Improving Agricultural Market Performance:
Developing Agricultural Market Information Systems
113
however, that if uptake is enhanced and benefits in terms of improvements in agricultural
production, marketing and finance are more tangible then external support may be more
justifiably advocated on the grounds of the ‘public good’ characteristics of market
information.
e. Formal or informal institutional setting can improve coordination among the key
stakeholders: Though the specific case of Indonesia indicates potential benefits from
instituting a formal legislative or regulatory framework to underpin MIS, there does not
appear to be strong demand for replicating this in other countries. Despite that, the
Indonesia case offers important lessons in terms of governance of MIS, which other
countries can learn from, especially where there is a proliferation of platforms with many
of them being dependent to some degree on external funding support. Key among the
governance systems we recommend is setting up specific working groups with
representation from government, providers, key stakeholders and donors. The working
groups should coordinate and rationalise the information collection and dissemination
process in order to optimise efficiency. Furthermore, the quality of information provided
and its relevance to target users should be regularly reviewed.
f. Aligning agricultural trade, market development and food security policies and
implementation can optimise the benefits fromMIS: Pursuit of food security objectives
aimed at moderating short-term food price shocks tends to lead to marginalisation of long-
term agricultural market development goals. Efforts are then concentrated in promoting
MIS and allied public institutions which facilitate governments’ respond to food supply and
price shocks. The downside is marginalisation of actions to develop MIS which meets the
needs of market actors including producers, traders and financiers. Furthermore,
complementary market institutions are underdeveloped, the exception often being in value
chains for strategic agricultural exports. The consequence is inefficient domestic markets
for agricultural produce which lead to dampening of producer incentives and therefore
cannot catalyse sustained output growth in agriculture. This leads to dependence on
imports even if favourable agro-climatic conditions exist as is the case in many of the
African and Asian Groups of OIC member countries. Vulnerability to food supply and price
shocks is deepened, further reinforcing the cycle of short-termmarket interventions which
stifle domestic market development. A major policy shift, which ensures that food security
objectives and long-term market development goals are properly aligned will allow MIS to
become more effective in driving sector performance and reducing national vulnerability
to food insecurity. This option is highly recommended to governments and other
stakeholders.
8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ON MIS MONITORING INDICATORS One method of improving existing MIS is by enhancing the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of
the systems and developing more appropriate monitoring indicators. It has been acknowledged
by many researchers that assessing the impact of MIS is fraught with methodological
complexities. Attribution has been a central challenge (Staatz et al., 2014). The authors of this
report are, however, of the view that effective monitoring and evaluation is important not in
ensuring that the target audience gain the anticipated benefits but also because of the need to
ensure the investments in MIS by governments and donors prove worthwhile. In this regard, we
recommend the following indicators to allow policymakers to monitor MIS: