Socio-economic tools for decision makers: Tanzania Case Study

1. Socio-economic tools for decision makers: Tanzania Case Study Food Security and Pro-Poor Perspectives for Bioenergy Development IFAD Global Consultation on Pro-poor Sweet Sorghum Development for Bio-ethanol Production and Introduction to Tropical Sugarbeet November 2007

2. Purpose • Perspectives on a pro-poor analysis for bioenergy contexts • Food insecurity and links to poverty and vulnerability Background and definitions • Discuss food security, food security indicators and risks and opportunities • Tools for food security and vulnerability analysis • Country Typologies as key starting point, current contexts and lessons in hunger reduction Tanzania Case Study • BEFS Project Partner • Socio-economic Tools – macro-economic, food security and energy • Current bioenergy context – potential feedstock, stakeholders, constraints, concerns Conclusions

3. What is food security? • Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life • Four dimensions: Availability, Access, Stability and Utilization Time dimension? • Chronic food insecurity is a long term and persistent inability to meet food requirements • Transitory food insecurity is a short term or temporary inability to meet food needs What is vulnerability? • Frequency and intensity of shocks affecting households and capacity to withstand shocks • Chronic food insecurity reduces householdand community capacity to withstand shocks

4. Developed Market Economies9 Countries in Transition25 Sub-Saharan Africa206 Asia and the Pacific524 Near East and North Africa38 Latin America and the Caribbean52 Who are the hungry? 854 million 820 developing countries 212 million India 150 million China

5. Where are the hungry?

6. FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY ASSESSMENTS? Source: FAO Bioenergy and Food Security Project Proposal (2006)

7. Types of food security, livelihoods and vulnerability analysis? • Food frequency and diversity score • Coping Strategy Index • Phases and scales combine hard and soft indicators (FAO/FSAU or Famine Scales) • Household Food Economy Approach • Household Expenditure Surveys • Judgment-based Classification • Household Self-Assessment

8. Country Typologies - Key Starting Point • Preliminary analysis - base in typologies • Developing, LIFDCs and LDCs • Positive extreme – traditional net exporter of food and energy (Indonesia or Malaysia) • Negative extreme - net food and energy importer (LDCs and Near East) • Poor spend high % HH income on food • 33% of rural SSA HHs headed by women, lacking access to factor inputs, affected by environmental degradation, water and fuel shortages • Cash crops can alter HH food security

9. Prices, biofuels and food security • Rising commodity prices – positive for producers and negative for poor consumers • Clear linkages - fossil fuel prices and food crop feedstock • Price increases in major biofuel feedstock markets (sugar, molasses, corn, rapeseed oil, palm oil and soybean) • Additional uncertainty (biofuel mandates) • Factors of exclusion and value chain considerations

10. Environment, bioenergy and climate change • Trade-offs need analysis, particularly related to food security impacts • Local issues related to access and control of natural resources • Global level, climate change impact most direct link to food security • Increased frequency and severity of weather shocks

11. Policy domains shape bioenergy and food security impacts • Rural policies favor large-scale commodity and livestock production • Increased competition for resources and inputs to agriculture • Factors of exclusion need to be addressed • Attention to agriculture in rural areas necessary • Maintaining national and household level food security remains priority for most developing countries

12. Lessons in hunger reduction Applicable to bioenergy development? Agricultural growth is critical • Safety net programs are crucial • Peace, stability and good governance essential • Development assistance needs better targeting Bioenergy and Food Security Project www.fao.org/NR/ben/befs

13. Why Tanzania as BEFS Partner? Four criteria for project partners: • (1) the energy sector and bioenergy options in the country • (2) Food security dimensions • (3) General country characteristics • (4) Institutional and governance issues

14. Tanzania • Source: FAO

15. Tanzania: Some Key Indicators • Source: WDI 2007, UNDP

16. Food Security and Poverty in Tanzania Source: FAOSTAT 2006, SOFI 2006, WDI 2007, UNDP; * calculated

17. Energy Profile of Tanzania • Current energy mix • Approximately 90 percent biomass, mostly woody • Petroleum and electricity: 9 percent • Other sources 1 percent • Low level technologies • Low level of electrification

18. What bioenergy feedstock are under consideration? • Bioethanol: Sugarcane, Sweet sorghum, Cassava, Sissal • Biodiesel: Jatropha, Palm oil, Sunflower

19. Who is currently involved? • Government: Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Energy, and other related sections • University and research • Companies - Sunbiofuels, Diligent, Infenergy, Kitimondo plantations, SEKAB, British Petroleum • UN organizations and NGOs

20. Who are the major stakeholders? • Rural populations, smallholders, outgrowers - less efficient smaller scale • Private sector investors – capital to invest and larger scale • Plantation model could worsen social and economic exclusion, however.............. • Dependent upon contractual arrangements, structure and adherence to policy/mandates

21. TANZANIA - FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY ASSESSMENT Source: FAO Bioenergy and Food Security Project Proposal (2006)

22. Constraints to private sector investment Legislation • No legislation in place for Bioenergy • National Bioenergy Task Force Land Tenure • All land owned by state • Released to villages, state, individuals Infrastructure • Very limited number of roads • Bioenergy proposals always close to existing infrastructure (road or railroad)

23. Constraints to poor rural populations • Extreme poverty and access to credit • Remoteness and geographic isolation • Rural Infrastructure • Gender considerations – moving from subsistence crop for HH use to cash crop alters (negatively) HH food security

24. Further Analysis? • Micro Level Tools • Quantitative work on HH surveys, reliant on existing information on sweet sorghum or jatropha • Focus on availability and food access data • Current energy use, income and food sources • Macro Level Tools • Energy profile, internal versus external demand, market and trade issues • Potential returns on investment • Value chain perspectives and land tenure

25. Conclusions • Who are the poor and most food insecure relative to bioenergy development? • Identify and respect national priorities about food security and self-sufficiency (maize) • Land and legislation could be serious hurdles to bioenergy investment • No policy/mandate implies no internal market outlet • Resolve potential conflict over access and control of natural resources • Source of income and energy • Create incentives for reinvestment • Stimulate domestic economy and rural development