116
AFRICAN UNION Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) NEPAD

Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

African Ministers of Agriculture met at FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy on 9th June 2002 under the auspices of the FAO Regional Conference for Africa. The purpose of their special follow-up session was to review an earlier draft of this document – the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) - prepared by FAO in co-operation with the NEPAD Steering Committee. Extracts from the report of their meeting are produced as Annex 1. It can be seen that the Conference welcomed and endorsed the CAADP and agreed on the need to quickly operationalise it; it offered guidance to member governments on a wide range of aspects of operationalisation and action to revitalise African agriculture. What follows is the full CAADP document after some adjustment to reflect some comments received on the version presented to the Ministers, including their desire to see research included as a pillar for action. Clearly, a programme on agriculture must remain open to continuing improvement and also be open to interpretation for each of Africa’s sub-regions in order to best address that continent’s diversity. This document therefore offers a broad frame of priorities from which more precise strategies and programmes can be derived for operationalisation. Africa is a rural continent and agriculture is extremely important to it. For the region as a whole, the agricultural sector accounts for about 60 percent of the total labour force, 20 percent of total merchandise exports and 17 percent of GDP. The latest figures (for 1997-99) show that some 200 million people – or 28 percent of Africa’s population – are chronically hungry, compared to 173 million in 1990-92. While the proportion of the population facing hunger is dropping slightly, the absolute numbers are rising inexorably. During the 1990’s, declines in the number of hungry people have been registered in only 10 countries. At the end of the 1990’s, 30 countries reported that over 20 percent of their population was undernourished and in 18 of these, over 35 percent of the population was chronically hungry. As of 2001, about 28 million people in Africa were facing food emergencies due to droughts, floods and strife, of which some 25 million needed emergency food and agricultural assistance. To reflect its particularly difficult situation, the World Food Programme - which accounts for two-fifths of international food aid - has spent US$12.5 billion (45 percent of its total investment since its establishment) in Africa and 50 percent of its investment in 2001. Food aid indicates considerable external dependency: in 2000 Africa received 2.8 million tons of food aid, which is over a quarter of the world total. In line with the rise in the number of hungry, there has been a progressive growth in food imports in the

Citation preview

Page 1: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

AFRICAN UNION

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Programme

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)

NEPAD

Page 2: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

At the invitation of the NEPAD Steering Committee,this document, which presents the ComprehensiveAfrica Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)of NEPAD, has been prepared through the facilitationof the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UnitedNations (FAO) in close collaboration with the NEPADSecretariat. It has followed a consultative process, thekey elements of which have been as follows:• March 2002: Presentation of the main themes of

potential CAADP contents by the Director General ofFAO to the NEPAD Heads of State ImplementationCommittee in Abuja, Nigeria;

• End April 2002: Circulation for review and commentof a first draft (at that stage as a summary and threeseparate papers). Distribution was to all AfricanMinisters of Agriculture and for African integration;the Heads of African Regional EconomicOrganisations; the Chairman and members of theNEPAD Steering Committee; the Heads of the AfricanDevelopment Bank and of other selected African sub-regional development banks; the Head of the UNEconomic Commission for Africa; World Bank agri-culture experts; and for information to theOrganisation for African Unity;

• Early May 2002: Consolidation of the separate papersinto the unified Comprehensive Africa AgricultureDevelopment Programme document and integrationof the comments received on the April drafts;

• Mid-May 2002: Presentation of the first consolidat-ed document for comment at the Maputo meetingof the NEPAD Steering Committee;

• End May 2002: Recasting of the CAADP draft to takeaccount of the proposals and comments of theNEPAD Steering Committee and circulation to thesame network of reviewers and commentators.

• June 2002: Meeting in Rome, Italy (9th June 2002)of African Ministers of Agriculture (joined by somemembers of the NEPAD Steering Committee) toreview the CAADP (See Annex 1).

The International Fund for Agricultural Development,the World Food Programme, and the World Bank/Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa partnershiphave also offered important inputs, comments andsuggestions.The CAADP has been prepared to promote interven-tions that best respond to the widely recognised crisissituation of African agriculture. It has been cast todeliberately focus on investment into the followingthree mutually reinforcing "pillars" that can make the

earliest difference to Africa’s dire situation: (a) extend-ing the area under sustainable land management andreliable water control systems; (b) improving rural infra-structure and trade-related capacities for improvedmarket access; and (c) increasing food supply andreducing hunger. The CAADP also pays attention toemergencies and disasters that require food and agri-cultural responses or safety nets; if ignored, the dislo-cation caused by these can undermine or reverse devel-opment achievements. In addition, it presents onelong-term "pillar" on agricultural research, technologi-cal dissemination and adoption. In no way is the focus on these pillars intended to implythat other things, such as policy and institutionalreform, capacity building etc are not important.Indeed, these long-term enabling factors should beintegrated into implementation of all the "pillars".However, so deep is Africa’s agricultural crisis that pri-ority must go to immediate action that can make theearliest difference and should make use of existingknowledge, capacity, and policy and institutionalarrangements. Action to address the African agricultur-al crisis cannot await the achievement of ideal enablingconditions – the past decades of undergoing structuralreforms of its economies, policies and institutions haveleft Africa with few discernible benefits for the majori-ty of its people; indeed, there may be no assurance oflong-term betterment from such reforms. Among frequent criticisms of this first version of theCAADP is the lack of explicit reference to gender. Asindicated in Chapter 5, "special attention must be givento the vital food-producing and entrepreneurial roles ofwomen in rural and urban African communities. Africanwomen account for substantial amounts of productionin both the informal and formal sectors." It is clearlyessential that gender be a core consideration in opera-tionalising the CAADP; at this stage, the broad pillarsare important for both men and women. With regard tolack of attention to the livestock and fisheries sectors(immediate potential) and to the forestry sector (long-term importance for food security), it is proposed thatthe particular needs of these other land-using sectors betaken up in a linked but separate exercise in the nearfuture without holding back the action on crop produc-tion which can provide the most urgent calorie supply. With the broad lines of the CAADP now available,operationalisation needs to be launched – this willrequire leadership by Africa itself, in the spirit of self-reliance that is the hallmark of NEPAD.

Process and scope of the Agriculture Programme

Page 3: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

July 2003

ISBN 0-620-30700-5

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Programme

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)

Page 4: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

ii

Page 5: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Foreword

iii

I am pleased to write this foreword on Africa’sframework for agriculture, NEPAD’s ComprehensiveAfrica Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).The CAADP document is a product of a partnershipbetween NEPAD and the Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO) of the United Nations. It is also adirect result of invaluable contributions by multilateralinstitutions such as the International Fund forAgricultural Development (FAD), the World FoodProgramme, the World Bank and the Forum forAgricultural Research in Africa (FARA).

This document is a result of extensive and thoroughconsultations with a wide range of stakeholders. It isimportant to emphasise, however, that, as a programmefor agriculture, CAADP is a dynamic document andmust remain open to continued improvement andinterpretation by each of Africa’s sub-regions in order tobest address our continent’s diverse needs.

After nearly forty years of economic stagnation, withthe current food crises in the Horn of Africa, SouthernAfrica, and in Central Africa, African leaders areapplying themselves to finding sustainable solutions tohunger and poverty. NEPAD believes that agriculturewill provide the engine for growth in Africa.

Improving agricultural performance is at the heart ofimproved economic development and growth, and itsrole in poverty eradication and in the restoration ofhuman dignity can never be over-emphasised. Toachieve this agricultural renewal in Africa, NEPAD isforging new partnerships, based on African ownership,with its traditional partners. More importantly, NEPADis encouraging Africans to utilise their own strengths,abilities, resources and political leadership to generatedevelopment and growth in their own countries and onthe continent.

The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture DevelopmentProgramme (CAADP) is based on these principles andbears testimony to the high premium NEPAD places onagriculture. This framework clearly reaffirms that, as wecontinue to sharpen our focus on implementationstrategies of this world-acclaimed developmentinitiative, we have moved beyond the level of mererhetoric to the concrete and pragmatic stage ofimplementation. This programme must, therefore,guide our continent’s agricultural developmentinitiative as a framework for a concerted continentaleffort towards Africa’s development.

I am hopeful that, through CAADP, we shall be ableto define new relationships that respond to the needsof Africa in innovative ways. Africa has the requiredpolitical will to make this happen. In partnership withthe international community, Africa will develop thecapacity necessary to achieve this goal.

I would like to commend the individuals andinstitutions that worked tirelessly to craft this importantdocument, which is an embodiment of a programmethat will help Africa to reach the MillenniumDevelopment Goal of reducing hunger and poverty byhalf by 2015. The CAADP is both a timely idea and adream whose fulfilment deserves our unalloyedsupport and commitment.

President Olusegun Obasanjo10 June 2003

by HE President Olusegun Obasanjo,Chairman of the NEPAD Implementation Committee

Page 6: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

CAM

ERO

ON

NIGERIA

CENTRALAFRICANREPUBLIC

NIGER

CHAD

LIBYAALGERIA

MALIMAURITANIA

WESTERN SAHARA

MOROCCO

TUNISA

EGYPT

SUDAN

ETHIOPIA

SOM

ALIA

CON

GO

DEMOCRATICREPUBLICOF CONGO

TANZANIAM

AD

AG

ASC

AR

ANGOLA

NAMIBIA

SOUTHAFRICA

LESOTHO

SWAZILAND

BOTSWANA

ZIMBABWE

ZAMBIAMALAWI

MOZAM

BIQUE

KENYAUGANDA

RWANDABURUNDI

EQUATORIALGUINEA

DJIBOUTI

GABON

BURKINAFASO

IVORYCOAST

GH

AN

A

LIBERIA

SIERRA LEONE

GUINEA

SENEGAL

BENIN

TOG

O

GUINEA BISSAU

ERITREATHE GAMBIA

SÃO TOMÉ& PRINCIPE

CAPE VERDE

SEYCHELLES

COMOROS

MAURITIUS

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

iv

ATLANTIC OCEAN INDIAN OCEAN

Page 7: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

v

Contents

1. Background ..................................................................................................... 1

2. Areas of Primary Action ................................................................................... 2

3. Investment Estimates ....................................................................................... 3

4. Africa’s Contribution to Investment.................................................................. 3

5. Enabling Conditions for Action ........................................................................ 4

Underpinning Investments in African Agriculture and trade-related Capacitiesfor improved Market Access: A Continental Vision..................................................... 5

1.1. Introduction - Purpose of the Document......................................................... 5

1.2. Evolution of the CAADP Document ................................................................ 6

1.3. African Agriculture in Crisis.............................................................................. 6

1.4. Importance of Agriculture and Challenges in tapping its Potential ................... 7

1.4.1. Importance ....................................................................................... 7

1.4.2. Challenges and Basis for Response ................................................... 7

1.5. NEPAD – Overall Vision and Agriculture in Context .......................................... 8

1.6. A Vision for African Agriculture ....................................................................... 8

1.7. Enabling Conditions for African Agricultural Development............................... 9

1.8. Pillars for Priority Investment............................................................................ 12

1.8.1. Pillar 1: Land and Water Management ............................................. 12

1.8.2. Pillar 2: Rural Infrastructure and Trade-related Capacities for Improved Market access ................................................................... 13

1.8.3. Pillar No 3: Increasing Food Supply and Reducing Hunger ................ 15

1.8.4. Pillar No 4: Agricultural Research, Technology Dissemination and Adoption ................................................................................... 17

1.9. Investment Levels and Strategies...................................................................... 17

1.9.1. Levels of Investment ......................................................................... 18

1.9.2. Africa’s own Investment ................................................................... 18

1.9.3. Public versus Private Investments ...................................................... 18

1.9.4. Partnerships...................................................................................... 19

1.10. Impacts............................................................................................................ 19

1.11. Moving from Dialogue to Action ..................................................................... 20

Extending the Area under Sustainable Land Management and Reliable Water Control Systems.................................................................................. 23

2.1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 23

2.2. Husbandry of Soil Resources ............................................................................ 24

2.3. Water Control and Management ..................................................................... 25

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Executive Summary

Page 8: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

vi

2.4. Assumptions and Investment Estimates............................................................ 25

2.4.1. Data and Information Sources .......................................................... 25

2.4.2. Typologies of Investment Interventions ............................................. 26

2.4.3. Assessing Unit Investment Costs ....................................................... 26

2.4.4. Describing the Current Situation....................................................... 27

2.4.5. Assessing a Possible Target for 2015 ................................................ 27

2.4.6. General Assumptions in the Calculations .......................................... 27

2.5. Towards a Common Strategy for Investment................................................... 27

2.6. Estimated Potential for Investment................................................................... 28

2.7. Moving Forward .............................................................................................. 30

Improving Infrastructure and Trade-Related Capacities for Market Access .................. 31

3.1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 31

3.2. Role, Importance and Current Situation ........................................................... 33

3.2.1. Rural Infrastructure........................................................................... 33

3.2.2. Trade-related Capacities for Improved Market Access ....................... 36

3.3. Investment Strategy ......................................................................................... 40

3.3.1. Rural Infrastructure........................................................................... 40

3.3.2. Trade-related Capacities for Improved Market Access ....................... 41

3.4. Estimated Investment Requirements................................................................. 41

3.4.1. Basis of Estimates ............................................................................. 41

3.4.2. Total Investments.............................................................................. 43

3.4.3. Expected Impact ............................................................................... 44

3.5. Future International Support ............................................................................ 44

Increasing Food Supply and Reducing Hunger: Strengthening National and Regional Food Security............................................................................................... 45

4.1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 45

4.2. Food Insecurity in Africa .................................................................................. 46

4.3. Strategies to Reduce Food Insecurity................................................................ 47

4.3.1. Preparedness and Response Capacity to Emergencies ....................... 47

4.3.2. Direct Assistance to the most Food Insecure ..................................... 50

4.3.3. Programmes to enhance Food Security through Production.............. 51

4.4. Africa and the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS).............................. 52

4.5. Funding Requirements ..................................................................................... 54

4.6. Regional Programmes for Food Security........................................................... 56

4.6.1. Trade Facilitation .............................................................................. 56

4.6.2. Harmonisation of Agricultural Policies............................................... 58

4.6.3. Support to National Programmes for Food Security for IncreasedProduction and Productivity .............................................................. 58

4.7. NEPAD and the Improvement of Food Security ................................................ 58

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Page 9: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

vii

Agricultural Research, Technology Dissemination and Adoption ................................. 59

5.1. The Challenge ................................................................................................. 59

5.2. Current Situation ............................................................................................. 605.2.1. Agricultural productivity is low and falling ........................................ 60

5.2.2. Increasing expenditure on agricultural research and extension.......... 60

5.2.3. Spending on agricultural research in Africa is stagnant..................... 60

5.2.4. Private sector research will not fill the gap........................................ 61

5.2.5. Agricultural research and extension services are not playing their important roles......................................................................... 61

5.3. Elements of Sustainability ................................................................................ 63

5.3.1. Political Commitment ....................................................................... 63

5.3.2. Financial ........................................................................................... 63

5.3.3. Institutional ...................................................................................... 63

5.3.4. Environmental and Social ................................................................. 64

5.4. Road to Sustainability ...................................................................................... 645.4.1. Technology Generation: Reform Agenda at the National Level ......... 64

5.4.2. Technology Adoption: Reform Agenda at the National Level ............ 66

5.4.3. Strengthening Regional and Sub-regional Research Systems............. 67

5.4.4. Even with these reforms, more funding is needed ............................ 68

5.5. The NEPAD Agricultural Research Agenda........................................................ 71

5.5.1 Challenges and Opportunities for Agricultural Research in Africa...... 71

5.5.2. Goals, Purposes and Objectives ........................................................ 72

5.5.3. Research Components ...................................................................... 72

5.5.4. Co-ordination and Governance......................................................... 76

5.6. Creating an Enabling Environment for Agricultural Research for Development. 76

5.6.1. Expanding Partnerships with Policymakers, the Private Sector and NGOs ............................................................ 76

5.6.2. Information Sharing and its Role in Market Development ................. 77

5.6.3. Marketing and Trade ........................................................................ 77

5.6.4. The Role of African Women in Rural Development ........................... 78

5.7. Investments in Agricultural Research and Extension ......................................... 79

5.8. Next Steps ....................................................................................................... 79

Annex 1: Consideration of the NEPAD Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme by the Meeting of African Ministers of Agriculture ........................................................................................ 81

Annex 2: Extracts from the G8 Africa Action Plan Released at the G-8 Summit in Kananaskis (Canada) that are Directly Relevant to NEPAD Agriculture............................................................................. 83

Annex 3: Provisional List of Actions Required to Achieve Success in Agricultural Development Under NEPAD ................................................ 85

Chapter 5

Annexes

Page 10: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

viii

Figure 1: Public Agricultural Research Expenditures, 1976-1996 ........................... 61

Figure 2: Current Funding Flows for Research and Extension Services ................... 69

Figure 3: New Funding Flows for Research and Extension Services........................ 69

Text Box 1: NEPAD Agriculture and the Millenium Development Goals..................... 9

Text Box 2: Selected Impediments to African Agricultural Renewal........................... 10

Text Box 3: Creating a Positive Environment for Agricultural Development: possible NEPAD Principles....................................................................... 11

Text Box 4: Governance and Consultative Forum Initiatives for African Agriculture................................................................................. 22

Text Box 5: NEPAD Action Programme on Infrastructure: Interface with Agriculture ...................................................................... 32

Text Box 6: Farm Subsidies in Industrial Countries - the Case of the US Farm Bill .................................................................. 39

Text Box 7: Africa Disasters and Emergencies with Food and Agriculture Implications - Insights from Selected International Organisations............ 48

Text Box 8: Areas of Focus to Combat Africa's Food and Agriculture Emergencies ........................................................................ 51

Text Box 9: Diversifying Rural Income - Rural Non-Farm (RNF)Income Opportunities ............................................................................ 53

Text Box 10: Special Considerations for Fisheries and Forestry.................................... 54

Text Box 11: Farm Power and Mechanisation ............................................................. 55

Table 1: Orders of Magnitude for Africa's Contribution to Investment ................ 88

Table 2: Estimates of Overall Investment ............................................................. 89

Table 3: A Possible Scenario Regarding Financing Sources for Agriculture Under NEPAD....................................................................... 89

Table 4: Gross Estimates of Investment by Source ............................................... 89

Table 5: Soil Constraints...................................................................................... 90

Table 6: Unit Investment Costs, US$.................................................................... 90

Table 7: Estimated Investments in Irrigation in Main Regions, US$ Million........... 90

Table 8: Projections for Water Management and Land Improvements 2015 ........ 91

Table 9: Annual Investment and Maintenance Requirements to 2015 (US$ Million)................................................................................. 91

Table 10: Road Infrastructure in Africa, by Sub-Region.......................................... 92

Table 11: Road Infrastructure in Africa Compared to Other Developing Regions ..................................................................... 92

Table 12: Infrastructure – Africa in World Perspective............................................ 92

Table 13: Rural Road Networking in Selecting African Countries in the Humid and Semi-Humid Tropics (Hst) ..................................................... 93

List of Figures

List of Text Boxes

List of Tables

Page 11: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

ix

Table 14: Existing Stock of Roads to Rehabilitate and New Roads to 2015 ('000 Km)............................................................... 93

Table 15: Investments for Rural Infrastructure and Trade-Related Capacities for Improved Market Access.................................................. 94

Table 16: Maintenance Requirements for all Categories of Rural Infrastructure ..... 94

Table 17: Projections of Total Investment Requirements for Rural Infrastructure and Trade-Related Capacities for Improved Market Access By 2015 .......................................................... 94

Table 18: Annual Investment and Maintenance Requirements to 2015 (US$ Million)................................................................................. 95

Table 19: Projections by Source of Financing (Excluding Trade-RelatedCapacities for Improved Market Access )................................................ 95

Table 20: Projections By Source of Financing (Excluding Trade-RelatedCapacities for Improved Market Access )................................................ 95

Table 21: Population, Per Capita Dietary Energy Supply and Prevalence of Under-Nourishment .......................................................... 96

Table 22: SPFS Funding Requirement Based on Regional Groupings ...................... 96

Table 1: Details of Investment Requirements by Objective and Time Horizon....... 97

Table 2: Investment Projections for Water, Land and Rural Infrastructure and Trade-Related Capacities for Improved Market Access (by Geographical Sub-Region) (US$ Billion) ............................................ 98

Table 3: Investment Projections for Water, Land and Rural Infrastructure and Trade-Related Capacities for Improved Market Access (by Regional Group) (US$ Million) .......................................................... 98

Table 4: Annual Investment and Maintenance Requirements to 2015 (US$ Million)................................................................................. 99

Table 5: Projections by Source of Financing for Land and Water Investments ...... 100

Table 6: Annual Funding Requirements for National SPFS, Based on RegionalEconomic Organisation Groups (US$ Million) ......................................... 101

Table 7: Annual Funding Requirements for Regional SPFS (i.e. RPFS) ................... 101

Table 8: Total Annual Funding Requirements for National Programmes and Rural Economic Organisation (US$ Million) ............................................ 101

Table 9: Africa Estimates of Investments (Both Sub-Saharan and North Africa Included)............................................................................ 102

List of Appendix Tables

Page 12: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

x

Published by:New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)

P O Box 1234, Halfway House1685

MidrandSouth Africa

Tel: 011 313 3716International +27 11 313 3716Website: http//www.nepad.org

NEPAD Secretariat: Principal Programmes CoordinatorS.T. Dogonyaro

Tel: 011 313 3789International +27 11 313 3789E-mail: [email protected]

NEPAD Secretariat: Agricultural AdvisorR.M. MkandawireTel: 011 313 3153

International +27 11 313 3153E-mail: [email protected]

Published with technical support from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Rome, Italy: July 2003

Photographs courtesy of FAO, Department of Agriculture, South Africa and Land Bank of South Africa

©NEPAD NEPAD welcomes the use of the contents of this publication by researchers,

news media and other publications, but would appreciate acknowledgement of the source.

ISBN 0-620-30700-5

DesignColin Bridgeford and Gillian Howard

Reproduction and PrintHot Dot Print (Pty) Ltd

Page 13: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

1

Executive Summary

1. Background

African Ministers of Agriculture met at FAOHeadquarters in Rome, Italy on 9th June 2002 underthe auspices of the FAO Regional Conference forAfrica. The purpose of their special follow-up sessionwas to review an earlier draft of this document – theComprehensive Africa Agriculture DevelopmentProgramme (CAADP) - prepared by FAO in co-operationwith the NEPAD Steering Committee. Extracts from thereport of their meeting are produced as Annex 1. It canbe seen that the Conference welcomed and endorsedthe CAADP and agreed on the need to quicklyoperationalise it; it offered guidance to membergovernments on a wide range of aspects ofoperationalisation and action to revitalise Africanagriculture. What follows is the full CAADP documentafter some adjustment to reflect some commentsreceived on the version presented to the Ministers,including their desire to see research included as a pillarfor action.

Clearly, a programme on agriculture must remainopen to continuing improvement and also be open tointerpretation for each of Africa’s sub-regions in orderto best address that continent’s diversity. Thisdocument therefore offers a broad frame of prioritiesfrom which more precise strategies and programmescan be derived for operationalisation.

Africa is a rural continent and agriculture is extremely

important to it. For the region as a whole, theagricultural sector accounts for about 60 percent of thetotal labour force, 20 percent of total merchandiseexports and 17 percent of GDP. The latest figures (for1997-99) show that some 200 million people – or 28percent of Africa’s population – are chronically hungry,compared to 173 million in 1990-92. While theproportion of the population facing hunger is droppingslightly, the absolute numbers are rising inexorably.During the 1990’s, declines in the number of hungrypeople have been registered in only 10 countries. Atthe end of the 1990’s, 30 countries reported that over20 percent of their population was undernourishedand in 18 of these, over 35 percent of the populationwas chronically hungry. As of 2001, about 28 millionpeople in Africa were facing food emergencies due todroughts, floods and strife, of which some 25 millionneeded emergency food and agricultural assistance. Toreflect its particularly difficult situation, the World FoodProgramme - which accounts for two-fifths ofinternational food aid - has spent US$12.5 billion (45percent of its total investment since its establishment)in Africa and 50 percent of its investment in 2001.Food aid indicates considerable external dependency:in 2000 Africa received 2.8 million tons of food aid,which is over a quarter of the world total.

In line with the rise in the number of hungry, therehas been a progressive growth in food imports in the

View of slow-forming terraces with scattered rural housing, Rwanda

Page 14: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

2

last years of the 20th century, with Africa spending anestimated US$18.7 billion in 2000 alone. Imports ofagricultural products have been rising faster thanexports since the 1960s and Africa as a whole has beena net agricultural importing region since 1980.Agriculture accounts for about 20 percent of totalmerchandise exports from Africa, having declined fromover 50 percent in the 1960s.

Until the incidence of hunger is brought down and theimport bill reduced by raising the output of farm productswhich the region can produce with comparativeadvantage, it will be difficult to achieve the high rates ofeconomic growth to which NEPAD aspires. Peoplesuffering from hunger are marginalised within theeconomy, contributing little to output and still less todemand. Investing in the reduction of hunger is a moralimperative but it also makes economic sense. Agriculture-led development is fundamental to cutting hunger,reducing poverty (70 percent of which is in rural areas),generating economic growth, reducing the burden offood imports and opening the way to an expansion ofexports.

2. Areas of Primary Action

As currently formulated, the proposed initiatives underthe NEPAD Comprehensive Africa AgricultureDevelopment Programme (CAADP) focus oninvestment in three "pillars" that can make the earliestdifference to Africa’s agricultural crisis, plus a fourthlong-term pillar for research and technology. Thefundamental mutually reinforcing pillars on which tobase the immediate improvement of Africa’sagriculture, food security and trade balance are:

• Extending the area under sustainable land manage-ment and reliable water control systems. Relianceon irregular and unreliable rainfall for agriculturalproduction is a major constraint on crop productivity;rain-fed agriculture is moreover often unable topermit high-yield crop varieties to achieve their fullproduction potential. Accordingly, it is of concernthat for Africa the percentage of arable land that isirrigated is 7 percent (barely 3.7 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa) while the corresponding percentagesfor South America, East and South-East Asia andSouth Asia are 10 percent, 29 percent and 41percent respectively. Furthermore, in Africa 16percent of all soils are classified as having lownutrient reserves while in Asia the equivalent figure isonly 4 percent; moreover, fertiliser productivity(expressed in terms of maize yield response) in Africais estimated at some 36 percent lower than in Asiaand 92 percent lower than in developed countries.Building up soil fertility and the moisture holding

capacity of agricultural soils and rapidly increasingthe area equipped with irrigation, especially small-scale water control, will not only provide farmerswith opportunities to raise output on a sustainablebasis but also will contribute to the reliability of foodsupplies.

• Improving rural infrastructure and trade-relatedcapacities for market access. Improvements in roads,storage, markets, packaging and handling systems,and input supply networks, are vital to raising thecompetitiveness of local production vis-à-vis importsand in export markets. Investment in these areas willstimulate the volume of production and trade, therebyassisting to generate an appropriate rate of return onneeded investments in ports and airport facilities. Ingeneral, Africa urgently needs infrastructureimprovements for development, given that it faces thelongest distances to the nearest large markets and thata fifth of its population is landlocked. Its rail freight isunder 2 percent of the world total, the marine freightcapacity is 11 percent (much being foreign owned butregistered for convenience in Africa), and air freight isless than 1 percent; similarly, its power generationcapacity per capita is less than half of that in eitherAsia or Latin America. In parallel with improvements ininfrastructure within Africa, adjustments are needed inthe promotion and support (including subsidy) policiesof developed countries. Exporting countries within theregion need to raise their capacity to participate intrade negotiations and to meet the increasinglystringent quality requirements of world trade.

• Increasing food supply and reducing hunger. Africacurrently lags behind all other regions in terms of farmproductivity levels, with depressed crop and livestockyields and limited use of irrigation and other inputs. Byaccessing improved technology – much of which issimple and relatively low in cost – small farmers canplay a major role in increasing food availability close towhere it is most needed, raising rural incomes andexpanding employment opportunities, as well as incontributing to a growth in exports. This requiresimproved farm support services, pilot projects targetedat poor communities and a supportive policyenvironment.

A sub-component of this pillar is for investment torespond to the growing frequency and severity ofdisasters and emergencies; it calls for someattention to the fact that rapid humanitarianinterventions followed by rehabilitation are requiredbefore normal development can resume. IFADrecently observed1 that in addition to naturaldisasters, over 50 countries were facing or hadrecently undergone civil or cross-border conflicts,

1 IFAD, 1998: IFAD Framework for bridging post-crisis recovery and long-term development. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome. ExecutiveBoard, 64th session, Document EB 98/64/R.8. From http://www.ifad.org/

Page 15: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

3

including some 20 of the poorest countries. As aresult, more aid is being diverted to emergency reliefthan to necessary long-term development; IFAD alsonoted a troubling gap in the transition from relief todevelopment. There is need for action to ensure thatshort-term interventions are followed up by long-term development. Furthermore, achieving animmediate impact on hunger also requires that theproduction-related investments be complemented bytargeted safety nets. Failure to attend to unpredictableneeds and to providing safety nets can easily deraillong-term development. However, the actuarial basisfor dimensioning investment is too weak. For lack ofbetter information, therefore, Africa at this stageneeds to provide at least some US$3 billion annually(proposed until 2015). Together, the "investment" insafety nets and humanitarian/emergency food andagriculture would require some US$42 billionbetween 2002 and 2015.

Further, to provide the scientific underpinningnecessary for long-term productivity and competitiveness,there is a fourth pillar, namely:

• Agricultural research, technology disseminationand adoption. This long-term pillar, which aims atachieving accelerated gains in productivity, willrequire: (a) an enhanced rate of adoption for themost promising available technologies, to supportthe immediate expansion of African productionthrough the more efficient linking of research andextension systems to producers; (b) technologydelivery systems that rapidly bring innovations tofarmers and agribusinesses, thereby making increasedadoption possible, notably through the appropriateuse of new information and communicationtechnologies; (c) renewing the ability of agriculturalresearch systems to efficiently and effectivelygenerate and adapt new knowledge andtechnologies, including biotechnology, to Africa,which are needed to increase output and productivitywhile conserving the environment; and (d)mechanisms that reduce the costs and risks ofadopting new technologies. For the period 2002 –2015, a total investment of some US$4.6 billionis estimated.

3. Investment Estimates

The implementation of the programme will beundertaken at regional level in co-operation withregional economic organisations and unions and alsoat national level. NEPAD can add value to nationalaction by promoting the convergence of countryprogrammes towards complementary or sharedpriorities. This would enable African producers to avoidinadvertently undermining each other in theinternational marketplace and, instead, collaborativelycarve out a significant market share for selectedproducts in which the region can be competitive.

Preliminary estimates suggest that the investmentrequired in the main pillars between now and 2015would have the orders of magnitude given belowand in Table 2. Converting the investments into realitywill involve the formulation of specific bankableprojects, a task in which NEPAD may wish to involve itsexternal partners as Africa pursues their implementation.The total outlay for the period 2002 to 2015 (includingoperations and maintenance) for the four pillars issome US$251 billion, apportioned as follows:

• Extending the area under sustainable land man-agement and reliable water control systems:Increasing the area under irrigation (new andrehabilitated) to 20 million ha and improving landmanagement in the same area would require US$37billion. Operation and maintenance would require anadditional US$31 billion.

• Improving rural infrastructure and trade-relatedcapacities for market access: US$92 billion ofwhich US$62 billion would be for rural roads andUS$2.8 billion for trade-related capacities forimproved market access. The protection ofinfrastructure investments would require additionalallocations for continuing operation and maintenance,totalling some US$37 billion over the period.

• Increasing food supply and reducing hunger:Raising the productivity of 15 million small farmsthrough improved technology, services and policies:US$7.5 billion. There is a "sub-pillar" for emergenciesand safety nets, requiring some US$42 billion.

• Agricultural research, technology disseminationand adoption: A total of US$4.6 billion.

The above implies an annual investment in coreactivities under the four "pillars" of some US$17.9billion between 2002 and 2015, including operationsand maintenance costs. As can be seen, the CAADPpays attention to safety nets and emergency-relatedfood and agriculture.

It is noteworthy that the gross 2002-2015investment requirement, at US$17.9 billion perannum, is equivalent to just over 90 percent of Africa’sannual cost of agricultural imports of nearly US$19billion. The safety nets component of this investmentincludes programmes such as school-feeding, designedto increase school attendance, especially for girls, andto provide nutritious food to the poorest of Africa’sschool age children. Table 4 shows one scenario ofinvestment apportioned among various main sources.

4. Africa’s Contribution to Investment

It is believed that an important part of the requiredfunding can come from investments by the bene-ficiaries themselves and from domestic resourcemobilisation. For many countries, however, additionalOfficial Development Assistance (ODA) and private

Page 16: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

4

inflows will be required, in line with the spirit ofMonterrey. Indeed, in connection with Monterrey, thethree Rome-based UN agencies for food andagriculture issued a joint statement communicating avision of shared responsibility2.

Africa’s own commitment to funding agricultureshould be seen against a background of re-emerginginternational recognition that the funding ofagriculture is vital for sustainable development.Worldwide, industrial countries (which can easily dowithout agriculture and still prosper), continue tofinance their agricultural sectors heavily. Yet Africa,with some 70-80 percent of its people dependent onthis sector, is withdrawing state support from thesector; the evidence is that the consequences aregrave. Financing for agriculture under this NEPADCAADP is therefore based on the dual assumption thatAfrica itself will increase its level of investment and thatits external partners will come forward and support it.

On this basis, the CAADP presents a preliminaryestimation of what Africa itself can reasonably afford toinvest, leaving the rest to be raised at the internationallevel. The broad assumptions given in Chapter 1suggest that Africa should progressively increase itsdomestic contribution to agricultural investment from acurrent base estimated at somewhere over 35 percentto some 55 percent by 2015. Under this scenario,Africa’s expected contributions to investment underNEPAD agriculture could be summarised as shown inTables 1 and 4. These estimates exceed by aconsiderable margin the levels of investment observedto date (see Appendix Table 9). It should be noted thatthe African share covers both public and privatefunding. To achieve the suggested increase in practicewill require the deliberate insertion of NEPAD allocationsinto national and regional economic groupings’budgets; more importantly, it will require putting inplace policies that can make agricultural investments

attractive to both the region’s own private sector andto international capital.

5. Enabling Conditions for Action

Much of the investment under the main pillars is intothe "hardware" of development – it is intended torespond to the crisis situation facing African agriculture.Yet Africa also needs to address many other "software"issues if it is to permanently reverse the declining trendsof the agricultural sector. A brief outline of these"software" concerns – many focused on creating anenabling environment3 - is presented in Chapter 1.

In the preamble, it has been stressed that enablingfactors require medium to long term attention and thatAfrica needs to continue paying attention to them evennow when rapid action may appear to be all that isneeded. It has also been said that the rapid actionproposed is possible because there is already someavailable capacity, technology and enabling policy /institutional factors upon which the priority investmentpillars approach can be based. Thus in justifying thefocus on investment for action under the mutuallyreinforcing "pillars" that can make the earliestdifference to Africa’s dire situation, the preamble hasstated that science and technology, policy andinstitutional reform, capacity building and other long-term enabling factors should be integrated into theimplementation of all the "pillars".

It is an underlying assumption that the creation ofenabling conditions will go hand in hand withinvestment, otherwise it becomes an empty exercise,with little hope of success or of acceptance by Africa.Thus, for example, to a considerable degree due to lackof accompanying investment, the decades-long effortsat structural adjustment of African economies, policiesand institutions have shown few discernible benefits,except in isolated cases.

2 FAO / IFAD / WFP (2002): Reducing poverty and hunger: the critical role of financing for food, agriculture and rural development. Paper prepared for theInternational Conference on Financing for Development, Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March 2002. The report (revised version, May 2002, page 4-5) states, inter alia:"The responsibility for escaping from hunger and poverty rests first and foremost with the individuals themselves, and then with their families, communities andgovernments. . . . . The proportion of public expenditure which developing countries now devote to agricultural and rural development and food security is,however, far from adequate, especially in countries where food deprivation is higher, implying a need to adjust public finance policies. However, the internationalcommunity has important roles in supporting national endeavours, . . . . . especially those of low income countries, to meet the costs of the necessary investmentsto the extent that these cannot be met by their own resources."

3 It may be noted that in its Action programme for Africa, the Kananaskis Summit of the G8 (25-27 June, 2002) also focused on enabling conditions as reproducedin the extracts of Annex 2. This focus makes the support of Africa’s potential leading external partners complementary to the immediate action focus of theCAADP. The two approaches can be synergistic and it is hoped that no party will seek to pursue one as an alternative to the other but as mutually reinforcingareas of emphasis.

Page 17: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

5

1

1.1. Introduction - Purpose of the Document

This document, which presents the ComprehensiveAfrica Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)of NEPAD, is directed at Africa’s policymakers inNEPAD’s own institutions; at national policymakers inboth public and private sectors; at those who influencepublic opinion through non-governmental institutions;at academia and think-tanks concerned with Africa’sdevelopment; and at officials in the development co-operation agencies of donor and multilateral bodies. Itwas prepared to present broad themes of primaryopportunity for investment to reverse the crisissituation facing Africa’s agriculture, which has madethe continent import-dependent, vulnerable to evensmall vagaries of climate, and dependent to aninordinate degree on food aid.

This document is not a blueprint, nor is it a manualfor stepwise action to uplift African agriculture. It isalso not a shopping list of projects – indeed, it has nospecific project on offer for investors4. Its main purposeis to sensitise policymakers to the need to act onselected fronts in order to make a quick difference toAfrica’s agricultural malaise, namely:• to pay immediate attention to the management and

use of water for agriculture so that the importanttask of food production is not at the mercy of fickleweather;

• in order to ensure competitiveness, to invest in betterinfrastructure to facilitate access to rural areas andthereby reduce the costs of production, storage andthe extraction of produce to markets. In parallel withthis, they should pay attention to trade-related

4 A minor exception is Chapter 5 on research and technology, which outlines five uncosted projects.

Underpinning Investments in African Agriculture and trade-relatedCapacities for improved Market Access: A Continental Vision

Computerisation of market price data at the Agriculture Market Information Centre,Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Zambia

CHAPTER

Page 18: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

6

capacity building so as to enhance Africa’s marketaccess;

• to apply modern productivity-enhancing practices atfarm level, using properly adapted approaches testedunder the special programme for food security;

• to build readiness and response capacity to naturaland man-made disasters which, if left unattended,can undermine or reverse any gains in productivitythat the other interventions can achieve; and

• to support research, development and the promotionof adoption as an important long-term guarantor ofproductivity and therefore competitiveness.

The document title promises a "comprehensive"programme but in fact its contents deliberately focuson a few pillars of action that can most rapidly enableAfrica to be more productive in agriculture. Thedecision to focus on what makes the earliest differenceto the crisis is easily justified, given that Africa, thecontinent that is the world’s poorest, receives a quarterof global food aid shipments, spends nearly US$19billion annually on agricultural imports and suffersmost from man-made and natural disasters that requirefood and agricultural responses.

However, Africa can at the same time not afford toignore globally recognised lessons which show thatdevelopment is easiest if the environment for it is right:appropriate knowledge and human capacities, supportivepolicies, laws, institutions and attitudes – all these, as wellas capacity, are important. Thus, while stressing the pillarslisted above for immediate action, the CAADP makesreference to enabling conditions – but leaves furtherelaboration for other documents and for the longer term.One exception is made: the issue of research andtechnology. It has been the strong view of the NEPADSteering Committee and of the June 2002 meeting ofAfrica’s ministers responsible for agriculture that theCAADP needs to include a pillar on this crosscutting need,even though its benefits only occur in the long term.

1.2. Evolution of the CAADP Document

As indicated in the preamble, this document has, at theinvitation of the NEPAD Steering Committee, beenprepared by FAO in co-operation with the NEPADSecretariat. It has been prepared following aconsultative process, the key elements of which are setout in the box at the beginning of the document.

1.3. African Agriculture in Crisis

Africa, most of whose people are farmers, is unable tofeed itself and has been in this situation for manydecades now. The number of chronically under-nourished people has risen from 173 million in 1990-92 to some 200 million in 1997-99. Of these, 194million (34 percent of the population) are in Sub-Saharan Africa.

At the same time, there has been a progressivegrowth in food imports in the last years of the 20th

century, with Africa spending an estimated US$18.7billion in 2000. Africa’s share of global agriculturalimports in 1998 was 4.6 percent. Its share ofdeveloping country imports was 16.3 percent.Agricultural imports account for about 15 percent oftotal African imports. It is of particular concern that theshare of gross export revenues needed for importingfood has increased from 12 percent to over 30 percentin East Africa. Part of Africa’s "imports" is food aid,with the continent receiving 2.8 million tons in 2000. Inthe mid-1990s, out of the world total of 32 millionvictims of disasters receiving relief assistance from theWorld Food Programme (WFP), 21.5 million were livingin Africa. In 2001, the number of people suffering fromfood emergencies ranged between 23 and 28 million.In terms of exports too, agriculture has generallyperformed poorly, with the relative share of Africanagricultural exports in world markets falling from 8percent in 1971-80 to 3.4 percent in 1991-2000. Thevalue of agricultural exports, which amounted toUS$14 billion in 2000, is growing extremely slowly,having been US$12 billion in 1990.

Food insecurity is greatest in Sub-Saharan Africa.Between 1990-92 and 1997-99 daily per capita dietaryenergy supply in Sub-Saharan Africa rose slightly from2120 to 2190 kcal. The number of chronically under-nourished people, however, increased from 168 to 194million during the same period. Imports of cereals bySub-Saharan countries are estimated at some 17million tons in 2000, including 2.8 million tons of foodaid. Much of the solution to poor nutrition lies withexpanding production in Africa itself: it may be notedthat globally, even after the doubling of world grainsupplies, the share of trade in total grain consumptionhas remained stable at about 10 percent. Thus, by andlarge, most of the world’s food consumption takesplace in the countries in which it is produced. In low-income countries, this dependence on production toensure adequate food supplies is more acute.

This food shortage is a source of enormous concern.It is estimated that if the self-sufficiency ratio in Sub-Saharan Africa is to stay the same in 2015 as in 1995-97 (about 85 percent), the sub-continent will have tomeet 118 million tons of its projected needs of 139million tons of cereals through increased production inthe region itself, requiring a substantial increase inoutput. These stark realities highlight the huge scale ofthe problem.

It is, however, also possible to look at the food gapas a tremendous opportunity. The existence of suchlarge shortfalls provides a potential market for smallfarmers, amongst whom poverty and hunger areconcentrated, to expand their output and improve theirlivelihoods, in turn enabling countries to reduce theirimport dependence. For this to happen in a situation ofincreasingly liberalised international markets, however,farming within the Region must become morecompetitive.

Page 19: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

7

Until the incidence of hunger is brought down andthe enormous cost of importing food supplies isreduced by raising the output of farm products whichthe region can produce with comparative advantage,there is little prospect of achieving the high rates ofeconomic growth to which NEPAD aspires. Peoplesuffering from hunger are marginalised within theeconomy, contributing little to output and still less todemand; they are also constantly vulnerable to shocks.Agriculture-led development is fundamental to cuttinghunger, reducing poverty, generating economicgrowth, reducing the burden of food imports andopening the way to an expansion of exports.

1.4. Importance of Agriculture and Challenges intapping its Potential

1.4.1. Importance

Agriculture, providing 60 percent of all employment,constitutes the backbone of most African economies;in most countries, it is still the largest contributor toGDP; the biggest source of foreign exchange, stillaccounting for about 40 percent of the continent’shard currency earnings; and the main generator ofsavings and tax revenues. The agricultural sector is alsostill the dominant provider of industrial raw materials,with about two-thirds of manufacturing value-added inmost African countries being based on agricultural rawmaterials. Agriculture thus remains crucial for

economic growth in most African countries.The rural areas, where agriculture is the mainstay of

all people, support some 70-80 percent of the totalpopulation, including 70 percent of the continent’sextremely poor and undernourished. Improvement inagricultural performance has potential to increase ruralincomes and purchasing power for large numbers ofpeople. Thus, more than any other sector, agriculturecan uplift people on a mass scale. With greaterprosperity, the consequent higher effective demand forAfrican industrial and other goods would inducedynamics that would be a significant source ofeconomic growth.

To ensure the best contribution, it is important thatdevelopment initiatives under any component of theNEPAD framework be supportive of or compatible withagriculture, given its fundamental role in economicdevelopment in Africa. For example, NEPAD’s activities ongood governance, infrastructure, policy reform, humanresources development etc., all help to create an enablingenvironment for farmers to contribute more to Africa’seconomic development. In short, agriculture must be theengine for overall economic growth in Africa.

1.4.2. Challenges and Basis for Response

However, there should be no illusion of quick fixes ormiracle paths towards African self-reliance in food andagriculture. Achievement of a productive and profitable

Filling sacks for food distribution, Ghana

Page 20: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

8

agricultural / agro-industrial sector will require Africa toaddress a complex set of challenges, including thefollowing:• low internal effective demand due to poverty;• poor and un-remunerative external markets (with

declining and unstable world commodity prices andsevere competition from the subsidised farmproducts of industrial countries);

• vagaries of climate and consequent risk that detersinvestment;

• limited access to technology and low human capacityto adopt new skills;

• low levels of past investments in rural infrastructure(such as roads, markets, storage, rural electrification,etc.) essential for reducing transaction costs infarming and thereby increasing its competitiveness inserving production, processing and trade; and

• institutional weaknesses for service provision to theentire agricultural chain from farm to market.Furthermore, Africa will also need to improve the

policy and regulatory framework for agriculture tomake it more supportive of both local communityparticipation in rural areas and commercial privatesector operations. It will need to improve governance,in terms of giving a voice to both small and large-scaleplayers in the farming community.

If such constraints are eased through a combinationof actions, a virtuous cycle can be started of reducedhunger, increased productivity, increased incomes andsustainable poverty reduction. All the above requirecommitment of a high order. Regrettably, the pastdecades have revealed that Africa’s governmentsthemselves as well as bilateral and multilateraldevelopment partners pay little attention to agricultureand rural development. Many African governments arereported to allocate as little as less than 1 percent oftheir budgets to this sector. The World Bank, a primefunding source for Africa, had 39 percent of its lendinggoing to agriculture in 1978, but only 12 percent in1996 and further down to 7 percent in 2000.

1.5. NEPAD – Overall Vision and Agriculturein Context

The New Partnership for Africa’s Development(NEPAD), hitherto known as the New African Initiative,resulted from the merger of the Millennium Partnershipfor the African Recovery Programme (MAP) developedby Presidents Mbeki of South Africa, Obasanjo ofNigeria, Bouteflika of Algeria and Mubarak of Egypt,and the Omega Plan proposed by President Wade ofSenegal. A core group of five countries namely, SouthAfrica, Nigeria, Senegal, Algeria and Egypt, and anImplementation Committee of 15 Heads of Statespearhead the NEPAD. South Africa hosts theSecretariat of NEPAD. The President of Nigeria chairsthe Implementation Committee of 15 Heads of Stateand Government, with those of Senegal and Algeriaserving as Vice-Chairs. Under NEPAD, which is a project

of the Organisation of African Unity / African Union,African Heads of State and Government have adoptedan overall vision of Africa’s development, which states"We agree on the overall vision of Africa’sdevelopment: a prosperous continent free of conflict inwhich all our people can fulfil their potential, thatparticipates effectively in the global economy on anequal footing".

Realising that Africa can only take its proper place inthe international community if it gains economicstrength, African Heads of State and Government haveset an ambitious target of 7 percent annual growthrate in GDP over the next 20 years to eradicate poverty,achieve food security and build the foundations ofsustainable economic development on the continent.

NEPAD, which seeks to complement other Africaninitiatives and to use existing frameworks for action,concentrates on priorities organised under two broadthemes: Peace, security, democracy and politicalgovernance and Economic and corporate governance.Specific themes include:

• Peace, security;

• Democracy and political governance;

• Infrastructure;

• Human resources (education, skills development,reversing the brain drain);

• Health;

• Agriculture;

• Access to markets;

• Environment;

• Culture;

• Science and technology.

For all these, NEPAD intends to mobilise domestic andexternal resources and to establish new forms ofpartnership with the domestic and internationalcommunities.

1.6. A Vision for African Agriculture

Within the overall vision of NEPAD, the vision forAfrican agriculture should seek to maximise thecontribution of Africa’s largest economic sector toachieving the ambition of a self-reliant and productiveAfrica that can play its full part on the world stage.In essence, agriculture must, within NEPAD, deliverbroadly based economic advancement to which othereconomic sectors, such as petroleum, minerals andtourism, may also contribute significantly, but whichthey cannot achieve on the mass scale that agriculturehas the potential to do. The NEPAD goal for the sectoris agriculturally-led development which eliminateshunger and reduces poverty and food insecurity,thereby enabling the expansion of exports and puttingthe continent on a higher economic growth pathwithin an overall strategy of sustainable developmentcoupled with preservation of the natural resource base.

Page 21: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Text Box 1: NEPAD Agriculture and theMillennium Development Goals

In the year 2000, African countries signed up to theMillennium Declaration. The Declaration, whichdefined eight Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) and 18 more detailed targets, represented adetermination by all governments to create anenvironment, at the national and international levels,which is conducive to development and theelimination of poverty by 2015. The MDGs, andparticularly the goals of eradicating extreme povertyand hunger and ensuring environmentalsustainability, are crucial to the NEPAD programmefor African agriculture: specifically, member countriesshould expect NEPAD interventions to fall within theframework of the MDGs and contribute to theirachievement.

In Africa as elsewhere in the developing world,Poverty Reduction Strategies are increasingly used atthe national level as the vehicle through whichgovernments seek to operationalise their agricultureand rural development strategies. There is, therefore,a clear two-way relationship between the NEPADprogramme for African agriculture and the PovertyReduction Strategies: on the one hand, the contentsof the national strategies will determine the contentof NEPAD’s approach to agricultural development,while on the other hand, NEPAD can be increasinglyexpected to inform the preparation and revision ofPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs).

The vision for agriculture is that the continent should,by 2015:• Attain food security (in terms of both availability and

affordability and ensuring access of the poor toadequate food and nutrition);

• Improve the productivity of agriculture to attain anaverage annual growth rate of 6 percent, withparticular attention to small-scale farmers, especiallyfocusing on women;

• Have dynamic agricultural markets between nationsand regions;

• Have integrated farmers into the market economy,including better access to markets, with Africa tobecome a net exporter of agricultural products;

• Achieve the more equitable distribution of wealth;• Be a strategic player in agricultural science and

technology development; and• Practice environmentally sound production methods

and have a culture of sustainable management of thenatural resource base (including biological resourcesfor food and agriculture) to avoid their degradation.

1.7. Enabling Conditions for AfricanAgricultural Development

Africa has some success stories and these demonstratethe enormous potential that the agricultural sector canoffer as an engine of economic growth. The NEPAD

programme recognises these, as also a wide range ofhurdles which must be surmounted if progress is to bemade in African agriculture, of which attention can bedrawn in particular to: limited incomes and thereforeconstrained markets; methods to ensure the large-scaleadoption of locally adapted agricultural technologies toremove the constraints to productivity; methods to helpthe predominantly small-scale producers to becomecompetitive in a world dominated by large-scaleproducers, many of whom are subsidised; ways ofbringing about institutional innovations that will enablethe African agricultural community to maintain efficientand dynamic, demand-driven, participatory and pluralisticsystems; and methods to cope with climatic uncertaintyand lack of access to irrigation. Africa also facesinadequate and inefficient agricultural systems and weakinstitutional support (including in research and extension).For many African countries, the following hard facts needattention if the agricultural environment is to be enabling:• A sparse and dispersed domestic market which is

expensive to serve due to lack of concentrateddemand and respectable disposable incomes.

• An international market in which prices are falling andunstable; which is expensive to access (due to smallvolumes being traded and long distances from Africa’slargely land-locked production sites); which demandssustained quantity and quality levels that Africa hasdifficulty in meeting; and in which subsidised large-scale producers pose direct competition.

• A production sector that is dominated by large numbersof unorganised producers, many of them unskilled andtherefore little able to absorb new technologies.

• The generally small scale of farmers, who have nocapital or access to the capital necessary to improveproduction and generate investable surpluses.

• The overt-hasty withdrawal of the state from directproduction functions in order to create and maintaina climate conducive to private sector initiatives,which, in the absence of a sound private sector, hascaused severe dislocation of production, farm tradeand farmer support services.

• Poorly defined property rights inadequate to satisfythe requirements of serious investors.

• Deterioration of the health status of farmers in partsof Africa with the advent of HIV/AIDS.

• The fact that African agriculture has for long beenstarved of investment. This prolonged neglect hasresulted in a poorly productive, uncompetitive anddeclining sector. The widespread hunger as well as thegrowing number of hard-core poor people in thecontinent are the distressing manifestations of thisdecline. In attracting limited investment, Africanagriculture mirrors the African economy in general,which is perceived to be uncompetitive, poorlyproductive and a risky venue for investment.Agriculture in particular is often considered unattractivein comparison with other options, even if the macroeconomic framework were to be corrected.

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

9

Page 22: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Text Box 2: Selected Impediments to AfricanAgricultural Renewal

Introduction: The widespread hunger as well as thegrowing number of hard-core poor people in the continentare the distressing manifestations of prolonged declinecaused by too limited investment. It is in view of the criticalneed for injection of new capital that investment is thefocus under the three "pillars" of the CAADP [land andwater management (Chapter 2); infrastructure and trade-related capacities for improved market access (Chapter 3);and food security – both as safety nets/response toemergencies and support to productivity increase inagriculture (Chapter 4)]. Much of this intervention willconsist of the "hardware" of agricultural development thatis essential in responding to the crisis the sector is facing.Yet Africa also needs to create enabling conditions topermanently reverse the decline and for this will need topay attention to many other "software" interventions.Some of the "software" weaknesses as presented herehave helped make the continent’s agriculture low inproductivity, uncompetitive, highly risky and dominated bylow-value primary commodities.

Governance: Poor political and economic governanceare twin root causes of much of the malaise that afflictsAfrica. They create general political and economicuncertainty, an unpredictable environment for business,political unrest and, sometimes, even war that togethermake the pursuit of economic growth difficult. The issueof participation is also critical; IFAD observes for Westernand Central Africa that "First and foremost, the poorhave little or no voice in many major decisions affectingtheir livelihoods2"

Policy and institutional weaknesses: Poor governancealso creates an environment inimical to efficientinvestment of human and material resources andundermines the formulation and implementation ofpolicies and laws that can accelerate the process ofeconomic growth and development. In the specific case ofagriculture and rural development (broadly defined),improvements are sorely needed to adapt to changingmarket conditions and food security priorities. This involvesovercoming institutional rigidities and ensuring coherenceof macro-economic frameworks. Policy, regulatory andinstitutional shifts are required to enable all levels offarming practice to have a stable engagement with naturalresources and markets. New capacities in both the publicand private sector are required; this calls for priority toinvestment in human and social capital. Systems of rightsand land tenure arrangements need updating togetherwith a reduction of gender-bias in policies.

Technological stagnation: African agriculture facestechnological stagnation and needs to exit fromexcessive reliance on fickle weather conditions. It needsto increase the research and development effort as wellas extension outreach. For better capacity to progresstechnologically and to close the technology gap,however, improvement in the educational level of ruralpeople is probably the most critical precondition.Combating HIV/AIDS, which in some countries is rapidlydecimating the age groups with best potential fortechnologically upgrading agriculture, is essential.

Weakness of entrepreneurship and the private sector:Many African countries have no local private sector to speak

of in the agricultural and agro-industry sectors. While it isnow fashionable to speak of the African "smallholder" asthe region’s true private sector, the reality gives cause forgreat concern. The African smallholder of today may beprivate but lacks education; has severely limited access tocommunications or physical infrastructure; suffers poorhealth and nutrition; lacks remunerative markets and accessto yield-enhancing inputs; and faces competition withproducts from abroad that have been subsidised by moremoney than s/he can ever dream of. This farmer mayconstitute a "private sector" but cannot stand alongsideand compete with multinational farming and agro-industrygiants that trade with Africa. Whether labelled as privatesector or otherwise, the smallholder farmer class also oftensuffers marginalisation, with no voice to influence policy infavour of its mainstay activity and to secure support servicesthat are tailored to its particular needs. Africa cannot affordto be lured into complacency by references to a largesmallholder private sector; it needs to develop a true ruralentrepreneurial capacity. Successful entrepreneurshiprequires fair prospects for competitive access to marketsboth at home and internationally and the information toenable the farmer get the best from such markets.

HIV/AIDS: Sub-Saharan Africa is at the epicentre of theHIV/AIDS epidemic, where over 25 million people (some70% of the known global total) are living with HIV. Themajority of those who suffer the impact of the epidemiclive in the countryside and are extremely poor. The short-term effects on production and income are staggering inthe labour-based economies of the poor. Whileproduction and incomes decline, families concurrentlyexperience dramatic rises in health and death-relatedexpenditures. The longer-term effects on the inter-generational transfer of knowledge, on traditional socialsecurity mechanisms, and on basic demographic andsocio-economic characteristics of these societies are likelyto be even greater. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is creating anew poverty dynamic. It is also partly driven by poverty,since this induces some people into high-risk situationsand activities such as prostitution and migrant activities –poor women are particularly vulnerable. The gravity andscale of the HIV epidemic is such that developmentinterventions in all sectors – and particularly those in therural areas where the majority of the affected live – needto face the issue head on.

Other concerns: The diversity of areas requiringattention is nearly limitless. From this can be selected: (a)inadequate targeting of attention on the particular needsof women who are the dominant agricultural producers,traders and nutrition providers in many parts of Africa;(b) limited specialisation in production and inadequatesignificance of any one country or of the region toinfluence global markets; (c) unclear definition of rolesamong the public, private and civil society institutions indevelopment; (d) poor harmonisation of agriculturaldevelopment promoting initiatives at national, sub-regional and continental levels; (e) inability tosystematically mobilise savings for reinvestment; (f)disengagement from or poor performance of cash cropsthat were formerly important for rural incomes

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

10

5 IFAD Strategy for rural poverty reduction in Western and Central Africa: http://www.ifad.org/operations/regional/2002/pa/pa.htm

Page 23: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Irrigation of a freshly ploughed field, Morocco

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

11

Text Box 3: Creating a Positive Environment forAgricultural Development: possible NEPADPrinciples

1. Establish and maintain a sound macroeconomic policyframework and an open economy based on continuedand enhanced economic reforms, liberalised exchangeand trade systems and investment regimes,strengthened institutional, legal and regulatory sys-tems, reformed state institutions that operate withtransparency, accountability, competence andprofessionalism, and the rule of law.

2. Ensure efficient physical infrastructure throughregulatory reforms, privatisation, and additionalinvestments in key infrastructure (including road/railtransport, tele-com-munications, power, ports,shipping and transit facilities), harness moderninformation and communications technology, andencourage private sector participation in infra-structurefinancing and operation.

3. Encourage and promote the growth, diversificationand deepening of the financial sector so as to facilitatesavings mobilisation to meet the investment andworking capital requirements of business, within thecontext of a deregulated but prudentially supervisedsystem of financial intermediation.

4. Remove obstacles to cross-border trade andinvestment, including harmonising tax and investmentcodes to promote regional integration.

5. Undertake measures to enhance the entrepreneurial,managerial and technical capacities of the private sector.

6. Strengthen national and sub-regional mechanisms forinvestment and trade promotion by disseminatinginformation about business opportunities, identifyingand targeting prospective investors and exportmarkets, servicing investors, and providing exportcredit and insurance schemes.

7. Strengthen chambers of commerce, trade andprofessional associations and regional networks toprovide market information and training for theirmembers, in order to promote exports and investment.

8. Organise dialogue between government and theprivate sector to develop a shared vision of economicdevelopment strategy and remove constraints toprivate sector development.

9. Strengthen and encourage the growth of micro, small,and medium-scale industries through appropriatetechnical support from service institutions and civilsociety, and improve industries' access to capital bystrengthening micro-financing schemes, withparticular attention to women entrepreneurs.

10. Provide assistance to improve the technical andmanagerial capabilities of business enterprises bysupporting technology acquisition, productionimprovements, and training and skills development.

Source: Working for household food security andeconomic prosperity in Africa. National Department ofAgriculture (South Africa) on behalf of NEPAD Secretariat.[First NEPAD provisional agriculture strategy paper –presented at 22nd FAO Regional Conference for Africa,Cairo, February 3 – 8, 2002 and later updated].

Other impediments that should be corrected if theenvironment is to be enabling appear in Text Box 2. Text Box3 lists some specific measures that could be taken.Agriculture-relevant elements highlighted by the G-8 intheir Africa Action Plan (many of which relate to of theenabling environment rather than to action) are in Annex 2.

A particularly thorny element of the enablingenvironment in many countries is the issue of accessingand controlling land. In Southern Africa, where theland holding structure remains profoundly inequitable,improvements in the condition of the rural poor willdepend on increased access to land; here programmes

of fair, orderly and consensual land reform may beessential preconditions for sustainable agriculturaldevelopment. In other parts of Africa, the challengewill be to ensure that poor people continue to controltheir land in the face of pressures from outsiders who,so far, are in a better position to profit from marketdevelopment. This includes ensuring that women - theprincipal users of land - develop stronger rights overthe land they work. There will be a need to promotesecurity of access by the poor, individually and incommunities, in all areas where the rural poor perceiveemerging livelihood threats.

Page 24: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

12

Irrigation of potato fields, Cape Verde

6 FAO. 2000. Agriculture Towards 2015/30 estimates.

1.8. Pillars for Priority Investment

The aforementioned description of African agriculturespeaks of crisis. It also demands a crisis response. Theproposed initiatives under the NEPAD ComprehensiveAfrica Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP),as currently formulated, thus focus on investment inthree "pillars" that can make the earliest difference toAfrica’s agricultural crisis. These pillars are land andwater management (Chapter 2); infrastructure andtrade-related capacities for improved market access(Chapter 3); and support to productivity-increasingactivity among small farmers in the context of foodsecurity programmes (Chapter 4). The long-termcapacity to maintain competitiveness by ensuring highproductivity is to be ensured by research anddevelopment, allied with technology dissemination forwidespread and effective adoption (Chapter 5).

1.8.1. Pillar 1: Land and Water Management

World-wide, the application of water and its manageduse has been an essential factor in raising theproductivity of agriculture and ensuring predictability inoutputs. Water is essential to bring forth the potential ofthe land and to enable improved varieties of both plants

and animals to make full use of other yield-enhancingproduction factors. By raising productivity, watermanagement (especially when combined with adequatesoil husbandry) helps to ensure better production bothfor direct consumption and for commercial disposal,thereby enhancing the generation of economic surplusesnecessary for uplifting rural economies.

Chapter 2 provides information on opportunities forAfrica to capitalise on the existence of about 874million hectares of its land considered suitable foragricultural production, amongst others by increasingthe managed use of water. It reports that the currentarea under managed water and land developmenttotals some 12.6 million ha6 , equivalent to only some8 percent of the total arable land. Currently, thepercentage of arable land that is irrigated is barely 3.7percent in Sub-Saharan Africa and 7 percent for allAfrica, given that 40 percent of the total irrigated areais in North Africa. These are the lowest percentages inthe developing world: the corresponding percentagesare 10, 29 and 41 for South America, East and South-East Asia and South Asia respectively. The chapter callsfor increased investment in land and water and makesthe point that protecting and improving water and thesoil makes good business sense. It indicates that by

Page 25: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

13

enabling a rapid increase in production, irrigation canmake food more readily available but that its impact onreducing hunger depends on appropriate arrangementsfor the poor to have access to irrigated land. It alsomakes the point that while increased irrigation is not apanacea for all agricultural ills, it nevertheless makespossible other opportunities for agricultural growth suchas better husbandry of soils and resources in general,and makes more worthwhile the use of fertilisers,improved plant varieties and upgraded infrastructure.

The chapter gives projections of investmentsrequired for land and water development until 2015in respect of: (i) small-scale irrigation developments,including small-scale informal irrigation, humidlowland developments, as well as land improvementactivities (14.2 million ha); (ii) the upgrading andrehabilitation of existing large-scale irrigation systems(3.6 million ha); and (iii) the development of new,large-scale schemes (1.9 million ha). Chapter 2 alsoreports the investment requirement of some US$37billion (Appendix Table 1)7. Of this, the immediateinvestment requirements (2002-2005) are estimated atUS$9.9 billion, short term investment requirements(2006-2010) are US$20.1 billion and medium termrequirements (2011-2015) are US$6.8 billion (Table 9).In addition, operation and maintenance requirements8

for all categories of land and water improvement totalUS$31 billion by 2015.

To justify the greater production that irrigation andland improvement make possible, other investments arenecessary in infrastructure and the facilitation of marketdevelopment and access – Chapter 3 gives estimatedrequirements for this. The application of irrigation andland husbandry such that they can help uplift the pooris put into context in Chapter 4, which presentscommunity-oriented programmes for food security.

1.8.2. Pillar 2: Rural Infrastructure and Trade-related Capacities for ImprovedMarket access

Infrastructure

Chapter 3 deals with complementary investments inrural infrastructure, particularly rural roads, storage,processing and market facilities, that will be required tosupport the anticipated growth in agriculturalproduction and improve the competitiveness ofproduction, processing and trade in the crop, livestock,forestry or fishery sub-sectors. Information oninfrastructure is poor for all sub-sectors but perhapsparticularly so for livestock, except where this activity ishighly commercialised as in South Africa and parts of

Zimbabwe and Botswana. Dualism in access toinfrastructure is notable, with industrial production farbetter served than the agricultural part.

Africa’s rural infrastructure is inadequate by almost anymeasure and its road network is particularlyunderdeveloped. Africa’s people face the greatestdistances to their nearest large markets. A rapid look atthe overall scene compared to other regions reveals thefollowing: (a) a fifth of Africa’s population is landlocked –all other regions have less than 10 percent; (b) less than athird of Africans live within 100 km of the sea comparedto over 40 percent for other developing regions; (c) railfreight in Africa is under 2 percent of the world total,marine freight capacity 11 percent, and air freight lessthan 1 percent; (d) power generation capacity per capitain Africa is less than half of that in either Asia or LatinAmerica. The poor state of Africa’s infrastructure reflectsneglect of investment but also the fact that the level ofproduction often cannot justify the required investmentand maintenance costs. External investment in economicinfrastructure9 in Sub-Saharan Africa in the periodbetween 1990 and 1996 was US$26.7 billion comparedto US$41.4 billion for Latin America and the Caribbeanand US$101.9 billion for Asia, of which some US$71.9billion was for East Asia alone.

Further details on infrastructure and its absolute andcomparative inadequacy appear in Chapter 3. Thisincludes information on seaport and airportinfrastructure, which is inadequate, partly becauseAfrica has too little trade to justify the necessaryinvestments. The chapter calls for priority to be given torestoration of the current degraded stock of ruralinfrastructure to full operational capacity. It also callsfor institutional support for capacity building andtraining in support of all levels and types ofinstitutions10 responsible for the planning, design,construction and continuing operation, maintenanceand management of infrastructure.

7 A breakdown of areas and associated investment estimates by Regional Economic Organization is shown in Table 8 (Chapter 2). No totals for Africa should bederived from the Regional Economic Organizations’ totals since country membership overlaps, with some countries belonging to two or three organizations, inparticular SADC and COMESA; and ECOWAS and UEMOA which have a very high multiple country membership.

8 Including allowances for both institutional strengthening and the recurrent costs of the organisations responsible for operation and maintenance.

9 Including communications, energy, transport, water, sanitation. Sources: UNCED Secretariat; Euromoney 1997/98 Annual report.

10 Ranging from central to local level and decentralized government entities, representative bodies, private sector players, NGOs and CBOs, etc.

Building of rural roads and accessory structures, Niger

Page 26: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

14

Trade-related capacities for improvedmarket access

Africa’s share of overall world trade is insignificant andcontinues to decline. According to a recent G -8report11, Africa’s exports account for only 1.6 percentof global trade despite Africa having 13 percent of thepopulation. In agriculture, the share of Africa in worldexports has dropped steadily, from 8 percent in 1971 -1980 to some 3.4 percent in 1991-2000. Thesenumbers are causes for concern in that if the continentcontinues to matter so little economically, it willcontinue to be hard for Africa to be taken seriously inany sphere of international affairs; furthermore, thesenumbers suggest that Africa is in no position toinfluence world prices – it must be a price taker formost of what it exports, including in agricultural trade.

Reversing the decline in Africa’s share ofinternational trade will require increased efforts by theAfrican countries, with the assistance of theinternational community, to alleviate their domesticsupply-side constraints. These can broadly be dividedinto structural constraints, which are particularlyprevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa and concern theRegion’s high dependence on a limited number ofexport commodities, weak technological capacities,inadequate legal and regulatory institutionalframeworks and insufficient transport, storage andmarketing infrastructure, and policy-inducedconstraints resulting from trade and macroeconomicpolicies that have biased the structure of incentivesagainst agriculture and exports.

Chapter 3 refers to Africa’s failure to gain fromglobalisation; to severe competition from industrialcountries where total subsidies to agriculture (by OECDcountries) were estimated at over US$311 billion apartfrom direct export subsidies on agricultural productstotalling some US$14 billion; to dominance ofdeveloped country market opportunities for Africanagricultural exports12; to continuing difficulties withconditions of access despite progress made in theimplementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements; togenerally low and declining prices for unprocessedproducts that dominate Africa’s exports; and Africa’sdifficulties in meeting technical standards for exportproducts in the context of the WTO Sanitary andPhytosanitary Measures (SPS) and Technical Barriers toTrade (TBT). It recognises that trade access also requiresthe strengthening of supply-side capability in Africancountries, without which they cannot take advantageof new trading opportunities.

With regard to intra-Africa trade in particular,constraints are also outlined, including inadequatephysical infrastructure, unstable market opportunities

related to production variability, relatively smallmarkets, lack of current market information andtrading skills, uncertain policy environments and rapidlychanging trade regulations. Given the hurdles Africawould continue to face in global markets, regionalintegration may, despite its challenges, be an importantway forward for African countries and can be alearning ground for more ambitious global trading ifthey can resolve the bottlenecks that constrain eventhe limited existing trade opportunities. Attention isgiven to improving African countries’ trade-relatedcapacities for better market access through a numberof policy and institutional-related themes, includingdeveloped countries acting to improve access to theiragricultural markets; building capacity in Africancountries for effective use of the multilateral tradingsystem; strengthening food safety and quality controlsystems; and diversification of the production andexport base from low value-added to high value-addedproducts.

In addition to drawing attention to internationaltrade challenges, Chapter 3 also refers to trade issuesat local level, such as the low incentive for farmers toproduce because production for sale is notremunerative.

Investment requirements

Investment requirements for rural infrastructure andtrade-related capacities for improved market accessare a function of more general socio-economicdemands, in addition to underpinning the increasedagricultural production. However, a substantialproportion of the existing rural road network is ina poor operational condition and, consequently,investments will have to include the rehabilitationof existing stock, as well as the construction of newroads and overall maintenance.

The investment requirements for rural infrastructureand other support to trade-related capacities forimproved market access amount to some US$94billion. In addition, associated recurrent operation andmaintenance requirements13 are estimated to totalsome US$37 billion by 2015; this is broken down bypurpose and year in Tables 17 and 18. Of the US$94billion total, immediate investment requirements(2002-2005) – excluding operations and maintenancecosts – would amount to some US$23 billion, whileshort-term requirements (2006-2010) would amountto some US$37 billion and medium-term requirements(2011-2015) would total some US$33 billion (Table 2).One set of scenarios of apportionment of fundingamong the private and public, internal and externalsources is given in Tables 19 and 20.

11 G8 Africa Action Plan Highlights. Kananaskis Summit, Canada 26-27 June, 2002: http://www.g8.go.ca/kan-docs/afraction-e.asp

12 Currently receiving more than 70 percent of African agricultural exports

13 Including allowances for both institutional strengthening and the recurrent costs of the organisations responsible for operation and maintenance.

Page 27: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

15

1.8.3. Pillar No 3: Increasing Food Supply andReducing Hunger

For long, hunger has remained widespread in Africa.Despite gains in some countries, hunger remains amajor peril for far too many people, with many adverseconsequences for health and productivity of thepopulation, so reinforcing poverty. In Africa aselsewhere, the poorest and the most hungry tend to beone and the same people, living on the margin ofsurvival and highly vulnerable to any shock. There is nodoubt that eventually Africa will develop a diversifiedagricultural sector with commercial as well assmallholder farming. In the short term, however, theneed is for an immediate impact on the livelihoods andfood security of the rural poor through raising theirown production. Chapter 4 presents approaches tomaking an immediate impact on farmers’ livelihoods. Itcovers two approaches to meet the need to deal withfood security in the short-term perspective of disaster-induced food and agricultural emergencies: (a)provision of safety nets; and (b) food security throughenhancement of production.

Africa can itself do much to attain a higher level offood security but there is need for partnerships withother developing as well as industrialised countries andthe multilateral system. Within countries, successfulaction requires partnerships between communities,governments and the private sector.

Emergency-Related Food Security

Far too often, there is need for preparedness in Africain the context of emergency-related food security.The number, scale and intensity of emergencies inAfrica have all been increasing due to both naturaldisasters (especially droughts and floods) and human-caused calamities including civil strife and conflict.Wars and related factors have become the single mostserious cause of food insecurity in much of the region.

Large numbers of Africans are displaced withinor outside their national borders by wars, andproductive lands are frequently flooded or renderedbarren by drought; such extreme events can reverseovernight long-term agricultural development gains.Therefore, in looking at Africa’s immediate needs foragricultural renewal, it is absolutely essential that theemergencies be kept in mind. The weakness ofeconomies and of its institutions place Africa at a greatdisadvantage when calamity strikes. Thus, given itshigh indebtedness and current account deficit, Africa isobliged by emergency-related needs to divert its veryscarce resources to food imports - it does so at a costto investment in its future; Africa is a continent that isconsuming without being able to create assets for thefuture. Therefore to ignore the emergency dimensionwould be a disservice to securing stable agriculturaldevelopment in the region – Chapter 4 has a section onthis area of need.

Close-up of children sharing a bowl of rice, Ghana

Page 28: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

16

Associated with response to emergencies and theiraftermath should be the creation of targeted safety netsby governments aimed at broadening access to food forpersons who do not have the means of increasing theirown food supplies, such as school children.

Safety Nets for the Food Insecure

Africa has many vulnerable groups; true food securitywill require targeted attention to their needs. Apartfrom those exposed to emergencies, attention isneeded to the disabled, children, pregnant women andothers. Safety net initiatives to cover their needsinclude feeding programmes (such as for schools); foodfor work; food for training; mother-child nutrition orcombinations of these, as indicated in Chapter 4.

Improvement of Production

Food security can also be secured throughimprovement of production. The third part ofChapter 4 presents one approach towards promotingvigorous large-scale community-based programmes toimprove the performance of small farms throughoutthe continent. It draws mainly upon the example set bythe Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS),launched by FAO as a means of achieving andsustaining a higher level of household and nationalfood security. In each country, the SPFS (or similarnational framework) is planned within the broadervision of a National Strategy for Food Security andAgricultural Development. Thus the SPFS approachcomplements and builds upon already existingstrategies and programmes for agriculturaldevelopment and food security developed by Africangovernments and regional organisations. It isimplemented in two interrelated phases. As detailed inChapter 4, Phase I aims at enabling households andcommunities to attain higher levels of food security andbetter livelihoods, initially on a pilot scale but quicklyfollowed by progressive scaling up. Phase II addressesfood security issues at national level through creatingan enabling policy and institutional environment forfood security and supporting the preparation ofbankable projects.

The SPFS approach promotes the view that foodsecurity does not mean just subsistence foodsufficiency but also implies addressing the otherunderlying causes of persistent rural poverty. Thus,while it may appear to emphasise production, this isnot in exclusion of demand considerations in that theincentive for continuing output growth is the"market". The approach also respects economicfundamentals: African production must be competitiveas it makes little sense to have high cost productswhose markets are easily undermined by cheaper

imports. For this reason, SPFS-type interventions needcomplementary investments in infrastructure, waterand land management that can boost yields, reduceunit production costs and contain the costs of storage,transport and marketing – themes which are covered inChapters 2 and 3. The approach seeks to reduce bothweather-related and other environmental risks as wellas economic risks, all of which have a significantdepressing impact on the level of private investment inthe agricultural sector.

Chapter 4 recognises that raising the output of thesmall farmer sector depends on the decisions of millions ofhouseholds throughout the continent; in such a situation,the role of governments should be to provide a policy andincentive framework that is conducive to agriculturalgrowth. With this in place, much of the investmentneeded to raise production will be made by the farmersthemselves. Experience to date suggests average publicsector costs of ensuring food security for a small farmhousehold of US$500 with a variable breakdown in therange of some US$350-400 per family for on-farminvestments; some US$35-85 for off-farm support,including technical services and policy reform; and afurther US$65 equivalent per family for complementaryfood security investments at regional level.

National programmes can benefit from complementaryfood security interventions at regional level that canfacilitate trade-related capacities for improved marketaccess, the development of common standards and thediagnosis and control of trans-boundary pests anddiseases. Some of the market issues are dealt with ingreater detail in Chapter 3. Regional Programmes forFood Security (RPFS) offer measures to expand intra-regional trade and competitiveness in external markets,to assist in creating improved conditions for thesustainable growth of agriculture, including throughtrade facilitation, harmonisation of policies andunderpinning of national SPFS, especially in areas ofaccelerated technology development and information,to ensure sustainable use of cross-boundary naturalresources, and to provide for control of trans-boundarypests and diseases. Regional co-operation in support offood security is an area where NEPAD, in closecollaboration with Regional Economic Organisations,can make significant early contributions.

For Africa, the intention to increase food supplyand reduce hunger adopted in Chapter 4 would raisethe performance of some 15 million rural households(affecting the livelihoods of some 100 million people)by 2015, which would require some $7.5 billion. Ofthis, $6.5 billion would be for national level and $1billion for regional action programmes14. Theeffectiveness of such programmes for on-farmdevelopment or related improvements at communitylevel is dependent on the investments proposed in

14 The distribution of costs between regions is based on country-level data on the number of undernourished, given in the FAO Report "The State of Food Insecurity 2001".

Page 29: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

17

productive and transport and communications infra-structure in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document.

1.8.4. Pillar No 4: Agricultural Research,Technology Dissemination and Adoption

Chapter 5 "Agricultural Research, TechnologyDissemination and Adoption" represents a departurefrom the focus of the other chapters on the need toimmediately regain production; it presents instead anarea of intervention for long-term gain. In Africa aselsewhere in the world, agriculture will need a scientificand technological underpinning if it is to havesustained productivity gains necessary to remaincompetitive. The chapter reviews the difficult situationof agriculture: falling productivity, low spending onresearch and development; inefficiency of ongoingresearch in reaching the farmer; the need for reformtowards sustainable research and its funding atnational, sub-regional and regional levels; integratingtechnology adoption; and strengthening institutions.

To avert food insecurity and reduce poverty, Africanleaders have set a target to increase agricultural outputby 6 percent a year for the next 20 years. At present,many countries barely achieve 1 percent annual growthin output and some are regressing. Withouttechnological upgrading and adoption, even large-scale investment would soon perform sub-optimallyand fail to gain for Africa the success it needs.

Achievement of a 3 percent annual growth rate willrequire: (a) acceleration of adoption for the mostpromising available technologies so as to support theimmediate improvement of African production throughthe more efficient linking of research and extensionsystems to producers; (b) technology delivery systems

that quickly bring innovations to farmers andagribusinesses, thereby making increased adoptionpossible, notably through the appropriate use of newinformation and communication technologies; (c)renewing the ability of agricultural research systems toefficiently and effectively generate and adapt newknowledge and technologies, including biotechnology,to Africa, which are needed to increase output andproductivity while conserving the environment; and (d)mechanisms that reduce the costs and risks of adoptingnew technologies. To do this requires several lines ofaction, of which the following may be highlighted:• Increasing investment in research and technology

development;• Increasing the share of private sector funding of

agricultural research;• Institutional and financial reforms aimed at making

national agricultural research systems moresustainable.

The goal is to double the current annual spending onagricultural research in Africa within 10 years. Inessence, this would amount to annual investments ofsome US$1.6 billion for the period up to 2015.

The proposed NEPAD research programme would becomprised of four sub-themes which would collectivelycontribute to testing the central hypothesis: "thatconservation and efficiency of use of soil and othernatural resources will be optimised under conditions ofmarket and/or policy and institution-driven productivity".The four research themes are:• Integrated natural resource management (also highly

relevant to Chapter 2);• Adaptive management of appropriate germplasm

(long-term importance to Chapter 4);• Development of sustainable market chains (essential

for the Special Programmes for Food Security inChapter 4 to achieve their objectives);

• Policies for sustainable agriculture (importantunderlying need to support all chapters).

In addition, there is to be a crosscutting initiative:• Scientific capacity building.

Underlying the inclusion of the chapter on research isthe key message that, in pursuing immediate responsesto its agricultural crisis, Africa cannot afford to beshort-sighted: it must keep an eye on factors essentialfor its continuing long-term competitiveness andproductivity.

1.9. Investment Levels and Strategies

There is renewed recognition that the financing ofagriculture is essential to the national development oflow-income countries. In industrial countries, despiteagriculture being a minor contributor to overalleconomic production, governments have alwaysprovided sustained support to the sector and the levelof subsidies for it and for farm exports remains high.

Infesting of cassava with mealy bug for experiments withbiological pest control, Malawi

Page 30: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

18

An example of renewed strong support for fundingagriculture in developing countries is the recentintervention of Mr Andrew Natsios, the Administratorfor the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID). Speaking in March 2002 at therecent International Conference on Financing forDevelopment (ICFfD) in Monterrey, Mexico, Mr Natsiosstressed the vital importance of funding agriculturaldevelopment15. Recalling that, with few exceptions,agriculture had been the engine driving development inall economically successful countries, he regretted thatagriculture had been "basically de-funded by virtually allof donor aid agencies and all of the international banksover the last 15 years." He called this "perhaps the mostdevastating mistake made by the northern countriesand the international financial institutions in the last 15years", adding that many developing countries "...havenot graduated because we’ve stopped investing inagriculture. All of the studies show that all of thisgrowth in the economy is driven by agriculturalproduction. And so, we need to do more in theagricultural sector". Mr Natsios reported that the USgovernment had renewed commitment to reinvest inthe agricultural sector "because it is absolutely essentialfor economic growth over the longer term".

1.9.1. Levels of Investment

The majority of African countries have been exposed toyears of fiscal austerity programmes and often offailure to find alternative sources of income to replacedeclining revenues from weaker terms of trade in theirtraditional markets. Levels of both ODA and privatefinance have fallen in real terms: in 1990, Africareceived 30 percent of global agricultural ODA, but itsshare declined to 21 percent in 1998. Moreover, thetotal flow of ODA to primary agriculture declined overthe same period from US$11 billion to only US$7.4billion. This lack of funding has contributed not only toinsufficient infrastructure construction but also to alack of appropriate maintenance – hence there are alsosubstantial needs for rehabilitation.

The total estimated investment requirements for theNEPAD programme are summarised in Table 1, withdetails for all pillars in Appendix Table 1. A notablefeature is the significance of emergencies now and inthe near future and also of infrastructure to createconditions for competitive agriculture. Table 2 breaksdown the investment by time horizon into theimmediate, short-term and medium term; Table 4offers a plausible breakdown by source of investment.

1.9.2. Africa’s own Investment

It is against a background of re-emerging international

recognition of the importance of agriculture thatAfrica’s own commitment to funding agricultureshould be seen: if countries that can do withoutagriculture and still prosper are willing to continuefinancing it heavily, why should Africa, where 70 - 80percent of the people depend on the sector, not do thesame? Financing for agriculture under this NEPADCAADP is therefore based on the double assumptionthat (a) Africa itself will increase its investment and (b)that its external partners will come forward andsupport it. With this in mind, attempts have been madeto estimate what Africa itself can reasonably raise asinvestment, leaving the rest to be raised atinternational level.

Basically, there is not enough information on which tobase such estimates: African government statistics toshow the breakdown into investment and operationalfunding have not been collected by any one agency. TheAnti-Hunger Programme16 estimates made recently aresaid to be the minimum amounts required to promotehunger reduction through agricultural development inAfrica, and they exclude the cost of programmes topromote direct access to food.

Given the special needs of Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, the Anti-Hunger Programme has set aminimum amount of US$4.6 billion per year asadditional requirement, to be allocated to Sub-SaharanAfrica as follows:• US$2.4 billion (52 percent) – concessional assistance

to agricultural and rural development;• US$1.6 billion (35 percent) – public domestic sources;• US$0.6 billion (13 percent) – non-concessional loans.

The above sums ignore African private sectorinvestments, which are also not well documented. It isunreasonable under the circumstances to report whatAfrica is likely to raise. Instead, one can present what itwould mean if Africa raised specified ratios of the totalneeds. The assumptions made for the African publicand private sector investments are in Table 3; thefunding levels that result from this scenario are given inTable 4. It may be noted that the share for the foreignprivate sector is initially very low due to continuingperceptions of high risk in the continent. It should benoted that the ratios given are averages; in reality,certain activities such as disaster relief and similar willinitially be almost entirely externally funded.

1.9.3. Public versus Private Investments

Estimates of the likely distribution of financingbetween public and private sources must remain, atthis stage, highly conjectural and will require specificcountry conditions to be taken into account; Table 3

15 US Agency for International Development (USAID). News Conference at the International Conference on Financing for Development by USAID AdministratorAndrew Natsios. Monterrey, 21 March 2002

16 FAO. Reducing Hunger through agricultural and rural development and wider access to food. Draft paper for the proposed Anti-Hunger Programme. World FoodSummit: five years later. Rome.

Page 31: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

19

represents one set of assumptions and Table 4 itsresults. As said elsewhere, detailed breakdownsbetween public and private sector would almostcertainly show contrasts between the areas ofinvestment. For water and land development, the publicsector is expected to take the lead, as also for ruralinfrastructure. The estimated cost of increasing foodsupplies (US$7.5 billion) would also be mainly a chargeon the public sector but would be matched byconsiderable farmer contribution. The total incrementalinvestment requirement would therefore amount toabout US$15.7 billion per year between 2002 and 2015(including operations and maintenance), thus drawingupon both national public and private resources andupon international co-operation, in line with theMonterrey commitments on financing for development.

As elsewhere in the world, most Africandevelopment investments will occur at national level;this is expected to continue. However, there is growingrecognition that some issues require regionalapproaches. Therefore, the implementation of theNEPAD programme will also be undertaken in co-operation with Regional Economic Organisations.Detailed investment projects will have to be preparedat national and regional levels, with FAO support wherethis is needed.

1.9.4. Partnerships

References to public and private investments might beviewed as proposing separation of action. In fact,Africa will need complementary action by many partiesand the key to success will be partnerships for success.If, as recently as a decade ago, governments in theRegion saw themselves as the prime motors ofeconomic development, today there is increasingrecognition by the governments themselves that theirdirect role in economic activities is more limited,though at the same time more strategically importantin creating conditions for growth. It is a role which isfocused particularly on the key area of establishing thepolicy, legal and institutional framework which enablesthe private sector to play the leading role in economicdevelopment, and in selectively investing in key publicgoods which will catalyse broad-based economicgrowth. This requires that governments in the Regionincreasingly establish strategic partnerships with arange of partners to achieve their developmentobjectives, and that their investments be targetedparticularly at reducing transaction costs both in publicservice and in the market place.

The main players in ensuring broad-based economicgrowth are the smallholder producers themselves.Agricultural production services must not onlyeffectively target smallholder producers, but mustensure that the services provided respond to theconstraints they face and opportunities open to them.At the same time, there is a need to strengthen thecapacity of smallholder producers to define and

articulate their requirements in terms of services;organise themselves to better access inputs, producemarkets and production services and conduct theirown agricultural experimentation; and establish astrong voice for themselves in the policy and institution-building process. Supporting the development ofproducer group associations is a crucial part of such anapproach.

The private sector – beyond the small-scale producer –is also a key partner. The large-scale formal private sector- particularly agri-business – is in a number of countriesof the Region probably the major development partnerfor smallholder producers. Future progress depends on abroad-based and equitable expansion of these relations- something that will only happen on the basis of mutualinterest. The commercial private sector wants to makemoney. It can do so - and at the same time help poorfarmers make more money - if it expands its commercialrelations into a realm of self-organised smallholders whoare aware of market options. More and moregovernments in Africa recognise the crucial role that theprivate sector must play, and are willing to undertakeinvestments – in policies, institution-building as well ininfrastructure – which reduce the transaction costs thatthe private sector faces in doing business withsmallholder producers.

NGOs are increasingly recognised as havingspecialised skills in areas of crucial importance forpromoting rural development – particularly in ‘soft’areas such as participatory planning, capacity building,group development, etc. More and more governmentsin the Region are willing to work in partnership withsuitably experienced NGOs operating as serviceproviders: such arrangements are expected to befurther strengthened in the future.

Partnerships in today’s world also involve the donorcommunity. Such partnerships must be built on respectby donors for the sovereignty of the countries involved,and by an explicit recognition that it is the governmentsof those countries which must co-ordinate the supportand activities of the donors, within a consistent sectoralpolicy and strategic framework.

Partnerships exist not only at the national level; andindeed one of the areas in which NEPAD can add valueis in supporting the development of two-way or largerpartnerships across the continent – among nationalgovernments, sub-regional organisations, nationalfarmers associations, and NGOs and private sectororganisations in different parts of the continent. Suchpartnerships can provide the opportunity for lessonslearnt in one location to be applied in another; theexchange of technologies, approaches and institutionalarrangements; and the promotion of investment withinand across the continent.

1.10. Impacts

While benefits arising from investments in ruralinfrastructure and major water and land developments

Page 32: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

20

as well as those in research and development willclearly need some time to materialise in terms ofimpact on productivity, agricultural growth and povertyreduction, the benefits of accelerated productionprogrammes for food security and the rehabilitationand development of small-scale irrigation systems willbe more immediate. If these are deliberately linked toprogrammes for reducing chronic hunger, they willbring about rapid improvements in nutrition and hencein the productive potential of the population. Whenthis materialises, the impact of the rural infrastructureand trade-related capacities for improved marketaccess programme will significantly mitigate thecurrent constraints imposed on the region’scompetitiveness by geography and the difficulty ofaccessing markets. Other direct benefits will arise, inthe short- and medium-term, through the constructionof rural infrastructure - stimulating output andemployment, promoting domestic market activity andmarket integration, and facilitating access to regionalinternational markets.

In order to have an immediate impact on hunger,these production-related investments need to becomplemented by targeted safety nets and measuresto address food emergencies. For instance, a school-feeding programme based mainly on community-managed school gardens for 100 million childrenwould cost US$2-3 billion; and there is ample sharedexperience among FAO, IFAD and WFP in implementingsuch programmes. The provision of safety nets isimportant in that it allows the weak and vulnerable toparticipate in long-term development.

1.11. Moving from Dialogue to Action

With the CAADP having been endorsed by sectorministers at their Rome meeting on 9th June 2002, itsoperationalisation must now take centre stage. Theapproach to converting the broad themes of theCAADP into practical action and investment requires adifferent process from the preparation of thedocument itself. The ideas offered here are only inoutline and carry only informal status. In essence,NEPAD offers Africa new opportunities to moveforward with agricultural development, placing thissector at the forefront of economic and social progress.To succeed, NEPAD will above all need to harness thecommitment and energies of its member countries butalso to attract the support of its partners, bothtraditional and new. It is essential that efforts bemobilised early and be focused on key opportunitiesthat can yield the largest gains; also that the selectedpriorities have potential to touch the lives of largenumbers of Africa’s poor and hungry.

A primary need appears to be greater publicity for theCAADP and constituency building for it. Although theprocess of preparing this document has involved theseeking of comment from and a review meeting forsenior government officials, ministers and regional

economic groupings, ignorance about NEPAD’sprogrammes remains widespread among large swathesof civil society and the private sector. Furthermore,within Africa’s governments, the NEPAD process inagriculture is currently best known to officials at the topin ministries of agriculture, external affairs and thepresidency from where officials have been most involvedwith NEPAD. Still excluded from dialogue are theministries responsible for planning and budget, which inthe end will create the budget lines for the requiredincreased agricultural investments to meet NEPAD goals.

In view of this, the primary step for theoperationalisation of NEPAD agriculture must be to builda constituency and ownership for itself. A concertedpublicity campaign is needed, using the most appropriatemedia for the various sub-regions and societal groups inAfrica. In addition, the holding of a series of consultationsat continental, sub-regional and national levels is aprerequisite for developing the sense of ownership andgenerating the interest necessary for success. The primarytargets would be national governments, regional andsub-regional economic organisations (includingdevelopment banks), the commercial private sector, civilsociety and donors. Such meetings, both custom-designed and opportunistically organised to takeadvantage of other meetings, would sell the "value-added" NEPAD above and beyond national programmes;explain what type of programmes could carry the NEPADlabel; how they could be processed without a stifling andinefficient centralisation; what steps would be needed toraise significant funding from within Africa (both publicand private); how to monitor implementation; and whatroles the countries and their internal constituenciesshould play.

The consultations would also provide forums forinterpreting the main CAADP pillars into specificpriorities for Africa’s diverse national, sub-regional andall-Africa realities; for agreeing on necessary balancebetween systemic interventions (non-project policy andinstitutional changes that create enabling conditions orcapacity to execute actions) and project interventionsrequiring investment. Following the building of aconstituency, there will be four critical needs: • Creating a basis for informed choice in setting

investment /intervention priorities through analyticalwork to identify areas of agricultural production,agro-processing and agricultural trade where Africahas or can relatively easily develop comparativeadvantage, so that the choice of investments has ahigh probability of commercial success andsustainability. Such preparatory analysis is necessaryalso to draw attention to cases where Africancountries might be working at cross-purposes in theirinvestments and thereupon suggest complementaryinvestments among them;

• Formulating and funding of additional concreteprojects (accompanied by review of key ongoing andplanned initiatives to identify those that can most

Page 33: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

21

usefully link up with NEPAD intentions). Theformulating and funding of additional interventionsshould include both investment and systemiccapacity/institutional/policy improvement interventionsfor domestic funding or technical co-operation;

• Integrating NEPAD programmes into Africandevelopment budgets - of national developmentplans and of Regional Economic Organisations inAfrica; and

• Concerted action to promote private sectorengagement and interest. This will require that theprivate sector be a close partner from the earlieststages of constituency building and projectidentification but also that African governmentsshould create the policy and institutional conditionsto make agriculture attractive to private capital.

Given that NEPAD has fundamentally political origins, itmay prove important to ensure collective ministerialoversight and support arrangements for its programmes

in agriculture. The Rome meeting of African Ministers ofAgriculture on 9th June 2002 recommended "that theNEPAD Steering Committee, operating through theinitiating country responsible for agriculture - currentlyEgypt - establish a committee to follow up thisMinisterial Meeting in order to provide politicaloversight, to monitor the implementation of CAADPand to facilitate the engagement of all countries in thefuture NEPAD developments on agriculture." It may benoted that that meeting also saw the need "to devise aconcerted strategy involving the Ministers forAgriculture, Finance and Planning for raising thefunding of agriculture and rural development in orderto enhance the proper funding of NEPAD agriculture-related programmes" – a function that could beadopted by the ministerial forum whose establishmentwas recommended. Text Box 4 summarises governanceissues for the agricultural issues under NEPAD.

Women’s input – a critical factor in Africa

Page 34: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

22

Text Box 4: Governance and Consultative ForumInitiatives for African Agriculture

African agriculture is diverse and complex. Furthermore,since the time when most African countries obtained theirindependence during the 1960s, the agricultural sector hasbeen heavily dependent on external funding and technicalassistance, in some cases with strings that constrainfreedom of manoeuvre in policy-making and action. Thesefactors have made it extremely difficult to have a commonplatform for developing African-owned and managedregional or continent-wide programmes. There are manyinitiatives for governance and consultation within thesector; the dispersion of efforts which this leads to deniesthe agricultural sector a strong lobbying and policyharmonisation mechanism at national, regional andcontinental levels.

The NEPAD process provides a golden opportunity for acommon agricultural policy framework across thecontinent which would address this problem. Given thepolitical will demonstrated at the highest levels of state andgovernment, NEPAD can also provide the much neededpolicy environment for strategic action-orientedapproaches, while recognising the importance ofcontinuous monitoring of the progress made and impactachieved at country level.

The existence of several regional economic organisationsand many major international rivers like the Nile, Congo,Niger, Limpopo, Senegal, Zambezi, etc., provide a furtherimpetus for inter-country co-operation on joint agriculturalprogrammes and projects in selected agro-ecologicalzones. Collaboration among countries such as thoseparticipating in the Nile River Basin Initiative can maximisesynergies and potential spillovers in technology generationand methodology development. Successful technical co-operation on such a large scale will require strong politicalcommitment and constant inter-country dialogue at the

policy level between and among the participatingcountries. Strong political commitment is even much morecrucial for success in continent-wide programmes.

However, the agricultural portfolio is organised differentlyin different countries – even in those that belong to thesame economic grouping. These dispersed efforts deny theagricultural sector a strong lobbying and policyharmonisation mechanism at national, regional andcontinental levels.

Apart from the Western and Central African Conferencefor ministers of agriculture, the FAO biennial RegionalConference for Africa is the only international forumavailable to Ministers responsible for the Agricultural Sectorto meet regularly as a group to discuss regional issues.Nevertheless, in those countries where more than oneMinistry is responsible for the sector, only one or two of theMinisters attend the Regional Conference. It is thereforegratifying that as part of the NEPAD process the 22ndSession of the FAO Regional Conference in Cairo (February2002) supported a recommendation in an earlier version ofthis document to establish a forum of African Ministers ofAgriculture, Food and Natural Resources.

In addition, there should be a Permanent StandingCommittee, consisting of senior officials, for each of thesub-sectors of agriculture, forestry and fisheries or the threepillars of the agricultural sector, namely, (i) research andtechnology development; (ii) economics and trade; and (iii)rural development. The Committees should meet regularlyand report to the Ministers on major emerging issues withpolicy impli-ca-tions.

Source: Working for household food security and economicprosperity in Africa. National Department of Agriculture(South Africa) on behalf of NEPAD Secretariat. [First NEPADprovisional agriculture strategy paper – presented at 22ndFAO Regional Conference for Africa, Cairo, February 3 – 8,2002 and later updated].

Being a political process involving many countries alsorequires that commonly accepted arrangements bedeveloped for assessing progress and judging successso that there can be full transparency and accountabilityto the political leadership in NEPAD and relatedmechanisms.

The NEPAD Secretariat, working on specific stepsthat could be considered to achieve success indeveloping agriculture, has developed the elements ofnational, sub-regional, regional and internationalactions in Annex 3. The Annex also lists key issues to beconsidered in implementing the CAADP.

Page 35: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

23

2CHAPTER

2.1. Introduction

Agricultural growth is more important for Africa than forany other continent. About 70 percent of people in Africaand roughly 80 percent of the continent’s poor live inrural areas. These people depend on agriculture and non-farm rural enterprises for their livelihoods, andincreasingly are unable to meet their basic food needs aspopulation pressure on land grows, and land and waterresources become scarce or degrade and agriculturalproductivity stagnates.

Land and water are the primary natural resourcesnecessary for agriculture, food production and ruraldevelopment in most countries. If used in properassociation with suitable technologies and related factorssuch as labour and investment, they have the capacity toenable global agricultural production to continueoutpacing the growing demand despite the declining percapita availability of land and water resources. For thistrend to take root in Africa and to continue elsewhere,

increased output must come mainly from intensifiedproduction, as new land for expansion is very limited inthe world.

Building up soil fertility and the moisture holdingcapacity of agricultural soils, and rapidly increasing thearea equipped with irrigation, especially small-scale watercontrol, will not only provide farmers with opportunitiesto raise output on a sustainable basis but will alsocontribute to the reliability of food supplies. It may benoted that, in Africa, the percentage of arable land thatis irrigated is 7 percent (barely 3.7 percent in Sub-SaharanAfrica), the corresponding percentages for SouthAmerica, East and South-East Asia and South Asia being10 percent, 29 percent and 41 percent respectively.Furthermore, in Africa 16 percent of all soils are classifiedas having low nutrient reserves while in Asia theequivalent figure is only 4 percent. Moreover, fertiliserproductivity (expressed in terms of maize yield response)in Africa is estimated at some 36 percent lower than inAsia and 92 percent lower than in developed countries.

Extending the area under sustainable Land Management and reliable Water Control Systems

Drip irrigation, Eritrea

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

Page 36: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

24

FAO estimates show that between 1995/7 and 2030about 75 percent of the projected growth in cropproduction in Sub-Saharan Africa will come fromintensification in the form of yield increases (62percent) and higher cropping intensities (13 percent),with the remaining 25 percent coming from arableland expansion. The share due to intensification willexceed 90 percent in land-scarce countries of the NearEast/North Africa. Intensified production occurs mostlyon land already under cultivation17.

In spite of the inherent fragility of Africa’s soils, thecontinent’s climatic variability and the unevendistribution and availability of both surface andsubsurface water resources, there is substantialuntapped potential for the development of thecontinent’s water and land resources for increasingagricultural production. FAO estimates that the currentarea under managed water and land developmenttotals some 12.6 million ha18, equivalent to only some8 percent of the total arable land. Substantial publicand private investments in developing and improvingthe management of these land and water resourceswill be essential to enable African countries to reachthe levels of agricultural production required to meetthe targets for poverty alleviation, food production andeconomic recovery by 2015.

2.2. Husbandry of Soil Resources

About 874 million hectares of Africa’s land isconsidered suitable for agricultural production. Of this,about 83 percent is restricted by serious soil fertility orother limitations and will need costly improvementsand amendments to achieve high and sustainedproductivity. Nutrient depletion is common in Africaand represents a significant loss of natural capitalvalued at an estimated US$1 to 3 billion per year. Ifmost of the nearly 70 million smallholder families inSub-Saharan Africa (SSA) fail within the next decade toadopt sustainable integrated soil fertility and land andwater management practices on their farms, they willseriously jeopardise their long-term food security,productivity and incomes while environmentaldegradation will accelerate. Africa needs to addresslow farm productivity through integrated approachescombining increased use of organic matter, mineralfertilisers, hybrid seeds, irrigation and mechanisation(including reduced tillage systems) rather than each inisolation.

Degradation of soils and other natural resources is abig challenge for Africa. Indeed, IFAD reports forWestern and Central Africa19 indicate that landdegradation from extensive agriculture, deforestation

17 FAO. 2000. Agriculture Towards 2015/30. Technical Interim Report. Rome.

18 FAO. Agriculture Towards 2015/30 estimates.

19 IFAD Strategy for rural poverty reduction in Western and Central Africa. http://www.ifad.org/operations/regional/2002/pa/pa.htm

Land reclamation, Niger

Page 37: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

25

and overgrazing has reached alarming levels and thatabout 50 percent of the farmland suffers soil erosionand up to 80 percent of rangelands are degraded insome way due to use beyond their carrying capacity. Asgood resources diminish and land itself fails to satisfyall needs, land conflicts between herders and sedentaryfarmers are more frequent.

Protecting and improving the soil also makes goodbusiness sense. Research in one country has shown thaton relatively good soils initial nutrient recovery was onlyabout 30 percent, but after 4 to 7 years of soilimprovement, nutrient use efficiency increased two tothree times. Without soil improvement, in fact, thecapture of nutrients is only about 35 percent fornitrogen and 15 percent for phosphorus, which isapproximately half of rates typical elsewhere. This isparticularly important in Africa where roughly twice asmany nutrients are said to be lost compared to otherregions, so that the majority of available nutrients arenot utilised by crops. Apart from inefficient uptake ofnutrients, the total input of fertilisers is very low:fertiliser use in Africa is only 21 kg (nutrients) per ha ofharvested land per year, and is even lower in Africasouth of the Sahara at 9 kg per ha of arable land. Thecorresponding figures are 100 kg/ha for South Asia, 135kg/ha for East and South-East Asia, 73 kg/ha for LatinAmerica and 206 kg/ha for the industrial countries.

2.3. Water Control and Management

World-wide, the application of water and its manageduse has been an essential factor in raising agriculturalproductivity and ensuring output predictability. Water isessential to bring forth the potential of the land and toenable improved varieties of both plants and animals tomake full use of other yield-enhancing productionfactors. Yet the percentage of arable land that isirrigated is barely 3.7 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, afigure that rises to 7 percent in Africa as a whole giventhat 40 percent of the total irrigated area is in NorthAfrica. These are the lowest percentages in thedeveloping world: the corresponding percentages are10, 29 and 41 for South America, East and South-EastAsia and South Asia respectively. In Africa as a whole, inthe absence of deliberate steps to accelerate progress,the extent of irrigated land is expected to grow at under1 percent p.a. over the period from 1995/97 to 2030, atwhich time the extent of irrigated land would be barely20 percent of potential in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Within the context of NEPAD, strategic public andrelated private investment in water management andland improvement will be essential for theintensification of agricultural production and formeeting targets for poverty alleviation, food productionand economic recovery by 2015. This document setsout best estimates of the potential investment inirrigation to increase irrigated land in Africa from 12.6million ha at present to some 20 million in 2015. Due toevident diversities both among and within the countries

considered, these estimates should be viewed as ordersof magnitude and are based on current new costs ofbuilding, rehabilitating, and operating and maintainingirrigation systems. The sources of funding will verymuch depend upon the character of the irrigation andthe respective institutional responsibilities.

The nature of Africa’s climatic variability and theinherent fragility of its soils pose natural limits to theextent of intensified agricultural production. Theselimits have to be recognised and subsequent measuresapplied for mitigation through research andinnovation. At the same time, institutional, policy andeconomic frameworks will be important factors indetermining the extent to which the full investmentpotential cited here can be realised in practice. Africa’slong experience with shared river basins and the role ofriver basin organisations will need to be put to goodeffect in negotiating both resource allocation andenvironmental externalities between riparian countries.

2.4. Assumptions and Investment Estimates

In order to assess potential and needs for land andwater investments in Africa, the following steps havebeen used in this study: • A 1998 baseline has been established.• Three types of conventional water control and land

improvement investment have been identified,allowing for the definition of reasonably wellfounded targets for investment, viz.:- on-farm and small-scale irrigation development

including small-scale informal irrigation (private,peri-urban, horticulture etc.), humid lowlanddevelopment (fadamas, "bas-fonds", dambos,marais, etc.), and land improvement (soil structure,fertility etc.);

- upgrading and rehabilitation of existing large-scaleirrigation systems;

- development of new, large-scale schemes.• An assessment of potential targets for 2015 has been

derived through expert judgement, based onexamination of national targets for land and waterimprovement.

• Estimated average unit investment costs have beenapplied to the areas identified for each kind ofdevelopment.

The data sets and methodology were developed on acountry basis and aggregated at regional andcontinental levels.

2.4.1. Data and Information Sources

The methodology is based mainly on expert knowledgeabout the situation of land and water development inAfrica and its prospect in the future. The main sourcesof information used in this study are:• FAOSTAT: FAO main statistics by country on

rural/urban population, land use, irrigation,agricultural production.

Page 38: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

26

• AQUASTAT: Country-based statistics and informationon the situation of water management foragriculture. A survey was made in 1995, whichincluded trends and projections by country atdifferent time horizons, together with unitinvestment costs. In addition, the irrigation potentialhas also been compiled for the whole of Africa onthe basis of river basins.

• Agriculture Towards 2015/30 (AT 2015/30): FAOPerspective study on agriculture in 2015 and 2030,providing country-based projections on agriculture,including land and water development, in 2015 and2030, as well as a description of the situation duringits base year (1998).

• A similar study on water management potential forAfrica, carried out in 1996; the study produced threescenarios for the development of land and water inAfrica by 2010. It was based on the informationavailable at that time, and on expert knowledge ofthe potential for land and water development in eachcountry of Africa.

2.4.2. Typologies of Investment Interventions

Three main categories of land and water improvementinterventions were identified, allowing for thedefinition of reasonably well founded targets forinvestment. They correspond to the main types ofinterventions already taking place in Africa, for whichmodels and unit costs are available. They are:• on-farm and small-scale irrigation development

including small-scale informal irrigation (private, peri-

urban, horticulture etc.), humid lowlanddevelopment (fadamas, "bas-fonds", dambos,marais etc.), and land improvement (soil structure,fertility etc.).

• upgrading and rehabilitation of existing large-scaleirrigation systems. Rehabilitation of existing irrigationschemes would involve further development of thecommand area up to its designed capacity.

• development of new, large-scale schemes.

For the first category, investments in land improvementare necessary to make the best use of the proposedinvestments. A land improvement component wastherefore added to the overall proposed investmentcomputations. Typically, this component would includetools and equipment, one-time soil fertilityimprovement, sub-soiling to break compaction,together with capacity building and training inagricultural practices.

The apportionment of public and private financesources will depend upon the institutionalresponsibilities in each country and will be related tothe various styles of irrigation and agriculturalproduction systems.

2.4.3. Assessing Unit Investment Costs

Unit investment costs were based on informationobtained from AQUASTAT in 1995, adjusted to take intoaccount unit costs used in recent agriculture investmentprojects provided by the Investment Centre (TCI). In viewof the large discrepancy between regions in terms of unit

Farmer clearing irrigation canal on the River Nile, Sudan

Page 39: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

27

costs, Africa is presented under nine regional economicorganizations. The results are presented in Table 6.

Irrigated areas in Africa are distributed very unevenly,with North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya andEgypt) representing more than 40 percent of the total.The percentage of irrigated land in Africa is far lowerthan in the developing countries in Asia, where almosta quarter of all cultivable area and 40 percent of allcultivated land is irrigated.

In Africa there is still significant potential forirrigation development on the basis of the land andwater resource alone, but regional disparities are widewithin the continent. It is estimated that sevencountries (Angola, Sudan, Egypt, Democratic Republicof Congo, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Nigeria) accountfor an irrigation potential of more than 30 million hawhich is about 60 percent of all irrigation potential ofAfrica, while at the other end of the list, 18 countriesshare only 5 percent of all potential.

Investment in irrigation development in Africa lagsbehind other developing regions of the world (Table 7).Africa has some 12.2 million ha irrigated compared toabout 18.4 million ha for Latin America and 157.6 millionha for Asia-Pacific. These numbers represent about 10percent, 14 percent and 40 percent respectively of thecultivated area and 2 percent, 5 percent and 24 percentrespectively of potentially cultivable land. Five year linearextrapolations were used to obtain regional data onirrigated areas from FAOSTAT series 1961-1999 for thecomputation of net irrigation increase by decade in the60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Based on an average lifetime of30 years, reduced for the first two decades because ofinvestment levels in the 50's and 60's, the irrigated arearehabilitated every decade was assumed to increase from20 percent to 33 percent of the area irrigated at thebeginning of the period.

2.4.4. Describing the Current Situation

Reliable information on water management inagriculture is available from the 1995 AQUASTATsurvey. Typically, it refers to the situation between 1990and 1994. FAOSTAT data on irrigation are availableyearly, by country, until 1999. In addition, countrybased information is also available from AT2015/30 forwhich the base year is 1998. This information is furtherenhanced by a comprehensive basin-wide compilationof resources and potential.

In this study, it was decided to use 1998 as the baseyear and 2015 as target year, thus making the mostproductive use of the information available inAT2015/30. For 1998, data on irrigation were obtainedfrom AT2015/30 (complementing them, for a fewcountries not covered by AT2015/30, with FAOSTATfigures). Breakdown by type of water control wasobtained from the 1996 study (which used 1992 asbase year), scaling up to fit the AT2015/30 irrigationdata. Country data on arable land were obtained fromthe FAOSTAT database.

2.4.5. Assessing a Possible Target for 2015

AT2015/30 gives an estimate of the likely situation in2015 that can be considered as the situation under ascenario of "business as usual", i.e. without specificintervention in land and water development. Theprojections of AT2015/30 give an increase in irrigationof little less than 2 million ha, going from 12.6 millionha to 14.4 million ha (large- and small-scale irrigation).In such a situation, irrigation would represent a slightlylower share of arable land than in 1998 (7 percentcompared to the current 8 percent).

Country data on arable land in 2015 were obtainedby linear regression, comparing AT2015/30 figures forbase year 1998 and 2015 with figures on arable landby FAOSTAT for 1998. Projected figures on ruralpopulation for 2015 were obtained from FAOSTAT (UNPopulation Division).

Possible increases in land and water managementbetween 1998 and 2015 were based mainly on the 1996study. They take into account the countries’ potential interms of land and water development, and, to a certainextent, the demand, expressed in terms of national waterresource development plans, from AQUASTAT. Fourindicators were used to check if the proposed figureswere reasonable: the total area to be developed, theshare of arable land having received some kind of landand water control investment by 2015, the watermanaged area by rural family in 2015, and the annualgrowth rate in large- and small-scale irrigation between1998 and 2015. Proposed figures from the 1996 studywere adjusted to obtain a fair sample of these indicatorsfor each country. When specific information was availablefor a given country, it was taken into account in thecomputation of the country figures.

2.4.6. General Assumptions in the Calculations

In deriving the potential investment figures thefollowing key assumptions have been made:• At this stage the approach is based upon an

assessment of production potential as distinct froman assessment of actual food demand.

• Physical limits of land and water systems can bemitigated through improved conservation of surfaceand groundwater resources, soil structure and soilfertility.

• Economic limits to production can be addressedthrough improved economic, policy, and institutionalframeworks.

• Investment requirements are inclusive of private andpublic resources, and exclusive of necessarycomplementary off-farm resource requirements.

2.5. Towards a Common Strategy forInvestment

The specific strategy adopted will naturally varydepending on the country concerned. Nevertheless,the majority of the countries to be covered fall within

Page 40: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

28

the Least Developed Country (LDC) category, and assuch lack both the public and private resources to launchthe investment projects and programmes necessary forexpanded and improved water control and cropirrigation on the required scale. In these circumstances,the most common strategy adopted would have threemain elements, viz. in the paragraphs that follow.

First is the identification and preparation ofinvestments to support small-scale irrigation, andwhere feasible the rehabilitation of existing largeschemes for external public funding by regional andinternational multilateral financing institutions, as wellas interested bilateral donors. Where appropriate,these external resources would be accompanied bycomplementary measures on the government's part toenhance the economic, policy and institutionalframework and ensure the sustainability of suchinvestment. Besides farmers’ own resources, and suchcounterpart funds as may be available, this would bethe main national public contribution.

Linked to, and in sequence with the above publicinvestments in water control infrastructure,accompanied by appropriate policy reform, substantialflows of national private investment would beencouraged to underwrite necessary supporting servicessuch as guaranteeing the availability of seed, fertiliserand other input supplies, storage, marketing and credit,and transport. Overseas direct private investments wouldbe encouraged to take advantage of specific commercialopportunities, in particular for agricultural export crops.

Lastly, new large-scale investment schemes would beconsidered only on the basis of a full examination ofpast experience, careful assessment of economic andfinancial sustainability, and comparison with alternativeopportunities which may offer lower unit investmentcosts. While such investment cannot be excluded inspecific favourable circumstances, the initial priority inmost cases would fall on relatively low-cost small-scaleirrigation development, and the rehabilitation ofselected existing large-scale schemes.

Underpinning all the investment in irrigation andwater management has to be better care for soils inorder to ensure sustained fertility. Initiatives underwayare promoting a move beyond the original Soil FertilityInitiative concept towards "better land husbandry".This approach recognises in the first place that thereare no wholesale prescriptions and that technicalsolutions to improved soil management are location-and farm-specific. It also involves better recognition ofthe interdependence of the "organic", "mineral" and"physical" components in implementing better landhusbandry. Under the new approach, mineral fertilisersand organic matter are treated as complements ratherthan substitutes.

The introduction of sound technologies for enhanced

land management cannot, however, represent a stand-alone area of operations. Resource degradation and(apparent) mismanagement are themselves aspects ofrural economic systems and thus shaped in part byissues of market access and competitiveness - even inthe most marginal areas. Population pressure is oftenidentified as the cause of resource degradation, butthere is no single inevitable agricultural orenvironmental outcome to population pressure. In areaswith poor market access, it can lead rapidly to resourcemining. Where there are good market connections andaccess to a profitable crop, precisely the samepopulation pressure can lead to intensification involvingmajor investments in resource management andimprovement. This approach will embrace a whole-system approach, tackling conservation within the wholestructure of the rural political economy - and theopportunities of poor people to effectively manageresources to improve their livelihoods.

2.6. Estimated Potential for Investment

The order of magnitude for the investment required toincrease the amount of arable land in Africa underimproved land and water management from 8 percent(at a 1998 baseline) to 15 percent by 2015 isapproximately US$36.9 billion, comprising:• on-farm and small-scale irrigation development: US$

14.4 billion;• strategic rehabilitation of formal, large-scale

irrigation schemes: US$ 8.9 billion;• expansion through new large-scale irrigation

development: US$ 13.6 billion.

These estimates will need to be systematicallyconfirmed on a country-by-country basis and withinthe framework of shared river basins whereinternational basin organisations are responsible fornegotiating allocations for agricultural use. Abreakdown of areas and associated investmentestimates by Regional Economic Organisation is shownin Table 8. No totals for Africa should be derived fromthe Regional Economic Organisations’ totals sincecountry membership overlaps, with some countriesbelonging to two or three organisations, in particularSADC and COMESA; and ECOWAS and UEMOA whichhave a very high multiple country membership.Indicative country details are available but to arrive atproposals for distribution of efforts between small andlarge-scale irrigation as well as between rehabilitationand new investment will require prior consultation andupdated assessments on the ground.

In addition, operation and maintenance requirements20

for all categories of land and water improvement areestimated to reach annually, by the year 2015, someUS$3.8 billion, equivalent to an overall expenditure

20 Including allowances for both institutional strengthening and the recurrent costs of the organisations responsible for operation and maintenance.

Page 41: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

29

Commercialisation of agriculture, South Africa

Page 42: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

30

throughout the period of some US$32 billion. Thesemaintenance estimates are based on operationalschemes and vary considerably per country.

Future investments in irrigation will be mainly forrehabilitation, upgrading and expansion. Suchincremental investment will benefit from the largeamount of sunk costs in existing schemes therebyenabling higher rates of return. A clear indication thatirrigation yields adequate returns is the amount ofprivate investment it attracts worldwide. Irrigationreduces the risk of crop losses from uncertain rainfall,enables production in areas or at times without rainfall,and provides water to enable farmers to increaseoutput per hectare. There are strong synergies betweenirrigation and other principal sources of agriculturalgrowth such as fertiliser, improved plant varieties,better husbandry, upgraded infrastructure and betterintegration into markets. These encourage farmers toinvest in land improvements and in other inputs.

Estimates of annual expenditures for investmentsand maintenance of land and water improvement areshown in Table 9. Immediate investment requirements(2002-2005) are estimated at US$9.9 billion, the short-term investment requirements (2006-2010) at US$20.1billion and the medium-term requirements (2011-2015) at US$6.8 billion.

Estimates of likely projections for the distributionof public: private financing within this overall envelopemust remain, at this stage, highly conjectural andwill require specific country conditions to be taken intoaccount. Distinction is made by type of investment and ODA is assumed to be 40 percent of the publicsector investment in Low Income Food DeficitCountries but zero in the more developed poorcountries. Some considerable data gathering andcritical thinking is required to apply this approach; anindicative outcome of applying it is presented inAppendix Table 5.

2.7. Moving Forward

Clearly these types of water management and landimprovement need to be placed within specific agro-ecological, hydrological and socio-economic settings.Well-judged investment can permit strategic consolidation,diversification and intensification of agriculturalproduction to respond to changing market conditions.The proper identification of the most promisinginvestment approaches and target areas will be ofparamount importance, followed by investmentpreparation that meets the requirements of multilateraland bilateral funding sources. This will require aflexible, opportunistic approach with the governmentsconcerned, with full national and local involvementand commitment. NEPAD might initially seek supportfrom partners, including FAO, in four ways:• Refining investment requirement estimates. A

possible approach is presented in the paper ARC/02/4("The New Partnership For Africa’s Development:Land and Water Resources Issues, and AgriculturalDevelopment"), which was presented to the 22ndFAO Conference for Africa, in Cairo, 4-8 February2002. This approach has been endorsed by theNEPAD Steering Committee and is included as part ofthe proposed NEPAD Sector Priority Programme.

• Supporting the development of appropriate regionaland national strategies for irrigated agriculture andthe identification of strategic investment targets,through technical co-operation.

• Implementing necessary pilot and pre-investmentprojects for on-farm irrigation and land-improvementprojects under various action-oriented programmesfor food security, of which the Special Programme forFood Security (SPFS) launched by FAO is one example.

• Assistance to countries in investment identification andpreparation, on a case-by-case basis, and identifyingthe sources of public and private investments.

Page 43: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

31

3CHAPTER

3.1. Introduction

The African leaders of the New Partnership for Africa’sDevelopment (NEPAD) have clearly indicated thatamong their priorities are infrastructure andagriculture; the two have an interface (see Text Box 5for the NEPAD link). Adequate and well-functioninginfrastructure is essential for agriculture to becompetitive, which it enables by reducing the costs ofdelivering inputs to it and of taking produce out tomarkets, including any storage that this may entail;energy infrastructure is essential for development ofagro-industries; information infrastructure is vital fortimely technological information to farmers and agro-industrialists but also between producers and markets;water infrastructure is a precondition for irrigation, andwater-based power generation is the key to adequateand affordable power for Africa. In implementingagricultural development programmes, NEPAD willneed to take advantage of major transport corridors for

the location of production and processing facilities if itis to reach distant markets competitively; in turn, inplanning major infrastructure projects, NEPAD will needto include agricultural development opportunitiesamong the economic benefits that will make transport,power and water investments profitable.

The share of Africa in world agricultural exports hasdropped steadily, from 8 percent in 1971-80 to some3.4 percent in 1991-2000, and reversing this decline willrequire increased efforts by the African countries, withthe assistance of the international community, tosurmount the hurdles, including domestic supply-sideconstraints. The latter can broadly be divided intostructural constraints, which are particularly prevalent inSub-Saharan Africa, and policy-induced constraintsresulting from trade and macroeconomic policies thathave biased the structure of incentives againstagriculture and exports. Typical structural constraints arethe high dependence on a limited number of exportcommodities; weak technological capacities; inadequate

Improving Infrastructure and Trade-related Capacitiesfor Market Access

Essential infrastructure development, South Africa

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

Page 44: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Text Box 5: NEPAD Action Programme onInfrastructure: Interface with Agriculture

At the request of NEPAD, the African Development Bankprepared and released in May 2002 the draft document"NEPAD Short-term Action Plan: Infrastructure". Thedocument, which presents a series of programmes andprojects of continental or regional significance, coversthe fields of energy; water and sanitation; transport; andinformation and communications technologies (ICT). TheNEPAD Infrastructure Action Plan has the overarchinggoal of reducing poverty. It is driven by the belief thatAfrica needs to exit from international economicmarginalisation through development and that suchdevelopment cannot occur without trade while trade inturn cannot occur without infrastructure. The leaders ofNEPAD believe that regional infrastructure is importantbecause African economies are typically too small togenerate the necessary economies of scale to reducetransaction costs and so improve competitiveness.

Energy: Although Africa has 13% of the world’spopulation it consumes only 3% of global commercialenergy. Africa is said to be the continent where residentialconnections are fewest; in 1991, it is reported that fewerthan 22% of African households were connected to[electricity] networks. This state of affairs is a symptom ofthe low degree of modern economic activity. NEPAD aimsto develop fully all forms of Africa’s energy resources so asto deliver affordable energy services for development. Ofthe projects and programmes proposed, only one haspotential for direct impact on agriculture, especially on ruralindustrialisation. It is a US$3 million study (proposed for2003-2005) on "Co-operation in Rural Energy Networks".

Water: For water, the Action Plan refers to agriculturespecifically, viz. "...the available resources have to beharnessed to meet the growing basic needs of watersupply... contribute to food security through use of waterfor irrigation, and also be able to tap the availablerenewable hydropower potential of the continent." TheAction Plan also states: " ... despite widespread anddeteriorating food insecurity on the continent, and thefact that agriculture is the main user of water in mostAfrican countries, in two-thirds of them, less than 20%of the irrigation potential has been utilised .... Tocomplicate the situation, degradation of watercatchments is becoming a widespread environmental

hazard with serious ramifications on water quality and onthe continent’s ability to feed itself." Noting that in theworld, about 30-40% of food comes from the irrigated16% of total cultivated land, the Plan sees this as an areaof opportunity and observes that: • Africa has large irrigation potential but relatively little

land under this use compared to other regions; • there have been major problems with irrigation

schemes and future success requires reforms;• the African sub-regions that use irrigation most are the

ones least endowed with water resources.

The Action Plan blames the combined effect of intensiveagriculture and deforestation for degradation of riverbasins and also is concerned at the adverse impacts ofdrought, desertification and the associated deforestation,over-grazing, soil erosion, and overexploitation of underground water in arid zones such as the Maghreband the Sahel.

Transport: Africa is the continent with the greatestnumber of landlocked countries. Consequently, manycountries face extraordinary costs in accessing globalmarkets. Indeed, the Action Plan quotes UNCTAD datashowing that in a number of countries, the share oftransport cost in value of trade is staggering: for example,transport and insurance payments as a percentage of thevalue of exports is: Malawi (55.5%); Chad (51.8%);Rwanda (48.4%); Mali (35.6%); Uganda (35.5%); CAR(32.8%). Clearly, this level of costs would be particularlydamaging for agricultural trade where primary productsare often of low value and great bulk. This situation canhave many implications for agriculture, including:• the need for value-addition to traded products so as to

make transport costs more affordable;• the advantage of maximising location of agricultural, agro-

industry and agro-storage development programmes closeto the many transport corridors NEPAD and RegionalEconomic Organisations have developed or are promoting;

• the desirability of planning the development of ruralroads so as to optimally link them to the majortransport infrastructure of inter-country significance.

Sources: Adapted (with implications for agricultureadded) from: a) NEPAD Short-term Action Plan:Infrastructure. May 2002 (prepared in co-operation withthe African Development Bank); b) UNCTAD, DocumentTD/LDC/AC.1/17, 13 June 2001

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

32

legal and regulatory institutional frameworks; limitedaccess of farmers to credit; and inadequate transport,storage and marketing infrastructure.

Rural infrastructure is one of several subsets ofactivities that are essential elements for African ruraltransformation. The existence of poor quality orinadequate infrastructure will inevitably impactnegatively on the competitiveness of African agricultureby increasing internal transport costs, reducing levels ofvalue-added at origin and lowering transactionefficiencies in the marketing chains, be they national orinternational. The provision of adequate and cost-

effective rural infrastructure will clearly, therefore,underpin the development of agriculture in generaland, in particular, facilitate lower-cost production andmarketing to enable countries in the region to respondto both national and international market demand.

The provision of basic rural infrastructure is also a pre-requisite for enabling African countries to stimulateeconomic growth and to reach the targets for economicrecovery and poverty alleviation by 2015: throughincreasing and diversifying agricultural output andemployment, promoting domestic market activity andmarket integration, and facilitating and developing access

Page 45: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

33

to export markets. In addition, complementary actions willbe required in the markets of developed countries toimprove the market access conditions facing Africanagricultural (including livestock and fisheries) exports.

This document builds on a companion FAO paper21,first presented at the 22nd FAO Regional Conference forAfrica held in Cairo, in February 2002. The document setsout estimates of complementary investments in ruralinfrastructure that are required to support the growth inagricultural production due to the land and waterdevelopments foreseen. Such infrastructure includes ruralroads, storage facilities for crops, livestock and fishproducts, and related processing and market facilities. Dueto the range of country conditions and the lack of precise,up-to-date information regarding the current stock ofrural infrastructure in any particular country, the estimatesshould be viewed as providing preliminary and indicativeorders of magnitude only.

3.2. Role, Importance and Current Situation

3.2.1. Rural Infrastructure

Rural transport infrastructure consists of the networkof rural roads and tracks on which the rural populationtravels by means of walking or using non-motorisedand motorised vehicles. This network includes theintra-village tracks (both informal and formal) as well aslocal government networks that link the rural

population to the rest of the economy and the outsideworld. Other rural infrastructure elements – storagefacilities for crops, livestock and fish products, andrelated processing and market facilities – are clearlymore closely linked to activities in the agriculturalsector and have evolved over time in extent,sophistication and modalities of ownership andoperation, depending on socio-economic conditionsand country policies. In the latter respect, it can benoted that there have been cases of inappropriate, andoften uneconomic, investments in Africa in the past.Indeed, in some countries, there is already anabundance of crop storage facilities operated by more-or-less defunct grain marketing boards which are notnecessarily being made available to the private sector.A possible exception to this is storage for food securityreserves. However, in most cases, there is a need tocarry out an inventory of available stores, rehabilitatethem and then seek means to increase the involvementof the private sector. With regard to post-harvestactivities, clearly the days of expensive governmentinvolvement in most agro-processing facilities are past,and future emphasis will probably be very much oncommercial investment by the private sector.

Rural infrastructure plays a critical role in povertyreduction, economic growth and empowerment forthe African rural poor. The lack of adequate andreliable infrastructure touches the life of every rural

21 FAO Support to The New Partnership for Africa’s Development: Quantitative Estimates of Investment Potential for Land and Water Development in Africa.

Smallholders’ cotton en route to the gin, Uganda

Page 46: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

34

African family daily; investments in rural infrastructure,particularly rural roads, storage, processing and marketfacilities, will therefore be required to support theanticipated growth in agricultural production andimprove competitiveness. Family efforts to escapepoverty and lift themselves above subsistence levels arelimited by the present poor access to markets, suppliesand vital information. Local roads and tracks are oftenimpassable, making it difficult, if not impossible forrural families to access the rural economy.

Apart from North Africa, which is reasonably wellendowed, Africa’s rural infrastructure is generallyinadequate by almost any measure: Africa’s people facethe longest distances to the nearest large markets; afifth of Africa’s population is landlocked – less than athird of Africans live within 100 km of the seacompared to over 40 percent in other developingregions; rail freight in Africa is under 2 of the worldtotal, marine freight capacity 11 percent and air freightless than 1 percent; and power generation capacity percapita in Africa is less than half of that in either Asia orLatin America. The poor state of Africa’s infrastructurereflects neglect of investment. External investment ineconomic infrastructure22 in the period between 1990and 1996 for Sub-Saharan Africa was US$26.7 billion,compared to US$41.4 billion for Latin America and theCaribbean and US$101.9 billion for Asia, of whichsome US$71.9 billion was for East Asia alone.

With the exception of the Mahgreb countries inNorth Africa, Africa’s road network is particularlyunderdeveloped. It is clear that many Sub-SaharanAfrican countries face a significant handicap in terms ofrural road infrastructure, and they compare unfavourablywith both North Africa and other parts of the world. Forexample, local road densities in a sample ofrepresentative countries in Sub-Saharan Africa show amean density of 0.86 km per thousand head ofpopulation, while the equivalent density in Tunisia is2.6 km/1 000 persons, and in South Asia is some1.8 km/1 000 persons; for middle-income countries, thedensity is 8.5 km/1 000 persons. Africa has the lowestdensity of paved roads of any of the world’s regions,which hinders access to markets. For example, there arean estimated 1.8 million km of roads in Sub-SaharanAfrica, of which only 284 000 km (16 percent) arepaved (Table 11). Poverty and remoteness areparticularly associated in Africa where the combinationof scarce and poor roads results in high transport costsand make parts of the economy only semi-open. Forexample, recent studies in Burkina Faso, Uganda andZambia have shown that walking is the principal meansof transport for 87 percent of rural households23. Table10 gives details of the current provision of roadinfrastructure for each of the major African sub-regions.

The few available data on rural roads also point to anAfrican handicap relative to other developing regions(Tables 11, 12) which provide comparative data amongregions of the world. Table 13 compares data from theearly 1990s on the existing rural road network forAfrican countries in the Humid and Sub-humid Tropicswith those of India in 1950 (about 15 years before thegreen revolution period) – adjusted for populationdensity. To the extent that adoption of high-yieldingvarieties depends on infrastructure, the extent of thehandicap of many African countries becomes clear.

Africa is also deficient in port infrastructure, a situationpartly associated with the fact that it has very modestinternational trade that could justify necessaryinvestments, and partly due to the fact that most of themwere built during the colonial period. Levels of traffic atmany African ports, both marine and air, are quite low inrelation to the heavy investments incurred; accordinglythey represent outlays with low rates of return and maybe a drain on treasuries while failing to be fully productiveassets to the economies they serve. World-class ports arefound only in South Africa and Egypt, with lesser ones inEast Africa. Existing port facilities were often built forbroad commercial objectives and failed to take intoaccount the special needs of specific sub-sectors such asfisheries, livestock, forestry etc.

A similar picture prevails for airports that couldfacilitate exports of high-value perishables. While manyairports have runway capacity to handle large cargo craft,there is neither the volume of exports nor the coldstorage chain to support their contribution to exports.Notable activity is restricted to a few airports such asJohannesburg, Nairobi, Cairo and one or two other hubs.

Good quality infrastructure is a particularly importantcontributor to competitiveness and growth inagriculture. Many agricultural commodities are eitherbulky or perishable (or both), and costs of transportingboth inputs and products can account for a high sharein the value of final products where infrastructure andphysical market access conditions are inadequate (e.g.40 percent difference between margins for food grainsin Kenya and Malawi and those in Bangladesh andIndonesia)24. In these cases, markets may remaineffectively insulated, even if all trade barriers arelowered or removed. Current information on marketaccessibility underscores the importance of goodquality infrastructure, with nearly all landlockedcountries in the world currently being poor, and regionslinked to coasts by ocean-navigable waterways beingstrongly favoured in development terms relative to theirhinterlands. Poor infrastructure provision is detrimentalto the vitality of agriculture in the continent and thusto prospects for poverty reduction. High transport costsreduce marketing margins, raising consumer or border

22 Including communications, energy, transport, water, sanitation. Sources: UNCED Secretariat; Euromoney 1997/98 Annual report.

23 Barwell, I. 1996. Transport and the Village. World Bank, Discussion Paper No. 344. 1996.

24 IFAD. 2001. Rural Poverty Report.

Page 47: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

35

prices and effectively closing off more remote regions.High transport costs effectively make much of Africanagriculture "semi-closed": any efficiency gains inproduction may be eroded by the high cost of transportand of other related transactions, which create awedge between commodity prices at the farm-gateand border, and ratchet up prices of imported inputs.

Information on the current state, distribution andavailability of livestock infrastructure is very scarce andsomewhat anecdotal; there is clearly a need to reviewat national levels the state of this stock beforeproceeding with significant investment programmes insupport of the sector. A 1996 study25, while under-lining the serious problems of inadequate infrastructurein the under-developed communal areas of SouthernAfrica, observed that – in general terms – thecommercial sectors were generally more favourablyendowed. In summary, South Africa, Zimbabwe andMauritius had adequate infrastructure, while othercountries of the region had some or serious problems.

The fisheries sector in Africa is characterised by adualistic structure with, on the one side, an industrialsub-sector composed of large boats operating on apurely commercial basis, targeting high quality/highvalue fish to serve northern markets, characterised by ahigh degree of vertical integration from fishing,through storing and processing the product, up tomarketing it in northern markets. Most value added istherefore kept by the company itself and very little leftwithin the country, because post-harvest infrastructure,

where existing, is limited to storage capacity and verylittle devoted to processing. On the other side is theartisanal sub-sector, composed of African fishermenengaged mainly for subsistence and the local market,using labour-intensive technology. Among the majorconstraints are access roads, appropriate landingfacilities, and availability of adequate gear and otherinputs. Future developments in the sector, aimed atpromoting a locally-owned industrial fleet, and tocreate conditions for investments in processinginfrastructure within the continent, would have toinclude ports suitable to the needs of the sector,strategically located with respect to the fishing areasand with the required handling facilities.

As of now, markets for artisanal fishery products arealso extremely important in the African continent forboth coastal communities, whose livelihood strategiesare heavily dependent on fisheries, and inlandpopulations, for which fish represents usually a cheapsource of protein and nutrition compared to othersources. Improvements to market infrastructurecoupled with investments in connecting rural roadswould reduce transaction costs with likely beneficialeffects on both producer incomes (higher producerprices) and increased accessibility to fish and fishproducts for consumption by the general population(with lower consumption prices). Being built forgeneral purposes, many African ports fail to meet theneeds of artisanal fisheries, where the construction ofsmall fishing jetties and docks could serve the many

25 FAO. 1996. Livestock and Meat Trade in the SADC community.

Fruit and vegetable market, Guinea

Page 48: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

36

communities and villages along the African coast, thuscreating poles of development that could easily linkwith national and regional markets.

3.2.2. Trade-related Capacities for ImprovedMarket Access

Africa faces trade challenges at many levels: the farmerfaces non-remunerative markets and loses theincentive to produce; the nation-state fails to findrewarding markets both within the region and globally;Africa as a region is marginalised as well as being oftenuncompetitive in the international marketplace; further-more, Africa continues to offer mostly unprocessedproduce, for which prices are static or falling.Responses to these issues pose challenges that NEPADwill need to address at the appropriate level.

Domestic/local Markets

In terms of trade and market access, the importance ofdomestic markets should not be neglected. A strongdomestic market is a building block for export marketsand there should be broad participation in domesticmarkets: e.g. small farmers, women, etc. But to tap theirpotential requires strong institutional capacities and theimplementation of relevant policies (e.g. competition,tariff policy, financing, market development, etc.).

Rural people in Africa, especially the poor, often saythat one reason they cannot improve their livingstandards is that they face difficulties of accessingmarkets where they can obtain agricultural inputs andconsumer goods and sell their produce. Until a decadeor so ago, for smallholder farmers, major markets wereorganised by governments, and exchanges were notcritically influenced by farmer knowledge andorganisation. Nearly everywhere the situation haschanged radically. Smallholder farmers no longer facean assured market for their produce at fixed, pan-territorial prices that often represented a large tax onthe value of their produce. Similarly, they no longerface a predictable supply situation for inputs and, intoday's world, they may not be able to afford to buywhat becomes available. A market environment thatwas far from perfect, but at least offered farmers somedegree of security, has been replaced by a new onewhich is highly uncertain, and in which prices, whetherfor selling produce or purchasing inputs, are nowlargely negotiated. New commercial relations must bestruck with a myriad of suppliers and buyers.

For some farmers, particularly those producingexport crops in areas enjoying good communications,this has created major new opportunities. For others,particularly those trying to produce and market staplesat the agricultural margins, it has created majorproblems. Market access has become a criticaldeterminant of farmers’ production systems: thosewho live close to better roads and have more frequentand direct contact with the market are willing to

produce more systematically for the market, whilethose with poor market access have little incentive toproduce crops other than those required for domesticconsumption. Put another way, improved marketaccess is a prerequisite to increased farmer incomes.

By and large, smallholder farmers are ill equipped toextract the maximum from the new market relationsthat they face. They confront not only an uncertainproduction environment, but also enormousconstraints in physically accessing markets – these aretypically distant and transportation costs to them arehigh, and in many cases, there are few buyers ofproduce. Poor farmers in Africa are also constrained bylack of information about the markets, lack of businessand negotiating experience, and lack of a collectiveorganisation which can give them the power they needto interact on equal terms with other, generally largerand stronger, market intermediaries. The result is poorterms of exchange and little influence over what theyare offered. Remunerative markets are an essentialelement in progressively making African agricultureentrepreneurial; income from well-functioningmarkets, when combined with credit, can offer the realprospect of sustainable farmer investments needed forproductive agriculture in future.

The situation is often no better on the other side ofthe market equation - that is, for the wholesalers whopurchase farm surplus and those who sell technicalinputs and provide finance to smallholders. In the wakeof a history of limited "space" for the operation ofprivate traders and the absence of adequate sources ofinvestment finance, an efficient private sector does notspring up overnight. The lack of basic infrastructure inmany areas further discourages the entry of efficientand competitive private sector services and results inhigh transaction costs, which together translate directlyinto low prices to farmers. Restrictive or non-supportivegovernment policies - or the local and inappropriateapplication of policies - further increase the cost ofdoing business and constrain the development of anew private sector. Neither the poor nor rural economicgrowth is served by an uncompetitive market structure.

African governments and their development partnershave an important role to play in this area of marketdevelopment, with three objectives in mind: speeding upthe rate of market development; removing or reducingbarriers to market access, both by special support inplaces where markets are slow to develop spontaneouslyand by easing market participation of poorer producers;and establishing a more equitable set of market relationsbetween producers and market intermediaries. They canmake a difference in several ways:• They can give smallholders the skills and organisation

they require to relate more effectively - on a moreequal footing - with the private sector: the promotionof producer groups or associations is one such waythis can be achieved;

• They can help the private sector to develop and

Page 49: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

37

broaden its outreach, and so provide morecompetitive and efficient services to smallholders,particularly for input supplies, produce marketingand agro-processing. An important element of thiswill be to support the development of micro-enterprises, as new entrants into the market; and

• They can finance the provision of essential connectinginfrastructure – both ‘hard’ infrastructure, such asmarket access roads, and ‘soft’ such ascommunications, and price and market information.

• And fourthly, they can promote dialogue betweenthe main stakeholders to generate the policy,institutional and legal context required for enhancedmarket linkages.

World Markets

The export of agricultural products is essential forAfrican economic growth as agriculture plays a majorrole in the continent’s overall economy. On the worldstage, the value of Africa’s agricultural exports, whichamounted to US$14 billion in 2000, is growingextremely slowly, having been US$12 billion in 1990.The share of Africa in world agricultural exports hasdropped steadily, from 8 percent in 1971-80 to some3.4 percent in 1991-2000, and reversing this declinewill require increased efforts by the African countries,with the assistance of the international community, toalleviate their domestic supply-side and otherconstraints. These can broadly be divided intostructural constraints, which are particularly prevalentin Sub-Saharan Africa, and policy-induced constraints.

Structural constraints concern the countries’ highdependence on a limited number of export commodities,weak technological capacities, inadequate legal andregulatory institutional frameworks and insufficient

transport, storage and marketing infrastructure. Policy-induced constraints are those resulting from trade andmacroeconomic policies that have biased the structureof incentives against agriculture and exports. Accordingto a recent meeting organised by IFAD in relation toNEPAD,26 farmers lack the necessary skills to accessmarkets and information on market opportunities andprices. Furthermore, physical access to markets is poor,transaction costs are high, and these factors, combinedwith farmers’ lack of organisation, results in lowproducer prices. On the national and local levels, thewithdrawal of governments from direct involvement inmarketing has left large gaps which the private sector isnot yet able to fill; while global conditions have createdan inherently unfavourable environment for smallholderproducers to enter markets – declining prices and heavyindustrial country agricultural subsidies among them.

Africa’s failure to produce enough domesticallycontributed to progressive growth in food imports in thelast years of the 20th century, with Africa spending anestimated US$18.7 billion in 2000 – significantly morethan the value of exports. Africa’s shares of totalagricultural imports in 1998 were 4.6 percent (world) and16.3 percent (developing countries). Agricultural importsaccount for about 15 percent of total African imports. Itis of particular concern that the share of gross exportrevenues needed for importing food has increased from12 percent to over 30 percent in East Africa. It is againstthis background that a major thrust to promote exportsand market access is justified for Africa.

Trading opportunities for African agricultural exportsare dominated by developed country markets27, andtheir conditions of access are of critical importance.Despite progress made in the implementation of theUruguay Round Agreements, support to agriculture indeveloped countries continues to be high ($311 billionin OECD countries in 2001), tariff peaks still persist inseveral products (e.g. sugar, meat and horticulturalproducts), and tariff escalation (higher tariff on moreprocessed products which are given greater protectionto the processing industry of the importing country) stillprevails in several important product chains (e.g.coffee, cocoa, oilseeds, vegetables, fruit and nuts andhides and skins). The new WTO negotiations onagriculture aim to achieve substantial multilateralimprovements in market access through the reductionof all forms of export subsidies and trade-distortingdomestic support.

At present, access of African agricultural exports tothe developed country markets is governed largely bytrade preferences which they receive from severaldeveloped countries. These include in particular,preferences under the generalised system of preferences(GSP), the EU ACP agreements, the Euro-MediterraneanFree Trade Areas and the US African Growth and

26 Regional Workshop on Poverty Reduction and Rural Growth in Eastern and Southern Africa. Dar-es-Salaam, 23-24 May 2002. Provisional Summary ofProceedings.

27 Currently receiving more than 70 percent of African agricultural exports.

Citrus en route to the packhouse

Page 50: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Opportunity Act (AGOA). However, the most significantdevelopment in trade preferential arrangements is theEU’s ("Everything but Arms") initiative of duty-free andquota-free entry for all products (except arms) in favourof LDCs, 34 of which are African countries. This suggeststhat access to the EU markets for agricultural productsmay no longer be a major problem for African LDCs. Anumber of factors, however, may impede the ability ofAfrican countries to utilise the preferential access. Theseinclude, for example, rules of origin and standards suchas sanitary/phytosanitary requirements and othertechnical barriers to trade.

Globalisation was expected to offer opportunities forgrowth and development, but in the case of Africa, thehopes and promises attached to rapid liberalisation oftrade and finance have not so far been fulfilled. Exportpatterns continue to be characterised by a small numberof primary (often plantation-based) commodities anddependency on preferential access to a few developed-country markets. An important reason for this is thesupply-side constraints in the countries themselves. Butothers have their origins elsewhere. For example, underagricultural and trade policies of industrialisedcountries in 2001 alone, total subsidies to agricultureby OECD countries were estimated at over US$311billion. (For a topical development on this see Text Box6). This gives a major competitive edge to theagricultural sectors of these countries (adding to thesuperiority of technology they already enjoy), whichpoorer countries cannot match. Expenditure onagricultural subsidies for the few in developedcountries dwarfs official development assistance forthe many countries in Africa, and the negative impacton the poor is quite clear. It is an irony that many

African countries have largely internalised theperspective that a dynamic and sustainable agriculturaleconomy cannot be based on subsidies; yet theiragricultural systems continue to be undermined by thesubsidies paid out in precisely the developed countriesthat are the main proponents of liberalisation.

High tariffs and non-tariff barriers continue to be amajor obstacle to regional African trade, but regionalintegration will contribute to providing economies ofscale and improved international competitiveness.However, liberalisation of African markets probablyholds the key to optimising economies and to creatingsocial wealth. The Africa Group has clearly indicated toWTO its commitment to further domestic tariffreduction in agriculture, linked to substantialprogressive reduction of both domestic support andthe level of export subsidies in developed countries.However, developing countries will need the assurancethat improved market access conditions will not beexploited by sellers of highly subsidised products fromdeveloped countries. A further consideration is thattrade and market access can increase only in anenvironment conducive of investment (infrastructuredevelopment, financial structures, and strong nationalregulatory authorities to implement information andmarket development).

The case for reform in agricultural trade is beingmade ever more strongly; real structural change/reforms are necessary in developed countries to ensurethat developing countries can participate equally ininternational trade and that production takes place inline with comparative advantages and not inaccordance with the availability of financial resourcesto support agricultural production. To this effect,

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

38

Covering fruit orchards with nets to prevent hail damage to export quality fruits

Page 51: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

39

Text Box 6: Farm Subsidies in IndustrialCountries - the Case of the US Farm Bill

The reality that NEPAD market access will face is thatit remains uncertain whether developed countrieswill reduce farm subsidies or, if they do, how fast.The adoption of the US "Farm Security and RuralInvestment Act, 2002" is a case in point. A recentreview indicated that the Bill:• offers support to a declared maximum of US$360 000;• raises spending on subsidies by some 70 percent

($15-20 billion/year). This is already more thanAfrica’s total annual agricultural exports);

• offers fixed payments each year for each eligiblecrop (including a number of crops currently orpotentially important to Africa: cotton, rice,peanuts, other oil seeds, maize, sugar, soybean,sorghum);

• lowers loan rates and in case of low market prices,could offer direct subsidies;

• gives counter-cyclical payments when farmincome falls below threshold levels;

• dairy farmers can receive 45 percent (up to a cap)of the difference from a target price specified inthe bill;

• sugar continues to be heavily protected againstimports;

• new supports are offered for wool, mohair, honey,chick peas and lentils;

• apples, fruit and vegetables are subsidised andtheir purchase and distribution is also supported.

Source: Questions & Answers – US Farm Bill:http://www.wtowatch.org/library/admin/upt(23/05/02).

28 IFAD Strategy for rural poverty reduction in Western and Central Africa. http://www.ifad.org/operations/regional/2002/pa/pa.htm

African regional interaction in international standard-setting forums needs to be strengthened – both inGeneva, as well as on a regional basis in Africa, inparticular the WTO meetings on SPS and TBTAgreements, and the IPPC, Codex, OIE, etc. The AfricaGroup has submitted a firm proposal for the secondphase of the WTO-mandated negotiations onagriculture and this needs to be concretised and takenforward in the Doha negotiations process. This shouldlead to increased market access, a substantial reductionin trade and production distorting support, and theelimination of export subsidies. However, differentialtreatment should be extended to developing countriesand should form an integral part of the negotiations.

With heavy distortion of the export markets thatAfrican farmers need, and prices for many of theirproducts similarly working against them, liberalisationand globalisation are often more a poverty trap forthem than a path to development. Small farmers inAfrica gain scant rewards for their efforts, and thustheir progress towards development will remainmeagre unless the situation improves.

Only some 31 percent of African agricultural exportsare currently shipped to developing countries and asignificant potential exists for South-South trade ifconditions for market access are improved. Intra-Africatrade may offer particular opportunities, given thepolitical will in this direction. However, there aresignificant constraints, including: inadequate physicalinfrastructure, unstable market opportunities related toproduction variability, relatively small markets, lack ofcurrent market information and trading skills, uncertainpolicy environments, and rapidly changing traderegulations. Solution of these will require countries todevelop regional or continent-wide technical standardsfor various sectors including plant protection andfisheries. A continent-wide approach, starting atregional level, may facilitate both the harmonisation ofstandards and the improvement of infrastructure andenforcement mechanisms – all in the context ofcompatibility with international recommendations inorder to avoid adoption of norms that would createconfusion, distort markets and, potentially, conflictwith WTO agreements.

It may be noted that Africa is urbanising and therebycreating large concentrated markets that may offer afocus for entrepreneurial agriculture in future. IFADrecently observed for Western and Central Africa28 thatby 2030 most people in that sub-region will be urban:this may create major opportunities for marketdevelopment due to spiralling urban demand.

Meeting technical standards for export products, inthe context of the WTO, SPS and TBT Agreements,remains a major challenge for all African countries. Thegap in these standards between the African and richer

countries is already high, and may grow wider unless a massive effort is undertaken to raise standards. Thegaps tend to be higher precisely on those value-added,processed products where global demand is elastic, asagainst primary agricultural products. Because of theirlimited capacities in scientific research, testing,conformity and equivalence, African countries facedifficulties in meeting international safety and qualitystandards. The task is even more daunting when thedeveloped countries, on risk assessment grounds,adopt higher standards than those currently recognisedby international standard-setting bodies. Moreover,rising consumer concerns in the affluent countries overfood safety and quality compound the difficulty of theAfrican countries in meeting ever-higher standards.

Overcoming these handicaps will require largeamounts of investment in both facilities and humanresources. Overall, African countries face manyimpediments to spur diversified agricultural growthand to gain from trade, despite the implementation ofthe Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. But thisalso means that the scope for reforming the global

Page 52: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

40

trading system is immense. However, in order to takeadvantage of new trading opportunities Africa needsto strengthen supply-side capability.

3.3. Investment Strategy

3.3.1. Rural Infrastructure

Most of the African countries to be included comewithin the Least Developed Country (LDC) categoryand, as such, have been exposed to years of fiscalausterity programmes. Austerity explains part of thedecline in funding but other contributors includefailures to find alternative sources of income to replacedeclining revenues from weaker terms of trade in theirtraditional markets; the drop in ODA; and reduction inprivate finance for infrastructure. With regard to ODA:in 1990, Africa received 30 percent of globalagricultural ODA, but its share declined to 21 percentin 1998. Moreover, the total flow of officialdevelopment assistance to primary agriculture declinedover the same period from US$11 billion to onlyUS$7.4 billion. The lack of funding has contributed notonly to insufficient infrastructure construction but alsoto a lack of appropriate maintenance – hence there arealso substantial needs for rehabilitation.

Thus, the strategy to address rural infrastructurerequirements both to complement the projectedexpansion in areas benefiting from land and waterdevelopments and the requirements of the other majoragricultural sub-sectors (particularly livestock andfisheries but in some countries also forestry) will clearlydepend on the country concerned and would have thefollowing main elements:• Investment in existing and new rural infrastructure

would support the expansion of agriculturalproduction arising from the rehabilitation anddevelopment of water management and landimprovement works. It would also underpinsustainable development of the livestock andfisheries sub-sectors and provide for more generalsocio-economic development and poverty reductionin the rural areas. In some humid central Africancountries, important forest resources are inaccessiblefor commercial exploitation due to lack of both riverand road/rail infrastructure.

• In the design of an appropriate approach to ruralinfrastructure, the areas of emphasis will clearly varyby country. Priorities should be based on clearlinkages to related national policies and nationalpoverty reduction strategies.

• Innovative approaches to financing, using a range andmix of public and private funding and perhaps newapproaches to mobilising resources for, and managing,larger-scale rural infrastructure would be considered.

• Clear linkages would be established to countries’priority agricultural sector policies and programmes,including those designed to take advantage ofexternal market trading opportunities. The recovery ofthe current degraded stock of rural infrastructure to itsfull operational capacity would be an essential priority.

• The need for continuing maintenance throughoutthe period to 2015 would be included.

Institutional support will be required for capacitybuilding and training in support of all levels and typesof institutions responsible for the planning, design,construction and continuing operation, maintenanceand management of rural infrastructure; these wouldrange from central to local level/decentralised

Training in potato production for emerging farmers, South Africa

Page 53: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

41

government entities, representative bodies, privatesector actors, NGOs and CBOs, etc.

Clearly, the way forward will be influenced by thefact that current assets of productive and ruralinfrastructure differ from country to country, not onlyin terms of scope, extent and coverage, but also in theway that they are owned, managed and financed. Inthe last decade, such infrastructure has come to beseen not so much as a public asset, but rather as astream of demand-driven services involving the State,the private sector and, particularly, the usersthemselves. In the future, in the relative absence of astrong private sector, rural infrastructure in Africa willhave to be financed by a larger proportion ofconcessional loans and grants and be morecommunity-based, provided that the appropriatecapacity can be built. An appropriate mix of financingfrom public sources (both domestic resources as well asinternational loans and grants) and private resourceswill also have to be considered, in line with the capacityof the existing stock and its conditions, countrypolicies, institutional capacities and private sectorinterests including the interests of rural communities.

Prospects for export growth in Africa are morepromising in new crops and processed products than intraditional primary commodities. Several non-traditionalagricultural commodities, particularly, but not exclusively,horticultural products, would appear to offer importantopportunities for some African countries. Thedevelopments in water and land infrastructure, withcomplementary investments in rural infrastructure,would underpin such market diversity.

3.3.2. Trade-related Capacities for ImprovedMarket Access

Actions in support of improving African countries’access to external markets will also include a number ofpolicy and institutional related themes. For example,developed countries could improve access to their ownagricultural markets by, inter alia: (i) granting duty-freeand quota-free market access, similar to those providedby the EU to LDCs; (ii) easing rules of origin criteria; and(iii) providing assistance to African countries to meetSPS/TBT standards. In addition, technical and financialassistance will be required to help build capacity inAfrican countries to face the challenges and take fulladvantage of the opportunities flowing from themultilateral trading system, and to participate fully asequal partners in the new WTO negotiations onagriculture. Finally, assistance will be required to helpcountries address the weaknesses in their food safety andquality control systems, and the associated institutions.

While these actions may improve the tradingenvironment for exports, they will not necessarily resultin an expansion. There is a clear need to diversify theproduction and export base (both horizontally andvertically) from low value-added to high value-addedproducts. The challenge for African countries is to initiate

and sustain the momentum of modernisation anddiversification of their agriculture in order to realise theconsiderable potential that exists. This will requiresubstantial investments for upgrading the marketing,transport and communication infrastructure; irrigationimprovements and modernisation; improving theefficiency of financial institutions; strengthening researchand extension for developing and adopting relevanttechnology; and establishing a fair and open regulatoryframework. A large part of these investments has beenincorporated in the section on rural infrastructure. Theinvestment provision under "trade-related capacities forimproved market access" therefore focuses onenhancing safety and quality standards and onmarketing and promotional services, as well as onstrengthening trade-related institutional capacities.

3.4. Estimated Investment Requirements

3.4.1. Basis of Estimates

In order to assess in broad terms the requirements forinvestments in storage, processing, market facilitiesand rural roads, the following steps have been taken:• A 2001 baseline was established from 1999 data on

country-level information, aggregated to sub-regional and regional levels; data have been derivedfrom FAOSTAT, and other sources available from theWorld Bank, AfDB, IFPRI and the CIA.

• Requirements for crop storage and processingcapacity, enhanced safety and quality standards aswell as crop marketing facilities and promotionalservices, are a function of the anticipated increasedagricultural production following investments inwater management and land improvement;requirements for livestock and fisheries infrastructureare based on recent national-level sector studies andformulated investment programmes, as well asgeneral assessments of sub-sectoral needs.

• Requirements for rural roads are a function of moregeneral socio-economic demands, in addition tounderpinning the increased agricultural production.

• The possible range of crop storage, marketing andprocessing facilities has been simplified for thepurposes of this exercise into two types of each – drystorage of cereals and cool storage of fruits andvegetables; general rural markets and specific marketsfor fruits and vegetables; and mills for cereals andother processing facilities for fruits and vegetables.

• Livestock infrastructure facilities are considered toinclude livestock watering points and improvementof surface water supply systems, as well asvaccination and slaughtering facilities including thetreatment of livestock products.

• Fisheries infrastructure includes the rehabilitation ofexisting and the construction of new fishery portdevelopments (limited number), the provision ofartisanal fisheries landing points and infrastructurerelated to markets and processing.

Page 54: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

42

• Forestry infrastructure (the estimated costs of whichhave not been included here) would largely consist ofroad, river or rail access to often-isolated parts ofcountries. In forest-rich countries, ports to handleexports are also crucial for the bulky forest products.

• Rural road infrastructure consists largely of unpavedroads, tracks and paths, while for the purposes ofthis document, some allowance is made for theinclusion of a proportion of the paved road networkthat directly serves the rural areas. Recentassessments generally indicate that a substantialproportion of the rural network is in a pooroperational condition and, consequently, therehabilitation of the existing stock of rural roadinfrastructure will clearly constitute an importantelement of future investment priorities.

• An assessment of the potential investments has beenderived on the basis of the projections of increasedagricultural production arising from the land andwater developments, reviews of country situations andexpert analysis of the available data and requirementsfor both rehabilitation of existing stock, as well asinvestment in new works and overall maintenance.

• The estimates of increased agricultural productionare derived assuming that all the land to bedeveloped was already cultivated (no new arableland) and that, consequently, incremental productionarises from yield increases rather than increases inarea cultivated.

• In addition, two broad categories of agriculturalproducts were considered in the analysis: cereals andvegetables/fruits. Yield increases were calculated onthe basis of average yield differentials betweenirrigated and rainfed crops for African countries29.The distribution of these crop categories wasassumed to be 92.5 percent for cereals and 7.5percent for vegetables/fruits in rainfed conditions (AT2015/30), changing to 85 percent and 15 percent,respectively, under irrigation/water management,together with a shift from cereals to vegetables/fruitsin 7.5 percent of the area.

• In addition, associated institutional strengtheningrequirements, of both the public as well as theprivate and informal sector (user or communitygroups), have been considered and allowances fortheir financing requirements have been included aspart of the "maintenance costs" category.

• Unit costs for the several types of investments havebeen derived on the basis of a range of currentestimates from different sources (FAO30, World Bank,and country data) and applied to the targetsidentified for each category of rural infrastructure.

The general assumptions used in developing theseestimates are as follows:• Incremental crop production under expanded water

control infrastructure would consist essentially ofcereals (85 percent) with some fruits and vegetables(15 percent).

• Storage facilities for cereals would be met by existingand new facilities on an equal basis, whereas new coolstorage requirements for fruits and vegetables wouldonly be required for a relatively modest proportion ofincremental production (equal to 5 percent).

• General rural market facilities would double by theyear 2015 to serve an estimated 50 percent of therural population.

• New markets for fruits and vegetables would berequired for an estimated 50 percent of incrementalproduction.

• New processing facilities would be required for some60 percent of incremental cereal production (in termsof milling capacity) and some 20 percent of fruits andvegetables.

• Costs of livestock infrastructure are based on anoverall estimate of US$1.8 per livestock unit (LU), toinclude all the infrastructure items outlined above.

• Costs for fisheries infrastructure are based on currentestimates developed in the context of the design ofinvestment project proposals for similar facilities inthe region.

• Costs of forestry infrastructure have not beenincluded.

29 FAO. World Agriculture: Toward 2015/30 (AT 2015/30).

30 Based on 1996 WFS estimates for costs of storage, marketing and processing facilities, adjusted for inflation.

Feeder roads at the Lesotho Highlands water project

Page 55: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

43

• Unit costs for storage, processing and fruit/vegetablemarkets are taken as:- dry storage (cereals) - US$155/ton;- cool storage (fruits/vegetables) – US$3 210/ton;- cereal marketing facilities – US$3/person;- fruits/vegetables marketing facilities – US$360/ton;- Processing cereals (milling) – US$180/ton;- Processing fruits/vegetables – US$1 190/ton.

Data for 1999 from the US Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) sources for total roads (rural and non-rural) havebeen used for establishing the baseline situation (2001)for the current stock of roads, by country. This stock ofrural roads has been derived by assuming that 20percent of paved roads and 90 percent of unpavedroads are rural. With this baseline, minimum meantargets for 2015 have been applied, equivalent to a levelof 5 km/1 000 persons and 25 percent of paved roads,to obtain an estimate, by country, of the requirementsfor new roads. In addition, it was assumed that 70percent of existing rural roads require rehabilitation –see below. Rehabilitation would involve regrading andre-forming the road base and gravel surface as well asrepairs to cross-drainage structures, as appropriate.Clearly, specifics can only be given after suitablefeasibility and design studies have been undertaken.

Average unit costs for rural roads – rehabilitation andconstruction – have been applied, as follows:• rehabilitation of paved road – US$50 000/km;

• rehabilitation of unpaved road – US$7 500/km;• construction of paved rural road – US$100 000/km;• construction of unpaved rural road – US$15 000/km.

Requirements for annual investment costs of thecategories of rural infrastructure are derived, asfollows:• Storage, processing and fruit/vegetable markets –

stream of annual costs developed on the basis of theassumed build-up of incremental cereal andfruit/vegetable production from the areas benefitingfrom land and water developments.

• Cereal markets develop in direct proportion topopulation increases over the period.

• Road costs are derived on the basis of an assumedbuild-up of annual activities relating to rehabilitationand new construction.

• Estimates of annual maintenance costs (includinginstitutional support requirements) are based on 2.5percent of total incremental infrastructure investments(storage, marketing and processing), and on 3.5percent of both existing and incremental rural roadinvestments.

• Investment requirements for assisting countries toimprove their access to markets have – forpreliminary, broad guidance – been assumed at someUS$3 million per country during a 4-5 year period.

• Investment requirements will include public andprivate resources, which will be shared according toparticular country policies and agreements, etc. For

indicative purposes, the estimates indicated in thedocument are developed on the basis of thefollowing feasible scenario:- dry (cereals) storage - Private/Public ratio = 50:50;- cool (fruits/vegetables) storage -

Private/Public ratio = 100:0;- rural marketing facilities (cereals) -

Private/Public ratio = 0:100;- fruits/vegetables facilities -

Private/Public ratio =50:50;- milling (cereals) - Private/Public ratio = 100:0;- fruits/vegetables processing -

Private/Public ratio = 100:0;- livestock facilities - Private/Public ratio = 20:80;- fisheries facilities - Private/Public ratio = 20:80;- rehabilitation paved roads -

Private/Public ratio = 0:100;- rehabilitation unpaved roads -

Private/Public ratio = 10:90;- construction paved roads -

Private/Public ratio = 5:95;- construction unpaved roads -

Private/Public ratio = 20:80.

Estimates of the rehabilitation and constructionrequirements for rural roads, by region, are shown inTable 14.

3.4.2. Total Investments

The estimated total investments in rural infrastructurerequired to support the increases in agricultural cropproduction arising from the land and waterdevelopments foreseen by the year 2015, togetherwith supporting infrastructure for the livestock andfisheries subsectors, amount to some US$91 billion,distributed as follows: crop storage infrastructure 9percent, crop marketing facilities 7 percent, processingfacilities 14 percent, livestock and fisheries infrastructure3 percent, and rural roads 68 percent. Table 17provides details of the estimated total investment costsfor each category, by region; Table 18 offers theannualised costs for each category, including bothinvestments and operation/maintenance.

The total costs required for improving countries’ accessto external markets are estimated at some US$2.79billion. To these totals must be added allocations formaintenance, calculated at nearly US$37 billion. Annualincremental investment requirements during the period2003 – 2015 would clearly not be uniform but woulddepend largely on countries’ absorption capacity ininstitutional, financial and technical terms, and theiraccess to additional sources of finance. Over the period,average annual increments would range from some US$5to 8 billion. Immediate investment requirements (2002-2005) would amount to some US$24 billion, while short-term requirements (2006-2010) would amount to someUS$37 billion and medium-term requirements wouldtotal some US$33 billion.

Page 56: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

44

In addition, operation and maintenance requirements31

for all categories of rural infrastructure are estimated toreach annually, by the year 2015, some US$3.72 billion;equivalent to an overall expenditure throughout theperiod of some US$36.9 billion.

These estimates will need to be refined andconfirmed, on a country-by-country basis. An overallbreakdown, by sub-region, of rural infrastructureinvestment requirements is shown in Table 17.

Projections for the distribution of public-privatefinancing within this overall envelope must remain, atthis stage, highly conjectural and will require specificcountry conditions to be taken into account. However,to facilitate this initial global analysis, a possible scenariois presented in Table 19. This indicates that, overall, thedistribution of financing for rural infrastructure could be– public US$60.5 billion, private US$30.4 billion,equivalent to a 2:1 ratio. The likelihood of private sectorparticipation to this degree will need country by countryassessment, given that historical involvement has beenweak except in a few countries. Regarding theapportionment of investment by external and Africansources, Table 20 offers one estimate, which also wouldeventually need case by case review. In the first placesome activities appeal to external partners more thanothers, and in the second place the specific beneficiarycountry affects external investor willingness to proceed.Both Tables 19 and 20 reflect significant optimismabout private sector participation which may be seen inthe context of more conservative expectations ofpossible progression of all-Africa shares of public andprivate funding given in Table 3.

3.4.3. Expected Impact

Benefits arising from investments in rural infrastructureand improved market access will clearly need sometime to materialise in terms of impact on productivity,agricultural growth and consequent poverty reduction.However, available evidence points to an increase of 1percent in GDP per caput in developing countries forevery one-percent increase in the stock of infrastructureper person. For Africa, this impact is likely to be largerdue to the constraints placed on the region’scompetitiveness by geography and the resultingdifficulty of accessing markets. In particular, Sub-SaharanAfrica has the highest percentage in the world of land-locked populations and the lowest share of populationwith access to coast or river. Proper rural infrastructure istherefore necessary to make up for at least part of theregion’s geographical handicaps, especially in the face ofincreasingly integrated world markets.

There are also a number of other direct benefits thatcan arise in the short and medium terms, which willcontribute to stimulate economic growth. First,construction of rural infrastructure directly stimulates

output and employment and, in African economieswhere labour is relatively abundant, increased impactoccurs due to the multiplier effect. Second, goodquality infrastructure promotes domestic marketactivity and market integration by lowering bothtransaction costs and the costs of inputs. In addition, itexpands the size of the market for domesticallyproduced goods and services by facilitating access toregional international markets.

3.5. Future International Support

Clearly, the projections of rural infrastructurerequirements need to be placed in their specificcountry-based policy and socio-political frameworks,with consideration also taken of the countries’ physicalconditions and socio-economic settings. Investmentswill need to be judged in a strategic manner so that thebenefits of diversification and intensification ofagricultural production are fully realised and canrespond to the changes in market conditions. Theproper identification of rehabilitation needs and priorityinvestment requirements will necessitate a broad andmulti-sectoral approach, involving several sectoralministries within each government as well as a range ofcivil society actors.

After full agreement has been reached on both thestrategy and broad content of the nationalprogramme, full investment formulation that meets theneeds of domestic or external (multilateral andbilateral) funding sources will have to be carried out.Overall, a flexible, participatory approach will beneeded, with full national and local involvement andcommitment. International partners, including FAO,could initially assist NEPAD in this process in four ways:• Refinement of current estimates of rural infrastructure

assets based on a review of data availability on ruralroads, storage, processing and market facilities,supported by in-depth country studies.

• Providing linkages to other UN Specialised Agenciesthat have responsibility for associated areas ofactivity. For example, ILO is concerned with theemployment generation aspects of ruralinfrastructure works and has a good deal of Africanexperience that could be drawn upon for use bymember countries.

• Providing assistance to member countries ininvestment identification and preparation, on a caseby case basis and linked to the interests ofinternational public funding sources.

• Expanded technical support for Regional EconomicOrganisations aimed at enhancing their capacity topromote intra-regional trade in farm products,improve agricultural product standards and supportnational programmes for expanded agriculturaloutput.

31 Including allowances for both institutional strengthening and the recurrent costs of the organisations responsible for operation and maintenance.

Page 57: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

45

4CHAPTER

4.1. Introduction

About one third of Sub-Saharan Africa’s populationremains chronically hungry32. As long as this situationcontinues, it is unlikely that the Region can attain thehigh rates of economic growth to which the NewPartnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) rightlyaspires. The right of all people to have access toadequate food is recognised in international legislation,and getting rid of hunger is also a moral imperative. Italso makes economic sense to eradicate hunger, for aslong as people are undernourished, they cannotachieve their full potential: they remain prone to illhealth, their learning ability is compromised and theircapacity for productive work curtailed. Ill health due tochronic hunger has severely reduced productivity in

Africa and a recent study has shown that per capitaGDP may have been halved relative to its potential ifunder-nourishment had been eliminated33.

The hungry are the poorest of the poor, and hencereducing hunger must be among the first steps towardsthe achievement of the Millennium Development Goalto halve poverty by 2015, which is taken as a referencepoint for NEPAD. All African states subscribed to theglobal commitment of the World Food Summit (WFS)in 1996 to halve the number of hungry people by2015. The presence of very large numbers of poor andhungry people, marginalised from the work force andfrom markets, not only acts as a brake on economicgrowth and development but, if not addressed,provides a breeding ground for social instability andconflict.

Increasing Food Supply and Reducing Hunger:Strengthening national and regional food security

Farmer fertilising maize crop, Burkina Faso

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

32 FAO. 2001. State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI).

33 FAO. 2001. Economic and Social Development Paper No. 147, Rome. Undernourishment and Economic Growth: the efficiency cost of hunger, by J.L. Arcand.

Page 58: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

46

NEPAD gives high priority to agriculture and foodsecurity. This chapter briefly reviews the current state offood security in the continent and the extent to whichprogress is being made towards the achievement of theWFS goals. It then refers to the need, as part of thequest for improved food security and reduced poverty,for vigorous large-scale community-based programmesto improve the performance of small farms throughoutthe continent. In examining the implications ofembarking on such programmes, it looks to theexample of the Special Programme for Food Security(SPFS) launched by FAO as one approach to achievingsustainable food security. The chapter then examineshow an expansion of action based on SPFS conceptscould contribute to the achievement of NEPAD goals atboth national and regional levels. Tentative estimates ofthe cost of such a programme are also presented.

The chapter also focuses on the role of small farmers inachieving higher levels of household and national foodsecurity. This is not intended to imply that there is not arole also for larger-scale farms in Africa’s future agriculturaldevelopment. While such development, usually led by theprivate sector, can contribute importantly to economicgrowth, it tends to have fewer linkages within the ruraleconomy and hence less of a multiplier effect thandevelopment driven by small-scale farmers.

While raising the output of small and marginalfarmers can have a significant impact on hunger andpoverty, this needs to be complemented by measuresto widen food access through a combination ofredistributive measures adopted within extendedfamilies and communities and accurately targeted foodsafety nets supported by governments.

In making reference to the SPFS at national andregional levels, it is necessary to stress that Africangovernments and regional organisations have theirown strategies and programmes for agriculturaldevelopment and food security. Many of them haveestablished partnerships with FAO to adopt the SPFS asa framework for implementing these strategies whileothers have adopted alternative approaches toachieving essentially the same goals. In some cases,countries have decided to move forward with input-intensive agricultural development, as in the case of theSasakawa Global 2000 programme, which hasdemonstrated that high crop yields are attainablethroughout much of the continent. Others arecollaborating with the World Bank in community-driven development (CDD) programmes in whichagricultural development is linked to a range ofinvestments in rural development at community level.With bilateral assistance, some countries are engagedin processes aimed at bringing about sustainableimprovements in the livelihoods of their ruralpopulations. IFAD, which by mandate, focuses on the

poor, has for long invested in community efforts toachieve higher productivity. As of 2001, IFAD hadinvested in Africa since 1977 (25 years) some US$3.5billion in 318 projects - totals having been: Near Eastand North Africa = US$0.98 billion; Eastern andSouthern Africa = US$1.2 billion; Western and CentralAfrica = US$1.3 billion34.

What is evident is that the massive attack on ruralpoverty and hunger which is required offers ampleopportunity for partnerships among Africa’s owninstitutions as well as between Africa and theinternational community. To the extent thatgovernments decide to adopt the approach pioneeredby the SPFS, this also depends on partnerships betweengovernments and civil society, including effectiveparticipation by rural communities.

4.2. Food Insecurity in Africa

Between 1990-92 and 1997-99 the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) succeeded in increasing averageper capita dietary energy supply from 2120 to 2190kcal per day, i.e. by 3.3 percent during the period. Thisis a significant achievement, given the high rates ofpopulation growth. In spite of this, however, in Africaas a whole the number of undernourished people rosefrom 173 million in 1990-92 to 200 million in 1997-99(Table 21). Some 97 percent of the continent’s food-insecure live in the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa(SSA) where over one-third of the population (34percent) is classified as undernourished.

There has been some decrease in the number ofundernourished in West Africa (from 37.6 million to32.1 million) but in all other regions the numberincreased during the 1990s. Declines in the number ofundernourished inhabitants were registered in only 10SSA countries during the period. At the end of theperiod 30 countries reported over 20 percent of theirpopulation undernourished: in 18 of these countriesover 35 percent of the population were chronicallyhungry. Moreover, as of early 2001, some 28 millionpeople in 21 SSA countries were facing foodemergencies as a result of droughts, floods and strife.

Such very widespread hunger is a source ofenormous concern. It is estimated that if the self-sufficiency ratio in Sub-Saharan Africa is to stay thesame in 2015 as in 1995-97 (about 85 percent), thesubcontinent will have to meet 118 million tons of itsprojected needs of 139 million tons of grains throughincreased production in the region. These stark realitieshighlight the sheer scale of the problem.

It is also possible, however, to look at this food gapas a tremendous opportunity. The existence of suchlarge shortfalls provides a potential market for smallfarmers, amongst whom poverty and hunger are

34 IFAD Strategies for rural poverty reduction (separate ones for the three IFAD Regions of Africa) http://www.ifad.org/operations/regional/2002/ Some successes haveoccurred but this investment, even if matched by counterpart funding, remains limited: if Africa’s population is assumed at 700 million average, the investment hasaveraged US$5.00 per capita and if population has averaged 600 million, it is US$5.83 per capita. This is equivalent to US$0.20 – 0.23 per capita per annumrespectively.

Page 59: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

47

concentrated, to expand their output and improve theirlivelihoods, in turn enabling countries to reduce theirimport dependence. For this to happen in a situation ofincreasingly liberalised international markets, however,farming within the region must become morecompetitive and measures must be put in place tobroaden food access through safety nets targeted onfamilies who are unable to meet their food needsthrough the market alone.

Raising the productivity and output of the agriculturalsector depends on the decisions of millions of householdsthroughout the continent, and in such a situation the roleof governments should be to provide an economic policyand framework as well as a legal and institutionaldispensation conducive to agricultural growth, includingwell-functioning factor and product markets. With such aframework in place, the farmers themselves can makeconsiderable contributions to the investment required toraise production. Around 70 percent of the population inAfrica lives in rural areas, and the potential exists toincrease crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry output andimprove rural livelihoods.

Improvements in the performance of the agriculturalsector will start from a low base. Africa currently lags

behind all other regions in agricultural productivity. Forexample in 2001, cereal yield in Africa averaged 1 230kg/ha compared to 3 090 kg/ha for Asia, 3 040 kg/hafor Latin America and 5 470 kg/ha for the EuropeanUnion. This reflects the limited use of irrigationmentioned earlier but also of yield-enhancing inputssuch as fertilisers and seed of improved varieties. Astrong relationship exists between the level of fertiliseruse and cereal yield as long as adequate organic matterlevels are maintained in the soil. The use of fertiliser isabout 19 kg/ha per year, compared to 100 kg/ha inEast Asia and 230 kg/ha in Western Europe. In terms oftechnology use, few farmers yet apply integrated pestmanagement methods or any other pest control.

No systematic records are kept on the use ofimproved seed but indications are that only about 20percent of cropped area in Africa and South andCentral America is sown to new varieties, while the restof the area is sown to traditional varieties. With regardto livestock, while Asia uses about 50 percent of theglobal market value of animal health products,including vaccines, Africa claims less than 3 percent.Nomadic groups dominate the livestock sector, makingthe servicing of the sector difficult and expensive.Similarly, aquaculture and artisanal fisheries areunderdeveloped in relation to their potential in mostcountries of the continent.

Furthermore, Africa still faces the problem of highpost-harvest losses for lack of affordable storage,processing and other treatment and because of weaklinkages with markets. Accordingly, the net foodavailability from an already limited production isreduced further.

4.3. Strategies to Reduce Food Insecurity

There is emerging consensus that (a) economic growth isessential for sustainable poverty reduction, provided thatsocially acceptable resource redistribution mechanismsare put in place to combat poverty, (b) as long as largenumbers of people remain hungry, the quest foreconomic growth will remain illusory, and (c) in mostdeveloping economies, agricultural growth has astronger positive impact on poverty and hungerreduction in both rural and urban areas than growth inother sectors, because of its potentially strong multipliereffects due to numerous backward and forwardlinkages. In a continent where significant developmentresources from both local and external sources are oftendiverted to meeting emergency food needs, oneelement of the strategy must be to address theemergencies. Simultaneously, interventions shouldpromote higher productivity.

4.3.1. Preparedness and Response Capacity to Emergencies

The weakness of economies and of its institutions placesAfrica at a great disadvantage when calamity strikes,

Intensive production for food security

Page 60: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

48

Text Box 7: African Disasters and Emergencies withFood and Agriculture Implications - Insights fromselected international organisations

Africa has somewhere around 10 million peopledisplaced by armed conflict. For North Africa, nosituation seems to call for significant external food andagriculture intervention. In West Africa, there weredisplaced persons totalling some 2.36 millions due toconflicts. In Central Africa civil wars continue. Seven ofAfrica’s twelve wars/conflicts are in East Africa (whichincludes the Great Lakes and the Congo wars) and theyhave displaced some 8 million people. In Southern Africa,a severe maize deficit is the main problem, worsened bynatural disasters (e.g. the Mozambique floods). HIV/AIDSinfection rates are very high and amount to a long-termemergency for agriculture. There are also some refugeeproblems. Responding to Africa’s food and agriculture-dislocating emergencies takes the combined energies ofmany players. Responses go well beyond actual food andseed delivery to the long-term institutional strengtheningfor action at community and higher levels. Brief insightsare given here from the World Food Programme (WFP),the International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD), the International Federation of Red Cross and RedCrescent Societies (IFRCRCS) and FAO.

The Rome-based United Nations agencies for foodand agriculture: FAO, IFAD and WFP operate withsynergy: FAO collects and publicises forward looking earlywarning work and food insecurity and vulnerability needsassessment and mapping. FAO and WFP mount jointassessment missions to emerging crisis areas and feed theinternational community with timely information, alongsidedata collected by others such as the United States FamineEarly Warning System (FEWS).

• WFP: This UN agency combines attention to feedingafter emergencies with support to rehabilitation and toenabling people dislocated by disasters to regain long-term growth – it thus deals with both emergencies anddevelopment. For rehabilitation, it offers ProtractedRelief and Recovery Operations for up to 3 years tocover the later stages of an emergency, to help re-establish and stabilise livelihoods and household foodsecurity and to progressively introduce developmentactivities. Since 1963, the WFP has invested a total ofUS$12.5 billion in Sub-Saharan Africa – about 45percent of the world total of some US$27.8 billion. In

2001, WFP accounted for some two-fifths of globalfood aid totals; in volume terms, in that year Africareceived 43 percent. For the same year, WFP hadestimated operational expenditures of nearly US$1.62billion [US$1.40 billion on relief activities, the rest ondevelopment], of which about 52 percent was in Sub-Saharan Africa alone. In per capita terms, this amountsto US$1.74 in that region, the highest in the world. Foroperational planning and targeting, WFP has developeda Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) system.

• IFAD: targets its support to post-crisis recovery in orderto correct the gap frequently observed betweenemergencies and long-term development. IFAD teamsup with the sister UN agencies in Rome but also withUNHCR, with UNDP (for grant contributions) and withnon-UN parties. Thrust areas include (a) recovery ofagricultural productivity and resumption of ruraldevelopment processes – including reconstruction; (b)on-farm and off-farm income generation activities; (c)resources conservation such as soil and water; (d)capacity building.

• FAO: operates the Global Information and EarlyWarning System (GIEWS) and the Emergency PreventionSystem for Plant and Animal Pest and Diseases(EMPRES). Contributes to providing emergency seeds,tools, other inputs for early resumption of productiveagriculture after emergencies. This type of assistanceand correction of agricultural systems affected bydisasters has become the fastest growing part of theFAO field programme. As of 2002, FAO had emergencyprojects worth US$62.5 million, of which someUS$58.6 million (94 percent) was for Africa.

IFRCRCS: The Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’actions are highly multi-faceted. Normally, the IFRCRCSmobilises resources through annual appeals for cross-sectoral needs (such as funds, general capacity building,co-ordination of actions etc) but also for specificdisasters/emergencies and for sub-regions and regions. InAfrica, the IFRCRCS sub-regions are: North Africa; WestAfrica; Central Africa; East Africa; and Southern Africa.For its 2002 Africa appeal, the IFRCRCS seeks someUS$2.14 billion for overall "Disaster Response", of whichonly US$0.26 billion is for food security.

something that has become all too frequent. Thenumber, scale and intensity of emergencies in Africahave all been increasing due to both natural disasters(especially droughts and floods) and human-causedcalamities including civil strife and conflict. Wars andrelated factors have become the single most seriouscause of food insecurity in much of the region. Theseproblems all dislocate production and some affect evenAfrica’s long-term capacity to recover. As statedelsewhere in this report, in 2001 about 28 million peoplein Africa faced food emergencies, of whom some 25

million needed emergency food and agriculturalassistance. In 2000 Africa received 2.8 million tons offood aid, which is over a quarter of the world total. TextBox 7 gives a picture, based on information from severalexternal agencies. In looking at Africa’s immediate needsfor agricultural renewal, it is absolutely essential that theemergencies be kept in mind: when large parts of thepopulation are displaced within or outside borders orproductive lands are flooded or rendered barren bydrought, long-term agricultural development gains canbe reversed overnight.

Page 61: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

49

Also of overwhelming importance is the magnitudeand rapid spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the impactof which on agriculture may be at least as severe asthat from natural emergencies and could well be moresystemically damaging in the long term.

In addition to triggering a need for food aid,inadequate domestic production as well as disaster-induced emergencies can both contribute to demandfor increased commercial agricultural imports.Furthermore, given its high indebtedness and currentaccount deficit, Africa is obliged to divert its very scarceresources to food imports. It does so at a cost toinvestment in its future; Africa is a continent that isconsuming without being able to create assets for thefuture. Therefore to ignore this dimension would be adisservice to securing stable agricultural developmentin the region.

It should be remembered that many of the presentday problems facing African agriculture are rooted inthe decline over a long period of time in publicinvestment in the basic foundations of growth such asrural infrastructure (including irrigation), research anddevelopment (R&D) and human resource development(HRD), as well as political instability, poor governance,resource constraint and capacity limitation. In addition,about half of Africa’s countries and one-third of thecontinent’s land area faces accelerated degradation ofthe natural resources, associated closely with naturalcalamities. In the difficult situations caused byresources degradation, these calamities easily triggerdisasters, which further undermine the countries’ability to regain sustainable development.

According to the latest FAO Medium Term Plan35,"Notwithstanding the importance of further improvingemergency responses, there is general agreement onensuring that disaster risk management is an integralpart of development,..." adding that "Food andagriculture recovery, particularly in post-conflictsituations, requires fully co-ordinated interactionbetween domains such as institutional and capacity-building, restoration of productive assets and livelihoodsystems, and re-establishment of agriculture services,market infrastructures and trade networks". Thus,short-term responses to emergencies must beaccompanied by simultaneous attention to building thebasic foundations of long-term growth.

The paragraphs that follow outline actions related toemergencies, despite the lack of a single, organisedsource of information on the extent of emergenciesand their effect on African agriculture. Estimatesprepared for the OAU in 200036 suggest investments

between 1998 and 2010 of some US$60 billion or anannual level of some US$5 billion. The scope couldinclude several main lines of inter-linked activity relatedto emergencies: response to emergencies; preventionand preparedness; post-emergency relief andrehabilitation and the establishment and operation ofeffective information and early warning systems.Although this US$5 billion annual net need providesorders of magnitude on resource requirements forcoping with disasters and emergencies in the food andagricultural sector, much detailed research is needed toprepare better estimates. For the purposes of thisdocument, therefore, a more conservative initial US$3billion per annum is used, to also include safety nets.NEPAD will need to conduct an early study ofemergency needs for investment and operations.

Response to emergencies: Africa’s priorities mustinclude taking on as much as possible the functions forwhich the continent is entirely dependent at present onexternal relief organisations in the United Nations (WFP,UNHCR) and outside it such as the Red Cross and RedCrescent Societies plus a large number of Charities andNGOs from developed countries.

Prevention and preparedness: It is important todevelop information on disasters affecting the foodand agriculture sector, and their causal factors andestimation of their impacts and long-term effects. It isimportant to include identification of high-risk groupsas well as to develop strategies that can reducenegative impact, building upon peoples’ own copingmechanisms. Under this come the following sub-elements:• strategic regional, sub-regional reserves (buffer

stocks for emergency); • capacity building for forecasting, prevention and

mitigation of adverse effects of natural disasters,including drought;

• improving water management;• capturing and storing rainwater for use in times of

drought through simple technologies - waterharvesting and ground water recharge;

• combating desertification.

These elements are further elaborated in Text Box 8.

Post-emergency relief and rehabilitation: Africasimilarly needs to increase its participation in activitiesthat are hitherto almost completely donor-dependent.The challenge will be to integrate piecemealinterventions by a wide variety of official and NGOpartners into a seamless process that bridges

35 FAO. 2000. Disaster Prevention, Mitigation and Preparedness and Post-Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation. In: 2002-2007 Medium Term Plan. Document CL 119/7 2000.

36 FAO Contribution towards a strategy for sustainable agricultural development and food security in the member countries of the Organisation of African Unity(OAU) with special reference to climatic emergencies. The net estimate for emergencies is derived by elimination after exclusion from a total of US$193 billion(1998-2010) of the following costs: irrigation (US$21.4 billion); livestock development (US$23.1 billion); agro-industry (US$55.9 billion) and marketing (US$32.7billion. These estimates cover 43 OAU countries (out of a total of 53). Reported in: Overview and key issues in agriculture. New Partnership for Africa’sDevelopment (NEPAD). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). NEPAD Work In Progress Review Workshop, Benin, South Africa. (24-27January, 2002).

Page 62: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

50

emergency response with rehabilitation and thereafterlong-term development.

Information and early warning systems on foodemergencies: For any needs to be better anticipatedand for interventions to be more effective, suchsystems are a must for Africa. These systems can beassociated for institutional convenience as appropriatewith other national food security monitoring and earlywarning systems and linked internationally witharrangements such as the FAO-based globalinformation and early warning system (GIEWS) and theWFP-based Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM)system that has been used to good effect in many poorAfrican countries. Such arrangements facilitate co-ordinated response to emergencies. In practice, thereare good examples of co-operation: in the 2002 SADCfood emergencies, FAO, WFP, FEWS (of USAID), andNGOs have jointly worked with countries to carry outemergency food needs assessments.

4.3.2. Direct Assistance to the most Food Insecure

A comprehensive programme for agriculturaldevelopment in Africa should seek to address the foodneeds of vulnerable groups that cannot immediatelybenefit from general agricultural developmentprogrammes. These include not only the victims offood emergencies (discussed in the previous section),but also especially vulnerable groups (pregnantwomen, children, and the disabled) among thechronically hungry. Most developed countries andsome developing countries, especially in South Asia

and Latin America, have developed safety net schemesto provide on a more systematic basis food and/or cashsupport to such vulnerable groups. These can includetargeted direct feeding programmes (such as individualschool feeding programmes); food for work (to supportthe needy while also developing useful infrastructure,such as irrigation, road etc systems); food for training;or mother-child nutrition. In some cases, incometransfer schemes such as food stamps, subsidisedrations etc are used to raise the purchasing power oftargeted households. More comprehensive integratedprogrammes that combine several of these elementscan also be launched.

These types of social safety net mechanisms areessential for Africa’s hungry poor, but are currentlyrelatively underdeveloped in the continent. It isimportant that initial investments in such safety netprogrammes build on existing national capacities, whilelonger-term capacity in other components of aneffective safety net system are developed over time. Anexample of this approach is school feeding. All Africancountries have a primary education school system withextensive, if not always universal, coverage that canserve as an available platform for a food safety netsystem for school age children. WFP has proposed thatthis be expanded significantly as part of NEPAD; overtime, similar capacities should also be expanded formother-child feeding and other components of a socialsafety net system. As these safety net capacities expandand other parts of the CAADP produce long-termresults, this should reduce the need for emergencyfeeding programmes in the long term.

Essential rural transport for smallholders, Egypt

Page 63: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

51

As stated elsewhere, it is often important to add tofood programmes the provision of tools and seed andother inputs that allow farmers to rapidly regain self-reliance by producing their own food. These supplies,as well as the food deliveries, can help avert theliquidation of family assets that tends to occur whenhardship and famine occur.

4.3.3. Programmes to enhance Food Securitythrough Production

It is also recognised that an expansion in agriculture,particularly through increasing smallholders’ output ofstaple foods, can contribute significantly to reducing theincidence of under-nourishment by raising local foodavailability, especially in poor families. But smallholderproduction of non-food farm products, for bothdomestic and export markets, can also have a positive

impact on rural poverty through raising farm incomesand expanding employment opportunities. However,rapid progress towards the eradication of hungerrequires targeted complementary measures to broadenaccess to food by persons who are either unable to meettheir dietary requirements through their own productionor lack the means to purchase it. Such translation ofunsatisfied food needs into effective demand not onlyimproves nutrition (a valuable end in itself) but could alsostimulate domestic agricultural growth.

Whether farmers will expand the area cultivated orintensify production by adopting improved farmingmethods depends on their perceptions of the potentialbenefits and risks and their capacity to adoptintensified production systems. The role ofgovernments is to provide a policy and incentiveframework as well as an institutional and legal

Text Box 8: Areas of Focus to Combat Africa's Foodand Agriculture Emergencies

Strategic regional, sub-regional reserves (bufferstocks for emergency): Regional and/or sub-regionalfood security reserves, which comply with the World TradeOrganisation rules, could contribute to enhancing capacityfor timely delivery of food supplies to affected populationsin emergencies. Existing organisations could provide aninstitutional framework for such reserves adapted to theconditions in each sub-region. Alternatives toestablishment of regional or sub-regional food securityreserves could include:• mutual co-operation to be brought into action during

emergencies such as food loans repayable in kind, andassistance in providing transport facilities;

• co-ordination of national stocks with provisions to keepa specific percentage over and above the national needsto meet regional commitments;

• mutual assistance during emergencies, includingprovision of food or cash grants, currency or food loans,sale of food to the affected country or establishing othermodalities, such as crop or price insurance schemesagreed upon.

Capacity building for forecasting, prevention andmitigation of adverse effects of natural disasters,including drought: Main elements include (a)meaningful early warning of natural calamities throughenvironmental databases of benchmark information andcapacity to use them; (b) capacity for early rehabilitation ofproduction capacity in case of natural and man-madedisasters is important, although greater emphasis shouldbe on prevention.

Improving water management: Almost one-third ofAfrica is too dry for rainfed agriculture, and countries inthis area must look to irrigation as the only reliable meansof increasing agricultural production and making it morepredictable. Lessons must be learned from many irrigationschemes that have failed in Africa. Future actions shouldconcentrate on lowering the cost of irrigation through:

• Simple improvements to traditional swamp and floodirrigation;

• Major programmes to locate ground and surface watersuitable for irrigation;

• Development of support for farm- and village-ledschemes;

• Rehabilitation of modern irrigation schemes; and• Grant-aided development of large-scale irrigation where

there is no potential for smaller and cheaper schemes.

Capturing and storing rainwater for use in times ofdrought: Simple technologies for water harvesting andground water recharge could include: (a) building uponexisting indigenous water harvesting techniquesthroughout arid and semi-arid regions, introducingsuitable techniques; (b) promoting widespread adoption ofwater harvesting techniques by the local populationthrough motivational campaigns, training and extensionwork. Furthermore, in a region prone also to flooding,attention must also go to long-term prevention (throughupstream vegetation management) and immediateassistance in relocation and reactivation of farming inaffected areas.

Combating desertification: Dune stabilisation and otherconservation techniques can be cheaply applied butmedium and long-term action requires attention to thesocial and economic causes of the problem. Medium-termaction often involves re-vegetation such as through agro-forestry and the overall regeneration of plant cover in thelandscape. Zero tillage technologies and integrated soiltreatment processes can help to improve the collectionand stocking of rainwater while sub-soiling and microterracing can also be important.

Emergency prevention systems (EMPRES) for plantand animal pests and diseases: The effective preventionof the diseases that hamper livestock production and tradeis possible through applied research, enhanced earlywarning and early and co-ordinated reaction. In this regardFAO-initiated Emergency Prevention Systems (EMPRES) forplant and animal pests and diseases is of relevance.

Page 64: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

52

dispensation that is conducive to agricultural growth,to put in place infrastructure that enhances thecompetitiveness of agriculture in domestic andinternational markets, and to ensure the reliableprovision of support services, especially for extension,research and rural finance, that open the way for theuptake of improved technologies. If such an enablingenvironment is created, much of the investment inraising output can be made by the farmers themselves,although other economic agents also have importantroles to play in agriculture-related activities.

These strategic considerations lie at the heart of theSPFS. They also underpin community-based agriculturaland rural development initiatives supported by otherinternational agencies and NGOs. Such programmes arebased on the assumption that much of the actionrequired to improve levels of food security lies within thepower of individual countries and should be led by them.Lasting solutions, however, have important regionaldimensions, related to intra-regional trade, food safetystandards, harmonisation of policies, the control oftrans-boundary pests and diseases, and technologydevelopment. Africa’s regional bodies are developingand seeking funding for Regional Programmes for FoodSecurity (RPFS) that can complement national SPFSinitiatives. NEPAD, as a pan-African initiative, hasparticular importance as a framework for such multi-country aspects of food security.

A programme that attempts to increase and stabilise,in a broad and sustainable manner, food output andincome through output intensification anddiversification as well as through actions aimed atreducing weather and other environmental as well aseconomic risks, will significantly contribute to foodsecurity and poverty reduction. The achievement of thistwin objective assumes an in-depth analysis andresolution of economic, social, institutional and legalconstraints prevailing at the local and national levels. Tosuccessfully implement such a programme requires aclear division of labour and responsibility amongstakeholders. This will also help determine the level ofefforts that different partners – government, privatesector, farmers, and development partners – will haveto mobilise.

4.4. Africa and the Special Programme for FoodSecurity (SPFS)

The member countries of FAO have adopted SPFS inrecognition of the need for a programme thatempowers poor rural communities to raise farm outputand income and improve local food security. It isdescribed briefly below as an example of the kind ofapproach that needs to be a central element of anyprogramme to achieve the World Food Summit goal ofhalving the number of undernourished by 2015.

The SPFS was launched in 1994 and the World FoodSummit endorsed the programme concept inNovember 1996. The broad objective of the SPFS is to

assist developing countries, in particular the Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDCs), to improvetheir household and national food security on aneconomically sound and environmentally sustainablebasis, while retaining the goal of enhancing socialequity and the livelihoods of women and poorhouseholds. It aims to achieve this mainly byempowering groups of small farmers to achieve rapidincreases in productivity and reductions in year-to-yearvariations in output, thereby contributing to betteroverall access to food within their families, theircommunities and local markets.

Formulated and implemented under nationalleadership, the SPFS is intended to be an integralcomponent of the national food security strategiesadopted by many countries after the World FoodSummit. To date the SPFS is operational in 68 countries,of which 38 are in Africa: it has been formulated or isunder formulation in another 16 countries, of which 6are in Africa.

The SPFS is a flexible programme that responds tolocal opportunities and embraces progressive anditerative learning and reorientation processes. It doesnot use the FAO framework as a blueprint but modelsitself after it and draws upon the accumulatedexperience of FAO. At national level, the SPFS is ownedby the country concerned, is adapted to its ownrealities and is integrated into its strategies. Ownershipis evidenced by the considerable investments in kindand cash made by developing countries, some of whichhave established large trust funds using their ownresources. Voluntary donor contributions have alsobeen significant, and FAO has been a frequent brokerin securing such collaborative agreements betweendeveloping and developed countries.

The SPFS is implemented in a stepwise fashion,starting with pilot activities initially at a few locations(Phase I) which are progressively scaled up with the aimof gaining pilot experience in all major agro-ecologicalzones of a country (Phase I extension). Building on thisexperience and that of other relevant programmes andprojects, governments are invited to take the lead informulating and launching a national-level foodsecurity programme (Phase II).

Phase I involves the engagement of self-selectedgroups of small farmers at a limited number of sites. Asexperience is gained and good practices are developed,they are replicated over an increasing number of sites.Depending on locally identified needs and opportunities,this first phase generally consists of four complementarycomponents which touch on most aspects ofagricultural development, viz.:• Water and soil management: measures to address

moisture limitations and excesses through low-costirrigation, water harvesting and drainage methods,and through land husbandry systems which improvesoil conditions (physical, chemical and biological) andavoid soil erosion.

Page 65: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Text Box 9: Diversifying Rural Income - Rural Non-Farm (RNF) Income Opportunities

Although rural people are generally labelledagricultural", in fact it is very rare for them to engagesolely in farming. Smallholder households in rural areasusually manage a complex portfolio of activities:diversification is the normal state of affairs. Everywhere inAfrica, rural non-farm (RNF) income and employmentaccount for a significant proportion of total rural incomeand employment, and in some countries they make upmore than half the total. Rural households participate inRNF activities for various reasons, including potentialhigh returns, cash flow management, and spreading risk.The poor may also participate in RNF activities becausetheir agricultural asset base is not sufficient to achievesurvival. In marginal lands like the Sahel whereagricultural risk is high, RNF activities (includingmigration) are central to spreading risk.

Rural household members engage in a wide variety ofRNF activities, with those activities linked to agriculture(food processing and marketing, transportation,blacksmith construction and repair of agricultural toolsand machinery) among the most important. Indeed, it isoften overlooked that a dynamic smallholder agriculturaleconomy forms the backbone of a vibrant RNF sector.Due to multiplier effects, developing smallholderagriculture is more likely to stimulate off-farm

employment than either large-scale agricultural orindustrial development because poor smallholders aremore likely to use increased incomes to demand locally-produced goods and services, which in turn stimulatesadditional local employment, which can be of particularbenefit to women and youth. Conversely, RNF activities –particularly those related to agro-processing,transportation, and the marketing of agriculturalproduce – can contribute to the growth of theagricultural sector. In the new market environment facedby smallholder producers, this is more true than everbefore, since the activities can provide a means to locallyadd value to the produce and so extract the maximumshare of its end-price.

The rural poor have special problems in exploitingnon-farm employment opportunities. A combination oflimited human and social capital, insufficient access tomarkets, and lack of credit for working and investmentcapital lead to high barriers to entry to remunerative RNFemployment opportunities. While the rural poor mayalready be diversified into RNF activities, these constraintslead to low and unstable returns. Strategies for reachingthe rural poor through the development of RNF activitiesinclude those pertaining to human capital, rural finance,marketing and infrastructure development.

Sources: Sundry IFAD documents.

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

53

• Raising productivity: actions to raise land or labourproductivity on a sustainable basis, including improvedplant varieties adapted to local conditions, integratedplant nutrients and pest management systems (witha minimum dependence on purchased inputs), andimproved post-harvest technologies.

• Farm diversification: measures to improvehousehold nutrition and income and to protectagainst risk, initially focused on short-cycle livestocksuch as chickens, sheep, goats, rabbits, bees etc.,with an emphasis on enabling farmers to preventdiseases and improve animal nutrition: whereappropriate, support is also given to artisanalfisheries and aquaculture. Text Box 9 refers to non-farm livelihood opportunities that may offerimportant complements to farm income; Text Box 10highlights issues specific to fisheries and forestry.

• Participatory study of socio-economic constraintsthat restrict farm-level profitability and food security,prevent the emergence of greater social equity andimpede the implementation of the programme on awider scale. This process, combined with participatoryperformance assessment studies, provides an inputinto programme impact monitoring and evaluation,encourages the identification of self-reliant solutionsand feeds into the formulation and adjustment of theprogramme’s second phase as well as nationalstrategies.

The emphasis on water control is particularly relevantto Africa in that this region uses irrigation least of allregions, and also because, unless water controlcombines an increase in the area irrigated with efficientwater management practices, it has little prospect ofraising productivity. It goes without saying thatinvesting in irrigation becomes more worthwhile ifproductivity is also enhanced by application ofimproved technologies and yield-enhancing inputs.Text Box 11 profiles one important input – farm energy– that is important for enhancing farm output and thelivelihood contribution potential of agriculture.

As the SPFS programme is extended to include morecommunities, the range of components and productsalso tends to broaden, to respond to the growingaspirations of participants and to ensure thatconstraints to expanded output (for instance relating toinput supply, storage, marketing and financial services)are systematically addressed. Communities areencouraged to address problems of inequitable accessto food within the community, focusing on vulnerablemembers including women (especially widows),children (especially orphans) and old and sick people.Such an inclusive approach to food security may lead tothe creation of community-managed projects such asschool garden programmes.

The implementation of pilot activities benefitsincreasingly from the South-South Co-operation

Page 66: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Text Box 10: Special Considerations for Fisheriesand Forestry

Fisheries: Irresponsible fishing in inland waters results incapture levels that are often in excess of the stocking andrecharge capacity. Africa gains much employment andincome from lake fisheries as well as coastline artisanalfisheries on the high seas. Furthermore, the infestation ofsome inland lakes and waterways with aquatic weedshas reduced fish catches. The reduction of local diversityof fish populations by alien species may have seriousconsequences. There are severe problems with post-harvest handling, storage and distribution, which restrictsupply to urban areas as well as access to overseasmarkets; they also keep incomes sub-optimal forfisherfolk. As wild stocks decline, and given that propermanagement is not being instituted in a timely manner,livelihoods are at risk. In such situations, thedevelopment of aquaculture (which in Africa is still in itsinfancy) offers new opportunities. Africa needs tocomplement its heavy reliance on fish capture in the wild(a practice that cannot cope with increasing demand)with aquaculture for food and for income andemployment. On the high seas, most African countriesdo not yet have the capacity to compete with foreignfishing vessels, even in areas legally within their ownexclusive economic zones.

Forestry: Forests including the non-wood forest productsare mainly used for subsistence or low-value commerce,such as for fuel wood. Nevertheless, forests offer many

income and employment opportunities including tradingin wood fuels, crafts, tourism from wildlife etc. Theuncontrolled harvesting of natural forests has caused thedestruction of biological diversity with minimal economicgains. Lack of value adding processing, and trading inforest products and services, have also reduced thecontribution of forestry to economic development in thecountries concerned and make forests appeardispensable. Industrial utilisation of forest products hasshown the greatest success in plantation development,with forest-poor countries, e.g. South Africa, being theprime exporters of forest-based products while forest-richcountries export raw logs or low-value wood.

The low productivity of agriculture leads to extensiveclearing of new land in order to increase the productionof food and other crops to cater for the high rate ofpopulation growth. This has been compounded byinability to introduce agro-forestry practices in farmlandscapes to diversify livelihoods and enhancesustainable production systems. The low productivity ofAfrican forests has meant that large areas have to beused to satisfy the demands for firewood and otherforest products. The rapid clearing of forests andwoodlands in upper watersheds increases soil erosion,which in some cases silts up downstream dams used forirrigation and hydropower, to the long-term economicloss of many countries.

Sources: Thematic information from FAO State of theWorld’s Forests and State of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

54

initiative (SSC), launched in 1996 to allow recipientdeveloping countries to benefit from the relevantexperience of more advanced developing countries. Todate, countries in Africa have signed 22 of the 26 SSCagreements linking countries in Africa, Asia, LatinAmerica and the Caribbean.

On-site monitoring is showing that field activitieshave already generated some encouraging results, withfarmers, both men and women, learning and adoptingeffective and low-cost technologies in a relatively shorttime. This is contributing to better farm performanceand improved food security and livelihoods at thehousehold and community level . Some importantlessons have been learned from dealing with the poorthrough programmes that preceded the SPFS and/orhave not necessarily carried its label: for example muchof the IFAD experience in Africa provides useful insightsinto ways of uplifting communities on the basis ofagriculture and rural interventions.

Unlike the pilot phase of the Special Programme,which focuses on household and community level foodsecurity and livelihood issues, the second phase tacklesthese issues at national level so as to open the way forscaling-up. The second phase of the SPFS is expected tobe prepared under national leadership, but with theengagement of all entities – national and international

– committed to improving food security. Its preparationis integrated into the process of formulating andupdating the national Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper(PRSP). The national programme is expected to becentred around agricultural and rural sector policyreforms aimed at addressing macro-level economic andinstitutional constraints: it would usually also includean investment plan for expanding community-led farmlevel improvements; for addressing physical andinfrastructure constraints; and for the preparation ofbankable projects. Its objective is to ensure thedevelopment of a macroeconomic, institutional andpolicy framework which is:• favourable to demand-driven agricultural production,

storage, processing, and marketing, and broadenedaccess to food;

• supportive of increased private and publicinvestments in agricultural activities and services; and

• conducive to increasing rural incomes and improvinglivelihoods.

4.5. Funding Requirements

The experience of the SPFS suggests that the cost tothe public sector of enabling a poor small farmer’sfamily to make the investments required to attain anadequate level of food security is about US$500. How

Page 67: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Text Box 11: Farm Power and Mechanisation

The availability of adequate levels of farm power isamong the essentials for increasing agriculturalproduction. As Africa seeks to increase output, so itsneeds for farm power will also grow from its presentheavy reliance on hand labour towards the use ofdraught animals and powered machinery, according tocircumstance. Any increase in total agricultural output(be it from area expansion, an increase in croppingintensity or an increase in yield) requires additionalpower, if not for technology application then forhandling and processing increased volumes. Similarly,land improvements (such as terracing, drainage orirrigation structures), soil conservation and waterharvesting techniques frequently place additionaldemands on the power resource. Change in compositionof farm power inputs will reflect either demand orsupply-side shifts, or both.

Taken on a global scale, in developing countries, farmpower is dominated by hand labour (which is at oneextreme) where the GDP per capita is low (under $1000per head), the economy remains dominated byagriculture, there is a low proportion of potentialirrigated area in cultivation, and small areas of land arecultivated per person (0.5 – 0.7 ha of harvested area).Draught animals (mainly work oxen) are a significant orpredominant source of power in countries whereincomes are higher; this practice is associated with anincrease in intensity of cultivation on both rainfed andirrigated land, and an increase in the area underirrigation (but no expansion of rainfed land). It appearsthat the use of animals does not displace labour. At theother extreme, tractor-based cultivation systems aregenerally characterised by high GDP per capita (morethan $3000 per head) and a situation in which less thanhalf of the economically active population works inagriculture; relatively larger areas are cultivated per

person (1 to 2 ha of harvested area). In Sub-SaharanAfrica at present, hand power is dominant particularly inCentral Africa and Western Africa where it accounts for85 percent and 70 percent of harvested area respectively.In Western and Eastern Africa there is significant use ofdraught animals despite humans remaining the majorpower source; in Southern Africa there is increasing useof tractors. In North Africa, tractors either dominate orthere is a rapid trend towards this; here, mechanisedfarming occurs in irrigation schemes and is becomingincreasingly important also in rainfed agriculture.

The period up to 2030 will witness some changes,though on present scenarios of agricultural development,in some two-thirds of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africasuch changes are not projected to be significant by 2030.In Eastern Africa, disease, drought and rustling havedecimated the number of draught animals in some areas,thereby removing a principal power source from certainfarming systems. Also in Eastern and Southern Africa inparticular, HIV/AIDS will affect the workforce, with thosecountries which are expected to switch from hand powerto draught animals being projected to lose almost 20percent of their agricultural labour by 2020. Thus oneimpact of HIV/AIDS will be to make it vital for affectedcountries to change their source of farm power in orderto cope with serious labour shortages at critical times ofthe farming year. Urbanisation may cause some switch inpower sources as it draws labour away from theagricultural sector and possibly affects wage levels andthe composition of the remaining labour force.

Source: The text is adapted from two sources: (a) FarmPower and Mechanisation. Clare Bishop-Sambrook. Draftcontribution to FAO’s World Agriculture, Towards2015/2030. FAO. Rome (b) Global Farm PowerAssessment Study – Interim Report. Clare Bishop-Sambrook. January 2001. FAO. Rome.

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

55

this is spent will vary from country to country and farmto farm. Typically, however, it will include:• Initial funding of US$300 to US$400 of improved

farm inputs (such as seed and fertilisers), small-scaleon-farm works, low-cost items of equipment (e.g.treadle pumps) and breeding stock (e.g. poultry,goats). Funds to meet these costs would be advancedon condition that farmers make a matchingcontribution in terms of labour and that, onceproduction rises, an equivalent amount is depositedinto community-managed revolving funds to be usedfor further on-farm and community-level investments(e.g. in school gardens) and thereby ensure theprogramme’s financial sustainability.

• Provision of support services aimed at empoweringgroups of farmers to diagnose problems, identify needsand opportunities for investments (including farm orcommunity-based agro-processing), test innovationsand acquire the knowledge and skills to improveproduction and livelihoods through participatory

approaches. Sustainability of support services would beassured through the retention by farmers’ groups ofincome from jointly managed demonstration and trialplots in order to defray future service costs. Typical start-up costs of such front-line facilitation services, providedby extension staff, other farmer facilitators or NGOs,are US$30 to US$50 per family.

• Funds to meet costs incurred in creating an enablingpolicy and institutional environment at national leveland at the level of regional bodies. Costs areassumed to range from US$50 to US$100 equivalentper family.

The effectiveness of these investments in on-farmdevelopment and related services is, of course,dependent on complementary investments in up-streamirrigation works, soil conservation, roads and other ruralinfrastructure (as detailed in Chapters 2 and 3). This alsoincludes investments in up-stream and down-streamsupport infrastructure for irrigated and rain-fed crop

Page 68: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

56

Unloading frozan tuna fish, Madagascar

production. In respect of livestock and fisheries, itincludes investment in facilities such as applied researchcentres, seed multiplication centres, animal and fishbreeding facilities, parent and grandparent stockfacilities for poultry, animal feed mills, tree nurseries andprocessing facilities, e.g. slaughterhouses, canningfactories, storage facilities, local and export marketfacilities, etc. Such facilities should be operated mainlyby the private sector, or where appropriate, the publicsector, such as municipal authorities. Programmeeffectiveness would also be enhanced to the extent thatgovernments are able to put in place safety nets tobroaden access to food, which in turn stimulate localmarkets. In the long term, any improvements must beunderpinned by science and technology disseminatedand adopted by farmers; Chapter 5 outlines someproposals for strengthening Africa’s research anddevelopment capacities for agriculture.

The scale of such programmes must be massive ifthey are to have a meaningful impact on reducinghunger and poverty. For the purposes of estimatingcosts, a need is assumed to reach 15 millionhouseholds in Africa by 2015, equivalent to 100 millionpeople or half those now suffering from under-nourishment. The country and sub-regional costestimates are based on the number of undernourishedpersons estimated in the State of Food Insecurity (SOFI)2001. The total cost of an Africa-wide community-based programme for improving small farmerperformance would therefore be about US$7.5 billion,of which about US$6.5 billion would be for nationalprogrammes for on-farm investment and support

services and US$1 billion for regional programmes(Appendix Table 8).

Detailed estimates of total costs and of a possibleannual breakdown of costs are given in Appendix Table6, showing a rise in annual commitments from aroundUS$320 million per year in 2002 to US$600 million in2015.

4.6. Regional Programmes for Food Security

While most actions required to enhance food securitymust be part of national food security strategies,achieving food security also requires attention toregional and global constraints. Accordingly, RegionalEconomic Organisations (REOs) in Africa have chosento prepare and to mobilise resources for RegionalProgrammes for Food Security (RPFSs).

The RPFSs prepared by these REOs (notably AMU,CEN-SAD, CEMAC, COMESA, ECCAS, ECOWAS,IGAD, SADC, and UEMOA) in collaboration with FAOcomplement and reinforce national policies andprogrammes by addressing those issues that areregional in character. In most cases, the RPFSs consistof three main components:• trade facilitation; • agricultural policies; and• support to national SPFS to increase production and

productivity.

The relative importance of each component variesacross the REOs, depending on the natural, socio-demographic, economic, agricultural and food securitycharacteristics of their member countries.

4.6.1. Trade Facilitation

Trade facilitation and market access is expected to helpreduce the variability of food supply and increaseopportunities for income generation through increasedtrade. Such trade facilitation measures wouldcontribute to local and national specialisation throughenhanced competition, and allow for better expressionof the comparative advantage of each of the membercountries of the regional groupings. RPFS activitieswould address sanitary and phytosanitary barriers andtechnical obstacles to trade, promote the adoption ofinternational Codex Alimentarius norms and standardsand seek the reduction and harmonisation of tariffs.Specific measures would be incorporated to benefit inparticular small farmers and vulnerable sectors of thepopulation. To some extent, this implies a newdimension for trade issues.

Some of the specific trade facilitation activities whichneed to be taken up include: commodity developmentprogrammes; transitory measures in response to the on-going trade liberalisation; and compensatory measuresin response to emerging trends in global commoditymarkets and trading environment. These activities aimto enhance the capacity of each member state of thegrouping to participate in the process of globalisation

Page 69: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

57

Processing, sorting and packaging oranges for export

Page 70: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

58

with a view to ensuring food security, enhancingopportunities for agricultural trade to supply domesticand external markets and facilitating the incorporationof small farmers into the new economic environment.

4.6.2. Harmonisation of Agricultural Policies

Comprehensive food and agricultural policies atnational levels and strategic policy frameworks atregional level are indispensable to achieving foodsecurity and harmonious rural development. The RPFSswould in most cases provide support to membercountries in better defining priority lines of regionalaction plans for mutual benefit, based on comparativeadvantages and identification of policy issues whosesuccess in one country depends on collaboration andsupport from the others. They would also contribute toharmonising policies on trans-boundary issues, such asdiseases and pests, or affecting sustainable use ofcross-boundary natural resources (such as water andfisheries resources), as well as mobilisation of resourcesfor addressing regional constraints to food security,agriculture and rural development.

4.6.3. Support to National Programmes for FoodSecurity for Increased Production andProductivity

National efforts to improve regional programmes arereinforced by addressing regional issues so as to enhancethe capacity of smaller countries to benefit from thestrength of a group, achieve economies of scale throughintra-group trade, and foster collaboration in areasrelevant to food security, agriculture and ruraldevelopment.

The full implementation of the RPFS on a scale whichcould contribute to reducing by about half the numberof undernourished persons would require roughlyUS$1 billion by 9 Regional Groupings in Africa in thenext 13 years.

Details of the annual resource requirements arepresented in Appendix Table 7. During the FAO RegionalConference for Africa, held in February, 2002 in Cairo,Egypt, the participating member states of the REOsdecided to mobilise resources for the implementation ofthe RPFS within the framework of NEPAD.

4.7. NEPAD and the Improvement of FoodSecurity

The NEPAD framework offers Africa a potentiallyeffective approach for achieving the World Food Summitgoal of halving the number of undernourished people by2015. But to do this will require bold and ambitiousprogrammes, in the immediate future, by pressing forAfrica to increasingly find capacity to prepare for andrespond to the food and agricultural emergency falloutof disasters; while simultaneously embarking on longer-term investment in food security linked to nationalPoverty Reduction Strategies. These programmes should

give high priority to agricultural and rural development.Africa’s REOs will no doubt continue to co-operate withdonors and international institutions in their efforts tohelp Africa achieve its food security goals.

An essential element for success is partnership:NEPAD needs to encourage partnerships within Africaand between Africa and the international communityin support of food security programmes. Withincountries, governments, the commercial private sector,and civil society (including community-basedorganisations) need to find effective co-operationmodalities that are mutually beneficial. Internationally,similar partnerships are needed, involving funding andtechnical assistance agencies; public sector and privatesources of funding; and bilateral and multilateralpartners. The partnerships need to mobilise energybased on long-term commitment: Africa’s foodinsecurity will not be solved in one season, nor will it besolved by solutions parcelled out in enclave projectsoperating outside of sustainable frameworks.

NEPAD may find it important to use partnerships forcarrying out the following actions, to be undertakenwith the full involvement of a diversity of African andinternational partner institutions:• co-operation in planning and capacity building for

preparedness and response capacity for food andagriculture problems arising from disasters;

• support to governments in up-dating National Foodand Agriculture Strategies, linking these to nationalPoverty Reduction Strategies;

• assistance to governments in developing an enablingpolicy, legal and institutional environment foraddressing food insecurity;

• assistance to governments and regional bodies instrengthening early warning systems and informationon food insecurity as a basis for improved targeting;

• a progressive expansion of food security programmeswithin participating countries, enabling them toengage an increasing number of rural and peri-urbancommunities in expanding farm output and inimproving their food security;

• assistance to countries and REOs in the identificationand preparation of country-specific investmentprogrammes for agricultural and rural development,including enhanced food security, consistent with theup-dated National and Regional Food and AgricultureStrategies;

• assistance in the mobilisation of required resources;• expanded technical support for regional bodies to

enhance their capacity to address the regionaldimensions of food insecurity and implement the RPFS;

• assistance to member countries to develop andimplement proactive programmes to support thedevelopment of entrepreneurship among small-scalefarmers and the emergence of a local private sectorthat could take up most of the upstream anddownstream activities of interest to agriculturaldevelopment.

Page 71: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

59

5CHAPTER

5.1. The Challenge

African political and scientific leaders have set a target toincrease agricultural output by 6 percent a year for thenext 20 years. Improvements in total factor productivityare expected to contribute about 3 percent to this, withthe remainder coming from increased investment. Buteven achieving a 3 percent annual growth rate of totalfactor productivity will be challenging. In no region ofthe world has total factor productivity increased over asustained period of time by more than 2.5 percent peryear. It will require larger investments in agriculturalresearch, extension and education systems, and institutionalreforms that increase the efficiency and effectiveness ofthe spending on research and extension.

This chapter proposes a new framework that willresult in increased and more stable funding for researchinstitutions and programmes. It also recommendsinstitutional reforms that promote a pluralistic andintegrated system of agricultural research, extension and

education that are responsive and accountable tofarmers, agribusinesses, consumers and otherstakeholders. The proposals build on the lessons learnedfrom the Special Programme for African AgriculturalResearch (SPAAR), the Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO), the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and manyothers, during efforts to help revitalise Africanagricultural research.

In addition to promoting a reform agenda, thischapter also draws attention to specific research themesfor NEPAD agriculture. The NEPAD research programmewill be comprised of four sub-themes that willcollectively contribute to testing the central hypothesis"that conservation and efficiency of use of soil and othernatural resources will be optimised under conditions ofmarket and/or policy and institution-driven productivity".The four research themes are:• Integrated Natural Resource Management (also

highly relevant to Chapter 2);

Agricultural Research, Technology Disseminationand Adoption

Vet preparing an injection for cattle vaccination at ILCA Research Station, Mali

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

Page 72: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

60

• Adaptive management of appropriate germplasm(long-term importance to Chapter 4);

• Development of sustainable market chains (essentialif the Special Programmes for Food Security inChapter 4 are to achieve their objectives);

• Policies for sustainable agriculture (an importantunderlying need relevant to all chapters).

In addition, a cross-cutting initiative is also proposed,namely:• Scientific capacity building.

The main thrust of the NEPAD Comprehensive AfricaAgriculture Development Programme (CAADP), asreflected in Chapters 2 to 4, is to emphasise thoseinvestments and interventions that can most rapidlyreverse Africa’s current state of crisis in terms of raisingthat region’s production. These are to be based on theexisting technologies, capacities and policy as well asinstitutional frameworks. The potential of Africa toproduce and trade more can, however, be enhancedbeyond the present levels if conditions are made moreenabling. The search for such change must remain partof the longer-term agenda for agricultural development.

One part of the essential enabling conditions isadoption of appropriate technologies derived fromresearch and development and supported by effectivemeans to ensure adoption. It was with this in mind thatthe 9th June 2002 meeting of African Ministers ofAgriculture in Rome recommended that agriculturalresearch be incorporated into the CAADP and suggestedfurther measures to enable research to play its part.

5.2. Current Situation

5.2.1. Agricultural productivity is low and falling

Unlike in other regions of the world, productivity ofagriculture per worker in Africa has declined during thepast twenty years. Value added per worker averagedjust US$365 during the 1990s (constant 1995 US$).This was 12 percent lower than in 1980, when valueadded per worker stood at US$424. Average incomesper person also stagnated during the 1990s at justUS$540, compared with US$629 in 1980 (constant1995 US$). Raising the productivity of agriculture perworker can make a critical contribution to economicgrowth and the alleviation of poverty by generating thesurpluses that can be used for investment inagricultural and non-agricultural activities. Most of thecountries in the world that have grown rapidly duringthe past 50 years have also experienced strongincreases in agricultural productivity per worker.

Agricultural yields have also been level or falling formany crops in many countries of Africa. Significantly,yields of most important food grains, tubers andlegumes (maize, millet, sorghum, yams, cassava,groundnuts) in most African countries are no highertoday than in 1980. Cereal yields average 1 120kilograms per hectare, compared with 2 067 kilograms

per hectare for the world as a whole. Low productivityhas seriously eroded the competitiveness of Africanagricultural products on world markets. Africa’s shareof total world agricultural trade fell from 8 percent in1965 to 3 percent in 1996. Low productivity is theresult of low investment in all the factors thatcontribute to agricultural productivity and effective useof available resources. To correct the problem willrequire Africa to significantly increase investment inagriculture. This in turn requires that the profitability ofagricultural investments be increased and so mademore attractive.

5.2.2. Increasing expenditure on agriculturalresearch and extension

Increasing expenditure on agricultural research andextension can make a critical contribution tostimulating economic growth and reducing poverty inAfrica. Investment in agricultural research andextension is a key factor in increasing agriculturalproductivity and thereby helping to stimulate growth,generate income, and reduce poverty. Growth inagricultural productivity can serve as an engine ofgrowth for the economy by raising the incomes ofproducers, who then spend the resources on rural non-tradable goods and services, such as housing.According to studies carried out in Africa, adding $1 ofnew farm income results in a total increase ofhousehold income of US$2–3. By reducing the price offood, growth in agricultural productivity raisespurchasing power, thereby boosting the effective realincomes of consumers. Growth of agricultural outputcan also help to reduce child malnutrition at a rate ofabout half the original growth rate in productivity.

Research is justified by its high payoff: one study usingdata from Africa found that spending on agriculturalresearch generated high payoffs in the region, with eachdollar spent generating a median internal rate of returnof 37 percent. Research on pearl millet, maize, sorghum,potatoes, beans, wheat and cowpeas has generatedreturns ranging from 16 percent to 135 percent.Another study – this one in India – examined the roles ofvarious public interventions in promoting agriculturalgrowth and poverty alleviation and revealed thatgovernment investment in agricultural research andextension had a larger impact on economic growth thanspending on other rural programmes, such as ruralroads, irrigation, rural electrification, soil and waterconservation, education and health. Moreover, it had animpact on reducing poverty, second in significance onlyto rural roads.

5.2.3. Spending on agricultural research in Africais stagnant

Public spending for agricultural research in Africastagnated in the 1980s and the 1990s at about US$1200 million per year, slightly higher than the level

Page 73: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

Figure 1: Public AgriculturalResearchExpenditures, 1976-1996

Developed countries

Asia and the Pacific

Latin America and Caribbean

Sub-Saharan Africa

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

1976 1985 1996

Mill

ion

s 19

93 in

tern

atio

nal

do

llars

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

61

reached in 1976 (Figure 1). This contrasts with thesituation of the 1960s and 1970s when publicspending on agricultural research more than doubled,from about US$360 million in 1961 to US$993 millionin 1976.

Public spending on agricultural research in Africa incomparison with agricultural GDP has also declined,from a peak in 1981 of 0.93 percent to 0.69 percent in1991. By contrast, public spending on agriculturalresearch in industrial countries amounted to about 2.4percent of agricultural GDP in 1991.

5.2.4. Private sector research will not fill the gap

Unlike in other regions, the private sector is notincreasing its research efforts in Africa as governmentspending declines. With a share of about 2 percent oftotal spending, the private sector plays an exceptionallysmall role in funding agricultural research in Africa. Thisis not likely to change soon because the potentialprofits from conducting research on important crops inAfrica are not sufficiently high to attract the interest ofeither domestic or international private firms. Inindustrial countries, private enterprises fund over 50percent of agricultural research.

Why has support for agricultural research andextension in Africa declined, given its high payoffs?Reductions in government support for agriculturalresearch and extension reflect in part pressures onAfrican governments to reduce spending generally. Butspending on agricultural research has also declined inproportion to total government spending, as prioritieshave shifted and governments question the value ofresearch and extension given the lack of improvementin agricultural productivity in Africa. Similarly, donorsupport to agricultural research has declined becauseof shifting priorities, until very recently, away fromagricultural production to environmental protection,

health, education, water and sanitation, etc. Manypeople question the need for continued public fundingof agricultural research and extension, thinking thatthe world’s food problems are solved, are constrainedby matters other than research systems or extensionservices, or that the private sector will do the job. It isnecessary to correct these perceptions and to maintainand increase support to these services, which arefundamental to maintain the competitiveness ofagricultural economies.

5.2.5. Agricultural research and extension servicesare not playing their important roles

In addition to being inadequate, resources foragricultural research systems and extension services arein many countries not being used effectively. Severalfactors appear to be important in explaining why.

Available resources for national agricultural researchsystems are spread too thinly over too many staffand programmes

Even while funding for agricultural research stagnatedin the 1980s and early 1990s, the number of scientistsof national agricultural research systems (NARS) andthe scope of their activities continued to grow. To meetrising staff costs, many NARS have been forced to cutnon-wage operating expenses, starving programmes ofthe many goods and services they need to be effective:laboratory supplies, equipment, spare parts, training,maintenance, fuel, etc. However, these funds have notbeen adequate to maintain salaries at reasonablelevels, leading to an increase in absenteeism asscientists take up other jobs to supplement theirincome. As a result, the performance of researchsystems has suffered.

Source: Pardey and Beintema, 2001.

Page 74: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

62

Regional and sub-regional collaboration in researchprogrammes is not fully exploited

Although the move towards regional and sub-regionalcollaboration and integration has been strong in Africa,the scope for doing more is considerable. Funding ofregional research activities still amounts to less than 2percent of total spending on agricultural research. In acontext of stable or declining resources, greater regionaland sub-regional co-operation would enhance theefficiency and effectiveness of agricultural research inAfrica. Linking NARS together within larger networksand strengthening partnerships with advanced researchinstitutes and CGIAR centres would allow each nationalinstitute to specialise in a few areas of research, whilebenefiting from the research of others. This wouldenable NARS to benefit from economies of scale and toeliminate much wasteful, duplicative research.

Policies impede access to global knowledge andtechnology

In many countries import duties and non-tariff barriersimpede the importation of seed and improved plantstock. Quarantine laws and local rules on the testingand release of agricultural technologies also slows andimpedes the adoption of global knowledge andtechnology.

Linkages between research systems, extensionservices, and farmers are weak

Linkages between farmers, extension agents andresearch systems in Africa are weak. Often researchershave little interaction with extension services and

farmers, and do not reflect their priorities in the researchagenda. In some cases the national research programmeis defined by donors or individual researchers and mayhave little relation to national objectives or farmers’needs. The lack of linkages has led in some cases tofarmers adopting less than 10 percent of the cropvarieties that they are offered. In other cases, farmersnever learn about new technologies developed in theresearch systems because effective mechanisms totransfer innovations from research to the extensionsystem do not exist. Finally, the extension services haveoften failed to reach farmers because their communicationstrategies are not effective. Thus, extension servicesoften miss the farmers who would benefit the most fromgood advice, namely the women farmers who areresponsible for the great majority of agricultural outputin most African countries.

Small farmers lack ways to reduce risks of adoptingnew technologies

Even when farmers recognise that new technologieswill raise productivity, they are often reluctant to bearthe risks associated with new approaches. Approachesare needed to reduce the risks that farmers face whenadopting new technologies and to increase their accessto sound rural financial services, including savings,credit and insurance.

Financing of research and extension services is notsustainable

Both research and extension services in Africa dependheavily on donor funding. Contributions from donors

A sophisticated irrigation system at the agricultural research centre, Seychelles

Page 75: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

63

now provide more than 40 percent of all funds foragricultural research. This is up from 28 percent in 1986and exceeds the level of any other region. Given thefragile economies and extensive demands on the publicsector in many African countries, donor support forresearch and extension will continue to be important forsome time to come. However, African research andextension managers must start building political supportfor their programmes among farmers, private firms andother beneficiaries of more productive agriculturalsystems. They must start diversifying their sources offunds through producer levies, contract research, jointventures with private firms, etc. Finally, they must openthe research and extension systems to more providers,strengthening links between universities, non-governmental organisations, private firms, and others.

5.3. Elements of Sustainability

The elements of sustainability are well known. Theyinvolve strengthening political commitment; diversifyingsources of income; reforming institutions; and ensuringthat research and extension services give priority topromoting widely-shared growth and the adoption ofenvironmentally sound technologies.

5.3.1. Political Commitment

Africa’s research and extension services will not besustainable without the strong political support of abroad coalition of stakeholders. Without the support ofstakeholders, adequate funding will not beforthcoming, difficult institutional reforms will not beundertaken, and the efficiency and effectiveness ofagricultural generation and adoption will not increase.

5.3.2. Financial

The financial sustainability of research and extensionservices depends on diversification of their sources ofincome. In the future, both research and extensionservices will have to become more demand driven andgenerate more resources from producers, consumers,agribusinesses and others who benefit directly from theservices. Levies on the sale of commodities and incomefrom patents are likely to be important. Many NARS willbe able to generate revenues by selling farm produce;providing consulting services to producer organisations,agribusinesses and others; performing research undercontract; entering into partnerships with private firms;and renting or selling under-utilised land and facilities.Extension institutions will provide their services undercontract to farmers’ groups and others. In somecountries, endowments and matching grant schemesmay provide a stable source of finance for research andextension. Increasingly, funds will be provided on acompetitive basis to improve the effectiveness andefficiency of research and extension.

Donor support is best used for developing theresearch infrastructure and human capital needed for

long-term research and extension programmes. Donorsupport is also important in helping to buildmechanisms for long-term financial sustainability ofresearch and extension services.

5.3.3. Institutional

Wide-ranging reforms are required to achieveinstitutional sustainability of research and extensionservices. With due attention to the diversity of Africa’scountries and their capacity to cope with reforms thatdepend on assumed presence or speedy emergence ofan effective private sector, both the research andextension services have potential to be opened to moreproviders to increase competition and thus improve thequality and cost-effectiveness of services. Strengtheninglinkages among researchers, extension agents,educators and farmers is critical to increase therelevance of research and extension and to facilitate thequicker adoption of better technologies by farmers.Linkages can be strengthened by involving farmers,agribusinesses and other stakeholders in settingpriorities for the research agenda and in executing andevaluating programmes. Decentralising extensionservices to local governments and communities andreorienting incentive systems so that providers areaccountable to farmers rather than to the centralauthorities will help. Bringing research closer to and intofarmers’ fields will also build ties between research,extension and farmers.

Establishing sound systems of management andaccountability, and systematically monitoring andevaluating programmes, are both critical if institutionsare to improve their performance and essential inincreasing the support of financiers. Proficient planningand the sound management of funds help guaranteethat funds for research and extension are focused onpriorities, and that imbalances between wage and non-wage recurrent expenditures do not arise and disruptprogrammes. Good accounting systems enablemanagers to provide appropriate reports to the treasury,the ministry of agriculture and other financiers, showinghow funds have actually been spent. This helps inattracting new funding for research and extension fromboth traditional and new sources. Regularly monitoringand evaluating programmes and adjusting them toimprove their design and implementation increases theirimpact and, again, support among financiers.

Remunerating staff adequately and institutingincentive structures that reward performance areimportant for institutional sustainability. Otherwise staffmay decide to hold other jobs even while continuing todraw a salary from the public services. They may bemotivated to attend field trips, training, conferences,etc solely to supplement their earnings. They may leaveresearch or extension altogether. However, developingways to properly reward staff might not be easy. Manypublic research and extension systems will need tosubstantially reduce staff numbers. Moreover, increasing

Page 76: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

64

the remuneration of highly performing staff above the(often low) civil service levels may be difficult. In somecases, the establishment of autonomous or semi-autonomous institutions may be necessary.

5.3.4. Environmental and Social

About 70 percent of Africans rely on agriculture andnatural resources for a part or all of their food andincomes. Yet, in many places environmentaldegradation and unsustainable exploitation of naturalresources threaten to reduce the future productivity ofagriculture and natural resources, underminingobjectives to reduce poverty and increase food security.A major challenge for African countries is to ensure thatagricultural growth is widely shared and does notdegrade the underlying natural resource base. Researchand extension services can make a powerfulcontribution to achievement of these objectives bytargeting small farmers and by generating anddisseminating technologies that promote the soundmanagement of natural resources. They must make agreat effort and recruit more women so as to reachwomen farmers and their organisations and to addressthe special constraints they face, through research andextension programmes.

5.4. Road to Sustainability

It is clear what reforms are needed to increase theefficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of research andextension services. Specific reforms of national levelresearch and extension services, and of regional and sub-regional research systems, have been elaborated by FARAand its partners, from which extracts are given below.

5.4.1. Technology Generation: Reform Agenda at theNational Level

Reforms of research institutions: The large majorityof public research institutions have restructured theirmanagerial and governance systems to become moreresponsive and accountable to stakeholders (clients,farmers, agribusinesses and consumers) and tointroduce sound financial and accounting systems. Arecent SPAAR study of the scope and depth ofinstitutional innovations in agricultural research in 41countries found that many were applying the principlesidentified as important for strengthening operations.About 95 percent of institutions were involved inregional collaboration and integration; 84 percent hadstrengthened linkages between research, extension andfarmers; 73 percent had institutionalised a strategicplanning process; 66 percent had improved theirinstitutional and management capacity; and 39 percenthad developed sustainable financing mechanisms.

Many agricultural research institutions have movedaway from the classic public service model towardsmore market-oriented, client-responsive approaches. InCôte d’Ivoire agricultural research and extension

services have been partially privatised. In Ugandaresponsibility for delivering extension services has beencompletely decentralised to local governments. InKenya a new research outreach programmeempowering farmers and their organisations intechnology delivery is being piloted. In Kenya, Uganda,South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mali and Tanzania privatefirms are conducting or funding research on mostcommercial crops.

A growing number of semi-autonomous orautonomous research institutions, including the KenyaAgriculture Research Institute, the National AgriculturalResearch Organisation of Uganda, the EthiopianAgricultural Research Organisation, and the SenegalInstitute for Agricultural Research, are formulatingagricultural research programmes in close collaborationwith farmers and agricultural extension staff to identifyproduction constraints and adapt technologies tofarmers’ requirements and circumstances. Researchinstitutions now include stakeholders (representatives ofnational agricultural research institutes, universities,non-governmental organisations, farmers’organisations, agribusinesses and others) on theirgoverning boards. They are also managing theiractivities using principles from modern businessadministration to link inputs to performance andoutputs. Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mali,Senegal, Tanzania and Zambia have taken steps to bringtheir infrastructure, staff and operational costs intobalance and improve incentives to researchers,rewarding those who perform at top levels.

However, these institutional reforms need to bedeepened in the countries that have introduced them,and extended to countries that have not. The key reforms

Solar panel for the operation of a water pump, Senegal

Page 77: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

65

that need to be deepened and extended include:• Involving all key stakeholders in the governance of

agricultural research and extension institutions:Participation is especially important in settingpriorities, planning and programming, andmonitoring and evaluating activities and results.Special efforts and approaches will be needed toreach resource-poor subsistence farmers.

• Diversifying sources of income:- African research andextension services must deepen and extend reforms toincrease the level and stability of resources thatfinance their activities. For example, the SustainableFinancing Initiative, spearheaded by SPAAR and theUnited States Agency for International Development(USAID), is helping research institutions to find andtest new ways of collecting and disbursing funds.Mechanisms being explored include: - Collecting fees from the distribution of improved

seed and other technologies generated throughresearch;

• - Securing contracts for research;• - Obtaining royalties from intellectual property rights;• - Commercialising research;• - Obtaining grants from foundations;• - Co-financing projects with private firms, producer

groups, NGOs and investment agencies;• - Increasing governments’ contributions from

domestic revenues, including through funds madeavailable under the Highly Indebted Poor CountryInitiative (HIPC).

• Expanding the use of competitive funding mechanisms:Awarding grants on a competitive basis can improvethe efficiency and quality of research by opening upthe predominantly public sector research systems tocompetition from other actors in agricultural research,such as universities and the private sector. Competitivegrant schemes may also attract private resources toresearch by increasing the confidence of potentialfinanciers that resources will be used effectively.

• Opening up the agricultural research system to moreactors: Most countries have yet to make the specialeffort needed to increase the participation ofuniversities, NGOs and civil society in agriculturalresearch. Contracting out research and establishingpublic-private partnerships can help open the researchsystem to more actors. A highly promising model forpartnerships is the joint-venture developed betweenthe Institute for Genome Research in the UnitedStates and the Kenya-based International LivestockResearch Institute, to develop control methods forEast Coast Fever, a disease that kills one million cattlein the region each year.

• Provide resources to user groups that they can use topurchase services: To make research more responsiveto farmers’ needs, governments can provideearmarked resources to farmers’ organisations andother users of research outputs, that the recipients canuse to purchase services tailored to their needs.

• Linking agricultural research to extension services:Existing institutional barriers between technologydevelopment and technology transfer must be brokendown so as to promote the two-way flow ofinformation between farmers, extension services andresearch bodies.

• Providing attractive salaries and benefits: Researchinstitutions will have to provide attractive salaries andbenefits if they expect to attract and retain highlyqualified staff.

• Systematically monitoring and evaluating programmes:Systematically monitoring and evaluating researchand extension services allows decision-makers toassess whether programmes are effectively meetingtheir objectives and to quickly correct problems andadjust programmes. Good quality, independentmonitoring and evaluation can also help increase thesupport of financiers for programmes. Given thelong-term payoffs of research and extension and themultiple factors influencing national economicgrowth and reduction of poverty, most monitoringand evaluation efforts will have to focus on processand outputs rather than on programme impact. Still,governments and development partners shouldperiodically submit programmes for comprehensiveexternal analysis of impacts.

Policies to encourage innovation: To encourageinnovation, the following four types of policies areimportant:• Formulating science and technology policy: The

objectives are to promote innovation, facilitate tradein technology, protect the public from potential risksof new technologies, and define the expected futureroles of the public and private service providers andtheir interaction, the comparative advantages andmandates for central, sub-national, and local researchinstitutes, and the role of universities.

• Protecting intellectual property rights: While rulesabout intellectual property rights (IPRs) arecontroversial, such rules are becoming increasinglyimportant as the role of the private sector ininternational agricultural research grows andbiotechnology becomes more important. Clear rulesprotecting IPRs are important: they encouragedomestic innovation and encourage the transfer oftechnologies based on assurance that the recipientcountry will provide protection for patents andcorporate health; they assure the safety and efficacyof data; and they enable innovators to recoup theirinvestments in proportion to their scale and risk.

• Harmonising standards and regulations for seedcertification and trade in plants and animals:Harmonising standards for seed certification andagricultural trade will bring significant benefits byfacilitating the exchange of seed, planting material andanimals among countries and by reducing transactioncosts for firms. Harmonising standards will also foster

Page 78: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

66

the development of a regional market for seed, plantsand animals, which will allow firms to benefit fromeconomies of scale.

• Investing in capacity building for the long term:Capacity development is a process of plannedorganisational change that is intended to enhance theefficiency, effectiveness and sustainability with whichan organisation pursues its strategy, accomplishes itsmission, achieves its goals and delivers value tostakeholders. Capacity development may include theacquisition of resources, but it must also includelearning how to nurture, integrate and deployresources to achieve strategic goals. African researchneeds to pay great attention to all these dimensions ofcapacity development.

5.4.2. Technology Adoption: Reform Agenda atthe National Level

Extension institutions: Many countries have reformedtheir extension services to improve their relevance tofarmers and increase their efficiency, effectiveness andimpact. In many countries, extension services aremoving from a supply-driven approach withgovernment as the sole provider of advice, to a muchmore flexible and pluralistic demand-driven system.Key reforms include decentralising the administrationof field extension services; improving linkages betweenfarmers, educators, researchers, extension agents andothers; and increasing the independence and flexibilityof extension services by creating small and semi-autonomous units within government ministries.However, more needs to be done to deepen and

extend the reforms, with due sensitivity to the differentcapacities and attributes of African countries to adjust.The following are particularly important:• Decentralising responsibility and funding for field

extension services: Decentralising responsibilities andresources for extension to local governments,communities or producers’ organisations gives farmersa bigger role in designing, funding, governing,executing and evaluating extension programmes. Italso improves the responsiveness and accountability ofextension agents. The shift of responsibilities andaccountabilities helps ensure that farmers receive theservices they want.

• Contracting some or all field extension services:Contracting extension services from non-governmentalorganisations and private groups, universities, inputsuppliers or farmers’ organisations can improve theefficiency of delivery and accountability of extensionagents, especially where a choice of providers isavailable. Governments should set and enforcestandards for qualifications and performance, establisha registration system of agricultural service providers asprofessionals, and provide training.

• Sharing costs between national and local governmentand farmers: Progressively shifting the costs ofextension services away from national budgets meanssharing them among national governments, localgovernment, farmers’ associations, non-governmentalorganisations, donors and farmers. This makes thefinancing of extension services more sustainable andless dependent on national budgets.

• Systematically monitoring and evaluating pro-grammes and their impacts: The careful tracking of

Village women drying bananas, Uganda

Page 79: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

67

agreed indicators to measure progress, focusesattention on results; it should involve poor farmers toensure that programmes meet their needs.

Mechanisms to encourage farmers to adopt newtechnologies: Poor farmers operating on the edge ofsurvival can ill afford to take the risks of adopting newapproaches even if they correctly perceive the likelybenefits. Several approaches can reduce the risks thatfarmers face and thereby encourage them to adoptpromising technologies, namely:• Promoting the development of financially sound rural

financial services: Expanding access to rural financialservices, including credit, savings and insurance, andthe collateralisation of fixed and moveable property,can provide farmers with the finance they need toadopt new technologies. Governments shouldpromote the development of rural financial services,reduce their transaction costs and improve incentivesto save.

• Support for voluntary producers’ organisations thatreduce the risks and costs of adopting technology: Byprocuring inputs and market outputs more efficientlyand effectively than many small farmers acting alonecan do, producers’ organisations can reduce the costsand risks to farmers of adopting new technologies forproduction, processing and marketing. Governmentscan create an enabling environment for producers’organisations and can provide technical assistance tosuch associations.

• Sharing the risks and costs of adopting newtechnologies by offering matching grants toproducers’ organisations and other groups: Earlyadopters demonstrate to others the benefits of newtechnologies, but they also bear high risks. The publicsector can share the risks by providing matchinggrants to people willing to try and demonstrate newtechnologies, perhaps through community-drivendevelopment programmes.

• Enabling farmers to access knowledge from diversesources: With the demise or severe weakening of thecentralised extension services of governments, privateservice providers, including NGOs, have come intoplay. They may not always be available for serviceswhere there is little willingness of farmers to pay foradvice (in which case governments need to continueto serve), but where they are available, farmers needto be helped to organise and to be made capable ofdrawing upon these new sources of knowledge.There continue to be severe impediments to suchaccess, and since private services are taking time toemerge and to gain competence, governments willneed to continue to play an important role.

5.4.3. Strengthening Regional and Sub-regionalResearch Systems

Reforms are needed to strengthen the regional and sub-regional research systems. Many of the reforms that are

needed echo those required to enhance the efficiencyand effectiveness of the NARS. The most importantreforms are presented below.

Including all stakeholders in planning andcollaborative activities: As with NARS, the involvementof all key stakeholder groups in the planning andgoverning of the Forum for Agricultural Research inAfrica (FARA) and sub-regional research systems is criticalto ensure that their research activities are relevant andresponsive to the needs of producers, and that theiractivities complement rather than duplicate the activitiesof NARS and other organisations active in agriculturalresearch.

Achieving sustainable financing: To ensure that thefinancing of FARA and sub-regional organisations isstable and sustainable, member countries must providean increasing share of resources, with the long-termobjective of eventually phasing out external funding.One goal is that within five years, member countries orNARS should provide all funding for core activities.External partners can facilitate the transition to self-sufficiency by channelling most of their funds forregional and sub-regional agricultural research throughmember countries.

Expanding the use of competitive grants: The poolingof resources for regional or sub-regional research andthen allowing service providers to compete for funding isa promising way of boosting the productivity of Africanagricultural research. Several programmes are alreadyunderway. With the assistance of the European Union(EU) and USAID, the Association for StrengtheningAgricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa(ASARECA) has established a sophisticated regionalcompetitive fund. Le Conseil Ouest et Centre Africainepour la Recherché et le Développement Agricoles(CORAF/WECARD) is establishing a similar fund, withassistance from the EU, France and the AfricanDevelopment Bank. These programmes should beexpanded wherever feasible.

Building long-term capacity: As with NARS, regionaland sub-regional research systems need to buildcapacity for the long term. An important starting pointis for regional and sub-regional organisations toexamine their roles in relation to the NARS and otherresearch providers to ensure that they address nationalproblems and concerns and add value to ongoingnational efforts. The objective for the next generation ofregional and sub-regional programmes is to effectivelyintegrate national programmes and resources through adivision of labour among national institutions andprogrammes and through the creation of integratedregional teams.

Facilitating policy dialogue between countries ontechnology issues: A key role of FARA and sub-regional organisations is to facilitate dialogue betweencountries on technology issues.

Page 80: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

68

Systematically monitoring and evaluating theimpacts of programmes: Systematically trackingagreed output and outcome indicators would provideresearch managers with the information they need toadjust programmes so that they become increasinglyeffective.

5.4.4. Even with these reforms, more funding isneeded

Increasing spending on agricultural research andextension and improving the performance andefficiency of research centres and extension services arekey priorities for the new agenda set for Africa. The goalis to double the current annual spending on agriculturalresearch in Africa within 10 years. This means thatspending will need to increase by an average of 7.2percent a year during the next decade.

Current funding flows for research and extensionservices

The current funding framework is representedschematically in Figure 2. The current funding ofresearch and extension in Africa operates at four distinctlevels through a variety of financial instruments. • International agricultural research institutions: Funding

for international agricultural research institutionsoperating in Africa comes through grant mechanisms:- A multi-country non-competitive grant mechanism

to support international agricultural research centresof the CGIAR;

- A sub-regional competitive grant mechanism,through which projects are selected competitivelyon the basis of scientific merit (this applies toprogrammes funded by the EU); and

- National grant mechanisms to support advancedacademic and research institutions. Funds tosupport the operations of the CGIAR system comefrom members’ contributions. Members includeindustrial and developing countries, foundationsand international and regional organisations.Industrial countries, specifically the members of theDevelopment Assistance Committee of theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, contribute more than two-thirds ofCGIAR financing. The World Bank assumes the roleof donor of last resort.

• Regional and sub-regional organisations: Funding forregional and sub-regional organisations comes fromgrants of bilateral and multilateral donors. The Africanmember states bear some operating costs as well assubstantial in-kind contributions comprising facilitiesand staff.

• National agricultural research systems: Funding fornational institutions and programmes comes fromloans, grants from donors, government budgetaryallocations and user fees. Loans from the World Bankare by far the most important source of funds for mostcountries. Domestic resources are particularlyimportant in Botswana, Mauritius, and South Africa.

• Extension services: Most funding for extension servicescomes from government budgetary allocations.

The adequacy and stability of funding have becomemajor concerns for stakeholders. Moreover, littleprogress has been made in the co-ordination offunding for activities at various levels, despite theimprovements made in creating regional networks andprogrammes and the management of funding forregional activities.

Proposed new funding framework: Objectives andinstruments

Goal : The goal of the proposed financing frameworkis to promote a research system that is efficient,effective and has rapid and widespread impact onagricultural productivity. This will be achieved by givingfarmers, agribusinesses and other clients a muchgreater role in funding and governing the system. It willrequire increased government commitment to andleadership for agricultural research.

Objectives: The first objective of the new fundingframework is to increase the level and stability offunding for agricultural research at the international,regional and sub-regional levels, and country levels.The second is to achieve a better balance in resourceallocations to strengthen NARS (the weak links of theresearch and development system). The third is toencourage institutional reforms that will increase the

Researchers and extensionists examining a tomato crop,Sudan

Page 81: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

69

impact of research, including through regionalintegration and harmonisation of research programmesin the three main agro-geopolitical regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and through stronger partnerships withadvanced academic and research institutions.

Components: the proposed new system (representedschematically in Figure 3) will have four interrelatedcomponents:• National agricultural research institutions: Funding

for the national institutions will come from:• - Allocations from national budgets, income from

contract research, and user fees;• - Donors’ grants and loans channelled through a

sub-regional funding facility.

• Sub-regional organisations: Funding for the core andprogramme activities of the sub-regional organisationswill come through two distinct mechanisms:

• - Grants to fund the core functions of sub-regionalorganisations and the regional collaborativenetworks and programmes. Funds for core activitieswill come from earmarked grants of donorsmatched by country contributions. Funds forregional networks and programmes will come froma mix of grants and loans provided by membercountries. They will be allocated through acompetitive bidding process using regionalcompetitive funds.

• - Funds to the sub-regional organisations to allow

Figure 2: Current Funding Flows for Research and Extension Services

Grants

Loans

National Government budget

Private sector contributionsand users’ fees

International centresof excellence

Regional and subregionalorganisations

National systems

Extension services

Figure 3: New Funding Flows for Research and Extension Services

Grants

Loans

National Government budget

Private sector contributionsand users’ fees

International centresof excellence

Regional and subregionalorganisations

National systemsMulticountry credit line

Extension services

Page 82: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

them to buy services tailored to their specific needsfrom the CGIAR centres and other advancedresearch centres. These funds will be additional tothe resources earmarked for the CGIAR. Thisapproach will support the ongoing efforts of theCGIAR to align and tailor its programmes toregional needs. The sub-regional organisation andthe international agricultural research centreoperating in the region must jointly decide on thedefinition and implementation of the programmeand its monitoring and evaluation arrangements.The existing planning and oversight structures inthe CGIAR system and the sub-regionalorganisations must be used to ensure that researchprojects are relevant and of high quality. This newapproach must first be piloted and then scaled up.

• International agricultural research institutions:• - FARA - Funding for the core activities of FARA will

come from grant donors. FARA should remain alean and flexible organisation with a limitedbudget.

• - CGIAR - Funding for core activities of the CGIARwill come from grants, including system-wideinitiatives and challenge programmes. Funding ofthe CGIAR system must be maintained at no lessthan the current level. Incentives and acompetitive mechanism must be introduced toincrease impact of the centres’ operations.

• For extension service, funding will come fromgovernment budgetary allocations, private firms anduser fees.

Deepening institutional reforms to improve theimpact of research: The new financing system willencourage countries to deepen and expand theongoing institutional reforms to improve the relevanceand impact of research. It will encourage institutions tobe more responsive and accountable to stakeholders by(a) providing flexible financing for specific, demand-driven services to local, national and regionalstakeholder groups; (b) making greater use ofcompetitive grants to allocate funds for research; (c)improving the monitoring and evaluation ofprogrammes to strengthen linkages between inputs,outputs and impact; and (d) involving stakeholders inthe design, implementation, monitoring and evaluationof programmes. By financing regional and sub-regionalresearch programmes, it will help increase the impactof small national research programmes. By allowing allqualified organisations to compete for funding, it willhelp mobilise the intellectual resources and capacity ofnon-governmental organisations, rural organisations,universities and private agribusinesses as providers ofresearch, extension and advisory services.

Who will support the new system?: A consortium ofdonors and governments must support the newsystem. A core group of funding agencies andcountries must take the lead in advocating increased

funding. The new financing system must be viewedand accepted as the appropriate approach forsupporting the renewed CGIAR’s Africa agenda and forthe New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD).A small portion of the multi-country IDA funds may beused for capacity building of regional and sub-regionalresearch systems.

Implementation: It is envisaged that implementationof the proposed institutional reforms and new fundingframework can proceed as follows:• National, regional and sub-regional organisations will

lead the process: African policymakers and researchmanagers will further develop the concept andtranslate it into an action plan. Under the leadershipof FARA, they have already established a task forcewhose main responsibility is to prepare a frameworkfor action built from the African vision for agriculturalresearch and development, the Durban Declarationand this chapter. This framework for action will bepresented as the response of the African agriculturalresearch community to NEPAD.

• National agricultural research policies and strategieswill be developed and provide guidance for thereform agenda: The reform agenda should addressinstitutional and policy issues related to bothtechnology generation and transfer (and trainingwhenever possible). Research policies and strategiesshould be developed as key elements of the nationaldevelopment agenda and specified as nationalpriorities. A road map for sustainable financingshould be derived from these policies and strategies.This should be based on the continued financialcommitment of the government as well as on a firmsupport by the rural stakeholders (localgovernments, local communities, agribusinesses andproducers’ associations). Leadership must come fromwithin the national research and farmingcommunities. The World Bank and bilateral donorswill provide both intellectual and financial supportfor these national efforts.

The road to sustainable financing for regional and sub-regional organisations involves several steps: • Strengthening governance structures and strategic

planning processes. Research systems must becomemore inclusive, focus more on solving farmers’expressed problems, and build more effectivepartnerships with the entire research community.

• Focusing on programmes that add value to nationaland international programmes, and which systematicallymonitor and evaluate impact.

• Pursuing ongoing efforts to establish regionalendowed funds and competitive funds and exploreopportunities for alternative funding sources andmechanisms. Leadership to ensure sustainableregional collaborative efforts must come from bothNARS managers and agricultural policymakers suchas the Conference of Ministers of Agriculture. As part

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

70

Page 83: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

71

of the drive for sustainability of sub-regionalorganisations, this proposal opens an option for sub-regional organisations to purchase services fromCGIAR centres, advanced research institutions,private firms and others to address specific issues andto provide technical and scientific backstopping tonetworks. The EU, which has built a solid regionalprogramme, could continue to provide leadershipand help co-ordinate all external contributionsaccording to need.

Current efforts initiated by the CGIAR centresoperating in Africa in collaboration with the sub-regional organisations to rationalise and align theirprogrammes to regional needs and strategies, must beconsolidated and reflected in their governance andfunding processes. A key objective is to establish aunique priority-setting process at the sub-regional levelunder the responsibility of the sub-regionalorganisation. Under the new partnership arrangement,programmes to build regional capacity (training anddevelopment of advanced research infrastructure)should be a high priority. Likewise, national, regionaland sub-regional organisations could draw on thesystem’s technical and legal capacity to handle or buildcapacity on new or sensitive issues such as intellectualproperty rights and biotechnology.

5.5. The NEPAD Agricultural Research Agenda

The Forum for African Agricultural Research (FARA),with its member sub-regional organisations, theAssociation for Strengthening Agricultural Research inEast and Central Africa (ASARECA), the Conseil OuestAfricain Pour la Recherche et le DeveloppementAgricoles/ West and Central African Council forAgricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD) and the Southern Africa Centre for Co-operation in Agricultural Research and Training(SACCAR) have developed a ‘Vision for AfricanAgricultural Research’ and supported the NEPAD’s callfor 6 per cent annual growth in agricultural productivityin order to stem and reverse the decline in foodproduction and incomes of the rural poor in Africa.

This vision has been adopted by FARA in its strategyfor catalysing innovation and change in agriculturalresearch in Africa (FARA 2002). In May 2001, FARA, itssub-regional members and the CGIAR centres issued‘The Durban Statement’ reconfirming their full supportfor the African Vision and called "on the internationalresearch system, including the CGIAR Centres andadvanced research institutions to forge more effectiveand efficient partnerships with African NARS andachieve greater programmatic integration".

5.5.1 Challenges and Opportunities forAgricultural Research in Africa

Africa’s natural resources are rapidly being degradedbecause the required increase in production is being

derived from extensification due to the fact thatmarkets do not reward intensive management. Thisdegradation is manifested most noticeably indeforestation, genetic erosion and soil degradation,and particularly the loss of organic matter, underagricultural and pastoral use. This degradationinfluences many other resources and environmentalservices of importance to sustainable development. Itleads to serious distortions in the hydrological balance,impaired access to water resources, continuing loss ofplant genetic resources and encouragement of noxiousweed populations. In extreme cases, the loss isirreversible, resulting in the extinction of races ofprecious indigenous food crops and other usefulplants. It is estimated that about 0.7 percent of forestsin Africa are lost each year. Degradation of cropland issevere in Africa, affecting more than 65 percent of thecropped area. Degradation of pastureland is alsosevere, affecting 31 percent. The loss to the continent’seconomy from these sources is incalculable.

Soil degradation indicated by nutrient depletion andloss of organic matter, resulting from erosion andextraction and loss in excess of return, has a directnegative influence on agricultural productivity. This maybe the single most important constraint to food securityin Africa. Despite proposals for a diversity of solutions andthe investment of much time and resources by a widerange of institutions, it remains an intransigent problem.

There is growing acceptance that the agriculturalresearch problems remain intractable because of thefailure to deal with the issue in a sufficiently holisticway. For example, soil fertility decline is not a simpleproblem of nutrient depletion but interacts pervasivelyover time with a wide range of other biological andsocio-economic constraints to sustainable agro-ecosystem management. It is thus also a problem ofinappropriate germplasm and cropping system design,of interactions with pests and diseases, of the build-upof noxious weeds that reach chronic proportions andare difficult to control, such as striga, of the linkagebetween poverty and land degradation, of oftenperverse national and global policies with respect toincentives, and of institutional failures. Tacklingagricultural research issues thus requires a long-termperspective and holistic approach of the kind embodiedin the concepts of integrated agricultural research thatembraces the full range of driving factors andconsequences of soil degradation – biological, physical,chemical, social, economic and political and a strongemphasis on understanding and seeking to managethe processes that contribute to change.

Africa faces two major challenges. The first is toensure that its natural resources serve as the basis foreconomic growth that will result in more active andsustainable participation in the global economy. Thesecond is to ameliorate the degradation of the naturalresources and erosion of biodiversity in order toimprove the systems’ resilience. These challenges are

Page 84: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

72

made all the more daunting by the fact that it is notsufficient to simply stop the degradation. Consistentefforts must be made in the short to medium term tobuild up the resources to levels never before attained inorder to meet the demands of a population growing atmore than 3 percent a year.

As labour is one of the principal inputs to agriculturalproductivity in smallholder farming systems in Africaanything that can be done to improve its efficiency willimprove livelihoods, while any reduction in drudgery(less hoeing and hand-shelling post-harvest, which areoften women’s work) will facilitate the acquisition ofhuman and social capital. This will require thedevelopment of appropriate training materials and aidsfor both households and artisans.

The NEPAD agricultural research programme willaddress the need to make the paradigm shift away froma principally commodity-driven technological packageapproach to a truly integrated agricultural researchapproach and to ensuring that researchers (national andinternational) work together with smallholders andextension agencies, the private sector and NGOs tohave impact on the ground. The Programme’sgovernance and funding mechanisms will be organisedthrough FARA and its members, ASARECA,CORAF/WECARD and SADC/SACCAR, to provideincentives for scientists to make fundamental changesrather than presenting old approaches in a new ways.The Programme will reflect the urgency of achievingintensification at rates in excess of population growth

5.5.2. Goals, Purposes and Objectives

Goal: The partners in agricultural research see their rolein Africa by the year 2020 as having contributed to thegoals of the African agricultural research community, ofattaining food security and poverty alleviation throughresearch, policy support and capacity building based onthe environmentally sound management of naturalresources.

Purpose: To overcome the constraints to sustainableuse of Africa’s natural resources with improvedtechnologies and policies that will enable resource-poor smallholders and livestock producers in Africa toachieve sustainable improvements in their livelihoodsand thereby secure the future of Africa’s children.

Objectives: (i) to design technologies, policies andinstitutional options that provide solutions to theacceleration of poverty and resources degradation inAfrica (ii) to test the adoptability of these options in atotally participatory and iterative fashion, from farm toregional scale (iii) to develop appropriate mechanismsfor the wide scale dissemination and adoption of thetechnologies and for implementation of sustainableand supportive policy and institutional options (iv) toempower resource-poor farmers in Africa to managetheir natural resources and systems in a sustainablemanner in the face of change.

5.5.3. Research Components

Concept Generation

The selected themes originate from a consultativeprocess. Initiation of the New Partnership for Africa’sDevelopment (NEPAD) in October 2001 coincidedwith the culmination of long consultations betweenregional scientists themselves and with the CGIARCentres on improving the impact of agriculturalresearch in Africa. Those consultations had led, increative steps, to the formation of the sub-regionalorganisations for strengthening agricultural research(SROs), namely ASARECA, CORAF/WECARD andSACCAR, which jointly established the regionalForum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). Theestablishment of FARA completed the chain linkingAfrican agricultural scientists to the Global Forum forAgricultural Research (GFAR). Through FARA, allNARS in Africa are committed to the African Visionfor African Agricultural Research.

In response to the Vision for AfricanAgricultural Research and the 3rd CGIAR SystemReview, the CGIAR Centre Directors Committeeconvened meetings with African partners—Meeting of Minds I in Nairobi in May 1999;Stakeholder Meeting in Beijing, 22 May 1999;Meeting of Minds II in Abidjan in September1999; Meeting of Minds III Nairobi in March2001. These meetings brought together seniorrepresentatives from African national and regionalresearch organisations and their colleagues in theCGIAR Centres. Since 2001 numerous meetingshave been held, in the context of the regionalintegration of the activities of the CGIAR and itspartners in West and Central Africa and in Easternand Southern Africa. Representatives from NARS,farmers’ organisations, NGOs, SROs and non-CGIAR international institutions contributed tothese meetings.

This series of meetings was characterised by anew atmosphere of partnership and optimismthat the required impact will be realised throughcollaboration, which will be facilitated by thethree strong sub-regional agricultural researchorganisations of NARS. This NEPAD agriculturalresearch programme thus represents the currentstatus of this long series of consultationsamongst the major stakeholders and provides theopportunity to move from discussion to action.

The NEPAD Programme will be built onprogrammes and partnerships, which will beestablished through collaborative researchbetween the FARA, CGIAR centres, the NARSmembers of ASARECA, CORAF/WECARD andSACCAR and the wide range of collaborationsthat exist with advanced research institutionsglobally. A key feature of the NEPAD Programmeis that these collaborations will be enhanced onthe basis of equity among all partners who haveshared commitments to excellence in science andto capacity building for all scientists.

Page 85: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

73

The programme will be comprised of four sub-themesthat will collectively contribute to testing the centralhypothesis "that conservation and efficiency of use ofsoil and other natural resources will be optimised underconditions of market and/or policy and institution-driven productivity". The four research themes are:• Integrated Natural Resource Management (also

highly relevant to Chapter 2);• Adaptive management of appropriate germplasm (of

long-term importance to Chapter 4);• Development of sustainable market chains (essential

for the Special Programmes for Food Security inChapter 4 to achieve their objectives); and

• Policies for sustainable agriculture (important underlyingneed to support all chapters).

In addition, there is to be a crosscutting initiative, namely:• Scientific capacity building.

Each of these is given in summary form below; thedetails are available from FARA for use in the context ofthe operationalisation of the CAADP and of FARA andpartners’ own plans.

Research Theme 1: Integrated natural resourcemanagement

The entry point for the management of the naturalresource base for agriculture will be at the soils andwater levels – this makes the research directlyapplicable to Pillar No. 1 (Chapter 2).

Traditional elements of increasing nutrient and wateruse efficiency and building long-term fertility throughsoil organic matter lie at the heart of this agenda butare integrated with management of the hydrological

regime, pests and other elements of above- and below-ground biodiversity. A key new element in this researchagenda will be bridging spatial and temporal scales,from the plot, farm, landscape and regional scales. TheIntegrated Natural Resource Management (INRM)approach will be driven by a few dominant systemvariables, including soil fertility and watermanagement. In addition to coping with the short andlong term consequences of declining soil fertility andpoor water control, the INRM approach includesassisting farmers to cope with aggravated weedpressure, overt losses from insect damage, post-harvestmechanisation and poor labour use efficiency, devaluedformal services for knowledge, little or no credit andinput support and an insufficiently developedmarketing infrastructure.

A wide range of hypotheses will be tested. By linkinggood soil and water management practices to whole-farm requirements for sustainable and profitableproduction, this research will provide change agents inthe public and private sectors and the farmersthemselves with menus of options and means fordetermining which are most appropriate for their owncircumstances. It will also internalise participatoryapproaches to research for development in Africannational agricultural research and extension servicesand the NGO community. Tangible impacts will be:• optimal efficiency of use of inorganic and organic

inputs;• increased quality and health of the soil and water

resources;• user-friendly models for assessing new production

systems;

Dune fixation with windbreak fences, Mauritania

Page 86: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

74

• improved soil, water and biodiversity managementand conservation;

• decreased /reversed trends in deforestation, nutrientdepletion, soil erosion, genetic diversity erosion,water pollution;

• higher on-farm profitability;• better system resilience to severe shocks such as

drought, floods etc.;• improved extension materials and methods for

individuals, farmer field schools and research groups.

Research Theme 2: Adaptive management ofappropriate germplasm

This component will build on plant and livestockresearch that is aimed at developing high yieldinganimal breeds and plant varieties that are resistant todiseases and pests, adapted to the biophysicalconstraints of different eco-regions of Sub-SaharanAfrica, including to low soil fertility, drought and otherfeatures of climate change. This includes indigenousbreeds and varieties with adaptive characteristics andspecies domesticated to take advantage of nichemarkets for African farmers. This work will be linkeddirectly to component INRM, identifying and adaptinggermplasm that can be used to contribute to testingINRM hypotheses. It will include analysis of the trade-offs between different enterprises and of the trade-offsbetween increased productivity and increasedadaptation to environmental stresses. The benefits willbe assessed in terms of both sustainably increasedincomes and capital accumulation.

The prime products of this component will befarming systems made more resilient by the use of the

most appropriate mixes of traditional and non-traditional and exotic and indigenous species, varietiesand breeds that are best suited to the economic andecological circumstances of the producers. This is animportant, and for livestock possibly the only, means ofconserving farm plant and animal biodiversity. Theseproducts will contribute to the tangible impactsoutlined above. The corresponding impacts will be:• higher profitability of farming at the individual farm

level;• enhanced human and animal health and nutrition;• higher agricultural production at the regional and

national levels;• enhanced capacity of farmers to manage their

systems in a sustainable manner;• increased investment in soil fertility management;• enhanced efficiency of labour use.

Research Theme 3: Development of sustainablemarket chains

Poorly understood and poorly organised market chains,poor linkage among elements, and individual elementsmissing or poorly organised (e.g. farm inputs) severelylimit agricultural development in Africa. The marketconstraints that farmers encounter when attempting todiversify their production in order to stabilise andincrease their incomes have been well documented byIFPRI. These constraints are related to lack of access tomarket information, information asymmetry betweenproducers and sellers, and poorly organised inputmarkets, to name but a few. The objective here is toincrease market opportunities for smallholders, therebyincreasing their incomes and income stability, by

Testing and sample analysis

Page 87: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

75

focusing on (i) niche markets, and (ii) improved inputdelivery systems.

The research will test the hypotheses thatinadequate input and output markets are importantelements of poverty traps in Africa; and that cash cropsare more important than staple crops for raising theincome levels of farmers. It will producerecommendations for improving smallholder access tomarkets through better information and organisationand more effective and efficient delivery systems. Thecorresponding impacts will be:• improved farm gate prices;• more market opportunities for smallholders;• incentives for adopting improved natural resource

management practices

Research Theme 4: Policies for sustainableagriculture

Research in this component will focus on the interfacebetween technological change, institutional changeand policy environments. This will ensure that a policyframework is put in place that will ensure food securityand promote agricultural production while ensuringthat production is based on a broad genetic base and isecologically sustainable. Since there are few possibilitiesof expanding the cultivated surface area, especially ifwater catchments and other vital environmental servicesare to be preserved, achieving the targets set in theAfrican Vision for Agricultural Research will requireintensification of agriculture. Policy research will be acritical component that will bear on the development,adaptation and dissemination of new technologies foraccomplishing the purposes of the targets set in theAfrican Vision for Agricultural Research. Key policyproblems that will be addressed include instruments toaddress the trade-offs between private and social costsand between the benefits of soil, water and vegetationmanagement at different scales, i.e. farm, community,national and river basin scales.

The objective will be to generate policy options andimplementation mechanisms that result in increasedincomes, food security, fair trade and sustainable landuse through the adoption of sustainable practices. Thiswill include better informing policymakers and buildingtheir adaptive management capacity. A considerablenumber of hypotheses will be tested.

In addition, new international markets involvingtransfer payments for land users providing ecosystemservices (biodiversity, carbon sequestration, watershedprotection functions) are being developed, andsmallholders in Africa could benefit from such marketsif unanswered research questions are answered. As faras transfer payments are concerned, these provide avery unique opportunity to link the private sector withsmallholders in Africa, through carbon offsetmechanisms. There are very few cases of suchmechanisms in place in Africa but an example isprovided by the NGO FACE, which is facilitating an

arrangement between farmers in Uganda, who havebeen rehabilitating very degraded lands in the vicinity ofMt Elgon National Park, with the private sector in theNetherlands that is prepared to invest funds in tons ofsequestered carbon in the south, particularly when thisis done in a manner that benefits small-scale farmersand enables them to adopt sustainable practices.

Scientists engaged in this programme will benefit frominteractions with colleagues engaged in climate changeresearch to ensure that their research does not duplicatebut rather adds value, especially by improving knowledgeof field and pasture level soil carbon sequestration.

This research will result in policymakers having accessto viable options for promoting and enabling theadoption of technologies and marketing strategies forsustainable poverty alleviation. This in turn will result inreduced land degradation and enhanced livelihoods forthe rural poor.

The development of viable systems of transferpayments will provide opportunities for the privatesector in industrial countries, especially multi-nationals,to contribute to improving farming practices in Africa.This would provide African countries with win-winsolutions for matching local returns with nationalbenefits in negotiations over the extraction of rawmaterials. Impacts will be:• enhanced rural livelihoods;• a more sustainable and more profitable agricultural

sector;• an enhanced natural resource base for long-term

production, in particular with respect to biodiversity,land, soils and water;

• enhanced capacity of policymakers.

Cross-cutting Theme: Scientific capacity building

Over the past 30 years there has been significantprogress in building human and material capacity foragricultural research in Africa, However, capacity stillfalls far short of meeting Africa’s needs. Improvementsare required not only in the amount and quality oftechnical resources but also in research programmeplanning, systems management and governance. Thereis a need to revitalise degree-training programmes inorder to capitalise on the rich academic resources inAfrican universities.

The focus in this problem area is on building thecapacity of researchers in Africa to encompass newapproaches involved in agricultural research. This willinvolve multi-disciplinary approaches incorporatingsocial research as well as encompassing the differentbiophysical disciplines. The object is to enable Africansto set up working networks to set agendas which focuson the needs of the end-users, taking account of bothendogenous and exogenous constraints. Theprogramme will support the use of improvedmethodologies and will encourage a move away fromresearch aimed at generating publications to thatwhich addresses priority problems and which

Page 88: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

76

demonstrates a clear route to impact at the client level.In addition to providing opportunities for research forpostgraduate degrees, the Programme will provideopportunities for postdoctoral training and researchmanagement at all levels. It will also address the needto build the capacity of change agents to promote newapproaches to agricultural research.

An important goal stated in the African Vision forAgricultural Research is ‘to achieve a cadre of qualified,experienced and motivated agricultural research anddevelopment specialists, managers and policymakers tolead the region towards achieving its long-term goals’.

A consultative process to assure that trainingresponds to African needs has been establishedthrough the FARA-SRO-CGIAR-NARS Training Group.This NEPAD programme will contribute to:• enhancing NARS capacities in agricultural research,

which will incorporate appropriate elements ofsustainable use of genetic resources, integrated pestmanagement, policy research, biotechnology,information technology, technology disseminationand farm-level impact assessment;

• assisting NARS to develop systems for increasedpublic awareness and resource mobilisation;

• organising training for the more efficient use ofhuman resources, available physical facilities andpriority setting;

• developing NARS skills in managing organisationalchange and managing partnerships.

5.5.4. Co-ordination and Governance

Specific details for governance and management of theNEPAD agricultural research programme will bedeveloped through the extensive consultations leadingto final approval. However, the guiding principles havebeen developed and agreed in the extensive discussionsheld among national, regional and internationalpartners over the past years. These conform to theprinciples set out in the Durban Statement, i.e.:• inclusive partnerships which reach out to producer,

agribusiness and consumer organisations, as well asother development-oriented non-governmentalorganisations;

• substantive agenda based on programmaticpriorities;

• operational efficiency based on competition anddecentralisation;

• mutual respect and shared credit.

The establishment of FARA has provided an effectiveforum for co-ordinating work by national, regional andinternational partners in the development of proposalsand, in future, in the management and governance ofagricultural research programmes in Africa. Wepropose a flat management arrangement that willensure the minimal bureaucracy. But it will allow fordifferent approaches that are appropriate for NorthAfrica and for East and Central Africa, West and

Central Africa and Southern Africa, to enable them tobe consistent with the priorities of ASARECA,CORAF/WECARD and SADC/SACCAR respectively.

The NEPAD Steering Committee (NSC) would provideoverall oversight and leadership. FARA’s leadership willensure that the NSC has sufficient authority to makebinding decisions on the collaborators. The NSC willmeet in full session once a year to receive reports fromthe sub-regional Steering Committees, which will meeta minimum of once a year and more frequently ifnecessary.

It is likely that the NSC will establish an independentProgramme Advisory Committee (PAC) to provideindependent scientific advice. Further discussion isrequired on whether there should be just one PAC or ifthere should be sub-regional PACs. Once that isdecided, FARA will lead consultations with stakeholderson the membership.

Day to day management and planning will beentrusted to sub-regional organisations to ensure sub-regional integration and harmonisation of the NEPADagricultural research process.

5.6. Creating an Enabling Environment forAgricultural Research for Development

The purpose of the NEPAD agricultural researchprogramme is to increase agricultural output and ruralhousehold incomes. The programme promotes thesharing of knowledge, the development ofpartnerships and the transfer of high-impacttechnologies. The programme should work throughAfrican governments; businesses, trade associations,farmer groups and other organisations that help smallfarmers and agricultural enterprises become moreproductive. By helping these organisations learn aboutthe productive and profitable technologies availableand policy approaches that have worked elsewhere,the programme supports their work and promotes theadoption of improved agricultural policies,programmes and strategies

5.6.1. Expanding Partnerships with Policymakers,the Private Sector and NGOs

There will be a need to work hard to consolidate theagricultural research partnerships and expand them; thiswill have to go beyond agriculture-based organisationsto encompass the social care groups like the NGOs andfarmers’ organisations based in the rural areas. TheNGOs have become part of a "dynamic partnership infighting rural poverty" because they are flexible,innovative and strong social, economic and politicaladvocates for the poor. Historically the public sectorresearch organisations have not worked closely with theNGOs and this is an area in which the NEPADimplementing research organs should try to improve theNGO/NARS relationship for the good of the rural people.

Traditionally Africa has had a pro-public sector

Page 89: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

77

research approach, often regarding the private sectoras capitalistic and exploitative. Even when privatesector effort is made, most of it turned out to be thequasi-private organisations commonly known asparastatals. Most likely the next decade belongs tocountries that will be able to attract private interstateand/or out of state investors. The role of governmentsshould be more on the policy reforms so that investorsfeel secure and are therefore encouraged to bring backthe profits into the country or region. The private sectoris generally self-driven and it will thrive where thebusiness guidelines are clear. It is therefore importantthat NEPAD and its co-ordinating and implementingorgans, FARA, SROs, IARC and the NARS, take a clearposition of supporting the private sector for ruraldevelopment and creating the appropriate partnershipsbetween the public and private sectors. Efforts shouldbe made to formally create a private sector and NGOcommittee to enhance the partnerships of researchersfrom the NARS, SROs and the IARCs with these twoorgans of development; the objective being to providepolicy and programme options to increase employmentand income for Africans through expanded andefficient partnerships. Possible areas of sectoral focusshould include agri-business development, agriculturalmarketing and credit, and support to thetelecommunications sector.

5.6.2. Information Sharing and its Role in MarketDevelopment

Efforts should be made to enhance the communicationcapacity among the NARS researchers, many of whomare positioned in rural Africa. The programme shouldstrongly advocate investment in communicationtechnology and co-ordinate the preparation of acommunication master plan, probably regionally-based.It should also ensure that the link with the NEPADinitiative on infrastructure be made use of, with thestrategic aim of facilitating the integration of Internettechnologies into the Information and CommunicationManagement operations of the FARA, SROs, IARCs andNARS networks, programmes and projects.

Communication is a prerequisite for the effective co-ordination of research, and that is the logic of thisproject, the objectives of which are to:• reduce the cost of communication within the NARS; • improve the exchange of information among

research networks through the use of modernInformation and Communication Technologies (ICTs);

• enhance the research capacity of the NARs throughimproved communication and access to informationfrom within the NARs and from the global researchsystems;

• make information about the activities of theASARECA networks, programmes and projectsavailable on the Internet; and

• assist in building local capacity to support Internetconnectivity.

It is envisaged that the provision of electronicconnectivity should have considerable impact on thequality and cost of doing agricultural research in Africa.For agricultural research institutions, the direct resultwill be a considerable reduction in the cost ofcommunication, that is, lessened expenditure ontelephone, fax and courier services. For the networkmembers, easier and faster means of informationexchange should lead to enhanced research capacity.Further, scientists will be able to access the informationavailable on the Internet and also make contact withtheir peers in the global agricultural research systems.

An important output of the project is theenhancement of opportunities available to scientists,policymakers, extension workers, the private sector,NGOs and farmers’ organisations, for accessing virtuallibraries and exchanging information. This shouldimprove the technology transfer process and thus havedirect impact on the productivity and income offarmers in the region.

5.6.3. Marketing and Trade

It is difficult to do marketing and achieve effectivecommodity exchanges if communication is encumbered.It is therefore a primary responsibility to ensure thatcommunication systems are not left undeveloped, evenas we consider investing in other equally important areasof agriculture and agricultural research.

It has been said that the world is drowning ininformation but starved of knowledge. For Africa onecan, in fact, extend the observation and argue thateven information generation is inadequate, a verydisadvantageous situation in many ways. Historically,the colonisation of Africa left the continent with alegacy of language and cultural divide, which in a waystill persists even as Africa tries to reunite andstrengthen itself as a trading block. The paradox of it allis that Africa still has to obtain and process itsinformation through the clearing houses of Europe andAmerica, making it somewhat vulnerable when itcomes to orienting itself for competitive positioning. Ifthe situation were to change, Africa would have toreorganise the way in which it acquires and processesinformation, especially when it intends to use it toobtain comparative advantage.

One of the most critical researchable areas thereforeis the development of applicable and accessible marketintelligence to enable Africa to promote intercontinentaltrade to the advantage of its peoples. In the past,Africa has been a raw material source for othereconomies which added value to the materials throughthe manufacturing process and then sold the same toAfrica at a high price. If indeed information wasavailable in the right format, it is possible that Africawould turn the same into products for trade. It is onlywhen it gets to this stage that Africa can become a keyplayer in global trade, giving it a chance for theanticipated growth and alleviation of poverty. NEPAD

Page 90: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

78

and its implementing organs have a major role to playin the process of passing the right information for theavailable opportunities for growth. Currently it wouldseem that there is limited profiling of agricultural tradewithin Africa, and one of the most critical roles thatFARA could play would be to enhance the cataloguingof agricultural trade, working in tandem with otherefforts like FAO and AU.

For agro-business to grow fast enough for the targetof 2020 to be met, the information processing willhave to be faster than it has been before. In manycircumstances African governments are yet to fullyliberalise the availability of the Internet, and it will takethe counsel of a product-oriented group like FARA toshow the link between information flow and growth. IfFARA works closely with others it could enhance thepossibility of triggering the mobilisation of intra-Africatrade and investment resources.

5.6.4. The Role of African Women in RuralDevelopment

Special attention must be given to the vital food-producing and entrepreneurial roles of women in ruraland urban African communities. African womenaccount for substantial amounts of production in boththe informal and formal sectors. Research has shownthat women entrepreneurs not only reinvest in theirbusinesses but also place high value on socialinvestments in their communities. Historically, Africanwomen have engaged in international commerce andtrade. If indeed rural Africa has any chance, theproducers must have adequate information on whichto base their decisions. They must also have hope that

they will finally receive compensation for their labour.To date there are very few African dispensations

providing this very basic information, and one of themost important roles that FARA can thus play is topromote investment in information kiosks through theNARS, making it a cultural norm that the NARS willendeavour to provide both production and tradeinformation. The efforts of the FAO statistical dataneed not be repeated but can be localised to fit thesituation and utilisation.

More importantly, the provision of information toproducers and processors allows them to enter thepolicy debate. Africa has suffered greatly from externalpolicy formulation, which obviously has not succeeded.Research on agricultural market reforms has shownthat the liberalisation programmes adopted by manydeveloping countries in the past two decades have hadlimited success in developing private, efficient andcompetitive agricultural markets. Instead, transactionscosts and risks remain high, and policies designed toimprove incentives for agricultural production oftenhave had little impact on small farmers and the ruralpoor, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Evidence suggests that a major reason why pastreforms have had limited impact is that institutionaland structural deficiencies have not been properlyaddressed. In particular, four main types of institutionscan contribute to the efficient functioning ofagricultural markets:• marketing institutions such as co-operatives, farmers'

and traders' associations, credit clubs, commodityexchanges and contract farming;

• infrastructural institutions such as those regulating or

Women harvesting coffee, Malawi

Page 91: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

79

maintaining public goods, including roads,communication networks, extension services, storagefacilities and market information services;• regulatory institutions such as laws regarding market

conduct and the enforcement of contracts,ownership rules and property rights, and grades andstandards; and

• government and political institutions that have thecapacity to monitor the emergence of markets andsupport their development.

FARA may be able to stimulate some of the growthareas by providing examples of success. Much toooften, Africa receives only gloomy news of failure anddeprivation; perhaps a bank of positive informationmay provide hope and reinvigorate determination tothe struggling rural poor.

5.7. Investments in Agricultural Research andExtension

The New African Initiative calls for major newinvestment funding in agricultural research fromdevelopment agencies, the private sector and Africangovernments. The goal is to double the current annualspending on agricultural research in Africa within 10years. This means that spending will need to increase

by an average of 7.2 percent a year during the nextdecade. With this rationale, the total investmentrequirement for Agricultural Research, TechnologyDissemination and Adoption to support activities at thenational, sub-regional and regional levels is estimatedat US$4.598 billion by 2015, reflecting a rise of 7.2percent in annual commitment from US$0.199 billionin 2002 to US$0.496 billion in 2015.

The immediate investment requirements (2002-2005) – including overhead costs of 10 percent –would amount to some US$0.9 billion, while short-term requirements (2006-2010) would amount tosome US$1.5 billion and medium-term requirements(2011-2015) would total some US$2.2 billion (seeAppendix Table 1).

5.8. Next Steps

The challenge now is to reach consensus on theproposed concept among stakeholders of theinternational and African agricultural research systems.The concept was discussed first in the context of theAfrican Caucus, which met in October 2000 prior tothe annual meeting of the CGIAR. It was furtherdeveloped and validated by the FARA GeneralAssembly and Executive Committee at their 2001

Women farmers attending an extension meeting, Zambia

Page 92: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

80

meetings. The concept has been used to formulate aproposal for a FARA programme to fit within theframework of NEPAD.

A consensus was reached in the World Bank throughinternal consultations on the CGIAR reform process. TheWorld Bank’s Africa Region has taken a particular interestin establishing the proposed multi-country fundingfacility. Once an agreement is reached with interestedAfrican countries, staff will start designing a multi-country agricultural research programme (MARP) forAfrica. The MARP will be structured as a horizontaladaptable programme loan that will consist of individualoperations in African countries. To be eligible toparticipate, countries must commit to (a) implementinstitutional reforms, (b) collaborate regionally, (c) developarrangements for decentralised implementation, (d)provide adequate domestic resources to finance theirshare of the costs, and (e) develop strategic plans foragricultural research.

Because building effective agricultural researchsystems is a medium and long-term challenge, the MARP

will be phased over an estimated period of 20 to 25years. Phase 1 will provide resources for an initial periodof five years to help as many countries as possibleimplement institutional reforms. Subsequent phases willbe designed to strengthen linkages among national,regional and international institutions, take advantage ofeconomies of scale, and accelerate the dissemination ofknowledge. The ultimate goal of the MARP is to increaseagricultural productivity, accelerate growth, generateincome, reduce poverty and contribute to sustainablenatural resources management.

In the wider research community, the challenge is tomove from consensus building to action. The conceptwas presented and discussed with a broad range ofpartners during the recently concluded Plenary Sessionof the FARA. Especially important are consultationswith the EU and European countries, the AfricaDevelopment Bank, the USAID and the InternationalFund for Agricultural Development.

Page 93: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

81

Annexes

Background

African Ministers of Agriculture met at FAOHeadquarters in Rome, Italy on 9th June 2002 underthe auspices of the FAO Regional Conference for Africa,which held the special follow-up session meeting toreview the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture DevelopmentProgramme (CAADP) prepared by FAO in co-operationwith the NEPAD Steering Committee.

At its substantive session held in Cairo, Egypt 4-8February 2002, the Twenty-second Session of the FAORegional Conference for Africa had discussed the NewPartnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and, interalia, through resolution ARC/02/RES recommended thatFAO extend support to the NEPAD process.

The Conference noted that the CAADP was designedin recognition of the fact that African agriculture facesa major crisis, with large numbers of people facing foodshortages, net dependency on imports and food aid,and frequent disasters requiring emergency food andagriculture interventions. In view of this crisis situation,the CAADP focussed on investment into three mutuallyreinforcing "pillars" that can make the earliestdifference to Africa’s situation, which are: (i) extendingthe area under sustainable land management andreliable water control systems; (ii) improving ruralinfrastructure and trade-related capacities for improvedmarket access; and (iii) increasing food supply andreducing hunger in Africa.

The first pillar focuses on irrigation and watermanagement in order to disengage African agriculturefrom dependence on unpredictable rainfall; the secondone promotes rural infrastructure to reduce the cost ofproviding inputs and of extracting produce, thusmaking African agriculture more competitive; the thirdpillar stresses direct promotion of more productive waysof agriculture, especially among small-scale farmers,both male and female, the poorest segment of thesociety. The CAADP also pays attention to the growingfrequency and severity of disasters and emergencieswith disruptive effects on food and agriculturalsituations and to the need for better market access forAfrica’s products, both internally and globally.

To combat these ills afflicting Africa’s agriculture andto achieve the sector’s early revival, the CAADPproposes investment till 2015 of about US$241 billion,including provision for maintenance and operation

(US$69 billion), and funding for emergencies andsafety nets (US$35 billion); of this total it has beensuggested in the CAADP that Africa itself couldpotentially fund about half the total needs. Theseestimates were also presented in terms of theimmediate future 2002-2005 of some US$56 billion;the short term 2006-2010 at US$97 billion; and themedium term 2011-2015 at US$88 billion. The annualaverage investment is, at US$17 billion, lower thanAfrica’s annual agricultural import bill.

The Conference welcomed and endorsed the CAADPand agreed on the need to quickly operationalise it. Itoffered guidance to member governments on a widerange of aspects of operationalisation and action torevitalise African agriculture. Its report, which is in adraft being finalised, states:

Summary of principal considerations

By way of areas of emphasis, the Conference:

1. Underscored its belief that as the mainstay of theAfrican economy, agriculture should be mainstreamedand linked to the development of other sectors andprogrammes under NEPAD. It also called foragriculture to adopt environmentally sustainablepractices.

2. Emphasised that the implementation of the NEPADactivities be carried out in an integrated mannerand in full collaboration with individual countries aswell as with the existing regional and sub-regionalinstitutions.

3. Recognised the need to address issues of concern tosmall island states, of land-locked countries and ofthose threatened with land degradation anddesertification.

4. Highlighted the importance of developing theinstitutional and human capacity and the involvementof small producers, and particularly rural women, inthe NEPAD process.

5. Requested that sub-sectors of fisheries, livestockand forestry be given adequate attention in theNEPAD efforts.

6. Called for political commitment to address areas ofpotential conflict and development of mechanismsfor the management of shared natural resources,including water.

Annex 1:Consideration of the NEPAD Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Programme by the Meeting of African Ministers of AgricultureFAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy

(9th June 2002)

Page 94: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

82

Recommendations

Noting the commitment of Africa under NEPAD to takeresponsibility for its own development, the Conferenceaddressed its recommendations principally to theGovernments of Africa and to its Regional EconomicOrganisations. It recommended:1. As the next step, to prepare a plan of action

incorporating national and regional plans, toinclude the timeframe for the implementation ofthe programme, as well as the specification of theexpected outputs and performance indicators.

2. To prepare projects for financing at the regional,sub-regional and national levels under theframework of the CAADP priorities and that indoing this, attention be given to country and sub-regional diversity.

3. To devise a concerted strategy involving the Ministersfor Agriculture, Finance and Planning for raising thefunding of agriculture and rural development inorder to enhance the proper funding of NEPADagriculture-related programmes. In this connection,the Meeting noted that a target of 25 percent ofannual national budget was adopted by the 21stRegional Conference for Africa held in Yaoundé inFebruary 2000. The countries should also approachtraditional and new partners for supporting Africanefforts in implementing the CAADP.

4. To highlight and incorporate agricultural researchinto the CAADP while exploring the possibility ofcreating sub-regional centres of excellence and anagricultural trust fund for research and develop-ment.

5. That the NEPAD Steering Committee, operatingthrough the initiating country responsible foragriculture – currently Egypt – establish a committee tofollow up this Ministerial Meeting in order to providepolitical oversight, monitor the implementation ofCAADP and facilitate the engagement of all countriesin the future NEPAD developments on agriculture.

6. To cast the NEPAD efforts for development withinthe framework of the countries’ poverty reductionand food security strategies, which are presently themost agreed upon frameworks for country-ownedinitiatives targeted at poverty reduction.

7. To prepare a proactive plan of action for enhancingthe role and contribution of the private sector andcivil society in the implementation of NEPADagricultural programmes, including in upstream anddownstream agriculture-related activities.

Furthermore, the Conference:

8. Drew attention to the serious intention andcommitment of Africa to allocate increased domesticresources to agriculture and rural development, andurged the international community to play its part insupporting African countries in formulating projectsand programmes to bring to reality the continent’svision of a prosperous agriculture, thereby reducinghunger and poverty.

9. Called upon FAO to maintain its co-operation withthe NEPAD Secretariat in the spirit of the CairoRegional Conference resolution (ARC /02/RES) asthe process moves towards operationalisation ofAction Programmes.

Page 95: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

83

G8 Africa Action Plan

We, the Heads of State and Government of eight majorindustrialised democracies and the Representatives ofthe European Union, meeting with African Leaders atKananaskis, welcome the initiative taken by AfricanStates in adopting the New Partnership for Africa'sDevelopment (NEPAD), a bold and clear-sighted visionof Africa's development. We accept the invitation fromAfrican Leaders, extended first at Genoa last July andreaffirmed in the NEPAD, to build a new partnershipbetween the countries of Africa and our own, based onmutual responsibility and respect. The NEPAD providesan historic opportunity to overcome obstacles todevelopment in Africa. Our Africa Action Plan is theG8's initial response, designed to encourage theimaginative effort that underlies the NEPAD and to lay asolid foundation for future co-operation.

... Our Action Plan focuses on a limited number ofpriority areas where, collectively and individually, we canadd value.....

III. Fostering Trade, Investment, Economic Growthand Sustainable Development

Generating economic growth is central to the NEPAD'sgoal of mobilizing resources for poverty reduction anddevelopment.... the particular importance of infrastructurehas been emphasized by our African partners – includingas a domain for public-private investment partnerships,and as a key component of regional integration anddevelopment. In order to achieve adequate growth rates,Africa must have broader access to markets. The launch ofmultilateral trade negotiations by World TradeOrganization (WTO) members in Doha, which placed theneeds and interests of developing countries at the heart ofthe negotiations, will help create a framework for theintegration of African countries into the world tradingsystem and the global economy, thus creating increasedopportunities for trade-based growth. We are committedto the Doha development agenda and to implementingfully the WTO work programme, as well as to providingincreased trade-related technical assistance to help Africancountries participate effectively in these negotiations.With these considerations in mind, we commit to:

3.1. Helping Africa attract investment, both from withinAfrica and from abroad, and implement policiesconducive to economic growth – including by:

....3.2. Facilitating capacity-building and the transfer of

expertise for the development of infrastructureprojects, with particular attention to regionalinitiatives.

3.3. Providing greater market access for Africanproducts – including by:

....

• Reaffirming our commitment to conclude negotia-tions no later than 1 January 2005 on further tradeliberalisation in the Doha round of multilateraltrade negotiations, taking full account of theparticular circumstances, needs and requirementsof developing countries, including in Africa;

• Without prejudging the outcome of thenegotiations, applying our Doha commitment tocomprehensive negotiations on agriculture aimedat substantial improvements in market access,reductions of all forms of export subsidies with aview to their being phased out, and substantialreductions in trade-distorting domestic support;

• Working toward the objective of duty-free andquota-free access for all products originating fromthe Least Developed Countries (LDCs), includingAfrican LDCs, and, to this end, each examininghow to facilitate the fuller and more effective useof existing market access arrangements; and,

• Ensuring that national product standards donot unnecessarily restrict African exports and thatAfrican nations can play their full part in therelevant international standard setting systems.

3.4. Increasing the funding and improving the qualityof support for trade-related technical assistanceand capacity-building in Africa – including by:

....• Assisting African producers in meeting product

and health standards in export markets; and, • Providing technical assistance to help African

countries engage in international negotiations,and in standard-setting systems.

3.5. Supporting African efforts to advance regionaleconomic integration and intra-African trade –including by:

....• Working towards enhanced market access, on a

WTO-compatible basis, for trade with Africanfree trade areas or customs unions;

• Supporting the efforts of African countries toeliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers withinAfrica in a WTO-consistent manner; and,

• Supporting efforts by African countries to worktowards lowering trade barriers on imports fromthe rest of the world.

3.6. Improving the effectiveness of Official Develop-ment Assistance (ODA), and strengthening ODAcommitments for enhanced-partnership countries– including by

....

Annex 2:Extracts from the G8 Africa Action Plan released at the G-8 summit inKananaskis (Canada) that are directly relevant to NEPAD agriculture

Page 96: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

84

VII. Increasing Agricultural Productivity

The overwhelming majority of Africa's population isrural. Agriculture is therefore the principal economicpreoccupation for most of Africa's people. Agriculture iscentral not only to the quality of life of most Africans,but also to the national economy of nearly all Africanstates. Increased agricultural production, efficiency anddiversification are central to the economic growthstrategies of these countries. In support of the NEPAD'sgrowth and sustainable development initiatives onagriculture, we commit to:

7.1. Making support for African agriculture a higherinternational priority in line with the NEPAD'sframework and priorities – including by:• Supporting the reform and financing of

international institutions and research organisationsthat address Africa's agricultural developmentpriority needs;

• Supporting efforts to strengthen agriculturalresearch in Africa as well as research related toissues and aspects that are of particular importanceto Africa; and,

• Working with African countries to improve theeffectiveness and efficiency of ODA for agriculture,rural development and food security where thereare coherent development strategies reflected ingovernment budget priorities.

7.2. Working with African countries to reduce povertythrough improved sustainable productivity andcompetitiveness – including by:• Supporting the development and the responsible

use of tried and tested new technology, includingbiotechnology, in a safe manner and adapted tothe African context, to increase crop productionwhile protecting the environment throughdecreased usage of fragile land, water andagricultural chemicals;

• Studying, sharing and facilitating the responsibleuse of biotechnology in addressing developmentneeds;

• Helping to improve farmers' access to key marketinformation through the use of traditional andcutting edge communications technologies, whilealso building upon ongoing international collabo-ration that strengthens farmers' entrepreneurial skills;

• Encouraging partnerships in agriculture and waterresearch and extension to develop, adapt and adoptappropriate demand-driven technologies, includingfor low-income resource-poor farmers, to increaseagricultural productivity and improve ability tomarket agricultural, fish and food products;

• Working with African countries to promoteproperty and resource rights;

• Supporting the main-streaming of gender issuesinto all agricultural and related policy togetherwith targeted measures to ensure the rights ofwomen for equal access to technology, technical

support, land rights and credits; • Working with African countries to support the

development of agricultural infrastructure includingproduction, transportation and markets; and,

• Working with African countries to develop soundagricultural policies that are integrated intoPoverty Reduction Strategies.

7.3. Working to improve food security in Africa –including by:• Working with African countries to integrate food

security in poverty reduction efforts and promotea policy and institutional environment thatenables poor people to derive better livelihoodsfrom agriculture and rural development;

• Working with appropriate international organisationsin responding to the dire food shortages inSouthern Africa this year;

• Working with African countries to expand effortsto improve the quality and diversity of diets withmicro-nutrients and by improving fortificationtechnologies;

• Supporting African efforts to establish food safety andquality control systems, including helping countriesdevelop legislation, enforcement procedures andappropriate institutional frameworks; and,

• Supporting efforts to improve and betterdisseminate agricultural technology.

VIII. Improving Water Resource Management

Water is essential to life. Its importance spans a wide rangeof critical uses – from human drinking water, to sanitation,to food security and agriculture, to economic activity, toprotecting the natural environment. We have noted theimportance of proper water resource management. Wenote also that water management is sometimes at thecentre of threats to regional peace and security.

We also appreciate the importance of good watermanagement for achieving sustainable economicgrowth and development, and therefore we commit to:

8. Supporting African efforts to improve waterresource development and management –including by:

• Supporting African efforts to promote theproductive and environmentally sustainabledevelopment of water resources;

• Supporting efforts to improve sanitation andaccess to potable water;

• Mobilizing technical assistance to facilitate andaccelerate the preparation of potable water andsanitation projects in both rural and urban areas, andto generate greater efficiency in these sectors; and,

• Supporting reforms in the water sector aimed atdecentralization, cost-recovery and enhanceduser participation.

Updated: 2002-06-27

Source: http://www.g8.gc.ca/kan_docs/afraction-e.asp

Page 97: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

85

Annex 3:Provisional list of actions required to achieve success in

agricultural development under NEPAD

The ideas in this section came from consultations in Africa organised for NEPAD by theSouth African National Department of Agriculture.

National Level

i) Increasing capacity to support farmerproductivity

Highlight the important role that agriculture plays in thefood security and economic welfare of rural people,affecting over 70 percent of the population in mostAfrican countries. Set targets for the required capacitiesand deliverables. Governments should commit themselvesto review their national research and extension systemsand implement the reforms required to improve nationalresearch capacity and efficiency. Extensive reviews andanalyses of national agricultural research systems inAfrica over the past 20 years indicate that funding foragricultural research will need to double from thecurrent allocation of US$1 billion annually in the next 10years. The additional funding is required to trainscientists, with more at PhD level (a target of 12 000scientists compared to the present 8 000 has beenrecommended), rehabilitate and restructure researchinstitutions and strengthen the extension services.

ii) Establishment of partnership between publicand private sector for increased investment

Promote collaboration between the public and privatesectors in post-harvest management – storage, distribution,processing and marketing – should be given strongemphasis and support. The public and private sectors shouldbe encouraged to share costs and risks to assist smallholdersin the adoption of new technology through povertyreduction programmes and debt relief. Increased attentionshould be given to national food security programmesduring discussions regarding poverty reduction and debtrelief. There should also be a commitment to use matchinggrants or other appropriate interventions to assistsmallholders in adopting new technology when needed,while taking due care to minimize distortions.

iii) Increase the efficiency and use of water supplyfor agriculture

By establishing small-scale irrigation facilities, improvinglocal water management, and increasing the exchangeof information and technical know-how with othercountries in the region.

iv) Improve the security of land tenure fortraditional and modern farming

By introducing appropriate land reform.

v) Enhance agricultural credit and financingschemes

Through improvement of access to credit by small-scaleand women farmers.

Regional Level

Review the structures and programmes of regional andsub-regional institutions. Where appropriate establishresearch programmes and/or institutions on specific cropsand livestock species. Seek to increase funding for earlywarning systems, where such exist, or solicit new fundsto establish such facilities. Ensure that strategies are inplace for food emergencies. Promote intra- and inter-regional trade by adopting international sanitary andphyto-sanitary standards, and by reducing or eliminatingtariffs on cross-border trade through harmonisation ofagricultural policies and strengthening of regionalsynergies developed under the south-south co-operation.

International Level

Establish capacity to: • Develop new partnership to address donor fatigue for

individual high profile agricultural projects.• Promote co-operation with developed countries

carrying out and developing research and developmentcapabilities in agriculture.

• Promote access to international markets by improvingequality of African produce and agricultural products,particularly processed products, to meet the standardsrequired by those markets.

• Support African networking with external partners inthe areas of agricultural technology and know-how,extension services and rural infrastructure.

• Support investment in research in the areas of highyielding crops and durable preservation and storagemethods.

• Provide support for building national and regionalcapacity for multilateral trade negotiation includingfood sanitation and other agricultural trade regulations.

Key issues to be considered in implementing theCAADP

Building on a solid knowledge base

The national strategies in many countries offer a soundbase already in place to develop programmes and projectswhich reflect the collective aspirations of their people.

Page 98: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

86

There are also now regional agricultural strategies basedon the findings and key policy recommendationsemerging from the national strategies of the membercountries of such organisations. At the regional level thestrategies have been developed further into regionalprogrammes for food security to complement nationalefforts.

Deepening policy reform

Policy reform and harmonisation and complementaritywith sectors other than agriculture is needed, in order tohelp lift agriculture and household income onto ahigher growth path. In the light of the decision byAfrican Heads of State to dissolve the OAU and createan African Union based on, among other things, theprinciples of effective economic governance, there isnow an opportunity to articulate Agricultural Policiesand imperatives at a continental level.

Work will need to be undertaken to establish buildingblocks towards the establishment of institutionalcapacity for deepening policy reform. Uppermost in theaction steps is the need for a forum of Ministers ofAgriculture on the African continent to serve as adecision-making body that then reports to the relevantorgan of the African Union. Such a council would needto have the necessary supporting technical structuresand appropriate leadership for the pillars of the CAADP.

Access to and investment in land and waterresources

Land distribution is considered to be a potentinstrument for poverty reduction. Small farms provide asteady livelihood for the poor, use labour intensively,and can be highly productive if macro-economic policiesare right, as has been demonstrated by a number ofAsian countries. Secure property rights create incentivesfor long-term investment and sustainable land use.Policies supporting equitable distribution of land have,in some Asian and Latin American countries, beenshown to improve access to credit, boost agriculturalproductivity and reduce poverty. In this regard, genderbias and obstacles to women’s access to land deservespriority attention and prompt action. Despite lingeringconstraints and difficulties, agrarian reformprogrammes have already been initiated in someAfrican countries. Another lingering constraint in manyAfrican countries is the fragmentation of holdings, amajor competitive disadvantage under the newenvironment of market liberalisation.

Problems and issues associated with water resourcesare varied and complex. The problem of water access inAfrica and particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa is not thequantity of water available but its uneven distributionacross regions, seasons, and gender and incomegroups. Competing demand for urban householdsversus the rural areas, and industrial uses versusagriculture, are increasingly causing social tensions. This

tension is also apparent across national boundaries insome of the major river basins of Africa. Low efficiencyin water use is also a major constraint. In North Africa,where dependence on surface and underground wateris very high, the rate of water resource degradation, e.g.through underground water mining and water pollution,poses an increasing threat to the future sustainability ofagricultural production in the region.

NEPAD can benefit from taking stock of the proposedAfrica land and water initiative under CAADP and theintegrated land and water management actionprogramme led by the World Bank.

Capitalizing on existing initiatives

There are various national and sub-regional initiativeswhich are currently at the resource mobilization stage aswell as regional research centres in Africa where a lot ofexperience and achievement must be energisedthrough NEPAD.

The challenge is to identify which ones relate mostclosely to the pillars of the CAADP. Internationally,examples are the World Bank’s strategy document forsustainable rural development, the FAO SpecialProgramme for Food Security and the programmes ofthe Forum for Agriculture Research in Africa (FARA).

Facilitating investment

There is an urgent need to increase domestic savingsrates in Africa. According to the World Bank grossdomestic savings rates in many countries are barely 5percent or less of the GDP, relative to levels of 20percent or more in even poor Asian countries.Improving rural people’s access to credit and improvingrural financial infrastructure will help mobilise savings.Most of the private sector on-farm investment will haveto come from farmers’ own current income. An increasein both public and private agricultural investmenttherefore depends fundamentally on rising earnings andsavings for farmers.

Agricultural Credit versus Rural Financial Services

Improved access to durable financial intermediationservices may facilitate the financing of viableinvestments, enhance the productivity of assets, andthereby enable rural people to make better use ofexisting resources such as land, labour, andmanagement skills. Lessons should be learned from theperformance of earlier schemes that failed to provesustainable.

Importance of Domestic Savings Deposit Services

In the new market environment there is a trade-offbetween the requirements of rural households to haveaccess to durable financial services at reasonable costand the difficult challenge which financial institutionsface to cover fully the high costs and risks associated

Page 99: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

87

with rural financial intermediation. There is evidence,however, that viable and sustainable rural financialinstitutions are able to service low-income rural clients,both directly by increasing their outreach as well asindirectly by financing larger entrepreneurs andfacilitating local employment creation. Therefore,initiatives which support the operation of viable andcompetitive financial service providers in rural areas areextremely important.

At all-Africa level, some estimates suggest that foreach dollar of capital inflow to Sub-Sahara Africa fromthe rest of the world, a dollar and six cents flowed out– this needs priority attention.

Adequate Rural Finance Policies and InvestmentFinance Strategies

An enabling environment, right policies, the availability ofprofitable rural investment opportunities, and thecapability of local communities and clients themselves toplan and use their money effectively are equally critical inthe process of developing effective rural financial services.

Strategies for Resource Mobilization

Developing a communication strategy

NEPAD agriculture opportunities need to be "sold" andpromoted. Therefore, a communications activity isessential for constituency building for agriculture andfor drawing the attention of potential investors toopportunities. It must be done early. Creatingawareness of opportunities should be targeted at allinvestors but also at niche mechanisms and instrumentssuch as (for research) the World Bank initiative onAfrican Agricultural Research and Development(Increasing Effectiveness and Financial Sustainability).This initiative aims to increase the effectiveness ofagricultural research through institutional and financialreforms of the African Technology Development andTransfer System (TDT).

On ground implementation of projects

This needs to follow prioritisation at national and sub-regional levels.

Page 100: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

88

Tables

Table 1: Orders of Magnitude for Africa's Contribution to Investment

Investment:Land and water investment 10 4 20 10 7 4 37 18Rural infrastructure 22 9 35 17 32 18 89 44 Trade-related capacities for improved market access 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 1National food Security 1 0 3 1 3 2 7 3Regional food security 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1Research & Technology 1 0 1 0 3 2 5 2Sub-total 35 13 60 29 46 26 141 68

Operations & Maintenance:Land and water 2 1 12 6 18 10 32 17Rural infrastructure 7 3 13 6 17 9 37 18Sub-total 9 4 25 12 35 19 69 35

Humanitarian, etc.:Safety nets and emergencies 12 5 15 6 15 6 35 17

Rounding off error adjustment - - - - - - - 1 -Total 56 22 100 50 96 53 251 125

Annual total 13.9 5.5 20.0 10.0 19.2 10.6 18.0 8.9

Investment (US$ billion) (rounded off)

Immediate: Short term: Medium term: Total:

2002-2005 2006-2010 2010-2015 2002-2015**

Total Africa Total Africa Total Africa Total Africa

Objective of investment

Note: In this table, the ratio of Africa’s contribution has been kept the same for all objectives of investment. In reality, Africa’s capacity to investvaries according to whether heavy infrastructure or emergencies etc. are involved. Such detail, however, can be taken up at the planning stage.The function of this table is to provide indicative magnitudes of the investment envelope towards which Africa could plan.

* Because of rounding off, the numbers do not necessarily add up to the exact totals for each column or row to the reference numbers inAppendix Table 1.

Executive Summary

Page 101: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

89

Table 2: Estimates of Overall Investment

Land and water 10 20 7 37Land and water systems: operations and maintenance 2 12 18 32Other rural infrastructure 23 37 33 94Other rural infrastructure: operations and maintenance 7 13 17 37Trade-related capacities for improved market access 0.8 1.5 0.5 2.8Safety nets and emergencies 12 15 15 42National programmes for food security 1 2 3 6Regional programmes for food security 0 1 0 1

All investment 56 100 95 251

Estimated investment US$ billions (rounded)

Immediate Short term Medium term Total(to 2005) (2005-2010) (2010-2015)

Objective of investment

Table 3: A Possible Scenario Regarding Financing Sources for Agriculture under NEPAD

AfricaPublic domestic sources 35 35 40 40Private domestic n.a. 5 10 15Sub-total 35 40 50 55

ExternalConcessional assistance (i.e. ODA) 52 45 35 30Non-concessional loans 13 10 10 5Foreign direct investment (private) n.a. 5 5 10Sub-total 65 60 50 45

Total 100 100 100 100

Share of total investment (%)

Now Immediate future Short term Medium term(base estimate) (2002-2005) (2006-2010) (2011-2015)

Source of investment

Table 4: Gross Estimates of Investment by Source

AfricaPublic domestic sources 19.6 40.0 37.8 97.4Private domestic 2.8 10.0 14.2 27.0Sub-total 22.4 50.0 52.0 104.4

ExternalConcessional assistance (i.e. ODA) 25.2 35.0 28.3 88.5Non-concessional loans 5.6 10.0 4.7 20.3Foreign direct investment (private) 2.8 5.0 9.5 17.3Sub-total 33.6 50.0 42.5 126.1

Rounding off error adjustment - - - 0.8Total 56.0 100.0 94.5 251.3

Annual 14.0 20.1 18.9 17.9

Share of total investment (US$ billion)

Immediate future Short term Medium term Total(2002-2005) (2006-2010) (2011-2015) (2002-2015

Source of investment

Chapter 1

Page 102: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

90

Table 5: Soil Constraints

Sub-Saharan Africa 23 621 1 904 8 3 714 16 4 366 19 982 4North Africa and Near East 12 379 79 1 292 2 1 0 0 0Asia and Pacific 28 989 3 083 11 1 105 4 3 906 14 1 395 5North Asia, East of Urals 21 033 4 735 23 11 0 732 4 0 0South and Central America 20 498 2 086 10 982 5 8 019 39 3 016 15North America 21 410 3 388 16 0 0 2 219 10 1 0Europe 6 557 1 059 16 44 1 545 8 0 0

World 134 487 16 262 12 6 148 5 19 788 15 5 393 4

Total area Hydromorphy % Low % Aluminium %High P-fixation %(‘000 km2) (‘000 km2) Nutrient Toxicity (‘000 km2)

Reserve (‘000 km2)(‘000 km2)

Table 6: Unit Investment Costs, US$

UMA 6 000 2 000 2 000 600 300 100UEMOA 15 000 5 000 4 000 600 300 100ECOWAS 10 000 3 000 3 000 600 300 100COMESA 10 000 3 000 3 000 600 300 100IGAD 10 000 3 000 3 000 600 300 100CEMAC 10 000 3 000 3 000 600 300 100CEN-SAD 10 000 3 000 3 000 600 300 100CEEAC 10 000 3 000 3 000 600 300 100SADC 9 000 3 000 2 500 600 300 100

Regional Large Rehab. of large Small Inland Soil and LandEconomic irrigation irrigation irrigation valley water improvementOrganisation schemes schemes schemes bottoms conservation

Table 7: Estimated Investments in Irrigation in Main Regions, US$ million

Asia (Developing) 17 005 27 308 46 315 114 168 204 797Africa 3 177 4 270 10 544 18 815 36 806Latin America & the Caribbean 3 152 7 124 11 259 19 855 41 390

Total 23 334 38 702 68 119 152 838 282 992

Region 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 1960-2000*

* Although the estimated value of investments in Africa is similar to that in Latin America and the Caribbean during the period, the irrigated area in Latin Americamore than doubled; in Africa it increased by 50 percent. The estimated investment cost per hectare in Latin America and the Caribbean, however, is almost half ofthe cost in Africa.

Chapter 2

Page 103: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

91

Table 8: Projections for Water Management and Land Improvements 2015

UMA 3 925 481 333 4 739 1 708 980 2 060 4 748UEMOA 3 718 86 71 3 875 1 564 385 1 023 2 972ECOWAS 11 244 181 138 11 563 4 073 683 1 733 6 489COMESA 12 274 2 509 1 242 16 025 5 534 5 944 7 676 19 154IGAD 7 610 1 202 221 9 033 3 683 3 101 2 352 9 136CEMAC 1 647 24 33 1 670 814 85 378 1 277CEN-SAD 16 162 2 604 1 435 18 766 6 719 6 124 9 158 22 001CEEAC 2 838 157 68 2 996 1 370 486 722 2 578SADC 7 742 589 248 8 579 3 298 1 764 2 269 7 331

Regional On-farm and small Rehab. of Large Total On-farm and Rehab. of Large TotalEconomic scale irrigation large scale small scale large scaleGrouping development scale irrigation irrigation scale irrigation

including land and irrigation schemes development irrigation schemesimprovement schemes including land schemes

improvement

Area to be developed/rehabilitated (1 000 ha) Estimated Investment Cost (US$ million)

Table 9: Annual Investment and Maintenance Requirements to 2015 (US$ million)

InvestmentsLarge scale irrigation 0 0 0 0 1 359 2 718 2 718 2 718 1 359 1 359 679 679 0 0

Rehabilitation of large scale irrigation 1 780 1 780 1 780 1 780 1 780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Small scale irrigation 0 394 788 788 788 788 788 788 788 394 394 394 394 394

Wetland and Inland valley bottoms 0 0 0 0 218 435 435 435 218 218 109 109 0 0

Water harvesting, soil & water conservation 46 69 115 115 115 115 172 172 230 230 230 287 287 115

Land improvement 0 102 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 102 102 102 102 102

Total investment 1 826 2 345 2 886 2 886 4 463 4 259 4 317 4 317 2 797 2 302 1 513 1 571 783 610

Sub-Total 9 943 20 153 6 779

Total Investments 36 875

Operation and maintenance (O&M)Large scale irrigation schemes 0 0 0 0 136 408 679 951 1 087 1 223 1 291 1 359 1 359 1 359

Rehabilitation of large scale irrigation schemes 134 267 401 534 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668 668

Small scale irrigation schemes 0 79 236 394 552 709 867 1 025 1 182 1 261 1 340 1 419 1 498 1 576Wetland and Inland valley bottoms 0 0 0 0 7 20 33 46 52 59 62 65 65 65

Water harvesting, soil and water conservation 2 5 9 14 18 23 30 37 46 55 64 76 87 92

Land improvement 0 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 33 35 37 39 41

Total O&M 135 352 652 952 1 394 1 845 2 299 2 752 3 066 3 298 3 459 3 623 3 715 3 801

Sub-Total 2 091 11 356 17 896

Total Maintenance 31 343

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Immediate Short term Medium term

Page 104: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

92

Chapter 3

Table 10: Road Infrastructure in Africa, by Sub-region

Roads – total (1 000 Km) 273 134 320 312 234 765 52 1 817 2 090Roads – paved (1 000 Km) 177 19 82 41 21 113 8 284 461Roads – unpaved (1 000 Km) 97 115 239 271 213 651 44 1 533 1 630Share paved roads (%) 65 14 26 13 1 15 15 15.6 22Km Roads/1 000 pop. 2.0 1.40 1.97 3.69 10 7.68 3.10 2.8 2.7

North Dry Gulf of Central East Southern Islands Sub- AfricaAfrica Sahelian Guinea Africa Africa Africa Saharan

Belt Africa

Table 11: Road Infrastructure in Africa compared to other developing regions

Africa 2 750 572 2 178 27North Africa 274 177 97 65Sub Saharan Africa 1 817 284 1 533 16Developing Countries 14 256 4 806 9 450 34Latin America and the Caribbean 3 235 534 2 701 17East Asia 2 118 703 1 414 33South Asia 3 858 1 700 2 158 44

Region Total Roads Paved Roads Unpaved Roads % Paved

000’ kms

Table 12: Infrastructure – Africa in World Perspective

Landlocked population % 28 na 20 2 0 3 n.a.Population at 100km or less from the sea (%) 19 na 27 23 43 42 n.a.Roads (km/1 000 inhabitant) 2.8 2.0 2.7 3 1 6 5Rail line/1 000 inhabitant 92 101 94 0,06 0,12 0,21 0,20Rail freight /million inhabitant 210 na 260 431 2 642 192 8 992Air freight (million ton-km) 912 na 1 226 1 299 13 305 4 301 98 431Maritime freight capacity 55 680 na 58 588 30 343 60 964 163 490 505 378Airports with paved runways 504 219 723 325 547 1 384 10 821Electricity generation capacity (kw/inhabitant) 0.11 na 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.51

Aspect of infrastructure Africa Asia Latin World1996/98 America/

Sub- North All South East & CaribbeanSahara Africa Africa Pacific

Page 105: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

93

Table 14: Existing Stock of Roads to Rehabilitate and New Roads to 2015 ('000 km)

North Africa 58 580 638 40 406 446 0 0 0Dry Sahelian Belt 4 104 108 3 73 76 34 403 437Gulf of Guinea 16 215 231 11 150 161 44 602 646Central Africa 8 244 252 6 171 177 26 222 248East Africa 4 192 196 3 134 137 55 612 667Southern Africa 23 586 609 16 410 426 10 146 156Islands 2 40 42 1 28 29 5 46 51Total 115 1 961 2 076 80 1 372 1 452 174 2 031 2 204

Existing Roads Roads to Rehabilitate* New Roads to 2015(‘000 km) (‘000 km) (‘000 km)

Paved Unpaved Total Paved Unpaved Total Paved Unpaved Total

Table 13: Rural Road Networking in Selected African Countries in the Humid and Semi-Humid Tropics (HST)

Benin 4 066 36 291Cameroon 18 000 38 168Central African Republic 14 400 23 33Congo 200 1 47Congo (Republic Democratic) 84 100 36 110Côte d'Ivoire 30 224 94 258Equatorial Guinea 450 16 103Gabon 2 400 9 30Ghana 4 000 17 429Guinea 11 500 47 161Guinea-Bissau 1 404 39 186Liberia 3 615 33 159Madagascar (1/2) 19 750 67 137Mozambique (1/2) 6 725 17 135Nigeria (3/4) 67 425 97 718Sierra Leone 5 767 80 391Tanzania (1/3) 20 760 66 181Togo 4 181 73 447

All Countries Above 298 967 63 388

Density (Km/1 000 km2)

Country Total (Km) Existing India 1950

* Note: Based on estimated 70 percent of existing roads.

Page 106: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

94

Table 15: Investments for Rural Infrastructure and Trade-related capacities for improved market access

Rural infrastructureStorageDry storage 155 2 727Cool storage 3 210 5 116Total Storage 7 842 8.4

MarketingRural marketing facilities 436Markets for fruits/vegetables 360 5 737Total marketing 6 173 6.6

ProcessingCereals milling 180 5 066Fruits/vegetables 1 190 7 586Total processing 12 652 13.5

Livestock Infrastructure 1 373 1.5Fisheries Infrastructure 645 0.7

Rural Roads Rehabilitation – paved 4 005Rehabilitation – unpaved 10 292Construction – paved 17 417Construction – unpaved 30 447Total rural roads 62 162 66.4Sub-Total Rural Infrastructure 90 848 97Trade-related capacities for improved market access 2 786 3

Total Costs 93 634 100

Unit Cost Total Cost Share(million USD) (%)

Table 16: Maintenance Requirements for All Categories of Rural Infrastructure

Storage 196 1 470Marketing 154 1 157Processing 316 2 373Rural roads 3 054 31 865

Total 3 720 36 865

Maintenance Maximum annual (US$ M) Cumulative total (US$ M)

Table 17: Projections of Total Investment Requirements for Rural Infrastructure and Trade-relatedcapacities for improved market access by 2015

Storage Marketing Processing Livestock Fisheries Roads Market TotalAccess

North Africa 1 638 1 252 2 657 144 30 5 065 174 10 960Dry Sahelian Belt 1 725 1 358 2 783 452 25 10 086 580 17 009Gulf of Guinea 1 413 1 129 2 273 178 255 15 137 580 20 965Central Africa 294 233 474 73 42 7 479 290 8 885East Africa 1 210 965 1 948 322 150 15 872 406 20 873Southern Africa 1 271 1 005 2 049 172 113 7 087 406 12 103Islands 291 231 469 33 30 1 435 348 2 837

Total 7 842 6 173 12 652 1 373 645 62 162 2 786 93 634

Total investment (million US$)

Page 107: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

95

Table 19: Projections by Source of Financing (excluding trade-related capacities for improved market access )

Crop Storage 7 842 17 1 363 83 6 479Crop Markets 6 173 54 3 304 46 2 869Crop Processing 12 652 0 0 100 12 652Livestock Infrastructure 1 373 80 1 099 20 275Fisheries Infrastructure 645 80 516 20 129Road Rehabilitation 14 298 93 13 269 7 1 029New Roads 47 864 85 40 904 15 6 960Sub-total roads 62 162 86 54 173 13 7 989

Total 90 848 67 60 455 33 30 393

Total Public investments Private InvestmentsInvestments

(US$ million) (%) Amount (%) Amount

Table 20: Projections by Source of Financing (excluding Trade-related capacities for improved market access )

Crop Storage 7 842 10 818 83 6 479 7 545Crop Markets 6 173 32 1 983 46 2 869 21 1 322Crop Processing 12 652 0 0 100 12 652 0 0Livestock Infrastructure 1 373 50 687 20 275 30 412Fisheries Infrastructure 645 50 323 20 129 30 194Road Rehabilitation 14 298 66 9 494 7 1 029 26 3 775New Roads 47 864 55 26 544 15 6 960 30 14 359Sub-total roads 62 162 58 36 038 13 7 989 29 18 134

Total 90 848 44 39 848 33 30 393 23 20 607

Total International Domestic ResourcesInvestments ODA

Private Sources Governments(US$ million)

(%) Amount (%) Amount (%) Amount

Table 18: Annual Investment and Maintenance Requirements to 2015 (US$ million)

- Crop Storage 183 500 645 645 704 580 752 752 693 548 519 519 489 317- Crop Marketing 104 361 418 418 442 392 592 592 569 511 499 499 488 288- Crop Processing 316 818 1 068 1 068 1 170 956 1 209 1 209 1 107 858 807 807 756 503Sub-Total 602 1 679 2 131 2 131 2 315 1 928 2 553 2 553 2 369 1 917 1 825 1 825 1 733 1 108

- Livestock 20 50 100 120 140 150 150 150 150 150 120 75 0 0- Fisheries 0 50 50 100 120 150 150 25 0 0 0 0 0 0- Rural Roads 1 672 2 866 5253 5 253 5 253 5 253 4 305 3 590 4 786 4 786 4 786 5 983 5 983 2 393- Market Access 114 195 237 234 332 317 322 322 208 171 113 117 58 45Total invest. 2 409 4 840 7 771 7 838 8 160 7 798 7 479 6 640 7 513 7 024 6 844 8 000 7 774 3 546

Grand Total 93 636

Maintenance - Agric. Infra. 48 95 143 190 238 286 333 381 429 476 524 571 619 667- Rural Roads 1 498 1 618 1 738 1 857 1 977 2 097 2 216 2 336 2 456 2 575 2 695 2 815 2 934 3 054Total maint. 1 546 1 713 1 880 2 048 2 215 2 382 2 550 2 717 2 884 3 051 3 219 3 386 3 553 3 721

Grand Total 36 865

Investments 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Page 108: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

96

Table 21: Population, Per Capita Dietary Energy Supply and Prevalence of Under-Nourishment

Africa 595.1 710.3 2 322 2 382 173.1 200.1 29 28Sub-Saharan Africa 474.5 572.4 2 120 2 190 167.7 194.0 35 34AMU 65.2 74.9 3 031 3 036 3.1 3.8 5 5CEN-SAD 260.1 310.9 2 635 2 769 43.9 42.2 17 14CEMAC 24.2 29.2 2 061 2 196 9.2 8.6 38 29COMESA 229.4 335 1 988 1 971 68.8 124.1 30 37ECCAS 84.7 102.6 2 038 1 885 33.9 52.6 40 51ECOWAS 174.8 211.1 2 377 2 589 37.5 32.1 21 15IGAD 74.7 152.6 2 023 1 981 28.4 63.5 38 42SADC 124.2 151.9 2 014 1 902 52.7 77.2 42 51UEMOA 55.1 66.4 2 268 2 336 14.3 15.9 26 24

Regional Total Poplulation Per capita dietary Number of people Proportion ofGroupings energy supply undernourished undernourished in

total population

1990-92 1997-99 1990-92 1997-99 1990-92 1997-99 1990-92 1997-99(millions) (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions)

Note: Because some countries are members of more than one regional grouping, totals for regional groupings exceed the continental totals.

Table 22: SPFS Funding Requirement Based on Regional Groupings

AFRICA 710.3 200.1 100 6 500AMU 74.9 3.8 1.9 123CEN-SAD 310.9 41.1 20.5 1 336CEMAC 29.2 8.7 4.4 283COMESA 335.0 120.3 60.2 3 910ECCAS 102.6 51.1 25.5 1 659ECOWAS 211.1 31.7 15.9 1 030IGAD 152.6 60.7 30.3 1 972SADC 151.9 80.0 40.0 2 601UEMOA 66.4 16.0 8.0 520

Regional Total population Number of people No. of People Cost*Groupings undernourished Targeted for

National Communityled Food Security

1997-99 1997-99 2015 2015(millions) (millions) (millions) (000 US$)

Note: Some countries are members of more than one Regional Economic Organisation (REO). As a result of this duplication, the sum of theindividual REO figures exceeds the figures for Africa as a whole.*Cost estimates are based on SPFS experience to-date, amounting to US$65 per person (approximately US$435 per family, excludinginvestments made at regional level, equivalent to US$65 per family).

Chapter 4

Page 109: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

97

Appendix

Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le 1

: D

etai

ls o

f In

vest

men

t R

equ

irem

ents

by

Ob

ject

ive

and

Tim

e H

ori

zon

Inve

stm

ents

Land

and

Wat

er1.

82.

42.

92.

84.

54.

34.

34.

32.

82.

31.

51.

60.

80.

636

.9Ru

ral I

nfra

stru

ctur

e2.

34.

57.

47.

47.

67.

26.

96.

17.

26.

76.

67.

87.

73.

588

.9

Trad

e-re

late

d ca

paci

ties

for

impr

oved

mar

ket

acce

ss

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0. 1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

2.8

Nat

iona

l foo

d se

curit

y0.

30.

30.

40.

40.

40.

50.

50.

50.

50.

50.

50.

60.

60.

66.

6Re

gion

al f

ood

secu

rity

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

1.0

Rese

arch

& t

echn

olog

y0.

10.

20.

30.

30.

30.

30.

30.

30.

30.

30.

40.

50.

50.

54.

6Su

b-t

ota

l4.

77.

611

.211

.113

.212

.712

.411

.611

.210

.09.

210

.79.

85.

414

0.8

34.6

61.1

45.1

Op

erat

ion

s an

d m

ain

ten

ance

Land

& w

ater

0.1

0.4

0.7

1.0

1.4

1.9

2.3

2.8

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

31.6

Rura

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

1.6

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.2

2.4

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.4

3.5

3.7

36.9

Sub

-to

tal

1.7

2.1

2.6

3.1

3.6

4.3

4.8

5.5

6.0

6.4

6.7

7.0

7.2

7.5

68.5

9.5

24.2

34.8

68.5

Safe

ty n

ets,

fo

od

& a

gri

cult

ure

em

erg

enci

es,

dis

aste

rs a

nd

hu

man

itar

ian

Nom

inal

pro

visi

on –

all

need

s3.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

042

.0Su

b-t

ota

l3.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

042

.012

.015

.015

.042

.0G

rand

Tot

al9.

412

.716

.817

.219

.820

.020

.220

.120

.219

.418

.920

.720

.015

.925

1.8

56.1

100.

394

.925

1.3

Sum

mar

y o

f in

vest

men

t es

tim

ates

(U

S$ b

illio

n)

Inve

stm

ents

, in

cl.

rese

arch

& t

echn

ol.

4.7

7.6

11.2

11.1

13.2

12.7

12.4

11.6

11.2

10.0

9.2

10.7

9.8

5.4

140.

8O

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

1.7

2.1

2.6

3.1

3.6

4.3

4.8

5.5

6.0

6.4

6.7

7.0

7.2

7.5

68.5

Food

& a

gric

ultu

re e

mer

genc

ies,

di

sast

ers

and

hum

anita

rian:

no

min

al p

rovi

sion

3.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

03.

042

.0

Tota

l9.

412

.716

.817

.219

.820

.020

.220

.120

.219

.418

.920

.720

.015

.925

1.8

56.1

100.

394

.925

1.3

Inve

stm

ent

esti

mat

es b

y p

lan

nin

g h

ori

zon

(U

S$ b

illio

n)

Land

and

wat

er +

rur

al in

fras

truc

ture

+

foo

d se

curit

y +

res

earc

h an

d te

chno

logy

34.6

61.1

45.1

140.

8O

pera

tion

& m

aint

enan

ce9.

524

.234

.868

.5Sa

fety

net

s, f

ood

+ a

gric

ultu

re e

mer

genc

ies

12.0

15.0

15.0

42.0

Tota

l56

.110

0.3

94.9

251.

3

Inve

stm

ent

esti

mat

e U

S$ b

illio

n

Inve

stm

ent

item

Imm

edia

te

Sho

rt t

erm

Med

ium

ter

mTo

tal

Year

s 20

0203

0405

0607

0809

1011

1213

1415

Page 110: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

98

Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le 3

: In

vest

men

t Pr

oje

ctio

ns

for

Wat

er,

Lan

d a

nd

Ru

ral

Infr

astr

uct

ure

an

d T

rad

e-re

late

d c

apac

itie

s fo

r im

pro

ved

mar

ket

acce

ss

(by

Reg

ion

al G

rou

p)

(US$

mill

ion

)

CEE

AC

1 37

048

672

22

578

5 48

85

074

6 97

69

418

2726

983

29 5

61C

EMA

C81

485

378

1 27

748

660

194

62

389

154

437

5 71

4C

EN-S

AD

6 71

96

124

9 15

822

001

1 99

885

43

628

20 9

6733

27 4

8049

481

CO

MES

A5

534

5 94

47

676

19 1

541

902

1 12

23

595

26 2

9845

32 9

6252

116

ECO

WA

S4

073

683

1 73

36

489

1 15

91

109

2 55

620

141

3925

004

31 4

93IG

AD

3 68

33

101

2 35

29

136

1 15

484

72

256

16 0

7318

20 3

4829

484

SAD

C3

298

1 76

42

269

7 33

175

443

61

467

15 8

3636

18 5

2925

860

UEM

OA

1564

385

1 02

32

972

2 03

42

726

4 06

94

393

1513

237

16 2

09U

MA

1 70

898

02

060

4 74

845

923

851

523

93

1 45

46

202

Reg

ion

On

-far

m a

nd

Reh

ab.

Larg

e sc

ale

Sub

-to

tals

Sto

rag

eM

arke

tin

gPr

oce

ssin

gR

ura

lTr

ade-

Sub

-to

tals

Tota

lssm

all-

scal

eo

f la

rge

irri

gat

ion

(wat

er &

Ro

ads

rela

ted

(ru

ral

irri

gat

ion

, an

dir

rig

atio

nsc

hem

esla

nd

)ca

pac

itie

sin

fra-

lan

d i

mp

rove

men

tsc

hem

esfo

rst

ruct

ure

&im

pro

ved

trad

e-m

arke

tre

late

dac

cess

cap

acit

ies

for

imp

rove

dm

arke

t ac

cess

)

Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le 2

: In

vest

men

t Pr

oje

ctio

ns

for

Wat

er,

Lan

d a

nd

Ru

ral

Infr

astr

uct

ure

an

d T

rad

e-re

late

d c

apac

itie

s fo

r im

pro

ved

mar

ket

acce

ss

(by

Geo

gra

ph

ical

Su

b-R

egio

n)

(US$

bill

ion

)

Nor

th A

fric

a1.

622.

956.

5911

.16

1.64

1.25

2.66

5.07

0.09

10.7

121

.87

Dry

Sah

elia

n be

lt3.

373.

252.

639.

251.

731.

362.

7810

.09

0.30

16.2

625

.51

Gul

f of

Gui

nea

2.79

0.33

0.68

3.80

1.41

1.13

2.27

15.1

40.

3020

.25

24.0

5C

entr

al A

fric

a0.

800.

300.

401.

500.

290.

230.

477.

480.

158.

6210

.12

East

Afr

ica

2.59

0.43

1.10

4.11

1.21

0.96

1.95

15.8

70.

2120

.224

.31

Sout

hern

Afr

ica

2.41

1.45

1.87

5.74

1.27

1.01

2.05

7.08

0.21

11.6

217

.36

Isla

nds

0.81

0.19

0.32

1.32

0.29

0.23

0.47

1.43

0.18

2.6

3.92

Tota

l14

.39

8.90

13.5

936

.88

7.84

6.17

12.6

562

.16

1.44

90.2

612

7.14

Reg

ion

On

-far

m a

nd

Reh

ab.

Larg

e sc

ale

Sub

-to

tals

Sto

rag

eM

arke

tin

gPr

oce

ssin

gR

ura

lTr

ade-

Sub

-to

tals

Tota

lssm

all-

scal

eo

f la

rge

irri

gat

ion

(wat

er &

Ro

ads

rela

ted

(ru

ral

irri

gat

ion

, an

dir

rig

atio

nsc

hem

esla

nd

)ca

pac

itie

sin

fra-

lan

d i

mp

rove

men

tsc

hem

esfo

rst

ruct

ure

&im

pro

ved

trad

e-m

arke

tre

late

dac

cess

cap

acit

ies

for

imp

rove

dm

arke

t ac

cess

)

Page 111: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

99

Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le 4

: A

nn

ual

In

vest

men

t an

d M

ain

ten

ance

Req

uir

emen

ts t

o 2

015

(US$

mill

ion

)

Inve

stm

ents

Land

& W

ater

D

evel

opm

ents

1 82

62

345

2 88

62

886

4 46

34

259

4 31

74

317

2 79

72

302

1 51

31

571

783

610

Rura

l Inf

rast

ruct

ure

2 27

54

545

7 38

47

384

7 56

87

181

6 85

76

143

7 15

56

703

6 61

17

808

7 71

63

501

Trad

e-re

late

d ca

paci

ties

for

impr

oved

mar

ket

acce

ss

114

195

237

234

240

186

122

7515

157

00

0

Tota

l In

vest

men

ts

4 21

57

085

10 5

0710

504

12 2

7111

626

11 2

9610

535

9 96

79

020

8 12

49

379

8 49

94

111

Op

erat

ion

& M

ain

ten

ance

Land

& W

ater

D

evel

opm

ents

135

352

652

952

1 39

41

845

2 29

92

752

3 06

63

298

3 45

93

623

3 71

73

801

Rura

l Inf

rast

ruct

ure

1 54

61

713

1 88

02

048

2 21

52

382

2 55

02

717

2 88

43

051

3 21

93

386

3 55

33

721

Tota

l O

per

atio

n&

Mai

nte

nan

ce

1 68

12

065

2 53

23

000

3 60

94

227

4 84

95

469

5 95

06

349

6 67

87

009

7 27

07

522

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Page 112: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

100

Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le 5

: Pr

oje

ctio

ns

by

Sou

rce

of

Fin

anci

ng

fo

r La

nd

an

d W

ater

in

vest

men

ts

Larg

e ir

rig

atio

n s

chem

esN

on-

LIFD

Cs

100

0.0

0.0

3,15

50

03,

155

LIFD

CS

6040

0.0

6,26

04,

174

010

,434

Reh

abili

tati

on

of

larg

e ir

rig

atio

n s

chem

esN

on-

LIFD

Cs

900.

010

1,48

80

165

1,65

3LI

FDC

S50

4010

3,91

42,

609

725

7,24

8

Smal

l ir

rig

atio

n s

chem

esN

on-

LIFD

Cs

200.

080

273

01,

091

1,36

4LI

FDC

S10

1080

782

521

5,21

46,

518

Wet

lan

d a

nd

In

lan

d v

alle

y b

ott

om

sN

on-

LIFD

Cs

200.

080

250

102

127

LIFD

CS

1010

8024

616

41,

639

2,04

9

Wat

er h

arve

stin

g,

soil

and

wat

er c

on

serv

atio

nN

on-

LIFD

Cs

200.

080

910

366

457

LIFD

CS

1010

8022

114

71,

470

1,83

8

Lan

d i

mp

rove

men

t N

on-

LIFD

Cs

100

0.0

0.0

381

00

381

LIFD

CS

6040

0.0

991

660

01,

651

Tota

l17

,827

8,27

610

,773

36,8

75

48%

22%

29%

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n %

US

$ m

illio

n

Pub

lic S

ecto

rO

DA

Priv

ate

Sect

or

Pub

lic S

ecto

rO

DA

Priv

ate

Sect

or

Tota

l

Not

es:

Just

as

for

rura

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

inve

stm

ents

(Ta

bles

17

and

18),

the

likel

ihoo

d of

priv

ate

sect

or p

artic

ipat

ion

to t

he d

egre

e as

sum

ed h

ere

will

nee

d co

untr

y by

cou

ntry

ass

essm

ent,

giv

en t

hat

hist

oric

al in

volv

emen

t ha

s be

en w

eak

exce

pt in

a f

ew c

ount

ries.

The

sam

e w

ill a

pply

to

OD

A e

xpec

tatio

ns,

give

n th

e te

nden

cy f

or a

id t

o go

to

only

a f

ew c

ount

ries.

For

mor

e co

nser

vativ

e ex

pect

atio

ns o

f po

ssib

le p

rogr

essi

on o

f al

l-Afr

ica

shar

es o

f pu

blic

, pr

ivat

e fu

ndin

g as

wel

l as

inte

rnal

vs.

ext

erna

l fun

ding

, se

e Ta

bles

3,

4.

Page 113: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

101

Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le 7

: A

nn

ual

Fu

nd

ing

Req

uir

emen

ts f

or

Reg

ion

al S

PFS

(i.e

. R

PFS)

SPFS

Reg

ion

al P

rog

ram

mes

Sub

-to

tal:

2730

3235

6465

6572

8698

9898

115

115

1 00

0A

MU

01

24

54

44

55

55

55

55C

EN-S

AD

55

55

1010

1010

1515

1515

2020

160

CEM

AC

22

23

44

44

55

55

55

55C

OM

ESA

02

33

88

88

1010

1010

1010

100

ECC

AS

00

00

24

45

510

1010

1010

70EC

OW

AS

55

55

1010

1015

1520

2020

2020

180

IGA

D5

55

57

77

78

88

810

1010

0SA

DC

55

55

88

88

810

1015

1515

120

UEM

OA

55

55

1010

1010

1515

1515

2020

160

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Tota

l

Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le 8

: To

tal

An

nu

al F

un

din

g R

equ

irem

ents

fo

r N

atio

nal

Pro

gra

mm

es a

nd

Ru

ral

Eco

no

mic

Org

anis

atio

ns

(US$

mill

ion

)

SPFS

: Su

b-t

ota

l n

atio

nal

pro

gra

mm

es

gro

up

ed b

y re

gio

nal

org

anis

atio

n32

034

036

038

044

045

046

047

048

052

054

056

058

060

06

500

SPFS

: Su

b-t

ota

l re

gio

nal

gro

up

ing

s27

3032

3564

6565

7286

9898

9811

511

51

000

Tota

l N

atio

nal

Pro

gra

mm

es a

nd

R

egio

nal

Gro

up

ing

s34

536

539

041

049

951

053

054

156

363

065

067

069

071

07

500

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Tota

l

Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le 6

: A

nn

ual

Fu

nd

ing

Req

uir

emen

ts f

or

Nat

ion

al S

PFS,

bas

ed o

n R

egio

nal

Eco

no

mic

Org

anis

atio

n G

rou

ps

(US$

mill

ion

)

SPFS

: Su

b-t

ota

l N

atio

nal

pro

gra

mm

es

gro

up

ed b

y re

gio

nal

org

anis

atio

n32

034

036

038

044

045

046

047

048

052

054

056

058

060

06

500

AM

U6

67

78

99

99

1010

1111

1112

4C

EN-S

AD

6670

7478

9092

9597

9910

711

111

511

912

31

336

CEM

AC

1415

1617

1920

2020

2123

2324

2526

283

CO

MES

A19

320

521

722

926

527

127

728

328

931

332

533

734

936

13

910

ECC

AS

8287

9297

112

115

117

120

123

133

138

143

148

153

1 65

9EC

OW

AS

5154

5760

7071

7374

7682

8689

9295

1 03

0IG

AD

9710

310

911

513

313

614

014

314

615

816

417

017

618

21

972

SAD

C12

813

614

415

217

618

018

418

819

220

821

622

423

224

02

601

UEM

OA

2627

2930

3536

3738

3842

4345

4648

520

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Tota

l

Not

e: S

ome

coun

trie

s ar

e m

embe

rs o

f m

ore

than

one

Reg

iona

l Eco

nom

ic O

rgan

isat

ion

(REO

). A

s a

resu

lt of

thi

s du

plic

atio

n, t

he s

um o

f th

e in

divi

dual

REO

fig

ures

exc

eeds

the

fig

ures

for

Afr

ica

as a

who

le.

Page 114: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

102

Appendix Table 9: Africa Estimates of Investments (Both Sub-Saharan and North Africa Included)

1990/91 2.58 3.88 3.231991/92 10.57 3.57 7.071992/93 3.34 4.49 3.911993/94 4.54 3.41 3.981994/95 5.30 3.27 4.291995/96 5.87 3.15 4.511996/97 4.75 3.55 4.151997/98 3.00 3.27 3.131998/99 1.87 2.79 2.33

Year*

Based on inter-year changein asset value**

Based on ratio agriculturespending in total***

Estimated agricultural investment (US$ billion)

Average

* The asset-based estimates are from differences between calendar years and are presented for the years concerned (e.g. 1990/91); for theratio-based estimates, calendar years apply (e.g. 1990).** Show high inter-year variability; degree of reliability uncertain. Assumed to include all assets, both private and public.*** Refer to public investments. To get Africa totals, North Africa (estimated at near historical average of about 20 percent of total Near East)added to Sub-Saharan totals. Agriculture share of total public spending in 1999 for North Africa assumed at 3.5 percent rather than the 1.1percent reported.

Page 115: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

NEPAD – The New Partnership for Africa’sDevelopment – is a programme of the African Union(AU). It arose out of a vision for Africa’s development,adopted by African Heads of State and Government,which states “We agree on the overall vision ofAfrica’s development: a prosperous continent free ofconflict in which all our people can fulfil their poten-tial, that participates effectively in the global econo-my on an equal footing”.

Realising that Africa can take its proper place inthe international community only if it gains economicstrength, African Heads of State and Government setan ambitious target of 7% annual growth rate in GDPover the next 20 years to eradicate poverty, achievefood security and build the foundations of sustain-able economic development on the continent.

NEPAD, which seeks to complement other Africaninitiatives and to use existing frameworks for action,concentrates on priorities organised under two broadthemes: Peace, security, democracy and political gov-ernance and Economic and corporate governance.Specific themes include:

• Peace, security• Democracy and political governance• Infrastructure• Human resources (education, skills development,

reversing the brain drain)• Health• Agriculture• Access to markets• The environment• Culture• Science and technology

To achieve all these objectives, NEPAD intends tomobilise domestic and external resources and toestablish new forms of partnership with the domesticand international communities.

African Agriculture

Despite substantial socio-economic gains in manyAfrican countries over the past 30 to 40 years, hungerremains a major threat to many people, particularlyin Sub-Saharan Africa. About 200m people in Africaare chronically hungry, 30m require emergency foodand agricultural assistance in any one year, and, in2003, about 14m people in the SADC are on the brinkof starvation.

Between 1998 and 2000, more than a quarter ofthe population of Africa was chronically undernour-ished (202 million people). In Sub-Saharan Africa, it isexpected that the number of undernourished peoplewill increase from 180 million in 1995/97 to 184 mil-lion by 2015. This stands in stark contrast to theMillennium goal of halving hunger and poverty by2015.

It is for this reason that NEPAD launched theComprehensive Africa Agriculture DevelopmentProgramme (CAADP) with a view to addressing theproblem of food insecurity and eliminating povertyamong millions of Africans across the continent.

Granted the vital contribution of proper nourish-ment to the health and productive capabilities ofpeople and communities, NEPAD’s agriculture devel-opment programme should be seen as an integraland indeed fundamental segment of the overallAfrican self-help development programme. It accord-ingly deserves the fullest support of all who live inAfrica, all who trade with the continent and all whohave the prosperity of its people at heart.

NEPADThe New Partnership for Africa’s Development

Page 116: Comprehensive Africa Afgriculture Development Programme (CAAD)

New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)PO Box 1234, Halfway House,

Midrand, 1685South Africa

Tel: 011 313 3716International: +27 11 313 3716

Website: www.nepad.org

NEPAD