IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/002672/3789.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Oil and Agriculture in the Post-Separation Sudan

Author

Listed:
  • Khalid Siddig

Abstract

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which was signed by the government of Sudan and the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) ended more than 20 years of civil war. According to the CPA, the Sudan’s government has 50% of the oil exploited from the wells existing in the south in addition to the oil produced from the northern wells. The latter represents about 30% of the total oil production in Sudan. In January 2011, the people in southern Sudan have voted for separation from the Sudan and in July 2011 the Republic of South Sudan was officially announced as Africa’s newest state. Now the CPA period is over and the south possesses its entire production of oil, but need to use the export infrastructure that exists in the north to export it. For that the south need to pay fees and customs for which the exact amounts need to be further negotiated. Sudan would lose a huge part of its revenue from oil, which constituted a growing share in its trade, government revenue and GDP during the last decade. In this paper, an attempt has been made to investigate the implications the separation of Sudan and the establishment of the RSS may have on the Sudanese economy. The paper is motivated by the fact that Sudan (North) will lose a significant part of its revenue from oil. Oil has been contributing considerably to the economy as represented in its GDP, exports, and government income during the last decade. The objectives of the study include evaluating the impact of the separation, estimating the expected loss, and proposing recovery scenarios which may consider regaining some of the expected losses. GTAP CGE model with its Africa database is used as the tool for analysis. The database and closure assumptions have been modified to match the objectives of the analysis. The separation scenario is exemplified by 20% cut in the petroleum output and 10% reduction in the total population. The recovery scenario uses the updated data as a baseline and simulates efficiency improvements in the negatively affected sectors as an approach to boost the GDP. The effectiveness of enhancing the efficiency of the agricultural sector in Sudan is covered in Siddig et el., (2011), where they found it having several positive implications at the national and regional levels. Results show that separation would be costly to the economy at large and to households at most. Despite the restoration of the GDP value by the recovery scenario, many variables of the economy would remain unrecovered. The GDP would decline by -19.97% due to the separation scenario, which became the target to be recovered by the recovery scenario that increases the efficiency parameters of the negatively affected sector by separation scenario in order to boost their output, and hence push the GDP to recover. However, this does not imply any similarity in the structure of the economies of the ex-ante and ex-post separation. The impact of the two scenarios on the sectorial output is shows that the separation scenario would pronouncedly increase the output of many exports and imports substitutes. They are led by oilseeds, which is a major Sudanese agricultural export and wheat, which is a major import, where both have shown increases in their production. It is also found that the exports of oilseeds, other crops and livestock would increase in response to the loss in the foreign currency earning caused by the separation. At the household level, the separation scenario reduces demand while the recovery scenario regains some parts of the lost demand. However, the magnitude of change is always higher for the separation scenario and smaller for the recovery scenario. This is translated in a huge welfare loss due to the separation, which cannot be recovered by the described recovery settings. This implies that policy makers in Sudan need to carefully consider the negative implications of the separations as reflected in the recent substantial increases in prices. In this regards, it is important to note that the simulated cut in the output of oil in this study is in the optimistic side. This means that the loss in oil revenue could be higher. Furthermore, many other implications are not incorporated in this simulation such as the currency issues, inflation, and other measures taken by the government. The latter embraces the increase in the price of oil in the domestic market and the removal of subsidies in some sectors. These policies and procedures could lead to further aggravation of the situation in the post separation era.

Suggested Citation

  • Khalid Siddig, 2012. "Oil and Agriculture in the Post-Separation Sudan," EcoMod2012 3789, EcoMod.
  • Handle: RePEc:ekd:002672:3789
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/Oil%20and%20Agriculture%20-EcoMod-April-2012_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon J.Evenett & Mia Mikic & Ravi Ratnayake (ed.), 2011. "Trade-led growth: A sound strategy for Asia," ARTNeT Books and Research Reports, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), number brr10.
    2. Ianchovichina, Elena, 2004. "Trade policy analysis in the presence of duty drawbacks," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 353-371, April.
    3. Pierre Boulanger & Hasan Dudu & Emanuele Ferrari & George Philippidis, 2016. "Russian Roulette at the Trade Table: A Specific Factors CGE Analysis of an Agri-food Import Ban," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 272-291, June.
    4. Jiang, Tingsong, 2003. "The Impact of China's WTO Accession on its Regional Economies," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 11.
    5. Henseler, Martin & Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez & Banse, Martin & Grethe, Harald & Parisi, Claudia & Hélaine, Sophie, 2013. "On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 166-176.
    6. Adams, Philip D., 2008. "Insurance against Catastrophic Climate Change: How Much Will an Emissions Trading Scheme Cost Australia?," Conference papers 331770, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Kym Anderson, 2005. "On the Virtues of Multilateral Trade Negotiations," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(255), pages 414-438, December.
    8. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Jan Pokrivcak, 2008. "Comparative Advantages, Transaction Costs and Factor Content of Agricultural Trade: Empirical Evidence from the CEE," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2008_03, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    9. Kym Anderson & Anna Strutt, 2012. "Agriculture and Food Security in Asia by 2030," Macroeconomics Working Papers 23309, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    10. Dhoubhadel, Sunil P. & Taheripour, Farzad & Stockton, Mathew C., 2016. "Livestock Demand, Global Land Use, and Induced Greenhouse Gas Emissions," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235271, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Federico Perali & Stefania Lovo, 2009. "Counterfactual analysis using a regional dynamic general equilibrium model with historical calibration," Working Papers 58/2009, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    12. Mai, Yinhua, 2008. "Removing border protection on wheat and rice: effects on rural income and food self-sufficiency in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-19.
    13. Lucian Cernat & Sam Laird & Alessandro Turrini, 2003. "How Important are Market Access Issues for Developing Countries in the Doha Agenda?," International Trade 0302004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Palatnik, Ruslana R. & Kan, Iddo & Rapaport-Rom, Mickey & Ghermandi, Andrea & Eboli, Fabio & Shechter, Mordechai, 2011. "Land transformation analysis and application," Conference papers 332155, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    15. Hareau, Guy Gaston & Norton, George W. & Mills, Bradford F. & Peterson, Everett B., 2004. "Potential Benefits Of Transgenic Rice In Asia: A General Equilibrium Approach," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20334, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Lee, Hiro & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2005. "The impact of the US safeguard measures on Northeast Asian producers: General equilibrium assessments," MPRA Paper 82288, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Lips, Markus & Rieder, Peter, 2002. "Endogenous adjusted Output Quotas - The Abolishment of the Raw Milk Quota in the European Union," Conference papers 330980, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Dixon, Peter & Rimmer, Maureen, 2021. "A GTAP Historical Simulation from 2004 to 2014," Conference papers 333258, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Jo H.M. Wijnands & Harry J. Bremmers & Bernd M.J. van der Meulen & Krijn J. Poppe, 2011. "Food Legislation and Competitiveness in the EU Food Industry," Chapters, in: Emiel F.M. Wubben (ed.), Institutions and Regulation for Economic Growth?, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Minor, Peter & Walmsley, Terrie & Strutt, Anna, 2018. "State-owned enterprise reform in Vietnam: A dynamic CGE analysis," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 42-57.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sudan; General equilibrium modeling (CGE); Agent-based modeling;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
    • D5 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium
    • D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics
    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • F2 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business
    • H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
    • N5 - Economic History - - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Extractive Industries

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ekd:002672:3789. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Theresa Leary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.