Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
Chapter 3. Regional trade patterns
Extracted from
African Agricultural
Trade Status Report
2017
36
CHAPTER 3. REGIONAL TRADE PATTERNS
Anatole Goundan, International Food Policy Research Institute, West and Central Afri...
37
Many reasons could explain that low level of intra-regional trade in Africa. Obstacles to better
performance of intra-r...
38
the total intra-regional trade. Over the period, intra-regional agricultural trade has grown
significantly, with an ave...
39
Figure 3.2. Evolution of the normalized trade balance by REC and product group
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2...
40
The value of intra-African agricultural trade has grown rapidly over recent years, rising from $2.2
billion in 1998 to ...
41
This could be the result of various initiatives during and after the international food crisis. As
examples of initiati...
42
In fact, the average trade volume (nominal trade value) growth was 38% (27%) over 1998-2006,
8% (5%) from 2007 to 2013,...
43
Table 3.1. Value of intra- and inter-regional trade in agricultural products in Africa, 2010-2013
average (billion US d...
44
Figure 3.5. Regional share in intra-African agricultural trade
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: (a) e...
45
Inside ECOWAS, Côte d’Ivoire remains the biggest exporter of agricultural products in the region
with about 26% of tota...
46
Table 3.4. COMESA intra-regional trade share by country (%)
1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall
Exports Imports Exports Imports...
47
Within SADC, SACU countries, which are composed of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland
and South Africa, constitute t...
48
Figure 3.6. ECOWAS import changes
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
Note: Benin (BEN), Burkina Faso (BF), Ca...
49
Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Senegal and Sierra Leone. However, it should be noted that Senegal is the
country that buys the fe...
50
For the rest of the ECOWAS countries (Cape Verde, The Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Niger, Togo),
an increase in the value of...
51
Figure 3.8. ECCAS import changes
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
Note: Angola (ANG), Burundi (BUR), Camero...
52
In terms of exports, Cameroon remains the largest exporter of agricultural products in the ECCAS
area by doubling the v...
53
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
Note: Angola (ANG), Burundi (BUR), Cameroon (CAM), Central African Republi...
54
Unlike Zambia, Madagascar has multiplied the volume of agricultural imports by 20, becoming
the largest importer in vol...
55
Figure 3.10. COMESA import changes
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
Note: Burundi (BUR), Comoros (COM), Dem...
56
Figure 3.11. COMESA export changes
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
Note: Burundi (BUR), Comoros (COM), Dem...
57
On the export side (Figure 3.11), it is found that the total value of intra-COMESA agricultural
exports has quadrupled,...
58
This observation is also true for the DRC, also a member of COMESA and ECCAS. For Angola,
also a member of ECCAS, the e...
59
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
Note: Angola (ANG), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Madagascar (MA...
60
Figure 3.13. SADC export changes
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
Note: Angola (ANG), Democratic Republic o...
61
Products exported by this regional entity appear to be more expensive. Furthermore, concerning
the other SADC countries...
62
At the product level, Figure 3.14 shows the 10 most traded agricultural commodities in Africa.
Between the two periods,...
63
Figure 3.15. Top 10 most traded commodities in the ECOWAS zone
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
At the prod...
64
Figure 3.16. Top 10 most traded commodities in the ECCAS zone
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
At a more de...
65
Figure 3.17. Top 10 most traded commodities in the COMESA zone
Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
Figure 3.17...
66
drinks (waters and beer made from malt) are no longer part of the 10 most traded commodities
(Figure 3.18).
Figure 3.18...
67
Figure 3.19. UV changes for intra-African trade, $ per ton
Source: TUV Database and authors’ calculations, 2016.
Figure...
68
Since important progress in terms of economic integration has been made, one could attribute the
increase of import uni...
69
Inside COMESA, trade unit values of agricultural products are more stable over the period (Figure
3.22). Export unit va...
70
Figure 3.24. Evolution of the terms of trade by group of products
Source: TUV Database and authors’ calculations, 2016....
71
The overall annual growth over this period is around 12%. Regarding the RECs, intra-regional
agricultural trade has in ...
72
References
Berthou, A., & Emlinger, C. (2011). The Trade Unit Values Database. CEPII Working Paper 2011-10.
Paris: CEPI...
73
Annex
Table A1: Regional agricultural trade share (%)
Africa ECOWAS ECCAS
Import Export Intra regional Import Export In...
74
Table A1: Regional agricultural trade share (%), contd.
COMESA SADC
Import Export Intra regional Import Export Intra re...
75
Table A2: Evolution of export/import value index and terms trade for agricultural products
Africa ECOWAS ECCAS
Import E...
76
Table A2: Evolution of export/import value index and terms trade for agricultural products,
contd.
COMESA SADC
Import E...
77
Table A3: Evolution of export/import value index and terms trade for non-agricultural products,
contd.
COMESA SADC
Impo...
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5
×

African Agricultural Trade Status Report 2017: Chapter 3. Regional trade patterns

524 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

In order to maximise the benefits of regional integration and look for new opportunities for competitiveness, policymakers, the private sector and development partners need access to accurate and comprehensive data on intra and inter-regional trade in Africa with respect to agricultural goods. It is in this context that CTA and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) are launching the “African Agricultural Trade Status Report”, which examines the current status, trends and outlook in African trade performance, making an important contribution towards data and analysis of developments both at regional and at continental levels. The Report, which is released in conjunction with the Briefing, builds on the work by the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) of CAADP and the African Growth and Development Policy Modeling Consortium (AGRODEP) trade and also reflects the CTA’s commitment to advancing knowledge and sharing of best practices relating to agricultural trade.
The Brussels Development Briefing n.47 on the subject of “Regional Trade in Africa: Drivers, Trends and Opportunities” took place on 3rd February 2017 in Brussels at the ACP Secretariat (Avenue Georges Henri 451, 1200 Brussels) from 09:00 to 13:00. This Briefing was organised by the ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), in collaboration with IFPRI, the European Commission / DEVCO, the ACP Secretariat, and CONCORD .

Veröffentlicht in: Daten & Analysen
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

African Agricultural Trade Status Report 2017: Chapter 3. Regional trade patterns

  1. 1. Chapter 3. Regional trade patterns Extracted from African Agricultural Trade Status Report 2017
  2. 2. 36 CHAPTER 3. REGIONAL TRADE PATTERNS Anatole Goundan, International Food Policy Research Institute, West and Central Africa office, Dakar, Senegal Cheickh Sadibou Fall, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles, Bureau d'Analyses Macro- Economiques, Dakar, Senegal 3.1 Introduction Deepening intra-regional trade among African countries, and especially Africa’s main RECs, is essential for the continent’s resilience against international market shocks. Aware of that, African leaders have positioned African economic integration as a central key in almost all continental roundtables or political discussions. Important efforts have been made through several regional trade agreements (RTA) such as the creation of free trade areas (FTA), customs unions (CU), and economic and monetary unions. More recently, the 2012 African Union Summit mainly focused on “Boosting Intra-African Trade.” Even if those agreements have generally and positively impacted intra-African trade, the share of intra-regional trade in total African trade is still very low compared to other regions or continents. For agricultural commodities, the view is similar (Figure 3.1). The share of trade in agricultural products among African countries that is intra-regional varies between 13% and 20% over the period from 2000 to 2013, while its level is around 40% among American countries, 63% among Asian countries and 75% among European countries. Figure 3.1. Share of intra-regional agricultural trade value in total trade Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2000 2005 2010 2013 2000 2005 2010 2013 2000 2005 2010 2013 2000 2005 2010 2013 Africa America Asia Europe Intra trade Extra trade
  3. 3. 37 Many reasons could explain that low level of intra-regional trade in Africa. Obstacles to better performance of intra-regional trade in Africa include weak productive capacity, the lack of trade- related infrastructure and services, the limited role of the private sector in regional integration initiatives, the low diversification of traded products, the small size of consumer markets, and the quality of institutions. This chapter focuses on the state of intra-African trade for agricultural commodities over recent years. It will mainly (i) analyze the current performance of intra-African and intra-regional trade, (ii) explore trade direction at the continental and REC levels, (iii) study the trading role of each REC in African trade and each country’s individual share in the corresponding REC, (iv) examine the main agricultural products traded among African countries, and finally (v) present the evolution of import and export unit values. 3.2 A general perspective of regional agricultural trade and total trade Over recent years (1998-2013), African exports have increased rapidly, with an annual growth of 12%. During the same period, trade exchange between African countries showed a significant increase (16%), with an intra-African trade share growing from about 7% in 1998 to 13% in 2010. The average intra-African trade share stood at 10%. In terms of agricultural trade, its share in total trade has decreased over the years, passing from 18% in 1998 to about 9% in 2010. Total agricultural trade has shown an annual growth of 8%. Agricultural trade between African countries has experienced a significant growth rate of about 13% over the period, especially after the recent food crisis, with an increase between 10 and 28% over the period from 2007 to 2012. At the ECOWAS level, total exports have also considerably increased over the period, with an annual growth of 14%. Trade within the region represents on average only 8% of total trade, but has displayed a large increase between 1998 and 2013 of around 15%. Agricultural trade represents about 15% of total exports, with an annual growth of 8%. Within the region, the agricultural trade share stands at 18% on average, with on average 12% annual growth. The total trade of ECCAS countries has displayed very high growth of more than 17% over 1998- 2013. However, this trade performance is not due to an increase in intra-regional trade, which represents less than 2% of total ECCAS exports. Agricultural products represent only 4% of total exports, with about 4% growth. The trade of these products inside the region represents 18% of
  4. 4. 38 the total intra-regional trade. Over the period, intra-regional agricultural trade has grown significantly, with an average growth rate of 16%. For COMESA countries, total exports have shown significant growth over the period, with an annual growth rate of 12%. Trade within the region, which represents on average only 6% of total trade, has grown more rapidly than total trade (16% compared to 12%). Agricultural trade represents about 17% of total exports, with an annual growth rate of 8%. Within the region, the agricultural trade share stands at 33% on average, which is the highest share among the considered RECs. The agricultural trade share grew by an average of 12% annually. For SADC countries, total exports have shown rapid growth over the period, with an annual growth rate of 16%, increasing from $11 billion in 1998 to $105 billion in 2013. Intra-SADC trade, which represents on average only 4% of total trade, has grown rapidly, with a 19% annual growth rate. Agricultural trade represents about 16% of total exports, with an annual growth of 7%. Within the region, the agricultural trade share stands at 27% on average, which is the second highest share among the considered RECs, with 17% average annual growth. In terms of trade balance, Figure 3.2 depicts changes in the normalized trade balance over the period 1998-2013 for agricultural and non-agricultural products for different regional economic communities. This graph shows that the evolution of the trade balance depends immensely on the product group and the region considered. Agricultural products tend to have a negative trade balance, especially after the recent food crisis. Unlike agricultural products, non-agricultural products have a positive trade balance for several RECs and years.
  5. 5. 39 Figure 3.2. Evolution of the normalized trade balance by REC and product group Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: (a) Total agricultural trade, (b) Total non-agricultural trade. 3.3 Trends in volumes and values of intra-African and intra-regional agricultural exports and imports The evolution of agricultural trade in value and volume among African countries in general and among some RECs (ECOWAS, ECCAS, COMESA and SADC) over the period from 1998 to 2013 is represented in Figures 3.3 and 3.49 . 9 In the BACI trade dataset, intra-regional exports are set to exactly equate intra-regional imports. Therefore, we use ‘intra-regional trade’ to mean imports or exports. In terms of trends, imports or exports are equivalent. -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 (a) Africa ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 (b) Africa ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC
  6. 6. 40 The value of intra-African agricultural trade has grown rapidly over recent years, rising from $2.2 billion in 1998 to $12.8 billion in 2013 (Figure 3.3). The overall annual growth during this period is around 12%. When the period is split into two sub-periods (before and after the international crisis), an increase in the growth of agricultural products trade can be noted (13.62% between 2007 and 2013) compared the period before the crisis (11.47% between 1998 and 2006). The analysis of intra-African trade in agricultural products in volume terms shows an overall growth of 15.84%, which is greater than the nominal trade growth. Therefore, in general, growth in agricultural trade between African countries over the selected periods was not driven by price increases. Figure 3.3. Intra-regional agricultural trade over 1998-2013 by REC Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: (a) trade value in billion US dollar, (b) trade volume in million metric tons. Intra-ECOWAS agricultural trade shows an average growth of 12%, rising from $494 million in 1998 to $2.84 billion in 2013. Despite this apparent significant growth, agricultural trade between ECOWAS countries was very erratic. In fact, seven negative growth-rates were noticed over the considered period. The year 2006 saw the biggest decrease (-23.4%) and the largest increase was reported in 2003 (95%). Over the two sub-periods, a big growth gap was noted. The sub-period before 2007 showed an average growth of 5% while an intra-regional trade increase of 21% was registered during the sub-period starting in 2007. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 (a) Africa ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (b) Africa ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC
  7. 7. 41 This could be the result of various initiatives during and after the international food crisis. As examples of initiatives during the recent food crisis, Engel et al. (2013, page 20) mention the EU- led Alliance Globale pour l’Initiative Résilience – Sahel (AGIR), the Comité permanent Inter- état de Lutte contre la Sécheresse au Sahel (CILSS) initiative, the COMESA Alliance for Commodity Trade, and the SADC Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan, etc. In terms of agricultural trade volume, overall growth of 11% is reported compared to 12% for nominal trade. Trade increase between ECOWAS countries was then partly driven by commodity prices. Figure 3.4. Average intra-regional trade growth (value and volume) Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: (a) trade value, (b) trade volume. Agricultural trade between ECCAS countries has shown the highest overall growth in value of 17%, with a nominal value which has increased from $14 million in 1998 to $147 million in 2013. A significant change in intra-ECCAS trade can be noted over the two sub-periods. The first period was characterised by an improving trade performance with an average annual growth of 27%, but the growth rate of intra-exchange fell to 5% in the second period. Obviously, the 2007-2008 food crisis has dampened the dynamic of agricultural trade inside the ECCAS zone. The volume of agricultural trade between ECCAS countries showed the same dynamics as nominal trade. Moreover, the average growth of trade volume was higher than that of trade value. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Africa ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC (a) 1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Africa ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC (b) 1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall
  8. 8. 42 In fact, the average trade volume (nominal trade value) growth was 38% (27%) over 1998-2006, 8% (5%) from 2007 to 2013, and 23% (17%) for the entire period. It could be concluded that on average, trade flow of agricultural products was not driven by price increases. Like other RECs, intra-regional agricultural trade in COMESA has displayed a significant increase (14%) over 1998-2013, rising from $379 million in 1998 to $2.87 billion in 2013. Whereas the first two RECs (ECOWAS and ECCAS) showed a major differences between our two sub-periods, in COMESA, the growth gap between the two sub-periods is very thin (less than 3 percentage points). Over the entire period (1998-2013), the volume of intra-regional agricultural trade has shown a significant increase (22%). The value of intra-regional trade of agricultural commodities in SADC has displayed the lowest overall annual growth of 10%, with a nominal value which has increased from $871 million in 1998 to $3.82 billion in 2013. During the first sub-period, an 8% increase was reported, against 13% over the second sub-period. In value, intra-regional agricultural trade has increased after the international food crisis. However, the volume trend is totally different over the two sub-periods. A greater average increase was noted over the first sub-period (16%) compared to growth in the second sub-period (13%). Therefore, the nominal intra-regional increase observed between the sub-periods is essentially a price effect. Nevertheless, over the whole period (1998-2013), the intra-regional trade volume increase (14%) is greater than its value increase (10%). 3.4 Direction of agricultural exports and imports in intra-African and intra-regional markets The previous section presented trends in intra-African and intra-RECs trade over the period from 1998-2013. But, no mention was made of which country or REC leads in intra-regional trade. Therefore, the target of this section is to shed light on that aspect. Before deepening the analysis of intra-African and intra-RECs trade direction, Table 3.1 summarizes trading networks between various African regions, by presenting the average trade flow (exports/imports) between them over recent years (2010-2013). Exporting regions are in rows and importing ones are in columns. Intra-regional trade is shown by the diagonal elements in bold.
  9. 9. 43 Table 3.1. Value of intra- and inter-regional trade in agricultural products in Africa, 2010-2013 average (billion US dollars) Regional market destinations AFRICA ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC SSA Exporters AFRICA 11.69 2.93 1.73 5.26 4.07 9.53 ECOWAS 2.40 1.91 0.13 0.06 0.09 2.13 ECCAS 0.30 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.08 0.27 COMESA 4.50 0.10 0.54 2.94 1.67 3.39 SADC 4.46 0.30 0.96 2.60 3.43 4.29 SSA 9.28 2.47 1.53 4.09 3.91 8.39 Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. One interesting statistic is the ratio of intra-regional trade (ECOWAS, ECCAS, COMESA and SADC) to the total trade of the REC with Africa as a whole. This statistic will show how one REC’s trade with the continent is concentrated in that REC; it could be seen as an indicator of regional trade integration. The results show that ECOWAS is the REC with the highest trade integration with a ratio of 0.79, followed by SADC with 0.77, COMESA with 0.65 and ECCAS with 0.52. Therefore, with the exception of ECCAS countries, each REC exchanges the principal part of its trade with Africa inside its own bloc (UNCTAD, 2013). For example, ECOWAS’s intra- regional agricultural trade represents, on average over 2010 and 2013, around 80% of its total trade with Africa. In terms of intra-African agricultural trade, Figure 3.5 represents the weight of individual RECs in terms of origin and destination. As destinations or origins of intra-African trade, COMESA (42% of exports and 34% of imports) and SADC (37% of exports and 42% of imports) are the main regions, while ECCAS (14% of exports and 3% of imports) is last. One could note that COMESA and SADC have opposite patterns. In fact, COMESA has gained trade share (exports and imports) over the considered period while SADC countries have lost some. COMESA’s export share has increased from 40% between 1998 and 2006 to 45% between 2007 and 2013, and the region’s import share has risen from 32% between 1998 and 2006 to 37% between 2007 and 2013. In contrast, SADC’s export share has decreased from 39% between 1998 and 2006 to 34% between 2007 and 2013, and the region’s import share has fallen from 46% between 1998 and 2006 to 38% between 2007 and 2013.
  10. 10. 44 Figure 3.5. Regional share in intra-African agricultural trade Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: (a) export value, (b) import value. Inside any specific African REC, many efforts and political commitments exist to promote political co-operation and economic integration. As seen previously, those commitments have increased intra-regional trade. The objectives of the following subsections are to present the importance (in terms of exports and imports) of different countries inside their regional bloc. Tables 3.2 to 3.5 present individual countries’ export and import shares in intra-regional trade (average shares for 1998-2006, 2007-2013 and 1998-2013). Table 3.2. ECOWAS intra-regional trade share by country (%) 1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Benin 6.3 5.5 5.9 3.9 6.0 4.5 Burkina Faso 14.8 7.7 4.2 10.2 7.9 9.3 Cape Verde 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 Côte d'Ivoire 25.0 15.3 26.8 12.5 26.2 13.5 Gambia 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 0.8 1.5 Ghana 3.7 10.3 11.1 8.9 8.5 9.3 Guinea 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.8 2.2 2.6 Guinea-Bissau 0.1 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.9 Liberia 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 Mali 17.7 8.4 6.0 9.7 10.1 9.3 Niger 10.9 8.5 17.9 5.8 15.5 6.7 Nigeria 3.0 14.8 6.9 27.6 5.5 23.1 Senegal 8.8 12.2 12.6 9.2 11.3 10.2 Sierra Leone 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 Togo 6.3 11.7 4.2 5.6 4.9 7.7 Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% (a) ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% (b) ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC
  11. 11. 45 Inside ECOWAS, Côte d’Ivoire remains the biggest exporter of agricultural products in the region with about 26% of total intra-regional trade. Other important exporters to the region are Niger (15.5%), Senegal (11.3%) and Mali (10.1%). In terms of destination, Nigeria is the main importer of those commodities from the region with 23% of total trade, followed by Côte d’Ivoire (13.5%) and Senegal (10.2%). Some countries have seen their exporting performance worsen over the two sub-periods while others became more performant. For example, Burkina Faso’s export share has fallen from 14.8% to 4.2%. In contrast, Ghana’s export share has increased from 3.7% to 11.1%. Table 3.3. ECCAS intra-regional trade share by country (%) 1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Angola 0.6 1.2 0.1 3.2 0.2 2.5 Burundi 2.0 0.8 2.2 3.9 2.2 3.5 Cameroon 50.5 20.8 41.5 11.7 42.7 14.4 Central African Republic 1.6 10.9 0.4 8.6 0.8 9.2 Chad 4.1 11.6 0.1 8.6 1.3 9.7 Congo 16.9 18.7 11.7 18.7 13.1 18.5 Democratic Congo 0.5 5.2 4.9 21.0 3.4 15.9 Equatorial Guinea 0.1 6.5 0.0 7.1 0.0 7.0 Gabon 22.3 21.5 17.1 13.3 18.0 15.7 Rwanda 1.2 1.8 22.0 3.2 18.1 3.0 Sao Tome and Principe 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.7 Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. For ECCAS countries, Cameroon controlled the export market inside this REC with around 43% of the regional agricultural products market. Rwanda (18.1%), Gabon (18%) and Congo (13%) are the other main exporters of agricultural products. In terms of destination, Congo (18.5%), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (15.9%), Gabon (15.7%) and Cameroon (14.4%) are the main markets for agricultural products. It is worth noting the impressive performance of Rwanda, which has seen its export share rise from 1.2% over 1998-2006 to 18.1% between 2007 and 2013.
  12. 12. 46 Table 3.4. COMESA intra-regional trade share by country (%) 1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Burundi 0.4 1.4 0.4 1.6 0.4 1.6 Comoros 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 DRC 0.7 6.8 0.4 9.8 0.5 9.2 Djibouti 2.0 5.8 0.8 3.2 1.2 4.0 Egypt 5.6 22.6 21.1 14.3 17.0 16.6 Eritrea 0.0 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.0 Ethiopia 7.4 4.0 7.2 1.2 7.2 2.0 Kenya 28.0 13.2 21.1 11.6 22.9 12.2 Libya 0.0 0.2 0.1 10.2 0.1 8.3 Madagascar 1.3 2.5 0.7 2.5 0.8 2.5 Malawi 5.8 4.7 5.0 3.1 5.2 3.6 Mauritius 2.7 4.1 2.4 4.8 2.5 4.7 Rwanda 2.2 3.3 3.2 4.0 3.0 3.9 Seychelles 2.2 0.6 1.3 0.3 1.6 0.4 Sudan 6.4 11.9 2.6 16.6 3.5 13.7 Uganda 13.5 4.9 15.5 4.7 15.0 4.9 Zambia 11.9 6.8 15.5 3.0 14.6 4.0 Zimbabwe 9.9 5.6 2.3 7.6 4.3 7.2 Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Inside COMESA, Kenya (22.9%), Egypt (17%), Uganda (15%) and Zambia (14.6%) are the leading exporters of agricultural products. In terms of imports, Egypt (16.6%), Sudan (13.7%) and Kenya (12.2%) are the main markets for those products. Showing exceptional performance, Egypt’s export share in the region has been multiplied by four, passing from 5.6% between 1998 and 2006 to 21.1% over 2007-2013. Table 3.5. SADC intra-regional trade share by country (%) 1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Angola 0.2 15.1 0.1 11.4 0.1 12.5 Democratic Congo 0.1 6.5 0.0 10.7 0.0 9.5 Madagascar 0.8 2.6 0.4 2.7 0.5 2.7 Malawi 4.0 8.1 5.1 5.5 4.7 6.3 Mauritius 1.5 7.7 2.3 6.5 2.0 6.9 Mozambique 4.8 13.3 5.0 13.6 4.9 13.5 SACU 59.9 18.3 57.0 12.6 57.8 14.3 Seychelles 1.2 0.9 1.3 0.6 1.2 0.7 Tanzania 2.1 3.9 3.8 2.9 3.3 3.2 Zambia 10.1 9.6 16.0 8.4 14.2 8.8 Zimbabwe 15.5 13.9 9.2 25.0 11.0 21.7 Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016.
  13. 13. 47 Within SADC, SACU countries, which are composed of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland and South Africa, constitute the major exporters with around 57% of intra-regional trade in agricultural commodities. But in terms of imports, they are the second biggest market (14.3%) behind Zimbabwe (21.7%). Mozambique is the third market for agricultural products in the region with 13.5% of intra-regional trade. 3.5 Changes in export and import shares in intra-African and intra-regional agricultural markets The bubble charts presented in the next subsections show primarily the changes in trade (imports and exports) for each of the two sub-periods. The average trade in value for the sub-period is represented on the X axis. The average trade in volume over the considered period is represented on the Y axis. Each bubble corresponds to a country, and the bubble size shows the country’s average GDP over the sub-period. This type of graph is chosen in order to capture whether the observed changes in trade issue from a price effect or a volume effect. In addition, it provides an idea of the size of the economies within the RECs. 3.5.1 ECOWAS The changes in intra-ECOWAS agricultural imports are shown in Figure 3.6. It is found that in the aggregate, the total value and volume of agricultural imports has doubled in the ECOWAS zone. At the country level, we note that all countries have at least doubled the value of their agricultural purchases from ECOWAS, except Togo, for which a 14% increase in the value of agricultural imports from the ECOWAS zone is observed.
  14. 14. 48 Figure 3.6. ECOWAS import changes Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: Benin (BEN), Burkina Faso (BF), Cape Verde (CAPV), Côte d'Ivoire (CIV), Gambia (GAMB), Ghana (GHA), Guinea (GUI), Guinea-Bissau (GUIB), Liberia (LIB), Mali (MAL), Niger (NIG), Nigeria (NIGA), Senegal (SEN), Sierra Leone (SIER), Togo (TOG) Over the two periods, the largest importers remain Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire, which are the two largest economies of the zone. Nigeria’s agricultural imports quadrupled in value and approximately doubled in volume between the two periods. Other countries experiencing an increase in imports in value and volume include Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, BEN BF CAPV CIV GAMB GHA GUI GUIB LIB MAL NIG NIGA SENSIER TOG -50 0 50 100 150 200 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Importsvol(1000Tons) Imports (million $) 1998-2006 BEN BF CAPV CIV GAMB GHA GUI GUIB LIB MAL NIG NIGA SENSIER TOG -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Importsvol(1000Tons) Imports (million $) 2007-2013
  15. 15. 49 Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Senegal and Sierra Leone. However, it should be noted that Senegal is the country that buys the fewest agricultural products from ECOWAS in volume. This country is the fourth largest economy in the zone after Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. It is also in the top five in import values in the two periods, as shown in Figure 3.6. Figure 3.7. ECOWAS export changes Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: Benin (BEN), Burkina Faso (BF), Cape Verde (CAPV), Côte d'Ivoire (CIV), Gambia (GAMB), Ghana (GHA), Guinea (GUI), Guinea-Bissau (GUIB), Liberia (LIB), Mali (MAL), Niger (NIG), Nigeria (NIGA), Senegal (SEN), Sierra Leone (SIER), Togo (TOG) BEN BF CAPV CIV GAMB GHA GUI GUIBLIB MAL NIG NIGA SEN SIER TOG -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Exportsvol(1000Tons) Exports (million $) 1998-2006 BEN BF CAPV CIV GAMB GHA GUIGUIBLIB MAL NIGNIGA SEN SIER TOG -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Exportsvol(1000Tons) Exports (million $) 2007-2013
  16. 16. 50 For the rest of the ECOWAS countries (Cape Verde, The Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Niger, Togo), an increase in the value of imports is noted, but the volumes remain almost unchanged. As a result, the growth in value of imports recorded for these countries is due to the rising prices observed over the 2007-2013 period. On the export side (Figure 3.7), it is noted that the total value of agricultural exports has also doubled on aggregate. Aside from Burkina Faso, Mali and Sierra Leone, all other countries have at least doubled the value of their average exports to the ECOWAS area. In volume terms, it is also noted in the aggregate that intra-area agricultural sales have also doubled. However, some countries such as Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Mali, Niger and Sierra Leone have not increased the volume of their agricultural shipments to ECOWAS destinations. At the country level, Côte d’Ivoire remains in both periods the largest agricultural exporter in the area in value. However, it is observed that during the second period Ghana has become the first supplier of agricultural products for other ECOWAS countries before Côte d'Ivoire. Indeed, Ghana has multiplied the volume of its agricultural exports to the region by 11. During the second period, Niger is positioned as the second largest exporter of the zone in value with a quadrupling of the value of its exports, but the volumes remain almost unchanged over the two periods. Niger has taken advantage of the rising prices of livestock products during the 2007-2013 period. In contrast, Mali and Burkina Faso, which were the main exporters behind Côte d'Ivoire in the first period, do not benefit from the increasing agricultural prices. Instead they have experienced decreases in the value of exports by 18% and 32%, respectively. As mentioned before, these two countries’ export volumes have remained almost unchanged compared to the 1998-2006 period. Regarding Mali, the political crisis that occurred in late 2011 could be an explanation for this decline. 3.5.2 ECCAS Figure 3.8 illustrates the import changes in the ECCAS zone for the two periods. The total value and volume of intra-ECCAS agricultural imports have tripled between the two periods. All the countries in the zone, without exception, have at least doubled their imports in value. In terms of volume, this upward trend in agricultural purchases from the area is observed except for Gabon and Rwanda, where the level of import volumes remained stable over the two periods. Between the two periods, the DRC is the country that has experienced the greatest growth in agricultural purchases from its neighbours. This is due to rising prices in the second period. Actually, the DRC is only the seventh importer in the area by volume over the period 2007-2013.
  17. 17. 51 Figure 3.8. ECCAS import changes Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: Angola (ANG), Burundi (BUR), Cameroon (CAM), Central African Republic (CAR), Chad (CHA), Congo (CONG), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea (EGUI), Gabon (GAB), Rwanda (RWA), Sao Tome and Principe (SAO) ANG BUR CAM CAR CHA CONG DRC EGUI GAB RWA SAO -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Importsvol(1000Tons) Imports (million $) 1998-2006 ANG BUR CAM CAR CHA CONG DRC EGUI GAB RWA SAO -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Importsvol(1000Tons) Imports (million $) 2007-2016
  18. 18. 52 In terms of exports, Cameroon remains the largest exporter of agricultural products in the ECCAS area by doubling the value of its agricultural sales and the volume of its shipments to its neighbours between the two periods. Two other major exporters of the zone, Congo and Gabon, also experienced almost identical situations. However, Rwanda and the DRC are the countries that have made the most progress in terms of exports. In fact, Rwanda has multiplied the value of its agricultural exports in the area by 49 while the DRC has multiplied the value of its exports to its neighbours in the area by 25. In volume, Rwanda and the DRC have multiplied the volume of shipments by 25 and 31, respectively (Figure 3.9). Regarding Rwanda, which became the second largest exporter of the area behind Cameroon, its performance is linked with the economic performance recorded between 2000 and 2012 after the political crisis. In addition, Rwanda has also intensified its commercial exchanges with neighbouring Kenya and DRC10. Figure 3.9. ECCAS export changes 10 Rwanda is also part of COMESA with these two countries. We will discuss its performance further in the COMESA subsection. ANGBUR CAM CAR CHA CONG DRCEGUI GAB RWA SAO -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Exportsvol(1000Tons) Exports (million $) 1998-2006
  19. 19. 53 Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: Angola (ANG), Burundi (BUR), Cameroon (CAM), Central African Republic (CAR), Chad (CHA), Congo (CONG), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea (EGUI), Gabon (GAB), Rwanda (RWA), Sao Tome and Principe (SAO) 3.5.3 COMESA Figure 3.10 shows the variations in terms of agricultural imports for the COMESA countries. In the aggregate, trade has intensified in this area. Indeed, the value of imports was quadrupled while traded volumes were doubled. In general, all countries in the region have at least doubled the value of their purchases from their neighbours with the exception of Ethiopia for which the import values remained almost unchanged over the two periods. Regarding the volume variations, the trend remains the same, except for Ethiopia, Malawi and Zambia. Regarding the latter, a highly significant decrease in the volume of agricultural products imported from the area is observed. Indeed, the volume of imports in the second period is about 18 times lower compared to the first period. Despite this reduction, import values are found to have doubled. Several elements of explanation could be advanced. First, import prices in this country are very high. Second, given that Zambia is also a member of another REC, it may be that this decline is offset by a sharp increase in quantities imported from the SADC area. Finally, Zambia could have launched an agricultural self-sufficiency policy. ANG BUR CAM CARCHA CONG DRC EGUI GAB RWA SAO -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Exportsvol(1000Tons) Exports (million $) 2007-2013
  20. 20. 54 Unlike Zambia, Madagascar has multiplied the volume of agricultural imports by 20, becoming the largest importer in volume of the area before the largest economies of the region including Egypt, Libya, Kenya, the DRC and Sudan. However, Libya has also stepped up its agricultural orders from COMESA in the second period, 2007-2013. Indeed, they are multiplied by 225 with respect to the value of the first period and by 280 for the quantities. Possible explanations include, among others, the Libyan crisis that took place in 2011 and which has limited supplies to Libya from Tunisia by land. Consequently, it appears that Libya buys more from COMESA. In addition, three COMESA countries, Burundi, the DRC and Rwanda, are also members of the ECCAS area. Regarding Rwanda, and despite the intensification of its exchanges in the ECCAS zone, it should be noted that the values and volumes of its imports from the COMESA are significantly higher than those from the ECCAS area. In other words, Rwanda purchases mainly within COMESA. This is also true for Burundi and the DRC.
  21. 21. 55 Figure 3.10. COMESA import changes Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: Burundi (BUR), Comoros (COM), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Djibouti (DJI), Egypt (EGY), Eritrea (ERI), Ethiopia (ETH), Kenya (KEN), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (LIB), Madagascar (MAD), Malawi (MALW), Mauritius (MAU), Rwanda (RWA), Seychelles (SEY), Sudan (SUD), Uganda (UGA), Zambia (ZAM), Zimbabwe (ZIM) BURCOM DRC DJI EGY ERI ETH KEN LiB MAD MALWMAURWA SEY SUD UGA ZAM ZIM -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Importsvol(1000Tons) Imports (million $) 1998-2006 BUR COM DRC DJI EGY ERIETH KEN LiB MAD MALW MAU RWA SEY SUD UGA ZAM ZIM -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Importsvol(1000Tons) Imports (million $) 2007-2013
  22. 22. 56 Figure 3.11. COMESA export changes Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: Burundi (BUR), Comoros (COM), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Djibouti (DJI), Egypt (EGY), Eritrea (ERI), Ethiopia (ETH), Kenya (KEN), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (LIB), Madagascar (MAD), Malawi (MALW), Mauritius (MAU), Rwanda (RWA), Seychelles (SEY), Sudan (SUD), Uganda (UGA), Zambia (ZAM), Zimbabwe (ZIM) BURCOMDRCDJI EGY ERI ETH KEN LIBMAD MALW MAURWASEY SUD UGAZAM ZIM -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Exportsvol(1000Tons) Export (million $) 1998-2006 BURCOMDRCDJI EGY ERI ETH KEN LIB MAD MALW MAU RWASEY SUD UGA ZAM ZIM -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Exportsvol(1000Tons) Export (million $) 2007-2013
  23. 23. 57 On the export side (Figure 3.11), it is found that the total value of intra-COMESA agricultural exports has quadrupled, while volumes have doubled. At the country level, it is observed that all countries in the region have at least doubled their agricultural sales (volume and value) in the area over the two periods, with the exception of Djibouti, Malawi, Sudan and Zimbabwe. In Djibouti, Malawi and Sudan, values have increased slightly, while they declined slightly for Zimbabwe. Quantities shipped remained almost stable for Sudan. However, they have dropped more than half for the other three countries. In contrast, Egypt is the country that has increased its agricultural trade with its neighbours in the COMESA region the most, becoming the leading supplier of agricultural products before Kenya, Uganda and Zambia. Concerning Rwanda, Burundi and the DRC, these countries have at least tripled their trade in volume and value with other COMESA countries. Compared to the ECCAS zone, it is noted that these countries sell more in the COMESA region than in the ECCAS area. 3.5.4 SADC Figure 3.12 shows the changes observed in imports within SADC. However, it should be noted that in the database used, BACI, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho are grouped within SACU. In fact, information is provided only for the SACU group, rather than for the individual countries. On aggregate, it is found firstly that imports doubled in value and also decreased approximately 20% in quantity. Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia are the countries affected by the drop in traded quantities. Regarding Zambia, also a member of COMESA, a sharp decline is also observed in the volume of its agricultural imports from its SADC neighbours. Indeed, volumes were divided by 6. It seems that the trend for Zambia within COMESA is also valid for SADC. This reinforces the hypothesis previously issued on the possible implementation of a self-sufficiency policy to reduce imports, accompanied by a protectionist policy. To a lesser extent, Malawi, also a member of COMESA, has also decreased its agricultural purchases from SADC. Nevertheless, these two countries buy more within the SADC zone than within the COMESA zone. Other countries concerned by the decline of imported quantities are Tanzania and Mozambique. In contrast, the other countries of the zone have experienced an increase in volumes purchased from neighbouring countries in SADC. Between the two periods, Zimbabwe became the first buyer of agricultural products before Mozambique and SACU. Furthermore, it is noted that Zimbabwe is a member of COMESA but buys more within SADC.
  24. 24. 58 This observation is also true for the DRC, also a member of COMESA and ECCAS. For Angola, also a member of ECCAS, the exchanges are also more intense in the SADC region. In general, all countries that are at the same time members of SADC and another REC tend to import more from the SADC area. Figure 3.12. SADC import changes ANGDRCMAD MAL MAUR MOZ SACU SEY TAN ZAM ZIM -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Importsvol(1000Tons) Imports (million $) 1998-2006
  25. 25. 59 Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: Angola (ANG), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Madagascar (MAD), Malawi (MALW), Mauritius (MAU), Mozambique (MOZ), Southern African Customs Union (SACU), Seychelles (SEY), United Rep. of Tanzania (TAN), Zambia (ZAM), Zimbabwe (ZIM) Figure 3.13 shows the intra-SADC agricultural exports. It is observed in the aggregate that exports values have increased and at the same time export volumes have decreased. In both periods, SACU remains the top seller. Indeed, the value of exports from SACU exceeds the aggregate exports of all other members of SADC. However, it should be noted that the quantities exported by SACU have remained unchanged and are relatively low. SACU is the 10th exporter in volume over the 11 countries. ANG DRC MAD MAL MAUR MOZ SACU SEY TAN ZAM ZIM -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Importsvol(1000Tons) Imports (million $) 2007-2013
  26. 26. 60 Figure 3.13. SADC export changes Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Note: Angola (ANG), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Madagascar (MAD), Malawi (MALW), Mauritius (MAU), Mozambique (MOZ), Southern African Customs Union (SACU), Seychelles (SEY), United Rep. of Tanzania (TAN), Zambia (ZAM), Zimbabwe (ZIM) ANGDRC MADMALW MAU MOZ SACUSEY TAN ZAM ZIM -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Exportsvol(1000Tons) Export (million $) 1998-2006 ANG DRC MADMALW MAU MOZ SACUSEY TAN ZAMZIM -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Exportsvol(1000Tons) Exports (million $) 2007-2013
  27. 27. 61 Products exported by this regional entity appear to be more expensive. Furthermore, concerning the other SADC countries which are also member of COMESA (Zambia, Zimbabwe, Seychelles, Malawi, Madagascar, and DRC), it is noted that the quantities shipped in the COMESA region are greater. Only Madagascar exports more in value to COMESA than SADC. In the next section, the changes in the composition of products traded between the different RECs will be presented. 3.6 Changes in composition of intra-African and intra-regional agricultural exports and imports Table 3.6 shows the trade variations in both periods by group of products. It is observed on aggregate that the share of cereals in trade between African countries remained relatively stable. Indeed, it was around 7% during both of the two periods. In addition, an increase in shares of dairy products and other livestock products, fruits and processed food is observed in both periods. In contrast, intra-African trade in coffee and oilseeds has slightly fallen. Table 3.6. Changes in composition of intra-African trade (commodity groups) Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. 1998-2006 2007-2013 1998-2006 2007-2013 1998-2006 2007-2013 1998-2006 2007-2013 1998-2006 2007-2013 Cereals 6,9 6,6 3,9 4,8 0,6 4,2 7,0 8,7 11,8 9,5 Coffee 10,4 7,4 0,4 1,5 0,9 0,5 27,4 17,0 2,8 2,2 Dairyproducts 2,8 3,5 3,3 2,9 1,9 3,7 1,5 4,4 3,7 3,3 Fishproducts 7,5 8,2 6,4 7,4 1,0 1,3 3,1 2,1 5,5 7,6 Fruits 2,5 3,3 2,7 2,4 0,1 0,2 1,2 1,1 2,8 2,8 Live cattle 2,8 3,0 10,5 8,8 1,3 3,5 1,6 3,7 1,3 1,0 Meats 0,8 0,8 0,7 1,6 0,2 0,2 0,6 0,2 1,6 1,4 Oilseeds 2,7 2,5 2,2 1,9 0,8 0,2 4,5 2,9 2,8 2,8 ProcessedFood 38,5 41,8 27,5 46,3 75,5 66,2 30,3 37,3 45,5 46,1 Others 25,0 22,8 42,4 22,5 17,6 19,8 22,9 22,5 22,3 23,2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Africa ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC
  28. 28. 62 At the product level, Figure 3.14 shows the 10 most traded agricultural commodities in Africa. Between the two periods, it is not noticed a major change in the composition of intra-African trade. Indeed, only two products that were present in the first period are out of the top 10 most traded goods between African countries in the second period. These products are cotton and food preparations nes (not elsewhere specified). In contrast, vegetables and wheat flour are among the 10 most traded products in the second period but not the first. Also, it is observed that fishery products become the most traded product between African countries in the second period. In the next subsections, the changes observed in each REC will be presented. Figure 3.14. Top 10 most traded commodities (Intra-Africa) Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. 3.6.1 ECOWAS Regarding ECOWAS trade by group of products (Table 3.6), trade increases in cereals, coffee, fish products, dairy products, meat and processed food are noted. This latter group accounts for almost the half of the trade of the second period, with an almost 20 percentage point increase between the two periods. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1998-2006 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2007-2013
  29. 29. 63 Figure 3.15. Top 10 most traded commodities in the ECOWAS zone Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. At the product level, it is found that cotton, which was the first traded product at the ECOWAS level with a 25% share of trade between 1998 and 2006, is no longer part of the top 10 traded products in the region. In contrast, trade in cigars and cheroots has intensified and the share of this product quadrupled. To a lesser extent, exchanges of palm oil and frozen fish products have also increased. In addition, it is noted that rice and pasta are among the 10 most traded food and agricultural products in the ECOWAS region during the second period (Figure 3.15). For rice, it is likely due to the rice self-sufficiency policies launched by many ECOWAS countries to cope with the 2007-2008 food price crisis. 3.6.2 ECCAS In the ECCAS zone, it is found during both of the two periods that processed foods account for about 2/3 of the total trade share, despite a roughly 9-point decline in the trade of this group of products between the two periods. In addition, cereals and fish products are the other most traded groups (Table 3.6). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1998-2006 0 5 10 15 20 2007-2013
  30. 30. 64 Figure 3.16. Top 10 most traded commodities in the ECCAS zone Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. At a more detailed level, sugar is still the most traded product, although its share has declined over the second period. Generally, the composition of trade in the ECCAS zone does not change much, even if a decreasing trend is noted for each product traded in the first period and still in the top 10 during the second period. For example, trade in cigars and cheroots halved between the two periods. In terms of new products traded, it is found that wheat flour, sauces, milk and cream are among the 10 most traded products in the ECCAS zone during the second period (Figure 3.16). 3.6.3 COMESA It is found in both periods that the group of processed food products occupies the most important position in intra-COMESA trade with over a third of the total trade share. Coffee trade has decreased (-10 points), but represents a major product in intra-Community trade. As in the two RECs presented above, an increase in cereal trade is noted. In addition, trade shares of dairy products and live cattle have also increased. (Table 3.6). 0 5 10 15 20 25 1998-2006 0 5 10 15 20 2007-2013
  31. 31. 65 Figure 3.17. Top 10 most traded commodities in the COMESA zone Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. Figure 3.17 gives an indication of the detail of the products traded. In general, the composition of traded goods has not changed much. Only cotton, other oil seeds, and vegetables are no longer among the most traded products. However, palm oil, dried leguminous vegetables and cigars and cheroots are part of the 10 most traded products in the area during the second period. 3.6.4 SADC As with the other RECs, processed food products are still the most important group, representing nearly half of the trade over the two periods. In addition, the trade shares of fruits and oilseeds have remained unchanged in both periods. Except for fish products, for which exchanges have improved, it is found that all other group of products have experienced a drop in trade compared to the first period (Table 3.6). At the product level, the composition of trade is fairly stable. Sugar is still the most traded commodity with an almost unchanged share in both periods. Maize and tobacco are the other two most traded products, even if exchanges have fallen during the second period. However, a doubling of the share of frozen fish products is found. Furthermore, it is noted that oil trade has increased during the second period. Indeed, two types of oil (cotton-seed oil and soya-bean oil) are now part of the top 10 most traded commodities, while 0 5 10 15 20 25 1998-2006 0 5 10 15 2007-2013
  32. 32. 66 drinks (waters and beer made from malt) are no longer part of the 10 most traded commodities (Figure 3.18). Figure 3.18. Top 10 most traded commodities (Intra-SADC) Source: BACI and authors’ calculation, 2016. 3.7 Changes in unit values of intra-African and intra-regional agricultural exports and imports Trade unit values (TUV) are usually used as proxies for trade prices. They measure, for individual commodity classes in a particular period, the total value of shipments divided by the corresponding total quantity (IMF, 2009). To analyze the trends of this indicator for intra-African and intra- regional trade, we use the Trade Unit Values dataset by Berthou and Emlinger (2011). This database contains bilateral trade unit values at Harmonized-System 6-digit commodity categories. In this database, 45 African countries are represented. Therefore, the following discussions are related to the unit values (harmonic averages computed per year) of agricultural trade between those 45 countries. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1998-2006 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2007-2013
  33. 33. 67 Figure 3.19. UV changes for intra-African trade, $ per ton Source: TUV Database and authors’ calculations, 2016. Figure 3.19 gives the trends of intra-African agricultural trade unit values over the period 2000- 2013. The average unit values for intra-African agricultural trade have increased over the period, with 3.54% growth for exports and 2.90% for imports. Export unit values have displayed slightly greater growth over the period 2007-2013 (3.91%) compared to the period 1998-2006 (3.12%). In contrast, import unit values have shown a slower increase during the post-crisis period (1.29%) relative to the period before the crisis (4.81%). Figure 3.20. UV changes for intra-ECOWAS trade, $ per ton Source: TUV Database and authors’ calculations, 2016. Export unit values for intra-ECOWAS agricultural trade have decreased over 1998-2013 (Figure 3.20), with a decrease of -4.67%. However, imports have become more expensive, with an overall growth of 3.23%. Therefore, it is easier to export into the region than to import from the region. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Export UV Import UV 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Export UV Import UV
  34. 34. 68 Since important progress in terms of economic integration has been made, one could attribute the increase of import unit values to non-tariff measures, corruption, etc. Figure 3.21. UV changes for intra-ECCAS trade, $ per ton Source: TUV Database and authors’ calculations, 2016. Inside ECCAS, a large gap is noticeable over the first sub-period compared to the second sub- period (Figure 3.21). A 25.85% increase in export unit values and a 15.46% increase in import unit values were reported over the 1998-2006 period, while export unit values (-4.83%) and import unit values (-4.51%) have shown a decrease over the second sub-period. This may be interpreted as an improvement in regional integration over the second period. It is worth noticing that trade unit values in ECCAS are the highest among RECs. Figure 3.22. UV changes for intra-COMESA trade, $ per ton Source: TUV Database and authors’ calculations, 2016. 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Export UV Import UV 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Export UV Import UV
  35. 35. 69 Inside COMESA, trade unit values of agricultural products are more stable over the period (Figure 3.22). Export unit values showed a 4% increase while import unit values displayed 3.43% growth. Over the two sub-periods, export unit values have registered a decrease in growth (5.89% over 1998-2006 and 4.09% over 2007-2013) but import unit values have shown increased growth (1.77% over 1998-2006 and 3.5% over 2007-2013). Figure 3.23. UV changes for intra-SADC trade Source: TUV Database and authors’ calculations, 2016. Export and import unit values for intra-SADC trade have shown steady growth over the period considered (Figure 3.23). Exports displayed overall unit value growth of 7.5% and imports showed a 5.7% increase. Following the 2011 methodological note by OECD, we computed the export/import value index for agricultural and non-agricultural products using the Fisher index (see Table A2 in the Annex for the evolution of the export/import value index). Then, we derived the terms of trade for different commodity groups as displayed in Figure 3.24. Before the recent food crisis, African economies sold cheaper agricultural products but bought them more expensively from outside. On the other hand, the terms of trade for non-agricultural products show that almost all RECs (with the exception of ECCAS) have good prices for those products. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Intra SADC Export UV Import UV
  36. 36. 70 Figure 3.24. Evolution of the terms of trade by group of products Source: TUV Database and authors’ calculations, 2016. Note: (a) for agricultural products, (b) for non-agricultural products. Conclusion In this chapter, many indicators were discussed to measure the intensity of intra-regional trade from 1998 to 2013 within African and within four RECs, including ECOWAS, ECCAS, COMESA and SADC, using mainly the BACI database. The analysis of the current performance of intra- African and intra-RECs trade showed that the value of intra-African agricultural trade has grown rapidly over recent years, rising from $2.2 billion in 1998 to $12.8 billion in 2013. 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 (a) Africa ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 (b) Africa ECOWAS ECCAS COMESA SADC
  37. 37. 71 The overall annual growth over this period is around 12%. Regarding the RECs, intra-regional agricultural trade has in general displayed significant increases over the period. Intra-ECOWAS agricultural trade shows an average growth rate of 12%, rising from $494 million in 1998 to $2.84 billion in 2013. However, agricultural trade between ECOWAS countries was very erratic. Trade increases between them were partly driven by commodity prices. Agricultural trade between ECCAS countries has shown the highest overall growth of 17%, with a nominal value which has increased from $14 million in 1998 to $147 million in 2013. Intra-regional agricultural trade in COMESA has displayed a significant increase (14%) over 1998-2013, rising from $379 million in 1998 to $2.87 billion in 2013. In COMESA, unlike the other RECs, the growth gap between the two sub-periods is very low (less than 3 percentage points). The volume of intra-regional agricultural trade has also shown a significant increase (22%). Lastly, in the SADC area, the lowest overall growth of 10% is observed, with a nominal value which has increased from $871 million in 1998 to $3.82 billion in 2013. The regional trade integration measures results showed that ECOWAS is the REC with the highest trade integration with a ratio of 0.79, followed by SADC with 0.77, COMESA with 0.65 and ECCAS with 0.52. Except for ECCAS countries, all the RECs exchange more inside their own bloc. In terms of intra-African agricultural trade, as destinations or origins of intra-African trade, COMESA and SADC are the leading regions before ECOWAS and ECCAS. However, it is noted that COMESA and SADC have opposite patterns. In fact, COMESA has gained trade share (exports and imports) over the considered period while SADC countries have lost some. Moreover, it is also observed on aggregate that all the RECs have intensified agricultural exchanges within their group. Regarding the main agricultural products traded between African countries, between the two periods, no major changes are noted in the composition of intra-African trade.
  38. 38. 72 References Berthou, A., & Emlinger, C. (2011). The Trade Unit Values Database. CEPII Working Paper 2011-10. Paris: CEPII. Engel, J., Jouanjean, M., & Awal, A. (2013). The History, Impact and Political Economy of Barriers to Food Trade in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Analytical Review. Overseas Development Institute Report. London: Overseas Development Institute. IMF. (2009). Export and Import Price Index Manual: Theory and Practice. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. OECD. (2011). Mexican Export and Import Unit Value Indices. STD/TBS/WPTGS(2011)4. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. UNCTAD. (2013). Economic Development in Africa Report 2013: Intra-African Trade: Unlocking Private Sector Dynamism. Geneva: United Nations.
  39. 39. 73 Annex Table A1: Regional agricultural trade share (%) Africa ECOWAS ECCAS Import Export Intra regional Import Export Intra regional Import Export Intra regional 1998 17.4 20.7 28.7 17.7 30.6 23.2 20.6 10.9 26.1 1999 16.5 18.1 23.0 18.3 24.0 20.1 22.3 8.8 30.0 2000 15.7 13.0 23.1 17.1 16.1 28.0 22.8 5.5 25.3 2001 15.8 14.4 22.7 17.9 17.4 18.6 19.0 6.3 22.4 2002 16.3 15.3 21.9 18.3 22.0 20.5 21.5 5.2 25.9 2003 15.8 14.8 23.1 19.2 22.4 26.5 21.4 5.7 25.1 2004 14.4 12.4 19.4 17.3 17.7 21.6 19.2 4.2 23.7 2005 13.0 10.1 15.8 16.4 13.0 15.4 17.9 3.1 29.3 2006 12.5 8.7 14.7 15.7 10.2 12.9 15.9 2.2 21.7 2007 13.7 9.0 14.5 16.4 11.5 12.7 16.3 2.0 6.2 2008 13.9 7.8 13.7 14.8 10.3 10.2 16.4 1.5 9.2 2009 14.4 11.7 17.9 16.1 16.7 16.8 16.4 2.8 6.6 2010 14.4 10.0 16.3 14.8 12.8 15.6 17.4 2.2 5.9 2011 16.7 9.8 18.4 15.8 12.0 17.6 22.9 2.0 28.8 2012 16.0 8.9 15.3 17.9 10.4 15.5 18.5 1.6 3.7 2013 15.1 9.9 15.9 16.4 10.8 14.1 19.4 1.5 3.5 1998-2006 15.3 14.2 21.4 17.6 19.3 20.8 20.0 5.8 25.5 2007-2013 14.9 9.6 16.0 16.0 12.1 14.7 18.2 1.9 9.1 Overall 15.1 12.2 19.0 16.9 16.1 18.1 19.2 4.1 18.3
  40. 40. 74 Table A1: Regional agricultural trade share (%), contd. COMESA SADC Import Export Intra regional Import Export Intra regional 1998 20.1 29.0 37.3 18.5 34.6 33.7 1999 19.2 26.0 37.9 17.4 32.5 28.7 2000 19.3 20.6 40.3 17.8 25.8 36.4 2001 19.4 21.5 46.9 17.7 28.3 38.6 2002 20.3 22.6 36.0 21.0 26.4 41.1 2003 19.1 20.5 34.2 19.7 23.0 27.9 2004 17.5 17.1 36.3 17.6 17.2 29.6 2005 15.0 14.6 27.0 16.1 13.1 22.5 2006 14.4 12.0 26.2 15.4 10.8 19.2 2007 15.9 12.7 35.7 16.2 9.7 32.6 2008 17.1 11.0 27.2 15.1 6.6 24.3 2009 17.6 15.2 31.8 16.0 10.6 26.4 2010 18.6 14.3 33.5 16.5 8.3 24.9 2011 23.1 17.4 39.2 17.9 8.5 29.4 2012 20.4 14.0 34.0 16.8 8.1 29.9 2013 18.0 17.4 32.0 16.0 8.1 22.5 1998- 2006 18.3 20.4 35.8 17.9 23.5 30.8 2007- 2013 18.7 14.6 33.3 16.4 8.5 27.2 Overall 18.4 17.9 34.7 17.2 17.0 29.2 Source: BACI Database and authors’ calculations, 2016.
  41. 41. 75 Table A2: Evolution of export/import value index and terms trade for agricultural products Africa ECOWAS ECCAS Import Export ToT Import Export ToT Import Export ToT 1998 0.897 0.765 85.284 0.832 0.775 93.192 0.863 0.827 95.799 1999 0.893 0.756 84.668 0.827 0.769 92.964 0.871 0.815 93.628 2000 0.890 0.738 82.936 0.818 0.754 92.186 0.875 0.777 88.823 2001 0.886 0.744 83.941 0.811 0.760 93.814 0.876 0.781 89.247 2002 0.883 0.751 85.074 0.820 0.778 94.902 0.874 0.766 87.574 2003 0.883 0.765 86.626 0.842 0.780 92.686 0.903 0.816 90.375 2004 0.885 0.772 87.226 0.849 0.773 91.105 0.896 0.808 90.181 2005 0.893 0.795 89.023 0.871 0.801 91.894 0.902 0.846 93.816 2006 0.902 0.814 90.198 0.867 0.813 93.845 0.916 0.861 94.040 2007 0.924 0.850 91.969 0.872 0.834 95.617 0.924 0.911 98.612 2008 0.943 0.897 95.125 0.886 0.867 97.862 0.925 0.978 105.815 2009 0.949 0.916 96.541 0.873 0.935 107.157 0.945 0.956 101.151 2010 0.966 0.981 101.494 0.863 0.956 110.800 0.937 0.978 104.353 2011 0.951 0.986 103.611 0.874 0.940 107.581 0.951 0.998 104.895 2012 0.977 0.980 100.299 0.883 0.969 109.636 0.949 1.076 113.330 2013 0.968 0.993 102.556 0.895 0.941 105.177 0.938 1.160 123.673 Source: BACI Database and authors’ calculations, 2016.
  42. 42. 76 Table A2: Evolution of export/import value index and terms trade for agricultural products, contd. COMESA SADC Import Export ToT Import Export ToT 1998 1.032 0.781 75.712 0.851 0.699 82.123 1999 1.032 0.766 74.257 0.852 0.686 80.554 2000 1.031 0.737 71.518 0.856 0.666 77.860 2001 1.030 0.753 73.066 0.859 0.680 79.090 2002 1.013 0.753 74.333 0.853 0.689 80.786 2003 0.990 0.780 78.833 0.861 0.714 82.947 2004 0.997 0.804 80.714 0.879 0.723 82.333 2005 0.988 0.849 86.021 0.868 0.751 86.445 2006 1.011 0.870 86.078 0.882 0.758 85.941 2007 1.070 0.959 89.626 0.895 0.774 86.499 2008 1.088 1.059 97.361 0.895 0.804 89.873 2009 1.081 1.064 98.400 0.900 0.817 90.763 2010 1.106 1.096 99.041 0.908 0.819 90.196 2011 1.085 1.098 101.185 0.920 0.856 93.077 2012 1.152 1.090 94.576 0.918 0.878 95.676 2013 1.120 1.130 100.919 0.911 0.898 98.516 Table A3: Evolution of export/import value index and terms trade for non-agricultural products Africa ECOWAS ECCAS Import Export ToT Import Export ToT Import Export ToT 1998 0.613 0.910 148.588 0.560 0.945 168.581 0.700 1.062 151.773 1999 0.639 0.906 141.847 0.625 0.982 157.127 0.676 1.088 160.818 2000 0.635 0.918 144.516 0.602 0.995 165.402 0.656 1.112 169.697 2001 0.638 0.903 141.567 0.594 0.972 163.639 0.703 1.111 158.055 2002 0.637 0.896 140.817 0.584 0.983 168.323 0.664 1.131 170.237 2003 0.647 0.915 141.355 0.584 0.986 168.773 0.676 1.133 167.686 2004 0.653 0.942 144.391 0.597 1.012 169.361 0.744 1.206 162.007 2005 0.669 0.983 146.887 0.643 1.006 156.432 0.728 1.224 168.181 2006 0.684 1.028 150.369 0.641 1.046 163.226 0.751 1.254 166.933 2007 0.752 1.042 138.501 0.713 1.046 146.832 1.292 1.281 99.164 2008 0.751 1.126 149.938 0.687 1.072 156.079 1.059 1.448 136.791 2009 0.736 1.094 148.593 0.631 1.066 168.901 1.079 1.374 127.303 2010 0.731 1.115 152.678 0.653 1.076 164.885 1.062 1.449 136.464 2011 0.709 1.110 156.467 0.638 1.143 179.102 0.770 1.425 185.211 2012 0.814 1.134 139.406 0.691 1.135 164.160 1.794 1.371 76.419 2013 0.796 1.145 143.755 0.706 1.195 169.375 1.549 1.461 94.336
  43. 43. 77 Table A3: Evolution of export/import value index and terms trade for non-agricultural products, contd. COMESA SADC Import Export ToT Import Export ToT 1998 0.674 1.109 164.543 0.627 0.995 158.754 1999 0.654 1.118 171.089 0.635 1.013 159.631 2000 0.649 1.112 171.312 0.638 1.042 163.264 2001 0.653 1.117 171.166 0.649 1.046 161.180 2002 0.653 1.104 169.045 0.646 1.059 163.798 2003 0.667 1.133 169.874 0.651 1.046 160.730 2004 0.654 1.132 173.238 0.695 1.042 150.046 2005 0.685 1.199 175.016 0.707 1.098 155.375 2006 0.705 1.270 180.277 0.713 1.142 160.177 2007 0.713 1.290 180.977 0.774 1.166 150.578 2008 0.756 1.367 180.725 0.731 1.184 161.873 2009 0.744 1.421 191.058 0.717 1.231 171.758 2010 0.749 1.539 205.578 0.737 1.429 193.913 2011 0.774 1.601 206.945 0.744 1.414 190.026 2012 0.787 1.539 195.531 0.751 1.347 179.381 2013 0.780 1.559 199.974 0.808 1.426 176.512 Source: BACI Database and authors’ calculations, 2016.

×