Advertisement

Enhancing Productivity and Market Access for Key Staples in the EAC Region: An Economic Analysis of Biophysical and Market Potential

  • Siwa MsangiEmail author
  • Kennedy Were
  • Bernard Musana
  • Joseph Mudiope
  • Leonidas Dusengemungu
  • Lucas Tanui
  • Jean-Claude Muhutu
  • George Ayaga
  • Geophrey Kajiru
  • Birungi Korutaro
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 50)

Abstract

In this chapter, we show how the current crop areas under three key staples—rice, maize, and beans—could be better aligned with the crop suitabilities that are inherent in the East African Community (EAC) region, through some key policy interventions. We take a multi-market model that was constructed for the 5 main countries in the EAC and use it to demonstrate how reducing transport costs, and increasing crop productivities can lead to market-level welfare improvements, as well as a closer alignment between the areas where the crops are cultivated, and the areas with the best agronomic suitability for those crops. At present, a significant proportion of those staples are grown in areas with limited growth potential, but opening up markets in combination with productivity-focused investments can allow countries to make better use of the crop potential they already have, and take advantage of regional market opportunities.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Anyango, G. (1997). Comparative transportation cost analysis in East Africa. Technical Paper no 22, SD Publications Series, Office of Sustainable Development, Bureau for Africa, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Barkaoui, A., & Boutault, J.-P. (2000). Cereal and oil seeds supply with EU under agenda 2000: A positive mathematical programming application. Agricultural Economics Review, 1(2), 7–17.Google Scholar
  3. Doole, G., & Marsh, D. (2014). Use of positive mathematical programming invalidates the application of the NZFARM model. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 58(2), 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. East African Community (EAC). (2011). EAC food security action plan (2011–2015). East African Community Secretariat, Arusha, Tanzania. Available at http://www.agriculture.eac.int/.
  5. Foster, V., & Briceño-Garmendia, C. (2010). Africa’s infrastructure: A time for transformation. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  6. Gohin, A., & Chantreuil, F. (1999). La Programmation Mathématique Positive dans les Modèles d’Exploitation Agricole. Principes et Importance du Calibrage. Cahiers d’Économie et de Sociologie Rurales, 52, 59–79.Google Scholar
  7. Heckelei, T., & Britz, W. (2000). Positive mathematical programming with multiple data points: A cross-sectional estimation procedure. Cahiers d’Economie et Sociologie Rurales, 57, 28–50.Google Scholar
  8. Heckelei, T., & Wolff, H. (2003). Estimation of constrained optimisation models for agricultural supply analysis based on generalised maximum entropy. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 30(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heckelei, T., & Britz, W. (2005). Models based on positive mathematical programming: State of the art and further extensions. In F. Arfini (Ed.), Modelling agricultural policies: State of the art and new challenges: Proceedings of the 89th European Seminar of the European association of agricultural economists (pp. 48–73). Parma: Monte Università.Google Scholar
  10. Heckelei, T., Britz, W., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Positive mathematical programming approaches—recent developments in literature and applied modelling. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 1(1), 109–124.Google Scholar
  11. Henry de Frahan, B., Buysse, J., Polomé, P., Fernagut, B., Harmignie, O., Lauwers, L., et al. (2007). Positive mathematical programming for agricultural and environmental policy analysis: Review and practice. In A. Weintraub, C. Romero, T. Bjørndal, & R. Epstein (Eds.), Handbook of operations research in natural resources (pp. 129–154). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howitt, R. E. (1995a). Positive mathematical programming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(2), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howitt, R. E. (1995b). A calibration method for agricultural economic production models. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(2), 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howitt, R. E., Medellín-Azuara, J., MacEwan, D., & Lund, J. R. (2012). Calibrating disaggregate economic models of agricultural production and water management. Environmental Modelling and Software, 38, 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Judez, L., Chaya, C., Martınez, S., & González, A. (2001). Effects of the measures envisaged in “Agenda 2000” on arable crop producers and beef and veal producers: An application of Positive Mathematical Programming to representative farms of a Spanish region. Agricultural Systems, 67(2), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaaya, A. K., Msanya, B. M., & Mrema, J. P. (1994). Soils and land evaluation of part of the Sokoine University of Agriculture farm (Tanzania) for some crops under rain-fed conditions. African Study Monographs, 15(2), 97–117.Google Scholar
  17. Kanellopoulos, A., Berentsen, P., Heckelei, T., Van Ittersum, M., & Oude Lansink, A. (2010). Assessing the forecasting performance of a generic bio-economic farm model calibrated with two different PMP variants. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 274–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kullback, S. (1959). Information theory and statistics. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951). On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mérel, P., & Howitt, R. (2014). Theory and application of positive mathematical programming in agriculture and the environment. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 6(1), 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mérel, P. R., & Bucaram, S. (2010). Exact calibration of programming models of agricultural supply against exogenous sets of supply elasticities. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 37(3), 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mérel, P. R., Simon, L. K., & Yi, F. (2011). A fully calibrated generalized constant-elasticity-of-substitution programming model of agricultural supply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93, 936–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mérel, P. R., Yi, F., Lee, J., & Six, J. (2014). A regional bio-economic model of nitrogen use in cropping. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96(1), 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minot, N. (2009). Using GAMS for agricultural policy analysis. Technical Guide. Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Aavailable at: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/using-gams-agricultural-policyanalysis.
  25. Omamo, S. W., Diao, X., Wood, S., Chamberlin, J., You, L., Benin, S., et al. (2006). Strategic priorities for agricultural development in Eastern and Central Africa. Research Report 150. Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.  https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896291584rr150.
  26. Paris, Q. (2010). Economic foundations of symmetric programming. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robinson, S., Cattaneo, A., & El-Said, M. (2000). Updating and estimating a social accounting matrix using cross entropy methods. Trade and MacroEconomics Division Discussion Paper No. 58. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.Google Scholar
  28. Röhm, O., & Dabbert, S. (2003). Integrating agri-environmental programs into regional production models: An extension of positive mathematical programming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(1), 254–265.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosegrant, M. W., Paisner, M. S., Meijer, S., & Witcover, J. (2001). Global food projections to 2020: Emerging trends and alternative futures. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Rosegrant, M. W., Cai, X., & Cline, S. A. (2002). Water and food to 2025: Dealing with scarcity. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Rosegrant, M. W., et al. (2012). International model for policy analysis of agricultural commodities and trade (IMPACT): Model description. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Sadoulet, E., & de Janvry, A. (1994). Quantitative development policy analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Salami, A., Kamara, A. B., & Brixiova, Z. (2010). Smallholder agriculture in East Africa: Trends, constraints and opportunities. Working paper no. 105, African Development Bank Group, Tunisia. Available at https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/WORKING%20105%20%20PDF%20d.pdf.
  34. Shannon, C. E. (1948a). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(July), 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shannon, C. E. (1948b). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(October), 623–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teravaninthorn, S., & Raballand, G. (2009). Transport prices and costs in Africa: A review of the main international corridors. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  37. USAID. (2017). East Africa Regional profile: Feed the future country profile. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Available at https://www.feedthefuture.gov/country/east-africa-regional-0.
  38. Waithaka, M., Nelson, G., Thomas, T. S., & Kyotalimye, M. (2013). East African agriculture and climate change: A comprehensive analysis. IFPRI monograph, International Food Policy Research Institute. Available at http://www.ifpri.org/publication/east-african-agriculture-and-climate-change-comprehensive-analysis.
  39. Were, K., Musana, B., Mudiope, J., Tanui, L., & Muhutu, J.-C. (2016). A GIS-based analysis of agro-ecosystems suitability for production of staple crops in the East African Community region. A technical report for the project on Water, Land, Ecosystems and Trade in Staples (WaLETS). Available at https://www.kilimotrust.org/documents/reports/2017/walets/WaLETS_Final_Reports/WaLETS_GIS_TechnicalReport.pdf.
  40. You, L., & Wood, S. (2004). Assessing the spatial distribution of crop production using a cross-entropy method. Environment and Production Technology Division Discussion Paper No. 126. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siwa Msangi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kennedy Were
    • 2
  • Bernard Musana
    • 3
  • Joseph Mudiope
    • 4
  • Leonidas Dusengemungu
    • 5
  • Lucas Tanui
    • 2
  • Jean-Claude Muhutu
    • 5
  • George Ayaga
    • 2
  • Geophrey Kajiru
    • 6
  • Birungi Korutaro
    • 4
  1. 1.International Food Policy Research InstituteWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO), Food Crops Research InstituteNairobiKenya
  3. 3.College of Agriculture, Animal Sciences and Veterinary MedicineUniversity of RwandaKigaliRwanda
  4. 4.Kilimo TrustBugolobiUganda
  5. 5.Rwanda Agriculture BoardRubilizi, KigaliRwanda
  6. 6.Lake Zone Agricultural Research Development Institute (LZARDI)MwanzaTanzania

Personalised recommendations