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

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 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

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

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.

39
Figure 3.2. Evolution of the normalized trade balance by REC and product group
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)

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
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

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)
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%
(a)
1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
(b)
1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall

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.

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
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.

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
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

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
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
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.

46
Table 3.4. COMESA intra-regional trade share by country (%)
1998-2006 2007-2013 Overall
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
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
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

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.

48
Figure 3.6. ECOWAS import changes
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
Imports (million $)
2007-2013

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
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
Exports (million $)
2007-2013

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.

51
Figure 3.8. ECCAS import changes
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
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
Imports (million $)
2007-2016

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
Exports (million $)
1998-2006

53
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
Exports (million $)
2007-2013

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.

55
Figure 3.10. COMESA import changes
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
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
Imports (million $)
2007-2013

56
Figure 3.11. COMESA export changes
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
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
Export (million $)
2007-2013

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.

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
Imports (million $)
1998-2006

59
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
Imports (million $)
2007-2013

60
Figure 3.13. SADC export changes
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
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
Exports (million $)
2007-2013

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)
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

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)
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

63
Figure 3.15. Top 10 most traded commodities in the ECOWAS zone
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

64
Figure 3.16. Top 10 most traded commodities in the ECCAS zone
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

65
Figure 3.17. Top 10 most traded commodities in the COMESA zone
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

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)
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

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
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

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
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
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

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
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

70
Figure 3.24. Evolution of the terms of trade by group of products
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)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
(b)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

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

Ähnlich wie African Agricultural Trade Status Report 2017: Chapter 3. Regional trade patterns (20)

Mehr von Brussels Briefings (brusselsbriefings.net)

Mehr von Brussels Briefings (brusselsbriefings.net) (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

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