72. The current distribution of animal types across Africa is given according to prevailing agro-ecological conditions. Table 18 shows the share of sub-regional animal stock in the African animal-type population.
Table 18. Current distribution of animal types by sub-region in Africa
Animal type |
North Africa |
East Africa |
Central Africa |
Southern Africa |
West Africa |
Africa |
Animal stocks (in '000s of animals, average 1996-2000) |
||||||
Cattle |
9 523 |
10 4619 |
14 585 |
43 228 |
42 703 |
214 658 |
Chicken |
366 000 |
160 000 |
65 000 |
233 000 |
323 000 |
1 147 000 |
Goats |
19 108 |
89 763 |
15 695 |
20 460 |
57 759 |
202 785 |
Pigs |
49 |
909 |
3 100 |
4 995 |
7 413 |
16 466 |
Sheep |
57 243 |
91 816 |
7 433 |
34 344 |
45 627 |
236 463 |
Share of sub-regional animal type in Africa's total population (%) |
||||||
Cattle |
4.4 |
48.7 |
6.8 |
20.1 |
19.9 |
100 |
Chicken |
31.9 |
14.0 |
5.7 |
20.3 |
28.2 |
100 |
Goats |
9.4 |
44.3 |
7.7 |
10.1 |
28.5 |
100 |
Pigs |
0.3 |
5.5 |
18.8 |
30.3 |
45.0 |
100 |
Sheep |
24.2 |
38.8 |
3.1 |
14.5 |
19.3 |
100 |
Estimates based on animal stocks, average 1996-2000 using data from FAOSTAT (2002).
73. The largest stock of cattle is concentrated in East Africa, representing 48 percent of the total cattle population in Africa. The same sub-region has a high concentration of the goat (44 percent) and sheep (39 percent) populations. Pigs are mainly concentrated in West and Southern Africa (with 45 and 30 percent, respectively). About 30 percent of the chicken population are concentrated in North and West Africa.
74. The current distribution pattern of animal stocks within Africa does not entirely capture the production and trade opportunities of a given animal type in a particular agro-ecological zone. Therefore, a sounder indicator has been used to underline the comparative advantage in animal production, i.e. the relative importance of a given animal type in the total sub-regional output expressed in world export unit value. As in the case of crop production, the production-cum-trade-opportunities criterion has been used to identify the potentially competitive animal types by sub-region as well as country. The results regarding the sub-regional potentially competitive animal types are shown in Table 19.
Table 19. Selection of potentially competitive animal types based on the relative importance of animal type in total output expressed in world export value, average 1996-2000
Animal type |
North Africa |
East Africa |
Central Africa |
Chad |
Coastal West Africa |
Sahel West Africa |
Southern Africa |
Cattle |
54.3 |
86.5 |
81.5 |
93.0 |
80.0 |
77.9 |
30.3 |
Chickens |
5.0 |
0.4 |
1.3 |
0.3 |
2.5 |
1.3 |
2.0 |
Goats |
8.0 |
5.5 |
7.2 |
0.9 |
6.0 |
9.7 |
64.2 |
Pigs |
0.1 |
0.4 |
5.5 |
0.1 |
4.3 |
1.0 |
0.6 |
Sheep |
32.6 |
7.3 |
4.5 |
5.7 |
7.3 |
10.0 |
2.9 |
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Estimates are based on production and trade statistics (FAOSTAT 2002).
75. Cattle are potentially competitive in all sub-regions except Southern Africa. Cattle shares in the sub-region's total output trade value vary between 54 percent in North Africa to 86 percent in East Africa. In Chad cattle represent 93 percent of the 1996 - 2000 average production expressed in world export value. Sheep and goats have comparative advantage in a large majority of sub-regions, with sheep representing the largest share (64 percent) of Africa's output (expressed in world export value) in Southern Africa; goats have as large as a 33 percent share in North Africa. Chicken have rather limited comparative advantage in North Africa, as is the case for pigs in Central Africa (both animal types represent only about five percent of the sub-region's total output expressed in export unit value). All types of animals have various degrees of comparative advantage in some sub-regions. Therefore, they are eligible for investment under NEPAD-CAADP. Country selection for their development is shown in Table 20.
76. The contribution of some livestock types in sub-regional production (expressed in export unit value) is below five percent. This is the case for: sheep in Central and South Africa; chicken in Central, West and Southern Africa; and pigs in West and Southern Africa. They were, however, retained as country-specific potentially competitive animal types that warrant investment because they have an important share (more than five percent) in a country's production (expressed in world export unit value). For instance, sheep were selected as a country-specific animal type in Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. Chicken have production and trade potential in Equatorial Guinea, Saõ Tomé and Principé, Gabon, Liberia, Mauritius and Zambia, as do pigs in Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Seychelles and Liberia. The country-specific potentially competitive animal types are also shown in Table 20 together with the sub-regional animal types. Livestock population expressed in world export value by country in thousands of US dollars, average 1996-2000, is shown in Annex 14.
Table 20. Selection of countries for the development of sub-regional and country-specific potentially competitive animal types based on their share of sub-regional output expressed in world export value, average 1996-2000
Animal type |
Cattle |
Chickens |
Goats |
Pigs |
Sheep |
Algeria |
38.3 |
6.6 |
6.4 |
0.0 |
48.8 |
Egypt |
78.8 |
4.9 |
5.8 |
0.1 |
10.4 |
Libya |
18.3 |
6.2 |
14.5 |
0.0 |
61.0 |
Mauritania |
57.0 |
0.4 |
14.0 |
0.0 |
28.6 |
Morocco |
53.6 |
5.8 |
7.6 |
0.0 |
32.9 |
Tunisia |
47.0 |
5.7 |
6.1 |
0.1 |
41.1 |
North Africa |
54.3 |
5.0 |
8.0 |
0.1 |
32.6 |
Burundi |
77.4 |
2.5 |
11.8 |
3.3 |
5.1 |
Djibouti |
76.2 |
0.0 |
10.7 |
0.0 |
13.2 |
Eritrea |
87.5 |
0.2 |
5.4 |
0.0 |
6.9 |
Ethiopia |
90.5 |
0.4 |
3.3 |
0.0 |
5.9 |
Kenya |
89.1 |
0.5 |
5.0 |
0.4 |
5.1 |
Rwanda |
85.5 |
0.5 |
6.6 |
4.0 |
3.5 |
Seychelles |
16.0 |
20.9 |
5.9 |
57.2 |
0.0 |
Somalia |
69.9 |
0.1 |
12.2 |
0.0 |
17.8 |
Sudan |
83.1 |
0.2 |
6.5 |
0.0 |
10.1 |
Tanzania |
91.8 |
0.4 |
4.7 |
0.4 |
2.6 |
Uganda |
86.4 |
0.9 |
6.7 |
4.5 |
1.5 |
East Africa |
86.5 |
0.4 |
5.5 |
0.4 |
7.3 |
Cameroon |
84.6 |
1.2 |
4.7 |
3.6 |
5.9 |
Central African Republic |
90.1 |
0.3 |
5.2 |
3.8 |
0.6 |
Democratic Republic of Congo |
56.5 |
3.5 |
20.3 |
13.8 |
6.0 |
Republic of Congo |
63.1 |
3.7 |
16.9 |
7.3 |
9.0 |
Equatorial Guinea |
43.9 |
6.6 |
5.8 |
10.6 |
33.1 |
Gabon |
31.8 |
6.6 |
6.0 |
38.3 |
17.4 |
Saõ Tomé & Principé |
70.1 |
12.4 |
6.1 |
7.0 |
4.4 |
Central Africa |
81.5 |
1.3 |
7.2 |
5.5 |
4.5 |
Chad |
93.0 |
0.3 |
0.9 |
0.1 |
5.7 |
Benin |
82.0 |
3.6 |
4.7 |
6.0 |
3.7 |
Côte d'Ivoire |
79.9 |
3.7 |
4.7 |
3.5 |
8.2 |
Ghana |
69.2 |
2.3 |
11.0 |
3.6 |
13.9 |
Guinea |
93.2 |
1.0 |
2.5 |
0.6 |
2.8 |
Guinea-Bissau |
80.1 |
0.5 |
3.8 |
11.1 |
4.6 |
Liberia |
33.9 |
8.2 |
15.3 |
22.9 |
19.8 |
Nigeria |
86.0 |
1.3 |
7.8 |
4.1 |
0.8 |
Sierra Leone |
84.6 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
2.1 |
7.4 |
Togo |
49.1 |
3.9 |
18.0 |
12.5 |
16.5 |
Coastal West Africa |
80.0 |
2.5 |
6.0 |
4.3 |
7.3 |
Burkina Faso |
76.6 |
0.9 |
10.0 |
2.0 |
10.6 |
Cape Verde |
33.8 |
1.6 |
12.8 |
50.4 |
1.4 |
Gambia |
92.9 |
0.4 |
2.9 |
0.7 |
3.0 |
Mali |
82.3 |
0.8 |
8.9 |
0.2 |
7.9 |
Niger |
69.4 |
1.8 |
15.1 |
0.3 |
13.5 |
Senegal |
77.5 |
2.8 |
7.2 |
1.1 |
11.4 |
Sahel West Africa |
77.9 |
1.3 |
9.7 |
1.0 |
10.0 |
Angola |
91.6 |
0.4 |
3.4 |
3.9 |
0.8 |
Botswana |
91.9 |
0.2 |
6.4 |
0.0 |
1.4 |
Comoros |
78.3 |
1.8 |
16.8 |
0.0 |
3.1 |
Lesotho |
78.6 |
0.6 |
7.0 |
1.8 |
12.0 |
Madagascar |
95.3 |
0.4 |
0.9 |
2.7 |
0.7 |
Malawi |
79.5 |
3.8 |
10.6 |
4.9 |
1.1 |
Mauritius |
58.0 |
31.4 |
0.2 |
10.1 |
0.2 |
Mozambique |
90.4 |
4.4 |
2.0 |
2.4 |
0.9 |
Namibia |
85.8 |
0.2 |
5.1 |
0.1 |
8.8 |
South Africa |
77.4 |
1.6 |
2.8 |
1.8 |
16.5 |
Swaziland |
93.4 |
0.6 |
4.7 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
Zambia |
0.9 |
78.6 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
19.4 |
Zimbabwe |
94.1 |
0.6 |
3.5 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
Southern Africa |
30.3 |
2.0 |
64.2 |
0.6 |
2.9 |
Results based on animal stocks (average 1996-2000) expressed in trade unit values based on live-animal export data extracted from FAOSTAT (2002). Note: Shading stands for 'sub-regional potentially competitive animal types', whereas bold and italics stand for 'country-specific potentially competitive animal types'.