socio-economic tools for decision makers: tanzania case study food security and pro-poor...
TRANSCRIPT
Socio-economic tools for decision makers: Tanzania Case Study
Food Security and Pro-Poor Perspectives for Bioenergy Development
IFAD Global Consultation on Pro-poor Sweet Sorghum Development for Bio-ethanol Production and Introduction to Tropical SugarbeetNovember 2007
Purpose Perspectives on a pro-poor analysis for bioenergy contexts Food insecurity and links to poverty and vulnerability
Background and definitions Discuss food security, food security indicators and risks and
opportunities Tools for food security and vulnerability analysis Country Typologies as key starting point, current contexts and
lessons in hunger reduction
Tanzania Case Study BEFS Project Partner Socio-economic Tools – macro-economic, food security and energy Current bioenergy context – potential feedstock, stakeholders,
constraints, concerns
Conclusions
What is food security? Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical,
social and economic access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life
Four dimensions: Availability, Access, Stability and Utilization
Time dimension? Chronic food insecurity is a long term and persistent inability to meet
food requirements Transitory food insecurity is a short term or temporary inability to
meet food needs
What is vulnerability? Frequency and intensity of shocks affecting households and
capacity to withstand shocks Chronic food insecurity reduces household and community capacity
to withstand shocks
Who are the hungry?
Developed Market Economies
9Countries in Transition
25
Sub-Saharan Africa
206
Near East and North Africa
38
Asia and the Pacific
524
Latin America and the
Caribbean52
854 million820 developing countries
212 million India 150 million China
20 to 34% UNDERNOURISHED
Bangladesh Bolivia Botswana Cambodia
Cameroon Congo Dom Rep Gambia
Guatemala Guinea Honduras India
Kenya Laos PDR Malawi Mali
Mongolia Namibia Nicaragua Niger
Pakistan Panama Senegal Sri Lanka
Sudan Thailand Togo
> 35% UNDERNOURISHED
Angola Burundi CAR DRC
DPRK Eritrea Ethiopia Haiti
Liberia Madagascar Mozambique Rwanda
Sierra Leone Tanzania Tajikistan Yemen
Zambia Zimbabwe
Where are the hungry?
FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY ASSESSMENTS?
Opportunities Risks Food Security Indicators
•Diversification and/or increased income from feedstock crops•Infrastructure development and employment (rural)•Improved land use and increased access to factor inputs•Diversification of domestic energy supply•HH energy burden reduced for women and children•SME energy access improved•New technological advances•Climate change mitigation•Revenue from payment for environmental services and monetization of carbon credits
•Decreased access to food due to price increases driven by competition for biomass for energy versus food•Decreased food availability due to replacement of subsistence farm land by energy plantations•Increased environmental pressure due to introduction or expansion of unsustainable bioenergy systems (H20 pollution, loss of biodiversity, land degradation)•Pressure on prices of other goods and services related to land-use and biomass•Cash cropping systems could alter intra-HH food security
•Proportion of chronically undernourished (<5 stunting)•Adult literacy (+female)•Proportion of HH income to food (access)•Proportion own production of food (availability)•Population growth•GDP growth per capita•Agricultural contribution to GDP growth (%)•Adult HIV population •Number of food emergencies (stability)•Degree of import or export dependence (self-sufficiency)•Access to water and sanitation facilities
Source: FAO Bioenergy and Food Security Project Proposal (2006)
Types of food security, livelihoods and vulnerability analysis?
Food frequency and diversity score Coping Strategy Index Phases and scales combine hard and soft
indicators (FAO/FSAU or Famine Scales) Household Food Economy Approach Household Expenditure Surveys Judgment-based Classification Household Self-Assessment
Country Typologies - Key Starting Point
Preliminary analysis - base in typologies Developing, LIFDCs and LDCs Positive extreme – traditional net exporter of food and
energy (Indonesia or Malaysia) Negative extreme - net food and energy importer (LDCs
and Near East) Poor spend high % HH income on food 33% of rural SSA HHs headed by women, lacking
access to factor inputs, affected by environmental degradation, water and fuel shortages
Cash crops can alter HH food security
Prices, biofuels and food security
Rising commodity prices – positive for producers and negative for poor consumers
Clear linkages - fossil fuel prices and food crop feedstock
Price increases in major biofuel feedstock markets (sugar, molasses, corn, rapeseed oil, palm oil and soybean)
Additional uncertainty (biofuel mandates) Factors of exclusion and value chain considerations
Environment, bioenergy and climate change
Trade-offs need analysis, particularly related to food security impacts
Local issues related to access and control of natural resources
Global level, climate change impact most direct link to food security
Increased frequency and severity of weather shocks
Policy domains shape bioenergy and food security impacts
Rural policies favor large-scale commodity and livestock production
Increased competition for resources and inputs to agriculture
Factors of exclusion need to be addressed Attention to agriculture in rural areas necessary Maintaining national and household level food security
remains priority for most developing countries
Lessons in hunger reduction
Applicable to bioenergy development?Agricultural growth is critical Safety net programs are crucial Peace, stability and good governance essential Development assistance needs better targeting
Bioenergy and Food Security Projectwww.fao.org/NR/ben/befs
Why Tanzania as BEFS Partner?
Four criteria for project partners: (1) the energy sector and bioenergy options
in the country (2) Food security dimensions (3) General country characteristics (4) Institutional and governance issues
Tanzania
Source: FAO
Tanzania: Some Key Indicators
Economic Indicator 2005
GDP/Capita (Constant 2000 USD) 330
GDP/Capita (Constant 2000 Int$, PPP) 662
GDP Growth 7.0
Agriculture Value Added per worker (Constant 2000 USD) 303
Agriculture Share 44.5
Percent of rural population 75.8
Source: WDI 2007, UNDP
Food Security and Poverty in Tanzania
Key IndicatorsYear of
ReferenceVariable
Population (millions) 2001-2003 36.3
Percent of undernourished 2001-2003 44
Import dependency ratio (% cal basis) 2000-2004 10
Self-sufficiency ratio for cereals * 2004 85
Poverty gap at 1 USD a day (PPP), Percent 2000 20.7
Poverty gap at 2 USD a day (PPP), Percent 2000 49.3
Adult literacy rate, female (age 15 and older) 2005 62.2
HIV Prevalence (% age 15-49) 2005 6.5
Source: FAOSTAT 2006, SOFI 2006, WDI 2007, UNDP; * calculated
Energy Profile of Tanzania
Current energy mix Approximately 90 percent biomass, mostly woody Petroleum and electricity: 9 percent Other sources 1 percent
Low level technologies Low level of electrification
What bioenergy feedstock are under consideration?
Bioethanol: Sugarcane, Sweet sorghum, Cassava, Sissal
Biodiesel: Jatropha, Palm oil, Sunflower
Who is currently involved? Government: Ministry of Agriculture,
Ministry of Energy, and other related sections
University and research Companies - Sunbiofuels, Diligent,
Infenergy, Kitimondo plantations, SEKAB, British Petroleum
UN organizations and NGOs
Who are the major stakeholders? Rural populations, smallholders, outgrowers
- less efficient smaller scale Private sector investors – capital to invest
and larger scale
Plantation model could worsen social and economic exclusion, however..............
Dependent upon contractual arrangements, structure and adherence to policy/mandates
TANZANIA - FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY ASSESSMENT
Opportunities Risks Food Security Indicators
•Diversification and/or increased income from feedstock crops•Infrastructure development and employment (rural)•Rural electrification could reduce HH energy burden for women and children•Improved land use and increased access to factor inputs•Diversification of domestic energy supply•SME energy access improved•New technological advances•Climate change mitigation•Revenue from payment for environmental services and monetization of carbon credits
•Current factors of exclusion not addressed•Government/policy risk•Cash cropping systems could alter intra-HH food security•Decreased access to food due to price increases driven by competition for biomass for energy versus food•Decreased food availability due to replacement of subsistence farm land by energy plantations•Increased environmental pressure due to introduction or expansion of unsustainable bioenergy systems (H20 pollution, loss of biodiversity, land degradation)•Pressure on prices of other goods and services related to land-use and biomass
•38% chronically undernourished (<5 stunting)•76% population in rural areas•44% agricultural contribution to GDP growth •62% Adult female literacy •90% HH energy wood biomass•Proportion of HH income to food (access) - HBS•Proportion own production of food (availability) – HBS and food security assessments•1.8% Population growth•7% GDP annual growth, 5.3% annual growth in agriculture •6.5% Adult HIV population •Relatively few food emergencies (stability)•85% self-sufficiency (cereals)•62% access to water and 47% sanitation facilities
Source: FAO Bioenergy and Food Security Project Proposal (2006)
Constraints to private sector investment
Legislation No legislation in place for Bioenergy National Bioenergy Task Force
Land Tenure All land owned by state Released to villages, state, individuals
Infrastructure Very limited number of roads Bioenergy proposals always close to existing infrastructure
(road or railroad)
Constraints to poor rural populations
Extreme poverty and access to credit Remoteness and geographic isolation Rural Infrastructure Gender considerations – moving from
subsistence crop for HH use to cash crop alters (negatively) HH food security
Further Analysis?
Micro Level Tools Quantitative work on HH surveys, reliant on existing
information on sweet sorghum or jatropha Focus on availability and food access data Current energy use, income and food sources
Macro Level Tools Energy profile, internal versus external demand, market
and trade issues Potential returns on investment Value chain perspectives and land tenure
Conclusions Who are the poor and most food insecure relative to bioenergy
development? Identify and respect national priorities about food security and
self-sufficiency (maize) Land and legislation could be serious hurdles to bioenergy
investment No policy/mandate implies no internal market outlet Resolve potential conflict over access and control of natural
resources
Source of income and energy Create incentives for reinvestment Stimulate domestic economy and rural development