Latest from CGSpace

The agrifood system: structure and contribution to development goals

As countries develop, agrifood systems (AFS) are expected to evolve beyond primary agriculture. The earliest stages of development are typically characterized by subsistence farming; as agricultural productivity rises, farmers begin to supply surplus production to markets, which creates employment opportunities for workers in the off-farm economy. Rising rural incomes generate demand for more diverse products; this leads to more nonfarm activities such as processing, packaging, transporting, and trading. In the early stages of transformation, the agriculture sector serves as an engine of rural—and even national—economic growth. Eventually, urbanization, the nonfarm economy, and nonagricultural incomes play more dominant roles in propelling AFS development, with urban and rural nonfarm consumers creating most of the market demand for agricultural outputs via value chains that connect rural areas to towns and cities. The exact nature of this transformation process varies across countries because of the diverse structure of their economies and the unique growth trajectories of their various agrifood and nonfood subsectors. A focus solely on primary agriculture without an understanding of its linkages to off-farm components of the economy masks the importance of AFS to the overall economy and its potential contribution as a driver of development going forward. In this chapter, we first measure the size, structure, and historical contribution of the AFS to economic growth and transformation in Myanmar. Second, we assess the potential for AFS growth led by productivity gains in different agricultural value chains to contribute to development outcomes in Myanmar using the Rural Investment and Policy Analysis (RIAPA) model (IFPRI 2023b). We measure AFS using national accounts and employment statistics to either track or simulate growth and employment changes over time. We disaggregate AFS into several value chain groups, which allows the analysis to offer a unique and useful perspective on the drivers of AFS growth and transformation. Finally, we discuss the implications of the recent crises for the future of the AFS and propose both short- and long-term policy recommendations to help steer recovery.

Introduction [in Myanmar’s agrifood system: Historical development, recent shocks, future opportunities]

A decade of rapid, albeit uneven, progress in Myanmar’s economic development was thrown into reverse by a series of shocks that began with the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. The pandemic was followed by the military coup of February 2021 and the global food, fuel, and fertilizer supply crisis spurred by the armed conflict in Ukraine that began a year later. The coup led to a surge in conflict around the country, hampering and often devastating the livelihoods of the population at large while also causing the internal displacement of about 2.3 million people by the end of 2023, adding to those displaced during prior conflicts. The sharp depreciation of Myanmar’s currency since the coup multiplied the inflationary impact of international price increases for fuel, fertilizer, and imported vegetable oils, causing inflation to spiral upward even as employment opportunities withered. By late 2023, over 70 percent of the population was estimated to be in poverty, more than double the 2017 poverty rate of 25 percent. Though Myanmar’s agrifood system was not left unscathed by these shocks, it has proved resilient. Agriculture and the rural economy are essential to Myanmar’s development, as 70 percent of the population and 87 percent of the country’s poor live in rural areas (MOPF and World Bank 2017a). Agriculture and its associated agro-industries form a key sector of the national economy, employing half of the total labor force and contributing one-third of national GDP—about 23 percent directly in farm incomes and another 11 percent in agro-processing, distribution, marketing, exports, and food retailing (Chapter 2). Ekanayake, Ambrosio, and Jaffee (2019) estimate that nearly half of Myanmar’s poverty reduction between 2005 and 2015 was attributable directly to progress in agriculture. Therefore, a well-functioning agrifood system is crucial to the welfare and food security of Myanmar’s residents.

A historical and regional perspective on Myanmar’s agrifood system

Agriculture and the related input supply, processing, trade, and retail distribution activities that make up national food systems are a major driver of rural economic transformation in low- and middle-income countries (Mellor 2017). As Chapter 2 shows, in addition to directly contributing to rural employment and GDP in Myanmar, the growth of the agrifood system has high multiplier effects on the broader rural economy. Yet in Myanmar, as Warr (2016) argues, lack of agricultural productivity growth combined with dependence on extractive sectors, such as jade, teak, and natural gas, has held back the transformation of the economy.

Dietary quality and nutrition: Past progress, current and future challenges

Prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and the military coup in 2021, Myanmar was experiencing a period of rapid economic growth and transformation in the wake of economic and political liberalization. Between 2005 and 2017, average annual growth in real GDP per capita was 7.8 percent, making Myanmar the fastest growing economy among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. Strong growth was accompanied by a halving of the national poverty rate between 2005 and 2017 from 48.2 to 24.8 percent (CSO, UNDP, and World Bank 2019). COVID19 and the economic and political shocks affecting the country since 2021 have led to an economic contraction: 2021 saw an 18 percent drop in real GDP per capita; in 2022, real GDP per capita was estimated to be 15 percent lower than in 2019 (World Bank 2022). The impacts on poverty were even more dire. A high-frequency panel phone survey of mothers and young children in urban Yangon and the rural Dry Zone revealed incomes collapsing during the COVID-19 lockdowns and further income losses in the wake of the February 2021 military takeover (Headey et al. 2022). Prices rose dramatically, with the consumer price index rising by 20 percent between July 2021 and July 2022 (MOPF 2022), while food prices rose by 34 percent over the same period and by about 50 percent between December 2021 and December 2022. Nationally, a variety of different poverty indicators suggest that between 40 and 50 percent of the population was living in poverty in 2022 —poverty rates similar to those found between 2005 and 2010.

Vulnerability and welfare during multiple crises

The triple transition that took place between 2011 and 2019 in Myanmar—from a planned to an open market economy, from military to civilian rule, from conflict to peace—was not without its limitations. As discussed in Chapter 1, poverty reduction was modest relative to economic growth, a fully democratic system was not established, and ethnic conflict continued in many areas. In this mixed context of social welfare improvements and unfulfilled reforms, COVID-19 hit—the first in a series of crises. The pandemic had an immediate adverse impact on Myanmar’s economy and pushed many households into poverty. Then, while the country remained under threat from the pandemic, in February 2021, the military took over in a coup, and Myanmar fell into a political crisis. Declines in welfare accelerated for many. One year later, the Myanmar economy faced sharp rises in prices for food, fuel, and fertilizer as a result of a global economic crisis triggered by the start of the conflict in Ukraine. This triple crisis—pandemic, political, economic— has had enormous impacts on welfare and livelihoods in Myanmar. (Chapter 1 summarizes how the triple crisis unfolded; refer to that chapter for details on the causes, levels, and apparent consequences of the sequence of shocks.)

Agricultural land: Inequality and insecurity

Land is indispensable to agricultural production and, thus, a critical resource in sustaining agriculture-based livelihoods. Moreover, land as property may facilitate access to credit when used as collateral, further facilitating productive activities. Land ownership also constitutes a buffer against shocks, as it can often be rented out, mortgaged, or sold when cash needs are high.

Livestock, capture fisheries, and aquaculture: status and recent trends

Livestock rearing and fishing have been central components of rural livelihoods in Myanmar for centuries and remain so today. More capital-intensive forms of marine fishing, aquaculture, and poultry farming began to expand during the early 1990s and have grown briskly since then. Poultry and aquaculture commoditization accelerated between 2011 and 2019, stimulated by the demand-side pull of rapid income growth and by foreign and domestic investment in areas such as feed milling and food retail (for example, businesses such as Kentucky Fried Chicken, which opened in Myanmar in 2015). However, despite recent growth, both sectors lag behind those in more developed countries in the region in technological sophistication, scale, and regulation. This chapter summarizes the status of the supply side of livestock, capture fisheries, and aquaculture based on an analysis of nationally representative data extracted from the Myanmar Living Conditions Survey (MLCS) 2017 (CSO 2019) and a review of trends in these sectors using information drawn from other recent surveys and secondary sources. We analyze MLCS to sketch a picture of the contributions of livestock, capture fisheries, and aquaculture to household incomes in the four agroecological zones (AEZs—Delta, Dry Zone, Coastal Zone, and Hills and Mountains) into which MLCS results are categorized (CSO, UNDP, and World Bank 2019). The MLCS livestock and fishery modules asked questions about each household’s ownership, production, sales, and consumption of livestock and livestock byproducts, as well as aquaculture and capture fisheries products in the previous 12 months. Respondents were asked to estimate the quantity or value of these variables, making it possible to calculate the value of livestock and fish income, expenditure, and consumption for each household.

Crop production: An engine in need of an upgrade

Myanmar’s agrifood system: Historical development, recent shocks, future opportunities. According to the Myanmar Living Conditions Survey (MLCS) undertaken in 2017, 54 percent of rural households and 8.4 percent of urban households earn some of their income from crop farming (CSO, UNDP, and World Bank 2020). As seen in Chapter 2, crop production has important value-added and employment linkages upstream and downstream from farms, including in fertilizer and chemical input supply, mechanization services, transport, processing, wholesale and retail distribution, and exports. Crop production also provides the majority of the nation’s calorie intake as well as raw material for processed animal feed. However, as Chapter 3 shows, with maize as the one exception, the crop sector itself has not grown in recent years due to decades of underinvestment in agricultural research, limited transport infrastructure, and highly variable prices for export crops. This chapter provides a more detailed picture of the spatial distribution of crop production and production technologies, which is relevant to the discussion in Chapter 18 on regional variations in rural livelihoods.

Farm commercialization: A transformation on hold or in reverse?

When food systems transform, farmers’ interactions with markets change dramatically. With changes from traditional to transitional to modern systems—as defined by Reardon and Minten (2021)— farmers move from mostly subsistence-oriented agriculture with few market interactions toward heavy reliance on spot markets for inputs, outputs, and services, and ultimately to contract farming. Such reliance on markets during these transformation processes has been shown to lead to significant improvements in farm performance and in agricultural households’ welfare. However, in a number of low- and middle-income countries, there is often a lack of clarity regarding which stage of transformation farms have reached and how to expedite such transformations. There is limited understanding of agricultural markets and farm commercialization in Myanmar in particular because of a lack of nationally representative and updated data on the farm sector. Moreover, over the past decade, the country has undergone substantial changes in its economic and agricultural market policies, as well as major COVID-19 and military coup shocks. This has all had significant impacts on the farm commercialization situation. To understand farm commercialization and its evolution, then, we first need an overview of these policy changes and shocks.

Food processing: A stalled transformation

Processed foods account for 80 percent of global food sales. Such foods are becoming increasingly important in low- and middle-income countries, driven by growing demand for convenient and ready-to-eat products. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the state and evolution of food processing in Myanmar and to assess the effect of the crises (COVID-19 and the military coup) on the different segments—production, trade, and consumption—of the sector. This assessment is important given the possible implications of changes in food processing for agriculture, employment opportunities in the food processing industry and food service sector, and nutritional outcomes.

Agricultural value chains: Examples of quiet transformation

Myanmar’s agricultural value chains1 are often perceived to be traditional and inefficient and to suffer from underinvestment, credit constraints, and inadequate technology. This perception is partly rooted in the legacy of Myanmar’s military socialist government (1962–1988). During this period, most private business was nationalized, agricultural production in the lowlands was brought under a command-and-control system, and the state assumed all responsibility for the provision of agricultural inputs, services such as mechanization, and crop procurement and marketing.

The rice sector

Recent major local shocks have negatively affected Myanmar’s economy and its people. Disruptions in the world economy linked to the outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 and the Ukraine war in 2022 and 2023 have led to sharp price increases for petroleum products, wheat, vegetable oils, and other food products, as well as agricultural inputs, such as chemical fertilizers. Myanmar’s rice sector has also been adversely affected by increases in insecurity in rural areas, higher world prices, and reduced cross-border exports to China. This chapter explores the implications of these shocks for Myanmar’s rice exports, domestic rice production, and domestic rice prices. First, we discuss Myanmar’s rice economy. Next, we describe the equations, database, and parameters of the partial equilibrium model of Myanmar’s rice economy used in this analysis. We then present model simulation results, covering the effects of the income and price shocks in 2022, negative rice production shocks accompanied by lower rice exports in 2023, and implications of a cessation of cross-border rice exports to China. The final section summarizes the results, discusses policy implications, and suggests areas for further work.

Agrifood trade

Agrifood exports make up about one-third of Myanmar’s total exports, and their share of both total exports and as a ratio of total GDP has risen in recent years. Agrifood exports have the potential to generate higher income for farmers, traders, processors, and other stakeholders within agrifood value chains. Additionally, they can contribute to the country’s foreign exchange earnings, supporting the importation of manufactured products embedded with modern technology required for the transformation of the agrifood sector. This chapter analyzes the past performance of key agrifood exports and assesses their potential role in the transformation of Myanmar’s agrifood system and the overall economy.

Regional variations in rural livelihoods: Challenges and opportunities

Rural livelihoods in Myanmar are embedded in regional contexts that vary widely in terms of physical geography, climate and agroecology, local resource base, agrarian structure, infrastructure provision, proximity to urban areas and neighboring countries, social networks, institutions, and ethnicities. The composition of livelihoods in each administrative and geographic zone of the country reflects these diverse contexts. Marked variations in livelihood patterns are evident at multiple scales, from the zone or region down to township and village level, so that the composition of livelihoods in villages close to one another sometimes varies widely. Despite the high level of place-based specificity in the composition of livelihoods, many broad similarities and common trends shape livelihoods at subnational and national levels. These include generally low levels of agricultural productivity relative to other countries in the region in terms of both land and labor; high rates of landlessness, legacies of land confiscation, and unresolved struggles over land rights and access; and generally poor public infrastructure and services—including electricity, roads, schools, health services, and rural credit—though these were improving rapidly in many places before 2020; relatively low levels of diversification and capital in the rural nonfarm economy; high rates of international and domestic outmigration; and histories of ethnopolitical conflict and insecurity.

Conclusion: From recovery to renewal of the agrifood system

Myanmar’s agrifood system is of critical importance for the near-term survival and longer-term flourishing of its diverse population. Prior to the recent crises, the food system accounted for almost half (47 percent) of Myanmar’s GDP and almost two-thirds (64 percent) of employment, while primary agriculture accounted for 22 percent of GDP and 49 percent of employment (Chapter 2). Recovery from the multiple crises Myanmar has faced since 2020 will require a combination of effective humanitarian assistance and sustained policy reforms and investment to resolve infrastructure limitations and constraints to sustainable productivity growth. These efforts are necessary to enable the agrifood system to fulfill its potential to improve food and nutrition security and reduce poverty. Our concluding chapter first reviews the trajectory of the agrifood system through multiple economic shocks, from the onset of COVID-19 in early 2020 through to the end of 2023; and the types of assistance needed to mitigate widespread food and nutrition insecurity. It then turns to longer-term investments and policies required to enable the agrifood system to drive long-term recovery and sustainable economic growth. While many of the shocks experienced by Myanmar since the onset of COVID-19 have also been experienced by other low-income countries, the consequences have been magnified and prolonged due to the military coup of February 1, 2021.

Women and youth in agriculture

Gendered social and cultural norms often strongly emphasize women’s roles as caregivers. Such norms may, in turn, contribute to gender patterns in economic activity, including agricultural activity. Meanwhile, youth are at a critical stage in their lives as they transition from being “dependent” household members to a more independent stage of life, with increasing caregiving and income-generating responsibilities. There may, therefore, be generational differences between youth and non-youth in terms of their contributions to economic activities—including the extent to which they are involved in one sector or another. Knowing and understanding the gendered and generational contributions and roles of women, men, and youth in rural livelihoods and the inequalities therein are critical to designing policies and interventions. Without such evidence, policies and projects risk being designed on the basis of false assumptions, at best lowering efficiency and, at worst, leading to harmful outcomes. So far, only a handful of studies have described gender roles in Myanmar agriculture, and these rely on case study evidence and qualitative data. Little quantitative evidence is available about women’s and youth’s roles in agriculture in Myanmar and, more broadly, in the rural economy.

Migration trends and implications

Following economic and political reforms initiated in 2011, the country’s population has been adapting rapidly to new opportunities and challenges, including through relocation and migration. This chapter describes some of the patterns and dynamics related to these population flows, as well as their consequences for Myanmar’s rural economy. Most of the chapter is based on data collected prior to the triple crises, but recent analyses allow us to give an overview of the migration landscape in the post-2020 era at the end of the chapter (MAPSA 2024c). These analyses confirm that overall migration dynamics have largely persisted.

Income diversification and the rural nonfarm economy

The rapid transformation of the rural sector between 2011 and 2021 has been well-documented in relation to farming and included profound changes in crops grown, farming practices, markets, and value chains. This transformation has been described in this volume, as well as in Belton and Filipski (2019), Filipski et al. (2020), Boughton et al. (2018), and World Bank (2017). However, this period also witnessed a diversification of activities away from agriculture, with incomes shifting away from reliance on subsistence farming and agriculture in general. The contributions of wage work and rural nonfarm businesses are growing in importance as the rural sector moves beyond an agrarian model in which primary agricultural production is the dominant source of wealth. Though the general equilibrium analysis from Chapter 2 shows that agriculture remains a major driver of economic activity, a micro-level analysis finds that activities either downstream in the food value chain or outside of the food system entirely are now responsible for large shares of rural incomes.

Does location matter? A spatial analysis of the factors influencing adoption of cereal-legume intercropping among smallholder farming households in Malawi

This study examines the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices— particularly cereal-legume intercropping—by smallholder farming households in Malawi. The focus of the study is on how spatial variation in key factors related to agricultural production and marketing influences farming households’ decision-making processes under risk. Separate analyses are done for six distinct agroecological zones in Malawi to evaluate how resource and market constraints affect farming households’ decisions to employ intercropping practices on their cropland and how the variations in these constraints have differing impacts on adoption of intercropping across different regions. This study provides valuable insights into the complexities of smallholder farming choices in diverse geographic contexts.

Evaluation of the programme to reduce vulnerability in coastal fishing areas in Djibouti: Qualitative findings

We present findings from a qualitative study conducted as part of an impact assessment of the Programme to Reduce Vulnerability in Coastal Fishing Areas (PRAREV) , supported by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and implemented from 2013 to 2021. This study was designed to focus solely on the gender aspects of PRAREV, which overall aimed to support fishing communities and actors in the fishing sector in Djibouti, specifically those living in rural coastal areas affected by climate change, by reducing their vulnerability to the effects of climate change and promote co-management of marine resources. The program targeted those who are poor and who rely on fishing, particularly women involved in fish processing and marketing. The qualitative findings shared in this paper complement findings from an accompanying quantitative study, which found positive effects of the program on incomes, production, women’s influence on decisions, and food security, but not on resilience or nutritional status. We used multiple qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with program staff and men and women leaders and members of fishing organizations to examine the following research questions focused on the gender component of the program: 1) How the program was delivered from multiple perspectives; 2) How the program strengthened the fishers’ and fishmonger associations; and 3) The benefits and costs of the program in the areas of climate change resilience, livelihoods, and changes in the fishing sector. While PRAREV aimed to take a gender-sensitive approach, the gender strategy and its delivery could have been improved. PRAREV mainly reached women by intentionally including women fishing organizations so that they could benefit from access to collective resources, training, and knowledge. PRAREV trainings often were not communicated to women members of fishing organizations, which led to women’s relative exclusion compared to men members. However, participants shared both positive and negative feedback on the PRAREV program. They generally agreed that when delivered, the trainings were well received and increased knowledge and awareness of climate change and knowledge of upgrading techniques in the fishing sector. The climate change trainings developed awareness about the drivers of climate change and taught best practices on the preservation of local marine resources. However, these trainings did not address adaptation to depleted fish populations in mangroves or reefs. Other trainings focused on value chain upgrading were well received and when delivered, increased relevant knowledge. However, their reach was limited, particularly among women fishing organization members. Finally, PRAREV provided organizations key resources for value chain upgrading and integration in the fishing sector in a way that preserved the local marine environment (e.g., boats, knives, fishing wires, nets). While fishing organization members spoke positively of these resources, there were challenges in delivering them. They were delivered late in the project, often without training or a sustainability plan, or were often not delivered as promised, creating frustration and tension among group members. They were also often delivered in smaller quantities than originally communicated and as such, the recipient fishing organizations limited their use. Overall, group members felt there was limited transparency in delivering these resources. Based on these findings, we share recommendations for PRAREV and similar programs. We suggest conducting formative research on the local fishing sector to identify how men and women want to participate and the key barriers they face in doing so. With respect to resource provision, programs should provide resources earlier and should deliver them with a sustainability plan that has community buy in. Implementers should aim to understand how groups could make use of high-value common property to enable transparency and sustainability. Trainings should also be tailored to the local context and be more in-depth. Importantly, program staff should ensure that all intended beneficiaries, especially women, are invited and able to participate in program trainings so that all members can benefit from the knowledge, awareness, and skill building gained at each training event. Programs should implement a more robust monitoring plan to ensure resources are adequately used and equitably distributed, and that all intended beneficiary groups benefit equitably. Finally, although PRAREV was designed to undertake a gender-sensitive approach, further refinement of this approach could likely improve program delivery and impact. A gender accommodative approach would have supported and empowered women from within the traditional gender roles that they feel more comfortable with to participate and upgrade in their respective fishing activities.

Farming for the future: Prioritization of climate-smart agriculture technologies in SAARC countries

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is pivotal in combating the impacts of climate change on global agriculture and food security. It has increasingly gained prominence as an adaptation strategy against the adverse impacts of climate change on agriculture, particularly in South Asia. However, scaling up the adoption of CSA interventions becomes critical, due to predominantly small and marginal nature of landholdings in the region, various institutional and policy constraints, and trade regulations and barriers. Another significant challenge lies in categorizing and prioritizing the multitude of technologies considered to be climate smart. Therefore, this study attempts to explore the different CSA technologies within the socio-economic context of six South Asian countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, with the main objective of proioritization and scaling-up of these methods. The study begins by compiling an inventory of existing technologies and subsequently prioritizing them by using the World Bank (WB) CSA Technology Index. Secondly, the study tries to address the key challenges and propose policy measures to upscale the adoption of CSA technologies in these countries using participatory research conducted with the key stakeholders in these countries. The participatory research provided valuable insights, revealing critical policy and institutional barriers, and providing a basis for framing strategies and policy solutions to facilitate wider adoption of CSA technologies in the region.

SMEs in the Food Environment in urban and peri-urban Ethiopia

Healthy diets are linked to improved health outcomes, including a reduced risk of heart disease, cancer, and obesity. While the specifics of healthy diets remain a topic of ongoing debate, most nutritional guidelines emphasize nutrient-dense foods like whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts, while advocating for moderate consumption of animal-sourced foods.

Crafting combinations to govern groundwater: Knowledge, motivation, and agency

Groundwater is a vital common pool resource for water supply, irrigation, and ecosystems, but can be difficult to govern due to invisibility, conflicting interests, and limitations of available institutions. While there are many policy and technical instruments (tools) available, efforts to apply them are often ineffective. This special issue of the International Journal of the Commons presents a set of papers with insights into policy instruments and other methods for groundwater governance. The relevance and effectiveness of tools and combinations of tools (toolboxes) in addressing problems that emerge from groundwater use is related to how they fit with diverse physical and social contexts. Drawing on research and applied experience, including that presented in this issue, we outline a conceptual framework for groundwater governance that emphasizes attention not just to knowledge, but also to motivations, and to agency for effective coordination among key actors. Articles in the special issue analyze groundwater governance in areas of Africa (east, south, and north), Central Asia, India, and the United States. The articles cover a range of scales from small groups playing experiential games to international agreements about transboundary aquifers. Several papers illustrate the crucial role of knowledge about groundwater, and the need for governance instruments and interventions to go beyond only changing knowledge. Three papers focus on groundwater games and their use to understand and change behavior, especially when combined with other tools that facilitate collective deliberation and action. Several papers illustrate how understanding of the ways people care about and practice care for groundwater illuminates examples and capabilities for groundwater governance.

Understanding the organizational approaches of funders and project implementers to strengthen women’s empowerment through agricultural collectives

This paper reports on approaches for strengthening women’s empowerment that were implemented by project partners involved in the International Food Policy Research (IFPRI)-led Applying New Evidence for Women’s Empowerment (ANEW) project funded by the Walmart Foundation. The study explores the partner organizations’ websites and publications, project materials, and selected staff interviews to better understand how each envisions women’s empowerment and the pathways for supporting it. The four implementing project partners are Grameen Foundation, Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN) in India, Root Capital in Mexico, and TechnoServe in Guatemala. Their programs and their organizational approaches vary in whether they primarily focus on women rather than more broadly targeting both women and men and their gender relationships. Some organizations are more “organic” in integrating attention to gender and empowerment into their programs, designing and implementing an approach on a case by case basis. Others are more intentional in establishing organization-wide policies, strategies, and monitoring systems. The organizations also differ in their positions on supporting “economic empowerment” and clear economic benefits such as prioritizing increased income or assets in contrast to those that also seek to actively change social norms and achieve other social dimensions of empowerment that encompass behaviors around decision-making, mobility, and self-confidence. Another variation is in the organizations’ attention to enterprise development and, consequently to entrepreneurship and upgrading, and what aspects of women’s empowerment are most critical for achieving those goals. This paper offers implementers and their funders insight into organizational differences in approaches to women’s empowerment. The review demonstrates that both funders and implementers continue to focus on strengthening women’s economic empowerment by increasing women’s incomes and assets, often with good results. However, they often lack clear theories of change or explicit strategies to strengthen other dimensions of women’s empowerment. More nuanced, evidence-based theories of change and targeted actions could strengthen program design to expand and support women’s achievement of empowerment across all its dimensions.

Tracking key CAADP indicators and implementation processes

In this chapter we review Africa’s progress in CAADP process implementation and on the CAADP RF indicators to highlight areas of strong performance that need to be sustained or accelerated as well as areas of weak performance that require urgent attention to enable the continent to meet its Malabo Declaration agricultural transformation goals. The chapter examines progress on 27 of the 38 CAADP RF indicators for which cross-country data are available (Table 13.2). Details of the indicators and aggregate statistics are available in the data tables in Annexes 1–3 of this report. Progress on the RF indicators is discussed across different aggregated geographic and economic groupings of African countries by comparing trends in the RF indicators during the first five years after the adoption of CAADP (2003–2008) with later subperiods (2008–2014 and 2014–2023), with a particular focus on the Malabo Declaration period of 2014–2023.

A nutrition-sensitive circular bioeconomy for food systems transformation in Africa

Africa’s commitment to creating a sustainable and self-sufficient economy for its rapidly growing population has led to programmatic actions aimed at meeting local food, energy, and material demands sustainably and without compromising planetary boundaries (Africa Business Page 2022; Agri SA 2023). The bioeconomy has become a primary focus of this transformative blueprint, generally positioned as a vehicle for generating and using bioresources in meeting local demands for abundance, sustainable goods, and services (Gatune, Ozor, and Oriama 2021; Malabo Montpellier Panel 2022). However, the implementation momentum of the bioeconomy is incumbent on a well-planned and objective-oriented policy framework that supports generation of scientific evidence and reasonable investment structures, among other requirements for implementation (East African Community 2022; Pachón et al. 2018).

The impact of climate change on African economies and opportunities for agrifood system transformation

As in the rest of the world, the climate is changing in Africa, with data showing a slightly faster warming trend than the global average of around +0.2°C per decade for the 1991–2022 period. In Africa, the average rate of change of temperature was around +0.3°C per decade between 1991 and 2022, while it was estimated at +0.2°C per decade between 1961 and 1990. In addition, all six African subregions have experienced an increase in warming over the past 60 years compared with the period before 1960. Due to global warming, Africa is observing a change in precipitation patterns, a rise in sea level, and an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, extreme heat, and cyclones (WMO 2023). For instance, the report on the State of the Climate in Africa in 2022 (WMO 2023) showed that precipitation anomalies were above the 1991–2020 average in northeastern Africa, large parts of West Africa, the eastern Sahel region, Sudan, and parts of South Africa. In addition, several regions experienced rainfall deficits including the western part of North Africa, the Horn of Africa, portions of southern Africa, and Madagascar. Sea level rise in Africa’s seven coastal regions has been similar to the global sea level average rate of increase of 3.4 millimeters (plus or minus 0.3 millimeters) per year between 1990 and 2020. In addition, extreme weather events are growing in frequency and intensity. With respect to extreme weather events including droughts, floods, extreme heat, and cyclones, data from the Emergency Event Database in Africa showed that 80 meteorological, hydrological, and climate-related hazards were reported in 2022 (WMO 2023).

The converging climate change and bioeconomy agendas as a pathway toward implementing the post-Malabo CAADP agenda

In June 2014, the African heads of state and government adopted the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods. The declaration contains a set of concrete goals to be attained by 2025, known as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), which in turn functions as the main policy framework for the African Union (AU) in the agricultural sector. The declaration thus provided a new direction for a more focused approach to achieving the continent’s vision for agricultural growth and transformation (AUC 2014). According to the African Union Commission (AUC) and the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD), the CAADP was designed as a practical instrument and framework through which Africa was going to drive efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The importance of evidence to inform policy design and implementation, inclusive participation of multiple stakeholder groups at all stages of the policy process, and mutual accountability for actions and results are at the heart of the CAADP. These principles help formulate high-quality policies and ensure that successful policies are scaled up while unsuccessful ones are adjusted. Since the adoption of the Malabo Declaration, 10 years have elapsed, and considerable progress toward achieving some of its targets is visible across the continent. With the lifespan of the Malabo Declaration coming to an end, the AU proactively initiated the design of a new 10-year strategy, covering the period from 2026 to 2035. As Africa has embarked on designing this successor strategy, it faces multiple complex challenges compounded by the climate crisis. With the opportune timing of this Annual Trends and Outlook Report, this chapter explores how the convergence of the climate change agenda and the transition to a bioeconomy will shape future strategic political decisions across the continent, effecting an equitable and sustainable transformation of agrifood systems. Thus, the bioeconomy can be a solution to future challenges resulting from climate change (for example, climate adaption) vis-à-vis the challenges of avoiding the unsustainable use of natural resources (through climate mitigation, land use change, and the sustainable use of inputs). Simultaneously, the bioeconomy will generate opportunities for new markets—including markets for bioproducts, bioenergy or food based on insects or waste, and carbon engineering (markets that are discussed in Featured Issue 1).

Just energy transition: Challenges and low carbon pathways for Africa

Transitioning to renewable energy is a critical part of addressing climate change and ensuring sustainable development. However, if this transition does not consider the social, economic, and financial implications for African countries, it cannot be considered a “just” transition for Africa. At the social level, the transition to low-carbon pathways, such as renewable energy sources, will create new employment opportunities. However, poor countries and marginalized populations may face disproportionate challenges during this transition if they are excluded from decision-making processes or do not benefit from these new job prospects. It is therefore essential to ensure that low-carbon pathways help reduce social inequalities and improve livelihoods for people in these countries and communities. At the economic and financial levels, transitioning to low-carbon pathways will require significant funding to develop national or regional value chains, invest in research and development, and build capacity. International financial support will be crucial for developing countries, especially in Africa, to ensure a just transition.

Conclusion [in 2024 annual trends and outlook report]

African agrifood systems face several challenges and threats, both emerging and existing, that require concerted action and targeted policymaking by African governments and their partners. The 2024 edition of the Annual Trends and Outlook Report (ATOR) explores the challenges posed by the climate crisis to agrifood systems and the opportunities offered by a transition to a bioeconomy to mitigate and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. This edition of the ATOR seeks to support the development and subsequent implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) through the renewed and updated post-Malabo CAADP agenda.

Exploring methane emissions in Africa

In the 21st century, climate change has emerged as one of the most pressing human and environmental crises. The primary driver of this global challenge is the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), in the atmosphere. In analyzing Africa’s contribution to the global GHG budget,1 it is essential to consider two factors: the absolute emissions of the continent and their role in the global carbon cycle. It is well known that Africa’s GHG emissions are relatively low on a per capita basis, but they are rising due to population growth, urbanization, and increased human activities. According to new studies (Mostefaoui et al. 2024), Africa’s methane emissions are steadily increasing. This trend reflects both agricultural development and environmental factors, such as increased forest fires due to aridity and climate variability, including the effects of El Niño.

Climate risks and vulnerabilities in African agrifood systems

In an era when the impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly pronounced, understanding and mitigating climate risk is paramount, especially for regions highly vulnerable to environmental change. Africa, with its rich biodiversity and varied climates, stands on the front line, facing unique challenges posed by climate change and climate variability. The continent’s susceptibility around climate change is not just a matter of environmental concern but a multifaceted issue affecting socioeconomic development, agricultural sustainability, and the overall well-being of its inhabitants. The imperative to assess, comprehend, and adapt to these risks is more critical now than ever, necessitating a detailed analysis of various climate-related parameters and their long-term implications.

Innovative financing mechanisms for climate adaptation in African agrifood systems

Agrifood systems are a leading cause of climate change globally, as they are responsible for a third of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the majority of which are tied to agricultural production (39 percent), followed by land use (32 percent) and supply chain activities (29 percent). Moreover, unsustainable agricultural practices continue to drive 80 percent of the loss of terrestrial biodiversity, soil degradation, and deforestation and are responsible for 70 percent of global freshwater withdrawals. GHG emissions are projected to increase by 60 to 90 percent through 2050 unless corrective action is taken (Apampa et al. 2021). Africa’s share of global GHG emissions is small (2 to 3 percent) but rising, with agriculture and land use change as major contributors (Adolph, Griffiths, and Hou-Jones 2023; FAO 2022).

Adaptation actions to climate change in African agriculture: Effectiveness and challenges

Climate change poses a significant burden to African development and economic growth, impacting households at both national and regional levels. While accounting for only 3–4 percent of global emissions, Africa is most vulnerable to climate change due to low levels of socioeconomic growth (Kikstra et al. 2022). Africa’s vulnerability to climate change is exacerbated by its reliance on rain-fed agriculture, environmental degradation, inadequate infrastructure, widespread poverty, and increased frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters. These factors make Africa highly susceptible to climate-related disruptions such as droughts and floods and can amplify the impact of climate-related disasters on communities, economies, and ecosystems (UNECA 2013; WMO 2020). Effective adaptation strategies and risk financing mechanisms are crucial for building regional adaptive capacity and resilience.

Climate action and bioeconomy transition: Mainstreaming environmental sustainability in the Post-Malabo Agenda of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

The concepts of the green economy, circular economy, blue economy, and bioeconomy started emerging in response to the multidimensional economic, socioecological, and climate change crises. These concepts are becoming popular in sustainability discussions in policy, scientific research, and business and are expected to promote sustainability through different pathways of transformation. Each of these frameworks offers a comprehensive package of solutions, yet all point toward renewable, bio-based processes and nature-based or nature-friendly solutions (Kirchherr, Reike, and Hekkert 2017; Geissdoerfer et al. 2017; D’Amato and Korhonen 2021). The bioeconomy, which is more focused on biological and nature-based/positive processes, is usually viewed as a more holistic concept that encompasses principles of the green economy, circular economy, and blue economy (Figure 12.1).

Introduction [in Advancing the climate and bioeconomy agenda in Africa for resilient and sustainable agrifood systems]

Taken together, long-term dynamics such as demographic changes, urbanization, and a continent-wide nutrition transition pose a complex set of challenges to African agrifood systems. These challenges are further compounded by the frequent and extreme weather events linked to the deepening climate crisis, whose effects range from prolonged droughts, floods, and disease outbreaks, to rising sea levels, increasing heatwaves, and changing rainfall patterns. Left unmitigated, the likely effects on agricultural yields and productivity, infrastructure, broader economic growth, and community livelihoods risk unraveling the progress made in improving food security and nutrition, as well as alleviating poverty. In one of the latest illustrations of climate change impacts across Africa, several thousand people lost their lives in Libya after torrential rain caused two dams to collapse in September 2023. The recent El Niño–induced droughts and floods across Southern Africa have led the United Nations and its partners to call for urgent action, as more than 30 million people across the region face the effects of severe drought. The consortium has warned that millions could be pushed into acute hunger unless support is urgently mobilized before the next lean season (WFP 2024). These shocks are seriously disrupting production cycles and hampering the ability of countries to guarantee food security for their populations.

Bioeconomy pathways: Experience from Africa, Asia, and Latin America

In 2022, the Malabo Montpellier Panel published a report that made the case for African countries to embrace a bioeconomy approach to meet their agrifood systems transformation and economic growth ambitions. The Panel systematically identified four African countries at the forefront of transitioning to a bioeconomy to better understand how different governments choose their own context-specific bioeconomy development pathways (Malabo Montpellier Panel 2022). Building on this analysis, this chapter provides a snapshot of how different countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are choosing their own context-specific bioeconomy entry points and pathways. It provides an update of the analyses by the Panel on the cases of Ghana, Namibia, and Uganda. In addition, this chapter shows how Brazil and Thailand have embraced a bioeconomy transition to support learning not just across borders, but across regions.

The Impact of climate change on agriculture

Agriculture is an extremely important sector for Africa, providing a large contribution to GDP in most countries and, more importantly, representing a key source of employment in most of the continent—including 52 percent in Africa south of the Sahara in 2022 (International Labour Organization 2024)—while also serving as a bulwark against household food insecurity. Agriculture, however, is the sector most exposed to climate risk, and in years when climate conditions are not favorable, the resulting lower-than-normal agricultural production contributes to increases in food insecurity in almost every country on the continent.

Presentations for Debt Distress and the Right to Food in Africa

An approach for assessing whether agricultural projects help smallholders transition to better livelihood strategies: A Malawian case study

Agricultural projects typically aim to promote the uptake of project components amongst targeted small farm populations to improve their farm productivity and welfare. While this approach can be an important first step towards improving smallholder livelihoods, it ignores alternative and often superior livelihood options that might arise within the rural transformation process, particularly in commercial agriculture and the rural nonfarm economy. We argue that the design of smallholder projects implemented within regions already undergoing a dynamic transformation and/or projects which have significant value chain components, should be broadened to assist smallholders in making successful transitions to their best livelihood options. For such projects, monitoring and evaluation activities should track livelihood transitions as well as the usual assessments of productivity and welfare outcomes. To help operationalize such an approach, we propose a typology of smallholder livelihood strategies that can track transitions over time and illustrate its use with data from the Sustainable Agricultural Production Program (SAPP), an agricultural value chain project in Malawi. Using available household panel data and quasi-experimental econometric approaches, we find that the project helped smallholders transition out of subsistence farming to market-oriented farming and helped already existing market-oriented farmers remain as such. Even though the project did not have any specific components designed to promote off-farm incomes, nevertheless, it facilitated many farm household transitions to off-farm diversified livelihoods, possibly due to spillover benefits generated within the local nonfarm economy. All SAPP facilitated transitions led to increases in household incomes. We conclude with some lessons for designing, monitoring, and the evaluation of future agricultural projects.