Improving Transport Connectivity for Food Security in Africa: Strengthening Supply Chains January 31, 2025 © 2024 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved. This work is a product of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, links/footnotes, and other information shown in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The citation of works authored by others does not mean the World Bank endorses the views expressed by those authors or the content of their works. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2025. Transport and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strengthening Supply Chains. © World Bank.” Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: Microsoft Copilot Sample credit for a non–World Bank image: © Ami Vitale / Panos Pictures. Used with the permission of Ami Vitale / Panos Pictures. Further permission required for reuse. Sample credit for a World Bank image: © Curt Carnemark / World Bank. Further permission required for reuse. Cover design: [[DESIGNER CREDIT]] Contents Contents iii List of figures vi List of tables viii List of boxes viii Foreword ix Acknowledgments x Abbreviations xi Context 13 Question 1: What Impedes the Distribution of Food within Countries? 15 Question 2: How can regional economic blocks facilitate a more efficient exchange of food between countries? 16 Question 3. Why does Africa have a “long food supply chain”? 17 Question 4: Does Africa have a transport infrastructure problem that impacts the food supply chain? 18 Question 5: Do market distortions in transport services contribute to high costs of food in Africa? 23 Conclusion 24 Chapter 1 Agricultural Supply Chains and Food Insecurity 26 Key Findings and Messages 26 Food Trade in Sub-Saharan Africa 26 Why is Sub-Saharan Africa Food Insecure? Error! Bookmark not defined. Food Insecurity as a Supply Chain Problem 34 International Network Connectivity 35 Regional integration 35 Domestic Network Connectivity 36 Transport Services 36 Access to Local Markets 36 Structure of This Report 38 References 38 Chapter 2 Food Supply Chains in Africa 43 Key Findings and Messages 43 Transport and Food Flow Model 43 Estimates of Food Flows in Africa 46 Length of Food Supply Chains 48 iii Transport Costs 52 Other Costs of Gaining Access to Markets 54 Time Required to Access Tradable Food 57 Summary 59 References 60 Chapter 3 Access to International Markets 62 Key Findings and Messages 62 Improving Africa’s Ports 62 Increasing Connectivity between Ports and Hinterlands 68 Summary 72 References 73 Chapter 4 The Importance of Regional Trade 75 Key Findings and Messages 75 Enhancing Food Security and Growth through Regional Trade 75 Continent-Wide Policies 75 Regional Patterns of Food Trade Connectivity 77 Increasing Regional Connectivity 82 Food Miles and Trade Costs within Regional Economic Communities 82 Problems at the Border 84 Non-Tariff Trade Measures and the Cost of Food Trade 85 Summary 88 References 88 Chapter 5 Local Access to Food 90 Key Findings and Messages 90 The Role and Impact of Rural Transport and Access on Food Security 90 Food Distribution 91 Transport Costs within Countries 95 Prioritizing Elements of Transport Networks 97 Transport Services and Cost of Access to Food 98 Summary 101 References 101 Chapter 6 Inadequate Food Storage and Poor Food Handling Practices 104 Key Findings and Messages 104 Food Loss across Agriculture Supply Chains in Africa 104 Ethiopia: A Case Study on National Storage for Food Security 109 iv Regional Approach to Enhancing Food Storage 115 Summary 117 References 117 Chapter 7 Diagnosis of and Recommendations for Improving Transport for Food 120 Key Findings and Messages 120 Main Vulnerabilities Threatening Food Security 121 Long Agricultural Commodity Supply Chains 122 Long Lead Times for Food Shipments 123 High Food Losses 124 Highly Fragmented Agricultural Markets 125 Vulnerability of Critical Transport Links to Climate Change 126 Recommendations 128 Fostering International Network Connectivity 128 Increasing Regional Integration 129 Strengthening Domestics Logistics 130 Improving network planning 130 Leveraging storage 130 Improving transport services 130 Increasing Access to Markets 131 Summary 132 References 132 Annex A: Transport and Food Flow Model 135 Rationale 135 FlowMax Framework 135 Food Flow Model 141 Limitations 143 6. References 143 v List of figures Figure 1.1 African cereal production and food insecure population, 2000–23 27 Figure 1.2 Food Insecurity and Regional Corridor Connectivity in Sub-Saharan Africa 28 Figure 1.3 Cereal trade balance of Top and Bottom 10 countries, 2023 29 Figure 1.4 Correlation between Global Food Security Index and supply chain infrastructure, in Sub- Saharan Africa and rest of world 31 Figure 1.5 Cereal yield, by region, 1963–2023 32 Figure 1.6 Value of Sub-Saharan Africa’s food imports and exports, 1995–2023 33 Figure 1.7 Average volume of Sub-Saharan Africa’s imports and exports of wheat, rice, maize, and cassava in 2016–22 33 Figure 1.8 Sources and destinations of food trade in Sub-Saharan Africa 34 Figure 1.9 Food supply chain framework used in this report 35 Figure 1.10 Kenya: Trade Balance of Four Crops, 2022 37 Figure 2.1 Zones and networks in the model 44 Figure 2.2 Contribution of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat to total caloric intake in Sub-Saharan Africa, by subregion 2022 47 Figure 2.3 Self-sufficiency in cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Africa 48 Figure 2.4 Flow patterns of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Africa 50 Figure 2.5 Number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa living within selected distance bands 2022 51 Figure 2.6 Transport prices used in the model, by country 53 Figure 2.7 Range of transport costs for casava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa 54 Figure 2.8 Percent of population within each transport cost band for maize and wheat 2022 54 Figure 2.9 Time required to deliver cassava, maize, rice, and wheat to consumers in Africa 2022 59 Figure 3.1 Location of 10 most important ports for food in Sub-Saharan Africa 2022 67 Figure 3.3 Food critical road links along designated corridors in Sub-Saharan Africa 70 Figure 4.1 Ad valorem trade costs for agricultural products in Africa 77 Figure 4.2 Share of staples imported for consumption, produced and consumed domestically, and exported 78 Figure 4.3 Sources of intra-Africa imports of food staples 79 Figure 4.4 Average path length from producer to consumer of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat, by Regional Economic Community 83 Figure 4.5 Estimated transport costs of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat, by Regional Economic Community 83 Figure 4.6 Top 20 critical border crossing points 84 vi Figure 4.7 Estimated average cost associated with nontariff barriers on food staples, by Regional Economic Community 86 Figure 5.1 Trade balance for casava, maize, wheat, and race in Sub-Saharan Africa, by country, 2022 91 Figure 5.2 Distribution of food balances for cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa, by traffic zone 94 Figure 5.3 Cost of transporting maize and wheat to consumers, by zone 96 Figure 5.4 Critical secondary road transport links in Sub-Saharan Africa 98 Figure 5.5 Distribution of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa by cost of transporting cassava, maize, rice, and wheat 99 Figure 5.6 Correlation between Rural Access Index and cereal production per hectare in Sub-Saharan 100 Africa 100 Figure 6.1 Estimates of quantities of postharvest losses of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub- Saharan Africa, 2010–22 105 Figure 6.2 Cereal stocks in Sub-Saharan Africa and rest of world 107 Figure 6.3 Typology of cereal trade balances and stock variations, 2022 108 Figure 6.4 Estimated food storage capacity as a proportion of production in selected regions and countries 109 Figure 6.5 Storage locations and distance from trunk road 113 Figure 7.1 Summary of findings on transport in Sub-Saharan Africa 122 Figure 7.2 Cumulative population living in areas with the following transport distances, 2023 123 Figure 7.4 Staple food loss in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2010–22 125 Figure 7.5 High-risk critical links, as identified by proximity to landslide and wildfire hazard 127 Figure 7.6 Impact of climate shock on rural food consumption and food prices 128 Figure 2 FlowMax model framework (Source: Halim et al., 2018) 136 Figure 2. Zones and networks in the model 142 vii List of tables Table 2.1 Key model inputs 46 Table 2.2 Average transport cost and price of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa ($ per tonne, except where otherwise indicated) 53 Table 2.3 Average NTB and transport costs of maize, cassava, rice, and wheat 55 Table 2.4 Average food staple transport costs (dollars per tonne) 56 Table 3.1 Ten most important ports for food in Sub-Saharan Africa 64 Table 4.1 Continental initiatives in Africa that affect food security 76 Table 4.2 Regional Economic Communities in Africa 77 Table 4.3 Trade regimes of Regional Economic Communities and implications for trade in food 80 Table 4.4 Twenty most important land borders in Sub-Saharan Africa for food flow 85 Table 5.1 Trade balances in Sub-Saharan Africa for four crops (percent of countries) 94 Table 5.2 Comparison of food balances for cassava, maize, rice, and wheat between countries and subnational units (percent) 95 Table 6.1 Perishability and storage of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa 106 Table 6.2 Evolution of food price stabilization and market-related organizations in Ethiopia 110 Table 6.3 Subnational food storage capacity operated by federal government 112 Table 1 Key model inputs 143 List of boxes Box 1.1 The global, regional, and local dimensions of food distribution in Kenya 37 Box 2.1 Targeting markets and places to reduce costs 52 Box 3.1 Mapping the hinterland of a regional port 72 Box 4.1 Regulatory barriers to food trade in the CEMAC region 87 Box 5.1 Improving rural connectivity: Rural Access and Mobility Program in Nigeria 100 Box 6.1 Wheat value chain in Ethiopia 114 Box 7.1 Enhancing food security through a basins of integration approach in the Sahel 131 viii Foreword ix Acknowledgments This report was prepared by Charles Kunaka, Megersa Abate, Theophile Bougna, and Kisanet Haile Molla. The authors are very grateful for the collaboration and contribution of the ITP Royal HaskoningDHV team (David Brenig-Jones, Giles Lipscombe, Mila van Druten, and Andrew Macpherson) that performed the modelling work and provided several of the technical analyses on which the report is based. Ronald Halim, of Equitable Maritime Consultants (EMC), worked on the World Bank Global Freight Flow Model (FlowMax), which was the foundation for the network analysis for exploring intercountry food flows. Chapter 6 is based on a background paper by Frehiwot Gebrehiwot (Consultant). The report reflects guidance and was reviewed in a meeting chaired by Axel van Trotsenburg, Senior Managing Director of the World Bank, who authorized its finalization. It was prepared under the general supervision and guidance of Guangzhe Chen (Vice President, Infrastructure), Nicolas Peltier-Theberge (Global Director, Transport), and Binyam Reja (Practice Manager, Transport Global Knowledge Unit). The report benefitted from feedback and guidance from numerous experts and decision makers, among them Victoria Kwakwa (Vice President, AFEVP), Ousmane Diagana (Vice President, AFWVP), Mamta Murthi (Vice President, GGHVP), Ousmane Dione (Vice President, MNAVP), Andrew Dabalen (Chief Economist, Africa), Simeon Ehui (Director General, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture), Nathan Balete (Country Director, AECE1, AFE), Jean-Francois Marteau (Practice Manager, Transport), Mona Haddad (Global Director, ETIDR), Shobha Shetty (Global Director, SAGDR, Planet), Chakib Jenane (Regional Director, SAWDR), Iain G. Shuker (Regional Director, SAEDR), Sarvesh Suri (Director, CN3RI, IFC), Doerte Doemeland (Director, Strategy and Operations, GGEVP), Stephane Hallegatte (Senior Climate Change Adviser, GGSVP), and Marina Wes (Director, Strategy and Operations, AFWVP). Antonio Nunez (Program Leader, IECDR), Maryla Maliszewska (Senior Economist, ETIRI), Muneeza Alam (Senior Transport Economist, IMNT1), Vickram Cuttaree (Lead Strategy Officer, AFWRI), and Gerard de Jong (Professor of Transport Research, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds) were reviewers at the concept stage. Bernard Aritua (Lead Transport Specialist, IAET2), James Nolan (Professor, University of Saskatchewan), Jean Francois Marteau (Practice Manager, IAWT4), Luc Christiansen (Lead Agriculture Economist, SAEA2), Sebastien Dessus (Practice Manager, ETIRI), and Stephane Straub (Chief Economist, INFCE) reviewed the draft report at the quality enhancement review stage. The authors are also grateful to other World Bank colleagues who provided inputs and advice on different elements of the work, chief among them Bezawit Tesfaye Fanta, Christian Ksoll, Eduardo Andres Espitia Echeverria, Matias Herrera Dappe, Mekbib Gebretsadik Haile, and Tesfamichael Mitiku. The team gratefully acknowledges the generous financial support of the Quality Infrastructure Investment (QII) Partnership of the World Bank and the Government of Japan. It also thanks Barbara Karni for editing an early draft of the report. x Abbreviations AfCFTA African Continental Free Trade Area APHLIS African Postharvest Losses Information System BCP Border Crossing Point BCPs Border Crossing Points CAR Central African Republic CEMAC Central African Economic and Monetary Community COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 CRS Catholic Relief Services CSA Central Statistical Agency DRC Democratic Republic of Congo EAC East African Community ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EDR Ethio-Djibouti Railway EFRA Emergency Food Reserve Administration EFSRA Emergency Food Security Reserve Administration EGMB Ethiopian Grain Marketing Board EGTE Ethiopian Grain Trade Enterprise ETBC Ethiopian Trading Businesses Corporation EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FAOStat Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical Database FTA Free Trade Area GDP Gross Domestic Product GH-POP Global Human Settlement Population Dataset GHS-POP Global Human Settlement Population ICT Information and Communications Technology IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development IMF International Monetary Fund IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification ITC International Trade Centre kcal Kilocalorie(s) km Kilometer NGO Nongovernmental Organization NDRMC National Disaster Risk Management Commission NTB Non-Tariff Barrier NTBs Non-Tariff Barriers NTM Non-Tariff Measure NTMs Non-Tariff Measures OEC Observatory of Economic Complexity xi PIDA Program for Infrastructure Development in Africa PMGSY Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana RAI Rural Access Index REC Regional Economic Community RECs Regional Economic Communities RRC Relief and Rehabilitation Commission SACU Southern African Customs Union SADC Southern African Development Community SEDAC Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center SFRA Strategic Food Reserve Agency SGR Strategic Grain Reserve SLoCaT Sustainable Low Carbon Transport Partnership SNNP Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region SPAM Spatial Production Allocation Model SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures SSA Sub-Saharan Africa TBT Technical Barriers to Trade TFA Trade Facilitation Agreement Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (West African Economic and Monetary UEMOA Union) UN United Nations UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific USAID United States Agency for International Development VAT Value-Added Tax WFP World Food Program WRS Warehouse Receipt System xii Executive Summary Context 1. Africa stands at a critical juncture in addressing its persistent food security challenges. While progress has been made in agricultural production, inefficiencies in transport, logistics, and storage continue to undermine the continent's ability to feed its population effectively. These inefficiencies have far-reaching consequences: they inflate food prices, exacerbate waste, and heighten vulnerability to disruptions caused by climate change, conflict, and global supply chain shocks. The urgency to address Africa's food security challenges has never been greater. With a rapidly growing population, intensifying climate pressures, and a dangerous overreliance on imported food, the continent’s food systems are at a tipping point. The current trajectory cannot sustain the rising demand or protect against future shocks. 2. The causes of food insecurity are many and vary across countries, and zones even within the same country. However, a few patterns can be observed. Africa at a continental level does not produce enough food to meet its needs, faces significant inefficiencies in distributing what it produces, and depends heavily on distant markets for key staples for its food basket. On average African countries produce about 75 percent of their food needs in-country, by quantity, with the rest being imported from overseas markets, mostly from Europe and Asia. Only about 5 percent of food trade takes place between countries in Africa. In addition, 37 percent of what is produced locally is wasted in post- harvest losses, and many food-insecure population are cut off from the food supply chain because of their remote locations. These patterns not only perpetuate food insecurity but also expose the continent to significant vulnerabilities in supply chains. This report is the first of its kind to provide a detailed analysis of the critical nexus between transport, logistics, and food security in Africa. It provides empirical evidence based on modelling exercise the pivotal role transport connectivity, performance, and cost play in ensuring food availability, affordability, and access. 3. Many countries in Africa still struggle to produce enough food to meet their needs. While agricultural production in Africa increased by 160 percent over the past 30 years (more than the global average of 100 percent), paradoxically the number of food insecure population grew faster than any other region in the world, and the productivity gains were not sufficient to offset the persistent food insecurity challenges in the continent. Over the last ten years, for example, the food insecure population in Africa grew by 60 percent, while agricultural productivity increased by 20 percent during the same period, suggesting that the level of productivity was not enough to address food insecurity problem in the continent (Figure 1). Moreover since 2000, at least 20 countries in Africa faced food shortage with some facing severe and persistent food shortages, including episodic famines. Despite the progress made in improving agricultural productivity and the continent’s agricultural potential, many African countries remain trapped in food insecurity, malnutrition and vulnerability to supply chain disruptions. 13 Figure 1 African cereal production and food insecure population, 2014–23 Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. 4. Most countries in Africa lack efficient food distribution systems that can effectively move food from surplus production regions to food-insecure areas. The domestic and regional food supply chains suffer from missing transport links, inadequate food storage, and border-crossing bottlenecks. As a result, food transfers in Africa take up to ten times longer than in the United States. Transport expenses can account for up to 45 percent of the market price of some commodities of low value, making food prohibitively expensive for some segments of the population, especially those who live in remote isolated areas and the urban poor. Additionally, many farmers struggle with limited access to market information, hindering their ability to respond to demand, plan effectively, and invest in productivity improvements. 5. This report provides a detailed analysis of the supply chains of key food commodities in Africa and sheds light on how transport deficiencies affect production, distribution, and imports and ultimately, food security across the continent. While many studies have been carried out to explain the persistent food insecurity problem in Africa, the report is the first to use a supply chain approach to provide comprehensive view how transport, logistics, and storage affect food security.1 The analysis uses the World Bank’s in-house Freight Flow and Transport Choice Model (FlowMax) to explore the movement of food between production and consumption including global trade. The model tracks the flow of four essential commodities (namely Maize, Cassava, Wheat, and Rice) which provide almost 1 Several studies acknowledge transport and logistics as factors in Africa's food insecurity but do not focus on them comprehensively. Tefera (2012) highlights small transport-related losses in maize systems but emphasizes other post-harvest inefficiencies. Similarly, Delgado et al. 2023 and Sheahan and Barrett (2016) recognize transport's role within broader supply chains but prioritize issues like storage and agrifood systems. 14 half of Africa’s caloric intake, to provide insights how weaknesses and gaps in the supply chain affect the flow of these commodities within a country, between countries, and with overseas markets. 6. The analysis in the report leads to five questions that are crucial to addressing food supply chain challenges in Africa. Question 1: What Impedes the Distribution of Food within Countries? 7. Although many African countries have the potential to produce enough food, the poor transport connectivity hinders the movement of food between surplus-producing areas and deficit regions. Almost a third of the countries in Africa can produce enough of a commodity in aggregate terms but have districts and provinces that suffer food shortages regularly and/or pay premium to get their food. The availability of quality roads, railways, and ports significantly impacts the efficiency and effectiveness which food is distributed within and between countries. Poor transport networks lead to high transportation costs, delays, and increased post-harvest losses, which in turn affect the availability and affordability of food. This is particularly important in regions with significant spatial mismatch between food production areas and consumption centers, and landlocked countries whose food supply depends on the gateway country’s performance of the transport system, including cross-border transit policies. When transport networks are well-developed, food can move seamlessly across regions, reducing the risk of shortages and stabilizing prices. Conversely, poor connectivity can lead to localized food shortages and price volatility, exacerbating food insecurity. 8. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) provides an example of the risks of limited domestic connectivity. The DRC has great potential in food production but also has significant food insecurity in some of its provinces, exacerbated by poor transport infrastructure and logistical inefficiencies. Staple foods like rice and wheat are still heavily imported from overseas, highlighting the shortcomings of domestic supply chains. The DRC’s sparse transport network (Figure 2) leaves vast areas dependent on a limited number of critical links. For example, if a road link is disrupted, the costs of rerouting food would be astronomical. This highlights how inefficient domestic transport networks contribute to localized food shortages even in countries with sufficient overall production. The model output indicates that DRC is one of the counties that experience significant transport stress in relation to food security with reasons including, high transport costs compared to incomes, the vulnerable arrangement of the transport network, high distance from growing areas, and high costs and delays at borders and ports. 15 Figure 2 Distribution of Food Flows across Domestic Transport Network in the Democratic Republic of Congo Note: The figure depicts flow of Cassava, thickness of the lines shows the relative volume of trade 9. Strengthening transport networks and specially building redundancy is important for an efficient and resilient domestic system. Investments in domestic transport networks are crucial to bridging the gap between food production and consumption areas, reducing waste, and making food more accessible and affordable. Addressing these challenges is particularly urgent in countries like the DRC, where strategic improvements could unlock significant gains in food security. Question 2: How can regional economic blocks facilitate a more efficient exchange of food between countries? 10. Costs of trade costs for agricultural commodities are 20 percent higher between African countries than between those countries and their external trade partners. Regional economic blocs, such as the East African Community (EAC), play a crucial role in addressing inefficiencies in cross-border food distribution by harmonizing policies and improving transport infrastructure. The EAC has made good progress since the 1990s in raising the share of intra-regional agriculture trade in total trade for many staple commodities. However, even then, high transport costs and cumbersome border procedures remain significant impediments to effective distribution. For instance, maize transport within East Africa averages $66 per ton—lower than the $124 per ton for rice and $134 per ton for wheat—but still represents 16 percent of the final consumer price. This highlights the opportunity for 16 even modest cost reductions to significantly benefit consumers. NTBs further exacerbate these challenges, contributing to 8 percent-14 percent of total transport costs and making intra-Africa trade 8 percent-25 percent more expensive than intercontinental trade. Corruption and inefficient border procedures add to these costs, incentivizing countries like Kenya to source maize from overseas instead of regional markets, despite local surpluses in neighboring countries 11. Available data show major hurdles for food trade to cross borders. While tariffs are low or have been eliminated within some RECs, poor implementation of non-tariff measures (NTMs) continue to be a barrier to trade. NTMs are often needed to ensure safety and protect society but when they are poorly formulated and implemented, they become barriers and impede the free movement of food across borders. The effect is that some countries experience food shortages or face high variations in transport costs. Such countries may then source food from overseas rather than regional markets (Figure 3). Figure 3 Where intra-Africa imports come from for the four crops Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. 12. Regional trade facilitation can be improved by streamlining border procedures at the border crossing points. The report has identified 20 border crossing points that are critical for flow of across countries. It recommends investments along priority regional corridors, including encompassing investments in cross-border transport infrastructure are appropriate regimes to protect society while reducing costs of food flows. It recommends investments along priority regional corridors, including investing cross-border transport infrastructure. In addition, cross-border trade can be promoted by facilitating exchanges between border communities through smaller border crossing points and connecting access roads. Question 3. Why does Africa have a “long food supply chain”? 13. Africa has long supply chains because significant proportions of staple foods are imported from overseas markets. The average distance over which food is transported into African countries is 17 almost 4,000 kilometers and it takes at least three weeks for the average country to access all the food required to meet consumption needs. The long distances over which food is transported (Figure 4) reflect the reliance of many African countries on overseas markets, especially for rice and wheat imports. As a result, African commodity supply chains are particularly long, almost four times longer than those of Europe. The extended nature of the supply chains results in many vulnerabilities and can be a source of delays and other risks. Because of the long distances but also low quality of infrastructure in some countries, it takes 23 days on average, excluding administrative time, for African countries to access all the food that they require. Figure 4 Estimated total population within defined distance bands for different commodities 70% 60% Percent of Population 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 - 250 km 250 - 500 km 500 - 1000 km 1000 - 3000 km 3000 - 6000 km 6000+ km Food mile band Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs. 14. Addressing the problem of extended food supply chains in Africa requires a multifaceted approach that tackles inefficiencies in production and distribution. These are the issues explored in the next four questions with an emphasis on what can be done. Improving infrastructure is crucial, as poor domestic transport networks and long distances between production and consumption areas contribute to delays and food losses. Investments in roads, railways, and ports can significantly reduce lead times and improve the reliability of food supply chains. Streamlining logistics and reducing regulatory bottlenecks can enhance the speed and reliability of food distribution, while promoting intra-regional trade can help balance food surpluses and deficits across different regions. Developing adequate storage facilities is essential to mitigate the risks posed by long supply chains, and implementing policies that support agricultural development and food security can address the root causes of long supply chains. Question 4: Does Africa have a transport infrastructure problem that impacts the food supply chain? 18 15. Africa’s food supply chain is fragmented, high cost and has low reliability. There are four main elements of infrastructure for food production, distribution and trade. A. Local 16. Rural roads are fundamental for food production and distribution. There is strong evidence from countries such as Mozambique and Ethiopia that improved rural roads boosts agricultural productivity, facilitates market access, and ultimately contributes to economic welfare. However, indices such as the widely utilized Rural Access Index (RAI), which reflects the accessibility of rural areas to markets and services, show that Africa in general has low levels of rural access with close to 60 percent of the rural population living more than two kilometers from an all-season road. Limited access hampers farmers’ ability to obtain inputs and sell their produce, thereby reducing productivity, and can negate the benefits of other interventions including the expected increases in productivity from using more fertilizer. 17. Scaling rural road investment is an effective strategy to ensure two-way flows of agricultural commodities. The India Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) Rural Roads program, and the World Bank-financed Nigeria Rural Access and Mobility Program show the impacts of scale on rural development outcomes including food production and availability. However, it is important to note that large scale and country-wide investments are essential to maximize the network benefits of investing in rural roads, as disbursed and limited investment would not be able address the spatial mismatch that exists between different regions within the country. It is also important to select and identify roads based on the on the role that a region plays in a national food system. Additionally, providing local storage solutions can help farmers store their produce safely and reduce losses, thereby improving food security at the local level. B. Regional 18. Regional transport corridors play a key role in distributing food within and between countries. The corridors are particularly important for the sixteen landlocked countries in Africa. Africa has a well-defined corridor network that was designed primarily to give access to such landlocked countries to the sea. The continental Program for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA) prioritizes completion of gaps in the corridor network and improvement of transport infrastructure to connect high-productivity agricultural regions to continental markets. Performance of the corridors is highly variable though they have received billions of dollars of investment, including by the World Bank. The report estimates that implementing the various infrastructure programs would reduce the cost of trading by 5 percent and save up to 16 percent in travel time. This underscores the importance improving the performance of transport services if the impacts are to be maximized. By strengthening trade corridors, the continent will have the basic infrastructure for more efficient trade across the continent. C. International 19. Internationally sourced commodities are highly dependent on sea shipping. Although many countries have their own ports and can receive food shipments by sea from all over the world, the report finds that many ports have very limited port facilities to accommodate large bulk vessels that 19 carry agricultural commodities. Only 52 out of 138 ports that were studies for this report have food shipments as one of the top three types of cargo they handled. In addition, only 32 ports had an average of 100 or more bulk vessel calls per year over the period 2019 to 2023. Most of the bulk shipments were minerals. This pattern suggests that food imports into Africa come on general cargo vessels, at high cost, or they face delays if they are to be delivered by bulk carriers. In addition, many ports lack facilities and equipment to handle agricultural commodities. Bagging of grains, which is common, increases handling and transportation costs at both the overseas and local port and is more expensive. 20. The report identifies ten critical seaports, twenty key sections of regional transport corridors, and twenty border crossing points that are essential for the efficient movement of food across Africa (Table 1). These transport network elements collectively handle approximately 23 percent of the total calorie flow of the four staple crops—maize, cassava, rice, and wheat—which represent 45 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa’s total calorie consumption. They, therefore, have an outsized role in ensuring food reaches deficit regions. Table 1 Critical Infrastructure for Food Handling and Distribution Infrastructure Countries Impact Ten critical seaports Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire), Banjul (The Gambia), Improved gateway that handle food Cotonou (Benin), Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania), performance attracts shipping volumes equivalent Djibouti (Djibouti), Mogadishu (Somalia), connectivity, reduces costs to 78 billion Port of Sudan (Sudan), San-Pedro (Côte and delays. kilocalories per year. d’Ivoire), Toamasina (Madagascar). Twenty critical road Benin, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Regional corridors are critical sections across nine Republic of Congo (DRC), Ghana, Malawi, for domestic distribution and countries that Mozambique, Nigeria, Zambia. regional trade manage 102 billion kilocalories of food per year. Twenty key border Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Border crossing points are crossings linking 30 Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, regional gateways to trade. countries, vital for DRC, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guinea, Kenya, Infrastructure and system intra-regional food Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, improvements reduce delays trade. Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, and costs and increase the Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South supply of services, especially Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, The Gambia, trucking. Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Source: Authors, based on model outputs. 21. While many of the identified critical transport links and nodes align with the continent’s flagship infrastructure initiatives, significant gaps remain, particularly in underserved and landlocked 20 regions where connectivity is weakest (Figure 5).2 These gaps must be urgently addressed to unlock Africa’s full potential for food security and trade. The combination of Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA)-1, PIDA-2, and the Trans-African Highway (TAH) framework establishes a solid foundation, focusing on critical infrastructure such as roads, ports, and border crossings essential for regional connectivity and food accessibility. PIDA-2 builds on PIDA-1 by targeting previously overlooked areas, but missing investments in key roads and border points continue to disrupt efficient food flows and trade. By prioritizing these gaps and fully integrating the transport network, Africa can significantly reduce costs, enhance food distribution, and create a resilient system capable of meeting future demands and ensuring food security across the continent. Figure 5: Top Critical Links and Nodes Vis-À-Vis Continental Transport Infrastructure Initiatives Source: Authors, based on model outputs. 22. Africa’s food transport system is susceptible to shocks. Any disruption—whether due to natural hazards, conflicts, or infrastructure failure—could severely impede the movement of food, 2 A companion to this report, The Africa Transport and Food Security Outlook, analyzes continental transport infrastructure improvements and policy initiatives that could enhance food security across the continent. By modeling policy scenarios, it provides strategic guidance for infrastructure investments and decisions to build more resilient and efficient food systems in Africa. 21 leading to higher costs and exacerbating shortages in vulnerable areas. Africa is highly vulnerable to climate change, which affects agricultural production through extreme weather events, droughts, and changing rainfall patterns pose risks to transport infrastructure. This report finds that transport network elements of some of the high-risk countries are sparse and significant food flows rely on a few links and nodes. The limited redundancy and resilience of transport infrastructure restrict routing options and can significantly increase costs during disruptive events. Strategic investments to improve resilience, create alternative routes, and enhance operational efficiency at these points are essential to safeguard food supply chains and reduce their vulnerability to disruption. D. Storage 23. Sub-Saharan Africa has a severe deficit of food storage infrastructure. While most regions of the world have agricultural storage capacity more than their annual production, the amount of available storage in Sub-Saharan Africa is less than 30 percent of annual production (Figure 6). In fact, due to lack of storage, most African supply chains operate as “just-in-time” without buffer stocks to respond to emergencies and smooth consumption during seasonal variations. One of the compelling lessons following the Russian invasion of Ukraine was that Ukraine had significant capacity to store more than 60 million tonnes of grain. Had it not had storage infrastructure the food would have gone to waste instead of being eventually released to global markets. The limited storage capacities across Africa exacerbate the problem of high post-harvest food losses and waste, including the estimated 40 percent loss of perishable crops and 20 percent loss of other food commodities. Figure 6 Estimated grain storage capacity as a proportion of production volumes 1.40 Storage capacity as a proportion of 1.20 1.00 production, 2022 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Average for South USA EU China India selected Africa countries in SSA Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat and various public sources.3 24. There are practicable solutions to the storage problem, but they have risks. The report uses the example of Ethiopia and ECOWAS to illustrate two approaches to building storage capacity, one national and the other regional. The evolution of policy in Ethiopia has over time improved 3 The estimates are for 12 countries: Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe. 22 coordination between different levels of government and between the public and private sectors, which can create opportunities for investment while the ECOWAS example shows the importance of information flows and transport services for a regional solution to work efficiently. Leveraging storage by establishing dedicated institutions or agencies to oversee logistics and storage, and promoting public-private partnerships, can enhance food security. Storage infrastructure should include appropriate technology for tracking and inventory management, which can further improve food distribution networks. Establishing modern storage facilities, such as silos, can help mitigate post- harvest losses and ensure better management of food reserves. Question 5: Do market distortions in transport services contribute to high costs of food in Africa? 25. The market characteristics of transport services markets impacts costs of food distribution. Based on transport input costs, the report estimates that transport costs would contribute 5 to 14 percent of the market price of rice and wheat, respectively. However, based on the observed transport prices as obtained from actual contracts, the respective contributions of transport costs to commodity prices are 13 and 31 percent, for rice and wheat, respectively. The contribution is much higher for cassava, at 45 percent. Competition in transport markets, therefore, has a significant impact on the cost of distributing food within and between countries. 26. Situations experiencing violence and conflict face particularly high transport costs. Herrera Dappe and others (2024) find wide differences in transport prices across countries and conclude that the variation is 75 percent due to local factors like infrastructure, geography, and market structure. Conflict is particularly found to significantly impact transport prices, with transport prices in conflict zones like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia ranging from $0.14 to $0.56 per tonne- kilometer, compared with $0.06–$0.08 in more stable countries like South Africa and Uganda, respectively. There are also wide differences in costs between regions, with the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) region having the lowest average transport costs for food shipments (18 US cents per tonne per kilometer), while the West and Central Africa regions have costs that are more than double those of SACU (Figure 7). Overall, poor and high-cost transport services discourage trade and disincentivize production for markets particularly where farming is small scale and framers are price takers. 23 Figure 7 Average transport prices, by Regional Economic Community 0.5 Average price, US$ per tonne per 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 km 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 CEMAC COMESA EAC ECOWAS SACU SADC Source: Authors, based on Herrera Dappe and others (2024). 27. Improving transport services is critical to reducing the costs of food. Weak competition in transport, especially in rural areas, requires specific interventions. Support instruments can include financing for vehicle fleets, and reducing the incidence of empty running of trucks, which is a common problem. Supporting systems that match demand and suppliers are also crucial. There are many examples of successful electronic cargo platforms, many started and managed by the private sector. These measures can lower transport costs, reduce delivery times, and improve reliability, thereby boosting productivity and production for farmers, and enhancing food security. Conclusion 28. Africa is at a pivotal moment in addressing its food security challenges. Despite progress in agricultural production, transport inefficiencies, logistical gaps, and inadequate storage systems continue to impede the continent’s ability to meet its population's needs effectively. These systemic weaknesses inflate food prices, contribute to significant post-harvest losses, and leave the region vulnerable to climate shocks, conflicts, and global supply chain disruptions. The situation is particularly dire in landlocked and underserved regions where poor connectivity exacerbates the challenges of food distribution and accessibility. 29. The findings of this report underscore the urgent need for targeted interventions to address these issues. Prioritizing investment in rural and regional transport networks, modernizing critical seaports, and developing efficient storage infrastructure are essential to bridging the gap between production and consumption areas. Improved logistics and streamlined customs processes can enhance intra-regional food flows, while public-private partnerships (PPPs) and climate-resilient designs will ensure long-term sustainability and adaptability. These measures are vital not only to reducing transport costs but also to stabilizing food supply chains and addressing Africa’s overreliance on distant imports for staples like wheat and rice. 24 30. The report emphasizes that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work given the diverse challenges across regions and countries. Central Africa’s reliance on cassava, East Africa’s maize trade, and West Africa’s heavy import dependency each require tailored solutions. Integrated frameworks such as PIDA-1 and PIDA-2 offer a strong starting point, but unaddressed critical links, such as missing roads and border points, must be included in future prioritization efforts. By focusing on these gaps, Africa can create a comprehensive and efficient food transport network that supports economic growth and regional trade. 31. The time to act is now. With a growing population, rising urbanization, and intensifying climate pressures, Africa’s food systems must adapt to meet future demands. Strategic investments in transport, storage, and trade facilitation will not only improve food security but also strengthen resilience against future shocks. By adopting these recommendations, Africa can build a sustainable, inclusive, and adaptive food system, ensuring that no population is left behind in the fight against hunger and malnutrition. 25 Chapter 1 Agricultural Supply Chains and Food Insecurity Improving transport to help reduce food insecurity requires a multilayered approach. This chapter presents a supply chain framework applied for this report to explore the trade-offs inherent in Africa’s food system, identify the segments where weaknesses are most apparent, and suggest how best to target investments in transport to build stronger food supply chains. Key Findings and Messages • Although food production has increased in Africa, the continent still imports significant quantities of rice and wheat. Even commodities produced in large quantities in Africa, such as maize, are imported from other parts of the world rather than from subregions within Africa. • Transport connects all stages of the food system, from production to domestic, regional, and global markets. • Trade policy and non-tariff barriers are major impediments to the efficient distribution of food on the continent. Regional economic communities have enjoyed only limited success in nurturing food trade, because non-tariff barriers and export bans continue to be employed in response to shocks. • Poor transport compounds the continent’s vulnerability to global food system shocks such as price volatility, climate change, and conflict, which disrupt production, trade, and access to food. These shocks are compounded by high transactions costs and lack of competition, which raise food prices and limit market access by farmers. • The absence of large-scale storage increases volatility and contributes to enormous food losses and price variability across the supply chain. Food Trade in Sub-Saharan Africa While agricultural production in Africa has grown, the population that is food insecure also increased over time. Agricultural production in Africa has increased significantly over the past 30 years, with a 160 percent rise. However, the number of people that are food insecure increased by 60 percent between 2014 and 2023 (Figure 1.1). In fact, since the turn of the millennium, almost 40 percent of the countries of Africa have faced food insecurity at different moments, more severe and persistent in some countries than others. Therefore, despite the progress and great potential of the continent, it remains paradoxically ensnared in food insecurity, malnutrition, and vulnerable to supply chain disruptions due to political developments or climate change. The risks underscore the importance of preparedness in food security and especially investing in a pro-active manner in sectors like transport where delivery of infrastructure and services takes time.4 4 The World Bank and other partners supports countries to develop and operationalize their preparedness plans: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/food-security/brief/countries-catalyze-new-preparedness-plans-to-more- effectively-respond-to-emerging-major-food-and-nutrition-crises 26 Figure 1.1 African cereal production and food insecure population, 2000–23 1.8 1.6 1.4 Index, Year 2014 = 1 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Cereals Food Insecure Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. Sub-Saharan Africa has vast potential for agriculture. But since the turn of the millennium, almost 40 percent of its countries have faced food insecurity at different times. The persistence, and prevalence of the problem points to its complexity and multifaceted nature. Firstly, food production in Sub- Saharan Africa has struggled to keep pace with the rapid population growth and the increasing impacts of climate change. According to Porteus (2023), the region's agricultural output is significantly affected by weather extremes such as droughts, floods, and storms, which damage crops and livestock, leading to reduced food supplies and higher prices. These climate-related challenges disproportionately affect smallholder farmers and pastoralists, who rely heavily on agriculture for their livelihoods. Conflict and insecurity lead to or exacerbate food insecurity by disrupting food production and trade, creating scarcities, and driving up food prices (World Bank 2021). The interplay between conflict, food insecurity, and transport connectivity becomes evident when overlaying food-insecure zones across Sub-Saharan Africa with transport networks. Figure XX illustrates the distribution of food-insecure zones in 2024 for most countries and the alignment of regional corridors across Sub-Saharan Africa. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), an initiative involving various partners (Governments, United Nations Agencies, the World Bank, non-governmental organizations, civil society, and other actors), systematically determines the severity and magnitude of acute and chronic food insecurity, as well as acute malnutrition situations in a country, using consistent scientific standards. Figure XX highlights the three most severe classes in the IPC's five phases of food insecurity: minimal, stressed, crisis, emergency, and catastrophe/famine, population affected, and the alignment of regional corridors. The map confirms that insecurity can be widespread across countries and regions with different characteristics and endowments and can change over time (data for all countries shown are for 2020 – 2024). Notably, the two countries with the highest populations facing severe food insecurity in 2024 were the Democratic Republic of Congo (26 million people) and Sudan (21 million people), both of which are experiencing conflict. In Sudan, conflict affected the most agriculturally productive region of the country, with implications for food supply.5 Generally, large-scale internal 5 https://reliefweb.int/blogpost/conflict-sudans-breadbasket-threatens-food-supplies-nationwide 27 displacements, market disruptions, and trade restrictions, as highlighted by Hall and others (2020), contribute to an instability of food supply chains. Figure 1.2 Food Insecurity and Regional Corridor Connectivity in Sub-Saharan Africa 28 Source: Authors, based on data from IPC In addition, economic shocks, macroeconomic instability, high unemployment rates, and currency depreciation, as noted by the IMF (2022), add another layer of complexity to the issue of food security. The uneven economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic (Bai and others, 2021) played a role in hindering progress towards food security. Low productivity due to limited technology adoption and poor infrastructure (Onyeaka 2024), along with the volatility of global food prices (Songwe 2012), make it difficult for African farmers to plan and manage their operations effectively. Additionally, limited storage facilities and lack of access to competitive markets force farmers to sell their produce at low prices or switch to other crops, leading to significant postharvest losses (Songwe 2012). Inadequate infrastructure and services for food distribution exacerbate the problem. Deficiencies in transport connectivity weaken food supply chains and leave them highly vulnerable to shocks. Interventions that have proved successful in different parts of the continent and other world regions could strengthen the resilience of food systems and reduce food insecurity. The above factors result in fragile food supply chains, some seasonal and yet others more systemic. Almost three-quarters of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa were net importers of cereal in 2023, with the remainder exporting small volumes of cereals (Figure 1.3). Reliance on supplies from overseas makes transport an integral system that wends through all stages of food supply chains, enabling trade, production, physical and economic access to food, and market operations. Figure 1.3 Cereal trade balance of Top and Bottom 10 countries, 2023 Central African Republic Sao Tome and Principe Equatorial Guinea Mozambique Côte d'Ivoire South Africa Zimbabwe Cameroon Seychelles Comoros Ethiopia Burundi Senegal Zambia Nigeria Guinea Eritrea Kenya Benin 200,000 Chad Cereal trade balance (millions of US$) (300,000) (800,000) (1,300,000) (1,800,000) (2,300,000) Bottom 10 Top 10 Source: Authors, based on data from ITC Trade Map. 29 In 2023, the net cereal trade balance picture varied widely across the continent, with the two largest economies at opposite ends: Nigeria had a negative balance of $2 billion, and South Africa had a net positive balance of $170 million. Seven countries had negative balances of more than $500 million, 24 had negative balances of $100– t$500 million, and 17 countries had negative balances of up to $100 million. The region had a negative balance of more than $13 billion on cereals alone. Most of the countries on the global list of Food and Agricultural Organizations (FAO) – World Food Program (WFP) hunger hotspots are in Africa.6 More specifically, Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest average food security score as measured by the Global Food Security Index of The Economist magazine.7 The GFSI is a comprehensive assessment that measures food security through four key pillars: affordability, availability, quality and safety, and sustainability and adaptation. It covers 113 countries, the majority of which are in Africa. Christiaensen and Demery (2018) argue that problems start at the farm, where high transport costs neutralize the expected increase in production associated with greater use of fertilizers. Other researchers (including Akou 2022, Wudil 2022, Bonuedi and others 2020, and World Bank 2012) point to low productivity; inadequate infrastructure; limited access to modern technology; and inefficient transportation, logistics, and storage facilities. Africa’s agricultural supply chains are strained from the local to the national, regional, and global levels. The Economist’s Global Food Security Index shows a correlation between supply chain infrastructure (which includes transportation networks, storage facilities, and logistics systems) and food system outcomes.8 Supply chain infrastructure is defined as the systems and structures that support the efficient movement of food from production to consumption; it includes transportation networks, storage facilities, and logistics services that ensure that food can be delivered in a timely and cost-effective manner. The index shows that with a few exceptions, African countries have weak supply chain infrastructure, low food security scores, and therefore a high level of vulnerability to shocks to their food systems (Figure 1.4) 6 WFP and FAO. 2024. Hunger Hotspots. FAO–WFP early warnings on acute food insecurity: June to October 2024 Outlook. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd0979en 7 The Economist Impact. 2022. Global Food Security Index 2022. The Economist Group. London. https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-security-index/download-the-index 8 The Economist Impact. 2022. Global Food Security Index 2022. The Economist Group. London. 30 Figure 1.4 Correlation between Global Food Security Index and supply chain infrastructure, in Sub- Saharan Africa and rest of world 100 90 Supply chain infrastrcture quality 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Global Food Security Index, 100 = max SSA RoW Source: Authors, based on data from the Global Food Security Index. The geographical vastness and diverse climatic conditions across Africa mean that food must often travel long distances from production areas to consumers, with many points of potential or actual weakness and high risks of food spoilage and loss. Targeted measures are therefore needed to strengthen and streamline supply chains to ensure their resilience and sustainability. There is no one size fits all solution. Reducing food insecurity requires multidimensional interventions, for several reasons. First, Sub-Saharan Africa does not produce enough food to meet its consumption needs. The continent has weak agricultural productivity (Wudil 2022). Oukou, Spray, and Unsal (2022) estimate that crop yields in Africa average just 1.5 tonnes per hectare—about a third the yield in South Asia and just one-sixth the yield in East Asia (figure 1.5) 31 Figure 1.5 Cereal yield, by region, 1963–2023 6000 Cereal production (kilograms per hectare) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1975 1963 1966 1969 1972 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 Sub-Saharan Africa East Asia & Pacific World South Asia Source: Authors, based on data from Oukou, Spray, and Unsal (2022). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG?end=2022&locations=ZG-1W-8S- Z4&skipRedirection=true&start=1961&view=chart). Shortfalls in production of food must be met through imports. Based on data from FAOStat, Africa imports about a quarter of its food requirements. The volume of food imports has continued to grow even as exports have increased (figures 1.6 and 1.7). Imports are particularly high for some of the main sources of calories, especially wheat, rice, and maize. Some commodities, like cassava, are primarily produced and consumed domestically, with limited cross-border trade. 32 Figure 1.6 Value of Sub-Saharan Africa’s food imports and exports, 1995–2023 120 Volume of Trade (billions of dollasrs) 100 80 60 40 20 - 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 Exports Imports Source: Authors, based on data from UNCTADStat. Figure 1.7 Average volume of Sub-Saharan Africa’s imports and exports of wheat, rice, maize, and cassava in 2016–22 140 120 Average volume of trade, 2016-2022 100 (million tonnes) 80 60 40 20 0 Imports Exports Wheat Rice Maize Cassava Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. Europe is the main source of food imports, followed by South America and then East and Southern Asia. Less than 5 percent of staple imports come from other African countries (Figure 1.8). 33 Figure 1.8 Sources and destinations of food trade in Sub-Saharan Africa 60 Average volume of trade,2016-2022 Imports from Exports to 50 (millions of tonnes) 40 30 20 10 0 Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. Food Insecurity as a Supply Chain Problem The role of transport and logistics in food system performance and outcomes is a common theme in the discourse on food security. Poor transport and logistics performance hinders countries’ ability to manage supply and demand cycles for food across regions, preventing a steady supply throughout the year. Rural households suffer most from food insecurity, because of limited access to markets, although pockets of food insecurity exist in urban areas, too (Pinto and others 2023). The availability and costs of transport affect food security from the local to global scale. Failure at any point in the supply chain can lead to shortages or higher food prices for consumers and reduced competitiveness for food producers. For this reason, this report adopts a supply chain framework to explore how the nexus between transport and logistics affects food insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa at the country level. Figure 1.9 shows the different scales of connectivity needs for food security. The scales of analysis of transport and food security in Africa encompass various levels, each critical to understanding and addressing the continent's challenges. At the local level, access to transport infrastructure is vital for ensuring that communities can reach markets thereby reducing spoilage and enhancing the distribution of agricultural products. Domestically, connectivity within countries is essential for linking different regions but especially rural areas, where most food is produced, to urban centers, where demand is concentrated. Regionally, integration of transport networks across African countries facilitates trade and movement of goods, which is crucial for surplus food from one area to be distributed to areas experiencing shortages across borders and international connectivity through ports, enables Africa to engage in global trade, importing food to supplement local production and 34 exporting agricultural products to generate revenue. Each of the scales plays a significant role in creating a resilient and efficient food system that can withstand various shocks and stresses. Figure 1.9 Food supply chain framework used in this report International Network Connectivity Disruptions to global supply chains during and after the Covid-19 pandemic and following Russia ’s invasion of Ukraine highlighted the global reach of food supply chains.9 The availability and efficiency of logistics systems at the global scale are essential for managing food imports, as delays or bottlenecks in transit and storage can lead to shortages, spoilage, increased costs, and potential food insecurity on the other side of the continent. As agricultural commodities are best shipped over long distances by low-cost modes of transport (such as ships), the availability and cost of sea shipping services, the performance of seaports, and connectivity between ports and hinterland destinations are key features of the international segment of food supply chains. Regional integration Based on data from the UNESCAP/World Bank Trade Costs dataset 10 trade costs in Africa are higher for agricultural commodities than for other products. In the absence of access to regional export markets, surges in production in national markets with thin volumes of trade can lead to price collapses, potentially reducing production and investment in agriculture. Trade facilitation is critical to reducing the costs of food trade between countries. One study estimates that logistics account for 28 percent of the final market price in Kenya—more than twice the 13 percent in some Asian countries (MasterCard Foundation, Mercy Corps, and AgriFin 2020). The large 9 The Russian invasion of Ukraine, particularly the blockade of critical Black Sea ports, disrupted grain exports to Africa, exacerbating food insecurity across the continent (European Council n.d.). 10 UNESCAP/World Bank International Trade Costs: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/escap-world-bank- international-trade-costs 35 price differentials between markets within African countries, and between Africa and the world market, reflect high trade costs. Political borders often separate surplus food production zones from the markets they would normally serve, impeding the free flow of people and goods. Non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and export bans add to the costs of trading food commodities. Non-tariff measures (NTMs) are policies and regulations imposed to ensure food safety, protect plant and animal health, and meet environmental standards. When poorly formulated and implemented — or adopted to limit competition —they can delay or increase the costs of imports and exports of food products. A report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD 2021) finds that NTMs can significantly increase costs and impact on trade in food. In some instances, African countries ban exports, especially in times of shocks to their food systems. Porteous (2017) finds that export bans on cereals in East and Southern Africa divert trade into the informal sector and lead to higher prices. Domestic Network Connectivity Transport connectivity is essential for agricultural growth and economic outcomes. Nelson and others (2021) use a geospatial framework to model the resilience of national food transport networks in 90 countries. They find that robust transport infrastructure and logistics are critical for ensuring food security. Countries with more localized food transport and denser transport networks exhibit greater resilience to disruptions; low-income countries generally have lower levels of resilience, leaving them more vulnerable to disruptions. Investing in transport infrastructure is crucial for enhancing food security, as improved connectivity boosts agricultural productivity, facilitates market access, and ultimately contributes to economic welfare. Expanding access to road infrastructure is vital for achieving sustainable food security across the continent, for a variety of reasons. Transport Services Soft infrastructure –especially the availability and quality of transport services, trade policies, border management, and trade facilitation —also affects food transport systems. One topic that is particularly important are transport services and their costs. In their seminal work on transport prices, Teravaninthorn and Raballand (2009) describe the low productivity of Africa’s trucking industry in Africa, which suffers from infrastructure constraints and low levels of competition between haulers. Using a cross-country regression, they estimate that a 10 percent decrease in transport costs would increase trade by 25 percent. Herrera Dappe and others (2024) investigate transport prices in agricultural shipments and find they influenced by a variety of factors including infrastructure, regional integration and the degree of competition in transport services markets. Access to Local Markets An important step in increasing food availability is providing farmers and consumers with access to markets. Balineau and others (2021) find that market infrastructure plays a critical role in improving food system sustainability. It encompasses physical and institutional infrastructure that links farmers to consumers, including urban markets, storage units, consolidation areas, retailers, wholesale markets, supermarkets, and shippers. This infrastructure makes trade possible ; directly affects consumer and producer food prices; and affects farmers’ physical spaces, market access, and regional development balance. Market infrastructure also determines the quality of food; reduces food losses; and helps farmers, including smallholders and local producers, access markets. 36 Access to physical markets need to be complemented with access to information. A 2022 report on Mali by the World Food Program finds that lack of timely and accurate information on production and market conditions, including buyer requirements and product grades, hinders producers’ ability to make informed decisions and compete effectively in international markets. Addressing these information gaps is crucial for enhancing market access and agricultural productivity and reducing waste. Box 1.1 illustrates how in Kenya the different scales of food distribution interact, creating heterogeneous effects across places even in the same country. Box 1.1 The global, regional, and local dimensions of food distribution in Kenya Kenya illustrates the relationship between local and international connectivity and the need to upgrade and expand transport infrastructure and services across food supply chains. Kenya is on the list of hunger hotspot countries: An estimated 1.7 million people who live on arid and semi-arid lands are projected to face acute food insecurity between October 2024 and January 2025 (IPC, 2024). In general, Kenya is a net food importer of the four crops that are studied in this report (Figure 1.10). In total, the country imported 3.2 million tonnes of these commodities in 2022. Figure 1.10 Kenya: Trade Balance of Four Crops, 2022 Cassava Maize Rice Wheat 0 Trade balance (millions of tonnes) -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat Most of the food imports of Kenya are from overseas and come through the Port of Mombasa. The port is one of the major gateways in East Africa and has bulk grain handling capacity. The port also has storage silos with a total capacity of 245,000 metric tonnes and bagging facilities, along with bulk rail and road loading facilities for transfers inland, to the rest of the country by also to neighboring landlocked countries such as Burundi, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda. The Northern Corridor that runs from the port to all these countries is therefore an important element of the food transfer system. However, regional trade in agricultural commodities suffers from many impediments. This is most visible in trade in maize. Maize is an essential part of the diet in East Africa, particularly in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. Most of it is produced and consumed locally, but Tanzania and Uganda often 37 produce surpluses, while Kenya and South Sudan run deficits. The imbalance between production and demand could be addressed through trade. However, while the East African Community, of which all these countries are members, no longer has tariffs on internal trade, there are many non- tariff measures that continue to hamper the free circulation of commodities. At a domestic level, Kenya often has food surpluses in agriculturally productive regions like the Rift Valley. However, price differentials and food shortages in the drier, northern parts of the country point to poor market integration. In fact, Gitau and Meyer (2018) estimate that with efficient market integration, price differential across markets in Kenya would be quickly corrected. The fundamental constraints are gaps in infrastructure for an efficient domestic distribution. The lack of cohesive and reliable domestic infrastructure and transport services results in bottlenecks that prevent food from reaching areas of need in a timely manner. In addition, limited storage facilities along transportation routes in Kenya lead to significant food losses, particularly of perishable goods, which deteriorate quickly without proper cold-chain infrastructure. Source: Authors, based on model outputs; Gitau and Meyer (2018); Abodi, Obare, and Kariuki (2021). <> Structure of This Report This report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 examines the structure and characteristics of food supply chains in Africa, focusing on the movement of four staples (casava, maize, wheat, and rice). It presents the model that was built to understand how transport connectivity and trade patterns affect food security. Chapter 3 explores the importance of shipping and ports in ensuring food security in Africa. Chapter 4 examines the role of regional trade in food security, highlighting the importance of regional economic communities (RECs) and continental initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Chapter 5 investigates the relevance of domestic access and distribution in ensuring food security, particularly in low-income countries. Chapter 6 examines the significant postharvest losses in Africa incurred because of inadequate storage and poor handling practices. Chapter 7 distills the main insights from the analysis and proposes measures for strengthening the resilience of food systems through transport interventions. References Abodi, Maurine Adhiambo, Gideon Aiko Obare, and Isaac Maina Kariuki. 2021. “Supply and Demand Responsiveness to Maize Price Changes In Kenya: An Application of Error Correction Autoregressive Distributed Lag Approach.” Cogent Food & Agriculture 7 (1). Okou, C. S. (2022). Staple Food Prices in Sub-Saharan Africa An Empirical Assessment. International Monetary Fund, Washington. D.C. AUC (African Union Commission) and OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2022. Africa’s Development Dynamics 2022: Regional Value Chains for a Sustainable Recovery. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/2e3b97fd-en. Bai Y., J. Bouscarat, P. Heinrigs, K. Sokourenko and K. Zougbédé (2023), “Healthy diets, costs and food policies in the Sahel and West Africa”, West African Papers, No. 39, OECD Publishing, Paris. Balineau, G., A. Bauer, M. Kessler, and N. Madariaga. 2021. Food Systems in Africa: Rethinking the Role of Markets. Africa Development Forum Series. Agence Française de Développement, Paris and World Bank, Washington DC. 38 Bjornlund, V., H. Bjornlund, and A. Van Rooyen. 2022. “Why Food Insecurity Persists in Sub‑Saharan Africa: A Review of Existing Evidence.” Food Security 14: 845–64. Bonuedi, I., K. Kamasa, and E.E.O. Opoku. 2020. “Enabling Trade across Borders and Food Security in Africa.” Food Security 12: 1121–40. Christiaensen, L., and L. Demery. 2018. Agriculture in Africa: Telling Myths from Facts. Directions in Development, Agriculture and Rural Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28543. Vandercasteelen, Joachim; and Christiaensen, Luc. 2020. Breaking down silos: On post-harvest loss interventions in Tanzania. Policy Brief August 2020. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134355 The Economist. 2022. Global Food Security Index. 2022. https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-security-index/. European Council. n.d. “How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Has Further Aggravated the Global Food Crisis.” https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/how-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine- has-further-aggravated-the-global-food-crisis/. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). n.d. Agriculture and Food Authority Act, No. 13 of 2013. FAOLEX. https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC170761. FSIN (Food Security Information Network) and GNAFC (Global Network against Food Crises). 2022. GRFC 2022 Mid-Year Update. Rome. ———. 2023. Global Report on Food Crises 2023. Rome. Gitau, R., and F. Meyer. 2018. “Spatial Market Integration in the Era of High Food Prices. A Case of Surplus and Deficit Maize Markets in Kenya.” Agrekon 57 (3–4): 251–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2018.1526693. Graff, T. 2019. “Spatial Inefficiencies in Africa’s Trade Network.” NBER Working Paper 25951, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. http://www.nber.org/papers/w25951. Hall, C.; Dawson, T.P.; Macdiarmid, J.I.; Matthews, R.; Smith, P. The impact of population growth and climate change on food security in Africa: Looking ahead to 2050. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2017, 15, 124–135. Herrera Dappe, M., M. Lebrand, B. Rowberry, and A. Stokenberga. 2024. Moving Goods: Road Transport Costs in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. Idossou, M.A., and I. Schott. 2023. “Input Delays, Firm Dynamics, and Misallocation in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Review of Economic Dynamics 53: 147–72. IEG (International Evaluation Group). 2007. World Bank Assistance to Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: An IEG Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies). (2022). Final Report: Locust upsurge in East and Horn of Africa (Report No. MDR60005). https://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/locust-upsurge-east-and-horn-africa-final-report-n- mdr60005-15-february-2022 Iimi. Atsushi. 2022. “Agriculture Production and Transport Connectivity: Evidence from Mozambique.” Journal of Development Studies 58 (12): 2483–502. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220388.2022.2128774. 39 Iimi, A., L. You, and U. Wood-Sichra. 2018. “Crop Production, Transport Infrastructure, and Agrobusiness Nexus: Evidence from Madagascar.” Policy Research Working Paper 8486, World Bank, Washington DC. IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2022. “Climate Change and Chronic Food Insecurity in SSA.” IMF Departmental Paper, Washington DC. World Bank 2021). https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/087/2022/016/article-A001-en.xml IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification). 2024. Kenya: Acute Food Insecurity Situation for July - September 2024 and Projection for October 2024 - January 2025 (ASAL). September 2024. https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/details-map/en/c/1157147/ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA,3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844. Larson, D.F., J. Lampietti, C. Gouel, C. Cafiero, and J. Roberts. 2013. “Food Security and Storage in the Middle East and North Africa.” World Bank Economic Review 28 (1): E34730. Li, M., N. Jia, M. Lenzen, A. Malik, L. Wei, Y. Jin, and D. Raubenheimer. 2022. “Global Food-Miles Account for Nearly 20 Percent of Total Food-System Emissions.” Nature Food 3 (6): 445–53. Mary, S., and A.K. Mishra. 2019. “Does Food Insecurity Fuel Civil Conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa?” Paper presented at the 2019 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, July 21–23. MasterCard Foundation, Mercy Corps, and AgriFin 2020. Agriculture Logistics in Kenya Landscape and Solutions Case Studies. https://www.mercycorpsagrifin.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/200907_AgriFin_Logistics-Case-Study_vfinal_PUBLIC.pdf Mercier, S. 2018. “The Cost of Transporting Cereals in West Africa.” IFPRI Discussion Paper, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Minten, B., and S. Kyle. 1999. “The Effect of Distance and Road Quality on Food Collection, Marketing Margins, and Traders’ Wages: Evidence from the Former Zaire.” Journal of Development Economics 60 (2): 467–95. Nathan Associates. 2013. Development of a National Logistics Strategy for Ethiopia: Vol. 2: Diagnostic Analysis of the Current Logistics System. Report for the United Nations Development Programme, Washington, DC. Nelson, A., R. De By, T. Thomas, S. Girgin, M. Brussel, V. Venus, and R. Ohuru. 2021. “The Resilience of Domestic Transport Networks in the Context of Food Security: A Multi-Country Analysis.” Background paper for the State of Food and Agriculture 2021. FAO Agricultural Development Economics Technical Study 14, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7757en. Okou, Cedric, John Spray, and Filiz Unsal. 2022. “Staple Food Prices in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Empirical Assessment.” IMF presentation at the World Bank, Washington, DC, September 15. 40 Onyeaka, H., Nwauzoma, U. M., Akinsemolu, A. A., Tamasiga, P., Duan, K., Al-Sharify, Z. T., & Siyanbola, K. F. (2024). The ripple effects of climate change on agricultural sustainability and food security in Africa. Food and Energy Security, 13, e567. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.567 Pinto, Ana María, Agustina Calatayud, Patricia Lynn Scholl, Seonhwa Lee, and Claudia Díaz Acosta. 2023. “Ensuring Food Security through Better Transport and Logistics.” Movilblog, March 2. https://blogs.iadb.org/transporte/en/ensuring-food-security-through-better-transport-and- logistics/. ———. 2017. “Empirical Effects of Short-Term Export Bans: The Case of African Maize.” Food Policy 71: 17–26. ———. 2019. “High Trade Costs and Their Consequences: An Estimated Dynamic Model of African Agricultural Storage and Trade.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 11 (4): 327–66. ———. 2023. Agricultural Trade and Adaptation to Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa, Journal of International Economics 138, 103651, 2022. 6] Rashid, S., and S. Lemma. 2011. “Strategic Grain Reserves in Ethiopia: Institutional Design and Operational Performance.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 01054, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Schwartz, J., J.L. Guasch, G. Wilmsmeier, A. Stokenberga. 2009. “Logistics, Transport and Food Prices in LAC: Policy Guidance for Improving Efficiency and Reducing Costs.” Latin America and Caribbean Region Environment and Water Resources Occasional Paper Series No. 2. World Bank, Washington, DC. SLoCaT (The Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport). 2015. “Rural Transport and Agriculture Factsheet.” Recap, London. Songwe, V. 2012. Strategies to Improve Food Security in Africa. Foresight Africa: Top Priorities for the Continent in 2012. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Tendall, D.M., J. Joerin, B. Kopainsky, P. Edwards, A. Shreck, Q.B. Le, P. Kruetli, M. Grant, and J. Six. 2015. “Food System Resilience: Defining the Concept.” Global Food Security 6: 17–23. Teravaninthorn, S., and G. Raballand. 2009. Transport Prices and Costs in Africa: A Review of the International Corridors. Washington, DC: World Bank. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2021. NTMs from A to Z. Geneva. World Bank. 2008. Regional Trade in Food Staples: Prospects for Stimulating Agricultural Growth and Moderating Food Security Crises in Eastern and Southern Africa. Washington, DC. ———. 2012. Africa Can Help Feed Africa: Removing Barriers to Regional Trade in Food Staples. Washington, DC. ———. 2018. Breaking Down the Barriers to Regional Agricultural Trade in Central Africa. Washington, DC. ———. 2019. Enabling the Business of Agriculture. Washington, DC. ———. 2021. The Role of Strategic Grain Reserves in Enhancing Food Security in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Washington, DC. WFP and FAO. 2024. Hunger Hotspots. FAO–WFP early warnings on acute food insecurity: June to October 2024 Outlook. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd0979en World Food Programme. 2022. Food Security Highlights: West Africa, 3. Rome 41 Wudil, A.H.-S. 2022. “Reversing Years for Global Food Security: A Review of the Food Security Situation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (22): 14836. 42 Chapter 2 Food Supply Chains in Africa This chapter examines Africa's food supply chains, focusing on maize, cassava, rice, and wheat. It integrates food balance and transport modeling to analyze how transport connectivity and trade patterns impact food security, particularly availability and access costs. The model provides detailed insights at the first-level administrative divisions within countries and includes external trade zones to account for Africa's reliance on food imports. The analysis highlights infrastructure and logistics challenges while identifying opportunities for improvement. Key Findings and Messages • Transport costs account for a significant portion of food prices. On average, transport costs represent 13 to 31 percent of the final price of rice, maize, and wheat and as much as 45 percent of the price of cassava. The variation in costs has a direct impact on food affordability, particularly for low-income households. • Locally grown crops like maize and cassava have shorter, more efficient supply chains than other crops. Maize production, for example, is widely distributed across Sub-Saharan Africa, meeting local demand in many regions. In contrast, 75 percent of wheat and 50 percent of rice consumed in Sub-Saharan Africa is imported, with longer path lengths—more than 6,000 kilometers in some cases—raising transport costs and increasing vulnerability to supply disruptions. • Countries with long supply chains for staples like wheat and rice face higher transport costs and are more vulnerable to supply disruptions than other countries. Dependency on imports of wheat and long supply chains expose these countries global price volatility and delays, which increased during the Covid-19 pandemic and following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. • Investments in infrastructure and policy reforms are critical to address inefficiencies in food supply chains. Improving road quality and port efficiency in countries like Somalia, Kenya, Benin, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Zambia could reduce time and transport costs by between 5 and 16 percent. Streamlining customs processes and reducing non-tariff trade barriers, which account for up to 15 percent of transport costs in some regions, could facilitate quicker and cheaper movement of food across borders. Transport and Food Flow Model This report is based on the results of a transport and food flow model that is built to explore global freight flows (a detailed description of the model is provided in Annex A). The model utilizes a spatially disaggregated database on food production and consumption and transport networks and combines food balance analysis and transport modeling. The model builds on and extends the Global Freight Flow Model and Explorer (FlowMax) model that the World Bank’s Transport Global Practice built to analyze trade and transport connectivity and prioritize connectivity investments based on their potential impacts.11 The model is at a sub-national scale, where the countries of Africa are divided into 786 zones (traffic zones) representing the first-level administrative divisions in every country in Africa. The rest of the world is represented as external zones, one for each region outside Africa (figure 2.1, panel a). The model assigns the movement of the four most important staple foods in Africa but emphasizes Sub-Saharan Africa to 11 The FlowMax has been tested on various corridor initiatives in the Africa region. For this study, it was extended by adding more traffic zones to enable a more granular exploration of food flows. A technical note on FlowMax will be disseminated separately. 43 reveal the challenges and vulnerabilities inherent in African food supply chains. Through this detailed examination, the chapter identifies opportunities for improvements to enhance the resilience and efficiency of food supply chains across the continent. Figure 2.1 Zones and networks in the model b. Networks a. Zones Source: World Bank World Subnational Boundaries (level 1 administrative divisions) and FlowMax Global Freight Model network . The transport network of the model comprises the highway network across Africa and the maritime links that interconnect African countries and Africa to other continents (figure 2.1, panel b). Traffic (cargo) assignment across routes is done on an all-or-nothing basis,12 in which the shortest path is defined by the “generalized cost,” a combination of monetary cost and time. This assignment facilitates the analysis of a variety of factors including the likely impacts of non-tariff barriers (NTBs) represented as time and cost, financial penalties and time delays. These costs are applied to the network on each link, with border crossings and ports having additional frictions because of process and procedures as well as non-tariff barriers. As the model looks only at agricultural commodities, equilibrium-based modeling was not used. As such, the exclusion of other forms of traffic, including nonagricultural goods and passengers, may affect the capacity of links and nodes on the network. The typical costs, speeds, and delays for road, maritime, ports, and border crossing points were researched and compiled from various sources. These costs and speeds inform the path (route) choice. The analysis is based on an exploration of the flow patterns of four staple foods (cassava, maize, rice and wheat), to shed light on the intricate web of transport costs and the time required to access food, two 12 All-or-nothing assignment means that all the demand for a particular zone pair is assigned to the best path between two zones, even if there is more than one way to get from one zone to another. 44 critical factors affecting food security. The four commodities account for 45 percent of total calories consumed across the continent.13: • Sub-Saharan Africa produces much of its cassava requirements. The crop provides 127 million kcal per year. As it is highly perishable, imports and exports are limited, and movement is mostly domestic. The highest consumption is in Central Africa, especially the Democratic Republic of Congo, and West Africa. All countries that consume significant amounts of cassava except Burkina Faso are nearly self-sufficient in production. • Maize is widely grown across Sub-Saharan Africa. It accounts for 149 million kilocalories (kcal) per year. Maize is a food staple in East and Southern Africa but is also consumed in some parts of West Africa. Most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that consume significant amounts of maize are nearly self-sufficient in its production. Countries that rely more heavily on imports are Angola, Botswana and Zimbabwe in southern Africa and Senegal and Guinea-Bissau in West Africa. • Rice is imported in large amounts from other continents, although some African subregions, particularly West Africa, produce significant quantities of rice. There are large international import flows as well as intra-regional trade. Rice and associated products like flour account for 92 million kcal per year. Consumption of rice is higher in coastal countries, including Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Madagascar. Costal countries—including Benin, Cameroon, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, and Togo—as well as all countries in southern Africa tend to be more dependent on rice imports than other countries. • Wheat is heavily imported from other continents; with only a small proportion of Africa’s consumption grown on the continent. Wheat and wheat products account for 80 million kcal per year. Countries that produce significant amounts of wheat are Ethiopia, South Africa, and parts of Sudan. They are also major consumers of the commodity. Wheat consumption is highest across North Africa and high in per capita terms in Namibia, Kenya, Gabon, and the Republic of Congo, which rely more on imports. Origin–Destination (OD) matrices were produced by synthesizing information on production and consumption at the zonal level with international trade at the country level. A five-year average was calculated for 2017–22 (excluding 2020, the first and worst year of the pandemic). Food that is grown and consumed within a country was distributed using a gravity model. Imports and exports were assigned to each zone based on the amount of surplus or unmet demand. The demand matrices were generated from open datasets on the local production/consumption and international trade within Africa. A five-year average (2016–21) was used to smooth temporal variability. Table 2.1 lists the datasets used in the model build and expand on those used Nelson and others (2021). The model includes scripts that process these datasets in their raw formats, so that the model can be updated for future simulations. 13 In five countries, the four crops selected are not the main source of calories: Chad and Niger rely on sorghum and millet, Mali on millet, and South Sudan and Sudan on sorghum. 45 Table 2.1 Key model inputs Model input Source Zone system World Bank Subnational Boundaries GeoJSON Model network FlowMax model network and nodes: Road and maritime Average travel speed by link type Speeds for each country are provided by a scrape of google traffic speeds. Rural Access Index Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) Production and consumption by crop FAO Food Balances International crop trade FAO Detailed Trade Matrix (all data, normalized) Spatial population distribution GHS-POP Epoch 2020 Release 2023A 30 arcsecond Spatial crop production distribution SPAM 2017 V2.1 (for Sub-Saharan Africa) and SPAM 2010 V2.0 (for North Africa) Value of time for generalized costs Values used in Eastern Partnership trade model Vehicle operating costs per kilometer Prices from Herrera Dappe and others (2024), for food shipments by major humanitarian organization Tariffs Authors’ research Border delays, costs, and penalties Authors’ research The model yields three primary outputs: • volumes of flows of the four staples that move on the road, over the international maritime network, and through border crossing points and ports (tonnes per year) • transport costs for imports and exports of food to and from each zone and the way in which these costs are apportioned between operating costs and NTBs (dollars per tonne) • transport time for imports and exports of food to and from each zone and the way in which the total time is apportioned between on-road movement, maritime movement, and delays at border crossing points and ports (days). Estimates of Food Flows in Africa The four commodities studied account for almost half of the caloric intake in Africa, ranging from 43 percent in Southern and West Africa to 62 percent in Central Africa (figure 2.2). 46 Figure 2.2 Contribution of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat to total caloric intake in Sub-Saharan Africa, by subregion 2022 1 Proportion of total caloric intake 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 East Central North Southern West Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Rest Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. Figure 2.3 shows estimates of the quantities of crop production and food consumption for each staple, as estimated from the FAOSTAT Food Balances dataset and spatially disaggregated within each country by population distribution. The model assumes that crops can be used for food purposes (consumption by people) and nonfood purposes (use as animal feed or industrial purposes). The self-sufficiency ratio, which indicates the extent to which a country relies on its own production resources, is an important factor in the average transport cost of food in a country. It is defined as the percentage of food produced that is consumed by people. The higher the ratio, the greater the self-sufficiency. Where self-sufficiency is high, the total transport costs tend to be lower, because food is not transported over long distances, reducing direct transport costs, and fewer trips across borders are required, reducing the costs of NTBs. 47 Figure 2.3 Self-sufficiency in cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Africa Source: Authors, based on FAOSTAT Food Balances and model outputs. Note: Self-sufficiency is defined as the ratio of consumption by people to crop production. Length of Food Supply Chains We estimate the distance food travels to reach consumers in each subnational zone as well as the quantity of food that is accessible within defined periods of time, including two days, the maximum transport time 48 of a perishable commodity such as cassava (Tomlins and others 2021). The estimate of time identifies areas potentially cut off from accessing food in emergencies, making them more vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. Figure shows the flow patterns for each staple consumed based on the current pattern of production, consumption, and trade. The darker the shading, the greater the distance required to transport the staple to consumers. The distances do not include food that is produced and consumed within a zone; only food that moves between zones is considered. The patterns show the following: • Most of Sub-Saharan Africa is self-sufficient in cassava. Because of its high perishability, it is mostly consumed locally. Most areas with significant consumption have short paths. Areas with longer paths include southern Zambia, western Angola, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, southern and western South Sudan, eastern Central African Republic, northern Republic of Congo, and northeastern Nigeria. • Maize is grown throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, and a significant proportion of demand is met with locally grown crops, resulting in relatively short path lengths across much of the continent. Locations of potential concern are those with high consumption and longer distances. They include eastern Angola, Cameroon, eastern Kenya, northern Mali, Namibia, northern South Africa, and parts of Zimbabwe. • About half of the rice consumed in Sub-Saharan Africa is grown in Africa and the other half is imported. Many of the largest consumers, such as Nigeria and Tanzania, are also major producers. The countries with high consumption and import dependence include Sierra Leone and Guinea as well as Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Senegal, and central Tanzania. • Three-quarters of wheat consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa is imported, mostly from North America, Europe, and Central Asia. Areas that consume significant amounts of wheat but also have relatively short path lengths are Ethiopia, South Africa, and parts of Zimbabwe, all of which grow a portion of their requirements. 49 Figure 2.4 Flow patterns of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Africa Cassva Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs. Note: The thickness of the lines indicates the size of the flow. Although some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are self-sufficient in rice at the national level (for example, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Tanzania), they still have a spatial mismatch between 50 production and consumption, for which an efficient transport system is needed to move food around. For example, central Nigeria produces more rice than it consumes; the surplus is transported to the north and south of the country. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the north of the country produces a surplus of rice, for which there is demand in the south of the country. If areas of production and population centers are remote and it is difficult to move commodities around a country, then a high cost of transport can increase food insecurity. Shipping food over long distances does not necessarily have a negative effect on food security, however: In some cases, longer routes may be cheaper than shorter ones, especially if there are impediments to the flow of traffic. Long distances do increase vulnerability to disruptions, however, as evident during the Covid-19 pandemic and following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Figure 2.5 shows the number of people living within selected path length bands. It reveals that rice and wheat have the longest average distances. These commodities have the most stretched supply chains. Figure 2.5 Number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa living within selected distance bands 2022 70% 60% Percent of Population 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 - 250 km 250 - 500 km 500 - 1000 km 1000 - 3000 km 3000 - 6000 km 6000+ km Food mile band Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs. There is a great variation in the distances over which food commodities are transported in Africa. The distances vary by country, commodity and their geography of trade. Among the countries with generally long path lengths are: • Burkina Faso for rice, which is locally produced in small amounts and must be imported. • Namibia for all four staples, because of limited domestic production. • Niger for rice and wheat. However, the main staples consumed in Niger are sorghum and millet, which are not modelled. • Somalia has long path lengths for all four staples, largely due to limited domestic production. 51 • Sudan has long path lengths for all four staples. However, sorghum is the most consumed stapled in this country. Transport Costs Transport costs play a crucial role in food security in Africa because of the continent’s vast size and often isolated rural areas. As road transport is the dominant mode of transport in Africa, poor road quality and limited rural access make it difficult for farmers to move produce to markets, leading to high postharvest losses and limited market reach. A corollary is that inefficiencies in transport services can add significantly to the cost of shipping food and deter trade between African economies. For these reasons, the model includes the costs associated with moving food commodities across each segment of the supply chain. There are many other factors that impact transport prices. Herrera Dappe, Lebrand, and Stokenberga (2024) provide a comprehensive analysis of how efficient, high-quality infrastructure can reduce transport costs and improve connectivity (box 2.1). Box 2.1 Targeting markets and places to reduce costs By addressing market failures and frictions and implementing effective policies, African countries can enhance their transport systems and increase access to food, according to a comprehensive report on trucking prices by Herrera Dappe, Lebrand, and Stokenberga (2024). The report shows that there is significant variation in trucking rates within and across countries, with about three-quarters of the variation in trucking prices per ton-kilometer found within countries. Local factors, such as infrastructure, geography, and market structure, are particularly important in determining transport prices, within and across countries. The premium for transport services between countries is very high: Shipping food across a border in low- and middle-income countries is about 70 percent more expensive than shipping within a country, likely due to cost efficiency and better utilization of assets. The premium in low-income countries is smaller when trucking companies from a richer neighboring country are allowed to compete in the local market, as see in several of the countries surrounding South Africa. Conflict also affects transport prices. In conflict-ridden locations such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia, trucking rates are $0.14–$0.56 per tonne-kilometer—significantly higher than the $0.06 for South Africa and $0.08 in Uganda. The higher prices reflect the expenses associated with checkpoints, roadblocks, and other security measures, as well as higher salaries and risk premiums charged by carriers. Countries facing food insecurity also experience high trucking rates, due to limited supply and the risks faced by operators. The report shows how market failures, government policies, and the distribution of economic activity across space raise transport prices. Empty running trucks and cargo vessels are common, increasing transport costs. Regulations that limit the ability of trucks and vessels to pick up cargo at the destination and information frictions that limit the ability of shippers and carriers to find each other increase the probability of empty trips. The report’s authors recommend making markets and places efficient, including by strengthening competition, promoting the development of efficient transport service providers, and improving the efficiency of ports and border crossings. These policies can help reduce transport costs and improve food security by making it easier and cheaper to move food from producers to consumers. 52 <> The model was calibrated with transport prices from the food supply contracts in Herrera Dappe, Lebrand, and Stokenberga (figure 2.6). Although food aid delivery costs may be higher than typical market rates, they generally reflect market conditions and operating practices, including empty running, which is prevalent in agricultural logistics. Figure 2.6 Transport prices used in the model, by country 0.7 Transport price per tonne kilometer 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 (US$) 0.1 0 Congo, Dem. … Central African… Malawi Zambia Zimbabwe Guinea-Bissau Mozambique Mauritania Namibia Tanzania Mali Benin Eswatini Madagascar Sudan Somalia Burundi Nigeria Senegal Cameroon Congo, Rep. Chad Libya Uganda Tunisia Guinea Liberia Kenya Niger Ethiopia South Sudan South Africa Lesotho Rwanda Burkina Faso Sierra Leone Non-hotspot Hotspot Source: Authors, based on Herrera Dappe, Lebrand, and Stokenberga (2024). Table 2.2 presents the average transport costs of each commodity across all countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and compares them to the typical consumer price. The length of the supply route is reflected in transport costs, with locally produced and consumed maize and cassava having lower average transport costs (about $66 to $92/tonne) than rice and wheat, which tend to be imported over long distances and have higher transport costs (about $124 to $134/tonne). Table 2.2 Average transport cost and price of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa ($ per tonne, except where otherwise indicated) Food type Total transport cost Average consumer price Transport costs as ($ per tonne)a ($ per tonne)[*] percent of average price Maize 66 390 16 Cassava~ 92 205 45 Rice 124 954 13 Wheat 134 423 31 Source: Total transport costs are from model outputs; they include operating costs and the cost of non-tariff barriers. *Note: The average consumer price for imported commodities is from https://fpma.fao.org/giews/fpmat4/#/dashboard/home. Transport costs represent 13 to 31 percent of the final price of rice, maize, and wheat and 45 percent for cassava. This is due to the relative values of the different commodities. Transport costs (fuel, wages, vehicle hire, markup) are the main elements of transport costs, followed by the cost of NTBs. Transport costs vary significantly by location, with maize showing the widest spread, with an interquartile range of $17– $40 per tonne. 53 Figure 2.7 Range of transport costs for casava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa 450 400 Total transport cost 350 (USD/tonne) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs. Whiskers present the range in the average costs for the countries Figure 2.8 presents the proportion of Africa’s population that live in different transport cost bands. Maize consumers are concentrated in regions with moderate transport costs, reflecting greater local production and relatively efficient local supply chains. In contrast, wheat, most of which is imported, faces higher transport costs, because of longer routes. Boosting local wheat production could reduce costs and improve food security. Figure 2.8 Percent of population within each transport cost band for maize and wheat 2022 50% 45% Percent of Population 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% $0 - $50 $50 - $100 $100 - $200 $200 - $400 $400+ Cost per tonne Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs Other Costs of Gaining Access to Markets Transport costs are composed of transport prices and other costs incurred to gain access to markets, especially NTBs. The most significant NTB in terms of cost is the cost of capital (equivalent to 2–4 percent 54 of total transport cost), followed by sanitary and phytosanitary measures (0.7–1.8 percent) and policing (0.6–1.2 percent) (table 2.3). At the aggregate level, NTBs do not play a significant role in transport costs, representing less than two percent of total trade and transport costs. They nevertheless affect food security as some of the measures may involve actual bans on trade in specific commodities. Table 2.3 also presents the average transport costs for food that is traded across borders within Africa and food that is imported from Europe, Asia, or the Americas. Table 2.3 Average NTB and transport costs of maize, cassava, rice, and wheat Limited Truck Maritime Sanitary and Over policing border Financial Total Food operating operating phytosanitary and infrastructur complicat transport type costa costa measures corruption e ions cost NTBs (dollars per tonne) Maize 60 2 0.4 2 0.4 0.8 66 Cassava 89 0 0 2 0.2 0.06 92 Rice 80 34 1 4 2 2 124 Wheat 85 36 2 5 3 4 134 Average transport costs for intra-Africa trade (dollars per tonne) Maize 134 6 8 6 6 16 176 Cassava 142 1 9 8 1 13 174 Rice 185 3 8 9 2 11 218 Wheat 159 48 2 6 4 5 161 Average transport costs for imports from outside Africa (dollars per tonne) Maize 72 47 2 5 5 5 136 Cassava 121 65 1 4 21 3 215 Rice 82 66 2 6 4 4 163 Wheat 97 48 2 6 4 5 161 Source: Authors, based on model outputs. Note: a. Operating costs include includes fuel, driver wage, maintenance, insurance, vehicle purchase/hire. For truck and maritime travel. Total transport costs are higher for intra-Africa trade (8–14 percent of the price of commodities for imports from outside of Africa), except for cassava, which is rarely imported from overseas. The higher intra-Africa transport costs reflect NTBs. Rice is both imported from outside of Africa and traded within Africa. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures add $5.37 per tonne for intra-Africa trade but only $0.77 per tonne for imports from outside of Africa. The cost of finance associated with food shipments is also higher for intra-Africa trade than it is for imports from outside Africa ($9.25 per tonne compared with $1.62 per tonne). 55 The primary reason why NTBs are higher for intra-Africa trade is that the paths cross more borders than do goods imported through ports, and the costs of currency exchange can be higher between African countries than it is for imports from overseas. The cost to trade within Africa is therefore typically higher than the cost of importing from outside of Africa. Historically, the cost of freight in Africa has been the highest in the world (Herrera Dappe and others, 2024). As a result, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa trade more with other continents than with their neighbors (UN 2021). Reducing transport costs and NTBs between countries could therefore facilitate greater trade between Sub-Saharan Africa countries, allowing for more efficient use of surpluses and increasing the number of food suppliers that can be accessed. Table 2.5 presents the total transport costs of various ways of sourcing food for each country. The data show the significant variation in costs across countries but also depending on the origin. For example, the average transport cost for shipping the four staple commodities for Zambia is $73 per tonne for domestic shipments, $247 per tonne from other African countries; and $257 per tonne for overseas shipments. Table 2.4 Average food staple transport costs (dollars per tonne) Country All methods For food from Intra- For food from including Africa trade only imports outside of domestic Africa shipments Niger 331 426 454 Equatorial Guinea 229 289 121 Mali 180 288 291 South Sudan 179 244 317 Cameroon 165 265 232 Democratic Rep. of Congo 159 374 400 Rep. of Congo 159 328 224 Burkina Faso 151 255 351 Namibia 150 188 143 Chad 146 361 381 Angola 146 214 172 Gabon 130 258 183 CAR 128 327 415 Somalia 120 174 116 Mozambique 113 164 152 Botswana 109 116 185 Côte d'Ivoire 96 179 154 Mauritania 95 252 100 Nigeria 95 370 192 Senegal 92 230 111 Benin 90 293 153 Eswatini 89 100 146 Guinea 87 238 170 Kenya 83 156 133 Guinea-Bissau 78 121 110 Liberia 78 201 123 56 Madagascar 75 188 131 Togo 73 167 140 Zambia 73 247 257 The Gambia 69 114 74 Cape Verde 66 88 68 Rwanda 66 122 206 São Tomé and P. 64 94 72 South Africa 59 152 113 Ghana 56 230 152 Lesotho 51 74 140 Zimbabwe 47 125 154 Mauritius 47 137 50 Ethiopia 45 175 127 Sierra Leone 43 178 133 Djibouti 40 110 39 Uganda 40 135 181 Malawi 30 180 215 Tanzania 30 155 103 Burundi 25 135 198 Comoros 24 50 37 Source: Authors, based on model outputs. The table shows that transport costs can vary significantly depending on the country and the source of food. The five countries with the highest costs (Niger, Equatorial Guinea, South Sudan, Cameroon) are a mix of coastal and landlocked countries. The areas with greatest transport cost burden for maize are in the Sahel region (northern Mali, Niger, northern Chad, southern Sudan, South Sudan, eastern Central African Republic and Somalia) and the Republic of Congo. Not all these locations are major consumers of maize, however. The areas with the greatest transport cost burden for wheat are in Central Africa (the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, eastern Republic of Congo); the Sahel (Northern Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, northern Chad, western Sudan, eastern South Sudan, and Somalia); and in northern Mozambique, Malawi, and western Zambia. Wheat consumption is low in the Central Africa Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Zambia and Botswana stand out as having high transport costs across all staples (per km). For Zambia, three main factors drive high costs: (a) the long haul from ports in South Africa and Mozambique and the poor road conditions through Zimbabwe; (b) the poor capacity of the ports, which frequently leads to delays in transfer of cargoes from ships to trucks; and (c) the lack of capacity of transit border facilities, which frequently lead to long and costly delays for trucked cargoes. The Democratic Republic of Congo, a large country, with poor infrastructure, also has high transport costs. River-based shipments predominate, much of which takes place on small and relatively inefficient vessels. Investment in trunk roads linking the western seaboard to central and eastern provinces would likely reduce transport costs, as would significant improvement and modernization of the inland waterway system. Time Required to Access Tradable Food 57 Time performance—the speed and reliability with which goods move from producers to consumers— is one of the main indicators of weakness in African supply chains. It is weak for several reasons, including inadequate infrastructure, inefficient logistics, and regulatory bottlenecks: • Inadequate infrastructure: Poor infrastructure causes congestion and slow speeds (Herrera Dappe, Lebrand, and Stokenberga 2024). Many African countries suffer from poor road networks, limited rail connectivity, and underdeveloped port facilities. These infrastructural deficits lead to significant delays in the transportation of staple foods. Transport costs in Africa are estimated to be more than 50 percent higher than in advanced countries like the United States, largely because of poor infrastructure and weak competition (Herrera Dappe and others, 2024). • Poor logistics: Inefficient logistics in Africa exacerbates delays. They include a lack of modern storage facilities, outdated transportation fleets, and insufficient cold chain systems. As a result, postharvest losses are high, with significant volumes of perishable commodities lost across the supply chain. • Regulatory bottlenecks: Bureaucratic hurdles and inconsistent regulatory frameworks across different countries in Africa also contribute to delays. Customs procedures, border controls, and varying standards can significantly slow the movement of goods. For example, it can take several days to clear goods at African borders, compared with just a few hours in more developed regions. A measure of time was used to determine the quantity of surplus food production that can be accessed from a zone within a defined period of time, starting with two days of travel time (figure 2.9), the maximum transport time for a perishable commodity such as cassava (Tomlins and others 2021).14 Food that is reachable is added to a zone’s own local production and compared with local food demand. The results show that most of the population can access cassava and maize relatively quickly, with the highest amounts of the food accessible within 8–10 days; imported rice and wheat are slower to reach markets, because of longer transport routes. 14 The surplus production of a zone is defined as amount of production remaining after local demand is subtracted 58 Figure 2.9 Time required to deliver cassava, maize, rice, and wheat to consumers in Africa 2022 1E+10 Amount of food that is acessible (kgs) 9E+09 8E+09 7E+09 6E+09 5E+09 4E+09 3E+09 2E+09 1E+09 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 time in days Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs. The case of trade in rice, which is grown in some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa but not widely across many countries, is illustrative. Some countries (including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria and Tanzania) are self-sufficient in rice at the national level, but national figures mask local disparities in production/consumption. As Central Nigeria produces more rice than it consumes, the surplus is then transported to the north and south of the country, which lacks sufficient production. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the north of country produces a surplus of rice, which is in demand in the south. If areas of production and population centers are remote and it is difficult to move goods around the country, higher transportation costs can affect food security. In West Africa, most zones can meet their rice demand within two days of travel, including cross borders. If intra-Africa trade were more competitive, disruptions to intercontinental trade could be mitigated by use of alternative suppliers in the region. Regional economic groupings could facilitate the reallocation of food surplus in West Africa, mitigating food insecurity impacts. The time performance of agricultural supply chains is important for food security for three main reasons: • Delays raise food prices. Delays in the supply chain lead to higher transportation and storage costs, which raise the prices of staple foods. • Delays increase vulnerability to shocks. Poor time performance in supply chains increases vulnerability to disruptions from natural disasters, political instability, and economic crises. Slow and unreliable supply chains mean that any disruption can quickly lead to severe shortages, increasing food insecurity. • Delays lead to food losses and waste. Inefficient supply chains contribute to substantial food losses, especially for perishable items. These losses not only decrease the overall food supply, they also waste resources, such as water, labor, and agricultural inputs. Addressing postharvest losses could potentially provide food for millions in the region. Summary Strengthening food supply chains requires improved road, rail, and port infrastructure, to reduce transport costs, shorten supply chains, and reduce food loss. Improving logistics by addressing 59 inefficiencies in the logistics sector, including modernizing storage facilities, upgrading transportation fleets, and developing cold chain systems, is essential for reducing food loss and improving time performance. Adopting a comprehensive approach that integrates technical, social, economic, and policy dimensions is necessary to reduce postharvest losses. It should include improving storage technologies, improving handling practices, and providing economic incentives to farmers. References Affognon, H., C. Mutungi, P. Sanginga, and C. Borgemeister 2015. “Unpacking Postharvest Losses in Sub- Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis.” World Development 66: 49–68. Brenton, P. 2012. Africa Can Help Feed Africa: Removing Barriers to Regional Trade in Food Staples. Washington, DC: World Bank. Dessalegn, T., S. Tesfaye, G. Tesfaye, S. Abiy, S. Shure, C. Yazie, and S. Bhadriraju. 2014. Assessment of Wheat Postharvest Losses in Ethiopia. Feed the Future Innovation Lab for the Reduction of Post- Harvest Loss. Addis Ababa. Herrera Dappe, Matias, Mathilde Lebrand, and Aiga Stokenberga. 2024. Shrinking Economic Distance: Understanding How Markets and Places Can Lower Transport Costs in Developing Countries. Sustainable Infrastructure Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099053024123058965/pdf/P50057713d247d0ea18 e1d19f0dca13c1b7.pdf. Ishangulyyev, R., S. Kim, and S.H. Lee. 2019. “Understanding Food Loss and Waste-Why Are We Losing and Wasting Food?” Foods 8 (8): 297. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31362396/. Kaminski, J., and L. Christiaensen. 2014. “Post-Harvest Loss in Sub-Saharan Africa: What Do Farmers Say?” Policy Research Working Paper 6831, World Bank, Washington, DC. Manandhar, A., P. Milindi, and A. Shah. 2018. “An Overview of the Post-Harvest Grain Storage Practices of Smallholder Farmers in Developing Countries.” Agriculture 8 (4): 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8040057. Mejia, D. 2005. Eastern Africa: A Study of the Regional Maize Market and Marketing Costs. Washington, DC: World Bank Ndindeng, S. A., and others 2021. “Valuation of Rice Postharvest Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa and Its Mitigation Strategies.” Rice Science 28 (3) : 212–16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346574570_valuation_of_rice_postharvest_losses_in_su b-saharan_africa_and_its_mitigation_strategies. Rutta, E.W. 2024. “Postharvest Food Loss Reduction and Agriculture Policy Framework in Tanzania: Status and Way Forward.” Agriculture and Food Security 13 (36). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066- 024-00489-x. Teravaninthorn, S., and G. Raballand. 2009. Transport Prices and Costs in Africa: A Review of the International Corridors. Washington, DC: World Bank. Tomlins, K., A. Parmar, C.I. Omohimi, L.O. Sanni, A.F. Adegoke, A.-R. A. Adebowale, and B. Bennett. 2021. “Enhancing the Shelf-Life of Fresh Cassava Roots: A Field Evaluation of Simple Storage Bags.” Processes 9: 577. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9040577. UN (United Nations). 2021. Assessment of Progress on Regional Integration in Africa. ECA Committee of Experts of the Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Meeting Addis Ababa. 60 USAID (US Agency for International Development). 2022. International Food Assistance Report: Fiscal Year 2022 Report to Congress. Washington, DC. World Bank. 2011. Missing Food: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC. World Bank, and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2021. A Blueprint for Strengthening Food System Resilience in West Africa: Regional Priority Intervention Areas. Washington DC: World Bank Group. 61 Chapter 3 Access to International Markets This chapter explores the importance of shipping and ports in ensuring food security in Africa. It describes how ports and hinterland connectivity affect food flows in Africa. Key Findings and Messages • Efficient ports are key to securing food availability across the continent. Seaports handle food imports representing 14 percent of trade of all African countries (22 percent for landlocked nations and 37 percent for the lowest-income countries). • Inadequate infrastructure at some ports leads to congestion and delays, which significantly increase transport costs. Many African port lag global standards in cargo handling efficiency. • Poor governance, including inconsistent regulations, significantly raises food transport costs. A World Bank (2022) study estimates that inefficiencies in West Africa add up to 30 percent to the price of goods. • Poor hinterland connectivity is major source of inefficiency. • Poor road conditions cost Africa hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Investing in vital routes is essential to enhancing food security and ensuring efficient food distribution across Africa. Improving Africa’s Ports Shipping and ports are indispensable for food security in Africa. Efficient maritime logistics ensure the steady flow of food products, stabilize prices, and support agricultural exports. The sector faces significant challenges, including infrastructure deficits, governance issues, logistical inefficiencies, and disruptions , according to the International Monetary Fund’s PortWatch platform. Addressing these challenges is crucial for enhancing food security across the continent. Shipping and ports are integral to the global food supply chain, particularly for Africa, where many countries are net food importers. The import of food by African countries constitutes approximately 14 percent of their merchandise trade (22 percent for landlocked countries and 37 percent for the lowest-income countries) (Humphreys and others 2020). Efficient maritime logistics are thus crucial for ensuring a steady supply of food products, mitigating the risks of food shortages, and stabilizing food prices. For African countries, especially those that are landlocked, access to maritime ports is vital for both importing food and exporting agricultural products. A study on the East African Community (EAC) finds that a 10 percent reduction in transport costs to maritime ports could significantly boost the production of export crops such as coffee, tea, and tobacco.15 Improved port connectivity not only enhances export potential, but it also increases the income of farmers, contributing to food security by enabling them to invest more in agricultural inputs and technologies. One of the primary challenges is the weak infrastructure. Many African ports lack the modern facilities and capacity needed to handle large volumes of cargo efficiently. For example, inadequate 15 Iimi A.; R.M. Humphreys; H.D.L. Deville; Y.E. Mchomvu; S. Melibaeva; T.N. Mitiku; E.M.V. Abraham; J.O. Sasia; M.Z. Ahmed. 2015Building a reform consensus for integrated corridor development in the East African Community: pillar two - the assessment of wider economic benefits. Washington, DC.: World Bank Group. https://documentsinternal.worldbank.org/search/24969103 62 infrastructure at the Port of Dar es Salaam has long been recognized as causing significant delays (Iimi and others 2015). Weak hinterland connectivity, including road and rail links to ports, is also underdeveloped, exacerbating the logistical challenges. Governance and regulatory issues also hinder the efficiency of maritime logistics. Corruption, red tape, and inconsistent regulatory frameworks lead to high transactions costs and delays. Tariffs, import and export restrictions, and other regulatory barriers add to costs and delays. Logistical inefficiencies, including poor coordination and lack of technological integration, are significant barriers to efficient maritime logistics. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted these inefficiencies, as many African ports experienced a decline in port calls and an increase in blank sailings, which disrupted the supply chain and led to food price increases in several markets (Humphreys and others 2020). The lack of advanced logistics management systems and digital tracking exacerbates these inefficiencies, leading to delays and increased costs. PortWatch data provides real-time monitoring of shipping disruptions at ports and critical shipping lanes around the world. The data can show how disruptions to a major trade lane like the Red Sea shipping can ripple through the global shipping network and seaports, affecting the timely delivery of commodities such as food imports to African ports.16 The disruptions can increase food prices and shortages, exacerbating food insecurity in the region. All Sub-Saharan Africa’s 10 most food critical ports have road and rail links to the hinterland (table 3.1 and figure 3.1). Disruption of these ports would significantly reduce food security. 16 IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2022. “Climate Change and Chronic Food Insecurity in SSA.” IMF Departmental Paper, Washington DC. World Bank 2021). https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/087/2022/016/article-A001-en.xml 63 Table 3.1 Ten most important ports for food in Sub-Saharan Africa Additional transport cost (millions Food flow of dollars per (billion Port year) kcal/year) Observations Mombasa, 257 11,713 The Port of Mombasa has a significant bulk grain handling capacity. The port can handle up Kenya to 414,300 metric tonnes of dry bulk cargo, with 258,500 metric tonnes specifically for grain. The port has storage silos with a total capacity of 245,000 metric tonnes. Bagging Facilities: The terminal includes bagging facilities, along with bulk rail and road loading facilities. Conventional grain bagging is mainly done when there is a long list of ships lining up for the GBHL berth terminal It is a major gateway for Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo. Abidjan, Cote 230 9,212 The Port of Abidjan’s grain terminal can handle between 200,000 and 300,000 tonnes of d’Ivoire wheat per year, with an operating rate of nearly 3,000 tonnes per day. Storage: The terminal is equipped with six storage silos. Bagging Facilities: The port has bagging machines for flour, fertilizer, and rice, with a rate of 2,000 to 5,000 tonnes per day. Hinterland connectivity: Road, rail. Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger rely on this port. Cotonou, Benin 113 10,516 The port has grain handling capacity of 2 million tonnes and has been undergoing reforms that have improved its performance. The Port of Cotonou has bagging facilities, and rice is typically offloaded into bagging machines alongside the vessels. This indicates that the port is equipped to handle bulk commodities and convert them into bagged form for easier distribution and handling. The Port of Cotonou is a major gateway for Benin and landlocked countries to its north: Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. Djibouti, Djibouti 104 9,601 The Port of Djibouti has a significant grain handling capacity. It can handle up to 8,500 tonnes of bulk grain per day. 64 The port is equipped with 8 silos that have a storage capacity of 29,000 tonnes of wheat and 40,000 tonnes of fertilizers Additionally, the port has 6 mobile bagging machines and storage space, including 45,000 m² of open yards and 10 warehouses. The Port of Djibouti is the main gateway of Ethiopia. Toamasina, 100 2,454 The Port of Toamasina is the largest in Madagascar. It has a grain handling capacity of Madagascar approximately 1,600,000 tonnes of cargo annually. Silo: Yes, the port has a separate silo facility for handling bulk. Bagging Facilities: The port handles diverse shipments. Hinterland connectivity: Road, rail. Port of Sudan, 92 11,982 The port has a dedicated berth for grain handling and more than 500,000 tonnes of silo Sudan capacity spread across several state and private facilities. Port Sudan handles Sudanese exports of sorghum and imports of different grains including wheat. Port Sudan has bagging facilities for grains and fertilizer. Hinterland connectivity: The port has hinterland connections by road, rail. Chad, Central African Republic, South Sudan also use the port. Dar Es Salaam, 87 8,736 The Port of Dar es Salaam has an automated grain handling facility with silos that have a Tanzania capacity of 30,000 metric tons. Grains can be discharged and bagged along the quay at an average rate of more than 2,000 metric tons per day or transferred to a silo using dump trucks. The facility is equipped with fumigation, aeration, and temperature control systems to ensure the quality of the stored grain. The port is a gateway for several landlocked countries including Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia and eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. San-Pedro, Cote 83 4,810 The Port of San Pedro has facilities for grain and bulk handling and a dedicated mooring d'Ivoire point. The grain is discharged with grabs into hoppers that feed into underground conveyor belts, which carry the grain into the silos on site. The hinterland of San Pedro is like that of Abidjan. Banjul, The 79 6,920 The Port of Banjul handles mostly The Gambia’s own trade traffic. It is a multipurpose port Gambia handling a mix of cargo. The port has bagging facilities for grain. 65 Mogadishu, 72 2,239 Dedicated bulk grain handling terminal. The port of Mogadishu has grain silos with storage Somalia capacity of 30,000 tonnes. The port has 3 warehouses of 5,000 m² each for a total of 15,000 m². Source: Authors, based on model outputs. 66 Figure 3.1 Location of 10 most important ports for food in Sub-Saharan Africa 2022 Source: Authors, based on model outputs 67 Port accessibility is vital for agricultural growth in central and southern Africa, where agrobusinesses have developed; and relatively less critical in those parts like the Sahel, where subsistence farming remains predominant. Generally, the performance of African ports in handling dry bulk food commodities has been evolving: 1. Dry bulk throughput has increased. The volume of dry bulk throughput in East and Southern African ports has been increasing over the past decade (World Bank 2019a, 2019b). However, the number of vessel calls at African ports remains low (Figure 3.2). Many ports hardly receive dry bulk vessels calls of the type that carry agricultural commodities in large quantities, and in fact, only 35 ports receive a call once every 3 to 4 days. Even then, many of those vessels will be carrying mineral commodities. Figure 3.2 Distribution of vessel calls at African ports, average yearly count 2019 - 2023 30 25 No.of vessel calls 20 15 10 5 0 Total Vessels Dry bulk General Cargo Source: Authors based on UN Global Platform; IMF PortWatch (portwatch.imf.org). 2. However, cargo-handling costs remain high. Cargo-handling costs at African ports are higher than they are mature markets, because of technical and institutional deficiencies, including low operating efficiency, lack of maintenance, poor planning, and capacity constraints (World Bank 2019a) and, 3. Port performance varies. Some ports are inefficient; others have achieved international benchmarks, demonstrating the potential for improvement. Increasing Connectivity between Ports and Hinterlands Port–hinterland connectivity and regional corridors are vital components of Africa ’s transport infrastructure that have a direct impact on food security. By facilitating the efficient movement of food and agricultural inputs, these transport systems help ensure that food is available, affordable, and accessible to all. Investing in the development and maintenance of these networks is essential for addressing the continent ’s food security challenges and promoting sustainable economic growth. Graff (2019) finds that the colonial era transport revolution, which initially benefited Africa, has created a lock-in effect that continues to hinder efficient trade. He also finds evidence that the homelands of national leaders of African countries tend to have significantly more infrastructure than 68 is nationally efficient. His findings suggests that political power dynamics play a role in shaping the allocation of infrastructure resources, potentially leading to inefficiencies in the overall trade network and therefore the distribution of food in economies and across borders. Regional corridors —major transport routes that link multiple countries and regions —facilitate the movement of goods across borders, promoting regional trade and economic integration. By enhancing regional trade, they help balance food supply and demand across the continent, reducing the risk of food shortages and price volatility (European Commission 2021). Development of regional corridors also supports the growth of agribusinesses and rural economies. Improved transport infrastructure reduces the cost and time associated with moving agricultural products to markets, making farming more profitable and encouraging investment in the agricultural sector. Efficient transport networks can also help reduce postharvest losses, by ensuring that food reaches markets quickly and in good condition (World Bank 2023). Efficient transport systems can also reduce the environmental impact of food distribution, by reducing the distance food needs to travel (ECDPM 2015). Countries that have the worst transport stress include South Sudan, Sudan, Mali, and Niger. The staple consumed most in these countries is sorghum or millet, which this study did not model. The quality of the highway network (as measured by average speeds) and the arrangement of the network is most important for the import of wheat and rice (from suppliers outside of Africa). It is especially important for road and border crossing point links to ports. Figure 3.3 shows the top road links for food flows that are aligned with the major designated corridors in Sub-Saharan Africa. Table 3.2 identifies a subset of 20 links with the highest detour cost.17 Many of the links that need attention are in West Africa and Central Africa. Other critical links are between Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo as well as those in Cameroon which support port access to Chad. The condition of the links and the condition of the wider network is important when determining network resilience. A road might need to be improved to prevent degradation, the road might need to be widened to ensure that the link can operate even if there is an accident, or the road might need to be upgraded, or a new road link built that can support diversionary routes. 17 Detour cost is the additional transport cost incurred when a link is removed and transport is rerouted. It is calculated based on the commodity flows that would normally use the link. 69 Figure 3.3 Food critical road links along designated corridors in Sub-Saharan Africa Source: Authors, based on model outputs Among the countries whose main staples are modelled, the following experience the worst transport stress: • Republic of Congo: High cost of network disruption and high transport costs 70 • Somalia: High transport cost burden and poor local access to surplus production • Equatoria Guinea: Long average distance for consumed food, poor local access to surplus production, and high cost of network disruption • Democratic Republic of Congo: High transport costs, high transport cost burden, and high cost of network disruption, although the average distance take get staples to consumers is low • Mauritania: Poor access to surplus production, high average distances, and high cost of network disruption • Zambia: High transport costs and high costs of network disruption, although the average distance to get staples to consumers is low. Table 3.2 Top 20 critical Corridor Additional Food flow (billion kcal/year) road links in transport cost Sub-Saharan (millions of dollars AfricaCountry per year) Benin RNIE2 Bohicon to Dassa-Zoume 159 6,286 Cameroon N1 from Ngaoundere to Gidjiba 196 6,004 N1 from Gidjiba to Ngong 145 2,923 Democratic N1 from Matadi to Kikwit via 2,200 6,413 Republic of Kinshasa Congo N1 from Kananga to Mbuji-Mayi 1,210 5,243 N2 Lubao to Kasongo 171 3,541 N1 Luputa to Lueji 11 166 1,832 Cote d’Ivoire Autoroute du Nord in Abidjan 230 9,214 and connections to port Ghana N1 from Accra to Tema 464 5,679 Malawi M1/M3+M8 Blantyre to Balakas 243 2,585 Mozambique N1 Nicuadala to Funganha 159 3,179 Nigeria A13 Jimeta to Ngurore 220 2,587 A2 Kano to Bankaura 217 5,621 A2 from Lokoja to Abaji 179 6,726 A2 Zaria to Kano 162 9,256 A1 Oko Erin to Mokwa 147 11,777 Zambia T2 Lusaka to Mpika 390 3,296 M1 Mpika to Kasama 384 2,710 T2 Chikwele to Sigongo 217 5,621 M3 Kasama - Mansa 166 1,393 Source: Authors based on model outputs The case of the Nacala Corridor illustrates how disruptions to links connecting to a gateway port can have impacts over a wide area (Box 3.1). The Nacala Corridor is a key transport route linking Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique to the Port of Nacala in Mozambique. It is handles general trade traffic including food stuffs. The Box describes how a simulated disruption scenario can have cascading effects through the transport network. 71 Box 3.1 Mapping the hinterland of a regional port The critical road links in Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia are all part of the hinterland of a regional corridor that is anchored at the Port of Nacala in Mozambique. The corridor is a vital transport route connecting the three countries and is a major gateway for international trade. This corridor is crucial for the export of food commodities and the import of staples like wheat and rice. Disruptions along this corridor can severely affect connectivity and food security. A disruption scenario is simulated using the transport model, where transport links to the port are rendered impassable. The disruption forces freight traffic to shift to less efficient routes, increasing costs and delivery times. For instance, goods destined for Lusaka (Zambia) are rerouted through southern networks, adding further delays and expenses. Malawi experiences a 10–11 percent rise in sea transport costs, and road transport costs increase by 1.6–2.0 percent. Following closely is Zimbabwe, where unit transport costs increase by 0.8–1.2 percent. Logistics costs surge across the region, with South Africa and Tanzania bearing the largest absolute financial costs, because of their higher trade volumes. Road transport remains dominant for destinations like Lusaka and Harare (Zimbabwe), where reliance on alternative ports becomes necessary during disruptions. Elsewhere the disruption triggers a significant modal shift, with rail transport replacing road freight on key routes. Rail’s modal share more than doubles, from 6.1 percent to 13.3 percent, particularly for transport between Nacala and cities like Lilongwe (Malawi) and Tete (Mozambique). This shift demonstrates the importance of multimodal infrastructure in mitigating the impact of disruptions. The effects of the disruption on food security are profound. Landlocked countries like Malawi are heavily reliant on efficient corridors like Nacala for timely food imports. Although rail infrastructure mitigates some of the impacts, the scenario underscores the vulnerability of hinterland regions to supply chain disruptions. Although the Port of Nacala saw less than a 1 percent reduction in throughput, because of rerouting, the exercise highlights the need for greater resilience in port–hinterland connectivity. <> Summary Access to maritime ports is crucial for African countries, particularly landlocked ones, as it facilitates both food imports and agricultural exports. Improved international connectivity not only boosts export potential, it also increases farmers’ incomes, allowing them to invest more in agricultural inputs and technologies, thereby strengthening overall food security. Efficient port–hinterland connectivity and regional corridors are also essential for improving food security in Africa, by ensuring the smooth movement of food and agricultural inputs. Mapping the hinterland of regional ports is a critical first step in understanding the connectivity requirements of different zones based on their role in regional and global food trade. Several challenges impede the efficiency of shipping and ports in Africa, including infrastructure deficits, governance issues, and logistical inefficiencies. Many ports lack modern facilities, leading to congestion and delays. Governance problems, such as corruption and bureaucratic hurdles, increase transactions costs. Logistical inefficiencies that came to the fore in the aftermath of the pandemic disrupt supply chains and raised food prices. 72 Addressing these challenges is essential for enhancing food security. Regional trade groups play a key role in facilitating food trade. They must overcome issues like inconsistent tariffs and inadequate infrastructure to fully realize their potential in promoting a resilient food system. References Affognon, H., C. Mutungi, P. Sanginga, and C. Borgemeister. 2015. “Unpacking Postharvest Losses in Sub- Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis.” World Development 66: 49–68. Balineau, G., A. Bauer, M. Kessler, and N. Madariaga. 2021. Food Systems in Africa: Rethinking the Role of Markets. Africa Development Forum Series. A copublication of the Agence française de développement and The World Bank, Paris/Washington DC Christiaensen, L., Demery, L. 2018. Agriculture in Africa: Telling Myths from Facts. Directions in Development, Agriculture and Rural Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28543. ECDPM (European Centre for Development Policy Management). 2015. Corridors as Industrial Policy? Linking People, Policies and Places. Maastricht https://ecdpm.org/work/territorial-development- volume-4-issue-4-june-july-2015/corridors-as-industrial-policy-linking-people-policies-and-places. European Commission. 2021. Towards an Enhanced Africa-EU Cooperation on Transport and Connectivity. Brussels. https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-01/africa- europe-transport-connectivity-taskforce_en.pdf. Graff, T. 2019. “Spatial Inefficiencies in Africa’s Trade Network.” NBER Working Paper 25951, National Bureau for Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. http://www.nber.org/papers/w25951. Humphreys, R.M., A.C. Dumitrescu, N.O. Biju, and Y.Y. Lam. 2020. COVID-19 and the Maritime and Logistics Sector in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/ec0cf9ad-efa5-5a4e-963d- d88a7341554d/content. Iimi, A. 2021. “Agricultural Production and Transport Connectivity: Evidence from Mozambique.” Policy Research Working Paper 9728, World Bank, Washington, DC. Iimi, A., L. You, S. Wood, U. Sichra, and R.M. Humphreys. 2015. Agriculture Production and Transport Infrastructure in East Africa: An Application of Spatial Autoregression. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/533791468001163287/agriculture-production-and-transport- infrastructure-in-east-africa-an-application-of-spatial-autoregression. Iimi A.; R.M. Humphreys; H.D.L. Deville; Y.E. Mchomvu; S. Melibaeva; T.N. Mitiku; E.M.V. Abraham; J.O. Sasia; M.Z. Ahmed. 2015Building a reform consensus for integrated corridor development in the East African Community: pillar two - the assessment of wider economic benefits. Washington, DC.: World Bank Group. https://documentsinternal.worldbank.org/search/24969103 IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2022. “Climate Change and Chronic Food Insecurity in SSA.” IMF Departmental Paper, Washington DC. World Bank 2021). https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/087/2022/016/article-A001-en.xml Jacoby, H.G. 2000. “Access to Markets and the Benefits of Rural Roads.” Economic Journal 110 (465): 713–37. Lin, X., P.J. Ruess, L. Marston and M. Konar. 2019. “Food Flows between Counties in the United States.” Environ. Res. Lett. 14. 73 Okou, Cedric, John Spray, and Filiz Unsal. 2022. “Staple Food Prices in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Empirical Assessment.” IMF presentation at the World Bank, Washington, DC, September 15. World Bank. 2009. Africa’s Infrastructure: A Time for Transformation. Washington, DC. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/246961468003355256/africas-infrastructure-a-time-for-transformation. ———. 2011a. Africa’s Transport Infrastructure: Mainstreaming Maintenance and Management. Washington, DC. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/728801468191665263/africas-transport-infrastructure-mainstreaming- maintenance-and-management. ———. 2011b. Mozambique’s Infrastructure : A Continental Perspective. Washington, DC. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/402351468009988475/mozambiques-infrastructure-a-continental- perspective, ———. 2018. Maritime Networks, Port Efficiency, and Hinterland Connectivity in Africa. Washington, DC. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/508771540319329808/pdf/131217-pub-public- publication-date-is-10-23-18.pdf. ———. 2019a. Port Development and Competition in East and Southern Africa: Prospects and Challenges. Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/917cc538- 4fd6-5a49-bd12-631f90cde4e1. ———. 2019b. Port Development and Competition in East and Southern Africa: Prospects and Challenges: Country and Port Fact Sheets and Projections, vol. 2. Washington, DC. ———. 2021. The Role of Strategic Grain Reserves in Enhancing Food Security in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Washington, DC. ———. 2022. Western and Central Africa: West Africa Food System Resilience Program (FSRP). Washington, DC. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/524511659042558807/western-and-central-africa-west-africa-food- system-resilience-program-fsrp. ———. 2023. Middle Trade and Transport Corridor. Washington, DC. https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/middle-trade-and-transport-corridor. 74 Chapter 4 The Importance of Regional Trade This chapter examines the importance of regional trade in improving food security in Africa. It emphasizes the need to reduce trade barriers, enhance infrastructure, and strengthen regional cooperation to ensure efficient cross-border food flows and reduce costs. Key Findings and Messages • The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) could boost intra-African trade by up to 30 percent, but poor trade facilitation and inefficiencies at critical nodes add to trade and transport costs. Maximizing the AfCFTA’s benefits requires targeted investment to reduce non-tariff barriers and improve border-crossing efficiency. • Strengthening regional trade is essential to balancing food supply, stabilizing prices, and enhancing food security across the continent. Empirical analysis suggests that a 10 percent improvement in regional trade efficiency can increase food availability by 5 percent and reduce prices by 3 percent, benefiting millions of African households. • Inefficiencies such as road checkpoints and bureaucratic delays in regions like West Africa can double transport times and raise costs by up to 25 percent. Harmonizing policies and improving infrastructure within Regional Economic Communities is vital to unlocking the potential of intra- African agricultural trade. • Addressing bottlenecks at certain border crossing would greatly reduce transport costs, improve food distribution, and enhance food security across the continent. Enhancing Food Security and Growth through Regional Trade Regional trade in food is crucial for enhancing food security, economic stability, and sustainable development, particularly in developing countries. By facilitating the movement of food products across borders, regional trade helps balance supply and demand, ensuring that food surpluses in one area can alleviate shortages in others. Doing so not only reduces the risk of food insecurity, it also stabilizes food prices, making essential commodities more affordable for consumers. Regional trade also fosters economic growth by opening new markets for farmers and agribusinesses, encouraging investment in agricultural infrastructure and innovation. It also promotes the diversification of food sources, which can enhance dietary diversity and nutrition. Regional trade agreements often include provisions for improving food safety standards and reducing trade barriers, which can lead to more efficient and resilient food systems. Complex regulatory procedures can create bureaucratic hurdles for traders, increasing transactions costs and discouraging cross-border trade. These barriers not only limit the flow of food within Africa, they also hinder the continent’s integration into global food markets, reducing the potential to benefit from international trade. Addressing these policy barriers is crucial for promoting agricultural development, improving food security, and fostering economic growth in Africa. Continent-Wide Policies Three continental policies and initiatives in Africa affect food security (table 4.1). 75 Table 4.1 Continental initiatives in Africa that affect food security Policy or program Objective Agenda 2063a Agenda 2063 is the African Union’s strategic framework for the socioeconomic transformation of the continent over the next 50 years. It emphasizes the importance of food security as a cornerstone for sustainable development. By focusing on social and economic transformations, Agenda 2063 aims to eliminate hunger through initiatives that provide people with the necessary skills and create jobs to improve incomes and livelihoods. This agenda underscores the need for increased agricultural productivity, improved infrastructure, and enhanced intra - African trade to ensure food availability and accessibility. Malabo Declaration on The declaration, adopted was adopted by the African Union in 2014, aims Accelerated Agricultural to end hunger and halve poverty by 2025 through agriculture-led growth. It Growth and Transformation emphasizes the need for increased investment in agriculture, enhanced for Shared Prosperity and agricultural productivity, and improved market access for farmers. The Improved Livelihoods declaration also calls for the reduction of postharvest losses and the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices. In 2024, the African Union launched the Post-Malabo Agenda to continue the efforts of the Malabo Declaration but adapted to new challenges, including the sustainability of food systems, climate change, and enhanced resilience to risks and shocks. The Post-Malabo Agenda includes a roadmap for the next 10 years, with an emphasis on evidence-based approaches and continuous adaptation to changing contexts. African Continental Free The AfCFTA is a landmark agreement of African states aimed at creating a Trade Area (AfCFTA) single continental market for goods and services, with free movement of businesspeople and investments. By reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers, AfCFTA seeks to boost intra-African trade, including of agricultural products. Its objectives are directly relevant to food security, as increased trade can lead to more efficient distribution of food across the continent, reduce food prices, and enhance food availability. Note: a. The World Bank’s BIASHARA (“Building Institutions and Systems to Harness and Realize Agenda 2063”) project (P180117) supports implementation of the AfCFTA as part of Agenda 2063 by strengthening institutional capacity, concluding trade negotiations, facilitating trade and investment, monitoring commitments, developing dispute- resolution mechanisms, engaging stakeholders, and providing technical assistance to enhance intracontinental trade and integration. Donor-financed programs also affect food security and food trade on the continent. The most prominent of these programs is the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) which defines a continent-wide framework aimed at transforming agriculture, creating wealth, ensuring food security and nutrition, and promoting economic growth and prosperity. CAADP includes the Renewed Partnership for a Unified Approach to End Hunger by 2025, a collaborative effort involving the African Union, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development ( NEPAD), and other institutions. This program seeks to increase agricultural productivity, improve food systems, and enhance resilience to climate change. Africa is not on track to meet the objectives of the Malabo Declaration. Based on data from the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP)/World Bank Trade Costs 76 dataset,18 trade costs for agricultural products are 20 percent higher between African countries than they are between African countries and the rest of the world (figure 4.1). Intra-African trade costs for agricultural products have also risen over time: They were 20 percent higher in 2022 than they were in 2000. Figure 4.1 Ad valorem trade costs for agricultural products in Africa 140 130 Trade costs, 2000 = 100 120 110 100 90 80 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Intra SSA RoW Source: Authors, based on data from the UNESCAP/World Bank Trade Costs dataset. Regional Patterns of Food Trade Connectivity The production, consumption, and trade patterns of food staples vary across Africa’s seven Regional Economic Communities (RECs) (table 4.2 and table 4.3) Table 4.2 Regional Economic Communities in Africa Number of Regional Economic Community members Members Central African Economic and 6 Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Rep. of Monetary Community (CEMAC) Congo, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea Common Market of East and 21 Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Southern Africa (COMESA) Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe Economic Community of Central 11 Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African African State (ECCAS) Republic, Chad, Rep. of Congo, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, and São Tomé and Principe 18 See https://databank.worldbank.org/source/escap-world-bank-international-trade-costs. 77 East African Community (EAC) 8 Burundi, Democratic Rep. of Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda Economic Community of West African 15 Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, States (ECOWAS) The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Senegal, and Togo. Currently, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have signaled their intention to leave ECOWAS in 2024. Southern African Customs Union 5 Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Namibia, and South (SACU) Africa Southern African Development 16 Angola, Botswana, Comoros, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Community (SADC) Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, United Republic Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show the patterns of intra-African food trade by the major trade blocks. They reveal that most food trade is within a REC. Figure 4.2 Share of staples imported for consumption, produced and consumed domestically, and exported 200 Annual average in 2016–22 (millions of 180 160 140 120 tonnes) 100 80 60 40 20 0 SACU EAC ECOWAS CEMAC SADC COMESA Other Dominant trade group Imported for consumption Produced and consumed in country Produced in country and exported 78 Figure 4.3 Sources of intra-Africa imports of food staples 2,500 Annual average in 2016–22 (thousands of 2,000 1,500 tonnes) 1,000 500 0 SACU EAC ECOWAS CEMAC SADC COMESA Trade block that is importing SACU EAC ECOWAS CEMAC SADC COMESA Other Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. Implementation of continental programs is typically coordinated by RECs, particularly those related to economic integration and trade. This study looked in detail at the policy environment for food trade of the seven RECs shown in table 4.2.19 Several countries belong to more than one REC; Mauritania does not belong to any REC in Sub-Saharan Africa. These and other groupings aim to facilitate economic integration by reducing barriers to trade among their member countries and across the continent (table 4.3). Doing so is crucial to meeting the goals of the Malabo Declaration, which commits to tripling intra-Africa trade in agricultural commodities and services by 2025. By harmonizing food safety standards and improving their implementation, especially at borders, RECs can help ensure the smooth flow of agricultural products, thereby enhancing food security. 19 An eighth REC—the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)—was created in 1996. It has eight member states (Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda). All these countries are members of one or more of the other seven RECs. IGAD does not yet play a central role in intercountry trade. 79 Table 4.3 Trade regimes of Regional Economic Communities and implications for trade in food Regional Economic Implications for food supply Community Internal trade External trade chains Central African Goods move freely within CEMAC. All members use the A common external tariff is No tariffs are imposed on food; Economic and Central African franc, which facilitates monetary interaction. levied on imports from VAT does apply. Sanitary and Monetary The Bank of Central African States oversees the monetary countries outside CEMAC. phytosanitary certification is Community (CEMAC) system and issues currency for the CEMAC subregion. required for all unprocessed All states use the Central agricultural products. African CFA franc Common Market of COMESA is a free trade agreement (FTA). Eleven of its 21 COMESA does not yet have a Value added tax (VAT) is not East and Southern member states have eliminated their tariffs on COMESA common external tariff payable on food commodities, Africa (COMESA) originating products. The FTA signatories are working on the structure. It has stated its but sanitary and phytosanitary eventual elimination of quantitative restrictions and other intention to establish one, with certification is required for all non-tariff barriers (NTBs). Trade between members is not rates of 0 percent for raw unprocessed agricultural according to uniform rules and procedures, with considerable materials and capital goods, 10 products. Some countries also variation in non-tariff measures (NTMs). percent for intermediate impose periodic export bans. products, and 25 percent for products. East African The EAC is a customs union, with most goods and services A common external tariff that The EAC does not charge VAT on Community (EAC) being traded duty-free between the member states. In most applies to imports from third food imports from within their EAC member states, unprocessed agricultural produce is not countries. group, as well as on imports charged VAT or Excise Tax. from outside their group. However, the countries exempt only unprocessed agricultural products but require sanitary and phytosanitary certification for all such products. They also utilize export bans from time to time. Economic Community ECCAS does not yet appear to have harmonized internal trade In 2022, ECCAS adopted a ECCAS imposes some tariffs on of Central African and tariff policies. Countries’ membership in overlapping resolution to establish a food, and some of its member States (ECCAS) trade groups complicates the ability to do so. common external tariff. It has countries charge VAT on food not done so, however; each imports. Sanitary and member state continues to levy phytosanitary certification is 80 its own tariff structure, unless it required for all unprocessed has agreed to a different agricultural products. structure as a member of Road checkpoints contribute another REC. significantly to delays on major corridors. Economic Community ECOWAS aims for regional economic integration, the ECOWAS adopted a common Some tariffs are applied to food. of West African elimination of tariffs and non- NTBs, and regulatory external tariff in January 2015. Ghana imposes a VAT of 15 States (ECOWAS) cooperation. Goods produced within ECOWAS member states It is only partially applied, percent on food. are granted preferential treatment, promoting intraregional however. Nigeria, for example, Sanitary and phytosanitary trade and industrial development. Tariffs are applied to still sets its own external tariffs certification is required for all intra—ECOWAS trade in basic foods, but the rates are lower on many items. unprocessed agricultural rates than they on the same items sourced from outside the products. Road checkpoints REC. NTMs are the main instrument used to regulate trade. Most states use the West contribute significantly to African CFA franc delays on major corridors. Southern African SACU is the oldest customs union in the world, it has no A common external tariff is SACU has no customs duties on Customs Union internal tariffs and a common external tariff. All members levied on imports from unprocessed agricultural (SACU)a except Botswana form for a currency union that uses the countries outside SACU. products and fertilizers South African rand as the base currency (Eswatini, Lesotho, between the members but and Namibia each has its own currency, with its own name, charges a 15 percent VAT on but their values are identical to the South African rand). some food products. Sanitary and phytosanitary certification is required for plant-based products. Southern African SADC FTA was created in August 2008. Members have reduced Each member state maintains Customs, excise, and VAT are Development their tariffs at different rates. A facility is in place for SADC its own external tariffs for applied to most food products. Community (SADC) customs regulations to give preferential treatment to goods nonmembers of SADC. Phytosanitary certification is that originate in member states. Goods that fall under SADC required for plant-based rules of origin, including agricultural produce and agricultural products from exporting inputs, are not subject to tariffs when imported or exported countries. Periodic bans on within the FTA. imports and exports are imposed. Note: a. All members of SACU are also members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). 81 Two of these RECs (SACU and ECOWAS) have currency unions and generally trade with common currencies. Most countries are outside of a currency union, and most trade is done in US dollars. Changing their own currency (typically into dollars) and transmitting transmit it to the vendor, who must them change back into their currency, is both expensive and time-consuming. Three of the seven trading groups (COMESA, ECOWAS, SADC) do not have common external tariffs on imports, making internal trade more difficult and potentially expensive. The practice also provides opportunities and incentives for fraud, unrecorded food flows, and smuggling. There are numerous examples of illicit trade between a low tariff importing country and a high tariff country in the same region. Only three of the trading groups (EAC, CEMAC, SACU) have a functional internal free trade area (FTA). The others have announced and agreed to create FTAs, but these intents remain aspirational. The lack of an FTA has raised the costs of internal trade and creates incentives for fraud and corruption. Although the different RECs have policies that are conducive to trade in agricultural products, their member countries often institute restrictive measures. For instance, as the world responded to the pandemic, one of the go-to policy responses was to close borders to exports of food. Between January and June 2022, the World Bank and the Global Trade Alert counted 135 policy measures that had been announced or implemented affecting trade in food and fertilizers (Espitia, Rocha, and Ruta 2022). Two- thirds of the measures were full bans on exports. These barriers, imposed by individual countries or regional blocs, take various forms, including tariffs, quotas, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and complex regulatory procedures. Tariffs and quotas directly increase the cost of imported food, making it less accessible to consumers and reducing the competitiveness of domestic producers. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures are necessary to protect public health, but they are often as to restrict trade. Increasing Regional Connectivity Two measures were used to assess the link between transport connectivity and the circulation of food withing RECs: path lengths (food miles) and transport costs, broadly defined to include all costs of shipping food. Food Miles and Trade Costs within Regional Economic Communities The average distance over which food is shipped is shortest for locally produced and consumed commodities (cassava and maize) and longest for staples imported from overseas (rice and wheat). The average distances are shortest within the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and longest in Central Africa (figure 4.4). The average path lengths reflect whether countries that belong to a REC produce a crop. ECOWAS has short average path lengths for cassava and maize, for example, because both crops are grown locally in West Africa. The RECs also display different patterns with respect to the costs of transport and especially the efficiency of processes at the borders and the time it takes to cross international boundaries of countries in different RECs and in many instances even within the same REC. Based on simulations using the food flow model, transport costs are highest for cassava, followed by maize, rice, and wheat. This pattern is consistent with the aggregate pattern shown in figure 4.5, which shows that transport costs are highest for commodities traded the least, such as cassava and maize. Rice and wheat, which are often imported from overseas, have longer path lengths but lower unit transport costs. 82 Figure 4.4 Average path length from producer to consumer of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat, by Regional Economic Community 14000 Average path length (kilometers) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs. Figure 4.5 Estimated transport costs of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat, by Regional Economic Community 60 Cost per tonne per 1,000 km (dollars) 50 40 30 20 10 0 CEMAC COMESA EAC ECCAS ECOWAS IGAD SACU SADC Cassava Maize Rice Wheat 83 Source: Authors, based on model outputs. The Central Africa region, especially CEMAC, has high transport costs per kilometer for cassava and maize, which are heavily consumed in the region. Poor transport infrastructure is a major contributor to these costs. In general, short path lengths contribute to higher transport costs per kilometer, primarily because crops are transported by small trucks. In contrast, overseas shipments are transported by ship. The poor condition of the transport infrastructure in some countries contributes to higher transport costs. The costs of crossing borders contribute significantly to trade costs within RECs. Problems at the Border A large share of food trade in Africa is over land. Corridor-based programs could improve regional trade (as discussed in chapter 3), but such programs tend to be commodity agnostic. To overlay transport networks and food exchanges, the food model was used to assign food flows across the network, for estimating the volumes of food that cross borders in Sub-Saharan Africa. The simulation identified the most important border crossing points and the associated corridors for food trade (figure 4.6 and table 4.4). The results can be used to prioritize border posts and corridors by their importance to food trade in general or for specific commodities, countries, or subnational units within a country. Figure 4.6 Top 20 critical border crossing points Source: Authors, based on model outputs. 84 Table 4.4 Twenty most important land borders in Sub-Saharan Africa for food flow Additional transport cost (millions Food flow of dollars per (billion Countries Location year) kcal/year) Zambia/Democratic Republic of Congo Mwenda/Chembe 37 1,500 Zambia/Democratic Republic of Congo Mokambo 37 1,500 South Africa/Mozambique Ressano Garcia 26 10,300 Nigeria/Cameroon Awa/Ekok 14 7,100 Nigeria/Cameroon Achan 12 7,600 Zimbabwe/Mozambique Forbes 12 3,700 Ethiopia/Djibouti Guelile 8 5,200 Malawi/Mozambique Muloza/Milange 6 1,500 Liberia/Guinea Ganta 5 1,200 Kenya/Somalia Gerille 5 900 Cameroon/Central African Republic Gamboula 4 600 Malawi/Mozambique Zobue 4 600 Nigeria/Niger Baba Mutum 4 700 Zambia/Zimbabwe Chirundu 3 1,200 Cameroon/Republic of Congo Souanke/Ntam 3 200 Central African Republic/ Republic of Congo Mboulou 3 600 Rwanda/Tanzania Rusumo 2 1,400 Guinea/Mali Kouremale 2 1,000 Tanzania/Kenya Taveta 2 1,100 Senegal/Mali Kidira/Diboli 2 600 Source: Authors, based on model outputs. The additional costs reflect the increase in costs should there be a disruption to the identified crossing point. Critical border crossing points are in all subregions, often along corridors that connect to ports. Two of them are important for access to food in the Central African Republic which experiences significant transport stress. In some countries, such as Nigeria and Zambia, a few border crossings are critical. In others, like Cameroon and Djibouti, a single crossing point is the most critical. The results suggest that for specific countries, agricultural trade with other countries in the same REC are handled at a few points. The condition of and performance at border crossing points can be a major determinant of costs. Using the model, a 25 percent reduction in time to cross borders would result in between 13 and 18 percent reduction in shipments of intra-African trade and a seven to eight percent reduction in time for imported commodities. These reductions in time would have an impact onlead times to trade and therefore, the generalized cost of trading. Non-Tariff Trade Measures and the Cost of Food Trade 85 Many NTMs yield important benefits for food trade, including in Africa, where serious pests have resulted in loss of access to food resources. Kansiime, Rwomushana, and Mugambi (2023) estimate that fall armyworms result in maize losses across Sub-Saharan Africa of more than $9 billion per year. NTMs are crucial in reducing the spread and impact of pests and diseases and protecting populations from major food safety incidents and contaminants. In this way, NTMs contribute to food security. The challenge in Africa is not that NTMs exist but that they are poorly developed and implemented and therefore become barriers to trade. Bonuedi and others (2020) use a panel dataset encompassing 45 African countries from 2006 to 2015 to examine the impact of trade facilitation on food security outcomes. They find that suboptimal trade facilitation is a significant impediment to food security on the continent. The study finds a correlation between ineffective trade facilitation and increased undernourishment, deeper food deficits, diminished dietary energy supply adequacy, and reduced access to sanitation facilities. It posits that heightened documentation demands and extended durations for exports and imports substantially compromise food availability and access. The implications are clear: Reducing delays associated with documentary and border compliance is critical to enhancing food security in Africa. The World Bank (2020) maintains that for the AfCFTA agreement to positively contribute to economic growth and trade diversification, and food consumption across the continent, it is necessary to reduce the costs associated with NTMs. They conclude that reducing NTMs has a larger positive impact than further reductions in tariffs. The report recommends that governments focus on reducing or eliminating measures that hinder or limit the flow of goods across borders and invest in efforts that facilitate cross-border trade and eliminate unnecessary red tape. It concludes that reducing NTBs such as onerous at-the-border documentary requirements, protracted export and import times, and elevated real trade costs can significantly improve food security outcomes. The impact of NTBs on the efficiency and costs of transport was tested using the food flow model (figure 4.7). Figure 4.7 Estimated average cost associated with nontariff barriers on food staples, by Regional Economic Community 14 12 10 Dollars per tonne 8 6 4 2 0 CEMAC COMESA EAC ECCAS ECOWAS IGAD SACU SADC Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs. 86 The results show that variation in NTBs and transport costs across RECs, pointing to region-specific issues. Some of the patterns are contrary to expectations based on regional trade policies. For instance, SACU, a customs union, has a much higher incidence of NTBs than other RECs. The main challenge appears to lie in the limited capacity at border crossing points and ports, which causes significant delays. Mozambique is not a SACU member, but its ports are vital for handling maize, rice, and wheat into SACU countries, even though South Africa and Namibia (both SACU members) have well-developed ports. Those ports are optimized for and prioritize commodities other than food. Within the EAC and CEMAC, NTBs are high for rice and wheat, which are often traded across borders. NTBs continue to impose significant trade costs on the regions, particularly for cross-border trade. Box 4.1 summarizes the regulatory barriers faced in the CEMAC region and how they could be addressed. Box 4.1 Regulatory barriers to food trade in the CEMAC region CEMAC includes six countries: Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon. Agriculture plays a significant role in the economies of these countries, providing employment and income for a large portion of the population. However, trade in agriculture faces several bottlenecks that hinder its growth and potential. Gaskell and others (2018) reach several conclusions about barriers to trade within the region: • Intermediation costs, including market access costs, are the most significant cost driver, accounting for 42 percent of the final consumer price. • Transport costs and harassment of transporters and traders account for about a third of the final price. • Border crossing costs make up roughly 7 percent of the consumer price. • Improving conditions along a trade corridor is more effective than targeting a single problem across multiple corridors. • Investments in market infrastructure, market management, trade information systems, and transport infrastructure are needed to reduce trade costs and improve regional agricultural trade. In addition to transport infrastructure challenges, significant NTBs persist within CEMAC, including phytosanitary regulations, additional documentation requirements, and occasional border delays. On average, NTBs add $0.8 per tonne to the cost of cassava, $4.30 to the cost of maize, $13.10 to the cost of rice, and $16.60 to the cost of wheat. These costs stem from requirements such as certifications and customs procedures that delay goods at border crossings. Regulatory barriers pose significant challenges to agricultural trade in the CEMAC region. For example, traders often face lengthy and costly customs clearance processes, which can cause perishable goods to spoil before reaching their destination. The lack of harmonized standards and certifications also means that agricultural products need to undergo multiple inspections and approvals, further delaying trade and increasing costs. Market information gaps also hinder agricultural trade in the CEMAC region. Information asymmetry can lead to market inefficiencies, with farmers either overproducing or underproducing certain crops, resulting in both price volatility and income instability. The absence of reliable market information also makes it difficult for traders to identify profitable market opportunities and plan their logistics effectively. 87 Several measures could be implemented to address these bottlenecks and enhance agricultural trade in the CEMAC region. Regulatory harmonization is essential to facilitate smoother trade flows. Simplifying and harmonizing regulations across borders can reduce the complexity and cost of trading agricultural products. It involves streamlining customs procedures, reducing NTBs, and adopting common standards and certifications. Implementing a single-window system for customs clearance can expedite the process and reduce delays. Developing robust market information systems is also vital. Such systems can provide real -time data on prices, demand, and supply, helping farmers make better production and marketing decisions. Establishing agricultural market information platforms can enable farmers to access up -to-date market information through mobile phones or other digital devices. Implementing trade policy reforms that reduce tariffs and other trade barriers can open new markets for agricultural products and enhance competitiveness. These reforms can create a more conducive environment for agricultural trade, ultimately contributing to increased trade and economic growth in the CEMAC region. <> Summary The coming into force in 2021 of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) was a significant milestone in the endeavor for trade integration on the continent. The AfCFTA aims to create a single market for goods and services across the continent, promoting seamless intra-African trade by lowering barriers. This interconnected system supports a more resilient food distribution network, enabling African countries to meet regional demands more effectively and reduce dependency on imports from outside the continent. However, the experience with similar efforts through Regional Economic Communities (RECs) has pointed to both opportunities and hurdles that need to be addressed if the continental ideal is to be realized. Firstly, the RECs have been at the forefront of defining and promoting transport corridors that carry much of the inter-state trade. Many such corridors are operational, albeit to varying degrees of efficiency. Many of the inefficiencies on the corridors are due to poorly defined and implemented non-tariff measures (NTMs) that end up being non-tariff barriers (NTBs) are a particular impediment to trade, especially trade in agricultural commodities. The chapter estimates the contribution to costs of such NTBs and finds that they are significant in terms of monetary cost, but also in terms of the time it would take to meet the requirements. It is important to harmonize non-tariff measures and to minimize, if not eliminate, NTBs if food is to be more efficiently distributed across the continent. NTMs should be closely aligned with trade facilitation objectives to expedite the transport of legitimate trade. International instruments such as the World Trade Organization’s Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA)— which promotes basing Sanitary phytosanitary standards (SPS) and technical barriers to trade (TBT) rules and regulations on harmonization, enhanced transparency, stakeholder consultation, and the application of regulatory impact assessments—can be useful foundations for the modernization of practices at the border. References Balineau, Gaëlle, Arthur Bauer, Martin Kessler, and Nicole Madariaga. 2021. Food Systems in Africa: Rethinking the Role of Markets. Africa Development Forum Series. A copublication of the Agence française de développement and The World Bank, Paris/Washington DC 88 Bonuedi, I., K. Kamasa, and E.E.O. Opoku. 2020. “Enabling Trade across Borders and Food Security in Africa.” Food Security 12: 1121–40. Christiaensen, Luc, and Lionel Demery. 2018. Agriculture in Africa: Telling Myths from Facts. Directions in Development, Agriculture and Rural Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28543. Espitia, Alvaro, Nadia Rocha, and Michele Ruta. 2022. “How Export Restrictions Are Impacting Global Food Prices.” World Bank Blog, July 6. Washington, DC. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/psd/how- export-restrictions-are-impacting-global-food-prices. Gaskell, Joanne Catherine, John Keyser, Gabriel Boc, Chloe Cangiano, Carmine Soprano, Robert Nkendah, Diego Carballo Arias, and Bodomalala Sehenoarisoa Rabarijohn. 2018. Breaking Down the Barriers to Regional Agricultural Trade in Central Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/233071535650013216/breaking-down-the-barriers-to-regional- agricultural-trade-in-central-africa. Kansiime, M.K., I. Rwomushana and I. Mugambi. 2023. “Fall Armyworm Invasion in Sub-Saharan Africa and Impacts on Community Sustainability in the Wake of Coronavirus Disease 2019: Reviewing the Evidence.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 62: 101279 Okou, Cedric, John Spray, and Filiz Unsal. 2022. “Staple Food Prices in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Empirical Assessment.” IMF presentation at the World Bank, Washington, DC, September 15. Ruzindaza, E. 2023. ECOWAS Agriculture Trade and Market (EATM) Scorecard: Review of Past and Ongoing Experiences. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3805891/ecowas-agriculture-trade-and-market-eatm- scorecard/4611827/. Schwartz, Jordan, Jose Luis Guasch, Gordon Wilmsmeier, and Aiga Stokenberga. 2009. “Logistics, Transport and Food Prices in LAC: Policy Guidance for Improving Efficiency and Reducing Costs.” Latin America and Caribbean Region Environment and Water Resources Occasional Paper 2, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2018. Breaking down Barriers to Regional Trade in Agriculture. Washington, DC. ———. 2020. Making the Most of the African Continental Free Trade Area: Leveraging Trade and Foreign Direct Investment to Boost Growth and Reduce Poverty. World Bank. Washington, D.D. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/91585eee-eab1-5141-b2f0- 031af56e860b/download ———. 2021. The Role of Strategic Grain Reserves in Enhancing Food Security in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Washington, DC. ———. 2022a. Food Safety in Africa: Past Endeavors and Future Directions. Appendix A: Institutional Landscape. Washington, DC. https://documentsinternal.worldbank.org/search/33805108. ———. 2022b. Western and Central Africa: West Africa Food System Resilience Program. Washington, DC. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/524511659042558807/western-and-central-africa-west-africa-food- system-resilience-program-fsrp. Xiaowen Lin, Paul J, Ruess, Landon Marston and Megan Konar. 2019. “Food Flows between Counties in the United States.” Environ. Res. Lett. 14. 89 Chapter 5 Local Access to Food This chapter investigates the role of domestic access and distribution in ensuring food security, particularly in low-income countries. Key Findings and Messages • High domestic transport costs significantly raise food prices, especially in regions far from production zones or ports. In Tanzania, for example, transport costs of up to $182 per tonne limit farmers’ ability to sell their goods, increasing food prices for consumers. Reducing these costs is critical for ensuring affordable and accessible food for all. • Inadequate domestic infrastructure severely restricts the flow of food within countries. Improving local infrastructure is key to stabilizing prices and ensuring the efficient distribution of food. • Although some countries in Africa produce sufficient food at the national level, localized deficits— especially in staples such as rice and wheat—require better internal distribution networks. About a fifth of African countries face rice shortages, and 28 percent struggle with wheat deficits. Improving domestic access to food through stronger distribution systems would help reduce reliance on imports and improve the availability of food. • The resilience of domestic transport networks is key to efficient food distribution. Strengthening key domestic links, such as the road from Zambia to the Port of Beira, would reduce transport costs and enhance food accessibility within countries. Investing in these networks would help ensure that food reaches communities quickly and efficiently, improving overall food security. The Role and Impact of Rural Transport and Access on Food Security International trade plays a crucial role in supplying essential goods, but it is the local systems that dictate the effectiveness of food distribution and accessibility. The interplay of rural infrastructure, market access, and local governance forms the backbone of food security, determining whether nutritious food reaches those in need. In low-income countries, the poor quality of rural infrastructure—roads, transportation networks, and storage facilities—limits farmers’ ability to transport their produce to markets and consumers’ ability to access affordable food. The presence of functioning markets and fair pricing mechanisms is essential for connecting producers with consumers, ensuring that food is not only available but also accessible. Local governance, characterized by effective policies and community engagement, plays a pivotal role in creating an environment conducive to thriving local food systems. Reducing transport costs, improving market accessibility, and supporting the supply chain can increase agricultural production, reduce food waste, and improved livelihoods for rural communities. Careful planning, targeting of investments, and complementary policy interventions are crucial for maximizing the impact of transport infrastructure on food security. Several actions are needed to maximize the impact of rural roads: • Allocate transport infrastructure in a way that enhances access, reduces food waste, and enables rapid movement of food supplies during crises (Fajgelbaum and Schaal 2019). Roads are often constructed in areas with higher agricultural potential or economic activity, which can skew the perceived benefits of road development. Careful targeting of infrastructure investments is crucial 90 to avoid the misallocation of resources. • Complement roads investments with support for rural markets. Kebede (2024) finds that rural road infrastructure in Ethiopia is crucial in promoting market integration and facilitating a transition from subsistence farming to market-based farming. Nagesso, Ayele, and Nigussie (2019) find that households in Ethiopia with access to all-weather roads and agricultural extension services were significantly more likely to report food security than those without access. Their study also reveals that access to other infrastructure, such as protected water sources, information and communications technology, and health centers, is correlated with food security, although the association was not as strong as with roads and agricultural extension services. • Support supply chain management infrastructure. Transportation infrastructure investments are critical to reduce waste and improve food accessibility and affordability, enhancing food security (Zakaree 2022) • Enhance access at scale. The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) program in India has funded the construction of over 100,000 roads to 200,000 villages. It shows the potential of expansive rural access programs to reduce transportation costs and facilitating access to markets (Asher and Novosad 2020). Food Distribution African countries may not produce enough to meet all their needs, but the volume of trade with overseas partners could be lower than it is. Clear patterns emerge from the analysis of the food balance of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (figure 5.1). For Cassava (a), the top producers such as Nigeria, Ghana and the Democratic Republic of Congo have large surpluses while the smallest producers have very small shortfalls. A similar pattern, though at a smaller magnitude, emerges for Mazie (b) where the Top 10 producers have relatively large surpluses, and the Bottom 10 countries have small, negative balances. However, the patterns are very different for Rice (c) and particularly for Wheat (d) where very few countries have surpluses, and those that do have them only in small amounts while most countries, as shown for the Bottom 10 in each case, have large trade deficits. Figure 5.1 Trade balance for casava, maize, wheat, and race in Sub-Saharan Africa, by country, 2022 (a) Cassava 91 Trade balance (millions of tonnes) Trade balance (millions of tonnes) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -1 -5 0 5 10 15 20 30 35 South Africa 25 Nigeria Nigeria Ghana Ethiopia DR Congo Mali Malawi Tanzania Benin Ghana Côte d'Ivoire Angola Cameroon Angola Benin Top 10 Top 10 Sierra Leone Cameroon 92 Tanzania Malawi Sudan Burundi (b) Maize Bottom 10 Bottom 10 Equatorial Guinea Cape Verde Botswana Niger Swaziland Mauritius Ethiopia Namibia Namibia South Sudan Mauritius Lesotho Kenya Botswana South Africa Kenya Rwanda (c) Rice Mozambique Côte d'Ivoire South Africa Madagascar Cameroon Seychelles Tanzania Ethiopia Burundi Somalia Senegal Malawi Nigeria Guinea Angola Ghana Kenya Niger Chad Mali Trade balance (millions of tonnes) 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 Top 10 Bottom 10 (d) Wheat Sao Tome and Principe Equatorial Guinea Central African… Guinea-Bissau Mozambique South Africa Cape Verde Cameroon Seychelles Comoros Tanzania Ethiopia Somalia Senegal Zambia Nigeria Angola Ghana Sudan 1 Kenya Trade balance (millions of tonnes) 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 Top 10 Bottom 10 Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. At the aggregate level, no countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have deficits of cassava and maize (table 5.1). Almost a quarter of countries run deficits in rice and wheat. The majority produce enough rice and wheat for their own consumption, and some produce surpluses, which could be traded. 93 Table 5.1 Trade balances in Sub-Saharan Africa for four crops (percent of countries) Status Cassava Maize Rice Wheat National level Deficit 0 0 22 28 Zero to trade 39 44 61 70 Surplus 61 56 16 2 Sub-national level Deficit 11 5 11 11 Zero to trade 56 50 70 87 Surplus 33 45 19 2 Source: Authors, based on model outputs. The volume of imports could be lower than it is. What prevents greater intercountry exchanges of food commodities on the continent? One factor is the weak food distribution system. National data mask the significant number of subnational units that face food deficits: 5 percent of traffic zones face deficits in maize, 11 percent face deficits in cassava, and 11 percent face deficits in rice and wheat (table 5.1 and figure 5.2). The patterns confirm the presence of significant frictions that hamper the flow of commodities between and within countries. As all countries are self-sufficient in maize and cassava, any deficits could in principle be filled with domestic supplies. The fact that the share of zones showing deficits in rice and wheat is smaller than the share of countries suggests that there is a concentration of deficits in particular locations, likely urban areas with large populations. Figure 5.2 Distribution of food balances for cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa, by traffic zone 1 Proportion of sub-national administrative units 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Food balance (tonnes) Cassava Maize Rice Wheat 94 Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. A comparison of the food balances at both the country and subnational scales shed more light on the functioning of agricultural supply chains between and within countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (table 5.2). In Table 5.2 a negative value shows that the number of sub-national units exceeds the proportion of countries. For instance, for Cassava the proportion of sub-national units is 11 percent greater than that of countries with deficits of the crop. The picture is different for Wheat, where the proportion of countries with deficits is 17 percent greater than the proportion of sub-national units with deficits. The data therefore show that a larger proportion of subnational units than countries have deficits in cassava and maize; for rice and wheat, the share of countries with deficits is larger than the share of subnational units These results point to a problem with the distribution of commodities within individual countries, where a country produces enough of a commodity, but it cannot be transferred from areas of surplus to those of deficit. Regarding imported commodities, the results point to high deficits across countries, but a few districts face such deficits. These problems could be addressed or minimized with a more efficient connectivity between territories. Table 5.2 Comparison of food balances for cassava, maize, rice, and wheat between countries and subnational units (percent) Status Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Deficit –11 –5 11 17 Surplus 29 11 –2 0 Balanced –18 –5 –9 –17 Source: Authors, based on model outputs. Transport Costs within Countries Transport costs often vary widely within countries. In Cameroon, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe, for example, distance from key agricultural areas raises the cost of moving goods (figure 5.3). In Cameroon, maize is grown primarily in the northern regions, and the two largest cities, Douala and Yaoundé, are in the south. The long distance between these production areas and urban markets significantly drives up transport costs, as goods must traverse the country’s challenging terrain and poor infrastructure. Supplying population centers in the south is difficult, even though maize is abundantly produced in the north. Similar situations prevail in Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. For wheat, regions with access to coastal ports enjoy significantly lower transport costs, because of the ease of maritime shipping and proximity to international trade routes. Coastal areas, particularly in countries with well-developed port infrastructure, can efficiently import wheat. Transport costs begin to rise sharply as one moves further inland, because overland transport is the primary mode of moving goods. Transport costs for wheat are relatively low in areas where it is produced locally, such as Oromia in Ethiopia, Njombe in Tanzania, Lusaka in Zambia, and Mashonaland East in Zimbabwe. Local production reduces the cost of wheat distribution within the immediate area, benefiting both producers and consumers. Nearby zones do not always share in the benefits of these production hubs, however. Despite their proximity, regions adjacent to these production zones often face higher transport costs. This discrepancy can be attributed to several factors. One possibility is the inefficiency or high cost of transportation within the national network, which makes internal distribution more expensive, even when wheat is produced 95 nearby. Poor road conditions, limited transport capacity, and logistical inefficiencies hinder the movement of wheat, driving up costs for neighboring regions. Another factor could be the limited surplus production in these wheat-producing zones. Although they may have enough output to meet local demand, their production levels may not be high enough to significantly reduce the need for wheat imports in the rest of the country. As a result, neighboring areas may still rely on more expensive international imports or distant production zones to meet their wheat needs, which increases transport costs. Figure 5.3 Cost of transporting maize and wheat to consumers, by zone Cassava Maize 96 Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs. Prioritizing Elements of Transport Networks As established above based on the literature, the placement of transport infrastructure is important for food flows and therefore food security. The resilience of the transport networks is also important for critical links within the network. Critical links are those that handle flows between food deficit and surplus areas, including flows in transit between such zones. Both functions are particularly important in Sub- Saharan Africa where the geography is diverse, distances are long, and economic densities are low. The model identifies transport networks links that are critical for food security (figure 5.4). Most of them connect to existing corridors. This finding is important because it shows the continuing influence of the network of corridors in terms of how food flows are channeled as well as the importance of considering the wider network when building transport infrastructure for agriculture and especially food security. Network approaches entail area-wide solutions and the identification of links that connect subnetworks that may otherwise be isolated. Investment in transport infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and storage facilities, is crucial for creating a seamless supply chain that can respond efficiently to market demands and emergencies. Improved connectivity also facilitates the rapid movement of food during crises. Network connectivity in transport is not just about physical infrastructure but also about creating an enabling environment for economic growth, poverty reduction, and sustainable development. 97 Figure 5.4 Critical secondary road transport links in Sub-Saharan Africa Source: Authors, based on model outputs. A neglected dimension of food access is the availability and cost of transport services. Transport prices are a function of several variables, including the degree of competition in service markets. The seminal report of Raballand and Teravaninthorn (2009) finds that the price shippers in Sub-Saharan Africa pay is significantly higher than the prices shippers play elsewhere primarily because of market regulations and the structure of transport markets. Even when infrastructure is built to the same standard, inefficient market dynamics, particularly in Central and West Africa, can result in inefficiencies that affect trade. Transport Services and Cost of Access to Food The link between transport prices and food security in Africa is multifaceted, involving several interacting variables. They include distance, the quality and availability of road infrastructure, seasonal rain patterns, conflict, economic geography, and border frictions that affect the ability of foreign shippers to access the market. One critical but often overlooked factor is the cost of transportation. High transport prices can significantly affect food security by increasing the cost of food, reducing market accessibility, and affecting the overall efficiency of food distribution systems. Using the model, the costs per tonne of shipping the commodities of interest range from $10 to more than $160 (figure 5.5). Cassava and maize generally have lower transport costs ($10–$50 per tonne); 98 rice and wheat show a wider distribution of transport costs, with many countries higher costs that exceed $100 per tonne in some countries. These disparities in transport costs across different crops and regions can significantly affect food prices and accessibility, particularly for imported commodities like wheat. Figure 5.5 Distribution of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa by cost of transporting cassava, maize, rice, and wheat 14 12 10 No. of countries 8 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 Cost per tonne Cassava Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on model outputs. The Rural Access Index (RAI) measures the proportion of the rural population living within 2 kilometers of an all-season road. It reveals the accessibility of rural areas to markets and services.20 Improved access through rural roads can enhance farmers ’ ability to obtain inputs and sell their produce, thereby increasing productivity. Figure 5.6 shows the correlation between agricultural production and rural access in Sub-Saharan Africa. Other factors must be considered in interpreting the result, including degree of urbanization and the level of income. Although better access can lead to increased food production, the initial conditions of the area —such as existing agricultural practices and market access —also determine outcomes. Understanding this dynamic is essential for effective policy making aimed at enhancing food security and rural development. 20 The index is an indicator for Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 9.1.1 which measures the proportion of the rural population who live within 2 km of an all-season road. 99 Figure 5.6 Correlation between Rural Access Index and cereal production per hectare in Sub-Saharan Africa 100% 90% 80% Rural Access Index 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Cereal production )kilograms per hectare) RAI Source: Authors, based on data from databank.worldbank.org and https://rai.azavea.com. Improving the connectivity of rural areas reduces poverty, which enhance the ability of the poor to cope with shocks to the food system. Dorosh and others (2010) provide evidence that investments in road infrastructure can significantly enhance agricultural productivity and output in Sub -Saharan Africa. Their findings highlight the importance of considering the impacts of road connectivity on both agricultural production and the broader rural economy, including household behavior and migration patterns. The impacts are attributed to the agricultural sector ’s large share of GDP in most Sub- Saharan countries, the concentration of poverty in rural areas, and the high transaction costs associated with selling agricultural inputs and outputs because of limited road infrastructure and long travel times. They find that the elasticity of crop production increases as the size of the nearest city increases, suggesting a greater concentration of production in regions surrounding large cities. The elasticities of travel time on crop production are also higher for low-input crop production systems than for high-input and irrigated systems, indicating that the location of production may be driven more by proximity to markets for low-input technologies. Better road connectivity makes high-input production more profitable, leading to an increase in its share of production. This shift is driven by both direct and indirect channels, with roads increasing crop production through access to larger markets and intermediate inputs, as well as facilitating the adoption of high-input/high-yield crop production. For these and other reasons, scaling up rural access often makes sense (box 5.1). Box 5.1 Improving rural connectivity: Rural Access and Mobility Program in Nigeria There is considerable evidence of the efficacy of programmatic approaches to improving rural access and connectivity. The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in India is an example of such an approach. The program has constructed over 100,000 roads to 200,000 villages, significantly increasing transportation services and facilitating access to markets (Asher and Novosad, 2020); similar programmatic approaches have shown positive outcomes in China (Zhou and others, 2021). Investments in rural road infrastructure have been linked to significant improvements in agricultural productivity and 100 output. These investments have reduced transportation costs, increased market access, and facilitated the adoption of modern farming technologies. In Africa, the World Bank supported efforts by the government of Nigeria to implement a Rural Access and Mobility Program (RAMP) in Nigeria. The program was implemented in two phases from 2008 to 2018 and at a total cost of $303 million, was financed by the Government of Nigeria with support from International Development Association and Agence Française de Développement. The primary objective of the program was to improve transport conditions and bring sustained access to the rural population by rehabilitating and maintaining key rural transport infrastructure in a sustainable manner. This objective was closely tied to enhancing agricultural productivity and improving the livelihoods of rural communities by providing better access to markets and services. RAMP interventions included the rehabilitation and upgrading of rural roads to all-season standards, ensuring that rural communities had reliable access to markets, schools, and healthcare facilities, and the establishment of community-based maintenance systems to ensure the sustainability of the rehabilitated roads. It also included annual mechanized maintenance to address more significant road maintenance needs. RAMP-2, which was implemented between 2012 and 2018 and at a cost of $243 million achieved several significant outcomes that directly contributed to food security. It brought 1.5 million people within 2 kilometers of an all-season road, significantly improving access to markets and services. By reducing transport costs and average transport time, it led to a 31 percent increase in the volume of agricultural produce transported. The project contributed to greater food security and improved nutrition for rural communities by facilitating better access to agricultural markets and services. With improved roads, farmers could transport their produce to markets more quickly, ensuring that fresh food was available to consumers. RAMP points to the potential of scaling up rural access for food security. Doing so requires (a) integrating rural road development and maintenance with broader agricultural development programs and (b) involving communities, to empower them to take ownership of road maintenance, which leads to better-maintained roads and more sustainable outcomes. <> Summary Rural transport is critical for food security in Africa, as high transport costs due to long distances and poor infrastructure negatively affect food affordability and accessibility. Farmers struggle to transport produce to markets, leading to food waste and reduced income, while consumers in remote areas have limited access to affordable food. Better market access encourages farmers to produce more, increasing food availability and minimizing spoilage during transportation. Despite substantial food production, inefficiencies in distribution and reliance on imports highlight the need for strategic investments in transport infrastructure, storage facilities, and market integration to enhance food security. Addressing these challenges through improved rural roads and efficient transport services can boost productivity, reduce food waste, and improve living standards for farmers and consumers alike. References Ahmed U.I., L. Ying, M.K. Bashir, M. Abid, and F. Zulfiqar. 2017. “Status and Determinants of Small Farming Households’ Food Security and Role of Market Access in Enhancing Food Security in Rural 101 Pakistan.” Plos ONE 12 (10). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185466. Asher, Sam, and Paul Novosad. 2020. “Rural Roads and Local Economic Development.” American Economic Review 110 (3): 797–823. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180268. Atsushi Iimi. 2022. “Agriculture Production and Transport Connectivity: Evidence from Mozambique.” Journal of Development Studies 58 (12): 2483–502. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220388.2022.2128774. Balineau, Gaëlle, Arthur Bauer, David Louis, Martin Kessler, and Nicole Madariaga. 2021. Food Systems in Africa: Rethinking the Role of Markets. A copublication of the Agence française de développement and The World Bank, Paris/Washington DC. Berg, C. N., Brian Blankespoor, and Harris Selod. 2016. “Roads and Rural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper WPS7729, World Bank, Washington, DC. Casaburi, Lorenzo, Rachel Glennerster, and Tavneet Suri. 2012. “Rural Feeder Roads and Access to Markets.” International Growth Centre Policy Brief 3024. London. Dorosh, Paul, Hyoung-Gun Wang, Liang You, and Emily Schmidt. 2010. “Crop Production and Road Connectivity in Sub-Saharan Africa: Q Spatial Analysis.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5385, Washington DC. Fajgelbaum, Pablo D., and Edouard Schaal. 2019. “Optimal Transport Networks in Spatial Equilibrium.” NBER Working Paper 23200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23200/w23200.pdf. Graff, T. 2019. “Spatial Inefficiencies in Africa’s Trade Network.” NBER Working Paper 25951, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25951. Hassen Nagesso, Tariku Ayele, and Birhanu Nigussie. 2019. “Accessibility of Rural Public Infrastructures and Food Security Among Rural Households in Kersa District, Southwestern Ethiopia.” RST Journal 1 (17): 45–59. Herrera Dappe, Matías, Mathilde Lebrand, and Aiga Stokenberga. 2024. Shrinking Economic Distance: Understanding How Markets and Places Can Lower Transport Costs in Developing Countries. Sustainable Infrastructure Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/infrastructure/publication/shrinking-economic-distance- understanding-how-markets-and-places-can-lower-transport-costs-in-developing-countries. Kebede, Hundanol A., 2024. "Gains from market integration: Welfare effects of new rural roads in Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C). Iimi, A. 2022. “Agriculture Production and Transport Connectivity: Evidence from Mozambique.” Journal of Development Studies 58 (12): 2483–502. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220388.2022.2128774 Iimi, A., Richard Martin Humphreys, and Sevara Melibaeva.2015. Crop Choice and Infrastructure Accessibility in Tanzania: Subsistence Crops or Export Crops? Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/331911467998783156/crop-choice-and-infrastructure-accessibility-in- tanzania-subsistence-crops-or-export-crops. Iimi, A., H. Mengesha, J. Markland, Y. Asrat, and K. Kassahun. 2018. “Heterogeneous Impacts of Main and Feeder Road Improvements: Evidence from Ethiopia.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8548, Washington DC. 102 Ludwig, Catherine, Geetha Nagarajan and Lana Zaman. 2016. Systematic Review of the Effects of Rural Roads on Expanding Agricultural Markets in Developing Countries. Paper prepared for USAID. https://fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/ffpr_roads_systematic_review_final.pdf Nagesso, H., T Ayele, and B Nigussie. 2019. Accessibility of rural public infrastructures and food security among rural households in Kersa District, South Western Ethiopia . Research and Science Today. Issue 1. Pages 45 – 59. Nakamura, S., T. Bundervoet and M. Nuru. 2019. “Rural Roads, Poverty and Resilience: Evidence from Ethiopia.” Poverty & Equity Global Practice Working Paper 195, World Bank, Washington, DC. Raballand, Gael, Rebecca Thornton, Dean Yang, Jessica Goldberg, Niall Keleher, and Annika Muller. 2011. Are Rural Road Investments Alone Sufficient to Generate Transport Flows? Lessons from a Randomized Experiment in Rural Malawi and Policy Implications. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/755421468089952316/are-rural-road-investments-alone-sufficient-to- generate-transport-flows-lessons-from-a-randomized-experiment-in-rural-malawi-and-policy- implications. Rubaba Ali, A. Federico Barra, Claudia N. Berg, Richard Damania, John D. Nash and Jason Russ. 2015. “Infrastructure in Conflict-Prone and Fragile Environments: Evidence from the Democratic Republic of Congo.” Policy Research Working Paper 7273, World Bank, Washington DC. Sergio Oliete Josa, and Francesc Magrinyà. 2018: “Patchwork in an Interconnected World: The Challenges of Transport Networks in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Transport Reviews 38 (6). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2017.1414899. Sieber, Niklas, and Heather Allen. 2016. “Impacts of Rural Roads on Poverty and Equity.” Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific 86. Teravaninthorn, S., and G. Raballand. 2009. Transport Prices and Costs in Africa: A Review of the International Corridors. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank, and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2021. A Blueprint for Strengthening Food System Resilience in West Africa: Regional Priority Intervention Areas. Washington DC. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/159271620852988135/a-blueprint-for-strengthening-food-system- resilience-in-west-africa-regional-priority-intervention-areas. Zakaree, S.S. 2022. “Road Transport System in the Rural Areas and Food Security in Nigeria: A Case of Akinyele Local Government of Oyo State, Nigeria.” Journal of Business Management and Accounting 12 (2): 103–18. https://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jbma/article/view/15492. Zhou, Zhou, Jianqiang Duan, Wenxing Li, and Shaoqing Geng. 2021. “Can Rural Road Construction Promote the Sustainable Development of Regional Agriculture in China?” Sustainability 13: 10882. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910882. 103 Chapter 6 Inadequate Food Storage and Poor Food Handling Practices This chapters delves into postharvest losses in Africa, which are substantial. It highlights how inadequate storage and poor handling practices are linked to deficiencies in transport and logistics connectivity. Key Findings and Messages • Up to 40 percent for perishables and 20–25 percent for cereals are lost postharvest in Sub- Saharan Africa. These losses are driven largely by inadequate storage, poor transport infrastructure, and inefficient logistics. • Sub-Saharan Africa’s storage capacity is less than 10 percent of its food production. Countries like Ethiopia, which rely on both domestic production and imports, face persistent food shortages because of inadequate storage and logistical bottlenecks. Investing in better transport systems would enhance the use of existing storage facilities and reduce food losses in transit. • Efficient storage facilities, along with reliable transport connectivity, ensure a steady supply of food throughout the year, even in regions with seasonal production fluctuations or geographic isolation. Empirical evidence shows that improving both storage and transport capacity can reduce the need for costly government interventions in food price stabilization and procurement. • Strategic grain reserves play a critical role in managing food security during crises, but their effectiveness depends on robust transport and logistics connectivity, the cost of capital, and effective information systems. Food Loss across Agriculture Supply Chains in Africa One of the major weaknesses of Africa ’s food systems is the incidence and magnitude of losses across the supply chains, caused in part by poor handling from farm to market and in storage. Storage is an integral element of agricultural supply chains, used to mitigate postharvest losses, improve or maintain product quality, and enhance market access for farmers and consumers. Adequate storage also provides economic benefits and improves market access for farmers. With proper storage, farmers can store their produce and sell it when market conditions are favorable, rather than immediately after harvest, when prices are typically lower. The use of warehouse receipt systems enables farmers to use stored commodities as collateral for loans, improving their financial stability and market access. Storage facilities also contribute to food security by ensuring a steady supply of food products throughout the year, regardless of seasonal fluctuations in production. This benefit is particularly important in regions where production is limited to specific seasons of the year or is prone to climatic fluctuations and other disruptions. Local storage facilities reduce the need for government intervention in price support and procurement activities, lowering food security investments. One of the most visible symptoms of poor supply chain management, especially storage of agricultural commodities, is the high incidence of postharvest losses. Totobesola and others (2021) based on analysis of the food loss situation in Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda find large losses and advocate for a paradigm shift in how African countries consider storage and other points of loss along agricultural supply chains. A recent assessment by Rutta (2024) estimates that 104 postharvest losses in Sub-Saharan Africa are around 20 percent for cereals, 25 percent for rice and maize, and up to 40 percent for perishable crops like fruits and vegetables. The African Postharvest Losses Information System (APHLIS) in 2012 estimate that physical losses for grain before processing can translate to approximately $1.6 billion a year in Eastern and Southern Africa alone (Brenton 2012). Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa stem from various factors, mainly inadequate storage, poor handling practices, and pest infestations (Mejia 2005). Despite recognition of the problem, the quantity of food lost in Sub-Saharan Africa continues to increase (figure 6.1).21 We estimate that the quantity of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat lost each year rose by 50 between 2010 and 2022, from 22.5 million to 33.8 million tonnes, equivalent to 30 percent of imports of those commodities. Affognon and others (2015) note that lost quantities understate the severity of the food loss problem, because quality degradation reduces the value of food, potentially reducing farmers’ incomes by more than the quantity losses. Figure 6.1 Estimates of quantities of postharvest losses of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub- Saharan Africa, 2010–22 Cassava Maize 25,000 8,000 Losses (thousands of tonnes) 7,000 Losses (thousands of tonnes) 20,000 6,000 15,000 5,000 4,000 10,000 3,000 2,000 5,000 1,000 0 0 2017 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2013 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Central East Southern West Central East Southern West 21 Recent World Bank projects supporting grain storage facilities include the Bangladesh Modern Food Storage Facilities Project (P120583), which aims to increase grain reserves and improve storage efficiency by constructing modern silos and distributing household silos to vulnerable groups, and the Mexico Grain Storage and Information for Agricultural Competitiveness Project (P160570), which invested in grain storage infrastructure, including the upgrading of existing facilities and the building of new ones, and supported capacity building and training for operators. 105 Rice Wheat 4,000 900 800 3,500 Losses (thousands of tonnes) Losses (thousands of tonnes) 700 3,000 600 2,500 500 2,000 400 1,500 300 1,000 200 500 100 0 0 2018 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021 2022 Central East Southern West Central East Southern West Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat Table 6.1 provides estimates from the literature of the perishability of the studied commodities. The values—which range from a quarter to more than half of the value of commodities that could be lost because of spoilage—underscore the importance of storage to food security. Table 6.1 Perishability and storage of cassava, maize, rice, and wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa Commodity Perishability Spoilage Source Cassava If untreated, less than two days. 44 percent but can be plus or Tomlings and others 2021. minus 28 percent Affognon and others 2015 Maize Can be stored for up to two years In storage: up to 27 percent Stahters and others 2020. depending on the quality of the weight loss (postharvest loss: Farmersreviewafrica.com. storage 25±27 percent Affognon and others 2015 Wheat Can be stored for up to a year Up to 55 percent: 15 percent Manandhar and others 2018 (Dessalegn and others 2014) in the field, 13–20 percent during processing and 15–25 percent during storage Rice Under good conditions, can be 48 percent postharvest loss of Ndindeng and others 2021; stored for more than 1 year (even expected total production in Affognon and others 2015 up to 30 years) (Rice Knowledge Sub-Saharan Africa in 2018 bank) Given the seasonal patterns of rainfed production that are prevalent across much of Africa, storage plays an important role in the functioning of food systems. Public grain stocks are most effective in the short term, especially for bridging the time needed to import food and targeting support to help ensure the most vulnerable have food to eat in times of market shocks. Sub-Saharan Africa has a limited ability to build and maintain cereal inventories, with many countries lacking basic elements of public storage infrastructure, such as silos and warehouses. Many developing 106 countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, have set up strategic grain reserves that store food staples that can be managed to stabilize food prices and mitigate the impacts of food crises (Figure 6.2). Some researchers caution that strategic storage can be more costly than alternative policies, such as targeted transfers or subsidies, which directly offset high prices for specific groups of people. Figure 6.2 Cereal stocks in Sub-Saharan Africa and rest of world 160 140 120 Stocks of cereals (million tonnes) 100 80 60 40 20 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 -20 -40 -60 Africa RoW Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. Figure 6.3 shows the relationship between variation in cereal stocks and the cereal trade balance for various African countries in 2022. Four types of countries can be distinguished based on their balances and changes in cereal stocks: • Double deficit: Some countries—including Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya,, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, and Zambia—experienced both a negative trade balance and a reduction in cereal stocks, indicating potential strain on food security. Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Malawi are on the list of food insecurity hotspots; Zambia is not but still facing dual challenges that are exacerbating food insecurity. • Balancing act: Some countries—including Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Sierra Leone—have negative trade balances but increased their cereal stocks. A positive stock variation can help mitigate the impact of high imports on food security, underscoring the importance of effective stock management. • Exporting at a cost: South Africa is an outlier, with a positive trade balance but a reduction in cereal stocks. It has the largest storage capacity on the continent and an effective grain stock management program. • Optimal growth: Mozambique increased its cereal stocks despite a negative trade balance, indicating effective stock management or increased production. It highlights the potential for growth and stability in the cereal market, even in the face of trade deficits. 107 Figure 6.3 Typology of cereal trade balances and stock variations, 2022 Source: Authors, based on data from ITC TradeMap and FAOStat. Interest in storage facilities in Africa reflects the elevated vulnerability of the continent to droughts, other climate-related disasters, and armed conflict. The provision of relief supplies is often managed through strategic reserves (Ahmed, Abdelsalam, and Siddig 2012). However, the limited data available suggest that countries in Sub-Saharan African have very limited grain storage capacity. In higher-income regions, storage capacity tends to exceed annual production (Figure 6.4). In contrast, we estimate that storage capacity for 12 countries on which we could compile data is equivalent to less than 10 percent of total annual food production and less than half of the volume of food imports (figure 6.4). 108 Figure 6.4 Estimated food storage capacity as a proportion of production in selected regions and countries 1.40 Storage capacity as a proportion of 1.20 1.00 production 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Source: Authors, based on data from various sources.22 Ethiopia: A Case Study on National Storage for Food Security Ethiopia’s economy depends largely on agriculture, the source of livelihood for most of the population. Based on data from FAOStat in 2019, the country produced 31.6 million tonnes of cereal crops and imported about 1.5 million tonnes of various food products. Despite the volume of production and imports, Ethiopia struggles with food shortages. More than 21.4 million of the country’s 127 million people needed humanitarian assistance in 2024 (Ethiopian Humanitarian Response Plan, 2024). Due to recurring food crises, Ethiopia has since the 1950s had policies for maintaining grain reserves (Rashid and Lemma 2011; Mulugeta 2018). Table 6.2 summarizes key institutions and objectives over time to maintain such reserves and respond to food emergencies. The first dedicated agency was the Emergency Food Reserve Administration (EFRA) which was established in the aftermath of the 1973–74 22 https://www.thegazette.news/news/pandamatenga-silos-to-boost-national-food- security/#:~:text=The%20Pandamatenga%20Silos%20Project%20has,to%2090%20000%20metric%20tonnes.&text =The%20silos%20project%20has%20a,were%20in%20the%20national%20reserve; SONAGESS; https://fews.net/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FEWS%20NET%20BurkinaFaso%20MFR_final_20170929_0 .pdf; National cereals board of Cameroon https://www.businessincameroon.com/agriculture/0409-10778- cameroon-national-cereals-board-estimates-current-storage-capacity-at-47-650- tons#:~:text=Cameroon:%20National%20cereals%20board%20estimates,47%2C650%20tons%20%2D%20Business %20in%20Cameroon; https://lca.logcluster.org/print-preview-current-section/3352; https://www.fao.org/4/w4979e/w4979e0a.htm; https://clubofmozambique.com/news/mozambique-to-expand- silos-and-warehousing-capacities-watch-186655/; https://www.amta.na/nfsr/#:~:text=The%20Namibian%20Government%20through%20the,in%20the%20progress %20of%20expanding; https://nextbillion.net/warehouse-solution-smart-storage-africa-food-security/; https://www.inter-reseaux.org/publication/54-56-les-cereales-au-coeur-de-la-souverainete-alimentaire-en- afrique-louest/la-sonagess-au-burkina-faso-une-politique-dapprovisionnement-aupres-des-op/; https://www.africa-press.net/tanzania/community/nfra-storage-capacity-increases-considerably; https://www.world-grain.com/articles/18035-zimbabwe-expanding-grain-storage-capacity 109 famine to manage food reserves and address structural deficits, production shocks, and infrastructural bottlenecks. Since then, the agency has evolved into the Strategic Food Reserve Agency (SFRA) in 2013, focusing on better management of food reserves and strategic stockholding, and more recently, some of its original functions were folded into the National Disaster and Risk Management Commission (NDRMC). Table 6.2 Evolution of food price stabilization and market-related organizations in Ethiopia Period/institution Objectives 1950– 1970s: Ethiopian Grain • Control prices Marketing Board (EGMB) • Manage export licensing for oilseeds and pulses, quality control • Supervise marketing intelligence • Regulate domestic and export purchases and sales 1973–74: Relief and Rehabilitation • Manage emergencies Commission (RRC) 1974–76: Agriculture Marketing • Manage all aspects of grain marketing Corporation (AMC) • Procure grain for public distribution and price stabilization. (EGMB reformed into AMC) • Set wholesale prices • Buy and sell inputs • Set restrictions on private grain trade and interregional grain movement, • Determine the days on which local markets had to be held • Ration grain to urban consumers • Manage the import and export of cereals, agricultural products, and marketing of inputs 1982: Food Security Unit or Emergency • Manage emergencies Food Security Reserve Administration • Maintain adequate reserve to be used in case of disasters, structural under RRC deficits, production shocks, and infrastructural bottlenecks 1992: Ethiopian Grain Trade Enterprise • Stabilize producer and consumer prices (EGTE) (AMC restructured to EGTE) • Maintain buffer stock for market stabilization 1992: Emergency Food Security • Provide emergency loans to relief and rehabilitation agencies Reserve Administration (EFSRA) • Ensure smooth operation of relief agencies’ efforts during temporary (autonomous agency) shortages 1993: Disaster Preparedness and • Coordinate food and nonfood emergency responses Prevention Commission (DPPC) (RRC reformed into DPPC) 2015: Ethiopian Trading Businesses • Create market opportunities for farmers and commodity processors Corporation (amalgamation of the • Stabilize grain and commodities prices and protect consumers from EGTE, the Ethiopian Commercial unfair prices Enterprise, the Procurement Service • Export grain, to generate foreign currency Enterprise, and the Ethiopian Vegetable and Fruits Share Company) 2007: EFSRA (some reforms • Strengthen national preparedness to address food gaps in times of introduced) natural and man-made disasters on time 110 2021: Warehouse Receipts System • Enable individuals to store their goods, particularly standardized agricultural products, in warehouses and borrow money upon delivery of the warehouse receipt as collateral • Establish a valid contract between the bailee (who receive goods) and the bailor (who deliver the goods) and properly direct and administer the system. • To create an organized and efficient marketing system for agricultural products. 2013: Strategic Food Reserve Agency • Establish national preparedness capacity to address food gaps arising (SFRA) (EFSRA becomes SFRA) from disasters in a timely manner • Provide emergency loans to relief and rehabilitation agencies • Encourage grain production and protect farmers’ income by providing them with a floor price in case of market failure • Distribute grain during periods of market volatility and high inflation, to help consumers access food in local markets at affordable prices • Export grain, to generate foreign currency. 2015: National Disaster Risk • Enhance the coordination of emergency preparedness Management Commission (NDRMC) • Strengthen government ownership of disaster prevention (DPPC reformed into NDRMC) • Improve the rapid response to disasters and emergencies 2018: SFRA mandate transferred to • To establish a comprehensive and coordinated disaster risk NDRMC management system across the country, focusing on prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery measures through policy formulation, monitoring, coordination, and capacity building efforts. In its different forms, what is now the NDRMC is the result of various reforms over time, starting in 1992 when EFSRA was established as an autonomous agency to provide emergency loans to relief and rehabilitation agencies. Initially, its objective was to maintain a rotating stock of cereals and facilitate the operations of relief agencies when responding to emergencies by availing cereals (Rashid and Lemma 2011; Harbeli 2013). In 2004/05, for example, the stockpile was increased to an amount considered sufficient to serve at least 95 percent of the food-insecure population for a period of four months (Rashid, Dorosh, and Alemu 2018). The threshold was established to reduce delays in distribution when emergencies occur and give adequate lead time to import cereals by the government and NGOs to substitute the stockpile. In emergencies, NDRMC releases cereals based on promissory notes from donors or the government ensuring replenishment within an agreed period. Upon donor confirmation, both NGOs (such as the World Food Program) and governments borrow cereals for distribution, repaying them once the grain is secured from other sources. This process is designed to maintain consistent quantities and quality of food through regular rotation. Storage Infrastructure There are three main layers to food storage infrastructure in Ethiopia, typical of many other countries in Africa namely, household, community and central government. (a) Farm: Most food produced in Ethiopia, as in many other low-income economies, is stored at the farm. Storage facilities at that level are built using locally available resources, such as mud, wood, wheat straw, cow dung, and sometimes bricks. Generally, households in Ethiopia keep 65 percent of the grain they produce for home consumption and sell the rest in the market (Bachewe and others 2018). However, the volume that is sold varies greatly by commodity, and would depend on the level of harvest, household 111 wealth status, and expected market price. (b) Traders: Above the household level, communities or traders store produce in small warehouses of varying capacities. The facilities are made of corrugated iron, hollow blocks, small silos, bricks, or temporary shades (Gabriele and Hundie 2004). In some cases, millers also store produce. (c) Government: Most of the large stocks of produce are store in government facilities. Vital agricultural commodities and staples such as cereals, oilseeds, coffee, and other non-perishable agricultural products, as well as fertilizers, are stored in public sector owned or operated warehouses (Ethiopia Trade Logistics Project, 2024). The federal government in Ethiopia operates approximately 873 warehouses either through ownership or by leasing from the private sector. These warehouses play a crucial role in th e country’s food security infrastructure, serving as vital hubs for storing essential food commodities. Overall, such warehouses play a crucial role in supporting the agricultural sector, providing essential infrastructure for preserving and managing agricultural commodities.  In addition to the warehouses managed by the federal government, Ethiopia also benefits from additional storage facilities owned or operated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Notably, three main humanitarian organizations, namely the World Food Program (WFP), the Catholic Relief Society (CRS), and the International Rescue Committee (IRC), play pivotal roles in emergency food distribution across the country. Combined, the warehouses operated by these organizations have a cumulative capacity of 978,880 metric tonnes, further expanding the country’s food storage capacity. Overall, Ethiopia has an estimated food storage capacity of 3,960,991.56 MT at the federal level, spread throughout the country (table 6.3). However, the purpose of the warehouses operated by both the government and humanitarian organizations varies greatly. The government organizations store cereals primarily for stabilizing the local market and conducting integrated business activities, as well as ensuring accountability and efficiency in the grain market. On the other hand, the humanitarian organizations and the NDRMC utilize warehouses for storing cereals specifically for emergency food assistance security purposes. This strategic allocation of resources allows for efficient management and distribution of food supplies during times of crisis. Table 6.3 Subnational food storage capacity operated by federal government Total Total Federally operated storage capacity government NGO Region ETBC ECX EABC NDRMC EDR Addis Ababa 170,500 300,000 12,000 482,500 11,766 Afar 33,000 Amhara 187,200 59,397 34,600 120,000 401,197 101,590 B/Gumuz 35,965 35,965 11,262 Dire Dawa 50,500 58,000 25,000 8,000 141,500 170,074 Gambela 9,300 Oromia 448,400 863,370 34,500 135,000 29,590 1,510,860 348,711 SNNP 277,500 40,000 317,500 74,662 Somali 40,000 2,590 42,590 73,696 Tigray 10,000 40,000 50,000 144,819 112 Total 856,600 1,604,231 81,100 400,000 40,180 2,982,111 978,880 Source: Authors, based on data is from the Ethiopia Logistics Master Plan diagnostic survey (2024- Unpublished) and Ethiopian Storage assessment data from https://dlca.logcluster.org/ethiopia. Figure 6.5 shows the locations of food the storage facilities in Ethiopia relative to the transport network, specifically roads. Three quarters of the storage facilities are situated within 5 km of the nearest trunk road. In fact, road transport is the dominant mode of transport for both passengers and freight. It accounts for more than 95 percent of the country’s total domestic passenger and cargo traffic, despite the country’s limited road network, small transport vehicle fleet, and low coverage of road transport services. However, road transport is also quite costly and often does not have adequate capacity, especially when the demand for commodity shipments is high. Rail transport is available on the main Ethiopia—Djibouti corridor and has some associated storage facilities for cereals but is not extensively utilized for grain shipments, except in exceptional circumstances. This is even though the railway operator has its own grain storage infrastructure in Ethiopia, albeit of limited capacity. Figure 6.5 Storage locations and distance from trunk road Source: Authors, based on data from various sources 113 Box 6.1 Wheat value chain in Ethiopia Smallholder farmers dominate the wheat farming landscape in Ethiopia, utilizing traditional farming techniques to manage their plots. As of 2022, the total number of wheat farmers is estimated to be between 6 and 6.5 million, with the majority located in the Oromia and Amhara regions. These farmers are responsible for the entire cultivation process, including land preparation, sowing, crop health management, and harvesting. Although smallholder farmers primarily drive wheat production, a small fraction of wheat is produced on large commercial farms, which account for 3–5 percent of the total cultivated land. The wheat value chain in Ethiopia begins with the supply of essential inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, and agricultural equipment, like other grain crops. Seeds are distributed by government as well as private companies and NGOs. Generally, the distribution of seeds remains predominantly informal, with a significant portion of the seed trade occurring through farmer-to-farmer exchanges. Village collectors often serve as the initial point of sale, purchasing wheat directly from farmers and aggregating small quantities into larger volumes suitable for wholesale markets. Wholesalers play a crucial role in the value chain by buying wheat in bulk from these collectors and, at times, directly from the farmers themselves. They then sell the wheat to processors, and retailers, or engage in exporting. Additionally, wholesalers are responsible for much of the wheat storage, providing a buffer against market fluctuations. Wheat passes through multiple marketing channels that may involve direct sales from producers to consumers or more complex routes involving numerous intermediaries. Each channel adds certain values, whether through storage (time), transformation (form), or transportation (place), ultimately affecting the final product’s cost and accessibility. The retailers, such as grocery stores, supermarkets, and local market stalls that purchase flour and other wheat-based products from processors or wholesalers, resell the flour to the public. Restaurants and bakeries also purchase wheat flour to produce bread, pasta, and other dishes for consumption and sell it as value added product to the public. Currently, there are more than 600 small and large flour mills in Ethiopia, with a total production capacity of between 3 million to 4.2 million tonnes of wheat flour a year. It is estimated that a third of these mills are in and around the country’s capital, Addis Ababa. Millers access their wheat supply either through government distribution of the imported subsidized wheat, at much lower prices than prevailing open market rates, or the domestic market, which has a much higher price for the commodity. In addition to the local production, the country also imports wheat in bulk to compensate for the growing local consumption. In 2022, Ethiopia imported $1.07 billion in wheat from the United States, Ukraine, Argentina, Romania, and India, becoming the 21st largest importer of Wheat in the world. The imported grain arrives mainly through the Port of Djibouti, and to a much lesser extent, and mainly wheat imported through WFP, through the Port of Berbera in Somaliland. All the imported grain is bagged in 50kg bags at the port facilities before being transported to Ethiopia and loaded manually on the trucks which are time- consuming and labor-intensive. The bags are loaded onto the trucks from the bagging area and the trucks then proceed to Ethiopia, usually directly to the warehouse the wheat has been assigned to. In case of a decision to transport the grain for import or export using the railway, it needs to be bagged at the quayside, loaded onto a truck, and then loaded into the wagons. In recent years, the government of Ethiopia has been working to increase wheat production and reduce imports. As a result of these efforts, the country started exporting wheat. In 2022, Ethiopia exported 114 $2.79k in Wheat to Israel, Morocco, the United States, and the Netherlands, making it the 116 exporters of Wheat in the world (OEC 2022). Regional Approach to Enhancing Food Storage Ethiopia is an example of a country that adopted a national approach to maintaining strategic grain reserves. Some groups of countries have also considered regional solutions for similar objectives. One of the prominent examples is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) which in 1979 established the Rice Reserve System by partnering with China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea to form the ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve, which aims to help member countries overcome food shortages after natural and humanitarian crises. The system has been underutilized and criticized for a lack of effective activation mechanisms. In Africa a regional approach to maintaining strategic reserves of food has been in West Africa as part of the ECOWAS agricultural policy (ECOWAP). The regional approach was adopted in 2012. The initiative was in response to the region's structural food and nutritional insecurity, which has been exacerbated by cyclical shocks such as climatic variability, locust attacks, and socio-economic changes (World Bank and FAO, 2021). The operationalization of the regional system began in 2015 with the support of the G20, the European Union, and technical partners like the French Development Agency (AFD) and the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation. The primary objectives of the food reserve system are twofold: (a) to cope with shocks and (b) to support the structuring of agricultural value chains and the regulation of food markets. It is a layered approach (Figure 6.6) conceived as lines of defence, starting at the local level on extending to international assistance, when needed. Figure 6.6 Four lines of defense of ECOWAS Food Reserve System International Assistance: Involves UN agencies, development agencies, and non- governmental organizations when other lines of defense prove insufficient. Regional Food Security Reserve (RFSR): Managed by ECOWAS to complement national efforts and provide regional solidarity. National Security Storage: Managed by states or co-managed with financial partners to provide a second line of defense. Local Storage: Managed by producer organizations or decentralized authorities to respond quickly to shocks. Source, Authors based on World Bank and FAO, 2021 115 Management of the reserve Stocks held by the participating countries are an important component of the regional food reserve system, serving as the second line of defense. The countries have storage policies, governance schemes, types of intervention instruments, and the level of sovereignty over stock operations, all of which were considered when defining the size of the regional reserve. Some countries have well-developed and stabilized storage instruments, while others are still in the process of developing their national storage policies. The governance of these stocks varies, with some countries having physical stocks, financial reserves, or a combination of both. One of the key commitments within the regional storage strategy is the pooling of 5 percent of national stocks to meet the needs of countries facing food crises. This pooling can be done in three ways: 1. Pooling of 5 percent of the national physical food security reserve and/or the national financial food security reserve. 2. Voluntary mobilization of national food security stocks and financial assistance to other countries in case of a food crisis. 3. Combination of the first two options The RFSR serves as the third line of defense. It aims to respond effectively to food crises in the region and has three specific objectives: 1. Complementing the efforts of Member States to provide rapid and diversified food and nutritional assistance. 2. Expressing regional solidarity with affected Member States and populations through transparent, equitable, and predictable mechanisms. 3. Contributing to food sovereignty and the political, economic, and trade integration of West Africa The RFSR is composed of two instruments: a physical stock and a financial reserve. The physical stock is stored within sub-areas of countries grouped according to diets, main production basins, and the intensity of food risk. The RFSR is triggered in response to a food crisis based on a request from an ECOWAS member country. The request must include information on the food and nutrition situation, assistance needs, national stock status, and the modalities of replenishment. The Reserve Management Committee then decides on the mobilization of the RFSR based on specific trigger criteria Since its inception, the ECOWAS regional grain reserve initiative has significantly increased the storage capacity for grains in the region, enabling ECOWAS to maintain a buffer stock of grains that can be quickly mobilized during emergencies. This has been crucial in improving food security, as the grain reserves have been utilized during food shortages to provide emergency food supplies to affected populations, thereby preventing hunger and malnutrition. Additionally, by releasing grains from the reserves during periods of high food prices, ECOWAS has stabilized food prices in the region, helping to protect vulnerable populations from the adverse effects of food price volatility. The initiative has also 116 strengthened the capacity of national and regional institutions to manage and operate grain reserves, improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the grain reserve system. However, despite these achievements, the ECOWAS regional grain reserve initiative faces several challenges, including securing sustainable funding for the operation and maintenance of the grain reserves logistical challenges, as the transportation and distribution of grains across the region can be difficult due to poor infrastructure and logistical constraints, potentially delaying the delivery of emergency food supplies to affected populations; climate-related shocks that disrupt agricultural production and increase the demand for emergency food supplies and political instability and weak institutions in some member countries impede the implementation of the initiative. Summary This chapter makes a case for food storage as an element of supply chain infrastructure and management. Investing in food storage infrastructure in Africa is essential for reducing food losses, managing supply chain complexities, and mitigating price and supply volatility. While there are challenges associated with food storage, the experiences of Ethiopia and ECOWAS highlight viable options for improving food security across the continent. (a) Firstly, food losses in Africa are alarmingly high, primarily due to inadequate storage infrastructure and poor food handling practices. Proper storage facilities can significantly reduce these losses, ensuring that more food reaches consumers and less is wasted. (b) Secondly, Africa's food supply chains are notably long, with extended lead times from production to consumption. This necessitates maintaining a minimum amount of stock in storage to buffer against delays and ensure a steady supply of food. Without adequate storage, any disruption in the supply chain can lead to severe shortages, exacerbating food insecurity. (c) Thirdly, price and supply volatility further underscore the need for robust food storage systems. Fluctuations in food prices and supply can be mitigated by having reserves in storage, providing a buffer that stabilizes markets and ensures consistent availability of food products. This is crucial for both consumers and producers, as it helps maintain economic stability and predictability. However, storing food is not without its complexities and risks. Effective food storage requires careful management to prevent spoilage, pest infestations, and other issues that can compromise food quality and safety. This necessitates investment in modern storage technologies and training for those involved in food handling and storage. Also, it costs money to keep stocks, with associated financial risks. References Affognon, H., C. Mutungi, P. Sanginga, and C. Borgemeister 2015. “Unpacking Postharvest Losses in Sub- Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis.” World Development 66: 49–68. Ahiaba, U., A. Parsa, and J. Kempton. 2019. “Typology of Grain Storage Structures in Rural Communities in Kogi State-Nigeria: Economic Implications on the Rural Farmers.” American Journal of Rural Development 7 (1): 14–25. https://pubs.sciepub.com/ajrd/7/1/3/index.html. Ahmed, A. E., S.M. Abdelsalam, and K.H.A. Siddig. 2012. “Do Grain Reserves Necessarily Contribute to Prices Stability and Food Security in Sudan? An Assessment.” Journal of the Saudi Society of 117 Agricultural Sciences 11 (2): 143–48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658077X12000082. Bachewe, F., B. Minten, A.S. Taffesse, K. Pauw, A. Cameron, and T.G. Endaylalu. 2018. “Farmers’ Grain Storage and Losses in Ethiopia: Measures and Associates.” Working Paper 115, Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI). Addis Ababa. Brenton, P. 2012. Africa Can Help Feed Africa: Removing Barriers to Regional Trade in Food Staples. Washington, DC: World Bank. DAI Europe. 2018. Using food reserves to enhance food and nutrition security in developing countries: Case Studies. Report for European Commission. Ethiopian Humanitarian Response Plan. 2024. https://humanitarianaction.info/plan/1195 Gabriel, A.H., and B. Hundie. 2004. Post-Harvest Grain Management Practices and Food Security in Ethiopia: Farmers’ Perception of Risk, Post-Harvest Management Choices, and Their Impact on Household Food Security. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Gebreab, Y., D. Wondim, and T.T. Ameda. 2020. “Value Chain Analysis of Maize: The Case of Dembecha District, West Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia.” Int. J. Arts Humanit. Soc. Sci. Stud. Volume 4 (8). pages 63 – 73 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342261151_Value_Chain_Analysis_of_Maize_The_Case_ of_Dembecha_District_West_Gojjam_Zone_Ethiopia. Gebreselassie, S., M. Haile, and M. Kalkuhl, M. “The Wheat Sector in Ethiopia: Current Status and Key Challenges for Future Value Chain Development.” ZEF (Center for Development Research) Working Paper 160. University of Bonn. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3013041. Georgise, F., and A. Mindaye. 2020 “Technologies for Storage & Warehouse Management of Coffee Beans in Ethiopia.” Technol. Rep. Kansai Univ. 62: 5375–9. Häberli, C. 2013. “Ethiopia’s Food Reserve Policies and Practice.” NCCR Trade Regulation World Trade Institute (WTI), Swiss National Center of Competence in Research. Bern. https://www.wti.org/research/publications/471/ethiopias-food-reserve-policies-and-practice/. Lautze, S., A.R. Roberts, and T. Erkineh. 2009. “Humanitarian Governance in Ethiopia.” Humanitarian Practice Network. https://odihpn.org/publication/humanitarian-governance-in-ethiopia/. Lilliston, B., and A. Ranallo. 2012. “Grain Reserves and the Food Price Crisis: Selected Writings from 2008–2012.” Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis. Mejia, D. 2005. Eastern Africa: A Study of the Regional Maize Market and Marketing Costs. Washington, DC: World Bank Mulugeta, B. “Warehouse Receipt System in Ethiopia: Its Legal and Practical Significance with Emphasis on Its Role in Securing Transactions.” Addis Ababa University School of Law. http://thesisbank.jhia.ac.ke/4045/. Mulugeta, M. 2018. “Food Reserve System in Ethiopia: Assessment of the Current Implementation Technicalities and Policy Recommendations.” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 17 (5). https://jsd-africa.com/Jsda/Vol17No5- Fall15A/PDF/Food%20Reserve%20System%20in%20Ethiopia.Messay%20Mulugeta.pdf. OEC (Observatory of Economic Complexity). n.d. Wheat in Ethiopia.” https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/wheat/reporter/eth. Pauw, S. 2017. “Agricultural Commercialization in Ethiopia: A Review of Warehouse Receipts in the Maize, Wheat, Sorghum, and Tef Value Chains.” https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00SRSX.pdf 118 Proctor, D.L. 1994. Grain Storage Techniques: Evolution and Trends in Developing Countries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Rashid, S., and S. Lemma. 2011. “Strategic Grain Reserves in Ethiopia: Institutional Design and Operational Performance.” https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/01054.html Rashid, S., and A. Negassa. 2011. Policies and Performance of Ethiopian Cereal Markets. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute. https://www.ifpri.org/publication/policies-and- performance-ethiopian-cereal-markets-0/. Rashid, S., P.A. Dorosh, and D. Alemu. 2018. “Grain Markets, Disaster Management, and Public Stocks: Lessons from Ethiopia.” Global Food Security 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.09.002. Rutta, E.W. 2024. “Postharvest Food Loss Reduction and Agriculture Policy Framework in Tanzania: Status and Way Forward.” Agriculture and Food Security 13 (36). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066- 024-00489-x. Senbeta, A.F., and W. Worku. “Ethiopia’s Wheat Production Pathways to Self-Sufficiency through Land Area Expansion, Irrigation Advance, and Yield Gap Closure.” Heliyon 9 (10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20720. Taffesse, A.S. 1997. “Government Policy and Dynamic Supply Response: A Study of the Compulsory Grain Delivery System.” University Library of Munich. Teferra, T.F. 2022. “The Cost of Postharvest Losses in Ethiopia: Economic and Food Security Implications.” Heliyon 8 (3). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35299606/. Teshome, D., E. Mussa, A. Dessie, T. Abate, and D. Ayalew 2023. “Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Metal Silo Cereal Storage Technology in Northeast Ethiopia.” Heliyon 9 (8). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37534014/. Totobesola, M., Delve, R., Nkundimana, J.d. et al. 2022. A holistic approach to food loss reduction in Africa: food loss analysis, integrated capacity development and policy implications. Food Sec. 14, 1401–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01243-y UN (United Nations). “18 million in Africa’s Sahel on ‘the Brink of Starvation.’” UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/05/1118702#:~:text=As%2018%20million%20people%20in,hum anitarian%20response%20across%20four%20countries. USAID (US Agency for International Development). 2017. Value Chain Analysis: Maize Feed the Future Ethiopia Value Chain Activity. Washington, DC. Woldeyohannes, A.B., E.A. Desta, C. Fadda, and M. Dell’Acqua. 2022. “Value of Teff (Eragrostis Tef) Genetic Resources to Support Breeding for Conventional and Smallholder Farming: A Review.” CABI Agriculture and Bioscience 3 (27). doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-022-00076-9. World Bank and FAO. 2021. A Blueprint for Strengthening Food System Resilience in West Africa: Regional Priority Intervention Areas. Washington, DC.: The World Bank and FAO; and AMIS. 2021. Grains Storage and Global Food Security. Research Paper No. 7: AMIS. World Bank. 2015. Warehouse Receipt Financing: The Experience of Access Bank Madagascar. Washington, DC. https://www.findevgateway.org/paper/2015/03/warehouse-receipt-financing- experience-access-bank-madagascar. 119 Chapter 7 Diagnosis of and Recommendations for Improving Transport for Food This chapter distills the main insights from the analysis and proposes measures to strengthen the resilience of food systems through transport interventions. Key Findings and Messages • Africa’s agricultural supply chains are long and inefficient, increasing food prices and reducing access. Locally grown crops like maize and cassava face high transport costs; imported items like rice and wheat suffer from weak infrastructure and fragmented markets. Improving rural road networks and transport systems can enhance food distribution and reduce these inefficiencies. • Food takes too long to reach markets, especially in deficit regions. Long lead times raise costs, increase spoilage, and reduce food insecurity. Enhancing transport infrastructure and local storage capacities could shorten delays, enabling faster food delivery during crises or shortages. • Significant amounts of food—up to 40 percent of perishables and 25 percent of cereals—are lost because of poor handling, storage and weak logistics. Investments in modern storage and better transport infrastructure are crucial to reduce waste, improve food quality, and ensure affordable food access. • Intra-African trade faces high transport costs and non-tariff barriers, making it more expensive to trade within the continent than with global markets. Improved regional transport corridors and streamlined regulations would reduce these costs, promote regional trade, and strengthen Africa’s food security. • Africa’s transport networks are vulnerable to climate disruptions. Building climate-resilient infrastructure and alternative routes are essential to protect food flows during extreme weather events. • There is no on-size fits all solution. Interventions must be based on what and how countries produce and trade and the specifics of their transport networks. In some cases, strengthening rural roads and national transport networks will improve market access, reduce postharvest losses, and enhance food security, particularly in remote areas; in other instances, more attention needs to be paid to seaports and international and regional connectivity. Transport's Role in Food Security and Resilience Transport is an integral element of each stage of the food supply chain. Its importance is often most apparent when there are disruptions to the food system, as happened during the Covid-19 pandemic, in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and during the prolonged drought in the Horn of Africa. Poor transport systems can lead to higher food prices and limit the ability of vulnerable populations to access nutritious food. The efficiency of transport also affects the time taken and the environment in which food is transported, which affect food quality and safety. Transport and trade are two of the levers governments use to maintain the stability of food systems. Transport systems contribute to stability and resilience by facilitating the timely distribution of food during periods of scarcity or disruption, such as after natural disasters or during seasonal shortages. 120 This chapter distills the main findings of the role of transport in enhancing food security and identifies opportunities for a new generation of food security–sensitive operations in some of the most vulnerable countries and in countries that can play greater roles in supplying global markets and affecting each of the four pillars. It starts with the importance of properly diagnosing current or potential food flows. Main Vulnerabilities Threatening Food Security When designing transport interventions to enhance food security, it is crucial to begin with a proper commodity-sensitive diagnostic. This step ensures that the interventions are tailored to the needs and characteristics of the commodities that need to be transported. Different food commodities have different logistical requirements, based on their flow patterns. Staple cereals like rice and maize need dry, well-ventilated storage and transport conditions to avoid moisture and pest infestation; fresh produce requires cold chains and speed. A commodity-sensitive diagnostic helps identify these needs, allowing for the design of transport systems that cater to the unique requirements of each type of food. This targeted approach minimizes losses and ensur es that food reaches its destination in optimal condition, with minimal loss of quantity or quality . Understanding the supply chain dynamics of different commodities is essential for identifying critical bottlenecks and inefficiencies. A diagnostic that considers the entire supply chain —from production and processing to distribution and retail —can pinpoint where delays, high costs, or losses occur. This comprehensive understanding enables interventions to be designed that address specific issues, improving the efficiency and reliability of the food supply chain. It also contributes to developing and strengthening sustainable and resilient food trade, transport, and logistics systems in general. A commodity-sensitive diagnostic can reveal the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of transport interventions. Different commodities have varying levels of importance to local economies and communities. For example, improving the transport of staple foods can directly affect food security and livelihoods in both rural and urban areas, whereas enhancing the logistics of export- oriented crops can boost national economies. The environmental footprint of transporting different commodities also varies, based on distance, transport mode, and perishability. Wheat and rice, which are primarily imported via long maritime routes, have higher carbon footprints; maize, though locally grown, suffers from inefficient road transport, contributing to emissions. Cassava, grown and consumed locally, has a lower transport footprint but faces challenges because of its perishability and reliance on small, inefficient vehicles. To reduce impacts, solutions like improving infrastructure, boosting local production, and adopting sustainable transport technologies are essential. The detailed modelling of food flows in Sub-Saharan Africa provides five insights that are important for a new generation of food security –sensitive transport interventions. Four of them are reflected in figure 7.1. The fifth insight, on vulnerabilities, is specific to the transport sector and reflects aspects of the other four. 121 Figure 7.1 Summary of findings on transport in Sub-Saharan Africa •The quantity of food lost in •The average distance Africa is equivalent to 30 for over which percent of imports of imported food ins staples transported to Africa is 17 times that for grains in the United States High losses Long distances Fragmented Long lead markets times •Trade costs between African •It takes up to 23 days for countries are 20 percent the average country in higher than they are with Sub-Saharan to access all overseas trade partners the food needed to meet its consumption needs. Long Agricultural Commodity Supply Chains Supply chains in Africa are long and fragmented (figure 7.2). It takes up to 10,00 kilometers and 12,000 kilometers to reach 100 percent of the rice and wheat, respectively, needed to meet demand in Africa. Besides long distances, costs of accessing food are increased by inadequate infrastructure, weak market integration, informality, weak institutions and regulations, limited sources of capital, low levels of technology, high costs, and climate and political risks. 122 Figure 7.2 Cumulative population living in areas with the following transport distances, 2023 120% Cumulative proportion of population 100% 80% reachable 60% Cassava Maize 40% Rice 20% Wheat 0% 3,300 0 1,100 2,200 4,400 5,500 6,600 7,700 8,800 9,900 11,000 12,100 13,200 14,300 15,400 16,500 Distance in kilometers Source: Authors, based on model outputs. By mapping commodity supply chains, it is possible to identify specific points of weakness as well as opportunities to strengthen the supply chains. For instance, many rural areas in Africa suffer from inadequate road infrastructure, making transporting goods to urban markets difficult. In addition, some regions face risks of disruption of transport links due to climate change or political unrest. In such cases, more robust transport and storage solutions can ensure stability of food systems. Understanding such vulnerabilities allows for better targeting of interventions. Understanding the topology of commodity supply chains can help identify opportunities for value addition and economic development. By understanding the flow of goods, stakeholders can pinpoint where investments in processing facilities or market infrastructure could create jobs and increase incomes for local communities. Long Lead Times for Food Shipments Shipping food in Africa takes a long time: In many places with food deficits, it takes at least five days for more than 80 percent of food to arrive from its source. Long lead times require advance planning or the maintenance of adequate inventories in local storage facilities else communities suffer food deprivation. Without proper storage, food insecurity becomes an urgent logistics operation, often at much higher costs. If the various initiatives to improve transport infrastructure in Africa are implemented, the model outputs suggest that there would be a marked reduction in time for commodities such as wheat that are largely imported from outside the continent (figure 7.3). The proportion of people with access to wheat within 25 days would increase from 60 percent in 2023 to approximately 95 percent by 2050. 123 Figure 7.3 Estimate of impact to food of continental initiatives, example of wheat 1.2 Cumulative proportion of population 1 0.8 0.6 reachable 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Number of days 2023 Do Nothing by 2050 Implement continental initiatives by 2025 Source: Authors, based on model outputs. Supply chains are also highly unreliable. Several factors contribute to delays, including inadequate infrastructure, inefficient logistics, and regulatory hurdles. Road networks are poor, with many rural areas lacking paved roads, making transportation slow and difficult, especially during the rainy season, when roads can become impassable. High Food Losses Long distances and transport times contribute to the high incidence of food loss and waste in Sub - Saharan Africa. About 20 percent of cereals, 25 percent of rice and maize, and up to 40 percent of perishable crops are lost postharvest (figure 7.4) These losses are attributed primarily to inadequate storage, poor handling practices, and pest infestations. Food loss contributes to food insecurity by reducing the availability of food, increasing prices, and making basic staples unaffordable for low - income households. Storage is crucial in mitigating postharvest losses and ensuring a steady supply of food throughout the year. 124 Figure 7.4 Staple food loss in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2010–22 40 35 Losses (millions of tonnes) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Sorghum Maize Rice Wheat Source: Authors, based on data from FAOStat. Outside urban areas, demand for food is spread over very large areas across much of Sub-Saharan Africa, eliminating opportunities for economies of scale that are important for moving low-value, high-volume commodities. As a result, trucks often travel empty or partly loaded, reducing efficiency and increasing costs. Central locations can be used to consolidate commodities into larger volumes that can be handled and transported at scale and with lower unit costs. Highly Fragmented Agricultural Markets As was shown in Chapter 4, the costs of trade in agricultural products between African countries are much higher than between African countries and external partners. High costs lead to a fragmentation of agricultural markets, with many African countries better integrated with overse as trading partners than with other countries on the continent. The low level of intra-Africa trade reflects both historical trade links with colonial powers and the lack of reliability of potential continental trade partners, many of which have fluctuating production volumes. High trade costs in agricultural product also explain the low trade intensity of food . Using a cross-country analysis, Xu (2015) shows that agricultural trade costs are at least twice as large as manufacturing trade costs. Transport costs per tonne range widely in Sub-Saharan Africa, averaging $23 for maize, $21 for cassava, $48 for rice, and $59 for wheat. Considering the distance over which commodities are shipped, transport costs for intra-Africa trade are 8 –25 percent higher than the cost of intercontinental trade. The high costs reflect several factors, including high transport prices, regulatory barriers, and the use of restrictive policies and procedures, especially at the border. Transport prices are high because of poor infrastructure; high vehicle operating costs (fuel, tires, maintenance); and limited competition in transport services markets in some countries, especially in rural areas. The fact that many operators are informal and offer poor-quality, unreliable services also raises costs. Increased use of rail facilities could significantly reduce transport costs. Many railway facilities in Sub- Saharan Africa are underused. Although tracks and associated trackside infrastructure are in place, locomotives and rolling stock needed for a viable rail service are often unavailable, because of 125 mismanagement and lack of investment by the mostly state-owned and operated rail entities. Because of the poor state of rail transport, local and international freight in Sub-Saharan Africa goes by road when rail would be a cheaper and more applicable option. Several countries —including the Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Mauritania, Somalia and Zambia—have very high food transport costs. One of the major cost drivers is the high cost of crossing borders because of procedures that can be time-consuming and inconsistent, leading to unpredictable crossing times and complicating the movement of agricultural commodities. Non-tariff trade barriers (NTBs) are a common in agricultural products in Africa. Their prevalence —and that of non-tariff trade measures, some of which have legitimate purposes — suppress trade between countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. If the impact of NTBs were halved, the costs of intra-Africa trade could be comparable to intercontinental trade for the two imported crop types (rice and wheat). Vulnerability of Critical Transport Links to Climate Change The lack of resilient storage and transport infrastructure can exacerbate food insecurity, given their vulnerability to climate shocks. A 2022 study by the IMF shows that the vulnerability of food production, quality, and distribution to climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa reflects a lack of agricultural resilience. Reliance on rainfed crop production prevails across Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, the poor storage capacity of households and warehouses results in significant food loss. The continent’s roads, bridges, train tracks, and ports are easily damaged or destroyed by severe weather conditions. Reliance on imported food is vulnerable to weather events in other parts of the world. Many elements of the transport system, including road links, border crossing points, and ports, are vulnerable to climate change (figure 7.5). In the event of a disruption, the availability of alternative routes of facilities is key. Detour costs in several countries would be very high. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Nigeria are the most vulnerable in terms of absolute detour costs; the Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, South Sudan, and Zambia are most vulnerable on a population-adjusted basis. The Republic of Congo and Somalia have high transport cost burdens and poor local access to surplus production; Equatorial Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo face high costs in the event of climate related network disruption. 126 Figure 7.5 High-risk critical links, as identified by proximity to landslide and wildfire hazard Source: Authors, based on model outputs and data from the World Bank Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery and Global Wildfire Information System. Note: Line widths denote total annual calorie flow of food on a link. Disruptions to transport networks can severely affect food security, particularly in countries with high detour costs and countries that are heavily reliant on specific links. These findings are relevant to the prioritization of transport network elements and how different countries should invest in strengthening their transport infrastructure and improving network resilience. Options includes diversifying transport routes, improving road maintenance, and enhancing border crossing efficiency. Collaboration by neighboring countries is also crucial for addressing shared vulnerabilities. Joint investments in critical links can benefit partner countries and improve regional food security. Reducing transport costs and tariffs can help countries recover from shocks to the food system. Figure 7.6 illustrates the welfare benefits from reduced transport costs and tariffs. Lower transport costs support a slightly faster rebound from climate shocks than reductions in tariffs (IMF 2022). Efficient transportation networks facilitate the delivery of emergency supplies, support the rebuilding of affected areas, and maintain economic stability by reducing delays and losses. Investing in strategic transport elements is, therefore, an important preparedness measure that countries should pursue. 127 Figure 7.6 Impact of climate shock on rural food consumption and food prices Source: IMF (2022). Recommendations Optimizing the role of transport in strengthening food systems requires strategic interventions across various segments of the commodity supply chain. These interventions can be categorized into four areas: international connectivity, regional integration, national linkages, and access to local market s. Each scale offers distinct opportunities and challenges, necessitating a comprehensive and multi - scalar approach to ensure effective and sustainable outcomes. Fostering International Network Connectivity Many African countries rely heavily on imports to meet their food needs. At both the international and regional scales, improving transport infrastructure and logistics is crucial for facilitating cross-border trade and regional integration. Seaports are critical nodes in African countries’ food systems. A small number of ports account for a significant percentage of Sub-Saharan Africa’s food imports. Many ports in Africa lack the infrastructure needed to efficiently load and unload and agricultural commodities. As a result, ships lie idle at anchor awaiting services, incurring substantial demurrage charges. Some ports have poor connectivity as they are not always on frequent itineraries. In addition, port operations are often hampered by elaborate customs and other border procedures, which contribute to delays, additional storage costs, and transport costs, all of which raise food prices. The concentration of food imports at a few ports, as identified in chapter 3, leaves some countries and regions particularly vulnerable to disruptions in their international connections. Small size, sparse populations, and long distances to source markets make these countries particularly susceptible to natural hazards such as cyclones and flooding. Damage to transport assets, particularly ports, connecting roads, railway lines and bridges, can cut off critical supplies. We recommend specific actions to enhance the international connectivity of African countries: 1. Identify the causes of shipping delays at specific gateway ports. They may include the lack of docking facilities, inadequate cargo handling and storage facilities, the inability to manage adverse weather conditions, and the degradation of the port marine environment (through siltation and 128 erosion, for example). The analysis should be used to inform improvements in physical port facilities, including handling equipment and systems. 2. Assess the criticality of ports in Africa and in overseas trading partners. The resilience of supply chain relationships and infrastructure is particularly important for food security, especially in the face of large-scale disasters. Natural disasters can cause extensive damage to transport infrastructure, leading to lengthy periods during which a port, terminal, or wharf is offline for handling critical food consignments. Countries should prepare for such an eventuality by identifying alternative ports and making plans for using them in case of an emergency. The role of the private sector in building, operating, and maintaining infrastructural facilities should be increased. Private sector entities manage ports and physical infrastructure in many parts of the world. Such opportunities should be exploited more in Africa through well-designed public-private partnerships. Care must be taken to ensure that private operators are not provided with monopoly powers. Sound regulatory oversight by government authorities is essential to balance efficiency with public interest. 3. Improve packaging. Lack of storage infrastructure and handling equipment requires the bagging of food for transportation by trucks. Most cereal products are packaged in individual 50 kg sacks, using technology that is outdated and requires additional labor in loading and unloading vehicles. With modern methods of packaging, by using augers and conveyers, for example, ports would become more efficient and help to reduce costs. Increasing Regional Integration Cross-border trade faces several challenges, including weak and complex regulatory frameworks, high transactions costs, and infrastructure deficits. Improving trade facilitation measures —by, for example, reducing documentation requirements and border delays —can significantly enhance the efficiency of cross-border trade. Better regulatory practices can help streamline administrative processes, supporting the flows of food. Three intervention points could enhance the efficiency of food flows within Africa. The first is soft infrastructure, especially trade facilitation and border management. Initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) are major pillars for the harmonization, if not sta ndardization, of requirements and procedures that can promote smoother and more efficient trade flows. Harmonizing transport policies and regulations across countries would streamline customs procedures and reduce delays at borders. Working through Regional Economic Communities (RECs) could facilitate coordinated efforts to improve transport infrastructure and logistics. Joint investments and shared resources can lead to more robust and resilient cross -border transport networks. The second entry point is developing and upgrading regional corridors that are critical for food flows. Developing cross-border transport infrastructure, such as roads, railways, and in some cases inland waterways, is important. Such connectivity improvements help reduce transport and transactions costs, making it easier and less expensive, to move food from areas of surplus to areas of need. Some corridor improvements have already made, including the link between northern Mozambique and Malawi and the link between northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia. Trade along corridors is generated by cities and towns connected by these corridors. Building infrastructure for consolidating and distributing food through hubs in these economic centers could help improve food security. With proper design and provision of support services, it is possible to increase trade and reduce frictions that are often faced because of low scale and high unit costs. 129 A third entry point is increasing cross-border trade in agricultural commodities. The approach to regional integration should include designated trade corridors as well as links through smaller border crossing points that facilitate exchanges between border communities. Strengthening Domestics Logistics Three sets of actions could strengthen food supply chains at the national scale. Improving network planning A comprehensive approach to strengthening local transport connectivity involves identifying vulnerable points in the transport network. Prioritizing routes with fewer vulnerabilities and strengthening critical links for disaster prevention can maintain connectivity and support food security. Incorporating disaster risk management in infrastructure projects and contingency planning are crucial, especially in regions prone to natural hazards. Community engagement and participation in planning and implementing recovery projects are essential for enhancing resilience and ensuring that infrastructure meets local needs. Improving transport infrastructure and services that connect major agricultural production areas with markets can reduce costs and postharvest losses and improve market access for farmers. Assessments of the criticality of road and rail links based on their importance for trade, services, emergency functions, and food supply chains can be used to prioritize investments. Using multicriteria analysis to assess the impact of infrastructure segments on the economy and society can identify the most critical and vulnerable segments requiring immediate attention. Leveraging storage Some disruptions can have short-lived effects, others can have enduring impacts. The prioritization of logistics needs to reflect how long a food system can cope if certain components are not available and maintain a minimum level of inventory as necessary. Resilience in agri-food systems is defined as the capacity to sustainably ensure food availability and access and maintain livelihoods in the face of disruptions. As transport and logistics are crucial components of the food system, their resilience and ability to adapt to various risks are essential for maintaining continuous food flows and food systems ’ overall resilience and sustainability. The Ethiopia case study in chapter 6 shows the importance of national policies that support storage as part of a logistics solution for agriculture and food security. Establishing dedicated institutions or agencies to oversee logistics and storage can ensure sustained focus and investment in this o ft- neglected element of food systems. Public-private partnerships can mobilize resources and expertise to scale transport and storage, enhancing the resilience and efficiency of food supply chains. Efficient logistics and supply chain management practices can optimize the movement of food commodities within the country. The use of technology for tracking and inventory management can enhance the efficiency of food distribution networks. Improving transport services The limited availability and weak performance of transport services are a major vulnerability of agriculture supply chains in Sub-Saharan Africa. The region faces unique challenges, including vast geographical distances. One of the primary benefits of robust transport services is the reduction of postharvest losses. Poor road conditions, limited rail networks, and insufficient storage facilities contribute to these losses. 130 Better transport services, including roads, railways, and ports, would ensure that more food reaches consumers an farmers can access larger markets, increasing their income and incentivizing higher production levels. Transport services are also vital for responding to food emergencies and ensuring food security during crises. During the 2011 drought in the Horn of Africa, the ability to quickly transport food aid was crucial in preventing widespread famine. Enhancing transport services would help countries build more resilient food systems capable of withstanding and recovering from shocks. Increasing Access to Markets Local transport networks are often the weakest link in the supply chain. Targeted interventions can significantly enhance food availability and accessibility. Scaling and maintaining rural road networks are crucial for connecting smallholder farmers to markets. Improved rural roads can reduce transportation costs, increase market access, and enable farmers to sell their produce at better prices. Public investments in rural roads have been shown to significantly improve food security and reduce poverty in a relatively short period of time. The extent and strength of transport networks has heterogeneous impacts on different groups in society. Rural road development has a clear link to the welfare of rural households, particularly during severe droughts. Connecting rural communities to markets, especially in remote areas, also enhances resilience to shocks. Community-based approaches, such as labor-based road construction and maintenance, can also create local employment opportunities. Involving communities in these projects can enhance the sustainability and effectiveness of transport interventions . Enhancing first- and last-mile connectivity to higher-class transport infrastructure and markets can improve access to food for remote and underserved communities. Targeted solutions can be particularly effective in areas where traditional transport infrastructure is lacking or impractical. Improving first- and last-mile connectivity —by, for example, by building and maintaining rural roads, can help ensure that food reaches even the most remote households. The need for an integrated approach is evident in the Sahel (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal), which faces complex challenges (box 7.1). Box 7.1 Enhancing food security through a basins of integration approach in the Sahel Several countries in the Sahel face high climate vulnerability and high food insecurity and are heavily dependent on imported food. The paucity of intraregional connectivity in the subregion exacerbates the triple crises of climate change, food security, and conflict and fragility. Although significant investments in international connectivity have been made, they have not reduced transport costs across the region. Costs remain high for several reasons: • The Sahel is highly vulnerable to climate threats, increased temperatures, flooding, and sandstorms, which disrupt rural logistics, prevent local products from reaching consumers, and hinder the efficient distribution of agricultural inputs. • Much of region’s transport infrastructure is inadequate and poorly maintained. Many rural areas are isolated and lack reliable connectivity to major markets, limiting farmers’ access to larger markets and reducing their ability to sell their produce. 131 • The region faces significant logistics infrastructure challenges, including a lack of storage facilities, processing units, and distribution centers. • Fragility, conflict, and violence exacerbate food insecurity by limiting access to markets and increasing the risk of supply chain disruptions. • Inconsistent and outdated regulatory frameworks create barriers to efficient transport and logistics operations. They include informality and cartelization in transport services markets and issues related to trade facilitation, customs procedures, and non-tariff measures, which delay the movement of goods and increase costs. To address these challenges, the new World Bank strategy for a corridor in West and Central Africa prioritizes investments across value chains, particularly in the Lake Chad Basin, where efforts could increase agricultural production by 20 percent and fish production by up to 40 percent and ensure that meat and dairy products cover the nutritional demand of almost the entire population. Supporting transportation infrastructure and services to ensure reliable, all-weather accessibility to production areas and markets is also crucial. Developing a cold supply chain for fish, meat, and dairy products would help reduce malnutrition and support economic growth. The strategy prioritizes regional connectivity and the unlocking of the development potential of areas adjacent to backbone corridors. It seeks to (a) lower transport fixed costs by increasing the number of trips per truck per year and reducing truck idle time during trips on corridors, (b) enhance corridor safety and security, and (c) improve access to agricultural markets to address food security in landlocked countries. Source: World Bank (2024). Summary Common messages can be drawn on the role of transport for food security in Africa, but it is also clear that the needs are different across and within countries and for different commodities. Proper diagnostics are an essential first step to understand the requirements for an optimal role of transport in strengthening food systems across various scales, from international connectivity to local market access, ensuring effective and sustainable outcomes. Such diagnostics should be to maintain a clear visibility of food shipments when designing transport for global, regional and local connectivity. References Akakura, Y., and K. Ono. 2014. “Estimation of the Alternative Port/Route of International Container Transport After Large-Scale Disaster with Consideration of the Handling Capacity of the Alternative Port.” Annals of Disaster Prevention Research Institute 57B (46–54), Kyoto University. Colon, C., S. Hallegatte, and J. Rozenberg. 2019. Transportation and Supply Chain Resilience in the United Republic of Tanzania. Washington DC: World Bank. Deininger, K., D.A. Ali, N. Kussul, G. Lemoine, and A. Shelestov. 2024. “Micro-Level Impacts of the War on Ukraine’s Agriculture Sector: Distinguishing Local and National Effects over Time.” Policy Research Working Paper 10869, World Bank, Washington, DC. 132 Diogo Miguel Salgado Baptista, Mai Farid, Dominique Fayad, Laurent Kemoe, Loic S, Lanci, and Pritha Mitra. 2022. “Climate Change and Chronic Food Insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa.” IMF Departmental Paper, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. Hallegatte, S., J. Rentschler, and J. Rozenberg. 2019. Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity. Sustainable Infrastructure Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/775891600098079887/pdf/Lifelines-The-Resilient- Infrastructure-Opportunity.pdf. IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2022. “Climate Change and Chronic Food Insecurity in SSA.” IMF Departmental Paper, Washington DC. World Bank 2021). https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/087/2022/016/article-A001-en.xml Marcelo, D., S. House, and A. Raina. 2018. “Incorporating Resilience in Infrastructure Prioritization: Application to the Road Transport Sector.” Policy Research Working Paper 8584, World Bank, Washington, DC. Muzira, S., M. Humphreys, and W. Pohl. 2010. “Geohazard Management in the Transport Sector. Transport Note. TRN-40. World Bank. Washington, DC. Osawa, S., M. Okada, S. Nakayama, and H. Yamaguchi. 2018. “A Study on the Connectivity Analysis between Disaster Prevention Bases Based on Weakness on the Road Network for Earthquake.” Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Series D3 (Civil Engineering Planning) 74 (5): 591–603. Rozenberg, J., X. Espinet Alegre, P. Avner, C. Fox, S. Hallegatte, E. Koks, J. Rentschler, and M. Tariverdi. 2019. “From a Rocky Road to Smooth Sailing: Building Transport Resilience to Natural Disasters.” Sector Note for LIFELINES: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity, World Bank, Washington, DC. Sugiura, S., and F. Kurauchi. 2023. “Isolation Vulnerability Analysis in Road Network: Edge Connectivity and Critical Link Sets.” Transportation Research Part D 119: 2–14. World Bank. 2017a. Climate and Disaster Resilient Transport in Small Island Developing States: A Call for Action. Washington, DC. ———. 2017b. Prioritizing Climate Resilient Transport Investments in a Data-Scarce Environment: A Practitioners’ Guide. Washington, DC ———. 2017c. Technical Knowledge Exchange on Summary Report, May 8–12. Washington, DC. ———. 2018a. Incorporating Resilience in Infrastructure Prioritization: Application to Japan’s Road Transport Sector. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, Washington, DC. ———. 2018b. Supporting Resilient Post-Earthquake Recovery in China: Building Back Better in the Aftermath of Disaster. Results in Resilience Series. Washington, DC. ———. 2018c. “Supporting Road Network Vulnerability Assessments in Pacific Island Countries.” Transport Knowledge Note, April, Washington, DC. ———. 2019. Road Geohazard Risk Management Handbook. Washington, DC. ———. 2021. Assessment of Economic Impacts from Disasters along Key Corridors. Washington, DC. ———. 2024. Basins of Integration: A New Western and Central Africa (WCA) Development Corridors Approach. Washington, DC. ———. n.d. Strengthening Resilience in South Asia with Improved Infrastructure: Supporting Governments in Establishing Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management in Infrastructure Projects. Washington, DC. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099549210042225566/pdf/IDU0369918200b0fa04f 1e08fde05078b3e12d01.pdf. 133 Xu, KKei. 2015. “Why Are Agricultural Goods Not Traded More Intensively: High Trade Costs or Low Productivity Variation?” World Economy 38: 1722–43. Yao, Y., L. Cheng, S. Chen, H. Chen, M. Chen, N. Li, Z. Li, S. Dongye, Y. Gu, and J. Yi. 2023. “Study on Road Network Vulnerability Considering the Risk of Landslide Geological Disasters in China’s Tibet.” Remote Sensing 15: 4221. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/17/4221. 134 Annex A: Transport and Food Flow Model The report is based on the results of a transport and food flow model built to explore global freight flows. The model utilizes a spatially disaggregated database on food production and consumption and transport networks and combines food balance analysis and transport modeling. The model builds on and extends the Global Freight Flow Model and Explorer (FlowMax) model that the World Bank’s Transport Global Practice built to analyze trade and transport connectivity and prioritize connectivity investments based on their potential impacts.23 A description of FlowMax is provided below. Rationale Over the past decade, the World Bank has seen an increasing demand to apply its extensive knowledge across the world to provide both strategic insights for trade and transport connectivity and to inform responses to new and urgent policy questions in a timely fashion. A particularly relevant example comes from the transport sector globally which faces new challenges to decarbonize in a way while ensuring the achievement of sustainable development goals. In this context, some of the questions often arise around: • What infrastructure development policies can deliver the highest economic benefits to regional trade activities and countries’ economies, considering the interdependence of the world economies? • How GHG emissions from both domestic and international transport activities can be reduced in a cost-effective manner • What are the transport and connectivity requirements of global challenges such as food security, movement of minerals that are critical for the energy transition? These growing and continuously evolving challenges demand the World Bank to acquire foresight and analytical modelling that have global coverage as its scope and nature. While the World Bank has supported various modelling projects in the past, FlowMax is the first instance where it has developed a truly global model which can be deployed to respond to the questions above swiftly. The model projects international freight transport activities (in tonne-kilometers) for global commodities transported with available transport modes and routes. This approach enables the assessment of different transport and economic policy measures (e.g., the development of new infrastructure networks, or the alleviation of trade barriers) on a multi-regional or global scale. The model is designed on the established four-step freight transportation modelling approach as explained in Halim et al. (2018). FlowMax Framework Figure 2 provides a conceptual design of the framework. It first estimates the weight of commodities traded between countries, the choices between modes and transport routes used to transport these 23 The FlowMax model has been tested on various corridor initiatives in the Africa region. For this study, it was extended by adding more traffic zones to enable a more granular exploration of food flows. A full technical note on FlowMax has been prepared and will be disseminated separately. 135 commodities. The characteristics of the transport network, and the relevant socio-economic variables such as transport costs and time are used as input for these models. Next, each component of the model in the framework will be introduced, including the data source, methodology, and data source for validation. Trade forecast model Global (Computable General Equilibrium macro- Model) economic model International trade origin and destination values at base year International Freight Model Trade flow disaggregation model (IFM) Value-to-weight Geographic, model trade and economic profiles, Travel times, Mode choice distances, model cost, Port tariff, Network model Route choice model International freight flows for 19 commodities by different modes and routes Figure 2 FlowMax model framework (Source: Halim et al., 2018) The four sub-models used in FlowMax are: 1. Trade flow disaggregation model. 2. Value-to-weight model. 3. Mode choice model; and 4. Route choice model. International trade disaggregation (OD matrix) Data sources for international trade or transport demand for global freight transport are typically available in the form of import or export values in monetary unit (USD) or in volumetric unit (tonne) of commodities transported between countries or regions worldwide. While historical or present time data can be 136 obtained from customs declaration or such as those that are compiled in the UN COMTRADE database, the projection of international trade typically requires the help of macroeconomic model. The output of a macroeconomic trade model such as a Computable General Equilibrium Model (such as GTAP), or Gravity trade model can be used as input for estimating the demand for freight transport in terms of volume between origin and destination zones. These trade models project the dynamic evolution of international trade, in terms of trade relations and commodity composition due to the changes in the global production and consumption of commodities. Usually, these global macroeconomic models do not have high granularity for the regions that are covered. One of the most well developed CGE models such as GTAP models include 141 countries worldwide in their latest version 10 database. Country level of granularity does not allow estimating transport flows with precision as it does not allow a proper discretization of the travel path used for different types of products. Therefore, a common approach implemented in the literature is to disaggregate the regional origin-destination (OD) trade flows into a larger number of production/consumption centroids. In FlowMax centroids are determined using an adapted p-median procedure for all the cities around the world classified by United Nations in 2010 relative to their population (2539 cities). The objective function for this aggregation is based on the minimization of a distance function which includes two components: GDP density and geographical distance. The selection is also constrained by allowing one centroid within a 500 km radius in a country which results in 431 centroids. = (1) ∑ =1 ∑=1 In Equation (1), = trade values from centroid o to centroid d in year y for commodity k, = trade values from origin region V to destination region L, o, d = origin and destination centroids, k = commodity k, y = year of analysis, v = centroid that belongs to the origin region V, l = centroid that belongs to the destination region L. The benefit of disaggregating international trade data from a single global model is that trade flow data estimated at a more granular level (e.g. on district-to-district level) will be consistent with the international trade data on the country or regional level. By doing so, we avoid having inconsistencies in international trade values which may arise from differing underlying assumptions which are applied to different regional models available. For example, there are different shared socio-economic (SSE) pathways that can be applied to different regional models which result in varying global trade patterns between SSEs. Furthermore, new disaggregate regions or countries can be incorporated into the model with minimal effort using a consistent trade disaggregation approach if socio-economic data of the relevant countries are available. Value to weight conversion model International trade data which can be obtained from a macro-economic model is typically specified in terms of monetary unit. Hence to allow analysis which pertains to logistics systems, these data will need to be converted into demand data in volumetric unit. An example of model which can be employed to 137 estimate the rate of conversion of value units (dollars) into weight units of cargo (tonne) is the Poisson regression model. An example of this model, also called as value-to-weight model, has been implemented within EMC’s international freight model. The model has been estimated using datasets from Eurostat and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) data on value/weight ratios for different commodities (citation). In the Poisson regression model, the natural logarithm of the trade value in millions of dollars is used as the offset variable, with panel terms by commodity, a transport cost proxy variable (logsum calculation for maritime, road, rail, and air transport costs per tonne between each pair of centroids), and geographical and cultural variables: binary variables for trade agreements and land borders used above and a binary variable identifying if two countries have the same official language. Moreover, economic profile variables will be included to describe the trade relationship between countries with different types of production sophistication and scale of trade intensity. We will validate the output of the value-to- weight model using the UN COMTRADE database that provides values and weights of all commodities traded between any countries worldwide. = (2) % % % % = + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 −( ) (3) +5 ln ( ) + 6 + 7 + 8 + In Equations (2) and (3), = weight of commodity k that is traded between origin o and destination d for year y (in tonne), = value of trade for commodity k between origin o and destination d for year y (in US$), = value-to-weight conversion factor for commodity k, between origin o and destination d for year y (in tonne/US$), % = GDP percentile of origin in year y, % = GDP percentile of destination in year y, % = GDP per capita percentile of origin in year y, % = GDP per capita percentile of destination in year y, ln ( ) = natural logarithm of the ratio between GDP per capita of origin and GDP per capita of destination in year y, = land contiguity between origin o and destination d, contig = (0, 1), langod = shared language between origin o and destination d, lang = (0, 1), rtaod = trade agreement between origin o and destination d, rta = (0,1), logsum(costod) = logsum variable of transport costs using different modes between origin o and destination d,d lgsk = logsum coefficient/panel term for commodity k. Mode choice model The mode choice model (in weight) in modelling international freight flows is intended to estimate the transport mode used for trade between any origin-destination pair of centroids. This also helps to analyze the impacts of policy measures on the preference of shippers regarding their choice of transport mode. 138 There are different types of discrete choice models that can be used to estimate modal share of transport modes. The most widely used models are logit and probit models (Ben-Akiva & Bierlaire, 1999). The Multinomial logit model is suitable for the purpose of estimating a mode choice model for freight transport across different modes: road, rail, IWW, and sea on a global scale. This is because it is relatively simple and features a choice probability function that is easy to interpret. It is parsimonious yet able to capture choice behavior of shippers across multiple transport modes. The mode attributed to each trade connection will be represented by the longest transport section. Apart from road freight, other transport modes typically require intermodal transport both at the origin and destination. This domestic component of international freight (the virtual link between the centroid and the nearest intermodal nodes, such as terminals or ports) is usually not accounted for in the literature but will be included in our framework. In particular, hinterland transport using road, rail, and waterways as part of international maritime transport is considered in the network model. We also envision the inclusion of commodity-type panel terms on travel times and cost in the model’s attributes to allow estimation of value of time and cost elasticity for each commodity. Transport costs and travel times will be estimated using a global multimodal network model which schematization can be obtained both from the existing Bank’s regional models and other specialized institutes which provide mode-specific network GIS files. The model considers geographical and economic context variables such as trade agreement between countries and the existence of a land border between trading partners. The model’s parameters will be estimated based on the observation data for the volume of commodities and their mode of transport from available sources such as Eurostat, ECLAC and COMTRADE datasets. An important part of model development is validation of the model against the observed statistics on global trade which cover broader regions across the world. This is done to ensure the validity and robustness of the mode choice. Indicators such as bilateral trade values, volume of freight transported and tonne-kilometer by mode can be used to validate and calibrate the mode-choice model. These observed data will be obtained from reports of various organizations such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and the World Bank. = + + + + (4) = (5) ∑ =1 In Equations (4) and (5), Pm = the choice probability of mode m, = the choice utility of mode m for commodity k between origin o and destination d, ascm = alternative specific constant for mode m, CFk = transport cost coefficient for commodity k, = transport cost for mode m between origin o and destination d, TFk = travel time coefficient for commodity k, = contiguity coefficient for mode m, contigod = contiguity variable between origin o and destination d, contig = (0, 1), Rt = trade agreement coefficient, rtaod = trade agreement variable between origin o and destination d, rta = (0, 1). 139 Route choice and assignment model The assignment model is a part of transport modelling technique typically deployed to analyze the impact of transport policy measures on the route choice of shippers, which shapes the spatial pattern of freight traffic on a transport network. To allow assessment of traffic patterns and route choices on a detailed intermodal transport network we suggest the implementation a path generation algorithm in combination with a path size logit model. The path generation algorithm enumerates the most likely routing alternatives between origins and destinations, considering access and egress of the total transport chain. For international maritime transport, the least-cost port-hinterland and port-to-port paths are computed using a cost-minimizing optimization model. On the other hand, the path size logit model is used to compute the probability for each identified route to be chosen by the shippers. Path size algorithm is capable to take overlaps between the alternative routes into account and distinguish the transport costs associated with these alternatives properly. The basis of this model can be found in (Ben-Akiva & Bierlaire, 1999). The combination of stochastic assignment model (path-size logit) and this path generation algorithm would allow the assignment of volume of freight transport across all possible routes between all origins and destinations with reasonable computation time. This approach also reduces the need for utilizing tedious and time- consuming equilibrium assignment. The assignment model will be calibrated and validated by minimizing the difference between observed and modelled port throughputs for more than 550 major ports in the world. = ∑ + ∑ + (∑ + ∑ ) (6) ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈ In Equation (6): Cr = unit cost of route r from origin centroid to destination centroid (US$/Twenty-equivalent unit, TEU), p = ports used by the route, l = links used by the route, Ap = unit cost of transhipment at port p (US$/TEU), cl = unit cost of transportation over link l (US$/TEU), Tp = time spent during transhipment at port p (days/TEU), tl = time spent during transportation over link l (days/TEU), α = value of transport time (US$/day). The route probabilities are given by − (+ln ) = (7) ∑ ℎ=1 − (ℎ +ln ℎ ) while the path size overlap variable S is defined as 140 Z 1 = ∑ (8) Z Nℎ ∈ In Equations (7) and (8): Pr = the choice probability of route r, Cr = generalized costs of route r, Ch = generalized costs of route h within the choice set, CS = the choice set with multiple routes, h = path indicator/index, ℎ ∈ , μ = logit scale parameter, a = link in route r, Sr = degree of path overlap, Lkr = set of links in route r, Za = length of link a, Zr = length of route r, Nah = number of times link a is found in alternative routes. Food Flow Model The core FlowMax model was enhanced for a more granular exploration of transport and food flows in Africa. The model is therefore at a sub-national scale, where the countries of Africa are divided into 786 zones (traffic zones) representing the first-level administrative divisions in every country in Africa. The rest of the world is represented as external zones, one for each region outside Africa (figure 2.1, panel a). The model assigns the movement of the four most important staple foods in Africa but emphasizes Sub- Saharan Africa to reveal the challenges and vulnerabilities inherent in African food supply chains. Through this detailed examination, the model provides insights into opportunities for improvements to enhance the resilience and efficiency of food supply chains across the continent. Other modifications for the food case study include defining the transport network as comprised of the highway network across Africa and the maritime links that interconnect African countries and Africa to other continents (figure 2.1, panel b). Traffic (cargo) assignment across routes is done on an all-or-nothing basis,24 in which the shortest path is defined by the “generalized cost,” a combination of monetary cost and time. This assignment facilitates the analysis of a variety of factors including the likely impacts of non- tariff barriers (NTBs) represented as time and cost, financial penalties and time delays. These costs are applied to the network on each link, with border crossings and ports having additional frictions because of process and procedures as well as non-tariff barriers. As the model looks only at agricultural commodities, equilibrium-based modeling was not used. As such, the exclusion of other forms of traffic, including nonagricultural goods and passengers, may affect the capacity of links and nodes on the network. The typical costs, speeds, and delays for road, maritime, ports, and border crossing points were researched and compiled from various sources. These costs and speeds inform the path (route) choice. 24 All-or-nothing assignment means that all the demand for a particular zone pair is assigned to the best path between two zones, even if there is more than one way to get from one zone to another. 141 Figure 2. Zones and networks in the model d. Networks c. Zones Source: World Bank World Subnational Boundaries (level 1 administrative divisions) and FlowMax Global Freight Model network. The analysis is based on an exploration of the flow patterns of four staple foods (cassava, maize, rice and wheat), to shed light on the intricate web of transport costs and the time required to access food, two critical factors affecting food security. The four commodities account for 45 percent of total calories consumed across the continent.25 Origin–Destination (OD) matrices for food were produced by synthesizing information on production and consumption at the zonal level with international trade at the country level. A five-year average was calculated for 2017–22 (excluding 2020, the first and worst year of the pandemic). Food that is grown and consumed within a country was distributed using a gravity model. Imports and exports were assigned to each zone based on the amount of surplus or unmet demand. The demand matrices were generated from open datasets on the local production/consumption and international trade within Africa. A five-year average (2016–21) was used to smooth temporal variability. Table 1 lists the datasets used in the model build and expand on those used Nelson and others (2021). The model includes scripts that process these datasets in their raw formats, so that the model can be updated for future simulations. 25 In five countries, the four crops selected are not the main source of calories: Chad and Niger rely on sorghum and millet, Mali on millet, and South Sudan and Sudan on sorghum. 142 Table 1 Key model inputs Model input Source Zone system World Bank Subnational Boundaries GeoJSON Model network FlowMax model network and nodes: Road and maritime Average travel speed by link type Speeds for each country are provided by a scrape of google traffic speeds. Rural Access Index Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) Production and consumption by crop FAO Food Balances International crop trade FAO Detailed Trade Matrix (all data, normalized) Spatial population distribution GHS-POP Epoch 2020 Release 2023A 30 arcsecond Spatial crop production distribution SPAM 2017 V2.1 (for Sub-Saharan Africa) and SPAM 2010 V2.0 (for North Africa) Value of time for generalized costs Values used in Eastern Partnership trade model Vehicle operating costs per kilometer Prices from Herrera Dappe and others (2024), for food shipments by major humanitarian organization Tariffs Authors’ research Border delays, costs, and penalties Authors’ research The model yields three primary outputs: • volumes of flows of the four staples that move on the road, over the international maritime network, and through border crossing points and ports (tonnes per year) • transport costs for imports and exports of food to and from each zone and the way in which these costs are apportioned between operating costs and NTBs (dollars per tonne) • transport time for imports and exports of food to and from each zone and the way in which the total time is apportioned between on-road movement, maritime movement, and delays at border crossing points and ports (days). Limitations The model used for the report does not deal with all domestic flows in countries. It also does not consider feedback mechanisms where improvements in transport connectivity may impact the functioning of agricultural markets, landuse and other effects. The model also does not include railway, inland water transport and short sea (coastal shipping services). These modes are hardly used for food shipments except in very specific instances. However, as explained above the model is designed to handle multi-modal transport chains. 6. References Ben-Akiva, M., & Bierlaire, M. (1999). Discrete Choice Methods and their Applications to Short Term Travel Decisions. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5203-1_2 143 Brocker, J., & Kancs, d’Artis. (2001). Methodology for the Assessment of Spatial Economic Impacts of Transport Projects and Policies. EERI Research Paper Series No 3/2001. Camisón-Haba, S., & Clemente-Almendros, J. A. (2020). A global model for the estimation of transport costs. In Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja (Vol. 33, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1584044 Halim, R. A., Kirstein, L., Merk, O., & Martinez, L. M. (2018). Decarbonization pathways for international maritime transport: A model-based policy impact assessment. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072243 Halim, R. A., Smith, T., & Englert, D. (n.d.). Understanding the Economic Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies on Shipping What Is the State of the Art of Current Modeling Approaches? http://www.worldbank.org/research. Oumarou, A. (2019). Cross-border road corridors. Shibasaki, R., & Watanabe, T. (2012). Future Forecast of Trade Amount and International Cargo Flow in the APEC Region: An Application of Trade-Logistics Forecasting Model. Asian Transport Studies, 2(2). Sou, W. S., & Ong, G. P. (2016). Forecasting global maritime container demand with integrated trade- transportation modeling framework. Transportation Research Record, 2549. https://doi.org/10.3141/2549-08 Tanabe, S., Shibasaki, R., & Kato, H. (2016). Impact Assessment Model of International Transportation Infrastructure Development: Focusing on Trade and Freight Traffic in Central Asia. Asian Transport Studies, 4(1). Tavasszy, L., Harmsen, J., Ivanova, O., & Bulavskaya, T. (2016). Effect of a Full Internalization of External Costs of Global Supply Chains on Production, Trade and Transport. In Towards Innovative Freight and Logistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119307785.ch23 144