_______________________________________________________________________________________________ AGRICORD – Diestsevest 32/6b, 3000 Leuven, Belgium – www.agricord.org – e-mail: [email protected]– phone: 0032 (0)16 242750 – le réseau des agri-agences | the alliance of agri-agencies | la alianza de agri-agencias – Members: Acodea/Spain, Afdi/France, Agriterra/Netherlands, AHA/Germany, AsiaDHRRA/Asia, Asprodeb/Sénégal, FFD/Finland, CSA/Belgium, Fert/France, Trias/Belgium, UPA DI/Canada, WeEffect/Sweden - Associated member: CIA/Italy. STRENGTHENING FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES COUNTRY CONTEXT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS APRIL 2015 1 Scope and goal ........................................................................................................... 2 2 Description of the clusters and indexes ...................................................................... 2 2.1 Cluster 1: Poverty ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Cluster 2: Democracy .................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Cluster 3: Economic growth potential ......................................................................................... 4 2.4 Cluster 4: Inequality .................................................................................................................... 5 3 Calculation method .................................................................................................... 6 4 Results ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Country scores in relation to OECD DAC list of ODA recipient countries .................................... 7 4.2 Country scores of the countries where FFP central funding supported FO’s in 2104 ................ 8 4.3 Country score in relation to FFP central funding ........................................................................ 9 5 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 11 Annex 1: Overview of normalised index values and resulting scores. ............................... 12 Annex 2: Overview of normalised index values and resulting scores. ............................... 15 Annex 2: Radar diagram for each country ........................................................................ 16
– le réseau des agri-agences | the alliance of agri-agencies | la alianza de agri-agencias – Members: Acodea/Spain, Afdi/France, Agriterra/Netherlands, AHA/Germany, AsiaDHRRA/Asia, Asprodeb/Sénégal,
4 Results ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Country scores in relation to OECD DAC list of ODA recipient countries .................................... 7 4.2 Country scores of the countries where FFP central funding supported FO’s in 2104 ................ 8 4.3 Country score in relation to FFP central funding ........................................................................ 9
Annex 1: Overview of normalised index values and resulting scores. ............................... 12
Annex 2: Overview of normalised index values and resulting scores. ............................... 15
Annex 2: Radar diagram for each country ........................................................................ 16
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
2
1 Scope and goal
The development goal of Farmers Fighting Poverty is to reduce rural poverty and to increase food security, through the strengthening farmers’ organisations. The partners in Farmers Fighting Poverty share the conviction that strong farmers’ organisations have a key role in contributing to
more democracy (better institutions)
more economic growth (better services to farmers)
more equal income distribution (increased involvement of smallholder farmers). This strategy is focussing on rural economic development (mainly based on agriculture) with a high level of inclusiveness in order to reduce inequality. Organising farmers in representative organisations is the central methodology. This strategy is likely to be more successful in a favourable context in which rural poverty and inequality are high, civil rights allow farmers to get organised and the agricultural economic development can be expected to have a high potential impact on household incomes. To quantify to the extent to which the context is favourable, this study starts from a selected set of published development indexes, consolidated along 4 clusters: poverty, democracy, economic growth potential and inequality. From the clusters an overall score is calculated. This being said, it must be noted that the country score is not decisive for the country selection. Many other elements are relevant, like differences within a country, donor restrictions and, not in the least, the long term relationships established between farmers’ organisations and agri-agencies in the network.
2 Description of the clusters and indexes
The poverty cluster groups indexes that reflect the general level of development in a country (Human Development Index), the nutritional status (Global Hunger Index), the average income in the country (GDP/Capita), the extent to which people live in rural areas (% Rural population) and the degree of poverty in these rural areas (poverty headcount ration at rural poverty line). The democracy cluster measures the necessary conditions to allow organisation of the farmers’ world in a county. It contains an index on the degree of freedom for the civil society to organise itself (Civil Liberities Index) and an index on the degree people trust each other (Trust index), which is a condition for joint action. Indexes in the economic growth potential cluster indicate the opportunities to improve the situation of the rural population through agricultural development: the economic freedom, the added value through agriculture and the percentage of the population active in this sector. The last cluster is inequality cluster. It contains an index on general inequality in a country (GINI) and an index specifically measuring the gender inequality.
2.1 Cluster 1: Poverty
Farmers Fighting Poverty operates in the rural area of developing countries. Its potential is higher in countries where the standard of living and the GDP is low, the food insecurity is high and important parts of the population live in the rural areas, with high rates below the poverty line. Following indexes are used for this cluster:
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
3
human development index [Definition] The Human Development Index represents three key dimensions of human development: health (life expectancy at birth), education (mean and expected years of schooling), and standard of living (GNI per capita).
[Source & Measurement] Scores for each dimension are weighed into one composite index using geometric mean. Data UNDP http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-1-human-development-index-and-its-components
[Relevance] A higher score means less developed, and more reason for FFP to intervene.
global hunger index [Definition] The GHI describes the state of countries' hunger situation.
[Source & Measurement] This index combines three equally weighed indicators into one index number: undernourishment (share of population with insufficient calorie intake), child underweight, and child mortality . Data IFPRI http://www.ifpri.org/tools/2014-ghi-map
[Relevance] The more hunger, the more reason for agricultural development and the more it makes sense to support farmers' organizations. gross domestic product per capita [Definition] GDP refers to the total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year. It is a measure of the total output of a country. For the per capita GDP, the national GDP is divided by the number of people in the country. The per capita GDP is especially useful when comparing one country to another because it shows the relative performance of the countries. [Source & Measurement] Data are in current U.S. dollars, and are subtracted from the World Bank national accounts data, and OECD national accounts data files. Data Worldbank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
[Relevance] The lower the GDP, the greater the need for development and a role for FFP. rural population [Definition] Rural Population refers to people living in rural areas as defined by national statistical offices.
[Source & Measurement] It is calculated as the difference between total population and urban population. Data Worldbank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS
[Relevance] The larger the population in rural areas, the more farmers , the more important a (strong) FO and the more important agricultural development. poverty headcount ratio at rural poverty line [Definition] Refers to the percentage of the rural population living below the national rural poverty line.
[Source & Measurement] Data are based on World Bank's country poverty assessments and country Poverty Reduction Strategies. Data Worldbank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.RUGP
[Relevance] The more poverty and inequality in rural areas, the more relevant (in theory) work with the goal: more equal income distribution via POs (this is related to poverty and inequality in rural areas)
Farmers Fighting Poverty works by supporting farmers’ organisations and their initiatives. The existence or creation of these organisations are essential for its modus operandi. Organisations can exist if the laws governing the country allow the civil society to organise itself and if the trust amongst the people is sufficiently high for combined actions. Civil Liberties index [Definition] Monitors trends in civil liberty.
[Source & Measurement] The rating is based on a set of civil liberties questions. The rating of 1 through 7, with 1 representing the greatest degree of freedom and 7 the smallest degree of freedom, corresponds to a specific range of total scores. Data Freedom House http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/FIW 2012 Booklet--Final.pdf
[Relevance] Higher score means more freedom ad opportunities for FFP. Trust index [Definition] Measures the level of trust in a society.
[Source & Measurement] The perception of the population on their trust in other people living in their area. Data Prosperity http://www.prosperity.com/Subindexes-8.aspx
[Relevance] The higher, the more confidence there is in general in the country. Trust is important for functioning of FO; they work better and an intervention can be more effective..
2.3 Cluster 3: Economic growth potential
Index of Economic Freedom [Definition]: This index measures ten types of freedom – from property rights to entrepreneurship – in 186 countries.
[Source & Measurement] Based on ten quantitative and qualitative factors, grouped into four pillars of economic freedom: Rule of Law (property rights, freedom from corruption); Limited Government (fiscal freedom, government spending); Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labour freedom, monetary freedom); and Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom). Each of the ten economic freedoms within these categories is graded on a scale of 0 to 100. A country’s overall score is derived by averaging these ten economic freedoms, with equal weight being given to each. Data Heritage http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
[Relevance] A lack of economic freedom deprives the farmers' organization opportunities for organizing economic services needed by its members. Agriculture value added [Definition]: Measures the percentage of added value in agriculture, as a percentage of the GDP.
[Source & Measurement] Agriculture corresponds to ISIC divisions 1-5 and includes forestry, hunting, and fishing, as well as cultivation of crops and livestock production. Value added is the net output of a sector after adding up all outputs and subtracting intermediate inputs. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or depletion and degradation of natural resources. The origin of value added is determined by the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), revision 3. Data Worldbank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS
[Relevance] The higher the more important agriculture the more potential for FFP. theoretically. It also shows that the share of agriculture in GDP is higher when it is an agricultural society. The countries that have over 40% are eg. all African. Economic active population in agriculture [Definition] Shows the number of workers in the agricultural sector.
[Source & Measurement]: Indicates to what extent society is an agrarian society. Data FAO http://faostat.fao.org/site/550/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=550#ancor
[Relevance] FFP works on rural development by supporting family farmers. The more people active in (family) farming, the higher the potential for FFP
2.4 Cluster 4: Inequality
Gini Inequality Index [Definition] The Gini Index is a scale for the measurement of inequality on income.
[Source & Measurement]: Lorenz curve Data CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html
[Relevance] High inequality means FFP can play an important role in reducing the divide. Gender inequality Index [Definition]: The GII is an index for the measurement of gender disparity.
[Source & Measurement]: Can be interpreted as a combined loss to achievements in reproductive health, empowerment and labour market participation due to gender inequalities. Data UNDP http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/68606.html
[Relevance] High inequality means FFP can play an important role in reducing the divide.
All indexes use different scales and numbering techniques. In order to come to numbers that could be consolidated, all indexes were “normalised” to a scale from 0% to 100% in a way that
The lowest available data corresponds to 0%
The highest available data corresponds to 100%
The average of all available data corresponds to 50%.
For indicators having a negative correlation with “FFP suitability” (e.g. Human development index where a low value is favourable to the expected impact of FFP) the result was inversed by subtracting the outcome of the formula from 100%.
The result of this calculation is a “standardised value” of each index on a 0-100% scale with a positive correlation to a “favourable context”, allowing to consolidate the data. Consolidation was done in two steps
A first consolidation to come to a “cluster score” by calculating the average value of the indicator values for each cluster
A second consolidation to come to a “country score” by calculating a weighted average from the cluster scores, using following weighing factors:
o 4 for the clusters “poverty” and “inequality”, since the reduction of these elements are the goal of FFP
o 2 for the cluster “Economic growth potential” since this is the central development drive in FFP
o 1 for the cluster “Democracy”, since this is a condition that needs to be met in some extend, allowing farmers’ to get organised.
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
7
4 Results
4.1 Country scores in relation to OECD DAC list of ODA recipient countries
The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD publishes the list of countries that are eligible for Official Development Aid (ODA)In the DAC-list. In this list the countries are grouped into 4 categories, mainly based upon the Gross National Income per capita:
Least Developed Countries as defined by the UN
Other Low Income Countries: per capita GNI <= $ 1,045 in 2013
Lower Middle Income Countries : per capita GNI between $ 1,046 and $4,125 in 2013
Upper Middle Income Countries: per capita GNI between $ 4,126 and $12,745 in 2013 There is a clear correlation between the country category on the OECD list and the four clusters of the country score. The profile of the “Least Developed Countries” and of the “Other Low Income Countries” is very similar. As countries evolve from these categories to the “Lower Middle Income Countries” and the “ Upper Middle Income Countries” obviously poverty decreases, but also democracy increases and the potential of economic growth through agricultural development decreases, the latter mainly because of the lower percentage of active population in agriculture. However, the inequality hardly changes.
The scores per cluster of the individual countries is listed in annex 1.
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
8
4.2 Country scores of the countries where FFP central funding supported FO’s in 21041
The table below shows the scores of all countries where FFP supported farmers organisations through central funding, including the scores for each cluster. For reference, the average of the countries and the score of the EU 27 is added.
Country Poverty Democracy Economic
growth potential
Inequality Country
score
Average FFP 66,7 42,9 55,8 60,0 60,1
EU 27 18,0 75,4 22,3 18,2 24,1
Zambia 77,3 36,6 52,6 84,5 71,7
Haiti 74,9 33,3 52,9 84,9 70,7
Togo 79,5 50,0 57,5 70,5 69,5
Burkina Faso 76,6 48,1 70,3 66,3 69,1
Niger 82,8 50,0 67,8 59,0 68,4
Malawi 77,8 29,0 63,2 71,5 68,4
Gambia 71,2 33,3 62,8 74,9 67,6
Kenya 72,7 40,3 62,7 70,0 66,9
Congo, Dem. Rep. Of 82,0 16,7 52,6 71,0 66,7
Burundi 90,3 33,3 71,4 48,3 66,4
Benin 65,6 67,9 59,0 70,5 66,4
Mali 70,9 54,5 67,4 59,6 64,7
Guatemala 68,2 50,1 48,8 72,8 64,7
Uganda 70,9 39,9 62,5 65,6 64,6
Madagascar 80,9 53,7 62,3 52,0 64,6
Senegal 70,4 59,0 59,8 62,0 64,4
Rwanda 72,6 18,0 70,3 63,4 63,9
Tanzania 69,2 44,6 61,9 59,4 62,0
Ethiopia 74,8 34,3 67,8 51,8 61,5
Cameroon 66,3 16,7 53,5 68,3 60,2
Ghana 58,2 47,1 58,1 65,2 59,7
Myanmar 66,6 0,0 77,0 57,6 59,2
Nepal 69,4 50,0 68,4 45,7 58,8
Bolivia 59,7 56,8 48,3 63,6 58,8
Nicaragua 63,5 46,9 40,6 61,8 57,2
Laos 65,7 16,7 61,5 55,3 56,7
Philippines 64,6 40,3 47,1 55,5 55,9
Guinea 75,1 33,3 60,5 30,0 52,3
Indonesia 51,4 38,5 50,8 56,2 51,9
Vietnam 57,1 55,3 55,3 39,5 50,2
Peru 46,1 46,3 46,0 56,4 49,9
Georgia 51,1 50,7 37,9 53,4 49,5
Morocco 46,0 36,2 46,9 57,1 49,3
Thailand 45,2 58,2 52,4 48,8 49,0
Mexico 45,4 52,7 28,9 58,3 47,8
Armenia 53,4 50,1 42,3 30,7 42,8
Bosnia And Herzegovina 63,9 47,4 26,1 26,6 41,9
1 Calculation details, see annex 2
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
9
It is not surprising that, compared to the EU 27, all countries score higher on the clusters poverty inequality and economic growth potential. The low score of the EU 27 for economic growth does not indicate that the EU27 would not have potential for economic expansion. The low score for this cluster is due to the fact that in the EU27 relatively few people work in agriculture and that most added value is in other sectors. Although the scores for democracy in the FFP –focussed countries are fairly low, experience shows that in those countries the degrees of civil freedom and the trust amongst the population is sufficient to come to operational farmers’ organisations.
The radar diagrams for the individual countries are added in annex 2.
4.3 Country score in relation to FFP central funding
In the table below the countries are ranked in function of the central FFP funding in descending order. Out of the 37 countries listed, 30 have a score higher than 50%. The top-15-countries, receiving 85% of the FFP central funding have an average score of 62%, which is significantly higher than the FFP average. Countries with a score lower than 50 are only found in the lower half of the table. It is fair to conclude that the FFP funding is targeted at those countries in which the FFP approach is likely to have an added value. Some countries with scores above 60% (Malawi, Zambia, Haiti, Togo, Rwanda and Guatemala) are in the bottom-10 of the table. One could suggest that these countries deserve more attention. However, when making recommendations, one must bear in mind that FFP is demand driven and is based upon long term relationship between the farmers’ organisations and the agri-agencies in the AgriCord network. At most, one could suggest that when looking for new partners, the agri-agencies pay extra attention to these countries.
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
10
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
11
5 Conclusions
The calculation of country scores along the 4 clusters allows to compare countries it terms of “suitability” for the FFP approach. It gives an indication of the poverty and inequality in a country, which are two key elements for the potential impact of FFP. It also gives an indication of the level of democracy in a country and of the potential for the impact based upon agricultural development. To say that the country scores could be a method to measure the impact of FFP, is far to ambitious. Development indicators are published on a the level of a whole country, whereas FFP actions target local communities, with limited budgets. It is not reasonable to expect that the effect of these local targeted actions could influence in a direct measurable way the development indicators of a country. The country score methodology can also not be used to make decisions on individual projects. Within a country, there can be big regional or other differences, that can make individual actions very suitable even if the country indicator shows otherwise or vice-versa. At the most, the country score for the different clusters can contribute to the reflection on possible impact. This being said, from the calculated country scores one can conclude that centrally mobilised FFP funds go to countries in which actions target on rural development through the support of membership based farmers’ organisations has a good chance of success. The countries have high scores in terms of rural poverty and inequality, agriculture is an important sector in terms of both potential added value and number of people involved. And although some countries might deserve more attention, the bulk of central funding goes to countries with high scores.
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
12
Annex 1: Overview of normalised index values and resulting scores2.
Country Poverty Democracy Economic
growth potential
Inequality Overall OECD Classification
Afghanistan 59,2 8,3 44,8 73,0 57,0 Least Developed Countries
Albania 44,5 58,2 55,5 40,8 46,4 Upper Middle Income Countries
Algeria 34,2 38,1 38,6 53,5 42,4 Upper Middle Income Countries
Angola 67,9 16,7 51,4 25,0 44,6 Least Developed Countries
Argentina 20,1 60,4 24,4 50,3 35,6 Upper Middle Income Countries
Armenia 45,1 50,1 41,8 30,7 39,7 Lower Middle Income Countries
Azerbaijan 34,8 37,5 35,8 36,3 35,8 Upper Middle Income Countries
Bangladesh 68,8 47,8 51,1 48,0 56,1 Least Developed Countries
Belarus 31,4 42,1 29,2 12,0 24,9 Upper Middle Income Countries
Belize 37,2 41,7 45,9 54,1 45,3 Upper Middle Income Countries
Benin 65,8 67,9 59,2 70,5 66,5 Least Developed Countries
Bhutan 48,1 16,7 63,8 58,4 51,8 Least Developed Countries
Bolivia 59,8 56,8 48,0 63,6 58,8 Lower Middle Income Countries
Bosnia And Herzegovina 40,8 47,4 26,7 26,6 33,7 Upper Middle Income Countries
Botswana 51,8 44,2 40,2 78,2 58,6 Upper Middle Income Countries
Brazil 25,7 47,2 27,3 67,4 43,1 Upper Middle Income Countries
Burkina Faso 76,8 48,1 45,5 66,3 64,7 Least Developed Countries
Burundi 90,4 16,7 69,9 48,3 64,7 Least Developed Countries
Cambodia 66,2 21,1 63,1 59,0 58,9 Least Developed Countries
Cameroon 66,5 8,3 53,2 68,3 59,4 Lower Middle Income Countries
Cape Verde 27,8 50,6 25,4 25,0 28,4 Lower Middle Income Countries
Central African Republic 79,2 16,7 35,0 85,9 67,9 Least Developed Countries
Chad 80,0 8,3 66,0 73,2 68,5 Least Developed Countries
Chile 20,1 65,2 31,2 59,6 40,6 Upper Middle Income Countries
China 39,4 51,3 50,2 33,4 40,2 Upper Middle Income Countries
Colombia 45,1 38,2 33,9 69,6 51,3 Upper Middle Income Countries
Comoros 65,7 25,0 63,9 25,0 46,9 Least Developed Countries
Congo, Dem. Rep. Of 58,7 8,3 39,9 71,0 55,2 Least Developed Countries
Costa Rica 36,2 73,5 32,5 56,6 46,3 Upper Middle Income Countries
Cuba 33,3 8,3 13,6 48,2 32,8 Upper Middle Income Countries
Djibouti 50,5 16,7 40,8 25,0 36,4 Least Developed Countries
Dominica 37,3 50,0 46,1 25,0 35,6 Upper Middle Income Countries
Dominican Republic 49,9 72,7 28,9 65,0 53,7 Upper Middle Income Countries
Ecuador 51,5 63,8 35,1 60,5 52,9 Upper Middle Income Countries
El Salvador 50,7 60,6 43,8 54,6 51,8 Lower Middle Income Countries
Equatorial Guinea 45,8 0,0 34,4 25,0 32,0 Least Developed Countries
Eritrea 70,5 0,0 36,3 25,0 41,4 Least Developed Countries
Ethiopia 74,9 34,3 68,2 51,8 61,6 Least Developed Countries
Fiji 49,7 25,0 49,3 28,2 39,6 Upper Middle Income Countries
Gabon 42,3 16,7 29,1 59,2 43,7 Upper Middle Income Countries
Gambia 71,3 16,7 41,3 74,9 62,2 Least Developed Countries
Georgia 40,8 50,7 38,8 26,7 36,2 Lower Middle Income Countries
Ghana 58,2 47,1 57,9 65,2 59,7 Lower Middle Income Countries
Guatemala 68,3 50,1 48,9 72,8 64,8 Lower Middle Income Countries
2 For some countries on the DAC-list we were not able to find reliable information for the calculation of the country score, most of them small island states and newly established countries. These countries are not included in this list.
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
13
Country Poverty Democracy Economic
growth potential
Inequality Overall OECD Classification
Guinea 63,8 16,7 60,3 15,0 41,1 Least Developed Countries
Guinea-Bissau 74,7 25,0 68,5 25,0 51,0 Least Developed Countries
Guyana 50,0 33,3 41,9 60,3 50,8 Lower Middle Income Countries
Haiti 75,0 16,7 35,8 84,9 66,2 Least Developed Countries
Honduras 61,9 47,4 44,3 74,9 62,1 Lower Middle Income Countries
India 65,2 58,6 54,4 52,9 58,2 Lower Middle Income Countries
Indonesia 51,5 38,5 50,8 56,2 51,9 Lower Middle Income Countries
Iraq 53,7 41,4 2,8 44,6 40,0 Upper Middle Income Countries
Jamaica 37,5 33,3 26,4 55,7 41,7 Upper Middle Income Countries
Jordan 35,0 44,4 24,6 47,8 38,6 Upper Middle Income Countries
Kazakhstan 31,8 16,7 30,0 27,6 28,6 Upper Middle Income Countries
Kenya 72,8 40,3 62,2 70,0 66,9 Other Low Income Countries
Laos 66,1 8,3 61,5 55,3 56,1 Least Developed Countries
Lebanon 25,4 39,9 24,8 52,6 36,5 Upper Middle Income Countries
Lesotho 74,4 47,6 31,1 62,6 59,8 Least Developed Countries
Liberia 73,8 25,0 36,8 69,5 61,1 Least Developed Countries
Libya 25,4 8,3 1,5 38,7 24,3 Upper Middle Income Countries
Madagascar 81,0 53,7 62,5 26,0 55,1 Least Developed Countries
Malawi 77,8 29,0 63,1 71,5 68,4 Least Developed Countries
Malaysia 31,4 30,6 36,4 38,4 34,8 Upper Middle Income Countries
Mali 71,0 54,5 40,5 59,6 59,8 Least Developed Countries
Mauritania 66,3 16,7 52,4 68,7 60,2 Least Developed Countries
Mauritius 38,6 41,7 27,1 49,9 40,9 Upper Middle Income Countries
Mexico 43,1 52,7 29,7 58,3 47,1 Upper Middle Income Countries
Moldova 56,0 49,9 51,4 25,0 43,3 Lower Middle Income Countries
Mongolia 52,0 49,4 42,3 40,8 46,0 Lower Middle Income Countries
Montenegro 36,7 71,0 35,6 9,8 29,9 Upper Middle Income Countries
Morocco 43,8 36,2 47,1 57,1 48,6 Lower Middle Income Countries
Mozambique 77,0 59,5 64,3 75,6 72,6 Least Developed Countries
Myanmar 47,0 58,3 25,6 53,8 46,6 Least Developed Countries
Namibia 61,4 68,3 40,3 76,6 63,7 Upper Middle Income Countries
Nepal 69,4 25,0 68,7 45,7 56,6 Least Developed Countries
Nicaragua 63,5 46,9 40,1 61,8 57,1 Lower Middle Income Countries
Niger 82,7 25,0 67,7 59,0 66,1 Least Developed Countries
Nigeria 67,3 37,6 47,0 28,3 46,7 Lower Middle Income Countries
Pakistan 65,6 45,2 53,6 46,2 54,5 Lower Middle Income Countries
Panama 41,8 63,5 24,2 71,2 51,3 Upper Middle Income Countries
Papua New Guinea 61,6 33,3 38,5 66,9 56,7 Lower Middle Income Countries
Paraguay 53,5 41,8 49,5 64,0 55,5 Lower Middle Income Countries
Peru 46,1 46,3 30,5 56,4 47,1 Upper Middle Income Countries
Philippines 51,5 40,3 48,1 55,5 51,3 Lower Middle Income Countries
Rwanda 72,8 18,0 70,4 63,4 64,0 Least Developed Countries
Senegal 70,4 59,0 58,6 62,0 64,2 Least Developed Countries
Serbia 35,6 59,1 21,1 8,2 25,1 Upper Middle Income Countries
Sierra Leone 78,3 33,3 69,4 61,5 66,5 Least Developed Countries
Somalia 53,4 0,0 25,1 25,0 33,1 Least Developed Countries
South Africa 52,7 58,9 21,7 81,0 57,9 Upper Middle Income Countries
South Sudan 80,3 0,0 21,5 25,0 42,2 Least Developed Countries
Sri Lanka 57,6 25,0 48,8 50,5 50,5 Lower Middle Income Countries
Sudan 77,0 0,0 43,8 67,6 60,6 Least Developed Countries
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
14
Country Poverty Democracy Economic
growth potential
Inequality Overall OECD Classification
Suriname 35,4 41,7 32,8 56,1 43,0 Upper Middle Income Countries
Swaziland 77,4 16,7 30,9 60,7 57,4 Lower Middle Income Countries
Syrian Arab Republic 55,4 0,0 11,7 62,6 45,0 Lower Middle Income Countries
Tajikistan 71,4 16,7 50,5 35,6 49,6 Other Low Income Countries
Tanzania 69,3 44,6 63,5 59,4 62,4 Least Developed Countries
Thailand 45,4 58,2 52,3 48,8 49,1 Upper Middle Income Countries
Timor-Leste 76,8 0,0 39,4 25,0 44,2 Least Developed Countries
Togo 75,0 25,0 34,9 70,5 61,5 Least Developed Countries
Tunisia 35,4 25,0 37,8 35,7 35,0 Upper Middle Income Countries
Turkey 29,8 34,7 44,1 49,3 39,9 Upper Middle Income Countries
Turkmenistan 37,3 0,0 27,0 25,0 27,6 Upper Middle Income Countries
Uganda 71,1 39,9 62,3 65,6 64,7 Least Developed Countries
Ukraine 34,7 60,5 31,2 21,5 31,6 Lower Middle Income Countries
Uruguay 20,6 75,7 36,8 50,9 39,6 Upper Middle Income Countries
Uzbekistan 45,4 0,0 42,6 25,0 33,3 Lower Middle Income Countries
Venezuela 22,1 40,0 11,0 56,2 34,1 Upper Middle Income Countries
Vietnam 57,3 55,3 55,8 39,5 50,4 Lower Middle Income Countries
Zambia 77,3 36,6 51,7 84,5 71,6 Least Developed Countries
Zimbabwe 79,2 18,1 48,3 59,8 61,0 Other Low Income Countries
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
15
Annex 2: Overview of normalised index values and resulting scores.
Co
un
try
sco
re
Hu
ma
n
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Ind
ex
Glo
ba
l
Hu
nge
r In
dex
Gro
ss
Do
mes
tic
Pro
du
ct
Ru
ral
po
pu
lati
on
Po
vert
y
hea
dco
un
t
rati
o a
t ru
ral
po
vert
y li
ne
Civ
il L
iber
ties
ind
ex
Tru
st i
nd
ex
Ind
ex o
f
Eco
no
mic
Free
do
m
Agr
icu
ltu
re
valu
e a
dd
ed
Eco
no
mic
act
ive
po
pu
lati
on
in
agr
icu
ltu
re %
Gin
i
Ineq
ua
lity
Ind
ex
Gen
der
ineq
ua
lity
Ind
ex
Po
vert
yD
emo
cra
cy
Eco
no
mic
gro
wth
po
ten
tia
l
Ineq
ua
lity
Ove
rall
Sen
ega
l6
4,6
57
,99
7,1
61
,37
1,1
66
,75
1,4
44
,35
6,2
79
,05
1,4
72
,57
0,4
59
,05
9,8
62
,06
4,4
Bu
run
di
71
,61
00
,09
9,9
96
,28
3,8
33
,34
2,1
79
,49
2,6
28
,66
8,1
90
,33
3,3
71
,44
8,3
66
,4
Tan
zan
ia6
4,4
63
,79
8,3
74
,84
4,6
66
,72
2,6
57
,06
6,7
43
,97
4,8
69
,24
4,6
61
,95
9,4
62
,0
Ph
ilip
pin
es5
1,9
55
,39
0,9
60
,16
6,7
14
,04
2,9
45
,25
3,3
56
,75
4,2
64
,64
0,3
47
,15
5,5
55
,9
Nig
er7
5,4
71
,29
9,3
89
,57
8,5
50
,03
9,4
76
,38
7,8
21
,49
6,6
82
,85
0,0
67
,85
9,0
68
,4
Uga
nd
a6
4,7
63
,19
8,8
91
,73
6,5
50
,02
9,7
42
,86
3,6
81
,05
9,7
71
,47
0,9
39
,96
2,5
65
,66
4,6
Ind
on
esia
50
,14
9,5
88
,45
0,0
18
,96
6,7
10
,34
1,8
51
,95
8,7
45
,06
7,4
51
,43
8,5
50
,85
6,2
51
,9
Bu
rkin
a F
aso
71
,76
8,8
98
,47
7,1
66
,96
6,7
29
,54
2,1
74
,19
4,6
50
,38
2,3
76
,64
8,1
70
,36
6,3
69
,1
Ma
da
gasc
ar
63
,77
2,8
99
,27
1,4
97
,65
0,0
57
,34
4,1
64
,67
8,3
52
,08
0,9
53
,76
2,3
52
,06
4,6
Eth
iop
ia6
8,3
77
,89
9,0
88
,34
0,5
16
,75
1,9
35
,78
4,7
83
,12
9,7
73
,97
4,8
34
,36
7,8
51
,86
1,5
Ben
in6
5,3
51
,69
7,9
60
,15
3,1
83
,35
2,5
40
,87
6,3
60
,05
7,7
83
,36
5,6
67
,95
9,0
70
,56
6,4
Vie
tna
m5
3,5
36
,09
4,0
72
,62
9,7
33
,37
7,2
36
,35
6,2
73
,63
6,5
42
,45
7,1
55
,35
5,3
39
,55
0,2
Ma
li7
0,3
55
,19
8,3
65
,86
4,8
66
,74
2,4
39
,68
1,5
81
,02
7,7
91
,57
0,9
54
,56
7,4
59
,66
4,7
Nep
al
60
,66
1,9
98
,38
9,5
36
,55
0,0
35
,87
4,1
95
,32
7,0
64
,46
9,4
50
,06
8,4
45
,75
8,8
Mya
nm
ar
61
,87
1,4
77
,05
7,6
66
,60
,07
7,0
57
,65
9,2
Per
u4
1,8
27
,47
7,0
22
,96
1,6
66
,72
5,9
48
,14
3,9
61
,35
1,6
46
,14
6,3
46
,05
6,4
49
,9
Geo
rgia
40
,78
7,9
50
,02
5,7
66
,73
4,8
51
,83
7,0
24
,85
3,4
51
,15
0,7
37
,95
3,4
49
,5
Co
ngo
, Dem
. Rep
. Of
75
,49
9,1
62
,49
1,2
16
,72
9,0
59
,36
9,5
51
,19
1,0
82
,01
6,7
52
,67
1,0
66
,7
Gh
an
a5
8,2
37
,59
4,2
50
,05
1,0
83
,31
0,9
45
,96
0,4
68
,25
6,2
74
,25
8,2
47
,15
8,1
65
,25
9,7
Lao
Peo
ple
`S D
emo
cra
tic
Rep
ub
lic
58
,56
9,2
94
,96
6,9
39
,21
6,7
36
,66
5,7
82
,43
8,5
72
,16
5,7
16
,76
1,5
55
,35
6,7
Mex
ico
38
,82
4,0
63
,92
1,8
78
,56
6,7
38
,84
7,7
12
,22
6,7
66
,65
0,0
45
,45
2,7
28
,95
8,3
47
,8
Ga
mb
ia6
7,8
56
,39
9,1
43
,58
9,1
33
,34
2,5
83
,16
5,1
84
,77
1,2
33
,36
2,8
74
,96
7,6
Ken
ya6
1,0
62
,19
6,4
81
,66
2,7
66
,71
3,9
40
,86
8,9
78
,36
5,9
74
,17
2,7
40
,36
2,7
70
,06
6,9
Bo
livi
a5
1,4
47
,69
0,5
33
,77
5,4
66
,74
6,9
34
,65
0,9
59
,46
3,8
63
,55
9,7
56
,84
8,3
63
,65
8,8
Mo
rocc
o5
5,0
24
,08
9,7
42
,41
8,9
50
,02
2,4
41
,65
5,1
43
,95
2,5
61
,84
6,0
36
,24
6,9
57
,14
9,3
Tha
ila
nd
44
,22
4,0
80
,15
4,5
23
,05
0,0
66
,44
5,2
49
,46
2,8
49
,24
8,4
45
,25
8,2
52
,44
8,8
49
,0
Gu
inea
71
,45
7,7
98
,96
8,0
79
,63
3,3
38
,25
8,3
85
,13
0,0
75
,13
3,3
60
,53
0,0
52
,3
Ma
law
i6
9,8
56
,31
00
,09
1,7
71
,15
0,0
8,0
39
,66
5,7
84
,46
2,9
80
,17
7,8
29
,06
3,2
71
,56
8,4
Ca
mer
oo
n6
3,2
54
,39
6,1
48
,96
9,0
16
,73
7,6
61
,56
1,4
52
,28
4,4
66
,31
6,7
53
,56
8,3
60
,2
Zam
bia
59
,17
5,4
94
,26
4,7
93
,35
0,0
23
,24
3,1
41
,17
3,6
85
,28
3,7
77
,33
6,6
52
,68
4,5
71
,7
Ha
iti
65
,77
5,0
97
,94
5,7
90
,23
3,3
34
,97
0,9
88
,68
1,2
74
,93
3,3
52
,98
4,9
70
,7
Togo
65
,59
8,5
65
,88
8,0
50
,03
5,6
69
,96
6,8
62
,57
8,4
79
,55
0,0
57
,57
0,5
69
,5
Bo
snia
An
d H
erze
govi
na
42
,88
4,1
64
,76
6,7
28
,14
1,7
32
,93
,82
7,8
25
,46
3,9
47
,42
6,1
26
,64
1,9
Rw
an
da
63
,16
0,3
98
,57
8,2
62
,73
3,3
2,6
46
,27
2,0
92
,67
2,1
54
,87
2,6
18
,07
0,3
63
,46
3,9
Arm
enia
42
,98
8,3
39
,14
3,2
50
,05
0,2
49
,26
0,4
17
,21
8,5
42
,95
3,4
50
,14
2,3
30
,74
2,8
Gu
ate
ma
la5
4,2
60
,38
8,4
52
,38
5,9
50
,05
0,2
43
,74
5,2
57
,37
5,1
70
,66
8,2
50
,14
8,8
72
,86
4,7
Nic
ara
gua
55
,24
6,1
94
,24
4,6
77
,55
0,0
43
,94
1,7
55
,12
4,8
62
,06
1,5
63
,54
6,9
40
,66
1,8
57
,2
Ave
rage
FFP
59
,65
6,2
93
,66
2,5
61
,75
0,9
34
,84
1,7
59
,86
6,0
51
,36
8,7
66
,74
2,9
55
,86
0,0
60
,1
EU 2
72
2,5
0,0
39
,72
7,7
0,0
96
,95
3,8
49
,58
,78
,72
1,6
14
,91
8,0
75
,42
2,3
18
,21
6,4
Co
rrel
ati
on
typ
e (p
os/
neg
)n
egp
os
neg
po
sp
os
neg
po
sp
os
po
sp
os
po
sp
os
low
est
sco
re3
8,8
24
,06
3,9
21
,81
8,9
16
,72
,62
9,0
12
,23
,81
8,5
25
,43
3,5
9,7
15
,02
2,0
29
,4
hig
hes
t sc
ore
75
,41
00
,01
00
,09
6,2
97
,68
3,3
77
,25
7,0
84
,79
5,3
88
,69
6,6
93
,88
0,3
79
,09
2,6
95
,2
Po
vert
yD
em
ocr
acy
Eco
no
mic
gro
wth
po
ten
tial
Ine
qu
alit
yC
om
pil
ed
dat
a
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
16
Annex 2: Radar diagram for each country
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
17
Farmers Fighting Poverty 2013-2014 Report
18
3
3 For Myamar there is no data available for the democracy indicators
