Transcript First Project Task Force Meeting 21 Feb 2007

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 Sugarbeet
November 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?
Countries in
Transition
25
Sub-Saharan
Africa
206
Near East and
North Africa
38
Latin America
and the
Caribbean
52
Developed Market
Economies
9
854 million
820 developing countries
Asia and the
Pacific
524
212 million India
150 million China
Where are the hungry?
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
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 Project
www.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
Year of
Reference
Variable
Population (millions)
2001-2003
36.3
Percent of undernourished
2001-2003
44
Import dependency ratio (% cal basis)
2000-2004
10
Self-sufficiency ratio for cereals *
2004
85
Poverty gap at 1 USD a day (PPP), Percent
2000
20.7
Poverty gap at 2 USD a day (PPP), Percent
2000
49.3
Adult literacy rate, female (age 15 and older)
2005
62.2
HIV Prevalence (% age 15-49)
2005
6.5
Key Indicators
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