou & Thomas Havor, Seed Producers Association Associates of Ghana (SEEDPAG) Manolis Agrimanakis, TROXOI & TIR Maria Mimikou, National Technical George K.A. Brantuo Nikolaos Athanassiadis, AP & GENERALIS University of Athens Law Firm Kwabena Kankam-Yeboa, Water Research Anthony Narlis, Geodis Calberson GE Institute Evangelia Balla Maria Oikonomou, Ministry of Isaac Karikari, Karicel Foundation Savvas Balouktsis, Machinery Importers’ - Reconstruction of Production Representatives’ Association (MIRA) Japhet Lartey, International Fertilizer Ioannis Panagopoulos, National Technical Development Center (IFDC) Evangelos Baltas, National Technical University of Athens University of Athens Francis Mensah, African Fertilizer and Stefanos Panayiotopoulos, Zepos & Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) Sofia Chatzigiannidou, Zepos & Yannopoulos Law Firm Yannopoulos Law Firm Andrew Mercer, Mercer & Company George Parissopoulos, National Agricultural Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Kwabena Nimakoh, Mercer & Company Research Center & Institute of Agricultural Sotirios Douklias, KG Law Firm Machinery Anita Nsiah, Mercer & Company Elisabeth Eleftheriades, KG Law Firm Kalliroi Passiou, G. Karavokyris & Partners Samuel Nuamah Dankwah, Nwabiagya Consulting Engineers s.a. Rural Bank LOCAL EXPERTS 159 Michael Paterakis, Dr. Paterakis and Partners Maria Mercedes Marroquín de Pemueller, Zahra Wa Shajara For Agricultural Services Marroquín Pérez & Asociados, S.C. Alexandros Protofanousis, Protofanousi Alaa Abbassi, Abbassi Law Office Fruits SA Pedro Pablo Marroquín Pérez, Marroquín, Raed Abd el Qader, The National Center Pérez & Asociados, S.C. Nikos Protofanousis, Protofanousi Fruits SA for Agricultural Research and Extension Vivian Lucía Morales Herrera, Arias & (NCARE) Evangelia Rammou, Public Notary Greece Muñoz Jamal Abu Umaro, Nagel Company Kyriaki-Korina Raptopoulou, Kyriakides Pedro Aragón Munoz, Aragón & Aragón Georgopoulos Law Firm Zeinab Ahmad Al Momany, Specific Union Oswaldo Oliva, National Federation of for Farmers Productive Antonios Sifakis, Haidarlis - Sifakis Law Financial Cooperatives Offices Sultan Al Fayez, Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates Verónica Orantes, QIL+4 ABOGADOS and Legal Consultants Panagiotis Stamatopoulos, Agroconsults Victor Orantes, SERCA, S.A. Jawad Al-Bakri, University of Jordan Neoklis Stamkos, KEPA Guillermo Austreberto Ortiz Aldana, Abdullmalik Al-Eassawi, Katerina Tassi, Karageorgiou & Associates Ganaderia y Alimentacion Unidad de Telecommunications Regulatory Kimon Tsakiris, KG Law Firm Normas y Regulaciones Coordinacion, Commission Ministerio de Agricultura Eleftherios Vagenas, V. ATTIS LTD Ahmed Al-Fayad, Ministry of Agriculture Mélida Pineda, Carrillo y Asociados Antonios Voulgarakis, Nature sa Nada Al-Frihat, Ministry of Agriculture Ana Gabriela Platero Midence, Arias & Al-Ansari Almashakbeh, Muñoz Guatemala GUATEMALA Telecommunications Regulatory Paris Rivera, INSIVUMEH Commission All Logistics S.A. Bernhard Roehrs, AgroAmérica Monther Al-Reefai, Ministry of Agriculture Anavi Guatemala Maricarmen Rosal de Donis, Integrum Jamal Alrusheidat, The National Center Superintendencia de Bancos de Guatemala for Agricultural Research and Extension Jorge Eduardo Salazar, Ministerio de Pedro Arias, Duwest (NCARE) Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación Adolfo Brito Gómez, Marroquín Pérez & Hazim Al-Smadi, Ministry of Agriculture Ligia Salazar, Arias & Muñoz Guatemala Asociados, S.C. Ibrahim Amosh, Amosh Legal Services & Juan Salvador Sandoval, Ministerio de Abraham Buezo, Asociación de Arbitration Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación Semilleristas de Jocotán (ASEJO) Emad Awad, Ministry of Agriculture Edwin Sánchez, FUNDEA Ana Beatriz Clavería, Duwest Rakan Baybars, Rakan Baybars Law Office Ricardo Santa Cruz Rubi, Agexport Alejandro Cofiño, QIL+4 ABOGADOS Ahmad Ekor Yashira Shutuc, Aimar Group Carlos Roberto Cordón Krumme, Cordón Ahmad Faidi, Faidi Law Firm Ovalle & Asociados Aura Cristina Son Icú, Duwest Ziad A. Ghanma, Central Bank of Jordan Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Daniel Humberto Sosa Casasola, Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación Baha Halasah, Information and Héctor Fajardo, Camara de Transportistas Communications Technology Association Centroamericanos (CATRANSCA) Armando Soto, Duwest of Jordan Gilvert Garcia, Aimar Group Arturo Soto, Sosa & Soto Abogados Zuhair Hattar, Land Transport Regulatory León García, Yara José Daniel Tistoj Chan, Ministerio de Commission LTRC Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación Harald Himsel Lubna Hawamdeh, Ali Sharif Zu’bi Enrique Toledo-Cotera, ARTLEX- Attorneys Advocates and Legal Consultants Julio Artemio Juárez Morán, Asociación de at Law Transportistas Internactionales (ATI) Khaled Hudhud, Information and José Urrutia, BK Consulting Communications Technology Association Miguel Juarez Pelaez, Dirección General de of Jordan Transportes Neftali Villanueva Zeyad Jadan Karen Larson, Friendship Bridge JORDAN Afram Jamil, Information and Herver López, Tecnica Universal, S.A. Communications Technology Association (Tecun Guatemala) Central Bank of Jordan of Jordan Maria Lucía Soto Santos, Consejo de Department of Lands and Survey Jordan Mazen Kalbouneh, Green Produce Fodder Usuarios del Transporte Internacional de Monsanto Hydroponics System Guatemala 160 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Sameh Mahariq, Alwatani (National Paul Isako, SNV Dirk Schaefer Microfinance Bank) Sameer Jaywant, SunCulture Sonal Sejpal, Anjarwalla & Khanna Mohammad Majdalawi, University of Advocates Duncan Ndiguran Jordan Denis Tiren, International Fertilizer Sammy Kamanth, Equity Bank Limited Luma Mdanat, Ali Sharif Zu’bi Advocates Development Center (IFDC) and Legal Consultants Sarah Kiarie-Muia, Kaplan & Stratton Advocates Ghassan Obeidat, Jordan Valley Authority KYRGYZ REPUBLIC Brenda Kihara, Kenya Revenue Authority Fida Rawabdeh, Ministry of Agriculture CJSC Agrimatco Ltd John Kinaga, KickStart International Yahya Shakhatreh, The National Center Ministry of Agriculture and Melioration for Agricultural Research and Extension Evelyn Kyania, B.M Musau & Co. Public Association AgroLead (NCARE) Advocates Vega Plus Bassam Snobar, University of Jordan Mary Njuguna, SNV Azizbek Abdiev, ARIS Ali Subah, Ministry of Water and Irrigation Paul Makepeace Maksat Abdykaparov, AVEP Public Fund Sami Telfah, Telfah Trading Company Nathaniel Makoni, ABS TCM Ltd Myrzagul Aidaralieva, Lorenz International John Yancura, FINCA Michael Mbiti, Anjarwalla & Khanna Lawyers Advocates Niyaz Aldashev, Lorenz International KENYA Laura Mburu, Orange Lawyers Monsanto Saidi Mkomwa, African Conservation Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyz National Tillage Network (ACT) One Acre Fund Agrarian University Mona Doshi, Anjarwalla & Khanna Syngenta Foundation Kerim Begaliev, Colibri Law Firm Advocates Yara Kydykbek Beishekeev, On-Farm Irrigation Gillian Kadenyi Muriithi, Deepa Industries Project Aisha Abdallah, Anjarwalla & Khanna Ltd. (A&K) Ruslan F. Beishenkulov, State Inspectorate Benjamin Musau, B.M Musau & Co. for veterinary and phytosanitary safety Carilus Ademba, Sacco Societies Advocates under the Government of the Kyrgyz Regulatory Authority John Mutunga, Kenya National Farmers’ Republic Pamella Ager, Halmiton, Harrison & Federation Abdelhak Benyagoub, IGCC Logistics Group Mathew Timothy Mwangi, DAMCO LLC David Joseph Angwenyi, Mohammed Eunice Mwongera, Hillside Green Growers Turkmen Bootaev, Association of the Muigai Advocates and Exporters International Road Transport Operators Francis Chabari Charles Nichols, SunCulture Daria Bulatova, Lorenz International Grace Chilande, International Fertilizer Lawyers Peter Njuguna, Sacco Societies Regulatory Development Center (IFDC) Authority Ruslan Derbishev, OJSC Commercial Bank Gilly Cowan, GALVmed “KYRGYZSTAN” Martin Nyamweya, SNV Harm Duiker, SNV Samara Dumanaeva, Lorenz International Gilbert Obati, Egerton University Lawyers Martin Fisher, KickStart International Fred Ojiambo, Kaplan & Stratton Natalya Galivets, IGCC Logistics Group LLC Paul Gacheru, Igeria & Ngugi Advocates Bridget Okumu, International Fertilizer Kymbat Ibakova, Lorenz International Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Development Center (IFDC) Lawyers Hugo De Groote, CIMMYT Phillip Onyango, Kaplan & Stratton Abduhakim Islamov, Seed Association of Anthony Frederick Gross, A. F Gross Edwin Oseko, Ministry of Agriculture, Kyrgyzstan Advocate Livestock and Fisheries Daniar Jasoolov, Association of Farms Antony Guto Mogere, Mohammed Muigai Anne Marie Ran, Deutsche Gesellschaft für (KARAGAT) Advocates Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Gulchehra Kamchibekova, Aiyl Bank Peter Harlech Jones, GALVmed Ben Roberts, Liquid Telecom Kenya Evgeny Kim, Lorenz International Lawyers Richard Harney, Coulson Harney Advocates Nat Robinson, Juhudi Kilimo LLC Nurlan Mamatov, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas Samir Ibrahim, SunCulture Philippe Sabot, Merial University LOCAL EXPERTS 161 Umtul Muratkyzy, Lorenz International Vincent Bounleua, Sengarthit Development Sengchanh Phetkhounluang, Department Lawyers Co., Ltd of Agriculture Extension and Cooperatives (DAEC), Ministry of Agriculture and Niazbek Aldashev, Lorenz International Phachone Bounma, Department of Forestry Lawyers Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Khamphaeng Phochanthilath, VNA Legal Rafael Nurahunov, CronaTrans Sole Co. Ltd. Chay Bounphanousay, National Agriculture Ulan Orozbekov, Ministry of Transport and and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) Vanthieng Phommasoulin, Ministry of Communications Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Jakkrit Bunmee, Tilleke & Gibbins Lao Co., Olesya Paukova, Companion Financial Ltd. Oudom Phonekhampheng, National Group CJSC MFC University of Laos Somsadasak Canlayany, Lao Freight Tulegen Sarsembekov, Eurasian Forwarder Co., Ltd Kham Phoui, Ministry of Agriculture and Development Bank Forestry (MAF) Chanthone Chanthavong, Ministry of Posts Temirbek M. Shabdanaliev, Association of and Telecommunications Phoumy Phoumanivong, Department of Carriers of Kyrgyzstan Agriculture Extension and Cooperatives Nawika Charoenkitchatorn, Lao Premier Baktybek Shamkeyev, Central Asia (DAEC), Ministry of Agriculture and International Law Office International Consulting Forestry Syyang Chertoi, Ministry of Posts and Nurlan Smanov, State Communications Yatkeo Phoumidalyvanh, Ministry of Telecommunications Agency under the Government of Kyrgyz Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Republic Phoukong Chidhouplok, Ministry of Post Vichit Sadettan, Lao International Freight and Telecommunications Talant Soltobekov, LBD Consulting Forwarders Association (LIFFA) Malavan Chittavcong, National University Chynara Suiumbaeva, United Nations Vanpheng Sayakone, Ministry of Posts and of Lao Development Program (UNDP) Telecommunications Aristotle David, VNA Legal Sole Co. Ltd. Nurlan Tokonov, AVEP Public Fund Bouaphet Sayasane, Ministry of Public Michael Dwyer, Center for International Works and Transport Mirlanbek Torobekov, Frontiers Forestry Research Visone Saysongkham, Bank of the Lao PDR Anastasiia Tsoi, Lorenz International Rupert Haw, DFDL Lawyers Andy Schroeter, Sunlabob Rural Energy Konrad Hul, VNA Legal Sole Co. Ltd. Systems Co., Ltd Baktybek Tumonbaev, CJSC Atrium Holding Xayluxa Insyxiengmai, Ministry of Post and Senesakoune Sihanougong, DFDL Telecommunications Kunduz Turgumbaeva, Frontiers Sinouk Sisombat, Sinouk Coffee Alexia Jolliot, VimpelCom Lao co., Ltd Uran Tursunaliev Viengkham Sodahak, Department of Nonxay Keosysom, M-FLAC Trading Sole Agriculture Extension and Cooperatives Gulnara Uskenbaeva, Association of Co., Ltd (DAEC), Ministry of Agriculture and Supplier (Producers and Distributors) Forestry Khamouane Khamphoukeo, Department Aleksei Vandaev, Kalikova & Associates of Agriculture Extension and Cooperatives Saiya Thammavongseng, SCU Huasae Dmitriy Vetlugin, Sky Mobile LLC Beeline (DAEC), Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Chaleun Zhigitaly Zhumaliev, Department of Crop Natchar Leedae, Lao Premier International Sikhoun Tiamtisack, Lao Freight Forwarder Production Development Law Office Co., Ltd Khamkong Liemprachanh Arpon Tunjumras, Lao Premier LAO PDR International Law Office Thavisak Manodham, Ministry of Post and EXIM Company Limited Telecommunications Sounthone Vong, Department of Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Microfinance Association Keochai Mayyavongsink, ACLEDA Bank Forestry Lao Ltd PK Interfreight Co., Ltd Settha Vongpuckdy, ACLEDA Bank Lao Ltd Sonevilay Nampanya Agroforex Company Manivone Vongxay, Ministry of Industry Somlack Nhoybouakong, Lao Freight Department of Agriculture Extension and Commerce Forwarder Co., Ltd and Cooperatives (DAEC), Ministry of Soulivanh Voravong, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Somphone Phasavath, Lao Freight Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Forwarder Co., Ltd Agnès Couriol, DFDL Huang Wei Jie, M-FLAC Trading Sole Co., Kingkeo Phengmixay, M-FLAC Trading Sole Vinay Ahuja, DFDL Ltd Co., Ltd 162 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Sisomphone Yangnouvong, Department Hady Ly, Carrières et Chaux Abdelatif Laamrani, Cabinet Laamrani Law of Agriculture Extension and Cooperatives Souleymane Niaré Mehdi Megzari, Sayarh & Menjra Law Firm (DAEC), Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Amadou Ongoiba, ARC EN CIEL SARL Ahlam Mekkaoui, Boulalf & Mekkaoui Philippe Sabot, Merial Lamghari Omar, Africa Transcontinental MALI Shipping Sarl Nafo Samaké, Groupe Achcar Mali Transit Autorité Malienne de Régulation des Rachid Oumlil, ANUMA Idrissa Nonmon Sanogo, Direction Télécommunications/TIC et des Postes Régionale des Services Vétérinaires de Farrouk Rajaa, Transfaro S.A.R.L (AMRTP) Kayes Abdelali Regag, Tamwil El Fellah Conseil Malien des Transporteurs Routiers Amadou Sidibé, Institut d’Economie (CMTR) Nesrine Roudane, Nero Boutique Law Firm Rurale (IER), Ministère de l’Agriculture de Eurolait Mali l’Elevage et de la Pêche Philippe Sabot, Merial International Fertilizer Development Center Frédéric Sidibé Mohamed Sabik (IFDC) Assiongbon Têko-Agbo, Commission de Omar Sayarh, Sayarh & Menjra Law Firm Kafo Jiginew l’Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Mohamed Sinan, Ecole Hassania des Africaine (UEMOA) Syngenta Foundation Travaux Publics Abdoulaye Traoré, Etude, Formation, Rhaly Ag Mossa Khalid Tadlaoui, MCI Santé Animale Evaluation et Conseils (EFEC - sarl) Daouda Ba, Vaughan Avocats Rachid Tahri Amadou Traoré, Vesta Industries Abou Berthe, Sasakawa Africa Association Abdelaziz Zerouali Bakary Yaffa, Etablissements Yaffa et Cheickna Bounajim Cissé Frères MOZAMBIQUE Abdoulaye Cissé, Africa Trade & industry MOROCCO system Ajuda de Desenvolvimento de Povo para Société Nationale des Transports et de la Povo Aminata Coulibaly, MALIMARK A2F Logistique (SNTL) Citrum de Maputo Oumar Kalifa Coulibaly, Direction Générale Yara des Douanes Couto, Graça e Associados, Sociedade de Soufiane Alami, Agridata Consulting Advogados Cyril Achcar, Groupe Achcar Mali Transit Saleh M. Amine, Cour Internationale de Eduardo Mondlane University Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Médiation et d’Arbitrage (CIMEDA) Matanuska Moçambique Limitada Elie Dembele Chakib Ben El Khadir, Association Marocaine des Importateurs du Matériel Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG) Fanta Dembele, MicroCred Agricole (AMIMA) MozFoods - Vanduzi Fanta Diallo, Office de Protection des Youssef Bencheqroun, Al Amana Végétaux Otilio Assamundine Microfinance Samba Diallo Francisco Avillez, Sociedade de Advogados Hanane Boumehdi, Maroc Agroveto (SCAN) Boubacar Diawara, DYNAPHARM Holding John Christie-Smith, Greenbelt Fertilizantes Messotigui Diomande, Mali Protection des El Hassane Bourarach, Institut de Moçambique, Lda (GBF) Cultures (M.P.C) Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II João Chunga, FRUTISUL Oumar Ampoural Dolo, Cabinet d’Expertise Baptiste Dungu, MCI Santé Animale en Développement Agricole et Rural Alcinda Cumba, FL&A Mustapha El Khayat, Association Bakary Doumbia, Socimex SARL Marocaine de la Logistque Mario Jorge de Almeida Matos, Biochem Seydou Doumbia, La Ficelle - SCPA Talhi Faouzi, Maroc Agroveto Holding Fion De Vletter Michel Havard, CIRAD Ali Hajji, SEWT Teresa Falcão, Vieira de Almeida & Associados (Atlas Lda) Abdoulaye Keita, Assemblée Permanente Peter Harlech Jones, GALVmed des Chambres d’Agriculture du Mali Tito Fernandez, Lurio University Zouhir Imad, Socopim Premium Group (APCAM) Alexander Fernando, International Fertilizer Amine Kandil, Charaf Corporation Mama Koné, Institut d’Economie Rurale Development Center (IFDC) (IER), Ministère de l’Agriculture de Samira Khallouk, Agence Nationale de Aase Ditlefsen Ferrão, First Natural Choice l’Elevage et de la Pêche Réglementation des Télécommunications (Mocambique), Lda (ANRT) LOCAL EXPERTS 163 Ana Isabel Fotine Mponda, Ministry of Myanmar Microfinance Bank Nichole Cross, DFDL Public Works and Housing Myanmar Livestock Federation San Oo, Ministry of Environmental Italino Francisco, Caixa Comunitária de Conservation and Forestry SGS (Myanmar) Limited Microfinanças Michael Rodenmark, YOMA Strategic Than Aung, E.F.R Express Services Limited Tom Holloway Holdings Ltd. U Myint Aung, International Fertilizer Luis Junaide Lalgy Daniel Susnjar, Telenor Development Center (IFDC) Donovan Liedeman U Htun Thein, Customs Department U Soe Htun Aung, Ministry of Agriculture Anselmina L. Liphola, Ministry of Land, and Irrigation Yi Mon Thu, E.F.R Express Services Limited Environment and Development Myint Aye, UN Habitat U Aung Kyaw Sow, Myanmar Rice Millers’ Fernanda Lopes, FL&A Association Darrel Chon, OV Logistics Bernardo Luís Tembe, Hluvuku U Aung Thein, Myanmar Rice Millers’ Patricia Curran, Telenor Association Neves Macuacua Bridget Di Certo, DFDL U Thaung Win, Myanmar Rice Millers’ Elcidio Madeira, Astros Katherine East, DFDL Association Natalino Magaia, Medimoc SA Ei Ei Mon, Ministry of Construction U Tint Aung, Myanmar Rice Millers’ Bernardo Mahoro, Sal & Caldeira, Association James Finch, DFDL Advogados, LDA. Benjamin K. Wagner, BNG Legal Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Paulino Munisse, Instituto de Investigação U Min Wai, Ministry of Agriculture and Agrária de Moçambique (IIAM) William D. Greenlee, Jr, DFDL Irrigation Pedro Murreriua, Ministério dos Alvi Hakim, DFDL U Aung Win, Ministry of Agriculture and Transportes e Comunicações (MTC) Min Aung Hein, Harmony Myanmar Agro Irrigation Simon Norfolk, Terra Firma Lda Group Co, Ltd. Kyaw Win Htun, Telenor Munyaradzi Amos Nyambiya Robert Htun Nwe, Harmony Myanmar Ko Ko Ye’lwin, DFDL Agro Group Co, Ltd. Afonso Osorio U Zaw Win Naing, Myanmar Microfinance U Hla Htun, Agricultural Mechanization Marino Pascoal, Caixa Comunitária de Bank Limited Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Microfinanças Irrigation Enoque Raimundo Changamo, Caixa NEPAL Grahame Hunter, International Fertilizer Comunitária de Microfinanças Development Center (IFDC) Nepal Telecommunications Authority Philippe Sabot, Merial Thin Khaing, United Nations Development Bipin Adhikari, Kathmandu University Fernando Sequeira, AgriFocus Program (UNDP) Chandramani Adhikari, Allied Law Services Elsa Adélia Timana, Ministry of Agriculture Thin Khaing, United Nations Development Durga Prasad Adhikari, Seed Entrepreneurs’ (MINAG) Program (UNDP) Association of Nepal (SEAN) Adriaan van den Dries U Ko Ko, Agricultural Mechanization Madan Bhatta, Nepal Agricultural Research Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Lourenço Veniça, Fundo Nacional de Council (NARC) Irrigation Estradas Jibaraj Bhattaraii, Federation of Truck Dolly Kyaw, International Fertilizer Carlos Zandamela, Ministry of Agriculture Transport Entrepreneurs Development Center (IFDC) (MINAG) Shashi Bisht, Department of Irrigation U Han Thein Maung, Ministry of Llionel Zisengwe, iDE (DoI) Agriculture and Irrigation Devendra Gauchan, Bioversity International U Win Myaing, Ministry of Agriculture and MYANMAR Irrigation Pankaj Joshi, Salt Trading Corporation East-West Seed International Ltd. Limited Aung Khin Myint, Myanmar International Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation Freight Forwarders Association Khoj Raj Katwal, Nepal Drip Irrigation Pvt. Ltd Ministry of Communications and Daw Yi Yi Myint, Ministry of Agriculture Information Technology and Irrigation Bishal Khanal, Kathmandu University Ministry of Co-operatives Wazo Win Myint, Aquamarine Shipping Bharat Kharel, Bhrikuti Development Bank Ministry of Transport Nay Lin Zin, Myanmar Rice Millers’ K.B. Lama Syangtan, Bindhavasini Savings Association Co-operative Society Ltd. (BISCOL) 164 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Sanjay Kumar Mandal, Jeevan Bikas Samaj Eddy Francisco Ampié, Instituto Orlando López, Aquatec S.A. Nicaragüense de Telecomunicaciones y Yogendra Mandal, Jeevan Bikas Samaj Eduardo Martinez Silva, Agricons S.A. Correos (TELCOR) Atul Nagar Fernando Medina Montiel, Oficina de Leyes Daniel Araya, Arias & Muñoz Nicaragua Dr. Fernando Medina Montiel Mahendra P Khanal, Seed Quality Control Hilda Argüello, Asociación de ganaderos de Center Lea Montes Lagos, Abogado Nicaragua Chontales (ASOGACHO) Pratima Pandey, Nepal Agricultural Lesbia Moreno, Abogado Nicaragua Silvio Arguello, Consortium Taboada y Research Council (NARC) Asociados Julio Munguía, Instituto Inter-Americano Tung Raj Pathak, Mahakali Irrigation de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA) José Blandón, Comisión Nacional Ganadera Project de Nicaragua (CONAGAN) Manuel Narvaez Rabindra Pradhan, Himalayan Bank Ltd. Annely Bravo, Instituto Nicaragüense de Claraliz Oviedo, Alvarado y Asociados Netra Prasad Osti, National Animal Science Telecomunicaciones y Correos (TELCOR) Roger Pérez Grillo, Arias & Muñoz Research Institute Maria Auxiliadora Briones Nicaragua Padam Bahadur Rana Bismarck Cardoza Delgadillo, GANASOL Mirian Reyes, Ministry of Transport and Damodar Regmi, Jeevan Bikas Samaj Infrastructure Milton Castillo, Heifer International Pramod Kumar Shah, Shivam Organisation Ana Teresa Rizo, Arias & Muñoz Nicaragua Salvador Castillo, Federación de Bhola Shankar Shrestha, Nepal Agricultural Asociaciones Ganaderas de Nicaragua Denis Salgado Research Council (NARC) (FAGANIC) Alfonso José Sandino Granera, Consortium Dipesh Shrestha, Suva Transport Ana Cecilia Chamorro, Arias & Muñoz Centro América Abogados Nicaragua Shreemat Shrestha, Nepal Agricultural José Evenor Taboada, Consortium Taboada Research Council (NARC) Luis Chamorro, MERCONCOFFEE y Asociados Bhuwon Ratna Sthapit, Bioversity Sergio Antonio Chamorro Urcuyo Carlos César Úbeda Torres, Consortium International Centro América Abogados Mario Davila, Finca Vida Joven Prabin Subedi, Paramount Legal Advisory Alejandro Vargas, MERCONCOFFEE Gloria Maria De Alvarado, Alvarado y Services Pvt. Ltd. Asociados Alvaro Vargas, Federación de Asociaciones Mahesh Kumar Thapa, Sinha-Verma Law Ganaderas de Nicaragua (FAGANIC) Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Concern (SVLC) Roberto Villegas, PROCOCER R.L. Celina Delgado Castellón, Instituto Pradip Thapa, Bindhavasini Savings Nicaragüense de Telecomunicaciones y Eduardo Zamora Co-operative Society Ltd. (BISCOL) Correos (TELCOR) Frederik Zeuthen, Café Nor Satya Narayan Verma Michael Edwin Healy Lacayo, Federation Manoj Nidhi Wagle, Department of of Agricultural Producers of Nicaragua NIGER Customs (UPANIC) Abattoir Frigorifique Régional de Maradi Maricarmen Espinosa Segura, Central Law NICARAGUA Molina & Asociados AFCOM Agro Éxito S.A Pablo Flores, GANASOL Agrimex Agroalfa Armando Gómez, Federation of Agricultural Centrale d’Approvisionnement en Intrants Producers of Nicaragua (UPANIC) et Materiels Agricoles Asociación de Productores y Exportadores de Nicaragua (APEN) Solón Guerrero, Federación de Asociaciones Chambre de Commerce, d’Industrie et Ganaderas de Nicaragua (FAGANIC) d’Artisanat du Niger (CCIAN) ChamAgro Lucía Guevara, Central Law Molina & Direction Générale du Génie Rural CISA AGRO Asociados Haut Commissariat à l’Initiative 3N Instituto de Protección y Sanidad Myriam Jarquin, Corte Suprema de Justicia, Agropecuaria (IPSA – MAGFOR) Ministère de l’Agriculture Instituto Altos Estudios Judiciales Maquipos, S.A. Réseau National des Chambres Edmundo Lacayo, Instituto Nicaragüense de d’Agriculture du Niger (RECA) Nicaragua Machinery Company Telecomunicaciones y Correos (TELCOR) Mahatan Sani Abdou, Ministère de Ramac S.A. Rodolfo Lacayo Ubau, Autoridad Nacional l’Agriculture Del Agua Marvin Altamirano, ATN Asociación de Transportistas de Nicaragua Marlón López, GANASOL LOCAL EXPERTS 165 Salou Abdou Doro, L’Autorité de Régulation El-Hadj Saminou, Office National des Paul Limson, Bureau of Animal Industry, des Télécommunications et de la Poste Aménagements Hydro Agricoles (ONAHA) Department of Agriculture (ARTP) Ousmane Mamane Sani, ONG Karkara Romualdo C. Martinez, Philippine Adamou Kodo Abdourahamane, PADMIF Center for Postharvest Development and Idrissa Tchernaka, Etude d’Avocats Marc Le Mechanization (PHILMECH) Buckner Akouete Koffi, International Crops Bihan & Collaborateurs Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics Edgardo V. Olego, Confederation of Assiongbon Têko-Agbo, Commission de (ICRISAT) Truckers Association of the Philippines l’Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Abey Bazou Alhou, Secrétariat permanent Africaine (UEMOA) Joel R. Panagsagan, Super Trade du Code Rural Enterprises Labaran Yahaya, Office National des Idrissa Ambalam, Groupe SANECOM/ Aménagements Hydro Agricoles (ONAHA) Felix C. Paraguya, Jr., FPJMLP Customs GPSA Brokerage Wouro Yahia, Etude d’Avocats Marc Le Maliki Barhouni, Chambre de Commerce, Bihan & Collaborateurs Roel R. Ravanera, Xavier Science d’Industrie et d’Artisannat du Niger Foundation Attaoulahi Zakaouanou, Ministère du Moussa Bola, Projet de développement des Transport Lailani Rose Rico, Bureau of Animal exportations et des marchés agro-sylvo- Industry, Department of Agriculture pastoraux (PRODEX) PHILIPPINES Philippe Sabot, Merial Adamou Danguioua, Haut Commissariat à Allied Botanical Corporation Joaquin V. Sayoc, Romulo, Mabanta, l’Initiative 3N Buenaventura, Sayoc & De Los Angeles Fortuna Ranch Fadjimata Gali Adam Dantia, Ministère de Delfin C. Suministrado, Agricultural la Communication et des Relations avec les Oldreach Trucking Services Machinery Testing and Evaluation Center Institutions The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Rodolfo H. Tamayo, Agri Component Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Universal Harvester, Inc. Corporation Abdoulaye Djadah, Banque Agricole du Ruben P Acebedo II, Sycip Salazar Raul Urbiztondo, Cantilan Bank, Inc. Niger Hernandez & Gatmaitan Rolando Victoria, ASKI (Alalay Sa Boube Issouf, Negoce International Niger Jescel Alday-Salvaleon, Bayer Animal Kaunlaran, Inc.) Salifou Karimou, Airtel Niger Health Rey Yparraguirre, Cantilan Bank, Inc. Aboubacar Malam Massou, Institut Ferdinand Castillo, AKC Trucking National de la Recherche Agronomique du Ferdinand Correa, Correa Trucking POLAND Niger (INRAN) Rubina Cresencio, Bureau of Animal Clifford Chance LLP Moudy Mamane Sani, Direction Générale Industry, Department of Agriculture de la Protection des Végétaux General Veterinary Inspectorate JJ Disini, Disini & Disini Illya Miko, Food and Agriculture International Cooperation Department, Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Pablo M. Gancayco, Gancaycos, Balasbas Agricultural and Food Quality Inspection & Associates (IJHARS) Maman-Lawal Mossi Bagoudou, Banque Agricole du Niger Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Kancelaria Adwokatów i Radców Prawnych Lipiński & Walczak Aïchatou A. Nasser, Ferme Semencière Nicolette Gica, 1st Valley Bank Ainoma National Water Management Authority Norlito Gicana, Fertilizer and Pesticide Mahamane Nasser Laouali, Institut Authority Office of Electronic Communications (UKE National de la Recherche Agronomique du - Urząd Komunikacji Elektronicznej) Reynaldo Gregorio, Philippine Center Niger (INRAN) for Postharvest Development and Polish Financial Supervision Authority Zalika Maiga, Ets Kazali & Fils Mechanization (PHILMECH) (KNF) Amadou Ouattara, Food and Agriculture Tanya Hotchkiss, Cantilan Bank, Inc. Polish Seed Trade Association (PIN) Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Rose Marie M. King-Dominguez, Sycip Ulenberg Sp. z o.o. Mamoudou Oumarou, Chambre de Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan WBW Weremczuk Bobel & Partners, Commerce d’Industrie et d’Artisanat du Franco Aristotle G Larcina, Sycip Salazar Attorneys at Law Niger Hernandez & Gatmaitan Monika Adamin, Clifford Chance LLP Zakary Rhissa, Fondation Taboghor Victor P. Lazatin, Angara Abello Wojciech Andrzejewski, Kancelaria Philippe Sabot, Merial Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Firm Prawna Piszcz, Norek i Wspólnicy Spółka komandytowa 166 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Aleksandra Auleytner, Domański Paweł Piotrowski, Clifford Chance LLP Anton Lachinov, VimpelCom Zakrzewski Palinka (DZP) Marcin Piszcz, Kancelaria Prawna Piszcz, Maxim Levinson, Baker Botts LLP Igor Bąkowski, Bąkowski Kancelaria Norek i Wspólnicy Spółka komandytowa Anastasia Likhacheva, National research Radcowska Piotr Smolarczyk, Greenberg Traurig LLP university Agnieszka Bieda, Department of Mikołaj Steppa, Rural Development Alexander Nadmitov, Nadmitov, Ivanov & Geomatics, AGH University of Science and Foundation (RDF) Partners Technology Katarzyna Szczepaniak, National council of Ella Omelchenko, Clifford Chance LLP Marta Bryjak, White & Case LLP agricultural chambers Maksim Prigon Zofia Bulińska-Radomska, Plant Breeding Maciej Tomaszewicz, Chamber of and Acclimatization Institute (IHAR) Dmitry Raev, Morgan Lewis Merchants, Grain Processors and Foodstuff Jarosław Bydłosz, Department of Producers (Izba Gospodarcza Handlowców) Artem Rodin, CMS Legal Geomatics, AGH University of Science and Dominik Wałkowski, Wardyński & Partners Anastasia Serebrennikova, Clifford Chance Technology LLP Witold Studziński, Studziński i Partnerzy Dariusz Godzisz, Ipsen Polska Sp zoo Adwokacka Spółka Partnerska Elena V. Syrykh Agnieszka Dawidowicz, University of Jolanta Wyszatkiewicz, Ministry of Robert Woolley Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn Agriculture and Rural Development Sergei Yudaev, ZAO “Ambar” Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Marcin Zaczyński, Plant Breeding and Michał Fereniec, Greenberg Traurig LLP Acclimatization Institute (IHAR) RWANDA Maciej Gorgol, Warsaw Bar of Advocates Izabela Zielińska-Barłożek, Wardyński & Nyiombo Investments Partners Olaf Günther-Borstel, Yara One Acre Fund Leszek Zielonka, Kamil Jankielewicz, Allen & Overy Zielonka-Steckert-Wspólnicy Rwanda Natural Resources Authority Wiesława Kasperska-Wołowicz, Institute (RNRA) of Technology and Life Sciences RUSSIAN FEDERATION Alexis Bizimana, KCB Bank Rwanda Anna Klimach, University of Warmia and Avakov Tarasov & Partners Vianney Bizimana, Banque Populaire du Mazury in Olsztyn Rwanda Central Bank of the Russian Federation Anna Kluczek-Kollar, Misiewicz, Mosek & Jeanne d’Arc Nyaruyonga, International Partners Counsellors - at - Law John Deere Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) Anita Kwartnik-Pruc, Department of Monsanto Moses Kiiza Gatama, Equity Juris Geomatics, AGH University of Science and Marc Bartholomy, Clifford Chance LLP Chambers Technology Aleksey Belugin, Eurasian Center for Food Bob Gatera, Balton Rwanda Ltd Leszek Łabędzki, Institute of Technology Security, Moscow State University and Life Sciences Jonathan Gatera, National Bank of Rwanda Valentin Borodin, VB & P Mirosław Leszczyński, John Deere Henry Gitau, Balton Rwanda Ltd Olga Brovkina, Association of International Przemysław Musioł, Kancelaria Prawna Peter Harlech Jones, GALVmed Road Carriers (ASMAP) Piszcz, Norek i Wspólnicy Spółka Pie Hibamana, Amicus Law Chambers komandytowa Konstantin Chaykin, Altayskiy Fond Mikrozaymov Gafigi Jean Paul, Pannar Marcin Olszak, Polish Financial Supervision Authority Ekaterina Dudina, Beiten Burkhardt Potel Jossam, Kayonza District Joanna Organiściak-Płachta, Salt City Irina Glazkova, Avakov Tarasov & Partners Channy Kalisa, Kigali Golden Farm Pharma Center Alexey Konevsky, Pepeliaev Group Jonas Kamili, Banque Populaire du Rwanda Małgorzata Pałysa, Polish Agency for Evgeniya Konovalova Dudinova, Cargill Regina Kayitesi, Private Sector Federation Enterprise Development Polina Krymskaya, Federal Service for State Brian Kirungi, Airtel Rwanda Limited Piotr Parzych, Department of Geomatics, Registration Cadastre and Cartography in AGH University of Science and Technology Kizito Safari, Bona Fide Law Chambers Moscow Agata Pawlak-Jaszczak, Kancelaria Elonie Mukandoli, National Bank of Rwanda Alexey Kuzmishin, Beiten Burkhardt Prawna Piszcz, Norek i Wspólnicy Spółka Jean Baptiste Mutabazi, Rwanda Utilities komandytowa Vladislav I. Kvashnin, Digesta ILC Regulatory Authority (RURA) LOCAL EXPERTS 167 Sylvain Muyombano, Rwanda Natural Compañía Maquinaria 93 Nicolás Nogueroles Peiró, Colegio de Resources Authority (RNRA) Registradores de la Propiedad y Mercantiles Grupo AN de España Dominique Mvunabandi, Smartfarming Grupo Fertiberia Rwanda Ltd Luis Pérez de Ayala, Cuatrecasas Gonçalves John Deere Pereira Mwitende Ladislas, Top Services Enterprises Ltd MIGASA Pedro Portellano, Garrigues Susan Nambi, Equity Juris Chambers Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Millan Requena Casanova Medio Ambiente (MAGRAMA) Kannan Narayanan, Hawassa University Lourdes Rodriguez Lopez, Plaza Forwarding Yara SL Jules Theoneste Ndahayo, Umutanguha Finance Company Ltd. (UFC) Margarita Arboix Arzo, Autonomous Elicia Rodríguez Puñal, Cuatrecasas University of Barcelona Gonçalves Pereira Emmanuel Ngomiraronka, Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources Ignacio Cantonnet, TERGUM Alicia Sánchez Muñoz, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad Peter Ngugi, Yara Alberto Cortegoso Vaamonde, Cuatrecasas Gonçalves Pereira Emilio Sidera Leal, Ministry of Public Works Theogene Niyibigira, Rwanda National Genebank David Cota Mascuñana Ignacio Solís Martel, AgroVegetal Beatrice Niyokwizigirwa, Rwanda Rafael de Sádaba Gonzalo Ulloa Suelves, Gómez Acebo & Agriculture Board (RAB) Pombo, Abogados, SLP Alfonso de San Simón, San Simón & Duch Felicien Niyoniringiye, Rulindo District Diego de San Simón, San Simón & Duch SRI LANKA Alfred Nkubili, ENAS Paulo Felix, CEPEX Spain CIC Agribusinesses (Pvt) Limited Bernard Nsengiyumva, National Bank of Alfredo Fernández Rancaño, J&A Rwanda Dilmah Tea Ltd Garrigues, S.L.P. Livingstone Nshemereirwe, Access to Empire Teas Pvt Ltd Juan José Gil Panizo, Federación Nacional Finance Rwanda de Asociaciones de Empresarios de Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Jean Bosco Rusagara, Intraspeed Ltd Transporte Discrecionales de Mercancías Policy (CARP) (FENADISMER) Philippe Sabot, Merial Ranjith Abeykoon, Tea Exporters Juan González, Garrigues Association (TEA) Didier Sagashya, Rwanda Natural Resources Authority (RNRA) Matías González, Vodafone España, S.A.U. Asanka Abeysekera, Tiruchelvam Associates Gerard Mutimura Sakufi, Banque Populaire Rosa Huertas González, Confederación du Rwanda Hidrográfica del Duero Asoka Ajantha, Janathakshan Mohammed Salim, Green Age International Vicente Izquierdo Garcia, Departamento Asela Angammana, AgStar Fertilizers PLC Ltd. de Aduanas de la Agencia Tributaria de A.R Ariyaratne, Sri Lanka Council for España Jean Damascene Serugero, National Bank Agricultural Research Policy (CARP) of Rwanda Jaime Jaume, Semilla M. Ziard Caffoor, Ceylon Grain Industries Josephine Umurewa, Development Bank of Carlos Jimenez Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Rwanda Álvaro López-Jorrín, Garrigues Savantha De Saram, D.L. & F. De Saram Grace Umutoni, Private Sector Federation José Luis Mauri Alarcón, Irritec Iberia SA Anil de Silva, Dave Tractors & Combines Esperance Uwimana Juan Muguerza Odriozola, J&A Garrigues, (Pvt) Ltd Kabalisa Vincent de Paul, Rwanda Natural S.L.P. Sashanee de Silva, Gowers Law Firm Resources Authority (RNRA) Luis Murillo Jasol, Cuatrecasas Gonçalves Sameera S Dissanayake, Sri Lanka Council Pereira for Agricultural Research Policy SPAIN Adrián Nogales, Colegio Oficial de Manjula Ellepola, F.J. & G. De Saram Asociación Nacional de Obtentores Ingenieros de Telecomunicación (COIT) Vegetales (ANOVE) Anjali Fernando, F.J. & G. De Saram José Luis Palma Fernández, Gómez-Acebo Bioibérica S.A. & Pombo Abogados S.L.P. Lakshman Fernando, CIC Agribusinesses (Pvt) Limited Catalan Water Agency Juan Pardo, Asociación Comercial Española de Fertilizantes (ACEFER) Mayuri Fernando, D.L. & F. De Saram Compagnie Fruitière España 168 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Rohan Fernando, Tea Exporters Association Udara Widanagamage, CL Synergy Pvt Ltd Mohamed Alhadi Ibrahim, Elnilein (TEA) Engineering & Spare Parts Co.ltd Sameera Wijerathna, Dialog Axiata PLC Bhavani Fonseka, Center for Policy Nawal Ibrahim, Agricultural Mechanization Alternatives (CPA) Administration SUDAN Tilani Ford, F.J. & G. De Saram Idris Idris Alpha Group Tharindu Gallage, Empire Teas Pvt Ltd Mubarak Mahgoub, AL Nelein Engineering Family Bank & Spare Parts Helani Galpaya, LIRNEasia Kenana Sugar Company El Tahir Ibrahim Mohamed, Agricultural Dilum Gamage, Julius & Creasy Ministry of Water Resources, Irrigation and Research Corporation Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Electricity Insaf Mohammed Musa, Agricultural Dilini Gunaratne, Julius & Creasy Muhammed Kamal Abass, CTC Group Research Corporation Thilanka Haputhanthrie, Julius & Creasy Hassabo Abbas, Ministre de l’Agriculture et Mahmoud Numan de l’Irrigation Hettiarachchi Hemaratne, The Colombo Osman Elmakki Osman Elmakki Tea Traders’ Association Ula Makkawi Abdelrahman, Ministry of Abdul Hamid Rhametalla, Landell Mills Ltd Agriculture & Irrigation Anura Herath, The International Fund for Philippe Sabot, Merial Agricultural Development (IFAD) Wala Hassan Aboalela, El Karib and Medani Advocates (EKM) Salman Salman Ranila Hurulle, Julius & Creasy Ahmed Adam Mahmoud Seddon, Harvest Hybrid Seed Co Shanika Jayasekera, Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy (CARP) Faisal Ahmed, Transnile for Trade & Hassan Shakir Agriculture Nilusha Kapugama, LIRNEasia Vickram Swaminath, Raiba Land Transport, Mohamed Alhassan Ahmed, National Seed Elnefeidi Group Uma Kitulgoda, F.J. & G. De Saram Council Mohamed Tangasawi Navindra Liyanaarachchi, SANASA Alawia Alhamadabi, National Information Federation Ltd. Azhari Traifi, Aztan Law Firm Center Waruna Madawanarachchi, C.I.C. Seed & Inaam Attiq, Aztan Law Firm Foliage TAJIKISTAN Sarah Badreldin, Raiba Land Transport, Ameer Mahuroof, Gowers Law Firm AccessBank Tajikistan Elnefeidi Group Ashwini Natesan, Julius & Creasy BDO Academy Tajikistan Sami Balla Ibrahim, Widam Food Chaminda Nissanka, Brown & Company Legal Consulting Group Omer El Dirani PLC OJSC “Agroinvestbank” Mustafa Elbashier, Mustafa Elbashier Law Simon Padmini, Sri Lanka Council for Office Zhanyl Abdrakhmanova, Colibri Law Firm Agricultural Research Policy (CARP) Salah Eldin Elaghbash, Brilliance for Firdavs Abdufatoev, Ltd. “ORO Isfara” Ranga Pallawala, Janathakshan Development and Services Aiembek Akramov, National Association of Laknadhi Perera, Julius & Creasy Afaf Elguzouli, Ministry of Agriculture and Derkhan farms Nihara Perera, Sudath Perera Associates Irrigation Bahtier Bahriddinov, Neksigol Mushovir Oswin Perera, University of Peradeniya Shaimaa Elhassan, Raiba Land Transport, Dzhamshed Buzurukov, Ltd. “ISFARAFUD” Elnefeidi Group Sudath Perera, Sudath Perera Associates Nargis Hamidova, International Road Yahia Awad Elkareem Ranjith Rajapakse, Jinasena (PVT) Ltd. Transport Association (AIATT) Sami Freigoun, CTC Group Saman Rajapaksha, AgStar Fertilizers PLC Zafar Hudoikulov, Yovar Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Shobitha Ranasinghe, Empire Teas Pvt Ltd Davron Isaev, USAID Farmer Advisory Amr Hamad, Haggar Holding Company Services in Tajikistan (FAST) J.M. Swaminathan, Julius & Creasy Salih Hamid, Savings & Social Development Davlatyor Jumakhonov, First MicroFinance Nuwanthi Upeksha, CL Synergy Pvt Ltd Bank Bank Roshana Waduge, Ceylon Fertilizer Co. Ltd. Peter Harlech Jones, GALVmed Matraim Jusupov, Kyrgyz Republic Aruna Weerakoon, Agro Culture Trends Research Institute of Irrigation Tayeb Hassabo, Aztan Law Firm Pvt Ltd. Alisher Khoshimov, Colibri Law Firm Hawaii Abdulwhab Almahdi, Ministry of Anil Wickremasinghe, Jinasena (PVT) Ltd. Transport, Roads and Bridges Matazim Kosimov, Livestock Institute TAAS LOCAL EXPERTS 169 Nurlan Kyshtobaev, Grata Law Firm Tanzania Fertilizer Company Ltd. Hassan Mruttu, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development Shirinbek Milikbekov, Colibri Law Firm Tanzania Meat Board Deonice Mshida, Agricultural Seed Agency Firdavs Mirzoev, Nazrisho & Mirzoev Law Tanzania Official Seed Certification Firm Institute (TOSCI) Benjamin Mtaki, Tea Research Institute of Tanzania Azam Murtazaev, Neksigol Mushovir Yara Arnold Munisi, Brevis attorneys Zulfiya H. Odinaeva, Ministry of Transport Julie Adkins, SNV and Communications of the Republic of R.J. Mwageni, Posta na Simu SACCOS Ltd. Joy Alliy, VELMA Law Tajikistan Paul Myovela, OLAM Mahmoud Ahmed Ally, Allied Transport Amindjon Parpiev, Bard & Co Joseph Mwaipaja, Tanzania Bureau of Stephen Axwesso, Brevis attorneys Kurbonali Partoev, Cooperation for Standards Development Hamisi Chimwaga, Mwanga Community Yaya Ndjore, TIGO Bank Tulegen Sarsembekov, Eurasian Adolf Ndunguru, Tanzania Revenue Development Bank Raphael L. Daluti, Ministry of Agriculture, Authority Food Security and Cooperatives Marina Shamilova, Legal Consulting Group Martha Ngalowera, Vice President’s Office George Fernandes, East African Law Azizbek Sharipov, National Association of Chambers Leo Ngowi, Surface and Marine Transport Derkhan farms Regulatory Authority (SUMATRA) Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Sherzod Sodatkadamov, Nazrisho & Patrick Ngwediagi, Ministry of Agriculture, Mirzoev Law Firm Edward Greenwood, FINCA Food Security and Cooperatives Mahinakhon Suleymanova, Neksigol Sharif A. Hamad, Breeders Tanzania John Nkoma, Tanzania Communications Mushovir Niko Janssen, SNV Regulatory Authority Matluba Uljabaeva, National Association Peter Harlech Jones, GALVmed David Nyanye, Michigan State University of Small and Medium Business of the Republic of Tajikistan Theresia Hubert, Tanzania Bureau of Ravi Periyasamy, Balton Tanzania Ltd Standards Nargis Usmanova, National Association of Edimitha Protace, Tanzania Bureau of Derkhan farms Aron Johson Kitaka, Ministry of Transport Standards Alimardon Azimov, Center for Vian Karamaga, Allied Transport Hassan Tino Rajab, CBS Law Offices implementation of land cadastre system Buberwa Kafanabo, BEST-Dialogue Juma Reli, Bank of Tanzania Peter Kasanda, Clyde & Co Kelvin Remen, Tanzania Horticultural TANZANIA Association (TAHA) Neema Lwise Kileo, Astute Attorneys Advans Bank Tanzania Ltd. Hem Chandro Roy, BRAC Tanzania Agapiti E. Kobello, Bank of Tanzania ByTrade Tanzania Martin Ruheta, Veterinary Services, Canuth Komba, Ministry of Agriculture, Davis & Shirtliff Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Food Security and Cooperatives Development Engiteng Dairy Gunga Kumar Gunga, DAMCO Philippe Sabot, Merial ETC Agro Tractors and Implements Ltd Barney I. S. Laseko, Prime Minister’s Office Charity Safford, Vodacom Forbix Attorneys Amalia Lui, Clyde & Co Ial Samakande, Irrigrow International Fertilizer Development Center Peter A. Lupatu, Ministry of Transport (IFDC) Sebastian Sambuo, Rural Urban Elvin Lwakabare, DAMCO Development Initiatives (RUDI) LonAgro Tanzania Ltd Justo N. Lyamuya, Ministry of Lands, Ulhas Sardesai, OLAM Metl Agro Tractors & Implements Ltd Housing and Human Settlement Ujwalkanta Senapati, OLAM Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Development Cooperatives Amish Shah, ATZ Law Chambers Mashiku Majo, National Irrigation Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Commission Cecilia Boniface Shiyo, CBS Law Offices Development Eli-Tunu Mallamia, Tanzania Truck Owners Baldwin Shuma, Tanzania Seed Trade Ministry of Water and Irrigation Association (TATOA) Association (TASTA) Tanzania Bureau of Standards Patrick Maluku, Monsanto Nahson Sigalla, Surface and Marine Transport Regulatory Authority Tanzania Farmer Services Center Ltd (TFSC) Victor B. Mrema, Brevis attorneys (SUMATRA) 170 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Emmanuel Simbua, Tea Research Institute Yaşar Orhan, Ministry of Food, Agriculture Halid Kirunda, National Livestock of Tanzania and Livestock Resources Research Institute Lait Simukanga, National Irrigation Senem Kathrin Güçlüer, Law Office Kunt & Allan Kobel, Magezi, Ibale & Co. Advocates Commission Partners Timothy Kyepa, Development Law Tariro Sithole, Quton Tanzania Limited Fatih Şener, Association of International Associates Freight Forwarders Elia Timotheo, East Africa Fruits Farm and Sylver Kyeyune, Pride Microfinance Ltd. Company Ltd. Vakur Sümer, Selcuk University Bob Paul Lusembo, Pride Microfinance Ltd. Sixtus Toke, Ministry of Agriculture, Food Seyma Gozde Tokyay, Bicak Hukuk Law Alex Lwakuba, Ministry of Agriculture, Security and Cooperatives Firm Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) Raymond Wigenge, Directorate of Food Sevilay Topcu, Çukurova University John Magezi, Magezi, Ibale & Co. Safety, Tanzania Food and Drug Authority Ümit Yıldız, Ministry of Environment and Advocates (TFDA) Urbanization William Martovu, Heifer International Nicholas Zervos, VELMA Law Yusuf Yormazoğlu, May-Agro Seed Co. Richard Masagazi, Pearl Seeds Ltd TURKEY Astrid Mastenbroek, Wageningen UR UGANDA Centre for Development Innovation Turkish Cooperative Association Abdunassar Olekwa, Ministry of Lands, Jim Middleton, Engineering Solutions (U) Türkiye Yem Sanayicileri Birliği Housing and Urban Development Ltd Can Adamoglu Charles Abuka, Bank of Uganda Asa Mugenyi, Mugenyi & Co Advocates Fulya Koc Arslan, Monsanto John Anglin, Paramount Dairies Ltd John Mulumba Wasswa, National Sedat Bakici, General Directorate of Land John Atalyeba, ATACO Freight Services Ltd. Agricultural Research Organisation Registry and Cadastre (NARO) Robert Ayume, Brazafric Enterprises Ltd Barlas Balcioglu, Balcıoğlu Selçuk Akman Augustine Mwendya, Uganda National Justine Bagyenda, Bank of Uganda Keki Farmers Federation Sudhir Balsure, DSV Swift Freight Nevzat Birisik, Ministry of Food, Agriculture Irene Nabwire Jingo, Bank of Uganda International (Uganda) Ltd. and Livestock Brenda Namulondo, National Agricultural Jonathan Bukenya, Bora Agro-Technologies Hamdi Çiftçiler, May-Agro Seed Co. Research Organisation (NARO) Ltd Jean de Foucauld, Ceva Santé Animale Viola Namuyaba, Pride Microfinance Ltd. Arthur Byara, Onyango Advocates Gülperi Eldeniz, GPE Law Firm Nicholas Ndawula Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Hakkı Emrah Erdogan, Ministry of Food, Donald Nyakairu, ENSafrica Advocates Andrew Gita, USAID Feed the Future Agriculture and Livestock Bosco Ochira Lawino, Tropical Trade Peter Harlech Jones, GALVmed Bilal Erkek, General Directorate of Land International Co. Ltd Registry and Cadastre Moira Imong Patrice Ocungirwoth, Housing Finance Özgür Eryüz, John Deere Brian Kaggwa, Impala Legal Advocates and Bank Consultants Ismail G. Esin, Baker & McKenzie James Olobo, Uganda Chamber of Ronald Kaggwa, National Environment Commerce Ali Can Gören, Balcıoğlu Selçuk Akman Management Authority Keki Robert Opio, Ministry of Lands, Housing William Kambugu, Ministry of Lands, and Urban Development Ceylan Kara Housing and Urban Development Richard Oput, Ministry of Lands, Housing Ali Kasaci, Ministry of Food, Agriculture Andrew Kamugisha, Bank of Uganda and Urban Development and Livestock Eldad Karamura, Bioversity International Peter Otimodoch, Otis Garden Seeds Yalçın Kaya, Trakya University Emmanuel Kasimbazi, Makerere University Samuel Powell, Northern Uganda Aysegül Kibaroglu, MEF University Agricultural Centre Harriette Kasirye, Orange Uganda Limited Ayhan Kullep B.W. Rwabwogo, Mukwano Group Nicholas Kauta, Ministry of Agriculture, Ahmet Kumru, Kumrular Livestock Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) Richard A. Saasa, Agricultural Engineering Orhan Yavuz Mavioğlu, ADMD Mavioglu and Appropriate Technology Research Robert Kintu, FIT Uganda LT & Alkan Law Office Institute (AEATRI) LOCAL EXPERTS 171 Philippe Sabot, Merial Sergiy Oberkovych, Gvozdiy & Oberkovych Nguyen Thi Quynh Chi, General Law Firm Department of Vietnam Customs Abraham Salomon, Agriworks Uganda Ltd. Pavlo Odnokoz, Asters Va Linh Chi, Vietnam Academy of Illa Sanjeevi, Grow More Seeds and Agricultural Sciences Chemicals Limited Roman Ognevyuk, Engarde Attorneys at Law Kim Van Chinh, Institute of Policy and Seruwo Solomon, Bukoola Chemical Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Industries Ltd Maxim Oleksiyuk, WTS Tax Legal Development (IPSARD) Consulting, LLC Irene Ssekyana, Greenwatch Pham Hung Cuong, Vietnam Academy of Pavlo Oliinyk, Engarde Attorneys at Law Phinehas Tukamuhabwa, Makerere Agricultural Sciences University Mark Opanasiuk, Inyurpolis Law Firm Duc Dang, Indochine Counsel Stephen Tumwesigye, Onyango Advocates Vitali Polishchuk, Institute of Hydraulic Thuan Dinh Quang, Phuoc and Partners Engineering and Land Reclamation Eva Zaake, National Agricultural Research Doan Doan Tuan, Institute for Water and Organisation (NARO) Roman Puchko Environment (IWE) UKRAINE Mykola Pugachev, Institute of Agrarian Pham Van Dong, Department of Animal Economics National Bank of Ukraine Health, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Alexey Pukha, Aleksey Pukha & Partners Development (MARD) State Veterinary and Phytosanitary Service of Ukraine Victor Ryabchun, Plant Production Institute Do Huu Dung, Department of Animal nd. V. Ya. Yuryev of NAAS Health, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Anton Babak, Lavrynovych & Partners Development (MARD) Philippe Sabot, Merial Eugene Blinov, Astapov Lawyers Nguyen Quy Duong, Plant Protection International Law Group Irina Selivanova, Inyurpolis Law Firm Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Alexander Borodkin, Vasil Kisil & Partners Viktoriya Taran, KWS Rural Development (MARD) Myroslav Denis Viktor Teres, Heifer International Viet Thanh Duong Bohdan Dmukhovskyy, Astapov Lawyers Roman Volkov, ICT-Zahid Nguyen Duy Dang International Law Group Yulia Yashenkova, AiG Law Firm Andrew Fitanides, Baker & McKenzie Dmytro Donenko, Engarde Attorneys at Olga Zhovtonog, Institute of Hydraulic Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Law Engineering and Land Reclamation Huong Thanh Ha, Plant Protection Vitaliy Fedchuk, Monsanto Anton Zinchuk, Inyurpolis Law Firm Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Oleksandr Fedorov, KWS Rural Development (MARD) Olena Zubchenko, Lavrynovych & Partners Viacheslav Gavrylianchyk, Syngenta Le Son Ha, Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Volodymyr Gopchak, KWS VIETNAM Development (MARD) Andrii Grebonkin, Clifford Chance LLP C.P. Vietnam Corporation Nguyen Ha, DFDL Artem Khaliavka, Creative Group (PJSC ) Institute of Policy and Strategy for Tran Thu Hang, Vietnam Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Alexey Khomyakov, Asters Alliance (IPSARD) Peter Kovalenko, International Commission Nguyen Hiep, Transworld Cargo Logistics Petrovietnam Fertilizer and Chemicals on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) Corporation Nguyen Hoa, DFDL Alexander Kravchenko, Bayer Animal State Bank of Vietnam Nguyen Hong Hai, Duane Morris Health Tilleke & Gibbins Consultants Limited Vu Thi Huong, SNV Lesya Kravchuk, CLAAS Ukraine Le Duy AnW, Yara Nguyen Huy, Rigonfruit Igor Kutovoy, John Deere Tran Tu Anh, SNV Tran Huy, Rigonfruit Olga Kutsevych, Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University Pham Quoc Bao, SANCO Freight Ltd Thang Huynh, DFDL Tatyana Kuzmenko, AiG Law Firm Quoc Doan Bao, Syngenta Tran Mai Kien, Vietnam Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment Anton Lukovkin, Misechko & Partners Law Rajarshi Chakravorty (IMHEN) Firm Nguyen Ba Chat, Vietnam Institute of Cuong Le, DFDL Iryna Marushko, Lavrynovych & Partners Agricultural Engineering and Post-Harvest Technology (VIAEP) Nguyen Thi Kim Loan, HSBC Bank 172 ENABLING THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE 2016 Bui Van Minh SNV Nguyen Thi Thanh Binh, SANCO Freight Terrafirma Engineering and Surveying Ltd Consult (TESCO) Nguyen Dong Nghia, Rigonfruit Duyen Nguyen Thi, Vietnam Academy of Zenith Business Solutions Huyen Tram Nguyen, Gide Loyrette Nouel Agricultural Sciences Law Firm Alan McNab, Backloads Zambia Limited Nguyen Thi Thuy, Ministry of Agriculture Lam Nguyen, PEJA (S.E.A.) Milind Amin, Saro Agro Ltd and Rural Development Mau Dung Nguyen, Vietnam National Chris Bishop, AgDevCo Tran Thanh Thuy, Vietnam Institute of University of Agriculture Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment Habasonda Calvin, Bank of Zambia Oanh H. K. Nguyen, Baker & McKenzie (IMHEN) Simon Cammelbeeck, World Food Thanh Lam Nguyen, Vietnam Seed Trade Ha Thuy Hanh, National Agriculture Programme Association Extension Centre Phillip K. Chibundi, Chibundi & Co. Law Thi Hong Duong Nguyen, Indochine Counsel Nguyen Tram Anh, Transworld Cargo Practice Logistics Thi Nguyet Nga Nguyen, Ministry of Chris Chiinda, Hitech Logistics Limited Transport Thuy Thanh Thi Tran, Tien Giang Prisca Chileshe, IITA Capital Aid Fund for Women’s Economic Thi Phuong Loan Nguyen Development Abigail Chimuka, Africa Legal Network Trung Anh Nguyen, Vietnam Made Co., Ltd (ALN) Trung Kien Tran, S&B Law Tuan Nguyen, ANT Lawyers Sydney Chisenga, Corpus Legal Practioners Kien Tran Trung, Multico (Vietnam) Co Ltd Nam Nguyen Hoai, Ministry of Agriculture Arshad Dudhia, Musa Dudhia & Co Tran Quang Truong, SNV and Rural Development (MARD) Robin Durairajah, Chibesakunda & Co Tran Van Trang, General Department of Khanh Nguyen Hong, Directorate of Water Vietnam Customs Emmanuel Manda, Musa Dudhia & Co Resources Vi Sieu Trinh, Bayer Crop Science Reagan Blankfein Gates, The Judiciary of Chung Nguyen Thi Phuong, Phuoc and Zambia, High Court Ndola Partners Hoang Trung, Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Rajiv Ghandi, Hester Biosciences Ltd Nguyen Nang Nhuong, Vietnam Institute of Development (MARD) Agricultural Engineering and Post-Harvest Shuller Habeenzu, ITM Consult Technology (VIAEP) Nguyen Diep Tuan, DKSH Vietnam Co., Ltd. Nsondo Hamulondo, NWK Agri-Services Ha Phuong Nguyen, SNV Tran Duc Tuan, Vietnam Institute of Coillard Hamusimbi, Zambia National Agricultural Engineering and Post-Harvest Hac Thuy Nguyen, Fertilizer Association of Farmers Union (ZNFU) Technology (VIAEP) Vietnam (FAV) Wilhelm Hesse, Agland ltd Torsten Velden, Bayer Crop Science Hiep Pham, Hiep PK Cafe Chance Kabaghe, Indaba Agricultural Nguyen Quoc Viet, Vietnam Institute of Thu Thien Pham, YKVN Research Policy Institute Agricultural Engineering and Post-Harvest Tuan Pham Quoc, Phuoc and Partners Technology (VIAEP) Michael Kalimamukwento, Bridgepac Investments Ltd Vu Phan, Indochine Counsel Dzung Vu, YKVN Lazarous Kalumba, Nishati Clearing and Nguyen Anh Phong, Institute of Policy Vu Ngoc Quynh, Vietnam Codex Office Forwarding and Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Hoa Xuan Vuong, Vietnam Institute of Development (IPSARD) Chapwa Kasoma Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment Pham Ngoc Phuoc, SANCO Freight Ltd (IMHEN) Linda Kasonde, Mulenga Mundashi Kasonde Legal Practioners Marieke van der Pijl, Gide Loyrette Nouel Terence Wilson Law Firm Humphrey Katotoka, Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU) Franck Renaudin, Entrepreneurs du Monde ZAMBIA Jones Kayawe, Zambeef Products plc Mehdi Saint-Andre, Yara Airtel George Liacopoulos, Zdenakie Commodities Yee Chung Seck, Baker & McKenzie Bank of Zambia Ltd Vivek Sharma Community Markets For Conservation Caesar Lubaba, National Livestock (COMACO) Gaël Stephen, ACE (Anh Chi Em) Epidemiology and Information Centre Copperbelt Universty Nguyen Thac Tam, Co-operative Bank of Banji Milambo, Bank of Zambia Vietnam (CPCF) Kasensa Collaboration LOCAL EXPERTS 173 Gerald Monga, Central Veterinary Research Godfrey Mwila, Zambia Agricultural Musenge Sakala, Africa Legal Network Institute Research Institute (ZARI) (ALN) Christian Morris, NWK Agri-Services Patricia Nachilima, Ventus Legal Jessica Schicks, AB Bank Zambia Practitioners Kenneth Msiska, Zambia Agricultural Dick Siame, The International Fund for Research Institute (ZARI) Perry Ngoma, CropLife Zambia Agricultural Development (IFAD) Robert Mtonga, Truckers Association of Dickson Ng’uni, Zambia Agricultural Peter Sievers, COWI Zambia (TAZ) Research Institute (ZARI) Mike Sikazwe Parick Muchimba, Amiran Ltd. Ashok Oza, Saro Agro Ltd Armando M Sirolla, AB Bank Zambia Victor Musabula, Ventus Legal Sharad Oza, Saro Agro Ltd Judith Tembo Practitioners Nathan Phiri, Official Seed Testing Wesley Litaba Wakun’uma, Hivos Mioamba Musambo, Stanbic Bank Zambia Station Mount Makulu, Seed Control and Foundation Certification Institute Chanda Musonda, Africa Legal Network (ALN) ECO-AUDIT Environmental Benefits Statement The World Bank Group is committed to reducing its environmental footprint. In support of this commitment, the Publishing and Knowledge Division leverages electronic publishing options and print-on-demand technology, which is located in regional hubs worldwide. Together, these initiatives enable print runs to be lowered and shipping distances decreased, resulting in reduced paper consumption, chemical use, greenhouse gas emissions and waste. The Publishing and Knowledge Division follows the recommended standards for paper use set by the Green Press Initiative. The majority of our books are printed on Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)–certified paper, with nearly all containing 50–100 percent recycled content. The recycled fiber in our book paper is either unbleached or bleached using totally chlorine-free (TCF), processed chlorine-free (PCF), or enhanced elemental chlorine-free (EECF) processes. More information about the Bank’s environmental philosophy can be found at http://www .worldbank.org/corporateresponsibility.