Xinshen Diao, Mia Ellis, Karl Pauw, Josee Randriamamonjy, and James Thurlow International Food Policy Research Institute

1. Uganda’s Agrifood System
Structure and Drivers of Transformation
Xinshen Diao, Mia Ellis, Karl Pauw, Josee Randriamamonjy, and James Thurlow
International Food Policy Research Institute
This diagnostic analysis was conducted by IFPRI with financial support from USAID.
July 2023

2. Four Parts to the Diagnostics
• Current structure
What does Uganda’s food system look like today?
• Decomposing value chains
How are different products contributing to the broader agrifood system?
• Growth and market structure
How is Uganda’s agrifood system growing and transforming?
• Future drivers of inclusive agricultural transformation
Which value chains could be most effective?
2019
2009-2019
2019+

3. Summary
Uganda’s agrifood system (AFS) diagnostic results
Uganda’s AFS has been growing, but it lacks transformation
• The off-farm and on-farm components of AFS GDP have similar growth rates
• The agricultural shares of total GDP and total employment fell modestly; agriculture still has much more employment and lower productivity
than the off-farm components of the AFS
AFS growth has been driven by value chains oriented toward both the domestic market and for export
• Less-traded value chains (e.g., maize, root crops, and livestock products) dominate the AFS both in terms their size and contribution to
AgGDP+ growth
• Uganda has a comparative advantage in exports for many value chains (e.g., sorghum & millet, oilseeds, sugar, horticulture, and
traditional export crops). Exportable value chains made an important contribution to AFS growth, although their total growth was below
the AFS average
Looking forward, the structure of AFS growth will be crucial in driving development outcomes…
(e.g., poverty, dietary improvement, employment creation, and growth)
…but no single value chain is the most effective at driving all these development outcomes
• Root crops, cattle & dairy, and pulses are most effective at reducing poverty; fruits & nuts and cattle & dairy are best for improving diet
quality; export crops and oilseeds have strong employment effects; and rice and sugar crops have large growth multipliers
Jointly promoting livestock and horticulture would offer an effective way to achieve multiple development
outcomes

4. Framework | Agrifood Systems (AFS)
Primary agriculture
Agroprocessing
Trade and transport
Food services
Trade and transport
Input supply Demand
Consumption of own-
produced goods
Purchase of primary
agricultural goods
Purchase of processed
agrifood goods
Purchase of ready-made
foods outside of home
Imports
A
C
B
D
E
Includes agriculture, plus all upstream/downstream sectors
• Five major components (A to E)
• Same format as standard economywide datasets (e.g., national accounts)
• Allows us to measure AFS structure and performance using actual data
Agrifood System GDP (AgGDP+)
Total value added generated by all agricultural
value chains (in constant dollars)
Agrifood System Employment (AgEMP+)
Total number of workers who are primarily
employed in an agricultural value chain

5. Structure2019 | Uganda’s Agrifood System Today
GDP and employment in Uganda’s agrifood system (2019)
• Part 1 focuses on the current size and
structure of the national agrifood system
• Latest AgGDP+ and AgEMP+ estimates
• Decomposed into five AFS components
• Situates AFS within the broader economy
• Uses official data sources
• GDP from national accounts
• Employment from various sources (i.e., population
census, labor force surveys, ILO, etc.)
• Uganda estimates indicate that
• AFS makes up 40% of GDP
($13.4 billion AgGDP+) …
• … and three-quarters of total employment
(11.8 million AgEMP+)
• Primary agriculture (A) is large, but off-farm
components (B–E) are also important
(40% of AgGDP+, 13% of AgEMP+)
GDP
($ billions)
Employment
(millions of workers)
Total economy 33.0 100% 15.7 100%
Agrifood system 13.4 40.7% 11.8 75.4%
Primary agric. (A) 8.2 24.8% 10.3 65.9%
Off-farm AFS 5.3 15.9% 1.5 9.5%
Processing (B) 2.8 8.6% 0.4 2.5%
Trade & transport (C) 1.6 5.0% 0.8 5.0%
Food services (D) 0.5 1.5% 0.3 1.8%
Input supply (E) 0.3 0.8% 0.0 0.2%
Rest of economy 19.6 59.3% 3.9 24.6%

6. Structure2019 | Comparing to Other Countries
• Importance and structure of the AFS varies at different stages of development
Uganda is a low-income country (LIC)
• A: Uganda’s AgGDP+ share of total GDP is similar to the LIC average
• B: Uganda’s primary agriculture component is similar to the LIC average
• C: Uganda’s agro-processing sector is larger than expected, while trade & transport is smaller
Share of total GDP (%) Share of AFS GDP (%) Share of off-farm AFS GDP (%)
LIC = low-income countries | LMIC = lower-middle income | UMIC = upper-middle-income | HIC = high-income Source: IFPRI Agri-Food System Database
A B C
4.2
26.4
16.9
7.1
1.2
24.8
8.2
13.4
11.9
10.6
6.6
15.9
All LIC LMIC UMIC HIC Uganda
Primary agriculture Off-farm AFS
34.0
66.2
58.6
40.2
15.6
60.9
66.0
33.8
41.4
59.8
84.4
39.1
All LIC LMIC UMIC HIC Uganda
Primary agriculture Off-farm AFS
33.7 37.8 38.4
46.9
26.1
54.0
31.7
42.8 38.6 21.4
35.9
31.3
23.1
13.7
11.2
18.2 27.8
9.4
11.4 5.8 11.8 13.5 10.3 5.2
All LIC LMIC UMIC HIC Uganda
Processing Trade and transport
Food services Input supply

7. Structure2019 | Supply vs. Demand Sides of the Agrifood System
Agrifood GDP vs. consumption
Primary, processed, and other product shares (%)
• AgGDP+ defines the AFS on the supply side
• Household demand and trade (imports) capture AFS structure on the demand side
• Processing agriculture is more important on the demand side than the supply side in the AFS
AgGDP+ Household demand
60.9%
21.1%
18.0%
Agrifood exports vs. imports
Primary and processed product shares (%)
$1.45 bil.
48.7%
$1.53 bil.
51.3%
Exports ($2.98 bil.) Imports ($0.64 bil.)
Primary agriculture
Processing agriculture
$0.53 bil.
82.57%
$0.11 bil.
17.5%
48.9%
40.2%
10.8%
Primary agriculture
Agroprocessing
Other off-farm

8. Value Chains2019 | Contributions & Trade Orientation
• Part 2 decomposes the AFS across broad value
chain groupings
• Classify value chains based on trade orientation
• Exportable value chains have above-average export-
output ratios (> 16.8%)
• Importable value chains have above-average import-
demand ratios (> 4.1%)
• Less-traded value chains make up the rest
• Strong comparative advantage in exports – seven
exportable value chains; relatively larger off-farm share
(45.7%) and smaller on-farm (primary) share (35.9% of
total)
• Domestic market dominates AgGDP+ (57.4%) – seven
less-traded value chains; relatively smaller off-farm share
(48.2%) and larger on-farm share (63.3% of total), with
cattle & dairy a significant exception
Promoting exportable value chains and cattle & dairy
(less-traded) could be effective in driving agricultural
transformation by boosting value added and employment
in off-farm AFS
Share of total GDP (%) Exports /
output
(%)
Imports /
demand
(%)
Total
AFS
Primary
agric.
Off-farm
AFS
Total 100 100 100 16.8 4.1
Exportable 39.7 35.9 45.7 32.5 8.8
Sorghum & millet 2.6 1.7 4.1 21.9 12.9
Oilseeds 8.4 5.3 13.1 20.1 15.9
Sugar 3.4 1.4 6.7 28.4 11.4
Horticulture 9.2 10.5 7.3 17.6 3.9
Export crops 5.0 6.2 3.0 75.8 8.3
Other crops 1.3 1.0 1.9 38.3 6.8
Fish 9.8 9.9 9.7 39.6 1.4
Importable 1.4 0.8 2.3 16.2 17.8
Rice 1.4 0.8 2.3 16.2 17.8
Less traded 57.4 63.3 48.2 5.8 1.1
Maize 6.0 4.9 7.7 14.2 0.4
Pulses 4.5 6.7 1.1 12.9 0.5
Roots 6.7 8.5 3.8 2.7 0.7
Plantains 11.8 12.6 10.6 3.1 1.3
Cattle & dairy 11.1 7.0 17.4 5.1 1.3
Other livestock 4.2 5.7 1.9 1.2 1.2
Forestry 13.1 17.8 5.8 32.5 8.8
Breakdown of Uganda’s agrifood system (2019)

9. Growth2009-2019 | Agrifood System Performance
Uganda’s AFS lacked transformation during 2009–2019
• Agricultural share of total GDP fell modestly (27% to 25%)
• Share of off-farm in total AFS GDP was constant (at 39%)
Agriculture still dominates; employment share fell modestly (68% to 66%)
• Agriculture has low and less improved labor productivity
Agricultural GDP, agrifood system GDP, and employment shares (2009–2019)
• Part 3 analyzes structural change in the AFS and the contribution of different value chains to AFS growth
26.7
43.4
38.6
68.1
24.8
40.7 39.1
65.9
Agricultural GDP share AgGDP+ share Off-farm share of AgGDP+ Agricultural employment
share
Share
(%)
2009 2019

10. Growth2009-2019 | Value Chain Performance
• AgGDP+ grew rapidly during 2009–2019 (5.1% p.a.)
• Less-traded value chains dominate AFS growth with
their large size and above-average growth (5.5%),
contributing 62% of AFS growth in 2009–2019
• Exportable value chains made an important
contribution to AFS growth, but their total growth
was below AFS average (4.5%)
• Value chains with above-average growth (*)
• Three exportable value chains – sorghum, sugar,
horticulture – have above 6% growth rate
• The importable value chain – rice – has highest growth
rate (6.9%)
• Five less-traded value chains have above-average
growth
• Off-farm growth is often slower than primary
agriculture growth in many fast-growing value chains
• Rice value chain is an exception
• Processing component of AFS grows more rapidly
Value chain growth in Uganda (2009-2019)
Average annual GDP growth rate (%)
Total
AFS
Primary
agric.
Off-farm
AFS
Process-
ing
Total AFS 5.1 5.0 5.3 7.5
Exportable 4.5 5.0 3.9 7.6
Sorghum & millet* 6.1 6.9 5.7 6.3
Sugar* 6.6 7.3 6.3 8.1
Horticulture* 6.3 6.3 6.3 8.9
Oilseeds 5.0 4.5 5.3 8.1
Export crops 2.7 2.5 3.2 7.6
Other crops -6.4 2.7 -10.0 7.4
Fish* 5.4 5.4 5.4 6.4
Importable 6.9 6.4 7.2 8.7
Rice* 6.9 6.4 7.2 8.7
Less traded 5.5 5.0 6.4 7.4
Maize* 5.2 5.7 4.8 5.3
Roots* 5.4 5.3 5.5 8.5
Plantains* 5.8 5.3 6.6 8.3
Pulses 4.1 4.3 2.7 8.2
Cattle & dairy 4.1 0.6 7.4 7.7
Other livestock* 7.8 7.9 7.7 8.6
Forestry* 6.5 6.4 6.9 8.3

11. Future Drivers2019+ | Modeling Faster Growth
• IFPRI’s RIAPA model is used to analyze different sources of agricultural growth
• Expand production in different value chains
• Increase on-farm productivity growth rates in targeted value chains
• Achieve same overall growth in agriculture GDP (e.g., 1.0%)
• Track linkage effects within value chains and spillover effects to other value chains
• Assess outcomes
• Poverty – Poverty-growth elasticity in percentage points based on $2.15-a-day
• Hunger – Hunger-growth elasticity in percentage points based on prevalence of undernourishment
• Diet – Diet quality to growth elasticity in % derived from Reference Diet Deprivation index (REDD)
• Jobs – Employment multiplier in thousand employed persons associated with US$1 million growth in targeted value chain
• GDP – GDP growth multiplier in US$ millions associated with US$1 million growth in targeted value chain
• Average across outcomes
• The value of outcome indicators (elasticity or multiplier) is expected to differ across value chain growth; not all value chains are
equally effective at achieving all outcomes
• Normalizing the individual outcome scores
• The values of each outcome indicator are scaled so that the most effective value chain is given a score of one and the leasteffective is given a
score of zero. A value chain with adverse impact is also given a score of zero.
• An average score with equal weights is used to measure the total impacts across all value chains

12. Individual outcomes
(per unit change in agriculture GDP, ordered by poverty outcome)
Future Drivers2019+ | Prioritizing Agricultural Growth
Poverty
(change in %-point)
Hunger
(change in %-point)
Jobs
(change in 1,000)
Diet quality
(change in %)
Average across outcomes
(averaged normalized scores, reordered)
GDP
(change in mil. $)
0.98
1.39
0.90
0.94
0.91
1.35
3.66
3.60
2.83
0.93
0.64
0.47
0.02
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.15
0.12
-1.25
-0.16
0.04
0.15
0.43
0.40
0.06
0.54
0.20
0.03
0.64
0.11
0.28
0.15
0.26
0.11
0.04
0.14
-1.16
-0.10
-0.31
-0.49
-0.13
-0.51
-0.76
-0.26
-0.01
-0.12
-0.12
-0.23
-0.69
-0.49
-0.42
-0.40
-0.39
-0.38
-0.35
-0.33
-0.26
-0.26
-0.22
-0.21
Root crops
Cattle & dairy
Pulses
Plantains
Horticulture
Maize
Rice
Sugar
Other livestock
Fish
Export crops
Oilseeds
0.64
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.43
0.39
0.39
0.36
0.31
0.29
0.26
0.26
Cattle & dairy
Horticulture
Other livestock
Root crops
Rice
Maize
Pulses
Sugar
Plantains
Oilseeds
Fish
Export crops
Total
Cattle & dairy
Horticulture
Other livestock
Root crops
Rice
Maize
Pulses
Sugar
Plantains
Oilseeds
Fish
Export crops
Poverty Growth Jobs Diets

13. Future Drivers2019+ | Key Messages from the Model
AFS growth is pro-poor
• Growth led by all value chains reduces poverty, but root crops, cattle & dairy, and pulses are most effective
AFS growth is effective in improving food security (hunger) and diet quality
• Most value chains reduce hunger; root crops and two cereal value chains – maize and rice – are most effective
• Most value chains improve diet quality; horticulture and cattle & dairy are most effective
Agricultural growth creates jobs but not necessarily on-farm
• Most value chains are associated with an increase in total employment, but AFS jobs are mainly created off-farm
• Export crops and oilseeds are the most effective value chains in creating jobs in the overall economy and within the AFS
Agricultural growth has strong growth multiplier effects that generate income beyond agriculture
• Rice, sugar, and other livestock value chains have stronger multiplier effects for both AFS income and total GDP growth
In conclusion, promoting multiple value chains can achieve broad-based impact
• No single value chain group is the most effective in achieving all the outcomes we consider
• The two livestock value chains together with the horticulture value chain rank highly in the combined outcome scores for poverty, diet,
jobs, and growth
• Promoting these value chains would offer an effective way to achieve broad-based outcomes

14. Note: Value Chain Groups and Agricultural Sectors in Individual VC Groups
Value chain group and their share
of AFS GDP
Individual product’s share of group's Agriculture GDP
Maize (6.0%) Maize 100%
Sorghum (2.6%) Sorghum 100%
Rice (1.4%) Rice 100%
Pulses (4.5%) Pulses 100%
Oilseeds (8.4%) Groundnuts 34.6% | Other oilseeds 65.4%
Roots (1.0%) Cassava 44.2% | Irish potatoes 13.6% | Sweet potatoes 44.1%
Plantains (11.8%) Plantains 100%
Sugar (3.4%) Sugarcane 100%
Horticulture (9.2%) Leafy vegetables 20.0% | Other vegetables 39.6% | Bananas 18.8% | Other fruits 21.7%
Export crops (5.0%) Tea 13.2% | Coffee 69.5% | Cocoa 7.4% | Cut flowers 9.9%
Other crops (1.3%) Tobacco 39.8% | Cotton & other fiber 51.3% | Other crops 9.0%
Cattle & dairy (11.1%) Cattle meat 46.6% | Raw milk 53.4%
Other livestock (4.2%) Poultry meat 21.7% | Eggs 9.5% | Small ruminants 49.2%| Other livestock 19.7%
Fish (9.8%) Aquaculture 14.8% | Captured fish 85.2%
Forestry (13.1%) Forestry 100%