




































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN 2375-1061 Vol. 8 (4), pp. 001-007, April, 2020. Available online at 
www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 
 

Review 

 

Potential for agricultural trade in COMESA region: a 
comparative study of Sudan, Egypt and Kenya 

 
Imad Eldin Elfadil Abdel Karim1* and Ibrahim Sulieman Ismail2 

 
1
University of Khartoum, Faculty of Agriculture, Sudan. 

2
University of Kordofan, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, Sudan. 

 
Accepted 20 August, 2019 

 
This paper aimed at quantifying the potentials of intra-regional agricultural trade in the COMESA region 
taking examples of Sudan, Egypt and Kenya. Different indicators and indices like instability index, 
production similarity index, comparative production performance index, export similarity index and 
revealed comparative advantage index were used. The results showed a promising potential for intra-
regional agricultural trade. The instability indices of production in cereals, pulses, and roots and tubers 
were more stable at regional level than national one. The results of production similarity index indicate 
differences in production patterns of the three countries. Export similarity indices results show that 
countries are dissimilar in their export patterns. The revealed comparative advantage indices, 
considering each country separately, are generally higher for dominant export products. As dominant 
products differ among the countries the pattern of specialization differs considerably among these 
countries, and therefore, there is a potential for expanding intra-regional trade in the region. The paper 
concluded that the government policies of COMESA member countries, especially Sudan, should pay 
more emphasis to encourage integrating their markets regionally to benefits from potential of trade and 
comparative advantage exist in the region. 

 
Key words: COMESA, potential for agricultural trade, comparative study 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 
The preferential trade agreement for eastern and sou-
thern African states (PTA) is initiated as the result of the 
first extraordinary conference of Ministers of Trade, Fi-
nance and Planning held in Lusaka, Republic of Zambia 
in March 1978. Second extraordinary session of Heads of 
States of the Organization of African Unity, held at Lagos 
in April, 1980, decided that an African common market 
should be established by the year 2000. The PTA treaty 
was signed in December 1981, implemented in 1983, by 
22 countries; and Sudan became a member in 1990. The 
treaty establishing Common Market for Eastern and Sou-
thern Africa countries (COMESA) was signed on Novem-
ber 5, 1993 in Kampala, Uganda and was ratified one 
year later in Lilongwe, Malawi on December 8, 1994 
(COMESA 2004). COMESA was established superseding  
 
 
 
*Corresponding author. E-mail: adfk9@yahoo.com. Tel.  
+249912828882; Fax: +249185318431. 

 
 
 

 
the Preferential Trading Agreement (PTA) for east and 
southern African states (Barry et al., 2001). The Treaty 
establishing COMESA binds together free independent 
sovereign States which have agreed to co-operate in 
exploiting the natural and human resources for the common 
good of their peoples. In attaining that goal, COMESA 
recognizes that stability, security and peace are basic 
factors in providing investment, trade, develop-ment and 
regional economic integration.  
Sudan has signed and ratified its membership in 
COMESA from the beginning of its establishment and it is 
the first country to apply zero tariff commitment. Imports 
from COMESA countries to Sudan rose from US $65 mil-
lion in 2000 to US $466.8 million in 2005. On the other 
hand, exports of Sudan to COMESA amounted to US 
$165 million in 2004, compared to US $36 million in 2000. 
Share of agricultural commodities in total intra-COMESA 
trade was not stable but are increasing as it reached 
81.74% in 2004 compared to 59.57% in 2001. Cotton was 
the leading agriculture export commodity to COMESA 

file:///C:\Users\user\Documents\REPUBLICATION\AGRICULTURAL%20SCIENCES\AppData\Local\Temp\www.internationalscholarsjournals.org


 
 
 

 

countries followed by sesame and live animals and seed 
cake, while skins, groundnuts and meat contri-buted the 
smallest shares. Considering direction of Su-dan exports 
to COMESA countries, Egypt absorbed the most exports 
followed by Kenya for the period 2001– 2004 (Appendix 
1). On the other hand, main import sup-pliers for Sudan 
during the same period were Egypt Su-dan exports to 
COMESA countries, Egypt absorbed, Ken-ya, Zimbabwe 
and Uganda (Appendix 2). It depicts that the main trade 
partners for Sudan in the COMESA region are Egypt and 
Kenya.  

Trade in agricultural products serves three functions. 
First, trade can contribute to stabilizing supply when na-
tional fluctuations in production are greater than the 
fluctuations in the region. Thus, free intra-regional trade 
among the COMESA countries could be an efficient 
substitute for national stockpiling and might be used to 
even-out fluctuations in national production. Johnson 
(1978, 1981) shows that worldwide free trade in grains 
would drastically reduce the need for holding carryover 
stocks, because fluctuations in world cereal production 
are minimal compared to fluctuations in national produc-
tion. The same may hold true if variability in production in 
individual member countries is greater than variability in 
production for the COMESA region as whole. However, if 
production in all countries were perfectly correlated, intra-
regional trade could not help stabilize consumption. Se-
cond, trade in agricultural products may partly substitute 
for working stocks if the harvesting calendar differs 
somewhat among trading partners. Third, trade may allow 
countries to specialize in production in accordance with 
comparative advantage. Thus, trade would help to 
increase national income and improve food security.  

The objective of this paper is to investigate the potential 
of COMESA intra-regional trade in agricultural commo-
dities specifically between Sudan, Egypt and Kenya. To 
realize this objective the following indices and coefficients 
were computed: instability index, correlation coefficient 
matrix, production similarity index, comparative produc-
tion performance (CPP), export similarity index and re-
vealed comparative advantage measure (RCA). 

 

Production variability in cereals, pulses, roots and 

tubers 
 
Empirical evidence provided by Valdes and Siamwalla 
(1981) proves that the food consumption in a region will 
be more stable if its production in the region is more 
stable than that in individual countries and if trade 
between countries is allowed. This assumption is tested 
by calculating instability index for cereals, pulses and 
roots and tubers for the three countries and for the 
region. This index is based on the coefficient of variation 
corrected by the fitness of trend function. The index is 
used to mea-sure instability at both the country and 
regional level and it is defined as follows (Cuddy and 
Della Vale, 1978): 

 
 
 
 

 
 

     

I C.V.  1− R
2

 (1) 

where:  

I = Instability index  
C.V. = Coefficient of variation  

R2 = Adjusted coefficient of determination  
Instability indices have been measured for total produc-
tion, area and yield of cereals, pulses and roots and tu-
bers on the basis of data from 1961 - 2005 for the three 
countries (Sudan, Egypt and Kenya). The relationship 
between the region’s instability index and those of 
individual countries and the rest of the world indicates 
whether an individual country would be better-off by inte-
grating regionally or with the rest of the world.  

The results show that cereal production is volatile in the 
Sub-region countries of the COMESA (Table 1). Sudan 
has the highest instability index of 31.6. This could be 
attributed to its highest variability in area and yield of 
cereal which have instability indices of about 19.2 and 
18.4 respectively. Egypt and Kenya showed less varia-
bility in production comparing to Sudan (17.6 and 15.1 for 
Egypt and Kenya respectively) . Regional integration 
could reduce the instability index to 12.1 that means the 
three countries would gain from intra-regional trade. In 
pulses production, Sudan again showed the highest 
instability index of 30.1 followed by Kenya with an index 
of 25.8, and Egypt the least with 16.7. Regional inte-
gration in pulses reduces fluctuation to 12.5. Production 
of roots and tubers showed less fluctuations in the three 
countries compared to cereal and pulses production with 
Sudan showing the minimum index of 12.7, followed by 
Kenya 13.2 and Egypt 16.6. Regional integration could 
reduce the instability to 10. Although the empirical results 
indicate that regional integration would be a reasonable 
strategy for achieving greater food security, the instability 
indices were higher for the sub-region than for the rest of 
the world in all the three categories of food crops. Per-
haps on these grounds it would be better to integrate 
national markets directly into the world market. In reality, 
however, this may be less advisable than the instability 
indexes indicate. 

 

Comparative advantage and the potential for trade 

expansion 
 
There is widespread opinion that African countries have 
similar factor endowments, climatic conditions and their 
production patterns. Therefore, the potential of the intra-
regional trade could be small.  

To test this hypothesis, a production similarity index is 
calculated for all agricultural products of the countries 
under study. This index is defined by the following. The 
index measures the similarity of production patterns of 
countries a and b, an index value of 100 means that 



  
 
 

 
Table 1. Instability indices for Sudan, Egypt and Kenya sub-region and the world (1961 - 

2005). 
 

Country Crop Area Yield Production 

Sudan Cereal 0.194 0.182 0.316 

 Pulses 0.193 0.113 0.301 

 Roots and tubers 0.132 0.069 0.127 

Egypt Cereal 0.081 0.085 0.176 

 Pulses 0.178 0.057 0.166 

 Roots and tubers 0.101 0.097 0.166 

Kenya Cereal 0.099 0.125 0.150 

 Pulses 0.195 0.153 0.257 

 Roots and tubers 0.119 0.112 0.132 

Sub-region Cereal   0.121 

 Pulses   0.125 

 Roots and tubers   0.103 

World Cereal 0.023  0.009 

 Pulses 0.039  0.033 

 Roots and tubers 0.035  0.016 
 

Source: calculated using the FAO database. 
 

 
Table 2. Production similarity index (1999 - 2005) 

 

 Kenya Sudan 

Egypt 30.70 24.17 

Kenya  37.23   
Source: calculated using the FAO database 

 

 

formula (Finger and Kreinin, 1979): 

S
Q

 (ab,c) = ( Minimum [(xi (ac), xi (bc)])*100 (2) 
Where: 

S
Q

 (ab,c) = Production similarity index  
Xi (ac) = Share of commodity i in a’s agricultural 
production  
Xi (bc) = Share of commodity i in b’s agricultural 
production 
 

production patterns of the two countries are completely 
similar. Whereas 0 index implies complete dissimilarity in 
production patterns.  

Table 2 presents the empirical results of production 
similarity index for average of period from 1999 to 2005. It 
identified the differences in production patterns of these 
because Egypt’s resources and climate are relatively 
dissimilar from the other two countries. The actual cause 
three countries. Egypt is relatively more different in its 
production pattern from Sudan and Kenya. This could be 
may be revealed when the export patterns of the 
countries are investigated by the use of export similarity 
index.  

Similarity of production patterns can also be examined 

by using comparative production performance coefficient 

(CPP) and is defined as follows (Koester, 1986): 

 

 
 

CPP= (Qi j / Qiw) / (  Qij /   Qiw) (3) 
 

Where: 
 

Q = Quantity produced and the subscripts i, j and w refer 
to the type of product, the country in question and the 
world, respectively.  

Qij = Total agricultural production of the country in 
question. 

Qiw= Total world agricultural production 
 
CPP index shows the importance of a commodity to 
country's production, an index value of more than unity 
means that the particular commodity has a larger share in 
total agricultural production of the individual country and 
has production comparative advantage.  

If the hypothesis that the three COMESA countries 
have similar resources and climates is correct, CPP coe-
fficients for individual products of the countries will vary 
only a little, if at all. Table 3 shows CPP coefficients of 
some selected agricultural products excluding fisheries, 
foresry and livestock for the three countries. By ranking 
top ten products for each country only four products rank-
ed more than once in Sudan and Egypt. This clearly indi-
cates that the agricultural production pattern differs consi-
derably among the three countries.  

Differences in production pattern will most likely reflect-
ed in differences in the export patterns of the individual 
countries. To investigate this hypothesis some additional 
indices have been calculated. One of those is the export 
similarity index which is completely analogous to produc-
tion similarity index (Finger and Kreinin, 1979). This index 

is defined by the formula:  

S (ab, c) =   Minimum [(xi (ac), xi (bc)] *100 (4) 



 
 
 

 
Table 3. Comparative production performance (CPP) for Sudan, Egypt and Kenya (1990 - 2004). 

 

   Index  
 

Country Product 

    

1990-1993 1994-1998 1999-2004 
 

      

Sudan - Sesame seed 47.06 63.01 51.39 
 

 - Melon seed 57.72 58.86 37.40 
 

 - Dates 24.44 18.91 31.03 
 

 - Groundnuts in shell 8.06 15.08 27.50 
 

 - Broad beans 7.97 2.63 17.99 
 

 - Grapefruit 9.41 7.09 17.13 
 

 - Eggplants 5.37 3.81 7.95 
 

 - Tomatoes 4.73 3.92 4.50 
 

 - Pumpkins and Squash 3.52 2.45 3.40 
 

Egypt - Clover 47.22 46.92 47.04 
 

 - Dates 14.78 12.59 13.16 
 

 - Figs 10.18 16.23 12.65 
 

 - Broad beans 11.76 10.49 7.34 
 

 - Tomatoes 5.40 5.27 4.76 
 

 - Anise and Fennel 5.25 5.64 4.38 
 

 - Lemons and Limes 4.33 2.66 2.06 
 

 - Beans 3.27 3.19 2.81 
 

 - Pumpkins and Squash 3.14 3.06 3.12 
 

 - Artichokes 3.97 2.854 4.34 
 

Kenya - Pyrethrum 518.51 435.42 400.59 
 

 - Sisal 65.84 56.35 41.75 
 

 - Tea 52.90 57.08 55.93 
 

 - Pineapples 19.92 22.65 24.06 
 

 - Pigeon peas 16.29 13.26 17.67 
 

 - Beans 17.12 10.66 12.79 
 

 - Plantains 10.85 8.65 10.51 
 

 - Avocados 8.1919 9.15 13.17 
 

 - Cow peas 19.06 9.32 7.70 
 

 - Cabbages 5.53 7.27 6.04 
  

Source: calculated using the FAO database. 
 

 
Table 4. Export similarity index (1999 - 

2004). 
 

 Kenya Sudan 

Egypt 10.10 4.97 

Kenya  12.57 
 

Source: calculated using the FAO database 
 

 

Where: 
Xi (ac) = Share of commodity i in a’s export to c. 

Xi (bc) = Share of commodity i in b’s exports to c. 

 
The index measures the similarity of export patterns of 
countries a and b to market c. If the export patterns of 

countries a and b are the same this means that xi (ac) = 

xi (bc) for each product i. In this case the export similarity 

 
 

 

completely dissimilar, the index will be equal to zero. 
Table 4 presents export similarity indexes by pairing 

the three countries, the generally low indices indicates 
that countries are dissimilar in their export patterns. 
Exports of Sudan and Kenya registered the highest index 
of 12.5, and Sudan and Egypt the minimum index of 4.9. 
These low indices indicate that there is a wide scope for 
trade within the region because the countries are 
relatively dissimilar. This indication has agreed with 
export similarity indices found by Koester (1986) for 
SADCC countries which are not much different from 
indices calculated in this paper and even higher in some 
pairs (around 50). Higher index up to 50 do not support 
the hypothesis that there is limited scope for intra-
regional trade because the countries are too similar. 
Finger and Kreinin (1979) found similarity indices of 
around 50 for US-EC exports in the early 1970s, but there 
has since been a significant expansion in US-EC bi- 



  
 
 

 
Table 5. Revealed comparative advantage (RCA) for selected crops in Sudan, Egypt and Kenya (1990 - 2004). 

 

Country Product Period Share in agricultural exports (%) RCA 
     

Sudan Sesame seed (1990-1993) 12.0 31.63 

  (1994-1998) 18.7 31.76 

  (1999-2004) 26.6 5.95 

 Groundnuts (1990-1993) 3.7 28.63 

  (1994-1998) 6.8 29.53 

  (1999-2004) 1.1 1.56 

 Molasses (1990-1993) 1.9 28.43 

  (1994-1998) 1.8 27.77 

  (1999-2004) 2.1 6.82 

 Melon seed (1990-1993) 2.6 28.90 

  (1994-1998) 2.2 28.08 

  (1999-2004) 1.4 12.72 

 Cotton lint (1990-1993) 29.3 33.21 

  (1994-1998) 20.5 31.92 

  (1999-2004) 15.9 9.03 

 Sheep (1990-1993) 12.8 31.74 

  (1994-1998) 14.8 31.35 

  (1999-2004) 18.1 14.81 

Egypt Beans (1990-1993) 2.1 24.72 

  (1994-1998) 2.2 18.63 

  (1999-2004) 4.6 14.53 

 Oranges (1990-1993) 9.0 2.98 

  (1994-1998) 4.3 0.99 

  (1999-2004) 4.8 1.97 

 Onions (1990-1993) 3.6 1.24 

  (1994-1998) 3.1 1.08 

  (1999-2004) 2.7 1.70 

 Bagass (1990-1993) 1.2 1.28 

  (1994-1998) 1.4 1.40 

  (1999-2004) 0.1 0.58 

 Anise, Badian and Fennel (1990-1993) 1.4 0.50 

  (1994-1998) 1.4 0.24 

  (1999-2004) 0.8 0.36 

Kenya Pineapples (1990-1993) 4.8 53.38 

  (1994-1998) 4.2 20.79 

  (1999-2004) 4.0 21.10 

 Beans (1990-1993) 2.1 24.72 

  (1994-1998) 2.2 18.63 

  (1999-2004) 4.6 14.53 

 Tea (1990-1993) 38.3 23.03 

  (1994-1998) 35.7 16.95 

  (1999-2004) 39.3 10.49 

 Coffee (1990-1993) 21.7 35.63 

  (1994-1998) 23.3 23.50 

  (1999-2004) 10.7 20.93 

 Sisal (1990-1993) 1.7 29.96 

  (1994-1998) 1.1 21.78 
  (1999-2004) 0.9 12.20 

 
Source: calculated using the FAO database. 



 
 
 

 

Table 5 shows the results of RCA coefficients together 
with the export shares for the most important top ten 
agricultural products for each country. The three coun-
tries appear to be highly specialized. Considering trade. If 
the countries under study were really similar in production 
and trade patterns indicated by the previous indices, 
coefficients for revealed comparative advantage (RCA) 
would be similar (Donges et al., 1982). The RCA indicator 
measures the country's revealed comparative advantage 
in exports according to the Balassa formula. The index 
compares the share of a given sector in national exports 
with the share of this sector in world exports. Values 
above 1 indicate that the country is specialized in the 
sector under review, the higher the RCA index, the more 
successful is the country in exporting the given export 
product.  

The RCA index will be negative if the country is only 
importing the given product or if the ratio of export and 
import values for the product is smaller than the ratio of 
the total agricultural exports and imports. The revealed 
comparative advantage is defined as follows (Balassa, 
1965; Finger and Derose, 1978; Donges et al., 1982; 
Yilmaz, 2003): 
 

RCA = (Xi/Xiw)/ (  Xi/   Xiw) (5) 
 
Where, 
RCA = revealed comparative advantage 

Xi = export value of product i  
Xiw = world export value of product for each country 
separately, RCA coefficients are generally higher for 
dominant export products. However, the pattern of 
specialization differs considerably among the selected 
countries, which means that there is potential for 
expanding intra-regional trade in the region. 

 

Conclusion 
 
There is a great potential for intra-regional trade, espe-
cially in agricultural products, between COMESA member 
countries. This paper quantified the potentials of intra-re-
gional trade between Sudan, Egypt and Kenya as sub-
region of COMESA by using different indicators and indi-
ces. The instability indices of cereals and pulses produc-
tion showed a relatively stable production of cereals and 
pulses in Kenya and Egypt, while in Sudan it was highly 
unstable. Regional integration could make production of 
cereals and pulses more stable as indicated by a lower 
instability index. Production of roots and tubers showed 
less fluctuations in the three countries compared to ce-
real and pulses production. Generally, world wide market 
integration would be better than the regional one on the 
basis of instability index results because region instability 
index is higher than that of the rest of the world. Re-
garding production similarities, there are differences in 
production patterns of the three countries. Egypt is rela-
tively more different in its production pattern from Sudan 

 
 
 
 

 

and Kenya. Also, the three countries are dissimilar in their 
export patterns. The RCA, considering each country 
separately, are generally higher for dominant export 
products. However, the pattern of specialization differs 
considerably among these countries, which indicates 
great potential for expanding intra-regional trade in the 
region.  

The paper concludes that the government policies of 
COMESA member countries, especially Sudan, should 
pay more emphasis to encourage integrating their 
markets regionally to benefits from existing potential of 
trade and comparative advantage in the region. Stemm-
ing from the recent agreement between COMESA mem-
ber countries to form a common external tariff and to pro-
ceed towards common market by the end of 2008, the 
intra-COMESA trade is expected to be increased sub-
stantially. 
 

Appendix 1. Direction of Sudan exports to 

the COMESA region (2001-2004) in percent. 
 

Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Egypt 75.0 81.00 86.60 51.50 

Ethiopia 2.1 0.02 1.90 1.40 
Eritrea 1.6 0.10 8.00 1.80 

(5)     

Kenya 21.2 10.10 3.40 1.90 
 

Source: Bank of Sudan, Annual Statistical Brief 

(2004) 
 

Appendix 2. Main suppliers of Sudan imports 
from COMESA countries (2001 - 2004) in  
percent. 

 

Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Egypt 47.0 46.60 62.70 71.40 

Kenya 31.4 28.70 18.80 12.70 

Zimbabwe 11.1 11.70 6.50 1.80 

Uganda 10.1 12.70 8.60 10.2 

Namibia - - 0.00 0.00 
 

Source: Bank of Sudan, Annual Statistical Brief 

(2004). 

 
REFERENCES 
 

Barry A Corbett V (2001). Intra-regional Trade and Food Security in 
East and Southern Africa: Constraints, Opportunities and the Way 

Forward. Presented to REDSO/ESA under the Rural and Agricultural 
Incomes with Sustainable Environment (RAISE). ARD-RAISE, Kenya 

Balassa B (1965). Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advan-  
tage. The Manchester Sch. of Econ. Social Stud. 33: 99-123.  

COMESA (2004). Establishment and Membership. 
(Availableat:http://www.itcilo.it/actrav/actravenglish/telearn/global/ilo/b 
lokit/comesa-htm, accessed December 2, 2004). 

Cuddy J, Della Valle P (1978). Measuring the Instability of Time Series 
Data, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 40: 79-85.  

Donges J (1982). The Second Enlargement of the European 
Community: Adjustment Requirements and Challenges for Policy 
Reform, Kieler Study. Kiel, Germany. p. 171. 

Finger JM, Kreinin ME (1979). A Measure of Export Similarity and its 

Possible Uses. The Econ. J. 89: 905-912. 



 
 
 

 
Finger JM, Derose DA (1978). Trade Overlap, Comparative Advantage, 

and Protection.” In, On the Economics of Intra-Industry Trade. Edited 
by H. Glersch. Tuebengin: J. C. Mohr, 1979. 

Johnson D Gale (1978). Food Reserves and International Trade Policy. 
In International trade and Agriculture: Theory and Policy,. Edited by 
Jimmye S. Hillman and Andrew Schmitz. Boulder, Colo.: Westview 
Press. pp. 239-252  

Johnson D Gale (1981). Grain Insurance, Reserves, and Trade: 
Contributions to Food Security for LDCs. In Food Security for 
Developing Countries,. Edited by Albberto Valdes. Boulder, Colo.: 
Westview Press. pp. 255-286  

Koester U (1986). Regional Cooperation to Improve Food Security in 

Southern and Eastern African Countries. Research report No. 53. 

Washington D.C., International Food Policy Research Institute. 

  
  

 
 

 
Valdes A, Siamwalla A (1981). Introduction. In Food Security for 

developing Countries, Edited by Alberto Valdes. Boulder, Colo.: 
Westview Press. pp. 2-21 

Yilmaz B (2003). Turkey's competitiveness in the European Union. 

Ezoneplus working paper No. 12, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, 

Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 


