Socio-economic tools for decision makers: Tanzania Case Study

Food Security and Pro-Poor Perspectives for Bioenergy Development

IFAD Global Consultation on Pro-poor Sweet Sorghum Development for Bio-ethanol Production and Introduction to Tropical SugarbeetNovember 2007

Purpose Perspectives on a pro-poor analysis for bioenergy contexts Food insecurity and links to poverty and vulnerability Background and definitions Discuss food security, food security indicators and risks and

opportunities Tools for food security and vulnerability analysis Country Typologies as key starting point, current contexts and

lessons in hunger reductionTanzania Case Study BEFS Project Partner Socio-economic Tools – macro-economic, food security and energy Current bioenergy context – potential feedstock, stakeholders,

constraints, concernsConclusions

What is food security? Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social

and economic access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life

Four dimensions: Availability, Access, Stability and UtilizationTime dimension? Chronic food insecurity is a long term and persistent inability to meet

food requirements Transitory food insecurity is a short term or temporary inability to meet

food needsWhat is vulnerability? Frequency and intensity of shocks affecting households and capacity

to withstand shocks Chronic food insecurity reduces household and community capacity to

withstand shocks

Who are the hungry?

Developed Market Economies

9Countries in Transition

25

Sub-Saharan Africa

206

Near East and North Africa

38

Asia and the Pacific

524

Latin America and the

Caribbean52

854 million820 developing countries

212 million India 150 million China

20 to 34% UNDERNOURISHEDBangladesh Bolivia Botswana CambodiaCameroon Congo Dom Rep GambiaGuatemala Guinea Honduras India

Kenya Laos PDR Malawi MaliMongolia Namibia Nicaragua NigerPakistan Panama Senegal Sri LankaSudan Thailand Togo

> 35% UNDERNOURISHEDAngola Burundi CAR DRCDPRK Eritrea Ethiopia Haiti

Liberia Madagascar Mozambique RwandaSierra Leone Tanzania Tajikistan Yemen

Zambia Zimbabwe

Where are the hungry?

FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY ASSESSMENTS?

Opportunities Risks Food Security Indicators•Diversification and/or increased income from feedstock crops•Infrastructure development and employment (rural)•Improved land use and increased access to factor inputs•Diversification of domestic energy supply•HH energy burden reduced for women and children•SME energy access improved•New technological advances•Climate change mitigation•Revenue from payment for environmental services and monetization of carbon credits

•Decreased access to food due to price increases driven by competition for biomass for energy versus food•Decreased food availability due to replacement of subsistence farm land by energy plantations•Increased environmental pressure due to introduction or expansion of unsustainable bioenergy systems (H20 pollution, loss of biodiversity, land degradation)•Pressure on prices of other goods and services related to land-use and biomass•Cash cropping systems could alter intra-HH food security

•Proportion of chronically undernourished (<5 stunting)•Adult literacy (+female)•Proportion of HH income to food (access)•Proportion own production of food (availability)•Population growth•GDP growth per capita•Agricultural contribution to GDP growth (%)•Adult HIV population •Number of food emergencies (stability)•Degree of import or export dependence (self-sufficiency)•Access to water and sanitation facilities

Source: FAO Bioenergy and Food Security Project Proposal (2006)

Types of food security, livelihoods and vulnerability analysis?

Food frequency and diversity score Coping Strategy Index Phases and scales combine hard and soft

indicators (FAO/FSAU or Famine Scales) Household Food Economy Approach Household Expenditure Surveys Judgment-based Classification Household Self-Assessment

Country Typologies - Key Starting Point

Preliminary analysis - base in typologies Developing, LIFDCs and LDCs Positive extreme – traditional net exporter of food and

energy (Indonesia or Malaysia) Negative extreme - net food and energy importer (LDCs and

Near East) Poor spend high % HH income on food 33% of rural SSA HHs headed by women, lacking access

to factor inputs, affected by environmental degradation, water and fuel shortages

Cash crops can alter HH food security

Prices, biofuels and food security

Rising commodity prices – positive for producers and negative for poor consumers

Clear linkages - fossil fuel prices and food crop feedstock

Price increases in major biofuel feedstock markets (sugar, molasses, corn, rapeseed oil, palm oil and soybean)

Additional uncertainty (biofuel mandates) Factors of exclusion and value chain considerations

Environment, bioenergy and climate change

Trade-offs need analysis, particularly related to food security impacts

Local issues related to access and control of natural resources

Global level, climate change impact most direct link to food security

Increased frequency and severity of weather shocks

Policy domains shape bioenergy and food security impacts

Rural policies favor large-scale commodity and livestock production

Increased competition for resources and inputs to agriculture

Factors of exclusion need to be addressed Attention to agriculture in rural areas necessary Maintaining national and household level food security

remains priority for most developing countries

Lessons in hunger reduction

Applicable to bioenergy development?Agricultural growth is critical Safety net programs are crucial Peace, stability and good governance essential Development assistance needs better targeting

Bioenergy and Food Security Projectwww.fao.org/NR/ben/befs

Why Tanzania as BEFS Partner?

Four criteria for project partners: (1) the energy sector and bioenergy options

in the country (2) Food security dimensions (3) General country characteristics (4) Institutional and governance issues

Tanzania

Source: FAO

Tanzania: Some Key IndicatorsEconomic Indicator 2005GDP/Capita (Constant 2000 USD) 330

GDP/Capita (Constant 2000 Int$, PPP) 662

GDP Growth 7.0

Agriculture Value Added per worker (Constant 2000 USD) 303

Agriculture Share 44.5

Percent of rural population 75.8

Source: WDI 2007, UNDP

Food Security and Poverty in Tanzania

Key Indicators Year of Reference Variable

Population (millions) 2001-2003 36.3

Percent of undernourished 2001-2003 44

Import dependency ratio (% cal basis) 2000-2004 10

Self-sufficiency ratio for cereals * 2004 85

Poverty gap at 1 USD a day (PPP), Percent 2000 20.7

Poverty gap at 2 USD a day (PPP), Percent 2000 49.3

Adult literacy rate, female (age 15 and older) 2005 62.2

HIV Prevalence (% age 15-49) 2005 6.5

Source: FAOSTAT 2006, SOFI 2006, WDI 2007, UNDP; * calculated

Energy Profile of Tanzania

Current energy mix Approximately 90 percent biomass, mostly woody Petroleum and electricity: 9 percent Other sources 1 percent

Low level technologies Low level of electrification

What bioenergy feedstock are under consideration?

Bioethanol: Sugarcane, Sweet sorghum, Cassava, Sissal

Biodiesel: Jatropha, Palm oil, Sunflower

Who is currently involved? Government: Ministry of Agriculture,

Ministry of Energy, and other related sections

University and research Companies - Sunbiofuels, Diligent,

Infenergy, Kitimondo plantations, SEKAB, British Petroleum

UN organizations and NGOs

Who are the major stakeholders? Rural populations, smallholders, outgrowers

- less efficient smaller scale Private sector investors – capital to invest

and larger scale

Plantation model could worsen social and economic exclusion, however..............

Dependent upon contractual arrangements, structure and adherence to policy/mandates

TANZANIA - FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY ASSESSMENTOpportunities Risks Food Security Indicators

•Diversification and/or increased income from feedstock crops•Infrastructure development and employment (rural)•Rural electrification could reduce HH energy burden for women and children•Improved land use and increased access to factor inputs•Diversification of domestic energy supply•SME energy access improved•New technological advances•Climate change mitigation•Revenue from payment for environmental services and monetization of carbon credits

•Current factors of exclusion not addressed•Government/policy risk•Cash cropping systems could alter intra-HH food security•Decreased access to food due to price increases driven by competition for biomass for energy versus food•Decreased food availability due to replacement of subsistence farm land by energy plantations•Increased environmental pressure due to introduction or expansion of unsustainable bioenergy systems (H20 pollution, loss of biodiversity, land degradation)•Pressure on prices of other goods and services related to land-use and biomass

•38% chronically undernourished (<5 stunting)•76% population in rural areas•44% agricultural contribution to GDP growth •62% Adult female literacy •90% HH energy wood biomass•Proportion of HH income to food (access) - HBS•Proportion own production of food (availability) – HBS and food security assessments•1.8% Population growth•7% GDP annual growth, 5.3% annual growth in agriculture •6.5% Adult HIV population •Relatively few food emergencies (stability)•85% self-sufficiency (cereals)•62% access to water and 47% sanitation facilities

Source: FAO Bioenergy and Food Security Project Proposal (2006)

Constraints to private sector investment

Legislation No legislation in place for Bioenergy National Bioenergy Task Force

Land Tenure All land owned by state Released to villages, state, individuals

Infrastructure Very limited number of roads Bioenergy proposals always close to existing infrastructure

(road or railroad)

Constraints to poor rural populations

Extreme poverty and access to credit Remoteness and geographic isolation Rural Infrastructure Gender considerations – moving from

subsistence crop for HH use to cash crop alters (negatively) HH food security

Further Analysis?

Micro Level Tools Quantitative work on HH surveys, reliant on existing

information on sweet sorghum or jatropha Focus on availability and food access data Current energy use, income and food sources

Macro Level Tools Energy profile, internal versus external demand, market

and trade issues Potential returns on investment Value chain perspectives and land tenure

Conclusions Who are the poor and most food insecure relative to bioenergy

development? Identify and respect national priorities about food security and self-

sufficiency (maize) Land and legislation could be serious hurdles to bioenergy

investment No policy/mandate implies no internal market outlet Resolve potential conflict over access and control of natural

resources

Source of income and energy Create incentives for reinvestment Stimulate domestic economy and rural development