USAID OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE GUATEMALA BELLMON ESTIMATION
August 2009
AugustThis publication 2009 was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Fintrac Inc. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
USAID OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE GUATEMALA BELLMON ESTIMATION
August 2009
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
Fintrac Inc. www.fintrac.com [email protected]
US Virgin Islands 3077 Kronprindsens Gade 72 St. Thomas, USVI 00802 Tel: (340) 776-7600 Fax: (340) 776-7601
Washington, D.C. 1436 U Street NW, Suite 303 Washington, D.C. 20009 USA Tel: (202) 462-8475 Fax: (202) 462-8478
USAID-BEST Washington, D.C. 1436 U Street NW, Suite 104 Washington, D.C. 20009 USA Tel: (202) 742-1055 Fax: (202) 462-8478
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA
Preface
During the period February through May 2009, the Bellmon Estimation Studies for Title II (BEST) team undertook an analysis aimed at generating recommendations to inform the Bellmon Determination to be made by USAID.
In anticipation of funding a Prevention of Malnutrition in Children Under Two Approach (PM2A) in Guatemala, USAID requested this analysis to determine that the direct distribution and monetization of US agricultural commodities provided for use in Guatemala during FY2010 through a Title II PM2A activity meet the criteria set forth in the Bellmon Amendment.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Notes...... 1 C hapter 1. E xecutive S ummary ...... 3 1.1. Monetization– Findings/Recommendations ...... 3 Distribution – Findings/ ...... 4 1.2. Recommendations...... 4 1.3. Adequacy of Storage and Transport – Findings/Recommendations ...... 6 C hapter 2. C ountry Background and Overview ...... 8 2.1. Economic Overview...... 8 2.2. Agriculture Sector Overview...... 8 2.3 Policy ...... 9 C hapter 3. Transport and Adequacy of Storage ...... 11 3.1. Ports ...... 11 3.2. Inland Transport ...... 12 3.3. Storage ...... 12 C hapter 4. Food Aid Overview...... 14 4.1. Previous Initiatives ...... 14 4.2. Historical Distribution and Monetization ...... 16 4.3. Planned Initiatives ...... 18 C hapter 5. Monetization Analys is ...... 19 5.1. Soybean Oil (CDSO) ...... 20 5.2. Maize ...... 22 5.3. Rice ...... 23 5.4. Wheat Grain...... 26 5.5. Milk Powder and Non-Fat Dry Milk (NFDM) ...... 27 5.6. Overall Challenges to In-Country Monetization ...... 29 5.7. Regional Monetization ...... 30 C hapter 6. Dis tribution Analys is ...... 33 6.1. Introduction ...... 33 6.2. The Opportunities and Challenges of PM2A ...... 34 6.3. Initial Geographic Targeting ...... 34 6.4. Beneficiary Coverage ...... 36 6.5. Strategic Use of Food Rations...... 36 6.6. Assessment of Local Impact ...... 39 6.7. Summary of Findings ...... 40 6.8. Existing Food Aid and Cash Transfer Programs ...... 44 Annex I. Agricultural Overview ...... 45 I.i. Beans and Maize ...... 45 Annex II. National and Regional Storage Capacity- Indeca's S torage Facilities .. 51 Annex III. His torical Food Aid ...... 53 Annex IV. CDS O IPP Calculations ...... 57 Annex V. FFP Policy on Use of Milk Powder for Monetization ...... 59 Annex VI. Determining Impact of a Dis tribution Program ...... 61 VI.i. Nutrition or Food Gap ...... 62 VI.ii. Prevalence of Malnutrition in Children ...... 62 Annex VII. R ation C os ts C alculations ...... 64 VII.i. Haiti Pilot ...... 64 VII.ii. Direct Rations Only ...... 64 VII.iii. Direct Ration Plus Indirect Household Ration ...... 64 Annex VIII. Analysis Of Four Select Departments...... 66
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
VIII.i. Alta Verapaz ...... 66 VIII.ii. Chimaltenango ...... 69 VIII.iii. Huehuetenango...... 71 VIII.iv. Quiché ...... 73 Annex IX. Map of Livelihood Zones and Title II MYAP Coverage ...... 76 Annex X. Guatemala’s Seasonal Calendar ...... 77 Annex XI. Ongoing Food Aid and Cash Transfer Programs ...... 78 XI.i. Existing Initiatives ...... 78 Annex XII. C ontacts ...... 89 Annex XIII. Bibliography ...... 97
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Acronyms and Notes
BEST Bellmon Estimation Studies for Title II CCS Social Cohesion Council CDSO Crude Degummed Soya Oil CEPAL Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UN) (acronym in Spanish) CIF Commodity Insurance and Freight CPI Consumer Price Index CRS Catholic Relief Services CSB Corn Soya Blend DEV WFP Development Program DHS Demographic and Health Survey DMFSS Disaster Management Food Security Sector ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UN) ENRDC Chronic Malnutrition Reduction Strategy FANTA-2 Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance project FOB Free On Board FY Financial Year GDP Gross Domestic Product GOG Government of Guatemala HIV AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome INDECA National Institute of Agricultural Commercialization IPP Import Parity Price MEWIT Merchandise Wholesale and Import Trade Enterprise MFEWS Meso-American Food Security Early Warning System project MFI Micro-finance Institution MIS Market Information System MMU Monetization Management Unit MOE Ministry of Education MOF Ministry of Finance MT Metric Ton = 2,204.62 pounds MYAP Multi-Year Assistance Program (PL-480 Title II) NGO Non-governmental Organisation PL 480 Public Law 480 PM2A Prevention of Malnutrition in Children under Two Approach PRDC Program for the Reduction of Chronic Malnutrition PRRO WFP Protracted Relief and Recovery Operations PSNP Productive Safety Net Program PESANN Programas en el Marco de la Seguridad Alimentaria Nutricional Nacional Q. Quetzal, Guatemala’s national currency (equivalent to US$0.1237 on March 15, 2009) qq quintals = hundred weight = 100 lbs SEGEPLAN General Secretariat for National Planning SESAN Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition SAVE Save the Children
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 1 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
SHARE Self Help and Relief Everywhere UPIE Policy, Research & Evaluation Unit (MAGA) USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture USG United States Government WFP World Food Programme
Exchange Rate: 1 Quetzal = US$0.1237 (as of March 15, 2009).
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 2 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Chapter 1. Executive Summary
This report presents findings and recommendations for informing a Bellmon Determination in advance of a planned Prevention of Malnutrition in Children under Two Approach (PM2A) program in Guatema la. This study is based on a desk study and fieldwork conducted between February and May 2009. Since monetization may fund at least a portion of the PM2A program, BEST conducted a market analysis of key commodities that could potentially be monetized. In addition, current food aid programs and proxy indicators of “additionality” were investigated, to guide the targeting of a PM2A program in order to avoid creating a substantial discentive to production and disrupting local markets..
1.1. Monetization– Findings/Recommendations
Commodities were considered for monetization based on the following criteria:
• Eligibility for export from the US;
• Eligibility for import to Guatemala;
• Significance of domestic demand for the commodity;
• Whether domestic supply shortfalls of the commodity are filled through commercial imports and food aid;
• Existence and degree of competition for the purchase of the commodity; and
• Expectations that a fair market price for the commodity can be obtained.
Based on a review of available trade data, this Bellmon analysis considered the following commodities as possible candidates for monetization: soybean oil (CDSO), yellow maize1, rice, wheat grain, and non-fat dry milk (NFDM).
A substantial market and demand for CDSO exists in Guatemala (over 1.5 million MT from 2004-2008); including an adequate degree of competition for the purchase of the CDSO, as evidenced by its successful monetization fifteen times during 2006-2008. The monetization of up to 8,283 MT of CDSO is recommended for FY10. The recommended sales platform is tender/bids to negotiated or multiple buyers. At current prices, monetization of 8,283 MT of CDSO could generate approximately US$5.9 million.
Although maize dominates commercial imports - from 2004-2008, maize imports totaled over 3.2 million MT - and sellers face a competitive buying market, the monetization of yellow
1 “Maize” here refers to “corn, bagged, bulk” as listed on the USAID Commodities Reference Guide, which is classified as “yellow” and No.2. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/crg/fscorn.htm
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 3 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
maize is not recommended for FY10 because yellow maize is used primarily for animal feed in Guatemala and is subject to import quotas and tariffs.
Wheat grain is currently the second most important imported commodity (over 2.3 million MT were commercially imported during 2004-2008) in Guatemala. MultiInversiones Holding is the sole buyer of wheat grain. The association also owns the largest milling structure in the country. Previous efforts to monetize wheat grain have been unsuccessful in negotiating a fair market price. Therefore, it is not recommended that wheat grain be monetized because there is little expectation that a fair market price can be achieved.
It is not recommended that rice be monetized because it is subject to import quotas and tariffs.
Should the need arise to monetize another commodity, it is recommended that non-fat dry milk (NFDM) be monetized to meet a small portion of the funding requirements. Monetizing a volume of 10 percent of the five-year average commercial import volume of NFDM, the estimated maximum funds available for programming would be just under US$212,000. Although imports of NFDM are very small in volume and value, NFDM would be a reasonable supplement (however limited) to CDSO as a means of diversifying the commodity basket for monetization. As a supplement for CDSO, NFDM would be introduced as a pilot monetization commodity option to explore with the small to medium food processing industry in Guatemala through small lot sales. NFDM is subject to import quotas and tariffs which do not make it a viable large-volume monetization commodity option. Additionally, note that organizations considering the monetization of milk need to follow FFP guidance on the use of milk powder for monetization. See Annex V.
Should the need arise to monetize something other than the maximum volume of CDSO and NFDM recommended herein for FY10, it is recommended that that the feasibility of a regional monetization (RM) of CDSO in Nicaragua or wheat grain in either Honduras or Nicaragua be further investigated. RM is a legally-compliant alternative for Awardees operating in a country with less than fully competitive domestic commodity markets. RM provides Awardees with the option of selling into a market where there is sufficient competition among buyers in order to increase the likelihood that bids will be at or near import parity. RM can generate greater revenue for food security activities and thereby increase the efficiencies of the FFP program. It also provides Awardees with a fallback position if a commodity that was initially recommended for monetization becomes unviable at a later date due to changing market or policy conditions.
1.2. Distribution – Findings/Recommendations
The FY2009-2014 Title II program in Guatemala is expected to focus solely on a Maternal Child Health Nutrition (MCHN) intervention in the form of a Prevention of Malnutrition in Children Under Two Approach (PM2A). The present analysis of the potential impact of distributed food aid focuses therefore solely on PM2A.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 4 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
PM2A presents both an opportunity for long-term human capital investment and a unique challenge to avoid disincentives in the short-to-medium term. While the traditional recuperative approach targets children who are already malnourished and may have severe, irreversible physical and cognitive damage, the PM2A provides food aid to all pregnant and lactating mothers, and to all children between the ages of 6 to 24 months within a target geographic area. Because the key PM2A targeting criteria are based on a child’s age and a women’s physiological status, rather than on an estimated household food deficit, the program has greater potential to provide food aid to households for whom the food aid would not represent additional consumption. Initial geographic targeting of areas with a greater proportion of food- deficit households will help avoid disruption of local production and markets. To help ensure proposed programs will not result in substantial disincentive or market disruption, this distribution analysis provides information and scenarios of possible coverage that will help ensure potential impact on production and markets of such food aid distributions are minimized.
Research shows a strong correlation between wealth and early childhood stunting in Guatemala. Using ENCOVI data, a World Bank study found that 64 percent of extremely poor Guatemalan children are stunted, and 53 percent of all poor children are stunted, whereas 28 percent of non-poor children are stunted.2 This correlation suggests that access (i.e., purchasing power) plays an important role in determining nutrition outcomes in Guatemala. The distribution analysis relies on extreme poverty as a proxy indicator for additionality, and presents regional-level stunting prevalence rates to provide guidance for initial geographic targeting. By geographically targeting areas with a high prevalence of extremely poor households and chronically malnourished children under five, a PM2A program will help ensure that any given PM2A beneficiary household will more than likely increase overall household food consumption, and therefore represent additional consumption, relative to households in other geographic areas with lower rates of poverty and chronic malnutrition.
Alta Verapaz has the single largest number of households living in extreme poverty (more than 65,000), followed by Huehuetenango (36,000) and Quiché (32,000). Estimates of stunting prevalence suggest Quiché, Huehuetenango, and Alta Verapaz have the highest rates of chronic malnutrition in children under five in the country. Alta Verapaz has the largest number of PM2A-eligible households living in extreme poverty (more than 21,270 households), nearly twice that of either Huehuetenango (11,733 households) or Quiché (10,572 households). These two departments have nearly twice the number of extremely poor PM2A-eligible households as in Chimaltenango (5,425 households).
To provide additional guidance regarding volumes for distributed food rations, this analysis presents two scenarios of ration design and associated beneficiary coverage. A ration based on the Haiti trial3 would cost, on average, US$17.31 per beneficiary month, and be part of a US$10 million program with all funding devoted to distributed food aid rations (i.e., no monetization). This program could target nearly 48,000 households per year on a 12-month basis. The
2 The World Bank, 2000. Malnutrition and Poverty in Guatemala using ENCOVI, report. 3 For details on the Haiti trial, see section 6.5.1 “Haiti Pilot Ration.”
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 5 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
alternative ration presented could target approximately 109,000 households per year for the same US$10 million.
A PM2A program should be designed to cover no more than the estimated number of PM2A- eligible households living in extreme poverty, since these are the households for whom PM2A rations would be most likely to represent additional consumption. For the purpose of this analysis the total magnitude of coverage is important because not only does it translate into a volume of food aid commodities being introduced into a local area (and therefore potentially affecting markets and incentives to produce), but it also hints at the non-food ration costs that must be available to effectively support all of the other program activities.
A combination of factors will affect whether distributed food aid will represent additional consumption (including final geographical targeting, ration size and composition, effectiveness of distribution practices, effectiveness of BCC messages in increasing consumption among pregnant and lactating mothers and children under two years of age, etc.). To avoid duplication and ensure efficient use of Title II resources, allocation of resources across departments must also take into account existing food aid and cash transfer programs.
1.3. Adequacy of Storage and Transport – Findings/Recommendations
The government of Guatemala has no specific legislation governing maritime transport, and there are no restrictions on the operation of ports or auxiliary services. The government, however, owns all of the seaports, one of which is managed privately.4 Typically, two of Guatemala’s three major ports handle Title II food commodities, and both reportedly handle the commodities adequately and without major incident. Puerto Quetzal on the Pacific Ocean side experiences the highest volume (about one-half), followed by Puerto Santo Tomas de Castilla (about one-third) on the Caribbean side. Together, they handled a total cargo of 13,612,404 MT in 2006. Puerto Quetzal generally handles grain commodities, while oils and palletized products are handled at Puerto Santo Tomas de Castillo. Both ports are connected with Guatemala City by well-maintained, paved highways. A third port, Puerto Barrios, is also on the Caribbean coast in close proximity to Puerto Santo Tomas de Castilla, but is used mainly for exporting bananas. During the 2009 BEST field visit, warehouses in three departments (one warehouse per department, plus one communal storage facility) were visited.
The BEST team made the following observations:
• Warehousing facilities for storage of commodities appear sufficient to handle typical Title II food aid volumes.
• Food storage time usually did not exceed one month.
• Loss of product did not exceed four percent.
4 WTO Trade Policy Review (February 2009)
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 6 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• A rapid assessment of storage conditions and evaluation indicated that the condition of ventilation and stowage facilities was adequate, without any damage or disrepair that could result in loss or damage to food.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 7 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Chapter 2. Country Background and Overview
2.1. Economic Overview
Guatemala is a middle-income country. Its GDP was US$39 billion in 2008, with per capita income at US$4,700 in 2008.5 Worker remittances, foreign direct investment, and official development assistance have been growing rapidly since 2000. While the economy grew by four percent on average during 2003-2008, inflation has hovered around six percent during that period, hampering growth.6 Economic growth has yet to reduce poverty. Approximately half (51 percent) of the population lives on less than US$2 dollars per day, with 15 percent classified as extremely poor, living on less than US$1 per day.7 Furthermore, income distribution remains highly unequal. The Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, with a coefficient of one indicating perfect inequality and a coefficient of two indicating perfect equality, is 0.84 for Guatemala.8 Other measures of income inequality show that the wealthiest 20 percent of the population earn 34 times more than the poorest 20 percent.9 The UN’s Human Development Index, a broader measure of development, ranked Guatemala at 118 out of 179 countries in 2006 and 121 in 2008.10
2.2. Agriculture Sector Overview
Coffee, sugar, and bananas are Guatemala’s main agricultural outputs, representing about 13 percent of GDP. Large coffee and sugar cane farms are an important source of employment for seasonal migrant workers. 11 The 2006 National Livestock and Agriculture Survey found that 11.3 percent of arable land is used for main export crops: coffee (11.3 percent), sugar cane (8.5 percent), rubber (three percent), African palm (2.8 percent), bananas (2.1 percent), and cardamom (1.1 percent). In 2008, Guatemala was the world’s fifth largest coffee exporter.12 Natural rubber and vegetable production are expected to increase significantly in the near future, with the former expected to propel Guatemala into the rank of top world exporters.13
Approximately 40 percent of the labor force depends on agriculture and related activities for their livelihoods. Large coffee and sugar cane farms are an important source of employment for seasonal migrant workers.14 Despite agriculture's importance in the national economy, the agricultural sector has received limited government support, confined largely to advisory
5 IMF and The World Bank 6 Ibid 7 IDB Country Strategy with Guatemala 2008-2011, November 2008, the IDB 8 INE: IV Agricultural Census (2003) 9 UNDP: National Human Development Report (2005) 10 UNDP: Human Development Report (2007/2008) 11 However, the decline in coffee prices has led to the introduction of substitution crops, such as cardamom and sesame. 12 International Coffee Organization, 2008 13 WTO Trade Policy Review (February 2009) 14 However, the decline in coffee prices has led to the introduction of substitution crops, such as cardamom and sesame.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 8 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
services, technical training, and infrastructure. Deficiencies in the administration of land rights continue to dampen economic growth and investment, with over 80 percent of rural land remaining untitled. Bureaucratic hurdles delay property registration and inheritance. The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food (MAGA) is responsible for sector policy.15
Guatemala has three main agroecological production zones: the lowlands, piedmont, and highlands. The Fourth National Agriculture Census in 2003 estimated that 800,000 farms existed on 3.72 million hectares of land; most were small-scale farms averaging between 1.5 and 4.4 hectares.16 Approximately 26 percent of the total land area is considered arable. Guatemala has two agricultural seasons, primera and postrera, and a hunger season from April to July. Rainy seasons occur between early May and mid July and from mid August through the end of October, separated by the “canicula dry spell.” High demand for unskilled labor follows the primera harvest for basic grains in early October and lasts through early March of the following year. Hurricanes are prevalent between June and October followed by frosts through February. Please see Annex X for Guatemala’s seasonal calendar.
Guatemala’s main staple foods are white maize, black beans, potatoes, and rice, which occupy 3.5 percent of arable land.17 Although Guatemala enjoys a comparative advantage in most of the food commodities, it experiences domestic supply shortfalls for cereals, soybeans, meat, animal fats, milk, and animal feeds. According to a joint PESANN/MAGA/SESAN/FAO report in 2009, 33 percent of families that produced maize and beans retained their production for household consumption. Approximately 16 percent of families sold their produce in the nearest market town, 19 percent sold their produce in the main municipal market of the Department, and 21 percent sold to other families in their community. An estimated 11 percent sold to intermediaries for markets in other departments, including the capital city.18 Many people still depend on imported rice for their dietary needs.19
2.3. Policy
President Alvaro Colom Caballero’s government priorities were announced at the beginning of his term on January 8, 2008. The Guatemalan government's 2008-2011 agenda (“Government Plan”) was formulated with the goal of enhancing the quality of life of and reducing poverty among Guatemalans. It envisions a “free, democratic, fair, equitable, prosperous, inclusive, and participatory Guatemala, affording opportunity for all and ensuring that the fruits of progress are shared by all; a nation that honors equality and in which peace and harmony prevail, in perpetual pursuit of the common good.”20 Competitiveness-led economic growth coupled with equity-enhancing measures is a sine qua non to make this vision a reality.
15 WTO Trade Policy Review (February 2009) 16 Ibid 17 Instituto Nacional de Estadística de Guatemala (INE): 2006 National Agriculture and Livestock Survey 18 Ibid. 19 Quotas are applied to imports of rice, wheat flour, yellow maize, and apples in the event of a domestic market shortfall; although the WTO reports that the quotas’ “bounds” are often ignored. 20 IDB Country Strategy with Guatemala 2008-2011, November 2008, the IDB
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 9 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
The Government Plan is designed to address social, municipal, security, legislative, and economic development, disaster risk and prevention, and external relations policy spheres over the period 2008-2032. It is anchored in eight cross-cutting principles: priority to the nation’s poorest; gender equity; investing in children; multiculturalism; ethics and moral conduct; environmental conservation; citizen engagement; and respect for human rights. Actions to deliver this vision are divided among four pillars: Solidarity, Governance, Productivity, and Regional Relations. The Solidarity pillar addresses social development policies, including proposals in the health sector to improve the health of individuals, lower infant and maternal mortality rates, and create favorable health conditions for the entire population, with special attention to rural and low-income urban areas.21 Nutrition goals are to ensure that Guatemalans’ basic nutritional needs are met, particularly for poor pregnant women and children in rural and marginal urban areas.
Economic development policy is addressed under the Productivity pillar, including public finance, economic, and disaster risk management, prevention, and response policies. The government pledges to maintain macroeconomic stability and strengthen the maquila industry, tourism, and forestry clusters, with a focus on job creation and poverty reduction.22 The mainstreaming of micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises is a key priority in the Plan. The Plan also calls for creating an investment-friendly climate and infrastructure upgrades via public- private partnerships. It also aims to exploit CAFTA-DR opportunities, continue looking for access to new international markets, and advance Central American integration. The strengthening of trade institutions is an important part of the Plan.
21 Ibid 22 Ibid
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 10 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Chapter 3. Transport and Adequacy of Storage
3.1. Ports
Puerto Quetzal and Puerto Santo Tomas de Castillo are the two main ports through which Title II commodities are channeled. Both ports are connected with Guatemala City by well- maintained, paved highways.
Table 1. Capacity of Guatemalan Ports CHARACTERISTICS QUETZAL SANTO TOMAS 1. Capacity 1.1 Loading and unloading, bulk 750-1,000 MT/hr. 500-625 MT/hr. 1.2 Loading and unloading, bags 4,800-6,400 bags/hr. 4,200-5,240 bags/hr. 2. Distance from Port to Capital City 91 Km 295 Km 3. Total Area 3.1 Ship operation 38,700 sq. meter 3.2 Covered storage 34,080 sq. meter 35,071 sq. meter 3.3 Uncovered storage 48,613 sq. meter 15,833 sq. meter 3. 4Circulation area 109,018 sq. meter 93,511 sq. meter
3.1.1. Puerto Quetzal
Puerto Quetzal is the busiest port in Guatemala. It is located 91 kilometers (60 miles) from Guatemala City, accessible via an all-weather, four-to-six lane highway. The Puerto Quetzal facilities have successfully handled both bulk and containerized imports of Title II commodities in the past, and are fully capable of handling these in the future. Puerto Quetzal is ranked fourth in Central America in terms of tonnage and is used to export high volumes of sugar. It currently has an 81 percent occupancy rate. Its principal wharf is 810 meters long and can berth up to four ships. Additional berthing is available on a secondary pier. Current maximum depth is 14 meters.
The maximum discharge rate of Puerto Quetzal is 8,000 MT per day. Private companies have built a number of grain silos and tanks near the port. In 2004, the port handled a total of 948 ships, including 412 container ships and 162 bulk grain ships. It discharged approximately 539,237 MT of maize and 434,185 MT of wheat in 2006. Loading and hauling equipment consists of two 28-MT, one 40-MT, one six-MT crane, and one 32-MT container crane, two container stackers, and associated equipment. Bulk grains are discharged from vessels by grabs or clamshells that can load vehicles at dockside for transport to end destinations.
3.1.2. Puerto Santo Tomas de Castillo
The overall experience in handling Title II commodities via Port Santo Tomas de Castillo has also been positive. The port ranks fifth in Central America in terms of tonnage. Its main pier is 914.5 meters long and can berth six ships. The maximum draft is 9.5 meters alongside the pier.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 11 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Additional berths are available on a secondary pier, mostly for liquids and petroleum. The port is adequately equipped with loading, unloading, transfer, dispatch, reception, and warehousing services that operate 24 hours a day. The installed loading and unloading capacity for bulky products ranges from 500 to 625 MT per hour and/or 4,200 to 5,240 bags per hour. It is 295 kilometers from Guatemala City, connected via a well-maintained asphalt highway. The cost of transportation to Guatemala City from Puerto Santo Tomas de Castillo is about double the cost from Puerto Quetzal, which is in most part due to longer distance.
Santo Tomas de Castilla has had unused capacity in the past. In 1999, occupancy averaged around 49 percent, while the international standard was 70 percent for ports with six berths. Major factors contributing to underutilization included lower reliability, greater corruption, and poor security compared to other Caribbean ports in the region. A World Bank report stated that 60 percent of the port’s employees were administrative and subject to political pressures. Prior to implementation of the PM2A program, warehouses proposed for use by the Awardee should be inspected and deemed adequate.
3.2. Inland Transport
3.2.1. Rail
Prior to 1999, neglect and improper administration led to the collapse of railroad operations. Railroad operations resumed in 1999 following a concession granted to a private company to reopen the line between Guatemala City and the Atlantic ports of Puerto Barrios and Puerto Santo Tomas. The operations slowed to a halt again in 2006 over legal conflicts with the government. This left inland transportation of cargo entirely in the hands of the trucking sector.
3.2.2. Road
The Guatemala national road network consists of about 15,000 kilometers of roads, over 40 percent of which are paved. The density of classified roads is low, with an estimated 13 percent of the population lacking access to roads. Road connections between the ports and major towns to the Capital City are well-maintained and functional.
The transportation of past Title II commodities for direct distribution has relied on paved, all– weather, well-maintained roads that connect the ports of entry to the Awardees’ main warehouses located in the outskirts of Guatemala City. The commodities are then transferred to regional or local warehouses, where they are repackaged into individual rations for distribution. Several private transportation companies offer services to the Awardees. The inland transportation system provides effective and secure services from port of entry to final destination, without any significant losses.
3.3. Storage
With the privatization of National Institute of Agricultural Commercialization (INDECA) silos, commercial storage capacity in Guatemala has increased considerably. Both Santo Tomas de
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 12 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Castilla and Puerto Quetzal have 34,000 to 35,000 square meters of covered storage. Further storage details can be found in Table 1 above and Annex IV.
Awardees handle food commodities for direct distribution through a well-maintained network of warehouses. Awardees use a large warehouse which is conveniently located in the outskirts of Guatemala City to avoid traffic jams. According to the 2007 Bellmon analysis, three Awardees in Guatemala City inspected regional warehouses in Villa Nueva, on the Guatemala City-Puerto Quetzal Highway, Rabinal in Alta Verapaz, and San Martin Jilotepeque in Chimaltenango. No major problems were identified; the warehouses were found clean, well-maintained, and secure. Food bags and cans were adequately stacked and stored on pallets. There were not any filtrations or signs of dampness, and preventive rodent and inventory control measures were found up to date. A policy prohibiting the handling or storage of potential contaminants, such as fertilizers, pesticides, etc. was in place to prevent the contamination of stored food. Moreover, the personnel at the warehouses were well-qualified and inspected food commodities regularly for risks of pest infestation.
During the 2009 BEST field visit, warehouses in three departments (one department warehouse per department, plus one communal storage facility) were visited. The BEST team made the following observations:
• Warehousing facilities for storage of commodities appear sufficient to handle typical Title II food aid volumes.
• Food storage time usually did not exceed one month.
• Loss of product did not exceed four percent.
• A rapid assessment of storage conditions and evaluation indicated that the condition of ventilation and stowage facilities was adequate, without any damage or disrepair that could result in loss or damage to food.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 13 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Chapter 4. Food Aid Overview
This section outlines previous initiatives and planned initiatives for the next one to two years. See Annex III for a description of ongoing food aid programs in the four highlighted departments.
4.1. Previous Initiatives
4.1.1. WFP
WFP continues to be the largest agency implementing food assistance in Guatemala. WFP is currently implementing three country specific programs which are summarized below: 23
• Food for development: WFP supports 50,000 vulnerable households in remote areas under food-for-work and food-for-training activities. A regional PRRO (PRRO 10444.0) provides food-for-work for 75,000 people in communities located in areas prone to recurrent natural events. The timeframe for this regional PRRO was June 2007 – May 2009, but was extended until September 2010.
• Pre-school and school meals: 86,000 children and teenagers receive nutritional feeding at rural primary schools, and 12,000 receive feeding at day-care centers as part of WFP’s Country Program (CP 10092.0). The food is accompanied by nutritional and hygiene training, provided to parents and staff in charge of day-care centers. The Country Program began in 2001, but was modified and extended until March 2010.
• Mother and child healthcare: WFP supports the National Strategy for the Reduction of Chronic Malnutrition, which provides basic health services and supplementary food to some 125,000 pregnant and lactating women, and children under five, to reduce the prevalence of chronic malnutrition in the most affected areas of the country. WFP supports this effort through a Country PRRO (PRRO 10457), the timeframe for which is June 2006 to December 2009.
4.1.2. USAID
USAID’s Central America Regional Strategy, 2003-2008, foresaw a role for PL 480 Title II Food for Work and other resources “to improve infrastructure in food insecure areas to facilitate access by communities to markets and to lower business transaction costs” and to “help food insecure families become more market-oriented and competitive by helping them diversify…on- and off-farm income sources."24 To improve child and reproductive health, USAID also considered improving food security for at-risk (chronically malnourished) Guatemalan children
23 WFP website 24 USAID, 2003, pp14-15
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 14 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
under 24 months of age and pregnant/lactating women with targeted supplementary feeding. A Strategic Objective Indicator was chosen for “Chronic malnutrition in children 3-23 months: 2002 baseline (44 percent): 2007 target (39 percent).”25
The current Title II MYAP is approximately US$14 million, implemented by three Awardees: CRS, SCF, and SHARE. Between 2002 and 2009, USAID and/or USDA have monetized and/or distributed approximately 68,000 MT of CDSO, 34,000 MT of yellow maize, 21,400 MT of wheat, 15,600 MT of CSB, 13,300 MT of rice, and 240 MT of NFDM.
4.1.3. USDA
The USDA has an extended history of providing food aid assistance to Guatemala. Recent donations have been primarily to the GOG through the Food for Progress program, and through the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program, (which has replaced the Global Food for Education Initiative). These programs are implemented through WFP, PVOs, and the GOG, with a variety of food security objectives such as agricultural sector development, rural development, humanitarian assistance, HIV mitigation programs, school feeding, and maternal and child health programs.26
Food for Progress authorizes the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to sell and export US commodities on credit terms or on a grant basis, with the use of either CCC financing or Food For Peace Title II funds. Most Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs do not include monetization activities, though USDA permits monetization in the program.27 For more information about USDA monetization through these programs, see the following section, “Historical Monetization.”
4.1.4. Other Donors/ NGOs
The World Bank approved a Maternal and Infant Health and Nutrition Program (ID P077756) in Guatemala in 2007, which is still being implemented to date. Seventy municipalities were targeted by the program which aims to improve maternal and infant health and reduce chronic malnutrition among children less than two years of age.28 The program is implemented by the Ministry of Health.
Project Concern International (PCI) has a specific focus on maternal and child healthcare in Guatemala. As of 2008, PCI’s Casa Materna program reached an average of 8,000 women per year. The program was started in 2000 and provides integrated reproductive and maternal and child health care, outreach, and education services, including outpatient clinical services, a pediatric clinic and a 20-bed inpatient facility for women with high-risk pregnancies.29
25 USAID, 2003, pp20-22 26 USAID and USDA , 2008. US International Food Assistance Report. 27 USDA, 2009. FY 2009 & FY 2010 McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program Considerations 28 The World Bank, 2008. Status of Projects in Execution, FY08. Country: Guatemala. 29 Project Concern International, 2009. Casa Materna Brochure.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 15 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Save the Children also implements Maternal and Newborn Health and Nutrition programs in Guatemala, which are funded by private donors, foundations, and corporate partners.30
4.2. Historical Distribution and Monetization
4.2.1. Historical Distribution
Food aid to Guatemala has been donated via both distribution and monetization programs. Distribution programs have been carried out by both USAID and USDA. Distribution programs, under the current USAID Title II MYAP, are carried out by a consortium of members (CRS, SCF, and SHARE), and these programs have directly distributed over 15,000 MT of CDSO from 2002-2009. USDA has its own programs, and has distributed 1,200 MT of vegetable oil through SHARE.
Table 2. Historical Distribution by Commodity
Member 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total USAID 1,473 1,432 1,416 1,040 1,410 150 8,146 140 15,207 CDSO CRS/SCF/SHARE 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,826 0 7,826 CARE 250 450 110 120 450 0 0 0 1,380 CRS 310 372 513 350 420 0 0 0 1,965 SCF 173 120 143 0 0 0 0 0 436 SHARE 740 490 650 570 540 150 320 140 3,600 USDA 0 0 0 0 380 280 260 280 1,200 Vegetable Oil SHARE 0 0 0 0 380 280 260 280 1,200 Grand Total 1,473 1,432 1,416 1,040 1,790 430 8,406 420 16,407
Source: USDA/FAS Food Aid Reports, Awardees
4.2.2. Historical Monetization
Both USAID and USDA have their own monetization programs. CDSO was the only commodity monetized during 2009. There were nine monetizations of CDSO in 2009, totaling 6,730 MT: three went through CRS, totaling 1,900 MT; three through SCF, totaling 2,320 MT, and three through SHARE, totaling 2,510 MT.
30 Save the Children International, DHN Overview 2010
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 16 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Table 3. Historical Monetization by Commodity
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average
Commodity Awardee Donor MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s
CDSO CARE USAID 2,800 1,834 4,900 1,800 4,900 2,498 ------2,100 1,022
CRS/SCF/
SHARE USAID 4,420 2,895 10,190 3,743 9,320 4,700 10,410 8,167 5,420 7,568 6,730 5,260 7,748 5,389
CDSO Total 7,220 4,730 15,090 5,543 14,220 7,198 10,410 8,167 5,420 7,568 6,730 5,260 9,848 6,411
SBM MAG A USDA - - 7,000 1,522 ------1,167 254
SHARE USDA - - - - 1,050 228 2,000 446 4,800 1,491 - - 1,308 361
Texas A&M USDA - - - - 22,500 4,433 - - - - 15,000 3,495 6,250 1,321
SBM Total - - 7,000 1,522 23,550 4,660 2,000 446 4,800 1,491 15,000 3,495 8,725 1,936
Wheat MAG A USDA 6,445 890 15,000 2,635 ------3,574 587
Wheat Total 6,445 890 15,000 2,635 ------3,574 587
Maize MAG A USDA 16,000 1,694 - - 18,000 2,799 ------5,667 749
Maize Total 16,000 1,694 - - 18,000 2,799 ------5,667 749
Grand Total 29,665 7,313 37,090 9,700 55,770 14,657 12,410 8,613 10,220 9,059 21,730 8,755 27,814 9,683
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 17 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Further details on historical food aid are provided in Annex V.
4.3. Planned Initiatives
4.3.1. USAID
USAID/FFP will provide up to US$10 million per year, over five years, for the implementation of the Prevention of Malnutrition in Children under 2 Approach (PM2A) in Guatemala. PM2A will target pregnant women and lactating mothers, and children up to the age of two years. The program is designed to provide the following services to the targeted population:
• General nutrition and health services for children, including vitamin A supplementation, de-worming, management of diarrheal diseases, malaria prevention strategies (if applicable), immunization, prevention and treatment of iron deficiency, and growth monitoring and promotion;
• A strong behavioral change/communication strategy, focusing on improved preventive practices in feeding, care, and hygiene, and the seeking of health services for infants and young children up to 24 months of age, as well as for pregnant women and lactating mothers;
o Management of severe acute malnutrition for children under 5 years of age, including active case detection and referral for treatment of children with severe acute malnutrition;
o Monthly distribution of food rations to beneficiaries;
o Pre- and post-natal care;
o Home visits to pregnant women, mothers of newborn infants, severely malnourished children, and/or children with faltering growth.
4.3.2. Other Donors/ NGOs
The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is supporting an initiative by the Central American Ministers of Health to create a regional system to improve the health of least advantaged citizens by adding nutrients (such as iron, iodine, vitamins A and B complex, zinc, and folic acid) to common foods. In addition to the IDB and USAID, Germany, the EU, and UNICEF support health reforms in Guatemala.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 18 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Chapter 5. Monetization Analysis
The BEST team analyzed food production, consumption figures and characteristics, past monetization sales, and trade patterns for Guatemala, in an effort to identify viable commodities most suitable for monetization in FY2010.
Commodities were considered for monetization based on the following criteria:
• Eligibility for export from the US;
• Eligibility for import to Guatemala;
• Significance of domestic demand for the commodity;
• Whether domestic supply shortfalls of the commodity are filled through commercial imports and food aid;
• Existence and degree of competition for the purchase of the commodity; and,
• Expectations that a fair market price for the commodity can be obtained.
From 2004-2008, Guatemala’s top commercial imports were maize31 (corn), wheat grain, soybean oil, rice, and milk powder, with maize imports totaling over 3.2 million MT, wheat grain over 2.3 million MT, and soybean oil over 1.5 million MT.
Table 4. Top Five Food Commodity Commercial Imports (MT)
Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Maize 558,774 665,138 734,885 700,755 594,649 3,254,201 Wheat grain 444,211 487,423 415,847 493,627 473,786 2,314,894 Soybean Oil (CDSO) 57,428 81,447 70,439 108,998 95,860 414,172 Rice 59,725 69,754 83,611 74,540 69,855 357,486 Milk Powder 23,226 20,133 15,983 17,089 14,276 90,707 Source: UN Comtrade
This Bellmon analysis considered the following commodities as possible candidates for monetization: crude degummed soybean oil (CDSO), yellow maize, rice, wheat grain, and non- fat dry milk (NFDM). Each of the commodities is considered in more detail below.
31 Here, “maize” refers to both yellow and white varieties.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 19 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
5.1. Soybean Oil (CDSO)
Guatemala is a net importer of CDSO, with annual imports averaging 82,834 MT from 2004- 2008. CDSO is sourced primarily from the United States, Argentina, and Brazil.32 Between 2005 and 2008, CDSO food aid imports ranged from approximately 7,100 MT to 14,500 MT per year.
Palm oil is CDSO’s main competitor and has steadily increased its share of the vegetable oil market.33 While palm oil imports were less than 20 percent of soybean oil imports in volume during 2008,34 palm oil production was estimated at 176,000 MT in 2008, dwarfing soybean oil production, which was only 8,000 MT in 2006.35 Furthermore, palm oil exports have more than doubled since 2004, reaching 160,000 MT in 2008. The food and cosmetics industries prefer the attractive characteristics of palm oil at the expense of soybean oil, lard, and tallow. Major companies in the food industry such as Frito Lay and Bimbo have shifted from soybean oil to palm oil. Manufacturers of margarine are also attracted to palm oil's low trans fat and antioxidants. However, home consumption markets are still targeted with soybean and sunflower oils. Separate market niches have developed for CDSO and palm oil, as demonstrated by the simultaneous growth in imports of CDSO and the production of palm oil in the past five years.
5.1.1. Supply Summary
Table 5. Soybean Oil (CDSO) Supply (MT)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1 Imports 57,428 81,447 70,439 108,998 95,860 2 Exports 262 0 324 400 0 3 Net Trade 57,166 81,447 70,115 108,598 95,860 4 Food Aid 1,300 14,537 7,095 10,410 n/a 5 Production 7,000 8,000 8,000 n/a n/a 6 Supply 65,466 103,984 85,210 119,008 95,860 Sources: (1) UN Comtrade, (2) UN Comtrade, (3) Imports minus exports, (4) WFP Interfais, (5) USDA-FAS, (6) Sum of lines 3,4, and,5. For the period 2004-2008, average yearly commercial imports of CDSO were 82,834 MT.
5.1.2. Competitive Environment
The CDSO monetized in the past has been offered to four potential local buyers: IGAGSA, OLMECA, Grasas y Aceites, S.A., and Suprema, S.A. IGAGSA is Guatemala’s largest buyer of CDSO. OLMECA purchased CDSO in 2009. The remaining two buyers are small, and may
32 Comtrade 33 Guatemala Bellmon 2007, p. 20 34 Comtrade 35 USDA-FAS
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 20 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
only be interested in smaller lot sales. Commercial buyers (especially small buyers) are frustrated by the 1.5 percent fee for a Letter of Credit.36 For this reason, CDSO is typically purchased only by large commercial suppliers.37
5.1.3. Monetization Past Performance/IPP
CDSO was monetized fifteen times during 2006-2008. The average monetized sale price realized was about 96 percent of estimated import parity price (IPP). Details of the IPP calculation for CDSO are available in Annex IV.
Figure 1. Past Monetization Sales of Soybean Oil vs. IPP (CIF San Tomas)
Source: Argentine Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos, Awardees, AMEX Int’l 5.1.4. Impact Analysis Summary
The impact analysis table shows the funds that could be generated from the sale of different volumes of monetized imports. The estimated commercial imports are based on a five-year average for 2004-2008. The scenario volume is calculated by taking 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent, respectively, of estimated commercial imports. The estimated total value of sale is calculated by multiplying the estimated price per MT by the respective scenario volume.
36 The larger buyers complained about delivery delays and lack of product quality assurances. 37 IGAGSA buys from big commercial venders, like Cargill, who offer them lines of credit, so they do not need a Letter of Credit.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 21 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
5.1.5. CDSO Monetization Impact Analysis
Monetization Scenario* 1% 5% 10% Est. Commercial Imports (MT) 82,834 82,834 82,834 Scenario Volume (MT) 828 4,142 8,283 Est. Total Value of Sale (US$)** $588,121 $2,940,607 $5,881,214 **Estimated commercial imports=average past 5 years ***Sale price estimate is US$710, representing the estimated average IPP from January-March 2009 Monetization of up to 8,283 MT of CDSO will generate funds of approximately US$5.9 million. The recommended sales platform is tender/bids to negotiated or multiple buyers. This will enable smaller buyers to participate and help strengthen the local market.
CDSO imports are not subject to tariffs, allowing the Awardees to fetch lower prices and enabling them to be more competitive in the market.
5.2. Maize
Maize production has increased to more than 1.2 million MT in 2008, with commercial maize imports averaging 661,229 MT annually.38 The vast majority of Guatemala’s maize imports (over 97 percent) originate from the US, with over 85 percent being yellow US maize.39 However, most of this yellow maize is used for animal feed, with small amounts used in processed foods, like breakfast cereals and snack foods.40 See Annex I for details on yellow and white maize production and consumption.
5.2.1. Supply Summary
Table 6. Maize Supply (MT)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1 Imports 565,592 681,887 736,495 713,703 608,469 2 Exports 1,819 1,792 1,316 4,858 12,932 3 Net Trade 563,774 680,095 735,180 708,845 595,537 4 Food Aid 16,000 n/a 18,000 n/a n/a 5 Production 1,072,000 882,000 1,050,000 1,225,000 1,225,000 6 Supply 1,651,774 1,562,095 1,803,180 1,933,845 1,820,537 Sources: (1) UN Comtrade, (2) UN Comtrade, (3) Imports minus exports, (4) WFP Interfais, (5) USDA-FAS, (6) Sum of lines 3,4,5 For the period 2004-2008, the five-year average of commercial imports of maize was 661,229 MT.
Although maize has been monetized in the past (1999), USAID/FFP is currently not considering proposals for monetization of food aid commodities for the animal feed industry.
38 Comtrade 39 Ibid 40 USDA
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 22 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Import tariffs also constrain the monetization of maize under the Central American-Dominican Republic (DR-CAFTA) agreement with the United States.41 The quotas are distributed through import certificates on a first-come, first-served basis. Import requests above the quota limit are distributed in proportion to the total volumes requested. The GOG imposes quantitative ceilings per application, and only firms legally established in Guatemala and registered with the Ministry of the Economy (MOE) are eligible for the certificates.42
Guatemala's WTO Schedule of Commitments includes tariff quotas for 22 agricultural products, but tariff quotas are applied only to imports of rice, wheat flour, yellow maize and apples. Quotas are activated only in the event of a domestic market shortfall, although Guatemala normally imports volumes greater than those bound. The agricultural products that benefit from the highest level of tariff protection included beverages (19.1 percent), fruit and vegetables (13.2 percent), dairy products (13.2 per cent), animal products (12.3 percent) and cereals (12.1 percent). Maize imports are subject to an out-of-quota import tariff of about 30 percent. As a result, the cost to import maize into Guatemala will increase, making it difficult for Awardees to achieve a competitive price and thus compete with the locally/regionally produced maize.
5.3. Rice
5.3.1. Supply Summary
Guatemala’s rice production meets only one-fifth to one-third of its rice supply, with commercial imports comprising the bulk of supply, and food aid imports accounting for the small remainder (3,200 MT to 8,000 MT).
Table 7. Paddy Rice Supply (MT), 2004-2008
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1 Imports 76,795 86,362 94,010 86,712 76,389 2 Exports 764 929 119 212 266 3 Net Trade 76,032 85,434 93,891 86,500 76,123 4 Food Aid 8,035 3,249 5,440 3,680 5,730 5 Production 25,000 25,000 26,000 19,000 16,000 6 Supply 109,067 113,683 125,331 109,180 97,853 Sources: (1) UN Comtrade, (2) UN Comtrade, (3) Imports minus exports, (4) WFP Interfais – food aid data does not specify whether milled or paddy, (5) USDA-FAS – production data available shows milled rice, (6) Sum of lines 3,4,5
For the period 2004-2008, average yearly commercial imports of paddy rice are 84,054 MT. Arriving at reliable estimates of actual production and consumption of rice is extremely difficult in light of the importance of informal cross-border trade that exists in the region. The Guatemalan Rice Organization, ARROZGUA, estimates that this factor accounts for about 40 percent of the supply in areas near the border with Mexico. Although rice is produced in more than half (12) of Guatemala’s
41 World Trade Organization, Guatemala Trade Policy Review 2009, p. 76 42 Ibid
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 23 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
departments, dependence upon imported rice to satisfy demand continues to rise. Rice exports are not seen as significant, although the quality of milled rice is generally quite high.43
5.3.2. Competitive Environment
According to WFP’s “Market Profile for Emergence Food Security Assessment”, a total of about 60 millers buy the entire supply of locally-produced rice for processing. The majority of these mills are located in the industrial area surrounding Guatemala City and in the Department of Jutiapa, especially around the town of El Progreso.44 The millers have drying, milling, and packaging facilities as well as laboratories to analyze paddy characteristics (humidity, purity, percentage of broken kernels, and whiteness of polish). Sales take place in different ways, including direct sales from farmers, sales through farmer associations that work as assemblers in rural areas, and via intermediaries and transporters.
Milled rice is sold directly by millers to wholesalers, supermarkets, and retailers in urban areas, or to regional and national intermediaries that supply deficit and remote areas. Very small amounts of processed rice are imported or exported to neighboring countries. The figure below shows the marketing channels for rice in Guatemala.
Figure 2. Rice Marketing Channels in Guatemala
Source: WFP; Market Profiles for Emergence Food Security Assessment, December 2005
43 WFP Market Analysis for Emergence Food Security Assessment December 2005 44 WFP, Market Analysis for Emergence Food Security Assessment December 2005
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 24 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
According to an industry source, as many as five potential buyers would likely be interested in either processed or unprocessed rice. However, as the 2007 Bellmon reported, only limited volumes of processed rice are imported.
5.3.3. Impact Analysis Summary
The impact analysis table shows the proceeds that would be generated from the sale of different volumes of monetized imports. The estimated commercial imports are based on a five-year average (median) for 2004-2008. The scenario volume is calculated by taking one percent, five percent, and 10 percent, respectively, of estimated commercial imports. The estimated total value of sale is calculated by multiplying the estimated price per MT by the respective scenario volume.
Table 8. Rice Monetization Impact Analysis
Monetization Scenarios * 1% 5% 10% Est. Commercial Imports (MT)** 86,362 86,362 86,362 Scenario Volume (MT) 864 4,318 8,636 Est. Total Value of Sale (US$)*** $492,265 $2,461,325 $4,922,649 ** Estimated commercial imports=average past 5 years ***Sale price estimate is US$570, representing the estimated average IPP from January-March 2009
Rice has not been monetized previously Prior to 2000, monetized commodities used to be animal feed, mostly yellow maize and soybean meal. Then, FFP/W indicated that monetization of animal feed would not be allowed after FY01. In addition, FFP/W expressed a preference for monetizing value-added products through small lot auctions and use of the Bolsa Agricola Nacional (BAN –the agriculture commodity exchange, founded in 1991) for monetizing. From FY03 through FY06, the Consortium successfully phased-out monetization of animal feed and carried on the activity based solely on sales of CDSO.45
Although multiple buyers have been identified who may be interested in the monetization of rice, and such a sale would generate substantial proceeds, the gains from monetization would be outweighed by the quotas and import tariffs imposed on rice imports from the US, which make the importation of rice very costly. For 2008, the MOE set the quota for rice in the husk at 25,200 MT.46 The in-quota import tariff for rice in the husk is zero rated, but out-of-quota imports are subject to 29.2 percent import tariffs.47
The Ad-hoc Committee composed of representatives of Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Ministry of Finance, Superintendence of Tax Administration (“Superintendencia de Administración Tributaria”), and Productive Chain (comprising producers and processors) regulates the imports of rice to protect domestic production. Based on
45 Guatemala Belllmon Analysis Report, October 2007 46 Ibid, p. 78 47 Ibid, p. 120
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 25 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
analysis of estimates of commodity requirements, the Committee sets annual quotas that will have preferential import duties during the following calendar year. Rice quotas are assigned for preferential imports only between February 1 and May 31. The quotas are distributed through import certificates on a first-come, first-served basis. Import requests above the quota limit are distributed in proportion to the total volumes requested. The GOG imposes quantitative ceilings per application and only firms legally established in Guatemala and registered with the Ministry of the Economy (MOE) are eligible for the certificates. If the imports come in after May 31st, they will not be tax free and will be subject to tariffs, posing an additional challenge to monetization.
Given import quotas and tariffs and the restrictive timing for duty-free imports, rice is not recommended as a candidate for monetization.
5.4. Wheat Grain
Nearly all of Guatemala’s wheat supply is imported commercially, and wheat grain is among Guatemala’s top commercial imports.
Table 9. Guatemala Wheat Grain Supply (MT)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1 Imports 444,211 487,423 415,847 493,627 473,786 2 Exports 4,140 2,041 262 1,774 1,710 3 Net Trade 440,071 485,382 415,585 491,853 472,076 4 Food Aid 6,600 n/a 26,500 n/a n/a 5 Production 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 6 Supply 447,671 486,382 443,085 492,853 473,076 Sources: (1) Comtrade, (2) Comtrade, (3) Imports minus exports, (4) WFP Interfais, (5) USDA-FAS, (6) Sum of lines 3,4,5
However, wheat grain has not been monetized in more than five years because previous efforts to monetize wheat grain have been unsuccessful in negotiating a fair market price. Guatamala has only one buyer of wheat grain, MultiInversiones Holding, which also owns the largest milling structure in the country. 48 Given the lack of competition, it is not recommended that wheat grain be monetized in Guatemala for FY10.
48 As reported in the 2007 Bellmon, including wheat for monetization under the Title II program has been problematic for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that there is only one main buyer that has used its position to its advantage in negotiating the price of Title II wheat. The study notes that the Guatemalan Millers Association was set up by Molinos Modernos, a company that started operations with a single mill over 70 years ago, from which the Holding emerged. The Association centralized wheat procurement.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 26 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
5.5. Milk Powder and Non-Fat Dry Milk (NFDM)
Milk powder has been imported as food aid,49 but has not been monetized. There are an estimated two to three potential buyers (including Nestlé and Inlacsa) for milk powder. Over the past few years, only five to eight percent of Guatemala’s milk powder imports were NFDM.
5.5.1. Supply Summary
Table 10. Milk Powder Supply (MT)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1 Imports 23,226 20,133 15,983 17,089 14,276 of which, milk powder (not including NFDM) 15,382 17,457 15,254 16,242 13,183 of which, NFDM 7,844 2,676 729 848 1,092 NFDM, as share of imports 34% 13% 5% 5% 8% 2 Exports 591 161 129 185 117 3 Net Trade 22,635 19,972 15,854 16,904 14,158 4 Food Aid (NFDM)` n/a 154 500 156 n/a 5 Production n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 Supply 22,635 20,126 16,354 17,060 14,158 Sources: 1 – Comtrade; 2 – Comtrade; 3 - Imports minus exports; 4 - WFP Interfais (including enriched + plain skim DM); 5 - USDA-FAS; 6 - Sum of lines 3,4,5 From 2004-2008, the top five suppliers of NFDM to Guatemala were the US, Australia, Costa Rica, New Zealand, and El Salvador, with the US supplying 84 percent of Guatemala’s NFDM imports over the period. Despite a sharp decline in both overall and US NFDM exports to Guatemala, falling from approximately 7,400 MT to 700MT, the US remains the primary supplier. Australia provided just over 200 MT of NFDM in 2008 - which was double what the country exported in 2004.
Nicaragua’s milk powder exports to Guatemala also increased during 2004-2008. Possible explanations for the sharp decline in US milk powder exports, and the sharp increase in exports from Nicaragua, include tariff and non-tariff barriers, import quotas, import licenses, and other restrictions. Specifically, these include:
• Import licenses: Guatemala requires licenses for milk imports.50
• Restrictions: Decree 66-83 regulates the commercialization of substitutes for maternal milk.51
49 According to USAID Food Assistance Reports, SHARE and Food for the Poor (FFTP) are among those who distributed NFDM under the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. 50 http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Guatemala-CUSTOMS-AND-DUTIES.html 51Tay, K. (2009), Guatemala: Food and Agricultural Import Regulations and Standards – Narrative, Grain Report, Global Agricultural Information Network, FAIRS Country Report, USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 27 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• Import tariffs: Data from 2001 show there were import tariffs on key sensitive commodities – there was a 15 percent tariff on milk imports to Guatemala;52 and from 2003-2009, the WTO tariff database showed a 15 percent tariff on milk powder imports to Guatemala.53
• Non-tariff barriers: Phytosanitary restrictions on milk imports, under the CACM (Central American Common Market). 54
• Import quotas: Dairy quota access for US milk powder exports to Guatemala were at one point 400 MT – which greatly restricted the amount of milk powder the US was allowed to export to Guatemala.55
However, as for other varieties of unsweetened powdered milk (“FDM”) imports, one-quarter of Guatemala’s milk powder imports during the past five years originated from New Zealand. Other major exporters included Nicaragua, Mexico, Australia, and Panama; Nicaragua’s milk powder exports to Guatemala more than quadrupled during 2004 to 2008 (increasing from approximately 900 MT to nearly 4,670 MT) and overtook New Zealand’s exports, which declined from nearly 3,760 MT in 2004 to 1,685 MT in 2008. Only 5 percent of milk powder exported to Guatemala originated from the US (250 MT) in 2004, but nearly quadrupled to almost 960 MT in 2008.
Once the US became a signatory participant to the CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) Treaty in 2005, which includes Guatemala and Nicaragua, it was able to gain greater market access for exports, including milk powder (allowed to export up to 1,800 MT), and will benefit from tariff-free exports in 20 years’ time, with current tariff rates in place until 2016.56 Due to these trade policy agreements, it is now possible for the US to slightly increase milk powder exports to Guatemala, making milk powder a candidate for monetization.
5.5.2. Impact Analysis Summary
The impact analysis tables below show the proceeds that could be generated from the sale of different volumes of monetized NFDM. The estimated commercial imports are based on a five- year median for 2004-2008. The scenario volume is calculated by taking one percent, five percent, and 10 percent, respectively, of estimated commercial imports. The estimated total
http://gain.fas.usda.gov/recent%20gain%20publications/food%20and%20agricultural%20import%20regulations%20and%20standar ds%20-%20narrative_guatemala_guatemala_7-30-2009.pdf 52 Jaramillo, C.F., M. Bussolo, D, Lederman (2006), Challenges of CAFTA: Maximizing the Benefits for Central America, Washington, DC, The World Bank, http://books.google.com/books?id=BYNAbDuhYswC&lpg=PT182&ots=ZWLR4GotY- &dq=guatemala%20milk%20tariffs&pg=PT182#v=onepage&q=guatemala%20milk%20tariffs&f=false, 53 WTO Tariff Database, http://tariffdata.wto.org/TariffList.aspx 54 Jaramillo, C.F., M. Bussolo, D, Lederman (2006), Challenges of CAFTA: Maximizing the Benefits for Central America, Washington, DC, The World Bank http://books.google.com/books?id=BYNAbDuhYswC&lpg=PT182&ots=ZWLR4GotY- &dq=guatemala%20milk%20tariffs&pg=PT182#v=onepage&q=guatemala%20milk%20tariffs&f=false 55 US Dairy Export Council Backgrounder, Dairy Fact Sheet on U.S.– Central America FTA, http://usdec.files.cms- plus.com/PDFs/TradePolicy/Central%20America%20TPA%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 56 US Dairy Export Council Backgrounder, Dairy Fact Sheet on U.S.– Central America FTA, http://usdec.files.cms- plus.com/PDFs/TradePolicy/Central%20America%20TPA%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 28 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
value of sale is calculated by multiplying the estimated price per MT by the respective scenario volume.
Table 11. Milk Powder (FDM and NFDM): Monetization Impact Analysis
Monetization Scenario* 1% 5% 10% Est. Commercial Imports (MT) 17,089 17,089 17,089 Scenario Volume (MT) 171 854 1,709 Est. Total Value of Sale (US$)** $33,362 $1,656,811 $3,313,623 ** Estimated commercial imports=average past 5 years ***Sale price estimate is US$1,939, representing the estimated average IPP from January-March 2009 Table 12. NFDM: Monetization Impact Analysis
Monetization Scenario* 1% 5% 10% Est. Commercial Imports (MT) 1,092 1,092 1,092 Scenario Volume (MT) 11 55 109 Est. Total Value of Sale (US$)** $21,179 $105,896 $211,793 * Estimated commercial imports=average past 5 years ***Sale price estimate is US$1,939, representing the estimated average IPP from January-March 2009
While the monetization of milk powder (both FDM and NFDM) would generate proceeds of approximately US$3.3 million, NFDM is the only form of milk powder available for monetization. The amount of NFDM available for monetization is small in volume terms, and its sale would generate only about US$212,000. However, should the need arise to monetize another commodity, NFDM would be a reasonable supplement (however limited) to CDSO and would help diversify the commodity basket for monetization. The recommended method for monetization is “small lot” sales to help meet a small portion of funding requirements. It should be noted that if NFDM is monetized, there are a few regulatory and import constraints. Constraints include FFP guidance on the use of milk powder for monetization (see Annex V) and the application of import tariff and quotas by the GOG, under the Central American- Dominican Republic (DR-CAFTA) agreement with the United States.57 As mentioned above, NFDM imports are subject to a 15 percent import tariff. Tariffs increase the prices of imported goods. The higher price makes it more costly for the Awardees to import more NFDM.
5.6. Overall Challenges to In-Country Monetization
Discussions with potential buyers during the BEST team field visit revealed that all potential buyers that would be viable bidders on Title II commodities already have established commercial channels for buying locally-produced or imported products.
57 World Trade Organization, Guatemala Trade Policy Review 2009, p. 76. The quotas are distributed through import certificates, on a first come first served basis. Import requests above the quota limit are distributed in proportion to the total volumes requested. The GOG imposes quantitative ceilings per application, and only firms legally established in Guatemala and registered with the Ministry of the Economy (MOE) are eligible for the certificates.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 29 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
More than one interviewee expressed that local buyers are less likely to be interested in making an offer for Title II commodities without an incentive, i.e., price advantage over other commercial terms. Their logic is that Title II commodities are either additional to their normal purchases, depending on availability, but more importantly Title II commodities are sporadic, and not always delivered on commercial terms.58 This tends to disrupt their production schedules, especially if they are a small operation.
5.7. Regional Monetization
When competition in a commodity market is severely limited, monetization activities in that market run the risk of introducing or intensifying market distortions, reinforcing those factors which frustrate the development of an open and fully competitive market, thereby contributing to either excessive profits or barriers to entry. By denying producers and consumers the opportunity to operate within a competitive market, the monetization activity over time could lead to reduced national economic efficiency and assign indeterminate costs to producers and consumers. Monetization in such a market would be contrary to the legal requirements of the U.S. agricultural legislation (e.g. Farm Bill) which requires that monetization does not introduce local market or production disincentives.
Regional monetization (RM), or third-country monetization, can offer a legally-compliant alternative for Awardees operating in a country with less than fully competitive domestic commodity markets. RM provides Awardees with the option of selling into a market where there is sufficient competition among buyers in order to increase the likelihood that bids will be at or near import parity. With competition, there is increased assurance that the monetization will not distort the market and will generate higher revenues than if the monetization is conducted in a domestic market with limited or no competition. RM can generate greater revenue for food security activities and thereby increase the efficiencies of the FFP program. It also provides the Awardees with a fallback position if a commodity that was initially recommended for monetization becomes unviable at a later date due to changing market or policy conditions.
RM is a reasonable option because:
• Competition is highly limited.
• Title II commodity imports are likely to be low.
58 As Chacon (2007) noted “quality is another variable that affects price. Title II bulk commodities may not have the identical specifications as those of standard commercial grades. They may allow more damaged and foreign materials, and this, in turn, lowers the commercial value.” Furthermore, “the size of the Guatemalan market for commodities available for monetization under the Title II program is limited in its absorptive capacity. This limits the potential amount of sales proceeds that can be derived from any single commodity, and requires adopting a “market basket” that includes more than one commodity to achieve a given level of local currency.”
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 30 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
USAID/FFP 2009 Guidelines for “Third Country” Monetization
Monetization in the recipient country is preferred over monetization in a “third” country, a country where the food security activities will not be take place. If it is not feasible to monetize in the country where proceeds will be utilized, monetization may be carried out in another LIFDC in the region, i.e. “third country.” A list of low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs) can be found on FAO’s web site at http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc.asp?lang=en. If the LIFDC option is not feasible, then monetization may take place in a U.N. classified, least-developed country (LDC) in the region at http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/list.htm. In the case of “third country” sales, the USAID Mission and/or U.S. Embassy in both the program country and the monetization country must endorse the plan.’
The appropriate third country or regional market is that market in which one may expect to receive a price for a commodity that is reflective of the international price. As the final destination of the commodities sold is indeterminate, the relevant reference to ensure that the Bellmon “market” conditions are satisfied is that the final negotiated price is comparable to the import price for that market. In addition, the port facilities (e.g. transport infrastructure and storage capacities) of the selected market platform need to be sufficient to physically accommodate the commodities.
Monetization in a relatively large port city is preferred because inland freight and other costs will be assumed by the buyer. The preferred currency in which the transaction would be conducted would be specified in the offer. The table below provides an overview of the products and markets that may be considered for RM.
Table 13. Potential Products and Markets for International Monetization (2004-2007 Average)59 Puerto Cortés- Puerto Cortés- Puerto Corinto- Puerto Corinto- Honduras Honduras Nicaragua Nicaragua
Commodity US$000 Average MT US$000 Average MT Soya-bean oil crude, whether or not degummed 50 59 8,017 12,328 Durum wheat 6,943 31,434 18,871 76,470 Wheat except durum wheat, and meslin 15,343 65,867 4,487 21,058 LIFDC Port City Convertible Foreign Exchange Source: UN Comtrade
59 Only countries that are classified as LIFDC or Least Developed Countries are eligible for monetization. Among countries in Central America and the Caribbean, only Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua are fit this criteria; Haiti was not considered for regional monetization because it has its own PL 480 program.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 31 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
If RM is selected as an option, a widely-advertised competitive procurement using newspapers, internet, and radio is recommended. Advertisement should be explicit regarding commodity specifications, delivery time range, transaction location, payment terms, and required currency. An auction process using a commodity exchange should be considered. Finally, both the Mission Director of the RM country and the MYAP country must endorse the monetization.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 32 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Chapter 6. Distribution Analysis
6.1. Introduction
The Bellmon Amendment requires assurances that a proposed food aid distribution program would not result in substantial disincentive to or interference with domestic production or marketing in the proposed country. The extent to which distributed food aid has the potential to result in disincentive to local production or in disruption of markets rests fundamentally on whether proposed food aid would represent “additional consumption” for beneficiary households, i.e., food consumption that would not have occurred in the absence of the food aid distribution program.60 If food aid transfers exceed households’ perceived needs, the beneficiary is more likely to sell the food aid, reduce market purchases of food, and/or increase household farm sales. Such a response could lower market prices and/or reduce local incentives to produce.
To help ensure proposed programs will not result in substantial disincentive or market disruption, this distribution analysis provides guidance and scenarios of possible PM2A coverage that will help minimize potential impact on production and markets of such food aid distributions. The presentation of distribution ration scenarios is based on a review of official USAID guidance and informal discussions with FANTA-2. These scenarios are meant to serve as illustrative guidance, rather than as a prescription, given that the potential Awardees’ PM2A activities and ration design have yet to be finalized.
The FY09-FY14 Title II program in Guatemala is expected to focus solely on a Maternal Child Health Nutrition (MCHN) intervention in the form of a Prevention of Malnutrition in Children Under Two Approach (PM2A). PM2A is an evidence-based MCHN intervention, designed to promote long-term human capital outcomes and, therefore, a logical focus of a non-emergency Title II program implementing a MCHN component. PM2A has been successfully piloted in Haiti, and will be implemented in Guatemala and Burundi beginning in 2010 by USAID. Because PM2A is a new approach, not only is there need for a broad-based understanding of program design among key decision makers, but there is also probable room for adjustment in ration design among potential Awardees. Importantly, for the present analysis, PM2A has greater potential to over-provide food rations because it is designed to prevent malnutrition rather than recuperate children and mothers who are already malnourished. This is a concern in regards to the Bellmon Amendment.
60 Ideally, one would conduct household surveys to assess whether food aid would represent additional consumption. However, because household surveys are both extremely expensive and time-consuming, proxy indicators of ‘additionality’ can be used to assess the potential for leakage. This is the approach taken in the present analysis.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 33 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
6.2. The Opportunities and Challenges of PM2A
PM2A presents both an opportunity for long-term human capital investment and a unique challenge to avoid disincentives in the short to medium-term. While the traditional recuperative approach targets children who are already malnourished and may have severe, irreversible physical and cognitive damage, PM2A provides food aid to all pregnant and lactating mothers, and to all children between the ages of 6 to 24 months within a targeted geographical area, regardless of wealth status or household food deficit. As with the traditional recuperative nutrition approach, the PM2A targets pregnant and lactating women with Behavioral Change Communication (BCC), preventive health care and food supplementation. Because the key PM2A targeting criteria are a child’s age and a women’s physiological status, rather than an estimated household food deficit, the program has greater potential to provide food aid to households for whom the food aid would not represent additional consumption. Initial geographical targeting of areas with a greater proportion of food-deficit households, as identified by secondary sources, will help avoid disruption of local production and markets.61
6.3. Initial Geographic Targeting
To assess the relative absorptive capacity of food aid on a sub-national basis in Guatemala, thereby providing Bellmon guidance on the appropriate geographic targeting of a PM2A program, this report relies on extreme poverty as the proxy indicator of additionality.62 Households living in extreme poverty lack sufficient income to purchase a minimum basket of food.63 Households living under conditions of “food poverty” lack sufficient income to purchase foods necessary to meet the energy and nutrient needs of all of their members, which is an indicator of poor access to food. Depending on intra-household distribution of food, it is typically assumed that at least one member of a food-poor household is always hungry, and potentially all members are hungry.64 Just over 15 percent of all households in Guatemala fall into this classification, though there is substantial variation in levels of extreme poverty across geographical regions.
Though extreme poverty is not a quantitative measure of any nutrition gap, which could then be compared with the ration under the proposed food aid program to determine by how much the ‘nutrition gap’ might be filled (or potentially overfilled) under the program, extreme poverty is an indicator of a household’s inability to meet its basic nutritional requirements; therefore, households living in extreme poverty can reasonably be considered households for whom food
61 For additional background and guidance about PM2A objectives, please see Ruel, Marie, et al. 2008. “Age-based preventive targeting of food assistance and behaviour change and communication for reduction of childhood undernutrition in Haiti: a cluster randomised trial.” The Lancet, 371: 9612 (588–595), accessible via http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673608602718/fulltext 62 Please see Annex 8 for a more detailed discussion of the methodology used to assess the potential impact of a proposed food aid distribution program, including other possible proxy indicators. 63 Encuesta nacional sobre condiciones de vida (ENCOVI) 2006, Per ENCOVI-2006, the extreme poverty line is Q3,206, whereas the general poverty line (the income necessary to consume a basic food basket plus meet other basic needs) was Q6,574. 64 DeRose, Laurie, Ellen Messer and Sara Millman. 1998. Who's hungry? And how do we know? Food shortage, poverty, and deprivation. United Nations University Press.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 34 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
aid would likely represent additional consumption. This indicator is the best available indicator of the relative absorptive capacity of food aid on a sub-national basis for Guatemala, which is important for informing initial geographic targeting, given the nature of the PM2A program.
Chronic malnutrition (stunting, or low height-for-age) in children under five is one additional potential indicator of chronic food deficits.65 Malnutrition rates may reflect either inadequate intake, malabsorption due to infectious disease, or some combination of both. To the extent stunting prevalence rates reflect disease prevalence much more than inadequate intake, any conclusions drawn from such rates will be an inaccurate reflection of household food deficits. To the extent the prevalence of stunting reflects poor availability and/or poor access, such prevalence rates can appropriately inform geographic targeting from a Bellmon perspective. The strong negative correlation between wealth and early childhood stunting in Guatemala suggests that access (i.e., purchasing power) does indeed play an important role in determining nutrition outcomes in Guatemala. Using the ENCOVI-2000 data, Marini and Gragnolati (2003) found that the prevalence of stunting is four times greater among the poorest 20 percent of households. Among the poorest 20 percent of households, 62 percent have children under five who suffer from stunting, versus 16 percent stunting rates among the wealthiest 20 percent of households. This contrasts with some countries, such as Bangladesh, where a much weaker correlation between wealth and nutritional status suggests that behavior, rather than low purchasing power, is a particularly important determinant of nutritional outcomes. Where behavior is a relatively more important determinant than purchasing power, simply providing food aid rations is unlikely to significantly impact nutritional status and may result in greater market impact.
Unfortunately, the most recent and reliable data on malnutrition in Guatemalan children under five is only available at the regional level, rather than at the more disaggregated department- level. Therefore, this analysis relies on rates of extreme poverty at the departmental level as a sole proxy indicator of additionality. Nonetheless, when overlaid on the geographical distribution of extreme poverty incidence at the department level, the region-specific prevalence rates of stunting can provide additional insight into potential absorptive capacity. When distributed food aid is coupled with a strong behavioral change communication component, which emphasizes the importance of additional nutritional needs of pregnant and lactating mothers and young children under two, it will be even more likely to result in increased food consumption among beneficiaries. This increase is both in terms of quality and quantity of calories, rather than simple substitution of food aid rations for normal market purchases.66
65 The most recent source of reliable district-level malnutrition rates is available from Guatemala Demographic and Health Survey 1999. A DHS was conducted in 2008, but the results have not yet been disseminated. Malnutrition rates may reflect either inadequate intake, malabsorption due to infectious disease, or some combination of both. To the extent rates reflect disease prevalence much more than inadequate intake, any conclusions drawn from such rates will be an inaccurate reflection of household food deficits. To the extent the prevalence of stunting reflects poor availability and/or poor access, such prevalence rates can appropriately inform geographic targeting from a Bellmon perspective. 66 This analysis draws upon qualitative and quantitative data from the most recently released Demographic and Health Survey for Guatemala (DHS 1999), the ENCOVI 2000 and 2006, FEWSNET Livelihoods Profiles and a relevant research on the determinants of poverty and malnutrition in Guatemala.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 35 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Where high rates of extreme poverty and high rates of chronic malnutrition coincide, poor nutritional outcomes are more likely related to poor access to food, as well as poor food utilization. By geographically targeting areas with a high proportion of extremely poor households and chronically malnourished children under five, a PM2A program will help ensure that any given PM2A beneficiary household will more than likely increase overall household food consumption, relative to households in other geographic areas with lower rates of poverty and chronic malnutrition.
6.4. Beneficiary Coverage
Likely parameters of a PM2A program (including ration size and composition) were used to estimate the number of household rations available under various levels of funding. Two scenarios are presented: one based on the ration used in the Haiti pilot, and another based on a possible adjustment of the ration for the Guatemalan context to reflect lessons learned from the Haiti pilot. As discussed below, these two scenarios should be considered illustrative of potential absorptive capacity, since a combination of factors will affect whether distributed food aid will represent additional consumption (including final geographical targeting, ration size and composition, effectiveness of distribution practices, effectiveness of BCC messages in increasing consumption among pregnant and lactating mothers and children under two years of age, etc.).
The following sections present two possible PM2A program scenarios regarding the ration size, with associated commodity volumes, cost of food rations, and potential beneficiary household coverage. Whether the scenarios below represent the most appropriate levels of intervention will depend critically on whether there are sufficient cash resources available to effectively support a PM2A program, even if appropriately geographically-targeted to chronically food insecure communities in Guatemala.67
6.5. Strategic Use of Food Rations
6.5.1. Haiti Pilot Ration
If the proposed PM2A program in Guatemala is based on the ration used in the Haiti pilot, it can be expected to provide up to three distinct rations to each beneficiary household: a direct ration for a pregnant or lactating mother; a direct ration for a child aged 6-23 months; and a single indirect household ration intended to discourage diversion of the mother and child rations to other household members. Each beneficiary household with eligible direct beneficiaries could receive a ration for a maximum of 30 months.68 A ration of blended foods (CSB and WSB),
67 For a discussion of food ration versus non-food ration costs in a PM2A program, please see Maluccio John and Cornelia Loechl. 2006. “Preventive versus Recuperative Targeting of Food Aid: Accounting for the Costs” accessible via http://www.fantaproject.org/pm2a/IFPRI_R2_0306.pdf 68 For further details about program design, please see Lancet article (Ruel et al. 2008). For a discussion of food ration versus non- food ration costs in a PM2A program, please see Maluccio John and Cornelia Loechl. 2006. “Preventive versus Recuperative Targeting of Food Aid: Accounting for the Costs” accessible via http://www.fantaproject.org/pm2a/IFPRI_R2_0306.pdf
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 36 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
pulses, and vegetable oil would be provided in varying proportions to direct and indirect beneficiaries.
Based on the assumption that each household contains either one pregnant or lactating mother of a child under 6 months of age, or one child age 6-23 months, and that each household is enrolled during a full 30 months (both the ideal and the likely maximum possible),69 the average cost per beneficiary month in Guatemala is US$17.31, given current commodity prices.70 The table below presents possible funding scenarios, to reflect the level of coverage possible with different monetization/distribution combinations. Note that total annual funding refers to funding for PM2A rations only (i.e., non-food ration costs are excluded).
Alternative Ration
If the proposed PM2A program in Guatemala is based on a revised ration (differing from the ration used in the Haiti trial either in composition, size, or both), the number of beneficiary households a program could potentially cover will be different. At the pre-MYAP stage, the potential impact on production and markets would be more difficult to assess without information about the likely commodities and volumes proposed for distribution. For the present analysis, based on preliminary discussions with FANTA-2 about possible ration design, one additional scenario is presented to illustrate the difference in possible coverage. This ration is composed of CSB for direct beneficiaries (mother and child), while the indirect household ration consists of rice, pinto beans, and vegetable oil.
Based on the same assumptions as above regarding beneficiaries per household and months of coverage, the average cost per beneficiary month would be US$7.62 given current commodity prices. The table below presents possible funding scenarios, to reflect the level of coverage possible with different monetization/distribution combinations. As above, total annual funding refers to funding for PM2A rations only (i.e., non-food ration costs are excluded).
Table 14. Beneficiary Coverage Under Funding Scenarios, Alternative Ration Est. Volume of Total Annual Distributed Funding for Commodities per Estimated Number of HHs PM2A Rations Monetized Distributed Year Covered by PM2A per Year $10 million $0 $10 million 13,863 MT 109,361
69 Estimates of the numbers of children age 6-23 months, and pregnant and/or lactating mothers, are based on demographic figures from the 2002 Census. The population of 6-23 month olds and pregnant and/or lactating mothers is estimated as 6.3 percent of the overall population, based on the following assumptions and calculations: (1) an estimated 6.3 percent of the population is below 2 years of age; (2) per PM2A guidelines, infants between 0-5 months are excluded as beneficiaries to encourage exclusive breastfeeding; (3) assuming uniform distribution of the population under 2, just under 2 percent of the population is age 0-5 months; (4) assuming a zero or negligible neonatal mortality rate, the population of infants 0-5 months is approximately equal to the population of pregnant women. Based on these assumptions, the total population of children under 2 years is a fair estimate of the number of children 6-23 months, and pregnant women in the population. These figures are meant to be illustrative rather than definitive. Refinement of these figures would result in adjusted estimates of beneficiary coverage. 70 To the extent households do not fit the profile of having one 6-23 month old child and one pregnant or lactating mother, the monthly cost of a single household ration will vary which, in turn, will affect the number of rations available for distribution. For example, for households with 2 children 6-23 months of age and one pregnant or lactating mother, the monthly cost of a single household ration would be approximately $12 per beneficiary month. We make the simplifying assumption that the monthly cost for a household ration is uniform because, at the time of report writing, no demographic data is available to suggest another assumption would be more reasonable.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 37 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Est. Volume of Total Annual Distributed Funding for Commodities per Estimated Number of HHs PM2A Rations Monetized Distributed Year Covered by PM2A per Year $1 million $9 million 12,478 MT 98,425 $2.5 million $7.5 million 10,398 MT 82,021 $10 million $3.5 million $6.5 million 9,012 MT 71,085
6.5.2. Final Ration Design
Commodity Selection: The ultimate selection of commodities for distribution should reflect the predominance of rice, beans, and maize in the local diet. The selection should also reflect the necessary balance between the need to encourage consumption of the ration among direct beneficiaries, while simultaneously discouraging displacement of market purchases and/or reduced consumption of own household production. For example, while pulses represent an important component of a nutrition intervention, and should be chosen to reflect local preferences and cooking times (therefore likelihood of consumption), the choice of which pulse to include in the ration should be dictated by which would represent the slightly less preferred pulse, given local preferences, to help ensure the pulses will represent a supplement to regular consumption rather than a substitute, particularly if there is concern about intra-household food allocation that might result in diversion of the direct mother and child rations.
Commodity Volume: The ultimate design for the direct ration for the pregnant or lactating mother, direct ration for the child 6-23 months, and indirect household ration, should:
• reflect the necessary balance to ensure the ration represents additional consumption for the direct beneficiaries
• be of adequate and appropriate nutritional value to address the specific nutritional needs of pregnant and lactating mothers, infants and children under two
• provide an appropriate amount of food in the indirect ration to other household members to ensure that direct rations are not diluted or diverted
Whether it will be critical to the success of a PM2A intervention to provide an indirect household ration to discourage diversion of direct rations to other household members can only be determined through formative research to understand key health and nutrition behaviors and current barriers to change. One option is to pilot a PM2A program without the indirect household ration to determine whether the additional income transfer is necessary to protect the woman and child direct rations. (It would be preferable to add the indirect household ration later if necessary, rather than attempt to delete it from programming once the program is underway, as this would likely not receive a positive response from beneficiary communities.)
Another option is to provide an indirect household ration only to extremely poor households as an additional income transfer to improve food access and make it feasible for extremely poor households to participate in development activities. Within a single community, it may not be socially acceptable to reduce the size of the ration for households that are not food insecure,
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 38 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
however, in which case there are two obvious alternatives to provide differential assistance to extremely poor households:
1. In addition to the standard direct rations to households with pregnant or lactating mothers and children under 2, provide cash or other asset transfers to extremely poor households.
2. Target only communities that have the greatest proportion of extremely poor (food- deficit) households.
Either approach will help reduce the number of food secure households covered by a larger resource transfer under a PM2A program and, therefore, minimize the potential for disincentive or disruption of markets.
For further guidance on the appropriate design of MCHN interventions generally, and a PM2A program specifically, please see USAID’s Commodities Reference Guide, accessible via http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/crg/module1.html and http://www.fantaproject.org/pm2a/index.shtml, respectively.
6.6. Assessment of Local Impact
Because of the localized nature of the impact of distributed food aid, and the vulnerability of small markets to disruptions and small farmers to production disincentives, even quantities of distributed food aid which may appear insignificant when compared to a country’s total food staple consumption can have a major impact on markets and production at the local level. A comparison of available rations with each target department’s estimated number of extremely impoverished households eligible for PM2A allows for assessment of potential absorptive capacity at a relatively localized level.
As of the date of this report, beneficiary targeting had not been completed, so the specific departments in which Awardees will implement a PM2A program are not available for consideration in the BEST pre-MYAP analysis. Nonetheless, four departments (Alta Verapaz, Quiché, Chimaltenango, and Huehuetenango) were selected for more in-depth analysis because FFP guidance suggests they represent likely areas for program implementation, on the basis of one or more of the following criteria:
• High levels of food insecurity and/or malnutrition
• Catchment area’s absorptive capacity of food
• Relative social stability, suggesting long term development programs will have a chance to flourish
• Existence of minimal services necessary for the successful implementation of a PM2A program
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 39 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• Capacity for leveraging with other activities, such as food security and/or water and sanitation interventions
The following example uses these four departments to underscore the importance of considering both the overall program scale and relative allocation of resources across geographic areas when undertaking the initial geographic targeting. The table below reports the estimated number of PM2A-eligible households living in extreme poverty in these four select departments. Alta Verapaz has the largest number of PM2A-eligible households living in extreme poverty, nearly twice that of either Huehuetenango or Quiché, which in turn have nearly twice the number of extremely poor PM2A-eligible households as in Chimaltenango.
Table 15. Estimated Number of PM2A-eligible Households Living in Four Select Departments # of PM2A-eligible HHs Department living in extreme poverty Alta Verapaz 21,273 Huehuetenango 11,733 Quiché 10,572 Chimaltenango 5,425 Total for 4 Depts 49,003
6.7. Summary of Findings
The table below provides an overview of the estimated number of households potentially eligible for a PM2A intervention, for which food aid would most likely represent additional consumption.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 40 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Table 16. A PM2A Program in Guatemala71 # HHs living in extreme % Children % Pop living Est. poverty under 5, and below extreme population of with a stunted, by Number of poverty line # HHs living eligible eligible region Population Households (incidence) in extreme children and child & (HAZ <= - 2 Region Department [1] [2] [3] poverty [4] mothers [5] mother [6] SD) [7] Norte Alta Verapaz 914,414 149,904 43.5% 65,208 48,903 21,273 56.7% Norte Baja Verapaz 245,787 46,375 21.2% 9,831 13,603 2,884 Suroccidente Solola 361,184 70,820 29.3% 20,750 19,383 5,679 54.8% Suroccidente Tontonicapan 395,324 69,355 20.0% 13,871 21,373 4,275 Suroccidente San Marcos 905,116 156,054 19.9% 31,055 50,082 9,966 Suroccidente Suchitepéquez 464,304 91,040 13.6% 12,381 25,449 3,461 Suroccidente Retalhuleu 273,328 54,666 9.5% 5,193 15,209 1,445 Suroccidente Quetzaltenango 735,162 141,377 10.1% 14,279 39,357 3,975 Noroccidente Quiché 769,364 124,091 25.6% 31,767 41,297 10,572 69.2% Noroccidente Huehuetenango 986,224 164,371 22.0% 36,162 53,332 11,733 Central Chimaltenango 519,667 96,235 19.3% 18,573 28,106 5,425 45.5% Central Escuintla 610,731 129,943 5.4% 7,017 33,941 1,833 Central Sacatepequez 278,064 56,748 4.7% 2,667 15,625 734 Nororiente Chiquimula 342,681 60,119 17.7% 10,641 19,057 3,373 49.1% Nororiente Zacapa 215,050 43,010 18.9% 8,129 12,611 2,383 Nororiente Izabal 364,924 67,579 18.3% 12,367 19,801 3,624 Nororiente El Progreso 150,826 30,165 8.1% 2,443 8,788 712 Suroriente Jutiapa 426,497 85,299 11.1% 9,468 24,512 2,721 45.6% Suroriente Santa Rosa 332,724 65,240 10.2% 6,654 18,986 1,937 Suroriente Jalapa 279,242 53,700 22.7% 12,190 15,304 3,474 Peten Petén 441,799 78,893 14.5% 11,439 23,104 3,350 46.2% Metropolitana Guatemala 2,975,417 595,083 0.5% 2,975 160,120 801 28.6%
71 Blue cells indicate stunting rates that are representative at the regional level, rather than at the departmental level.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 41 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
# HHs living in extreme % Children % Pop living Est. poverty under 5, and below extreme population of with a stunted, by Number of poverty line # HHs living eligible eligible region Population Households (incidence) in extreme children and child & (HAZ <= - 2 Region Department [1] [2] [3] poverty [4] mothers [5] mother [6] SD) [7] TOTAL 12,987,829 2,239,281 15.2% 340,371 707,943 92,635 46.4% Notes: [1] ENCOVI 2006 [2] population per ENCOVI 2006 divided by average household size by department per ENSMI 2002; [3] ENCOVI 2006 [4] column 2 times column [5] author’s calculations based on census figures and population estimates per ENCOVI 2006 [6] column 3 times column 5 [7] DHS 1999
The second column from the right shows the estimated number of households who are both extremely poor and PM2A-eligible (and therefore most likely to benefit from food aid as additional consumption). These figures represent the maximum number of households that should be targeted within each district to ensure Bellmon compliance. Given that these figures are based on demographic estimates, they are meant to be approximate.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 42 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
If targeting individual departments, the initial geographic targeting should allocate resources to cover the number of extremely impoverished households with PM2A-eligible beneficiary households. After taking into account existing food aid and cash transfer programs, allocation of resources across a combination of departments that most closely reaches this goal without providing more coverage will help ensure the most efficient use of Title II resources, while simultaneously assuring legislative compliance under the Bellmon amendment.
By combining extreme poverty and stunting in children under five, a ranking system was used to identify departments in which PM2A rations would: (1) most likely represent additional consumption, and therefore would be unlikely to pose any negative Bellmon impact; (2) address the highest rates of malnutrition at the district level; and (3) target the largest total number of PM2A-eligible households, an important efficiency consideration when implementing an integrated development program.
Ranking all the districts by a combination of these indicators, three districts emerged as most appropriate for a PM2A program: Alta Verapaz, Quiché, and Huehuetenango.
These three departments not only record the highest rates of extreme poverty, but also report the highest rates of chronic malnutrition and involve the largest population numbers of PM2A- eligible households living in extreme poverty. Among these three departments, Alta Verapaz has among the highest rates of chronic malnutrition, and the largest number of PM2A-eligible households living in extreme poverty (an estimated 21,273 households). Of course, these findings at the department level may mask important differences within each district. Further targeting of extremely poor communities within each of these departments would ensure even greater likelihood of increasing consumption at the household level.
If a PM2A ration is based strictly on the Haiti pilot, a US$10 million program in Guatemala, with all funding devoted to distributed food aid rations (i.e., no monetization), could target approximately 48,000 households per year. If the ration is altered, it may permit either more or less coverage. This analysis presented one such ration scenario, which would allow targeting of nearly 109,000 households per year. As shown in the table above, there are total of approximately 49,000 PM2A-eligible households living in extreme poverty in the four highlighted departments of Alta Verapaz, Huehuetenango, Quiché, and Chimaltenango. As discussed above, these are the households for whom PM2A rations would most likely represent additional consumption.
The choice of commodities for distribution, the way in which the ration is delivered and presented to the household, and the effectiveness of the BCC strategy, will determine much of the program’s ultimate impact on nutrition outcomes. Once a program is implemented, regular monitoring must be set in place to provide for any necessary adjustments to the ration size or composition and to ensure food aid does represent, and continues to represent, additional consumption for targeted beneficiaries. By minimizing displacement of normal market purchases of staples, a PM2A program will simultaneously ensure that the food aid ration is acting as supplementary nutrition for intended beneficiaries. Careful design of effective BCC messages to ensure consumption of food rations by intended beneficiaries (pregnant and lactating mothers and children under 2), will simultaneously help ensure maximum nutrition
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 43 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
impact, most efficient use of Title II resources, and legislative compliance with the Bellmon amendment.
Further guidance on the geographic distribution of food insecurity, including regional disparities in food availability, access and utilization, are also detailed in Annex X, which also provides a department-specific analysis for the departments of Alta Verapaz, Chimaltenango, Huehuetenango, and Quiché. Annex XI provides a map of Guatemala’s livelihood zones.
6.8. Existing Food Aid and Cash Transfer Programs
An important consideration in determining relative absorptive capacity at the sub-national level is the presence of ongoing food aid and cash transfer programs. Both the amount of in-kind aid and the timing of distribution must be considered to properly account for the likely magnitude of food deficits throughout the year as well as any surplus which might be generated by unintended errors in targeting. Given the substantial coverage of food aid and conditional cash transfer programs across a number of departments in Guatemala, it will be important to avoid duplication of ration coverage, on the one hand, and capitalize on complementary services through coordination of development interventions on the other.
The current Title II MYAP has focused its development efforts on the central and western highlands (Chimaltenango, Quiché, San Marcos, Baja Verapaz, and Huehuetenango). See Annex X for more detail. To avoid duplication and ensure efficient use of Title II resources, Awardees should be aware of and coordinate with other organizations that implement MCHN activities. In particular, attention should be paid to the programs implemented by the WFP and the GOG Social Cohesion Council (CCS). Annex XIII shows municipalities where the current MYAP is being implemented and which also receive support from the GOG CCS. Annex XIII also provides details of existing food aid programs in country.
As noted above, PM2A Awardee(s) should review and incorporate into their program design all relevant lessons learned, and recommendations from both past and current FFP and development assistance-funded projects in Guatemala.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 44 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex I. Agricultural Overview
I.i. Beans and Maize Production, On-Farm Consumption, and Sales
In recent years, Guatemala has seen increases in the number of farms, areas harvested, and production of its main food crops: beans and maize. Maize (yellow and white) production increased by 16.2 percent from 2004/05 to 2006/07 and beans (frijol negro) production increased by 89.3 percent for the same period.
FAO reports that 33 percent of families that produce maize and beans retain their production for own consumption. Approximately 16 percent of families sell in the nearest market town, 19 percent sell in the main municipal market of the department, and 21 percent sell to other families in their community. An estimated 11 percent sell to intermediaries who may truck to other departments, including the Capital City.72
Table 17. Production and Land Use: Beans and Maize Number of Total Year (May/April) Crop Farms Area Harvested % of Harvest Production
TOTAL 1,988,559 100 Black beans 301,208 190,331 9.6 1,819,322
Yellow corn 408,599 273,037 13.7 6,536,375
2004/2005 White corn 682,052 912,244 45.9 23,798,939
TOTAL 2,134,875 100 Black beans 379,420 351,908 16.5 3,087,469
Yellow corn 411,016 277,587 13.0 6,747,073
2005/2006 White corn 685,821 904,063 42.4 26,093,082
TOTAL 2,233,703 100 Black beans 483,369 440,963 19.7 3,443,530
Yellow corn 446,950 251,500 11.3 6,702,907
2006/2007 White corn 797,971 979,656 43.9 28,536,502
Source: ENA, 2005, 2006
72 Garcia 2009
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 45 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Figure 3. Bean Production, by Department 2002/2003
Figure 4. Maize Production, by Department 2002/2003
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 46 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Prices
Prices of maize and beans fluctuate according to the harvests (two for maize and one for beans), climate stresses, and economic factors that affect purchasing power of urban dwellers and rural wage earners.
The following chart shows monthly p rice movements (Q./qq) for yellow maize (blue line) and white maize (brown line) at Guatemala City’s Terminal (wholesale) Market from 2004 to 2009.
Figure 5. Monthly Price Movements (Q./qq) for Yellow Maize (Blue) and White Maize (Red)
The following chart shows monthly price (Q./qq) movements for black beans at Guatemala City’s Terminal (wholesale) Market from May 2007 through March 15, 2009.
Figure 6. Monthly Price Movements (Q./qq) for Black Beans
Maize
Maize (white and yellow) production increased at an average of 1,100 MT through 2005/06, reaching 1,489,604 MT. This increase corresponds to higher productivity associated with
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 47 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
improved availability and distribution of local certified seed, as well as micro-financing opportunities for small farmers to buy fertilizers.73
"Tortilla Crisis"
According to USDA/FAS/Guatemala local maize prices rose significantly in early 2007 compared to the 2000-2006 average. Prices for white maize, the main product of the traditional Guatemalan diet, reached Quetzales (Q) 112 per quintal (qq) (equal to USD 146 per MT) in mid February of 2007; in previous years, white maize prices had not exceeded Q 80/qq (US$104/MT). Yellow maize for human consumption reported final wholesale prices of Q 115/qq (US$150/MT), 25-30 percent above historical prices. During this period, the Guatemalan government evaluated contingency strategies to combat possibly extreme price raises or maize scarcities and also expressed concern toward reported Mexican firms buying up local maize in response to Guatemala's “tortilla crisis.” At the same time GOG authorities were confident that domestic supply would be enough to cover demand. 74
The 2007 maize shortage in Mexico resulted in a "tortilla crisis," concerning surrounding countries such as Guatemala and Honduras. Honduras prohibited maize exports to ensure sufficient domestic supply.75 In Guatemala, campesinos feared shortages and price rises as Mexican businesses bought Guatemala's maize and contracted for future production. While most campesinos grow maize for their own consumption (a diet of mainly white maize and black beans), campesinos generally cannot grow enough to cover their needs for a full year, and have to supplement their supply with purchased maize. Prices were reported to have risen in some places by 25 to 30 percent.
Nevertheless, Guatemalan Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Security (MAGA) reported that Guatemala enjoyed a record maize crop of 29 million quintals in 2006 and assured the public that if prices rose excessively in 2007 the GOG would take appropriate steps to ensure an adequate supply of reasonably priced maize.
Main areas of maize production (Petén, Alta Verapáz, Izabál, and Quiché), which supply local market between March and May, feared that their crops would be smuggled to Mexico or that other countries that may offer better prices.
As of 2007, the Ministry of Agriculture’s Basic Grains Program was evaluating the following strategies:
• Increase production area to increase supplies during critical months (July-September).
• Promote and support maize production and expansion in Petén in collaboration with private companies.
73 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report. 2007. 74 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report. 2007. 75 Guatemalan Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Security (MAGA)
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 48 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• Production incentives, diversification (soy production), technology transfer for feed production (palm oil addition), opening market for imports (quota increase), control of exports to the region.
Yellow Maize
Yellow maize makes up about 1/5 of total Guatemalan maize production. It is a preferred staple food in smaller areas to the south and is also used in animal feed. The bulk of U.S. maize exports to Guatemala are U.S. #2 Yellow Corn, used mostly for feed but also for snack foods and breakfast cereals. The U.S. supplies almost 100 percent of Guatemala’s yellow maize import needs. Guatemala’s imports from the U.S. have increased an average of 12 percent annually due to increasing local demand. The CAFTA-DR TRQ for yellow maize was set at 525,000 MT in 2005, with a 25,000 MT annual increase, and a parallel 3.5 percent annual tariff decrease. A total of 638,600 MT tariff-free was available for 2007, 88,600 MT from WTO quota and 550,000 MT from CAFTA-DR quota. Guatemala is also increasing its exports of processed animal feed, much of which is made from yellow maize; exports skyrocketed from 13 MT in 2005 to 57,000 MT in 2006.76
Import prices of yellow maize between January and November 2006 were roughly US$146/MT, closing at US$163/MT at the end of 2006. Meanwhile, local yellow maize prices reported in 2006 in the production sites averaged Q 95/qq (US$124/MT), compared to the 2000-06 high of Q 64/qq (US$84/MT). At wholesale, the first week of February 2007 opened with Q 110/qq (US$144/MT) and increased to Q 115/qq (US$150/MT) by the second week.77
White Maize
White maize makes up some 80 percent of Guatemala’s total maize production. White maize and black beans are traditional staple foods among rural populations, and are therefore sensitive commodities in the public consciousness.
Average annual imports for white maize for 2000-2004 were about 48,000 MT. Imports increased to 77,577 MT in 2006 (50 percent above previous year). Calendar year imports as of November 2006 had already reached 79,963 MT, according to Banco de Guatemala statistics. The United States is the main supplier of white maize, as well as the main buyer for Guatemala’s exports of white maize, which reached 4,566 MT in 2006. The CAFTA-DR TRQ for white maize is 20,400 MT, increasing 400 MT annually. Guatemala’s white maize exports show an 8 percent increase, compared to 17 percent increase for white maize imports, and mainly demanded by the flour industry. Import prices between January and November 2006 were US$140/MT, closing at US$151/MT by the end of 2006. In the local market, grain warehouses were paying Q 92/qq (US$120/MT) for white maize in February 2007, a price that had not exceeded Q 62/qq (US$81/MT) in the 2000-2006 period. Mid-February wholesale prices reached Q 112/qq (US$146/MT), almost 30 percent above average prices for 2000/6.
76 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report. 2007. 77 UPIE, MAGA, Press Release February 17, 2007
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 49 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
New Markets
In 2007, CONAGRAB General Manager Carlos Herrarte met with Guatemala’s livestock and snack food industries to promote their use of domestic maize, following the September harvest. Guatemalan livestock and snack food industries received his proposal well, as rising prices of imported maize increased their operating costs 15-20 percent. However, the livestock and snack food industries are concerned about whether national product will meet their quality and volume requirements.78
78 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report. 2007.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 50 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex II. National and Regional Storage Capacity- Indeca's Storage Facilities
Table 18. National and Regional Storage Capacity - INDECA’S Storage Facilities Condition of Storage Total Facilities Location Owner Operator Capacity* Capacity** Capacity Comments
Good TACTIC (Alta Verapaz) GOG INDECA 4,400 907 5,307
Poor TELEMAN GOG INDECA 2,585 635 3,220
Good LOS AMATES (Alta Verapaz) GOG INDECA 4,400 905 5,305 WFP donations
Poor NAVAJOA GOG INDECA 1,134 227 1,361
Poor IPALA GOG INDECA 340 181 521
Poor SEJA GOG INDECA 272 91 363
Poor JALPATAGUA GOG INDECA 635 181 816
Poor MONJAS GOG INDECA 363 113 476
Poor MONTUFAR GOG INDECA 635 181 816
QUETZALTENANGO Poor (Huehuetenango & El Quiche) GOG INDECA 8,845 1,815 10,660 WFP donations
N/A SOLOLA (El Quiche) GOG INDECA 0 25 25
Good RETALHULEU GOG INDECA 8,845 1,585 10,430 WFP donations
Poor MONTERREY GOG INDECA 181 91 272
Poor LA BLANCA GOG INDECA 181 91 272
STA. CRUZ QUICHÉ (El N/A Quiche) GOG INDECA 0 25 25
N/A SAN LUIS GOG INDECA 0 272 272
N/A SAYAXCHÉ GOG INDECA 0 272 272
N/A FRAIJANES GOG INDECA 0 5,445 5,445 WFP donations
N/A CHIMALTENANGO GOG INDECA 0 2,405 2,405 WFP donations
Anexa Quetzaltenango Good (Huehuetenango & El Quiche) Private INDECA 1587 1,587 WFP donations
Total 32,816 17,034 49,850
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 51 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Source:INDECA Notes: *In Silos (MT); **In Warehouses (bodegas) (MT) The National Coordinating Committee for Producers of Basic Grains (CONAGRAB) asked to rent government silos and guarantee supplies. The government silos had been managed by the National Institute of Agricultural Commercialization (INDECA), but were closed down in 1996. The silos in question could hold up to 29,000 MT.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 52 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex III. Historical Food Aid
Table 19. Historical Food Aid, by Donor Program and Commodity
2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 Total Total COMMODITY Funding Mechanism MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s
Soybean Meal CCC 15,000 3,270 23,000 5,008 15,000 7,350 53,000 15,628
Soybean Meal GOV/PVO 1,100 229 2,000 435 2,000 309 4,800 1,152 9,900 2,125
Soybean Meal TITLE I 7,000 1,568 7,000 1,568
Soybean Meal Total 23,100 5,067 25,000 5,443 2,000 309 19,800 8,502 69,900 19,321
Corn TITLE I 18,000 2,210 18,000 2,394 36,000 4,604
Corn CCC 18,000 2,261 18,000 2,261
Corn TITLE II/WFP 1,500 181 2,900 410 5,700 735 10,100 1,326
Corn GOV/PVO 1,000 154 1,500 213 1,500 179 4,000 546
Corn Total 19,500 2,443 2,900 410 24,700 3,099 19,500 2,607 1,500 179 68,100 8,737
Vegetable Oil TITLE II/PVO 8,900 6,658 16,200 8,839 10,500 5,951 11,260 7,150 6,200 8,225 53,060 36,823
Vegetable Oil GOV/PVO 300 272 200 203 700 628 950 771 1,000 1,333 3,150 3,207
Vegetable Oil TITLE II/WFP 200 179 47 26 300 288 547 493
Vegetable Oil CCC 300 398 300 398
Vegetable Oil Total 9,700 7,507 16,447 9,068 11,500 6,867 12,210 7,921 7,200 9,558 57,057 40,921
Rice GOV/PVO 800 268 400 139 3,400 1,361 4,760 1,848 7,900 3,213 17,260 6,829
Rice TITLE II/PVO 4,400 1,405 3,300 1,011 2,900 896 2,000 790 1,500 701 14,100 4,802
Rice Total 5,200 1,673 3,700 1,150 6,300 2,257 6,760 2,638 9,400 3,914 31,360 11,631
Beans GOV/PVO 400 223 400 254 2,400 1,658 3,390 1,631 4,300 2,307 10,890 6,073
Beans TITLE II/PVO 2,400 1,039 1,800 1,328 2,300 1,282 1,360 748 1,300 935 9,160 5,332
Beans TITLE II/WFP 500 203 700 402 1,200 605
Beans CCC 400 190 400 190
Beans Total 3,700 1,656 2,200 1,581 5,400 3,342 4,750 2,379 5,600 3,242 21,650 12,200
Wheat TITLE I 15,000 2,775 15,000 2,775
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 53 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 Total Total COMMODITY Funding Mechanism MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s MT $000s
Wheat CCC 6,600 1,228 6,600 1,228
Wheat Total 6,600 1,228 15,000 2,775 21,600 4,003
Corn-Soy Blend TITLE II/PVO 4,900 1,513 3,300 820 3,500 915 2,270 658 1,800 961 15,770 4,867
Corn-Soy Blend TITLE II/WFP 1,000 253 1,700 450 2,700 702
Corn-Soy Blend GOV/PVO 400 123 400 123
Corn-Soy Blend CCC 300 101 300 101
Corn-Soy Blend Total 5,600 1,737 4,300 1,073 5,200 1,365 2,270 658 1,800 961 19,170 5,793
Nonfat Dry Milk Total GOV/PVO 9,200 18,455 200 423 700 1,305 740 1,305 10,840 21,489
Buckwheat Total GOV/PVO 400 344 500 412 750 629 800 653 2,450 2,038
Tallow Total CCC 2,000 878 2,000 878
Soy Protein Products Total GOV/PVO 400 231 400 266 500 329 700 445 2,000 1,270
Wheat-Soy Blend Total GOV/PVO 500 221 500 252 490 85 400 210 1,890 767
S.F. Bulgur Total TITLE II/PVO 400 116 100 33 200 61 700 210
Salmon Total GOV/PVO 300 630 300 900 600 1,530
Wheat Flour Total GOV/PVO 300 64 300 64
Raisins Total 100 85 100 85 Grand Total 61,100 35,537 68,447 21,800 82,700 26,175 49,970 18,862 47,500 28,562 309,717 130,936 Source: USDA FAS
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 54 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Table 20. Historical US-Funded Food Aid Distribution, by Awardee and Commodity Awardee/Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total
CARE 780 1,440 3,150 0 0 0 5,370
CSB 450 940 1,800 0 0 0 3,190
Rice 220 380 900 0 0 0 1,500
Vegetable Oil 110 1`20 450 0 0 0 680
CRS 2,841 2,030 2,140 0 0 0 7,011
CSB 919 470 760 0 0 0 2,149
Rice 1,409 1,210 960 0 0 0 3,579
Vegetable Oil 513 350 420 0 0 0 1,283
CRS/SCF/SHARE 0 0 0 0 7,826 0 7,826
CDSO 0 0 0 0 7,826 0 7,826
SCF 1,336 0 0 0 0 0 1,336
CSB 483 0 0 0 0 0 483
Rice 710 0 0 0 0 0 710
Vegetable Oil 143 0 0 0 0 0 143
SHARE 4,600 4,070 8,480 4,050 4,380 3,500 29,080
Beans 0 0 1,010 1,020 1,180 1,060 4,270
Beans (black) 950 0 0 0 0 0 950
Beans (pinto) 0 880 920 0 0 0 1,800
CSB 1,850 1,640 2,630 1,070 1,480 1,120 9,790
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 55 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Awardee/Commodity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total
NFDM 0 0 240 0 0 0 240
Rice 1,150 980 2,270 1,040 1,140 900 7,480
Vegetable Oil 650 570 920 430 580 420 3,570
WSB 0 0 490 490 0 0 980
Grand Total 9,557 7,540 13,770 4,050 12,206 3,500 50,623
Source: Awardees
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 56 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex IV. CDSO IPP Calculations
Table 21. Detailed PP Calculations for CDSO (in US$) IPP Estimated Moving IPP MA IPP MA Sale Month FOB Insurance Freight IPP Avg +10% 10% Price % Diff
Jan-06 428.00 12.84 37.50 478.34 501.57 551.73 451.41 584.50 117%
Feb-06 458.00 13.74 35.00 506.74 509.58 560.54 458.63
Mar-06 461.00 13.83 36.60 511.43 512.26 563.48 461.03
Apr-06 459.00 13.77 37.00 509.77 518.28 570.11 466.46 482.50 93%
May-06 488.00 14.64 39.00 541.64 530.85 583.93 477.76 485.00 91%
Jun-06 471.00 14.13 40.50 525.63 540.60 594.66 486.54
Jul-06 498.00 14.94 41.50 554.44 553.43 608.77 498.09 487.00 88%
Aug-06 509.00 15.27 42.00 566.27 579.07 636.98 521.16
Sep-06 517.00 15.51 42.50 575.01 605.83 666.41 545.25
Oct-06 542.00 16.26 43.00 601.26 630.01 693.02 567.01
Nov-06 628.00 18.84 42.40 689.24 646.93 711.62 582.23
Dec-06 665.00 19.95 44.00 728.95 661.51 727.66 595.36
Jan-07 631.00 18.93 45.00 694.93 682.53 750.79 614.28
Feb-07 611.00 18.33 43.50 672.83 706.46 777.11 635.82
Mar-07 604.00 18.12 46.25 668.37 726.49 799.14 653.84 760.80 105%
Apr-07 655.00 19.65 47.50 722.15 746.76 821.43 672.08
May-07 692.00 20.76 56.00 768.76 775.59 853.15 698.03
Jun-07 748.00 22.44 59.00 829.44 812.36 893.60 731.13 760.80 94%
Jul-07 787.00 23.61 60.20 870.81 856.56 942.21 770.90
Aug-07 809.00 24.27 63.50 896.77 911.02 1,002.12 819.92 875.96 96%
Sep-07 841.00 25.23 64.00 930.23 964.18 1,060.60 867.76
Oct-07 885.00 26.55 66.20 977.75 1,027.56 1,130.31 924.80
Nov-07 1,004.00 30.12 69.25 1,103.37 1,108.34 1,219.17 997.50 876.40 79%
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 57 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
IPP Estimated Moving IPP MA IPP MA Sale Month FOB Insurance Freight IPP Avg +10% 10% Price % Diff
Dec-07 1,030.00 30.90 80.00 1,140.90 1,189.90 1,308.89 1,070.91 876.00 74%
Jan-08 1,162.00 34.86 76.20 1,273.06 1,260.34 1,386.37 1,134.30 875.96 70%
Feb-08 1,326.00 39.78 70.50 1,436.28 1,324.34 1,456.78 1,191.91 1,384.09 105%
Mar-08 1,358.00 40.74 69.00 1,467.74 1,379.09 1,516.99 1,241.18
Apr-08 1,315.00 39.45 68.80 1,423.25 1,420.70 1,562.77 1,278.63
May-08 1,310.00 39.30 76.50 1,425.80 1,411.01 1,552.11 1,269.91 1,475.65 105%
Jun-08 1,369.00 41.07 76.50 1,486.57 1,359.50 1,495.45 1,223.55 1,384.00 102%
Jul-08 1,320.00 39.60 72.60 1,432.20 1,269.94 1,396.94 1,142.95
Aug-08 1,100.00 33.00 72.25 1,205.25 1,172.89 1,290.17 1,055.60
Sep-08 981.00 29.43 65.25 1,075.68 1,063.22 1,169.54 956.89
Oct-08 775.00 23.25 42.60 840.85 954.41 1,049.86 858.97
Nov-08 695.00 20.85 28.00 743.85 850.34 935.38 765.31 1,476.00 174%
Dec-08 617.00 18.51 22.60 658.11 778.27 856.10 700.44
Jan-09 682.00 20.46 22.50 724.96 728.70 801.57 655.83
Feb-09 657.00 19.71 27.00 703.71 706.27 776.90 635.64
Mar-09 649.00 19.47 32.25 700.72 696.88 766.56 627.19
Average Difference, Sales price to IPP 96%
Sources 79 FOB Price: 15071000 Bulk Soybean Oil - Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos Freight Rate: IGC Ocean Freight Rates Sales Prices: Through 2006: CSs, after 2006: AMEX International
79 Note that the freight rate used for this IPP calculation is the Argentina – Mexico route as published by IGC as proxy. Also, sales prices as provided by the CSs did not always agree with those provided by AMEX International. Where they did not agree, the price as provided by AMEX was used.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 58 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex V. FFP Policy on Use of Milk Powder for Monetization
USAID's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) will consider proposals for monetization of Non-Fat Dry Milk (NFDM) under the following conditions:
• The Awardee will provide FFP a written policy for the monetization of NFDM. This policy must comply with the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes and all subsequent relevant World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions pertinent to the sale or distribution of breast milk substitutes. The Awardee will include a statement under "special provisions" which states, "It is the intention of the U.S. Government that the NFDM commodities provided herein are not to be used as breast milk substitutes, nor in their production or manufacture."
• Preference will be given to countries that have current laws or policies implementing the International Code of Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes.
• NFDM may be sold for industrial use as an ingredient in processed foods, baked goods, yogurt, etc. NFDM must not substitute for breast milk or be used for products represented or locally perceived as breast milk substitutes. It must not be sold for direct market distribution, for example, in small tender sales, and should not be sold directly to the consumer.
• The Awardee will not sell NFDM to known manufacturers or marketers of breast milk substitutes or replacement foods with breast milk substitute production facilities in the program country. The sales contract will have a written commitment from the buyer stating that the product will not be sold or freely distributed as a breast milk substitute, nor used to manufacture breast milk substitutes and that the sellers name or the name or logo of USAID will not be used in marketing, advertising, product promotion, or any implied relationship to any of the manufacturer's products. Furthermore, the Awardee shall make it clear to the buyer that failure to comply with this clause will constitute a material breach of the contract.
• Awardee will submit to FFP, as part of the proposal, a plan to monitor for a reasonable period of time the end-use of the product. Information should include sensitivity to problems in countries with high lactose intolerance, proper storage and handling, and possible leakage from the buyer to the general market. This monitoring plan must be in place prior to the arrival of the commodity in the country.
• The buyer agrees in writing that the uses of NFDM will be accessible for monitoring by USAID personnel to ensure that the use of NFDM adheres to the above policy and does not violate the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 59 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• NFDM commodities for monetization must be labeled, "Not for feeding children under one year of age." If repackaged for any reason, any such package should also be so labeled.
• To ensure market parity, all Title II and FFP policies and regulations, including cost recovery, Bellmon and Usual Marketing Requirement (UMR) considerations shall apply.
The Director of the Office of Food for Peace must approve in writing any exceptions to the above policy.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 60 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex VI. Determining Impact of a Distribution Program
The Bellmon Amendment requires assurance that a proposed food aid distribution program would not result in a substantial disincentive to or interference with domestic production or marketing. The extent to which distributed food aid has the potential to result in disincentive to local production and markets rests fundamentally on whether or not proposed food aid will represent "additional consumption" for beneficiary households, i.e., food consumption which would not have occurred in the absence of the food aid distribution program.
Why Would Food Aid Introduce a Substantial Disincentive to Local Production and Markets?
Though food aid beneficiaries are expected to consume the food provided, households may respond to the receipt of food aid in a number of ways depending on prices, local diet preferences, perceived needs for non-food goods, and access to local markets. A beneficiary household may:
• Consume the food aid without reducing its regular market purchases or small-scale production to compensate for a food deficit in the normal diet caused by insufficient purchasing power, in which case the food aid represents additional consumption;
• Use a portion or all the food aid to displace market purchases that otherwise would have been made;
• Use a portion or all the food aid to substitute for the home consumption of own production and sell the released production in the market; or
• Consume some portion (or none of) the food aid and sell the other portion (or all) on the market, and use the income generated from that sale to consume other food and non- food goods.
Effective targeting of food-deficit households will avoid substantial disruption of local production and markets caused by providing food aid to households who would reduce market purchases and/or household production of staples after receiving food aid.
In the case of a distribution program such a PM2A, which has a very specific goal of preventing early childhood malnutrition, and therefore targets pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children under two years old (“effective targeting,” from a Bellmon perspective) would involve initial geographic targeting based on household food deficits, followed by targeting households based on PM2A program eligibility (i.e., all children 6-23 months and all pregnant/lactating women).
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 61 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
How Can We Determine Whether A Specific Proposed Food Aid Distribution Program Would Introduce a Substantial Disincentive?
The key to determining whether or not food aid would result in a substantial disincentive is to assess whether or not food aid would represent additional consumption. Ideally, one would conduct household surveys to determine whether or not a household would consume the food aid without changing their production and purchasing behavior, which would indicate whether or not food aid would represent additional consumption for the household. However, because household surveys are expensive and time-consuming, proxy indicators of additionality can be used to assess the potential for leakage. This is the approach taken in the present analysis.
Among the other possible proxy indicators of additionality are an estimated nutrition gap, food consumption score (or some other measure of actual consumption), sources and levels of income, malnutrition rates, and other food insecurity classifications (e.g., IPC), or some combination of these indicators.
VI.i. Nutrition or Food Gap A nutrition or food gap estimate provides a measure of the difference between available food (proxied by domestic food production) and the amount of food needed to support a specific per capita daily nutritional standard (generally 2100 kcal per person per day). If estimated on a more localized level (i.e., at the level closer to the communities in which an Awardee would implement a distributed food aid program), a nutrition or food gap can provide a very useful measure of that volume of food which is not currently supplied by local production and/or markets, and which would represent an appropriate volume under a proposed Title II non- emergency food aid distribution program to assure minimal to no disincentive effect. In order to estimate a sub-national food or nutrition gap, it is necessary to collect data on population, production, and trade flows within relevant catchment areas. Collection of trade flow data at a sub-national level is an extremely time-consuming and expensive undertaking and outside the present BEST scope of work. For the purposes of the distribution analysis, one or more proxy indicators of additionality are used to characterize the relative food or nutrition gap at the sub- national level.
VI.ii. Prevalence of Malnutrition in Children While analysis of livelihood strategies may allow food insecurity to be assessed on the basis of the availability of and access to food, the analysis can ignore other effects including the degree to which food is effectively utilized. The relation between income and food security is context- and location-specific, with livelihood strategies as intervening variables. Factors such as disease, food hygiene, social customs, and food storage and preparation practices can all influence the extent to which available food is effectively utilized and will contribute to the ultimate level of nutrition. Where wealth and nutrition outcomes are strongly and positively correlated, improving food access will help to improve nutritional outcomes. Conversely, where wealth status and nutritional status are only weakly correlated, increasing access alone will likely be an insufficient intervention to reversing malnutrition. Where intra-household resource allocation, poor feeding practices, or disease are significant underlying causes of malnutrition,
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 62 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
distributed food aid will be more effectively used as an incentive to attend nutrition and health training.
The direct determinants of child malnutrition (breastfeeding, complementary food, disease incidence, and access and utilization of healthcare) may be more important factors in determining the prevalence of child malnutrition than household food security. Despite the uncertain relationship between malnutrition and food security, prevalence of stunting (low height-for-age) in children under five is reported here because they are interesting in their own right since because they are an important indicator of chronic undernutrition. Guatemala has an extremely high prevalence of stunting, and there does appear to be a positive relationship between household consumption (wealth) and improved nutritional outcomes among young children.80 However, because the most reliable and appropriate statistics on stunting prevalence (DHS 1999) were developed to be statistically representative at the regional level rather than departmental level, it is not currently possible to state whether there are statistically significant differences in stunting rates across the four departments under review.
80 Marini and Gragnolati 2003
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 63 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex VII. Ration Costs Calculations
The assumptions made to calculate monthly household ration costs are outlined below. These scenarios are meant to be illustrative only of the general differences in commodity volumes and potential beneficiary coverage since the ration size and composition that might be proposed for an upcoming PM2A program is unknown at this time.
VII.i. Haiti Pilot Ration size/composition:
• Direct mother ration, direct child ration, and indirect household ration
• 29 kilograms per month per beneficiary household composed of CSB, WSB, pulses, and oil
• September/October 2009 Commodity Calculator food and freight costs
• One child 6-23 months of age or one pregnant or lactating mother per household
VII.ii. Direct Rations Only Ration size/composition based generally on ration used in preventive interventions in Haiti trial, but scaled down partially to reflect maximum physiological capacity of children under 23 months of age:
• Direct mother ration and direct child ration only
• 9 kg CSB per month per beneficiary household intended for direct beneficiaries only
• September/October 2009 Commodity Calculator food and freight costs
• One child 6-23 months of age or one pregnant or lactating mother per household
VII.iii. Direct Ration Plus Indirect Household Ration Ration size/composition based generally on ration used in preventive interventions in Haiti trial, but scaled down partially to reflect maximum physiological capacity of children under 23 months of age:
• Direct mother ration and direct child ration plus indirect household ration
• 9 kilograms per month per beneficiary household for direct rations (mother and child) of CSB
• 5.5 kilograms per month per beneficiary household of an indirect household ration composed of rice, pinto beans, and vegetable oil
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 64 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• September/October 2009 Commodity Calculator food and freight costs
• One child 6-23 months of age or one pregnant or lactating mother per household
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 65 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex VIII. Analysis Of Four Select Departments
VIII.i. Alta Verapaz Alta Verapaz is a land-locked department located in the northeastern part of the country. It shares borders with Baja Verapaz, Izabal, Zacapa, Petén, and Quiché departments. Alta Verapaz's population of over 900,000 mostly consists of smallholder farmers or day laborers in agriculture. The poor and extremely poor often work on coffee plantations and vegetable farms. They obtain some food from their own production, but generally rely heavily on labor wages to purchase food. Alta Verapaz’s principal markets for food are Cobán, San Pedro Carchá, La Tinta y San Cristóbal, and Guatemala City, where approximately 20 percent of the urban and five percent of the rural populations conduct business. A good paved road connects Alta Verapaz to Guatemala City within 4-5 hours by vehicle.
Reports of narco-trafficking in Guatemala are growing in number. Drug traffickers are likely to invest in communities to gain support and security as they move cocaine and other drugs through Mexico and the US. Drug traffickers often contribute to schools, community centers, and clinics, as well as donate seeds, fertilizer, and implements; however, they have not been reported to donate food.
Five years ago, Alta Verapaz was reported to both supply a substantial amount of domestic maize demand as well as be a net exporter of the crop. In 2008, maize prices were high, likely because of high global food prices and floods. Another contributing factor to the rise in maize prices was the fact that some maize-growing farmers in the northern lowlands were replacing the crop with sugarcane and African Palm.
Other factors underlying food insecurity in Alta Verapaz include:
• June through August is typically the lean period for the availability of maize, the staple food.
• A decline in coffee and cardamom prices have reduced day wages and overall cash income of many of Alta Verapaz's poorest households, many of whom work on coffee plantations and cardamom farms.
• Mountainous terrain is difficult to access and road networks are poor.
• Investments in productive activities are limited, especially in areas considered dangerous.
• Poor/scarce infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, sanitation, markets, health, schools, etc.)
• Low community organization to negotiate/implement positive changes.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 66 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• Higher-altitude areas only have one harvest of staple cereals per year.81
• El Nino and other recurring weather-related shocks including early frosts negatively impact production output.
• Farmers have difficulty accessing rural or agricultural credit or loans from banks or other financial institutions, which limits opportunities to invest in productive assets.
• Farmers have insufficient access to agricultural inputs, tools, techniques, and technical assistance, which constrains yields and degrades land on slopes.
Demand
Gross local demand figures are generally unavailable; however, for the purposes of this analysis, an estimate was made based on population size of 914,414 and proportions of the local diet for maize and beans of 14.69 and 2.96 kg per month, respectively, in the table below.
Table 22. Demand for Local Diet Components: Alta Verapaz* Local Diet Components Total Commodity Demand (MT)
Maize (yellow and white) 161,162
Beans 32,519
Oil 13,944
Source: Serrano, 2004 *Based on a population size of 914,414 Supply
Food supply is sourced locally or reportedly from Petén and Baja Verapaz. Maize and beans consumed from own production and imports from these two neighboring departments are presented in the figure below.
81 MFEWS, 2009
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 67 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Figure 7. Sources of Food Commodities for Alta Verapaz
Sources: MFEWS, 2005 and interviews with Awardees, March 2009 During the lean period—and during periods when drought, floods, cold spells, and diseases lower production—Alta Verapaz imports from Mexico and Guatemala’s central wholesale market in Guatemala City. Unfortunately available data on these two sources do not disaggregate distribution of basic grains to final destinations.
If a PM2A program is implemented in Alta Verapaz, there appears to be very little chance of any substantial impact on local production and marketing of maize and virtually no chance of impact on local production or marketing of beans.
CARE implemented development and food aid programs in Alta Verapaz until FY06. Currently, Plan Guatemala (initially titled Plan International in Guatemala) is the main NGO focusing on health and nutrition in Alta Verapaz's rural communities. Through GOG programs, Plan Guatemala provides community development services in conjunction with food rations from WFP to 23 communities.
There is coverage by CCS cash bonos and VitaCereal for pregnant and lactating mothers and children under 3 years old in Alta Verapaz communities (see Annex VIII).
Municipalities
Coban: Department Capital and principal market for basic grains grown in Alta Verapaz and imported from other departments or Mexico.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 68 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Carcha: One of the department’s poorest areas (and worse since last year) with malnutrition levels reported at 80 percent with 4-5 percent classified as critical. In 2008 floods affected some communities, requiring relocation with the help of Plan Guatemala. A local NGO, ASODIV, is helping 38 communities organize to improve economic and social conditions. ASODIV's program includes demonstrations of greenhouses, household gardens, and fish ponds. SESAN has offered to help the Mayor of Carcha measure nutrition levels, maps, own production of food, etc. and plans for a one year follow-up. They estimate families need 40-50 qq of maize per year, 23-33 qq of which they can provide for themselves in an average 7-8 months. The rest must be purchased or received as donation. Some CSB has been distributed in the past with mixed reception in poor communities. VitaCereal is more common, although most families prefer the taste of the more expensive cereal, Incaparina.
San Cristobal de Verapaz: Secondary market for local basic grains, but also had maize from Mexico and beans from Salama.
Tactic: Municipal market is in a building covering about half a city block with butcher shops, grains (“wholesale” by the quintal, 100 lb., and retail of the kg.) including maize (white, yellow, and very low quality sorted “rejects” usually bought by the poor), beans (black, red, white, and lima bean), rice (whole and cracked), vegetables, two local brands of cooking oil, and canned goods. Venders of grains and vegetables are typically women, while men run the butcher stands and sell dry goods.
VIII.ii. Chimaltenango Chimaltenango is located in the highlands west of Guatemala City. It shares borders with Guatemala, Baja Verapaz, Quiché, Solola, Suchitepéquez, Escuintla, and Sacatepéquez departments. The department is connected by a good paved road allowing transport to one of Guatemala’s key ports (Port Quetzal) and the capital city. The population is over 500,000, most of which are smallholder farmers and day laborers in agriculture. These smallholder farmers and day laborers depend heavily on agroindustry (land preparation, harvest, and post-harvest for flowers and high-value vegetables) and maquila (textiles) for income. Many of the poorest families depend on income from day wages on large coffee and cardamom farms or migrate to the Pacific Coast to harvest sugarcane. The recent decline in the prices of the former commodities has lowered day wages, lowering many families’ cash incomes.
The main sources of food in Chimaltenango are market purchases and on-farm basic grains. The principal markets are in Antigua, Guatemala, Chimaltenango, and the wholesale market in Guatemala City.
Many of the same factors contributing to food insecurity in Alta Verapaz are true for Chimaltenago since they both share the same the same characteristics of the highland and vegetable livelihood zone.
Other factors underlying food insecurity include:
• Mountainous terrain, with difficult access and poor road network .
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 69 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• Limited investments in productive activities
• Limited/poor infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, sanitation, markets, health, schools, etc.) and limited technology resources
• Low community organization to negotiate/implement positive changes.
• Higher-altitude areas only have one harvest of staple cereals per year.82
• Farmers have insufficient access to agricultural inputs, tools, techniques, and technical assistance, which constrains yields and degrades land on slopes.
• El Nino and other recurring weather-related shocks including early frosts negatively impact production output.
• Many farmers do not have titles to their land.
• Farmers have difficulty accessing rural or agricultural credit or loans from banks or other financial institutions, which limits opportunities to invest in productive assets.
• Lack of arable lands.
• Lack of crop diversification.
Demand
Gross local demand figures are generally unavailable; however, for the purposes of this analysis, an estimate was made based on population size of 519,667 and proportions of the local diet for maize and beans of 14.69 and 2.96 kg per month, as shown in the table below.
Table 23. Demand for Local Diet Components, Chimaltenango Department* Local Diet Components Total Commodity Demand (MT)
Maize (yellow and white) 91,589
Beans 18,481
Oil* 660
*Based on a population size 519,667 Source: Serrano, 2004 Supply
Food supply is largely sourced locally in Chimaltenango or from Petén and Baja Verapaz as presented in the figure below.
82 MFEWS, 2009
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 70 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Figure 8. Sources of Food Commodities for Chimaltenango
Sources: MFEWS, 2005 and interviews with Awardees, March 2009
VIII.iii. Huehuetenango Huehuetenango is located in the northwest highlands. It shares borders with Mexico, Quiche, Totonicapán, Quetzaltenango, and San Marcos. The department is connected by a good paved road to Guatemala City and to Mexico. The population is over 900,000, most of whom are either smallholder farmers or day laborers in agriculture. Emigration is consistent to Guatemala City, Mexico, and the United States. Migrants look for unskilled work in offices, construction, and homes. Remittances play a major role in family incomes. Many of the affected municipalities and communities depend on coffee, vegetables for export, and basic grains. Huehuetenango is also an important source of maize and beans for other departments during lean periods.
Many of the same factors contributing to food insecurity in Alta Verapaz and Chimaltenango are also true for Huehuetenango, as these departments share the highland and vegetable livelihood zone.
Other factors underlying food insecurity include:
• Mountainous terrain, with difficult access and poor road network.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 71 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• Investments in productive activities are limited, especially in areas considered dangerous.
• Limited/poor infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, sanitation, markets, health, schools, etc.).
• Low community organization to negotiate/implement positive changes.
• Higher-altitude areas only have one harvest of staple cereals per year.83
• Reduced access to agricultural inputs, tools, techniques, and technical assistance, which results in low yields and land degradation, especially on hill slopes.
• El Nino and other recurring weather-related shocks including early frosts negatively impact production output.
• Many farmers do not have titles to their land.
• Farmers have difficulty accessing rural or agricultural credit or loans from banks or other financial institutions, which limits opportunities to invest in productive assets. With the current global recession, remittances have declined, decreasing household food security.
Demand
Gross local demand figures are generally unavailable; however, for the purposes of this analysis, an estimate was made based on population size of 986,224 and proportions of the local diet for maize and beans of 14.69 and 2.96 kg per month, as the table below shows.
Table 24. Demand for Local Diet Components, Huehuetenango Department* Local Diet Components Total Commodity Demand (MT)
Maize (yellow and white) 173,818
Beans 35,073
Oil 15,036
*Based on a population size of 986,224 Source: Serrano, 2004 Supply
Food supply is sourced locally or from Petén and Guatemala City. Maize and beans consumed from own production and imports from these two neighboring departments are presented in the figure below.
83 MFEWS, 2009
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 72 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Figure 9. Sources of Food Commodities for Huehuetenango
Sources: MFEWS, 2005 and interviews with Awardees, March 2009
VIII.iv. Quiché Quiché is located in the highlands north of Guatemala City. It shares borders with Alta Verapaz, Baja Verapaz, Chimaltenango, Solola, Totonicapán, and Huehuetenango departments. The population of nearly 800,000 is agriculture-based, relying on own production of basic grains and from wages earned on medium and large coffee, cardamom, basic grains, and citrus farms. These farms supply 95 percent of the poorests’ incomes. Quiché’s population also migrates to work on Mexican coffee and sugarcane farms.
Consumption of maize and beans comes mainly from purchases (estimated at 50 percent for maize and 60 percent for beans). Quiché often supplies maize to other departments experiencing shortfalls. As in some other departments, a high population growth rate drives emigration, and legal issues often arise over land tenure.
Many of the same factors contributing to food insecurity in the other highland areas of Guatemala are also true for Quiché, which is located in the Northern transversal strip livelihood zone. Other factors underlying food insecurity include:
• Mountainous terrain, with difficult access and poor road network .
• Investments in productive activities are limited, especially in areas considered dangerous.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 73 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
• Poor/limited infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, sanitation, markets, health, schools, etc.).
• Low community organization to negotiate/implement positive changes.
• In higher altitude areas, only one harvest of staple cereals per year.84
• Reduced access to agricultural inputs, tools, techniques, and technical assistance, which results in low yields and land degradation, especially on hill slopes.
• Poor/scarce infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, sanitation, markets, health, schools, etc.)
• Low community organization to negotiate/implement positive changes.
• Higher-altitude areas only have one harvest of staple cereals per year.85
• El Nino and other recurring weather-related shocks including early frosts negatively impact production output.
• Smallholder farmers employ inadequate land use and practices, such as slash and burn techniques, no mitigation, erosion or natural resource conservation management techniques
Demand
Gross local demand figures are generally unavailable; however, for the purposes of this analysis, an estimate was made based on population size of 769,364 and proportions of the local diet for maize and beans of 14.69 and 2.96 kg per month, respectively, as shown in the table below.
Table 25. Demand for Local Diet Components, Quiché Department* Local Diet Components Total Commodity Demand (MT)
Maize (yellow and white) 135,597
Beans 27,261
Oil 11,736
Source: Serrano, 2004 *Based on a population size of 769,364
84 MFEWS 2009 85 MFEWS, 2009
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 74 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Supply
Food supply is largely grown locally or sourced from Petén and Baja Verapaz as shown in the figure below.
Figure 10. Sources of Food Commodities, Quiché
Sources: MFEWS, 2005 and interviews with Awardees, March 2009
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 75 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex IX. Map of Livelihood Zones and Title II MYAP Coverage
Figure 11. Guatemala Livelihood Zones and Title II MYAP Coverage
Source: FEWS NET, and Awardees
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 76 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex X. Guatemala’s Seasonal Calendar
Figure 12. Guatemala’s Seasonal Calendar
Source: MFEWS
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 77 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex XI. Ongoing Food Aid and Cash Transfer Programs
XI.i. Existing Initiatives Government of Guatemala (GOG) Initiatives
Guatemala has made significant advances in favor of the eradication of poverty and food insecurity since its adoption of Decree 32-3005, National Food Safety and Nutrition Act. This legislative act permitted the provision of new regulations, a State Policy, and a National Strategic Food Security and Nutrition Plan.
On February 12, 2009, the GOG publically presented the results of the Third National Height of First Grade Students in Primary Education Census. While there was a reduction in percent of undernourished children from 48.8 to 45.6, Guatemala continues to rank first in Latin America and fourth worldwide in chronic child malnutrition (height deficit for age). ECLAC and WFP estimate the cost of malnutrition in Guatemala in 2004 was more than US$3 billion.
The Program for the Reduction of Chronic Malnutrition (PRDC) was developed in 2005 and is subject to international consultations held in Washington with World Bank support. PRDC is helping Guatemala implement its Food Security and Nutrition Policy and move towards the Millennium Development Goals by progressively increasing the right to food for the most vulnerable segment of the population.
PRDC is structured on three components directly focused on the mother and child:
3. Basic health services
4. Food and nutrition education
5. Breastfeeding and complementary feeding
Three components to ensure its viability and sustainability targeted to family and community:
1. Community organization
2. Water and basic sanitation
3. Improvement of family finances
The implementation through the Ministry of Health and Welfare began in May 2006 and currently covers 83 municipalities.
The PRDC received renewed support under the new GOG administration for implementation of the Chronic Malnutrition Reduction Strategy (ENRDC). Thus far, its main achievement has been the distribution of complementary food to children under three years old and to pregnant
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 78 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
and lactating mothers. These children and mothers are given VitaCereal, a ration developed by WFP that is composed of a fortified blend of maize (77 percent) and soybeans (23 percent). The GOG is covering a high percentage of families in 107 municipalities with approximately 400 MT per month of VitaCereal.
The GOG also established a Council for Social Cohesion (CCS), led by the First Lady. CCS coordinates social investments in both urban and rural areas. CCS also established a program to support the most vulnerable communities, called Pro-rural. Some programs such as "My Family Progresses" help the poorest families and their local economies through conditional cash transfers. Vouchers of approximately US$40 are given to families as an incentive to send their children to school and local health clinics for checkups and nutritional status records. This program is reported to have reached over 285,000 families in 2008.
CCS also runs a food basket program, Bolsa Solidaria, which provided 22,000 families in urban and suburban areas with basic grain rations to help meet food shortage gaps and avert a food crisis in 2008. In 2009, they expect to increase this number to 50,000 families.
While CCS was intended to reduce infant and child malnutrition, some feel its approach does not conform to internationally-accepted Food Security and Nutrition or Food Rights guidelines or standards. CCS initially focused on 41 municipalities that had been prioritized by the National Planning and Programming Secretariat.
Table 26. CCS Target Municipalities, by Department Dept. Municipality
Alta Verapaz Chisec
Fray Bart. de las Casas
Baja Verapaz Rabinal
Cubulco
Chiquimula San Juan Ermita
Jocotán
Camotán
Olopa
Huehuetenango Cuilco
San Pedro Necta
San Idelfonso Ixtahuacán
La Libertad
La Democracia
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 79 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Dept. Municipality
Tectitán
Aguacatán
Petén Sayaxché
Quiché San Pedro Jocopilas
Cunén
San Andrés Sajcabajá
Sacapulas
San Bart. Jocotenango
San Marcos Concepción Tutuapa
Tacaná
Sibinal
Tajumulco
Tejutla
Ixchiguán
San José Ojetenam
Sololá Sta. Clara La Laguna
Santa Cruz La Laguna
San Pablo La Laguna
San Marcos La Laguna
San Juan La Laguna
Totonicapán Totonicapán
San Cristóbal Toton.
San Francisco El Alto
San Andrés Xecul
Momostenango
Sta. María Chiquimula
Sta. Lucía La Reforma
San Bartolo Aguas Cal
Source: Segeplan 2003
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 80 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Heightened awareness of the malnutrition and commitment to alleviation led to other actors’ involvement in the creation of a Food Rights Watch (Observatorio del Derecho a la Alimentación) in Guatemala. This initiative overlooks actions by the government and other organizations, ensures compliance with the law and policies of food and nutritional security. The Office of the Ombudsman’s annual report records progress and challenges in food security and proposes remedial policies, based on monitoring at the local level by its oversight department.
World Food Programme
The World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that in 2008, Guatemala had the fourth highest rate of chronic malnutrition in the world. Chronic under-nutrition is currently at 49.3 percent among children under five. The worst cases are in rural, highland areas, where an estimated seven out of ten indigenous children under five are malnourished. In rural areas, 70 percent of the population lives in poverty, with the minimum wage covering around 75 percent of the basic food basket. WFP supports 350,000 people through school feeding, productive projects and activities, pre-school feeding, and mother and child healthcare. Disaster prevention and mitigation support is provided through food-for-work and food-for-training activities, training, and vulnerability analysis and mapping (VAM). Together with the national counterparts, WFP carries out the following activities:86
Food for development: Supports 50,000 vulnerable households in remote areas under food- for-work and food-for-training activities. PRRO provides food-for-work for 75,000 people in communities located in areas prone to recurrent natural events.
Pre-school and school meals: 86,000 children and teenagers receive nutritional feeding at rural primary schools, and 12,000 receive feeding at day-care centers. The food is accompanied by nutritional and hygiene training, provided to parents and staff in charge of day- care centers.
Mother and child healthcare: WFP supports the National Strategy for the Reduction of Chronic Malnutrition, which provides basic health services and supplementary food to some 125,000 pregnant and lactating women, and children under 5, to reduce the prevalence of chronic malnutrition in the most affected areas of the country.
Title II Awardees’ MYAPS
The current Title II MYAP is approximately US$14 million, implemented by three Awardees: CRS, SCF, and SHARE. The following map shows their areas of coverage, the majority of which are in the central and western highlands.
86 WFP website
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 81 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Figure 13. Title II MYAP Areas of Coverage
Guatemala: Geographic Areas of PL-480 Title II 2007 - 2011
Cooperating Sponsors: CRS Save the Children SHARE
The table below shows the municipalities and magnitude of beneficiary coverage under the current Title II MYAP.
Table 27. Geographic Areas: PL 480 Title II MYAPs 2007-2011 Population PVO Departments (5) Municipalities (21) # of communities (families) SCF Quiché Chajul 12 2,289 Cotzal 14 2.241 Nebaj 32 4,804 Sacapulas 21 3,769 Cunén 16 3,012 Uspantán 28 2,808 Total 123 18,924 CRS San Marcos Tacaná 55 10,016 Tajumulco 35 3,444 Sibinal 17 1,588 Baja Verapaz Cubulco 65 4,382 Rabinal 28 2,357 San Miguel Chicaj Total 200 21,783 SHARE Guatemala Huehuetenango Santa Bárbara 11 1,494 Nentón 6 1,486 San Antonio Huista 9 1,477 Concepción Huista 6 1,427 Aguacatán 8 1,434 Todos Santos Cuchumatán 7 1,481 Chiantla 8 1,442
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 82 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Population PVO Departments (5) Municipalities (21) # of communities (families) Chimaltenango San Martín Jilotepeque 4 1,884 Tecpán Guatemala 8 1,456 San Juan Comalapa 8 1,430 Total 75 15,011 GRAND TOTAL 398 55,718 Note: Blue-shaded municipalities also receive support from CCS Table 28. FY 2008 MTs PVO/Awardee Direct Distribution Monetization Total in MTs
CRS 2370 3220 5590
SCF 2680 3220 5900
SHARE 2680 3220 5900
TOTAL 7730 9660 17390
Note: Annual Value of Program: US$14million
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 83 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Table 29. Ongoing Food Aid and Cash Transfer Programs Planned Total Actual Number of Number of Program Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Department Awardee Coverage Timing Ration (kcals) duration Per Year To Date
6 municipalities, All year 2007-2011 123 communities, Quiche SCF 18,924 families
2 municipalities, 37 communities, Quiche CCS/WFP/ GOG 6,781 families n/a 2008-2010
(information unavailable at date of Quiche CCS Cash Bonos publication) All year 2008-2010
9,190 MT in commodities programmed for monetization and distribution; but only 3,500 MT in 10,748 commodities obtained families in FY08 due to food SC/COTONEB/M price increase, with 11,600 76,000 OH/MOA 1,736 MT direct (throughout beneficiaries Quiche PROMASA II 123 communities distribution in FY08 2007-2011 program) (end FY08)
(informatio All year n (informati unavailabl FINCA? (information on e at date CARITAS? unavailab (information unavailable at of le at date unavailable at date of publication Alta Verapaz date of publication) of ) publication) publicatio
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 84 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Planned Total Actual Number of Number of Program Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Department Awardee Coverage Timing Ration (kcals) duration Per Year To Date
n)
(informati on unavailab (information le at date unavailable at of CCS/WFP/GOG date of publicatio Alta Verapaz Rations publication) n) 2008-2010
GOG/CCS Cash Alta Verapaz Bonos Bonos All year 2008-2010
3 municipalities, 20 communities, Chimaltenango SHARE 4,770 families All year 2007-2011
(informati (informatio on n unavailab unavailabl (information le at date e at date unavailable at of of CCS/WFP/GOG date of publicatio publication Chimaltenango Rations publication) n) )
(information unavailable at GOG/CCS Cash date of Chimaltenango Bonos publication) All year 2008-2010
7 municipalities, 2007-2011 55 communities, Huehuetenango SHARE 10,241 families All year
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 85 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Planned Total Actual Number of Number of Program Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Department Awardee Coverage Timing Ration (kcals) duration Per Year To Date
1 municipality, 2008-2010 CCS/WFP/GOG 8 communities, Huehuetenango Rations 1,434 families n/a
(information unavailable at GOG/CCS Cash date of Huehuetenango Bonos publication) All year 2008-2010
2 departments, Country-wide CRS 5 municipalities, All year a/o other 200 communities, departments 21,783 families 2007-2011
(informati on unavailab CCS/WFP/GOG 2 departments, le at date Rations 5 municipalities, of 2008-2010 200 communities, publicatio 21,783 families n)
(information unavailable at All year GOG/CCS Cash date of Bonos publication) 2008-2010
WFP Rations (prepared and DEV = 125,876 Nationwide* bought locally) beneficiaries DEV** PRRO = 340,000 2001-2009 PRRO*** beneficiaries All year 2005-2008
Nationwide* 89 municipalities, Mi Familia 285,000 families Started
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 86 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Planned Total Actual Number of Number of Program Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Department Awardee Coverage Timing Ration (kcals) duration Per Year To Date
Progresa (with monthly April 2008 income between $20-$40)
75,000 families (with kids 0-6 yrs old living in major chronic malnutrition areas) Nationwide* Bono nutricional Costs Q200,000 (planned) per year 2008
Ration:
10 lbs of black beans (4,536g)
22,000 families 10 lbs of rice (4,536g) (living in urban and peri-urban 1 gallon of oil (4,540g) areas, but pilots in rural areas) 5 lbs of CSB (2,268g) Nationwide* 50,000 families 5 lbs of corn flour 2008 and Bolsas solidarias (planned for 2009) (2,268g) 2009
WFP Basic 40,000 Nationwide* Activity 1: beneficiaries Construction of 52,000 MT in (throughout Infrastructure commodities 1998-2002 program)
Nationwide* WFP Basic 16,500 MT in 62,500 Activity 2: Soil and commodities 1998-2002 beneficiaries Water (throughout
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 87 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Planned Total Actual Number of Number of Program Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Department Awardee Coverage Timing Ration (kcals) duration Per Year To Date
Conservation program)
WFP Basic 20,000 Nationwide* Activity 3: Basic beneficiaries Education for 4,000 MT of (throughout Women commodities 1998-2002 program)
WFP Supplementary Activity 1: 10,000 Nationwide* Returnees and beneficiaries Displaced 1,700 MT of (throughout Persons commodities 1998-2002 program)
WFP Supplementary 20,000 Nationwide* Activity 2: beneficiaries Prevention of 4,500 MT in (throughout Natural Disasters commodities 1998-2002 program)
WFP 20,200 Nationwide* Supplementary beneficiaries Activity 3: Pre- 4,000 MT of (throughout school Children commodities 1998-2002 program)
Note: * Includes data for departments included above. ** DEV = Development Program *** PRRO = Protracted Relief and Recovery Operations
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 88 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex XII. Contacts
Tel: Tel: Name Title Organization Address office mobile E-mail Website
Secretaria Presidential de Seguridad Alimentaria y 2411 Nutricional 14 Calle 8-51 Zona 1900 Ext. Aguilar, Juan Secretario SESAN 10 112 [email protected] 13 Calle 3-40, Z. 10 Edif. Atlantis 502 2363 Aguilar, Lorena Country Director MFEWS Nivel 10 2620/27 [email protected] www.fews.net Encargado de Santa Bárbara, Alonzo, Rony Bodega local Sadegua - Share Huehuetenango 3a. Av 13-78 Z. 10 Alvarado, Especialista Torre Citigroup 2379 Nohora Social BID Nivel 10 9393 [email protected] Secretaria Presidential de Seguridad Alimentaria y 2411 Advisor to Nutricional 14 Calle 8-51 Zona 1900 Ext. Alvarez, Dr. Secretary SESAN 10 112 [email protected] Gerente de Programas Alvarez, Seguridad 1ra Avenida 8-00, 2360 [email protected] Roberto Alimentaria CARE/Guatemala Z. 9 4949 rg Gerente de Programas Seguridad 1a Calle 21-19, Z. 2369 Arias, Rodrigo Alimentaria Save the children 15 V.H. II 6767 [email protected] INE - Índices y 8 calle y 10 av. 2232- Arroyo, Luis Director Estadísticas zona 1, Guatemala 2870
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 89 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Tel: Tel: Name Title Organization Address office mobile E-mail Website
Continuas Food Security Kms. 6.5 Final 502 2422 5709 Asturias, Julia Specialist USAID/Guatemala Blvd. Los Proceres 4000 8160 [email protected] [email protected] Dairy/Milk 502 5966 [email protected] Ayace, Valesca Consultant 5653 om Oficial de Programas- 5a. Avenida 5-55, Barillas, Seccion Z. 14 Euro Plaza 502 2384- [email protected] www.delgtm.ec.europa.e Claudia Cooperacion Union Europea Torre II, Nivel 17 2500 a.eu u ASODEFOR & 6634 Ex-Minister of Federacion de 8376 Barrientos, Agriculture Coop. Agric. de 7a. Ave. 6-41, Z. 3 2435 5403 Edin Gerente Guatemala 2a Calle 16-60 Z. 4 5790 7855 [email protected] Área de Información en 7a. Avenida 12-90 Coordinador Seguridad zona 13, 546501 Berges, Mynor general Alimentaria-Maga Guatemala 56 Diag. 6 11-97 Z.10 Centro Bousquet, Internationales, 2362 5304 Anne Country Director CRS/Guatemala Nivel 2 2173 9441 [email protected] Coordinador regional de Bosques de Linda Cabrera, observatorios Acción contra el Villa, zona 7 , Roberto SAN hambre Guatemala, ciudad 24394117 13 C. 8-44 Z. 10 Carcamo, World Food Edif. Edyma Plaza 2333 americajose.carcamo@wf America Program Fl. 4 Of. 400 5928 p.org Cardona, Advisor to Vice- Ministry of 5813 Danilo Minister Agriculture 7a Av. 12-90 Z.13 4131 Santa Bárbara, 535450 Castillo, Osciel Monitor Municipal Sadegua - Share Huehuetenango 51
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 90 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Tel: Tel: Name Title Organization Address office mobile E-mail Website
Economist, former USAID/Guatemala Chacon, Carlos FSN [email protected] Chamale, National FAO/Guatemala 2361- 5761 Mario Enrique Coordinator PESA/PESANN 7a. Av. 12-41, Z. 9 2222 1441 [email protected] www.fao.org.gt Av. Reforma 6-64 Z. 9 Plaza 2323 Gerente de Corporativa, Torre 0202 Ext. debora.cobar@plan- www.plan- Cobar, Debora Programas Plan Guatemala I, Nivel 6 2246 international.org international.org INE - Estadísticas Encargado Hoja Continuas - Hoja 8 calle y 10 av. 2232- Coch, Henry de Balance de Balance zona 1, Guatemala 3405 De Chacon, Asistente de Empresa Puerto Barrios, 7720 Zaida Gerencia Portuaria Nacional Izabal 4040 de Mendez, Mi Familia Ana Directora Progresa Delegado SESAN Diaz, Milton Departamental Chilmaltenango Chimaltenango Secretaria Presidential de Seguridad Coordinador de Alimentaria y Escobar M., Disponibilidad Nutricional 14 Calle 8-51 Zona 2411 5482 [email protected] Edgar E. Alimentaria SESAN 10 1900 7867 .gt Esquivel, Inlacsa (502) 66 Alejandro Gerente General Guatemala 20 96 96 Acting Country 7 Av. 12-90 Z. 13 2472 Estrada, Mynor Representative FAO/Guatemala Edif. Infoagro Fl 1 4279 C.A. Regional 202 473 Frigenti, Laura Director The World Bank WashDC 6768 Ex-Director, Garcia, Clara Securidad 2361 5202 Aurora Alimentaria CARE/Guatemala 1 Av. 8-00 Z.9 0905 4419
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 91 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Tel: Tel: Name Title Organization Address office mobile E-mail Website
Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la 7a. Avenida 12-41, Agricultura y la Z. 9 Edific. ETISA, García, Técnico Nacional Alimentación Sotano, 2361 5709 Gustavo Milpa (FAO) Guatemala 2222 4979 [email protected] www.fao.org.gt Plan Guatemala Research Maxwell School of Coban, Alta 315 350 Gneiting, Uwe Associate Syracuse Univ. Verapaz 6447 [email protected] Av. Reforma 6-64 Z. 9 Plaza Gomez, Corporativa, Torre 2323 ricardo.gomez@plan- www.plan- Ricardo Country Director Plan Guatemala I, Nivel 6 0202 international.org international.org Gutierrez, Gerente de Coban, Alta 5306 Antonio Programas Plan Guatemala Verapaz 7084 Director Hernández, Administrativo Santa Cruz del Antonio Financiero Save the children Quiché, el quiche Av. Reforma 7-01, 502 2332 Hoff, Robert Counselor FAS/Guatemala Z. 10 4030 [email protected] Director, Planificacion, 2411 Lee, Juan Monitoreo y 14 Calle 8-51 Zona 1900 Ext. [email protected] Enrique Evaluacion SESAN 10 112 [email protected] aldea Xecantilil, Madre Guía aldea Madre Guía aldea Sacapulas , El Lorenzo, Felisa Xecantilil Xecantilil Quiche Presidenta Presidenta aldea Xetabal, Lorenzo, Isabel COSAN aldea COSAN aldea Sacapulas , El Santiago Xetabal Xetabal Quiche (502) Mazariegos, 2476 Luis Gerente General Arrozgua 6986
Mejía, Jaime Director INE - Censos y 8 calle y 10 av. 2232-
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 92 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Tel: Tel: Name Title Organization Address office mobile E-mail Website
Roberto Encuestas zona 1, Guatemala 2870 Monzón, MAGA - 7 av. 12-90 zona Rovoham Laboratorio SIG Laboratorio SIG 13, Guatemala 2333 13 C. 8-44 Z. 10 5928 Navarro, Gerente de World Food Edif. Edyma Plaza 2333 www.wfp.org/latinoameri Carlos Logisticas Program Fl. 4 Of. 400 6206 [email protected] ca Negreros, Jefe de Sala de Empresa Puerto Barrios, 7720 Mauro Controles Portuaria Nacional Izabal 4040 Canton Reforma Callejon Ismatul, Casa No. 8 Director of San Lucas 7828 tnelson@shareguatemala. Nelson, Tobin Development SHARE Sacatepequez 2626 org San Lucas Sacatepéquez , 5768- Nelson, Tobin Director Nacional Share Guatemala Sacatepéquez 6011 Nilsestuen, Kms. 6.5 Final Wayne Mission Director USAID/Guatemala Blvd. Los Proceres [email protected] Gremial de Productores de 502 2332 Orrego, Nerian Gerente General Leche 4160 [email protected] Jefe de Unidad de Empresa Puerto Barrios, 7720 Ortiz, Ramiro Desarrollo Portuaria Nacional Izabal 4040 Seguridad SESAN Pablo Alimentaria Chilmaltenango Chimaltenango 2333 Gerente 13 C. 8-44 Z. 10 5928 Seguridad World Food Edif. Edyma Plaza 2333 www.wfp.org/latinoameri Palma, Irma Alimentaria Program Fl. 4 Of. 400 6206 [email protected] ca Diag. 6 10-01 Z.10 Gerente de Centro Gerencial Paredes, Auntos Las Margaritas, 2338 [email protected]. www.grupoprogreso.com Graco Corporativos Grupo Progreso Torre 2, Nivel 3 9100 gt .gt
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 93 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Tel: Tel: Name Title Organization Address office mobile E-mail Website
5a. Avenida y 8 Pérez, Encargado de calle, zona 9, 2360 Armando Flujos de Mercado Upie-Maga Guatemala 4425 Jefe de Sección 5a. Avenida y 8 de Precios y calle, zona 9, 2360 Pineda, Hiram Estadísticas UPIE -Maga Guatemala 4425 Program Pocasangre, Management Kms. 6.5 Final 2422 Ana Specialist USAID/Guatemala Blvd. Los Proceres 4336 [email protected] Rakas, Deputy Mission Kms. 6.5 Final 2422 Rosemary Director USAID/Guatemala Blvd. Los Proceres 4336 [email protected] Puerto Barrios, Jefe del Centro de Izabal, Oficinas 7720 Ramirez, Formación Empresa frente a la Iglesia 4040 Ext. eramirez10@santotomasp www.santotomasport.co Edwin Portuaria Portuaria Nacional Catolica 1851 ort.com.gt m.gt Federacion de Recinos, Julio Coop. Agric. de 2435 Cesar Gerenete General Guatemala 2a Calle 16-60 Z. 4 5790 2da. Calle 5-40 Z. 3 Local 212 Plaza Robles, Coordinator de Asturias, Coban, 5861 5861 Gustavo Proyectos ASODIV A.V. 2982 2982 [email protected] Diag. 6 11-97 Z.10 Gerente, Diseno, Centro Rodriguez, Monitoreo y Internationales, 2362 Monica Evaluacion CRS/Guatemala Nivel 2 2173 [email protected] Av Las Americas 22-24 Z. 14 Edif Roehrs, Director AgroAmerica, 2285- 4211 [email protected] Bernardo Corporativo AgroAmerica Nivel 8 4100 3474 m Director, Program Planning and USAID/Guatemala Kms. 6.5 Final 2422 Rojas, Ernest Support EG Blvd. Los Proceres 4336 [email protected] www.usaid.gov/gt
Rosas, Coordinadora, Ministry of Health
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 94 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Tel: Tel: Name Title Organization Address office mobile E-mail Website
Gabriela PROSAN Diag. 6 11-97 Z.10 Gerente Centro Sagastume, Administrativa y Internationales, 2362 Emilse de Logistica CRS/Guatemala Nivel 2 2173 [email protected] USAID Conservation of 16 Calle entre 12 y C.A. Watersheds 13 Av. Puerto 7948 4218 [email protected] Saito, Claudio Chief of Party Program Barrios, Izabal 7841 0256 [email protected] 2232- Salazar, Cooperacion Secretaria de 6212 Ext. Freddie Internacional Planificacion 315 Program USAID/Guatemala Kms. 6.5 Final 2422 Salazar, Lucia Specialist PPS Blvd. Los Proceres 4336 [email protected] Encargado de Salguero, Bodega Huehuetenango, 4013- William Huehuetenango Share Guatemala Huehuetenango 5118 2333 13 C. 8-44 Z. 10 5928 Schmitt, Karin Oficial de World Food Edif. Edyma Plaza 2333 www.wfp.org/latinoameri Antje Programas Program Fl. 4 Of. 400 6206 [email protected] ca La Bendicion, Pochuta, Sonia Health technician Ministry of Health Chimaltenango Cantón Reforma, Callejón Ismatul, Casa No. 8, San Encargado de Lucas 2858 Sujuy, Marvin logística Share Guatemala Sacatepequez 2626 502 2332 Food Aid Av. Reforma 7-01, 4030 Tay, Karla Specialist FAS/Guatemala Z. 10 x4533 [email protected] Secretaria de Empresa Puerto Barrios, 7720 Tenas, Cecy Gerencia Portuaria Nacional Izabal 4040
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 95 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Tel: Tel: Name Title Organization Address office mobile E-mail Website
aldea Xetabal, Sacapulas , El 538993 Toño, Augusto Monitor de Campo Save the children Quiche 01 Delegada SESAN, Coban Coban, Alta Tot, Aurelia Departamental Alta Verapaz Verapaz Granos Basicos, MAGA, Coban, 5732 Tot, Franklin Coordinador MAGA Alta Verapaz 3305 [email protected] Zepeda, 1ra Avenida 8-00, 2360 Alejandro Country Director CARE/Guatemala Z. 9 4949 [email protected]
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 96 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
Annex XIII. Bibliography
Barcena, A. 2008. Panorama social de America Latina. CEPAL.
Espíndola, E., et. al. 2005. Poverty, hunger and food security in Central America and Panama. Politicas Sociales series, No. 88. ECLAC.
García Corzantes, A.G. 2009. Monitoreo sobre la reserva, precio y mercado del maíz y frijol con familias de las comunidades donde se ejecutan los proyectos apoyados por FAO- Guatemala. PESANN/MAGA/SESAN/FAO.
Inter-American Development Bank. 2007. The IDB in Guatemala. InterAmerican Development Bank. Washington, DC.
Meso-American Food Security Early Warning System (MFEWS). 2009. Guatemala: Perfiles de medios de vida.
MFEWS. 2005. Perfiles de medios de vida. Guatemala.
Marini, A. and M. Gragnolati. 2003. Malnutrition and Poverty in Guatemala. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. No. 2967. World Bank: Washington, DC.
Martinez, R. and A. Fernandez. 2006. Modelo de análisis del impacto social y economico de la desnutrición infantil en America Latina. Division de Desarrollo Social, Serie Manuale. No. 52. CEPAL.
Ross, J.S. 1996. PROFILES guidelines: Calculating the effects of malnutrition on economic productivity and survival. Mimeo. Academy for Educational Development: Washington, DC.
SCN (United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition). 2004. Fifth Report on the World Nutrition Situation: Nutrition for Improved Development Outcomes. SCN: Geneva.
Serrano, J. and I. Goni. 2004. Effects of black bean Phaseolus vulgaris consumption on the nutritional status of Guatemalan population. British Journal of Nutrition. 91 (1): 3-4 9153, 2, 16, 9153.
Shekar, M, et. al. 2006. Repositioning nutrition as central to development, a strategy for large- scale action. World Bank.
USAID. 2003. Guatemala Country Plan. Regional Strategy for Central America and Mexico FY 2003-2008. Volume 2: Annex E.
USDA. 2009. Agriculture Developments. Caribbean-Central America Profile.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 97 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
USDA Foreign Agriculture Service. 2007. Guatemala Agricultural Situation GAIN Report. No. GT7002. Global Agriculture Information Network.
World Bank. 2008. Agriculture for Development. World Development Report. World Bank: Washington, DC.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 98 Prepared by Fintrac Inc.
USAID OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE
GUATEMALA
BELLMON ESTIMATION
August 2009 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Fintrac Inc.
BEST ANALYSIS – GUATEMALA 99