Category: Business

 

– In 2019, Tropical Cyclones Idai and Kenneth devastated the Southern African region. Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe were the hardest hit as they bore the heaviest brunt with fatalities, damages and destruction of property, settlements, energy infrastructure, agricultural crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries and wildlife caused by the intense flooding and severe winds associated with the Cyclones.

This week in the Malawian capital of Lilongwe, the ACPC is organising a workshop to validate a crop capability mapping tool developed to enhance the forecasting capacities of relevant sectors in the three countries. Among the core purposes of the validation workshop is incorporating input from key stakeholders in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe on how the tool can be strengthened and packaged for uptake and use by stakeholders.

The devastation wrought on the three countries in the eye of the storm prompted high-level intervention to prepare for disasters and forestall livelihood losses in future. The response saw the continent’s lead climate think-tank, the African Climate Policy Centre (ACPC) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) approached to lead in preparing the affected countries to facilitate the uptake of an effective and comprehensive multi-hazard early warning early action system.

According to Dr James Murombedzi who heads the ACPC, the cyclones that pummelled the region triggered the convening of a “Building Back Better” workshop in late 2019 in concert with the governments of Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe with a view to assist them to integrate climate information services in their reconstruction plans. “The core outcome of the Building Back Better workshop was a request to ACPC to develop a study to demonstrate how investments in climate information services in the agriculture sector could contribute to building resilience of the sector to extreme, high impact climate events.” Murombedzi recalls.

The ACPC implemented the request and successfully demonstrated the Socio-Economic Benefits (SEB) of Climate Information Services to Disaster Risk Reduction. According to Murombedzi, ACPC commissioned a study to extend this model from the disaster risk reduction sector (DRR) to agriculture, focusing on Zimbabwe, with the intention of replicating the intensive studies to Malawi and Mozambique. Murombedzi says the study culminated in a report titled “Socio-Economic Benefits of Climate Information Services for Zimbabwe Agriculture” which explored how the southern African country can benefit from an early warning and early action system based on the available climate information services.

“The outcomes of the ‘Building Back Better’ reconstruction workshop followed by the Zimbabwean case study offered useful insights that compelled the ACPC to launch a second phase evidence-based study seeking to develop seasonal crop capability maps for the agriculture sectors of Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe.” Murombedzi says. “This initiative has now developed a tool for agriculture policy makers in the three countries to translate the seasonal and sub-seasonal forecasts, which tend to be cast in very general terms, into specific maps detailing the implications for crop production in specific agro-ecological zones of their countries.”

The three-day Lilongwe workshop amalgamates the milestones since 2019 and combines with the ACPC-led study which seeks to enhance climate forecasting capacities through a training programme in the select countries to better inform adaptation and resilience in agriculture and other climate sensitive sectors.

Mr Murombedzi says the Lilongwe validation workshop signifies the completion of the study and is organised to validate the study’s findings and make recommendations for uptake and use of the crop capability modelling tool by policy makers at all levels.

Mr Frank Rutabingwa of the ACPC acknowledges that the aims of the study were geared towards improving the forecasting and information interpretation capacities of policymakers and user communities for strategic provisioning of appropriate inputs to the agriculture and food security sectors.

“Despite rapid technological progress in the generation of climate information services, much of the weather and agro-meteorological information is not used by small-holder farmers. There is need to develop a series of simple and robust scientific tools, methods, and services that can guide planning and policy to better understand climate impacts on food security and livelihoods.” Rutabingwa says. “The interface between scientists who generate products and end-users is essential for achieving optimum agricultural productivity on seasonal and long-term basis. Thus, climate information services in agriculture needs to integrate feedback and inputs from agricultural support services, institutions, suppliers, local cooperatives or community-based organizations in order to help farmers to make practical, feasible and relevant decisions.”

According to Rutabingwa embedded goals include recommendations on enhancing the capacity for improved production, better access and sustainable operations for climate information service as well as the development of a methodology for predicting crop capability in the various agro-ecological and rainfall zones in order to enrich agricultural productivity and food security.

The Lilongwe workshop continues ACPC’s core objective of cementing climate information services in the continent’s agriculture sector, with the aim of providing a full range of advisories regarding climate and its impacts on crops, livestock, fisheries and management practices to build resilience. ACPC studies show that well-tailored information assists stakeholders in making management decisions to reduce the risks and benefit from opportunities available in a changing climate.

 

 

Source: UN Economic Commission for Africa

KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

• The proportion of households relying on purchase as the main source of food at the household level was 34.5 percent, which is 20.6 percentage points lower than the 55.1 percent recorded same time last year. The proportion of households relying on purchase as the main source of food is higher than the 33.2 percent in the first half of September. The southern region recorded the highest proportion of households relying on purchase as the main source of food estimated at 48.2 percent.

• In households owning any type of livestock, the proportion of households reporting suspected livestock diseases was 23.1 percent which is similar to the 23.1 percent in the first half of September and slightly lower than the 25.5 percent at the same time last year. The southern and northern regions recorded the highest proportion of households reporting livestock diseases estimated at 25.9 percent in the southern region and 25.8 percent in the northern region.

• The proportion of households involved in fishing related livelihoods activities was 1.8 percent down from 2.0 percent in the first half of September but lower than the 3.6 percent same time last year. The northern region recorded the highest proportion of households involved in fishing related activities (3.6 percent same as 3.7 percent). Households involved in fishing related activities reporting some suspected fish diseases was 25.3 up from 23.1 percent in the first half of September but lower than the 53.5 percent same time last year. The northern region continues to register the highest proportion of households reporting some suspected fish diseases (40.6 percent down from 52.6 percent in the first half of September).

• The average price of maize per kg was MK146.24, which is lower than the MK180.00/kg same time last year. The average maize price is slightly lower than the MK147.29/kg in the first half of September first half of September. The southern region continued to record the highest average maize prices per kg at MK163.8, which is lower than the MK202.8/kg same time last year.

• The average crop prices per kg were MK716.71 up from MK673.41 for rice, MK831.37 up from MK727.25 for groundnuts, MK491.44 up from MK438.89 for Irish potatoes compared to same time last year.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

• The proportion of households relying on purchase as the main source of food at the household level was 37.5 percent, which is 20.5 percentage points lower than the 58.0 percent recorded same time last year but higher than the 34.5 percent reported in the second half of September 2021. The southern region recorded the highest proportion of households relying on purchase as the main source of food (50.8 percent down from 69.4 percent reported in the same time last year but higher than the 48.2 percent reported in the second half of September 2021).

• Among households owning any type of livestock, the proportion of households reporting suspected livestock diseases was 20.5 percent, which is lower than the 26.4 percent recorded same time last year and is also lower than the 23.1 percent recorded in the second half of September 2021. The southern region recorded the highest proportion of households reporting livestock diseases estimated at 24.6 percent down from 25.9 percent reported in the in the second half of September 2021.

• The proportion of households involved in fishing related livelihoods activities was 1.7 percent down from 3.5 percent same time last year and is also slightly down from 1.8 percent reported in the second half of September 2021. The northern region recorded the highest proportion of households involved in fishing related activities (3.3 percent down from 3.6 percent). Households involved in fishing related activities reporting some suspected fish diseases was 24.6 percent, which is lower than the 29.7 percent reported same time last year and is also lower than the 25.3 percent reported in the second half of September 2021. The northern region continues to register the highest proportion of households reporting some suspected fish diseases (54.5 percent up from 40.6 percent recorded in the second half of September 2021).

• The average price of maize per kg was MK148.72, which is lower than the MK178.44/kg same time last year. The average maize price is higher than the MK146.24/kg reported in the second half of September 2021. The southern region continued to record the highest average maize prices per kg at MK165.00, which is lower than the MK202.2/kg recorded during the same period last year.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Congressional Democrats this week proposed an addition to U.S. President Joe Biden’s climate and social spending legislation that would allow Medicare, the federal government’s health care program for older Americans, to negotiate with drugmakers over the cost of certain prescription medications.

U.S. consumers pay higher prices for prescription medications than almost any of their peers in the developed world, a fact that generations of politicians and advocates have struggled in vain to change. If passed, the proposal working its way through Congress would make a dent, though a relatively small one, in that long-standing problem.

The plan being discussed would give Medicare officials the ability to negotiate pricing on a sliver of the thousands of prescription medications on the market in the United States, beginning with about 10 drugs and capped at 20. Liberal members of Congress at first had hoped to grant Medicare authority to negotiate the prices of up to 250 costly drugs every year.

Though small, the number of drugs that would be covered by the proposal represents a disproportionate amount of the annual “spend” on drugs by Medicare patients.

A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation released this year determined that the 10 top-selling drugs covered under Medicare Part D accounted for 16% of net total spending in 2019. The top 50 drugs — representing just 8.5% of all drugs covered under the program — accounted for 80% of spending.

The top 10 drugs, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation include “three cancer medications, four diabetes medications, two anticoagulants and one rheumatoid arthritis treatment.”

Confusing system

Unlike many countries outside the U.S., where the government is able to negotiate drug prices and bring down the cost for a single national health care system, the landscape in the U.S. is highly fragmented. Most Americans with health insurance are covered by policies issued by for-profit companies in the private sector.

Americans 65 years and older are eligible for Medicare, which takes the place of a private insurer, but with some critical differences. For many years, Medicare did not offer prescription drug coverage, forcing Medicare patients to pay for medications out of pocket or seek third-party insurance coverage for their medications.

In 2003, Congress created Medicare Part D, under which private insurers offered medication coverage that met minimum requirements established by the federal government. While that program reduced costs for many seniors, cost-sharing provisions and design flaws mean that many recipients continue to face financially crippling bills for medication. A key reason is that each insurance provider must negotiate prices with drug companies individually, rather than using the bargaining power of the entire Medicare population to insist on lower costs.

‘Subsidizing R&D for the world’

For years, advocates for change have pointed out that drug companies set prices in the U.S. far above those in other countries in which they sell the same drugs. A study by the Rand Corporation this year comparing the U.S. with 32 other countries found that drugs cost on average 256% more in the U.S.

“American consumers are subsidizing the R&D for the world,” said Lovisa Gustafsson, vice president of the Controlling Health Care Costs program at the Commonwealth Fund, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Compounding the problem is that Americans also shoulder a much greater share of the cost for their prescription medications.

“Patients in the U.S. face far higher cost-sharing than in a lot of other countries. So, just because they have insurance doesn’t mean that patients can actually afford the drugs that they need currently,” Gustafsson said. “There’s survey after survey showing that 20% to 25% of Americans can’t afford the drugs they’re prescribed by their physician, or split pills, or don’t get the prescription filled, because they just can’t afford it. And that’s even when they have insurance.”

Putting a lid on costs

An important element of the proposal before Congress is that it would place an annual cap of $2,000 on the co-payments that Medicare patients can be charged for their medications.

The prospect of a cap on out-of-pocket costs was well-received by many calling for reforms, such as AARP, a large advocacy group for older Americans.

“There’s no greater issue affecting the pocketbooks of seniors on Medicare than the ever-increasing costs of prescription drugs,” AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins said in a statement. “For decades, seniors have been at the mercy of Big Pharma. Allowing Medicare to finally negotiate drug prices is a big win for seniors. Preventing prices from rising faster than inflation and adding a hard out-of-pocket cap to Part D will provide real relief for seniors with the highest drug costs.”

Drug firms unhappy

PhRMA, a powerful trade group representing the pharmaceuticals industry, reacted unhappily to news of the proposal.

“If passed, it will upend the same innovative ecosystem that brought us lifesaving vaccines and therapies to combat COVID-19,” PhRMA President and CEO Stephen J. Ubl said in a statement. “Under the guise of ‘negotiation,’ it gives the government the power to dictate how much a medicine is worth and leaves many patients facing a future with less access to medicines and fewer new treatments.”

“While we’re pleased to see changes to Medicare that cap what seniors pay out of pocket for prescription drugs, the proposal lets insurers and middlemen like pharmacy benefit managers off the hook when it comes to lowering costs for patients at the pharmacy counter,” Ubl continued. “It threatens innovation and makes a broken health care system even worse.”

Industry claims exaggerated?

Numerous supporters of allowing the government to negotiate on drug prices claim that the industry’s insistence that it will stymie innovation is exaggerated.

One piece of evidence they point to is a study released by the Congressional Budget Office in August. The CBO created a model in which pharmaceutical companies were faced with the following scenario: A policy is put in place that reduces the return on their most profitable drugs by 15% to 25%.

The agency estimated that the impact would be a reduction of the number of new drugs coming onto the market by only one-half of 1% over the first 10 years of the new policy. That would increase to as much as an 8% reduction in the first three decades of the program.

Source: Voice of America

Key Highlights

• The Survival Minimum Expenditure Baskets (SMEBs) continue to rise across the country. In urban areas, the SMEB has marginally increased by 0.1 percent, while in rural areas of the Northern and Central Regions it increased by over 6.5 percent. Households in the rural Southern Region experienced a 4.5 percent increase in their expenditure. It is expected that the baskets will continue to increase in the coming weeks as the 2021/2022 lean season approaches.

• Maize grain is trading at the Government’s minimum farmgate price for the first time since April this year. During the current round, maize grain is trading at MK 151 per kg, slightly above the recommended MK 150 per kg minimum price.

• Beans are selling at MK 1,041 per kg, a record high price in the last six months. The price of beans jumped from an average of MK 1,000 per kg in the previous month to MK 1,041 per kg in the current month, representing a 4.1 percent increase.

• The prices of cowpeas and pigeon peas have increased by 5.9 percent and 15.5 percent, respectively, since August 2021. Between the last half of August and the first half of September 2021, the price of cowpeas increased from MK 592 per kg to MK 627 per kg. During this same period, pigeon pea prices rose from MK 458 per kg to MK 528 per kg.

Source: World Food Programme

Consumer rights groups in Malawi are calling on the government to roll back or reduce a recent fuel price increase they say the average Malawian cannot afford. President Lazarus Chakwera said this week he was concerned with the 22 percent increase but stressed that it was the result of rising petroleum prices globally.

Sylvester Namiwa, executive director for the Center for Democracy and Economic Development Initiatives, one of the groups demanding government action on the increase, said the higher price has come at the wrong time.

“Fuel price hike is coming at a time when Malawians are already struggling to make ends meet due to punitive taxes, levies and high interest rates,” he said. “As a result, this has pushed up the price for basic services and amenities, for example, cooking oil, water, transport, even airtime for mobile phones.”

Namiwa said officials could scrap levies attached to fuel, which drive prices even higher.

“I am saying every liter of fuel in Malawi has eight levies in total on top of tax. Now it is time that we should take away some of these levies that are unjustifiable. Out of eight levies we have a road levy. But if you go around Malawi there is no construction of a road that is funded through this levy,” Namiwa said.

The Malawi Energy Regulatory Authority said in a statement this week that the price change was in response to a global rise in fuel costs — an explanation echoed by Chakwera.

The regulatory body also cited a recent depreciation of Malawi’s currency, the kwacha, against the international currencies like the U.S. dollar and the British pound.

Gospel Kazako, Malawi’s government spokesperson, told reporters at a press conference Tuesday that the government is taking measures that will strengthen the value of Malawi’s currency.

“As of now we are increasing exports that would help beef up our foreign reserves as well as preventing our local current from depreciating,” he said.

So far, there have been no public protests against the price increase.

Rights campaigner Namiwa said his organization will take action should the government fail to ease the impact of the increase on the average Malawian. He did not elaborate.

Source: Voice of America