 I have a question for each person. So, Phil, you mentioned about green poverty. Now, for farmers in Indiana, it's an issue, you know, productivity growth pushes down prices. Because there, you know, you can represent those farmers just with a function. They produce, they sell. But small farmers in developing many of them are close to self-sufficient in the foods they produce and sell. If prices go down, they're much less likely to be hurt. They may even be advantaged than net food buyers. So, in some simulation work that I've been doing, I've found that really the poverty impacts are frequently not very sensitive to whether food prices rise or fall or don't fall in response. So, that's a question. Is that green poverty? I've not seen it well documented. Cochran's treadmill, but that's in rich countries. Usman, the productivity differences between different sectors, to really come to groups of those, I feel we need to understand why those productivity differences persist. It used to be the sort of the sunk costs model, asset pick city and so on in the rich countries, but what's driving it in Africa? Per your case studies, there must be some really interesting examples there. What I've noticed in some African countries is as though policymakers haven't yet read Amartya Sen's work and they're focusing on availability, they then do the things for which you criticised them. They put on quantitative restrictions, but they don't tell the private sector that they're going to put them on and take them off, great uncertainty and increased volatility as Tom Jane has documented in a number of papers. And Jane, should it be a priority to replace imports? Shouldn't we just be looking for where the big impact is? If we have efficient economies, it's not important whether it's imported or not. What's important is whether it's efficient for its outcome. Innocent Marche, African Economic Research Consortium, director of training. So I would have liked to hear, I mean this is to any one of you, something to do with policy harmonisation or policy coordination. I didn't hear that coming up. I just want to give you a quick example. So we at the ARC with the WFP did something, that was to me very strange in terms of outcome. Basically the WFP, the World Food Program, was buying grains from small order farmers and assuring them basically of a market of quality produce. And what we noticed is that usually the small order farmers would, you would expect they would side sell because they would look for the best. But basically just because there was a guaranteed market, side selling was very low and the quality of the product went up. But that's only because there were ancillary policies that were basically coming together to encourage the small order farmers to market through the channel that was being provided. So I would like to hear a comment on policy coordination or alignment. The question was, your green poverty question, the risk of food prices going down and making producers poor. I understand that, you know, Cochrane's treadmill in rich countries where producers produce and sell everything. But in poor countries many poor farmers are close to self-sufficient. Many, in fact, are net buyers. And in some simulation work I've done, the poverty impacts of productivity growth seem to be quite insensitive to whether food prices stay constant, a small economy case, or whether they go down. Because of this hedging associated with the net food, that's the own consumption of the household. So I'm just wondering, that green poverty concept, is that documented somewhere real cases of that occurring or is that more a conceptual concept? Okay, so it's a real phenomenon in poor countries I would say two examples I'm very familiar with. One of the people I was a colleague with at Purdue was Gabisa Ajita who won the World Food Prize and one of his substantial contributions was improving yields of sorghum, particularly in the Sudan. And he had discovered hybrid sorghum and introduced it in Sudan and there was a period when that happened when production increased enormously over a very short period of time. Prices collapsed. The Sudanese government tried to export surpluses to Saudi Arabia but because of the price collapse, Prime Minister Vandersen's price response mechanism worked and farmers no longer bought the hybrid sorghum. And that was a lesson he learned and it was clearly a problem for that intervention. We've got another colleague, John Sanders, who works on improving production on the farm in Mali and he would see the same thing happen and so one of the things his projects involved was trying to raise poultry production in Mali and the argument he made was that the demand for that was more stable and you can always reduce your poultry production and go back to eating staples if problems arose but that could absorb the extra production of cereals and if you didn't have that, the price would fall. It's not just a problem in developed countries that if you saturate a market, you can drive down prices and you can kill the incentives for interventions. It doesn't always happen and one of the reasons that we essentially emphasize the role of trade is if you open up the economies and allow trade to either get rid of surpluses or fill shortages, it's less likely to happen but it's a real problem that I think people working in this area have to worry about. Thank you, Osman. Okay, I'll be very brief. The question on innocent and policy harmonization, if you get a copy of the PowerPoint, there's a couple of slides on regional trade and what you could do, for example, through policy harmonization to increase the flow and we have some simulation to show by how much you could expand regional trade by just working on those harassment, regulatory bottlenecks and other things across the border. Thanks. The question, I think the difference in productivity reflects the difference in capital stocks and technology and skills in those different sectors and I think that it is to be expected. There you go. Thank you very much. Well, I don't know if policy makers have read the marches in, but if they haven't, they should. But of course, that doesn't really help much if I'm a policy maker confronted with a whole set of other demands and a whole set of constraints and unless we can find win-wins, and one of my win-wins, which is totally unacceptable and either ethical and everything else is to build into every transfer program and every program benefiting low-income people and of corruption. Nutritionists call it leakage. Take for example the public distribution, grain distribution in India where about half of the grain go to the intended beneficiaries and the other half goes who knows where. I think we can probably call that corruption or something like that. But the program actually works. Now do we have to give up half of the benefits? I hope not. There was a program in Colombia when I worked there that was perfectly targeted to low-income rural households and it was to improve nutrition and reduce poverty and it was perfectly targeted. There was virtually no leakage of any kind to anybody who didn't deserve to have it and the new government came in and of course cancelled the program. Why? Because there was no political support for it. Why should we give money to a group of people that has absolutely no political power whatsoever? And by the way we don't know any of them anyway so they're not going to do us any harm. I'm being a little facetious but that was a real project. That wasn't the other question. Of course it's time horizon and while Amatya Sen is absolutely right on in a long-term perspective I'm only elected or appointed or I've appointed myself for a couple of years and you know I'm sorry I'm going to give fertilizer subsidies because they work next year. I'm not going to invest in improved health preschool children because by the time they grow up I'm nowhere else. So the whole set of political economy issues and I can't go into any more because then the chair is going to come after me. The only other thing I want to say on the policy coordination to what my colleague said to Osman said is that when push comes to shove the national government is going to look after the national population or the groups within that are important for the national government. And I'm sorry if the neighboring government the neighboring country is going to suffer I can't really help that. It's no different among individuals by the way. Yes thanks for the question. Obviously I'm not anti-import. Imports are needed in many situations but in the question of wheat for me is it the best use of nine point three billion dollars of foreign exchange for a dietary pattern that may not be in the best interest of the nation. And even if we move a third of that to importing instead of wheat irrigation equipment processing equipment machinery appropriate for the region that improves the productivity of Sub-Saharan African farmers and those products are incorporated into these products. Is that not a win-win? I'd rather you know most wheat in Africa a lot of it comes from Russia. It's nice for Africans to be supporting Russian wheat farmers but I would like to see more emphasis supporting African farmers. It's interesting about the import stuff and most of the number actually is being cited. The 45 billion dollars came from work we did a couple of years ago. You look at imports they've exploded they've grown seven folds when we did the research but now four and a half times but at the same time African exports have grown three times. So we are in a situation where we have an import boom because agriculture is underperforming import boom because of urbanization rising middle class income and population growth. If you take those together they can push demand at a double digit rate. Agriculture as a biological process cannot grow that fast so I'm afraid we're going to have that gap for a while. However what it does is two things we are now capable of feeding people because we can buy more. It used to be maybe in the 90s we couldn't import that much because we were going hungry. So we are getting few people going hungry because we have a larger buying power and bring in imports. And second yes it creates a scope for us to grow into but I think it's less of a problem the way it is looked at and more of a solution and an opportunity in the future. If I were probably just the emphasis on the new value change structure is no longer that village level stuff is really going all the way to Washington DC I can buy those products by the way in Washington DC I can buy those products by the way in Washington DC I can buy those products by the way in Washington DC I can buy those products by the way in Washington DC but I would like just to comment a bit on what Jan said the quality issue, the nutrition issue which is quite important for now I think it's more of a win at least in the case of millet people used to eat something else now they are eating millet which is much healthier and yes we are going to get them to do iron fortified millet but the quality issues food safety issues are going to be emerging and you are right we need to focus on that a little bit more on the health food staple on people's tables in the urban areas which was in the case 20 years ago