Introduction

Cameroon is one of the most prosperous countries in Central Africa, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth averaging 4% over the last decade due to abundant agricultural land and petroleum. The agricultural sector is essential to the economy and contributes to economic growth and poverty reduction efforts. It currently accounts for 17% of GDP and involves 70%of the economically active workforce (WFP, 2023). It plays a determining role in alleviating poverty and food security thanks to self-provisioning for over 2,000,000 households in the country and its role as a main supplier to neighboring countries’ urban markets. About 80% of food requirements are satisfied by domestic production (WFP, 2023a).

(Find an excerpt of the rich article below)

Chapter I: Main Agricultural Policy Incentives, Interventions, and Reforms

The evolution of Cameroon’s agricultural policy can be divided into four phases. The first phase runs from independence to the end of the 1960s and is marked by a continuation of French and British colonial agricultural policies and institutions. The second, characterised by a proliferation of new agricultural interventions, covers the late 1960s to 1970s. A third phase marked by attempts at agricultural policy reform goes from the late 1970s to the late 1980s, and the fourth phase, dominated by agricultural policy liberalisation, began around 1990 and is ongoing. 

Colonial Agriculture Policy and the Emergence of Institutions 

The Germans’ colonial agricultural policies and institutions in Cameroon between 1894 and 1916, the French between 1916 and 1960, and the British between 1916 and 1961, with the country partitioned under a system of dualism between European-owned large-scale plantations and Cameroonian peasant small-holdings (Bamou & Masters, 2007). Agriculture policy was directly linked to colonialism and the changing economic conditions and demands of colonisers. Great emphasis was placed exclusively on export crops, and the development of indigenous foods received little attention and was discouraged due to labour needs in European-owned large-scale plantations (Njinkeu, 1996). As such, the colonial administration took several measures to stimulate the creation and expansion of plantations. 

Furthermore, large portions of land were expropriated from the natives and given to planters, preventing skills and technology transfers as well as greater management autonomy and Ntangsi (1988) finds that taxation and forced labour were used to ensure a constant and cheap labour supply. 

Meanwhile, a network of transportation and marketing facilities were developed to serve plantation areas.  During the second half of colonialism in Cameroon, the emphasis shifted to peasant production (uncompensated), which caused the rapid expansion of exports (Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement 1961; Bamou & Bamou, 1999). During this period, an attempt was made to expand peasant production via roads and railways in major-producing areas while agricultural institutions were created to support the sector. 

Several agricultural institutions were created to market and extend farming products. The French created the ‘Secteurs de Modernisation’ (SEM), financed by FIDES (Fonds d’Investissement pour le Développement Économique) (Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement 1961). It provided a network of techniques and crop-oriented services across the agriculture value chain, from seed production, pest control, and agro-processing activities (rice milling). Furthermore, the SAP (Société Africaine de Prévoyance) provided credit while the Caisse de Stabilisation handled marketing (Bamou & Masters, 2007). Additionally, specialised research institutes were established for cotton production. Notably, Compagnie Française pour le Développement des Fibres et Textiles (CFDT), the Institut des Fruits et Agrumes (IFAC) for cocoa and coffee, and the Institut de Recherches sur les Huiles et Oléagineux (IRHO) for palm oil. 

The British emphasised smallholders less and prioritised large-scale plantations operated by the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC), Elders and Fyffes Ltd., and others. They created institutions such as the Department of Agriculture, Cooperatives, and Community Development. At the same time, the marketing of export crops was handled by the Marketing Board and research by the Department of Agriculture (Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement 1961). This preceded the post-independence period. 

The 1960s 

The post-independence period was driven by the continuation of colonial agricultural policies as well as persistent institutional structures. Until 1972, the country was ruled under the system of Federalism (East and West Cameroon). In 1964, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Animation (DARA) was created under the Federal Ministry of Planning to coordinate agricultural development in both states (Bamou & Masters, 2007). The extension system – as it was termed – was based on what is referred to as the diffusion model with three main features; 

• It was focused on peasants as the primary agents for agricultural development. 

• It involved the transformation of peasants through the diffusion and adoption of innovations.

• It relied on limited government intervention (research, extension, and availability of inputs) to improve autonomy and decision-making. 

This approach was adopted in the first Five-year Development Plan of the country (1961-1965) and to a limited extent in the second round (1966-1970). Signs of dissatisfaction with the peasant plan emerged in the second phase despite the satisfactory performance of the agriculture sector, with more significant increases from the areas under cultivation and not from yield grains. The second plan was driven by new forms of experimentation together with other forms of intervention structures in new forms. In 1972, the reunification between English and French Cameroon led to the creation of a new Ministry of Agriculture, which significantly modified the colonial structure (Daviron et al, 2004). 

The 1970s

The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a movement towards more significant agricultural intervention, like most countries. Inflation quickly eroded those gains, even in sectors that were previously left to the private sector such as input distribution and marketing of food crops (FAOSTAT, 2006). In Cameroon, government intervention and centralised decision-making focused expenditure on state plantations at the expense of small holders. There was equally an increase in indirect taxation for peasants via the marketing board, the Office National de Commercialisation de Produits de Base (ONCPB), created mainly for cocoa and coffee (Verlet, 2002). The period equally witnessed multiplication of new institutions and new methods of production recommended in the second plan from 1966-1970. 

By 1970, ten parastatals had been created, and 14 were formed during Cameroon’s third plan from 1971-75.  The Fourth Plan, from 1976 to 1980 further expanded state interventions with some twenty new projects that were proposed but never implemented as donors were no longer willing to fund them. International donors have supported Cameroon’s state-led agricultural interventions as agencies that were created had to be managed as quasi-private enterprises with administrative, technical, and financial autonomy and potential efficiency (MINAGRI, 1980). Additionally, most projects sought to combine marketable output with basic farmer needs, which aligned closely with the approach to rural development adopted by donors and the international community in the 1970s. However, this system was costly and only had a marginal impact on total agricultural output. 

Meanwhile, the emergence of new institutions and structures were counterproductive as agencies were supervised by different government ministries who did not coordinate their activities. The legacy of colonialism was poor management and perverse incentives, driven by poor knowledge and bad governance (Matiké & Kapto, 2001). Responsibility overlapped between agencies who equally worked at cross-purpose, and leaders were concerned with consolidating power. The poor performance of such an interventionist approach caused donor retreat and helped awaken government doubt about their approach to agricultural development – creating an imbalance between the effects of poor governance and top-down approach.

The 1980s

In 1997, the oil boom began, causing prices to rise for cocoa, coffee, and cotton. However, inflation quickly eroded those gains, and agricultural production was heavily burdened during the boom years. During this period, agricultural policy in Cameroon was mainly characterised by a misallocation of resources. The 1980s saw three distinct forms of resource misallocation. Firstly, the Dutch Disease misallocation due to unsustainable price incentives and limited investment in smallholder agriculture. Before the oil boom, the sectoral balance tended to lean against agriculture, with resources concentrated in a relatively small sector, producing not more than 10% of total agricultural output (Benjamin & Devarajan 1989, Blandford et al. 1995). These biases worsened during the boom, making smallholders less attractive, thereby increasing the number of unskilled workers in non-farm work. 

A second misallocation occurred when government institutions due to unsustainable management structures failed to provide the relevant and financial support for the agricultural sector. Before the oil boom, decision-making was extremely centralised, resulting in heavy red tape and the fragmentation of responsibilities in the bureaucracy (Bamou & Douya, 2003). During the boom, this caused poor policy implementation and misallocation of expenditures to smallholder agriculture. 

A third form of misallocation was the underinvestment in new technology. Although Cameroon did not have a public agricultural research and development program, few incentives for technology adoption emerged. As such, yields for most crops stagnated or declined (MINAGRI, 1980). All these problems became evident during the oil boom, but policy changes only occurred when the boom ended and after the debt crisis of the mid-1980 made reforms possible.

The 1980’s were a reaction to several crises and agricultural policy during these years were reactionary. The agriculture sector was subject to quotas and restrictions, high import duties and price controls (Touna-Mama, 1996). After this period, the government of Cameroon decided to liberalise its markets and support greater market access. While the impact of falling commodity prices continued to impact the Cameroonian economy, the government chose to liberalise. 

Ongoing liberalisation since the late 1980s 

Faced with a fall in living standards after 1986, the government began implementing Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) supported by international donors. These SAPs involved reforms to public expenditure, the enactment and use of subsidies and strategies to improve governance and outcomes across the public and the private sector (Ntangsi 1988). Meanwhile, sector-specific policy reforms of the SAPs include both liberalisation and privatisation. Those reforms targeted input production, technology transfer, and know-how through research, development, marketing, training, and information. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures and controls aimed to guarantee food security, diversify agricultural exports, and raise incomes in rural areas during this period.

The reform that attracted the most attention involved liberalising products and marketing. The Food Crop Development Authority (MIDEVIV) and the National Produce Marketing Board (ONCPB), which controlled the cocoa and coffee board, were liquidated with other development agencies (Bamou & Masters, 2007). Their withdrawal improved average incentives for many products and regions, with very few traders available, causing marketing costs to rise temporarily. This deterioration of local marketing conditions prevented farmers’ production, limiting speed and new entrants into private trading to serve these markets. Liberalisation of international trade involved gradually abandoning quantitative restrictions and adopting a simplified tax system. 

During this period of liberalisation, Cameroon adopted the 1994 Regional Fiscal Reform Program (RFRP) initiated at the sub-regional level through the Economic and Monetary Community for Central Africa (CEMAC), simplified the international tax system for agriculture products and reduced average taxation rates (Bamou et al., 2003). On the input side, an essential change was the Sub-Sector Fertilizer Reform Program (SSFRP) launched in 1987 with the assistance of USAID, and the Special Program for the Importation of Fertilisers (SPIF) launched in 1988 with the support of the European Development Fund (EDF). This program aimed to implement an effective private system for importing and distributing fertilisers. 

However, Ntsama (2000) found that an oligopoly from importers enabled them to fix sale prices at unusually high prices. The author argues that the Sub-Sector Fertilizer Reform Program (SSFRP) and the Special Program for the Importation of Fertilisers (SPIF) programs were focused on serving existing importers rather than expanding market size (Ntsama, 2000). For example, the Sub-Sector Fertilizer Reform Program (SSFRP) needed to offer credit mechanisms to expand the number of farmers who could buy fertilisers, but this was not possible due to the slowdown in public spending that was driven by structural adjustment programs. As government spending fell, this was not replaced by aid from traditional agencies to boost local capacity as the emphasis was on imported fertiliser (Masters, 2006). The drop-in public-sector spending affected all services, including agricultural research for new crop varieties and farming techniques. 

Despite the promising results of Cameroon’s agriculture research and the need to increase yield, funding levels fell significantly. In nominal terms, agriculture research institutes received CFAF 5, 910 million in 1984/85 (of which 95% were state subsidies) (World Bank, 2004; Matiké, Bidja & Kapto 2001).

Low Levels of Funding Negatively Impacted the Sector

However, funding rose to CFAF 5, 720 million only between 1992 and 1994, of which 58% were state subsidies (IRAD 1996). The public system for agriculture education was abandoned, with degraded facilities and poorly equipped staff. Despite covering a limited set of skills in a few regions, Matiké et al. (2001) found that training programs were unsustainable and current budgets and equipment insignificant, demoralising trainers. However, private educational institutions were more equipped with human and financial resources, but could not materially impact the level of output. 

The national extension system was less affected by cutbacks, although this did slow down activities. The National Agricultural Extension and Research Program (NPARV) was launched in 1990 through MINAGRI – then Ministry of Agriculture – under the financial assistance of the World Bank, supporting agricultural extension services. Still, the value of extension to farmers was constrained by the limited availability of technologies from research. 

After the Cameroon Agricultural Bank (‘Crédit Agricole’) liquidated in 1997, only a few parastatal or private agro-industrial enterprises offered agriculture loans (Bonaglia & Fukasaku, 2003). Small and remote farmers faced difficulties accessing credit, which caused production to slow. The growth of financial intermediaries was limited by high risk and limited availability of collateral, forcing farmers to rely on loans from family members and local informal lenders. There has been some micro-finance from donor institutions and while this has been good, it doesn’t make up for the deficit left by the government. Still, they were poorly distributed across the country and lacked the professional credibility with no links to commercial banks. 

The New Forestry Laws 

A critical and ambitious area for reform regards the use of forest land that was launched in 1994 under the new forestry law (Law No. 94-01). Reforms on using forests sought to clarify and enforce the rules with solid institutions, which enjoyed high political support. 

The collaborative framework separated the functions of public and private actors to ensure that conservation is globally relevant and contributes to biodiversity rather than hinder local economies and use transparency and public information to fight corruption and vested interest. In the context of highly informal farming stakeholders and methods, these laws provided the framework to manage the environment while supporting various farming practices. These laws equally had implications for property rights in the agriculture sector. According to Kazianga and Masters (2006), changing property rights can have a powerful influence on the adoption and impacts of new technology in this context of cocoa, especially those farms that are planted in forest areas. 

Finally, despite the withdrawal of the government from most agricultural activities, the semi-arid Northern part of the country has continued to benefit since independence from specific government policies (food grants, food crops production incentives, cotton extension and marketing services, etc.). These have been maintained over time with varying differences. Other regions have not enjoyed similar levels of support as they are relatively well-off in comparison to citizens in the Northern part of the country. 

Self-sufficiency and Consolidation of the Agricultural Sector 

The New Agricultural Policy (1990–1998) focused on consolidating achievements in both self-sufficiency and export income and the significant improvement of performance in the sector. It was implemented in a particular context where the government began adopting agricultural sector adjustment plans in 1990 to facilitate the emergence of a strategic framework favourable to private initiatives. Deregulation and privatisation measures aimed at reducing waste and finding more effective forms of governance were thus provided for. The NAP was assigned five objectives: (i) modernising production systems in the agricultural sector; (ii) ensuring food security; (iii) boosting and diversifying exports; (iv) developing agri-food processing; and (v) balancing production chains (Achancho, 2013). 

Some of the NAP’s achievements included: (i) successfully restructuring some state- owned enterprises, (ii) adopting new laws governing the co-op sector; (iii) promoting agricultural interprofessional organisations; (iv) liberalising marketing of agricultural products; (v) developing microfinance systems, (vi) implementing a new agricultural extension strategy; (vii) liberalising agricultural inputs trade; (viii) strengthening farmers’ organisations and improve food security.

As part of the implementation of the liberalisation process, the State also did away with administered regulation, leaving agricultural producers little prepared for new relations requiring them to negotiate and develop contractual arrangements with service providers that were generally more experienced. However, none of the five sectoral objectives were met. The NAP was reviewed and reworked in 1999. It served as a foundation for the development of an integrated rural development strategy in 2001. By this time, over 40% of small-holders were increasingly excluded from the agricultural system and did not directly benefit from grants, technical training and export or production diversification. 

2000 – 2010 Policies 

The post-2000 period was marked by the development of poverty reduction and economic growth strategies that laid the foundation for additional economic and financial programs. IMF support was provided through a Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) agreement, in exchange for reforms. Within the framework of the PRGF-supported program, economic policy took on a new direction, notably with the drafting in 2003 of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) (IMF, 2006). 

The PRSP recognized that the improvement in macroeconomic performance had not led to a corresponding improvement in household living conditions, despite the fact that economic growth had generated a solid increase in per capita income (around 2% per year from 1996 to 2001), and a significant 13-point decline in the poverty rate, according to the comparative results of the ECAM-I and II surveys (INS, 2002). The period of economic recovery that preceded the economic emergence of 2006 allowed the country to transition to medium- and long-term planning with a view to fighting poverty effectively and stimulating the economic recovery. 

It was in this context that “Vision 2035,” which plans to make Cameroon an emerging and democratic country united in its diversity by 2035, was adopted in 2009. The Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (GESP), also adopted in 2009, establishes the reference framework for government action over the period 2010–2020. It emphasised the role of the rural sector and sought to transition the sector towards rural semi-intensive and industrial production, designed to ensure security and self-sufficiency, industrial capacity and an improved trade balance. It equally provides the modernization of the rural sector, through four structuring programs: (i) developing food, animal, fish and forest production, (ii) improving living standards, (iii) sustaining management of natural resources and (iv) improving the institutional framework. 

In 2003, Cameroon drafted a Rural Sector Development Strategy Document (DSDSR), which established the framework for all of the sector’s development action plans. This document was revised in 2006 and its action focuses on four pillars of intervention: (i) modernising the production system, (ii) improving the institutional framework, (iii) creating an incentivizing environment and, (iv) sustainable management of natural resources for agriculture and rural development subsector (Achancho, 2013; IFAD, 2019). The strategy aims to strengthen Cameroon’s role as a sub-regional agricultural power, with a rural sector that acts as an engine for the national economy, ensuring food security for the population while promoting environment-friendly and sustainable development. 

In response to the main challenges, the vision is based on four programs, the objective of which is to: (i) improve industry production and competitiveness; (ii) modernise rural and agricultural production infrastructures; (iii) sustainably manage natural resources; and (iv) improve the institutional framework and build the capacities of all State and private stakeholders. It must be noted that agricultural policy decisions, which were once very centralised, are now made in consultation with various stakeholders: ministries in charge of the Economy, Planning and Regional Development; Finance, Agriculture, and Rural Development; Livestock, Fishing, and Animal Husbandry; Trade; and Research, as well as decentralised regional and local authorities, producers’ organisations, NGOs (to a limited extent) and development partners (IFAD, 2019). However, we officially call for greater inclusion of stakeholders. Cameroon currently has over 200 agriculture associations (CEPI, 2023), grassroot activists and community organisers. This brings the ratio of 1 association to 350,000 people. It is imperative that they are included in policy making, both locally and internationally. 

In July 2003, with a view to assisting the implementation of the GESP through the National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNIA), the government signed the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP) Compact with its participating partners (the African Union, Economic Community of Central Africa States (ECCAS), producers’ organisations, civil society, technical and financial partners, and the business sector) (NEPAD, 2023). Furthermore, a National Program for Food Security (NPFS) (2008−2015) was drawn up in 2007 to combat hunger and food insecurity and cut malnourishment by half, especially among the vulnerable households in rural and peri-urban areas, by 2015. The terms of the agricultural development strategy were given a boost by NEPAD’s Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP).

Meanwhile, the World Bank-financed National Agricultural Extension and Research Program Support Project (NPARV–1998 to 2004) promoted the cultivation of food crops like maize, beans, potatoes, soybeans, and tubers as well as the enhancement of livestock production. It equally supported the production of non-traditional agricultural exports such as green beans, flowers, tropical fruit and cassava chips was also encouraged. This approach necessitated the strengthening of the extension services.

However, limited success was achieved in this regard due to unavailability of improved technologies. Another project in support of the PNVRA was financed by the African Development Fund, and implemented from 2000 to 2007. This project mainly concentrated on capacity building of the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD). The 2007 – 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) caused a surge in public investments in the agricultural sector in the forms of allocations or commitments. But these did not produce any material results in terms of value-added, and have improved the resilience of the sector have yet to produce clear results in terms of greater added value in the sector.

Indeed, growth in the sector was estimated by 4.3% from 2009 to 2012, which was less than the growth obtained in the previous four-year period of 2005 to 2008. However, promising results were achieved in the cash and export crop sector, with an estimated increase of 5%. Higher levels of production did not meet domestic demand, which explains the country’s heavy dependence on imported products such as grain and rice. 

Meanwhile, a large proportion of plantain and vegetable was exported to other countries in the sub-region (Gabon and Equatorial Guinea). The post-crisis years were characterised by an increase in the total budget expenditure, having averaged 4% during the 2004−2008 period, rose to 5.8% in 2010 only to fall again in 2011 and 2012 to 5%.

Likewise, the African Development Fund set up a centre, the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD) that focused on building the capacity of farmers. The project ran from 2000 to 2007 (AfDB, 2015a). Other initiatives aimed at increasing agricultural production, such as the Roots and Tubers Market-Driven Development Program (PNDT-2004-2012), Rural Microfinance Development Support Project (PADMIR-2010-2016), the Commodity Value Chain Development Support Project (PADFA-2010-2018), and ardent donors such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) sprung up (Kouam et al, 2021). Recent policies include the Cocoa and Coffee Development Fund which will distribute CFAF 50 million over five years to Cameroonian farmers ( FODEC, 2021).

For the livestock, fishing and animal husbandry subsector, the strategy aimed to increase pastoral and fishery production to satisfy not only the nutritional needs of the population and the agro-industry’s needs for raw materials, but also to produce surplus for export. This objective will be pursued through four operational programs: (i) developing animal production and industries, (ii) developing fishery production, (iii) improving the health of livestock and zoonosis control, and (iv) establishing a support program to improve the sub sectoral institutional framework.

In parallel with the implementation of projects and programs, efforts were made in 2009, to improve the subsector’s planning framework by: (i) implementing a program to improve the statistical information system for livestock, fishing and animal husbandry, (ii) developing a master plan for livestock sector development, (iii) initiating a process to draft a Code Pastoral, and (iv) drafting an aquaculture development plan. The sub-sector also received help from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE); their 2006 veterinary service evaluation revealed that the organisation of Cameroon’s veterinary services did not comply with OIE standards (Achancho, 2013). 

A gap analysis conducted in early 2011, when compared to the GESP, helped pinpoint the priorities to target in a five-year strategic plan to progressively eliminate the gap. Since 2008, the C2D (Debt Relief and Development Contract) initiatives, implemented as part of cancelling the country’s external debt to France, has allowed for the formulation of actions to develop animal and fishery production; the World Bank has also resumed its support of Cameroon’s rural sector. The government has taken measures to improve the institutional framework of both sub sectors—agriculture and livestock/fishing—through three programs financed by the Debt Relief and Development Contract with France as part of the debt cancellation. They sought to: (i) Support Program for the Improvement of Rural Sector Administrations (AMO) joint project (MINEPIA/MINADER) whose goal is to strengthen statistical analysis capacities and institutional organisation; (ii) support Project for the Renovation and Development of Vocational Training in Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries (AFOP); and finally, (iii) the Program for the Improvement of the Competitiveness of Family Farms (ACEFA) (MINEPIA, 2021).

For the forestry and wildlife subsector, the aim is to make Cameroon an ecologically viable country, whose forests and wildlife sustainably contribute to economic, social and cultural development. The strategy aims to improve biodiversity management with a view to contributing to economic growth and job creation in a context of sustainable development. This strategy is built on three pillars: (i) the development and sustainable management of forests; (ii) the conservation and sustainable management of wildlife resources; and (iii) the development of forest resources (Law No. 94-01). 

This strategy is subdivided into four programs: (i) the program for the development and renewal of forest resources, (ii) the program for the conservation and development of wildlife and protected areas, (iii) the program for the development of timber and non-timber forest resources, and (iv) the support program for the management, institutional management and governance of the subsector. The Forest and Environment Sector Program (FESP), which has been in operation since 2003 and open to funding from all donors, as well as contributions from the private sector and civil and non-governmental organisations, aims to help implement Cameroon’s forestry and wildlife resource sustainable management policy in an environment-friendly manner. The FESP has become the framework for all forest conservation, management, and sustainable exploitation activities. 

The FESP Phase 1 (2009–2012) covered all of Cameroon. Its scope of intervention included the forest sector and the environment. Its objective is to implement a coherent framework for all interventions aiming to fulfil the objectives of the country’s forestry, wildlife and “green” environment policy and to strengthen the institutional framework in order to implement the sustainable management of forest and wildlife resources policy on an ecological, economic and social level. 

2010 – 2020 Policies

The post-crisis environment was characterised by official development assistance from the period from 2010 to 2020. The World Bank estimates an overall contribution of nearly CFAF 3,000 billion in terms of global ODA and the amount allocated to the agricultural sector is estimated at more than CFAF 900 billion, i.e., about 26% of the total aid received by the country (MINEPAT, 2021). Agriculture policy took a turn and became institutionally driven, underpinned by bilateral cooperation by France (SCAC/AFD), Netherlands (SNV), Spain (AECID), Canada (CIDA), Germany (KfW, GIZ), USA (USAID), Japan (JICA), South Korea (KOICA).

While official development assistance expanded, the government of Cameroon took steps to reduce spending, in line with its structural adjustment programs from multilateral institutions, even as performance was slower than expectations. The government cut spending on goods and services, subsidies and transfers and domestically expenditure by 0.5% of GDP, 0.1% GDP and 0.7% of GDP, respectively between 2016 and 2017 (MINEPAT, 2021). The fiscal deficit thus narrowed as the IMF forecasted, but it remained 2% above the IMF’s program target of 3.1% of GDP. Consequently, the fiscal adjustment program required 2018 – 2019 to achieve the medium-term objective of 1.7% of GDP by 2020.

The National Food Security Program (PNSA) (2008–2015) was developed in 2007. Its overall objective is to fight hunger and food insecurity in order to reduce by half the number of people suffering from malnutrition, particularly in vulnerable households in rural and peri-urban areas, by 2015. The strategic aims are similar to those of the 2006 DSDSR: to (i) Increase crop, pastoral and fishery production by introducing improved and adapted varieties (breeds) and input supply. (ii) Secure production through water management, soil fertility management, environmental protection, and natural resource conservation. (iii) Improve producers’ income, especially women’s and young peoples. (iv) Improve village cereal storage systems, particularly in risk areas. (v) Improve the marketing and processing of crop, animal and fishery production. (vi) Take steps to improve the population’s nutritional health. (vii) Set up and strengthen the food-crisis monitoring, alert, and rapid reaction system in risk areas. (viii) Strengthen producers’ capacities and their support structures.

Furthermore, to tackle the food crisis that led to riots in February 2008, the government drafted an Emergency Plan based on a substantial and sustained increase in national production, mainly by reinstating the implementation of special agricultural programs, primarily for plantain, rice, roots and tubers. With decentralisation, pursuant to Decrees 2010/0242/PM and 2010/0244/PM of February 26, 2010, some powers relating to the promotion of agricultural production and rural development activities and the promotion of pastoral and fishing production activities were transferred to municipalities, effective the 2010 budget year. Furthermore, municipalities are already actively involved in forest and wildlife management. They manage the share of financial resources generated by municipal taxes on forestry concessions (20%) and supervise the management of the share belonging to neighbouring communities (10%).  Municipal councils also manage communal forests transferred by the State and are also involved in supervising the management of community forests and community-managed declared hunting areas (MINADER, 2010).

The role of institutions in promoting the agriculture sector

As one of the non-governmental stakeholders in rural development, the private sector has increased its involvement considerably. There are also numerous producers’ organisations, some of which are organised into economic interest networks (GIC), unions, federations, cooperatives and inter-professional organisations. The producers’ organisations are the Confédération Nationale des producteurs de Coton du Cameroun (CNPCC, National Cameroon Confederation of Cotton Producers), to which SODECOTON (the national producer of cotton) is gradually transferring its producer organisation management functions, notably the input credits, the Union des coopératives de café-cacao de l’Ouest (UCCAO, Coffee-Cocoa Western Cooperatives Union), the North West Cooperative Association (NWCA), and the South West Farmers’ Cooperative Association (SOWEFCO). The main inter-professional organisations are: the Groupement de la Filière Bois du Cameroun (GFBC, Cameroon Timber Industry Group), the Conseil Interprofessionnel du Cacao et du Café (CICC, Cocoa and Coffee Inter- professional Council), the Réseau des Opérateurs des Filières Horticoles du Cameroun (RHORTICAM, Cameroon Network of Horticulture Industry Operators), and the Poultry Producers’ Association (IPAVIC). 

Two organisations represent and defend the interests of producers: the Cameroon National Platform of Agricultural, Forestry, and Pastoral Professional Organizations (PLANOPAC) and the Concertation Nationale des Organisations des Producteurs du Cameroun (CNOPCAM, Cameroon National Council of Producers’ Organizations). A significant number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and associations are playing an increasingly important role in rural affairs. Lastly, the Chamber of Agriculture, Fisheries, Livestock, and Forests (CAPEF), after a period of dormancy, is in full renewal after the revitalization of its governing bodies and new strategic directions. It is designed to provide rural entrepreneurs with a form of representation, a means of expression and an instrument for participation, the loss of which has long been a factor in their isolation and marginalisation. A formalised structure for rural development cooperation between the government and DPs has not yet been established. However, the TFPs have two forums for dialogue: the Groupe Agriculture Elevage (Agriculture Livestock Group) and the Groupe Forêt et Environnement (Forest and Environment Group).

Rural Sector Development Support Measures

In the most recent budget (2010 to 2020), the government legislated a reduction of VAT on the purchase of pesticides, fertilisers, and inputs, as well as equipment and materials for agriculture, livestock and fisheries. It equally exempted registration fees for transfers of land used for agriculture, livestock and fisheries and equally exempted registration fees for loan agreements intended to finance agricultural, livestock and fisheries activities. Finally, farmers and agriculture companies are exempt from paying property tax on properties belonging to agricultural, livestock and fisheries enterprises and intended for these activities. These policies sought to reduce costs, encourage formalisation and reinforce production over. 

Between 2015 – 2020, the government’s push to develop the rural area took a more prominent role in its budget. The rehabilitation of sinister zones included the exoneration from registration fees, value-added tax on goods and services, property and land registrations and contributions linked to social security and employee’s income tax (Finance law 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020). However, benefiting from these was limited to companies who create 10 jobs and source 80% of their inputs locally (Arti. 121, 2; Finance law 2016)

Regarding the agricultural sector, land and property tax, taxes and social security contributions have been pursued as the main policy from the government to support and boost the agriculture sector in a sustainable manner. Furthermore, policy from 2010 has sought to emphasise the importance of innovation. In this regard, buildings used for research and development purposes are excluded from any charges and taxes. Secondly, expenses linked to salaries of researchers and consultants are exempt and all research-related expenses are exempt from taxation. Furthermore, loans and credit that are obtained to facilitate research are capped at 15% or CFA 50 million to support investment in research and development. Equipment in agriculture, aquaculture and animal rearing are equally exempt from taxes in the first three years of operation (Kouam, 2024).

Recent developments in road infrastructure to support the agriculture sector 

The Government implemented many cross-cutting actions in 2019, which include (i) the rehabilitation of 168 kilometres of farm-to-market roads and the creation of new roads estimated at 202 kilometres of farm-to-market roads; (ii) the improvement of plots damaged by grazing activities in the North West region; (iii) the purchase of shelling and hulling machines as well as mats for the construction and supply of driers; (iv) the equipping of youths with light farming equipment’s such as wheelbarrows, sprayers, overalls; (v) a FCFA 2.4 billion financial support to 590 producer organisations; (vi) the construction of 191 water points and boreholes, 36 community buildings and markets sheds; (vii) the training of relevant actors in fertiliser and soil analysis, and production techniques; and (viii) the creation of a soya bean seed production training farm in Figuil. Furthermore, the 2019 budget, government agricultural policy focused explicitly on the development of value chains resulting in the implementation of several actions to (i) improvement production techniques; (ii) modernise infrastructure; (iii) supervise and train producers; (iv) sustainably manage forest resources; and (v) research and innovation. The next section will look at specific actions in both the industrial and exports sector and the food crop cultivation. From 2019, the government began designing specific quantifiable policies that will support specific food and cash crops in Cameroon. In the paragraphs below, we provide an outline of recent policies in the agriculture sector. 

Cocoa Policy between 2019 – 2020

The Decision No. 26/MINADER/CAB of 17 February 2020 merged five ongoing projects into the “Cocoa Development Support Project”. The project comprises four components, namely: (i) Improvement of access to selected cocoa seedlings by producers; (ii) Development of modern plantations; (iii) Improvement of the quality of raw materials and development of processing and marketing; and (iv) Support for the structuring of producer organisations.

The government’s action to improve the cocoa sector centred around improving productivity via (i) the distribution of 2 189 439 certified cocoa seedlings; (ii) the certification of 1 129 000 seedlings from private nurseries; (iii) the distribution of 12,180 litres of special cocoa fertilisers to farmers; (iv) the treatment of 20,500 hectares of cocoa plantations; (v) the creation of 160 ha of plantations; (vi) the distribution of 10,000 cocoa pods to producers; and (vii) the procurement and distribution of 480 shelling machines to farmers. In order to increase production, the government distributed 1, 750, 940 certified coffee seedlings, 11, 650 litres of special coffee fertilisers and rehabilitated 500 hectares of old plantations. 

Natural Rubber Policy between 2019 – 2020

To increase production, the Sud Cameroun Hévéa (SUDCAM) agro-industrial company signed a partnership with the government. This agreement seeks to develop rubber cultivation on 45 hectares in the South Region, which will be planted by 2027, especially in Meyomessala, Meyomessi and Djoum. This policy aims to boost exports and reinforce production to lessen the pressure on government subsidies. 

Cotton Policy between 2019 – 2020

SODECOTON maintained its investment plan. To that end, it was granted 64.3 billion in a loan by the International Islamic Trade and Finance Corporation, a subsidiary of the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) (MINEPAT, 2023b). As an important component of the fashion and textile value chain, the government hopes to meet domestic demand and reduce the import of second-hand clothes over time.

Export Banana Policy between 2019 – 2020

The Government and the European Union signed a 31.7 billion CFA loan agreement for a 7-year period, starting from 2012, was extended by 2 years. This is designed to support the enterprise sector. The extension will help enterprises in the subsector to complete their various implementation plans (Eco Finance, 2020). 

Crude palm Oil Policy between 2019 – 2020

To support operators with the local processing of this crop, the government grants VAT-free imports of crude palm oil at the CEMAC external tariff rate of 5% (Finance law, 2019 & 2020). In 2019, it supported 90,000 tonnes of crude palm oil. Village production was increased by providing farmers with 43,500 pre-germinated nuts and 34,643 seedlings.

Food crop cultivation

Millet/Sorghum:238 tonnes of certified basic seeds were distributed to farmers to improve productivity.

Paddy rice: SEMRY, the major company in the subsector, received a 3.3 billion grant from the Government to procure ploughing machines and electric power generators for the functioning of hulling units, designed to boost production. The Government’s actions tended to focus on the distribution of 1,681 tonnes of certified rice seeds, 80 tonnes of irrigated basic rice seeds, the development of 13,102 hectares of lowland and training 400 farmers in rain-fed rice cultivation techniques.

Market garden produce, fruits and vegetables: Concerning other market garden crops, fruits and vegetables, production tended to rise for tomato (+2%), watermelon (+5.7%), pineapple (1.4%), onion (2%), okra (6.5%) and pepper (5.8%). Government’s actions concerned the distribution of 36,400 fruit seedlings, 7,000 mango seedlings, 40,000 citrus seedlings and 150,000 eru seedlings Erudef, 2021). The government equally created 10 tomato cultivation training farms in the East and West regions and the distributions of 251 sachets of hybrid watermelon seeds, 440 sachets of hybrid pepper seeds and 225 sachets of high yield tomato seeds. 

Prospects for Development and Policy
Recommendations

Through Cameroon’s Poverty reduction and Growth facility (PRGF) strategy from 2005 – 2005, underpinned by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative3 Agriculture is a main driver of economic growth. The national Development Strategy (2035) has equally reinforced the importance of the agricultural sector, causing ministries to cooperate increasingly on agricultural

{

*Footnote* (On May 1, 2006 Cameroon reached its completion point under the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and became the 19th country to reach that point. Debt relief to Cameroon under HIPC is expected to be approximately US$1.267 billion in 1999 Net Present Value (NPV) terms, equivalent to a 27 percent NPV reduction of Cameroon’s debt after traditional debt relief. This will reduce Cameroon’s future debt service payments by about US$4.9 billion in nominal terms (IMF 2006b).)

}

policy. However, a mix of policy inertia, poor management of publicly-owned companies and misdirected investments in certain parts of the agriculture value chain have slowed the pace of development in the agriculture sector. We provide some policy recommendations that can support the design and implementation of forward-looking policy, designed to increase agriculture yields, meet domestic demand and improve food security.

Better Cooperation between the Formal and Informal sectors:

Agricultural policy in Cameroon should reinforce complementarities between the formal and informal sector by
reforming the functioning of institutions. This is central to long term development of the sector and is paramount for economic development. The agricultural sector is dominated by farmers with far less than one hectare of land, as such every policy should be used as an avenue to collect data on demographics, farmed crops and distribution channels. For example, working with local cooperatives and associations in each region will allow the government to build its database of informal farmers, improving the effectiveness of policy implementation and outcomes and
setting new inclusive standards for accountability.

Combating Corruption:

Illegal and corrupt practices reduce the effectiveness of policy implementation. As such, combatting and eradicating poverty and poor governance are central to the long-term development of the sector. Policy makers should support ad hoc reviews of specific policies and programs and establish guidelines to assist civil administrators in performing checks and ensuring accountability. Combating corruption equally includes strengthening the legal security for investments in the agriculture sector. There should be greater accountability on both executors and beneficiaries to ensure that the government can swiftly transition to a goal-based system of incentives that prioritize output and the adoption of modern farming methods. The Supreme State Audit (CONSUPE) and CONAC (The national corruption
agency) should undertake a more wholesome review of agricultural projects after their completion and match finance, output/outcomes and objectives of projects. Such projects should prioritize speaking with farmers who have been directly impacted by said policies to get a more coherent understanding of how policies are being executed.

Improvements in Basic Infrastructure:

The agriculture sector cannot develop and mature fully without credible and quantifiable investments and improvement in our primary and secondary road infrastructure. The government should commit to grading at least 10,000 km of new roads linking rural areas to urban or peri-urban centers. Improving farm-to-market routes will reduce waste and cause food prices to fall as more farmers will be able to get their produce to markets on time. This will have a material impact on food poverty and reduce hunger for economically disadvantaged groups. Developing inland infrastructure will improve subsistence agriculture and input in the agriculture sector and cross-border infrastructure will boost regional competitiveness.

Improvements in agricultural productivity

are necessary to improve the quality of payoffs and new investments. This can be achieved by updating farmer techniques and Agence des Normes et la Qualite (ANOR) can intervene to boost quality standards, education and training and access to communication technologies. Improvements in productivity are equally needed to pay off new investments, causing farmers to update production and farming techniques. All agriculture training centers should harmonize their teaching standards to improve the quality of farmers over the long run. Farmers should equally be sensitized on agricultural practices that will improve climate change resilience over the medium term.

The AfCFTA will equally improve access for Cameroon’s agricultural products.

Policy makers should ensure that targeted policies for cocoa, coffee and other cash crops follow strict guidelines that can support exports over the medium to long run. Removing non-tariff barriers and reducing tariffs could support trade in advanced economies. Policy makers could offer lower tariff-binding for selected products to boost competition. Furthermore, by liberalizing non agriculture products, this will reduce bias against agricultural products, thereby improving predictability and encouraging investments in the sector associated with spill overs. The government should lessen its reliance on trade distorting measures such as subsidies and quantitative restrictions. Improving market mechanisms will promote agricultural development.

ICT in Agriculture :

Although Cameroon is an agri-focused country who exports basic commodities, information on the sector is virtually absent on the web. ICT usage has to be developed to support production (stakeholder information and training), or for marketing (marketing, sales, customer relations). This will ensure that stakeholders are properly informed about new and emerging techniques that can enable them to adapt to current trends and modernize agriculture in the rural sector. Data collection should equally be digitized to ensure that policy makers and civil society can understand the impacts of specific policies.

An output-based model for subsidies:

Rather than simply give out agricultural subsidies, policy makers should ensure that subsidies are given to firms in exchange for higher production. Subsidies should be tied to specific objectives for certain products. For example, a company may receive X number of subsidies with the aim of boosting production by 15% over the year. This
will boost productivity and subsidies will serve as a production boost rather than a loss absorption tool as is currently the case for most parastatals.

The Budget Should promote the Formalization of Agriculture Firms:

The budget should prioritize the formalization of agriculture companies to ensure that more business are formalized
and create jobs in the real economy. This will equally make it easy to better understand how to support agriculture companies and ensure they integrate agriculture value chains in a sustainable manner. Furthermore, formalizing agriculture companies will make it easier for companies to share their concerns to policy makers and outline the benefits of specific policies that are put in place such as the sharing of drought-resistant seeds and equipment. At present, policy makers face difficulties measuring the impact of specific policies on farmers as they are not able to
properly identify them across the national territory.

Conclusion

Between 1894 – 1960, agriculture was linked to politics and indigenous food production was discouraged to promote large plantations, supported by forced and cheap labour. During this period, the French developed several institutions such as the Secteur de Modernisation (SEM) to support and improve the technical capacity of farmers, the Fond d’investissement pour le developpement economique to finance agriculture and specialist institutions in cotton, cocoa and coffee and palm oil – Compagnie Française pour le développement des fibres et textiles (CFDT), institut des fruits et agronomes (IFAC) and Institut de recherches sur les huiles et Oligeneux. 

In 1964, after independence, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Animation (DARA) was created under the Federal Ministry of Planning to coordinate agricultural development in both states. This was followed by the first enactment of the first five-year development plan from 1961 – 1965 and a second round from 1966 – 1970, which included the creation of 14 more parastatals, bringing the total to 24 parastatals (MINEPAT, 2003; MINEPAT, 2009). The previous mismanagement of government-managed institutions caused the liquidation of the Food Crop Development Authority (MIDEVIV) and the National Produce Marketing Board (ONCPB). Liquidations continued with the Cameroonian Agricultural Bank in 1997. The 1990’s saw the launch of the National Agricultural Extension and Research Program (NPARV) was launched in 1990 through MINAGRI – then Ministry of Agriculture – under the financial assistance of the World Bank, supporting agricultural extension services ranging from input to marketing. During this period, fiscal reforms and the structural adjustment programs lowered government spending in the sector, with multilateral partners and international organisations plugging the fall in government spending. 

In 1994, the new forestry law (Law No. 94-01) and the New Agricultural Policy (1990–1998) focused on consolidating achievements in both self-sufficiency and export income and the significant improvement of performance in the sector and the environment. Liberalisation of the economy caused inputs to be negotiated independently with suppliers, impacting smallholders significantly and distorting the market.  

The 2000 – 2010 period focused on the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF), with the drafting of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and the Rural Sector Development Strategy Document (DSDSR) in 2003, which established the framework for all of the sector’s development action plans (MINADER – MINEPIA, 2009).

Meanwhile, the World Bank financed National Program for Food Security (NPFS)  (2008−2015) was drawn up in 2007 to combat hunger and food insecurity and cut malnourishment by  half, especially among the vulnerable households in rural and peri-urban areas, by 2015 (World Bank, 2023). Most policies focused on direct support to existing policies, but did not emphasise indigenous and local institutions that could support creativity. At the turn of the new century between 2000 to 2007 the African Development Bank financed the creation of the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD) whose main focus was on capacity building in the agriculture sector. This sought to complement the World-Bank financed project – National Program for Food Security (NPFS)  (2008−2015). Other initiatives aimed at increasing agricultural production, such as the Roots and Tubers Market-Driven Development Program (PNDT-2004-2012), Rural Microfinance Development Support Project (PADMIR-2010-2016), the Commodity Value Chain Development Support Project (PADFA-2010-2018), and ardent donors such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) sprung up.

From 2010 – 2020, agriculture policy took a turn and became institutionally driven, underpinned by bilateral cooperation by France (SCAC/AFD), Netherlands (SNV), Spain (AECID), Canada (CIDA), Germany (KfW, GIZ), USA (USAID), Japan (JICA), South Korea (KOICA). Partnerships extended to producers’ organisations, civil organisations, development partners, and the business sector to support the implementation of the Growth and Employment Strategy Paper through the National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNIA) (Ndjidda et al, 2022). 

The government signed, in July 2013, the CAADP Pact (Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program) with the various stakeholders involved (the African Union, the ECCAS) to that effect. This was followed by a devolution of powers to local communities, driven by the Decrees 2010/0242/PM and 2010/0244/PM of February 26, 2010, relating to the promotion of agricultural production and rural development activities and the promotion of pastoral and fishing production activities were transferred to municipalities. During this period, the private sector became increasingly involved in supporting and advising government on credible policies to adopt, designed to provide rural entrepreneurs with a form of representation, a means of expression and an instrument for participation, the loss of which has long been a factor in their isolation and marginalisation.

More recently, the government merged several projects into one and has focused on the development of modern plantations, improvement of the quality of raw materials and development of processing and marketing while supporting the structuring of producer organisations such as SEMRY. Furthermore, recent agriculture policy over the last decade has gained significant importance in the budget (Finance Law), by providing tax incentives to support the purchase of inputs and materials, innovation, land and property acquisition and employment. This has become a recurring feature of budgets, designed to improve production and reduce the impact of short-term cyclical shocks on both farmers and agricultural output. This is supported by the distribution of seedlings to provide further support to small holders and farmers in the informal sector. Agriculture policy has, therefore, become more balanced, moving away from the focus on cash crops to food crops to improve domestic agricultural capacity and meet local needs. 

………………..

(Download the full Article to enjoy the full content)

Download the Full Article Here (English)

Download the Full Article Here (French)

© Cameroon Economic Policy Institute 2024
You may copy, download, or print this material for your own use, and you may include excerpts from this
publication in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites, and teaching materials, as long as the
Cameroon Economic Policy Institute (CEPI) is suitably acknowledged as the source and copyright
owner.

AUTHORS

Henri Kouam

Founder and Executive Director of CEPI

and

Haiwang Ferdinang Djamo
Research Analyst (CEPI)

and

Dr. Herve Wouapi
Research Fellow