|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. 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 141
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 142
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 143
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 144
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 145
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 146
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 147
(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 148
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 149
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 150
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 151
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 152
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 153
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
Representative terms from entire chapter:
million tons
