Addis Ababa (© 2025 The Conversation) – From January 9 to 11, the African Union is organizing an extraordinary summit on African agricultural development. But how are the efforts of African countries counted compared to other regions of the world? Do they devote 10% of national public budgets to agriculture? Answers in figures and graphs.
This Thursday, January 9, 2025, the extraordinary summit of the African Union begins in Uganda. His goal? Drawing the new road map for African agriculture by 2035. Already in 2003, the detailed African agricultural development program (CAADP) was accompanied by a clear commitment: to dedicate at least 10% of public budgets national commitments to agriculture and aim for annual growth of 6% in the sector.
The work of the FARM Foundation’s Global Observatory of Public Support for Agriculture and Food makes it possible to situate the efforts of African countries in relation to other regions of the world. Public investment levels and agricultural support mechanisms show varied dynamics.
So, what conclusions can be drawn from public financial commitments in favor of agriculture in Africa?
The 10% objective: a difficult milestone to reach
Eradication of hunger, reduction of poverty by half and tripling of intra-African trade in agricultural products by 2025. The commitments made in Maputo in 2003 and reaffirmed in Malabo in 2014 are still struggling to be fully respected.
There are strong disparities between countries. While some countries, such as Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mali, reach almost 15%, and Ethiopia stands out with 23%, a majority of countries remain far from the set threshold. Countries like Ghana and Rwanda allocate no more than 5%, reflecting public underinvestment in agriculture. On average, public agricultural spending fluctuates between 5 and 7%, well below the 10% target.
Rural or agricultural spending?
However, these figures only reveal part of the reality. An in-depth analysis shows that around 56% of so-called agricultural spending is actually allocated to related sectors, such as health, education or rural infrastructure. These investments, although essential, benefit agriculture indirectly, without directly targeting levers specific to the sector. We can cite inputs – seeds and fertilizers in particular –, agricultural infrastructure or income support programs for producers.
This situation raises a central question: should these rural expenditures really be counted as agricultural expenditures? Their inclusion in agricultural budgets tends to mask underfinancing of expenditure directly intended to improve the productivity of the sector. Once these rural expenditures are excluded, the budgets actually devoted to agriculture appear even more limited. Only Ethiopia manages to achieve the objective set at the Maputo Summit.
Rethinking input subsidies to boost production
Public spending around the world is today the subject of strong criticism. The idea that subsidies for agricultural inputs in sub-Saharan Africa are excessive needs to be qualified. Only 8% of public agricultural spending directly supports production.
-Whether you are managers looking for strategies or employees wondering about the choices of their hierarchy, receive our thematic newsletter “ Company(ies) »: the keys to research for professional life and advice from our experts.
These subsidies often represent the only form of direct aid accessible to farmers. However, their effectiveness remains limited. The implementation mechanisms suffer from structural weaknesses which limit their impact: ineffective targeting of beneficiaries, poor governance or lack of technical support. The low level of these subsidies prevents the needs of producers from being fully met. In addition, the absence of mechanisms linking the granting or renewal of aid to measurable objectives constitutes a major obstacle to improving agricultural performance. As it stands, aid is often distributed without conditionality or rigorous monitoring of the results obtained.
A notable dependence on international aid
This dependence represents another obstacle for the public finances of African countries. Between 10 and 40% of their agricultural budgets come from aid from technical and financial partners. It is threatened by budget cuts announced in several donor countries, such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The European Union also plans to significantly reduce its credits for least developed countries by 2027.
Should we reassess the 10% objective?
Inspired by the successes of Asian and Latin American countries, this target has enabled these regions to achieve a structural transformation of their agricultural sector. African countries face major challenges: impacts of climate change, increased competition on global markets and structural weaknesses. Infrastructure remains insufficient and agricultural value chains are still underfinanced.
This situation is also aggravated by trade policies that continue to favor low-cost imports. To the detriment of the national agricultural production strategy meeting the food needs of the populations. African farmers thus find themselves at a disadvantage in the face of largely subsidized international competition, while certain competitive agricultural sectors remain penalized by export taxes.
Ensuring coherence between agricultural policies
This imbalance slows modernization and limits growth opportunities for the sector. As the African Union prepares to define a new roadmap for CAADP in Kampala, discussions will have to go beyond simple numerical objectives. It is no longer enough to target 10% of public budgets for agriculture, but to act to transform these commitments into concrete and effective initiatives. Two avenues: improve the quality of public spending in the sector and ensure coherence between agricultural policies.
This summit represents an important opportunity to rethink approaches and strengthen commitments, placing the structural transformation of the agricultural sector at the heart of priorities for the next decade.
The Conversation
