'-rrkjtii MS EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION 3 rg o ££ • 3 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Issued May 1969 & p-l to c o CO NO 1 > 4-1 ft d < 4-1 O ft ft N d ft d) i —1 ft 4-1 ft d E O ft x •H ft ft r —4 ft d d co ■u 3 ft co O co < 4-4 ft E X ft o ft d) d o CO ft Cl) 00 ft CO d) d Es x 0 ) ft ft co CO E d) ft d> ft x ft 33 r —1 ft ft (0 00 co d d • r\ o ft X CD ft > C ft O ft d) X E X CL) ft E d) CO CO CD ft ft o E oc i cj E CO d T—• x d r -4 CO o o d ft ft CO d> X V-i X ro d) O CD I I , 4-1 0) CD • 4) W £ HI ft CD ft C CL bO ft 3 "O H X ft c ft toO ft CO ft o CM X CL O CL u u ft X -C X C3 CL) ->—> C* 33 ft Eh o 3 cd cd ft a w co o c CO Du r-l cO > X d d X CO CO d 3-4 o r—4 d e 1-1 o CD ft E ft d > CO <4-4 ft ft o CD co •i-4 > d) CD 0) ft CO o 0) 3 u d) o E •H ft CD X E ft d CJ •H >> Ed CO N o CO E CO o Cl ft cj r-l 3 ft < C 4-J d) C o O •H •H co c ft H E-4 CO x dJ y H X ft CD r-4 T3 43 co £ Pm pH 3 CD 33 CD Eh d d d rC O H •“D co Ed Pd r o ft ft O Ed CO M w 4-J cl £ !-i d) CO CD CO o X cd u co CL, 4-J E pH CL <4-1 ft ft 4-J ft d) Ed d CO C 00 CD T“i CO 5m 00 CD •H ft *r-4 c X d 4-J d) O d i -a c o CJ CO M-4 CO 1 CO d CL 1 d X CD •H 3 d ft ft o E CD ft ft ft *n CO TJ ft ^ ft •H >- di r-4 c on O a CO c_> ft CO X CO ft d) *1-4 CJ r—1 Cl.) CD t “4 •ft TJ d- T3 40 H3 • ft d X o d CO d CO 0 0 co t)0 O r-4 i—i CO Cl) CO u o •ft *H CO 6 CO CO 4-J CO d) ft O d) > ft •H — *H X •ft CO ft "3 < 4-1 ft E oo O O E-4 -ft o d) CL Pl. ft r—i d x T3 E o W d co vd ON o oo o d E •ft rj & d r—4 w o I-J o cr ft ft CO g X E ft x O ft CO <44 o O ft d d CO . •H ft co ! r- 1 CO 0)! ft) 5 CD VO >, ON co; a) ft r—4 ft 33 CL d) Cd ft CD rd CD o ft d X X X d d)l c OJ ft X ft CO o •ft co <44 cd d n CD co CJ •r4 X) ft Cd u d) CD o 4-J X c rC r— 1 ft’ CO •ft ft <44 r—• —4 o o r-—1 £ 4-1 ft! co CO CO ft X dl CJ U-l <4-1 00 X (3 X t4 CO O ft to ft d) 4-1 -r-l d ft <44 X O co 03 ft ft rH d ft ft N X CJ *H •1—) •ft r—. co 03 4-J TJ d) *ft E d) CD CD d) ft CO IS § CO X co O 33 ft •ft fs ft Q X CL 6 Cd •H H Z E E-4 O <44 <44 O o - NO - C co i CO d a) ft ,—4 ft O X ft w »> Cd x •ft d ft CO Q < r- d • • v£> CJ - • • * * CO 1 •ft CD CO CO 4-J 4 ft ft 4-J 4-J U VO bO co U J-l o co X o O Oft r-< CO a CL E <44 g X O • Q) CO CD Cd CD t— 1 ft CO i - 1 i—l i—4 CO co ft C3 CO CO X ft 33 ft ft ?-4 CO d CD O X d 3 ft ft cl d ft 4-J rft • E co r—1 r-4 ft d cd •H d 3 o o • >N CJ O <44 X U CD ft •ft •H ft —■ *|—| ft CO OD X X X CO W) CD co d d o CO CO ft CO co E O , Cd X Ch Cd W ft l ft l • l o 1 co 1 d) i l 4-J • c • • vD • CD co t —4 CM d) CO 1 < 1 * CJ c 4-J d r-4 CO CO Cl) CO H) X a) vo cu <44 r-l H CL JD ^3 X > r Q 1 ft X CO CO CO CO CL W H E -4 H E -4 • • i-H •• C • • *H d d X d ft o - O too O co •ft d •ft *ft x d ft X ft ft ft X co CO co O co ft •ft *ft X X CO O ft O CJ CD o o O X O X CO CO CO co >, co CO >N r 4 < X OJ CD d) ft a) cu x d x d X d CO r— 1 CO co cO i— 1 ft CO ft d ft CO H > e -4 cr Eft > (\) • CD • - CD •»> (1) CO d) CO d) CO ft CD ft d) ft CD pH X pH X Eh x ft ft ft d x d X d X CO X CO X CO X d) o d) o d> a CL s a. E a. g o E o E o E ft o ft o ft o d o d o d o Pd Ed Ed X r-4 r-4 cu co d> CO a) co 33 ft 33 ft X V4 Eft d Eft d E-4 3 ! ft 1 ft 1 4-J 1 X 1 X 1 r-4 • d • d • 3 LO CJ NO CJ O x •H •i-4 CD ft cd ft (D }M i—i toO x too i—4 60 X co X co JD CO CO cO CO H E-< E-4 d) • *• <0 CO ft d) ft X 4-1 d X CO X 0 ) O 00 o X CO Total LO hj a u > LO H SJ o o rt C • O rt H, >i y C/3 CT CL rt s y rt CO CD fD c UJ to t 0* h-» p TO ■< :< H* 05 rt 03 n • I— 1 • rt • • • * N5 s£> N5 -P" U5 v£5 .d 00 W N5 IO P- H 05 00 H H H W N I -1 f-ivDOOJ'Jl—‘C^h- 1 N 50 U N O' O' N i— 1 I— 1 1— 1 N5 CO UO Nj o 0"j I .I 1 to- Ln f—* h- 4 00 00 LO fD h-»i h- 4 hO N3 r-» H o 00 OD LO Ul o 4> LD O • • • . • • •» rt I— 4 4> Ul oo to o SO LJ P rt i— 4 to l so - J 00 vO vO u0 Ul OS l UO ON vQ LO Ul VXD LTV I- 1 h- h-* ro hO o 1° VXD uo DO 4> IS5 00 CDS O 1 I- 1 uo Oi i— 1 Ul 00 h- 4 i—* ro b® O '-sJ o 00 VXD to to |N) 'sO ■to vo h- 4 sO ON Ul 05 00 H d H rt to • O r- 1 H od ct 05 n • 05 rt y i— 1 H- CD to DO IT ■(> P SJ 0D a u > 3 o o rt c ro r> o c/3 Oo ft SJ 3 rr rt to to to i-c P TO ■c H« 03 d 0: • h-* • • • • • • • • • • Ul |ro LO Ui 4> h- 4 h- 11 |ui 00 ro Ov 00 jo-s O Ui O Ul N I'* |UI Ui so Ul Ui 4> t— 1 ro ;ui o sO Ui 4> t— * .Ul ro ro LO Ov LD u o Ul * vO LT> 4> h-» ro ° h- 4 I— 4 vO \l LO LO Ui O 00 sJV |uD 'In CTv i* CJi Ui CO ro U5 N5 O Ul ? H W j >0 ft fD O' 05 to ‘-J rt rr -* (D -» co d (5 P rt a fD X rt co 05 rt d 3 d rt d rt O 05 03 0) rt rt cr rt r-* rj ^ 05 i-t 03 rt r-* t» 03 o rt ■y H* - D3 S3 > ■s P O ^ r- &3 fD T3 O rh CO Cu < h-* >-< tl i- 1 H* d 0) h-* to O to c L o • rt r-* CL P CL nr s: nr rt co ro rt CO Ul o 00 y fD W y * cr Hr rt • CO o (D O r /5 3 C/3 o o rt 0) H* to (D o a o 0) O H* to TO ri ro P3 H If H- rt O rt i— 1 o os cola 4> 00 H» LO rt lUDj-P- s© Ul IN O O N5 +> •ps U5 00 uo 00 ft ■O IJl Is5 |\5 4> W o Ul D) t' Ul 00 s) O' 'J o w OO Ul Hi i* 1 O 0 Nl O' IN rt w N5 I—1 p s vl 'U o *~0 I— 1 OS I— 1 LO CO Ul Ul DO Is5 4> u> vO Ul O' Ul ul ru N 50 ui iu £13 c H» r- 1 » Hi : su rt a. to Os 3 to a i-* ■—J rt P o a - P CL H, • H* rt y CO 3 O -o> * Tu O rr 1-1 o o rt O 3 CO t-J O , b to d rt die; H- H* to CO rt • H* N >t • • H J CO i— 1 rt rt l* H- s-u' * r-*| O “ < O t HJ p h-* to os I O -CO uU i— 1 O0 j l-s O 3s y <• | rt Hi h- 1 ro It -1- 3 1 d pQ 03 H* av d d i P rt H* u; • i to !-■ l> H> H- s£5 (TO P o uu (H P H- rt O p CL 7* P rr rt O rt rt rr ID 0) d O h, rr to TO X a o TO 05 H* u5 X rt O 3 rt rr 11 01 (5 to »TO CL CL rt o a, • to it £b rr • P 05 t- 1 d i- 4 H* d ro H* 3 i—* rt P to rt 03 rt H> rt 05 cn 05 > n CO "Tl O p D3 o TD c < H» p Hi »i TO fD c D3 3 Ch Hi o 05 OQ H* H» to rt Cu H (D ft 3 H* 00 rt w rt 03 03 Tj o to 03 >« Hi 'r 1 * ft P cr U) rt O o 03 CL H u rt a o a> c a- CL 03 o rt 03 rt to o rt 03 to r- 1 S4 05 o rr 03 Cl rt rt P Cl ro CL CL n to rt 03 • 05 rt H- 'C c UO N5 00 uo uo u si 00 rt uo uo SO 31 Ul H uo si Ul N5 Ul CDs ul Os O -to S N u) S H UO |—i -ps OS ul rt sj Ul U. 00 Ul LO LO h-» 1 ^ ON 1—» sDO vjl UN >—* ! 'S sj sj SJ s« SJ SJ 1 i ^ 4> 4> as vD 4> h—» i ^ 4> Ui (js O Ul '"J ON Ul H*| ""J '-J ro O L0 vO o h— 1 n Ul I- 1 r— o LO ■ps SJ j s. SJ s* SJ V* LO N> vO 4> Ul vXD ro hD o -1 -P' O O o VXD 'U VXD Ul h-* O --J fs. Ul 41' o 1—* 4-^ SO CJs OD N5 ts5 sj s» SJ s» -J Os —J so Os Ul uo s ui o ui O CO OS OS O ©> Ul 00 O UO Ul sj OS 1-1 O I— 1 OO o so H* o UO so CJS ■sJ ,4> H* M CsD isO SjO jui h- 4 h- 4 ■—J h- 4 Lo LO J •j SJ - SJ LO 4> UO vO 00 ro av vO o vO LO LO CDV 4-' -j O 1 -s* -P" -si uO ->J h- 4 Ui i— 4 h- 4 t- 4 i —* Ui t- 4 uo LO j SJ SJ SJ SJ LD h- 4 LO LO 00 00 ro ro vXD !U -P' CO LO LO H- 4 vO vO Lo vO N3 lO Ui O LO CDS U0 00 sj rt UO UO UO I'. O' -to 00 SO Ul ps 1-1 OS rt U sO 00 -J 00 sJ ro uo sJ sO UO 4> H* i- 1 si r-* O rOj- j sj +> si sO , Hi j I* j • I >sj vO W W Ul h- 4 +• i— 4 1 1 LO sp a> 4- > “ 4> r J „ s# sj SJ ■* s* 1 00 I— 4 00 LO ro h- 4 4> LO h- 4 4> vO Ul oo 00 fO sO Ul ro h- 4 Ul 4> O'v Oi lO 5D0 vXD 1 ?3f. I /Sl/f 33sl^ g 171-% c c o u I CO o •H u CU e < c •x X CO X £ I CJ £ TO CO CO -£ X 03 cn £ X X 0) £ -I- 1 4= X X X J-i 5-4 OJ H tfl Z co o •i“l £ CU E cu ctf O -£ 2 O o CJ •H • £ £ U CD CU CU CD • £ £ £ 2 Pm Pm < ^>1 cO 03 £ cO £ I •r—I 03 C 3 5-i 3 CO co cO ,£ CO £ £ 1-1 O -O U cO u O C ^—' CD O E O "O •H c c CT3 £3 , M X) cj CO X XI X x c CJ X £ 3 X -■ cu x o •H i—• X 3 a, cu pi CO cO 00 cO H s x CJ ai CJ • CD 1-1 S '—' cO 03 X 03 t-H £ B cn u o cU CQ C o cO 03 •H 0) •H 03 CO o o c ►d u O O CJ CO 03 cu o 00 •H x: 03 4J o E 4—» £ £ o P*. bG •H 00 o cd O X c £ 03 •H U c -£ D CJ < CD O XJ T —1 D o CO c r > 03 03 03 CJ Q w M S s X M o 1-1 o e o cj 00 £ •rH TD O i—i o c •l-1 5-i CU bO 2 Pi co o 1—I CO 00 1-1 cu o ai £ oo cu ai o a. co H x cO o •H £ 4-1 < X X 3 O CO 4-1 o £ o •r-l £ X cO cO pi <3 X £1 co CO x £ ,3 X 3 X 00 3 <3 H X Pd co i i X cu 3 £ X X £ O a i i i i i 4 3 3 H 1 J -i n 2 5 U| >< y cu CM o £ 3 Pd £ £ CU X co cO Pd CO > co X cO cO X £ X X cu 2 £ co £ cn o m •• o E-4 cu CO •X -!Z £ CO > S O £ rX CU cn a HD O £ C -£ cO X 03 o 00 cn r-H CU £ CO o td 3 Pd Pm CJ Pd X o 5-1 3 Pd £ £ CO £ X £ cu U CO CO u 3 -x oo pi CO £ cU CO X cj co •H O 2 X 5-< O CO 03 X CO CO CO co > g £ X cu 3 CO X x CO CO C 3 O x O K W CU X cO £ H >■> co co •H 3 > 00 CU X CO X r—C £ X O CO 2 CQ £ O CO £ £ W Pm £ CO CJ £ CU e < cn • • a >1 (U O MO x CJ -O (U 03 £ CU cu cn £ « «X (U O cn 00 X Q CU X X 00 X x £ i £ O 10 sf X £ X O B T3 CO o cu CU - £ X E 3 £ x co x x cj cO x CU £ 3 iX X /cox o CU CU CU 3 E J-4 cn •» O co CU CJ £ X X cu £ £ £ CO cn cu £ " x cn O cn £ cu cu x x x co Cu E CU CU 3 E co £ cn cu x X •X X o o CJ 00 ♦H X I m £ cu X CO o £ X cu r£ I X (U X £ CO r-~ cd cn x x x £ cn O cn CU CO E x x o (U CJ -C H X X CO £ o m X cD CD ON cn CU X £ x £ 3 O CJ E$ Pm Pd £ CU cu & I £ X O X CO £ O X cO £ 00 cu X X X CU E o £ X X cu E <3 O H CJ Pm Pd cn cu •H £ CU X £ £ 3 O O CJ cn 00 cu 00 £ 3 £ X O X X £ £ cO 00 O £ X X CU X X o X CO x cO £ ax aj •X -£ CJ cu X •SeS £ CO Q X £ CO CU - X •H £ 3 O o o •H E • • o - - N £ X o CU o pi Pd £ cO £ 23 CO CU £ a O o g £ E 3 O Pd a 00 £ 3 O cn -3 E £ cu >> cO X £ X 3 cO £ X E CU i £ X E CU X 3 CU CJ cu X a 2 2 00 £ X T—H t—c co cn CO cu cu £ cu x -£ CQ Pm 2 X H CD CO co CC M H PI 3 CO H p rr o CO 3 3 • (D O CO hh |Ui • 1-0 3 h-» H* H 4 3 "O a 4 hh CL CD 3 7C* • CD cd CD H* c-l 3 P 3* H* CO 0Q O O M O M 3 CL CL 3 • CD o H* H- 3 3* 3 3 CO 3 3 rr l-h CD O 3 O co CL CL CD r\t t -1 O H- h- 3 |k> cr O — 3 3* 01 (0 O) 3 3 C/1 (0 3 03 03 3 rr co vj 3 CO CL 1— 1 Hi vQ D3 03 W 3 CT) 3 <-4 03 CO o < o 03 N » rt O H 70 C PI 01 CD OO rr 3 3 03 3“ n v: 3 h* 03 3 cl O 3 Si 3 H* Id H- 03 '^.|CT3 3 C/1 O O C/D H* C 0) 3 3 H- 3 3 r-( 3 CT 3 H (5 H- H- 3 3 03 CO 3“ tr 1 I O' ^ 03 ICO r{ H- • 3 H* 3 n H- 3 P 3 3 3 C> 3 • H« CL 3 O 3 CD CL i 01 • CD rt O C 3 CO CL cr h> CL • 3 rr H- O CD v; 3 O |a> p o » oo c CL c 3 co rt rt 3 O H* 3 3 0) 3 n> |Cn f— 4 C/1 3 I 1-1 O H- O CT> 3 |3X3 Tl |C 3 CTn 3 l"J 3 O "'-00 3 o O Pi 3 t-* 1—13 3 oi 3 O H f) 3 3 3* O 3 CL CO CL CO O < 3 H- 3 3 t— 1 3 H 4 H 4 3 H 4 3 3 Cn 01 CT) CD CL 3 rr rr 3 3“ 3* 3 3 3 3 CL 3 cn > H* H 4 00 CO 3 3 3 3 01 Cl 3 0) g 3 3 3 3 rt 3 3 rr i—» 3 n H M n *3 3 W p 4 CD 3 o O CO 3 CD H* O 3 11— 1 CD P CL 3 I 1-1 h- 1 3 ■i &* It- 4 3 5 1 4> CL g 00 |w CD O it |to 00 3 1 i 22 CO Pi H* 3 P H 4 3 ■">. o 3 ' 3“ 3 3“ h 4 3 3 3 3 01 3 3 3 H- rt tu P o CD 3 3 rt rr > CL 3* 3 CD r-< o o CO 3 3 H* CD o H» 3 CD 3 P CD /^n CD p* 1 • CL CL rr o 3 I— 4 P CL TJ y D CL o 3 O P 1 OO I— 4 Cl CO CD Uj p • CD hj o PI “ r-C o 3 p I— 1 CD CD o CD CJ H- *-d o O 3 z; 3 o • P • £ h—» CD cl c/i CD CD CD 3 3 CD o H* 'w' CO H* p 3 O CO O CD 3 CL P 3 CD V# • rr p H* 3 H 4 H- p 3^ T> v# CO cr CD CO CD CT* O 3 3 o' hti H* H* CD • s 3 O s: 1 o O CP c 3- rr] H» 3 O H« O • • 3 M 3 o rr C rt CD Vi p t—* H* CO 7? CD CD rr CD 2J O - 3 I— 1 3 CD ri CD P CD 3 M CD H- 3 CD P P O 22 3 3 3 »-i 0Q 3 P H* CD CD CL 1 rr cr i_i. 3 Cl CD co r d c/iHSwnar , HWOM£>> OI- u 3303033^C333l-h CL i— 4 C 3 3 O 3 3 rt 00 O 3 rt C 3 3 v$ 3" O 3* 3 00 "O 3 CO — 3 O 3 H- ■< H- < i h 1 H. 3 H- 3 >« 3 3 , 3 .. Ivo rr >|vD 3 O ^ g o 3 3 w 3 3 ^ CL ?rqo 0*13 0) 3-3 3 3 3 3 Cl o 3 0 ) 3 3 rt 3 3 h- 0 3 PJ CO 3 3 3 3 C CO CL 3 3 3 O 3 3 CL H* 3 3 3 H* rt rt 3 3 3* rr H* > > O 3 3 3 3 3 CT* CT* O H* I- 4 - Hi 3 3 3 O PI PJ 31 H CO VI 3 3* O 3 o T3 3 h 4 * 3 H- 3 3 H 4 OO £ rt 3 PI 3 3* co 3 "O 7n 3 7S CD O rt H* 3 O v* P 00 3 CD 3 3 CO 3 3 |K> Cj CO 21 CO O rr P 4 o DO c3 22 > O O (D t CD H* p 4 CD o 3 3 • CD c CD CO o CO H* rt 3 3 H* CO K CO P r* O T3 • • 3 3 rt • rr CD CD CD CO 3 o t-^ n r{ (D o rr l—* H* 3* 0) o CD CD • • K* h-‘ 3 3* CD CD r-» I - h co CD CO V > "O i— 1 H* h 1 * D 4 P C O > CD P CD CD H* CD T) 3 n O P P CL nrj O XJ • o CL CL 3 c r-* 3 o (D CO CD CO H* • n o P p 4 p CD CO 3 o O rr CO • 3 3 H* XJ co p 3 3 CD g • |co H* 3 CO CD CD 3 H» p • 3 o rr CO |h* o CO • I 1-1 CD |w CD EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR TABLBS--continued SITC ; commodity : 1961 : 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1965 : 1966 : 1967 ooc'jvooomcor'- inoo'Oin'OONtn mNtn-l CM i-l 00 P- N CO vO OO H lO oo NvtNstHOnONUl lO'fllOOOHOHMTilO Mt i-h *7 >7 <)■ H in H on CM CM i-H 50 cm o on o on. i—l cm o o on cm i—i i-i on CM 00 <75 Ml- O 00 5£> f'' 50 m i-H un cn Ml- CM 05 r-- 00 CM cn CM Ml- un <75 CM 00 CM # m 50 m 00 n- i-H <75 00 CO CM 00 CO i-H vO CM O vO CM CM CO iw i-H i-H 50 <75 CM cn p- CO CO CM 50 m 00 05 o Ml- CM 50 cn v£> I"" Ml- 00 00 un CO CM i-H i-i 05 r» o CM CO un i-H un 00 00 in Mt CM 00 i-H vO un un i—H 00 CM Ml- i-H <0 CM CM 00 r^* Q\ CM 00 CM cn 05 o 00 05 cn i-H i-H un 50 Ml- •-H un i-H 00 vO i-H o CO 50 o 00 un CM 50 cn 50 05 <7 05 un CM m7 CM CO o i-H i-H 50 05 CM in n- CO r-H i-H cn CM CM i-H un CM i-H i-H »-H 50 vO CO 00 cn i-H 00 • 50 CO l-H 00 CM CM CM CO CO O CO 05 un Mt 00 vD LO vO CO CM cn i-H < o o o 00 un CM 05 un 50 oo r-H o o o m CO un un 00 05 05 Mt i-H • 00 CO un Mt i-H cn CM cn o CM o 1^* CM r\ 00 CO o o oo O cn l-H CM un CO o i-H 00 00 CM cn cn 50 Mt o 05 <75 un 00 i-H CM cn r-* r-H 50 un r-H 00 vO Mt 05 Mt t-H CM CM CM i-H 05 un 00 i-H 50 CO i—H cn CM CM r-H Mt CM i-H i-H i-H 0n cn < o p~ cm <75 un cn un 00 50 Mt in 05 00 oo oo • 05 Mt O 05 o oo o C" CM •» n - Z #5 «l n r\ n - rs ** m m CO cn un 05 o\ i-H 05 cn 50 m l-H ON Mt 00 o CM p-r CM i-H <7 O' oo • f-i on 50 50 o cM05r^r^<;r^cMcor-fCM m oo m Mt • o on i—i i—i *. IV IS I' J2l »1 11 A 11 11 50 on 50 i—i o 50 on n i—i 50 i-H o oo cm co on on i—l cm cm Or 4) • ■U T3 4-1 *5 4-J n • <0 C O 73 73 <4 <4 <4 •5 O CO W CO 4) l-H Oh 3 CO >1 0 4-1 Sh <0 2 o 4J O *H lH <4 UH E 73 4) <0 •iH <0 3 00 <4H •lH O c 4) <0 }H }H 3 O c o 2 O OflH CO O <3 P c4 i-h| cn 0 43 > 41 <4H 4-1 C4 4) 43 0 w 3 r-H rO G G 0 H 2 4-1 <4 *H i-H 03 B CJ i-H E •H 43 • •H •H cd C « O 43 • G i-H B 3 3 <4 o 73 - Sh 3 x. 73 - C cn <4 73 o G O <4 73 l-H Sh C o <4 CJ QJ C4 <4 i-H CJ cn 4J Sh #5 <4 <0 <4 QJ cn 0 r* l-H C G 43 73 i-H 4-1 i-H o O •H O *H •H <4 •H o z E2 H 33 o z C/3 5 cn CM 1 • r-H i-H CM CM i-H • i-H • i-H CM r-H i-H r-H i-H 1-H r-H CM i-H i-H CM i-H cm cn 50 50 r^ i-H i-H CM CM CM CM CM 4) B O 4-1 <0 4) 73 m 4-> co B 4) 4J •ih oo w c 4) <4-1 <0 > 1-1 73 0) 4) <0 V4 XI T) E <0 3 3 T4 •-! SH lH C o o } rl CM rl -7 i—i un - »• • 1-1 r-l i-l <75 cm on m <75 -7 >7 un m EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 CO o 00 cm m -< ® <4- O' 4> in o m CM 00 f- f— 43 in oo 4^ 4" in o CO CM in in CO CO 00 O' N- o eo 4* -* 41 O IA >4- O 43 -* >0 in o in f— o o 4- o 00 >0 1 1 o h- in r*- in 00 co of-® sO h- oo CVJ CO in oo ■c 00 CO in r*- r- o' o in O' 4* O' CO ^H CM r- co 4- CO ® ^ (Nl -4- ® in >4- H 00 CO (Si O' 4> (NJ -* CM O' CO 00 CVJ ** O' 4* in 00 fO CO C30 00 pH h*. 4- CO CM O' CM CO CM 00 00 in O' 00 00 ■c >0 O' M3 O' *h >4- h- 45 M3 .4- o •4- 00 M3 O' in c- CM O' o 4* CO O O' in CO o in 4* 43 CO CO 00 h- in O' O' 45 CM h* o m -4- 4- NO CO 45 O' o M3 o O O' o >4- <4- o >0 H in o CM h- r- 45 43 00 43 m o H a CM r- 00 O' 4* CM CM CO 1 1 ® 4f in CM >o 00 r*- CO ao O' in >4- co 4- ® (M >4- >0 4- co pH f*- 4 OO CO o CM 4- 45 CM 45 o 00 1 1 (M P- h- O' 4- •o h- 00 f- CO 43 00 o s m CO in O' 45 vO O' 45 H o 45 O' 00 CO o c* o CO CSJ O' CO ro CM CM H CM >4- 00 in >4- H 00 CO CM O' 45 CM CM CM o •k CM H O' CM pH o in •> in fO fH o O' O' o CM CM in o CO tt CD 4* r- 4- O' CO H >0 *C pH 00 O' O' in 4- 45 H 00 m 4^ o 4- 00 CO CO r- M3 o M3 o 45 O « 4- CO 4- h- 00 O m 4- h- CO o -O 00 CM co n in in cm co 00 O' co CM O' O' CD ~G 45 H CM m O 45 p«< 4- 4- f- 43 r4 43 in 45 h- CM O' CM o o CM CO oo in h* H CM o 00 CM o CO CM >4- m ® 45 ® O' 00 CM CO O' r- co oo m 00 m r- o 45 CO in 1- ® 45 (- co 00 CM CO 4- 00 00 p—4 O' 4- 4- in —i 4- H CO O' m in ® o 45 CO n* 00 m in CM hN 4 1 O' CM r- 4- CM CM CM *4- r- in CO p- CO CM O' 45 CM CM CM o •» CM O' CM pH •H pH in -v * m 00 »H CO yf CM c** in CM in CO M3 O' in CO co r- m CO r- 43 45 co m o 00 in CD O O' 4- CO CO O' CO 4- in -< o o 4* 4> in o in M3 o O' o co O' 45 O O 43 (Nj O' h- O' 4- O o O' 00 CM 00 ■t tc\ m o in in 00 CM o m m 45 4- 43 f- «t CM r*- CM O' -O •* CD f r 1 O' it ® 4- O' 00 O' CM C<3 O' O' CM in o m in r- 45 in CM 4- pH 45 CM 4- ® -iino O' O' in 4 > in o M3 m r- CM in CM O' in •» 00 CM •» *H « 4- o tt CO pH •k pH CO r-4 CM CO f- m CO H r- m CM O •k pH CM CM O •k CO pH O' CM pH CM m> H in cMCMh»inO'00*Hf w O'h-cMo >o cnj or^ooo'ooin4 , oco»-*(\i ONHO'N"(HOlft't 4- r- o ir\ oo 4- •4- fO in . » » * C0lCHMfOlOrf0044IANmNa)fflM<10l0^f*4®Nir\N44S mmmO'O'— i43r'J43mf-or-4-ino'ffl®'- >04-®in.44 , »-4OHOOOIO^OSIAOl«N®0«'lom«Mft®fOOS OOff>-<>OlflO«lNOON'0»fi( ,, l>om>0«'H44IANNN'tO'ffOO (j 1- H(\Jrn^4W^-i'ONN ® v0®-<>- J ' - 0'M-«O' 0 '>-<'tO^>-i^-®in® 0 ^ 0 '®P-njO'c<'l— i<'4P»infn .psrrk./\_»_*.i'->K-rr»on , \N-^,^'00*>%$*cM«^4 , f' > -^*CMCMCO»i^in'OfO*HpHOinOD4*'G N fdin CO O' 40 ° 45in®43-<4-Of-®crinf-.-i>toO'4-r4.t't££r'4jN®/inf®.-<-oin®'t'0 l/\0jN4J'(0-*^(0OlflO4'mOOff'Olf\ONO 1 0N'O «M/>4'f'"4 - 't _l < I O Z —• ® • Q *-t t-4 h" OC (/) < i Z >0£ h- _J < U-l 1-1 z I < z uuu Z >" J t- Z 0£ — p- ; «^_zu S <®x®o=z < -oxz 5 j S : S UJ ° £ S S <2 £ . < < o a z t—I o ►*» a z □ o — V (- 00 < M Ui O 3 O -I oo < oo > 4 UJ oo O UJ < l-> 0 C k- *” Q Ui o UI X oc z u. o o « sO in * h» CO CO CM o 4 00 sO H ro O' O' CM CM O O' -4 cm in r*- (\J ^4 in O' o •k •» * * » •» •k •» •» » •» sO O' 5 4 3 >* ao r-4 O' >0 in O' 4 4- r- >0 >* CO CM (M on co CM fSJ 00 O' co >o co oo t rc oo it co in m t V » f oo ro 4 600* 4) 00 O' •■■4 H CO 43 43 4 C<3 CO >0 in O' >oo >o 4 O ON O' OHrfoo>o4 , f v (n4 , M(OinfO p. C> 00 P- cm «0 4 43 ■“* k -4 MON O W .Ointo-ONininin 4 m cn m cm cm (M CM 00 O' O' m ^4 *-4 CM 00 i- •O 4- 4- m s iO 0 l 1 8 9 2 Q£ o NO© 00 CM 43 4- O' 4- O' o «- m \0 < >fr h- 4- O' CO CM CM O' p-4 s0 »-* h- CM ^4 CO •k «| 4- cn 43 in CM 43 in in cm O' 00 O' o CO 00 CM p-4 (O CO *-4 P-4 a CM CM CM CM o o o z < -i o h- 00 co ^ in NO CM r*- pm cn Ui < o co O' oo ^ oo o 00 00 —4 4 a oc 43 f» CO o O 3 CM « •i » •k •k •k «k 0t k- *0 00 43 O O' h- H in CM 00 h- 3 -1 O' 43 43 ^4 O o CO (M «-< Ui 3 p4 CM CM CM CM U tmmt 0£ O 4 u o u P- o O' 4- m in O O' O' >o l/» O' 00 4- O' 43 in r- oo co 1- m 4- >0 M44'Of f IP'NH oc p-4 « •» M » » •k •» m •k » □ >0 O' P- *-i O O 4 >0 in O' o a. O' 43 vO f-4 *-4 O O' CO CM CM z CM CM CM > oin-i4oinNO'-i P- no —I (M O 43 I OO —4 >-* in CM in 4 p- in oo in (O i-i O' -< 43 O' CO k- < X a: a: at z Q 3 z at < UJ UJ < UJ Z Z UJ < UJ -1 > 1 X I z Q at < _J z k- CM -•< < UJ Z o -I QC cc ui uj uj o k- O JO0£ m UJ X z at O 3 < u. in O h- a M o z UJ _l ■4 < O O o co X EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES. VALUE BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 0'(NiOft-'OUNANObi-ft-uN4-0'* , ouNf'* a» >Or«NO'HNBNO'<0^'tONO'^'0'f «o A-®0'-fNi(Nj(Njft-i®A-ft-0'(Nibj- UN 00 H ^ ITl bO ® UN O' 00 ^ b- ® as - un o (\j » It » fe »»•.«»» ft ► ► -4 1 <^0 «t , (\i(Njir\f-®<-t ® vO bfl bt bO N »D N (M H O H (nj a -t o ft » ft o o®uNObi-uNu\'Cbi-»frANO'0'UN O' o®b-(\iANANUNbOANO«-o r-OA-UNft-'^bfrO ® bj- O' O ® ® AN UN AN UN ® A- UN ft- I I f— (NJ ft— AN AN (NJ AN A- o o o AN ft- (NJ I Abf N !■»»•> I O' ft- A- UN OUNOb-*®UN®®®0*0'ANft-b4 , OUNAN ®®ANft-0'Oft-4‘(NIANOA-A» A- ® AN “ ’ * ‘ “ ftUb^® ® (NJ b—< ® (NJ a» ca AN AN (NJ -- ® AN UN ft ft » •• UN O -b a- <4> AN (NJ bO -- >0 UN UN A- -4- (NJ (NJ O I I I I I (NJ -4- ® UN I | I I * * till A- bO 0'®*■ UN ® ft.b ® AJ ® (NJ ® UN ft ft b$- an O' UN * UN O « ft- A- bf ® X < o UJ OC < 0£ 3 a o O ►— ID X 0 C < o X o UJ UJ z UJ O UJ X oc < (/) X u> o a < < UJ 3 o z O UJ < H bftJ z ►- oc a < z o Q -1 O < 1 < * 3 o a ft— Z M m H- >_l < X UJO0QQH A- < < < X a: to 3 UJ z 0 £ »- ® Q 3 Z z OC < LU ft- o < uj oo < uj z uj < «t UJ -J -J < >- « X Q O Z X X A-Xt-QC _J -J X < UJ J- CM < UJ •J < a£t- vo z M uj a: iu z < < a: <1 O' M b—b cm b- UJ uj a: UJUJOUiZHUJ^ ft- Z A- UJ < h* o O X *-• a. O(0 1LOZA 3 30 O m 20 C O 30 mjocjor- m O 2 H o c/» III *■*" 73 Z *-« n 2 C O X a> ■n o z o X oo M O ■o »- X 00 < 0 2 1* m 70 H 2 "O 73 m -h -1 m “H T> oo 13 30 *- 70 > > > > m 73 m > m J> > 30 O O fsi m 70 r~ o x m c O 2 r* MM m z o m z -< m r* oo n x> f" 73 m C O') 73 O i/i ■H ►M 73 m —1 *-• • »-* O o c > n Z X> T3 73 -h > > m o m *n > ■o oo 30 X m (/> m ro ro ro O'O' I «««««« • * l IT C*l vO IT U1 O' *“W I UI^IO'NWO'J'OOSUI ■P- r- UJ ® I-^OO I O' «4 I «• - oo ~o oa ro m o O' p* t— P* l\J \0 ^Ul H W ro uj ro ro -o .p- p* -p- p« -j ■P- ^ r- pp O' DO ** U1 p* p- r- U> r- +'00'0''00 l» -P- s O 0 ^ VJ1 "2 2? 2 ~ UJ .p* r- ro oo *J W H 03 ^ «0 «0 I W P* <■««•>«« •« I • • ' HOODOI-^^OW^S I © oorooj-P-or^-ooJ.f' vr VlJ-O®®* - 0®t*J'J'»“0' *“ p -o ot ® O' Ol ® ® *- © ^ W K p CD «•«<«« ^ *4 n yi ^ yi 43 p ^ O' ^ OlOSPPKI U) OJ p* N) I ouj-T'O'vOO' vr on i I •••«•• • • I I p^oiwpOm ro oo i -ooJvC-P'O-uionui-t'-t' MOIOOMW-rO'PO-O oi -o « « h- r- O' OJ or O' or p ro ® oo ro vO >c w w p p -J 43 yi p 03 O' O' ® or or p OD*4yj'OW43^yiy)^03 U) oo ro ro r\j -r* OJ OD ff> o ® -0 -g o OJ « «• • * • • « m «• «• OJ -g v£) ® ao iso O .p \jy o f\J ro ro >/5 $ O sO oo O' -g oo sO -g -g & -g \J1 N> OJ OJ ^ OO O' p OJ O' CD rvj ro CD CD ppff -P od vO ro ro ro o • «<«<• ® or ® oo oo *o ^ O' or O O vO »0 ro vO p p -S' Ui -p" p* oo O N P 4 ) 4 J o ««««•« MO'J'JW'I^P ^NWO'WS'iro OO-OOOJOOT-f'00' VJ) \JS ** »— -J SJ\ g> OJ ^ 1 i -p ro ►— V* 1 I ^ o OJ OJ o 0 s «• l « « «• «. 1 l • « «• <• * «• O' yO O 1 1 p* O' OD OJ 1 1 OJ OD OJ OJ OJ O' ro •P NO 00 NO o 00 VD 1—* O' M— -0 o OJ -g O' OJ Ol 00 OD o -P- ^ k- ro oo p» oo on p ro -P ■p -p oosO®Oor®p®'0 O' vOO'-oor-oOorO'O O' 0 ororo®-oroooo-oooo OJ * M" - »-* \J\ Ol 00 ro ro OJ OJ O' O' « •• <• •m «• <• «• <• « « O 'O »—• OJ OJ -g ** r- M-* o V/1 sO O sO h* -g ^4 « sO CD CD O ro ^ 00 o O' O' cr EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY ORIGIN* 1961-67 c o o o > > r“ m z o fm o •H O C/> ti > c O 50 z I Z > m M 50 O r- o -l o m m 50 o c 50 r o z m m C > > -H > > — i -H > m □ > ZHO o 50 XL 2 C o I i» ti n 2 I c/> *-* -n n t> z — I o o H Z > m 3D-|I m -H -H 7 m > —» vji |si 73 > 1*4 30 O J> > 50 m > » o m j» H- -i m j» o m X 30 r- z > o 2 * -< > r- z r- z m m z «< o m i - m > H 73 c m on 50 > > > *» oo -H M — 50 m -H « •o z z • M z o o c j> n 13 o o z > > -0 30 -H J> r- z> m o m m > Tl > *0 on 01 30 30 z m «• m m > I— IS) SI) vfl SJ1 vO vO I a >o mjin 4 s ■* rvj ~4 43 wi ao oo ►- IS) fS» .* IS) .* .* vO .* SJ1 O' O' IS) *■ «• • <•*«!•«•• ls)is>snfs>*4i\)osnis>-4Cw fSJUJ^ - *-* H f“N ►•H i ao .* is) ^ w | a o | a -4 ao a w « » « • « j «• <• i • • «••«•• i w ui j \^awu)^®ui>40*jw o O' a i- -4 *» ao ® ® m ^ ^ o ao o o-J 0 D(s)U)' 0 -g 0 'V/it-sji ISI \J\ 00 l\) +> ■* I v*> «4 o o o o ►- OJ .* -4 O' OJ S71 rsj IS) 1— I—• r- >- »- 0D g) vji >o o O 1 1 IS) IS) IS> o ►— rvj gj (> s ^ o «• «• « >• • i 1 - - «• « « «• « « • • • **J g) »“ )• a ® 1 1 1- ■* ro O' fNJ gj »- v* ^ ^ ^ VJ^ a o VJ1 -J 00 00 O *- rsj vji U) -g H N e O' -g oj N W H *-400 00 sn sn o -j is) o V* * o o ►- ►- ^ IS) U) H- >— >- 1“ >— 1 CO vO -j * rs) 1 -4 00 i ® r-IS)U)Ul-400000 « « «• «• «• 1 » • 1 l » ««•««««« O' o VJl is) rs) law 1 OJ IS) O'V'OvOn-OD^'ISlO' »— ^ ao oj \J\ VJl O 00 00 o Jl^W*aWN4l4) is) oo u> gj g> ao oo to u) U> O) |\) U) ►** >■* t— (— H* IS) IS) I— I— i oo vji ff' c) I p ^ I h is)C*.*o-*aoO'0 — — — — 1 « « 1 4 «<«««•«<• f- >o I (OumiKui^ouwio «jfs> isiojo^-o-oosno-oo' is).* *>^>^>^-^is)oors)^-oJ o o h w w >1 o a O 00 ®> -4 o -g sn oo rs> gj IS) rs> »-* h- *-* rs) is) »— r\) h— 00 O' -P IS) IS) | >0 ►- l 1 H- ►- O' o« gj vji -g ^ ►- VJl <• «• «• « « 1 «• « i 1 • « «• *• « • «• « *• <• ** IS) gj ►— 00 0D | 0D IS) l 1 IS) H- gj vji gj O' ^ -4 0-4 ao 1 o sn VJl VJl VJl CJ* rs) O' O' Ol ^ VJl O' O' 00 O' o cr -g g oo o 00 f-- oo -g 00 CD -g IS) o «g -g f— o IS) IS) »- rsi u> o IS) isi rsi UJ U) I I— I— I I— I— ■* 0 - co sn oj .* * 'O O' sn u) is) u» h * w -j « * ® l •• IS) 0) l— l» >0 O' o I O'^'r-oouio-O'cri'OcriH- UH^UIOh®0'*ON tUKUKtAn rKte IKAUt A^^UUAI tun IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES. VALUE BY ORIGIN. 1961-67 X 00 o o o > > r- m z o (■4 o o 00 T 1 > C O JO X I > m m jo o r o h o m m ®c»r o X m c j> > p- -4 i* > — -H > m o z —t a o 7> oo z — c a i -n o z •H oo o X 00 ■nou-i o o -H •»< jo 30 z » m -4 X c 73 jo m -4 Jo m -< VJI P4 7> x> JP J> P4 JO » > 73 > m jo m > m *> ro -4 > z o o X * m 7) z o z 1 -< r - Z r- m m Z n m Z o m T> JO -< m c m on o > > 00 -4 jo m -4 « 30 z • — n O C > o 44 a z j> -o JO -4 > m > m O m o > ■n > -o O JO c J> -4 a -H > m ro p- po p- p- I <• • « • « • I pj po -o ~o p- co I vji ui ro iv vji oo ~£i ■Pp-p-ujpooocbw *- PO 00 *- w -P PO ►- P- O' oo i O Of'0OP''0PJOO«0oo>i»rvJN)v*( O' ►* Po U> PO PO "4 vOMO''4f‘WPP>-i-’^ aNOsotf wuifOfP PPff'«J®(J'PW>flOO (7>'OOCO<0-4V>JO'CO»—Olr- oo co >- ro .p p- •- H H ^ W O PO N O' •4 »i O' ^ a O'o >—* >40)W^NUIhONO‘ h w UJ 4“ O' 4)p->00>*poiol0oi0l0 • •••»*•••«« O'B'OpO'OP-4-OWO'OO' hMp-hO®POOOOO' ®J)DhOOW'JPOO'UJO p* .p P- NHPO 4 4 4 4 4 4 PO N ® O' *4 *«t Ol -4 Ol Ol ffl ® ffl N P vO oo-oo-Ppoi—oivOpj-P (— i— uo 0N<40H uo Ul P- *■* p o ^ o oo ^pooaooioi-o OOJ'O'J'OOIP- O'PO'O'MW'JP p> p- Ol oo '4-4 0 0' M -4 *“ O' m po PO P- PO 00 OD Ol >J5 -4 O 00 P' yt w 4>o >o P n o <—oioiiso'jimP'OW'Ji I— PO OJ l*> P- -0 OHOWP'MPPooao »•«•*«••••• PiOfflNOaPWPMNO OOJPiONO'U'OfflO'U'PO OOPOOOPvOOJODOJ'JOOOO'P - o o po p* P po w 0'0'(V)P'^‘01-4 UO PO PO PO P- Ul -0 >J1 O' WPONaOffiSMOlO l— uo PO O N p* VoOP-t— p O' >0 oo oo M O 00 O CP PS4O0D-4-4O1 U0P'O''J'lj0O0P'-4>O'OP' 0'-p'i\>0)'J'oooJp-i\j'4ao 10 10 U> 4 I 2 2 i -0 17 1 27 ro u> 18 18 34 4 71 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 i 4 4 «• 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ro «o O s£ U» 1 1 04 s0 4j O' ro o o sO uj ro ro o 1 ro IS) ro -o ^ 0 s ro ro ro o ro ro VJI -0 UJ ^ -o oo Ul H o «g ro uj oo ro o ro O' OJ »- ro ro O' \ji r- ^ O U> EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES. VALUE BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 V) J> ■> f~ -n i> « to o r o -i > *-r -H > J» M nitinzui~iTj(/iD (T> J> m —t -< TO X> TJSmdHin > > m 50 n rn 2 x r- > x> x m 2 *» m 2 2 > 50 2CO 50 h-i o 50 m * n n c > -o 75 m o T3 m i m O > IZ-OH5in-D2 • m rn m m ^ h j> »i>r o 1 r- 2 2 o » m ■< j> o — TO 2 m c «“ -< 2 J> 2 r- VJl M >0 -4 ►- -4 43 U1 “0'M f 'WOO'+03NMOIM • • !•««««« •••«*•» -»-<•»- 00 -4 -J <— O P I UiPOO'OTIODPWO'ONO'^OON'iOO HIZ-4^NOW00 HOWCOOIUI^POJOJODOOO'PW^W^ vOvOvoz5P'co*^rv) 0'0*J'“>owHiji*4NojvOWioao''jNP •— rvj i— ro ^ OD P P ro O' w o P -4 l— ►— -4 P l“ -OMr-aoijih-e-vjnrNj *- ro u» p p r- ro ro p o p (Mr u) P oohui® ui KNUIOOPdtO OIODi-OON*40S®i- (TNOWPOtroPopPir^suiowP lOPONOJNODNff'HP'OOroONSOP ■J'JvC0(rpS'JUlr-Ul?ff‘WPNPi - 0 h* M r- W r< M 'O ® H P Ol (jj 43 "4 h-* 4) P >OtjJv5)OD(J r ir-0'P w rsj OJ o P- CO OJ u> OJ p- OJ P ro o 43 o *-* 43 43 o p- o VJ1 on O' r~ O' n OJ oj OJ -4 »— o Ul VJ1 p 43 O' > (NJ fNJ v-n \r\ ro OD o> »— \jy O' p- 50 rsj o 43 00 o VJ1 ro O' P— -g o (/> H r\j rvj p- P— P-* P- -g oo p- •— O' rsj 1— p- i-* ro 00 vD p- oj O' O' U1 r\j 1 1 OJ \J1 OJ P- OJ fNJ OD oj *g p POU1 I— CD -4 O' p >— O' cnj ro o> OJ I— ro CD 1 1 o CD O' O' P M O' o o rsj N W P p OJ 43 OJ OJ p ro O >— OD l\J OJ OJ OJ O' (TUIOPUP O Ol O' rvj -o -g o o OJ -g p— OJ ~4 ao -g r\> O' 43 o o o -4 00 Ot 00 43 00 P O' <0 O' 00 OJ •T* -g p- p- i— ro (jj )_> -4 -4 I— -4 uJ I— N W H r- W O P4 ►* O' VJI O' UJ PulW^UI'jPOJMNPOff'd'i-i-vOOl- OJ -4 OI ® 03 W CD NiO^PN«JOPOOOONNHHNP9' >~\ji>—aoP'aoO'oo PuJoijiooro'40'0'Poi®i-oaoiwN ^OOOQ0W?'O ,- 4^MH 1 0Wr'HOP0! f- NO(r H 403O p- fNJ OJ r—• f\J -g OD P— p— -g OJ p- OJ p p— fNJ OJ OJ 43 INJ O' OJ 00 43 ISJ 1 oj 00 on VJI 00 P ro OJ p ^ ro O' i— OO o OJ -P' o O' O' o oj VJl P-* <0 Kjy i 1 p 05 o 00 O' ^g v> O' 00 o O' P-* OJ o ro w o O' P-* •— O O' O' ui p- 4 O' CO OJ no p— r\> OJ fNJ 00 O' O' O' 1— rvj OJ -g OD i— sO o -g 00 ro -g p O' O' rsj 4) O O' r— O OJ 43 43 ro Ol p* >o O' p- p— fVJ OJ fSJ ro io vO ** U) I— N) U> w p i- ro uj P p o w ® >o r* w i PwproP'ONOHpotwoiopproO'O O' O' OJ >0 \0 »— P (O OJ 00 OJ O' to -4 Ol OJ O' 43 43 0D U1 o-u.^HPO'jppuii-uurui'Oorowos opporo'O'OO'ioDWtroPO'aff'Pw uiOPOpwooopoPoiHjjHoioixoi EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 o > > r* m z o oo n > c o 03 > m 73 o r~ o -H O m m 73 73 70 C j> > -H J> > *-M “H > m o -i oo Z M 03 Z C o CD H IB b o o x 03 Tl o 2 X *o 00 *n O 73 X —1 -1 M Z 7) o z > 73 JO *3 > O C m 73 —1 2 m o ■H 73 m • TO > o • M *■* >-i.2 X 03 73 > > > 73 r* m > > > F-* > o -H Z > ~ > rsi z > 73 z z j> r- > > 2 z • >-> —4 i— z r* ►—< m rn z Z o m o « O 03 o m n »-« j> r~ 7? c o m 73 o > o *-< 00 O > J0 *> O -H »-« 73 m *-* o t c o JO > «-• O O c o Q > c • z z > 73 73 J> o *n m > > -1 m O m 30 •n z o J> 73 > T3 > t 73 > 03 2 m 3 m z l-H J> • “O m Z o CD 0 73 j> m J> O Z •■4 oo m o on > fNJ OJ 00 vO -4 vn 4> O w ^ ro I ^ 00 INJ K N VJI I GO 00 03 I I «• 4® « I I CD N jl I QO VJI O' CD O' ^ fNJ -4 00 43 *-• 03 N vO OJ O W y£) Ul »“ O O' oi O O oi ►* N W ^ CD O CD ^ CD N M >J O -O r\J CD hOIO'^O'^'O'ODO^^O'OCCW OJ 03 -4 INJ 4) « <• «• O' ro 4> -4 -4 03 r- vji fSJ 43 03 QD « « <• « K Jl O Ul ' NTI UJ CJ v/l • I i j>flivjl*''0IN>'0* — *“ sO CD \0 sO sO O' -S' ►- ro oo ffl U) 00 vO N 00 nji -j ^ i» •— >o O W ^ O -J i- J1 O ^ *4 ^ ^ o rvj -i o -J IN) O -S' oo >-* u) u> in) rN> ui vji rv oo -s I -S' ^NN-JMUIvOO'O'^M'JO^'OOuJO'W'O fff'OuiO'H(>HyicoN'O^HM^^wwo NOOO(»^WvONN®-gi>0'OMH*(^00' I • - r- 00 bJ i\> 'C l\) ro •£> i— O' rv o yj hi O' 00 O J* ►— —J CT* 00 —4 bJO-S'f'O'J'-S'ffl'Of'OOOU) mNOO'VJIOOOoO'vOO'O IN)l- , H-rN)&'b)—JNbr'JvOU'bJ 03 j' f— F-* 03 OJ •0 i— f\) F— O' 'O O' o r\) F— ro INJ ao -c> 03 03 O F— 03 F-* 4> ro 03 00 NO F— -3 03 VJ> 03 VJI o F— O' o O' >o I • CO IN) sO CO ^ 4) -O NOO %o -e- u> -o >c ro U1 -0 vn F-» OD F-* F— ro 03 o o -0 40 ro F— U1 VJI -4 -0 fNJ 03 VJI 00 V* VJI '£> -S' 1 1 vD 1 1 ro 03 F— F— ^ I 1 -0 1 « VJI ro 1— O' 03 -0 "0 40 F— F-* vO 00 -nI o H* 1 1 o 1 1 00 f- S' VJ> ->J i 1 o s0 O' ro ro ro vn o F-» ro 03 03 03 c> VJI cr sO vO 00 -0 »-* •3 CO o o F— 03 ro -S' vn 00 ro 1— F— 00 ro 03 F— 40 o ro -4 ui •4 H- F— O' F-4 sO F— ro 03 S0 F— o *>J ^4 O o 03 F— • O' -o -4 -4 O' F- 1 1 “4 F—• o 03 1 1 ■f' <0 «• «• 40 m »• 40 4* «• «• <• « 1 1 4# 4* 4» •• 1 I 4* -0 ro ro vn 03 O' o ^4 UJ VJI 1 1 »- F— VJI ►- 1 1 03 Q- F— VJI VJI *4 O' ro 03 vO ro 03 03 00 NO O' 03 ro O ^3 ro ro VJI i— sO •P' F— F— O' 03 03 O' sO I iv bJ I - » 4> I rvo-O'-J-T' h“ 00 O NJI bJ N W O 4U CO ro vn -4 VJI F-4 F— vO F— ro ro ro 43 O F— o F— •4 -o ro sO o sO o 03 vn 03 h- F- | I o 4* 40 4* 4® 4* 4* 4* 4* 40 « »• 40 «0 «0 4® *• 1 1 * 03 F— vn o o O' ro O F— 03 vO 03 -r- -o F—* 43 o 4) 1 1 43 -4 o o ro F— F— • vn F— F— • ro •>1 4> ro 4) 43 INJ ro o O' O' 03 03 vn -4 o F-* 03 -4 O' o F^ F-- i— 4) O | u> -S' I * » rv O' O' -P- IN) ►- O' bJ IN) O' >0 -4 O' *4 ^ Ol 4) W O O O N IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE bt umbin, iTfO 't IT ^ in <0 oo in O' GO ^ O' o ro <\i oo co c\j O' pH pH co 40OCOroP-®roO'4O'CU<-HCO4p-O'ro CO •-< ro tn rorororooco-op.coroinoo'p-oroo o o ci ^ I -lOOO'tNt'-NMtfMMfBIM'ONHiA I NON® | - I COfO'0«'OON»mNHNIM(j.|Atf\ I CO CO H >0 (M (Ni p- ftH (Nl H ftH N0'00'00^lf'j)00i^0sseo0'j'0®j’^»i mo >o o N Mfl'tO I incuff’P*4OcuO'in4®P-"*0'4cu®cnrop-O'inco i o ® h (m »H 4 CO CO ® CO H ^ co O CM P* CO CO P- >—< f\l i—* -< —I I I p. —< co _i O' 4 O' O O' 4 co P» ® M h N O' in p- f" ONIflO 4 r- oo co O' h- fNJ 4 O ro 00 h- o *-< r*- P- O ■TO O' O' O' ■TO -4 pH in CO o O' 00 vC o r* o o >0 C\J ro pH oo in ro ph in 4 o >r qd 4 CM *h 'O rn ® p- o co 4 co CM CO CCI o ro 4 O' <\j -0 co 0 00 *H »H pH 4-OMP ^ N O O' in p- ro 4 CO O' ft-'coftHP—'p- in 4 4 4 O' ~i O' ini p» ro « » co in m m co O' CO in —• POP in ro O' 4 H 4 4 h- >0 in 4 0 6 5 0 O' O' 00 f*- oo oo o O' h- ro oo 0 * — ro co ro O' O' 00 00 m o in m s0 oo ro m 4 00 ro 00 *4* ro p- m o O co 4 pH ^ ro ® m co p> O' p4 ro in co ao in co o- O' 4 O' 4 o H ro ro co ro H pH H co m ro m o <-* o o ro o O ln P- CO 00 »»«•»» ft" in 4 4 CO O' m ® ^ IT1N PINOdlNOH^iftO^lflfflNO'O’t <\i^oo--i (^Mn'OOHQNOO'OCONC'NO'^ ^tr-'O oo o m ro r*- in *-« eg ^ 00 r-4 O' 0 rH 4 ro ® co in co co 4 O' ro 4 00 p m 4 o in co 4 in p co p co o ro 4 tn p in l 1 co ro O' in co in ^a- 00 » » •> » •> i •» >o ® 4 m co co 1 0 6 5 3 6 9 fO O' a in —< co o H co pH pH pH O' ro 00 4 co ro « o CO O ffl ® ® T H co tn 4 in o> m ia n n » •. » * 4 ® I-H ® m p- in p~ ro —ip»ouroO'tnP-P*'0 'cocninp- Ah4h® ftnn®iA44>aa'OfflN®iA in >TO in f" O' | | 0 ' 40 '-< 000 '— 44 C~®ro ft ft ft ft ft t I ••••••••“•“••I m m im m n i laoromcnroo'cocucocororoooi o 4 —t co O co co (M ftH ftH —i co ftH O ro ro r —4 4 p“* CO I in m m ft m 0 4 4 < LU LU CC LU l/) a < UJ LU o iu U. <. h* CC Q. <■ a IL U < 3 0 0 z o ftH LUC!" < o CC 00 3 ro LU Z LU UJ 1 X Q ro x ►ft pH < UJ uj ro < ftft 0 - h- UJ 1 — LU Q o X PH a o oo x z O Q V- Z QUJ < P" x o _i ro 3 CC UJ LU O |- x h- ro o 3 < o NH o z UJ _J o \Sl 3 < < — O < z o O «1 < « Z > M I < z z • Ol5UJOlL®OlIO!V'® < < I- « O _J O OO «S "■> ft-i p- j ® < < X _J — -J MO t— O lfl<< JO!" O o»-aow<'0't0' <£ aOCOCOCO«t'*-aO^O't'''00'*'0'G-<'l’ NNNNHi-IHlf'NH CD ^ N lf\ N M S' H (M in 0 “ in O' 't fO ^ •-* vO » •» sD 00 0“ O' m fO r-.j-o3f-oDO'i-ooot-ot-corcq'coco h ffl >!■ r <1 ■!• • * * " CO ^ CO O —< <1" <-i O' CO —I __J •—< m a o in >o m cm m f-< f-t o n h n n 'O'O l ITN *1- ITi j-rcircioo»tinojmro < i - 'i’0'co—‘ 1 ^ ^ J n-corcifccjCT'm<^’C->t'0'CT''-® 'C "* H I . , . ».» ► •■ “ » _-i o-o N N J CO*- -f~ I m (« ’■* c- co co r- o co m —* M-l Hi 1/5 o QC m 4 o m _l •* 'O _J in O' o 00 a o o o NlflOOOI'»in®OKM»lflOff'««■ l I ! i CO CO CO O' co •4- O f; j CO O' « in so * h* 00 •k OD vO 3 o 00 OF AGRICU 't 00 00 m >- 00 fM <2 •* O 03 >fr CL O' 00 ac c\j f ^r'-o^^-‘00(\jacomr\ico<\J£-q'0-a‘ Lns$ , fOPsJO'CO<7'OOCO*-Oin O' in 00 in in ,-«>o^«r , -or-oot^>oin coO'inO'>tO'CMrun®^M{)JOfvj fsjmf\jr^>o^orNjp-*mininfn^a' . •> » * * •* • * in -i oj >t nj >t -4* m >o OO 00 l 00 3 O ZZOIU ^ _i 7 < w a; ci ^ 7 < _j * => o o i v _j ^ cc ajocooi-* 3I11Z CL Ot>-ZlUQ X Z Z Of ,-.(_} 4 >- UU <-wliJO'UJZ< < uj aj£ciiji-iiJ „ 50 o f o *h o m — -t > > —> ^ Z0 r >COI"0J>TlOZ-H>-«*-IC(/)2O — Zj»mm5o-i3: c»omoo-,om o z — m m O 73 z i- *► >(-(✓> m m 50 50 73 O > c m r- z > 50 m m 50 2 5 > m 50 -< Z Z C _■ o C5 o o *» -o c m 50 o m o *» m o ti n "o z i -* m 50 m j» I > 50 J» O C>“^ l-H w'J'- 4 -o 0 '-'flwro^ u> „ ~ R-y, K-roui O'*- iv» »— t— ►- is* ►“ (\jcorv>H-*;»v> 'i‘WOBNw'i'^- 00 ''^ 0 'WWyUpOOff'NHWOOI\jOO^WON f VI »■ w —' r »’ 00p-*O' v O’gv/’O'U i UJ UJ f\j ^ O ro ro V«r UJ H j. ^ h *—* -T' »—< Ni -T 1 vjip - ro h-UI« 0 M- 4 OW>®H(MV®lv)WWWCD«l- ... oS»i ; oo»Sw^N«!o^uisoroHh.^oa'^-o^^NOMMS'i-o^ I— UJ „ ^ _ ^.ns hmo> O' i- *- ro ►■* ro -P w £ K ^ ^ H Ui O' a ij O' ^ o ? N H N o w ^ N w J. CO H N o> o n ui n o ? a o j o ^ ^ Yzh V- s 'kYz'h s ? s s s 2 ? s s 5; s s s s z 3 2 2 s 2 s £ g • vi.SSo*wS3*So2£!3Xi»*ocdui.P(p.-w.p.-^n».pd>iv><> l\> (\> V71 U> i'ooJOjro*--POJ>—0' I — 1 .p U> OJ f\> O' I «j sO ■«< O' ►- h- ■f' -»4 fV> (\>-g H N Ul O' 1— ►“ oi 1 — -P © W ►“* sOO'‘^*Provjl.p.p

O' |0 ^J>U)' 4 > 0 'J 10 fflNN^O-MI^' 5 ''OWWO'W>-roO'yir'ONj'^'CO^ ^ j'Xiojtnoji\)i^'tnrja 300 'v 0 ^ 4 '-M-joJ' 0 ->J-r'roo i 'OW-P''Oio^'"-r' 00 ' 0 '^ SSSoNSwff'NO^a'^O 4 'M' 0 ->IOV)>yW'WO ! J^HWN^» "io.s(ro'OW'Oa!ui^<'<' 0 'fxNN'''iwa'Oun»Mi)sO' 0 -^N '0 ro P-* ro -g ro U1 ro p- - ♦— *-* UJ p— UJ ^ u> -g oj o 9 3 UJ ►— O' P-* o CD ro O’ r~* «• *• «• «• «• «• « «■ •• «• 9 9 « «■ «• « •m «# «• «• CD -g sc ro o VJ< so ro o O UJ H- ■t' O' >— O' o * •* ro ro f* i\j ro -0 \jy VJ1 sO ^ ro -g sO vO o UJ P- ■p O' p— t O' VJI O' o p- oo o C ro VJ1 p- O' o -g -g ro o p- O' .p ro UJ -g ro ** u> _m uj &• co f\) r^j & *o r-ujojascr^j^o^-jrvjso^ 30J\JlOOS^*W^®^ OvOOODO'O^OJOOO'W nroUJroO''£.P'OroOD-o EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY ORIGIN* 1961-67 EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES! VALUE BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 aor^-r^o , '' 0 ' 0 >t'-*O'co^N 0 coinfsiO'cO'ONNNfO ^vO'O'OHinO'4'^N^O' O^'OOOO'Oh-inm NOOSCDOO^Oif\ ^ >t N I N N sO O' O O I I^h^NNOOCO O l f\ fO H (VJ in >t (nj I (nj (nj cr (NJ p-4 p-4 (\j (M h- f f\ h- h- in in 00 CO r*- O' o O' sO cr M3 m in o *-4 ^-4 (NJ o> p-4 co in o m (NJ o 00 ro o ro CO m O in co H O' CNI in in in (nj in in 00 GO O' i- l I r- f- CO O' O' h- 00 co vO •» •• •» •* * •> ► •* •» •* - | I *■ •» •> p •> *> sO (NJ (NJ r*- m m o> PNJ o O' CO I 1 CO ^4 O O' h- p-4 O' O' in m (NJ (Nl H o • 4 * CO »-4 O o 0 - CM r- r*» P -4 kt O O' h- CO *— 4 *—4 4 - •* p —4 r*- ao O' in (nj 00 CO >o in o h» 00 (N 4 - o o o 1 1 o r- in in i o- - 4 - »-4 1—4 CO in •* •» •» «. — p •> •» •> •> p 1 1 - •» » 1 • •> •» o (O (O fO o CM CO O' m • 4 - ■ 4 - o | 1 O H o- l 00 h» •—< O' O' in CO (Nl CM CM p —4 H pM in ^4 O' M3 00 0 0 in in m in m in h- in O' (ni in O' — 4’ 00 (NJ 4 - 00 in p- p-4 4- CO CM h- in in o- M3 CO p4 O' (NJ vO m 00 0 r*. 00 O p- 4- O O M3 CO 1 1 m O' H p4 | 1 0 CO 4- CM CO *0 00 (NJ p-4 h- CM CO f- O (NJ p—4 0 1 I 0 CO 43 1 1 00 M3 pm O' h- m (NJ p 4 p-4 p4 (Nl (NJ ^4 p-4 ^4 till 00 in M3 4’4‘ 'O p—4 CO 00 4- O' O' ^4 p -4 m O' m O ina0CMc0'4‘O4-CM in in in in ro (NJ (NJ ao f- 00 co < (n (Nl O CO CM O CM 4- in *4 M3 1 1 M3 (NJ H CM | 1 (NJ ro M3 (NJ >0 — J -J 00 p-4 ^ in (nj in vO co CO 00 0- 1 1 f- p-4 (NJ 4- 1 ro (NJ O' O in (Nl -4 ^4 -4 ^4 p*4 p-4 -i o * rO-MCMCMCMoOO'Mf'-incM N-CNQincMroco4-oocMin pfttr O' 00 N O' H h- M3 O' 4 1 <\j -4 r- in -h o 4* in vO so so m in O' CM I in 4- I - I m h-tsjino-^^in^ *? tm'0-Hinco w^oOHi»iin^j , ^co _ ®ffl^wco^• 3 Z OJ t- < < UJ < < Z UJ < UJ z UJ Z -J > 4- z < Hoc _i z UJ -J 3 0 0 l- p4 <1 Q 20 CUJ oc uu < < 0 p-4 QC C2£ 44 0 < P-4 00 < UJ 4 UJOh UJ 0 z >- oc X UJ UJ < z z — Q 0 x z a U h Q z n X p- z 0 u. < O Op X O ID < Z OC O OhMnuju. < i- 1— «a < P- 44 < < UJ Z 0 _l 0£ U Q£ UJ UJ UJ 0 t- 0 -J O a£ HUJX Z *- a: a 3 < U. <✓3 0 1 - O 44 0 z ai -j < <00 O 1/5 ■x IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE OY lvol-o, COMMODITY AND AREA 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 CM—•mcO'OCMO'r'-NO r “' , 4*'—t i 4" cm 4 ^ in cm (\j —« (\j —• 4- h- incoooo^N^Nso^Hi-iOooa'ino NvON^COOO'OvnO'OlA^ONvtH roi\jOH(M(\j(M^moHO'H4-Ninco 00 CO N O' >4* *—1 F-M oo co o o r*- o 4- ao in sO 00 F—M r—4 4 * O ^ Nf -i PvJ v£) COO'COO'N^O'J’^'O'OO^'ON OfflCOOHONNNOO'OCOO'CO so m (\j OCOfflfflH CM •—<• 4" UN 4) CD Ln^t'ina'Lnr*--Mrof\jv4*oor^h-covOLnfor s -r s “OOooo h-(>OvJvOOQO>0'tOO v fnh-OmrOOsiOOOOO s f w ^-^ cr 4-mc'UDr^-4'r^N04-0(M4 - QOCMO(MinuN4'4'UN>o 4“Of^inrnvOooC7'm4-4’fnO'f'»cM OC^f^C'NONfNJsO^COCOO'tHfO 4 , ir\'O-Hin^'Oir\c0>tNvOfn'ON m ( 7 ' P"- CT' f-* O' (M cn UN 4" — 1 H»tfVJHHHHO'Hff|H(M(n I n f\J f~4 h" nO (NJ CM r-4 —< 4* in sO co 0'Nv0*-i'0'0a'4*pMr-r**fNjfninHNs0N4‘O(7''0Hv0^ , '-<' H a0O'tcsJ^ QM'tCOO'mHP*«incO-4NOCO'0NO'vtCOOOONCO pococooocvjooooo (NjrM4 _ r^-cor'-4-a'0'OC'*ocouN^4'^-4'rnm(MUNsO 4nt\jHQ^^'0 HnjOHODNfMN^rnO'tHr-iHH O' h (f) n h >o sO m -* O oo m cm m (NJ -O m co -4 m m >4* ao ^ cm un ^ (NJ O' m 4* f'- »o UN —4 h- o nO O' •t CM (NJ h- UN ■o O' 00 UN vO CO oo m in 4- *4- CO CO 4ooinco^O'^cocoo OvO<7'(^N'OMO'0 C'CM(>0'UN(?''O'-*C0incn OON4Q1NJOO-<(NJO 4-comh-—‘oa'or-r'-om 4inv04NQO00C0v0NJ"( vO4NNJ0O'OinN mmoO(NJHCON(\lCOH(noDN4^ 4" »""* \0 CO (NJ «—4 4 (NJ ^ f— 4 r-H »"H (NJ —* f—4 CO 00 so r^sO«NJ(\i»-'*- ( uNr-M^ 4 n<- > f W (NJ (NJ O 4 - co ao O' n 4* —4 co (NJ cn UN h- h- UN O' •d- CO NdO H 4* co C 00 o sO ro CO U> UN *4* CO UN O O' 4* vD m 00 -4* CO (NJ 4 1 O' vO * ■! m 1 I in <\j O' CM —« (IN <4- CO 1 1 J* 00 O' (NJ -6 •» •» •k •» * *• •» •» •k •> •k •k •k •k •k •k •k •* •k * 1 I • * •k ► •k •» 1 1 « •k » •k •» o 4^ ro 4 - in H o (O (NJ m in - sO sO CM CNJ 1 1 -d- *4 o sO >* oo CO — 4 4" CM CM cn O' 00 sO I s - nO 4" m UN CM r- h- <4- -0 O' (NJ 00 O >0 un o m m H O' H CO 00 h- m m F—4 cn m O m cn p*- O' o — < O' cn 4* U> in ■ O ^4 UN 00 J- UD un m ao F^ m O' O UN CM fM o o CM 4* o o O UN m (NJ 4* oo 4* O' UN m UN O' m OJ o u UN o O' UN cn co h» CM m 00 00 —* i 1 CM vO UN UN o » •k •k •k •k •k •* *k » « ■k •k •k •k ■k •k •k » •* •k •k - i 1 •* •k •k •k •k h- GO o CM -0 co m 6 4 cn F-*4 4- (NJ H 45 CM co 00 UN n* >0 CM -* •—4 h- 00 <1 k —4 MH < < UJ oC a > z UJ Q 3 Z Z z a: J— -J < t ->4 a z j— O < > LU < < UJ rvl LU z LU < < z Pvj k-« <1 < < J- Z nt UJ M > — * UJ ad UJ UJ <1 z < < o oO T MH ►—* 00 LL Z u X < 00 X u 3 z UJ j— Q_ Z 00 LL — LU < EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY ORIGIN* 1961-67 (j\ h co co sO cm o 'J- *-• m in in o oo * * * ► n- c\j cm rMO'O'OOl^^OOCO ■4" m >j*o O'toO'OsO'Om-^ 30 in >t^'On(7'(7'Lno' CM (\| >* o cm m m sO in m o O' in in *-« oo o in I I r^ I I •> I | en cm cn m m o -* OO'O' HO' (7> m in O'' sD O m m vO o ro m oc o in >t (NJ t in in 4- -4- ^ >4- in -o cm , » •> ■• » « vO >t >0 Osj >J- nj vO o ^ in vf c\j m rH vt (M CO o O' m (nj -4* in oo co h- n- O H n rJ o h- CM n in O' vO (NJ o *4* H CO CO 00 in o in a r-M O m 00 *“■4 m l I l '~ (NJ v0 •» •> •» •* •> •> I I • « ~4 OJ m r—4 CNJ m m m 1 CO (Nl m NsOvOCOCTMCOCO O' m rn >t't co in O' h- h* r- in •-» r- O' o on in ro h m O' >4* CM CM r-i o n co GO sO >4* O' o nj O' nO o CO IN N m vO >o ■« (M (/) 00 43 'O h- O' in n o' 00 'O -T o •4* vO •4- si- O' a: in oo oo O' in n n O rr\ O' n 'O 00 O' O' < cn m m — j «j •» m 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I *k * •* i I NktKI 1 1 1 •» •* l cn in i 1 “ •. 1 m m O' o in m rH o o o o n OO (M n 00 05 I CC1 I ™ I coo«' in n *-> N- O o> n <\i o r«- —I i*- ^ o' m r«. Pvi m n- H ^ hk ^ o oo in oo kt r—4 *- o a£ T. t—4 V- rM - ■_u U" UJ X. h- LU LU < Q CM X *-* Ou O oo x z o LL z X u O a »- z a UJ —czs: > r- m 2 o O n oo *T) > c a 73 —i X 03 Z j> m 73 c r“ O -H G m m 73 >o r- o X 73 rr. c > r-4 —1 > > ^ «H > m O —i o o p-* 31 oo z T) X X > o X n O 2 X 00 o 73 X ro o -< —1 X 2 > O 2 > m X m -H m ro M • M 73 t> ** O I~ r* a 73 2> > :» it > »—• —1 m > r- a > > o X 73 X ro «< > j> f“ t— 2 •< X r- r~ m m 2 m a p- ►-M “0 m C/l 03 > > 7j C o I> o J> T> T5 oo t—t *—« 73 m _ o 2 2 ►H »— i o O O c O "0 o o o 2 > c 2 > *o 73 > 73 o m m m a > > m oo 2 > ■0 73 > O X m m O' •— -O on ->J ro oo ro oo on I oj m ooaoO'G'Oooonononro rorosOP-roiOvOoo-P'0->J03>- p— h- ro v£ P-* U1 p— ►— ro VJ1 1 i i i 1 1 1 1 o cn «• *• •• «• « «• «• 1 i i i 1 1 l «• ro ro •p' Oo CD sD ro cc oo 1 i i i 1 1 *- 1 1 v0 i ^ »— vO on P“* o O 00 oo CD p— ro U1 f—• ►- UI v0 OO on o O' on -P' o ro -T* ro 0D O c ro on p— -0 13 1 20 ro ro OO « «' «• <• « >• «• «• p— ro oo -o OO O' fO ro O' 1 on ro on oo 00 -P* p— G p— ro on oo on 03 -P' -o CD O o I I — o o o o p— ■p' o sD o f— O' <• r* OO CO > >0 >0 * oo fo o 10 7 15 ro 1 oo oo on «• «• «• <• * 1 <• <• «• «• 03 -O s£> O' on O' I ro ro ro ro >€ -P* CO ro *— -0 o O' ro O' ro ro O' co O' ro oo »—• ro o O' -P' -P' 00 sO 13 ro ro O' 1 ro 1 v0 fO oo I I tli 46 nO O' « «• •• «• * i *• *• «• i i ill 1 1 1 « or. O' r~* oo f— O' on i l ro O' ro >o i i ill 1 I 1 -P' I -p' O' on 03 sO SO -p' o -p' O' O' ro ^ 00 on -Vj 03 CD P-* on ro ►— »— sO *— ro ro *• oo ro on e- i 1 ~>i ro ^ i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 U) >• «• •• «• 1 - «• « i i i ii 1 1 1 1 1 « -0 O' ro co on 1 1 -P' v0 00 >- t i i i 1 1 1 1 1 -J 00 on O' o ro -%j o sO CD 0D (O sO o ro •—* -P' co ro oo o *• O' >0 «UN « IA >0 N I | | | linorO'-' T I NW I I I I I •>“ I I I I I rvi —• I O' m in CO vDCOO'tvO^'tON h- m h* ro &■ o* r- cn <\j I r-- sO in —4 ^ <\J CO 00 00 >0 >0 v0 >d s0 v0 ^ i m sr i * •* I h- CNJ c o >t r-» o sO CNJ m o jo O' en >* •—* CNJ • CNJ O' vO v£> sO <\j 00 ro o fO O' OD fO O' N N O ^ O' f-M H ^ I * •* I CO CM r*- O' co o in CNJ O' 00 o: 00 < O' (O -j •k sO -j >fr CA o ^4 r«4 Q O o o ^ O' O' O' O' O' m m in som^omh-*-1- O' H 00 00 00 00 >0 m fw ^0 *"4 ^ P0 | 1 •—< 1 | N M 1 I CVJ CVJ • 1 1 1 1 1 I o o 1 1 1 1 1 O' H (Njinco^oronjoninh- in m coocoininocnh-cNJin o^o in co ^ h xonjfsj'tvO l mm I I >*■ -* I I m n co o o m n >0 O N N M N -4 cm >$- 1-* m mfsi'Of^mr—mocoosj oco^mcoinmoinco fC| N (\j (\J H H H o CO O vO CNJ UJ oc z CL < b- < o O LU oo UJ h- < a: CL *3 Ml *—< < o QC 3 CL X s; 0C O X > s0 S.' cc X h- < < oc o o LJ — < h- H UJ oc < < o <[ a£ o a O X o X CVJ UJ h- JJ x :o I'¬ UJ <3. ro > o c k— o Q CNJ X Cl o oo X z o o z LL X O 00 »-4 t- o z UJ O o h- o UJ < l— *—1 < -4 O l f> x m >-> m s» > 30 z — *n i/> ~o — 73 m -< > ^ j> c 3° 7* Z . — — X» 00 -n > jo o r- n-4 —i-4 J» s» «— x>zoomox"03:ocDj>-nZC)OZ Q2NCO>ninmO*^HHC nooo< »3cxr->oJ»o> j> O m ■> ~o c w O n m >-4 jt r 30 z —i o o z >— z 73 m (p>_ r» oocr h j >2 —. J» -4 —i —i o > © - > z c O c 2 > J> J> -I X C c m oo t> 73 73 oo J 7 30 rn rn rn 73 -< C C m m 30 i > m C v>o *o »- ro »— ro no »— no V/i O' UJ o w O CO no ►— ^ OOWroNCONHWNO'O'W^ ro UJ ono'-^ooC7 s cr^'ro^^o^’^ J or\:C7'C7'C7 s o-J ro c vp “0>o-f s **^^^^ oonouiroroaD-^>“‘aonovOcnui>-no.^no*-^o^ou , 1 ^ro^>-aonono.f' ro ro^- ro ^ no ►- O' "■'J £ _ ro O' cr cn u>NJsjr-C0CDNC7'O vO^ ro-gcrui^sO'JiN>a)CX)C'^-^v^f-cD^-»-o O^O'^QN^^^r-^crcrrorouiwNOit-wi-w^'CisjHarvjN-o iyiO^rjuJ^K-^r0'0CD(vCD0i>J'0^oiO^'£)^^0 s w^^ow0'C''0 ro ro h nh ^ | 00 NJ'^U)(MLtJOh-N*«J !«•«•<• I p- -0 VJl ro no uj uj ro ^ O' h U) o o ro vji O' n w lo on or o C'oo-P‘UJ^^ , “^rooJu>t—GD-r*-T*o ,0(j>^j-.Uj\3iroOC'OOD^i\jo>o^oooa3is)vjia>0'0^io O-P'-J-f'03CI>0nUlC'Oc04— i'^\00'NI\JU11BU100'WNMO'fflWWW — roisj — — O' — — — -P l orooj^roujrouJ» ,- ^->J O ^ -P* no oo '•’•*•*• *• I ^^i\>ro-P'rosOOJ«^j'Jirovji>- j t — O'-oOsO ►- O' oj -p* >- vONNNvCf-O^ ro v/> ui \jy \x M ui O o >J ^ra'^aiC7'vO'Oir > o^^- J ^ J ^ J '>« or-j^uiuicrnoor*— no'^oo'^hoonoj^^O' h w •- ro »— ►— vji ^U.'^WWCDHvO ro »— ►- ro uj ro o ro »—• O' oj oj ►—* »— ji u> w ^ CDvflNUWWNH^vOW 0JOU5’^tn^'lH'0N0D05^0'0J0JCr -sJOvO^'J'. ^uiooDO-o^^'-^^wiNJCoO'CDoavO^wwoi^N^wwwo'^^^ \J 1 ►— »— no »— »— -o ujvj»OJ-P'nou>«P'ro O' (7 s ~*0 O' *—• oj ^ ro ro h ocui'j^O'O-r^o ro -T lo uj ^ h O OC 03 O' — ^JvO^lO'O'C'JW'O-f' —^'-J^UJOOM— O'fl'O®0'NCf' - ^\DO'> - U'3'W'OCD^f-^^33W'OC Jp ^ 2^^^rCS®oo0'S^So0'0'-a-J-i0J0'O'0^c-c>M^^ IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY ORIGIN, lybl-bf O O J> J> 1 “ -in oo -n > I m r-730 r-o-t o m > p« —> -» m 50 z r- o oiTXfTioZHwii m z x c "o m c •—• C) T 1 -h m 73 MM 73 73 > E» I» 73 J> 73 2 m z -1 > 73 l— m z c PO 2 7 MM Cl 73 X r- X z O o X J> r~ MM m m z m E> z > m -< > o MM m > f" 50 -< c 50 73 73 Z m c oo 73 -H MM < m * f~ «< X -1 *■< > n o c J> 1 > O MM Z > 73 73 z r* -1 > z m a o c m p* > ^0 oo X oo > 3: m m z m X o 73 MM 03 a o c > 73 O 00 CD CD o PO I O' O CD ^4 PD ^CDNCD'JlNCX'a'a'NvOOHvOK^tf'vOU3 4'iviv f -v0^0Ds0^ui»-^a'cnH-g0'-40'^cr 1 -«j^^^^cDuiONa'O>j «•»•*•** — rvjro-j C DOJv>J-ji^)->i4'OOsO , “roC-J^-^'JJ-f'^ 4>CD-*gcDCnP00n0'0'PJ^0O** - '£*” - '00''£/C0*P'P0PU k. _ .... . /-». _ , /-». , n , r> . i ^ ui -.i m in n N n -j PJ ^ oj m h pj -P* uj ui r\j hn^^"'J^ , *w'Jih>j^''Ciojo s nW'OOw^^^* 0'O s roO'vn-P'F-H-'OC»-po£ODa>aD'0-P*oJ-P'Po'GO'*--P'cn'OPo • l^-r— C'C7'^— roO->Ji\)^'-P'OO^U1 i UJ W w t iv v w w 1 ^ O'OTw^os^owroroJiN)^* - 0 s i\) ^ ►“* -P* CD 04 -P* cd -<4 NU)->JNOCD^NO oo -P' co ro cd ►— po p- po PO CD 'O vO O' OD -P* ^ h- ^ N) OJ pj PO ^ -P" O' CD CD cn r- -0 »- w ►- -P'.p'ODCDPOCD'OCnCDvO 4> p-- i-* r- H N W ^ H h- N ^ OJ W P CD > CD ►— PO ^ O *P> -0 -0 Cn PO PO o -P 1 -D CH 0 s I O' opcnvONrvjoo'Ui a> n cd 'O^O'f'OvO-P'^VJlO' O CD CD O' PO O -0 PO O -P' O PO CD OD o O H H \) cd cd cn cn o PO po vO cn -J m o fD N »- O'OJ^PO'vOO-P cn cn I l cn c -0 •vj O' CD 03 4> OD r- -o po po cn CD no on w o CD ^ -p' 4> PO O' 0 s ui O' oo vO O' M U1 W ^ CD CD I CD CD -P“ vjl VJlCDPOH-PO^'^iO'CD -4 O' M H- O' P C e K w ■O C *kiuuuu«nhl X co O o o t» j> r* m z a —< o •H o co *n > c O 73 — i X x z > m *- 7) o r- o -h O m m m 73 O C 73 f“ o X m m c j> > r-i -i > > _« -i > -n m o > z -H O o 73 £ on z <- o x > "n o z « x C 2 O "H o o ■O Z ~ X o -H J> > m 73 h 3E to m -h 2X0 m > m m x> -h INI > 73 O > > m 73 m ».m^ z 70 o m > f* -H m > T> m r* 7 : -t O X 2 X > O X CO -< > r- Z r- z m > m Z m m » j> > m r* •—i > -H 73 z c O 2 -< 73 Z CO 73 > > 3> > -H ^9 *-* o 73 m 7 -< -H *-M z z Z « Z O a c 3* J> O o o z > > "0 70 M ■H > X m o 2 m > > > 73 O co r* TO X m o m m o o > TO 2 F-< f" o co I> «• *71 > -H CO m X o • r" r— 73 sC 1 ro CO 1 1 H- ►— H-* ro u> O' ^ ro O O' O O' | «• 1 1 «• «• «• «• « « « <• « <• p - | ai CD .p* »— •— 1 ro ro 1 IN) •P* -P' *~ ^ •- O' u> -0 •P' v» o -P* ^ O' -0 VJ1 r\j ►—• »— P—• p- 0 s O' O' OD W l\) -J U1 ^4 fVJ -o ro >1 ►- w ui CO CO O' >-*►-* o- vO cn V* v/i O' ■P' >- .p- UJ CO -T* cn O' O ^ OD ro cd rv) ro v-n go oo O' ro ro OJINjC'NNM ►— CO -0 CTI O O O' ►— ro ro ui ^ rsj o>> H j H M ^ ro O'«$'-P'- 0 U»CD.$*>CO 0 D U)VJ^ UlCD sO-T' nOh|\JOJOU1UJCDW o CD ODOO'O'JlCTCDOOsOO'VJlOO^-gH-OD »— h- UJ >J O' OJ W W M ►— -0 !\) ^ O' O' *0 1 -i »-• mNNO'U'N'JIC' \ 0 ^ , 0 DH 0 J^a>' 00 'eNv 0 Nvfi»-O t-OJCDC'OvOOJ^U^O^UJ^O^UJ -P' CO -4 o o o n rsj H -»J sO K U) ro od so -o cn \ji ^ ^ rorooJ^j-P'cn'O-P' « <• M«00 'W®f'P0 N#''JN*Jff'^)vryi ODVJ'^-«IO'vO-JCD'J>0-^0^-0^"05 I OJ UJ O' i « « « I yO O vO -P' Vjl e- U1 O' <£ I - I'J ^ t— 1 J 1 IJ 1 v£) V/l -p- (J1 I— f\> ►— I— IV>lJJ'P'C0.p‘CO r '0>C cnC'*—C'^J-P'Oo^4*- j ocrro-0'00 cn od ro ro *«4 ««4 o ^ vr -o *-“• ro co ro cr co ^vOO'WOUl^vOMC'vOOOIVJNX co ro cn o O ^ N IV) r - M CD \J1 ro ro I | ,— hWWWCDW'J'OW I | « « j j -f'-ocrrocr—jco.P't—•cno^—’coccrorj r\j (\) NO'ONCD^--f v woa'Uiro4)i»JNa' CT'OD CDGDNUJ» - 0 C^ s 'CU 1 O t- ^^ - ^^^ HMi'jr\)^wuiO'(7 i »— O' CD | CDOD^^^f- O' **0 -P* *0 CTI ^ | r\j rv | rocoOi-u'iUiujroccuJsO'NO'Cc^ h-'OwO'COHONO'JIh'C'MCD^ ^ W^O'CO^^COvO^OsO^^fVJW IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BV ORIGIN, 1961-67 -H > l , oo z 73 oo 3: O o J> 2 o X CO > -n n 2 T oo o o o _L -H —1 x i> > m Z X 2 »-* > m 73 -H 2 m —1 m J> m m m > 73 e> M-4 2 r- r- -< o O O 73 > o > > 73 m 2 -H 73 o m > > r— O > i> f— •—« 2 o m r* m 2 73 2 X 2 > O 2 > n ►-v > -< -< a J> > r* 70 f” z m m 2 > m > m c 73 T3 (/> CO 2 i> i—i C” -< 73 c 73 73 2 oo o 73 O 2 I> -1 M ►-* 73 m ^ r- -< 73 J> > J> 2 o a c > > o o z m z > > ■d 73 z -i > o m 2 m a o m m 2 r* 73 (/) oo > O > 2 m z • 2 m O 70 3> oo M »—1 o z 3> J ui U) oo -T* h- yji ►-* ro ro u) | •• 4 « <• « « « I 00 W (V) — I p“ p- -g p- g> rv >“ iv P- • I - * I O -g O' O P' g> O' -g vO O'rv-gP'-g'OO'OOCnvOfVP'VPl ifli-ow^W'i'P'Jivo^^ ^o^wasjjfflivwNuiyi M ^ «J | | I CD fV p- P' DO CD oa O' •g i— CD MOO® I rv n ui I ui 'O'O'O'JN-f'OOP' NW'OP'CPWUJ P'PO'huoJiCUN p- rcj p - cd O' (—rvoo p w p (V CD P- O W ■p-P-CD-JvOOO'ODPj-V'JIUJ-P' pownuiwoC'Oo^u'^' ^i'O 00 'JlO®W-4WOO I CD O' CTI cn®awpO®ffl P' o~ -g 'OwKOwP'jyi rvoo MOM p* (V O' t— P'Oh^pMO'WOO ® w p p p o cr - rv IV P- IV N P" IV O' vO • w O' o « « « •• X « « I X X X 'ONUiO'P'lOO rvoacD-gvigiP'—J pMO'UI'JMO'N pj iv O cd ro U) o ui p M P) W >1 P O OoOwO'OPpO'O'OI'O VUJUJ'OIMO'OpO^P p U) O 'J CO w cd cn cn -g cd vpi o -P' vO -g O' h CD • tv • x I >1 ® O' O' I CD C71 CD O' O' cd go co P> CD IV •— M cd p iv -g px I cr -g cd O'gpOP-gMO' CHMcoO'g-g'O wPoopoww CD p giv ONp PWPPPCCDO®WMPBUlg qppoipw®'0®p'J'0'0® h MMpogcno'O'P'OMogsw M- no no no oj U1 gj CO co no i ►— no ro o- g> 1 « *• « « <• on -^1 r\j P' o co 1 1 vO SO O' -p- o u> o CO CO O' o CO on no <**• -J p' UJ ->i o sO xO vO no O no o O' vO U1 >i0 4> p* CD CJ1 «• • «• CD -0 CT VJ» O vX) N cOSC Vjl O' no sD h- »— *— I « cr no cn vO cn cr -0 co no on ->J ^ 0 n 0 C 0 -P'O-P*C 0 Crn 0 -f'x^> 00 D NHWNO'MWOO^P' 1- IN> no f—• OJ CD 03 ro ui 1 i p- no no o cr i 1 n- CO « * X« * «• - | l - <« «• *• «• • 1 I ^ OJ C*J -0 F-* -s) cr i 1 V" * VJ1 O' -0 00 >0 1 1 CO no cn cn no 00 *—• -g 00 O vO -o no -0 OJ »—* vO no F— no F“* CD CD u> vXD no -P^ no o CD on rv v -g OOM p g o pgMPWPpMW pocD'Orvpp*g'C~g 4 )M'O' 0 W' 0 O" 0 C 0 O' P'OM'JOOIO'M'JO EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 o ia O' 43Ai4-coiA4 - rAO'i'- ini m to (fl n m m o I P sO CO Ai | ► ► ► » I -o aj m o' (A Ai 4^ 4- o 4- f- o t*- rA f>- 4- ^ -t O AJ LA (\l fA CO LA -iHh- O O O' AJ P fA <\| ph >4* pH in 43 pH cc 00 pH pn en >o Ph cc (NJ 00 O in o 4- sO CM pm (NJ >0 o pn in CM 4 - O' O' O' m pn pH o O O' X 00 X NO H in in in nj m cn in 4 - o o 43 1 1 >0 in o <4- 1 1 *H o O' CM in 0- <0 •4- pH pH 0 pH 0 cn 4- CM AJ 43 in O' pn o o (NJ X r- r"- CM pH pH r- pH o X in C' in O in >o CO C r- •4- in in in in (NJ CM o 1 1 O >4- X I" 1 1 43 4- 1 1 p pH O' O' (\J o X in r- in cn X o O ® 1 1 <30 X 4- 1 1 o CM ^ 1 1 03 c- O O' ■4- (h CM m rn CM CM pH CM pH (NJ o m pH en pH pH pH pH pH pH s0 4- o 43 4 - >* o in in CM o (NJ PC) cn pH X in cm in ■4- "4- H o ■4- in H >r in cn m X 4- o pH X pH CM n- >t i rn •4- H *4* O' MD X CM in X ph AJ | 1 AJ rn X O I 1 ^ O' LA | 1 00 X o 43 •4- CM cn O' >4" X fn PO 43 pH pH OC | 1 03 X cn 43 | i m N» 43 | 1 '■a* 43 O O 43 CM pH CM CM o o o rn pH pH X CM »H ■4- CM (Nl H H in O 43 o pH O' in <4- in CM CM 43 (Cl o X 43 O A- X CM O' ph X X >4- pn O' m X CM in 4- X <4- o pH CM pH o o in >4- 43 z 4- O X -4- O' O' O pH o 00 1 1 03 in 4) r- 4) X C0 1 1 A- in (Cl o •k 43 h- 43 CM pH in O' 4- pH O' o 4- 1 1 4- X m CM X O' 1*- 1 1 c X O' O' 43 pH CM pH pH H O' O' <4- 4- pH CM ph pH u fC| CM CM CM **•1 P\ cn CM in o (NJ MD 4) cn O' X h* pH pH O' 43 43 >0 in pH pH O' CM CM 4- M5 O' O c- X o rn fH in m PO X PO (NJ m o fH ^H in 1 vO r- NO Ph O' pH 4- m m 43 1 1 vO pH X sO 1 1 res O' O 1 1 *H in s0 (Nl •* 43 »H >4- pcl 4- CM X X pH CM (NJ in l 1 IA in CM r- 1 1 X CO 1 m in r- O' c- O' pH pH •4" CM (NJ pH pH O' pH pH >4- CO H m CM CM pH t p r- pH P- o CM in AJ O in CM pH O O PH pn o pH o pH cn pH CM in Li. O' CM CM pn pH fH pn m in PH PH 4" >4* >4- X (NJ X X X (NJ 43 m PH pn 4) o >0 in X 43 pH pH rn 1 X pH PH 1 43 pH r- 1 O' r^* CM pH 4) u CM (NJ O' in O' X X PH 4- 4- pH 1 r- pn m O 1 s0 O' 43 1 (Nj CM O' O' pH pH (NJ pH m m X X X (Nl pH 4- m pH H •* pn pH pH pH u. 00 -J < 3E M 2 < UJ 2 M <3 > O O M a o 2 • o z Z X •H X X < X o M ►H > l— 00 n X ►H 2 o X < CD 3 X o Z5 00 z 00 2 X O o h- a X X < PH <1 < M < < "0 X X 5 l o X X oc X X X o P— X o X M X o I .c co - 4 - | it. O'h-r- ro — in un I . ► ► | ........ , . . . 'Omcvjvo-*i(\jff'(Minffu»NNo3'tf' I ro m m i sC j- cm in inj cm - 1 ro UN -4- 'd' tNj —• —< —< ■* -J- ro -j ZJ CM —< HNNaoomcON^NwMMM-i,. O'lninnjoocof'-.oinocj.O'J'f*- h-iAONN sO CM O >t CO O' ro ro in C— CO CO O'o , inroininr'->i-r>-a'.oc^c'-«j-r'-ro i ro —i >o ifi o> » n ^ -* on m ^(Mfsja'0'f\jmo^fMin(\i(3'aoorMi(MsO'T cm m o cm O' 00 -t -J- .4* -T (M — (M CM r r- ro >*- o -T in o o 't ro r*- CO 00 (NJ r- O' (NJ r*- r\j •—4 r"H O' ro o 00 o sO O O' IT 4^ >* o UN O' cr UN CO O' 4* ro O' in —-4 O' 4* CO (NJ •O | 1 'O o- •» i 1 O- m fO CM r- CO (NJ ro CO o O ro ro h- O- CC | CO o •4* | 1 ^ CO (NJ 4- ro 4’ >r ro r —4 rH r —4 inroinrocM^ro — 0 CT >0 NO®^4-coiruocooMfflinNHif\ in a. in ro,HOCr-,OTO\0>4' — 0'<7'i—i —< CT CM -O | ■() M u> ^^•NO'OOIVjmoOCONlftin^NO j O-^'O O (NJ •J" -}■ m rfl ^ ro ro r\j (M —. (Miri^s0r-^(Njir\r“O UN—i.O— l i'r>-socococof-inof— cm.4- 'CS^’>-ia'incox(NJO''f-} , 'ON>o<} , ® > o^'(sj(j'^ , o I c co .o (M(NJr}- o' in »t -4" .T —> o (•O CM CM o\ —llMtomoxO'^NNNo C7> —i 4" I com ro P in in h m fO o f\| N O N fVJ N UD 00 00 O' ro NO O' >0 (NJ co ro O' r- H 4- *■■4 O' in O' >o in o 00 ro O O 4* CO O f^- r*4 o O ro in (NJ O' O' o O' »—4 CO in in N- (NJ —t ro O' vO co 1 1 r*- 4- f-4 ~o (NJ 1 1 ro r—4 '0 (NJ •» •k •k •» •» •» •* •» •» •k «k » 1 1 * ► •k •k •* 1 1 •> •k •k » CM rsj ro 4* o CO (NJ ro sO CO CM | 1 CM O' r*^ O' 4- 1 1 o CC CNI 4- ro ■4- ro fO r—4 ^4 Nf 't (NJ (NJ r—4 'OsOsOcocoQc\jmtf'Lnr\jmrr»a'ir\co so ro oo fc *****^fc*l#.fc*»»»*» OfUMmN^fnwo'i'-^-iNiroiNjo.-i n > -J UJ < oc oc a: a .j 3 < > LLI < z in UJ i: -j X DC - X X < 1— UJ UJ o x \- lT> — z z < < a > inj — z z 7 no o 0- co in co X pH >o 0- in o O' O' O' H O' X O' O' in O' o oo -7 X cm O' 4) o o sO •7 ro X CO cc in 00 00 X O' x ra oo co in O' X 't >0 pH <7 O' 0- x m i l ro ro i 1 >7 m o 43 ro •> 1 •» •> « vO O' r- H 00 •7 sO x in 00 co 0- in m i I m m 1 1 s0 00 ro O' CO ro in 00 o O' ro 00 .7 OO pH >7 'O X pH 7 00 H 00 pH 7 00 00 pH X o O' X pH 00 X pH X X 0- X 00 X in pH •7 vO pH 00 CM o X pH pH pH X x H >7 x 00 00 n7 in o 00 X pH co pH pH O' pH CM m m vO X pH O' pH r- 1 1 r- >7 1 1 l" in x H in o ► 1 •k •k » 43 O' in O' in pH in X 43 O' x pH 00 X -7 1 1 -7 >7 1 1 x o x O' nO pH 00 00 pH o OJ pH •7 00 pH >7 X pH 7 c\j pH pH 00 ^H O' 'O ■7 oo 0- pH x X >0 o 0- O' •H X 0- p in >7 00 X X © 04 Cr X 00 O' in <7 x O' x nO X O' 7 k$* X 1 « o 1 in nO o o O | O' in oo •7 O' O' in <7 in in 43 x pH in 00 1 1 7- in X oo in 1 •k •k » s0 'O oo o pH O' o r- in in in f- n O' >0 >fr 1 1 7 7- | 1 X 43 co O' in pH X 00 pH o oo pH X pH pH X 43 0- pH 00 pH pH oo pH 00 oo >0 7- CO O' 00 X pH in in in x 7- pH p o in X o oo X 00 X pH X pH 00 00 X X 43 pH in in n0 o m X oo in r» oo in o 00 X X X x X p*t O' O' a IT, I l in 7- i i ^ i 1 <71 O oo l i 1 •“ •> p 43 >7 in X in O' in 0- in 7- pH in X 43 pH O' 1 | O' CD | 1 i 1 m sO O' O' X oo O' 00 pH o O' 00 pH X fH oo m X o* PH 7- pH pH 00 ^H PNj*., in ^H O' N* X CO X H 7 O' o O' X X X pH O' oo 43 sO x in X X ■7 7 in in X 0 - X X O' pH X 4 > 43 00 43 O' 43 O in z 43 x X 7 cn X pH pH 7 P 7 O' 00 0 * a i 1 O O 1 1 oc H O in in X o 43 ►— sO X in X 4 > in 7 X vO X X o 43 7 CM | | CM p i i *■» X oo o O' 00 x CM pH O O' pH pH X pH H H pH pH X x sO pH a 7 - pH pH 00 ^H '*4;| I o 0 - n o in 7 in. 00 X X in X 4) X X X X X o 7 43 P x n X 7 vO o x x 7 X 43 O' sO X X X oo in X f'- 1 7 1 1 x o X CM X X x CO O' o 7 in CM | I oo 00 1 1 7 o X 4) 00 - 1 sO X 1 1 X O' pH 4> 00 O' X O' X X X O' X 1 1 X X l 1 7 oo X X O' pH x pH pH pH O' pH pH 00 pH X X in pH >fr pH pH 00 pH 00 pH in X CM 7 O sO in o pH x in pH 00 O O' CM m 43 43 O cn 0 - in pH 00 X pH 7 n in O' X o 0 - CO CM O 7 7 00 CM X O' O' 7 tn X X oo O X 00 oo o < 1 1 P 7 in i 1 1 " o X 00 X sO >0 03 X X X o O' in 7 CM | i CM P X 1 1 CD o X X O' pH X pH pH O pH O' oo oo 00 *H pH pH *H pH pH pH 00 vO in pH r Q X 00 a o o X < Z a: a o < 3 c HH X X CL o o a: UJ C£ a: X o r> z z UJ a X < X z X < < z X 2*" Q cc < X _l < < X Z X X X CL X z UJ a: X -iN’r-o < -<^-ooQOfn j'OvOci^coNcofficooocmi ONClQN'flNI'XCl^vOO^lUl oo^ovOi/i—«r~fAico i- r~- r- vO -d- (M <<1 O' 0- O' CC 00 | i cr r—4 u in 00 ro o cr H C-H CC H H 00 r*- 0- ro o ro 0- CO 00 00 1 1 o *& cn f—4 OO 4 0 s >0 00 00 0* >* 00 4- 00 >$• -o- H r-4 ^4 in ^4 >fr oo ro o r- sO ro cr o o 00 N- 00 AtllNO'XO'O O N ^ Cl sf i-< 'O —• in nj m vO —* O flMXNMiAO-f>foo NifioinO'Nininoco-cioo i X't'ONM'OlACl't'JfflO'OO OO-J^NN'J’CIN'OCICINOII/I nj «—< r—* *—4 m >—< ci 4 ro ro »o CC r*» in oo >0 4 4 H ro ro o cr CO GO 4 O' ou O' 00 ro -4- «0 sO O' oo 00 sO oo co o o* n O o 00 4 ro r- ro 0- O A- cr <£ NO ro 0- 00 O' 4 4 4 Ad CO I 1 0 rH ao vO ro oo ao | 1 A- 4 00 CO r*- 00 ro 00 CO CO cr o •c in 4 ro *■4 ro ro f*4-. it cr ^■4 H 00 cr O' 00 o CO o co oo n- o in no o O' <© -< 4 in >d- ^4 H o sO 'O cr o in in o 00 r- OJ ro o in o in o 4 r- CO ^4 O' *■4 00 in o O 1 1 cn 4 nj i i't 4 O' r- ro ^•4 -C 4 >d- r- ro 4 >* r- in -0 -O 1 1 fr oo C\J Mij O' CO OD ro o >0 sO O' f»4 r^- >d- oo >d- r- ro ro in ■c ro 00 o 4- >0 ~c in in in in QO r-4 oo O' o -0 CO CO sO o h- 00 00 ro r*. n- cr o o l in h- r- vO oo in cr 00 00 CO 1 1 C7> O' O' in o O in o H sO vO oo o o ro ro O' H O' 1 1 sC oo r» oo ro »*4 in f -4 ^4 CO sd- oo 00 •—4 oo •n in O' cr 0- ^4 f4 ro OsJ r ro OVJ co O' vO ro ro CO OsJ n r^- >d- n o 00 n ^4 OsJ •d- 0 “ ro in o o o O' *••4 Osi ro ^0 in in | r** CO 00 in OsJ ^4 CVJ r- pM *■4 OsJ | o ro ro O' O' Q0 H oo OlA-tHNOO'OwO'+./lIKO I ^ftiincnO'O-j-m-^N-^-inff'O'' Onj-d’cnnicvi — .^nj fi r\j <\j m r- r- ai l/> 00 CL < -i UJ •JJ O o UJ < h- 7 . CC CL — >—M h- > -J UJ QC ►—( 1—4 > h- £ < z <1 ct CC 00 CC 3 QC l— -J «i < h- < •-M LU UJ UJ UJ 2T M z> -J l— — UJ QC < < < 3 <1 3 OC > >—p CC < < CC >$• k- yj UJ l— LU UJ a. a: at LU < O i j- -h ocono'i'-ccM-coco ao in m O'ino l^r^f^. CT >sOO i - | cof'J'4''l’ rr > co I x cm O' I O' cm ao rn O' co ■—< n r~- co -j- rn p- so ^ LC3 CO »H pH CM CM ■—* <1- r- in CM >1- X r~ n COfO^O'NCOOCDONNCO'i)® r^(\jrOOOLO(\ir^f\l(NjaDfr-iCDOO^ vOHcaM^fOfOvOf^oifiir\ (\j Lf> vt mO m ct o qo ro si- pH vO st Ct st 00 *h S t O O' pH oo un un on o on om 0 s N- «h >t IT CO (\j m >o in >t ^ 00 c\j oo ao O 00 >t >t on oo Q 0 f\jsir\' 00 'f s *o^oo 0 v 0 (\icr O' o*' un ct h o ^ ir\fO^NHm«OOlf\'00'\£)fOO O O O' CD H M «h rofs.^^HO'tm^r-Nojm^ i in in oq i o' O' h pHQOpHr^LTyao*tcor^irNc\j 0'N-Noom®nj'0 0t ni fT) N H co ON 00 00 on o O' co ^ ON (NJ —• >t 00 OO o o o o o o o o o o o O o o O O o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 1 o 1 o o I 1 O o o 1 1 o ■4- •» •» •» p» ► •» p p p •» » p 1 1 - 1 1 p p 1 1 * •» * 1 1 p 0 1 1 'O 1 1 -o 4- 1 1 ltn p- UN | 1 CO O' O' 0* 0- o 't -f •J- CM -1 O' r- ON m rn ON st 0- H ON st ON 0- <4- pH CM 00 CNJ pH f—4 pH >0 st (\J (NJ 00 (NJ st cr> n in sO CO O' oo co co on o 00 O (NJ >t Ct m (\j O' t ^ O O h- >t t t co ro H PO ff| t no st n in 00 OO UN 0- •-« o o O *H CO ON t O' ^ N CD m rn in m nj n rn p» •» CM CM •O cfl CC1 in o -O ■C P- oo n f- rn —• tO»H000N(NjCt | h- UNsOCOOOO*- 03 0 - o* ao oo nj N- h N OinmnjpnouNMnNinoinm >tOooco>tr^>t^stsOr^ro on ct >t on o t (\j h in N H H •» • * •» ON 00 (NJ pH ON GO ON 00 OO Ct 00 UN O O ON OO *H '«i: * O a: < z z> o O' a •H C o z M • Z < M h- X -J LU < < QC >—4 N-4 f— 00 < X CL i/> 3 UJ CL *—< -J z> CL h" CD < < UJ *—4 o LU Z z 00 LU LU z U -J z _J > 1 X Q < o z X CL < a X LU M o o h- >t < UJ Q —J < h- LU X o csC t f- < UJ UJ JJ U- Cl c LU L— CL UJ UJ < z z X •- z a. o u. Q(-Zxzuu.t f^ fO M- >0 *t CO o in CO cm h- UJ < ro sD in o >fr CO n0 CO n a. a: >fr no CO in vO ^u d- o O' CM O 3 CM •» •» •» •k •k •k •> •k •» c* h- «£ CO CM CO «* CM >o «n D -1 O' cm in rO *“4 r-* H in in uj Z> o H H OC o o. X >0 O' l^fMNO'J>(\Jfvif~OOoOrriiA fOror*-ininoooo*HrHr*- UJ z UJ ►- cc Z> m a. on < uu o < UJ •k O z > *■« h* > UJ > < QC < QC a: ^ z z z o ~ Z> UJ < UJ Z < Z Z UJ Q a x x o o in d- O y o a: a: x < <■ * x o-> a: _j x a; oc < 2l-Wli!QOUJr ^w30ao;xi-7 cnin • CM C- 43 4" 4^ cn re-, r—* vO 4) CM ffi in occmcnmn-O'-* O' O O O 4- O CM 4! O'4j0<000nw) »»»»»»»» j-mniH^Nin^ 4 h- —* 'O 4 4" CO CM —I rH in in 4 (NJ (M 00 00 CM CM 43 H (Vi in h- cn O' >o in O 00 in (VI (VJ O l- o m in O (VI o (Vi 4- n- i*- 1 1 >o in •» •» m » •» •* •* • i * sO O' m m (vj O' 4) 4D O' | i *-« O' o — a m cn (VJ (Vi (NJ 4- 4 omi'oo4 , 'Ooso cm O' -* com4343~ Jl -n4'4' — co cm z CT) o UJ > 0 h- *—< O' 1- H U 1—< D C£ O ►- x UJ X X o o -1 < a; 3 (Vi l- vO 3 -J O' J 3 H O Nrt a o < a. o i/i t- OC pH a 43 a. O' X ■■4 4incDf'H-n44' 0 NO'^s04(7'CC CO O' (C1 m O' CO -<4 I Mf'H4-ifioN-< I 44 , ’ - M44 , ' J M CO CM CM CM 0'04’4('04CMO 000(Ci4inC"®0'N O'CMcnOOCOOinCM-* M 4 O in N n- o in 4- 4 CM CM -4 CM O' CM O' --i 43 in CM CM CM moocoinn»43co4-0'i , -n-0' ici»NHO'njinin(ciN40' -Jincor'-f-4-r'-CT'4’00mc- oo <-> in 4 4 CO cm cm 00 03 nj 4 4 1 4 cn cn m os co in in cn O' 4 4 cn cn cn cn r~C4-in^43O'~0 4h 44 O® in 4- cn cmh 4 m in m m cn in in •I*' H < Q UJ UJ z UJ X a: < i/) CL < < UJ o LU mJ < H* or CL UJ or a b- <1 < x CC 00 UJ Z 3 z or < •— « UJ o <1 z UJ < UJ -J -J >■ 1 s: Q x u -j a: 3 <-> or uj UJ Q l- o —i O or UJ < x h- cc o z> < U. 00 o o H4 o z UJ < < o o 00 2 IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY ORIGIN, LS61-6f fMcco •» •> •» ► •» •» •> •* •» •> - 1 I * • I i * •* •» ► •ft gj in o in in CD O' O' >o CM >0 tn >0 1 1 >0 -I 1 1 sO vO rg ao CO O' ITN h- CM fO <\J rg O' ro fn co h- r- ro O' ro H 4 H .j V. h* a in in o >0 o m >4- 0 o O o H* CO CO pH o r» ro GO o in in 4 4 0* >o CO CO rg rg rg -0 pH pH ro 0 CO h- O' pH o o ro >}■ >* 4 GO >o O (O CM I 1 (M •* i i 00 CO o 4 0- >0 in sO rg 0 0 o ro in in pH >1- rg pH (Tl I 1 ^ o 1 1 CO ro pH in rH ro O' ro NO ro CO rg rg O' H ■J- in in rg o rg *H H vO ro ro o •o rg o o 00 0 0 - o- in rg rg in O' rg h- g) v0 in rg ro o in 0 gD 0 o in ao O' o pH o o rg 00 |H O' 1 ao rg r- in rg 0 >0 -1- ro — . m i i 0 l 1 IT. in pH pH rg CO 4 *o o 4 in 00 o *H rg N> ro •+ ro O' | 1 O' •0 i 1 'T >r rg in >0 O' 0 >0 ro rg O' CO pH -a rg rg rg uo in rg O' rg pH ro pH O cji r- rg co pH n in o ro rg 4 CO ao o eg rg rg ph H H o -I in O' oo pH o ro pH in pH g^ 0 o ro CM H O' 0 g> ro pH ro CO ro O z O' (M 0 0 e- ro ro in ao 0 1 1 in in pH e- O' ro 4 rg rg CO r- 0 ■J- <#■ >* >r pH O' »H pH u ro o ao g> eg O' o h- O' H o CNJ CM in in 4 co 4 >r 4 ro O ro pH ro o ro in pH H 4 r*- O' in oo o gD ^ r- g) r» o ao CM 1 ao ao 4) rg n ro ro CNJ o CM CO in 1 l in g> 1 1 4 4 0 r- ao ao rg •* •» » •* •ft •* •» •» » •ft •» •» ► I i •* » 1 1 •» •» •» ► g) O' in rg 4 rg pH r- rg pH rg O 1 1 O O' I 1 O' O' >0 in O O' gj in ro rg O O' ao ro ro rg 4 4 CM O' ro pH ro H pH " II, I! I it .I'M rg «* ao g} O' pH o ro in O' O' 0 >0 0" pH H 0 0 O' e- ro 4) sf> O' CM pH ro r- ro m in ao ao ro o o O' in ao 0 O' O' O' ««• ao pH o 0 - ro O' in in i 1 in r* 1 1 o o H in 4 o in ro pH •i- ao in rg pH H O 1 i 0 in i 1 00 CD o 00 rg •i- CNJ rg pH o pH CD ro ro ro ro ro o r- rg UJ •» UJ X ac ac 00 00 a < LL < 111 UJ o UJ O u 2 ►H • 2 2 0. h* UJ > a: HP *H >- 00 <. < < < a: 00 UJ ac oc h- < M -J UJ o > 2 < LU UJ 2 -J 2 —1 < > 4 X Q < 2 -J a: o X UJ O < UJ J- H < UJ Q <1 < UJ z OC <1 < o CL *H 2 CO Q£ a O 1- Z < o UJ Ul 0 ^* *4* O' O' in in >r o >T o 0" o in >0 r*- CM O CVJ O' «i- >4* in in CM CM 0-i m m O' in CO in co cr CO in o o ^4 fNJ r- in CO pH H r- o r^- in sO h- CO vO o •k •* •» •k •k •» •k •k » •* •* * ro CM a co in vO CO CO m O' CO 'N in >4- CO m ro CM pH CM o in p-4 O' mo s4* O O' o 'J’ vO H fCi o CVJ o —4 CM sO O' 00 cm ro CM O' >4* co CNJ O' CO O CNJ CO ao o o O O' vf f—4 h- O CVJ m vO M* O' O sO CM O' Q CM r- O' o CM •* •» •k p> 4P •» •k •k •k » •» ► » •k •k r*- n >4* >4* in 00 in cvj CVJ in >4* CM -t 4 3 a ro co CVJ H 4- r- nO CVJ o H O r- CM in w-4 fNJ O' in O' CO CM 00 UN -J" P-4 CM CM CM CVJ O' >0 n O' o in o >0 O' O' 0 m H o 00 MD H 0—4 CM pH CO co CM •k » •k •k p> •> •k •k •k •k ■k » •k •k •> >4* cn fNJ 4- CO >* CO CM pH pH CO CM CO CM CO cn co o U) CM sO 00 CO O o CO *4* CM r^- in h- 00 >4* pM >4* ao 00 r- O' 'O CO r*- CM >4* r—* CO CO O O' CD O CO O' >0 •k •k •k » » » •k Pk •* •k •> o CM C CO ** o CD in *-« O' CO CM CM CM O CO CO CM p^ H >0 in >* >4* ph O' CM co •o CO CM o >4- 0-4 CO in CO >0 in oo o r*- r^ co O' O O CO CO in r- O' >4* O' >o in m «j- in co O' in CO CO CO CO o nD f- r^ r^- O' CM >4- — 1 o » •k •k •k •k •k » •k « •k ► •k «k in o O' >4- CM O' in CM co co >0 CM CO CM O' CO CM CM ^4 >4* CO in CO vO r^- >4* r- co nO GO >4- O' O p4 o r^- o cm o in >0 o CM O' • co CO *4* >t O' co iH M3 co <4- in >o CO co o co 1 1 CO O' CM CO CM CM O' in in so •k •k pk • 1 •• •k t ♦ t ► » •k •k «k o in CM 1 l in CM 9 2 1 O ro H CO P-4 ro CO CM pH 0-4 in O' in CO N* m co r- r^- pH in O' >0 O' O f- UN O' (NJ >o •o CM CVJ O' CO O' cm o <£ o co O cm in r4- UN UN co o UN 03 O' >4* r- CM « •k p> •» * i i •k *> » » » k l» ft •k » M3 >4- CM v0 CO | r^> ■J- o CM pH sO UN — CM pH co CO CO CM H H ^4 CO r~ nt < 2T a: Q. < 2T o < D O o -J UJ a *-4 *— < < CC CC —1 < < PH u > LU 2 UJ LU *H — J < a: -J — 1 2 ; -J X a: 2 M z UJ a < < <1 ►- LU o: < < < CL <1 o o < cr: LU h- LU V- UJ 2 : J— a: UJ < I ^H *— b~ X (X o k— < 2T to X 2T O LU CD X O o 2 < 2*- cn a Q H- O UJ -i c < *-4 < < D LU -j ct: a: LU LU o h- U -J a • uj <1 X QC o Z) < LU i/> o t— O 2 3 UJ -J C < o o < «i!« I Cl JO pw o h- c VT >0 r O' H JO -4 04 > -4 O r o o 3 3 m 3 -H o 70 C m* o ►— H S0 *■ s0 -1 O' rr *• o 04 O' \f\ z • l V 0 o i ro 04 L c N) NJ1 OJ l*> vO -3 SKSiSSSSSSSSSSSSa Sfl!wO%H>OOOWHO'r-00^-l vO \J> ISJ VJ1 UJ S g S 2 ll S§ S 5 2 S 5 52 a s <0 O' 0> -f" i-* —4 r\) oj O' O' o PO N) O'

0 o* O' £ 5 S 2 - 5 * 3 o 5 - ^ ^ ~ -* *» sciSssssissstSsss COMMODITY AND AREA 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 ^ c m H CO CO CD O' O' in o * 00 nO oo vi- o ft- ^ m nJ" ao cn cm oo •£> O O' 00 H h- >o in >0 00 -O co in o h- lf\N CM -t | l >t o l i m co O' in l | -J —t O' O nO •* •» • ft • 1 i • • i •* •• 1 ft ft ft •> •» ' 4 * CO ft- -O CM 1 1 CM CM 1 1 CO ro 'tO® 1 1 -< O' o OsJ f\J in 4 * *"■* O' -1 oo CN H H ao rvj o sO co co ao ao —i ft —4 O' in in • 4 - ro cn in O' O' *-4 r- O' C\J ro o 'O CM O' o CM m O' m -4 CN r- CO ro r- 1 1 r- > 4 - I 1 O' >* O' m in I 1 *■* O' O' <0 >0 to •» ► •» * i l •* * i 1 * to ■k •> •* i I • •» ft ft ft O' in ro 1 1 CO CO 1 1 in ao ao ao I 1 ro 00 fC| CM ro • 4 - ao O' ft- co (M >0 ^ rO ONlOO'f oo in in oo •» •» • • O' oo ft- >o co in o> in m cm f'-<\jNi-f-inNj-4 i ► “ l » •> >1- I 'T 'J- I cm —< cn >o m *-c i m + m m ■f H H CD CM ft* -r -co in O' o in cm O' o cm ■» » » in in •J' O' m —< CM O' -o r^r^O'OCMooin^cMO'r“'4-cn O' I •* I • ► I CN | * O O' ft- (NJ O in O' O' ao ao sO CO >4- f" CN CO in o r- 00 CNJ >* >4- cn in O' CM r- O' o o r- r^- pal •4- M5 ao 1 1 CD s0 1 1 rf) '0 o in i 1 4- O' moo o to to to to • l 1 » » 1 1 * to to » l i • * «k ► •k o ro cn IN CM | | CM CM | 1 —* O' ro in i ao o ro cn cn cc CN CN to* U;: h- ao O' o r- ft- O ao CN kO CN O' in O' r*- in in in O' (N r-t O' O' O' CN in "0 fN r- o O 00 ftM ro in o O 1 1 O ao ro | 1 o l 1 ro >$■ CO ± O' 3 8 9 4 1 in ft- so —< ^4 tO GO <3 in (N H ao in cn —i -4 o O' - 4 - O' h- in a O' nO in i I in cm O' I 1 CM 1 1 vO 1 I in in r -4 00 to to » » » | i ft •• » l 1 ► 1 1 » 1 i - to to 256 in in >fr cn i | CM CM ao | CM 1 -0 1 1 O 1 H 219 128 75 5 ft - I UJ <. h- o in < ►-M UJ * CL z UJ O LU X <1 • z in Q- < HH CL < Q a UJ UJ in U- < Z a M < < _J O * 4 " < h- UJ CL < < O CL z z ISl -J • • Q > a Noifti , 'B>HO' r>-r--oh-oino'4* 4- r- H 4) 0 0 H p- m) 0 00 O' pH 00 pH 00 ph m CO CM H 4- 00 00 CO CNJ in O' 0 CNJ h* r- O OU r- M3 4 tr O' CNJ >0 4- CNJ 0 4- CO co a vO sQ r- co o in >*■ CM CM O' O' r~ CNJ CO 0 CO O 0 h* CO O' CO h- O CNJ O' 4- 0 4- 4- in 4) CM CM O' O' in in o (\i >0 4- >0 CM 0 O' in in O' O' m in 00 00 CNJ 0 CNJ 4- 4- 4- 4- m 4- H •4 CO CM in CO H 4 CM CM O' 4 CO H pH rt 4- CO CM 4- pH in CO CM 4- 4- 0 00 r- >0 CO 00 00 >r K 0 4) 0 03 4- pH >0 00 CO 0 pH CM m 4- <4 f- CM CO 00 0 6- O o- 6- <\i M3 CM CO CO 0 in co 4) m pH N* 4- in co CM O' h- in ph CO co H O 4- m i*- 00 o- O' CO m in 1 n > 0 in 0 O' rH <0 0 H c 4- O' co 4- pH 4- 00 r- CM 4- 4- 00 4- ro ph CO 4 O O' r- ® *—* r- O' f- O' 00 H O' O' O' 43 m pH O' P< CM CO O' 00 h» in in tvj in CO pH CM in in 4 O' co 4 in co 4- CM 0 in O' H (NJ in >0 4) >*■ 43 co CM H pH CM CM 4> H 4 - 4} m 4- in CO 41 4 4- 4- 4- CO O' in 4- P6 in CM rt h- •> CM in CM CM 4) CO CM pH P< pH 4- CO CM 4- pH M3 CO 4- r- N- pH 4 n- 0 4- CO O' O' 00 CO CM O' 4 r- 00 O' 4 nj CO CM r* pH O' O 4 . Q~ 00 CO m CM 6- O' P >0 0 in O' M3 CM r- m CM 00 4 r- r*- 4 in 0 cm in 0 O O' in 4- r- 4 4- r- 0 O' CO 00 CM Psl h* | 4 4 00 00 •4* 4 O' PH 0 4- r- CM 00 4- 00 CO 4- m CO O’ h- pH 4 pH 4- O' <\i O' 00 CM ro ^ ph *>fr M3 in O' 4- 4- 4- 4 CO CO 4 ao ro in OO 0 O' CM in r- in 4- in O CO CO O O' 4- r- O' pH J-H 0 4 O 00 00 00 O O H 4- CM CM CM H H 4- 4- O' CO 4 <4- co CM O' CM 4- m 4- 4- O' ro 4 0 4- 4- 4 pH ph 4- CO CM 4 (O CM H p4 pH pH m CO CM CO pH 4 CO pH N>« 00 in 4- pH 00 4 03 4 4 0 CM CO z m O' 4 CM CM co CO 4 in pH 03 4 O' p4 6- 0 in n- co 0 O' r*- 1 - pH O' 0 CO 00 CM 00 0 4 4 4** O 4 O' O O' 0 h- 00 O in CM 4 O N- CO 0 4 - 4 ro cm in CM 1 ** O' O' in 4 CM pH O' 00 0 4 CC N O' 0 CM O CM co CM in CM CM 0 O' 4 4 4 4 h- <0 CM pH CM pH O' CM CM 00 CM CM 4 co m in 4 4 pj ^ UJ QT "" M p a: t- 0 < pi « « < z K UJ a UJ < > UJ < z ULI UJ UJ z u _j of O £ 04 l/l CO 5; 0 <1 X -IX X CL OC 37 X UJ — UJ UJ UJ 2 14 p p X 0 — j z pH < UJ Q o' Q 0 X — Z CL O O PH 2 h- O WDlKZOll — z at: O QhZ < O LU U. < u- < < P — < 4 UJ s: 0 -J or 3 O CC UJ LU LU 0 1— 0 —J O a: p uj X 2: H O 3 < u. oO u »- 0 M 0 z LU pj < < 0 0 0 00 3 C P-* r— 2 ui •— >0 *0 ro vO po v» <> o ^ • p— *> >- cd a* ^ ^ •H o 03 r\j ui —j t/> P— o -4 vji ^ o *n > o 75 »■* o »-* OJ r- C fT p— p-* p— CD O r* c -o ro ro vji O' O' -« 7 «• fS) c c iL*j^rvjC»- OJ 73 7 iO^WOS OJ > n > p— 00 (\> vO -0 P" 5 2 O O 2 2 7 m 3 r -i O r 7> o »—* • p-^ o P-* -h ; r— CO fNJ o •— X n vji sO i— 4 « • « <• « — t o o OJ m c CO r - ^ ro ro ro ^0 o z 1 M |\) O' H -J W NJ O l C l J> C Z ( ^ rvj Ui O -P* V* >- -T 1 vjl ~4 ->4 u) u J u) O' „ « a » ««•••«» ^)0'f\joovJifvi'J'0'4>'wn>£>vOW>00 vO O' .p -< ■ ( cp : -< o >0 px z t_> I— M CP r\j H- r\> Ol O O' vn I O' ^OIPOOOOO'OOOINJO'-'C^-J^ ^0'00'0''ici)'ioo'OwN>jo o i- vO oj w , ^ o~ 4 00 vO U) N O ^ ^ H i cn -«4 04 c*j 'O O' O' WOOUJK'-'MVJWO pyiwNOHawHi' >o . 'VJ1—J ioa3ro^vOOO' - '* ) C <— ^ •“• -0 i r\j oo ro f -*4 12 136 151 VJ1 p- sD O' 03 ^ 1 00 1 VJ1 13 00 03 «• «• «• <• * <• - 1 I <• «• ro >£) OJ VJ1 vO CD N0 CO 1 1 ^ O' yjy 00 ro vD NO -4 O -P' \J\ -p' VJ1 03 vjl O OJ t-* vji 03 ro t—* t— ro OJ O' o -0 o ro O' ►- P-* P-* ro 00 p— OJ •*4 »£> OJ o O p— vO <• * «• * «• «• «• «• •• « ro OJ -0 H vJ“ OD OJ O' O' 03 OJ o o o CO P-* CO vO -p* vji O' vO ro o o OJ •> sO ro OJ -o OJ •*J O' <0 O' IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 Osi-cca—'O 'ooojoo — -10 coiri>j-psj>oo(M'l'r r '^0''i‘sOtM'- | Lrif^ I I I m CO N H «—< H | 0-t\}-jDCM(\jr-t^ o r*- f*- t\j r- -3- C\J ^ooOimc'oo'^ •—l •—< r*"'i •— < >* po PC in pc o O' CM r—I sO GO >o h- CG m oo ■3- o p- sD 00 P- PC CO in -3- in in mO O sO r—4 o ro CM CO h- CO -4 O- 00 CM in ^■4 PC co o vD O' in «*■ PC o >0 0* h- ^ pr, m in h- 00 vO 00 O' O' in in CO 'J' CM p™4 PO 1—4 ^4 h- 00 PO H p- 00 o in CO in 4- PO O' 0- H H o CO r™4 s0 in O' «3- in c\) r- PM O' o 00 PO o CO 00 o PO o 45 r*- co PO PO >0 O' in CO in 45 f“- OD o Q O' 00 •3- O' 00 o •^ 45 r- <3- 00 r«4 O' 00 CO 00 00 f-4 ^-4 ^■4 (A fo co o nO >0 'l- in in •J- O' r*4 in •4- o O' 00 o o ■3- in 00 O' in co 00 O' in 'O I 1 1 1 -3- ■3- 1 1 * v0 00 CO O' co PO O f- vO r- PO in IA I I 1 1 - 1 O' o in •4- <3- PO ^■4 H H PO 00 00 I I l I r- •£> o CM co -o >3- | -C ro OO in vO 00 CO PM in in pm >r 00 in in •3- in CD O' in PO O CM 45 00 o r- 45 PM z v0 PO PM H H o O' PO CM 1- O' p- 45 m PO c o •3- O' PO (7- O' %3- PM r—4 o CM ^4 *—4 I I I I I I I I I ■3" ir> cri rr> O N- in PO o MD PO in PO PO >3- in PM #■4 o PO H ro O' o in f*- PO PO P- co PM PO CM r- 00 MD O' o o 00 00 00 PM •k » « •» •» •» ► •k 0k 0k ► » O o nO sO O o o PO in GO >fr p^ p- O' *■•4 in in in PO pM ^■4 p4 H PM H H ui oo — >o r-t PC I I I I I I I I I PO o o PO (M h- PO >0 mO o O' o «3- PM CO O' PO NO in PO h- O' -* PO o in CO PO PM o h- o p4 o O' oo PO o H PO PO «k 0k 0k •k •> •k •» •k «k •k 0k •k >t O' ^4 5 8 H in 3 7 in co PO CO >* PO H *■“4 in o l l * ) I — I I *-> •# in in CO IM «1J <. 2 X UJ UJ LU UJ X ct cc 00 X Q_ <1 < < UJ o Q o UJ' o -J X UJ < oc >- < 2 : 00 3 LU H oc ac > Q k—4 3 oc < UJ —<0*3 >• LU < < 2 2 2 UJ UJ -J >- i 3T Q O Z X Jl X ac < < X *- •—* <1 UJ _j < a: < t- Z O' UJ -J s: cc < < CC < M O' ►» LU UJ ct LU t- uj -< zr i— Q Z uo CL a: X 2 U u. X U 2 a a l— 2 o LU u. <1 l— »—* < - QC o z> < U. 00 C"0'l , ^CO^>tO'£i^COOOOC0^04- s co q n! 1 n m^cnoa'«£)a' 0 ‘>vO(\J I >t ^ ^ o n vOvOOCMcocoinsOoco Q uu CL 3 h- O < O' r-< ^ CM ^ r*->o»- | o>t’npHvoncM cm ro cm pH vt o ■4- O' ro CM o oo >0 CO ro ro h- in •c pH 4- H O' CM tfl <)■ 0" 00 pH o *-* CM r- ro O' O' cc h- o pH O' O' >o >0 00 >o >0 CO 43 oo oo in o 00 sD r- co r- m (M CM m O' o M' ph O' 0- >* in 00 4- oo ro m vO n *4- pH GO CO h- C >fr CM <7> 00 pH O' pH H CM CM H in r*- pH in >4- cc r- ro cc >0 43 —4 P-4 4- o in >o r- oo in in o co in r- ro O' p 4 ro CO 00 in r- n ■o n pH in sO 4- 4- ro p- CM o co CO r- CM r*- >* cc n ro pH >0 h- ro vO >0 O' r- in Nfr 't CM oo h- in pH CM CO 43 4- CM 43 co O' O' CO v0 »p4 >o 4- CM pH pH H 4- 0- CM o >0 X s0 in in X m X CM CM ^4 >4- 43 — ro cm pH O' H O O' CM H ro r*- 4- m O' o O' co m 43 >*• x ir> i X ^4 in 43 CM o CM X m CM X pH in X X X (M O >0 o O' ^H X ro m ro r- >4- CM O' X *0 ^4 vC pH CM p-4 x ro o f-H o O' -H pH in n CM pH H CM ^H UJ a: 43 ■o in p-4 4) •4- r*- O O CM 43 pH CD o pH pH pH 43 CM m CM pH p—4 X CM pH r- r- X pH X CM O' •4- pH o x CO O CM h- O 1 z O' o X CM O' in in X 4> pH n CM pH X x m i 1 p X O' ^H X o 0 X X o 4- n CM CM ro 43 ro ro 43 in pH in —< i 1 4) n X CM X X O' CM X CO O' in o ^H X <4- o X X CM o o X ■4- O' n h- X CO 43 CM in o -4- O' X pH O' in ■4- in i 1 f"- 43 X 4- CM 1 1 pH r^- X O 43 X X X CM CM CO X CM X I i in 4- o CM 1 1 X X X CO O' X O' •H pH n 4- CM H in X 4- O' pH CO X CM X O' X O' ro O' -4 O CO <\J o in roi X n cm n o o X X X X pH CM >1* O 4- pH ro co o H o O' pH v0 X O' X 4- 1 1 O r^- O' O o 1 1 4- m 4 1 X X r*- O >0 r- CO 4- O' in ro <0 1 1 lf> CM pH | 1 o 4- O CM O' pH pH O pH p4 n 4- CM CM ^4 CM pH pH l l I l i i 3 Z uj > 0 C X < HH X X UU z X u X X M X Z 2 CL - z < o X < ►— NH < < X HH < < UJ o -J CL 3 O QC X X o L— o X o QC PH X X l— 0^ O 3 < X 00 o t- ►H O z X X < < o o 00 2 COMMODITY AND AREA 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 0'04 0C'-‘in0''4oa5 04inG0F-<04OO45 004)O'45'4<-‘in45O'00 inrsioomPeOPPcomo'M.-i CD 04 -< ‘OcoOMUO'HON'O in‘-*0''4r'-04’'-'r'-'40000JOC'Oin co^r<5ro.-<45inP"-*4’ Xio > ' - oo'” | 45tnroi m N to N -i ^ o4m0'H5-*PO44'OOr<5ooo-f~-O' O04<\J-*r~0404f'in-JaD4'04—' in INi —i x x o rvj _4 in O (\J 00 x o O' in x o 45 O' x 00 in 00 4- pH H -> 45 p- X O' X o r^- O X j- ^H i~« x t—t 4- o o 45 o -o X X O' vO 45 o in h- r- NO *h O' O' in in o in O' o >0 X in X o o 00 in in 00 >0 (\J O' X 45 o in x in *n in n >0 0- 0- •h O' X O' O' in O' X p- x *H X o 45 x 0- pH ro ro x H X 00 00 ■o X P-4 p- 00 45 X *H in x p-4 H pH X pH oo 00 pH pp 0 - pH o > 3 - r- O' 00 in O' o pH h- in 6 - X 1 - o X P >4- O' X x o pH 0 - OO O' 00 'O oo O' 't 0 - 0 - X o O' X O' 'j- 00 X X -o X m i O' X O' O' X x X pH in ^H ■o 45 X 00 X fr 45 X p 4 oo 00 • 4 - 4 - oo X 4 - OO o- 00 X o in 4 - pH O' O' p- 00 45 'i- pH H 45 X o- sO X 05 00 X oo x o x pH X 4- o X o X O' o in 0- 0- pp o X X pH pH in C7> O' pH X in x o- in O' in pH in pH 0- in 4- X pp h- P*» o o X oo pH in O' 45 45 X p i 'J- r- 4- P pH X in O' o in X O' pH in r*- o © X H in IT' 1 l in X o o 4> 00 X 0- O' H 4- in ■4- X in in O' 4- oo O' X X X X 'O X oo 6- X X in pH X X >0 P—4 'O 4- oo 6- oo in PH X O' *h in oo 45 00 X rH O pH 0- >4 X X 45 >0 X X X 6- X >o x 45 o •4- in •c X pH X X 00 O' X 00 >4 pH o X pp X X © o r** pH Op 45 1 OO X >4 X O' O' o roi <4 00 X x in 45 o 'O X X ^4 X fr X o O' X p4 o X 00 X ro ro '0 in 4" X X •c in pH pH 4- 4) O O' 45 o X X X rH pH pH oo pH in oo X X X 45 X 45 pH pH P*- 4- X O' X 45 ^H X pH >4 H X >0 4- X in •4 X in pH in in X X X X X 45 r*- o r- O' >0 X in X 4- O' 4- X 4- pH X X h- X O' o X O' X X 4- X in o X o O' X X in X X X pH 45 X X X in 4- © 45 O' X X 4- o in pH X X X in f- X o X in H pH O' X 4- o o X 4- X O' Pp o in P- in X 45 X X pH p-4 X pH X 4- X pp X X 0* P- 0- X X O' in X X pH 4- X X X in X o X 45 X >j- O' X o X X X X 4- pH 45 45 4- 04 O' O o X X X X o o X o X X X X X pH pH o X P- >** X O' O' X 04 4- — < X X pH X pp X O' 0* X pp O' X 4- in o- pH pH o X r- X X X X 04 O 45 X X O' pH pH O' 4- o 4) X X 'O in o X O' pH 4- X X X o O' 4- in O 4- P- 0- O' 4- ■4 04 pH pH pH 4- pH P- >t pH X pH X 04 —< O' 4- X X X X 0- 4- X pH r £ < UJ o PH < < p oc o o PH X UJ PH z 2 a UJ X ac LU < a: o -1 cc X» O oC UJ UJ o »- u J o cc PH UJ < X U- ac o < LL X o 1-4 © 2 UJ •J < < o EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 >0 o v0 >*■ r- * (T) cn O' ~o CM 00 in —■4 M- xO <6 er\ PO co O O' 00 CO —■4 ~o 00 a0 CM 1 1 (M 1 I CM 1 1 O' O' o O' h- * •k «• ► p •» ► 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 1 • •* •» •i >o 00 o O' f- •J- 1 1 •"* 1 1 1 1 in in co CM cr h- o O' >0 >* co fO CO CO GO h- vO O' CM ao >i* sO PO ao m pri >0 CO •—< i-M in H co CM in PO r* ri rri o O' m >0 co CM ao ao >0111 1 1 1 r- i- O' 00 >0 •» *> ► •» •i • - 1 l i l l 1 •> • •» •k o h* *—4 <0 4* m PO ro 1 1 1 1 l 1 r* k- O' PO CO ao O' co PO PO r- vO in o ■o ao 00 ^4 o sO <0 >0 CO r- CO O CsJ v0 >0 in in in CXI CM PO r- 00 O' H —i CO 1 1 1 l 1 1 cn cn •—« in | 1 1 •k •> >0 ao cn r- in r- r- '0111 1 1 1 't CO CO O' CM O' O' O' H *-4 H H CO >o - 1 l (\j •— rvj cr o -O m ^ in in >o in vo o o r~ (M o >o l i •G ■4" -* CO m in m cm oo O' O' CO 00 *4* ^ h- h- 00 >t -t O C" O' CD 00 CM CM r-* i-l >-i M - in 0 o co —i •-> ao 00 CO oo 2 in cm m oo o O' ao I ro | l cn i 1 CO co CO O » » •» •» •» •» » i •» 1 i - i 1 • •» >0 h- •t in 'l' o -o in in i 1 >6 1 1 M3 1 1 >0 >o O' H h- H CM CM U 1^ 'O -o f-* *-i >4* *" 4 i i $>i O 4 O CO rM in in cm (nj so co cm m + \0 -o I oo-t't I I * * * * I l r» r- co co | (VI CM an a < ao UJ 2 UJ 2 UJ z: < CC - o < < Z) o o M* z: Q < X c£ X UJ 2 >— rM < UJ Q h- UJ < < oe: o *-* < CM k- < UJ UJ H uj j: k uj < « X p—« Q CM X *-4 Z a o 2 uo X z O U- X o z u 2 CL O a ►- z < o ui < k-«<- I •-< CM M) CO 4 I , m m> I in CM N- M3 M) ) » ► I CO PO j M3 mj O' 00 >0 M3 I *• I *—* i PO 00 00 00 CO I I I CM I I I I I I in in n- CM CM O I •—* I in I I * I I I CM I CM P- CO CM O' JD O o hoosn ^ ronjON I • - ► I CM M3 CM I 4 4 O' O' I * •* I CO 00 I I I I >0 <\l CVJ O' co CVJ >* M3 in M3 fO O CO cvj 0 O co 0 0 O' 00 <-t r>- pH cc CM CO CM O co 0 O 0 1 | «H pH | I O' 1 l 0 in .h CO 1 1 CO M3 O CVJ | 1 CM | 1 CM •* 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 • •» * 1 1 • 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 *h pH ao 1 1 4 [ 1 1 I I I O' PO ro r» 0 H pH r- r- co in 4 H PO 0 0 sfr m pH O' r- co pm O' co CM pH >0||| 1 1 l CO 1 1 co in pvj 1 -o l pH C\J in CM pH | 1 CM 1 1 4 •.jii 1 1 1 * 1 l • • 1 1 - 1 1 •> » 1 1 * 1 1 * M3 <>iii 1 1 1 CM 1 | CM (VJ 1 1 m 1 sO co 1 1 <■* 1 1 *-4 O' H H r*- f- N- in CM >* in CM O' 0 O' pH ^ ao CM O' 00 00 0 co 0 0 O cm in O' 00 CM O 1 z 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 O' 1 1 O' co >0 1 1 >t CM pH 0- CM N- O O 1 mil 1 PO a • III III 1 1 1 • » m • • 1 1 l 1 >0 ►- ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 nj pH CD h- | 1 1 1 a CO co pH pH 0 ■■>'1 ;l * ,! ! a: h» LU X CM o & CM a* ^ 1 * 1 i cm 1 1 1 1 1 1 O' CM I I CM I I * I I ^ o> wd po CM o CVJ CM CO pH 00 fH o in po ^ h co I cm 00 r«- 00 —1 I l I - ► t I I r- co II 4 PO co «— O' —* I I CON I N I I * » I » I | H CM I 1M I m 3 O' I I I I I I I I I m 4 in co n- ^ o po l in cm » I M3 CM -h in I 0 s • I I ► •> I r- po O CM 00 i-t I I I I I I I I I I I I 03 O' r-C I I I 4 — I I l/> a LU UU l/> < o LO -J w X cc z: < 3 a < UJ 0 z > rsl h» pH < UJ oc < u. 0 M 0 z lu -J < 0 co 3 : 0 z < -I z r<\i ^w^in^inNO'iriN-HiAmQOoairvjNNMocicO'ONmccir'fcoj- I ao—<-j<\ir-oci'r<'iao,ocof'~cof , -inf , ~h-4f- coof'>0( f 'ff'0'N^'t 0 'C 0 a 0 r-<\l 0044 O<'' 34 h-C 0 in0 4 4 -j -< 4 4 in <-> <* m + >0 « -t -O S >0 o <-i -* cn r- M3 o o 0 CO o O' o in H o f- 4 ro O' o in CM m o o vO 4 O' ao in CM CM O' 4- in in CO 4 O' in >o in CO CO 1 CM >0 in o H >fr 4 CO CO CM O' in H co GO O' CO 00 4- CM CM O' in O' >0 r4 CO in CM (M «o o CO 4 CM CM rH in CM ao H 4 CM pH O' co o nO *0 CM O M3 >fr O' CO co O' co 4 4 CO » «H in r*- o CO O' 4) -< o o 43 4 in vO >0 CM in r- in *H H CO CM CO o 00 O' CO 4 CO rH CM in m CM v0 •“* 00 in >t in co SO 4) M3 CM 4) O' CM cc 00 43 •-4 CO 43 o C* x0 pH in o O' in CM 4 P4 H ^ o c o o O' CM 00 >0 ao 4 CM O 4 in pH •-4 cm n- so CM r4 co co 4 4 4 4i r- in h- O' CO CO 00 CO H sO 43 O' CM H CM r-4 CM O' ^4 *■4 CO co H CO r- in ao in in in CO CM rH 00 O' CO 4 in —1 o O' 00 o 4 ^4 O 4 4 CM 00 o in r* x0 00 oo 00 4 O' CM CM o O r- 4 in CM O' 00 CM r- r*- 4 o O' CM H ■*T h- 00 4 4 (N 4 o o O pH 4 r*- rO CM O' ro 4 00 O CM r- 4 CO 4 o o in o CM o >0 4- CM 00 00 co >1* H CM 4 4 r- ^4 CM CO O' O' <\J in 00 00 co 00 h- in CO O' CM CM CM r- 4 m O' CM H 4 CM CM O' H H CM pH pH 4 H sO X* 4 O' 4 O' O 4 4 >t- CO O' CM H o CO o 4 O 4 o 4 O' •t a in M- CO O' \£> o o O' o O 4 H o 4 4 O' CO CO in O' O' 4 4 CM o> 4 ® pH o 00 -J" z 4 H H CM 4 O' ao 4 00 CO 4 4 o r- O' 4 O' o CO O' co O' o h- CM 4 CO pH o K o 00 00 CM CM m in co 4 O' CM in 4 r- o o 4 O' 00 ^4 4 h- in >o 00 f*- ao m o 03 00 4 in 4 O' 00 pH CM pH CM H CM pH co CO H u >fr pH E?l CM o o >0 pH CO pH >$- in 4 ao m sQ o 4 h- in 00 r-4 00 r- 4 00 in h- in 00 in pH rH o o oo o r- in oo CM CM in in in in CM O h- co 00 CO in 4 CO O' o cm r*- o O' •H pH CO h- vO rH oo h- O' CM in in 00 o 4 O' 4 00 00 CO CO o o M3 >T xT CM rH X* 4 4 CM r*- co in h* CM ro 00 4 CM h- in 00 o o M3 o co O' 4 co pH pH 0 > cr 0 “ 4 co CM H pH o rH CM CM CM O' pH CM H CM rH CM CO H H in 4 4 ^4 4 O' in CO r*^ pH cr in 4 o in O' o ^4 4 O' 00 pH O' 4 CM in sO O' CM o o CM sO CM M> 4 4 X± CM rsi 4 O' in ro co O' CO CM M3 O' pH ao o CM in 4 ao N- h- O in >0 o r- rH in sO O' in 4 CM 00 [CS o CM 4 4 O o CT' CM O' o ao 4 in O' pH 4 4 O o 4 in H m o CO pH in ro in O' M3 r- >t CM CM a r~ H h- r- rH pH pH h- r- CM rH CM o CM pH CO pH «H f- 4 •“* -"I < t- IU 3— UJ cc o 00 CL < o UJ O UJ < 3- QC CL - QC 5: LU 2 LU UJ LU UJ >■ P< z o CC cc 2T h- 3- co < UJ uj oo a: < z O 1—• • 3- < r* 4 ■rt I— j to O <1 i—I < ffl 3 — a; zi-ixo _i h z a j i < * 3 a. < HI o < 1—1 —* z o■ q o o n ^ ot < < ■—(-0t;a:OLUiJJUJ- a r* zu.o ON CNJ CO ON CNJ o m O' o CNJ m m cci O' O 0 o *4- O' 'j- O' O' ro CO O o o o oo 0 nO sO go o r«4 JD sO nF ^■4 o •F 1 4- -F 1 JD 00 H N r» «k •k •» •» *• » •» •» » •> •k ► | * * •k «k •* >0 (NJ CNJ o r*» •—4 o o 'F CO UN UN -■ 1 1 1 O SO O' O' CNJ CNJ co ^ H H co rM sO in UN O ^4 o- ^4 CO 00 o — O' sO o CNJ h- UN ro 00 CO >* rO *4- ro >fr O' ro ro CNJ O' CNJ CO CO !■» co C- CNJ *4* r^- UN O' <0 vO UN CO o UN O' a O' O 1 1 O O 1 00 UN ro cnj •k •k •* •> •k ■k •k •» •k •k •k * i «■ - 1 •k •k UD UN h- CNJ H O' o in co o 9 2 * CNJ ro ^4 H ^4 CNJ »-4 *-4 00 ro UN UN co O' CNJ sO o CO CO 00 -F o 00 o O >t * rO UN r- co UN co r^ O' UN r- O' ro co m o h- >t h- ro ro | CNJ ro >* CO o O c <0 >0 CNJ o O' r-* 1 1 ** —* 1 1 O UN ro cnj UN •k •» » » •k •* •k •k •k •k •» I 1 1 1 •k «k •k » >o *4* O' O' O' ro >$■ CNJ 00 ro ro O' 00 1 1 1 1 f-4 O ro h- O' CNJ UN ro ^4 ro H ro r-t r-^ *«4 'F r- «F r- CO UN m O' UN r- csj n- f*» H ro O' O' CNJ cnj CM O' o 00 00 UN o UN ,4 -F o O' UN ^-4 CD CNJ 00 UN m i (NJ CNJ UN r- UN rs) ro O' r- o ro O' 'O m i 1 ro cnj | l *-* O' O' «4 > UN l •k •k O* UN h- CNJ r—4 h- CNJ ro CNJ 00 CO i | ^4 j i 'O 4* m'£'Oo'UNo*inof**0'4' , - ( co'-"* I •—* _ . »»»»»»»•>«•» * * ► l * ► l rONvOOO^NNNfO O' CD •—* | *+ ~4 | O' fO H (N| fO h H N ^ H N (> f\i 00 oo o O O' w-4 UN 4* CO O m «~i cm <\i ^ ^ Sn *«i,. vOrflN^lftOOOONn^O'f'i' NNO^NM/N^sm-Jf*>01/' •o co co m m c\j <\l —I .-I 00 CO in oo m -o N CO O' O' OiriNN -H«j-*-*m*oao(\ivOf'-i'-vO'0'a-0MNC0 ($■ O' in >o o » •» » oo .$• m 00 QO OO tn UJ a a uj ct a 3 O ^- CL Z 3 < IU z UJ «1 i Qa _i z ui UJ x UJ : uj 3 »- ui oc • Q u) V) X « < t- i uj a l- _j < < O o IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, , QUANTITY BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 «/> o > > r* m z o o O 00 *n > c o 7) -H 2 > m 73 o f“ O -H o m m m 7> C 73 n o 2 c > J> HN —< > > ~ —i i» T1 m O Z H o □ z o X 03 *n o z -n IWC 00 Z o HZP 05 O "0 ~ X O -H N4 > m 7> —I X *—< m -h Z ac o m > m m m m •H 03 M 73 I> 73 z> > > 2 5o m — m so Z -i 73 r~ m > »— > is* X r~ 50 -h O * X X X a o ^ 1 -< r- r* ,_ m > m Z m m J> m > »-* m j> r* 73 2 c o z -c 73 73 z c 00 7? o > > ■H O 50 m X P" -< X -H •-* *■* Z n o c 5* X> 1 x> o r* O 2 > "O 50 n z r* -H > t/i m o z o c m > > ■0 ff) 00 X oo > 50 X m o m z m m O X o > 73 2 03 o “T1 ^ vji ry o oo Ul H w O u « (MM^O^^NO ►— ►— <— (JJ Ui O' I ►- po^'^'PO^'-j'jioJO'Wf'orvJo I « « • I vDOOvO CD "»4 CD VJI -^(f'-CN'0>flOW0'0‘a<'0J<'W'j i- >- ro * »> vji O' r\j-JvjiM~40''^'vw^'^'*-H*o yj ^ vji i— ^ cd I f h -g w ff 1 m yJ'O.f'-J'OCD'OCD >ONOwwy)^'“'ON |- off'»w^*' 0''j^'0^rou)0'NijJUJ'»'N)'£^o^ HO»^Nff'y''0rv)0'i-«iHy\^M<> H N O ►- O' O -p- O oO'OiMryoa'Oui h - 03 03 0" -0 >D PO rvj ro ro CD ro VJI O Ol ^ o »-* ro -0 -H o O' 03 VJI H O' 03 * ro ro cd vO ro O vr r- 03 -0 Z o 00 INJ o ro H- O' ro ->4 ■O vD ►— 03 03 ro sO ►— 03 VA > .P i- - o o vO CX> yj O ro ro 03 03 03 ro — > ro .p r-* 03 00 >o ►— I— ►— 1 i e- 03 -p ro •p »—• ro o 00 00 *• o O' y> -T O' O' ro *o ■P O' • -j 03 VJI CD 03 03 H- ro CD o o ro O' «0 -3 ^ vn 03 vO O' ro O' *— 0 s 03 OD ro VJI ■p -O vO VJI ■P >C v 0 sD ro ro O' P -P u> -P OD vO ^ ro 03 o O' vO O' r— VJI -J CO o ro 03 ro ro VJI »—• 03 H- 03 OD NO sO »— t— f- - 1 l *- 03 ro O 03 ro sO vO —J -> ro O' ■* VJI O' «• *• « « I <• <• «• «■ «• « m « *• « «• <• ■+ <• VJV o o 03 -0 ro 4 s i 1 \j\ vO 03 !\> I\J -f' O' ro 03 VJI -0 vO OD sO o O' N> 03 cr O O' NO 03 r\3 03 03 -O ro -4 -0 -o 43 OD o O' O' 03 00 >— o o o O OD OD ro OD ^ -J -0 ro OD ^ 03 03 SO O' O' •vj >— p- vji •—• ►“* yj%o o ►—i— f— i— | f— yj yj WOOW^H-g^^-^O'^O' „ « « , I . . - ««««<•«<•«<■••<••• O'OO'Ji® vji-4 I ®i'j-y®vjly)'JiC'''J >- ‘'00'0®'0'“® .g Vj, _f» VA 00 vO«jyj|'0CD-4>O'J’ MOJMONMf-NO'-tBvOM^cni-'C >-* u> -P I— p- O' r- M -P I— M rvjo-^W'jO'wciJM^wiO'O' o i— -j 0- >— on ff' 0 ^wMyiHui®roOi- 03 jiff'ODCT' I i\> cd >o ■> co ry -o -gro^OMh-ocnO''OuiO'iOO^^a ^-gODVjV'0>* - 03fV3VJlODO'OV/V'£*03«$*'^JVjlV/lO'03rorjVJVvOO TABLE 6—CONTINUED IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES. QUANTITY BY ORIGIN, 1961-67 1961 lq62 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Q'OrsJf-«oc?'c\jau(\jir\>oom Orornco*— fO o CM PM ocMoocft^oovoo^^CMmcMmcom m^®N43fO'0^)'OO^NNH I m <4- m —« > 3 - h ro o h >o «> » •* in c\jaOsnrvjmroo N ^co>Ofnoo^ro^5>ooooco^-iry^mf\j(\im»-4>tromfno r ^.^^ L nir>NtcriOo^-vO'Om^cra'r^ccsONtooLnLnrof\jinoom^ O ^ O' LT\ ^ «—« •—I H H vO H f\| H »-M CO ^ *“ 4 *— 4 *"■* ^ in Moo^cof^'tKO'a'OH^h-fficoN*-‘'0't't o>i'4 , 'tMOO'OOi^r^oO'Coccicoi^'0'0't vO CD 00 >0 0 4* f* •—I f\J H IA »-< H (M H ‘ ^CMAfO'Ch-COh-ffi^^ QOOfOC'^OOOa'H 00 4* H H O ^ H f\J l*“ in cm *-« m *-< co h* m i^ r\j h rsj w m m >r n »'• i- ^ w ,v ^ - inr^^incMO'oom^4fn>ocnfvjO'0'£)fMmr-^4>oo , *^cna'mr^coinfM O n h sO m in cm cm m co m cm —• cn ^ O' co ro h ^ in m 2 Q m^r^h-fn^HO'oo<\ioc>tcMo min'4-nj^>j-oo>j-roa's0inin ^ ^ (\j m m m ^r-r^inror^a'^co — >i*fMf^h-^coa'f^in OHHincoinMoD^'00(ni , o^o^ H & »■* cn h iti >}• ffi M m m * •* T in o *—i oc LU fnmincoHfMonjinfo>fNco>tfn^in^f*-N®^^in©in- j MODGOO^inHfnFMH CMCM'O*— f-< | cr OCOMCOh*t'OOOI OCM^sOCMCvJCMOCM 4- 't ^ nj cn m CM cn>oo^NfO(Min^ , HCr'McvjNO'^iAO^’m o>t^'0'tOf\]0^f\jinNj*stincocoNt^inro rs-sQ-^vo»-t m r^pnr-mininr^ooor-p^ pnfMf w C0f\J'D’4'>0»^ CO m m *$■ cn l cm m CM LU ct ►- oo 00 a < z UJ O a UJ uu -J UJ a: < UJ ac 00 LU z a: 3 ac UJ o < > UJ z LU z UJ >- H £ Q z X. -J X QL X >- p-^ < LU < CL < ►- UJ a: - *- < < H- < X -J 3 0(^coirNCDfOfnfo>tfoO'OCsjcocr'a''tMnNh.N«4'a‘CD*Ho^ir meg ha'000t’C 0 N 0 DfOh- I e- re f^^ P ^^Qvaor^i^g - ' 0 ^^ro 4 , f^NfM^vOieo' -.Deg*—'egmcMaoo I ** o 0 gr-ce>ta'rOvO 0 'C 0 rM' 0 eg>*->*F*>*>*cDegin>DfecM>O rvi re o 4* NN M N CO -* m —< ~4 » *■ (M —• o >o CM 4- eg in >0 in n- •* — 4 o 45 vO 00 45 4- e- O' 00 o in re .4- 00 re eg eg O >0 h- h- >o re in re 00 eg 00 re -j- 4- o O' in re f- in eg O e- o O O o 4- m O re in in 4- in in 4 - >0 >0 eg in h- •4- r** (\l ® o o 4- >0 O' 1 1 1 * 00 o in eg 00 o re 00 O' sO re o ^4 eg re 45 >0 4- eg eg —4 re ■4- ro re re i 1 O 00 4- re in in o re o in eg 4- o m in oo eg 4> >0 *4* re 45 eg re O re eg eg ea GO e- re eg ao p—4 in H F"4 CM >o o 4) in <0 re f-< o o F^ O' 00 O' r- o O' 4- O' f4 4^ O' O 4- ® h* >t re in O' 00 e* e- >* H r- o ^4 re 45 re 4- o re re r- eg 4) a- h“ c o oo e* 4- o 4- e- o O' in in ao f*- 4- eg 4- O' ao 4) O 45 in O' re in HJ Csi *0 o O W r- n- «o o >0 in f"4 o> in 45 O O' O' •-4 re r- 4- 4) 4“ 43 >r m O' eg in *-4 O eg (M ® eg O' re e- in h- O' 4- eg 4- O' in o ^4 eg re 4) eg eg m eg re o eg re «-• rsj ^4 m ^4 in H H f4 O' re 4- O' 00 r- 4> in 4) ao O' eg re re 4> 4) eg O' 00 o 00 f4 eg re 45 o 45 4- eg eg fH 4) >o r» o O' oo it ^«oo7^ >t ® ^ (fl o 4>4"r—0'4>ror<'if-,Mf)45aoin45 -J-CO^®aO-'f'JmO'45r^r'-<''J<\l (<5 —* f~ 4" •“* in in 4- o o r- m h- 45 00 eg 4- r- O' 00 re 00 O' e- H in O' eg O 00 re e- O' e- o in 4- O' o eg o 4) eg 4- o e* f«4 eg in rsi eg O' re re ^4 eg (M oo re e- 4- O' 4- H CO r- a: 4- 4) 4- o eg 4) 4) O' < O eg O CM 00 o >fr in eg -J -J o eg re O O' eg f4 4- O' o f4 O' 4) eg 4- re CD re o o m e- re OlflOOM NN^oa^m-j' O ® ^ ni *4 (11 O' ir ^ n n w <0 «*■ e- O' o >0 O' re 45 h- rn 45 r- o o O' o 4- ^4 o in ^4 00 in m f- 00 in h- eg eg ® eg 45 (M o 4- 4- O' O' in re O' in eg O' m re 00 o 00 45 eg 45 45 eg eg 45 ^4 f4 m eg eg ao H rft ^4 f\J CO re CM *-4 g- in s ^ in o m 4" n eg e- in r-» re O' oo in 4) 4- 4) re a in eg o eg o O f4 O' (*■ m CO re r- eg eg 00 O' O' 00 eg 4 m ce 00 N in 0 s ^ in -t in eg o 00 e- 4 o s O' e- in o 4) o 00 in re eg in nj in o l\J 45 00 eg oo o sO o eg g eg N ^ F—4 4- f4 O' h- o o O' in in 4 f4 P4 4" 4- ^ e* e- eg e- 4" (M 4- o eg m in fM 4- f- eg eg 45 re o re O' in •—4 H re eg 00 O' CM f4 h- H H re 45 re f-» in m 45 O' f-4 (M CO H N eg 4* re re o in r*- m O' o> rg OO h- O O' oo r*- eg re g^ ce f-4 in eg f4 o NNN F-4 CM 4- >o >0 a eg eg 't re in in 0 eg o re N - 4 h- O kO » •» ► » » •* •» * •» » •» •» •k •» •k •k » » F « •» •> O' eg eg O' oo e- o o o ^ e* in f»4 eg O' sO o 4- <0 -• O h- 00 o >0 re CM >0 e- cm m in O' in CM eg eg in eg 00 45 ^ O >0 45 F—4 F—4 eg in re in re •4 0''0<*500®0'inrr> N-»hOW^OO'N (fl N ® O ffl »< x m Diia^i r> o 2 z o < uj _j z < *- oc lu a I < _J X 3 O X > _i *: a lu >- o£ Q O 3ujz oc a; > z iu O Z X Z Z MOOUl << LUPVIIUZ r* -t r> «/i ti > 50 2 O I T1 O 2 — > m -< X > ► > ;o m -h 50 2 C i— O 50 m 50 X (/» n m 2 O o c O 50 •H X m m 50 c 50 r- O X •n m O Z-IO o ® H 2 « OTIfflOD — I o o x > m -h m ^ m m —< o « >— -( > 50 > r- m > M- ■M -h i r- Z 2 Cl O x 1 -< r- m -< > O — m m 73 2 m C I/) ^ N 03 f\) -»J OB sn O' ►- rvj oj so oj ►-

OW^'U''00>“>-00 | Ul sn .p ui >o «j yiw ■o sn oo .p ® i\> 1 tl L^l f\) O' O Sn ^-ff'OOO-JOOOOO'ODj'-J^'^UlIVvO ^O'WH-^WNNO^aBO'ffl^u' OON'IhNN^W'IOJ''I>''I»' ■P -P VJ1 ■flB'MHUJ HN-JhOW .f- ►- UJ 'O -P l» ■PWO'VJI'O'OVJI'O UJ0>»— OBO'CDU'UJ o o o »—* P- P— o p- a ro 0D 00 o >0 »— -4 '■O H H N ® r~ r- O' gj -P ISJ -P SH •4 0D p- p- > O -J rsl ■>£> o> o vji ® 50 o >o .P >— ■P -J >0 -«) 00 ■J ffl H ifl M'JtO'sO*- 0 1 OB OD U) .P OD -* fsi ro ^ -f- N W O' >— -P o O »-u)-psn-P'jirs>-P~J')o)-POrjrj-o »-*V*^U)IS)SflSn'POVJ>l»>>a^OUI-4 h-r-UjOO^WOD^'O'OC'U'CD^^ rvjOJ^jrviCDvjio^ooD-goJ^oorsj^^ f\J \j> *- ►- -4 fNj ^4 ^ f— OJ CD p- «4 U4 «4 -4 gj gj >0 -4 ro NON sO -4 1 VJ1 sO S0 V-T ^ O ^ ^4 o N ^ O' p- ^ ro ro o ►“ -J rvj gj *0 ^ gj gj -4 •4 rsj m -P O' oi p- O' ro Oi •p gj \J> 00 ^ O' M ^ £ o p- v* ^ o N 4D V5I O V* P— M *- «• « « H vO sO N N »- M QD N H ■4 CD 00 Ot 00 ^ ro gj ro O' o .p gi »-* •4 o gj gj VJ1 .p ro •4 gj -4 VJ1 ■p gj gj 00 O' o CD g> cr ro OJ gj -4 gj gj O' -£> -4 o o gj P-* .p v-n O' OD p— gj gj cr o O ro ro

>— »— « «• • 00 O \jl H H ^ N O' 00 O' 4h^ 37 40 gj ro CO 39 30 16 99 r- * vn ro ro 153 L961 •t «• «• «• m « «• — <• «• ro gj VJl p— O' -4 o v-n IS) *4 ■P sO c ** vO 03 *4 O' u> gj ro ^4 O' -p nO o VJ1 ^4 00 gi O VJ1 o 00 gi gi ro 00 ■p P-* o •4 EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES 0\(*.44^.®®^ino'^O(si( , nf4ini'<"i«"4®tn®oO' 0044(nf4.o.-4®®f < '>»4(siQ<®®®44t s$- (SI (SI CO >$• o^Hcomh-^ U> lO N H N »t S O' O' m co co ^ o> •f <0 om —* 0 *4 44 44 *4 —• (M (Nl 44 -t 00 >t *0 I CD Cl (SI (SI (SI on O' CM h- r- CM 00 CM si- ^4 in O CM O *■4 0 00 O' CM h- O O' (SJ ro CM •4- h- sO O' © h- CM >fr CM CM O' 0 0 O' CO O' O 00 r*- <4- 4- >4* »-4 in in CO CM h* in g- h 0 >0 CO LTV in 0 CM H in h- >0 CO m ■* \TS 4- in O CM HNIA 0 0 in H O f-4 >0 O' in h» ■a CO \f\ O' ro ^ in m 4- 0 O' CO O h- m «t CD vO < <4- (SI CM 00 O' < eg •4- co CM h- in *■4 H •■4 ^4 CM CM H 0'in-t-4v00'if>®fO(oir>ro0'(Mv0Sy0( f imi'(\iOrfU'OOOi/\00N or-NJOtON oon'tioo o n o 1 ^ >0 h O.-4Ci<-iCi0'f-p4 (SI O N ^-1 CM sO (SI INI -4 US *-4 »-4 »-4 (SJ 4j in *j- -®®i*-®©inci.*'0(sici>o^'0'(siin oo-4m®0'-<-(04 - ^-H'0^ , 0'0'CT>(n(M^h-o® 'J’N>0 H 0''tlOH>tM'0'0'< , K'ON'0Ol0(0N(J «• *»**►*►►*►•**•►** w* ornrnr^in(M^-m^isj^- >*■ >ooifi^ 0 '>oeoo( 0 (o>i , «^®i f i^'^ 0 '(siino'^ ® O' ® (si >o >0 -< fsi®o'®<*’0'®®0' + o on SlOJ'NONOOSrt^^'ONin-tNOO'tll'H't I (MMO S O H • * *>>••> • »»*»»»»••*! » » • ► O' o < < o ® ci vO(Ohij 1 "IONiohio 1 (sjm »■< cs ,$■ ,$• r>- m —> ci —4 i-4 (si (si « © O in (si O' O' ^ O ^ ® "4 ® (SJ 10 ro 10 in >t •> •> •> • H »4 44 (0 LL 0 a < •» 3 0 O 0 H4 ® X <£ < •» X 0 LU HI LL UJ O UJ 1- X SC X - X > _l < a: UJ > sc O 44 UJ h- « X a: 3 UJ z a£ — > Z LU O Z 3 Z 0£ D < UJ *-4 U < >- UJ ® < UJ NJ UJ z < UJ Z < UJ eg -J > 1 X O Z X _J X 1- X Q »- 1- SC SC X *- _l X UJ K H < -J — 44 uj m ® a: < z < < ZQ^ < 44 ^4 UJ UJ CL UJ l- UJ <30 2 3 Z h V) UJ uj a. 44 X *- UJ UJ < a O iautou-OMZ 1- < Z CO LO 3 i/> 3 O X l/> IL z u u. > x 0 z ® Q Q i- O hi u. < k- 44 < < 1 — 44 < < UJ X O _J Q£ SC UJ UJ UJ O 1- 0 «l O SC 44 UJ I X 0£ 03 < IL lOU)- 0 M O z UJ -1 < < a 0 0 00 X £ flMtC o a » > h n i/n im-PO sr n -i o „ . _ > — -< OIHOZHI/iI > m -i x 75 J» > Z X o m z O pm o COX) •H z Itl m 73 73 f" o z -n m O -H o o C V) 00 Z 1 z — *n o 73 X o o zct o > m -4 m 75 m ►— mm rn 70 -H > 7J > > pm — i ^ H G X. I f 3 z z *m* m m m r» m -< J> o m O m Z -< 75 Z m 7) z 30 r* -< ** m z x r- j> O > o —• > z > •H z z vp i— •— *■* 45 r«o ^ IV) yi W 00 M *■ U) •-®iv)v»).*'.f'iv)»-vz'-*'£ m^on)vO-o^’“0-40' \JI O- vO f'J ►* w | (0«H I *“* \j> O S- w 06 *- * -4 >- IV) I • I o>on W'flo J N N .*> VP -4 UJ ►- m VX-4VJl-^OUJ'CW-«il MNOhUIOOIM'I -n m «• ►- X OJ 03 V0 “0 rs> so f^o inj OJ o O' o «• «• • «• • r— y£) H O O O' v)IV)0'IV>4'»-V4'0 T1 t/> V)-44'VP* - V»I')0 o “n > o 73 O C r >- rv> vr >o r c ^ >0 IV) O' v» \J\ 0 s -H 3 « ro c c H 4 O' ►> PC ^ OJ 30 * -4 IV) O' 00 -4 VP f- a> > r 4 > 4> UU)I 41 o VJ1 »- r— j o 4 o • «• z : o Z r o O r o O tm* * o *■* -i: S' O' CD CD o s0 ^ i 43 oo rv) o o N) r~ O' m r * • • « « « r* 03 (/> r ►— VP 00 ►■* -4 O -4 >C > « 4- IS) 'O *“ ►“ o 73 ■ O' W m o -4 v0 -0 0D */> < 1 > 1 VP & CD \J\ O' VP vO IV) 00 * vp rv> •4 ■c — 00 M O >- O' VP IV) I roro'-'J'W O lJ^ro>-\OW^N^>fl'<03NUIfO^O _^,-i-.rv)»-iv)0'0'-4vpaovp©0'v*>'0^'U’"*' a> -< l“ O' *- ro oj o- *- VP -4 00 45 or o- w -4 as -4 -4 rv) -4 * vp vp oo R ** 7* £ 2 £ £ °“ CD >0 >0 O' • VJ1 03 CD TS3 I O' ►-O' -4 0 ^ 0 s ^ ^ ^ w O ^ "A ^ ass 1! Hlsf^5Sl33BlS*s2s*5 <- IV) rv)^*—►-n-O'OJi— — O' O' rv S' vp 00 l— r~ v/i o M n- oo 45 O' -4 00-4 •4 )• O Ol ►- —* IV) VP OD p- I (— rv)-40 >— 4- -S' O' ■P' vjiu) 0 )O O' oo ►- O' rs) DiOJ'f 0>>cvniv)H- , u)0'4'Vj''J O00O43lv)[V>Ou)4'vP *? eg <\j H eg p-4 o >0 in ^4 >*• 4- 00 re eg in (\j co h n h- in O' •o ■o o e- r- in <0 v0 (\j rg eg in O O' re pe O' m 0 eg (\J r- eg in s0 >o eg *■ o >* eg eg in co O' eg i 1 oo o »—4 in e- 1 1 O' o 00 re oo i- fw •k •» •> » •k •* •k •» •> * •* * 1 • •k ► i 1 » » •k •» r- >o eg (\J e- H CO o eg re co rci 1 *h in I 1 m co eg O' 'O in eg H eg in o >* O' ki- 4- eg in o O' re ^4 in in ee oo sO 00 4- 03 CO 4- fH ^ rfl *fr l 8 4 re eg 00 ^4 o O H O' O' O' re re >o O' eg eg 00 o eg 4* e- f- O o 4- re cr\ —■4 >C CO O' <4" h- H e- r- o f\J St* ^■4 H NO re e- eg o o eg >o re in O O' O' CO | 1 o o CD o •» •k •k •k * •» » «k •k *• » •» » » •k •» «k •> l 1 * * ► fk v0 e- in in >0 *—4 00 eg eg eg eg h- co re ^4 re -4 in l i -a- -4" H O' e- >o ee eg k4* h- gD re eg h- in ^ m o> H eg co in >o O' re oo oo p- 4 in o O' O' ee O e- in 00 h- O' O' O' sO re 4 N O' CO H «t re re re in o —• in in 'O m <£ 00 eg in <4- O' >0 t fH eg h- (M 03 in oo m m 4- sO —4 H O' -o eg ^4 r^- in co oo O' eg pH pe ee m co m in O' 4- m r~ O' O' ■o n0 O' O' m so ® r^- pg oo in 4- 00 >0 in >r in o re » » F » » » •» •k » •k co -j in nj in pg o —4 >0 o P- O' eg f4 eg H p-4 in o $■ >*■ ^ in 0-4 O' O' O' >0 CNJ | * i 0 O CO -t ^ h* *■< Pe **4 in in h- ro oo 00 oj in O' co oc C* N 4 N < O F- >0 4- fO -J F F <0 -J J3 00 O' o in 4- —4 a ooo vO ^ O co h >o in o CNJ -4 1 O O' N o ^ O' ^ m * CNJ inmaspo^o'MrMnHO'O' o> * on* s m n o e- co e* pe e>J ^ O' I I ► * I eg co in >* *h so <0 o 4- in <\l (M 00 f\J -I 0 oo pe eg re eg oo O' re >0 eg no re kD 0 v oo pe in pe oo eg pg so ^ c- o ao co 0 *H co co O h- h* O' in 4- O 1 1 ao oo fj eg >D eg •> | 1 » fk » «k » •k Pk • 1 1 « » sD m i 1 -4 in eg eg pH h o m pe o pg f<3 1 1 CM CJ O' re re H pH H e- fo^iNcoinccicomcMCJ CO fN 0- IN 4- CD in m r~ «o h- eg eg eg 4* O O eg re in OC--Hro4 , in(N(NinU' (N 4- O' 4" «t ao «J3 Csl ^ sO O' O' e- in in *h o l 1 O' 4- C“ O C- CT> -u I tj in ru o o> o CM »-4 >* | 1 eg eg »h pH O •• | I F F F F F j F F F F F F F • • 1 1 • • —4 1 ao oil O' fh c- 1 l n -h m oo co 4- pH | | H pH pH re tN r* HI o z cC frH 3 2 a 00 03 < X UJ U. UJ a O X CO < 3 o h- < -J Z a < o 1 < _l z UJ NH X > -1 < < < X DC 3 UJ z — > O UJ -i U < >- UJ 0 £ < 3 >• re X < O z z _J I H* X J- K H < o -I <1 CL ^ h- co at oc f-4 < UJ uj oc. UJ 1- UJ -13 0 o X z a o co I- < o UJ aoauj O 3 z uj Z V- < z o. u. UJ uj o a <■ < z _i o o -i — > oo >- a; o •— uj t- Z O aC 3 ZcC 3 < < X < UJ Z < UJ inJ-J a: x o o - ji _ w . ooceujza:IO^ZOC i a KUJ ooc-ujx < U.WUJ- J «X < o o £ ££* »■ O' tn «O (A *< h* ft* O' AJ o Crtr'oorfir\5'-o ^» —i .A - A IA a i .Q ^ Q ^ (\J H n •rf- ia O' o ia cu O' m m »-4 sO » •» » » • >0 00 4* CVJ O' O' r- h- «o •■4 CVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ t*fAa'lAr\Jf\lf'-lAf^ft*OOCOft*tAtOfA •d-_taOft*rAtf''-*(MIA O' lA O' O' 00 .* ~ ~ 0 O' in N N O O'* m m fA fA H CVJ CVJ f\l 0 CVJ CVJ O' ec o *• m oo * O' O' O' co o n* cvj m < 00 4- h* •>•»» •» •t » vO _i >0 m *4 H Qv a 4 fH O' O •■4 *-4 O o CVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ Ifl-tOOmiANUlf-OOMOOOOOBIA lA O O (M O' H 00 •-* tfr A- O O <■* A- .* t* 1 f\l f* «D fA CO » *•»«’» •» at ft « ft S H N •< O O' ft* <"* ft* ft* O O O O' <\i (M (\l ft* IA f'rtOrfO'M'O-t'tlANNmaJJ- •A vO fA sO IA fA O IA 00 sO N IA fA rt 00 CO O' IA S rA-O 00 IA f\l ■> ft It ft ft ft ft ft »•* O O' ® ft* •* ft* O' O' oo oo I>1 UJ a: a: < o UJ UJ Q£ Q LU z <* Q o a < < 2 O UJ K < aC 0. « z Q < U ^ 3 o u z LU ft* LU oo — H- < z a o 3 a < UJ UJ z UJ LU •J > 1 2 H OC z K- CVJ < •* UJ oo < < oc < M UJ «z>- UJ x h UJ < ■- o o lauhai/) x Z a U. X O z 00 o O ft- o LU U. < ►- ■* < < H- ft* « < LU z o _J 0£ 00 UJ LU UJ Ot-O 3 a OO ft* LU X z K oo o 3 < Ut (/) U 1- o ►4 O Z UJ ftj < < a o u l/> X SITC 022 - MILK AND CREAM '- l ' 0 O(< 10 'H(f|«) 0 DWM- 0 l*' 00 in 00 ONh-NfoinO'J - ooo^ocT'ooi^ifipri 4 -o''tt ns -h (sj«j-st«spHO.-j< 7 '(sjO't'~>±us(sifH-o(si®us®®nsos. 3 -f-r—r^w —1 ® p- o' 0 s ns r^OpHrsiir\pHns®usosrsiO'>j-us®,ooO'(\iir\C'-ns®(sivOir\0'0' o m -t o O' m > 4 -if\'OCT'iriroir»rrir~m--ip->}- 0 'if»(j'o- 4 --^' 0 -vominoo'^ i •j-irirom os us (\i ns *0 ^ pH m (SI 0 'ph«Sph^i-phph(sjph{sj.hos(sjos pH ns I I -o OS P -4 ir'inooooj'OmO'rsiooisjP- oor-rri'Ousff'if\ 44 - CT'CT'ff'^- copo( 4 S>o^'' 0 (sj'Op- 4 incDr^ 0 '>or-ooh-r~(sj>- 4 > 0 (sifo 0 '(\j' 0 - 4 r*(sj PlOOlOfflH^-imooOOOlAM't (^oO'On(MO+r“Osom't>Op4p4 KU(\Na 5 HN'fHpJM(\j- p (SI ph lf>J'mN 4 , P-'tOOp 4 iANNOOSOOlft' 0 ' 4 M*lNNp 4 ^NOp 4 (MO OSOO’ J 00 'tONfO®(»SON'tONN'OSO'^H(MMp^^>t aO(siususOrooif'ir\pHpH>j-®(sins®®>t' 0 {sj>cn-«j-ir\ 0 'osnsusrH ® (SI st -O’ ao ns -t mH (\JN-4-4p4p4lMOfflp4N I nwo i O US OS US >0 O 00 us CD —4 NON •» rsj 00 in cn o ns < us fO -J ■k vO _J in o O' o h- m o o o o -fNj>j-m(X)H^co 4 tstNOirco^fOPOoMr\vOON>t(\js hhh^n 0'tvO'OHryjMirNvoofnNO'ooHa'^oo>tcoa‘wa'^^ o o n in ^ ^Hino'^so'' 00 'N^a'' 0 ^ooa'NO' 0 ^o*tocoN^®^fn t o ^ CSJ o in >$• m —< r- —• *-< >o ^ (NJ I PO o i CSJ M ' e pgaoNO^NIOhNO'OSmO'ClA't'tl'ONCOPOHO'-iO'HO -!PJPPlAp 4 ®-lPJNO'l'0 O' eo psi us oo ao r- -4 OS «fr pH OS 00 I pH PU (SI rvj' 0 -o®pMO'p*cocoo®«susaoaof'-us- 4 'pOus>ousNOosrsiir\'Ous pO-pH(nuspHpHor>-pOus(sjus p p p p ► p p - - - - - p - p -> © t (si ph 00 ns OC . _ M UJ Z UJ * UJ _l X P- I- CC I- X I®U©2«4 < ►- < < I— PH UJ O *- ■ * ■ -- EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 vO®moo< , ncofnf''0'0'0'ft*ft* oo (M 4vOin^o4f^-oinr00 in 00 .* 4 ft* >* I I I ! 1 > i i i f 9 ft* «t h- 0^4 00 co o 00 m ro in O' h» CM in 4 O' 4 CNJ »•* sO h- CO O O' i* (9 o O in i i m so i i m (NJ <4* rg in 45 in i l * 4 • i i » *> •» » » i i * i 1 1 <6 m , | 19 >0 >0 (NJ *■4 0 oc m < fO PO -J •» 4) -J O' o fNJ H 000 D O' f9 -* ir\ I (9 O' 4- *0 ft* f- 4 45 f9 f- r* o o O' fO h- ft* ft* m m OO 4" <9 pft co •* 4 fO 4 fO O in O' (9 o 4 >0 <9 (9 in 19 | 1 m i 1 oo 4 4- 1 » » » * » •» I 1 l 1 » • fp» f* m m m 45 45 1 1 l 1 -* -* 1 l l - l 4> in r- m ^4 •* in O' 4) 1 4N 1 1 -o (9 ft 1 1 » * 1 i » 45 4 1 14-01 1 4} O' *4 H (9 oo in 4 oo o 4 m o» C9 o^ooo^meoj'N*^) oor~incOfn>o®f^'T o » • « » » •» 00 o f\J h- f\l 4 >o ro m cm h- in in h- •ft (NJ Q UJ -J -J 4 o z ft* z X < QC < 3 o ft* UJ UJ Q UJ 1— * X QC •ft 1/5 O O Ou < 4 < UJ < < z «x ►* o£ uj n •- a 4 Z Q UJ o < -1 * 3 _l > o U — 2 X ** > _J SC oc UJ >■ l/> >• «1 a o Oft* h- < 3 a: uj Z QC ^>UJQ Z o O oc -1 3 Z Z 0£ 4 UJ o <£ UJ 4< NUJ Z < Z X «1 i/) UJ 4 4 UJ _J >- 1 X z x x X 2 1- I- OC X < o o o -J -J X H < «x 0£ H- Z CX ft* ft* UJOC JUJZO 0C UJ Z 4 4 a£ 4 UJ c£ UJ UJ 4 UJ o 2 Z l- UJ O 9 3 3 UJ oc ft* X v- UJ O O I a u u. O Z 1— QZ«3 i/i o a. o x > I — IL Z U U. X O Q h O UJ u. < t- ft* 4 4 l- z O -J QC 0£ UJ UJ UJ o 1-0 JO z »- 0CO3 4 o ** Q Z UJ -J o 00 2 o o o > » HOWH I m _ *» o m i» i» -* -h 7 z n i mCrsi-H2im> m -h m m > 73 Z m m « m Z -H > 73 > * •H X 0O3MO J X r- X X i m m > x Z m m > m *< > m 30 C 30 O o 2 73 30 z X 5 »-4 73 ■< m 7 r~ -< > o O (- C * & o M O J> -o 07- z > M m < O z o m TP > "0 c> i/> * m o - o J> Z o o 30 m > I l I l I l l i i i i i i i I l l I I I l I lilt O' CD NSSCDW«' - 'I Ul i\> ro o o »— N) (S3 •#> l ^ O' o CD M O M o r— *0 1/3 o ■n ■> ff> 7 p—• O c m l- c 1 O' ■H 7 1 r>j c o fO ISJ UJ I v» 7 7 H O' 00 N UJ > m rs> O vji -j o r 1 » z Ml>| ! ! I ! I I I I I I OJ I I ijii i i i i i i i i i i I o o r r- 1963 -H H 30 *•* > m c (/»rr M Ul W 1 1 *• > « vO O vO O 30 > -J -C' 'JD IV) < > I UJ v>) V*» ^ -T- |\) (SO OD OD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OJ & O' v» O V>) sO I I I I I rs> u> ^ l ^ \0 O' CD r- ISJ I I l\) i— isj isj ^ I I i— f* l\> I CD CD O v/i ijj OD •#* till UJ ISJ U> -J 00 0>W I I UJ OJ I ^ O' O' ' ** rsj O' l I I I I I cm cm m CM O' Off'o •-I CO O' N I HW * I » - o I o oo ■4- 00 O' CM m in o fJONO ffHO ■4- CO .4- CO CM e'¬ en I | I I I I vO I I O' CM O' 00 00 00 rg H 00 o LA f—< m f- o C- CM vO r- >0 sO LA m m m -o f- •4- f*- 1 1 ft- O' LA *—< O' f*- m 4* m O' eg o s0 •* 1 I " *■ •» •• •• •» •ft >c *“< 1 1 -* o LA (\j H H sO 'O eft O' cn in h- O O in —i on rH h- in i I -4 CM —i r-'tO'Occi'Oin-JO'-H i CM —I CM -J eft ^ o o r- NO | | A A •4 ► i 1 •> » 4 COvO'O— 1 ^—lOO't'HO-Jr-CM CM (M O' me-'-rfCMCMinin^e-O' i > 00 a •-« A O' o ro rg eg sO A >* O' A A A O O' QC 00 'tNO H 4 00 (fl h- 00 m rg m 4- A O' A —< » < H >fl N (NJ f\i O' r- h- A >t cr h- r*- o >o 00 m _J •ft •> •> •k •k •k •k •ft •• UJ >0 -J m m h- A •4 rg H rH M O' o oo co cci cm in > I H(.| .1 <‘-minCMCMO'f'inO'C«1'O00mr'.eftm-4m'0'ff'^0^0'^-ff''0'HNrOir''0[MO -ftCM'4—i'Oinin- -J X a: uj C£ o o *-< »— < O a: 3 UJ 2 Q£ a: >• UJ Q z> 2 2 a: ■ UJ < < N Z Z UJ ■ 1 x o X -1 X X 3 K a: > r* m z o o -H O 00 -n > C O 75 H X X m •-* ^ or O -H o m m m 75 73 r- O X m > > > p-* > T1 m O -i o c 70 2 OITl n z •n ^ x -0 oo 75 o -IZh O 05 O T5 I O o > m -h z 75 m O -H o m > m -i mm m ** > 75 > > Z m to r- m 75 z ■H *» 75 r- > \J\ -H X r n > 7) -1 z I r - x o x -< m > > m z z C > m -< j» i—i m > 75 z z c o O 75 75 Z C 75 7) > -H O O * m > X r - -< X -1 -< z AM O o c r~ » 1 o m o z > ■O 70 z r- *» «• m O o c > > ■V 00 X c 75 X m m z m m X X > . . I I I NN I I I I I I . • I I I I I I I I I t I O' O' I »— t— I — -T I - « i— m N l ui n ro ui ►“ N) «*i o rvi u> (jj OJ k r- ^ (\J M O' -S' ►- M ro || Oi *—• ««< I —4 || • • » ■ I » vO>OWJliO'^WN»S | -O hhOJOONNONOU'«IH>“ M Iffl ' I 1 dm! ^ N W S' ® u> o> so u> 01 OvO'OO'-f- CD N r- cr o vO o P-* o .0 \J1 -4 r a «• « «• <• r~ v» u) ^ r\) P- C' O' > VJ 1 ^ O ro vO W CD ^ vO H O 00 I I I I lilt ro I I I I I I H I I I - M I M O' -o ro wo o \jt ro f ca ro O' cd I I I I I I O' Ol O' ■»> ui o ro ro I O' O' I O' ^ o o 00 vO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ^ H- -O vO oi oo w •> » 1 1 ® O' O' 1 1 O' 7 6 1 1 1 till I I I I l I I I l I I I I I l I l o (\J —1 o (\J PO fM h- >4" «-* in O H 00 CM m h- ro o o cn oo cm m in ® m h- l 1 h- >* >t in m ro m O' Osj fM o « i 1 * •k •* •k •ft O 1 1 o tn f\j H O' l I I I I I I I I I I i I I I l I l O' m ro f- ® ® ® -4 ® l 1 ® ® (M in » i 1 * * ® | | ® ® O' Otr\ O Z O UJ 00 _J si oi uj ® Q Q -4 ft- < O oc uJZat at >• uj O O z z a < UJ U■ (NJ X zxl £ jt ft- Ct < _l -1 £ ►- in <. < oc i— z oc »- lu _j a: lli Z < < a: < ft* uj c*:ujuj— < < UJ £ o _1 0 c C£ ULI UJ UJ O i- a j o ® — UJ X £ h— c£ O D < UL l/S O ft- O MM O z UJ _j < < o o o 00 3 e a r I (/> o o : -H O X rn „>cm^O-m >xio>?>J 0, g r p 73 j> , OO-JO^n ^ 4 (/> z oo m c/> z Z O i s: od z o m c JOM IC1Z • C> > *< m z “O o z > 50 > z r-. r- a « o > n > oo > H • O —• > z -n J> ■H 73 Tl O > JO CD Z > m 2 O O 5° m > O -• oo o > h- U> IN) <*> O >“ I - ■•4 O IN) IN) IN) U1 .f- »- IN) O' )3 IN) vjl IN) -t* O' o O' W O 00 O' r* i ! I— NT IN) I-* I vjl vjl o) o IN) rs) v*) -J ui -J in) r- I I I I I I >- I 05 I I f- ►- I- NT |S)^'05NT'0DV*)'O'*' r- ^ U) f* IN) O' t—-P'lNj^OIN) IH'OI')OW'(''0® WO ' m X >0 •o a o »— 30 sO UJ (/) O' □ ■n > © 30 p* O C rr sO r C O' H X «• no c o o 30 -0 sO > m ■ r— r > z Sill IN) IN) O' H* M -4 IN) t— O a oo NT) VJ1 —I IN) yu» h O' W) 00 I I O' >- f\) O H Dl I I IN) IN) I— r- \fl © IN) U) -J O O' 00 t- vO ONT0'0'»-CC'0-J'0l-fN) t- IN) U) VJ) W 'O I - CO IN) ** IN) IN) -j h ^ ))i in) y) in> nti O' q ^ j . j -. j )l 00 IN) O I I I I f- I I IN) O) 05 o oin VjJNP IN) OJ ** r- © £ aD0D0'(N)U)^“'>)© „ ^ ^ ® SS^NH'OO-J'OI^-y' rv) >— io) )— IN) — NX ■f' O o w w ^ IN) ^ vO IN) N» • ->J -O' I- IN) O) NX •“ O 0D IN) 05 W IN) (>) ►“ ^ O' IN) q> ■f' t- N» •— O CO >0 ^O'NlffivJlOOD'O'HW U> IN) I)) NX! OJ IN) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN) iNif-i'jf-'JiaoO'O-f'-P' O^'NX"'J^4O© v -X''XC0 i-* rN> -«) I - * <0 ^ ^ rvi IN) a)iN)^'NnNn'»O'-T'-f'00iN)Nn')'O IN) O' •p- — o IN) -P 03 ao NT) l—• • P 00 00 00 O' -P 03 IN) 00 NT l— © |N) IN) ^^ND-J-t'VJ’IN)® I— U> O -0 rv) -J 03 O' I I I I I I I IN) IN) IN) ■— IN) 00 l-^'IN)'00)^fN>>-0) l>JN»IN)O'a3IN>0'-P00^J00 o o > ■H O 00 X m ■— sr •n 50 o Z J> o r- ~i j> x fi — 70 > > O -1 J» •“> n z x > m *n i-i ~ 77 z m o z 00 > > z z o o XTI/>CI/>V'ZO>*< z 2* SoHZiiomcxmjJ jormn-msz^ li C 2 mzzmNHi>> 71 m>o n ■n 50 c o 50 u -o m b m z m 50 c * i" 50 » > o z z ■opo m o o < 7> — * > 50 Z r- < > z o oo X 00 m z o ** c O 70 -H m to 50 r O m O -1 o o -o X O m Ml > ►» X (-* m 50 O 50 n > Z P o o > o ^ N> U> »“ W sO t- b «iii n 11 "! ON W P4 vji u> *- .»> V71 W N O' ® -4 >- -4 -4 ►- P4 >0 iO „ g, m o N >0 P4 r- ►“ ® £ _ ® ooo > roOv7ioooo>o»“Ooo4<*®^‘® hi i ini' i itlft OlOfrNHWN ® sO «-* oo u> oj VJ1 O ® 'O O' ® — — IN) t- V *3 VJ OOkH^WOhWN4iO I I I I I I I I I ' ' i I i • I I I I r- I ►- P4 P4 UJ i- h h I--P; ro ^ © »— h *o h n * £ hO^OOONW^‘ - N'O n °' rs) 1 j» li i i • i i i 00 ® lO H H ^ o o ro — PJ N l - ® K ^ OJ O {7-a'aoOPOvO®'0® rvJ * o vn I I IN) IV O' o l w *■• ® ^ ^ ^ ui covjicp^-oorv^ oo S?ZjCPrvMvOooU'rv'*i45'O f v>- I I I O' >o on I I I I t I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ui pj oo -4 OJ U) oj on »-• t— w P4 O' O' r- O' hOiOHI •P'l t- Ul O H O 01 iu n vn o n o X o o > z a > 00 •0 O' X •« o 70 oo P 50 t r l © o o p o • x: li OI o a o r Vo O' w 50 00 < p c p a ■< i- o 0 •* •* CM CM CMina'in-4'0<-'' < 4 CM CO CO CM CM co i i l l i l i ! I I ! ! ! 1 i i 00 f- CO «$■ ^ ^ N $• I 1 I I I I I I CM CO CO I I I I I I I Ill'll I I I I I I I o —istoom— j— cojinO' r-t —I C- vO CM H | H I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I 1- Z oc < *—1 a lu LU o Q UJ Z OC l/> a o a « < 00 o z Z O UJ ID < z < >- oc o. o o « z F- •- > _l < sc OC UJ QC Q •— 1 *- < o oc z oc “oc >* Z UJ O O 3 Z OC < uj < lu a: <■ < LUNJUJZZUJ CM Z I X 1- z X Q h h CC < _J Z K < oc ►- oo z QC LUwhiUjOCZ< <1 OC < ** LU LU UJ < 3 UJ I h UJ < ►—< o o IO-OOZ>-l/)DoOQ.Ili z U u. I o Z oc o Q t- O UJ U- < h- < < LU z o _J OC OC LU LU UJ o hU JO oc MUJZ z K 0£ O => < U. 00 O L- o M o z UJ -J < *x a a u to X o o ■> HOW I m m > > to z r» ^ to o r o -h o m PP H > > M -H J> fcOIHOZHI^OWCWZ Z > m h J ppmcm-izsco o to j> >z joci3>o«m5 o X f~ Ol^HDX r- r~ m>m(/>*»zmm> > j> ;o z c r - z OZ-< -4 P. O 30 >< f>' _ O O < C T- ^ t « rn S h m > > O Z J> (/i O x "• m 2 m O X. (/> o m z o *-* o CO30 -H z m 33 3J r O z m O -t O o o -n O 33 I O o m 73 m VJl 70 J> > ►- 3 Z X * •< j» o m Z m 30 > > ■< p - z o "U o *» r* m > I I I I VII o w O' ui vn ^ p - ooro-4^"0 fflawao^HwocoH (/> y) I i- p- r— p - rsj ^ I • « « « t so vO uj uj no®wpw I ryro-y^'^'yjN)'y3 | y J ^® , “ NN'O Wooo'nonh VJI py I <• I OD OD P* P - -t* O' *H •*' I pJ^OD^tNJ'J'UJO'ODOOODpp uiuJ'J'Cnhnodowum/i 000* p» * *- z m p o m. 2 -i! O h- O sO - > rsj n O' m o- «• rr UJ to m - * > « 7> ^ >; UJ 00 < (/» > l l jjwhjihcdO'OO' Ul yj OP - p-i— p- -f' HyjH^'osoryNH-^oy'p - »— o z >0 m ru 1 r\j a 00 • 1 «• * H vn uj * UJ 0 s *- m uj a> vO p- rv) ro rvi >o im w wj ao-jufOO'OuiHyiffli'j'flNN ryO'O'»-0'-jrv>'O^®'^ 0 ' , “ 0D * ja I - r EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL LUMWUUIIics, ® O' o •*•*-**• i >■* ro < -4 I I oH^«ooma i ®oi*i>t®Ni/' H 't»'0-4NOO"4in to>o® fO ^ H ^ ^ in I cm f 2 £ ^ £ !T. XSS35S*' oa'COHino(Njoo^«M(^^Nmo'H>omm>0'Ofom-r* ^cM^p^njoocM»o h- m <\i *+ cn eg m N^iAh-NMCNJ4 , NN H >nHooiAooinmN^a'0'^0'»n 00O'0W«NN^ONNrflN-lB>N^m(M^'t'4ir\-<» * • • * ^ N tc m (M ® “* 0<-'®®0'® rvJ tf' rri oo»o®oir>-j—•rOvO' -1 <\J (M —I —I iTl (M vQ <\J J O'- -(Nj(Mom «fr -• < <'Opn- 4 tfM(M®NONOl'J't CO CO *H <\J —i (*\ •* tf> <-« < W 00 00 o z o O UJ H- a a. oo z o < i— a: uj * 3 : * ou >• i ac >■ z o z < < < o -J < QC UJ < Z >- < < a£ • >- o a -i z < Qd UJ ad CL i— a; z *- uj oc < Z “ «i < o M h- X •— 00 U.C0Z0JU.X®O3Z -> z X 5 2 ad I— H4 < — > UJ o hU JO < o£ U. UJ <1 o -i- h- .J < < a O 00 Mi iiill 11 EXPORTS OF AGRICULIUKAL uunnuumcoi mi*\(flOW - ( , '^NNNfl'0'0 , to O' cm oo ir\(\i^r-{Mir\ro>-isO • • ► * * • ** O CO CO in nO CM »-4 O CO CM in LO LT\ CM w^cDOOH^-tf'imfOO'tifi'tfO'O cr<\ir» cm cn f- O 00 cci *t so cm CO *-* —* cm -i O' cm rn co cm mor-r- cm >$* co in in » (\j vO rft m > t co h CM rH O' ^ O ^ ^ rO r** O' CO —* CM ^ O' .0 O rt O O (f >t in in c\j co in co cm *-* r-4'4 - 0(NO'^HO'^fCi^rn'0^'£)'OCOfOiA(MvCinO'£50CO'} - NOcosO^cominN cvJiAN-«0'Hin^0'fn^N0''tino^ f^(M>tcocoina'>tC7' r^- cm ao m 4- o c\j in cm co >ocm^ cm CM coootf'0'cococn>t*-«^'0—iccio'^fovococoi^vo vONfOCOCDir\4 , fCl'OC004 , CM'0'tN h c« O' ooin^c\jmro^c s 0 vO>J , (MfCivOO'OfONO^OH (\)>t^CO(\iin(MCO sOCM*-^ #. * CM •-* ‘N oocviaoa'^*^^>tin't'Oc\J>tsO'tcoincMincofMOcoh-oinincof^co ^ tr, CO OOONfONCOin^^N . k. ^ A I — i MS aA /V\ I A OTt s 4 * n vOCMo^coco h-coinao CM ~4 00 CM in ao co %>l w , w _ . . OOOS 4 1 cc CO OOONf^rvJCOin^HCMfOsO^ 4^-0 CO CO >t* inocof04'0cov0^in'000'co co >t co m nO co o o h co n vO CM^4 , CMOl/'N004 , HO'0'NMnO' coaooOf-*»-^in^ , cM’4*CT''i , ccinO'—» ro ^ -o co co ^ M h ^ 4’ 4- N C" rO O' ^ >t ^ CO »■« 10 (\jir>r»ooinco40>oo'rriirir\if^O'u>h---4»-<0'irir~ir\rOfor^'^a' ahO'-jm.j-co-J'OianiJ'hoo'OO' o«j-co »i -o n O' n to co —4 co r- o c- -o O' -< cm oo eo co co A •» CO —4 m cm o «J- co *}• cm cn CM l >0 N O' N fl O' -t N CO CM «0 O ■£ (M —I 00 CM 'O CM CM X > -I 3 oj z a « u < uj < O Z I I O _l < 0£ t- < lu uj a: iu uj LU X QC O UJ O LU X Q O CL < z z o lu < "4 CC o. LI < z _i sz 3 a o o — ^ CtC LU QC ■ Z UJ O 3 OC < < < LU rM LU Z LU • LU _J I JQI-l-cC *- X ZCXLU*-4*-4LUOC >—> <■ <1 oc luoj3z'-uicc x: *— lu i-ff > ot-oiMmf^njO'0'-HO-4«toor~0'# , < 4'N'tH ® f- (\l (\J 4- « » » , » * OO 4' ft* (M 00 <\J <”* AM>toNO'0in4'0''0'00' oooomooooaDOiMO -0 4^ ft* OH-tin»4inNoo^f*iM , 'o inor-n-0'®nj<\i< , nnj4-4a'r^r-44-^®4ft*® iOH®j’rt(fiMNN >r m*um p4® noo'H>tO'0o-4(oinonsO'0-oinM-i^^^(M (\J(M-4»>4COft-4ft-inj —I 4 'Ono <\i m 4 in wtcMnjft^'Oft-tnitMfM—* cn ® 4 -* ~< m i in in in n 4 I -o « b •• » * ft l ► I * -* n- m 4rn 40 N *0 ^ ^ H H z ^ r «: o UJ • • ou je a: o O Q. « < Z Z O UJ “ _ ft* a: a. O < Z* & _j *00 oo — ® _ **2 < ujo£ o 0< « n-a: < " o ^ ■OZO OZZ at < UJ ** VO ^ iq : D UJ IU Z UJ < < • UJ Jh <■ OC > — 3 : h- O k- a: j j >- i Z ^ [ vm*-m 1 vuj:7 , ft*- ^ ■avoovox~tL®zou.Xcouoz*XXoza!: < (_ BM < < K M 4 n m 2 o M o •n > C O 79 ■H z to o r O -1 O m m m 73 79 r o z >-> -H > > ** -t > •n m O -i O o o i *n o 2 *n I 00 C 00 2 O J> -H o -n o -0 i o o > m -h z — m -< z s: u m C > •H m 79 m M 73 I> > 2 30 m ►< m 50 2 oo > 79 > > .p ■H z r- 79 -» o * Z -H f“ Z 2 Z 1 -C r- m > m 2 m m > *» 79 -< > n m > 79 2 C o 2 -< 79 — 2 m 73 —< > •H — O jo m 50 I> -< M m z o O C * o > o z > T9 30 « > m O 2 > > > t: a Z 79 2 m o o m m o t> 73 z z p-« o —t > m IS) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *- l— N) ►-N) .p rv> v/i os o wuU'ui a ^ ^ v l l! "'*> I I I I I I (Jj I I I I po pj *- i— ui ui I— PO UJ ui -o oo po >0 C W >fl CD m O J1 I I I I I I OJ I •- (V) *• O' O' OP h» a 09 ^ N »■ H l * U) -T> 1- I 1“ H N *■ co cd ui <7>h-i\90J'jijirvjui-g hwO 1 I I I l I I v» PO I— t- 1 PO -f 1 ^ 1 PO O' VJ1 09 VJI O' O' B'OOcnwowiD ijj I - I - U) ^ -P- O' l-WNN^O'PJIO-J OD (-s-f'y'wuNooi'-oP'OO'O'^J' i— PJ >— -P O' O' O' -4 OINNPOOWO'Oh oj ^'PO^'^V/l'O'O'POD^h-O'OO^OOuJCT' EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE BV DESTINATION, 1961-67 o a j> > HOMTI > z oo o r* m 2 o M o > c O JO -< z oro-i o m m m 73 C 73 r" o z -4 > > >-> > T\ m O 2 —1 o o I -n o 2 -n — x o-oo 00 C oo oo 2 O > -H 2 O "n 03 o “0 ~ I o o m -4 x h jo m r» O m -1 Z C z Dm c > m -* m Jo m m -h CD JO > > Z m to m r- jo m >—1 *—* m jo 2 00 -H > JO > n m > -H X i- r* O > X 73 ■H -1 O z x X r— X 2 o o X 1 «< r~ m > > m X Z J> 2 m m m > > 73 m -< j* n m > TO z z c o o z o m 2 -< 73 73 2 m c 00 7) > x> -1 —i 0 0 7) 00 -< m JO 7 J> T << x -H *-* z 2 •— o o r* c * r- > 1 > O »—4 O z > •o O m 73 >■» > 2 r* •H > z m < > O z z O c m x> J> > J> oo ■O o o X oo r* 7 X ^ -H m o m m m o X ■n > JO > X 03 m o m o c o > 73 oo O *-• *0 O' *- N O N W MU ^ o -4 oo -j O' N MOH-U IS) M -g N> »— j P-O-Pt'J-P'J''>)''6'>4O'->4W0>'Jl-4OOnrs>-f , 'J'a!OO *-*QD 0'00'J^'JWyi^ONyiOOJ^^NSff''Jv£l> , ''fiU'U' WUIWM0'OffN-JUI^'>0i-'WI\Jv0*’O'0J''J'UOi''0 l‘%, ijli' j 1 rs> OJ h^NO »-vOwiui i sn o -4 on -f* rs> H Jl UD UJ I - S)l ^ IS) UJ SJ1 CD r-w ^« —* ___ ^ VJI <7 VJ\ O' Hff'HvOu'-UMWNMO^CON>/l • « 4 « W « V *• «« « CDl>ISWO'eNM U)NNOffBN^M'OOi - >0> - ®-UO'0' O ff> ►- i» ^ ui yiuiu* a ■»> -j »o r-» U J p- « <• «• 0D t- ►«- UJ VJ1 H- ►- 00 ^ O' ►- VJ1 ro »-• -4 f\) O UJ u> *— o « « « « m • *• » * » » ^ • vji^-^>-u)OD-4-^^o s rN;^ojrsjoc>o^v^vji |\)NOO^H^sO^S0300u)NU»^^^U)UJ l*ooo^HtfiHorvj'OOh*oy 1 r'fl^oD*»j^o OJ PO »—• H N) -*J >- vji ui uj *-p-Or>o>—u>^p-ro»— ' )_> r_> HOOffl*JWNOWl9‘OU!'U''OfOOJ'ff®'JNWN rs>co.t't-f--4—i\>ao\jt0'.f'0.p-.*'r*o'.r'~4ao0^- ; i»--^'vnaoaro 0 'Ww-uwwH^i-aiv0^i'Wi'00'^wiwHh‘OOw>oi“U''i <- IS) I— HHJlNfOI'000*'>0 >— is> ►- >c ® ■— wo -4 U! OJ -4 U> Is) vn is) on I IS) ST sO W t» W ® « >4) ® O' O>O'H4>K®00®WWffl _ _ _ . NO^OW-4O^0l4J0'4'WON®O0l®OO0'W®0l MWvOO‘f'0''lWOW®04'^04'OlH-vOWW00 1 WW I *- is> M ■*• O I- I M H (M- ®OMv0NUJO4)®O'0WOHO14)NO4)4'Oi-NU4' (JJ >-* 00 4)0>00'J'fflO-4®®0'Ulr-0'0'f‘0'MMO''J® 0-$' , IS)-4»- , '0-4SnOOOOIS)^OfS)>43«4'aCT'SnfS)IS)WSn-'4^ , >- , * - OOOIS) r* IS) H- <• « <• yi O' h h H 0 4J H *43 -4 -t« sfl IS) IS) O' IS) U1 w I- H Ul rs)i->csi->^>^>->9'^rs)i-‘ whO'Omoi®4 , i“00''U>j ,_ snoJ'Ji^-^O'Cr^roj'CoaiO'i—^'uuO'O'iO'CErsicDaoOiO' a>rs) O0'uiN»00JvnOH*44'Oo\OM®0'0)0'®iv'iMOi- 4)0'JION®4"0®4'U'W>4'i“®UUS)#'iOHi-N^®W®'' EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 o o o no in m iri m o in HNrtff«ON>0 m n m m oo -h ci ^ I | “ II —i —* II I I I I I I o 4- r>- r- vO >o oo oo oo r«- 0 O' O' oo r- —i in (MM M | M | | I I I I I I I I m a£ < < u _j M -i z OC < o o UJ UJ 0. Q LU z CL O Q. < < ■k Z O UJ z i— oc a. < z Q < o s c 3 (3 O Z oc —• >■ < OC uj oc — f- < CO OC z *- oc z o 3 OC < UJ <£ «r uj uj Z UJ UJ > M z z t- Z 0 1- oc z h- H < 0C IOZUJW UJ QC < < oc < oo UJ UJ < 3 UJ 3e Z l— UJ Zl- UJ <1 —• Q o I 1 OO k< Q oo 3 oo X z O U. Xu z oc O Q t— O UJ U. 41-m<4 1- *- < < UJ X o _J 0C OC UJ UJ UJOKU J O OC uj X X t- oc a 3 < U.IOOI- o *— O Z UJ -J < »* o o o i/» X "I|!| t\ •4- no 2 6 1 7 3 r*- O' H 1 00 ao in to H l M M M o o o > > r* m 2 O M o -4 O on -n > C O 50 -4 z I m M 70 o f o i o m m m 50 50 r o z m > X> mm -H > > H* -! > ■n mono o jo z O X X ® > O on O 00 X n o 2 ® on x x o -o on c oo •H Z i-4 oo-ox o o -< O *» 50 2 X ~ > 73 m -4 x 73 “0 m C M O -4 2 r > m m m uzr • O > m • 7 ) J» > > 50Zmf“m — m -1 > JO > •-< -i *> ff> I» 0 2*) 2 -H t—« O O » *> -4 o I r- z z 1 -< C -C > r* J> 73 ■H P* m • z m > x 2 2 m m m -< > m on ^ l/l O > > m > 73 C *3 o o o z 73 z jo z > o — o 7? —t •-* > 7J -< on m r- -< — > z 2 > r* 73 M o o O r- c * > o 50 o m • 2 > o 73 O 73 »—* z ► O -n O m < 0 2 O > > 2 70 z > J» > -o o <✓> 70 73 O • m 2 Z 7C mo M m • • m — o 2 > Z 50 x> z m on m Z M <✓> m o > 2 > z O o J> T> —• IV) «• «• & r - IV) U) 4V> vn VJI wooDO^ji^ctvoom^ ODVJl'JlvO-t'WO''JWMV/IUnw ►— .*•■ h i\j (O __ • I • » « • « « « J1 VJl »“ a W I »000">^-4©>-# w OV>JI'0* - 0' '0*g-JW10JVil «OU)-4U)!V)-JO'fV>OIV>»- - - - - - - .f'.f'UI® — ^\JIOIV>.^U) *-iv)o>®rv>iv>«ju) •— iv> >- vn vn ui iv> ® rv) ^7l^v0'0^f“Na)U10''i OJSWOHU1 ■O'fi'OO'OJWO'^O'OWiOO'WHOM^'OMS U) — VSI — rvj >o ui fOKSOin^OK^r“>fi *- N) « w ^JV)l«gU)^'Vr^'H - 0®®® -JUI®®®^®®®®^®®® rv> vO <©vr.$‘'ji-g»-®iv)®-4vO>-vfl®>o®v/io HOOJNffltflff'^OOi'OfflON'OO' IV) IV) •— ® rv> l— fS) ® x) ®®®®rv»rv)-j'C^'^-®-f'® NU)>Oi-r-^MMNOO®ffl^ 'OVJl 7''£>JI®WMHi'^^OOUl'“ -^X'~J®®vn®'j®®®-t*®o^'i- , rv) Mu)®va~w-jrvi®'jO'i— h*®o~j®iv) S "1 »- IV) « «• O'l'JlV)®®*®^®®-.) >—vnrv)-t‘®'~ , ^®®-r s ^"iv)*—® f- I I -P> rv> a- « « *• IV) o n I I rouirv>®-J>-rv>rv) Ul •>) >fl <0 )“ >—i— o> ® u) ro -g oo®®-^®iv)0® uj | ►— rv> •> | « » iv» ® vn so ® vji ® -j iv> -g rv> vO V*) ® ® -g UI^i-^hO'O) U1 i— > IV) ® «iui ^ O' iv) o >— ® ® i— iv) u)iv>i\)o^'iv> ^jioww)“>-®^iaf“ I'oui^O' — 'gi-'Bi'o-g'—-t‘-'4'0vn0'0»— U> | I— IV) « I « « t—• •—> vn | ^^< 7 > vni*>'C-*)**i W O O *) Hl'fflUIUlOOM O O ® -g O'ODB'O'O^'W® 0) v» e— rv) —j vn -g no O' iv) m vr ® f ® vr ■t' t\i O ® hj v£ ** i_> g} ■^-gO^‘N')tf®*J'OCO'( EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOC1A11UN EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 h- o CM h- oo co ro n 00 fSJ O' in co ^ O' o PO 1 1 0 1 1 o CM CO ro OO cn 00 "4* N N N O' oomcMoocMC-coh- —• -m -m in t\j t~t cn cn M 3 I - I CM O cn «* —i O' •O « « « -4 •? < 4 - in CM 00 O KllflO O —• I m> O' CM O oo r- in oo < 4 - 4 in o M 3 in M 3 —i m i l cn m O' 1 | MJ 'J- CM CM in » i 1 « i * X >o MD | I M —> 1 i 'i - O' r- cm cn -* eg in CM CM —< O cn cm -- in O' v£> MD OO cm n- M 3 m cn M 3 CM h- r- o> sO CM O' 00 o cm m cm r- oo m CO M 3 IT> 1 I O CM oo 'j- cn cm cn i l oo in O' CO « 4 - * | 1 * * •> » “ i I » M 3 h- | 1 F* <-M CM CM cn | I — O' m ifi o O' *■« r-t in Ifl CO 1/3 M3 oo O < CM cn _i • M3 _i M3 O' O o o o o l(CliftMoiroif''JO't«Ntin'tH(NjNf('(\J i M *4 CM CM CM l! 11 ! r, -icococMinMcoMoaooo H + coNfflo^W'ONin 4 > -JCT'COOO't'tOOC»CMCfl * » at ** • r- in -4 cm cm I H I KM(M®- LU o — oc Z «s — >- _J UJ > 00 > oc «- l— oc < - ) QC Z OC Q z o o oc X (X < UJ LU < > LU LU z < Z x « UJ LU _l 3 — >- cn X X _J x t- OC X < o o X K « a < 3 - o* LU 0 C _J LU Z oc *s < oc • < M O' LU LU K- UJ < Z V- UJOND lu x t- lu ac < >■* o o xcloO—zi-Xoo OlUI X Z O u. X co o Z ac o Ql-OUJ u. < 0 - — <1 < L- < < LU X o _J oc 0 C UJ LU LU 01-0 J O a: MUII X h- OC o x < LL 00 O V- o O Z LU < < o o o l/} X EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 ino>o- 4 inf'-' 0 ®®u''coin®ini\if-<® 0 ''ror-,oo'< 4 - 400 'CMCMro 4 -ftftCMm«of ,, '-4 -up a m s ft ft ft ft ft ft ftft ft ft ft ftft ft » ft * -4 CO CM CO o 'O —4 —1 «-4 in in — 1 — 1 —4 -ft —4 CO ro c\j —• —• r- r- ® m -4" o in -4 «r\ o> -* o ■O -O U"l ft" o®romin®rO'0>o®inO'(M*-K-4roincMino'»>4 , iMCMO'® omin®c\jc\jinN£>-ftO--4r'-0'0'—40C-®0' «* so >o O >fr <\i in • 4 -roO , roP , -> 4 ' 0 '- 4 t , “CMro® 4 ’^-m~ 4 > 4 'iMCM cm in ® ro m —» ro ro cm ro m o in h -i -i (M —I O' ^ (M —l .-I ro o' -o in cm oo -4- o oo in (M^mv0®m-<®'l-0f 4 - vO O' in - m co ^ w O n O' ro cm CM oo ® in -4 —i cm -T -4 -c —i 0'inoininNNO'ininHMcun-4inHmO"l , sa5^NO"< , cnON»4 iniM’tootc'coMinHj'icifn^^'NO'Nif'N onononhcoo r-f-rcirocMinin®r^O'l'Oo®^'J - f- » » » » » » •> ► * ► * ► • • ao n m r- ® - 4 - -4 —i -o vf cm -ft i-c <-4 —< CM m co -tf- in co ® cm ^ o m * i CM^5^NCOSO , ^044(CIS44ood«uuoo — hffi-tinSNnOONOO'tNOOO'OOOh %0>n>*cMinv0>-O^N^OOCO>0>0 — — - — — -4ino«HW(Mn- • • W •—’ • *—' OinO''t» ,, NN4 , W^in Ifi CM CM CM in s't in CM 'm i, | HU 'tcMO'®'0'0®4j--^co,-^ocoo®i*-0'inf“0'0 ro«t®o-cMCMO'r-'J-0'-4>tinO'ro^roin^ -toomo'.OHrfCMO^iflifiH rOlMffiCOin-ftOin^N-lM-ftfOlM CM ® CM CM CM O -4 ro -ft CO ® m ft » » ft ft •< A » •» * • • * • • cm cm —4 cm ® ro in - 4 - 4-4 —< -ft cm -4 -ft m o-t®®cMCMin0'r-®m®0'0'-4ft4CM®in«4-®inO-4®in-4®-4^OinO' 00 4 M in -4 CO O' —< 4 f- ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ftft ft ft ft ft ftft Of —1 —f -ft -4 CM -ft in - 4 - 4-4 4 i 4 p 4 CM CO —4 o o ac < in z - -J IU 0 CO <44 1 - oc “* o o z < CD a: to 3 UJ z a£ Z O 3 z C£ < UJ < 1/5 1/1 00 ftft UJ — o < V UJ uj uj z uj < • uj _j 1 - « -J >• 3 - m x a « O Z X -J x QhO! _l t- X > O < o oc • oc k» rsi < UJ a -1 < c£ < >- uj -4 uj cd uj -4 < < a; • ® O _j z a. a x 4-4 h- uj uj q: UJ >- UJ <1 J Z t- u O! CC X h UJ OC < -C Z • UJ < o X ~ z a. o ® u. o M ZKiciDi/ll 4 <(DZOIl.I ® O _J < X x u u. ® o o < o UJ UL < f- — « < K 4—4 < X o -J a: 3 o C£. UJ Ul UJ O 1 - O _J O oc X ►— OC o 3 < U. 00 o NH a 2 UJ _l < < o to X X o o o > > r* m z o o HOVM) x> c O 70 z I m m ?3 o r- n -i om m m to c 3D r- n z m > > *-« -< > j> -i > -n m O Z -H O o 73 Z O X ■nnz-nisi z o -H Z O CD O "0 — X r- o ~ > m •h z ►- m -h sc a m > m mm m ■H rsj > 70 > >Z3om m 30 z -H 70 r- m > ** -H ir to o r Z X Z CT o z l < r* m J> m z m > I» m > « m > 70 Z C z < 73 70 z c (/I 70 ■H > -H i—i a jo m 7C f“ -< z -i ~ O z o a c > 1 > o CP o z J> T3 73 Z r* -1 *» > m o o c m o J> > "0 00 X i/i o z m m o m m z «• > I I I I till I I I I I I I I I I M i« a N h -f- VJi o- u> -j t- vjl Ul -4 ■»—s£)*4 s r\jnoc7' 4)>OWOMONN|‘ I I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I I I I I I I I il IP \J\ i— ►- o (sj 4 ‘®ui4'Wi«05'J'J' I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I u> \f[ VJI 1“ ^4 .$• S W OS M ^ N <— v»» >Mao 1 UJ II I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I IV) -j ~j .** *+ *• 4 h ^ s n uj rvi fvi ui O-^OOuioorvjff'OiNOrvj-t'O 8 II I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I yj) »-* CD <£* VJ1 i— ►— VJI 0 s 00 \Jl^-0'vfl^^05^NO\JlOW u> ui Vjl VJ1 w ^ ^ ^ ^ e* vji ^ 03 OJ O vO I I I I I I I oo o Z m o O m o o M -H o H JO o sO — > r O' m O r* OJ c/i m > « 73 U) < j* (/•■ r* o c o oo I I I a a \J1 VJl ro ^ \ji \ji f\) m vO ^ oo Q0^U)^ - N)0D-*4*4U>f\)‘£*VJ! r\> VJ u> EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 0 ®P r >- 4 in--' 4 -inoinrpfP®in®o®oinpJino'fPinO'® co in o pj fp in ^crr— so—^'— cntPin^®®^-®®®^* - fP O' in O' PJ l — 1 I —• I —■ 00 <4" ,0>— rPinpJPJO® m in pj -< ^ —t fO fO (O «l (< H N •* I ro m CD in r- OO o CO in -4- -t ro o pj ® o ro ro >4* ro ro <4- O' 00 ro cnj 00 >o co CNI in rP «4- O CO c\j oo O' o -4- 00 n* in ro ro in rsj 00 CNi CNJ ro O r- CNI —• h- — o CO CNJ in •-4 h- ro in ro *■ f-4 CNJ H i sO in (\j H

4-0 0 CNJ ro _< in in ro 4 (M O ro oo in O' o in 00 CNJ co in oo ^ O' fp IP r- «"4 CNI ro <4- P- p- ro ro co pj in CNJ IP O' o oo ro cnj m p s h- oo*t O' ro •-4 r» ro H CNJ CNJ m O' 4- H f~* O' ro to o — *■4 ro ro fp <4- ro r4 ^■4 H H H H (Nl N O O rP -4* •— ® — ao $■ o<4-rppjinmin'4fp®—<>4’'4’rP'no'inpj*OP-i—in — — pj m sO ®-4-®«or»-®fp — or-inpjo — — ®pJfPO'® — pj r- — o0'in(7'in>oin>oso®pjin.— ®s0fp'0f-

.»»• » •>»»•>» ► * i i ifw\jNNO'-*NO'Mmo^

JfflPNIfl(M'0N-JCT'HlAOP>ia'"tlPOP ^POOO‘tPP®HPIPPP" < lPOMfflff'P>f <\icvjc\Joooo*-4- co —4 ITS in co i-< oo ro O' oo 00 (Ni CSJ 00 !!;»hi 4 1 * 'll i ►H o o' « 00 3 o o •— o ® X < UI UJ < **■ _l Z < — a: ui o i—O. < z Q a a < 1 o o H Z M >-i t- X >- _i x oc. UJ >■ UP >- «4«3®Q — 1 - < X rr up 3 ui z > Z ui o ZOO® — _J 3 Z ® < UJ >—t o < >- UJ <3 <3 UJ PJ UI z < z x < Z UP UI < UI -1 z > 1 X © o Z X _l X X 3 o t- v- ® X *4 <-> 13 < O -IX < J- H - X — z u u I o -j 5 cc o o ►- z O UJ u < h- i- < < H- « < UJ r U JCCD (* UJ UJ UJ O H- O J O ® — UJ X z J- ® O 3 « U. UP o N* O Z UJ -J «3 «3 O o u cO X "i S ^HH^OH^criyOinco^N'ONN^inoohHfnofM >$• >0 ro ro in o^*tifMno 4 ’ 04 , o^ir\(\Ja'Ncocosoencoo'NNO'S n o 'C h r*-h»'0 0'CNjcooor , -*-*'0>o^>cOh.in*-*^0'minco*-4000j I | I O m >j- ^ (\j p-« (NJ >fr (NJ ^ co in o^mr^r^oo*o>t>i*r^inr^>tin^>oinO'inin^'m NCOCOvOfONO(7'>tH^>£a3^NCONa'00(7'^OOfO (M'Oin^i/NHiOina'Nfoin4 , ffi>tN>o©©inrooo s Hoo •i » » *•»*»••••►* » • • » •* • ► I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I t I t I I I I I I I I I I I sO ~o O' I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I <0 I o O' in <0 O' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 z H 1 n uu O' Z 0 0 ►* > ►- 00 4 1 - LU O 3 □ _J in < Oin > in w« C£ £ * 4 m id m m -1 H O ID 0 -1 Z < W O' O 8“S 1 ►— O 1 0 0 MDO 0 ID X 0 Wot X * rfu. O ” <-> H Z 4 -J ID < a. cc O 3 <\J cc 1 - O 3 -1 O uu 3 O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I II I I I I ! 1 ! I || 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 • 1 • CC u> < u. o in ►- cc o a x ID o O' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I in uu z CC LLI X n z 4 in 4 ►- ID LU OO Z Q- 4 O UJ 2 < CC a <1 O -J O z> a O Z < LU 00 4 O. cc 3 oc LU z uu LU V m SI cc X 1— H < LU OC <. <1 1 — » eg UJ h— UJ X O c\i X a O X zou. O Q h- 0 LU k* X O -I C* OC LU LU O h- O -J X »— 0£O3 < 0 O Z OJ •J 0 00 X OTHER LATIN AMERICA AFR ICA ASIA OCEANIA OTHER z 00 o o o j> > r- m z o O -H o D > c O 50 —i z X m ~ 73 o t- O -H O m m m 50 50 r O z m > > H > > *-• •H > -n m O -I o o 73 Z 7* O x “n o z I 00 00 -t o -o I rv> o c > m -h z m — i ac > m r\3 > s: 73 > > 50 m > b* -H > z 50 •H z * -< r- m m Z rx m — i > 73 c m 30 > 73 m 73 m o z o o c r- o -< o z z> ■o 50 > > 03 m o z m > > -o o > 73 z m z m m 00 > I I I I I I I I I I i i i i i i i i i ; i i i i i i i i i i i i < • i i i i • •••••!!! •• • i i i i i i i i i i i i • iii i i ! i i ... ' i i i i i i i i i i i * i i * 1 i • I i ! i i i i i i i i i i i i • j i ! S i S ! i i i i i i i i i i Z 50 PI IIiii .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i ! ! i i I i i i ! i i i i i i i i i i i i m o H on m m l I 1 I I I I .I I I I l I I • I I I I I l I l I l l I I I I I I I l I I I I l I I I I TABLE 7—CONTINUED EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 «0 O' to to IO If' 0 CM CM to CO I I I I I I I I I I I O' O' O' O' to o O' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I > '4- <£ O' | | I | I I I I I I I I I I > I I ■ I I i i i i .. i j ! i i i i i i i i i i i i i i * i i i i CO >0 O' c/1 0C O o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 { I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ■ o o o CM ■c O' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t S ! I i i i i i i i i i i i i > i i vO O' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I i ; i i I I i i i i i i < a o N* UJ OC < UJ UJ UJ CO uj X cL z 00 a < < o a o uj K < z ac ol < z Q h- o < 3 0 0 <-> z o >• _i < uj ac M h < o 0C Z OC c— Z 3 OC < UJ < UJ cC UJ z UJ UJ _l >• >o X XX HQ ac x h- H < a: t- t/i uj UJ CL < < 0C < (NJ UJ UJUU432 1- UJ X H UJ < Q J> r* rr z o O -1 O oo T1 > C O 50 —1 z I m ~ to Cj r- n -h o m m 73 73 r- o z m > > > > m O H O o 70 z o i -n o Z x oo -n o -o X rsj o > m -i x m -< 70 m r\> > J» 7= m > > 2 70 Z 2 -< r" m m Z O m > 50 C m 73 o > H — 50 m M > z O o C o oo o Z J» 73 73 > -1 m O O > > “O 73 73 Z m m m O > 73 r* n > oo m O m I I I I I I I l I I I l l I I I I I I l I I I I I t l I I I I I I I I I I l i I l l l l l *0 O' m x T3 O JO —l in > ff> 70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n >- cm 'O r- c O' -« 50 ISJ co 73 -O > m p- > Zh o > o -n 68 o f S" o O m o o i ~ «H 1 o ►-* o >0 « >2 r- O' m o 3 r* OJ m m h > <• z 7) > = 00 r- O c o m «-• 0= -< ■< — o H- O Z vO m O' m *■ -i z j» i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I I .O O' <0 O' f—• I O' i i i i i i i i i t i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i sO O' O' I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I «o O' -n j> TIOTOH C o i -n o z 2 > m h 1 —1 > TiHiOmC x»mN-iZ 00 00 Z J» -H I t o c > m -on -4 m 30 r* > co — 73 J> z m 73 m m i-h •— m 73 (/> -H > 73 *» r m > UJ —i m m o z f" r- O 73 -t -H o z: -H I r- Z Z CD o z p- -< x> 73 z r- m > > m i Z m m m > 73 m < 3> O — m r~ PH > 73 Z Z CO o m z -< PH 50 Z m C 00 30 50 > > > (/) -H PH o o 73 oo rn 30 > r* ■c z -c — > z z • PH o orc7 r - > 1 > o z: o o z > -0 O 73 — > z r~ -i > > m < o z z o c m o > *n J> J> 73 CD o X Ul o 73 50 2 X m o m -H m pm* m o z ■H > o 73 J> z 03 o > pH o z o c J> 30 m a X a o> I I I I I I till I till Ul M -4 Ul U> (V) IV) Ul IV) «J -^4 -U I— iv) ui ui f S' O CO o i—rv)U)i—a)UJ<7'0' I'Niiii W U> N ^ O) 43 >C -4 Ol l-* Ul Ul O' -P- h- -S' Ul -£) >— I I I i— IV) Ul vO ui -u iv) H S O' Jl S ru Jim -P i— 1 UlUl'O'O'OOON olOO^OJCD^vOU) e* Ul (— l— Ul I— h- UI*-(V)'OIV)IV>'0> - *-»-' ►- ou w -s -h iv iv UI®sOO'OS)OUirv)-«400U)l — »-* P* P" MtV)UIUIh-h-UI>OIV>Ul.f'P''0-*4UlOOosOiOP-OCT' I )- U) Ul U) 00 -U IV) IV) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ui i— f- rvi >— i— -UMP-iviujO'-jui I t— U) 1 1 U) 00 IV) *-• U) I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I a 05 r- ^ IV) I HO) I I Ul IV) O I— O CD O' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •“ Wl I •-•T'l O' r-* \Q CD H O N VJ) >-* O CO O' sO*^ OCT'U) ! i i i i i i i i i i i i i l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i | | | I | | I I U) Ul I I l- ►--'4 1 I - J vji 0 s u) od o ^ ui ^ m 00 O OJ OJ 00 V^O'V/l ^-xJ'JlO'^ o tUKUKtAN rKCt I KAUt ^uUUAI 1UW EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES. VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 o 0 J> r* m z 0 MM a 0 00 *n > C c JO -H X z > m MM 73 O r- 0 -1 0 m m m 73 n c 7) r* O X m c > > —» > > •—1 M i> ■n m a > z -1 O 0 X co z C O X < > *n 0 z Tl co MM I z 0 CO C 00 on 0 3> -H Z «—1 O on CP 0 73 z MM X P0 0 —1 1 z z > m m 30 •H Z mm 30 m C m -1 z X x. m C J> m —1 rr 7 m m > v£ MM rvi 73 1 > rj MM 73 z 0 > > Z > m 30 z 7) m *-> MM m z co -1 J> 7 : > p" 0 m > PO •H m > 0 m m z r- r- 0 Z 73 -4 H O Z -H X r- X z O 0 X »— -< j> r* > z r* INI z m j> z > m r> > z m m > 73 m -< > 0 MM m r- ►—1 T> C -H 30 z z C 73 z a m Z 73 MM 30 Z m c co 73 X) > j> > 00 -H m •—1 MM a 0 7? -< -< m 73 7 r> i" -< X -H MM r~ Z z • MM r* Z O O C * r- > 1 > O > O 0 z > J> > “0 m 73 MM > z r* —1 > z > m > O Z Z 0 c m J> Tl > 00 •O m jo o > x CD Q C JO o o JC o -< m « m o >- -p- r- IN) IN) ■p- O ►- O IN) .f' ►— 1 ' CO O' CO O'+'-OCOCOr- cnv/lo-CDO' vO O' l CO O I |\3 CT m- W r- ^ ^ fsj \j\ Qs O' M- VJ1 r— sO OOOJOO^^vOvJlOJVJl^J^- O' NyiO'H*s»-oDa3Wi\}W'OwN^^O'MW^WNON^ v/i rvj ro ->j pj r\j CD <0 CP N) o o o rvj u> h- u> ^ r\) pj ro 03 V/l NO »-* >0 1 .*> OD 03 PJ -4 03 *— F- PO 00 O O' Ul ^ Jc O \Q o) ** O' vO •P- cn m co in) O J' IN) CO -0 IN) I t- >0 O' K Ul _I IO .p- cn 00 >— ro ■f' 0'IN)C0'0^“-#'CJI'0 CO-J'Oo-CD^'^lXv/l rN otn /-> 1 n o o > JO (/I '0 O' CO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN) CO CO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN) O' O' IN) IN) CO O' IN) CO IN) I I I I I I <0 O' *• I I I I I I I I I I I I 11)11 I I I I I I I O' O' I I I I I I I I I CO CO *-• •— O' M II II II II II II INI CO 00 I I I I I I I I I CO ►- o- CJI IN) • I I t— 00 CO CO IN) od O' ini fo cn vO O' cn I 1 1 1 l l l l l l l 1 I l I l I I I 1 I l I I 1 l 1 l l l l 1 IN) 00 GO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN) IN) I— ►-IN) O' IN) 00 l" I I I I I I o O' O' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ■p« .p I I I IN) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN) IN) I I I I I I I I cn ini 03 <- ■— IN) O' CO 'O -*l in) ro cn IN) IN) O' >0 O' TABLE 7—CONTINUED EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 X 00 o o o > > r- m z a AM a HOW -n > C o 50 -H z I m « 50 o r~ o -H o m m m 30 C 73 r- n z m > > -H > > *— t -H > •n m o z -H o o 50 Z men i n Tl o z -n 00 MM I i C 00 oo Z O -H z •—1 o -n oo o T> AM X o M z > m O -H z i—t “D 30 m C -1 z £ £ o m > m ■H m 30 m m -h p- J> ■< « 50 r- > J» z > m 73 z m >-i *—i m 50 Z H > 30 > r~ m > >M -1 T> O o Z r- •H r- o 77 -H ■H O Z z I z Z o o z VP ■< -H Z r* z m J> Z > m > z m m > > m -< > o *—• m i» CD 50 Z z c 50 o m z -< 30 30 z m c oo 30 > > Ol -i MM — O o 70 ■< m 70 7* n < z -H MM z z • >—< > o O C 70 n > 1 > o o z T3 50 « > z r- -H > z > m O Z Z o c m > J» -n > T> O o oo X oo r* 50 50 z m o m m m O z o i* o 50 z 03 x» —4 o r o c oo *► 50 O -n > 00 m X o • r- M 30 s0 p* p- VP ui *H O

c p-» p— vp O' r- * h0 O' ro >— P 0D UI O' •P VI VI — O' uv IV (U 0D OD W U> 0D vp ro INJ o Ui ro 00 O on O' -P 00 VI oo VP O' oo u> ro am pv ^4 UI o -P VI 00 ro 'O ■P P-* ^4 -4 •0 •P O' ro vjv UV vC IS) *“ H Ul O' >OHO'St“0+'^ OlUlO'WOO'v/lf-H'i -H l\J VI H W ►“ j ^ a 0D O' <• M «• <• rv (jj a- P- ^ 0D ^ v-n so sO O' O ^ 0D fNJ ^ P- ^ p- ^ VP o ^ f|»!l 1 nil •■'llli ►“ >— M ■P -H 30 l-> H* •-> VI r* r- I'oct— -P *— v> U> VOCy-VI-H^-VI-Pi— VI *- >— N Ul l\>f'0Vlf-O'rv>i- , 'O Hd'«?"0>lOjlr'0^'flCJ''03ff'33ffl^O'J'Ni' '('JNujOWWi- , f‘l)J'JJ'MWWfvJfOW'O^WW'OHi''JiOOO>gOO' iffl II',.;! IV) *- ro ■p -0 OD >£ O' •• « «• •• *• • t—• r—• CT 1 p- p- p— ro r- O' A— VJ -P ro HPOM ^ O' PM P- O' UI rj ro 0D »- O' O' O V) VI rsj ro oo od VJ1 0 s p- ro 1- o OD ^ 03 VI O UJ ro ^ s0 ■f' -0 p- O' VP PHOVlNWVI ui ^ ^ o O ro ro p-* VI V) ^ ro O' o oj ui \j\ p- 0D O' O' s0 ro O' rv c- v*J O' >o <• « V> t- ►- V> M O O ^ ^ 00 HO'^MO^OOO^OJIV-^O'O'-OlW^NMO'NWO'UJyOOMO'vnJIOOO rv .P ►- r\> i— h >i h imkoovONho im vi v0 01^00^V<0^>>001'COS vi i - ^ «-> m p- p— <0 P- ro P- ■p -4 p^ VP O' «• «A •• M «• «• O' o A— OJ u> vO -0 VP AM >M VP O' ro ro UI -0 OJ 03 00 O ro O' ^ o SOI sO O' ro o ro ro VJ^ -P* 00 v-n v0 ro ^ O' 0D ro ro O SP v0 sO 1 rv (jj r\j -P ~J ro ro -xi o ro O' *• m «• « mJ oo ro p- -4 ^ SJ1 UI A— M U p - p- o 0' * ^ 00 ro p- ro VP oo VP pM sO Ul VP -0 00 00 AM 00 o v0 SJ1 O' pM o AM VP ro 00 m EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES! VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 % 'll} o a > > r- -H o oo *n > X > m 1—4 PD o r- O -H m c > > »—( -i > > PD on 2 •n tp I <- 2 X 2 > TP m -h X 7) > o « 2 T> O J> — • 73 > > > • r~ cp *» m 2 o X r* on 2 ;o > 2 H r* m •—* oo TP * m > 73 o TP O > 00 PO —< MM c i- 2 • PD O -H 2 (T> • z > X m > on *71 > > > 73 X 73 N«4 • m > o 73 03 > 2 P-4 *-M m O > on J> O m m —i j» -n ni"ixnwcw2o>HZ ■OTJmOm-i2XOrnCj»m t>m^r*mHinjo2yi —i ~ r- mxpo-ioxx-i x 2j>m2j>2mmi>i»TP m ZCOZ DZ< PD O PD -< m * X> T~ O C T: > TP m 73 ■— 2 m j» O 2 o On TP O 00 h m o o 00 >— no vo i— i— i— o roi oo oo ooaoo'ao-gn-i—v 0 >— O'CDOOOO^'UIOOO^ no O' •- oo <0 S ^ cc o uj on o vO on on oo cnnoooooovOO'-f'oncnon>£i-oooO'Oo--Jooocono v o ooO'0'n-noro->4ono-*'ro)(>a>' t 'o30CDrsjctonoo-g fill i— no fo) ►— owNW030'oopo) no HUI|\JN no »- oi g] to i> o s i fOJ OO 00 -C'no^i-ooni— -o O >e no no uj off'O'fflMfflOon . . Jiiii OO -P- fsj h»< 0 n- O' peNuiN H-0-(-NK«0'N'gM9Ho‘ o>-t'Ooooon>-CD^ona3^e-ooijjoO-«gvOoo^'sO^‘ i— oo k- i\j o ♦•n-aoi—t-'r—O'—* gnn-.gpcnoDO'onno O**4®onff''0^‘on*"0'ooo7i^>0'&'0o-o o-^'^'0^“oo'0*'sOonooo-ooO'\ji*-iM no oo HoK-go o> i—n- no i— no on ►-onoo»-o0'04'0onooi-oooo^'rov0>-o3'0 ODCo-jiOO^'onn-noooonnoooH-onvOonoogj i— n>WH H O' *• *•«««« no vO «joo»“on»-'noO'Oo“>- , oo g'-gai'j-ogjgjogjyii-g'^io^g'gjo noO'Oononn-ooo-goon-oooO'noooo- n- no no n- on no ^ no n- ® >— i-* •— O' >0 ^^uiHooo»jwo'Hwwwg'i-g)o^H •^'i-'O^QD»-‘^*^gO'onvoonoocD^'OOononn-oo i-* i— O' 'CP •“ no o- n- -o I • < < « <■ l >— a> ►- no •-* n-h-on-oon*—-oo ^-ononooonoooonoonooooon^'vO-t'--g ■gOogiHOK-gOaiff'Ooai'fgH n- i— i— on ^ i— -«i t— no i- no ^ oocnvO>--g-gno^'ooooo-t'-n'on>— t- o -o -*g CDOO-f'Mooooo-F'onuJcnooooi— aonoooon-no I no i « oo | oo no i— on ^-non-a'ononoon gjOHHO.p-gd'gjoOOUigifflOlO' -gHO'O-ngjnoNonO'-gnoMgjono- h M h i- 'J*' no O' i— h h no O' m H-gioo.njW'jgjooMO'W^wnoMO'-ggjoio n-oocoon~ooo-4oO'On-noO'oonooo-f''Oooi-'>ooo O' oo no nosooo H-r-aoooonooni— o-«jO'OoooO'-g'C-o-t'ooO'OooJ'0' 'O^'O'nooBO'OD'OO'noCDfojoDOB^'no-o TABLE 7—CONTINUED EUROPEAN FREE TRAOE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, VALUE BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 < ► > 03 T~ m <0 o> IM >0 * «0 O' Ul <0 O' O' >0 EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 a<\iO'4343U343430'a •> I l • 4-B I 44 I I (\1 ^ 4" O' f*» H ^ in h- 4- 4- -4-00

0 •» 1 • •» • 1 43 in ■o 4 9 6 n o >* o O' 1 1 00 h- i 1 O' H 00 43 00 CM CM m —4 (N1 O' 00 o O' CNJ P- 43 43 H -t 43 00 4- O' ro O CNJ 00 >0 a 43 0 0 m (M «3 O' o 00 0 0 ro f*- 00 1 1 CM in •k •» •» * * ► •» •» •k •» ► 1 1 * 0 ^4 o 0 6 6 1 H CNJ 4- 4- «3 1 1 O' O' O' r*- 43 QO H 0 o CM o CNJ o ro O' 43 O' CM in CM O' >*■ 30 O' 43 <4 >0 m ro 0 f-4 O' CM in co O' r- 43 43 O' <4- >0 4- •» •k •k •» •» •» •» . •» •* 43 oo >0 CO in >0 Qs O' <13 ro H CO O' QO 00 t- in co —i ro MH vO C' N t/> O' ^ ro r*- 0 -* >0 O' 43 a ® ao in r- 43 ro »-* in CO h- in ni r» fo CM O >* OO CO 4) fr -t 00 r-* in o O rO 0 s z o 0 ro fO 4- O 4) -» r-^ 4" » * •k * •» •k 1 1 >0 a ro o CM cm ro 10 H <13 e4 0 P— CM 4 9 O' 1 1 O' CM CVJ 00 -* 0 ^4 ^■4 ^ U P^ »-4 0 H H O' in co ro O f>» O' 0 >* o 0 CO H On ^4 O' cm in ro CO O' 0 '* ro 43 O' CO O' h- CM P*- r4 ro oo 43 ro o O' 0 CM N- H CO 43 43 o 4- >* ro co 00 0 O' •“4 CM •k fk •> •k •k «k •k •» •k •k «, » •» •k 0 o O' in CM 4* CO ro 43 CM >fr in H ro CM O' O' CO ro H ^ H CM (M H H COCOON in 43 o 4- a a o I I I '")l nil O' o ro co co 0 O' O' r^ 0 O' 43 N H 0 in ro O' O' O' 00 n * H CM <13 (M 4- i*» a K- c z < — i cc LU o a < z Q —* dJ >■ _J cc a > oo at Q a < s: CL LU Z 0£ >- z a Q z o a Z CL < LU o < V LU < a ivi a z < x a z < LU a > H X z x a x 301- k- at X o — -J X h- H <1 <1 o; < i- c£ a « »-i a QC a at < z < < at <1 *-* LU a: UJ k- Ul < 0 2 3: z •- LU m a a *-« X a a <* Q o I CL O a. a c4 h »— Z a oo O o X 00 Li. z u a x u Z CL O OhOOJ u. < a N- < < < LU X o «i cl nc lu LU a a a o a O at uj X 51 K CL O 3 < Li. oo o a O M O Z LU -J < < o o O (0 2 tUKUrtAN r Ktt I KAUC AiiUtlAI 1UM EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 Q O O' r- >t N N cvj ro ro ro o in eg ro ^ cm ® CM ® O' GO O' o —> ~t H O' ro —< O CM vO CM d- ^ H N O' m d d >fr CM 0- 4- CO NO'O't >* N H •— 1 1 1 ^ in ® i I in d co cm CO » ft* •» ft* « » •> a* •ft » ft* 1 1 • ► i l » » • >0 CO m cm in in o >0 ro cm 1 1 «—< rvj CM 1 HIMH O' >* m f\j H co cr ro o ro o 00 ^ m in cm O' O' d- in CM cr -« in CM o sO (M CM d co d in CD ro O ro ^ ro in d- ro in ro O' d- d- CO 1 1 O' O UO >0 •* •* •* •k •* •* •* ft* • ft* ft* 1 1 •» >o ^ >o o oo >* in vO CM ro 1 1 h- O' <4* ro H H -4#OKUM + H« I I ro •—* 0- * I ► ► I H ^ 'OiMWinin'OinO'eommiMinoinfo -*.~iCMcoO'^d’'f>'-'® a) —c~d''Od"®d- co d - co d ^*4 H CO co *o CM (M — ■d co CO O' CO •h » » d- -< cm CM-*iniMd-CMd’f->^<-* O' rsj sO r*4 O ro oo in 00 in sO 00 O' —‘ cm in o o ro oo r» —* GO r~4 CM O' H in in n r*- ■o >0 fw >D >fr d- » ft* » « •»•*•» * ft* ft* * •c in O' CO >D —« in CD ro ro O' in in CM CM ®0'CMina'in-*cocoo'® NfClKldlOOlOIA C-^'J’CONC-^M •> CO z 603 12 in h- 775 136 435 «tN'00t CM *• 00 » l i - v0 ►- CM O' 00 CO G N 1 1 CM O' H u in ro ro f4 N h d die o s o in h -h in O' o |CWM »t ao o CM h- oo in r*- d co « 00 <7* •o r~ O' O CM 00 —* CM in H r- o> d ® CO y£> d- CO o >o h- 00 00 h- in in co cm o- 1 d- 1 in cm Q UJ £ U <■ od a Q O a. < z « < V- z Z a uj •— ® -1 < — ac a. < Z < Q 3 o —1 * z> a o < oi O ft-4 > a: UJ CC 1-4 h- <-• 4 < a. a: z •—« LU O 3 UJ a: < l/l OJ <1 V 0^ KJ LU 21 UJ u z UJ -J z > — > >r s: £ -J 1- h- H- a: oc UJ >—> £ 04"0'P~*(\iiD04>'HO'4’iD»-'ro®fsj inr~0'oo>OvO'0^(Ni«>oirif^vO- j irif~ooaO'0>0(M( < i>r» ,£_HOv_i<** V j > j*m(\iiD4)aof'0'P~f\i (Mcocr-^-oo—icoiA lAyj-coirxif'— *£ 4) ID t— —I ID ID id D eg >4 re ^4 H 4- O' >fr GO r*- O eg in in go H m *o e- rg P- h- O' CD 4* eg O' in O' O re in *4 o 4- 00 GO O 4* re in O' eg 4- o* O eg >o O e- eg h- m eg re 4> O' PPI p- 4* p» ao eg re o 4> ft ft •» •» •» » •» •» • ► •» ft* ft* ft* ft* •* •» •> » 4) c re O' 4- in eg eg sD eg re in eg >0 in 1 2 7 4> 4- O' e- f*- 4> ^4 in in ^4 O' p- PM h- o ft* 4> in in 4) •4* 4 <0 N >0 4-0 O' *4 00 >0 *0 *4 in -4 -g* re r~ pp> 4- 4- 4* ID in 4 * eg O o O' O' pP| O' eg »—4 O in >0 h- 00 >0 in eg p- o re in e- ^ O ft-l 4) PPI in ft* •* ft* • •* ft* ft* •* ft ft* •* ft* ft •» *0 re 4> *4 eg 00 O <0 ^4 eg eg O' •4 PPI O' •4- in in 4 NO(ONIflfnO'4'0'4'n'»0'Off'N«(M>-0'HNO''0 ^OO0'^OW!^KIO>^ fPIOO'OPOO'POO'4>4>"H4*-< ai>t^NNHf'^iD-iJ’ 0*00 f\ir~^ao*or~rO'J‘ 0 *0*0) H (f| O) H o* If) «< ® N ID ■o 4-4- •f >-4 \n *4- -4 CM >0 PM PM Z 60 5 477 828 fP| o ft ft ft 4) O' *- 18 42 4- N O 4 M ® ”< O 4) —• *4* *4* PO ef| 4lf\N-OM*lSN (D *4* O O *0 ® ID » ■ m «-h po id ftH o ft^ O' re p-4 *4 re 4* eft 00 4> (M O ID N 4 O' re ao co ID 4- Pvl eg re >4 NO re in re o o ^ o 4> eg o 4* re *4 4* GO co o P- *0 4* <4 ej *4 in 't’ ft4 e* in a >4 h- *•4 GO O re *4 4* O ID PM eg •* •• •* »»» •» •> •* •» •* •* >4 o *4 in 4- 4J PPI in 4* eg re eg *g * f\IC0O00lD4*PPIPPl4)4 , P-PI1PM'4pil0 CO *4* *0 »i 4 4 ® *fl IP N •» « ft ft ft* ft |» ft ft ft «t o ® h m in cvi m ** 4* *■< re »-* eg eg ^ ^ (^(M in >t II,! I u *- UJ » < 14 a o UJ UJ M z z z oc M < z o UJ ft z UJ < a UI z z < ac o l/) o a. < < UJ < UJ z o UJ a *- ^ »— ft* QC a < z ft a Q < o < * 3 O O ** Of Z UJ ftN h- > UJ oc *— *- OC • < z 14 z z a 3 oc < UJ a UJ < > at uj z UJ Z UJ _J UJ V 1 Z Q < Z _J Ql- a *- z Q 1- (PI < UJ o 0C < UJ « UJ OC < < < OC • < M ►- < UJ Ui** XMZUU.Z CD O Z ID OC o OhZ < o UI u. < 1- *- < < K — < :* EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 inC'®'4'<'<10'p®m®'4'® r ro pH H pH H O' in CNJ >0 « •> •* r- rO CO in 4- CO ^4 *H CM O' CM CM *4 pH H H pH ^4 in^®win®m>o©r-®<\im-jaD<\j>o ® r\i r*- O' inM't(Njf\jm-HO®C7'--o h ff 1 o ? ■4" (\i r~- •4’ —i m —* p ■- 1 i I 00 CM ro in cm ao ro CM in in 0 *4* CM •c >0 0 pH f\J (NJ CM H m 0 >n 0 p- kfr *H CM N ro CO 4- O' 00 ^H pH 0 >0 CM ■4- •» ► •k •» •* •k •» * in CM O pH in O 00 CO 0 pH pH z CM -o in CO CO CM pH H CO CM 0 4- in m 0 •k •» •» •» •> •» •» •k •» P >0 V- P-4 CO ao fO CM pH O H H pH pH pH 0 CM ^h pH O O pH 0 pH pH pH pH in CM ^ n- f»- CO N“ CM ro O O ^ ^ >c <4- vO >0 co *4* o CO N» ao h- in sO N- pH m 0 ao pH CM kf in vO nO CO pH *■ O pH CM •k •k «k pk •k «k ► * •k •> •k •k v0 pH in cm in vO pH CM h- pH pH pH CM pH Os ro cm ph pH O ^H ^H pH ^H pH >4- O ao 0 > 4 - -4- m fsj 'O O in in r- CM in 0 p- CM pH CO CM CO O pH kO N- pH CO f- in 0 OS s4 pH CO O 0- N H ^ in pH CO in CM co CO •* •k » •k P » P «k •k •* •k •k » CO O' in co H ^ pH NO CM pH pH CO CM CO CM ^4 pH O 0 pH pH pH pH • * l OC OC 0 < UJ Z h- - esc: < CO oc z UJ UJ - NJ >- 1 z X _l H- t- CO 0 ►H 0 z uj 0 to 3 UJ QC < < a < t— uj je >— uj < >-> inxzuu-xu z a; » in in n- m * o «o * » m o OOmKMOCh^^IBNmC'NlA'Olfl^^N 0 'Mj- H O CO l<\ it M if O -t (*1 cn oo in 'O co •* -o O' m -oifiOioOMcoNoo^mifiiOiOOO-iajit iOO'ncOOiOiO'Olf>H«lNt3'OHO o (M cncocc'N-oaoiMin^O'cocM^'cn oo m in cn -l co m m O' CM CM vO m cm CM CM ^ I ft j I mfPiCT''fO'CT>oO' 0 ^oocM»H^-'« , mff>pciC N* in'OcncM-oOiocMo <000 h m n o ^ m (t | oo cm ► » » ► • » • • • > • i • * m ^ ^ m in o mm— j -i ■—* CO z o cn ^ O' h- •» moo O' >* O' r*» •» •» mom CO N- 00 in cm ao •» •> ■o h- o O' 4* OsJ t-i O' o cn m 1 CO Cft H OO H fflC0't't NNiOltlCOfflfflO'O'ft O' ^ iF i0 *■* O ^ cCl CO ft* >7 CM t I o^cM«fooincno in o< oo n . I N -< ifl iO C _ O' CM O' t- >0 ^ CM fft* O' CM CM O NOIOOIMH on* CM"-< | -i O N O CM H | CM 00 ft i ft « » * j o i —I — in ^ I in ^ CM 4 00 ON O' O N- O ft-l CM O O' •* O' O' o 00 CM ^ O' >0 CM 1 1 cm co cm o m O' ft ft ft ft 1 I “ * » •> • <\i —i f- m i i m ftH -< CO i0 r** r- in m *■4 cm oo cm in cm m m m OO ^ mt ft-l in ^ io oo in LLI O < *- Z U < <. >~ _J cc LU z QC UJ l_> UJ z a < z r j i < UJ o < 0C < K- < * cc “ ££ > 2 UJ Q 00 < Q KZ < O UC UL j OC 3 O H HI OJ 0C O 3 ZUJtil ac x —i uu oc < < Z t-Ui X *- 3COIZUU. <»-•-•<< lUOhU j < V0 o c • > ■> h n I* « —» 73 z r- o -t o > J> -H -n o z x -< I o -t je m C C r» > j> 30 o z m X O Ct o m m i/> > i Ticrjoo I — 73 *> ■< O') . O O < l~ *» 73 «- O m > < X. t/3 m 2 o •—< c O 70 «H m m 50 70 r- O n m O -H O c: 2 O 2 CD -n o ■O X O z x O rr j> (T m & m > »—* M 7: 2 —1 70 p P -H -i X 2 X 2 2 3 1 m > > m P O m o rr, -< 50 50 2 m 70 X to r* < X * r" p O m «-■ p 2 P p 2 2 C -H O O C/I •« I'Ny ¥s i ^ a— >-■ -F- -C v ^ J1WMI3C I I a-f-OO-J-OO*- ODCB'JlO^OtOJW r'l'^OOtC^W I—• a— N) M vO 00 IN) O • « • • ■ r\> in> o ® ini a- o o in) vO N W M ^ U) •- ff. C ^ H W sOiO-gO'^OWtt a- ro *- m X IN) O' >£ sO x in> oo oo 1 O' O « <• « 1 70 O' <6 <0 1 \C vp ro H vO W *- fS) ro -1 00 O *n p o 70 O C rr ►— p p vO r- c 4“ 00 1 1 CD O' -H 70 «• « I * ro c o »— 1 *- 50 "D ►- P ro > m 1 p P ►— vO r* p 2 r- 1 1 1 ( -J 1 -f' «• 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 • 00 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 u> O' VP o , . ^ h- r'O -T' ^ a- O' a— fs O03a-a~-'J0'U)»-'>“O' 0 I »»»•'•'•'•«•«•••» UlMlJO'lw-f'HOljJOMW 00<'00^'0'srO*--sl010C-sl'C IN) VJ1 ►- 03 'O ■*- « * « « « "• o o o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o 4> u r~ v£) „ Sc f- -H O' m o; « o VP 00 IT H r\j 2 • 2 VP o o^p C o^ c > o z o -H ro IN) IN) O IN) IN) H N I 1 1 1 -J 1 1 IN) U> 1 1 O' •£> «•<•!• 1 1 « 1 1 - - 1 « « o o * * 1 1 O 1 1 O' -0 1 1 v/i no ro o o 03 O' O O 00 sO O' OJ IN) yi O' 00 i- -J I— k*> ■E' Ul 03 « « « « 4 VJ) .p- v>) IN) La) sO I-* sO IN) LP L>) 0D O' -4 ■F' 00 VP > ** ro ro CD 2 ro ro ro & -< ip p 1 « « i -0 «• O' & O o O » o m o o o Ln o o o -H 2 P -H o z « * r- 00 p p sD p ►— 1 p 0 s vO <• «• 1 « \J\ o -o v* ro co i cr ro 1 1 O vr p -0 I I I I I I ivrvjui^j O' v*» ^ r r w I I ynoOINNN 00 I- O NJ'O «il ««<•«<•« *• T_ yii | ^uiwj'nco^wh^ni-'^ ^NO^W-P'^O'O-f* 5i CDOjrosorv^-^c^rif^^^^'^ -F- 1 1 0- 1 | ^ j <• 1 1 * 1 i • i IN) <£ 1 1 p 1 i p i vO 00 \jy -J O' *- I-* h* -0 \J) o ro ^ -g ro p •— O N CD W o U1 N ui h^vOCOWOhOsJ \j)f*fr*-*s£CD'JlO'CDr-* ►- IN) ro i- O' 00 -si ~0 1 1 03 - - 1 1 * *0 sO 1 1 ro rvj oo oo o r- 'C IN) cr EU Kurt AN hKtt IKAUt About 1AI IUi>* EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 O N (fl OO ** ** 4 0 0 00 IN CN 00 O -O O'"! f* —> 0-0- INI —' —■ l H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O N ffl (M 1-0 0 '** I O' 00 f- I I I H I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O ff 1 O' CO O' I pn o o I • * * i m ci o in cn cn o co m (NJ o O •• •> • CN —t —* MNO'OK'OOO m O' 00 in ~4 -4- m I I I I I I I I o x «r a: < o a — UJ LU w Q LU * £ at 00 O CL < C < uu o z o > UJ < Z « OC O 0l « Z o IM u «J * => _j a a A— z -1 * LU 00 >• x — K < £ QC z oo ao z o o x 3 at < LU < > LU < JJIUZI < LU LU -J > 1 x a: •J X X QhCtU o X t- * < a: < 1 - z LU — UJ LU z ac < < CL < t—1 >3* UJ llih LU < LU JZhM Z5 LU X t- UJ < *- a o X Q. O O *—• zi-a oo O oo O X izun X O Z X o O L- O uu LL *t t- — < < ~ 4l < LU x o _j o c ac iu LU LU O L- O J o QC >— LU X X h» x a Z) <1 LL 00 O K o o z LU -J < < o o u 00 3 EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 m o 4 m l r- ro I I I - » I I - I fsj —< I I —> >0 i/nfl O till <\j vf v* m m rg oo oo cm fsisoco H^NOir I m in O' I h r-i O' i » » i ► - — - I MO"< I N O' fO (\J I I I I I I I I O rg O o ~0 I — O' I I I I •> » I I I I m -* I I I fsi eg O I I I i i i l I vO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I z m h- m a <0 t— O' cm o H »—< az UJ z: i O' rgN-i-igjmmaof^ ^) oo go ao o m 6- >0 O o f(l S H CO o m m m I I r» C\i O' sO ro in o in O' o oo 00 p- NO O' vO r- O' 't CM o o o o o- \ i ^ h- m m oo (\J O' •"* 1 1 »-4 0 s 1 1 O' <\J - i i • •* •> •> » * •* 1 1 * •» •» l 1 •» >o O 1 1 O in ret »—4 o vO vO 1 1 o in CO | 1 CO o 't >fr O CM vO rH ^4 rH p4 »H ^ *4 so m l i i i i I o -u gj CM sO in vT g> g> m p- «»■ o in 00 o N- pH "H gj m l 1 P-4 1 1 O' 1 1 1 i nJ- » * i ** •» •* 1 1 1 - 1 i - m gj i 1 4- CM r~* 1 1 1 1 !"■ 1 i i" 6- <\J CM •j- l l i i l i i i i i i i i i l i l l i i i o i/i a a a >• _j a:00 — ai z a - oc (J z a z z z ct O < >- UJ i- s: t- oz *: < _i_ix < a: c t— i/>zczujq:_iqzujz< itOH2i- t> H O t/1 T1 x m •— 7> O m > J> ►— -1 73 Z OX > r* o i > j» — -n o z j> m -i z 50 > *» z m z r- r* r- m *► > > 50 Z Z H ■« O O — o Z J> > z X. oo O m z o c c O 30 -H 2 o m m m 73 30 r- o 2 -1 > -n m O-IO O X O T> —H z o ■n o 73 X o o m r* O m —1 a: o m C I> m m 73 m ** 73 m r- 73 m >o z 00 —i > 73 > I> o > 2 73 -H s z X r 2 Z 2 ro -< m X z > Z rsi > » 73 m -< > O m c o o Z m K 30 5D Z m O > 73 00 -< m 73 * > r* -< > z a r~ C r- > o -i o -o o m 73 > z > oo m < > O Z o « > > oo 73 o oo 33 H m C m Z > > 2 o > m o >- I • I p I— I v/> >o I- I O' O' I I I | (- M P -J I ( I I M ** O' ro O' •- O' O' hWOWOO'9'N N^'OMNO'-JW M O' O' P N) I P «• « I — 1 V*J O' I P>> —I ^ -S' »— >© O' II II I o> Ul I I I II II I • I I t II UJ I | W I NN I I I | fsj -J -J Nn O — ►- w i*> O' O' «- o U1 00 O' ro o uj O O' O' -4 U) v*» vp p ® oo O' w m o m a to n — i— ro p od oo syivia) i oopf-p ►-O' l O' « « <• « I « « « « * • l • -moo i yi o p -j o ® i- l ro o o) oi 'C w O' ao ao O' «o ro O' O p U) O 0'WP®0'®P o o -H o z >0 O' ID I I I I I I ^ ro . w p- oo II O'-oioi'O >opro>« I 00-4 -o ui*oJ II - « « I <• • « — l • « « * * _ i i ►- p o O' i pnoooo I u» o -j vp w n > oo oo o p h oo-jojroooo iO n w ou) w >— WOW O «1 O yfl o H n w ►* w o P O' p I I I I I I I I I O' oo ao H — Oj I— ■ I— I— i Ul VP O' P I pro^ i o I hpnuinumd os v» o- ►“ | | -m « •> I « I ••<•»>•• • • " I O'OO I ro I WpOUlM'JJ'UIPPlOW I O' ® VP P r- Nro® 0 'OW»y'UI>OWW oo^sO-0 oo --ro>j®oifOO'PP'i >0 O' VJI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —- t-— —- ro V*) ►•rowwoyipwroO'N I NT o to m 4 • (M .4 I I I I I I ^ * uS * m m in m «i cm o H H H H O 21 *t O to O M N Cl ^ N fO CO CO O' -4 » •> •» 4 m 44 .—* >—< SfUO'Ni-iOlAOHh'^ltlOO'fO^'O't -4 cciinrvjfNJ.Oroofvj^rriinr^iniMvOOO o COIMNINOOOHrff- in i-4 f«- CM CD 1*1 in CvJ rr» • -tOl/lNOOOON OO^^O'ftlftSOOh- (OKI ON® «l -l (O I 4 *■ I (M —I I m 0 —‘ r\j m in •* •» «k •» •» i 1 •» •» 43 00 IT» *-< (\i H I 1 -* H O' Nr-0®02lH<0®NN m as <*i f— cm cm 4 c*i ao in cm cm in cm ^ n -t in m CM O' in cm oo m cm (M —i HMNinfO'OOHtMnHO' in aorMmn-O'C0(M'»‘r->o o coo'Of'Jinr— » •» •> » • » • m O' —i cm -u 4 4 J3 —• Q <*i o> ki >o in N O 't Kl « O' Kl ^ H >t in O' ^ n 4 4 cn cm « f- in -* -o „ o 4 n | CM —i nO'rn(7'CoaofM>j-nim ^CMCOfClCM^incCl-l in-c'O'J’-oo-c-i 4 -4 CM -4 cm in cm o rn r» ao >o 4 h in ki *4 NNH4 4NOHQICIO® C*1 ■4- 4 ** vO CO 00 00 CD -4- CM O 44 O' -4 >4- O' CO 4 I -4 I O' CM -O CM O 4 4 "■* O' 00 (nj oo m m 4 4 a> 4 ao ^ a* 00 O' ao *4 43 -4 04®0 43 a* H to o ro O' ^ O' CD ^ rsi m -4 CO CO C- ao (Cl ca rn ^4 h- 4" (\J f^ 4 cm 4 in l 1 00 pry CC1 I 1 1 1 4 1 1 O' CM CO » •> * * I i 1 1 1 ! * ! 1 « 1 1 4* CM —> 1 i 1 l 1 1 «4 | 1 -• 1 1 coror-omo—caocO'comcM vO CONin4-COfOlON ao eg m m in 4 N h •» •* •» » •» 40 -4 i—I 44 cm -4 cm in in K1 S O' N ^ 43 in m 43 r*> f*l CM 4 CM 43 (f| 4 4 CO 4 4 43 in -4 in cm cm 43 O rsj O 1 1 in m 4 cm I 1 (Cl | - O 4 UJ l/l CO a z 4 4 O U. OC Z < a O < UJ 1- 4 U. X _i <1 z a: uj cl o <* Z 4 < t- Q < o < 3 o a o !-• O • 4 M 3 Z UJ — V _j ic UJ > ac Q <1 N- l- 4 «/» 4 0 — 00 O Z < z a: z qc ac >- Z Z Q 3 Z a: 4 O 44 O UJ 00 z in >-< UJ < UJ < - 4 Qt < >■ 2 3 < 4 4 > 1 z z X z XOKDCZ< _j »- s: Z o a Z UJ 4 O a: «-« a O • OC H- 43 «X cC l- H auiujmocjacuj •—« -4 — > 4 0 • _| oa ac □c 4 Q X 44 4 UJ UJ UJ 4 UJ □ Jhiflujouja: a: x »— UJ OC 4 z o X at: > o a: uj 4 Q O I a. o o Zl-O 7i/ii/i30ai“ co z a IL IuU 3 UJ O 2 CD x o oo —1 u. co O Q t- a uj u. 4 i- *- < < h- ~ < Z a _J a; ac uj IJJ UJ 3 »- o -J O OC Z H- QC O 3 < UL 00 O "4 a Z UJ _j 4 < o in s: oo o o O > > r- m 2 o o -1 n 00 -n > c o 7 •H X X m 73 O r* n H c m m m 7 7 r~ O X m > > MH —1 > > MH -1 > n m C -H o o 70 z I> O X cn -n o z ■n MH X C3 oo c oo Z o > —i z O ■n a O 13 X O o z > m 73 -H X MH 73 m m “H Z T. a m C > PTi m m rr \r t> o 70 > > > z rr 73 73 rT' ^ r 73 z 00 —i 73 > r* J> •* C' rx X r* r~ X 70 -( O *: X —< X X Z CD X I < r~ r~ mh m > > m J> 2 m fTi > > 73 m > o MH m t> > r“ 73 z Z c Z O Z < 73 MH 73 z m c 7 T1 > H *—« o O 73 -< m 7^ > f— < X MH 7 z M o O c * I> 1 o C o z > “O m » — Z n > MH m x> G 2 C c -1 > > 00 -0 m m a X z -> 73 2 <23 o o > o c 7 CD Z c “n 73 m oo x o 73 >— ^ vj^ o? od m *— »— ro ro (> a >- o w &■ o « « Iwvv^****** «w «■*<•■• <• i_ i— ^jO'i-'vCO i MOO'O'-n\Jlf'JMINJ-*tC©'-w^*O0'l'>>UJO' CO'Ul-WOJO-JVJl U10MttMN'J^'OOWO'OWWW^'''f‘'J ^-O'rou'O'Uiooi'o > (y'>oui» ,- \OOOoOvC®w^ai'* | ^>“offlB vO O' X -o o —i C/> > O 3D O c M *— OJ Ul >— ©O' 0 ao OVIWUIOH fn ONB^ry^WN ro ro 03 O' vO r~ c 1 W H- ►— VJ> U3 4> CD ro ro O' o O' 7) ro c C 1 CD s£> o u> ^ N K Cw CD 03 OD o -o o VD CD *• 35 7 N) 0D VJ1 f\3 O' o »- OJ o- O' vO cr on ro c -0 > m O' O' O >0 t— o ♦- vO 0D ro •0 OJ O' o ►— 1 U1 * r- x> 2H O > O Tl“ T V PJ m O moo G _ 1] ^•f'O-t'HO'O'LUW'-' <- M"* \J1 00 O VJ3 -P' o *- >0 o UJ *8 — >Z m oh oo mH ^-oo O-h •w-p'HHOO'Or'jOiji'O-w-wcji-wvjiaoaar'j^-r'o O'O'OO'i— (V-WWA B»vflO'OW^DtM®S®0^‘vOW'“M®® l\jO>0®UlHWQDl-Oi'0^'0(V)ffl(B^ONWU10'f*'H^i-5' O Dog C WO > o 2 O m rv> wwi • w » « '•••I* ■(« O >— ■t' \J1 I -W co®>ju>uiwm'0 m ISJOO.t'O'.p'vOVJl'O 00 w s 1“'UlCT'UJINJl'O*-' >o o oo o ^ ffi a >o o >— M N O -P- M o rw .t' wn m WOUlf (\J-gf-U)03OJ“4-Jwn0D 2 *» o 2 I— f\) M M I « « « - I •— U1 l\) -vj H • 'O-P'i-'vO'-'OJ^-.P' ohuiwwo'OvO r-r'J'OWO'-WWMt— HON)i—aDO''jnO'vJ' -'■(' i— u> ro od ro v> •p- O ■P' >0 >— l\J w- CJ> -g \J1 >0 »“ O O' nO « v> o- 4 UJ > — O l\> I O' -- O' ►- (— OIUI I UIW - - * - i - - v0 yi I oi o ui'jiao-guJi'owo ro ro 0'\Jl'J100 00-f''“UJ -woo *—* f—* ro K'0'WnO'l*IUJI'J*"*“U>r-C' OfHO'^'OOi-WBU' H ■wyiON®''®®NO^M ro o\ o- 'C W »0 ^ O' O' « - . . O' 00 O' N3 O' O Ul -0 -O' •— O O -O' ui .p* -O' •— -O' O' •— ►— -f~ -t> I -C' - - - - I - t— —0 O M I N Jl<»-J'J'UJ'J'U).P'ro ^''OlSjOO-JOoOO'O -w-t'0'wnvOO'i->oo»ji ►— ►— .p' \J1 OJ 00 CD H L0 'O VJ* \OOvOCC -OCOlH-l'JI'O-sl oj'0'ivj-f''0oo»o--joocr' r0.P'r0l»00l'0O>£-P'Cr vO O' I I I 00 co co o oo <\j cm in o I co —i co oo I •* * l o co NNff'vO'tOfOtfVOOO mcoiMCT'roinO'OOOsO >OCMO'0-'- 4 inOininO' h I IT>- fsl vO in CM CO O O- I CM —I I I I I I I I I ^ ^ 00 00 o- so o O' O' «\ (NJ in a- in cc n* GO GO 1 i"h 4 CO •> » * j • >fr (VJ (NJ 1 1 CO fNl ^ co o- in O' P- in CM O' co O (M (M O' cm si- r- j •> > » » i _ sO in (Ml I I >©r-sOO©coo''CMsi-o'Oinf“-'4-'e IT! (M CM >0 O 'O O N ^ H CM lf\ ^ | »»»»l xlffl H N I CM -4(M^^-iriCMCOOO ^JCM<\lsJ-0-^0'0> lOOO'i'NHNO'ff 1 sf —i in in co CM CM h z st l/l CO a «k UJ <0 H- (NJ M O' (NJ L- ^4 U M i—< o QC o 1- X UJ X X o o -J GO < UN ac (NJ 3 (M » <0 00 _J O' m 3 *■4 u M 0C 19 < IL O 00 L- ac □ >0 a. O' X in ^OlflMMMCCIO'S'^'OOO' ,o^c•» » • • * • * l to o> ^ n »■* c» (M-mm l CO —I —I *-l O CM O CO *4 O' 00 »*• oo«t»^oococo^in>-Hff'ff'^^ W^NO'inN»t'ONHN(NI(M o- cm o o- co sj- ao sf co o in in in o ao cm r- so st 0- s0 CO •-4 vO —4 ^ (NJ ^ ^ PO (NJ -> i i i i i i i i i i i cm m >0 in oo co UN in oc UJ UJ < o X a a u. O Z ►- Q h- O UJ u. a j oc cC n UJ h- H 03 O Z UJ to * O m QUIK X O CL CO 4 Z O 4 4 w M oc in a. < z x => > ci _o « < ^ uj>- <1 OC Q O « I- N->a:>zo z -j 3 z z o£ < < a .<-X«a.ZOU-XU< Z0£ t> r- ■HfU" T1 > xm-i tj o i-o-< m > > •—« —i > > — 73 2 n>nmno2 o z > m to -i x 30 > > a > j> r- o m m h j> n n»ivic^zo>-( ~"onm-iZ*:crrc> >z>m7!mwm7!Z(/i x <“ -« r- x-ioars-t m>zi>mzmrr-t>j> 73 73 Z Z C OZ< 7)-, ■— O O 73 m 7? j> o a c 75 J> 7 33 H m o z -o o m o O X n m z o pm o c C X —1 2 m 70 X o 2 m O “H o O z o -n n “0 x o O fT m 73 m VJ1 ►— — 1 73 > i> —i X X Z 2 ‘Ol < m > o m 73 Z m X a > r* -< X z j> o > o z > “0 o m > X «• m > >- I t- os ry r\j O' <7 -j i-* I I I •— »—• UJ U> <0 I oo yio>(>Huiwwyif“^3i“ ao O' 0'juaiwoo>'W^'" r : >vi„ li M U1 'O ^ vO W W ^ N) r— ►- l— O' O' ^'OSNOWOINO' 00 yi <— ro o yi I'OUI I I f l\J -J f\3 O U) O >0 N O' o yi >0 00 .f> yi r- o nC i 1 1 1 i- •H O' i 1 1 •• o V*> yt l i ►- f 00 1 1 o Z o o O t- -y s0 M uj yt O o> 1 1 1 1 '! Ill Hij P0 PO H- >o & po po »—• »— vji vO -o u» wn O a* vO 0 s ro U> \J1 po o oo po ^ N) ^ ^ H H | ^ ^ >o O N N O' O' U) -g PO 03 O' O' v» I UJ -P' 03 O' UJ 00 O s o \ji ro O' ao \J> I I I I I I H- PO 00 O' -S' PO -P* O' PO PO PO PO O O' N H h- (\) PO K* PO \J 1 O' hOO O sO OJ UJ 00 H ^ (\) 03 O' -«4 h O' ^ O' EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 SITC 054- VEGETABLES, FRESH, FROZEN inii^-gogT'Oinjinjcni—* r - ~4'0'r--f' r 'aoo4"'— O'43mmc00'OiNJ(Ni0' miA(Moir»oaDO'aO'^>oi^sfoo^'Ooo-^ m43c O' 43 o O' n£> vO O' O' O' o o o o 43 4- in CM ao 43 co in O' 00 a> CM CM 03 O CO 43 CO in •4 ao m ini r- <7* vO co 00 H O' ro ao o h- in o P* 00 00 O' CO o CM r- >$• *■4 ^4 -4 O' n o CO >£ ao >0 m o cm CM in ^4 00 4 - r- in in CM CM O' CM N *4 N ro 00 CM (7 o co CM ^4 *•4 h» h- in ro ro r- 00 00 CM CM ^4 ^4 43 in CM *4 CM o CM h- o in ® 43 43 r- cn O' 4- o 4- o CM CM in in 4* o o m CO 4- m ini 43 ^4 O' CO in CO r* 00 in o 4- inj 4- »*4 h44 >0 00 m ^4 in >o o CO 00 f- ^4 m 4 n 00 CM m O' co 4- o O' in o 4- i4 4^44 00 *4 in 4) O' >0 ^4 *■4 •4- H *■4 ONCO®4 , H''OH1 4-OcriiNjh--*C34- ^ co ini r— CM I*- -4 fT) O' O 4 - n0 cm f- ini f- ao ao fw CM CM r- CO 4 - 4 - in CM >* ^ 't’ >o o m o ^4 O CO CM in (M in <7 H 4 - O' o cb o- co o C 7 O m co r- 4 oo r- ^4 >o CM co 43 4 - cm *-* co N O H CM o co in O' CM in in 4 - 4-43 43 H CO H CO 4 - ® *■4 00 h- CO CM CM CM ^4 oor'-o-*®4-inr-0'UN POMSO'lA'OIOf'IM n-nNfiNO'O'n-inmi'iN co -o h* >o m o ® INI *-l INI cr ,nj.-*.-*.-i — 0'434 -ini0 m co 4- O' o 4- 4- m >HMf|>tifl|lim44004'inO®SNI , 'M*''000040' >t —1 O' INI r-0'0-44 , 434 , ^>0 o^<\joor«-f»-4-oco430-'4-comocMinmO'co®-40'r-io^ in f- o — i inj o> m in (M co -< -o 4 « 4 INI —1 o as X X a ill a uj X O 0l 3 a z O uj -J z “(to. «* 1 < _l X 3 O U X >■ -1 < Ul OH 3 HI Z a£ O Z 3 3 Z Of »—i O < > HI 3UJUJZUiZ > r- m z o *—4 O —i o T) > c O 50 z X m P-4 73 O r* a -i O m m m 50 o c 50 r- o z m > > •-« —1 > > — -i t> n rri c I> z -* o c 50 Z a * on 2 C- X > c o X -n o Z CD X on C (/> 00 Z o -i O Ti CD O X z —^ X o o M J» c > r> I> a z z > m -4 Z X m -i 2 ST 3L O m > m 50 m m I> —1 VJ1 J> X £ c r X r* o 1-4 X > > P-M ^ m *■« —. rr 50 Z 50 *► r- o m t> v-n -H 50 > o > > J> O o z -1 50 -1 lOI J X z © x> o X VJl -< J> ►—1 •-i ■< Z z n z r* m • m z m m rr. X> "> J» o m »—< on CD > > x C o m z ■< 53 z m c (/> 50 < > Z P-4 > :*> m 73 * -< z —H M m z 50 > O • O Q O C 7* r“ 1 > r> o o t> c Z > n ■O 3C „ x> r* •H > m CD m m > m O z z c rr -H > H Z -n > ■o o o X oo J> > o ro ro *— \j\ p— 00 U) ^ »— 03 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O'OO'gNODOS^'O'vONfOtS sO vC U) aoHH^o^BON^vr-jaiH^K^ jiwowawi-o'^aiowwai HH*oww»JO"J'J'f'HiMW0'i-0'a)yiO'0'00)>0W'ji0O0'N'"a>0 uiwowBwi-o'f'fflowu'ffl !'%> lt:,i; ! ►* yi — ^ ^ •-* rvj ►- M l— M w l— Ul f N N ^ ♦ ODOM wuio O-UJ^-fUi^DJWi-O^Cui^vO ®>fl^ai®NHWNBON'il“H^H NVNWONWMBNOO'dOODCD iB{M>00)hOOWOSO'OMOhNsOBhO^O>OS''^0'OOhOhw Si # tiin ISi.iii “"111 *- M O' i- #■ i— >— M «g ro ro i w yt N O' i“ ® ^ I— » O Ul|> |> JOiOO^ 'COO'Ujugro-P'*- , ro*-u>yiy''P'>-‘Oy>aoyi0'yi^-'00'yi>— ”»ik l!l «i,li M ro r* r- O' t— N) l— NiOOBi'MWiO'Jui'CN® O -g O' ^®00®^SI--J ♦•WUIi000®00WUIWr-O®r-^®r'f-^|WW(Iigi|'J ■l > ^Ni - 'JHw^^-jo.^|'f'wcDvo^^'U'uigjO'*giC VJJ O' kO ■f- >- "J •g O' rv vO w o> r- OJ O CD O' N) CO ^ M-* v£> U J a U> o \r VJ1 CD O' M— ! n •-* fS) O' *- p— hj 33, 2, p- tv rvj h 00 ro p- P— -r \jy 00 K-« o O' 17, rvj 965 rs) o -g O' oo CO O' CD CD »— ♦— ro oo ro so O' -g -6 rsj 00 VJ1 U) p— ro \r U) O' U) »— O -4 Ot) fV -g r- vji ro 00 O' ^ >0 sO ^ -g ^ u> u» CD o 00 \jy u> vD o M ^ ^ -g o> ►- •- O -P *“ ro ^ O fNJ CD O' u> -g «o y> o •— -F vO vO VJ1 00 •o \jy © 1— »— ro o -£> »— p— | H gj h- H VJ1 e- ro ro 03 03 f\3 l— p— © ro © ro so (P «• 4» 1 • • • • • <• <• « <• « <• <• «• «• «• «• <• O* wn o © ^ t ^ O' o ^ ^ O gj o 00 o 03 00 & c 03 03 © © cr vO 03 ro H- ^ VJS cr o -goi-w CD O U) O' U) 03 03 03 ro O (J' \jy vO O' -n! o vn o © ro 03 Cr -r ^ 00 N -g m yi o «o ® ro •p- o 03 © -r P— •*4 03 vO \jy P-* VJ1 03 -«g ro \J\ p— sO O LT | NShHMS I— .6 >0 yi >o I'O'OUIO •g w 0'0' u> O' uj ^WNh-Kyiui^wuiwOuiw® ®0'H^^NiOHHWi>iO'g'*Nf'wwM'jof®HCo^^ a>u>HiiuiH®uiwN'oui o a a > t> r- m z o M o -» o 00 -n > c o » -i X X m p—I 73 O n n e m m m 75 C 30 r- O X m s> J> mm *H > > M —i > ■n m o z -1 o o 50 ^ 3: z o o CL X Tl o z Tl PH X 00 Oo z o x* —i z PH 61 *TI o “0 H X c o ph l> _ X J> m 3: —i 73 m r o m c > m —1 m 30 m “1 > r- o > • 3D L> > Z m 5C m rr 53 Z l/l —H > 50 Z> m > »—• > m z X f— r~ 73 O r 3 h I r* 3 Z O 3 1 *< •< 73 > —< r* m > j> m Z m > J> 75 m -< > o rr LT) *—* m > 30 z S’ c z -< 75 p— 73 Z m 30 o x> mm > 3D —i •—i o O 73 m 7* I» f“ < c z > 30 *—* n O C > > O Tl o 0 z > 73 Z > Tl *—• m O O m m > 2 J> j> “O 00 00 m 73 O 2 3 m m • 0 m > 73 00 z 1-4 p—1 m o Z oo > *- ui r\j r\j O' •— no ^CDOOO^vO^'^'J' I I I I I I M U) ^ VJ1 ro »—u> rvj h^O'hoco^hc O' t-^Hf-Mi-vO^CNHHrOCy'^'O'C t>v f I'll I “till "M: h ^ h N (M-H I <— f- p- IVC'SniPJP-O'P'CB O'O'CT'U'OO^OOuiijJP- M ^ H ►- VT l-* I MMl-i'^lrolM>lUI OMNO^JUlOM^ IS) H- -P- IS» IV P- 05 P- -g oo oa —J uj (-'I'OHNOO-t'Oi P'OOO-gui-Oi— IVvOiP''Z)0'0 I I I I u> <• I i— l—■ OJ CT“ w p« p* ►— 00 © -g Ul ->J P' M OvflOISO'JIvO^lOOOO'IJWff >wi‘# > rs>is)oju)0osri»is)ff'sn&‘a > ujsr'40' OJ ^ O' O' <0 « «• nj V» O' fS) IV l\J O' VO sC -*J OJ P» 00 O X m -i 30 mm n ►- sO ^ or O' -i O' «• <0 « o UJ o or pp sO z U) P~ O' IV Ul U) r- l—'p-SJ'OlSn-gV'P-p-'' vi-«gsn-gvjia5sr-g->iu> ►— r\j isj o~ is) rs> >— \D P- —j -P' o ^ u) O*— cc>—>— i—srsroD^)%Oi— ^'OaoiO'O'vOO' OODlS)^IV»0'OB-*jOO'f-Ps)UJSrO'fS)OIS)OD is> O' <— sn i— is)^jvo-P'srrs)0''j' P- oo h ^ w. O'snoo I *- -J 09 O •- I <•«•»«« I h i- n ui P- is) rsj is) ►— ui is) r- snu)i—ij)is)sn~jO'uiO'p''- , is)'OvOis)^'®p- -- p,tiOJOPo«op'Puiff'0'03p'ouio O O' -sj U) ->J UJ P p p ii) ■sC' ® Ul OJ 00 sO IV I I I I p- I I p- vO O U) H P N P O' OJ •- Ul ON)i“>OW'JVW-g N O' •) P W O' 00 -j p- ru U) -g _ _o'iv)-oo'Oo«jp-sn ui«jpp‘aioi«jO'p , 'iNOPP vO l l CO U) O P N m -g p •g oo w oi o ip P- u) I I P' -u vO j p p w O' ao iv pgiww'Opcooiujpw PWP-NIPOOWlOOOOiOlMiO'JOIOOJlPaiO'. jupwoou'p'O-gpiiOuiO' -g ® h -g o P p EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES* QUANTITY BY DESTINATION* 1961-67 oo o O a > > r- m z c a -1 o 00 -n > c c 30 -1 2 X m ►“* 70 O r- o -i CD m m m 73 n C 73 f- o 2 m j> -1 > J> »«* —i H rr a > Z -1 o CD to Z 7^ i 2 c— O 03 X T1 n z oo X Oo c oo 00 z o ^* —1 Z «—i CD T CL o 73 z —• X o O C o > > J> 73 m —1 JC 73 7D m -h z a: a o rr C 1* m •H m 73 m rr t> —1 "3 > X z r* "O • 30 J> t> ^■g m to m >—. *—• m 70 z oo -H I> 73 > r* o m 2> U) -H > c> > > 2 —1 r- 73 —1 —I o n X «H X r- 2 Z o > O 2 1 -< •< z ■H r~ m • j> m z m m j> 73 m -< J> o m -H 00 m > 77 z C O m z < 7? t: Z m c C/5 7> o > o *—» 30 -H ►«< I> o To rr 73 > f“ -< 2 -H >—■ X z z > 70 n o o c 7 r* J> 1 O n a CD • z > o "0 70 •—* > Z f“ —i > o ►—« m o z z o c rr o j> z J> > T) C) o oo X oo r~ 7) o 2 X m o m > m • • m o X > 73 j£ CD m 03 ' ►— e- ro OJ OD E- fX) ^ W ® >£) rvjrojicO'^ui^O)^ w ui O' w I OJOO\JIW'J»NO'^vOC7'^>JS'i)*JUl ro^oJfx>crnooro.p < ‘OJsoxn-o0.p'xnoJao'ji\jinooJ oJ.p'.P'xn3 s O)-3OJ.p*oc-3C , rJOJxn>0 'jiCDU)Na'y00'i\)0'i\JU)0J0'>- , w^o vO^^f'JODO'^f-vOsC'® t OJ * ro ^ u> ►— ro oj ^ no xn cc C' ivjgjSNUlNCrS'OW no xn CD Cr 00 -3 -3 Mww^^ai^a'7'O^^0'^0D*gNOCMBC'^ oodhh^nvOoO'^oo'nO'Oimod^sO^^ SO'U*'0'OU10J»-U1^CCU-CD rx)OJvO-3E- r >ocrxrojno\rcD.p s 8 i 9 1 1' i Jljj* Ml fir -P'' fX) e- IX) fVJ ►— O H- sO no r\j cd ro ^^0D\JlO^OW»-l\J ^O'JI^HOrj'O^NOHON^OOOvOO^^'OH- ^-Of\)0'-jHOJt-wfvvO» - wvO'jiooa)^^coHa s oooJr-^C'w00rorv)jiui OJOW^OOJ*<4^^UJUlOD^'00\^^N)Na'0(\)»- noxnrOODCDXOCrOXnXnOE- I if K It I 11 ro E-* r—• 03 K- ro M— -3 -3 i— H- ro 03 9 5 o «• «• <• •• «• «• <• «• <« u> -E on •Ni •c o 03 F-* N) OD ro h- vC IX) rx> VJI n0 o i— ro O' ro 0D OJ O' O' 03 f\j o *-* O' O' 03 -0 t—• 03 c> VJ1 -t- M- -o O' O' O' CO oi OO 03 -3 03 ^4 O' 03 o ro v43 f\J P-* 03 \jy ui ro ro gj 03 gj E—* a gj O' o g> s£> so sO 00 ro 03 ro © ro o-i ro o 00 O' 03 ro -r P-* H- vji ro M-* e— ro I— ro p— 00 h-* CO r- IX) 03 O' O OJ «• «• «• •« «• «• «• <• «• «• «• «• «• «• «• « 03 J cr -3 ^4 0^- OD ro 00 ro OD ro 03 CD IX) C OJ ro OJ O' ►— 00 c 03 M— -p' ro 03 CO o p— 00 OD ^ »- sO ^3 cr ro VJ1 'jy Of 00 -3 ro tX) O 00 t-* 1X3 ai 00 ro ro 03 o cr o cr >- I r^i rj ■P -g v/\ ~g -S' O >— E-* ro H- 3D >— ►— M- r- ro ro OJ ro »—• ►— o *-* E-* xn OJ •3 xn cr «• >• «« * «• «• «• «• *■ «• •« «• «• •a «• <• o -3 3D -r OJ 03 -3 ■3 O 3D ro -3 3D o o ro o on cr GO vr jr ro a 03 CC E— 00 CD cr OJ -3 c 03 O -3 Cr od 0 s 3D cr 00 IX) voi xn a IX) cr E— IX) IX) ro -3 3D O' Ul ro xn -3 ro o o >— cr oo »— -3 O ro OJ ^ ^4 cr 00 ^3 o xn -P* 3D O -P" -3 •f> -g i\> ... oo -g t— N) 00 00 rsj I VJI I\) i- I » * - I •£> O O -E -P- ISJ f- -ji oo oo -g w uj >— a- h- -p- E- ►—* OJ »—• r— cr 3D E-* ro H-» h- 4 ro 03 ro OJ »—• ro f- 4 E-* *3 OJ xn ro -3 o cr g* « «• «• <• «• * CM O' 00 0 0 0 O -4- —• in cr CM O' in pH O' >0 c- in 1 1 m r- in O' in O' in O •» •* * 1 1 •» •» •» •> •» to •k •» c- oo h- c 1 1 h- ro «—h 0 O' M) CM CM in in h- cm H CM ^■4 H rvj r^ M3 (NJ ® CO <30 00 >4* M3 0 ® M3 M3 CM sO O' O O M3 vO CM in co CO 1 O' CO >* JO (NJ co fr >0 1 1 O' co co H H pH toH I I I toH sO in CO 0 0 CM CO <0 0 in CM in 0 0 m to ■, ■0 H ro CM O' 00 CO CO of~o^r— 00.-10 1 (NJ LTV in m i ft— (NJ ft— ro 4 in h O' O CsJ CO I in co ph •t j to m » 0 | co 00 O' r** CM CM m co co m -- 0 0 ® o' pH fO O CM 0 r- z M3 in pH f*** O CM M3 O cO N h CM | 1 ^ M3 rr> a •• « to to to to to to to to » i to to >0 h- c- n- CO 0 co 0 cm m in in 1 1 in >t O' in in CM CM CM pH 0 H u ^ pH pH pH 00 CM 'O >* 0 CM 0 CO 'O co •* CM CM CM 0 0 C- 0 0 in O' 1 1 r*- O' CM PO pH h- CM •4* 0 m CM to | M3 00 1 1 00 H m in CO <0 pH CO 00 CO O' 00 GO 00 r*- 0 O' I I I I •o '* if* in -i - >0 »H pH pH I 1 1 (\J>4-COO'in^"l\lrn(\lOO'0'(NJ®® » ft » ft* . • » • ft -J —1 O' O' in O CNJ O' >0 • 4 - in - 4 - 6 - p- ® co in -J * UJ ac 0 ft- J— < O ac uj z (X oc > z a Q DZcC < LU u < UJ < < uj uj z Z UJ < UJ _j > co z Z X X X IQhOi < -J X J- pH < < oc t- z QT qj ft* 1 X 1 -J ac uj *4 < cC < •— t 00 uj a: uj UJMlUOlZh O uj a: 1 t- iu < ft- 0 0 X a 0 u. 0 Z O Z 1/3 3 i/> CL X — Z O U. I O Z ac 0 0 t- 0 UJ Li. < *- <4 «4 J- ft- < < UJ x 0 -1 OC ac uj UJ UJ a ho jo ft— UJ I X H- 0C O 3 < u. in u t- 0 NX O z UJ _ 1 « <1 a 0 0 00 3 EUROPEAN FREE TRAUb AbSULlA I 1UN EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 h- CNJ c\J •O -4 o CSJ >0 O (NJ -4 O in >0 rvj >o vO P'1 (Nl in f*- eft¬ ft. ft. •» ft •* •* 's sO in m m m O' 4- (Nl pH O ■# >*■ 00 O' mb- r- r- (\J C'J •—* | h ^ HOHIflOO"'NO'OSOH-t f\iF-p'j^©p-ino-44 - P'- o •4 - ft , B> ft ft ft ft ft * 44 r-4 UD fH »“4 D"! 44 Q> CD r*- O' 00 ^H cn 00 m O' 00 s0 *4* in r-* o in vD >a- in H pH o r*~ (\j O' r- in >r pH in o H «0 •* ft* •» •, •* ft. •* vO 00 O' m in r- >0 O' m CNJ p^ PM O O <\J O' 44 -4 o in in f* m — O' f- f- NNNOlf\'0«lMf>S®NC5 r~vO'J - vn^O(M'tOsbrsi^-i(M i in H H PP1 o o »*- in o «t *<■ in >* CNJ in pa o MON F* >t X ifl CO o fM m pH UN o o CO PA >t in ^ O in cn cnj -o >* X pH O' 1 1 O' -4 O' CM O' in ft ft. •> •* ft. •> ft* ft, 1 1 ft ft ft •> >0 *0 >fr h- cn m H in in 1 1 >J" i—4 **4 O' *1- m (NJ pH F-F-inop r >'OPMoo>*Oinoo MNNffiJ'P-MMOO-ir'i-l ^OOIAH'tOOO«'OJ!lM-< ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 44 f-ft sO H H f<1 44 in *H f*» >0 ■c O' X O' in O f\j O' X in pH o o pa >4 H f- in -4- pH * ft* >o O' X o CNI (NJ X O' <4- CNJ 4'fnmn'0 -oiniM'i’FioO'^Lf^fPM-j' pp> ^4 H Ifl (4| H »4 *4 —< >-4 n ftH —4 pn ftN O' O F- o O' *4* >0 CNJ O' O' m o v0 CNJ h* O' O' O *0 X cni in x O' CNJ (NJ «H CNI pH h- n* in «o H •4- O - X co in co m O' CNJ O' 1 o in in in *0 CNJ ft* ft. ft* •> » ft • » ft | •» •» ft. ft, «k «» X CO (NJ X 4 3 5 3 1 4 (NJ CO H pH pH O' CO pH pH noocroff o •■iirnNotM^HOWO'M i in 44 ft4 PA in r~- -i o o vO - poinooo'c\j-4 inpoOroOsOnJOOpn*- ^in(\i®44HOom«iPiiN(M(\Hpi*4NN — — — — n in n in ® • ft ft » ft ft ft ft ft ft ft cn >$• o en F-i <\j m *-* •-< -h NinNCOmm^OMON O'OO'fnO't-HCMin-Hfn (NJ o z < oo < O UJ 4/1 »H Z UJ LU x < z < z o — UJ • UJ M □ UJ ^ T. Z UJ • oc DC 1/1 CS CL < UJ a u. o « z ■- ac o Q- O «f z • UJ < O o QC U - aC < K a: o o < £ oc z ac z o o g ac 3 DC < UJ < <■ O ^ i/l UJ < > UJ UJ LU z z x - 1 X Z jl CHOC - — o o ia.u -> -t O o'! T1 I m •— 1 m > > 73 Z > O l“ O -T O ni -H & J> i—i —1 ^ nino2-i-<^ioT)pi''C/w r _ > m -h z 73mcoCMCm-iz*:x;^ z o -l TO > >m»o z r- o m J» m x z — o o O O J» >xz o o jo rn >— —> m 73 SSH-lOt > z m m rn j» O m Z -< 3> Z m 30 73 J> > -< OO ■< m 7) O < r- c * r~ T5 o m 30 — > m > < i> a z z > V) D O o 7* m o *-* O > z z M o -n m -i m 30 H> 33 t> I r- z z m < i» o 30 z m r- -c > z o (/I i oo O m z o «-« o c o 30 —H 2 m 7- C >0 r~ o 2 m C Z -1 o o a* o Tl -« X IS) o m m —1 H- r* m > ►—• a o * 1 -< m c <✓> 75 X > 2 -1 p— z 1 > o o o r* -H > m c m oo > X oo 73 m J> m 2 Z > o *» cc o c 30 ff> t/i 75 O 73 C o tv> I. I r i TV) TV) <“ TV) *— 03 O' —3 rv)OC'0JC7'vDiv)-^'vnrv)O)O o •P'O'J*- Ul H v0 O' o I I 0'0®u)o3^a3Uii-aO'Tv)0'0~jooO'fv)-Ji s 3covr-j-ja3-t' I!*** in I IS) ■fr ►- O' O >o IS) I I u> I— PS) v0 SO IS) V>) v/ , f -ro^--j^'ODOJiv30-i-rv)U) I l I IV) ^ *a oi w 03 w h ffl h *vo >o ^ Jo w u » o w w o o o J $S£oSC&£SS$£SS?3oorv>rv)W~0«o.0^a3 111. k,, *■» I ^ • }:i. (W Hr Vjl SB ii. S|11 U) » o ■*> o>) rv) *-• i vn o oo CD -P- TV) TV) VjJ N-Tl O' vo -o as CD IV) O' O' IV) OJ U) O' O' i O' rv) oi *Q ^'TV)'JifV)0 (> O^^'-3 33'l'l0'JiP0lwi®3)C'0a)C : {' 0-'0®VD0'-i0'iv)iv)a.rv>cD0'CX>rv>vnvj>i—rooo HSj'H^pcivoooioti'HtD^'O^yiwcD IF t It ■ S|| ill "10 llli vn iv) o- O' o> TV) 00 O' -P- 03 TV) CD —I OS . vn vr is) M O I >— O -4 ui os rvi o l p si k } Hoi\)J"OwOf-i-^-jwoooiO'NP>0'Owooffloo ■o •** sO o 00 O) ^ IS) *■• -4fS)^sO^ t>) ->J IS) O) o) \J1 H* i- - o is) is) rs) IS) ^4 ^ ^ IS) ->| O' IS) |\) i - w oo ov^<7'vOfsJfS)sn-^ ujoj W O CD ^ r- V» ^ ^ \j\ is) HO'Oi-W'OCWOlUUU^'I'lO'f®^^''®^ ^? OI^'.U)Offll')0‘'0030'OMP‘ H P' lv P^' io O' ,3c TV) TV) TV) l - 3- -P“ 03 O r-'OO'OWOlffi'OMMP i— o sO 'O ® IV) I O' o wuiwi -, “5 > 0'^i' ) ' ,r ®’‘’“ o.s;s2siiiis22ow JoS®So»ooS|? O ( —'Jl'J®'0IV)TV)0'4'l- , C> a 3V>)®OTV)*-CT'U)C'rv)>-VT’ m i- > z - ° £ |B O -n z * 30 tC m z -H O ma 30 o 1 >—< n X- H »c sC — **2 -H C7* m ci¬ O v» on m»- z « s >0 o c/i |j c os > z — » •< — o OS z •< o m 00 a z o o> i O' 0 PM >* o (M in H 00 r- p- CO m o O' co O U> p- C\J O' ^ O 4* O' 4- o> >c >0 in H in 00 •k •» •* •k •k •k •> •> •» ► •» •k •» nO O' (\J M3 m CM ^ ^ IT CO H O O' in rM O' ro cm co cm ro rn <\i in ro ro CM in in ^4 oo O' M 3 O ro 9*4 o in O' 00 00 ro CM in CM o M) sO h- •■H ro po N0 * o r*» O' 4- 00 * O' in CM PM r*- co co od cm h- CM 00 O' PO in in <0 in O >*• in P^ in in ■0 O' O' 4- O' ro ro O' 0 00 P- ro O M3 fM oo O' p- cm in >o PO O' O' 0- r- PO H m ■4- r- O' ~4 0 in 4- O' PO CM o >4 •4- ^ n ^ ^ -M- cm M3 ro i in r-H 00 P- P*- O' CM in CM m m in -4 CM in 0 0 CM 4- o 4- ro M) CM GO ro 00 in ^ M3 4- ® PM 4- CO 0 o O' ro O' CM r- ro in O PO po rO in Q0 O' r- 4- 0 0 PO CM PO O' PO 0 in ro oo m m 4- r- in O' •M p4 00 PM in H fO (7* O M N M M •m* ro cm cm oo o O PM CO ^ PO M3 00 O' PO CM O' O' O' in in 00 *-m O' PO P- ro *■4 O' O' 4- INI •4" CO in ro P- M3 2 o o o ® P- 4* *4 PO in CM PO o 1 1 -* 0 in CO o 1 > 0 r- 4 3 2 CM >0 PO CO 4- 0C PM po ^ i 1 <-* O' oo 00 ® CM PM m4 IMO'nO^O^ in ^ f* 4* in o ^4 rj o O' 00 CO co in h- PO 00 >* m 0 PM M3 O' O' ro h- PM PO 00 po M- 00 PM 00 M3 *■« co o O' r- m r—i M3 in 1 O >* PO M3 PM r- oo O' 9*4 »>4 M3 1 1 m in CM CM •k •> •» •k •k •k » •k ■» •k 1 1 •k •» 0 * in in in GO in PM M3 PM M3 PM pH 1 1 PO PO O' in PO "4 #■■4 if\rvinfnrn^'t®oinU'HOO(\jinr s -in h ^ nro -h NcoOvtOcococo>tsO>t^HCom>oinro »-h >$• pl i »-< m3 I CO xf O (M CO p-h ^ <\J 1*4 vO **H ^ | N N H I * • I o o 0 N ^Hv0in^itO ,w t^cNi in <-* ~h ro cm ro PM nO M> •k 2 < O' < in O >—< UJ UJ O o UJ * X a UJ in 00 o a UJ in < 2 o c. < z Q -J o < < * 3 -j o o 2 k -4 t—i i— >- .4 UJ in CC o h»- < « o OP in UJ 2 0 £ > o o o 3 z cr: < *—• UJ o < V UJ < UJ z z I UJ < UJ Od > 1 2 Q z 2 -1 X X l— a: < o -J T. UJ k" 4 UJ < 0 t < K (2 i—* UJ -J UJ a: z < < Od o < « CM h- uj a: LU >- UJ < 3 z i— a rsj UJ •—* L- UJ < -J *—< a PM X a. o u- 0 — Z t- 2 3 in a U X LL z u LL X o < z a: o Q t- Z" o UJ LL < H < < L- ►— < < < UJ 2 O _J 12 3u;aj UJ LU C h- o _J o o: •— UJ i 2 h- 2 O D < LL «n o h O O 2 UJ -J < < o o a on > Z ! >—• O I < X _ _r>"OOnCononZ e-7>/omccr«jC-izac*:o 5»Zmm:30oZrrf“rri-i>-im*> xr-r-m ooo>?o-<-tCs: mM>omoo>iZZmNrr> ^zzmcf^oo O m Z -< » O O T 3 r* -< on m 50 o a < r- c T- <~ i> -a — a 50 *- x» m > < o z z > -o a a 75 mo -4 Z uron -4 > rsj 4-* t ro4»ojw»- •*>Aia4«a«tfM« *• | <• ^ «• ** ** I 0-t'MO><'J~4-f'00'0'-- \X3v0-f^ HW^OOI^N'J ►'iflylOO'OO'^OCTttfV ^orsj-f > vc0'v*ivjiv0oj(jj^j0' PO F— PO F~* UJ O 00 o 03 ur F-* r\j vO UJ \jy O VJ1 ■P UJ o F— F— O CD >0 40 F— (P o UJ lit rs) O' ^ JM\) N h- .£* .f* 4J1 VJ1 4-* «• UJ Oi-'| 1 C5'wO)9"ii''t' O' O I-* 4— -P- ^O'-jrocco^'jiaaoo o s 'Opo«o^'^»-< sO^GO'CT'rOHtDO «««««« UJ t>> O ►“ -'J VJ1 UJ UJ -P- 03 4*) O O rs> UJ i\> t— M H UJ -0 PO UJ UJ NO PO \J> ■F PO f— m OD CP ^4 Po o T-* O' •• * «• <• <• «• «• «• «• m <• «• PO rs; f— UJ O 03 CD CP u> u- O vO sO vO sO 43 03 00 CP F- UJ O' UJ PO UJ -o CP PO UJ VJ» UJ OD UJ t'” ;a nm- h yi m h oo uj *-* m NSi'OSNCWNWf'W (SJ^-~4f-^CDO--^l— 4-UlOJ Oi—CD^o-jv^O'rM^'0'H-cn •p'VJI'J10J-4-P'»- , UJO'® CDO'J3uiwUlvO'“WWff'^U) vOOoo^-woj-jO'OJ'yiNJO' -f'O'Ul-JI'O-O'OOJ.f'COmh- CO'*UI'0'0®'00'f''JPJ O' PJ PO PO on CD »-* 40 o UJ F— 40 •F -4 <4 X UJ O O' UJ a M-• >o '1 ip .. *4 I Hill i ''ii' m Hi 'lilt »—•»— »--»F-*UJ'£UJf— VJH -g n o w h ^ -r- ro •— 1 •— f-*.^oo.£‘~u>-*^ - po-uco>ouj U i sO sCO'OW^^'OvO ^ po ui ^ po O | uj uj PsJ F-* F-* C> »-* M •$*»-* PUPU^*PU03(PU)^ s *f'‘C0-'U-JVJlO 1 WCD>Jj'vO^^^CDUirvJ-gUJ^^OUlN)^NJNHU1UlvO!X>ja3 ujoj\)gdv^-^oj»— ro»—»- , -40 N Popouncp»-* s£>4^o so (P >o o uj vji vji aoO-f k 'Jl-4PO-4POO s O l 'UJNOVJl.$ s tf'PO.^-«4GJCP0'‘*f'* — ffi CO o 00 ® fiHlI PO O' P- *— UJ N) ^ ^ IVJ t-* •— f—* N 'Jl m N vO »-* UJ PO W W CC sO-»JV^ CMJ1 O' O O >£) O O O' o N m liJ m , _j vA h fSJ ^ rvj h UJ UJ ’jJ rvj UJ sO 00 **J -'J UJ sO O' ^ O CO N) ^ ^ O vO ^ )O?Sa^5!-v0>NHSv0VflSa»^l'HCDHHfV)^ON0D-P‘C0CDC > -'’“"' UJ UJ 00 ^ ^ CD -^-umooCPF—'■f'F-^uiun o •f' oi >j o ^ UJ^^INJsO-^f'OvO^O^'^^OVJI-^UJ-^ ,— Po Ui N >o , rvjw^'jii N JN | jJ0'0'0'WH' ^►-\JtODOOO^^'JWNa5^'00^^^ ,NJ OOS ^^'O' sOHJJKJOOvO-P'CDHh-NCOOiNJ po cp f— po JJ ^ N H H H N) ^ F-* P - N) ^ f-* f«* O f - 00 f-poCPuj-P*Of-CPf- ^O0D^>-'Ji^a0r-00C0^^0'v*0'vji0D-g.£N0-^00U^Ovjiui Jv^jij^^OOCX>00 >|«O^^'0O0D00 NOJ)h-0C*-0'UJnI^J'0N^O®\JCJO 0'O^COCDODCC'00'^NCD»-h-CX)^^l N 0(\)^'OCD^^^>-WONO'^0^'0^^00>JO'^ TABLE »—CONTINUED EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 O O i» J» -trivm IITIM^O f O m j> > -h J> > 73 z o I 03 -n n —I j> rr 3° —< z t> 30 > > > r- z 00 o m Z o M o c o 30 -1 Z a m rr m 30 O c 73 P“ n z -* Tl m C J> z -1 o o x DO c CO O J» H Z i—i o -n 03 o “0 z ►—1 X fsj a m -i Z r m c J> m m 73 m m > H 0 s 70 m m Z 03 H > 30 > r* o m I> W •H 73 -1 o Z -< X r* I Z a > O z 1 -< m z m m > 73 m < > n ^ m c O z 30 — *> Z m c c/n 73 < > 70 m T > r- < Z -H t-+ m z a C X i> i > o O o T> 70 ►-« z r- H J> m m a z O c m -h > "0 C) c/> X > m o m 03 m o z P* > 2 03 m (V) v*> I [ji U> UJ UIV*> W^OMOl-r-NJ -g^-l\JOJN)NJUirV)r-o^ - '- ipojojwow a>^'ui^-a^vOO'~o~joJ<7'-o-~ir\)-f'^''Ji^o - cooj ^•wvf< , i“OONW0'0'OJ)wu)N0J^wa'O<'®woui(>o0'O !>'V uj r\> rsj%OChr>j^-^sOU)^'00ocDvjivj'a'roroovjoDoa)'0 h- rvj «• «• W Ul W u» O' o a cd so U) k o vp uj vji ••«««« • * « |M |\j ^ 0'i—ov>)-«jW'0'0UJ“JU>v7>rvJUJV3i-4 |*i H h— ro i—* uj tv) 0* ►“ M f W O ffl N N O UJ N lOOffllMN'OWJ'WWOS^ ■ i—• e- oj yi <— >“ —j * « « « « * • I imh ^irvj0*O(jj0J^^J^-M0J0D W>lffl^'OOW^O^N*'ONN-J Q'CT'CDO'Njoi^HOwOH^rowuJ '•"'l*s 1 1.!!{!";'' fa I •-it;' in ■1 I uj ^ O' fvj po r*o «£» r\j -«j ►— »— rvj -gro-^OJfvJ-^OvJi CD O N O^N)^ J1 ^ CDCDWHCOroUlCD>-^NU>0^'O^N\JlCD^ODj > IP UJl\)rvJ l no 'Ji ^ rsj uj N ~ — IS)OOOf - 0' e W'JI^OWO-4^ h '*J^**JOOO H- H W C 1 -J « * • • < • >—• »—< 4* >—* —J ^ o OO^O-P" O OJ -J O OS ~JV31 sO'Jl'P OvOrsJO-P>C-P'JJ~J I— -P VJ1 ►— CT- U> -f" h- |\J \41 CP \0 I I- inj ~j >— 4* ui i— wm r\) O O' h >o os w w P ui ^U)H>-0'>00050'OWV)MW'J05PP-J'0®*g0'0 VflOP'J'00WPOHP0"-O'J>-'-PO"0'>‘0'^O10‘ p— OJ >0 -«4 ->l ^ U1 CD ui O' p> HN P NJh-f-OI -J O' -J UJOJ-P <> ^0' 1 -WOIO'MI»OWPO'N010J-0|NU;>--JU1 !-4l-4\Jl4M'(OO050SPPr0>M0'®M0J-jOM EUROPEAN FREE TRAOE ASSOCIATION EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 o c t> > r~ n (/•> -n > o m m —I > -n x 2 ni-noz-riwinncifl2o-i2-ono: —■ >m-HX -■orriN-iZj:cm>m- 73X» >Zi»;ornm.-.rn3oz -t i> 3c > r- _ * C" “ n x -h o *: x i r- x z o m>ZmxZmm>> m ■< > o > *>2 CO O Z -« 30 33 Zmr- V) M *$" *“• \J1 h- CD VJ1 ^ ^ WMVJ^^^^^JIW^^^OWHvOhcdOO o CO rsj ^ s 0 fvjv/'v-rcovj' 03 ^^'^oj^r» — J-vONC-t'-f'^^a'^^CCEsCvOW\/OCDU)N^->jM^O'N>J Nv£)^OWWh-%JO^(>HsC^>J(>UJvOV/'OOvOCCOONN05UJ 00 l> f?l r;J!| <— ►- ^ m ^rj o O' >— cp ►“ M M f“ ^ UINwOJW'CO'CMWON'Iffl^WSJ'OOO' oroocoujf-U'N^Jwuicu'vjsH-Mccj'^^ojc^^uJC' yiri'O'JroNjo^waoOMr'Cv/isOh'wuJ'Jif'vOwoM ■pu»®ui.^®mM">jijj^'Mh“'Ov/ii-'Vij<“'uj*“ , «jm^m®0>^m I t*» T !:“»« M -f' M -f- ^ l» J- W •- NNM9'UiaiO>00>^NHOONh-l'NO'^ > u)vji^*j*»j\Oi'ooo^'U)0'vw->ju)^rsjr\jO'Oa>vO'J!H-ovji -P--»4r\jOosvC«jij(rvjOr\jO'ODuivji^-f\jojfv;«4^fvj®0‘0'C»vji "I "W is Nil |S; &1IK If * [ m ‘II!" U) U 1 •- M V/> M ^ ►-.*• isj MMMUiujoo®yjv£>.**®ui-j-ju>t-vjivj'->i-«iM ® ® O o •*Jv3iH-»OsOU)®vjiw-jvO-joui'Jiv3i^-grv)^j v o -Nijjui > cuia>>-tjja>'Nijjo®0'>oui,oi'jvjif\jooaD^ivj\(jioovO % "" ><3 u> -g 4 in M ® vO i— MN»-uu»iaK^uiwuioui^O'f-w»-o3»oa) H|\M'MC»“OMyiUl^t-OBm0'>IUIM^^O^^^O>'O Wff'OfJ'»>®ONiOHNui^O'IOH(toONHNjoO Ul ® >“ ►“ *- MM M U) H OJ O' ►- yj M^h- , ^m^>-*Ol)®^®^'>o®^. ( — ® ® l*i .#• ® OlDOM® ►••gyi^W'J^W^ODUlvOyiMMU'ljJffl^Oh' O'«iaf‘UI®^H«JMOH^wiAlO00MM»l>0CMD|>f.^M wM<>wiHM®ff‘^^o-j'iw®aHOfflMwoviioamN OJ V* I— MUM® MM yj yj Ol-> MM OJ CD M ,f> l &'U>OUlV^-NvOOD®®^®t0f\}yj,£. yio-g^® MwyiuuB-jj)^Myi»j^>ow'j'0^0''iHM l ttcoaauioo^'0^^ao , NM^)Hs^oi/iwoyioo o i offH>«i>CHNMUiBa^ioffO‘ tAPUKIb Oh AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANT11Y BY utbi inaiiu« , •4- (NJ CO CO co r- o CO >t O' IT\ o 00 h- o v 0 o co GO CM co r- in O' h- in K_ •> •k •> •k •k •k •> •» I >o o CO o H h- co >o p O' vO in CM H H A ^ ^ a. A- K. CK ^ .ft —t .ft fft | CM (j\ N i-* <0 fO m >t *-• *o » •» UN r-4 00 nO CM O' 00 co in h- H in o m ® O O' 40 00 H o CM O' CO o in >4- O m o O' >0 <\i in CO CO >fr . n •k •» p> » m •» •» •> •k n0 sO o r—4 CO o o CM CM O' SO in CM H fnintNJCDOOvO'O't'O^^M^OHO^fO I oo^o®r^r*o^of\J r-iaof'-cor- CO f-4 ^ co in 0'0'tHNoo^o-HOcoiri-t-ffOff"0(Mir>'fOcD.trt*a'i3'0'0'ffi »-< *—4 »•* 'O »—i fO >0 co co ^hO'HC'CO{\H CM —* ON *-* *H co •»4 , 4 , N * |>- N S Mfl H .-• — 0 ^ H ffl N (M N LSI rci (M r» O O' r» O ^ ^ >0 N in oo vO O' >t no •»•»•»•»•» GO ^ O' o ^®'+fn®lOSSM<'0'Hj’N®NN®0 ^aj'Om-tN®0'M®0 »»»•>•>•» •* • O' (\j nO m —< »—« ^ cm CM CO O' ^ o 0 in co co cnj o O' O' in in «-* COO'NN't O 0 >0 CM •» CM in eg —• O' o m - a: a o »— *-• a: <* >- z a a: 3 2 z ^ cq <■ aj <- 2ct:aj‘^aj2rociiJ —i z» 2 o i m o 03 -n o z 03 C/> I n -o on C oo z DHZ — o o -o z pa« 2 * o -1 IX -c c. 73 c zci _ Q>mOi 73 4 X 30 7 m do O z 3EZ O C j> rr -1 m m > 4 ro PM 7 > 7 70 • fNI O z o 30 *> c M- > > x> •— P tj m r- m PM m 73 t/1 —1 > 73 o m P p 4 x> TO 2 r» o •— m o > r“ 2 M PM o > 7 4 o X ■H I r* x > O 2 1 -< f C > J> 2 r- in ® n r* o m M m • z m x 2" Z m m r» 30 m -< > m p o 03 > ►i i-i o *> c 7) c C o o z -< ►o 30 z on 70 *71 P o —• J> J» O -H 30 pm > 33 c/1 m j» r- M 4 PM PM z Cl »— O o o r- C 7 ■> P o X o > c z P r> -o o 7 PM z -i p m m m < O z o m o p 73 > *» 7 o t/l on 7 • X 7? m o < m m PM o m p z 30 P 2 o m M m (/> o 4 J* p K W o CM Ul CD ^ Ol CD H W ^ o-ffl o H (\) | | IIP 1 ! r 1- 1 I ro ro ro p- | 1 f\3 © p- ^ ro p vO p p 03 p VJ1 <£ ►— s0 t 1 1 1 sC CO 1 1 o OJ ■*4 1 i b DO P DO i 1 *4 sO P Ol vO oo a -4 f\3 p ro ai 4 fS3 ro 4 VJ1 p O' 03 03 f\3 00 O' O' o OJ 00 O p •4 4) VJ1 oj -0 P oj o 03 o »- tO f\J p- 00 VJ1 CD -0 O DO 4) \J> P- 00 o p p- ro 4> 00 o O ro p OJ -4 03 . ro ro U3 >— P - u> i p 11 DO 1— P- CD | 1 O' ro ro CD | | 1 1 CO 3 4 8 20 ii 13 14 40 66 p p- vO -4 43 O' M • *• m m M M 1 i - M — «• «• - 1 1 - «• M - 1 1 1 1 - M M M <• M M <• M «• «• M M M ro P- ui ro cd a o ro -4 | 1 o VJ1 P P cr •D 1 1 CO *4 *4 O' | | 1 1 CD N) W W ro CD 00 03 •4 O' a >o v-n P- h- ro CO O' VP O DO >0 -4 vO o O' CD cO O' -4 D— a p- O' CD 00 O' -4 O' u> O o OJ o o-i O' •4 ro DO 00 O O P 00 DO cr 1— P CD V01 D— DO O vji O' o -4 p- ^ o OJ NO u> O' 03 o OJ cr t I JS« Vii |\J cc m 3 03 ijl h h -f 1 O VJ1 W M 131 W DJ •£) r— O' O' OhOO)Oi*OONNMh P-» ro p -4 iO £> N3 00 -4 00 o 03 VJ1 o o OO p ro O' CD P CD P- ro 03 00 03 -4 O' 03 CD 00 00 V/l 03 o 03 o « H(| IT?' '•5 JMIYJ! ■ii SIB •mil i ''iiih l| ' i»h a ■»i in IV inw DO M P O' i— t— l I I >| H >— ••••III NvDl'W.ON^vO Noiw-j^'OOwa DO OJ P U1 CD I—’ 00 P O •— CD s0 »— 1“ DO I I I CD DO CD DO •— COVJlCDPvOOCDCDi— C0P>— PUlPo/Pc-C/lCDO O cd cd -o O' P sODOvoo*->“sOcocdoodoppdocddo©'CDP'Odo DO CD ro 03 P-* 03 P-* P- 1. 1< 3, 1 lO P-* 03 1 1 p p 1- O' ro 03 O' O' ro O' ro -4 o o p-* p- 03 O' \n ro ^ o) 7 o CO J' O DO 1 1 -si s0 p -4 03 p- 1 i 1- O P ro o 00 O' *-* \jy U1 O' -4 ro O' -4 03 p VJ) o ►- p COP U1 00 O' CC H H ro oo p e s0 ro p- oo ro O' o o vO 03 o O' 03 OJ o 00 •4 -4 OJ P OJ 4 U) O' O' P- 03 P CD 'O ro p o p ro 00 ro ro cr 03 p* o 03 OJ “4 o >0 ro ■4 o VJ1 CD O' oo p ro sO p- p P* p 03 O' 45 ro 03 p- ro p- 03 03 p ro ro ro P 1 1 CD p O' p- p- p- ISO O' P- 03 p- OJ p- ro p ro O' M *• M M M «• «• «• •• M M • 1 1 - M M M M M «• M « M M M M M M M M cr VJ1 ro 00 CD ^ VJ1 O' o o o P- 4D CD 4 vO -si 1 1 -0 O' 45 4 o o P- 03 o ro ro 4 O' 4 O' OJ o ro -P* cr -4 *4 00 O' p- 03 03 o •4 fNJ O a- DO 00 o U1 ro ro p* ro 03 00 ro o 4) 4 CD -P' 4 p 03 - ui i w h >i o D0CDCDODJ — PODsO O' P 00 CD CD DO p too o a o P 1 P h i vc w •o h >o ^ h m do •— p- *■■ •— cd p* p- p- ro 03 OD o p- ro ro 4) ro 4) p p p M <• «• M M «• «• «• M M 4 H VJ1 ro 4) -P' CD 03 ro 4 45 ro CD OJ ro O' p O' O OJ 03 O' CD 4 O 4 p 03 U1 7 U1 O' O O' O' EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 o a > > r“ m Z s; o on o o H n on ti > C o 73 -H 2 X m 73 o f“ O —1 o m m m 73 c r* o X m > I> •i -H > > -i > Tl m O z —< o o 7? z o X T1 o z Tl ~ X X n x> c on c on GO Z o > -4 Z o Tl o 73 2 o •-« > m —1 X ~ 7> m c r* c t/l —i z r r o m C J> m —1 m 73 m —1 OJ > 7) r> > Z m 73 z m r- on m H- m jc z —i J> 73 > rr > M— —1 X r“ r- a o > 73 X -1 o a; X —1 X r- X Z O X 1 •< r* m > > m > X Z Z m IN* m > > 73 m -< T> n m > z z C JO c a o m z < 73 ** 7 Z m on 73 c > •H •—« a c 73 ■< on m 73 > r- -< -H >—« z *—■ O Q r~ c 7 P“ > r» n r* o z > ■o o 7D > z —i > on m < o Z z o m > J> > ■o o o on on > X * m o Z m m M o o > 73 > X OJ -p> ro ro i0 OJ OJ O' >—• OJ o> Ul OJ O ro 0 M— Ul ►- ro M- ro ►— -0 3 3 <0 ui ■p- 0 00 00 >— 00 OJ OJ ro vO CD o i-* O' ro C Ul ui 03 ro CD 03 -0 7- ro s 0 ro O' 1 CO fNJ M— ^4 -0 IV 03 vO ~*4 OJ O' o 0 o ro o <0 >0 o -o O' Ul OJ c 'C OJ on O' >0 V/1 OJ ■r- ^ Ul 00 ->l SO o 03 .f- fS> 00 ro 0 OJ OJ O' H-• OJ N0 CD ro -0 0D 0D ** D O' HUl'iOJlOMa H O ^ CO w o ^vOHOro^C'Ji'OWfvjMHC' 42 16 ■t» O) OJ OJ OJ h- VJl o -0 27 o OJ ro ro vji o O' ro O' O' vC ro >o OJ -4 OJ OJ VJI O »— p— CD -J a: -g O' OJ 0» ro VI vO -f> s0 o -4 ^ OJ OJ Ol -0 fNJ OJ ro CD O' ro vO < ll !;:»ii <— V) VI I— 0 IV VJ O' 0vjvi000--j*-**— rv -j^-vi'Jrvu)w^'vi»jiiv^‘OD0500o-gcr(jjH-ooh-vj'Oao>-o-v^-t»^- M-joiai®owHa'>'«jNi\)so3v£!KM(»i'«i*iaiwi\)iji^NO'NO'® n »- » * IJiB 11 i Min ■*“ 'U|t«4 ill OD ro H- ro VJ* .n Ui ►- -0 OJ >— OJ ro ro o- H- 1 • OJ O' h— ^ IV •0 M— OJ ro OJ p— ■t' IV O' 00 OJ O' O VI w rv o OJ * •*> ro i • -o o M— * -v o Ol 00 O' o ro Ul OD rj oj ro OJ o ^ OJ P- vO 00 i— VI ^ OJ VJl o> O' >0 O' -V V0 o *> OJ 00 ro ro rj 00 O' OJ ro <£> > CD -0 ro <0 03 O' *• 00 ro O' OJ ■0 VI >— O' >0 ro OJ o ui OJ OJ h* Ul ►- o O' ui iv I 0UIOO0V1U1-JOVIIVCJ' OJ VJl ro Ul OJ ^4 0 0 rvj ro 0 rv -5' i— 1 ►- M— f\J ^ Ul 0 m *-* OJ o Ul OJ o 00 ^ -0 Ul CD OJ -^1 o ro O' OJ 0 IV ro Ul r- OJ h-> ^ -0 UI ro Ul CD -O o o OJ O' Ul ^4 CD OD V0 OJ ro 0 ^ OD CD O' OJ OJ o -0 ^4 i— OUlh- (BVWODWO'WV 0O'-^O'0VI***-ljJUJ.»'>— IVO" l“^‘OOOW'f''('^ , iOiOO H 'OUMJI 0^iir-ONNiOO'OUll“OWW Ul OJ O' ro Ul 0D 0 OJ -0 ►— ^ ro ►— ro ro OJ Ul O' 0D »—• o O' O' sC Ul 00 -o ro -Si o -P' o -4 ro OJ O' Ul OD 0 O' OD Ul ui ro 0 OJ 0 O' Ml OJ Ul OJ O ro o O' -0 V0 o OJ OJ OJ O' OD O' ►— iv -f" o - »— IV -4 VI I— SMMfflW^-VOODCeJIV^M'flOUl IJJ OJ O' ^ rv oc ►- i— os »-OUI^WNl - M'JI\)W'JUIW^00*'>icDi-'i3)(Boooiwo^wiuiO‘i3i>ioi»o^^e Mifl^yiO'Oos^^uiwwO^HNiO^^ffiiOwi-vwCiO^oo^s EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 X 00 o o o > > r- m z o M o -i o 00 -n > C o 50 —« z X Z > m >0 a r* a -i o m m m 73 O C 50 n n z m m c > > w -1 > H r> •n m o > Z -1 o □ 50 JC 00 Z z c o I -o Tl o z Tl l/l — I 33 l/l C I/I (/I z O > -H Z mm a n 5)0 T> z ~ X VJI o •H ~ - z > m m H z « D 33 m o -i z r x. a m c > m m 50 m m I> —1 O -1 30 73 > > z > m 50 z m »■« *-< m 30 Z oo -g I> 30 > n o m m > m o C z i- m r~ > 30 -4 -H o X z X P* Z Z o > O * vjv -< > r* 30 Z r* m t» z > m Z Z m r* m > 3* 50 m -< > O - m n *— • > 50 z z c — o m Z < 73 M 50 z m c 50 oo e > > > V) -H M o o JO > m 30 3* > f" -< z -H i— -H z z • •— < o O c 3* r > • j> n > o o Z > X) *> — > z r~ -H > 50 > m O Z Z o c m O > Tl > ■BOO oo X oo X 30 30 2 m a m m m ►— m o z OO > O 30 z 03 > M o o c m > 30 o a VJI It O) t' Vl, “"H iln. N H ^ W U) I- IN) u) o h - cd ►- yi i— in) r\) in) 0) NT Nil ►* IN) •f' O' IN) O0^-IN)vOVnff'fN)Nn00>O Ull’INJ^vO^^OOfOOB^OWyil-fflyeWHOf*^ ►-*-lj)O'^'U)fi.>'^<'.t'NrfN> oo>o^HjM)u»)OONWHyi^oi'OH'aiN)^uu^cD*“i-yi*'WJ''JWNwy''i If P Site if ro <—• oj -C' i» in) u) -P- -j i—o>-rN) 0 )i- , uiiN)rN>^*o) ui h w ^ -J ui ^WOOWO'UUrOf'JS i‘IN)N-^OW^‘O^t“*‘WK^ 1 »4»“0DfJ\00!-gW* - 00'>) IN)OIN).#'ljJ00<‘NH'#‘00UJ-«)O00'JI^-0>-J\0IN)l»)0>^>VJIQD^O» — Nn^-IN)IN)vO-*)^IQD {'i'H®*'0UU - >CHyi^UIUI^-JUI^H*0>UI0'Cff'^IN)^UWM00WCDHW Uniiitfi IN) ►- •*» 0) v» IN) IN) u> IN)0*“IN)VJI*— VJ)IN)IN)*'N»I 0CO'-P'rN)O'NnO'-P'IN)O' HOUlO'ON^i - MWON ON-cyi^-P'^O'MNUiff'OMi'uiooa'yi'Oy'rNio WI^0"fla)f''IOU'yiO(M-^9.O>IOWHN^IN)H pm OJ VJI •0 VJI ro •— 2 5 6 6 3 O' O' VJI f\) CT O' v0 O' ro OD -6 VJI ■p ►- ro ■6 0J >o do co •) yi >o P- o O' OJ •P <0 ro VJI vO O NTI vO 0) O' >o mm p- pm OJ VJI <£ ro H - ■p OJ *—• P~ OJ p-« t— oj ro ro mm OJ pm p-* ro pm -g VJV ro OJ VJI vjv <• <• «• *• <• m «• «• •• «• <• « *• <• <• <• m «• «• *• «• «• m <• <• VJI OJ »-* 0^ *- o o 0^ sC -J O' ^ M O O' 00 ro p- \j) ro «g o sO pm O' pm 00 OJ OJ OJ oo v» OJ H- ■p OJ >0 00 OJ a) OJ o vO 00 cr O 00 o O pm O' -0 ro -g O' o -g vji ro -g O' VJV rj vO OJ \jy vO VJ> VJI O' O' ro O' O VJI 00 ^4 o 45 ro r\j m- OD OJ * ro o so -g •0 \jy -g OJ ^ -g >o ro pm ■p OJ <• «• <« •« *- CD VJI VJ o ■p OJ 00 00 v0 o 0J OJ OJ IN) vO »— 00 oj ro ^0 o OJ >o OJ — NTIN)IN)fS)(7'0)l-'>-i— U) CO ■f' >— ■f' i0sO'0 > ^iN)ff''0(j)Oyi>0wyii-<'a)«i'j'0m0'''*j 0'flui(>(>Puit-®w0fN)U)U'(t'i0w^ff'WHjiw -4V^^ailN)06N)N'0'0'0^0'^0>OU)^>'0'0'0000 EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, QUANTITY BY DESTINATION, 1961-67 - - - * Adnc feer 6 JNiVcNRlTV OF ILUNOd agriculture uDwya PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, AND TRADE OF COARSE GRAINS DEVELOPMENTS AND PROSPECTS FOR SELECTED FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND AREAS THE UfcrtARY fir TH£ JUL 9 1323 OF ILLINOIS rA ?-> -LJ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE FOREWORD The United States is the world's major producer, consumer, and trader of coarse grains. Despite this preeminence, the grain policies of other nations have an impact on the United States. This is particularly true when the country happens to he a major importer or exporter of coarse grains. Shifts in coarse grain production, consumption, and trade of other coun¬ tries influence U.S. policy decisions in several ways. These "outside" developments have a hearing on the nature of the feed grains program pursued hy the United States since the level of coarse grain production targeted annually depends in part on export possibilities. Coarse grains are a major agricultural export of the United States and are highly important to our balance of payments. In 1966 / 67 ? the United States ex¬ ported 21 million tons of coarse grains valued at $1.2 billion (excluding products)--nearly one-fifth of our agricultural exports. Six years earlier (I 960 / 6 I), coarse grain exports from the United States totaled only 11.2 mil¬ lion tons valued at $539 million, one-tenth of our total agricultural exports. This report looks briefly at trends in world production, utilization, and trade of coarse grains. The discussion centers on major coarse grain consuming or exporting countries (or regions) other than the United States and comments on trade prospects for 1970/71. An appraisal of probable developments in other countries or areas is designed to provide some insight into short-term problems (or opportunities) facing the United States in the world coarse grains market and on matters having a bearing on U.S. grain policy. This report also sup¬ ports the ERS study for the Agency for International Development, "Analysis of Demand Prospects for Agricultural Products of the Less Developed Countries." Persons assisting the authors in the preparation of this study include Mollie A. Church, Marshall H. Cohen, Brian D. Hedges, James Lopes, David M. Schoonover, Harry E. Walters, and Elizabeth V. Truhan. G. Stanley Brown, Chief Europe and Soviet Union Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division Washington, D.C. 20250 June 1969 1 CONTENTS Page Summary and Conclusions. Introduction. Trends in the Production, Utilization, and Trade of Coarse Grains. Near-Term Developments for Major Coarse Grain Importing and Exporting Countries. £ European Economic Community. United Kingdom. Spain. Denmark. Japan. Argentina. Brazil. Mexico. Canada. Australia. Thailand. Republic of South Africa. Eastern Europe. USSR. 33 Bibliography. Appendix. FIGUPE 1. Monthly import prices of selected grains, nearest forward shipment, c.i.f. European ports, 1955-68 . 38 TABLES 1. __Beginning stocks of coarse grains in major exporting countries, .. 2. --World grain production, by type of grain, 1955-68. 11 TABLES--Continued Page 3. --World production of rye, barley, oats, corn, and millet and sorghum, by major countries or areas, 1955-57 and 1965-67 . 4l 4. --World utilization of coarse grains, 1955/56-1957/58 and 1961 / 62 - 1963/64 . 44 5. --Trade in grains related to world production, averages 1956/57-1957/58 and 1964/65-1965/66. 45 6 . Gross imports of coarse grains, by principal importing countries, average 1951 / 52 - 1955/56 and annual, 1956/57-1966/67.. 46 7. Gross exports of rye, barley, oats, corn, and millet and sorghum by principal exporting countries, average 1951 / 52 - 1955/56 and annual, I 956 / 57 -I 966/67 . 47 8 . Coarse grain production, consumption, and trade for selected base periods, and projections for 1970 / 71 ? selected countries. 50 EXPLANATORY NOTES Coarse grains — Corn, barley, oats, rye, millet and sorghum, and mixed grains. Feed grains include the coarse grains listed, less rye. Time reference — Split-year data, such as July 1 to June 30, are identified with a diagonal stroke ( 1966 / 67 ). Hyphens indicate averages ( 1965 - 67 ). Weights and measures — Unless otherwise indicated, metric tons are used throughout this report. 1 metric ton = 2204.6 pounds 1 quintal = 220.46 pounds 1 kilogram = 2.2046 pounds 1 hectare = 2.471 acres in SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Expanding production abroad is threatening the traditional role of the . United States as the world's major supplier of coarse.grains. Member countries of the European Economic Community—along with the United Kingdom, Denmark, . Spain, and Japan—accounted for three-fourths of world.coarse grain mports m 1966/67. The continuing growth of domestic coarse grain production in all these countries, except Japan, dampens trade prospects for grain exporting countries, including the United States. Even in Japan, there is strong evidence that increased availabilities of coarse grains by 1970/71 from countries such as Australia and Thailand will squeeze the traditional market share of other suppliers, particularly the Unite States. High grain price policies pursued by some importing countries, such as the EEC, work against import expansion in two ways—domestic production is encour¬ aged and the demand for feed grains is dampened. The United States provided one-half of world coarse p’ain exports in 1966/67 and will continue as a major supplier in international markets. Argen¬ tina, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Thailand, and the Republic of South Africa accounted for nearly three-fifths of the rest. The tremendous production potential of some of these exporting countries and the dependence.of others on .rain sales for export earnings augur for continued export expansion Growth of the livestock and poultry industries in some countries, however, will ten o hold down increases in export availability. Widespread crop failures or unusual acceleration in world demand—such as a sharp upturn in feed grain imports by Eastern Europe from the Free World or an unexpected thrust to livestock expansion—might increase world coarse grain imports above projected levels. Developments such as these seem unlikely and might be cyclical and/or short lived. Net imports of coarse grains by major importers in 1970/71 are projected as follows: E EC -- 10-12 million tons, somewhat below the 12.1 mil¬ lion tons of net imports in 1966/67 and the 12.5 million tons in 1965/66. United Kingdom — an amount approaching 4 million tons, somewhat above earlier levels, but with increased production nearly keeping pace with increased consumption. iv Spain — 2 million tons (nearly all in corn), about one-half million tons below the level of net imports of coarse grains estimated annually for I967/68-I968/69. Denmark --a decline below the 0.4 million tons of net imports in I965/66-I966/67 as production increases ex¬ ceed consumption increases. Japan — an increase in net imports, from 6.5 million tons in 1965/66-1966/67 to 11 million tons in 1970/71? as domestic production continues to decline and consumption continues to increase. Net exports of coarse grains by major exporters (excluding the United States) in 1970/71 are projected as follows: Argentina — increase in net exports of coarse grains above the level of 4.2 million tons in I965/66-I966/67. Brazil — net exports of 1 million tons of corn, about double the level of 1965-67, with production increases ex¬ ceeding consumption increases. Mexico — continuation of a net export position with exports of corn exceeding imports of other types of coarse grains. Canada — net exports of coarse grains are projected to remain just short of 1 million tons as consumption in¬ creases match production increases. Australia — net exports of all coarse grains may ap¬ proach 1 million tons in 1970/71, up somewhat from the 0.8 million tons exported in I965/66-I966/67. Thailand -- Government policies directed toward ex¬ panding production of corn and sorghum will push net exports of coarse grains above the 1.2 million tons in 1967 . Republic of South Africa — corn exports (net) are projected to reach 3 million tons, up sharply from the one- half million tons of corn exported in I963/64-I965/66. Projections of net trade for Eastern Europe and the USSR are as follows: Eastern Europe -- net imports of nearly 1.5 million tons of coarse grains projected for 1970/71, about equal to net imports in I96I-65, as opposed to small net exports in I965/66-I967/68 (0.2 million tons). v USSR -- net exports of slightly over one-half million tons of“coarse grains in I965/66-I967/68 are projected to increase to nearly 1 million tons in 1970 / 71 . U.S. exports of feed grains -will continue to expand as -will world feed grain exports. However, the United States will face increased competition from other exporters. U.S. exports of feed grains in 1970/71 will increase from the 20-21 million tons exported in recent years. However, exports are not expected to reach the unusually high level of 25.4 million tons exported in 1965/66. vi PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, AND TRADE OF COARSE GRAINS: DEVELOPMENTS AND PROSPECTS FOR SELECTED FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND AREAS By Reed E. Friend and G. Robert Butell Foreign Regional Analysis Division Economic Research Service INTRODUCTION The decline in the world and U.S. price of feed grains--primarily corn, rghum, barley, and oats--is causing concern over future demand-supply equi- orium. Corn prices, c.i.f. European ports, are at their lowest level in over iecade (app. fig. l). Reasons for continued U.S. concern over the level of rid feed grain prices and feed grain export markets are explored in this re- rt. World grain price trends reflect to some degree developments in supply- nand equilibrium. As shown in appendix figure 1 , the international price of arse grains remained relatively stable between 1958 and 1961, after falling Dm peaks in the mid-1950's, and then gradually increased through 1966, pro- ling an incentive to increase production. This strengthening of prices re¬ sets a rapid expansion of the livestock industry in such areas as the Euro- an Economic Community and Japan, and increased movement of coarse grains orghum) to India for use as food. The U.S. feed grain program and related orage activities lent stability to world market prices. However, substantial rid grain production increases in 1966 and 1967 resulted in a fall in world rket prices for several of the most important feed grains, beginning in the tter part of 1966. Trends in world grain stocks also reflect the relationship between supply d demand as conditioned by varying price policies. Grain stocks of major ain exporters showed a consistent year-to-year rise between 195V 55 and 6l/62--from 35-8 million tons to 84-3 million tons (table l). 1/ Ih 1961, e United States started a feed grains program designed to reduce feed grain reage and cut production to avoid further stock increases. This program, mbined with a rapid rise in world utilization of feed grains, caused stocks show a general decline between 1961/62 and 1967/68. The United States, ich most years since 1959/60 has accounted for about 90 percent of the stocks major coarse grain exporting countries, entered 1968/69 with a significant crease in stocks. The good grain crop in 1968 led the United States to an- unce adjustments in the feed grains program which would further curtail feed ain production. 1 / All tables are in the appendix, p. 38. TRENDS IN THE PRODUCTION, UTILIZATION, AND TRADE OF COARSE GRAINS Total world grain production advanced to nearly 1.1 billion tons in 19&7 after exceeding the 1-billion-ton mark first in 1966 (table 2 ). Coarse grains account for almost half of total world grain output, with the remaining pro¬ duction about equally split between wheat and rice. World production of rye and oats has declined, while output of barley, com, and millet and sorghum has increased. Rye output declined 1.2 percent and oats 2-9 percent annually be- tween 1955-57 and 1965-67. Average annual percentage increases for other grains were: barley, 3-7 percent; corn, 3-8 percent; millet and sorghum, 3.9 percent. These trends brought the overall average annual increase in coarse grain output to 2.1 percent between 1955-57 and 1965-67--below the increase for wheat ( 2.7 percent) but above that of rice (l -7 percent)• Trends in Output of Individual Coarse Grains by Major Produ cing Areas Rye accounted for only 6.3 percent of total coarse grain output in 1965-67 (3I.3 million tons) and its relative importance continues to decline.. The So¬ viet Union, Eastern Europe, and the EEC (principally West Germany) jointly pro- I duce over 88 percent of the rye crop (table 3) • Although rye production fell in all three of these countries or areas during the 10-year period 1955-57 to 1965-67, the major decline was in the EEC ( 2.9 percent annually). Three of the barley, -6; oats, 53; an d corn, oO. Pro¬ duction of the first three grains, however, is still relatively unimportant. Wheat production has fallen sharply from the record level in 1956 when high prices offered much incentive to producers. Area seeded to corn, which accounts for the bulk of the coarse grain acre¬ age, has increased rapidly in recent years, climbing from 5-9 million hectares in 1955-57 bo 8.4 million hectares in 1965 - 67 * Average corn yields have not increased nearly as much as acreage due to the extension of production into less favorable areas. Average wheat yield in 1965-67 changed little from the 1955 - 57 average. Factors Affecting Production Early in 1964, the Government established a system of higher support prices providing incentives for producers to expand output of corn. The higher support price has been effective in promoting larger corn crops. Since 1950, greater emphasis has been placed on inputs of improved seeds, fertilizer, and insecticides. Extension of corn production into less productive areas has tended to offset increased use of hybrid varieties for yield improve¬ ments . Due to ecological and disease problems with wheat, future expansion of grain production probably will be in rice, corn, or sorghum. 20 Utilization Little information is available on grain utilization in Brazil. The rather rapid expansion in hog and broiler production has undoubtedly increased feed grain requirements, and total consumption has increased. However, there is evi¬ dence of a negative income elasticity for direct consumption of corn, indicating a probable decline in consumption of corn for food (19, p. 50)• Trade Brazil's coarse grain trade has been comparatively insignificant; only aroirnd 1 percent of the corn output was exported in 1950 - 64 , mainly flint-type com to Italy. During 1965-67, however, corn exports increased substantially, averaging almost 5 percent of production. Projections Higher corn yields are expected with wider use of hybrid seed. Improved narket facilities may lead to some improvement in corn exports. In 1968/69, for example, corn exports are expected to be about 1.1 million tons, compared with about 0.6 million tons during each of the years 1965-67* Exports in 1970/71 nay also total about 1.0 million tons. This, together with rising domestic de¬ mand, could lead to a 13 -million-ton crop in 1970 - The Government is emphasizing output of the soft hybrid varieties. Mexico Since 1964/65, Mexico has become a net exporter of coarse grains rather than a net importer, as it has been traditionally. Corn is by far the leading grain produced in Mexico, but sor¬ ghum has also become important since its introduction in the early 1950 's. Coarse grain production will continue to increase through 1970/71'; but expansion in domestic demand for feed and industrial uses can be expected to dampen any further expansion in net coarse grain exports. Past Trends in Production Production of coarse grains has expanded rapidly in Mexico in recent years-- from 4.8 million tons in 1955-57 to 9.6 million in 1965-67--with corn accounting for most of the increase. Corn is by far the leading grain (72 percent of all grains produced in 1965-67)• Grain sorghum has become important in Mexico only since its introduction in the early 1950's, while corn is a traditional staple that is grown in all parts of the country. 21 Com area climbed over one-third from 1955-57 'to 1965-67, in contrast to decreases for both barley and oats. During the same period, average corn yield improved 37 percent, oats 12 percent, and barley 23 percent. Factors Affecting Production Mexican agricultural policies are directed toward increasing self —ouffi — ciency in the basic cropsthey feature price and marketing assistance, and stiff barriers against agricultural imports. Increased irrigation, associated with greater use of fertilizer and hybrid seed, has brought about higher yields. Utilization Although per capita consumption of corn will probably decline, there is expected to be an expansion in aggregate direct consumption for cereals and in their consumption for livestock feeding and industrial use. Trade Mexico's imports of oats and barley are relatively small, fluctuate widely, and show no trend during the past decade. Sorghum production has increased rap¬ idly and Mexico now exports small quantities. Mexico has achieved its goal of self-sufficiency in corn production and exports its surpluses. However, present Mexican policy is not designed to encourage grain production for export. Projections Production of coarse grains is expected to increase in Mexico and may reach 11 million tons by 1970. Only about one-tenth of the harvested area for corn is irrigated. There may be a small further increase in the corn planted on unirri¬ gated areas, which may slow down yield increases. Mexico's 5-year development plan for 1966-70 states that any surplus of wheat is to be used to stabilize prices and supplies and is not for export. Barley and oats are likely to continue to be imported by.Mexico with demand growing faster than domestic production. Corn will continue to be in a surplus position in 1970 and the volume of its exports will exceed imports of other coarse grains. Some exports of sorghum are also likely. Canada Despite lower area, Canadian coarse grain production has increased in the 1960's. This is due largely to increasing yields. Although Canada remains a net exporter of coarse grains, increased consumption at home and greater competition abroad have resulted in a lower level of exports than a decade earlier. Some expansion of coarse grain area and production by 1970/71 I s like- 22 ly to meet the expanded domestic demand and to maintain Canada's export market. Past Trends in Production Canadian coarse grain production averaged l 4.5 million tons in the 1965-67 period for a 7 -percent increase over the 1955-57 average. Production changes for the individual grains between 1955-57 and 1965-67 show increases of 53 per¬ cent for rye, 4 percent for barley, 125 percent for corn, and 20 percent for mixed grains; oats production was down 13 percent. Planted coarse grain area dropped from 9.1 million hectares per year in 1955-57 to 7.5 million in 1965-67, an l8-percent decrease. Despite lower area, Canadian coarse grain production has not decreased. This is due to the general rise in yields caused by increased levels of inputs and improved varieties. Barley yields were up 42 percent, corn yields over 4 l percent, oat yields l6 percent, and rye yields about 27 percent. Factors Affecting Production The Canadian Wheat Board, assisted by the Board of Grain Commissioners and by the private grain trade, operates a monopoly for commercial marketing, in¬ cluding exports on behalf of grain producers (wheat, barley, and oats) in the Prairie Provinces. In addition to pricing activities, the Board buys, stores, and sells, or otherwise disposes of, grains under pooling arrangements for var¬ ious grades of each crop. It has the power to establish delivery quotas, based upon permit books issued to each producer or producer group, to promote orderly production and marketing. Improved cultural practices, new varieties of grains, and increased use of fertilizer and machinery have contributed to the higher production in recent years. Total fertilizer sales for consumption rose by over 79 percent in Canada between 1961/62 and 1965/66. The development and use of short-season corn var¬ ieties and expanding area, largely in Ontario Province, have resulted in rapid increases in corn grain production. This expansion in corn production is ex¬ pected to continue for the near future. Utilization and Trade Coarse grain consumption in Canada during the late 1950's remained about constant with a declining trend on a per capita basis. In the mid-1960's, con¬ sumption increased; in per capita terms, the declining trend was halted and even moved upward slightly. Increased production of livestock and poultry accounted for the larger consumption. However, future increases in livestock and poultry production are expected to be smaller than in recent years. 23 Coarse grains have been increasing in relative importance to wheat for. livestock feed. Barley and oats are the major coarse grains fed, but corn is increasing in importance. Canadian exports of barley and oats have generally trended downward, while coin imports have leveled off around 500,000 tons. Projections Total Canadian coarse grain production is estimated to be about lo million tons in 1970. Rates of feeding are expected to be maintained at high levels in response to rising consumer demand for meat. Exports of barley and oats wi continue. Canada will need to import some com despite its successful e to increase production of this crop. Australia Australia is currently dependent on agricultural exports for about 70 percent of its foreign exchange earnings. Government policies are oriented toward expanding agricultural exports. Coarse grain production increased 1+8 percent between 1955-57 and 1965-67, compared with a 135 -percent increase for wheat. Of par¬ ticular interest in Australia is the development of new land ar¬ eas with foreign capital. Production of sorghum for shipment to Japan is a major objective in this venture. Some newly developed areas in Australia are already being planted to sorghums, and small shipments have been made to Japan. The potential for de¬ velopment of sorghum crops in the southern part of Western Aus¬ tralia alone has been estimated at 810,000 hectares. Past Trends in Production Coarse grain production increased from 1.9 million tons in 1955-57 to 2.7 million tons in 1965-67--an increase of 40 percent. The comparable increase Srwh^wL 135 Percent. As a consequence, the proportion of -arse grains to total grains dropped from one-third in 1955-57 to one-fourth m 19^5 7- Australia's coarse grain area increased by one-fourth between 1955-57 and 1965-67 while the wheat area more than doubled. Yields of most grains have in¬ creased substantially due to increased use of fertilizer and improved varieties. Factors Affecting Production Australia is currently dependent on agricultural exports for about 7° per¬ cent of foreign exchange earnings (2) . The Government has emphasized the ex nansion of agriculture to assure food and raw materials for export markets a Sill 1 :: for Sating domestic needs. No production controls ^entl^are^laced on wheat and coarse grains (rice acreage is control e ), g free choice in deciding which grains to produce (4 ). Most of the barley produced in Australia is sold through three grower-con¬ trolled marketing organizations. The barley is sold in the domestic and export narkets at the best price, and total net proceeds are distributed to farmers in proportion to the quantities and in accordance with the vaiieties and grades of the barley they delivered ( 4 ). Other policies are being pursued by the Federal Government which have a lirect or indirect impact on grain production. Of particular interest is the levelopment of new areas with the assistance of private capital from Japan and :he United States. In Queensland, one scheme for land development is scheduled :o add about 45 million hectares to pasture and crop production by 1977 - Ap¬ proximately 32,000 irrigated hectares of grain sorghum are planned for New South /ales and newly developed areas of the Ord River district in Western Australia, [n the Tipperary section of Northern Australia, the area planted to sorghum in L968/69 ( 9,700 hectares) was double that of the previous year; U.S. investors in :he development expect to plant over 77,000 hectares in 1972 . The potential for levelopment of sorghum crops in the southern part of Western Australia has been estimated at 810,000 hectares. About 4,000 hectares are expected to be planted .n sorghum in the Esperance area of Western Australia in 1968/69. Gruen et al. have characterized Australian agriculture as "...a technically lynamic agriculture which is steadily using more capital, particularly in the ’orm of farm machinery and equipment and an increasing volume of non-farm pro- Luced inputs such as fuel, fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals." (8, A subsidy of $88 per long ton to manufacturers of nitrogen fertilizer went .nto effect in 1966. As a result, Australia's consumption of nitrogen fertili- ,er increased to an estimated 142,000 tons in 1967/68 or double the amount used 1965/66. The subsidy has led to a sharp rise in the use of nitrogen in many .n heat areas. Farmers using superphosphate have received a transport subsidy of 16.61 per long ton since 1963 ( 3 .) • This subsidy was increased to $8.96 per long ,on as of August 1968. Agricultural research funding has increased in recent years and has resulted .n improved varieties of barley. A U.S.-Australian enterprise in New South Wales .s experimenting with high-yielding varieties of grain sorghum and other feed and 'orage crops (l, p. 22). utilization The use of grains for feed has shown a general increase. Wheat and oats ire the two most important grains fed to livestock (or poultry), with each grain iccounting for about one-third of total grains fed. The relative importance of orn and sorghum declined in the mid-1960's, but indications are that both of hese grains will be emphasized in the early 1970' s as export commodities to apan. Barley accounts for one-eighth to one-fifth of the grains used as feed ach year. Food use of coarse grains appears to have stabilized in excess of 80,000 tons annually, with per capita declines being offset by population in- reases. Other uses--seed and industrial--are continuing to grow due to the xpansion of grain area and increased demand for barley for malting. 25 Trade Australia's exports of coarse grains show substantial year-to year vari¬ ations depending on the level of supplies (production plus beginning stocks) and on export markets. During 1959/60-1966/67, shipments ranged from a high of 1.1 million tons in 1960/61 to less than half that amount in. 1965 / 60 . Austra¬ lia's most important and most stable export market during this period was West¬ ern Europe, which accounted for 50 to 88 percent of annual.shipments. However, the importance of Japan as an export market for coarse grains is increasing, -particularly for sorghum. Communist Asia, an important outlet during most of the early 1960 's, is no longer a market for Australian coarse grain exports. Australia's major coarse grain exports are barley and oats, but the level of export of barley has generally declined in recent years. Com^exports are minor. Sorghum exports show substantial year-to-year variation, m -9° 1 / > exports were at a record high. During 1959/60-1966/67, exports of coarse grains averaged 3° percent of total domestic production. In the early part of this period, over two-fifths of the coarse grains were exported, compared with one-fifth in the latter years Projections Gruen et al. have developed "most likely" estimates for 1970 production, consumption, and exports of wheat, barley, and oats—the three major grains currently produced in Australia (8, p. 405). These projections show output of wheat, barley, and oats increasing through 1970 (and even through 1975 and 1980 ) . However, nearly all of the -grease I output occurring between the base period (average for the years 1958/59-1961/62)1 and 1970 (average of 1969 /TO and 1970/71) vill be in wheat. Both larger acreage and higher yields will contribute to expansion of grain output. Use of wheat, barley, and oats for all categories of . c ° n ^ um ^ n :‘ S ^3 eh food, and feed-is expected to increase from the Ka.se vjriocl to 197° use of wheat for feed is expected to decline between 1965 and.1970). Increased domestic consumption of pork and poultry will expand feed gram use. Major ex¬ ports of either pork or poultry in 1970 are considered unlikely. Exports of barley and oats in 1970 are expected to be below those of the J base period, since consumption of both grains is forecast to increase | pace than production. Also, the base period used m the study coincided w peak exports of barley to Japan. These exports dropped sharply in later years as incomes and standards of living increased and Japanese food consumption p terns shifted from barley to rice and wheat. Exports of wheat will likely sho a substantial rise above the base period level. Projections by Gruen et al. do not provide an adequate assessment of near- term or future developments for sorghum. While sorghum exports will continue expand through 1970 , major production and export increases are likely to occur later. 26 Thailand Corn is the major coarse grain export of Thailand and Gov¬ ernment policies are directed toward expanding production to further increase foreign exchange earnings. The Thai Govern¬ ment is encouraging increased grain fertilization, use of new grain varieties, and improved cultural practices. Coarse grain production in Thailand is expected to continue increasing to 1970 / 7 T- Although the National Plan calls for a strong commer¬ cial livestock industry, most of the corn and sorghum production will continue to he exported through 1970/71 or longer. rends in Production Thai production of feed grains centers on corn, although some sorghum is roduced and exported. Corn production rose from an annual average in 1953-55 ■ 60,000 tons to 1 , 200,000 tons in 1967. This increase is due to (l) expansion 1 planted area from 52,000 hectares in 1953-55 to 608,000 hectares in 1967, and -) increase in yields from 1,154 kilograms per hectare in 1953-55 to 1,974 kilo- ’ams per hectare in 1967. ictors Affecting Production The Thai Government's corn policy is aimed at further increases in pro- Lction through encouraging fertilization, use of new grain varieties, and im- ’oved cultural practices. Agricultural extension services, credit, and corn -ice supports are provided. A further policy goal is diversification of export irkets and increased domestic use of corn to stabilize the market. American and Japanese export firms have been making heavy investments in lai corn, ranging from drying and storage facilities in Bangkok to market in- irmation and even extension services in the upland areas. ■ade Government success at diversifying markets is mixed. The share of exports dng to Japan has decreased from 80 percent in 1958 to 60 percent in 1967, with >ng Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Malaysia taking most of the rest. On the other -nd, domestic demand has remained low and exports rose from 77 percent of pro- iction in 1953-55 to 98 percent of production in 1966. •Qjections Thailand's Second National Economics and Development Plan (1967-1971) puts rward a production target of 1.5 million tons for corn and 300,000 tons for irghum. The Plan also is committed to the promotion of a strong commercial 27 livestock industry. The latter will take some time to develop, and most.of the corn and sorghum production will continue to he available for export during the next decade. Republic of South Africa South Africa's major coarse grain export is corn, and Gov¬ ernment policies are directed toward a further expansion of ex¬ ports in 1970/71. The Government is extensively involved.in marketing and distribution. Substantial increases in agricul¬ tural output in the Republic of South Africa during.the postwar period can be partly attributed to the degree of price stability inaugurated by the marketing boards. Past Trends in Production Corn is the primary grain grown in the Republic of South Africa, accounting for over 90 percent of coarse grain output. Production of corn varies signifi-1 cantly from year to year, due to the extreme weather variability, but there is substantial upward trend in both area and yield. The dramatic increase in corn production in 1966/67-with output in excess of 9 to extremely favorable weather. Production in both 1965/66 and in 1967/68 was around 5 million tons. Sorghum production had increased to over 800,000 ton 1966/67, but also dropped abruptly in 1967/68 to only one-fourth this amount. As with corn, however, there is an uptrend in the area and yield of sorghum. Factors Affecting Production The Government of South Africa is extensively involved in the marketing and distribution of agricultural products. The. su-bstBnti-a.! increase in agri- cultural output achieved during the postwar period can be attributed, at lea in part to the degree of price stability inaugurated by the marketing boaras. corn is sometimes sold at a loss by the Government. This is motivated byV) a desire to maintain a relatively high level of corn production to assure self-sufficiency, (2) the political influence of corn producers, and (3) a de- sire to use corn sales as a source of foreign earnings. Trade Exports of feed grains include some sorghum and negligible amounts of oats. The main export, however, is corn. During 1951/52-1955/56, annual corn exports of the Republic of South Africa averaged 3 6 5 ,000 tons. Peak exports of 2A mil lion tons occurred in 1963/64, followed by an annual average of only 390,000 tons in 1964/65-1966/67 (table 7)- 28 V Projections A study done under contract to the Economic Research Service, USDA, esti¬ mates that corn exports of the Republic of South Africa will approximate 3 mil¬ lion tons in 1970 and 3-5 million tons by 1975 ( 12 ) • Production is projected at 7.8 million tons in 1970 and at 9 ^ million in 1975 - Domestic demand is put at 4.8 and 5-9 million tons in 1970 and 1975 , respectively. The study assumes the continuation of existing Government policies and the expansion of the mar¬ keting and handling capacity for grains. Eastern Europe _ 2 / Coarse grain area for the whole of Eastern Europe has de¬ clined since 1950, but increased use of fertilizer and more mechanization has pushed output to higher levels in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Yugoslavia. Increased production of meat and milk has sharply expanded feed grain requirements throughout Eastern Europe. However, net imports of coarse grains by Eastern Europe in 1970/71 are projected to be short of 1.5 million tons, about equal to net imports in 1961-65 (but substantially above the 0.2 million tons of net exports calculated for 1965/66-1967/68). Past Trends in Production Coarse grain production in Eastern Europe averaged 33-2 million tons during 1951-55, 39.1 million tons during 1956-60, and 40.6 million tons during 1961- 65. 10/ Production peaked at 47*2 million tons in 1966, declining to 43-5 mil¬ lion tons in 1968. The decline in production was primarily a function of weather. Total grain production (excluding rice) during the same periods averaged 47.4, 54.7, and 59 million tons, respectively, peaking at 74.8 million tons in 1967. The share of coarse grains in total production fell over the period from almost 70 percent to just above 63 percent. Factors Affecting Production Major underlying factors affecting coarse grain production, as well as the output of other crops and livestock products in Eastern Europe since 1950 , were collectivization and the various policies associated with the implementation of collectivization in the different countries of the region. 9/ Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia. 10 / All grains except wheat and rice. 29 The factors which can be directly related to coarse grain production are changes in area and other inputs. Between 1950 and 1968, the area sown to coarse! grains in Eastern Europe declined from about 23 million hectares to slightly more i than 20 million hectares. Area sown declined in the early 1950 's., rose to 24 million hectares in 1957 , and then declined after that. On the other hand, use of fertilizer in agriculture in Eastern Europe quintupled between 1950 and 1967-- from 1.2 to 6 million tons of plant nutrients. In the period from 1959 to 1962 , there was a slowdown in the rate of growth of fertilizer use, coinciding with the last major drive for collectivization. However, fertilizer use commenced to : increase rapidly again in 1963. Between 1962 and 19 ^ 5 ? application ol plant nu¬ trients per hectare of sown area more than doubled in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia. Increases in East Germany, Poland, and Hungary were less significant, ranging between 20 and 45 percent. The increase in tractors and other machinery in agriculture in Eastern Eur¬ ope has been relatively rapid since 1950 - The rate of increase and the ratio of y tractors to sown area differ considerably among the various countries. With the I exception of Poland, the rate of increase in tractor deliveries to agriculture was greater during 1956-60 than during 1961-65• But in all countries except East Germany and Yugoslavia, the rate of increase in the latter period was still over® 50 percent. Sizable increases also took place in 1966 and 19 & 7 - Trends by Country In East Germany, coarse grain production in 1961-65 was below the 1951-55 level. Yields, already high in the early fifties, changed little over the 15 - year period, and did not offset the decline in area of roughly 400,000 hectares. In Czechoslovakia, yields were below those of East Germany in the ear by --— but well above those of other countries in the region. Coarse grain yields in¬ creased 3 quintals per hectare between 1951-55 and 1961-65, with two-thirds of the increase taking place in the decade of the fifties. Until 1962 , the coarse grain area stayed relatively constant at around l8 million hectares, but dropped about 200,000 hectares thereafter. This decline in area accounts for the re¬ duced output in Czechoslovakia since 19c>2 despite increased yields. In Poland, yields of coarse grains--primarily rye, barley, and^oats--rose steadily over the 1951-55 to 1961-65 period, about 2 quintals each 5-year period. The average yield during 1967 and 1968 was about 2 quintals per hectare above the 1961-65 average. The coarse grain area remained close to 8 million hectares un- sjpxl 1961, when it began to decline to the present 6. 7 - 6 .8 million hectares. Sine 1965, output has stabilized at about 12.5 million tons, about 2.5 million tons above the level prevailing in 1951 - 55 - During the past decade, coarse grain production in Hungary has been fairly stable at around 5 million tons. This reflects a decline in area of about 400,00 hectares since 1957? with a compensating increase in yields. The major increases in coarse grain output in Eastern Europe, except for Poland, have taken place in the three southern countries of Bulgaria , Romania , and Yugoslavia. In these countries, production exhibits wide annual fluctuations because of recurrent summer droughts which affect corn yields, the major feed 30 •ain. Coarse grain production rose sharply in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia--from . .1 and 12.2 quintals per hectare, respectively, in 1951-55 to 21.2 and 20.1 iq^tals in 1961-65. Yields were especially high in 1966, exceeding 30 quintals [ Bulgaria and 27 quintals in Yugoslavia. Romania s yield increases were much :ss significant, going from 12 to over 17 quintals between 1951-55 and 1961-65. ie peak yield in Romania was 23-3 quintals in 1966. The coarse grain area in Yugoslavia rose from 3-2 to 3-7 million hec- ires between 1950 and 1957 ? before falling to the present 3 - 3 million hectares. )arse grain area declined 300,000 hectares in Bulgaria and between 700,000 and )0 ,000 hectares in Romania during the same period. These area declines were jre than offset by higher yields so that coarse grain production between 1951-55 id 1961-65 in these three countries increased by 500,000 tons in Bulgaria (29 ircent), 1-5 million tons in Romania (28 percent), and 2-5 million tons in Yugo- Lavia (58 percent). The peak output level of 1966, however, was 5-8 million ms above the 1961-65 average. :ilization Between 1954 and 1966, the total grain-consuming animal units in Eastern, irope increased about 11 percent. Coarse grain availabilities per animal unit-- ie supply of all grains except wheat after deducting other uses except feed-- icreased during the period, although significant annual lluctuations took place, utal grain availabilities (including wheat) per animal unit moved upward more insistently, indicating a greater use of wheat for feed in the northern coun- ries of the region. Cattle numbers decreased between 1950 and 1965 i n Bulgaria and Hungary, re- ained unchanged in Czechoslovakia and Romania, and increased in East Germany, oland, and Yugoslavia. Milk production increased 33 percent in the region and towed an especially pronounced upturn in Bulgaria and East Germany. Beef and eal output also rose sharply in all countries except Romania and Czechoslovakia here slower increases took place. Between 1950 and 1965, hog numbers increased from 30 to 51 million, sheep umbers from 33 to 43 million, and poultry numbers from 66 to 273 million. Dur- ng that period, egg output increased 100 percent, red meat production, almost oubled, and poultry meat more than doubled. There has probably been an improvement in feeding efficiency in Eastern urope and much of the increased feed supply has gone into increased output ather than numbers, although the increases in hog and poultry numbers have been ubstantial. Both output and numbers have generally been determined by annual .omestic feed availabilities. 'rade Total grain imports by Eastern Europe increased from 4.6 million tons in 951-55 to 7.1 million tons in 195to-60 and to 8.6 million tons in 1961-65. "oarse grains accounted for 1 . 7 > 2 . 1 , and 2.9 million tons. Coarse grain imports 31 of around 2 million tons were characteristic of the years from 1953 through i960. But from 1961 through 1964 , coarse grain imports exceeded 3 million tons, peaking at 3-6 million tons in 1965• They dropped back sharply to the 2 -to 2 . 5 -million-ton range in 1965-67. Most grain imports, both food and feed grains, were taken by the northern countries. Exports of 1 to 2 million tons of coarse grains, most of which came from the southern countries, reduced the level of net coarse grain imports substan¬ tially. Net coarse grain imports averaged 1 million tons during 1951 - 55 ; about 700,000 tons during 1956-60, and 1.3 million tons during 1961-65, peaking at 2.3 million tons in 1965* la 1966 and 1967, coarse grain exports exceeded imports; in 1968, net coarse grain imports were estimated at around 600,000 tons. The peak level of total grain and coarse grain imports during 1961-65 ap¬ pears to have been a function of declines in area, a slowdown in yield increases, and a reduction of wheat exports by the USSR to the region. The northern coun¬ tries of Eastern Europe substitute coarse grains for wheat in their imports be¬ cause both are used as feed. There was also a large decline in their potato production, a major feed crop, in the northern grain importing countries of the region during the early sixties. The improvement in grain production in Eastern Europe after 196k and the return of the USSR as a supplier of wheat to the re¬ gion brought about a return to the total grain and coarse grain import pattern of the 1956-60 period. Projections Total production of coarse grains in Eastern Europe is projected at just over 47 million tons in 1970 / 71 * This assumes a continuation of the present rate of decline in area and a yield slightly above that of 19 66. This yield is projected under normal weather conditions because of an assumed continued upward movement in inputs and an improved economic situation. Total coarse grain imports are projected at 2-5 million tons and exports at 1.1 to 1.2 million tons for 1970 / 71 * Gross imports would be 500,000 tons lower than the 1961-65 average, but exports are projected to decline about 400,000 tons from the export level of that period. Thus, net imports are fore¬ cast for 1970/71 at 1-3 to 1.4 million tons, about as much as net imports dur¬ ing 1961-65. However, the net trade of Eastern Europe can change substantially from year to year depending on the influence of weather on corn production in the Danubian countries. Yugoslavia is expected to return to the level of coarse grain exports dur¬ ing the last half of the fifties--about 300,000 to 400,000 tons; Romania is ex¬ pected to continue large coarse grain exports, but to reduce these by roughly 200,000 tons; and Bulgaria is expected to have zero net coarse grain trade. The major importers of coarse grains in 1970/71 are expected to be Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, in that order. The net imports of coarse grains by these three countries are expected to be slightly above the 1961-65 average, but about 500,000 tons less than the peak 1964/65 level. Hungary is expected to continue its relatively consistent level of coarse grain imports. 32 USSR v Production of "usable" coarse grains in the USSR increased from 44 to 49 million tons between 1953-55 and 1961-65. Vari¬ ation in agricultural policies, with regard to prices and cap¬ ital investment in agriculture, alternatively encouraged and discouraged coarse grain production. Larger livestock numbers have expanded feed grain requirements. Consequently, despite increasing production of coarse grains, exports in 1970/71 are projected at 700,000 tons, about equal to the level of exports since 1966. Past Trends in Production Precision in the analysis of past trends in yields and production of coarse grains in the USSR is impaired by that country’s practice of reporting such.data in "bunker weight." To approximate "barn yield" and usable production, it is necessary to eliminate from the reported data excess moisture and foreign matter. Such adjustments affect both the level of production and the rate of change over time. In terms of "bunker weight," total grain production (excluding rice) in¬ creased from 89.5 to 122.8 million tons between 1953-55 and 1961-65, and coarse grain production increased from 45*6 to 58.2 million tons. The increase in feed grains was from 26 to 39 million tons. During 1966-68, production of all grains and of coarse grains averaged well above these levels--about 155 million tons for all grains and about 63 million tons for coarse grains. Feed grains averaged 45 million tons. USDA estimates of usable grain indicate an increase in total grain pro¬ duction of from 83 to about 100 million tons between 1953-55 and 1961-65, with coarse grains increasing from 44 to 49 million tons. Feed grains increased from 28 to 34 million tons. Using these estimates, averages for 1966-68 are about 131 million tons of total grain, including 54 million tons of coarse grain, and 38 million tons of feed grains. Factors Affecting Production Two factors have been critical in determining the direction and level of coarse grain production in the USSR: (l) Major changes in sown area have altered greatly the composition of coarse grain productionand (2) agricultural policy-- including changes in prices, farm incentives, capital investment, and the avail¬ abilities of machinery and fertilizer--has developed in a discontinuous pattern so that there are distinct periods in which agricultural policy has had a pos¬ itive or negative impact upon the output of all crops and livestock products. The rye area decreased steadily from 23*7 to l6 million hectares between 1950 and 1965, and then dropped sharply to the present level of about 12 mil- 33 lion hectares. The relative position of barley and oats area was reversed about i960. Until then, barley had fluctuated between 8 and 12 million hectares, but shot up to 21.7 million hectares in 1964 . It has subsequently declined to about 1 19 to 20 million hectares. Area in oats ranged between 13 and l6 million hec¬ tares until i960, and then dropped to 5-7 million hectares in 1963* It has gradually increased to the present area of approximately 8 million hectares. The corn area was 4.8 million hectares in 1950 > reached 6.6 million in 1956 , fell to 3-3 in 1957 , and then rose again to 7 million hectares in 1961. It has fallen again to its'present level of about 3*2 million hectares. Agricultural policies during 1953-57 greatly improved the level of farm prices and incentives, the availability of machinery and fertilizer, and the level of agricultural investment. During the period, yields of all coarse grain: increased, with those of barley and corn exceeding those of rye and oats. Be¬ tween 1958 and 1963, a change in agricultural policy produced little improve¬ ment in yields. Another change in agricultural policy in late 1964 stimulated an increase in yields which is continuing. Between 1950 and 1965, corn was the only coarse grain to increase yields significantly, barley yields improved less rapidly, and only modest improve¬ ments occurred in the yields of rye and oats. These yields are reported in terms of "bunker weight" or estimates of "barn yield." Utilization Between 1950 and 1965, cattle numbers in the USSR increased 50 percent, and cow numbers increased 58 percent. They increased another 11 and 7 percent, respectively, between 1965 and 1967, Taut both declined slightly in 1968. Hog numbers grew from 22.4 to 70 million between 1950 and 1963, but dropped sharply to 4 l million during 1963 - They recovered to almost 60 million by 1966, but declined in 1966, 1967, and 1968 to the present 49 million. Sheep numbers grew from 78 to 138 million between 1950 and the present, while goat and horse num¬ bers declined. Both milk and meat production doubled between 1950 and 1965, egg output tripled, and wool production increased 123 percent. Between 1965 and 1968, output of each of these commodities increased another 15 percent. These increases in numbers and output took place despite the relatively slow growth in feed grain production from 1950 to 1968. The only major non¬ grain feed source to increase significantly during the period was silage and other succulent feeds. Roughages and potatoes remained about the same, and major improvements in pastures do not appear to have taken place. There is evidence to indicate that wheat and rye became increasingly more important as livestock feeds after 1958, and that feeding of wheat increased further after the exceptionally large crop of 1966. The absence of exact data on the "barn yield" of grain in the USSR does not permit a satisfactory analysis of grain utilization or the relationship of grains fed to livestock output. Soviet "bunker weight grain figures indicate a larger absolute level of grain available for feed and a somewhat faster rate of increase in the grain supply than is the case with USDA estimates. Further research will be necessary before the problem can be resolved. However, using either "bunker weight" or estimated figures, even if large quantities of wheat and rye are assigned to livestock feed, the share of grain.in the feed supply is still low. This undoubtedly explains the continued Soviet emphasis upon in¬ creasing grain production despite sharp improvements since 19 t - ), -‘ - Trade Coarse grain exports by the USSR averaged 1.8 million tons during 1951 - 55 . dropped about 200,000 tons below that level during 1956-60, and rose about 200,000 tons above it in 1961-65- Coarse grain exports dropped to less than 1 million tons after the 1966 wheat crop made possible the resumption 01 larger wheat exports, ll/ The USSR has never been a significant importer of feed or coarse grains. Projections Soviet output of coarse grains in 1970 is projected at more than .57 million tons of usable grain, including more than 72 million tons of feed grains. Bar¬ ley will remain the major feed grain. The estimated level of feed grain produc¬ tion represents an increase of 10 million tons over the 1961-05 aveiage, but only 7 million tons above the 1966-68 level. Total coarse grain production, however, would be up only 8 million tons over the 1961-65 average, and 3 million.tons above the 1966-68 average because of the declining trend in rye production. Despite a projected decline in total coarse grain area, feed grain produc¬ tion should remain relatively stable. The production increase will.be due es¬ sentially to yield increases. Greater fertilizer inputs probably will be al¬ located to feed grains. Total fertilizer use per hectare of arable land amounted to about 35 kilograms of nutrients in 1967. compared with 12.2 kilograms.in 19u0. Other aspects of improved management also should help boost feed grain yields. Net exports by the USSR of more than 700,000 tons of coarse grains are pro¬ jected for 1970/71. About one-half of this amount is expected to be feed grains and the remainder will be rye and miscellaneous grains. The projected exports represent a considerable reduction from typical Soviet coarse grain exports through 1965. but a continuation of the pattern since lyOfj. 11 / The USSR supplies East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and, to a certain ex¬ tent,"Poland with a given annual supply of grain. When wheat is xn short sup¬ ply, feed grains and rye are shipped or vice versa, because these.countries feed large quantities of wheat and also produce wheat. If the USSR ships feed grains, these countries consume more of their own wheat as food. If the USSR ships wheat, they use more wheat as feed. Since 1966, the USSR has had large wheat availabilities, but less feed grains. 35 BIBLIOGRAPHY ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( 5 ) Chrisler, Donald 1968. The World Agricultural Situation--Review of 1967 and Outlook for 1968. U.S. Dept. Agr., Foreign Agr. Econ. Rpt. 38, Feb. Economic Research Service 1967- Agricultural Policies in the Far East and Oceania. U.S. Dept. Agr., Foreign Agr. Econ. Rpt. 37 ; Nov. 1968 The Far East and Oceania Agricultural Situation: Review of 1967 and Outlook for 1968. U.S. Dept. Agr., ERS-Foreign 223 , Apr. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1963. National Grain Policies. Rome. 1963• The Stabilization of World Trade in Coarse Grains--A Consideration of the Underlying Economic Issues, Commodity Policy Studies No. lb. Rome. ( 6 ) T9E57 "Trends and Patterns in World Grain Consumption," Monthly Bul¬ letin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics , Vol. lb, No. 10 , pp. 10 -l6, Rome, Oct. ( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 ) (10) 1966 and 1968. World Grain Trade Statistics: Exports by Source and Des¬ tination. 1965/66 and 1966/67* Rome. Gruen, F. H. and others 1968. Long Term Projections of Agricultural Supply and Demand: Australia, 1965 to 1980. Department of Economics, Monash University, Clay¬ ton, Victoria, May. International Wheat Council 1966. Trends and Problems in the World Grain Economy, 1950 - 1970 * Sec¬ retariat Paper No. 6, 28 Haymarket, London, Apr. 1968. Review of the World Grain Situation. 28 Haymarket, London, Apr. 36 \ (11) Jones, et al. 1966. United Kingdom: The Projected Level of Demand, Supply, and Im¬ ports of Agricultural Products in 1970 , 1975 , and 1980. Study conducted by the Institute for Research in Agricultural Econ¬ omics, Oxford University, under contract with the Economic Re¬ search Service and the Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Dept. Agr. (Summary of study in preparation.) ( 12 ) Little, Arthur D., Inc. 1966. Projected Exports and Imports of Selected Agricultural Commodities of South Africa. Cambridge, Mass., Dec. ( 13 ) Maris, A. and others 1967. Supply and Demand, Imports and Exports of Selected Agricultural Products in the Netherlands-Forecast for 1970 and 1975 * Ag¬ ricultural Economics Research Institute. The Hague. (1 4 ) National Economic Development Board, Office of the Prime Minister 1967. The Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (1967- 7 l). Bangkok. (15) National Economic Development Office, Economic Development Committee for Agriculture 1968. Agriculture's Import Saving Role. Her Majesty's Stationery Of¬ fice. London. June. (16) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 1968. Agricultural Projections for 1975 an< 3 - 1985 “-Eu. ro P e , North America, Japan, Oceania- -Production and Consumption of Major Foodstuffs. Paris. ( 17 ) Rottier, G. and others 1967* Production and Uses of Selected Farm Products in France Pi ejec¬ tions to 1970 and 1975 . Centre de Recherches et de Documenta¬ tion sur la Consommation. Paris. (18) Schmidt, H. and others 1967* Long Term Development of Demand and Supply for Agricultural Prod¬ ucts in the Federal Republic of Germany. IFO-Institut fiir Wirtschaftsforschung. Munich. (19) The Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazilian Institute of Economics, Center for Agricultural Studies 1968. Projections of Supply and Demand for Agricultural Products of Brazil Through 1975 - ( 20 ) Virenque, P. H. and others 1967. Long Term Development of Supply and Demand for Agricultural Prod¬ ucts in Belgium, 1970 - 1975 . Studiecentrum Voor Economisch En Sociaal Onderzoek. Antwerp. 37 Table 1 .--Beginning stocks of coarse grains in major exporting countries, 1954 / 55 - 1968/69 1 / ft 0 Ph ?H O 02 02 ft 05 O i>5 O iH Ph 03 pq s Ph O O rH co -p O Eh Ph 05 0 >-1 CM VO VO 00 00 CO CO CO CO 00 O H CM OO O ON C5\ ON ON 03 ON ON CO OO OO OO CO CO 00 CO CM CO NO LfN ON UNO CM (MCM ON C NO CM iH ON LfN ON-M- CO CM CO CO-P LfN H CO IP UNCO VO VO IN-NO LfN CM O CO -P" LfN VO LfN CO CO-P 1 1 1 O ON CO VO VO 1-1 LfN LfN VO CO CO CO LfN CO CO IN- 1 1 VO ON H O ON ON CO CO CO VO CO-P ON CM CM 1 1 O rH CM CM t~~ CM VO VO 1 —1 i—1 1 —1 1 —1 1 1 vo on vo £"~- rH 1 —1 1 1 1 CM OO ON O H CO IN- CO CM CO LfN H VO VO CO w £ O -P LfN LfN VO IN- C— C— LfN VO LfN VO IN-VO VO LfN -p 0 rH rH •rH a 1 CO CO CM CO IN— _p LfN LfN VO VO OO CO CM LfN ON E— l>- E— _p LfN IN- H LfN ON CM VO LfN LfN VO EN- aM 1 1 CM VO O -P C— IN- CM ON CO VO O CO CO CO ON 1 1 p t-H E-CO CM CM CO CO CO ON VO H CO LfN CO-P- LfN_P CO O O H CM _P -P CO CM CM CO CM|CMlCM| 1 1 1 1 CO LfN O CO O • • • • • LfN H VO CO H CO-P -P LfN VO CM LfN CO H IN- • • • • • CO _P -P O -P" VO IN-CO E—VO CO ON VO CO CO • • • • • OVO-Prl-P £— LfN-P _P LfN LfN VO N-OO ON LfN LfN LfN LfN LfN -p- LfN VO IN-CO LfN LfN LfN LfN LfN ON ON ON ON ON 1 —1 i—l rH ■—I H O H CM CO-P" VO VO VO VO VO ON O H CM CO LfN VO VO VO VO ON ON ON ON ON 1—1 H H I—1 rH CO I LfN VO £— 00 ON VO VO VO VO VO _p LfN VO E— CO VO VO VO VO VO ON ON ON ON ON H r-1 H r-1 1 —I 0 -P 1 •H 1 Pi g > Ph Ph 0 O O 1 —1 02 «H Ph OS • «N ft m 03 0 £ ft • «N •H d 03 ft rH a £ O •H 0 a Ph bO •H ft Ph < ft CQ 0 ft ft •H ft £ Ph d OS -P 0 a 02 *\ d 03 0 ft ft 0 0 o3 Pi 0 0 03 ft •H O Eh (—1 ft «\ d 03 • ft 0 Ph 0 ft 03 ft 03 0 ft • >5 ^ 02 0 £ 0 ft CO ft d 0 0 CO Ph r\ ft Ph a 03 •rH ft ft 02 •H ft 0 — ft 1 ft rN> | pi Ph 0 02 1—1 -P bO ft O a Ph CO X d ft O 0 0 0 • «N w 03 0 ft 0 ft C2 0 ft 03 Pi O p> £ 03 • ft 03 Ph CO 02 ft O ft & 0 CO >5 n ft £ 0 tiD ra Pi CO I—1 £ 0 03 0 Ph •H ft 03 03 «\ ft a ft 03 £ •H 02 •H cO ft b0 rH Pi 0 r d o 3 m 03 ft hJ Ph ft ft o5 0 1 0 • • bO 1 X ft ra 0 Ph 0 0 Pi 0 Ph ft • 03 Ph 03 ft 03 3 «N ft Ph S' bO 02 cO • *N O cO •H Pi 03 O Pi •r-1 cO 0 ft •H 03 £ ft 03 s ft Ph cO 03 •rH • • 0 bO O ft Pi rH 03 0 02 Ph 0 0 -p 02 O Ph O 02 d 02 ft O ft Ph 0 0 0 d rH 1 Ph ft 03 ft •H ~CMl co| O 02 CO ft Pi > 02 ft 39 Table 2.—World grain production, by type of grain, 1955-68 CM m m a o -p o o o o ft «A 1-1 rH 1 CC 1 o EH 1 HI O CO EH Ph bO mo -4 oo VO IN- H oo un cm UN UA H VO VO VO OO CM -4 UA O CA VO H OO oo oo-4 OO 00-4 00-4- O 00-4-00 VO OO OO CM VO t- -4" -4" -4 H H H OO C--4 t— oo CA OO CM H CM H VO VO VO UA VO -4" OO OO CA OO H O -4 H CO OO VO VO VD 00 00 CO oo liAVO CO O OO VO -4" UA OO OO OO -4 CA CM UA O CA O (AON r\ *A r\ CM CO A— O O O -4-4-4 CM t>- OO UA UA VD OO VC OO CA ON LfA O H H CM CM CM VO VO H A— CA H OO UA-4 O H O O H r—1 CM CM CM VO 10— VO CA 00-4 CM A- CM CM i—I UN H -4- OO CO OO CO UA VO A- UA UA UA CA CA CA i—I H H ON-4- CA-4- A- O CM VO O OO CO O CM H CO CA CACO UN-4 UA-4- -4" UA VO VO CA UA A- CA A- -4 OO C UA 00-4" CO UA VO CN CN CN CN CN VO UN C-—-4- A- -4" -4" -4- -4- -4- OO O 10- UA OO CO OO H H CA H CO O CA CO¬ CO OO H tO- CA UA 10- CO CO- A- H H i—I H i I CA H 00 CM H UNVO UA CM O CM CACO A- OO O H UACOCO VO UA UA-4" -4 UA-4" CACO OO CAVO VO VO -4 0O-4" -4- OO CO- UN UN H CACO VO VO 10- VO A- A—■ t— C— OH _4 GO UN CA CA VO CO O CAVO IN *N »N VO VO -4- OO H 0O OO OO OO OO CA UA UA VO -4 VO H O APJ VO VO UA VO O VO CM CO CA H CM CM 0O CM UN -4" -4- -4" -4" -4" VO CM OnN4 0O CM O -4 OO UNVO CM A- A- CM 00 -4 CO A— 0O CM OO OO OO CM CM CM CM CM O VO VO CA-4 CM H iH H i—1 CM CM O UACO CM A- 00 CM -4 A- C"— A- 00 OO H VO _4 UAH CA O -4 VD OO CM H A- 0O CM CM H OO CM CM CM CM CM 40 IN #\ #N OO CM 00-4 A- VO VO VO VO VO VO VO CM 00 UN-4 VO OO OO UA CM CA CACO OO H PO-4 CM UN c\ c\ r\ c\ c\ r\ CA CAOO -4 CAVO -4 -4 -4 UA UA UN -4-4 UN CM VO CM H UN-4 H CA-4 OO H UN O H O oo OO (A t- OOCO CAOO CA O OO H H H H CM CM CM CM UA O UNVO H CM -4 OO CA ON H OO A- OO IN IN IN *N VO VO VD H CO CA A- CAOO CM 00 CO OO CO CA ,4 -4 UA H O CM UN O OO S'- VO H CM VO CO C— 00-4 |\ l\ IN l\ IN UA O CM -4 VO ON .4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 UN A- i—I i—1 UA i—1 VO CM H CAVO OO CAVO OO CM CM CM H A- VD -4 VO H 00 00 CO CA CA O I I O A- 00-4 ON UN UN CM UA rl CM VO rloo A- C— -4 -4 O H OO ON O O CO OO OO CM OO OO IN- A- C -4 O O 00-4 O VO VO UN UA CA UN CM UN CM IN IN IN «\ CN CN 00-4 O UN CM CM VO UN [4 ON OO CM -4 -4 -4 -4 UA UA CA CACO O UN UN CO O VO C— A- CO IN— OO OO UA O CM IN- 00 CO OO CA CA -4 UN_4 -4 VO VO CM CM CM CM CM CM H OO O O VO CM H O CM OO O ON CM CO H CO VO CM VO IN- C -4 VO UA CM UN-4 CO A- O CM CM CM CM CM OO VO -4 UN-4 H A- -4 A- ON H CM CM OO ON OO UA OO ON CA CM CO UN O OO CO C— VO CM CO ON ON ON CA O O O iH H H GO CA O H CM UA UNVO VO VO CA ON ON CA ON i—I i—l r—1 H i I 00-4 UA VO A— CO VO VO VO VO MO VO ON ON CA CA CA CA I—I H i—1 r—1 H H o Pi 1—1 ft CO CO OO a oo w p o o 0 0 •H cn W r| bO H1 i—1 0 Lf\ d ■H u ft s u H ft o OO Pi o rH CO 1—1 G\ M CO • •A r\ P Pi 0 1-1 CO o o 1-1 •H •rl *rl CVJ ft o P > O s CO Pi •H CO a 0 OJ u co fc- p iH 0 VO w H P H CN Pi cO a g •n a •rH w p p p O • £ H VO J5 a CO CO p LT\ O cO d o Pl •H P *rl CN bO *\ ft a OJ H O 0 bD o\ Pl 0 g < ■H 0 ■of CO w p! Pi Pi Pi CO 0 bC 0 bO cO oo 03 OO CN w OO CN P P! «A m rH •H OO Pi 0 H UN •H ft P CM cO W rH Pi o bD CN Pl Pi •H UA 0 •H OO m rH CN UN pi m in CN c6 0 p; CA o e •H VO o cO CM C\ Pi CN m w 0 Pi O •H 0 •H 03 m Pi Pi pi IN- bD cd CN CA O P H o CM cd 0 O 0 X rH CN ft •H rH rH £ s 03 m m m 0 0 0 • • H •d • P i Ctf pi P 1—1 p: rH H VO o •H o o 1 Pi ft Pl P 0 UA H o H •H VO CA Tl o rH H pi CM 1 w Cti H rH <1 > *rl O 0 03 ft \0 m fi, a: >5 W CD CO i—1 CD P P CO CO ft co CD £ bO co sq < LT\ ft LTV O OV a O IV- •H VO -p 1 o LTV pi VO H OV O r~i P ft ft • • • • O 0) bO CT" - CO LTV +3 | a Lf\ CD LTV O OV P rH CD ft IV- VO LTV sq VO O OV •H 1-1 -p o pi • • • • o p tv- ft LTV LTV LTV OV rH VO CVI 0\0 CVCO COCO H H CVI CM H _=T 00 llll I I o vo iv- vo -=r co co ov cvj i—l LTV i—1 ft" CVJ C\J i I j roH 4HO\OCDOnNO(M cvl CVJ on LTV H H CM J- rOH CO OV CM O CO i—1 CO OV 0 \ ro CVJ VO CO VO CVJ OV0O VO CO rlVOJ- C C CO CM rv cv r\ rv C\J H co H ro CM H OVOO OHO HVO OO LTV OO VO VO CM C O m CJMHVO VO CM t- LTV i—I ft" H H H O o I—1 CVJ CM CDCMOlALfMV-CMJC^HCh b~- VO <—l '—1 CO OV i I CO I—I I—ll 11 O LTV OVft H LTV OO c VO h o\ *#••••••••• OOft H OVOVCOVO OOft" CO OO CM H H irv lcv H vo co vo Ov co t— Cvl co LTV H VO -ft OO co 00 t-co UVft H H H H CO O t- O tV- H COVO CVJ OOft rOCOOVHOCOHCVJCMOcO CVI -0" OV tv-ft CO CO CVJ CVI OvvO cvrvr\#v«v«v*v*v r ''^ H CO O CO 00 C— LTV IXVft CVI CO CVI H H romcoJ" 004 CM^ ov co t-Ot-J-t^HCVlOCOCVl OV OVft 00 OVCO LTV tv- O CO CO H #' 1 c\*v«vrN«v«v«v*v*v‘‘ OV C— CO CVJ OO LTV LTV LTV CVJ COOV CO O O CO | -p d) • • • • • • * • • • • • • ■ • • • • • s • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • & • p • 01 • • • H • • sq o co ft • • • • • o • p • Q) * • • CO id • p ft O o • • • • • p • D •H • CD -P -p 0 •e CD oi o 01 •H p bD pq P CD > o pq •H •H co 01 sq 0 Pi p rP c6 H w ft -P O CD & B c6 O P C -p o i—1 P CO o to w w -P o a sq ft cO ft (D 0 o o U1 -P O pq 41 World total Table 3 .--World production of rye, barley, oats, corn, and millet and sorghum, by major areas, 1955-57 and 1965 - 67 --Continued Pl o E— -p •H VO pi -P 1 CD o Lf\ O pi vo Ph oa CD o r~1 ft Ph ft ft • • •• O CD hO C— +3 CO LCA Pl +3 | CD Pi LT\ O CD LCA Ph O OA CD Ph rH ft CD ft [ft 1 VO 1 LCA 1 VO OA U1 Pl rH Pl O o •H -p +3 • • • • O o P> o £— o o LCA •A Ph 1 I—1 ft LCA LCA 1 OA rH -3- O OA-4 CM VO H VO VO CM -4 LCA i—I i—I i—1 LT\ VO LCA I I I I I ++ I I CO CM 0 4 H H OVCO (M O £— VO -4 CM rH O CM CM rH CM CM iH rH H i—1 i—I OOHVOVOCOOCOCMVQLCA HOCUOOME-H-4HH CO CM i—1 i—1 O CO iH VO CM C— CO VO E CM CO CO CO-4 £— CM OA-4 OO O H CM CM LT\ OA LTV CM CM LCA OA CM C—VO LCA-4 -4 H H i—I O CM LCA OA O UA-4 VO CO o LCA-4 VO £— O OVCOCO LTV CO O O LTV CO VO H E--4 OACO CT\ CM C— VO LCA-4 rH rH CM OA CM I CD ft S -P O CD *H -P Pi CQ JO -P CD CD CD +3 M CD -P ft O ft O O o M Pi •H CD W Pi •H r 0 -P CD Pi Pi +3 CD CD •ri bOfl Pi Pi +3 < o CO CO OA-4 £— co OA £— C— O co CO-4 VO -4 CO -4 COH LTV CM -4 OO -4 CO CO CO OO CO LCA-4 OWO CM O CM OOOO H OO LTV CO OO CO OO OO OO CM LCA O 00 Lf\ CM c- coONOvH roH 1P-CM t-in Oa lca oa CM OA-4 OO CO CM CM CO LCA CM H LTV £— LT\ CM (UOMA CO VO tC- O .4 VO CO CO-4 CM OACO VO O iv-o mcMvo t- co vo o oa rv- lca O CM H rH CTv-4 H £-0000-4 CM £-CO 44 IALOO CO-4 CO CM H H -4 H 4 CO O OAVO COVO O COVO OA OA OO CM VO OA *A *A *\ -4 H UA OA CM £- CO LCA £— 00 £—. VO -4 £—-4 -4 [ft H CO CO-4 CO OO CM CD ra ft CD o Pi Tl Ph rH CD 0 *H -p -P tsl • ■ -H C/2 CD Pi Pi CD Ph Ph O H W O O CD p! ft! CD _ . +3 -H M ft pi > Pi CD O O <; pc; w cq -P co TD Ph CO CD Pi ^3 CD -P O O 42 World total.: 145,636 211,918 Table 3 .--World production of rye, barley, oats, corn, and millet and sorghum, by major countries or areas, 1955-57 and 1965-67--Continued c— Pi vo 0 1 0 LfN 0 's vo ft -P ON CO 0 I—1 p p tJ H 0 pi co bD pi S 03 O co IN- « ft LfN < v 1 Lf\ ft LfN 0 ON rH JZ{ 0 ift •H VO -p 1 0 LfN pi VO id ON O rH P ft ft • • • • O 0 faO IN— cO LfN -p 1 a LfN 0 LfN 0 ON p rH 0 ft IN- VO Lf\ VO ON a rH 0 •H -p • • • • 0 Tl In— 0 LfN p 1 ft LfN LfN ON rH 1 1 r-j- in- ft- h vo ovooo 00 C— 1 —I 1 —I iH CO ON O 1 —I LfN I—I -ft I 1 \OHINO^OOOJ-W cocMftiftftcocMiH H co co H OJ ON O CM H t~- CM LfNft IN- • •••••••• CO O CO ON LfN 1 CM ft - rH 0400c0t-c\l ON VO CO LfN LfN —3" CO LfN O CO CO COft H CO ON ON LfN VO O LfN CM VO C\ C\ «N *N «N C\ «N CO i>- IN- CO CM H H rH i I ft IN- COft CO VO VO O LfNft ON LfN ON CM ON LfN ONOO CO CM LfN 1 —I VO ft 00 CM '\H H VO ft- | CO LfN VO CO H rH O O • • • • • • • CO • • • pi ft! ft 0 • • • • • • • 0 • • • g 0 pi • • • • • • • ft • • • Pi id id id • • • • • • • Pc • • • CD 0 0 0 O • • • • • • • ft • • • rH ft ft ft Pi cO • • • • • • • < • • • ft •H •H ft 0 • • • • • • • • • • cO •H ft Pi Pi • • • • • • • • • ft! • • • -P id £> ft O <0 P • • • • • • • ft • • • ft R • • • • • • • pi • • • m O 0 0 id cP • • • • • • • O • • • •H ft ft! ft! Pi w w • • • • • • CO • • 1—1 & ft ft • CO 0 • • • CO • • • • co -P 0 O -p • cO CO 0 • • ft • • -p pi ra 02 r —1 ft m CO cO 0 0 ■H • • 0 • • 0 id 0 0 p: 0 ft •H •rl ft fH CO • • • -p •H id 1d 0 !h 'd co m Pf Pi ft Pi • 0 • • w pi pi O £ < ft ft < ■H • •H CO • ’d CO ft rH 1 —1 c co ml <; < ft 0 rH •H • rH -P P! O 0 LfN 0 ft! ft! Pi 0 ft! Pi Pc Jh CO 0 X X ON -P ft ft •p ft ft 0 H cd 0 £> PI e ft ft rH (D •H pi ux w Pi faO X ft 0 ft! 0 rH Pi O 0 cO O P 0 0 0 ft •p> rH ft CO ft ft ft UA LTN CD ON ON Pi r—1 rH *H| 1 oj CO VO VO CD •H rH PO p VO VO p ON ON p rH H d o o • • • • rd CD 1 ft vo co o UA LTN rH w CD UA E— t> UA UA CD ON ON O rH rH £ •H CO P a) ft o CD g Eh O OO OO* VO rH rH VO -4- E- VO CVJ OO p E- p VO UN OO VO UA i—I 1 ON ON O CO IN- rH Lf\ • • • • » • 1 CM CM IN-VO CM UN CO CM VO VO VO rH i—1 1 1 1 oo 1-1 CM rH 1 1 oo OO O UN H P o • • • % • • c~- ON CO OO CM p 00 UA UA ON VO CM CO rH id o p id o •H i—1 «—1 ON UA -3" 00 VO P IN- •cd % • • • • * UA IN- CO H [>- CM VO CM -3" tN- Lf\ rH 1 1 rH 1 1 1 CM ON VO VO ON VO OO • • • • • • 1 CM CO oo OO IN- rooo O IN- CM H 00 rH 1 1 1 PO CM rH 1 1 o VO O rH E— OO • • • * • • • ON UA OO VO ON ONOO 1 UN IN- CO rH 1 1 CM rH rH p CO C— O IN- » t • • • ONOO PO o o p p cvj -=r H vo P COVQ • t « • * i—1 OO i—l OO CO H P PO OJ OOP oo H rH OO rH CM O H OO OO 4-co OO POVO • • • • • NOVOrllN- p OO CM rH I-1 cm On oo E ua • • « • • OO p CM Co- O OOP 00 rH ra "B •H rd id CCS CD -P w CO Is d • * • C/D £ • • • • CD • • • • • % % « r ri • •H • • M i—l id • % • • • CO • • 03 cd c<5 • % C/D • • bO « rd P CD •H U rd • CD CL) rH • C/D id • o CD > -P a) • • -P P H •H • (L) • • O 0) a) CD CD >3 CO cd o CO p C/D (D ft pq 02 e ft PQ O o cC C/D bO CD cO Ed ft M P O w >d CO P> CD rH rH •H rH i—1 < o o kk 1 / Developed countries include North America, Western Europe, Oceania, Republic of South Africa, Japan, and Israel. Developing regions include Central and South America, Africa (excluding Republic of South Africa), and Asia (excluding Mainland China, North Korea, Vietnam, Japan, and Israel). Table 5.--Trade In grains related to -world production, averages 195o/57-1957/5b and 19b4/b5-1905/00 ft co a ON - 3 ~ VO OO VO -V cn co CD 0 -p • • • • • • • bO •H a O ON 1 — 1 D CH OJ 1 — 1 co CO -p CD CM 1— 1 1 — 1 -P ■p 0 O P £ b P O CD Wi CD ft O 0 ft X! P p ft] CD ft ft ft O w a CO CD 0 bD-H to co -P -P -P O cn P P pi LIN O CD 'O ft 0 0 ft X P P UA ft CD ft ON ft rH c— LP\ m \ -p VO p UA 0 ON ft r—1 X ft CD bO a3 p CD P > O <3 •H -p 0 b Td O P ft cn OJ CM OOO O 1 CO rH ft- no CM rH 00 UN LTN IXN H ft w cn LT\ cn co no CN CN CA VO H ft CM CN LTN O rH 0 LTN VQ OO ft ON O O ON VO ft UN CO UN CN rH ON ft UA ft CM VO 1-1 CN C\ CN CN CN CN cn ON H ON CM UA O 1 VO O no CO ft- ON UA CM -V 1 —1 VO ft C~- ON OO • • • • • CM O CM - 4 - OO 1—I P! pi O UA UA O O O O O 1 — 1 ft ft O no ft CM ua •H 0 ON CM ON O UN ft* no -P X CN CN CN cn CN CN O CD O OO ft H ft H 2 no 1 — 1 us CO 0 •H p ft U) ON no CO CM O CM rH O CM UAft no O o\ ft cn POVO CM CO OJ «A CN CN CN CN CN CN ON CM UA UN OA O rH rH UA novo UA UAft CM no rH P • • • bO • ft • CD • • CD • rH co p -p co CD p -p p cc 5 P ft cO ft ft CO 0 CD CO 0 0 CO CO •p -p cO P XI O CD P ft CO CD CM 'O CD >5 cO CD ^5 Table 6 -Gross imports of coarse grains by principal importing countries, average 1951/52-1955/56 and annual 1956/57-1966/67 1/ 46 1/ Includes rye, barley, oats, corn, millet and sorghum. 2/ Excludes Yugoslavia. ■3/ Excludes trade among the Centrally Planned Countries. on 14 c— cm H VO CM OO CM C— OO on lt\ cm ov on o OV 4 On CO rH H H VO VO H CM OV UV O CM OO LTV 14 VO OVOO H 4 CM o m t- VO H CM 14 OO VO *v «v H rH VO 4 VO UV UV ON CM rH CM H OO VO CSV CO H H Vfl J-VO CM H H CM J on 14 CM H «\ »\ H CM VO UV ON O CM VO 4 CM H VO rH O on VO CM CT\ 144 vo VO O CM CO UV 14 4 on 4 OO CM rH CM VO LTV I 4 CM I OV UV I H VO VO LTV on UV i —I 4 O 4 CO S'- Lf\ O LT\ on CM c-oo 4 CM CM OV H O UV OV OV CM O rH rH LTV LTV O - 4 - H 4 H CM VO 4 vo LTV H o o OV H ov CM LTV CM rH rH on H o r\ l—1 4 O CM CM CM O o on oo CM VO O 4 rH rH on 00 LTV O LTV LTV CM O H H H - 4 - O CM H rl rH rH O CM on 144 O OVOO on -4 rH CO CM H O CM £4 t>- on on oo H H CO H H OVVO -4 14 CM 14 OO VO on rH CM 14 OV OO OVCO O 4 O LTV VO on CO CM CO H C— CO O H LTV CO on 14 UVOO rH CO CM VO 14 O VO 4 on crv cm -4 on VO 14 OV OV m LTV 14 -4 uv 14 vo on on -4 CM VO 4 - H c\ rs CM H VO on -4 CM vo -4 -4 ov o on on cm _4 co uv 4 ltv vo vo >3 OV H 1 1 1 1 CD H •• •• •• •• H 14 1 CM H LTV LTV H o o 1 VO 1 (T\ rH rH H CM O 1 CO Eh Lf\ 14 LTV VO on LTV 14 Ov OV 4 CO O 144 rH CO t4 cd \ 1 CM CM CM 1—1 o 1 1 CM UVV0 14 UV ro 1 P VO C\ «v «V *v Lf\ 1 rH 1 1 rH rH rH 14 I •V ov CD 1 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 1 1 0) CM VO VO LT\ Lf\ rH OV4 o 14 UV rH VO VO 4 CO O 14 bO LTV uv 1 144 VO OV CM VO i—1 1 CO 1 H VO 4 o CM CO Lf\ 1 vo O cd on cm rH rH OV4 4 CO LT\ El H LTV 1 *v 1 1 «\ IN 1 w d) Lf\ LP\ rH H LT\ p > ov ov 1 1 1 1 u H H o Ph X • • • • • • • • • • • • CQ • • oil U1 • • (D • • • • • • CO CO • C/2 cd • Eh • • • • • • -p • S p • W cd w • • • • • Eh w 5 • • CD rH b£ • P 03 CO • • •H CD rH bC • 1 X C/2 S3 • PH PI • • PH cd • C/2 S3 H • • « PH cd • 1 S3 - CO Eh CD Pi rH 0) • -p w CD rH • • CD S3 Eh tJ o CD p 02 CD rH Eh O •p CD 03 • CD Ti K o o cd >3 P CD P cd Pl P o O cd •H bO S3 CO CD C/2 EH Eh Eh -p CD •H bD W S3 cd •H EH Eh Eh p rH cd • • pi Eh 03 CD £ C/2 O CD o rH S3 Eh pi cd Eh a o CD o P £ CD po <3 o hn C/2 P •r~D PH -P Eh 1=> <3 <3 o P •ra PH P cd >5 03 cd CO Eh P3 s s hi Continued- CD bO CO P CD > CO CO CD •H P -P o o bD £ •rl P P O & CD i—I co ft •H "d O CL) £ g •H £h ft -P S >5 O rO O I ^ I>- ,3 MD h0\ U VO O VO m o\ i—I T* i 3 t>- CO LTV -P VO Q) LTV i—1 rH •H & T* P CO ON CO p u o o p cO •NVO w lt\ -p CO \S\ O LTV ON ^ rH >5 I CD CM H UA P " CO r . p Lf\ ca ^ rH CD >3 P Oh O CO -p P O PH X CD CO CO o p O tA- (D iH P co EH tA- v£> VO H1 VO ON rH vo” VO LfA vo CA i—1 LTV vo -p- VO ON tH Pt vo m vo ca rH m vo CM vo CA rH ’ OA CA ft (D O P p CO H- 3 CO 10 CO (D Tj Of p> CO O -P •rl B w •p p o & CD ho w p p < < CO p> o EH CO CO co Cp P O CD •H (D H bD PH CO P P CO CD rH O CO P P -P 0 0)0 •n ftp CO S P P o o CO ON 1 CD rH • • •• •• •• 1 rs NO Cfl NO 1 5 1 rH 1 O CNJ •• •• •• •• H UN c- 1 fH \ LT\ cO H ■\ 1 rO LT\ NO ON UN 1 ^ H ON ON ON 1 fH 0 ft < H H X (U fH CO CD co P 0 'll fH fH £ O O CO ft 1 X 1 £ cd • •H tN- CO fH fH O cu CD O H ctf p s CO EH O UNp 0 0 IN- O O p NO O CM rH O H CM CM H - 4 * «N rs rs IN- H ON tN— 00 In— CM IN- -4 O tN- H C- H OO CM iH UN rH rH OO rs rs NO IN- CO tN-p CO 00 00 O H O rH O NO 00 tN- O t- rH H r> rs CO - 4 " H OO CO 0 00 LTN 0 CM IN- NO OO UO IN- LTN VO UN rs rs CM 00 CO CM UN IN—P ON 0 H ON UN h in- IN- O CO IN- rs rs OO 00 ON ON ON CM CO Lf\ O IN-OO CO UNCO CM O rH VO rH 00 rs rs CM 00 UNp NO CO NO Lf\ O ONP UN CO 1 JO OO H CM H 00 rs rs CM CM P ON CO P NO O CO CM IN- UN H 1 UN P CM rH 1 rH rs rs CM 00 CM CO H ON IN- 0 O O OOOO CO NO H H P OO 0 rs rs CM OO UN UN CO NO H UN 0 b-UNH NO OO H - 4 " 0 H u^ rs rs rH rH CM ON UN H CO ON 0 P NO CO H UN CM NO IN- H rH rs oo| rH ON CM UN H CO OO 0 ON NO UN OO CM OO NO rH NO rs rs rH rH • • • • • • • • • • • • • • of] P • • • • • • Cfl P • • • ctf • • p bi Cfl • • O • • fH fH 0 ) • • •H • • O O _|_D • • fH • • ft w cfl • • 0 Ch • • X P CD CD < • • (D Tf W 0 • • £ •H rH •H p • O rH Cti Ti P CD rH p • O ctf 0) fl fH p pi £ O p p POP £ O CD O 0 CD •H bO w ft CO ft fH IH rH £ fH pi CD 2 O rH to < C Ph CO 2 s co ON NO ON -3" ON NO ON UN ON -P £ CL) O fn - OM 0 0 0 0 1 0 CO CO CO co 1 ON CO CO • CO • CO cO 1 • CO 0 CM 0 CM 0 0 0 rH U rH co| O o o O 0 £ £ £ S C H H H M M CO CO COI 50 • • • CO • • • •H • • rH G i — 1 o CO CO CO •H o Fh H tsl •H CO -P •H CO X CO CO H k. ■■■•ilh U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Economic Research Service i CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY NOTES. Summary Tables Table 1. Eastern Europe and USSR: Indices of total agricultural pro¬ duction, by country, 1950-68 .. Table 2. Eastern Europe and USSR: Indices of per capita agricultural production, by country, 1950-68. Eastern Europe and USSR: Indices of total food production, by country, 1950-68 .. Eastern Europe and USSR: Indices of per capita food produc¬ tion, by country, 1950-68. Eastern Europe and USSR: Aggregates of total agricultural production, by country, 1950-68... Eastern Europe and USSR: Aggregates of total food produc¬ tion, by country, 1950-68. Country Tables: Production by commodity, value and indices ofjtotal agricultural and food production, average 1957-59? annual 1950-68 Table 7. Q _LabJ_e 0 • n . 11 iab±e y* la b±e ±u • la Die -L-L. 1 O . 17 iab±e ■ i <7- • Table Table lo • 14. . 21 Washington, D.C. 20250 July 1969 ii INDICES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN EASTERN EUROPE AND THE USSR 1950-68 Europe and Soviet Union Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division Economic Research Service INTRODUCTORY NOTES Eastern Europe and the USSR produce and consume a large share of the world’s food and fiber. Assessment of the agricultural and food situation in these areas is critical.to a knowledge of world production, consumption, and trade in food and fibers. ( The indices presented in this publication are a part Df the.' continuing effort of the Economic Research Service to assess the world agricultural situation, and were prepared in support of the AID-sponsored project "Analysis of Demand Prospects for Agricultural Products of Less Devel¬ oped Countries." phi s is the first time that detailed indices for this part of the world have been published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, although indices of aggregate output have been published The country indices were calculated by Laspeyre’s base-weighted aggregative formula. In order to facilitate intra-European comparisons the weights used are ostimates of 1957-59 average prices received by farmers in Western Europe, ex¬ pressed in dollars per metric ton. Regional indices were computed from sums of country aggregates. Only those agricultural products of considerable significance in the respective countries are included. The year that production data are listed is the year that the bulk of the harvest occurred. A constant fraction of each country's aggregate value of livestock output aas been subtracted to avoid double counting of commodities used as feed, and the livestock products produced from them. This constant fraction is the esti- nated relationship between the value of livestock products and the value of feed lerived from crops calculated in Food Balances for 8 East European Countries , 1-959-61 ; ERS-Foreign 124, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agricul¬ ture, May 1965 . Most production data are official statistics of the respective East European countries and the USSR. Where necessary, especially for the USSR, these data have been adjusted to conform with crop and livestock measures of 1/ The Agricultural Situation in Communist Areas: Review of 1968 and Outlook for 1969 . U.S. Dept. Agr., ERS-Foreign 259? April 1969 . The Europe and Soviet Union Agricultural Situation: Review of 1967 and Outlook for 1968 , ERS-Foreign 220, April 1968 . The Europe and Soviet Union Agricultural Situation: Review of I 966 and Outlook for 1967; ERS-Foreign I 85 , May I 967 . iii output most commonly used. In a few cases, when data were unavailable, esti¬ mates were made by ERS specialists. Data for 1968 are preliminary. Indices of food production were computed from aggregates for edible products contributing energy to the human diet whether actually consumed or not. Per capita indices were computed by dividing the agricultural or food indices by appropriate indices of population (1958 = 100 ). The production aggregates showing value in million dollars at constant I957..59 West European producer prices should not be confused with gross value of agricultural production, gross sales by farmers, or agriculture's contribution to gross material product. The aggregates permit year-to-year comparisons of the level of output in the various countries and the region. Trends in these ag¬ gregates should roughly parallel trends in total agricultural production. The East European countries and the USSR customarily publish indices of the gross value of agricultural production using their own price weights. The feed contribution to livestock output is not deducted. Indices of these countries also usually value the growth in livestock herds rather than final product out¬ put. These factors, plus other methodological differences, are the major explanation for the deviation between USDA indices and the indices of these countries. Comments or suggestions for improving this report are invited. iv 00 ro (7S pr> rg *0 4“ ^ O O' O ® OO «o O' o^h ^ n a'0(7'0'00o o H O ^ ^ N O O CO o O' CO O CO O O' ^ h fo h co co o o o o o CO ^ in co O' it O' co co r- O' a> r*- O' co so co o O rn CO O' h- ITI 0 CO CO CO r\j oo co r*» O' •—< 4 •-* o O' co O' CO O' co O' <\1 O •* O M <£ -O N o CO O >0 ifi CO * > < z > < < ° * z m l/) UJ > < < o' a o c* Q w -j < X < Z Z oO 0(jhO<<0 JIUI^Z JlO 3 M < 3 Q O 3 CO o UJ I Q. O' > «t rn fO 4 pg CM —» (N f\l O h o 4 in f'J O 4 O CVJ «-• * O ^ < f*'! CSj • 4 - o co h- cnj r- o f\J O' H O H H O o IT* r*~ 4- cm r- O' o (NOOO^OO ^ >0 *4" ^ CM ^ CO CO OOOO^OO *o IT* O O' CO O CO O O' O O' O O O' CO O' f- lO 45 CD IT* o O' oo O' ^ o O' oo co 4- o 'O uo o 0 0^0000 r- co oo o ^ O' O' O O' ^ ^ < o 1—( CL * >- 3 < z UJ > < < o z z < -J fit > CL • M OO HI > < < UJ cc o o a: o -J h- 9 <1 x < z Z 00 LD (/) O O K o < < <3 < • J UJ CO Z -I r o UJ c/o 3 M < 3 O O 3 • CO O UJ X CL CL > 3 2 EASTERN EUROPE AND oo o » o x x CM X X CO CO 30 p-* O' X X x x rn X O 4 * in 4 - pH pH pH m pH pH CM 4 - x M o • • • • • • • •o rn -H >0 O' CM pH x x x CM x —4 cn >0 CM X X x rf ^ X p* •> •» p pH x pH r*- a 7 o X X # ft • • • • • CM M X >0 rf) pH 4 - x X >j- M CM in pH co CM M pH X 4 - 4 “ pH pH pH m pH pH O' Q 0 rn pH >0 • • • • • • • x 4 - >0 CM pH pH 4 - O' X M >0 x M 4 “ in CM 4 * O' M o O' p p p p pH pH m pH X cm m x X pH m • • • • • • • X P- 0 X X in 4- cn X rn co (M CM X pH rH *H >}■ r—4 pH 1 O' m cn >o o m in pH CM m • •••••• 0 0 IT 1 x x x x in x cm X X 4 * M O' O' 4 * 4 * X P“ | co rri ( 7 > -1 r\j ir\ in X CM O' •» •» •* pH 1 "H pH «H vj" pH pH CM m X pH CM cn X X CM f*" | • • • • 0 • 0 0 in x o r* x x 4 * x X 4 - X O' 1 cm o x in o O' x X 4 * X X •H x >*- X cm CM r- X pH pH pH pH ^ pH pH m o 4 - 1 pH CM m 1 4 n cn o in n o X X x *•••••• m in 1 >0 >0 .»■ rsj p- -0 o m X O' in O' o in h —1 0000000 0 m o£ x o x *h in m x O' 4- O' Q. sj- so oo ^3 co co O' o o X pH N (Cl N H N m o 4" in O' 1 - ft* p pH 2 pH pH pH m pH pH CM O' < pH pH X h- 00 J 3 -J- O' P- Pg 33 » ► pH < —' pH m H pH pH CO p-H H 00 X X O' LU O' *H 4- X o X fM X X < 1 •* ft* •> C£ M X CM X UJ X pH O' < -< c* cn < O PH QT > 3 < 2 LU > < < D X p—i 2 < -J ar > CL • *H X UJ >- < < UJ cC O O o: Q -j 1- 0 < X < 2 2 co X 00 o o X o < < *D < 0 -J UJ oo 2 -J O UJ 00 < X o o 3 t X o JJ x CL a C > 3 N O 'O CO O ^ O' 'O «t O fO CO •-h x cm x o x *h H H (\J H >fl (\J (\J ® >t «o r- Mn o 4- x cm cm o x 4- cm »$• O' i— • 4- r\j «-i x x cm m r»- >* x r^- oo O' O' cm cm co O^H^lO'lf'CO x ph oo r^- O' x O' x x o 4 - v*- * 4 - x «-< ph cm ph in cm rsj h vo Mn m O' O' in m h* h in o 4^ o oo oo >fr x oo h m o m r\j h O' pH pH <\j pH in (\i pH h m o m O' cnj o O>tC0H0'<0C0 O o >0 x 4- 4- x H in O' H O' H in o O' cm sfr in cm x o x cm x r*- x O N MNJ O sO O O' >t oo m o oo o H H H in H (\J 0 s x co cm O' x h 'OfO'f HCOO'O x x x co >$- co r*- O' m oo 0* p X o h- pH X 4- 4- pH • ft ft O' 4- 4- 00 X CM CM 00 pH p ft* P X X pH pH CM 4" O' 4- X 0 0 0 r— CM o X O' X pH CM 4- P p •> X h- CM pH CM 4- M X o 0 • . M o 00 O pH ,-H X o X p •* V 4- X pH CM X X pH 4- 0 ft • 4- 00 CM 4* o X M 4- pH p •> P X 4- 00 pH CM X X o X 0 ■ . 4- cn X H oo o o V 1 CM p V 4- J" OO pH CM X CM CM X 0 . M I\ J" X OO ct pH cn ft* k 4* CM V-D CM X X r\ O • • • CM r\ O pH X X 00 X X p X CM UD -* CM X o r*- r^- 0 0 0 X X O' pH 4- X CM X X ► p p X CM X pH CM X i< DOO 3 O 2 < UJ UJ CL CL o o CL CL 3 3 UJ UJ < PH 2 2 > CL 0 CL < UJ CL UJ -J f- t H X X X X o < 0 < o UJ X UJ 3 0 > 3 5 2 o * oo m -. o in as oo sj- «• m or-co «hS po -h co ** N co r\j >o >f ao & <\l O' minOSO^OHffiCO^ 1^ o COrHh-^LO^OfNI —I ,4. nm^ fvj inpgin ^ n» * * •» fNJ ^ -h o BOO'Hin^oM g* ^ r-^ O^rH (NJ O' H m IA CO h fs» OfOU»INHrtHC'^0' (Njr^^a'r^sOfNjrovoa'h'sO'J- >r pn o cnj ^ ^ ^ -h pn un f\j ^ ip ^ r3^, c J;^9'S® rnr ^ ou,N ^' 0 "- < o?vjr-cooc>oo-H un un un p- >}• o^cosOUNunco>o ^ O' >$* pn cn^* 'O'H O' PN •-* r\j O (\j p> r\i >$• ;£ > J ,, ?' H ^ l ^'*'PNUNcNjr^vOO'>*-PN>$’'0*-»(\jcoco>3* m>f'0'0O(7'(\ja3fNjC0lf>C0C0(\MHO200' rr) ri> rorsj O' UN *-h rn N (\j m ^ f\l • CO >r UN >?-*>? • (\i >t un O r-4 >t 'O ' O' PN >t (NJ -< >t O Hf\J-fN0s^)O7'C0H O CM >$•>*• pH (NJ pn ^ CO <■ PN No-ta'ON'tinNin^'tocomN rococo cm h- O' pn ^ o $■ 00 p-H r\| (NJ —I r^rsi-oro.-. - NM^ o o -J- r- ^ •• » CM ^ O >$■ PN PN r s - •—^ LT\ -» O' 55oS£22S t 2 Lr ' 0 ' 9 ’ 0000 ^° co °^-o^^-'OOf- a'ooocor-f-r—co-$-—iuit'- i n-a-*t-3-NOO'l-u-\-a‘r'-oor<-ior-r\jo -H O f\J >0 ^ H r-4 O N 7> vO CO CO PN fs- CO > z C0 Q *—r h- < LU < a: CO UJ CL o uj co r-* P- ^ O' • • # # n n m in >* UN O' o >0 fn H CO pn co o h • • • • H ff) N CO O' O >0 (NJ vO (PI H 00 I >0 'C CO UN O O' >0 UN O' UN 00 1 UN (\J ^ s0 1 UN 1 1 ^ >»■ co ir\ ro • • • • • 1 UN (NJ m in c0 (N 'C 4- >* CNJ LU NO (NJ ^ p- sO a l OC a. P* co 9 6 (NJ p- t • • • • z co o 00 O 't o < m r- *• NO cn o V- UN (NJ ~I U5 UN H co 1 z II O o O' >** O' UN 00 UN UN h- • • • • • I < O' *H ao Pvi H P- P- UN CO O' UN UN CO s0 (NJ —« r- n0 O' a: 1 < _l -J 3 m ao O' (M PN Q • • • t t o v 0 co CO Z PN PN (NJ CO OJ o UN CNJ *-» sO UN O' O (\J P- *-4 • • • • • ^ >* m cm eg co cnj eg pn co N f\J CO O I P~ r- un O' eg • • • • cnj ^ pn co P- O NJ (\J O' N >* CM —• UN >t I 00 O' O' CO vj- • • • t m O' o co co h m co >o r\j p* m —• x r- < HJ 2 J ul hi co < iiiiuu^^mji- I>-HC< UJ 3 LL o — Q ^ ^ ac □ o o o o o a < ll h- l— CN (/)(/) «J -J Q. UJ UJ < < O > > h- h- Qi H H □ Q O J -J h- h- o co >* O' O' O' P* UN >0 O' O' O' co O' o P* P» ao r^- so uo co co 00 PN O' O' O' O' 00 CO UN sO dN O' O P“ p* p» p» p» UN h O' O' O' CO UN PN PN p* p» p» M vO >t O O' O' O' CO s0 o >o sO o o o o o o < < . < < ' h* h- o o 7 INDEX OF POPULATION 1958 P0PULAT10N= 7,728,000 100 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTION — - «C N O' SKS§2“ r ' J S£S2S£°£ 0 CVJ co «4- CO h- in O cvi *fr o in CO CO co *o f— r*- cvj • i • • • sO O' in O in ^ co in >r H lT> (VI CO H in o h ^ r» • # • • • r^ ro h o' cvj O' h- *4- CO O' 't CVI •—< O' 1 •* CC >0 (O •—< CO • # • • • ir\ *-* r- o •-' o co co o —< O' >? CVJ *-« O' in cvj cvj in o • • • • • >C CO >0 co CO CO O' »”* 'O *■■< r*- co cvj O' co .-< -* co O' co • • • • • >t so CO 'O CVJ O M H r- 4 - cvj O' co r- ^ O' -t co CVJ CO CO CVJ CVJ o (nj r- ’“* -g in in in ^ •4’ *t't COO'OvJ-Ovjp-COg^CO^^S^S^oSfSSJ^S^SS^ D g ^ " 3 2 S " $ S 2 o ^ » - j; -i ° (SJ M ^ " -J MM a- m t o cvj cvj O' r*- >t cvj o' f"- o o ® (VI H • • • • • rvivOincvjh- O' in O' in o h- co -< O' co i—^ co in ^ co • • • • • O' cvj O' cvj in o vO O' I s - o co co «-* O' oo CO O' O' co >f • • • • • lf\ O' 'O CO CO (O CO >o cvj h (OH CDh >o in r*- m in in o cvj in co co co in cvj cvj cvj o ^h cvi *o h- mM ^ M-t O O co o cvj o 9* sf *0 O' o o o ^ o ^ CO O' M-« ^ O O o o o o o o MNO.oooo 2 ^oooo S o»e 5 Ho; 1 g^g O'oo o oo h-!>-2 is S 2 2 M M so r- O'-o 00 CO 1 o UJ CO O W • oo o o z UJ 1 ^ i lU K O! U O 00 •jooluoo<<<>- d - uj CC > o 31 < < a. UJ -1 CO uj Z) u_ Um o > l/> O ^ ^ oc o o c in o o o O UJ UJ o o <1 u_ 0l »- H- H O < i/n/i (/) J -J O Q. UJ UJ < < UJ O > > H- ►— _i uo CC ^ MM MM o O a o o O J JH J— i o O o : 3 UJ < UJ CVJ CL r- => 9> z 1— o MM UJ -J 15 z CC O O II o z> — o MM Z 3 K- a: o H- O Q _J o O < MM o CL Q_ 15 O MM O < LL < < ^ H- 3 < 0. -J 0C O h- »- o z> u. o o MM MM CL Cl o < u. Q- Q. O < < U- CL o o 8 PRODUCTION BY COMMODITY, VALUE AND INDICES OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTION* AVERAGE 1957-59, ANNUAL 1950-68 00 i 1 1 >t pg m o o in | 'O-OKWOMJ'hnrj ^CO^inO^mKl 4) O' m m CJ> -h in 4 - O —i co o —i r- o r 1 p*- n ^ >4* *> PH m m O rH •»•»•»•»•» •* •> ® H in H O O O o o o -I f\i -1 o —t m 1 pg pg n o' ^ H pH H pH -H i pH • •* | *• * i | H ^ ^ H p- i ?^f-^A/innoff®oomo'H>OH4ooH 1 n ao >o p- og o* in inmt7>(T'4 , (Mrvi > o-4- n ^ go ph p- pg -h 1 <0 co P* P* (\ pg o o O' O' o ph * * •• • *> n «o m ao *o o o o O' O' o i 4* nO n 1 pg h in © a ^H rH *H »• •* i •» •» i 1 o i '00'>t(Nn^n>f'0'0'000'0'^'r^Ofn'OcofM 1 H CO -o IT\ in i | ft ft ft ft ft O' o (si co ^4’ mm —i a 4 «h <0 O' h fO fO O' O' *o >o >4* *4* pg i • » t 9 f f 1 pg O' o ^ co O' O' o pg -« m «r *4* pg o n co f*» i H 1 •» •* | •> •* 1 | H H H *g in 1 mi«-4'(Mm4'4'(sin-r“-Hommr'm(Sj4’rgf~(M | pg n n pg co m mm(M'Ocnm(j'i-<(sjcn(\in-4-^omppio -< o i nimo'mm r r- —1 a 4 -h-o 0 —• 1 fn O' «o *o in r* 't't pH rH m ph •> » » •> f> «* lO O' f- O' >r O' O' o t rg -h ^ n LU ftH O -4* p«- pH rH o •* » | •» •> 1 •H r-4 a: <4* n -<4'(7>ooo'r~OMpgCTiO'mxvomn-mCT>mn-ff' in z aoi4NomiNinaoaN4’N4MaN5' 0 H- ft • ft ft ft O' 3 0 m h m mffi —1 00 co h a m 1-1 Z co co co ao n O pg pg pg co co >4* p- •*•*•*•»•* *» < P* h *0 ^m^^ sO > 4 - pg co co n n X mcno4m4i^<04* CO O' rO P- p- n p- p^ m ro >4* pH o ► * • * * •> onmmpgofO o -o ^ ro in 7 oo Q ft • ft ft ft O' 4 1 co >o 4 1 ^ O' m —« n ^ n rg O' O' 45 -l (M P P P rg rg n H 1 » •* •» * •» » Z ^ -t CO fO o O O' O' O' O' o •““< CNJ rH m *0 o m O' ^ co co H pH 1 rH >-< ► i * •* -J *-h h 1 -J 1 '4’pgsONO>tcopgoon>t'4-oor*-oopgnr\iO'om X ph m r- p^ pg n o , '0'4-mcooco4’(Mr«-m 45 o in n'mm'Hr~o -< '-* 4 - 1 — CO O O' CO O' co m m co co n rH •> ft » «k » » 1 rn sO >4* >4- pg O O' O' ao ao o 1 Pg rH >}■ >0 fO m p- m p- p^ 1 •* i ► ► 1 1 rH *H o 1 4’0or-r»-<7>4’'04-rci04 - 0000r 03 1 *0 CO CO vO P P** co CO >* s0 1 cp h m p in O' p* p^ p- r* o H rg h ift r\j 1 h in rg >t g- 1 rH ► 1 * •* 1 1 pH pH H LU O' 1 -4>4 , NO>Ofnn-Hror^nsOsOpgrnr^fMOpgo'cofpi 1 m^Hino o n fOg , if\fO'O(\Nf^H«0 pgO'nsOGOgcmco o 1 < 1 1 m(M0'O4 a o —i r~4 -145 m -h in © h rg © o o o o o o a: r— •ft ft ft ft » 1 m O' n co n o o o o o o 1 cnj —i pg >o n pg h m © © > O' —4 1 •* * 1 •* •> < ^ I 1 pH H H pH >— <✓) rri45moooomooomoco(MOmn--ooi— LU X OC tj'cor>-h-p'co4^m44v0044«)mor'(MO o o < -0 *H -H rH p* *0 CO CO rP) h- >0 -J ft* CC JJ >-H CL 3S o o o o z ft* o n z *—4 LU n o h- OC m HH O 3 •* h- 3 z h- PH o Q o -J pH Z3 LU LU NH LU 3 Z l/) a Q oc P* OC O o II *H o 3 o 3 HH O *H z to ct a h- X h- a: o h" O < a UJ J Q -J o a < HH w LO CD UJ 13 O 3 < LL -J Q -J LL LL O 0C O 3 < m uj < (_ >. CJ -H Q a *H Q < < Q. _J X * <* O 0C O H H* o —• h- n oo oc > lu l- < 00 o o o o LL o o HH HH a. a. < LU J UJ UJ X < _l LU LU o a < ll o < LL Q_ Cl a 3£ l/)OJ C5 -u _l too uj — i oc >- < < 21 O LU cD LU o CD *-*2 >XXO < © 00 © J J • 00 (/) J J O O > a Q UJ > h- h- o O P- P* < -Jl/)lUl/3<<u.u.coao.ooiuj < ftH HH 11 ooooinooopoo-uo^NOBff inininin(NJ(\i>£NO o O' O' co in «-< in (nj >—4 •—i cn 'O r\j r— oo cn oo 0 s t sO ,PCMiC'>cc 1 incncfl-M7'0'Ocn ; J.-<;Ocoin£COCD£ n^nonnn-i ° 2 S IT! £ £! £ < 0-0 cm O' <0 rvjffl r- cm ► •* ** •“ .fi ^ ^ ^ (NJ >0 ^ NOH«OOOOl > "4’0'tON«OI''tO't'f | j^®'0 o^inin-cPi^o rtHON ' 4 'J?' ON t; £ co cr- m; f~ -o co ® ooo-4-in£.oco.4--0 ^ cnj oinr ^ r -^3J-j3-0-'®C>-«-'0-OP^O£OC'COO g £ £ o * S 00 r- -H CM ^ r- OJ -4- in 9 ^ ^ cm >o in <1 CL O p-H 1- >o -J O' o r—l o a: o 000"11( , ''0®^ N « 0 “ gSS£”£S!n i- z o in cr co -t -i-'O -< C'-B ^ 'P ® co >4- in OOff 1 '0 H CCPf fc ' flvlN ONO®^BCJOB® Sg-ococMcocMcnr-co-OP-'Oor'in^gi >t H N O ® CO CO -H P“ CM CM-O t (NJ >t sO in LU 00 00 -J LU O •—< _J a: oo uj _ _ o LU CO LU O CO >. ooo uj < ll L.u-CDQ-O.OD r-com^mcMcoin^co 2 BHO»+ -t -O -p -4-^ - 1 O ® "* ► ► •* ** ^ ^ CNJ *4 (NJ *4" ^ ^j--o>ocnLnrfmi--in®)^cMcop-cMOoooco2 p>5inP^'OCMCMPl^'0 2 PI CM O' O J- COO ^ I- ■* ^ “1 ^ ► »• •* r-4 CNJ r* (NJ sO ^ ICOUlOOOOlCOOOlCOBNOmPJOf- oco^p-c- 2 ' ;r ^S;2i' 0 2'*£S£§S? 00 *C CO >C (Nl t • • • • >o O' in o (nj o O' o MA •4- in r- cni cnj -< *-* (NJ (M m ao in vO (nj • • • • • O O' 4- CNJ >4 in in h O' sj- in h- (nj nj h Mn O' o t • # • • r- h- cn *4 m vO O O' co «o (nj in >o o o - ► i •* •* r-4 *4 (NJ (Nl in o in >o in • • • • • ro 4 4 (O in o 4 *o co »o m >t 4D o o •* - l •* •* t—4 *4 (NJ (NJ rnr-OO-4- • • • • • r-4 in O' co r- •4* >4 ** O >t (NJ (A vO O' O >t O' »4- O' 0 s • • • • • in O' m m o ro vO (— in nj (nj in ao co vC ^ O' ro fA • • • • • (NI(NjO'4 - 't in (O c\i >o "4 (ni •-* in ao co H o H O -O • • • • • nj ro o in >o rn co O' (nj o O' nj in o «o ► i •* •■ H <0 H >0 (A 4 co O' ro h 4 in in h h o ao m in O' # • • • • O' m oo <4 o O pH m (NJ o h rvj in oo co in . •4- *-4 —< m m ■—« (NJ (NJ (NJ (Nl (NJ CNJ (NJ CNJ h ^ ro cn o in in r- r*- ooo o o ao o o O' o o hO'C' O O' O' in o o r- co ao >4 in in o in CO H (NJ co m O' in oo in (nj h in oo co in r- h* O' O' O' ooo ooo UJ 3 U. U HH O ^ ^ Ot O o o o o o O < U. I— J— to 00 1/) -J —J 0l_ uj LU < < t— o O O J JHh 12 IN0EX OF POPULATION 1958 POPULATION 17,355 t 000 PRODUCTION BY COMMODITY, VALUE AND INDICES OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTION, AVERAGE 1957-59, ANNUAL 1950-68 CO 1 pH m re UN eg o o H»MOO >0 UN O O' O' co «h eg o eg r- UN i i o rf it -o m UN 1 00 r- re re O' re o e» (IN o O -H UN O' O' o 4* eg rH un O' • • • • • O' m 00 pH sO o rH pH re h- 00 pH eg pH O' i eg r- re un O' 1 #> •» •• » •» e- 00 O' 45 UN rH eg eg eg pH l 00 UN eg rn o 1 1 » ft 1 i rH pH h- 1 O' >o re eg re h- e- oo pH o eg co un r- 00 h- UN OO v0 eg r- 00 i e- o in eg O' UN in 00 00 re 45 >0 e- o e- rei o O' pH O' O' re pH O pH rH CO 00 • § • • • O' 1 O' 4 eg O' eg e- oo pH UN >0 UN pH eg rH ■» h- l rn re ph re eg »H •» » •> •> • 00 4 UN >»■ 1 *h re eg rH pH i O' UN eg eg rn i » ft 1 i rH rH 45 1 in 4 45 4 in 45 4 UN 00 oo UN eg eg co eg eg O' h- 00 in 45 ao UN i 3 6 3 6 00 UN 1 4 O' O' fO >4* e- UN UN >fr eg pH UN 4* O' O rH O' 4* rH 00 i • • • 1 • O' co 4 o 45 O O' pH pH 4- 4* 4* eg pH UN 4 45 00 eg pH 1 » •» 9> •> •» i O' re >0 45 4 1 pH eg eg ph rH 1 e- un eg o O' 1 1 1 | pH m 1 pH 4 o eg 4 vO UN e- pH re re re co O eg pH re re e* e- O' r- 45 45 eg I 00 UN 7 6 1 UN re 4 4 H O' e- >0 >0 *4- eg eg ao O' O' >0 -H ao pH eg • • • • • O' 1 H in O' rH *4* eg pH pH UN re UN eg pH UN 1 re UN rH O pH ft ft • •» ft CO re O' 4 CO N 1 eg eg eg eg rH LU O' 4 eg rn o a 1 • •• 1 rn pH CL 1 a. 4 l/> o 00 o e- o o -H >4* r- UN pH UN pH pH CO rH h- oo O re re UN 4> 45 >0 rH o e- pH in z >0 co 45 UN CO n 4 O' eg pH o oo pH re h- eg pH O' O' UN UN K • • • i • O' o >0 4 in in pH O' O' pH pH PI re pH 4* z eg eg >0 co 4 O pH H ft ► •• •» ft < h- re pH 00 O' O eg pH pH pH K h- 4 eg o CO pH o c 0 1 pp Z II CL o h- o O' re UJ eg eg o eg e^ 4 eg -h m >4- >4- re 4- 4- co 00 o CO oo o 4- UN 4* UN r*p 0 0 o o O' UN in x co 45 o O UN 45 cn O eg eg "N O' pH ao e- eg pH r- 4 e- 4) re H • t • • • 1 O' rH m 45 e* pH O' UN pH eg 4- re re pH re < r- eg pH CO 45 pH o ft •» * » •• O' >0 ao r- UN UN o eg eg pH eg rH CO ao re pH O O' O' o aC 1 ft pH ft < pH w pH 1 -J eg 1 O' eg O' eg e* 4 o O 00 r- re 4* 00 pH 00 4* eg >0 s0 00 re in 4 4 O' rf 2 9 4 e- re in 1 O' 4 4 e- >0 e >4- e- O pH h- UN >0 >0 pH o rH eg UN o • • • § • O' >0 m pH UN pH pH 00 in pH in m 1 • i • • • O' 1 re e- 00 r- pH O P- pH eg 4* re in pH pH 4 e- e- CO 45 o pH •» •» •> at •» 1 O rH o e- 45 1 eg eg eg eg pH O' -r (m -< O 1 i * ft 1 1 pH pH o 1 m O' O UN 4 e- o o o o re UN e- UN 4* co pH 4- 40 CO 4* r*- re 45 4 UN 1 re O' O' re CO in 1 co 45 in O o 'O >4- UN -4- eg 00 re pH 4) r* »H pH O' O' 00 4 UN • • • • • O' o r» ao 45 pH m s0 eg pH re o pH 4 1 eg O' O' eg o pH 1 ft •» •» •> » 4 re ^ 45 co 1 eg rH pH pH pH 1 1 N < M (f 1 00 O' 1 1 in 4 re CO o h- rH 00 O' O 4 * eg eg eg eg 00 o >0 re co UN eg re CO h- UN 1 45 re 6 3 h- in co re e- o re re >o in o re eg o pH O' O' >0 «H -H 4 eg rH O O' 1 • • t • • 1 1 4 eg O' eg un eg pH pH •4- r >0 rH eg rH O' O re >0 e- 4> •» ft ► •> ft I e- O' O' >0 4 in 1 pH re eg eg pH O' UN eg eg rH O' 1 1 » ft pH 1 1 pH pH ►— CO re 4) eg o UN o o O UN n0 o o o o UN o ao o eg pH O re r*p 45 o r- X CL O' CO O 00 e- e- oo >4" pH UN UN 4* < sr >o o 4* UN 4* e- co re o e- eg o o < pH o O pH pH pH pH >0 h- O' 45 co CO re PT. o PH -J •> UN LU —1 pH • 2 a a z o z PH o H PH O H 3 z o a o 3 LU uj PH LO O a cl h- rH o 3 O 00 CL a l- 3 CO < a. LU _J Q a oo X CO UJ 3 O > LU a j < U. LL O QC h- UJ UJ < -J H— > a PM a CL *h > 00 oo UJ UJ < CO a o Q Q h- 00 oo CL > a UJ H- < c0 o a o o LL O Q LU CL -J UJ UJ z X < -j UJ UJ o o < LL a X < 00 LU o LU •H u CO a < LU rn ac h- h- h- X Q- LU CO O LU 3 o co z > X X O < cO CO CO J CO O > 00 O u uj O < 00 U. < z CL o a. uj UJ < < UJ u H- •» LU LU H CL a 00 -J QC H- h- UJ o H- a: <✓> •> LU o > > ►— h- o < LU z -j OO 00 < < < CL LU LL LU LU rH CL X U. h- -J UJ ft —1 CO Q£ aC *h -h a O r* LU LU O a: -J h O CD X Q. Z X O 3 < < LU f- CL 3 X 3 o O O O -j h- K Q X > •—1 o < <3030 LU < 3 1- LU CL CL -J LU 3 0 0 h- O o O o Z 3 QC cl o CO O CL CL 00 h X ac 00 o > LL O U. CO X Q. CL O o 3 LU < PH < ^ O eg eg O' O' O* rH O' O O O' o eg re GO CO 00 45 CO re O' O' O' O 00 00 CO f"- f*- eg in rn O' 00 00 fNJ UN 45 >o >o o O re fNJ O O' O' >o «o r- o o o o o o eg eg O' O' 4- re 00 CO re m O' o* 00 UN CO co < < 13 INDEX OF POPULATION 1958 P0PULATI0N= 9,882,000 100.0 94.5 95.4 96.2 97.1 98.2 99.4 100.3 99.6 100 TABLE 10.—HUNGARY (CONTINUED) PRODUCTION BY COMMODITY, VALUE AND INDICES'OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTION, AVERAGE 1957-59, ANNUAL 1950-68 O'ffi'ONfMO'OOODlMtfM^OfnOOfflO'OCDCO-O't^O'O (MPNvJ-CT'OsOcdcouncm--' O'—«OP-P--4P-^fM'0 r* 4 >fr —< f^pH00l/NCM>4'4.HCM>4 >0 00 *4” rH cn — 1 I r^P-(McncM.-HO''4 O' O' H (NJ H O'UnitiO'OouncmO'4'O'co uN^orno —'uncdununcmcm o (NJ UN CO sO UN —< ► •> •* ► (NJ fO *"H CO muNco^O''Ooo>0'tf^uNir)>0't'4'r^'Or^afOO'^ir»4‘0'i£> r\j,_('4-UN'000(Njr r iCNjr-< NH'Ocoro^'t h(D((1 O O UN (NJ UN CO <—*•—* o ^ -• ^ r*-O'^ cm-• CO ^ P- o cn 1 H HID P >}■ p- ^ UN t t • • • O' f—4 1 un un r— cm r— •> m un p- —4 >o 1 H P CO ID (O •* 1 •* •• 1 r-* UN O UN 1 UN P (C| O’ <0 PN • • • • • 00 1 P 00 O' O H r- H UN P CO H 1 1 H p CD >}■ CO - 1 - ► «—1 rH CM O C0 o (IN 1 H (M H CM H UN — CM 00 —* 1 CD vO CD H H » 00 (NJ nO ON 4) CM i—4 UJ o >o cn cn cm o ► 1 •* •“ 1 1 1 cn (nj m 0'(n'OH^inoM^O"f'tH^coinHO>t^H(NjO'0(7'(\J in^rci'f't'-0 UN CO UN -4 CM -4 CO -< >0h-c0ir\'t0'ir»O'0r^oouN%0UN0'^O'tr00'tn*-t0'0''0 (TUI'^HCO(ClM(Ur\HOHOH'0-HC'fnnHh^(NIO' O O'cnj r- o' —< 'em -4 -» 't o id -< ^ ^ 00 ^ (NJ 4 (NJ ODUNlD't'O'tO'OOCO'OnCO'th^HCVJ'OO’tr-NWCOfn sOUNvJ-OCOOCOUNr^r-(CO ^)HHN(JN(flHtf\0^g O UN (O in p- >* ^ nj V s ^ ON 0'«N0'00r0'0CNJ'00'CNJf0(NjUN'4-(NJf—UN(Njm0'Of ,, “C0O00rn o> 4 inuNO'UNp-sOP-cM '0 .-i *h cm o in cm cm co cm 0 CM CM t • • • • vO O' t (NJ CO ^ O' >0 (CHM H >0 UN C- "t CO • • • • • CO UN CM H CO O' «4 CM CM —I 00 -O CO CM i -4 00 o U} CO »—l 0 - 00 O' NO CO (NJ rH CM >4 P- O' UD • # • • • co O' ^ cm UN CM CO (^ O'OfOfCUM sO CO >0 CO t # • • • O (O vO h >0 P* O' O' 'C ->4 O' UN (NJ CM <—4 I •* - CM CM O O m>oin-4-'t-^'CO'l-in-tr-cornor^('JO w ^ ^ ^0 ^ ^ ^ O' 'O CO CO pi P^ cl > o LU LU OO UJ l/) 00 a: j lu uj Z z < -J uj ) uj *— _j cd O < uj *— ac >- z s: o . _ QD O I— Qd oO *• 17JU)(^<< co o cl cl oo p- x ad ooo>u-cou-cos:q.q. 003 Uj 00 K UJ OO UJ UJ CD □ oo o o UJI-ttU OO J QC h h UJ 00 LL < Z UJ 3 LL O — O X X Od O O O O O o o < u_ P- P- 00 00 00 _J —I CL UJ UJ < < 0>>KK QC N- NM O O O —J —J ►— P" r- o O' O -< O >0 vO o o o CM *4 *4 o o o O' *-4 f*N O' o o CO >0 N O' O' O' O' co O' o o O' O' co co p- o o o o o o o o o o o UJ co CL 00 3 ► P- O' _J UJ 3 z CL O O II X •-H O H- Z K OD O K O ■J o o < •— 3 < LL -1 P- o 3 < NH O < < Cl U o: O P- P- O D o o •— N- CL Q. < LL Q- Q- O < < LL CL 00 _J _J o a o CL < < 00 O h- P- esc ad X UN QD O O UJ UJ UJ O' O P- 1- a. o. O -4 z 14 PRODUCTION BY COMMODITY, VALUE AND INDICES OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTION, AVERAGE 1957-59, ANNUAL 1950-68 co ro rg X m co >g ® co eg m eg i CM 0 'p-xp-pHX~*>g-Hrgc^pHmmxr'-oxx HrOff)(\j^^®OrvjiC\-OON'OcgNiTi CO k$* CM Lf\ m —* x —< -O rn N (N eg ft eg >frxopHpgp-coroxm fOO'XO'-H>*p*mc\jcO m in ro cnj O •* •> CM «-H 1 CM P- CM m r- 1 PO X pH X o pH O' P- -H CM X IT | CM m a> CO m 't pH m CM cr pH m »H CM 'J' pH o *■< | ft • flk •k •» eg X pH CM X X 1 PO m 1 | >g co ro O' P^ X X »H X m ro O eg ro X O CM CM X O' 1 •H O pH CM CM m ^ O CM ft •» »• •k •k •» 1 CM P- H CM p» P- 1 CM 00 CM X CO o o eg o m z O >t ro X P» CM O X m o a O X o o X O' H b- •» •» •k •k » » CM m rH CM m X U ro PH * h- PO UJ O ro O O' m < 4 - o H m X P- m ro rO X ro X o X O' X X pH pH >*■ X X H o p •k •k «k •k •• o H i-H CM pH X o ro 'OOf\JNHg-o ^>0ifi0'cgoNegfvj'0 rH ro ro CM CM O' «• CM ^O'oorOvoin^ ro x o x m 'g o H fO og f\ ft CM T'OONIA^NO f- f\J rH (JS ^H *H X fO >g pH eg CO ► CM rOrO>gXXrO^»'nroxXXOOOXrO ^r^mh.g , >-<(7'fNj^tMi^co eg 0 s co o o -H ^ ro 'J - P- -H o <—< CM r\J ■ h eg h CT^ X 1 pp h g o m M^rgp m • # # • • X PM 1 g cm h io ® •k pH 1 o p- x O' m eg «M -h eg O pH t h g < 7 * 4 * 1 1 •k «k «k » «k pp cm h g- g 1 l co h o g g ^ cm m >* • • • • • o CM 1 p po g x in » pH 1 X eg O O ro H H H eg o H P* P* X O CP 1 1 » « » » •> ro eg h g co 1 P 0 eg O m pH (M CM pH PO 1 • • • • • CM CM -H -h m p- x •» 1 -h P- eg m m 10 1 eg O' o ph x » » » ft ft X P- PO o >r 1 1 ro h ph g m 1 O x P- O' eg P 0 pH pH P 0 • # • # # O CM 1 o m cp m o » 00 x g* m x o CP UJ p x t x g CD g CM O' O o PH Q£ a ft » i » eg '■h ro ro m o ro eg pH g- g- cm P 0 H» • • • • • X CM Z ro -H m O' o •k < h g o g h O' h- O' p- cp p- m X pH pg p- eg Z o o ft » I » » eg pH co ro ro m m ro X mo CM h- • III! ro eg < m g h a) ® » O' GO co »h o> m x X p x g eg >*■ X o x =C < _J -J a ft •• l » • eg *h rO r0 x x o °g m ^ o H o • • • • • CM X i eg CM ce t IT h 03 O' X fO <-H X'trgoxr^cpo'xro X -h O O' m X ro ft ft ► ► •» •» h g) >-h i-m sO in X)OOii>N^TOO'-OfC\®ir\(r| P-c\j m>gO' 0 'pH>gro>gm O O >t rg -h co O' eg co oo >r 00 00 co >t ft ft -I >0 m x o P- eg CM P- hpqhop^'O'- iPNg , Po^T3^oo>t BNiTHfPMMsflOpPN^fM rn rn CO o O h «t h «g cO -h O' CM CM (NJ CT' Q •» » '-‘CM ^ vO -I -n omo-p--i^spo'>tocMCNjoc7'C7'oocNjr-p^a'r>o '0OC0'0O'4*>J*N0O>0m>i‘r07'CMOmcM4' x ^ m g* cm ro —i sO m cm eg 0 oo ro o I * •>*»» m m h g- g- rfi-ooinoooomvooooin C'oocor^r~r-cD>i-_i L f\inv}'^-so •“H X X rH rH OOcgnOfOPg) . o m >t P- oo ro O i H O P T vO ® 03 -m x !2 1X1 < _J h- 2 «/) LU UJ < (/> h* 00 00 QC > O UJP-^< < oj _jujujz 3 :<_(uj X 111 C3-h_J CO O < UU — a: O UJ02O JJOco ~ z VSXC) >- i/io o uj < u. « P P o l-KUI > < ZJ/>UJH<< u.u.®ziaaujm o o o o o O T CD pH o o CP o o o H ® vO O O' O' p«om co CO co H ® P O' CO ao rO H h CO 00 00 m ro O' O' O' 0 s CO GO CP X CO CO ro CO P* O' CO co o o o o o o O P- rg O ro h- (M m rH • o o o z ft o o z *— 1 3 p- o h- ac P- ^H o 3 ft f— 3 Z 1— X o a o 3 eg D UJ UJ PH LU 3 z GO Q Q O' H- O' O O II PH O 3 O 3 -H Q •-H Z GO O' Q p- 3 h- O' C 1- Q < Ou LU 3 Q 3 O O < PH X UJ 3 a 3 < LL 3 h- LL LL O CSC O 3 < < < oc O' 15 00T TABLE 11.—POLAND (CONTINUED) PRODUCTION BY COMMODITY, VALUE AND INDICES OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTION, AVERAGE 1957-59, ANNUAL 1950-68 >l-oe00' rs >o us r- n H “s f* 1 cn «-* 4^ cn •£) CO ITi O LO (YlO^O'^^^'tOCONCD^h'fiNOOinfO'Otf'CDN OO<-*OlMk'-^4‘CM4 - CM4 , Os0r-cn4 , fM4'Oincn k >o IT H H if) ^4 H o n ^ ^ Z >4 cn r-l (\) 4" -4 (MO'inCOr—l 4 "r—i v ~ 4’s0«-“ , '0'“' cof *“'0f‘*-0'0'g0'0cninks0 , -'0c0(n0 O O' CM CM 4' CD in OsJ 0-.~l0M>fr —> 'O r r ► ► * * * JT OO sO ^-1 OsJ k OsJ fO^ sO m m sa¬ in m i l/) k 4 * 4 * O' o >0 ^ 00 sO Z 4 D CM k cn 4 - h- go sO O' □ O 4 - 00 in 00 sO r—1 k *> ► •> ► *• •> m k CM 4 - o O 4 - f—1 M cd CM k UJ o in O' in O sO CM h- in 4 D X o 00 k r-J 4 " go go t—i 0- O' k sO m h- 4 - 00 o r— o •» r> ► »• •> o CM 4 ) <—< og r- o o cn r-H go0'0'r- •> •» »■ Osj CO 1-4 Osj 0h _ 4" Oi Osj 00 1 Osj Osj Osl og k ~4 og og 00 Cd > I < UJ _J UJ l a: oo uj o i— _j < o UJ CD □ uj o co • >- OO O O LU < I l_ UJ o' UJ k Oi U 00 O' k k < zjO<u-i in 4 ^ o co • • • t # sO »0 CD sf H O 00 4 - 4 * o r*- k >t o so * 4 * og -* g) in o o m k cm • • i • i m ao o og >r k >4 k m r ► ► P ► st og *+ in in r-l CD k N O • # • • • i/i £) ^ k 4 " 4 " *“• * 4 " og in in cn in m in k • • • # • ^ st 4 h O' O' o m >4 o' O' sO m og co m og -4 m st m k ** O' O' • • • • • o in >o O' ^ m co m k 4 - 4-(0(7'(OfOkHcoinNrMHinino^cDHCNinh-^a'a' corMH4-cocginO'k'tk^inMnO'fO(04 , ifuoH ® ^ ^ 'OO' i-* s4‘'4 - '- 4 m <-< cn osj <✓> O' h in 4 ^ UJ O' 4 - CM 1-* CD <_) »»»*•» co og h in 4 cd. 1 Cl. 4 - 4 CD 00 4 H CM K • • • • • m Z m O' k in sO o < in O' 4 - o O' o oo cn cm o g> ^4 ► Z cn cm k in 4 II o 1 o O' 00 m og O' cm O' O' m 4 - k* • • • • • 1 cn < h in oo co h 0 - 4 H 040 m i/> 4 in cn go m O' a: r-4 < cn CM «—i 4 " 4 —* —i 1 -j O' sO O s* go cn r- cm 4 * o • • # • • cn 4 4 CM sO 4 z cn o o cn cm o O' in cn h co t —1 rrr ** 1 -J m cm h in 4 -J 1 HH O' in z •—i go cm mo¬ r—1 1 at # # • cn O CO k k k 1 4 (Mink¬ in cn cm so cn co og O' 44(^1 oo in og m m m og O' O' m cm cm in m cm cm og og in r-< o og •-* og og og <-< —• -4 co h- og r+ in>oooinkkHH40'40cMCM'CO'0'CDNkr-0'fn r-oi^«o^oO'0044'00«oin4( f '0'(MomtM4 roso rj in 4 cm rn *-• so in og og cm k cm (C)CMh44 k cn m k co • • • • • oo in oo in in s/) oo oo so in rH CM r-l cm o ► ► ► * * fO CM —l st >t 0 - *—I O 00 0 “ • • • • • >o r- ao in so co cm in in •—* h cm h og o fCl CM H 4 4 00 O' k O O O m h o CM CM CM O O' cr r-< O O O' O *-« O' O O O O O O O O oo O' O' O' (/) i«iiomooooiii®ooo»ioONrfOiiiJ-®Of- u w ^ ^)> 0 r-r< — >o c- O' >o oo oo ro r-- — 1 UJ Z 5 O X < U_ -1 k U. O oc o Z) < O a. r—■ Q < < CL -1 ^ cd O QC O k k o r> o o o o IL o O i—• a a. □ □ < u. o <1 u_ a. Q- O k- H” < < Ur CL CO l/l l/) _l J U 0 oo -J _J o u o d. UJ UJ <1 < UJ Q- < 00 O > > k- K u o k k O' O' x in ^ ^ O O — O O UJ UJ UJ O' U J J k k o z O K k Q. CL O «— 4 z 16 PRODUCTION BY COMMODITY, VALUE AND INDICES OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTION, AVERAGE 1957-59, ANNUAL 1950-68 O' h (vj m ic o cm i*- ro ro ^ co O' »H <0 fO CM *H h* CM ft ft ft ft OHa'NO'H O If! m m H O' if\ >t ffi h rg iAO'Oii>aoiAOi/>^'t-tHON r- -h ro 4* ro -* O O -h r\j -4* it. co rH (M p-4 • ft ft ft ft ft ro or\j'Hinroinino'voa'0'x ro ro eo cm O' o ro n- »h cm -* cm O' oO'4oxxpHr'>oino'i«Hxo4‘pHO O ph ro r*- 4- I s - vOOOojrvj^pHO-foo-fw^^^omo^^'Orvjh- O CM X 4* ro f\J sO O (\J in O' pH —( f\J f\J • ft •» •> • •» * ro in cm tvj ph *h (\i OOO^'OMDlNJMBC'a'OcO^'tHvO^ 4* in in x in m O' o -* r*» m co ro r\j ct* r- iHfH O' ro r0 ^ CO 4* p* ocoorOpHr^oiriinror^*u , >co-^(\jrsjrooorof\jr\jh-p^iri •ph^cnJphcnj ^ in O' h ro ^ HrO'frsj^rg'O'ONfOvOHin 0 m-tf C*) ► l • M 1 —1 -H •H O' *h 1 1 4 2 3 CO 4 pH O' III* • pH 1 rg 4 rg 4 O ft co rsj ph O' ro CM 1 4- vO ro r- vO • | • ft 1 pH pH pH O' 0 0 1 3 8 4 7 fM ^H CM CO I • • • t • O O CM *0 'O 4* ft 1 00 -H O CO 4* pH O 1 rO in h h O' O rg N • • • • • CM I r*- in r^ in ft* •> go in m cm co p** CM UJ 4 O roN >0 O » | » ft ** pH pH pH CL a. r- o' >t 7 1 0 8 OJ 4- ft* <0 K • • • • • O Z O' >0 CO O' 0 ft < o- r- co so 0 0 CM h- h in rg 4 ^ pH y) •> 1 » •> z ft* pH pH II 0 4 O' 4 0 O' 4- CO O' ro o- in in *H <0 H— • • t # • 1 ao < in in cm co X •> ftH CM >0 O' O' in •—4 00 ro in cm m ro O' aC ► 1 - •» ft* < pH pH pH «-p _J -J r- r*- in O 5 4 2 7 O' sO pH in Q • • • • • O' OJ O O CM CM •* Z 4 4 O h O -H O O in cm co pH ft* •. | » ft -J pH pH pH -J —* in «o nj Z co 0 0 CO X lO f\J >£ O' O'rgyOHinmmrOHro^so. h co o o rg co h o o h rg r\j cm p* h m rg h -o <5 -h 44'0'H®(7'4g5(7'0'^>00 Hr\jrgo4^4 , ininmoHin CM *H 4 * X pH pH O' oiAfninoO'-04 , HNHg)0'«oN7''t(0®'nincorgrgr^oro o o -t m O' h 4 h o o o mmn*0'0(or , *in4in'trga' lOph (M ro ro --* O' 4" ph ro in x o xoxr N 'r'-r''X4 , 'Hinr-in4\4'4 , -oo4 , in4 , r*»xror^cMO “■* p^ -o i\ >o h i-< h —4 o n O' ^ co ro o* O CM pH -H pH O' CM <0 m 4’ H in N 4 M 0 s >o co r* h • • • # • 4" o- ro B 4 rg O O' I «o o m h gj • • • • • f" in cm O h- o «o ro 4 o' 4- >0 ro h- in X < CL UJ -J Q GO z X UJ 3 >• uj a -J < LU LL O H" GO UJ UJ < -J ►- > O Q !-H >■ z GO GO LU UJ < GO * x: CL O O Q H GO GO > a UJ < GO OUC5 O O O < UJ Q£ -J UJ UJ z Z UJ UJ O 0 < LU Z < rx: GO UJ 0 UJ ft* _J X O < cL h- ►— H* 2- CL 0 LU X O UJ 3C O X ft* z > O < GO GO GO O GO O O z UJ O < CO LU < z CL O CL UJ UJ < < O g- ft UJ CL UJ h- a: 0 0 GO -j a: h- li¬ LU 0 1 — ft LU O > > h- H- < LU z -J GO UJ GO < < < u- Q. UJ U. UJ UJ ft* CL X LU l— -J _J GO CL CL ft* ft* O O OJ UJ u CL CL X -J ►- O X K Z a. Z X O 3 < < X 1- QC O O O O h- K X > O < < H □ □ X o O UJ < D h- UJ CL CL -J UJ z> 0 a O O O a: OC O X O a a. a GO 0 X CL GO 0 > LU O IX X z CL 3. Z 3 : LU < ro >0 *0 co co co go ro cm 000 r" o n- 00 *4" ro pH OOO 4* 4“ ^ ao co co ro ph ao O' O' 30 4- in ro o- I s * 0 - m ro co co ao r- ao rg O' in >o go 000 000 >o o ao ao O' in >0 >0 < < CL CL LU LU CL CL ro 17 TABLE 12—ROMANIA (CONTINUED) PRODUCTION BY COMMODITY, VALUE AND INDICES OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCT,ON, AVERAGE 1R57-S9. ANNUAL 1R5.-68 oooo»'«'NOoeoejoin|OB S^irsooiMCN oi^om r- £^222 2 co (NJ-04- r- won -t -■ »- -* co o»^cr (nj to 'O - 1 in in cvj co CNJ ^rvj't(\J®0'0>J-ocoNO«tOcocO'4'H in O' 4- O' k £ co (nj ^ c6 Jo S hnOsO in k 4> co - ^ ^ co cnj co CNJ fT'm^mH'±OH(NJC0OO'0O'0r* , CsJC0'0'tO>nCNJC0f*-( , 0f[' ?®S?SSS2Sai®S S omONtmmcosOinocncNjo r- o rn h cnj »o cnj in K O O' CNJ in ph co CNJ CNJ CNJ >tinorNiO'hOcD^O'OOcooo-0'i-o4-jHa'4'h» Ln^cNjcn^'O^^O'COfNj 4> S t 2 o o''t h cnj in ^ 4- 4- k o co k ^ CNJ CNJ CNJ osj-HOcoin'J-«tinHflooo"OHOCNjo(NJcoo'a'^oocnco o! o co 4 ) k co cooo^coinm*-»'OC'f w ^fNJ^ £2 SSa' nj- KO'K cnj cnj - m in CNJ CNI CNJ nmO'Hin4 , ^^0'0''OHinH(M«tHO'4 , NCOHO'^ONj- SS?^SS SoSh >t*-< in 4- cm cnj o m r-* in cococo *-h ni K co in co co O' i o 00 in o O' in in sO K 4) in | o CM in oo 4- pH in O' 4^ O' o >0 4- CO pH CO 4- —H | » •» •» •> 1 4- in CM CO UJ O' 1 | 00 in co in O O' 4) 4- -J K o in CO co 4- CM O' pH 4" pH O < l 1 in CM CO CO pH O' 4- a: K 9- •* •* *■ £ in 1 CO in CM CM > O' CO 4) CM O in o O O o in UJ X cc O' 00 O CO K K 00 4- pH o o < pH pH M M _j oc UJ -J CL 3 o o o l/) LU O LU LU 00 UJ LU LU O X >- *- :x a: cc < LU I a: oo lu o i o UJ CD o LU : >- oo o o Z w < uj oc uj h a o □ co ZJl/lLUl/l<<o co mr- sj- co O' m co o in cm co ao co o in co —* h h CNJ CNJ co co ph m o • • • • • o co O' in cnj cr O' cm in O' c?' 4- 4- cm O' 4) co cm 4- • • • • • h >o co in in O' cni ^ in CD O' O' 't 4- CM >0 ao in O' • • • # • cm in cm in co h >t (M c<1 O' f- 00 >t —4 O' - I - - -*1 CM pH O 4* CM CM CM • • • • • 4> o o 4> o (■C) CM *-h 4 1 «—< in oo 4” O' co h h fo in O' • • • • • h- O O K CM O (NJ 4) >0 to m k co oo k in h o >o O' • • • • • >t o m 0 "C co t-* o co in co oo 4- K 'C O H o H (O • • • # • CD 4- (NJ o in H (\l H fC O in oo 4- O' co cm k co J- K CO 00 K O 4- t O' >o co k in CO 4- K CM CO CO in ao CM CM r- O' *-• o cm CO CO 4- CO CO (M H fO 4- 4* 4- co in CO CO CM CO in K O' CM CM CM -4 P-M O' CM CO K 00 OHH O O K K oo o o o 00 CO 4- O' o o CO *—I fO O'-*'-* in k oo o o o o o o o o o UJ X LL U M O y. ^ a: O a o o o o O < u_ K h- l/) to lO J -j a. Lu uj < < O > > K K ££ H H o O O -I -J K K 18 PRODUCTION BY COMMODITY, VALUE AND INDICES OF TOTAL AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTION, AVERAGE 1957-59, ANNUAL 1950-68 X 1 O pH CM O O O' pH > 4 * O O O' X CM X O X O CM O 0 CM 4 pH CM 4 * X 4 * X 1 1 X X in in in 1 in ■ 4 - CM in r- in 4 * CM »H X X X X •H h* X O' CM X > 4 * O' X X pH pH X • 0 0 0 0 O' 4^ cm O' 't CM pH X 4 * CM pH O pH pH 4 * 1 k- 0 in CM X pH 4 * X 4 * X »H 1 •» •» * •* X *H c. >4 X X X X X cm x CM pH 1 1 1 CM 1 CVJ X X n X 1 •» 1 «•* p 1 1 pH pH H r- 1 O o CM o ^ >f in O' o 0X0 CM in X CM h- CM X O' > 4 - pH r*- O >4 X 1 in O in O 4 - m O X CM X o X 4 * X pH X X *H pH O' *H pH 4 * O CM X - 4 - x CM X pH X • 0 0 0 0 O' 1 pH CM X X 4 - *H X o X X O' O pH pH X 1 X O' O' X X X CM O X pH pH » •> 0» 0k •> •* X O' O' X X 0 O O 0 O 1 x n X CM pH CM 1 in in CM X in 4-H r—l »H ^H fH 1 0k p 1 1 pH pH pH X 1 o in pH o 4 - 4 * O' > 4 * O O pH x o X O' X O X X X X m -o *0 4- X in pH 1 h- in CM O X in 1 o o 4 * X M CM O r* 4- CM O X X X X O' k- 1 m •> •» •> •» » 1 in X O' in in X X X X X 1 x CM pH pH CM O' in CM 1 CM 0 1 1 1 1 1 pH pH in 1 O x x o O X 4 * GO O O X O' CM X CM X x 0 cm CM X X p< X X O' 1 0 X pH CM X in x >0 CM O O' r- 4- X k* X > 4 * 4 * 0 pH in cm pH n O' >4 CM pH H X • 0 0 0 0 O' 1 4 - CM O' X CM CM CM X X pH pH X pH pH -H O' 1 in CM H X r^ k- X CM X 4- •h *> •* •> •* •> •> » •k m pH 'i- p X O' X X X X X 1 CM X CM pH pH fH pH pH UJ X in CM in CM 0 P 1 » p 1 cL pH H pH * 1 m O pH X o X X 4* CM O o cm in CM CM n r*- OOX4* O > 4 * X O' O X k- X Cl 4* n CM k- O in z 00 C T' CM o n x CM X X in x ■-H CM r*- pH X pH O' •n X > 4 * CM in ph in h- • 0 0 0 0 O' o x 4—1 o cm cm pH X CM CM •—1 0 n pH Z CM O O CM CM O CM in pH X 4* ph ►- •» * •» •> < 4* O in O' X O X X X X X •H X pH pH "■a k- O' in CM pH O' pH o 1 n 1 P <—4 z pH II CL 0 k- 0 O' X UJ o O' x o X CM 4- X o O pH X O n X X x 0 r*- x pH CM 0 X X X pH X X O' r* X in in X rH o pH 4- n n X n o pH X CM p-H x >4* -h O' n x in pH 4' pH in h- 0 0 0 0 0 1 O' n x X 4- x pH pH n CM •H pH >4* X pH k- < M k» X pH 4- k» O 0 0 in in pH o •» 0k •» •> p p •» CM k» X X X in X X X X X o CM X CM H pH pH pH n *M 4- CM 4* CM O' o p 1 p p pH 0k < pH pH pH pH 1 -j 1 CM 1 O in X o X X pH >t O CM >n CM O X pH CM CM X X O CM X k- CM 4* O' in pH —j 0 O O' O' O 4- n 1 CO CM k- n pH CM n n pH pH CM n X X h- pH X ' 4 - 't pH O pH in Q 0 0 0 0 0 O' X CM 4“ cm CM •H n -H n x x pH n O' X pH pH O pH in in X X rH 1 •> •» •* Z CM 0 O X pH 4- 4- 4- 4* 4* | pH pH O X 4- CM 1 X r>- 1 -J -J 1 pH 1 o k- o O' X k- X o o x 4- >4- n > 4 - O N 4 O N <-H O X X r*- in x k 2 O X X X in in CO k- 4* n O' pH O' in > 4 * CM O O' pH pH pH pH X X in x pH k- »H 4* | 0 0 0 0 0 O' 1 CM CM o X CM pH x O' CM O X CM pH X X X pH 4* 0 O' k- k- 4* 4* pH •» 0k •» 0k •* p » •k 1 O CM pH 4^ X k~ k- k- X X 1 CM 4- pH pH pH pH rH pH CM 4 * CM 4 - CM 1 0k 1 P p 1 | 4 ^H pH pH o 1 O O' X o x n n O' o ph x n n >4- O h co O' N X O in O' CM O' in 4 1 X X X X X in 1 x pH O' X O' pH x n n -H X CNJ X 4 h X X 4 * CM xi 4 H 4 0 0 0 0 0 O' X CM o CM PH o X -H in 4 n pH pH X 1 CM 4- CM 4* pH X pH O X in pH 1 •k 0k •» CM 4* 'M 4* O' 4- in in in in t •H CM pH pH 1 1 k- 4- cm 1 O' fp dj O' 1 1 CM cm k- O CM 4* X X k- O' x CM n X O n- x h- x X pH CM X 4- h 4 -n 1 CM CM rH X O' o in CM X CM CM n x 4* X O' k~ 4* r^» 0 H n n ph cm X in O X X 4 - pH X 1 0 0 0 0 0 < 1 1 CM 4 - cm O pH CM 4- 0 X O' O 0 0 0 0 •» 0» •» p p p •k 1 (M CM pH X X O 0 0 0 0 LU n 1 X n CM pH 4^ pH »“H CM in X X X in pH 4^ pH pH pH > O' | 0k 1 p p < ph 1 | 4-H H h- vO x X CM o n o O O O in x 4* O 0 0 O n 0 x 0 CM pH O X r- X O k- LU X CL O' X o X r- k- k- X > 4 - h in n •4- x 0 vj* n •4- k- X X 0 kMO o o < pH pH X CM X pH pH pH 'H X r- O' X X X X h- 0 PH *■“* -J •* in CL LU -J 4 ^ 0 Cl 3 O Q z a Z PH UJ O h- CL PH O 3 h- 3 z I- O O 0 -J O UJ LU NH LU 3 in O a CL L— cL O *H O 3 O 3 PH O in a: 0 k- 3 L-p CL O X < a. LU -J O -J O O a m 2 : X LU 3 a 3 < LL >■ in LU 0 -j < LL LL U aC O k* UJ UJ < -J h- > O a a. O < < 1—4 > z in in LU LU < in * 0C 0 CL O k- K O o •H h* m in qi > 0 LU h- <1 in OOO a LL O O PH O Q < LU CL -j UJ UJ z 2 : < UJ UJ O O < LL O • 21 0 < in in m -J —1 in 00 O u z LU a < m ll < z a: O CL UJ UJ < < UJ CL < < o •» LU ClC LU k- a: a o in -j * k h UJ O k- CL •k LU O > > k- k- 0 0 b- h» a: oC < LU z >J m LU in < < < k- a. LU LL LU LU p- CL X LL h- * -J LU 5 ^ - j m O' CL *H *H 0 O PH cL O Q UJ UJ LU UJ U CL CL k- X -i k- O X H- 2 : a. z X O Z) < < LU h- a: 0 X j O 0 O l_) —1 -J h- k- a O K h* CL Cl X > PH O < < h- 3 a 3 0 0 LU < 0 UJ CL CL -J UJ O 0 0 h- »-< 0 0 O 2 3 oc QC o x a a a. a. m h o X os to O > LL O LL X cl cl O 21 3 LU < PH 19 INDEX OF POPULATION 1958 POPULAT 10N= 18,018,000 100.1 90.7 92.1 93.2 9A.6 95.9 97.2 98.2 99.1 100 'Or-4 , ina'mOaO'a-rgoo>orginrg*frcocoinoGOOO'r«-cgr'* ocno'irir*>ooofOf , *^o*tincO'OH(nf<)fno'N'tOH^(M^) 'Op-*Hpgir>oh»ooorn»Hfnt^HOH't>} , r\jOQO«t'flCON r*«^i\jvO'^ino'rgOs0^rginrnr'-o>$ , ,^>^o>oininrg>frgc\j »* » » » » » » » •* » » «> * I. * „ ? ’■** CO —t ^ O' O' *? (Nj ^ (NJ <—« t\| f\J _t ftH o«o®ofnocoo*fco^MHOcoooo-i'0(^oir>oinH«# oasro^^ocoso^coN^^hOfvj^H^^^or-NOinvON c7'ocN4GO'Ocopn(7'>t't m>om(\NtNjHir»a'^o>} , (\j-ofNjo “■ *■ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ » •* •* • «* •* •» » „ 'J’fO 'tNH •—* (\J v£ tH O' -H rg >0 CNJ co m or-rr>ina'rgrgr*-r*->*cocoo'coo^r^cgaoinMOO'inor'-m.H H^INICOhCO^fNJinO CD4TnHsOHHfnCOvOCO^^irNO o (7* H H H ^ H ^ ^ *0 CO >*■ eg OOH^^ff«CO^(7»^ , ^0'OhCOooiAQO|^fftOO'ONOlA O0N'-<0'>0^>i'hH^c7' 0 inNHo o HHNv0(^c0v0a'n'f 'TLnfNsor^r-r-coLnx rgr*«ogO'h''\r-i.Hpgr*.inoNfrg*Hcgo' ro r- o co h- O' >t r-i *h so 00 • • 0 • ft ro r- h- >t >t 'o vO o o vO co CO CD • •»•»•»•* in O' ro o go | (VJ H cn r- in in rg nj m O' «o O' in h «t n » » » * vO co m —< O' r+ | eg m >t h co h • • # • • (M m o h co rg O' o co UJ rg rg >t m O * ft ft ft • *-* co m O' n vO H J- WCN CN t—• VO Cr»cJ-O^KNj- OD N Q N ** «* »V «* «V CN N ^ N in I r—i r~i o O' n r- >o '■h coinNoooHOfOH * * » » » » » » * 43 vf ro r- o ro —« m co m —« >-h >0 rg oo m csi|lti n m m nj rg rg m*-« xn h s \ >o oj cm|cni|^ cn|cn| cn| cn| «■ •> •. •> .cm| * *'-> «. ^ ^ oo LTV CN|J- (N 1^ f\j rri m -* cn|oo *■ in in co in «-h 't m >}■ c\j rg jONOinooooir^^ooinocoooHHOiflNsOos O'coocor-r*-r , »co>fr^mr»>t>*>oo>*coin'tr'-comor^rgo ^ r-< ^ rg h -j —i m v 0 r*~ O' o co co ro r*- o O' in in ro M h o m rg in h- rr 00 h- • • t • • 1 rg co < ^ o rg O' m r- •» r- m m so O' in >o '-A m m O' r» o O' m CC * •* •* •* * <—i < rg h- rg v 0 in w -J H | *M H -J rg o rg o oo o oo o r-» o -H O' Q .... h- rg r- cn cn o r-n 2 at m J- rH J- in O co oo n o in m •'•*•*•* h -J cn cn i— in -J •—• l •—i •—» —< vf rg O' £ id j o o ai n O' rg 1 •H , — 1 r^. m j* rn 1 -J- o o >0 hj- moiD m 1 •* •* N ** s h ao cn in m 1 «—1 1 r—i *—i rH o m 1 oo J- OO -3- 00 -* C0 m <-h 43 i co cr» ih vo cn n cn n in 1 m j- m 4- o m •* •* ^ •* s 1 cn uo cn uo in 1—4 I «—I r—t oo rg o cnj O' h- h- rg o 1 • • # • • rg m m co rg *o m 0 s •• •> i o iT'm co m m in i »•*•*•*•* OO^MO 1 hh | rgrg *- H ► \ < »-M| 0 £ ^h| to •—ll a. \ ^ O UJ •— 1 1 >• H to o K *-h| •• UJ DiLUh < uj 2 -J to UJ to < UJ 111 o a: ^ h I J h X >- « o < < h- 3 O i cc CC U co o O Q. 0 . o > m| *-i ^ co tn| co < 3: co -j < ^ < -1 H h^| > UJ < gO C£ > Q LDh < UJ z 2 : < UJ CD Q < UJ CC ^ z \ > Z\ o CO LL < 2 k\| oi j-l k uj a t- a: • •-•Q. xim^jiu^joo D<<ast year and a half opinions have been expressed that the world food outlook las changed radically. Evidence cited to support this view includes falling 'rain prices, increased grain stocks, and the rapid spread of the new grains. XI Deputy Director, Foreign Regional Analysis Division, Economic Research Service. 7 Dramatic increases in production have occurred in India, Pakistan, and the Philippines. In these and several other of the less developed countries of Asia, new varieties of rice and wheat have become significant in a very short time. For several reasons, it is not possible to estimate accurately either the actual impact of the new grains thus far or their potential. In most less developed countries, statistics on acreage, production, and yields of crops, including grain, are not reliable. The term “new varieties” is used to in¬ clude varying groups of grains. The new grain varieties have not yet been widely tested in most countries, and little information on farm experience is available. In many of the less developed countries, the weather causes wide year-to-year variations in yield. These variations complicate the analytical problem of isolating the effects of the new varieties. Exceptionally high grain prices in recent years have also been influential in the generally enthusiastic reception given the new varieties. HOW THE NEW VARIETIES WERE DEVELOPED The new grain varieties which have received the most publicity in the last few years, and which are already making a substantial contribution to increased production in Asia, are the so-called “Mexican” wheats, and rice varieties developed and disseminated by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), especially those designated as IR-5 and IR-8. These grains were developed in a remarkably short time. However, the breeders of the new varieties had much firmly established earlier work on which to draw. The Mexican Wheat Varieties In the early 1940’s, a program was initiated in Mexico which concentrated first on improving varieties and increasing production of corn and wheat and was later expanded to cover other commodities. Rust was a major factor limit ng the yields of wheat in Mexico, and early breeding efforts were directed to developing resistant varieties (4, p. 3, 24, P- 239). 2 / Later the breeders concentrated on producing wheat with short, stiff straw and a high response to fertilizer (26 , p. 239). Norin 10, a variety of wheat with short, stiff straw, which was first registered in 1935, was developed by the Japanese by crossing two U.S. varieties with several Japanese varieties. S. C. Salmon, who worked with the Japanese after World War II, brought Norin 10 to the United States where it was s tributed to wheat breeders in 1947-48. Orville A. Vogel, a USDA scientist working in the State of Washington, used Norin 10 in developing Gaines wheat, a variety which has set world yield records in the northwest region of the United States. In 1953, Norman E. Bourlaug, a Rockefeller scientist working in Mexico, obtained some wheat varieties with short straw from Vogel. Norm 10 made a major contribution of germ plasm to the new Mexican wheats (26, pp. 236 23a;. 2I Underscored numbers in parentheses refer to items in the Bibliography, page 24. 8 fhe IRRI Rice Varieties The new varieties of rice are Indicas. The Indicas have long been pre¬ dominant in tropical Asia, although their yields have been much lower than the Japonicas of Japan and Taiwan. Despite their higher yields, several charac- :eristics of the Japonicas have prevented their spread into the tropical areas, fhey are more prone to disease than the native Indicas; they do not thresh well jsing the methods commonly employed in the Asian tropics; consumers generally do not care for their taste; and they lack a period of seed dormancy. The Latter is especially important to prevent germination in areas where the harvest :akes place during a rainy period (4., p. 17). The International Rice Research Institute, which is supported by the Ford ind Rockefeller Foundations, was dedicated in 1962 at Los Banos in the ’hilippines. During 1962, IRRI rice breeders made a number of crosses involving •all, tropical Indica varieties, the Ponlai Japonica variety from Taiwan, and several semidwarf Indica varieties from Taiwan. By 1965, IR-8 had been devel- >ped and given its first yield trial. IR-8 was obtained by crossing Peta, a ;all rice from Indonesia, with Dee-geo-woo-gen, a short rice from China (8., »p. 252-253). SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEW VARIETIES Because of the genetic characteristics which have been bred into the new arieties of rice and wheat, these grains produce much higher yields than raditional varieties when conditions are favorable. The short, stiff stems are mportant in achieving increased productivity under heavy fertilization, because he plants do not lodge, or fall over, when heavy applications of fertilizer roduce a heavy seed head. Grain which lias lodged does not develop properly and s harder to harvest; photosynthesis is interfered with, yields are reduced, and rowth of molds is stimulated. Generally, height is reduced when the growing eriod is shortened (_A, p. 16). The new varieties accomplish far more photo- ynthesis then traditional varieties during the period when the grain is pro¬ ceed . Also, the ratio of grain to straw is greatly increased in comparison ith older varieties. In developing IR-8, thus far the most important of the new rice varieties, reeders reduced the height to 100 centimeters, compared with a height of per- aps 180 centimeters for traditional varieties. The short, upright leaves of R~8 permit water to run off quickly and allow sunlight to penetrate to the ower leaves. The straw of the plant is not only reduced in length, but it is Iso exceptionally stiff because the breeders selected plants which had thick terns wrapped with leaf sheaves (_8, pp. 254-255). Under some circumstances, he short, stiff stems of the new varieties may be a disadvantage. In East akistan, for example, plantings are made on land which is subject to uncon- rolled flooding; the native varieties are better able to withstand such con- itions. The Mexican wheats and IR-8 have proved to be productive in areas with wide ariations in the length of day. This adaptability has been important in their apid spread to different latitudes (2ii> p. 239). The breeders have also in- orporated into the new rice varieties the ability to produce many stems on a ingle plant, which lowers seed requirements (JL, p. 252) . 9 The new varieties of rice ripen in 120-125 days, rather than the 180 days required by most traditional varieties (30, p. 2). The shorter growing season increases the possibilities of producing more crops per year on the same land. However, a shorter growing period also sometimes brings the grains to maturity during the wet season. Thus, the customary method of spreading rice on the ground to dry may be inadequate and artificial drying may be required (6_, p. 693). The new rice varieties have some characteristics which make them relatively undesirable for processors and consumers. They do not mill as satisfactorily as older varieties, and consumers generally rate them lower on palatability. Although these disadvantages probably can be bred out, both the new rice an wheat varieties have often sold considerably below the prices of traditional grains (10_, p. 44). AREA PLANTED TO THE NEW VARIETIES In some areas, the new grain varieties have spread with extraordinary rapidity. This rapid dissemination has been built on a well-established institutional base (as in India’s Intensive Agricultural Districts Program) vigorous government action (as in Turkey), or both. Although the existence an institutional base seems to have been important, many ad hoc arrangements have been employed. In some cases, institutions were used to perform jobs other than their traditional ones (27, P . 28). The availability of a “package” of inputs at subsidized prices has greatly stimulated farmer accept ance o/the programs. The rapid spread has clearly demonstrated that farmers in less developed countries will quickly and enthusiastically adopt new methods if the inputs are available and the benefits are substantial. AID s role the programs has been substantial, but has varied according to circumstances in the individual countries. The improved wheat varieties spread rapidly on the irrigated acreage of the wheat farmers of Mexico from 1949 to 1956. At present, the improved seed used on nearly all of Mexico’s wheat area, of which nearly per irrigated and more than two-thirds is fertilized (11, P* 14 '* The Mexican wheats were introduced into Pakistan and India in small quantities during 1963/64 and tests were conducted. In 1966, India «ej purchase of seed from Mexico for planting in the fall of that year. In 196 , Pakistan made an even larger purchase (7, p. 90). Despite their rapid spread, the new varieties were not planted on a large enough share of the grain acreage in Asia in 1967/68 to haveIf ^“^ 0 ^ 0 - on production in the less developed countries as a whole. ™ ey ,flocated in duction in certain regions and in certain countries h<«ever.^ indicated , , 1o lp „ q than 3 percent of the rice area in South and Southeast Asia was planted * to new varieties in 1967/68. Wheat occupies a far smaller per- P acreage than does rice in the less developed Asian countries, but about 11 per cent of the wheat area in West and South Asia was planted to new^arieties,. 1967/68. The country-to-country variation in the ra e o ^ „ insig- The share of the total wheat area seeded to new varieties in 1967/68 was insig nifleant in Turkey and Afghanistan but amounted to about 12 percent and nearly 20 percent in India. 10 Table 1.--Estimated area planted to new varieties of rice and wheat in West, South, and Southeast Asia, 1966/67-1968/69 1/ Country Rice Wheat or region 1966/67 ! 1967/68 : • • 1968/69 IJ J 1966/67 ! 1967/68 ! 1968/69 2j • • hectares - Turkey _2/0.17 (8.1) 0.60 Iran (4.2) Afghanistan .02 (2.3) Nepal 0.01 .02 ( .1) West Pakistan _3/ (1.4) 0.28 .11 .73 (6.0) 1.21 East Pakistan 0.06 (9.9) .08 ZJ -01 ( .1) .02 India 0.87 1.78 (36.7) 3.77 .52 2.94 (14.9) 4/4.05 Burma (5.2) .22 Thailand (6.1) South Vietnam (2.3) .04 Philippines .07 .24 (3.0) .43 Indonesia (7.4) .38 Total .94 2.08 (72.0) 5.22 .64 3.89 (35.7) 5.88 Other countries (5.3) ( .6) . . Total rice area. South and Southeast Asia (77.3) Total wheat area, West and South Asia (36.3) J J Adapted from Dalrymple, Dana G., Imports and Plantings of High-Yielding Variet ies of Wheat and Rice in the Less Developed Nations (unpublished), U.S. Dept. Agr., IADS, Dec. 17, 1968. £/ Target or projection. 3/ Figures in parentheses are total area. J±l Given as 2.63 in India Program Memorandum, FY 1970, US/AID Mission, New Delhi, Sept. 1968, p. D-55. 11 In the 1968/69 crop season, about 5 million hectares were planted to the new rice varieties in South and Southeast Asia, or nearly 7 percent of the total riceland in the region. The new wheat varieties were scheduled for planting on 6 million hectares, or about 16 percent of the total wheat area in West and South Asia. YIELDS AND PRODUCTION INCREASES Yields Reliable estimates of the impact of the new varieties on grain availability in Asia would require the comparison of yields of new and traditional varieties by region, while accounting for the influence of such factors as weather, acreage changes, fertilizer, prices, and availability of credit, irrigation, and extension services. The new varieties are generally produced under the best possible conditions. Therefore, it would be misleading to compare their yields with yields of traditional varieties grown under a variety of conditions and then assign all the differences to the genetic characteristics. Following are some aspects of the problem of evaluating yields of the new grains: (1) The new varieties were first planted on substantial acreages in Asia in 1967/68, a year of generally good weather in the region. In India and Pakistan, the large increases in area planted to new varieties in that year coincided with excellent weather, following 2 years of drought. It has been estimated that good weather contributed more than did the new varieties to India’s increase in grain production in 1967/68 (33, p. D-20). During the 1967/68 wheat growing season in West Pakistan, average monthly rainfall was lib percent above that of the previous two seasons (1A) • Turkey also experienced good weather in 1967/68 and correspondingly high yields. (2) In 1967/68, the total acreages planted to both new and traditional varieties increased as follows: wheat in India, 10 percent; wheat in Pakistan, almost 10 percent (irrigated wheat acreage expanded 20 percent) (1A) ; and rice in Pakistan, almost 10 percent. Rice acreage remained unchanged in India and, perhaps, in the Philippines. 3/ Turkey’s wheat area did not change. (3) There have been frequent references to planting the best land to new varieties. In Turkey, Mexican wheats were distributed in ‘‘areas of low altitude and high rainfall” Q5, P- 5). In the Philippines, IR-8 was planted on the ‘‘most productive rice growing area” (28., p. 4). All of the new w eat var e e. in Pakistan were planted on irrigated land. This apparently was also the case in India where the Mexican wheats are reported to have been cultivated by better than-average farmers. (4) Fertilizer consumption increased 50 percent in India and 30 percent in Pakistan in 1967/68. It is reasonable to assume that much of that increment was used on new varieties, but detailed information is not available. 2/ Estimates of 1967/68 Philippine rice acreage vary by 10 percent. 12 With adequate water, controlled irrigation, and other improved practices, the increased response of the new varieties to fertilizer can be substantial. The actual yield advantage will depend upon the level of fertilization, which, in turn, will depend upon the farmers’ incentives to use fertilizer. The latter will be a function of the price of fertilizer and the price of grain. The yield advantages of the new varieties are generally greater at high levels of fertilizer use; when no fertilizer is used, they seem to have little if any advantage over traditional varieties. Thus, the yield advantages of the new varieties will be relevant only when the economic situation provides an in¬ centive to use fertilizer. For example, one analysis has concluded that with the traditional wheat varieties used in India in 1963, fertilizer (with an “optimum*’ application of 58 kilograms per hectare) holds a promise of only a 50-percent yield increase. But Sonora Wheat 63 can use more fertilizer effectively and (with the application of 116 kilograms per hectare) will give a doubling of yields. Thus, it may be said that Sonora 63 has a 30-35 percent yield advantage over the traditional 1963 varieties (200 percent divided by 150 percent); however, Sonora required twice the dosage of fertilizer applied to the traditional varieties to achieve this yield (32, p. 695) . Although there have been a few farm management studies of costs and returns, there is in¬ sufficient basis to generalize to aggregate supply functions which would predict the overall response of output to price changes (J_0_, p. 45). Yield experiences with the new grains have varied greatly, according to farmers’ reports (J_8, p. 7). Numerous experiments and one farmer survey suggest that the new rice and wheat varieties have a yield advantage of 30-100 percent, vhen planted with adequate irrigation and a high level of fertilization and compared with traditional varieties grown under similar conditions. Data from these field trials are shown in table 2. The last item in each comparison is the traditional variety. Production Increases In 1968/69, the new rice varieties occupied about 7 percent (5.22 ^ 77.3) of the total rice area in South and Southeast Asia (table 1). As shown in table 2, the yield advantage of the new varieties seems to fall within the wide range of 30-100 percent. However, this advantage is in relation to rice raised ander some of the best conditions--better irrigation and farmer skills--of the region. Average rice yields in the region before the introduction of the new /arieties were about 1.6 metric tons per hectare. Table 2 suggests that under some of the better conditions yields may have been double the average. Thus, 7 percent of the area may have already been producing 14 percent of the rice. \ doubling of yields (100-percent yield advantage) by use of new varieties would idd another 14 percent to the output. On the other hand, a 30-percent yield advantage would add only 4.2 percent (30 percent times 14 percent). An average af this range would be about 9 percent, a rough estimate of the contribution of the new varieties to rice production, under normal weather conditions, on the area planted to these varieties in 1968/69. This is not an estimate of a growth rate. Wheat is not nearly as important as rice in the less developed Asian coun¬ tries, but as shown in table 1, about 16 percent (5.88 £ 36.3) of the area was scheduled to be planted to new varieties of wheat in 1968/69. Wheat yields in the region averaged about 1 metric ton per hectare before the introduction of 13 Table 2.--Yield advantages of new varieties of rice and wheat, compared with traditional varieties, Asia, selected years Variety Yield per hectare : Rice: Metric tons Dwarf Indica A. 1 Local Indica 3.2 IR-8 5.1 IR-5 A.9 Peta 2.7 IR-8 6.2 Peta A.2 IR-8 6.8 IR-5 7.1 Peta A .0 IR-8 n.a. Peta n.a. Wheat: Sonora 63 n.a. Local n.a. Mexican A.7 Indian 2.A Lerma Rojo Wheat 6A A 3.7-5.0 Local 1.9-2.5 Semi-dwarf 2.8 Local 1 .6 ‘ ‘New” 1.8 Local 1.0 Remarks Both at 100 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare uniform variety trials, kharif, 1966, India (JJL, p. 8). All at optimum marginal benefit-cost fertilizer application, experimental, wet season 1966 and 1967, IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines (5, p. A) . Same conditions as above, Maligaya, Philippines (.5, p. A) . Same conditions as above except dry season, Maligaya, Philippines (^, p. A). IR-8 showed 30 percent yield advantage over Peta (5., p. 11). Sonora 63 has a 30-35 percent yield advantage over local varieties, both at optimum levels of fertilization, based on experimental results in India (32., p. 695) . The 1966/67 crop in Ludhiana District, Punjab State, India. Mexican wheat was planted on only 11 percent of the wheat area in the district, probably by the best farmers on the best land (JJL» p. 9) . Tests and demonstrations, 1966/67- 1967/68, India Q, p. 121). Both varieties grown on same farm, India (18). Both irrigated, West Pakistan (_L§) • n. a. - not available the new varieties. Again, table 2 suggests that yields under better conditions may have been twice that amount. Using the procedure followed above for rice, it can be roughly estimated that the new varieties would add from about 9.6 to 32 percent to normal wheat production in the region in 1968/69. The average of this range is about 20 percent. This paper includes no forecast of future increases in production from the new varieties. Unless irrigation systems are extended, plantings will tend to be limited to the areas now adequately irrigated. Expansion on poorer land will tend to lower yields, but experience and adaptive research should help to overcome this problem. Farmer prices for grains, for competing products, and for inputs will affect both acreage and yields, but there is little information available on these factors for making estimates. MULTIPLE CROPPING The above estimates do not include the contribution from multiple cropping. An important characteristic of the new varieties is their shorter growing period and consequent potential for multiple cropping. However, even with good irriga¬ tion systems, multiple cropping requires a high level of managerial skill to coordinate a series of complex activities; hence, it is unlikely that it will spread quickly to areas where it is not already practiced. 4/ Multiple cropping may also create new problems. For example, in Thailand, in an area where year- round cropping has expanded, ‘‘the presence of lush young plants throughout the year has not permitted the normal insect depletion common when the land was barren six months annually.” This contributed to the spread of insect-borne disease (_U) • According to a recent survey, the potential land for double cropping of rice under existing irrigation is less than 10 percent of the total rice area in South and Southeast Asia, where the present double-cropped area amounts to 5 percent of the land in rice (3, p. 65). As irrigation systems are improved and extended and farmers gain experience, the area that is double cropped should be expanded. In India, about 13 percent (18.6 million hectares) of the net area sown to all crops (138 million hectares) was double cropped in 1967/68. However, the bulk of the double-cropped area (12.5 million hectares) is unirrigated and thus unsuitable for high-yielding grain varieties. By 1969/70, it is expected that the irrigated double-cropped area will increase by only about 2 million hectares --less than 2 percent of the new sown area (33. p. D-5, D-23). .4/ Malaysia, a small producer of rice, seems to be an exception. Less than 5 years ago, an insignificant area was double cropped in Malaysia. In the 1968/69 season, 85,000 hectares were planted with a second crop of rice, corn- oared with 40,000 hectares 2 years before. The area single cropped to rice amounts to about 325,000 hectares. Thus, more than 20 percent of the rice area Ls now double cropped (12). 15 LIMITATIONS TO SPREAD IN INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES Irrigation A shortage of good Irrigation systems appears to be the most important in¬ put limitation to the spread of the new varieties. Unless «ater can be care¬ fully controlled, the advantage of the new varieties decreases rapidly. Many^ of the irrigation systems in South and Southeast Asia are no realization of the potential of the new varieties. In many existing systems the water flows by gravity from one field to the next, and ferti zer an P protection chemicals are carried off in the water Also it issometimesnot possible to let the upper fields dry out in time for the harvest of the new varieties and thus the problem of wet grain at harvest is accentuated. In much of Southeast Asia, the broad valleys will require large dams and long irrigation canals if additional irrigation systems are to be b “^t U&. p 339). Such systems cannot be built by local enterprise alone. Government action may be required to supply the initative, capital, and expertise, and new forms of cooperative organizations may be necessary to coordinate the use of water. In India and Pakistan, irrigation by pumps has grown rapidly. Pakistan nearly 32,000 tube wells were installed by private enterp veais Q’ p 617) in many areas of Asia, there probably are large underground water recces which could be developed effectively. However surveys and careful attention to water management will be necessary Q, p. As shown in table 3, only about 8 percent of India's grain area was planned to be under high-yielding varieties In 1968/69; therefore, it would seem that is ample^room for expansion. However, the 9.1 million fS'igatedTaA for high-yielding varieties represents 27 percent of the total area and a much higher, although undetermined, percentage of the land «ith reliable water control during the dry season. The data shown in ta PP^ the view that inadequacy of irrigation is limiting t e sprea varieties in India; the last column shows an almost equal increment in the fanned acreage under high-yielding varieties and the planned increases in irrigated grain acreage. The irrigated area projected for traditional varieties remains ve^y large and virtually stable. This suggests that “ntrol this area is not sufficiently reliable to risk the high costs of the fertilizer and insecticides required by the new varieties. No shortage °* ° avalla . varieties or of fertilizer is expected. In fact, some of the fertilizer availa ble for 1969/70 will probably be used on traditional varieties. West Pakistan has a good environment for the new wheat varieties adequat irrigation, low rainfall, abundant sunshine, and few insects Q, P- W. Long standing problems of poor drainage and salinity are now being “tacked. Abo M percent of West Pakistan's Wheatland was planted to new varieties in the fall of 1968. 16 Table 3.--Grain production and inputs in India, 1967/68, and projections to 1968/69-1969/70 Item Unit 1967/68 Projected 1968/69 Projected 1969/70 Change 1967/68- 1969/70 Grain production.. Million tons n 100 98 103 2/ +10 rotal grain area.. Million ha. 1/ 121 119 119 2/ + 1 Irrigated grain arPc* ****•••••••• do. 31.0 33.3 •} c. o l /, Q Ugh-yielding J J ♦ o i 4.0 varieties of grain on irrigated land do. 6.5 3/9.1 3/ 10.9 + 4.4 rraditional va- rieties of grain on irrigated land do. 24.5 24.2 24.9 + 0.4 ? ertilizer applied Million nutri- to grain 4/ • -Z ent tons ♦ -Z 1.18 2/ 1-53 5/ 1.90 + .72 V “Normal weather’’ estimate is 93.1 million tons and 118 million lectares. 2 / Relative to “normal weather’’ estimate. _3/ Plan of the Indian Government. _4/ Fertilizer applied to both high-yielding and traditional grain rarieties. 5J Requirements. lource: (33, pp. D-4, D-16, D-17, D-20, D-22, D-24, D-26, D-55, E-1.) U, P* 19). In addition, insect and disease problems complicate the growing of ew varieties in East Pakistan. West Pakistan, which has better growing con- itions, produces basmati rice, an extra-long-grain variety. A significant hare of this rice is exported at premium prices, and the government has in- reased the minimum purchase price to deter basmati producers from shifting to ther varieties (25, p. 5). However, exports of basmati rice have declined apidly in recent years. The main obstacles to a rapid increase in the production of high-yielding ice in the Philippines appear to be the lack of good irrigation, a shortage of ice-drying facilities, and problems of consumer acceptability. The new arieties mature early during the latter part of the wet season. In 1967/68, ecause of a shortage of drying facilities, many farmers had to sell the new ype rice wet in the fields at a 20-percent discount (4, p. 31). 17 Lack of water control and the inferior quality of the new rice varieties relative to export grades are deterrents to their spread in Thailand and Burma. A shortage of fertilizer at the farm level is a handicap in Burma and Indonesia (4, p. 31) . Tn Turkey Mexican wheats seem to be adapted to the warmer coastal areas. The Turkish prigram for the expansion of acreage in these wheats developed very rapidly with^little preparation (2, p. 19). In 1968/69, Mexican wheats were planted on about 7 percent of the total wheatland. It is likely that within a few years the Mexican seed will be grown on much of the southern and western coasCHheatlands! or on about 15 percent of Turkey’s total wheat acreage. New dryland wheat varieties may hold promise £ ° r * nCrea ^J^^ease Varieties are available which, under the proper conditions greatly increase production without the necessity of irrigation, however, e££1 ^" C ^ The wheat farming is complicated and requires mechanization for ri- stubble-mulch system, which has been developed in the U.S. Great Plains,, nuires heavy equipment for subsurface plowing and deep planting. "uch methods" in areas of peasant farming will require the development of institu- tions to obtain and coordinate the use of heavy equipment. Risks of Diseases and Pests The new varieties of wheat and rice are exotic to ™° st ° f w./dfseases whPre they are being introduced and may become susceptible to local diseases Inf insert ‘in some countries, little adaptive research and tes ing was rinnp before the new varieties were introduced. It is possible that mi organisms that were previously unimportant will bec^e major causes of disease as field micro-climates are altered by heavy fertilization and the denser plant population of the new varieties. In the past, the use of locally produoad^seed of many strains provided some protection against the spread ’ some of t£eVarious strains were resistant. The rapid introduction of a single variety on large contiguous areas increases the danger of epidemics (1_> P* insects and disease (1, rice, pp. 26-31; wheat, p. 26). Prices and Incentives The new varieties of rice sell at substantially lower prices than the traditional ones, since consumers generally do not rate tfiem wery hislil-y Cia. p . 43). The new rice generally is also considered inferior “ 'f ^“mo^e (9 DD 7 36). These characteristics, however, may be bred out in a tew mor <4 P 31). As indicated earlier, wet grain may often be a problem with tte new”rice varieties, but this disadvantage can presumably be overcome i investment in driers. Facilities for storage, processing, and transportati will be taxed as output increases. However, the private tra e pro a 0 J 0 f arain considerable capacity for expansion to handle the increase pro u (20, pp. vi, 22, 23). 18 The new varieties are exceptionally productive only when combined with fertilizer and pesticides, which the farmers must purchase. Thus, farmers jsing these inputs will of necessity be integrated into the markets; when prices for grain decline, they will tend to buy less fertilizer and pesticides. Of course, the prices of inputs are important, and recently the cost of fertilizer las declined. In the poorer countries, the demand for food grains generally is flore elastic than it is in the richer countries, and thus substantial increases Ln production may be absorbed with relatively small price declines, if the )roblems of distribution are solved (20, p. 37). However, as the immediate food :risis abates, pressure for government investment in marketing facilities as /ell as in new irrigation may lessen. In some cases, the margin of price over cost seems to be so large that :onsiderable price declines could be absorbed without forcing farmers out of >roduction and perhaps without even requiring much cutback in fertilization. ,ower wheat prices in India do not seem to have slowed the spread of the new r arieties (20, p. 54). However, these effects will depend on the alternatives ivailable to farmers. Some will undoubtedly shift from grain to the production ,f other products if grain prices decline. In the Philippines, after the price >f IR-8 fell, some farmers shifted to Malagkit, a high-priced rice used for :akes and pastries. There is a rapidly growing demand for fruits, vegetables, and livestock roducts in the poorer countries. A recent study of the outlook for farm ommodities in India projects that demand for milk and milk products will grow aster than supply during the next decade ( 2j , tables 37-39). It is likely that ome farmers located close to rapidly growing cities will shift to the produc- ion of fresh fruits and vegetables as grain prices decline. If grain prices ecline sufficiently, more low quality rice and wheat probably will be fed to ivestock. Such changes would be facilitated by research and investment to make nputs more productive in raising fruits and vegetables and in feeding livestock 20, p. 39). THE BENEFICIARIES—THE PEOPLE LEFT BEHIND echnological Innovations The development of more productive varieties of grain is a technological hange which lowers the unit costs of production and increases supplies available o consumers. In economic terminology, the new varieties cause a shift in the uppiy function; that is, at each price a greater amount of grain can be profitably roduced and offered for sale than formerly. Technological innovations are mong the main factors in economic development, and are important reasons why althus predictions about population have not, and probably never will, come rue. On the other hand, technological developments are not magic, and while olving some problems or providing opportunities to solve them, they often create ther major economic, social, and political problems of adjustment (31 , pp. 7-87; J4, p. 475). 19 Technological developments affect both outputs and inputs. The effects on outputs are usually desirable; the production of increased amounts of socially desirable goods and the reduction in costs give rise to the possibilities of increased welfare and a lower cost of living. To a large extent the benefits of technological development in agriculture are soon widely distributed among consumers, at least among those consumers who have the purchasing power and t e opportunity to take advantage of lower market prices. Lower costs of living may be reflected in lower labor costs and thus have pervasive effects on overall economic development (19, pp. 95, 96). The increased production also may sub¬ stitute for costly imports. However, in evaluating the effects of the new grain varieties in the poorer countries, even these conclusions must be qualified. A judgment must be made whether the increased output can be expected to result in increased total supplies to consumers or whether it may to a considerable extent displace grain obtained cheaply under concessional arrangements In some countries grain prices have been high and subsidies substantial, a conditi which may have stimulated some high-cost, uneconomic production (20, PP• *>» 56) . The People Left Behind Not all the effects of technological changes on inputs may be desirable, The owners of some inputs will find that the demand for their services is lessened, at least in their present uses. The development of the new grain varieties implies a shift in the com- parative advantage among areas producing grain. The Irrigated areas most suita¬ ble for these nev varieties gain an advantage relative to other * rain ‘P™?“^ * areas, and the owners of suitable resources will be benefited. To a considera ble extent, unless taxed away, the benefits of these developments will go to owners of Irrigated land. Those farmers who are early users of th ® ” e “ will tend to benefit from Increased production and extra income until competi of the new opportunities may do very well. Those farmers who are not in such an advantageous position will find that the increased competition reduces their market opportunities and thus causes them additional difficulties. Opportunities for some of these £ found by research directed at increasing the productivity of labor in drying and in growing fruits and vegetables (20, p. vi). Policies to improve operation of the labor market and increase the demand for agricultural Sr high priority. It is almost universally true in the less developed countries that the nonfarm sector is not growing rapidly enough to absorb a large influx of displaced farm labor. In most of these countries the labor force in agriculture will continue to increase for some decades. Thus, a stratep for agricultural development which will promote labor-absorbing act j'[“ 1 * a will be important. It has been suggested that the labor-using, capital-saving approach to agricultural development followed in Japan andJ 3 *™"«r revolution-' a model which should be studied in relation to the “seed-fertilizer revolution (V7> p. 2). 20 The tendency for certain groups to be especially benefited may be accen¬ tuated in the adoption of new varieties in some countries because resources are concentrated in subsidized “packages” under government programs. There has been a tendency to make the packages available to those regions or farmers where the production response is likely to be greatest. Because of the complementarity between the various inputs required (seeds, chemicals, equipment, credit, infor¬ mation, storage, and processing), the “package” approach has been helpful in the rapid spread of the new varieties. However, these programs have been so profitable for the adopting farmers that some of the subsidies used may have been unnecessary. Even in cases where subsidies helped to obtain rapid initial adoption, they will be less necessary as farmers become aware of the potential of the new seed combined with fertilizer. Pakistan, for example, has reduced its fertilizer subsidy (^0, p. 56). In some areas, the success with the new grain varieties has already stim¬ ulated considerable investment in machinery, but a lack of machinery, especially drills, threshers, and land leveling equipment has held down yields (1_8, pp. 13, 14 ) . Many of the developed countries now have serious social and economic prob¬ lems arising from the displacement of farm people by technological developments. However, the developed countries have had rapid growth in their nonfarm sectors to absorb most of such people and have been able to afford high welfare costs for some of the others. The developed countries have also had relatively good labor markets and high levels of education which tend to make labor transferable. The implications of the above arguments are not that technological develop- nent is undesirable. Technological changes are inevitable and essential for economic development. However, a few, very limited technological changes cannot 3e expected by themselves to give a great impetus to economic development. On the other hand, a particular technological change may generate considerable social dislocation and even discord ( 22 , p. 12). The poorer countries do not lave all the options open to the developed countries in solving the problems :aused by the uneven impact of technological changes. To ignore the existence 5f these problems might be disastrous. Therefore, it is imperative that close study be given to all alternatives. Research to evaluate these problems and ievelop policies to solve them should have a high priority. THE OUTLOOK FOR WORLD SUPPLY AND DEMAND )emand—Self-Sufficiency Several recent studies suggest that production of food grains in some coun¬ tries considered in this report may increase at a rate of 4 to 6 percent a year PP* ^9, 27-28; L5, p. 13). On the other hand, it is unlikely that effective iconomic demand for grain in any of these countries will increase faster than i percent a year (less than 3 percent for population growth and perhaps 1 per¬ cent from rising per capita income), unless the livestock industry can be leveloped fast enough to use substantial amounts for feed. Countries now importing grain may use increased domestic production to replace imports. As i precentage of total consumption, imports of grain in most less developed .ountries are relatively small. Thus, the growth of production at a faster rate 21 than demand could soon eliminate the need for imports. It seems possible that the less developed countries of Asia can generally become self-sufficient in grain before many years, although imports may continue to "TfMMent tn food coastal cities. Turkey and the Philippines are nearly grains. Both Pakistan and India plan to be self-sufficient within a few years. Self-sufficiency is not necessarily a wise economic goal, however. To the extent that imports of grain are paid for with scarce foreign exchange the concern for self-sufficiency is understandable. Of course, most of the imports of grain by these countries have been made as food aid with large price dis counts Still, there may be a desire to be free from the uncertainty and re strictions of large imports of food aid. The tightening °f^e conditions under which U.S. food aid is given undoubtedly reinforces this desi . As indicated earlier, the demand for grains in the poorer countries probably Is elastic enough so that prices need not feline greatly substantial increases in consumption. It has been suggested c , ^ the interrelations between agricultural output income, and demand • ’ a early stages of development. Increasing agricultural production will not have a “rong effect upon prices” (19, p. 76). However, this conclusion my not be correct in the case of large increases of production in concentrated areas and in poorly organized markets; a description which fits many °f^he situations wherein the increases of the new varieties have occurred.. °“ p “ciliUes re. of grain in West Pakistan, limited transportation and handling facilities re stricted that country’s ability to supply East Pakistan in the spring ' In any case, after reaching self-sufficiency, if supplies of grain grow ^ster than domestic demand, prices will be depressed to some degree, unless tne inte national market can absorb additional increases. Shortrun Outlook for Grain Exports of the Less Developed Countries Current world supplies of grain are large relative to demand. In the short- run, this relationship probably will continue, barring “bespread drought or radical changes in policy. In many countries, producer prices are well export prices- the developed countries in this category are moving grain in 3d tmde with the aid of subsidies. It is unlikely that the less deve oped cou3es of Asia will be able to afford to enter into large-scale competition in this market. At present, Thailand stands almost alone among less developed Asian coun- High producer prices have been incentives o V producer ;:fr3tirei; 1 !;rgrarsriri3;:3s p - export prices in many Asian countries is wide, and large outlays might be required. Here, the experience in Mexico may be relev * x 1963 /64 when tion of the wheat varieties now being introduced in A * pr i c es’were at a Mexico became a substantial net exporter of wheat, world wheat p 22 peak because of the short crop in the USSR. The f.o.b. export price of Mexican vheat was only about 5 percent below the Mexican producer price. In subsequent years, however, the gap widened substantially as export prices fell and Mexico *as burdened with a large export subsidy. Since 1966, the Mexican Government las altered its price policy to favor a shift in acreage from surplus wheat to those crops in short supply (such as sorghum and oilseeds). However, the 1966 reduction in wheat support was not sufficient to bring domestic prices down to export price levels. [he Longer Run Outlook for International Grain Markets The high prices which held in the international rice market in 1967-68 may /ell be things of the past, and it seems likely that actual surpluses of wheat, >r the capacity to produce surplus wheat, will be bearing down on prices for tome time to come. In world markets, prices of food grains have tended to be ligher than those for feed grains, partly because of government programs ;pecifically designed to benefit food grains. Increased supplies of food grains :oming from the new developments will increase the pressure on prices of food ;rains relative to feed grains. Even for rice and feed grains, the surplus problem, although less acute han for wheat, may also grow. Thus, market pressures will tend to depress the irices of grains (especially wheat) from recent levels unless offset by govern- lent actions. The actual balancing of supply and demand may be made by various ombinations of government programs and market forces. A major difficulty in forecasting future world grain markets is that the olicies of governments affect the world grain economy in many and complex ways hrough price support programs, subsidies, taxes, trade agreements, and food aid. uch government policies have a profound effect on production, utilization, and rade in grains. Although theoretically the effects of changing policies may be nalyzed by economic models, the changes in policies themselves cannot be pre- icted by economic analysis. The economist must rely on “assumptions,” which ften are of doubtful validity. Since the United States is the world’s leading roducer and exporter of grain and the largest donor of food aid and other ssistance, its policy decisions are of primary importance in determining how orld grain trade will actually develop. During the next decade, assuming general political stability, standards of iving and consumption of grain probably will rise throughout the world. In the ess developed countries, the per capita growth of consumption in general, and f grains in particular, will be slow. But there is little evidence to support he view that in this period, discounting possible natural disasters, the world ood situation will tend to worsen. On the other hand, there will still be any undernourished people in the world, people who are too poor to pay for dequate nutrition. 23 BIBLIOGRAPHY (D Agency for International Development 1969. New Cereal Varieties, Rice and Wheat in India the New Cereal Varieties, March. Spring Review of ( 2 ) 1969. The Role of Research. Spring Review of the New Cereal Varieties May. (3) Asian Development Bank 1968. Asian Agricultural Survey. March. Vol. II, Sectional Reports, Manila, (A) (5) Ba i968’ P The°Role of the International Rice Research Institute in the Development and Dissemination of New Rice Varieties International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines, 47 pp. Liao, S. H., and Datta, S. K. 1968. Economic Analysis of Rice’production from Experimental Results to Farmer Fields. Paper presented at Agronomy Department Seminar, University of the Philippines, Manila, Aug. 9. ( 6 ) Brown, Lester R. ... 1968. The Agricultural Revolution in Asia, on Foreign Relations, Inc., New York, July: Foreign Affairs, Council 688-698. (7) Cannon, Grant F Quarterlv Fall Forecast: 65. 1967. On the Eve of Abundance. The farm uuarteriy. (8) Chandler, Robert F. 1968. Duarf Rice--A Giant in Tropical Asia (Science for Better Living), 1968. ( 10 ) U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook (9) Crop paper> Rlce . Spring Review of the New Cereal Varieties, Agency for International Development, May. ““'"Technical Change in Agricultnre. Effects and ^Plications for the Developing Nations. International Development> ^lor Inter- Service, U.S. Dept. Agr., in cooperation with the Agency for Inter national Development, Washington, D.C. 24 [11) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1968. Reviews of Medium-Term Food Outlook. Committee on Commodity Problems, Forty-Third Session, CCP 68/16, Aug. 14. ;i2) Foreign Agricultural Service 1968. Dispatch AGR-73, from the American Embassy, Kuala Lumpur, Oct. ;i 3 )- 1969. Dispatch AGR-9041, from the American Embassy, Bangkok, Thailand, March 24. 14) - 1968. Dispatch AGR-158, from the American Embassy, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Aug. 7. 15) Hendrix, W. E., Naive, J. J., Adams, W. E. 1968. Accelerating India’s Food Grain Production 1967-68 to 1970-71. U.S. Dept. Agr. Foreign Agr. Econ. Rpt. 40. 16) Hsieh, S. C., and Ruttan, V. W. 1968. Environmental, Technological, and Institutional Factors in the Growth of Rice Production: Philippines, Thailand, and Taiwan. Reprinted from Food Research Institute Studies, Vol. VII, No. 3, 1967, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. 17) Johnston, Bruce F. and Cownie, John 1969. The Seed-Fertilizer Revolution and the Labor Force Absorption Problem. Food Research Institute, Stanford University, Jan. 20, (unpublished). 18) Kronstad, Warren E. 1969. Global Crop Paper, Wheat. Spring Review of the New Cereal Varieties, Agency for International Development, May. 19) Mellor, John W. 1966. The Economics of Agricultural Development. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 20 ) - 1969. The Role of Government and the New Agricultural Technologies. Spring Review of the New Cereal Varieties, Agency for International Development, May. 21) National Council of Applied Economic Research 1969. Supply of and Demand for Selected Agricultural Products in India, Revised Projections to 1980-81. New Delhi, April. 22) New York Times 1969. Madras is Reaping a Bitter Harvest of Rural Terrorism, Jan. 15: 12 . 23) Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development 1967. The Food Problem of Developing Countries. Paris, Dec. 25 (24) Paddock, William and Paul 1967. Famine 1975! America’s Decision: Who Will Survive: Little, Brown and Company, Boston. (25) Parker, John, Jr. . A . „ _ Preview: Foodgrain Needs in Pakistan. Foreign Agriculture (weekly). Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Dept. Agr., Sept. 16. (26) Reitz, Louis P. , , 1968. Short Wheats Stand Tall. U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook (Science for Better Living), 1968. (27) Rice, E. B. „ . 1969. The Role of Institutions. Spring Review of the New Cereal Varieties, Agency for International Development, M_ay. (28) Rosenthal, Jerry E. .. 1968. The Philippine Rice Story. War on Hunger, A Report from the Agency for International Development, Jan.: 4. (29) Ruttan, Vernon W. , A . ,. _ , 1968. Growth Stage Theories, Dual Economy Models and Agricultural Development Policy. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Minnesota, AE 1968/2. (30) Schertz, Lyle P. . _ „ 1968. The Role of Farm Mechanization in the Developing Countries. Foreign Agriculture (weekly). Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Dept. Agr., Nov. 25. (31) Schultz, Theodore, W. 1965. Economic Crisis in World Agriculture. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. (32) The President’s Science Advisory Committee 1967. The World Food Problem. Report of the Panel on the World Food Supply, May. (33) US/AID Mission. c . 1968. India Program Memorandum, FY 1970. New Delhi, Sept. (34) Wharton, Clifton R., Jr. ~ 1969. The Green Revolution: Cornucopia or Pandora s Box. Foreign Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations, Inc., New York, April: 464-476. (35) Williams, Joseph R. 1967. Turkey’s Crash Wheat Program. Foreign Agriculture (weekly;, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Dept. Agr., Nov. 20. 26 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSTAGE & FEES PAD Umt»d Sfotvt D«partm«nt ol Apiculture * u. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 39^ AUG 1 3 1353 iKraut a simian THIRD CONSECUTIVE YEAR OF HIGH AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT EXPECTED Agricultural production in Western Europe this year is likely to approxi- ite the 1968 record. As of early July, crop production is expected to he miewhat lower than last year's level hut livestock and poultry output will robably increase slightly. Weather conditions during the 1969 crop season so far have not been as >od as those that favored the bumper crops of 1968. Grain output probably .11 not equal the 1968 crop; the outlook is that small declines for wheat, re, barley, and oats should more than offset the sizable increase in the corn irvest. Despite a smaller wheat crop, the surplus problem will remain acute, irticularly in the European Community (EC). Another large sugarbeet crop is I prospect, while some further decline in potato production seems likely. The livestock situation in Western Europe indicates restrained growth in S. exports of feedstuffs. West European beef production is apparently enter- Lg a cyclical downturn, and pork output probably will be below the 1968 level. ;duced foreign markets and growing self-sufficiency in many countries have re- Llted in slower growth in output of poultry meat and eggs. Dairy output is kely to gain moderately because of increasing productivity per cow, and dairy irpluses will become more troublesome. Crops : Total grain production in Western Europe in 1969 is expected to II somewhat short of last year's record 120 million tons. 1/ The EC will intribute to this decline. However, the most marked changes between the 1968 id 1969 grain harvests are in prospect in some of the smaller producing coun- 'ies. The Scandinavian countries and Portugal are not expected to equal their 1/ Metric tons are used throughout this report. 5T 1969 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ERS-FOREIGN 276 excellent harvests of 1968 while Greece should have a much larger grain crop than the small harvest last year. Weather caused some shifts in area among the grains. Wet weather delayed fall seeding in some countries, particularly the United Kingdom and France, and the spring of 1969 was cool and rainy throughout most of Western Europe. As a result, the area sown to wheat was reduced and the area planted to barley and corn expanded. A somewhat smaller wheat crop would be of some help in alleviating the wheat surplus problem. The expected decrease in production of wheat in 19-9 is due not only to a somewhat smaller area and less favorable weather but also to price policies designed to make feed grain production more profitable rel- ative to wheat and thus prevent stocks (mainly wheat) from accumulating furt er, particularly in the EC and Spain. Nevertheless, the 1969 wheat crop will be well above the level necessary to solve the surplus and storage problems._ Record grain crops were harvested in 1967 and 1968 and wheat stocks in some West European countries are excessive. The European Commission estimates that carryover stocks of wheat on August 1 , 19 & 9 * totaled 5-3 million tons, or 3 million more than in a normal year. In France, the main surplus producer in the EC, the wheat area in 1969--primarily soft wheat—is down by only 3 percent and another relatively large harvest is in prospect. France has attempted to relieve its surplus wheat situation through various commercial and food-aid export arrangements. By mid-1969, major grain sales to non-EC countries had been made to Mainland China (about 800,000 tons), United Arab Republic (around 400,000 tons), Tunisia, and the Republic of China. Also, weakness of the French franc resulted in large sales of French grain (mainly wheat) to West Germany and other EC members. West German millers were able to purchase French grain at low prices and offer domestic gram for sale to the Bonn Government at the higher intervention price; these imports aggra¬ vated a grain storage problem that was already acute in West Germany. Excess supplies of French soft wheat contributed to the decision of the EC ministers to raise corn and barley prices relative to wheat in recent years as well as for the 1969/70 crop. This should encourage continuation of the shift in area from wheat to nonsurplus crops. Wheat production is also forecast to decline in two other major producing countries and gain in at least one. Spain should have a smaller harvest than the good 1968 crop because of a reduction in area. The U.K. s reduced crop is largely the result of a decrease in area caused by unfavorable weather at see ing time. In Italy, the wheat crop probably will be somewhat larger than t e 1968 harvest and the proportion of durum in total output should increase sharply. Current conditions indicate that barley output probably will not equal the 38 million tons produced in 1968 although the barley area is slightly larger. Barley crops in France and West Germany were expected to be roughly the same as in 1968 but a storm in early July reportedly caused considerable damage to the French crop. Some increases in output over last year^relatively P°ot P arley crops are expected in the United Kingdom and Greece, „l)lle in the Scan dinavian countries the crop is not expected to he as large as in 19 &B- 2 vhat L r °^ iO !L 0 t f - rye and a StS ln ” estern probably will decline some¬ what m 1969, continuing a downward trend. The area seeded to these grains vas down slightly this year. 8 ns A sharp increase in total corn production is very likely due largely to area expansion m the most important countries, France and Italy. Production in France could somewhat exceed last year's record of 5.2 million tons; Italy's outturn is forecast to increase sharply to an estimated 4-5 million tons. Area and production of potatoes in Western Europe are expected to decline further m 1969; production may be 2-3 million tons less than the 63-million- ton ^turn last year. Potatoes were planted unusually late in the United King¬ dom in 1969; this probably will reduce yields. Also, a rather sharp decline in potatoes is forecast for France in 1969. And production in Austria may be much smaller than the good 1968 crop. 1Q ,o To ^ al area planted to sugarbeets is estimated to be about the same as in 1968 , almost 1.8 million hectares. Prospects for sugarbeets appear generally favorable despite a cold spring. The area planted declined in the United King- om, France, and Italy but increased in West Germany, Spain, and several of the smaller producing countries. Olive oil production should approximate the 1967 record level of over 1 million tons. A decrease in olive oil output one year is generally followed by an increase the following year. Since olive oil production in Italy, Greece and Portugal m 1968 was less than in 1967, increased output is expected this c ? untries \ S P ain was the only major producing country in Western Europe to experience an increase in olive oil output last year. Total rapeseed production in Western Europe is expected to exceed the 1968 level, due mainly to larger production in France. A good quality 1969 crop is forecast for France and total production could reach 550,000 tons, surpassing ast year s record. In West Germany, an increase in area and improved weather following the late spring should result in an output at least equal to 1968 In Scandinavra, Sweden's production should be about the same as in 1968, while output m Denmark, a less important grower, should decline sharply. Desk 7 7 ~ r i S o OCk i The Ca ^ tle cycle in Western Europe has apparently reached a peak and is entering a downturn. The hog cycle is in a declining phase in most ?q6q tri p S, i^ Ut P ° r J ° utput w111 P r obably stabilize or increase slightly by late 1969 . Poultry production-meat and eggs-in most countries remains less ex- C^ecI f an . ln . th ® mid -l 9 60 ' s. Growth in broiler output will approximate e expected gain m domestic consumption in most countries as self-sufficiencv outDw+ en ^ aSinS ln th6ir former ex Port markets in Western Europe. Dairy output m 1969 is expected to exceed the 1968 level in the region. Although beginning-year dairy cow numbers were about the same as in 1968, further in¬ creases in output per cow are expected to add to Western Europe's problems of excess dairy production. The livestock situation suggests sightly better U S export prospects for some livestock products than in 1968, but limited prospic^s for the much more important trade in feedstuffs. ximiuea prospects at the 6 staS ir nf e ^o attle f^^-almost entirely dairy or dual-purpose breeds- the start of 1969 were less than 1 percent above 1968. Most of this gain was 3 U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSTAGE & FEES PAID United Stole* Oepwtment ol Agriculture in the European Community, particularly in j'^^^diffiralties/Den- and Ireland also registered small gains. Because of export numbe ’ s . mark, like most Sca ^ 1 ^ v ^“ k C ““ a ^tion per cow should result in moderate ex- Continued improvement in milk produc P other K count ries. This pansion in milk output espe y ^ troub lesome dairy surplus. Surplus ■prospect threatens turtner UUi y , . onmintips of nonfat EC and U.K. hutter stocks will continue to a “™J; e * t ; a ^jgrov further in 1969 - dry milk and cheese in Western Europe are inning of 1969 indicated lit- The age and sex distribution of cattle at the beginning ° 9 9 a tie prospect for growth in beef and veal °utpu^t^riS vere down in early weights. Hog numbers at the beginning of ^9.were TemlHon-abou^the^as Nether lands^and in West Germany, Denmark, and Spain. Pork production llTvZT levels throughout most of 19 ° 9 - However, P generally above Kingdom is expected to increase 3 ° p6 ^ able price prospects could lead last year’s, reflecting short supplres. Favorable price P * re - toward some recovery in production near the end of 1969 - **>spe covery appear good in France and Denmark. The rapid grovrth in poultry output33^^ormerly rapid broilers—in most West European countrie market for both meat and eggs, growth in consumption have led to a less y European export markets srcss S5 ■££irtssp, si^'SSg ~:vs s rssr tsx»... crease by 5 6 percent. This report updates a more comprehensive.report pub¬ lished in March 1969 : The Agricultural Situation 1 * Ve gt- em Europe—Review of 19^ Oull° ok F° r —969? L SITU^MDEN IN COMMUNIST AREAS MIDYEAR REVIEW ETCTTY OF HUNGIS ly favorable “ “ lst areas is Seaeral- crops in many countries, favorable conditions for'ma^r“ early - so ™ ***** spread. livestock prediction stagnated and eJn decltoed^Y® ^ T" luring the first half of 1969 but a bettp^ -p 0 ? declined m some countries Livestock numbers are expend ^ faU-sown^area^b U t"the 8 area^seeded^to ZT Cr ° p ’ + espec “lly “heat, reduced the i record. Moisture conditions were voor!- 111 ® W eat an but an upturn is forecast for second- ra-thirds^^the^iain and mos^ind^t aUtmm harvest > which includes -dyear. Good moisture conditions in S tte^ ? r ° PS \ Was relatively favorable at >od harvest. China could achievp n-r am winter wheat belt also suggest a ' Plans to increase wheat imports thi S ^ Vass last y ear ’ s level of wheat output, ■r the early rice trop wh^w^ld been amoun - d * The outlook s not as favorable as’that ^1 p S + n + 3 percent of total rice production, or production ** Wheat ‘ ° Utput should ab out equal last year's T 1969 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ERS-FOREIGN 277 Tn North Korea and North Vietnam, weather conditions were better than usual for the grain crops; North Korea could have a record output North Vietnam h favorable 17 spring rice planting conditions, but production delays were reported. Cuba's all important sugar crop was reported at 4.7 million tons for 1969, and its government may have difficulty meeting export commitments. PREFACE information on agricultural conditions in Mainland China, North Korea North Vietnam and Cuba is limited. This report is based upon weather data and statements about crop conditions contained in Attache reverts from *° ng newspapers, journals, and radio reports from the respective countries ports by commercial, academic, and other specialists familiar with the histor _ countries. This information is evaluated by ERS specialists 1 g ical and other information bearing on the agriculture of these countries. USSR The Soviet agricultural situation at midyear was generally favorable, but a hard winter and late spring made summer and fall weather more critical an usual. Winter grain damage: Extreme cold, high winds, and low rainfall during December and January reduced the winter grain area about 6 million hectares r the 1967 and 1968 levels to about 27 million this year. Most of the reduction was S liSer wheat and winter barley, a minor crop had developed well going into the winter and received additional fertilizer in the spring! Although the onset of spring was late, growing conditions have been generally good. The 1969 winter wheat area is about 15 million hectares, compared “ average of 19.5 million in recent years, and winter barley covers .5 lion hectares against 1 to 1.5 million in recent years Winter escaped serious damage. The most likely prospect now is that the winter h crop will be below the 1968 level, possibly as much as 5 to 7 million tons. 1/ Spring grains- After a late start the sowing of spring grains progressed rapi dly By mid-M ay the rate of spring sowing matched that of many other years In ttis'decade A Record 98 million hectares of spring grains were sown (about I rillin g 1967 and 1968), including a record 51.3 million hectares to wheat. The barley, oat, and corn areas are all up sharply over 1 968 a nd earlier vears Corn is reported at 5 million hectares compared with 3-5 million re centlv The barley area is probably up about 3 million hectares to around 21 irSliion hecSres. On June 19 the total grain area (winter and spring) was almost 125 million hectares, up 3-5 million over I960. There are some Soviet regions where growing conditions are clearly favorable especially the North Caucasus, including Krasnodar pai, and the MmS! and Lo!e! Volga. But in a number of very important regions July 1 condi- “wSe glol to excellent. In the major Virgin lands regions-Kazakhstan l/ Tonnages shown in this report are metric. 2 and Eastern and Western Siberia-soil moisture has seldom been as good and ese are regions where the spring wheat area was expanded. In the Ukraine and Moldavia soil moisture conditions are also good, in some cases excellS Cer tam P arts of Central European Russia and the Volga region are also good.* , -~ tal grain o u ^ look : Indications are that the Soviet Union will produce a part 2 ? 3 ! 21 C T’ bu ^ conditions may change sharply from those prevailing in early July. Favorable summer and fall conditions could push the total S-n ni to the record-breaking 1966 and 1968 levels-over l4^i!Son tons-^hereas “ restrictive conditions could reduce it to the 1964 and 1967 levels—in the 122- to 125 -million-ton range or below. 2/ The.composition of the 1969 grain crop will be more heavily weighted toward feed grains than m recent years. Current wheat stocks, after the large wheat vh^at “ * 96 t- andl 9 < i 8 > should sufficient to overcome even a sizablf drop in heat production xn 1969, but such a drop is not now indicated. The additional feed gram production in 1969 should give better balance to USSR grain suppSes. Other crops : Spring growing conditions at midyear indicate good prospects this vear ln th St I Cr< T; . Although 8 cold > wet s P rin g delayed cotton sowing in 1068 r™ area needed is reportedly up 90,000 hectares, 4 pi?35rt more ?han l q6q 9 w ' G ° ver ™ ent Pdi-=hase prices for cotton were increased 15 percent for the 1969 harvest, and this should provide additional stimulus to producers. the area SfTu J P ° rted at 15 °’ 000 hectares less than 1968, making the area about 3.4 million hectares. Growing conditions are good at this time n, e -c' SU ^7°i er seed a ° wlng P lan was exceeded and the area will probably be near thaVof 1967 and 1968 , around 4.8 million hectares. Growing condiWons in the ■ Ukraine and Moldavia are very good, although they are poor in the north Caucasus. 1068 4 c P ° 4 ato ^ and vegetable area is probably not much different from that of 968 and conditions appear to be reasonably good except for the cool spring to m68 has / lsen ln eaeh the last 3 years and this year's may be close 9 8 record. Vegetables should be better than the reduced crops of 1968. F ruit and grape production, which has risen sharply in the past S vearq (government purchases advancing from 4.5 to 6.0 million tons) wm plobabll ’ match or exceed that of 1968 because of expanded bearing area. the fS£ 5 £e_cr 0 H were retarded by the late spring. In European Russia, SvoISlI for havTI 4™ reglons ’ s P r ihg and early summer weather has been lavorable for hay and pastures. Heavy spring fieldwork is, however, apparently cutting into hay and forage harvesting. PP^enuiy •1068 Uv V fh tQC w P ^° ducbs : Creases in livestock product output were limited in Russif 4L ™4 gral y r °! T9 967 and last year ’ s d ™u g ht “ a-opean At 4 i 4 ’eJ 4 f u t TSn er further curtailed the livestock sector in early 1969. rent be?™ ° , rCh ? 69 me8t P roduc tion in state processing plants was 11 per- year earlier, and milk products were up 2 percent. Through May lower4han ““ ff„ are USDA estimates of usable grain which are ower than the Soviet reported "bunker weight" figures. 3 state meat production was still 8 percent behind a year earlier, and milk products equaled the previous May’s level. Good grain supplies from 1968 and the ^proved pasture conditions this year should improve the livestock situation in the second half of 3.969. Livestock snouuu xuifcu during 1969 . A sizable increase m this year s numbers likely will increase during « ... , other feed grain harvest should further improve the output of meat, milk, livestock products during the last half. Sueoial 1969 conditions: the severe winter and the shortened growing sea¬ son haTobviously concern i d the Soviet Government. The large sprang grain area and reduced winter area make the sprang crop especaally crataeal. An e y fall could pose major problems. Recognizing the crataeal nature of this year s harvest the Soviet Government published a special decree in June. It calle for speeded up deliveries of harvesting machinery and equipment and provided for speeded up aexi . ora „ e facilities and for movement of workers from region special transport 8 bonuses are provided for rapid harvesting. ; e clearly focisS attention on the Virgin Lands regions where a very SJge crop is a possibility and where harvesting problems could be serious. Although this special decree is obviously related to concentrated crop problems this year, it also^ re ^ as rapidly'as pS^ed in the past * y’ears, or as rapidly as the progress made dur- ing 1964 - 65 ! The plan for 1969 did not hold out the promise of significant improvement. EASTERN EUROPE ran J^m f£^^^ tion in Poland reduced production prospects. T .„ than record crops are forecast for most countries in Eastern Europe, but foHhe entire region^ new production high is probably Total wheat pro¬ duction is expected to increase about 7 percent over the ^68 level^to ^ output is 6 Ix4eted r to 2 deciSe°subs?a;tiai e iy W from the relatively good Performance 1966 record of 36.3 million tons is possible. A the l^irSt/LSSSiy t™hrdrought-retarded crop of 1 9 68, given favorable weather the remainder of the growing season. h The grain outlook in the northern countries is poorer than in 1968. Pro¬ duction of wheat, rye, and feed grains is expected to be lower. Rainfall temperatures, and soil moisture last fall generally were favorable for sowing- winter grams-wheat, rye, and some barley—but winter temperatures were below normal and snow cover was light. In Poland, winter precipitation was especially light, damaging the winter wheat crop. The crop generally was only in fair con¬ dition this spring. The spring was late and cold; precipitation continued at below-normal levels. In Czechoslovakia, rainfall was below normal in May but improved m June. By contrast, late snowfalls and above-normal precipitation hindered spring fieldwork in East Germany. Spring sowing in the northern countries generally was 2 to _3 weeks later than last year. Soil moisture levels on July 1 were below normal in Poland and Czechoslovakia, but above normal in East Germany. A sharp improvement over 1968 is forecast for grain production in the southern countries. Both wheat and feed grain (predominantly corn) production a J e t0 J-Ump Wel1 ab ° Ve last year ' s levels. Wheat output could attain the 1967 record level, but feed grains will probably be below the 1966 record Timely rains in September, followed by a dry October, facilitated sowing and germination of winter grains. Winter precipitation was moderate, except during February, when unusually heavy amounts caused flooding problems in some areas Grains overwintered well. Spring was late and cold and despite below-normal ,f olP moi f ture levels were about normal on May 1 . May was hot and dry, but the situation improved with good rains in June, except in Bulgaria, where drought conditions continued to prevail. Rains in the latter part of June caused harvesting difficulties. The estimated grain production levels should result in a substantial in¬ crease in export availabilities in the southern countries. Romania and Yugoslavia should be able to offer large quantities of corn, around 1 million ons each, and Romania will have considerable excess wheat as well. Compared with the 1968 crop, a 1.5 million-ton increase in total grain exports is possi¬ ble from the 1969 crop. The southern countries are not expected to import significant quantities of grain. _ Compared with 1968, imports of grain by the northern countries are expected o increase by about 1 million tons. Purchases probably will be oriented toward wheat from the Soviet Union, but substantial quantities of feed grains may also be imported. For Eastern Europe, as a whole, net imports of almost 2 million tons of gram are anticipated following the 1969 crop. O ther crops ; ^The cold, late spring delayed planting of other spring crops, du production indications still were indefinite for most crops as of July 1. boil moisture levels were below normal in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria, DUt relatively favorable in the other countries. Many vegetable and industrial --are being grown on irrigated land in Bulgaria, reducing the impact of . ^ total area of oilseeds in Eastern Europe is down substantially in 1969, primarily because the rape crop suffered heavy winterkill. About one-third of ( e rape cr °P m Poland was severely damaged last winter and losses also were sustained m East Germany. Consequently, availabilities of rapeseed and 5 rapeseed oil for export should he reduced. Prospects for the sunflower crop- the major oilseed in the southern countries—were favorable as of July 1. Areas of potatoes and sugarbeets can be expected to continue the downward trend but 1969 data are not available. Production of these root crops is con¬ centrated in the northern countries and the outlook generally was only fair o July 1. Favorable fruit production prospects have been reported from the southern countries. The late spring hampered early vegetable production. First cuttings of clover and other hay crops in the southern countries generally were good but late, which may reduce the number of cuts. Livestock’ Inventories of livestock in Eastern Europe generally were down at th^liklng of 1969, compared with a year earlier, ^*£^**™ B were stagnation or reduction of meat production in several countries. Pork uredominates in the meat production of Eastern Europe. The sharpest reductions in hog numbers occurred in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Jugoslavia Foot-and-mouth disease and anticipated or actual reductions m the feed supp y played a role in trimming hog herds. Unfavorable market prices may also have contributed to the decline in Yugoslavia. Cattle inventories also were down at the first of the year ap-ain led in the cutback, but fewer cattle also were reported m the oth . southern countries and in Czechoslovakia. Feed shortages were Prevalent in -most of these countries, and Yugoslavia encountered difficulties in exporting 1 stock and meat. Meat shortages existed in Czechoslovakia and Hungary duringthe first half of iq6Q Czech per capita meat consumption is relatively high, but a leveling ft production since 1 9 6 5 and increased demand due to rapid increases in xncomes caused pressure on the meat supply. Basic meat cuts were not affected y general rok of retail price increases in May. But proposals were made to pur¬ chase meat from non-Communist countries, as well as the traditional Communi sources, to hold down inflationary pressures. The shortages in Hungary reflected the sharp drop in hog numbers—down about 20 percent at the suf Som a yeafeSlier! MeatVports were accelerated and slaughter hog exports reduced to counter the situation. Most East European countries should experience an upturn in meat P r °J" c Jj° n during the second half of 1969. Gains in poultry production especially pected. ASIA Mainland China A cold winter was experienced in the north and northwest provinces of , spring rains flooded the Yellow Elver Valley, a tidal wave inundated crop area 6 in the Shantung Peninsula, a cold spring developed in the Yangtze and South China area, and a drought was reported in the southwest province. . + 0 ! f ?! tt i n l tbe ! e extremes wer e good moisture conditions in the main winter wheat belt of Shensi, Honan, Shantung, and Hupeh provinces. Growers there pro¬ duce about half of the country's wheat output and a good harvest is expected for the area, with excellent harvests expected in some provinces. Favorable rains since April have also been reported in the northeast and northwest provinces the major spring wheat belt. This improved outlook for spring wheat and the’ good prospects for winter wheat in the main growing areas suggest that China couid achieve or surpass last year’s wheat output if the country’s remaining wheat areas have average harvests. The outlook for the early rice crop, which yields about 30 percent of the total rice production, is not as favorable as that for wheat. Extreme weather variations, similar to those experienced during the early stages of the 1Q68 crop, were again present this year in the major producing provinces, particular- ly in Kwangtung. Output should about equal last year's poor production, but mav exceed it. 5 J Of the other early harvested crops the least favorable outlook is for rape- seed and sweetpotatoes. The severe winter affected rapeseed in the major growing area of the Yangtze Valley and cold snaps in Kwangtung reduced winter sweetpotato yields. „ 7116 brighter sid e of China's agriculture in 1969 is the improved condition f f 1 ? autumn harvest, which includes two-thirds of the grain crops and all in¬ dustrial crops except rapeseed. Drought in Northeast China, where soybeans and coarse grains predominate, was relieved by timely rains in late April and May toisture conditions in the North China Plain are better than usual. Good soil aoisture in most of the northern provinces favored spring planting of soybeans cotton, tobacco, and coarse grains. Adequate to excessive moisture was re¬ ported in South, Central, and East China where intermediate rice and sweet- potatoes predominate. No serious flooding or waterlogging developed in these ireas during the first part of this year. The area of late rice could reach ;he high levels of 1966. With average weather the rest of the crop season, the late-summer and i u umn harvest of grains and industrial crops could be good. Increased inputs >1 .fertilizers, better cropping preparations and management, tighter discipline nd improved leadership in farming areas should contribute to productivity. The .overnment has recently emphasized that hog numbers should be increased on both loilective and private farms. This move suggests some confidence in the avail¬ ability of feed. The program is designed primarily to increase meat products or export and to improve hard currency earnings. Hogs also represent an impor- ant source of fertilizer in China. J etween ^ and 5 million tons of wheat were purchased by China for delivery n 1909. Although some 1.2 million tons of wheat remained uncommitted under the mo-Canadian wheat agreement that expired July 31, there was no immediate evi- ence of a new agreement with Canada or of any plans to increase wheat imports av S be e mn : dPd r bi i S 5?ary ? vid J nce for 1969 suggests that China’s imports of wheat ay be guided by price advantages rather than by pressing needs. 7 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSTAGE & FEES PAID North Vietnam This year North Vietnam's spring rice crop was planted under favorable con- ditions. But mid-July reports indicate unsatisfactory ^ogress in f 11 harvested crop, which provides about 60 percent of the total rice crop, ine 1^; See crop is not expected to exceed the 4.3 to 4 .5-million-ton level of recent years. North Korea l 9 69 P sho^SrSSrte n weather e pattern°dCTeioping! Ve more nearly-normal condi- t^or'l^ngfofyears 11 "" Mongolia Current reports indicate a considerable improvement in the weather pattern for the c^renferop year as compared with the serious blizzards and drought ex- peri encedSuring the l 9 67/68 crop year. Plans for 1 9 6 9 call A 500 000 hectares. Grains will approximate 9 0 percent of the total crop area, grain harvest of 360,000 to 370,000 tons is predicted. CUBA Cuba’s 1969 sugarcane harvest is tentatively estimated at 4.7 m ^^ on abouf a millfon tons under the l 9 65-68 average Cane-cutting operations la^„ diirinc the vear and Castro described this year's output as the agony oILuoa. Poor weather in’oriente Province and major shortcomings in the availa^lity use of labor have been cited as the reasons for the 1 9 6 9 shortfall, ihissug gests that Cuba might have difficulties meeting its export “™Ut“es andTlnder USSR and other East European countries usually take large ;; - ’ n ’ t * a 2 1 - the current sugar agreement, signed last year in Geneva, Cuba was granted million-ton annual export quota on the world marke . 8 * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 394-225 (-4S-22) THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN AFRICA AND WEST ASIA "Oil 1969 MIDYEAR REVIEW ERRATIC WEATHER RESULTS IN LOWER CROPS IN AFRICA AND AVERAGE CROPS IN WEST ASIA UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURE LIBRARY Early forecasts that the 1969 cereal :st in North Africa ■would equal last s record crop have failed to material- _ For the coming year. North Africa's ipated breadgrain deficit will exceed lion tons. 1 / Acreage planted to food is estimated near normal levels, but sive rains in some areas and drought hers have severely reduced yields in ons of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and . Production in the United Arab Re- c and the Sudan, however, is reported ge or better. Both countries should nore cotton available for export. Africa will also have exportable ities of olive oil, rice, wine, cit- ruit, and hides and skins. In West and Central Africa effects of /"ear's erratic weather are still be- "lt• Widespread drought (notably in > Upper Volta, Mali, Senegal, and ,ania) caused a shortage in subsist¬ ed crops, necessitating U.S. food lLI tonnages in the report are metric donations under Title II of Public Law 480 . The shortage should end when the 1969 crops of millet, sorghum, corn, and other food crops are harvested in October and November. Early estimates place the 1969/70 coffee crop in the Ivory Coast at a level 14 per¬ cent above the previous crop. In Liberia', rubber production is increasing as more new high-yielding trees come into production. In the Congo, several basic food crops have essentially achieved pre-independence pro¬ duction levels; palm oil production there is up from 1968. But Senegalese peanut production during the 1968/69 season plummet¬ ed to the lowest level of recent years be¬ cause of extensive drought. Due to Rhodesia's record crop, 1969 output of corn in Southern Africa was up about 400,000 tons. While too much rain reduced Zambia's crop slightly, production in the Republic of South Africa was off about 350,000 tons from last year due to drought. Prospects are good for South Africa's winter grain crops—wheat, barley, oats, and rye. The Republic's record citrus hit l JkiVk iSlii{(."V 5 *369 EMBER 1969 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DO ERS-FOREIGN 278 crop last year was of outstanding quality and provided alltime high export earnings. Deciduous fruit production and export were also higher; 1969's deciduous crop is es¬ timated to be slightly larger than 196b s. Though there were spots of drought, graz ing conditions over most of Southern Afri¬ ca favor a slight increase in livestock numbers. cotton crop a tenth larger than last year s H35 000-ton crop. Indications are that cotton acreage increased some l4 percent to a level of 1.7 million acres. Smaller yields were attributed to severe leaf spot disease and some leafworm infestation. A larger crop this year would mean a reversal of the previous H-year downtrend in produc¬ tion. East Africa's agricultural outlook for 1969 is good. Major cash crops are expect¬ ed to equal or exceed last year's output. Tea and cotton production should show mod¬ erate gains. For cereal crops conditions are generally favorable, and Kenya's corn and wheat surpluses will likely be greater. West Asia has experienced erratic weather conditions. Even so, the general grain situation appears good. Wheat.pro¬ duction in Turkey will be slightly higher than last year. Turkish cotton production was up 10 percent in 1968 and production in 1969 will probably match the 1968 level despite a considerable drop in acreage. Tobacco acreage this year is slightly °wn in the Aegean area where plantings of Mexi¬ can wheat varieties were expanded. Early estimates indicate that Iran's wheat pro¬ duction did not reach last year's record harvest but its increased cotton.plantings point toward another recordbreaking crop.. Good fruit and nut harvests are expected in Iran. A late spring outbreak of rinderpest reduced both milk and meat supplies, espe¬ cially in the Tehran area. The veterinary force moved rapidly to meet this threat. Although official estimates are not available, indications are that UAR's grain harvest this year will equal or surpass that of a year ago. This year's narvest must be supplemented by some 2 to 2.5 - al lion tons of wheat imports to.maintain nor¬ mal consumption levels. By mid-July, vari¬ ous European countries had contracted, to supply a large portion of the UAR s wheat needs on liberal credit terms. For the. past 2 years, France has become increasingly important as a supplier. Other suppliers include the USSR, Spain, West Germany, and Italy. Reportedly, progress continues to be made in realizing economic benefits.from the High Aswan Dam. Moreover, foreign aid grants and continued expansion of the petro¬ leum industry have partially offset the ad¬ verse conditions facing the Egyptian economy in recent years. In West Asia's Levant area, heavy spring rains benefited Syria more than Leb¬ anon. Syria's barley suffered some, but abnormal weather caused serious losses to the Lebanese deciduous fruit crop. Curren reports indicate that Israel's wheat crop for 1969 was down considerably from last year. Value of the country's citrus exports was slightly higher than last year,.though export volume was down. Well-distributed rainfall in Jordan promised well above aver age crops for 1969. Cyprus also has receiv¬ ed good rains and its wheat and barley crops should be good. The Sudan cotton harvest was estimated at 209,000 tons, 7 percent above last year. This increase in output reflects improved, spraying and picking operations. ^elds ±n extra-long-staple producing areas (Gezira and Managil) have improved. In the aash and Tokar Deltas, where upland-type cotton is grown, production has increased despite acreage cutbacks. Sudan's cotton exports in the 1968. . crop year totaled $151.2 million, tne hign- est ever reached and one-third more than m 1967 The increase was due to a larger shipping volume—up 23 percent—as well as higher prices—up 8 percent. Major ouyers were West Germany, India, Italy, and NORTH AFRICA During 1969 the Sudan renewed a long¬ term trade agreement with the USSR to cover $23 million worth of cotton exports to the USSR in exchange for 400,000 tons of sugar and unspecified quantities of urea. er S uS 10 “' expecS^t2“elow C i r jf y e^1r n0 ^l crop of 519»000 tons. Wheat production is estimated to be somewhat less than the pre¬ vious 383,000-ton harvest. Tunisia will again have to import substantial amounts of bread wheat to meet domestic needs. Despite last winter's drought, 32,000 acres of Mexican wheat planted in northern Tunisia produced good yields. This was attributed largely to the shorter growing season of these varieties as compared with local wheats. Algerian grain crops may be smaller than expected as early estimates of a near¬ record cereal crop have been revised down¬ ward. A good harvest of winter cereals in 1968 produced 2.1 million tons, and it was thought that this year might be even bet¬ ter. Latest reports indicate, however, that excessive rains at harvest time have caused officials to t>e much less optimistic about the outturn of this year's grain crop. Morocco's grain harvest (mostly wheat and barley)may be as much as 50 percent below last year's record 4.8 million tons, inis would be very near the i 960—65 average of about 2.5 million tons. The reduced crop was largely due to ill-timed and ex¬ cessive rains—double the annual average in some areas. Morocco has carried over large stocks of wheat from last year, but may still have to import some bread wheat in the coming year. Under the joint USAID-Moroccan wheat improvement program, plantings of high- yielding Mexican wheat varieties totaled 12,400 acres. Output of these dual-pur¬ pose plantings (demonstration and seed pro¬ duction) did not reach the expected levels since leaf blight seriously affected them in many areas. Morocco and Tunisia Sign Agreements With European Community This year, Morocco and Tunisia took the first step toward full association with the European Community by signing 5-year agreements in March. The accords, which went into effect on September 1 , provide for mutual trade preferences and for re¬ sumption of negotiations on enlarging and advancing the associations by the end of the third year. Intra-Community customs treatment is provided for most Moroccan and Tunisian in¬ dustrial products. For agricultural pro¬ ducts , the EC lowered its common external tariff from 20 percent to 4 percent for cit¬ rus fruit originating in Morocco and Tunisia as long as the minimum offer price is ob¬ served. Crude olive oil from these two countries has a $50 per ton conditional pre¬ ference over third-country imports if the minimum import price is observed. In addi¬ tion, a $5 per ton unconditional preference also is granted. The EC grants either Intra- Community treatment or a 50-percent tariff reduction for some canned foodstuffs. Wine, some vegetables, and certain sugar-based preserves are excluded from Community pre¬ ference, but retain privileged access to the French market. In return, Tunisia grants preferential treatment to Community products equal to TO percent of the preference allowed France on products representing 40 percent of Tu¬ nisia s imports from the EC. Moroccan con¬ cessions include tariff reductions averaging 12 percent on 27 customs categories. These reductions are granted on a most-favored- nation basis and therefore apply to imports from all countries. WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA Yaounde Convention Renewed, Trade and Aid Agreements Extended 5 Years Negotiations for renewing the 1964-69 Association Agreement (Yaounde Convention) between the European Community and 18 Afri¬ can states have been completed. The new Convention was signed on July 29 , 1969 , at Yaounde, Cameroon. It will enter into force only after parliamentory ratification by all 24 signatories. In the meantime provisional measures guarantee the continuity of the Association. 2 / To promote financial and technical cooperation. Community members agreed to make $1 billion available to the European Development Fund. That figure includes $918 million for the Associated African States with the following breakdown: 2/ Four signatories—Burundi, Malagasy Re¬ public, Rwanda, and Somali Republic—are in East Africa, as defined for this midyear review. 3 $748 million will be in grants, $80 million in loans on special terms, and $90 million in loans through the European Investment Bank. The previous Convention included $230 million worth of aid toward agricul¬ tural production and diversification in as¬ sociated countries to ease the transition from marketing under bilateral preferential systems to the proposed free trade system between EC members and associates. There is no provision in the new agreement to continue such aid. But associated coun¬ tries with economies endangered by sudden declines in world prices affecting primary products will qualify, under specified con¬ ditions, for aid grants. Trade provisions include the lowering of the EC's common external tariff for a number of tropical products (coffee from 9.6 percent to 7 percent, cocoa from 5-4 to 4 percent, palm oil from 9 to 6 percent). They also provide for an EC undertaking to grant preferences on certain African pro¬ ducts competing with EC farm produce. An¬ nexed to the Convention transaction is a stipulation that nothing in the agreement shall prevent an Associated African State from participating in a system of general¬ ized preferences. x * * At this time, it is too early to fore¬ cast 1969 crop production in West and Cen¬ tral Africa since most crops have recently been planted. Extensive and severe drought reduced Senegal's 1968/69 peanut production to the lowest level of recent years. Recent esti¬ mates place the crop close to 770,000 tons, of which 620,000 tons are to be commercial¬ ized. As a result of the poor crop, Senegal is unable to meet this year's commitments to all local and overseas peanut crushers. Pea¬ nut deliveries to oil mills are expected to be around 100,000 tons short of the total agreed upon when the season began. In Liberia , sharp recovery of the natural rubber price is giving new bounce to its agricultural economy. The New York price of natural rubber fell as low as 16.29 cents a pound in February 1968 but rose above 30 cents by August 1969- Rubber production is increasing, due mostly to replacement of old trees by new, higher-yielding stock. In the early 1970's, rubber production likely will increase by 5 percent a year. In 1968, area in mature rubber trees totaled 163,500 acres. Immature trees cov¬ ered 115,400 acres, with 69,700 acres on private Liberian-owned farms. Liberian exports of natural ruDber in 1967 amounted to 62,000 tons. This compares with shipments of 48,000 tons by Nigeria and 30,000 tons by Congo (Kinshasa), Africa s third largest rubber producer. (Nigerian rubber exports in 1967 were much below aver¬ age because of the civil war). In several West African countries, the 1968/69 crop year was a lean one for many subsistence farmers. These countries— Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Upper Volta, and Niger—which suffer from periodic droughts, experienced a severe shortage of rainfall during 1968 . Liberia's maiden industrial plant for lm oil produced its first 25 tons of red lm oil during 1968 . The plant is located the Tidewater Oil Co. plantation in Grand .ssa County. By the end of 1969, Tidewater .11 complete planting of its projected 5,000 Senegal's 1968 production of rice, sorghum, and millet—staples of the Sene¬ galese diet—totaled an estimated 500,000 tons against 750,000 tons in 1967. Mali' s, production of millet, sorghum, corn, and rice for 1968 was estimated to be 40 per¬ cent below the previous year's 990 , 000 -ton harvest. In Niger production of sorghum and millet, by far the most important food crops there, was adversely affected by drought, especially in the country's cen¬ tral region. The 1968 crop was estimated at less than 1 million tons, off consider¬ ably from the 1.34 million tons a year earlier. At the same time, in Grand Cape Mount mty, the West Africa Investment and Fi- ace Corporation has begun development of 3 500-acre oil palm plantation. Technical sistance and seeds for this plantation are rnished by the French research organization HO (Research Institute for Tropical Oils d Oil-bearing Materials). Several thousand res of land have been cleared, an oil palm rsery is in operation, and some transplant- .g is under way. The Tvorv Coast's coffee crop for 1969/70 is forecast at 4.0 million bags 4 (240,000 tons), l4 percent larger than the 1968/69 crop of 3.5 million bags. This level is substantially above its quota un¬ der the International Coffee Agreement. While Ivory Coast has a rather wide list of exportable farm products (chiefly coffee, cocoa, bananas, and pineapples), coffee is the country's most important pro¬ duct. The size of the crop, amount export¬ ed, and price received are all important to the nation's economy. The United States is an important cus¬ tomer for Ivorien Robusta coffee, much of which is used in instant coffees. The new freeze-dried process is not good news for the Ivory Coast, as this method uses less Robusta than instant coffee made by older processes. Ghana's governing body, the National Liberation Council, has formally instituted the Cotton Development Board to promote cotton production. About 2,100 acres like¬ ly will be planted to cotton by the end of 1969 . The price paid to growers for seed cotton has been increased from 5 to 7 new pesewas per pound (from 4.90 to 6.86 cents per pound). A cotton gin costing 75,000 new cedis ($73,500) is to be built at Tama¬ le in 1970. Cotton growing will help diversify Ghana's essentially one-crop economy (Ghana is the world's largest grower of cocoa beans) and add a cash crop to the economy of northern Ghana. Dahomey will soon have a new peanut oil mij.1. This plant will have a crushing capacity of 45,000 tons of peanuts (in- shell) and produce 14,400 tons of peanut oil and 15,500 tons of peanut oil cake. A French company has been contracted by the Government to build the crushing plant. The Dahomean National Marketing Board is manag¬ ing the project. Nigerian farmers are receiving consi¬ derably more money for their cocoa beans this year than last. Grades I and II beans are bringing 50 Nigerian pounds ($l4o) per long ton more this year. Grade I cocoa is now LN150 per ton ($420 per ton or 18.75 cents per pound). Grade II cocoa is now LN135 ($378 per ton or 16.88 cents per pound). These rates were effective July 11, the beginning of the 1969/70 marketing sea¬ son. Marketing board announcements were made simultaneously in Western, Lagos, Mid- Western, and South-Eastern States. Similar increases were announced for Kwara State; in that minor cocoa-producing region. Grade I cocoa now brings LN152 per ton and Grade II cocoa LN137 per ton, slightly higher than in the other cocoa-producing states. AH cocoa sales are subject to a state "produce sales tax" of LN4 ($11.20) per ton. It is deducted by licensed buying agents of the marketing boards. The Northern States Marketing Board announced June 16 that it will purchase pea¬ nuts at the rate of $ 83.72 per long ton ( 3.7 cents per pound) during the 1969/70 buying season beginning October or November 1969 . This represents an increase of $10.92 per long ton ( 0.5 cent per pound) over last year's price. As during the 1968/69 buying season, the Marketing Board will pay a uni¬ form price in all the Northern States and will buy just one grade of peanuts. A higher world price for peanuts permits this higher price to farmers. Announcement of the in¬ creased purchase price at the beginning of the planting season will probably encourage farmers to plant larger acreages than other¬ wise. Central African Republic's 1969 cotton crop may be a record. A preliminary estimate places 1968/69 production at 55,000 to 59,000 tons of seed cotton. Farm production in Congo (Kinshasa) con¬ tinues to increase following the monetary re¬ form of 1967 and the return of internal secu¬ rity and stability. Basic food crops such as cassava, sweetpotatoes, and plantains have essentially achieved pre-independence produc¬ tion levels. But due to population growth, per capita food production in 1968 was 32 percent below the 1957-59 average. Imports of corn, wheat, and rice are necessary to make up the difference. Palm products are the Congo's leading agricultural export and second largest for¬ eign exchange earner, following copper. Palm oil production for 1969 is estimated at 220,000 tons compared with last year's 210,000-ton crop. Exports of palm oil in 1968 totaled 143,000 tons, compared with 1967 exports of 114,900 tons. Exports in 1969 are 5 expected to be above the 1968 level. The reduction of export duties from 15 to 2 percent on palm oil at the end of 1968 should help to increase exports. Coffee and rubber, also important ex¬ port crops, have registered production and export gains in recent years as more plan¬ tations resume normal production. Helping to hold back agricultural pro¬ duction in the Congo is the transportation problem. While virtually all of the 1968 crop was marketed, inadequate roads, bridges, ferries, and truck transport in most farming areas may cause difficulties for the anticipated much larger 1969 har¬ vest . SOUTHERN AFRICA The Republic of South Africa harvested slightly less than 5 million tons of corn in 1969 due to a severe first-quarter drought in the major producing areas. To insure sufficient supplies of white corn for consumption and stocks. South Africa made arrangements to import 735,000 tons of Rhodesian white corn. Meanwhile, it re¬ scinded the ban on corn exports and started exporting some yellow corn. By the end of this marketing year, the Maize Control Board expects to export about 100,000 tons of yellow corn—a rather low figure. Corn exports for the marketing year ended April 1969 reached an estimated 2.7 million tons. This is close to the record of 3.1 million tons in 1967 / 68 . The larg¬ est purchaser of South African corn for both years was Japan, taking 1.1 million tons in 1968/69 and 1.2 million the pre¬ vious marketing year. Next came the United Kingdom with 0.8 million tons in 1968/69 and 0.9 million in 1967 / 68 . Japan purchas¬ es large amounts of yellow and white corn, although usually more yellow. Almost all sales to the U.K. are for white corn. Conditions are generally good for such winter grains as wheat, barley, oats, and rye. Another record wheat crop of about 1.36 million tons is expected. More farm¬ ers in South Africa are switching from corn to winter grain production. Both production and export of fruit from the Republic of South Africa in 1968 continued an upward trend. Total fruit ex¬ ports were estimated at $146.7 million, com¬ pared with $123.6 million the pre/ious year. The United Kingdom continued to be the larg¬ est buyer. The record 1968 citrus crop of 622,000 tons was of outstanding quality and provided record exports that reached U38.8 million. Oranges, valued at $31.7 million, ^ere the most important export, going mostly to United Kingdom and other European countries. The 1969 citrus crop is estimated to oe slightly larger than last year's record harvest. Probably more than half of the crop will be exported, since local consumption is in¬ creasing relatively slowly. Deciduous fruit production and export also increased in 1968 . Apples showed the most gain as exports rose from $9 million in 1967 to a record $33 million in 1968 . Canned deciduous fruit production and export, primarily peaches, are also increasing, m 1968 , exports of canned peaches were valued at $26 million. Wool is a major export of the Republic of South Africa, averaging $163 million the past 5 years. Exports were 10 percent higher for the first 4 months of 1969 compared with the same period last year. Wool prices for 1968/69 were slightly above year-ago levels. In much of Southern Africa, especially in South-West Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, and Lesotho, grazing conditions were gener¬ ally good this past year. The government of Rhodesia has decided to continue price supports for the 1969/70 flue-cured and hurley tobacco crops set at almost 60,000 tons and 2,200 tons, respec¬ tively. However, the government has with¬ drawn its support for the Oriental tobacco crop, which is grown mostly by Africans. Although the number of tobacco farms has declined since 1965 , The tobacco industry is still very important in Rhodesia's economy. The government has to contribute heavily to support the industry. Not only does the government pay a support price for tobacco, but it also pays the cost to store large stockpiles of tobacco. Rhodesia's good weather during 1969 will probably result in a quality tobacco 6 crop that will reach at least the amount guaranteed support by the government. This same good weather helped produce record corn and wheat harvests. Too much rain in Zambia has resulted in a lower corn crop which will not meet domestic needs for the second consecutive year. _ In Mauritius , if favorable conditions continue, the 1969 sugar crop may reach 660,000 tons, up nearly 11 percent over the 1968 harvest. The United Kingdom is the principal outlet for this sugar. EAST AFRICA EAC Negotiates New Agreement With EC Representatives of the European Com- munity (EC) and the East African Community (EAC) have agreed to renew the Arusha Agreement with some modifications. Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda are expected to sign* the pact in the fall of 1969 at Arusha, ianzania. This new agreement will be sim¬ ilar to the one of July 1968, which was never ratified. The new EC-EAC pact provides for duty¬ free entry into the EC for all East African industrial products. For three important exports from East Africa (coffee, cloves, and pineapples) the EC has reserved the right to impose duties once imports have reached the following specified levels: Import trigger level s Coffee. Cloves. Canned pineapples... 56,000 tons a year 100 tons 860 tons In turn, the EAC will grant trade preferences between 2 and 9 percent, on a list of products covering about 10 percent (by value) of the EC's exports to East Africa. * * * Kenya's agriculture is expected to show an overall increase in 1969. Coffee production in 1968 was 46,000 tons; it is estimated at 50,000 tons in 1969. The de¬ teriorating effect of the coffee berry disease has abated after extensive and ef¬ fective spraying. Tea production this year is estimated to exceed the record 30,000 tons harvested in 1968. Last year 1.5 million tons of corn were produced and a crop of 1.6 million tons is predicted for 1969. Wheat produc¬ tion in 1968 totaled 227,000 tons and should increase slightly this year. During 1969 Tanzania continued to make progress in its livestock development pro¬ gram. A $1.3 million credit from the In¬ ternational Development Association (IDA) will assist in the first stage of a live¬ stock program intended to diversify the country's agricultural production. The funds will be used to develop five large ranches encompassing 420,000 acres to in¬ crease beef output and expand breeding stock. Program development will be by the National Agricultural Company, Ltd., a sub¬ sidiary of the National Development Corp. set up by the Tanzania government. Tanzanian coffee production in 1968 was 54,000 tons and this year's crop is forecast at that level. Production of tea should increase from 8,000 tons a year ago to a record 1969 crop of about 10,000 tons. Also, Tanzania's cotton crop will be up some 2,000 tons to an estimated 56,000 tons. But sisal production is expected to fall 10,000 tons to the 210,000-ton level. In Uganda , agriculture supplies over 60 percent of the gross domestic product. Cotton and coffee are the largest agricul¬ tural items. Because of this heavy depend¬ ency, attempts at greater diversification are being pursued and should produce some results in 1969. More vegetables are being produced, as well as more cereals and beef cattle. New strains of cotton with higher yields and longer staples have been recently developed. These, together with slightly better prices to growers, are expected to result in a slight increase in cotton out¬ put. The coffee crop, estimated at about 165,000 tons, is below the 1968 output of 188,000 tons, but is considered near nor¬ mal. Tea production is forecast at 15,500 tons, slightly above the 1968 level. Beginning in January 1969 Uganda drop¬ ped the imperial system and began to use metric weights and measures. Ethiopia's economy is growing annually at a modest but steady 4 to 4.5 percent rate. 7 despite falling prices for Ethiopian coffee the past few years. Short run prospects for a significant increase in earnings from other export products do not seem good, al¬ though promising long-range projects have been started. Both government and private investors are showing increased interest in developing the Empire's potential for pro¬ duction of crops and livestock. The World bank (IBRD) has agreed to finance construc¬ tion of a major hydroelectric installation on the Finchaa River, a tributary of the Blue Nile. WEST ASIA Turkey 1 s 1969 wheat crop is prelimi¬ narily estimated at about 8.6 million tons, compared with 8.4 million tons last year. Production of Mexican wheat varieties cur¬ rently estimated at 2.1 million tons is more than 4 times last year's crop, but yields at about 45 bushels per acre are down 5 to T bushels from 1968 levels. De¬ spite the larger wheat crop, imports will be necessary to maintain a normal level of consumption. Production of barley and the other grains should be above last year. Cotton production in 1968 was 435,000 tons. A drop in acreage for the 1969 crop is not expected to have much effect on pro¬ duction. This year's decline in cotton acreage occurred in the coastal regions of southern and western Turkey, where Mexican wheat varieties replaced some cotton. As a result, the upswing in cotton acreage may have been reversed. Tobacco acreage will be slightly down this year in the Aegean area, reflecting in large part the increased area of Mexican wheat. Production for 1968 was 162,000 tons, down 12 percent from a year earlier. The latest 1968 production estimate on filberts is 130,000 tons. Because of fa¬ vorable weather conditions, the 1969 crop should be about the same. This was to have been an "off" year for Turkish filbert trees. Total exports during the current marketing year should amount to about 125,000 tons. It is also an off year for olives. This means a smaller total oil crop. Except for goats, livestock numbers continue to expand, and slaughtering con¬ tinues to increase. There were no imports of red meat into Turkey in 1968 but some 500 breeding animals were imported. The government continues to press its program for livestock improvement. However, per capita consumption of red meat in Turkey remains a low l4 kilograms per year. Iran received heavy fall and spring rains which delayed grain planting and re¬ duced the area seeded to wheat. In some areas flooding also destroyed acreage al¬ ready seeded. Early estimates indicate that 1969 wheat production will not reach last year's 4.4 million tons. Torrential rains also destroyed some rice in the Cas¬ pian area, however, the output of rice this season is expected to be about 45,000 tons above last year's 970 , 000 -ton crop due to acreage expansion and better seed selection. Weather also delayed cotton planting, but, with more acreage planted, a 25 -percent in¬ crease is expected over the 145,000 tons harvested in 1968 . This larger crop may cause marketing problems; early this sum¬ mer, about 25,000 tons of last year’s crop remained unsold. The government, interested in expand¬ ing oilseed production, tested various kinds and varieties of oilseed crops and found that sunflowers are adaptable to Iran's climatic and soil conditions. Under the Fourth Development Plan (1969-73), Iran hopes to achieve self-sufficiency in vege¬ table oil production. In the past year about 120,000 tons of vegetable oils were consumed, including 45,000 tons domestically produced. Good fruit and nut crops are expected, as most trees escaped late frosts and soil moisture is above average. For crops in general, the heavy rains probably washed away some soil salts that hinder growth an greatly improved ground water supplies. In central Iran, around Tehran, there has been an outbreak of rinderpest. Al¬ though official figures on cattle losses are not available, losses in the province of Tehran alone were reportedly rather heavy. Khorasan Province also was affected, This outbreak led to a shortage of beef and 8 a drop in milk deliveries to pasteurization plants. Prompt measures by the veterinary service now appear to have the outbreak un¬ der control. There were also significant sheep losses in winter and early spring storms. However, pastures in Iran for the 1969 grazing season were excellent. This situation should help improve the country's livestock industry. In Iraq the development budget has been increased by 29 percent with the aid of foreign loans. Iraq has several pro¬ jects aimed at increasing farm output by adding irrigated acreage and upgrading dairy-poultry production. For the I 969 crop year, increases are indicated for sug¬ ar beets, cotton, and grains. Accurate es¬ timates are not currently available. In Syria , spring rains beneficial for most crops delayed cotton planting and re¬ duced the area planted. Cotton and barley suffered from unfavorable weather, but a good harvest is expected for other crops. The deciduous fruit crop should be good, and favorable pasture conditions likely will result in bumper lamb and kid crops. -Leban on s abnormally wet spring, two Hailstorms, and hot winds caused serious damage and sharply reduced the 1969 fruit crop. Regional spot checks indicate that the apple crop may be off as much as 50 per¬ cent. Greater damage may have been suffered by apricots (70 percent) and pears (60 per¬ cent). uesser damage was done to citrus fruits (estimated 20 percent) and cherries (30 percent). Although the reduced apple crop may help to alleviate the perennial problem of disposing of surplus apples, it may serious¬ ly affect the cash income of some small farmers. The apparent lower fruit crop wnic'n will be available this year was re¬ flected in higher prices to farmers for apricots and cherries and in higher consum¬ er prices. Prospects of a smaller crop have also prompted greater activity by middlemen, who are making advance contracts for apples, peaches, and pears at prices reported to be substantially higher than last year. promise a harvest of some 50,000 tons of wheat, 12,000 tons of barley, 2,500 tons of corn, 1,1+00 tons of sorghum. This total of about 65,900 tons is considerably better than 1968 ’s level of 52,200 tons. The pulse crop is expected to approximate last year's harvest. Jordan's well-distributed rains this year, along with other favorable weather conditions, should produce well above aver¬ age crops. The increasing use of improved varieties of wheat should bear favorable results and change the farming attitudes and concepts of wheat growers. For this year, some 200,000 tons of wheat and 30,000 tons of barley are given as preliminary production estimates. These figures are somewhat above last year's levels. The generally favorable weather should result in ample moisture for fruit trees and summer crops. -pl rael ' s wheat crop for 1968 has been finalized at 190,000 tons, about 14 percent below the 1967 record crop. This year's estimate is smaller. Wheat imports for 1968 were 346,000 tons and about the same is forecast for 1969 . Last year's agricultural exports were close to $l 60 million, a new high. Despite a lower export volume of citrus, good prices in European markets brought the value of citrus shipped abroad to near $86 million, about the same as last year. Newcastle disease, which has been plaguing Israel's poultry industry since 1967 , is under greater control but has not been eradicated. It has lowered egg pro¬ duction. The area planted to grains has been in¬ creased slightly and good weather conditions Agriculture in Cyprus has recovered well from the previous year's drought. Generally good crops are expected. Agricul¬ tural exports continue to expand, especially citrus. Agriculture accounted for 57 per- Ce v. ■ >-;iy. •(:■•,,. 3t: nc9-,‘- • i )9 . ; . ; .I'jiiiV r 93Ji98Xli S .! ■ ... ' •;f? i . . wOl B*5Xl tl XX->: 1© rP9'-; - - ' °' 1 ' 1,0 °^ - D '' _1 Y 5 lot fcs.tmXOOO XT-. • • ' • • r; . £,9 !- 1 «,[X 9 Bbob'a lO ^ -t-BX v* , w 6:;- Iar'ioJsm; - hoe ( 9 ,0'ixixl t xao&3fiiS be 3 .m\. siu ■ United States Department of Agriculture Washington, D. C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS United State* Department of Agriculture POSTAGE & FEES PAK) This report was prepared in the Africa and Middle East Branch. The report updates a more comprehensive report publisned in _ April 1969: ThP Africa and West Asia A gricul tural Si tuation-uevi e, nf 1968 and Outlook for 1969. , ERS-Foreign 260. 4U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 391-226 (ERS-18) JfllYERSITY Of ILLINOIS AGRICULTURE LIBRARY ^ AsL THE A OKI CULTURAL SITUATION IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 1969 MIDYEAR REVIEW AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT UP SHARPLY hie L it ^ NOV 6 1969 mp*m pf nuKois DO A strong rise is anticipated for 1969 agricultural output in the Western countries. 1/ Weather has been favorable in important farming areas of the Caribbean •nd South America that experienced severe drought last yearned Latin A^ricM aeri cultural output is expected to reach record levels. Hear-r^cord g££ y^Ids ln cLlda are expected to more than offset a cutback in the wheat ar-a n y ^® ids in Canada side some decline is likely for Canada's livestock products. Also Mexico'rfa^nro duction may only approach year-earlier levels due to a drop in cotton. P Mid-September conditions indicated a significant recovery for wheat coffee and sugai in the major Hemisphere producing countries. Larger crops of barley oats’ rice harvests ’will probably In co «rast, the sunflower aid cori Ly be Utae Sa^ed! "" Productio “ of c °‘ton aad livestock products ^r^»2Lr^i.*s^‘Lra t iS in r ff “’ tTrlir* °IT by a decIlne ln graln - S*^d2S.irS.n2^2t r “i.«.n» ; l s ly : £f r, by s r ri,e in «—*- 1969 The va 1 / * * 0gr i cu l tura l imports from Latin America for January-July 69. The value was 4 percent below the same 1968 period. Meanwhile U S ev 7 ItllLT uti ” *“ rlca dropped 18 »«*•»* *». u pnrt, t ; ,£ year Sri SK ' 1969 18 estiaated *ignificantly above the reduced levels of a ach in C^t iuctlon levels An’l,^ SSSfc ZSZftTJZ. 1/ This review excludes the United States and Cuba. OCTOBER 1969 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ERS-FOREIGN 279 levels in Mexico and Argentina. . j ._i„ l qaa encouraged a continued expansion of plant- r gh “wxnl'hir^ Uti B» Y 1 ledcToTia! Peru', production declined end inge for early m9 “£™*“ , re duced sharply in response to a weakening of prices r;.‘r.:' s£i ^ :“\;ri^.i:*Vo£«: e po^tl’andln'IntJcl^tirdecUne in Brazil-. 1970 crop, export supplies nay be lower next year. duct ion .^^supplemented by record ° ut “™ S la °[ ““““"J inci!esse‘ In o^rVllEeL However,^Argent ina^ s^roduc tion^of SjSS^S^f- the second year, indicating a sharp reduction in vegetable oil exports. i„ Bra:": 6 wae^rri^ft: cantly^n^Central *LTul. Brasil, and Colombia. Current report, indicate serious hurricane damage to the Honduran banana crop. During January-August 1969, there were ^•““^f^’i^i^foducer.'to^ln- ada's export, and slaughter of livestock as higher * o early l96 , dr e o:rht" er lr;en^ini C bl: £ b “tput P u“u“ently estimated'.lightly above 1968. Some de- cline is anticipated for Uruguay. CANADA HARVESTS LARGE GRAIN AND OILSEED CROPS Unusually high yields forecast for Canada's 1969 g f^““t a sharp drop in area. Production o ot August were down sharply from the record. Livestock exports and slaughter through *ug slaussht er and exports would 1968 level. Lower animal number, on £ ‘‘-™^" d ' C *^ e ^ at to “ 1 l > ^f g.ck cattU and hogs, continue reduced, as higher prices encou g ,, from a year earlier and the Grain exports for 1968/69 (August-July) were down sharply from year carryover into the new marketing year was an alltime high. Record wheat stock, and “^ngiui^Tifr^ back in the 1969 wheat area with a aignifleant shift t » >rM £or barU y, ^^.dt^^nrard fo^ r c“p. continued a stroig uptrend and the r.pe.eed are. was record large. A cold, wet spring delayed is later than usual. However, growing conditions were ext y estimated grain and oilseed crops. Despite the sharp cutback in area spring wheat is ® c _ iqco The durum crop was double last year s ™uuui. j production^wa^up TX^T^r'. XYrVJV. — £$xz - ^.«bo¬ na. tern r cropB^ n includlng com. forage, winter wheat, and tobacco. 2 ryrirsr: srtsr •sri c ss , J ss: m/ss: i’ETTui*™ i^LT* - >£* ^^.T^rlST 2L prices -oved up sharply “ * »t£.Uf«dlots. X. contrast cattle exports and encouraged a ris ^ farms a8 of June 1, 1969, were 6 per- to reductions on December 1, 1968, hog numbers on cent above a year earlier. Canada's grain export. reflected£2 *« difficult marketing problems imposed by very 1 8 barley ship- August-dune 1968/69 oiU«d.. A slgnlfl/.ut de- 5S t little and ~*t exports. »£» • t~*“* 1 «" ~ covery in grains, Canada's farm exports will be lower in 1969. In contrast Canadian demand for imported agricultural products a PP® ara gear livestock ^ l£°~ “i" ?as.'iryjs. s «"• “ - - 1969 trade would exceed the record levels of the past 3 year . COTTON DECLINES IN MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA P-es Ud to a sH^cutdacU in cotton pUnUng.^. - Central America. Expansion in Mexican agr ;^“ U ^* h y reduced pa8ture 8 and yields of Sod c'ropsV^ areasT^PavorableSgricultural conditions are expected to increase r.Ss o£ P gr»thTor agricultural output in the Central African countries. » t \-tsr ar s.7r:rssssra^^ss;gSTeSrtSro)Sorru:d. with 5 percent in 1968. The drop harvests of other feedgrains, coffee, zjst » —-«•— u - — rue in 1969 cattle slaughter and export. Planting and ^-g conditio^ ^ sorghuaTgralns*!* 'continuingj'but » corn harvest -» be l«er due to drought damage for small farm production Cotton planting, for the 1969 harvest are e.tinted nearly 20^arc.nt below 1968. with resultant sharp drops in cotton and ^'“^jTnd sifflower. Mexico^wil^be^virtually^self- sufficient ^ c ^®®eb®ble^oils^thls^year.^^Harvests produc tion^maintained *.f production and exports way .eve to higher levels due to strong demand and early drought. Additional export gain, are likely for "ri r ofln m m“ refTect lng° increases 3 in'beef and vegetables. U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico also were up sharply for that perio . 4 Central America : Agricultural conditions were favorable in Central America through midyear 1969, but the September hurricane "Francelia" reportedly damaged Hon¬ duran bananas. The prospective decline in cotton is expected to be more than offset by larger 1969 harvests of coffee, sugarcane, and food crops. Current estimates indi¬ cate a recovery for agricultural output in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The 1969 growth rate for the region should exceed last year's small increase, despite a possible drop in Nicaragua and some slowdown in other countries. A weakening of world prices in late 1968 resulted in a cutback in 1969 cotton plantings in all producing countries with a very sharp drop estimated for Nicaragua Coffee production probably will be up sharply in El Salvador and Guatemala. Sugarcane harvests were below a year earlier in El Salvador and Honduras, but moved up signifi¬ cantly in other countries, particularly Guatemala, Banana production should continue at high levels, and Guatemala's 1969 corn crop am/ exceed previous records. Central American exports of bananas likely will be higher in 1969, with shipments of other agricultural products near 1968 levels. U.S. agricultural imports from Central America for January-July 1969 were above the 1968 pace. U.S. agricultural ex¬ ports were down sharply during that span due, in part, to the shipping strike. AGRICULTURE RECOVERS IN THE CARIBBEAN AND SOUTH AMERICA Near-normal growing conditions through early 1969 indicated a sharp recovery in agriculture from last year's drought in important areas of the Caribbean and South America. Despite some continuing drought effects in certain areas, Caribbean sugar and other crops should benefit from improved weather conditions. Agricultural output in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela is expected to move to high levels with a significant recovery in Peru and Ecuador. Overall South American food and agricul¬ tural output may be at a record level in 1969. Caribbean; Adequate moisture helped maintain favorable growing conditions in the northeast Caribbean, including the Dominican Republic and Haiti, since the drought was broken near midyear 1968. Rains were much later in Jamaica and low moisture levels in some areas may keep 1969 production near the low 1968 level. Trinidad's and Tobago's production is expected to maintain a strong uptrend. Despite lower sugar content in the cane, 1969 sugar production in the Dominican Republic is estimated to be up sharply from the reduced 1968 harvest. Some 1969 re¬ covery is anticipated for Haiti and sugar production in Trinidad and Tobago increased again. However, the Jamaican harvest likely will be below levels of a year earlier. The Dominican Republic's production of food crops, including rice and bananas, is forecast to be up sharply; and the shortfall in Jamaican sugar may be partially offset by gains in bananas, citrus, and vegetables. Cocoa production may be lower this year in Trinidad and Tobago; they may record significant gains in pork and milk. Some recovery is anticipated for Caribbean agricultural exports in 1969. Strong demand should maintain imports at 1968 or higher levels, despite some rise in food pro- k U * S * a 8 ricultural Sports from the Caribbean in January-July 1969 were above the 1968 level. U.S. farm exports dropped sharply but some improvement is likely later this year. 7 A rgentina : Prospects are for a slight recovery in Argentina's 1969 agricultural production. Substantially larger harvests of such early crops as feedgrains, rice cotton, and citrus offset a decline in oilseeds and deciduous fruits. Current con- itions indicate a larger 1969 wheat crop despite drought conditions reported in some 5 areas. Improved pasture, should raise .at output slightly above 1968 level, and en- courage some recovery in milk and wool. The area planted for 1969 feedgrains continued to expand. Corn yields equaled 22*=! r^iT-Tu isr ern Despite a significant increase in planted area, sunflowerseed production dropped ^ , Y-ioldn were reduced by early hot weather and by excessive rains for the second year,centred to decline. Expansion In 1969 cotton In- crease^cottonseed output. Flaxseed plantings will probably he “''£ l0 ° r . or .__ areas Output of edible oils is expected to continue at very tow levels through early 1970, and high prices may encourage a sharp increase in sun ower- seed plantings for 1970. Argentina*s deciduous fruit crop suffered from adverse weather, but a record 1969 2H=3S-a«|!s^:i5S5=£5 put of mutton, wool, and milk above the depressed 1968 levels. An unusually large carryover from 1968 permitted Argentina to **" Sn ^ h arply'Tn*1969**and^ome C oil* Imports have been authorised. The value of shlpments*aay rise sharply fro. last year's low level, reflecting growing de-and for beef cuts and cooked meats. Brasil : With recovery fro. the 1968 drought, Brasil's‘Srlcultural records and agricultural exports should be near the hlga eve Lower prices led to sharply reduced corn plantings for 1969 with a significant ^=^22£SS?Sr«S:-2=: were up sharply from previous records. Despite some effect of last year's drought, the »» «Cf~ tz sysr's s a ug v .r»d “ meet anticipated domestic and export requirements. A slight rise is anticipa meat and milk production. Brasil's cotton esports will be up sharply thUyear due. sredf^Ucreased^up- close 'to”?.st y y«“s“«vn! but corn shipment, will drop well below the 1968 record. tfpl.lTihlr^ other*agrlcultural £ p^u«. l " 8 rr.fu‘lhrolgh"uir"69*«r. ink sharply from a year earlier. 6 Chile: Agricultural output in Chile will be significantly reduced during 1969 by serious drought which continued from mid-1968 through April this year. Priority con¬ trols on reduced water supplies for irrigation helped maintain production of higher valued fruit and vegetable crops. Wheat production nearly equaled that in 1968 because larger plantings in the normally excessively wet southern region compensated for losses in the drought area. However, yields were down significantly for rice, corn, oats barley, and potatoes. Meat production likely will be lower than in 1968 when drought encouraged unusually heavy cattle slaughter. Chile's agricultural imports, particularly of feedgrains and fats and oils will probably continue near the high 1968 levels, which were increased sharply to meet drought shortages. U.S. agricultural exports to Chile for January-July 1969 were below a year earlier but some increase may occur later this year. C olombia : Colombian agriculture should continue a strong growth trend in 1969 and output is expected to exceed last year's record. Weather conditions were favorable in most agricultural areas and the government continued strong efforts to expand agricul¬ ture in support of its trade diversification program. ioco production “y be lower this year, and some decline is anticipated for the 1969 barley crop. High support prices encouraged larger corn plantings and production may be a record. Rice production continued to rise. Cotton maintained the strong up¬ trend of recent years. Soybean production may be down due to diversion to other crops A good year is reported for coffee, and good pastures indicate some rise in meat and Colombian exports should reflect larger cotton shipments in 1969, and some surplus of corn and rice may move to foreign markets. Strong demand should encourage a rise in agriculturai imports, particularly wheat. U.S. exports of agricultural products to Colombia for January-July 1969 approximated the 1968 level, but imports dropped. P^ru; The severe drought was broken by rains in late 1968. Improved moisture conditions in the highlands, along with larger irrigation supplies in the arid coastal region, indicate an increase in 1969 agricultural output. However, production will st 1 be below earlier years and food imports may continue at relatively high levels. Cotton and sugar production will be lower this year. The important long-staple ranguis crop, planted near midyear 1968, was cut back sharply with a significant di¬ version to later planted crops. However, later plantings of northern Pima will be arger due to higher prices and increased irrigation supply. The rains were too late to prevent a sharp drop in 1969 sugar production. Rather substantial cotton lands were shifted to plantings of rice. Later than isual transplantings restricted rice yields, but production will be up sharply. Some -otton area also shifted back to corn and 1969 production may be near the high 1967 Level. A significant rise is also anticipated for highland food crops including meat, barley, and potatoes. Peru s 1969 agricultural exports will reflect smaller supplies of cotton and sugar -mports of rice will probably continue at a high level, though less than in 1968. Corn' urchases may be lower, but larger imports of wheat and fats and oils may be needed. lay * recover ^1. ter P "Z York quotations; near largest producer, is gaining most from the higher pnYeV'tappings there are up ’in 1969. Other countries benefiting include Cambodra, Ceylon, Thailand, and Indonesia Japan is by far the Leisures is also the largest foreign market for U.S. agricult P including those oh recently led the Japanese Government c22 agricultural sss.=».-.«» farm production Far East and Oceania agricultural production in ^f /JO .s expected m exceed^ the rs rr— - - previous ^ - « — tons in 1967/68. Generally favorable weather should account for much gains. Also contributing to the record outturn in Prospecd J ricej wheat> and ^ndr^nom—e cropping; increased mechanization; and wider use of improved farming techniques. Factors Influencing Production mo* zt ',rr,r favorable in most of the region in nroduction However, considerable flood subcontinent have generally ^ en Very p ®°°/ f parts Q f Eastern India. Continental r^td^e ^al, during ,e _ in contrast wifi, l^yeaCs severe began some 3 years ago, but which seems to have abated since July. strrtr;:-; czxrs ~ - ”»=- «—* - j J All tonnages in the report are metric. 2 reported in the Barkly tableland district of the Northern Territory and parts of Western Australia. Not only pastures and beef cattle but also such crops as corn, grain sorghum, wheat, and oilseeds have been affected by drought. Both the Commonwealth and Queensland governments have set up programs to aid farmers by transporting feed to the affected areas or by moving cattle to pastures in other states. In Korea summer rains have been very favorable for the rice crop. This contrasts with very damaging droughts in 1967 and 1968. Up to late September growing conditions in Taiwan were quite good, but typhoons Elsie and Flossie brought high winds and excessive rainfall, causing considerable damage. Cool damp spring weather and some flooding in Japan dimmed prospects for another record rice harvest. Inputs . Although still quite low in most South and Southeast Asian countries, the use of fertilizers and other capital inputs has expanded very rapidly throughout the region. India is projected to distribute 3.2 million nutrient tons of fertilizer in 1970/71 compared .with an expected 2.4 million in 1969/70 and 2.0 million in 1968/69. Korea’s consumption ° f *® rtl lzer * n *969 is estimated to total 740,000 tons, up from 640,000 tons in 1968 and 486,000 in 1967. Taiwan’s fertilizer usage has nearly doubled in the past 5 years and will approximate 1.2 million tons in 1969. In some countries, lower prices for rice and other food grains have reduced the incentive for farmers to use fertilizer. Indonesia’s falling rice prices substantially reduced the farmers ability to purchase fertilizer. In consequence, its fertilizer stocks have accumulated with resultant storage problems. Additional supplies, apparently not immediately needed ave been purchased abroad. To avoid storage problems or costly diversion of recent purchases, the government is considering lowering the price of fertilizer to the farmer or raising the price the farmer is paid for his rice. Best results from the use of new high-yielding varieties of grains have been obtained rom planting improved varieties of wheat on irrigated land in northern India and West Pakistan. Both areas harvested record wheat crops in 1969 despite very dry weather. The largest production gams owing to new varieties of rice planted have occurred in the hiippmes and West Pakistan, but significant gains have also been made in several other countries. Unfortunately, the new rice is not well liked by consumers and it usually sells at a iscount. Current research on high-yielding varieties is placing much emphasis on developing more palatable rice. Commodity Developments .v r77 : t RiC ! iS ,he m0St im P° rtant "°P and food staple in all countries of the region -xcept Afghanistan and those in Oceania. Production in 1969/70 is expected to be a record gh for the third year in a row. Recent sharp increases are attributable to generally good Rowing conditions, widespread planting of new high-yielding varieties, and to record use of ertilizers and other capital inputs. ■vr,J eC °u d T 6 ha " eS * S are eXpeCted in 1969/70 in aU of South Asia. Largely because of -xceptionally favorable weather, rice production in India is forecast at 63 million tons, 3 h with 59 6 million the previous season. 2] In Pakistan the 1969/70 crop is Wca“ at TOUghly 750.000 tons above the 1968/69 harvest of 19.5 million. Floods and nest damage in East Pakistan have dimmed earlier prospects for a good crop this autumn, “3 harvest seasons there. However, the expanded use of fertilizers on the targe winter crop m East Pakistan and increased planting of high-y,eld,ng vanet.es m West Pakistan should result in a larger total 1969/70 harvest for all of Pak.stan. Cevlon’s production likely will total 1.4 million tons. This is about 4 percent above 1968/69 but below earlier forecasts because a drought lowered yields of the early-autumn Yat crop Ibout ha f of Ceylon’s rice area is now planted to new high-yie ding varieties. Indications am that Nepal's hives. this year will barely surpass 1968's 2.4 m.lhon-ton crop. Japan’s 1969 crop, harvested from September to November, is forecast at 17.7 million tons compared with 18.1 million last year. Despite the slightly lower production in orospect the government’s November 1 carryover stocks will be about 7 million tons of Daddv-the highest on record. For the past 11 seasons, the Japanese Government ha P-erinSves to ,ce growers by “^ 0 ^ 9 ^^^ £ rCcIop 6 wTse“e ,968 le $ vel, £ 7is”iU about three times the U.S. price. Unfavorable prospects for’world rice trade, added to Japan’s high prices, and rice varieties not sought in the global market have practically excluded Japan from being a rice exporter To cofe with the surplus problem, Japan has acted to limit production and f P 1> tP marketing of rice during 1969/70. Chief among these actions are. (1) diversion o “ n r r ops (2 ntroduction of a limited free market system, and (3) maintenance of the 1969 price ol ricT a, the ,968 level. By these steps, the government hopes to reduce rice production and modify its control over markets. Thei p °“ ,b |’jft materializes it million tons of 1969-crop rice for sale as feed is being studied. If this shift materializes, would likely reduce feedgrain import levels m late 1969 or early 1970. Following 2 years in which drought sharply reduced rice production the 1969 harvest in Korea r expected to reach a record 6 million tons up from 4.4 miU.on Taiwan a crop of 3.3 million tons is forecast, roughly the same as in • g where rile acreage has declined sharply year by year, the .969 ^ the ^» 12,000 tons, down from 14,000 tons in 1968. After many years as a major importer ^ Phihpp mmsmismsss improved production practices. — crip .^recast afarouTd 16.8 million tons, compared with ,6.3 million tons ,n 2/ All rice production figures are in terms of paddy. 4 1968. In Malaysia indications are that the 1969 rice crop will be at least 5 percent above the previous year's record outturn of almost 1.1 million tons. Expansion of irrigation in the Coleambally and the Murray River areas of New South Wales ossn'm, 3 ‘ 4 ‘ perce , nt ,ncrease in ,he area P lanted to ™e in Australia in 1969 A record 255,000 tons was harvested in 1968/69, compared with 220,000 tons the previous year. Wjjeat: Australia's wheat crop, which will be haivested in December-January, is forecast at 13.6 million tons, compared with 14.7 million in 1968/69. The area sown is reported at 27 million acres, . m.Hion.more than in 1968/69. Weather and growth conditions have been excellent except Queensland and Western Australia where dry weather is expected to result in some lowering of Mia's 1969 harvest was a record 18 million tons, surpassing the previous high recorded last from the h "h '°" t0ns ' Dry weather caused low yields in some nonirrigated wheat areas, but yields rorn the high-yielding varieties of wheat grown under irrigation were uniformly high Tin/10 9 million acres seeded to the newer varieties were about 4 million more than in 1968 and accounted or about three-fourths of the total wheat crop. Due to the favorable supply situation food zones or wheat were eliminated in Northern India in early 1969 except for the city of Calcutta. Fanners he surplus wheat states of the Punjab, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh may now transport wheat pnvately to such deficit states as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for sale in the open market. Pakistan’s 1969 harvest totaled about 7 million tons, or 8 percent more than in the previous season. The record outturn was achieved by using improved varieties and more fertilizer since very dry weather dunng the winter drastically curtailed yields of nonirrigated wheat and al^o caused^ reached 5 mZn°" Wa ‘ er m ““i ^ P ' anted *° improved varieties in l96 « reportedly reached 5 million acres, compared with 2.3 million acres a year ago. By using the newer varieties and growing winter wheat as the second crop on land that produces rice in the snmmer Nepal srimated m 227 C 0M f if?' harv ! s * 'y ear for tha P aa ‘ 5 seasons. The 1969 harvest is 1968 a^d 7 6 1 ? S 2 - 9 - millio "- ton <™p this year compares with 3.1 million in 968 and 2.6 million in 1967. The decline in 1969 is reportedly due to wet weather at harvest time and to some increase in disease damage. esi ume below 1968 h \ ? J ^ pan i m 1969 1S estimated at only 790,000 tons, about 22 percent below 1968. Some wheat land in Japan is being diverted to urban use, and some to the production )f vegetables and other more profitable crops. But more important, farmers have stopped growing vheat and have left the land idle over the winter to work at off-farm jobs. Korea’s^ 96^wheat larvest is estimated at 374,000 tons, up from 345,000 in 1968. Other Grains: Good crops of most other grains Nevertheless, demand for feedgrains is increasing more xpanding poultry and livestock industries. are anticipated for most countries, rapidly than production due to the ,ith 9 c -r nd -n ■ 3 record cr °P of 29 5 million tons of coarse grains is likely in 1969/70 compared '1 ntl , '° nS ^ Pre , Vi ° US SeaSOn ' M0S * of ,he *> rodurti °" * P- d human consumption orn production may reach 7 million tons, up from 5.7 million tons in 1968/69 Grain soothum roduction should slightly exceed the 9.8 million tons turned out last season Production of all nUets is forecast to reach 9 million tons, compared with 7.3 million in 1968/69. Coarse grain crops Pakistan are expected to be moderately above the 1967/68 level of 1.5 million^ons after 5 declining about 17 percent in 1968/69 to an estimated 1.3 million tons. Corn will account for more than half of the coarse grains produced. In the Philippines corn production in 1969/70 is expected to show a substantial increase r tpu 1Q6R/69 outturn of 1 5 million tons, due to expanded plantings and improved situation is reflected 1 g J Programs in Indonesia for increasing the production of excellent harvest of 1.5 to 1.7 million tons. rrog J aDa nese Government and Japanese corn on it for export. Larger crops of barley and oats are forecast for Australia in 1969/70. Coarse grain prices may be affected by wheat sales for feed outside regular marketing channe s. Coarse grain production is up in several other countries. Korea harvested a record Z, million tons of barlev in 1969 Nepal’s com harvest this year is estimated up from th , of 1968 In ce^on com production in 1969 is almost double the 10,000 tons produced in 1966. surplus. Other Crops- Production of oilseeds will be up in 1969/70 primarily because of improved weath er in majo f'growing areas of South Asia. In India, a peanut harvest of about 5.5 million tons is rnrospect TOs Compares with the poor 1968/69 harvest of only 4.5 million tons In Pakistan the 1969 peanut crop, has been forecast at 179,000 tons, more than double the leve 1 of 4 years ago.A record cotton harvest is expected in India; indications are that it wi e up a ou fore cast pulses to wheat or other crops when irrigation water is available. Fruit and vegetable production continues to expand in almost every country of lh ” eB ‘" n _ .he last 5 years West Pakistan’s production of oranges, apples, pineapples, mangoes, onions, and deciduous fruits is estimated to be lower in 1969. Several countries in South and Southeast Asia depend heavily on the production^ and export of a few tropical agricultural products for their foreign exchange earnings. Jute and its products 6 represent the most important source of foreign exchange of both India and Pakistan. India’s jute production in 1969 is estimated at 8 million bales (180 kilograms each), compared with the short 3-million-bale crop in 1968 and the good 6.3-million-bale outturn in 1967. Pakistan’s production this year is expected to be above the 5.9 million bales produced in 1968; jute production in 1967 was 6.9 million bales. The area planted to jute in Pakistan is declining because farmers are switching some land to rice and potatoes, which have recently been more profitable. Thailand s kenaf production in 1969 is expected to be up sharply from the 148,000 tons produced in 1968, but the quality is poor. Tea production in 1969 is up moderately in both India and Ceylon, the two major exporters. Rubber output in West Malaysia, the world’s largest producer rose by 12 percent in 1968 to a new peak of 1.1 million tons. Recent plantings of higher yielding stocks accounted for the increase. Production in the first half of 1969 was ahead of the comparable period of last year. Rubber production is also up somewhat in Ceylon and Thailand but down in Indonesia. ’ Coffee production improved in Indonesia, the leading producing country in the region. Coconut production is down in the whole region. The drought in the Philippines had some adverse effect on coconut production in 1968, but the effect has been much more severe in 1969; official statements have indicated a production drop of as much as 25 percent. Copra production is down moderately in Indonesia. Black pepper production will be lower in Indonesia in 1969. In consequence, international prices for this commodity rose rapidly in September. Sugar production in the Philippines will be reduced by the severe drought, which has lingered or 3 years and the effects of two typhoons last November. In the sugarcane producing areas of us ralia, dry weather in the growing period and excessive moisture in the harvesting season resulted in reduced sugar content of the cane. This points to a decline in raw sugar production. This contravenes an early-season forecast of a record outturn of sugar in 1969/70. Sugar production will also be down in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Livestock : Except for draft animals, livestock have traditionally played a relatively small role in the agricultural economies of most Asian countries. Although per capita consumption of ivestock an d Poultry products is still very low by Western standards, consumption reached record vels in 1969. Indications are that it will continue to rise quite rapidly, particularly in Japan and other countries of the region where incomes are registering substantial increases. The policy in most countries is to try to meet increased demand for livestock products from domestic production. For xamp e, ou ie duam s em Phasis on protein has led to a sharp increase in the production of wine and poultry. This policy has resulted in a rapidly increasing demand for imported feedstuffs oduction has gone up most rapidly for poultry and eggs, but also substantially for dairy products and pork. Gams m beef production have been quite moderate. 1Q68 ^ S P° Ultry ™ eat P roduc tion for 1969 is forecast at 400,000 tons, up 19 percent from Ibnt In , So ° "T ? rS m JaPan aS ° f February 1 ’ 1969 > are reported at 3.5 million or 9 percent shmated'a^ 175 000 t in ° f ^ ^ Beef and Veal eduction in 1969 is Il lSw n l 75 ’ 000 ton . s or 10 P ercent above the previous year. Although hog numbers are down slightly, pork production is estimated at 530,000 tons, 2 percent above 1968. Austrahra^Nr^^ST^^ ^ 3 ^ role in the agricultural economies of hilliln n H N Zealand - In Australia, wool production for 1969/70 is estimated at a record 2 pounds, some 3 percent higher than the previous year. As of March 1969, sheep numbers 7 were 6 percent over the same period of the previous year. In New Zealand, wool production is up only slightly in 1969, but improved prices for coarser wools have resulted in significant increases in farm incomes. New Zealand wool prices as of March 1969 averaged 32 cents per pound, compared with 25 cents the same time last year. Australia’s cattle totaled 20.8 million as of March 31, 1969, up 8 percent from last year. Cattle slaughterings in 1968/69 were the lowest since 1963/64, but the increase in meat production to 920 000 tons the highest level since 1965/66, indicates that animals were slaughtered at heavier weights. Hog numbers as of March 31 were 11 percent above the same date m 1968. New Zealand is very dependent upon dairying and the export of dairy products. Dairy production for 1968/69 was reported at record levels, with butterfat output estimated at 588 million pounds or 4 percent above last year. FOREIGN TRADE IN FARM PRODUCTS Exports Increased exports and improved foreign exchange balances were recorded for a majority of the countries of the region in the first half of 1969. Higher prices for mbber, wool, ™ats, and certain other important agricultural export items partly accounted for this XiTthTexo ort aato other hand, prices for rice and some other export commodities were lower. Much of the export gain in several countries was due to increased shipments of industnal products. Compared with January-July 1968, Japan’s total exports by value for the same months in 1969 increased by 28 percent to $8.7 million. Among the exports showing significant mcreases were foodstuffs, textiles, chemicals, machinery, and automobiles. In the first half of 1969, India’s exports totaled $912 mittor,13.2 percent above the corresponding period of 1968. The trade deficit for the first half of 1969 amounted to $106 million, against $587 million for the corresponding period of 1968. Ceylon s ex P° r,s ^ 6 months of 1969 totaled $168 million, an increase of $27 million over the first half o substanrialhierease was chiefly due to greater earnings from tea and exports increased from $635 million in 1967/68 (July-June) to $693 million in 1968/69 Exports of raw cotton, cotton textiles, tobacco, leather products, and processed foods were all higher, whde raw jute and basmati rice exports were lower. Taiwan’s export shipments this year through June totaled $516 million and were 25 percent higher than in the same period of 1968. Comparably imports mcreased by 14 percent to $533 million. Exports of bananas and canned fruits and vegetables were up, but industrial items^recorded the biggest gains. For the first 6 months of the year, Hong Kong’s exports were up b y '° Pf rcent ; West Malaysia had a $75 million favorable balance of trade for the first 7 months of 1969. This w s almost four times the surplus of the same period last year. Shipments andpnces ofrubber and! n were up Malaysia in 1968 became the world’s largest exporter of palm oU. New Zealand reported» balance of payments surplus of $50 million for 1968/69 chiefly asthe result 0 from meat and wool exports. Australia's total exports m .968/69 increasedby 10 P«™£ Its agricultural exports in 1968/69 totaled $2.1 billion, 3 percent above the previous year. South Korea’s exports of $274 million for the first half of 1969 were 36 percent more than in the same months of 1968. 8 For the first time in recent years, Thailand may have an unfavorable balance of payments Improved earnings from tourism, tin, and rubber exports in first half of 1969 were overshadowed by reduced earnings from rice and large imports. Other countries having difficulty in maintaining export earnings m 1969 include Indonesia and the Philippines. Rice: Due mainly to expanded production in a number of rice deficit countries, exports and prices of rice have declined over the past year, reducing substantially the outlook for export earnings from this commodity. Japan has changed from a major rice importer to a country producing a large and growing surplus. The Philippines has become self-sufficient, and the import requirements of Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Vietnam have been reduced. Thailand, Burma, and Cambodia are the countries most dependent on export earnings from nee; others that are somewhat less dependent include Taiwan, Australia, and Pakistan. Thailand is the region s major rice exporter, but the country’s exports this year through June were at a 15-year low. For the entire calendar year, Thai exports are expected to approximate 1 million tons or about equal to last year’s poor showing. Due mainly to recent unexpected purchases by Indonesia Burma will reverse a 6-year downtrend by exporting around a half-million tons of rice this year. This compares with only 350,000 tons in 1968. Taiwan’s rice exports are expected to total only 42 000 t0nS “1 onnn ^ ^ one ' fourth the level of 3 years a g°- So far in 1969, South Korea has received 30,000 t0nS ° f Japanese rice on a long-term loan basis. Japan is planning to lend Okinawa 30,000 tons during each of the next 3 years and to export 90,000 tons office to Indonesia as a part ot Japan s aid program to that country. World rice prices rose from 1966 to 1968 but have declined since then. The Bangkok export quotation for white brokens A-l supergrade was $93.60 per ton on September 8, 1969, down from $141.60 a year earlier. Comparably, white rice 100-percent first grade was quoted at $199.20 per ton in contrast to $216 a year earlier. Cpm: Thailand is the major com exporting country of the region; others include Cambodia and Indonesia. Exports from Thailand were nearly 1.5 million tons in 1968, up from 1.1 million tons the previous year. Exports in 1969 may be somewhat lower because of prolonged negotiations wi apan-the major market- which resulted in a temporary halt in trade around midyear. In contrast with rice prices, com prices have been generally favorable. After Japan, the next largest market for Thai com is Taiwan. Japan recently agreed to purchase at least 540,000 tons during 1969/70 marketing year begun September 1. Under normal conditions, the price will be based on the Chicago quotation for No. 2 U.S. yellow corn the month e ore shipment is made. If market conditions are abnormal, say another prolonged U.S. dock strike is underway, Thailand can choose to have the price based on the price paid by Japan in procuring rorn other countries. Taiwan will buy 300,000 tons of com during the current marketing season with 20 percent more or less at the buyer’s option. Under the agreement, additional quantities may made available by Thailand if the expected bumper crop materializes. No definite formula is specified for arriving at prices but the price of com moving to Japan in the same month will be fo^er\^^ ^ $hipmentS in the marketin 8 year begun in September will likely be Wheat: As a foreign exchange earner, wheat is of great importance to Australia, the only ountry exporting that commodity in the region. Since it is one of the world’s largest exporters of wheat Australia s shipments can significantly affect the overall world market situation. Australia’s 1 Q^ S 8 °tt W , and fl ° Ur dUfing 1968/69 t0taled 53 million tons > down 1-6 million from / . nder present world marketing conditions, there are doubts that its exports for 1969/70 9 will exceed 5 million tons. A buildup in carryover stocks to about 13 million tons is forecast for December^ 1, 1970, an increase of 85 percent over the 7-million-ton carryover estimated for December 1, 1969. JMto World rubber prices ,have reached^ k , rrz S ’z aijsz .set ~ sl « 5 ^ L forln exchange Rubber exports totaled 591.000 tons during the first 6 months of 1969. This is £fbTnem:"^ been lower as many smallholders that abandoned the trade when prices were low have been slow in returning to rubber tapping. livestoc k Products : Exports of livestock products-meat. wool, and dairy products-are of great significance to thelconomies of Australia and New Zealand. Excluding dairy P/° du ets. export demand and prices are up in 1969. New Zealand’s wool production was only sligh*'*3^* ^ improved prices for coarser wools resulted in an increase in the export value to $241 mil ion for the year ended June 1969, 40 percent above the previous year. Meat continued as New Zealand s mai export with shipments valued at $353 million in 1968/69. More than one-fourth ° f * he t0,al exports were consigned to the United States and were valued at about $96 mdliom Meat and accounted for about half the value of Australia’s total exports to the United States in 1968/69. New Zealand’s dairy industry faces serious surplus problems at home and abroad particularly for blitter X accumulation of stocks in European countries has led to depressed prices and difficult marketing conditions in the United Kingdom-New Zeal,and’s main dairy P r °^ c * s ™ rke d The total value of dairy exports declined by 18 percent to $213 million in 1967/68 and is reported down to $205 million in 1968/69. Other Commodities : Export earnings from sugar may be lower in I 969 / 70 . Drought has! reduced the crop in the Philippines so much that the country may not fill its export quota to United States Export availabilities from Australia may also be lower as a result of the reduced sugar content of^he cane there. Exports of jute and jute products should be up due to the large crops in India and Pakistan Earnings from coconut products will be down in the Philippines owing o ow prices^aswe 1drought-reduced production, and they are unlikely to show any significant increase fn Indonesia, Ceylon,m other exporting countries of the regionJet.production « slightly higher this year. The value of Ceylon’s tea exports for the first half of 1969 totaled $10U million compared with $83 million for the same period a year earlier. Production •‘nd expor fruits are gaining in importance in several countries. Afghanistan’s total exports of fresh and dried fruits were valued at $26 million in 1967/68. Fresh fruit exports alone increased $8 million over a year earlier to $14 million. Excellent crops of grapes and stone fruits should result in Afghani exporting more fresh fruits in 1969. 10 Imports Japan is by far the most important importer of agricultural products in the region India is t p~ir rket in the wor,d for us - farm products ’ and india Jaj)an: Imports the first 7 months of 1969 totaled $8.3 billion or 10 percent above the same period of last year. Farm products which registered volume increases were wheat, up 9 percent - raw wool, 12 percent; soybeans, 2 percent; and grain sorghum, 15 percent. Imports of corn and soybeans were down 7 percent, while incoming cotton declined by 25 percent. To fulfill consumption and minimum stock requirements, Japan likely will import about 4 4 million tons of wheat in 1969/70, about 6 percent above 1968/69. In August the Food Agency which controls purchases of all imported wheat, announced that future Japanese purchases of foreign wheat would be on the .basis of type-soft, semihard, and hard-rather than by country of origin as in the past. The United States has been supplying about half of Japan’s wheat imports. owever, under the present world wheat surplus situation, the United States faces increased competition in maintaining its historical.share. The rapidly growing poultry and livestock industries in Japan requrre ever larger imports of feedgrams. Total imports of com in 1969 are estimated at 5.6 million tons, with the U S share about 3.4 million tons. Heavy imports of U.S. com during the second half of 1969 are expected because of the favorable U.S. price of com relative to grain sorghum, as well as the limhed a a liability of corn from competitive sources. Japan’s com imports for industrial uses in 1969 are expected to reach 1.3 million tons. This compares with 1 million tons used in 1968. The increase njsults from a rising demand for starch. Japanese imports of grain sorghums are forecast at 2 7 million tons in 1969, compared to 2.3 million tons in 1968. The U.S. share likely will be about 16 tons, down from T9 million in 1968. This decline is due to expected imports of about 970 000 tons from Argentina. The Government of Japan is considering the use of about 1.1 million tons of surplus 1967-crop nee as feed for livestock. If this materializes, com and grain sorghum imports may be somewhat lower than indicated. " * ton, fn* cotton ™P or ts to the 1968/69 marketing year ended July 31 are estimated at 682,000 144 000 t me 0f iV- PerCent fr ° m 1967/68 ' Imports from the United States during 1968/69 totaled 2 represen ‘ s 21 percent of total imports against 30 percent last year nro7n P h a V i. , PnCeS f ° r US ' cotton - espeda Hy Arizona-California cottons, and the p olonged dockworkers stnke at Gulf ports were among the major factors leading to the decline in —I ™ tt ^ United States - Japan increased its takings of cotton from Mexico, Brazil, and the mark t Z n u^F e '“I ? T fn b r n diSf> ' aCing US ' mediUm Sta P le cotton in «■* Japanese market. The U.S. Export-Import Bank in May 1969 authorized Japan a credit of $75 million to finance the .mport of 650,000 bales of U.S. raw cotton during the ^969/70 marketing yTar be^ totaled a 76nnn m t a i 0r imP ° rt ffj * mutton ' Imports of mutton from Ne « Zealand in 1968 totaled 76 000 tons, compared with 16,000 tons in 1960. During that span, imports from Australia double^he T 967 ie 0 ^ tT t° 3 °’ 00 ° r , Fresh poultry imports totaled over 16.000 tons in 1968, meat tano K and H apanese Government’s import quota on beef and pork severely curtails meat imports and drastically restricts the amount available for consumption. The Japanese aZZrM imports ^ ” f ° reign PreSSUreS theSe a " d ^otter restrict” on 11 The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry announced in September that import controls on 22 agricultural commodities would be liberalized by the end of 1969. Among the important commodities affected are soybean meal, rapeseed meal, cake mixes, fresh apples, fruit purees, and pig fat. But import controls on grapefruit, beef, canned tomatoes, and certain other vegetable items which the United States has pressed the Japanese Government to liberalize were not listed. India: India’s total food grain imports in 1969/70 are expected to approximate 4.5 million tons, compared with 4.3 million tons in 1968/69 and 8.2 million tons in 1967/68. Wheat is the major food grain import, totaling 3.8 million tons in 1968/69. Some 2.6 million tons were imported from the United States, the rest largely from Canada, Argentina, and Australia. The United States is expected to supply about three-fourths of the 4 million tons of wheat planned for import in 1969/70; Canada will supply most of the remainder. Imports of U.S. grain sorghums are expected to total roughly 300,000 tons. This compares with total imports of only 55,000 tons in 1968/69 and 1.3 million tons in 1967/68. Imports of rice (milled basis) in 1969/70 will be higher and may exceed 500,000 tons. The increase is explained by the ever-growing demand in urban centers and larger supplies available at lower prices in nearby exporting countries. Burma is scheduled to export about 200,000 tons of rice to India in 1969. About 100,000 tons of U.S. rice was purchased under Title I of P.L. 480 in mid-1969. Other countries expected to ship rice to India in 1969/70 include Egypt, Thailand, and Cambodia. India is scheduled to import about 650,000 bales of cotton from all sources in 1969/70, including over 200,000 bales from the United States under P.L. 480. The Sudan probably will supply about 190,000 bales. Imports of soybean oil from the United States under P.L. 480 are anticipated in 1969/70 to help meet the growing consumer demand for vegetable oils. Some imports into India of Russian sunflower oil and Ceylonese coconut oil are also expected. Prices for vegetable oils increased sharply in recent months, reflecting fast-growing consumer demand and the shortage of peanut oil due to the small 1968/69 harvest. Pakistan Though still a major food grain importer, Pakistan has made progress toward reducing its food needs from abroad. Wheat imports fell to 756,000 tons in 1968/69 from 2.2 million tons the preceding year. The United States supplied 659,000 tons tHat moved mostly under P.L. 480, but 92,000 tons were commercial purchases. Almost all the wheat imported in 1968/69 went to East Pakistan. About 30,000 tons of rice came from Burma in the first quarter of 1969/70 to ease a shortage in East Pakistan. Vegetable oil imports may reach 150,000 tons in 1969/70 because of large purchases from the United States under P.L. 480. Commercial imports of tallow are increasing. Ceylon: Ceylon’s rice imports in 1969 are likely to be close to the 355,000 tons received in 1968. Its takings from mainland China may exceed the 200,000 tons delivered in 1968 because higher prices for rubber entitle Ceylon to more rice in the rubber-for-rice trade arrangement between the two countries. Imports of wheat flour in 1969 are expected to exceed 400,000 tons; about half of this should come from the United States, mostly under P.L. 480. About 25,000 tons of Australian wheat were imported in the first half of 1969 for the new flour mill in Colombo. Meanwhile, about 80,000 tons of Australian wheat flour arrived in Ceylon. Taiwan: Imports of wheat into Taiwan in 1969 may exceed 600,000 tons, including 56,000 tons of feed wheat purchased from France in the first half of the year. Wheat imports in 1968 totaled 449,000 tons. Com imports are continuing to expand rapidly and may reach 500,000 tons this year. This will, however, be less than earlier expectations, due to the purchase of low-priced 12 French feed wheat. Most corn imports so far in 1969 are from Thailand and the United States. Incoming raw cotton likely will match the 87,000 tons received in 1968. Imports of U.S. soybeans in 1969 might reach 610,000 tons, compared with 405,000 tons in 1968. Growing poultry hog and fishery industry needs for soybean meal have been the major factor in the rapid expansion in soybean imports. The Government of Taiwan has placed limits on imports of wheat corn and soybeans for the period April 1-December 1, 1969. Port congestion and the island’s limited storage and transportation facilities made these restrictions necessary. Kgrea: The 760,000 tons of rice (milled basis) programed for import by Korea in 1969 have mostly been received. The United States is supplying about 460,000 tons and Japan, the rest from stocks. Korea expected to import over 1 million tons of wheat in 1969, compared with 813,000 tons in 1968. Wheat comes largely from the United States, mostly under P.L. 480. Korea has increased its corn imports in 1969, largely to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding poultry industry. Cotton imports are expected to be around 81,000 tons, 5,000 tons less than in 1968 Imports in the first 6 months of 1969 totaled 37,000 tons. Sales of cotton to Korea under P.L. 480 amounted to only 35,000 tons in 1969, compared with 83,000 tons in 1968. 1/1 no7T ; ng ^ 0n % : , Rlce im P° rts int0 Hong Kong in 1969 probably will total 300,000 tons some 14 000 tons less than in 1968. Stocks on hand at the beginning of the year were unusually large and per capita consumption is apparently showing a slight decline as diets are upgraded and diversified There were no rice imports from the United States during the first half of 1969 largely because of lower prices for Thai rice and the availability of large quantities from mainland China it > P ™ es hav ® since advanced and the Crown Colony recently made additional purchases from the leve 'of 9 ^ e mnT° rtS r 1 ^ “ d Whcat floUr “ 1969 WiU probabl y be dose *> the record 1968 of 216,000 tons (wheat equivalent basis). In first half of 1969, Australia and Canada were the principal sources. The United States supplied only 7,000 tons during that period. Com imports during the first 6 months of 1969 totaled 64,000 tons, with Thailand supplying 46,000 tons The United States sent about 20,000 tons of mixed poultry feed during this period. Total imports of raw cotton in 1969 are estimated at 163,000 tons, 33,000 tons less than in 1968. I960 Imp ° rtS f f° m the United States by the Philippines have dropped substantially in of UmTed H C ° ^ ^ imP ° rtS haVC inCre3Sed - In the a g riculturd sector, only imports mted States dairy products and tobacco registered gains in the first 5 months of 1969 The Philippines initiated a tough program to reduce its huge trade deficit in 1968, and reinforced it in 6 ’ ^ pn " cipal wea P° n 1S denial of credit for overseas purchase of items officially classified as nonessential. One of the earliest items so classified was wheat flour. In early September Filipino uXd" State reP °H rt t t W6re P l! nnmg to reduce their multimillion dollar wheat purchases from the United States and to turn to Canada in the coming year for 150,000 tons under an agreement offering very liberal credit terms and renewable after a year. and od mfn y^ tn / -i ln 1 recent y'f 5 Sou,h Vietnam has become important as an importer of rice £ ° ear U S agrrcultura! commodities. Some 322,000 tons of rice have been scheduled for import In, ' A r0m the Unlted States - Tllls Compares with total imports of 680,000 tons in 1968 Improved transportation and security, allowing South Vietnam wider use of its own production re responsible for the lower volume of imports, despite the short 1968/69 crop Corn imports are “ 8 me n k ' " eedS ° f ,he gr ° WinS P ° uItry and swine indust ™ s -1‘ « forecast thaU 50 000 tons of corn wiU be imported for feed in 1970, compared with estimated imports in 1969 of approximately 80,000 tons and only about 25,000 tons in 1967. 13 South Pacific Islands: Over the past 5 years, the islands of the South Pacific from French Polynesia to New GuineaTbetween the Tropic of Capricorn and the Equator, have more than doubled their imports of agricultural products. Imports of poultry meat have gone up about 3/z times, the largest gain is in French Polynesia. Of the approximately $80 million worth of agricultural products being imported, cereals account for about 25 percent; meats, 22 percent; fruits and vegetables, 13 percent, beverages, percent; and dairy products and eggs, 10 percent. The US. share of the area’s agricultural imports is nearly 10 percent. The largest island market for U.S. products is French Polynesia where the U.S. share is 25 percent Smallestmarkets for U.S. products are the Territories of Papua and New Guinea; combined imports there from the United States amount to about 2 percent of total agricultural imports. O ther Countries : With more spindles to be in operation in Thailand and a sharp drop in cotton production likely in 1969/70, Thai imports of raw cotton are expected to be more than double the 1968/69 level of 17,000 tons. In recent years, U.S. share of that Nation s cotton impor s was about 80 percent. As the result of a good crop, Indonesia is expected to reduce its nee imports in 1969 to about 500,000 tons from around 600,000 tons a year earlier. Due to some decline in production in 1969, Afghanistan might purchase 90,000 tons of " heat ^ et Union This under PL 480 in 1969/70 and additional quantities from Australia and the Soviet Union. Pus compares with total imports in 1968/69 of roughly 40,000 tons from the Soviet Union, Canada, and Australia. 14 United States Department of Agriculture Washington D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSTAGE & FEES PAID United States Department of Agriculture This report was prepared under the direction of Clarence E Pike, Chief, Far East Branch. This report updates a more comprehensive report published in Ap ”* 1%9 _ * in the Far East and Oceania-Review of 1968 and Outlook for 1969, ERS- or ign * U. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 ■)9U-Z27 (5RS-751 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS RESEARCH - UURAfQ f Vol. 21, No. 3, JULY 196 A Framework for Analysis of Agricultural Marketing Systems in Developing Countries By Norris T. Pritchard Many developing countries urgently need im- >rovements in their agricultural marketing systems to keep pace with expansion in agri¬ culture and industry. The changes in technology, consumer demand for farm products, farmer lemand for farm supplies, and the growing nterdependence of farming and marketing during evelopment are other stimuli for moderniza- ion. Although modernization and expansion of gricultural marketing systems are now under- r ay in developing countries, progress generally 3 slow. It is visible mainly as small, but nportant, islands of modern marketing in the lidst of now antiquated systems inherited from ast generations. Accordingly, many developing countries are ager to hasten expansion and change in their ;ricultural marketing systems. But to formu- cte effective improvement programs they need )mprehensive economic analyses of agricul- iral marketing in the context of economic .owth, as well as studies of specific marketing )erations. The purpose of this paper is to itline some of the broad elements in such an lalytical framework. A total-systems research iproach can help policy and program officials identify present and emerging marketing oblems and to understand the intricate, chang- g linkages binding agriculture and marketing gether. It will further aid in setting policy iorities, selecting areas for specific action, d hastening agricultural and general economic velopment. The Research Framework A comprehensive analysis of agricultural irketing systems requires a broad analytical imework to supply essential operational research questions and to indicate appropriate research methods. A key element in this con¬ struction is the theory of market structure- conduct-performance analysis, using a broad definition of structure. A second major part of the framework is a set of widely known economic theories relevant to marketing. These include the principles of consumption, demand, production, economies of scale, pricing, market¬ ing information, firm behavior, and business management. A third key feature is the theory of effective competition as a dynamic process. A fourth major element is the general theory of economic growth. Growth concepts are es¬ pecially important because the research, by definition, encompasses agricultural marketing in growing economies now in early stages of development. The main thread binding the theories into a useful framework is the concept of agricultural marketing as an organized, operating behavior system within the national economy. Completion of the analytical frame¬ work further requires definition of agricultural marketing, and recognition of basic economic, technological, and social restraints in the en¬ vironment in which marketing systems function and change. Definition of Agricultural Marketing Reprinted August 1969 by the ‘sion, Economic Research Agricultural marketing is defined here as agriculturally oriented marketing. It embraces all operations and institutions involved in moving farm products from farms to consumers, in providing production and consumption incen¬ tives to producers, marketing firms, and con¬ sumers, and in distributing farm supplies—feed, seed, fuel, fertilizer, and machinery--to Foreign Development and Trade Service Foreign -281 farmers. Thus, agricultural marketing covers assembling, transporting, processing, storing, packaging, wholesaling, financing, retailing, market information, pricing, market organiza¬ tion, competitive relationships, bargaining, selling, procurement, product and process in¬ novation, and exporting of products of farm origin. It also covers the similar counterflow of farm supplies to farmers. Accordingly, this concept of agricultural marketing embraces the whole of the food, feed, seed, and livestock industries. However, for such other agricul¬ turally oriented industries as textiles, tobacco, chemicals, and farm machinery, the need for holding the research program to manageable size requires restriction of the concept to those marketing operations that involve these other industries in direct contact with farmers as first sellers or final buyers. Market Structure Analysis For a comprehensive analysis of agricultural marketing systems in the context of economic growth, market structure analysis is a valuable, but often neglected, research tool. Whereas much of economic theory abstracts from market¬ ing, market structure analysis postulates causal relations running from industry and market structure through the conduct of marketing firms to their performance, and, at times, from performance back to structure. 2 Market structure analysis is problem oriented. It may be positive or predictive in purpose and either static or dynamic in nature. It is compatible with other economic theory and, in empirical studies, either a broad or a narrow concept of structure may be used. These are important advantages of the theory for studies of market¬ ing in developing countries where (a) industry and market structures are changing and (b) gov¬ ernments are seeking to improve market performance by making specific changes in market organization. In recent years, market structure has become more and more narrowly defined as "those characteristics of the organization of a market that seem to influence strategically the nature of competition and pricing within the market. 3 The strategic characteristics most emphasized are the degree of seller (buyer) concentration as measured by numbers and size distributions of firms, the degree of product and service differentiation among sellers, and the conditions of entry into an industry and its markets.^ This narrow concept of market structure, however, seems unsatisfactory for agricultural marketing studies in developing countries. The emphasis on only three of the many elements of market structure influencing conduct and performance reflects a consensus on the critical policy issues in marketing in advanced market economies. Indirectly, it suggests that acceptable solutions have been found for the many excluded, more elementary, structural problems of these highly developed marketing systems. 4 5 * * * But in develop¬ ing countries, agricultural marketing, like almost everything else, is in early stages of development. The important structural problems are often not well known. They are more nu¬ merous, and more elementary. For example, development of a system of uniform weights and measures and a body of law on contracts and business organization may have far more importance for market performance than action to reduce market concentration in economies with fragmented market structures. Also, the limited degree of product differentiation in a developing economy, with its limited outputs of goods and low effective demand, may be less important than deficiencies in structure that reduce productivity. Although market structure analysis becomes more difficult and complex as the definition of 3 J. S. Bain. Barriers to New Competition. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1962, p. 7. i W F. Mueller. Some Market Structure Considerations in Economic Development. Jour. Farm Econ. 41(2), May 19 2 9 f S Bain. Industrial Organization. John Wiley and Sons ’New York, 1959. Also R. L. Clodius and W. F. Muel¬ ler Market Structure Analysis as an Orientation for Research in Agricultural Economics. Jour. Farm Econ. 43(3), August 1961. 4 Clodius and Mueller, op. cit. s A few examples of these excluded structural elements include the many organizational variables often referrec to as '•rules of the game," set by law and business custom; formal and informal contractual arrangement; among business firms; the structures of closely relate, industries such as agriculture; and some basic economh and technological features of products and processes In all cases, the key requirement is significant influen ■ on business behavior and performance. structure is broadened, there are offsetting advantages. Chief among these is improvement in the odds for correctly identifying urgent and emerging structure-performance problems and determining causal relationships. These are essential first steps to finding practical means for improving market structures and perform¬ ance. Market conduct is "the patterns of behavior that enterprises follow" in marketing. 6 Conduct is what businesses do; it is their policies and strategies. Market performance is the results of market conduct. These include prices, profits and losses, product and service volumes and qualities, product innovation, technical and sconomic progress, diffusion of benefits of progress, and other events. In market structure analysis these performance variables are related to observed conduct and structural variables to determine lines of causation. 7 The text step, with great interest for developing countries, is estimation of potential improve- nents in industry and market performance re¬ sulting from a specific change in structure, such as a new food processing plant, an im- sroved system of weights and measures, new ;rading standards, or land reform in agricul- ure. Relevant Economic Theory Agricultural marketing has no distinct body of heory of its own. Therefore, analytical frame¬ works for marketing studies are sets of relevant iieories drawn from general economics. 8 These 6 Bain, op. cit., p. 9. 7 In practice, it is often both difficult and unnecessary i distinguish between conduct and performance. In these ises, market structure analysis seeks to determine di- Jct structure-performance relationships. Frequently, ' 0 , the nature of the conduct variable is obvious from e performance. For example, a firm that markets any new products probably has a strategy of product novation and a substantial product research and devel- iment program. Similarly, it may be as difficult as it unimportant to distinguish sharply between a market rategy of low prices and the prices. Relevance is largely determined by the economic nctions performed in a marketing system, the nature the specific marketing problem under study, and the onomic forces and restraints in agricultural markets. include the well-known theories of consumer demand, production, pricing, farmer demand for inputs, market information, behavior of the firm, innovation, storage, transportation, com¬ petition, countervailing power, and others. Among these, the theories of consumer and farmer demand for farm products, inputs, and marketing services are especially useful for explaining and predicting how and why the structures of these demands change during development. 9 The theory of production is important since most marketing operations involve the production of goods and services. They require inputs of productive factors. With technological advance in marketing, rising wages, and increases in market size during development, analyses of economies of scale and changes in substitution relationships among productive factors acquire great importance in marketing studies. Economic-engineering analyses, based on the theories of production, firm behavior, and demand, are particularly valuable for estimating the feasibility of the new marketing facilities needed for modernization of agricultural marketing systems in developing countries. From national income accounting and input- output analysis come useful concepts and in¬ formation for study of a major growth phenome¬ non. This is the changing structure of linkages among agriculture, marketing, and other economic sectors. Increasing interdependence of economic sectors, such as agriculture and marketing, is a hallmark of economic develop¬ ment. Other useful economic concepts may be drawn from welfare theory, macroeco¬ nomic analysis, and the theory of international trade. Finally, useful analogies may be drawn from the history of agriculture and agricultural marketing in the developed countries. By current standards all of these countries once were seriously underdeveloped. They also were predominantly agricultural until quite re¬ cently. 10 Moreover, some of the advanced The static nature of the theory is a complicating factor but does not bar its use. l o p. t. Bauer and B. S. Yamey. The Economics of Under-Developed Countries. Nisbet and Co., Herts, Eng¬ land, 1963, p. 47. countries have current growth rates and po¬ tentials for future growth so high that they may in this sense be considered relatively unde¬ veloped countries. 11 Concepts of Effective Competition The theory of effective competition as a dynamic process is a third major element of the analytical framework. 12 For comprehensive analyses of agricultural marketing systems in developing economies it has several advantages. Its basic assumptions are more realistic than those of pure competition. As a result, they provide more useful, although less precise, guidelines for empirical study. Unlike the theory of pure competition, the theory of effective competition attempts to establish attainable, as well as desirable, standards of industry and market performance. In view of the high importance of improving market performance in developing countries this realism has great value for researchers, policy officials, and others. Furthermore, it enhances the usefulness of market structure analysis with which the theory of effective competition is highly com¬ patible. 13 Another advantage of the theory is that it expressly allows for dynamic economic conditions by viewing competition as a dynamic process rather than as a static, equilibrium¬ seeking activity. The main disadvantage of the theory of effective competition as a guide to empirical research is its lack of refinement and precision. Its main principles cannot be expressed in the language of mathematics. As a result, quantitatively precise research results are not easily generated. Nevertheless, in the 11 Students of marketing are also aware that useful insights on marketing systems and operations can be gained from several other disciplines. These include geography, political science, philosophy, sociology, an¬ thropology, and social psychology. Economics, of course, remains the foremost discipline necessary for market¬ ing studies, including comparative analyses of marketing systems. Sees David Carson. International Marketing. A Comparative System Approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1967. p. 495. 1 2 For a detailed discussion of the theoretical concepts see: J. M. Clark. Competition as a Dynamic Process. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1961. 1 3 Clodius and Mueller, op. cit. resulting choice between more realism with less precision and the opposite, pragmatism strongly favors realism. Theory of Economic Growth Economic growth is a major national goal in all countries and a significant fact of modern life. It may be defined as a significant, sustained increase in real output per capita, or in total, as measured in national income accounts. 14 Growth always involves sweeping changes in technology, economic and social institutions, structures of production, industries, markets and demand, and modes of life and work. 15 Significant increases in real output per capita are on the order of 15 percent, and more, per decade. Sustained growth is expansion of real outputs and consumption over long time periods, usually several decades, with allow¬ ance for short-run variations in rates. 16 In recent decades, many attempts have been made to develop mathematical models of the growth process. So far, however, the models are not particularly useful for empirical studies of development. Most are far too simple in design, with only one or two independent var¬ iables, for a process as complex as economic growth. More importantly, the basic assump¬ tions built into the models have little relevance to the real world. 17 As a result, the research 14 Simon Kuznets. Modern Economic Growth. Yale Univ. Press, London, 1966. 1 5 The increases in population that usually accompany economic growth probably are not an essential condition. 16 National income accounting generally understates true increases in levels of living during growth. No values can be given to the increases in leisure time, the reduced drudgery of work, the greater economic freedom provided by rising incomes, and the improve¬ ments in product quality, health, and nutrition not fully reflected in their costs. 1 7 f. H. Han and R. C. O. Matthews. The Theory of Economic Growth: A Survey. Surveys of Economic Theory, vol. II, Macmillan Co., New York, 1966. The authors reviewed growth models developed since the late 1930's. More specifically, Schultz writes: . . growth economists have been producing an abun¬ dant crop of macro-models that are ... neither relevant ... nor useful in examining the empirical behavior of agriculture as a source of growth.” T. W. Schultz. Trans¬ forming Traditional Agriculture. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1964. 81 economist must be content with some qual¬ itative concepts of the development proc¬ ess. Economic growth has many origins. The obvious sources are increases in the supply of productive resources--labor, land, and invest¬ ments in human and physical capital. But in most countries, the primary source of economic growth per capita is improvements in the quality of resources!8 Quality means efficiency in terms of output per unit of input. Increases in efficiency come mainly from technological ad¬ vance in production, marketing, and business management, from improvements in resource use through changes in industry structure, and from increases in scale of economic units. Scientific research, education, and communi¬ cation are the foundation of technological ad¬ vance. Indeed, a hallmark of modern economic growth is the increasing application of science and technology to production, marketing, and business management. Increases in scale of economic units are made both necessary and possible by advances in technology and in the economic size of markets. Changes in industry structure that increase efficiency include trans¬ fer of labor out of agriculture, increases in the size of businesses, and decreases in most types )f self-employment. Economic growth is a pervasive force. This s assured by intricate economic linkages among sectors and industries, by the nearly universal lature of science, knowledge, technology, and nanagement, and by other socioeconomic forces, ixcept in primitive societies, all economic lectors are so interdependent that a change riginating in one, sooner or later, induces hanges in others. For example, an increase n farm outputs usually expands volumes of roducts moving through marketing channels, his affects costs, prices, incomes, and em- loyment in assembly, processing, transporta- lon, and distribution. There are also third nd fourth order impacts on suppliers of fuel, ackaging materials, and capital goods. Improvements in the quality of the products f one industry often increase efficiency in thers, especially when the outputs of one re the inputs of others. Examples include the 18 E. F. Denison. Why Growth Rates Differ. The Brook- gs Institution, Washington, D.C., 1967. farm and food machinery industries, transpor¬ tation, communication, business machines, packaging, and others. The "spin-off" of civilian products and processes from military and space research has received much publicity. More¬ over, as economic growth moves the economy toward ever more specialization and commer¬ cialization, the interdependence of economic sectors and the pervasiveness of growth forces become more intense. Increasing interdepend¬ ence during growth is especially pronounced in agriculture and agricultural marketing.! 9 In a growing economy, consumer demand rises and its structure changes significantly. Pronounced shifts in consumer expenditure patterns result mainly from important differ¬ ences in income elasticities of demand for different goods and services. 2 o For example, food expenditures, even in low income countries, rise in value but fall as a share of consumer incomes because of generally low income elasti¬ cities of food demand. Among foods, income elasticity differences promote continuing change in food consumption patterns. Also during growth there is an expansion of knowledge which brings an awareness of new things and new concepts of living. New products give consumers more consumption alternatives and the growing economy becomes increasingly market oriented. These changes have high significance for agri¬ culture, agricultural marketing, and national policy for food and agriculture. On the supply side, economic growth is marked by significant increases in the economy's pro¬ ductive capacity and by equally important changes in the structure of production, in¬ dustries, and markets. Technological advance provides more efficient production and market- ing processes and new products. These are needed to satisfy consumer demand for greater diversity in consumption and to stimulate demand enough to assure full use of the economy's 1 9 A. R. Ayazi. Interrelationships Between Agriculture and Other Sectors and Their Implications in Terms of Planning. FAO, Monthly Bui. Agr. Econ. and Statis.. October 1968, Rome, p. 1-9. 20 Price elasticities among different goods and services also vary greatly. During growth technological progress and rising wages alter relative production and marketing costs and prices of most things. Thus, price elasticities may accentuate, or offset, income effects on consump¬ tion. ^ expanding capacity to produce. Most new tech¬ nology reduces the need for unskilled labor, raises demands for skilled workers, scientists, and executives, decreases the drudgery of work, and permits real wages to rise. It makes old plants and equipment obsolete, increases capital investments per worker, raises the scale of producing and marketing units, increases the share of fixed costs in the cost structures of most firms, makes production and marketing more complex, and lengthens production planning periods. Numbers of large production and marketing organizations increase while many small, family enterprises disappear. Emphasis on marketing increases in growing economies. Profitable utilization of larger pro¬ ducing and distributing units depends on high sales volumes. Accordingly, marketing firms have increasing need for influencing consumer behavior and for control over supplies of basic products. Farmers come under increasing pres¬ sure to improve delivery schedules and the level and uniformity of quality of outputs. The multiple, circular flows of goods, services, and credits linking agriculture, agricultural marketing and other sectors become stronger and more com¬ plex during growth. There are also rising pres¬ sures on national governments for effective policies of full employment and economic sta¬ bility to maintain consumer purchasing power, enterprise profits, and a satisfactory rate of economic growth. Growth further stimulates urbanization of the population, places greater demands on capital and product markets, and induces significant changes in educational and political institutions and in ways of living 21 Special Conditions in Agriculture The facts of economic development differ markedly among countries, regions, and eco¬ nomic sectors but the fundamental nature of the growth process is universal. The basic socioeconomic trends in all growing economies are strikingly similar. 22 These facts largely 21 Kuznets, op. cit. Clark, op. cit. Also: J. K. Gal¬ braith. The New Industrial State. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1967. 22 The growing volume of literature on agricultural development and general economic growth continues to confirm this universality. explain the absence of special theories of growth for agriculture, marketing, and economies in early stages of development 2 3 Nevertheless, there are important practical reasons for con¬ sidering the development of agriculture and agricultural marketing as distinct fields of study linked to the study of economic growth. First, agriculture in nearly all countries is the largest industry. In developing countries this superiority is overwhelming. In many, agri¬ culture requires more than half of the total labor force and food expenditures are more than half of all consumer expenditures. Much of industry and commerce is strongly oriented to agriculture as a source of raw materials and as a market for manufactured products. For example, in most developing countries, from half to two-thirds of all manufacturing involves the processing of farm products. * 2 ^ Commerce probably is even more dependent on agriculture. Thus, the development of agriculture and its marketing system, in developing countries, is at the heart of the growth process. Second, agricultural production is almost exclusively a biological process. From this fact flows a variety of special technological, educa¬ tional, and economic problems important to agricultural and marketing development. Third, most farm products are subject to much lower income and price elasticities of demand than most nonfarm products and services. Accord¬ ingly, general economic growth means that a declining share of the national income is spent for food and that the share of the gross domestic product originating in agriculture falls. From this comes the necessity to transfer resources, especially labor, out of agriculture. Fourth, this essential outmigration of people is fraught with more complexities, hardships, and re¬ straints of an economic, technical, educational, social, and political nature than those prevail¬ ing in most nonfarm sectors of the economy. Finally, agriculture, more than any other eco¬ nomic sector, is the bastion of small-scale, family enterprise. This has much importance for methods and problems of stimulating anc 2 3" There are no special economic theories or method of analysis fashioned uniquely for the study of the under developed world.” Bauer and Yamey, op. cit., p. 8. 2 4 FAO. Agriculture and Industrialization. The Stats of Food and Agriculture 1966, Rome, 1967. pp. 75-121. 8c sustaining growth and adjustment in agricul¬ ture and marketing. The Functionally Complete Structure At this point the research framework lacks the appearance of the functionally complete theoretical structure that is desired. It seems more like a collection of essential building ma¬ terials and tools that clearly are relevant to analysis of agricultural marketing systems and operations in developing countries. Relevance, however, is one of the basic tests of a useful theory. The other requirement is enough con¬ sistency among the several elements of the framework to provide, in a practical sense, a coordinated, if not actually an integrated, analytical framework.2 5 This essential coordi- lation is provided by several strong threads hat, although not immediately obvious, link the several theories into a loosely fitted, but vorkable, research framework. First, there is the economist's basic concept )f the economy as an organized, operating be- lavior system. Agricultural marketing, as lefined above, is an important subsystem in he economy. Like all operating systems it has nstitutions, participants, functions, inputs, utputs, behavior patterns, and complex linkages mong the variables. This concept of a func- ioning system in the process of growth naturally sads to substantial synthesis of the principles f growth, changing structure-conduct-perform- nce relationships, dynamic competition, and hanging inputs, outputs, functions, and tech- ology. 2 6 That is, the basic concept of agri- ultural marketing as a functioning system rovides needed unity to the research frame- ork and, therefore, to the empirical research serves as an analytical tool. Second, there is the coordination provided y the primary purpose of the research and its ragmatic orientation. The research is con- 2 rned with identifying and evaluating practical !s Wroe Alderson. Marketing Behavior and Execu- e Action. Richard D. Irvin, Homewood, III., 1957. !6 Ibid. means of modernizing (improving) functioning agricultural marketing systems in developing countries to meet their needs for expansion coupled with higher performance. The sole purpose of the analytical framework is to provide useful guidelines to empirical study. Accordingly, in practice, the purpose and orien¬ tation of the analytical framework and the research provide much needed unity of direction and content. Finally, the principal elements of the theo¬ retical structure have substantial mutual com¬ patibility. Therefore, they are easily fitted together provided that the requirement for consistency is not applied too rigorously. For example, market structure analysis is easily harnessed with growth theory in developing useful research questions about the nature of the structural changes required in agricultural markets to promote growth and improved per¬ formance. The theory of effective competition as a dynamic process is closely related to, and even incorporates aspects of, market structure and growth theory. Even the normally static theories of consumer demand, production, price, and firm behavior can be used, with some diffi¬ culty, in harness with the other theoretical elements to provide useful research questions. In short, it seems evident that the set of relevant economic theories described briefly in this paper forms a loosely fitted, but functional, analytical framework for empirical study of agricultural marketing systems and operations in developing countries. There are several reasons for thinking that the need for an analytical framework for study of agricultural marketing systems and opera¬ tions may be even more urgent in developing than in advanced countries. These reasons include the more limited knowledge of market¬ ing in developing countries, severe deficiencies in essential statistics, a paucity of published research, higher costs of conducting research, and more urgency for finding practical means of promoting improved marketing performance. For the marketing expert from a developed country the wide gulf between the system that is Some Further Observations familiar to him and one in early stages of development is another compelling reason for an analytical framework that emphasizes basic theory. These factors, moreover, have sig¬ nificant impacts on the nature of the research approach and program and on research tech¬ niques. Because so little is known about agricultural marketing systems and operations in most developing countries the first need is to describe accurately and meaningfully the systems that exist. Description must precede essential eval¬ uation of marketing structures and perform¬ ance, major forces responsible for changing structure-performance relationships during development, the changing strategic role of marketing during growth, the impacts of de¬ velopment on marketing, and related factors. These analyses are required for identification and evaluation of priorities among marketing problems and for subsequent determination of practical means for improving agricultural marketing systems and operations. Given these research requirements, the lim¬ itations on essential information, and the qual¬ itative nature of some key variables in market¬ ing, much reliance must be put on description as the main research method. Descriptive re¬ search, unfortunately, has a strong tendency to be superficial although the need clearly is for analytical description. The difference is sub¬ stantial. Analytical description is description at its best—rigorous and firmly grounded on, and guided by, relevant economic theory. That is, analytical description requires a carefully constructed theoretical framework. For the marketing researcher from a de¬ veloped country responsible for analysis of agricultural marketing in developing countries an analytical framework seems indispensable. There is a wide gap separating marketing systems in early stages of development and the complex, sophisticated system he knows so well. Many familiar landmarks, the historical record, and the large body of completed re¬ search are generally absent. The developing marketing system functions in a different environment, must meet different standards of performance, and may be faced with rather elementary problems. These problems may even be unfamiliar to this marketing expert because they were reasonably well solved in his native land long before he began his career. As agricultural production experts have learned, the conditions and problem of a developing country's agriculture often differ so much from those in other developing and advanced countries that common ground is not established without re¬ turning to elementary principles. The difficul¬ ties of transferring marketing institutions, methods, and experience from one country to another generally are conceded to be even greater than those of transferring farming methods. Accordingly, research must start from a firm foundation of relevant theory. It is an incomplete, but essential, chart for sailing in unfamiliar waters. Later, as empirical studies develop essential statistics, other descriptive information, and analyses of marketing in de¬ veloping countries, the research framework can be more explicit, complete, and otherwise improved. Finally, analytical description is by no means the only suitable research technique for these analyses. Analysis of the marketing problems identified in the early stages of the studies may require, at one time or another, the whole range of research tools economists employ, including economic-engineering and econome¬ tric studies. But regardless of method, the major objective remains unchanged. It is to determine practical means of improving agri¬ cultural marketing structures and performance in developing countries in the larger interest of accelerating agricultural, marketing, and total economic development. 85 : agriculture library & CONGO'S AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY IN BRIEF By Fred Degiorgio ERS-FOREIGN 282 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION SEPTEMBER 1969 SUMMARY The Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa) is gaining momentum in its eco¬ nomic recovery from the turmoil following independence from Belgium in i960. Civil and political disorders had reduced total agricultural production about one-fourth from the 1959 high to the 1965 low. Since 1965 j production has slowly recovered. This recovery can be attributed to political stability and gradual restoration of inter¬ nal security, plus monetary reform in June 1967 (primarily devaluation), which increas¬ ed incentives to produce and export. AGRICULTURE’S POSITION IN THE CONGOLESE ECONOMY In 1958 , nearly 31 percent of the Congo's gross domestic product was agricul¬ tural; in 1966, the proportion was 22 per¬ cent. With the decline in agriculture's relative importance, the nature of produc¬ tion also changed. Subsistence agriculture accounted for 35 percent of total agricul¬ tural production in 1959, but its share had increased to 52 percent by 1966. This oc¬ curred as many Congolese farmers, who had been marketing surplus production, reverted to subsistence production because the in¬ security caused by the civil wars and the deterioration of the transport network made marketing of cash and surplus crops diffi¬ cult. The collapse of government agricul¬ tural services also was a factor. To a smaller degree, these conditions were also responsible for a decline in production of market-oriented plantation and European estate agriculture. With the advent of in¬ ternal security, market production is in¬ creasing on Congolese farms and on planta¬ tions and estates. OVERALL ECONOMY The Congolese economy is well diversi¬ fied, compared with the economies of other African countries. Industrial processing and manufacturing accounted for 17 percent of total GDP in I96L. Subsistence agricul¬ ture, public administration, commerce, and transportation shared approximately equal parts of L5 percent of the total. Commer¬ cial agriculture and mining accounted for 13 percent and 7 percent. In recent years, the country has become increasingly dependent on extracting and ex¬ porting its vast store of minerals, partic¬ ularly copper. Mineral extraction remained practically untouched by the postindependence disorders and has been, by far, the prime earner of foreign exchange in the 1960's as iomic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Bukavu f l.ac Leopold // Fruncqul AMO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO Province cepiUI International boundary Province boundary National capital ZAMBIA Base 56230 4-67 Figure 1 agricultural exports have declined. In 1966, about 26 percent of GDP came from ex¬ ports . Mineral products accounted for 83 percent of exports, compared with 60 percent in 1958 . Copper alone accounted for 57 per¬ cent of total exports in 1966. Other major mineral exports are cobalt, zinc, tin ore, gold, and industrial diamonds. Agricultural exports dropped from bO percent of total ex¬ ports in 1958 to about 18 percent in 1968. Palm products were the main agricultural ex¬ ports in both periods. THE PEOPLE The population of the Congo— 17 mil¬ lion in 1969—is growing at a rate of 2.3 percent a year. Overall density is 19 persons per square mile, but many large areas in the Katanga, Equateur, and Orien- tale Provinces remain very thinly populat: The eastern highlands and Lower Congo hav the highest population densities. Kinshas (formerly Leopoldville) is the largest ci’ by far, with an estimated population of 1.2 million in 1968. Lubumbashi (formerl Elizabethville) is next largest, with 225,000 inhabitants. Mbyi-Maye, with 200,000, and Kisangani (formerly Stanley¬ ville), with 100 , 000 , follow. About 30 per cent of the population is urban, and the proportion is increasing as rural migrate to the cities continues. 2 LAND CHARACTERISTICS The Congo is situated in the heart of tropical Africa and is About one-third the size of the United States. About two-thirds of the Congo lies south of the Equator and one-third, north. A large tropical rain forest straddles the Equator, with precipitation there ranging from about 50 to 80 inches a year. Tropical savanna covers most of the remainder of the country except for the zones of tropical highland climate along the eastern.margins. Poor soils, mainly latosols, predomi¬ nate throughout the Congo. Some alluvials in the central basin and volcanic ash lands in Kivu Province are more suitable for farming. About half the land is classified as arable. In 1956 , the latest year for which data are available, only about 1.2 percent was under cultivation in annual field crops and tree crops. Forests cover about per¬ cent of the land, permanent pasture about 1 percent, and mountains, sandy areas, and swamps the remainder. The Congo is almost entirely within the drainage system of the Congo River. The river encircles the terraced plateaus and plains of the large Central Congo Basin, which has an average altitude of 1,300 feet. Rising around the rim of the basin are pla¬ teaus and hills that contain much of the country's mineral wealth. Mountains rang¬ ing between 6,500 and 13,000 feet high fol¬ low the eastern border and then descend to¬ ward the Great African Rift lake system. The Congo River has 1,700 miles of nav¬ igable waterways. The whole Congo Basin system totals about 7»200 miles of such waterways. These are the most important neans of transport in interior areas where travel is otherwise impossible. The river system is estimated to have about 16 per— -ent of the world's total hydroelectric po¬ tential. The Congo River flows into the Atlantic Ocean through a 25 -mile strip of Land which is the Congo's only boundary on the sea. The port of Matadi, 80 miles up¬ stream from the mouth of the Congo, is the :ountry's only important seaport. The 3,125 miles of rail lines and > 7,500 miles of roads complement the river transport system. The rail system serves to bypass unnavigable portions of the fiv¬ ers, and the roads act as feeder lines for both rail and river transport. After in¬ dependence, the transportation system fell into serious disrepair. Poor transportation remains one of the principal obstacles to economic recovery. AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY Shifting cultivation is the typical method of farming for native Congolese. Permanent open cultivation of a tract of land as practiced in the temperate zones seems unsuitable to most of the Congo, since the tropical sun and torrential rains quick¬ ly leach the soil of nutrients. In shifting cultivation, the Congolese farmer clears a small tract of land (no more than 2 or 3 acres) in the forest or savanna. Subsist¬ ence crops planted include cassava, corn, plantains, and sweetpotatoes. For cash,*the Congolese farmer may produce palm oil and kernels, coffee, cotton, cocoa, tea, bar- nanas, and pyrethrum. Intercropping is widely practiced. A few chickens, goats, sheep, and hogs may also be kept. After the fertility of the land drops, brush or trees are allowed to grow, and the farmer moves on to other forest or savanna land. In the high altitude areas of the eastern Congo, the Congolese farmer is predominantly a cattle herdsman instead of crop producer. There is a distinct division of labor between men and women on the typical Congo¬ lese farm. The men fell trees, clear fields, harvest certain crops such as palm fruit and bananas, build huts, make beer and palm wine, hunt, and fish. The women prepare the fields plant, cultivate, and harvest most crops. Women also do all household work along with preparing items for sale, taking products to market, and bringing purchases back. The Congolese farmer uses only simple tools—axes, machetes, hoes, and other hand implements. Horses, mules, oxen, or don¬ keys are rarely used, and little, if any, fertilizer, insecticides, or fungicides are available to him. The paysannat system (a land settlement plan) was introduced by the Belgians in the 1930 's to increase yields and production, settle the rural population, improve living standards, maintain soil fertility, and 3 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION promote better farming techniques. The Congolese were organized into the paysan- nats under close supervision of government agronomists. Careful investigations were made of soil fertility, crop rotations, lo¬ cal customs, and economic needs before a paysannat was established. The plan adapts the traditional native bush-fallow method of land use to the cor¬ ridor system in the forest areas and the strip system in the savanna region. The corridor system alternates corridors of cultivated land with corridors of bush or forest fallow. The corridors of fallow land are maintained 15 to 20 years. The strip system consists of alternating strips of cultivated land and grass fallow. By 1957, 175,000 Congolese farmers were organized into 200 paysannats covering roughly 3.7 million acres; over one-third of the paysannats were in Orientale Pro¬ vince. Most paysannats were devoted to pro¬ duction of food crops and cotton. Before independence, the system had been proving successful; in 1956, with less than one-tenth of the rural population or¬ ganized under the Paysannat Settlement Plan, the paysannats produced 27 percent of the total cotton, 22 percent of the rice, and 15 percent of the corn and peanuts. Since in¬ dependence, however, most of the paysannats have disintegrated because of lack of super¬ visory personnel and government extension services and disruption of marketing chan¬ nels. The regimentation of the system had always been unattractive to the Congolese. In sharp contrast to Congolese farms are the plantations. Many are owned and operated by individual Europeans, but the largest are owned by corporations. Many in¬ dividual European farmers left the Congo during the disorders following independence. Plantation crops include oil palms, coffee, rubber, cocoa, and tea. The large planta¬ tion holdings utilize some tractors for cul¬ tivation and other mechanization but rely heavily on Congolese laborers. Some fertil¬ izer is used, largely for oil palms. Crop yields on plantations are two to 10 times those on indigenous farms. Export Crops Palm products, coffee, and rubber are the main agricultural exports. Tea and cocoa beans are also export crops, but of lesser importance. Palm products—palm oil, palm kernel oil, and palm kernel cake—are the Congo's most important agricultural export commod¬ ities. Production has been gradually re¬ covering from 1965 lows but remains about 30 percent below the 1959 level. For pro¬ duction to reach preindependence levels, new plantings will be necessary. Low world prices for palm products in recent years have reduced incentives for plantations to increase production and for Congolese to harvest wild fruit. About 80 percent of production comes from plantations, where the crop is collected and marketed by CONGOPALM, a cooperative for the planta¬ tions. An increasing proportion of palm products has been diverted to domestic use in recent years for the manufacture of soap, margarine, and cooking oils. The second most important export crop » is coffee. The main variety is Robusta, but Arabica is also grown. Robusta is graded and certified by the "Office de Cafe Robusta" (OCR), but marketing is undertaken by private companies and by CAFEC0NG0, a producer cooperative. Coffee is grown in the northeastern and eastern highland sec¬ tions of the country, where 80 percent of the production comes from plantations. Re¬ cent increases in production have resulted from the return to production of many plan¬ tations abandoned during the disorders. Rubber is produced largely on 10 plan¬ tations in the northwest part of the Congo, but some is obtained from Congolese who tap trees outfeide plantations. Rubber produc¬ tion was cut in half by the civil disorders but is now making a gradual recovery. Crops for Domestic Consumption The main food crops (cassava, plan¬ tains, sweetpotatoes, and corn) of the sub¬ sistence farmer have risen in production h from low points in the early sixties to levels almost equal to those prevailing be¬ fore independence. With the repair of roads and addition of trucks, more of these foods will enter domestic markets. Before independence in i 960 , cotton was an important export crop and the main cash crop of the paysannat system. As the system broke down during the civil disor¬ ders, cotton production fell drastically. Since 1965* cotton has been imported to supply domestic mills. With the return of internal security, however, cotton produc¬ tion is increasing. The 1969 crop may be near to supplying all the mills' current needs. Livestock Cattle are kept by Congolese herdsmen and by European ranchers. Livestock keep¬ ing by Congolese is concentrated in Kivu and Orientale Provinces. Tsetse fly infes¬ tation limits cattle production in many forested areas of the Congo. Prior to in¬ dependence, European ranchers supplied ap¬ proximately 50 percent of the meat marketed in the country. These ranchers are mainly in the Kongo-Central and Katanga Provinces, where herds of the large corporations may number 20,000 to 30,000 head. In 1959, there were about 1 million head of cattle, 350,000 hogs, 65,000 sheep and over 2 mil¬ lion goats. Livestock numbbrs declined sharply during the early sixties because of the disruptions. Domestic demand for meat products is growing; in 1966 , over 18,000 tons of meat and meat products were imported. Projects have been initiated to assist Congolese in Kongo—Central in starting livestock herds. AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT A goal of the Government is to return agricultural production to preindependence levels. Table 1 production indexes show 1968 estimated total agricultural production at 87 percent of 1957-59 levels, compared with 76 percent in 1965 . The monetary re¬ form of 1967 and the return of stability to the country are primary reasons for the up¬ turn. These factors have induced merchants to return to areas from which they had pre¬ viously fled. Plantations show signs of rehabilitation, and modest numbers of in¬ dividual European planters are returning. Most importantly, the indigenous farmer is producing and selling more as more consumer goods are available for him to buy. The Institut National pour 1*Etude Agronomique du Congo (INEAC), the Congo's world-famed agricultural research organiza¬ tion, was dormant during the early sixties. Some substations are now concentrating on practical work of immediate importance. This work includes multiplying and provid¬ ing planting material and seeds, breeding cattle, and reviving agricultural production on their own fields. Considerable foreign aid has been re¬ ceived by the Congo for development. Major donors include the United States ($384 mil¬ lion since i 960 ), Belgium, France, the European Community, and the Food and Agri¬ culture Organization of the U.N. Aid proj¬ ects underway in the Congo include work on rice and vegetable production; development of market gardens in urban areas; improved and commercialized production of tobacco, cassava, oil palms, corn, tea, and pyre- thrum; and development of cattle herds and veterinary services. Many current projects to improve transportation facilities will help to remove one of the main obstacles to increased agricultural production. A development project proposed recent¬ ly calls for AID and Congolese Government cooperation in developing a system for agri¬ cultural credit that will make adequate capi¬ tal available to small agribusinesses, and production or marketing cooperatives, and to small and medium-sized farming enterprises. Some such firms have developed the managerial capacity to increase production or otherwise increase their income but lack the necessary capital to bring this about. AGRICULTURAL TRADE The Congo continues to adhere to its traditional policy of nondiscrimination with regard to trading partners. Tariff rates are applied uniformly to all coun¬ tries; however, duties were raised on almost all imports to increase government revenue as part of the 1967 monetary reform. The import quota system was also abolished at that time. 5 Most Congolese trade is oriented to¬ ward Western Europe—primarily Belgium— and the United States, but the Congo has recently signed a number of bilateral trade agreements with neighboring African coun¬ tries. These agreements call for Congolese manufactured goods to be exchanged for needed food commodities. The Congo is an associate member of the European Economic Community and a signatory of the Yaounde Treaty. Agricultural commodities have decreas¬ ed in relative importance among exports since production fell in the early 1960's, and mineral exports increased (table 2). Palm products, coffee, and rubber are the dominant agricultural exports; palm oil and rubber have steadily increased in impor¬ tance since 1965* Cereals are the major agricultural im¬ ports (table 3). However, the country, is trying to become self-sufficient in rice. Imports of protein foods such as meat and fish products have been increasing. The typical Congolese diet is adequate in calories but lacks protein. The United States is the leading sup¬ plier of farm produce to the Congo, ac¬ counting for 40 to 50 percent of the market in recent years, largely through Public Law 480 programs. Exports of U.S. agricultural commodities to the Congo have been primarily rice and wheat flour, valued between $8 and $11 million annually. Tobacco and cotton exports to the Congo have also been impor¬ tant (table 4). U.S. imports of agricultural products from the Congo have averaged about $13 mil¬ lion annually ip recent years. Coffee, rubber, palm kernels, and palm oil are the main items imported. The Congo is the sec¬ ond largest exporter of palm kernel oil to the United States, usually supplying 30 percent of total U.S. imports (table 5). 6 (not-IA4-0300COjVDLAUl t—mn cm w m _j i O O UMAO o c— ro VO I iH ia ia o\ -4- t— O HI CMOIAOCMVOOO VX)4 1A h O C\J o ro Ov -4 CO 00 VO I -I I -I H OO IA IA O r—| IAN IAN LAN f— O 00 ^ iaonh t- LA _i COrH-4 Lrvj-CO O O MAJ CO VO 1A4 -4 C— H O H ,-H rH CM oo ro ^ ^ r» VO O -Cf LA LA CO O LAN C\J LT\ LA O O VO O 00 00 CO H t- t— A— VO ON 0O 0O CO CO VD VD OJ H C\l VD VO 00 CO 0O VD VD CO t“— CO -4 LAN t*— t"— t'— VD VD H 1 IAV VD CD ON £ rH -P H 00 P vo .. .. o I •h on -4 P LAN VD bp ON ON cd h rH ■d«! w p -p p 0 O P ■P ■p p 00 aJ VD o

l Af2^ ojajoJ ^c)CMo^-vo ^^^^HrJMVOrHCMC- LAN _^r O CVJ LTN LTN CVJ CO LAN -3- 00 4- VD CM O CVJ H rH O O t*- O O On t— LAN ON ON VD • 1 H ^ CVJ H H o o o o o o 00 | tt) 1) H < 1 ) O h rP *H *H s « s oj I* O O iU a> O W O 3 o ft CQ CM| r co|a; a a. a a fflOOEHKC3fCQftftSg ft rH O 3 CO * IA 4> Ov 7 Table 2 .-Agricultural exports from Congo (Kinshasa), 1959 and 1963-68 • • o • aJ cd O w . • C\J • G G •* C $ • • O • a) a) O cd • • CO • C a ^ c CVJ o -3- 00 VO 00 -d- O UN H CO VO #\ r* LT\ CVJ CVJ VO OVD C\J ON4 t— i—I t- VD (MVDCO VO rH CM HVDVD CVJ 4 CVJ CVJ co \o irv t— IA O VO r* CM CM CM cd cd cd G G G I H CO CO CO 4 co vo H CO H O 4 CO O I CM VO I #» *> c— co CM 4 VO 4 O O H VO CO VO #» *> ir\ co ovoJ VOH4 4 t— H VO 00 J CO ON H CvJ O CM t-co l O I o o o CO co CO (004 cd cd cd G G G o o o o vo -4- -4- CO VO On CM IA cd cd cd cd G G G G iH t— lan CM 4 H CO LTN I rH r—1 CO | CO ON CO H ^ CO 4 CM CO ON CM • • 1 H -4 1 O O LA H CO 1 H 1 1 1 4 C— 1 H CO 1 1 1 1 • i — 1 VO CO CO H t— rH rH ON co 1 1 1 O o 1 1 1 O -4 On CM | CM O 1 CO CM 1 CO CO 1 1 1 ON rl H C— CM CM CM H t— CO i—1 ON i o i o o i i O -4 H CM | CO o LA rH O VO CO CM O H4 CM H H CM rH H ON CO CO • • • • • • • I CO-4 O O rH LAN -4 CO CO | o 1 CO 4 o CM 4 rH 1 t- o LA CM VO 00 VO H on LA O CM • • • • • • • | o co o o 1 O LAN t - — CO ON H 1 1 (O CM rH 4 CO i—1 1 ON O CO OO co rH ON CM CO CM CM Lf\ f— O • • • o • • • • • CO O ON H o LTN CO 4 COO -4 CM 4 O LTN LTN O VO 00 vo i—1 c— VO CM O CO t— LCN CO H CM CO CM O VO CO CO CO o o o o VO vo o LTV VO cd cd cd G G G -4 ON CM -4 r—I CO rH o CM O rH O CO On On vo o CM O -4 CO CM O O LA H CO VO CM O O t— vo CM O CO CO t—VO CM O -4 CM CO-4 r> n 00 t— LTV CO CO CO VO O O rH LTN #» #» ON O CO LTN CO CO VO CM ON LCV O H VO 00 #» ** ON ON co co CO .. . .. •• • • .. .. - . .. *L • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • CO • • • • U • • • • d) • .O • 41 • u * •H «H • cd . n 1 cd • rH # . _i • • d) • ro O . i—1 CD d) d) 4J 41 G ro cd U o o CD 41 G P O G a -P G H P cd cd O CD CM O (D Tj H •H ^ oufcdK Vi rj «i « d O ft a A o o 5 o o os £ a cu a S S g 1 ■d3 o | o :5 & cv ft, o cv Table 4._U. S. agricultural exports to Congo (Kinshasa), 1966-68 Commodity- Quantity 1966 ! 1967 1968 - - Metric tons - - - Value 1966 ; 1967 1968 _ - - 1.000 dollars - - - Meat and meat preparations Dairy products. Grain and preparations.... Rice. Wheat flour. Tobacco. Cotton. Vegetable oils. Other. Total agricultural. Nonagricultural. 152 32,825 43,545 1,298 3,302 1,009 Total exports 9 1 107 12 2 _ __ 1,128 549 735 __ _ __ 10,952 9,425 8,473 18,286 13,406 5,128 3,258 2,644 46,992 45,813 4,311 4,342 4,629 2,4l8 1,162 1,981 3,877 1,620 5,825 6 1,940 3,556 1,977 1,311 582 408 479 190 — 1,125 1,684 1,553 17,641 19,582 14,550 39,280 29,479 36,108 56,921 49,061 50,658 Table 5.—U. S. agricultural imports from Congo (Kinshasa), 1966-68 Commodity Coffee. Tea.•.. Rubber, crude.. Palm kernels and palm oil Other. Quantity Value 1966 ; 1967 1968 1966 . 1967 1968 _ _ — Metric tons - - - -i* 000 dollars - - 2,151 2,498 15,583 1,833 1,852 11,208 463 549 337 389 379 240 7,765 8,007 16,899 3,719 3,453 6,375 18^032 14,873 18,267 4,969 3,647 5,770 65 56 93 282 419 737 Total agricultural Nonagricultural. 11,192 9,750 24,330 33,529 30,698 17,541 Total imports 44,721 40,448 41,871 10 ’ U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 202^0 OFFICIAL BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURE LIMA® HAITI’S AGRICULTURE AND TRADE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUMMARY Haiti's agriculture and trade growth have been held back by drought, hurri¬ canes, outdated farming practices, lack of transportation and marketing’facili- ties, and political instability. But because other sectors of the economy are undeveloped or developing slowly, agriculture continues to account for more than half the gross national product and foreign exchange earnings. The United States is Haiti's principal trading partner, taking over two- fifths of the exports in 1965/66 and furnishing Haiti with more than 55 percent of its imports during the same period. Coffee accounted for 54 percent of Hai¬ ti's exports in 1965/66, with the United States taking more than one-quarter of the foreign marketings. Other Haitian exports of importance were sugar (virtu¬ ally all to the United States), sisal, essential oils, bauxite and copper ore and handicrafts. Haiti's imports include wheat and flour, fats and oils (mostly soybean oil), dairy products, tobacco, textiles, petroleum products, motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, and hardware. Though the United States probably lost the Hai¬ tian market for wheat in 1969, when management of Haiti's sole flour mill was taken over by a Canadian firm, it has retained all of the trade in unmanufac¬ tured tobacco, virtually all of the market for fats and oils, three-quarters of the fruit and vegetable business, and nearly half the sales of all other goods. Haiti's agriculture consists of a few commercial crop farms that produce for world trade and a large base of entirely subsistence farm operations. About 85 percent of the population is rural, and arable land averages less than one- half acre per person. Though a few large sugar and sisal plantations exist, Haiti's agriculture is essentially a minifundia, or small-scale operation. Coffee, the major com¬ mercial crop, is grown on some 300,000 small plots of 1 to 2 acres. Basic food crops such as rice, corn, beans, and fruits and vegetables are similarly grown on a small scale. Farming methods, generally, are rudimentary. There is little cash for fertilizer and the only implements widely found are the hoe and machete. Irrigation could make much more of the land productive, but serious erosion con¬ tinues unchecked, leaving more than 43 percent of Haiti's entire land surface in the category of "waste and unproductive." A prolonged and severe drought, which did not break until late in 1968, and a series of damaging tropical storms have added to the plight of Haitian farmers in recent years. Haiti's imports of U.S. goods will probably increase as tourism and labor- intensive re-export industries continue their modest expansion. Haiti sag i- cultural economy, however, has been stagnant for a long period, with rood oriduct on lagging behind population growth. Tourism, light industry and production lagg g v se2 ments of the economy presently exhibiting construction activity are the 8 t stability will likely attract fo?eig; investment^ which 6 ^"turi^may revitalize Haiti's sluggish economy. iv only HAITI'S AGRICULTURE AND TRADE B y Wilbur F. Buck, Agricultural Economist Western Hemisphere Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division Haiti occupies the western third of the island nf , Hfiti e „as S one nd f e th l0 " g and turbul e nt history has includJd C many Yirltt atso rhos t V ^ ar6aS visited b y Christopher Columbus, and it was In 180^ to r ( h 8 T P 6 ™ 3 " 6 " 0 of the £irst settlement in the New World In 1804, Haiti became the world's first Negro republic. It is also the republic in the New World where the official language is French. Lack of natural resources, political instability, and large population "Queen r of^he Antillef "“"“T de '' el °P me " t - H ^ti, once widely known as the it^the Western^Hemisphere?° W ^ ^ ^ “ pl “ 3 " d ‘-els of tte e Eouato“ C ll "f'h ^ thS Caribbean about 18 degrees north he t0r * 11 1S sha P ed like a giant horseshoe with the open end facing w“ a h’Ma°r land YY'■ "“i”’* ““ ° £ 10 ' 714 ™ ales its area l^ !! Y ltSelf * S ru 8 gedl y beautiful; two-thirds of S area consists of nearly inaccessible eroded mountains, interspersed with valleys and plateaus which are mostly under cultivation. Land and otherjom In I963 10 toiu e hfd £ l 1 76n C, r d £ither ba 13 relatively low because life expectancy in Haiti oprnp . h 40 years. About 85 percent of the people, an unusually high Haurs coas^ e Clasaified as rural - Th e population is concentrated along Port*au Pri„ th m tbe , valle y s comprising the major agricultural arias, ort au-Prmce, the capital (population 250,000), is the Republic's only large 1 CLIMATE Temperatures and rainfall, the latter ranging from almost none in parts of the northwest peninsula to 90 inches in the central valleys, vary considerably because of the many mountains and irregular coastline. The four seasons are F alternately rainy and dry. The first rainy period is in April and May and the second extends from September to November. The country is substantially frost free year round, even at the higher elevations exceeding 8,000 feet. Tempera 0° e ?o n 96 Sa F "h"" 86 ^ ^ ^ 90 F ‘ dUrin§ the Titian waters Ind from rh k 9 m i u in§ 6 summers * The cooler dry season extends from December hrough March. Haiti recently emerged from a severe drought which began in ate 1966 and affected the entire northern Caribbean region. Between ?963 and ’ H « 1:1 experienced three damaging hurricanes. Coffee production was especially hard hit in 1966 and has not yet recovered. POLITICAL DISTRICTS For administrative purposes, Haiti is divided into five districts The Northwest is mountainous and semiarid. It contains no cities of importance and only 6 percent of the people live there. The North includes plains and mountains and is also semiarid. Cap-Haitien, Haiti's second city is its focal point. About 17 percent of Haiti's population lives in the North! The Arti- bonite, the Republic's largest district, includes the cities of St. Marc and Gonaives, and accounts for about 18 percent of the country's population. The t InfTaddI? “ P “ al * and is the mos^ important aghcuU rally. In addition to sugarcane, vegetables, coffee, and sisal, the West be Zl Tfsouth 0reS ? a areaS : 37 percent of the population UvefL nearly “ «£r 1 ^ a " d “ “ ^s -i^that nearly a quarter of the population is to be found. Rice, sugarcane coffee and vegetables are grown in the South district. 8 ’ coffee. LAND USE AND CUSTOMS Pie D MS P C0 e the Hav^"! ° £ . a ^ Urge ^ 3nd SiSal “Potions (for exam- canifieMs’a A Ha ytian-American Sugar Company, owns 11,000 hectares 1/ of f„„A f l d re P° rCedly accounts for 80 percent of the sugar produced), mini- consutut^ a' 6 ° peration) is the ™le in Haiti. Fragmentation of farms constitutes a very serious problem. Titles to the small plots held by small them £r ? arE £requently unclear, boundaries are poorly defined, and the plots "SUmatId S 9o re USU3lly to0 *“ and separated for economic operation. An -stimated 90 percent of all Haitian farms are less than 6 hectares and only amountrto°2" 0?6 d he h ^re? S “°“ d 26 Tte aVera8e Sma11 holdln « Df rte S 87 n h nnn 0 !! e '' :hird ° f the land area is considered capable of raising crops in perennU? croos Ctar h S i° £ f b rOPland ’ ab ° Ut 43 perCent > ° r 370,000 hectares are r table n Th p ’ W X ! e the remainin 8 500,000 hectares are seeded annually Percent of the^nrnt ^ T irri ? atlon 1S P laced at 70,000 hectares. Another 18 cent of the total land area is in rough pasture, and about 7 percent is —/ ^ hectare equals 2.47 acres. 3 classified as forest. The category called "unproductive lands" includes more than 43 percent of Haiti's entire surface. on the upland slopes, small subsistence farmers ^cfm^t Haiti's major source of foreign gators double- and triple-crop their of the domestic food crops. y . f these sm all units is impracti- land to eke out an existence. ec an J principal implements used. Lit- cal and the hoe and machete "S tural practices result in tie or no fertility is ^“"^^^lii^ch.cked. Irregular rainfall, low yields, and serious soil“° S1 °ctors deny Haiti the use of half of its unsuitable soil types, and nroaressively greater in Haiti plains area. The need for ^ -op land growsa^d land ^torltion measures, r 08 ;^iri“iS^K. S'^rcultur.1 training for the predominantly rural population, are urgently needed. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES Table 2 suggests the degree to which the ^^economy ^s-tagnated^ ^hr c ™irn n ^uy y a e c a c r o S unts V for 3 between ,0 and 50 percent of the gross domestic product. Though Haiti's major another nati'vl’trop leaf woods and tourism are also importa . , trades Furthermore, forest prod- are well known in the furniture and building trades. whioh ucts constitute the basis for much o t e items. In 1961, more than specializes in wood-carvings funu ure tQ the economy reached 90,000 tourists visited Haiti, and . moortance aS an earner of foreign ex- . $3.4 million, making tourism second i P d Uned sharply> because of con- change. After 1961, however, touris^ ^ ffects of adverse publicity. Commencing cern over political stabili y , eross receipts from the tourist with 1965 there has been sustained growth gained 17 percent business amounting to $2.1 mi ion in . million (table 3). in 1968 while gross receipts rose to an all-time hign Haiti's low industrial number of labor-intensive its large labor surplus have been mfl h Pr ials for re-export in more industries involving the importation or a ctured electronic components, finished forms. These industries include ^ cessi ng of im- footwear, stuffed toys decorated wearing app ' u imported int0 the ported fabrics. More than half the A u S firm mines bauxite in Haiti, “ipsThe ore to^he United* States for reding. Copper ore is mined by a foreign-owned firm and exported for processing. , - 1 •mnnrtflnf activity and the processing of spiny lob- Fishing is a relatively important activity «* r sters for the market is also growing in importance. 4 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION nf Va ^ ed geo8 ” phy permits growing of a wide range of crops. Lack of facilities for assembling, storing, transporting, and marketing, however have largely nullified this asset. Except for coffee, sugar, and sisal, most Haitian crops are grown for domestic use. Corn, millet, and sweetpotatoes are mainstays of the average diet, which is supplemented with rice, beans, pigeon peas, tubers, and many kinds of tropical and citrus fruits. The value of an nual food imports averages less than $3 per person. In 1968, the index for total food production was only 87 (basis 1957-59=100), while the per capita rood production index had declined even more to 72. Haiti's only census, completed in 1950, provides area data for selected crops. Except for cotton, they are apparently little changed from today's figures. Area estimates for Haiti, though particularly difficult to make ecause of multiple-cropping and the noncommercial nature of many of the local crops y cirs* Crop Coffee Sugarcane Sisal Cotton Cacao Bananas Area in Hectares 200,000 2 _/ 85,000 32,000 52,000 4,700 78,000 Crop Plantains Corn Sorghums Ri ce Beans Sweetpotatoes Area in Hectares 145,000 335,000 215,000 65,000 100,000 95,000 U Probably less than 15,000 hectares are used for commercial sugar produc¬ tion Balance is made into "clairin" (a native beverage), alcohol, and rapadou, a syrup used by rural people as a sweetener. Haiti's farms number 560,000. An average small farm consists of several small plots, each annually planted to the same crop, often with the plots some istance from one another. Ordinarily, only production in excess of an indi- vidua! farm family's needs is taken to market, borne by country women on their heads, or by donkeys. The daily per capita food availability for 1959-61 was estimated at 1,780 calories and 46 grams of protein. This falls well below the Caribbean average, dding importance to food aid from external sources. Haiti continues to re-* assIJtancf 3 Tb d ° a f tion l in the forms °f.cash, loans, food, and technical a T 6n essentialI y humanitarian in nature, and come from !“. a " d other charitable groups, foreign governments, and international g izations. In 1968, total aid contributions were about $9 million. Most direct U.S. Government aid ceased in 1963. At present, U.S. direct i is limited to a malaria control project, distribution of surplus food donations and a few miscellaneous smaller projects. International organiza- 3 rJT- SU h h aS Inter " American Development Bank, the United Nations, and the for n T A ™ erican States a re annually spending several million dollars or projects aimed primarily at upgrading Haitian health and agriculture. 5 Religious and chari tabl.^roups ^ £ood P atS was^in creased sharply by donors in response to near-famine conditions in Haiti's arid northwest area. omn i c coffee which annually accounts for nearly Haiti's mos impor Coffee growing is truly a minifundia oper- h3l£ ° £ ^ f °sfo£ the cherrtS n gt; h ered1rof°reftimated 300,000 units o£ 1 orTicres each. The largest coffee plantation is said to be less than 70 hec¬ tares. A wide --ety of cultural practices ^ ctices and coffee^s a he'"does no^Yroduce! In September 1966, Hurricane Ines dealt coffee ; ^ml^^e^bun’a^ln ^ Ind*i vt dua ^growers' emp loy ing pr imi t We methods perform the depulping, and the harvest is ^YotaYof ""coffee (23,865 October 1, 1968. Agricultural production methods are illustrated in figure 2. ’igure 2.--Tilling young sugarcane, (Pan American Union photo.) 6 Sugar is Haiti's second most important agricultural commodity. In 1968 ^„f e " an estim f ed «0,000 metric tons of cane for commercial sugar but the actual amount of sugar extracted came to only 57 000 tons- a relan„Ii i yield of about 9 percent. Sugar estates producers! of the Jne sZlI farmers supply the balance. Most of the sugarcane is planted in the immediate vicinr y of Port-au-Prince, where the largest mill is located. About 20 percent sulf Mte r trifU8a SU *^ iS produced near Les Ca y^s on the southwest penin¬ sula, site of a second smaller mill. A lesser acreage of cane is near Ca D - Ha!tien, where, after many delays, a new mill (annual capacity 17,000 tons) is being readied. The sugar industry normally furnishes employment fo^ a sub¬ stantial part of those counted in the labor force. The work is seasonal how ever, and the wages extremely low. Virtually all sugar produced by Haiti in excess of domestic needs is sold to the United States at relatively attractive quota prices. Haiti's 1968 sugar quota totaled 23,276 metric tons! h t- ^ !^ e / aSt J ! iSal haS b6en an im P° rtant segment of Haitian agriculture Produo? 7 Slackened > leaving processors with large uncommitted shocks roduction of sisal averaged 28,000 metric tons in 1959-63. In 1967 output dropped sharply to 11,000 tons. Though market conditions were little improved recent P vea UCt i° n TV° l6 ’°°° t0nS in 1%8 > 3 V ° lume approaching tLJ 0 ^ ecent years largely because of a production cost adjustment. The major sisal Port-au-Prince^ ^ ^ n ° rth C ° aSt ’ with a secondary area just north of nnti Haitiar ] co “ on Plantings are estimated at 6,000 hectares. Much of Haiti's cotton needs, however, are met through importation of textiles and clothing. The west central part of Haiti, which comprises the curved center of the horseshoe, is known as the Artibonite Region, named for Haiti's mSst important [ Wh ' ch drains ic - ^is area is the country's breadbasket. irrigation bles the semiarid Artibonite to produce most of Haiti's rice. The Artibonite also serves as a livestock grazing center. artibonite , , r?Lr° dUCti ° n WaS estimat ed at 10,000 tons in 1968--15 percent i? conJ 96 and ,. 19b6 - While P° rk out P ut leveled off at 10,000 tons annually continues at the rate of only two-thirds of the 1959-63 average. * RURAL DEVELOPMENT , Ir \ 1965 ’ the Nationa l Council for Development and Planning (CONADEP) reorganized^, ^'^lishing priorities for public investment and® development, was IrilrTdlt ? V ? under direct control of the President. Some of the high dent nil f Y a§enCy affectin § agriculture have related to more effi? r ■j ° f irri g atlon water, increased application of fertilizers and insecti- piocess^ pIanJs^T^’ ^ ^ Up8radin 8 of cattie * Introduction of small P ocessing plants, such as slaughterhouses, has similarly been encouraged. ta t i on TMP Anp? ln f Stitu ^ e Haitien de Promotion du Cafe et des Denrees d'Expor- tation ( IMCADE ), formerly the Office du Cafe, the Ministry of Agriculture purchases coffee for export and carries out measures for standardizing and and r p?ocess?ng 6e SerVi ° eS offered coffee growers include credit g» suggested by its name, the Institute of Agricultural and 7 Industrial Credit (IHCAL) assists in financing agricultural and other enter- ^tses! This agency also operates programs designed to stimulate domesttc food production through teaching improved cultural practices. Another Government-sponsored organization is the Institute for Agricultural and Industrial Development (IDA*’ ly eliminated some years ago important cotton P r ° duc ' n 8 '^on IDAI also perfoJ limited marketing ser- and purchased 7.3 million pounds of beans, corn, and millet. FOREIGN TRADE Haiti's export^anc^supplying^more 3 than'hal^of^all^mportsI^Unlik^many other countrlesI^Ha it ^imposes no festrictions on imports and export o£ currency. Much business within Haiti is transacted with U.S. currency. =*£■—= to its principal suppliers through its membership in GATT and also maintai bilateral agreements with France. More than half of all Haitian Government revenues are derived from import sSirs. p™ei m h competmvnmpoI S t P^cts require licenses, ^ machines, and appliances. Official trade statistics, shown in table 6, indicate that the United St! 3 a= elrfiti;; : f c^t!TIor’l«. than 3 percent of the total. Textiles, petroleum products, vehicles pharmaceuticals anc^machinery com¬ prise Haiti's most important "“agricultural imports Major food ly purchased by Haiti include wheat, vegetable oils and fats d y P fish products, and food specialties (tables 7 to 10). The “n ted States nishes nearly all of the imported raw materials used in Haiti s expo industries. 8 Among the agricultural exports, coffee predominates. During 1965/66 the value of coffee exports was $20.7 million, or 54 percent of all exports (table . uring the same period, sugar and sugar product exports earned $3.1 million in revenues for approximately 8 percent of the total. Sisal exports were valued $2.7 million, or about 7 percent of all export earnings. Mineral exports (bauxite and copper ore) accounted for almost 15 percent of total export value Bauxite shipments will likely gain in importance while maintaining the present’ volume of copper ore shipments could depend upon discovery of new deposits. . f A ® indicated in table 7, the single largest category of agricultural imports f® A a ,H a [! d ° llS ’ and the most i m P° r tant item in this group is soybean oil. In 1965/66, fats and oils comprised nearly 43 percent of all agricultural imports, with 95 percent of the total coming from the United States. Wheat and flour imports were next in importance ($2.7 million or 29 percent of total agricul- Virtua lly all wheat and flour originated in the United States (table 9). For some years, a single U.S.-owned flour mill has supplied the needs of the Haitian market. This mill possesses sufficient capacity for sup- P yin8 ~ lour ° ther nearby is l an ds, including Jamaica. In June 1968, however T 5 °PJ ratin § and Haiti had to import flour for domestic use. In ’ 1969, the Haitian Government purchased the mill and signed an operating agree¬ ment with a Canadian firm. ° ° As a group, dairy products account for more than 12 percent of Haiti's ag¬ ricultural imports, but in this category the U.S. share has been relatively small The Netherlands continues to be the principal supplier of dairy products providing nearly half of the dairy imports during 1965/66. The largest single component has been evaporated milk. The United States furnished all the unmanu¬ factured tobacco (valued at $204,000) imported in 1965/66. .. l ahle }l S6tS forth basic data on trade in agricultural commodities between the United States and Haiti for the 5-year period, 1964-68. Not only does this able cover a later period than other tables, but it is also more specific in escribing the items traded. U.S. agricultural imports from Haiti in 1966 dropped almost 20 percent below the 1964 level but in the last 2 years made a slight recovery U.S. exports of soybean oil steadily gained during the period, apparently at the expense of other fats and oils. OUTLOOK _ The outlook for both Haitian trade and agriculture is not very encouraging, aiti s economy, particularly the agricultural sector, is lethargic, and there are few indications that conditions will improve. The country is slowly emerg- ing from the depressing effects of the drought, while the coffee industry, ar . lt: Y Hurricane Inez in 1966, has not regained its former productive capacity. The 1969 level of imports from the United States will probably rise despite Haiti's shift to purchasing wheat from Canada. Y ’ Haitl ' s investment climate is slightly improved. Its potential as a tourist attraction is again becoming recognized, and new hotels and industries are ^ onstruction * Increased tourism can provide needed foreign exchange and additional jobs. Haiti's advantageous wage differentials should attract ore industries based on imports of raw materials and their re-export as assem- are us^d ^o hard^rk!' 8r ““' t reS0UrCe ‘ S P6 ° pU Gained «d 9 iti: Classification of land area, i960 Total cropland . Perennial crops Productive lands: fertile good humidity conditions . Irrigated plains and valleys Annual crops Coastal lands, hilly, dry, and semiproductive . . . • Submarginial mountainous lands, exhausted . Zone similar to lowlands . . Rough pasture Forests. . . Unproductive lands . . Abandoned barren areas . . . Arid and stony areas . . . . Salty lands. Total area . (300) (70) ( 100 ) (150) (250) 500 200 1,200 (500) (400) (300) ( 10 . 8 ) (2.5) (3.6) (5.4) (9.0) 18.0 7.2 43.5 (18.0) (14.7) ( 10 . 8 ) 10 selected years Year Popu¬ lation Gross national product Gross domestic product Agriculture as Dercenfnpp of Total Per capita Total Per capita GDP 1/ Mi 1. Mil. dol. Polo Mil. dol. Dol. Pet. 1955 1959 1962 1965 1966 1967 1968 3,645 3,917 4,146 4,396 4,485 4,575 4,667 264 273 307 298 302 2/345 2/340 72 70 74 68 67 2/75 2/73 300 299 344 329 336 2/379 2/373 82 76 83 75 75 2/83 2/80 45.0 41.5 39.6 41.7 41.5 2/40.0 2/41.0 — ~ llUllU1U 6) CILLU ±£> LllUg # 2/ Estimates by Western Hemisphere Branch, Economic Research Service. Sources: Population estimates, AID; Tri-Partite Mission to Haiti--General Report to Government of Haiti. Table 3.--Haiti: Tourism, number of arrivals, and gross receipts, 1958-68 Year Tourists arriving Percentage change from previous year Gross receipts Percentage change from previous year No. Pet. Mil. dol. P ct. 1958 . 58,005 2.2 1959 . 67,008 + 16 2.5 + 14 I960 . 79,299 + 18 3.0 + 20 1961. 91,294 + 15 3.4 + 13 1962 . 88,582 -3 3.0 -12 1958-62 average 76,838 2.8 1963 . 60,617 -32 2.1 -30 1964 . 17,321 -71 0.9 -57 1965 . 26,533 + 53 1.8 + 100 1966 . 35,558 + 34 1.7 -6 1967 . 43,842 + 23 2.1 +24 1963-67 average 36,774 1.7 1968 . 51,156 + 17 3.9 + 86 U.S. Embassy, Port-au-Prince. 11 Table 4.--Haiti: Production of selected agricultural commodities, annual 1964-68 and average 1959/63 Commodity Coffee . . Sugar, raw Tobacco. . Cotton fiber Ca cao... Rice, rough Corn . . . Sisal, o . Beef & veal Pork . . . Average, 1959/63 35 63 1 1 2 40 83 28 10 15 1964 33 62 1 1 3 40 79 26 11 10 1965 34 64 1 1 2 42 76 21 12 10 1966 28 62 1 1 2 43 81 20 12 10 1967 30 54 1 1 2 43 75 11 11 10 1968 29 51 1 1 2 43 73 16 10 10 Sources; Estimates by Fore ign Agricultural Service and western Hemis- phere Branch, Economic Research Service. Table 5 --Haiti: Production and disappearance of green coffee, 1960/61 to 1969/70 Marketing 1960/61 . 1961/62 . 1962/63 . 1963/64 . 1964/65 . Average, 1960/61-1964/65 1965/66 . 1966/67 . 1967/68 . 1968/69 . 1969/70 2/ • • o o • • • Production Exports Domestic consumption If 425 725 590 530 550 564 575 465 500 465 500 275 560 425 365 385 397 405 290 320 280 315 150 165 165 165 165 167 170 175 160 185 185 1/ Residual of production less exports”2/ First estimate. Source: FAS-World Agricultural Production and Trade, June 1969 and earlier issues. 12 Table 6»--Haiti: Value of imports and exports, selected countries, 1961/62 to 1965/66 1/ 13 Source: Rapport Annuel de L'Administration Generale des Douanes. 1 1 co CM co CM r - 4 O O CO N O vO cm f-~ • CM •-* m O' »* m vD 00 00 o vD N 00 — 1 on 04 40 vO in 4 'O cm #» * r—1 04 r.tnvO^CMOOn O O' co r- 04 On N '£>0' p4 1 CM On o 00 CO CM r—1 CO CO 40 i —h r- O' UO 45 On CM •——i »—-h »—4 o X> CO r> r» * r> r- i—1 CO CO CO 45 i——i uo CO uo #» r> * ** uo CM ■|H CL 3-4 TJ r> 4-4 E CL ^ d o i^5 •rH co o 4-> >> • u o 3-4 d 3-i * rH C/5 CCJ x: CD CD •H 0 4J 45 tn JO .d 03 3-i 03 o •i—1 4-) 3 O (4, U-* H tn o C/5 C/5 C/5 4-1 • • • t—i • • C/5 3-i • r—1 4-1 o • • • o • • 3-4 a a) o X • • • -4 • 3-i CL r—1 0) 4—1 4-1 3-4 d instration Generale des Douanes, Republique D’Haiti, Plan D'Actlon Economique et Sociale, Conseuil National de Developpement et de Planification, 1968/69. Republique D'Haiti, Rapport Bilan Marche en Avant, 1957-67. Republique D'Haiti, Institut Haitien de Statistique, Bulletin Trimestriel de Statistique, 1963-67. Republique D'Haiti, Institut Haitien de Statistique, Guide Economique de la Republique Haiti. July 1964. West Indies and Caribbean Yearbook, 1968. Thomas Skinner & Co. London, 1967. Inter-American Development Bank, Socio-Economic Progress in Latin America Sixth Annual Report, 1966. ’ Moral, Paul, L'Economie Haitienne, Imprimerie de L'Etat, Port-au-Prince 1959 Economic Intelligence Unit, Annual Supplement, London, 1968. U.S. Operations Mission, The ICA Program in Haiti, Port-au-Prince, 1961. U.S„ Department of Labor, Labor Conditions in Haiti, Labor Digest No. 49, 1964. U.S. Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Regulations of Haiti, OBR 67-34 July 1967. ’ ^ S 'nRp P ?aTr\° £ C ?™r ce > Market Pro£iles for Latin America and the Caribbe- an, OBR 68-48, June 1968. hK S ‘n Depa j t c ent ° f State ’ Economic Trends Reports and Their Implications for the United States from Port-au-Prince American Embassy office. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Indices of Agricultural Production for the Western Hemisphere, ERS-Foreign 264, March 1969. U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Agricultural Situation in the Western Hemisphere, ERS-Foreign 261, April 1969. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Policies in the Western Hemisphere foreign Agricultural Economic Report 36. October 1967. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS COST OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY by George R. Kruer and Byron Berntson UNIVERSITY of illinoim AGRICULTURE LIBRARY Reprinted from FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL TRADE OF THE UNITED STATES October 1969 Trade Statistics and Analysis Branch Foreign Development and Trade Division Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign-284 October 1969 by 1 / George R. Kruer and Byron Berntson i, Introduction , K ,-kp cos t of the EC's Common Agricultural Pol- ’hat European consumers an J ± es they pay for food in relation to world price Ley (CAP) is evident from the higher Prices y Lriculture. This report presents an Levels and from the taxes they pay to supp EC^J ^ first two are budgetary estimate of annual total CAP costs y ® by EC governments in support of domestic 2 (^r^Lditur f by t P he Community * • at — above those in the world market. As shown by table 1, the three cost agricultural budgets', $2.4 billion is'^estimatec^FEOGA* expenditure*°and°$6.4 billion is excess consumer costs not inclu e in FEOGA expenditures. Budgetary Costs National agricultural expenditures not fnoI!^for°”ttuctural improvement, sidies on non-CAP commodities, tax rebates, gran , and administrative expenses. . i. f nr oll Member States, there is un- Because one-source budget figures were scnted . The most complete figures are doubtedly a comparability gap in the g ^ Netherlan ds. Budget figures more probably those for Germany, France, V ’ . (Tables 2-6 contain budget break- recent than 1967 were not available for Italy. (laDi downs for each country except Luxembourg.) ,1 *-■ n nf FFDCA expenditures. It was assume The budgets were adjusted to ^budgetHnctaiad gross receipts from FEOGA. Re- that the Belgian, German, and ^ren ^ excluded £rom the Italian budget. For the ceipts from and contributions n ib tions were already netted out in the Farm q Netherlands, FEOGA receipts and contr was subsequently subtracted from the ization Fund figure, yielding a net receipt w 1/ International Monetary and Trade Research Branch Division, Economic Research Service. Foreign Development and Trade - 6 - Table l.--Cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to the European Community Cost group Amount Mil. dol. National agricultural budgets y European Community Member S tates: Belgium (1968) 89 Netherlands (1968) 241 Germany (1969) 1,234 France (1969) 2,665 Italy (1967) 1,275 Luxembourg (1969) 1/13 Total 5,517 1968/69 estimated FEOGA Expenditures: Guarantee Section 2,010 Guidance Section 285 Special Section 138 Total 2,433 Excess consumer costs on do- mestically produced and con- sumed commodities: Soft wheat 706 Durum wheat 64 Barley 25 Rye 44 Rice 9 Sugar 860 Eggs 281 Poultry 254 Pork 839 Beef and veal 1,950 Butter 1,335 Nonfat dry milk 23 Whole dry milk 47 Cheese 406 Olive oil 36 Subtotal 6,879 Less: double counting of excess cost of feed grain imports 434 Excess consumer costs 6 ? 445 Grand total cost 14,395 1/ It is assumed that this total does not include gross receipts from FEOGA. The source for this figure is Dept. of State Air- gram A-001, Luxembourg, Jan. 8, 1969. total. It was assumed that Luxembourg's budget did not include an estimated $8- 10 million of gross receipts from FEOGA. FEOGA reimburses Member State govern¬ ments through its Guarantee Section for expenditures on export subsidies and in¬ ternal market intervention. Its Guid¬ ance Section provides grants for struc¬ tural improvement of production and marketing. For the 3 years ending 1969/ 70, FEOGA also has a Special Section which compensates grain producers in Germany, Italy, and Luxembourg for income losses following the grain price reductions of July 1, 1967. The FEOGA budget is financed in part by variable levies collected on agricultur¬ al imports and in part by contributions assessed on the Member States. Levies financed an estimated 40 percent of the Guarantee Section in 1968/69. The re¬ mainder came from assessments on the Member States according to a fixed per¬ centage scale. Both the Guidance and Special Sections are financed by contri¬ butions on a percentage scale. Determining Excess Consumer Costs To avoid double-counting the import levies which are included in FEOGA ex¬ penditures, the following procedure was used in determining the excess expendi¬ tures on food by consumers owing to the CAP: As a rule, only the quantity of an item under a CAP which is both domes¬ tically produced and consumed in the EC enters the calculation. Imports are excluded because the excess cost to consumers of imported commodities is equal to levy receipts and there¬ fore used to finance the already counted FEOGA expenditures. Exports are excluded from the computation since export subsidy costs are in¬ cluded in FEOGA or national budget expenditures, or both. Thus, excess consumer expenditure is calculated by multiplying domestic production minus exports by the EC producer price minus the world price . However, this means the excess cost of any domestic production used as an input to another CAP product, mainly grain used as feed, would be counted twice. - 7 - Table 2.-Belgium, proposed national budget for agriculture, 1968 Aids to-- Crop production.. Animal production. Scientific research. Other 1/.. Subtotal. Minus gross receipts from FEOGA Total. 2 / 70 59 10 81 220 131 “W u^uTd'tof Belgium's 1968/69 net contribution to FBOGA is not included in the total, but that gross receipts are included. SOURCE: Annua ire Statistic, ..* de la Belgique, Institut National de Statistic, vol. 88 , 1967, p. 399. Table 3.--The Netherlands, national budget for agriculture, 1968 --Million dollars-- 15 General expenditures.* 4 g Deficit on Farm Equalization Fund. ^ Development and Reorganization Fund. ^ Research. 42 Education. 77 Land development.* qg Advisory service.* qq Veterinary service.* 9 Forestry. 3 Plant protection.* 4 Fisheries. qg Miscellaneous.’ " 271 Subtotal. go Minus net receipts from FEOGA 1 / . : 0/ 1/ Net receipts from FEOGA are included in the Farm Equalization Fund figure. SOURCE: A gr-i culture Abroad , Canada Department of Agriculture, vol. 22, No. 6 Dec. 1967, pp. 20-21. - 8 - Table 4 .--France, proposed national budget for agriculture, 1969 Item Estimated expenditures Administration . --Million dollars-- 1 AA Economic measures. 1 DO 1 R 1 9 Social measures. 1 , 3 1Z 1 9 r/, Reduction of interest. 1 j J J4 o Investment. 3 514 Subtotal. Minus gross receipts from FEOGA 1/. J 5 Jt 1 y 884 Total . Z , 003 1/ It is assumed that the total includes gross receipts from FEOGA. SOURCE: Rapport General ... sur le pro jet de loi de finances pour 1969 , V0 ^*27*28 aPP * N °* ^ d ° C ” N °* ^ ° f the Frencl1 Senate, 1st ordinary session, 1968-69, Table 5.--Italy, national agricultural budget, 1967 1/ Item Estimated expenditures --Million dollars-- Ministry of Agriculture. Ministry of Health, livestock health problems... Ministry of Public Works, reclamation, etc. Cassa del Mezzogiorno. Regional governments. 923 14 144 101 93 Total ,275 _1/ Assumed to exclude receipts from and contribution to FEOGA. S0URCE: Annuario de11'Agrico ltura Italiana , vol. 21, 1967, Instituto Nationale di Economia Agraria, Rome, 1968. -9- Table 6.--Germany, proposed budget for agriculture, 1969 A. Federal Budget : Improvement of agricultural structures. Modernization of farm operation. Social welfare... Rationalization of marketing. Improvement of farm income. Support of fisheries. Other support measures. Intervention and similar measures. Export subsidies. Other subsidies. Administration and research. Total. B. Laender (State) B udgets. Tax Reductions for Agricu lture. Subtotal. Minus gross receipts from FEOGA 1_/■ Total. 281 30 181 52 196 8 110 249 98 156 33 1,394 250 120 1,764 530 1,234 i poT- marw'd 1968/69 net contribution to FEOGA 1/ The total does not include Germany s lyoo/o? but _ it is assumed to include gross receipts. 225* culture, and Forests, Bonn, 1968, p. -10- Therefore, for those products with significant use as an input, the quantity to which the price differential is to be applied is industrial plus human use l fiS S imports« It is assumed that all imports are for these two uses. This is a back- handed way to get the quantity of a commodity that represents final domestic human and industrial consumption out of domestic production. This analysis assumes that marketing margins from the producer to the consumer are the same in absolute terms, not percentage terms. That is, consumer prices reflect the same absolute margin no matter which producer price is used, the current EC one or the world price. The rationale is that the marketing margin is determined by the factor costs involved in providing the services. If it is assumed that marketing costs could be reduced so that they represented the same percentage markup, calculations based on the same data suggest that excess consumer costs would be over $9 billion more. How¬ ever, this assumption is rejected in favor of the apparently more reasonable one that marketing margins would be the same in absolute terms. This procedure also assumes that the EC would be able to produce or import all of its needs at current world prices if the CAP's were abolished. This may be true for some commodities, but certainly not all of them. For example, if the EC entered the world market to buy all of its sugar, there is little doubt that the world price of sugar would increase in the short run and probably the long run. However, we have not ad¬ justed the world price. Our price differential is straightforward -- the actual EC producer price less the actual world price. Nevertheless, an analysis was carried out for each commodity to determine if abolition of the CAP s would have a significant effect on world prices. In summary, for only two commodities -- sugar and beef and veal -- can it be said that the price differen¬ tials used, and thus the excess consumer costs, are overstated. For sugar, the over¬ statement may be around one-third of the differential used, which would mean the ex¬ cess costs used are overstated by about $280 million. No firm price increase is ventured for beef and veal. But suppose that world prices increased by 20 percent from the level used of $388.20 per metric ton. Then the price differential would decline by $77.64 per ton and the excess consumer costs by $520 million. In most cases the time period of both prices is 1967/68. It was chosen because price data were readily available and, more importantly, because it was the first full year of operation for several major commodity groups under the unified CAP system. Quan- tity data are for 1966/67 (the most recent available for most commodities) except that 1967 was used for eggs. This means the cost is probably understated since 1967/68 was another year of record production. Table 7 shows the quantities and prices used in deriving excess consumer costs by commodity. Since the excess cost of imported feed grains is in FEOGA and in the final excess cost of livestock, an adjustment was made to reduce gross excess consumer costs by this amount (See bottom of table 1 and table 7.) Oats and corn were not included since virtually all production is used as an input to the livestock sector. Because sunflower and rapeseed producers receive deficiency payments, which are in FEOGA, all oilseeds and products enter at world prices. Therefore, sunflower and rapeseed pro¬ duction was excluded from the calculation. Fruit and vegetable production has received only minimal protection through higher prices and so was not included. -11- UPPER VOLTA'S AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY IN BRIEF By Snider W. Skinner ERS-FOREIGN 285 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION JANUARY 1970 SUMMARY Upper Volta, hindered by lack of rain¬ fall and by its landlocked position in West Africa, nevertheless is showing some signs of economic progress. Livestock production. Upper Volta's chief economic activity, needs modernizing. Cotton production has risen sharply in recent years, but peanut produc- fdon has remained about the same. Prospects for commercial production of sugar from Sugarcane appear bright. POPULATION Upper Volta's population, as of 1969, was estimated at 5»3 million. The average population density is 50 persons per square mile but is unevenly distributed. The central plateau has about one-fourth of the land area and nearly one-half of the population. The north, southeast, and southwest are less heavily populated. Population growth is estimated at 2 per¬ cent per year. Approximately 95 percent of the inhabitants live in rural areas. Upper Voltate foreign trade is small and has shown an adverse balance each year since the country became independent from France in i960. Ivory Coast, Ghana, and France are Upper Volta's chief markets. France and Ivory Coast are the chief suppliers. Trade with the United States is small. Upper Voltais relatively self-sufficient in food. This is a major accomplishment. However, from time to time. Upper Volta suffers from droughts which cause local or widespread famine conditions. Upper Volta has no large cities. Ouagadougou, the capital, has a population of 105,000. About 65,000 persons live in Bobo Dioulasso, the largest commercial center. Other urban centers include Kou- dougou (21,000), Kaya (10,000), Ouahigouya (10,000), and Banfora (5,000). There are 7,000 villages, with an average population of 600. Almost all of Upper Volta's popula¬ tion is African. Very few inhabitants are from Europe, Asia, or the Americas. The dominant ethnic group is the Mos- si. Many of the other tribes have adopted the customs and language of this influen¬ tial tribe. Domination by the Mossi pre¬ dates the coming of the French. In 1950, the French decided to make Ouagadougou the capital of Upper Volta as it was the emperor." traditional seat of the Mossi " fiomic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 2 LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND USES AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE Upper Volta has a total land area of 105,839 square miles, slightly larger than Colorado. It is bounded on the north and west by Mali, on the east by Mger, and on the south by Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, and Dahomey. It is located in the Sudanese climatic zone, which is characterized by a 4-month rainy season from July through October and a dry season the other months of the year. Annual rainfall averages 40 inches in the south, gradually decreasing to less than 10 inches in the north. The most extensive soils in Upper Vol¬ ta are Ferruginous, iron-rich, tropical soils (Fersiallitic soils), formed from the crystalline acid rock base which still un¬ derlies them. These reddish soils are very erodible; annual crops grown on them afford little protection against erosion. Although of low-to—average agricultural value, many of these soils respond well to fertilizer. The topography of the country can be described as a vast undulating plain inter¬ spersed with occasional rocky areas. All of Upper Volta slopes toward the south, ex¬ cept for a portion that drains eastward to the Mger River. Rainfall in the southern part of Upper Volta is sufficient to produce several rivers. The Volta Blanche, Volta Rouge, and Volta Noire flow southward intq Ghana, where they are called the White, Red, and Black Volta Rivers,, and ultimately into the Gulf of Guinea. The Leraba, Komoe, and Oti Rivers also flow into the Gulf of Guinea. Even in the drier east, the Sirba River forms and flows northeastward to the Niger River. The small Gorouol and Tapoa Rivers also flow into the Niger. Upper Volta's rainfall, temperature, and topography are moderately favorable to growing of crops with low rainfall require¬ ments and to grazing of livestock. Agricul¬ tural activities are distributed throughout most of Upper Volta, with the exception of the northern area where the harmattan (hot desert wind) adds to the dryness of the re¬ gion, resulting in sparse human and animal populations. - 3 Livestock herding and subsistence crop production are the chief agricultural pursuits in Upper Volta. Some commercial crops—chiefly peanuts and cotton—are grown. The agricultural pattern is largely determined by the amount of rain that falls. Farms are usually small, and cropland is usually cultivated with hand tools. Be¬ cause of the short rainy season, quick¬ maturing crops must be planted. Herdsmen move with their cattle in search of water and grass, especially in the northeast. Land tenure is based on occupancy rights and is generally regulated by tribal custom and law. PROGRESS IN FARM TECHNOLOGY Farm technology in Upper Volta is rather primitive but some progress is being made. Several French organizations have an important part in rural development in the country, channeling French economic and technical assistance to Upper Volta's farm¬ ers (including livestock raisers). Their work is detailed in the following para¬ graphs . CFDT (Compagnie Francaise pour le De- veloppement des Fibres Textiles—French Company for the Development of Textile Fibers) was formerly concerned in Upper Volta only with cotton production and mar¬ keting. Recently CFDT has been given broader responsibility for agricultural de¬ velopment in two rural development regions. CFDT's cotton research is conducted in cooperation with IRCT (institut de Recher- ches ,du Coton et des Textiles Exotiques— Research Institute for Cotton and Exotic Textiles). Both CFDT and IRCT are finan¬ cially supported by FAC (Fonds d'Aide et de Cooperation—Funds for Aid and Cooperation). In the areas where considerable cotton is grown, CFDT distributes improved seed of the Allen type, fertilizers, and insecti¬ cides, and provides training and technical assistance to farmers. In the regions it serves., CFDT buys cotton on a monopoly basis and ships the seed cotton to its gins which are located in Ouagadougou and Bobo Dioulasso. In the areas of Upper Volta where peanuts are grown, technical assistance is provided by the French organization, IRHO (Institut de Recherches pour les Huiles et Oleagineaux Tropicaux—Research Institute for Tropical Oils and Oil-bearing Materi¬ als). IRHO conducts an agricultural re¬ search station at Niangoloko, southwestern Upper Volta. Technical assistance to small farmers in the Mossi area near Ouagadougou is pro¬ vided by a French organization, SATEC (So- ciete d'Assistance Technique et de Credit bocial Outre-Mer—bociety for Overseas Technical Assistance and bocial Credit). SATEC has promoted use of fertilizers, es¬ tablishment of cash crops in subsistence areas, introduction of plowing with animal power, diversification of crops, crop rota¬ tion, and introduction of livestock farming in conjunction with crop farming. FAC pro¬ vides the funds for SATEC. Recently, SATEC was given responsibility for administering two rural development regions. Two general agricultural experiment stations are maintained by IRAT (Institut de Recherches d'Agronomie Tropicale Re¬ search Institute in Tropical Agronomy). These stations are at Sarya and Farakoba. SESU (Societe d*Etude Sucriere de Haute Volta—Society for Study of Sugar m Upper Volta), supported by FAC, has been conducting sugarcane experiments prepara¬ tory to the establishment of a commercial sugar industry at Banfora. BDPA (Bureau de Developpement de la Production Agricole—Bureau for Development of Agricultural Production) is working to improve Voltan agricultural methods. BDPA is also in charge of a recently established rural development region. Five proposed rural development regions are still to be organized. CIDR (Compagnie Internationale de De¬ veloppement Rural—International Company for Rural Development) promotes farm diver¬ sification in certain rural areas of Upper Volta. It is financed by a French religious organization. U.S. economic and technical assistance to Upper Volta has been small. In the ag¬ ricultural field, the main projects have been the institution of a livestock demon¬ stration center and the construction of small dams to supply drinking water for people and livestock. Project Vanguard rice demonstration plots, organized at three locations in Up¬ per Volta by Nationalist China (Taiwan), have been quite successful. During 1959 to 1965, Upper Volta re¬ ceived economic and technical assistance totaling $132 million. Of this amount, France furnished 6l percent; the European Development Fund, 23 percent; Ghana, 4 per¬ cent; the United States, 4 percent; the United Nations, 4 percent; the Entente Solidarity Fund, 3 percent; West Germany, 1 percent; and Israel and Nationalist China, smaller percentages. On a per capita basis, foreign aid to Upper Volta has not been as large as that furnished many other countries in Africa. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION Peanuts and cotton are Upper Volta's main cash crops, but exports of these crops are low in relation to the size and farm population of the country. Sorghum and millet are the dominant food crops grown, others include corn, bambarra groundnuts, cowpeas, rice, cassava, yams, sweetpotatoes, and cocoyams. A sugar refinery was started at Ban¬ fora in January 1969, and maximum production of 15,000 metric tons of sugar is expected by 1977. This refinery will require growing of sugarcane on a scale not previ¬ ously attempted in Upper Volta. There was drought in 1968 in the in¬ land countries of Africa; therefore, the 1968 production figures in table 1 are somewhat below those for other recent years. Raising of cattle, goats, and sheep is an important source of both revenue and food (table 2). This contrasts with the situation in Upper Volta's neighbor coun¬ tries to the south, which are wetter and more tropical. In these coastal countries. - 4 - Table 1.—Upper Volta: Estimated production, major crops, 1959-61 average, annual 1967 and 1968 Crop Millet and sorghum. Corn. .Peanuts, in shell.. Bambarra groundnuts Cowpeas. Rice, paddy. Cassava (manioc)... Yams. Sweetpotatoes. Shea nuts. Cottonseed. Cotton lint. Cocoyams. Sesame seed. Production Average 1959-61 :’ 1967 ; 1968 -1,000 metric tons 874 950 925 129 150 iko 75 109 100 66 70 70 63 65 60 2b 35 35 29 30 30 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 20 5 5 9 16 3 5 8 3 3 3 1 3 3 Table 2.—Upper Volta: Estimated livestock numbers, 1966 hind Number of livestock Sheep and goats. o nnn Cattle. 3 , uuu 0 )ion Donkeys and horses. onn Hogs. jUU 110 infestations by tsetse flies, which trans¬ mit the disease trypanosomiasis, make live¬ stock-raising- precarious and unprofitable. These countries thus furnish a market for Upper Volta's livestock production. Large herds of cattle are driven from Mali and Niger, through Upper Volta, on their way to markets in Ivory Coast and Ghana, often spending several months in crossing Upper Volta. Large numbers of live cattle are ship¬ ped by rail from Upper Volta to the Ivory Coast. In 196 ^, 10,000 tons of cattle were shipped by rail, representing about 60 per¬ cent of registered cattle exports that year. but of course, a much smaller percentage of total cattle exports. Some meat is also sent to Abidjan from animals slaughtered in Ouagadougou. A new abattoir, to increase these meat exports, is planned. The southern part of Upper Volta has some tsetse fly infestation; the main cat¬ tle breed there is the Ndama, which is tsetse fly resistant. The Ndama are raised on a sedentary basis. Further north and east, where transient herds of Zebu cattle are predominant. Upper Volta is free of the fly. - 5 - Development of modern commercial cat¬ tle ranching appears to he one of the few opportunities for economic development open to Upper Volta. AGRICULTURAL TRADE About 90 percent of Upper Volta!s total exports are agricultural. Live animals. chiefly cattle, are the largest single ex¬ port, making up about three-fifths of all exports (table 3). Most of the live ani¬ mals are driven across the border and pur¬ chased in the neighboring countries of Ivory Coast and Ghana (table 4). Exports of crops are relatively small. Cotton, peanuts, sesame, and shea nuts are Table 3.—Upper Volta: Agricultural exports, value and distribution of principal commodities, 1967 Commodity Value : Percentage : of total value : of all exports 1.000 dollars Percent 13,252 60.3 Live animals 1/•*#••••••••••• 3,411 15.5 1,148 5-2 1,057 4.8 476 2.2 312 1.4 Hides and sJKins •••••••■*** 277 1.3 49 .2 Other exports (agricultural and non- 2,012 9.1 Total exports. 21,994 100.0 1/ Includes 1 billion CFA francs value of estimated unregistered live animal exports. The CFA franc. Upper Volta's currency, is converted at the rate of 246.853 CFA francs per U.S. dollar. Table 4.—Upper Volta: Exports by country, value and distribution, 1967 Country Value Percentage : of total value : of all exports 1,000 dollars Percent Registered exports: 8,851 49.3 2,435 13.6 2,431 13.5 656 3.7 567 3.2 486 2.7 429 2.4 288 1.6 251 1.4 8.6 1,549 17,943 100.0 Estimated unregistered live animal exports. 4,051 21,994 the chief export crops. In recent years, cotton exports have increased greatly. Although total value is not large ($36 million in 1967), Upper Volta's imports ex¬ ceed the country's exports by a consider¬ able margin and thus give the country an adverse balance of trade. Agricultural im¬ ports made up about a fourth of imports in 1967• The largest agricultural imports, by value, were of kola nuts, sugar, wheat flour, and live animals (table 5 ). Upper Volta's trade with the United States is small. In 1967 , exports to the United States were valued at only $7,300 and consisted mostly of African art. Up¬ per Volta's imports from the United States in 1967 vere valued at $879,000 (table 6), consisting mainly of Agency for Internationa" Table 5. Upper Volta: Principal agricultural commodities imported, value and distribution, I 967 Commodity Percentage of total value of all imports Kola nuts... Sugar.. Wheat flour., hive animals, Tobacco. Rice. Dairy products and eggs. fruits and vegetables. Dther imports (chiefly nonagricultural) Total imports, 1,000 dollars 2,078 1,722 1,507 1,39b 810 660 543 531 27,092 36,337 Percent 5.7 b.7 b.l 3.8 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.5 7b.7 100.0 Table 6 .—Upper Volta: Imports by country, value and distribution, 1967 Country Percentage of total value of all imports ranee.. ivory Coast, [ali. >enegal.. r est Germany. Italy. United States. (etherlands. •elgium and Luxembourg, hana. nited Kingdom. apan. lainland China., 'ther countries, Total imports, 1,000 dollars 16 7 2 1 1 ,321 ,616 ,329 ,280 ,179 980 879 725 681 579 3bb 190 138 ,096 36,337 Percent bk.9 21.0 6.b 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.6 • 9 .5 .4 8.6 100.0 Cents. U.S. Development supplies and agricultural com¬ modities furnished under U.S. Public Law 480. GENERAL FOOD SUPPLY SITUATION Shelled peanuts... Unshelled peanuts. Shea nuts (karite) Sesame. 4.9 2.9 1.3 4.9 The diet of the people of Upper Volta is based on millet and sorghum. Although rather starchy in composition, the diet does include animal products to a greater degree than do those of the inhabitants of most of tropical Africa. When these products are delivered to Bobo Dioulasso, purchase prices are slight¬ ly higher. For producing areas other than those near Ouagadougou and Bobo Dioulasso, these prices are discounted to reflect transportation differentials. The country is largely self-sufficient in food production, importing only a small amount of sugar, dairy products, wheat . flour, and bakery products. Perhaps this relative self-sufficiency in food can be counted as one of Upper Volta's major ac¬ complishments. However, Upper Volta does suffer from recurring food shortages, at the end of the dry season and during the rainy season before crops are mature. The coun¬ try needs a workable "ever-normal granary plan. AGRICULTURAL AND TRADE POLICY In June 1967, the Government issued the general guidelines for its 1967-70 National Plan. According to these guide¬ lines, the Government will: Stress develop¬ ment in the rural sector (the largest); maintain but not increase government spend¬ ing in the social sector (health and educa¬ tion); and seek further foreign assistance. Subsistence grains were purchased at the following prices per pound: :ents. U.S. Grain sorghum Millet. Corn. Rice. 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.9 to 4.6 Seed cotton was purchased at 6.2 cents a pound for "Allen" cotton and 5-5 cents for second-quality cotton. Industrial crops are purchased, graded, packaged, and exported through state market¬ ing agencies or agencies designated by the state. At one time, France annually pur¬ chased fixed quantities of Upper Volta's cotton and peanuts at prices above those on world markets. Upper Volta has a complex tariff system which favors France, other franc zone countries, and other members of the European Community. The Plan emphasizes development of the rural sector, which in 1964 accounted for 66 percent of the country's gross national product. It is hoped that an extension agent will be placed in each of the 7,000 Voltan villages to provide assistance to those running the 500,000 farm units. The Government acknowledges that it will take 10 to 15 years for such an extension pro¬ gram to become operative. It may be an ideal difficult of attainment. Prices to farmers are fixed by the Government for oil crops, subsistence crops, and cotton. For the 1966/67 season, Gov¬ ernment purchase prices per pound for oil crops delivered to Ouagadougou were as follows: GENERAL ECONOMIC SITUATION In general. Upper Volta's economy is atl quite a low level, but something of an up- ward trend has been detected within tne pas few years. Gross national product in 19b7 I was estimated at $253 million, or $50 per capita. The Abidjan-Niger railroad is Upper Volta’s rail outlet to the Atlantic Ocean. By rail, it is 730 miles from the inland terminus at Ouagadougou to Abidjan, the Ivory Coast's main ocean port. Of this mileage, 34l miles are in Upper Volta. The railroad also passes through Bobo Dioulasso. - 8 - The railroad may be extended from Oua¬ gadougou to Dori, a distance of 219 miles, depending upon whether a decision is made to exploit extensive manganese deposits near Tambao. The United Nations has fur¬ nished the money to study the feasibility of building the railroad and mining the manganese. The railroad could carry live¬ stock, peanuts, and cotton, as well as manganese, from northeast Upper Volta. A great need in Upper Volta's infra¬ structure is improvement of the country's road system. In 1962, only 40 miles of roads, in and near the cities, were paved. An additional 3 5 708 miles were surfaced with gravel or crushed stone. The remain¬ ing 6,632 miles are graded or unimproved. Road maintenance in Upper Volta is woefully inadequate. With foreign economic assistance, cer¬ tain important roads in Upper Volta are being improved. These include: Bobo Diou- lasso to Mali border (financed by FED— Fonds EUropeen de Developpement); Ouagadou¬ gou to Ghana border via Po (financed by FED); Ouagadougou to Fada* Ngourma, with ex¬ tensions to Niger, Togo, and Dahomey (feasi¬ bility study by FAC); and Ouagadougou to Bobo Dioulasso (feasibility study by FAC). Air transportation is of minor use to Upper Volta agriculture as little or no use is made of air freight to ship the products of Voltan fields and grasslands. None of Upper Volta's rivers are navigable to the sea. Gold had long been mined in Upper Vol¬ ta, but the small gold mine at Pourra closed in 1966 . Test borings at Tambao, near Dori, in northeastern Upper Volta, indicate manga¬ nese deposits of at least 10 million tons, enough to be mined profitably. However, no decision has been made to go ahead. While manufacturing is not extensive in Upper Volta, the country does have some industry, including: cotton ginning, oil pressing, soap making, rice shelling, ani¬ mal slaughter, tanning, brewing, bottling of soft drinks, assembling of bicycles, clothing manufacturing, metal working, printing, baking, candymaEing, woodworking, and furnituremaking. The VOLTEX textile plant at Koudougou, funded by 'Cfce European Development Fund, was scheduled to begin operating in 1969 . A shoe factory at Ouagadougou costing be¬ tween $245,000 and $408,000,. was scheduled to be in full operation before the end of 1969* Upper Volta's present oil-processing plant will be replaced in late 1971 by a 20,000-ton capacity plant at Bobo Dioulasso. Peanuts, cottonseed, and shea nuts will be crushed. - 9 - * UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D.C. 202^0 OFFICIAL BUSINESS I 5 , Li k. Agriculture in the United States SK® and the Soviet Union: A STATISTICAL COMPARISON ft FOREIGN 286 By Jerome A. Levine and Paige I. Bryan FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION DECEMBER 1969 - r >'V' T ^ This statistical study compares the structure, resource allocation and performance of agriculture in the United States and the Soviet Union. These in¬ dicators provide, at best, only general guidelines for judging agricultural performance. Data on geographic and climatic conditions, soil, farm management techniques, and institutional and political factors are not presented but are reflected in the comparative tables. The main Soviet farm area extends farther north than the U.S. grain belt* the Ukraine is at a latitude approximately the same as the spring wheat belt in the northern United States and Canada. This latitudinal position, coupled with Low precipitation, results in a capricious climate that is sometimes severe and ry* These geographic factors have sharply limited the expansion of Soviet farm output since the growing and pasturing seasons are short and crop yields ire low and unstable. Land ownership is basically different in the United States and the Soviet Jnion. All land in the USSR is Government-owned and nearly all is socialized. Phe functions of agricultural production are guided by a central state plan operating through a complex of large collective farms, state farms, and auxil- La ^ f^ rm uni ' ts a_t: tached to state enterprises. The collective farms occupy over lalf the total sown acreage; most of the remaining acreage is in state farms. e private sector, about 3 percent of total agricultural land, consists mainly )f small plots tilled by collective and state farm members in their spare time, ibout one-third of total agricultural production comes from these plots, and the produce is either consumed by the farmers' families or sold to the state or through farmers' markets. American farms are small by comparison with Soviet :omplexes; most U.S. farms are operated by the farmowner and his family, some- ; limes with one or two hired workers. The functions of management are difficult to compare because of .ifferences in the size of Soviet and American farms. Soviet collective farm ihairmen and state farm directors probably bear the closest resemblance to lanagers of American corporate-type farms. However, Soviet farm managers are lo fully responsible for making economic decisions directly affecting the out- >ut and profits of the enterprises. Often they must respond to directives NOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE rather than make independent decisions. Recent Soviet interest m cost account¬ ing and in profitable farm operations suggests a trend toward more manageri 1 autonomy in ? the actual production process. Pricing of farm products, however, remains in the Soviet Government's domain rather than as a function of consumer demand The U.S. Government helps shape the broad activities of production, marketing^pricing, and trade through extension services, support of farm prices and income, and foreign trade expansion. With minor exceptions, U. . farmers make onfarm decisions. The present Soviet regime is increasing the level of inputs and improving incentives of the rural labor force. These measures include financial conces¬ sions to farmers, increased supplies of fertilizers and pesticides, and expanded irrigation and drainage projects. Although the Soviets have recently narrowed the gap between the USSR and the United States in many areas of agriculturai^efficiency, pro uc 10 > performance, numerous deficiencies are still evident m the folio g • The United States, in comparison, uses less labor and land but more capital to achieve greater output. Farm efficiency, measured in terms of outputuni of input, is substantially higher in the United States than in the USSR f land, livestock, and labor. Yields of most crops are lower m the USSR than in the United States. A comparison of Soviet and U.S. agriculture for a single year may be mis- leading because of the vagaries of weather. In 1966 >^“^USSR resSted in conditions in both the winter and spring grain regions of the USSR resulted output Sr above its previous record of 1964. The United States, however ex¬ perienced several periods of adverse weather in 1966 that, along wi re uc planted acreage, resulted in a slight decline from its 1 9 65 record output of grains. In 1967, adverse weather in all major grain growing regions of the USSR held both 9 winter and spring grain output down. The United States,J^ich - vested its largest acreage since i960, produced a record crop._ timely rains and ideal temperatures in many regions produced average crop yields that we.e the second highest of this decade. For a review of the current situation in Soviet agriculture, consult: The Agricultural Situation in Communist Area s: Review of and Ou t- look for 1969. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., ERS Foreign , P 5 1969. Agri cultural Policies in Europe and the S oviet Union. U.S. Dept. Agr., For. Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 46, June 19 • Econ. Res. Serv., Foreign trade in farm commodities is far more important for the United States the world's largest exporter and second largest importer of agricu t^alproducts, than for the Soviet Union. Both countries have adequate food supplies in terms of calories per person, but structure of the respecti diets differs greatly. The Soviet diet contains a high proportion of cereal products and P^toes, whereas the U.S. diet is high in vegetables, fruits, and foods of animal origin. 2 Table 1.-Agricultural resources, United States and Soviet Union, specified years Item Year Unit United States Soviet Union USSR as per¬ centage of U.S. Percent (work pulation, July 1.., vilian labor force experience). nual average employment. nual average employment in agriculture.. rm share of total employment (annual average). wn cropland. tfn cropland per capita., actors on farms, January- 1... tor trucks on farms January 1.. ain combines on farms. "icultural consumption of electricity. ? of commercial fertilizer -n terms of principal plant lutrients: Total. acre of sown area, 1967 Millions 1/197.1 2 / 235.5 119 do. do. do. do. 3/88.2 5/74.3 4/120.1 5/112.2 136 151 do. do. 6 / 4.9 4/39.5 806 do. do. do. 1968 Percent Million acres Acres Thousands 6.6 7/301 1.5 9/4,820 35.2 8/511 2.2 10/1,739 533 170 147 36 do. do. do. do. 9/3,125 9/870 10/1,054 10/553 34 64 1967 Billion kwh. II/ 29.0 12/25.8 89 do. do. 1,000 short tons Pounds 13/14,552 97 14/8,538 33 59 34 b no no -■ . ~ ui one uimea. biaues «9th ed., o*’ o/ T * T ’ 19 ^ 5 , P * T 1 f * -/ Com P uted average of January 1 figures for 1967 and , * ¥ o U ' S n DeP ^? b °f / - Special Force Report - "Work Experience in 1967 " h., D.C., Dec. 1968. 4 / U.S. Dept. Commerce, Estimates and Proiections nf T mPlQyment ^ ^ USSR ’ 1QTO " - — — the^ Labor S tatistical Abstract ... op. cit., p. 221.6/ U.S. Dept. Agr., Agricultural t^txcs of the United States, 1968 , Wash., dTc., 1968, p. 446 .’ TT Agri cultur al ? 'cooS P ’nSS'’ P * 451 ‘ -/ USSR Central Stat. Directorate, Warodnoye Moscow 1968, p. 348. 9/ Agricultural Statistics ... op. ., pp. 441, 442. 10/ Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR ... on. cit.. u 4s6-TT / ttqua 1CeS ’, S sh - ’ V ^Khozyaystvo SSSR ... op. ext., p. 462 . 13/ USDA, Stat. Rept. Serv. , Consumpt ion -^ gmercxal .Fertilizers in the U n ited States , Wash., D.C., June 1968, p.TT- Warodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR ... op. cit., p. 4 l 6 . 3 Table 2.—Farm numbers and size, and selected data per iarm, United States and Soviet Union, 1967 Soviet Union Item Unit U.S. farms Collective farms : State . farms Number 1/3,146,000 1/360 2/36,200 2/12,783 37118,765 Tonrl p "Fr} TTH _ . . . . .. Acres 3/30,077 Qrvnm a TiPT* ‘PrlY'Tfl._ do. 4/95 5/7,031 6/17,050 Number 771.6 225 8/418 9/618 T a -r»rl a v'ofl Tw^T* WD7 , 'kpT‘ TO Acres 72 192 Q/^T.rvn a ■roa T»P>T' WH tTc P T TT /•••••• do. 59 17 28 ^2/*USSR Central’Stat.^Directorate, Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR, 1967 , g., Moscow, 19^8, p. 325. 3/ Ibid . , p. 342. 4/ Total sown area divided by number of farms. 3/ Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR ... op. cit., p. 466. T>/ Ibid ., p. 483. , , , _ _ 7/ Average annual employment in agriculture divided by number of farms. 8/ Narodn oye khozyzystvo SSSR ... op. cit., p. 467. Households per collective farm. 0/ SSSR v tsifrakh, 1987 ? Moscow, 1968, p. 92 . Workers per state farm. 10/ Land area per farm divided by workers per farm. 11/ Sown area per farm divided by workers per farm. 4 Table 3 . --Crop acreage, United States and Soviet Union, 1967 Crop ; United States 1 / Soviet Union 2/ ' USSR as per¬ centage of U.S. • - 1,000 acres - - - Percent 14 Corn, grain. 60,557 c;q 771 8,611 165,621 30,64o 21,498 47,196 13,492 Wheat. Rye. ((± 1 071 277 Oats. ±,U fl 1 A m n 2 , 86 l Barley. -LO ^ U_L [ Q 1 77 134 Sorghum grain in U.S., pulses in USSR. • • 9,-m ( 1 h nnn 514 Rice. -^,999 90 Cotton. 7 007 741 6,034 3/2,113 11,779 5/ 3,398 9,382 5/ 7/434 20,586 9/3,531 11/6,042 38 Soybeans for beans. i >yy ( 3Q 767 75 Sunflowers. jy , 10 ( ii /p-i c 5 5,453 Peanuts harvested for nuts.... • ~rj d.±0 1,402 n nm Flax 6 /. — — — Sugarbeets. ± > yy± 1 "i 00 171 836 Sugarcane, for sugar and seed... • j- y j-(— <~ 628 Tobacco. 45 1,412 Potatoes... you l iicQ Sweetpotatoes. T l,BpO 1 liV Vegetables. 14 I q/o c,g)i ~ — Fruits (including citrus), grapes berries, and nuts. J • _o/ J 5 pun 10/3,095 19/oAg 99 Citrus. 195 Hay, all. j y oo "I 7 /£77 n. a. 14/86,979 — ; 10/04,O0 ( 135 1/ U.S. Dept. Agr., Stat. Rept. Serv., Crop Production, 1968 Annual Summary 2/ nqqp C+ i 9 D ’ mi±ess otherwise noted. Area =1 bbbR C ™ ral Stat * Directorate, Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR. 1067 19 ^ 8j pp * 3^8-367, unless otherwise noted. Area harvested".' gr-^Sery.^, World Agricultural Production and Trade, Wash.. D. harvested. j g., 3/ USDA, C., Mar. merrial ~ 7 7 " T ±U1 ana p ak. where most com- , ;1 ., , t 1 Production is located. 5 / Negligible. 6 / Flaxseed in the United States^ Flax fiber in the USSR. 7 / USDA, For. Agr. Circ., FT 5-68, Wash., 1968’ Wash 9 u o iq^s y U ?“’ A g rieultura l Statistics of the United States . Elted States ' C q/ Iff P ' 155 ‘ Commerelal acreage only of 27 crops in the Soviet Union M If ^eage of all vegetables, except melons, in the . * _2/ Agricultural Statistics ... op. cit., uu 208 232 Total includes bearing area or commercial area harvested of*26 major fruits Beariu’ ^ nut ^l . 2^1 Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR ... op. cit., p* .^* ing area * 12/ Agricultural Statistics ... on. cit n pnfi Essg>• 5 Table 4.—Yield per acre and production of major crops, United States and Soviet Union, 1967 0 bO w co • 0 p co g V 6 CO f-i 'h CL> O ft 8 C -_4 vO -4 ITV ITNCO LA rlO\ CM vO tr-00 vO ro _d- On H 00 -3 Os irv-V 00 C— *\ r> •> •% H CVJ H O r—I LT\ D— VO LfN CO CO-G" VO ON VO CM -d- VO 00 [>CO ON ON O COH H CO O C\J J" ON OJ VO CM CM CO t>- t— LfN t>- ro ON O LfN CM OO CM CM CM CO rH On p 0 1 1 ON 1 O 0 0 1 1 CM 1 CM 1 —1 LfN 1 1 1 VO 8 p- OJ I rH I rH t>-00 O P C"-P O SO ITS os H --■or\ cm \irc ir\ ift' cm 00 cm o o iho oj He _4~ CO 00 CM tH- C0|lft| co ltnlp cm C- ON CM LfN CO \ 'h r “S cn oil VO OvoO O CMVOVO t-H H cn vO crvvO H mroCMOH OV-4 4 O ri C\J O HvO O #v rv rs »\\ > rv r\ cv rv r> LfN P" £■— VO vO |r—1 O ON VO t— LTN CM H CM VO [>- ON ON • CM CO ON O ON CO H LTN CO O VO • P vO ONP O £ cv #\ r\ r\ *v LTN CO O CO CO O H CM 00 CO \ rH LTN | Hlcol LfNp O ON VO O C— H CO O VO VO CM^ CM O •G G o p -p p o ■G G o -p p> P o ,G co O o o g o -p G -P § 2 O ,G PM w o o o o o o a o -p -p p o - ,G • w ! o o o G O -P -P P O ,G o o o 000 G G G O- LfN CO CM O p LTN VO VO LfN VO CM P CO H • • • • • VD4lfvOO rO rH rH CO CM vO C7\vD c-ovo • • • • • CO [ACM OvO C— CM CM -4 -4" CM rovo OV O cn wvO cn H I—I I I o o LTN VO I CM 1 p 1 -=t I VO 1 P I I I CO 1 o I rH O H CM VO co • onp • co co • • co VO CO £ ON rH • LfN O • H C ''^H * G G CM -3 1 H CO I I ON LfN CM • P • I H H ON CO • CO l CO CO • VO • « G G H 1 O I CO I CO I LfN ,p £— £•— LfN t>- LfN iH rH LfN I • fOJ- • CO VO • • • I OLfN^J-_3- O 0- O CM I Lf\ ~ CM ^ H J- P H H vol o • LfN CO 0 - G # CM ON CO ONP O ON • • CM LfN CM CM I I LfN I ON ° CM I O PM O P O G ? G o G O -p -p p O G H • • M • • 0 • • W rH d PM n • CO D G •H G •H 00 P bD • >> § P • 0 rG PM a5 03 rH bD CO 0 0 p p $ w G CO 0 P p O 4h w * G G co »n O 0 0 P P O -P >5 o o •a a G H O P G 0 0 W CO p CO bp G 0 G CO o p CO -- bD bD p 0 w (D O -P cO ■P O ,Q ft CO W W -p p> (DO.. (D M-P CO £ (D -H *h O TJ P -P •H W ° 2 bD P ft! •H tJ t* ft! P CO 1 —I o ^ ft! M •H 0) o p g P o (D «H O P O - P w P H ON\P H P- w rG PM (D I ^ ® u- ° •H TJ o G CO PM W O P CD • 0 • P T3 G co w • p 0 rH CO ^ 0 P G 0 •H P CO W PM tJ O 0 P P O «H CM « 0 G O rs «H • P - < o > o • q m p P ,G co ro 0 'd w p co O CO • P • ^ \ PM • PMP rO| P , 0 - bD H P w co 0 CO G co •H P O 0 > bD P G w 0 >> P co >> *X N w O >> • O w G G Tj O O S P 0 co s S o p • G M H 0 ro G G ro O 1 P »h O G P ro O o ro O G "d • O P4 I P PM PM CO w vO • P CO G ro G PM ~ P w PM O O « CO • CO PM CO o >5 O PM • G • • P G • 0 P 0 PM TJ •N • 0 rH a) 0 • y P 0 P P G O G 0 X PM •H O 1 0 rH 0 O •H •H •H B P CM ? 0 rs O • a 0 > w P » 3 O P 0 0 1—1 4h O S P p G P cO t5 • P 0 0 O 0 0 • PM G - G P > • PH G 0 •H PM O II bD P G O 0 0 O P •H 'd • > O •H O •H 0 0 P 0 P • iH O £ P G rH 0 13 D-j- 1 0 IK a 6 Table 5.-Livestock numbers, United States and Soviet Union, selected years Livestock Beginning of year United Soviet ! USSR States 1/ : Union 2 / : P ^^ ge All cattle. 1968 1968 1968 1968 1967 - - - Million head - - - Percent 108.6 97.2 89 3 / 50 .O 4/41.6 83 5^.3 50.9 94 22.1 138.4 626 5/336.7 516.2 153 Cows. Hogs. Sheep. Poultry. 1/ U.S. Dept. Agr., Agricultural Statistics of the United States. IQ 68 Wash., D.C., 1968 , pp. 306-418. “ --- 2 —~— 5 2/ USSR Central Stat. Directorate, Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR 1 q67 p- Moscow, 1968 , pp. 425, 433. --- ? 5 3/ Cows, two years and older, included in cattle. 5/ All cows included in cattle. _5/ Chickens and turkeys only, excluding commercial broilers. 7 Table 6 .--Production of livestock commodities, United States and Soviet Union, 1967 Commodity Unit United States : Soviet Union : USSR as percentage of U.S. Mil. lb. 1 /21,010 2 / 9,557 Percent 45 do. 1/12,550 2/7,440 59 do. 1/650 2/1,764 271 do. 3/5,108 2/1,764 22 do. ' 2,076 2 / 1,820 88 do. 5/5,340 6/1,376 26 do. 5,332 2/490 9 do. 7/119,294 2/l5S,035 131 do. 8/974 6/2,337 240 Billion 9770.2 10/33.9 48 Mil. lb. 12/228 10/871 382 Beef and veal. Pork. Mutton, lamb, and goat... Poultry meat. Lard 4/. Margarine and shortening, Tallow and grease 4/..... Milk (cows).. Butter.. Eggs. Wool 11/ . l/ U.S. Dept. Agr., Agricultural Statistics of t he United States, 1968 ? Wash., D.C., 1968, p. 354. 2/ USDA estimate. , , , , . . ., 3 / Agricultural Statistics ... op. cit., p. 142. Total production certified under Federal inspection. , 4/ USDA, For. Agr. Serv., Foreign Agricultural Circular , FFO 13-68, Wash., D.C., Oct. 1968, pp. 28, 29, preliminary. 9 / Agricultural Statistics ... op. cit., pp. 141, 142. __ _ USSR Central Stat. Directorate, Narodnoye khozyayst vo SSSR, 196/, g., Moscow, 1968 , p. 308. _ 7/ Agricultural Statistics ... op. cit., p. 376. 3/ USDA, Econ. Res. Serv., Dairy Situation , DS-325, Wash., D.C., May 1969? P. 20. . ) r>) 9 / Agricultural Statistics ... op. cit., p. 424. 10/ Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR ... op. cit., p. 434. W, Greasy basis. 12/ Agricultural Statistics ... op. cit., p. 346. Table 7.--Area of major grains. United States and Soviet Union, average I96I-65, annual 1967 Item Average 1961-65 United States 1/ Soviet Union 2/ USSR as per¬ centage of U.S. 1967 United States 3 / Soviet Union 4/ USSR as per¬ centage of U.S. - - 1,000 acres - - Percent - - 1,000 acres - - Percent sed grains: )rn, grain. its. irley. )rghum grain and mlses _ 5 /. 56,658 21,162 11,135 14,544 17,989 45,269 26 85 407 60,557 16,017 9,177 8 , 6 ll 21,498 47,196 14 134 514 12,131 19,657 162 14,999 13,492 90 4 feed grains 101,086 97,459 96 100,750 90,797 90 >od grains: teat. e. .ckwheat... ce. 48,017 164,569 1,655 40,277 6/46 4,537 1,742 393 343 58,771 2,434 1,071 9,863 n.a. 22 1,970 165,621 282 30,640 2,861 4,258 682 35 4 food grains 51,460 209,776 4 08 7 / 61,812 201,246 326 Total, 8 grains 152,546 307,235 201 7/162,562 292,043 180 U Dec D 19 t, 1967 # ’p St 36* RePt * SerV *’ Cro P Proauction, 1967 Annual Summary , Wash., 2/ USSR Central Stat. Directorate, Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR, 1 965. g., Moscow bb, p. 284 and Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR, 1962 . g.. Moscow. 1 q6s. P . 247. 3/ Crop Production , 1968 Annual Summary , WashTT D.C., Dec. 19 , 1968 p 3 If. Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR, 1967 . «7. Moscow, 1968 , pp. 348-360 5/ Sorghum grain for U.S., pulses for USSR. 0 / 1961-64 only. 7/ Excludes buckwheat in the U.S. a.a. = not available. 9 Table 8.--Yields per acre of major grains, United States and Soviet Union, average 1961 - 65 ? annual 1967 Item Average 1961-65 United States 1/ : USSR Soviet : as per- Union 2/ : centage : of u.s. 1967 United States 3/ : USSR Soviet : as per- Union 2/: centage i of U.S. Feed grains: Corn, grain. Oats. Barley. Sorghum grain and pulses 3/. Food grains: Wheat. Rye. Buckwheat... Rice. Average yield: 4 feed grains. 4 food grains. Total, 8 grains, - - - Bushels - Percent - - - Bushels - - - Percent 66.3 25.2 38 78.6 36.6 47 45.2 20.3 45 49.3 30.8 62 36.2 17.9 49 40.6 20.1 50 45.0 12.6 28 50.4 16.0 32 25.3 11.2 44 25.9 14.2 55 19.7 13.3 68 22.6 15.4 68 /19.5 7.1 36 n.a. 11.3 — — 86.5 43.3 50 100.8 57.2 57 - - Pounds - - - - - Pounds - - - 2,881 882 31 3,^92 1,079 31 1,582 681 43 1,650 855 52 2,438 744 31 2,792 925 33 Rept. Serv. , Crop Production, 1967 Annual Summary, Wash., u • O • 5 I ? r • s ? - 2/ Derived from tables 7 and 9 . 3 / Sorghum grain for U.S., pulses for USSR. %J Crop Production, 1968 , Wash., D.C., Dec. 19, 1968, pp. 5, 36, unless otherwise noted. n.a. = not available. 10 Table 9. Production of major grains, United States and Soviet Union, average 1961 - 65 , annual 1967 Average I 96 I -65 1967 Item United States 1/ Soviet : Union 2/: USSR as per¬ centage of U.S. United States 3 / Soviet : Union 2/: USSR as per¬ centage of U.S. Million bushels Percent Million bushels Percent ?ed grains: )rn, grain. 3,758 953 398 548 367 365 810 248 i r\ 4,760 789 373 756 315 661 its. -LU 7 84 rley. 30 qa) 1 >rghum grain and >ulses 4/. J_i c 951 216 255 29 od grains: eat. 1,214 33 5/.9 151 1,844 152 1,621 1,522 2,352 472 48 154 1,956 ckwheat. bob 24 n.a. 189 ce. 1 7 J >220 — -L ( JL-L 39 20 Million short tons Million short tons 4 feed grains. 145 4l 43 71 30 173 176 6/51 49 86 28 I 69 4 food grains. Total, 8 grains.... 186 114 61 6/227 135 59 y U ; S * D( f pt ' A §? r *’ Kep't- Serv., Crop Production, 1967 Annual Summary, Wash.. Dec. 19, 1967 , p. hi. - 5 5/ USDA estimate. 3/ Crop Production , 1968 Annual Summary , Wash., D.C., Dec. 19 , 1968 p 38 Sorghum grain for U.S., pulses for USSR. 1/ 1961-64 only. y Excludes buckwheat in the U.S. l.a. = not available. 11 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSTAGE & FEES PAID United Stole* Deportment of Agriculture 3962 U0ILDO A122 18121 0001 UNI V OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY DOCUMENTS DIV URBANA IL 61801 Table 10 .--Production of five major grains and total grain, Soviet Union, 1958-68 Total grain l/ : 5 major grains 2/ Year USDA estimate 3 / : USSR ! . official ! ’ estimate 4/ . USDA estimate 3 J USSR official estimate 4/ ic tons - - 114.2 134.7 109.2 129.0 94.2 119.5 90.6 89.4 115.3 118.5 95.5 125.5 109.4 130.8 102.2 122.5 128.5 96.5 135.9 110.4 109.6 140.2 99.2 90.0 107.5 80.3 107.4 121.6 152.1 100.4 121.1 91.0 145.9 171.2 135.3 159.1 124.9 147.9 114.3 5/130.6 135.9 6/155.5 5/141.5 6 / 169.2 1958. 1959. 1 960 . 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1/ Wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn for grain, millet, buckwheat, rice, pulses. 2/ Wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn for grain. % Ser weight; that is, as originally harvested, not dried or cleaned. USSR Central Stat. Directorate, Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR, 1967, g., Moscow, 1968 , p. 370, unless otherwise noted. 5 / USDA estimate. "6/ Pravda , Jan. 26, 1969 * N 12 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS flGRimTURE LIBRr.RV THE NETHERLANDS’ MIXED FEED INDUSTRY its impact on use of grain for feed ERS-FOREIGN 287 ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ABSTRACT Grain use in concentrated feeds in the Netherlands has declined because of increased use of lower cost sub¬ stitutes. Manioc chips and meal and corn gluten are two major feed grain substitutes used in mixed feeds. High grain prices in the European Community have encouraged the use of grain substitutes. In addition, the Dutch mixed feed industry is highly developed, making extensive use of linear programing in formulating least-cost rations. Increased use of grain substitutes in other countries of the European Community is likely. Key Words: Netherlands, mixed feed industry, grain sub¬ stitutes . Washington, D.C. 20250 May 1970 FOREWORD One rather absorbing development in the feed manufacturing industry of the Netherlands has been the decline in the use of grains in mixed feeds despite industry expansion and rising livestock numbers. This report discusses in some detail the reasons for this development, the ingredients being substituted for grains, the structure of the Dutch mixed feed industry, and the implication for the future for the whole of the European Community. Developments in the Community's livestock feed complex are of major impor¬ tance to the United States. In 1968 , for example, the United States exported to the Community $8^1 million of feed grains, corn byproducts for feed, oil cake and meal, and oilseeds. These commodities accounted for 62 percent of our nearly $1.1* billion agricultural exports to the Community. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and inspiration provided to them by the U.S. Agricultural Attache's Office in The Hague. Especially helpful were Brice K. Meeker, U.S. Agricultural Attache, and Koy L. Neeley and David W. Riggs, Assistant Agricultural Attaches (the latter, formerly). How¬ ever, any errors in the data or in the analysis are fully the responsibility of the authors. G. Stanley Brown, Chief Europe and Soviet Union Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division Economic Research Service CONTENTS Page . v Summary. 1 Introduction. 2 Livestock Industry Expansion... 4 Growth in Production and Consumption of Mixed Feeds........ . Factors Affecting the Amount and Type of Grain Used xn Fee . g C °Price Relationships Between Grains and Between Grain and Other ^ Feed Ingredients.* * * * * *. 10 Mixed Feed Prices Relative to Feed Grain Prices............ . Increased Use of Linear Programing in the Mixed Feed Industry. ^ Growth of the Mixed Feed Industry• . Factors Affecting Use of Nongrain Feed Ingredients. ^ High Protein Feeds. l£ Corn Gluten Feed.* yj Manioc. ^ 17 Sugar. 21 Dairy Products. 22 Structure and Selected Characteristics of the Mixed Feed Industry. Production hy Size of Firm.*. oc- Private Versus Cooperative Mixed Feed Enterprises. ^ Labor Productivity. 2 q Competition. 20 Marketing of Mixed Feeds. pq Industry Organizations. Regulatory Control. ^1 Implications for the Future. op Future Position of the Netherlands.. Shifts in Common Agricultural Policy... ^2 Tax on Protein Meals and Vegetable Oils. .. •••••***** .. Price Relationships for Wheat, Feed Grain, and Other Concen- ^ trate Feeds. 33 Expanded Market for Nongrain Feed Ingredients. ^ References. ^ Selected Terms. ....*......! *. 37 Appendix. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. --Netherlands: Imports of U.S. feeds and U.S. share of total, 1957/58, 1961/62, and 1967/68 . L 2. —Netherlands: Production of mixed feed by class of livestock, average 1955/56-1957/58, annual I 959 / 6 O-I 967/68 . 5 3. —Netherlands: Consumption of total feed concentrates, concen¬ trates consumed as mixed feeds, and total grain used for feed, by class of livestock, 1964/65. 5 4. --Netherlands: Levy or duty applicable for selected feed items, 1960/61 and 1968/69 . 8 5. --European Community: Price relationships of principal feed grains and relative feeding values, 1968/69 . 9 6 . --Netherlands: Retail prices of selected mixed feeds, 1959/60-1966/67. 11 7. --Netherlands: Threshold (or minimum) import prices for coarse grains and c.i.f. price of soybeans, 1959-67 . 12 8 . —Netherlands: Apparent consumption of oil cakes and meals, 1962-67. 15 9. --Netherlands: Imports of corn gluten feed and the U.S. share, 1959/60-1967/68. 16 10. —European Community: Imports of manioc and manioc products, 1962 and 1967 . 17 11. --European Community: Utilization of sugar for feed, 1960/61-1968/69. 18 12. --Raw sugar price, f.a.s. Cuba, 1962-68 . 20 13. --European Community: Production of feed concentrates contain¬ ing nonfat dry milk: powder and amounts of powder used, 1960-67. 22 14. —Netherlands: Fats and oils used in mixed feeds, 1962-68 . 23 15. --Netherlands: Imports of feed peas and the USSR share, 1959/60-1967/68. 2 k 16. --Netherlands: Production of potatoes and use of potatoes for feed, 1950/51 and I 96 I/ 62 -I 967/68 . 24 —Con. iii Table Page 17 . _Netherlands: Production of mixed feed by capacity per firm, 1964 / 65 - 1967/68 . 18. _Netherlands: Production of mixed feed by number of persons employed per firm, 1961-66 . 19 -Netherlands: Output of mixed feed by size and class of firm, .. 20 --Netherlands: Labor productivity in the mixed feed industry, .. 28 21._Netherlands: Percentage of sales of mixed feeds in bulk, paper sacks, and burlap bags, 1967/68 . LIST OF FIGURES -rn- Page Figure —— 1. — Netherlands: Total animal units, 1959-67. 2. _Netherlands: Percentage change in consumption of concentrate feeds, I 960 / 6 I- 1967/68 . 3 . —Consumption of mixed feeds per animal, Netherlands and EC average, .. LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES m _ Page Table —— 1. —Netherlands: Animal numbers, 1959-67. 2 . --Netherlands: Consumption of feed concentrates, 1955/56 and 1960/61-1967/68. 3. --Netherlands: Grain supply and utilization, 1955/56 and .. 4. --European Community: Consumption of mixed feed per animal, .. < 5 ,_Netherlands: Sample computer printout of five alternative ^ complete laying rations. 6 . —Netherlands: Comparison of similar nutritive value mixed feed rations for pigs, 1968 and early 1960 ’.. 7 . --Fishmeal exports of principal fishmeal-producing countries, .. 2 8 . —Netherlands: Total nutrients utilized by livestock, expressed in starch-values, I 960 / 6 I-I 966/67 . iv SUMMARY Grain use in concentrated feeds in the Netherlands declined from 4.1 mil¬ lion tons to 3.3 million tons between 1960/61 and 1967 / 68 . This decline occurred despite steady increases in both concentrate feed consumption and livestock output. Compound feed production increased from 4.6 million tons to 6.6 million tons during the same period. The shift from grain to nongrain components in concentrate rations has ad¬ versely affected U.S. grain and feed trade with the Netherlands. This is because our market share of the Netherlands' imports of "other feeds" is only about half as large as our share of Dutch feed grain imports. Feeding of grain has been discouraged by changing price relationships which favor nongrain feed ingredients. Since 1962, variable levies of the Com¬ mon Agricultural Policy (CAP) have increased import prices of grain substantially. Levies and duties of a proportionate magnitude have not been applied to several products that compete with grain. For example, since 1962 , levies or duties on corn gluten, beet pulp, and brewers waste have remained at zero. Levies or duties on manioc chips and meal have increased about $4.50 and $7.00 per ton, respectively, since 1962 . On the other hand, the variable levy on corn and sorghum in the Netherlands has increased over $30 per ton. Growth in the size of the mixed feed industry and advances in technical expertise have been important factors affecting the demand for various live¬ stock feed ingredients in the Netherlands. When the European Community (EC) began to unify grain policies in 1962 , the Netherlands' feed industry was al¬ ready processing over 80 percent of all concentrated livestock feeds. As grain prices rose, the feed industry made greater use of linear programing in selecting the most economically priced ingredients. Feed mixers are now using a variety of grain substitutes and will continue to as long as their price makes their use economical. In 1967 / 68 , grain composed 45 percent of total concentrate feed rations in the Netherlands, compared with about 68 percent in 1960 / 61 . Although all grain will not be replaced in livestock rations, it is estimated that continued grain price increases could lead to further substitution. There are many potential threats to U.S. feeds in the Netherlands and other EC countries. These threats stem largely from unpredictable policy de¬ cisions by the Community in attempting to dispose of surplus agricultural products. Current programs aim at disposing of large quantities of domestical¬ ly produced sugar and nonfat dry milk in feed. Surplus soft wheat poses the largest single threat to the U.S. share of the EC feed grain market. A decision by the EC to substantially increase use of surplus wheat in livestock rations--through target price adjustments or denaturing premiums--could further impair U.S. feed grain exports to the EC. v THE NETHERLANDS' MIXED FEED INDUSTRY--ITS IMPACT ON USE OF GRAIN FOR FEED by William E. Pearson and Reed E. Friend Foreign Regional Analysis Division Economic Research Service INTRODUCTION Cereals, oilseeds, and animal feeds are the three major agricultural com¬ modity groups imported from the United States by the Netherlands. From 1965 through 1967, imports of these commodities from the United States averaged $274 million annually and accounted for about 75 percent of U.S. agricultural products imported by the Netherlands. Consequently, factors affecting the Netherlands' importation and use of these commodities are of major interest to the United States. The feed economy of the Netherlands experienced significant change during the 1960 * s. In the beginning of the decade, grain began to be relative¬ ly less important as an ingredient in livestock rations. At the same time, use of some lesser known feeds and grain byproducts began increasing. This develop¬ ment is of interest to the United States not only because of this country's trade with the Netherlands, but also because of its possible implications for other U.S. markets. Many factors interact to determine the amount and composition of feeds produced for and utilized by the livestock industry. It is estimated that over 95 percent of all concentrates consumed by livestock in the Netherlands are commercially mixed (84 percent in 1964/65). Thus, the feed mixing industry is important in determining the type of concentrated feeds used in the livestock industry. This paper analyzes some of the factors underlying the shift in use of concentrates and the development of the mixed feed industry in the Nether¬ lands. In this report, "mixed feeds" include both complete feeds (i.e., formu¬ lated rations) and high protein supplements which are added to grain. Feeds custom mixed" by livestock producers are not considered as output of the mixed feed industry. A glossary of selected terms used in this report appears on page 36 . LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY EXPANSION The Netherlands has traditionally been a producer and exporter of livestock products. Livestock products accounted for 60 to 65 percent of the value of agricultural production during 1955-65; exports of livestock products accounted for 35 to 40 percent of Dutch agricultural exports during the same period. Livestock production is still being pursued vigorously by Dutch farmers despite higher feed and grain prices resulting from the EC’s Common Agricultural Policy. Livestock and poultry numbers have expanded, leading to increased feed require¬ ments (see fig. 1 for growth in animal units and app. table 1 for actual numbers). Production of livestock products in the Netherlands has increased be¬ cause of efficient producers and increased consumer and export demand. Figure 1 Despite expansion in the livestock and poultry sectors, the amount of grain used for feed in the Netherlands has declined nearly every year since I960/6I. Figure 2 shows that this decline in use of grain has occurred despite increases in consumption of concentrate feeds. Use of concentrates other than grain more than doubled between 1960/61 and 1967/68, while mixed feed produc¬ tion increased by half (see app. table 2 for quantitative data). 2 Bec8u.se of the shift in demand for different types of feed ingredients, imports of feed grain (corn, sorghum, barley, oats) fell from 2.7 million tons to 2.3 million tons during I960/6I-I968/69 1 / (app. table 3 ). While the value of feed grain imports from the United States increased during the 1960/61- I 967/68 period (table l)--reflecting higher import prices--the import value of feed ingredients other than grains increased more than sixfold. Dutch imports of U.S. feed grain increased from $56.7 million in 1957/58 to $126.9 million in 1967/68 (table 1 ). U.S. sales of other feed ingredients rose sharply from $.87 million to $62.5 million during the same period. But the shift from feed grains to other feed ingredients has reduced the potential market for the United States, since our share of the Dutch market is much lower for other feed ingredients than for feed grains (68 percent and 39 percent, respectively, in 1967/68). 1/ Unless otherwise indicated, tonnages in this report are metric. 3 Table 1.-Netherlands: Imports of U.S. f ® e *L?£ ft U,S# Shar6 of total, 1957/58, 1961/62, and 1967/68 Item Unit 1957/58 ; 1961/62 ; 1967/68 Mil. dol. 56.7 100.3 63.4 126.9 68.3 Pet. 52 Mil. dol. .87 9.8 62.5 38.6 utner mgi£-/ ... Pet. 1.8 11.5 Mil. dol. 57.6 110.1 45.1 189.4 54.5 Pet. 36.5 ~ 2 J PrimarilyTilseeds and meals, gluten feeds, milling offals, and beet pulp. Source: Foreign Agr. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. GROWTH IN PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF MIXED FEEDS Although the feed-mixing industry has been well-established for many years in the^Netherlands, it has grown rapidly and ^ny firms have “ feed for hogs accounted for more than 40 percent of total outpu . Production of feed concentrates is limited by land ® rea S^Lri- farmers’ recognition of better alternative uses for land. Over half the agri cultural area is in permanent meadows and pastures. Domestic production of materials for concentrate feeds increased only 10 percent in nearly 30 years. As early as the midthirties, imports supplied about 50 percent of concen ra e feeds. In 1965/66, the proportion was over 70 percent. The mixed feed industry is basic to the Dutch livestock complex. In re¬ cent vears over 95 percent of all concentrate feeds have been premixed, c"d r :ith ^bout lo percent in the United States “^"ncSL the Netherlands can be explained in large part by the small portion of concen trate feeds produced domestically relative to feed requirements. 2 / Since trade has thus far been negligible, production and consumption of mixed feeds are assumed to be equal. 4 Table 2 .--Netherlands: Production of mixed feed by class of livestock, average 1955 / 56 - 1957 / 58 , annual I959/6O-I967/68 Year 1 / [ Total [ Cattle # * Hogs ' Poultry ' Other ___ • • • • ! --------- 1,000 metric tons -------- Average: : 1955 / 56 - 1957/58 .: 3,208 710 1,290 1,075 100 1959/60.: 4,425 1,000 1 , 7^5 1,580 100 1960/61.: 4,600 1,000 1,755 1,745 100 1961/62.: 5,050 1,250 1,860 l, 84 o 100 1962/63 .: 4,900 1,300 1,760 1,740 100 1963/64.: 5,015 1,315 1,825 1,775 100 1964/65 .: 5,^77 1,428 2,268 1,733 48 1965/66.. 5,961 1,595 2,540 1,764 62 1966/67.: 6,l6l 1,636 2,648 1,788 89 1967/68.: 6,392 1,678 2,858 1,781 75 1 / Sept, to Aug. for 1955/56 to 1960/61 and July to June for 1961/62 to 19 S 7 / 68 . Source: (l 4 , p. 88) and Foreign Agr. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. Note: Underscored figures in parenthesis refer to references listed on P. 33. Mixed feeds for hogs and poultry are very popular in the Netherlands. In 1964 / 65 , about 95 percent of all poultry and hog concentrates were premixed (table 3). Most mixed feeds for hogs and poultry are consumed as a complete ration. About 70 percent of the concentrates used in feeding cattle are in the form of mixed feeds. Table 3 .--Netherlands: Consumption of total feed concentrates, concentrates consumed as mixed feeds, and total grain used for feed, by class of livestock, 1964/65 Item Unit Total • Cattle • .’ Pigs • • .’Poultry.’ • • Other Feed concentrates. 1,000 M.T. 6,442 2 OPQ 2,338 1,823 251 Concentrates consumed as mixed feeds. do. 5,425 1,425 2,200 i 79 r 75 As a percentage of total feed concentrates. Pet. 84 70 94 95 30 Grain used for feed. 1,000 M.T. 3,704 637 1 , 3^1 196 As a percentage of total feed concentrates. Pet. 57 31 65 74 78 Sources: (l 4 , p. 88) and ( 15 , p. 261). 5 Dutch consumption rates of mixed feed per animal are quite high. Figure 3 provides a comparison of mixed feeds consumed per animal in the Netherlands and in the entire EC (including the Netherlands). In 1965 , the amount of mixed feeds consumed per head of poultry in the Netherlands was double that of the EC average. For slaughter hogs, the amount was over 2.5 times as great and for milk cows, nearly 3.5 times as large. CONSUMPTION OF MIXED FEEDS PER ANIMAL, NETHERLANDS AND EC AVERAGE, 1965 589 FIGURES IN KILOGRAMS PER ANIMAL |EC average E7>!1 Netherlands 359 178 POULTRY HOGS FOR SLAUGHTER MILK COWS CLASS OF LIVESTOCK SOURCE: APPENDIX TABLE 4. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 7128 -69 ( 12 ) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE Figure 3 Although average EC consumption rates of mixed feeds are relatively low, consumption rates in Belgium and northern Germany are comparable.to those in the Netherlands. Feed mixing in southern Germany is just beginning to develop. Further comparisons in the use of mixed feeds by EC member countries may be made by using appendix table 4 . FACTORS AFFECTING THE AMOUNT AND TYTE OF GRAIN USED IN FEED CONCENTRATES The livestock sector of the economy is the primary user of grain in the Netherlands, accounting for about 70 percent of total grain consumed (produc¬ tion plus imports) in 1966/67. However, in absolute terms the amount of gram used for feed declined from 4.1 million tons in 1960/61 to 3-3 million m 6 1967/68 (app. table 2 ). The proportion of grain in concentrate feed declined from 68 percent at the beginning of this decade to 45 percent in 1967/68. It is important to note that expansion of the livestock industry helped keep the absolute level of grain utilization from falling further. Corn is the only grain whose use as a feed has continued to increase in recent years, and thus has constituted an increasing proportion of grain used for feed. Because domestic production of corn for grain is practically nil increased feeding of corn has been paralleled by increased imports of corn/ Imports rose from 1.4 million tons in 1960/61 to 2.5 million in 1967/68. The U.S. share of this market has gradually increased--from 75 percent in I960/6I-I962/63 to 83 percent in I965/66-I967/68. Sorghum, barley, rye, and oats used for feed have declined in both abso¬ lute and relative importance in the Netherlands. This development is reflected in imports of each grain, all of which have declined substantially since 1960 / 61 . Imports of these four grains from the United States have shown a cor¬ responding decline. Total utilization of wheat in the Netherlands declined from an annual average of 1.4 million tons in I960/6I-I962/63 to 1.1 million in I965/66-I967/68, and this downward shift closely corresponds with the decline in wheat used for feed. During I960/6I-I962/63, 336,000 tons of wheat were used annually for feed, compared with 59,333 tons in I965/66-I967/68. Wheat imports from non-EC suppliers are limited to hard varieties used for flour mil¬ ling rather than for feed (app. tables 2 and 3). Price Relationships Between Grains and Between Grain and Other Feed Ingredients Grain is declining in importance as a feed in the Netherlands primarily because of its price relative to prices of other feed concentrates. In I960/6I5 for example, corn, sorghum, and barley imports were subject to levies of $5.55, $ 8 . 33 , and $ 19.44 per ton, respectively (table 4 ). EC establishment of grain target prices, intervention (support) prices, and threshold (minimum import) prices in July 1962 increased these levies substantially. Between July 1961 and August 1968, net import levies per ton of corn, sorghum, and barley in¬ creased $ 32 . 05 , $ 30 . 47 , and $5.76, respectively. But in many cases, levies or duties of similar magnitudes have not been applied to feed products that com¬ pete with grain. Corn gluten feed, dehydrated alfalfa, beet pulp, soybeans, and soybean meal, for example, enter the EC duty- and levy-free from all suppliers, as was true before the EC grain marketing regulation (table 4 ). External tariffs on soybeans and soybean meal are bound at zero under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). While import charges are applied to manioc roots and meal, they are quite low relative to the levy on grain. In 1968/69, the combined levy and duty per ton of manioc meal was about one-fifth the levy on corn and sorghum. Manioc chips and meal are subject to an import duty that contains a fixed and a vari¬ able element. The variable element is calculated at 18 percent of the import 7 levy on barley. Although the fixed portion of the duty is $ 2.50 per ton, it has not been charged on imports of manioc roots or chips (table 4 j. Table 4 . —Netherlands: Levy or duty applicable for selected feed items, 1960/61 and 1968/69 1960/61 1968/69 Commodity Duty per metric ton Levy per . metric ton Duty per metric ton Levy per . metric ton Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 0 1 / 5-55 I/I9.44 0 2 / 37.60 2/25.20 2/38.80 0 0 0 1 / 8.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste from brewing and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 / 4.54 2 / 4.54 0 0 2l 0 0 2.50 0 0 0 0 Ucll V U.X ct UC LL Ct J— L C0J— L 00 .. 1 / Levy applicable in July. To limit frequent cnanges ui one , import prices (including the levies) were allowed to fluctuate within price limits which were $ 4.17 per ton higher and lower than target prices. Thus, minimum import prices were established $ 4.17 per ton lower than target prices. 2 / Levies applicable Aug. 1 . 3/ As yet a duty has not been applied to manioc chips. EC import policies have not maintained a competitive relationship for im¬ ports of all feedstuffs. This situation reflects the major importance of grain production in the EC and the EC's attempt to improve farm incomes by maintain¬ ing high grain prices. Corn is the primary feed grain imported from the United States by the Netherlands. This is because of the EC's self-sufficiency in wheat parley and the relatively favorable threshold price of corn compared with other grains. The Netherlands' imports of corn from the United States increased from 95 , tons in 1960/61 to 1.9 million tons in 1967/68. Sorghum competes primarily with corn in the Netherlands' feed grain market. However, the threshold price established for sorghum is not m line with its relative feeding value when compared with corn's. This accounts for declini g sorghum imports^-from 696 ,000 tons in 1960/61 to 361,000 tons in 1967/68. When used as a cattle and swine feed, sorghum has a feeding value about 90 to 95 per¬ cent of corn's. Corn and sorghum are almost equal in feeding value lor 8 poultry. 3/ The 1967/68 basic threshold price (July 1 ) of corn was $88.38. On the basis of the feeding value of sorghum for beef and swine, the 1967/68 price of sorghum--relative to the price of corn--should have ranged from between $ 79.54 and $83.96 per ton. However, in that year the threshold price for grain sorghum was set at $ 85 . 44 . A similar price relationship persisted in 1968/69 (table 5). Table 5 .--European Community: Price relationships of principal feed grains and relative feeding values, 1968/69 Commodity Threshold prices per metric ton: Calculated e . prices per * Feed values metric ton 2/ 1967/68 ; 1968/69 ; (1968/69) 1/: Corn. 88.38 92.69 102.33 100.0 89.00 92.19 92.10 90.0 104.38 104.38 104.38 102.0 85.44 89.00 94.66 3/92.5 Barley. Wheat. Sorghum. 1 / Calculated from relative feed values, based on a threshold price of $ 104 .38/metric ton for wheat. Calculated prices estimate threshold prices that would equate feeding values. 2 / Estimated relative feed values. 3 / Average feed value of sorghum for hogs and cattle. Sources: ( 2 , p. 4 ) and ( 17 , pp. 1073 - 1981 ). Under 1968/69 price relationships in the Netherlands (and the EC), corn was favored for feed over barley and wheat. Corn and good quality wheat are con¬ sidered by European experts to be approximately equal in feeding value, while the value of barley for feed is about 90 percent that of corn. 4 / Target prices for corn, barley, and wheat were $ 94 . 94 , $94.44, and $10^.25 per ton, respectively, for August 1 , 1968 (most grain deficit area). Many European ex¬ perts contend that the target price of corn should be closer to wheat's to reflect more accurately their feeding value. _ 5 / This would encourage feeding of EC surplus soft wheat. (For more detail on this matter, see p. 32). 3 / ( 17 , pp. 455 - 456 ). 4 / Feed values for corn, sorghum, barley, and wheat vary with the quality of the grain and by type of livestock. In particular, the feed value of corn ex¬ ceeds that of some European soft wheats by as much as 2 to 10 percent. 5 / It should be made clear, however, that corn/soft wheat market price re¬ lationships are more favorable to wheat than target prices indicate. The surplus of soft wheat has resulted in prices near intervention levels, while corn prices have remained close to target levels. 9 Table 5 (cols. 1 and 2) provides comparative information on grain threshold prices showing the sharp increase in the threshold prices of corn and sorghum between 1967/68 and 1968/69. Based on U.S. estimates of feeding values of grain (table 5, col. 4)--which give a lower feed value rating to corn relative to wheat than given by European researchers—the threshold prices of corn and sorghum are still below their relative feeding values in 1968/69. This situa¬ tion could lead to further adjustments in the threshold prices of these two grains—as indicated by the calculated prices—and provide even more incentive to the importation of other feed products which substitute for grain. 6/ Mixed Feed Prices Relative to Feed Grain Prices Mixed feed prices have been an important influence on the amount of grain used in feed concentrates. Although retail prices of mixed feeds have risen steadily since 1959/60, the price of feed grain has risen at a faster rate. Consequently, use of mixed feeds—incorporating larger proportions of nongrain components--has been encouraged at the expense of direct use of grains. Rela¬ tive to unmixed grain, mixed feeds have become better and better buys for Dutch farmers. Table 6 lists retail prices of selected mixed feeds from 1959/80 to 1966/67 and shows the percentage increase in price during this period. Prices of mixed rations for hogs and poultry increased 27-32 percent, while prices of mixed feeds fed to cattle and calves increased 15-19 percent. On the other hand, the minimum import price of corn, sorghum, and barley increased 49, 54, and 35 percent, respectively, during essentially the same period (table 7J• It is also important to note that the mixed feed prices given are retail prices, while the threshold prices for grains do not include internal transportation, handling, or marketing costs. The minimum import prices of feed grain have in¬ creased more in line with aggregate agricultural cost factors, which rose percent between 1959/6O-I966/67, than have mixed feed costs. Increased Use of Linear Programing in the Mixed Feed Industry Changing price relationships among feed ingredients have precipitated in¬ creased use of grain byproducts and "exotic" feeds. However,^several other factors—particularly the increased use of linear programing in determining the composition of the mix—have contributed substantially to these developments. The Netherlands' mixed feed industry was already well-established before the EC increased variable levies on grain. In 1960/61, over two-thirds of all concentrate feeds produced were mixed feeds. However, substantial grain price changes in 1962 brought about a revaluation of feed formulation in the livestock industry. The mixed feed industry was technically advanced and it assumed the lead in expanding the use of computer technology in the mixed feed complex. 6/ Corn and barley prices were increased $1.00 per ton for the 1969/70 sea son; barley intervention prices were increased $-5° P er ton. 10 -Netherlands: Retail prices of selected mixed feeds, I959/6O-I966/67 Table 7 .--Netherlands: Threshold (or minimum) import prices for coarse grains and c.i.f. price of soybeans, 1959-°7 ;>> i—I 3 CQ ft bO O i—1 •H ft O O ft (D ft CQ CD o •H ft ft ft H O CQ Sd 3 cd £ o CO >5 0) ft ft c 6 m LTV O OV 1—1 OJ o -4 Ov CO OO LTV o OJ o 1—1 LTV -4 on ovvo 1—1 o 1—1 1—1 1—1 OJ 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 OJ OJ cq ft aj t—I 1—I o Q OJ coco ltv oo OJ ft vo VO b-O IftONH Ov Ov Ov vo vo tr— D— t— CO CO CO CO ft sd CD o ft cd ft LTV oo ft o CO g o o f- ft ftCO LTV CO O LOO lo ro ft CO H oo C—ft- VO Lf\ LTV VO VO [ft t— C—CO 00 t— t— Ov c Ov Ov oo Ov ft Ov oo O oovo ft- t— CTV LTV LTVVO tft t— tft CO CO CO ft- LTV OV ft- ft cc3 cd >H Ov O ft OJ OOft- UOVO tft irvvo vo VO VO VO VO VO VO OvOvOvOvOvOvOvOvOV I—I I—I I—I I—I ft I—I ft I—I I—I CD CQ cti CD ft o sd •H CD bO a c- ft vo sd A CD OV o LTV ft ov CD ft ft irv OJ t- Ph VO I—I OJ OJ I—I ft ft- I—I CD o ft 3 o CQ 12 The computer, through linear programing, was introduced on a wide scale to evaluate feed ingredients in terms of their relative feeding value. In the simplest terms, linear programing is a tool enabling management to organize re¬ sources or enterprises to minimize costs of production or to maximize profits. In the case of feed formulation, the mixed feed industry has employed linear programing techniques to determine the least-cost combination of ingredients within given constraints; i.e., minimum protein content, maximum fiber content, maximum animal fat content, and so forth. Current market prices for raw materials are fed into a computer for analysis on a frequent basis (sometimes weekly). Computer printouts (see app. table 5 for a sample) provide current in¬ formation to the feed mixer on the proportion of ingredients to be used at existing prices. This information enables the feed mixer to formulate a live¬ stock ration that meets specified feed standards at a minimum cost. Linear programing information is available to most mixed feed manufacturers in the Netherlands. However, few small feed mixers own and oper¬ ate computers because of the high cost involved and the technical knowledge required. Cooperative feed mixers rely on Cebeco or C.I.V. for linear programing information (see pp. 29, 30 for information about Cebeco and C.I.V.). Even mixers who do not have access to computers gain knowledge of profitable changes in the composition of feeds. Most cooperatives, although not required to do so by law, attach the feed formula to each bag of mixed feed. Widespread application of linear programing in the Netherlands has accentu¬ ated the long-term decline in grain used in concentrated feed. Appendix table 6 shows a comparison of a hog feed formulated early in the i960's with a similar ration formulated in 1968. The nutritional value of both feeds is con¬ sidered equal, but the 1968 formulation is only 34 percent grain while the earlier ration is 70 percent grain. Linear programing has permitted feed mixers to explore the potential of nearly every available feed that is palatable or nutritious. When prices of the mixed feed ingredients change, the effect on demand is registered almost im¬ mediately in the feed industry. Consequently, the Dutch livestock feed indus¬ try, which continues to rely very heavily on imported feed concentrates, is very sensitive to price changes. Growth of the Mixed Feed Industry The shift in use of ingredients in mixed feeds has been affected by the growth of the industry. Concentrate rations prepared by industrial processors contain less grain than those rations prepared on farms. In 1965? 57 percent of all concentrates fed to livestock in the Netherlands were grain. However, only 42 percent of all concentrates used by the mixed feed industry were grain. Con¬ sequently, as the mixed feed industry expands its relative share of concentrate feeds that are fed by farmers, consumption of grain is affected. The mixed feed industry makes possible the increased use of grain byproducts and many other nongrain feed ingredients. A substantial knowledge of prices, relative feeding values, and nutritional requirements, plus investment 13 in equipment for handling and mixing, are needed to purchase and use lower cost ingredients. These requirements exceed the capacities of individual farm oper¬ ations. FACTORS AFFECTING USE OF NONGRAIN FEED INGREDIENTS The declining importance of grain as a feed in the Netherlands has Drought about increased use of some nongrain feed ingredients. Included in the non¬ grain category are high protein meals, manioc, sugar, certain dairy products, molasses, and selected "other" commodities (such as animal and vegetable oils, feed peas, and potatoes). These commodities, which are replacing grain in live¬ stock rations, are discussed below. High Protein Feeds Dutch farmers are now feeding more high protein feeds than ever before. However, the demand is being supplied only in part by traditional protein-rich feeds such as oilseed cake and meal, meat meal, and fish meal. Since 1960/61, use of other high protein fee.ds (such as milk powder, corn gluten, feed peas, and alfalfa and grass meals) has increased substantially. Feeding of high protein cakes and meals--oilseed, animal, and fish--has not increased as a proportion of concentrates fed (app. table 2 ). In 1955 / 56 , these ingredients accounted for l6 percent of the concentrates fed and remained near this proportion through 1967/68. The balance between use of animal pro¬ tein (including fish) and oilseed cakes and meals is about the same as in 1955 / 56 . In 1955/56, about four parts of vegetable oilseed cake and meal to one part of animal and fish meal was being used in concentrate feeds. This ratio narrowed to about three to one in I960/6I. Since 1960/61, however, oil¬ seed cake and meal have gradually regained their earlier position relative to animal (and fish) protein. Animal protein, in- the form of meat meal, is a byproduct of livestock slaughterhouses. Its future world supply will be commensurate to further ex¬ pansion in the livestock industry. Fish meal can be a byproduct of the fish processing industry, or "rough" fish catches may be processed into fish meal. Since Peru is the world’s largest supplier of fish meal--accounting for 60 per¬ cent (by weight) of world exports in 1967 ( a PP» table 7 )--its export prospects are critical to the world supply. Peru exported 1.4 million tons of fish meal in 1964 and 1965, 1.3 million tons in 1966, and 1.6 million in 1967. A recent study by the Food and Agriculture Organization concluded that world anchovy numbers have been depleted appreciably and that a maximum catch was probably reached in 1967. Fishermen have experienced increasing difficulty in obtaining good catches in recent years (l). Total consumption of vegetable oil cake and meal in the Netherlands increased 13 percent between 1962 and 1967 (table 8). Consumption of soybean cakes alone increased 65 percent during this period. Thus, soybean cake and meal have been increasing their share of the vegetable protein market, rising from 39 percent in 1962 to 56 percent in 1967• Consumption of other types of vegetable oil cake and meal has varied substantially from year to year, with consumption of many types having gradually declined. Major exceptions are cake and meal produced from sunflower and colza (rape). Table 8.—Netherlands: Apparent consumption of oil cakes and meals, 1962-67 1/ Type of oil cake or meal Linseed.... Peanut. Soybean.... Sesame. Cottonseed. Sunflower.. Copra. Palm kernel Rape seed.. Other. Total... : 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1965 : 1966 : 1967 1,000 metric tons - ; 186 173 211 166 151 96 : 37 39 34 20 27 33 : 296 269 332 378 403 489 : 19 19 15 11 13 5 : 64 76 67 64 63 46 : 94 92 62 70 123 117 : 29 12 50 27 38 49 : -4 11 4 -4 3 -3 : 29 33 - 2-5 34 49 26 : 14 12 13 12 16 9 : 764 736 813 778 886 867 1 / Imports plus production minus exports. Sources: (13, p. 96) and (19, various annual reports). Future U.S. exports of oilseeds and oil cake and meal to the Netherlands will depend considerably on the outcome of a recent proposal by the Commission of the European Community to levy a consumption tax on products of oilbearing materials of vegetable and marine origin that are used for food or feed. The proposal calls for a consumption tax of about $60 per ton for vegetable oils and $30 per ton for oil cake and meal (special arrangements would be made for reimbursing trade losses suffered by the Associated Overseas Territories of the EC). Certain animal fats may also be subject to a tax. The proposed taxes would be applied to both imports and indigenous production and are designed, according to the Community, to aid in solving surplus problems in the EC by cur¬ tailing milk production, encouraging consumption of butter relative to consump¬ tion of margarine, and promoting increased use of grain--particularly barley and soft wheat. The United States exported over $525 million of vegetable oil, oilseeds and oil cake and meal to the EC in 1967. Soybeans and oil cake and meal enter the EC duty free (a GATT tariff binding is in effect), while vegetable oils are subject to a duty of 9~15 percent. The impact of consumption taxes on U.S. ex¬ ports to the Netherlands will depend on the absolute level of the taxes and the level of taxes on oilseed cake and meal relative to that in effect for substi¬ tute products such as corn gluten, meat meal, and fish meal. 15 Corn Gluten Feed Use of corn gluten as a feed ingredient has increased spectacularly in the Netherlands. Imports of corn gluten into the Netherlands rose from 1 + 9,000 tons in 1959/60 to 1 + 53,000 in 1967/68 (table 9 ). Since 1962/63, the United States has supplied about 80 percent of the Dutch import market. The sharp increase in use of corn gluten feed began in 1962/63 and is linked with the application of higher levies on grain under EC grain marketing regulations. Total avail¬ ability of corn gluten feed in the Netherlands is shown in appendix table 2 . Table 9.--Netherlands: Imports of corn gluten feed and the U.S. share, 1959 / 60 - 1967/68 Year Imports : Year Imports m n : From United . Total . States ! • * *** ;“er 1959/60 . 1960/61. 1961/62. 1962/63 . 1963/64 . - - 1,000 metric tons - -. 49 28 : 4 l 11 48 16 : 82 62 : 184 138 : : 1964 / 65 ...... :1965/66. : 1966/67 . •.1967/68. - -1,000 metric tons - - 230 190 331 284 384 299 453 360 Source: Foreign Agr. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. Corn gluten is a byproduct of the wet-milling process of starch manufac¬ turing (other byproducts include germ, bran, and corn solubles). Corn gluten feed consists of corn gluten (processed into a meal) and corn bran, with or without corn solubles. Corn gluten feed contains at least 25 percent protein, while corn gluten meal is manufactured to contain either 4 l or 60 percent protein. Although rich in protein, corn glutens are not considered to be good- quality proteins. 7/ They are fed primarily to dairy cattle. The future of corn gluten as a livestock feed in the EC depends upon its price relationship to grain and other high-protein feeds. 8 / If applied to corn gluten, EC Commission proposals to tax protein meals could lower its level of use (current proposals do not specifically mention corn gluten). Unlike grain, corn gluten feed now enters the EC free of duties or levies. There pre¬ sently is little basis to assume that the favorable prices for corn gluten compared with grain will be changed. Any price increases for grain would en¬ courage greater use of corn gluten feed. 7 / ( 17 , PP. 423 - 424 ). . n 8/ When fed to dairy cattle, corn gluten feed is worth approximately 115 per¬ cent (by weight) of the value of corn. In 1968, the average value of a ton of imported corn gluten feed was less than a ton of imported corn. As long as import prices reflect this difference, the use of corn gluten feed will prob¬ ably continue to expand. 16 Manioc Manioc has become increasingly important as an ingredient in mixed feed in the Netherlands and several other EC countries. A recent study by the Inter¬ national Trade Center, GATT, discusses the use of manioc in the Netherlands, West Germany, and Belgium ( 12 ). Much of the following discussion is based on this GATT report. Manioc is a root of a plant widely grown in areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It is exported in root forms--which include chips and pellets-- or as flour and meal. Most feed mixers are using the root forms of manioc. Manioc is an energy feed and competes directly with barley, corn, and other grain. It is used mostly in mixed feeds for hogs. The Netherlands, West Germany, and Belgium accounted for 97 percent of EC imports of manioc in 1967 (table 10 ). From $27 million in 1962, total EC im¬ ports increased to $51 million in 1967. Although feed mixers had long been aware of manioc's potential for use in feed, manioc was not used extensively until 1962. The introduction of variable levies on grain has encouraged use of manioc (see table 4 for a comparison of selected levies and duties) by the feed mixing industries of the Netherlands, West Germany, and Belgium, and these countries will probably import larger amounts in the future. Table 10 .--European Community: Imports of manioc and manioc products, 1962 and 1967 • • Country ! 1962 1967 • • ! 1,000 dol. 1,000 M.T. 1,000 dol. 1,000 M.T, West Germany.: 24,151 366.1 32,879 532.7 Netherlands.: 70 1.2 9 ,l 8 l 158.8 Belgium.: 1,517 23.0 7,109 113.3 France.: 1,730 2 ' 3.4 1,548 20.4 Total EC.: 27,470 413.7 50,824 826.5 Source: ( 12 ). The content of manioc in mixed feed now averages about 10 percent in West Germany and about 3 percent in the Netherlands. The GATT study concluded that since about half of the ingredients in mixed feeds are grain, manioc could be used more extensively in the EC. Sugar Sugar is being used in livestock feeds in the Netherlands and other EC countries (table 11 ). EC use of sugar in feed increased from nil in I960/6I to an estimated 340,000 tons in 1968/69. Raw sugar has been imported for feed, and on a limited scale EC-produced surpluses are being denatured for feed (i.e., rendered unfit for human consumption). 17 Table 11 .--European Community: Utilization of sugar for feed, 1960/6I-I968/69 >1 0 O O O 1 O LTV OO O VO 1 <—1 1-1 1 m CM CM CM VO CO CM CM • • • • CM • • • • • 3 C/3 bO a • • aj U • • •• 3 2 £3 • • •H CO c6 1 O H • • •p 0 1—1 6 rO 0 • • CO 0 O fH 3 a d O • H u O 0) •H O O >5 3 r3 -p ra 3 cd l—1 ctf O W > O CQ O 0) J 0) U -p s PQ t2 P-H H 18 Sugar is a high energy food and is used in feeding rations for calves and chickens, but mostly for pigs. The level of sugar use in rations in the EC has generally been less than 10 percent. Sugar mixes well in feeds and requires no special mixing equipment. 9 / Its use as a livestock feed in the EC has been encouraged by a combination of surplus sugar production in the EC and low world prices for raw sugar. During the fifties, sugar production in the EC plus supplies from French Overseas Departments approximated consumption in the Common Market. However beginning in the early 1960's, production increased faster than consumption and the Common Market became a net exporter of sugar. Exportable surpluses pro¬ duced in 1963 and 1964 were marketed at reasonable prices, but in 1965 world sugar prices fell sharply—from $126 per ton (5-72 cents per pound) in 1964 to $ 44.50 per ton ( 2.02 cents per pound) in 1965 (table 12 ). The EC began using substantial quantities of denatured sugar for feed in 1965. Since then, world sugar prices have remained low, and larger amounts of sugar have been used for feed in the EC. The EC sugar regulation that became effective in July 1968 and favorable weather resulted in even larger surplus production in 1968/69. EC sugar pro¬ duction is supported at levels substantially above world prices. The EC intervention (support) price for 1968/69 was $212.30 per ton for white sugar. The average world price for raw sugar during the first two-thirds of 1968 was $ 39-20 per ton (table 12 ). Under the regulation, surplus sugar can be either denatured and used as livestock feed, or moved into world markets; in either case a substantial subsidy is required. A comparison of these two alternatives indicates that disposal of surplus EC sugar is expensive under either alterna¬ tive but that denaturing sugar and using it for feed is probably less costly than exporting it when world sugar prices are depressed. , Alternative I. Sugar prices in the EC were supported at $ 212.30 per ton ( 3 rd-quality sugar) in 1968/69. To make sugar attractive as a feed in the EC it was subsidized so that its market price was 90 percent of the market price' of corn. Using the market price of $ 97-50 per ton for corn, a denaturing sub¬ sidy of about $ 140.30 per ton of sugar was paid on sugar used for feed. 10/ >ve{ 111113 1S trUS aS l0ng aS the P ercenta S e does n ot exceed the 10-percent 10 / The $ 140.30 denaturing subsidy was calculated as follows: Support price ( 3 rd-quality sugar) = $ 212.30 Quality allowance (due to quite limited supplies of 3nd-quality sugar) 2.50 Technical costs of denaturing 6.00 Transportation costs to feed mill 7.00 Total $ 227.80 Minus: Market price of corn ($ 97 - 50 ) times 90 percent = $87.75 tut rounded by the EC to $ 87.50 Denaturing premium $ 140.30 per metric per metric per metric per metric ton ton ton ton 19 Assuming that 1 ton of sugar replaced about 0.9 ton of Imported corn, the im¬ port levy of approximately $ 3 *t per ton was forfeited. Under these circumstances, the net cost to the EC Agricultural Fund for use of domestically produced sugar as feed in the EC was approximately $ 17^.30 per ton ($ 140.30 plus $ 3 * 0 * Table 12 .—Raw sugar price, f.a.s. Cuba, 1962-68 l/ Year Price per pound . Price per kilogram 1q62 . - - - - Cents - - - - ----- Cents 2.80 6.17 8.31 18.32 5.72 2.02 ^*^5 1.76 3.88 1.88 k - lh 1.78 3.92 l .. l q(34 . iqAr . 1qA6 . 1 Q^7 . no6R ?/. 1 / Price calculated tor implement a ui 0 , . , , Simple average of daily prices, London and No. 8 spot New York, both adjusted to f.a.s. (free alongside ship) Cuba. 2 / Jan.-Aug. Alternative II. -Assuming white sugar sells for about 50 percent^more^than raw sugar, its val ue would be about $45 per ton when raw sugar sells for $30 ner ton. The export subsidy required to move sugar into world markets, exclud¬ ing transportation and marketing costs, would be $167.30 per ton ($212.30 minus $ 45 ). A comparison of the $ 174.30 denaturing subsidy per ton and the $ 167.30 ex¬ port subsidy suggests that there would be a saving of $7 per ton by exporting. However, since the export subsidy does not include transportation and marketing costs and since the denaturing subsidy includes a $7 cost per ton for trans¬ porting the sugar to the feed mills, the net cost of the denaturing subsidy would probably be less than that of the export subsidy. Also, Dutch experts maintain that 1 ton of sugar will substitute for 1.012 tons of corn. In thi case, a denaturing subsidy of around $129-$130 per ton (rather than $ 140 . 30 ) would be sufficient to move sugar into feed use. Disposal of surplus sugar production is costly to the EC Agricultural Fund as well as to sugar producers and beet growers. Consequently, production quotas for each EC country are likely to be adjusted to bring production an consumption more nearly in line. But surplus sugar production is likely to per¬ sist for some time, and present high price levels for grain—combined wi depressed world prices for sugar—will continue to result in some surplus being used in feed in the EC. 20 Dairy Products Milk production in the Netherlands and throughout the EC is increasing faster than consumption. The Community has established a target price for raw milk (at the farm) of $10.30 per 100 kilograms and has authorized government agencies to purchase butter and nonfat dry milk at support prices of $173.50 and $ 41.25 per 100 kilograms, respectively (1968/69 prices). 11 / Milk producers have responded to the high price incentives by producing large EC-held stocks of butter and nonfat dry milk. Provisions of EC dairy regulations, supplemented by other measures, have proved inadequate for disposal of surplus dairy products. At the end of 1968, butter stocks were estimated at about 300,000 tons. The EC has hinted that some butter stocks may be disposed of in feed. However, when the costs of alternative disposal programs are considered, it seems unlikely that large quantities of butter will be fed. Butter ( 82 ’percent butterfat) is a high-energy food, and each unit supplies about 1.8 times the energy of the same weight of corn. Subsidies to encourage use of butter in feed in the EC would have to be at least $156 per 100 kilograms 12 / for butter to ef¬ fectively compete with corn. At the same time, subsidies on butter exports (82 percent butterfat) to the United Kingdom were $ 106.50 per 100 kilograms in July of 1968. Subsidies on butter exports to other third countries were higher. Nonfat dry milk is being used for feed in the EC. It is generally used as a milk replacer for calves or used in poultry feeds and in feeds for small pigs. Since i960, the amount of nonfat dry milk used for feed in the EC has increased from 80,000 tons to 715,000 in 1967 (table 13). It seems likely that as milk production continues to increase in the EC, use of nonfat dry milk for feed will also increase. (This will be the case if 1969/70 price proposals for a direct aid of $38.25 per kilograms are approved by the EC Council.) The world market for nonfat dry milk is depressed. So far, 11 / Commission price proposals for 1969/70 include substantially lower prices for butter ($111.00 per 100 kilograms) but sharply increased prices for nonfat dry milk ($ 71.25 per 100 kilograms). Direct aid to users of nonfat dry milk for feed would be increased from $8.25 to $38.25 per 100 kilograms, while aid to users of liquid skim milk for feed would be increased from $1.50 to $4.25 per 100 kilograms. 12 / This rough calculation disregards the protein and mineral value of corn and assumes the following: (a) Butter, which is 82 percent butterfat, would supply 1.8 times the energy of a similar unit of corn; (b) corn is valued at $ 9*27 per 100 kilograms, the 1968/69 threshold price. The denaturing subsidy for butter would need to be higher than $156 per 100 kilograms if the protein and mineral content of corn were considered. 21 Community subsidies for feed use have "been less than export subsidies. Ex¬ port subsidies in July 1968 for nonfat dry milk (less than 1.5 percent butter- fat) were $20-$23 per 100 kilograms, while subsidies paid on nonfat dry milk for calf milk replacer averaged $ 8.25 per 100 kilograms. 13 / Until the world market for nonfat dry milk improves, the EC will probably continue to rely more on feeding than on exporting. Table 13 .--European Community: Production of feed concentrates containing nonfat dry milk powder and amounts of powder used, 1960-67 Year Amounts of nonfat dry milk powder used in feed 1,000 metric tons 1960. 1961. 1962. 1963 . 1964 . 1965 . 1966. 1967 . 123 80 216 i4o 293 190 380 247 634 412 745 484 946 615 1,100 715 Source: Monthly Bulletin of Agricultural Economics and Statistics, Rome, Sept. 1968, p. 17 . FA 0 , Other Commodities Molasses.—Molasses from cane or beets is a satisfactory substitute for part of the corn in a ration and is most commonly used in rations for ruminants. However, molasses generally supplies less feed nutrients per unit of weight than does corn. Use of molasses in feeds has risen consistently in the Netherlands, in¬ creasing fivefold between 195,5/56 and" 1967/68 (app. table 2). In 1955 / 56 ? molasses accounted for slightly over 1 percent of concentrates fed; it accounted for 3.6 percent in 1966/67. Molasses is particularly beneficial when used with poorer quality feeds since it makes them more palatable. Assuming that the price of molasses remains competitive, the increasing use of inferior-quality concentrate feed ingredients in the Netherlands should encourage continued use of molasses. 13 / A much higher subsidy— $ 27-$28 per 100 kilograms—is needed to move non¬ fat dry milk into pork or poultry rations. This subsidy would bring the price below world market levels. 22 Animal and vegetable oils (excluding dairy products) .--Feed mixers in the Netherlands are using animal fats and vegetable oils in mixed feeds, particu¬ larly in pig and poultry rations. Fats and oils are being added to mixed feeds for additional energy; they supply approximately 2.25 times as much energy per pound as digestible carbohydrates do ( 17 , p. 83). Fats and oils are being in¬ corporated by feed mills rather than by farmer-feeders because these products require special processing equipment. The level of fats and oils used in any ration is low--generally less than 2 percent. However, between 1962 and 1968, fats and oils used by the mixed feed industry in the Netherlands quadrupled (table l 4 ). In 1962, fats and oils were about 0.5 percent of mixed feed production; the proportion had increased to about 1.8 percent by 1968. Feed mixers are incorporating some unprocessed oilseeds in mixed feeds. Little is known about the level of use. Data in table l 4 do not include oils from unprocessed oilseeds. Table l 4 .—Netherlands: Fats and oils used in mixed feeds, 1962-68 Type of commodity 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 Metric tons 1967 1968 Animal fats.: 15,920 20,320 29,160 32,740 35,720 54,480 100,590 Vegetable oils..: 9,070 12,310 18,790 18,340 19,030 18,950 17,780 Total.: 24,990 32,630 47,950 52,080 54,750 73,430 118,370 Source: Foreign Agr. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. Feed peas .--Feed peas are becoming more important as a feedstuff in the Netherlands. Peas are an excellent feed in that they contain as much protein as corn gluten feed while supplying more total digestible nutrients (17, pp. 495— 496 ). The major restriction to the use of feed peas has been their generally high cost relative to that of other feeds. However, since 1964 / 65 , larger quantities of feed peas have been imported by the Netherlands--mainly from the USSR (table 15 ). Future imports by the Netherlands will depend on the availability of feed peas on world markets and their price relative to prices of other pro¬ tein sources. Supplies fluctuate substantially from one season to another. 23 Table 15 .—Netherlands: Imports of feed peas and the USSR share, I959/6O-I967/68 Year Imports Total ’ From USSR • - - 1,000 metric tons - - 36 16 — 17 — 4o — 19 Year Total From USSR ■ 1,000 metric tons- - 122 94 375 343 136 6l 108 29 1959 / 60 . 1960/61. 1961/62. 1962 / 63 . 1963 / 64 . 1964 / 65 . 1965/66. 1966 / 67 . 1967 / 68 . Source: Foreign Agr. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. Potatoes.—While potatoes are not used in mixed feeds, they are high in starch and substitute to some degree for grain, particularly for ruminants and in pork production. Yearly use of potatoes as feed by Dutch farmers depends on the level and quality of indigenous production. In recent years, potatoes used for feed have averaged about l6 percent of total potato .production. Since several crops in the crop rotation scheme have become financially unprofitable for Dutch farmers, there has been a tendency in recent years for them to in¬ crease production of potatoes, with consequent higher availability of potatoes for feed (table l6) at relatively low prices. Since the Dutch ruminant and pig population has continued to climb, further gains in feed usage of potatoes can be expected up to 20-25 percent of domestic potato production. Table l6.—Netherlands: Production of potatoes and use of potatoes for feed, 1950/51 and I96I/62-I967/68 Production Year Total : Percentage: Amount : of total : •.production: : Year Total Percentage Amount : of total production 1950 / 51 ... 1961/62. 1962 / 63 ... 1963 / 64 ... 1,000 1,000 ; M.T. M.T. Percent : 1964 / 65 ... :1965/66... :1966/67... :1967/68... 1,000 1,000 M.T. M.T. Percent 4,173 1,356 31 : 3,270 572 15 : 3,953 517 13 : 3,854 710 18 : 4,110 649 16 3,230 375 12 4,124 716 17 4 , 84 o 903 19 Source: (l 4 ). 24 STRUCTURE AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MIXED FEED INDUSTRY Production by Size of Firm The Dutch feed industry had its beginning in small mills that received farmers’ grain and custom milled it. The industry has grown to become highly technical and complex. The large feed manufacturers are now importers and mer¬ chandisers as well as processors. Today’s feed mixing industry is characterized by a few large firms and hundreds of small operators. It is estimated that there were over 1,149 firms in 1967/68, but one-fifth of the firms produced four-fifths of the industry output ( 6.4 million tons). In 1967/68, 2 l 6 large firms averaged 24,250 tons of output annually, compared with an average of about 1,200 tons for the 933 smaller firms (table 17). The large number of small firms indicates a potential for further acceler¬ ation of structural change. Since 1961, the number of units with 10 or more employees has declined 12 percent, but output has increased 34 percent (table 18 ). CEBECO, a large wholesale cooperative, has recommended to its member co-ops that new plants have an annual production capacity of about 50,000 tons (assuming a one-shift operation). 14 / Plants now of this size employ about 50 . persons. Private Versus Cooperative Mixed Feed Enterprises Output of mixed feed is about equally divided between private (51 percent) and cooperative firms (49 percent). Among the 1,149 firms listed in 1967/68, private companies produced 3.3 million tons of feed and cooperatives, 3.1 mil¬ lion tons (table 19). Slightly over 900 firms, or nearly 80 percent of the 1 , 149 , were private. Most small-capacity firms in the Netherlands are in the private sector. In 1967/68, 854 privately owned firms produced a maximum of 10,000 tons of mixed feed, compared with 189 cooperative enterprises. In 1966/67, the figures were 961 and 213, respectively (20). Labor Productivity Technological innovations in the mixed feed industry have led to higher labor productivity despite industry structural problems. A labor census in September of each year gives an indication of productivity trends based on com¬ parisons of output. The level of output per employee has increased rather steadily during the last 6 years, assuming no changes in the seasonality of em¬ ployment. Most improvement occurred among firms with 50 or more employees; output of these firms increased from 357 to 511 tons per person, an increase of 43 percent (table 20 ). Output of firms with 10 to 49 employees increased from 392 to 428 tons per worker, a 9 ~percent rise. Although data are not available for plants with less than 10 employees, it is likely that their labor produc¬ tivity increases have been small because such plants are less able to adopt technological innovations. 14 / For more information on CEBECO, see p. 30 . 25 Table 17 .--Netherlands: Production of mixed feed by capacity per firm, 196^/65-1967/68 -p P E-l p 0) • ft > s 0 % 1 0 0 0 0 • • •. 0 0 0 « w " 0 0 0 LTV H •H P*H -p • p EH ft 1 • -p 8 s 0 0 8" "O O O w r— 1 ^ a 0 LT\ •H -P • P Eh ft • -p 1 s 2 0 0 0 O 0 0 " 0 Lf\ « m O •H Ph -p • p EH ft • -p 1 S O O O O O O « O CO rH * Lf\ •H Ph +> • EH ft • -P s s 0 0 0 0 LT\ O CO «N a 1 —1 U •H Ph -p P P * ft ctf Eh rP • -P P -P & 6 Ul O m O CO 0) LTN PI •H P^ CVJ CM c- CM VO • CO • H CO rH rH O • S p VD VD 1 —1 LTV O • H VD CO VD O EH co CO LTV O- 0 • #\ #\ r\ •N * S rH rH rH rH H OJ on ov ON O t— t>- OO CVJ CO OJ O O O O 1 — 1 rH rH rH rH O • ov rH Lf\ LTV O EH VD VD CO ° J * S rH rH rH rH rH CO VD O CO • OO CO OJ CO No OJ OJ OJ rH Lf\ CO OV OJ CO OJ -=t CO CO O rH OJ VD VD o\ OV rH CO «N •N rv LTV VD VD OV rH o\ -P - O- -=t CO OJ rH «N «\ «\ rH rH rH VO C— QO VO VD vo UN VO VO VO VO ON ON ON H H rH • • p Tj £ • 0 • O • ■"d • • 0 ft 0 • • 0 O 0 • ft • 'd • 0 • • P rH rH • • ft P • rH (D rH • (]) 2 0 CO CO 3 ft «J • M 0 CD CO • ft • ft ft 0 rH rH rH 0 ft - MO ON OO O ON UN MO M0 UN MO 00 -M- MO C- 00 OO OO O CM CM CM •N «\ CM rH LTN i—I rH O H LTN CO ON CO CO CM rH rH LTN O CM CO ON O H UN-3 ON IN- CM OO CO -4- CM MO O N- PO ON O ON I O UNO I MO CO CM I O -3 O . CM COMO MO CO rl O 0-3- LTN LTN CM OO CM -3 CO rH 00 _3 -3 UN -3 CM ONCO -3 CO CM IN— O MO c~- C— LTN CO H CM H COMO CO H 00 MO -3 CO CM H O CO CO ON UN tN- MO CO CM H CM MO On MO MO CO CM H CO CM H -3 UN CO rH CO OO O O O • ON MO IN- H UN ON MO CO UN CO CO CM MO UN MO CM MO • rv rv c\ «\ «n rH CO rH -3 CM 00 C i—l UN ON rH i—I MO O • -3 OO CO ri UN i—1 CO CO UN CO -3 CM 00 O UNCO CM • r\ r\ cn c\ cy C~j rH -3 CM -3 CO C—-3 CO H MO ON UN UN rH O -3 CM MO -3 CM MO N-MO ON CO CO CO MO UN MO 00 CO H H CO CM -3 CO 00 H H CM ON-3 MO CM 0-3 MO -3 -3 O IN- ON-3 O -3 CO -3 -3 H H t— CO ON CO CO CM H CO CM -3 CO Lf\ CO Pi MO C--3 CO rH CO rH MO COMO ON O CO rH -3 O UN UN CO ON l>- ON-3 VO O ON CM ON IN¬ O CO CO ON -3 ONCO -3 CO CM H MO ON CM -3 H -3 rH CO - -P I'-MO MO -3 MO MO MO UN H MO CM -3 CO CM -3 -3 rH UN UN rH -=t #N *N *N #N C\ VO o rH i—1 rH i—1 1 -1 c\ •rH 1—1 SH • • • • -P 03 -4* S C--3 ON IN- ON MO COCO co oo on c\j O UN O OO CO CO O -3 UN-3 CO MD UN O ON MO CO t— O MO 0\ rH VO rH -3 CO CO O 00 H ON O CO O H s — o OO IN-CD UN MO MO IN- UN rH rH D — LP\ -3 CO CM rH -3 -3 rH rH MO MO H m o rv rv rv *N rv VO o rH rH rH rH rH o\ o rH • • • • rH CO 1 MO H CM -3 O ONCO CM O H -3 UNCO ON UN ON O CO CM MO O CM MO CO O ONCO -3 H CO H co £ O co O O UN D — COMO -3 CM UN CM CM 1 -3 COMO CO MO CO MO MO CM H UN CM UN-3 CM H UN-3 CM H C— C — CM CM «N «N CN C\ «\ MO 1 rH rH rH rH rH O CM -3 UN-3 H -3 CO O CO C— CO CM CO CM UN CO CM C— CO H MO MO CM -3 O O O COCO 00 CO ON ON COCO CO rv «\ r\ «\ r\ rl CO CM UN CO ON UNvg t— CM -3 C— o o -3 CO MO ON O MO MO O MO -3 «N »N «N «N »N CM CO CM UN CO CM -3 ON O -3 rH • CO rH IN- ON H CM CO rH -3 CM CO-3 -3 CN- O UN H CM CM COCO MO CM CO MO 1 0O -3 CM UN LT\ CO MO CM H IN- CM ON MO IN- CO UN MO CO C—-3 CO ON CM COMO CO ON ON O ON rH MO 1 .3 CO UN H cy ry r\ ry H rl H rl VO • MO UN Pi MO -3 O rv rv rH rH UN -3 CO CO H -3 CO H IN-MO CM IN- ON-3 CO ON-3 rv rv rv rv rv H CO CM UN CO H ONCO rH CM • MO rH CO CO 00 CO CO IN- rH -3 CO H rl CM H CO CM LTN ON CO ON CM MO UN H -3 UN UN CM ON CO UN O -3 UN CO-3 rv r\ r\ rH rH rH o\ MO • £ MO MO -3 CO IN- CM rv rH UN-3 CO H UN-3 H CO H O -3 CM -3 UN-3 MO CO C--3 CO rH CO -3 MO UNONUN C C-— CM CM CO UN CM UN O MO «N C\ «N #\ C\ H CO CM UN-3 VO H MO CO UN o • O IN- UN MO MO H INiH COH -3 MO CO CO o CO CM 00 ON CM UN O CM H Lf\ 1 UN IN- CM O t- CO D— LTV O MO O OO COMO OO ON UN CO CM ON H MO COCO C -3 H COMO MO UN-3 MO PO CM • CM CM CM CO -3 00 N-MO UN UN-3 H CO IN CM H in- in- on cm IN- IN- H CM H -3 CM CQ CO CO CO U rH |Ch P w w • O -P -P • JH U Ph PH O O & & O 03 Pi P •H W P! P O bO o Eh 03 CO H 0) • CQ U1 Pi • •H Ph co bO Pi X o 39 Appendix table 4.--European Community: Consumption of mixed feed per animal, 1963-65 o OO H CT\ ON COVO cm co 00 CO H OO -4- VO c~- rH 1 —I rl LTNOO H _4" LTNOO H H H VO ONOO H OJ co rl rl ri O H OO CM CM OJ CO bO /—- C LTN C~- O OO ON OO VO OO LTN H CM VO H rl H CM C— ON H ON CM rH ^ LTN COOO LTN VO -4" VO ON H VO t- H t— H VO ^vo CO C— OO LTN H VO -4" LTN ON CM VO VO ON VO VO CO ONCO H I-1 VO C~- On H co O LTN IC— O 1 —I 1 —I CM OO O CO LTN VO VO O ONCO CM CM H LTN LTN VO ON OO O CM LTN rl rl rl -M - -4" H LTN VO O LA C— O VO ON CM CM 1 —1 rH ON OO O LTN O H CM CO OO LTN VO t~- H 1 —1 H CM ON r '■ -4" _4- CM VO CM LTN H CO ON LTN LTN LTN LTN ON LTN ON J- O LTN CO-4 - CO -4- VO CM -4" -4- -4- O CM -4- CO CO CO Source: (12, Appendix table 5.--Netherlands: Sample computer printout of five alternative complete laying rations 1/ Item Price per 100 kg. Rations 1 ; 2 : • 3 ; 4 ! • 5 Dollars Corn.... 1 . r 9.46 9.32 65.0 3.0 65.0 65.0 57.6 65.0 Sorghum... 0.5 2.3 5.2 Mani 00 ... 7.72 5.0 Rice feed meal. 8.00 _ _ _ _____ _____ 10.0 _ _ — Wheat mi] 3in£rs.. 7.86 8.13 9.87 8 . 3 U 10.50 13.93 11.37 6.26 7.6 6.4 5.8 _ _ _ 4.4 Corn elnten feed....... 2.5 0.9 4.2 0.7 Corn gluten meal. 10.0 Sunflower meal. 5.0 5.o 5.0 5.0 5.0 Peanut feed... 3.6 0.7 4.2 3.9 4.6 Fish meal. 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.0 3.3 Animal meal. 5.0 3.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 AlfaIfa mea1. 2.5 4.0 2.5 3.5 2.5 Molasses.. 3.75 6.19 5.28 3.0 Minerals. 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 _ _ _ Minerals. 4.0 Vitamins.. 19.33 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Unit Rations 1 : • 2 : 3 ; 4 ; 5 Calculated analysis: Fnergy. Calories/kg. Pet. 2,900 17 2,900 17 2,900 2,900 2,900 Protein.. 17 17 17 Calcium. do. 1.21 1.10 1.24 1.23 1.77 Pho sphorus... do. 0.78 0.70 0.77 0.81 O .85 Ly s ine.. do. 0.70 0.61 0.71 0.71 0.71 Methionine. do. 0.33 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.33 Methionine plus cystine. do. 0.62 0.69 0.18 0.61 0.60 0.61 Tryptofan. do. 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Arginine... do. 1.05 9.39 0.90 9.34 1.07 I .09 1.07 Cost per 100 kg. dol. 9.28 9.22 9.39 l/ Sixteen different ingredients have been theoretically combined to indi¬ cate the approximate cost of raw materials and the various portions of each required. The calculated analysis indicates that all rations are very similar. This ration was formulated in mid- 1968 . 4l Appendix table 6.— Netherlands: Comparison of similar nutritive value mixed feed rations for pigs, 1968 and early I 96 Cs 1 / Ingredient • • • • 1968 :: Ingredient • • • • Early I 960 ’s • • Kilograms Kilograms 24.0 . . 25.0 25.0 10.0 :: Sorghum. 9.75 5.0 ::Barley. 10.0 11.5 :: Soybean meal . 4.0 18.5 :: Whale meal . 4.5 Clr'F 1 R R mpal_ .......... 4.5 ::Gra s s , clover , and 11.0 :: alfalfa meal .. 5.0 Com gxircenieea. 1.0 ::Com gluten meal . 10.0 1.0 : :Minerals . 1.5 0.5 :: Vitamins . .25 2.0 ::Molasses . 5.0 MnT a rrpr.. 5.0 :: • • Tnt.a 1 ................ 100.0 pot a1,............... 100.0 :: Percent :: Percent Grain as percentage :: Grain as percentage 34 :: of total . 70 • • 1/ The quality of the feed in terms of digestible protein, net energy, fiber content, and so forth is considered to be about equal. Appendix table 7.”“Fi s h triea l exports of principal fishmeal-producing countries, 1964-67 Country 1964 1965 1966 1967 1,000 metric tons fbi le. T . 148.0 70.5 185.9 111.2 Ancrnl a.................... 54.4 48.0 53.6 42.0 Tpplanri ................... 127.5 149.2 172.3 132.5 T\TnT>wa.T7-_ ......................... 182.8 259.8 266.4 486.8 p^ru. ■(■■■>><>•>••). 1,426.1 1,412.8 1,304.5 1,560.9 QpmH-Vi anrl Rniithwpst AfVi P3 . ..... 254.7 232.8 165.6 286.0 Total of major exporters. 2,193.5 2,173.1 2,148.3 2,619.5 Source: (1, p. 6 ). 42 * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 O - 394-185 (31) Appendix table 8.—Netherlands: Total nutrients utilized by livestock, expressed in starch-values, I 960 / 6 I-I 966/67 Year Total [ Feed [ concentrates 1/ Roughage I960/6I. 9,579 - Million starch units 3,928 5,651 1961/62. 9,485 4,322 5,163 1962/63. 9,183 4,o46 5,137 1963 /64 . 9,397 4,361 5,036 1964/65 . 9,559 4,438 5,121 1965/66... 9,681 4,710 4,971 1966/67. 10,022 4,874 5,148 1 / Includes calf milk feed. Source: Netherland's Product Board for Feed. 43 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 POSTAGE & FEES PAIO United St dial Deportment ol Apt 2 24C HALCHGHD HG HALCROW HD DPT OF AG ECCN UNIV URBAMA IL 618G1 A112 18125 0001 OF ILL AGRICULTURAL PROSPECTS IN CHILE By Francis S. Urban S-FOREIGN 288 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION JANUARY 1970 Thig report is a brief review of Chile: Demand and Supply Prolections for Agri¬ cultural Products. 1965-1980 , a market development study conducted by the Economic Research Center of the Catholic University of Chile, under contract with the U.S. De partment of Agriculture. 1/ The study is one of a series initiated by the USDA and designed to evaluate the long-run potential supply and demand for agricultural pro¬ ducts throughout the world. Data used as a basis for projections are from Chilean sources and may vary from USDA estimates. Hence, this review of study results does not necessarily imply concurrence by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Chile occupies a narrow strip of land along the western slopes of the Andes, 2,650 miles long and 250 miles wide at its broadest point. It covers an area of 286,400 square miles, excluding the Antarctic. Its climate varies from the subtropi¬ cal to the very cold, and the rainfall is unevenly distributed from the totally dry Atacama desert in the north to the rain forests of Aisdn in the south. The agricul¬ tural land of the country is limited by the topography to about 20 percent of its area, the rest being deserts, mountains, or areas too cold for agricultural use. Crops are concentrated in the Central Valley, which lies between the Andes and the coastal range, from the Aconcagua River valley, a little north of Santiago, to the city of Puerto Hontt. North of the Aconcagua River are deserts, where only a few scattered oases and river valleys are suitable for agricultural cultivation. The area south of Puerto Montt is suitable mainly for the livestock industry and forestry. Chile’s long sea- coast, rich in marine life, has served to develop an important fishing industry, and sizable forest reserves of the south are being tapped for development of the paper in¬ dustry. A variety of high-grade mineral resources, such as copper, iron, nitrates, coal, and petroleum, form the base of her international trade and industrial develop¬ ment. 1/ The complete study may be obtained on request from the Division of Information, Office of Management Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250 omic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture The 1969 population of Chile is estimated at about 9.5 million. It is relatively homogeneous, with per capita education and income levels that are high relative to other Latin American countries. About 70 percent of the people live in urban areas. This proportion is still increasing. The Chilean economy has achieved a reasonably respectable rate of economic growth despite institutional limitations and continued high inflation. The agricultural sector, however, has been stagnant. Chile 8 princi¬ pal exports consist of copper and copper products, iron ore, nitrates, molybdenum, iodine, paper and cellulose, fish flour, fish and shellfish, wool, wood, and fruits. Its principal imports are industrial equipment and machinery, motor vehicles and spare parts iron, steel and other raw materials, chemical products, wheat, breeding cattle, cotton, sugar, coffee, tea, and edible oils. The United States is Chile s single most important trading partner. In 1965, the United States accounted for 30 percent of Chile's total exports and 39 percent of her total imports. STUDY HIGHLIGHTS Relatively high rates of population growth, an increase in per capita income, and the continued shift of people from rural to urban areas will continue to increase the demand for agricultural products. However, the improvement in agricultural production may not be sufficient to compensate for rising demand, and the gap between agricultur¬ al exports and imports is expected to increase in the projected years. If the population of Chile increases at the projected rate of 2.6 percent a year and present agricultural policies are not significantly changed, continued large im¬ ports of wheat may be expected, and increasing imports of potatoes, edible oils, sugar, beef, milk and milk products, animal fats, and hides and skins will be neces¬ sary. Deficits may also appear in mutton and lamb, corn, dry peas, and chickpeas. On the other hand, fruit exports may improve significantly. Surpluses may also appesr in rice, dry beans, pork, poultry meat, and eggs. These projections are based on a study of the Chilean economy from 1940 to 1968 and, in particular, on analyses of agricultural supply and demand, capital, land and labor availability, agricultural policies, gross domestic product (GDP), population growth, and trade. Chile's population is expected to grow from 8.8 million in 1965 to about 10.0 million in 1970, and to 12.9 million in 1980. However, more recent statis¬ tics seem to indicate that the rate of 2.6 percent annual population growth, adopted for projections, may be excessive, and that it may have dropped to about 2 percent. Real GDP is projected to increase 4.7 percent per year, and per capita GDP, 2.1 per¬ cent per year, or from $529 in 1965 to $726 in 1980, in 1965 prices. Chile s foreign trade is heavily dependent on exports of mining products, which account for over 80 percent of the total value of exports. In this total, copper is the single most im¬ portant commodity (48 percent of total exports in 1965). Hence, the international price of copper will largely influence Chile's future trade balance. If the price ra mains high, the positive trade balance on goods account will Increase from $28 to $93 million between 1965 and 1980. If, on the other hand, low prices predominate, by 1980 Chile may have a negative balance of $120 million. Chile's deficit in agricultural commodity trade is expected to increase from $90 million in 1965 to nearly $200 million in 1980 (table 1). Table 1.--Chile: Projections of principal macroeconomic variables, 1965-80 Annual rate Variables Unit 1965 1970 1975 1980 of growth 1965-80 Percent Population . Thousands 8,786 9,969 11,349 12,912 2.6 Per capita gross domestic product.. Dollars 1/ 529 601 663 726 2.1 Total gross domestic pro- duct* ••••*•••• Mil . $ 1/ 4,646 5,989 7,523 9,372 4.7 Total exports: 2/ High projections 3/ • • M It 677 990 1,278 1,497 5.4 Low projections 4/. . . M II 677 841 1,084 1,284 4.4 Total imports 2 J . Trade balance: 2/ • 1 !t 649 855 1,098 1,404 5.3 High projections. . . . t» It 28 135 180 93 - Low projections .... II It 28 -14 -14 -120 - Exports of agricultural products 5/ . Imports of agricultural It It 19 50 68 75 9.6 products 5/ . It It 109 134 192 274 6.3 1/ In 1965 dollars at the average exchange rate for the year. 2/ Goods only. 3/ Assume copper prices of 37.5c U.S. per pound. 4/ Assume copper prices of 30.0c U.S. per pound. 5/ Excludes forestry and fishery products. - Does not apply. Sources: Tables 3, 5, 2.24, 2.29, and 5.39, Chile: Demand and Supply Projections for Agricultural Products. 1965-1980 . Projected Demand Projections of direct demand for most of the products included in the study are based on the results obtained from the Family Budget Survey conducted by the study group during 1963-64. In the demand projections, direct demand was made a function of income, family size, and population. This assumed that the demand pattern in the basic consumption unit, a household, depends on family income and size. Seed, indus¬ trial demand, and waste were estimated from technical coefficients and added to direct demand. Prices were assumed to remain constant (tables 2 and 3). Per capita demand for most agricultural commodities is expected to increase, with the fastest increase being registered in the consumption of fruits, meats, and some vegetables--indicating that the quality of diet will continue to improve. Since the standard of living in Chile is relatively high for Latin America, these changes will not seriously affect the overall pattern of demand, except to raise the proportion of fruits in the diet and to partially displace beef with poultry meat and pork. 3 See footnotes at end of table Table 2.--Chile: Demand and supply balance for agricultural products, 1965-80 - Continued o 00 co v£> CO 4 CO <4 4 r- *4 O m 00 »—4 00 co f—4 »—4 H *—4 o f) iTl ^ ^ co co m co n co 00 in O' f*1 C in OD o oiO m»o tn 'O in in n N Oi H n N • • • • • —* 00 ^ <4- o cm .4 *4 cm m hn h n .4 vO co s© ^-4 • a • a • m rn s ^ co H ON 00 « Ol Table 3.--Chile Demand elasticities and projections of per capita demand, 1965-80 Commodity Grains: Pulses: Dry beans Dry peas. Lentils . Chickpeas Tubers & vegetables Potatoes. Tomatoes. • . • « Onions.. Garlic. Fruits: Demand elasticities Wheat 1/. . ; - - . : 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 Spaghetti .... . : .2 .1 .4 .3 i Flour . .2 . 2 • i Rice (milled) . . . . : .4 .2 .4 .3 n.a. n • a • n.a n.a. n«t« IT#""® n* ® • n.a. n.a .5 .9 Pears. : 1.6 1.1 e 1 . 6 1.0 .6 Plums. : n.a. n.a. Table grapes.: .9 .5 Wine grapes. ' Ho fl • n.a. l.i .6 Edible oils.: .6 .4 Sugar (refined). . . . : .5 .4 Meat and eggs: .6 . 6 Perk & pork products. : 1.1 1.1 Mutton and lamb . . . : 1.3 • 8 Poultry meat. - 1.6 1.2 Eggs. : • .6 . 6 See footnotes at end of table. -.3 Per capita demand : Income : Familv size : i : Workers :Others : Workers :Others : - - -Kilograms- - - 56.2 162.3 170.9 178.5 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.8 .8 .8 .8 .8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.9 8.5 9.0 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.3 7.1 , 7.0 34.8 37.4 40.3 - Continued Table 3.--Chile: Demand elasticities and projections of per capita demand, 1965-80 - Continued Commodity Demand elasticities Per capita demand Income Family size 1965 1970 • • : 1975 • • '1980 • • Workers •Others Workers •Others - - -Kiloerams- - - Milk & milk products 3/ - - - - 129.8 1A2.2 155.1 172.0 Fresh milk. .6 .7 .2 .1 - - - - Condensed milk. . . . 1.0 1.0 -.1 .A - - - - Powdered milk .... 1.2 .7 .1 .1 - - - - Butter• ••••••« .8 .6 .1 .1 - - - - Clift 6 8ft • o « e • • • • .9 .7 0 .A - - - - Other animal products: Lard.. . .5 .6 .5 .8 1.0 1.0 1.1 WCOl n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 Hides & skins (cattle) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 If Per capita demand for wheat flour and flour products expressed in whole wheat equivalent. 2/ Demand elasticities refer also to rye bread. 3/ Per capita demand for milk and milk products expressed in fresh milk equivalent, n.a. Not available. - Does not apply. Sources: Tables A and 3.2, Chile: Demand and Supply Projections for Agricultural Products. 1965-1980 . Projected Supply Supply projections for crops are based on an analysis of total available land, cultivated land, area under each crop, and yields. The projections of animal products take into account trends in inventory numbers, slaughter rate, and yields, except for milk and poultry products where data were available for production only. Projected trends were adjusted in the light of government investment programs. The possible impact on production of the current land reform was also taken into account. Although government price policy waa discussed, input and product prices were assumed to remain constant. A scarcity of capital and government policies are considered to be the principal limiting elements in the increase of farm production, since land and labor supply are considered adequate (tables 2, A, and 5). The greatest increases in production are expected to occur in poultry products-- 8.6 percent per year for poultry meat and 5.5 percent for eggs--as a result of recent improvements in poultry breeding and management. Supplies of pork and lard will also increase substantially, at about 5.A and A.3 percent per year, due to the increase in productive efficiency of the pork Industry. 7 >1 o 00 • m vO On « •D 44 •H >s ■§ <* W O. o L* o 4) 3 3 % «> J-> •o 4-* Os O -* 44 ^ V A O « W QO h r —< >4 * oom 3 sO C ^ O'. 4 ° vO o • •••••• r-i 000 0 4 \0 r ** on m m O' ^ O »—* cm »—* co O' M3 o O r* O ° O O O 0 4®-* n n M) ro © © os ^ QO r-t on co so r- in o co oo o CM —* O o O m co m o © o cm o r- r>* © • • • oo co m N vO A © © CM © CM m O » • » co in CM o © © -o o © r* © ©^ r*. so m CM o © o o o o On O' m © O © *n m oo oo oo oo i sO •3 © © O © © CM vO ® 4 .—*.—* co o © o n —* mj- CM ^ O' —< r-4 44 > C t4 0 « -< 3 4J -< CO U 4J c ® 44 CB j: e • •H 4) SB'- 4 cr *H o. c ^ a • w «0 J K 4M T, " t a c CO O « 44 CD TJ O 3 44 Q 00 CB a co i u c o » u e • < 0 41 A *M 00 o u ^ 44 44 10 **n £ 44 O U J- W< C CL. 13 00 o ^i • S. C 4J --* 95 C H 4) 44 TJ s c CO U -T3 % 44 «0 CO 44 U a X 44 cn • • • H N co n* • • • O © © 00 Os in Os © on in vO os *—« no i n © • • • • cm co oo so cm co ctn oo oo • • o -* Ml 00 q H o O' o' m on i n so so • ••• O O'® O' ® m-* 00 © m Os so co —• M m o ® oo on en^m^ oocm^ ^r-ON OH»H oo co on co in M3 co oo on r* r* co cm oo in so CO p» co ® -I H ON CM sO r* o On CM CO .-< r*- CO NO m oo so on \D CM in oo o on O m oo v© CM oo —* uo • • • • in co oo in cm 3 on in oo m co —* oo O' co -4 ® ^ © «o ^ ao r>- r^- co • • • SO >t -* 00 CO ao in co >—* in oo oo n*» in n h ON CO co ON SO CM O' 44 U 44 U >N * 44 .-4 O u *-» 33 • 89 9) 44 Cl u u ►n >% C *rj H V* 44 © a a cj (D C 00 «a n at at ^3 at O 09 u u c « o -m it ^ 4* 333 -o • 44 -* 4) ^ * a c oo 5 3 3 C/5 c/5 3 00 "O 00 T3 44 44 4-» U 4) n c ^ 3 O >« *-» u < **■*. » 'Ol IM - o d 44 3 o u x C 44 *r^ 3 4) > O* K O C 41 * • CL^ —* A n at H A TJ 3 ^ C ■u co -* c 3 44 4> g 44 ^ •H 5 3 n C 5 00 44 X « J3 4-4 fl c o ^ o 3 ^ 09 oo g t) o 4> U C A T* W 44 > X 0 L U J- o o* IM o c *3 mm « 43 g it® ? g e 5 4 ) 44 at ■^-t K* A O W v« c a. e o o *h a oo •g ■o g p-* at >-* 44 CB n g ms 4J •O • ecu • o o ■? in *o 95 g —i A * H H aj -u ao 44 g co 44 m at at g < •*-> AM M 0 5 x —. V* 0 o r-*| CL -u C/5 U \ ao ml 4> 3 Table 5.--Chile: Projected livestock numbers and yields, 1965-80 Livestock 1965 1970 : 1975 : 1980 Annual rate of growth 1965-80 Beef cattle: Number of cattle (1,000 head) 2,870.2 3,076.4 3,256.3 3,472.7 Percent 1.3 Number slaughtered (1,000 head) 520.0 556.8 591.2 628.6 1.3 Yield (kilograms meat per animal slaughtered). 234.0 234.0 234.0 234.0 0 Hogs: Number of hogs (1,000 head) . . 1,090.2 1,134.5 1,192.3 1,253.1 1.0 Number slaughtered (1,000 head) 815.0 1,103.2 1,361.7 1,572.0 4.5 Yield (kilograms meat per an mal slaughtered). 60.0 62.5 65.0 65.0 0.5 Sheep (meat variety): Number of sheep (1,000 head). . 3,639.6 3,930.7 4,245.2 4,584.8 1.6 Number slaughtered (1,000 head) 2,474.8 2,774.1 3,006.6 3,193.8 1.7 Yield (kilograms meat per animal slaughtered). 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 0 Sheep (all varieties) . 6,690.3 7,169.8 7,539.1 7,878.7 1.1 Yield (kilograms wool per head) 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.0 0.3 Sources: Tables 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.18, 5.27, 5.28, 5.29, 5.36, 5.37, Chile: Demand and Supply Projections for Agricultural Products. 1965-1980. The supply of fruits and nuts is also estimated to increase rapidly, at the annual rate of 5 to 7 percent, reflecting the rates inherent in the government agricultural development plan and the productive capacity of new fruit plantings. Only the supply of wine grapes is expected to fall behind the increase in demand. The production increases for rice and wheat, 5.9 and 5.0 percent, respectively, will both exceed the increase in demand. The increase in supply will be due mainly to an Increase in yields through application of fertilizers and better control of weeds and pests. Supplies of corn, barley, rye, and oats are generally expected to keep up with the demand, with a small improvement in yields and extension of cultivated areas. The supply of dry beans will exceed demand due to the improvement of yields, but the in¬ crease in the supply of other pulses will be lower than the increase in demand. The supply of tubers and vegetables is also expected to grow at a slower rate than demand, except for tomatoes. The supply of tomatoes is expected to meet the demand although due to the lack of data projections for the production of tomatoes could not be made. Increases in the supply of beef, mutton and lamb, milk, sugar, and edible oils are expected to be of the order of 1.3, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 3.2 percent per year, re¬ spectively, whereas the demand for these products will increase 4 to 5 percent per r„r.«*nn*ntlv the supply of byproducts such as hides and skins, tallow and production structure and to improve the supply. Projected Trade ^oorts of wheat are projected to decrease from the 1965 level of 385,400 metric due to the severity of the recent drought. The 1980 deficit may atso 8 projected (table 2) „„ rrHSr tlons show a Large lncrea.e In the supply -defend deficit, only a SM P P^ n( ^ this deficit will he translated Into actua l 1-porta. ^7 ^ J lnc «... l„ th. stimulate production or to d.cre... d-.nd l. an d f..b are expected, ^r.:L^rw^“'onrp.:f:nrciic^. T 5 ssns^r t^rtlr^.r'S relaxatiot^of ^restrictions on planting neu vineyard, and some in- crease in the price of wine are more probable. On the export side, fruits have constituted Chile's principal a 8 ricul ^ a1 **' -nd t^r«e pro ected to expand considerably, particularly those of apples, ports, and they are projeousu L A i or ,n l« have also been product. -Ill t diu b r.ome of the surplus sho«a for pork, poultry meat, appear on the export “, h d £dclt in beef production, an that actual exports of S *ffr^“ y .r^““ of ^ tartar, -ill he seller than th. aupply-damand hal.nc.s indicate. Chile is expected to balance its supply and demand of the o^er produets included in thfstudy! such as barley, oats, oranges, tomatoes, garlic, and tallow. ^ ieSe h^ r °^tlt e es CO,, lf^lt y dacTesiBaa to*about^ 2 0 percent t ^th**rata^aatlmated^by l the Health for 'SSTJZZ. Stt years -111 ha * r ®' r co ^ odlty balance, -as not quantified In the :tudy 1S .iu« er n/^i^ popu”tlon projection, -ere yet ev.il.hl. -hen th. study ... being completed. 10 Some Study Implications Supply and demand projections for Chile indicate that the country has the poten¬ tial of becoming largely self-sufficient in agricultural production. It can also develop substantial new agricultural exports in addition to fruit exports. Both potentials, however, seem unlikely to be fulfilled significantly in the projected period. The chief obstacles)to self-sufficiency are insufficient capital available on the farm level, an inadequate road network which restricts the produce market, govern¬ ment price policies, and uncertainty regarding land ownership which has accompanied the land reform now in progress. Some important improvements have been made in farm¬ ing practices, but to change the situation substantially it will be necessary to offer new incentives to the farmers and to develop better marketing facilities. The Latin American Free Trade Association agreements will tend to restrict imports of agricultural commodities from outside the region. However, the implementation of the agreements seems necessarily to be a slow process. Hence, Chile will probably re¬ main a market for such U.S. exports as wheat, milk products, tobacco, prepared meats, edible oils, and breeding animals. The United States will continue to Import from Chile fruits and vegetables, such as table grapes, melons, pears, onions, and garlic. But efforts will be made in Chile to further diversify its markets and sources of supply. 11 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON. D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSTAGE & FEES PAID United State! Department ol Agriculture Malagasy Republic's Agricultural Economy in Brief By Fred Degiorgio EIGN 290 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION FEBRUARY 1970 The Malagasy Republic is a land of sub¬ stantial agricultural potential. Rice is the nain crop and sizable gains in production are likely with the use of improved technol¬ ogy, particularly improved irrigation. The country's resources favor a large cattle population and prospects for increased com¬ mercial utilization of cattle are bright. GENERAL ECONOMY Agriculture is the principal occupation in the Malagasy Republic. Over 90 percent of the population is engaged in a largely traditional agriculture which accounts for about 54 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Agricultural products, primarily coffee, rice, vanilla, spices, and sugar, make up 80 to 90 percent of the value of the country's exports. The country's economy is estimated to be growing at about 3 percent yearly. GDP for 1967 was $730 million with per capita income at $115. GEOGRAPHY The world's fourth largest island, the Malagasy Republic is located in the Indian Ocean lying, at the nearest point, 250 miles off the southeast coast of Africa. The is¬ land is about the size of California and Oregon combined with an area of 230,035 square miles. It is 995 miles long and 360 miles wide at its broadest point. The coun¬ try was known as Madagascar until obtaining independence from France in i960 and it is authoritatively called either the Malagasy Republic or Madagascar. Although the island lies in tropical latitudes, the altitude of the interior highlands gives much of it a temperate climate. The east coast is wet and warm. Cyclones are a regular occurrence. The center and west are also warm but drier. The south is generally dry with semidesert conditions in some areas. Average annual temperatures on the coast range from 70° to 80° F. while Tananarive on the plateau has a range of 55° to 67° F. Tananarive's rainfall is about half the 112 inches of rainfall at Tamatave on the coast. The country generally has rugged terrain, con¬ sisting mainly of a plateau which rises sharply from the narrow coastal strip in the east and descends slowly in a series of terraces to the Mozambique Channel in the west. Mountain chains run north and south with peaks ranging up to 9,450 feet, although the average altitude of the north- central high plateaus is 2,500 to 4,500 feet. The major rivers flow to the west coast. The east coast is almost straight and has very few anchorages. The establishment of roads and rail¬ roads in the Republic has been made diffi¬ cult by the mountainous terrain. Railroad mileage totals only 532. There were 24,855 miles of roads in 1966, of which only 5,592 miles are improved. Air transporta¬ tion is extensively used, with 23 major airports. Rivers in the country are of no more than local importance to transport. The island has 19 ports but only Tama¬ tave, Diego-Suarez, and Tulear have deep¬ water quays. Tamatave is the east coast terminal for railroads serving the high plateau, the Pangalanas Canal, and east OMIC RESEARCH SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE coast roads. The port handles over 40 per¬ cent of total tonnage. On the northwest coast, Majunga, although not a deep-water port, serves a large hinterland and handles 15 percent of the total tonnage, making it the second largest port. PEOPLE A mid-1969 United Nations estimate puts the Malagasy Republic's population at J.2 million. The growth rate is 2.2 percent per year. Average density is 28 per square mile, with the greatest concentrations in the high plateaus and at points along the east coast. About 90 percent of the popula¬ tion is rural. Tananarive is the capital and with a population of about 322,000 is the only large city. Other towns are Tama- tave, Majunga, Fianarantsoa, and Diego- Suarez with populations between 38,000 and 50,000. The Malagasy people are an ancient intermingling of Indonesian, Arab, and Afri¬ can immigrants. AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE About 5 percent of Madagascar's total land surface is arable and permanently cul¬ tivated. Table 1 gives the major land uses. The soils of the Malagasy Republic are generally heavy in texture, vulnerable to erosion, and poor in fertility. Red lato- sol soils cover tne bulk of the highlands. Table 1.—Malagasy Republic: Land use, 1966 Use . Acreage : 1,000 acres Cultivated land and : land under perma- : nent crops.: 7»l66 Permanent meadows : and pastures.: 84,014 Forested land.: 30,863 Other.: 23,015 Total area.: 145,058 Source: Production Yearbook; U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. part of the western savanna area, and much of the rainy tropical east coast, and have given the name of the Great Red Island to Madagascar. Most of the original forest in the central plateau has been destroyed by fire or cutting for fuel, resulting in severe erosion and severe silting of some rivers and lakes. The best soils are found in the drier western savanna and in the limestone Mahalaly plateau in the south, where precipitation, however, is deficient and erratic. There are some good soils of volcanic origin in various areas, and al- luvials in the short eastern valleys, along the rivers of the west, and in silted-up river bottoms. The predominant character of Malagasy agriculture is one of small traditional holdings, seldom larger than 5 acres. High concentrations of farms are found in the scattered areas of arable land. In areas not regularly farmed, "slash and burn" or "shifting" cultivation is practiced. This is called Tavy in Madagascar. There are a few large plantations of rice and cassava in the Lake Alaotra area, but small hold¬ ings make up the majority of farms. The Mahavavy River banks are the site of sugar estates, and sisal estates occupy the Man- drare River area. The diversity of climate and terrain permits a wide variety of crops—both trop¬ ical and temperate. Tung oil, pepper, ylang- ylang, lemon grass, and cocoa are grown primarily on European holdings for export, while oil-bearing seeds, raffia, and beans are export crops grown by Malagasy farmers. Both European and Malagasy farms produce vanilla, coffee, cloves, tobacco, manioc, sugar, rice, and peanuts. Other food crops include corn, potatoes, taro, sorghum, ba¬ nanas, vegetables and fruits. Sisal, paka, and cotton are the fiber crops grown in ad¬ dition to raffia. Vegetable oils include coconut, castor, candlenut, peanut, and tung. The average farmer uses very little fertilizer and his standard tools are the machete and spade. Oxcarts are standard carryalls. Animal-drawn plows are used on the rice and other farms of the high pla¬ teaus. This is also where 90 percent of the country's farm machinery is used—by the larger companies. Sugar plantations use over 50 percent of the farm tractors. In 1967, there were 2,000 tractors in the country. - 3 - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND MARKETING Rice is the staple food in the Malagasy Republic and has been an important export in recent years. Annual per capita rice con¬ sumption in 1962 was estimated oy the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations at 320 pounds, one of the highest rates in the world. About 27 percent of the cultivated area is used for rice production. Rice is grown on about 1.95 million acres. About 84 percent of the rice is irrigated, with over half of this in the central high¬ lands. Rice is also an important crop along the east coast and along the rich alluvial river valleys of the northwest. Average yields remain below 1 metric ton per acre. The Malagasy Government promotes increased rice production to meet domestic needs of about 900,000 metric tons annually and to provide export earnings. A luxury long- grain rice is exported. The Government guarantees to producers a support price of $36 per ton for standard grade paddy rice. The Malagasy National Bank was estab¬ lished primarily to finance rice production Most rice farmers require regular annual credit and are serviced through mobile bank¬ ing units. Production levels of rice and other major Malagasy crops from 1959 to 1968 are given in table 2. Cassava is second only to rice as a food crop and is useful in times of short¬ ages since it can be left in the ground without spoilage and dug up when needed. Some of the cassava crop is exported as tap¬ ioca flour, and other dried and processed forms for use as starch, use in animal feeds, etc., primarily in Western Europe. Produc¬ tion is primarily in the Alaotra Plain, Man- goro Valley (around Tananarive), the high¬ lands, and the west. Coffee is the most important export crop. In 1968, coffee accounted for 38 per¬ cent of foreign agricultural sales. Robusta is the main variety grown. Coffee produc¬ tion which occupies over 6 percent of the cultivated area, is concentrated on the north and east lowlands and foothills. Pro¬ duction fluctuates because of variations in weather. The Government sets the price paid to the producer, which varies according to grade and producing area. The coffee buyers as a group, are obliged to buy all coffee offered, but they may act independently of each other. Exporters maintain their own warehouses and facilities for grading and processing. They arrange their own financ¬ ing and either draw upon or contribute to the coffee stabilization fund, depending upon the world market price and Interna¬ tional Coffee Agreement export quotas. Sugar is an important export crop, it is produced primarily by large plantations, both European and Malagasy owned, in the northern river deltas and on Nosy—Re Island. After domestic consumption of about 35,000 metric tons yearly is satisfied, approxi¬ mately 65,000 metric tons normally are left for export. The Malagasy Republic has been market¬ ing its sugar through the Joint Afro-Mala- gasy Organization (OCAM) sugar committee, formed in 1966 after France discontinued preferential arrangements.H OCAM levies a small tax on sugar imported by member coun¬ tries and a bonus is paid to the exporting countries, now only Madagascar and Congo (Brazzaville). The Malagasy Republic is the world's major producer of vanilla. Exports of 961 metric tons in 1968 represented 11 percent of the value of agricultural exports. .a- nilla production is largely concentrated in the northern tip of the island. A vanilla marketing agreement was sign¬ ed in late 1966 by the Malagasy Republic, France (on behalf of the Comoro Islands and Reunion), and the U.S. Vanilla and.Flavor¬ ing Extract Manufacturers Association. The agreement established a system of export quotas and prices with the aim of stabiliz¬ ing world vanilla prices, to avoid the pre¬ vious wide fluctuations in price which had discouraged use of true vanilla. The country produces aoout 30 percent of the world's cloves, primarily on He Sainte-Marie. Exports of cloves and c^ove oil were valued at $ 10.8 million in 196 . 1 / OCAM members are: Congo (Brazzaville;, Congo (Kinshasa), Gabon, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Chad, Niger, Upper Vol¬ ta, Dahomey, Togo, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Rwanda, and Malagasy Republic. - 4 - Table 2.—Malagasy Republic: Production by commodity and indices of total agricultural and food production, average 1957 - 59 , annual 1959-68 1 —1 #> 1 —1 4- 4- O CM o o o l/n on vo on VO VO ON on o o L/N on ON 4 i—I On on i—1 rH vo O H On o o o L/N CM VO L/N vo on On on o vo on 4 On 4 H co on i—1 rv H L/N O O On co vo o l/n on 4 vo VO L/N ON CM On on on on ON on CO on i—1 * i—i 4 O L/N CM ON O o vo cm on co VO o co CM O CO o on ON on 1 —1 1—1 on i—1 CO •> ft! i—i 1 —1 O -P o on •H VO CM on 4- O o LTN H CO CM vo ft L/N ON CM VO L/N co on ON P CM CO CM rH ON < 0 0 4 0 0 O ON CO O H -3- H ON O VO CO VO L/N vo on on i—I 4 LTN LTN on C\J VO CVJ O VO OJ cm 4 - •—i O O LTN CM CM CO I CO LTN VO CM H LTN H O CM CM 4 H on o 4 CM 4 ON ON CM LTN O VO t"— CM 4— O H CO H CM4 CM o 1 CM H 1—1 L/N O CM LA H i—| 4" vo i—1 c*— CM t—4 vo CM ON 1 CM 4- CM 1—1 ** 1 1—1 o -4- on co o LAN 4- CM VO CO O VO on on o on o i—I VO CM t - — [ H VO H 0 ) O 3 Td P Td •H P ft cd CD CD Td CO p 0 ) 4% ft CD cd o o CO CO « O > ft u ft! a p co P cd p o O o d (U ft! ft! cd w QJ cd P p ft! o ft cd p co 0 ) ft P p cd •H O o cd £ _o o o H ft (U ft cd cd > H w tiO o o -H 3 H o CO CO o CM O 4 O on cm on CM O L/N O on cm on CM O L/N O on cm on CM O L/N O on cm on cm o on o on cm on cm co on o cm cm on CM co O On CM CM CM I VO O co CM CM CM L/N 4- D CM i—| CM 4- -4" 4 CM CM CM CO CO 4- 00 CM CM on rH vo CM CM CM LAN 4 L/N O O O i—I rH i—I 4- L/N VO O O O i—I i—I i—I VO VO 4— On On on cd co ) ft ft # ft cd H O (D -H OSS §,3 ■d o -p -p ft o o O Eh Eh o o o o vo CM LTN CM L/N o ON CM CM CM o o 1 — 1 i — 1 i — 1 1—1 H rH •H CM ON ON CM CM vo CM i—1 i—1 O O r—1 rH i—1 H rH i—I i—1 on ON ON -4" 4 CM H H O O on h on 1 i i—i i—i i—i i—i i—i on on o o 4- OO ON ON -4 L/N ON ON O O O O O O O O O O i—I ' I i—I i—I i—I cd cd -P -P •H *H && o o CM Oh P0| - 5 1 / Exports. 2/ Less than 500 tons. 3/ 1958 population = 5,630,000. Other important export crops include raffia, sisal, tobacco, peanuts, lima beans, and pepper. AGRICULTURAL TRADE Three-fifths of the Republic is used for grazing. In 1968 there were an estimat¬ ed 9.7 million head of cattle in the coun¬ try; most of them were Zebu. This is a large number in relation to population, but.the cattle herd is economically underutilized. The cattle are considered to be relatively disease-free in comparison with African herds, primarily because the island is not plagued with the tsetse fly. Traditionally, there has been little selective breeding or pasture improvement. The cattle herd suffers from a low rate of increase due to a very low level of nutrition and high calf mortal¬ ity. The average Zebu requires 6 years to mature to slaughter weight due to the lack of pasture and the hereditary characteris¬ tics of the Zebu. There are no fences to enclose grazing areas and pastures are of uniformly poor quality and extensively over- grazed . The most significant point concerning the Malagasy Republic's foreign trade is the chronic deficit. Each year imports run 30 percent more than exports by value. Agricultural products are the Malagasy Republic's principal exports, accounting for 80 to 90 percent of the value of all exports (table 3). Coffee, rice, sugar, va¬ nilla, and spices dominate, and except for sugar, the export value of these commodities has been increasing gradually in recent years. Rice exports increased from $2.7 million in 1965 to $12.4 million in 1968 . Malagasy exports 60 to 70 percent of the world's vanilla, mainly to the United States. Imported agricultural products are primarily dairy products, eggs, wheat flour and meal, beer, and wine (table 4). imports of farm products have declined from $ 2 b .0 million worth in 1965 to $15*5 million in 1967 , mainly because domestic rice produc¬ tion has increased. The Government has recently been mak ing efforts to improve the quality of the. country's cattle by developing a breed tai¬ lored to Malagasy conditions, and at the same time developing a range management.pro¬ gram. Other projects, including fattening stations, slaughterhouses, and developing export markets, are being considered to help the Republic realize more of its potential f or beef production and exports. Trade del¬ egations from several countries.have visited the country to discuss the possibility of purchasing Malagasy beef. France is the Republic's most important trading partner, accounting for over 50 P e r-I cent of both its exports and imports. As an associate member of the European Economic Community, Madagascar's trade with these countries is increasing. nogs, sheep, goats, and.poultry are also raised, but not commercially. The United States imports primarily coffee, vanilla, and cloves from the Mala¬ gasy Republic, and is its second Dest cus tomer. U.S. imports of Malagasy ^rm com¬ modities were valued at over $36 4 million in 1968 ; 1966-67 imports averaged * 21.6 mil¬ lion Coffee imports were valued at nearly $20.0 million in 1968, continuing an upward trend. Vanilla bean imports m 1968 totaled $ 8.9 million. FOOD CONSUMPTION A 1959-61 ERS study puts the Malagasy Republic’s per capita caloric intake at 2 400 calories per day, somewhat above the. reference standard minimum established. This nutritional level, however, is not uniform throughout the country, with some areas oe- ing deficient, especially in protein and fats. The inadequate transportation system limits the movement of food from surplus to deficient areas. Exports of U.S. agricultural products to Madagascar, which are mainly in the orm of grains for relief, are relatively insig¬ nificant. The largest amount was $1.2 mi - lion in 1965, decreasing to $124,000 in 1968 . AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND AID Agricultural policy features of the Malagasy Republic under the 5-year plan - 6 - lable 3. Malagasy Republic: Quantity and. value of principal agricultural exports by countries of destination, 1965-68 Commodity and country Quantity : 1965 : 1966 : 1967 : 1 Q 68 Value -1969 : 1966 : 1967 : i 960 J Coffee.. 50 .1 France. 22.3 United States. 21.3 Rice.. 10.9 France. 9.1 Reunion.. n.a. Comoro Islands. 1.6 Vanilla.. 2 / United States.. France.. Cloves. . 2 / Malaysia.. IT_ Indonesia.. United States.. Sugar. 36.0 France. 24.1 Senegal. 6.6 United States. 6.5 Ivory Coast.. n .a. Raffia. . Sisal. . Tob ac co, unmfd.. Clove oil. . Peanuts. . Lima beans. . Bananas , fresh.. Pepper. . Meat & meat preparations...: Hides & skins. n.a. 28.7 3.9 2 / 9.8 n.a. 19.6 2 / 7.5 2.5 Other agricultural exports Total agricultural exports Total exports 1,000 metric tons - - 1,000 dollars - - - - 45.7 49.6 53.8 28,896 30,764 32,615 35,800 24.1 19.0 25.8 13,545 16,733 13,076 17,300 16.0 26.5 21.7 11,595 10,319 16,883 14,300 19.6 40.0 69.3 2,737 4,263 7,507 12,400 11.7 11.4 13.4 2,487 3,139 3,055 3,600 n.a. 19.0 37.9 n.a. n.a. 3,025 5,900 3.4 5.0 10.5 223 436 705 1,600 .9 .7 1.0 2 / 8,972 6,769 10,300 • 7 .4 .7 — 7,166 4,292 7,200 n.a. .1 .2 — n.a. 1,497 1,700 3.4 5.3 12.4 2 / 2,345 3,545 7,900 n.a. n.a. 5.1 — n.a. n.a. 3,100 n.a. 2.0 1.8 — n.a. 1,293 1,200 n.a. 1.3 1.6 — n.a. 936 1,100 92.0 80.0 56.0 4,890 9,350 8,655 6,4oo 26.8 16.9 7.6 2,711 2,068 1,258 500 23.8 32.7 25.3 696 1,047 4,366 2,800 7.7 7.9 8.7 759 9 49 961 1,000 6.2 10.4 12.0 n.a. 8l4 1,393 1,700 6.7 7.2 5.9 3/ 3,289 3,718 2,800 23.3 20.2 25.0 5,^27 3,943 2,920 3,000 4.8 2.2 2.8 3,554 4,409 1,954 2,400 .9 • 7 1.2 2 / 1,595 1,495 2,900 4.7 5.7 5.1 1,855 1,268 1,473 1,200 16.5 8.2 10.1 3/ 2,206 1,400 1,900 33.2 21.5 12.5 1,040 1,632 1,067 700 1.1 1.5 3.1 2 / 1,052 1,100 2,000 7.3 7.4 8.5 6,879 6,588 5,375 5,100 3.2 2.0 2.5 1,076 1,852 1,218 1,300 10.676 5,792 6,974 6,800 81,335 86,265 87,785 102,900 91,683 97,757 -V On O -it O 1—1 115,900 Source: Malagasy Ministry of Agriculture and FAS reports. 1/ Rounded to nearest 100,000. 2 / Spice exports in 1965 fLoves, totaled 7,200 metric tons valued at $14.3 million . 5 agricultural exports." primarily vanilla and 3/ Contained in "other - 7 - n.a. = not available. Table 4.— Malagasy Republic: Quantity and value of principal agricultural imports, 1905-00 Commodity 1965 - - 1 Quantity 1 Q 66 : 1967 : 1968 . nnn metric tons - - 1965 = Value 1 Q 66 : 1967 l ^00 dollars - 1968 Meat Sc meat preparations... 0.3 6.4 i - — 0.3 6.2 0.3 6.7 0.4 6.9 375 3,477 9,657 358 3,258 1,674 •3 )iQO 392 3,540 0 2,591 656 435 3,553 0 ijail’y p]TOCLU.C. Lb Oc .. 78.0 12.8 .0 .0 3,239 18.8 34.2 16 .O 20.9 2,912 838 J; 778 wheat iioui oc .. 1.4 1.6 1.4 .8 yoy (JsrGcLl prepcU . . 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 537 4,347 620 709 2,223 343 891 267 694 4,084 Fruits & vegetauico . 19-5 18.1 13.0 20.9 3 ,o^l qnp * 302 .7 .8 .4 . 5 4^4 353 696 220 .9 1.5 1.1 530 i 6 i 4 1.3 4.2 .7 .3 bUp Vegetaoxe .. 2.516 2.803 3,864 3,232 Other agricultural imports. 26.091 19,71.2- 15,47.6 17.233 Total agricultural imports. 138,116 141,303 145,284 170,219 Source: Statistics du Commerce Exterieur de Madagascar, Annual. (1964-58) were: (l) to expand and improve upon the effectiveness of primary agricul tural facilities and organizations; to supply more adequately the farmers needs for fertilizer, farm supplies and equipment, credit, and agricultural extension programs, and (3) to increase the quantity and quail y of selected agricultural products. One of the more successful agricultural development and marketing organizations is Malagasy Lake Alaotra Society (SOMALAC), es tablished in 1961. It is concerned with the development of a part of the_rice-growing area of the Lake Alaotra Basin, north of Tananarive. SOMALAC develops the land wit machinery, resettles families on ^onomic units of about 12.5 acres, furnishes credit for farm supplies, and furnishes technical guidance and information. By the end o 1967 over 12,300 acres had been reclame . from 5 marshland and settled. Some farmers in the area have attained rice yields of about 2.5 metric tons per acre. A modern center near Tananarive con- ducts crop research, along with regional and specialized commodity research stations, in¬ cluding a specialized vanilla researc station. There is also a livestock breedin and veterinary center. Agricultural educa¬ tion is offered on the secondary school level from which rural extension agents ar drawn. The University of Tananarive also offers agricultural courses. France and the European Development Fund supply the major portion of the aeve] opment and technical assistance_funds to the Malagasy Republic. U.S. assistance - - been primarily in the field of agriculture, education and extension. A World Bank loan of $8 million for j construction of 88 miles of roads and j bridges will contribute to agricultural velopment in the central plateau and the northwest. The scheduled completion date is 1971. Another World Bank loan.o $. • million, signed in January 19 9, is °eing used to promote cattle production mercial scale. Six cattle ranches rangir in size from 49,000 to 62,000 acres, will de established for breeding and fattening purposes. Initially, the Government wil. own and operate the ranches , Dut eventua.- they will be broken.into 2 , 470 -acre unit: for private ownership. - 8 - THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN WESTERN EUROPE Review of 1969 and Outlook for 1970 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE Washington, D.C. ABSTRACT: Agricultural output in Western Europe remained at a high level in 1969. Wheat and milk surpluses continued to mount. Agricultural imports are tending to stabilize while agricultural exports increase. Imports of feed grains may decrease further in 1970. Monetary instability in the European Community in 1969 led to emergency trade measures which set back its Common Agri¬ cultural Policy. Negotiations aimed at expanding EC membership are expected in 1970. KEY WORDS: Agricultural production in Western Europe, outlook for West European trade, European Community Common Agricultural Policy, expansion of the European Community. FOREWORD The Agricultural Situation in Western Europe: Review of 1969 and Outlook jr 1970 focuses on major agricultural and economic developments of concern to ,S. agricultural interests. The information provides an analytical basis for lortrun policy decisions and furnishes information about current agricultural nd trade developments in the major commercial marketplace for U.S. agricul¬ tural exports. This report was prepared under the direction of Fletcher Pope, Jr., Leader, ituation and Outlook Section, and the supervision of Reed E. Friend, Leader, emand and Competition Section. Participating in the preparation of the report ere Cynthia A. Breitenlohner, Virginia G. Carter, Marshall H. Cohen, Doris H. eter, James Lopes, Donald M. Phillips, and William P. Roenigk. Acknowledgment is extended to the Foreign Agricultural Service for assist- ace provided, especially by Agricultural Attache personnel who supplied much f the basic data. The Agricultural Situation in Western Europe is one of five regional sup- lements to The World Agricultural Situation: Review of 1969 and Outlook for 970 , FAER 57. Other regional reports will be published on the Communist areas, frica and West Asia, the Western Hemisphere, and the Far East and Oceania, ata may vary slightly from those in The World Agricultural Situation , as this eport is based on information available as of March 1, 1970. G. Stanley Brown, Chief Europe and Soviet Union Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division iii abbreviations :ap .Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community. :XT .Common External Tariff of the European Community. „ Members- Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, The . .S:r R "i Germany or West Germany. Netherlands. Associate members: Greece, Turkey.) WTA .Denmark^ rcfla^lo^y!^^, ^i^riand^rortug^^issriai: ’ member: Finland.) FEOGA....European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund of the EC. G AP.Gross Agricultural Product. GAT T.General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. qdp .Gross Domestic Product. Gjjp.Gross National Product. OECD .Organization fo,; Econ„mi<| United States, Canada, Japan, Turkey, iug n p»n countries. TIME REFERENCES Statistics refer to a calendar ^ ar “^^^^"ifief^th'^diagonal stroke (July 1 to June 30) data are use , J indicate averages for several yeai such as 1968/69. Hyphens, such as 1967 69, mar WEIGHT AND MEASURE REFERENCES The metric system of weights and measures is used lathis -^“^hts wise indicated ^a^r^LHoTmVcres, 1 Huiniai is egual to 220.41 a p n o d und e s: SU and 3 l LTr'icTonls l q ual to 2204.6 pounds. iv CONTENTS Page jmmary. 1 >ricultural Production Remains High. 3 leat Surpluses in Western Europe... 5 jstem Europe Strives to Reduce its Dairy Surplus. 9 metary Problems in the EC. 13 1 Stalls on Agricultural Reform. 15 1 Reaches Open-Ended Agricultural Financing Agreement.... 17 cpansion of the European Community. 20 Lrst Decade of the European Free Trade Association. 22 ;ricultural Imports Stabilize But Exports Increase. 24 ltlook. 27 )pendix Tables . 31 April 1970 v WESTERN EUROPE: TOTAL AND PER CAPITA AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT ean countries with dairy surpluses include Austria, Ireland, Sweden, and Fin- Land. Monetary instability brought an 11.1 percent devaluation of the French :ranc in August 1969 and a 9.3 percent revaluation of the German mark in October L969. Since the CAP sets common prices for major agricultural products in terms >f units of account, emergency measures were necessary to avoid disruption of •he elaborately constructed common agricultural market. For France, the support >rice for most agricultural commodities was not increased (to avoid inflationary >ressures and increased surpluses) but all prices are to be aligned with common >rices by August 1971. During this period, import subsidies and export taxes ire being applied to equalize French and Community prices. To avoid an immedi- ite drop in agricultural support prices in West Germany, prices were frozen at :he pre-revaluation level and compensatory import taxes were imposed on most :ommodities covered by the CAP. Although the measures for West Germany were liscontinued on January 1, 1970, farmers will be compensated for resultant in- :ome losses through 1974. During 1969, the European Community proposed an internal agreement for fats ind oils. The intention was that developed countries impose a tax on imports of 1 oilseeds, oilmeal, oilcake, and fats and oils (excluding butter and olive oil). Such an agreement would tend to achieve the same objective of the Community under its previously proposed internal consumption tax on protein meal and var¬ ious fats and oils—that is, the substitution of butter for margarine and of surplus grains and NFDM for protein meal. The European Community's financial agreement on the CAP in late 1969 and early 1970 was a significant achievement. It provided for some reallocation of FEOGA costs among member states. By January 1, 1978, the Community is to be entirely financed from its own sources of revenue rather than relying on some contributions from member states. Funding will be through Community receipts of import levies, customs duties, and a part of the tax on value added (TVA). In addition, the European Parliament is to be given minor control over the EC budg¬ et. The financial agreement does not provide for any limitations on FEOGA ex¬ penditures. EC countries have committed themselves to membership negotiations in 1970 with the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and Denmark. The outcome has far- reaching aspects for many countries other than those directly involved. Trade agreements completed with Yugoslavia, Israel, and Spain require only ratifica¬ tion. Discussions are currently taking place with the United Arab Republic and other countries. Preferential trade agreements renewed in 1969 include the Yaounde Convention with the Associated Overseas Countries of Africa and the Arusha Agreement with the East African Community. Upcoming membership negotiations between the European Community and the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway will have an impact on the future of EFTA. This trade area, in existence 10 years, has been largely restricted to the elimination of trade tariffs on nonagricultural items. However, some processed agricultural commodities are freely traded; bilateral trade agreements between EFTA members on agricultural commodities have been encouraged. Western Europe's agricultural imports totaled $22 billion in 1968, about equal to the 1967 level. On the other hand, agricultural exports amounted to $10.4 billion—up almost 6 percent. Imports of U.S. farm products by Western Europe peaked at almost $3.1 billion in 1966 but declined to $2.6 billion in 1967 and $2.5 billion in 1968. A further decline probably occurred in 1969. European takings of U.S. wheat, feed grains, fruit and vegetables, and cotton have declined in recent years. Economic expansion in Western Europe is expected to continue at a high rate in 1970. Some countries will need to guard against excessive demand pres¬ sures. Barring accelerated deterioration of the Italian balance of payments, major monetary adjustments, such as those in 1969, are unlikely in 1970. The shift in area from wheat to feed grains is expected to continue in 1970 and the total grain harvest may increase somewhat. Quality wheat imports probably will hold firm, but feed grain imports may fall. Prospects are bright for imports of oilseeds (and cake and meal), especially soybean imports from the United States. Meat production (particularly pork and poultry) is expected to increase in 1970. Milk output, already excessive, may stabilize at the 1969 level. 2 THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN WESTERN EUROPE Europe and Soviet Union Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division Economic Research Service AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION REMAINS HIGH In 1969, for the third consecutive year, agricultural production remained at a high level in Western Europe but failed to equal the record achieved in 1968. Less favorable growing conditions were primarily responsible for a modest decline in the index of agricultural output. Among the EC countries, production in 1969 in West Germany and France was somewhat smaller than in 1968. Produc¬ tion in the Scandinavian countries, except Finland, and in Portugal, was sub¬ stantially less than the record achieved in 1968. Agricultural output in Greece showed a partial recovery from the drought-induced level of 1968 (table 1). Total grain production for all of Western Europe remained at a near record Level of approximately 120 million tons. 1/ Somewhat smaller harvests of wheat and rye were largely offset by increases in feed grain crops. Wheat production Ln 1969 dipped for most countries—the total output for Western Europe declining oy about 5 percent, primarily because of smaller crops in Spain, France, and Portugal. The lower production reflected the reduced wheat area, although fields were lowered somewhat by dry weather during part of the growing season. 2,/ Feed grain production rose to a record level in Western Europe, largely due to acreage expansion. Barley, which dominates feed grain production, continued Lts uptrend in output and increased to 39 million tons, about 14 million above the 1960-64 average. France and West Germany turned out barley crops above the L968 level—contributing heavily to total feed grain increases in the EC. 2J Jarley output recovered in the United Kingdom and Greece and rose to record Levels in Spain, Denmark, Austria, and Finland. Corn production in Western Eu¬ rope showed a greater increase than barley, reaching a record of nearly 14 mil¬ lion tons. The increase in corn reflected larger crops in Italy, France, and Austria. Both area and production of potatoes in Western Europe declined further in L969. The 56-million-ton harvest was over 7 million tons below the 1968 crop. Sharp declines were noted for France, West Germany, and Sweden. Sugar beet pro- iuction in 1969 dipped below 1968 but remained at a high level (69 million tons) tfith area holding about the same. Most producing countries experienced declines, >ut the decreases were most significant in West Germany, Italy, the United King¬ dom, and Sweden. Large increases were registered by Greece and Spain. Olive )il production in Western Europe declined by 6 percent as increased output in Portugal was offset by a sharp decrease in Spain. 1/ Tons in this report are metric unless otherwise indicated. 2/ For statistics on the area and production of selected crops in Western Eu¬ rope see table 2 (in appendix). _3/ The terms EC, European Community, Community, Common Market, European Eco¬ nomic Community, and EEC are used interchangeably in this report. 3 Table 1.—Indices of agricultural production in Western Europe, 1965-69 1/ Country or area 1965 : 1966 : 1967 : 1968 : 1969 2/ Belgium-Luxembourg 108 110 123 123 120 France 131 126 139 144 141 West Germany 108 112 123 126 123 Italy 115 117 126 123 124 Netherlands 119 124 133 138 141 Total EC 118 119 130 132 131 Austria 104 119 125 130 131 Denmark 117 117 118 122 117 Finland 129 120 126 133 135 Greece 135 134 143 123 132 Ireland 106 109 121 124 123 Norway 110 107 107 118 108 Portugal 103 91 110 112 107 Spain 114 129 135 148 147 Sweden 116 105 118 122 108 Switzerland 107 112 121 125 123 United Kingdom 132 131 137 134 135 Total Western Europe 119 120 130 132 130 1/ West European regional price weights were used in calculating these in- dices of agricultural output. Also, the indices are limited in coverage to 12 to 18 crops and livestock products. Thus, these indices will differ from those calculated by the various countries. 2/ Preliminary. Western Europe's meat production was sustained at a high level in 1969 about 16 million tons. 4/ Beef and veal production remained at 6.5 million ton while pork production at 8.2 million tons was down slightly in 1969. Larger amounts of beef and veal in most West European countries, but particularly in West Germany, Portugal, Finland, and Italy were offset by decreases in France, the United Kingdom, and Denmark. Drought in some countries—notably Sweden- led to increased slaughtering of cattle. Pork output declined last year in Western Europe—particularly in France and West Germany. In the EFTA, produc¬ tion was down mainly because increases in Portuguese and Finnish output did not offset a sharp decrease in Danish pork production. The rapid expansion of poultry output—especially of broilers in most Wes European countries and a slowdown in the growth of consumption have led to a 4/ For statistics on production of principal livestock products in Western Eu rope see table 3 (in appendix). 4 .ess buoyant market for poultry meat. Total poultry meat production hit 2.7 dllion tons in 1969—a new record—compared with an average of 1.5 million in .960-64. In recent years, there has been a rapid expansion in West German iroiler production, reflecting an increase in consumption. Production also continues high in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Output of cow's milk is estimated at 114 million tons, no significant :hange from 1968. In some West European countries, the warm, extended autumn avoring pasture conditions resulted in higher production offsetting declines n other countries. Although Italy's outturn probably declined, production in he EC is estimated to be about the same as in 1968. In Scandinavia, lower lilk production was realized in most countries. In Denmark and Sweden, cow lumbers have been declining in recent years. Milk production in Finland prob- bly reached a higher level than in 1968. WHEAT SURPLUSES IN WESTERN EUROPE Although Western Europe is a grain deficit area, surplus production of soft heat plagues some countries. Most seriously affected is the European Community, hich accounts for two-thirds of Western Europe's wheat production. Other areas ith current or recent surpluses of soft wheat include Austria, Finland, Greece, nd Spain. uropean Community Wheat production in the EC, as well as in Western Europe as a whole, has xpanded at a relatively rapid pace in recent years (figure 2), far outdis- ancing any rise in domestic utilization and exports. As a result, soft wheat tocks in the EC on August 1, 1969, were an estimated 10 million tons against 7 illion a year earlier. Storage problems centered in West Germany : Soft wheat stocks in the EC ere traditionally held primarily by France. During 1968/69, however. West erman grain importers reacted to the weak French franc and liberal credit erms by buying large quantities of wheat from France. It was profitable to urn the imported wheat over to West German intervention agencies at a higher han cost price. Consequently, over twice as much wheat moved from France into est Germany in 1968/69 than a year earlier. 5/ The increased import of French wheat created pressure on storage facili- ies, forcing West Germany to request EC Commission authorization to impose im- ort levies on wheat from EC-member countries. While the Commission did not rant this action, it did allow West Germany to apply Intervention "B" proce- ures on German wheat. Under them, wheat can be held by private granaries and ffered to the government intervention agency later in the season at a guaran- eed price (including coverage of storage costs). Usually, wheat is stored by 5/ For statistics on total imports and exports of various agricultural pro- ucts by Western Europe, see tables 4 and 6 (in appendix). Also, for imports f agricultural products from the United States by Western Europe, see table 5. 5 TOTAL WESTERN EUROPE AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: WHEAT PRODUCTION, ANNUAL 1961-69 MIL M 50 40 30 20 10 ETRIC TONS 1 Total / 1 Western Eu rope / > / / / \ \ \ _V 1 1 1 \ \ \ 4 'N/ X i Euro pean Comn lunity 1 1 1 I 1 1 1961 '63 ’65 '67 ’69 71 73 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE N EG. E RS 756 1 - 70 ( 2 ) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE Figure 2 the EC under procedures called Intervention "A," which allows the wheat pro ducers at harvesttime to deliver the wheat directly to government storage. In August 1969, the French franc was devalued 11.1 percent, largely elimi¬ nating the pressure on the wheat flow into West Germany. By then, however, more than 6 million tons of grain in West Germany had been covered by Intervention "B." Soft wheat held under Intervention "A" in West Germany through the end of October 1969 totaled 591,000 tons, compared with 130,000 tons a year earlier. The deutsche mark revaluation in October 1969, created a potential loss for persons holding Intervention "B" stocks. However, the EC Commission agreed that contracts concluded under Intervention "B" would be reimbursed by FEOGA against losses incurred as a result of the revaluation. This guarantee applied to grain sold on the open market as well as grain offered for government storage. Causes of soft wheat surpluses : Soft wheat surpluses in the Community are directly related to extremely high producer prices. The common grain prices which went into effect for the EC on July 1, 1967, represented a major increase 6 •n grain prices for France—the EC's largest grain producer. Farm prices for »oft wheat in France, for example, averaged $92.60 per ton in 1968/69, more than }5 percent above the average U.S. producer price. The Community's variable im- >ort levy protects domestic producers from outside competition, intervention [support) prices provide a guaranteed price for unlimited production, and ex- >ort subsidies are flexible to meet the competition in any market. Wheat:feed grain price ratios in the EC favor the production of wheat and contribute to surplus soft wheat production. This price ratio, however, has ieen lowered in recent years by holding the target price of wheat stable while ncreasing the price of feed grains. Grain price adjustments have not been suf¬ ficiently large to encourage any widespread shift of land from wheat to feed ;rains or to establish realistic price relationships based on the relative feed- ng value of wheat and feed grains. Nevertheless, they have resulted in higher hreshold prices (minimum import prices) for feed grains and thus Increased pro- ection for Community grain producers. Large world supplies of wheat in recent years have hampered any expansion n EC wheat exports to third countries. The Common Market’s surplus wheat is of ower quality than wheat available from other major exporters and is shipped rimarily to Mainland China, Algeria, Eastern Europe, and the United Kingdom feed wheat). During 1969, heavy export subsidization by the EC occasionally ushed the export price below the minimum level specified in the International rains Arrangement. Solving the surplus problem : A significant part of the EC's expenditure n its agricultural fund can be attributed to wheat. Of an estimated total ex- enditure of $2.4 billion in 1968/69, around $700 million was spent on price upport measures and export subsidies for grain. Total FEOGA costs, as well as osts relating to wheat, are expected to rise to a higher level in 1969/70. The EC Commission recently proposed several measures designed to reduce ag- icultural surpluses. One proposal relating to grains is to lower the basic ntervention price for wheat and rye by $2 per ton. This action would lower roducer prices of wheat and make wheat somewhat more competitive with feed rains. It was also proposed that actual market intervention for wheat (also ye and barley) be limited to the last 4 months of the marketing year and that he number of intervention points throughout the Community be reduced to a few ort locations. These limitations would result in a relatively free internal arket for most of the year. However, domestic producers would be protected as efore from third-country competition by the high threshold price/levy barriers. By March 1, 1970, no action had been taken on the Commission's proposals, hich encountered sharp criticism from numerous farm groups. Regardless of the utcome, surplus soft wheat problems in the EC will continue for some time. The use of wheat for livestock feed in the EC is also being promoted to ispose of surplus wheat. The denaturing subsidy for wheat has been increased o about $20 per ton for the 1969/70 marketing year. In the Netherlands and ome parts of West Germany, the 1969 wheat crop was affected by unfavorable eather at harvest resulting in considerable sprout damage. Requirements for rains to qualify for a denaturing premium were relaxed and sizable quantities f damaged wheat were denatured for either domestic use or export. 7 Austria, Finland. Greece, and Spain Austria's wheat surplus, together with carryover stocks from preceding years, may total around 500,000 tons in 1969/70, equivalent to about two-thirds of normal requirements for a year. Finland's carryover stocks of wheat on August 31, 1969, exceeded 300,000 tons, more than half of normal annual produc¬ tion. Greece's wheat surplus was one of its most serious agricultural problems in the mid-1960's. The wheat problem has not been apparent in the last 2 years because of sharp decreases in production, primarily due to unfavorable weather. However, increased yields, along with declines in consumption, could cause sur¬ pluses to reappear. Spain is a large surplus producer of wheat (and barley). Its wheat stocks reached a high of 2.4 million tons in December 1968, but de¬ clined to about 1.7 million tons in July 1969. Causes of the problem : The causes of wheat surpluses in these four coun¬ tries are essentially the same: Rapid increases in production as a result of more and better inputs and favorable weather, while maintaining or in some cases expanding wheat area. Also, government policy has been extremely favorable to wheat production. In Spain, for example, the ratio of the price support for wheat to other grains has been so favorable that wheat has been grown on irri¬ gated land. Solving the surplus problem : To reduce the soft wheat surplus, Austria, Finland, Greece, and Spain have been subsidizing wheat for export and feed uses, as well as introducing some controls on production. Austria disposes of part of the excess wheat stocks through feeding by limiting feed grain imports and forcing the mixed feed industry to blend barley with domestic wheat. However, Austria had a record feed grain crop in 1969 and mixing regulations may not prove practical. Finland agreed in late 1969 to export 40,000 tons of wheat to the United Kingdom at a price of $50 per ton, and is attempting to export an¬ other 50,000 to 100,000 tons. Also, marketing fees have been imposed on wheat^ deliveries and voluntary restraints have been sought on planting wheat. Spain|s subsidized wheat exports set a record of about 1 million tons in 1967/68, and annual use of wheat for feed has been as high as 400,000 tons the last 3 years. Feed grain support prices have been raised relative to those for wheat. Impact on World Trade Increased production of soft wheat in countries of Western Europe primarily affects grain exporters, including the United States, by competing with the U.S. and other wheat and feed grain suppliers in export markets. Surpluses of wheat in Western Europe are limited to soft wheat. Although the Community is promoting the production of quality wheat by guaranteeing pro¬ ducers $145 per ton for durum wheat, net imports of quality wheat approximate 4 million tons annually. The continued expansion of soft wheat production at higher than world prices without a parallel expansion in domestic demand—a situation particularly characteristic of the EC—leads to pressure for heavy export subsidization. In¬ creased competition in international markets, brought about by high export sub¬ sidies, results in unstable world prices, like those during 1969 under the IGA. 8 Efficient exporters find their traditional markets being eroded by countries who produce surpluses under high price supports unaccompanied by production controls. Jisplacement of a country from its traditional markets causes its export activ¬ ity to shift to other markets, creating increased pressures for other traditional rrading arrangements. This type of activity is particularly unsettling to world :rade when wheat supplies are at record levels. Soft wheat surpluses are also being exported for use as feed. For example, Ln 1968/69 the EC exported 560,000 tons of wheat to the United Kingdom primarily :or use as feed. Wheat imported for feed lowers feed grain import requirements >y at least an equivalent tonnage. Soft wheat is also being diverted to feed use in the countries producing :he surpluses. The EC will likely use 8 million tons of wheat for feed in L969/70 compared with 5.8 million tons in 1968/69. Combined with the increased ise of low-cost feed grain substitutes—such as corn gluten and manioc—a sub- itantial tonnage of feed grain imports will be displaced in 1969/70. The core of the problem is the high grain price policies pursued in these :ountries. Not only do the high prices stimulate production but they also damp- in wheat and feed grain utilization. In a comparison of the per capita consump- ion of all grains 6J for 1967/68—consumed directly or indirectly through live¬ stock products—the figure for the United States (.723 ton) was nearly 70 per- :ent above that of the EC (.430 ton). WESTERN EUROPE STRIVES TO REDUCE ITS DAIRY SURPLUS West European milk production increased rapidly during the 1960's (figure ) • With substantial dairy surpluses continuing in Western Europe, particularly n the European Community, programs are being implemented to equate supply with emand. Perhaps the greatest success has been achieved in Switzerland. The uropean Community's belated start in controlling surpluses has achieved little uccess to date. uropean Community Although the rapid rise in the EC's milk production slowed in 1969 partly ue to weather and feed conditions, stocks of dairy products became more burden- ome. Milk production in 1969 at 74 million tons and January 1, 1970 stocks of utter at around 345,000 tons were only slightly higher than a year earlier, owever, stocks of NFDM were 340,000 tons, much higher than on January 1, 1969. hen the CAP for dairy products began in November 1964, stocks of butter were nly about 80,000 tons. Increased milk deliveries to processors : Accentuating the oversupply of airy products last year was the increased percentage of milk delivered to airies. More than 77 percent of the milk produced was delivered to dairies in 6/ Wheat, oats, barley, corn, and sorghum for the United States and all grains xcept rice for the EC. 9 TOTAL WESTERN EUROPE AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: COW'S MILK PRODUCTION, AVERAGE 1960-61 AND 1968-69 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE _ N E G. E R S 7562 - 70 ( 2 ) ECON(^IC^RE^£ARCH^SE^VICE^ Figure 3 1969 compared with 75 percent in 1968 and about 70 percent in 1964. This trend may continue if high returns for off-farm marketing of milk persist. Producer price levels for milk in the EC probably improved slightly in 1969 as demand for dairy products was relatively good. Because fluid milk and cream for consumption are not fully covered by the dairy CAP, member states may increase the producer's total receipts from milk by raising the price paid for fluid milk. Since milk utilized for fluid consumption accounts for more than 20 percent of total production, this added source of return can be important. Milk production important to farm income : Milk production is the single most important source of agricultural income in the EC—about 20 percent of total agricultural income. Most Community farmers with less than 5 hectares of land are engaged in dairying, since this activity usually provides good utilization of family labor and rather high income per hectare of land. In recent years, a fourth of the dairy farmers have had 5 cows or less, and in turn, have accounted for more than 20 percent of total milk production. 10 Iso, more than half of the dairy animals are in farm herds of 10 cows or less nd only 5 percent are in farm herds larger than 50 cows. Community program to reduce dairy surpluses : In 1969, the EC approved sasures to reduce the dairy oversupply and encourage farmers to switch from Llk to beef production. The measures involve subsidies to encourage (1) cow Laughtering and the nonmarketing of milk; (2) consumption of cold storage but- jr; and (3) greater use of NFDM and butter in calf, pig, and poultry feeds. Subsidies for cow slaughtering (to encourage smaller dairy farmers to leave irming) and nonmarketing of milk (to encourage larger dairy farms to switch to ief production) are initially limited to 250,000 cows under each measure. Un- ir the slaughter subsidv, farmers owning at least 2 cows will receive $200 for ich cow slaughtered—wi n a limit of $2,000 to any farmer. To qualify for the lbsidy, the farmer must have ceased milk production before April 1970. Appli- itions for this subsidy were filed in December 1969 for slaughterings carried it during February-April 1970. Farmers owning more than 10 cows will receive $200—in five installments— >r each cow in his herd (no limit) if he agrees to stop marketing milk and milk •oducts and to maintain or increase the number of mature cattle in his herd. A irther condition for receiving this subsidy is that the quantity of milk and .lk products marketed in the preceding 12 months exceeded 22.7 tons (milk equiv- .ent) with an additional 2 tons added for each cow after the eleventh. For pro- icers with less than this output, a diminishing sliding scale is used in com- iting the subsidy paid. A slaughtering subsidy and a subsidy for withholding .lk from the market cannot be paid to the same farmer. Of the total cost of ese subsidies—$100 million—half will be met from the Guidance Section of I0GA and half from the member states. Preliminary indications showed that applications for these measures more an exceed the allotted 250,000 cows for each regulation. Applications for w slaughterings in the EC have totaled more than 290,000, of which West Ger- ny accounts for 169,000 and France 50,000. Removing 500,000 cows (by slaugh- ring or nonmarketing of milk) from the EC dairy herd would represent more than 5 percent of total annual milk production and the "removal" of 250,000 cows by aughtering would represent about 70,000 tons of beef, or about 1.5 percent of tal annual beef production. It is too early to determine how beef production subsequent years will be affected by this program. Improvements in milk elds could offset any decrease in milk production as a result of the subsidy ogram. The Commission has authorized sales of cold storage butter at reduced prices consumers in West Germany, France, and the Netherlands. In November 1969, for ample, 57,500 tons of cold storage butter were authorized for sale (27,500 tons West Germany, 20,000 in France, and 10,000 in the Netherlands). Prices at orage locations were about 60 cents per pound in West Germany and about 50 nts per pound in France and the Netherlands, compared to the intervention ice of about 80 cents per pound or the usual retail price of 90 cents to $1. addition, Belgium was authorized to sell butter oil (no specific quantity mits) since it was felt that the sale of cold storage butter would depress e normal marketing of butter. 11 Measures to dispose of surplus butter include reduced butter prices to bakeries, hospitals, military, and exporting firms; free milk to schools; and aid to developing countries—in the form of butter oil and NFDM. This program to replace tallow with butter in manufactured feed has been unsuccessful since this operation requires special equipment which the industry presently lacks. Considerable quantities of NFDM are used to manufacture calf feed in the EC but progress in using NFDM in pig and poultry feed has been limited. France and Belgium used some NFDM for pig feed in 1969 when the denaturing subsidy was sufficient to make NFDM competitive with other protein sources. Until recently feed regulations prevented NFDM use in manufactured feed in West Germany, which has the largest number of pigs in the EC. NFDM production decreased 7-8 percent in 1969, bu. stocks trended upward as EC exports slowed due to a reduced export demand and larger world supplies. For example, Japan—a traditional importer—faced a surplus of domestically produced NFDM by the end of 1969. With low world prices, exporting countries have negotiated an agreement under GATT on a minimum world price—$200 per ton (9 cents per pound). Considerable quantities of French NFDM were exported to the Netherlands in 1969. This movement, like that of soft wheat, was aided by the weakness of the French franc, particularly on a forward basis. Dutch NFDM moved into interven¬ tion storage, while cheaper French NFDM moved into utilization. West Germany has proposed to eliminate the milk surplus by imposing pro¬ duction quotas. Prices would be sharply reduced for any excess production over a farmer's allotment. Continued surpluses could force the EC to give serious consideration to this proposal. Cost to the Guarantee Section of FEOGA for the dairy sector was expected to rise from about $640 million in 1968/69 to an estimated $1.2 billion in 1969/70—the sharpest jump for any commodity. The rise in cost for 1969/70 in this sector is due mainly to an increased use of subsidized NFDM in feeds as well as costs necessary to dispose of surplus butter. Other Western Europe Dairy surpluses also exist in Austria, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland. In general, programs to reduce dairy surpluses in these countries were essentially the same as those recently implemented in the EC. However, producers in Austri Switzerland, and Finland have been made more responsible for oversupply by in¬ creased marketing fees when the production base has been exceeded. In Switzerland, probably more than 28,000 cows were slaughtered in 1969 under a subsidy program—about $100 per cow—to reduce milk production. In Finland, more than 12,000 cows were subsidized for slaughter in the first half of 1969. Meanwhile, these countries have largely restricted higher levels of feeding to dairy cattle by limiting imports of feed ingredients, particularly protein concentrates. 12 Impact on U.S. Trade Dairy surplus control measures may tend to have a negative impact on U.S. agricultural trade. Lower butter prices might result in a reduced demand for margarine which in turn may reduce vegetable oil requirements and soybean im¬ ports. NFDM used for feed will reduce protein requirements from other sources and possibly affect U.S. soybean meal exports to the EC. On the other hand, a significant expansion in commercial beef production would tend to counterbalance any negative impact by requiring increased imports of feed grains. EC exports of heavily subsidized dairy products to the United States have been curtailed by quotas, but efforts to find loopholes in U.S. import restrictions will no doubt continue. MONETARY PROBLEMS IN THE EC Monetary instability again moved into the forefront of Western Europe's economic problems in 1969. The French franc, which never fully recovered from the effects of the general strike and student demonstrations of May and June 1968, was devalued by 11.1 percent in August 1969. Then in October 1969, the German mark (DM), almost universally regarded as undervalued, was officially re¬ valued by 9.3 percent (after nearly a month of defacto revaluation when its value was allowed to fluctuate). Though these actions did much towards restoring stability to world monetary markets, they had serious implications for Community agricultural policy. Emer¬ gency measures were necessary to avoid disruption of the elaborately constructed common agricultural market. Since the CAP sets common farm support prices for most major agricultural products in terms of units of account (equal to the U.S. dollar), a change in the exchange rate of any member state results in an immediate increase or de¬ crease in that country's support prices in terms of the national currency. The August devaluation of the franc should have resulted in a 12.5-percent increase in French farm support prices (in terms of francs). Such price hikes, however, would have put intolerable inflationary pressure on the French economy and, in addition, would have encouraged French farmers to add to existing agricultural surpluses. Neither this situation nor the obvious alternative, the lowering of common support prices (or what would amount to the same thing, the devaluation of the unit of account), was deemed acceptable. Consequently, a compromise was reached whereby the Commission allowed France to retain pre-devaluation prices (in terms of francs), in effect isolating France from the rest of the Common Market. Under this arrangement common support prices for France are suspended 2 years but are to be completely realigned in stages before the 1971/72 crop year. (However, France is not bound to maintain prices at the pre-devaluation level and has, in fact, raised prices for beef, veal, and skim milk.) To pre¬ vent this arrangement from giving France a trade advantage either within or outside the EC, a system of import subsidies and export taxes has been applied by France to grains, rice, milk and dairy products, beef, pork, sugar, rape- seed, sunflowerseed, eggs, poultry, and certain processed agricultural products. 13 This system is designed to offset the lower French support prices for these products (or their components) resulting from the devaluation. Fruits and veg¬ etables, however, will not be subject to a tax or subsidy (except on the sugar content of processed fruits and vegetables) and support prices and minimum im¬ port prices for these products, where they exist, will be allowed to rise by the full extent of devaluation (12.5 percent in terms of francs). Also, the tax- subsidy system does not apply to products which were not at that time covered by the CAP—processed fruit and vegetables, wine, tobacco, and flax. The effect of the suspension of common prices and the system of taxes and subsidies is to reduce the devaluation's impact on agricultural trade. France's competitive position in grains, sugar, dairy products and most other commodities covered by the CAP should remain essentially unchanged. But its competitive position automatically improved in fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural products not covered by the CAP. If French exporters maintain their sales price in terms of francs, their export prices in foreign currency will go down; con¬ versely, import prices in terms of francs will go up. An EC Commission report, published in December 1969, indicated that the tax—subsidy system was functioning reasonably well. Thus, it appears that the impact of devaluation on agricultural trade has been small. A more severe test of the CAP may take place in mid-1971 when French prices again align with those of the EC. Then the EC must face the problems deriving from higher French farm prices. A much different arrangement was agreed upon to mitigate the effects of German revaluation. In contrast to the French situation, the DM revaluation would have meant an immediate drop in German support prices in terms of marks. These prices were, in fact, lowered by the full extent dictated by revaluation (8.5 percent in terms of deutsche marks) as of January 1, 1970. Immediately following revaluation, transitional emergency measures were put into effect. They included the freezing of Germany's support prices at the pre-revaluation level in terms of marks and the imposition of compensatory import taxes on most agricultural products covered by the CAP (as of October 27 compensatory export subsidies were also authorized). These temporary measures were discontinued on January 1, 1970. German farmers are to be compensated for their income loss resulting from these price reductions however, by virtue of arrangements worked out by the EC Council and the German Government. They would receive $464 million per year from 1970 through 1974. Germany will receive $90 million from FEOGA in the first year and $60 million in the second year to help finance part of the in¬ come loss. These FEOGA funds would come from the export taxes applicable to French exports as a result of devaluation. In addition, the 5-percent tax on value added (TVA) for agricultural products in Germany was raised to 8 percent; for most German farmers this action will result in an increase in prices re¬ ceived since they will not be required to remit this tax increase to the govern¬ ment. (Large farms will not benefit from this measure to the same degree as small farms.) Annual revenues accruing to farmers as a result of this change in TVA are estimated at about $220 million. The remainder of the German farmers' income loss in 1970 (about $150 million) is to be covered by the Bonn Government through domestic funds. 14 Applied to agricultural trade, the arrangement allows revaluation to have its expected effects—that is, German imports will tend to be cheaper while ex¬ ports will tend to be more expensive. However, the reduction of support prices, combined with income compensation payments, may help German farmers meet the competition of lower priced imports. How revaluation affects future agricultural production is not yet clear. Much depends on the method and duration of compensation. The FEOGA payments are scheduled for 2 years while the increased TVA and the authorization of the German Government to grant compensation are scheduled for 4 years. However, it may be difficult to cut off these payments once established. Besides, the method of payment is not yet definite. A method of payment closely tied to production might stimulate production regardless of market conditions, compli¬ cating the EC's surplus problems. The spillover of monetary problems into the agricultural sector brought out the difficulties inherent in the imbalances of the Community's progress toward economic union—in this case, the friction between the Common Agricultural Pol¬ icy and divergent economic and monetary policies. The choice of income compen¬ sation as a solution to German revaluation probably minimized the damage to the CAP; an isolation of the German market similar to the French arrangement, which would have meant separate prices and import controls in the two largest members of the EC, would have made a sham of common agricultural prices. As it is, the CAP is shaken but essentially intact. The real test of the CAP may be the Com¬ munity's ability to phase out these special adjustments. And this will depend largely on its ability to come to grips with its agricultural surplus. EC STALLS ON AGRICULTURAL REFORM The period following the Mansholt Plan proposals 7J has been character¬ ized by much debate over agricultural reform within the EC and very little re¬ sults. For the most part, neither the structural reform proposals (aimed at reducing the farm labor force and at enlarging and rationalizing farm produc¬ tion units) nor the short-term proposals for price and market adjustments (aimed at stabilizing the Community's surplus-prone commodity markets) were acted upon. One exception was the adoption of slaughter and nonmarketing subsidies in the dairy sector. Recent Commission Proposals on Surpluses Alarmed at this continued inaction in the face of large and costly sur¬ pluses, the EC Commission introduced, on November 19, 1969, a revised and con¬ siderably less ambitious plan for agricultural reform and stabilization. Basi- cally, the Commission's proposals aim at reducing the costs of the existing market support system while increasing expenditures for structural improve¬ ment. The Commission hopes to effect this re-orientation within a framework of 7/ The Agricultural Situation in Western Europe: Review of 1968 and Outlook for 1969, ERS-Foreign 258, March 31, 1969, pp. 13-16. 15 moderately increasing total FEOGA expenditure (a rate of increase attuned to growth of Community GNP was suggested). To reduce support costs, the Commission has recommended cutting the support prices for soft wheat and butter and reducing the production quotas for sugar. A decrease of $2 per ton is proposed for the 1970/71 support price for soft wheat (and also rye). In addition, it is proposed that the present system of support prices be replaced by a system of identical support prices for all EC ports and that market support be limited to the last 4 months of the crop year. To reduce the costs of dairy support, the Commission would decrease the butter support price (by $31.25 per 100 kg.—half the amount proposed in the Mansholt Plan) and the price of butter sold from stock. The reduced butter support price will be offset, but only partially, by an increase in the support price for non¬ fat dry milk. In addition, the subsidy for the feeding of nonfat dry milk to calves is to be increased. In the sugar sector, besides the reduction of pro¬ duction quotas, an increase in the producer payment for the disposal of sur¬ pluses is proposed. The November 19 proposals are still under discussion. International Agreement Proposed for Fats and Oils While not moving ahead on an earlier proposed consumption tax on fats and oils, the EC Commission shifted its strategy somewhat and presented guidelines for an international agreement on fats and oils. The original proposal (in the Mansholt Plan) called for a tax of $30 per ton on protein meal and of $60 per ton on various fats and oils. The U.S. Government warned that the proposed tax would constitute an impairment of the EC's GATT commitments and threatened im¬ mediate retaliation if it is adopted. At the core of the guidelines is a proposed tax by developed countries on imports of all oilseeds, meals, cakes, fats and oils (with the significant ex¬ ception of butter and olive oil). The tax would equal the difference between target prices and the various c.i.f. offer prices. It would be used to finance buffer stocks, make compensation payments to developing countries, and carry out a food aid program with surplus fats and oils products. In setting forth these guidelines, the Commission advanced as its primary goals the stabilization of world market prices for fats and oils and the augmentation of foreign exchange earnings of the developing countries. It is clear, however, that such an inter¬ national agreement would achieve the objectives of the proposed consumption tax namely, increasing the substitution of butter for margarine and of grains (par¬ ticularly feed wheat) and nonfat dry milk for protein meals. Another EC proposal under consideration provides for the expansion of existing authority to impose compensatory taxes on imports of oil bearing ma¬ terials. In part, this would be done by the establishment of minimum import prices with the compensatory taxes applied when c.i.f. prices fall below those minimums. 16 Vedel Report In September 1969, another ingredient injected into the agricultural reform controversy was the release of the "Vedel" report on French agriculture. This report, commissioned by the French Ministry of Agriculture, recommended a na¬ tional program far more drastic than the Mansholt Plan. According to the Vedel report, the creation of larger farms operating with modern technology (the cor¬ nerstone of the Mansholt reform strategy) will not in itself solve farm sur¬ pluses. Consequently, this report calls for the massive withdrawal of land and labor resources from agriculture and a large reduction in the producer prices of cereals and sugar (based on average costs of Europe's most efficient pro¬ ducers). It recommends that France's agricultural area be reduced by more than one-third (an area twice that proposed by Mansholt for the entire EC) and that its labor force be reduced from 3 million to 600,000-700,000 by 1985. The im¬ pact of the Vedel report on French policy cannot be gauged at this time. While the strong opposition expressed by French farm organizations makes an open en¬ dorsement of the plan by French officials unlikely, the release of the report indicates increasing awareness of the seriousness of agricultural problems with¬ in the EC. EC REACHES OPEN-ENDED AGRICULTURAL FINANCING AGREEMENT On December 22, 1969, the EC Council of Ministers agreed on the framework for future financing of the CAP. This agreement enabled the Community to close out a 12-year transition period and move into its "final phase" as of January 1, 1970. It was widely regarded as the first concrete result of the new impetus given to European integration from The Hague Summit Conference of December 1-2. At the conference, attended by leaders of the member countries and by represen¬ tatives of the EC Commission, it was agreed in principle to prepare for enlarge¬ ment negotiations, to control agricultural surpluses and budget costs, and to move gradually toward an economic and monetary union. At French insistence, however, these advances were made contingent upon the completion of the fi¬ nancing arrangement before January 1. In apparently satisfying this require¬ ment, the December 22 agreement enhanced the hope that the "spirit of The Hague" would enable the EC to break the deadlock that had inhibited its progress in many vital areas throughout 1969. Unexpected difficulties prevented adoption of the final texts of the finan¬ cing arrangement as planned at the January 19-20 meeting. However, after con¬ siderable modification and clarification of the agreement (including a compro¬ mise strictly limiting the power of the European Parliament to increase expendi¬ tures and agreement to reimpose the $285-million ceiling on expenditures for structural improvement as of January 1, 1972), these difficulties were resolved at the February 5-6 meeting of the Council. The agreement must still be rati¬ fied by the six national parliaments. Details of the Agreement The Community is scheduled to be completely self-financed (independent of direct member state contributions) by January 1, 1978. The transition to 17 complete self-financing will occur gradually over four time periods: 1970: Total FEOGA expenditure is to be financed according to the following scale: Percent West Germany 31.7 France 28 Italy 21.5 Netherlands 10.35 Belgium 8.25 Luxembourg 0.2 Total 100.0 This financing is in contrast to that in recent years when national contribution (according to a somewhat different national scale) made up only the deficit be¬ tween 90 percent of levy receipts and FEOGA expenditure. 1971-74: Variable levies, special charges (e.g., the sugar tax and pos¬ sibly the proposed fats and oils tax), and customs duties at an increasing rate are to be made over by the members to the Community. To make up the deficits, member state contributions are to be apportioned as follows: Percent West Germany 32.9 France 32.6 Italy 20.2 Netherlands 7.3 Belgium 6.8 Luxembourg 0» 2 Total 100.0 Levies and special charges will be completely made over to the EC as of Jan¬ uary 1, 1971. The amount of customs duties annually handed over to the Com¬ munity by each member shall be equal to the difference between a ^reference^ amount and the levies collected on imports by that country. The "reference" amounts have been set as follows: Percent of member states combined levies and customs duties which must be contributed to FEOGA 1971 50 1972 62.5 1973 75 1974 87.5 1975 100 18 The annual variation in the percentage share of each member state's total contributions (levies, duties, and direct payment) to FEOGA may not be more than 1 percent above or 1.5 percent below the share of the previous year. The allo¬ cation scale for 1970 is to be used as the base year. 1975-77 : The Community is to receive all agricultural levies, special charges, and customs duties (but will refund 10 percent to member states for administrative expenses) and, in addition, up to 1 percentage point of the standard tax on value added (TVA). During this period, the annual variation in the member state shares may not be more than 2 percent above the percentage share paid in the previous year. Any deficits resulting from this 2-percent limitation will be divided among the other member states according to their share of TVA going to the Community (but subject to the 2-percent limitation). Surplus funds would be carried forward to the next year. January 1, 1978 : The Community will be entirely financed from its own sources of revenue. Measures designed to maintain a certain balance among the contributions of the various member states during the transitional phases will no longer be applied. The financial agreement as amended also provides that budgetary decisions covering 97 percent of the budget will remain with the Council but as of 1975 the European Parliament will have a consultative role and, under certain con¬ ditions, the power of amendment. Delegation of budgetary powers to the Euro¬ pean Parliament is limited to that for administrative expenses, about 3 percent of the budget. Consequences of the Agreement The financing agreement tells us nothing about the future direction of the CAP. No decisions have been made on stabilization of the EC's agricultural markets and no ceiling has been placed on total FEOGA expenditures. It appears that agricultural surplus problems will be decided separately. Continuation of the ceiling on structural expenditures appears to rule out an agricultural re¬ form plan of the dimensions envisaged by Mansholt and the EC Commission. Agreement on financing before the development of a program for agricultural stabilization and reform may weaken the leverage of those calling for a drastic revision of the CAP. With the inequity of the cost burden reduced and with new, lucrative sources of revenue opening up to the Community, the financial base of the CAP should be considerably strengthened. The EC should be in a position to handle more rather than less expenditure on agriculture. Italy likely will benefit most from the reshuffling of member state re¬ sponsibility for the financing of FEOGA. Its share of total FEOGA expenditures will drop to 21.5 percent in 1970 from 26 percent in 1968/69. Shares paid by Belgium and the Netherlands in 1970 will drop slightly from their 1968/69 level. Germany's share of FEOGA will rise 1.7 percentage points to 31.7 percent while the French share will rise almost 3 percentage points to 28 percent. Neverthe¬ less, France will remain the major recipient of FEOGA expenditures. 19 Considering the balance between benefits received from and payments made to FEOGA by the member states, the new arrangement reduces somewhat the inequity of the existing arrangement (except in the case of West Germany). This could reduce the critical posture of some member states, particularly Italy, regard¬ ing the CAP. On the other hand, Germany's stake in controlling CAP expenditures will not be diminished. In fact, the German (and Dutch) share of total FEOGA costs is expected to grow within the limits of the 1-percent or 2-percent rule. EXPANSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY The Common Market has reached a point in its development where additional members or trade arrangements can have a significant impact on the world s po¬ litical and economic structure. The United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and Den¬ mark have submitted applications for membership in the Community, while numer¬ ous other countries have sought preferential trade arrangements. United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway The United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway formally applied for mem¬ bership to the Community in 1967. France adamantly opposed opening negotiations with the United Kingdom (which took the lead in seeking membership) for agri¬ cultural and political reasons even though the other member countries were will¬ ing to negotiate. French opposition continued until early 1969 when Georges Pompidou became President of the French Republic. The former President, Charles De Gaulle, had prevented British entry into the EC because of its alleged asso¬ ciation with the United States and Commonwealth countries. During the December 1969 summit meeting at The Hague, the member nations agreed to begin preliminary negotiations with the four applicants during 1970. The agricultural base of the four applicant countries is small when comparec to the present members. With enlargement, the EC would increase its agricultura. area 30 percent, farm numbers by 20 percent, and agricultural labor force by 16 percent. The value of agricultural production of the four applicants is only 23 percent of that of the current EC members; however, the output per man-hour of the four applicants is greater. Denmark and the United Kingdom mainly ac¬ count for this higher degree of productivity. Because of their small agricul¬ tural base in relation to population, the import base of the four applicants is large and the opportunity to expand intra-Community trade would be enhanced. The United Kingdom is the largest importer of agricultural products in the world British net agricultural imports exceed $5 billion; the collective net imports of current EC members total $6.7 billion. The EC's agricultural policy is quite different from Britain's. The chief differences concern the method of income support and the type of control placed on imports. In the Community, producer income is keyed to high price supports on products protected from import competition by variable levies. In Britain, the market is freer, with domestically produced commodities selling at prices that are near the world levels. The U.K. payment system insures agricultural producers a guaranteed price for many major farm commodities. Within the Com¬ munity, the cost of price support is paid by the consumer through higher market 20 prices* In Britain, the consumer pays lower prices and the taxpayer pays the difference between world and guaranteed prices. If Britain joins, it will have to adapt its agricultural sector to Commu¬ nity policy. Applying a common agricultural policy will necessitate abolishing deficiency payments and introducing the EC's variable levy system. This will present problems. Food prices will increase as domestic prices rise and imports become more expensive. Britain's financial contributions to FEOGA will strain its monetary resources. In addition, the United Kingdom will have to consider Commonwealth preferences in negotiating entry into the EC. The Community has stated its intention to consider Irish, Danish, and Nor¬ wegian membership along with that for the British. To align Irish producer prices with those of the Community would mean sharp rises in both producer and consumer prices for most products, while prices for sugar beets, potatoes and eggs likely would be reduced. Agriculture is crucial to the Irish economy since it accounts for 20 percent of the gross national product and employs 30 percent of the labor force. Approximately half of Ireland's exports are agricultural commodities. Like the Community, Ireland also has a structural problem with small farms. Danes are among the world's most efficient fanners. Their agriculture con¬ tributes 10 percent of the gross national product and employs 9 percent of the labor force. Nearly two-thirds of Danish agricultural production is exported. Prices in Denmark are much lower than in the Community. Denmark's adaptation to the Community's levy system will mean abolishing certain support programs; raising feed grain and dairy prices; increasing food prices; and probably re¬ sulting in higher farm incomes, depending upon how membership raises farm costs. Norwegian agriculture is characterized by unfavorable natural and structural conditions. Consequently, agricultural production requires high government sub¬ sidies. In general, producer prices in Norway are higher than those in the Com¬ munity. Turkey's Preparatory Period Extended Associate Community membership was granted to Greece in 1962 and Turkey in 1964. Both countries enjoy preferential tariff rates on their chief agricul¬ tural exports to the Community. Before obtaining full membership in the Com¬ munity, Turkey was to be in a "preparatory phase" through 1969 and enter into a transitional phase" in 1970. However, at the end of 1969, negotiations for the transitional phase had not been completed so the Community decided to extend the original trading arrangements into 1970. Included in the arrangement is a 40- percent preference on citrus exports to the Community as well as reduced duties on imports of tobacco, certain dry fruit, and certain textile products. Greece's preparatory phase is not scheduled to end until 1984. Trade Agreements In June 1969, the Yaounde Convention was renewed. The members of this Con¬ vention are 18 African states who became associated with the Community according 21 to provisions of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The first Convention of Association went into effect in June 1964 for a 5-year period. According to this agreement, members of the Yaounde Convention were given trade preferences on their tropical products. Meanwhile, the Community placed a common external tariff on tropical imports from third countries. Duties on some commodities imported from the 18 associated African states have been eliminated by the Community. Renewal of the Arush Agreement came not long after that of the Yaounde Con¬ vention. This agreement linking the Community and the East African Community (Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania) is scheduled to expire in January 1975. The EC-Iran trade agreement has been renewed for another year. This agree¬ ment, in effect since December 1963, provides customs reductions for certain products. Trade agreements were concluded in February 1970 with Israel and Yugoslovit and in March 1970 with Spain. The United Arab Republic is currently seeking a preferential trade agreement with the Community. Although some meetings were held with representatives of the EC and UAR, nothing definite has been concludet Austria, determined to remain politically neutral, has not sought membership in the EC. However, the Government and the Community are negotiating to eliminate present obstacles to reciprocal trade. The EC's policy of granting preferential trade agreements with nonmember countries violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the most-fa- vored-nation policy. These preferences tend to hamper trade of other suppliers. FIRST DECADE OF THE EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION 8/ EFTA marked its 10th anniversary in January 1970. It was originally con¬ ceived as a flexible, temporary organization—a "second best" alternative to a wider European union. When the Treaty of Rome establishing the EC was signed in 1957, the "outer seven" were left in an uncomfortable position separate from the EC bloc. Led by the United Kingdom, they proposed an all-European free trade area. After this proposal was rejected by the Community countries at the end of 1958, the seven countries met in February 1959 and established a free trade area. Its nature is purely economic, unlike the all-embracing goals of the EC toward political as well as economic integration. Trade between EFTA countries has expanded during the past decade. However in contrast to the EC, products of the agricultural sector do not benefit from the same free trade regime as manufactured goods. This is due to many factors- social as well as economic. Production patterns differ, and certain countries have a policy of maintaining a stipulated level of self-sufficiency in food products while protecting farmers from competitive imports. Denmark, one of EFTA's most efficient agricultural producing countries and an important produce of livestock products in Western Europe, has frequently complained that EFTA s 8/ For somewhat more detail, see "EFTA: Its First 10 Years and Its Alterna¬ tives for the Future," Marshall H. Cohen, January 26, 1970, U.S. Department o Agriculture, pp. 2-6. 22 exclusion of agricultural goods from tariff-free schedules was a form of dis¬ crimination. The EFTA agreement, nevertheless, lists several categories of processed ag¬ ricultural commodities and frozen and canned fish products as manufactured prod¬ ucts; these items are freely traded. For example, quick frozen fish fillets— an important export by Norway and Iceland—enjoy duty-free status under a mini¬ mum export price agreement. This agreement paved the way for Icelandic member¬ ship in EFTA. Agricultural trade between EFTA members has also benefited by special bi¬ lateral trade agreements permitted under the Stockholm Convention. Agricultural products included in these agreements are especially important to Denmark, a signatory to nearly all existing agreements. On a volume basis, the most im¬ portant bilateral agreement is one under which the United Kingdom imports, duty free, about half its pork requirements and one-fifth of its butter requirements from Denmark. These commodities alone account for over half of all Danish ag¬ ricultural exports. Portugal exports wine, duty free, under bilateral agree¬ ments with Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries. One striking dissimilarity between EFTA and the EC is that the EFTA members retain their individual systems of agricultural policies. There is no all-em¬ bracing protectionist apparatus such as the Common Agricultural Policy. There are similar objectives for agriculture in EFTA, however, which apply to most member countries. They are: to attempt to raise agricultural income to the level of income in other sectors, to encourage price stability, and to improve agricultural efficiency by increasing farm size wherever possible. However, the policies employed to achieve agricultural goals are indeed diverse in EFTA due to economic, social, and, more importantly, geographic differences. Programs to encourage structural improvement in agriculture are co mmo n in nearly all of the EFTA countries. There are still too many farmers, and aver¬ age farm size is too small. For EFTA as a whole, the agricultural labor force is about 10 percent of the total labor force. However, the proportion varies from about 3 percent in the United Kingdom to about one-third in Finland and Portugal. Farms in EFTA average only about 30 acres (compared with about 350 acres in the United States). In the United Kingdom, farms are considerably larger, averaging about 75 acres. Farms average about 35 acres in Denmark and 12 acres in both Portugal and Norway. EFTA, containing only about 3 percent of the world's population, or about 100 million, normally purchases 15 to 20 percent of global imports. This im¬ port demand reflects a high rate of industrial expansion in most EFTA countries. The sharp increase in import demand also reflects rising per capita in¬ comes in the EFTA countries. Sweden's per capita income—about $3,100 in 1968— is second only to the United States. Switzerland, at $2,700, ranks among the world's wealthiest countries, with Denmark ($2,400), and Norway ($2,300) not far behind. The United Kingdom approximates EFTA's average per capita income at around $2,000. Austria and Finland are both around $1,500, while Portugal's per capita income was slightly above $500 in 1968. 23 The doubling of intra-EFTA trade in the past decade largely was due to ac¬ celerated industrial production in many of the member countries. Manufactured goods accounted for about 75 percent of total intra-EFTA trade. The United Kingdom and Denmark are of primary importance in the agricul¬ tural trade of EFTA. Since EFTA's inception, the U.K.'s share of EFTA's agri¬ cultural imports has been 60 percent. Denmark, the U.K. s principal EFTA sup¬ plier, accounts for slightly more than 60 percent of the agricultural products exported by EFTA members. Agricultural imports by EFTA countries from the United States amounted to $740 million in 1968, less than 10 percent of total agricultural imports. This relationship has not fluctuated notably since the birth of EFTA. The United States has been an important supplier of feeds, oilseeds and oilcake, tobacco, and processed foods to many of the EFTA countries. The United Kingdom accounts for nearly 60 percent of agricultural imports by EFTA members from the United States. Nearly half of EFTA's agricultural exports to the United States are from Denmark and consist largely of canned pork products. On EFTA's tenth anniversary, its future is clouded by its uncertain re¬ lationship with the EC. Partly as a result, a preliminary treaty for a Nordic Common Market (Nordek) was signed in February 1970 between Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark. Although the formation of Nordek will depend upon the outcome of negotiations between EFTA and the EC, the Nordic governments have agreed in principle upon a wide range of harmonization policies. Thus, whether the present polarity of markets continues in Western Europe will depend upon the outcome of talks between the EC and the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Norway currently scheduled to begin about mid-1970. AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS STABILIZE BUT EXPORTS INCREASE Economic activity in most West European countries recovered in 1968 from the slowdown in the preceding year. Economic expansion continued in 1969 and, as a result, the foreign trade of West European countries resumed its rapid up trend. In 1968, total imports rose by nearly one-tenth over 1967 to a new high of $108 billion. Exports rose even faster—12 percent—to a record of nearly $100 billion. Agricultural Imports Western Europe's agricultural imports totaled $22 billion in 1968, almost equal to the 1967 level. Major agricultural imports continued to be fruit and vegetables; cereal and cereal preparations; meat and meat products; natural fibers; and coffee, tea, cocoa, and spices (table 4). The United Kingdom is the major country importing farm products in Western Europe-normally account¬ ing for about one-fourth of total agricultural imports. The EC countries as a group account for well over half of the agricultural imports by West European countries. Within the EC, West Germany is the leading agricultural importer, followed by Italy and France. 24 The Community's agricultural imports (including intra-EC trade) in 1968 were valued at $13 billion, slightly above 1967 but close to the 1966 level. This leveling-off is the result of the EC's drive toward greater self-sufficiency in agricultural products, which has prompted a system of protective devices en¬ couraging internal production and trade while minimizing imports from non-EC countries. Between 1966 and 1968, the Community's agricultural imports from non-EC members declined by $750 million, while intra-EC imports rose by nearly $1 billion. Except for Portugal and Ireland, agricultural imports by non-EC countries during 1966-68 showed a downtrend. The United Kingdom imported $454 million (8 percent) less agricultural products in 1968 than in 1966. The devaluation of the pound sterling in 1967 and the introduction of a foreign exchange "saving policy" in 1968 no doubt contributed to smaller agricultural imports by the United Kingdom. Because of increased agricultural production, and the austerity measures which followed the devaluation of the peseta in 1967, Spain's imports of agricultural products in 1968 continued to decline and were $33 million (5 percent) less than in 1967. Agricultural imports by West European countries decreased in both 1967 and 1968 but the more recent decline was slight. Comparing imports in 1968 with those in 1966, the decrease for grains and natural fibers was almost equal to the $760 million reduction in* total agricultural imports by the countries in this area. During this period. Western Europe's imports of grains declined by a tenth or $318 million, while imports of natural fibers decreased $399 million, or one-sixth. The decrease in grain imports was largely due to increased do¬ mestic grain production by West European countries. The decrease in natural fiber imports reflects the shift toward greater use of manmade fibers as well as stagnation or even deterioration in the textile industries of many European countries. Western Europe's imports of other leading agricultural products such as fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy products, tobacco, and oilseeds changed little in recent years (table 4). Imports from the United States Western Europe's imports of U.S. farm products peaked at almost $3.1 bil¬ lion in 1966, but declined to $2.6 billion in 1967 and $2.5 billion in 1968 (table 5). A further decline occurred in 1969 since U.S. agricultural exports to Western Europe during 1969 were down by $265 million from the 1968 level. A reduction in Western Europe's import requirements (through output expansion) and increased competition from other suppliers are the primary reason for the decline in imports of U.S. farm products in recent years. Imports of grain from the United States in 1968—valued at $797 million— were only slightly below 1967 but $432 million less than in 1966. Although Western Europe's total imports of wheat and flour have continued at about $800 million, imports from the United States in both 1967 and 1968 were about one- third below the 1965-66 average. Western Europe's imports of feed grains have also declined due to increased production and the use of surplus soft wheat for feed. Imports of feed grains by West European countries in 1968 were $181 mil¬ lion less than in 1967. But imports of U.S. feed grains by West European 25 countries were only $10 million less in 1968. EC imports of U.S. grain in 1968 were higher than in 1967 but fell far short of the 1966 level. Spain and the United Kingdom imported less U.S. grain in both 1967 and 1968. Based on U.S. export data for 1969, over half of the decline in Western Europe's imports of U.S. farm products in 1969 apparently was in grains, particularly feed grains. Fruit and vegetable imports from the United States have declined rapidly in recent years. Western Europe's imports of fruit and vegetables from the United States in 1968 were valued at $162 million—more than one-fifth below 1967 and close to one-third below 1966. The United States supplied only 4 percent of Western Europe's imports of fruit and vegetables in 1968. Increased competition from other suppliers has curtailed imports from the United States. Western Europe's advances in production technology, innovations in marketing, and re¬ strictive trade policies have lessened import requirements of fruit and vege¬ tables. The U.S. share of West European cotton (unprocessed) imports in 1968—at 12 percent—was the lowest in recent years. Imports of U.S. cotton in 1968 were 17 percent less than in 1967 and apparently experienced a further sharp decrease in 1969. U.S. cotton exports to Western Europe during 1969 were about 40 percent of the level in 1968. Western Europe continues to be a good market for our tobacco and oilseeds, mostly soybeans. In 1968, the United States supplied nearly half of the tobacco imports and more than half of the oilseed imports. More than one-fourth of protein cake and meal imports were from the United States. Exports of these commodities by the United States to Western Europe during 1969 showed little change from the preceding year. Agricultural Exports Western Europe is becoming an increasingly important exporter of agricul¬ tural products. These items account for a tenth of total exports. In 1968, ag¬ ricultural exports amounted to $10.4 billion—almost 6 percent over 1967. Major agricultural exports are fruit and vegetables, meat and meat preparations, cereals and cereal preparations, and dairy products and eggs (table 6). France and the Netherlands are Western Europe's leading agricultural exporters, fol¬ lowed by Denmark and Italy. Much of the increase in Western Europe's exports of agricultural products is attributable to larger exports of livestock and animal products and grains. Exports of live animals, meat and meat preparations, and dairy products and eggs by Western Europe amounted to $3.5 billion in 1968, 6 percent over 1967. These products accounted for one-third of total agricultural exports. Exports of grains amounted to $1.4 billion in 1968, compared with $1.2 billion in 1967. Wheat accounts for about half of the grain exports. The Community is the lead¬ ing grain exporter in Western Europe with export sales in 1968 amounting to $1.1 billion, 13 percent larger than in 1967. France, the leading grain exporter, accounted for most of the increase in grain exports. Slightly more than one- half of the Community's grain export trade was with other members in 1968. 26 OUTLOOK Economic Situation Economic expansion is expected to remain at a high level in Western Europe throughout 1970. Domestic demand will continue to expand, but growth in exports may decline. Rising prices and costs must be contained in a number of countries to avoid strong inflationary pressures. The European Community will continue to spearhead Western Europe's economic expansion. West Germany's economy is expected to perform well in 1970 with re¬ valuation of the deutsche mark exerting a pulling force on agricultural imports. Italy may lead EC members in terms of real growth—possible over 7 percent—de¬ pending upon political stability. France will continue to stabilize its econ¬ omy in readiness for more rapid economic growth. The Netherlands will probably continue to ride the crest of an economic boom which began in 1968, but there is considerable danger of an inflationary outbreak. Belgium should enjoy ex¬ cellent economic conditions in 1970 with a real growth rate of 5 percent. The United Kingdom showed significant improvement in its balance of pay¬ ments in 1969 and ended the year with a trade surplus. Some further improve¬ ment is expected this year as exports continue to outpace imports. Maintaining this improvement will require continued use of financial and economic restric¬ tions within the United Kingdom which will continue to keep inhibiting real economic growth. Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Austria should experience solid economic gains throughout 1970. Spain, possibly in the midst of a new expansionary phase, will need to avoid excessive demand pressures. Portugal should continue to improve from an economic slowdown which began in 1966. Greece's economic growth is expected to continue, but at a slightly lower rate than in 1969. Austria expects a continuation of vigorous economic growth in 1970. Scandinavia should experience generally good economic conditions in 1970. In both Denmark and Sweden, economic activity has been rising strongly since late 1968. However, some decline in economic activity is expected in Sweden in late 1970. Crop Production and Trade Prospects for 1970 crop production and trade in Western Europe are uncer¬ tain at this time. This is due to the limited data available on the status of fall-sown crops, the almost complete lack of information on farmers' intended spring plantings, and the year-to-year fluctuation in weather conditions. Thus, observations can only be of a general nature. One development which may affect the mix of grain production in Western Europe in 1970 is an apparent tendency of farmers to switch from soft wheat to feed grain production. In the EC, wheat area declined 75,000 hectares from 1968 to 1969 while the com and barley area increased by 250,000 hectares (oat area continued its long-term decline). In addition, the EC is encouraging the 27 production of durum wheat which has a lower yield than soft wheat. Greece, Spain, and Austria are also encouraging substitution of barley and com for wheat. On the other hand, the fall seeding of wheat in the United Kingdom was at a record level and, combined with spring wheat plantings, may result in a record wheat crop in 1970. Denmark's winter seeding of wheat also increased. Imports of durum and hard wheats by Western Europe in 1970 are expected to remain about equal to those in recent years. Declines in per capita con¬ sumption of wheat are just about offset by population growth. However, some increases are being achieved in indigenous durum and hard wheat production. U.S. wheat exports to Western Europe currently appear to be benefiting from an improved price relationship with competing wheat and from reduced competitive supplies of hard wheat. Prospects for Western Europe's imports of feed grains in 1970 are not bright for the United States. Feed grain production in Western Europe was a record in 1969 and large quantities of soft wheat are being diverted into feed use. In addition, the use of low-cost grain substitutes (com gluten, brewers grains, manioc) is displacing feed grains. Finally, U.S. exports of feed grains—primarily corn—to Western Europe may face increased competition from other suppliers in 1970. The outlook for Western Europe's imports of oilseeds and oil cake and meal appears quite favorable for suppliers. This is particularly true for U.S. ex¬ ports of soybeans and soybean cake and meal. Prospects for the United States look particularly good in Italy, Spain, Denmark, and Austria. Domestic production of oilseeds in Western Europe accounts for only a small part of total consumption and no significant change is anticipated in 1970. Some expansion in livestock and poultry production will increase the demand for protein feed. However, the EC may channel larger amounts of nonfat dry milk into feed use. This would tend to dampen imports of protein feed. Cotton requirements by Western Europe in 1970 will likely remain at about last year's level. Although Italy and Finland are expected to show an increased import demand, the use of cotton will continue to be restricted by competition with manmade fibers. U.S. exports of cotton to Western Europe declined sharply in 1969 but current reports indicate a probable modest improvement in 1970. The EC's recent agreement on a CAP for raw tobacco could lead to increased production of tobacco in several member countries of the EC and in associate members—Greece and Turkey. Taxing policies to be carried out under the tobacco CAP may discriminate against U.S. quality leaf. However, it is too early to assess the full implications of the tobacco CAP. Livestock-Poultry Production and Trade Production of beef and veal in Western Europe may expand moderately in 1970. Output this year is likely to increase in the United Kingdom, West Ger¬ many, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, and Greece. The EC's cow slaughter pro¬ gram during the first quarter of 1970 will boost beef production in that area Cattle numbers in the United Kingdom have recovered sufficiently to more than 28 wipe out losses caused by the foot-and-mouth epidemic in 1967-68. Countries which likely had reduced cattle numbers at the beginning of 1970 compared with a year earlier included France, Denmark, and Norway. Reduced forage supplies in Denmark may result in a further decline in cattle numbers in 1970. Western Europe this year will remain a major importer of beef. There should be a good foreign market for U.S. variety meats and specialty products as Western Europe’s output of meat continues to lag behind consumption. U.S. exports of hides and skins, as well as tallow, to the area may Increase. Pork production should increase in Western Europe this year from a cyclical downturn in 1969-- Major increases in pork output are expected in Austria, Bel¬ gium, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, and Italy. Lesser increases are likely for West Germany, Spain, Greece, Norway, and Finland. Pork production in the United Kingdom may decline with Denmark continuing as the major outside supplier. Poultry production continues to expand in Western Europe. Much of the ex¬ pansion is confined to broiler production, with egg output tending to stabilize. The entry of the U.S.S.R. (and possibly Eastern Europe) into the West European market as a buyer of poultry meat will give added strength to broiler output in 1970. Broiler production is expected to show a strong increase in the Neth¬ erlands and the United Kingdom. Production in Denmark is forecast to be 69,000 tons, about the same as in 1969. Reduced retail prices in Denmark, resulting largely from a sharp decline in the regulated wholesale price for poultry meat, may increase domestic consumption by 15-20 percent and curtail exportable pro¬ duction. U.S. poultry exports to Western Europe will continue to face the EC's var¬ iable levy system in 1970 as well as keen competition from the Continent. In addition, Denmark and the Netherlands will continue to compete with the United States in other global markets. Milk production in Western Europe increased only slightly in 1969. There is a good possibility that 1970 production may stabilize around last year's level. The dairy programs being carried out in the EC will curtail milk pro¬ duction to some degree. Dairy cow numbers are down about 3 percent in Austria and the United Kingdom. Denmark and Sweden are experiencing a decrease in cow numbers. Some decline in cow numbers is also expected for France. Higher yields as well as increased cow numbers in some countries (e.g., the Nether¬ lands) will at least partly offset the effects of reduced numbers elsewhere. 29 Table 2.—Western Europe: Production and area ot Grains Country and year . Production Area : : : Feed grains Rice Total Wheat Rye Peed -grains ; ; : Barley: Oats : Com :Total 2/ grains Barley: Oats : Corn :Total 2/ 1,000 tons 1,000 hectares Belgium-Luxerabourg: 1960-64 . 144 478 455 2 976 — 1,962 1966 . 81 523 324 3 893 — 1,663 1967 . 100 669 406 3 1,138 — 2,115 1968 . ,.: 880 92 622 348 3 1,031 — 2,003 1969 . ,797 76 609 317 4 993 “““ 1,866 France: 1960-64 . 373 6,261 2,628 2,624 11,873 121 24,113 1966 . 357 7,421 2,578 4,331 14,980 100 26,734 1967 . 344 9,874 2,821 4,139 17,595 115 32,342 1968 . 327 9,139 2,528 5,379 17,835 83 33,230 1969 . 319 9,347 2,349 5,639 18,105 104 33,063 West Germany: 1960-64 . 3,225 3,433 2,211 39 7,076 _ 15,032 1966 . 2,696 3,869 2,340 127 7,595 — 14,824 1967 . 3,162 4,734 2,718 197 9,045 — 18,026 1968 . 3,189 4,974 2,893 287 9,681 — 19,068 1969 . 2,889 5,130 2,976 400 10,041 18,930 Italy: 1960-64 . 89 266 525 3,732 4,536 635 13,521 1966 . 9,400 83 253 477 3,510 4,262 621 14,366 1967 . 82 295 556 3,860 4,731 756 15,165 1968 . 75 258 390 3,988 4,655 639 14,959 1969 . 71 292 491 4,439 5,242 852 15,705 Netherlands: 1960-64 . 354 374 425 _ 946 _ 1,883 1966 . 190 416 357 — 834 — 1,621 1967 . 239 447 365 — 862 — 1,840 1968 . 239 389 318 — 735 — 1,653 1969 . 197 405 336 — 762 1,658 Total EC: 1960-64 . 4,185 10,812 6,244 6,397 25,407 756 56,511 1966 . 3,407 12,482 6,076 7,971 28,564 721 59,208 1967 . 3,927 16,019 6,866 8,199 33,371 871 69,488 1968 .. 3,922 15,382 6,477 9,657 33,937 722 70,913 1969 . 3,552 15,783 6,469 10,482 35,143 956 71,222 Austria: 1960-64 . 401 576 336 202 1,167 _ 2,280 1966 . 363 706 325 275 1,389 — 2,649 1967 . 377 772 336 316 1,514 — 2,936 1968 . 413 770 324 399 1,589 — 3,047 1969 . 440 935 288 698 2,017 3,407 Denmark: 1960-64 . 487 418 3,241 693 _ 4,631 — 5,536 1966 . .,.: 400 136 4,159 864 — 5,424 — 5,960 1967 . 118 4,382 904 — 5,614 — 6,153 1968 . 131 5,047 863 — 6,189 — 6,784 1969 . ...: 429 126 5,255 765 — 6,220 6,775 Finland: 1960-64 . 422 140 387 846 _ 1,281 — 1,843 1966 . 119 597 881 — 1,530 — 2,018 1967 . 163 681 940 — 1,681 — 2,351 1968 . ...: 716 134 774 1,064 — 1,889 — 2,739 1969 . 140 842 1,146 2,049 2,704 226 49 131 140 1 285 230 33 173 105 1 292 214 31 166 111 1 294 218 29 168 101 1 286 212 24 171 98 1 288 4,233 251 2,284 1,321 902 4,708 3,992 198 2,642 1,094 961 4,972 3,929 175. 2,818 1,040 1,013 5,172 4,090 163 2,781 949 1,022 5,032 4,046 158 2,847 869 1,178 5,160 1,388 1,176 1,107 762 12 2,363 1,389 1,021 1,288 777 31 2,529 1,414 975 1,308 808 42 2,583 1,464 962 1,330 821 58 2,659 1,494 873 1,387 860 81 2,784 4,451 59 209 406 1,140 1,761 4,274 46 179 359 987 1,531 4,012 46 181 357 1,017 1,561 4,275 42 175 323 967 1,471 4,218 38 175 312 979 1,471 132 118 92 116 _ 252 148 74 120 99 — 240 154 73 107 88 — 209 153 75 107 76 — 192 155 62 99 82 — 187 10,430 1,653 3,823 2,745 2,055 9,369 10,033 1,372 4,402 2,434 1,980 9,564 9,723 1,300 4,580 2,404 2,073 9,819 10,200 1,271 4,561 2,270 2,048 9,640 10,125 1,155 4,679 2,221 2,239 9,890 276 183 209 152 53 437 314 144 230 126 55 443 316 139 232 124 60 448 306 142 238 119 74 464 287 147 274 102 117 524 121 145 855 191 - 1,267 94 46 1,112 234 - 1,465 91 37 1,170 243 - 1,510 96 39 1,254 218 - 1,550 98 39 1,304 204 - 1,566 242 93 227 467 - 723 208 93 321 479 - 830 252 96 346 455 - 832 241 72 359 489 - 879 227 74 402 524 - 956 See footnotes at end of table. 32 selected crops, average 1960-64, animal 1966-69 1/ Grains—Cont. Other crops Area—ConCinued Production Area Rice Total grains Potatoes Sugar- beets Cotton Tobacco Olive oil Fruit 3/ Potatoes Sugar- beets Cotton Tobacco Apples : Pears : Citrus 1,000 hectares 1,000 tons - - - - 1,000 hectares - - - - 560 1,870 2,607 555 1,543 2,558 - 539 2,034 3,615 533 1,625 4,108 524 1,528 4,220 31 9,223 13,915 14 1 ,803 28 9,190 10,604 12, ,889 27 9,303 10,391 12, ,769 25 9,310 10,033 17, ,557 23 9,387 8,811 17, ,525 - 4,927 23,515 11,292 4,939 18,839 12,508 4,972 21,294 13,689 5,085 19,196 13,633 5,151 15,985 12,563 121 6,392 3,904 7, ,543 132 5,983 3,860 11, ,259 144 5,763 4,010 13, ,507 156 5,944 3,960 11, ,457 173 5,900 3,845 10, ,010 502 3,766 3,606 462 4,124 3,645 - 436 4,840 5,074 420 5,045 5,128 404 4,607 5,000 152 21,604 46,970 39, ,851 160 21,129 38,970 42, ,859 171 21,013 42,569 48, ,654 181 21,292 39,859 51, ,883 196 21,366 34,776 49, ,318 896 3,471 1,799 901 3,007 2,308 903 3,049 2,006 - 912 3,473 1,936 - 958 2,941 2,011 — 1,533 1,432 2,164 — 1,605 972 2,159 — 1,638 857 2,210 — 1,685 863 2,330 — 1,703 592 1,960 — 1,058 1,159 424 — 1,131 1,066 457 — 1,180 881 432 — 1,192 908 386 — 1,257 977 278 — 3 — 160 — 2 — 215 — 2 — 300 — 2 — 186 2 -— 312 _ 41 1 854 — 47 1 1,378 — 48 1 1,550 — 52 1 1,843 48 1 1,785 _ 10 _ 1,623 — 9 — 1,473 — 9 — 2,274 — 7 — 1,570 8 — 2,489 5 59 385 2,180 3 73 320 2,289 3 87 537 1,932 2 74 385 1,923 2 76 390 1,769 _ _ ... 335 — — — 345 — — — 488 — — — 340 _ 500 5 113 386 5,152 3 131 321 5,700 3 146 538 6,544 2 135 386 5,862 2 134 391 6,855 _ 1 _ 279 — 1 — 227 — 1 — 246 — 1 — 217 1 230 — _ _ 5/84 — — — 5/77 — — — 5/85 — — — 5/84 “ — 5/83 — — — — — — — _ — — — — — — — _ 59 — 75 61 31 — 63 67 51 — 65 78 84 — 58 90 61 — 53 90 302 — 825 387 331 — 536 295 362 — 514 314 446 — 469 404 404 — 424 399 477 — 951 294 351 — 732 292 405 — 707 294 611 — 659 290 369 — 589 295 866 1,475 375 232 1,590 1,973 347 298 1,317 2,095 339 345 1,369 2,465 319 306 1,440 2,405 320 300 120 — 124 78 116 — 131 92 72 — 138 100 180 — 147 104 95 — 145 103 1,824 1,475 2,350 1,052 2,419 1,973 1,809 1,044 2,207 2,095 1,753 1,131 2,690 2,465 1,652 1,194 2,369 2,405 1,531 1,187 69 — 168 47 52 — 137 47 54 — 134 42 56 — 130 44 52 — 113 46 5/8 — 69 58 5/7 — 40 58 5/8 — 38 53 5/9 — 35 52 5/8 — 33 52 _ __ 77 18 — — 68 17 — — 64 18 — — 64 15 — — 67 14 19 11 9 7 6 19 11 9 7 6 1 1 1 1 1 22 21 20 20 20 4 3 4 4 3 48 54 54 52 47 75 79 79 77 71 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ —Continued 33 Table 2,_Western Europe: Production and area of selected Grains Country and year Wheat Production Rye Feed grains Rice Total Wheat Rye : : • Barley: Oats : Corn :Total 7J grains Area Peed grains Barley: Oats : Com :Total 2/ 1,000 hectares Greece: 19AO-64.. 24 248 150 284 693 80 2,519 3,194 3,301 2,602 2,933 1,089 1,018 937 1,027 23 184 126 187 509 591 640 598 553 1 966 .. .: 1,962 15 632 174 320 1,131 86 132 1 Q67. 14 839 165 339 1,348 91 1968. 9 487 105 375 970 108 144 1969 . 8 529 119 421 1,071 103 1,010 Ireland: 1960-64 . 2 502 366 868 ___ 1,221 1,069 1,170 1,331 1,306 119 53 76 90 81 1 160 142 — 302 285 279 272 274 1966 . .: 168 1 610 290 — 900 — 1967 . .: 255 1 629 285 — 914 — 4/ 1968 . . 368 1 689 273 — 962 — 1969 . . : 325 1 750 230 — 980 — Norway: 1960-64 . . ! 22 3 423 139 566 _ 591 504 624 820 582 9 1 165 55 — 221 230 1 qf,fi . . : 4 1 405 92 — 499 — 225 227 229 1967 . . : 11 2 486 123 — 611 — 3 1968 . . 16 4 621 176 — 800 — 5 46 1Q69 . . : 7 5 454 114 — 570 — Portugal: 1960-64 . 162 56 79 562 699 170 1,557 1,290 710 523 586 614 540 302 123 279 489 473 892 803 770 798 764 1966 . . 312 145 49 63 565 679 154 1967. 175 73 111 577 763 146 1,721 1,868 1,423 438 417 1968 . ..: 747 199 94 129 548 773 149 1969 . ..: 382 164 57 94 550 703 174 Spain: 1960-64 . .4,120 393 1,893 459 1,075 3,456 397 8,366 4,148 4,185 4,269 3,950 3,744 465 384 1,431 545 461 2,452 2,327 2,547 3,135 3,247 1966 . 353 2,006 442 1,154 3,655 375 9,259 484 523 57“" 1967 . 336 2,576 492 1,195 4, 328 366 10,680 11,947 1968 .. 364 3,708 522 1,440 5,743 363 1969 . 348 3,855 533 1,577 6,048 404 11,491 Sweden: • 1960-64.: 866 154 1,050 1,272 _ 2,812 — 3,832 276 191 254 245 265 65 39 378 502 — 1,073 1,145 1,080 1,103 1,100 ]q66 tTt .: 576 85 1,408 1,154 — 2,828 — 3,489 568 1967.: 1,130 198 1,564 1,396 — 3,219 — 4,547 68 70 1968.: 1,059 210 1,776 1,523 — 3,554 — 4,823 1969 .: 919 179 1,530 1,096 — 2,796 — 3,894 Switzerland: : 1960-64...: 343 52 99 43 11 191 586 104 102 99 99 97 15 13 30 13 2 58 56 55 53 1966 .: 328 46 107 33 19 193 — 567 1967 .: 401 63 117 32 22 210 — 674 16 30 8 4 1968.: 383 64 111 30 24 204 — 651 669 7 67 1969 .: 368 54 135 34 40 247 — United Kingdom: : 1960-64 . : 3,293 20 5,891 1,705 7,752 11,065 835 906 933 978 833 8 1,694 619 — 2,366 2,878 2,885 1966 .: 3^ 475 11 8,723 1,120 — 9,937 — 13,423 4 2,439 410 1967 .: 3,902 12 9,214 1,386 — 10,719 — 14,633 2)828 2,873 1968 .: 3,469 11 8,270 1,225 — 9,648 — 13,128 1969 .: 3,353 9 8,788 1,350 — 10,351 — 13,713 3 Total W. Europe: : 1960-64 1966 1967 .: 39,027 : 39,883 : 47,126 5,955 4,682 5,386 25,178 31,884 37,352 12,330 11,514 13,036 8,533 10,304 10,648 49,531 56,729 64,292 1,403 1,336 1,474 95,916 102,630 118,278 18,359 17,629 17,539 17,851 17,310 2,954 2,392 2,304 9,279 11,291 11,712 5,836 5,059 5,071 3,247 3,136 3,189 19,669 20,617 21,090 21,547 22,043 1968 1969 •••••••••••••••' :47,591 :45,261 5,462 5,026 37,729 38,913 12,711 12,238 12,443 13,768 66,258 68,195 1,342 1,637 120,653 120,119 2,233 2,063 12,680 4,830 3,449 1/ Preliminary. J, catalor apSes^pears include chose for dessert and cooking only; fruit totals exclude Portugal. 4/ Less than 500. 5/ Commercial crop. 34 crops, average 1960-64, annual 1966-69 1/—Continued Grains—Cont. Other crops Area— -Continued Production Area Rice Total grains Potatoes Sugar- beets Cotton Tobacco Olive oil Fruit 3/ Potatoes Sugar- beets Cotton Tobacco Apples : Pears Citrus 1,000 hectares - 1,000 tons - - — 1,000 hectares - — 20 1,641 527 223 82 99 144 130 41 329 44 7 191 ] 22 17 1,639 579 831 88 98 180 166 55 360 48 16 140 1 ?Q 18 1,606 721 899 96 114 194 178 69 304 51 16 137 126 21 1,656 620 663 73 88 154 192 91 424 47 18 138 10ft 20 1,591 671 1,150 107 81 155 194 83 568 48 23 152 108 — 422 1,935 924 __ _ _ 85 32 — 339 1,678 704 — — — — — — 68 22 — 356 1,748 956 — — — — — _ 64 26 — 362 1,624 1,093 — — — — — — 59 26 355 1,485 922 — — — — — 55 25 — — — 231 1,082 _ __ _ _ 62 9 52 — 233 1,090 — — — — 41 9 _ 45 — 229 807 — — — — 39 5 _ 40 — 233 912 — — — — 52 10 _ 35 234 773 ___ — — 64 14 — 32 — — — 37 1,941 1,056 _ _ 79 n.a. n.a. n.a. 104 35 1,643 923 — — — 38 n.a. n.a. n.a. 101 32 1,627 1,296 — — — 81 n.a. n.a. n.a. 117 33 1,684 1,083 — — — 53 n.a. n.a. n.a. 105 37 1,558 1,079 — 62 n.a. n.a. n.a. 95 — — — 63 7,128 4,604 3,532 92 31 378 290 132 1,799 399 146 275 19 59 6,955 4,423 4,042 90 21 437 392 178 2,468 375 148 234 12 60 7,2 76 4,508 4,282 65 31 273 308 119 2,211 380 162 144 17 63 7,519 4,431 4,338 77 21 444 428 218 1,839 375 170 136 14 66 7,390 4,717 5,079 67 25 370 397 192 2,222 386 194 138 14 — 1,414 1,636 1,832 _ __ 123 14 93 46 — 1,375 1,355 1,434 — — — 110 11 _ 55 41 1,395 1,399 1,798 — — — 131 16 _ 55 41 1,416 1,424 1,988 — — — 125 17 _ 55 41 1,435 849 1,573 — — 100 10 — 49 40 — — — 177 1,222 256 _ 2 194 38 49 6 1 — 171 1,049 366 — 2 — 89 18 _ 39 8 1 169 1,310 423 — 2 — 104 16 _ 38 9 1 — 168 1,270 453 — 2 — 91 28 _ >-37 9 1 179 1,210 392 2 — 126 19 — 34 9 — 1 — 3,209 6,829 6,083 _ _ ___ 518 62 309 174 — 3,788 6,580 6,599 — — — 442 43 _ 271 180 3,822 7,201 6,884 — — — 285 24 _ 287 185 _ 3,810 6,858 7,118 — — — 326 77 _ 280 188 3,709 6,160 6,650 -— -- — 397 60 — 249 185 — — 272 41,254 71,923 57,088 179 246 987 6,832 2,197 3,603 3,799 1,586 487 217 271 40,909 61,692 61,759 181 253 976 7,244 2,792 4,801 3,056 1,581 385 221 281 41,214 66,346 68,544 164 294 1,086 7,920 2,518 4,610 3,021 1,683 290 223 298 41,929 63,325 72,188 152 247 1,037 7,377 3,196 4,728 2,874 1,757 281 200 319 41,735 56,230 69,333 176 243 978 8,446 2,807 5,195 2,692 1>,775 296 194 n.a. ■ Not available. 35 Country and year Table 3.—Western Europe: Production of principal livestock products, average 1960-64, annual 1966-69 1/ Beef and veal : Total : Poultry : lamb, and : Pork : red : meat : Cow's milk : : goatmeat : 2/ : meat 3/ : 4/ Eggs 1,000 tons Belgium-Luxembourg: 1960-64 . 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 221 2 231 2 243 3 247 3 258 7 246 292 319 350 347 495 545 584 618 629 77 99 101 91 88 4,120 173 4,211 172 4,272 180 4,421 202 4,210 188 France: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 .. 1968 .. 1969 .. 1,439 108 1,489 117 1,607 118 1,668 116 1,585 110 953 2,752 372 24,338 527 1,186 3,095 488 28,016 557 1,240 3,282 512 29,355 592 1,215 3,333 544 30,385 620 1,106 3,156 560 30,076 638 West Germany: 1960-64 ... 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 1,138 14 1,194 13 1,194 12 1,240 10 1,290 11 Italy: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 .. 1968 .. 1969 .. 621 37 673 41 712 41 784 42 800 43 Netherlands: 1960-64 .. 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 272 281 275 285 287 8 9 9 8 10 2,051 3,242 117 20,190 530 2,232 3,476 176 21,357 735 2,315 3,555 204 21,717 787 2,541 3,822 210 22,121 804 2,470 3,800 230 22,110 826 414 1,161 234 9,413 396 427 1,232 388 10,159 505 458 1,302 375 9,800 517 539 1,456 410 9,300 502 525 1,459 425 9,350 478 426 718 97 7,005 334 521 817 188 7,235 245 529 818 213 7,535 216 593 892 227 7,719 232 593 895 260 7,889 265 Total EC: 1960-64 1966 ... 1967 ... 1968 .. 1969 .. Austria: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 .. 1968 .. 1969 .. 3,691 169 3,868 182 4,031 183 4,224 179 4,220 181 137 1 148 1 157 1 157 1 154 1 4,090 8,368 897 65,066 4,658 9,165 1,339 70,978 4,861 9,541 1,405 72,679 5,238 10,121 1,482 73,946 5,041 9,939 1,563 73,635 240 384 26 2,985 244 395 39 3,216 251 411 40 3,360 261 421 42 3,357 270 427 46 3,320 1,960 2,214 2,292 2,360 2,395 80 78 80 82 83 Denmark: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 .. 1968 .. 1969 .. 162 1 192 2 216 3 211 3 190 2 633 798 64 728 925 68 734 955 66 714 930 65 670 864 69 5,319 117 5,309 90 5,193 89 5,127 86 4,870 89 Finland: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 .. 1968 .. 1969 .. 84 1 85 1 91 1 88 1 102 1 63 153 73 165 91 188 86 180 89 197 3,668 45 3,689 54 3,456 57 3,491 54 3,576 56 —Continue 36 Table 3.—Western Europe: Production of principal livestock products, average 1960-64, annual 1966-69 1/—Continued : Beef : Mutton, : : Total : Poultry Country and year : and : lamb, and : Pork : red : meat : Cow's milk : veal : goatmeat : 2/ : meat 3/ : 4/ 1,000 tons Greece: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 1968 .. 1969 .. Ireland: 1960-64 1966 ... 1967 ... 1968 ... 1969 ... Norway: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 .. 1968 .. 1969 .. Portugal: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 ... 1968 ... 1969 ... Spain: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 .. 1968 .. 1969 .. Sweden: 1960-64 1966 .. 1967 .. 1968 .. 1969 .. Switzerland: 1960-64 . 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . United Kingdom: 1960-64 . 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 40 77 37 156 22 385 67 68 85 41 196 41 529 87 72 86 42 202 46 564 93 75 86 43 206 51 562 104 77 86 44 207 57 562 105 126 44 111 280 19 2,842 45 135 48 126 309 25 3,232 46 223 45 109 382 25 3,471 43 193 44 123 364 27 3,671 41 198 41 140 383 28 3,675 40 54 15 55 127 3 1,648 32 57 17 57 134 4 1,732 37 54 18 58 133 4 1,762 38 53 18 62 136 5 1,832 37 57 17 67 143 5 1,807 39 45 22 91 161 30 354 32 64 22 90 177 43 368 34 52 21 72 147 44 397 34 61 25 98 186 46 420 35 80 27 105 213 50 450 40 180 119 286 604 95 2,255 248 198 133 376 724 212 2,726 311 215 134 423 788 257 3,014 319 241 131 425 812 256 3,196 328 254 129 437 835 285 3,505 342 149 2 212 371 18 3,905 95 173 2 221 404 22 3,545 93 167 2 227 402 25 3,320 92 157 3 237 402 30 3,310 99 168 4 226 403 33 3,230 98 108 3 139 251 7 3,079 29 112 3 158 276 14 3,153 36 119 3 167 292 14 3,274 37 127 3 189 321 15 3,322 37 122 3 193 320 16 3,182 37 893 250 762 1,905 350 5/11,100 815 867 270 895 2,032 442 5/11,296 860 921 262 823 2,006 482 5/11,696 887 904 244 859 2,007 526 5/12,009 901 870 207 923 2,000 550 5/12,169 910 Total W. Europe: : 1960-64 . 5,669 !966 . 5,967 19 67 . 6,318 !568 . 6,491 19 & 9 . 6,492 704 6,719 13,558 766 7,667 14,902 759 7,858 15,447 738 8,335 16,086 699 8,205 15,929 1,533 102,606 3,565 2,251 109,773 3,940 2,410 112,186 4,061 2,548 114,243 4,164 2,705 113,981 4,234 — Preliminary. 2/ Excludes commercial lard. 3 / Includes horsemeat. 4/ On ready-to-cook basis. 5/ Milk for commercial use only. ~ 37 Table 4.—Western Europe: Agricultural Imports by country • ITC number Europe an Economic Community Commodity and year ajor ead- ngs Sub ead- ings 1/ elgium- „uxem- >ourg Nether¬ lands West : Germany : France : Italy : Total Greece Live animals 1966 1967 1968 00 19.0 36.6 45.4 10.1 15.0 18.3 113.8 53.1 66.1 54.1 67.7 92.9 204.1 270.7 284.1 401.1 443.1 506.8 12.1 10.3 16.2 Meat and meat preparations 1966 1967 1968 01 57.3 67.0 67.4 54.5 58.9 69.2 371.7 359.2 433.7 236.0 231.1 272.4 345.8 403.5 338.3 1,065.3 1,119.7 1,181.0 55.4 61.5 61.0 Dairy products and eggs 1966 1967 1968 02 73.2 78.0 83.1 38.6 47.2 60.8 240.5 236.8 247.5 50.7 49.2 50.5 158.7 166.6 205.6 556.7 577.8 647.5 21.0 21.6 22.6 Fish and fish preparations 1966 1967 1968 03 47.8 48.7 50.3 24.8 27.8 32.2 94.1 89.5 97.4 126.6 129.3 150.2 104.5 110.6 117.3 397.8 405.9 447.4 13.0 11.9 13.4 Cereals and cereal preparations 1966 1967 1968 04 218.9 242.6 247.9 253.6 271.0 286.6 585.8 570.8 510.7 136.0 131.4 134.5 553.3 495.2 502.9 1.747.6 1,711.0 1.682.6 29.1 24.4 15.4 (Wheat and flour) 1966 1967 1968 041, 046 46.4 43.0 55.4 43.8 53.2 87.4 128.9 151.4 150.8 58.7 52.3 38.2 96.5 74.4 111.1 374.3 374.3 442.9 1.4 1.0 0.5 (Rice) 1966 1967 1968 042 5.5 6.2 7.5 11.7 10.6 12.9 26.8 21.0 26.6 17.9 20.9 29.6 1.1 0.6 1.5 63.0 59.3 78.1 1.0 2.1 1.5 (Feed grains) 1966 1967 1968 043 044 045 151.4 175.8 163.2 183.1 191.2 166.9 382.4 353.5 286.8 41.6 39.2 39.0 443.3 408.0 375.1 1,201.8 1,167.7 1,031.0 23.1 18.0 8.8 Fruit and vegetables 1966 1967 1968 05 158.5 161.2 153.9 181.7 191.6 195.1 1,162.6 1,160.5 1,188.1 569.1 590.6 541.4 126.6 129.9 142.7 2,198.5 2,233.8 2,221.2 4.6 8.7 8.8 Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey 1966 1967 1968 06 14.9 14.9 17.0 25.6 30.4 34.2 64.4 58.9 63.0 87.3 79.1 72.4 16.0 13.3 10.5 208. 196. 197. 2 6 1 5.1 5.5 5.2 Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, etc. 1966 1967 1968 07 85.3 99.0 102.8 161.6 204.8 231.8 418.2 410.0 460.0 249.2 245.5 287.6 126.4 145.9 148.2 1,040. 1,105. 1,230. 7 2 4 13.3 14.9 15.8 Animal feed 1966 1967 1968 08 87.6 90.2 96.6 153.6 164.2 186.7 325.1 289.6 288.0 141.9 150.3 149.9 79.0 84.8 103.5 787. 779. 824. 2 1 7 8.9 8.6 7.1 (Oilseed cake and meal) 1966 1967 1968 081. 37.2 36.4 37.2 59.9 59.4 61.0 226.3 192.8 184.6 110.5 116.4 116.1 17.3 24.0 23.8 451. 429. 422. 2 0 7 2.4 2.9 2.6 (Meatmeal and fishmeal) 1966 1967 1968 081. 13.6 : 12.3 : 14.1 23.6 21.1 24.5 64.8 66.2 67.7 17.3 16.1 15.5 21.9 19.4 19.4 141. 135. 141. 2 1 2 3.3 2.7 1.3 See footnotes at end of table. 38 European Economic Community, and total Western Europe, 1966-68 United Kingdom Norway Sweden Denmark Austria Switzer¬ land Portugal Ireland Spain Finland Total Western Europe 138.A 0.1 3.0 1.4 16.1 9.6 0.6 22.1 8.9 0.2 613.6 1A0.1 0.2 1.8 0.8 6.4 5.0 1.2 29.8 9.1 0.4 648.2 135.5 0.3 2.4 1.1 2.9 4.0 1.1 29.8 12.8 0.3 713.2 1,048.3 6.3 28.6 1.6 21.2 77.9 7.9 0.5 90.5 10.1 2,413.6 1,027.4 5.6 33.4 2.0 18.2 76.3 21.5 0.4 78.2 1.5 2^445.7 957.3 7.8 40.0 2.2 15.1 66.1 13.3 0.5 80.5 1.2 2^426.0 546.2 0.7 8.6 5.0 14.3 37.1 2.0 0.4 20.4 0.1 1,212.5 569.9 0.6 9.3 4.7 12.5 35.6 1.9 0.7 21.7 0.1 1,256.4 479.7 1.2 8.9 5.7 12.0 34.6 1.2 0.7 24.8 0.1 1,239.0 173.6 8.6 51.0 31.8 13.0 22.2 15.4 3.5 15.7 9.1 754.7 186.3 7.8 50.6 28.0 13.8 23.1 31.2 3.3 19.0 7.9 788.8 184.7 6.5 54.0 26.5 14.0 24.4 16.2 3.5 19.5 8.0 818.1 620.9 49.6 32.5 64.6 69.2 104.3 58.5 46.0 230.0 11.5 3,063.8 612. / 55.5 29.9 59.0 43.4 106.9 44.0 35.2 217.6 14.7 2^954.3 556.7 50.0 30.2 41.5 37.0 85.8 51.8 36.7 148.1 10.4 2,746.2 323.8 25.3 6.5 2.2 7.9 33.5 29.2 22.1 5.6 5.5 837.3 298.5 25.9 3.3 3.2 1.9 31.6 22.6 15.3 0.5 4.6 782.7 290.9 20.2 4.5 1.1 1.4 23.7 15.6 17.2 0.4 3.5 821.9 17.5 1.1 2.3 1.3 6.0 6.3 5.2 0.4 _ 1.8 105.9 18.9 1.1 2.7 1.3 6.5 5.6 3.3 0.5 _ 2.1 103.4 23.9 1.1 2.9 1.4 7.0 5.0 6.0 0.5 0.8 2.2 130.4 262.6 18.9 9.1 49.0 51.6 50.9 22.9 19.9 221.5 3.3 1,934.6 276.2 23.4 7.0 46.3 30.8 53.6 16.9 15.9 212.7 6.7 1,875.2 225.5 23.1 5.2 29.4 23.6 42.4 29.0 14.8 142.7 3.8 1,579.3 880.1 60.1 153.6 55.0 77.9 153.6 11.4 33.9 38.2 47.9 3,714.8 901.6 58.1 149.8 53.3 81.1 159.5 6.8 35.0 34.8 44.3 3,766.8 838.6 57.6 159.9 52.5 79.5 159.7 8.0 32.0 22.8 42.1 3^682.7 299.6 17.3 15.6 6.8 4.9 22.3 20.8 8.0 30.2 13.4 652.2 284.4 17.4 15.7 6.8 4.8 23.5 23.4 6.3 27.7 16.4 628.5 251.1 18.4 16.7 5.5 4.8 24.0 23.1 4.9 33.6 15.3 599.7 448.9 41.1 115.1 59.6 32.7 62.2 10.1 22.0 50.3 54.4 1,950.4 469.5 41.1 111.7 57.6 36.0 59.2 10.8 24.0 46.1 56.9 2^033.0 461.3 40.4 115.8 58.5 39.7 70.4 11.9 26.1 51.5 53.5 2,175.3 192.3 17.0 59.1 97.4 19.1 31.0 5.7 18.3 40.3 10.3 1,286.6 183.1 17.5 53.7 80.8 20.3 35.3 6.8 17.5 26.4 9.1 1,240.2 189.4 15.8 50.7 67.7 19.8 26.9 9.2 19.2 25.6 9.5 1^265.6 104.1 15.1 42.1 87.9 9.9 11.9 2.1 9.6 13.6 5.0 754.9 91.4 15.3 37.6 74.7 11.0 12.4 2.0 8.6 2.2 4.1 691.2 92.3 14.3 33.6 63.1 9.8 8.3 3.5 10.0 5.6 2.5 668.3 60.8 0.5 10.2 5.8 7.6 7.5 1.8 2.1 23.7 4.7 269.2 64.5 0.5 9.7 3.0 7.8 8.0 2.2 2.6 21.1 4.8 262.0 71.6 0.2 10.8 2.0 7.8 8.2 2.7 2.7 17.0 6.7 272.2 —Continued 39 Table 4.—Western Europe: Agricultural Imports by country, European • ITC number European Economic Community Greece Commodity and year ajor ead- ngs Sub ead- lngs 1/ elglum- L,uxem- bourg Nether- : West lands :Germany France Italy Total Million dollars Miscellaneous food 1966 09 : 22.2 preparations 1967 23.8 1968 27.8 (Lard) 1966 :091.3 4.9 1967 3.6 1968 4.8 (Margarine and 1966 :091.4 1.1 shortening) 1967 1.2 1968 1.7 Beverages 1966 11 : 59.7 1967 62.3 1968 64.0 (Nonalcoholic 1966 :111 4.0 1967 4.9 1968 5.1 (Wine) 1966 : 112.1 33.0 1967 34.6 1968 37.0 Tobacco, unmanufactured 1966 121 : 35.4 1967 44.6 1968 35.9 Hides and skins 1966 21 : 31.8 1967 28.2 1968 30.5 Oil-seeds, oil nuts and 1966 22 : 53.2 oil kernels 1967 52.1 1968 58.3 (Soybeans) 1966 :221. 20.5 1967 26.2 1968 26.4 Natural rubber 1966 231.1: 9.1 1967 7.8 1968 9.0 Natural fibers 1966 261- : 281.9 1967 265 : 230.9 1968 242.0 (Raw cotton) 1966 : 263. 45.3 1967 33.8 1968 44.1 Crude animal and vegetable 1966 29 : 25.8 materials, n.e.s. 1967 26.1 1968 27.6 12.9 16.6 4.8 9.2 65.7 1.2 12.3 17.1 5.8 9.2 68.2 1.2 14.2 21.6 8.6 6.2 78.4 1.2 3.7 2.6 2/ 0.1 11.3 2/ 3.1 2.6 2/ 0.1 9.4 — 4.1 1.9 0.1 2/ 10.9 2/ 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 3.3 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.8 3.5 2/ 1.2 0.3 1.5 1.2 5.9 2/ 29.2 134.4 209.5 20.0 452.8 1.2 29.5 117.1 132.5 24.8 366,2 2/ 33.1 135.7 124.1 29.6 386.5 1.5 1.4 3.3 1.1 0.2 10.0 0.1 1.2 3.5 1.6 0.1 11.3 2/ 1.6 3.3 2.0 0.2 12.2 2/ 20.0 103.0 171.9 7.7 335.6 0.1 20.8 86.7 91.4 10.9 244.4 0.1 22.2 99.8 75.7 13.0 247.7 0.1 55.4 208.9 39.2 10.9 349.8 0.1 62.1 214.1 39.6 19.0 379.4 2/ 55.9 193.8 15.6 11.3 312.5 0.2 36.8 199.3 141.8 155.0 564.7 8.3 31.4 161.0 105.6 147.1 473.3 5.6 30.0 192.9 106.6 141.1 501.1 4.6 133.7 328.1 164.8 153.1 832.9 3.8 113.4 285.7 149.1 168.3 768.6 2.1 148.9 274.3 126.0 160.3 767.8 3.8 49.4 197.4 14.4 59.5 341.2 0.1 50.6 183.1 16.0 70.7 346.6 2/ 66.3 153.8 5.5 68.5 320.5 “““ 11.3 81.0 65.8 44.0 211.2 2.1 9.3 63.1 58.8 45.4 184.4 1.7 9.5 65.8 50.6 39.1 174.0 1.1 113.9 427.5 458.6 467.7 1,749.6 31.3 107.7 384.7 368.4 441.0 1,532.7 27.1 92.0 403.3 354.1 393.6 1,485.0 26.7 47.8 176.5 173.7 171.7 615.0 5.5 57.1 174.4 158.0 166.5 589.8 6.6 45.1 176.4 150.2 156.0 571.8 7.6 43.3 259.9 98.1 57.1 484.2 2.7 47.5 249.7 99.6 59.8 482.7 3.0 48.9 268.2 103.1 57.1 504.9 2.8 See footnotes at end of table. 40 Economic Community, and total Western Europe, 1966-68—Continued United Kingdom Norway Sweden Denmark Austria Switzer¬ land Portugal Ireland Spain Finland Total Western Europe - - - - Million dollars - - - 63.2 2.5 11.7 4.4 2.1 3.5 1.3 5.0 2.7 3.5 166.8 58.9 2.8 13.7 5.6 1.9 3.9 1.5 5.0 2.5 3.8 169.0 52.3 3.1 14.6 6.0 2.2 4.6 1.4 6.1 2.6 4.9 177.4 47.8 0.1 0.1 2/ 0.1 0.3 0.5 2/ 0.2 n.a. 60.4 38.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 2/ 0.4 0.6 2/ 0.1 n. a. 49.3 31.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2/ 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 n.a. 43.0 1.0 0.1 1.6 2/ 0.6 0.2 2/ 0.1 0.9 n.a. 7.9 0.7 2/ 1.7 2/ 0.3 0.2 — 0.3 0.9 n.a. 7.6 0.6 0.1 1.8 2/ 0.2 0.1 2/ 0.4 0.8 n.a. 9.9 152.5 7.1 34.1 17.4 11.1 49.3 0.8 8.9 9.0 7.4 751.6 176.8 7.5 38.9 18.3 11.6 53.7 1.0 8.7 10.5 8.4 701.6 182.4 9.1 42.4 18.2 10.7 58.9 1.2 9.8 12.2 7.2 740.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.0 0.1 2/ 2/ __ __ 14.3 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.5 3.5 0.1 0.1 2/ n.a. 16.6 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.5 3.6 0.2 2/ 0.1 0.1 18.5 86.4 3.1 10.5 9.1 7.7 37.9 0.1 3.0 0.5 2.8 496.8 97.1 3.1 12.4 9.3 7.7 40.9 0.1 3.2 0.7 3.1 422.1 105.5 3.9 14.2 9.4 6.4 43.3 0.1 3.6 0.7 3.0 437.9 227.5 9.1 24.5 28.7 13.8 30.3 6.7 12.7 26.3 7.9 737.4 235.7 8.6 17.6 29.0 13.1 34.2 6.3 13.0 34.4 9.8 781.1 268.7 11.6 17.2 33.3 15.9 36.4 8.2 17.4 37.2 8.2 766.8 186.4 6.1 20.2 31.7 11.1 6.8 2.9 2.3 31.9 8.4 880.8 140.0 3.8 19.7 27.2 7.9 7.7 5.4 1.5 29.4 7.1 728.6 150.9 3.8 18.1 30.5 10.9 6.6 5.3 2.0 29.2 5.9 768.9 125.5 28.1 16.6 48.6 2.6 22.8 26.6 2.8 93.9 13.6 1,217.8 101.0 25.1 14.0 60.7 2.5 18.2 33.0 2.3 108.7 14.8 1,151.0 99.5 23.8 12.8 54.7 2.6 18.8 27.1 2.2 116.9 11.1 1,141.1 35.1 17.8 2/ 34.8 2/ 2/ _ _ 79.2 7.7 515.9 29.1 18.9 0.1 52.5 2/ 0.1 — — 96.9 7.2 551.4 26.2 15.6 0.1 41.4 2/ 2/ 2/ — 103.3 4.5 511.6 97.1 3.1 13.8 3.6 5.9 3.8 3.0 1.5 22.8 6.8 374.7 86.2 2.4 11.1 3.5 5.6 3.2 2.9 1.2 18.8 4.3 325.3 81.0 2.1 9.2 2.9 6.1 2.5 2.6 1.4 20.6 2.8 306.3 576.3 11.4 29.8 18.5 51.2 70.4 74.9 23.0 85.9 25.6 2,747.9 504.3 10.5 26.5 17.9 43.1 73.6 69.2 21.9 53.8 19.0 2,399.6 481.1 8.4 21.9 13.2 46.0 71.3 84.3 22.7 68.5 19.7 2,348.8 131.1 2.7 9.8 4.1 16.2 27.8 51.9 4.2 46.6 13.6 928.5 104.2 2.7 9.4 5.3 14.6 33.8 46.6 3.8 18.5 8.1 843.4 121.6 2.2 8.8 3.5 15.6 32.7 59.7 4.4 36.3 10.8 875.0 136.3 11.9 46.4 26.4 20.6 35.4 4.6 3.3 13.1 19.8 804.7 132.4 12.6 48.5 25.2 20.9 36.8 5.1 3.5 12.9 17.7 801.3 123.6 11.4 48.6 23.8 21.9 39.9 5.7 3.4 13.9 15.9 815.8 —Continued 41 Table 4.—Western Europe: Agricultural imports by country, European SITC number European Economic Community Commodity and year Major head¬ ings Sub head¬ ings 1/ Belgium- Luxem- bourg Nether¬ lands West : Germany : France : Italy : Total Greece Animal and vegetable oils and fats 1966 1967 1968 A 38.2 39.0 A2.8 79.0 86.8 90.8 176.7 156.6 16A.8 141. A 131.1 123.A 100.3 13A.A 97.7 535.6 547.9 519.5 2.2 3.C 1.1 (Fish and marine oils) 1966 1967 1968 All.l A.9 A.O 1.9 20.1 19.2 16.2 22.6 19.9 18.A 6.2 A.8 2.7 2.2 2.A 1.9 56.0 50.3 41.1 OJ o.] OJ (Animal and vegetable oils and fats pro¬ cessed) 1966 1967 1968 A31 3.5 6.1 7.7 3.7 6.1 7.0 12.1 12.7 16.3 17.A 18.8 19.0 7.6 8.0 10.6 44.3 51.7 60.6 0 .. o.< 1.1 Agricultural fats and oils 3/ 1966 1967 1968 35.8 33.7 39.7 60.1 65.A 72.9 1AA.9 127.0 132.3 118.1 107.8 103.3 91.0 12A.9 86.A 449.9 458.8 A3A.6 1. 2. 0 . Total agricultural A/ 1966 1967 1968 1,227.3 1,259.1 1,306.A 1,339.6 1.A29.2 1.5A9.0 A,986.9 A,662.3 A.8A2.5 2,770.9 2,556.2 2,530.1 2,578.A 2,715.3 2,623.5 12.903.1 12.622.1 12,851.5 197. 195. 192. Total imports 1966 1967 1968 7,174.0 7,175.9 8,333.A 8,017.6 8.337.5 9.292.6 18,022.5 17,350.6 20,150.0 11,839.6 12.377.5 13.926.5 8,571.3 9,826.6 10,252.6 53,625.1 55,068.1 61,955.0 1,222. 1,186. 1,391. 1/ Since these are components of major headings, their values are not duplicated in totals. Hi Agricultural 0 fats * and oils is the sum of 091.3 (Lard), 091.A (Margarine and shortening), and A (Oils and fats) minus All.l (Fish and marine oils) and A31 (Processed oils and fats). A/ Total agricultural is the sum of all major headings except 03 (Fish) and 11 (Beverages), plus the suS of 111 (Nonalcoholic beverages) and 112.1 (Wine), and minus the sum of 081.A (Meatmeal and fishmeal), All.l (Fish and marine oils), and A31 (Processed oils and fats). n.a. Not available, n.e.s. = Not elsewhere specified. Compiled from OECD Statistical Bulletin, Foreign Trade, Series B and C, 1966, 1967, and 1968 and other official sources. SITC is the Standard International Trade Classification, Revised. A2 Economic Community, and total Western Europe, 1966-68—Continued United Kingdom Norway Sweden Denmark Austria Switzer¬ land Portugal Ireland Spain Finland Total Western Europe 177.7 8.2 22.3 13.8 25.2 19.9 8.8 6.3 32.8 3.2 856.0 173.0 6.0 21.3 11.4 23.7 18.3 10.7 5.3 26.0 2.4 849.0 162.7 7.1 22.4 9.9 21.4 16.2 10.6 6.2 23.7 2.1 803.6 34.2 4.9 6.8 5.9 0.2 0.6 2/ 0.1 1.4 0.5 110.7 41.5 2.5 6.2 4.2 0.2 0.5 2/ 0.1 1.3 0.5 107.4 22.2 3.8 4.4 2.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 2/ 2.6 0.4 77.9 15.6 0.6 3.5 3.3 4.0 3.8 0.4 1.7 2.0 1.4 81.1 15.3 0.8 4.1 3.5 4.7 4.3 0.4 1.5 2.4 1.1 90.4 14.6 0.7 4.8 3.4 4.4 3.7 0.4 1.5 2.5 1.1 98.7 176.7 2.9 13.7 4.6 21.7 16.0 8.9 4.6 30.5 1.3 732.5 155.4 2.7 12.8 3.8 19.1 14.1 10.9 4.0 23.3 0.8 708.0 157.6 2.8 15.1 4.2 17.0 12.4 10.2 5.2 19.5 0.6 680.3 5,740.8 269.8 591.6 461.4 384.1 719.9 243.8 207.2 791.6 232.9 22,743.7 5,598.3 267.2 570.6 444.3 336.9 728.8 248.1 201.7 724.0 219.0 22,156.9 5,286.9 262.1 584.6 410.9 332.3 702.4 261.7 210.7 691.0 197.9 21,984.0 16,671.1 2,402.9 4,573.8 2,990.0 2,327.6 3,917.6 1,022.8 1,043.3 3,572.4 1,726.4 95,095.8 17,715.5 2,746.3 4,702.8 3,133.8 2,309.4 4,099.2 1,059.2 1,077.7 3,470.1 1,690.7 98,259.1 18,958.5 2,704.2 5,121.7 3,213.2 2,496.0 4,492.6 1,178.4 1,174.8 3,502.2 1,592.5 107,780.9 43 Table 5.— Western Europe: Agricultural imports from the United States by :SITC number: European F.conomic Community Commodity and year :1 : Sub : lajor:head-:Belgium- iead-: ings: Luxem- ngs : 1/ : bourg lie the r- lands West : Germany : France : Italy : Total Greece : : Live animals 1966 1967 1968 00 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2/ 2/ 0.9 1.3 0.8 3.8 2.0 1.7 5.2 3.5 2.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 Meat and meat preparations 1966 1967 1968 01 2.5 3.2 3.3 6.6 6.6 5.9 33.8 22.1 14.6 23.5 21.2 20.8 1.5 1.8 0.7 67.9 54.9 45.3 1.6 1.1 0.6 Dairy products and eggs 1966 1967 1968 02 1.0 0.3 0.2 6.8 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.3 2/ 1/ 3.9 1.0 0.8 12.7 2.1 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.5 Fish and fish preparations 1966 1967 1968 03 1.7 1.8 1.1 2.1 2.8 2.0 0.8 1.5 1.0 5.3 4.8 4.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 10.1 11.2 8.8 0.8 1.1 1.2 Cereals and cereal preparations 1966 1967 1968 04 105.6 76.0 54.5 187.8 156.4 149.7 169.7 128.3 146.1 60.6 56.3 62.8 191.1 66.2 138.1 714.8 483.2 551.2 24.8 19.7 10.9 (Wheat and flour) 1966 1967 1968 041, 046 8.9 10.1 12.4 36.8 22.3 26.3 38.6 37.4 36.2 27.7 30.5 27.7 14.6 6.2 16.4 126.6 106.5 119.0 1.1 0.2 2/ (Rice) 1966 1967 1968 042 1.5 2.8 4.3 4.7 7.1 8.4 9.5 10.3 13.6 3.1 4.9 7.1 2/ 18.8 25.1 33.4 1.0 1.0 1.4 (Feed grains) 1966 1967 1968 043 044 045 94.9 62.8 37.5 146.3 126.4 114.1 121.6 80.3 96.1 29.7 20.9 28.0 176.4 59.8 121.7 568.9 350.2 397.4 21.9 17.9 8.8 Fruit and vegetables 1966 1967 1968 05 15.1 15.6 10.1 16.0 15.7 10.0 38.3 29.4 22.9 18.2 20.8 16.3 6.1 5.4 5.6 93.7 86.9 64.9 0.3 0.9 1.1 Sugar, sugar prenarations, and honey 1966 196 196 06 1.1 1.3 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 4.3 4.5 3.3 2/ 2/ 0.1 Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, etc. 196 196 196 07 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.4 2.8 3.0 2.6 2/ 2/ 2/ Animal feed 196 196 196 08 14.2 16.3 13.1 53.5 54.4 68.2 69.0 67.8 66.0 56.5 59.3 66.5 16.3 21.0 21.4 209.5 218.8 235.2 1.6 1.1 0.6 (Oilseed cake and meal) 196 196 196 081. 12.1 14.1 10.6 20.9 27.0 31.7 66.3 66.4 59.5 55.6 58.8 65.5 12.1 18.4 18.9 167.0 184.7 186.2 1.0 0.6 0.2 (Meatmeal and fishmeal) 1966 1967 1966 : . i: 081. 2/ : 2/ 2/ 0.1 2/ 0.2 2/ 0.1 2/ 0.5 2/ 2/ 0.7 0.1 0.1 2/ 2/ See footnotes at end of table 44 country, European Economic Community, and total Western Europe, 1966-68 United Kingdom Norway Sweden Denmark Austria : Switzer¬ land Portugal Ireland Spain Finland Total Western Europe 1.9 2/ 0.8 0.2 — 2/ 0.1 0.5 1.7 10.9 2.2 2/ 0.4 2/ — 2/ 0.6 0.6 1.5 _ 9.2 2.9 2/ 0.4 2/ 2/ — 0.4 0.8 1.8 — 9.6 20.1 0.1 2.6 0.1 1.4 2.0 2/ _ 1.1 0.3 97.2 16.7 0.2 1.9 0.1 1.1 1.4 — — 0.2 0.2 77.8 19.1 0.2 2.2 2/ 0.9 2.2 2/ 2/ 0.3 0.1 70.9 0.6 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 0.2 _ 2/ 0.7 15.0 0.3 2/ 0.2 0.1 — 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 _ 4.3 2/ 2/ 0.2 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 0.2 0.1 — 2.4 17.5 0.1 2.1 1.0 2/ 0.3 2/ 0.1 0.2 32.2 22.1 0.3 2.7 1.1 2/ 0.4 2/ 2/ 0.2 _ _ 39.1 9.1 0.1 1.8 0.5 2/ 0.4 1/ 0.1 0.2 — 22.2 210.4 22.7 13.3 26.5 19.5 23.0 22.9 19.7 127.5 3.8 1,228,9 159.1 14.6 8.4 20.4 0.8 9.3 12.9 10.2 71.3 1.2 811.1 136.3 12.4 6.7 12.1 1.2 8.4 8.7 7.7 40.0 1.3 796.9 43.6 11.8 4.5 2/ 0.4 8.1 8.9 5.0 4.0 2.1 216.1 31.8 4.6 1.8 0.1 2/ 4.2 5.9 2.4 0.1 0.3 157.9 11.1 3.2 0.9 0.1 - ■ 3.2 2.2 1.2 — 0.4 141.3 7.6 2/ 1.0 0.4 0.2 3.1 1.8 0.1 2/ 34.0 11.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 2.3 — 0.1 0.2 41.9 14.6 0.1 1.1 0.4 0.5 2.6 2/ 0.2 — 0.1 54.4 157.7 10.7 5.9 25.8 18.7 11.7 12.2 14.5 123.5 1.5 973.0 114.3 9.9 ' 3.8 19.8 0.5 2.8 6.7 7.6 71.2 0.7 605.4 108.7 9.1 3.2 11.4 0.7 2.6 6.3 6.3 40.0 0.9 595.4 54.9 11.4 23.7 8.7 3.1 10.7 0.1 4.6 3.8 8.8 223.8 54.2 9.7 .22.7 8.5 2.8 9.4 0.1 4.0 3.4 6.7 209.3 42.5 7.5 '21.9 7.2 2.7 9.8 0.1 2.5 2.2 5.5 167.9 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.1 G.2 0.5 2/ 0.4 2/ 7.8 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 2/ 2/ 2/ _ 6.9 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 2/ 2/ 2/ — 6.3 2.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 2/ 0.2 2/ 2/ 0.1 0.7 7.1 1.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 2/ 0.2 2/ 2/ 0.1 0.5 6.6 2.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 2/ 0.2 — 2/ 2/ 0.2 5.6 3.5 0.8 1.9 16.9 2.1 2.2 1.3 5.1 12.1 257.0 2.2 0.1 0.7 11.8 3.6 3.0 1.1 4.9 1.8 __ 249.1 3.5 0.1 2.4 9.1 3.6 3.7 2.6 6.0 4.6 — 271.4 2.1 0.7 1.8 16.0 1.9 1.3 1.1 5.0 11.0 208.9 1.0 2/ 0.6 11.0 3.4 1.9 1.0 4.5 1.2 _ 209.9 2.9 2/ 2.1 8.4 3.4 2.7 2.4 5.7 4.1 — 218.1 2/ 2/ 2/ — 2/ _ 2/ _ 0.3 1.0 0.1 2/ — 2/ — — — — 2/ _ 0.2 2/ 1/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 0.1 — 0.2 —Continued 45 Table 5.—Western Europe: Agricultural Imports from the United States by country :SITC number: European Economic Community Commodity and year Miscellaneous food preparations (Lard) (Margarine and shortening) Beverages (Nonalcoholic) (Wine) Tobacco, unmanufactured Hides and skins Oil-seeds, oil nuts qnd oil kernels (Soybeans) Natural rubber Natural fibers (Raw Cotton) Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s. : : Sub : : :Major:head-:Belgium-:Nethcr- :head-: ings: Luxem- : lands :ings : 1/ : bourg : _ . . . Million dollars ’Nest :Greece Germany France Italy Total : 1966: 09 : ; 0.4 2.6 1967: : 0.5 2.0 1968: 0.2 1.0 1966: 91.3 0.1 1.8 1967: 0.2 1.5 1968: — 0.1 1966: 91.4 2/ — 1967: 2/ — 1968: — 1966: 11 0.1 0.2 1967: 0.1 0.2 1968: 0.2 0.3 1966: 111 2/ 2/ 1967: — y 1968: — — — — 1966: 112.1 2/ — 1967: 2/ — 1968: 2/ 2/ 1966:121 9.9 19.8 1967: 13.0 24.1 1968: 10.5 24.7 1966: 21 1.9 4.2 1967: 1.1 2.5 1968: 1.2 2.4 1966: 22 24.1 58.2 1967: 30.9 56.6 1968: 31.3 74.4 1966: 221. 20.5 48.3 1967: 25.6 46.8 1968: 26.3 66.2 1966:231. 2/ 2/ 1967: 2/ — 1968: 0.1 2/ 1966:261- 7.7 9.0 1967:265 6.3 4.1 1968: 6.7 4.1 1966: :263.1 : 5.5 7.2 1967: : : 4.1 3.3 1968: : : 4.4 3.2 1966: 29 ; : 1.0 3.9 1967: ; : 1.0 3.9 1968: : : 1.2 4.2 1.0 0.2 0.4 4.6 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.5 3.9 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.4 2.9 2/ 0.4 __ 0.1 2.4 — 0.3 — 2/ 2.0 — 0.2 — 2/ 0.3 — 2/ . . 2/ 0.1 2/ 2/ — 2/ 0.1 2/ — — — 2/ 0.8 0.3 0.2 1.6 2/ 1.0 0.5 0.3 2.1 2/ 1.6 0.7 0.4 3.2 2/ 2/ 2/ — 2/ — 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ — 2/ — 2/ —— 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ — — 2/ 2/ — — 2/ 2/ 2/ — 90.6 5.6 3.0 128.9 2/ 106.1 5.0 6.2 154.4 2/ 77.4 1.4 5.7 119.7 0.2 26.7 5.7 7.9 46.4 0.( 16.6 4.2 7.4 31.8 0 .1 21.8 5.5 6.1 37.0 o.: 195.2 16.4 52.1 346.0 0.) 178.1 17.3 57.8 340.7 2/ 163.2 8.3 58.5 335.7 “' 185.2 14.2 51.5 319.7 — 170.6 15.6 57.6 316.2 2, 147.7 5.5 57.9 303.6 — 2/ 0.4 0.3 0.7 o.: 2/ 0.6 0.1 0.7 o.: 2/ 0.9 0.1 1.1 o.: 22.7 22.3 25.1 86.8 0. 22.0 22.4 41.6 96.4 0. 13.4 21.0 33.8 79.0 2.- 16.1 20.3 21.9 71.0 0. 17.0 20.7 37.2 82.3 2 9.6 18.7 30.8 66.7 27 7.7 3.3 4.1 20.0 0. 7.2 2.9 2.8 17.8 0. 7.8 2.7 2.1 18.0 0. See footnotes at end of table. 46 European Economic Community, and total Western Europe, 1966-68—Continued United Kingdom Norway Sweden Denmark Austria Switzer¬ land Portugal Ireland Spain Finland Total Western Europe 17.7 0.2 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 26.6 19.3 0.3 2.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 27.4 11.9 0.3 2.5 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 19.9 15.3 15.5 9.6 — — — 2/ 2/ 2/ 0.2 0.1 0.1 2/ 2/ 2/ 0.1 2/ 2/ — 17.9 17.6 10.1 2/ 0.1 — 2/ — 2/ __ Q , 2 — 2/ — 2/ — — — __ _ 0 1 0.1 2/ 2/ — — — — — — 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.2 2/ 0.1 2/ 2/ 0.1 0.1 3.4 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.2 2/ 0.1 2/ 2/ 0.1 0.1 4.2 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 2/ 0.1 2/ 1/ 0.2 0.1 6.0 2/ — 2/ 2/ — 2/ _ 2 / 2/ — 2/ 2/ — 2/ — _ _ 2/ — 2/ 2/ — — — — — — 2/ 2/ — — 2/ — 2/ _ _ 2/ 1/ — — 2/ — 2/ — 2/ 2/ _ 2/ 2/ 2/ — 2/ — 2/ — 2/ 135.0 7.6 22.3 13.5 4.4 16.4 3.1 12.3 4.5 4.4 352.4 130.6 6.9 14.6 13.9 3.8 18.1 3.1 12.1 7.5 5.4 370.4 154.1 8.5 14.2 18.6 4.8 19.6 4.7 16.4 6.6 4.7 372.1 14.7 0.7 2.0 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 3.5 0.6 71.6 10.1 0.6 2.0 0.2 0.7 1.9 0.3 2/ 3.3 0.3 51.6 13.4 0.3 2.3 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 3.4 0.7 59.5 18.4 18.1 0.1 34.9 2/ 1.3 0.8 0.2 77.0 3.2 500.1 13.2 18.1 0.2 50.3 2/ 1.1 — 0.4 92.9 0.9 517.8 12.4 16.6 0.2 41.5 2/ 1.1 — 2/ 103.4 0.5 511.4 16.1 10.9 17.8 17.9 2/ 2/ 34.4 49.9 — 2/ 2/ — — 75.4 91.9 3.0 0.9 466.4 487.7 11.3 15.6 0.1 41.3 2/ 2/ — — 101.4 473.3 0.1 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 0.1 2/ 2/ 2/ 1.0 0.1 2/ — 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ _ 1.0 0.1 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 0.1 — 1.4 33.5 1.8 7.7 1.7 2.3 4.6 0.8 2.2 2.7 2.0 146.6 27.7 1.6 8.4 2.8 1.9 5.9 0.3 2.0 0.8 2.0 149.9 26.0 1.3 7.5 2.2 1.2 4.2 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.2 130.4 21.3 1.7 7.7 1.6 2.1 4.4 0.8 2.2 1.5 1.9 116.6 18.2 1.5 8.2 2.7 1.8 5.7 0.2 2.0 0.1 2.0 124.7 13.3 1.2 7.4 2.1 1.0 3.6 1.8 1.9 1.0 1.1 103.4 6.0 0.4 1.1 1.7 0.6 1.8 0.4 0.2 1.2 0.4 33.9 5.3 0.4 1.1 1.8 0.5 1.7 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 30.8 4.9 0. 3 0.8 2.0 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.4 29.7 —Continued 47 Table 5,—Western Europe: Agricultural imports from the United States by country Commodity and year Animal and vegetable oils and fats (Fish and marine oils) (Animal and vegetable oils and fats pro¬ cessed) Agricultural fats and oils 3/ Total agricultural 4/ Total imports European Economic Community : : Sub :IIajor :head- :head-: ings :ings : 1/ elgium- Luxem- bourg Nether- : West : 1 lands :Germany : France : Italy Total Greece llillion dollars 1966: 4 : : 2.1 1967: : : l- 4 1968: : : 1.3 1966: :411.1: 0.3 1967: : : 1968: : : 2/ 1966’: :431 : 2/ 1967: : = 0- 1 1968: : : n -l 1966: : = 1-9 1967: : : 1-* 1968: : : 1.2 1966: : : 187.0 1967: : : 167.6 1968: : : 135.2 1966: : : 569.1 1967: : : 589.8 1968: : : 689.1 15.4 18.3 3.2 14.1 9.1 5.6 11.7 10.2 2.9 2.1 1.5 0.4 1.7 0.5 — 2/ 0.2 — 0.2 1.4 0.4 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.2 14.9 15.8 2.4 13.5 7.3 5.2 11.4 8.9 2.7 383.0 672.5 217.8 340.4 587.2 217.8 358.3 544.4 210.8 910.1 2,293.2 1,199.4 886.1 2,138.4 1,219.3 1,014.3 2,173.0 1,318.7 17.2 56.2 1.2 10.3 40.5 2.1 6.7 32.8 0.3 0.1 4.4 — — 2.3 — 0.1 0.3 — 0.5 2.5 2/ 0.5 3.0 2/ 0.5 2.5 2/ 16.7 51.7 1.2 9.9 37.3 2.1 6.1 30.3 0.3 332.6 1,792.9 32.7 224.7 1,537.7 27.3 281.9 1,530.6 17.8 1,049.1 6,020.8 131.2 1,025.3 5,859.0 100.1 1,193.3 6,388.4 106.8 1 / Since these are components of major headings, their values are not duplicated in totals. V Agricultural 0 fats*and oils is the sum of 091.3 (Lard), 091.4 (Margarine and shortening), and 4 (Oil. and fats) minus 411.1 (Fish and marine oils) and 431 (Processed o s an ' >• () oluJ the 4/ Total agricultural is the sum of al 1 L-io- r he.di,igs e = 03(Fish) and^ll ^ ^ fl3to„<> A sources * SITC is the Standard International Trade Classification, Revised. 53 U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 POSTAGE & FEES PAIO United Stole* Deportment of Agriculture 7602 BARTRA3 15A 1 12 18125 0001 DR R BARTLETT DEPT OF AG EC UNTV OF ILLINOIS 315 MUMFORD HALL URBANA IL 61801 * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 39Z*-232 ISKS-178) UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURE LIBRARY THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN COMMUNIST AREAS Review of 1969 and Outlook for 1970 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE Washington, D.C. ABSTRACT The agricultural situation developed unevenly in the Communist areas during 1969. China's progress was most significant, particularly in grain output. The Soviet Union reported declines in all major crops and experienced a 5 percent drop in net agricultural output. Drought in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Poland sharply lowered feed supplies. Higher corn production than the previous drought year in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia improved exports. North Korea, North Vietnam, and Mongolia showed no substantial change from previous years, and Cuba's major effort in 1969/70 is tied to the planned 10 million-ton sugarcane harvest. U.S. exports to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union de¬ clined about 20 percent from the 1968 levels. Key Words: Communist areas 1969 agricultural report. Production, consumption, trade, and outlook for 1970. ii FOREWORD The Agricultural Situation in Communist Areas; Review of 1969 and Outlook or 1970 presents a comprehensive review of agricultural developments in the oviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Mainland China. Significant highlights and roduction results for Worth Korea, North Vietnam, Mongolia, and Cuba are also ncluded for the first time. The emphasis of the report is on policy, produc- ion, and trade developments that are of concern to U.S. interests. This report was prepared by the Communist Areas Group, under the super- ision of Roger E. Neetz. Members of the Group include Linda A. Bernstein, ynn S. Bickley, Paige I. Bryan, Marion R. Larsen, Melvenia L. Peed, avid M. Schoonover, and Thomas A. Vankai. Acknowledgment is extended to the oreign Agricultural Service, especially to Agricultural Attache personnel, for ssistance. The Agricultural Situation in Communist Areas is one of five regional sup- lements to The World Agricultural Situation; Review of 1969 and Outlook for 970, FAER 57. Other regional reports are published on Western Europe, Africa nd West Asia, the Western Hemisphere, and the Far East and Oceania. Data in his report may vary slightly from those in The World Agricultural Situation , s this is based on information available as of March 1, 1970. G. Stanley Brown, Chief Europe and Soviet Union Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division iii CONVERSION EQUIVALENTS Pounds per bushel Wheat and potatoes Rye and corn. Barley. Oats. 60 56 U8 32 One kilogram One centner or metric quintal One metric ton One hectare One acre One kilometer 2.2046 pounds 220.46 pounds 10 centners or 2204.6 pounds 2.471 acres 0.4 hectare 0.6 mile equals n it 11 11 11 Metric tons to bushels One metric ton Wheat and potatoes Rye and corn. Barley. Oats. Bushels 36.743 39.368 45.929 68.894 Bushels to metric tons One bushel Wheat and potatoes Rye and corn. Barley. Oats. Metric tons .02722 .02540 .02177 .01452 To convert centners per hectare to bushels per acre , multiply by: 1.487 1.593 1.8587 2.788 To convert bushels per acre to centners (metric quintals) per hectare, multiply by: 0.6725 0.62?f 0.53 30 0.3587 One metric ton of seed cotton = I.562 bales of 480 pounds. One metric ton of ginned cotton = 4.593 bales of 480 pounds. Wheat and potatoes Rye and corn. Barley. Oats. Wheat and potatoes Rye and corn. Barley. Oats. iv CONTENTS Page [mmary. 1 iviet Union -- Paige I. Bryan. 3 Setback in agriculture. 3 Crop output lower. 3 No improvement in livestock production. 5 Agricultural policy and the Third Collective Farm Congress. 6 Lags in investment. 8 Consumption weak in 1969. 9 Agricultural trade still strong. 10 Outlook. 12 .stern Europe -- David M. Schoonover. 13 Agricultural output down in 1969. 13 Drought affects feed supplies in northern countries. 13 Good grain crops in southern countries. l6 Livestock product shortages. 17 Vegetable downturn, but fruit harvest a record. 24 Reduced export availabilities of industrial crops. 25 Changes in agricultural trade. 26 Slower rates of increase of agricultural inputs. 29 Agriculture’s role in economic reforms and development. 30 Outlook.*. 32 .inland China -- Marion R. Larsen. 33 Agricultural output increases. 33 Agricultural production. 33 Farm inputs and policy changes. 35 Consumption of farm products. 36 Upswing in foreign trade in 1969. 37 Outlook. 39 Tier Communist Countries — Roger E. Neetz. 40 North Vietnam. 40 North Korea. 4l Mongolia. 4l Cuba. 42 >pendix. 43 April 1970 v o - Cl N (N N Cl Cl N N lO N pH Cl N W in pH CM CM Cl CSI oo VD pH UO i—I O CO Cl H CM Mt in -u cm <3i cm m O' CO OH pH C CM CM O co co in O' pH * i» o u 5 3 o 3 3 Pn P pH CtJ 3 3- > -H CP 0) 3 • j-i u 3 CP 3 CTJ 3 O «» CO j-i 3 4J c 3 3 3 o CP vH 3 •H J-i > •a 4~> 3 P o a O 3 p 3 CO a -a 3 3 X X X Q J-i o o p o ip 3 J-I • O 3 C/1 (0 3 0) p 3 3 > 3 3 Pd •iH rH 3 pH pH 3 3 c > 3 m3 3 6 3 3 O 3 . X s on P o 3- . 3 O 33 e w P o o 3 •rH u v 3 rQ a 3 to p •H CO *H cd P •H CD 35 CP 3 c o 3 3 O pH pH i—1 •H 1 cd 3 4-» C/D a 3 a 3 3 w CJH 3 •c o O a * X TJ tH 3 »> p vo 3 CO 1 pH p •H Cn 3 o .a m > H CN 3 rH 3 3 p 3 . •> p 3 P 3 3 3 3 c O Cl -H o IH P P cp 3 P •3 O 3 3 c 3 3 3 X O 3 3 u u X a o o P 3 3 p 3 3 P 3 3 3 3 W > cp •H O 3 J-i 3 p 3 3 3 X 3 3 W 3 3 3 3 P 3 cu nd 3 3 00 O 3 CTJ P PJ < CP o o 33 CTJ p p o 3 CN 33

ecause of the late summer drought. Plans for 1970 indicate an ambitious 8.5-percent increase in output for ;he Soviet Union, moderate to strong increases for most East European countries, and a note of optimism for Communist Asia. U.S. agricultural exports to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union declined 20 percent in 1969 . Poland, our major trading partner in the area, cut back Its purchases of U.S. farm products by $34.5 million. 1/ East Germany continues ;o show strong interest in U.S. feed grains. Soviet purchases of U.S. farm products rose from $ 5.3 million in 1968 to $ 11.6 million in 1969 . Crop output declined in the Soviet Union last year. Grain and sunflower- seed production each declined about 6 percent; cotton and sugar beets were off + and 24 percent, respectively. 2/ These four commodities represent the major igricultural exports of the Soviet Union. The livestock sector showed mixed results. Milk output decreased 1 percent, meat held at the 1968 level, eggs Increased 4 percent. To insure grain supplies for internal and external commitments, the Soviets agreed to purchase 3.5 million tons of wheat from Canada through 1971. \round 2 million tons will be shipped before the end of 1970. Because of lower production, sunflowerseed and cotton exports are expected to decline in 1970 from 1969 levels. Soviet sugar exports could remain high because of the prob¬ able increase of supplementary supplies 'from Cuba. USSR meat and poultry imports from Western sources moved upward sharply in the first quarter of 1970, reflecting some shortages in East European export markets and the below planned Dutput of the livestock sector in 1969 . For Eastern Europe, the summer drought in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Poland caused significant production declines in potatoes (15 percent) and 1/ Values are in U.S. dollars unless indicated otherwise. "2/ Volume is in terms of metric tons. in sugar beets (27 percent). Oilseed production, particularly rapeseed, dropped off sharply because of severe winterkill. Grain production in the northern countries held at the 1968 level. Total grain output for all Eastern Europe increased 5 percent over 1968 . Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia showed the largest increases. Wheat output increased 2 percent for the area even though declines developed in Romania and East Germany. Imports of grain by the major importers—Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Poland--probably reached 6.2 million tons in 1969 , up around 500,000 tons from a year earlier. Exports of the 1970 grain crop by the southern countries may top the 1969 level. Hungary, a net importer in recent years, reported an ex¬ port potential of 700,000 tons for the 1969/70 trade year. The livestock sector in Eastern Europe showed weakness in 1969 . Animal numbers were lower in the area and meat production declined. Meeting livestock goals is still a major problem for all countries. The price-cost squeeze, feed problems, disease, and peasant attitudes are major deterrents to higher output. China's agricultural output in 1969 showed more strength than in 1968 . Grain output (including tubers) likely reached 200 million tons. Oilseeds, particularly soybeans, increased but cotton held at 1968 *s level. Optimistic statements suggested gains in the livestock sector in 1969 * Hog numbers may have reached the pre-Cultural Revolution level. Large commercial purchases of grain in overseas markets highlighted China 1 1969 trade activities. China contracted for approximately 7.5 million tons of grain. Actual imports for 1969 were an estimated 4.5-5-0 million tons. Low world prices and the global wheat glut probably influenced last year's pur¬ chases . North Vietnam showed signs of rebuilding in the countryside. Labor discipline increased and programs were introduced to help alleviate a deterio¬ rating labor situation. Grain output increased moderately—primarily on the strength of a 80,000-hectare increase in the planted area of rice. But about 400,000 to 600,000 tons of grain were imported from China and the Soviet Union. North Korea claimed a 1969 harvest exceeding the 5-5 to 5-7 million tons in 1968 . Mongolia's grain output of about 320,000 tons was below the 1968 level. Cuba's agricultural program in 1969 was dominated by the planned 10- million-ton sugarcane harvest for 1969 / 70 . By mid-March about 4.5 million tons of sugarcane had been harvested. Gains were made last year in rice and egg production. All foods, including sugar, are still rationed. 2 SOVIET UNION SETBACK IN AGRICULTURE After a record year in 1968 , Soviet gross agricultural production dropped 5 percent to the 79.0-billion-ruble level in 1969 . This was a disappointing M percent below planned agricultural output. The USDA production index show- id a 5 percent decline from 1968 . 3/ The 3-percent decrease was brought about by lower production in grains, ;specially wheat, and most industrial crops. Livestock production failed to idvance as planned. Only egg production increased. Meat showed no improvement tnd milk and wool were down slightly. All major economic indicators showed ;lower rates of growth in 1969 , making it an acceptable year in terms of total mtput, but a setback in terms of planned progress during the period 19^6-70. The agricultural shortfall in 1969 was attributed mainly to weather. A severe winter, late spring, and a wet harvest contributed to reduced yields for ill major crops. Favorable policy changes introduced since 1965--larger sonuses for quality work, higher state purchasing prices, increased inputs, and setter varieties of seed--probably prevented a sharper drop in output. Through :he implementation of some of these programs total output has been able to maintain the plateau reached in the late sixties, but raising output above this Level will become increasingly expensive in terms of fixed and working capital leeds. CROP OUTPUT LOWER The weakest showing in agriculture appeared in the crop sector, and reather played a major role in this downturn of production. Lags in labor pro- iuctivity and capital inputs were also evident in 1969 ? negating in part the effects of increased usage of fertilizer, herbicides, and new wheat strains, feather then is only one of many factors that has held crop output at a plateau since 1966 . 3/ The USDA index of Soviet agricultural production measures the final output Df major crops and livestock products using USDA estimates and weighted by 1-957-59 West European producer prices. It does not measure changes in live¬ stock numbers or changes in the weight of live animals. Seed and waste are considered constants. Net output is estimated by deducting feed inputs as a constant percentage of the value of livestock production--meat, milk, eggs, and rool. The index is more sensitive to changes in final output than would be the case with indexes valuing changes in livestock numbers and/or the weight of Live animals. 3 Fall sowing of winter grains for the most part was carried out duri-ng the optimum periods although a little later than in the previous year. The winter grain area was down to about 27 million hectares from 33 million hectares in both 1967 and 1968 . But the spring sown area reached a record 95.5 million hectares, almost 7 million higher than in 1968 . The total sown area of grains increased by 1 million hectares. Soil moisture was generally favorable in the Ukraine and European parts of the USSR. However, severe windstorms and excessive cold caused a considerable amount of winterkill. About l4 million hectares or one out of every three sown had to be resown with spring crops--spring wheat, barley, and corn. A cold spring was unfavorable to winter crops that did survive and caused a lag of about 2 weeks in planting. Precipitation varied in different parts of the country. Heavy snowfalls in Western Siberia and Northern Kazakhstan unproved soil moisture reserves in these areas. However, dry weather was reported in the North Caucasus and the Volga Vyatka regions which are important grain and sunflower producing areas. Harvesting was quite late compared with previous years, and was extended through November in parts of the Russian Soviet Feder¬ ated Socialist Republic and the Ukraine. The government reported grain harvest in 1969 of> l60.5 tons was 9 million tons below the 1968 level, but still the third largest on record. USDA estimates of usable grain 4/ for 1968 and 1969 are 144.4 and 132.4 million tons, respectively. Wheat, both winter and spring, suffered because of poor weather in 1989 * Total production of usable wheat was estimated at 65-2 million tons. The total wheat area declined to 65 million hectares, compared with 67 million hectares in both 1967 and 1968 . The winter wheat area was 4 million hectares below the 19 million in 1968 . Output dropped as a result of winterkill to an estimated 21 million tons. However, a record yield of winter wheat (21 centners per hec¬ tare) was reported for the Ukraine. Lower yields were reported in the North Caucasus and parts of the Lower Volga and Ural regions, which contributed to the overall reduction in the winter wheat output. The spring wheat area was increased by 2.5 million hectares, to about 51 million hectares, with produc¬ tion estimated at 46 million tons compared with 47 million in 1968 . Feed grain production--barley, oats, and corn--reached an estimated 44 million tons. This represented a higher share of total grain output than in recent years. As a replacement for damaged winter grain, the corn for g rain area was expanded 47 percent to about 5 million hectares, and production amounted to about 9 million tons. The winter and spring barley area (spring barley is 95 percent of total barley) rose by a little more than 2 million hec¬ tares and total barley output reached an estimated 25 million tons, making up more than half of total feed grain output. Spring barley was a major replace¬ ment crop for winter grains last year. The expanded area more than offset reduced yields in the important Lower Volga area. The 19^9 output of oats was about 10.0 million tons, up.300,000 tons from 1968 . Expanded area of 500,000 hectares made up for reduced yields. 4/ Usable grain refers to USDA estimates, accounting for Soviet inclusion of excess moisture and foreign matter in grain production figures. 4 Rice production on a sown area of 313,000 hectares about equaled 1968 ’s output of 1 million tons. High yields were reported in Uzbekistan. Rice im¬ ports have fluctuated between 250,000 and 400,000 tons since 1965 ? tut the Long-term trend points to greater self-sufficiency. The 1969 production of sunflowerseed officially declined to 6.3 million ions from 6.7 million tons in 1968 . Dry weather in the important areas of the Northern Caucasus, Lower Volga, and Kazakhstan largely caused the decline. Junflower area was estimated at 4.9 million hectares as in 1968 . A reduction Ln net export availabilities of sun oil has occurred in the past 2 years. And lie estimated lower stock position suggests that exports will probably continue ;o decline in 1970 . Fiber crops also suffered from the cold spring in 1969 ? tut flax for fiber .ncreased to 460,000 tons. Flaxseed declined slightly in 1969 . Seed cotton lutput declined to 5.7 million tons from 6.0 million in the previous year be- :ause of late sowing and harvesting delays in Uzbekistan, the major cotton iroducing region in the USSR. Although the cotton area of 2.5 million hectares ras 65,000 hectares greater than in 1968 , the average cotton yield of 22.4 centners per hectare was down 7.8 percent from last year and at the lowest .evel since 1964. Sugar beet output for factory use in 1969 totaled 71 million tons, about !3 million tons below the record 1968 level. Sown area was reported as 3.4 lillion hectares compared with 3.6 million in 1968 . Yields averaged about 209 centners per hectare, down 21.4 percent from 1968 . The Ukraine, which usually iroduces about 60 percent of the Soviet Union’s sugar beets, reported yields of !50 centners per hectare, or approximately 25 percent lower than the year >efore. Sugar content of the 1969 beets was not expected to be any higher than in .968 due to the cool weather the past summer. The USDA estimated the raw sugar jutput from the 1969 crop at about 7.6 million tons, well below the planned .evel of 9*7 million tons. Gross output of potatoes, fruit, and vegetables was lower than in 1968 . lie late spring in parts of the southern Ukraine and the RSFSR contributed to shis general downturn. Vegetable production was about 18 million tons, a slight decline from last year’s 19 million tons. Potato production was 82.5 lillion tons. Because of the late spring, total fruit and berry output likely Leclined to about 9 million tons, which equaled the 1966-69 average. NO IMPROVEMENT IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION There was some reason for concern over the lack of progress in the live¬ stock sector during 1969 . Since i 960 , growth rates for the sector have been consistently lower than those for crops, pointing to long-term weaknesses in soviet livestock programs. Moreover, the sharp fluctuations in grain output md continued expansion of grain exports could make it difficult to improve reed programs in the future. Yearend inventories indicated a slight decrease for cattle and cows. There was a steep drop in sheep and goat numbers—due to severe winter condi¬ tions in late 1968 and early 1969—especially in Kirgizia and Kazakhstan. A sharp upturn in hog numbers after a 3-year decline reflects measures taken in recent years to rebuild herds, check foot-and-mouth disease, and meet organi¬ zational and price changes. A lesser part of the 3-percent decline in agricultural production was at¬ tributable to the downturn in the livestock sector. Total meat production remained at the 1968 level. Cattle numbers of 95.0 million were below the 95.'/ million of the previous year, although average live weight per animal did increase 18 kilograms over 1968. Sheep and goat numbers dropped 7 percent to 136.3 million, the lowest level since 1966. Average live weight reportedly in¬ creased about 2 kilograms. Hog numbers increased 7.1 million over the 1968 census of 49 million and average live weight was up 7 kilograms. In response to bonus incentives, poultry numbers increased moderately to an estimated 550 million compared with 1968’s 544 million. The reported increases in average live weights of livestock in the past year should be viewed as a small step forward in feeding efficiency. Limited data, however, still suggest that feed inputs per animal are well below the high U.S. levels. Costs of production have been increasing the past 2 years. According to Soviet reports, it cost l6 rubles to produce 1 centner of milk in 1968, up 4 percent from the 1965-68 average. Meat production (carcass weight) was down in 1969 in some republics, hut output for the country remained at the 11.6-million-ton level reached in 1968. Government purchases amounted to 7.3 million tons, down 100,000 tons from the previous year. Pork purchases increased, but mutton and beef declined. Lower commercial sales were reported in the Ukraine, RSFSR, and Kazakhstan, and tota. sales for the year were only 96 percent of the 1968 level. This decline sug¬ gests that increased sales at higher prices were made in collective farm markets. Milk production declined to 80.6 million tons—reflecting the drop in cow numbers during the year. Egg output increased to 37 billion, up 4 percent ove] 1968. The continued uptrend in egg output since 1966 implies some improvement in feeding efficiency and larger commercial production. Wool production, declined in 1969 to 390,000 tons, reflecting the heavy loss of sheep during th« past winter. AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND THE THIRD COLLECTIVE FARM CONGRESS In Soviet agriculture great emphasis has been placed on achieving in¬ creased productivity per hectare of arable land and reducing operational costs on state farms. Cost accounting, a type of financial autonomy through farm in¬ vestments from farm profits, was introduced in 1967 on a few experimental stat« farms. Approximately 800 of the 13,300 state farms were using the system in 1968 and profitability on half of these farms in January 1969 was from 20 to 4< percent higher than in 1966. There are still problems with the slow progress in construction and land improvement on state farms. Problems related to 6 profits and increased costs continue to plague management, and directors of state farms have been criticized for using farm profits for labor bonuses rather than for capital investments. Early in 1969 , significant price increases were announced for cotton and poultry. These incentives were partly responsible for the reported 3-percent increase in cotton area and the 10-percent increase in poultry numbers on col¬ lective and state farms over the midyear 1968 level. Due to delivery problems and local shortages, an upward adjustment was placed on vegetables and fruits in state markets in June to stabilize the market. In September 1969 a new Ministry of State Purchasing was formed. This agency will set and collect payments for government purchases and determine quality standards. In December, elected representatives of the USSR's collective farms adopted a new collective farm charter. The charter, drafted by the CPSU Central Com¬ mittee in April, had been reviewed and discussed by each collective farm. Although numerous proposals were made to amend the draft, the ratified document reflects few of them and remains a conservative model for managing the country's 36,000 collective farms. Recent agricultural reforms, such as the guaranteed minimum monthly wage, the creation of larger incentives for above-plan performance, and the introduc¬ tion of a unified system of social security benefits, have been incorporated in the new charter. In addition, the 1969 charter sanctions private plot activity, inter-kolkhoz ventures, and auxiliary enterprises on collective farms. Another recent area of reform is the proposed tie-in of farm wages with labor produc¬ tivity. The private sector presently contributes about 30 percent of gross agricultural output in the USSR. The new charter basically affirms the impor¬ tant role of private plots in the production of livestock and livestock products on the collectives although they are dependent on grain from the socialized sector. On only 3 percent of total sown area, private farms produce roughly 4o percent of the eggs, k'J percent of the potatoes, 20 percent of the meat, and 13 percent of the vegetables in the USSR. The charter states that each private plot may be no larger than half a hectare--smaller than allowed under the 1935 charter but larger than the present size on some farms. Private plots are located on the collective farmland and title is held by the collective. Some rent is collected in amounts determined by the management committee of each collective farm. Quantities of livestock allotted to private households are left up to individual collectives in the new charter, although the number of domestic animals such as cows, bees, rabbits, and poultry have been reduced from previous levels. Like under the 1935 model, the collective farm management helps private farmers acquire feed for livestock by paying them in kind. The 1969 charter also permits the sale of feed to members. This has caused some criticism since it may raise the cost of raising livestock on pri¬ vate plots, depending on local farm conditions. A major controversy developed over the type of farm labor organization to be used by the collectives. Some think the link, a small, well-equipped team of 7 6 to 12 men assigned to one plot or crop over a relatively long time, is superior to brigades, consisting of 40 to 60 workers headed by a leader or fore¬ man. The management and control over large brigades has been a frequent source of complaint„ Nevertheless, the charter is vague and leaves the organizational unit up to the collectives, probably because some officials consider links to be too independent and thus an idealogical threat. Reformists are looking for other ways to improve labor efficiency, but no radical departures from the old work system are being made. Ignored were moves to create a national collective union, or a large association of collective farms to oversee construction projects and manage agro-industrial enterprises. Instead, weak collective "councils" will be elected locally, offering no possible threat to the Ministry of Agriculture’s authority over the collective farm structure. The new charter then is limited in scope and construction. It allows authorities to control the pace of change which is occurring in the collective farm sector. Nevertheless, it incorporates several major policy changes made on the collectives since the last formal charter appeared in 1935. LAGS IN INVESTMENT Realized returns from the accelerated emphasis on agricultural capital in¬ puts during the 1960 ’s have been slower than originally anticipated. Recognizing this shortcoming, Soviet leaders, without reducing emphasis, have introduced more moderate goals for 1970 in areas where progress is slow. Productive investment (excluding buildings for social purposes) in the agricultural sector has been growing at an annual rate of about 11 percent since i 960 . The announced plan for total agricultural productive investment in 1970 is 14.7 billion rubles, a 10.7-percent increase over 1969 ’s estimated 13.3 billion rubles. This implies interest in maintaining a favorable investment posture in agriculture, although no significant increases are planned for working capital inputs, except in mineral fertilizer. Over half of productive agricultural investment is in construction, which was hampered by high costs of materials and low labor productivity in 1969 . On collective farms, a capital investment fund has been made mandatory by the new charter. Although no specific amount is mentioned, the fund takes priority over the incentive fund. N. Baybakov, Chairman of the Central Planning Organi¬ zation, Gosplan, announced in his December Plenum speech, "in 1970 85 percent of the overall growth in national income should be achieved through an increase in labor productivity." The goals for deliveries of tractors, combines and other machinery to agriculture were nearly reached, just as they were in the 3 previous years of the 5-year plan. In 1969 grain combine deliveries of 92,000 amounted to 92 percent of plan; tractor deliveries of 303,000 were 99 percent of plan. The plan for the delivery of 155,000 trucks presumably was not met, and this added to the transportation bottlenecks, made the late, wet harvest more difficult. Under 1970 plans, 312,000 tractors and 157,000 trucks are to be delivered, in¬ corporating only modest improvements over 1969 plans. 8 Fertilizer deliveries in 1969 were fractionally more than planned de¬ aries of 38.5 million tons. The plan for 1970 is expected to reach 46 Hion tons. This is a revision from the original 55 million tons, hut repre¬ ss an important increase of 20 percent over 1969. Mineral fertilizers will applied to potatoes, vegetables, and industrial crops as well as grains.. 2 Volga area has been specified as the major beneficiary of the proposed in- sase. CONSUMPTION WEAK IN 1969 The upward trend in high-protein foods, characteristic of the Soviet diet ace 1965, suffered a setback in 1969. Consumption levels were adequate, but pplies to city markets were irregular. There was a shortage of fresh meat, ultry, and meat products in major cities of the USSR. Many of these short- taings can be attributed to weaknesses in the transportation and marketing stems, but the major problem is still one of production. Vegetable and f ruit production also declined slightly from 1968. ^Consump- on of vegetables has declined 2 consecutive years, partly due to weather mage and partly to the decision to sell vegetables on kolkhoz markets where ices more nearly reflect effective demand rather than to state stores where ices are fixed at lower levels. Transportation from rural areas to procure- nt points is another reason for the weak supply position of fruits and getables. Potato consumption has been declining since 19&5 due t 0 tester pplies of quality foods, meat, eggs, and milk, in the diet. However, cereals d starches contributed 54 percent of average caloric intake per day m 19of d was estimated at about that level in 1969. The number of calories supplied r grains and potatoes is about 20 percent greater for collective farmers than ir other workers. Vegetable oil crops have recently reached a production level consistent .th "self-sufficiency" in Soviet terms. This suggests that consumption is lequate to meet an average worker's daily caloric needs. Due to higher oil mtent of seeds and better extraction methods, the production of vegetable Lis, especially sunflowerseed oil, has increased greatly in the past 3 years, msumption, however, declined after 1966 due to a government policy to in¬ case exports. Surplus butter has substituted for vegetable oils. Production f butter amounted to 1.1 million tons in 1968. Per capita consumption in 1968 robably rose to about 4.5 kilograms. A reduction in butter stocks at.the end f 1969 due to increased consumption may be one cause for significant.increases f butter imports in 1970. Prices during the year were stabilized slightly be- dw the 1968 level. Per capita Soviet meat and poultry consumption (which includes lard) eached 48 kilograms in 1968 but fell to 46 kilograms in 1969. Per capita meat onsumption is still only about half that of the United States. As a result o he decline in meat availability, poultry and meat prices fluctuated in 1969 . rospects are not good in 1970 for reaching the planned meat consumption of 51 ilograms per capita. Several factors have contributed to the present lag in livestock products onsumption. Livestock and poultry holdings on the household plots, which 9 contribute about 40 percent of meat and milk output, declined during 2 consecu¬ tive years. Slow progress in collective and state farm feed programs (although feed supplies are generally improving), and lingering effects of foot-and-mouth disease, are also factors. Ineffective marketing and poor refrigeration for storage of meat and milk products remained important factors in distribution anc consumption problems. Table 2.--USSR: Per capita consumption of selected food products, I960, 1965, 1966-69 Commodity .* i960 ) 1965 . 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 Kilograms ---------- Meat and fat.: 40 4l 44 46 48 l/46 Milk and milk products..: 240 251 260 274 285 Eggs (numbers).: 118 124 132 138 144 149 Fish and fish products..: 9-9 12.6 12-9 13*2 14-3 n.a. Sugar.: 28.0 34.2 35-3 36-7 37-4 n.a. Vegetable oil.: 5*3 7*1 6.3 6.5 6.5 n.a. Potatoes.: 143 142 135 1-31 131 n.a. 1/ Estimated from N. Baybakov's Supreme Soviet Speech, n.a. = not available. Sources: Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR v, 1967; 1968. AGRICULTURAL TRADE STILL STRONG Agricultural trade in the 1960 's became increasingly important to the Soviet Union as a source of hard currency earnings. Commodity trade not only increased, but select commodities--sunflowerseed, oil, and cotton--are now com¬ peting with U.S. products. While a substantial share of the Soviet grain trade is still directed to Eastern Europe, grain has also appeared in other commer¬ cial markets of the world in recent years. The downturn in output of most commodities in 1969 will probably depress trade levels in 197 C* Agriculture's share of total exports was 15 percent and its share of total imports about l 8 percent in 1968 . The USSR holds a net export position in grains, cotton, sunflower oil, and fresh-frozen meat. This position was held, during 1969 largely due to record government purchases during 1968 for domestic stocks and exports. Although total exports are expected to decline in 1970, the Soviets can probably maintain a net export position in these products. In June 1966 , the Soviet"Union contracted to buy 9 million tons of wheat from Canada over the next 3 years. In June 1969; about 3*5 million tons of wheat remained to be bought. After a conspicuous delay, the USSR agreed in December to purchase the remaining wheat, 2 million tons of which will be de¬ livered by December 197C. Part of this wheat has already been assigned for 10 xport to Cuba, and part could go to the Far Eastern regions of the USSR or to eet other export commitments in 1970* The need to accumulate wheat stocks is probably strong at this time. In 968 , 49 million tons of wheat were purchased by the state, or 10 million tons ore than the domestic wheat requirement. In 1969* an estimated 37 million ons were purchased, about equal to the domestic needs. Wheat trade in hard currency markets will probably be reduced in 1970 . ommitments to Czechoslovakia and East Germany for 1970 have already been set t about 2.5 million tons, but it is possible that feed grains could be substi- uted for some of this wheat. Greatly increased government purchases of cotton, sugar, and vegetable oil ince 1964 have permitted the Soviets to make impressive gains in exports of hese commodities up and through 1969* Sugar was exported primarily to the udan, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East in 1968 . Imports of raw sugar from aba have contributed to the Soviet export position of refined sugar. Under srms of the 6 -year Soviet-Cuban agreement signed in 1964 , the Soviets would archase 5 million tons of raw sugar from Cuba during the years 1968 through 970 . Purchases have been considerably less, but if Cuba approaches the 10 illion-ton goal this year, it is possible that the 5 million-ton delivery Duld be met. Cotton exports exceeded 500*000 tons in 1968 .and 1969 * but will robably drop in 1970 due to lower quality and reduced production. Principal arkets are Eastern Europe, Japan, and Great Britain. Exports of vegetable oils, 75 percent of which is sun oil, declined by Dout 100,000 tons in 1969* Oil exports could decrease further in 1970 due to le 6 -percent drop in sunflowerseed production. Western markets for sun oil iclude the Netherlands, Italy, and West Germany. Sunflowerseed exports are anfined mainly to East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Japan. Shortages of meat should cause a rise in poultry and beef imports during le first half of 1970 * primarily from France, New Zealand, and Australia. The Dviets have contracted with Australia for the purchase of 30,000 tons of beef aarters and mutton for delivery in May. This reflects the weakened position f both internal and East European suppliers. Imports will probably serve as a bop-gap measure until the domestic production improves. While the share of Eastern Europe in USSR's total agricultural trade has sen increasing slowly since 1966, the increased trade with such Western mar- 2ts as Great Britain, France, and Japan has been more dramatic, reflecting the ssire for hard, negotiable currencies. Agricultural trade with the less developed countries and China has been screasing since 1966 . U.S. agricultural exports to the USSR amounted to $5*3 Lllion in 1968 —primarily hides and skins. Soviet exports to the United bates were $ 2.2 million—mainly cotton linters and bristles. In 1969 U.S. ex¬ erts increased to $ 11.6 million. 11 OUTLOOK Last year's weak agricultural performance is expected to affect 1970 trade in certain critical areas. A prospective decrease mcotton exports vou break the uptrend evident since 1967 . low sugar beet output in 1969 is ex¬ pected to reduce refined sugar production to about 7-6 million tons, well below the planned level of 9-7 million tons. This decrease could reduce the level of exports in 1970. Raw sugar imports from Cuba will probably increase. Vegetable oil production in 1969 was about 200,000 tons below that of 1968 . Export supplies of sunflower oil in 1969 were probably lower than in 1968 . Exports of sun oil in 1970 are expected to continue at a reduced level. In 1970, the Soviet Union will complete the current 5-year plan 0-966-70) and lay the groundwork for the next 5 years. The planned 1966-70 growth rates for agricultural production, though more realistic than_Khrushchevian aims, did not fully take into account the rigidities of economic institutions an vagaries of weather. Even with increased investment in agriculture, the 1 results of the 5 -year plan showed a sluggish response. And output did not match increased consumption demands of a growing population. Grain is still the foremost area of concern. On a total ^5 mil¬ lion hectares, output in 1970 is planned to reach a re cord 174- 5 million tons. Planned purchases of grain are not expected to exceed the 9 70 million tons, hut should be enough to insure adequate stocks, and to at least maintain the past level of exports. Procurement plans for 1970, except grain, sugar beets, and wool, are at record levels. tL 9 . 8 -percent planned increase in cotton will raise procure¬ ments to 6.3 million tons and could improve the Soviet export position in 97 • Sunflowerseed procurements are planned to be slightly a ove e 9 5 2 million tons. Meat production (including fats and offals) is p ann reach 1 12^1 million tons. Higher planned input levels of mineral fertilizer^ (k6 million tons), representing a 20 -percent increase over 19 9> ^ cron performance in 1970. Plans for machinery deliveries are only marginal y above P those for 1969 . Effects of land improvement and increased machinery in¬ puts will probably not appear until the next 5 -year period. Sowing of 1970 winter grains started slowly. Lack of soil moisture in Moldavia) the Southwestern Ukraine, and in Krasnodar Kray slowed germination and growth in the fall months. The weather has been quite mild, hOTe ™;> “ much of the European part of the USSR, and January snows have improved the sno cover in parts of the Ukraine. 12 EASTERN EUROPE AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT DOWN IN 1969 Agricultural output in Eastern Europe last year declined about 1 percent in the USDA index--the first decline since 1962 (table 1 ). Summer drought on potatoes, sugar beets, and other crops in the northern countries— Czechoslo- vakia, East Germany, and Poland—was mainly responsible. The southern countries—Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia—recovered in 1969 from the drought-reduced 1968 harvests, but better results in crop production there did not offset lower crops in the north. Lower livestock inventories at the start of 1969 in most countries retarded growth in livestock product output. Despite the decline in aggregate production in 1969? output remained on the generally higher plateau achieved since 1965 and was about 18 percent higher than the I96I-65 average in the USDA index. Yugoslavia and Hungary achieved record levels of production, growing faster than planned. Bulgaria and Romania partially recovered from the reduced 1968 level, but did not achieve planned growth and remained below 1966 and 1967 levels. Output de¬ clined moderately in Czechoslovakia and Poland and sharply in East Germany. Commodities registering the largest increases in 1969 were fruit, corn sunflowerseed, and barley (table 12 ). Slight increases were made for wheat, milk, and eggs. Rapeseed production dropped to less than half the level of the previous year. Major declines were noted for sugar beets, potatoes, tobacco, and rye; wool, vegetable, and meat output declined slightly. DROUGHT AFFECTS FEED SUPPLIES IN NORTHERN COUNTRIES Poland, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia experienced hot, dry weather throughout July and in the first half of August. This led to widespread prob¬ lems for the agricultural sector, especially animal husbandry. Reduced production of potatoes and forage crops, combined with increased livestock in¬ ventories in Poland and East Germany, created a larger gap between feed supplies and needs. The impact was less severe in Czechoslovakia, where live¬ stock numbers were low compared with recent years, although the poor potato srop was a deterrent to herd rebuilding programs. A major reduction in feed supplies occurred as the drought cut potato pro< luction. Output declined from 70 million tons in 1968 to an estimated 59 nillion tons in 1969. Yields suffered, but reduced area (table 11 )— a long¬ term trend accentuated the drop. Although important for human consumption, about half of the potatoes in these countries go into livestock feed, accounting for roughly one-fifth of the total feed units in some years. /arious measures were taken to conserve supplies, such as restricting exports 13 and industrial use, and consumers were assured adequate quantities. The bulk; of the loss was expected to he felt by livestock feeders. Grain supplies were affected less severely by the drought. Total produc¬ tion equaled the record 1968 level of 33.4 million tons. Rye barely held the leading position, as output declined about 4 percent to 10.8 million tons. Wheat was a record 10.4 million tons. Barley production also was a record. Rye and wheat, as well as feed grains, are used extensively for livestock feed- ing in these countries. Roughly half of grain supplies are used for feed, accounting for more than one-fourth of total feed units in most years. About half of livestock feed of the northern countries is derived from pasture and from hay, straw, green forage, feed roots, and other forage crops. These crops were severely affected by the drought. Pastures dried up and sowing of catch crops was hindered by lack of moisture. But improved rainfall after mid-August and a long fall enabled longer grazing of pastures and devel¬ opment of catch crops. In Poland, where private farms still predominate, the government offered direct assistance to farmers to counteract the drought. Credit repayments wer< -postponed 12 months and additional credits were offered for seeds and fertilizer. Government sales of feed concentrates were planned to increase to 4 million tons in 1969/70 compared with 3.5 million tons in 1968/69 (about three-fifths was purchased by private farmers). Planned government purchases of grain from farms were reduced by 350,000 tons and additional imports of grain, oil meal, fish meal, and soybeans were promised. Through increased imports of grains and other feedstuffs, the northern countries expect supplies to be sufficient to maintain livestock herds at rela tively constant levels. Imports of 5.7 million tons of gram in 1968 included 3.5 million tons of wheat and 1.9 million tons of feed grams (table 3 ). Grain imports likely declined in 1969 following the record 1968 harvest. Due to smaller feed availabilities from the 1969 crops, imports are expected to excee 1968 purchases by as much as a half-million tons. Poland and East Germany probably will increase their imports sharply. The Soviet Union has been the major supplier of grain to these countries, providing about 60 percent of the total and more than 80 percent of the wheat in 1968 . The United States supplied about 15 percent of the total, but almost half of the feed grains. Poland, however, purchased 60 percent of its gram from western sources and only 40 percent from the USSR in 1968 . France sup plied about 30 percent of Polish grain imports, both barley and wheat, and continued to sell grain to Poland in 1969 . In late 1969, Poland also extendec its agreement with Canada to purchase 400,000 tons of wheat and barley by mi - 1971. In January 1970, Czechoslovakia announced that the USSR would supply 1 million tons of grain, largely wheat, by midsummer. The USSR agreed to sell 1.5 million tons of grain to East Germany during 1970, including 1.2 million tons during the first half year. Purchases of EC (European Community) feed wheat at relatively low prices reportedly were contracted by the northern countries during 1969 . During 1969 , the United States sold 575,000 tons of feed grains, excluding transshipments, valued at $30 million, to the northe countries of Eastern Europe. East Germany and Poland were the principal markets. l4 Table 3 .--Eastern Europe: Imports of grains and selected feedstuffs by the northern countries, average 1961-65, annual 1966-68 Item 1961-65 average 1966 1967 : 1968 1 / Wheat • • • tons - - - Czechoslovakia. 1,142 1,032 1,205 1,371 East Germany. 1,208 1,350 1,184 1,075 Poland. 1,701 1,567 1,353 1,068 Total. Feed grains : 4,051 3,949 3,742 3,514 Czechoslovakia. 542 698 396 4oo East Germany. 476 529 583 661 Poland. 752 444 694 880 Total. Total grains 2/ : 1,770 1,671 1,673 1,941 Czechoslovakia. 1,865 1,876 1,847 1,827 East Germany. 1,930 1,998 1,817 1,783 Poland. 2,713 2,148 2,112 2,071 Total. Oilmeal and cake : 6,508 6,022 5,776 5 , 68 l Czechoslovakia. 114 205 250 260 East Germany. 129 236 345 379 Poland 3/. • 116 184 216 299 Total. Fish meal • 359 625 811 938 Czechoslovakia. 4l 67 75 65 East Germanv. 49 95 80 97 Poland. 35 67 85 108 Total. : 125 229 24o 270 1/ Preliminary. 2/ Includes wheat, feed grains, rye, and rice. 3/ Includes some milling byproducts. 15 Oil cake and meal imports by the northern countries have grown steadily, climbing from 543,000 tons in 1965 to an estimated 938,000 tons in 1968 . The United States supplied 107,000 tons (primarily to Poland), valued at $10.2 million. U.S. sales during 1969 slipped to $8.5 million. Total imports of oil cake and meal during 1970 by the northern countries probably will continue to grow and should exceed 1 million tons. Increased feed requirements resulting from the 19&9 drought in the northern countries of Eastern Europe will have a major impact on import costs. Grain and other livestock feeds occupy a leading position in the agricultural , imports of these countries. _5/ GOOD GRAIN CROPS IN SOUTHERN COUNTRIES Total grain production in the southern countries--Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia--in 1969 was an estimated 4-1.7 million tons, slightly below the 1966 record and ^ percent higher than the drought-reduced 1968 crop. Production was more than one-fourth above the 1961-65 average. Compared with 1968 , wheat output increase only 2 percent, and was 10 percent less than the 1967 record; corn output increased l4 percent and equaled the 1966 record. Corn and wheat accounted for 53 and 36 percent, respectively, of the estimated 1969 output of grain in the southern countries. Although total performance was clearly better than in 1968 , the principal improvements were in Yugoslavia and Hungary. Wheat production reached record levels in both countries and corn production was a record in Hungary and near-, record in Yugoslavia. Grain output was higher in Bulgaria and Romania, but well below 1966 and 1967 levels. Grains for the 1969 harvest entered the winter in good condition and overwintered normally, except in Romania where winter damage reduced the wheat area. Total grain area remained about the same as in 1968 . Spring planting was delayed by cold weather. The summer was cool and rainy except in Bulgaria, where dry weather set in after June. Rainfall was unusually heavy in Romania. Improved levels of grain production boosted livestock feed supplies. Grains play a more important role and potatoes a relatively minor one in the feed balances of these countries. Pasturing was delayed in the spring, but subsequent favorable precipitation, except in Bulgaria, provided additional benefits as pastures were lush and hay crops yielded well. 5/ Most East European countries do not publish value data on commodity trade Estimated values are published by FA0 in its Trade Yearbook . The most recent estimates are for 1967 . In that year, total grain imports by the northern countries were valued at an estimated $419 million. Wheat and feed grains ac¬ counted for $279 million and $100 million, respectively. Imports of oil cake and meal were valued at an estimated $77 million. 16 Human consumption of grain in the southern countries increased through the mid-i960’s, but has begun to decline. Average consumption estimated at about 180 kilograms per capita in 1967 was almost triple the U.S. level. Re¬ cent declines may offset population growth of about 0.8 percent per year permitting future increases in domestic supplies to be used for livestock feeding. Some countries are using larger quantities of wheat for livestock feed. For example, Hungary increased feed wheat production from about 100,000 ;ons in 1965 to more than 600,000 tons in 1969. The better 1969 grain harvest should extend the uptrend of grain exports md downtrend of imports in the southern countries which developed during the L96o's (table 4). During I96I-65, the southern region was an annual net im- xarter of more than 600,000 tons of grain, primarily wheat. A net export )osition--reaching about 3.5 million tons in 1967--has been maintained since .965. Net exports declined in 1968 and 1969 as a result of the poor 1968 har¬ dest. The better 1969 crop should boost net exports to more than 2.5 million ;ons--about two-thirds corn and one-third wheat. Few imports are anticipated, ;xcept about 100,000 tons of rice. Yugoslavia and Hungary made especially abrupt shifts in grain trade in .969. Yugoslavia’s wheat imports, which had been averaging almost 1 million ons during the first half of the 1960's, were discontinued in 1968 and the 969 crop provided the first surplus since World War XX. A large crop and ower internal prices were expected to boost corn exports. A corn export fund o counter the gap between world prices and government-guaranteed prices also as proposed. Hungary imported nearly 500,000 tons of grain--much of it feed heat—during 1968, but the 1969 crop produced a surplus of about 700,000 tons, ost of which has been exported. Exports by Romania and Bulgaria may be less han in recent years. LIVESTOCK PRODUCT SHORTAGES Livestock production in Eastern Europe in 1969 generally showed the least nnual growth since the reverses of 1963. Output of most products, however, as well above the I96I-65 average. The lack of growth, nevertheless, had a ubstantial effect on trade and consumption patterns. Inventories of most major categories of livestock in Eastern Europe were ower at the start of 1969 than in either of the previous 2 years (table 13). or the region, hogs were down 3*3 percent from the previous year, and sheep ad cattle numbers had declined 2.0 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively, oultry numbers increased a slight 0.7 percent. Inventories of the major cate- ories of livestock had generally declined in all countries, except Poland and ast Germany (although hog numbers increased in Romania). Sharp declines of 3 percent in Hungary and Yugoslavia left hog inventories at close to the owest levels of the 1960's. Hog inventories declined 8 percent in Bulgaria ad Czechoslovakia. The major decline in cattle numbers was experienced by agoslavia with an 8-percent drop. Poultry numbers also were substantially awer in Bulgaria and Hungary. 17 Reductions in livestock inventories generally continued during 1969. Most countries have not reported the end-of-year livestock census numbers, hut pre¬ liminary USDA estimates suggest that cattle inventories declined 2 percent and hog and sheep inventories declined about 1 percent. In contrast to 1968 when widespread drought played a major role in herd cutbacks, the declines in 1969 generally can be attributed to a strong demand for meat, which impeded the re- ouilding of livestock herds. Insufficient profitability and lack of incentives Dn the small private plots also have been blamed for some liquidation of moldings. Disease problems contributed to losses in some countries. Milk production was the brightest spot in the livestock sector in 1969. Jow numbers held more stable than other categories of livestock, and improved .eed supplies in several countries boosted milk yields. Milk output increased Ln most countries and was up an estimated 1 percent for the region (table lb). Relatively slow growth in butter output during the second half of the 1960*s suggests increasing utilization of fresh milk and other milk products. Egg production in the region also probably increased more than 1 percent tit hough lower poultry numbers in Bulgaria and Hungary reduced output there. ’ l slight improvement in the rate of lay generally was noted. Wool production declined in I969 3s a result of smaller sheep herds at the *irst of the year and losses from severe winter weather in the southern ountries. Meat output declined slightly in the region (table 5). 6/ Poultry meat utput made slight growth, primarily at the expense of pork. Substantial in- reases in total meat production are estimated for Poland and East Germany, and light.gains for Hungary and Romania. The sharpest declines were incurred by ulgaria and Yugoslavia, followed by Czechoslovakia. The failure of most countries in 1969 to significantly increase output of eat made it difficult to meet consumer demands. The shortages required in- reased imports by some countries and led to reduced exports by others. Per capita consumption of meat in the region in 1967 averaged about b'J ilograms (one-half the U.S. level), ranging from 28 kilograms in Yugoslavia to 3 kilograms in Czechoslovakia (table 6). Consumption of eggs ranged from 96 n Yugoslavia to 246 in Czechoslovakia (315 in the United States) and of milk ad dairy products (excluding butter), from 105 kilograms in Hungary to 258 ilograms in Poland (l6l kilograms in the United States). Consumption of live- tock products generally increased and consumption of potatoes decreased in the 960's. Grain consumption declined after the mid-196 o's. 6 / Because of definitive differences in meat carcass weights among the arious countries, the live weight data are shown in table 5 to provide greater imparability. The reported data on live weight usually include live animal sports in recognition of the importance of production for export in these auntries. 19 O H VO H ON ro CM -4 14-4 oO H J #\ *\ rs *\ *\ cm co ro oo co CM UN H VO ON GO ON H t— O HCM J «\ »N i—1 rl r-1 H rH UN 00 4" CM ON CM UN O t4CO 4 - -4 LTN UN4- CO CO 14 H H UN OO CM CO CO CO 00-4 -4 -4 CO -4 -4 VO OO Lf\VO CO O -4 CM CM CM OO CO H OVD NO 4 OVOVrl O) H H H CM rl OO VO MO LTV O 4 CM OO ON-4 VO CO O H CM C\ C\ «\ «N ^ H H CM CM CM ON LCVCO O O O -4 VO LfN q 00 CO ON O H i—I H 4 ON ON ON VO i—I ON OO MN CO 4" -4 LTV UN LfN UN CM CO VO -4 CM CO CM CO LfN 4" 4" LfN LfN LfN CM ON LfN ON-4 CO-4 CO O -4 ON-4 -4 14 VO #\ »N IN »N ,4 LfN LfN LfN LfN CO VO ON t- ON H 14 On E— UN On O O CM H rv IN IN ^ *N H CM CM CM CM 4 ON CM OO LfN CO H 4 CO OO VO VO VO VO VO VO H H ONCO O O -4 LfN LfN 4- LfN LfN LfN LfN VO -4 LfN O ON LfN ON LfN LfN O VO VO VO 4 4 ONCM H UNI4 H VO VO OO ltn CM CM CM CM CM 4 CO VO CM LfN H 4 00 COCO O OO 00-4 -4 IN *N IN IN OO CO OO OO oo LfN ON 4 H O UN O OO LfN CM LfN [4 VO VO 4 IN IN IN IN *N H H rl rl ri CM CM CM OO O LfN CM LfN ON H OO O O O H IN «N IN «N VOVO H LAVO ON CM H ON-4 VO 00 ON ON O rl rl rl rl 4 CM 14- CO LfN O -4 -4 CO LfN vo vo vo VO vo LfN t— CO 00-4 H ON LfN O CO 4 - -4 LfN VO vo ON ON ON OO 4 OO H CM -4 -4 H H H H LfN 4 LfN H VO ON O CM LfN VO rH rH rH i—I OO rl OO H O OO H CM OO LfN H CM CM CM CM CO O VO OO H 4 - VO 4 4 4 ON OO CM CM CM LfN ON H OO OO 00-4 4 ON VO CO LfN CM UN VO t—CO rH H rH 1—I rH VO H VO CM CO CO ON ON O O I-1 I 1 H ON H CM ON 4 4 ON H H rH rH 4 CO UN CM CO UN ON C—VO ON O ON-4 H O IN IN l\ IN I' ON On O rH H rH rH rH OO -4 H 4 LfN CM H UNCO ON ON OO LfN ON 14- IS #\ IN l\ I' OO-4 -4-4-4 CO 4 CO O O VO ONCO CO ON CM CM CO UN CO |\ IN IN IN IN rH rH rH rH rH CM OO C—-4 -4 OO CM CO UN VO ON H CM CO CO IN IN «N C\ H rH rH rH IN- IN- H CM 00 CO O H 00-4 H CM CM CO CO IN IN IN *N rH rH rH rH rH rH UN UNCO CO 4 - CO H VO ON UN VO 14 14 VO vo -4 -4 CO CO CM OO CM 14 O HvO OnH CO IN IN IN IN *N UN UN LfN VO VO CO -4 H CM LA VO CO ON VO ON UN 4 CO ON O IN IN IN pH W CO •H d o ft £ CO bO M CO •H d CO bO w d o -p o o o VO H VO OJ • • • • LfN LTV ON CO O VO rH rH cn rop ft CVJ O POft • • • • CO VO £— £— OVHOOV H H - 4 - H CO O • • • • CO H VO O H OO LO VO H VO H O • • • • LTV VO O LfN VO CO ON ON - 4 - O CM O • • • • £"—0 00 0 rH OO POft £— - 4 " OO £— • • • • H i—I O OJ 4 IA 04 CM CM CO CM 4" LTV H C— • • • • •••• ON CO CM CM H ON C— CO ON VO ON ON - 4 " - 4 " rH OJ H OJ OJ OJ H H C— ON VO • • • • H ON CM LfN OO t- 00 - 4 - • • • H O O OO O OJ H • • • • H H CO CO OO OO IXN H OO LfNVO O • • • • £—00 LfN LfN- OJ CONOH • • • • VO t- ON O LfNVO 14 - ON I ft)ft WVO 04 • • • • ON LfNCO CO 00-4 LfNVO -f ftf |ft jftl £- O ON H • • • • OJ H H H CO CO CO CO • • • • d d d d On ltn H oo • • • • CO ft ON £- OJ OO 00 - 4 - VO H O O • • • • C- O E- O rH rH OJ 4 - OJ CO ON • • • • oo On e— ltn - 4 - [-4 (-4 | 4 H LTN LfN OJ rH • • • • o o o o i>i H LfN OJ i-H • • • • o o o o CO CO CO CO • • • • f! fl oo i • i O I H O ca cu •H d ft -P •P d o o o ft d CO rH o ft H| -P CO w g co d ft cu CO I CO O -H ft ft O CO IS) o O H CO -p H -P CO CL) g CO -P o Eh LfN ft- OJ OO OO ON OJ O VO H E— LfN O O OJ OJ H rH I —1 rH O H 00-4 O O CO H OJ CM H (NJ COCO HOO O ft" LfN OJ H ON OJ O t-ft VO VO LfN ON O CM ft ft LTN E- HVOONO OJLfNLfNO t OO £— o CM ft ft- LfN OO OOft O ON VO LfN LfN VO O OJ O HOW CO £ CX 3 £"— LfN OJ ON CO* CO* H H CO OO CO OO M -P d O s* ft CD bO co d a) > co LfN SO I H VO ft CO HO VO VO VO ON ON ON ON H rH rH rH OJ w -p d O W H VO H O £- • • • • t 4 - CM H H H CM CM CM ftiftift OCO (V )0 • • • • VO CO £— OO H H i—I rH CO CO CO CO • • • « £ d d $ft VO co £— C— • • • • H PO CO oo CM £-VO OO • • • • OO CO £— LfN CO CO CO CO • • • • d d £ £ CM £—-VO CO • • • • 00 CO t>- LT\ • • • (!)••• 0 • • • (D • • • bD • • • bD • • • bO • • co • • « CU • • • CU • • • d • • • d • • • d • • • (D • • • 0 • • • 0 • • • |> • • • t> • • • > • • • • • co • • • 1 • « CU • • • cu • • "cM| LfN NO I H VO £—00 M 3 VO VO VO ON ON ON ON H rH rH rH PO| r? -p i ft w -p d o e* ft LfN No I H VO 14 -CO M 3 VO VO VO ail LfN No ON ON ON ON ft ON ON ON ON H H H H cm | H VO 14 - 00 VD VO VO VO H H rH rH & d 0 ) 03 -P ra 0 4 = ft -p •H IS 0 ■ft CO d -P rH CO Cl o is) d 0 ) -P d •H CO •H d O ft d CO -P rj> co d a> co g g 0 05 rN> d bfl co d •H ft 3 O d H H co -P O -P -p w cO d ft •H bO d ft d •H 0 -H E H i) •h d d H H H 0 CJ o d X ft ft £ HloT|oo 23 pressures, the government in early 1970 announced that pork imports will he in- creased. Poland is the leading exporter of canned meats, followed by _ Yugoslavia, and both rely heavily on the U.S. market for hams. Both countries showed growing sales to the United States in 1969 . Along with the emphasis to export meat, the pressures to increase domesti, consumption are expected to bring even greater emphasis on the Instock secto in the plans for 1971-75. Several of the countries took steps m 1969 to boos livestock production. In Poland, price increases on hogs took effect January ' _•_TO* ~7C\ 4 - -Po o t.tViO *1 Tl Ul -a-*.* ~-- 7 x-- 7 « - __ 1970. A reduced land tax also was promised in 1970 to farmers who increase beef sales. These measures were at least partly designed to prevent drought- induced slaughter in 1969. In East Germany, the lower-priced compulsory deliveries were abolished (although farms still refund to the government a por tion of receipts to be used for general agricultural development). Bonus . prices for sales above the contracted level in Czechoslovakia caused excessive slaughtering of herds. IMrther increases in the basic prices on hogs were proposed in 1969, tut, in general, a price freeze has been applied in that country. The Hungarian Government announced in December the following price increases to be effective January 1, 1970: slaughter cattle—30 percent; slaughter hogs—10 percent; slaughter sheep—20 percent (but wool down 6.5 per cent); and milk—5 percent. A new set of prices on livestock in Yugoslavia, announced in Judy to be effective January 1, 1970, resembles the prices estab¬ lished in 1965 , but is guaranteed only for the higher grades of animals. Bulgaria previously established higher.livestock prices in 1968. Prices apparently remained unchanged in Romania. VEGETABLE DOWNTURN, BUT FRUIT HARVEST IS A RECORD With the onset of drought in the northern countries and continuation of the cool, rainy summer in the southern countries, concern developed in Easterr Europe about the supply of other foodstuffs. For the region, vegetable outpul declined slightly from 1968 output of 10.8 million tons and potatoes droppe almost 15 percent from the record 78.3 million tons in 1968 . All the northern countries experienced a decline, but the sharpest was in Romania Romanian potato output dropped 40 percent and vegetable production declined *3 percen . Despite lower production, all governments acted to secure close-to-normal sup¬ plies and assured the urban citizenry that needs would be met. In Poland, f example, exports of potatoes were reduced and vegetable imports increased. The fruit crop also was smaller in the north, but a bumper harvest was gathered in all southern countries except Bulgaria. For Eastern Porope, pro¬ duction (excluding grapes) reached 7.8 million tons—about °ne-fi 6 * than in 1968 . The grape harvest increased 6 percent to a record 4.6 milli . tons. In the southern countries the record fruit crop, combined with good vegetable production (except in Romania), tended to boost exports Bulgaria and Hungary are the region's leading exporters of fruits and vegetables; the. commodities contribute more than one-fourth of Hungary's agricultural export earnings. In 1969, Hungarian exports of fresh fruit jumped 60 Percent to a record 350,000 tons, including 250,000 tons of apples. Results in Bulgaria 24 tere less Impressive, although production of tomatoes--the leading "vegetable" for export--grew 5 percent. The region's wine exports also have climbed steadily, reaching 3.4 million lectoliters in 1967 and more in 1968. Bulgaria exports roughly half of the rine, followed by Hungary. Hungarian wine exports jumped one-fourth in 1969. Despite the importance of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables in last European trade, they are largely exchanged within the Communist group and :ontribute little hard currency. The USSR, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia re the major buyers. Some markets have been developed in Western Europe par— .icularly in West Germany and the U.K. REDUCED EXPORT AVAILABILITIES OF'INDUSTRIAL CROPS Production of oilseeds, sugar beets, and tobacco declined sharply in astern Europe in 1969. The declines in oilseeds and sugar beets were limited o the northern countries; output in the southern countries increased. Total oilseed output in Eastern Europe declined 16 percent to an estimated .35 million tons (table 12 ). However, production of sunflowerseed--the major ilseed in the southern countries—jumped 11 percent to a record 1.76 million ons. The main boost came from higher yields, although area continued to ex- and. Exports of sunflowerseed and oil from the southern countries increased n 1968, continuing the trend since 1965. Estimated exports of 204,000 tons of unflowerseed oil were more than four times the 1965 level, and estimated seed xports of 207,000 tons were over 40 percent above the 1965 level. Exports ap- arently continued to increase in 1969 and should advance in 1970. The major xporter of oil is Romania; of seed, Bulgaria. Major markets for Romanian unflowerseed oil are the Netherlands, West Germany, and West European suntries. Italy has been the main purchaser of Bulgarian sunflowerseed. Due to heavy imports by the northern countries and Yugoslavia, Eastern .trope still is a net importer of sunflowerseed oil, despite its prominence as 1 exporter. Total imports of sunflowerseed oil are estimated at 267,000 tons 1 I968; of seeds, 188,000 tons. And the northern countries experienced a major stback in oilseed production in 1969. Rapeseed production declined to about 430,000 tons-- 4 o percent of 1968 out- it--as a result of severe winterkill and the summer drought. The losses are cpected to increase import requirements of Czechoslovakia and East Germany, lich purchase primarily from the USSR. Poland had become an important exporter : rapeseed, selling 175,000 tons of seed and 52,000 tons of oil in 1968, irgely to Western Europe. Sales were down substantially in 1969. Vegetable oil consumption in most of Eastern Europe is quite low when com¬ ired with U.S. per capita consumption in 1967 of 15.9 kilograms (table 6). msumption of animal fats generally is well above U.S. levels. A trend toward lcreased consumption of vegetable oils in Eastern Europe suggests that the -gion eventually may consume much of the expanded output. 25 Sugar beet production in Eastern Europe dropped 22 percent in 1969. Out¬ put fell 27 percent in the northern countries--major producers of the region-- and production was lowest since 1962. A good crop in the southern countries helped cushion the fall in the region. Area declined slightly from 196b . _ levels—well below plantings earlier in the decade in most countries. Policie generally do not favor expansion of sugar beet area. Although the region is a major importer and exporter of sugar, foreign trade prices apparently have bee sufficiently low to discourage production beyond self-sufficiency. Yields ex¬ panded sharply in the 1960*s. Further area contraction is likely in surplus- producing countries. Although the drought in the north sharply reduced sugar beet yields, a long autumn and improved weather conditions reportedly favored sugar develop¬ ment. Higher sugar content may offset part of the decline in sugar beet outpi Tobacco production in Eastern Europe also received a setback in 19 & 9 ? falling an estimated 9 percent. Tobacco in Bulgaria--the leading producer--ws seriously affected by disease on about one-fifth of the area. Bulgarian outp\ of oriental tobacco declined 9 percent. Tobacco is the second leading agricultural export in Eastern Europe. 8 / Almost all is oriental type. Bulgaria and Yugoslavia are the leading exporter: Bulgarian exports of oriental tobacco declined from 76,000 tons m 1967 .0 68 000 tons in 1968, and continued downward to an estimated 60,000 tons in 9; with a farther decline likely in 1970 (table 15 ). Yugoslav exports also have turned down since 1965, although purchases by the United States—the major market--peaked in 1968. CHANGES IN AGRICULTURAL TRADE Total imports and exports of Eastern Europe continued to climb during th latter half of the 1960's, but agricultural trade patterns were irregular. T-. region remains a net importer of agricultural commodities, with total agricul. tural imports valued at an estimated $3.5 billion and exports at $2.8 kilim in 1968 . Agricultural commodities accounted for an estimated 22 percent oi i- ports and l8 percent of exports in 1968. The total value of agriculture imports remained relatively stable from 1966 through 1968, but the share of total imports declined. The value of agricultural exports jumped from about^ $2.6 billion in 1966 to a peak $2.9 billion in 1967, but then sli pp ed J 1968. Total agricultural exports probably made few gams m 1969 ? hut impor probably increased. East Germany remained the leading importer of agricultural commodities a 1968 with imports of about $1 billion. Czechoslovak imports stepped up 7 pei cent to more than $800 million. Poland and Hungary imported roughly $600 million and $400 million worth, respectively. Yugoslavia had the sharpest ductions in agricultural imports--falling one-fifth to about $i50 million. 8/ Exports in 1967 were estimated at $ 1^3 million; Bulgaria accounted for $89 million. 26 Bulgaria held first place as an agricultural exporter with sales valued at nore than $700 million in 1968. Romanian agricultural exports slipped more than 10 percent to $500 million; Polish sales gained slightly to nearly $500 million, Hungarian sales held at more than $4-00 million, Yugoslav exports Iropped sharply to about $275 million. About two-thirds of Eastern Europe's total trade continued to be exchanged ALth Communist countries; one-third with the USSR alone. Most Yugoslav trade, lowever, is with non-Communist countries and Romania has stepped up trade out¬ side the Communist region. The principal agency for coordinating trade ictivities in the region is the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CEMA or COMECON). Members of CEMA include the East European countries (except fugoslavia, which has observer status), the USSR, and Mongolia. Members effect Limited clearing in rubles through the International Barik of Economic Coopera¬ tion in Moscow, although most trade still is under bilateral agreement. The 23 rd session of CEMA, held at the summit level in Moscow in April .969, took up questions of economic integration and coordination, with special :mphasis on the 1971-75 plan period. Problems of nonconvertibility of :urrency, which have hindered trade evaluations, remained unresolved. The ;reatest progress in CEMA probably has been in the scientific-technical area, lie CEMA Standing Commission on Agriculture held its 28 th meeting in Bucharest .n May 1969. Member countries agreed to expand programs during 1971-75 for ex- hange of seeds, pedigree livestock, and semen; for cooperation in plant and .ivestock protection; and for the exchange of technical information and xperience. The Commission will continue to coordinate efforts in internation- 1 testing of seeds and machinery standardization and it has sponsored some ork in coordination of scientific research and long-term economic projections. Cotton is Eastern Europe's leading agricultural import. 9/ Cotton imports ncreased from 623,000 tons in 1967 to 631,500 tons in 1968 (table 8). Cotton mports in 1968 were 8 percent above the I96I-65 average. Incomplete trade ata for 1969 indicated that Yugoslav and Hungarian purchases were exceeding 968 levels, but Polish purchases were less. Only a small amount of cotton is roduced in Eastern Europe, primarily in Bulgaria. The Soviet Union is the rincipal supplier of cotton to Eastern Europe, accounting for 57 percent of he total in 1968. The UAR has been the second largest source, but purchases rom there were reduced in 1968. The United States has sold considerable uantities of cotton to Poland and Yugoslavia and accounted for about 6 percent f East European imports in 1968. Other major sources have been Syria, Greece, nd Iran. 5 After cotton, the leading agricultural imports are wheat, fresh meat, ool, oil cake and meal, fresh fruit, and feed grains. Wheat and meat imports ere down substantially in 1968, but wool, oil meal, and feed grain imports in- reased. Fruit imports may have declined slightly. 9 / The value of imports in 1967 was estimated by FA 0 at $440 million. 27 Table 8.--Eastern Europe: Imports of lint cotton, average I96I-65, annual 1966-68 and origin 1967 and 1968 C/3 1 p: 0 1 MO CO OM OM -3~ C— C— 1 —1 ♦ • • • • • • • (U p 1 -4- MO H O CO CM OMMO & -p -4- OM O CO CM CO CM rH -z § 1 CM CM CO CM rH rH 00 1 CO 0 CO MO -4" C— O CM OM t- OM 1 • • • • • • • • 0 > CM t- O CM 1-1 O OM CO bD co 1 C-CO OMC- CM rH OJ CM 3 H w 1 CO •H 1 r—1 t— OM 1 —1 CM CM 1 LTM £ 1 • • • • • • I • -4- MO H MO rH O 1 O § 1 MO C— lb- C~- CO H CO 0 pq 1 £ 1 -4" CM MO CO CO 1 OM n3 bD K ra 3 O ?h -H (D P -P 3 u 3 o o £? o Tj PJ CO rH o PM £ -P CO to g CO fi w 0> 03 I CO O -H O CO CL) > N O O H w w Pi o -p O O o t-VO O Lf\ • • • • (M IAPOH CO LP CM 00 LT\ MO MO MO C— CO CO -4" MO 13-00 t- LfM O t- O 0-4- oco _4- ltm ltm ltm H CO rl MO • • • • CO OM H O CO Lf\ CM LfM CO CO COCO O O -=t -V • • • • MO MO POMO CO Lf\ CO IT\ 1—I i—I ( I 1 i H CO O- CM • • • • H O -V C- O OMCO CO rH OOOO • • • • H CO CO C— O H O O H rl rl rl MO -V OM H • • • • CO CM -4" CM CO C—-4- C co H O MO -4" H -4' MO CO I CO • • I O LTM CO -4- rl CM C— CM O • • • • O OM LfMMO H coH liM CM CM O CM O • • • • MO O LTM CM r—I r—I CO O 13- I • • | OM LTM I C- t-OO o o • • • • O CO H MO MO LTM-4" C— CO 1 I LfM-V CO CM • • • • CO CO -4" -4" CO CM H O 1 —I 1 —I CO CO CO MO • • • • CO OM-4- CO CM rl CM -4- O • • OM O CM H I MO CO CM MO I O -4- CO -4" C- CM H O I OM I MO LfM CO MO |—I1 CM -4- CM CO • • • • C— LfMMO H CM CM CM b- CM CO MO CM CO • • • • O LfMMO CO CO CM -4" -4- CO O O 1 O O O 1 O • • 1 • • • 1 1 • LfM-4" 1 -4" OM LTM 1 CO LTM CM CM MO H CM S CD -P H W -P U O & 1—I cO P> O Eh 0) bO CO P) 0) > CO H| LTM No 1 H MO 1^00 0> MO MO MO OM OM OM OM rl rl rl H r- -MO OM a •rl P! •H bD •rl P o pq m 0) O! -P O H| CO MO OM 1 I •rl Pj •rl b0| •H O pc; • • cu co pq co & CO <; • P> o 3 o o 28 1/ Preliminary. Leading agricultural exports are fresh meat, tobacco, canned meat, corn, live cattle, wheat, and wine. Corn and wheat exports dropped sharply in 1968-- a result of drought conditions in that year. Other commodities declining sub¬ stantially were tobacco and canned meat. Fresh meat exports remained relatively constant, but live cattle exports may have increased. Wine exports rose substantially. Total U.S. agricultural exports to Eastern Europe in 1969 were valued at $ 99.5 million, down about 26 percent from 1968. Reduced feed grain and cotton sales accounted for most of the decline. The leading exports to Eastern Europe i/ere feed grains, $29.7 million, and soybean meal, $ 26.6 million. The United States supplies a substantial share of East European imports of these commodities. In 1968 direct U.S. sales, excluding transshipments, accounted for about 45 percent of East European feed grain imports and 20 percent of oil meal imports. Soybean meal has made the most substantial growth in recent years. J.S. agricultural exports to Eastern Europe represent about 4 percent of the region’s imports of farm commodities. U.S. agricultural exports to Eastern Europe have declined since 1966, primarily as a result of the falling-off of the narket in Yugoslavia--previously the major purchaser of wheat. Total sales to ifugoslavia declined from $118.2 million in 1966 to $18.7 million in 1968 but recovered to $ 22.6 million in 1969. The leading U.S. customers in 1969 were Poland—purchases of $ 37.2 million--and East Germany--purchases of $ 24.6 mil- Lion. U.S. imports of agricultural commodities from Eastern Europe in 1969 were valued at $ 83.5 million, about 2 percent higher than in 1968. The major imports rere canned hams—$ 46.9 million; other canned pork--$8.7 million; and tobacco— 511.2 million. The leading suppliers to the U.S. market were Poland—sales of [556.0 million—and Yugoslavia—sales of $27.5 million. SLOWER RATES OF INCREASE OF AGRICULTURAL INPUTS The countries of Eastern Europe made sharp advances in agricultural invest¬ ments and the supply of productive inputs into agriculture during the 1960’s, smaller gains were apparent in 1969. The progress in the decade, however, left igriculture in a far stronger position than that of the previous decade. One major advance in the decade was the greatly expanded use of mineral Pertilizers (table 9). The apparent growth was 7 percent in 1969 compared with 55 percent in 1968 and an average annual increase of about 11 percent since L96O. In 1969 all countries but Yugoslavia and Romania exceeded 100 kilograms )er hectare and East Germany attained an estimated 314 kilograms per hectare. Jugoslavia maintains a subsidy on fertilizer to encourage greater use on private :arms. Fertilizer usage is mandatory for private farmers in Poland. Government deliveries of tractors and grain combines to agriculture generally reached their highest levels in the first half of the 1960's. Subse¬ quently, total tractor and combine numbers have continued to increase, but at slower rates. Bulgaria and Poland have diverged more from the regional pattern rith sharper advances in machinery deliveries occurring in more recent years. 5 his situation apparently continued in 1969. In most countries, a greater share 29 of agricultural investments has moved into farm buildings and construction, an< less into machinery in recent years. Some countries took measures in 1969 to speed up farm machinery purchases or to reverse declines. For example, in Hungary credits for machinery repairs were abolished. In Yugoslavia, private farmers were given incentives to purchase more equipment with a price reductio: on agricultural machinery and on tractors of up to 35 horsepower. Table 9.--Eastern Europe:. Fertilizer consumption per hectare of arable land, i960 and 1965, annual 1967-69 1/ Country i960 1965 1967 1968 1969 2/ Czechoslovakia.: 92 East Germany.: 188 Poland. : 46 Northern countries...: 82 Bulgaria.: 34 Hungary.: 29 Romania.: 7 Yugoslavia.: 3 *+ Southern countries...: 23 Eastern Europe.: 52 Kilograms of nutrients 152 173 178 192 266 276 303 314 71 102 118 138 125 150 165 183 79 133 186 158 63 91 112 127 25 42 46 50 55 62 67 71 50 72 87 88 85 108 124 133 1 / Includes cultivated land, orchards, gardens, and vineyards. 2 / Preliminary. Some increases in irrigated area were reported in 1969. Bulgaria, with about 1 million hectares, or 22 percent of the arable land under irrigation in 1968, announced an increase of 3.5 percent. Romania reported a major increase in agricultural investments in 1969? much of which may have been directed into an ambitious irrigation program, which is considerably behind schedule. Irri¬ gated area in Romania reached 505>000 hectares in 1968 and an additional 140,000 hectares reportedly were brought under irrigation in 1969. A goal of 2.5 million hectares has been established for 1975 . AGRICULTURE' S ROLE IN ECONOMIC REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT Economic reform in Eastern Europe generally has been directed more specif ically to industry than agriculture, but agriculture has been affected in several instances through expanded marketing outlets and greater leeway in inj purchases. 10 / Together with measures to increase farm profitability, govern¬ ment subsidies to farms have been reduced in some countries. Measures have be) 10 / For a more detailed description of the reforms in one country, see Ih£ Agricultural Economy and Trade of Hungary, ERS-Foreign 269 , May 1969 . 30 undertaken to encourage specialization and interfarm cooperation and, in Poland, inter-agricultural circle cooperation in machinery use. Meanwhile, several governments have adopted programs to improve income and living conditions in rural areas. In 1969, there were major developments in bhis sphere in Romania. Agricultural specialist wages, for example, were in¬ creased 20 percent in November and the payment system on collective farms was adjusted in December to better reflect quality of work. A 50 to 70 percent in¬ crease in collective farmer pensions also was decreed to be effective January 1 L 970 . Bulgaria introduced wage increases for selected specialists ranging from’ + to 12 percent during the latter part of the year. Legislation for a volun- _,ary program of pension and disability insurance was introduced in the Voyvodina legion of Yugoslavia. Rural housing construction was subsidized in Czechoslovakia to help reduce the outflow of young people. In Poland, credits :o farmers were stepped up sharply and credit limits were raised to ease build¬ ing loans. The reforms introduced since the mid- 1960 ’s throughout Eastern Europe generally have been intended to stimulate economic growth without major re¬ structuring. Limited changes have been effected through decentralization of fanning and management and greater reliance on profits and other economic in- licators. The market orientation of the Yugoslav economy—which has received ride-reaching reforms has been introduced in very limited fashion elsewhere In he region. Among programs in other countries, the Hungarian and Czechoslovak eforms probably have attempted to go furthest in decreasing government involve- lent in pricing and marketing. In early 1969, economic reforms generally were operating on a national cale in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, and Yugoslavia, and experimen- ,al ly the other countries. Bulgaria expanded the scale of the reforms in .9695 and Romania made similar plans for 1970 . Poland reorganized its banking ystem in 1969, a move allied with reform plans. Czechoslovakia experienced strong inflationary pressures in connection with he slowdown in growth, income advances, and political turmoil in 1969. A hange in top leadership occurred in 1969. These pressures and changes resulted n an essential curtailment of the reform program as it existed in 1968 and a eassertion of the dominant role of the government. Wage controls were nstituted and prices again were fixed. A temporary ban on price increases was ntroduced on January 1 , 1970. East European countries reported growth in national income in 1969 ranging rom 3.5 percent to at least 8 percent. The four southern countries which have he lowest levels of income attained the highest growth rates, generally ex- eeding 7 percent. Following a slowdown in 1968, growth in most East European ountries returned to rates exceeding those prevailing during the first half of he I96Cs--the period preceding the reforms. Romania, however, which had the ighest growth rates of the earlier period, showed scant improvement from 1968 nd continued to evidence slower growth than in previous years. Yugoslavia had he most rapidly expanding economy in the region in 1969; both agriculture and ndustry contributed to faster growth. 31 Growth of national income in the three northern countries was slower in 1969 than in 1968 . Poland slumped most severely--reflecting the poor results in agriculture--fa 11 ing well below growth rates of 6 to 7 percent in most re¬ cent years. Reported growth rates of 6 percent in Czechoslovakia and 5 percenl in East Germany were less than in 1968 , hut higher than pre-reform rates. Price increases in Czechoslovakia, however, may have exaggerated real gains. OUTLOOK Planned rates of growth for East European agriculture in 1970 vary sharply by country, but rates in most countries, if accomplished, would raise total agricultural output well above the minimum terminal levels envisaged in the 1966-70 plans. The three northern countries have targeted annual increases of about 3 percent. These generally exceed typical growth rates of the 1960's. Attainment will depend on the ability to maintain livestock herds and to obtaii major improvement in crop production in 1970 . Sharp agricultural growth rates are planned in Bulgaria (12 percent) and Romania (l 6 percent). Rates of this magnitude have been accomplished in only one recent year— 1966 —when weather was especially favorable. The reported high rates of growth in Hungary and Yugoslavia in 1969 apparently have caused planners to set modest growth targets for 1970 . Hungary, for example, plans a 1 -percent increase in agricultural output. Some hints of the direction of the 1971-75 plans began to surface in 1969 Although most governments did not announce specific targets, there is an excep tion. Romanian General Secretary Ceausescu in his report to the 10th Romanian Communist Party Congress in August announced a planned increase in gross agri¬ cultural output during 1971-75 of 28 to 31 percent over the 1966-70 average. Grain output in Romania is scheduled to reach 17*5 to 18.5 million tons by 1975. The outlook for the fall-sown crops in Eastern Europe was not uniformly favorable at the onset of winter. Dry weather during the fall in the southern countries delayed completion of sowing, which, in some cases, was then curtailed by early snowfalls. In Yugoslavia, wheat area reportedly is down about 10 percent from the previous year. Neighboring Hungary had better crop development. Weather remained extremely dry in Bulgaria during the fall. Dry- weather also was experienced in the northern countries through October. Wheat was planted on a smaller area in Czechoslovakia. Fall-sown crops generally entered the winter in good condition in Poland and subsequent snow cover has been beneficial. Increased production of feed grains has been planned in the southern countries to offset declines in the winter wheat area and to promote livestock development. The plans to stimulate livestock production will probably affect rebuild¬ ing of herds. The current situation does not appear to warrant substantial improvement in livestock product output in most countries before the se J~ond half of 1970 . Tight feed supplies will have a dampening effect on growth 01 livestock product output in the northern countries and considerable time will be required to increase herds in the southern countries. 32 MAINLAND CHINA AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT INCREASES For the second time in a decade the Chinese Communist regime has reverted to crash programs for catching up economically. Prospects for success were much better in 1969 than in the early 1960’s. Mainland China’s economy, though still constrained by the effects of the cultural revolution in early 1969, was tfell along the road to recovery by the end of the year. Performance in every major sector of the economy probably exceeded that of the 2 previous years (1967-68), and output in some sectors may have exceeded the peak year of 1966. Agricultural production in 1969 exceeded the near-average level in 1968 by a significant margin, but did not equal the 1967 level. This increase in out¬ put coincided with a more stable political situation. During 1969 the ninth people’s party congress was convened, a new constitution was adopted, a new politboro was elected, and the central committee was enlarged. Accompaning the ahange in the political climate was a spate of low-key official pronouncements bhat modified many hard-line rural reforms introduced from mid- to late 1968 and reduced apprehension among peasants. These changes indicated some concern aver the numerous economic and political adversities that evolved from the cul- :ural revolution. The Communist regime was more economically focused last year. Interna- :ionally, it broadened the scope and amount of foreign aid, reestablished iiplomatic contacts, and increased foreign trade. Domestically, the regime concentrated on rebuilding party structure, strengthened the administrative structure by streamlining organizations, and consolidated functions of govern- aent agencies, such as the Ministry of Agriculture’s absorption of the Ministry )f Forestry and of state farms. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION Agricultural production in Mainland China in 1969 topped that of 1968 with lany food and industrial crops registering gains. Livestock production also 'ebounded from the downturn experienced during the cultural revolution. Al¬ though weather conditions throughout the year were less favorable than in 1967, ligher inputs made available in 1969 helped to raise production to a level ap- xroaching the outstanding harvest of 1967. As far as known, little, if any, increases occurred in the total planted irea. However, some changes in cropping patterns and some substitution of crops occurred, particularly in East and Central China following flooding of ;he Yangtze River in July and August. Production gains in 1969 thus were pri- larily a function of yield response to higher applications of chemical 33 fertilizer--and other inputs. Gains were also made in soil, irrigation, and water management and in repair of farm machinery and tools. Grain and Food Crops Production of food grains in 1969 (including potatoes at one-fourth grain value), which occupy approximately 80 percent of China’s sown area, approached 200 million tons. Wheat, rice, and potato production was average or above average. Miscellaneous grain production increased substantially, but the heav^ flooding and waterlogging of the intermediate rice crop in Central and East China limited gains in the total rice output for the year. Although a severe winter and late spring in the North China Plain reduced the total area of winter wheat, subsequent favorable growing weather with ade¬ quate moisture in the spring contributed to higher yields of both winter and spring wheat. Other grain and pulses—barley, beans, field peas—and green manure crops and rapeseed, particularly in the Yangtze River Valley, were less favored. And a wet and unusually cold spring lowered prospects for the winter sweetpotato crop in Kwangtung Province in southern China and the early rice crop in Kwangtung, Kiangsi, and Fukien Provinces. Despite these provincial set backs, the early rice crop for the entire country equaled or exceeded the poor crop in 1968. Overall estimates of the summer harvest of grains, which consti¬ tute almost 40 percent of total grains, showed a higher level of output than ir 1968. Except for the July-August flooding along the Yangtze River in Central anc East China, which damaged the intermediate rice crop, favorable weather existec for development of late autumn harvested crops. The late rice crop on an expanded area probably equaled, or exceeded, the good crop in 1968, but the decline in the larger, intermediate rice crop held the total rice crop to the 1968 level--80 to 85 million tons. Other late harvested crops—potatoes and miscellaneous grains—matured under favorable weather conditions. Potato output (both sweet and Irish) might have exceeded that of 1968. Production of coarse, late maturing grains (corn, kaoliang, millet, oats, and buckwheat) probably set a record in 1969. In addi¬ tion to the improved weather last year, there is some evidence that new seed varieties helped raise yields. The total area planted to improved seeds is unknown, but press reports suggest that it has expanded in recent years. Men¬ tion of high-producing varieties of wheat and rice as well as corn and sorghum were more prominent in the Chinese press in 1969 than in any previous year. Other Crops Some damage from drought in Northwest and Southeast China affected 1969 industrial crops, primarily cotton and tobacco. Although cotton output held close to the 1968 level, tobacco production declined. Rapeseed, the major vegetable oilseed grown in southern China, was affected by the long period of wet and unusually cold weather in the early spring. Yields were less than average. Area also declined. Increases of varying magnitude, however, occur¬ red for soybeans, peanuts, sugarcane, sugar beets, tea, silk cocoons, and othei minor crops. Less is known about other oilseeds such as sesame, sunflower seed, and tung nuts. It does not appear that increases in production of any of the industrial crops was sufficient to equal the level of those crops in 1967. Livestock Production Official claims indicate an increase in livestock production in 1969* favorable weather conditions and improvements in the large pastoral areas con¬ tributed to better roughage feed supplies for horses, mules, cattle, donkeys, and sheep and goats, but there is no hard evidence of increased feed supplies to support the reported strong growth in hog numbers. Hog numbers declined considerably during the cultural revolution (1967-68). Since then officials cave offered incentives to peasants to increase hog numbers, both on private plots and on collective farms. While hog numbers probably increased in 1969? lumbers have still not reached the pre-cultural revolution level. FARM INPUTS AND POLICY CHANGES The convening of the ninth people's party congress in April 1969, the first in 13 years, highlighted the domestic scene in Mainland China. However, 10 significant farm policy change was announced at the congress, nor was any specific guideline outlined as to the direction or intensity of farm programs, lur ing 1969 officials again supported programs begun during the cultural revo¬ lution. Increasing grain production was designated as the major production ;oal, followed by cotton and vegetable oilseeds. The threat of further collectivization—with the prospective loss of private plots and sideline pur¬ suits—was modified, although communes and brigades were consolidated and strengthened. And the continued influx of urban dwellers into the countryside luring 1969 complicated farm management and labor problems and made food dis- sribution more difficult. Some former agricultural programs surfaced in scattered governmental pronouncements during the year. Birth control, for example, again became a lational objective, and the rural communities were encouraged to become self- supporting units. Specific complementary industries, such as transfer of packing, milling, canning, and tanning enterprises (some supported with state Funds), were introduced into rural areas. These developmental programs are reminiscent of Mao Tse-tung's original "National Program for Agricultural De¬ velopment" ( 1956 - 67 ). Evidence suggests that some of these programs were supported by state funds—particularly the construction of small factories (machine, tool, farm equipment), fertilizer factories, power plants, and pump¬ ing stations. Education and health care were assigned to local administrative Levels, primarily communes and brigades. The rural credit system was modified broadening the scope of credit and increasing the use of funds in local enter¬ prises. The administration of farm programs remained primarily under military supervision. There was some evidence that party revolutionary committees were present at the working level, but administration and discipline were weak. The relaxing of party discipline in the rural areas worked to the advantage of peasants during the year. This relaxing of discipline manifested itself at aarvesttime when government agencies encountered difficulties in procuring farm products despite higher production of most crops. 35 CONSUMPTION OF FARM PRODUCTS The more equitable food distribution system developed by the Communist regime has been an important factor in countering the impact of insufficient production throughout China during the past decade. While many deficit areas still exist and unusual circumstances cause food shortages in different areas, food from surplus areas and government relief are more in evidence throughout the country than formerly. Per capita consumption of food, however, remains at a comparatively low level even for the East Asian area. The caloric intake does not appear to have regained the 2,200 to 2,300 calories estimated for the late 1950's, and the food intake is still heavily weighted with carbohydrates. Based on incomplete data, the estimated average per capita consumption of food during the 1968/69 consumption year was about 10 percent less than in 1967/68. These levels have not changed greatly since Chou En-lai announced in 1965 that China's agriculture had regained the pre-Leap Forward level. Some shortages of food also occurred before the early harvest in 1969, particularly in Kwangtung Province. Government collectors' pleas to peasants to turn in "patriotic" grain as a "mark of loyalty to chairman Mao" is indica¬ tive of the techniques used in collecting compulsory deliveries and in government purchases of farm products in 1969. The use of the army in harvest¬ ing during 1969 not only added to the manpower force but also insured compliance to state procurement quotas. Significant to this better control was the curtailment of grain sales by individual peasants in the free market in 1969. During 1967-68, when a breakdown in government control developed, peasan private sales of grain increased even though sales of rationed commodities by individuals are prohibited in China. The slight, but not critical, decline in the 1968/69 diet may be attri¬ buted somewhat to the overtaxing of the private sector in 1968. The question arises as to the future capability of the private plots to contribute further to peasant needs. Government action, for example, has not only reduced the size of private family plots but has also sponsored large migrations from urban to rural areas in 1968 and 1969. This action places greater demands on private plots as a source of food. Although the government recognizes the importance of these plots, there is no guarantee that this land will not be absorbed by the commune at a later date. Consumption of other farm products, particularly fibers, reportedly in¬ creased in 1969. A reduction in availability of clothing in 1968 resulted primarily from disruptions in textile factories and not from raw material short ages. Ration coupons, a necessary credential to purchase textiles and clothing in China, appeared earlier in 1969 than the midyear distribution in 1968. Also the amount of the ration has increased. It is doubtful whether domestic avail¬ ability of clothing and other textile goods in 1969 approached the per capita level of the late 1950's when annual ration allowances for cloth amounted to 20 and 27 feet. 36 UPSWING IN FOREIGN TRADE IN I969 Following a 2 -year decline, China's foreign trade upturned decidedly in L969. But, like the rest of the economy, the trade sector is adjusting to the economic turmoil created by the cultural revolution. There is little likeli- lood that the level of imports and exports reached that of 1966 (estimated at ^ 2.05 billion and $ 2.25 billion, respectively), China's peak trade year, estimated total trade turnover at the end of 1968 was 15.6 percent less than in L966, with exports 17.4 percent and imports l 4.1 percent lower. Midyear data for 1969 showed exports increasing about 10 percent and imports 9.5 percent compared with the comparable period in 1968. This rate may have increased dur¬ ing the second half of 1969. If so, China's trade in 1969 perhaps equaled that )f I966. Imports and exports appeared to be more in balance than in previous years, jeavy trading by nations at the Canton fair may have contributed to this im- Droved trade position. However, rather broad variations in balances occurred d.thin certain countries. Mainland China's exports to Hong Kong and Singapore increased substantially over 1968, while trade with Japan, which set a record in 1969, swung heavily in favor of Japan. Increased Japanese imports of chemical fertilizer, and iron and steel accounted for most of this imbalance. Trade with the Free World, accounting for about 80 percent of China's botal trade, may have equaled or exceeded $4 billion in 1969. Trade with East European Communist countries increased, but trade with the USSR appears to have :ontinued to decline—from 50 percent ($2 billion) of China's total trade in L 959 to only 2.4 percent ($96 million) in 1968. Trade with West European 20untries—particularly the United Kingdom, France, and Italy—increased after leclines in 1967 and 1968. Mainland China's imports of over $391 million from Japan in 1969 exceeded those of 1968 by 20.3 percent, while the $ 234.5 million worth of exports to Japan exceeded those in 1968 by only 4.7 percent. Exports, however, were sub¬ stantially below those for 19 66 and 1967. This increase of imports from Japan iighlights the rapid swing of China's trade to the so-called Japanese "friendly firms." Commodity composition of China's foreign trade, especially imports, sub¬ stantially reflected the effects of the cultural revolution on the production and supply of goods in 1968 and 1969. In 1968, machinery and iron-steel imports were down sharply, but imports of these items increased considerably in 1969. Imports of chemical fertilizers, food (primarily wheat), crude materials, non-ferrous metals, and basic chemicals, all of which directly or indirectly affect agriculture, also increased in 1969. Preliminary data suggest that the volume of imports in 1969 was restricted to a level below exports to build up foreign exchange reserves. Also, delivery dates of some purchases were extend¬ ed well into 1970--wheat, for example--in an apparent effort to extend payments. While exports of non-ferrous metals dropped sharply in 1968, exports of food products, crude materials, basic chemicals, and certain textiles increased somewhat. A similar pattern of exports developed in 1969. Increases in cer¬ tain food products, such as livestock and livestock products, poultry and eggs, 37 sugar, fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, and crude animal products offset declines in exports of rice and possibly soybeans. Exports of manufac¬ tures, textiles, furs, and crude vegetable materials also increased. China 'd fourth grain purchase in I969--2.2 million tons of wheat from Australia on December 9 —boosted total purchases to a record 7.5 million tons. That contrasts with less than 4 million tons in both 1967 and 1968. New delivery dates extend well into 1970 . Purchases consist of 4.5 million tons from Australia, 2.2 million tons from Canada, and 800,000 tons from France. China's total imports of wheat in 1969 were an estimated 4 . 5-5 million tons, up slightly from 1968. So far, almost 4 million tons are committed for delivery in 1970 . Imports of wheat alone were about 3-9 million in 1967 and 4.4 million tons in 1968. Aside from the favorable prices, China's large pur¬ chases of wheat may reflect larger drainage on grain stocks than during the cultural revolution when state procurements lagged. The two major farm products exported from China, rice and soybeans, prob¬ ably declined in 1969. Rice exports exceeding a million tons annually since 1965 were somewhat less in 1969. Mainland China exported 300,000 tons to Japan in 1966 but Japan dropped out of the market entirely in 1969. Pakistan also withdrew from the market in 1969. Other traditional importers of Chinese rice appear to have maintained their usual level of purchases. Hong Kong's im¬ ports were down slightly. New markets in Africa and Latin America do not appear to have offset the declines in the traditional markets. Incomplete data indicate that exports of soybeans, averaging slightly above one-half million tons annually since 1964 , declined in 1969* due partly to the lower production in 1968. Japan usually takes about three-fourths of Mainland China's soybean exports. Table 10 .--Mainland China: Trade of selected major commodities, 1962-69 Imports Exports Year Total : grain . Wheat 1 / Cotton :; (raw) ;; Rice 2 / : 1 • • Soybeans 1962. 5,999 4,419 1,000 tons 67 578 342 1963 . 4,557 4,394 143 64 o 332 1964 . 6,795 5,542 105 785 498 1965 . 5,520 5,250 168 755 576 1966. 6,447 6,375 107 1,210 550 1967 . 4,030 3,871 88 1,225 564 1968. 3 / 4,500 4,445 68 1,000 600 1969 preliminary. 3 / 4,700 3 / 4,700 75 n.a. n.a. 1 / Includes wheat flour in wheat equivalent. 2 / Excludes exports to Vietnam. 3 / Estimate. 38 OUTLOOK The rise in economic activity throughout Mainland China in the second half Df 1968 accelerated in 1969? and is expected to continue in 1970 . China is a country catching up. The programs which appeared as 1969 closed suggest that a nore realistic approach is gaining prominence. These programs, although still under the shadow of Mao Tse-tung's doctrine of peasant self-denial, appear to nave produced some positive results. Barring unfavorable weather and radical policy changes, agricultural pro- luction could increase substantially in 1970 . Records could be set, but probably not in the proportions suggested by the slogans now appearing in many Darts of the country. Having endured two economic setbacks, during two decades Df Communist rule, Mainland China may have arrived at a take-off point. Sub¬ stantial gains could be made in agriculture and other sectors of the economy in bhe decade ahead. A number of factors support this projection. Programs for rural and agri¬ cultural development now emerging stand a much better chance of implementation bhan formerly. While observed progress has been slow and programs for advancing agriculture have been radical, uncoordinated, and short lived, many long-range programs are coming into fruition. These programs include expansion of irriga- bion and water management, fertilization, farm mechanization and improved tools, Improved seeds on a small scale, and support industries for agriculture. These programs, along with decentralization of light industry to rural areas, improved credit facilities, increased state investments in projects that complement local production, and improved methods for distributing supplies, may bring the agricultural sector to a peak effort, heretofore impossible. As more state funds go to support rural industrialization programs and to construct intermediate and possibly larger water conservancy projects, peasants fill become more active in rural development and agricultural production. Also, ;he gradual ascendancy of a more moderate approach to agriculture following the card-line policy toward further collectivization in 1968 and the apparent re- cmergence of the production team as the accounting unit are generating greater peasant effort. Off-season farming activities which supplement farming opera- bions have been carried out in more areas in larger volume and appear to be cetter organized than in recent years. Contrasting this optimistic outlook is the heavy investment and technology Deeded to offset the impact of weather. Historically, China has been plagued d.th one to two poor years of every five. China has not had an extended drought In over 8 years. Even though some progress has been reported in water conserva- bion programs under the "guaranteed high yield field" program, the need for continued and concentrated investments is paramount to the success of any long- term agricultural program. Mainland China’s foreign trade of agricultural products should continue to expand in 1970 and beyond. Imports of fertilizers and pesticides will remain nigh because they are needed to augment domestic production. Agricultural machinery, from imports and local production, is also expected to increase. A/heat and cotton imports should remain about static or trend upward slightly in 39 1970 . The world price of wheat will be a major factor. Exports of rice may continue to decline because of little or no increase in the crop in 1969 and a seemingly shrinking market. Soybean exports and some products from the private sector, notably pork and poultry products, could increase slightly. OTHER COMMUNIST COUNTRIES NORTH VIETNAM Like the rest of its economy, North Vietnam's agricultural sector took stock of shortcomings in 1969* Relatively little data on actual accomplish¬ ments for the year just ended are available, but modest gains are expected for 1970 . Poor weather, continued shortages of inputs, and a weakening of party discipline in the countryside contributed to the marginal performance. North Vietnam experienced a cold winter, spring flooding, and a fall drought during the past crop year. Both the early (fifth month) and the spring rice crops, which account for about one-third of rice output, were affected. Damage was moderate to light. The late rice crop (tenth month)--Vietnam's major crop--was more seriously affected by a fall drought that extended into October. Harvesting was delayed, forcing the most stringent harvesting sched¬ ule imposed by the regime. Estimated production has averaged between 4 and 4.5 million tons in recent years. An 80 , 000 -hectare increase in the planted area suggests a slight increase in rice production in 1969. Supplementary imports of grain ranging from 400,000 to 700,000 tons were needed to maintain enough food to supply about 2,100 calories per person per day. It is estimated that China supplied 150,000 to 200,000 tons of rice to cover part of this deficit. Also, the USSR supplied large amounts of wheat and flour. Probably more important to the planned production for 1970 than to the last year's accomplishments is the party's recent emphasis on livestock produc¬ tion. Plans for 1970 call for a 17 -percent increase in hog numbers, raising total end of the year numbers to an estimated 6 million head compared with the 5 .2'million in 1969. The additional feed supplies for this proposed increase in hog numbers will be provided partly from government stocks and partly from an expansion of the feed grain area on collective farms and household plots. About half of the sweetpotato and manioc crops, for example, will be used for livestock feed. The government has indicated that 2 percent of the total paddy rice and corn production it obtains will be made available to farms and farmers participating in livestock programs. Current policy decisions affecting agriculture are not clearly defined. Evidence suggests that a controversy between party leaders exists over the future direction of socialized agriculture--a toleration of private initiative 4o on the one hand, and a strong determination to impose rigid control on the other. A serious shortage of farm labor also exists, making the government’s choice in this policy matter a difficult one. The crop outlook for 1970 largely will hinge on peasant responses to government programs and on the availability of fixed and working capital now urgently needed to compensate for farm labor shortages. Weather reports indi¬ cate that the fall drought reported during the harvesting of late rice extended into the planting period for the early rice crop. NORTH KOREA North Korea had good weather in 1969 compared with the drought and flood¬ ing reported in 1967 and 1968. Official estimates of the 1969 grain harvest indicate an output of approximately 5.5 to 5.7 million tons. This conflicts with a recent Korean news agency statement that output of grain since 1962 had remained at the level of 5 million tons. The 1967 goal to produce 6.7 million tons of grain has been extended to 1970 . Still a food deficit area, North Korea imported about 390,000 tons of grain in 1967. Imports were continued in 1968 and 1969, t>ut the level is un¬ known. Cotton also is a major import. Major farm exports include rice, fruits, tobacco, and silk. North Korea may be developing a program similar to that of Mainland China whereby expensive rice is exported and cheap wheat is imported. North Korea has a well-developed irrigation system. Electricity is avail¬ able in every rural village and reportedly is supplied to 91 percent of the households. Tractor numbers are estimated at 23,000 in terms of 15 -horsepower units. Agricultural programs for 1970 put a heavy stress on increasing livestock production--a goal being emphasized in all Asian Communist countries this year. MONGOLIA During 1969, Mongolia’s agricultural situation moved from one of early optimism to one of contained performance. In the beginning of the crop year official reports indicated favorable soil moisture levels for the spring wheat crop. However, the yearend report stated that a prolonged drought developed throughout the country during the year and the harvest of grain was below the planned level. Mongolia had i+ 90,000 hectares under cultivation in 1969, 80 percent of which was planted to grains. Compared with previous years, this would indicate some shifting of the grain area to other crops--particularly vegetables. Grain production for 1969 might approach 300,000 to 320,000 tons. Livestock numbers exceeded planned goals by about 2 percent, raising total numbers to approximately 25 million head. Sheep represent about 52 percent of ill this total. New heated enclosures for 3 .*+ million head of livestock were com¬ pleted last year. Plans for 1970 project a 15.9 percent-increase in agricultural output over the 1969 level, and additional heated enclosures for 7.7 million animals will be built. CUM Economic growth in Cuba has stagnated since 1967. Gross national product fell 5 percent to $3.0 billion in 1968 and evidence suggests that little or no recovery occurred in 1969. The year-to-year production change in sugar has strongly influenced Cuba’s planned economic development. Output of 4.5 million tons in 1969—the lowest since 1963 and the second successive decline—accounts for the reported growth lags in recent years. "While Cuba has attempted to diversify its agriculture, the re-emphasis on sugar suggests that progress in other agricultural areas has been slow. There is some evidence that the rice area increased in 1969? tut the planned programs for improving pasture lands and intensifying coffee and fruit production lagged. These programs may have been pushed back in 1969 because of the high priority given to sugar. The plan goal of 10 million tons of sugar for the 1969/70 crop year repre¬ sents Cuba’s most ambitious program. Attaining this goal is premised on the reported 25 percent-increase in land area under cane plantings and the more intensive planting of early maturing varieties during the 18 months prior to the current crop year. As of mid-March the announced results showed a produc¬ tion of 4.5 million tons of sugar--about 400,000 tons below the planned level of that date. Concomitant with the announced increase in sugarcane plantings, Castro in¬ dicated that the rice production is increasing yearly. Production is estimated at 220,000 tons or about the same level as 1963. There was little or no change in cattle numbers during the year, estimated at 7.2 million head. Poultry numbers stabilized in 1969 and egg output approximated 100 million dozen. Rationing continued for all major food commodities, including sugar, and no real improvement in living standards developed. Cuba's imports of rice and wheat flour probably held at the level of the past few years--150,000 tons and 290,000 tons, respectively. The Soviet Union supplied Cuba with wheat flour purchased in Canada. Most of the rice was supplied by China. Of the 4.6 million tons of sugar exported in 1968, the Soviet Union re¬ ceived almost two-fifths. Under existing international sugar agreements, Cuba was granted a 2.1 million-ton annual export quota. But by allowing 1.1 millior tons to pass through the USSR for re-export purposes, Cuba’s quota to the free market increased to 3.25 million tons. The outlook for Cuban agriculture continues uncertain. Overextension of a single crop could lead to further delays in agricultural diversification. And the heavy investments needed to change Cuba from an agrarian society to a grow¬ ing industrial one are still lacking. 42 Table 11.—Eastern Europe and Soviet Union: Area of selected crops, average 1961-65, annual 1966-69 1/ Commodity and year :Bulgaria ’Czecho- East ’ „ Romania : . slavia Total ’Slovakia Germany ; Hungary ; Poland Eastern Europe USSR : Total Eastern Europe and USSR /heat : 1961-65 average...: 1,216 1966 .: 1,142 1967 .: 1,064 1968 .: 1,058 1969 .: 1,027 'ye : 1961-65 average...: 58 1966 .: 42 1967 .: 31 1968 .: 24 1969 .: 24 iarley : 1961-65 average...: 336 1966 .: 416 1967 .: 387 1968 .: 403 1969 .: 416 ats : 1961-65 average...: 139 1966 .: 113 1967 .: 120 1968 .: 96 1969 .: 76 om : 1961-65 average...: 632 1966 .: 574 1967 .: 576 1968 .: 557 1969 .: 584 otal grain 3/ : 1961-65 average...: 2,399 1966 .: 2,302 1967 .: 2,185 1968 .: 2,151 1969 .: 2,144 otatoes : 1961-65 average...: 41 1966 .: 34 1967 .: 33 1968 .: 30 1969 .: 30 ugarbeets : 1961-65 average...: 71 1966 .: 63 1967 .: 61 1968 . 54 1969 .: 57 otton (unginned) : 1961-65 average...: 52 1966 . 49 1967 . 51 1968 . 43 1969 .: 47 obacco : 1961-65.: 118 1966 . 117 1967 . 97 1968 . 105 1969 . 105 ilseeds 5/ : 1961-65. 263 1966 . 255 1967 . 270 1968 . 282 1969 . 290 739 430 1,078 892 484 1,072 929 533 1,160 999 570 1,328 1,055 590 1,321 429 820 240 395 771 220 321 746 204 338 735 190 274 640 193 687 438 516 690 521 490 712 553 448 712 595 386 780 610 380 418 319 82 389 261 61 433 270 55 409 256 54 400 250 47 200 2/ 1,269 151 1 1,237 150 2/ 1,237 138 1 1,258 127 2/ 1,270 2,473 2,262 3,204 2,521 2,268 3,099- 2,550 2,314 3,114 2,601 2,345 3,238 2,636 2,270 3,232 492 728 219 437 694 198 408 686 169 372 672 150 325 630 140 247 227 125 225 211 108 198 209 104 188 204 104 179 193 98 5 5 20 6 4 22 6 3 20 6 3 21 6 3 22 62 127 136 60 125 126 62 125 116 64 125 113 60 110 115 - 1,000 hectares - 1,524 2,966 2,002 1,679 3,034 1,830 1,758 2,913 1,880 1,886 2,817 2,010 2,010 2,600 2,019 4,572 88 163 4,331 91 141 4,298 62 138 4,300 44 132 4,300 45 123 706 237 369 683 246 394 653 257 343 634 292 312 765 300 300 1,556 151 321 1,418 138 320 1,428 127 301 1,395 132 285 1,300 130 273 8 3,308 2,472 6 3,288 2,500 6 3,221 2,510 5 3,344 2,460 5 3,340 2,397 8,721 6,772 5,362 8,471 6,821 5,213 8,505 6,604 5,197 8,576 6,657 5,223 8,745 6,444 5,012 2,840 303 311 2,732 306 333 2,763 315 330 2,747 316 332 2,750 308 320 428 177 84 435 194 106 434 176 102 414 185 79 410 190 95 — — 10 — — 10 — — 12 — — 11 39 37 49 39 38 63 42 39 59 46 36 57 46 36 54 242 532 144 306 558 169 347 575 164 390 664 176 178 660 234 9,955 66,600 76,555 10,133 69,958 80,091 10,237 67,026 77,263 10,668 67,231 77,899 10,622 65,000 75,622 6,370 16,300 22,670 5,991 13,583 19,574 5,800 12,418 18,218 5,763 12,269 18,032 5,599 11,500 17,099 3,289 18,300 21,589 3,440 19,400 22,840 3,353 19,100 22,453 3,334 19,600 22,934 3,551 22,100 25,651 2,986 7,280 10,266 2,700 7,200 9,900 2,734 8,700 11,434 2,627 9,000 11,627 2,476 9,500 11,976 7,889 5,887 13,776 7,757 3,229 10,986. 7,700 3,485 11,185 7,763 3,350 11,113 7,724 5,000 12,724 31,193 128,460 159,653 30,695 124,807 155,502 30,469 122,172 152,641 30,791 121,500 152,291 30,483 123,500 153,983 4,934 8,643 13,577 4,734 8,392 13,126 4,704 8,331 13,035 4,619 8,301 12,920 4,503 8,300 12,803 1,359 3,606 4,965 1,342 3,803 5,145 1,284 3,797 5,081 1,228 3,560 4,788 1,122 3,500 4,622 62 2,420 2,482 57 2,463 2,520 61 2,442 2,503 55 2,445 2,500 58 2,510 2,568 273 n.a. n.a. 289 4/164 453 266 4/176 442 274 4/176 450 272 4/177 449 1,506 6,106 7,612 1,599 6,590 8,189 1,659 6,350 8,009 1,814 6,430 8,244 1,647 6,500 8,147 — 1969 data are preliminary. 2J Less than 500. 3/ Includes buckwheat, millet, spelt, mixed grains, and rice; Lso pulses in the USSR. 4/ Includes makhorka. 5/ Predominantly sunflower in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia ad the USSR; predominantly rapeseed in Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Poland. Oilseeds harvested from fiber cops not included. Table 12.—Eastern Europe and Soviet Union: Production of selected crops, average 1961-65, annual 1966-69 1/ Total USSR 2/ : Total „ , . :Czecho- : Commodity and year Bulgaria . s ^ ova j c ^ a . East ' Hungary ’ Poland Germany : : Romania * : slavia Eastern j Europe " : Eastern : Europe : and USSR Wheat 1961-65 average...: 2,208 1,779 1,357 2,009 1966.... 3,193 2,247 1,521 2,327 1967.... 3,254 2,516 2,012 3,004 1968.... 2,527 3,153 2,377 3,352 1969.... Rye 2,517 3,280 2,165 3,579 1961-65 average...: 58 896 1,741 260 1966.... 56 790 1,642 242 1967.... 38 689 1,986 225 1968.... .: 23 769 1,936 238 1969.... Barley 30 672 1,480 249 1961-65 average...: 694 1,556 1,291 966 1966.... 1,064 1,608 1,525 916 1967.... 985 1,936 1,927 934 1968.... 810 2,113 2,121 904 1969.... Oats 919 2,488 1,910 905 1961-65 average...: 141 792 850 96 1966.... ..: 182 746 703 72 1967.... 169 968 845 86 1968.... 76 869 864 68 1969.... Com 78 967 742 79 1961-65 average...: 1,601 474 2 3,316 1966.... .: 2,207 476 2 3,907 1967.... .: 1,971 421 1 3,522 1968.... .: 1,731 453 2 3,764 1969.: Total grain 2/ : 2,370 480 2 4,319 1961-65 average...: 4,744 5,498 5,846 6,682 1966... 6,754 5,867 5,917 7,495 1967..., 6,477 6,530 7,354 7,814 1968... 5,201 7,357 7,830 8,367 1969... Potatoes 5,962 7,887 6,745 9,179 1961-65 average...: 400 5,635 12,066 1,735 1966... 421 5,846 12,823 2,433 1967... 381 6,037 14,065 1,507 1968... 360 6,526 12,639 1,335 1969.: Sugarbeets : 328 5,010 9,000 1,613 1961-65 average...: 1,440 6,772 5,522 3,090 1966... 2,528 7,762 6,611 3,570 1967... .: 2,032 7,663 6,943 3,356 1968... 1,384 8,098 6,998 3,471 1969.: Cotton (unginned) : 1,920 6,032 4,530 3,485 1961-65 average...: 39 — — — 1966... 69 — — — 1967.. . 56 — — — 1968... .: 33 — — — 1969... Tobacco 47 1961-65 average...: 108 7 6 22 1966... 132 8 7 20 1967... 118 11 n. a. 24 1968... .: 112 10 n.a. 27 1969... Oilseeds 5/ : 102 10 n. a. 29 1961-65 average...: 345 67 182 124 1966... 425 84 221 116 1967... .: 482 92 280 93 1968... 460 80 271 107 1969... .: 520 53 165 116 1,000 metric tons 3,005 4,321 3,596 18,275 50,172 68,447 3,603 5,065 4,600 22,556 35,000 107,556 3,934 5,820 4,820 25,360 64,000 89.360 4,670 4,848 4,360 25,287 76,600 101,887 4,910 4,345 4,880 25,676 65,200 90,876 7,484 95 169 10,703 13,590 24,293 7,700 100 176 10,706 12,000 22,706 7,694 71 171 10,874 11,900 22,774 8,520 48 138 11,672 12,700 24,372 8,640 50 135 11,256 11,900 23,156 1,372 414 557 6,850 17,830 24,680 1,409 483 713 7,718 24,000 31,718 1,412 531 606 8,331 20,700 29,031 1,494 590 450 8,482 24,200 31,082 1,735 615 459 9,031 24,300 33,331 2,654 154 343 5,030 5,300 10,330 2,625 170 386 4,884 7,500 12,384 2,818 163 363 5,412 9,700 15,112 2,891 114 295 5,177 9,700 14,877 2,810 161 308 5,145 9,960 15,105 20 5,853 5,616 16,882 9,320 26,202 13 8,022 7,980 22,607 6,800 29,407 14 6,858 7,200 19,987 8,000 27,987 13 7,105 6,810 19,878 7,500 28,706 10 7,680 7,816 22,677 9,200 33,677 15,054 10,887 10,337 59,048 106,200 165.248 15,923 13,899 13,907 69,762 145,881 215,643 16,459 13,512 13,206 71,352 124,950 196.302 18,208 12,769 12,092 71,824 141,840 213,664 8,745 12,923 ,92 13,648 75,089 132,400 207,489 43,802 3/2,600 3/2,708 68,946 73,465 142,411 46,144 3/3,352 3/3,230 74,249 79,068 153,317 48,620 3/3,096 3/2,800 76,506 85,918 162,424 50,817 3/3,706 3/2,890 78,273 91,966 170.239 45,400 3/2,229 3/3,144 66,724 82,500 149,224 11,436 2,866 2,344 33,470 73,465 106,935 13,620 4,368 4,030 42,489 74,037 116,526 15,521 3,830 3,680 43,030 87,111 130,141 14,800 3,936 2,910 44,597 94,340 135,937 11,300 3,800 3,637 34,704 71,000 105,704 7 46 4,995 5,041 _ _ 6 75 5,981 6,056 _ — 10 66 5,970 6,036 _ _ 9 42 5,948 5,990 — — S 55 5,710 5,765 61 32 44 280 4/171 451 48 40 54 309 4/216 525 78 35 54 n.a. 4/247 n.a. 83 32 44 n.a. 4/261 n.a. 64 34 42 n.a. 4/258 n.a. 337 565 226 1,846 5,245 7,091 475 742 303 2,366 6,477 8,843 683 822 271 2,723 6,845 9,568 740 818 323 2,799 6,900 9,699 235 850 408 2,347 6,496 8,843 y 196g data are pre i iminary . y includes buckwheat, millet, spelt, mixed grains, rice; also pulses in the USSR. y Includes intercroppings. 4/ Procurement of tobacco and makhorka. 5/ Predominantly sunflower in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and USSR; predominantly rapeseed in Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Poland. Oilseeds derived from fiber crops are not included. 44 Table 13.—Eastern Europe and Soviet Union: Livestock numbers, average 1961-65, annual 1966-70 1/ (January of each year) Commodity and year :Bulgaria Czecho¬ slovakia East Germany Hungary Poland Romania Yugo¬ slavia Total Eastern Europe USSR Total Eastern Europe and USSR - - 1,000 head - : 1,517 4,466 4,605 1,943 9,353 4,639 5,451 31,974 83,500 115,474 : 1,450 4,389 4,762 1,919 9,480 4,935 5,584 32,519 93,436 125,955 : 1,385 4,462 4,918 1,968 10,002 5,198 5,710 33,643 97,111 130,754 : 1,363 4,437 5,018 2,049 10,123 5,332 5,693 34,015 97,167 131,182 : 1,297 4,249 5,109 2,017 10,530 5,136 5,261 33,599 95,735 129,334 : 1,250 4,200 5,140 1,900 10,290 5,033 5,010 32,823 95,065 127,888 : 578 2,019 2,134 846 2/5,870 2,054 2,658 16,159 37,240 53,399 : 581 1,948 2,169 782 5,775 2,008 2,622 15,885 40,140 56,025 : 578 1,952 2,196 772 5,872 2,127 2,745 16,242 41,188 57,430 : 586 1,929 2,188 785 5,801 2,218 2,855 16,362 41,567 57,929 : 579 1,903 2,166 751 6,057 2,202 2,865 16,523 41,180 57,703 : 584 1,872 2,155 716 6,060 2,496 2,875 16,758 40,600 57,358 : 2,331 5,948 8,654 6,551 2/13,408 4,835 5,815 47,542 57,820 105,362 : 2,408 5,544 8,878 6,590 14,36V 5,365 5,118 48,270 59,576 107,846 : 2,276 5,305 9,312 6,123 14,704 5,400 5,525 48,645 58,028 106,673 : 2,314 5,601 9,254 6,647 14,384 5,752 5,865 49,817 50,867 100,684 : 2,140 5,136 9,523 5,806 14,677 5,853 .5,093 48,228 49,047 97,275 : 2,317 5,100 9,241 5,600 14,765 5,971 4,850 47,844 56,159 104,003 : 10,070 574 1,922 2,350 2/2,469 12,217 10,232 39,834 133,840 173,674 : 10,312 614 1,963 2,460 2,572 13,125 9,868 40,914 129,764 170,678 : 9,998 670 1,928 2,340 2,757 14,109 10,329 42,131 135,483 177,614 : 9,905 770 1,818 2,300 2,770 14,380 10,346 42,289 138,461 180,750 : 9,652 906 1,794 2,277 2,787 14,298 9,730 41,444 140,587 182,031 : 9,750 906 1,794 2,300 2,630 13,836 9,725 40,941 130,950 171,891 : 315 588 404 74 237 576 3/ 2,194 7,520 9,714 : 436 521 302 74 194 807 3/ 2,334 5,552 7,886 : 409 477 278 78 181 828 3/ 2,251 5,559 7,810 : 400 450 236 n.a. 175 732 3/ n.a. 5,580 n.a. : 398 430 204 n.a. n.a. 632 3/ n.a. 5,554 n.a. : 392 410 170 n.a. n.a. 540 3/ n.a. 5,400 n.a. : 279 261 373 378 2/2,562 838 1,170 5,861 8,960 14,821 : 240 188 272 307 2,495 689 1,131 5,322 8,000 13,322 : 229 177 250 292 2,518 705 1,134 5,305 8,000 13,305 : 224 166 219 276 2,525 715 1,126 5,251 8,000 13,251 : 199 156 188 249 2,649 702 1,109 5,252 8,000 13,252 : 190 150 160 230 2,620 680 1,090 5,120 8,000 13,120 : 22,188 28,785 37,241 4/28,388 78,917 39,022 30,205 264,746 502,700 767,446 : 20,845 27,752 37,988 4/28,589 30,288 40,084 31,685 267,231 490,500 757,731 : 23,637 29,466 37,070 4/32,184 81,026 43,966 35,153 282,502 516,200 798,702 : 27,726 31,208 37,976 4/31,093 80,117 47,148 35,974 291,242 528,200 819,442 : 24,874 32,544 38,802 4/28,120 34,269 47,618 37,142 293,369 543,000 836,869 : 24,800 32,700 38,800 28,000 84,000 47,400 37,885 293,585 540,000 833,585 :attle total 1961-65 average... 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 1970 . ows 1961-65 average... 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 1970 . ogs 1961-65 average... 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 1970 . heep 1961-65 average... 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 1970 . oats 1961-65 average:.. 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 1970 . orses 1961-65 average... 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 1970 . oultry 1961-65 average... 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 1970 . 2/ 1963-65 average. 3] No breakdown for goats; included in sheep numbers. 4/ March census. n.a. = Not available. 45 Table 14.— Eastern Europe and Soviet Union: Production of principal livestock products, average 1961-65, annual 1966-69 1/ . . Total Total 'Bulgaria Commodity and year : 2/ Czecho- : Slovakia: 3,/ : East Germany 4/ Hungary 3/ Poland 2/ Romania 4/ Yugo¬ slavia 3/ 5/ Eastern ] Europe 6/ USSR 7/ Eastern Europe and USSR 6/ 1,000 metric tons Beef and veal 1961-65 average...: 68 219 229 139 1966.: 91 252 276 144 1967.: 95 278 298 162 1968.: 105 312 309 8/167 1969.: 95 295 324 182 Mutton, lamb, goat- : meat : 1961-65 average...: 61 7 10 13 1966.: 84 6 10 15 1967.: 86 6 10 16 1968.: 88 6 10 8/18 1969.: 79 6 10 20 Pork ' 1961-65 average...: 149 391 682 294 1966.: 181 415 818 310 1967.: : 178 417 842 297 1968.: : 194 444 874 8/335 1969. : 175 423 888 312 Poultry meat 1961-65 average... : 39 51 62 131 1966. : 48 57 65 151 1967. : 62 65 69 163 1968. : 64 8/81 74 8/165 1969. 58 87 86 178 Total meats 1961-65 average... : 321 683 1,001 586 1966. : 407 742 1,183 624 1967. : 421 778 1,230 642 1968. : 453 8/853 1,278 8/687 1969. : 409 801 1,320 694 Milk 9/ 1961-65 average... : 1,235 3,766 5,704 1,825 1966. : 1,501 4,169 6,728 1,851 1967. : 1,610 4,335 6,904 1,977 1968. : 1,586 4,559 7,227 1,933 1969. : 1,578 4,741 7,314 1,928 Wool 1961-65 average... : 24 2 8 10 1966. : 26 2 8 10 1967. : 27 3 8 10 1968. : 29 3 8/8 11 1969. : 30 4 8 11 Butter 10/ 1961-65 average... : 11 74 175 17 1966. : 12 84 206 19 1967. : 13 82 209 23 1968. : 12 87 220 22 1969. 14 90 224 21 415 200 188 1,458 2,958 4,416 440 242 216 1,661 3,740 5,401 498 247 239 1,817 4,335 6,152 542 226 269 1,930 4,590 6,520 567 220 230 1,913 4,600 6.513 22 70 46 229 816 1,045 20 83 46 264 720 984 22 85 50 275 800 1,075 25 78 55 279 800 1,079 26 75 55 271 810 1,081 1,226 308 294 3,344 2.835 6,179 1,345 374 287 3,730 3,375 7,105 1,313 422 309 3,778 3,375 7,153 1,286 421 323 3,877 3,075 6,952 1,340 416 290 3,844 3,060 6,904 78 75 71 477 740 1,217 104 97 88 610 700 1,310 107 102 95 663 800 1,463 114 100 107 705 800 1,505 120 119 110 758 800 1,558 1,779 653 602 6,525 7,349 12,974 1,945 796 638 6,335 8,725 15,060 1,974 856 694 6,595 9,412 16,012 2,005 825 755 6,856 9,358 16,121 2,093 830 686 6,833 9,355 16,188 12,849 2,680 2,417 30,476 58,242 88,718 14,235 3,092 2,696 34,272 68,393 102,665 14,494 3,391 2,796 35,507 71,928 107,435 14,642 3,134 2,821 35,902 73,890 109.792 14,690 3,250 2,860 36,361 73,440 109.801 8 24 13 89 362 451 8 26 13 93 371 464 9 29 14 100 394 494 9 31 14 105 413 518 9 28 13 103 390 493 92 17 17 403 861 1,264 118 28 17 484 1,042 1,526 119 30 17 493 1,060 1,553 124 29 8/17 511 1,044 1,555 117 27 18 511 1,040 1,551 Millions Eggs : 1961-65 average...: 1,348 2,589 1966 .: 1,490 3,080 1967 .: 1,683 3,218 1968 .: 1,618 3,270 1969 .: 1,580 3,410 3,517 2,006 6,050 2,502 3,894 2,436 6,253 2,814 3,995 2,714 6,348 3,011 4,046 2,792 6,315 3,113 4,050 2,600 6,400 3,200 1,601 19,613 28,736 48,349 1,996 21,963 31,672 53,635 2,126 23,095 33,921 57,016 2,186 23,340 35,522 58,86? 2,400 23,640 37,000 60,640 1/ 1969 data are preliminary. 2/ Official meat data are in carcass weight including fats. _3/ Official meat data are in dressed carcass weight excluding fats. 4/ Meat data are estimated in carcass weight including fats, in. Romania, growth in herds also is included. 5/ Meat data exclude exports of animals for slaughter. 6/ Meat weight specifications vary from country to country. Despite this fact, data are added. 7/ Meat data are estimated in dressed carcass weight excluding fat. 8/ Estimate. 9/ Cows milk only for Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, and Poland. In East Germany, milk production is given in 3.5 percent fat content equivalent. 10/ Total produc tion in East Germany and Yugoslavia; factory production in all other countries. U6 Table 15.—Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, Mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam: Selected agricultural imports and exports, 1962-68 Country by commodity 1962 BULGARIA 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1,000 metric tons Imports: Heat, fresh, frozen, and chilled. Wheat. Rice, milled. Barley. Corn. Sugar, refined. Cattle hides, undressed. Rubber, crude. Wool, scoured. Cotton, lint. exports: Calves 1/. llogs, for slaughter J./.. Pork. Poultry meat. Cheese. Eggs 2/ . Wheat. Corn. Fruit, fresh J3/. Fruit, canned.. Jams and jellies. Fruit puree.. Vegetables, fresh 4/...., Vegetables, canned.. Tomato puree.. Wine, grape 5/.. Tobacco, oriental.. Sunflowerseed. Cotton, lint.. Sunflowerseed oil.. 1.5 119.9 13.0 55.5 37.2 124.1 2.5 17.0 1.1 47.5 3.4 138.6 10.0 6.8 10.5 442.2 2.0 82.7 260.9 39.5 46.2 49.9 317.6 87.3 38.4 380 52.6 92.4 10.2 8.1 193.1 25.3 95.4 105.1 117.6 3.6 18.2 1.7 31.8 7.9 91.5 4.5 6.6 4.0 331.2 28.2 73.5 291.7 47.2 51.5 39.8 286.2 81.0 34.6 530 77.7 32.8 • 13.4 6.7 407.8 52.0 162.9 107.7 131.0 3.3 22.9 2.2 45.1 33.6 115.2 1.4 7.5 11.4 400.7 7.0 244.9 230.5 52.6 45.5 48.9 327.2 93.6 33.8 521.2 81.5 111.4 0.2 5.1 15.1 149.0 25.9 133.4 28.7 154.6 2.8 21.8 1.5 47.8 84.9 321.6 8.3 9.7 15.1 508.0 9.5 43.4 352.1 51.2 39.5 32.3 226.4 93.5 36.1 545.7 78.2 91.5 2.6 1.0 8.5 314.6 18.9 76.4 158.1 8.1 24.6 2.2 54.0 63.0 379.4 12.3 10.1 12.3 479.8 400.2 186.7 192.5 47.4 28.9 24.9 218.0 134.5 43.9 899.8 71.7 155.8 7.2 17.3 25.6 13.0 16.1 26.4 194.7 3.5 25.5 2.4 50.7 69.9 127.6 14.4 17.0 22.7 580.0 533.8 306.3 223.5 66.1 18.2 23.9 246.0 144.3 33.8 894.2 75.6 99.9 17.5 40.5 n.a. 232.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. 285.3 n.a. 32 3.1 58 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 556 n.a. n.a. 215 70 24 n.a. 244 129 n.a. 940 68 n.a. n.a. n.a. CZECHOSLOVAKIA imports: : Meat and slaughter animals....: 89 96 Poultry meat.: 9.2 8.4 Butter.: 15 20 Eggs 2/.: 32 23 Wheat. 927 1,365 Rice, milled.: 82 88 Barley. 144 156 Corn. 300 289 Rye. 172 62 Fruits. 158 159 Nuts. 5.1 7.8 Vegetables. 137 119 Sugar, raw equivalent.: 150.0 150.0 Coffee. 8.8 11.5 Cocoa beans.12.2 13.0 Tea. 1.2 1.7 Oilseed cake and meal.: 56.0 102.8 Wine 5/. 390 384 62 48 75 81 83 9.6 7.8 8.7 7.6 5.8 10 12 11 13 13 61 48 64 70 68 1,489 924 1,032 1,205 1,371 89 73 92 60 68 396 595 135 162 125 433 155 282 138 263 41 32 n.a. n.a. — 184 241 190 241 234 6.5 6.6 7.7 7.8 7.2 112 144 132 149 118 50.1 209.5 263.2 188.0 202.2 11.0 10.3 10.6 11.6 13.3 12.8 14.1 19.3 15.5 12.8 1.7 1.4 1.9 0.9 1.1 176.6 168.4 204.7 250.3 n.a. 474 471 468 498 534 47 Table 15.—Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, Mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam: Selected agricultural imports and exports, 1962-68—Continued Country by commodity 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1,000 metric tons CZ ECHOS LOVAKIA— Con t inued Imports—Continued : Tobacco. : Cattle hides, raw.: Peanuts. : Soybeans. : Sunflowerseed.: Wool, scoured.: Cotton, lint. : Jute. : Exports: : Meat, fresh, frozen, and : chilled. : Eggs 2 J .= Malt. . Hops. : Sugar, refined.: Beer 5/. : EAST GERMANY 6/ : Imports: : Meat and meat products.: Butter. : Cheese. : Eggs and egg products 2/ .: Wheat. : Rice.: Barley. . Corn. : Rye. : Fruit, tropical.: Fruit, fresh.: Nuts. : Fruit juice.. Fruit, canned. : Potatoes. : Pulses, for food.: Vegetables, fresh.: Vegetables, canned.: Sugar, raw equivalent.: Honey. : Coffee. : Cocoa beans. : Tea. : Forage 7/. : Oilseed cake and meal.: Wine and champagne 5/.: Beer 5/. : Spirits 5/. : Tobacco, smoking and cured....: Cattle hides and skins, salted: Oilseeds. '■ Wool, scoured.: Cotton, lint.: 13 13 18 17 13 18 22 42 37 40 44 44 40 40 32 46 42 37 53 26 33 23 21 26 25 26 22 22 66 33 33 17 43 59 86 20 20 21 23 21 17 17 92 105 106 100 113 103 107 18 20 14 14 15 15 16 2.1 2.3 3.9 28.1 8.0 17.2 n.a. 54 99 74 66 60 41 47 155 178 157 178 192 205 207 3.7 4.9 5.4 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.3 528 513 359 513 325 392 287 465 445 326 321 542 750 841 202.2 139.1 106.1 76.6 78.4 75.3 68.8 55.7 43.8 31.2 29.2 18.5 17.2 18.2 18.2 16.8 16.5 14.0 14.3 12.5 10.8 55.3 164.8 113.3 19.5 40.1 63.3 43.5 1,238.0 1,023.0 1,303.0 1,225.0 1,350.0 1,184.0 1,075.0 30.4 30.3 26.8 40.4 62.0 49.8 46.7 141.0 89.0 219.0 289.0 126.0 203.0 168.0 412.0 287.0 309.0 183.0 295.0 352.0 394.0 448.0 282.0 101.0 1.0 111.0 — — 100.2 83.3 94.5 114.3 152.3 199.0 163.5 110.9 153.2 178.7 169.1 137.0 139.3 130.2 11.5 9.8 10.0 13.1 15.5 13.6 25.2 11.6 13.5 14.0 9.6 13.2 11.4 16.2 19.6 18.5 38.5 30.7 33.3 30.3 38.3 129.1 128.2 409.8 84.4 93.2 107.6 141.0 7.2 8.3 22.8 5.8 10.3 11.3 10.2 94.6 130.5 148.8 88.6 104.2 90.3 92.8 24.6 33.2 92.2 57.4 57.3 78.1 61.9 321.2 244.5 81.1 169.9 207.2 322.9 298.2 2.2 1.7 2.9 1.8 2.5 2.9 2.7 29.0 34.4 36.5 35.8 37.4 40.2 40.2 13.9 14.1 14.4 15.3 18.0 16.2 19.1 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.1 1.2 1.5 6.9 10.0 11.8 10.3 13.2 9.1 8.8 59.8 125.6 213.5 199.2 236.1 345.1 379.3 647.1 705.9 642.5 676.3 782.1 852.4 807.9 77.9 78.2 78.6 78.1 80.8 82.1 82.5 18.0 6.9 10.0 6.3 51.4 35.6 35.5 24.2 29.2 27.2 27.8 22.5 26.1 21.3 8/24.3 20.1 21.0 19.2 18.4 17.2 14.6 108.2 137.3 154.6 139.6 163.6 148.4 132.2 21.2 23.3 22.3 24.7 18.8 19.2 21.8 123.6 93.5 96.2 99.3 90.3 84.7 87.2 ■Continued 48 Table 15.—Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, Mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam: Selected agricultural imports and exports, 1962-68—Continued Country by commodity 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1965 : 1966 : 1967 : 1968 EAST GERMANY ^/—Continued .mports—Continued Animal fats, refined and un- 10.4 3.2 - - 1,000 2.2 metric tons - - 0.3 Vegetable oils, refined and 148.8 136.3 119.1 106.1 120.3 110.7 112.1 Exports: 0.5 10.8 33.7 21.0 18.9 22.8 n.a. 213.1 195.7 172.9 97.5 191.0 145.6 155.2 HUNGARY [mports: 20.2 37.0 43.4 34.2 31.0 58.2 18.1 0.2 1.4 1.2 3.5 2.6 1.2 1.8 Rut t-pr. 4.5 2.9 0.9 5.7 4.5 5.4 2.5 Wheat, including feed wheat... 172.7 17.4 363.4 13.8 303.9 11.2 207.7 21.4 152.4 40.6 217.0 24.6 310.5 17.6 54.5 118.0 100.4 382.0 40.7 10.2 73.9 429.2 161.9 140.2 70.8 55.8 0.2 75.4 28.7 3.8 _ _ 50.0 — . . 39.6 22.4 55.2 8.8 5.7 _ — Fruit, tropical. 38.7 31.4 42.3 40.8 47.1 48.8 61.8 Coffee. 5.5 6.9 11.0 12.6 13.5 17.4 20.5 6.3 7.2 7.0 12.5 9.8 9.8 10.9 0.6 0.8 0.5 2.2 0.8 0.6 0.9 121.9 161.7 186.7 183.7 228.7 245.3 266.7 Lard, rendered. 7.2 14.6 14.9 5.4 6.5 25.6 7.2 Tobacco. 6.5 4.6 5.0 4.9 8.1 15.6 12.3 19.1 18.8 21.4 24.6 24.1 24.4 25.2 Wool, scoured. 2.7 4.0 3.7 2.8 4.0 4.8 6.7 Cotton , lint . 65.1 63.6 68.4 72.1 78.2 88.6 74.8 Jute... 9.3 8.0 9.1 8.8 12.1 6.5 9.8 Exports: 50.2 72.5 54.9 71.8 80.7 91.9 95.6 Hogs, for slaughter . 18.1 17.9 6.1 28.8 28.3 9.7 5.9 Meat, fresh . 41.9 37.8 32.2 41.0 49.7 48.8 47.7 Meat, canned... 4.8 4.9 5.6 7.5 6.5 7.9 8.1 Poultry, dressed. 26.4 27.2 34.0 35.5 33.7 38.5 47.2 Butter. 4.7 5.4 4.4 5.9 5.1 10.6 6.0 Cheese. 7.2 8.8 8.4 6.2 7.5 9.3 6.0 Eggs 2/. 60.1 90.6 197.6 344.3 287.7 423.4 364.5 Wheat. 31.9 41.6 13.9 96.2 1.0 170.5 115.3 Corn. 34.2 25.5 63.9 92.6 42.7 19.7 18.6 Flour and grits. 11.9 12.3 12.0 10.8 12.6 13.7 13.9 Fruit, fresh. 87.7 183.4 177.6 182.1 180.5 243.7 207.6 Fruit, canned. 35.9 41.9 45.0 52.4 52.2 52.9 58.3 Potatoes. 24.3 42.6 37.9 30.8 37.2 113.8 32.4 Beans. 4.6 15.4 11.7 28.3 6.6 8.7 1.5 Peas. 30.5 20.8 17.1 28.8 19.5 25.6 11.6 Vegetables, fresh. 98.7 137.9 107.4 114.0 147.4 122.9 86.4 Vegetables, canned.. 70.2 94.5 134.2 124.4 154.5 184.9 183.5 Sugar, refined. 214.8 222.9 147.0 138.6 63.3 42.2 16.6 Honey. 4.6 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.7 5.8 Wine" 5/. 335.2 401.8 569.4 689.0 720.0 728.2 788.4 Tobacco. 4.0 4.0 9.7 9.5 7.2 10.7 6.6 Sunflowerseed. 15.4 16.8 14.3 10.4 13.7 14.0 18.2 Table 15.—Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, Mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam: Selected agricultural imports and exports, 1962-68—Continued Country by commodity HUNGARY—Continued Exports—Continued Sunflowerseed oil, refined POLAND Imports: : Meat and meat products.: Butter.: Wheat.: Rice, milled.: Barley.: Com.: Rye.: Oats. : Fruit, citrus.: Fruit, fresh.: Fruit, dried.: Vegetables, fresh.: Vegetables, canned and frozen.: Coffee beans. ..: Cocoa beans.: Tea.: Oilseed cake and meal.: Tobacco.: Cattle hides, green.: Oilseeds. . Rubber, crude.: Wool, scoured.: Cotton, lint.: Vegetable oils, edible.: Exports: : Cattle, for slaughter 9/.: Hogs, for slaughter 9/.: Meat, frozen.: Poultry meat.: Bacon. : Ham, canned.: Meat, canned.: Butter.: Eggs 2/ .: Barley. : Rye.: Potatoes.: Vegetables, fresh.: Sugar, raw. '• Sugar, refined.: Lard. : Beer 5/.: Rapeseed. '• 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1965 : 1966 : 1967 : 1968 22.0 25.5 19.5 14.0 14.1 29.4 32.3 5.0 47.6 37.7 39.4 52.8 43.2 79.0 _ 4.7 8.4 2.4 — 3.0 9.4 1,503.8 L.673.4 2,211.4 1,378.2 1,566.7 L,353.0 1,067.7 51.4 99.2 54.9 67.2 67.2 65.3 59.0 277.6 431.9 287.2 485.3 139.2 417.6 545.4 144.8 99.4 186.1 784.5 187.6 199.8 295.3 247.2 409.1 — — 70.3 — 63.9 — 5.0 13.8 32.9 — — — 35.0 33.7 38.9 60.1 85.8 75.9 84.6 45.4 36.0 6.0 35.2 26.7 35.2 32.7 6.0 4.5 5.0 5.4 6.7 5.3 6.7 58.0 28.4 25.4 37.2 30.3 31.8 53.1 9.3 9.4 1.7 3.3 8.6 5.3 6.8 7.2 8.9 10.9 15.4 19.5 20.1 27.8 11.5 12.2 14.0 17.3 12.3 20.0 22.6 4.1 4.9 4.7 5.7 7.7 7.3 6.5 77.7 98.8 164.7 157.8 184.1 215.5 299.0 15.1 19.3 15.8 16.6 13.8 10.7 5.5 37.7 31.2 32.7 34.3 47.2 52.1 41.2 32.6 59.1 61.3 141.9 69.3 67.6 52.0 38.9 35.2 42.1 38.8 45.1 43.5 46.8 18.5 14.9 15.7 17.3 15.2 16.5 17.1 120.6 122.7 151.9 142.8 156.0 133.4 156.4 51.8 12.4 68.0 31.9 24.0 50.5 45.5 8.8 8.7 12.3 16.2 12.1 4.0 4.3 45.5 8.6 9.1 9.2 2.4 1.9 0.3 67.9 33.2 22.4 64.0 18.6 31.7 33.7 13.7 12.1 15.9 19.2 18.8 17.3 18.0 50.6 50.8 52.2 51.9 52.4 54.9 53.8 16.8 17.7 19.8 22.3 23.2 24.4 24.1 20.6 23.3 24.0 25.6 27.3 27.8 29.2 27.5 18.6 20.0 18.3 19.3 23.4 19.6 1,218.5 783.4 637.5 750.6 513.5 551.2 326.8 35.2 59.9 59.9 56.9 89.6 57.7 31.9 _ — — 19.5 65.5 23.7 381.2 248.7 1,015.3 532.8 453.3 423.7 529.4 22.5 65.1 103.1 92.0 74.4 53.1 70.0 150.5 53.3 145.2 90.1 100.9 140.8 162.6 468.8 160.1 358.3 383.3 227.5 214.9 485.8 23.2 4.3 0.4 5.4 27.4 16.0 0.5 68.5 61.0 150.3 203.6 182.6 142.3 172.2 4.5 — 60.4 88.1 106.2 175.4 ROMANIA Imports: Rice. Fruit, citrus 23.1 43.1 21.1 19.6 29.2 36.7 29.5 20.0 22.0 26.2 32.0 29.7 30.1 27.3 —Continued 50 Table 15.—Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, Mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam: Selected agricultural imports and exports, 1962-68—Continued Country by commodity 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1965 : 1966 : 1967 : 1968 -1, 000 metric tons - ROMANIA— Continued mports—Continued 6.1 8.1 6.4 6.9 5.3 5.8 5.5 37.0 44.9 50.5 Cocoa (including powdered 2.5 3.8 3. 7 5.4 5.1 5.4 7.1 13.6 6.5 12.2 14.4 20.8 21.8 18.3 13.8 19.2 22.3 19.2 24.9 26.7 30.5 Won!, scoured. 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.0 Cotton, lint. 60.8 65.4 66.6 67.0 76.7 71.9 76.1 Vegetable oils, edible. xports: 1.5 0.8 2.0 0.8 2.9 2.1 5.4 Animals, for slaughter 1/. 2.2 2.5 4.0 28.4 98.0 62.5 n. a. 13.5 13.8 16.6 33.2 31.1 56.8 n. a. Meat, prepared or preserved... 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.4 .. 5.6 4.8 7.4 n.a. 2.5 6.0 5.1 10.4 15.0 n. a. 131.6 31.2 148.3 245.8 286.2 290.0 311.8 Grain, total (excluding seed). 1,067.9 1,408.8 1,234.2 882.2 1,303.0 2,339.4 1,561.6 Crapes. 54.9 52.0 40.7 60.3 37.8 46.3 48.6 Frill t, fresh. 42.8 69.0 53.6 96.5 54.6 67.0 64.6 75.9 107.6 93.7 86.0 97.2 100.8 83.8 Potatoes. 20.9 38.1 8.5 11.1 21.1 31.4 27.7 Vegetables, fresh. 71.1 82.1 105.4 136.8 127.6 127.1 193.9 Vegetables, canned. 15.4 20.7 29.5 25.9 35.9 40.5 48.7 Sugar, refined. 310.8 75.6 52.9 34.5 106.0 192.2 63.3 Wine... 20.7 26.8 42.4 43.3 46.0 52.7 57.9 Sunflowerseed. 15.0 15.0 40.0 35.0 30.9 58.6 61.9 Wool, scoured. 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.5 2.4 8.8 7.9 12.0 19.3 44.3 48.6 46.9 Vegetable oils, edible. YUGOSLAVIA mports: 47.6 39.7 37.1 33.3 76.5 110.0 115.8 Hogs, for slaughter. 22.5 9.0 11.6 21.5 27.6 6.8 — Meat, fresh. 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.3 9.7 32.9 5.6 Milk, powdered. 18.1 23.1 19.7 13.3 14.2 2.7 16.7 Ebbs. 3.6 3.8 3.8 4.0 10.5 9.7 1.1 Wheat. 732.9 1,438.3 602.4 1,192.6 1,357.2 409.0 78.7 Rice, milled. 4.1 38.9 36.9 26.4 27.3 9.7 27.9 Barley. 13.8 69.0 61.1 1.1 0.6 Corn. 60.4 32.7 116.0 0.7 — — 2.5 Fruit, citrus. 39.8 39.4 62.6 66.3 82.9 98.6 84.9 Potatoes. 22.8 7.7 0. 7 24.2 14.6 0.3 Sugar, refined. 131.4 54.6 106.3 94.2 246.2 131.2 67.7 Coffee. 10.3 17.8 15.7 17.7 24.7 30.3 29.0 Cocoa beans. 3.6 9.6 6.7 13.8 13.9 8.9 9.7 Oilseed cake and meal. 50.3 80.5 147.3 137.9 74.7 155.9 121.5 Lard. 2.2 7.4 9.4 0.4 2.4 11.4 9.1 Tobacco. 9.9 10.1 3.4 0.1 1.0 0.1 Hides, raw.. 20.6 22.4 27.4 25.1 26.7 35.7 21.5 Oilseeds. 21.6 29.4 35.2 28.2 26.2 7.5 30.8 Rubber, crude. 13.9 15.1 17.0 16.5 15.4 14.4 15.7 Wool, greasy. 5.9 11.3 14.6 16.1 11.4 12.6 12.7 Cotton, lint. 64.2 72.2 81.7 90.5 87.4 90.7 72.0 Jute. 11.1 15.0 12.2 13.6 13.9 8.7 10.7 51 Table 15.—Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, Mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam: Selected agricultural imports and exports, 1962-68—Continued Country by commodity : 1962 : 1963 : 1964 : 1965 : 1966 : 1967 : 1968 : — tons - - YUGOSLAVIA—Continued ■ Imports--Continued Tallow. ...: 15.2 11.8 6.0 16.1 0.3 12.4 24.2 Vegetable oils, edible. ...: 41.4 30.4 54.5 19.1 21.8 92.1 46.9 Exports: : Cattle, for slaughter. ...: 37.0 44.5 19.1 11.2 21.9 33.9 33.2 Sheep, for slaughter. ...: 8.7 7.2 0.4 1.9 3.4 5.5 9.0 Hogs, for slaughter. ... : 1.1 0.1 — 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.1 Horses, for slaughter. ...: 29.1 27.7 16.8 11.9 16.3 23.6 20.8 Meat, fresh. ...: 79.6 70.4 111.2 126.0 112.6 103.6 94.7 Meat, canned. ...: 21.1 23.8 30.4 36.9 23.8 24.2 19.8 Cheese. ...: 8.8 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.8 1.2 0.5 ...: 6.2 5.1 3.6 2.0 4.6 2.5 0.2 ...: 15.1 — 14.1 36.6 85.1 101.8 21.1 ...: 27.8 104.3 17.7 51.4 356.9 786.7 388.8 Fruit, fresh. ...: 71.7 33.6 61.2 35.2 19.5 29.1 14.5 Prunes. ...: 14.6 33..0 17.6 13.0 4.9 7.3 14.5 Fruit pulp. ...: 16.2 16.0 13.7 13.2 13.2 13.6 12.5 Potatoes. ...: 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.3 9.6 3.4 1.2 Beans, dry. ...: 0.8 0.3 0.4 7.8 7.6 11.1 9.0 Hops. ...: 3.9 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.4 4.3 4.0 Sugar, refined. ...: 21.2 25.0 12.3 — 2.2 11.8 13.2 Wine. ...: 50.0 43.3 49.6 40.0 37.0 44.1 29.8 Tobacco. ...: 15.3 16.8 22.7 23.2 20.9 19.2 15.9 Oilseeds. ...: 1.7 3.8 7.2 13.0 4.6 9.7 19.2 Hemp, all. ...: 10.3 13.5 10.4 8.8 3.7 4.6 4.8 SOVIET UNION : Imports: • .Cattle, for slaughter. ...: 94.3 77.3 73.2 91.5 107.4 91.8 67.4 Hogs, for slaughter. ...: 21.2 — 0.4 21.4 — — Horses, for slaughter. _: - 6.7 5.4 5.6 8.6 10.2 13.0 Meat and meat products. ...: 149.1 37.4 119.9 252.2 133.2 57.5 59.6 Eggs 2/. ...: 66.3 76.7 532.0 706.1 609.3 749.0 672 . 4 Wheat. ...: 45.1 3,052.5 7,281.4 6,375.1 7,582.8 1,827.8 1 , 339.7 Rice, milled. 193.6 363.1 237.9 275.4 397.3 260.0 Corn. T ; - — — — 163.5 356.8 264.2 Flour, wheat. ...: 22.1 277.2 972.0 289.1 322.4 211.8 263.4 Fruit, fresh. ...: 345.6 407.2 439.6 500.9 447.3 538.8 527.1 Fruit, dried. ...: 77.2 113.4 76.6 85.3 69.4 100.4 107.6 Vegetables, fresh. 174.7 243.1 167.8 139.0 151.0 169.4 Vegetables, canned. _: 89.9 108.3 158.6 127.6 203.4 239.9 210.9 Sugar, raw. _: 2,233.2 996.4 1,859.3 2,330.7 1,840.9 2,479.7 1 , 752.2 Coffee. _: 22.6 29.7 30.3 30.9 28.3 24.7 31.4 Cocoa beans. _: 48.7 54.0 66.2 88.8 56.5 81.7 109.0 Tea. _: 16.1 21.7 32.5 36.3 21.3 23.1 22.7 Tobacco. 93.4 129.1 104.1 65.2 61.0 62.3 Hides and skins 11/. _: 19.5 26.4 28.9 22.8 26.9 30.2 24.2 Oilseeds. 65.2 75.2 156.8 48.9 44.2 56.2 Rubber, crude. _: 361.7 298.4 186.1 271.2 311.1 278.5 325.9 Wool, scoured. _: 48.6 42.4 46.3 52.8 61.3 49.8 70.8 Cotton, lint. _: 150.2 225.6 144.9 182.9 172.7 144.5 136.8 Vegetables oils, edible... _: 15.1 37.3 43.2 68.1 47.4 27.7 41.2 —Continued •52 Table 15.—Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, Mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam: Selected agricultural imports and exports, 1962-63—Continued Country by commodity SOVIET UNION—Continued Exports: Meat and meat products.... Butter. Wheat. Barley. Corn. Rye. Oats. Flour. Sugar, refined. Oilseed cake and meal. Tobacco. Oilseeds. Wool, scoured. Cotton, lint. Vegetable oils, edible.... MAINLAND CHINA Imports: Wheat. Rice. Barley. Com. Rye. Oats. Cereals, unmilled, n.e.s.... Flour. Dates. Sugar, raw equivalent.. Cotton, raw. Jute. Sisal.. Fats and oils, animal. Exports: Cattle, for slaughter 1/... Sheep and goats, for slaughter 1/ . Hogs, for slaughter 1/. Meat, fresh. Meat, dried and salted. Meat, prepared or preserved Eggs, in shell. Eggs, not in shell 12 /. Wheat, unmilled. Rice. Corn. Oranges and tangerines. Fruit, other citrus. Bananas, fresh. Apples, fresh. Pears, fresh. Potatoes, fresh. Beans and peas. Onions, fresh. Sugar, raw equivalent. 1962 133.7 69.7 4.765.2 466.8 1,256.7 1.300.3 25.3 251.4 792.4 348.6 1.8 112.7 24.2 343.6 152.5 4,419.1 4.7 486.6 491.2 246.9 47.4 23.5 223.9 63.0 937.9 67.5 13.0 2.7 27.6 17.1 785.6 10.6 2.3 6.0 25.8 11.9 89.1 577.8 0.8 29.9 2.8 12.5 62.4 0.5 7.5 58.1 5.0 284.5 1963 183.0 65.0 4,105.6 594.2 723.1 815.0 22.0 276.4 802.4 193.2 1.8 101.2 27.6 321.5 258.9 4,394.0 97.1 25.0 13.4 26.9 0.7 71.3 511.9 143.1 22.9 3.8 21.6 23.7 1,285.5 23.6 2.0 8.3 34.8 28.0 109.9 639.7 109.6 37.3 2.8 8.7 71.0 1.9 11.2 57.8 6.7 217.0 1964 60.9 25.3 2,030.5 665.8 638.6 150.3 28.3 320.5 347.8 45.5 3.2 113.5 24.4 393.6 189.9 5.542.2 76.4 567.5 377.2 134.6 29.3 54.7 62.1 407.6 105.2 56.7 9.6 30.1 46.1 7.8 1.717.3 76.5 3.1 23.9 40.0 15.5 110.8 784.5 169.6 38.8 4.2 17.0 81.1 16.5 25.4 62.5 12.1 361.7 1965 31.7 43.0 1,662.6 2,067.9 551.1 36.9 11.8 266.7 604.1 129.2 2.1 88.2 26.4 457.7 242.1 5,249.8 112.3 23.6 71.8 41.9 16.9 35.3 419.1 168.5 60.6 7.2 17.7 94.8 12.4 1,879.2 139.5 4.5 39.3 42.4 60.0 750.5 244.5 39.3 6.8 19.0 88.8 28.7 34.2 101.9 15.4 419.3 1966 tons 118.4 54.1 2,805.3 290.4 174.4 275.1 11.5 305.6 992.8 390.5 1.3 147.2 27.8 507.8 455.7 6,375.2 51.5 20.2 59.8 619.7 107.0 52.2 13.1 15.2 6.2 10.9 1.951.5 169.5 4.8 41.8 49.4 72.5 1.209.6 146.3 42.8 7.4 32.2 89.4 36.4 53.6 148.0 23.1 522.8 1967 175.4 63.4 5,284.0 452.4 164.7 336.2 10.7 376.8 1,032.3 387.9 2.0 341.2 20.1 534.4 707.2 3,871 22.4 136.5 59.5 556.1 88.2 63.6 6.3 11.9 111.4 8.6 1,816.0 108.9 10.7 20.7 41.2 60.2 1,224.8 75.2 55.8 5.1 25.0 90.8 33.9 41.8 128.6 16.8 388.0 1968 130.6 75.6 4,355.0 614.4 209.0 221.9 6.1 564.4 1,299.6 325.1 4.3 404.8 26.0 554.4 770.4 4,444.3 n. a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 431.8 68.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. 116.9 n.a. 1,960.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 998.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,000 metric 53 Table 15.—Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, Tlainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam: Selected agricultural imports and exports, 1962-68—Continued Country by commodity 1962 MAINLAND CHINA—Continued 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1,000 metric tons 1968 Exports—Continued Tea. Oilseed cake. Peanuts. Soybeans. Castor seed. Rape and mustard seed Silk, fiber. Wool, greasy. Cottonseed oil. Peanut oil. Rape and mustard oil. Tung oil. 27.8 4.5 3.1 342.2 1.9 1.1 4.7 0.7 16.5 27.7 9.2 3.1 332.1 5.3 0.2 1.2 10.6 0.3 12.4 32.4 19.4 25.5 498.4 10.7 1.8 14.3 0.5 17.1 32.1 29.3 45.7 576.2 14.6 5.8 3.3 15.6 22.2 4.9 3.8 19.1 35.4 25.8 63.8 550.1 56.3 29.9 6.0 17.6 43.6 24.3 31.8 17.5 31.1 31.6 74.1 564.4 79.6 23.3 5.7 11.3 28.6 30.9 17.1 14.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. 620.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. NORTH KOREA Imports: Wheat, unnri 1led. 84.1 96.1 7.8 14.3 Sugar, raw equivalent. 20.0 Cotton, lint. 10.8 10.0 Exports: Rice. 0.3 Corn. 12.7 37.0 Tobacco. 10. 3 7.7 Silk, fiber. 0.3 0.2 NORTH VIETNAM Imports: Flour and meal, wheat. 9.1 17.1 Sugar, raw equivalent. Exports: 10.5 13.4 Hogs 1/. 7.1 5.0 Rice. 5.9 6.9 Sugar, raw equivalent. 3.3 4.7 43.6 101.2 339.8 358.3 n.a — 20.5 63.1 116.8 n.a 21.1 21.5 21.3 112.9 n.a 9.5 10.7 10.9 11.7 n.a — — 3.5 5.7 n.a _ 43.5 72.1 125.4 n.a 23.5 — 18.0 6.3 n.a 3.7 8.1 5.1 1.8 n.a 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 n.a 6.5 1.5 10.7 39.4 n.a. 10.5 66.0 13.5 45.5 49.8 12.5 16.9 4.7 1.6 n.a. 10.9 3.0 12.5 3.3 n.a. 3.2 6.6 2.0 3.2 n.a. 1/ 1,000 head. 2/ Millions, fresh equivalent. _3/ Includes watermelons and musk melons. 4/ In¬ cludes potatoes. 5/ 1,000 hectoliters. 6/ Interzonal trade between East and West Germany not in¬ cluded. 7/ Unspecified. Believed to include hay, fodder, and forage crops. 8/ Includes other hides. 9/ Slaughter weight. 10 / Tomatoes, only. 11 / Millions. 12 / In terms of in-shell equival ent. Sources: Official statistical handbooks published by the various countries except Mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam. Some data for Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ro¬ mania, and Yugoslavia from Trade Yearbook , FAO, Vol. 22, 1968. Some data for Romania, and most data for Mainland China, North Korea, and North Vietnam from Supplementary Economic Statistics , Fifth Issue, FAO, October 1969. Some data for Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Mainland China, and North Vietnam from Sugar Yearbook , 1968 , International Sugar Council. 3k by country, 1963 o cn i—I i—l VO CO CO o vO CO 3 | • • • • O CD i uO 00 NT co CN CN UO UO rH vO rH rH vO *H 4J p '—1 i—i <3" o CN CO \ CN r^ CO VO CO 4J g 0k CO p- vO CN IN CN | CO •H £ G CD o CN * •» C •H X p. • rH co •H £ U 3 or VM G G iH qj CD CD U 00 CJ > or X rH G •H 3 rH 3 •H 4-» rH CN UO CO • • • \ G cQ O u • • • • cd cd cd CO u or G X CN % • rH G rH rH CO cd 3 4-J rH G i~> CJ G CD G O cd •H or i—i CJ •H X U X* •H 4-J o vO CO G U o CN Cn CN U0 vO 00 CN o CN CO <3- 00 • Pi 3 4-J 4-> CN rH CN rH rH CO o rH rH P. UH CO G »H CN rH CO | O G or CD 0) 1 (D G CJ tfl 3 CJ co •rl CN VC UO •H X G 3 *——■ • • • • U o CD rH CO a CO CO CN vO vO UO rH CN co G c 4-J o; c QJ E u a o QJ e x: o c H G • Pi G vO o X r > C • 4-J aj • • • • •H o G CO • P G H cr. a CD •H P •H a o o o • o rH o 4-J 3 O • 4-J oo rH QJ • • > G c H Q Q Q rH rH H a o Q u o 'w' p CO G QJ 33 0) •H (U QJ QJ rH 4J 4-J X >> pH r""i H ;—i •H G CO CJ G c •H 0) p X G UH •H X o G U o CO 0k • • • • • • • • • • • • • • > o p v3 CO X • • • • • • • • • • • • • X o oo a. cr> c 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • c rH G rH QJ X • • • • • • • • • • • • • G CT 4-J i X • • • • • • • • • • • CO rH c G p i u x| • • • • • • • • • • • 4J QJ d CJ 4J K G • • • • • • • • • • *H > aj CJ CO cn 00 • • • • • • QJ • • • • e •H rH QJ c G cn • • • • • o • • • • 3 4-J 3d N o p C-/ X • rH • • • • • CD u • CO • • CJ G o o X • • • • • • • U o • 4J CO • • G Pi X Uh 0 G G (U • • • • • U 4H u •H 4-J • p. '—^ G 4-J G X >, • • • • • o CD c •H • • CL CO • #> 1— CO o o o • • • • • Mh H X 3 e Pi c UH CD G X G X rH G CJ • • • • • o U p o O o CJ -Q o »—( u p- o c • • • • • • • Pi X o rH 4-J UO *H X o o G E O •H ">- (U or • O G s G • CJ rH 4J • QJ QJ U-4 C-. . o G e QJ o <-) l H Pi c • XI rH a p. G p- G X u c 3 rH P G • G U •H • Pi Pi E X CO G X • M u 3 4-J 0) G CO CO c 4-J rH rH rH CD CO 4-J QJ P CD H G G c HH r d c 4-J 4-J o rH G p- >> P. CO Pi CJ 4-J CO 4-J 63 4-J o u Pi •H p rH rH 4-J i UO • c QJ •H CO G e •H o O 4-J CJ G G3 G o TT CL rH p. XJ o P. u rH G X X e 4-> p. P- G •H U <—* Pi 4-J c • • • 3 CJ c~ G O X •H G X 6 rH 3 G P G X 0k * G /^S U o G p c cu •H p oc 4J rH 4-J UH •H CO CO rH Pi QJ 4-J 3 p vD rH rH aj D- G rH rH o Pi Pi QJ (D CJ c 4-J CL CN a UH UH c p o P CJ CO O o oo CJ N C a rH rH X c p o o o CL c CJ rH O aj rH 4-J 4-J G rH *H G u CO i G *H 4-J *H •H -o • • •H Pi X o CJ CJ Pi X rH 4J u a p 1 4-J rH o 0) QJ rH • • Pi G Pi Pi G G 4-J G G CD G •H CO 3 •H rH >. G 0k Pi Pi H G CO 00 O 00 i "H H a Pi U > U 4-» X r o H CL p > c o G G G H 4J c < < J3 < cn < G H H < < u p 00 G •H o •H -C -a -C p p G G Pi p CO \ QJ rH OO 4-J •H Pi C/0 cn cn rvH p- x ►j H r—-4 r_ I G c rH 4-J tc c 4H •H p 3 G C M o X a rH CJ vc ,4-) G CO co x • esc W X 3 X cd CD *H 55 Information on agricultural conditions in Mainland China, North Korea, North Vietnam, and Cuba is limited. This report is based upon weather data and statements about crop conditions contained in Attache reports from Hong Kong, newspapers, journals, and radio reports from the respective countries. It also draws on reports by commercial, academic, and other specialists familiar with the countries. This information is evaluated-by ERS special¬ ists in light of historical and other information bearing on the agriculture of these countries. 57 U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 POSTAGE & FEES PAK) Untf%4 Sfotot D«portm«nt of Ayicultyr* ☆ U.' S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 39^-233 (KKS-191) UNIVERSITY OF ILLmuiS £GRiGULTURE LIBRARY THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN AFRICA AND WEST ASIA Review of 1969 and Outlook for 1970 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE Washington, D.C. ABSTRACT: Total agricultural output in Africa rose about 2 percent from 1968 to 1969. Twenty-one of 31 African countries covered in the report showed increases; eight had losses. In West Asia, total agri¬ cultural production was down slightly in 1969 - Five of eight countries covered in the report registered declines. Compared with 1968 levels, both areas experienced declines in per capita food production. The report gives the early-season outlook for 1970 crops by selected coun¬ tries and commodities, reviews country trade in agricultural products, and covers each country's trade policy in 19 69. KEY WORDS: Agricultural production in Africa, West Asia. FOREWORD This is one of five regional supplements to The World Agricultural Situation: Review of 1969 and Outlook for 1970 , FAER 97 , issued February 1970 . Other regional reports are being published for Western Europe, the Communist Areas, the Western Hemisphere, and the Far East and Oceania. Highlights of the agricultural year in Africa and West Asia are discussed in some detail in the country writeups. Some countries in that sphere are excluded owing to insufficient data. Tabular data for countries omitted from the text dis¬ cussion are included in the appendix. U.S. trade data are available for most politi¬ cal entities of the area and are used in appropriate sections of this supplement. For the Branch, Robert E. Marx directed and coordinated this report. Others participating in its preparation include Mary T. Chambliss, William F. Hall, Marie A. Kelleher, Michael E. Kurtzig, Lillian M. Loeb, Margaret B. Missiaen, Pauline G. Price, Snider W. Skinner, H. Charles Treakle, Joyce E. Wallace, and Cline J. Warren. Agri¬ cultural situation reports from the U.S. Agricultural Attaches abroad were helpful. ■/ Glenn R. Samson, Chief Africa and Middle East Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division Economic Research Service iii CONTENTS Page SUMMARY AFRICA: Algeria . Botswana . Cameroon . Congo (Kinshasa) Ethiopia . Ghana. Guinea . Ivory Coast .•.. Kenya . Liberia . Malawi . Mali . Morocco . Nigeria . Rhodesia . 1 Senegal . 20 Sierra Leone . 21 South Africa, Republic of. 22 Sudan . 2 5 Tanzania . 26 2 3 Tunisia . 27 h Uganda. 29 5 United Arab Republic . 30 6 WEST ASIA: 7 Cyprus . 32 8 Iran . 32 9 Iraq . 3^ 10 Israel . 36 12 Jordan . 37 13 Lebanon . 38 Ik Syria. *+0 15 Turkey . ^2 17 18 APPENDIX TABLES . *5 Washington, D. C., 20250 April 1970 iv THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN AFRICA AND WEST ASIA Review of 1969 and. Outlook for 1970 SUMMARY Africa's agricultural outturn for 1969 was almost 2 percent greater than in 1968. The index of total agricultural production rose to 127 percent of the 1957-59 base—a new high.i/ Food production per capita fal¬ tered, however, and the index dropped to 95, the lowest level of the 1960's, and one point below 1968. The most significant gain in Africa's production was registered in the UAR, one of the continent's three agricultural giants. Egyptian farmers produced more than ever be¬ fore. Substantial gains were recorded for major grain crops, with rice production reaching an alltime high of 2.4 million tons.2/ But the major factor in the in¬ creased performance of Egyptian agriculture was a 17-percent increase in cotton produc¬ tion to 511,000 tons for 1969- This is not a record, but close to it. South Africa and Nigeria, the other two of the agricultural giants, registered no change and one percent greater produc¬ tion, respectively. Better crops were harvested in those countries of West Africa where a 1968 drought necessitated emergency food aid, partly from the United States. Senegal, Mali, Niger, and Upper Volta were the main recipients. Having experienced a superlative year in 1968, Moroccans were not surprised when their agricultural production dropped off sharply—approaching 20 percent—in 1969 • Wheat production, for instance, fell about one-third. Even so, it was an exceedingly good crop surpassed in Morocco's history only by the 1968 crop. Tunisia suffered a considerable decline in farm output—the fourth consecutive year of rather poor crops. Tunisia has not had a good wheat crop since 1965 . A virtual across-the-board rise in pro¬ duction resulted in Africa's 1969 crop of cotton being the largest ever produced. Cot¬ ton is one of the top three export crops of the continent. In West Asia, agricultural output was down slightly in 1969- The regional index of production was 138, while the index of per capita food production was down to 100 . 1 / Cyprus and Jordan showed very large increases in output. Such small countries are more likely to be affected uniformly by weather than big areas are. Lebanon's apple crop was severely re¬ duced; only about 4-0 percent as many apples were harvested in 1969 as in 1968 . Not since i 960 were there so few Lebanese apples harvested. Wheat production in West Asia totaled l4.6 million tons, down by a few hundred thousand tons from the 1968 level. Each of the two biggest wheat growers, Turkey and Iran, experienced a slight drop in the 1969 crop. Cotton is the largest export crop of West Asia. Regional cotton production in 1969 was about 725,000 tons—off about 7 percent from the very high level of produc¬ tion in 1968 . Turkey had a drop of possi¬ bly 50,000 tons; 1969 was the first year since i 960 that Turkey did not show an in¬ crease in cotton production. l/ Based on production of 31 countries for which indices have been prepared. 2/ Metric tons and U.S. dollars are used in this report; exceptions are stated specifically. 3/ Based on production of eight coutries for which indices have been prepared. 1 AFRICA ALGERIA Early in the season, the 1969 harvest gave promise of being a bumper one. How¬ ever, adverse weather damaged the cereal crops, causing the final outturn to be down considerably from the previous year. Gross domestic product (GDP) was expected to in¬ crease by about 7 percent (at current prices) during 1969 due largely to a sub¬ stantial rise in industrial production and construction. This was well below the 12 percent growth in GDP of 1968 , but slightly above the 1963-67 average. Agricultural Production The index of total agricultural produc¬ tion fell to 84 percent of the 1957-59 base, down from 96 percent in 1968. Total grain production has been estimated at between 1.5 million and 1.6 million tons, down con¬ siderably from the more than 2 million tons harvested in 1968. The wheat crop (40 per¬ cent soft wheat and 60 percent durum) prob¬ ably slipped to about 1.25 million tons from. 1.53 million tons the previous year. Domestic grain consumption requirements likely were considerably above production levels. The value of cereal imports has gone from $43 million in 1966 to $59 million in 1967 and back to $44 million in 1968. These fluctuations are largely due to the influence of the weather on the size of the harvest. The production and export of wine have posed major problems for the Algerian econ¬ omy in recent years. Since there is very little domestic consumption of wine, the industry has been dependent on exports— particularly exports to the protected French market. Access to this market, however, has been severely limited in recent years. (See section on trade.) Algeria is now embarking on a vineyard reconstruction program, which will cost $400 million over the next 10 years, to re¬ duce the area under wine grapes from 350,000 hectares (865,000 acres) down to 200,000 hectares ( 495 s OOO acres). This will reduce annual labor needs by more than 10 million man-days. To compensate for this, the government intends to put an extra 33,500 hectares (83,000 acres) under cultivation ol table grapes and 10,000 hectares (25,000 acres) under grapes for raisins. More em¬ phasis will also be put on the production ol high-quality wine because of shrinking mar¬ kets for vin ordinaire. Production of most fruits and vegetable increased during 1969. Total citrus produc¬ tion was estimated at 440,000 tons, up slightly from the previous year. Heavy rair and floods in eastern and central Algeria destroyed much of the date crop. Algeria will export few if any dates during the cur¬ rent season. Date exports usually total mor than 20,000 tons annually. The rains, which were heaviest during October, also damaged thousands of cropland hectares, some vineyards, and stored crops. Planting for the 1969/70 agricultural season had not begun when the floods came, so damag to annual crops was minimal. Soil moisture conditions should be greatly improved, but some planting may have been delayed or pre¬ vented because of wet fields. Agricultural Policy Algeria's new 4 -year development plan was announced on January 20 , 1970 . Prelim¬ inary information suggests that approximatel $5 billion will be spent during 1970-73 to achieve an annual growth rate of 6 percent in the overall economy. Fifty percent of th expenditures will go to the industrial secto. Agriculture will be the third area of empha¬ sis; education is second. The Algerian government controls the prices which marketing organizations pay to producers for many commodities. In 1969 , minimum prices were in effect for wine, olives, cereals, garden vegetables, and cit¬ rus. In 1968 the price for durum wheat was raised from $103 to $109 per ton and for soft wheat from $89 to $97 per ton. Foreign Trade Algeria's total imports during 1968 were valued at $707 million, down $7 million from 1967. Agricultural products made up 23 percent of the total compared with 29 percent the year before. A $ 15 -million 2 crease in cereal imports (from $59 million i $hk million) reflected the greatly im- •oved 1967 and 1968 cereal harvests. Wheat icounted for almost 90 percent of cereal ports in 1966 and 1967. Other major agri- iltural imports during 1968 were dairy pro¬ mts worth $22 million, cotton worth $17 .llion, and sugar worth $15 million. Algeria's exports continued to expand pidly during 1968 due largely to increased itroleum exports. The value of total ex- >rts rose to $772 million from $7lU million L 1967. Agricultural exports increased from .20 million to $ll+l million during the same :riod. Agriculture's share of the total ■mained nearly constant at 18 percent. Ex- irts of wine recovered from the low level ’ 1967. These shipments were valued at $77 .llion in 1968 compared with $56 million in ) 67 . Improvement in the current wine ex- >rt situation has been due to several lings: a lifting of the French ban on wine ports; a change in French blending regula- .ons for foreign and domestic wines; the 5 SR's agreement to import 5 million hecto- Lters (l hectoliter = 26 .U U.S. gallons) of Lgerian wine annually for 7 years beginning 1 1968; and reduced wine production in ranee in 1969 which increased the French ;mand for Algerian wines. Algerian exports f wine for the first 6 months of 1969 were 5 almost $20 million over January-June )68. Exports of fresh fruit and vegetables 3 the European market are important sources f earnings for the agricultural sector, ruit valued at $27 million was Algeria's scond most important agricultural export in 968 . (Margaret B. Missiaen). BOTSWANA gri cultural Production Arid, landlocked Botswana experienced rought the past several years and had to mport more food than usual. The most im- ortant crops grown are sorghum, corn, mil- et, beans, cowpeas, cotton, and peanuts, xcept for cotton and peanuts, which are ex- orted, these crops are used for consumption owever, sometimes due to storage problems nd the disorganization of markets, consump- ion crops are exported at harvest and reim- orted at higher prices later in the season. Production varies greatly from year to year due to the weather. Lack of water is the limiting factor in agricultural production. The major commercial activity in the country is livestock raising. The long dry period in the early sixties reduced cattle numbers to less than a million; now they have risen to about 1 - 1/2 million. Over 80 percent of the cattle are owned by tradi¬ tional farmers; less than 20 percent, by commercial farmers. It has been estimated that Botswana has a carrying capacity for 2-1/2 million cattle on 92 million acres of present or potential grazing land. However, because of lack of waterholes, infestation of tsetse fly, and other problems, much of this potential cannot be realized for some time. Without additional water, cattle num¬ bers cannot increase much; at present there is overgrazing near the waterholes. The Botswana Meat Commission has lo¬ cated good markets for the meat it process¬ es. There is a strong demand in nearby countries, especially the Republic of South Africa and Zambia. It also sells meat in the European market, mainly the United Kingdom, and is moving into new markets in Africa, for example, Ghana. Agricultural Policy Botswana is working under a 5 -year development plan ( 1969 - 73 ) aimed at develop¬ ing agriculture and mineral potential, and the needed infrastructure. There have been several recent mineral discoveries. Dia¬ monds, copper, and nickel are the most promising. The plan provides for the open¬ ing and developing of two large mines in the north. It also provides for the devel¬ opment of roads which are greatly needed throughout the country. In the agricultural sector emphasis is placed on the improvement of livestock, mainly cattle, and on range management. The improvements desired in crop production are first to improve sub¬ sistence agriculture and to develop a limit¬ ed amount of commercial production to sup¬ ply urban dwellers as well as to export. Foreign Trade Traditionally Botswana experiences a trade deficit. The most recent estimates available are for 1968 when the imbalance was $22 million. Exports consist of meat 3 and meat byproducts, about 90 percent of the total, plus small sales of beans, peas, sorghum, talc, and manganese ore. Meat ex¬ ports are planned to increase. Exports of minerals should develop rapidly in the 1970 's. The main imports are food products and petroleum products and manufactured con¬ sumer goods. The Republic of South Africa is by far the major source of imports. Botswana is a member of a customs union with the Republic, Lesotho, and Swaziland. The terms of this union have recently been re¬ vised and Botswana will receive greater revenues under the new terms. Free move¬ ment of almost all goods will continue among the members. (Mary T. Chambliss). CAMEROON Perhaps the most significant economic news in Cameroon in 19&9 was the opening of a new l8l-mile section of the Trans-Came¬ roon railroad. This section extends from Yaounde to Belabo. A further extension of 206 miles, from Belabo northward to Ngaoun- dere, is planned. The United States has agreed to lend $10 million toward the con¬ struction of this extension. France and the European Community are also helping to finance the new railway. Also of significance is the completion of the "unification highway" between Tiko, West Cameroon, and Douala, East Cameroon. Though only 19 miles long, this road was difficult and expensive to build because it crossed dense mangrove forests and marshes. West Cameroon was formerly British Southern Cameroons and East Cameroon was formerly French Cameroun. A sugarcane plantation and refinery have been established at M'Bandjok, approxi¬ mately 60 miles northeast of Yaounde, along the tracks of the Trans-Cameroon railroad. The total investment, by a semi-governmental enterprise, is $8.6 million. The sugar re¬ finery has a potential capacity of 15,000 tons of refined sugar per year. In West Cameroon, a poultry feed mill became operational at Muyuka in November 1969. The mill, as well as a poultry exten¬ sion center at Muyuka, is supported by USAID (U.S. Agency for International Devel¬ opment ). Two new luxury hotels have been openet in Cameroon at Garoua and Yaounde. Agricultural Production Coffee and cocoa are the chief export crops of Cameroon. Coffee production for 1969/70 is estimated at 1.1 million bags (66,000 tons), same as the previous 2 yean but more than twice the 1957-59 average. Cameroon produces both robusta and arabica coffee. As a producer of cocoa beans , Camerooi ranks fourth in Africa and fifth in the world. The 1969/70 crop is estimated at 105,000 tons, down 5,000 tons from the pre¬ ceding harvest but 42,000 tons above the 1957-59 average. Agricultural Policy Growers of several of Cameroon's im¬ portant export crops receive guaranteed prices for the season for their harvests. For the 1969/70 season, producers of cocoa beans received 13.9 cents per pound for Grades 1 and 2 and 11.4 cents a pound for off-standard beans. At the close of calendar year 1969, coffee growers were given a slightly highe: guaranteed price. The robusta price was raised from 18.8 cents per pound to 19-1 cents. The arabica coffee price was raise 1.6 cents a pound to 21.2 cents. For the 1969/70 marketing season, Cameroonian cotton growers received 4.9 cents per pound for white and yellow un¬ ginned cotton and 4.6 cents a pound for unsorted, unginned cotton. Foreign Trade In 1968, Cameroon's exports and im¬ ports were closely matched, with exports being valued at $189 million and imports $188 million. Major agricultural exports included cocoa beans and products valued at $60 million, coffee $51 million, and cotton $8.2 million. According to U.S. trade statistics, Cameroon in 1968 was the 48 th largest sup¬ plier of agricultural imports to the Unite 4 tates. These agricultural commodities ere valued at $23 million. Coffee ($20 illion), unmanufactured tobacco ($1.6 mil- ion), and cocoa beans ($1.0 million) were he largest items. (Snider W. Skinner) CONGO (KINSHASA) In 1969, for the fourth consecutive ear, Congolese agriculture continued the low pace of recovery from post-independence urmoil. Preliminary data suggest that the xpansion rate in total agricultural produc- ion more than equaled the rate of increase n population. Along with major food crops, mall gains were reported for the country's hree principal export crops—palm products, offee, and rubber. Favorable climatic con- itions generally prevailed, but the great - r share of this progress must be ascribed 0 the return of political stability and acification of the rural areas. Growth was also reported for other ectors of the economy. Copper production, he country's key export item, is estimated o have been up 9 percent over 1968's 26,000 tons. Mostly as a result of higher orld prices for copper, the Congo enjoyed . balance-of-payments surplus, relatively .igh government revenues, and rapidly grow- ng foreign reserves during the first three uarters of 1969. These favorable trends ■ery likely prevailed in the fourth quarter. Monetary reforms undertaken in 1967 .ave helped to establish a favorable di¬ late for economic development and growth, iesides curbing inflation, they provide in- :entives to producers and promote exports. lowever, the latent threat of renewed infla- ■ionary pressures still exists and Congo- .ese officials feel that continued prudent ’iscal and monetary policies are necessary ;o retain the gains of the past 3 years, loreover, economic growth continues to be tampered by serious infrastructure defi- liencies , particularly in transportation. The Congo received considerable foreign lid to encourage development during 1969 • -he European Economic Community approved a ^rant of 5.5 million Zaires ($11 million) ibr agricultural development. The United states provided large amounts of aid in various forms. Aid was also received from 3 elgium, France, and various international organizations. Major agricultural work pro¬ jects being undertaken include work on rice, cotton, and vegetable production; develop¬ ment of market gardens in urban areas; im¬ proved and commercialized production of to¬ bacco, corn, cassava, oil palm products, tea, and pyrethrum; development of cattle herds and veterinary services. There are also projects to improve transportation and other marketing facilities. The major thrust of these efforts is to improve the country's degree of self-sufficiency in basic foods and fibers. Agricultural Production The most important increases in 1969 production occurred for rice, corn, cotton, and palm oil. Smaller gains were indicated for most other crops. Even so, farm produc¬ tion remained 10 percent below the 1957-59 level and even further below the country's total agricultural potential. Cotton growing practically ceased in the mid- 1960 's. More recently, government efforts to expand cotton output have met with considerable success. Production has increased more than threefold since 1965, reaching an estimated 20,000 tons in 1968 and possibly ^ 0,000 tons in 1969* With continued expansion, the country might well become self-sufficient in cotton production in the immediate future. With the larger cotton crop has come increased cottonseed output. Some gains were also registered for peanuts and sesame. Palm oil remains the major vegetable oil of the Congo. Its production in 1969 likely neared 220,000 tons, up some 10,000 tons from a year earlier and almost double the 1965 level. Improved prices to producers along with the government's reduction of export duties from 15 to 5 percent on palm oil at the end of 1968 helped to promote greater production and to increase exports. These duties have been further reduced to 3 percent of the oil's export price. In¬ dications are that the vegetable oil indus¬ try will make even greater progress during 1970 . Production of most subsistence crops approximates pre-independence levels. This is true for millet and sorghum, pulses, cassava, sweetpotatoes, sugarcane, and ba¬ nanas and plantains. The major exception 5 is rice. While increasing, rice production is still less than half the 1957-59 level. Growing urban demand for rice and wheat flour in recent years has been met through greater imports. Foreign Trade Along with governmental measures to im¬ prove tax collections and expand agricul¬ tural production, modifications were made in the country's foreign trade policies. Ex¬ port duties were reduced or in some cases eliminated in October 1969 to promote ex¬ ports of the following primary commodities: Previous Current duty duty - - - Percent - - - Coffee beans. 16 3 Tea. 12 exempt In-shell peanuts. 20 exempt Unshelled peanuts.... Palm oil and 25 exempt palm kernel oil. 5 3 Natural rubber. 10 5 Meanwhile, efforts were made to dis¬ courage greater imports of direct consumer goods. While import duties on some items used by the local industry were reduced, those on other items used directly by the consumer were increased. During 1969 the Congo signed a number of bilateral trade agreements with neighbor¬ ing countries. Most Congolese trade is still, however, oriented toward Western Eu¬ rope—primarily Belgium—and the United States. Exports in 1969 likely were sub¬ stantially above the $569 million reported for 1968 . By value, agricultural products currently account for one-fifth of all ex¬ ports. Indications are that the leading agricultural exports—coffee, tea, rubber, and palm products—registered some gains during 1969• Agricultural imports center around meat and meat products, raw cotton, cereals and cereals products. The value of these im¬ ports may well have exceeded returns from farm exports. In recent years, most of the cereals, cotton, and tobacco have been re¬ ceived from the United States under special concessional programs. U.S. agricultural shipments to the Congo in 1968 were value at $l 4.6 million. Grains and preparation- predominantly wheat and rice—were valued at $8.5 million. Cotton was next of impo tance with a value of $2 million, followe by $ 1.6 million for tobacco. U.S. agricu tural sales to the Congo will meet with i creasing competition from third countries and from local production. U.S. agricul¬ tural imports from the Congo are confined almost entirely to coffee, palm products, and crude rubber. The balance of trade between the two countries is usually in favor of the United States. (Cline J. Warren) ETHIOPIA Agriculture usually accounts for 70 percent of the country's GNP. The 1969 G ; was estimated at $ 1.7 billion for a per capita average of $69. Ninety percent of the 2 b .1 million (mid-1969) Ethiopians ms: tain their existence by subsistence farmi; and semi-nomadic herding. While relying heavily on coffee exports, the country is exploring other alternatives to diversify and raise revenues. Under the third 5 -ye: plan (fiscal years 1969 - 73 ), Ethiopia pis: to spend $ 137.2 million on agricultural projects. Besides providing more tools, better seed, and other inputs, large trac: of new land will be brought into product!: using modern farm equipment. Agricultural Production Estimated agricultural output of Ethiopian farms increased almost U percer in 1969 to an index of 131 ( 1957-59 = 10 C In 1969, coffee output was not as hi as in the previous year even though it w: a very good crop. Ethiopia's quota unde: the International Coffee Agreement was ii creased by 10,000 tons and prices rose ii the latter part of the year. Most of th< bonus quota was not supplied in 1969. Sugar production was estimated at 66,000 tons, down 1,000 tons from 1968, It 1970 production is estimated at 70,000 tons. A new sugar estate and factory ca: into operation in September. The factor; has a rated annual capacity of 29,000 to: that can be raised to 65,000 tons quickl; should it be needed. Planners hope the 6 gar industry will produce some for export 1970 . Grain production for 1969 was estimated 5.5 million tons, up 200,000 tons from e previous year. Drought struck the Eri- ea area in 1969 and government officials ,ve initiated action to import 10,000 tons “ sorghum (commercial basis) to stabilize ■ices. :ricultural Policy Ethiopia is preparing a new investment •oclamation, raising the prospect of more beral benefits to foreign investors in Mopia. Agro-industry investments are re- immended as likely to be profitable. The National Coffee Board, stunned by te economic loss incurred in 1969 hy not .lling the national coffee quota, has pro¬ ved that coffee beans be stockpiled at lergency purchase centers that have trans¬ lation routes exempt from seasonal dis- rption by floods. The outlook for financ- ig this proposal appears bleak. The irrent highway program will not signifi- mtly alter this situation quickly. Higher 'ices in the latter part of 1969 have spur- ;d some coffee growers into installing ashing equipment. Washed coffee brings a 'emium price. Currently 95 percent of ;hiopia's coffee exports are unwashed beans. Cattle losses to rinderpest are common a Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa. The Lanning Commission and the Finance Ministry re pledged to support an attack on this Lsease in south Ethiopia. Nine teams work- ig in the Sidamo and Bale Provinces are cheduled to inoculate cattle with H .25 mil- Lon doses of vaccine. In 1972 nine more earns will be added with the task of dis- ensing 9 million doses. The United States, nited Kingdom, and the United Nations are upporting this attack. oreign Trade Agricultural products account for about 5 percent of Ethiopia’s annual exports by alue. Coffee leads the list of agricul- ural products, accounts for over half the otal, followed by oilseeds, with fruits and egetables and hides and skins making up ost of the rest. Exports in 1969 were es- imated at about $110 million and imports t $180 million. Italy, West Germany, and the Nether¬ lands supply most of Ethiopia's imports. The United States usually is the source for around 10 percent of the country's imports. (William F. Hall) GHANA Ghana has shown some signs of economic nationalism. Certain commodities can now be sold only by Ghanaians. As a phase of this economic national¬ ism, illegal aliens were ordered to leave Ghana in November 1969 - Great confusion ensued among the refugees and some hardship resulted. In Ghana, the docks at Takoradi and the fishing port at Tema, traditionally manned by laborers from Niger, were left undermanned. Certain products, usually sold by itinerant traders from Nigeria, were temporarily in short supply. These commodities included spring onions, pota¬ toes , yams, beef, charcoal, and kerosene. Aliens make up a significant part of the labor force in the country's cocoa areas. Apparently, the deportation order was not enforced with as much vigor there as elsewhere. The harvesting, fermenting, drying, and marketing of cocoa beans moved ahead at about the usual pace. During 1969 the Volta Aluminium Co. announced plans to raise the smelter capac¬ ity at Tema from 112,000 tons to 1 ^ 7,000 tons, at a cost of $ 2 i+ million. This in¬ creased capacity will coincide with the installation of two new generators at the Volta Dam at Akosombo. These generators are being financed by loans from Canada and the World Bank. In 1969, various new enterprises were opened in Ghana, including an oil palm mill at Asraku, and cement, garment, and razor factories. Plans include paper and lime (mineral) factories and a new brewery. A Japanese automobile manufacturer has opened an assembly plant in Ghana. The World Bank is providing financial assistance for a $35 million highway, linking Ghana's major cities—Accra, Kuma- si, and Takoradi. 7 Agricultural Production Ghana's agricultural output very like¬ ly rose about 6 percent in 1969 to an index of 143 ( 1957-59 = 100 ). Production of the major crop, cocoa beans, is estimated at 400,000 tons for the 1969/70 harvest sea¬ son, up l8 percent over the 1968/69 crop. The world price remains favorable to the producing countries but not all of it trickles down to the Ghanaian cocoa farmer. In June 1969 the price paid to producers by the Cocoa Marketing Board was raised to 8 new cedis per headload of 60 pounds ( 13.1 cents per pound). This compares with the price of 7 cedis per headload paid during the 1968/69 main-crop season. The new price is still considerably below the prices paid cocoa growers in Nigeria and Cameroon. Foreign Trade In 1968 , gold was a distant second to cocoa beans as an earner of foreign ex¬ change. Total Ghanaian exports, agricul¬ tural plus nonagricultural, were worth $332 million. Total imports in 1968 were valued at $306 million. According to trade figures furnished by the U.S. Census Bureau, Ghana in 1968 was America's 47 th best customer for agri¬ cultural exports. Of $19 million in farm products sent to Ghana, the largest items were rice valued at $ 7*3 million, animal fats and oils $2.9 million, unmanufactured tobacco $2.8 million, cotton, $ 2.7 million, and wheat $1.5 million. In return, Ghana was the 29 th largest supplier of farm products to the United States. Valued at $46 million, cocoa beans accounted for 94 percent of U.S. farm im¬ ports from Ghana. (Snider W. Skinner) GUINEA Agricultural output for Guinea in 1969 probably improved over 1968 as normal weath¬ er conditions prevailed during the growing and harvesting seasons. Since agriculture accounts for two-thirds of gross domestic product and provides a livelihood for some 70 percent of the population, the growth of the Guinean economy is directly influenced by the level of agricultural output. GDP in 1967/68 was estimated at $660 million (when converted at the official rate of 247 Guinea francs per dollar), an increase of 7 percent over the previous year. Guinea's long-term growth rate is much below this level. Agriculture's importance in the economy will decline, as the mining and ex¬ porting of bauxite become more important. Agricultural Production The index of total agricultural pro¬ duction rose 4 points in 1969 to 114 per¬ cent of the 1957-59 base, while per capita production remained at an index of 83 . Ac¬ curate data on Guinea agricultural produc¬ tion are not readily available. Generally, rice forms the basic food in the diet; and domestic production—estimates for 1969 ranged between 350,000 and 400,000 tons— is insufficient. That means large imports are required each year. The United States is an important supplier of rice to Guinea under P.L. 480 . The United Nations, the USSR, and Yugoslavia are assisting Guinea in its plan to add 28 , 000 - 30,000 hectares (approximately 70,000 to 75,000 acres) to domestic production. Cassava, sweetpotatoes corn, and fonio ( Digitaria exilis ) are the other major components of the average diet. Production of all these crops is trending upward. Bananas, coffee, palm kernels, pine¬ apples , and peanuts are the important ex¬ port crops. Banana production decreased after independence when the foreign owners of plantations left the country and many plantings were attacked by disease. The government is attempting to regain the pre¬ vious status of this crop by increasing the cropped area, bringing plant diseases under control, and finding new export outlets primarily in Eastern Europe. Coffee production is not increasing due largely to the effects of disease. Ex¬ ports have been limited because of ICA quotas and because of clandestine shipments across Guinea's borders. All this points to production not expanding rapidly in the near future. On the other hand, production of pine¬ apples has increased since independence. Eastern European countries^ have been paying above world market prices for Guinea pine¬ apples , and this has aided in an expansion of the area devoted to them. Palm kernel 8 id peanut production are trending upward; ire of these are being processed in Guinea. gricultural Policy Guinea subsidizes its agricultural ex¬ erts through Guinexport, the state market- ig organization. In 1967/68, the export ubsidy on bananas was 31 percent, on cof- se 56 percent, on peanuts 92 percent, on aim kernels 143 percent and on pineapples 47 percent. Producer prices and therefore xport subsidies were reduced somewhat in 968/69• Guinea has a comprehensive system of rice controls. Changes in official prices ave been very slow. As a result of the imitation on imports and price ceilings, n unofficial marketing system developed, his has operated, in large part, by sell- ng Guinea products in neighboring countries nd buying consumer goods for resale in uinea at very high prices. To solve this roblem, Guinea established regional market- ng agencies to provide a closer link be- ween producers and the state marketing ystem. oreign Trade Guinea's total imports for fiscal 968/69 are estimated at $65 million. That ontrasts with the $50 million figure for 967/68. Preliminary figures indicated hat agricultural imports surpassed $13 mil- ion in value, almost double the previous ear's total. All major categories of food mports increased substantially between .967/68 and 1968/69—rice imports jumped 'rom $3-1 million to $6.1 million, wheat 'lour from $ 1.4 million to $ 3.1 million and lugar from $1.2 million to $ 2.3 million. The value of Guinea's exports increased >nly moderately in fiscal 1968/69, accord- .ng to preliminary estimates. Exports were rorth $57 million, compared with $53 million .n 1967/68. Agricultural exports also in¬ creased—from $18 million to $21 million— luring this same period. The most important agricultural exports were coffee worth $5.6 nillion, pineapples worth $ 4.0 million, ba- lanas worth $3*9 million, and palm kernels forth $3.8 million. In 1969, Guinea signed another P.L. 480 agreement with the United States, this one for $7.5 million worth of wheat flour, rice, soybean oil, tallow, nonfat dry milk, and cotton. Guinea agreed to continue ef¬ forts to stabilize its economy, prevent in¬ flation, improve its agricultural produc¬ tion and especially to promote rice culture. (Margaret B. Missiaen) IVORY COAST The Ivory Coast GNP for 1967 was esti¬ mated at $ 1.07 billion or $276 per capita. Industrial output in 1969 was at more than five times the i960 level while agricultural output was nearly double. Annual economic growth has been above 10 percent in recent years. It is expected to level off at about 5 or 6 percent over the longrun. Rapidly rising consumer prices are of considerable concern to the government. In 1968, prices were at l 4 l .8 percent of the i960 level, compared with 137-2 percent in 1967. Part of the problem results from a 14.2 percent currency devaluation the Ivory Coast (and the rest of the franc zone) un¬ derwent in August 1969. The government has tried to curb inflation by establishing selected price controls. Foreign investment in the Ivory Coast now exceeds $400 million. Much of the in¬ vestment is in rural areas. This helps to lessen the problems of urban unemployment. Les Grands Moulins, Ivory Coast's flour mill, increased its output of flour from about 55 s OOO tons in 1968 to 60,000 tons in 1969. Only French soft wheat is milled. The company plans to install ma¬ chinery and ovens for making biscuits and macaroni. SACO (Societe d'Africaine de Cacao) received about 30,000 tons of domestic cocoa beans for processing in 1969* During 1968 palm oil processing plants were completed at Eloka and Toumanguie. An¬ other plant was scheduled for completion in 1969. Three more will be ready by the end of 1970 . A total of 8 new plants are sche¬ duled for completion by the end of 1973 . These mills will be needed to process the harvest from massive plantings of hybrid oil palms, now beginning to bear. 9 Near Abidjan a large modem plant soon will manufacture Dutch wax print cotton cloth. Another long-established textile complex is located at Bouake. A new pineapple cannery, with an annual capacity of 30,000 tons, will be built in the Bonoua area, near Abidjan. The Ivory Coast already has pineapple canning plants at Ono Lagoon and at Tiassale on the west bank of the Bandama River. A new fertilizer plant has been built at Vridi. It is due to be in operation at the end of 1970 . Agricultural Production In 1969 , agricultural production rose 8 percent to an index of 191 ( 1957-59 = 100 ). Cotton production had exceeded goals in several yeans, but failed to do so in 1969* The goal was 50,000 tons of seed cot¬ ton ( 17,000 tons of cotton lint); actual production was 38,000 tons of seed cotton, in contrast to 45,000 tons the year before. Although oil palm and coconut palm areas have been greatly expanded in recent years, most of these new trees had not started bearing in 1969* The Ivory Coast economy is still large¬ ly dependent on the coffee and cocoa crops. The year 1969 was not a good one for coffee farmers, since excessively heavy rains re¬ duced the 1968/69 crop by about a fourth from 1967/68, to 204,000 tons. Most of the income from the 1968/69 crop was received by the coffee growers in calendar year 1969 * The effect of the poor crop was less serious for the government, which was able to main¬ tain the level of export sales. The 1969/70 coffee crop is estimated at 240,000 tons. The 1969/70 cocoa crop is estimated at 160,000 tons, up 11 percent over the 1968/69 crop. Foreign Trade The year 1968 was the 21 st consecutive year that Ivory Coast maintained a favorable balance of trade. Exports in 1968 were valued at $377 million and imports at $279 million. Agricultural exports account for over 80 percent of Ivory Coast's total exports. In 1968, coffee and cocoa exports made up 53 percent of total exports. France was Ivory Coast's best customer. In 1968, agricultural imports amount to $42 million or 15 percent of total im¬ ports. France supplied $139 million (abc half) of Ivory Coast's imports, agricultu. and nonagricultural. In 1968 the United States imported $ million worth of Ivorien farm products. C this amount, $59 million was in coffee an $14 million in cocoa beans. The Ivory Cc: is the 22nd largest supplier of farm pro¬ ducts to the United States. U.S. agricultural exports to Ivory Coast in 1968 were quite small, totaling $ 371 , 000 . Major items were $ 163,000 in rice and $ 44,000 in tobacco. Total U.S. exports to the Ivory Coast were valued at $12 million. (Snider W. Skinner) KENYA Kenya continued its steady economic growth during 1969, its sixth year of in¬ dependence. Agriculture provides a liveli¬ hood for over 75 percent of Kenya's 10.8 million people. Agriculture, which also contributes about 35 percent of the gross national product, had two better than avc- age years in a row—1968 and 1969, during which time the first 5-year development plan was completed and a second one was launched. This new plan gives priority i rural farming areas by increasing their financial share of the country's economic growth. Due to Kenya's wide range of altituc there is considerable variation in clima-t from temperate to tropical. This variate allows Kenya to grow a variety of farm products. Since Kenya has a limited are; under irrigation, much of the agriculture, bounty fluctuates with the amount, the tn ing, and the distribution of rainfall. Weather in 1969 generally favored crops. But coffee, Kenya's leading expo, crop, did not produce at the expected le'i It escaped serious damage by the trouble¬ some coffee berry disease, only to have 'i harvest reduced when cool weather persist during July and August, delaying harvest:’, and drying. 10 Early in the 1969/70 season a normally good year was expected as the weather in the closing months of 1969 held no surprises. Some areas had received above average rain¬ fall and in other areas the rains had been )elow average. Agricultural Production Generally agricultural production im¬ proved over 1968. Preliminary estimates for L969 show an index for agricultural produc¬ tion at 165 (1957-59 = 100), 2 points above the prior year. Kenya has built a grain store at Na- nuru, adding about 18,000 tons of storage tapacity to the country's granaries. The lew unit is managed by the Kenya Farmer's Association for the Wheat Board. Corn, Kenya's largest grain crop, with m estimated production of 1.^ million tons, ras about 200,000 tons below the 1968 crop, lorn and sisal were the major crops to pro- Luce below the 1968 level. The coffee crop in 1969 escaped serious Lamage by the coffee berry disease which now ippears to be effectively controlled. Cool reather during July and August delayed har- r esting. Kenya's coffee crop, estimated at 10,000 tons was a little bigger than the .968 crop. Tea production, which in 1968 made a !2 percent gain with a harvest of 30,000 ■ons, climbed to 36,000 in 1969. Kenya's iea production has risen progressively since ndependence, and further progress is like- ,y. The tea is still coming from relatively •oung bushes. Raw sugar production reached a record .25,000 tons in 1969, after a rise to .00,000 tons in 1968, from a previous high n 1967 of 6^,000 tons. Livestock products have been steadily ncreasing over the last decade, but their ontribution of about one-third of the ag- ;regate value of all agricultural production .as changed very little. Livestock gains no doubt reflect the fforts made to improve range and improve uality of native cattle by using Boran reeding stock. Also, milk production schemes have brought fluid milk to supply urban markets. Through the Kenya Coopera¬ tive Creamery small-scale Kenyan farmers have taken over the supply of fluid milk to replace that which used to be supplied by those European farmers who have dropped out of farming. Agricultural Policy The marketing of most agricultural commodities is under some 20 statutory boards and commissions, mostly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture. These authorities may be purely regulatory— such as determining quotas, setting stand¬ ards , issuing licenses—or they may handle, process, and market products and function as development agencies. Some boards fix prices but policies between boards differ, and a few administer funds for price stabilization. Board activities are sup¬ ported by funds collected through license fees, cesses, government loans, and grants. Kenya's farmers are served by some 1,000 cooperative societies which supply inputs, regulate quotas, supply credit, and provide marketing services. In 1968, a National Training College was established with Scandinavian assistance to train per¬ sonnel for cooperative management. In i960 the government began the One Million Acre Settlement Scheme for purchas¬ ing 1.2 million acres for the settlement of African farmers. The purchasing for the scheme was practically completed in 1969. This scheme is estimated to involve almost 3*+,000 families who will derive a living directly or indirectly from the program. The government has also assisted its farmers in taking over large-scale farms that have changed hands since independence. Published in December 1969, a new de¬ velopment plan set as a goal an economic growth rate of 6.7 percent a year. This is O.b percent higher than the target set and achieved under the first plan. Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, form a regional common market that maintains a common external tariff and customs ad¬ ministration. 11 Foreign Trade Kenya's exports amounted to about $236.6 million in 1968, 57 percent of which were agricultural. The major farm commodi¬ ties traded were coffee, tea, corn, pyre- thrum (flowers and extract), hides and skins, and vegetables. The United States ranked fifth as a destination of Kenyan products by taking about 11 percent of Ken¬ ya's farm exports. Kenya's imports totaled $ 355*9 million in 1968 and of this total 9*2 percent were agricultural imports. Cereals and cereal preparations, fruits and vegetables, edible fats, and tobacco were the principal items. The United States ranks sixth as a supplier of total imports , but supplied only some 3.6 percent of the agricultural imports. (H. Charles Treakle) LIBERIA Liberia's two main earners of foreign exchange, iron ore and rubber, are priced in world markets, but not in its own. The iron ore price has stabilized at a rather low $7 to $8 per ton. Some of the already rich Liberian ore is being concentrated by a large pelletizing plant in Liberia. The pelletized ore sells at about $11 per ton. A second pelletizing plant, with a capacity of 2 million tons per year, is under con¬ struction at Bong, at a cost of $^5 million. Rubber prices are at a reasonably high level. Production of rubber in Liberia con¬ tinues slowly upward. U.S. investors are heavily involved in iron ore and rubber in Liberia. A company from Oregon has obtained a concession on 1.5 million acres of timber- land and will build a sawmill and subse¬ quently veneer and plywood plants. The com¬ pany's total investment will be about $10 million. This is the first time that Li¬ beria's forests have been utilized on such a large commercial scale. This new industry will add some welcome diversity to Liberia's economy. Due to overly enthusiastic acceptance of supplier credits, in years past, Liberia has an external debt of about $257 million. rather large for a country of its size, population, and wealth. In 1969, a repay¬ ment of $ 17.6 million was due but was re¬ scheduled so that only $ 13-9 million had tc be repaid. Agricultural Production In 1969, Liberia's output of agricul¬ tural commodities rose nearly 2 percent from the 1968 level and reached an index of 121 ( 1957-59 = 100). For years, the government has sought self-sufficiency in rice, the country's staple food. Research has indicated that Liberia has the land, water, and cultiva^ tors to produce rice enough and to spare. In actual practice this has now worked out and each year Liberia imports about 40,000 tons of rice to supplement domestic produc¬ tion. In late 1969, Liberia started a new multi-donor rice program in Loffa County under the direction of the United Nations Development Program, which also contribute: financial aid. Others contributing techni¬ cal and other support include USAID, the U.S. Peace Corps, and the Chinese Agricul¬ tural Mission. Reportedly, the Liberian government will pay $550,000 toward this project. Oil palm production in Liberia is ex¬ pected to increase in the near future. One 5,000-acre plantation planted to improved hybrid palm trees is beginning to produce. An oil extraction factory is being built; capacity will be U0 tons of fruit bunches per hour. A second plantation has 750 acres planted to oil palms and expects to plant additional areas over the next few years. A third plantation is in the plan¬ ning stage. It is expected that farmers in the areas surrounding these plantations will market their oil palm fruit through the plantations. Foreign Trade In 1968 , Liberia had exports valued at $169 million and imports valued at $108 million, giving an apparent favorable balance of trade of $6l million. The total value of major agricultural exports was about $32 million, consisting 12 ’ rubber worth $26 million, coffee $2.9 .llion, palm kernels $1.9 million, and co¬ rn $ 1.3 million. Major nonagricultural ex- >rts included iron ore valued at $118 mil- .on, diamonds $9-1 million, and logs $1.5 .llion. Liberia is America's 45 th largest sup- _ier of agricultural products. In 1968 , lese amounted to $25 million, of which $22 .llion was crude rubber and $2.8 million is coffee. The United States is Liberia's major irket for all exports and for agricultural [ports. The United States is also the ma- >r supplier of all imports and of agricul- iral imports. (Snider W. Skinner) MALAWI ;ri cultural Production Production gains in all crops except >bacco, corn, and tung oil boosted 1969 ish receipts for most farmers. Total pay- :nts to farmers by the Farmers Marketing >ard rose to about $12 million; this ex- ;eded the 1968 figure but smaller than the icord $ 14 . 4 -million payout in 1967 - In 169 producer prices rose for corn, rice, >me pulses, and fire- and sun-cured tobac- >s. Cotton and peanut prices remained un- langed. Production of tea, one of Malawi's tjor commercial crops, was a record 17,000 >ns in 1969* Most of its tea is sold to Le United Kingdom for blending, but an in- 'easing part of the crop is being sold to le Republic of South Africa. Production .11 probably continue its upward trend in > 70 . The official production target for >75 is 20,000 tons. Production of tobacco, le other major commercial crop, fell in >69 to possibly only 12,000 tons; however, le average price received was up and 1969's 'op exceeded 1968's in value. The United .ngdom is also the largest purchaser of ilawi tobacco. Some tobacco finds a market 1 West African countries. Peanuts are usually Malawi's third most nportant export crop; commercial production 1 1969 was about 40,000 tons, far above )68 production. About 10 percent of the ”op usually is purchased by the local oil-crushing industry; the rest is exported. Cotton production did not reach the original- forecast for 1969; however, it did exceed 1968 production. Increasing cotton output is receiving high priority by the government development program. Cotton lint vies with corn for fourth place in Malawi's agricul¬ tural exports. Corn is both a commercial and a subsist¬ ence crop. The exact amount of subsistence production is unknown; FA 0 estimates it is about 1.2 million tons. The commercial crop in 1969 was 64,000 tons, down from 1968 pro¬ duction. One reason for the corn decline is that farmers are shifting to cotton, peanuts, and rice as commercial crops. The government is especially encouraging rice production. About 50 rice experts from Taiwan are pre¬ sently in Malawi. There is a good market for quality rice in the Republic of South Africa. Sugar, Malawi's newest commercial crop, has been very successful. Production now exceeds domestic needs and some is avail¬ able for export. The crop outlook in early 1970 is fa¬ vorable. Improved weather, government ex¬ pansion programs (including better prices), greater assistance to progressive farmers, and an estimated 60-percent increase in the use of fertilizer point to possible record crops. Significant gains are forecast for all types of tobacco. Although minimum corn prices are down slightly for 1970, commercial production is expected to in¬ crease. Tea production should continue up¬ ward. A slightly larger sugar crop is ex¬ pected to provide more for export. Livestock production is showing signs of steady pro¬ gress and both the size of the cattle herd and the off-take rate are expected to increase. Agricultural Policy The newly established Ministry of Agriculture has formulated a "new look" policy. It will concentrate on efforts to increase productivity of individual pro¬ gressive farmers rather than of the mass of farmers as in the past. The government is also trying to improve marketing conditions and prices and to provide better technical and financial assistance. The country's three major development projects—at Salima, Lilongwa, and Chikwana—are now well es¬ tablished and should start paying dividends 13 in the form of increased production. Set¬ tlement and irrigation schemes continue to expand. Foreign Trade Trade data for all of 19&9 are n °t available. However, for the first half of the year the trade deficit was $12.7 mil¬ lion. Imports were up by over 8 percent and exports showed a small decline from the like period in 1968. Data for the first half of the year also indicate that imports from the Republic of South Africa have in¬ creased greatly. Total exports in 1968 were valued at $48.1 million, of which agricultural ex¬ ports were $38.1 million. Tobacco was the largest export, $12.7 million. Tea was sec¬ ond at $11.6 million. Peanut exports were $5.5 million and com exports were $3.6 mil¬ lion. The United Kingdom was by far the largest buyer of Malawian exports. Total imports in 1968 were $69.8 million; agricul¬ tural imports were only $9 million. The largest agricultural imports were dairy pro¬ ducts, wheat flour, fruits and vegetables, and beer. The United Kingdom was the major supplier followed by Rhodesia and South Africa. (Mary T. Chambliss) MALI Mali, after experiencing a severe drought during the 1968/69 crop year, has recovered with a good harvest during the present season. The large food imports, necessitated by the very poor crop outturn last year, are not expected to be repeated. There is a very good chance that Mali may rebuild its depleted grain reserves. Per capita gross domestic product in Mali was estimated at $46 in 1967/68. Be¬ cause of the poor crop, there most likely has been little economic growth in Mali since 1967. With the improved agricultural situation for the present season, growth in real terms should again accelerate. Agricultural Production Agricultural production in the 1969/70 season rebounded from a bad year by increas¬ ing an estimated 17 percent to an index of 130 (1957-59 = 100). Grain output of 1.4 million tons will allow Malians to have ade quate supplies and to replenish some of the■ depleted reserves. Livestock production is returning to its position of importance, bu because herds were so adversely affected by the drought in 1968/69, it will require at least 2 years to rebuild animal numbers to their previous level. For this reason, mes production in 1969/70 is expected to remair below average. After several years of declining marks- ings, Mali's commercial sales of peanuts ai expected to move upward in the 1969/70 mar¬ keting season. It is expected that 50,000 tons will enter commercial channels, compar with 30,000 tons last year. Total 1969 pej nut production is estimated at 120,000 tons Peanuts are grown on about 7-5 percent of the total cultivated area and are an impor¬ tant foreign exchange earner. The higher producer prices offered for peanuts this st- son are expected to reduce movement of Malian peanuts into neighboring countries. Mali has a peanut development project partly financed by the French Development Fund (FAC), to provide extension services, agricultural equipment, and production sup¬ plies. Average yields resulting from the project increased from 500 to 800 kilogram* per hectare during the drought year, where* yields from areas not under the program we> drastically reduced. Some 49,000 hectares (121,000 acres) are covered by the program with the expectation that this will be in¬ creased to 63,000 hectares (156,000 acres) for the 1970 crop. Cotton has become the most important export crop in Mali, and covers about 4 pe. cent of the cultivated area. The French Textile Fiber Development Company has been instrumental in expanding cotton productio. in its zone. Production in 1969/70 is ex¬ pected to reach 63,000 tons of seed cotton Exports of cotton fiber reached 16,000 ton in 1968/69 despite the growing demand by Mali's own textile mill at Segou. Agricultural Policy As an incentive to farmers, the gover- ment has raised producer prices for the 1969/70 season between 15 percent and 30 p' cent for peanuts, cotton, rice, millet, an sorghum. The prices paid for livestock de livered to the modern slaughter house in 14 amako have also been raised to encourage ncreased marketings. Mali has a price stabilization fund hich operates to support the prices of pea- uts and cotton for export and to subsidize etail prices of basic consumption goods so hey can be sold at the same price all over he country. oreign Trade Total imports for 1968 were valued at 3)+ million. France continued to be Mali's argest supplier of goods, accounting for 32 ercent of the total. Major agricultural mports were 31,000 tons of sugar valued at 1+.2 million, cotton and textiles valued at 2.6 million and kola nuts valued at $1.2 illion. Exports worth $ 10.7 million were re- orded by the government. However, import atterns of neighboring countries indicate hat clandestine exports almost equaled otal recorded exports. Officially the most mportant agricultural exports were cotton iber worth $l+.0 million, livestock worth 1.1+ million, and peanuts worth $1.2 mil- ion. Livestock exports are seriously un- erreported. An estimated 120,000 cattle nd l60,000 sheep and goats were actually xported each year, compared to the hh ,000 attle and 19,000 sheep and goats recorded n the official statistics for 1968. To meet emergency food needs during 969, Mali purchased 20,000 tons of rice rom Thailand and Egypt and 16,000 tons of illet from Argentina. The United States rovided 15,000 tons of com -under P.L. U 80 . ranee donated 3,500 tons of flour. The ommon Market has granted an additional uantity of food grains to Mali to arrive uring 1970 . The amounts are reported to be 0,000 tons of com and 30,000 tons of lour. (Margaret B. Missiaen) MOROCCO Excessive and untimely rainfall helped ut overall agricultural production in 1969 rom bumper 1968 levels. Total output was till well above average—the 1.6 million- on wheat crop was the second largest on ecord. The gross domestic product growth ate which was 13 percent in 1968 leveled off in 1969, reflecting the strong influence of the agricultural sector on GDP movements. The outlook is mixed for crops to be harvested in the spring and summer of 1970 . Severe flooding in the Gharb, one of the richest agricultural areas in Morocco, dam¬ aged cereal, citrus, and sugarbeet crops in the region. While some replanting was possible after the floodwaters receded, damage in the area was nevertheless sub¬ stantial. Rainfall was much heavier than normal throughout the country. Agricultural Production The 1968/69 agricultural season was disappointing when compared with the re¬ cordbreaking crops of the previous year. By any other standard, however, the 1969 harvest was a good one. The index of agri¬ cultural production was 135 percent of the 1957-59 average down from l62 in 1968. Wheat output (estimated at 1.6 million tons) and barley production (at 1.3 million tons) were 30 percent below record levels of the preceding year due to the rains and resultant widespread leaf blight and rust in both Mexican and traditional varieties. Despite this drop total production of these major cereals was above average. The quan¬ tity of wheat entering commercial channels from the 1969 crop was not expected to ex¬ ceed 305,000 tons or 19 percent of the total crop against 786,000 tons or 33 percent com¬ mercialized in 1968. An estimated 1 + 4,000 hectares (109,000 acres) of cereals, mostly wheat, were flood damaged, involving a loss of possibly 60,000 to 70,000 tons for the 1970 crop. Early-season estimates of the 1969/70 citrus crop were for record production of almost 900,000 tons. The crop was early and of good quality, two factors which would bring premium prices for exports. The recent floods in an important citrus-growing area have reduced the prospects considerably. Approximately 5,000 hectares ( 12,000 acres) of citrus were affected to varying degrees. It is estimated that there will be an ex¬ port loss of up to 60,000 tons, represent¬ ing possibly $3 million. The citrus pro¬ cessing industry is expanding rapidly in Morocco. From the 75 , 000 - 80,000 tons finished in 1968/69, processing should in¬ crease to 200,000 tons by 1975 * The 15 percentage of the crop processed depends more on fruit quality than on harvest volume. The 1969/70 olive crop was reduced by 50 percent from a year earlier to an esti¬ mated 11 + 0,000 tons. The cutback reflects an off-year in the production cycle and ad¬ verse weather. Estimated oil output from the current crop is not expected to exceed 20,000 tons, which would be only 1+0 percent of the record large output from the previous olive crop. Agricultural Policy On July 29 , 1969* government enacted an Agricultural Investment Code in an effort to arrive at more effective and economic land utilization. The Code recognizes the right to private ownership of farms but as¬ serts that the owners must use their land in the national interest and reimburse the government for a part of its investments to improve the land. For example, farmers en¬ joying the benefits of irrigation will be required to pay approximately 1+0 percent of the cost. The farmer's contribution will consist of a fixed charge and payments for water. Plots of 5 hectares (about 12 acres) or less and the first 5 hectares of plots of 20 hectares (50 acres) or less will be exempt from the tax. The USAID continued to support a cere¬ als improvement project in Morocco. Activ¬ ities include breeding and varietal devel¬ opment, research on fertilizer use, and production-management techniques. Efforts are being made to adapt the new high-yield¬ ing varieties of Mexican wheat to Moroccan conditions. Despite the Septoria blight problem encountered last season with the Mexican varieties, there is still consider¬ able farmer interest in these varieties. A voluntary program with a minimum goal of 10,000 hectares ( 25,000 acres) was estab¬ lished and was expected to attract primari¬ ly the large modern operators. The recent floods had only a minor effect on the Mexi¬ can wheat, since there were limited plant¬ ings in the Gharb. Foreign Trade Morocco's total exports were valued at $450 million in 1968, up $26 million from 1967. Agricultural goods accounted for 1+5 percent of this total. Citrus fruit was the most valuable agricultural export fol lowed by fresh tomatoes and dried pulses (peas and beans). On a crop year basis, 1968/69 citrus exports were down 65,000 tons to 533,000 tons. Early estimates of exports from the 1969/70 crop were as hig as 750,000 tons. But these figures have recently been revised downward to about 700,000 tons, considerably above the leve of recent years. While Russia normally imports from 100,000 to 150,000 tons of oranges 'under a clearing account, the bul of the exported citrus goes to Western Eu rope, principally France. During the fir. 10 months of 1969 » Morocco exported almos 33,000 tons of olive oil from last year's press compared with an average of less th. 7,000 tons for the 3 previous years. The value of Morocco's total imports rose from $518 million in 1967 to $551 mi- lion in 1968. Agricultural products made up 32 percent of this total. Wheat was the most important agricultural import fo- lowed by sugar, vegetable oils, and tea. Morocco's need to import wheat varies rat: widely from year to year depending on the size of the harvest. During calendar 196 , Morocco imported only small quantities of wheat as a part of the "food-for-work" pr- gram. Heavy carryover wheat stocks on June 30 , 1969 , offset the reduced 1969 cr: and no imports had been required through early 1970 . However, with a somewhat low rate of commercialization and declining stock levels in normally deficit areas, i- ports of an estimated 150,000 tons of whe: are being arranged to arrive prior to June 30 , 1970 . Under the associate status granted Morocco by the European Community, effec¬ tive September 1 , 1969, certain Moroccan agricultural products, principally fresh citrus (excluding grapefruit) and olive oil, imported into the EC will receive pr- ferential treatment. From the Moroccan side, tariffs were reduced on a number of manufactured goods on September 1 , 1969 * While the reductions were on a most-favor: nation basis, they were of particular in¬ terest to EC exporters. An important Moroccan-Cuban pact signed in December 1969 covers the 1970-7 period. Principal trade commodities are Cuban sugar (a total of 300,000 tons) and 16 Moroccan phosphate ( 120,000 tons). (Mar¬ garet B. Missiaen) NIGERIA The big news in Nigeria in early 1970 was the end of the civil war, which had been going on for 2-1/2 years. The immediate problem has been the feeding and general welfare of the many refugees in the east. With offers of in¬ ternational aid coming in added to the re¬ sources available domestically, Nigerian officials believe the major part of the problem should be solved within the year. By the end of 1970 , Nigerian agriculture should one again be able to supply virtual¬ ly all of the country's basic food needs. Reconstruction of the war-torn area is a longer-range problem. Most important to agriculture will be the repair or recon¬ struction of roads and railroads. Nigeria's reconstruction is expected to be greatly helped by the resurgence of the country's petroleum industry. Several large international companies are tooling up to increase their petroleum extraction and re¬ fining operations. Other oil companies are seeking concessions. Postwar recovery will be aided by the greater supply of electricity now available, lost of the increased electrical capacity comes from the hydroelectric generating plant at the Kainji Dam, which went on the Line in December 1968. Economically speaking, Nigeria emerged from the war in good shape. The war was nostly funded on a pay-as-you-go basis and 10 large war debt was incurred. The government plans to rename its Jnit of money, the Nigerian pound, and also to adopt a decimal sub-unit. The Nigerian pound, now worth $2.80, is divided into 20 shillings, which are subdivided into 12 pence each. \gricultural Production Total agricultural output is estimated to have risen 1 percent in 1969 from that In 1968. Except for oil palm produce and rubber, farm production was not affected severely by the war. Production of palm oil and palm kernels had shown considerable recovery even before the war ended and ad¬ ditional improvement is expected for 1970 . Much of the palm oil will be consumed do¬ mestically but a larger supply of palm ker¬ nels and/or palm kernel oil will be avail¬ able for export. Production of peanuts for 1968 was up as compared with 1967. In turn, the 1969 crop was somewhat larger than in 1968 , al¬ though cotton is said to have encroached into peanut areas to some extent. There was some temporary buildup of inland peanut stocks from the 1968 harvest due to slow shipment to the coast. This, in turn, was due to a shortage of coal to run trains, deterioration of highways from heavy use, and congestion at the port of Apapa (Lagos). Cocoa production during the 1969/70 season is estimated to be up from last year although weather conditions were less than ideal. Most observers feel that the announcement in the spring of 1969 of a 50 percent increase in the producer price of cocoa beans stimulated more and better cul¬ tural practices by cocoa farmers. This increased production this year and seems to foretell a bright future for Nigerian cocoa. Nigerian cotton production during the 1969/70 season was at an alltime high. Better producer prices and good weather were primarily responsible for the increase. Nigeria's cotton textile industry continued to expand in 1969 and the demand for local¬ ly-grown cotton was good. Foreign Trade In May 1969, export duties on many important agricultural exports were in¬ creased from 10 percent to 15 percent. Com¬ modities affected are: sesame seed, cocoa beans, lint cotton, cottonseed, peanuts, peanut cake and meal, peanut oil, palm ker¬ nels , palm kernel cake and meal, palm ker¬ nel oil, and palm oil (edible and techni¬ cal ). Though wracked by civil war during all of 1968 , Nigeria managed to export goods valued at $578 million. Since less petro¬ leum than usual was exported, agriculture's 17 70 -percent was larger than in years just prior to 1968. Major agricultural exports in 1968 consisted of cocoa beans and products valued at $162 million (40 percent of agricultural exports), peanuts and products ($146 mil¬ lion or 36 percent), and oil palm products ($ 1+1 million or 10 percent). Other agricul¬ tural products included rubber worth $18 million, cotton lint and seed $12 million, hides and skins $11 million, benniseed (se¬ same) $3.3 million, shea nuts $2.1+ million, gum arabic $1.7 million, coffee $1.1+ mil¬ lion, and soybeans $ 1.3 million. Since the civil war began in Nigeria, agricultural imports have come under great¬ er restrictions than before. Such items as tomato paste, rice, and tobacco can be im¬ ported only by a special permit. In 1968, agricultural imports valued at $1+1+ million made up only 8 percent of total imports of $ 5 l+l million. Major farm imports included milk and cream ($10 million), wheat ($ 9*7 million), and sugar ($l +.2 million). Lesser values were recorded for fruits and vege¬ tables , jute, malt, essential oils, and un¬ manufactured tobacco. The chief American farm exports to Ni¬ geria in 1968 were wheat valued at $7.2 million, dairy products worth $ 3.5 million, and unmanufactured tobacco ($ 877 , 000 ). Ni¬ geria was the United States' 50 th largest customer for farm products. On the return trip to the United States, freighters in 1968 carried Nigerian farm products with a total value of $25 mil¬ lion. Of this total, cocoa beans were worth $17 million; rubber was valued at $3.0 million; hides and skins, $ 2.3 million; and oils and oilbearing materials, $ 1.4 million. Nigeria is America's 44 th largest source of supply for agricultural imports. (Snider W. Skinner) RHODESIA Agricultural Production Increased agricultural production, which may have reached a value of $280 mil¬ lion, helped Rhodesia's gross national pro¬ duct grow by 7 percent (real terms) in 1969 * Good weather was largely responsible for the increase in agricultural production. For some commodities Rhodesia produced more than needed for the domestic market and th export availability increased. Agricultur accounts for about one-fourth of the GNP and is by far the largest employer. It al provides many raw materials for industry, which has been growing rapidly since the unilateral declaration of independence (UD in 1965 . Although tobacco is still a leading crop, its importance has decreased since UDI. Production in 1969 was an estimated 62,000 tons, slightly higher than the 1968 crop. Tobacco trade data are not publiciz ed and tobacco marketings are held in stri; secrecy. There apparently is a large stockpile of tobacco, reported to be in ex cellent condition, and some Rhodesian to¬ bacco is finding its way into the world market. In December, the Minister of Agricul¬ ture announced the government production target for the next two tobacco seasons. The target will be 45,000 tons (100 millic pounds) at a price of 32 cents U.S. (23 cents Rhodesian) per pound. This is a de¬ crease in quantity from the current crop target; it is an increase in price. The new price and volume mean that growers may get at least $5.6 million less than from the previous crop. Although the Rhodesia Tobacco Association has rejected this plar. the government appears to consider it necessary to reduce the amount it has beer spending to support the tobacco industry. Sugar is probably the second most im¬ portant commercial crop adversely affectec by sanctions. Current production is much lower than pre-UDI crops and much land has been diverted from sugar to citrus and wheat. Production of sugar in 1969 rose slightly over 1968 production to 136,000 tons. This would have availed about 40 , 0 ( tons for export. Since 1965, production of most commei cial crops other than tobacco and sugar h£ tended to increase. Production of all grains, commercial and subsistence, rose : 1969 due to the good weather and expanded acreage. The com crop was record high a: more than twice the 1968 harvest. Since 19 production far exceeded domestic demand, com was exported—about 500,000 tons of 18 lite corn went to the Republic of South Irica. Before UDI, annual wheat production is less than 4,000 tons. The combination ? expanded acreage and good weather result- 1 in a 1969 wheat crop of 27,000 tons. Pro- lction is expected to continue upward in le 1970 's. Three-fifths of the crop is ’own under irrigation in the lowveld where ;reage is continuing to increase. Although lodesia is still an importer of wheat, )out 90,000 tons in 1968, it plans to be- >me self-sufficient. Rhodesia's 1969 commercial peanut crop is about 37,000 tons, much higher than 1968 xtput. Production appears adequate to meet jmestic needs. Peanuts are the leading ish crop for black farmers. Prior to UDI ley were the most important producers. How- rer, recently white farmers have increased leir production, especially under irriga- .on, and are now the leading commercial ’oducers. Peanut acreage for the 1970 crop is been increased, so a larger crop can be cpected. Cotton is a very important diversifica- .on crop; production has increased rapidly .nee 1965 and probably reached 45,000 tons 1 1969 - About 85 percent of the crop is ■own by white farmers on irrigated land. .nee this large crop exceeds the country's .nning capacity, some probably was export- l. Although it is believed that cotton 'oduction will continue to increase, the ite of growth may slow down somewhat. ;ricultural Policy With the creation of the Agricultural :velopment Corporation (ADC), the Agricul- lral Finance Corporation (AFC), the Agri- lltural Research Council (ARC), and the jri cultural Marketing Authority (AMA), the ivernment's reorganization plan for agri- llture has been completed. These now con- ;itute the four pillars of the agricultural idustry. The reorganization began 2 years 50 with the establishment of the AMA to >ordinate the operations of the three main irketing boards. A year later the ARC was it up to coordinate work of the many inde¬ indent research groups. The last two were irmed in 1969—the ADC to establish plan¬ ing priorities and the AFC to coordinate credit facilities available to the agri¬ cultural community. More recently, the government estab¬ lished several organizations to promote development of the tribal areas. It is en¬ couraging the formation of local councils to carry out community development projects. These projects include building roads, dams, classrooms, and developing demonstration plots and irrigation schemes. After nearly a year of little action, the government- sponsored Tribal Trust Land Development Cororation has announced the first phase of a development project for the Seki re¬ serve, near Salisbury. Also a Tribal Areas of Rhodesia Research Foundation has been set up to raise finds for research on econo¬ mic development in the tribal areas. These are just some of the efforts be¬ ing made to change the traditional economy to a commercial one. However, since the black population (approaching 5 million) is doubling about every 20 years, the change and growth necessary to support this size population is substantial. Foreign Trade Except for totals, Rhodesian trade data have not been published since 1965. For 1969, total exports are estimated at $320 million, about 70 percent of pre-UDI exports. Rhodesia reported a favorable balance of trade. It appears that both exports and imports were higher in 1969 than in 1968 Larger crops probably contributed to larger agricultural exports in 1969. Com exports were higher than usual; South Afri¬ ca alone purchased at least 500,000 tons of corn. South Africa also purchased cot¬ ton from Rhodesia. Tobacco and sugar, major exports prior to 1965, are still be¬ ing exported, though in greatly reduced amounts. Mineral exports appear to be growing rapidly. As far as can be determined, Rhodesia imports relatively few agricultural commod¬ ities. The more important of these are believed to be wheat and rice. However, Rhodesial production of these is increas¬ ing, so future imports should be smaller. At present South Africa appears to be 19 Rhodesia's major supplier. (Mary T. Chambliss) SENEGAL The outlook for 1970 is for recovery of the Senegalese economy. Senegal's economic situation, which depends in large part on farm production, was depressed during 1969 because of the drought-affected 1968 agri¬ cultural harvest. After reaching a high of $718 million in 1968, the gross national product for 1969 is thought to have been somewhat lower. Per capita GNP in 1968 was about $ 220 . In 1969 farm production re¬ covered from the previous year's low, and in 1970 GNP should again move upward to maintain the 10 -year 5*5 percent average growth rate. Agricultural Production The 1969 growing season was a normal one and production returned to near average levels after 1968 drought. Output might have been larger except that fertilizer use dropped significantly as farmers reacted negatively to reduced incomes from 1968 crops and purchased much less commercial fertilizer than expected. The index of agricultural production in 1969 was 138 (1957.59 = 100), up 22 points from 1968. Per capita food produc¬ tion was 106 compared with 91 for the pre¬ vious year. The 1969 peanut harvest was es¬ timated at 885,000 tons, 72,000 tons larger than the previous year's crop. Generally the trend in Senegalese peanut production has been downward since crops of 1.0 and 1.2 million tons were harvested in 1964 and in 1965* Peanut area was reduced an estimated 10 percent for 1969, to 900,000 hectares. Fertilizer consumption totaled 13,000 tons during 1969 as against an anticipated demand of 30,000 tons. Offsetting these negative factors was the considerable improvement in weather. The outlook for the Senegalese peanut industry is not encouraging. The world market for fats and oils has several important negative aspects, including the large supply of U.S. soybeans and palm pro¬ ducts in other developing countries. There is little prospect for an increase in pea¬ nut oil prices in the next year. The impor¬ tant guaranteed market in France for Sene¬ galese peanuts no longer exists. Common Market discussions on fats and oils policy spells increased marketing problems for Senegalese peanuts. An estimated 650,000 tons of millett and sorghum, the staples of the Senegalese diet, were harvested in 1969. This tonnage should be sufficient to meet domestic needs throughout the next year. During the pre¬ harvest period of 1969, large quantities of sorghum, corn and other grains for food hac to be imported to prevent widespread starvation. Rice production in 1969 at 140,000 tons is believed to have surpassed the pre¬ vious record-high level experienced in 1967. But Senegal will be short of this basic foodstuff in 1970 and imports will be required for several years despite extensiv rice development programs. The USAID rice project (in cooperation with the Taiwanese; in the Casamance area shows promise in ex¬ panding rice output. About two-thirds of Senegal's total rice consumption is im¬ ported. Cotton production is gradually in¬ creasing. The 1969 crop is estimated at 12,000 tons of unginned cotton. With as¬ sistance being given by the French Textile Fiber Development Company and the European Development Fund, Senegal expects to pro¬ duce 25,000 tons of unginned cotton (8,000 tons cotton lint) annually by 1971 / 72 . This indicates that cotton imports will decrease over the next few years as domestic produc¬ tion supplies more of local requirements. Agricultural Policy The third Senegalese Development Plan became operational July 1 , 1969, with major emphasis on agricultural production. The plan is an effort to lessen the economy's dependence on peanuts and to reduce the present level of food imports which are mainly rice, sugar, vegetables, milk and fruit. Irrigation facilities will be great¬ ly expanded to extend Senegal's agriculture into presently unproductive areas. Emphasis will also be placed on farm enlargement and mechanization. The plan also emphasizes fisheries, and the hope is to build a larger export market for fish products. Total investment is to be $ 46.8 million over a 4 -year period. One-third of the investment is to be from domestic sources, 20 and two-thirds will be obtained from exter¬ nal sources. Foreign Trade Despite an increase of 10 percent in exports in 1968, Senegal’s trade position worsened owing to a rise of 15 percent in imports. The largest category of imports, comprising food, beverages, and tobacco, amounted to $65.6 million out of total im¬ ports valued at $ 180.2 million. The largest single commodity import was rice—185,000 tons valued at $ 28.3 million compared with 153 s OOO tons in 1967 * France was the main source of imports, supplying 44 percent of the total. Other sources were Germany, Cam¬ bodia, the United States, the Republic of China, and Italy, in that order. The volume of exports increased more than their value, owing to lower prices for peanut products. Total exports for 1968 were valued at $ 151.4 million. Exports of peanut oil increased from 162,000 tons in 1967 to 198,000 tons in 1968, but the value of these exports fell from $58.3 million to $ 43.8 million. Shelled peanuts worth $ 33.2 million and peanut cake worth $21.9 million were exported in 1968. Peanuts and peanut products as a percentage of total exports decreased from J8 percent to 72 percent be¬ tween 1967 and 1968. There were increased exports of other products processed or manufactured locally such as fertilizer, wheat flour, shoes, and cotton textiles, an indication of the effort directed toward diversification of the Senegalese economy. (Margaret B. Missiaen) SIERRA LEONE Improvement in Sierra Leone's economic condition began in 1968 and continued throughout 1969. Most of the credit for the brighter economic picture must be given to the nonagricultural sector. However, some improvement occurred in the agricultural sector, especially the financial recovery of the Sierra Leone Produce Marketing Board (SLPMB). In 1968 Sierra Leone had a favorable trade balance. During the first half of 1969 exports showed a satsifactory increase but imports showed an even bigger increase. Thus, only a slight surplus was expected for the full year 1969. Because of the coun¬ try's limited industrial potential and the absence of import controls, increased pur¬ chasing power was reflected very quickly in the form of increased imports. Thus, some deterioration in the country's balance of payments can be expected in 1970. Today's improved financial situation is due to the deflationary policies put into effect by the previous military regime and continued by the present civilian govern¬ ment. The present government is determined to continue strict controls over expendi¬ tures. It is also seeking to avoid un¬ economic projects and to maximize the use of local resources. This policy, however, leads to difficulties—a slow rate of economic growth (currently 3 percent), ris¬ ing unemployment, substantial price infla¬ tion, and some worsening in income distri¬ bution. There are also some problems associated with increased urbanization. Considerable improvement has occurred in agriculture, although this sector did not fulfill its export potential. The prospect of finding "illegal" diamonds con¬ tinues to attract large numbers of the most able farm people. The diamond fields have not lost their lure in the years since Sierra Leone's diamond rush began in 1954 . Agricultural Production By increasing a little more than 2 per¬ cent , agricultural production in 1969 reach¬ ed 123 percent of the 1957-59 base. Palm kernel purchases by the SLPMB between January and August 1969 totaled 36,407 tons, an increase of 6 percent over the same period in 1968. Because producer prices had been raised, an even larger in¬ crease had been anticipated but many up- country roads and bridges were flooded by heavy rains, causing disruptions in palm kernel transport. Heavy rains in June-August 1969 (the cocoa flowering period) caused an increase in black pod disease. In consequence, the 1969/70 cocoa bean crop is estimated at 3,000 tons, about 70 percent of the previous year's crop. Since world cocoa prices are high, SLPMB's will likely continue profitable. 21 Sierra Leone is a major world producer of piassava (palm fiber), used in making street brooms, scrub brushes, and the like. In 1968 , many piassava producers boiled their crop, sometimes with caustic soda, to speed up the retting process. As a result, offerings to SLPMB were poor in quality. The piassava situation became so bad in ear¬ ly 1969 that the government took the unusual step of closing the buying season. In Au¬ gust 1969, piassava was removed from SLPMB's buying schedule and exporting was turned over to private firms. Government produce inspectors were instructed to be stricter about piassava quality. As 1969 ended, it was anticipated that the quantity and pro¬ portion of prime grade piassava produced would return to normal by the end of 1970 or 1971 - Sierra Leone's 1969/70 coffee crop was estimated at 5,*+00 tons (90,000 bags), slightly less than the 1968/69 crop of 5,700 tons ( 95,000 bags). The downturn was attri¬ buted to the normal cyclical pattern of tree yields and because the heavy mid-1969 rains did some damage to coffee blossoms. In 1968/69, domestic production was thought to have been substantially inflated by an inflow of coffee from neighboring countries, particularly Guinea. Purchases by SLPMB far exceeded Sierra Leone's Annex A quota under the International Coffee Agreement and coffee stocks piled up, causing a strain on Board finances and storage space. Sierra Leone continues to grow more to¬ bacco than can be manufactured at the ciga¬ rette factory at Wellington. Efforts are being made to find export markets, but low quality of the leaf and the high overhead costs of growing and exporting make profit¬ able overseas sales difficult. Efforts to increase production of rice. Sierra Leone's staple food, have made slow but steady progress over the years. These efforts received a slight setback in 1969 when heavy rains during the growing season caused flooding in the upland production areas and in mechanically-prepared areas of the south. Reduced harvests in these areas were partly offset by higher yields in the bolilands which benefited from the heavy rainfall. In 1969, production of other food crops —including peanuts, yams, corn, guinea corn (grain sorghum), citrus fruit, pine¬ apples , and bananas—was at or above the 1968 levels. Agricultural Inputs Fertilizer consumption, an indicator of agricultural development, likely totale 1,500 tons in 1969, up about U00 tons over 1968. About 75 percent was phosphate for use on boliland and swamp rice fields. Fer¬ tilizer consumption has more than doubled in 2 years. There has also been some increase in the area under irrigation by water control methods recommended by Taiwanese technicia: for use on inland swamp rice and vegetable farms. These methods increase both yields and length of growing season. Foreign Trade Sierra Leone's foreign trade picture in 1968 was rather bright, considering thai exports improved considerably, almost matcl ing imports. Each was valued at almost $ 9 ! million. This contrasts with a 1967 un¬ favorable trade balance of about $27 millic Agricultural exports in 1968 consistec mainly of palm kernels valued at $8.6 mil¬ lion, coffee at $3.8 million, cocoa beans $2.8 million, piassava $1.1 million, ginge) $ 398 , 000 , and kola nuts $ 235 , 000 . Nonagricultural exports—particularly diamonds ($55 million) and iron ore ($13 million)—were much more valuable than far: exports. In 1968 , the United Kingdom was by fai Sierra Leone's best customer, followed by the Netherlands and West Germany. Sierra Leone's largest suppliers were the United Kingdom, Japan, and the United States. In 1969, the first shipment of 600 hundredweight of flour milled in Sierra Leone was exported to Gambia. Another trade first was the shipment of 26 tons of cassava chips to West Germany. (Snider W. Skinner) REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA The gross domestic product of South Africa reached $l6.U billion in 1969 * 7 ° 22 terms of 1958 prices , real growth was an es¬ timated 6 percent; 1970 ’s growth will likely be about the same. The agricultural sector accounted for about 8 percent of 1969's GDP. Agricultural Production Production of grains was mixed in 1969. Drought early in the year in the Maize Tri¬ angle caused corn production to fall to slightly less than 5 million tons. Prospects for the 1970 crop appear better than usual since early rains were excellent in the main com growing area. However, rain in January and early February was spotty in other areas. The area planted to corn decreased this year but production should be high. March estimates of the 1970 corn crop range from 7.6 million tons to 9 million tons. The 1967 crop of 9-8 million tons was the largest on record. Sorghum production in 1969 was slightly higher than the previous crop. Area planted for the 1970 crop is up from last year, and with an expected increase in yields, produc¬ tion will be higher. Sorghum is used pri¬ marily as a brewing ingredient for "Bantu" beer, consumption of which is increasing. The 1969 wheat crop was a record 1.3 million tons. Production in 1970 is expect¬ ed to prove slightly higher. Although the Cape wheat area suffered from drought, pro¬ duction in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal was so exceptional that the over¬ all crop was excellent. Wheat consumption is continuing upward due to population growth. Fruit production last year was general¬ ly lower than in 1968. Most of this de¬ crease was due to adverse weather; a virus infestation among apricot trees also affect¬ ed production. The pear harvest, falling to- 73,000 tons, was adversely affected by hail¬ storms. The apple crop likely reached 216,000 tons, up 2 percent. Peach, apricot, and plum production decreased slightly. Total deciduous production for 1969 was an estimated 57^,000 tons. Pineapple produc¬ tion fell about 6,000 tons to 130,000 tons. Production of oranges, the main citrus, was 517,000 tons, down from the record 1968 crop of 520,000 tons. Drought conditions in the southern part of the country early in 1970 appear to have affected this year's fruit crop. South Africa is the world's seventh largest producer of sugar from cane. It is a member of the International Sugar Agree¬ ment and has a quota from the United States. Although South Africa's U.S. sugar quota is not large, there has been some pressure within the United States to decrease or re¬ move it. Production of sugar in 1969 in¬ creased to nearly 1.6 million tons from 1.5 million the year before. Since the intro¬ duction of the new sugar agreement, prices have increased, and prospects for the South African sugar industry appear brighter than they have been for sometime. Domestic sales are also up. During recent years, South Africa has followed an expansion pro¬ gram for sugar production. However, with acceptance of the new international agree¬ ment, no increase in production is being allowed at present. Peanuts are the largest oilseed crop in the Republic, closely followed by sun¬ flower seed. In 1969 the peanut crop (in shell) was 3 ^ 4,000 tons, the second largest crop on record. This was due to larger area planted, good rains during the end of February and March, and sunny weather at harvesttime. Local consumption used most of the crop, but some confectionary quali¬ ty nuts, some oil-crushing nuts, and some peanut oil and cake were exported. It appears that a greater area was planted for the 1970 crop. The general trend of cotton production in the sixties was upward. Although 1969 production fell slightly to 22,000 tons, this was much higher than production in the early sixties. Larger areas, both dryland and irrigated, are being planted and yields are increasing. Wool is South Africa's most important agricultural export commodity; it accounts for about 5 percent of total exports. South Africa is the world's fifth largest produc¬ er of wool. In 1969 the clip was about 1 ^ 5,000 tons, 7,000 tons above the previous one. Prices during opening auctions of the 1969/70 season tended to be higher than dur¬ ing the same period a year earlier, but a little lower than prices at the end of May 1969 . 23 Livestock numbers showed, a general in¬ crease during 1969 - Slaughterings of cat¬ tle and calves decreased, folowing a down¬ ward trend since 1965. The small stock and hog kill rose. Overall it appears meat pro¬ duction decreased slightly. Estimated per capita consumption of beef appears to be de¬ creasing, probably because of higher retail prices. But consumption of mutton, pork, and poultry appears to be increasing. Poul¬ try meat is now more important than pork for domestic consumption and will continue increasing its share of the market. Agricultural Policy South African authorities continued their policy of maintaining agricultural production by supporting measures to stabi¬ lize prices to producers. This policy is carried out mainly by various marketing boards. A joint marketing board for all canning fruit might come into effect this year. The proposed new board would control the marketing of all apricots, peaches, pears, and pineapple intended for canning. A control board for cotton has also been proposed. It would be used for (l) price arrangements, ( 2 ) grading and standardiza¬ tion, ( 3 ) effective distribution of the crop, and ( 4 ) market promotion. In June 1969, the Minister of Agricul¬ ture announced a stock-reduction scheme for sheep grazing areas to stabilize the veld, where deterioration and soil losses have reached alarming proportions. In 1968 the third revision of South Africa's Economic Development Program con¬ cluded that an annual average growth rate of 5*5 percent should be realized for the period 1968 - 73 . So far, estimated growth exceeds this rate. To meet the increased labor demand expected, especially of skilled workers, net immigration of at least 30,000 per year is considered necessary. Priority will also have to be given to training local manpower. The largest contributors to pro¬ grammed economic expansion will be manufac¬ turing and, to a lesser extent, services. The percentage contribution of mining in¬ dustries and agriculture will decline, though the absolute value may rise. Within the general policy of economic growth, the South African government has a policy of economic development in the black population areas. One of the largest of these is the Transkei, where the Xhosa Development Corporation has been formed. The Transkei has just suffered a 6-year drought which had very adverse effects on crops and cattle. As a result, special ef¬ forts are being made to improve farming practices and build as many water catchment basins as possible. An example of this ef¬ fort is the tractor program. The program appears successful, but limited by the re¬ latively small number of machines. Foreign Trade During 1969 South Africa's trade de¬ ficit was $836 million, larger than in 1968. This gap reflects trade in goods and services; it does not include trade in gold. The Republic's imports during 1969 were valued at $2,995 million; exports were worth $ 2,159 million. Imports increased by $364 million; exports, by only $44 million. Europe remained South Africa's major trad¬ ing partner, both in buying and supplying; however, trade with Asia is increasing rapidly. South Africa is the United States' largest commercial market in Africa. The U.S. share of the South African market, which fell slightly in 1969 s is about 17 percent. Agricultural exports from South Africa declined in 1969* Most of the decrease was due to the small corn exports. Corn exports were discontinued temporarily in early March 1969 - During the rest of 1969 South Africa imported at least 500,000 tons of white corn from Rhodesia. Upon completion of arrangements to import this white corn which would satisfy the local market. South Africa cleared exports of some 180,000 tons of corn (mostly yellow) late in the year. Barring unfavorable late-season crop developments, South Africa should export substantial amounts—possi¬ bly as much as 3 million tons—of corn during the 1970-71 marketing season mostly to Japan, the United Kingdom, and Europe. Exports of other agricultural products in 1969 appeared mixed. Some fresh fruit exports, such as apples, increased slightly; others, such as pears, decreased. Canned pineapple exports decreased; but exports of 24 anned peaches were estimated to have con- inued their upward trend. Citrus exports ecreased slightly; sales to Europe fell by percent. Sales of lemons and grapefruit ncreased in the United Kingdom, but not nough to offset other decreases. Increased amounts of wool were avail- ble for export last year. France, the nited Kingdom, Japan, and Germany are the argest importers of South African wool. Ex- orts of karakul pelts were smaller in 1969. South Africa is a net importer of cot¬ on, but imports have been gradually de- reasing in recent years. Imports were bout $ll+ million last year. The United tates and Brazil are major suppliers. Re- ently, Brazil's share of the market has in- reased, while the U.S. share has decreased, his is mainly due to lower Brazilian cotton rices. South Africa does export some cot¬ on, mostly of a type not needed by local sxtile mills. Although South Africa exports some sat, primarily special cuts to adjoining ountries, it imports much larger quanti¬ les. Most of the shipments from Namibia South West Africa) and Swaziland—are on le hoof, but no beef comes in on the hoof rom either Rhodesia or Botswana. This akes South Africa a large net importer of sef and veal; a small net importer of mut- cn, lamb, and goat; and a small net export- r of pork. The largest agricultural imports in the ast have been wheat, rice, and cotton, auth Africa's self-sufficiency efforts in aeat production have greatly reduced wheat nports. Only 11,000 tons were imported in ? 69 > Ten thousand tons came from Lesotho id Swaziland and a thousand tons from Eu- ipe. The United States sold no wheat to le Republic last year and it is unlikely lis will change in 1970 . The United States ies continue to be the major supplier of Lee. The U.S. dock strike in 1969 reduced .S. rice exports, but in 1970 , rice exports lould be back at the 70 - 80,000 ton level. 4 ary T. Chambliss) SUDAN The economy entered 1970 with rising rices for both domestic and imported goods. dwindling foreign exchange reserves, and continuing trade deficits. Price-control measures adopted in 1969 have not taken ef¬ fect. And businessmen state that they are increasingly feeling the adverse economic impact of the Suez Canal closure. Agriculture accounts for over half the country's gross national product esti¬ mated at $1.5^ billion in 1969 for a per capita GNP of $ 102 . There are an estimated 15.2 million Sudanese (mid-1969) of which 77 percent live in rural communities. Eighty percent of the 6 .^-million-member labor force is employed in agriculture. Agricultural Production Largely because of an excellent cotton crop, agricultural production showed a moderate increase in 1969 to an index of 156 ( 1957-59 = 100 ). The cotton crop was 2 i+ 0,000 tons of lint, an increase of 11,000 tons over the good crop of 1968. Sudanese grain production was estimated at 1.5 million tons, up 16 percent over the 1968 harvest. Durra, a grain sorghum, ac¬ counts for two-thirds of all grains produc¬ ed. The 1969 sorghum harvest probably reached 1.0 million tons, up 200,000 tons over the poor 1968 crop, but far below pro¬ duction in good years. Inadequate sorghum supplies plague government officials. Exports were banned in 1969 and drastic measures are promised to stop smuggling. In efforts to control rising prices, the government has made overtures to purchase 250,000 tons of grain. Agricultural Policy In 1969, Sudan fell to a military coup d'etat. As a result, most agricultural and trade policies are still in the formative stage. West European countries have tradi¬ tionally supplied most of Sudan's imports. A change in import policy for 1969/70 favors those countries with which the Sudan has barter, loan, and trade-payment agreements. That means priority is being given to im¬ ports from the United Arab Republic, India, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hun¬ gary, USSR, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. The 1969/70 import budget has been set at $230 25 million with imports from West European countries restricted to the value of cotton they import from the Sudan. Cotton exporters have been offered a bonus to maintain cotton exports at a high level for 1969 - Cotton annually accounts for 50 to 75 percent of Sudan's annual ex¬ port earnings. The Ministry of Agriculture has dis¬ solved the boards directing the Mechanized Farming, Public Agricultural Production, and Agricultural Research Corporations. These will be reorganized along with all other government-sponsored independent cor¬ porations after the Council of Ministers resolves policy differences. In another move, the new government has authorized the Gum Arabic Company Ltd. to sell $ 3 .^ million worth of stock. The government will retain 30 percent of the million shares to be is¬ sued and the firm's board of directors, com¬ posed of 100 of the leading exporters, will have veto power over prospective applicants for stock. In September 1969, relations with the Egyptians were strengthened with a technical assistance agreement. Under it the United Arab Republic will help Sudan develop irri¬ gation in the Sudd area of the Upper Nile Province. Foreign Trade Virtually all the Sudan's exports are agricultural produce. Cotton and gum arabic lead the list by value. Other commodities include peanuts, sorghum, sesame, live ani¬ mals, and hides and skins. Exports in 1968 were estimated at $233 million and imports at $258 million. The United Kingdom, India, Japan and Russia were the leading suppliers while West Germany, Italy, India, and Japan were the leading markets for exports. Seven¬ teen percent of Sudan's 1968 imports by value were wheat and flour, sugar, coffee, tea, and other food products. (William F. Hall) TANZANIA Agriculture is the most important sec¬ tor in Tanzania's economy and the mainstay of its economic growth. Although agricul¬ ture's contribution to the gross national product declined during the 1960's from near two-thirds to a little more than a half, much of the country's foreign ex¬ change comes from cash crops. Therefore, agriculture can be expected to maintain a very important place in the economy. Tanzania's economy has also been bol¬ stered by a steady inflow of foreign aid which will likely continue for several years, at least while projects are being completed. The United States is building a highway, Italy has been laying a pipeline, and the People's Republic of China is starting to build a rail line that will link up Zambia's copper vields with Tan¬ zania's ports. Agricultural Production Since 1966 , agricultural outturn has more or less leveled off. The major grain crops—millet and sorghum, and corn—pro¬ duced well in 1969. Cloves produced well in 1968 by yielding lU,000 tons, then drop¬ ped to an estimated U,000 tons in 1969. The coffee crop, better than average in 1968 at some 55,000 tons, fell to U8,000 tons in 1969. Registering the largest decline of a major crop, production of sisal dropped from 220,000 tons to 200,000 tons, continu¬ ing its downtrend. After a bad year in 1968 cotton production last year was back up to 1965-67 average—71,000 tons. Livestock production, considered to have great potential for development, has more or less kept pace with the needs of the growing population. Most of Tanzania's livestock products are used domestically. In 1968, only about $ 6.3 million worth of meat were exported, plus small quantities of wool and hides and skins. Agricultural Policy Because of government encouragement, production of cash crops will soon be great¬ er than production of those used domestical¬ ly for subsistence crops. The government has established a number of statutory au¬ thorities which supervise, control and/or handle various functions of the management and marketing process. Many agricultural products are under the direction of govern¬ ment-created cooperatives and marketing boards. The policies and operations of the various boards, however, are by no means 26 niform. Some of the more recently establ¬ ished boards assume advisory and management unctions, but nearly all handle the pricing nd the final sale of crops. As with other unctions, the pricing policies of the oards also vary. Some maintain funds for rice stabilization and assistance while thers announce a set price to be paid be- ore the crop is harvested. Cooperatives have expanded rapidly to ssist with inputs, extend credit, and pro- ide other services; an increasing number re carrying on some retail trade activities the company store role). To control imports, Tanzania is promot- ig a policy of self-reliance through import 5straints aimed at consumers. This program alls for import substitution with locally roduced and processed items. Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda form a re- ional common market. They maintain a com¬ an external tariff and a common customs iministration. Tanzania's agriculture will likely con- inue its present gradual upward trend; di- srsification will help. More of agricul- ure's produce will be marketed through sards, and cooperative societies are being irected to step up retail selling to farm- rs. Already an announced policy, addition- L attention will be focused on livestock roduction through breeding and feeding pro¬ rams and improvements in forage. Growth in ther sectors will also have a favorable ef- 3ct on the farming sector. areign Trade Tanzania's total exports in 1968 amount- i to about $ 21 + 0.5 million. Agricultural xports accounted for over 73 percent of the atal. Cotton, coffee, sisal, cashews, and loves were the leading items exported. The aited States ranked sixth as an importer of anzania's products and most of the U.S. urchases were agricultural items; coffee ad pyrethrum led the list. Imports in 1968 totaled some $ 256.7 illion, of which about 11.8 percent were gricultural items. Cereals and cereal pre- arations and dairy products were the main terns purchased, but smaller quantities of any other food items were imported. In 1968 the United States supplied Tanzania with American farm products valued at just over $1 million. (H. Charles Treakle) TUNISIA Tunisian agricultural production de¬ clined in 1969, reflecting poor growing conditions. Drought struck early in the year and the September-October rainfall was the heaviest in centuries. Practically all annual crops had been harvested at flood¬ ing, but tree crops—particularly olives and dates—were damaged by the heavy rains. The floods did serious damage to other sec¬ tors of the Tunisian economy. During the first part of the year some economic pro¬ gress was being made. Foreign trade and overall production were trending upward. The floods caused the loss of several hun¬ dred lives, drowned a large number of live¬ stock, wiped out major roads and rail lines, and undid years of work in many areas where intensive irrigation projects had been un¬ dertaken. Exports of phosphate rock, one of Tunisia's major resources, were cut back drastically. It is hoped that, in the long run, the increased ground water supplies will have a beneficial effect on agricultural output. Agricultural Production Continuing drought conditions early last year were reflected in slight to con¬ siderable reductions in the 1969 harvest of principal crops. The index of agricul¬ tural production fell 15 points in 1969 to 78 ( 1957-59 = 100 ). Total wheat production was estimated at 350,000 tons (80,000 tons soft wheat and 270,000 tons durum) from about 61 + 0,000 hectares (1.6 million acres), down 33,000 tons from the previous year. Barley production, at 70,000 tons, was near¬ ly one-third below the 1968 harvest of 100,000 tons. Government support prices to producers for the 1969 crop were $83 per ton for soft wheat, $92 per ton for durum, and $5!+ per ton for barley. Although harvesting of 1969 grain and pulse crops was completed prior to the rains and floods, planting of the 1970 grain crops was delayed in some areas because of the wet fields. Helicopters were used on a limited scale for seeding wheat in some of the wet¬ test areas. Planting delays could be offset 27 by the advantages of ample soil moisture; the 1970 harvest outlook is generally optimistic. The current olive crop suffered from the effects of prolonged drought. Later, the excessive rains damaged the ripening olives and in some cases destroyed olive trees. In addition, it was an off year in the olive production cycle. The 1969 crop was estimated at only 125,000 tons with an expected oil yield of 27,000 tons—down sharply from 275,000 tons of olives and 55,000 tons of extract in 1968. Trade sources believe that with current soil mois¬ ture conditions the 1970 olive crop could exceed 500,000 tons with an oil yield of up to 110,000 tons. The area under olive pro¬ duction is estimated at 985,000 hectares (2.1 million acres) with around 35 million producing trees. The government's program to plant new areas to olive trees continued in 1969 . The total 1969/70 citrus crop is fore¬ cast at 72,000 tons—down about 5,000 tons from the preceding season. Scale has af¬ fected a good deal of the crop, reducing its quality. Livestock losses resulting from the re¬ cent floods probably were 15,000 to 20,000 head, mostly sheep and goats. However, the loss of animals has been offset by greatly improved grazing conditions as a result of sufficient soil moisture. Overall, the con¬ dition of livestock in early 1970 was excel¬ lent. The improved grazing and forage con¬ ditions should lead to increases in livestock numbers. Agricultural Policy Tunisia's agricultural cooperative (collective) movement, which involved about 2.1 million hectares (6 million acres) at its peak was scheduled to encompass its agricultural sector by the end of 1969 - The movement was stopped as a result of continu¬ ed and widespread dissatisfaction by agri¬ cultural producers and trade groups. Cur¬ rently, the records of existing cooperatives are being examined to determine which hold¬ ings will be returned to private ownership. The agricultural law of September 20 , 1969, set forth certain categories that would re¬ vert immediately to the private sector—all fruit and vegetable production and productio from irrigated land. Initially, coopera¬ tives existing as of January 1 , 1969, coulc continue to function. However, the currenl evaluation reaches all cooperatives and on¬ ly viable units and those units with membe] support probably will continue. It is too early to determine how much land has actual ly been returned to the private sector, or how much is likely to be returned before the government completes its evaluation. Despite current short-term uncertainties over the responsibilities and functions of the various sectors involved, support for the current policy is enthusiastic through¬ out the country. This may lead to subse¬ quent gains in overall agricultural produc¬ tion and improvements in marketing practices. Foreign Trade The value of Tunisia's total exports for 1968 was $157 million, up $8 million from 1967. Agriculture's export share of the total remained at about one-third. Some 33,000 tons of olive oil worth $22.5 mil¬ lion were exported, mainly to France, Rus¬ sia, Libya, and Italy. Next in agriculture export value came fruits and vegetables valued at $12.6 million, with citrus con¬ tributing $ 3.1 million of this total. Wine exports of 68,000 tons were valued at $6.8 million in 1968. On a crop-year basis, exports of agri¬ cultural commodities are likely to be down during 1969 / 70 . Exports of olive oil are not expected to exceed 15,000 tons during the current season, compared with 32,000 tons in 1968/69. Citrus exports were esti¬ mated at about 30,000 tons for 1968/69 and are forecast at about that level for the current marketing year. Approximately 80 percent of the 1968/69 citrus exports con¬ sisted of oranges. Total imports during 1968 were valued at $217.5 million with agricultural goods making up 26 percent of the total. Cereals valued at $23.8 million were the main im¬ ports. Wheat and flour imports were worth $ 20.5 million. The United States supplied almost 70 percent of these imports, largely under P.L. 180 agreements. Vegetable oils worth $6.2 million (also provided largely under P.L. 18 o), sugar worth $ 5.5 million, and dairy products worth $1.9 million were also imported. Forecasts indicate that 28 inisia will need to import up to 1 + 30,000 3 ns of wheat and 80,000 tons of barley dur- ig 1969 / 70 . Official foreign trade figures put Tu- .sia's trade deficit for the first 9 months ’ 1969 at $60 million, nearly 18 percent >re than last year's imbalance for the same :riod. Tunisia's exports cover only 67.2 :rcent of its imports. Its balance of ■ade was more unfavorable at the end of the :ar because the floods temporarily cut off iportant phosphate exports. An association agreement with the EC itered into force September 1 , 1969. It .lows Tunisian industrial products to enter ,e Common Market duty and quota free. Tuni¬ s's citrus will bear only a h percent duty .stead of the common external tariff of 20 ncent; however, this provision means that Lty-free entry privileges on the French ,rket were replaced by the h percent duty, nisian olive oil will benefit from a $50 r ton conditional preference if the mini- .m price is observed. (Margaret B. ssiaen) UGANDA Uganda's agricultural progress during 69 was moderately upward for all major ■ops except coffee. That deviation was ough to lower the index of agricultural oduction to 130 percent of 1957-59 base— ightly below the index for 1968, when ;anda had a record coffee crop. Prospective price gains for cotton and ffee—Uganda's two most important export ops—should improve export revenues in 70 . This favorable outlook contrasts arply with the 1969 picture, which was ouded by political turmoil. ;ricultural Production Minor production gains were recorded 1969 for such subsistence crops as mil- t, sorghum, com, pulses, cassava, sweet- tatoes and plantains. The corn crop taled 325,000 tons, up 5,000 tons from 68 . Raw sugar production was record high 159,000 tons. Fruit and vegetables pro- .ced good harvests. Tea production was at a record level, ■t the coffee harvest of 165,000 tons was well below the 189,000-ton output of 1968. For coffee this was considered a return to near-average production after a bumper crop. The government enacted two signifi¬ cant coffee marketing changes in October 1969. Beginning with the 1969/70 Inter¬ national Coffee Agreement year, the Coffee Marketing Board will be the only exporter of Uganda coffee. And cooperatives will have a monopoly in buying from the farmers, pulping, and selling to the board all coffee except washed robustas. Cotton production was unchanged from 1968. Agricultural Policy In October, on Uganda's seventh anni¬ versary of independence. President Obote announced a "common man's charter." Its purpose is to advance measures toward a more even distribution of the country's eco¬ nomic and social benefits. While the charter was not specific, it indicated a move to consolidate many of Uganda's small farms into larger, more economic units. Just what changes will result from the new charter cannot be projected. Recently, however, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry confirmed that its future policy would be one of discouraging fragmentation and encouraging consolidation and enclosure. It was distributing more educational materials and stepping up its attempts to improve and diversify the agri¬ cultural sector and to expand conservation. Uganda has joined other major tea ex¬ porting countries who have adopted the "Mauritius export restriction plan." Under it, tea exports are limited during 1970 in an attempt to rescue falling tea prices and keep the world market price at or near the 1968 level. This will probably not serious¬ ly reduce Uganda's tea exports as the quota for Uganda is not stringent. Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda form a regional common market and they maintain a common external tariff and customs admini¬ stration. Foreign Trade Uganda's total exports in 1968 amount¬ ed to $ 213.2 million. By value, 82 percent of them were agricultural, including coffee 29 (57 percent), cotton (about 2 b percent), tea (6 percent), and the balance a variety of livestock and crop items. The United States is Uganda's number one overseas mar¬ ket. U.S. purchases in 19 ^ 9 —virtually all of agricultural items—were valued at $ 45-9 million. Uganda's 1968 imports totaled $l 62.2 million, and only 7.2 percent were agricul¬ tural items. Cereals, fruit, and vegetables were the principal items purchased. The United States ranked sixth as a source of imports , but supplied only a very small por¬ tion of Uganda's agricultural imports. (H. Charles Treakle) Despite the severe difficulties stem¬ ming from the Middle East war of 19^7 and its aftermath, economic activities in the United Arab Republic showed signs of im¬ provement in 1969* Indications are that total agricultural production reached a re¬ cord high. Substantial gains were reported for cotton and all major grain crops. The gains coupled with greater industrial pro¬ duction, particularly in the oil sector, might well mean that GNP growth in 1969 ex¬ ceeded the annual rate of 5.5 percent in recent years. The United Arab Republic had a trade deficit of $^65 million in 1965• By the close of calendar 1968, this imbalance had been reduced to $UU .3 million. Moreover, preliminary data for the first three quar¬ ters of 1969 suggest that the reduction has continued. Loss of foreign exchange earn¬ ings from reduced tourism and continued closure of the Suez Canal has been partly offset by greater economic assistance from Eastern Europe and neighboring Arab coun¬ tries . Agricultural production in the United Arab Republic continued on an upward trend for the third consecutive year in 1969 - The index of agricultural output rose to 122 percent of the 1957-59 base, up 7 points from the 1968 level. The increase was enough to reverse the downtrend since 1962 in agricultural production on a per capita basis. Reports indicate that cotton area in 1969 approached 770,000 hectares (1.9 mil¬ lion acres), slightly over 10 percent abov a year earlier. Higher yields combined with a larger area boosted output to 511,0 tons, up 17 percent above from the 1968 ha vest. Some of this increase was attribute to favorable growing conditions. More im¬ portant were renewed efforts by the govern ment to expand the cotton area and to im¬ prove quality and yields by the use of price incentives. More water was available for rice production. Early estimates place the rice harvest at over 2.5 million tons. Thi estimate was a bit optimistic. It now ap¬ pears that 1969 rice production exceeded the 1968 crop of 2.35 million tons by abou 90,000 tons. Lesser gains were indicated for the other major grains. Cotton and rice probably had the largest area increas of all crops planted. A higher output of cottonseed was as¬ sociated with greater cotton production fo 1969. Slightly larger crops of other oil¬ seeds were expected. Increased area and production were indicated for onions, the third ranking export crop. Improvements also were estimated for sugar, citrus, and vegetables. Little change was reported for the livestock industry. Production of live¬ stock products in the UAR remains insuffi¬ cient for the domestic market even though per capita consumption of meat and milk is low. Increased reliance must be placed upon imports to meet local needs. Agricultural Policy Renewed emphasis was given to pro¬ grams designed to promote basic structural changes in the economy. Redistribution of agricultural holdings was continued along with efforts to consolidate small units and fragmented holdings. Cooperatives as¬ sumed more activities previously carried out by private intermediaries in the agri¬ cultural sector. The process of extending state ownership and control in other parts of the economy was continued with the re¬ sult that almost all large-scale enterprise are now a part of the public domain. UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC Agricultural Production 30 The government relied increasingly up¬ on fiscal policies to reduce inflationary pressures and improve the country's bal- ance-of-payments position. Foreign exchange regulations were revised to reduce imports and to limit them solely to essential items. New price measures were adopted in hopes of stabilizing consumer prices, greater efforts were made to keep wages in line with pro¬ ductivity, and more crops came under the government's guaranteed price program. These measures, along with increased efforts to expand exports, appeared to strengthen the economy as the year progressed. Foreign Trade Data for calendar 1968 suggest that total exports were valued at $621.7 million; imports were valued at $ 666.0 million. This represented a 10-percent increase in the value of exports from the preceding year and a 17-percent decline in imports. According to reports by the Egyptian Ministry of Economy, exports of agricultural products rose $7 million during the first three quarters of 1969 over the correspond¬ ing period a year earlier. Increases were reported for rice, citrus, onions, potatoes, peanuts and garlic. Additional export gains in these commodities are forecast for 1970 . Cotton exports declined. During the crop year ended August 31 , 1969, they amounted to 21 + 6,300 tons against 271,720 tons in the preceding year. The leading buyers by importance were the USSR, Japan, India, Italy, Czechoslovakia, West Germany, Spain, and France. An increasing percentage of total cotton production is being process¬ ed by the local textile industry; larger supplies of textiles are exported. Even so, raw cotton exports probably picked up during the current marketing year because of the large 1969 crop. While the UAR will have larger supplies of its usual farm products available for export, it must import large quantities of food. Wheat and wheat flour deficits for 1970 are likely to approach 2.5 million tons. There will be a need for close to 150,000 tons of animal fats and vegetable oils, plus small quantities of feed grains, dairy products, and tobacco. Near the end of calendar 1969 the UAR agreed to purchase 600,000 tons of wheat and 50,000 tons of flour from Italy for delivery before June 30 , 1970 . Earlier con¬ tracts were signed with France for 900,000 tons of wheat. In recent years Russia and Spain have shipped wheat and flour to the UAR. Moreover, there are reports that dis¬ cussions underway could lead to sizable pur¬ chases from Canada. Aside from small amounts of tallow, tobacco, vegetable oils and miscellaneous items, the UAR has been an insignificant dollar market for U.S. agriculture during the past few years. Incomplete data for 1969 suggest U.S. trade with the UAR de¬ clined for the fourth consecutive year. The value of these shipments plunged from $ 137.8 million in 1966 to $7.2 million for 1968, principally because of reduced U.S. shipments under P.L. 180 . Total U.S. farm imports from the UAR have also declined in recent years and amounted to only $6.1 mil¬ lion in 1968—all but 3 percent was account¬ ed for by long-staple cotton. Given a favorable political climate, the Egyptian economy will continue to grow and thus provide a larger market for se¬ lected farm commodities in the immediate future. Prospects of expanding the present small dollar market for U.S. farm products are not good; Egypt has few dollars and limited opportunity for earning more. The prevailing exchange-control system tends to conserve foreign exchange earned from hard-currency areas and to maintain balance with bilateral trade partners. (Cline J. Warren) 31 WEST ASIA CYPRUS Cyprus has just completed its first decade of independence. Cypriot agriculture during that time has made great strides. The index for total agricultural production ( 1957-59 = 100) stood at 209 in 1969, up 25 points from 1968. With population growing at a rate of less than 2 percent per year, the index of per capita agricultural produc¬ tion climbed to 185, up 95 points from i960. Approximately 1+0 percent of the Cypriot pop¬ ulation is involved in agriculture, forest¬ ry, and fishing. This has changed little in the last 10 years. Agricultural Production There was a vast improvement in the agricultural situation in 1969 * A year ear¬ lier, the island's grain crops suffered severe damage from drought. Early and time¬ ly rainfall in December 1968 and early 1969 resulted in excellent crops of wheat and barley as well as good harvest of most other commodities. Record crops of grapes, olives and citrus were produced. Wheat production for the 1969 season reached 85,000 tons, about 1+0 percent great¬ er than in 1968. The barley crop at 105,000 tons was surpassed only by the excellent 1965 crop of 137,000 tons. Total production of citrus for 1968/69 reached a record 177,000 tons. Of this crop, ll+l+,000 tons went into export and ll +,000 tons for processing. Oranges account- ted for more than 50 percent of the total production. Production of Valencia type oranges has tripled since 196b, while the production of the Shamouti (Jaffa) variety has leveled off. There has been a continued increase in the production of grapefruit during the past few years. With the in¬ creasing acceptance of grapefruit in the Eu¬ ropean market, this trend will probably continue. The government intends to increase livestock and meat production. This program, singled out for development during the first 5 -year plan (1963-67), has met with success. The value of production rose by 33 percent. Improved slaughtering methods are being encouraged, as well as mixed farming pro¬ jects, to stimulate animal raising. The government wants to increase the raising of improved dual-purpose cattle. All thi: is being done in the hopes of making Cypn self-sufficient in meat and of reducing outlays of foreign exchange for meat and other livestock products. Foreign Trade In 1968/69 the United Kingdom was Cyprus' most important citrus customer, taking almost 1+0 percent of the total ex¬ ports. The EC countries were second with 25 percent, East European countries third with 2 l+ percent, and other West European countries fourth with 8 percent. Cypriot officials feel that the great est increase of the citrus market will be in East Europe where per capita consumptic is on the rise. Despite the drought of 1968, agricul¬ tural exports contributed over 57 percent of the total value of goods exported. Citr: potatoes, carobs, vine products, and carrc: continued to find good markets abroad. (Michael E. Kurtzig) IRAN Iran's overall rate of growth has bee exceptional, averaging about 10.5 percent over the past U years. The gross national product at current prices was estimated at over $8 billion for the Iranian year that ended March 20 , 1969 - GNP per capita, whi has been rising, was about $300. At the same time the cost of living has risen at a very low rate—less than 2 percent per year. But it has been less stable in recent years and is under increa- ing pressure. Oil production, which has risen about 95 percent over the past 5 years, slowed a little in 1967 and 1968 but accelerated in 1969. This sector of the economy has con¬ tributed importantly to the overall econom: growth. Non-oil industries and constructi: also have been increasing rapidly. 32 Agriculture, while it has not kept pace rith the other sectors, has contributed. In "ecent years agricultural productivity has stepped up. This momentum is the result of government efforts and favorable weather. Ill crops contributed but most important ras the sharp rise in wheat production from .967 through 1969 - Overall, farm produc¬ tion in 1969 was very close to the 1968 'i gure. agricultural Production The production of wheat in 1969 was ■eported at 3-9 million tons, down 500,000 ■ons from the preceding year, but about the ame as in 1967 - The decrease in produc¬ tion was largely due to heavy rainfall dur- ng late fall and winter which delayed lanting in most parts of Iran. This was 'ollowed by wheat rust that came after ben- ficial spring rain. About b.G million ectares (ll.U million acres) were harvested n 1969> down slightly from a year earlier, he area will be expanded in 1970. The output of barley in 1969 was close 0 the 1.27 million tons turned out in 1968. nfavorable weather at planting time reduced he area in barley. Rice production increased primarily be- ause of an expansion in acreage and better ultural practices. The 1969 crop was esti- ated at 1.05 million tons, slightly above he 1968 harvest. Cotton showed a small increase in out- ut in 1969 and was estimated at 152,000 ons, only 2,000 tons better than the 1968 rop. The increase came on an expanded rea. Cotton production has been ut> since 967 , reflecting both good weather and suc- sss in controlling the bollworm. Iran uses bout 52,000 tons of its raw cotton; the alance is exported. In 1967 Iran produced about 71,600 tons f vegetable oil. Cottonseed is the major ilseed produced. Smaller amounts of flax- sed, sunflower seed, sesame, castor beans nd others are grown but total production is ily about half the country's domestic seds. A program therefore is underway to ^courage farmers to produce more oilseeds, lereby increasing their earnings and saving illions of dollars in foreign exchange pent for the import of vegetable oils. In 1968 Iran imported 70 ,i +25 tons of vegetable oils. Unfavorable weather for almonds, es¬ pecially in Azerbaijan, accounts for the small almond crop of 20,000 tons in 1969. The 1968 crop amounted to 26,000 tons. Wal¬ nuts, on the other hand, had a good year; the 6 , 000 -ton 1969 harvest slightly exceed¬ ed the 1968 crop. Pistachios, important in the Kerman area of Iran, produced a record 15,500 tons in 1968. In 1969 although con¬ ditions were not particularly unfavorable, the output dropped to 7,000 tons due to the cyclical nature of the pistachio. The over¬ all quality of the 1969 harvest was better than in 1968. Sugar production has steadily increas¬ ed since the mid- 1960 's. Raw sugar at 217,000 tons in 1965, climbed to ^57,000 tons in 1967 and to 582,000 tons in 1969. About 10 percent of this is cane sugar and the balance is beet. Both beet and cane production have been increasing. A govern¬ ment goal is to increase sugar production until Iran is self-sufficient. To accom¬ plish this, sugar production must increase about another 100,000 tons, and then con¬ tinue to keep up with population growth. Production of dates appears to have leveled off in recent years. The 1969 har¬ vest at 280,000 tons likely surpassed the 1968 harvest, but was not outstanding. Ear¬ ly spring frosts and fungus disease reduced the apricot harvest to below half the 1968 crop. Raisins also suffered from frosts and fungus, and production was only about 56 percent of the 1968 crop. The 1969 har¬ vest of apricots was estimated at U,000 tons and raisins, 3^,000 tons. Better pasture conditions in recent years have allowed an increase in livestock numbers. Even so, the output of meat and dairy products is not sufficient to meet growing demand. To a degree, stepped-up imports of both live animals and frozen meat are helping to solve the problem, but the shortage is still critical. The poultry industry is expanding rapidly and price levels have been favor¬ able for broiler production. Roughly half the meat consumed is sheep and goat meat; the balance is beef. 33 buffalo and poultry. Per capita meat con¬ sumption averages about 34 pounds, but only 2 pounds is poultry meat. For comparison, Europe's per capita consumption of poultry alone is well above Iran's per capita con¬ sumption of all meat. Agricultural Policy Under Iran's third development plan, agriculture had an annual growth rate of about 3-4 percent. Under the fourth plan (running from 1968/69 to 1972/73) the goal is placed at a 5 percent rate. Use of in¬ creased inputs is one method being used to improve crops. During the fourth plan peri¬ od, annual fertilizer usage (which amounted to about 72,000 tons at the end of the third plan) is to be doubled, irrigation increas¬ ed, and new varieties promoted—especially wheat and barley. In addition, mechaniza¬ tion of fanning will be increased by about 40 percent. Through these developments and by vari¬ ous institutional means such as the encour¬ agement of large-scale farming, agricultural development is being integrated with the country's agrarian reform program. In some areas numerous join-stock farming companies are being set up with small farmers as shareholders. In other areas, especially where new or unused land is being opened up by irrigation as in areas of the Khuzistan, large-scale farming units are being develop¬ ed as agribusiness ventures. A large research center is being devel¬ oped for experimental work with new disease resistant, high-yielding varieties for a number of crops; sugar production continues to be promoted; and vegetable oil production is aimed at gaining a level of self-suffi¬ ciency. Though most oilseeds are grown in Iran, sunflower seed apparently has become the most popular in the current expansion program. Foreign Trade There was little change in agricultural exports from 1968. They accounted for 44 - percent of all exports when petroleum is ex¬ cluded, and about 7 percent of total exports. However, agricultural exports increased by almost $23 million over the prior years. Leading export items were cotton, fruits and vegetables, hides and skins, and wheat. The United States ranked second as a buyer of Iranian farm produce purchasing mostly hides and skins, nuts, fruit, and gums. Iran's agricultural imports made up only 8.8 percent of total imports and the principal farm commodities imported were cereals and vegetables oils. The United States ranked second as supplier of Irania imports. Farm items sold by the United States were principally wheat and vegetabl oils. (H. Charles Treakle) IRAQ Although a fair percentage of Iraq's cropland is irrigated, crop yields, es¬ pecially wheat, still fluctuate with the amount of rainfall. In the 5 years before 1968 , wheat crops were poor. But in 1968, and again in 1969, wheat production total¬ ing at or near 1,200,000 tons was more tha enough to meet the domestic consumption. Virtually all crops have improved from the levels of earlier years. Preliminary re¬ ports indicate that the 1969 level of pro¬ duction was slightly above the 1968 outtur Increasing oil revenues in the 1950 's allowed a number of large irrigation pro¬ jects to be built, but these failed to pro duce the anticipated early gains for the individual farmers. Land reform was just started, when administratively it was al¬ lowed to mark time. However, activities and work have gone forward in other areas. A good start has been made at growing sugarcane, a sugar factory has been built, and new varieties of cereals have been in¬ troduced. Inputs, especially the use of fertilizer, have been promoted for improv¬ ing the rice crop. Notable progress has been achieved in poultry production for both meat and eggs. With the help of the FA 0 and the United Nations, inoculation and dipping projects have improved livestock health. Progress has also been achieved in agricultural ex¬ tension and in promoting cooperatives whici will be important as the agrarian reform program progresses. Agricultural Production Agriculture accounted for about 2 6 percent of the gross national product in 34 1962 but has now declined to about 22 per¬ cent. After oil, farming is the most impor¬ tant sector of the economy and employs the greatest number of people. Winter crops, principally wheat and barley, vary in production with the amount and the timing of rainfall in their growing area. In 1969, the timing and distribution of precipitation was favorable. Though not equaling the bumper crop of 1968, wheat was reported at 1 , 189,000 tons. Barley output, at 730,000 tons, was highly satisfactory. Summer crops account for only about 7 percent of the cultivated area. Much of this cropland is irrigated, and therefore is not so dependent on precipitation. The principal summer field crops are rice, cot¬ ton, tobacco, millet and sorghum, corn, summer pulses and vegetables. Their pro- iuction levels have held fairly constant for the past 5 years. Rice, however, is an sxception. There has been special atten¬ tion given to increasing the rice area. In L 967 , the government distributed fertilizer :o rice growers and now have served about a quarter of the area in rice. Also, the FA 0 ind a U.S. private foundation have assisted 'n experimentation work with new varieties, lice production responded to these efforts rith sharply increased yields. The 1969 >addy rice harvest was estimated at 500,000 ;ons, up 50,000 over 1968. Iraq now has a sugarcane plantation rhich is a going concern. The government :ontracted with a U.S. company to design, .ay out, and carry through the development if a sugarcane plantation similar to the >ne it engineered for Iran. By the end of .969 there were an estimated 2,000 Iraqis r orking on the project and in the sugar mill constructed as part of the undertaking, raq uses about 250,000 tons of refined sug- r annually and the sugar mill at the Amarah ugarcane plantation will be able to refine 00,000 tons. Roughly a third of the raw ugar for this mill will be produced by the ew sugarcane project. The complex is lo- ated in Amarah Liwa (province), near the illage of Mujai A 1 Kabir and watered by he river of the same name, a branch of the igris. Production of dates, Iraq's principal gricultural export, fluctuated during the 960 's. In some years poor ripening weather was blamed for the smaller crop. In 1967 heavy infestation of pests caused the out¬ put to drop to 270,000 tons. Conditions were better in 1968 and the harvest was reported at 322,000 tons. This was far from a record crop, but considerably better than the 290,000 tons estimated for the 1969 harvest. Agricultural Policy Iraq is just beginning a new 5 -year plan— 1970 - 7 *+—which allocated 1+1 percent of the funds for agriculture. Improvements have been made in the administration and implementation of agricultural projects such as the sugarcane project. Increases in irrigation and drainage are underway. Planners appear to be hedging against the country's great dependence on weather while battling salinity, the great robber of good irrigated land. Plant breeders have joined the "green revolution" with the introduction of the new varieties of Mexican wheat and some new rice strains developed at the Inter¬ national Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. Other projects include a fer¬ tilizer program for rice, supervised cred¬ it, additional grain silos and storage sheds, and agricultural marketing facilities. Foreign Trade Petroleum accounts for roughly 90 per¬ cent of Iraq's exports. Excluding petro¬ leum, and striking an average for the 1960 's, over two-thirds of Iraq's export revenues came from agricultural products, principally from the marketing of dates, wool, cotton, hides and skins, barley, and in some years wheat. The trend, however, has been downward. Agricultural commodi¬ ties which accounted for over 83 percent of the non-oil exports in 1963, had roughly a 5 *+-percent share in 1967 * Part of this decrease reflected a drop in the value of date exports and an increase in industrial exports, principally cement. Prior to 1958 cereal exports, princi¬ pally barley, exceeded date exports but they did not challenge dates as the leading export item of the 1960's. In 1967 (latest full year available) Iraq exported agricul¬ tural products valued at about $31 million and imported foods worth some $7*+ million. 35 Principal food imports were sugar, cereals, tea, vegetables oils, and fruit and vege¬ tables . It is trade policy to require import licenses and exchange permits. Exchange control is administered by the central bank. There are prohibited and suspended import lists which protect home production and con¬ trol imports. The import program—amount of total imports allowed each year—is broken up by the Ministry of the Economy for li¬ censing. Divisions are nondurable consumer goods, durables, and capital goods. (H. Charles Treakle) ISRAEL The Israeli economy in 19^9 continued its vigorous recovery with a GNP increase of approximately 10 percent. This accom¬ panied a substantial trade deficit and a severe depletion of foreign exchange re¬ serves. In 1968 Israel experienced a trade deficit of $440 million; in 1969 it grew to an estimated $544 million. Some measures have been adopted to ease the deficit. In recent years, inflation has been tightly controlled and labor and government have held down wage increases. Agricultural Production Agricultural production slipped about 1.5 percent in 1969. Following the record 1967 crop of 222,000 tons, wheat production declined to 175,000 tons the following year and to 145,000 tons in 1969* Hindering growing conditions were heavy flooding in the northern part of Israel in late December 1968 and early January 1969 and extremely dry weather in the Negev. The barley crop for both 1968 and 19^9 was pegged at 25,000 tons—less than half of the 1967 crop. The grain sorghum crop fail¬ ed to match the 21,000 tons produced in 1968. Israel does not depend on the domes¬ tic production of feedgrains to fulfill its domestic needs. Almost all Israeli feed- grains are imported, mostly from the United States. In November 1969, the government con¬ cluded a 5-year agreement covering grain shipments from the United States in 1970-74. The Israelis are pursuing the work on high-yielding varieties of wheat and other crops. They plan to increase domestic pro¬ duction and reduce some import needs. The area for wheat rose from 44,500 hectares (110,000 acres) in 1959 to close to 100,00< hectares (250,000 acres) in 1969* Yields also increased. Wheat yields are, however closely tied to rainfall, especially in th< extensive wheat fields in the south. New wheat varieties are undergoing intensive local selection and yields of 30-40 bushel: per acre have been achieved under favorabli conditions. Certain dwarf varieties were yielding an outstanding 80-90 bushels per acre, but the grain showed poor baking properties. According to present plans, the Israelis hope to develop a wheat strai: which in combination with the skilled use of fertilizer and irrigation will produce around 100-120 bushels per acre. This, they hope, will produce an annual crop of close to 300,000 tons, which would meet approximately three-fourths of their domes¬ tic requirements. Grain prospects for 1970 are not good Drought conditions in late 19&9 ea-rly 1970 have severely affected the prospects in the South, the major grain producing area. Israel's output of cotton reached a record 35,000 tons in 1969. Heavy stocks at the end of the marketing year made approximately 15,000 tons available for export, double the movement of the previou marketing year. A slight frost in some parts of the main citrus producing areas, unusually heavy and persistent rainfall in January and February causing severe damage to ex¬ posed areas, and an off year in the biannu. production cycle of most citrus varieties caused a slight decline in the total prod'-- tion of citrus in 1969. The main drop oc¬ curred in Shamouti which contributed 50 percent of the total production compared with 54 percent the previous year. There was no significant change in the citrus producing area. Losses of old plantations have been offset by new plantings coming into production. The production of vegfetables continue to increase, particularly potatoes, tomato: 36 idishes, cabbages, and other green-leaved ;getables. Also, there has been an in- re as e in vegetables planted under plastic, linly for export to Europe. Although olive groves are traditional i the Middle East, today most vegetable .1 in Israel is crushed from soybeans im- >rted from the United States. Extract ’om domestic oilseeds falls short of the imestic requirement. iri cultural Trade Citrus continues to be the top export ' Israeli agriculture. Approximately '0,000 tons of fresh citrus out of a total ■oduction of 1.2 million tons were shipped ring the 1968/69 season. The export lue of this fresh fruit approximated $90 llion. In addition, about $30 million of ■ocessed citrus products were exported, her items such as avocados and straw- rries are finding good markets in Europe, ny of these are air-shipped and of ex- ptional quality when they reach the mar- t. In 1968/69 close to 4,000 tons of ocados were exported. Plans call for avo- do production of 20,000 tons by 1980 with me 15,000 tons available for fresh export. Israel, beginning in 1965 * moved into e flower exporting business. Flowers are own in plastic houses, then picked, wrap- d, and shipped almost immediately to Eu- pean markets. Israel continues to increase its ex- rts of cotton and during 1968 / 69 , it ship- d about 8,000 tons. The most significant velopment in cotton exports during the st year was the increase in exports to st European countries. They took 39 per- nt of Israeli cotton exports. The EC untries accounted for 35 percent of the tal. Other products which are exported e peanuts and high-quality seed,, both get able and grain. On the import side Israel still gets to 60 percent of its wheat from overseas, rticularly from the United States under a L. 1*80 program. Most of the feedgrains ntinue to be imported. compared with 21 percent (1,302 tons) in 1967/68. Imports from Latin American countries increased and accounted for ap¬ proximately 15 percent of total imports. Although imports from Africa declined to 1,649 tons, the share of the market re¬ mained the same as for 1967 / 68 . Israelis consume around 100,000 tons of sugar. Around 30,000 tons are produced locally from sugarbeets; the rest is imported. Last year almost 40,000 tons of frozen meat were imported—mostly from South Am¬ erica. Israel is self-sufficient in fruits, vegetables, milk products, and eggs. (Michael E. Kurtzig) JORDAN The Jordanian economy continues to make good progress from the disruption and losses of the June 1967 war with Israel. Hea-vy spending, made possible by the large contributions from other Arab governments, has sustained demand and employment. Pre¬ liminary estimates for 1969 show that over¬ all farm output was around 60 percent larger than in 1968 . The 1969 index of agricul¬ tural production stood at 249 ( 1957-59 = 100 ). Agricultural Production Timely and above average rainfall in the winter produced excellent 1969 crops on the East Bank. The wheat crop increased by close to 50 percent to about 260,000 tons and the barley crop reached 85,000 tons, nearly 55 percent larger than in 1968 . The West Bank produced about 70,000 tons of the wheat and 25,000 tons of the barley. While trade continues between the East and West Bank, it is nowhere near the prewar volume. Part of Jordan's vegetable and citrus crops never materialized due to the damage done to the East Ghor Canal. Daily fight¬ ing in this area kept most farmers from their fields. Damage to the canal curtail¬ ed the much needed water for the citrus, banana, and other crops grown in this area. Israel's cotton imports, however, have The relatively abundant rains aided dined and totaled 4,700 tons during this pastures which contributed to an increase riod. The United States supplied 9 percent in livestock and their products. 37 Agricultural Policy There have been no siginficant changes in Jordanian agricultural policy during the past year. Jordan does not have price sup¬ ports or subsidies except for wheat, mostly seed wheat. The purpose of the support price is largely to assure supply of seed wheat that may be sold to farmers. The price of locally produced tobacco is fixed by the government in conjunction with the cigarette industry. In 1969 the Agricultural Marketing Cor¬ poration (AMC) a concern of government, farmers, and merchants, was established to regulate the export of agricultural produce, primarily vegetables and fruits, and to pro¬ mote market development. Although this or¬ ganization is broadly based, it has to date dealt primarily with tomatoes. During the height of the tomato harvest, the AMC ar¬ ranged for the sale of about 6 tons of to¬ matoes daily to a processing plant in Iraq. Some 3,000 tons of tomatoes were sold to Iraq during the season. The AMC is also negotiating with the Royal Jordanian Airlines to reduce the costs of air shipping fruits and vegetables to Eu¬ rope and to the Arabian Gulf. Shipments of squash, melons, and sweet peppers to Europe during 1969 were encouraging. Assistance is being received from USAID in the fields of wheat production, and from the United Nations in the production of to¬ bacco and olives. Direct aid from the United States is being implemented in a pro¬ ject designed to develop and improve wheat farming in Jordan that will hopefully double the yields. Under consideration is a pro¬ ject to increase the yields of vegetables from improved varieties, better cultural practices, optimum use of irrigation water, and use of fertilizers and pesticides. The United Nations is also involved in other projects, including 8 in agriculture and related fields. Introduction of high- yielding drought-resistant varieties, crop rotation, use of fertilizers, use of insec- tides and farm machinery, improvement of livestock, and the improvement of range are among the aims of these projects in the de¬ velopment of Jordanian agriculture in rain- fed areas. The United Nations is also in¬ terested in increasing and improving the tobacco grown in Jordan with the introduc tion of high-yielding varieties and the e • tablishment of curing facilities. A pro¬ ject begun in early 1968 aims to enhance the effectiveness of the veterinary depai • ment and to control animal diseases. West Germany is providing insecticic: and vehicles as well as technical assis¬ tance in soil fertility, veterinary ser¬ vices, and irrigation. The United Kingdom is providing as¬ sistance in drilling wells and construct!; irrigation systems. Agricultural Trade The Jordanian import pattern should remain the same as in the past years for rice, sugar, tea, coffee, and other agri¬ cultural commodities not produced in Jor¬ dan. Trade in wheat, feedgrains, and otki commodities produced in Jordan depends on domestic production which in turn depends directly on growing conditions. The United States continues to be th major supplier of wheat to Jordan. In 1970 , an estimated 115,000 tons of wheat and wheat flour will be needed. Most, if not quite all, of the wheat imported by Jordan in recent years has come from the United States under the P.L. U80 program. The bulk of the flour has been supplied t United Nations Relief and Works Agency an other donors. (Michael E. Kurtzig) LEBANON Lebanon's agriculture was generally favored with abundant precipitation durin the 1969 growing season. There were some exceptions. The apple crop suffered hail damage in May. A December dry spell caus: maturing olive fruit to be more susceptab: to the Olive fly (dacus olea). And heavy rains caused delays in planting vegetable, lowering production from what might have been a record crop. The heavier rainfall did provide more moisture for forage grow and livestock had a good year. Because of a poor apple crop, agricu- tural production did not reach the level f the prior 2 years. To supply domestic re quirements, there were the normal imports 38 f agricultural items; wheat, as usual, led he list. In Lebanon's predominantly moun- ainous countryside, expansion of agricul- ure is limited, but agriculture still is a important contributor to the economy. It ontributes some 12 percent of the gross ational product, and employs nearly half f the labor force as well as supplying Dout half of the value of all exports. ;ricultural Production Lebanese farm output in 1969 slumped )out 11 percent to an index of 154 ( 1957 - ) = 100 ). Roughly two-thirds of agriculture's >ntribution to Lebanon's economy is provid- L by crops. Livestock, however, has been iking rapid strides in recent years. Com- ircial egg production has been stepped-up id fluid milk production has been increased trough modernization of some dairy farms. 1 1969 j better than average precipitation ■ovided good pasture conditions which were fleeted in a good calf, lamb, and kid ops and a resulting increase in red meat d milk. Despite the improvements, Leba- n's livestock industry is still undeve¬ loped and it is still a long way from eting domestic requirements. The market r broilers was erratic during 1968 and 69 . Therefore, broiler production, which recent years has been edging upward, in- eased only slightly. Egg production which s shown recent gains, held steady in 1969 . There have been no substantial changes the area planted to grains in the last years, except in 1969 corn acreage increas- slightly due to a government support of small hybrid seed corn program. The area der cultivation of grains is about 38 per¬ mit of the total cultivated area but it educes only about 15 percent of the domes- c cereal requirements. Wheat production, at 50,000 tons, was eve last year's crop, but well below the eduction in any of the previous 3 years. A large number of strains of new high- aiding Mexican varieties have been grown ier irrigation. These were experimental r a supply of seeds. This program was cried out by a U.S. foundation working th the government on a 10-year program for ;at and barley. In 1969 some 280 hectares (about 700 acres) were seeded to Mexipak and other varieties of Mexican wheat which produced 935 tons—just over 50 bushels per acre. In the fall of 1969 the Cereals Of¬ fice distributed 263 tons of the best yield¬ ing strains and an estimated 3,090 acres were seeded for commercial production of Mexipak. Lebanon farmers have taken considerable interest in a new strain of wheat called "Najah," developed locally. It is a higher yielding variety of dryland wheat that ma¬ tures early. Since it is a dryland wheat it does not compete directly with Mexipak; its taller straw is not as tough as Mexi¬ pak' s. Najah (which means success) was de¬ veloped by Dr. W. W. Worzella of the Ameri¬ can University of Beirut and has been tested for yield and other agronomic characteris¬ tics since 1962 . In late 1968, news of this variety was released to the public and some seed was distributed to farmers. Najah was specifically developed for Lebanese areas receiving about 16 inches of rain from November to May. However, it might well prove a good wheat for areas with similar conditions in the Middle East and around the world. 'Najah is light red and hard textured. When tested in 1964-66 Najah headed about a week earlier than the local wheats— Florence Aurore and Hurani—and contained l4.6 percent protein, which also topped the local wheat's protein content. Lebanon's barley, potato, and onion crops showed increases and were above aver¬ age crops. Sugarbeets and tobacco produced at about the same level as in 1968 , but many vegetables were affected because plant¬ ing was delayed by spring rains. The citrus fruit crop in Lebanon has changed little in recent years. Increases in production have been small but steady, and losses due to adverse weather have been more than offset by new bearing trees. This gradually growing production has brought increases in sales of fresh and processed fruit in both domestic and foreign markets. The 1969 crop of citrus was good in quality and size and a record crop despite hail damage in the spring. Preliminary figures listed 135,000 tons of lemons. Weather con¬ ditions were generally favorable with ample 39 rainfall during the growing season which was somewhat delayed. Lebanon's main fruit crop, apples, fared very poorly. The abnormally wet spring, the hailstorms, and hot winds re¬ sulted in serious damage of both the apple and the pear crop. The pear crop is never large but production dropped 70 percent be¬ low the 1968 crop. The apple crop at 70,000 tons—was only Ul percent of the 1968 crop. This drop in apple production was responsi¬ ble for the overall drop in agricultural production in 1969* The small apple and pear crop brought higher farm and consumer prices but generally apple prices in recent years have been so low that large and small growers have tended to reduce care such as pruning, thinning, spraying, and fertiliz¬ ing. Agricultural Policy Lebanon's Ministry of Agriculture al¬ located over $1.7 million of its 1970 pro¬ posed budget to agriculture of which more than half is earmarked for research. This total allocation is an increase of about $325,000 over the 1969 allocation and repre¬ sents about 30 percent of the total 1970 budget for agriculture. The rising cost of obtaining seasonal workers for sugarbeet production has prompt¬ ed the government to begin a 6-year program for experimental mechanization of sugarbeet production. For the first time, a support price of almost 8 cents per kilo was set in 1969 for hybrid corn. The Government Cereals Office supplied the hybrid seed. As mentioned above, the Cereals Office also has a 10 -year program to improve wheat and barley, and has been one of the countries of the Middle East that began early experimental work with high yielding varieties. In response to a request from Lebanon for assistance, the European Community has agreed to supply 15,000 tons of wheat which will be sold in Lebanon, the proceeds of which will be used for financing development projects. Foreign Trade Traditionally, Lebanon has had a net trade deficit. The latest available annual trade statistics show that in 1967 exports totaled about $143 million and imports amounted to around $474 million. Lebanon exports approximately a quarter of its agricultural production and this export amounts to about half of all exports. Apples, citrus, vegetables, and poultry products are the principal farm items sole and, for the most part, these go to Leba¬ non's Arab neighbors. Lebanon has had an upward trend in it marketing of fruit in recent years, but it has also had problems disposing of the lar ; apple crops. In 1968 the crop went beggin for markets, but the weather damage to the 1969 harvest reduced the amounts of apples marketed to just over 40 percent of the 1968 figure. During the 1960's Lebanon's pattern 0 imports changed very little, but since Jun 1967 there has been some shift in trade partners. The source of poultry feed has shifted from the United States to Western Europe. There has also been increased trading with Eastern Europe. At the pre¬ sent, however, at least two American pro¬ ducts enjoy preference—toasted soybean cake and tobacco. Trade policies and the trading system are relatively free of restrictions. There are no restrictions on payments of current accounts or on transfers of capital. Leban. has bilateral trade and payments agreement with several countries, mainly to promote exports of apples and citrus and to encou- age the use of Lebanon's free zone facili¬ ties . Lebanon has signed a trade and cooper tion agreement with the European Economic Community. This renewable pact includes exchange of products and coordination of techincal assistance. (H. Charles Treakle SYRIA Spring rains and flooding delayed ano reduced planting in some areas of Syria, resulting in shorter 1969 crops and the need to import wheat. A good portion of the agricultural oir put, which accounts for about one-third of the country's economic production, comes from farmed drylands and is thus subject tc igaries of the weather. In good crop years rria exports wheat and barley, but in years r poor harvests, the trade in these commod- ;ies can be reversed as it was for wheat in > 69 . Recent efforts have been made to reduce lese wide variations and upgrade yields. :w wells and small dams have been completed id others will soon be functional. These .11 provide enough water to add at least i 0,000 acres to the irrigated area. Other asures include preferential credit for .rmers and a wider use of fertilizer. ;ricultural Production Syria's estimated agricultural outturn 1969 was almost 6 percent less than in 68 and dropped to an index of 128 (1957- = 100 ). Wheat production has had a history of regular production. In its record year, 62, wheat production reached almost 1.2 llion tons but in the fairly good years of 64 and 1965 it produced 900,000 tons. In 69, despite predictions of an excellent op early in the season, the wheat harvest 600,000 tons was disappointing and re- ired imports to meet the normal consump- on requirements of about 800,000 tons per ar. Barley, though only a fair crop, was ported better than the 1968 crop. By No- liber 1 about 110,000 tons of barley had 3 n imported. The 1969 cotton crop dropped to 142,000 is compared with 153,000 tons in 1968. De- Lte this reduced outturn, a mid-October port indicated that the purchase price of Livered cotton had dipped 1.5 percent be- O cd -P 0 ■P p O 0 O -p -P 0 p •H p 0 p O 0 -p O -P 0 cd Q rO O O O 0 0 r -p P -P 1—1 0 3 ■p 3 1 O 0 ft 1 P ft 1 0 0 1 P ft 1 P cd -P p 1 4 0 H v. 0 TP O Tp •H cd K ft o O CO VO OJ OJ H OJ • ITS LAv VO VO VO Cd .00 CO H OJ CO Cd OJ -4 IAN IAN IAN CO -4 LT\ OO CO t— ON LO cvi - 3 " vo co H rl rl H VO O O CO LCN OJ CO o -4 vo c— 00 1—1 rl 1—I 1—I 1—I -4- L/NIA LA OJ o VO t— I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ON t— o LCN VO CO LA O ON CO VO c— O LCN VO LCN LTV ON VO CO -P H P ON -4 P P cd LAN vo p cd 0 0 | 1 CO O >- bD t— O vo [— On 0 cd IAN vo vo vo vo vo t- H IAN On CO LAN CO CO 1—I ON t— o OJ OJ 00 1—l OJ CO On On O ^ CO VO rH OJ OJ CO OJ OJ OJ OJ 01 -4 vo 00 -4 -4 -4 -4 oj|oj| ON ON IAN IAN C\J OJ o CO OJ r—I CO H 00 vo ON ON o CO IAN H CO CO O CO OJ OJ CO CO CO LAN o OJ r—I rH LAN LAN 1—I 1—I 1—I 1—I OOOO ON OO OO CO OJ OJ OJ OJ LOCO O OJ -4" -4" LO IAN ^IojIoj'Ioj'I LO o O O vo 10 vo vo OJ OJ OJ OJ OOOO CVl -4" LO -4 1—I rH 1—I rH LO -4- O VO [— LO O -4 OO ON O O H O LOCO oj co co ro OOOO O OJ h o O O OJ OJ OOOO ON O O O 1—I 04 ON CO-4 4 CO VO b— CO ON VO VO VO vo ON ON ON ON On OJ OOOO 00 O HO H H H H H H H O O OJ CO -4 LAN LAN CO OJ H On On OJ H H OJ t— O O O H CO OOOO OH O LA OJ On on on 4 oj co oj cd cd cd cd P P P P t— On CO OJ oj on -4 CO ON O ON On cd cd cd cd P P £ £ LAO O LA LAN LAS VO LAN OOOO [— OJ LA O OO -4 -4 LAN LAN LAN VO VO OOOO O O LAN m t- tH t— tH O O H ON o IAN VO co [— t— on h vo A— co On vo vo vo vo On ON On On LCN H VO IAN -4 H -4 CO On O H OJ CO - 4 " LAN O t-co t-t- CVJ 0 O 0 0 0 t— LAN O LAN LAN 0 Q\ LAn -4 on on iA\ ON ON O 0 0 0 00 -4 LAn t— t— 0 OJ t— ON OJ -4 LAN LAN -4 t— On ON 00 H OJ OJ OJ OJ on oj on r r> #N n r* ** #» #* ** 1—1 1—1 1—1 H H 1—1 H H H 1—1 1—1 H t— O OJ 0 O O vo IAN VO t— O ON OJ ON CO O -4 VO t— on O O cd cd OJ OJ OJ OJ On on co on ,4- ON t— ON OJ 00 on vo • • OJ OJ OJ OJ H r- P P Ol OJ on on OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 on t— On H on -4 on 1 1 OJ 2 2 2 H H OJ OJ OJ OJ H 1—1 1—1 H o co on t— -4 -4 LA LA IAN On on LAv oj oj m on CO CO O VO t— H OJ LAN OJ VO LAN VO co O OJ H on| on| cn| h h h on|on|on| o vo IAN VO VO OJ OJ vo t— co t— t— CO H O O II I I I I II I I I I b— co on m on on OJ -4-4 H VO LCN LAN VO LAN OJ LAn OJ OJ on CO H OJ LAN LAv t— VO O OJ t— -4 1—I OJ 1—I 1—I On-4 • • IAN VO 0 I I t»0 t— O cd lanvo P ON ON 0 i—I ■—I > < VO [—CO ON vo vo vo vo On On ON on H H H H 1*8 C\J 00 H H C\1 . .4 LON LT\ LfN LT\ • OJ CO t— t— CO cd -4 -4-4-4 4- I III I III OJ C\J OJ CM co r— -4 VO H VO -4 -4 o on on on H on o on o l/\ OJ on on on oo co on co h cm o h OJ OJ OJ OJ t— VO ON CO I I o on o on -4 -3" LAN VO OJ CO IA O VO OJ CM tH c*- I I I I I I I I H i—I OJ OJ on o LA LA OJ CO LON CO hvo on o O OJ IN- VO i—I OJ i—| OJ On -3" >• IAN VO V I | i) t"- o Cd LfN VO ^ On on 5 ; h h % VO o— on LAN on o On on oo On On o i—I i—I i—I i—I OJ H tN- LAN-4 on on on on IAN -4 OJ -4 II I I I I II I I I I -4 OJ CM CM H H VO co O OJ IAN OJ O IAN O O O O O O O i—I i—I i—I rH IN— vo on on 4 OJ t— VO VO O IAN On IAN t— IAN VO CO 4 4 4*4 4 IN- CM O ht^CO o ON VO t—GO VO VO VO VO On ON On On r—I r—I I—I I—| ON 4 •• LfN tr— C vo ^-CO on vo vo vo vo On On on on i— l i—I i—l i—I o o on 4 H4 O ON H on o 4 vo vo t-— vo C\J VO IAN D— co on on OO oo co 4 oo on co OJ OJ oj on LAH H4 -4 CO 4 LA LA LA in- oj LAN O 0 0 OJ vo O co 0 0 t— cn on 4 on on LAN VO O OJ 0 00 H OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ -4 VO 00 H On 1—1 A A A A OJ OJ oj on oj on ON IN— O IAN CVJ LAN ON OJ IAN CO on 0 1 —1 OJ on oj OJ OJ CO CO t— co On on OJ OJ OJ CVJ OJ OJ -4 C VO VO on on co t— CO ON OJ O OJ O O O O 0 ON H LAN t— on -4 LfN O H -4 O IAN on on 1—1 1—1 H OJ on on O (4 CO O O 0 0 vo on IAN tN- OJ VO t— O O -4 CO 0 0 vo vo CO t'~— -4 ON A A vo vo on 4 •• IAN VO CD I I tiO t— o cd LfN VO i On On CD H H i> c 0 OJ ON on 0 LfN t— IAN -4 IAN co OJ D'— ON O 0 0 1—1 A A A A 1-1 1-1 1—1 1-1 OJ CO OJ OJ ON vo VO O -4 vo IAN r— H OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ on cvj ON ON cn 00 IAN O IAN O O 0 -4 4 OJ VO H O 0 vo VO t'~ H -4 vo co ON 0 H H O H OJ on on on VO IAN OJ Oj LfN O -4 C\J 00 VO H O 1—1 H H on oj OJ OJ OJ OJ VO CO on -4-4 LAN 0 on O -4 LAN LAN AAA A A -=*1 on on -4 -4-4 -4 in- t— CO CO CO CO IAN >4 on LAN O O OJ vo 0 0 LAN 0 H vo OJ on vo LAN LAN LAN IAN OJ LAN OJ on 1—1 OJ OJ OJ vo 0 4 LAN 4 0 LAN ON OJ LAN H VO lan on LAN OJ CO O H H H 1—1 H H 1—1 1—1 OJ VO l AN -4 OJ LAN LAN ON OJ vo LfN 4 A A ** AAA A A oj on -4 LAN -4 00 on -4 t— CO CO t— -4 -4 vo vo tH t4 t— [N- ON OJ OJ OJ H 0 -4 on oj vo On LfN t— H O VO H 1—1 H oj on VO CO VO -4 IAN vo H -4 OJ O H 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 H H OJ OJ OJ OJ vo C^co On vo vo vo vo ON ON ON ON -4 OJ -4 H CO t— OJ OJ CO ON CO -4 o- o h h on on c— co t-vo hvo LA H VO C'— CO OJ on IAN VO VO IN- lN~ -4 H H H O O co on on on o t— LAN VO VO LfN VO LfN OJ vo IAN C On OJ OJ ian H OJ i—I -4 co 4 4 on H on co 4 c— O OJ OJ A A A A H OJ CM CM On on t— oj o on on o VO ON VO O I s - OJ -4 0 ON VO ho o on 4 on LA LA LAN LfN IAN LAN CO 0 cn cn 0 co -4 LAN -4 O 0 0 in— 0 00 H LfN In— C\J LAN OJ OJ H OJ ON OJ -4 LAN VO t— A A A A A 1-1 H H 1-1 1-1 0 0 O 0 oj on On O VO ON 0 co O 0 LAN OJ on cn LAN LAN 0 0 O 1—1 ON O O 1—1 O H 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 H 1—1 1—1 1—1 0 0 O 0 O CO on LAN LfN r— 0 0 O 0 H on tN- LAN OJ 0 LfN OO LfN VO vo tN- -4 1—1 On 1—1 A A on cn cn cn LAN LAN LfN VO LAN VO 0 0 0 0 CO 0 CO LAN -4 ON 0 0 0 0 H t-— O VO H C\J OJ O -4 cn 1—1 4 00 H OJ LAN co o\ 00 00 H H OJ IAN IAN -4 H H 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 3 ON -4 •• LfN VO CD I I tiO C'- o Cd IAN vo $-» On On CD i—I i—I < VO t— CO on vo vo vo vo On On On On 1*9 1/ Data for 1969 are preliminary. 2/ Oranges and tangerines only. 3/ Oranges, lemons, and grapefruit. k/ 1959 only. = None or negligible, n.a. = Not available. -4 -4 -4 OJ 00 COCO o 1—1 ! ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OJ OJ 00 C— -4 i — 1 i — 1 i — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -4 CO vo l r\ OJ -4 OJ On O 0J CO o ,4- 00 -4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -4 LTN LTN O H tH-4 O -4 -4 VO i — 1 i — 1 i — 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 1—1 vo o LTV t— OO UN 00 COCO CO H CO VO LTN VO 11 12 OHO i — 1 i—1 i — 1 LTN H 00 ON i — 1 i — 1 0-4 0 t- O -4 OJ OJ CVJ on|co| co|oo|co| H H i—1 | j 1 1 1 1 1 1 H OJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0J OJ CO-4 -4 CO 00 CO -4- VO COCO OJ H H OJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 -4 OJ CO -4 OJ OJ OJ ttt — OJ 0J CVJ VO On OJ OJ CO IA A CJ OJ OJ ON 00 00.4- OJ 00-4 -4-4-4 LTN O OJ OJ 00 On co CM H H -4 -4 OJ OJ O OJ OJ 00 00 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 OJ H 00 LT\ -4" vo I s - vo vo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 On I s - OJ on O O A LTN LTN LTV 1,731 2,035 -4 O LTN -4 O ION 00 00 CO OJ OJ OJ ON t~- LTN LTN O I/O o LTN t— CO -4 0J OJ OO 00 c— t*— On LAN o o vo 0 O co t— 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 CO CO 00 OJ 00-4 -4-4-4 -4 ON IT\ OJ H OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 VO H O H 00 vo vo vo -4- 00 -4- LTN O O LTV I s — t-CO ON ON ON I s - O 00 OJ OJ 2,711 2,777 2,815 LTN OJ CO LTN I s - ON O CO CO ON 1,338 1,373 1,533 1,572 1,605 O CM IA C\J -4" VO H H H r—1 H H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 675 1,035 VO -4 O t*— i—1 -4 H ON ON i—1 ON CO t— rH OO _4 o o o OJ LTN r- -4-4-4 00 LAN I s - c- 00 ^ o o o C\J 00 -4 L/\ LAN LAN 0J OJ OJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO ,4 OJ co OJ LTN LTN -4 VO -4 CO vo O H OO 00 H vo 00 CO ,4 VO 00 00 00 122 199 I s — IA\ IAN -4 VO VO 00 OO 00 o co c\j vo C\J CM o o o O H CM co co co ii ill ii ill LTV CO On CO O OJ 00 CO -4 l/\ VO VO H t— CO i—I CM -4 H 00 00 o o -4 vo ir\ CO -4 VO C— CM O O O IA o 0J 00 -4 -4 LAN CO o o o LTV VO LTV VO VO I s - oo ir\ t— C\J OJ OJ 00 o 0J C"— vo o o o LAN 00 H VO I s - O OJ O O O Lf\ VO On I s - i—1 00-4 O O LAN I s -CO 00 H VO ON O H CO LAN OJ OJ H H o 00 1—1 o oo C\J H ON LAN LAN i—1 H i—1 I s - VO t— b— I s - LAN _4 -4 -4 IAN -4 OJ OO 00 OO LAN CM 00 00 00 O O LTN H -4 O O o -4 i—1 CO H LTN -4 00 O o o 00 oo -4 VO O H OJ co o o LAN VO VO OO CO CO o IA\ H OO -4 O ON OJ 00 -4 IAN VO H CO OJ O LAN O 00 CO o o OJ OJ OJ vo vo t— co CO OJ OJ 00 00 CVJ H H i —1 H H H H OJ OJ CM H OO VO VO -4 0J t— co vo o 4- CM H CM 0J CM On -4 ON -4 On -4 -P ON 4 On -4 •• L/N VO • • IAN VO LAN VO CO LAN VO LAN VO c > d t> PT > >5 > rd < co < •H < O < d < -P rd d > 0 w o o H 51 Continued Table k. —Africa: Production of selected agricultural commodities, by country, averages 1957-59 and 1960-64, annual 1967 - 69 —Continued G O -P -P o o I I I I I I I I m vo vo cvj vo -d t— H CM -d- LTNVO V rH rH CVJ rH rH OJ C\J CVJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H oj -d- -d- on on LA vou o LA LA VO LA LA I I I I I I I I I I I la lA- d- la t—\D VO LA CVJ 1—I f—I 1—I 1—I 1—I C\J CVJ OJ OJ c II III II III G O TJ -P -P 0) O 0 O I I I I H CM VO VO VO VO On VO O OJ la on co -d CM h oj on-d- -d On CO § 0 CM on on oj oj oj oj o CO LTN LT\ on on ^j- on on c—-d PfOO H on vo oj p- VO CO On rH On O O rH O OJ I I 1 p cd is 1 bD cd P P 0 CO G O -P 0 0 G O cd *H •H G ^ cd P CD C -p -P G cd G 0 d d G m h P 0 0 0 0 P p 1—1 -p •H 1 O I I I I ON rH OJ t"— CO CO VO LTN LTN VO VO On H VO CO -d LTN On OOO I—I I—I I—I CO _d O LA in ltn on c— vo vo rH rH rH rH rH VO On ltn I I rH 1 —I OJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II III II III I I I I I I rH VO unco C OH ON OO L' d in h- b-c: H| 1 H on on LTN LA vo CVJ 000 O t- H CM on 1 CVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ vo LA VO ON 1 1 1 1 1 VO LA vo vo vo 0 O PH rG O 0| -P P P 1 on on nt -d -d - 1 1 1 1 1 O O 1 cd 1 t*— CO LTN O on 0 0 OOO b- r- 0 cm on O CM OOO 1 O CVJ CVJ CO on tH- CO O H -d b— -d -d- -d -d- CO VO LA LA LA 0 CVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ CVJ VO CO ON On On H H 1 —1 1 —1 H H H H H 1 —1 0 cd 1 u^|m| ir\| ir\| ir\| 0 1 1 VO LTN CVJ CVJ on on cvj -d- O O LA VO -d- CM -d- ON ON CM O O 1 IN- LTN LTN LTN LA VO O LA t— t— C'— LA ON 0 H H CVJ -d- -d- H 1 —1 H H H H •H cd 1 *> r' r\ fG pH 1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—It—1 1 ON CM O O LA G P 0 bD G H 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 co c— on LA b— I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VO C— co t— co P d H O -H 1 w a 1 1 O on on OOO t— H 0 on _d VO LA vo 0 0 G 1 —1 1 —1 1—1 vo 00 On ON ON on On co vo LA C“— vo VO P P O 1 O 1 -P 1 cd 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l | J 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o •H oj vo mine OJ vo o t- - H H OJ CVJ C II II II II on vo b— itn \s OJ H C. - co la _d vo r~ VO t— LfN NO t- r-— la inoc CVJ O l/N-d 0 on on 01 CVJ o c—co c— vo On O OHO On rH - : . p cd 0 !>> ON-d- •• LTN VO 0 I I bD t— O cd LTN VO P ON ON 0r—I 1—I > < t-CO ON vo vo VO ON ON ON 1—I 1—I 1—I ■s PH 0 CG 0 cd P bD 0 cd i> < ON-d •• LTN VO 0 I I bD C— O cd LA VO ON ON 3 tr-oo On vo vo VO ON ON ON 1—I 1—I 1—I ON-d •• l/N VO 0 I I -d- bo t— o cd LTNVO •H P ON On I? 0 1—I 1—I cd > c t— co vo vo ON ON ■d ON-d- .. LTNVO 0 I I bD t— o Cd LTV VO P ON On 0 H H > t- CO ON VO VO VO On On ON H H H On -d .. l/n VO 0 I I bD t- O Cd LTNVO C On On 0 H H > < t-co 0 \0 VO V£ 0\ O' 0 H H r- 52 CO J o OnVO l r\ CM OJ OJ c— co on vo vo VO ON ON On CO LTN ON O CM t- H O 00 t— O 00 CM vo VO CM oo ON A CO CM i—1 CO ON i—1 i—1 CM CM rH CM LTN CM t— LTN CM C\J 00 LA o LTN t O CM 00 LTN vo 00 00 00 C— CM A H OO 1 1 1 t— tN- 00 OO c*— 1 1 | A CO VO -3- CM O H rH rH rH i—1 i—1 i—1 i—1 i—1 o co O CO oo H CO CO t^- On o CO co CO CM CM rH i—1 CM CM CO CO H H r. r\ o 00 ON CO CO CO CO vo O CM t— H VO C- H H CM CO A on c*— co CO CO CO CO CO I I I On -M- A VO I I ) t— o LTN VO ON ON IN— LTN LTN H -=t O O 00 O CM t^- O ON VO VO LTN CO O 00 OO ON II III II III II III II III On H CM on II III II III I I I A CM 00 CM rH CO 00 vo o VO ON 00 CM OO 00 00 vo o o 00 vo oo 00 J LTN 00 LTN -=t LTN O H CO CO ON o CO oo H 00 00 ON CM H O CM H CM CM CM CM -Cj- CM -M" LTN LTN ~=t -d" A ON O O VO LTN C"— t— LTN VO -M- VO -=t VO o CM 00 CM o o CO O A A ON O O CO CM CO CO ^=t VO A CO CO A CM rH CM CM CM i—1 i—1 CM CM CM O CO O O CM VO A VO CO A A-^t O O A AAA O CO ON-3- O -=t a A CM CM n «> rH rH CO CO CO CO CO CO CM CO 1,032 1,080 1,219 1,219 1,219 t— co H vo vo c— ON O LTN t— LA t— CM CM CM O O O O O O O in H vo oo r— H CM CM CM CO l/N 00 rH H CM CO LTN A CO A -3- CM 00 i—I i—I i—I 00 LTN LTN LA 00 J- VO tN- oo 00 -=t ON rH CM OO l/N A O LTN CM LAN VO -M" VO VO O LA CO CM -cf oo i i i l/N CM O H H CM CM CM CM CM O On I—1 ON o ON to o VO o ON i—1 IN- ON 1—1 A CM rH 1 1 III CNJ On V0 H C— II III co A vo vo tN- A VO CO CM CM 1 1 ill O O A VO VO || III H i—1 1—1 1—1 i—1 k n 1—1 1—1 i—1 1—1 i—1 rH i—1 i —1 i—1 i—1 H C— t— O H CO CO On O O -3" l/N O i—I i—I l/N L/N VO VO VO CO rH CO o O vo ON vo ON CO on rH ON rH rH CO CO 00 VO CM CM VO O CO tN-CO t- -=t O O CM O H H -=t -d- O O H 00 00 00 O H CM i—I i—I i—I IN— co ON vo vo vo On On on i—I i—I i—I ON -=t •• LA VO _,OII CC3 bD IN- O •H Ctf LA VO W ON ON (D CD i—I i—I r o {> O < ON A VO On -=t A VO ^ OO ON vo vo vo On On On rH rH i—I CD 1 1 CD 1 1 bO IN- o b- CO Q\ bD IN- O cti A VO VO VO vo rH Cd A VO U On ON ON On ON CD u ON ON CD i—1 i—1 i—1 i—1 1—1 bD CD 1—1 i—1 t— oo ON vo vo VO ON ON On I—I I—I I—I ON -rt •• A vo CD I | bD t- o cd A VO ^ ON ON o f— 1 (—| £ co ON VO VO VO On On On 53 -Continued Table 4.—Africa: Production of selected agricultural commodities, by country, averages 1957-59 and I 96 O- 6 L, annual 1967-69—Continued § cm| c\J| 1 P- ON on ian on on 00 CM VO H ft - 4 - P- CM 0 co 1 1 1 1 1 cm on OO OO ON II III II | cd > 1 ON O CO LTN LTN 1 | 1 1 1 III II 1 bi) cd r> r> r' r' ft ft 03 1 —1 H r1 1 —1 CO ft O -P CO ft O ON H CM -4 O CM P~ O LA LA VO -4 LTN LPv LAN 1 1 1 1 1 co 0 P— P— CO || III II 1 •o cd ft 1 1 1 1 1 p— co 00 00 OO || III II 1 g -P -P CO ft 0 d a ft O O W O OOP vo ON -4 -4 O P- IAN O LA O rH P- ft on on on cm h rH CM (—1 ON H H CM II III 00 00 P- ft 1 —1 on -4 IAN IAN IAN r—1 1 —1 rH II 1 1 1 * 0 TJ O TJ •H cd ft ft LAN C\J OJ r—I C\J CM m os o On CM -4 H CM CM on h on ,4 On r-H 1 —I VO LPv f— O P- on cm 00 on vo CM H CM p- 00 cm co on on H -4 O on ~=t -4 on t-4 CM H4 j- cm on ^ on -4 p- co On co on la H H CM mn 4 LPv CM cm on f—I CM 000 O LPv O on cm m II III II III CM O -4 LT\ 00 CM on -4- IPs -4 on on co o o -4- CO on cm rH LAN-4 -4 0-4 cm on - 4 - on on co on p- o\ o •H H H CM CO rH -4 LTN O 1—I H •—I rI IA t- OO LPv LTN CO 00 CO H H H ON VO LTV ON CM OO LAVO LA P- O CM VO CM CM -4 P- OJ -4 o on CO CM CM cm vo on VO H LA t— on on On LAN-4 ON CM O 00 P- CM o cm on CM rH CM CM -4 vo vo vo on 0 On LAN CM on 0 vo vo vo CM VO a vo co cm on rH CO on on-4 on -4 CM CM on on on on on -4-4-4 CM IAN 0 CM 0 0 0 0 LAN O on co OOO ON (—1 on on -4 0 CM CM cm on On LAN 1 —1 rH CM 1 1 1 rH 0 0 1 — 1 1 — 1 on on -4-4-4 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 rH rH on LAN IAN O LAN rH CM O O rH 1 1 1 1 1 co 0 rH CM CM rH rH CM CM CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rH 1 — 1 rH rH 1 1 LAN IAN O 0 0 CO CO LA\ O LAN O P~ O O CM -4 on CVJ CO OO -4 IAN VO P- rH -4 LPv LAN H CO On ON ON 00 LAN CM h on ON O 1 — 1 rH 1 —1 rH 0 r. rH rH CM 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 rH rH rH LTN O O CM O p- vo O O LAN rH LPv VO O CM -4 on rH -4 on LAN IAN IAN on vo O rH rH P- P- P- P- P- LAN LAN P- P- P- on LAN O on on LPv P- P- -4 LPV CVJ cm on ON ON O on on on 1 1 1 1 1 h on CO 1 1 —1 1 1 1 1 1 IAN -4 CVJ ft r\ -p r d ro cd ft ft ft (D 0 0 ON -4 ON -4 On-4 ON -4 On -4 ft d !>s •H • • LAN VO • • IAN VO •• LAN VO •• IAN VO LPv VO O ft 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 pc. O ft •H bO P- O p- co ON bO P- O P- CO ON cd bO p- 0 P- CO on bO P- O P- co ON bO P- O ft > > O > •rl > ft 0 < 'ft < ft < bO < ft < O ft ro O ft c n CQ EH EH Eh 5^ m .4 VO VO vd -4 VD VD H cm m VD HH H H CM H t— CO O co VD VO t*— t~“ m.4 onon h i—1 iH 1 1 t'- 0J CM VD OO -4 -4 _4 -4 LA 1 1 t—CO ON O H H i—1 O 4 ON co on i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CM CO CM O H i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LA CO ON CO On VD CM ON LA -4 t- 4 oo on 4 - VO CO VD i i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OJ LA VD H CM H rH i—1 i—1 i i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VD CO O o o i—1 H H cd CVJ ,4 LA LA 4 On LA 0— VD O VD H CM LA •H i i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 LA ON O VD CO rO i i 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i—1 i—1 CM H H IS] np t- H on on VD O CO GO VD -3- VD i—1 i—1 VD CM CM 4 VD t— O LA LA § CM on LA LA CM -4 LA LA LA H CM CM 1 1 O H i—1 O -4 r—1 rH rH rH CG GO t— t- ON 1 1 LA VD t— ON CM •H i—1 i—1 H H CM s ■d s on O OJ CM on LA on on vd VD 4 H LA LA CO VD h t"- on H CM VD o 4 o t— t— on 4 on on on 4 (H ON ON ON i—1 CM H 4 -zi- VD -4 on G rH CM H H 1—1 on o i—1 VD H •H on^ -4 on 4 cd > cd LA O ^ On OJ CM O CM t— LA t— ON cn r—1 LA LA LA i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 I | cm cm on o i—1 o VD cn rH rH rH rH i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CM VD VD on 4 cd rs •> r r> o H i—1 CM CM CM -P Ph CD o OJ O O O LA On LA CO O CM LA CO on on X LA 0 - CO o LA LA VD VD E"— 1 1 1 1 1 I | 1 1 1 O H CM 4- O 0 rH CM CM on 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 LA LA CO cn on on on on cm on -4 -4 -4 Ph H rH rH i—1 H o P o ON ON 1—1 -4 CO f — 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CM O i—1 On CM 1—1 1 i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -4 CO CM h on cd i—1 i—1 CM CM CM P O t*- O O LA O CM vd on oo CO ON CO CO CO on on cm cm on on on t— CM On >> H sD CO CO CO LA t— cm on on 4 4 4 4 4 VD ON VD CO LA G ON ON On ON on -4 LA LA LA 4 co LA VD VD • O r r r\ r> g O H on on on > G CM CM CM CM CM o O X cn •H OJ O LA LA ON o O O H CM o on LA LA CO H VD co co . -P O H CM CM CM i i 1 1 1 cm on on on on CO LA 4 4 4 CM VD ON 0— LA p 0 P rH H H rl i i 1 1 1 H H i—1 i—1 H H VD on CM LA cd cn -- — r\ r> r. 0 ♦H O la|la| la| la| la| LA VD CM CM VD CM VD VD CM CM W S s P Ph r. ** is r\ o •H P rH '—1 CM CM CM -4 LA VD VD VD ft 0 0 bD •H R 0 G Cm O ON O O O O CM LA CO LA H on o o o OO o on ON CM -p •H •H G •H O o D) O H H 00 IN¬ H H CM CO H LA04 1 1 1 l 1 LA LA VD O O X G 0 ■D t— t — C— LAND CO CO CO co On ON On On l 1 1 1 1 on oo -4 CO H £ •H pH cn #« IS ** «s n bD cn d) cm on VD on LA 0) H H 1—1 H H p X cn P CD cn r—1 OJ -4 on P 0 O O O LA O O O H CO O O la O VD CO LA t— LA ON tH On la r> cd i—1 G On H OJ CM CO CM O O LA on 4 LA CM 4 on LA t— 4 CM On t- O CO LA cn 0 H OJ cn on on LA CO on on on rH rH Hi — 1 H H i — 1 on cm cm cm on O t— H 0 >> p o i—1 i—1 CM OJ CM CM -4 i—1 LAND -p bD >> • O CO CO O H H LT\ LA LA o m -4- O C\J VO -4 CM ON lf\ LA CO ON CO t— 4 x On -4 cd On -4 ON -4 On -4 D cd LA VD -P • • LA VD v. LA VD .. LA VD 1 P CD 1 1 r—1 (U 1 1 -j-1 cd LA VO VD VD VD cd LA VD VO VD VD vd cd LA VD VD VD VD On ON ON ON X P ON ON On On ON P ON ON ON ON ON cd P ON ON ON ON ON P ON On ON On ON H H H i—1 CD CD H H H H H p ,g > cd > •H < Ph < < -p < P Ph CD o D D IS] E-t -P M G G -P • 0) P O O G O (D cc •H •H P H > 6 -P -P O ,D cn O O • O »H CD P P P bD r X o H -H cn -P O O •H O H R P P -P -P bD Cu P Ph Pi o cn 0 o p •H G O 0) H TJ i—1 o i —l cd o P o CD X •H p Cm O o p cd o Ph o cd -p p 0 cn cd p o R H P cd o R -P Q -P -p a CO cd X O o o Q W O Eh Eh II h | cvi | on| 1 ltn|vo | i ERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 970— 394-381/ERS-79 55 i U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 POSTAGE & FEES PA© UniV%4 Stotti Dtportmwt of Agriculture E RS-Foreign 294 r U'ilVrP^ry pr / , • ■ , AJ-V ’ THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE Review of 1969 and Outlook for 1970 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE Washington, D.C. ■ ABSTRACT: Canadian agricultural production continued a re¬ covery trend in 1969, but 1970 wheat output is expected to be cut back sharply in face of an unprecedented buildup in stocks. Latin American production exceeded the 1968 record despite poor weather in some areas, particularly Mexico, Central America and Chile. Large world supplies continued to restrict Hemisphere wheat exports. But Latin American exports were higher due to increases in feedgrains, cotton, coffee, cocoa beans and meat. U.S. agricultural exports to the region were below high 1968 levels partly because of the shipping strike, but are expected to recover in 1970. KEY WORDS: Agricultural production and trade in Canada, Latin America. FOREWORD This annual review of the Western Hemisphere Agricultural Situation supplements World Agricultural Situation: Review of 1969 and Outlook for 1970 , FAER 57. er 1969 regional reviews are being published for Western Europe, the Communist Areas, ica and West Asia, and the Far East and Oceania. s report omits the Agricultural Situation of the United States and Cuba which is ered in other situation and outlook statements of the Economic Research Service, tern Hemisphere as used in the report, unless specified otherwise, refers to Canada 23 Latin American countries. Values are in U.S. dollars. All tons are metric, 04.6 pounds; hectares are equivalent to 2.471 acres. Data in the report may differ m that used in the World Agricultural Situation due to the later publication date. Howard L. Hall, Assistant Branch Chief and Leader of the Situation and Outlook tion, directed and coordinated preparation of the report. Others participating in- ded Gae A. Bennett, Wilbur F. Buck, Mary S. Coyner, Anna P. Dilkes, Richard M. nedy, John D. McAlpine, Rena E. Perley, Samuel 0. Ruff, and Betty J. Thomas U.S. Agricultural Attaches for Western Hemisphere countries provided background the report through annual situation and commodity reports. William R. Gasser, Chief Western Hemisphere Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division iii CONTENTS Page Summary... . . . . 1 North America. ....... . 2 Canada. 2 Mexico ..... . . 3 Caribbean. 5 Central America.. 6 South America. 6 Argentina. • 6 Brazil. 8 Chile... 9 Colombia. 10 Ecuador. ....... . ...» 11 Peru. 11 Uruguay. .. 12 Venezuela. . 13 Other South America. .. 13 Appendix Tables. .. 15 Table 1. Population, gross national product, and gold and foreign exchange holdings of Western Hemisphere countries and regions, annual 1968-69 . 15 Table 2. Indices of total and per capita volume of agri¬ cultural and food production. Western Hemisphere countries and regions, 1967-69. 16 Table 3. Fertilizer use, in nutrient equivalent, for Western Hemisphere countries, average 1962-66 and annual 1967 and 1968. 17 Table 4. Area and production of selected agricultural products by principal Western Hemisphere countries or regions, annual 1967-69. 18 Table 5. Production of selected agricultural products by principal Western Hemisphere countries or regions, annual, 1967-69 ... 20 Table 6. Total agricultural exports and imports of selected Western Hemisphere countries, annual value, 1964-67 21 Table 7. Exports and imports of selected agricultural com¬ modities by principal Western Hemisphere countries or regions, annual 1967-69. 22 Table 8. International coffee agreement export quotas and U.S. sugar import quotas, selected years. 24 Table 9. U.S. agricultural trade with Western Hemisphere countries and dependencies by value, average 1960-64, annual 1966-69 . 25 Table 10. U.S. agricultural exports to the Western Hemisphere, principal export categories, 1965-69. 26 Washington, D.C. 20250 April 1970 iv THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE SUMMARY Canada'8 farm output continued a significant recovery in 1969. Latin American pro- iction was moderately above the 1968 record but per capita output declined for the »cond successive year. Large world wheat supplies caused Canadian farm exports to imble but Latin American exports were up again in 1969. The region's agricultural im- >rts continued to rise in response to increased income and strong food demand. How¬ ler, U.S. agricultural trade with the Hemisphere countries was below high levels of a sar earlier, partly because of the shipping strike in early 1969. The Hemisphere's )70 exports may be lower for wheat and cotton with a possible rise in other commod- :ies; some recovery is anticipated for U.S. agricultural trade with the region. Excellent growing conditions resulted in bumper Canadian harvests of grains and ilseeds in 1969 but livestock output was lower. In Mexico, cotton plantings were re- iced and bad weather contributed to sharp production losses in corn and other late- irvested crops. Recoveries in Central America's coffee and sugar production were off- st by its cutback in cotton and by hurricane damage to its banana and late-season food :ops. Sugar output gained in the Dominican Republic where moisture conditions were im- roved but was off in Jamaica and Peru due to early drought. Dry spells cut back lile's 1969 food harvests. In Brazil, reduced plantings and midyear drought reduced >rn production; but coffee production recovered and 1969 harvests of cotton, cocoa ►ans, and wheat exceeded previous records. Argentina’s oilseed crops were again hit r poor weather. The Republic's wheat and corn production was higher and its sorghum rains and meat reached record production highs. Led by a shortfall in Canadian shipments. Hemisphere wheat exports dropped 20 per- »nt below the reduced 1968 total. A strong recovery in the Argentine trade boosted unisphere corn exports about 10 percent above the 1968 low. Cotton shipments were up >re than 20 percent, reflecting a large carryover. Coffee exports gained slightly and >coa bean and beef movements were near record. The Hemisphere's sugar trade dropped >out 8 percent in 1969 partly due to reduced supplies in Peru. Banana exports were Lightly below the 1968 high. Hemisphere wheat and rice imports were down slightly >llowing a 1968 buildup of supplies in some countries. But purchases of feedgrains, its and oils, and other food commodities moved to higher levels. Expanding industrial production and exports during 1969 helped maintain a rising :onomic growth trend in Canada. Growth slowed in Mexico due to the dropoff in agri- llture. But rate gains in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, and the Dominican ^public more than offset lower rates in Nicaragua, Venezuela and others. For the 22 itin American countries, real growth in gross domestic product (GDP) likely neared 6.3 srcent in 1969, compared with 5.9 percent in 1968. The Hemisphere trend toward mone- »ry stability was strengthened by gains in exports, tourist earnings, and capital in- Lows. Foreign exchange reserves moved to higher levels in Canada, Brazil, Chile, slombia, and Venezuela. A prospective falloff in trade may weaken the Canadian :onomy in 1970, but Latin American growth should continue near recent high levels. Due to an unprecedented buildup in supplies, Canadian wheat probably will undergo drastic production cutback in 1970. Latin America's wheat production will remain at ilatively low levels despite continued expansion in Brazil. With bumper feedgrain i harvests forecast for Argentina and Brazil, Hemisphere supplies may be record high th year. Cotton exports will reflect sharply reduced availabilities in Mexico and Centr America. Because of severe 1969 frosts, Brazil's new coffee crop will be one of its smallest. And its reduced carryover is expected to maintain upward pressure upon wor coffee prices. Hemisphere imports of grains, fats and oils, meat, dairy and other ag cultural products are expected to increase in 1970. As a result, U.S. agricultural e ports to the region should recover and possibly exceed the 1968 high of about $1.1 billion. NORTH AMERICA Canada Canadian agricultural output continued to rise in 1969. An expanded rate of economic activity was supported by increased investment, larger exports, and a high level of consumer spending. Real GDP growth was near 5 percent, moderately above the year-earlier advance and about twice the 1967 rate. The strong rate of business ex¬ pansion apparently weakened late in 1969 in the face of climbing prices and interest rates. Inflation and some prospective slackening in exports point to a lower rate of economic growth in 1970. Rising incomes lifted consumer expenditures slightly above the high 1968 level. The economy was strengthened by investment expansion for plant and equipment, partic¬ ularly in the petroleum and metals processing industries. The real value of industrii output rose 5 percent compared with a 1968 gain of 4.5 percent. The unemployment ratt declined early in 1969, but later increased to near the year-earlier rate of 5 perceni Growing inflation plagues government and monetary authorities. Economic growth was bolstered by automotive exports, principally to the United States, which exceeded the 1968 high by more than one-third. Despite sharply reduced sales of agricultural products, total 1969 exports surpassed the previous year's recoi by about 10 percent. Gains in exports were overshadowed by larger imports. The rise in foreign exchange reserves was also limited by deficits in travel and other service* There are signs that heavy industrial investment may continue in 1970. However, exports probably will be limited by the economic slowdown in the United States which accounts for about two-thirds of Canada's foreign sales. Despite Canada's efforts to control inflation, rising prices may contribute to an economic slowdown and GDP growth could be as low as 3 percent. Farm output continued to rise in 1969. The index of agricultural production was estimated at 142, up about 5 percent from the previous year (1957-59=100). With grow¬ ing conditions generally favorable, the crop index increased 9 percent despite a de¬ cline in seeded area. Livestock output dropped 2 percent below the 1968 peak because of reduced cattle and hog numbers and some rebuilding of herds. A cold, wet spring delayed planting of 1969 crops in the Prairie Provinces. An¬ ticipating lower prices, farmers there diverted much acreage from wheat to other grair and oilseed crops and to a record summer fallow area. Post-planting growing condition in that region were unusually good and yields of wheat and feedgrains were almost records. Wet weather reduced production and quality of some crops in eastern Canada including corn, soybeans, and potatoes. Sharply reduced wheat board payments to Prair: producers contributed to a 13-percent decline in total Canadian crop receipts. Return from livestock increased 5.5 percent. Farm operating costs continued to rise and net farm income fell by 10 percent to reverse an uptrend several years in progress. 2 Despite a 15-percent reduction in Canadian plantings, the 18.6 million-ton wheat :op was exceeded only in 1963 and 1966. The harvest, added to the large August 1 »rryover of 23 million tons, raised 1969/70 (August-July) supplies 45 percent above ie year-earlier record. Wheat feeding requirements for the current year are limited r large supplies of other feedgrains, and domestic requirements are estimated near the 168/69 level of 4.5 million tons. Current exports are running below the reduced rates : a year earlier. To relieve the paralyzing surplus, the government recently set up $100 million subsidy program to shift three-fourths of the country's 12.1 million >ctares of wheat land to forage crops and fallow for 1970/71. Producer delivery iotas for the 1969/70 crop will depend upon compliance with the program. Corn production fell 10 percent in 1969 but the barley harvest was up sharply from ie 1968 record. Smaller increases were reported for oats and mixed grains. Total sedgrain production rose 7 percent to 17.4 million tons and 1969/70 (August-July) ipplies of 24 million tons exceeded the previous year's record by about 16 percent. 3.5 percent rise is estimated for feed use but another significant buildup in August 170 stocks is anticipated. Due to increased area, the flaxseed harvest exceeded the high 1968 level by 56 srcent. Rapeseed production was an alltime high, nearly double the previous year. >ybean production fell due to adverse weather but 1969 oilseed output rose more than l percent. The tobacco crop was a record and the apple harvest was larger. Produc- on of potatoes and other root crops was reduced by wet weather. Due to reduced numbers and a rebuilding of herds, cattle exports declined sharply I 1969; slaughter was nearly 4 percent below the 1968 peak. Hog slaughter was about percent below the reduced levels of a year earlier. Despite higher feeding rates id increased slaughter weights, red meat production was down. This short fal . was rtially offset by a significant output gain in poultry meat. Milk production in- eased but a mounting butter surplus is threatening the dairy support program, cember 1, 1969 cattle numbers were 3 percent above a year earlier, reflecting con- derable herd expansion on farms in western Canada. A further buildup in farm herds y continue to limit cattle marketings in 1970. However, hog numbers on farms in- eased 13 percent in 1969 to the highest level since 1958, indicating a significant 70 rise in pork production. Canada's agricultural exports for 1969 were about two-thirds of the 1968 value vels. Sharp shipping drops in grains and livestock products were only partly offset larger sales of oilseeds and tobacco. However, U.S. agricultural imports from nada were about 8 percent above 1968. Canadian imports were up significantly due to rger purchases of livestock products, particularly meat. U.S. agricultural exports Canada rose about 5 percent above the $485-million level maintained since 1966. Agricultural exports are expected to continue at low levels during 1970. Small ins are projected for wheat based upon an increase in sales to Communist countries, nada's August-January 1969/70 exports of oilseeds and barley were above year-earlier tes. Sales of other grains will be lower. Exports of cattle and livestock products II be restricted by strong domestic demand. Domestic requirements will also maintain essure for larger imports of fruits, vegetables, and other food products. xico Growth of investment, trade, and consumer demand maintained a strong advance in onomic activity during 1969. However, lower agricultural output and tight money and edit held real GDP growth near 6.5 percent. That compared with a 7.1 percent rise in 68. Growth in 1970 may be higher assuming an average agricultural year and some rther narrowing of the trade gap. 3 Substantial public investment in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, petroleum, petrochemicals, transportation, and communications swelled employment ranks. The mid- 1969 index of industrial production was 11 percent above the 1968 average, reflecting increased sales of building materials, synthetic fibers, chemicals, fertilizers, and paper. Exports through October 1969 were nearly 20 percent above a year earlier. The import rise was held to 5 percent, narrowing the trade gap. However, tourist earnings declined from the 1968 olympic-year peak and foreign exchange reserves were down about 1 percent. Much of Mexico's increased public investment was channeled into agriculture and rural development. In President Diaz Ordaz's address recounting achievements of the administration the past year, he listed a number of changes affecting agriculture. These included the distribution of 3.7 million hectares of land benefiting 63,300 farmers; the construction of 19 water storage dams, and the completion of reclamation projects to improve 145,000 hectares of land. Mexico's 1969 downturn in agricultural output was its first in more than a decade, Many crops were reduced by extended drought in north-central areas and by heavy rain and flooding in the southeast. Partly because of sharply curtailed cotton outturn, the 1969 index of agricultural production dropped 6 percent to 143 (1957-59=100). Re¬ duced harvests of corn, rice, beans, and oilseeds more than offset increased productior of wheat, sorghum grains, sugar, fruits and vegetables, and meat. The food production index dropped about 4 percent below the 1968 peak. A sharp recovery in irrigated wheat production was attributed to ideal growing conditions. Favorable weather and a 7-percent increase in area helped maintain the uptrend in sorghum grain production. However, rice production dropped one-third as heavy rains and flooding reduced harvested area and yields. Corn plantings were record high. However, northern drought and floods in the important producing areas of Vera¬ cruz, but total 1969 corn production by more than 16 percent. Poor weather offset larger plantings of potatoes and the 1969 bean harvest fell 15 percent to interrupt the rising trend of recent years. Yields of soybeans and sesame seed were much lower, and cottonseed output was 30 percent less than the large 1968 outturn. Although safflower recovered to near-record levels, total oilseed pro¬ duction was down about 16 percent. That means Mexico will need to import vegetable oils this year. Cotton land was shifted to competing crops. This and flooding in some areas re¬ duced 1969 output nearly one-third to the lowest level since 1959. A larger 1969 sugarcane harvest was more than offset by lower sugar yields, but supplies were ample for domestic and export commitments. The coffee crop was a record high and the 1969 harvests of fruits and winter vegetables gained significantly over 1968. A shortage of feed and water in parts of the northwest resulted in cattle losses and larger than usual slaughter. Beef production moved up to a record level about 9 percent above the previous year. Output of other meat was near year-earlier levels but dry pasture restricted the rise in milk production. Due to a large 1968 carryover, exports of cotton were up sharply from a year earlier. Sugar exports were lower but 1969 cattle exports probably exceeded those in 1968. Feedgrain exports were reduced sharply and corn was imported late in the year to meet domestic needs. Increased feedgrain purchases were reflected in a 13-percent rise in U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico in 1969. U.S. agricultural imports from Mexico continued to increase and exceeded the 1968 record by 8 percent. The 1970 outlook is for a sharp drop in cotton exports which will be partially offset by a continuing rise in winter vegetables and other products. Deficits in 4 feedgrains and vegetable oils will add to the strong Import demand for dairy products, tallow, hides and skins, and certain U.S. processed foods. CARIBBEAN A higher rate of economic growth in 1969 resulted from the continuing expansion Ln tourism and a rising level of investment in mining, manufacturing, construction, md related activities. The growth rate rose sharply in the Dominican Republic. Rates ;ere also higher in Barbados and Haiti, but weakened in Trinidad and Tobago partly be- :ause a drop in petroleum output. Real 1969 GDP growth for the five Caribbean coun¬ ties (excluding Cuba) was near 4.6 percent, compared with a 3.3 percent rise in 1968. although unemployment and rising prices are serious problems in many areas, continued itrong growth trends are anticipated in 1970. Tourist arrivals for the region, estimated at 10 percent above 1968, continued to sncourage expansion of construction and service activities in Barbados, Haiti, Jamaica, 'rinidad and Tobago, and other areas. The Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA) tas stepped up trade between member countries. This move may accelerate development of ight industry, particularly in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. The Caribbean Develop- lent Bank, approved in October 1969 with an initial capital of $50 million, may con- iribute to additional trade gains. The agricultural situation improved in 1969. The combined index of production or four countries (excluding Barbados and Cuba) rose 7 percent to 105 (1957-59=100). lear-normal growing conditions encouraged a significant recovery from the 1968 drought, he Dominican Republic's production was a record. Jamaica's agriculture was affected y early dry conditions and later wet weather, and production declined for the second ear. Agricultural expansion in Trinidad and Tobago was slowed by adverse weather hich cut yields of some important export crops. Production of sugar, the Caribbean's principal agricultural export, was 8 percent bove the reduced 1968 outturn but significantly below high levels of the early 1960's, he Dominican Republic's production increased one-fourth to the highest level since 962 and Haiti's output was up significantly from 1968. Production in Trinidad and obago was down slightly. Output continued to decline in some other areas including arbados and Jamaica. Coffee and cocoa bean crops were above the 1968 level due principally to larger arvests in the Dominican Republic. Banana crops were larger in most areas. But ad- erse weather reduced export supplies of citrus in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, rowing conditions were unusually favorable for food crops in the Dominican Republic here 1969 harvests of rice and peanuts were well above previous records. Harvests of omestic food crops exceeded 1968 in most areas. The region's production of livestock Iso continued to rise in 1969. Due to the rise in agricultural output, 1969 agricultural exports probably were igher but imports may have leveled off or declined following the sharp 1968 rise. .S. agricultural imports from the Caribbean were up 3 percent from the previous year, eflecting larger purchases from the Dominican Republic. Partly because of increased ompetition from other grain suppliers, U.S. agricultural exports to the region de- lined 5 percent from the record 1968 level. The outlook for 1970 and the years immediately ahead is for a continuing decline n the relative importance of Caribbean agriculture as tourism, mining, and manu- acturing industries continue to grow. Due to its economic importance, agricultural roduction in the Dominican Republic may maintain an uptrend. Prospects for a signifi- ant expansion of agriculture appear limited in other areas, and larger imports will be 5 needed to meet growing requirements for food and related products. Despite common¬ wealth trade preferences and increased competition, U.S. agricultural exports to the region should continue to expand. CENTRAL AMERICA Agricultural and trade problems further weakened economic development in Central America during 1969. Real GDP growth of 4,7 percent for the region compared with a reduced rate of 5.4 percent in 1968. Growth rates improved in Costa Rica and Panama. But they continued down slightly in El Salvador and fell off sharply in Honduras and Nicaragua. Intraregional trade, which had stimulated business activity in the Common Market (CACM) countries through 1967, was disrupted by the July conflict between El Salvador and Honduras. The conflict resulted in imposition of minor bilateral restrictions on industrial products. The two countries have not reestablished trade and diplomatic relations. Agricultural conditions were favorable in Central America until September 1969. Then hurricane "Francelia" struck with high winds and torrential rains, affecting some crops in El Salvador and Nicaragua. But its major impact was the loss in bananas grains, cotton, and livestock in Honduras and Guatemala. A slight rise in food pro¬ duction and strong recovery in coffee were offset by a cutback in cotton; the 1969 index of agricultural production was near the 1968 value of 152 (1957-59=100). The foodgrain area continued to increase in 1969 partly reflecting a shift from cotton to corn, but production was slightly below the 1968 record. Damage from flood¬ ing restricted the increase in Guatemala's corn production; an increase in El Salvador was offset by reductions in Honduras and Nicaragua. Rice plantings were reduced in El Salvador and adverse weather in Costa Rica and Nicaragua contributed to a 13 percent drop in the region's 1969 harvest. The Central American sorghum grain harvest was up about 8 percent, but bean production was reduced by wet weather. Due to sharp cutback of plantings in Guatemala and Nicaragua and bad weather in some areas, the 1969 cotton harvest was about 20 percent below a year earlier. Hurri¬ cane damage to Honduras bananas was more than offset by larger harvests in Costa Rica and Panama. Sugar production was at record levels in all countries except El Salvador where yields were reduced by dry weather early in the growing season. Coffee pro¬ duction recovered in all countries except Costa Rica and the combined harvest exceeded the 1968 outturn by about 7 percent. Output of livestock products rose 3 percent, con¬ tinuing recent trends. Larger 1969 exports of cotton and sugar were probably more than offset by smaller shipments of coffee, bananas, and meat. Wheat imports were near the previous year's level but rice imports increased sharply. U.S. agricultural imports from Central America continued to rise, exceeding the 1968 record by about 3 percent but U.S. agri¬ cultural exports were down 12 percent from the previous year's total. SOUTH AMERICA Argentina The Argentine economy continued an upsurge in 1969 paced by the rapid rise in in¬ dustry and trade. Real GDP increased 7 percent compared with a 4.8 percent rise in 1968. Booming manufacturing, construction, and public works activity brought upward pressure upon prices which was contained by budgetary, wage, and credit controls. 6 lother good year is anticipated in 1970 even though government hopes to slow the rowth rate and thus reduce pressure upon prices. The high level of economic activity reduced unemployment and contributed to a sing demand for goods and services. Exports rose sharply reaching the highest level i 30 years. Imports increased even more rapidly due to rising industrial demand and le need to replace depleted inventories. Foreign exchange reserves dropped 30 per- mt below the 1968 peak but were still at the highest level since 1950. The 1969 ad- mce in general price levels was the smallest in several years. However, wage in- eases granted in face of labor unrest late in 1969 increased pressure on prices and ■d to application of selective price controls. The agricultural situation improved in 1969 although dry weather reduced plantings id crop yields in northern zones. The important central and southern areas recovered om 1968 drought conditions and the 1969 index of agricultural production rose 7 per- nt to approximate the high 1967 level of 118 (1957-59*100). Larger plantings and vorable growing conditions indicate an increase in early 1970 grain and oilseed ops, and a continued high level is anticipated for meat production. Strong export demand for feedgrains led to another expansion in seeded area, con¬ futing to a significant 1969 recovery in corn production and a record sorghum grain rvest. The rice area continued to expand and production of 345,000 tons was 22 per- nt above the 1968 record. Unusually dry conditions in northern areas and dissatis- ction with support price levels resulted in a 6 percent decline in the 1969/70 wheat ea. The midyear drought also restricted planting of oats, barley, and rye in the rth where the harvested area of late-cereal crops was further reduced by heavy graz- g. Those grain crops benefited from improved moisture near harvest and 1969/70 wheat oduction reached 6.8 million tons, up 1 million tons from 1968. According to pre- minary official estimates, the 1970 corn crop may reach 9.1 million tons, the largest nee 1941. The sorghum grain crop is forecast near 3 million tons, about 20 percent ove the 1969 record. Favorable prices stimulated larger plantings of the principal oilseed crops. But e peanut area and yields were reduced by drought and tung nut production declined arly one-half. Dry weather also reduced the northern flaxseed harvest but improved nditions in other areas brought an overall rise in production. Sunflower plantings creased 10 percent but drought resulted in a second year drop in output to 876,000 ns and a domestic shortage of sunflower oil was only partly alleviated by increased ttonseed oil production. The sunflower and cotton area for 1970 each increased out 5 percent and sunflowerseed output is expected to exceed 1 million tons. Cotton production was up in response to higher prices resulting from reduced ocks and a domestic oilseed shortage. Sugar production increased again despite pro- ction restraints. Potato production maintained a rapid rise due to increased use of rinkler irrigation but large supplies and depressed prices may reduce plantings in 70. The apple and pear crops were reduced by frost but citrus harvests were up arply from previous records. The upswing in cattle numbers continued. There were an estimated 52 million head mid-1969, up 1 percent above a year earlier. An improved export outlook and favor- le pastures encouraged some holdings for heavier slaughter weights but slaughter in- eased in response to strong domestic and export demand. Beef and veal output was 11 rcent above the 1968 record and a continued high production level appears likely in 70. Pork production continued near the reduced 1968 level due, in part, to a buildup numbers late in 1969. Reduced lamb and mutton output reflected the decline in sheep mbers induced by low wool prices. Wool output rose due to improved pasture con- tions and there were signs of a slowdown in liquidation of sheep flocks. 7 Agricultural exports rose sharply from the reduced 1968 level due to larger feed grain and meat sales. Corn exports increased one-third based on larger shipments to Spain and Italy. An expanding Japanese feedgrain market helped raise sales of sorghui grains from 0.5 million tons in 1968 to 1.3 million tons in 1969. An unusually large carryover offset a reduction in the 1968/69 wheat harvest and 1969 exports were main¬ tained near the 1968 level of 2.4 million tons. However, 690,000 tons were imported th ? yea l t0 maintain domestic stocks. Domestic shortages and high prices pro- hibited sales of sunflower oil and reduced sales of other vegetable oils. Exports of livestock and livestock products moved up by more than one-fourth reflecting the rela> ation of British restrictions and the continued sharp rise for special cuts and manu- f"^ U r in8 , roeatS “ SaleS ° f cooked -frozen beef to the United States were held near the 1968 level by the U.S. dock strike. Wheat exports in 1970 will probably be held near the 1969 level due to some build up in carryover stocks and to the strong export demand for feedgrains which appears to be encouraging increased domestic use of wheat for feeding. Corn exports this year could reach 5.5 million tons and sorghum grains 1.8 million tons. Vegetable oil ex¬ ports are expected to recover with resumption of more normal supplies. A continued rise in beef exports is expected as the industry takes advantage of lower U.K. tariffs on boned beef, although some curtailment of domestic consumption may be required. Brazil The Brazilian economy maintained strong momentum in 1969 supported by rapid indus. trial growth, rising exports, and a significant recovery of agriculture. Official Brazilian sources estimated that real GDP growth was near 9 percent compared with a re¬ vised 1968 rate near 8 percent. Government policies maintain strong incentives for development and the 1970 growth is expected to be near high rates achieved the past 2 years. Despite some slowdown late in 1969, industrial growth exceeded 10 percent for the second year. Rising investment and demand maintained strong advances in transportation equipment, metallurgy, chemicals and utilities; construction and service activities also continued a strong rate of expansion. Gains in sales of manufactures and an ad¬ vance in coffee prices boosted export earnings to $2.2 billion from the 1968 record of $1.9 billion. Imports were higher but foreign exchange reserves more than doubled from January to November 1969. Late in 1969, a sharp rise in food prices tempered consumer demand and caused an excessive stock accumulation of some manufactured products. However, recent surveys indicate a continuing rise for private investment. The new government has given a high priority to further expansion and diversification of exports and to a strengthening of existing agricultural programs. New production incentives were provided by a recent law exempting farm machinery, fertilizers, seeds, and other agricultural inputs from state sales taxes which range from 15 to 17 percent. The effect of improved agricultural programs, initiated in 1967, was partially off¬ set by a second year of drought which restricted yields of food crops in the East- Central State of Sao Paulo and bordering agricultural areas. In southern Brazil grow¬ ing conditions were favorable and levels of precipitation in usually dry northeastern areas were well above normal. The 1969 index of agricultural production was estimated at 140, about 4 percent above 1967 and 1968 (1957-59*100). The gain was attributed, largely, to recovery in coffee and the continuing rise in cotton. Although the 1970 coffee harvest will be reduced by the severe July frosts, the current outlook is for an agricultural production rise of at least 6 percent. 8 Depressed prices at planting time encouraged farmers to shift from corn to other ops including cotton and soybeans in southern areas. This shift and drought in other eas contributed to a 10-percent decline in 1969 corn production. The rice harvest opped 2 percent reflecting a small reduction in planting and some disease problem in e important producing areas. Due to Brazil's improvement program and ideal growing nditions, wheat production rose sharply for the second year and the 1969 harvest ex- eded the previous year by nearly 50 percent. Further expansion in wheat is antici¬ ted for 1970 and a near-record rice crop is forecast. Higher prices stimulated a arp rise in corn plantings ana the 1970 crop is estimated at an alltime high exceed- g 1969 by more than 20 percent. Adverse weather offset a rise in bean planting and contributed to a second reduced Dp. The potato harvest declined due to a smaller area and to dry weather which also »ered yields of some other vegetable crops. Drought reductions offset larger plant- gs of peanuts but an expanded area and good growing conditions resulted in record tturns of other oilseeds including cottonseed, soybeans, and castorbeans. Livestock aughter maintained a slight rise in meat output. Milk production continued an up- snd, estimated near 4 percent. Southern farmers continued a shift to cotton. Unusually favorable weather con- Lbuted to a 1969 harvest which exceeded the 1968 record by 20 percent and plantings r the 1970 crop are up again by about 10 percent. The 1969 cocoa bean harvest was so a record, up more than 10 percent from a year earlier. An increase in northeastern garcane production more than offset a southern sugarcane harvest reduced by drought. The 1969 coffee crop exceeded the small 1968 harvest by about 15 percent. How- »r, 1969 represented the fifth year in the last six when production did not meet nestic and export requirements, estimated near 1.6 million tons. The 1969 harvest s followed by severe July frosts in Parana and a much smaller 1970 crop is expected, th the prospective 1970 carryover estimated significantly below requirements for the rst time in more than a decade, the new government aims to increase coffee plantings the traditional forst-free zones. Prospects for a reduced 1970 harvest also en¬ gaged producers to hold 1969 coffee, contributing to a sharp rise in world prices te last year. Agricultural exports were valued at an alltime high in 1969. Due to higher prices i a slight rise in shipments, coffee exports were at the highest level since 1957. rnings from other traditional exports including cotton, cocoa beans, and sugar set :ords along with newer commodities including beef and soybeans. Increased production d improved trade incentives also stimulated sales of other products including oil- ids, tobacco, and hides and skins but corn and rice exports were reduced in face of jer supplies. U.S. agricultural exports to Brazil dropped 22 percent and U.S. agri- Ltural imports from Brazil were about 11 percent below the 1968 high. Lie Chilean economic activity was maintained near the previous year's low level early 1969 but moved up late in the year. Real GDP growth probably exceeded the low 0.8 rcent rate estimated for 1968. Expanding output and higher prices for copper pushed ports to a new record and helped raise foreign exchange reserves to the highest level more than a decade. A rise in manufacturing activity was stimulated by relaxing of port restrictions in late 1969. A recovery in agriculture is anticipated in 1970 spite growing inflationary pressures and uncertainties connected with next September's ssidential elections, this could be a year of faster economic growth. Agricultural output , in 1969, was adversely affected by drought in Chile’s central Lley, perhaps the worst in recorded history, which continued from mid-1968 into early 9 1969. Livestock losses were high in the affected areas but favorable conditions in the rainy southern zone and more effective use of irrigation water supplies helped to reduce the expected level of crop losses. However, a 17-percent decline in the crop index was only partially offset by increased output of livestock products. As a result the 1969 index of agricultural production dropped 7 percent to 110 (1957-59-100). An increase in the wheat area offset some drought effects and 1968/69 production approximated that of the previous year. The combined 1969 output of rice, corn, and other feedgrains declined about one-half. Due, in part, to lower water requirements and announcement of higher support prices in advance of planting, 1969/70 wheat was expanded to some corn and rice areas and a record crop is forecast. Although a sub¬ stantial 1970 recovery is anticipated for corn and rice, production will probably not reach the high 1968 levels. Drought cut 1969 sunflowerseed production by about 40 percent but the southern rapeseed harvest was up sharply and total oil supplies exceeded the previous year. The 1969 harvests of beans and potatoes were much smaller but sugarbeet output was near the 1968 record. The drought impact upon fruit and vegetable production was softened by priority water allocations given to high-valued crops. The 1968 drought reduction of cattle numbers contributed to a slight decline in 1969 beef output, al¬ though dry pastures forced heavier slaughter early in the year. Pork output responded to increased demand and mutton and milk production benefited from excellent pasture conditions in the south. Agricultural exports fell in 1969 because of reduced availabilities of onions, pulses, and fruits. Imports were up moderately from the high 1968 level. Corn, rice, and potato purchases rose sharply but wheat imports dropped to nearly one-half the 1968 level of 416,000 tons. U.S. exports of corn to Chile increased sharply and sales of breeding cattle continued at a brisk pace. Due to a decline in wheat, total exports fell 26 percent to $26 million. Colombia In 1969, the Colombian economy maintained the strong advance in progress since 1966. Domestic demand, rising trade, and improved monetary stability continued as a stimulus to investment and business activity. Gross domestic product, in real terms, increased from 5.6 percent in 1968 to about 7 percent last year. Increased economic activity exerted some upward pressure upon cost-of-living which increased about 9 per¬ cent compared with a year-earlier rate near 6 percent. Larger exports were more than offset by the rise in imports but foreign capital inflows helped raise gold and foreign reserves to a record $221 million. Although agricultural output continued to expand in response to government- sponsored programs to increase exports, extended dry weather near midyear reduced yields of some highland crops. The 1969 index of agricultural production moved up to 130, nearly 2 percent above the 1968 record. Coffee output continued near the reduced levels of recent years. The rise in agricultural production was attributed to recovery in corn, a continuing expansion in minor export crops, and a significant rise in output of livestock products. Dry weather reduced yields of food crops grown at the medium and higher elevations. Due to lower yields and a shift to other crops, wheat production fell by one-third to a 10-year low. Rice output dropped 8 percent below the 1968 record due to reduced area and some disease problems. Increased plantings contributed to a sharp recovery in corn production and a larger barley harvest. 10 A 20-percent increase in cotton area was partially offset by a sharp drop in the L d-1969 harvest in the Upper Magdalena Valley. Total fiber production increased about percent. Larger oilseed supplies contributed to a 22-percent grease in 1969 pro- lction of edible fats and oils. Sugar output rose 4 percent and banana production mtinued an uptrend. Milk production was up significantly and beef output rose 8 »rcent, reflecting increased export incentives and the buildup in cattle numbers, iginning in 1965. Coffee exports for 1969 increased in value due, principally, to price gains late i the year. Foreign sales of cotton, cattle, and meat were up sharply from a year jrlier! Imports of wheat and other agricultural products were slightly lower due, . part to a 1968 buildup in stocks. U.S. agricultural imports from Colombia con¬ ned to decline in 1969 and U.S. farm exports were down slightly from the record 968 total. cuador Ecuador's economy continued to expand in 1969 but real GDP growth was estimated omewhat less th^TIEht 1968 rate of 5.1 percent. Agriculture recovered from the 1968 rought but export earnings fell below previous high levels despite a pickup in banana xports late in 1969. Manufacturing and business activity maintained a moderate up- rend paced by the continued strong rise in electric power and construction. \e alance-of-payments and monetary situation remained critical despite an improvement ollowing the^midyear crisis. Discovery of additional eastern oil fields is promising nd construction of a trans-Andean pipeline has started. The new fields are expected o supply Ecuador's petroleum requirements at a substantial savings in foreign exchange. Agricultural conditions improved greatly in 1969. The index of total agricultural •reduction increased 3 percent to 145 (1957-59=100). Although wet harvest weather owered yields of some basic crops, the 1969 index of food production was a record, ex¬ ceeding the 1968 low by about 7 percent. The 1968 drought contributed to a sharp drop in 1969 coffee production. Hignland harvests of wheat, barley, beans and potatoes were below high 1968 levels. However, ■he rice and corn crops were alltime highs. Sugar output continued to expand exceed¬ ing the 1968 record by more than 15 percent. Pasture conditions were favorable and rntput of livestock products maintained a moderate uptrend. Banana exports continued to decline in 1969 in face of larger^world supplies al¬ though lower Central American production stimulated some recovery late in t^e year. Sugar sales abroad increased about 20 percent, but coffee exports dropped sharply and :ocoa exports were lower. Agricultural imports were limited by higher food output and t> y import restrictions imposed late in the year. U.S. agricultural imports from Ecuador continued to decline in 1969. Our exports to Ecuador dropped 11 percent fr the high 1968 value of $12.5 million. Expansion in Peru’s economic activity was restricted by uncertainty associated th reforms imposed by the new military government. Real 1969 GDP growth was *** percent up only slightly from the 1968 low. A sharp rise in earnings from fishmeal id copper, the two leading exports, provided a trade surplus and foreign re ’ srves rose from $111 million to $166 million in January-November 1969. Peru faces iother difficult economic year in 1970, though some pickup is possible based upon re- jvery in agriculture. 11 New decrees by the military regime were designed to enforce existing agrarian re¬ form laws. These reforms aim at eliminating large holdings not in the social interest and replacing them with small and medium sized holdings or cooperatives of rural workers. Decrees provided 12 months for expropriation of all holdings of irrigated land exceeding 150 hectares in specified agrarian reform zones which include most agri cultural land in the coastal area. During 1969, a total of 677,000 hectares were ex¬ propriated and 360,000 hectares were redistributed to 63,000 families. All major suga estates were placed under government administration and a few are being converted to cooperative operation. The government recently indicated it would institute 1970 ex¬ propriation actions involving 1.7 million hectares. The severe drought was broken by rains late in 1968 but agricultural production was affected by low supplies of irrigation water in the coastal region during early 1969. Highland crops benefited from improved moisture but the 1969 index of agricul¬ tural production was near the reduced 1968 value of 118 (1957-59=100). Near-normal conditions are expected to stimulate some recovery in 1970 output. Reduced supplies of irrigation water cut back the sugarcane harvest and 1969 suga production fell 20 percent to the lowest level in recent years. Low prices encouraged a reduction in the central-coast Tanguis (long staple) cotton area. Despite an in¬ crease in the northern Pima (extra-long) area, total 1969 production of cotton declinei 3 percent. Rice plantings were up sharply and a 55-percent rise is indicated in pro¬ duction from the 1968 low. The highland production of basic food crops, including wheat, barley, and potatoes, was well above 1968. Coffee production gained slightly and output of fruit and other vegetable crops advanced. However, an 18-percent drop in beef production resulted in critical meat shortages. Peru's agricultural exports in 1969 declined more than 20 percent reflecting sharp drops in sugar and coffee. Partly due to Increased restrictions, imports were about 6 percent less than the previous year. Peru turned Increasingly to other sup¬ pliers, and U.S. agricultural exports to the country continued a sharp downtrend in 1969 to a recent low of $15 million. Due to the sharp decline in sugar supplies, U.S. agricultural imports from Peru dropped 30 percent below the 1968 record of $96 million. Uruguay The Uruguayan economy turned up sharply in 1969 following a 2-year slump. A real GDP rise of 5 percent contrasted with a gain of less than 1 percent in 1968 and a 1967 crop of nearly 5 percent. Business activity was stimulated by some relaxation of im¬ port restrictions which also helped cut the cost-of-living rise from 66 percent in 1968 to about 15 percent in 1969. A moderate increase in exports improved balance of pay¬ ments although foreign exchange reserves were reduced slightly by payment of past arrears. Good agricultural prospects and an expected improvement in labor relation¬ ships indicate further growth in 1970. The 1969 index of agricultural production declined about 3 percent due to a sharp drop in beef output. Favorable weather conditions brought further recovery in crops from the 1967/68 drought and the crop production index moved up more than 6 percent to 115, the highest level since 1964 (1957-59=100). Attractive prices and good weather have resulted in a sharp expansion in plantings of 1970 feedgrains, and a buildup in cattle numbers indicates a sharp increase in meat production. Due to improved moisture levels, the 1969 corn harvest was nearly double the 1968 low, rice production reached a new record, rapid expansion in sorghum grain continued, and sunflowerseed registered a significant recovery. Dissatisfaction with prices led to a severe cutback in wheat plantings for 1969/70 but the crop was sufficient for domestic needs. Flaxseed production rose due to a shift from wheat. The barley and 12 Its crops were smaller. Depressed prices contributed to a 54-percent decline in igarbeet production. Beef production dropped 18 percent in 1969 due to a 4-month strike by meatpacking irkers. Slaughter for domestic consumption was subsequently restricted to maintain ■ef exports in face of extra-legel movement of cattle to Brazil. A decline in sheep imbers maintained lamb and mutton near 1968 levels but wool production was lower. Im- ■oved pastures contributed to a sharp rise in milk production. Agricultural exports were up in 1969 due to larger sales of wheat, rice and beef. , e f moved to Spain and East European countries in face of the United Kingdom ban on •ueuayan meat. Wool exports were down partly due to producer holdbacks for improved ■ices Smaller wool supplies resulted in a drop in U.S. agricultural imports from ruguay. U.S. agricultural exports fell back from the 1968 peak to normal low levels >ar $2.5 million. mezuela The Venezuelan economy slowed in 1969 due to lower petroleum output and reduced -owth rates for agriculture, manufacturing, and construction. GDP growth was near 3 jrcent compared with a rise of 5.8 percent in 1968. The cost-of-living index was up Lgnificantly and investment incentives were weakened by a tighter money supply. Agricultural output rose at a slower rate in 1969. Production was restricted by lortages of credit and by heavy and unseasonable rains which reduced crop yields, ne 1969 index of agricultural production was estimated at 176, about 2 percent above ne 1968 record (1957-59=100). The increase compared with a rise of nearly 6 percent n 1968, and significantly higher growth rates in previous years. Rice production somewhat exceeded the 1968 record despite government efforts to educe the surplus. Restricted credit encouraged a shift from corn to other crops, arger plantings of beans and tobacco were more than offset by smaller yields. Wet eather also reduced harvests of sweetpotatoes and other food crops. Sugar production ontinued to expand and 1969 production exceeded the 1968 high by about 8 percent, eat and milk production was slightly higher than in 1968. Agricultural exports, particularly sugar, were higher in 1969 and imports con- inued a moderate uptrend. U.S. agricultural exports to Venezuela were slightly above he 1968 high of $90.8 million and imports from Venezuela recovered to a value near 22 million. ither South America The Bolivian economy was weakened in 1969 by the unsettled political situation, real GDP growth was near 3.5 percent in contrast to a 5.2 percent rise in 1968. Ex- >ort earnings benefited from higher world tin prices but nationalization of the petro- eum industry interrupted exports and the construction of a gas pipeline to Argentina, igricultural production moved up slightly to an index of 113 (1957-59=100). Harvests >f rice, corn, and barley were higher. Wheat production was a record for recent times reflecting some effect of the government improvement program. Agricultural production >rovides a small export surplus of some agricultural products including sugar, coffee, rice and wool. U.S. farm exports to Bolivia, principally wheat, continued to decline Ln 1969 and imports were maintained near the $2.3 million level of 1968. Guyana's economy expanded at a slightly higher rate and GDP growth was estimated tear 4.5 percent in 1969. Exports and mining of bauxite continued to increase. The 13 rice harvest, down slightly due to unseasonable rains, was well below high levels maintained from 1964 to 1966. Sugar output was a record, up 14 percent. The index of agricultural production increased 7 percent to 127 (1957-59=100). Agricultural exports reflected larger sugar sales, principally to the United States and British Commonwealth markets. U.S. agricultural imports from Guyana rose to a record $13.5 million and exports to Guyana were up sharply to about $5 million. The Paraguayan economy continued a moderate expansion in 1969. Real GDP was only slightly below the 1968 rise of 3.6 percent. The index of agricultural production rose 6 percent to a record 127 (1957-59=100). The national wheat program stimulated another substantial rise in production. The 1969 rice and soybean harvests were also records. Gains were registered for most other food crops. Cattle slaughter for ex¬ port continued to decline but domestic meat production was near the 1968 level. Agri¬ cultural exports declined again because of smaller beef sales. Agricultural trade with the United States was near levels of a year earlier. 14 , 1.—Population, gross national product, and gold and foreign exchange holdings of Western Hemisphere countries and regions, annual 1968-69 1/ Population Gross national product 1968 : 1969 Change 1967 3/ 1968 Change : 1969 : —^ : Change — : - - - Thousands - - - Percent Mil. dol. .... Percent - - - - 20,850 21,267 1.9 58,306 4.7 5.0 47,267 48,921 3.5 24,532 7.1 6.5 253 256 1.2 92 4.5 5.0 3,966 4,101 3.4 1,090 4.0 7.5 5,017 5,143 2.5 324 -1.5 2.0 1,913 1,949 1.9 1.019 3.0 4.0 1,030 1,054 2.3 819 4.5 2.5 1,593 1,629 2.3 n.a. n.a n.a. 13,772 14,132 2.6 3,344 3.3 4.6 1,640 1,696 3.4 664 6.5 7.5 3,205 3,314 3.4 890 3.5 3.0 5,011 5,156 2.9 1,454 5.6 5.7 2,535 2,621 3.4 598 6.0 0.0 1,804 1,862 3.2 670 5.6 4.5 1,372 1,417 3.3 794 5.5 7.0 116 119 2.6 n.a. n.a n.a. 15,684 16,185 3.2 5,070 5.4 4.8 Country Gold and foreign exchange holdings Z.I 1968 1969 : Change - - Million dollars - Percent ados* . . nican Rep i . . . • ica . . . idad & Tobago r Caribbean ribbean . . a Rica, alvador emala . uras. . ragua . ma. . . r Cent. Amerii ntral America ntlna via il. e . imbia idor ina. iguay ;uay •zuela >r So. America >uth America . Ln America . . :ern Hemisphere 23,617 4,441 88,209 9,232 19,825 5,695 710 2,231 12,772 2,818 9,686 415 179,651 256,373 277,223 23,971 4,548 90,855 9,407 20,459 5,889 731 2,300 13,168 2,855 10,025 429 184,637 263,875 285,142 1.5 2.4 3.0 1.9 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.1 1.3 3.5 3.4 2.8 2.9 2.8 14,849 731 27,442 6,348 5,636 1,247 241 492 4,626 1,413 9,304 n.a. 72,329 105,275 163,581 4.8 5.2 8.4 0.8 5.6 5.1 4.0 4.4 1.5 0.3 5.8 n.a. 5.7 5.9 5.5 7.0 3.5 9.0 1.0 7.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 1.8 5.0 3.0 n.a. 6.4 6.3 5.8 3,046 657 n.a. 36 3 142 49 n.a. 230 21 62 66 32 48 n.a. n.a. 229 760 40 257 208 173 57 24 12 111 194 922 n.a. 2,758 3,874 6,920 3,106 662 n.a. 40 4 140 44 n.a. 228 29 64 72 31 44 n.a. n.a. 240 538 42 658 340 221 65 21 10 167 197 933 n.a. 3,192 4,322 7,428 2.0 0.8 n.a. 11.1 33.3 -1.4 - 10.2 n.a. -0.9 38.1 3.2 9.1 -3.1 -8.3 n.a. n.a. 4.8 -29.2 5.0 156.0 63.5 27.7 14.0 -12.5 -16.7 50.5 1.5 1.2 n.a. 15.7 11.6 7.3 Regional totals include only those countries for which data is shown. 2/ Total of gold, foreign exchange ings and reserve position in the International Monetary Fund. 3/ Value at current market prices converted .S. dollars using the average end-of-quarter free or principal import rates of exchange. 4/ Estimates of growth. ce8 , IMF, International Financial Statistics ; U.S. Agency for International Development; and official Government reports. 15 Table 2.--Indices of total and per capita volume of agricultural and food production of Western Hemisphere countrie and regions, 1967-69 1/ (1957-59 = 100) Country Total Per capita Agricultural Food Agricultural Food 1967 : 1968 1969 1967 1968 1969 1967 : 1968 : 1969 1967 1968 : 1969 Canada. 126 135 142 127 136 141 106 111 114 106 112 113 Mexico. 146 152 143 156 160 154 103 108 98 115 114 106 Dominican Republic. 102 97 112 101 98 113 75 69 77 74 70 78 Haiti . 83 81 80 89 86 89 67 64 62 72 68 69 Jamaica . 115 108 104 113 106 102 96 88 84 94 87 82 Trinidad 6. Tobago . 97 110 109 97 107 108 76 84 82 76 82 81 Caribbean . 102 98 105 103 100 107 80 75 79 81 77 80 Costa Rica. 142 148 148 133 149 156 103 104 101 96 105 106 El Salvador . 143 131 144 131 138 133 107 95 101 98 100 93 Guatemala . 160 162 156 148 158 163 120 118 111 111 115 116 Honduras. 143 145 141 141 151 145 107 104 98 105 109 lul Nicaragua . 190 187 168 178 188 176 145 138 120 135 139 126 Panama. 142 149 154 142 150 156 107 109 109 107 110 110 Central America . 154 152 152 145 155 155 115 110 107 108 112 109 Argentina . 118 110 118 123 114 121 101 93 98 106 96 101 Bolivia . 109 112 113 109 111 112 89 89 88 89 88 87 Brazil. 135 135 140 154 157 158 104 101 101 118 117 114 Chile . 115 119 110 116 120 111 94 96 87 95 96 87 Colombia. 124 128 130 132 138 140 93 93 92 99 101 99 Ecuador . 149 141 145 145 138 147 111 102 101 108 99 102 Guyana. 120 119 127 121 119 127 93 89 92 94 89 92 Paraguay. 123 120 127 115 106 114 95 90 92 89 79 83 Peru. 125 118 118 134 121 121 96 88 85 103 90 87 Uruguay . 97 112 113 98 117 120 86 98 98 87 103 104 Venezuela . 163 172 176 176 186 190 119 121 120 129 131 129 South America . 130 129 133 141 141 144 102 98 99 110 107 107 Latin America 2/. 132 133 135 142 143 144 102 100 98 110 107 105 Latin America 3/. 133 133 135 142 143 145 103 100 98 109 107 106 .1/ Revised data for 1967 and 1968, preliminary for 1969. 2/ Production for 22 countries shown. 3/ Excludes Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago. 16 ile 3 .--Fertilizer use, in nutrient equivalent, for Western Hemisphere countries average,1962-66 and annual 1967 and 1968 1/ Country N P 0 2 5 K 0 2 Total Average 1962-66 I 1967 1 1968 : Average : 1962-66 i 1967 ! ms:: Average 1962-66 ! 1967 : 1968 : s Average : 1962-66 | 1967 I 1968 tons - tada. 150 277 335 259 374 400 119 162 178 528 813 913 ico. 232 320 360 50 97 110 6 22 28 288 439 498 bados• • • • 4 3 4 2/ 2/ 1 3 3 3 7 6 8 inican Rep. 9 14 18 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 16 21 ti. 2/ 1 1 2/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 laica • • • • 8 5 11 2 2 5 6 8 10 16 15 26 oidad & Tobago 3 4 5 2/ 1 1 3 4 5 6 9 11 aribbean . . 21* 27 39 3 5 9 14 17 21 41 49 69 ta Rica. . . 14 17 16 11 6 7 5 8 9 30 31 32 Salvador . . 21 27 30 7 11 13 7 7 8 35 45 51 temala ... 9 20 14 5 11 10 2 3 1 16 34 25 7 8 8 2/ 1 2 21 1 5 7 10 15 aragua . . • 8 13 16 4 7 7 1 2 2 13 22 25 4 10 11 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 4 10 11 entral America 63 95 95 27 36 39 15 21 25 105 152 159 entina . . . 16 26 37 5 19 21 3 6 8 24 51 66 ivia .... 2/ 1 1 2/ 1 1 2/ 1 1 2/ 3 3 zil. 58 68 105 86 92 166 80 91 136 224 251 407 le. 32 35 45 59 83 90 12 14 20 103 132 155 40 45 50 50 52 55 38 34 40 128 131 145 6 7 27 5 7 19 3 4 12 14 18 58 ana. 5 5 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 9 10 aguay • . • . 2/ 2/ 2/ 1 1 2 2/ 2/ 2/ 1 1 2 64 80 85 25 16 20 7 8 10 96 104 115 guay . . . . 7 7 10 22 21 23 3 6 7 32 34 40 iezuela . . . 17 31 35 6 10 12 6 10 13 29 51 60 outh America 245 305 401 261 304 411 154 176 249 660 785 1,061 in America . 564 747 895 341 .442 569 189 23.6 323 1,094 1,425 1,787 ./ Year ending on June 30 of year shown. 2/ 500 tons or less. irce: FAO Production Yearbook of Agriculture. 17 Table 4.--Area and production of selected agricultural products by principal Western Hemisphere countries or regions, annual 1967-69 1/ Commodity by country Area 2/ Production 1967 : 1968 : 1969 1967 : 1968 : 1969 1,000 hectares - 1,000 tons - Wheat: Canada. 12,190 11,907 10,105 16,137 17,686 18,623 Mexico. 762 717 715 2,057 1,793 2,000 Central America . 37 39 40 34 34 36 Argentina . 5,812 5,837 5,110 7,000 5,740 6,800 Brazil. 420 770 1,000 365 693 1,000 Chile . 718 700 743 1,203 1,220 1,214 Uruguay . 222 535 336 144 470 403 Other South America . 370 398 404 336 375 367 Total Latin America .... 8,341 8,996 8,348 11,139 10,325 11,820 Rice, rough: Mexico. 167 191 175 430 455 300 Caribbean . 124 131 146 207 232 255 Panama. ... . 130 136 136 151 160 162 Other Central America .... 171 174 172 276 304 242 Brazil. 4,291 4,568 4,553 6,792 6,652 6,520 Colombia.. 300 277 266 685 786 720 Guyana. 138 138 138 197 212 210 Peru. 107 45 80 461 195 300 Other South America . 415 418 469 999 1,085 1,233 Total Latin America .... 5,843 6,078 6,135 10,198 10,081 9,942 Corn: Canada. 354 388 396 1,882 2,062 1,864 Mexico. 7,584 7,600 7,700 8,500 8,600 7,100 Caribbean 125 128 130 118 117 122 Guatemala 748 777 836 690 736 757 Honduras 410 412 412 355 390 375 Other Central America .... 606 619 593 578 630 639 Argentina . 3,450 3,378 3,576 8,000 6,560 6,900 Brazil. ..........o 9,274 9,584 9,121 12,824 12,814 11,500 Colombia. .......... 790 740 833 850 800 900 Peru. ............ 387 340 360 638 560 600 Venezuela .......... 489 592 580 570 736 720 Other South America . 975 835 837 1,165 968 918 Total Latin America .... 24,838 25,005 24,978 34,288 32,911 30,531 Grain Sorghum: Mexico. 556 600 640 1,242 1,500 1,700 Caribbean . — — — — — — Central America . 268 299 311 239 243 259 Argentina . 765 975 1,206 1,380 1,500 2,484 Other South America . 7 7 7 6 6 6 Total Latin America .... 1,596 1,881 2,164 2,867 3,249 4,449 Beans, dry: Canada. 35 37 36 39 44 59 Mexico, oo......... 2,240 2,250 1,800 1,008 1,056 900 Caribbean .......... 51 52 60 42 39 46 Central America . 335 350 354 199 212 202 3,651 3,663 3,700 2,548 2,420 2,450 Chile ............ 68 62 47 90 65 47 Other South America . 396 391 416 266 260 268 Total Latin America .... 6,741 6,768 6,377 4,153 4,052 3,913 Sweetpotatoes and yams: 17 18 18 162 172 170 Caribbean .......... 69 70 71 335 333 344 Central America . 3 3 3 30 30 30 Argentina . 42 41 45 444 379 476 185 182 185 2,226 2,120 2,200 Paraguay. 12 9 10 122 85 90 Peru. 12 13 14 150 160 180 Other South America . 41 41 40 313 306 305 Total Latin America .... 381 377 386 3,782 3,585 3,795 Continued— 18 Le 4 .—Continued Commodity by country atoes: anada. axico. ........ aribbean ....... antral America . . . , rgentina . . . olivia . . razil. ........ dile.. olombia. ....... aru.. anezuela ....... ther South America . , Total Latin America , ton: axico. aribbean ...... uatemala ...... icaragua . ther Central America razil. olombia. ...... eru. ther South America . Total Latin America nuts: exico. aribbean . entral America ... rgentina . razil. ther South America . Total Latin America beans: anada. exico. .razil. ....... Colombia, ...... •ther South America . Total Latin America lacco: •anada.. lexico. •aribbean. •entral America ... Argentina ...... Srazil. •olombia. ...... )ther South America . Total Latin America Area 2/ 1967 1968 1969 1,000 hectares Production 1967 1968 1,000 tons 1969 123 123 124 - 2,120 2,399 2,278 38 40 48 378 400 576 7 7 S :: 32 31 32 10 11 11 :: 46 49 47 164 200 203 :: 1,797 1,967 2,340 120 123 125 :: 635 670 670 217 227 200 1,467 1,606 1,300 77 80 76 :: 717 725 603 79 85 85 :: 800 900 900 272 260 265 :: 1,712 1,600 1,700 17 17 17 151 159 143 89 87 94 :: 350 480 431 1,090 1,137 1,132 8,085 8,587 8,742 692 720 553 435 537 370 28 28 28 :: 2 2 2 86 92 77 :: 78 73 51 146 . 132 101 :: 97 88 67 60 71 67 47 54 53 2,038 2,266 2,696 449 606 730 172 202 242 :: 97 120 128 200 177 180 :: 89 102 99 444 412 520 :: 114 103 148 3,866 4,100 4,464 :: 1,408 1,685 1,648 70 39 43 :: 56 47 56 45 51 69 :: 45 47 60 _ _ — :: — — — 328 287 244 :: .354 283 217 694 606 700 :: 751 754 750 53 52 51 55 50 50 1,190 1,035 1,107 :: 1,261 1,181 1,133 117 119 130 :: 220 246 209 60 135 160 :: 121 270 260 612 722 930 :: 716 654 950 48 47 41 80 87 75 36 34 56 :: 39 36 62 756 938 1,187 :: 956 1,047 1,347 57 55 53 :: 97 99 108 24 23 35 47 46 62 25 21 24 :: 25 22 27 12 9 9 :: 12 10 9 59 59 54 :: 63 62 52 164 167 170 :: 145 152 186 23 23 24 ;; 42 42 44 31 30 32 :: 38 43 46 338 332 348 :: 372 377 426 L/ Time reference is calendar year to include arop harvested mainly in year shown. Latin American totals include Jilable data for the 22 Latin American countries, excluding Cuba. 2/ Seeded area for Canada; harvested area for ler countries insofar as possible. Sources: Economic Research Service, USDA; and Foreign Agricultural Service, US DA. 19 Table 5.--Production of selected agricultural products by principal Western Hemisphere countries or regions, annual 1967-69 1/ Production Commodity by country Production 1967 : 1968 : 1969 1967 : 1968 : 196 - 1,000 tons - 1.000 tons - - - Cassava (yuca) Cocoa beans Caribbean. 286 288 298 Mexico. 21 22 2 Central America. . . 77 78 80 Dominican Republic. 30 21 2 Brazil . 27,268 29,203 30,000 Other Caribbean . . 10 9 1 Colombia . . . « o . 850 900 920 Central America . . 8 9 Paraguay . 1,543 1,504 1,560 Brazil. 145 166 18 Other South America. 1,585 1,599 1,656 Ecuador . 70 53 6 Total Latin America 31,609 33,572 34,514 Venezuela . 25 26 2 Other South America 18 18 2 Sugar, cent, (raw value) Total Latin America 327 324 36 Canada . 135 135 126 Wool, shorn Mexico.. . 2,430 2,286 2,014 Canada ....... 2 2 Dominican Republic . 810 666 835 Other Caribbean. . . 710 746 687 Mexico. 6 5 Central America. . . 643 637 687 Argentina 3/. . . . 194 180 18 Argentina, ..... 766 924 969 Uruguay . 81 80 7 4,465 4,358 4,580 Other South America 66 69 7 Colombia ...... 636 671 700 Total Latin America 347 334 34 Peru. 747 769 615 Venezuela. 372 354 384 Beef and veal Other South America. 880 941 974 Cdnsdfl••••••• 856 903 86 Total Latin America 12,459 12,352 12,445 Mexico. ...... 480 496 54 Cottonseed Caribbean . 53 56 5 Mexico . . 818 900 629 Central America . . 171 198 20 Caribbean. 5 5 5 Argentina . 2,522 2,546 2,70 Central America. . . 375 364 294 Brazil. ..*••• 1,506 1,550 1,57 1,015 1,060 1,250 Colombia. 371 378 40 Peru ... . 153 163 154 Uruguay . 241 290 23 Other South America. 360 393 306 Other South America 612 619 60 Total Latin America 2,726 2,885 2,638 Total Latin America 5,956 6,133 6,33 Bananas Pork Mexico . 986 995 1,024 Canada. 536 536 49 Caribbean. 762 710 718 Costa Rica • • • • • 784 1,064 1,200 Mexico. 253 242 24 Honduras . 1,195 1,255 1,100 Caribbean ..... 26 28 2> Panama . . 600 650 700 Central America . . 44 47 4 Other Central America 132 182 187 Argentina ..... 217 189 19 Brazil . 8,056 8,435 9,000 Brazil.. 668 670 65 Ecuador 2/ . 2,500 2,500 2,500 Other South America 240 242 25 Other South America. 2,305 2,416 2,485 Total Latin America 1,448 1,418 1,42 Total Latin America 17,320 18,207 18,914 Milk Coffee Canada 8,303 8,378 8,41. Mexico . 168 171 186 Caribbean. 72 66 70 Mexico. ....•• 4,631 4,700 4,70. Central America. . . 400 357 383 Caribbean . 297 315 32 1,380 990 1,140 Central America . . 1,108 1,160 1,20 Colombia . 480 474 474 Argentina . 4,366 4,682 4,71 Other South America. 171 166 150 Brazil. 6,904 7,235 7,52 Total Latin America 2,671 2,224 2,411 Chile. 855 875 90 Colombia. ..... 2,080 2,140 2,22' Other South America 2,582 2,669 2,81 Total Latin America 22,823 23,776 24,40 J./ Time reference is calendar year to include crop harvested mainly in year shown except that cocoa beans and coffee are harvests beginning in years shown. Latin American totals include available data for the 22 Latin American countries, excluding Cuba. _2/ Exportable-type only. 3.1 Excludes wool exported on sheepskins. Sources: Economic Research Service, USDA; and Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. 20 le 6.--Total agricultural exports and imports of selected Western Hemisphere countries, annual value, 1964-67 Country Lada ,,,**■* :ico 2 /. bados. linican Republic. .. laica. .nidad & Tobago • laribbean 4/. . . ita Rica. .... Salvador .... itemala ..... iduras...... :aragua ..... iama ••••••• :entral America 4/ jentina • • • • • Livia •••••• izil« • • • • • • Lie ••••«•• Lombia. • • • • • lador •••••• (Tana* • ••••• raguay•••••• fu« «•••••• jguay . lezuela. South America 4/. Latin America 4/. hemisphere 4/ . . Export s y Imports 1 / 1964 ; 1965 ; 1966 ; 1967 1964 1965 ; 1966 ; 1967 1,873.8 1,783.1 dollars - 2,049.9 1,729.1 1,003.5 994.6 1,009.8 1,066.9 637.4 683.3 754.4 705.2 121.4 131.4 125.2 129.5 28.0 27.8 29.2 29.7 19.7 21.5 22.6 21.5 164.9 109.4 120.6 136.7 45.8 27.1 36.2 34.6 26.5 24.5 3/27.9 3/27.0 6.8 8.9 3/8.6 3/9.0 97.4 88.2 91.9 86.0 73.0 72.2 71.6 75.8 41.2 36.8 35.2 40.1 55.5 58.3 59.9 57.4 358.0 286.7 304.8 319.5 200.8 188.0 198.9 198.3 98.5 94.0 110.1 116.2 15.2 17.7 20.1 23.7 147.8 152.2 141.4 140.0 29.0 33.3 37.1 33.7 141.1 159.4 185.5 137.6 24.8 27.2 24.8 25.1 72.8 91.5 118.5 124.2 12.6 14.9 18.3 20.6 107.0 126.9 116.2 123.8 14.4 17.3 19.5 19.9 34.0 43.9 51.1 60.3 22.2 21.6 22.5 22.3 601.2 667.9 722.8 702.1 118.2 132.0 142.3 145.3 1,285.6 1,397.6 1,474.2 1,328.5 97.6 113.0 111.0 99.0 3.1 4.6 3/5.4 3/6.4 27.1 27.3 3/34.2 3/37.8 1,185.0 1,244.5 1,395.8 1,284.0 315.2 222.9 290.2 344.6 59.7 37.4 64.6 50.9 168.9 146.8 175.5 159.3 429.8 401.2 383.0 389.4 65.9 56.9 94.1 48.0 143.9 172.5 174.1 155.1 20.4 21.6 19.7 24.4 51.8 46.1 50.5 53.0 16.7 13.4 13.9 21.2 36.7 42.5 33.2 35.9 6.8 6.8 6.7 9.4 375.9 364.8 380.9 353.2 101.5 125.3 140.0 140.7 138.2 163.0 173.2 148.1 29.1 20.4 30.9 26.3 27.4 30.7 34.7 42.4 176.2 179.3 148.2 183.3 3,737.1 3,904.9 4,169.6 3,846.9 1,025.4 933.7 1,064.4 1,094.0 5,333.7 5,542.8 5,951.6 5,573.7 1,465.8 1,385.1 1,530.8 1,567.1 7,207.5 7,325.9 8,001.5 7,302.8 2,469.3 2,379.7 2,540.6 2,634.0 1/ Standard international trade classification: categories for food, beverages, and agricultural raw materials eluding fish, natural rubber, and waxes of forestry origin. 2/ Data differs from FAO due to re-evaluation of rtain exports, mainly cattle and cotton, and inclusion of free zone imports. 3/ Western Hemisphere Branch esti te. 4/ For countries shown. urces: FAO Trade Yearbook, country trade books, and official Government papers. 21 Table 7 .--Exports and Imports of selected agricultural commodities by principal Western Hemisphere countries or regions, annual 1967-69 Exports by country 1967 1 / 00 vT> ^ 0\ CSl| 1969 3/ Imports by country 1967 1 / 1968 2 / 196! 3/ - - - 1 ,000 tons - - - - 1 000 tons ... Wheat: 4/ Wheat: 4/ Canada. 9,939 7,265 Jamaica. . . 136 142 141 Mexico. . 212 5/ 200 Trinidad & Tobago. . . • • 90 64 UC Argentina . 2,423 2,400 Dominican Republic . . • • 79 119 93 Other South America . • 13 - 94 Other Caribbean. . . . • • 153 156 162 Total Latin America • 2,289 2,423 2,694 Central America. . . . • • 303 309 30£ Argentina. • 168 - 39C Bolivia. .... ... • 171 172 13C Brazil ••••*#«• 2,453 2,600 2,362 Chile. • ••••••• 477 416 223 Colombia 171 281 23C Peru ••••••••• 491 631 67C Uruguay•#•••••• - 225 - Venezuela. 699 765 80C Other South America. . 219 227 212 Total Latin America. 5,610 6,107 5,832 Rice, milled: Rice, milled: Mexico. - 44 42 Canada . . . 41 43 40 Central America . . . 17 30 30 Jamaica. ••••••• • 27 34 27 Argentina . 47 56 60 Trinidad & Tobago. . . • • 30 27 26 32 158 63 Other Caribbean. ... • • 27 44 29 Guyana. 102 96 90 Central America. . . . • • 27 28 41 Uruguay . 35 19 49 Chile. ........ 9 14 59 Venezuela . 63 33 30 Peru. 68 75 97 Other South America . e • • 30 40 95 Other South America. . • 20 20 20 Total Latin America • • 326 476 459 Total Latin America. • 208 242 299 Corn: Corn: Mexico . 896 788 Canada . 740 783 715 Caribbean . - 1 - Mexico . 5 6 100 Central America . . . 38 58 47 Jamaica . 17 26 23 Argentina ...... 2,893 4,062 Trinidad & Tobago. . . • 39 38 38 Brazil . 430 1,238 652 Other Caribbean. ... • 17 17 14 Other South America . • • • 12 3 30 El Salvador . • 15 47 30 Total Latin America • • e 6,052 5,089 5,579 Guatemala . 12 20 5 Other Central America. • 19 21 19 Chile . 37 85 245 Peru. 1 59 10 Uruguay.. . 9 101 - Venezuela. 5/ 121 150 Other South America. . • 2 3 3 Total Latin America. • r 173 544 637 Sugar, raw: Sugar, raw: 550 641 610 CdQddd •••••••• • 890 860 895 195 161 130 Caribbean. • 10 11 11 Dominican Republic. . 647 610 644 Central America. . . . • • 4 1 • Jamaica ....... 358 390 315 Chile. •••••••• • • 167 180 201 163 199 180 Uruguay. • • 47 42 46 Other Caribbean . . . 244 242 248 Other South America. . • • 1 1 1 291 335 345 Total Latin America. • • 229 235 259 Brazil. 1,026 1,061 Colombia. 177 194 176 Guyana, ....... 298 300 300 Peru. 483 460 272 Other South America . • • • 180 314 246 Total Latin America • • • 4,589 4,872 4,527 Coffee, green: Coffee, green: 75 95 94 Canada . 81 84 78 52 46 48 Caribbean. 1 1 1 El Salvador . 121 118 105 33 31 32 81 85 98 Other South America. . • • 25 31 31 Other Central America • • • 116 125 120 Total Latin America. • • 59 63 64 Brazil . 1,107 1,128 366 395 400 Other South America . • • • 121 120 109 Total Latin America • • • 1,936 2,091 2,103 Continued -- 22 ,ble 7.—Continued Exports by country inanas. fresh; Mexico. Jamaica Other Caribbean . Costa Rica. Honduras. .. Other Central America ... Brazil. Colombia. . Ecuador • . Other South America .... Total Latin America ... ;coa beans : Mexico.. Dominican Republic. . Other Caribbean . . . Central America . . . Brazil. Ecuador . Other South America . Total Latin America eef and veal ; 6 / Canada. ........ Mexico. Caribbean . Nicaragua . Other Central America . Argentina . . . Brazil. Paraguay. Uruguay . Other South America . . Total Latin America . iotton : Mexico. ....... Guatemala ...... Nicaragua . Other Central America Brazil.. • Peru. Other South America . Total Latin America [obacco: Canada. Mexico. Dominican Republic. Other Caribbean . . Central America . . Brazil. Colombia. ..... Paraguay. Other South America Total Latin America 1967 1 / : 1968 : ; 2 / ; 1969 3 / - L. 000 tons - “ “ 7 12 5 191 155 160 441 520 490 371 554 625 854 907 725 454 474 552 135 179 180 171 160 155 326 374 375 1,251 1,250 38 36 37 4,251 4,622 4,554 6 1 5 24 25 25 10 11 12 7 5 5 114 76 120 45 67 50 12 14 15 218 196 238 20 30 28 30 45 42 6 6 20 24 17 36 44 33 574 760 60 98 20 16 55 106 110 3 5 5 901 884 1,087 271 316 370 57 68 71 110 98 95 47 32 36 250 430 68 67 88 57 50 82 799 881 1,172 21 21 8 4 8 15 20 5 5 5 2 2 2 45 39 50 15 15 15 19 10 14 10 113 109 129 Imports by country Bananas, fresh: Canada . . Argentina. .... Chile.. Uruguay.. Other South America. Total Latin America. Cocoa beans : Canada . Argentina.. Colombia ...... Other South America. Total Latin America. Beef and veal Canada . , Caribbean, Chile. . . Peru . . . Other South America, Total Latin America. 6 / Cotton: Canada .... Caribbean. . . Central America Argentina. . , Chile. ... Uruguay. . . Other South America, Total Latin America. T obacco : Canada . . Caribbean. .... Central America. , Uruguay.. Other South America. . Total Latin America. 1967 1 / 1968 2 / 1969 3/ - - 1.000 tons - - 182 194 194 182 180 180 56 50 52 21 16 18 5 5 5 264 251 255 18 17 16 7 8 8 11 11 10 3 3 2 21 22 20 29 26 65 16 17 18 17 15 15 18 17 18 2 2 4 53 51 55 103 77 82 4 4 4 _ 1 2 7 15 10 32 27 32 7 6 7 4 9 11 54 62 66 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 _ 2 2 8 9 9 1/ Revised. 2/ Preliminary. 3/ Estimated, h/ 6 /~Carcass weight basis; excludes fats and offals. 500 tons. Research Service, USDA; Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA; U.N. Food and Agriculture Sources: Economic Organization; and official Government reports 23 Table 8 .--International coffee agreement export quotas and U.S. sugar Import quotas, selected years 1/ Country Coffee agreement export quota U.S. s ugar import quota 1967/68 ; 1968/69 : 1969/70 2 / 1968 : : 1 / 1969 : 3/ 1970 4/ . ,000 tons - - 1.000 tons Mexico . 86.6 90.2 97.1 : 574 594 431 Dominican Republic 27.5 26.6 28.7 : 640 629 421 Haiti. 26.6 25.1 27.1 : 30 16 23 Jflinfl lcfl •••••• 0.7 1.5 1.7 : 5/ 5/ 5/ Trinidad & Tobago. 4.3 4.1 5.2 : 5/ 5/ y Caribbean. . . . 59.1 57.3 62.7 : 670 645 444 Costa Rica .... 56.0 56.4 60.8 : 66 68 50 El Salvador. . . . 96.8 97.4 104.8 : 41 42 31 Guatemala. 87.3 92.3 99.4 : 56 58 42 Honduras . 24.8 21.8 23.5 : 7 7 6 Nicaragua. 28.3 28.2 30.4 : 50 65 50 Panama . 1.4 1.5 1.9 : 34 40 31 Central America. 294.6 297.6 320.8 : 254 280 209 Argentina. -- -- -- : 69 71 52 Bolivia. 2.9 3.0 3.7 s 7 7 5 Brazil •••••• 1,060.3 1,072.8 1,155.5 : 561 581 421 Chile. — — — : -- — Colombia . 372.6 369.7 386.5 : 59 62 45 Ecuador. 33.2 38.5 41.4 : 82 85 61 Guyana . -- -- -» : — Paraguay . • — 4.2 4.8 : — — Peru. • 37.0 37.9 40.9 : 448 272 336 Uruguay. • — -- : — -- Venezuela. 28.0 16.7 18.0 : 28 29 21 South America. . 1,534.0 1,542.8 1,650.8 : 1,254 1,107 941 British Honduras . .. : 14 15 11 British Caribbean. -- -- -- : 197 215 149 French Caribbean . -- -- -- : 60 65 47 Other. ““ ““ — : 271 295 207 Total Western Hemisphere 1,974.3 1,987.9 2,131.4 : 3,023 2,921 2,232 Total World. . . . 2,959.5 2 , 888.0 3,102.0 : 4,512 4,417 3,729 Hemisphere as percentage of world. 66.7 68.8 68.7 : 67 66 60 1/ Coffee agreement years are beginning October 1; U.S. sugar import quotas are for calendar years. 2/ Includes adjustments through April 15. 3/ Total quotas and prorations. 4/ Initial quota and prorations through December 20, 1969. 5/ These countries share in quotas listed for the British Caribbean. 24 Table 9.--U.S. agricultural trade with Western Hemisphere countries and dependencies by value, average 1960-64 annual 1966-69 U.S . exports U.S . imports Country Average 1960-64 : 1966 : • • 1967 ; 1968 : 1969 : y Average 1960-64 ; 1966 ; 1967 ; 1968 ; 1969 1/ lada 2/ • • • • • 420.9 485.7 485.0 484.0 509.2 180.0 240.2 201.1 226.2 244.1 xico •••••• 67.6 73.5 69.7 80.6 91.3 260.2 327.6 327.0 398.8 439.8 1.9 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.3 1.5 .6 2.8 1.4 1.3 minican Republic 13.3 21.4 22.1 30.2 24.7 109.6 116.4 116.4 139.2 148.2 iti 7.9 8.0 8.8 9.3 6.3 14.8 12.7 12.9 13.2 11.4 13.5 22.3 25.3 29.1 29.5 14.7 17.5 18.8 18.0 13.3 inidad & Tobago. 10.2 11.2 14.1 13.6 13.3 7.9 4.6 5.1 10.2 12.2 tilles (Neth.) . 9.1 11.1 11.5 12.5 11.2 .1 .3 .1 3/ .1 8.7 17.6 22.0 25.6 28.0 1.8 1.7 1.2 .2 2.2 rmuda (Bit•) « • e 5.5 7.0 6.9 7.7 7.3 .2 y .1 y y eward & Windward 1.8 3.8 4.0 3.8 4.5 1.0 1.7 .9 1.1 .7 st Indies (Fr.). .8 2.0 2.6 2.3 1.7 6.9 6.7 7.0 7.6 7.5 Caribbean. . . . 72.7 107.1 120.2 137.3 129.8 158.5 162.2 165.3 190.9 196.9 sta Rica .... 5.6 5.8 7.8 9.0 7.0 39.5 57.0 66.9 83.9 94.8 Salvador. . . . 6.8 9.3 7.8 8.4 9.6 34.3 37.9 47.4 39.1 34.4 atemala. 10.0 12.8 14.1 14.8 10.4 57.6 76.8 59.7 65.8 70.2 4.1 5.8 5.9 7.0 5.5 29.3 76.3 59.4 69.9 73.8 caragua. . * • « 4.5 8.2 6.5 6.2 5.5 25.1 24.1 33.4 40.3 42.6 10.6 17.0 16.5 15.6 15.6 16.4 45.0 51.7 53.1 46.2 itish Honduras . 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.2 1.7 2.1 3.6 3.6 4.3 ial Zone • • . • .6 0 0 0 0 .1 y 3/ .1 .1 Central America. 44.2 61.3 61.0 63.5 55.8 204.0 319.2 322.1 355.8 366.4 gentina. 3.7 4.4 2.9 3.7 11.9 95.0 109.0 101.3 127.6 105.8 livia. 10.7 9.0 12.1 10.4 7.9 1.9 3.2 2.9 2.3 2.3 100.0 101.2 109.7 88.1 68.5 481.1 483.7 461.2 564.1 499.5 27.2 41.0 24.9 35.2 26.0 5.5 7.0 5.7 7.7 7.2 25.5 32.5 25.0 32.8 31.0 229.8 174.6 179.7 178.2 146.9 7.9 11.8 11.1 12.5 11.1 62.9 82.7 85.9 75.9 64.3 3.5 4.8 4.8 3.6 4.9 6.2 7.0 8.1 12.7 13.5 raguay . 2.9 3.2 1.0 3.4 3.2 6.8 10.1 9.5 9.8 9.3 24.4 37.2 42.2 22.1 15.0 78.3 77.1 82.1 96.3 67.0 uguay. 7.7 2.2 2.5 19.9 2.5 15.8 22.9 8.1 14.1 8.9 ciezuela. • • • • 79.6 82.0 90.9 90.8 90.9 19.5 22.7 22.6 19.3 22.1 lkland Is. (Br.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3/ 0 0 0 ench Guiana. . . .1 .2 .2 .3 .1 .1 3/ 3/ 3/ 3/ rinam. • • • • • 2.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.0 1.0 .7 1.0 .5 A South America. . 295.7 333.1 331.0 326.9 277.0 1,003.9 1,000.7 968.1 1,108.5 947.2 tal Latin America 480.2 575.0 581.9 608.3 553.9 1,626.6 1,809.7 1,782.5 2,054.0 1,950.3 tal W. Hemisphere 901.8 1,060.7 1,066.9 1 ,092.3 1,063.1 1,806.6 2,049.9 1,983.6 2,280.2 2,194.4 tal World ... 5,363.5 6,879.0 6,383.3 6 ,228.0 5,935.4 3,896.8 4,491.6 4,454.4 5,028.4 4,954.2 misphere as per- entage of world otal. 17 15 17 18 18 46 46 45 45 44 1/ Preliminary. 2 / Excludes export transshipncnts, mostly grains and oilseeds to Western Europe. 3/ Less than > 0 , 000 . ource: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 25 Table 10.—U.S. agricultural exports to the Uestet Country or region 1/ Live animals Meat and preparations Dairy products and eggs Cereals and preparations Fruits, vegetables and preparations Feeds 2/ Miscellaneous food preparations i/ - Million dollars ------ Canada 1965 . 5.9 19.3 6.5 31.8 184.7 25.1 10.5 1966 . 8.6 25.1 8.9 53.5 197.4 26.7 11.4 1967 . 14.9 26.2 8.4 54.1 196.5 25.5 10.2 1968 . 9.9 27.1 8.8 58.8 207.8 28.6 9.5 1969 . 10.9 41.0 9.2 55.8 222.4 35.6 10.7 Mexico 1965 . 8.7 2.9 7.1 16.9 8.5 6.5 4.5 1966 . 8.0 3.0 5.1 9.2 10.4 6.5 5.2 1967 . 10.3 3.4 6.7 3.6 8.8 5.7 4.9 1968 . 9.5 4.3 7.7 8.4 9.9 3.3 6.2 1969 . 9.5 4.8 7.5 7.5 10.6 3.9 9.1 Caribbean 1965 . 1.6 15.0 6.2 32.0 11.1 8.5 6.2 1966 . 1.5 18.1 5.8 30.7 12.9 10.2 7.8 1967 . 1.6 20.6 6.3 37.0 12.2 11.6 8.3 1968 . 1.5 23.8 9.1 40.1 13.6 14.6 9.6 1969 . 1.8 26.1 8.7 35.1 14.3 12.1 9.3 Central America 1965 . 3.5 1.9 4.3 18.2 5.0 4.2 3.9 1966 . 1.9 2.0 3.6 24.6 5.8 3.8 4.6 1967 . 1.9 1.9 4.4 24.6 5.8 3.9 4.5 1968 . 1.9 2.0 5.8 26.8 5.3 3.1 5.8 1969 . 2.0 2.1 5.0 21.8 5.6 2.3 5.6 Andes Region 1965 . 4.4 3.9 19.7 83.5 17.1 1.9 7.4 1966 . 3.4 3.6 9.1 117.8 21.5 2.0 7.3 1967 . 4.3 2.1 11.5 112.8 19.4 2.2 8.9 1968 . 3.9 1.0 18.7 105.6 17.3 1.9 12.3 1969 . 5.3 0.6 13.7 88.6 15.2 1.4 12.9 Other South America 1965 . 1.2 0.9 14.2 38.7 3.2 1.2 1.0 1966 . 1.2 1.4 8.4 87.7 4.7 1.9 1.3 1967 . 0.9 1.2 12.4 87.3 5.9 1.7 3.6 1968 . 1.4 1.1 11.6 89.5 5.5 1.7 3.0 1969 . 1.7 1.1 6.1 66.6 5.7 1.7 3.3 Latin America 23.0 1965 . 19.4 24.6 51.5 189.3 44.9 22.3 1966 . 16.0 28.1 32.0 270.0 55.3 24.5 26.2 1967 . 19.0 29.2 41.3 265.2 52.1 25.1 30.2 1968 . 18.2 32.2 52.9 270.4 51.7 24.6 36.9 1969 . 20.3 34.7 41.0 219.6 51.4 21.4 40.2 Western Hemisphere 47.4 33.5 1965 . 25.3 43.9 57.0 221.1 229.6 1966 . 24.6 53.2 40.9 323.5 252.7 51.2 37.6 1967 . 33.9 55.4 49.7 319.3 248.6 50.6 40.4 1968 . 28.1 59.3 61.7 329.2 259.5 53.2 46.4 1969 . 31.2 75.7 50.2 275.4 273.8 57.0 50.9 1/ Exports to territories associated with foreign countries are included in region totals; Andes region includes Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. 21 Prepared animal feeds, grain byproducts and oilseed meals. 3/ Includes lard, vegetable shortening, sauces, soups, and flavoring extracts. 4/ Principally cotton. 5/ Less than $50,000. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 26 (.sphere, principal export categories, 1965-69 [obacco Hides and Oilseeds , , : Animal fats Pibers 4/ . and qUs : Vegetable fats : : and oils : Other Total skins 4.7 8.6 40.2 50.1 3.6 15.6 47.4 31.6 4.2 10.3 49.6 34.3 4.0 11.6 49.8 14.4 2.6 13.3 38.7 16.8 3.9 9.2 1.3 0.8 2.4 8.5 3.8 0.7 5/ 13.3 1.4 0.6 0.5 13.9 1.5 0.5 5/ 15.7 3.6 0.6 2.2 5/ 5/ 0.7 2.1 3.0 5/ 5/ 0.9 3.0 1.1 0.9 3.5 5/ 1.3 0.7 2.6 5/ 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.7 5/ 0.8 5/ 0.6 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.5 5/ 1.1 0.1 0.3 5/ 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.2 2.9 0.9 3.5 9.3 3.6 0.9 4.7 2.1 5.0 0.5 4.3 0.6 2.4 0.5 4.9 0.1 3.0 0.4 4.6 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 5/ 0.1 0.1 1.6 5/ 5/ 5/ 1.3 5/ 0.1 0.1 1.6 5/ 0.1 5/ 11.2 10.4 5.6 10.9 10.4 9.4 10.1 4.1 10.8 13.9 9.2 2.1 8.8 14.5 8.1 1.4 7.9 16.2 9.1 1.5 15.9 19.0 45.8 61.0 14.0 25.0 57.5 35.7 15.0 24.2 58.8 36.4 12.8 26.1 57.9 15.8 10.5 29.5 47.8 18.3 2.8 17.1 36.1 443.4 2.9 14.8 38.2 485.7 1.9 9.1 39.8 485.0 1.3 8.6 43.8 484.0 2.1 10.7 39.4 509.2 0.5 7.5 8.5 86.8 0.6 2.3 7.8 73.5 0.4 0.7 9.9 69.7 1.0 1.9 12.0 80.6 3.7 2.9 11.9 91.3 2.3 9.3 5.0 100.1 2.6 8.0 5.4 107.1 2.3 7.2 6.2 120.2 2.3 9.9 7.3 137.3 2.9 8.1 8.1 129.8 3.6 2.8 4.4 54.0 4.0 4.1 5.4 61.3 4.4 3.1 4.7 61.0 4.7 1.9 4.7 63.5 4.2 1.4 4.2 55.8 6.4 19.0 11.8 191.7 7.2 16.0 14.1 213.5 6.4 14.0 14.2 206.2 7.2 17.0 11.0 203.8 6.9 18.8 10.3 181.9 0.3 11.8 3.5 77.2 0.3 5.9 5.2 119.6 0.1 6.1 4.0 124.8 0.1 2.5 5.2 123.1 0.1 2.1 5.0 95.1 13.1 50.4 33.2 509.8 14.7 36.3 37.9 575.0 13.6 31.1 39.1 581.9 15.3 33.2 40.1 608.3 17.8 33.3 39.5 553.9 15.9 67.5 69.3 953.2 17.6 51.1 76.1 1,060.7 15.5 40.2 78.9 1,066.9 16.6 41.8 83.9 1,092.3 19.9 44.0 78.9 1,063.1 27 U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 POSTAGE » FEES PA© United States Department el Agriculture * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970394-2J2 (4RS-2C: UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURE LIBRARY THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN THE FAR EAST AND OCEANIA Review of 1969 and Outlook for 1970 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE Washington, D.C. ABSTRACT: Agricultural output in the Far East gained again in 1969 and stood above the trend value. Good increases occurred in South Asia, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Serious drought in Australia brought a sharp decline in wheat production, but output of livestock products did well. Except for Indonesia, most rice importing countries of the region had good harvests and will not need to expand imports in 1970. The region imported less wheat and rice but somewhat more corn and sorghum in 1969. U.S. agricultural exports to the Far East dropped in 1969, mainly be¬ cause wheat shipments to India and Pakistan under P.L. 480 were reduced. FOREWORD This annual publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides an analyti basis for shortrun policy decisions and informs an interested public about current icultural developments in the Far East and Oceania. It is one of five regional sup ments to The World Agricultural'Situation; Review of 1969 and Outlook for 1970 , R 57. Other regional reports are being published for Western Europe, The Communist as, Africa and the Middle East, and the Western Hemisphere. Statistical information relating to production and trade of agricultural products the region will appear in a separate publication. The Far East and Oceania Agricul- al Data Book , to be released in July. Riley H. Kirby, Leader, Situation and Outlook Section, directed and coordinated report. Others participating in the preparation of the report include Goodloe ry, Boyd A. Chugg, Charles E. Goode, Nancy Hancock, Mary E. Long, John B. Parker, , Virginia Salley, and Shirley R. Simpson. U.S. Agricultural Attaches in several countries provided background material for s report through periodic situation and commodity reports. Clarence E. Pike, Chief Far East Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division iii CONTENTS Summary . Australia Burma ... Ceylon .. Hong Kong India ... Indonesia Japan ... Page Page 1 Korea, Republic of . 19 3 Malaysia . 21 6 New Zealand . 22 7 Pakistan . 25 9 Philippines . 28 10 Taiwan . 30 14 Thailand . 32 16 Vietnam, South . 35 Washington, D. C. May 1970 iv SUMMARY Agricultural output in the Far East in 1^69 rose 4.5 percent above the previous :ar and stood above the trend value by a like amount. Much of the gain is traceable i India, partly because that country comprises about half the production of the re- on. Increases in Pakistan, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines also con¬ futed heavily. Production in Japan declined slightly from 1968 and was below the ■end for 1969. In Vietnam production rose well above the previous year but still was i percent below trend. India accounted for a more than proportionate share of the regional increase be- iuse that country achieved a rate of gain above the regional average. Wheat, the Hets, sugarcane, jute, and peanuts did especially well there. Barley and gram de- ined. Pakistan accounted for 9 percent of the regional increase, about in proportion i its share of total production. The Republic of Korea accounted for one-eighth of the overall gain, far beyond its ;ual share of output. This reflected a large increase in Korea's rice crop, in part recovery from the effects of drought in the 2 preceding years and in part a general icrease, which carried total production for the country 6 percent above the trend. In Thailand production of rice, com, kenaf, rubber, and peanuts made good ad- inces.- Rice in Malaysia rose 25 percent; rubber and palm oil also did well there. Rice production in the Far East totaled 162 million tons 1 / in 1969, up about 4 ■rcent. Except for Indonesia, most rice importing countries had good harvests and .11 not need to expand imports in 1970. Thailand and Japan will strive to expand ieir rice exports. Pakistan will try to move out more basmati rice and in turn im- >rt more of cheaper rice varieties. Wheat and other grains except barley made good harvests in 1969. So did cotton, ite, sugarcane, rubber, and palm oil. The tobacco crop was down in several countries, id copra was essentially unchanged from 1968. Countries of the Far East imported 26.3 million tons of all grains in 1969, down jout 7 percent from 1968. Imports of wheat and flour fell to 12.2 million tons; India id Pakistan together took nearly 2.9 million tons less, but Japan, Korea, and Taiwan )ok somewhat more. Imports of rice fell slightly as the deficit countries had good irvests a year ago. Imports of corn and sorghum gained about 10 percent, mostly in ipport of the Japanese livestock industry. U.S. exports of grain to the Far East totaled 14.7 million tons in 1969, down com 17 million a year earlier. This was 45 percent of all U.S. grain exports. It is 56 percent of the total imports of grain into the Far East in 1969--a slightly nailer share than obtained the previous year. A cutback in P.L. 480 shipments of neat to India and Pakistan overshadowed U.S. gains in com and sorghum to Japan and i wheat, rice, and com to Korea. nports of all grains by the Far East countries this year may be up 2.5 million tons /er 1969. More than half of this import gain may come in wheat (mainly into Pakistan Lth more moderate increases for India, Japan, and Korea) while the remainder is seen s a gain in com (mostly in the Japanese market) . Rice imports for the region are T7 Tonnages in this report are metric. not expected to change much from 1969. The United States exported nearly 1.3 million tons of rice to the Far East in 1969. Our shipments to that area may be somewhat less in 1970 because of slightly smaller U.S. supplies for export this year, while the traditional exporting countries have even larger quantities available than last year. Total merchandise imports by the Far Eastern countries rose 10 percent in 1969, reaching an estimated $31.6 billion. The unfavorable trade balance improved for the second year in a row. Food, beverages, and agricultural raw materials accounted for about 30 percent of the imports; fibers and cereals were the leading items. U.S. exports of farm products to the Far East fell to $2 billion in 1969, off $200 million from 1968. The largest declines occurred in India and Pakistan as P.L. 480 shipments were cut back. Our exports to both countries combined fell $170 million as U.S. wheat shipments tumbled to $136 million, less than half the previous year. U.S. exports to South Vietnam, the Philippines, and Hong Kong dropped about $20 million each. A sharp reduction in rice shipments to South Vietnam overshadowed re¬ spectable gains in exports of dairy products, com, flour, tobacco, cotton, and soy¬ bean oil. A serious loss occurred in shipments of cotton to Hong Kong as the textile industry there looked for cheaper growths and made increasing use of synthetics. A drop in U.S. exports of rice to Hong Kong was matched by larger takings of fruits and vegetables, especially fresh oranges. In trade with the Philippines, U.S. exports of wheat and cotton fell sharply. A smaller decline in nonfat dry milk was matched by a gain in tobacco. U.S. agricultural exports to South Korea rose more than 50 percent to $235 million in 1969. Most of the gain was in exports of rice. Smaller increases were shown for wheat, flour, com, and cotton. No other country showed a significant gain in 1969. Japan, the leading commercial market for U.S. farm products, showed no change from the $933 million level of the previous year. There were gains in U.S. exports of several products to the Far East including rice, com, and cattle hides. These were not sufficient, however, to offset sharp losses in wheat and cotton as well as smaller declines in sorghum and soybeans. Exports of all commodities from Far Eastern countries were an estimated $28 bil¬ lion in 1969--up 16 percent from the year before. In recent years, about 30 percent of total exports have consisted of food, beverages, and agricultural raw materials. Rubber, tea, rice, sugar, silk, jute, and coconut products are important agricultural items exported. The United States provides a market for about one-fourth of the region's total exports. Total U.S. imports from the Far East in 1969 were worth $7.9 billion, up 21 percent from 1968. Three-fifths of the total came from Japan, and imports from that country are 90 percent non-agricultural. Agricultural imports from the region rose 4 percent to $806 million. The largest gain was in imports of rubber, which increased in quantity as well as unit value. Rubber from Malaysia rose 77 percent to a value of $137 million. Singa¬ pore, Indonesia, and Thailand also moved more rubber to the United States. Imports from the Philippines, leading supplier in the Far East, declined 10 per¬ cent to $285 million. A sharp cutback in copra and coconut oil reflected the effects of dry weather on output of coconuts. This far overbalanced the 9 percent rise in im¬ ports of sugar from the Philippines. Imports from India were off $12 million. The biggest loser was cashew nuts, but tea and sugar were down too. 2 Agricultural production in Australia declined about 3 percent in 1969/70. Al- Dugh the wheat crop fell one-fourth below the previous year because of serious :>ught, it was still the third highest on record. Com, sorghum, and sugar crops were so down. Meat production was up, and meat exports are expected to rise in 1970. eat exports may reach 6 million tons. Drought in New Zealand, the worst in many ars, held down crop production for 1970. Milk production was unchanged in 1969 but s slumped in 1970 as a result of poor pasture conditions. THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION IN THE FAR EAST AND OCEANIA Review of 1969 and Outlook for 1970 AUSTRALIA Australia's agricultural production declined about 3 percent in 1969/70. The eat crop was about 25 percent below the record 14.8 million tons produced the pre¬ ding season. Wheat stocks have increased in the past 4 years and will top the 9- 11 ion ton level by the end of 1970 unless exports exceed the average of the past 5 ars. Smaller crops of corn, sorghum, and sugarcane resulted from dry weather in rthern New South Wales and parts of Queensland. Meat production moved up slightly, od foreign demand and high export prices prevailing for beef, mutton, and lamb should suit in substantial meat exports again during 1970, particularly to the United ates. Gross national product (GNP) for the year ending June 30, 1970, is forecast at 2.2 billion or 6 percent above 1968/69. Agriculture's share will probably be about percent. Despite price declines in wool, and assuming wheat shipments increase, ports of farm products in 1969/70 will total about $2.2 billion or the highest since 66/67. As of December 1, 1969, wheat carryover stocks totaled a record 7.1 million tons, eharvest estimates pegged the 1969/70 wheat crop at 465-500 million bushels. This nge was reduced sharply to about 400 million bushels when harvesting ended in Janu- y. The lower estimate--about three-fourths of the record output in 1968/69--re- ected varied adverse weather throughout the wheat areas. Still the crop is exceeded ily by those of 1966/67 and 1968/69. Drought in Queensland and Western Australia td late rains and frosts in New South Wales affected not only yields but also the lality of grain produced. If exports in the 1969/70 marketing year ending November 30 i not exceed 5.9 million tons, December 1 stocks could increase to 9.3 million tons :able 1) . A quota delivery system was adopted by the government and industry for both the 169/70 and 1970/71 wheat crops. Advance payments of $.123 per bushel for the 1969/70 :op were limited to deliveries of 357 million bushels to the Wheat Board. A guaran- ied price of $1.62 per bushel applied to the first 200 million bushels of wheat ex¬ ited. The marketing quota for the 1970/71 crop has been officially announced at L8 million bushels. The $1.23-per-bushel prepayment rate will also apply to 1970/71 :op deliveries. The quota system, the first real attempt of the wheat industry and the government 3 control production, caused much dissension among farmers. When wheat exports in- reased during late 1969 and wheat deliveries from the 1969/70 crop were less than riginally forecast, the Wheat Board accepted overquota wheat deliveries but charged 3 Table 1.--Australia: Supply and distribution of wheat, 1967-70 Item 1966/67 ; 1967/68 ; 1968/69 *’ 1969/70 December 1 opening stocks (including flour as wheat) . 449 2,191 1,410 7,076 Production . 12,699 7,547 14,804 10,995 Total supplies . 13,148 9,738 16,214 13,071 Exports (Dec.-Nov.). 8,600 5,658 6,804 5,871 Domestic consumption . 2,357 2,670 2,334 2,900 November 30 closing stocks . 2,191 1,410 7,07 6 9,300 them against farmers' 1970/71 allotments. No advance payments are being made for ove: quota deliveries except for such readily salable types as hard wheat or low-protein soft wheat. In another move the government revised the fifth wheat stablization plan adopted in 1969 by reducing the home consumption price of wheat from $1.93 to $1.61 per bushed Regardless of this price adjustment, offgrade wheat has sold in interstate transactioi outside the Wheat Board at about 80 cents per bushel. Such sales tended to depress the prices of corn, barley, and oats to the lowest levels in many years. The 1969/70 rice crop, harvested from March to May, is forecast at 303,000 tons c about 19 percent above the 1968/69 harvest. The area planted to rice had been in¬ creased about 18 percent. Milled rice exports in 1968/69 increased 8 percent. An even larger increase of 13 percent is forecast for 1969/70. Papua and New Guinea take about 30 percent of Australia's rice exports; other important outlets in 1968/69 were the United Kingdom and Okinawa. In 1969/70 commercial and aid shipments of rice are being made to Indone sia. Barley production in 1969/70 is estimated at 1.8 million tons, up 20 percent. In 1968/69, barley exports, mainly to the United Kingdom and Japan, totaled 451,000 tons--3% times the year-earlier level. Oat production is down slightly from the 1.7 million tons harvested in 1968/69. Exports of oats in 1968/69 were 80 percent above the previous year and are expected to remain at the 327,000-ton level in 1969/70. Corn and sorghum production is down sharply in 1969/70 due primarily to the droug conditions in northern New South Wales and parts of Queensland. Sorghum output is es¬ timated at 220,000 tons. This is 50 percent of the 1968/69 crop--and the smallest harvest since 1960/61. Improved moisture conditions in November encouraged farmers tc plant summer crops of sorghum and oilseeds in areas where regular wheat and coarse grain crops failed. Production of cotton continues to increase, and the 1969/70 crop should approxi¬ mate 37,000 tons. Australia's imports have declined dramatically in the last 3 years and are forecast at about 5,000 tons in 1969/70. Its imports from the United States alone in the early 1960's averaged 12,000 tons. Exports of Australian cotton for 1969/70 are forecast at 7,000 tons--up from 1,000 tons in 1967/68 (table 2). The cottc industry annually absorbs about 29,000 tons of raw material. This includes 3,000 tons of long-staple cotton which is not produced in Australia and must be imported. The 1969/70 tobacco crop is reported at 34 million pounds (dried weight) or just under the record crop produced in 1963/64. Production is so much above the domestic 4 Table 2.--Australia: Cotton production and trade, 1960-64 average and annual 1965-69 1/ Item 1960-64 average 1965 roduction nports ... Kports ... 4 25 20 15 1966 1 1967 ! 1968 • _ • _ - 1,000 tons ------- 17 32 34 9 12 6 1 1 4 1969 2/ 37 5 7 1/ Years beginning July 1. 2/ Estimates, irketing quota of 28.5 million pounds set early in the season, that the government lised the quota to 31.5 million pounds. Even with this higher marketing quota about million pounds were marketed at a special sale in Brisbane and charged against the 170/71 season. The marketing quota for the 1970/71 crop has been increased to 34.7 11ion pounds. This probably will provide an additional incentive to farmers to in¬ case production next year. Prospects for U.S. tobacco exports to Australia are not >0 bright* particularly since the quality of Victoria's leaf is improving. The 1969/70 dried fruit pack is estimated at 81,000 tons--up about 53 percent :om the previous year. Australia experienced difficulties in marketing its nail pack in 1968/69 under provisions of the International Sultana Agreement and iced some stiff competition from Middle East producers for the U.K. and West European irkets. The 1969/70 cane crop of 15.5 million tons is down 17 percent from last year be- luse of the drought in Queensland. Raw sugar production likely will fall to 2.1 mil- Lon tons. Exports will decline to 1.4 million tons or 30 percent below the volume lipped in 1968/69. Even so, Australia will maintain its quota shipments of 178,000 ms to the United States as well as shipments to such traditional markets as United Lngdom, Jap^p., and New Zealand. Total meat production in 1969/70 is forecast at 1.9 million tons--up 10 percent com 1968/69. Large quantities of frozen beef and veal were stockpiled in early 1970 s the result of forced slaughter in Queensland drought areas. Should heavy rains revail in northern areas, slaughtering may decline because of the demand for cattle 3 restock pastures. Beef cattle and sheep numbers are expected to increase about 5 percent in 1970. airy cattle will decline due to the continued shift from dairying to beef cattle roduction in some areas. Beef and veal production could increase about 7 percent ue to heavier slaughtering weights, compared with 1969. Lamb slaughter will in- rease in 1970 stimulated by a strong demand for lamb in the U.S. market. Of the overall 1970 U.S. meat import program, Australia's share of the 1,061-mil- ion-pound allocation is roughly 50 percent. Its meat shipments under quota are ex>- ected to total $246 million in 1970, compared with $235 million in 1969. This is linly comprised of beef. Lamb shipments to the United States are not subject to uota limitations. Wool production in 1969/70 probably will rise by 4 percent to 2,023 million ounds. Prices of wool declined in the last 6 months of 1969 to average 45 cents per ound against 52 cents per pound a year earlier. Prices are particularly depressed or merino wools. Total wool sales in late 1969 were up 8 percent above 1968. 5 Indications are that dairy production in 1969/70 will increase in all categories but cheese. The estimate for dried milk output is 156,000 tons or 15 percent more than in 1968/69. The government continues to encourage agricultural production for export by payin exporters for their losses from the British pound devaluation in late 1967. Other in¬ centives include increased subsidy payments to farmers using superphosphate and nitro¬ genous fertilizers, tax concessions on all structural improvements for water, fodder, and grain conservation, and grants and loans for drought relief. New duties were announced late in 1969 by the Minister of Trade and Industry. They apply to imports of peanuts, soybeans, rapeseed, linseed, sunflower seed, saf¬ flower seed, cotton seed, and corn oil. This action was designed to protect farmers who might divert land from wheat to oil seed crops. Australia will continue to promote export programs for grains, dairy products, fruits, and meats--particularly to such profitable markets as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Thailand. (Mary E. Long) BURMA Production of rice, Burma's most important crop, reached 8 million tons in 1969. Rice exports rose to 550,000 tons and may equal this level in 1970. Among the sec¬ ondary crops pulses, peanuts, cotton, and jute showed increases last year while sugar, tobacco, vegetables, and fruit decreased. Per capita GNP (deflated) has risen 1.5 percent per year since 1962 and reached $80 in 1969. Agriculture's share of the total national product remained at 35 per¬ cent. About 80 percent of the Burmese population is engaged in agriculture. The economic policies of the government include nationalization of domestic businesses, especially those owned by foreigners, and prohibition of private foreign investment in Burma. They also provide for an expansion of the role of cooperatives, including producer, consumer, and credit co-ops. Co-ops are scheduled to replace some private and state trading activities. Burma's foreign trade decreased sharply during 1960-68 following losses in its largest export, rice. These trends were reversed in 1969, but total imports continuec to decline. Imports of consumer goods decreased drastically over the last decade but imports of capital goods remained almost stable. The International Monetary Fund has extended balance-of-payments support to Burma because of declines in its exports and foreign exchange reserves. The loan will enable Burma to cut down on short-term, high cost loans to finance the imbalance. Rice production first reached 8 million tons in 1962, and Burma has not been able to maintain increases above this level in the decade of the sixties. Area under pro¬ duction has varied but has not increased in this period either. Area planted in new rice varieties rose from 160,000 hectares in 1968 to 200,000 hectares in 1969. This was about A percent of the area planted in rice. The yields of new varieties in Burma are approximately double those of conventional varieties. New varieties are produced for domestic marketing in rice deficit areas rather than for export. Under present policies, they are a profitable crop for farmers. The government pays the same price for these varieties as for the popular ngasein rice. Since rice is the staple food item, the government has kept its price low for consumers. Government sales on the domestic market are priced to cover costs, while export sales reflect substantial profits. The farmer has three legal outlets for his rice; it can be used for home consumption, sold within his township, and sold to the 6 emment. Around urban centers some rice moves outside official channels. It is ally of high quality and thus commands a higher price. For several years Burma has had short supplies of rice for export, mainly because emment policies held procurement prices low and discouraged production. Govern- t procurement in 1969 of the previous year's crop approximated 40 percent of total e production, compared with only 33 percent in 1968. Procurement in 1969 was higher ause the crop was better and because the government offered incentive programs using sumer goods in barter. Also, enforcement against illegal sales may have been icter. The government accumulated an exportable surplus of around 900,000 tons of e in 1969. It was able to export approximately 550,000 tons of this, well above the 8 exports of 352,000 tons. Exports could rise moderately in 1970 if procurements tinue at their present rate. Production of pulses increased to 300,000 tons in 1969 and com reached 90,000 ,s. Exports of each, falling since the early 1960's, may rise in 1970. Cotton pro¬ ton has been disappointing. Exports of cotton have virtually ceased, as production 1 off from the early 1960's and domestic production of yarn has consumed more o , local crop. Rubber production has been stable over the past 6 years at 12,000 Is. Rubber exports recovered to 13,000 tons in 1968/69 from a low 4,000 tons 2 irs earlier. United States agricultural trade with Burma is negligible. U.S. agricultural ex- •ts amounted to $374,000 in 1969; this consisted mostly of nonfat dry milk. Total >. exports to Burma were valued at about $10 million in 1969. In 1969, Burmese farmers doubled their usage of fertilizer to 140,000 tons. ; h of the increase was associated with the production of new rice varieties. The ted States shipped 58,000 tons of fertilizer to Burma in 1968 but sold none to that mtry in 1969. A new fertilizer plant opened in Burma in 1969, another will open Ls year. They will have a combined capacity of over 120,000 tons of urea a year. CEYLON Economic conditions are improving in Ceylon. Government policies are contributing expansion in agricultural production, industry, trade, and tourism. Floods in De- nber left many villagers homeless in southern and eastern Ceylon. However, the Luge will benefit the maha rice crop harvested in the spring. The major export jps, tea and rubber in the hills and coconuts along the western and northern coast, :aped flood damage. Rice and wheat flour are being imported to replenish supplies . stroyed by the floods. Ceylon's foreign exchange earnings slipped slightly in 1969. Wheat flour and =e were imported largely from sources not requiring an immediate payment in convert- le currency. Low tea prices and a surging demand for imported manufactures have d the government to intensify its efforts to find new sources of foreign exchange. 55-percent bonus is now given in rupees to tourists when converting their money in ylon's hotels and banks. Foreign investment is encouraged, and planners are opti- stic over ventures to expand tourist facilities and factories. Ceylon's GNP increased about 5 percent in 1969 and reached $2 billion for the st time. Impressive growth was made during 1969 in industrial plant capacity, rism, and subsidiary food crop production. Business activity was brisk late in the r, after credit restrictions were eased in June. Total rice production nudged up by 1 percent in 1969 to 1.4 million tons of ddy. This was still 43 percent higher than the turnout in 1966, when rice imports 7 peaked. The maha spring harvest was 8 percent higher than a year earlier. The smaller yala crop harvested later in the year was down 12 percent because of dry weather during the growing season. In 1969, improved rice varieties were planted in over half the paddy fields. The major success of the Grow More Food campaign in 1967 and 1968 was in rice. In 1969 striking achievements were made in other food crops. Potato production double in 1969 and the harvest of chillies during the maha season was much greater than dur¬ ing the previous year. The government has programs to reduce imports of potatoes, chillies, and onions by increasing production of these crops. Corn production increased from 10,000 tons in 1966 to 23,000 tons in 1969. The area planted to corn increased in the Badulla area and in the irrigated area of the Walawe scheme. The output of poultry feed almost doubled in 1969, and com was a major ingredient. Production of tea fell about 2 percent in 1969. Growers recorded smaller profits because of reduced tea prices and rising labor costs. Rubber production increased slightly to 150,000 tons in 1969. Higher yields from improved new varieties of rubber caused the rise. About half of the area in rub¬ ber has been replanted with high yielding varieties since 1954. Their yields after 8 years are almost double those of older trees. Coconut production has declined slightly in recent years because of adverse weather and little enthusiasm for planting new trees. New projects like the Katunayaki Airport and some factories near Colombo have been built in prime coconut-producing areas, and consequently many trees were cut down. Volume of Ceylon's tea exports in the first 9 months of 1969 was up 4.5 percent from the comparable period of 1968, but lower prices caused a decline in value of 1 percent. Exports to the United Kingdom rose during the year as shipments from India to that market declined. Prices for low-grown teas declined gradually in late 1969. The average export price for Ceylonese tea declined from 93.5 cents per kilogram in 1968 to about 83.5 cents in the first 9 months of 1969. Exports of tea to the United States, Australia, South Africa and some other important markets in 1969 were slightly higher than in 1968. Export volume of natural rubber in 1969 approximated the 149,000 tons shipped in 1968, but higher prices caused the value to rise by over 30 percent. Under the rub- ber-for-rice trade agreement, Ceylon sends enough rubber to mainland China to obtain 200,000 tons of rice. Other important and steady markets for Ceylon's rubber the last 5 years include the United States, Canada, Japan, and West Germany. Exports of rubber to the USSR and Poland have declined by about 50 percent since 1964. Exports of coconut oil in the first 9 months of 1969 were 10 percent off the year-earlier pace, and exports of copra were down 9 percent. Exports of desiccated coconuts in the first 9 months of 1969 were running 21 percent below 1968 levels. The decline in coconut production and higher transportation costs to Western Europe con¬ tributed to the decline. Imports of wheat flour in 1969 were down about 7 percent from the 429,000 tons required a year earlier, but imports from the United States rose. In 1970 imports of wheat flour likely will exceed 400,000 tons, with about half the supply coming from the United States. Imports of wheat from Australia and the United States are in¬ creasing for use in the new flour mill and may reach 70,000 tons in 1970. 8 Imports of rice declined from 370,000 tons in 1968 to about 300,000 tons in 1969 I likely will remain at this level in 1970. Arrivals of rice from Burma and Thai- id declined sharply in 1969. The Food Commissioner was reluctant to import rice :ended for free distribution to ration cardholders from sources requiring payment convertible currency. Ceylon imported about 15,000 tons of IR-8 rice from West ;istan in exchange for tea, and further imports from that source are likely in 1970. U.S. agricultural exports to Ceylon declined from $18.8 million in 1968 to $13.5 lion in 1969. Wheat flour accounted for over 95 percent of each value and fell >m 215,000 tons to 138,000 tons. U.S. agricultural imports from Ceylon in 1969 •e about the same as the $27.8 million recorded in 1968. The major imports were tea ued at $20.3 million and rubber worth $4.3 million. (John B. Parker, r.) HONG KONG The Crown Colony's economy continued to expand in 1969, with exports, imports, irism, and textile industries showing strong gains. For 1969, GNP likely exceeded 5 $2.7 billion registered in 1968 and per capita income surpassed the $611 level. The Colony took more rice and com from abroad in 1969, but less raw cotton, 3 at, and wheat flour. U.S. exports of rice, raw cotton, and soybeans to Hong Kong :lined in 1969, but our exports of fresh oranges, various fruit products, and frozen jltry increased sharply. The textile industry continues to expand and modernize its equipment as it shifts ward the use of more synthetic fibers. The cotton spinning mills arc now operating me 811,000 spindles. An additional 38,000 spindles being installed will blend yarns meet strong world demand for fabrics of mixed cotton and manmade fibers. Textile ports were valued at $583 million in the first 9 months of 1969, compared with $666 11ion in all of 1968. Clothing represents about 78 percent of all textile exports. Hong Kong's total imports were estimated at $2.4 billion in 1969, up 20 percent, od, beverages, and agricultural raw materials made up about one-fourth of the total, ain imports were estimated at 663,000 tons, slightly less than in 1968. Live ani¬ ls and meat--major imports--came mostly from mainland China. Rice imports in 1969 were estimated at 347,000 tons, 10, percent more than 1968. iports from Thailand increased sharply to an estimated 180,000 tons in 1969 or 5 ■rcent of Hong Kong's rice market. Imports from the United States were less than ilf the 40,000-ton level of the 2 preceding years. Takings from mainland China were >out 83,000 tons in 1969, less than in previous years. Corn imports were estimated at 158,000 tons in 1969, 11 percent above 1968. lailand's market share slipped to three-fourths when Indonesia came in with about ) 000 tons. Wheat imports in 1969 totaled 128,000 tons, nearly 10 percent shy of le record level set the previous year. Australia's share of the Colony s wheat mar- Bt declined to 48 percent. Canada and the United States each supplied approximately 5,000 tons, about the same as the previous year. Wheat flour imports in 1969 e- Lined to an estimated 26,000 tons, compared with 44,000 tons in 1968. Japan, Cana a, id Australia were the major suppliers. Imports of wheat flour declined because loca lour mills are cornering larger share of the local market. Imports of fresh oranges n 1969 totaled 66,000 tons compared with 59,000 tons in 1968. The United a es applied 69 percent of this market. In 1969, Hong Kong's imports of fresh, chilled and frozen poultry, including ffals and liver, totaled 22,000 tons. The United States and mainland China were the ain suppliers. Other sources were Denmark, the Netherlands, and West Germany. 9 Hong Kong's cotton imports in 1969 were about one-fourth less than the high 196,000-ton level of 1968. Shipments from the United States were off even more sharply. Increasing use of synthetic fibers and competition from foreign growths made their marks in 1969. Led by reduced shipments of rice and raw cotton, U.S. agricultural exports to Hong Kong declined from a high of $72.4 million in 1968 to $54.6 million in 1969. Exports of raw cotton fell to 116,000 bales from 200,000 bales. Larger shipments of meat, dairy products, and especially fruits and vegetables prevented a steeper cut¬ back in agricultural exports. Hong Kong's total exports rose to $2.1 billion in 1969 from $1.73 billion in 196J Its exports are almost entirely industrial products. The Colony exported 25,000 tons of wheat flour in 1969; about half went to Indonesia. The United States remained the major market for Hong Kong's exports, taking $899 million worth in 1969 or 42 percent by value. Hong Kong's surging economy and free trade policy, combined with recent U.S. promotional efforts, provided a generally favorable climate for expanded sales of American products. Gains in income are providing a steadily growing market for vari¬ ous consumer goods. Several unexpected U.S. rice orders were placed in 1969 be¬ cause of the Thai's unstable rice prices; but barring special developments, additional rice sales are not foreseen in the near future. On the other hand, dairy products, tobacco, wheat, animal feeds, fruits, vegetables, processed goods, and frozen poultry meat are showing promising growth. (Charles E. Goode) INDIA Favorable monsoon rainfall and increased use of improved agricultural inputs in 1969 enabled Indian farmers to harvest record crops of rice, wheat, grain sorghum, vegetables, and fruits. Dry weather from October through mid-January lowered earlier harvest expectations for wheat, barley, and pulses in the spring of 1970. Still, total foodgrain production in 1969/70 is expected to approach 100 million tons, compared with 94 million tons in 1968/69. Per capita availability of food- grains in 1970 will be below the levels recorded in 1965 and 1968. Imports of food- grains declined to 3.9 million tons in 1969, continuing the downtrend evident since the peak in 1966 (table 3). They may be even lower in 1970. More than 3 million tons of wheat may be imported in 1970, mostly in the first half of the year. Shortages of cotton and vegetable oils will cause larger imports of other agricultural commodi¬ ties in 1970. Economic activity continued to gain momentum in 1969, despite political uncer¬ tainty and shortages of steel, vegetable oils, and certain raw materials. Overall industrial output for India was up 7 percent in 1969. Expansion in the textile in¬ dustry was hampered by a shortage of certain types of cotton. The output of fertil¬ izer, automobiles, bicycles, tractors and engineering products increased moderately. GNP for 1969 was about $47 billion, up 6 percent. The money supply increased about 9 percent, and purchases of consumer goods were considerably higher. Foreign exchange reserves increased from $682 million at the end of 1968 to $965 million at the end of November 1969. Fertilizer consumption rose slightly to 1.8 million nutrient tons in 1968/69. A 10-percent excise tax on fertilizer slowed the increase in fertilizer usage. Fer¬ tilizer imports declined, while domestic output increased moderately. Demand for tractors continues strong. Some 18,000 farm tractors will be assembled in 1970, 10 Table 3.--India: Availability of foodgrains, annual 1964-70 Item 1964 ; 1965 ! 1966 : 1967 ; • • 1968 ; 1969 ; 1970 ' ROSS AVAILABILITY Rice: Pr-rwHnr t*i on . 36.9 37.0 30.6 30.4 37.6 39.8 41.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 37.5 39.8 31.4 30.9 38.0 40.3 41.5 Wheat: Prnrlnr ^inn .. . 9.9 12.3 10.4 11.4 16.5 18.7 19. 5 5.6 6.5 7.8 6.5 4.8 3. 1 3.2 Supply . 15.5 18.8 18.2 17.9 21.3 21.8 22.7 Other cereals: 23.7 25.2 21.2 24. 1 28.8 25.2 28.5 Not" frflrlp . 0.1 0.2 1.8 1.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 23.8 25.4 23.0 26.0 29.3 25.5 28.6 Pulses: Prnrlur t" i on . 10. 1 12.4 9.8 8.4 12. 1 10.4 11.0 f- frftdp . Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Sunn1v .. 10. 1 12.4 9.8 8.4 12.1 10.4 11.0 Total foodgrains: PrnHi i r t* i on .. . . 80.6 88.9 72.0 74.3 95.0 94. 1 100.0 Npt - frade . 6.3 7.5 10.4 8.9 5.7 3.9 3.8 Snnnlv . 86.9 94.4 82.4 83.2 100.7 98.0 103.8 PER CAPITA AVAILABILITY 78.9 81.9 62.9 Kilograms - 60.5 72.5 75.0 75.5 WV>pAt" r . 32.6 38.7 36.5 35.0 40.6 40.6 41.3 50. 1 52.3 46. 1 50.9 55.9 47.5 52.2 Pi 1 1 Rp R . 21.3 25.5 19.6 16.4 23.1 19.4 20.0 Total 182.9 198.4 165. 1 162.8 192.1 182.5 189.0 11 mostly 35 horsepower models. Larger Imports of tractors are planned in 1970, in¬ cluding 7,000 from Czechoslovakia and 5,000 from the USSR. About 100,000 tractors were in use in early 1970, and a numerical increase of almost 30 percent is expected during 1970. Most of the tractors are located in areas where wheat is grown under irrigation. Less than 5 percent of all cropland in India is cultivated by tractors. Rice production during 1969/70 is estimated at a record 41 million tons (milled basis). The 3-percent increase in output is attributed to improved yields. Monsoon rainfall was favorable for rice production in most major growing areas in 1969. A marked increase in 1969/70 plantings of high yielding varieties of rice occurred in West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, and Bihar. The total area planted in high yield¬ ing varieties in 1969/70 was about three times the 1967/68 level. The Central Rice Research Institute at Cuttack strives to introduce new varieties which have favorable consumer reception and which carry resistance to certain diseases Padma and Gaya--two new varieties--have done well in northern India. Sales of IR-8 rice were not easy to make in Tamil Nadu in late 1969. Many farmers had to market a large part of their IR-8 rice through procurement centers. Good rains during the summer were beneficial to grain sorghums and com. Pro¬ duction of coarse grains is estimated at 28.5 million tons in 1969/70, up 13 percent from the previous year. Wheat production in 1970 is forecast at 19.5 million tons. This would be a rec¬ ord crop despite dry weather during the first part of the growing season. About 30 percent of the 16-million-hectare wheat area in 1969/70 was planted in high yielding varieties. The fields so planted are all under irrigation, and they will account for over half of the total wheat crop this season. Gains in the production of foodgrains in 1969 were less striking than those re¬ corded for some other crops. Growing conditions were good for cotton and jute. Cot¬ ton production approached 1.2 million tons in 1969. Damage to cotton plants from tirak disease lowered yields in Rajasthan and Punjab. Larger cotton harvests in Maharashtra and Gujarat helped boost India's cotton production by 8 percent in 1969 although th^ total area planted was about the same. The area planted in long staple varieties has gradually increased. Smaller plantings of medium staple varieties have lowered the proportion of cottonseed to lint. Mill consumption of cotton increased slightly in 1969 and further gains are ex¬ pected in 1970. Domestic demand for cotton textiles is increasing faster than sup¬ plies of raw cotton. The upswing in textile demand has resulted in the reopening of some mills which were closed in the last 3 years when times were difficult for small operators. Indian cotton mills are expected to use almost 7 million bales (180 kilo¬ grams each) during 1970. Manmade fibers currently account for slightly over 10 per¬ cent of the textiles sold in India, but over one-fourth of the exports of textiles. Output of manmade fibers is growing more slowly in India than in some other countries in Asia. Many Indians do not like clothes made from manmade fibers, and their cost is still relatively high. Imports of raw cotton declined sharply during the year ended July 31, 1969. A delay in shipments of cotton from the United States under P.L. 480 contributed to the decline. Use of domestic cotton increased as stocks of imported cotton declined in 1969. With much larger shipments expected under P.L. 480, India's total imports of cotton in 1969/70 may approach the 142,000-ton level of 1967/68. Exports account for about one-tenth of the sales by India's textile industries. Exports subsidies of the foreign exchange entitlement scheme caused some firms to export textiles for slightly less than the cost of production. By exporting textiles, 12 ese firms are allowed to retain foreign exchange they can use to import machinery d urgently needed spare parts. Favorable weather and an expansion in the planted area in 1969 produced a bumper te harvest of about 1.2 million tons, compared with 549,000 tons in 1968. As a suit, mill output of jute products increased markedly in late 1969. Over 95 per- nt of the Indian jute crop is used by domestic mills. When supplies are ample me raw jute is exported to the USSR under trade agreements. About 60 percent of e jute products made in India are exported, and foreign demand remains good. Higher ports of carpet backing and some other jute products in the last 2 years offset aller exports of jute burlap. The tobacco crop in 1970 is likely to be about 18 percent less than the 347,000 ns harvested in 1969. Floods damaged part of the crop in Guntur district of Andhra adesh. Poor weather lowered the quality of flue-cured tobacco, and export prices y decline. Production of oilseed crops improved in 1969 but remained below the peak level tained in 1967. The peanut crop increased from 4.5 million tons in 1968 to 5.2 Hion tons in 1969. The production of mustard and rapeseed was close to the 1.6- llion-ton level of 1968. In recent years, soybean production has increased in tar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Indian farmers are expected to produce over 100,000 ns of soybeans in 1970. The production of safflower and nigerseed is also increas- ig* Tea production edged upward to 390,000 tons in 1969. Labor problems in West >ngal resulted in smaller pickings there. Low prices and ownership transfer of some :a plantation also slowed harvesting operations. Coffee production increased to >out 73,000 tons. Higher prices and good export sales encouraged coffee growers to ie more fertilizer. New plantings of cashew nuts were subsidized by the state >vemment in Tamil Nadu. New banana groves planted in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu will :ovide fruit for future exports. New mango varieties were planted commercially near >me large cities. In 1969, production of deciduous fruits made a large increase. Farmers in Jammu id Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh harvested a record quantity of ap- Les. Most of these apples were sold in urban areas throughout India. Production of rapes has expanded markedly in the districts of Poona Hyderadbad and Bangalore. Production of vegetables, including potatoes, is estimated at about 32 million 3 ns in 1969/70. Commercial production of these crops is' increasing rapidly near rban centers and in irrigated areas as many farmers find that vegetables double crop all with wheat and rice. About 100,000 tons of onions were exported in 1969. India's total exports reached $1.8 billion during the financial year ended arch 31, 1969, up 13 percent over the preceding year. Exports during 1969/70 grew t a slower pace and totaled about $1.9 billion. Exports of jute carpet backing rose harply, and manufactures accounted for most of the export growth. Agricultural exports in calendar 1969 approximated the $623 million value re- orded in 1968. Low tea prices and lagging production of some oilseed crops limited xport opportunities. Tea exports were down in 1969 because of smaller shipments to he United Kingdom. Competition from Ceylon and East Africa lowered India's prospects or tea sales in London. Exports of tea increased to the USSR and the Middle East, lightly more peanut meal moved to Eastern Europe. Tobacco exports changed little, lightly smaller tobacco shipments to the United Kingdom were offset by larger ex- orts to the USSR. Deliveries of cashew kernels to the USSR increased while those o the United States declined. Overseas sales of cashew kernels totaled 66,250 tons n 1969. Exports of spices increased in value because of higher prices. 13 The ban on exports of foodgrains continues except for shipments to Indians living abroad, the border trade with Nepal, and special barter arrangements. Total imports by India declined in 1969 to about $2.3 billion. Agricultural im¬ ports in 1969 were only about half the $1 billion recorded in 1967. Imports of food- grains and fertilizer were down. Wheat imports declined from 4.8 million tons in 1968 to 3.1 million tons in 1969. Arrivals from the United States fell from 3.8 million tons to 2.2 million tons. Im¬ ports of U.S. wheat purchased outside P.L. 480 declined from 437,000 tons in 1967 to 34,000 tons in 1969. Arrivals of wheat donated by Canada declined slightly in 1969 to 586,000 tons. Imports of Australian wheat fell from 234,000 tons in 1968 to 69,OOC tons in 1969, while European wheat jumped from 41,000 tons to 236,000 tons. Imports of soybean oil increased in 1969. Larger imports of vegetable oils are anticipated in 1970 to cope with the growing shortage. Tallow imports are also ex¬ pected to rise this year. Cotton imports declined from 145,000 tons in 1968 to about 117,000 tons in 1969. Larger imports of cotton are likely in 1970, with about one-third of the supply coming from the United States. The United States, UAR, Sudan, and East Africa usually supply most of India's cotton imports. U.S. agricultural exports to India declined from $363.5 million in 1968 to $261.7 million in 1969. Another decline is likely in 1970 unless U.S. vegetable oil and cotton shipments to India are favorably financed. About 1.7 million tons of wheat valued at about $100 million are scheduled for shipment under P.L. 480 to India be¬ fore June 30, 1970. Our total wheat exports to India during 1970 are likely to ap¬ proximate 2 million tons. Exports of wheat from the United States to India declined from 4.1 million tons in 1968 to 2.1 million tons in 1969. Exports of grain sorghums to India declined from 1.7 million tons in 1967 to 294,000 tons in 1969. American imports of all items from India in 1969 were slightly higher than the $312 million recorded in 1968. Jute products, particularly carpet backing, accounted for about half of the American imports from India in 1969. U.S. imports of agricul¬ tural commodities from India were down because of smaller arrivals of cashew kernels and tea. Larger purchases of Indian cashew kernels by the USSR lowered supplies available for export to American customers. Marked changes are occurring in the diet of the people in the topmost income levels. Many urban Indians are adding new items to their diet. Sales of biscuits, ice cream, carbonated soft drinks, loaf bread, and chicken meat are increasing rapidly In 1969, foodgrains accounted for over two-thirds of the approximately 2,100 calories obtained daily by the average Indian from all foods. (John B. Parker, Jr.) INDONESIA Although the output of Indonesia's all-important rice crop was considerably lower than early estimates, the 1969 rice harvest did surpass by a narrow margin the record crop of 1968. Corn, second only to rice as an Indonesian food staple, bettered the small 1968 production by more than 10 percent. Substantial increases in output also were registered by soybeans, peanuts, sweetpotatoes, and sugar. Production of rubber, the top moneymaking agricultural export, stagnated. Palm oil production was down 8 percent. Coffee's gains were a scant 2.5 percent. The tobacco crop stood almost alone among export crops with a strong 18-percent advance. 14 Indonesia seems to have won its long struggle against inflation. The dizzy rice advance of 650 percent in 1966 was cut to less than 10 percent in 1969. Al- tiough a severly trimmed budget and painfully tight credit broke the inflationary piral, these controls resulted in near stagnation of economic activity. The govern- ent is now concentrating on an expansionary fiscal and monetary program to get the conomy moving again. Sharply increased credit is being made available for the ex- Drt trade and for agriculture, which is Indonesia's major source of export goods. Indonesia's balance of payments improved in 1969, moving up to a surplus of $23 illion from a deficit of $12 million in 1968. Imports were higher than expected, at the import value of consumer goods was down. Imports of machinery, transporta- ion equipment, and raw materials--items needed to support domestic production-- ere up. Ideal weather together with expanded use of seeds and improved cultural practices avored a record rice harvest of 16.0 million tons of paddy in 1968, up 12 percent, he 1969 crop is estimated at 16.2 million tons, down 2 million tons from earlier xpectations and only 1 percent above the 1968 level. To avoid a food shortage ovemment planners moved fast in late 1969 to contract for overseas purchases of 80,000 tons of rice for immediate delivery. Enough foreign rice arrived in time to atisfy increased consumption demands during the yearend holiday season. Prices eveled off as additional supplies arrived. Imports for the entire year reached 06,000 tons. Over half came from the United States under P.L. 480. The remainder, n order of volume, arrived from Burma, Thailand, Egypt, Australia, Japan, Cambodia, nd Singapore. More serious a problem than the weather-damaged autumn crop was the late arrival f the wet monsoon. Its tardiness set back rice planting for the next main wet rop by 4 to 6 weeks and delayed the coming harvest accordingly. Officials were ex- remely reluctant to publicize the country's rice import needs in 1970. However, lost believed requirements would be higher than last year 1 s 600,000 tons. To ease the pressure on tight rice supplies, Indonesia imported more than 300,000 ons of wheat flour in 1969. Most of this flour went to big cities where the demand ;as strongest. The United States, with shipments of 163,000 tons, was the largest supplier. Australia shipped about 43,000 tons. Other exporters included Japan, long Kong, and Singapore. Last November the United States agreed to supply Indonesia /ith 150,000 tons of flour under P.L. 480. Most of the deliveries should be made n the first 6 months of 1970. Indonesian food planners have projected total flour Imports of 500,000 tons in 1970, but actual receipts may well be lower. Early estimates place Indonesia's important 1969 corn crop at about 3 million :ons, up 10 percent from the lean harvest of 1968. This volume was generally con¬ sidered adequate to meet the 1969 export goal of 180,000 tons, almost three times :he 1968 level of 65,000 tons. With favorable growing weather and a larger share of available fertilizer, com exports may rise to 250,000 tons in 1970. Japanese activ- Lty continues in promoting production of varieties suitable for their growing live¬ stock industry. A large U.S. firm recently showed interest in establishing a mixed feed industry in Indonesia. Indonesia is now unable to supply its own sugar needs. Exports were abandoned in 1966, and since then imports have ranged from 30,000 to 50,000 tons a year. With a gain in production of refined sugar from 625,000 tons in 1968 to 677,000 tons in 1969, the government plans to end sugar imports and resume exports before the new development plan ends. 15 Production of yarn and cotton cloth began to climb in 1969. This followed a long wait for spare parts needed to repair idle equipment in Indonesia's textile mills. Output of cotton cloth rose 40 percent to 450 million meters. Imports of cloth dropped more than 15 percent to 447 million meters. If the recently launched development plan is successful, domestic output of cloth will double by 1973 and im¬ ports level off. Yarn production in 1969 reached about 190,000 bales (400 pounds each) a gain of 60,000 from 1968. Imports of yam totaled 184,000 bales. The target for 1973 is 375,000 bales produced and 260,000 bales imported. Imports of raw cotton increased dramatically during the last decade and reached an estimated 190,000 bales in 1969, of which 123,000 bales were from the U.S. Raw cotton imports in 1970 should run 30,000 to 50,000 bales higher than last year. Production of rubber, a major foreign exchange earner, was 762,000 tons in 1969, scarcely changed from the previous year. However, 1969 prices--and therefore earn- ings--were substantially higher. For more than a decade output gained by less than 1 percent a year as plantations were neglected. Furthermore, replanting schedules were ignored, and recent surveys indicate that 60 percent of the plantings are too old to yield optimum returns or to respond much to larger applications of fertilizer now pos¬ sible . The output of palm oil, over the years a steady earner of foreign exchange, slipped off 8 percent in 1969 to 172,000 tons. The disappointing performance of palm oil--like rubber--was attributed to failure to replace old trees which had passed their production peak, and to past shortages of fertilizer. The Asian Development Bank's first loan to Indonesia was for $3.5 million to rehabilitate one of the nation's largest oil palm estates. Two of Indonesia's leading sources of proteins, soybeans and peanuts, made the best gains among all crops. Peanuts soared 29 percent to 492,000 tons, and soybeans went up 33 percent to 442,000 tons. Indonesians are becoming more nutrition con¬ scious, and steadily increasing production gains probably will be encouraged. Sweetpotato production went up 589,000 tons to 2.7 million tons in 1969 while the output of cassava declined 527,000 tons to 11.8 million tons. Although sweetpo- tatoes have a slight edge over cassava in nutrient value, the net gain for Indonesia's food supply was negligible. Production of both cassava and sweetpotatoes has been relatively low over the last decade as many farmers moved their plantings to less fertile areas to make way for rice or other more profitable crops on the better lands. Coffee production, at 167,000 tons in 1969, was unchanged. However, both estate and smallholder crops have made a very substantial gain from the 89,000-ton level 10 years ago. The International Coffee Agreement tends to stablize prices but limits shipments. Hence, much of increased volume must find markets in nonmember countries. Indonesia's output of tobacco made a good 18-percent gain to 130,000 ton in 1969. In recent years, however, quality--and export prices--have declined. The gov¬ ernment plans to help smallholders and estates to grow and market a better product. (Goodloe Barry) JAPAN Production of major crops in 1970 is expected to continue the downward trend of the past 2 years. Rice output likely will drop. Wheat production is forecast at 650,000 tons or 15 percent below last year. Barley is expected to yield a 750,000- ton harvest, the smallest since 1963. Production gains in 1969 for livestock prod¬ ucts, particularly pork, milk, and eggs, should continue in 1970. 16 Tmnorts of agricultural commodities during 1969 totaled $3.7 billion or 8 per- hove 1968 More than 50 percent of Japan's imports of farm products last year siste^of^wheat^ 0 corn, grain"sorghum, barley, soybeans, cotton tallow, an tobacco £. Of this trade totaling $1.7 billion, the United States supplied one-half. GNP for 1969 (current price basis) is estimated at $167 billion or 17 percent iqftR At constant prices GNP was up 13 percent. Per capita GNP approached W Forecasts indicate an equal gain in 1970. Agriculture's contribution to the ) * 1 qliehtlv in 1969: it is estimated at $15 billion or 9 percent of ? iost of ?hls decline reflected efforts to stabilize rice prices and trim out- •? Foreign exchange reserves at the end of 1969 were estimated at $3.7 billion, up percent. Consumer prices continued their uptrend, rising about 5 percent during the year. „ t o? this increase was in the foodstuffs sector, chiefly fish, processed foods 5 V K 1 «nd fruits Prices for rice remained unchanged. Prices for livestock j from production declines in most food crops. Table 4.--Japan: Supply and Distribution of milled rice; 1960-64 average and annual 1968 through 1970 eginning stocks ... roduction: Paddy . Milled . mports . xports . omestic consumption losing stocks 3,351 15,920 11,590 368 0 11,765 3,543 3,617 4,938 5,752 18,061 17,504 16,986 13,149 12,743 11,500 283 54 15 300 364 500 11,811 11,619 11,580 4,938 5,752 5,187 1/ Years beginning November 1. 2/ Estimated. Other grain craps and pulses continued a downward trend In 1969. Wheat produc¬ ts fell to 758,000 tons or 25 percent below 1968, J^ASt^OOl/tons 6 is P expected In ,d unfavorable weather. A smaller wheat crop of about 650,000 tons is 170 because of a 15-percent cutback In plantings. Other reductions in 1970 crops Lkely for pulses and feedgrains. The main emphasis In fruit crops In recent years has been on .ftst"™ghtly itsuma (mandarin) oranges. Production of 2.3 million tons in 1969 was y clow the record harvest in 1968. Area in oranges has expanded rapidly in recen ears because of a strong demand and favorable returns to growers compared with S om ther crops! Citrus trees can also be grown on rough terrain, and in some areas they 17 are combined with tea plantings. About 80 percent of the crop is utilized in domesti consumption. Canned satsuma orange production is by far the largest fruit item pro- cessed in Japan. The 1969/70 pack of canned oranges will total around 12-5 million cases--a record. Overproduction of rice poses a major agricultural problem. Large surplus rice stocks have brought into focus the need for revision of the country's agricultural policy from both a production and trade standpoint. The traditional policy of in¬ creasing rice prices paid to farmers was terminated in 1969, but more definitive mea¬ sures must be taken to interest farmers in other crops and livestock production. Late in 1969 the Ministry of Agriculture announced a 3-year plan to reduce the rice area by 350,000 hectares per year beginning with the 1970 crop. Land diverted in the 1970 season may not exceed 30,000 hectares. Most of this area is expected to be sown to forage crops in an effort to establish pastures for increased livestock production. Beginning with 1970, the government's purchase price for rice may be pegged at the 1969 level but set on a quality sliding-scale basis to encourage pro¬ duction of high quality rice. Legislation calling for major changes in the land tenure act is expected to be presented to the Diet for approval sometime in 1970. Problems arise from inefficient use of machinery, shortages of labor, and the small size of most farms. Until legis¬ lation is enacted to permit fundamental changes in agricultural policy, significant changes in overall farming are unlikely. About $2.2 million has been budgeted by the government to improve citrus fruit production. Approximate allocations are $900,000 to assist tangerine producers, $600,000 to build fruit juice processing plants, and the remainder to construct store¬ houses for tangerines. Japan's cotton imports in 1969 totaled 677,000 tons, compared with 808,000 tons in 1968. This trade was valued at $414 million--down 18 percent. The United States supplied 109,000 tons, less than half the level of 1968. Imports of U.S. cotton were partially offset by increased imports from Mexico and Brazil. The U.S. shipping strike in early 1969 and shortages of certain lengths of U.S. cotton were behind the reduced shipments of U.S. cotton to Japan. Japan should import 680,000 tons of cotton in 1969/70 with the U.S. share at about one-fifth. Consumption of raw cotton in 1969/70 is expected to decline from the 754,000 tons a year earlier. In recent years, cotton spinners have been decreasing their produc¬ tion of cotton yarns and cotton fabrics while emphasizing production of woolen tex¬ tiles, manmade fibers, and synthetic materials. Cotton yams and cotton mixtures still accounted for about 60 percent of total yarn turnout in 1969 but less than 50 percent of all fabric production. Wheat consumption for food use has begun to level off, and increased consumption is now related to the 1-percent annual growth in population. Further gains in Japanese wheat consumption depend largely on the growth of large-scale bakeries and the pro¬ motion of biscuits and speciality wheat flour products. To date the progress in the baking industry has been slow, and foreign investments in this field are still re¬ stricted . Total imports of wheat in 1969 reached a record 4.3 million tons or 6 percent above 1968. Of this trade, the United States supplied 2 million, little change from a year earlier. Total imports in 1970 are forecast at 4.5 million tons. Imports of U.S. wheat in 1970 will probably increase to 2.1 million tons. Japan is expected to increase its imports of U.S„ hard wheats to supplement smaller imports of Canadian Manitoba No. 4 and Australian Queensland Prime Hard. 18 Feedgrain imports in 1969 totaled 9.1 million tons. The bulk consisted of 5.5 ilion tons of com and 2.9 million tons of grain sorghum, largely supplied by the 1 , Q . The u s share of the corn market in Japan increased from about 50 lte t in 1968 to 60 percent in 1969, reflecting reduced takings from South Africa rcent in 1968 to bO per ® £ f ’ dgrains in 1970 are forecast at 10 percent above lch had a poor fe in com, imports which are currently esti- TdTtb million tons. Hie United States will retain its large share of the corn Argentina South Africa and Thailand will supply most of the remainder. Tk ® t ; imports for 1970 will be about 3 million tons. The level will depend upon ^relationship of sorghum prices to com. In the past 3 years, import prices for Irn hive been less than sorghum while volume imports of sorghum have averaged about ilf as much as com. .at TaS: °cl “s^s^Ti? ;pes--within a few years. n soybean imports should offset discontinued deliveries of Russian sunflower sees. United States supplied 85 percent of Japan’s total imports of soybeans in 1969. The Japanese government further reduced the import tariff on soybeans effective arlv 1970 This reduction is in keeping with scheduled GATT concessions negotiated nSei the KennedJ Round. The new rate will be $6.66 per ton, compared with the cur- ent rate of $9 33 per ton. Sorghum and dried dates were placed on the Automat onroval list effective April 1, 1970. The duty on raisins, in containers over ilograms, is to be reduced from 20 percent to 10 percent in three stages from pril, 1970 through January 1, 1972. Japan continues to extend aid to less developed countries in the hopes of build- ng up markets for its manufactures. A new food act is under considera ion y resent Diet to provide legal justification for long-term aid sales of rice to ;tan, Indonesia, and other countries. The negotiation of the final year of operation of the Japan-USSR Crede iarrange- lent has eliminated USSR exports of sunflower seeds and certain * e ® £ * £f ^ we ; rhis action might provide a favorable climate for increased U.S. exports seed to Japan during 1970. (Mary E. Long) REPUBLIC OF KOREA Plentiful and well distributed rainfall in 1969 boosted Korea's total a gric ul - ral output by 15 percent after serious setbacks from droughts in 967 and 1968 •oduction of paddy rice climbed to 5.6 million tons, a /v'eetables increased sharply other grains changed little from 1968. Production of vegetables increased sha p y i 2.5 million tons. Total foodgrain imports are estimated at 2.1 million tons in *9 6 9, 3,000 tons in 1969 from 86,000 tons in 1968. 19 . G ^ 0 in 1969 ls estim ated at $6.6 billion, at current market prices, up 16 percent 19Gg * Per C f Pita . GNP r ° Se t0 ^ 209, Gold and forel 8 n exchange reserves totaled ^>552 million at the end of 1969, more than one-third above the previous year. Strengthening of Korea's foreign exchange position in 1969 was due to larger’inf lows of foreign capital investments, higher exports, and increased expenditures bv Ameri¬ cans stationed in Korea. Seoul consumer prices have risen by 51 percent since the end of 1965 They in creased 10 percent in 1969. To help curb inflation, the government devalued its cur¬ rency by 4.5 percent on November 4, 1969. The official rate of exchange is 304 won or one U.S. dollar. In the long run, the devaluation should help limit imports and serve to stimulate exports and check domestic prices. Industry continued to make steady gains in 1969, with work moving ahead for new plants to produce steel, fertilizer, machinery, coal, cement, hydroelectric power, clothing, and other textile products. The cotton textile sector is the keystone of Q/n^nn ind “s tr y* There are no ” some 25 cotton spinning mills operating about 940,000 spindles. The goal in 1972 is 1.4 million spindles. Clothing exports, rep¬ resenting 26 percent of all textile exports, are estimated at $153 million in 1969. The Republic imported $8.1 million worth of greasy wool in the first 10 months in 1969, compared with $7.2 million in all of 1968. Australia was the largest supplier. Fertilizer consumption in 1969 approximated. 740,000 tons. This contrasts with 640,000 tons in 1968 and 486,000 tons in 1967. 'chemical fertilizer, production in¬ creased moderately to 407,000 tons. Imports of manufactured fertilizer declined from 919,000 tons in 1966 to 638,000 tons in 1968. Imports in the first 10 months of 1969 totaled only 278,000 tons. Fertilizer exports are estimated at 140,000 tons in 1969. The Republic imported 500,000 tons of lime from the United States in 1969. Agricultural P roduction-_es Pecially of rice--was favored by good summer rains in 1969 and total output surpassed the previous drought years by 15 percent. Production of vegetables continued the strong uptrend of the 1960's and this contributed to the overall increase in agricultural output. Despite late floods, rice blast, and cold weather, the 1969 paddy rice crop totaled 5.6 million tons--28 percent above the 1968 crop and well above the record crops in 1964 and 1966. Both planted area and yields were at high levels. High price supports before the planting season spurred farmers to plant more rice. But the market price went even higher and the government was able to purchase only 210,000 tons, or less than 40 percent of the target. The government is planning to increase military, government, and price stabilization stocks by importing an es¬ timated 500,000 tons of rice in 1970. After rice, barley is the most important food crop. As incomes increase, there is a tendency for barley consumption to decline as consumers switch to rice. The 1969 barley harvest was nearly 2.1 million tons, about the average level of the last 5 years. In 1970 some barley land likely will be switched to vegetables and other crops in greater demand. The wheat crop was up 6 percent in 1969. Combined production of corn, millets, and grain sorghum crops declined by 15 percent. Production of fruits, tobacco, and sweetpotatoes increased moderately, but output of soybeans, potatoes, and pulses declined or showed no in¬ crease in 1969. The harvest of vegetables increased sharply in 1969 to 2.5 million tons. Although meat production has been expanding rapidly in recent years, the level of output is relatively very low. Consisting mainly of pork, beef, and poultry, total production is estimated at no more than 165,000 tons. Per capita production at no more than 5.3 kilograms per year contrasts with 11 kilograms in Japan and 28 in Taiwan. 20 . • livestock and poultry development. A Cooley loan of 2 government is promoting live p m-h-Vi a feed orocessing w! r S rortrpl“;e h a r: P a f pr C ets?nr:^t”ca; ab 1e th o t a handling 600 balers ^hour, a hatchery with a capacity of 200,000 eggs per cycle, and poultry rearing rms, Korea's imports, estimated at $1.8 billion in 1969, exceeded exports by $1.2 ll “" ’ j _..i.. u., tt c Tananpsp renarations. ,ie imDorts, estimated at 91.0 uj-j.j-j.vp** •*-** - I lion The trade deficit was covered partly by U.S. aid, Japanese repara 1 ° n ’ Lli * , foreign aid Total foodgrain imports in 1969 are estimated at S-Sm “or* n“er^o/tolal imports. Sice imports by value accounted for percent of all foodgrain imports in 1969. Foodgrain imports rose sharply in 1969 to an estimated 2.1 million tons, re- . . .shortfall in rice production in recent earlier years. Total rice im rts^ncreased from 247,000 tons in 1968 to about 724,000 tons in 1969. Un ^ e ates supplied 445,000 tons, and the remainder was purchased from Japan. Rice im- rts of 500,000 tons are anticipated in 1970. Wheat imports -creased from 813,000 ns in 1968 to 1.2 million tons in 1969 and will likely match this jeve . ns in 1969 and may exceed 200,000 tons in 1970. £ _ iQ<;q increased sharply to an estimated 95,000 tons, .ar^an-e sug/r Imports during the first 10 . logo totaled 157,000 tons--the same amount as in all of 1968. a ipplier. The United States and Japan are the major suppliers of agncu u a idities to Korea. U S agricultural exports to Korea increased from a record value of $190 million , 1 q 6 « to $235 million in 1969, due mainly to larger shipments of rice. Cotton, P com and wheatflour also made gains, but soybeans declined. Korea ranked iird’(after Japan and India) among Asian markets for U.S. agricultura. pro uc s^m 369 Exports of U.S. raw cotton to Korea increased to 425,000 bales in 19 9. reater demand for man-made fibers and further shifts by cotton millers to s or - taple cotton may tend to limit U.S. exports of raw cotton in 1970. Korea's total exports in 1969 are estimated at $600 million or 32 percent above he record $455-million level of 1968. Agricultural exports account for ® *° r " ion of total exports. Raw silk, hogs, beans, leaf tobacco, canned vegetables, a ruits are the principal products. Other major exports include clothing, » igs marine products, electronic manufactures, and textiles. * , » apal.^d Hong Kong Ire the major buyers of all Korea’s exports. (Charles E. Goode) MALAYSIA In its determined drive to reduce imports and become self-sufficient inrice reduction, Malaysia is expanding the areas double cropped to rice. Output of^d y limbed 15 percent in 1968 to hit a record 1.1 million tons, then soared 26 percent 1 1969 to reach a new.peak of 1.3 million tons. Much of the output gain^wa^s^he: p lone bv a 75 000 -acre expansion boosting the entire 2 -crop area , 1 . , hich produced 260,000 tons of paddy in 1969. The double cropping area■ *= e*t h er eclaimed from the jungle or-more often-existing one-crop fields converted to two y providing an ample supply of water for all seasons. A huge project is nearing its operational start-up. The first n the new $75-million Muda River dam was ready for release m late January, but he ields were not prepared because of late rains. When the entire complex is functioning 21 in 1971, there will likely be a net increase of 415,000 tons of paddy rice. This is 270,000 tons milled basis or about equal to average annual imports in 1967 and 1968. The nation's economic output continues strong stimulated by good demand for Malaysia's predominantly agricultural exports even though the rate of new capital in- vestment has slowed. Production of rubber, which occupies 60 percent of the culti¬ vated area and earns the major share of the country's foreign exchange, continued its steady gains, moving up from 1,061,000 tons in 1968 to 1,118,000 in 1969. To escape the perils of dependence on a single export crop, government planners have developed an oil palm industry. Production of the oil soared from 92,000 tons in 1960 to 313,000 tons in 1969. Malaysia is now the world's largest exporter of both rubber and palm oil, and second only to Hawaii in shipment of canned pineapple. Its palm oil industry is now considering the possible expansion of production to as much as 2 million tons of oil per year by 1980. A pilot project to rehabilitate about 11 percent of the total area in coconuts is on target, but no overall improvement in production can be expected without a massive program to replace many thousand overage and low-producing trees. The production of copra in Malaysia was 154,000 tons in 1968 and 137,000 tons in 1969. The per acre output of copra from revitalized smallholdings was estimated at 1,000 pounds a year while holdings not included in the pilot project were estimated to yield 600 pounds. To expand crop diversification the government recently formed a central agency to coordinate the tasks of scattered research facilities and tackled some of the problems on which little progress has yet been made. Com and sorghum, sugar and bananas are believed to hold the most promise. Research on selection of high yielding varieties adapted to local conditions is being accelerated. Under experimental planting conditions, output per hectare has ranged from 2,580 to 3,480 kilograms. Farm production of com in 1969 was 14,000 tons, up 2,000 tons from 1968. Imports of com, largely from Thailand, were 186,000 tons in 1968 and 174,000 in 1969. Bakery products made from wheat flour processed in domestic mills are fast be¬ coming established as a major food staple in urban areas. Severe customs restrictions have been applied to imports of flour to assure that the three local mills with local employees are kept busy and not subjected to intense competition. No wheat is grown in Malaysia. Wheat imports for the mills were 360,000 tons in 1968 and 325,000 in 1969. These mills can easily satisfy domestic demand for slightly over 260,000 tons of flour. All but 10 percent of the imported wheat in 1968 came from Australia while the United States supplied a scant 3 percent. Proximity to the Malaysian mar¬ ket is Australia's principal advantage. (Goodloe Barry) NEW ZEALAND New Zealand's agriculture in 1969/70 may show no increase in volume output over 1968/69. Except for fruits and tobacco, crop yields are down sharply in 1970 be¬ cause of low rainfall and drought conditions in major farm areas. Meat production may increase; the actual level of slaughterings will depend on government efforts to secure imported feedgrains to maintain the livestock through the winter months and until the drought subsides. Payments will be made to farmers to defray freight costs of moving grain and hay to farms as well as moving cattle from drought to feed areas. Special import licenses will be granted to facilitate imports of over 300,000 tons of feed grains for livestock during the 1970 winter. The United States continues as New Zealand's largest market for beef and our takings of its lamb have increased. 22 Net farm income, estimated at $386 million in 1969/70, was about 6 percent above £ 0/69 This increase was supported by the steady growth in foreign demand the past years* for New Zealand's farm products, especially meat, wool, and horticulture crops, lume shipments of butter have also been maintained, even though export prices for iry products have been depressed. GNP increased by 8 percent in 1969/70 to $5.5 11 ion, of which agriculture accounted for 7 percent. The government continues to stimulate expansion of meat animals and horticultural ops through tax incentives and subsidies to farmers for pesticide and fertilizer penditures. More liberal credit and loan policies have been adopted to encourage Id development and farm diversification in both crops and livestock. The 1969/70 crop harvests in the process of completion are smaller than last , ar The growing season was one of the driest on record. Shortages of rainfall af- i c ted all major production areas except the southern parts of South Island. Greatest ■creases in crop production are expected in wheat, barley, potatoes, pulses, oni , id grass seeds. The supply of rye grass seed is so short that exports in 1969/70 ,d 1970/71 will drop sharply, particularly as domestic demand for grass seeds has 'creased. Apple and pear harvests are expected to be the highest in years. The to- 1C co harvest is expected to benefit from the dry weather conditions. Drought conditions reduced the area planted to wheat by 12 percent to 274,000 ures Production is now estimated at 327,000 tons, down from an early estimate of i6,000 tons. The current production is not adequate to meet domestic food and fee gquirements. Livestock numbers in 1970 reflect small increases over 1969 ieveis, but the full Efects of the current drought are not known. Cattle numbers are only slightly above h XI million of last year. Lambing conditions were good in 1969, but sheep num- ers declined by 1 percent to 60 million head. The drop was due mainly to a 1968 ecline in breeding ewes. Beef and veal production in 1969 increased 6 percent to the level of 406,000 ons chiefly because of good market potential and high export prices. Weights of cat.- le were generally maintained despite the drought. Wool production in 1969/70 wi ncrease only slightly to about 336,000 tons. Mutton production might advance 3 pe - ent to 203,000 tons. Lighter carcass weights of sheep are reported for 9 , ompared with last year. Production of butter fat in 1969/70 is estimated at 283,000 tons or about 6 P e ^' ■ent above 1968/69. Production continues at record levels despite a large ui P ,utter stocks the past 2 years. Cheese production declined in 1968/69 as some of 6 lilk usually processed into cheese was diverted to casein. Casein production :reased from 47,000 to 69,000 tons. Cheese production in 1969/70 will be up to L02,000 tons, but still below the 106,000-ton average for the mid-1960 s. Fluid mil >roduction in 1970 is expected to decline. New Zealand's agricultural policy continues to be governed by l°ng-term targets Eor increased production. It emphasizes promotion of pastures for livestock an rived products such as meat, milk and wool. Farm output is expected to grow at about 3 percent annually through 1972/73. The government is encouraging farmers to diversify production--from dairying- with emphasis on meat and crop production. It does this by e * tandin g t loan concessions on land purchases and development expenditures and by making arrangements to finance mixed livestock farm units. 23 New grass varieties are being developed and new breeds of livestock introduced to promote more efficient beef production. Some of the new grasses are highly nutritious and they provide good feed over a prolonged grazing season. From the 1969/70 budget the government subsidized the cost of pesticides. The subsidy amounts to 50 percent of the factory price, with controlled prices to farmers. This action was taken to compensate for the cost of pesticides to replace DDT. The fertilizer transport subsidy was revised to a flat rate of 6 cents per ton-mile, but not to exceed a maximum of $3.36 per ton. Export earnings for 1968/69 totaled $1.1 billion--the first year to exceed a bil¬ lion dollars. For 1969/70 the total value of all exports is estimated at $1.2 billion, or 9 percent above last year. Agricultural commodities now comprise about 82 percent of the total value of all exports against 94 percent 10 years ago. In 1969/70, meat exports--New Zealand's largest foreign exchange eamer--will probably strain the country's production capability. Increases in exports are fore¬ cast to the United States, Japan, and Canada. Beef supplies will probably be adequate to the demand, but mutton availabilities for export may be down in 1969/70. In the first 10 months of calendar 1969 New Zealand's exports of beef to Canada increased twelvefold over the same period of 1968. Canada is now New Zealand's second market for beef. Total meat exports to the United States in 1969 were estimated at about the same level as 1968. Marketing prospects in the United States for beef and lamb continue good during 1970 with both prices and demand at high levels. New Zealand's exports of butter to the United Kingdom have been limited to a base quota of 179,000 tons. Prices of New Zealand butter have remained steady since 1967 at about 32 cents per pound on the London market. New Zealand hopes to hold its U.K. cheese allocation of 76,000 tons. It will have an increased market for cheese in the U.S. market by about 3,400 tons. Efforts to diversify markets for dairy and meat products in 1969 revealed some new credit sales by the New Zealand Dairy Board. Chief among these was a credit issued to Peru for the purchase of nonfat dry milk and anhydrous fat. Another was a 3-year arrangement with India for sales of nonfat dry milk on 50 percent commercial and 50 percent aid terms. In addition, New Zealand hopes to increase sales of cheese to Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and possibly Indonesia in 1970. Sale of 7,000 tons of meat was made to the USSR. Export receipts for wool in 1969/70 were $246 million or 3 percent below last year. This is due mainly to the general decline in wool prices during recent months. Fruit exports to the United States in 1968/69 were valued at about $300,000. This consisted mainly of fresh apples and pears which arrived on the U.S. market in the winter months. There is a growing U.S. market for raspberries and strawberries air shipped from New Zealand. On the New Zealand import side prospects for U.S. exporters are not too good. Tobacco is the principal import from the United States, and pressure is mounting for greater use of New Zealand's own leaf, which is in fairly large supply. Consumption of tobacco products declined in the past year, but it is not clear whether this a general pattern or related to high prices. Of the 3,400 tons of tobacco leaf imported in 1968/69, the United States supplied 52 percent while South Africa and South Korea supplied 29 and 16 percent respectively. This is in contrast to the late 1950's when 24 p united States supplied 90 percent of the market. Rice, dried fruits, and small eds will be in good demand in 1970 and a relaxation of import restrictions on vege- ble seeds may stimulate some imports. (Mary E. Long) PAKISTAN Adverse weather slowed the momentum of the Green Revolution.in 1969. The wheat rvpst in the spring of 1969 rose 3.6 percent to about 6.7 million tons--but this s 1 million tons less than expected. Rice production increased about 2.5 percent 1969 because of an increase in the area planted. Large crops of cotton and ju e 11 blnefit Pakistan's exports in 1970. Exports of raw cotton in 1969 were only noo tons or half the level recorded in 1968. Pakistan's imports of.agricultura Liodities’from the United States are expected to exceed $100 million in 19 J° be ‘ use of larger arrivals of wheat and soybean oil under P.L. 480. Imports of food ems from Europe and Oceania will also rise. Wheat imports dropped from 1.5 million ns in 1968 to 326,000 tons in 1969, but a revival of wheat imports near the 196 vel is scheduled this year. Pakistan's military government calmed the political crisis that eve ope in rch 1969. Democratic elections are planned. Fulfillment of promised deliverie odgrains, vegetable oils, and manufactured products to East Pakistan helped to lm- □ve conditions there. During 1969/70 the United States is scheduled b ° aa " d about million tons of wheat and over 50,000 tons of vegetable oils 1to East Pakistan, tal deliveries of food grains to East Pakistan during 1969/70 are now scheduled a 7 million tons. Prospective shipments of grain from West Pakistan include 400,000 ns of milled rice and 100,000 tons of wheat. Deliveries of 100,000 tons of Japanese ce to East Pakistan in early 1970 may be followed by larger supplies. In recent ars the food situation has improved in West Pakistan but remained deficient in East kistan The per capita use of rice and wheat combined in East Pakistan was about “Sds more'than in Heat Pakistan, during the early 1960's and it is currently out one-fifth higher (table 5). West Pakistan's calorie intake continues to exceed ,st Pakistan's because of greater use of foods other than rice and wheat. ible 5.--Pakistan: Production, net trade, and availability of wheat and rice combined, July-June 1960/61 through 1969/70 Year >eginning July East Pakistan West Pakistan Pro¬ duction Net trade Avail- • Avail- ..... cable per ability r : capita Pro¬ duction Net trade . ., : Avail- Avail- . , . , . , :able per abllit y : caDita - - - - Million tons - - - - Kilos - - - - Mill ion tons - - - - Kilos )60 / 61 9.70 .69 10.39 199 4.83 .66 5.49 115 561/62 9.66 .39 10.05 186 5.21 .46 5.67 117 562/63 9.92 1.45 11.37 203 5.27 .30 5.57 112 563/64 10.65 1.07 11.72 202 5.45 .57 6.02 119 564/65 10.53 .34 10.87 181 5.60 1.38 6.98 136 565/66 10.59 .88 11.47 185 5.25 .27 5. 52 105 566/67 9.64 .98 10.62 165 5.69 . 66 6.35 119 967/68 11.23 .91 12.14 183 7.92 1.17 9.09 167 968/69 11.30 1.12 12.42 183 8.62 -.48 8.14 146 969/70 11.60 1.70 13.30 190 9.40 -.50 8.90 156 Note: Net trade for East and West Pakistan reflects shipments between the two areas, lostly shipments of rice from West Pakistan to East Pakistan. Minus sign indicates net xports by West Pakistan. 25 Rice and wheat combined account for about 90 percent of the calories received in East Pakistan, compared with 60 percent of the total in West Pakistan. Wheat has be¬ come important in the diet of urban areas of East Pakistan in the last decade, and it now accounts for almost 10 percent of the caloric intake there. The diet in West Pakistan is more diversified, with wheat accounting for about half of the calories re¬ ceived. Per capita use of coarse grains, milk, vegetable oils and sughr is consider¬ ably higher in West Pakistan. Grains from foreign sources and West Pakistan are needed in East Pakistan because production is growing so slowly. Pakistan's GNP increased by about 6 percent in calendar 1969, reaching $14 bil¬ lion. Industrial output increased about 7.5 percent, although strikes in Lahore caused a slight dip in the output of textiles during November. The output of jute products in 1969 remained about the same, although supplies of raw jute used were down from February through April. Sales of manufactured consumer goods were up in cities and prosperous farm areas. Total production of paddy rice rose from 20.1 million tons in 1968 to about 20.6 million tons in 1969. West Pakistan harvested about 3.5 million tons of paddy in 1969, up 75 percent in only 4 years. A 6-percent rise in rice production is antici¬ pated in 1970 because of further expansion in plantings of new varieties and fertilizer use. Plantings of IR-8 rice spread to newly irrigated areas in the Sind. The area planted in all IRRI varieties in West Pakistan accounted for about one-fourth of the total rice areas. Rice production in East Pakistan remained about the same in 1969. Farmers there planted about 700,000 hectares more rice but this was largely offset by flood damage to part of the crop. Double cropping of rice gained impetus in 1969 through expanded plantings of varieties with a shorter growing season and improved irrigation facilities. About 160,000 hectares were planted to IRRI varieties in East Pakistan in 1969. In late 1969 farmers in East Pakistan received about 450 tons of IR-20 seed from the Philip¬ pines. This new variety and IR-22 have greater resistance to diseases which afflict IR-8 during the summer monsoon. They also have favorable cooking and milling charac¬ teristics. The government has used guaranteed procurement prices, subsidized inputs, and farm extension programs to increase rice production. Rice prices in East Pakistan subsided from high levels during the critical months in early 1969. Prices for basmati rice remained at very high levels in West Pakistan, and those for other types of rice changed little. The 1969 procurement price for basmati rice was $196 per ton in West Pakistan, up $38 from 1967. The minimum support price for paddy in East Paki¬ stan increased from $73 per ton in 1967 to $101 in 1969. Wheat production in West Pakistan was below expectation in the spring of 1969. Dry weather caused a drastic yield reduction on non-irrigated fields. The distribution of some Mexi-Pak seed which had not been tested and certified resulted in lower yields in some areas than during 1967/68. Good yields from about 2 million hectares of high yielding varieties of wheat planted on irrigated land offset the smaller harvest from other areas. Total wheat production in West Pakistan nudged up from 6.4 million tons in 1968 to 6.6 million tons in 1969 despite adverse weather. High yielding varieties were planted on about 2.5 million hectares of 4.2 million hectares of irrigated wheat land during the 1969/70 season. Wheat production in the spring of 1970 in West Paki¬ stan is expected to exceed 7 million tons despite adverse weather during the first half of the growing season. The minimum procurement price for wheat was adjusted up¬ ward again in 1969 ($1.87 to $2.12 per bushel). Wheat production in East Pakistan is still relatively small--about 100,000 tons or one-tenth of the area's needs. Recent programs to diversify agriculture in West Pakistan have caused remarkable output gains 26 neanuts root crops, fruits, and vegetables. More attention will be focused , n livestock enterprises in the Fourth 5-Year Plan (1970/71 - 1974/75). Good rains in late January 1970 boosted West Pakistan's crops of barley, pulses, ■fltoes and winter vegetables in addition to the wheat crop. The upward trend in Auction of many winter crops in West Pakistan has been assisted by technologica jrovements and the use of water stored by Mangla Dam. The production of onions has ’o doubled in the last decade and a crop of over 220,000_tons is expected 5 the spring of 1970. The production of fruit in commercial orchards increase rkedly P in 1969. Since 1963 the production of bananas, dates, mangoes, and peac es s increased markedly in West Pakistan. To ease the growing shortage of vegetable oils, farmers are encouraged to grow re oilseeds Production of cottonseed rose 16 percent, but rapeseed was off 11 per- Bt Peanut‘production increased from 33,000 tons in 1964 to about 17 5,000 tons in 69’ Commercial production of sunflower seed has been encouraged through distnbu- n‘of“ seeds by the government. Experiments for growing soybeans were successful ly in some areas near Rawalpindi. Imports of soybean oil into Pakistan may reac 0,000 tons by 1975 because of difficulty in producing enough oilseeds. Jute production in East Pakistan exceeded 1.2 million tons in 1969 as itdid eviously in 1961 and 1967. Floods damaged the jute crop in 1968 more than in 1969. tton production reached a record 583,000 tons in 1969. Yields of cotton have eased through the use of more fertilizer, irrigation water, and improved seeds. Tobacco production in West Pakistan declined slightly in 1968/69 because of poor iinfall in the winter. Adverse weatner again hampered production in 1969/70. Agricultural production in East Pakistan is expected to show.promise in J 970 >cause of new seed introductions for many crops in addition to rice and wheat. Since 164 the production of bananas, potatoes, peanuts, pineapples, onions, and citrus ruits has increased rapidly. Manv small farmers are growing more cash crops, partly by double cropping land Lanted in rice during the monsoon. They are expanding plantings of tobacco, cotton, lillies, n a nd sugarcane. The production of rape and mustard seed, and linseed has jt increased significantly in the last 5 years. Pakistan's total exports declined about 9 percent in 1969 from the record $720 illi P on^tt a ain:d ^1968! A decline in the quantity of jute and jute —es ex¬ ited in 1969 was traceable to a drop in production of jute 1968 * /^/^Lti hese exports was also down despite rise in export prices. High prices for basma ice inTest Pakistan limited rice exports to the Middle East. Exports of some less mportant items continued upward, including leaf tobacco, household appliances, a ilcake. Raw cotton exports fell to about half the high level of $100 million recorded in 968 High prices^and a fire at Karchi's docks in early 1969 contributed to the de- * E^orfs of cotton in 1970 are expected to exceed 155,000 tons. Larger sales o Hong Kong, Japan, and Western Europe are planned. Pakistan's cotton is note ° r ts strength Export prices quoted for Pakistan's medium staple cotton are usually ibout a clnt per pound higher than those for comparable grades of American cotton. Sales of jute to Western Europe continued to decline. Total exports of jute ieclined Lsiderably in 1969 despite large shipments to the USSR and £.t.» Europe. Exports of jute products declined slightly; exports of carpet backing b ° ™ ™ “ :reased moderately. Exports of basmati rice are expected to “ c J« d East L970 because of larger exports to Kuwait and some other markets in the Middle East. 27 Pakistan's agricultural imports declined from $204 million in 1968 to $99 million in 1969. By value, soybean oil from the United States was the leading agricultural import in 1969. Imports of wheat for East Pakistan during 1969 were less than 250,000 tons compared with 1.5 million tons in 1968. Imports of fruits into West Pakistan again exceeded $10 million in 1969, including imports of fresh grapes and raisins from Afghanistan and dried dates from Iraq and Iran. U.S. agricultural exports to Pakistan in 1969 were only $40 million compared with $107 million in 1968. However, shipments are scheduled to rise again in 1970, and exports under P.L. 480 will include over 1 million tons of wheat and 140,000 tons of vegetable oils. American exports of fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, and other farm supplies to Pakistan are increasing. Total consumption of fertilizer in Pakistan increased from 125,000 nutrient tons in 1965/66 to 369,000 tons in 1968/69. Imports of fertilizer from the United States, USSR, and Western Europe increased, reflecting Pakistan's lagging domestic output. Trade between West and East Pakistan reached a record in the 12 months ended June 1969. West Pakistan sent about 350,000 tons of rice and 104,000 tons of wheat to East Pakistan in 1968/69. The value of all commodities received by East Pakistan from the west wing in 1968/69 reached $291 million. Some of the leading items were cotton textiles, raw cotton, tobacco, rape and mustard seeds, rice, machinery, and cement. West Pakistan's imports from East Pakistan in 1968/69 were valued at $183 million. The leading items received by West Pakistan were tea, jute products, paper, matches and leather. (John B. Parker, Jr.) PHILIPPINES Excellent growing conditions in 1969 succeeded a severe 18-month drought, lifting Philippine agricultural production an estimated 7 percent over 1968. Rice, aided by both better weather and increased plantings of new high yielding varieties, led the advance with a gain of 16 percent to almost 5.2 million tons. Com, the country's No. 2 staple, went up 14 percent to 1.6 million tons in 1969. Copra and centrifugal sugar, the nation's most lucrative export crops, were slower to recover and their output in 1969 was stagnant. With continuing favorable weather, and more fertilizer and irrigation, all these crops should show good production gains in 1970. If the harvests live up to early promises, rice imports will continue unneeded and the sugar quota in the U.S. market will be filled. The future of copra is clouded by complications following adoption in February 1970 of a floating foreign exchange rate for the peso which is no longer peggei at 3.9 to 1 dollar. The exchange rate is now determined by market demand, which early this year ranged between 5 and 6 to the dollar. Philippine finances were under severe strain in late 1969 and early 1970. In the first 9 months of 1969 the government accumulated an unprecedented budget deficit of $167 million, topping the 1968 shortage by 157 percent. The jolt to the economy was compounded by a $208-million deficit in the balance of trade in the first half of 1969. The imbalance and consequent loss of vital foreign exchange came from static export shipments and ever rising imports. To combat the imbalance of foreign trade, the Central Bank leaned heavily on the new lower floating exchange rate to encourage exports of coconut products (except copra), pineapples, bananas, abaca, and rice if available. Imports in general were discouraged by the lower value of the peso. Restrictions announced in November posed a threat to Philippine imports of agricultural commodities. However, fears of deep 28 • the three largest imports from the United States were eased in March 1970 when ^Central Bank notified commercial banks in Manila that no import of wheat, raw cot- ' nr lea£ tobacco will be permitted except under the United States CCC export program These three commodities together accounted for 62 percent of the value all U.S. agricultural shipments to the Philippines in 19 . ThP International Rice Institute announced the naming of two new strains, 1R-20 • 1R 22 Both are high yielding, more resistant to plant disease, and have better d IR 'j lv • nnfl 1 i ties than the IR-8 and IR-5; and both are expected to appeal Hing “ nd f ook *"f q tastes The IR-20 will be used where full inputs may not be ovided;°the e iR-B^wher^more' intensive use of water and fertiliser inputs will be ovided. • . off sharolv to 550,000 tons in 1968/69 after hitting a record Wheat imports slipped off 8 “*Pjy t0 ” ; of the marUet declined slightly to out^90 C percent d ua^bo^increased price competition^ particularly^from^subsidized^^^^^ each Hour and soft whea. Canada and .. o£ their „ heat to the Philippines, ith^rives'were^based fargely on extension of more favorable credit terms. Exports of coconut products top hard money —e^i^he^ilippine^overseas •ade, slipped lower xn calendar 1969. decreased 2 0 percent to 211,000 >wn almost 15 percent from . f Though prices of coconut prod- >ns and desiccated coconuts 30 percent to 50,000 ton^ Though Pr^es^ ^ ^ :ts turned up in the last quarter o , ciiehtlv less than in 1968. Production f 1 QA 8 Production of copra in 1969 was slightly less enan m y lose of 1968. Production v ^ exceptionally severe drought with rainfall iffered from typ oon amag 1969. Production could return to the pre- Ef 25 percent all through 1968 and int ° ^ ™ one feature of the new floating .ought level toward the almost all exports of copra be- ireign exchange rate for the p , . This exchange decree, issued luse its price balance with coconut ° X cen t of’the dollars earned from copra ex- ,ar the end of February, required that 8° perwn « orts be surrendered to the Central Bank at the old convert * d at an ex- ollar, whiie ail do11 ^ ^t^the^ollar in mid-March. This level gave hange rate which was about . P Steos already have been taken to expand do- t° eap^Uy. A ccmpxebensive $ i7-miUion acbeme to modernise £ Si-ns^lesScooonSt plan. For the third successive year sugar shipments were made just in ““ to J‘“ the asic Philippine 1969 quota of 1,176 000 fo^tons^in^he^high-payin^ ^ laH Si, 69 -d an o £ f 700 ," 00 n ro„rr;ear e ire^:cted. Where the -plus^ill be^marketed tfter satisfaction of domestic an uuota nee s n kn wn^ Hor^ ne land holders :onsuming than constructing the mills are tne negu to grow cane and deliver it to the mills. Another crop hard hit by the drought was tobacco ^he ^^1968/69 harvest was^ reported at about 77,800 tons down 11 P er “"‘ '™ t £ d ' ce a large accumulated surplus loss could have been a hidden blessing y P g ... tobacco sustained less of low quality, flue-cured tobacco. However, the lew quality tobacco damage than the high quality. The 1969/70 harvest may be 80,000 29 The downtrend in the production of abaca during the previous 5 years continued in 1969 but slowed significantly. Output in 1969 reached only 59,000 tons. The 1968 ex¬ ports of abaca were 455,000 bales (126.5 kilograms), 17 percent smaller than the pre¬ vious year. However, domestic consumption increased, due mainly to the development of new uses and the opening of two pulp and paper mills. The generally reduced shipment to overseas markets is attributed in part to the substitution of new fibers for abaca in the making of cordage. The weakening demand in the U.S. market is reflected to some degree by declining prices--from $343 per ton in 1964 to $268 in 1966 and $255 in 1968. Farm weight of pineapple production increased rapidly to about 400,000 tons in 1968/69 from the previous year's 280,000 tons. Canned pineapples have become one of the 10 principal exports of the Philippines. Shipments overseas in 1968 were between 100,000 and 110,000 tons. They went up perhaps 30,000 tons higher in 1969. The Unitec States is the principal market, taking about 30 percent. Most of the remainder goes to Western Europe with smaller quantities to Japan, Hong Kong, and Canada. (Goodloe Barry) TAIWAN Taiwan's total agricultural production in 1969 was unchanged from the previous year. A decline in crop production, due in part to severe typhoon damage, was offset by a gain in meat output. Rice production fell 3 percent to 3.2 million tons and exports during the year reached only 42,000 tons. Sugarcane production dropped to 7.0 million tons in 1969 or 15 percent, and exports of sugar were off even more sharply Exports of preserved foods reached the $100-million mark in 1969, and banana ship¬ ments gained. Imports of wheat, corn, barley, and soybeans increased sharply in 1969, while cotton was little changed from 1968. The GNP for 1969 at current prices is estimated at $4.8 billion, up almost 9 percent over 1968. Per capita income gained 5 percent, reaching $258 in 1969. Agricultural production accounted for 21 percent of GNP in 1969, and this share continu; to decline while that of industry has risen to one-third. Gold and foreign exchange holdings at the end of December 1969 totaled $477 millio compared with $381 million' a year earlier. Taiwan's foreign exchange position in 1969 was supported by gains in exports, capital investments, and tourism. Tourists brought an estimated $75 million to Taiwan in 1969. The government is supporting investment in construction of modern hotels and in development of national parks and recreational facilities. The investments are expected to boost tourism income by $100 million by the end of 1972. Taiwan's industrial production increased an estimated 25 percent in 1969. In¬ dustrial products accounted for 70 percent of total exports with textile exports representing 23 percent. Industrial development is placing more emphasis on electronic: petrochemicals, shipbuilding, machinery, metals, textiles, plywood, and food processing Construction of several irrigation dams continued into 1970. The largest is the Tsengmen Reservoir project, capable of irrigating over 85,000 hectares of rice land when completed in 1973. This irrigation potential is also capable of producing an estimated additional 140,000 tons of rice, and at the same time it will reduce crop losses from flooding. Other reservoirs under construction include the upper Tachien and Hou Lung projects. Three typhoons near midyear caused considerable damage to food crops. The 1969 rice crop dropped an estimated 3.4 percent to 3.2 million tons. Sugarcane production 30 . . -7 ■ 11 j__ f n nc in 1969 or 15 percent, due mainly to a drop in planted Ze wSch in turn reflected low sugar prices at planting time. Any typhoon damage Jane*will be reflected in 1970 production of sugar as the milling season is in the .y months of the year. Growing conditions were ideal despite slight typhoon damage to fresh.vegetables, the 1969 production increased 20 percent to 1.5 million tons. The gain arose in frnm increase in area but even more from higher yields. The sweetpotato area : Tin 1 69 and production rose 7 percent to 3.7 million tons. Typhoons reduced 'banana aid citrus fruit production to 584,000 tons and 168,000 tons respectively, juction of pineapples, tea, pulses, and cassava increased. Mushroom production reased due to the excessively mild winter. Winter crops are declining in Taiwan, due to low crop prices and higher labor cs 0£ the winter crops, only vegetables, tobacco, and pulses have been able ntain acreage in recent years, while others such as soybeans, rapeseed, tobacco, at have declined. Production of rice in 1970 is expected to increase, despite the current rice sur- Further increases in production of fresh vegetables and citrus fruits can al xoected Banana JroducUon in the first 4 months in 1970 suffered from the effect the 1969 typhoons. The government is encouraging production of soybeans and corn 1970 by restricting winter imports. Livestock and poultry production benefited from increases In imported eoarse Ins and output of meat products increased an estimated 6 percent tn 9 . duch" increased 5.8 percent to 342,000 tons. With expansion j" ^ = “Sht-ing, •k exnorts amounted to 6,000 tons in 1969. Frozen pork exports have prospects. •ning $25 million a year. Pork exports go mainly to Japan and European countries, ltry production increased 6 percent in 1969, and egg production a so gained The ted Nations Development Program (UNDP) approved a 5-year, $2.3 million project in .^ary 1969 to establish a research institute in Taipei for improving hog production. , UUDP will contribute $805,000 and the government will furnish the remain e . Foreign trade continued to expand in 1969. Total value of exports is estimated SI 1 billion, up 29 percent. The United States, Japan, and West Germany are the jor markets f« ?aiwan's agricultural exports Export value of canned pineapp es shrooms, and asparagus in 1969 was an estimated $78 million, down 5.8 pe t r n ?o^ t equaled in 1969, due to a decrease e planting season. imports or sugcu. a 9 nnn iwan's rice exports in 1969, nearly all to South Vietnam, are estimated at 42,000 ns Exports have been decreasing primarily because Japan, the largest foreign t, has had arge crops and so could reduce its imports. After 8 years of negotiations d exper?me«s! Japan agreed to import 500 tons of Taiwan's Ponkan Tangerines in 969. iwan exports annually 10,000 tons of fresh citrus fruits to other Asian countr her agricultural exports include tea, onions, citronella 01 , p ’ mboo shoots, vegetables, and ginger roots. Taiwan's agricultural exports in 1970 may show only modest gains ^000^^1 ^typhoon .mage and difficulties in expanding or regaining export mar e b an , b oo shoots, inned mushrooms, asparagus, and pineapples. Exports of sug > stimulate ,d possibly asparagus will show some effects from the 1969 typhoons. To stimulate P 7exports P of canned foods, the government reduced the surcharge taxes on mush- Ld asparagus exports from 5 percent to 3 percent, effective January 1, 1970. 31 The government placed a ceiling on imports of com, wheat, soybeans and raw cott for the period April 1 through December 31, 1969. Port congestion, limited use of foreign exchange, and limited storage and transportation facilities made these ceiling necessary. Grain imports, mostly wheat and com, are estimated at 1 million tons in 1969 ar* are forecast at 20 percent more in 1970. Wheat imports increased substantially in 1969 to an estimated 575,000 tons, including some for feed. About 56,000 tons came f France. Wheat imports are forecast at 530,000 tons in 1970. Com imports were incre. to an estimated 400,000 tons in 1969 to meet demands of the growing poultry and live¬ stock industries. Thailand was the major supplier. A further increase is expected ii 1970. Barley imports in 1969 increased 42 percent to 75,000 tons. Imports of soybeans were record high at 610,000 tons in 1969, and likely will no maintain this level in 1970. The United States is a major supplier of wheat and soy¬ beans to Taiwan. Rapeseed imports rose from zero in 1959 to 45,000 tons in 1968, then fell to 20,000 tons in 1969. Canada has supplied the bulk of rapeseed to Taiwan Rapeseed imports have been halted to encourage domestic production. Taiwan's raw cotton imports for 1969 are estimated at 87,000 tons, about the sam< as in 1968. U.S. exports in 1969 totaled 47,000 tons, down 42 percent from the same period in 1968. As the shipping strike curtailed U.S. exports, Brazil and Guatemala made up the difference. Imports of raw cotton may decline somewhat in 1970 because cotton stocks are large and because expansion of overseas textile trade is difficult. U.S. exports of farm products to Taiwan in 1969 totaled $107 million in 1969 or 8 percent below 1968. The chief items exported were soybeans, wheat, and raw cotton. Lesser items include tallow, com, nonfat dry milk, tobacco, and vegetable oils. The decline in 1969 reflected much smaller shipments of raw cotton and wheat that were only partially offset by gains in soybeans and tobacco. (Charles E. Goode) THAILAND Thailand's good weather boosted agricultural production in 1969. Rice and com crops are at record levels, and exports should increase moderately in 1970. Kenaf production more than doubled the 1968 low. Rubber output has increased markedly. But the 1969 cotton crop was less than half the 1968 harvest. Gross Domestic Product (deflated) increased about 7 percent. Although 75 percen of the Thai people make their living from agriculture, agriculture's share in national income decreased from 31 percent in 1966 to 28 percent in 1969. Agricultural commodit continue to provide about three-fourths of Thailand's export earnings. Thailand has a growing trade deficit. In 1965 imports totaled $736 million, exceeding exports by $114 million. By the first half of 1969 imports had risen to an annual rate of $1.2 billion. This was nearly double the level of exports, and the deficit with Japan alone was greater than the entire deficit in 1965. Exports of im¬ portant grains did not meet expected levels in 1969 and prices were down. Despite the trade deficit, several factors have kept the balance of payments favorable in recent years--U.S. military spending, tourism, and foreign investment. Last year these factors failed to maintain a favorable balance. Tourist revenue and foreign investment expenditures continued to rise in 1969, but U.S. military spending decreased by a fourth. The government of Thailand has initiated policies to combat the trade deficit. For example, export premiums have been lowered to stimulate rice sales. The Thais 32 negotiating with Japan about their adverse balance of trade and are insisting on ore balanced trade plan. In addition, Thailand is looking for new markets in tern Europe, India, and Africa. The 1969/70 rice crop is estimated at 13.4 million tons of paddy (8.9 million tons i H") Though localized flood damage and losses from pests and disease dimmed earlie Tth yields and planted area exceeded those of the previous year. Abundant timely rainfall insured a bumper harvest, currently estimated to be second only to ,t of 1966/67. Three new rice varieties, developed under the supervision of a private U.S. i were accepted by the rice department in 1969. They are high quality Meties ’crosses between native and IR-8 strains, reported to be higher yielding t A 8 aid more resistant to native diseases. They are long grain varieties, two l-glutinous and one glutinous. The government plans for 16,000 hectares o e inted in new varieties next season. Rice production should increase again next year if weather continues to be favor- ^ their levels. Weather has been unusually good. Area ioteS to r ?lce e cuUlvatlcn has Increased In the past 5 years from 6.5 million hectares ,0 7 wmon tTctares and there Is some potential for further expansion^ Yields oicn increased from 1.64 tons per hectare 5 years ago to 1.77 tons per hectare 1969/70. Increased use of fertilizer and the development of irrigation projec s „ e contributed to this yield increase; and further gains are expected. Rice exports remained stable at 1 million tons in 1969 well below 1the goal of ^ Li. TVm value of rice exports declined about 20 percent 4 million‘prices ' Traditional markets, the Philippines and Malaysia, increased “r o« domesu! supplies and bought less Thai rice while Indonesia received rice der the U.S. P.L. 480 program. In the face of increasing production and declin g . . U t,. f or domestic use in Thailand has increased more rapidly than Sution ln^ec^ years rrfrice has been available for nonfood uses Additional ce is now used for feed in hog and poultry production and in the manufacture o cohol. Table 6.--Thailand: Supply of rice milled 1964-70 Year Production 1_/ * Exports : Available : for domestic ; use 64 . 7,768 1,896 5,872 65 . 7,306 1,895 5,411 5,605 7,428 6,323 7,165 66 . 7,113 1,508 67 . 8,910 1,482 68 . 7,391 1,068 8,191 1,026 70 fpQfimflfpd) . 8,851 1,200 7,651 J Production of preceding year. 33 There is also a good com crop for 1969/70. Production rose 13 percent to 1.7 million tons. Exports in 1969 were at 1.4 million tons, slightly less than in 1968. Domestic consumption of com has increased substantially. Much of this increase has been absorbed by feed mills. The domestic price of com has been rising and recently moved above the export price. Disagreements about prices between Thai exporters and Japanese importers, combined with heavy demand from other foreign purchasers and in¬ creasing demand on the domestic market, have led to non-fulfillments of Japan-Thai cor agreements. Although the share going to Japan will probably continue to decrease, tot 1970 exports of com from Thailand should rise above last year's level. Rubber production increased 12 percent to 288,000 tons in 1969. Prices for rubbe on the world market were high in the first half of 1969. Thailand's rubber exports fo the first half of 1969 gained 7 percent in volume over the first half of 1968 while value rose 61 percent. Export prices began to fall again in the second half of 1969. Total exports increased from 252,000 tons in 1968 to an estimated 270,000 tons in 1969 The government took steps last year to encourage production of rubber and rubber products. A government committee increased its contribution to rubber plantation owners 8 percent to $24.33 per acre for replanting. The government also reduced ad valorem duty rates on rubber processing ingredients in order to further stimulate pro¬ duction of rubber products in Thailand. The domestic industry is composed of four com panies, two U.S. plants, one Japanese plant, and a Taiwanese plant. Together they use less than 5 percent of the natural rubber produced in Thailand. Kenaf production increased substantially from a low of 139,000 tons in 1968 to 300,000 in 1969. The increase was spurred by higher prices. Because of the price rise, value of kenaf exports nearly doubled in the first 6 months in 1969, compared to the same period in 1968, although volume of exports in the two periods were about equal Domestic use of kenaf in making gunny bags declined in 1969. With the higher productic of this season, stocks will increase or prices will fall unless Thailand can quickly come up with substantial new markets. Production of cassava in 1969 was 2.2 million tons, off from 2.4 million tons in 1968. The reduction was largely a reaction to low prices for tapioca products. Exports remained approximately constant. Thailand and six other Asian countries have formed an Asian coconut community. The community collectively produces 80 percent of world coconut output and is con¬ cerned with world trade problems, specifically the restrictive measures of the EEC. Wheat, tobacco, and cotton are some of the chief commodities that Thailand imports The United States supplies substantial amounts of tobacco and cotton, and a little of the wheat and wheat flour. The value of U.S. agricultural exports to Thailand in 1969 was $32 million. Thailand's wheat imports (grain equivalent) increased to 62,000 tons in 1969. The U.S. provides only about 15 percent of this market. Thailand both imports and exports tobacco. Production was 41,000 tons in 1968/69 and is expected to rise to 43,000 tons in 1969/70. Imports are mainly of Virginia leaf principally from the United States. The United States exported $19 million worth of tobacco to Thailand in 1969, a volume of 11,000 tons. Cotton also is both produced and imported by Thailand. Thailand's cotton crop fell sharply to 12,000 tons (55,000 bales) in 1969. There was a drastic reduction in planted area due to drought and insect infestation. For several years Thailand has imported 100,000 to 115,000 bales of cotton annually, about three-fourths from the United States. In 1968, 95 percent came from the United States. In 1969 U.S. exports 34 ,, , 1anfl fpll sharply to 43,000 bales, less than a half the level of 1968. Brazil Mexico largely filled the gap by underpricing U.S. suppliers. In the current year ,rts may rise to 175,000 bales to maintain mill consumption. Although there is ;on development center in Thailand, no solution has yet been found to the problem f station of Thai cotton, and import requirements should remain fa r y ig • .nfestation of Thai cot^ ^ ^ competltive In the Thai market in 1970. Barter irac^s have been set up, and more Commodity Credit Corporation and Export-Import bank incing at low interest rates is being used. The current Thai development plan (1967-71) is encouraging primary processing. ■nf-prpctpd in attracting industries that would stimulate production f r — n ll agricul tura^commodities, and those that would produce for export, processing g t in rural development. The Asian Development Bank is t Pa Ln an irrigation project and the establishment of a land bank. The government als^encouraging^production^of new rice varieties and increased use of fertiliser, ncy Hancock) SOUTH VIETNAM Agricultural production continues to be disrupted by the activities of the war. >ite this 1969 rice production rose to 5.1 million tons, a gain ° P e The increase was caused by better weather and expanded use of new rice varieties, luction of other agricultural commodities last year w a s e ^h e r down or at the se al as the previous year. U.S. agricultural exports to South q 00 toL $ Lion in 1969, reflecting a sharp reduction in rice exports to 344,000 tons. In industry production of key products such as textiles and cement is up over t year Section is also up, but figures net of war destruction are not avail- . Inflation remains a major economic problem for the government. Increased rice ; s were partly responsible for inflation last year. The price increased when the e supply Sas reduced because the 1969/70 crop was late and import shipments were timely. The 1969 rice production of 5.1 million tons was the most since 1964. The planted a was 2 5 million hectares, an increase of 3 percent over the previous year. The target for the planting of new varieties, IR-8 and IR-5, was 200,000 hectares ; t year, and at least 174,000 hectares were planted Large areas were a so^p ^ c-Mp t-he official program. Area planted in new varieties in 1500 « ’ I goal for 1970 is 500,000 hectares; this would increase the area un er new var e 9n nprrpnt of total riceland in 1970. The national average yield for the ne fetfes is 5 tons^er hectare, about double that of traditional varieties. Production 1970 should be adequate for domestic needs. Sugarcane production in Vietnam exceeded 1 million tons in 1965, b QQ Q h ^ istically from year to year; in 1969 it was 350,000 tons of cane <35,000 tons ot >ar) . While sugar production has been decreasing, sugar refining as een inc e ; u t two-thirds of the raw sugar for refining is imported. Around 100,000 tons led sugar was processed in 1969. A program to improve diets by increasing domestic production of animal protein foods s met with some success. Chicken and hog enterprises are expanding sharply 1 Ltions near urban areas. The output of poultry meat and pork tirely in the domestic market. Imports of feeds, mainly corn have ,^ d support these enterprises. Imports were nearly 60,000 tons in 1969 and -^exceed 0,000 tons in 1970. Thailand has supplied a small part of the me from the United States under P.L. 480. 35 U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 POSTAGE a FEES PA® Unitod Slo*»* ol A«ticwliun Rubber production has fallen consistently since the 1962 output of 78 million tom Production in 1969 was only 25,000 tons. The causes of the decline are linked to the war; its damage to rubber trees, failure to replant and plant more competitive varietie. and generally high costs because of the war. Seventy-five percent of rubber plantatior are French owned, and the French are not investing under these conditions. South Vietnam's imports far exceed its exports. Rubber is the chief export. Valu: at $9.2 million in 1968, it accounted for nearly four-fifths of the total in that year. Small amounts of tea, duck feathers, and fish are usually exported. France is the principal market for Vietnamese exports. Predominant among imports, valued at $466 million in 1968, were industrial products including machinery and consumer goods. Agricultural products comprised about a third of the total. U.S. agricultural exports to Vietnam were valued at $132 million for 1969. Most of these goods were exported under Title I of P.L. 480. U.S. exports of rice to Vietnam fell again in 1969 to 344,000 tons--off one-third from 1968--but still comprise more than two-fifths of all U.S. agricultural exports to that country. Other major ite> exported to Vietnam increased in 1969. Flour rose to 145,000 tons, com to 73,000 tons cotton to 73,000 bales, and all dairy products to a value of $19 million. Japan exports to Vietnam about two-thirds as much as does the United States, but few of these exports are agricultural. France, Thailand, Taiwan and Singapore are other important exporters to Vietnam. Legislation passed in early 1969 provides that land recovered by the government shall remain in the hands of the occupying tenants, that rentals on such land may not be increased, and that payment of back rents may not be required. Land-to-the-Tiller legislation of March 1970 provides for free distribution of land to cultivators. Land¬ lords may retain up to 15 hectares while tenant farmers are to receive grants varying from one hectare in Central Vietnam to 3 hectares in the Mekong Delta. Landowners are to be paid 20 percent in cash and 80 percent in 8-year bonds. (Nancy Hancock) 36 * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 3%-2JA (SSS-2i ry of ILLINOIS tmre LIBRARY HONG KONG'S (PANDING AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS PROJECTIONS TO 1980 IS FOREIGN 296 • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE • ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE ABSTRACT This report presents the principal commodity supply and demand projecti for Hong Kong and the implications for its foreign trade, particularly with United States. Of major importance are Hong Kong's expanding population, ri ing per capita income, limited farmland, and consequent declining self-suffi ciency in agricultural production. Projections for 1980 made by the Economi Research Center of the Chinese University of Hong Kong indicate that net foo import requirements will increase by 115 percent over the 1964 level. Key Words: Hong Kong, Projections, Commodities, Import, Export, Consumption PREFACE This report summarizes the major findings of a comprehensive study, Lorn Te rm Economic and Commodities Projections for Hong Kong 1970-1980 . conducted under contract for the U.S. Department of Agriculture by a team of economist: at the Economic Research Center of the Chinese University of Hong Kong under the leadership of Anthony M. Tang, director of the Center. The primary pur¬ pose of the study was to determine production, consumption, and import trend; of agricultural products in Hong Kong, and to project import demand for 1970. 1975, and 1980. Findings in this study are those of the contractor and do nc necessarily coincide with views of the Department. Some of the trends and analyses presented here are based on information from additional sources. ii CONTENTS Page Preface. ii Summary. i- v Economic Projections. 1 Population. 1 Employment structure. Trade. Agricultural Projections. Agricultural economy. Rice. 3 Wheat and wheat flour. 3 Vegetable oilseeds and oils. 4 Peanuts. ^ Soybeans. ^ Soybean and peanut oils. 4 Vegetables. ^ Fruits. 5 Milk and milk products. 5 Meat. Tobacco. Cotton. Lard and tallow. 3 Role of U.S. Exports in Hong Kong. 8 Washington, D.C. April 1970 SUMMARY Projections of requirements through 1980 show that Hong Kong's agricul¬ tural production will be increasingly unable to meet future expected needs. The Crown Colony's already declining ability to provide its own food will be further aggravated by an increasing population, higher per capita consumption rates, and a great lack of arable land. Thus, the Colony's self-sufficiency ratio (ability to provide own needs) is expected to drop from 20 percent in 1963 to 16 percent by 1980. As a re¬ sult, net food import requirements will reach US $569 million (1964 prices) by 1980--an increase of 115 percent over 1964. Using 1962-64 as a base period, the projections indicate the following anticipated increased demand for specific commodities in 1980: rice, peanuts, soybeans, and vegetable oils--up 65 percent; wheat flour, lard, and tallow-- up 110 percent; wheat, vegetables, fruits, meats, and dairy products--up 140- 170 percent. Higher per capita consumption rates account for much of the anticipated greater demand. Per capita consumption of rice, peanuts, soybeans, and vege¬ table oils is expected to increase by over 21 percent; lard and tallow, 37 percent; fruits and vegetables, 66 percent; meats and dairy products, 75 per¬ cent; and so on. The traditionally strong position of the United States in satisfying Hong Kong's food needs is expected to continue, but the role of Mainland China as a food supplier will grow in importance. iv HONG KONG'S EXPANDING AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS PROJECTIONS TO 1980 by Arnjad H. Gill, Agricultural Economist Foreign Regional Analysis Division Economic Research Service ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS pulation In 1946, Hong Kong had 1.5 million people. By 1950, the population had mped to 2.3 million and was fairly stable until 1955, when it was 2.4 mi ion, nee 1959, however, the birth rate has declined. In 1959, there were 104,579 rths, in 1962, 111,905, and in 1965, only 102,195. In 1960 the population is 3.1 million and by 1965, there were 3.7 million people. The projecte .pulation of Hong Kong will be 4.0 million in 1970, 4.5 million in 1915, a 2 million by 1980. Immigration from Mainland China has boosted populati i -owth, particularly between 1946-50 and 1955-60. In the future, immigration ,ould decline as a factor in population growth, barring any unexpected poli- uCal developments. lployment Structure The employment structure in Hong Kong has several distinct features: a de age range of employees, a high percentage of female workers, and a hig sreentage of industrial workers. Often, among poorer families, children age and over are employed at least part time. Forty-seven percent of Hong Kong s imen were employed in 1961. This was the highest percentage in the world ex- apt for Japan, where 55 percent of the women were employed in 1960. Further- ore, the percentage of female employment in Hong Kong has probably risen even igher since 1961 due to the expansion of the electronics, plastics, and garment ndustries. The number of agricultural workers is very small--only 47,223 full-time farm workers out of a total population of just over 3 million (1961 census). Most people are employed in either manufacturing or service industries, the 1961 labor force, 40 percent were employed in manufacturing, 44 percent in 1 services such as commerce, utilities, etc., and 8 percent in building and con¬ struction. According to the study, total employment projections for Hong Kong are as follows: 6 6 Year Total emplovment 1970 1.8 million 1975 2.1 million 1980 2.5 million Trade Outside influences have changed Hong Kong from an entrepot to an indus¬ trialized economy. The Crown Colony has become increasingly dependent upon imports of raw materials and food for domestic consumption. Mainland China supplied 20 to 25 percent of Hong Kong's food and other essentials in 1952-65. Western Europe's share of the Hong Kong import market was 30 percent in 1952. By 1965, Western Europe's share dropped to 22 percent. Imports from the developing countries in 1952 were 24 percent and by 1965 had dropped to 18 percent. Mainland China's share of Hong Kong's imports has re¬ mained at around 20 to 25 percent. The U.S. share of Hong Kong's imports in- creased from 6 percent in 1952 to 12 percent in 1965. In terms of dollar value the U.S. share of Hong Kong's imports in 1952 was $39.8 million of a total im¬ port value of $663 million, while in 1965 the U.S. share rose to $188.7 million of a total import value of $1,572.8 million. While 18 percent of Hong Kong's total exports went to Mainland China in 1952, the share had dropped to 4 percent by 1965. The Crown Colony's exports to Japan dropped from 4 percent in 1952 to 3 percent by 1965. Hong Kong's trade with Mainland China and Japan is unbalanced in their favor. It has made up this unbalance with exports to the United States and Canada, which increased from 5 percent of the total in 1952 to 37 percent in 1965. In 1962-64, Hong Kong met only 19 percent of its food requirements from local production. Owing to population increase and rising per capita consump¬ tion, it is projected that by 1980 Hong Kong will be able to-produce only 16 8?n ent i? f ltS f ?nf/ need f' Net im P° rts are Projected to rise from a base of $265 million m 964 to $315.6, $406.1, and $569 million in 1970, 1975, and 1980, respectively. 1/ Agricultural Economy AGRICULTURAL PROJECTIONS In Hong Kong, agricultural production is but a small segment in the econ¬ omy, accounting for a little over 3 percent of the gross domestic product and 1/ All values in US$. 2 ying less than one-fifth of the food requirements. Agricultural produc- relative to manufacturing and service industries delined steadily in the decade. Geography is the main factor restricting the expansion of agriculture in Kong. The Crown Colony has a total land area of only 398.5 square miles, is, 13.2 percent, or 33,900 acres, is agricultural land, 81 percent is able, and about 6 percent is urban and industrial land. Future demand for food must rely more on imports. The study projects a in total food consumption from $297,000 in 1962-64 to $637,000 by 1980, l rise in import requirements from $240,000 in 1962-64 to $532,000 by 1980, 1 on 1964 prices (table 1). Hong Kong's rice production declined from 35,575 tons of paddy in 1953 to )0 tons in 1965, a decline of 4.4 percent annually. 2/ Hong Kong imports 97 percent of domestically consumed rice, mostly from Mainland China and .and. Rice prices are government-controlled. In 1953-64, rice consumption increased from 236,000 to 385,000 tons, a of about 65 percent. In the same period, population increased about 60 2 nt; per capita consumption rose from 225 to 235 pounds. The quality of rice consumed has been upgraded, reflecting rising incomes, ig 1958-64, consumption of top-grade rice increased from 28 to 48 percent le total, while consumption of low-grade rice decreased from 37 to 17 per- Rice consumption per capita is projected to rise from 232 pounds in 1962- d 248 and 264 pounds in 1970 and 1980. Total imports are projected to rise 358,000 tons in 1962-64 to 440,000 and 617,000 tons in 1970 and 1980. t and Wheat Flour Wheat products are second in importance to rice in Hong Kong as shown in cost-of-living survey for 1964. The typical Hong Kong household spent 5.5 ent of its income on rice and 2.6 percent on wheat products. Wheat imports sharply from 272 tons in 1952 to 73,000 tons in 1965, owing to the growth he flour milling industry. As the domestic milling industry expanded, com- ial imports of flour in Hong Kong slowed down. In 1952, Hong Kong imported 00 tons of flour, but in 1965 imports dropped 23,000 tons. Per capita consumption of wheat rose from 32 to 52 pounds in 1952-65, re ting an increase in real per capita income. The U.S. share of the wheat et declined from 20 percent in 1952-54 to 5 percent in 1962-64. Australia he major supplier of wheat for Hong Kong's domestic consumption. The United es supplied 19 percent of Hong Kong's flour in 1952-54 and 10 percent in All tons refer to metric tons. 3 1962-64. Canada is the principal supplier of flour. Japan is a newcomer to the Hong Kong flour import market. Flour consumption per capita is projected to rise from 57 pounds in 196; 64 to 71.0 in 1970 and to 88.5 pounds in 1980. Total consumption of wheat flour is projected to rise from 91,000 tons in 1962-64 to 130,000 and 211,00C tons in 1970 and 1980. Wheat imports can be expected to increase from 80,40C tons in 1962-64 to 130,000 and 197,000 tons in 1970 and 1980--up 140 percent from 1962-64 to 1980. Imports of wheat flour are expected to increase from 33,000 tons in 1962-64 to 45,000 and 70,000 tons in 1975 and 1980. Imports c wheat flour will not show as much increase as imports of wheat because more wheat is being milled into flour in Hong Kong. Vegetable Oilseeds and Oils The main oils imported for domestic consumption are peanut and soybean oils. Others, such as flaxseed, linseed, and rapeseed oil are consumed in small quantities. No oilseeds are produced in the Crown Colony. Peanuts. --During 1952-65, Hong Kong imported about 10,400 tons of peanut annually without showing any apparent trends. As imports fluctuated, peanut use for livestock feed rose from 6,700 tons annually in 1953-55 to about 10,8: tons during 1961-63, an increase of 60 percent. Per capita consumption in¬ creased from 6.5 to 7.0 pounds. An additional increase by 1980 is projected. Total consumption is projected to increase by 67 percent, from about 10,900 tons in 1961-63 to 18,200 tons by 1980. Soybeans. --The principal sources of soybean imports have been Mainland China, the United States, Thailand, Cambodia, and Taiwan. Imports declined from an annual average of 22,000 tons in 1953-56 to 20,000 tons in 1961-64, while consumption rose from 8,300 to 11,600 tons. This reflects a decline in Hong Kong's reexport market of soybeans. Total consumption shows a rise of 4 percent in the 1953-56 to 1961-64 period. Projections indicate an increase of 13 percent in per capita consumption of soybeans from 1962-64 to 1980, from 7.20 to 8.16 pounds. Total consuraptio is projected to show a rise of 65 percent from 11,800 tons in 1962-64 to 19,5' 1 tons in 1980. Soybean and peanut oils. --Imports of soybean oil tripled from 1952 to 19 > rising from 4,120 to 14,200 tons. During the same period, peanut oil imports declined from 17,000 to 10,400 tons, a drop of 40 percent. Peanut oil consum] tion fell from 9,800 in 1953 to 6,940 tons in 1964. Soybean oil consumption rose from 1,160 to 18,100 tons in the same period, an increase of 57 percent. Per capita consumption of soybean oil went up ninefold from 1.13 to 10.42 pounds in the same period. The United States supplied 93 percent of all soy¬ bean oil imported by Hong Kong in 1962-64. Hong Kong also imports other vege¬ table oils in small quantities. Vegetables During 1953-55, Hong Kong was 65 percent self-sufficient in vegetable pr< duction with an output of 95,000 tons. By 1963-65, production reached 171,70( 4 ons, an increase of almost 80 percent from the 1953-55 level. In the mean- line, total consumption of vegetables rose from 211,000 tons in 1953 to 508,400 ons in 1965, an increase of 140 percent. Per capita consumption increased rom 205 to 326 pounds during the same period. Because of growing per capita :onsumption and increasing population, local production accounted for only 40 lercent of consumption in 1965. Hong Kong is expected to produce 242,000 tons of vegetables in 1970, :90,000 tons in 1975, and 337,000 tons by 1980. ‘Even though production will ouble, Hong Kong will have to double its imports to meet the rising per capita :onsumption. Total consumption is projected to rise very sharply from 424,000 ons in 1962-64 to 632,000 and 1,037,000 tons in 1970 and 1980. Hong Kong im- iorted 255,000 tons of vegetables in 1962-64, and it is expected to increase rom 347,000 tons in 1970 to 700,000 tons by 1980. The major supplier of fresh vegetables to Hong Kong is Mainland China, rhose share of vegetable imports ranged from 49 percent in 1961 to 78 percent n 1964. Other suppliers are Japan and Taiwan. The United States supplied .3 percent in 1952 and 3.7 percent in 1962-64. ruits Hong Kong grows less than 5 percent of its fresh fruit requirements. Dur- ng 1953-65, production almost doubled, rising from 1,400 tons to 2,600 tons, ruit consumption is increasing at an average annual rate of 9.2 percent. Con- iumption rose from 72,800 tons in 1953 to 188,600 tons in 1965, showing an in- :rease of 160 percent from 1953 to 1965. Per capita consumption rose by 70 lercent from 67.3 pounds in 1953 to 114.1 pounds in 1965. In 1953, Hong Kong imported 71,400 tons of fresh fruits, 50 times more :han the domestic production and by 1965, Hong Kong imported more than 71 times :he domestic production. Hong Kong's imports rose from 71,400 to 186,000 tons 'rom 1953 to 1965. The United States has been the principal supplier of fresh fruits, ac- :ounting for about 40 percent of the total value of imports since 1960. Main- and China is also a major supplier. Local production of fruits is projected to increase from an annual average if 2,100 tons in 1962-64 to 3,870 and 4,416 tons in 1975 and 1980. Demand for : ruit is expected to rise from 99 pounds per capita in 1962-64 to 127 in 1970, ind to 164 pounds by 1980. Hong Kong's imports of fruits are projected to rise : rom 158,000 tons in 1962-64 to 229,000 and 385,000 tons in 1970 and 1980. lilk and Milk Products Hong Kong produced enough milk to satisfy 17 percent of its domestic con¬ sumption in 1965, and imported the rest. During 1952-65, Hong Kong increased 'ts domestic production of milk from 4,100 to 8,100 tons, an increase of 75 >ercent. In the same period, Hong Kong's consumption of milk rose from 13,900 :o 41,800 tons, an increase of 200 percent. Per capita consumption increased ■ rom 14.35 pounds in 1952 to 24.21 pounds in 1965. 5 To meet the rising demand for milk, Hong Kong's imports advanced from 10,500 tons in 1952 to 33,700 tons of fluid milk equivalent in 1965. It is expected that domestic production of milk will increase from 5,500 tons in 1962-64 to 6,900 tons in 1970, and to 8,400 tons by 1980. Expansion of the dairy industry is hampered by the high cost of imported cattle feed. The Netherlands accounted for 60 percent of Hong Kong's imports of dairy products in 1952-65. The remaining 40 percent was supplied by the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Domestic demand for milk and dairy products is projected to rise from 39,400 tons in 1962-64 to 59,000 and 102,000 tons in 1970 and 1980. Hong Kong's self-sufficiency will fall, and the difference will be made up by im¬ ports. Projections indicate that imports will rise from 33,900 tons of fluid milk in 1962-64 to 69,500 and 94,100 tons in 1975 and 1980. Meat In 1952-65, Hong Kong's meat production rose from 10.4 million to 49.8 million pounds. Still the Crown Colony is only about 15 percent self-suffi¬ cient in meat. Poultry and pork are the main items of local production. Cattle production is quite limited because of the lack of pasture land and the high cost of imported feed. Hong Kong's meat consumption rose from 44,000 tons (live weight carcass) in 1952 to 183,000 tons in 1965, an increase of 310 percent . Per capita con¬ sumption increased from 46 to 106 pounds in this period. Imports of meat and meat products in 1952-65 rose from 41,000 to 168,000 tons (carcass weight). Most of the import was in poultry and pork. The U.S. share of the Hong Kong meat import market increased from 0.13 percent of the total in 1952-54 to 4.57 percent in 1962-64. Most of the in¬ crease is in the form of U.S. frozen poultry, which is very popular. The value of U.S. frozen poultry shipped into Hong Kong rose from $2.1 million in 1959 to $3 million in 1964. The United States accounts for 70 percent of all frozen poultry shipped into Hong Kong. Meat consumption is projected to increase from 138,000 tons in 1962-64 to 271,000 and 359,600 tons (carcass weight) in 1975 and 1980. Per capita con¬ sumption of meat will rise from 85.7 pounds in 1962-64 to 132 in 1975, to 150.8 pounds in 1980. Hong Kong's import requirements for meat and meat products in carcass weight, projections show, will rise from 115,000 tons in 1962-64 to 173,700 and 230,000 tons in 1970 and 1975, and will reach 310,000 tons by 1980. In 1964 im¬ port prices, the value of net import requirements is expected to increase from a base value of $57.6 million in 1962-64 to $95, $127.4, and $172.4 million in 1970, 1975, and 1980, respectively. The percentage increase between 1962-64 and 1980 will 148 percent. 6 :co Tobacco leaf is not grown in Hong Kong, so domestic demand is met by im- Hong Kong's total imports rose from 6.7 million pounds in 1955 to 16.9 on pounds in 1965, an increase of more than 150 percent. Along with the ase of imports, domestic cigarette consumption per capita rose from 2,726 158 to 3,325 pieces in 1965. Chief supplier of leaf tobacco is the United States, whose exports to Kong rose from 3.8 million pounds of tobacco in 1955 to 8.1 million pounds >65, an increase of 110 percent. Tobacco leaf from the United States is isive, but is the overwhelming favorite. Prices of U.S. tobacco range from to $0.70 per pound, compared with $0.44 to $0.53 per pound for total im- ; of tobacco leaf. Since 1960, the United States has supplied about 40 ;nt of Hong Kong's tobacco, or about 60 percent in terms of total value. ;sia, India, and Mainland China are the other major suppliers. Reexports do not figure into the projection because in recent years they declined to an insignificant amount. Hong Kong is one of the world's ;st consumers of cigarettes. The demand for imported tobacco is projected ’ se from 18.4 million pounds in 1962-64 to 19.2 and 23.1 million pounds in and 1980. >n Cotton is an imported commodity in Hong Kong. Only -negligible quantities nports are reexported as raw cotton. Import statistics reflect development le local spinning industry. In the early 1950's, the spinning industry ex- jd rapidly. Spindleage increased at an average of roughly 11 percent per in 1952-64, but there were considerable fluctuations during this period in rate of investment in the industry. In 1947, Hong Kong had only 5,000 spin- , By 1965, there were 710,000 spindles. Cotton imports paralleled the increase of spindleage, rising from 38,300 in 1953 to 133,500 tons in 1965. Major suppliers of cotton in 1965 were Jnited States with 28 percent, Brazil with 19 percent, and Pakistan with srcent. The garment industry does not influence cotton imports because of its needs are met by imported cloth. The Hong Kong garment industry has expanded tremendously since its estab- nent in 1955. The number of workers increased from 7,000 in 1955 to 49,000 )64. The total value of textile exports rose from $59 million in 1955 to .5 million in 1964. Over 95 percent of the output is exported. The export 3tton piece goods (textiles) increased from about $76,000 in 1961 to $95,000 )65. The textile export market for Hong Kong after the United Kingdom is Jnited States, whose imports of Crown Colony textiles increased from $14,700 )61 to $20,300 in 1965. Other major importers of Crown Colony textiles are tralia and New Zealand. The projected import requirement for raw cotton will rise from an average 1.9,000 tons in 1962-64 to 161,000 and 216,000 tons in 1970 and 1980. 7 Lard and Tallow Consumption of lard and tallow in Hong Kong is small relative to that o other edible oils. Domestic production of lard and tallow is limited to the byproducts of local slaughter of hogs. Production of lard per hog is only about 5 pounds because of each animal's extremely small slaughter weight--ab 85 to 90 pounds. Production of lard rose from 1,610 tons in 1952 to 4,848 tons in 1965, almost 200 percent. Nevertheless, Hong Kong's domestic produc tion of lard is inadequate to meet the demand. Hong Kong's consumption in 1952-65 rose from 2.93 to 4.53 pounds per capita. In 1952-64, Hong Kong's imports of lard rose from 572 to 1,745 tons. T: Netherlands was the largest supplier of lard and tallow with almost 50 perce: of the total import. It is projected that Hong Kong will increase imports from 3,600 tons in 1962-64 to 4,679 in 1970 and 7,570 tons by 1980. With ri • ing production and rising imports, future consumption will increase from 7,8! tons in 1962-64 to 10,400 and 16,000 tons in 1970 and 1980. ROLE OF U.S. EXPORTS IN HONG KONG The Crown Colony is a very promising cash market for U.S. farm commodi¬ ties. Despite the distance and shipping expenses, the U.S. agricultural pro duct exports are expanding yearly (table 2). In 1968, U.S. exports of major commodities were about $71 million, up about $11 million from 1967 and $25 ml lion higher than the 1960-62 average. The United States is the major supplier of raw cotton to Hong Kong. Ex ports of raw cotton reached an all-time high of $32 million in 1968, up $15 million from 1967 and $12 million more than the 1960-62 average. Despite the high price, exports of U.S. leaf tobacco are increasing ste- dily. In 1968, exports rose to $4 million, almost $300,000 more than 1967 a: about $700,000 higher than the 1960-62 average. Exports of U.S. wheat and wheat flour totaled about $2.4 million in 196, up about 34 percent from 1967 and 50 percent higher than the 1960-62 average Owing to a short crop of rice in Thailand in 1967, U.S. rice exports reached a record high of $10 million. In 1968, Hong Kong imported less rice from th United States than in 1967 but, at a value of $6.6 million, it was still mor important than all other commodities except raw cotton. U.S. exports of vegetable preparations and vegetable oils to Hong Kong were valued at $3.1 million in 1967, and at about $3 million in 1968. Soybe' and its products constituted a major part of this export. The uptrend in export of fruits and fruit preparations was expected to resume in 1969. Export of U.S. fruits and fruit preparations in 1968 were lower than the 1967 level because of the small citrus fruit crop in the Unit: States. Exports of U.S. poultry and meat were at a record high in 1967, abo: $4 million and $3.4 million in 1968. Prior to 1968, the United States was t: 8 >r supplier of poultry and meat, but in that year, Mainland China overtook United States and cut into its share of the market. Exports of U.S. dairy products to the Crown Colony have been rising very idily for the last few years. In 1968, dairy exports were valued at about i million, up $200,000 from the 1967 level and about $500,000 higher than 1960-62 average. Even though Mainland China is the major competitor, the United States .1 occupies a prominent position in the Hong Kong market. The Colony's inding economic development and its increasing population and rising per ta income give encouragement to a continued strong market for agricultural nodities. Especially promising for the United States are fruits, powdered c, frozen poultry, soybean oil, leaf tobacco, and raw cotton. U.S. exports generally on an upward trend, and it is expected that U.S. exports to the >ny will increase. 9 o ^ X O 00 a) cm 60 VD cd I ^ o a) vo O' co vO co vO CM •U Cd co f—4 00 O' 0 r 1 ) CO X CD r-H CM o 0) v£) a> r- o> O' LO LO LO 0) «x rx rx rv #x 00 CM o LO v£) O c CM LO 0) T3 }H cd CM CM lO CM oo r-H 00 i i r- CM CM co to CM t-H O' LO 00 «X #X r rx rv #X c oo co MD cd »—H i—4 CD oo co LO r-H r> rx rx *X «x •X CM CM LO vD CM CO *—l rx rx #v rt •X XJ *H CM r—4 LO O c c i—4 CO vO co CM CO O' (D 4J CO o O' O' h C r- o v£5 co O LO v£) cd to vD o CM o f—t CM X r- CM o MD U X VO MO co r-H 0) #\ rx r «x *x U J-i LO CM O' CO LO LO O cti i—4 ~h QJ food nd r 1 cd QJ co co t-i CO 4-J QJ t-l a 4-J U X cti cd 3 3 00 X qj X —< 3 c CO e o u w cd c >H \ c o >> a o r_ *1 r-H 1—1 r> CO •H M c o cd CO 4-J 4-J 4-) o u >-! 4-J r-H •H cd r-H M 4-J cd 0) o \ *H 3 Jh 3 •H 4-J XI X H -^| O U cd 0 cd o o 4-) pH a a o H o 11 U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 NOTICE If you no long er nee d this publication, check here / / return this sheet, end your name will be dropped from the mailing list. If your address should be changed, write the new address on this sheet and return the whole sheet to: Automated Mailing List Section Office of Plant and Operations UJS. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 POSTAGE & FEES PA© Unit%4 Stoles Doportmont of Agriculture library. JAPANESE EFFORTS S iTO sources OF AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS )L_ Diversify ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-ERS-FOREIGN 297 ABSTRACT Japan, the leading foreign market for American farm products, has devel¬ oped a long-term policy of diversifying sources of its agricultural imports t hedge against supplies being reduced or shut off from major sources and to en courage other countries to purchase Japan's industrial products. Programs ar underway for assisting developing countries to increase agricultural produc¬ tion. Implementation is primarily through Japan's foreign aid programs-- both government and private enterprise participate. The commodities on which most emphasis is being placed are com, grain sorghum, cassava (for animal feed), oilseeds, tropical fruits, and silk. Pro grams are underway in all developing regions of the world. Currently, the mo: ambitious programs are in Southeast Asia. By 1975, it seems reasonable to ex pect that Southeast Asia will be exporting to Japan 1.5 million to 2.0 millio metric tons of corn and 200,000 to 300,000 tons of grain sorghum. A roughly equivalent amount of grain sorghum may be moving from Australia to Japan. Other items that are expected to show a significant increase in volume of im¬ ports by Japan by 1975 include dried cassava, tropical fruits and fruit prod¬ ucts, raw silk, cotton, and tobacco. Key Words: Japan, Southeast Asia, Japanese aid programs, U.S. agricultural trade, Japanese agricultural trade, world agricultural trade Washington, D.C. 20250 April 1970 CONTENTS Page .. v PRODUCTION. l )REIGN TRADE. 2 )REIGN AID. 9 Technical Cooperation Program. 10 Other Official Programs. H The Role of Private Enterprise. 12 3TIVITIES BY COUNTRY. 13 Indonesia. ^3 Thailand... 1^ Cambodia... ^ Laos. ^ South Vietnam. 1^ Philippines. ^ India. ^ Other South and Southeast Asia. I 8 Other Areas. ^ 9 JTLOOK. 20 Feed grains and Other Foodstuffs. 21 Oilseeds. 22 Tropical Fruits... 22 Silk. 22 Tobacco. 23 Cotton. 23 Livestock Products. 23 iii HIGHLIGHTS Japan is a leading foreign market for American farm products, importing out $1 billion of U.S. agricultural commodities in 1968. Among the most portant of these commodities were wheat, corn, grain sorghum, tobacco, cattle des, lemons, alfalfa meal, soybeans, cotton, and tallow. However, the U.S. share of the market has declined and was only 30 per- nt of total imports in 1968, compared with 34 percent in 1965. Competition om other foreign producers is on the increase, as Japan vigorously pursues s policy of diversifying the sources of its farm product imports. Japan's economic well-being is highly dependent on foreign trade--in par- cular, the export of industrial goods. In 1968, total exports and total im- rts each approximated $13 billion; imports of agricultural products totaled ; ,4 billion. The United States is Japan's most important trading partner, 1 1 lowed by the South and Southeast Asia region. Japan maintains a favorable ■ade balance with each. However, countries of South and Southeast Asia want ,pan to take more of their farm products, to reduce their unfavorable trade ilances with Japan. Japan has developed a long-term policy of diversifying sources of its irm product imports to hedge against supplies from major sources being re- iced or shut off and to encourage other countries to purchase more of its idustrial products. Programs have been initiated for actively helping de- ;loping countries, particularly those in Southeast Asia, increase their ag- .cultural production. Emphasis is being placed on producing the farm commo- ties that Japan needs to import and helping recipient countries attain self- ifficiency in food production. The policy is implemented primarily through ipan's foreign aid programs. The Government of Japan and private Japanese iterprise actively participate and cooperate in carrying out overseas develop- int projects. Increased production of farm products for export to Japan can ius be expected. Volume increases will be small for the next year or two but will grow jre rapidly thereafter. By 1975, the competitive effect of the overseas de- slopment projects just starting can be expected to reach significant levels in ipanese markets for a few American farm products. Most emphasis is being placed on such commodities as corn, grain sorghum, assava (for animal feed), oilseeds, tropical fruits, and silk. Programs are nderway in all the less developed regions of the world; however, the most nbitious programs for production of these commodities are currently in the Dutheast Asian countries--particularly Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia--and astralia. It seems reasonable to expect that by 1975, Southeast Asia will be xporting 1.5 million to 2.0 million tons!/ of corn to Japan, and between If Tonnages in this report are metric. v 200,000 and 300,000 tons of grain sorghum. A roughly equivalent amount of grain sorghum may be moving from Australia to Japan. Exports from Southeast Asia to Japan of dried cassava for use in mixed feeds will probably be many times the 1967 level of only some 10,000 tons. Oilseeds may eventually rep¬ resent a major item of trade, but until the mid-1970's, it seems unlikely that oilseed production in Southeast Asia will expand to a point where it wi have a significant impact on the Japanese market. A very substantial increa; in exports of South and Southeast Asian tropical fruits and fruit products tc Japan can be expected by 1975. There should be a large increase in exports c raw silk from Southeast Asia. Exports of cotton and tobacco from South Asia are expected to increase by 1975. vi JAPANESE EFFORTS TO DIVERSIFY SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS by Clarence E. Pike, Agricultural Economist Foreign Regional Analysis Division Economic Research Service INTRODUCTION Japan’s desire to diversify the sources of farm products it imports has. ;o principal roots. Despite its success as a trading and manufacturing nation id the development of a very high level of agricultural technology, owing to a ;arcity of farmland, Japan lacks sufficient supplies of agricultural products ) serve its population. As a consequence, the Japanese have turned to trade 3 a means of obtaining the necessary commodities; in this, they have been all jo successful in maintaining a favorable balance of trade. As.a result, many iderdeveloped countries have been considering restrictions on imports from Ja¬ in if the balance so unfavorable to them is not redressed. One way for the ipanese to help redress this balance is to encourage production of needed ^ricultural products for which Japan can exchange its manufactured goods, rograms to expand agriculture in these countries also serve.the Japanese desire d escape dependence on a limited number of suppliers, who might be cut off by ar, crop failure, or other events. Japan’s programs to develop new sources for its imports of farm products nd to increase productivity and crop variety in older ones has aroused con- em among American exporters of farm products. This concern has led.to an ap- rehension that as a result of these developments the United States might face ncreasing difficulty in maintaining its preeminent position in Japan's market or farm products. Despite this concern, however, no attempts had been made to ompile and analyze the information available about the nature and extent of urrent programs. This report serves to fill this gap by describing the major Japanese pro¬ rams, Government and private, being undertaken and putting them into some sort f perspective. It is concerned primarily with the principal countries bene- itting from the programs and the programs' effect on the ability of these ountries to increase exports to Japan. Emphasis is placed on those commodi- ies that Japan imports in bulk from the United States. 1 FOREIGN TRADE Japan, with its population of 102 million, provides one of the world's leading markets for imported farm products. Except for a skilled, educated, disciplined, and industrious work force, the country has relatively few re-* sources--including agricultural resources. Thus, a high level of foreign tra is vital to the well being of the nation's economy. With one of the highest economic growth rates in the world, Japan has become increasingly important a an importer and exporter. In recent years, Japan's gross national product ha been expanding at a real rate of about 12 percent a year and in 1968 was ex¬ ceeded only by that of the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1968, continuing a steady rise, Japan's total imports were close to $13 billion (table 1). Exports were also about $13 billion, reflecting the country s efforts to balance import and export trade each year. Approximatel' 94 percent of Japan's total exports were manufactures or processed products, while agricultural products made up 26 percent of total imports. The United States is Japan's most important trading partner. In 1968, exports to the United States totaled $4.1 billion, 32 percent of total ex¬ ports; imports from the United States were valued at $3.5 billion, 27 percent of total imports. Until very recent years, the balance of trade between Table 1.--Japanese foreign trade, by area, averages 1955-64, annual 1965-68 South As percentage of total Year United States and Southeast Asia [ Other ’ Total United * States * South and Southeast Asia Mil. dol. Mil. dol. Mil. dol. Mil. dol. Pet. Pet. Exports: Average-- 1955-59... 1960-64... 663 1,384 679 1,140 1,398 2,543 2,741 5,066 24.1 27.3 24.8 22.5 1965. 2,479 1,618 1,799 1,919 2,255 4,355 5,008 5,511 6,631 8,452 Q 77 A 9 Q ^ 1966. 2,969 3,012 £y • J on /. 19.1 1967. y , / / O 10,442 1 o n"7 o JU # 4 28.8 31.5 1 o • 4 18.4 17.4 1968. 4,086 1 Z , 9 / Z Imports: Average-- 1955-59... 1960-64... 1,125 1,972 615 908 1,584 3,240 3,323 6,123 33.8 32.2 18.5 14.8 1965... 2,366 1,126 4,677 s s so 8,169 Q ^9 9 29.0 97 Q 13.8 19 Q 1966. 2,658 3,212 3,527 1*315 1,489 1,642 1967. 6,962 7,818 y 9 3Z J 11,663 1 9 QQ7 Z / • y 97 A 1 O • u 12.8 12.6 1968. Z / . 0 14, yo / 2 / . 2 2 ie United States and Japan was in favor of the United States. In 1968, how yer, the balance was nearly $0.6 billion in Japan's favor. The South and Southeast Asia region ranks next in importance among Japan's rade partners. In 1968, exports to the region totaled $2.3 billion--17 per- ent of total exports. 'Imports were valued at $1.6 billion, nearly 13 percent E the total. Japan's favorable trade balance with South and Southeast sia as been widening year by year. Favorable trade balances with the United States and the South and South- ast Asian countries make it possible for Japan to import more from the rest of he world than it exports. In 1968, exports to all other regions totaled $6.6 illion, while imports totaled $7.8 billion. Japan's imports of agricultural products totaled $3.4 billion in 1968 table 2). Imports of U.S. farm products accounted for about $1 billion, mong the most important items from the United States were wheat, corn, gram orghum, lemons, alfalfa meal, tobacco, cattle hides, soybeans, cotton, and allow. South and Southeast Asian countries also supply several of these com- odities, including corn, grain sorghum, tobacco, and cotton (table 3). ot ^r eading farm imports from South and Southeast Asia include rice, pulses, rubber ;0 pra, palm kernels, cottonseed, castor oilseed, sesameseed, kapokseed, jute, md abaca. Because it relies so heavily on foreign trade, Japan has an unusually strong incentive to buy farm products where the purchases will help expand and liversify markets for its exports, largely manufactures. This incentive is dost likely to influence buying decisions where the seller has an unfavorable valance of trade with Japan and where Japan has strong, long-term ambitions as i supplying nation. This is the situation in trade with the countries of South and Southeast Asia. A number of these countries have sought to have Japan purchase increased quantities of their products. Most have little to ex- sort other than farm products. Increasingly, Japan faces import restrictions against her products unless the trade gap can be narrowed by increased Japanese purchases of farm products. It has long been the policy of Japan to diversify sources of imports as a hedge against the possibilities of supplies from major sources being reduced or shut off because of such- events as wars, crop failures, strikes, and breaks in diplomatic relations. Another reason for the policy is Japan's desire to im¬ prove its bargaining position with exporting nations. In the last few years, Japan has developed a policy of actively helping less developed countries to increase production of farm commodities that it needs to import. This policy is implemented through Japan's economic and technical assistance programs. Japanese private enterprises are being en¬ couraged to take part in this effort along with Government agencies. Countries in all of the underdeveloped regions of the world are involved, as are a few. developed countries--especially Australia. However, the bulk of the effort is taking place in Asia, particularly in Southeast Asia. These policies represent a threat to the maintenance or further expansion of U.S. sales of several important farm commodities to Japan. 3 Table 2.--Japanese imports of selected agricultural commodities and U.S. share, 1965-68 to CO CO < • • • • xi a) in 4J M3 •H 4J c c O r-H HD 3 o • o O H e « o o H f-i X3 o o h ^ o m cy> r~- ro 10 ■—i vo vo oo o ITl o oo 00 O' o c^mocMooo'ooojoom OOOuivO-JO'i/lO'O'OOiA 'O'O o ooHvoioirin o M3 M3 o rt ft r> rt M3 CM CO r-H CM r-H m CM • • • • c • • CD • • c N • • a) o c • N (M CD • o 4H N • U 0 • 4-1 XI l-l • c MH • X cd c X • cd x C • CO cd • -C CD • CO i-> -3 (0 MH CO • u (0 • M-l • X MH • rt e t—H • I—1 cd rt •H • cd r-H 4-J e • CD cd • > XI aj • c E M • XI cd XJ • c >, • cd c U 4H o 4J cd 4-J MM 4-J i—H MH cd (D 4-J 3 c (0 CD 3 o o X an £M 2 : s oj cn h vo CO r-H LTl 00 LT) IT) a> —i O f-H 1 Ob o Ob vo co r- o o> O CO 1 00 00 vC 00 o rt #» rt #* r> ft rt rt n n rt M> CM oo o •—* 00 fH CM co m CM f^. CM r-H r-H r-H VO (x o r-H CM CM CM #> ft ft rt r r rt CO M3 m 00 M3 —I co CO vf co pment of LDC's in Asia. Japan's technical assistance programs are especia y idapted to Asian conditions. The exchange of persons for technical training and caching helps familiarize other Asians with Japanese agricultural machinery md other products. It has also drawn Japan somewhat closer, culturally md politically, to the nations of South and Southeast Asia. Private expor ;redits and private investments are growing rapidly. According to official statistics, Japan's foreign aid--government and pri- /ate-approached $1.1 billion in 1968. This figure represented a 23-percent increase over the previous year's total and was over three times t e ° 5 years earlier. It represented 0.74 percent of gross national product (0.94 percent of national income). Mainly responsible for the large gain in 1968 were $569 million of exports on a deferred-payment basis, almost a 50-percent increase from the preceding year. Direct private investments totaled $122 million, compared with $84 million a year earlier. Direct Government aid decreased by nearly 9 percent to $357 million. In 1968, more than two-thirds of the aid went to countries of South and Southeast Asia. The Government has announced its intention to double foreign aid during the next 5 years. Agriculture., fisheries, forestry, mining, and industry have all received considerable attention. Relatively more resources are now directed to agr - cultural development than to development of other sectors. Greater emphasis on agriculture stems from the importance being placed on this sector by t e 9 countries of South and Southeast Asia and from Japan's need to diversify sources of agricultural imports. The first Southeast Asian Development Conference was held In Tokyo in April 1966. At this meeting, Japan was instrumental in setting up the Confer¬ ence on Agricultural Development in Southeast Asia, which met in Tokyo in December 1966. In 1967, Japan pledged $100 million to the Asian Development Bank for the Agricultural Development Fund on the understanding that it would be earmarked for Southeast Asia. In 1968, Japan announced that it would con¬ tribute another $100 million to the agricultural fund. In addition, under the International Grains Arrangement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Japan will give over half of her contribution to the Southeast Asian countries in the form of farm supplies (fertilizer, chemicals, machinery, and tools). Technical Cooperation Program As stated earlier, Japan's technical cooperation activities were started in 1954, following its affiliation with the Colombo Plan. In 1955, Japan ac¬ cepted a few technical trainees from Southeast Asia and sent some technical experts to foreign countries. The Overseas Technical Cooperation Agency (OTCA) has handled technical assistance programs since 1962, when it was created as an agency of MFA. At five international centers in Japan, OTCA receives foreign participants for all types of technical training under the Colombo Plan and other technical cooperation schemes. Technical cooperation schemes under OTCA wholly financed by the Japanese Government include Japanese Technical Cooperation Schemes (Colombo Plan and others), the Junior Expert Technical Cooperation Program (begun in 1963), and the Japanese Overseas Co¬ operation Volunteers Program (begun in 1965). The main functions of OCTA are! receiving foreign technicians, assignment of Japanese experts and overseas cooperation volunteers, establishing overseas technical cooperation centers and medical facilities, conducting development surveys for LDC's,and providing equipment and materials. The agency maintain overseas offices in Thailand, India, and Cambodia, and has 17 training centers in operation in Asia. OTCA's budget, provided by the Japanese Government, increased from about $4.5 million in 1962 to $18.9 million in 1968. From 1955 to June 30,1968, 10,104 foreign participants received technical braining in Japan; of these, 8,493 were from Asian countries. Of the total number of participants, 2,349, or 23 percent, were agricultural trainees. Japan is now receiving over 1,000 technical trainees annually for all fields, with almost 80 percent of this number from Asia. During the same period (1955-68), Japan sent 3,024 experts abroad--1,106 to Asian countries. Of the total sent to all countries, 659 were agricultural technicians. In June 1968, 267 Japanese agricultural experts were working in technical cooperation schemes in Southeast Asia. These experts are fully qualified technicians, and they are given orientation and language training before being sent overseas. 10 In mid-1967, OTCA established the Agricultural Development Cooperation heme and the Primary Products Development Cooperation Scheme. The agricul- ral Development Scheme consists of an initial survey, a long-term plan of eration, provision of Japanese agricultural specialists, and supply of neces- ry equipment for LDC's. The main purpose of this program is to help LDC's crease their agricultural output, and thus improve their economic position. The Primary Products Scheme was established to promote production of portable agricultural products, such as com, grain sorghum, and oilseeds, pan establishes operations in a country, sends specialists in agriculture, rketing, and other areas, and provides fertilizers and machinery for demon¬ ration purposes. Through Japanese trade and banking institutions, OTCA ar- nges loans for the developing country to purchase the necessary materials om Japan and arranges for importation of the commodities produced into Japan, rough this scheme, Japan aims to ensure a more stable supply of primary oducts by developing new and diversified sources. Japan establishes technical cooperation centers overseas, providing a am of Japanese experts and the necessary equipment. The recipient country rnishes land, buildings, and staff. The centers carry out technical train- g, demonstration projects, or research. The first agricultural cooperation nter was established in 1960 In East Pakistan; another agricultural center located in India; and two Are in Cambodia. In addition, a survey has been nducted for a rice production demonstration center in the Philippines. The Overseas Cooperation Volunteers Program is comprised of young people o have average technical knowledge and skills and a desire to help the de- loping countries. By June 30, 1968, 313 young people were serving overseas; the 107 in agricultural activities, 92 were located in the Far East. her Official Programs Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), a corporate entity established 1958, has primary responsibility for promotion of exports abroad, receiving licy guidance from MITI. Most of JETRO's budget is furnished by MITI. The lance consists of fees, service charges, and prefectural and industrial con- ibutions. JETRO has a worldwide network of about 48 offices, 16 trade cen- rs, and six machinery centers. It sponsors trade fairs and missions, con- icts market research, and operates an information service. A newer but also ijor function of JETRO is to promote imports from the LDC's. Such promotion : primarily accomplished by arranging and financing exhibits in Japan of oducts available in each country for export to Japan. Four such exhibits are heduled annually. There is much interest in them on the part of the Japanese id the LDC's because of Japan's need to import such a wide range and variety : products and the LDC's desire to supply them. JETRO has a long waiting list : prospective exhibitors. Several other organizations have been organized or proposed by MFA or -TI. Most involve both Government and private participation. MITI has spon- >red a fund for the export of fertilizers to be used by demonstration farms it up by Japanese technicians in South and Southeast Asia. MITI has also 11 announced the intention of establishing an Asian Trade and Development Corpc ration to provide farm machinery and supplies to LDC's for modernizing agri¬ cultural production, using as funds some of the income from duties on primal products imported from Southeast Asia. The Role of Private Enterprise Japanese private enterprise is cooperating closely with MFA and MITI in overseas agricultural development activities. Some private enterprise activities are tied directly to official programs. Others are conducted in¬ dependently under the broad general policies of the Japanese Government on promoting agricultural production abroad. Most of the effort is concentrated: Southeast Asia, with major emphasis being placed on the production of feed- stuffs, oilseeds, tropical fruits, and silk. However, considerable capital has been invested recently in projects to promote production of grain sorghu and beef cattle in Australia. In 1969, the Export-Import Bank of Japan released results of a survey of private Japanese firms with capital investments in business operations abroad. It indicated that the objective of 77 percent of manufacturing firm is the export of industrial equipment and raw materials--in other words, the maintenance and development of overseas markets. Some 71 percent of the agr- culture, forestry, fisheries, and mining sector firms are aiming at develop!; imports of needed materials into Japan. Enterprises engaging in dissimilar lines of business are banding togethi to undertake agricultural development abroad. The International Agricultura Development Company, financed by 30 interested firms, was formed in 1968 to supply technical assistance and farm requisites on a commercial basis to the developing countries of Asia. The company, which will have full cooperation of Japanese Government agencies, has a provisional contract to produce rice ■ Malaysia as a joint venture with the Japanese Government. It also has plans for a livestock-raising venture in Okinawa. Eight companies associated with the Fuji Bank have organized a consultai group for jointly taking up agricultural development projects abroad. Known- the Fuyo Group, these companies will also cooperate with governments and pri vate enterprises in LDC's in agricultural development, irrigation, and other projects and may establish joint ventures. The companies feel that grouping will reduce risks in agricultural projects requiring considerable time for d- velopment. The development companies will work closely with the agricultura development section of OTCA to further Japan's economic aims in Southeast As;i In 1969, MFA sponsored the establishment of the Asian Private Joint In¬ vestment Company. This company was formed to provide a means for channeling farm requisites and technical assistance to developing countries by private business interests. Twenty-four companies are cooperating in this effort, ai! projects are under way in four Southeast Asian countries. The companies-* ba:. objectives are: (1) to increase production of farm products for import by Japan and (2) to expand overseas markets for Japan's agricultural equipment, fertilizers, chemicals, and other farm supplies. Products being promoted unc 12 is program are soybeans, sesameseed, silk, corn, grain sorghum, and cassava r feed. ACTIVITIES BY COUNTRY donesia Indonesia, with a population of approximately 116 million, has an economy sed largely on agriculture. Consequently, the country represents a very rge potential market for Japanese industrial products. Also, it possesses eat potential for expanding the production of certain agricultural commodities at Japan must import in increasing volume. During the long period of economic terioration under the regime of former President Sukarno, the potential for panding trade between the two countries could not be exploited. Indonesia's reign exchange position became critical and remains so. However, since the ange in government following the 1965 coup, the country's economic and trade licies have become more pragmatic. In 1967, Japanese survey teams visited Java and Sumatra to look into the ssibilities of expanding production of corn for export to Japan. There have en several similar missions since that time. Specific projects have been veloped by the Japanese Government, Japanese private trade interests, or th. Some dozen projects are currently underway or in the process of being veloped. These include corn production and export projects in Java and matra, and a grain sorghum production and export scheme in Java. Other ag- cultural projects include a center for inspecting seed and training workers seed multiplication and distribution, an agricultural mechanization training nter, a rinderpest control project, the rehabilitation of an agricultural gh school, and the expansion and improvement of natural silk production. At the Colombo plan com production project in east Java, Japanese techni- ans are concentrating on development of suitable varieties, disease control asures, and problems of drying and fumigating com for export. Private Japa- ;se interests are installing equipment for com drying, fumigating, and han- ing at the port of Surabaja. Three separate crop areas, of some 500 acres .ch, have been planted to com for the past 2 years. Yields are reported to ! three to four times the average for the area. Some unexpected disease prob- ms have been encountered, but technical experts working at the three loca- ons express confidence that these will be overcome. One of the major prob- :ms in expanding com production in east Java is that practically all potenti- ly arable land is now fully utilized. Nevertheless, higher yields should .ke it possible for east Java to export a substantial amount of corn to Japan. In south Sumatra, a Japanese private company, working with an Indonesian ;ricultural cooperative, is developing a large agri-industrial complex in- uding com production, ports, and highways. The new enterprise expects to >on be farming some 10,000 acres itself and intends to contract with local trmers to cultivate an additional 10,000 acres under its supervision. The itire production, which is expected to expand to 100,000 tons annually at >mpletion of the initial phase of the project, is to be exported to Japan. ie enterprise will receive liberal tax treatment by the Government of Indo- 13 nesia, and the required machinery and equipment can be imported from Japan duty-free. Two Japanese companies recently announced the initiation of a joint fanr production operation on Sulawesi Island. Crops to be grown include corn, pea nuts, castorbeans, sesame, and tea. The first phase of the operation calls for establishment of a 500-acre com and peanut pilot farm. All produce will be exported to Japan. An eventual export of 100,000 tons of com annually is visualized. Another private Japanese firm is promoting the production of grain sorgh: in the Krawang area of Java near Djakarta. The firm aims to cultivate a quar ter million acres and export the grain to Japan. This project may eventually provide 100,000 to 200,000 tons annually for export to Japan. In Indonesia, as in several other LDC's of Asia, Japan is assisting in development of silk production for export. Japanese experts consider west Sumatra to be favorably situated for the production of raw silk, and a Japane: natural silk expert visited the area in early 1969 to encourage rehabilitatio and expansion of the industry. The Government of Japan has technicians assigned to several projects in west Java to assist in increasing the production of rice. In 1969, Japan had five experts in seed multiplication, seed distribution, and farm mechanizatio working with an Indonesian program (known as BIMAS) to boost rice yields. A1: there were Japanese rice technicians at experimental farms at Maura, at Kaman di, and at a paddy demonstration farm near Bogor. Japan is assisting Indo¬ nesia's rice production program to help the country become self-sufficient in this important food commodity. It is not anticipated that Japan will import rice from Indonesia. Thailand Japan is very interested in promoting increased agricultural production i Thailand, and Japanese private enterprise is cooperating by purchasing Thai products. Over the past several years, numerous Thai agricultural technician have been trained in Japan at Japanese expense. The Government of Thailand is putting increasing pressure on Japan to take more Thai farm products, to reduce Thailand's trade deficit with Japan. Japan's efforts to encourage Thai agriculture may be said to date from 1961, when an importers cartel, the Thai Com Importers Committee, was formed in Japan. In negotiations each year with the Thai Government this committee commits itself to purchase certain amounts of Thai com. For the marketing year beginning September 1, 1969, Japan agreed to take at least 540,000 tons of Thai com. The cartel operates with the backing of MITI, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), and the feed-manufacturing industry. Early in 1968, the Japanese Government offered further technical aid to develop and improve Thailand's agriculture and to promote the import of Thai farm products by Japan. OTCA sent agricultural technicians to Thailand to study the country's agriculture and to recommend and introduce modern farming 14 chniques. The survey team's report concluded that Japanese assistance ould be concentrated on improvement of production of corn, grain sorghum, lseeds, beans, cassava, tobacco, kenaf, and bananas and other fruits. Japa- se technicians are to help in improving quality as well as quantity of pro- ction. Since the above-mentioned mission, several additional teams of Japanese perts have visited Thailand to assist in developing specific programs. A ree-man team of soybean experts was in Thailand in 1969. A principal aim of eir mission was to initiate a research program for developing a soybean va- ety suitable to growing conditions in Thailand and of a quality desired by panese importers. A mission of sericulture experts surveyed the silk pro- ction and processing situation and developed recommendations for expanding eduction and improving quality. The team recommended establishment of a riculture research and training center in northeastern Thailand. Japanese ex- rts are working on a wide range of other agricultural endeavors in Thailand. 1969, these technicians included experts in sericulture, mulberry cultiva- on, cooperatives, land management, bamboo management, rice physiology, rice tomology, soybean production, cassava processing, river-basin planning, rural ter supplies, and agricultural insecticides. In late 1969, a private Japanese firm announced plans to establish a ba- na plantation of some 12,000 to 15,000 acres in south Thailand and to import e total production into Japan. For this purpose, a joint Japanese-Thai com- ,ny is being formed. It is predicted that within 5 years annual exports of nanas from this plantation to Japan will exceed 100,000 tons. Another pri- .te Japanese company has indicated that it will grow and can vegetables and neapples in Thailand for export to Japan. Recent investment by three of Japan's largest trading firms in the biggest evator operation in Thailand--the Bangkok Drying and Silo Company--doubled at company's capitalization and should expedite collection and export of com. veral Japan-Thailand trade conferences were held in Tokyo and Bangkok in 68 and 1969 to promote further trade between the two countries. Japan is interested in importing more cotton and cottonseed but has in- cated that no technical experts are available to assist Thailand in cotton •oduction. Another item Japan has considered is tobacco. However, a recent ipanese survey indicated that Thai tobacco is not of a quality suited to Japa- :se cigarette brands. Thus, prospects of materially increasing ttfade in this immodity are limited for the immediate future, although the Thai have indi- ited much interest in exporting leaf tobacco to Japan. Lmbodia In 1965, a Japanese consortium was established to initiate production of >rn on a commercial basis in Cambodia; the Cambodia Economic Cooperation Com- my (S0C0DAC) is owned jointly by five Japanese trading firms (50 percent) id the Japanese Government (50 percent). Funds were supplied by the Govem- ;nt's Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund. In May 1968, this company estab- shed a joint agricultural venture in Cambodia called Societe Khmer des 15 Cultures Tropicales (SOCTROPIC). Ownership of this company is divided--51 percent for the Cambodian Government and 49 percent for the Japanese consorti In November 1968, MAF announced plans to start construction of an agri¬ cultural experiment station in Cambodia. Six Japanese agricultural experts were dispatched to Cambodia, with about $370,000 worth of machinery and equip ment. In Cambodia, OTCA operates a training center in crop production (extensL and demonstration) and one in livestock raising. In 1969, Japan and Cambodia extended agreements for Japanese assistance at the training centers for 2 years. The agreements provide for Japanese technicians, machinery, and mate¬ rials. In 1969, SOCTROPIC announced plans to build a large cornseed farm within 5 years in the Prek Knot area of Cambodia, on part of 12,000 acres to be irri gated under the United Nations water power and irrigation development plan, private Japanese company accounced plans for joint ventures, with local Cam¬ bodian cooperatives,in corn growing and livestock raising. Also in 1969, 0TC, had a team of technicians in Cambodia to study technical problems involved in corn production and export. Within 10 years, Japan expects to be importing 200,000 to 300,000 tons of corn from Cambodia. Laos Laos is a rather isolated country, with an estimated population of arouri 3 million, most of whom are subsistence farmers. Consequently, it offers onl a limited market for Japanese industrial products. Its potential for exportii: agricultural products to Japan is also limited. Nevertheless, Japan has showi considerable interest in contributing economic and technical assistance. Mos assistance has taken the form of aid to develop the country's infrastructure and contributions to help Laos meet its foreign exchange needs. Japan's aid started in October 1958, upon the signing of an economic and technical coooeration agreement between the two countries. Two major pro jects, totaling approximately $2.8 million, were undertaken under this agree¬ ment. These involved the installation of electric generating equipment and a water filtration and distribution system in Vientiane. The major Japanese effort to assist in the agricultural development of Laos is the operation of an experimental farm near the village of Tha Ngone, some 25 kilometers north of Vientiane. The Japanese have been working with the Lao at this location since 1966 to operate and improve an experimental fa of some 200 acres. Currently, only about half of the total area is being used. In 1969, 13 Japanese and 10 Lao agricultural experts were working ther Major emphasis is on rice, and four crops are being harvested annually by usi : a combination of early varieties of Japanese rice and IRRI varieties. Ad¬ ditionally, experimental work is going forward on corn, pineapples, sweetpota- toes, bananas, poultry, swine, and cattle. 16 Adajacent to the experimental farm, the Japanese are developing from jun- s S ome 2,000 acres of irrigated land on which Lao farmers will be settled, janese experts will help guide these settlers' farm operations. Early in 1969, several Japanese sericultural experts went to Laos to es- Dlish a sericulture center near Vientiane. This project is aimed at produc- y silk for import by Japan. Besides silk, only corn appears to be a possible item for export to Japan. 2 present high cost of moving com to shipside at Bangkok must be overcome if Is potential is to be exploited. ith Vietnam The Japanese have expressed a keen interest in making a major contribution the agricultural development of South Vietnam. A start has already been de, and there are plans for rapid expansion once the war there is terminated, ith Vietnam, with a population of some. 18 million, is an attractive market, th immediate and long-term, for a wide range of Japanese industrial products, is a potential source for several tropical and other farm commodities that pan must import. Several ventures were launched in South Vietnam during 1969. One is a pro- am to help improve ricegrowing and other farming in the Mekong Delta. This nture involves about 25 companies, which have set up in Tokyo a joint firm lied International Agricultural Development Company. Another group of 30 mpanies is planning agricultural redevelopment in the Danhim Dam area. This oup is called the Agricultural Development Council. Private Japanese enter- ise has indicated that it will build an agricultural tool factory and an perimental farm and agricultural technicians training school in South Vietnam. ilippines This relatively nearby tropical country of some 37 million persons is im- rtant as an export outlet for Japan's industrial products. Also, Japan has d a long and continuing interest in the import of agricultural commodities om the Islands. Even prior to World War II, Japanese capital, trading firms, d technicians were important in the abaca industry, at that time one of the st important in the Philippines. The Japanese have helped establish and staff a training center for those rsuing small-scale industries in the Philippines. A model farm is being veloped which will place major emphasis on improved rice cultivation methods id help introduce improved riceseed to farmers. As of mid-1968, OTCA had four ;ricultural specialists stationed in the country. For several years, Philip- ,ne agricultural technicians have participated in 1-year courses conducted by 'CA in Japan. Four fields of study have been emphasized--rice cultivation, irm mechanization, irrigation, and horticulture. 17 Among new agriculturally related industrial enterprises in which Japanesf firms are involved financially and technically are a $32 million sugar refinei and a $43 million fertilizer plant. Japan is also helping to build new food¬ processing facilities. The Japanese have a major interest in the expansion oi imports of bananas and other tropical fruits and fruit products from the Philj pines. India Japan's agricultural assistance to India has been centered largely on prc jects to increase rice yields. Technical aid activities began in 1953 with a compaign to popularize Japanese techniques of paddy cultivation. In 1959, at India's request, four Japanese farmers demonstrated intensive cropping of rice and wheat on a farm in Uttar Pradesh. As a result, the Government of India asked Japan to help establish demonstration farms in four major rice states, and in 1962, these firms were established in West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, and Gujarat. In December 1964, an agreement was signed to establish four addition: demonstration farms in Andhra Pradesh, Mysore, Kerala, and Maharashtra. Techr- cians at these farms demonstrate to farmers the techniques of ricegrowing and farm management and the operation of agricultural machinery. All eight farms have now been turned over to the Government of India. In addition to the demonstration farms, Japan has established four agricu- tural extension centers in India which are supplied with Japanese machinery an materials and staffed with Japanese instructors. Japan is extending credit aid to India for the importation of Japanese agricultural machinery, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, and industrial machinery and goods. It was recently announced that Japan will help build a new fertilizer factory in India. Under a proposed scheme, Japan will assist in the production (including financing) and transport of bananas from the vicinity of Madras to Japan. Als, Japan is considering very substantial increases in purchases of tropical fruit juices from India and will provide machinery and technical assistance for pro¬ cessing. In addition to buying more fruit from India, Japan may buy more Indian tobacco and cotton. Also, Japan would take oilseeds, if they were available. Other South and Southeast Asia In Malaysia, machinery has been supplied for a project on the Prai River that is designed to boost rice production. The Japanese Government and privat Japanese companies have been involved in this project. For several years, an economic and technical cooperation agreement with Burma has existed. This arrangement has supplied Burma with farm mechanization irrigation, and other equipment to improve and expand agricultural production. 18 pan is interested in increasing imports of pulses from Burma. .Japanese technicians are helping to build farm equipment plants in Paki- ;an. An agricultural training center, where emphasis is being placed on farm ichanization, has been established in East Pakistan. In addition, farm mech- iization studies are being carried out. Japan may buy more Pakistani cotton. Japan's efforts in Nepal are limited. Currently, one Japanese agricul- iral expert works with the Nepalese at an agricultural experiment station in ie Terai region bordering India. He is working on rice and various other :ops. A private Japanese firm is working under contract on an FAO- sponsored ;ricultural development project in the Terai. Japan has helped establish an agricultural demonstration farm in Ceylon, ijor assistance has been given to the development of farm cooperatives. Re- ;ntly, an agricultural research team composed of experts on general agricul- lre and rice cultivation spent some time there to determine how Japan could i most helpful. In Afghanistan, the Japanese are operating a training center for those en- iging in small-scale industries. Japan's aid to agriculture is now extended to the remote Himalayan kingdom : Bhutan. There, Japanese scientists have established an agricultural experi- ;nt station and an agricultural school. Lher Areas Australia, with its abundance of land and its technical capabilities for reatly expanding agricultural production, is of keen interest to Japanese im- Drters. Japanese capital, in at least one instance in conjunction with Ameri- an capital, has in recent years been invested in large-scale development pro- ects to expand production of grain sorghums for export to Japan. Japanese rivate interests have also invested in grazing land and other projects aimed t boosting Australia's production of beef for export. In Iran, the Japanese are assisting in a land development project, one aim f which is to boost cotton production for export to Japan. They are also in- olved in a project designed to improve grazing on some 800,000 acres. In ad- ition, the Japanese have helped establish and staff a technical training school or those in small-scale industries. Japan's close neighbors, Taiwan and Korea, are areas of special investment nterest, but emphasis there is on nonagricultural projects. Latin America, with its potential for expanding production of virtually ny farm commodity and a rapidly growing market for industrial goods, is an rea of much interest to the Japanese. For some years, the Japanese have been nvolved in several significant agricultural development projects in the region, high percentage of private Japanese capital investment overseas has gone to atin America. More than a decade ago, the Japanese Government extended 19 technical and financial assistance to the large-scale settlement of Japanese farmers in Brazil and Bolivia. Private Japanese interests are currently de¬ veloping large livestock-raising enterprises in Brazil and Paraguay. In late 1969, a Japanese team was in Mexico to survey com and grain soi ghum production and export capabilities. An arrangement whereby Mexican co¬ operatives will sell these .commodities to Japan's major farm supply cooperati; is reported to be under consideration. A Japanese trade and investment mission visited the Dominican Republic i 1969. Japan is making a major effort to expand its share of the market there for such farm-related industrial products as light agricultural machinery anc portable irrigation pumps. The mission also investigated the possibilities o providing technical and financial assistance to agricultural experiment sta¬ tions and sugar refineries as well as to some industries not related to agric! ture. The Japanese are also interested in expanding agricultural imports from Africa, as well as selling more Japanese industrial products there. However, the continent's relatively sparse population and the subsistence level at whi a high percentage of the people live make the potential market for Japanese g: smaller there than in the other less developed regions of the world. Several African countries have recently strongly urged Japan to take more of their fa products so their trade deficits with Japan can be reduced. Japan's limited agricultural assistance to date has been largely concentrated in East Africa, with major emphasis placed on feed grains. A major trading firm has announce plans for a large farm production development in the Sudan. The Japanese hav been involved in smaller projects of a similar nature in Tanzania and Kenya. In late 1969, a Japanese survey mission visited Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia to look into the possibilities of increasing agricultural imports from these countries. Corn is a commodity that the Japanese would especially like to import in greater volume from East Africa. OUTLOOK As incomes rise rapidly, Japanese consumers are demanding a more abundan supply of foods and placing greater emphasis on variety and nutrition. The Government implements its policy of improving the quality of the national die in many ways. Per capita consumption of starchy foods is decreasing, while that of meat, dairy products, and fruits and vegetables is rising. The calor; contribution by starchy foods to the Japanese diet decreased from 74 percent 1955 to 60 percent in 1966. At the same time, the contribution of animal pro tein foods rose from 6 percent to 11 percent and that of fruit s and vegetable from 4 percent to 6 percent. In 1966, MAF predicted that total consumption of meat, milk and other dairy products, and fruits would more than double within 10 years. It also predicted that consumption of soybeans, green vegetables, sugar, fats and oil, and silk would increase by more than half. Consumption of wheat and eggs wou: increase substantially, and that of rice would remain about the same. 20 Japan has become practically self-sufficient in the production of rice, ;t vegetables, and eggs, but most of the increased demand for food and other ricultural products will have to be met indirectly (for example, feedstuffs - production of livestock and poultry products) or directly by imports, isequently, for the indefinite future, Japan will need to import increasing mtities of feed grains and other feedstuffs, wheat, oilseeds, pulses, meats, epical fruits, raw silk, and numerous other farm products. Whether the United States can share fully in the expected continued ex- ision of farm product imports will depend partly on Japan's success in as- sting expansion of farm production in LDC's, particularly in Southeast Asia, fact, the degree of any such success will partly determine whether the [ted States even maintains its current position in the Japanese market, ne success has already been achieved. However, it is too soon to expect :h in the way of increased production, as most projects have only recently =n started. Many others are in the survey stage or still under discussion, ioubtedly, additional projects will be forthcoming in the years ahead. =rall, a steady but moderate expansion in the supply of farm products avail- le for export to Japan can almost surely be expected from these efforts, npetition with U.S. farm products will gradually increase, but the major npetitive impact of these efforts is a decade or more in the future. At is point, estimates of the specific volumes to become available are highly ntative at best. ed Grains and Other Feedstuffs Numerous locations in Southeast Asia are well suited for the production various feedstuffs. In only a decade, Thailand expanded production of corn the point where total exports, which were negligible until the mid-1950's ceeded a million tons in 1964. Exports have since expanded even further, nsiderable success in the near future can probably be anticipated from pro- cts to produce corn for export in Cambodia and Indonesia. Additional projects r corn growing are likely to be developed for other Southeast Asian coun- ies. By no means will all of the anticipated increase in production be ex- rted to Japan. More will be consumed domestically by the relatively small t expanding poultry and livestock industries. Some will be exported to arby markets--such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan--and some may be ex- rteJ beyond the region. However, it appears reasonable to expect that by 75, exports of corn from Southeast Asia to Japan may be in the range of 1.5 llion to 2.0 million tons annually, compared with 0.7 million tons in 1968. Attempts to expand production of grain sorghum are likely to meet with me success in Indonesia, Thailand, perhaps Burma, Australia, and elsewhere. 1975, exports to Japan from Southeast Asia could be in the range of 200,000 i 300,000 tons annually. A roughly equivalent amount may be moving from .stralia to Japan. In 1968, sorghum imports from Southeast Asia and Australia staled less than 100,000 tons. Dried cassava for use in mixed feeds is a relatively new item of import ' Japan, but one in which there now appears to be much interest, although • 67's imports totaled slightly less than 10,000 tons. Cassva is grown very 21 widely for food in the tropics, and much of the land in Southeast Asia is sui : for its production. There is, therefore, a tremendous potential for expandin production for export, and this commodity represents a competitive threat to U.S. feedstuffs in the Japanese market. The biggest gain in cassava products and trade has been registered by Thailand. Exports of dried cassava products from that country expanded from 54,000 tons in 1955 to 782,000 tons in 1967. Most exports now go to Western Europe for use in mixed feeds. Oilseeds To help meet the rapidly growing requirements for vegetable oils and oil meals, the Japanese foreign assistance programs are placing considerable em¬ phasis on increasing production in Southeast Asia, particularly in Thailand. There and elsewhere, Japanese agricultural technicians are working to develo] soybean varieties that under Southeast Asian conditions will produce high yields and a type of bean desired by Japanese processors. Other oilseeds, sui as sesame, safflower, and peanuts, are also being pushed. Some increase in e: port availabilities can probably be expected. However, up to the mid-1970's, it seems unlikely that oilseeds production in Southeast Asia will expand to tl point where it will have a significant impact on the import market in Japan. Tropical Fruits Southeast Asia is particularly well situated for producing tropical fruil to meet the rapidly growing demand in Japan, where imports of bananas alone expanded from 24,000 tons in 1955 to 638,000 tons in 1968. The recently an¬ nounced banana-growing projects in Thailand and those proposed for southern Iii and the Philippines should have little difficulty in marketing all their pro¬ duce in Japan. Systems for coordinating tropical fruit production and market: for processing or export, are being improved in the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan, and India. These countries will thus soon be in a better position to serve Japan's import needs. Silk After long being a major exporter Japan is rapidly increasing its import demand for raw silk, owing to increased demand and lower production. Considei able success has been achieved in South Korea in expanding and improving the production of raw silk for export, part of which goes to Japan. Japan is sponsoring silk production expansion and improvement projects in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Indonesia. Initiation of silk projects in other countriej of South and Southeast Asia is anticipated. Silk culture is well suited to small Asian farms where adequate family labor is available. Silk does not compete directly with any U.S. farm product. 22 iacco India is the principal Asian country supplying tobacco to Japan. This tde seems likely to expand, as some Indian tobaccos are well suited to the [uirements of the Japanese cigarette industry. Thailand is also anxious to 1 tobacco to Japan. Japanese experts have looked into the possibility of .orting significant quantities of Thai leaf but report that the Japanese rarette industry cannot use very large quantities of the kind of tobacco lilable from Thailand. :ton Japan imports significant quantities of cotton from Pakistan and India i until very recent years took a small quantity from Burma. Production of a >e cotton desired by Japan is increasing in Pakistan and Australia, and cot- i exports from these countries can be expected to be a growing threat to the 3. position in the Japanese market. Japan has indicated a desire to import re cotton and cottonseed from Thailand if production can be sufficiently ex- ided. /estock Products Japan will meet most of its rapidly growing requirements for livestock □ducts from domestic production based on imported feedstuffs. Nevertheless, me increase should occur in imports of poultry, red meats, tallow, cattle des, and perhaps certain other livestock products. It is unlikely that the untries of South and Southeast Asia will export a significant quantity of vestock products to Japan. However, Australia and New Zealand will be im- rtant sources of meat imports. In addition, a Japanese private business has recently announced a new nture to produce pork on Cheju Island, Korea. Reportedly, a U.S. firm is oviding part of the financing and technical assistance. Plans call a irge hog-raising operation, slaughterhouse, refrigeration plant, and other cilities. The Japanese firm will ship frozen pork to Japan for sale as pork ts, ham, and sausage. 23 S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 394-233 CoEd-199) U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 universe f r-.'V'/ agriculture Turkey's Agricultural Economy in Brief By Michael E. Kurtzig £> :|GN 298 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION APRIL 1970 ABSTRACT: This report describes recent trends in Turkish agricul¬ ture, trade, and economic planning. Cotton, tobacco, and filberts remain leading exports, while wheat needs—the prime food stable are satisfied by domestic production and imports. The United States receives most of the Turkish tobacco exports while supplying most of Turkey's import requirements for wheat, fats and oils, and feed grains. The continuing modernization of farming technology, greater use of fertilizers, and the introduction of higher—yielding plant varieties have improved the agricultural picture. Though agricul¬ ture remains dominant in the Turkish economy, government efforts to step up industrial development through 5-year planning programs con¬ tinues. The GNP growth target of 7 percent is being achieved. KEY WORDS: Turkey, agricultural production, trade, wheat, cotton, tobacco, agricultural statistics. SUMMARY Turkish agriculture contributed $ 2.3 llion to the country's economy in 1968, counted for 90 percent of its total ex¬ its , and involved two-thirds of the popu- tion. In the last few years, Turkey has de much progress in its agricultural de- lopment; agricultural exports have stead- y increased, amounting to $433 million in 68. The major farm exports are cotton, bacco, and filberts. Agricultural imports ,ve declined. In 1968, for example, they re valued at $28 million, about one-half ,e 1964 value. In 1967, a record-high .eat harvest called for a cutback in grain ports and, consequently, a decrease in ital agricultural imports . Although no leat imports were required in 1967 and >68, lower crop yields in 1968 and 19&9 ne “ issitated the importation of over one-half .llion metric tons of wheat yearly. Since the total land available for cultivation has about reached its limit, production will be increased chiefly by im¬ proving yields. Towards that goal, Turkey is implementing plans for more extensive use of modern technology. The introduction of new high-yielding wheat varieties has im¬ proved the breadgrain outlook. Cotton pro¬ duction continues to increase as greater productivity is achieved. Tobacco produc¬ tion in the 1960's has risen with an expan¬ sion of area, but with a decline in yield. Both cotton and tobacco, Turkey's first and second agricultural export items, have found some difficulty competing on the world market. THE PEOPLE Turkey's population increased from 18.8 million in 1945 to 34.4 million in 1969 - It is increasing by about 2.6 percent, or an *This publication updates ERS-Foreign 97 of the same title, dated September 1964 . )MIC RESEARCH SERVICE . U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. ERS 7069-69(9) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE .tional 1 million persons annually. Pop- ;ion density is llU persons per square > and about l 60 persons per square mile cultivated land. Twice as many people > west of a line joining the cities of ia and Samsun, roughly the east-west cen- of the country, as east of it. Yet the ;h rate is the same for both areas. Tur- 1 s population is 98 percent Moslem, with remainder Christian (Greeks and Armeni- ) and Jewish. There are 2 million Kurds, jtituting an ethnic and linguistic, but religious, minority. Racially, the Tur- 1 people are an intermixture of Mediter- ;an and Armenoid peoples. The Turkish 5 uage, which is of central Asian origin, written in Arabic script until the rise Ltaturk, who Romanized it in 1928. THE LAND cical Characteristics Turkey has an area of 296,500 square ds , about the size of Texas and Louisiana Dined. It is contiguous to six nations— Dee, Bulgaria, the USSR, Iran, Iraq, and La—and is bounded by three seas—the Lterranean, the Aegean, and the Black, country lies principally in Asia, east the Bosphorous; less than U percent lies the European side. The Anatolia Plateau, which occupies a ge part of the country, is the main grow- area for Turkey's wheat. It is surround- by mountains that block off much needed sture, and is subject to frequent ughts. The coastal strips, both of the iterranean and the Black Sea, are the t fertile agricultural areas of Turkey, country has great differences in soil climate, allowing for the production of ide variety of agricultural products. The tern half of the country is extremely ntainous but provides extensive grazing livestock. mate Turkey's climate, which is character- d as "continental," is comparable to that the United States. It ranges from dry to id, from subarctic to subtropical. Rain- 1 is the main factor limiting Turkish in production. Droughts are common. The erior of the country receives a mean annual rainfall of only 11 inches. The coastal areas along the Mediterranean and Aegean average over 20 inches of rain, while areas in the Black Sea region re¬ ceive up to 100 inches annually. Land Use About 70 percent of the country is considered agricultural land. Almost one- third of the total area is used for crops that account for the bulk of Turkish farm production; this proportion (33 1/3 percent) compares with almost 20 percent in 19 ^+ 8 . The land has been heavily exploited over the centuries and today, despite conserva¬ tion efforts, continues to be overgrazed and damaged from much erosion. Table 1 shows the gains in crop and fallow area at the expense of pastures. The major increase of agricultural land was realized in the early 1950's by plowing up pastureland, which decreased from 1+9 percent of the total area in I 9 I +8 to 1+2 percent or less in 1955- During this time, 15 to 17 million acres were brought under cultivation, including fallow. Most of this change took place on the central plateau where the new cropland was devoted mainly to wheat. Since i 960 , there has been relative stability in the size of the cultivated area and in the division of Turkey's farmland into grain fields, vine¬ yards , orchards, other crop fields, and pastures. PATTERNS OF AGRICULTURE There are about 3 million separate agricultural holdings in Turkey of which two-thirds are less than 12 acres in size, accounting for only one-quarter of the total land in farms. A considerable number are subsistence farms. About 12 percent of the farmers farm more than half of the land, in moderate to large size units of 25 acres or more. There are some very large farms of over 1,200 acres —588 according to the 1963 agricultural census—of which 97 are state farms. These larger farms are located in the southern parts of the coun¬ try, in the Mediterranean and Aegean re¬ gions , and are the most productive in the country. These farms usually grow cash crops such as tobacco, cotton, and citrus. 3 Table 1.—Turkey: Land use, 1948, 1955, I960, and 1965 Land use 1948 | 1955 j I 960 ! 1965 - - -Million acres - Cultivated area in crops 1/. 27.1 39*6 42.9 43.5 Pa.l 1 ow. 10.9 16.8 19*7 70.8 21.1 Meadows and pastures. 94.7 76.6 69.8 Fnrfists. 25*9 33.3 25*7 33.3 26.2 26.2 Nonagricultural land. 32.4 32.4 Total 2/. 192.0 192.0 192.0 193.0 1 J Includes vineyards, orchards, olive gardens. 2/ The total area was entered as 191*9 million acres 1111111 1963, when it was increas¬ ed without explanation to 192.9 million acres. The land unaccounted for is entered as "wasteland, lakes, and marshes," without mention of cities, roads, railroads, rivers, or parks. I Small farms, usually consist of crop¬ land only, with no grazing area. Livestock are grazed on common grazing grounds or on lahd where villages have grazing rights. Turkish agriculture suffers from con¬ siderable land fragmentation caused by the traditional splitting of land among the males of the family. Less than one-tenth of the farms are in one piece. The 1963 census indicates that many of the smaller farms are split into many pieces with poor field layout. Most Turkish farmers use age-old tradi¬ tional methods of farming involving much hand labor. Some new methods and modern technology have been adopted by farmers in the more intensively cultivated areas. PRODUCTION Agricultural production is dominated by cereals, primarily wheat. On a value ba¬ sis, nearly one-third of all agricultural production is accounted for by cereals, about two-thirds of which is wheat. One- fifth of total agricultural production is in industrial crops, mainly cotton, tobacco, and sugarbeets. Livestock products account for a little more than one-quarter of the total. Other agricultural products of con¬ siderable importance include raisins, nuts, and citrus (table 2 ). Cereals. —Wheat is the primary grain and number one food in the country. Al¬ though it is grown throughout the country more than two-thirds of the crop is pro¬ duced on the Anatolian Plateau, accountin, for more than 6 million tons in 1968 . Whe area increased substantially between 1948 and 1955 5 leveling off at around 20 millT acres. Production fluctuates according t< the rains, and yields have remained rela¬ tively low—the average for the country i: about 15 bushels per acre. In 1967 , a re¬ cord 9 million tons were produced. Mexican wheat. —The most vigorous in¬ novation of recent years in the grain fields in Turkey has been the introductioi of semidwarf high-yielding wheats, known as Mexican wheat. These new varieties, which started a revolution in wheat field: are enjoying increasing influence and fav; among the Turks. The Mexican wheat program was initial ed in 1965 when a farmer in Tarsus plantet 66 pounds of Sonora 64 wheat. The result: were so good that 102 farmers from the Cukurova area planted 60 tons of imported Sonora 6k in 1966. Thus, the program beg: with early experimentation undertaken by private Turkish farmers. With these favoi able results in mind, the Turkish govern¬ ment asked the U.S. Agency for Internatioi. Development (USAID) Mission to assist in spreading the use of the new varieties. T1 k [able 2.—Turkey: Production of principal commodities 19^8, 1957-59 average, annual 1963, 1967, and 1968 Commodity ! 1948 : Average : 1957-59 • 1963 ! 1967 1968 ,000 metric tons - - 6,1+86 7,892 9,000 8,400 2,800 3,900 3,800 3,500 718 900 825 780 .: 701 883 990 1,080 1,000 .: 305 478 500 475 450 .: 90 161 + 182 200 184 ) jj .. .: 331 558 532 4l4 392 . : 276 289 279 288 293 .: 454 1,391 1,600 1,760 1,805 .: 726 2,651 3,280 5,253 4,716 .: 83 121 132 183 162 .: 67 170 257 396 435 . : lU2 301+ 4l8 634 700 .: 81 106 87 230 230 .: 60 23l+ 398 541 662 .: 77 192 327 64o 700 .: 57 103 152 165 180 .: 6 71 63 103 99 .: 119 ll+9 208 232 215 .: 1,U68 2,452 2,453 3,128 2,900 .: 50 88 91 70 130 .: 70 73 60 93 103 .: 211 370 4l0 400 775 .: 2,270 3,664 4,059 4,426 4,451 .: 1+1+ 54 67 77 82 361 44l 455 469 .: 19 43 43 46 47 Production index Total agriculture. 100 117 135 136 / Excludes 4 times the raisin figure. a devised to accomplish this called for mitting selected growers to have seed, vided they agreed to use a specified kage of cultural practices under super¬ ion and inspection of the government and officials. About 22,000 tons of seed of ected varieties were imported in 1967, nearly all was distributed and planted t fall on U25,000 acres. These yielded -half million tons of wheat when harvest- in May-June 1968 . In 1969 , approximately million acres were harvested, yielding >ut 2.1 million tons. The average yield ■ the new varieties in the Cukurova area has been around 50 bushels per acre, com¬ pared with native wheat yields in these areas of 15—22 bushels per acre. Since the benefits of Mexican wheats are manifested only under conditions of high fertility and favorable moisture, future expansion will be at a less spectac¬ ular rate. It can also be expected that yields will decrease as the program ex¬ pands and comes under decreased supervision, While wheat development is primary, improvement of barley, rice, corn, and 5 sorghum is also underway. The yield of these may also be increased by adapted research with high-yielding varieties as well as im¬ proved production practices. Cotton. —Cotton production increased from 65,000 tons in 191+8 to 1 + 35,000 tons in 1968 . Between I 9 I +8 and 1952, cotton acreage more than doubled to over 1 , 600,000 acres. Since then, acreage has remained relatively stable, fluctuating between 1 , 500,000 and 1,800,000 acres. No significant increase in acreage is expected. Any increase in production will therefore be a product of improved yields. In 1948, an acre yielded about 160 pounds of cotton lint. In 1968, 550 pounds per acre were harvested. This dramatic increase has taken place mainly since 1957 and can be attributed largely to two factors: the introduction of new high- yielding upland cotton from Syria and the United States, and increased irrigation and use of fertilizer. Tobacco. —Tobacco production has also increased, from around 83,000 tons in 19 I +8 to approximately 162,000 tons in 1968 . While the increase has been fairly steady, there have been poor crops. During the early 1960 's, output fluctuated from a low of 90,000 tons in 1962 , when there was a severe infestation of Blue Mold disease, to a re¬ cord 194,000 tons in 1964. The increase in production that has taken place has been due to expanding area, from 291,000 acres in 1948 to slightly over 700,000 acres in 1968 . Yield for these two years declined from 668 to 535 pounds per acre. Other Crops Sugarbeets became a major industrial crop in the 1950's. Average area in sugar- beets during 1960-64 was three times that of a decade earlier. And despite increased sugar consumption, Turkey had substantial export surpluses of sugar in the 1960 's. Dry beans, chickpeas, and lentils are the main dry legumes produced for food. Also produced are broadbeans , kidney beans, and peas. A great variety of vegetables are produced for local consumption. Olive oil is the major oil consumed and forms a large part of the country's vege¬ table oil production. Other major oils pro¬ duced are cottonseed, sunflowerseed, sesame, peanut, and linseed. A variety of fruits are produced. Most important are grapes, which are grow in most parts of the country. More than one-third of the crop is dried for raisin another third is used for pekmez (boiled- down grape juice used for sweetening), an 23 percent is consumed fresh. Only 3.1 percent of the grape crop was used for wine in 1967 . Turkey is the world's largest commer¬ cial producer of dried figs, which are a high earner of foreign exchange. Most of Turkey's citrus is grown in the Mediterranean coastal region under ir¬ rigation. This industry is now expanding and plans call for continued expansion as European markets are enlarged. Produced are Jaffa and Washington oranges, seedless tangerines, and lemons. Deciduous fruits grown are apples, pears, peaches, cherries, quinces, plums, mulberries, and apricots. All but the apricots are domestically consumed. Turkey produces a variety of nuts— filberts, almonds, pistachios, and w aln ut!: being the most important. Turkey is the world's largest producer of filberts and exports rank third in value of Turkey's agricultural exports. Livestock The raising and tending of animals is one of the most important agricultural activities in Turkey. Animals are used fc motive power and provide significant quan¬ tities of dairy products, meat, wool, mo¬ hair, and hides and skins. Animal dung is an important fuel in the rural areas. Al¬ though Turkey has large numbers of cattle, horses, and donkeys; goats and sheep far outnumber any other type of domestic anims. The potential for increasing output 0 livestock products in Turkey is considered good. However, there must be a vast and widespread improvement and modernization 0 animal husbandry techniques. Range manage ment techniques and forage management are singled out for a special effort in the current five-year plan. The marketing and pricing systems for meat will have to be modernized in any major advance of Turkey' livestock industry. 6 Table 3.—Turkey: Consumption of fertilizer Plant nutrient Average : 1954-56 1959 ! 1963 1966 1967 8,139 21,800 Metric tons - - - 50,099 95,865 138 ,l4o 9,558 4,4oo 58,464 90,720 132,190 OSjjIlctUC ' ^ P ^ tr / •••••••••••••• + ocVi (K O ) .. 5,599 4,100 574 3,640 8,565 U cio 11 \ / •••••••••••• . 23,296 30,300 109,137 190,225 278,895 Most of Turkey's livestock are handled the traditional village manner. Each day e animals of the village are communally rded to and on all available land located ar the village and not used for culti- ited crops. In the evening, the animals ■e ciriven back to the village compound, se great expansion of cultivated land in .e early 1950 's encroached upon former isturelands . . Very little supplemental :eding of forage and virtually no feeding ' grain is practical for the great bulk of ie livestock. Meat production in Turkey is difficult ) estimate. Slaughter house figures are “liable, but the bulk of animal slaughter- lg is done outside of abattoirs and is not jcorded. This is especially true for sheep id goats. Most of the dairy output comes from nail herds which are kept near big cities 3 supply the urban market. Small herds id flocks are kept by villages to supply leir local needs. Much of the milk is pro- ;ssed into butter, cheese, and yogurt. The ilk yield per cow is quite low (1,300 Dunds in 1966 )—compared, for instance, ith the U.S. yield of about 9,000 pounds a sar. CONSUMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS Average caloric intake in Turkey rates avorably with other Middle East countries t about 2,680 calories per day. Turkey has ne of the highest per capita cereal con- umption rates in the world. About 186 ilograms per year supply about 1,800 calo- ies per day. 1/ Wheat and other grains 1/ FA0-ERS. provide almost 70 percent of the caloric value of the food supply. Turks also con¬ sume a large amount of dry legumes and fruits. Vegetable oil consumption is low by western standards. Consumption of sug^ar increased throughout the 1950's; Turkish annual per capita sugar consumption is now about l4 kilograms. As the population shifts to urban areas and incomes rise, the Turks expect their general diet to improve. There should also be a decrease in cereal con¬ sumption and an increase in livestock pro¬ duct consumption. AGRICULTURAL INPUTS Fertilizer Consumption of fertilizers has in¬ creased sharply since i 960 (table 3). How¬ ever, the rate of application is still significantly below the average in most countries with similar climate. In 1966 , for instance, chemical fertilizer use was 10.8 kilograms per hectare, only one-sixth the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) coun¬ tries. Turkey's total fertilizer consump¬ tion in 1966 was 100 times greater than in 1947. Despite the increase use of chemi¬ cal fertilizers, plant material and animal manure still remain most important. Farm Machinery Modern machinery is still beyond the means of most farmers, and they rely heavily on draft animals for farm power. However, there has been a steady increase in lose of machinery (table 4). 7 Table 1.—Turkey: Farm machinery and equipment, 1918, 1955, I960, 1965 , and 1967 Machinery 19^8 ; 1955 ; i 960 ; 1965 ! 1967 Wood plows. 1,625 2 , 12 l 1,991 2,031 2,0 61+ 681 1,026 1,159 l, 38 o 1,116 1 12 17 62 80 27 lo 12 55 75 3 6 6 7 8 Iron plows. Tractor plows. Tractors. Combines. Numbers of tractors and tractor-drawn engaged in agriculture, indicating that equipment rose sharply between 19 I 8 and 1956 . close to 10 million people are employed Then a slowdown occurred, which only ended directly on the land. There is a sizeable with the inception of the First Five-Year movement of farm laborers from area to area, -Plan in 1963. owing to seasonal work changes. Irrigation THE ECONOMY Along with increased fertilizer use, irrigation will be one of the primary meth- Gross National Product and Agriculture ods by which crop productivity will be im¬ proved. In 1967 , only about 3.7 million Turkey's gross national product in acres—one-tenth of the cropped area—was 1968 was $11.5 billion. During the First irrigated. There are an estimated 12 mil- Five-Year Plan, from 1963 to 1967, it in¬ lion acres—some of poor quality—potential- creased at an annual average rate of 6.7 ly irrigable. Development plans call for percent—close to the planned 7 percent, irrigation of only 6 million acres. Per capita annual average GNP was about $33l, but per capita agricultural income Turkey is proceeding with a dam-build- was only about one-third of the national ing program to supply electric power as well average, as to provide water for irrigation. The greatest need for irrigation is in the re- In the early 1950's, agriculture's latively dry interior. Irrigation has a contribution to the GNP was about 50 per- high priority in government plans, particu- cent. In recent years, it has declined to larly when it can be used in conjunction about 35 percent, while that of manufactur- with improved varieties of seed and better ing increased from 11 percent in i 960 to l6 farming practices. percent in 1966 . Agriculture, however, still dominates the economy and provides The chief irrigated crops are indus- employment for close to 70 percent of the trial crops such as cotton, sugarbeets, and working population, sunflower, which took more than 10 percent of the irrigated area in 1967 . Citrus and Balance of trade. —Turkey suffers from vegetables, the new wheat varieties, and an unfavorable balance of trade and an un- some corn and pulses take up the rest of the favorable balance of payments chiefly be- irrigated land. cause of large imports of capital goods. From 1963 to 1967, the average trade deficit Labor was close to $190 million; in 1968 it was around $275 million. The unfavorable bal- Despite encouraging efforts towards in- ance of payments has been offset somewhat dustrialization, the dominance of agricul- by foreign grants. Even this, however, has ture will not change dramatically in the been insufficient to prevent deficits. As a near future. According to 1965 figures, result, the country's foreign exchange re- more than two-thirds of the labor force was serves have continued to decline, making the 8 jduction and planning of new programs L cult. TRADE isition of Trade Composition of Turkey's trade remained tively stable in the last decade. Ex- s, primarily cotton, tobacco, and fil- s increased at a rate of approximately percent during the First Five-Year Plan, osition of imports also remained rela- ly the same—with electric and nonelec- machinery and parts the largest items, esenting almost one-third of total im- s. Metal and metal products were second, nting to about 12 percent of total.im- s. Imports have fluctuated according to needs of the Turkish industrial complex. . 968 , they reached $770 million. )rts Between 1963 and 1968 , agricultural ex¬ 's grew at a rate of about 6 percent per 1 . in 1968 , owing to low tobacco, nut, olive oil exports, total exports dropped srcent. Cotton is Turkey's leading agricultural art and money earner. Production and ex- ts increased rapidly throughout the 0's and by 1965 cotton replaced tobacco the leading export. Turkey is the world's th largest exporter of cotton. Most of cotton is exported to the European Corn- Market countries, the United Kingdom, other West European nations. Exports in ,8 were four times as large as the 1955-59 :rage, totaling 224,000 tons. Although ghtly less than 50 percent of the crop is >orted, exports accounted for $136 million 1968. Tobacco is the second major export. "key is the world's leading producer and porter of "oriental" tobacco which is used blending and is in demand by countries at grow and use much tobacco themselves, ch as the United States. Tobacco had been the leading export un- 1 1965 , when cotton became number one. In 68 , tobacco exports were valued at $94.8 Hi on, or approximately 20 percent of tal exports, compared with $ll 8 million in 67 . Turkey entered a period of oversupply beginning in 1965 , as a result of the huge 1964 crop. By the end of 1967, Turkey had on hand 147,000 tons of tobacco, just about a year's production. Close to two-thirds of Turkish tobacco (by value) was exported to the United States in 1967, and about 56 percent in 1968 (table 5). Other markets are West Germany, which took a little less than 7 and l4 per¬ cent in 1967 and 1968 respectively. _Other importing countries are Czechoslovakia, the USSR, East Germany, and Israel. Filberts are the third major export item. Turkey is the world's largest pro¬ ducer of filberts. Exports of filberts averaged 113,000 tons in the years 1960 - 66 , nearly all as kernels. Turkey also ranks first as a pistachio producer, but is second in export, following Iran. Exports average 1,650 tons (shelled) in 1962 - 66 . Imports Turkey imports relatively little agri¬ cultural produce. In 1967, about $37 mil¬ lion worth was imported, accounting for 5 percent of total imports. The average for 1964-66 was $53 million, whereas in 1968 the total was $28 million. Major items on the import list are wheat, hides and skins, wool and hair, coffee and cocoa, and fats and oils. Wheat imports are largely determined by the size of the Turkish wheat crop. Owing to a re¬ cord crop in 1967 , little imported wheat was required. Because of a smaller crop in 1968 , more than one-half million tons were needed and were imported early in 1969 . A still smaller crop was harvested in 1969 , which indicated greater wheat im¬ ports than a year earlier. Imports of the other temperate agricultural products have generally trended downward because of in¬ creased domestic production and to conserve foreign exchange (table 6 ). U.S.-Turkish Agricultural Trade_ From the beginning of the 1960-69 decade, total U.S. exports to and imports from Turkey increased rather sharply. U.S. imports of agricultural products also in¬ creased. U.S. exports, on the other hand, declined sharply. Moreover, the U.S. share of the market declined, especially during 9 Table 5.— Turkey: Value of principal agricultural exports by leading destination, average 1960-62, and annual 1966, 1967, and 1968 Commodity and destination Live animals. Cattle, sheep?and goats. Lebanon. USSR.. ’ ’ Fruits and vegetables. Fruits and nuts. Oranges and tangerines. West Germany. Austria. Other citrus. West Germany. Edible nuts, fresh and dried West Germany. USSR.. . . ’ United States. Figs, dried. France. West Germany. Raisins.. United Kingdom.. USSR. Vegetables. Pulses, dried. Lebanon. It aly. Sugar and preparations. Sugar, refined. Israel. Iraq. Feeding stuff for animals. Oilseed cake and meal. Switzerland. Denmark. West Germany. Tobacco, unmanufactured. United States. West Germany. : Average : 1960-62 1966 i 1967 ; 1968 dollars - - : 13,476 10,1146 9,125 10,661 : 13,396 10,098 9,038 10,655 : 11,206 5,517 6,462 2,099 : 944 2,168 — : 86,577 103,507 137,987 133,198 : 80,193 96,601 131,168 126,034 : 1/ 2,ill 2,971 3,422 4,667 : 1 651 775 756 1,196 . — — 682 1,127 1,603 1—1 2,390 3,168 3,924 • - 983 1,187 1,032 : 52,078 60,851+ 91,022 83,522 : 20,5614 214,14614 42,527 4o,760 : 167 7,813 12,6140 14,105 3,869 2,393 7,652 7,48l : 5,819 6,550 7,234 6,951 : 1,670 2,097 2,162 2,034 : 969 1,14 5 1,329 1,259 : 19,106 22,0614 22,683 22,805 : 5,665 6,267 4,646 4,795 : — 3,605 5,6145 4,817 i 6,3814 6,906 6,819 7,164 : 6,152 6.188 4,073 4,8i8 : 2,1401 1,782 910 1,945 636 1,095 633 756 114,997 8,119 7,770 2,267 13,700 6,902 6,238 1,453 3,7614 14,228 1,944 — 2,547 2,824 — 10,685 20,935 25,382 20,272 9,1423 19,825 23,430 19,789 277 2,158 4,143 5,400 4,172 4,719 8,011 5,393 554 731 2,326 1,920 82,913 107,555 117,962 94,805 1+7,370 63,289 75,237 53,212 9,562 13,2614 8,893 13,476 Continued 10 Table 5.— Turkey: Value of principal agricultural exports by leading destination, average 1960-62, and annual 1966 , 1967, and 1968— Continued Commodity and destination Average 1960-62 1966 1967 1968 des and skins. United States. : Lebanon. tural fibers. : ool and mohair. : USSR. United Kingdom. : France. otton. United Kingdom. : Italy. : West Germany. : Switzerland. : ;her agricultural exports. : Total agricultural exports. : xiagricultural exports. Total exports. : 1.000 dollars 6,300 1,277 402 7,613 1,372 1,248 5,359 1,385 274 5,698 1,463 358 69,753 11,070 1,579 6,025 963 137,925 8,403 2,208 1,703 882 140,341 8,926 4,380 1,202 289 148,045 8,924 3,542 1,026 55,398 7,099 16,831 13,124 1,732 128,501 25,216 16,105 16,031 11,065 128,537 16,422 15,972 18,393 16,853 136,114 16,422 10,486 14,022 15,644 9,157 19,388 24,723 18,554 300,606 415,188 468,649 433,503 48,856 75,271 53,651 63,315 349,462 490,459 522,300 496,818 1 / I 960 . Source: State Institute of Statistics tie past 2 years (tables 7 and 8 ). This ssuited almost entirely from reduced ship— ents of grains, oilseeds, and animal and egetable fats and oils. Increased domestic upplies were responsible for most of the eduction. From July 1, 1954, through December 31, 968 , the United States provided Turkey 1 th nearly $530 million worth of agricul— ural commodities through the P.L. 480 pro¬ gram. The main commodities were wheat $ 284.8 million), fats and oils ($145*9 mil- ion), feedgrains ($ 22 .4 million), rice :$ 3.5 million), and dairy products ($ 2.2 oillion). U.S. imports were up during the decade, i/hile there was a small increase in imports of fruits, vegetables and nuts, the main increase was in tobacco. — Tu rkish Annual Trade Statistics. The United States has been Turkey's major tobacco customer, consistently tak¬ ing approximately three-fifths of the crop (by value). During 1966-68, the U.S. share of Turkey's exports remained constant at approximately 17 percent. AGRICULTURAL AND TRADE POLICIES General Aims The objectives of Turkey's agricul¬ tural policy are to meet all domestic food needs and increase agricultural exports to reduce the trade deficit and conserve for¬ eign exchange reserves. While there have been no sweeping policy changes in recent years, two trends can be noted: heavy emphasis on raising the technical level of agriculture and increased price 11 Table 6 . Turkey: Value of principal agricultural imports by leading source, average 1960 - 62 , and annual 1966 , 1967 , and 1968 1 / Commodity and origin Average 1960-62 1966 1967 i 1968 1,000 dollars Grains and preparation. 18,985 1,957 Whe at. 1,954 If ,o(b — — United States. 17,376 1,939 — Rice. 1,609 United States. 1 , 55 !+ — — Coffee, tea, cocoa, and spices... .: 6,81*9 2,239 1,524 2,837 Coffee. 2,025 701 1,661 Brazil. 2,025 1,014 Tea. India. J 3 — — Cocoa. 66 823 950 Hides and skins. 4,973 5,377 2,646 Hides, cattle. 4,23 6 3,899 2,329 United States. 4,159 3,727 1,008 Rubber. 6,330 8,000 7,525 United States. — 4,939 4,334 United Kingdom. — 1,310 2,000 Natural fibers. 13,108 11,654 9,958 Wool and animal hair. 12,938 11,233 9,785 Australia.. 8,808 7,822 5,535 United Kingdom.. 2,544 2,112 2,088 Animal fats and oils. 5,66k 2,186 1,288 United States. 5,659 2,140 1,189 Vegetable oil. 10,212 1,294 252 Soybean oil. 2,865 15 182 United States. 2,380 — Other agricultural imports. 3,142 4,584 3,717 Total agricultural imports.. .: 82,005 6k ,656 36,576 28,223 Total imports. 724,581 690,800 770,451 i/ •'■ s recognized that there are some significant differences between the trade tables showing U.S. trade with Turkey and Turkey's total trade. This is because U.S. trade figures are gleaned from U.S. statistics while Turkish trade figures come both from official Turkish trade figures and United Nations statistics. Source: State Institute of Statistics - Turkish Annual Trade Statistics. 12 Table J. _U.S. agricultural exports to Turkey, average 1960-62 , and annual 1966, 1967, an<3- 1968 ve animals (chicks). at and meat preparations iry products. ■ains and preparations .. • Wheat. Wheat flour. 'des and skins. ’ude rubber. allow, inedible. jgetable oils. Soybean oil. bher agricultural. 1.000 dollars _ 3 17 18 980 2,180 51,237 21,131 50,050 17,611 55 1,240 1,963 4,653 621 850 6 , 26 l 6,916 3,123 5 ,156 2,226 365 191 5 16 16 24 4,562 6,680 1,792 1,776 834 575 765 1,076 3,413 895 1,521 — 444 1,001 1,338 1,333 1,315 182 254 505 Total agricultural onagri cultural Total exports 12,230 90,867 136,069 236,231 - 2 . 52 ? 2 6 _ 3 153,375 17^,250 249,576 264,693 Source: Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States .ntervention by the government to keep igriculture viable and competitive. The general agricultural policy strives -0 improve the lot of the average farmer by providing technology and education. Success¬ ful implementation will increase the stand¬ ard of living and improve the general nutri¬ tional level by increasing livestock and poultry production. Trade Policy Imports into Turkey are closely gov¬ erned by both tariff and nontariff controls. For certain items—such as merino wool, coffee, and cattle hides—tariffs usually represent the difference between domestic price and import price. There also are taxes on imported goods, e.g., a pier tax and a stamp duty tax. There are no import levies on P.L. 480 purchases, but govern¬ ment distributing agencies mark up prices a practice that is approximately equivalent to setting import levies. Imports of farm products also are restricted by rigid allo¬ cation of foreign exchange and licensing. Certain export products such as grain, . flour, and margarine are regulated by li¬ censing to assure adequate domestic sup¬ plies. Other farm products are not licens¬ ed, although some have to be registered to avoid export price fluctuations. Economic development.;— During Turkey s rst Five-Year Plan starting in 1963, the •owth target of 7 percent annually was al- ,st reached. Annual GNP growth had been > s s than 5 percent previously. There also is substantial improvement in agriculture, "oductivity increased due to high yiel s, id crop diversification was effective., irlier, area expansion had been the mam Expansion planned for the agricultural sector is 4.1 percent per year.. Most ef¬ fort is on increasing productivity of 13 Table 8 .—U.S. agricultural imports from Turkey, average 1960 - 62 , and annual 1966 , 1967 , and 1968 Commodity : Average :Value : 1960-62 ; 1966 : 1967 : 1968 Meat and meat preparations.... Dairy products. Fruits, vegetables, and nuts... Pistachio nuts. Filberts. Tea and spices. Tobacco. Hides and skins. Oilseeds. Textile fibers. Wool and animal hair. Cotton. Animal and vegetable materials Opium. Vegetable oils. Olive oil. Beeswax. Essential oils. Other agricultural. Total agricultural Nonagricultural. Total imports 1,000 dollars : 179 31+ 10 50 : 2 22 11 51 : 7,365 5,308 6,782 9,61+8 : 3,012 2,350 3,1+63 3,91+1 : 1,975 2,232 2,382 3,722 : 9k 598 6 I +1 313 : >+ 8 , 1+01 60,218 60 , 1+62 62,679 : 1,529 1,830 1,970 1,678 : 152 31+5 0 1+39 : 1,762 382 372 136 : 1,617 287 lll+ 136 : — 95 258 0 : 176 1,51+2 1,51+7 922 : 17 6 1 , 1 + 01 + 77 6 : 386 27 281 + 96 : 221 26 281 + 96 : Ik 67 128 0 : - 187 130 293 : 2,960 — — 706 : 63,080 70,560 72,353 77,071+ : _5,51+2 8,183 9,1+26 8,21+9 68,622 78,71+3 81,779 85,323 Source: Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States. cereals, promoting industrial crops, and substantially improving a livestock indus¬ try. Exports and imports are slated to rise 7 percent annually. Whereas the First Five-Year Plan sought to increase agricul¬ tural exports, the Second Five-Year Plan seeks to expand industrial exports. Indus¬ try is being oriented toward the export market. Incentives to exporters and export promotion programs are coming into effect. But the lack of foreign exchange will con¬ tinue to hinder broad expansion based on imported produce or machinery. Turkey's industrialization is continu¬ ing vigorously. Thanks to a diversified investment program, private interests have an increasingly active role in new fields such as motor vehicles, chemicals, tires, and cement. Turkey's association with the European Economic Community (EEC) means more ready access to western ideas and mar¬ kets. The 170,000 Turkish workers tempo¬ rarily employed abroad, mainly in Germany, provide and will continue to provide Turkey with new and much needed skills for its developing economy. The Second Five-Year Plan began in The planned GNP rate of growth has kept at 7 percent. If the population Lnues to grow at a rate of 2.6 percent, actual growth will be U.5 percent. And 5 private consumption is expected to in- se by 5 percent, the actual per capita sase will be only 2.5 percent. Annual rate of expansion of industry is ned at l4 percent—a rate achieved dur- the last 3 years of the First Plan. De- e the planned industrial expansion and expected dominance of industry by 1972, t two-thirds of the population will 1 be occupied with agriculture. Economic as sistance. —Turkey has re- -ed substantial aid from the United ,es. Excluding military assistance, the of loans and grants from 19^5 through ’ was $2.U billion. Other aid from Free _d countries on a bilateral basis total- 5800 million, making a grand total of > billion in the 22 years. Only a small uit of this total—6 to 7 percent—went agriculture, although agriculture bene- ; d from road construction and general Tram support. Direct agricultural aid a through AID. AID assistance covers f activities, including the Mexican at program, fertilizer activities, irri— Lon projects, marketing projects, and farm water projects. Turkey became an associate member of European Economic Community in 196 b. Tariff quotas established in 1965 for to¬ bacco, raisins, and figs have since been raised, while that for filberts remains unchanged. Other commodities too have come under quotas, tariffs, and agreements all of which are periodically reviewed and re¬ negotiated. The EEC also makes low-interest loans available to assist Turkey in its overall development. Negotiations are now being conducted on the transitional phase of Turkey's association with the EEC, even¬ tually leading to full membership. Turkey receives aid from the Inter¬ national Development Association (IDA) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). With Iran, Pakistan, and the United States, Tur¬ key is a member of the Central Treaty Or¬ ganization (CENTO), which seeks peaceful economic development through cooperative efforts. Turkey also enjoys bilateral trade agreements with the UAE, Israel, and East European countries. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has had a variety of technical assistance projects for agricul¬ ture in Turkey, including farm management, farm credit, agricultural cooperatives, production of vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease, export marketing, and agricultural planning. Though Turkey receives no direct economic assistance from OECD, its member¬ ship does entitle it to the benefits of guidance and consultative assistance on economic problems. 15 U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 ABSTRACT Since the early 1950's Uruguay's agriculture has stagnated because of unfavorable prices received for the major farm products, especially wool and beef, the leading exports. These prices reflect not only unfavorable world prices but also Uruguay's foreign exchange and export tax policies, aimed at skimming off profits from low-cost agriculture to support high-cost industrie and social services. Uruguay's Agricultural Development Flan, 1965-74, pro¬ posed reforms to improve the position of agriculture, but not until 1968 was any serious effort made to carry out recommended adjustments of exchange rate and export taxes. Measures in effect or under consideration that are aimed at increasing the productivity of agriculture include expanded extension and research services, supervised farm credit, land reform, and price policies to provide an incentive for raising output. A pasture improvement program initiated in 1960 has already demonstrated the profitability of improved livestock manage¬ ment. If these measures are carried out and economic and political stability is attained, agricultural production and exports may increase substantially during the next few years. The relative increase will probably be greater fo: crops than for livestock products, but wool and beef will undoubtedly remain the principal sources of farm income and foreign exchange. Key Words: Agricultural development plans. Agricultural policies. Land reforr Pasture management, Farming practices, and Farm export taxes. . ii reface . . iii ummary . . 1 ntroduction . 1 Historical Relationships . 2 Nature of the Economy. 3 Physical Environment . 6 People and Labor Supply . Agricultural Policies and Institutions . | Agricultural Policies . ^2 Foreign Aid . ... 13 Organization of Agriculture . 13 Land Use and Types of Farms. Farm Practices . . 25 livestock and Products.M.*. * 9 A Numbers, Breeds, and Distribution of Livestock . ^ Livestock and Pasture Management . 33 Livestock Products . . 37 Major Crops. ... 37 Grains. 44 Other Crops . 45 Foreign Trade in Farm Products. 45 Exports.* 45 Imports.*. 4 Q U.S. Trade with Uruguay . . 51 Agricultural Prospects . . 52 Bibliography . Washington, D.C. 20250 April 1970 PREFACE Uruguay supplies both wool and beef to the U.S. market. Although U.S. agricultural exports to Uruguay are relatively unimportant in most years, they supplement Uruguay's production in periods of unfavorable weather in the Southern Hemisphere. Publication of agricultural statistics by the Government of Uruguay sine the early 1960's has been sporadic, although publications issued in 1967 on the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, give data for the principal crops Production and trade estimates for the mid-1960's in this report usually come from secondary sources. Although the data often differ slightly from one source to another, they are nevertheless believed to give a reasonably good indication of the level of supplies in any one year and the general trend ove the years. Metric units used in this report are given below with their equivalents: 1 metric ton (10 quintals or 1,000 kilograms) = 2,204.6 pounds 1 hectare = 2.471 acres 1 kilometer = 0.6214 mile 1 meter = 39.37 inches 1 square kilometer = 0.386 square mile All photographs except figure 3 were provided by Precedent Films, Inc., Parina 65, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Figure 3, courtesy of Dale Farringer, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. ii SUMMARY Since 1950, continued stagnation of agriculture in Uruguay has led to the r>D£>arance of the prosperity and economic stability long characteristic of country. The source of economic strength in 1950 was still cattle and ^ p raising; wool and beef alone accounted for about four-fifths of Uruguay s rts in that year. And despite this heavy dependence on only two agri Sal product!, the country had achieved a relatively high per capita gross onal product. The stagnation that has occurred in the agricultural sector in the last is traceable chiefly to the unfavorable prices received by producers :farm'products--prices that reflect both the decline in world agri- ural prices from levels reached during the Korean war boom and Uruguay s ign exchange and export-tax policies. These policies were designed to her the redistribution of incomes generated in low-cost agriculture for purpose of supporting high-cost industries and social services. However, r discouraged investment in agriculture and agricultural output declined, ation became rampant, and the balance of payments deteriorated. Uruguay's Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, which proposes policy administrative reforms to improve agricultural conditions, 1968 jmmendations on the exchange-rate and export-tax policies. Not until 1968, >ver, did the Government make a serious effort to adjust them. Agriculture is still based for the most part on extensive production tods. Unit yields for crops and livestock are low, reflecting the failure apply modern techniques on a broad scale. Proposed programs aimed at sinq Y yields emphasize expanded extension and research services, supervised m credit, lanTreform, and product and input prices that will provide an entive to increase production. A pasture improvement program, initiated 1960, has been successful in demonstrating the profitability of improving tures and updating the care and management of cattle. More than nine-tenths of Uruguay's agricultural area is Pasture, and duction of livestock for beef and wool continues to be the leading farm erprise. Wheat and oilseeds are the principal cash crops. Rice and seeds provide the principal crop exports except in good crop years, when „t is exported also. Agricultural imports usually consist mainly of sugar, :ton, tobacco, yerba mate, bananas, and rubber. Sometimes, in years o po r iin harvests, wheat is the leading import. The future of Uruguay's agriculture will depend on the degree of economic i political stability the country attains. Assuming progress is made l >se areas and reasonably good weather conditions prevail, crop Production and jorts may well increase substantially over the next few years. Wool and beef, *ever, will doubtless remain the major sources of foreign exchange. If the reign exchange and tax situations are dealt with as contemplated in the 10- ar development plan, and the pasture improvement program continues, livestocx oducts could spark economic recovery and growth in the coming years. iii Iv A SURVEY OF AGRICULTURE IN URUGUAY Special Projects Branch Foreign Regional Analysis Division Economic Research Service introduction ^ exporter^of bwf^Uthough d exporters of "°°1> »• are important sectors of the economy, it is e^livestock^ndustry'that^as^provided the foreign exchange, as well as the cal funds, for Uruguay's development. Uruguay, with an area of only 18.7 t^nofth. th its two large neighbors-Argentina to the south^and^ ^ ^ ;s population of 2.8 million is small, > Iona domocratic tradi- wntries in South America, but ^ j the country was known as a s: nd programs that could lead to economic improvement. atorical Relationships (1) (3) 1/ The war-like Charrua Indians peopled the east bank^of tto *«.t. 1 the Uruguay River (the Banda Oriental, as the e there was n0 » Spaniards first penetrated the region in 1 1 . another >spect of quick riches from mineral resources in the ® r ??* the GoV ernor of idred years before scattered settlements speared. ^ » Oriental, raguay reportedly shipped 100 cattle and gauchos ese animals multiplied and ran wild, Paraauav to hunt them for their owboys) from across the river in Argentina and Paraguay to hunt tnem j y / x inth r<»n+iirv« the Portuguese from Brazil began to s untry—the Republics Oriental del Uruguay. -i7 Under scored numbers in parentheses refer to the numbered listings in the bibliography^ p." m.* For additional details on historical developments and current problems affecting the agriculture of Uruguay, the reader is referred especially to items (O and (3). Internal strife continued, however, and the two political parties that are still important were soon delineated—the Colorados, representing mainly the urban population interested in industrialization and protectionism, and the Blancos, representing mainly the rural, conservative elements. A stronq president came into power in 1903, however, who brought stability to the country and influenced the future social, political, and economic philosophy of Uruguay. He was able to implement many of his advanced ideas of governraeni and social legislation during his second term of office, which began in 1911. In Uruguay, the first two decades of the 20th century were characterized by political and monetary stability, extensive social services, and a general] high standard of living compared with that of other Latin American countries. The depression of the 1930's brought problems, and the Government began to encourage the development of light industries in an effort to reduce imports. Incentives and institutional support essential for agricultural development were neglected, however, and a progressive stagnation of agriculture was interrupted only briefly by the Korean war boom of the early 1950's. Presiden Pacheco, who took office in December 1967, seems willing to take unpopular measures to stem inflation and foster economic recovery. Constitutional changes have modified the structure of the Government several times. The latest change was in 1967, when executive responsibility was again vested in a single president. This change followed a 15-year period of rule by a nine-man executive council. Uruguay is an active participant in international and Western Hemisphere organizations, particularly the United Nations and the Organization of Americai States (OAS), and is committed to the principles of democratic government. Montevideo, Uruguay's capital, is the seat of the headquarters of the Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA). 2/ Nature of the Economy Uruguay's economy has always been based on its agriculture, particularly the livestock sector. Processed and unprocessed farm products account for mor< than 90 percent of the value of all commodity exports. Even in 1967, farm products brought in nearly five times as much foreign exchange as tourism, which is the only other important source of foreign earnings. Lack of mineral resources has severely limited development of heavy in Uru 9 ua Y« The development of light industries that began in the 1930 s was based primarily on enterprises producing foods, beverages, textiles; and .ootwear—all using agricultural raw materials. Agriculture's share in both the labor force and the gross domestic product is less than a fifth and thus understates the importance of agriculture as a source of employment and Agriculture developed rapidly during the early years of the 20th century, and supplied the capital for Uruguay's economic and social advancement. But ~ 2/ Present members are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. 2 ... .Ij-iam's the Government has been strongly oriented to the needs -• sector Continued spending for Industrial development and the industrialsector.continuep^deficlt financing, runaway tare led during the 1960 s to large sc rate . Between 1960 and Lation, and drastic deprecia Drices) declined at a cumulative <> gross domestic Product U“ ^g^had slightly more than doubled between i al ,n5 a ?9» w°;t S«. times as high in 1966 as in 1955 (l). Agricultural orts dropped in both volume and value. ^rni-fif °»s«c :"iL i r;«rt^rc^^u:rp”bi i »s. Investment and iconic development rogram°of Research ^ elopment °fth«oountry^ technicians from the OAS, the Economic lanizations and i * . the inter-American Development Bank. A mission for Latin America, and tn i n October 1965 and covering iprehensive national development plan, completed in Ojtob«19W yestment rails for improved economic policies ana mcrea&eu pwi Ltural'output^ere'recognized in^the^development^plan? "l-egislative'approval e plan as they relate to agriculture.) ysical Environment Uruouav is located on the east coast of South America, entirely within ? 4 . 7 /Mrha t+s area and population are somewhat larger than e Southof Oklahoma. The Uruguay River, which flows south and s ses-S Br n laraelv of European extraction, and more than half the P e °P* iuthern^ coastal* belt. The seaport capital of Montevideo is the social and ;onomic center of the nation. To pography —Uruguay, an extension of the Argentine Pampa, is P r *^* Uy anHs (fin l) are best suited for permanent pasture, but some are capable ultivatiori. The^iighland area turns south at its eastern end and continues s a low range of mountains called the Cuchilla Grande (Big Knife), which ru lmost to the coast and divides Uruguay into two main watersheds, the larg sing to the west. The principal river is the Rio Negro, ^^“ows^from the ortheast to the southwest and empties into the Urugu y. , . ^ tles he main drainage east of the Cuchilla Grande, flows northeasterly and empties nto Lake Merfn. 3 Figure 1.—Pasture grass is lush when moisture is adequate. Cattle and sheep run together in the same pasture in Uruguay* unlike the practice in most countries* where sheep follow cattle. Climate--Despite its location in the Temperate Zone* Uruguay has a climate that is considered humid subtropical. Frosts are frequent but snowfall is rare. Winters are usually mild; the short summers are warm--sometimes hot in «^!oi:* nter * 0r * July * s c °l des-t month* with temperatures averaging about 50 F. January is the warmest month* with a temperature range from 70°F. at Punta del Este in the south to 80°F. at Artigas in the north. Windiness is a characteristic of the weather in both summer and winter. In summer, the winds temper the high midday temperatures; and in winter, the chill winds from the south bring periods of cold weather. In all seasons, sudden shifts in wind direction contribute to frequent day-to-day changes and considerable variation in temperature. Uruguay usually receives sufficient rain during the year, with an annual rainfall of more than 40 inches in the northeastern two-thirds of the country and 30 inches in the southwest. Althouqh the averaae rainfall bv month appears uj» y wtfowicr * wiuvuyuuuw wiu y uiere may oe neavy snowers or concentrated in a few days and followed by a month or more Annual averages also conceal erratic patterns of rainfall. 4 isional droughts cause severe damage to crops and pastures, and heavy fall in some years results in floods that destroy crops and livestock. foi nearly five decades indicate that in about 1 year out of 6, summer lf aii is less than 6.5 inches and annual rainfall is less than 34.3 inches, i low rainfall is combined with high temperature and persistent, drying Is, drought conditions become severe. Also, loss of water through runoff loss of soil through erosion are major problems, especially in cultivo^ed is. Wet and dry periods and low temperatures sometimes occur in the same crop son, as in 1966/67, when excessive rain in December 1966 damaged wheat and er small grains. Dry weather in early 1967 stunted corn and p J* tur ?** . ns in May 9 broke the drought, but were followed by freezes and then by floods, harvest was poor and many animals died from starvation, disease, freezi g, drowning. Even during normal seasons, however, Uruguay's climate is not favorable some of the subtropical and temperate-region crops. Spring droughts and w autumn rains may damage the cotton crop, and extreme variations in rain l Y and t temperature affect tobacco. Corn does not thrive in Uruguay, although ^widely' grown. Apple and grape output, especially in the south, is som.- «s reduced sharply by drought, as was the case in early i^- Grass appears ter adapted to the climate than other unirrigated crops, but its growth is quently arrested by periods of drought or cold weather. Soils—Since no significant mineral resources have been discovered in iguayTthe soil has been the country’s principal source of wealth. Most deoils are suitable for crop production, although the topsoil is ot ***** * >th and in many areas it is subject to erosion. Brunizems, which cover about f of the country, are well-suited for grazing and in some places for crop Auction. They are fertile soils with thick, dark-colored silty or loamy -face layers over a somewhat finer textured but permeable subsoil. Hie imusols, which are most extensive in the northwest, are black to dark gray istic clays; they are generally well supplied with plant nutrients, but aie Fficult to work because they are sticky when wet and hard when dry. The association of Humic Gley and Alluvial soils is scattered in small as near the coast and along the streams. The Humic Gley soils are uar ored, poorly drained, but fertile soils with organic matter in the surface er. Artificial drainage and water control, however, are required for isfactory crop production from these soils. The Alluvial soils are well- ined and fertile, although many are subject to flooding. Planosols occur tly on level or nearly level areas in the east. They have dark silty or my surface layers over a nearly impermeable clayey subsoil that and ;ificial drainage necessary for satisfactory crop production. Lithosols and illow or stony Brunizems on some of the rolling and hilly areas provide lited grazing but have little, if any, potential for crop production. Uruguay has magnificent sandy beaches in the south and along the ean that attract vacationers from neighboring Argentina and Brazil. ; second only to agriculture as a source of foreign exchange. Atlantic Tourism 5 People and Labor Supply As mentioned earlier, the original inhabitants of the Uruguayan region were the Charrua Indians, a tribe of nomadic hunters, Spaniards from Argentina and Paraguay spilled over into the land in the 18th century, and Portuguese moved south from Brazil, Together they eliminated the Indians, Heavy immigra¬ tion from Italy occurred during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and con¬ siderable numbers of French and other European nationals also settled in Uruguay, The population of 2,8 million is now largely of European extraction and is growing at an annual rate of 1,3 percent, a much lower rate than obtains in most countries of Latin America. Number of farmworkers —The rural population of Uruguay is declining both in actual numbers and as a percentage of total population; about 45 percent of all Uruguayans live in Montevideo. Although the total population rose by 16 percent from 1951 to 1961, the number of people on farms of 1 hectare or more dropped some 11 percent during this period. The decline has generally been associated with lack of employment for family members on the many small farms and with labor-saving innovations on larger farms, including mechani¬ zation of crop production and shifts to a more extensive type of ranching. Low net returns after taxes from farming operations have also discouraged many farmers from making the improvements or using the labor necessary to ensure an efficient enterprise. Migration to urban areas has resulted. Out of a total labor force of just over a million in October 1963, according to the latest population census, persons employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing accounted for just under 18 percent. The total number of people actively employed in agriculture included relatively few unpaid family workers and still fewer women (7.4 percent and 4 percent, respectively). These percentage shares may understate the relative importance of family labor on farms because of the choice of enumeration dates and census definitions. Farm labor activity is slack in October, and had the census been taken at the peak of activity, in March-May, family members would no doubt have represented a larger share of the total farm labor force. Although not using a strictly comparable definition, the agricultural census of 1961, taken in May, lists 52,000 females working on farms, or 24 percent of the agricultural labor force on farms of 1 hectare or more in size. May ends the 3-month period during which farmers harvest corn, grain sorghum, rice, sunflower seed, peanuts, sweet potatoes, and grapes. In that period they also plant truck crops and prepare the land for and start sowing small grains and flaxseed. By October, on the other hand, most of the summer crops have been planted and winter crops are still growing. Livestock also require less labor in October, when shearing begins, than in May, when livestock are branded. Uruguay's agricultural planning authorities estimate there were 185,000 economically active persons in the agricultural and forestry sector in 1963. They say there is still considerable unemployment and underemployment in rural areas in most months, and possibly as many as 4 percent of the workers could be classed as ’’surplus" even in the busy months of March, April, and May. Working and living conditions —Families on small farms, whose land provides their principal source of employment and income, account for about 6 •fourth of all families dependent on agriculture. These, as well as more i half the families dependent mainly on agricultural wages, live in poverty. » farm wageworkers have a little land, usually cultivated on a subsistence Ls The great majority, however, neither own nor rent land. Farm wage¬ rs are considered inferior to small farmers on the social scale, but jrior on the economic scale, as they generally have better food and housing. Although most workers in agricultural processing industries are highly jnized, the trade union movement has made little progress in the Uruguayan vtrvside. Sugar beet fieldworkers were organized in the late 1950 s. The / other organization of rural workers, so far as is known, is the Movement Rural Action, formed in the 1960's and believed to have few actual farmers farm wageworkers as members. Minimum farm wages are fixed by the Government but are low compared with ustrial wages; and in remote areas, especially, the rates are difficult t orce. An Executive Decree of December 31, 1968, established new levels ° aries and living conditions for rural workers, effective February 1, 196^. es for common laborers range from 234 to 328 pesos P er 1 was 100,000, or more than one-fifth of the persons living on all farms 1 rancherios. Labor productivity on farms reportedly averages about 20 percent below i level for the economy as a whole, but productivity in large ranching jrations is said to be relatively high compared with that on farms and lches of less than 50 hectares. The literacy rate for Uruguay is estimated at 93 percent the highest in in America—but this figure has little reality for the poorer farmers and mworkers in the rural areas. People living on the rancherios, for example, ild probably be classified as largely functionally illiterate. Although mary education is obligatory, education in rural areas is provided through y the third grade. Pupils from the poorer rural areas cannot afford to go urban schools to finish even their primary education. For the country as a whole, the level of food consumption is higher than any other country in Latin America except Argentina. Estimated per capita lorie intake averages 2,885 calories daily, and animal protein consumption high. Uruguay's meat consumption is estimated to be the highest in the stern Hemisphere, possibly in the world. But for the farmworker, particularly ie seasonal worker, consumption of vegetables and fruit and other protective >ods falls below the high average for the country. Even so, food supplies 7 available to the rural worker are greater than for his counterpart in most other Latin American nations, although his housing facilities probably are little if any better in quality. AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONS Government policy in Uruguay over the years has sought to maintain a stable democratic system, provide extensive social benefits to Uruguayan citizens, foster exports, and diversify the country's economy by promoting its industry. Unfortunately, much of this effort has been at the expense of agriculture, which has received little attention or encouragement until recently. Particularly since the early 1950's, the Government has used exchange policy, including export taxes, to siphon off profits from wool and cattle production and, to a lesser extent, profits from oilseed and wheat output. Despite some aid given to agriculture, especially during the 1960*s, the net result of Government policies to encourage production and exports of far* products has been limited. According to official estimates for 1955-64, the value of farm output at 1963 prices exceeded the 1955 level in one year only (1963), and then by only 3 percent. Since 1963, it has remained below the 195 level. Agricultural exports have also stagnated since the late 1950's, fluc¬ tuating in value from 40 percent (1959) to 69 percent (1965) of the record set in 1953. The current National Development Plan, 1965-74, however, is giving increased emphasis to investment in the agricultural sector, and many of the infrastructure projects under construction or in prospect will benefit agri¬ culture. Improvements in agricultural research, extension services, and education are planned; farm credit and crop-storage facilities are receiving increased financing; and nontraditional exports are being promoted. The program is being financed largely with outside assistance, partly from the United States and partly from international organizations. Agricultural Policies Despite the relative lack of emphasis it has placed on the agricultural sector of the economy, the Uruguayan Government has long given some assistance to agriculture in an effort to diversify production and enable the country to become more self-sufficient in food. The Government protects farmers against competition from foreign producers and establishes support prices or direct subsidies for various crops and livestock products (3). It also works through the National Subsistence and Price Control Council to hold down consumer price The Council operates its own stores and also controls the prices of fruits and vegetables in the weekly street markets of Montevideo and other towns. Aid to agriculture has come to include not only price support but also some limited programs to improve farming techniques. To finance these programs, a small share of the total taxes collected on agricultural exports in the 1960's has been allocated to the Agricultural Development Fund. Funds have been used largely for fertilizer subsidies, but also for improved seed, cattle improvement, research, and the extension service, which is still in an early stage of development. 8 Although the extension service was expanded in 1967, it included after Dansion only 48 agronomists, each assigned to provide crop information and isistance in one of the country's 48 crop areas. In 1967, there were 35 igional veterinary offices, each office covering 500,000 hectares and having staff that included two veterinarians and 15 assistants. The Ministry of jriculture has three experiment stations—one for livestock, another for eld crop research, and the third for horticultural crop research. The jricultural and veterinary colleges at the University of the Republic of 'uguay in Montevideo also have experiment stations for crop and livestock ‘search. Research findings on techniques and practices that would help irmers increase per unit yields have been meager thus far. The Government requested the World Bank (International Bank for Recon- truction and Development) and the FAO (United Nations' Food and Agriculture rganization) some 20 years ago to survey the country's agricultural problems id recommend solutions. A joint World Bank/FAO agricultural mission went to ruguay and in 1951 submitted a report that resulted in formulation of a Lvestock improvement program known as the Plan Agropecuario (Agriculturax Lan), to be financed with the help of a World Bank loan.3/ Although the ank and the Uruguayan Government agreed on the Plan Agropecuario in 1954, tie loan agreement was not signed until the end of 1959 and the legislature ook an additional year to ratify it. This plan has received enthusiastic upport from most ranchers who participated and has been so successful that n additional World Bank loan was obtained in 1965 to extend the program to ther ranchers. (See section on Livestock and Products later in this report.) stimates indicate that as a result of improvements under the Plan Agropecuario, he annual average net return to the Uruguayan economy would increase about 7 percent over a 10-year period. By the mid-1960's, the general stagnation in the agricultural sector had xtended to other parts of the economy, and the Government began to seek ways o stimulate economic growth. A national plan of economic and social develop¬ ed, covering 1965-74, was recommended by the Government-appointed Commission f Investments and Economic Development (CIDE); by the end of 1968, the egislature had approved a number of the plan recommendations. A major portion of this national plan is the Agricultural Development lan, 1965-74, which proposes policy and administrative reforms for agri- ultural programs. One of the principal aims of this plan is expanded agri- ;ultural output as a basis for enlarged exports. It includes general outlines or 10 major farm programs: Research, extension, certified seed, agrarian eform, farm credit, and programs aimed at raising yields of grains, oilseeds, iugar, wine grapes, and livestock. Agricultural research and extension cervices are to be coordinated in the Ministry of Agriculture by the Agri¬ cultural Research and Extension Division, set up in the mid-1960's. It will facilitate not only the flow of research results to farmers, but also a reverse flow of information from farmers. The information from the farmers 3/ Spanish name is used for this plan to distinguish it from the Agri¬ cultural Development Plan, 1965-74, drawn up as a part of the national plan cf economic and social development. 9 will help identify the problems that need research and the economic obstacles in applying improved techniques. Additional details of the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, are discussed in other sections of this report. Inflation has delayed implementa¬ tion of much of the plan, including the important programs for expanding farm credit, linking it to greater use of inputs, and for intensifying agricultural research and experimentation. By forcing drastic stabilization measures in 1967/68, however, inflation hastened the devaluation of the exchange rate, an action essential to assure the adequate farm prices needed for agricultural development. Farm organizations —Uruguay has two important general farm organizations for the larger ranchers and landowners: The Uruguayan Rural Federation, which speaks chiefly for the livestock producers and disagrees with the aims of agrarian reform; and the Rural Association of Uruguay, which functions primarily as an official registry for pure-bred stock. Operating on a smaller scale are the Federal League for Rural Action, and the National Commission for Rural Development. The former, founded by members of the Rural Federation and the Rural Association for the purpose of representing the small producers (9), became active politically in the early 1930's, and has had some influence in Government circles. Although the influence of the once-important National Commission for Rural Development, which represents the interests of organiza¬ tions of small farmers, has declined, it is still considered one of the four main farm organizations. A fifth organization, the Farm Confederation of Uruguay, was formed in 1968 and is composed of 12 agricultural societies, most of which are for truck farmers. Agricultural cooperatives and a few agricultural commodity associations have considerable importance in Uruguay. In 1967, there were 150 agricul¬ tural cooperatives with about 40,000 members, double the number of members in 1961. Most of these cooperatives are affiliated with the National Federation of Livestock and Crop Cooperatives; however, a small group of former affiliates has broken off to form a rival organization, the Uruguay Federation of Livestock and Crop Cooperatives. Membership in these societies is large compared with that of farm organizations in other Latin American countries. The cooperative movement, however, has not been particularly successful in representing the needs of small farmers, partly because of Government policies and legislation placing limitations on the capitalization of cooperatives. Under the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, however, cooperatives are to be encouraged by proposed governing legislation that will ensure adequate financing. The Rice Growers' Association has some influence on producer prices and the Poultry Association, South, has successfully exported eggs and frozen chickens since 1963 to Argentina, other South American countries, and Europe. The Farm Confederation of Uruguay, mentioned above, is in effect a commodity association. It helps truck farmers find markets at home and abroad, and assists in obtaining legislation to protect their interests. Farm credit —The supply of credit to farmers in Uruguay is one of the keys to increased agricultural output. The more readily available sources 10 f credit to small farmers are the merchants selling agricultural inputs. iese merchants sell their goods to small farmers on credit, with the provision lat payment in full must be made at the end of the harvest season. Prices re often set at abnormally high levels for credit purchases, and the farmer sually must sell his products through the creditor immediately after harvest, ien prices are at their lowest level. Private banks provide only production redit, with the loans repayable in 6 to 12 months. Interest rates from this jurce in the mid-1960's were generally 30 percent per year or more. Detailed ata are not available either for private banking credit to farmers or for le credit advanced by merchants for purchases of fertilizer, seeds, and other roduction requisites. The Bank of the Republic replaced the National Mortgage Bank as the main jurce of public farm credit in 1946 and has since been gaining in relative nportance. In 1964, for example, it provided 88.1 percent of the farm credit jvanced by public agencies, compared with 8.5 percent for the National jrtgage Bank and some 3.4 percent provided by the Plan Agropecuario. The sgulations and procedures of the Bank of the Republic are cumbersome, Dwever—there are some 34 different formulas for determining loan eligibility ^d conditions. The Bank's minimum interest rate in 1967 varied from 7.0 3 8.5 percent, and the repayment periods varied from 3 months to 4 years. -ie interest rate for the supervised credit advanced by the Plan Agropecuario, n contrast, is 3 percent per year. This credit, unlike so-called "production redit," is for long-term (7-year) financing for improvement and rehabilita- ion of pastureland. In addition to the three public agencies listed above, tie National Colonization Institute provides some farm credit to encourage olonization. In relation to agricultural output, total farm credit provided by public gencies has declined since the mid-1950's. Farmers apparently do not give riority to production inputs in assessing their credit needs, although wheat armers increased the area sown to that crop in 1964/65 in response to a pecial credit program instituted by the Bank of the Republic. The Bank made oans to wheat farmers for seed, fertilizers, weedkillers, insecticides, ungicides, and harvesting and other related expenses (see section on Wheat), he Bank extended the program in 1965 to include flaxseed, sunflower seed, eanuts, malting barley, corn, and grain sorghums. Bad weather, however, revented area expansion through the 1967/68 season. The Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, stresses the increased use f supervised credit to encourage development of the agricultural sector. Trade policies —The Uruguayan Government has long intervened in the ountry's agricultural import and export trade through tariffs for protection nd revenue purposes (3). Since the 1930's, it has imposed strict exchange ontrols as well as quantitative import restrictions from time to time. Trade olicy is influenced to a large degree by a traditional balance-of-payments eficit. Nonessential imports are discouraged by high duties, and the flow f imports is controlled by a series of graduated surtaxes, prior deposits, nd exchange surcharges. Most of the basic import duties are assessed on an fficial valuation (aforo) expressed in Uruguayan pesos per kilogram, occasionally, ad valorem duties are assessed based on the c.i.f. value. The 11 ad valorem surcharges are sometimes based on an "official" c.i.f. value determined by Uruguayan authorities (16). Exchange controls involved multiple rates for imports and exports until December 1959, when the Government instituted a unified exchange market combined with surcharges and prior deposits on imports, and varying taxes (detracciones) on the traditional basic exports. The change in the system of controls formed a part of a stabilization program designed to halt infla¬ tion and correct the disequilibrium in Uruguay's balance of payments that had persisted since 1955 and had sharply reduced foreign exchange reserves. Inflationary pressure intensified, however, and the balance of payments continued to deteriorate. Inflation soared in 1967, accelerated mainly by a large budget deficit and poor weather for crops and livestock. The official peso buying rate per U.S. dollar, which stood at 11 pesos in 1963, was progressively raised to 250 pesos by the end of April 1968. A stabilization program, supported in 1967 by foreign assistance, was strengthened in June 1968 by a freeze on prices and wages and a tightening of controls on the sale of foreign exchange by banks and exchange houses. The cost of living rose only slowly during the latter half of 1968. Public resistance to tight controls in early 1969 was strong, but by the end of the year, the public began to appreciate the benefits of inflation controls and appeared more willing than before to accept them. Proceeds from the export of the "basic" products (wool, flaxseed, sun¬ flower seed, wheat, peanuts, and byproducts of these commodities, as well as beef, dry and salted cowhides, and sheepskins) must be delivered to the monetary authorities, who withhold the export taxes (retentiones or detracciones). Legislation adopted in October 1968 provides for the gradual replacement of these taxes on basic exports by a tax based on the production potential of the owners' land. This productivity tax, however, is to be collected initially through a system of withholding funds from export proceeds Export taxes on wool are being replaced first, over a 3-year period which bega October 1, 1968. Export taxes on other basic products are gradually being replaced also. The new tax structure is expected to stimulate agricultural production and exports, but its effects will be gradual over a period of years In 1953, Uruguay became a contracting party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Certain tariff concessions by Uruguay under this agreement benefit U.S. products. Uruguay is also a charter member of the Latin American Free Trade Association. Uruguay both gives and receives preferential treatment on trade with other LAFTA members. Preferential treatment given by Uruguay includes reduced prior deposits on all imports and preferential tariffs on some (4). Uruguay has several bilateral agreements. With particular reference to agriculture, for example, Uruguay and Brazil have signed agreements from time to time for the sale of Uruguayan wheat to Brazil. The last such agreement was signed on November 25, 1968, for a 1-year period. Foreign Aid Between 1949 and the end of 1968, Uruguay received the equivalent of more than US$280 million in external aid; about half came from international 12 . e nn+ahlv the World Bank, and about half from the United States, ect'aid for agrU6lt«e accounts for a relatively Mil share of total 6 nai aid to Uruquay. It does include, however, financing for one of the ^promising 0 International agricultural aid projects, the pasture rn^rovement ora®. World Bank loans in 1960 and 1965 for this purpose totaled US$19.7 lion (see section on Livestock and Products). Other large sums advanced for agricultural development f" cl ^e US$5.6 r . K Tnt$»r- American Development Bank in 1964 for crop and live 10 " r t ^ and e^nsion of toe dairy industry, US$15 million from the ted^Stat^s in 1968 for importing agricultural machinery, equipment, seeds, and other agricultural aids with the understanding that pesos derated from the sale of the imported commodities be used for credit 5 I USS5 million from the United States for fertilizer imports, authorized 1966 but first used in 1968. Portions of the two US. J^uayan .‘world^Bank^nd^the^nter-American Development Bank for their agricultural ig^ams have been partly supplied by using some of the peso Proceeds from the . 480 4/ sales agreements, signed in January and May 1968. Some °J V™ so Droceeds are being invested in other agricultural projects. The first 480 investment agreement, signed in June 1968, provides for bu * , n 9 il-testing^aboratories and other facilities for the soil work needed to velop a good basis for a land productivity tax and to assist farmers in proving their use of land. The January 1968 P.L. 480 sales agreement, mentioned above, called for uguay 6 thunder take a number of self-help measures, including leglslaUon, ssed in June 1968, on soil and water conservation, seeds, and fertilizer, aislation, passed in October 1968, establishing a tax on land productivity , permit the gradual reduction and eventual abolition of the existing expor xes^n traditional export comities, and legislation on tenancy and •operatives, still under legislative study at the end of 1969. Agriculture has received technical assistance as well as capital aid ■om both the United States and international organizations. FAO has been irticularly active in providing technical assistance. ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURE id Use and Types of Farms Uruguay's topography, climate, and soils are relatively more suitable ; grass than for field crops. Almost 90 percent of the total creaofthe ,ntry is classified as agricultural land, and some 90 percent of the agri .tural land is in pasture (table l). Pasture area has apparently been increasing since the mid-1950 s, with i share of crops for harvest dropping from 10 to 8 percent between the 4/ U.S. Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 13 Table l.--Land use in Uruguay, 1956, 1961, and 1963 Use : 1956 1/ : 1961 1/ : 1963 2/ t : Land in farms: : 1,000 hectares - - s Agricultural land— : Planted for harvest . : Arable pasture . : Permanent grassland . : Natural woods and forests • • : 1,641 728 13,589 434 1,344 767 13,988 456 1,275 na 14,325 na Total agricultural land • • * • 16,392 16,555 na Other land in farms.* 367 434 na • • Total land in farms.. 16,759 3/ 16,988 na • Other land.. 1,934 1,705 na r Grand total.. • 18,693 18,693 18,693 na = data not available. 1/ Estimates based on census data as printed in the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, publications. The plan publications appear to revise slightly some of the census data printed earlier (September 1963); these, in turn, differ somewhat from the annual estimates for 1956 and 1961. Both sources include in the area for pasture the natural woods and forests on farms. Estimates for 1963 were from the plan publications and are probably not strictly comparable with census data. 3/ Items do not add to total because of rounding. Sources: (14) (15). census years 1956 and 1961, and probably reaching a still lower level in 1963. Grains for food and for livestock feed occupy most of the area planted to crops for harvest. The Agricultural Development Plan for 1965-74 (mentioned earlier in Agricultural Policies) calls for the area in crops for harvest to recover at the expense of pasture, and for pastures to be improved (table 2). At their highest level, the 1974 projections for both crop area and pasture area fall short of the potential area that would result if the soils were also managed so as to protect them from erosion and improve their natural fertility. The potentially arable area of almost 3.4 million hectares, in turn, falls short of the maximum cultivable area, estimated at from 5.2 to 6.6 million hectares. This maximum cultivable area, according to agricultural plan technicians, should be used in rotation between crops and pasture so that in any one year the maximum area that could be devoted to annual crops would total between 3.0 and 3.8 million hectares, or only 19 to 24 percent of the agricultural land (excluding woodland pastures). Even after deducting artificial pasture (annual grasses) from permanent pastures, there would 14 Table 2.—Projected land use, Uruguay, 1974, and estimated potential Agricultural land 1974 projections 1/ Without : With agrarian : agrarian reform : reform Estimated potential 2J ble land: rops for harvest innual grasses 3/ Total arable land - 1,000 hectares -------- . i 1,676 1,786 2,985 .: 600 465 390 rmanent pastures: 4/ .. 1 Natural, seeded or fertilized : Natural, unimproved . * Total permanent pasture • • : 13,724 2,276 2,251 3,375 810 1,500 2,400 990 1,500 10,225 11,924 10,749 0 13,724 13,749 12,625 16,000 16,000 16,000 tal agricultural land • • • • * / 1974 projections are from the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, show plan technicians' projections of land use with and without adoption aqrarian reform measures recommended in the plan. 7 Potential land use is estimated, assuming that soils are managed so as protect them from erosion and improve their natural fertility, and assuming agrarian reform programs are implemented. 1/ Obtained by deduction. \J Excluding natural woods and forests. main nearly two-thirds of the total agricultural land in permanent pastures .at should not be plowed. All could be improved, however, by upgrading tural growth through seeding, fertilization, and controlled grazing. S ize and tenure of farms —A small number of large estancias and a large imber of small farms characterize Uruguay's farmholdings. According to the )61 agricultural census, 4.4 percent of the farms of 1 hectare or over had ,000 hectares or more each and comprised some 56.9 percent of all land i irms. At the other extreme, almost 30 percent of the counted farms ha 1 ;ctares or less and comprised only 0.7 percent of the total farm area table 3). Landownership is more highly concentrated than farm sizes would suggest, y landowners possess two or more estancias, which may be operated separately subdivided for renting as farm units or parts of farm units. Increasing bers of landowners have been incorporating their properties, largely into sonal or family agricultural societies (Sociedades Agropecuarias de ital), to benefit from the tax exemptions and privileges granted such ieties and to prevent the breakup of landholdings through inheritance, icultural societies controlled almost 10 percent of the farmland in 1963. 15 Table 3.—Number and area of farms, by size groups, Uruguay, 1961 Size group (hectares) Total Number _ : Percentage : of total Total Area _ : Percentage : of total t 1,000 Thousands Percent hectares Percent 1—10 ....... i 25.8 29.7 123 0.7 10—20 ...... 14.0 16.1 197 1.2 20—50 ...... 15.7 18.1 495 2.9 50—100 ...... 9.5 10.9 674 4.0 100-200 . 7.4 8.5 1,042 6.1 200-500 . 7.0 8.0 2,174 12.8 500-1,000 .... 3.7 4.3 2,609 15.4 1,000-2,500 . . . 2.6 3.0 3,994 23.5 2,500 and over . . 1.2 1.4 5,680 33.4 86.9 100.0 16,988 100.0 Source: (14). The 1961 agricultural census does not reveal exactly how much farmland is owner-operated, either directly or through a hired manager, and how much is leased. Many of the larger landowners do not live on their farms, prefer¬ ring to live in the city and hire a manager to operate their holdings or pre¬ ferring to lease the land to tenants. Land is commonly leased for a fixed ren that is payable in cash or in kind; but a substantial number of farms are worked by share tenants, squatters, or other persons who use the land free of rent. Many of the large estates and very small farms consist in whole or in part of leased land. The intermediate size farms, however, have the highest share of their farmland leased or mainly leased. These farms also have most of the country’s total area in crops for harvest, as shown in the following tabulation: Size group (hectares) Share of leased farms 1/ in specified size group : Share of crop area t held by all farms in : specified size group 1-20. Percent 43 Percent 11 20-50 . 49 12 50-100 . 51 12 100-200 . 54 14 200-500 . 52 19 500-1,000 . 49 12 1,000-2,500 ... 43 11 2,500 and over. 32 9 Total. 42 100 1/ Or mainly leased farms. 16 S correlation between tenancy and crop rising is strongest in the mixed pping and ranching region northeast of Montevideo. The Aaricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, lists the high level of r* dmageto “is, underemployment of the labor force, , low levels of productivity and income. The operators of such I resulting low lev.el P technic ai improvements. Extremely large s? sS labor, and low invescm k have n0 incen tive to make technical snt income 60 J*** orlt i e s have examined farm size and tenure by Tortn ^laSon'to production potential, availability of markets, and Jions T*: Thev have estimated that almost 84 percent of all Single S^er^t of the total farmland, have problems of size, riure, or both (tsble 4)* land reform—Many plans have been proposed in Uruguay to make^land 8 siil ir Sa 1 nrfs f land! land^reform^la^authorized : ~a"w r=Hn= Decolonization (Instituto^*” icional de Colonization) to carry out its provisions. But in 1967, colonize ind still represented less than 2 percent of total farmland. Legislation to protect farm tenants has been somewhat inadequate. A >54 law fixes the minimum contract period for tenancy at 5 years and gives >nants the right to a 3-year renewal. At the end of the 5-year period, iwever, the owner can decide to take over the holding and cultivate it hims tit out to his close relatives. In reality, this provision limits the Dntract to a 5-year period. One-year extensions have prevented tenants from e?Jg eiic?ed, behave not provided sufficient security of tenure to induce enants to modernize their operations. The Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, proposes an agrarian reform rogram that includes land redistribution, better tenancy conditions, and mprovement of farm credit and extension and other agricultural institutions, he land reform measures include expropriation and redistri.u on o xisting farm operators rather than to new ones; new taxation policies to octette voluntary sale of some estate lands to new operators; and -vision f tenancy legislation to prohibit tenancy except on a fixed rent basis. ,ew tenancy legislation would lengthen the contract periodfromStoSyears ind the renewal period from 3 to 6 years, and would require that tenants ■eceive adequate compensation for any improvements they might make. The aim of the plan authorities is to provide fs "“| *** iized units, large as well as small. The proposal would thus affect some three-fourths of the area in farms with size and/or tenure P-blems, but little more than half of that area's farm operators. Land *?™* ,lfarms lowever, according to the authorities, to increase all existing small farms 17 Table 4.—Number and area of farms with size and tenure problems, Uruguay 1/ Type of problem Size only: Too small, all owned Too large, all owned Tenure only: All rented 2/• • Part rented 3/ . Size and tenure: Too small-- All rented 2/, Part rented 3/ Too large— All rented 2j• Part rented 3/ Total with size and tenure problems . No size or tenure problems 4/ . . . Grand total . . Total Percentage : of total —--_* Total :Percen tage: : of total : Average size Thousands Percent 1,000 hectares Percent Hectares • 27.7 32.1 881 5.2 32 • 1.2 1.4 3,633 21.5 3,028 13.8 16.0 2,897 17.2 210 3.8 4.4 1,639 9.7 431 • 21.3 24.7 824 4.9 39 • 2.9 3.4 252 1.5 87 0.7 0.8 1,731 10.2 2,473 • 0.6 0.7 2,035 12.0 3,392 : 72.1 83.5 13,892 82.2 193 14.2 16.5 3,000 17.8 211 • • 86.3 100.0 16,892 100.0 196 . baS6d ° n the 1961 a 9 ricultural census, data apparently do not ref t0 since not only the total area in farms but also its breakdown by lan use differ somewhat from data in table 1, as well as from published census returns, which appear in table 3. |/ By farmers working the land under some form of tenure other than ownersh 3/ By farmers owning some of the land they work. operator mS neither to ° lar 9 e nor too small, and owned entirely by their Source (15). to eoonomicaUy via f le units - Farmers on small holdings not covered by the ihp d r^ f0rm p * oposals would be expected to go into nonagricultural jobs that e t c:„o:ic er d n :«i t op h ^t s . would be created in the ° f ^ Although the agrarian reform program was submitted to the legislature in 1964, only parts of it have been enacted into law and implemented. Legisla¬ tion which was passed in late 1968, and which may encourage voluntary sale of estate lands, provides for taxes based on potential land productivity to replace export retention taxes on wool and eventually on other livestock pro¬ ducts (see section on Trade Policies). In early 1968, the Uruguayan Government 18 gned a P.L. 480 on and certain t late 1969. sales agreement that called for passage of tenancy legisla- self-help measures. Such legislation was under consideration >rm Practices Most Uruguayan farmers practice an extractive type of agriculture, 'awing on the natural fertility of the soil rather than replenishing and •adually improving it through proper crop rotations and good pasture manage »nt. Either monoculture or rotation of cash crops is the usual practice on [most all of the harvested land. Many farmers, however, plant some arable and to temporary pastures of grain or other annual grasses; oats account for Dst of the area in-these forage crops. Cattle may be grazea on seedling rain when it is 3 to 6 inches high, after which the cattle are removed and he grain is allowed to head out and ripen for harvest. Little progress has been made in adopting improved agricultural techniques r practicing soil and moisture conservation. Erosion is a problem, especially n the rolling lands in the arable farming areas. Heavy rams are common and onsiderable soil and water are lost through runoff. Yields have suffered ecause continuous cultivation and excessive overgrazing have reduced the roductivity of the land. The need for soil and water conservation was officially recognized before 950, and during the 1960‘s the agricultural planning authorities again mphasized the problem of erosion. Because the greater part of the eroded and is in the zones of highest potential productivity, the Agricultural levelopment Plan, 1965-74, gave conservation high priority among the agri- ultural projects proposed. A Soil and Water Conservation Law was enacted in dd-1968, but funds and technicians to implement the law are still not ivailable. Mechanization—In the early 1950's, Uruguay probably had the most highly lechanized agriculture in Latin America, with crop P r ^ction estimated . 6 ,0 percent mechanized (3). Tractor numbers nearly doubled be^een l f l .961, increasing from a little over 13,000 in 1951 to almost 25>000 in 19 ^ 1 table 5). Estimates indicate that tractor numbers on farms had increased to 32,680 by 1968. Tractor numbers per 1,000 hectares of cultivated ^.and itse from about 7 to 14.5 during 1951-61. This ratio is high compared with that for Argentina, but is low compared with that for the United States. (Using "new tractor equivalents," Uruguay would have 6.8 new tractor equivalents per 1,000 hectares of cultivated land in 1961, compared with 27.7 for the United States.) The number of combines also increased between 1951 and 1961, though there was apparently no increase in the number of machines for bulx handling of grain and oilseeds, much of which still require manual handling (1;. Substantial quantities of other machinery, including trucks, trailers, and pickups, were imported during 1951-61. By 1967, however, reports indicated that a shortage of farm machinery was hampering crop production. To alleviate this shortage, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) granted Uruguay a dollar loan in 1968 to be used primarily for importing harvesting and other farm machinery and for expanding the output of wheat and flaxseed (traditional export crops), malting 19 Table 5.—Selected farm machinery and implements, Uruguay, 1951 and 1961 Kind : Tractors . : Plows ....... . t Disk tillers and harrows.. Seed drills.. Mowers . : Binders, combines, and threshers . . . t Corn shellers.. Wool-shearing machines . Carts.. Trailers, trucks, and pickups . : Water pumps . Motors and electric generators • • . • : L na = data not available. 1951 : 1961 • Thousands - - - ■ 13.3 24.7 141.4 138.0 16.2 91.6 9.0 11.4 5.4 7.4 4.6 9.1 25.6 24.7 1.8 2.5 68.9 68.2 8.2 20.8 na 17.0 na 39.0 barley, and grain sorghum. Importation of forage planting and harvesting machinery, fencing, and other grassland equipment has been facilitated since 1960 under the Plan Agropecuario. (See section on Agricultural Policies.) Almost all farm machinery is imported; the principal supplier in most years has been the United States. Farm machinery is imported and distributed by trade organizations, many of which have local agencies throughout Uruguay to provide service and spare parts and make on-the-farm inspections. Fertilizers —Consumption of commercial fertilizers in Uruguay rose sharply in the early 1960's above the level of the late 1950’s (table 6); but even so, by 1964, farmers applied fertilizer to only 10 percent of the area in crops and 0.5 percent of the area in permanent pasture. About two-fifths of the fertilizer applied to crops in 1964 was used for grains and oilseeds (32 percent for wheat alone); the rest was used for potatoes, sugar beets, sugarcane, truck crops, and orchards. Because pastures rather than field crops benefit from animal droppings, only small amounts of manure are applied to crops. Green manuring appears to be even more rarely practiced than rotation of cash crops with feed legumes to help restore nitrogen to the soil. The Government has encouraged fertilizer use by payment of direct subsidies and by making credit and technical assistance available. The 1960 Plan Agropecuario had a major role in stimulating use of fertilizer on pastures;.as a result, use of fertilizer rose by more than 50 percent between 1962 and 1965. Under the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, grains, oilseeds, fruits, and vegetables, as well as pastures, are to receive sharply increasing applications of fertilizer, with the rate of increase somewhat less for crops than for pasture. The projected demand for 1974 indicates that 45 percent of 20 able 6 .—Commercial fertilizer consumption in Uruguay, averages 1956-65, aai annual 1966-68 1 / tverage: 1956-60 . . . 1961-65 • • • 8.0 23.5 2.1 12.4 4.4 35.7 1/ Data for years ending June 1966, 1967, and 1968 are from the United ations Food and Agriculture Organization. They are not fully comparable data fo d r earlier years, which are from The Honorary Livestock Commission 15). hha total fertilizer used will be applied to pastures, compared with 33 percent n 1963 This gain will be in phosphate fertilizers alone. Research during the early 1960's proved that phosphate fertilizers are the ke * t0 Improvement; the high-quality legumes needed to supply the soil with mtrog at low cost require added phosphate to do well in Uruguay. Uruguay imports more than 95 percent of its fertilizer. . imports are in the form of raw materials for the domestic US Y * which makes single superphosphate, grinds phosphate rock and basic slag, prepares fertilizer from bones, and compounds complete fertilizer . the P onlv raw material obtained from domestic sources. Uruguayan output of phosphate^ ertil izer doubled between 1962 and 1966, but it accounted for less than one-third of the country's phosphate fertilizer consumption during that period. Projects for expanding domestic output include construction of a concentrated superphosphate plant. Irrioation and watering points—The irrigated area of Uruguay increased by nearly^two-thirds between 19bi“nd 1961 and by more than two-thirds from 1961 to 1968, but still represented only a small percentage of the seeded area. Rice and sugarcane, both grown largely under irrigation, account for most of the crops grown on irrigated land (table 7). Principal sources of irrigation water are the Uruguay River and the Laguna Mer£n. Gravity irrigation is practically n°nexistent;becauseofth lay of the land, water must be mechanically lifted to the fiel ^ s ‘ aet water mainly by drinking directly from rivers, streams, and lakes, but artificial ponds and watering places supplied from wells pumped by windmills are also important (fig. 2). By 1961, however, more than a third of all paddocks on farms had no permanent supply of water for livestock. 21 Table 7.—Seeded and irrigated area in selected crops, Uruguay, 1961, and estimated area irrigated, 1968 Crop 1961 Estimated area irrigated, 1968 Area : Percentage of Seeded • * Irrigated • : seeded area : irrigated 1 / 1,000 1,000 1,000 hectares hectares Percent hectares Rice. 17.8 17.5 98 35.0 Sugarcane .... 4.8 4.3 91 4.7 Truck crops . . . 62.0 2.5 4 2.7 Tree fruits . . . 31.3 1.4 5 1.5 Grapes . 18.3 0.1 1 2 / Forage crops ... 619.9 0.5 3/ v Other crops . . . 602.2 0.3 V 0.9 Total . 1,356.3 26.6 2 44.8 1/ Based on unrounded data. Included in other crops. 3/ Less than 0.5 percent. Most irrigation works, as well as watering points, have been developed by private enterprise. The Government, however, has asked joint help from FAO and the Inter-American Development Bank in developing a program for large-scale construction of needed watering points. Uruguay is cooperating with Brazil and the U.N. Special Fund in preinvestment surveys for development of the Laguna Merin basin. Development would involve both irrigation and drainage in large-scale reclamation efforts for production of crops, particularly rice. Improved seed —Use of improved seed in Uruguay was very limited until the 1960's, when various agricultural programs were instituted to encourage such use. During the early part of the decade, an efficient seed certification system was organized with FAO assistance. The 1960 Plan Agropecuario not only provided some seed but also advanced information on the varieties and strains of legumes and grasses that are specially adaptable to different parts of the country. The Plan also demonstrated that seed inoculation with rhizobia is essential to the successful establishment of legumes in Uruguay. The Honorary Livestock Commission improved inoculation techniques, made suitable materials available to farmers, and promoted the domestic manufacture of the inoculum. Government payments to lower the market price of improved seed also encouraged its use, as did the agreement by the Bank of the Republic to limit credit for seed wheat to seed that had been certified. Under the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, the use of good- quality seed is scheduled to spread to the main field crops and permanent pastures. Goals for 1974 call for certified seed output to cover a proportion 22 Figure 2.-Windmill furnishes the power to pump water from a well at this watering place for livestock. of the demand for seed that ranges from 15 percent for rice and 20 percent for wheat and brewing barley, to as much as 85 percent for red and white clover. Legislation passed in June 1968 requires that breeder, foundation, and registered seed be produced by Government experiment stations, and that the certified seed multiplied from registered seed be produced by selected farmers who are members of cooperatives under state control. Such certified seed is now grown by members of three cooperatives, all under the control of the experiment station for crops. This experiment station grows the breeder and foundation seed and has technicians who supervise the production and certify the seed for growers (l). The legislation also provides for regulat¬ ing the sale of noncertified seed to ensure that it meets minimum standards for purity and germination; however, this regulation should result in little if any change from present practice. By 1967, the area sown with certified seed accounted for almost 15 percent of the total area in wheat and nearly 40 percent of the area in sunflowers. Plan t and livestock pest control —Diseases and insects, birds, and other pests cause much damage to crops in Uruguay. Losses can be high ye * r f when conditions are favorable for some plague. For example, in 1940 stripe rust destroyed 50 percent of the wheat, and in 1961 rusts and septoria blight 23 together destroyed 30 to 40 percent. Annual losses from pests (other than disease) are estimated at 15 to 20 percent of the value of crop production. Livestock diseases and parasites are estimated to reduce the potential value of livestock output by one-third annually. Aftosa (foot-and-mouth disease), brucellosis, cattle ticks and tick fever, swine fever, and sheep scab exist almost everywhere. The Government has made some effort to control both plant and animal pests, but has had more success with plant pests. Locust invasions led Uruguay and eight other Latin American countries to sign in 1934 the Inter- American Convention for the Fight against Locusts, and to establish in 1946 the Permanent Inter-American Anti-Locust Committee. This committee publishes annual reports on the locust situation in the countries concerned. Fortunately Uruguay has been free from locusts for a number of years. During the 1960's, all parts of Uruguay were declared to be in a state of emergency for action against armyworms. A warning service that provides guidance as to when and what kind of pesticides should be used was established to alert citrus and other fruit growers about citrus pests. Pesticide use is estimated to have tripled in volume from 1955 to 1961, leveling off thereafter. Of the total amount used in 1963, fungicides represented 54.3 percent, insecticides 33.4 percent, weedkillers 11.4, and chemicals for treating seed 0.9 percent. Fungicides are used mostly on vineyards, but also on some tree fruits, potatoes, and truck crops. Weed¬ killers, on the other hand, are used on field crops. In 1963, weedkillers were used on 54 percent of the wheat planted, 25 percent of the flaxseed, and 100 percent of the sugarcane. Insecticides are applied in both fields and orchards. Legislation to establish control measures for aftosa dates back to 1961. It required that all centers of infection be reported and that all animals for market be vaccinated against the disease. Under an agreement with the United Kingdom in 1968, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile undertook not only to make aftosa a notifiable disease, but also to ban the movement of stock from any infected farm and to export only carcasses of animals that had been vaccinated against the disease. Cattle tick eradication may be successful with measures already at hand. By 1950, strict dipping of cattle proved successful in clearing the area south of the R{o Negro. A countrywide tick eradication effort, the last stage of which began in October 1968, is in progress whereby Government agents are authorized to go to farms and ranches and dip the stock. Drenching stock for internal parasites as well as dipping for external parasites (fig. 3) began to spread in Uruguay in the mid-1950's. More frequent drenching is needed in Uruguay, where sheep and cattle are pastured together, than in countries where sheep follow cattle on pastures. Where livestock are rotated, many internal parasites are destroyed, since some types seem able to adapt themselves only to one or the other host. Because poor feeding lowers resistance to both parasites and disease, the pasture improvement program mentioned earlier is likely to advance pest control. It should result in better and more balanced feed that should, in turn, produce animals better able to combat disease and parasites. 24 Figure 3.—On one of Uruguay's large ranches* sheep are being dipped to control external parasites. The Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, calls for sharply stepped-up assaults on both plant and animal pests. Under the plan, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, and chemicals for treating seed will be used more frequently than before. The plan calls upon the Government to take large- scale action, as it did in the campaign against the armyworm, to combat a number of serious pests, including scarab beetles, greenbugs, weeds considered to be plagues, and some birds such as doves and parakeets. The plant protec¬ tion program also provides for intensified research on pests and their control, and for extension services to assist growers in the adoption of pest control measures. Provision for improved animal health under the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, emphasizes research and extension work also, as well as campaigns against contagious diseases and parasites, reequipment of the official diagnostic and control laboratory, organization of mobile units, and the establishment of a quarantine station to observe imported animals. LIVESTOCK AND PRODUCTS Uruguayan farming revolves around the production of cattle for meat and milk, and sheep for wool. Pastures cover most of the agricultural land. In 1962-64, livestock products accounted for more than two-thirds of the value of agricultural output and nearly nine-tenths of the value of agricultural exports. Wool is produced mostly, and beef partly, for export. Growth Oi export trade has been hampered by increasingly heavy taxes on exports of 25 Table 8.— Livestock numbers in Uruguay, by principal kinds, 1951, 1956, 1961, 1966, and 1967 Year Cattle Sheep • • Hogs 1951 ....... 8,154 23,150 259 19^6 ••••••• 7,433 23,303 381 1961 1/ . 8,792 21,738 383 1966 ....... 8,400 21,800 380 1967 ....... 8,300 21,400 375 JL. 1/ Census returns for 1961 also show about 10,500 goats, 4,700 donkeys and mules, 478,000 horses, and 15,500 rabbits, as well as nearly 5 million head of poultry (excluding ducks and geese). Sources: (4) for 1951, 1956, and 1961; (14) for 1966-67. livestock products. Since the early 1950's, these taxes have impaired the competitive position of Uruguayan products abroad, while also depressing prices received by stockmen. Numbers, Breeds, and Distribution of Livestock Although total livestock numbers have changed little over the past 50 years, hog numbers rose to record levels in the 1960’s. Although there is no marked trend for either cattle or sheep, 1967 cattle numbers appear to be up slightly and sheep numbers down slightly from the 1951 level (table 8). Most of the cattle are beef breeds. The Hereford (fig. 4) predominates, accounting for more than half of all cattle in 1951, the latest year for which data are available. Shorthorn and Aberdeen Angus are also important beef breeds. In 1951, dairy breeds, principally the Holande (Holstein- Friesian), made up only 7 percent of all cattle. Crossbreeds are numerous and include crosses with the wild cattle of colonial days, all descended from the long-horned Spanish stock introduced in the early 17th century. This so- called native or criollo breed disappeared as such from commercial herds in the early 1870's. The opening of the export market in England gave impetus to the breeding of blooded stock and the upgrading of herds in Uruguay. Imports of the best animals available over the years have resulted in good foundation stock. Cattle are evenly distributed throughout the country (fig. 5), but the dairy breeds are heavily concentrated in the south. Sheep outnumber cattle by about three to one, but are kept on far fewer farms than cattle. Sheep are not raised on small farms in the extreme west and southwest; elsewhere, however, they are widely distributed (fig. 6). Sheep breeds have shifted over the years from a predominance of Lincoln, Merino, and Romney Marsh to the Corriedale, in line with the continuing trend toward breeds that produce good meat as well as wool. The quality of the 26 Figure 4.-Hereford is the principal beef cattle breed in Uruguay. stock is generally well -maintained on the larger ranches, but almost no attention has been paid on the smaller farms to culling out inferior animals. Some hogs are found in every departamento of Uruguay, but the 10 south¬ ernmost had two-thirds of the sows and three-fourths of the young pigs counted in 1961 census returns. Breeds introduced since the midforties include the Landrace, but the relative importance of this breed is unknown. Hogs are raised for the domestic market, but consumption of pork is limited by the relatively high price of pork, which, in turn, reflects the scare* y and high price of feed grains. Uruguay’s poultry flock consists mostly of chickens but includes some turkeys, ducks, and geese. A large share of the chickens are of unknown breeds or are crosses. During the 1950’s and 1960*8, commercial producers imported stock from many countries, particularly Denmark, and breeds important before then (Rhode Island Reds, Leghorns, and Plymouth Rocks, together accounting for about one-fifth of the total) may have decreased in their share of total chicken numbers. About four-fifths of all farms keep some poultry, but less than half of these raise chickens on a commercial basis. Horses were brought into Uruguay about the same time as cattle and sheep. The native or criollo breed was first crossed with northern European breeds 27 URUGUAY: NUMBER OF CATTLE, 1961 URUGUAY: NUMBER OF SHEEP, 1961 Figure S Figure Figure 7.--Gauchos still use horses to round up cattle in Uruguay. in the mid-1850's, but criollo horses still predominate. Horses continue to be used for handling livestock (fig. 7), but draft horses are steadily being replaced by machines. Livestock and Pasture Management Although stockmen became interested in upgrading their animals in the 19th century, many stockmen today continue to neglect feeding, care, and management of their animals. Since supplemental feeding of beef cattle and sheep is rare, the animals are usually ill-fed during part of the year. As a rule, farm animals are poorly sheltered, and each year many lambs and weaker sheep die only because they cannot survive in winter with no dry place to lie and not enough feed to eat. Insufficient feed and poor shelter lower resistance to disease and parasites and thus contribute to reduced fertility. Lack of both proper handling yards and shearing sheds results in unnecessarily rough treatment of stock and is another cause of animal loss in Uruguay. Because the routine practice of caring for the feet of sheep is neglected, sheep often find it so painful to walk that they do not feed properly. On some of the larger ranches, however, sheep do receive excellent shelter (fig. 8) and are treated for wounds or other sores caused by disease or insects (fig. 9). 29 Shearing methods in Uruguay are usually outmoded. Shearers do not take the fleece off in one piece, as is the more skillful practice, but remove it in several pieces. The quality of the wool is reduced because each fleece must be separately assembled, rolled, and tied before baling. On most farms, chickens live under primitive conditions, sleeping in trees, barns, and places built for other uses. They are thus exposed to the abrupt changes in temperature that occur frequently. Nearly all of the permanent pasture in Uruguay consists of unimproved natural grasslands that have suffered from overgrazing since the estancias were enclosed by boundary fences in the last quarter of the 19th century. Livestock producers began stocking their holdings with so many animals that pastures were closely grazed throughout the year (JL). Stubble fields, which are used for temporary pasture, are not planted to grass but are left to self- seeded vegetation. At best, this growth can be considered no more than equal in forage value to natural pasture; at worst, it is said to be practically worthless (6). Continued pasturing of cattle and sheep on the same land has led to severe shortages of feed, not only during prolonged droughts but also during periods of the dry season in summer and cold weather in winter, when grass Figure 8.--Sheep are properly housed on this large ranch in Uruguay. < fes ]b* ^ '/j Figure 9.—Sheep on this modern ranch receive excellent care* and wounds and insect damage are tended promptly. growth usually declines. Cattle suffer more than sheep when both are pastured together, since sheep keep the grass so short that cattle can get little to eat. By the late 1940's, seasonal shortages of livestock feed had spread to nearly all ranches and farms in Uruguay, damaging both livestock and natural grasslands. The need for better pasture management was emphasized in the 1951 report of the joint World Bank/FAO agricultural mission (7) (see section on Agri¬ cultural Policies). The Plan Agropecuario, finally adopted in 1960 as a result of this report and financed by a World Bank loan, originally provided for some 600 medium-sized ranches that would serve as demonstration points from which knowledge and experience in modern pasture production would spread throughout the farming community. The number was first increased to 1,000 and then again to more than 1,400 in 1964. Ranchers participating in the demonstration program are expected to follow the recommendations of the plan. The plan suggests that each ranch be subdivided into some 12 to 15 fenced and watered paddocks; that a fodder reserve be established for feeding animals in seasons of slow grass growth; and that an agreed-upon percentage of the ranch's pasture be improved by application of fertilizers and planting of better grasses. These ranchers receive loans to help finance the improvements and technical assistance and supervision from qualified technicians in implementing them. The Honorary Livestock Commission (Comision Honoraria del Plan Agropecuario), set up in 1958, has technical responsibility for the plan. 31 The Commission and its experts, including advisers from New Zealand and Australia, have tried different methods of pasture improvement and have had unusual success thus far. In addition to the conventional and costly plowing of pastures before seeding and fertilizing, the Commission has tried sod seeding and oversowing. In sod seeding, legumes and fertilizer are implanted in the existing grass cover by means of a special machine. In oversowing, pellets of seeds and fertilizer are dropped on the ground, either by top¬ dressing equipment or from airplanes. By 1964, the Commission had determined which method should be used in the different parts of the country. It had also accumulated information about the legumes and grasses best suited to Uruguayan conditions. Improvement in actual pastures during 1960-64 was as follows: 1,000 hectares Permanent pasture improved by: Conventional method 81.3 Sod seeding 41.5 Oversowing 26.1 Total permanent pasture 1/ 148.9 Annual pasture 7.7 Refertilized pasture 84.5 1/ Book total 148.6. Excludes 70,000 hectares of improved permanent pasture on nonsupervised ranches. As a result of widespread demand for extension of the Plan Agropecuario's pasture improvement program, the Government requested and obtained an additional loan from the World Bank in 1965. The loan was sufficient to include an additional 2,600 medium-sized ranches in the plan's supervised credit program, which provides loans for improvement and rehabilitation of pastureland (see section on Farm Credit). The loan also provided financing for the importation of "production essentials" for about 1,000 larger ranches whose operators could draw up development plans with the aid of the Honorary Livestock Commission but would arrange their own financing. "Production essentials" include livestock, seeds, fertilizer, subdivisional fencing, corrals, dips, and machinery for pasture establishment. By 1970, these 3,600 ranchers aye expected to have started improving about 400,000 hectares of pasture (270,000 for supervised and 130,000 for nonsupervised ranchers). The plan has interested landowners in the direct management of their land. They have found that full exploitation of new pasture-management opportunities requires a great deal of day-to-day, on-the-spot supervision and risky decisions that can be handled only by the owners themselves or by highly qualified managers. This realization reportedly has even led a number of participating ranchers to live on their properties or spend much more time on them than formerly, to take personal charge of the ranch development program (6). On the other hand, many landowners refused to take advantage of the new techniques, and led the Honorary Livestock Commission to advocate fiscal measures that would penalize underutilization of grazing lands. 32 The results of the plan indicate that the rewards of pasture improvement rp substantial: participating ranchers have found that improved pastures an carry tt«eto P five times as many animals as unimproved pasture, and that i mature faster and produce more meat and wool per animal. It lread'v evident that pasture improvement is feasible and can be profitable in 11 parts of Uruguay/ The Agricultural Development Plan. 1965-74, projects urth“ expansion of pasture improvement, and sets the goal improved actures (artificial or seeded, fertilized or not) at 13 percent of tot 1 Permanent pastures without agarian reform, and at 22 percent with ^rarian ■eform (see section on Land Use and Types of Farms). Even at 13 Percent, mproved pastures would be nearly three times as large as the area to be Improved by 1970 under the Plan Agropecuario. The Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, * 1 « n ^?, l '^ e 1 s mpr0VementS Ln the care of sheep, shearing practices, and marketing facilities. Most of the large farms or ranches have stock pens and other facilities for auction sales of livestock for breeding and slaughter. Large numbers animals are sold at these farm auctions or direct to packinghouses, but many of them are shipped to Montevideo for auction at the terminal market. A 9 °od road and rail network covers most of the livestock-producing areas; but in some places, unpaved roads become impassable after heavy rains. Many animals are still moved by rail, but truck transportation has been gaining in importance. Livestock Products Wool and beef are the principal products of Uruguay, and wool is by far the most important foreign exchange earner. Raw wool alone f “ t f Dercent of the value of the country's exports in 1963 66, and togetner wix. Kps! U accounted for 45 percent of the total Uruguay also confutes an appreciable share of world wool exports. It ranks a s the fifth worl exporter, following Australia, New Zealand, largely Deduction in Uruguay fluctuates from year to year (table 9), depending larg y on weather conditions. Shearing takes place in October-December. Most Uruguayan wool grades from 50's to 58/60's; 5 to 6 percent is of finer counts and about 5 percent is of lower counts. No carpet wool is produced. The failure of wool output to expand may be due in large part to ment Exchange rate and export tax policies Speculationove.e.pectedchanges in both the exchange rate and export taxes has been responsible for delay marketing of wool. The legislation passed in late 1968, gradually replacing the^Dro-* tax by a tax on land productivity, should increase returns to efficient pro ducers and stimulate modernization of the wool-growing business. The United Kingdom ranks first among the major markets * or "? o1 from Uruguay, followed at a distance by the European Common Market and the United States. The Common Market takes most of Uruguay s exports wool and tops. 33 Table 9.—Production and exports of wool, Uruguay, averages 1956-64, annual 1965-68 1/ Period Produc- [ tion “2/ | Exports : Available for or year Raw • • Tops 3/ 1 Total • • : domestic : consumption 4/ Average: 1956-58 . . . 86 - - 1,000 56 tons, greasy basis 22 78 8 1959-61 . . . 83 58 21 79 4 1962-64 . . . 83 40 24 64 19 1965 . 76 60 19 5/ 79 5/ 1966 . 88 42 25 67 21 1967 . 80 45 25 70 10 1968 6/ .... : 75 • • 57 26 5/ 83 y 1 J Estimates are mainly from Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, publications, which differ somewhat from estimates published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2/ Wool year ending September of year shown. 3/ Including noils and waste. 4/ Includes wool for the manufacture of textiles for export. No adjustment has been made for changes in stocks. 5/ Exports, domestic consumption, or both drawn in part from stocks. 6/ Preliminary. Source: (15). Beef, including veal, accounts for about four-fifths of the red meat produced in Uruguay (table 10). Pork accounts for about 6 percent, and mutton and lamb make up most of the rest. Beef is also far in the lead among the red meats consumed and exported. Both consumption and exports have been influenced by Government policy regarding export taxes, prices, and slaughter and sales regulations. Despite restrictions on cattle slaughter for domestic consump¬ tion, exports of beef showed a steady drop from 1964 to 1967. Higher live- weight prices for cattle and lower carcass beef prices discouraged packers from slaughtering for export. With domestic sales curtailed, slaughtering of cattle and calves in 1966 and 1967 dropped to the lowest level since 1959. Scarcity of beef supplies in local markets increased the demand for mutton and pork, resulting in heavy slaughter of both sheep and hogs in 1967. Total meat exports recovered somewhat in 1968 and early 1969> but developments during the remainder of 1969 created a chaotic situation in both the meat export and domestic markets. Traditionally, the United Kingdom and West Germany have been the major outlets for Uruguay's exports of frozen and chilled meat, and East European countries have taken substantial quantities since the mid-1950's. Effective June 15, 1969> however, the United Kingdom banned imports of Uruguayan meat because the meat-inspection service did not 34 Table 10.—Production and exports of red meat, Uruguay, averages 1951-65, annual 1961-67 oil (0 CO 04 vO CO 04 c3 O O 04 Ol Ol vO lT) lT) h 00 <4 O O' fO > 04 1 vO co in co )o <-i co oo 00 vO o <-• —t ^ in ^ 'O 04 M- N in OD V© 00 00 10 in O' in h co O' lO —t 04 04 CO in o in •• lO vO vO © I I I CJ) rH vO H nj in in vO f-i O' O' O' H »—I r—I < 01 co o o O' in 'O 00 O' in O' 'O in 't CMH co $ c$ c$ h cm co n 'O o SO 'O 'O '£) 'O 'O 'O O' O' O' O' O' O' O' 0 (0 e M -P © Ml (-1 C O O • Q. •rl •O 6 -P © tH © H . O rH T3 tn •fH •H © M rH J3 TJ O x> O P O 3 O -P a •» O © .C 0) © © M C u © •H 3 U O -p <+-. C © H © 3 Mi © CT> O O M C fH © © (H •P jC a» C © © P O < i-i © u Hi 0 <4i O •H ■P 3 © c O' • -O © © in © e H E •P -P © M £ E C © 0>*H © CL •H C © © © « X) • a s © 1 © in c . © > © 0 CO © fH •C -P • © rH z> O P "U c 8 >- © C © in f-H O © 5 c c •H © c •» 0 © O 1—1 u> 2 j (H H 3 \© -h|Mh V. 0 oflcol O (O 35 meet U.K. standards. Furthermore, a second British measure, effective October 1, 1969, prohibits imports into the United Kingdom of all beef-with- bone from countries where aftosa is endemic. Uruguay currently does not have equipment to bone its beef for export. Uruguay is hiring additional meat inspectors, but the service does not yet meet standards set by the United Kingdom. The packing plants are contemplating the purchase of new equipment to modernize their operations, but funds are low and machinery for boning is not yet available. The loss of the U.K. market is being partly offset by increased shipments to Italy. Although the United States is the largest export market for Uruguay's cooked beef, it does not admit chilled or frozen meat from Uruguay because of the prevalence of aftosa. Another difficulty during 1969 was the 4-month strike affecting workers in much of the packing industry. This strike disrupted the domestic market for meat as well as export sales. Until recently, the only large slaughter¬ house serving the domestic market was the Government-owned National Slaughter¬ house (Frigorlfico Nacional), known as Frigonal. Established in 1928 in Montevideo, Frigonal was forced to sell meat at low. Government-fixed prices and to support an unduly large staff, said to be chosen and maintained through political patronage. As a result, Frigonal operated at a financial loss, and, for this reason, was closed intermittently during 1968 and 1969. The plant was also closed during the strike, and independent packers supplied Montevideo with meat during that period. Beef consumed in other towns and rural areas comes mainly from municipal slaughterhouses. Slaughter of cattle on farms is restricted by the warm climate prevailing most of the year; the beef is eaten at once or preserved by drying it in the open. Though mutton is consumed on sheep-raising farms, beef is preferred by people living in the countryside, as in the cities. Commercial production of milk in Uruguay averaged 698 million liters annually in 1963-67. According to the 1961 agricultural census, commercial output accounted for more than two-thirds of the milk produced. Commercial production is estimated by the Milk Producers' Cooperative (Cooperativa Nacional de Produccion de Leche, known as Conaprele), a Government agency established in 1935. It has the exclusive right to provide milk for Montevideo, and more than a fifth of the nearly 10,000 commercial dairy farms send their milk to the cooperative to supply the fluid milk sold there. Prices are fixed at farm, wholesale, and retail levels. Members of the cooperative have a daily sales quota for which they receive the fixed price. Milk sent in excess of the quota and used mostly for manufacture brings lower prices. Fluid milk sold in the capital has long been pasteurized. Some milk plants in the interior also buy from producers on a quota basis; others buy on the basis of quality and butterfat content. Producers may sell raw milk to retailers for direct distribution to consumers, as well as to milk plants for pasteurization. Producers also make a substantial part of their milk into butter and cheese. Estimates for commercial output in 1967 of 2,100 tons of butter, 3,200 tons of cheese, and 1,120 tons of casein show a drop from 1965 of some 16 percent for butter and cheese and 37 percent for casein. During the mid-1960's, casein ranked first among dairy product exports and dried milk ranked first among such imports. The United States 36 most of the dried milk through ought most of the casein and gave Uruguay haritable organizations, under P.L. 480. qkins an( j tallow are the most important byproducts of the ivestock industry. Production of tallow, used largely in the domestic soap ivestocK inau&fc y averaaed about 24,000 tons annually in 1962-66. 1950's to the European Common Market in the mid 19 -sffAS ‘iSrSSri eere° necessary^in^the Ws Export, shot up to more than 2.000 tons in^ TlW. with* shipments^of & 360 ^nsAut these exports also declined, averaging 115 tons in 196. 67. MAJOR CROPS of its cotton and tobacco. Grains Wheat—Uruguay's major staple food grain, wheat, leadsamongharvested ;rops”irTTrea sown. It became an important «P<«t «opln *h» »» '£°- iropped off in the 1960's and imports needed^ ^Ll^480 W program. Un fira 2 il'i^usuaily^the'^principal Market 1 fo^Uruguayan^wheat Ln years of exportable surplus. Output has declined primarily because former hi 9 h-«at P^^ers^have abandoned wheat growing in the face of less remunera P 1963, support ^Government in the 1960's compared with previous years. Since 1963, supporc prices have been supplemented by a Government loan in encourage the use of better production echn gue As -ntioned^earlie^ the section on Farm Credit, loans are maae «y « fertilizer, wheat farmers for operating expenses for such thing empha- pesticides, and harvesting. Improved Pf duc ^.^ chn ^orities believe that sized in the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74. Au ™ or * unit yields can be raised substantially and costs lowered sufficiently to permit Uruguayan wheat to compete successfully in world markets. is arown mostly in the south and west (fig. 10) on farms of over 100 hectares 5 Aside from a high degree of mechanization and the increased use of ^ertifie^ seed since 1964, wheat farmers have been slow in adopting 37 Table 11.--Wheat area, production, and net trade, Uruguay, averages 1951-65, annual 1961-69 Period or year Area sown for grain 1/ : Yield : : per : : hectare 1/ : Produc¬ tion 1 / Net trade 2/ : f-.vailaDie for : domestic : consumption 3/ 1,000 hectares Quintals - - 1,000 tons ------ Average: 1951-55 . . 623 9.8 610 -248 362 1956-60 . . 630 8.1 513 -149 364 1961-65 . . 448 9.5 424 -7 417 1961 .... 523 7.9 413 4/ 413 1962 .... 436 8.5 372 4/ 372 1963 .... 400 11.3 452 -47 405 1964 .... 354 6.7 237 +115 352 1965 .... 527 12.3 646 -104 542 1966 .... 527 10.4 547 -132 415 1967 .... 380 8.7 329 -11 318 1968 .... 222 6.5 144 +246 390 1969 .... 5/ 520 9.0 468 na na na = data not available. 1/ Crop harvested beginning in November and ending in January of year shown, y + = imports; - = exports. Includes flour in terms of wheat. 3/ No adjustment has been made for changes in stocks. 4/ Less than 500 tons. 5/ First official estimate. Sources: (1_3) (^9) and U.S. Department of Agriculture publications. improved techniques. Few of them prepare the land adequately for sowing, which takes place in April-August. The growing crop is seldom fertilized or protected against pests other than weeds. Armyworms, greenbugs, and scarab beetles inflict heavy damage, as do doves. The major diseases affecting wheat are septorias and rusts. Harvesting takes place in November-January, almost everywhere by combine; bulk transport from the field, introduced in the mid-1960 s, has begun to spread in Colonia and Soriano departamentos. Rice --A major export crop, rice is second only to wheat as a food grain in Uruguay. Both output and exports have trended upward since 1960, as shown in the following tabulation (in thousands of tons, milled rice basis): Production Exports 1959-61 average 36 10 1962-64 average 40 22 1965-67 average 68 33 1968 68 18 1969 82 na Commercial rice production is relatively new in Uruguay. The country relied substantially upon imports for its rice until the mid-1930's, when the crop first met domestic needs. The Government then prohibited imports, 38 URUGUAY: WHEAT AREA, 1961 Figure 10 Table 12.—Corn area, production, and net trade, Uruguay, averages 1951-65, annual 1961-69 Period or year : Area sown for grain : Yield : : per : : hectare : Produc¬ tion Net * trade 1 ] • Available for : domestic •.consumption 2j Average: 1951-55 . • 1,000 hectares 291 Quintals 6.9 201 -2 199 1956-60 . • 316 5.5 173 +27 200 1961-65 . • 228 6.4 147 +16 163 1961 . . . • 277 7.9 220 +7 227 1962 . . . • 267 5.8 155 +9 164 1963 . . . • 236 8.7 206 +1 207 1964 . . . • 167 5.4 91 +61 152 1965 . . . • 192 3.3 63 +4 67 1966 . . . • 213 8.4 180 +1 181 1967 . . . • 226 5.2 117 +9 126 1968 . . . • 162 4.3 69 3/ +164 233 1969 . . . . : 175 • • 5.4 95 na na na = data not available. 1/ + = imports; - = exports. Sources available for the 1960's vary as to amounts imported and exported, but the variations are small in relation to the supply available for domestic consumption. 2 / No adjustment has been made for changes in stocks. 3/ Estimated total for year, including small quantities of cornmeal in corn equivalent. Sources: (^3) (19) and U.S. Department of Agriculture publications. except for seed, and controlled producer prices through the 1959/60 season. Prices have since been fixed by agreement between the independent rice growers' association and the large rice mills, which own and operate large farms, extend production credit to independent growers, and buy nearly all their output. The area sown to rice, which had never exceeded 20,000 hectares before 1963, averaged 33,000 hectares in 1967-69. Foreign markets for Uruguayan rice in the 1950's included the United Kingdom, Canada, and Belgium. Canada's demand for high-quality rice has reportedly resulted in a shift in production away from short-grain japonica varieties to the so-called medium-grain Carolina and long-grain Double Carolina types. These two latter types together represented 80 percent of production in the mid-1960's, compared with about 50 percent a decade earlier. By the mid-1960's, however, little if any Uruguayan rice was going to Canada. Major markets in one or more of the years 1963-67 included Chile, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and Peru. 40 able 13.--Oats and barley, area, production, and net trade, Uruguay, averages 1951-65, annual 1966-69 Period or year tverage: 1951-55 1956-60 1961-65 .966 . . .967 . . .968 . . .969 . . Area sown for grain 1/ 1,000 hectares 94 127 131 158 134 84 129 : Production L/ s • • • [Mai ting[Common. : Oats [ barley*barley! • • * • • • Total t— <• o o o tons - - 41 20 10 71 40 23 8 71 65 21 13 100 97 17 11 125 72 28 100 33 14 47 74 42 116 Net : Avail¬ able for •.domestic trade 2/ . CO nsump- :tion 3/ +1 +7 4/ -11 -1 bj +2 5/ -6 72 78 100 114 99 49 110 1/ Crops harvested beginning in November and ending in January of year shown. 2/ + = imports! - = exports. Data in sources available for the 1960 s vary s to amounts imported and exported, but the variations are small in relation o the supply available for domestic consumption. The series shown above .or 961-69 includes the barley equivalent of exported barley malt. 3/ No adjustment has been made for changes in stocks. i] Less than 500 tons. 5/ Estimated. Sources: (13) (15) (19) and U.S. Department of Agriculture publications. Most of Uruguay*s rice is grown under irrigation in the Laguna Merln basin by independent growers who rent medium-sized to large tarms. Growers usually cultivate the land for 3 years and then move to new and more fertile fields. On large, owner-operated farms, rice is rotated with pasture to rebuild fertility of the soil and to eradicate weeds. Renters and owners almost never apply fertilizer, but they do practice disease and insect control. The principal insect pests include armyworms and beetles; blast and other fungus diseases are of some importance, but none is widespread. Rice is planted in November and harvested in March-July, mostly by combine. Corn—Production of corn dropped below the 1951-60 average in most years from 1961 to 1969 (table 12), but corn remains the principal feed concentrate grown in Uruguay. Corn is grown in all departamentos of the country, but concentration is heaviest in the south. Seeding takes place in September- October and harvesting in April-June. Unit yields are low, partly because the rainfall pattern is not favorable to the growth of corn, and partly because growers generally use primitive methods in cultivating the crop. Labor is primarily by hand, seeds are of poor quality, no fertilizer is used. 41 Table 14.—Flaxseed, area, production, seed crushed, and trade, Uruguay, average 1961-65, annual 1961-69 Period or year 1/ • Area Production of seed Average: 1961-65 . • 1,000 hectares 133 76 1961 . . . • 118 67 1962 . . . • 144 96 1963 . . . • 160 84 1964 . . . • 132 62 1965 . . . • 113 71 1966 . . . • 63 38 1967 . . . • 66 40 1968 3/ . . • 51 27 1969 ay . . • 70 45 Seed : Oil : Exports, in oil crushed : produced : equivalent 2/ 1,000 tons 58 23 20 55 21 26 55 20 16 75 32 32 39 15 10 67 25 17 29 10 16 33 12 11 21 8 11 na na na na = data not available. 1/ Data are for production years ending in February except that trade data are for calendar years. 2/ Includes linseed oil and oil equivalent of flaxseed exports. Sources available show no imports of either. 3/ Preliminary, except for 1968 area and production. Source: (19). and growers practice no pest control. Production of certified hybrid seed began only in 1966/67. A small part of the corn crop is consumed as green corn or as polenta, a dish made from cornmeal flavored with cheese or tomato sauce. Many rural families serve this dish in place of bread (3). Small quantities of corn also go into the manufacture of starch, alcohol, or corn oil. Most of the crop, however, is fed to poultry, hogs, and horses—about two-thirds of it to animals on the farm where it is grown. The small 1968 crop made unusually large import; necessary. They were purchased under P.L. 480 on long-term dollar credit. Agricultural planning authorities contemplate that corn for feed will be replaced by grain sorghums, which are considered better suited to Uruguay’s climate. Projections for 1974 place corn output at only 55,000 tons, compared with 149,000 for grain sorghums. Other grains —Uruguay produces oats, barley, and a small amount of canary seed for feed. Grain sorghums increased in importance during the 1960*s, with output rising from 1,000 tons in 1961 to an estimated 48,000 tons in 1969. Small amounts of rye for food and some barley for malting are also produced. All the small grains are winter crops, planted in May-August and harvested in November-January. 42 ble 15 .— Sunflower seed, area, production, seed crushed, and trade, Uruguay, average 1961-65, annual 1961-69 Period ir year 1/ Area Production: Seed : Oil : New trade, in : of seed : crushed : produced : oil equivalent 2/ 1,000 hectares 1,000 tons rerage: 1961-65 . • : 132 73 62 17 3/ )61 ... : 153 98 90 21 H >62 ... 137 80 33 19 3/ >63 . . • 141 87 86 20 -3 • 121 63 62 14 +1 • 110 39 37 9 +2 _ / >66 ... 122 99 97 22 >67 ... 164 76 75 17 Hi >68 4/ . . • 109 49 47 11 3/ 969 4/ * . • 91 65 na na na na = data not available. , , . 1/ Data are for marketing years beginning April 1 except that trade data are or calendar years. . . . 2/ + = imports; - = exports. Sources show no trade in sunflower seed. 3 / Believed to be insignificant, if any. 4 / Preliminary, except for 1968 area and production. Source: (!£)• Oats are planted more for forage than for harvest as grain. They rank : irst among annual grasses sown on arable pasture but have recently gained ! avor as a feed grain. Output of oats during the 1960*s fluctuated at levels ligh above the averages for 1951-55 and 1956-60 (table 13). In most years, Jruguay imports small quantities of oats, but in 1965, 1966, and 1969 the country became a net exporter of oats. Neither malting nor common barley has shown any marked trend in production. Oilseeds —Flaxseed and sunflower seed follow grains in importance among :rops cultivated in Uruguay. Peanuts are grown also, but in small quantity. : laxseed is important in the country's export trade. Exports are chiefly in the form of linseed oil for industrial use, plus cake and meal for livestock feed. Sunflower seed and peanuts are grown almost entirely for the domestic sdible-oil market, though a substantial part of the residues from pressing for ail are exported as cake and meal. Oil output from these seeds is usually supplemented by small quantities of imported edible and industrial oils. Inports of edible oils usually exceed exports, but there is a substantial net axport of industrial oils. By the late 1960*s, production of both edible and industrial oils had iropped well below the levels prevailing in the early 1950*s (tables 14 and 15). 43 Although output and exports of flaxseed have declined, Uruguay has retained its position as the world's fourth largest exporter of flaxseed and linseed oil, following Argentina, Canada, and the United States. Flaxseed is a winter crop, grown chiefly in the west and south. Seeding takes place in July-October and harvesting in December-February. Most of the crop is crushed for oil and by¬ products, largely for export. The first sizable harvest of sunflower seed was in 1940. The crop gained popularity as a source of cooking oil during World War II, when olive oil was not readily available (3). The area sown declined in the early 1960's, showed considerable recovery in 1966 and 1967, but declined sharply again in 1968 and 1969. Unlike flaxseed, sunflowers are a summer crop, planted during the last quarter of the calendar year and harvested the following April-May. Unit yields are low, largely because of the practice of sowing sunflower seed as a second crop on wheat stubble and because of losses from disease, insects, and birds. The spreading use of certified seed is helping to reduce losses from disease, and experiments under way emphasize breeding for higher yields per hectare and for higher oil content of the seed. Other Crops Both sugar beets and sugarcane are grown in Uruguay, but beets account for more than four-fifths of total sugar output. Sugar production has risen sharply since the early 1950's, but Uruguay remains heavily dependent on imported sugar. Brazil is the principal source of raw sugar. Domestic output rose from an annual average of 21,000 tons (refined sugar equivalent) in 1953-55 to 51,000 in 1963-65, but declined again in 1967/68 to 31,000 tons. Imports declined from the mid-1950's to the mid-1960's, but in 1967/68 still represented 40 percent of total consumption (95,000 tons), compared with 76 percent of consumption (86,000 tons) in 1953-55. The Government has fostered development of the domestic sugar industry by subsidizing it with profits obtained by selling imported sugar at the fixed, higher domestic price. Prices are set by the price-wage council, established in December 1968 to regulate wages and prices of the private sector. Wine grapes are grown by nearly 8,000 producers, most of whose farms are small. Wine-grape varieties account for over 95 percent of all vines planted, and production of grapes for wine represented 9 percent of the value of total crop production in 1963 and more than 3 percent of the value of total farm output. Production in the mid-1960's averaged 130,000 tons annually. The Government fixes the price of grapes, usually after the size of the crop has been determined and a study of production costs and demand factors has been made. Other fruits produced in Uruguay include citrus fruits and apples, peaches; pears, quinces, plums, melons, and olives. Total production of these fruits was estimated at 134,000 tons for 1963. Except for citrus fruits, which have been exported in small quantities only since 1961, all output of fruits is consumed in Uruguay. Imports of fruit exceed exports because bananas, which do not grow in Uruguay, are imported. Citrus fruits are produced mostly in the subtropical north. Deciduous fruit production, on the other hand, is highly concentrated in the south. 44 The value of vegetable production in 1963 almost equaled that of.wine aoes and table fruits combined. Vegetables are grown in some quantity in 1 departamentos of Uruguay, but potato production is concentrateo n e iuth Potatoes and sweet potatoes are the principal vegetables, accounting , r almost 40 percent of the value of vegetable output in 1963} dry legumes Ided another 4 percent. The remainder covered a wide variety of Temperate me vegetables. Domestic production provides most of the vegetables consumed xeot for potatoes and dry legumes. Lentils and chickpeas are mostly imported, it beans and peas--which account for the bulk of legume production--are grown i sufficient quantity in most years. Potatoes for both table consumption and seed have been imported. During ie 1950's and early 1960's, imports consisted mainly of consumption potatoes, jt in 1963-65 they were mostly for seed. Drought conditions in 1967-69 again ecessitated imports of potatoes for consumption. Canada and Western Europe ave been the traditional suppliers of potatoes. The United States sent otatoes to Uruguay for the first time under a P.L. 480 agreement signed in ay 1968, which called for shipment of 50,000 tons of potatoes and potato roducts valued at US$3.5 million (including ocean transportation). Uruguay produces ts textile industry. little cotton, and The usual harvest imports most of the does not exceed 450 raw material for tons> lint basis. FOREIGN TRADE IN FARM PRODUCTS Agricultural products have always formed all but a small part of Uruguay's xport trade. During 1960-67, their share of total exports, by value, dropped t one point to as low as 93 percent, but averaged 95 percent. In contrast, Uruguay's agricultural imports are relatively unimportant, usually accounting or less than a fifth of the value of all imports. • xports Although Uruguay trades with many Western Hemisphere countries, Western ■urope has been and remains the chief outlet for Uruguay's traditional ;xports—wool, meat, and hides and skins. These items together accounted J or almost 88 percent of the value of agricultural exports in 1967 (table 16). rhe leading market is the European Common Market, which takes large quantities )f hides and skins, linseed oil and other oilseed products, and wool and meat, rhe United Kingdom is usually the leading single-country market for wool and neat. Spain became an important buyer of meat in the mid-1960’s, and ^astern Europe took both wool and meat in the late 1950*s and again in 1967. The Jnited States is a good outlet for Uruguayan wool, and the Latin American Free rrade Association (see Agricultural Policies) is a major outlet for grain because of sales to Brazil. Imports A large part of the country's agricultural imports regularly consist of cotton, yerba mate, tobacco, bananas, coffee, and rubber (table 17); these are all products that are either not produced domestically or are produced only in small quantities. Sugar is another significant, regular import item. Gram 45 Table 16.--Value of Uruguay's agricultural exports, by commodity and country of destination, 1967 1/ • __ Peso value, f.o.b. _ . Total T> g (V o +-> "O •H O' c c :d •ri c 03 c •*-> d O <1) a £ -V o £ M u O <0 3 o s LU CM 00 ini O CM CM O O' M3 *—i <—l in O' in O' r* oo vo O' M3 r- • • . MO CM CM 1 • • • • • • • • • M3| • • • l/> • (/) • -*-> • c o • • in •H 0) D c c T> • • o o O • fH •n M . V -o c a TJ ro c 0) 03 • C U a) T> 00 03 4-> O' a> •H 0) in a> o n> -u 03 r-t x: a> a. ih M Q. -n -*-> 5 o o o 00 f0 a> <0 ^ •» C -O in O C H *rl (0 vO o 5 4-> o i <0 ro C ^ -J 3 hh I^nT) 2 odl *2 £ 46 Ifl <4-> 0> «o XI >- Li 3 r-l 0> —I C <+< O Q> h-. c Li 10 r-i CO {/) 3 a> *ri T3 , 3 3 v> 0) - x: c - H >- CL 10 Li 3 3 LL. fO r-l ID < O 3 a> o a «-( c O' JC CL C Li 05 3 -*-> o o cd o Li £ CM 10 3-0 • rH M Li X) b0 H <5 Li ' >. Li O ID —i 3 Li -L> C CL 10 C ID •rH X) «H (0 ID Ifl <0 ro s *iH i _Q L (0 ID vO X: *r-l - if) r-i C N TJ X (0 C 3 h « a DQ 0) o; - (N (0 O' c C -— (0 •ri o -L> O *ri cue O- ■'H O' x 6 Li QJ C *<-• C 3 <11 H h U QO *♦1 X CO t-i uj to 49 Table 19.—Value of U.S. imports from Uruguay, averages 1952-66, annual 1962-68 1 CM O' 00 $ M0 MO 00 O' r~ CO CO M- 00 r- MO 1 00 r~ M0 CM r-H M0 o 00 O' vO •*. •» •» O' 1 O' CM e- H 1 •-H CM .. .. 1 'O r-H 00 00 MO r-H o 8 iD 1 O' O' O O' r-H n C" M0 ■O’ CO r-H 00 O' vO 1 •s O' r-H 00 MO CO H 1 r-H •« •• 1 • CM CM (O' o O e- o •-H 'O O' O' 00 MO CM o 1 H M0 MO r-H O' O' O O' 'O •» O' 1 CO CM 00 o H 1 »-H CM CO • • •• 1 00 MO O CO 00 O' 00 CM MO 1 CM MO 00 r-H O' o O' 00 M0 M0 00 MO M0 vO 1 •s •s O' Mi O' MO MO MO CO H <— 1 CM CO H 03 • • •• t —4 r—1 $ O' r-H *-H r-H r-H *-H CO o O' M- M0 r- O' O' O' 00 T3 00 00 M0 00 r-H MO h- o •» O' • CM O' CO CM H CO r-H ro • • •• o MO •-H O CO »-H 00 00 MO co CO o 'O co ■M- 00 00 s 00 f" MO o M0 CM O co 'O •V O' r-H r-H MO 00 MO r—4 1 r-H r-H CM •• • • 1 CM CO 00 O' O' 00 O' 00 r- CM k CO CO CM MO r-H CM o CO 00 CM CM MO O' \D 1 •s •» O' r-H MO 00 MO co H 1 r—1 rH CM • • «• 1 0* sO k «-H MO M0 O o r- r~ O' MO r-H CM r- O' 00 e~ MO o 0) 1 1 MO O •<3- ■M- rH O' (■■i CM O' H 1 r-H r-H CM 0> r-H 1 CM MO CO r-H e- CM r- O' OT v vO r 0 1 1 MO CM O' r-H CO Cm CO »-H O' $ 8 MO o co CO m r- •k O' < -1 1 r-H r-H • • •• r- •-H 00 O' MO I - " CM M> o O o 03 1 1 co •M- e- o f" M CM •v O' < *“H 1 1 CO CM r-H o CO 00 8 • • • • ♦ • • • • • • • o • • • • +-> • • • • a> • • • • • • • • »-H • • ■P 0) Mi 03 •rH • • • c +•> r-H (H • • ■o 0> o 03 3 o • • • o (H H-> • E 03 3 <— 1 *-H t • • • 4~> 3 03 O U r-H o fH to u • • ro Mi 3 •rH 3 +-> o -M • • •H u •rH O' r—H o 03 M 0) 0) 3 a • SZ O xz O' u B <0 r-H •rH •rH • r-H C 03 fH 03 -rH Mi H-> O' r-H +-> 6 CD cn a> o 03 03 o 03 •rH Mi 3 x: i— c H-> o 0) c o o s s < o Q o 2 i— 0) 50 Source: (16) repetitive with wools produced in the United M hi wasss m ^ -»- rcent of apparel wool imports into the United States. AGRICULTURAL PROSPECTS Uruguay has excellent potential for greatly ^hSques^and^nU^utis Itput. Few farmers now use modern agricultu 1 q aBJS set f 0r th ' crops and livestock are therefore low. But poliei.. ^ » the Agricultural Development Plan, 1965 74, seem.l^g^ ^ lncrease ln jricultural output ^WV^of at least 38 percent over the 1963 level, as Sin in the following projections (1974 as percentage of 1963)= Livestock Total agriculture Without agrarian reform With agrarian reform Crops Livestock 160 126 194 137 138 158 Although program delays make the goal for 1974 ;ate prospective increases for some p » technical and economic is^^r&vsss.' ’zzz&r *• ""Tsars sHHSf ncrease sharply. e y the wide ex t r emes in weather conditions. The 968 wooi n ci r ir a for example, was cut by ^ Decker Ht rmag™ 9 :Lrtirop n9 th°at ^in^harvested^and reduced average yields >er hectare. still limiting progress extension services, and level of technical the part of absentee farmers, it is often vocational education. Basic problems remain to be solved. Major factors iclude tax policies, scarcity of farm credit, limited ladequate technical knowledge among farmers. The low lowledge reflects a lack of interest and incentive on indowners and wealthier farm operators. Among poorer ssociated with poor general education as well as poor The Agricultural Development Plan, 1965-74, however, "^es recomme^atlons hat. if carried through, could provide the structure for agricultural growt. ncluded in the reconnendatlons are improved extension ^^’^“^Slrtady earch and experimentation, and increased agricultural credit. Action a ^reaay aken to ensure realistic product and input prices through maintenance °f ade Sate foreign 1 exchange and tax policies needs to be continued and strengthened. 51 BIBLIOGRAPHY (1) Brannon, Russell H. 1968* The Agricultural Development of Uruguay* Ford Foundation Series Frederick A* Praeger, New York. (2) Chebataroff, J. I960* Tierra Uruguay* Introduccion a la Geograffa Fisica, Biologica y Humana del Uruguay* Montevideo* (3) Farnworth, Constance H* 1952* The Agriculture of Uruguay. U.S. Dept. Agr. For. Agr. Bui. No. 3« (4) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Various years. Production Yearbook. Rome. (5) _• Various years. Trade Yearbook. Rome. (6) Hirschman, Albert O. 1967* Development Projects Observed. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. (7) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1951. Agricultural Development of Uruguay. Wash., D.C., and Rome. (8) London Economist. November 2, 1968 $9) Pan American Union. 1964. Inventory of Information Basic to the Planning of Agricultural Development in Latin America* Uruguay. Wash., D.C. (10) Schmidt, Orvis A. 1966. The World Bank Group in Latin America. Address before the Canadian-Inter-American Association, March 2. Montreal. (11) Uruguay. Bank of the Republic. 1967. Exportaciones Cumplidas, Nos. 10 and 11. Montevideo. ( 12 ) _. 1967. Importaciones Cumplidas, Nos. 26 and 27. Montevideo. (13) Uruguay. Ministry of Livestock and Crops. Various issues. Boletin Informativo. Montevideo. (14) _. 1963* C.nso General Agropecuarlo 1961* Montevideo* ( 15 ) _. 1966-67. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Economico y Social. "4-Plan Desarrollo Agropecuario." Vols. 1 and 2; and "5-Estudio Economico y Social de la Agricultura en el Uruguay." Vols. 1 and 2. Montevideo. (16) U.S. Dept, of Agr., Economic Research Serv. ^ 1952-67. U.S. Foreign Agricultural Trade. (17) _. 1967. 12 Years of Achievement under P.L. 480. ERS-Foreign 202, and Supplement, 1968. (18) U.S. Dept, of Commerce. 1968. Foreign Trade Regulations of Uruguay. OBR-68-79. (19) U.S. Foreign Service. Various dates. Despatches and reports from the American Embassy, Montevideo. 52 * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1 970— 394-381 /ERS-7> ,-ry Of ILUHWS ,ULTii! ^ ~ ^ AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY IN BRIEF By Margaret Missiaen RS-FOREIGN 300 FOREIGN REGIONAL ANALYSIS DIVISION MAY 1970 ABSTRACT The agricultural sector of the Algerian economy contributes an average of 10-12 percent of gross domestic product. While the most important food crops are wheat and barley, wine is the largest agricultural export. The war for independence and wine¬ marketing difficulties have caused setbacks in the economy of the country, but increasing petroleum production has offset these problems to some degree. Key Words: North Africa, Algeria, Agricultural production, Agricultural trade, Agricultural statistics. SUMMARY* The Algerian economy is recovering from the difficult period the country went through in the years just before and after Independence from France in 1962. A reori- sntation of the economy away from the French market toward national needs has been necessary. The dualism of the colo¬ nial period is still very evident in the structure of the country's agriculture. There is a modern sector of former French farms that has largely been socialized and a traditional sector that is still in pri¬ vate hands. While the modern farms pro¬ duce mainly commercial crops, production on the traditional farms is still mostly of a subsistence nature. *This report supersedes ERS-Foreign 131, Algeria's Agricultural Economy in Brief, July 1965. Agriculture's contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) has been declining in recent years as the petroleum sector becomes more important. The portion of GDP from agriculture now averages 10 to 12 percent. Although wine is still Alge¬ ria's leading agricultural export, petro¬ leum and natural gas have taken the place of wine as the country's major source of foreign exchange. THE LAND Algeria occupies an area of approxi¬ mately 920,000 square miles, almost one- third the area of the continental United States. Of this, only about 20 percent can be used for agricultural purposes-- farming and grazing. By far the most important agricultural section of the country is a rectangular, largely moun- nomic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture PORTUGAL; ATLANTIC OCEAN MAURITANIA ALGERIA 1 International boundary 1 Departement boundary National capital ® Departement capital Spot elevations in feet 100 200 Miles I MALI BOUNDARY REPRESENTATION IS NOT NECESSARILY AUTHORITATIVE U.S. DEPARTMENT of agriculture NEG. ERS 7468 -70(1) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERV 2 tainous region stretching about 620 miles along the Mediterranean coast between Moroc¬ co and Tunisia and extending Inland about 200 miles. Algeria's Saharan region covers more than 800,000 square miles and is bor¬ dered by Libya, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Spanish Sahara, Morocco, and Tunisia. The geography of northern Algeria features two Atlas Mountain chains, the Tel- lian and the Saharan, which cross the coun¬ try laterally, paralleling Algeria s Medi¬ terranean coast. The region between the coast and the Tellian Atlas Mountain chain is called the Tell; and the inland area be¬ tween the two mountain chains is the High Plateau. The Tell varies in width from 80 miles in the west to 200 miles in the east. This fertile littoral is favored by a moder¬ ate climate and rainfall averaging 16 to 40 inches annually. The temperature seldom ex¬ ceeds 100° F. during the summer or falls be¬ low freezing in the winter. In this area are extensive market gardens, orchards , and vineyards. Bordering the littoral is a zone of plains and valleys that are planted mainly to vineyards, cereals, citrus and other fruits, and industrial and forage crops. Even the mountain elevations of the Tell are intensively farmed. In the western part of this region viticulture predominates, but sizable acreages are also planted to other fruits, wheat, and barley. Livestock are pastured on the mountain plains. To the east, extensive grasslands and cork forests cover the higest elevations, and orchards of figs and olives are found at middle alti¬ tudes. At the lowest elevations, crops are similar to those of the littoral. There are no large, permanent rivers in the Tell, but only intermittent streams (oueds). In winter, these streams are full, and frequently flood following the rains; but in summer, they are merely muddy trick¬ les or dry beds. Stretching between the Tellian and Sa¬ haran Atlas Mountain chains, the High Pla¬ teau is a vast, undulating, steppe-like plain. Wedge-shaped, this plateau is 125 miles wide in Oran in the west; as it rolls east, it narrows to a series of small val¬ leys between hills and mountains in the De¬ partment of Constantine. Averaging almost 3,000 feet above sea level and partially cut off from the moist Mediterranean winds by the Tellian Atlas, the High Plateau re¬ ceives substantially less rainfall than the coastal plain. From east to west a line of landlocked salt ponds (chotts) punctuates the plateau. These depressions are marshy or, in summer, dry and crusted with salt. Agriculture on the High Plateau is confined primarily to the cultivation of cereals (wheat and barley), collection of esparto grass (used for weaving and paper manufacture), and grazing of live¬ stock (primarily sheep), and occasionally to fruit and vegetable crops. The Saharan territory is of minor agricultural importance. Oases are scat¬ tered throughout this area, in the foot¬ hills and steppes just south of the Saha¬ ran Atlas as well as in the desert. The people of the oases produce subsistence crops of cereal, fruits, vegetables, and dates. Climate Algeria's annual rainfall varies from as much as 40 inches in the north¬ east to practically none in the south. The summers are generally dry, with most of the rain falling from October to March. Precipitation, however, is often not well distributed. Much of the annual rainfall may be concentrated over a few weeks' time. Rain usually comes in brief, heavy tor¬ rents, eroding mountains, stripping slopes, and flooding stream banks. Land Use The almost 20 percent of Algeria's land considered to be agricultural (ex¬ cluding forests) is used for various agri¬ cultural purposes. As shown in table 1, this land is divided between the socialized and private sectors. THE PEOPLE The mid-1969 population of Algeria was estimated at 13.4 million and is grow¬ ing at an annual rate of more than 3 per¬ cent. Of the indigenous people, about four-fifths are Arabic-speaking mixtures of Arabs and Berbers, and the rest are more or less pure-blooded Berbers who speak various dialects of their own lan¬ guage. There are approximately 200,000 other people (mostly French and Moroccans) 3 Table l.--Land use in Algeria, 1964 Use Socialized [ sector Private s ector ‘ Public | sector : Total Annual crops: CprpaIs. 753 - 1,000 hectares —^- - - 2.049 0 2,802 213 Other crops. 76 137 0 F a 1 1 nw 1 and.. 655 2,462 45 0 3,117 363 Permanent crops: VI noyards. 318 0 Orrharrfs. 86 172 0 258 Total nilfivafced land. 1,888 4,865 0 6,753 16 21 0 37 Natural pastures. 327 34,047 0 34,374 Ilnnr ndur t i vp land. 72 1,214 0 0 1,286 Fsp^rtn zones. 0 3,037 3,037 Total agricultural land.. 2,303 40,147 3,037 45,487 Fnrpst. 107 301 2 ,016 2 .424 Unproductive land and desert... 0 0 189,645 189,645 Total area. 2,410 40,448 194,698 237,556 1/ One hectare = 2.471 acres. living in Algeria. The European minority, which totaled about 1 million before inde¬ pendence in 1962, now numbers less than 100,000. The density of the population is about 15 persons per square mile. However, the figure is misleading since about 90 percent of the people live on 10 percent of the land, mainly in the coastal area along the Mediterranean. Vast areas of the South are largely uninhabited. In 1966, 38 percent of the population lived in urban or semiur- ban areas. The Algerian labor force was estimated at 2.6 million in 1966. About 50 percent of the workers were in agriculture, 14 per¬ cent in services , 6 percent in manufactur¬ ing, and 30 percent in other occupations. Approximately 60 percent of the population relies on agriculture for a living. There are 275,000 Algerians employed in Europe, mainly in France. ECONOMIC SITUATION Prior to the country's independence in July 1962, the Algerian economy was basically a dual one, incorporating a well developed, market-oriented sector inte¬ grated with the French economy and a poor traditional, essentially subsistence sec¬ tor. In recent years, the country has been feeling its way toward an independent truly national economy in which all sec¬ tors would share in the benefits of devel¬ opment. The sudden departure of most of the 1 million Europeans residing in Algeria at the end of 1962 dealt a severe setback to the economy of the country. With them wei a large percentage of Algeria's skilled 1* bor, civil administrators, engineers, ent preneurs , and working capital. Practical all industries were closed down, causing unemployment rate to jump to 70 percent. The Europeans, who owned 2.8 million hec- 4 res of the best agricultural land in Alge- a, abandoned their farms and in some cases en destroyed equipment. Gross national oduct, which had increased at an annual te of 7 percent during the 1950's, fell by percent between 1960 and 1963. The economy is now showing signs of re- very. Gross domestic product, at constant ■ices, is estimated to have risen from $3.2 llion in 1966 to $3.7 billion in 1968, an icrease of about 15 percent. This growth is largely due to expanding petroleum pro- iction. Agriculture's contribution to GDP is only 9.4 percent in 1966, a drought :ar, but rose to 13.0 percent in 1968, when lere was a relatively good harvest. The mtribution of the petroleum sector in¬ cased during the same period from 16.9 =rcent to 21.6 percent. Production of rude oil amounted to 43 million tons .1/in 568, compared with 34 million tons 2 years arlier. Petroleum and natural gas have splaced wine as the country's major source f foreign exchange earnings. Algeria has a well-developed transpor- ation system that was largely built to sat- s fy the needs of the colonial economy, ailroads are the most important part of the ystem. Of 3,900 kilometers of track, 2,600 Llometers are standard guage. The system insists of a main, east-west line (which jntinues into Morocco) and several branches Lnking the urban centers and the rich agri- ultural regions to the main ports and ities on the coast. Three lines bring min- ral products of the Sahara to the coast. Algeria has around 80,000 kilometers of mproved roads. This system is also concen- rated in the north, with three main roads unning from the coast into the Sahara. Algeria's eight commercial ports are 'ell equipped. The most important ports are Igiers, which is one of the largest in both ifrica and the Mediterranean area, and Be- iaia, Oran, Arzew, Annaba, and Skikda. The )ort of Bejaia has assumed importance in recent years as the exporting terminal of :he petroleum pipeline from the north-cen- :ral Sahara fields. The port of Arzew has gained importance from two pipelines--one for petroleum and one for natural gas--and is a center of gas petroleum processing in¬ dustries. Annaba is the major port for the export of iron ore and phosphates. 1/ Tonnages in this report are metric. Algeria's principal international air¬ port is Dar El Beida, near Algiers. Other smaller but modern airports, all of which can accommodate jet aircraft , are located at Oran, Annaba, and Constantine. AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE The agricultural economy of Algeria is divided into two major sectors--modern and traditional. The traditional sector is still largely in private hands. While the socialized or autogere farms occupy only one-third of the land under culti¬ vation, they produce 50 to 60 percent of the value of agricultural output. The preindependence distinction between French farms and Algerian farms was eliminated by nationalization. The division between modern and traditional farms still exists. The Modern Sector Of the 2.8 million hectares in the modern sector of Algeria's agricultural economy, 2.3 million hectares are in so¬ cialized farms. Farms on the 2.8 million hectares were formerly owned by the French colonists. These farms are on the best land in the country and on most of the irrigated area. They have most of the farm machinery and produce practically all of Algeria s agricultural exports. The autogere or self- managed, socialized farms that occupy 2.3 million hectares of this modern sector were largely abandoned by their owners shortly after Algeria's independence. Initially, management of most of the vacant proper¬ ties was taken over by their workers to en¬ sure continued production. Through a series of decrees issued in late 1962 and in 1963, ownership of vacant and worker- occupied properties was vested in the State, with management of the properties entrusted to collective enterprises known as self-managed or autogere units. "Self¬ management" in this sense is a hybrid of State ownership and worker cooperatives. It differs from the former in that control of the operation of the enterprise theoret¬ ically is in the hands of the workers them¬ selves, and from the latter in that owner¬ ship of the property lies with the State. About 500,000 hectares in the modern sec¬ tor are privately owned, mostly by Alge¬ rians . 5 The autogere farms include 90 percent of the area used for growing grapes and cit¬ rus but only 27 percent of the land devoted to cereals. They have 14,000 of the estima¬ ted 19,000 tractors in the country. Almost all of Algeria's skilled agricultural tech¬ nicians and about 140,000 permanent workers are employed on these farms. Additional laborers are hired during peak seasons. During the last few years, the number of self-managed units has been reduced from 2,800 units to 1,800 so that skilled tech¬ nicians and managers can be used more effec¬ tively. The average size of the farms ranges from 100 hectares in areas of inten¬ sive cultivation to 2,000 hectares in re¬ gions where cereals are grown. The Traditional Sector The traditional sector is characterized by a large number of small, family farms in the less fertile mountain areas. The main crops produced in this sector are cereals, olives, figs, and dates. The bulk of the country's livestock is raised by traditional farmers. Productivity of the traditional farmers is adversely affected by the small size of their holdings. In 1967, there were 587,000 landowners in the private sector; of these, 423,000 owned less than 10 hectares, 147,000 between 10 and 50 hectares, and only 17,000 more than 50 hectares. Other factors limiting output are the poor quality of the soil, severe erosion, lack of irrigation and modern equipment, and a shortage of capital and credit. IRRIGATION Irrigation has been practiced in Alge¬ ria for several thousand years. Vestiges of vast flood control and irrigation systems provide proof that in the past large irriga¬ tion projects were carried out even in the areas now regarded as submarginal. Algeria's climate makes irrigation essential if good crops are to be produced every year. Rain¬ fall is often insufficient as well as ex¬ tremely irregular. The traditional farmers continually face the threat of a crop fail¬ ure since few of them own any irrigated land. About 200,000 hectares are estimated to be effectively irrigated in Algeria. This area represents less than 5 percent of the total land area under cultivation. The principal crops irrigated are citrus, true crops, and date palms. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION Less than 20 percent of Algeria's lar is agriculturally usable; only 3 percent c this is cultivated and the remaining agri¬ cultural land consists of pastures and es¬ parto grass zones. Agricultural output in Algeria varies widely from year to year depending on the amount and distribution of rainfall. The U.S. Department of Agri¬ culture's Indices of Agricultural Producti show that per capita agricultural producti fell from 106 in 1960 to 58 in 1966; it ro to 77 in 1968 but fell again to 65 in 1969 because of a smaller cereal crop (1957-59 100). Wheat is the most important crop pr duced in Algeria, followed by grapes for wine, citrus, fresh vegetables (potatoes and tomatoes), and dates (table 2). Wine Grapes for wine are by far the most i portant commercial crop produced in Algeri but their importance has declined rapidly recent years. As late as 1965, vineyards occupied only one-tenth of cultivated land but grapes in the form of wine contributed nearly one-third of the value of agricul¬ tural production. Grapes are grown almost exclusively on the self-managed farms. Vineyards are limited by climatic factors to a strip less than 100 miles wide along the Mediterranean coast and concentrated in zones near Algiers and Oran, and, to a lesser extent, near Annaba. Wine production was introduced and de veloped by French settlers as a complement to the French wine industry; the Algerian wines with high alcohol content being mixei with lighter products from French vineyard! Now, however, the Algerian Government, faci with marketing problems, has taken steps t< convert the land used for grape production to other uses such as pastures, and fruit, vegetable, and industrial crop production* Before 1962, vineyards covered about 350,0' hectares, with average yields of 40 hectol ters of wine per hectare. Average annu. production was 14 to 18 million hectoliter (table 3). The area in grapes for wine de dined from 337,500 hectares in 1966 to 2/ hectoliter (hi.) = 100 liters or 26.4 U.S. gallons. 6 Table 2.--Production of major crops, Algeria, averages 1955-6A , annual 1966-69 Crop 1966 1967 1968 Wheat. Barley. Oats. Rice, paddy. Corn. Pulses. Potatoes. Tobacco. Tomatoes. Citrus fruit. Grapes for wine 1/, Figs, dried. Dates. Olive oil. 1.000 metric tons ■ 1,287 1,281 630 1,266 1,53A 1,250 751 576 130 3A0 538 300 68 36 7 18 20 15 7 7 6 6 7 6 9 8 3 6 7 6 A9 36 30 31 35 37 236 233 170 20A 272 275 1A 8 1A 13 1A 1A 136 109 82 69 8A 100 356 A05 A01 A00 A30 AA0 2,051 1,6A6 866 8A7 1,276 1,016 22 18 16 16 16 15 109 12A 115 120 85 50 20 17 16 22 18 22 302.200 hectares in 1968. The drop P ro " duction, however, has largely been due to reduced yields. Unfortunately, much of the land now devoted to vineyards is not suit¬ able for other crops. Some experts have suggested that these areas be used for pro¬ ducing table grapes and grapes for process¬ ing into juice, raisins, vinegar, and bran¬ dy. The Office National de Commerciali¬ sation des Produits Viti-Vinicoles (ONCV), established in August 1968, buys all the wine and arranges for its distribution and sales at home and abroad. Cereals Cereals represent 25 to 30 percent of the value of Algeria's agricultural pro¬ duction. Most of the cereals are produced on small farms in the private sector. Durum (hard) wheat and barley are the main sub¬ sistence crops, and bread (soft) wheat and oats are produced for the market. These winter cereals are sown from October to December after the first rains begin and harvested from May to July. Summer cereals (rice and corn) are planted in the spring and harvested in late summer and fall; only small amounts of these are produced (table 2). Grain yields vary widely from year to year in Algeria. Average yields for 1963-65 are shown in table A. Citrus Fruit Citrus groves in Algeria are situated on the plains around the coastal cities, particularly around Algiers. Almost all were formerly owned by Europeans but are now the property of self-managed farms. Of the A6,000 hectares of citrus trees, approx¬ imately 3A ,000 hectares are planted to or¬ anges, 7,000 to clementines, 3,000 to tan¬ gerines, and 2,000 to lemons, grapefruit, and other citrus. During 196A-66, oranges averaged 70 percent of total production; clementines, 17 percent; tangerines, 8 per¬ cent; lemons, A percent; and grapefruit and other citrus, 1 percent. (See table 2 for total citrus production.) The recently organized Office des Fruits et Legumes d'Algerie (OFLA) has been charged primarily with the sale of Algeria's citrus fruit. Formerly, citrus producers concen¬ trated on early and late varieties which 7 Table 3.--Production and exports of Algerian wine, 1959-67 Production of previous year : Exports, specified year Value per hi. —\ specified yea- Year ; Total To France France : Other : countries 1959. 13,827 1,000 hi- 13,200 14,693 13,157 15,012 7,212 12 ,920 14,349 13.78 Dollars - - - - 12.97 I960. 18,601 14.51 9.32 1961. 15,851 12,791 14.53 8.10 1962. 13,632 14,662 14.36 6.89 1963. 12*279 12,575 6,804 15.05 7.29 1964. 9 ,400 9,048 8,200 8,342 16.29 7.50 1965. 10*477 14,026 8,640 9,292 15.28 7.09 1966. 14.10 6.69 1967. 6,822 4*807 2*975 13.74 8.91 1/ 1 hectoliter (hi.) = 100 liters or 26.4 U.S. gallons. Source: Oliver, R. L'Algerie, Etude economique. Rome, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 1969. Documents Statistiques sur le Commerce Exterieur de 1 1 Algerie, 1967. Table 4.—Yields of selected cereals in Algeria, average 1963-65. Socialized sector : Private sector Cereal Yield per : ha. 1/ : Yield per acre : Yield per : : ha. 1/ : Yield per acre Quintals —^ Bushels Quintals —^ Bushels Durum wheat. 8.1 12.0 5.7 8.5 Bread wheat. 7.0 10.5 5.6 8.3 Barley. 8.8 16.4 6.0 11.1 1/ 1 hectare (ha.) = 2.471 acres. 2/ 1 quintal = 100 kilograms or 220.46 pounds. brought premium prices, but now most Alge¬ rian fruit reaches the European market at the same time (from December through March) as the citrus from competitors. The main duty of OFLA will be to improve the market¬ ing procedures used. Other Crops In addition to garden vegetables raised by most small farmers and vegetables that are an important culture of the oases , Alge¬ ria has a valuable commercial truck farming industry. Concentrated within a few miles of the coast near the large cities , it sup¬ plies onions, melons, potatoes, tomatoes, green beans, peas, artichokes, and carrots, primarily for the domestic urban popu¬ lation but also for export. Both pro¬ duction and export of fresh vegetables have declined since 1960. In I960, 890,000 tons of vegetables were harvested from 85,400 hectares; by 1967, only 572,0 tons were harvested from 78,640 hectares. However, production did increase between 1966 and 1967. Olives grow in rather poor soils on the slopes of the Tellian Mountains betwe the coast and the High Plateau, particu¬ larly in eastern Algeria. Nearly half th production comes from Kabylia, primarily from wild trees, and a large part of the production is consumed locally. There ar 8 me cultivated groves near Algiers and Oran iat produce both olives and olive oil for port. (See table 2 for production of ive oil.) Alfa (esparto grass) grows wild , clumps 3 feet high and is used locally for >.aving into a variety of household items. >st of the alfa that enters commercial lannels is gathered and processed by self- inaged enterprises. Annual production av- rages 100,000 to 150,000 tons, with A0,000 j 50,000 tons exported--mainly to the aited Kingdom. ivestock Livestock numbers in Algeria were re- uced between 1960 and 1964 by epidemics and he war for independence (table 5). In an ffort to reconstitute herds, the Government as imported large numbers of cattle and heep and has expanded its stockbreeding tations and artificial insemination and eterinary centers. About 95 percent of the ivestock are owned by the private sector, .ivestock accounts for about one-fourth of :he value of agricultural output. AGRICULTURAL POLICY Under the Government's proclaimed so* Lalist option and the corollary system of jlf-managed farms, agriculture's most pro¬ active sector is the property of the na- ion. This ownership gives to the Govern- ent a far-reaching and direct role in the unctioning of the agricultural sector. In arly 1967, the Government made some changes n the structure of the self-managed farms o improve their efficiency. The reorgani¬ zation had a twofold aim: limitation of State control and wider autonomy to inde¬ pendently managed enterprises. The Ministry of Agriculture is respon¬ sible for appointing and controlling the directors of autogere farms. Actual man¬ agement of a farm, however, is assigned to a president and three bodies made up of and acting as representatives of the work- ers __ a general assembly, a workers' coun¬ cil, and a managing committee--so that a farm becomes fully responsible for its own operation. At the same time, the workers have the right to cultivate for themselves a plot of land of 2 hectares, and engage in some animal husbandry on the farm.^ Under the new provisions , part of the farms prof¬ its are paid back to the workers for their labor, and workers also receive productivity premiums. Officials have also stated their inten¬ tion to extend socialization of the rural sector by taking over those private farms belonging to persons who are not dependent on them but have other sources of income. Officials also plan to eliminate the large private estates by reducing the amount of land that can be held by one person. The proprietors of these lands are to be indem¬ nified . Government agencies are responsible for marketing crops produced on autogere farms. Most crops (except cereals and dry legumes) grown in the private sector are not marketed through Government agencies ; however, there are price controls for many products at the wholesale and retail levels. Livestock 1960 ; 1964 • • 1967 623 531 800 5,360 5,000 7,130 2,016 1,642 3 ,000 160 117 132 173 326 188 147 341 248 209 175 175 1/ 3 62 12 1/ 1966. 9 The Office Algerien Interprofessional des Cereals (OAIC) has a monopoly on mar¬ keting and stocking cereals and certain pul¬ ses and for assuring consumers adequate sup¬ plies of cereals at stable prices. All processing plants for bread and durum wheat have been nationalized. Fixed prices are guaranteed to producers for wheat. In 1968, the price for durum wheat was raised from $103 to $109 per ton and for bread wheat from $89 to $97 per ton. The consumer price was not altered, and the increase was fi¬ nanced by the OAIC from profits on cereal imports and other operations. The Union Nationale des Cooperatives Agricoles des Commercialisation is respon¬ sible for marketing other crops produced by the socialized sector except for wine and citrus (see sections on wine and citrus). During the 1967/68 crop season, credit to self-managed agriculture was extented by the Banque Nationale d'Algerie (BNA). Appropriations for the 1969 investment budget, which represents the third phase of the 3-year development plan, are set at $1,240 million--twice the amount for 1968. Industry has the largest allotment with $740 million. Agriculture is to receive the sec¬ ond largest allocation, $128 million. Algeria's new 4-year development plan is to go into effect in 1970. Indications are that about $5 billion will be expended on economic and social programs during the 4-year period 1970-73, with a goal of achieving a growth rate of 6 percent per year. Fifty percent of the expenditures will be directed toward industry. Agricul¬ ture will be the third area of emphasis after education. The Government hopes to reach self-sufficiency in foodstuffs by 1980. AGRICULTURAL TRADE The story of Algeria's wine exports has been the story of Algeria's total agricul¬ tural exports during the last few years. Roughly, total agricultural exports have fallen from a 1956-60 average of $320 mil¬ lion annually to $142 million in 1968. This drop was due largely to a more than $130 million decrease in the value of wine ex¬ ports during 1956-68. Agricultural commod¬ ities as a percentage of total exports have declined from 75 percent to less than 20 percent during this period (table 6). After independence, Algeria signed a 5-year agreement with France that set guaranteed annual quotas for Algerian win These quotas were to decrease from 8.8 mi lion hectoliters in 1964 to 7.0 million i 1968. This agreement was observed for 3 years; but in February 1967, the French Government suspended all foreign wine im¬ ports. In August 1967, it forbade the mi ture of foreign with domestic wines, the principal use of Algerian wine in France. Later, the ban on wine imports was par¬ tially relaxed for Algeria, and a mixture of 10 percent, later raised to 25 percent with domestic wines was allowed for Alge¬ ria's wine. France agreed to import 3.5 million hectoliters of Algerian wine in 1967 and in 1968. The USSR has agreed to import 5 million hectoliters of Algerian wine for 7 years beginning in 1968. Wine exports for 1968 are estimated as follows Hectolitei Franc zone (500,000 hi. outside of France) . 4,000,00 USSR . 5,000,00 Others . 500,00 This is a considerable improvement over t situation in 1967. Citrus exports have decreased since independence because capital has not been available for improvements in the groves. Also, while Algeria's exports of cereals have declined rapidly, imports have in¬ creased because adverse weather condition have caused poor crops. Agricultural imports have been decre ing at approximately the same rate as tot imports. For 1956-60, agricultural goods averaged 21 percent of total imports. By 1968, the percentage was only slightly hi er at 23 percent. Cereals have replaced sugar as the most valuable agricultural i port (table 7). A major shift in the direction of A1 ria's trade has taken place since indepen dence. France provided an average of 80 percent of Algeria's imports and took 81 percent of her exports during 1956-60. B 1967, France was providing only 60 percen of the imports and taking 59 percent of t exports. Even though detailed information on Algeria's trade for 1968 is not yet avail able, data for some categories have been 10 ublished. The most valuable agricultural ommodities in Algeria's foreign trade in 968 were: Million , . . dollars injports^ • — rn~ Grains. ^ 1 Dairy products. 16 * 6 Cotton. ‘ . 14.5 Sugar. . Coffee, tea, and spices. Exports : Beverages (mostly wine). Fruit and nuts. * Vegetable and fruit preparations. 8.1 Vegetables. U.S. - Algerian Trade According to U.S. trade statistics, U.S. exports of farm products to Algeria fell sharply between 1966 and 1967, but in¬ creased in 1968 and 1969 (table 8). Wheat and wheat flour are by far the most impor¬ tant U.S. agricultural commodities shipped to Algeria. In 1966, 1967, and 1969, some wheat, wheat flour, bulgur wheat, and soy¬ bean oil were provided to the Algerians under Public Law 480. Sales of cotton to Algeria were up sharply in 1968. U.S. imports of Algerian agricultural goods have been very limited, averaging about $200,000 annually over 1966-68 (table 9). Essential oils, used primarily in making perfumes, and spices accounted for most of this trade. 11 Table 6.--Quantity and value of Algeria's principal agricultural exports, by leading country of destination, average 1956-60, annual 1966-67 Commodity and country Wine. France. USSR. West Germany. Belgium-Luxembourg. Oranges and other citrus. France. USSR. West Germany. Vegetables, fresh and dried... Potatoes. France. Tomatoes. France. Hides and skins.. France.. Bran. France. Ireland. Esparto grass. Olive oil. Wheat flour and semolina. France. Tobacco. Barley. Other agricultural exports.... Total agricultural exports Nonagricultural exports. Total exports. France. West Germany. United Kingdom. Italy. Switzerland. Quantity Value Average 1956-60 ; 1966 I 1967 Average 1956-60 ; 1966 ; 1967 1,000 metric tons 1,000 dollars 1,389.2 933.0 485.1 209,298 121,491 56,425 1,364.7 828.6 297.5 204,401 112,242 40.366 1/ .5 34.3 1/ 67 4,608 1/ 51.2 53.7 1/ 3,427 3,585 1/ 14.1 21.4 1/ 1,067 1,509 233 246.6 182.7 30,066 36,220 22,616 227 213.1 130.1 29,480 33,196 17,006 1/ 19.0 21.1 1/ 1,530 1,838 1/ 7.3 12.3 1/ 808 1,230 2/175 47.1 70.2 2/22,140 6,656 10,307 69 17.9 42.4 6,766 2,056 4,778 64 17.9 39.5 6,376 2,056 4,470 3/52 11.8 10.2 3/6,086 2,332 2,251 51 11.8 10.2 6,058 2,323 2.242 10 7.9 5.7 7,707 7,487 6,219 6 6.4 5.1 4,909 6,402 5,525 4/ 71.8 101.9 4/ 3,375 5,128 43.2 64.5 2,079 3,302 4.9 21.1 229 1,017 4/ 47.5 37.0 4/ 1,315 1,042 5 5.5 .6 3,389 3,506 419 66 1.9 2.9 11,694 267 411 66 1.9 2.9 11,682 266 410 7 .2 1.4 4,903 134 784 67 0 0 3,815 0 0 27.532 19.625 17.007 320,544 200,076 120,358 106,756 413,825 594,003 427,301 613,901 714,361 345,301 414,108 423,619 8,527 50,535 89,502 21,747 36,410 39,769 7,701 21,212 24,926 1,204 7,337 24,581 Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. 1/ Data for these countries are not shown separately, but are included in totals. 2/ Fresh vegetables only. 3/ Average of 1959-60 only. 4/ If any, commodity is included in other agricultural exports and quantity is reflected in totals. Source: Documents Statistiques sur le Commerce Exterieur de l'Algerie. 12 and by Commodity and country : Ouantitv : Average = 1966 : : 1956^60=L. 1967 ; Average : 1956-60 : 1966 ; 1967 1.000 metric tons : 1 .000 dollars 52 ,494 ..: 261 495.2 693.9 : 24,293 57 y U-5 30,266 wheat , nara ana sou. ..: 25 387.7 304.0 : 1,835 810 24,0/o i o o'n ..: 9 0 172.6 : u 1Z,7JJ A ^ 79 ..: 1/ 30.3 61.7 : 1/ 8,706 2,1ZO A 1A1 113 68.1 65.2 : 4,709 ..: 2/ 40.3 35.8 : 2/ 2,732 2,365 45 75.9 85.1 32,628 3/8,981 6,464 25,291 25,815 IQ ..: 3/21 65.8 74.4 17,533 10,7JJ K Q7A ..: 15 64.4 65.8 17 ,012 7 Q53 ..: 17 5.6 4.8 16,438 4 , oOO ..: 203 204.5 297.1 38,231 27,114 O A A 7 7 25,484 1 1 620 ..: 180 117.9 94.8 35,354 Z4 ,4 / / 3 59ft ..: 1/ 11.2 47.9 1/ 0 4 L ...: 28 13.2 47.2 21,205 8,429 24,853 11 526 ...: 1 3.0 22.2 948 1/ 1 , JJ4 ii ins ...: 1/ 5.1 20.7 3,0/4 ... : 38 34.4 38.7 15,667 8,937 2,373 9,677 5,706 Vegetable oils ana .. ...: 1/ 9.0 22.9 1/ ... : 54 57.2 61.2 10,339 8,102 8,540 7 353 .. .: 33 48.9 55.7 5,160 2,197 6 ,493 A ft 1 A ...: 13 48.9 51.7 O ,493 ": 1 ... : 45 .000 head 10.4 9.9 4,493 4,673 4,828 3 1L 7 ...: 43 9.4 7.2 4 ,412 4 , Zb3 1.000 metric tons 20,059 4,684 2,244 31.043 ... : 20 3.5 2.0 Z , 33 / Meat ana meat prepardLiuna* • ...: 7 4.0 3.6 4,078 52.358 Z ,030 26.153 Other agricultural imports... Total agricultural imports.: : 221,190 160,974 184,796 : : 849,266 469,732 446,022 Nonagrtculturai lmpuna. . . . : :1,070 ,456 630,706 630,818 Total imports. France. United States. USSR. Italy. West Germany. 858,168 37,229 A/3,350 6,6A0 7,521 A33.3A7 60,495 7,870 18,271 14,028 375.521 50,315 28,390 20,508 19,326 Note: Detail may not add to total because of . — telv^but are included in totals. reflected^in totals. 3/ Excluding fresn milk. 4/ Average of 1958-59 only. Source: Documents Statistics sur le Commerce Exterleur de l'Algerie. 13 Table 8.--U.S. exports to Algeria, 1966-69 Commodity 1966 1967 : 1968 : 1969 - - 1,000 dollars - - Dairy products (nonfat dry milk, PL 480)... Grains and preparations. Wheat. Wheat (PL 480). Wheat flour. 0 44,977 43,113 4,517 1,034 830 16,234 14,930 2,298 902 0 17,344 17,344 0 0 923 20,891 20,206 294 644 Wheat flour (PL 480). Fruits and vegetables. Tobacco. Cotton. Tallow, inedible. Soybean oil. 1,034 879 75 188 1,941 1,658 902 797 50 0 1,287 1,782 0 985 237 2,519 1,563 0 644 4 178 2,558 1,953 439 Soybean oil (PL 480).. 1,658 1,777 0 439 Other agricultural exports. 189 49 55 47 Total agricultural exports. 49.907 21.029 22,703 26,993 Nonagricultural exports. 16,742 11,637 30,136 36,788 Total exports. 66,649 32,666 52,839 63,781 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 9.—U.S. imports from Algeria, 1966-69 Commodity 1966 : 1967 : 1968 : 1969 3 13 5 0 86 173 197 293 112 10 6 10 201 196 208 303 0C31 agriCUlLUrai uo .. 2,754 2,884 5,054 1/1,997 2,955 3,080 5,262 1/2,300 1/ Preliminary. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 15 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 POSTAGE & FEES PA© United States Department of Agriculture