Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Ator 2012 11.06.2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Ator 2012 11.06.2012

489
views

Published on

Strategic Analysis to inform Agricultural Policy …

Strategic Analysis to inform Agricultural Policy
ReSAKSS ECA stakeholder workshop, 11th June, 2012

Published in: Education, Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
489
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Trends in Key Agricultural and RuralDevelopment Indicators in COMESA Region Paul Guthiga & Stella Massawe ReSAKSS ECA 1
  • 2. Outline• About the report• CAADP: Principles, Implementation status and M&E• Economic performance• Agricultural financing and expenditures• Performance of agriculture sector• Agricultural productivity trends• Poverty and hunger• Concluding remarks 2
  • 3. About the report• Annual Trends and Outlook Report (ATOR) for agriculture and rural development indicators is a flagship M&E report prepared by ReSAKSS.• For what purpose? – Document & monitor progress towards achievement of the CAADP targets and other developmental goals. – Facilitate peer learning, review and mutual accountability among countries.• For the year 2011; ATOR focused on “Trends in Agricultural Productivity” 3
  • 4. CAADP: Principles, Implementation Status & M&E 4
  • 5. CAADP Principles• Agriculture-led growth to achieve MDG1.• Pursuit of 6% average annual sector growth• Allocation of 10%of national budgets to agriculture sector• Exploitation of regional complementarities and cooperation to boost growth• Policy efficiency, dialogue, review and accountability (evidence-based policymaking)• Partnerships and alliances to include all stakeholders 5
  • 6. Stages of CAADP Implementation at Country LevelSource: ReSAKSS, 2010 6
  • 7. CAADP Implementation• At the country level, the implementation process aims at:- – Aligning national agricultural sector policies, strategies and investment programs with CAADP principles, pillars and targets.• At the regional level, RECs plays a coordination role• Progress of implementation is varied among countries; – Some have made good progress while others lag behind – Countries in the COMESA region that had developed detailed investment plans include Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia, Malawi, Kenya, and Burundi 7
  • 8. Status of Implementation at Country LevelCountry Dates when Investment Plan IP review date Business meeting heldName compact signed (IP) readyRwanda 30-31 Mar, 2007 Yes 4-8 Dec, 2009 8-9 Dec, 2009Ethiopia 27-28 Sept, 2009 Yes 10-16 Sept, 2010 6-7 Dec, 2010Burundi 24-25 Aug, 2009 Yes 22-31 Aug, 2011 14-15 Mar, 2012Uganda 30-31 Mar, 2010 Yes 2-10 Sept, 2010 16-17 Sept, 2010Malawi 19 Apr, 2010 Yes 10-16 Sept, 2010 28-29 Sept, 2010Tanzania 6-8 Jul, 2010 Yes 20-31 May, 2011 9-10 Nov, 2011Kenya 23-24 Jul, 2010 Yes 6-14 Sept, 2010 27 Sept, 2010Swaziland 3-4 Mar, 2010 In process Not yet Not yetZambia 18 Jan, 2011 In process Not yet Not yetDRC 18 Mar, 2011 In process Not yet Not yetDjibouti 19 Apr, 2012 Not yet Not yet Not yetSource: CAADP Website (http://www.nepad-caadp.net) 8
  • 9. Implementing M&E• Establishment and operation of M&E systems is critical in the implementation of CAADP compacts and Investment plans.• Why M&E? – To quantify progress in performance of the agricultural sector. – To monitor delivery on commitments. – Assess effectiveness of the various types of interventions. – Assess consistency with initial targets.• M&E systems established at various levels : – National level; embedded in national M&E systems; – Regional and continental levels; CAADP M&E Framework – Mutual Accountability Framework (MAF) at the national and international 9
  • 10. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 10
  • 11. Real GDP Growth in the COMESA Countries 2003-2007 2008 2009 2010Burundi 3.6 4.5 3.5 3.9Comoros 2.1 1.0 1.8 2.1DRC 6.4 6.2 2.8 7.2 In general economicEritrea 1.8 –9.8 3.9 2.2 growth is impressive;Ethiopia 11.9 11.2 10.0 8.0Kenya 5.3 1.6 2.6 5.0 Differences betweenMadagascar 6.2 7.1 –3.7 –2.0 countries;Malawi 5.4 8.6 7.6 6.6Mauritius 4.3 5.5 3.0 4.0 High food and fuel prices and inflationRwanda 6.7 11.2 4.1 6.5 still pose threat toSudan 8.0 6.8 6.0 5.1 future growthSeychelles 7.6 –1.3 0.7 6.2Swaziland 2.9 3.1 1.2 2.0Tanzania 7.2 7.3 6.7 6.5Uganda 7.8 8.7 7.2 5.2Zambia 5.6 5.7 6.4 7.6Zimbabwe –17.7 6.0 9.0SSA 6.4 5.6 2.8 5.0 11 Source: ahttp://data.worldbank.org/indicator bIMF, 2008; IMF, 2009a; IMF,2009b, IMF,2010
  • 12. Contribution of Agriculture to Total GDP in COMESA countriesLess 20-29% 30% and abovethan 20%Libya, Seychelles, Zambia, Madagascar, Kenya, Sudan, Comoros, Burundi,Mauritius, Djibouti, Uganda, Tanzania Malawi, Ethiopia, DRC,Eritrea, Zimbabwe, and RwandaSwaziland and Egypt Source: compiled by ReSAKSS based on the mostly recently available country sources 12
  • 13. Agricultural Financing and Expenditures 13
  • 14. Budgetary allocationMaputo Declaration target of 10% budgetary allocation by government is yet tobe met by most countries Ethiopia & Malawi 10% Madagascar, Swaziland, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia & Zimbabwe 5% Burundi, DRC, Egypt, Kenya, Mauritius &Rwanda 14
  • 15. Proposed Budget Allocation in NAIPs, 2010-15 Kenya: heavy on irrigation and commercialization Malawi: heavy on farm support and irrigation Rwanda: more balanced, favoring NRM Uganda: balanced, favoring extension and farm support Source: National Agricultural Investment Plans 15
  • 16. Performance of the Agriculture Sector 16
  • 17. Agriculture Sector Growth-1• Impressive progress in agricultural GDP growth; average rate of 4 percent between 2007 and 2009• But there were differences in performance among countries in the COMESA region 17
  • 18. AgGDP growth (Annual % change) -5 0 5 10 15 -10 Burundi DRC Comoros Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Average 1999-2001 Libya Madagascar Mauritius Malawi Average2002-4 Rwanda Source: Authors’ computations based on data on ReSAKSS Website Sudan Swaziland Agriculture Sector Growth-2 Seychelles Tanzania Average 2005-2007 Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe18
  • 19. Agriculture Sector Performance (1)• The countries that met the CAADP target included; – Rwanda (8.4%), Ethiopia (7.7%), Tanzania (7.3%) and Malawi (6.5%).• However, high growth rates in agricultural GDP have not invariably translated to reduction in poverty and hunger. – In some countries there is marginal or no reduction in poverty despite high growth in agricultural GDP. – Need for targeting investments subsectors or in geographical regions with potential for high impact on poverty 19
  • 20. Agriculture Sector Performance (2) 20
  • 21. Agriculture, value added as share of GDP (Current USD) Country/ Region Annual Average Level Annual Average (1990 - 2010) Change (1990 - 2010) COMESA 21.2 -2.8 East Africa 33.2 1.3 Burundi 46.45 0.77 Comoros 44.28 -1.41 DRC 47.27 -1.84 Djibouti 3.49 -1.80 Egypt 16.08 -1.87 Contribution of agricultural sector to Ethiopia 52.13 -0.18 GDP has slightly decreased in nearly Kenya 28.32 -1.35 all countries Libya 2.97 -5.45 Madagascar 28.40 -0.31 Malawi 35.64 -4.26 Mauritius 7.85 -2.35 Rwanda 38.51 -2.53 Seychelles 3.25 -3.03 Sudan 37.66 -5.04 Swaziland 10.42 -0.79 Tanzania 37.55 1.72 Uganda 36.17 -1.55 Zambia 20.98 -3.12 Zimbabwe 17.91 -2.67Source: Authors calculation based on WDI (2010)Notes: Blank cells indicate missing values. Regional aggregate values are calculated as weighted summations. 21The weights are computed using country’s GDP as a share of regional GDP.
  • 22. Agricultural Productivity Trends 22
  • 23. Productivity:- definitions• Agricultural productivity measures can be ; partial or total.• Total factor productivity (TFP); compares an index of agricultural inputs to an index of outputs.• Partial productivity; amount of output per unit of a particular input (e.g. land, labour etc)• TFP more appropriate but less often used due to paucity of data on prices key inputs 23
  • 24. Crop productivity• Maize is the key staple in most countries in the region.• Maize yields in the majority of countries in the COMESA region are very low; – Mostly less than 2 tones/ha compared to a world average of 5 tones/ha• Yield decline has occurred in several countries in the region over the past decade 24
  • 25. Maize ProductivityFigure: Yields of Maize (tonnes/ha), averages for 2000-02 and 2006-08 25
  • 26. Production versus Productivity Growth 2006 - 2010 production growth rates 2006 - 2010 Yield growth rates Beans Maize Beans MaizeCOMESA 2.4 5.0 1.7 1.3East Africa 2.4 3 0.9 -1.4ASARECA 2.2 3.4 1.4 -0.7Burundi -0.8 2.0 5.0 -1.0Comoros 5.1 0.5DRC 0.9 0.0 0.0 -0.01Djibouti 0.8 -2.6 3.7 -12.4Egypt 0.3 4.2 -2.3 -3.1Eritrea -4.5 1.3 ProductionEthiopia 16.5 3.4 5.7 -0.1Kenya -5.2 -2 0.7 -4.7 is growingLibya 2.2 -1.5 0.1 -1.7 faster thanMadagascar 1.0 0.5 -0.8 -4.0 productivityMalawi 8.0 8.9 9.8 7.3Mauritius 17.2 3.8Rwanda 2.9 51.1 5.5 36.9Sudan -2.8 -21 -0.4 4.1Swaziland -1.1 6.1 0.3 4.6Uganda 2.0 1.9 -0.4 -0.3Tanzania 3.1 5.6 -0.8 -0.6Zambia 18.2 5.1Zimbabwe -5.7 -7.2 -3.9 -3.3 26
  • 27. Coefficient of Yield Variation (2000-2010)Countries Beans Maize Rice Wheat Cassava Sweet PotatoCOMESA 5.7 8.0 6.1 4.9 3.9 26.7East Africa 4.9 18.8 10.6 18.1 7.4 32.5ASARECA 5.6 10.4 12.0 14.2 3.7 27.2Burundi 8.2 5.0 5.8 7.0 22.6 33.1Comoros 12.7 8.3 4.5 42.5DRC 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.7 0.5 28.7Djibouti 6.3 16.6Egypt 4.0 5.0 3.1 4.3 35.5Eritrea 135.9 59.1 57.0Ethiopia 26.0 18.1 1.9 17.7 167.5Kenya 15.8 11.6 27.4 22.2 27.6 31.9Libya 13.9 19.2 8.1Madagascar 7.2 24.3 18.8 10.1 18.4 27.8Malawi 20.6 37.9 25.4 44.8 14.8Mauritius 13.9 13.3 37.6Rwanda 18.8 51.9 31.5 37.6 27.9 29.1Seychelles 9.3Sudan 7.4 40.8 37.6 25.9 4.3 32.7Swaziland 2.5 23.8 12.5 17.0 540.8Uganda 15.0 9.9 5.9 2.6 4.4 48.1Tanzania 15.1 44.5 14.7 36.3 15.7 170.2Zambia 19.1 19.3 18.2 5.1 33.7Zimbabwe 29.2 46.1 23.0 26.6 6.9 68.3 Source: Authors Calculation based on FAO data 27
  • 28. Fertilizer Use• Average fertilizer use COMESA region is only about 30 Kg/ha.• Lower than 50kg/ha target set during the African Fertilizer Summit.• Low use underlay the low productivity.• Low levels of fertilizer use are attributed to; high costs, poor transport infrastructure, unavailability in some remote areas among others 28
  • 29. Fertilizer consumption Kg/ ha arable land 29
  • 30. Productivity in Livestock Sector• Livestock production is a key activity in the region particularly in the arid and semi arid zones.• Most countries recorded productivity gain between 2000 and 2009 but some recorded decline• At the regional level, some productivity gains have been recorded in beef productivity 30
  • 31. Beef productivity Country Beef yields in carcass weight (kg) Change in beef yields (%) 2000 2005 2009 2000-09 2005-09 Burundi 126.4 126.5 126.5 -0.88 -0.01 Comoros 110.0 110.0 110.0 0.02 0.00 DRC 155.9 155.6 159.2 2.11 2.28 Djibouti 110.0 110.0 109.7 -0.28 -0.28 Egypt 172.8 191.7 203.4 16.85 6.10 Eritrea 108.9 108.9 91.7 -15.84 -15.85 Ethiopia 108.3 108.4 108.4 0.79 0.02 Kenya 136.7 149.1 150.0 21.54 0.59 Libya 178.7 197.7 160.4 -8.37 -18.85 Madagascar 127.5 127.5 127.5 0.00 0.00 Malawi 205.0 205.0 205.0 0.47 -0.02 Mauritius 206.7 231.8 235.0 9.27 1.34 Seychelles 239.2 224.8 225.8 -7.52 0.46 Sudan 114.4 122.2 125.1 12.28 2.38 Swaziland 225.4 217.6 261.7 8.73 20.23 Uganda 150.0 156.4 175.7 17.12 12.32 Tanzania 108.0 108.1 108.6 0.24 0.46 Zambia 158.3 160.0 162.0 4.52 1.26 Zimbabwe 223.3 225.0 225.0 4.65 0.00 Rwanda 104.0 104.0 104.0 0.00 0.00 COMESA 129.3 135.1 137.7 8.40 1.94 31Source: Authors’ computations based on data from FAOSTAT
  • 32. Agricultural trade performance• Agricultural trade accounts for about a third of the total intra-COMESA trade• Regional trade in food staples has implications on regional food security• Agricultural trade is constrained by – Tariff & non-tariff barriers• Accurate data is key for monitoring progress especially on informal trade 32
  • 33. Value of agricultural trade in the COMESA region Year Total COMESA Total food Total Food Agricultural Agricultu exports imports (USD) agricultural imports as raw materials ral trade (country raw % of total as % of total (A+B) imports) (USD) materials COMESA COMESA imports exports (A) exports (B) (USD) 2003 1,820,290,339 559,295,121 104,437,668 30.7 5.7 36.4 2004 2,003,943,144 731,650,899 58,674,879 36.5 2.9 39.4 2005 2,752,761 ,589 909,746,039 112,531,448 33.1 4.1 37.2 2006 3,029,887,300 995,730,257 91,060,719 32.9 3 35.9 2007 4,223,471,205 1,487,046,578 115,318,365 35.2 2.7 37.9 2008 6,383,617,580 1,920,458,845 81,821,128 30.1 1.3 31.4 2009 6,063,933,735 1,858,050,282 101,832,352 30.6 1.7 32.3Source: COMSTAT online 33
  • 34. Poverty and Hunger 34
  • 35. Poverty trends• Africa as a whole has experienced a moderate decline in the rate of poverty since 1990• From 47.0 percent in 1990–95 to 46.5 percent in 1995–2003 and 44.3 percent in 2003–09.• The COMESA region experienced similar declining trend, with different levels of intensities across countries. 35
  • 36. Poverty declining.. but still high (1) International Poverty Line: Poverty rates $1.25 a day (PPP) (% of population)Country Name Most recent year Most recent poverty rates 2011 Estimated RatesBurundi 2006 81.3 78.3Comoros 2004 46.1DRC 2006 59.2Egypt 2005 1.9 2.2Ethiopia 2005 39.0 25.6Kenya 2005 19.7 19.8Madagascar 2005 67.8 55.2Malawi 2004 73.9 64.4Rwanda 2005 76.8 77.1Swaziland 2001 62.9 45.7Tanzania 2007 67.9 58.3Uganda 2009 28.7 21.4Zambia 2004 64.9 62.2Source: http://data.worldbank.org ; 2011 Estimates are authors calculations based on 36“business as usual scenarios”
  • 37. Poverty declining…but still high (2)Trends in poverty reduction (with reference to national poverty line) in theselected countries in the COMECA region Country Years Poverty incidence (%) Burundi 1990 34.9 2002 68.0 DRC 2004/05 71.34 Ethiopia 1994/95 49.5 2009/10 29.0 Kenya 1992 44.8 2005/06 45.9 Malawi 1997-98 66.5 2007 40 Madagascar 1993 70 2001 70.1 37
  • 38. Poverty declining…but still high (3)Country Years Poverty incidence (%)Rwanda 2000-2001 58.9 2010/11 44.9Tanzania 1991/92 38.6 2007 33.6Uganda 1992 56.4 2009 24.5Zambia 1991 70 2006 64Source: Based on the available from National surveys 38
  • 39. Population Undernourished (in Millions)Country Name 1990-1992 1995-1997 2000-2002 2006-2008Burundi 2.5 3.5 3.9 4.9Comoros 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4DRC 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.5Djibouti 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2Eritrea 2.1 2.1 2.7 3.1Ethiopia 34.7 36.2 32.6 32.6Kenya 8.1 9.0 10.6 12.4Madagascar 2.4 3.5 4.4 4.7Malawi 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.9Mauritius 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Rwanda 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0Sudan 10.8 9.3 9.8 8.8Tanzania 7.7 12.8 14.0 13.9Uganda 3.5 4.9 4.8 6.7Zambia 2.9 3.6 4.7 5.4Zimbabwe 4.3 5.3 5.1 3.7COMESA 87.8 98.9 100.7 104.3EAC 24.8 33.2 36.4 40.9Source: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/fs-data/ess-fadata/en/ 39
  • 40. Child malnutrition rates (Weight for Age)Country Name Most Recent Year Most recent malnutrition rates 2011 Estimated rateBurundi 2005 39.2 39.6Comoros 2004 24.9 24.6DRC 2007 28.2 25.1Djibouti 2006 29.6 35.8Egypt 2008 6.8 8.6Eritrea 2002 34.5 29.5Ethiopia 2005 34.6 27.4Kenya 2009 16.4 16.4Libya 2007 5.6 6.2Madagascar 2004 36.8 38.2Malawi 2006 15.5 6.6Mauritius 1995 13 6Rwanda 2005 18 15.6Seychelles 1988 5Sudan 2006 31.7 27.0Swaziland 2007 6.1 4.9Tanzania 2005 16.7 11.0Uganda 2006 16.4 14.2Zambia 2007 14.9 10.4Zimbabwe 2006 14 16.1 40 1Source: http://data.worldbank.org ; 2011 Estimates are authors calculations based on “business as usual scenarios”
  • 41. Global Hunger IndexThe index ranks countries on a 100-point scale, with 0 being the best score (nohunger) and 100 being the worst20.0 and 29.9 indicates alarming hunger, 30.0 or higher-extremely alarming.504540353025201510 5 0 Comoros Swaziland Mauritius Malawi Burundi Madagascar Rwanda Uganda DRC Djibouti Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Tanzania Zimbabwe Sudan Zambia 1990 2003 2010 41 Source: IFPRI, Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe, 2010
  • 42. Trends in GHI…hunger has reduced, but increased in some countries % Change in GHI values % Change in GHI values Country 1990-2010 2003-2010 Burundi 17.5 -10.3 Comoros 5.7 -9.4 DRC 60.8 9.0 Djibouti -23.5 12.4 Ethiopia -32.3 -18.8 Kenya -15.7 -8.9 Madagascar -5.5 -8.1 Malawi -43.5 -28.3 Mauritius -8.2 76.3 Rwanda -18.4 -15.1 Sudan -18.4 -18.6 Swaziland -19.4 -27.4 Tanzania -20.7 -30.9 Uganda -24.6 -19.5 Zambia -14.4 -21.6 Zimbabwe 3.5 -9.9 42Source: Authors’ computation
  • 43. Rising food prices worsen hunger situation…40035030025020015010050 0 Jan-07 Apr-07 Jul-07 Oct-07 Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Ethiopia- Food Total FAO GLOBAL- Food Kenya- Food & Non-Alcoholic Drink Malawi- Food MauritiusFood And Non Alcoholic Beverages Rwanda- Food And Non-Alcoholic Beverages Tanzania- Food and Non alcoholic beverages Uganda- Food Zambia- Food Djibouti - Food 43
  • 44. Food Aid (Tones)… has increased in some countries Recipient 2002-2004 (A) 2008-2010 (B) % change A-B Burundi 60,815.8 44440.2 -26.9 DRC 80,850.2 158029.0 95.5 Djibouti 11318.6 14128.0 24.8 Egypt 11,990.1 3367.5 -71.9 Eritrea 258,050.3 5746.7 -97.8 Ethiopia 1013711.1 1185371.2 16.9 Kenya 133360.5 252133.6 89.1 Madagascar 47072.5 27052.7 -42.5 Malawi 127525.6 67657.3 -46.9 Rwanda 52114.3 20414.9 -60.8 Seychelles 0.0 1166.7 .. Sudan, the 259203.1 553256.4 113.4 Swaziland 16673.1 12541.8 -24.8 Tanzania 109169.0 50318.1 -53.9 Uganda 167933.3 135034.5 -19.6 Zambia 101206.6 18095.2 -82.1 Zimbabwe 274819.0 218169.8 -20.6 COMESA* 2,725,813.2 2,769,423.4 1.6 Source: Computed from data from Food Aid Information System of the WFP 44
  • 45. Concluding remarks (1)• Process of CAADP implementation is ongoing well in most countries but some challenges still remain… – Slow implementation in many countries – M&E systems need more capacity, better coordination & harmonization – Huge budget deficits in most investment plans• Economic growth trends in the region in general appear positive for most countries but…• Countries remain vulnerable to external shocks like the global food price and financial crises, climate extremes, etc• Food and nutritional security remain a major problem in most countries.• Need to eliminate existing barriers to trade… 45
  • 46. Concluding remarks (2)• Agricultural productivity growth in the region has been impressive but still below potential• Hence need for significant investments in agricultural R&D an other investments 46