First Project Task Force Meeting

Document Sample
First Project Task Force Meeting Powered By Docstoc
					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
 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
 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
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
        Countries in
                                   9                    854 million
             25                                  820 developing countries

    206                                               Asia and the
Near East and
 North Africa
                                                     212 million India
                                                     150 million China

            Latin America
               and the
                                  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

        Opportunities                            Risks                        Food Security Indicators
•Diversification and/or increased   •Decreased access to food due to        •Proportion of chronically
income from feedstock crops         price increases driven by               undernourished (<5 stunting)
•Infrastructure development and     competition for biomass for             •Adult literacy (+female)
employment (rural)                  energy versus food                      •Proportion of HH income to food
•Improved land use and              •Decreased food availability due        (access)
increased access to factor inputs   to replacement of subsistence           •Proportion own production of
•Diversification of domestic        farm land by energy plantations         food (availability)
energy supply                       •Increased environmental                •Population growth
•HH energy burden reduced for       pressure due to introduction or
                                    expansion of unsustainable              •GDP growth per capita
women and children                                                          •Agricultural contribution to GDP
                                    bioenergy systems (H20 pollution,
•SME energy access improved         loss of biodiversity, land              growth (%)
•New technological advances         degradation)                            •Adult HIV population
•Climate change mitigation          •Pressure on prices of other            •Number of food emergencies
•Revenue from payment for           goods and services related to           (stability)
environmental services and          land-use and biomass                    •Degree of import or export
monetization of carbon credits      •Cash cropping systems could            dependence (self-sufficiency)
                                    alter intra-HH food security            •Access to water and sanitation

                                                           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
 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
Environment, bioenergy and climate

 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
Policy domains shape bioenergy and food
 security impacts

 Rural policies favor large-scale commodity and
  livestock production
 Increased competition for resources and inputs to
 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
               Lessons in hunger reduction

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

Bioenergy and Food Security Project
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

           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
Key Indicators                                                                              Variable
Population (millions)                                            2001-2003                      36.3
Percent of undernourished                                        2001-2003                        44
Import dependency ratio (% cal basis)                            2000-2004                        10
Self-sufficiency ratio for cereals *                                  2004                        85
Poverty gap at 1 USD a day (PPP), Percent                             2000                      20.7
Poverty gap at 2 USD a day (PPP), Percent                             2000                      49.3

Adult literacy rate, female (age 15 and older)                        2005                      62.2
HIV Prevalence (% age 15-49)                                          2005                       6.5

                                       Source: FAOSTAT 2006, SOFI 2006, WDI 2007, UNDP; * calculated
Energy Profile of Tanzania

 Current energy mix
    Approximately 90 percent biomass, mostly woody
    Petroleum and electricity: 9 percent
    Other sources 1 percent
 Low level technologies
 Low level of electrification
What bioenergy feedstock are
 under consideration?
 Bioethanol: Sugarcane, Sweet
  sorghum, Cassava, Sissal
 Biodiesel: Jatropha, Palm oil,
Who is currently involved?
 Government: Ministry of Agriculture,
  Ministry of Energy, and other related
 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
        Opportunities                            Risks                         Food Security Indicators
•Diversification and/or             •Current factors of exclusion           •38% chronically undernourished
increased income from               not addressed                           (<5 stunting)
feedstock crops                     •Government/policy risk                 •76% population in rural areas
•Infrastructure development         •Cash cropping systems could            •44% agricultural contribution to
and employment (rural)              alter intra-HH food security            GDP growth
•Rural electrification could        •Decreased access to food due to        •62% Adult female literacy
reduce HH energy burden for         price increases driven by               •90% HH energy wood biomass
women and children                  competition for biomass for             •Proportion of HH income to food
•Improved land use and              energy versus food                      (access) - HBS
increased access to factor inputs   •Decreased food availability due        •Proportion own production of
•Diversification of domestic        to replacement of subsistence           food (availability) – HBS and food
energy supply                       farm land by energy plantations         security assessments
•SME energy access improved         •Increased environmental                •1.8% Population growth
•New technological advances         pressure due to introduction or
                                    expansion of unsustainable              •7% GDP annual growth, 5.3%
•Climate change mitigation                                                  annual growth in agriculture
                                    bioenergy systems (H20 pollution,
•Revenue from payment for           loss of biodiversity, land              •6.5% Adult HIV population
environmental services and          degradation)                            •Relatively few food emergencies
monetization of carbon credits                                              (stability)
                                    •Pressure on prices of other
                                    goods and services related to           •85% self-sufficiency (cereals)
                                    land-use and biomass                    •62% access to water and 47%
                                                                            sanitation facilities

                                                          Source: FAO Bioenergy and Food Security Project Proposal (2006)
Constraints to private sector

 No legislation in place for Bioenergy
 National Bioenergy Task Force
Land Tenure
 All land owned by state
 Released to villages, state, individuals
 Very limited number of roads
 Bioenergy proposals always close to existing infrastructure
  (road or railroad)
Constraints to poor rural

   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
 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

Shared By: