**CONCEPT PAPER**

**CAADP: Pillar 3**

***Increase food supply, reduce hunger, and improve responses to food
emergency crises***

I.  **Introduction**

The Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) was
established by the African Union's New Partnership for Africa's
Development (AU/NEPAD) in July 2003. The overall goal of CAADP is to

> "*Help African countries reach a higher path of economic growth
> through agriculturally-led development, which eliminates hunger,
> reduces poverty and food insecurity, and enables expansion of
> exports."*

It is a growth-oriented agriculture agenda, aimed at increasing
agriculture growth rates to six percent per year to create the wealth
needed for rural communities and households in Africa to prosper. To
achieve this goal, CAADP focuses its efforts around four key pillars of
intervention:

-   *Pillar 1*: Extending the area under sustainable land management and
    reliable water control systems;

-   *Pillar 2*: Improving rural infrastructure and trade-related
    capacities for market access;

-   *Pillar 3*: Increasing food supply, reducing hunger, and improving
    responses to food emergency crises; and

-   *Pillar 4*: Improving agriculture research, technology dissemination
    and adoption.

In addition to the four pillars, CAADP has cross-cutting concerns,
including: capacity strengthening for agribusiness; academic and
professional training; and improving access to information for
agricultural strategy formulation.

Pillar 3 will focus on chronically vulnerable populations. Pillar 3
draws together the central elements of the CAADP vision to ensure that
growing agricultural productivity, well-integrated markets and expanded
purchasing power of vulnerable groups combine to result in the
eradication of hunger and poverty. These efforts draw together and build
on activities from other pillars to successfully combat chronic hunger
in the long run while at the same time improving responses to short-term
food crises.

**II. Vision -- What is to be addressed regionally under Pillar 3?**

This Concept Paper is intended to guide the development of a Regional
CAADP Compact, to guide and coordinate current and future CAADP efforts
in regional programs. The region includes the 20 member states of the
Common Market Area of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA).
Responsibility for implementing the Regional Compact has been delegated
to COMESA by NEPAD, in recognition of their key role in facilitating
greater economic development in the region. The separate but integrated
country by country CAADP Compacts will be planned at forthcoming country
forums.

The focus of the Regional CAADP Compact, and also of this paper, will be
on issues and challenges which exist across some or all of the COMESA
countries and are best addressed on a regional basis, rather than within
individual countries. A strong cross-border component requires having a
regional, rather than a national focus. For example -- issues such as
livestock disease and the movement of food for humanitarian response
across borders are considered regional. While clearly malnutrition &
other Pillar 3 related issues exist in several of the COMESA countries
simultaneously, the most effective level of intervention for many of
these issues was deemed to be at the national level; hence they are not
included in this framework for regional programs.

The defining characteristic of Pillar 3, unlike the other Pillars,
remains the targeting of vulnerable people in the food insecure
countries as the main beneficiaries. Pillar 3 is designed to ensure that
economic growth under CAADP brings benefit not only to the better off,
but also that it is pro-poor.

Priorities for work under CAADP were defined at a meeting of member
state Agricultural Ministers in Cairo in November 2005. This gives clear
direction to the development of CAADP, including regional issues and
activities for Pillar 3 in COMESA member states. The following three
areas were identified as priorities:

-   Promote Integration of Production to Ensure Coordination

-   Develop the Livestock Sector

-   Address Regional Food Insecurity

There are many other sectors and issues that could potentially be
brought under the Pillar 3 regional umbrella. Some of these belong under
other pillars, some belong under Pillar 3 country compacts, and some did
not fit under the priorities enunciated by the COMESA Ministers of
Agriculture. The process of defining 'priorities' inevitably means
leaving out some issues; a necessary reality if CAADP is to remain
manageable.

**III. Situation Analysis - Key Problems and Blocks to Progress**

A number of COMESA and NEPAD documents detail the situation analysis for
Pillar 3 at an in-depth level. Below are some summary comments:

**From NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
(CAADP), July 2003**

*"Agriculture, providing 60 percent of all employment, constitutes the
backbone of most African economies; in most countries, it is still the
largest contributor to GDP; the biggest source of foreign exchange,
still accounting for about 40 percent of the continent's hard currency
earnings; and the main generator of savings and tax revenues. The
agricultural sector is also still the dominant provider of industrial
raw materials, with about two-thirds of manufacturing value-added in
most African countries being based on agricultural raw materials.
Agriculture thus remains crucial for economic growth in most African
countries.*

*The rural areas, where agriculture is the mainstay of all people,
support some 70-80 percent of the total population, including 70 percent
of the continent's extremely poor and undernourished. Improvement in
agricultural performance has potential to increase rural incomes and
purchasing power for large numbers of people. Thus, more than any other
sector, agriculture can uplift people on a mass scale. With greater
prosperity, the consequent higher effective demand for African
industrial and other goods would induce dynamics that would be a
significant source of economic growth.*

*To ensure the best contribution, it is important that development
initiatives under any component of the NEPAD framework be supportive of
or compatible with agriculture, given its fundamental role in economic
development in Africa. For example, NEPAD's activities on good
governance, infrastructure, policy reform, human resources development,
etc., all help to create an enabling environment for farmers to
contribute more to Africa's economic development. In short, agriculture
must be the engine for overall economic growth in Africa." (p. 7)*

*" The weakness of economies and of its institutions places Africa at a
great disadvantage when calamity strikes, something that has become all
too frequent. The number, scale and intensity of emergencies in Africa
have all been increasing due to both natural disasters (especially
droughts and floods) and human-caused calamities including civil strife
and conflict\... These problems all dislocate production and some affect
even Africa's long-term capacity to recover. As stated elsewhere in this
report, in 2001 about 28 million people in Africa faced food
emergencies, of whom some 25 million needed emergency food and
agricultural assistance. In 2000 Africa received 2.8 millions tons of
food aid, which is over a quarter of the world's total...In looking at
Africa's immediate needs for agricultural renewal, it is absolutely
essential that the emergencies be kept in mind: when large parts of the
population are displaced within or outside borders or productive lands
are flooded or rendered barren by drought, long-term agricultural
development gains can be reversed overnight." (p.47)*

***NEPAD -- Progress on CAADP - section 3.2 paragraph 4.***

*"From the point of view of food security, the benefit from
strengthening local and cross border markets goes beyond the potential
to spur growth and raise farmers' incomes. Better operation of domestic
markets and greater integration of regional markets would also help
stabilize domestic supplies. The recent events in Southern and Eastern
Africa have demonstrated the severe implications that droughts or
similar weather related risks can have for food and nutrition security.
The effects from these disturbances would be greatly reduced in the
future, if countries succeeded in improving the performance and
increasing the integration of local and regional markets. The reason is
that the greater efficiency and integration of markets would allow
weather shocks to be distributed more broadly, thereby reducing the
adjustment pressure in individual markets. Furthermore, to the extent
that production fluctuations vary greatly and are not perfectly
correlated across countries and/or major production areas within these
countries, increased and more efficient trade would allow localized
production shortages and surpluses to compensate each other, leading to
more stable food supplies in local markets. There is indeed evidence
that greater regional market integration through trade would
significantly contribute to more stable domestic food markets in the
large majority of the member countries of the Common Market for Eastern
and Southern Africa (COMESA)\... "*

This analysis and approach by NEPAD is supported by multiple donors, as
outlined in the following document by the DAC in OECD.

**PROMOTING PRO-POOR GROWTH AGRICULTURE -- DAC Reference Document, OECD,
2006**

*"Successful pro-poor growth strategies led by agriculture depend on
increased agricultural sector productivity and improved access to
domestic, regional and global markets. But there is potential for
further production unit-based productivity growth, which has not been
fully exploited under existing policy and market arrangements.
Harnessing this potential will immediately improve conditions for poor
rural households -- either directly through market prices or indirectly
through labour markets." (p.25)*

*"For agriculture, G8 heads agreed to 'support a comprehensive set of
actions to raise agricultural productivity, strengthen urban-rural
linkages and empower the poor,' based on national initiatives and in
cooperation with the AU/NEPAD CAADP and other African initiatives.
Africans recognized the need to increase investments in sustainable
agriculture as 'the most important economic sector for most Africans and
committed to invest 10% of their budgets in agriculture." (p. 65)*

The specific objectives of Pillar 3 relate to assisting the most
vulnerable. Main issues include better early warning and emergency
response to protect the livelihoods of the vulnerable; attention to
marginalized groups such as pastoralists and those in other remote or
impoverished areas; and working with the other pillars to increase
productivity of the vulnerable and give them greater access to trade and
alternative employment opportunities.

**IV. Underlying Issues - Food Security and Vulnerability**

[Food Security:]{.underline}

Though the title of Pillar 3 is "Increasing food supply, reducing hunger
and improving responses to food emergency crises," and thus does not
explicitly mention food security, increased food security should be
considered an underlying fundamental goal of Pillar 3 activities. Food
security is commonly defined as 'when all people at all times have both
physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary
needs in order to lead a healthy and productive life.' Thus, this more
holistic concept involves improved access, availability, and utilization
of food. Increasing productivity on smallholder farms may not by itself
reduce hunger, if households do not have the resources to purchase
complementary goods needed for improved nutrition or if there are
insufficient stocks of those goods available in the market. While some
of the issues involved in food security have been determined to be
national ones (i.e. nutrition, school feeding) CAADP's regional programs
should include a holistic analysis of food security for Pillar 3
programs. Achieving food security is a major challenge in at least 10 of
COMESA's member states, and has also been established as a major goal in
COMESA's Agricultural Program.

[Risk & Vulnerability:]{.underline}

Risk and vulnerability are concepts that underlie all aspects of CAADP,
but especially in Pillar 3. All households in the COMESA region face
risks, some unique to individual households such as health or isolated
livestock death; while others are common to many households and
communities such as a drought. What differs from one geographical area
or one household to the next is the type, frequency, and severity of
those risks, as well as their level of vulnerability. The level of
vulnerability that exists depends on their access to methods of
preventing, mitigating, & coping with those risks (Holzmann &
Joergenson, 2000). COMESA's Regional Compact programs under CAADP Pillar
3 should be informed by an understanding of the risks in their region.
It is these risks that often turn into shocks that overwhelm households
& communities, requiring emergency responses by donors and governments.

Many shocks are common to all the countries in the COMESA region. Some
of these shocks occur in large geographic areas across borders. Examples
include the multi-nation drought that affected pastoralists in
2005/2006, livestock & crop disease, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. There
are positive ways to address these issues, but it is clear that they are
more than national, country specific issues. Some of the shocks can be
effectively managed at a regional level, for example through increased
ease of regional trade to correct for climatic shocks and shortages, or
via regional livestock health policies or initiatives. A larger regional
pool from which to access resources will help reduce each respective
country's (or households) exposure to risk by expanding their respective
risk pool. More effective information sharing, either through the trade
opportunities under Pillar 2 of CAADP or through improved regional early
warning systems for disaster management will make this risk pool more
efficient at managing its commonly experienced shocks.

At the household level, it is often found that families engage in a wide
range of activities in order to reduce their exposure to risk (Dercon,
2005). They may participate in community savings, invest in household
assets such as livestock, or diversify their sources of income via
off-farm employment. When households have increased ability to manage
the risks that they face, they will be more able to participate in the
growth process. For example, a rural household is better able to
mitigate the risk of crop failure by engaging in other income generating
methods in additional to growing staple crops. In this way, in the event
of a shock such as a drought, the loss of one source of income will be
less likely to leave that particular household completely depleted of
assets. The provision of social safety nets can also provide a measure
of 'insurance' against these shocks, as well as allow households to
participate in higher risk, higher return activities (Dercon, 2005).
However, not all risk management methods pursued by households will
suffice in the face of large covariant shocks that affect an entire
region; thereby necessitating larger scale responses.

Programs under Pillar 3 should be aimed at creating dynamic, sustained
growth to enable households to permanently escape poverty traps. They
should seek to reinforce and support those positive risk management
methods that already exist, and to replace negative coping mechanisms
(such as removing children from school). Without attention to these
concepts in CAADP programs, stakeholders may not be able to realize
lasting results in their achievements. By keeping this underlying
framework of reducing exposure to and increasing ability to manage risk,
CAADP Regional Compact programs can assist vulnerable populations to
achieve the goals of Pillar 3.

[Pro-poor Growth:]{.underline}

The overall goal of CAADP is to achieve a 6% growth rate per annum in
the agricultural sector. As much recent research has shown, it is not
always sufficient for overall economic growth rates to be robust. In
order for the 6% growth to benefit the chronically vulnerable in the
COMESA region and result in reduced poverty, this growth will need to be
pro-poor.

Pro-poor growth means growth that occurs in a manner that enables the
poor to take advantage of the opportunities that are generated. Focusing
specifically on agricultural growth is a step towards making economic
growth more pro-poor due to the fact that the vast majority of the poor
in the COMESA region depend on agriculture for their livelihoods.
However, the programs designed under Pillar 3 (as well as the other
Pillars) must be carefully structured to ensure the participation of
small scale farmers & other poor households. Many of these households
have untapped potential that can be mobilized via Pillar 3 programs and
policies.

Given that there can be large variation both within and between regions
and countries in growth rates, it will be important for COMESA and its
partners to examine the nature of the 6% growth, to ensure that these
vulnerable households are involved in the overall process.

**V. Ministerial Priority Areas for Pillar 3**

**Promote Integration of Production to Ensure Coordination**

This priority is largely related to trade, which is Pillar 2 in the
CAADP framework, but also has elements related to Pillar 3. Specific
issues highlighted in this priority area include trade barriers for
increased product movement between member states, information systems
for crop and price data, and regional nutrition standards.

Pillar 3 identifies needs and opportunities from increasing trade in
goods for deficit areas, normally grain from surplus producing areas to
emergency deficit areas. This requires action to remove or reduce
barriers to trade from surplus areas in one country to deficit areas.
This will help to ensure food availability to those in need, reduce
artificial price fluctuations, support production in surplus areas, and
catalyze development of trade routes without barriers between member
states.

Because of periodic droughts punctuating periods of high production,
many grain producers in the COMESA area face a 'bust-bust' cycle. Either
there is good production, which leads to local surpluses with
accompanying price declines or collapses (one type of bust), or a
drought which results in a collapse in production and high prices for
grain (also a bust). This affects the farmers' choices in subsequent
growing seasons, and may affect the types of investments they make or
crops they grow. Regional grain trade can be a form of 'risk -- pooling'
or insurance, where grain production no longer depends solely on the
growing conditions in one small area but rather across the whole region.
This will help to meet the needs of the food insecure while stabilizing
prices to help the farmers.

Unfortunately, despite commitments from government leaders of COMESA
countries, grain trade barriers are still extensive. One example cited
by several interviewees in July 2006 was the export ban on maize from
Zambia despite bumper surplus production, although some neighboring
countries are food deficit. By restricting exports, grain prices are
kept low, hurting the farmer but benefiting in the short run the
influential millers and the urban population. In the longer run, a
strong rural production sector with relatively stable or growing prices
and resulting increases in production will benefit all. Heavy formal
restrictions to trade between member states in COMESA can have two
negative consequences for poverty reduction -- forcing the poor into
'informal trade' often with greater transaction costs related to
avoidance of formal structures and policing, and reduction of small
trade opportunities due to the complexity of formal trade which lends
itself only to large traders. As part of the overall effort by COMESA to
reduce these trade barriers, pro-poor efforts to allow small producers
and traders to access the benefits of cross border trade are needed.

A major hurdle to achieving the movement of grain from surplus to
deficit areas is the lack of reliable and timely information on crop
production from different countries. There are great variations in the
systems for crop production estimates between COMESA member states, and
in many cases there are competing systems within member states which
result in varying estimates. For example, in Ethiopia a process for
harmonizing the approach to crop estimates is underway because the
official Central Statistics Agency estimated the grain crop at over 13
million metric tons in 2005, while the FAO estimate was over 17 million
metric tons. These estimates obviously have a big impact on estimates of
surplus or deficit, and therefore decisions on whether food must be
imported or exported. Independent analysis of crop estimates unaffected
by economic or political considerations are needed, using on the ground
and satellite imagery information such as the system in South Africa for
crop estimates, as a basis for the correct state level decisions.
Through CAADP, COMESA can play a role in helping member states to learn
from each other and harmonize information systems, as well as
aggregating country level data at a regional level.

Another example provided is the mandatory use of fortification and
supplementation of foods such as sugar and maize as a non-tariff trade
barrier against imports from neighboring countries. This can turn
positive steps to improve nutrition into negative impacts on raising
food prices and reducing positive regional trade. COMESA can address
both of these issues and many others which fit with the core mandate of
regional trade while addressing essential areas for addressing the needs
of the most vulnerable.

Renewed efforts under CAADP to help member states to remove the barriers
to import and export of grain and other agricultural commodities are
needed. Efforts such as "Maize Without Borders" are already underway to
reduce these barriers, but COMESA is in a unique position to facilitate
trade negotiations and political will to overcome unnecessary blocks to
regional trade. This is essentially a policy issue with individual
member states but can best be addressed at a regional level.

**Develop the Livestock Sector**

> "Livestock are being recognized (in Africa) as essential assets for
> livelihoods; as key to moving out of poverty; as a way into lucrative
> markets; as a source of foreign exchange; as well as important
> cultural resources, social safety nets and means of saving."
>
> Scoones and Wolmer, 'Livestock, Disease, Trade and Markets: Policy
> Choices for the Livestock Sector in Africa', IDS, June 2006

The livestock sector in the COMESA region is considered a neglected
giant by specialists. The size of the assets held in livestock, largely
by the rural poor is staggering. In Ethiopia alone, the estimated value
of all livestock is more than \$14 billion, more than the annual GDP.
Yet investment in livestock is neglected by both the private sector and
government, with livestock expenditures tending to be a poor cousin in
the overall poor family of national agricultural spending. In Zambia,
the number of livestock has declined dramatically in the last 12 years,
with the biggest decline in the traditional subsistence sector. This
represents a huge blow to the livelihoods of the poor in the country.

The main concern in the livestock sector centers on around animal health
and market infrastructure. Animal health provision varies across member
states, with a general weakening of any elaborate state managed
veterinary services, complemented by a growth at least in some areas of
Community Animal Health Workers mostly in the private sector (Scoones
and Wolmer, 2006). Issues of the level and approach needed for
affordable and sustainable animal health services, and the balance
between public service and private sector delivery, need attention both
within and between member states of COMESA. Cross fertilization,
learning, and harmonization of approaches to animal health should be
undertaken across the COMESA members.

Although livestock production and development is largely a national
issue, there are many regional and international aspects to livestock as
well. These include:

-   Disease prevention, regulation, and treatment. Animal disease does
    not recognize borders, and therefore treatment and containment are
    cross border issues. Saving livestock from disease is a critical
    part of supporting vulnerable people from losing their livelihoods.
    Trade is also hampered by disease outbreaks, trade barriers due to
    regulation of diseases, and export restrictions imposed by trade
    partners outside of COMESA (for example the Rift Valley Trade ban on
    the Horn of Africa by Saudi Arabia). Diseases related to the tsetse
    fly have been highlighted in particular as a huge unaddressed
    challenge in the livestock industry. Various efforts are underway to
    build the sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) capacity control and
    registration within and between members of COMESA.

-   Emergency response to save livelihoods as well as lives. Most early
    warning and emergency response programs in COMESA countries are
    geared to crop producers rather than to livestock. In some areas,
    livestock can be an important coping mechanism in droughts, through
    sale of animals for food, and use of animals for milk and food in
    droughts which kill crops but do not kill animals (if fodder and
    water are available). In other areas, particularly pastoralist areas
    where livelihoods are almost completely dependent on livestock,
    early interventions are needed to assist with de-stocking of animals
    in a drought before they become too weakened or die, and animal
    health, water, and fodder interventions which help to maintain
    breeding herds for recovery after the drought. If these
    interventions work well then formal re-stocking programs should be
    unnecessary, as livestock owners have a combination of money from
    sales of livestock and core breeding herds to recover with.
    Establishment of effective Early Warning systems which identify
    livestock issues and policies and protocols for quick response to
    preserve livelihoods is already underway in some COMESA member
    states.

-   Pastoralists form a significant part of the population in at least
    seven COMESA members, and are generally a marginalized minority.
    Recognition at the policy level of the importance and viability of
    pastoralism as a livelihood is a critical first step. Agricultural
    extension services, especially essential veterinary care, tends to
    be very low in the remote pastoralist areas, resulting in higher
    livestock deaths due to disease as well as movement and trade
    restrictions. Support is needed both for strengthening the livestock
    based livelihoods of pastoralists, as well as assistance for those
    (usually the poorest) dropping out of pastoralism due to population
    increases and rangeland reduction. A main focus for livelihood
    diversification is pastoralist areas women's cooperatives and mutual
    support groups, which have already demonstrated considerable success
    in income generation.

-   Informal movement of livestock across borders as well as trade.
    Pastoralists in particular move across borders to use traditional
    sources of water and fodder, particularly in dry seasons or in
    drought emergencies. These cross border movements are largely
    informal, but are often in conflict with formal transit rules
    between countries. This can lead to misunderstanding and even
    conflict with governments, usually at the cost of the vulnerable and
    marginalized pastoralists. West Africa Sahelian countries have
    formed a compact which allows for the free movement of pastoralists
    and their livestock across borders to avoid confusion between this
    and illegal movement and trade. COMESA is in a unique position to
    help expose member states to existing models of formalization of
    cross border movement and to facilitate inter-governmental
    negotiations.

NOTE -- Avian influenza is not covered under this section, although it
obviously constitutes an important emerging crisis in Africa. As this
problem is being addressed separately through member state, donor and
multi-lateral agency initiatives, those activities are not repeated
here.

EARLY ACTION

Regional Enhanced Livelihoods for Pastoral Areas (RELPA)

COMESA program funded by USAID (\$19.8 million)

Based on a model established by USAID with COMESA in C3 Project to fight
plant disease in five Great Lakes countries, a Horn of Africa program
for enhancing livelihoods of pastoralists across three countries has
been launched.

COMESA acts as an umbrella for RELPA to ensure cross border emphasis in
collaboration with the member states. They are responsible to coordinate
the following: on the ground implementation of activities in the three
countries, movement and trade of animals across borders, regional Early
Warning mechanisms and response to emergencies and conflict, and
sanitary and phyto-sanitary harmonization for export across borders and
to other countries. COMESA is in a position to call together
multi-country consultations on these issues of mutual concern.

A specific part of the program is to enhance trade to Egypt and the
Middle East through negotiating reasonable animal disease certification
or through alternatives such as export of chilled meat, building on
successes already started. Based on this initial program, COMESA should
be able to undertake a longer term vision for pastoralist development
across the Greater Horn of Africa, with a 10-15 year development
horizon.

**Address Regional Food Insecurity**

Ten of the twenty COMESA member states, and many specific regions within
them, are identified as chronically food insecure or subject to high
vulnerability and regular droughts. Southern Zambia, Northern Zimbabwe,
the Wollo highlands of Ethiopia, and the pastoralist areas of northern
Kenya are some examples. Wherever there is dependency on subsistence
agriculture, with little or no wealth accumulation, growing populations
become more and more vulnerable to drought related or chronic food
insecurity. Much of the response by member states and donors to date has
been to provide food assistance, and to support drought resistant crops.
A more substantial, varied and long term response is needed, preferably
building on identified successes. The freeing of market restrictions
within and between member states promises to make a great many
opportunities for increased incomes and diversification for the poor,
but further market oriented pro-poor initiatives to complement market
liberalization are also needed. One of the tragedies for vulnerable
populations is that periodic droughts push them into asset depletion and
stripping to survive, therefore reducing their ability to achieve
sustainable livelihoods and develop intergenerational resistance to
shocks. Emergency responses which are early and robust enough to help
save livelihoods as well as lives are one of the first steps which can
be taken.

Many of member states of COMESA share the same agro-ecological zones, so
that food insecurity, droughts and other emergencies are cross border
phenomena rather than country specific. Recent examples include the Horn
of Africa drought of 2005-06, and the Southern African drought of
2002-03. Rather than trying to solve all food security problems within
each country, there is a substantial role for regional and sub-regional
cooperation, coordination, information system sharing, and response.

A great deal of work has been done on establishing good early warning
systems at the country level in many COMESA member states. During the
2002-03 drought, a good regional system of Early Warning was initiated
in Southern Africa, and there is increasing coordination on early
warning in the Horn of Africa countries as well. Consistency and
coordination across the region still requires some more work, as well as
effective communication especially to policy and decision makers. The
integration of conflict early warning systems with food security early
warning also requires more work, and is especially relevant to cross
border conflicts. Effective early warning is a key component of
improving responses to food emergency crises.

Good Early Warning systems are useless, however, if they do not trigger
a timely and appropriate response. Responses are essential to save lives
in a serious emergency, but livelihoods can also be saved by early
responses which address livelihoods specifically -- such as food or cash
assistance to prevent asset divestiture (especially the sale of
essential livestock), and efforts to de-stock or preserve livestock (as
described above). Commensurate cross border response is also important
to prevent mass movement of emergency affected populations from one
country to another to obtain relief. Cross fertilization of disaster
preparedness and response amongst member states, and harmonization of
responses across borders is a natural area for COMESA to provide support
and leadership in support of CAADP Pillar 3.

Support for emergency response across borders also requires greater
facilitation. While certain donors are still providing crucially needed
in-kind food aid sourced outside of Africa, other donors increasingly
supporting local purchase of food assistance. Accessing this food in
neighboring countries to the drought affected areas is a growing option,
and has the double advantage of supporting food relief and in providing
stronger regional markets for food. Also, the successful achievement of
pro-poor growth in the agricultural sector should decrease the overall
need for emergency food aid as households become more self-sufficient.
Removal of barriers to cross border food trade, formal, informal and
infrastructural, will both facilitate movement of supplies for
emergencies as well as catalyzing long term trade. Building on
initiatives such as "Maize Without Borders", COMESA can help develop
emergency contingency plans for grain purchase and movement across
borders to complement other long term efforts.

Reducing the vulnerability of populations between droughts is also
developing at the country level, in particular with the increasing use
of 'social safety nets' in member states. Safety nets can not only
provide essential support for the chronically food insecure, combined
with other inputs and a conducive policy framework, they can also help
the poor to achieve self sufficiency. Given the range and diversity of
safety net options both in COMESA member states and in other developing
contexts, cross-fertilization of learning and best practices, combined
with harmonization of national and donor support for safety net
approaches, can be undertaken under CAADP Pillar 3.

EARLY ACTION

Regional Food Security and Risk Management Program for Eastern and
Southern Africa (REFORM), Funded by European Union to COMESA

The REFORM program is 10 million Euro commitment. The program is mostly
software (i.e., skills transfer, technical studies, documentation of
best practice, information sharing, policy dialogue, etc). Long-term
professional staff will be recruited for the duration of the program to
coordinate and offer technical expertise on day-to-day implementation of
the program within IGAD and COMESA Secretariats.

The project expects to achieve 4 results:

\(i\) Improved core capacities to implement food security mandates

\(ii\) Cross Border Trade Associations (CBTAs) for small scale traders
established and/or strengthened

\(iii\) Improved regional and national capacities to analyze policies
and programs to manage chronic food insecurity, and assess the potential
of alternative social protection approaches

\(iv\) Improved regional and national capacities to analyze current
disaster management policies and programmes and policy alternatives

**VI. Linkages between pillars**

All of the CAADP Pillars inevitably overlap and subsequently contribute
to the achievement of each respective Pillar. Pillar 3 is no exception.
As already described, a substantial number of Africans, many of them in
vulnerable households, are engaged primarily in rural
agriculturally-based livelihoods. As these households are brought into
the accelerated agricultural development opportunities as part of CAADP,
they will contribute greatly to the achievement of the 6% economic
growth benchmark. Not only will these households be generating more
income for their own families and communities, they will also have
increased purchasing power thereby stimulating additional economic
activity. In addition, this should reduce the overall need for emergency
response, as households become more resilient to the risks they face.
While Pillar 3 is supporting the other pillar goals of CAADP, they in
turn are essential to the achievement of Pillar 3. For example:

-   Pillar 1 will help provide better infrastructure, technical
    knowledge, and irrigation resources to vulnerable households. This
    will help reduce transaction costs for rural households to
    participate in trade.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Pillar 2 may have the greatest impact on Pillar 3 households, as the
    impact of trade liberalization will allow them to sell their goods
    to larger & more competitive markets, thus reducing their dependence
    on domestic or local food production for survival or marketing. In
    particular, providing access to market information will help farmers
    make better investment choices and achieve improved terms of trade
    with buyers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Pillar 4 will contribute increased knowledge about farming methods
    and practices, which will help vulnerable households increase food
    availability and realize higher returns from sales.

**VII. Conclusions and Next Steps**

According to the COMESA CAADP Workplan (2006), agriculture is

> "...considered to be the engine for economic development in the COMESA
> region. The sector accounts for more than 32 percent of COMESA's gross
> domestic product (GDP), provides a livelihood to about 80 percent of
> the region's labor force, accounts for about 65 percent of foreign
> exchange earnings and contributes more than 50 percent of raw
> materials to the industrial sector." (p.2)

It is easy to see from this how important the CAADP agenda is to the
COMESA region. Additionally, because half of its member states face
large food insecurity challenges, it is clear that a large agenda of
potential activities arises for COMESA under Pillar 3. Although CAADP
has been around as a concept and plan for more than three years, it
remains a moving target which continues to change and elude agreement
between COMESA Member States and Donors. Processes for consultation are
underway, but must be clearly defined from the bottom up -- for Pillar 3
and the other CAADP pillars under COMESA, and for the umbrella CAADP
process under AU/NEPAD.

Clarity on the consultative and agreement processes is needed to assist
with final decision making on the activities under Pillar 3. This will
be undertaken by the Expert Reference Group (ERG), which will base their
work on the concept papers for the Pillars. Early Actions where there is
already agreement on activities which can go forward are already
underway, as described by examples above. Final activities must be
decided based on a tough analysis of COMESA core mandate, strengths and
capacity, with recognition of the additional mandate given to COMESA and
other Regional Economic Councils on implementation of CAADP. After an
analysis of existing programs and gaps, the ERG will define those final
programs and activities to be undertaken under this analytical
framework. Their role is described in greater detail in the Terms of
Reference.

**Next Steps**

Submission of concept paper on Pillar 3 Regional **- Wed, Aug. 2**

COMESA secretariat finalizes concept paper and ERG TOR's **Aug. 16**

Send out to Member States and Donors for agreement **Aug. 18**

Expert Reference Group (ERG) initial meetings held **Aug. 3 -- Aug. 31**

Draft of outputs from ERG circulated for review **Aug. 31**

Comment period on ERG outputs **Sep. 1 -- Sep. 30**

ERG provides final design for Regional CAADP Compact **Oct. 1 -- Oct.
31**

Individual Country CAADP Forums held **Oct -- Dec**

**VI. Summary of Specific Program Ideas**

In this section are specific program and project suggestions. These
suggestions arose during the development of the concept paper, either
through analysis of secondary data or meetings with stakeholders.
Ultimately the design of the Pillar 3 umbrella programs is the joint
responsibility of COMESA and the Expert Reference Group, therefore these
suggestions are meant to be illustrative rather than an exhaustive list.

**Promote Integration of Production to Ensure Coordination**

-   Renewed efforts under CAADP to help member states to remove the
    barriers to import and export of grain and other agricultural
    commodities. COMESA is in a unique position to facilitate trade
    negotiations and political will to overcome unnecessary blocks to
    regional trade, building on "Maize Without Borders" and other
    efforts already underway to reduce these barriers.

-   Related to the above, COMESA will help member states to harmonize
    and aggregate food production and surplus/deficit information.

-   A specialized agency, a grain council, could be developed with the
    purpose of organizing & coordinating grain estimates and trade
    issues.

**Develop the Livestock Sector**

-   Build the sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) capacity control and
    registration within and between member states of COMESA.

-   Establishment of effective Early Warning systems which identify
    livestock issues and policies and protocols for quick response to
    preserve livelihoods in relevant COMESA member states.

-   National level private sector umbrellas for livestock production and
    trade are established or under formation in many member states of
    COMESA. Livestock trade issues are also a regional concern -- both
    for trade within the region and for exports outside of COMESA.
    Regional Trade Associations for Livestock Producers and Exporters
    can help to guide policy and tackle problems related to trade, for
    example the major issue of increasingly strict certification
    requirements for animal export.

-   Undertake a longer term vision for pastoralist livelihoods across
    the Greater Horn of Africa, with a 10-15 year development horizon.

-   Expose member states to existing models of formalization of cross
    border movement of pastoralists and livestock and facilitate
    inter-governmental negotiations.

**Address Regional Food Insecurity**

-   Through CAADP improvements in Early Warning efforts can be
    undertaken, building on initiatives already planned under COMESA.

-   Provide support and leadership for cross fertilization of disaster
    preparedness and response amongst member states, and harmonization
    of responses across borders.

-   Develop emergency contingency plans for grain purchase and movement
    across borders to complement other long term efforts.

-   Given the range and diversity of safety net options both in COMESA
    member states and in other developing contexts, cross-fertilization
    of learning and best practices, combined with harmonization of
    national and donor support for safety net approaches.

-   As part of the overall effort by COMESA to reduce trade barriers,
    support pro-poor efforts to allow small producers and traders to
    access the benefits of cross border trade.

**National Compacts -- Suggestions for Programme**

As the Regional CAADP Compact is developed by the Expert Reference
Group, it is expected to have input from the National CAADP Compacts,
which are also to be planned in the coming months. There are a number of
regional implications for the National CAADP Compacts, so it is
recommended that the national planning sessions in turn include a number
of regional considerations. Much like the regional process, one of the
main exercises for the various national compacts will be to review
existing programs to identify areas of relevance to the CAADP process,
and to identify gaps.

In the process of developing this concept paper, the team identified the
following issues that should be included in the analysis for the
National CAADP Compacts under Pillar 3: nutrition, safety nets, school
feeding, emergency preparedness and response, access to financial
services.

**Bibliography:**

COMESA (2006, March) *COMESA -- CAADP -- Outline Regional Compact
Program*

Dercon, S. Edited (2005) *Insurance Against Poverty.* Oxford University
Press, London.

Holzmann, R., and S. Joergenson (2000), "Social Risk Management: A New

> Conceptual Framework for Social Protection and Beyond", *Social
> Protection Discussion Paper 0006,* World Bank, Washington, DC.

NEPAD (2003, July) *Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
Programme*

*(CAADP)*

NEPAD (2005) Progress on CAADP

OECD (2006) "Promoting Pro-Poor Growth -- Agriculture" DAC Reference
Document.

Scoones, I. and Wolmer, W. (2006, June) "Livestock, Disease, Trade and
Markets: Policy

> Choices for the Livestock Sector in Africa", *Working Paper 269*,
> Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK