Click for next page ( 141


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 140
Appendix E Workshop Statement RONALD J. PERKINS* Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy First and foremost, and in line with the agenda item, ~ give precedence to the estimation of food aid requirements, drawing principally on FAO's experiences in recent years. The most recent FAO estimates of requirements were made in the early 1980s and comprised projections to 1985 and 1990. We have not yet made any formal assessments for the 1990s but I believe that the conceptual and quantification problems we faced continue to provide useful reminders for future applications. ~ also draw on our assessment of world agriculture to the year 2000 which we published nearly a year ago, to give an impression of the possible implications for food aid requirements for the future. In the second part ~ briefly summarize the two main agricultural projection models used by FAO. One of these is the long-term study Agriculture: Toward 2000 to which ~ have just referred. It adopts a relatively optimistic scenario of demand and production growth for developing countries, compared with trends, but nonetheless implies quite large increases in their net import requirements for cereals and livestock products. The other study is essentially a price equilibrium model for assessing commodity demand, supply and trade prospects over the medium term, which we completed in 1985 with Projections to 1990, and which we plan to carry forward in the . . coming olennlum. ESTIMATION OF FOOD AID REQUIREMENTS: SOME BASIC ISSUES When we were developing a revised approach to estimating food aid requirements five years ago, we reviewed all of the main global studies, including ones by IFPRI, USDA and FAO, which gave projections of requirements to around 1985 or 1990. The various estimates ranged from about 11 million tons to some 35 million tons of cereals or cereal-equivaTent a year, and under one FAO hypothesis went as high as 66 million tons. Differences in country coverage explain part of the wide range but differences in assumptions and heuristics are undoubtedly the main causes. The estimates based on nutritional considerations were the highest ones, but the assumptions underpinning these estimates were somewhat simplistic. will say more about nutrition-based estimates in a moment. *Chief, Commodity Policy and Projections Service, Commodities and Trade Division. 140

OCR for page 140
Our own revised approach was a hybrid one, with our estimated total of food aid requirements coming to 20.2 million tons of cereals projected for 1985. This was based on assessment of three components at country level: (i) non-project food aid, or food aid for balance of payments support, (ii) project food aid and (iii) food aid to meet emergencies. ~ have brought along some copies of our detailed paper on this and will therefore only summarize it briefly here. Non-project food aid was estimated as the difference between projected total import requirements and projected imports on commercial terms (i.e. effective demand less domestic production less commercial imports). Commercial imports were projected for this purpose using an elasticity of commercial imports with respect to the ratio of foreign exchange earnings to the price of cereals, estimated from past time series, and, of course, projections of foreign exchange earnings and cereal prices. The second component, project food aid was estimated by our colleagues in the World Food Programme, taking into account individual country circumstances, questionnaire replies from countries and consideration of absorptive capacity. The estimates included requirements for food-for-work projects, nutrition projects and to help in building up small scale food security reserves in certain countries. These estimates covered edible oils and milk powder as well as cereals. The third component, emergency food aid requirements, was based on time series analysis of shortfalls in cereals production below trend. We assumed that food aid assistance would be needed to meet shortfalls which exceeded five percent of trend in the case of low-income net importers and ten percent in the case of other developing cereal importing countries. Before proceeding to a consideration of nutrition-based estimates of requirements, would make some general remarks on the models underpinning food aid estimates. Firstly, they have usually been neutral about changes in such things as income distribution poli- cies, distribution policies regarding domestic food supply, food price Policies and domestic poverty-oriented programmer in food aid recipient countries. Thus, generally, it is implicit that the estimates of requirements constitute requirements of international food aid. Sec- ondly, the same considerations imply that the estimates are neutral about such matters as targetting or, to put it another way, about tolerable degrees of leakage. Thirdly, it needs to be borne in mind in appraising studies of requirements that some of them focus explicitly on cereal food aid requirements while those which are based on nutritional considerations usually convert dietary energy gaps into cereal equivalents. Thus, an estimated requirement does not necessarily imply that the total quantity should be optimally supplied in the form of cereals. NUTRITION-BASED ESTIMATES OF FOOD AID REQUIREMENTS It seems to me thoroughly logical to try to base estimates of food aid requirements on nutritional considerations or, expressed in another way, on the need to raise food intakes of the worId's hungriest people to an acceptable level. Conceptually, the same idea is captured in the Guidelines and Principles for Food Aid adopted by governments in the Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes in 1978 by which it is agreed that priority in food aid allocations should be given to low-income food-deficit countries. The same Guidelines and Principles are referred to in the Food Aid Convention in relation to cereal food aid. In fact, the bulk of food aid is provided to this group of countries. For instance, of total cereal food aid of 12 million tons in 1986/87 10 million tons went to these countries. Clearly, however, there are many different ways of estimating food aid requirements on nutritional criteria. Certain "traditional" methods which relied solely on estimates or projections of national averages of dietary energy intake, and thereby ignored within-country 141

OCR for page 140
distribution of intakes, are clearly flawed. And there is also the problem of defining what one means by an "acceptable level" of intake. In the latest two of the periodic FAO World Food Surveys, considerable efforts have been made to refine the approach. ~ will refer briefly to the most recent of these, the Fifth World Food Survey, which we published in 1985. In this Survey we estimated the distribution of energy intake in each developing country for 1979-81. In brief, for countries for which we bad detailed data of food consumption by household, our analysis suggested that the log-normal distribution of dietary energy intake was appropriate. For other countries, the parameters of the Tog-normal distribution were estimated indirectly, using FAO food balance sheets to proxy the mean and, wherever possible, estimates of the relationship between food consumption and income in order to derive the variance. The critical cut-off point was set at a rather frugal level based on basal metabolic rate (BMR). In the case of adults and adolescents, for instance, 1.2 BMR or 1.4 BMR per caput was used, that is to say the maintenance requirements of dietary energy, taking into account alternative concepts of intra-individual variation. For India, for example, 1.2 and 1.4 BMR are equivalent to 1,450 and 1,610 kcal per day and in Egypt 1,550 and 1,720 kcal repectively. These allowances, ~ stress, are much below the recommended allowances which were set by FAO and WHO nearly 20 years ago, which included energy needs for normal working activity. Based on these considerations we then asked how much additional energy (expressed in cereal equivalent) would be needed to bring people with less than 1.2 or 1.4 BMR up to these levels from their present positions. of course, the answer depends heavily on assumptions on the ways in which the extra food would be "injected" into the food system and therefore on the implied leakages. Some very large numbers can be generated in this way, but ~ will focus on the rock-bottom estimates. These estimates assume perfect targetting with no leakage, and count only the additional food needed by people to bring them up to the alternative cut-off points. The additional food needs would have amounted to 8 million tons of cereals to reach the 1.2 BMR level or 14 million tons to reach 1.4 BMR, for the developing countries as a whole, according to the assumptions ~ have outlined. ~ stress that ~ am not putting these numbers forward as complete estimates of the total food aid requirements of these countries. In the first place, perfect identification and targetting would doubtless constitute an extremely costly approach and therefore some allowance would have to be made in all realism for leakage. Secondly, it must be remembered that the energy distribution curves used in the survey implicitly included the food aid which was actually provided in 1979-81, that is to say about 9 million tons of cereals plus other food donations. All of this, or a substantial part of it would therefore have to be added. Of course, in extrapolating forward, allowance would have to be made for changes in the numbers of people projected to have energy intakes below 1.2 or 1.4 BMR. In this connection, the most recent calculations by FAO in Agriculture: Toward 2000 point to their numbers increasing by some 10 percent by the year 2000 compared with 1979-81. Moreover, the projection of the number of undernourished people to the year 2000 is based on the assumption that all countries would be able to afford to purchase commercially their net import requirements as projected to that year. We have not made any detailed analysis of this particular aspect. However, as an indicator-and only one indicator ~ admit-our projections point to a rather large decline in the agricultural trade surplus of developing countries as a whole, assuming constant 1983-85 world market prices. 142

OCR for page 140
FAO'S LONG-TERM AGRICULTURAL PROJECTION MODEL: AGRICULTURE TOWARD 2000 As I indicated earlier, I conclude with a brief description of the methodology of FAO's main projection models and their results. I start with Agriculture: Toward 2000 (AT 20003. I have extracted a brief methodological note and two summary tables of results for distribution to you. (See Annex to this paper). In summary, on the side of demand and production, separate projections have been made for 94 developing countries, the developed countries and the USSR and Eastern Europe, and covering all major agricultural commodities. on the side of demand, the projections separately cover the main uses, i.e. food, feed (linked to projections of output of livestock products), industrial uses, seed requirements and waste. Special attention has been given to the projections of production in developing countries, taking into account country-specific circumstances and constraints, es well as major input needs. In general, projected import requirements and export availabilities for developing countries were derived as differences between the projections of their domestic effective demand and production. For developing countries, the tables ~ am circulating show our main results concerning their export supply capacity and export growth possibilities. For cereals, we project further considerable expansion of their import requirements, to a gross volume of about 160 million tons, compared with around 100-110 million tons in the past few years. The world market for cereals is however, projected to grow at rates significantly below those of the past 15 years. Large increases in their net import requirements of both cereals and livestock products are also projected. As regards the developing countries' main agricultural exports, the tables show a somewhat mixed pattern of projected growth rates of export availabilities compared with past growth. But, of course, a projected availability can only be transformed into an actual market if the demand can be generated. The scope for this is becoming smaller, not only in developed importing countries but also in debt-strapped developing country markets. , ~ FAO'S MEDIUM-TERM COMMODITY PROJECTIONS: THE WORLD FOOD MODEL ~ turn now to FAO's other main projection model, which underpin our medium-term projections of commodity market prospects, which ~ will summarily refer to as our World Food Mode} (WFM). This differs from AT 2000 in a number of respects. AT 2000, for example, explicitly adopts certain normative criteria, notably on the side of production, and thus has a planning orientation. It also makes no explicit assumptions about prices and the role that they play in market clearance and decision making. Moreover, the study is not solely geared to the generation of market equilibrium but is also expected to Provide conclusions on such important matters as input needs and investment requirements, to cite some of its features. The World Food Model, by contrast focuses on world market prospects, built up from consideration of supply/demand/trade equations for about 150 countries and groups of residual countries. The WFM, as ~ have already said, also allows for the generation of marker equilibrium, achieved by (i) a formal mathematical model incorporating prices into its demand, production, trade, and stocking equations; (ii) respect for the usual identities at country and global levels; and (iii) the inclusion of equations which link domestic prices to world market prices. In these respects, it is similar in concept to the USDA's GOI, model. ~ will not go into the projection results we generated for 1990, partly as these were published some years ago and are therefore available, and partly because the interest of this gathering relates mainly to the 1990s which we have yet to explore with the 143

OCR for page 140
model in a formal way. However, the results did form one of the building blocks for the AT 2000 study ~ have already mentioned and, in very broad terms, its conclusions with regard to the slowdown of trade are basically similar. That is to say, for the period we covered from 1980 up to lg90, trade growth showed market slowdowns compared with the 1970s in particular. At the same time, on the food security front we anticipated no significant improvements in the per caput consumption levels of the low-income food-deficit countries as a whole. Finally, by way of information, ~ should mention that so far, although we have also published some results from the model on the possible impact on food security of scenarios involving shocks on the side of production, we still have some way to go in improving the model's structure to tackle other important questions. ~ refer, in particular, to simulations regarding policy adjustments and alternative configurations of the world trading environ- ment. Indeed, to conclude and bearing in mind the food aid orientation of this agenda item, one important issue for exploration in the future might well be that of the relationship between food aid requirements, the reform of agricultural policies, and the liberalization of agricultural trade. 144

OCR for page 140
ANNEX: Excerpts from Agriculture: Toward 2000.* METHODOLOGY OF PROJECTIONS: A SUMMARY NOTE Demand, Production, Trade The projections of demand, production and trade are carried out for each of the commodities and countries analysed individually (see list of commodities and countries covered). The overall quantitative framework for the projections is based on the Supply Utilization Accounts (SUAs). The SUA is an accounting identity showing for any year the sources and uses of agricultural cornrnodities in homogeneous units (see note to the list of commodities), as follows: FOOD + INDUSTRIAL NON-FOOD USES + FEED + SEED + WASTE + (CLOSING STOCKS- OPENING STOCKS) = PRODUCTION + (IMPORTS- EXPORTS) There is one such SUA for each of the historical years (generally 1961 to 1985) and the bulk of the projection work is concerned with drawing up SUAs (by commodity and country) for the year 2000. Different methods are used to project the individual elements of the SUA, as follows: Food demand per caput is projected using the base year data for this variable (the three year average 1982/84), the FAO food demand mode! (a set of estimated food demand functions Engel curves for up to 52 separate commodities in each country) and the assumptions of the growth of per caput incomes (GDP). The results are adjusted as required by the commodity and nutrition specialists taking into account the historical evolution of per caput demand. Subsequently total projected food demand is obtained by simple multiplication of the projected per caput levels with projected population. Industrial demand for non-food uses is projected as a function of the GDP growth assumptions and/or the population projections and subsequently adjusted in the process of inspection of the results. Feed demand for cereals is derived simultaneously with the projections of livestock products by multiplying projected production of each of the livestock products with country- specific input/output coefficients (feeding rates) in terms of metabolizable energy supplied by cereals and brans. The part that can be met by projected domestic production of brans is deducted and the balance represents cereals demand for feed. Feed use of non-cereal products is obtained by ad-hoc methods using historical data mostly as a proportion of total production or total demand. The study does not project feed use of oilmeals. This is a serious lacuna planned to be filled in future development of the analytical framework. Seed use is projected as a function of production using seeding rates per hectare. This is part of the projections of input requirements, discussed below. Waste is projected as a proportion of total supply (production plus imports). *July 1987. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Pages A5-A10; 85;88;103). 145

OCR for page 140
The study does not project year 2000 stock changes. This does not mean that present stocks are assumed to remain constant but rather that changes to adjust them to "desired" or "required" levels will occur in the years between now and 2000. It is impossible to project country and commodity specific adjustments in any one particular year. The general point is made in the report that current stocks of particular commodities and countries are out of balance with "desired" or "required" levels. If the adjustments occur in any yearns) before 2000, the impact on production will appear only as temporary deviation ts) from the smooth growth path represented by a curve joining the base year production level to that of 2000, ignoring fluctuations in the intervening years. Whhether or not year 2000 production includes a provision for "normal" stock changes (i.e. to maintain stocks at the desired percentage of consumption already achieved before 2000) makes little difference to the average growth rate of production for 1983/8~2000 if the deviations from the constant growth rate path in the intervening years are ignored. Production and trade projections for each country involve a number of iterative com- putations and adjustments as follows: (1) Commodities in deficit in the base year (developing countries only): a preliminary "target" level is set for 2000 taking into account the projected demand, production growth possibilities revaluated in more detail in subsequent steps of the analysis) and the general objective that self-sufficiency should be raised or, as the case may be, its past rate of decline should be contained if possible, depending on the country/commodity situation. (2) Commodities exported in the historical period and the base year (developing countries only): it is assumed that they will continue to be exported in amounts which will depend on the country's possibilities to increase production, a preliminary assessment of import demand on the part of all the other countries which are deficit in that commodity and an assessment of the country's possibility to have a share in total world import demand resulting from an analysis of trends and other relevant factors. Since for world balance total deficits of the importing countries must be equal to total surpluses of the exporting countries there is an element of simultaneity in the determination of the production levels of all commodities in all countries. This is solved in a number of successive iterations rather than through a formal model, the key element being expert judgements of market shares in world exports and of somewhat more formal evaluations of the production possibilities, as explained below. Based on the above considerations, preliminary production "targets" are therefore set for the export commodities of each developing country. They are equal to their own domestic demand plus the preliminary export levels. Once the preliminary production targets are set for all commodities, the missing elements of the demand side of the SUA which depend on the levels of production (feed, seed, waste) can be filled in. At this stage complete preliminary SUAs are available for 2000 for all commodities and all the developing countries, showing for each commodity and country all the demand elements and production. The differences between total demand and production are the preliminary net trade positions (imports or exports). The next step is to derive preliminary world balances. Similar SUAs are, therefore, constructed for the developed countries. (3) For the European CPEs the procedure followed is more or less the same as that described above for the developing countries, though the judgemental element concerning objectives of self-sufficiency and exports may not be identical. Moreover, there is no further evaluation of the projected production levels in terms of land and yields in different agro-ecological land classes, an operation carried out for the developing countries only (see below). 146

OCR for page 140
(4) For the developed market economies (DMEs) the demand components of the SUA are projected in the same manner as for the other countries. Production is, however, projected as trend in the manner described in the relevant section of Chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.126- 3.128~. The net trade balances thus obtained for the DMEs are subsequently reviewed together with those of the developing countries and the European CPEs as follows: (5) For the commodities not produced, or produced only in insignificant quantities in the DMEs (tea, coffee, cocoa, bananas, natural rubber, jute, cassava), nearly all their demand translates into import requirements. This, together with the import requirements of the developing countries in deficit and those of the European CPEs, define the total market available to the developing exporting countries. Their provisional production and export levels, set as described above, are then adjusted judgementally to equate them to the total import requirements. (6) A second set of commodities comprises those produced in substantial quantitites in both the DMEs and the developing countries but for which the latter have been traditionally substantial net exporters (mainly sugar, vegetable oils and oilseeds, citrus, tobacco, cotton). DME production trends of some of these commodities, particularly sugar and oiTseeds, have been strong resulting in import substitution and declining net imports from the developing countries. If these production trends continued, net DME imports from the developing countries of some of these commodities would decline further and the DMEs could turn into net exporters. Assumptions were therefore introduced that farm protection policies in the DMEs would be adjusted to check production growth so as to enable the developing countries to continue to be net exporters. No radical departures from past trends in the net exports of the developing countries are, however, incorporated into these assumptions. The results, which in practice reflect the above assumptions for the DMEs as well as those concerning export availabilities of the major developing exporters, are shown in Table 3.8. It is emphasized that these assumptions reflect present evaluations of possible policy stances as revealed by past trends in policies. As such they represent only one possible trade outcome and the scope for different results for some of these commodities is very wide, particularly for those in which the developing countries are Tow cost producers, e.g. sugar. In such cases the outcome is overwhelmingly determined by the farm protection policies of the major DME consumers and producers. Therefore, a much higher degree of uncertainty applies to these trade projections compared with those of the other commodities. (7) The last group of commodities comprises those for which the developing countries and the European CPEs are major importers and the DMEs are the major suppliers of these imports (mainly wheat, coarse grains, milk). For these commodities, the net exports of the developing exporters are determined first (step 2, above) and subsequently the net export balances resulting from the trend projections of the DMEs are confronted with the remaining deficits of the developing importers and the CPEs. As discussed in Chapter 3, these projected DME export balances generally exceed the import requirements of the rest of the world. The final step of this analysis computes the extent to which the production trends of the DMEs must be modified for world balance. At this stage the projections of demand, production and trade are complete: there is one projected SUA for each country and commodity and world imports equal world exports. These projections are, however, still provisional pending a more detailed evaluation of the feasibility of the production projections of the developing countries. 147

OCR for page 140
TABLE 3.7 Cereals in the Developing Countries: Production, Demand, Net Balances and Self-Sufficiency. D emend Net Per Caput Total Production Balance kg million tons Growth Rates SSR Period Demand Prod'n percent percent p.a. 94 Developing Countries 69/71 190 491 480 -17 98 61-70 3.6 4.0 83/85 234 820 762 -61 93 70-85 3.8 3.4 61-85 3.7 3.5 2000 265 1250 1154 -95 92 84*-2000 2.7 2.6 Africa (Sub-Saharan) 69/71 142 38 36 -2 97 61-70 2.1 1.7 83/85 135 54 43 -9 7g 70-85 2.9 1.5 61-85 2.7 1.7 2000 148 100 83 -17 83 84*-2000 3.9 4.2 3/ N. East/ N. Africa 69/71 294 53 46 -6 87 61-70 2 9 2.5 83/85 372 96 60 -35 63 70-85 4.6 2.1 61-85 3.9 2.2 2000 395 153 93 -60 61 84*-2000 3.0 2.7 Asia 69/71 182 338 332 -11 98 61-70 3.8 4.4 83/85 231 565 559 -15 99 70-85 3.7 3.7 61-85 3.8 3.8 2000 266 830 811 -19 98 84*-2000 2.4 2.4 Asia (excl. China) 69/71 172 179 174 -9 97 61-70 3.0 3.1 83/85 190 269 269 -9 100 70-85 2.9 3.3 61-85 3.1 3.2 2000 211 398 380 -18 96 84*-2000 2.5 2.2 Latin America 69/71 224 63 66 3 105 61-70 4.3 4.2 83/85 269 105 100 -2 96 70-85 3.8 3.2 61-85 4.0 3.4 2000 309 167 168 1 101 84*-2000 2.9 3.3 Low Income Countries 69/71 180 324 317 -11 98 61-70 3.6 4.3 83/85 221 529 520 -15 98 70-85 3.6 3.5 61-85 3.6 3.7 2000 250 784 77 -14 98 84*-2000 2.5 2.5 Low Income (excluding China and India) 69/71 168 73 69 -5 95 61-70 3.1 2.5 83/85 165 102 95 -7 92 70-85 2.6 2.6 61-85 2.7 2.4 2000 176 167 153 -13 92 84*-2000 3.1 3.1 Middle Income Countries 69/71 215 168 163 -6 98 61-70 3.7 3.4 83/85 263 291 242 -46 83 70-85 4.1 3.0 61-85 4.0 3.1 2000 295 465 384 -81 83 84*-2000 3.0 2.9 84* = average for 1983/85; rice is included in terms of milled. 1Demand is for all food and non-food uses, e.g. feed, seed etc., but excludes stock changes. For this reason, the sum-total of production and net trade in the historical data is not identical to domestic demand. 2Net cereal deficits for all the developing countries including the smaller ones not covered in the group of 94 are 20 and 69 million tons for 69/71 and 83/85, respectively. The projected deficit should, therefore, be increased by some 15 million tons to cover all the developing countries. 3Africa's growth rate of cereals production would be 3.3 percent per annum if measured from the post-drought production achieved in 1985. 148

OCR for page 140
Evaluation of Production Projections (8) For each developing country (excluding China) the base year data set is expanded to include a complete description of crop and livestock production systems in terms of the main parameters. For crops this is a matrix (size 33 x 21) with data on area, yield and production of each crop in each of the 6 agro-ecological land categories (described in Chapter 4, paragraph 4.263. In steps 1 and 2 (above) the crop production projections were specified only in terms of aggregate production and occasionally also in terms of area and yields, total not by land classes. The more detailed production analysis is therefore concerned with evaluation of these production projections in terms of land and yield by agro-ecological class. This is equivalent to creating for 2000 a matrix similar to that of the base year. In doing so certain land and yield constraints by agro-ecological class have to be respected. (9) For this purpose two additional data sets are used. The first one (land data set) has data for each country of potential agricultural land by class and how much of it is used in the base year. The second (global technology data set) comes from a survey of yields prevailing in different parts of the developing world and the inputs associated with such yields in each of the agro-ecological classes. This is done judgementally and iteratively by specialists on different countries and on crop production. Assumptions are first made of what are feasible rates of harvested land expansion by agro-ecological class (through use of more land from the reserves and or through increased cropping intensities, including expansion of irrigation). Similar assumptions are made for yield increases and the land allocation to each crop. Since a multitucle of detailed assumptions and different specialists are involved, continuous iterative computations of the whole system are made to ensure that the constraints of land availability and the ant] the permissible levels of increases (both by land cIass) are respected.) The end result is that either the initial production target is accepted or is revised downwards for some crops because land resources (of the required class, where applicable) are not sufficient or because it requires yield increases considered by the specialists to be beyond achievement by 2000 even under reasonably improved policies. (lO)Similar production analysis procedures are applied to the livestock production, except that the relevant parameters are animal numbers and yields (off-take rates, carcass weight, milk yields, eggs per laying hen) for the livestock species considered. Final Adjustments for the commodities and countries for which the provisional production "targets" had to be lowered during the feasibility tests, the resulting import requirements would be higher than originally estimated. It results, therefore, that the provisional world balance achieved in steps 1 to 7 is disturbed. A final iteration is made to adjust production and trade balances of other countries to make up the shortfall in production in the developing countries whose initial provisional "targets" were found to be infeasible. At this stage, the world demand, production and trade picture is completely quan- tified. The remaining steps in the analysis are concerned with quantifying the projected requirements of the developing countries for inputs and investments as well as the mecha- nization/employment implications. ~ A more formal description of the procedures presented here is to be found in a paper "Crop Production and Input Requirements in Developing Countries"' published in the 1983 issue of the European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 10, No. 3. 149

OCR for page 140
TABLE 3.8 Main Agricultural Exports, Aggregates for 94 Developing Countries Thousand Tons 61/63 69/71 83/85 2000 Sugar Exports 11,590 13,310 17,700 26,300 (raw equivalent) Imports 4,230 4,850 11,340 19,400 Net Exports 7,360 8,460 6,360 6,900 Oilseeds & veg. oils Exports 3,870 3,920 9,950 18,920 (oil equivalent) Imports 1,010 1,530 7,510 16,720 Net Exports 2,860 2,390 2,440 2,200 Coffee & products Exports 2,790 3,240 4,100 4,870 (beans equivalent) Imports 140 150 280 500 Net Exports 2,650 3,090 3,820 4,370 Cocoa & products Exports 1,040 1,220 1,560 1,990 (beans equivalent) Imports 40 60 90 200 Net Exports 1,000 1,160 1,470 1,790 Tea Exports 620 680 950 1,320 Imports 200 220 390 670 Net Exports 420 460 560 650 Tobacco & products Exports 440 530 770 1,010 (unmanufactured Imports 110 160 320 520 equivalent) Net Exports 330 370 450 490 Cotton (lint) Exports 2,100 2,580 1,990 2,300 Imports 470 640 1,110 1,600 Net Exports 1,630 1,940 880 700 Rubber Exports 2,120 2,840 3,530 4,700 Imports 330 500 740 1,080 Net Exports 1,790 2,340 2,790 3,620 Bananas Exports 3,410 5,000 5,900 7,350 Imports 300 370 380 470 Net Exports 3,110 4,630 5,520 6,880 Citrus & products Exports 1,210 2,280 10,330 15,960 (fresh equivalent) Imports 110 210 740 1,380 Net Exports 1,100 2,070 9,590 14,580 All above Exports 8,861 1,108 42,129 (S mill. current Imports 1,736 2,413 15,526 prices) Net 7,125 8,695 26,603 Total agRlculRure ltiXporbS 1d,Ub~ 1l,42d bb,664 ($ mill. current Imports 6,032 8,420 51,151 prices, growth Net 7,030 9,003 12,733 rates from values at constant 1979 prices) 150

OCR for page 140
Growth Rates, Percent per annum 61-70 70-85 83/85- $ Million Percent of Total 2000 Ag. Exports Value of Exports, Average 1983/85 1.3 1.7 2.5 7,238 11.3 1.1 7.5 3.4 2,708 1.4 -3.8 0.5 4,530 0.1 6.8 4.1 9,668 15.1 4.9 13.3 5.1 6,790 -2.0 -2.4 -0.6 2,978 2.4 1.5 1.1 9,555 15.0 1.4 3.9 3.7 475 2.4 1.4 0.8 9,080 1.6 1.4 1.5 2,738 4.3 5.2 4.1 5.1 241 1.6 1.3 1.2 2,914 1.1 2.4 2.1 2,035 3.2 1.4 4.6 3.4 960 0.9 1.1 0.9 1,075 1.5 2.2 1.7 1,956 3.1 4.8 6.4 3.1 1,434 0.2 0.1 0.5 522 3.0 -2.0 0.9 2,982 4.7 3.3 4.3 2.3 1,748 2.9 -8.6 -1.4 1,224 3.5 1.4 1.8 3,184 5.0 5.4 2.9 2.4 766 3.2 1.0 1.6 2,418 4.7 0.9 1.4 1,135 1.8 2.3 1.5 1.4 115 4.9 0.9 1.4 1,020 7.2 11.3 2.8 1,638 2.6 7.1 8.8 3.9 290 7.3 11.6 2.7 902 42,129 66.0 15,526 26,603 2.1 2.2 63,884 5.7 7.4 51,151 -3.8 -7.3 12,733 151

OCR for page 140
TABLE 3.12 Net Cereals Balances by Major Importers and Exporters1 1969/71 1979/81 1983/85 2000 Developing Net Importers -33.8 -87.3 -98.4 -157 Oil Exporters -5.8 -28.3 -37.3 -61 Mexico 0.2 -5.9 -6.2 Saudi Arabia -0.5 -3.1 -5.7 Algeria -0.5 -3.0 -4.3 Iran -0.5 -2.7 -4.9 Iraq -0.4 -2.7 -3.8 Indonesia -0.9 -2.6 - 1.9 Venezuela -1.0 -2.5 -2.9 Nigeria -0.4 -2.1 -1.9 Others -1.8 -3.7 -5.7 Other Net Importers -28.0 -59.0 -61.1 -96 China (incl. Taiwan -3.8 -15.8 -10.8 Province) Brazil -1.0 -6.3 -4.8 Egypt -1.1 -5.9 -8.2 Korea, Rep. -2.5 -5.7 -6.4 Cuba -1.2 -2.1 -2.2 Morocco -0.3 -2.0 -2.3 Malaysia -0.9 -1.7 -2.4 Bangladesh -1.3 -1.3 -1.7 Vietnam -1.8 -1.3 -0.3 Peru -0.7 -1.3 -1.2 Chile -0.5 -1.1 -0.9 India -3.6 0.4 -1.7 Others -9.4 -14.9 -18.2 Developing Net Exporters 14.! 21.5 29.5 45 Argentina 9.4 14.4 20.2 Thailand 2.9 5.2 7.1 Others 1.8 1.9 2.2 ALL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES -19.8 -65.8 -68.9 -112 East Europe and USSR -0.1 -43.9 -41.7 -30-40 NET BALANCE, ALL ABOVE -19.9 -109.7 -110.6 -142-152 DEVELOPED MARKET ECONOMIES 22.6 113.1 117.4 North America 49.6 129.4 118.5 EEC(0) -16.2 3.1 17.2 Other W. Europe -5.1 -11.1 -5.6 Oceania 8.9 14.6 16.8 Japan -14.4 -24.5 -26.6 Others -0.2 1.6 -2.9 1A minus sign denotes net imports. All quantities include rice in milled terms. 2Including developing countries not included in the 94 study countries. Countries listed separately had net imports of the one million tons or more in 1979/81, except for India. 3IMF classification of countries (20) in which fuel exports accounted for more than 50 of total exports in 1980 (IMP, World Economic Outlook, 1986~. 152

OCR for page 140
Input Requirements The crop production projections and the global technology data set described above are subsequently used to estimate the inputs required for the projected production. These inputs are: fertilizer (N,P,K), power in terms of man-day equivalents (subsequently de- composed into the parts to be provided by draught animals, labour and machinery), seed (distinguishing traditional and improved seed) and crop protection chemicals (in monetary units, given the great diversity of the products actually used). The input use coefficients in the global technology data set are specified as the amounts of, for example, N fertilizer required per hectare for a given yield in each agro-ecological land class and crop. These coefficients are made country-specific on the basis of data on total input use in the base year. Subsequently, total input requirements in 2000 are calculated by simple multiplication of these input coefficients by the projected harvested land areas. The above discussion covers the inputs into crop production. For livestock, only the cereals feed requirements are estimated, as explained earlier. In addition, in countries which use significant areas for cultivated fodder production, an allowance is made for future land requirements for this purpose. This is, however, done in order to complete the land use accounts rather than in relation to livestock production. It proved impossible to draw-up complete balance sheets of feed resources and uses, including grazing land, crop residues and non-cereal concentrates. This is an area for future improvement of the study's data base and methodology. Employment and Mechanization The methodology for projecting labour use and requirements of mechanization is ex- plained in Chapter 4, paragraphs 4.75-4.76 and it is not repeated here. A more formal description of an earlier version of the method was published in the 1982 issue of the Eu- ropean Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 9, No. 2, under the title "Power Inputs from Labour, Draught Animals and Machinery in the Agriculture of the Developing Countries". Some significant improvements were introduced in the present application. Investments The methodology for estimating investment requirements for the developing countries (excluding China) and the main items covered are presented summarily in Chapter 4. In the first place, the investment goods to be added to the base year capital stock of agriculture are estimated in physical units. Most of the required additions are taken from the projections of production and inputs which identify, for example, the additional land to be developed, to be irrigated, the additions to the tractor part and to livestock needs. These additions are the cumulative net investment requirements of the entire period between the base year and 2000. Subsequently, requirements for replacement investment are derived for the capital goods which must be replaced periodically. These are added to the net requirements to obtain estimates of gross investment. Once the estimates in physical units are made they are valued at average unit prices in $ of 1979/81 to obtain the investment requirements in monetary terms. The problems encountered in this evaluation (assumptions on unit prices, derivation of the $ values for more recent years) are discussed in Chapter 4, paragraph 4.97. 153