• Aucun résultat trouvé

Good practices in agricultural risk management in OECD countries

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "Good practices in agricultural risk management in OECD countries"

Copied!
31
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

HAL Id: hal-01208996

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01208996

Submitted on 5 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Good practices in agricultural risk management in OECD countries

Jean Cordier

To cite this version:

Jean Cordier. Good practices in agricultural risk management in OECD countries. Ministry of Agricul- ture, The Ministry of Agriculture of Kazakhstan (MINAGRI). KAZ., Oct 2014, Astana, Kazakhstan.

�hal-01208996�

(2)

Good practices in agricultural risk management in OECD countries

Jean Cordier

Professor Agrocampus Ouest, France

Astana, October 28, 2014

(3)

• un sol

• un climat

• un environnement économique et politique

• A soil

• A climate

• A structure of farms

• An economic environnement with public policies

Agriculture

(4)

The farmer

• His objective = an income today and tomorrow for a fair living standard

• Annual decisions

– What to produce ? How ?

– How to purchase and finance inputs ?

– How to sell production and be guarantee of payments ?

• Investment decisions

– How to improve productivity ?

– How to improve resilience to climate change ? – How to finance investments ?

3

(5)

Risky decisions:

- Production risks (climatic and sanitary risks) - Market risks (input and output price volatility) - Institutional risks (change in public policy)

The farmer

(6)

Climatic risks in the EU: coefficient of variation of wheat yield

Historical wheat yield

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Romania France EU

Linéaire (Romania) Linéaire (France)

=>

Source: Bielza et al. 2008

(7)

Price volatilities

=>

Historical volatility (FAO)

Implicit volatility (FAO)

(8)

Price volatilities:

- exogenous volatility (sypply and demand shocks =

climatic, sanitary, institutional - embargo- but also media crisis) - endogenous volatility (OTC financial market = index ETP with transfer of volatility among financial assets)

Source: Jean Cordier

(9)

Farm income risk:

=>

Normal(60000; 30000)

Valeurs x 10^-5

Valeurs Milliers 0,0

0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

< 5,0% 90,0% 5,0% >

10,7 109,3

Variability: variance σ P 2 , coefficient of variation σ/μ, volatility σ R

Downside risk: Value-at-Risk (i.e. VaR(5%))

(10)

1+2

11 Type de

risque

8 4 7

12a 12b Chiffre

d’Affaire (PxY)

Marge (P-C)

Monoculture 5

9 6

Multiculture

Type de culture 13

10 14 15

16 CA total: 11,1 Mds

Nbred’exploitations:

55 000

CA total: 20,6 Mds Nbred’exploitations: 130 000

CA total: 10,1Mds € Nbred’exploitations:79 000

CA total:10,7 Mds Nbred’exploitations:

83 000

1+2

Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2

Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4

The farm « France »

Fruit trees Main crops Pig Bovine-Milk

Coeff variation 0.74 0.41 0.84 0.39

VaR(5%) -14 200 16 900 -19 700 22 300

Comparative risk of four major segments of the farm France

<=>

Source: Jean Cordier

(11)

Typologie of risks and mapping

(12)

Specific issues on private risk management

• Financial contrats

– reference market: futures markets – Basis risk

– O.T.C. market and derivatives (systemic risk)

• Insurance policies

– Moral hazard => deductible (but not franchise), index (area-based, weather, biological)

– Adverse selection => differentiated tariffs, bonus-malus … mandatory

(13)

Main crops Pig Bovine-Milk

Coeff variation 0.41 0.84 0.39

VaR(5%) 16 900 -19 700 22 300

Which public policy

in agriculture ? ? ?

(14)

Catastrophic risk

« wild »

Normal risk

« wise »

Independent risk Systemic risk

Insurance contracts

Derivative and hybrid contracts

Financial contracts Public safety nets

Fiscal tools for farm income « smoothing » Private risk

market

Cooperative

suppor t

Source: Jean Cordier

(15)

Public safety nets and private risk management instruments

- Need of coordinated measures (to avoid crowding out of private contracts and benefit from « best » risk premium)

- Same parameters to estimate losses including area-based or weather index

- From unitary to combined losses (from yield, market prices, input costs to commodity revenue (YxP), commodity margin (YxP – Operational Costs), whole-farm revenue and margin

= ∑(commodity revenue and margin) => natural risk

diversification

(16)

Source : from Table 3, CBO 2014

Example 1: the US

Estimated spending in the 2014 Farm Bill (except Title IV – Nutrition)

(17)

Example 1: The US safety nets and risk management tools (Farm Bill 2014)

Counter-cyclical programs ARC-PLC, disaster ad-hoc payments, and public reinsurance

- Common policy YP and RP (ex APH, CRC, IP and AR - ARPI (area-based index)

Source: Jean Cordier

(18)
(19)

EU example : the 2014-2020 CAP

- Pillar 1: safety nets (Regulation (EU) n°1308/2013)

- Pillar 2: support to risk management instruments (Regulation (EU) n°1305/2013)

1. support to crop insurance

• 30% of production loss with possibility of deductible buy-up

• use of index allowed since december 2013

2. support to mutual funds dealing with production risks (climatic and sanitary)

3. support to mutual funds dealing with drops in farm

income (Income Stabilisation Tool)

(20)

Positioning of European countries: ex-post versus ex-ante measures

(21)
(22)

Main differences between Ag. Insurance and Mutual Fund

• « external responsibility » versus « internal »

• « choice to insure » versus « obligation to cover »

• « well-known issues » versus « to build solutions »

• « capital insured » versus « rate of coverage »

• « cost of capital » versus « mutualism » + mutual insurance

• « reinsurance » versus « various solutions »

• « international regulation » versus « national-local regulation »

(23)

Example 2: France within the European Union

(and the CAP 2014-2020)

(24)

The organization of mutual funds in France (1)

(25)

The organization of mutual funds in France (2)

(26)

Example 3: Spain within the European Union

Source: Jean Cordier

(27)
(28)

Insurance premiums and indemnities (€)

0 100.000.000 200.000.000 300.000.000 400.000.000 500.000.000 600.000.000 700.000.000 800.000.000

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

PLAN

E U R O S

PRIMAS NETAS PERIODIF.(*) EUROS INDEMNIZACIONES Y GASTOS (*) EUROS

Source: CCS

(29)

Catastrophic Risk

Normal Risk

Independent Systemic Risk

Hail, storm, accident, etc.

insurance contracts

- spot markets - spot marketing strategies

2 1

3

Example 4: Country X within the European Union

(30)

The WTO issue:

The US

The EU

(31)

Public policies have major impacts on farm risk management

– Market support and support to risk management instruments is different.

Market regulation is usually inducing farm support in developed countries =>

creating institutional risk

– Support on-farm risk management (prevention measures, product diversification,

– Completeness of instruments

• Risk assessment is required for defining catastrophic events => design of safety nets

• Development of the private risk market (finance and insurance)

Financial market support

– Support reference markets (organized and/or OTC markets) – Develop public information to reduce information asymetry – Control systemic risk and support means for market integrity

Insurance market support

– Develop information and data base

– Insurable versus non insurable risks (national Commission) – Support mutualism as a basic principle of insurance

Research, education, training (Universities, extension and advisory services)

Conclusion

Références

Documents relatifs

Abstract : This paper shows that temperance is the highest order risk preferences condition for which spreading N independent and unfair risks provides the highest level of welfare

It seem that the subjectivist account is not really able to make sense of perceptual experience as openness to the world, as the mind- independent object of

In the context of the IMAGINE methodology, the expected DMN benefits can be classi- fied in three categories, namely Time savings, Cost reduction and Enhancement of

Perceived impact on food availability and income and frequency of the hazards per farm type: High Resource Endowed farms with a Large Herd or HRE-LH.. (n = 27), High Resource

Oil palm is a native of the central African region, and has been cultivated in Cameroon since times immemorial to produce cooking oil, palm wine, and soap.. As a

Sur la base de cette observation, un neu- rone ` a d´ echarge pr´ esentant une r` egle de modification du poids synaptique inspir´ ee de stdp pour la premi` ere d´ echarge uniquement

officer was on location at the beginning of the exercise. The officer alerted the Captain and his crew by walkie-talkies. They waited 4 minutes before driving to the building. The

Knook LME, Konijnenberg AY, van der Hoeven J, Kimpen JLL, Buitelaar JK, van Engeland H, de Graeff-Meeder ER (2011) Psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents