Improving Agricultural Market Performance:
Developing Agricultural Market Information Systems
109
policymakers to monitor MIS and its use in decision-making support for agricultural and trade
policies. The study included a review of literature; an online survey targeting users and
providers of MIS services across the globe; and three cases studies involving field visits. The case
study countries are Egypt, Indonesia and Uganda.
8.1 MAPPING OF MIS: GLOBAL CASES AND IN OICMEMBER COUNTRIES Mapping of MIS in developing countries shows that, as has been the case in many other
developing countries, the systems in OIC member countries have followed a trajectory of
advancing from the mainly government-run First Generation MIS (1GMIS) to the more ICT-
intensive Second Generation (2GMIS). This evolution was driven partly to reduce the cost of
service delivery, especially in the dissemination of information; improve the timeliness of
delivery; and also enhance the accuracy of reported data by minimising human intervention in
data entry and processing. Advances in ICT contributed to the evolution, in particular, it made it
possible to transition from the publication of price information through national radio,
television and newspapers to the more cost-effective vehicles of websites, emails and mobile
telephony. ICT also made it possible to undertake and report on trend analysis and present in
more user-friendly formats than the long price lists which were reported under the 1GMIS.It is evident that the improvements in MIS have been beneficial, especially for governments in
terms of policy actions and plans to manage food security and other developments in the
agricultural sector. This is partly because of two main factors. First, it is possible to fill data gaps
on supply forecasts and stock levels by accessing available regional and international platforms
to which many of the OIC members belong. Second, data analysis capacity is pooled from
national government agencies as well as a network of donor organisations involved in food
security. In many cases, the institutional, as well as legislative framework, exists for ensuring
coordinated action, the most interesting example being Indonesia.However, the anticipated benefits to private sector stakeholders, especially farmers and traders,
appears to be less tangible. Consequently, the impact of MIS appears to be more tangible in the
public sector than in catalysing the development free and efficient agricultural marketing
systems. This situation is attributable, in part, to the fact that the focus of most MIS continues to
be on collecting and disseminating price information, with little or no investment in trend
analysis. Other identified gaps in the information provided include lack of output forecasts and
stock monitoring data which are critical in assessing the supply situation and projecting future
prices. This information is particularly important when market actors have to decide on
delaying the sale of commodities or where lenders are evaluating the request to finance
inventories which are to be sold or used at a future date. Another crucial factor is that
complementarymarket institutions throughwhichwell-informed players can transact (e.g. WRS
and exchanges) are either missing or under-developed in the OIC member countries. In
particular, in the Arab Group countries, the focus on government interventions to moderate
transfer of price shocks for imported strategic grains to the national populations appears to have
diluted incentives to promote private-orientedmarket institutions. Inmany of the African Group
countries, including Uganda, such market institutions have been piloted but remain
underdeveloped. Asian Group examples such as Malaysia demonstrate the benefits from
promoting MIS in tandemwith market institutions. However, where these are developed, export
commodities appear to be more targeted than produce traded mainly in the domestic markets.