AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.3: Distribution of the 46 countries by year of signing CAADP compact and level of CAADP implementation reached by end of 2014 Signed CAADP compact in: Level of CAADP implementation reached by end of 2014 2007–2009 (t=1) 2010–2012 (t=2) 2013–2014 (t=3) Never (t=∞) None or precompact (level 0) Compact (level 1) NAIP (level 2) 1 external funding (level 3) More than 1 external funding (level 4) Benin Burundi Cape Verde Ethiopia Gambia Ghana Liberia Mali Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sierra Leone Togo Burkina Faso Central Afr. Rep. Congo, Dem. Rep. Côte d’Ivoire Djibouti Guinea Guinea Bissau Kenya Malawi Mauritania Mozambique Senegal Swaziland Tanzania Uganda Zambia Angola Cameroon Chad Congo Lesotho Madagascar Sudan Zimbabwe Algeria Botswana Egypt Eritrea Mauritius Morocco Namibia South Africa Tunisia Algeria Botswana Egypt Eritrea Mauritius Morocco Namibia South Africa Tunisia Angola Chad Congo, Rep. Lesotho Madagascar Sudan Swaziland Zimbabwe Cameroon Cape Verde Central Afr. Rep. Congo, Dem. Rep. Djibouti Guinea Guinea Bissau Mauritania Burundi Gambia Liberia Mali Niger Sierra Leone Togo Uganda Zambia Benin Burkina Faso Côte d’Ivoire Ethiopia Ghana Kenya Malawi Mozambique Nigeria Rwanda Senegal Tanzania Source: Authors’ illustration based on (IFPRI, 2015b) are well-advanced in the process and secured at least two sources of external funding (Table 2.5). Second, among the three groups that have signed a compact, changes are significantly lower for the middle group that signed in 2010–2012 (Table 2.4), suggesting that this group has been less successful in deriving benefits from the CAADP process. For countries that have secured some external funding, which occurred mostly after 2009, there seems to be a substitution effect between government and external sources of financing the NAIP, as the change in the share of government expenditure in total expenditure or agriculture expenditure was significantly smaller or negative for the level 3 and level 4 groups compared to those with a NAIP but with no external funding (Table 2.5). Focusing on the results of the change over the entire 2003–2014 periods for implementation of CAADP according to the year countries signed their compact, Table 2.4 shows that the share of agriculture expenditure in total expenditure increased by 1.8 percent on average per year for the 2007–2009 group of countries, compared to 2.4 percent for the middle group, and -2.6 percent for the group that signed last. In contrast, the group without a compact experienced a 6.6 percent decline per year on average. Agricultural production and land productivity increased by 5.9–6.7 percent on average per year for the 2007–2009 group, compared to 3.0–4.9 percent for the 2010–2012 group, 3.0–5.7 percent for the 2013–2014 group. Again, countries without a compact performed the lowest, with productivity and overall growth rates ranging between 2.1 and 2.9 percent. With respect to change in GDP per capita, it increased by 4.3 percent on average per year for the first, compared to 2.4 percent for the second, and 3.5 percent for last group of countries to have signed a compact, versus only 2.2 percent for those that have not signed. The trend is similar for the malnutrition indicator, with a decline in prevalence by 3.1, 2.4, and 5.7 percent annually on average for the first, second, and third group respectively, and only 1.2 percent for those that have not signed. Similar trends are observed for countries have advanced in implementing CAADP (level 4) versus those at lower levels (Table 2.5). AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016 35
Table 2.4. Average annual change in outcomes, by year of signing CAADP compact (%, 2003–2014) Average annual percent change, 2003-2008 Agriculture expenditure (% of total expenditure) Agriculture expenditure (% of agricultural GDP) 2007–2009 (t=1) 2010–2012 (t=2) Signed CAADP compact in: 2013–2014 (t=3) Never (t=∞) Significant differences 9.65 -1.40 4.76 -8.30 1∞, 3∞, 12, 123 13.21 2.47 11.00 -1.20 1∞, 3∞, 12, 123 Land productivity 5.39 2.11 4.25 0.18 1∞, 12, 123 Labor productivity 5.35 1.05 2.91 0.54 1∞, 12, 123 Agricultural growth 6.01 2.81 4.51 0.37 1∞, 12 GDP per capita 6.07 2.70 5.33 3.46 1∞, 12, 123 Undernourished -7.57 -3.25 -5.73 -1.35 1∞, 2∞, 3∞, 12, 123 Average annual percent change, 2008-2014 Agriculture expenditure (% of total expenditure) Agriculture expenditure (% of agricultural GDP) -1.38 2.44 -6.51 -2.21 13, 23, 123 -5.29 5.39 -12.53 -2.43 2∞, 2∞, 12, 23, 123 Land productivity 5.23 4.68 7.13 2.14 3∞ Labor productivity 4.72 3.17 3.02 3.27 13 Agricultural growth 5.48 5.18 4.52 2.48 GDP per capita 3.42 2.43 2.67 1.26 1∞, 2∞, 3∞, Undernourished -0.15 -2.11 -5.19 -0.91 3∞, 13, 23 Average annual percent change, 2003-2014 Agriculture expenditure (% of total expenditure) Agriculture expenditure (% of agricultural GDP) 1.82 2.37 -2.64 -6.58 1∞, 2∞ 1.14 5.00 -4.09 -3.08 2∞, 23 Land productivity 6.60 4.20 5.67 2.08 1∞, 2∞, 3∞, 12, 123 Labor productivity 5.95 2.98 2.99 2.89 1∞, 12, 13, 123 Agricultural growth 6.67 4.88 4.55 2.39 1∞, 2∞, 12, 13, 123 GDP per capita 4.29 2.39 3.51 2.24 1∞, 12, 123 Undernourished -3.31 -2.38 -5.73 -1.19 3∞, 23 Source: Based on Benin (2016) Because the CAADP processes take time to safeguard the expected benefits, and because accessing external funding can broaden or deepen the investments portfolio and related programs for achieving the agricultural development objectives, the generally positive and larger changes associated with countries that signed their compacts early, as well as for those that have advanced in the process and secured multiple sources of external funding, are not surprising. A rigorous assessment of the impact of CAADP has to control for the factors that affect not only countries’ decisions to implement CAADP, but also the factors that affect realization of the outcomes. The implementation of CAADP involves several processes, besides signing a compact (see Figure 2.1), that take time to be effective; these also have to be considered. Basically, the quality of the processes in developing and implementing CAADP in the different countries needs to be factored in, which should help explain, for example, the generally lower performance associated with the group of countries that signed their compact in later compared to those that signed in 2007–2009. Furthermore, isolating the different pathways of impact, for example, showing the links among the different CAADP inputs, outputs and outcomes, will require a complex simultaneous-equations model that 36 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016
Page 2: AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 20
Page 5 and 6: FOREWORD Over the last decade, mill
Page 7 and 8: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Africa Agricul
Page 9 and 10: ACRONYMS Africa Lead AAS AASR AATIF
Page 11 and 12: FMARD FSN FTF GACSA GAFSP GAIN GART
Page 13 and 14: SAKSS SBCC SCARDA SCM SDG SDI SI SM
Page 15 and 16: Introduction For decades, observers
Page 17 and 18: and changing food diets associated
Page 19 and 20: Table 1.2: Population growth of sel
Page 21 and 22: Figure 1.4: Changes in annual agric
Page 23 and 24: already occurring (Headey & Jayne,
Page 25 and 26: lease of customary land without the
Page 27 and 28: Hence, the pattern of trade illustr
Page 29 and 30: Table 1.4: Changes in farm structur
Page 31 and 32: of the pathway to food and nutritio
Page 33 and 34: Jayne, T. S., Chamberlin, J., Traub
Page 35 and 36: KEY MESSAGES ONE CAADP is an unpara
Page 37 and 38: Figure 2.1.Overview of the CAADP Im
Page 39 and 40: level. The success of ReSAKSS is be
Page 41 and 42: agricultural potential, alternative
Page 43 and 44: Table 2.1: Trends in selected CAADP
Page 45 and 46: poverty fell faster during this per
Page 47: expenditure (research, extension, i
Page 51 and 52: captures the individual pathways of
Page 53 and 54: MA also has to be underpinned by lo
Page 55 and 56: References African Union. (2014). M
Page 57 and 58: Meenakshi, J.V., Johnson, N.L., Man
Page 59 and 60: KEY MESSAGES ONE TWO THREE FOUR Afr
Page 61 and 62: GDP declined by 1.4 percent in 2009
Page 63 and 64: from political violence, terrorism,
Page 65 and 66: interpretation is implied, this obs
Page 67 and 68: Differences in the African pattern
Page 69 and 70: Table 3.5: Trends in types of emplo
Page 71 and 72: that would likely affect the contri
Page 73 and 74: c. Concentration of farm structure
Page 75 and 76: a. Invest in education to upgrade t
Page 77 and 78: These could include policy measures
Page 79 and 80: References African Center for Econo
Page 81 and 82: Giller, K. E., Rowe, E. C., de Ridd
Page 83 and 84: Ndung’u, N. S. (2016). Viewpoint:
Page 85 and 86: World Bank. (2015). World developme
Page 87 and 88: KEY MESSAGES ONE Although sustainab
Page 89 and 90: BOX 4.1: Components of Sustainable
Page 91 and 92: of the world. These authors also re
Page 93 and 94: Further, Locatelli et al. (2008) ha
Page 95 and 96: Climate and Weather Variability The
Page 97 and 98: Resilience of livelihoods is determ
Page 99 and 100:
While acknowledging successes of SI
Page 101 and 102:
Entry Points For Sustainable Intens
Page 103 and 104:
BOX 4.4: The CSA Compendium: A scie
Page 105 and 106:
Successful interventions include fo
Page 107 and 108:
Open data combined with agricultura
Page 109 and 110:
According to Tshibaka (2014), evide
Page 111 and 112:
References Abdulai, A., & Delgado,
Page 113 and 114:
Enfors, E. (2013). Social-ecologica
Page 115 and 116:
Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell,
Page 117 and 118:
Toulmin, C., Leonard, R., Brock, K.
Page 119 and 120:
KEY MESSAGES ONE In SSA, sustainabl
Page 121 and 122:
Figure 5.1: Poverty traps framework
Page 123 and 124:
Cereal Yield/Kilogram Per Hectare F
Page 125 and 126:
Table 5.2: Correlation between fact
Page 127 and 128:
Table 5.3: Farmer use of improved i
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 5.9: Agricultural research s
Page 131 and 132:
association is found for cereal out
Page 133 and 134:
AGRA’s Experience The observation
Page 135 and 136:
Increase access to affordable crop
Page 137 and 138:
Sheahan, M., & Barrett, C. B. (2014
Page 139 and 140:
KEY MESSAGES ONE Smallholder farmer
Page 141 and 142:
transformation in Africa. The achie
Page 143 and 144:
from agribusiness actors to smallho
Page 145 and 146:
season, maize prices could be 270 p
Page 147 and 148:
critical challenges and the solutio
Page 149 and 150:
Limited access and high cost of acc
Page 151 and 152:
of onion production in northern Gha
Page 153 and 154:
Conclusions This chapter presents t
Page 155 and 156:
Collins, D., Morduch, ,. J., Ruther
Page 157 and 158:
Minot, N. (2014). Food price volati
Page 159 and 160:
Weatherspoon, D. D., & Reardon, T.
Page 161 and 162:
KEY MESSAGES ONE Access to finance
Page 163 and 164:
esources into agriculture. This in
Page 165 and 166:
Table 7.1: Indicative investments t
Page 167 and 168:
technical knowledge about products.
Page 169 and 170:
continue to experience inadequate a
Page 171 and 172:
Box 7.1: GAFSP: Country Examples Rw
Page 173 and 174:
Private Equity Association, total p
Page 175 and 176:
drawing down assets, and 25 percent
Page 177 and 178:
equires: recognition of the critica
Page 179 and 180:
Policy Recommendations This review
Page 181 and 182:
Meyer, R. L. (2015, March). Financi
Page 183 and 184:
KEY MESSAGES ONE The African contin
Page 185 and 186:
Figure 8.1: Mobile phone based serv
Page 187 and 188:
high input costs, and a disconnecte
Page 189 and 190:
available through less high-tech de
Page 191 and 192:
Figure 8.4: Kenya leads the pack fo
Page 193 and 194:
years and higher quality seeds are
Page 195 and 196:
CASE STUDY FieldLook South Sudan in
Page 197 and 198:
Rationale behind rapid adoption •
Page 199 and 200:
CASE STUDY Eastern Africa Farmer Fe
Page 201 and 202:
many others have none or have strin
Page 203 and 204:
the strategic adoption of ICT with
Page 205 and 206:
To address constraints to improving
Page 207 and 208:
References Accenture. (2015). Digit
Page 209 and 210:
Gustafson, S. (27.1.2016). The Digi
Page 211 and 212:
Wolfenson K. D. (2013). Coping with
Page 213 and 214:
KEY MESSAGES ONE A guided evolution
Page 215 and 216:
een registered over the last decade
Page 217 and 218:
the AIS paradigm at policy and prog
Page 219 and 220:
Box 9.2: Rwanda - A Phoenix Rising
Page 221 and 222:
other supportive partners (tertiary
Page 223 and 224:
Table 9.2: SSA AR4D funding through
Page 225 and 226:
(e.g., NARIs, universities, NGOs, F
Page 227 and 228:
Table 9.3: Number of extension agen
Page 229 and 230:
the whole farm whereas the field sc
Page 231 and 232:
approach, organizational or system
Page 233 and 234:
CASE STUDY Regional Universities Fo
Page 235 and 236:
CASE STUDY African Network for Agri
Page 237 and 238:
CASE STUDY FAO—Tropical Agricultu
Page 239 and 240:
Bizimana, C. (2014). Rwanda’s Ach
Page 241 and 242:
Rwanda. Retrieved from http://www.m
Page 243 and 244:
World Bank. (2007). Project Apprais
Page 245 and 246:
KEY MESSAGES ONE The poverty rate a
Page 247 and 248:
Table 10.1: Number of undernourishe
Page 249 and 250:
Figure 10.6: Stunting in children u
Page 251 and 252:
Why single out nutrition matters? A
Page 253 and 254:
BOX 10.1: The 7 Malabo Declaration
Page 255 and 256:
Reducing post-harvest losses FAO es
Page 257 and 258:
BOX 10.4: Growing trend towards a m
Page 259 and 260:
References African Union. (2015). T
Page 261 and 262:
Schmidt, R. H., & Rodrick, G. E. (2
Page 263 and 264:
“Africa is simply tired of being
Page 265 and 266:
2025, tripling intra-African trade,
Page 267 and 268:
towards agricultural transformation
Page 269 and 270:
While agricultural research generat
Page 271 and 272:
258 AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPOR
Page 273 and 274:
Technical Notes The following conve
Page 275 and 276:
Madagascar 72.6 72.3 72.1 71.8 71.2
Page 277 and 278:
Madagascar 2.81 -15.28 6.54 2.19 1.
Page 279 and 280:
Madagascar 351.1 337.2 332.9 323.7
Page 281 and 282:
Madagascar 2,020 1,967 2,202 2,354
Page 283 and 284:
Madagascar 86.0 84.2 87.3 91.8 103.
Page 285 and 286:
Mali .. .. 52.0 15.7 17.5 31.1 22.5
Page 287 and 288:
Madagascar -0.0053 -0.0075 0.0073 -
Page 289 and 290:
Malawi 401.9 405.1 437.2 438.9 511.
Page 291 and 292:
Madagascar 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6
Page 293 and 294:
Madagascar 0.9 1.0 1.6 1.9 2.8 5.6
Page 295 and 296:
Liberia .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Page 297:
Liberia 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.5
show all

AFRICA AGRICULTURE STATUS REPORT 2016

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?