1

Trends in Key Agricultural and Rural Development Indicators in COMESA Region

Paul Guthiga & Stella MassaweReSAKSS ECA

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

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”

4

CAADP: Principles, Implementation Status & M&E

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

6

Stages of CAADP Implementation at Country Level

Source: ReSAKSS, 2010

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

8

Status of Implementation at Country Level

Country Name

Dates when compact signed

Investment Plan (IP) ready

IP review date Business meeting held

Rwanda 30-31 Mar, 2007 Yes 4-8 Dec, 2009 8-9 Dec, 2009

Ethiopia 27-28 Sept, 2009 Yes 10-16 Sept, 2010 6-7 Dec, 2010

Burundi 24-25 Aug, 2009 Yes 22-31 Aug, 2011 14-15 Mar, 2012

Uganda 30-31 Mar, 2010 Yes 2-10 Sept, 2010 16-17 Sept, 2010

Malawi 19 Apr, 2010 Yes 10-16 Sept, 2010 28-29 Sept, 2010

Tanzania 6-8 Jul, 2010 Yes 20-31 May, 2011 9-10 Nov, 2011

Kenya 23-24 Jul, 2010 Yes 6-14 Sept, 2010 27 Sept, 2010

Swaziland 3-4 Mar, 2010 In process Not yet Not yet

Zambia 18 Jan, 2011 In process Not yet Not yet

DRC 18 Mar, 2011 In process Not yet Not yet

Djibouti 19 Apr, 2012 Not yet Not yet Not yet

Source: CAADP Website (http://www.nepad-caadp.net)

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

10

ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

11Source: ahttp://data.worldbank.org/indicator bIMF, 2008; IMF, 2009a; IMF,2009b, IMF,2010

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 7.2Eritrea 1.8 –9.8 3.9 2.2Ethiopia 11.9 11.2 10.0 8.0Kenya 5.3 1.6 2.6 5.0Madagascar 6.2 7.1 –3.7 –2.0Malawi 5.4 8.6 7.6 6.6Mauritius 4.3 5.5 3.0 4.0Rwanda 6.7 11.2 4.1 6.5Sudan 8.0 6.8 6.0 5.1Seychelles 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

In general economic growth is impressive;

Differences between countries;

High food and fuel prices and inflation still pose threat to future growth

Real GDP Growth in the COMESA Countries

12

Contribution of Agriculture to Total GDP in COMESA countries

Less than 20%

20-29% 30% and above

Libya, Seychelles, Mauritius, Djibouti, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Egypt

Zambia, Madagascar, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania

Sudan, Comoros, Burundi, Malawi, Ethiopia, DRC, and Rwanda

Source: compiled by ReSAKSS based on the mostly recently available country sources

13

Agricultural Financing and Expenditures

14

Budgetary allocation

5%

10%

Ethiopia

& Malawi

Burundi, DRC, Egypt, Kenya, Mauritius &Rwanda

Madagascar, Swaziland, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia & Zimbabwe

Maputo Declaration target of 10% budgetary allocation by government is yet to

be met by most countries

15

Proposed Budget Allocation in NAIPs, 2010-15

Source: National Agricultural Investment Plans

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

16

Performance of the Agriculture Sector

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

18

Agriculture Sector Growth-2

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Bur

undi

DR

C

Com

oros

Djib

outi

Egy

pt

Erit

rea

Eth

iopi

a

Ken

ya

Liby

a

Mad

agas

car

Mau

ritiu

s

Mal

awi

Rw

anda

Sud

an

Sw

azila

nd

Sey

chel

les

Tanz

ania

Uga

nda

Zam

bia

Zim

babw

e

AgG

DP

gro

wth

(Ann

ual %

cha

nge)

Average 1999-2001 Average2002-4 Average 2005-2007

Source: Authors’ computations based on data on ReSAKSS Website

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

20

Agriculture Sector Performance (2)

21

Agriculture, value added as share of GDP (Current USD)Country/ Region Annual Average Level

(1990 - 2010)Annual Average Change(1990 - 2010)

COMESA 21.2 -2.8East Africa 33.2 1.3Burundi 46.45 0.77Comoros 44.28 -1.41DRC 47.27 -1.84Djibouti 3.49 -1.80Egypt 16.08 -1.87Ethiopia 52.13 -0.18Kenya 28.32 -1.35Libya 2.97 -5.45Madagascar 28.40 -0.31

Malawi 35.64 -4.26Mauritius 7.85 -2.35Rwanda 38.51 -2.53Seychelles 3.25 -3.03Sudan 37.66 -5.04Swaziland 10.42 -0.79Tanzania 37.55 1.72Uganda 36.17 -1.55Zambia 20.98 -3.12Zimbabwe 17.91 -2.67

Source:  Authors calculation based on WDI (2010)Notes: Blank cells indicate missing values. Regional aggregate values are calculated as weighted summations. The weights are computed using country’s GDP as a share of regional GDP.

Contribution of agricultural sector to GDP has slightly decreased in nearly all countries

22

Agricultural Productivity Trends

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

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

25

Maize Productivity Figure: Yields of Maize (tonnes/ha), averages for 2000-02 and 2006-08

26

2006 - 2010 production growth rates 2006 - 2010 Yield growth ratesBeans Maize Beans Maize

COMESA 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 1.3Ethiopia 16.5 3.4 5.7 -0.1Kenya -5.2 -2 0.7 -4.7Libya 2.2 -1.5 0.1 -1.7Madagascar 1.0 0.5 -0.8 -4.0Malawi 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

Production versus Productivity Growth

Production is growing faster than productivity

27

Coefficient of Yield Variation (2000-2010)Countries Beans Maize Rice Wheat Cassava Sweet

Potato

COMESA 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

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

29

Fertilizer consumption Kg/ ha arable land

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

31

Beef productivityCountry Beef yields in carcass weight (kg) Change in beef yields (%)

2000 2005 2009 2000-09 2005-09Burundi 126.4 126.5 126.5 -0.88 -0.01Comoros 110.0 110.0 110.0 0.02 0.00DRC 155.9 155.6 159.2 2.11 2.28Djibouti 110.0 110.0 109.7 -0.28 -0.28Egypt 172.8 191.7 203.4 16.85 6.10Eritrea 108.9 108.9 91.7 -15.84 -15.85Ethiopia 108.3 108.4 108.4 0.79 0.02Kenya 136.7 149.1 150.0 21.54 0.59Libya 178.7 197.7 160.4 -8.37 -18.85Madagascar 127.5 127.5 127.5 0.00 0.00Malawi 205.0 205.0 205.0 0.47 -0.02Mauritius 206.7 231.8 235.0 9.27 1.34Seychelles 239.2 224.8 225.8 -7.52 0.46Sudan 114.4 122.2 125.1 12.28 2.38Swaziland 225.4 217.6 261.7 8.73 20.23Uganda 150.0 156.4 175.7 17.12 12.32Tanzania 108.0 108.1 108.6 0.24 0.46Zambia 158.3 160.0 162.0 4.52 1.26Zimbabwe 223.3 225.0 225.0 4.65 0.00Rwanda 104.0 104.0 104.0 0.00 0.00COMESA 129.3 135.1 137.7 8.40 1.94

Source: 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

33

Value of agricultural trade in the COMESA region

Year Total COMESA exports (country imports) (USD)

Total food imports (USD)

Total agricultural raw materials imports (USD)

Food imports as % of total COMESA exports (A)

Agricultural raw materials as % of total COMESA exports (B)

Agricultural trade (A+B)

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 32.3

Source: COMSTAT online

34

Poverty and Hunger

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.

36

Poverty declining.. but still high (1)

Country Name Most recent year Most recent poverty rates 2011 Estimated Rates

Burundi 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 64.4

Rwanda 2005 76.8 77.1Swaziland 2001 62.9 45.7Tanzania 2007 67.9 58.3Uganda 2009 28.7 21.4Zambia 2004 64.9 62.2

International Poverty Line: Poverty rates $1.25 a day (PPP) (% of population)

Source: http://data.worldbank.org ; 2011 Estimates are authors calculations based on “business as usual scenarios”

37

Poverty declining…but still high (2)

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

Trends in poverty reduction (with reference to national poverty line) in the selected countries in the COMECA region

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 64

Source: Based on the available from National surveys

39

Population Undernourished (in Millions)Country Name 1990-1992 1995-1997 2000-2002 2006-2008

Burundi 2.5 3.5 3.9 4.9 Comoros 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 DRC 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.5 Djibouti 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 Eritrea 2.1 2.1 2.7 3.1 Ethiopia 34.7 36.2 32.6 32.6 Kenya 8.1 9.0 10.6 12.4

Madagascar 2.4 3.5 4.4 4.7 Malawi 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.9 Mauritius 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Rwanda 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 Sudan 10.8 9.3 9.8 8.8 Tanzania 7.7 12.8 14.0 13.9 Uganda 3.5 4.9 4.8 6.7 Zambia 2.9 3.6 4.7 5.4 Zimbabwe 4.3 5.3 5.1 3.7 COMESA 87.8 98.9 100.7 104.3 EAC 24.8 33.2 36.4 40.9

Source: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/fs-data/ess-fadata/en/

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 25.1

Djibouti 2006 29.6 35.8Egypt 2008 6.8 8.6

Eritrea 2002 34.5 29.5Ethiopia 2005 34.6 27.4Kenya 2009 16.4 16.4Libya 2007 5.6 6.2Madagascar 2004 36.8 38.2

Malawi 2006 15.5 6.6

Mauritius 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

1Source: http://data.worldbank.org ; 2011 Estimates are authors calculations based on “business as usual scenarios”

41

Global Hunger Index

Source: IFPRI, Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe, 2010

The index ranks countries on a 100-point scale, with 0 being the best score (no hunger) and 100 being the worst

20.0 and 29.9 indicates alarming hunger, 30.0 or higher-extremely alarming.

Burundi

Comoros

DRC

Djibouti

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Kenya

Madagascar

Malaw

i

Mauritius

Rwanda

Sudan

Swaziland

Tanzania

Uganda

Zambia

Zimbabw

e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1990 2003 2010

42

Trends in GHI…hunger has reduced, but increased in some countries

Country% Change in GHI values

1990-2010% Change in GHI values

2003-2010Burundi 17.5 -10.3Comoros 5.7 -9.4DRC 60.8 9.0Djibouti -23.5 12.4Ethiopia -32.3 -18.8Kenya -15.7 -8.9

Madagascar -5.5 -8.1Malawi -43.5 -28.3Mauritius -8.2 76.3Rwanda -18.4 -15.1Sudan -18.4 -18.6Swaziland -19.4 -27.4Tanzania -20.7 -30.9Uganda -24.6 -19.5Zambia -14.4 -21.6Zimbabwe 3.5 -9.9

Source: Authors’ computation

43

Rising food prices worsen hunger situation…

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-120

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

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

44

Food Aid (Tones)… has increased in some countries

Source: Computed from data from Food Aid Information System of the WFP

Recipient 2002-2004 (A) 2008-2010 (B) % change A-BBurundi 60,815.8 44440.2 -26.9DRC 80,850.2 158029.0 95.5Djibouti 11318.6 14128.0 24.8Egypt 11,990.1 3367.5 -71.9Eritrea 258,050.3 5746.7 -97.8Ethiopia 1013711.1 1185371.2 16.9Kenya 133360.5 252133.6 89.1Madagascar 47072.5 27052.7 -42.5Malawi 127525.6 67657.3 -46.9Rwanda 52114.3 20414.9 -60.8Seychelles 0.0 1166.7 ..Sudan, the 259203.1 553256.4 113.4Swaziland 16673.1 12541.8 -24.8Tanzania 109169.0 50318.1 -53.9Uganda 167933.3 135034.5 -19.6Zambia 101206.6 18095.2 -82.1Zimbabwe 274819.0 218169.8 -20.6COMESA* 2,725,813.2 2,769,423.4 1.6

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…

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