Yugoslavia - Agricultural prices and subsidies case study (Vol. 2 of 3)

AGP- 8 DISCUSSION DRAFT Vol. 2 This internal working paper is prepared for Staff Use Only. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the World Bank. IMM AO CINTE YUGOSLAVIA: AGRICULTURAL PRICES AND SUBSIDIES CASE STUDY (Volume II: Annexes I-IV) AGREP Division Working Paper No. 8 Prepared by: ULG Consultants Limited in association with Economic Consultants Limited March 1977 AN NEX I C 0 NTENTS TABLE I-I Gross Material Product by Sectors - Yugoslavia 1-2 Economically Active Population by Sector and Republic - 1975 II-1 Characteristics of Social and Private Holdings in 1974 11-2 Number and Area occupied by Social and Private Holdings by Republics 11-3 Agricultural Land in Social Holdings 11-4 Persons Working in Social Holdings 11-5 Indicators of Growth of Productivity in Social Holdings. Social Product 1972 Prices 11-6 Production of Major Crops 1966-1975 11-7 Livestock and Livestock Products 1966-1975 11-8 Production of Major Crops by Region 1975 11-9 Distribution of Livestock between Sectors 1966-1975 II-10 Production of Major Crops by Sector 1966-1975 II-11 Sector Shares in Market Production of Major Crops and Vegetables in 1975. 11-12 Participation of the Social Sector in the Market Production of Meat 11-13 Participation of Social Sector in Commodity Production (%) 11-14 Distribution of Land Area in .Social Sector 11-15 Indicators of Productivity and Technical Efficiency in Sectors 11-16 Changes in Acreage Pattern in SR of Serbia (Individual Sector) 11-17 Cropping Pattern in SR of Serbia (Individual Sector) 11-18 Income of Peasant Households by Source 11-19 Market Production as a Proportion of Total Production by Sectors 11-20 Relative Importance of Sectors in the Production of Crops 11-21 Supply of Seeds to Cooperants 11-22 Cooperation with Small Holdings in Crop Production 11-23 Acreage and Production of Major Crops in Cooperation 11-24 Cooperation with Small Holdings in Livestock 11-25 Total Consumption of Food g I 11-26 Per Capita Consumption of Food 11-27 Income Elasticity Coefficients of Demand for Food 11-28 Balance of Agricultural Trade 11-29 Development of the Terms of Trade for Agricultural Goods on the Domestic Market 11-30 Development of Agricultural Trade from 1966 to 1975 11-31 Planned Annual Growth Rates of Aggregate Production in Agriculture from 1975-1980 11-32 Planned Production Consumption and Trade Surplus 1980 11-33 Objectives for the Development of Production of Major Agricultural Goods until 1980. III-1 Guaranteed Minimum and Realised Farm Gate Prices 111-2 Average Producer Prices in the Agricultural Sector from 1966-1975 111-3 Producer Prices and Guaranteed Minimum Prices between 1966-1975 111-4 Percent Customs Duty, Import Tax, Custom Evidence and Equilisation Tax 111-5 Social Product (Gross Value Added) of Manufacturing and Mining Industries 111-6 Distribution of Imports by Type of Import Control 111-7 Average Customs Tariffs by Production Sector , Chart I Organisation of the Domestic Agricultural Market GROSS MATERIAL PRODUCT BY SECTORS - YUGOSLAVIA* % Share % Share % Share % Share Growth Rate (Average) 1961 1966 1970 1975 1961-66 1966-70 1970-75 1. Agriculture & Fisheries - Total 30.2 26.4 21.2 15.9 4.68 0.13 3.3 - Social (4.2) (5.2) (4.4) 3.9 12.25 1.42 6.1 2. Manufacturing & Mining 29.6 34.4 36.4 36.8 10.79 7.28 7.7 3. Construction 9.2 8.7 9.6 10.4 6.47 8.28 4.0 4. Transport & Conmunication 7.5 7.2 7.8 8.3 6.47 7.93 6.3 5. Wholesale & Retail Trade 17.2 17.8 19.5 21.5 8.33 8.20 5.4 6. Uthers 6.3 5.5 5.5 7.1 4.96 5.15 5.8 7. Total 7.55 5.72 5.8 * Yugoslav measure Source: Statistical Yearbook, Yugoslavia 1971 & 1976. IBLE i-i ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION BY SECTOR AND REPUBLIC - 1975 ---------------------------------In thousands -------------------------------------- Agriculture, Industry Forestry Trade, Temporary and and Transport, Other Workers TOTAL Mining Fishing and Catering Activities Abroad Yugoslavia 8,890 1,575 3,965 846 1.915 589 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,374 225 648 112 263 126 Montenegro 173 27 75 21 43 7 Croatia 2.016 377 758 242 445 194 Macedonia 631 92 281 49 159 50 Slovenia 837 271 213 106 202 45 Serbia 3,859 583 1,990 316 803 167 of which: Serbia proper 2,703 401 1,450 217 534 101 Voyvodina 833 144 370 83 191 45 Kosovo 323 38 170 16 78 21 Source: SFuY 1976 TABLE II-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL AND PRIVATE HOLDINGS IN 1974 Number of Manpower Social Value of Tractors Number of Cultivable Wheat Maize Holdings 2/ Product authorized livestock area production authorized production authorized 1974 purchases head 1000-ha 1000 tons purchases 1000 tons purchases Hill. Din. 3/ 1000 tons 1000 tons Total 2,599,920 5426 73,721 37,613 195,125 5,799 10,007 6,282 2,671 8,028 1,176 Social Holdinys 1,944 207 22,215 17,388 25,125 509 1,509 2,423 1,734 1,328 693 Individual Holdings 2,597,976 1/ 5219 1/ 51,506 20,225 170,000 5,290 8,498 3,860 937 6,700 453 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Social Holdings 0.1 3.8 30.1 46.2 12.9 8.8 15.1 38.6 64.9 16.5 60.5 Individual Holdings 99.9 96.2 69r9 53.8 87.1 91.2 84.9 61.4 35.1 83.5 39.5 1/ Source: Statistical Yearbook of the SFRY 1971, table 107-3. 2/ In individual holdings: Estimated data of men and women who work mainly or periodically on the farm. 3/ Market production except production on individual markets. fABLE 11-2 N1R6ER AND AREA OCCUPIEO ВУ SОС1ц ANO PRIYAIE HOLDINGS 8У NEPUeULS KoaЫnats апд 5ос1а1 Fsras Agrlcultuгal Cooperatlres Prlvate 11o1d1ngs Nurfier Area 1п 11а. Nwber Area 1п 11а. Nuяber Area 1п 11а 1966 1910 �971 1966 1970 1911 1966 1910 1914 1966 1970 1974 1960 1969 1960 1969 SFRY Т15 270 481 1.144.869 1.Э21.14] 1.649,4Э9 1,714 1,102 81Э В90,169 618.15Э 421,900 2.618.000 2,600,000 11.109,000 10,U96,000 8os-11er: 2 25 48 99,1Э5 108.002 11Э.081 218 123 6Ф 79,Э10 50.791 21.755 456.000 498,000 1.75В,000 1.651,000 hontenegro 2 5 6 3,25G 21.Э12 2Э,286 50 20 9 26.Э29 5.1Э9 1.902 65,000 64,000 Э46,000 275,000 Croaela 55 11 74 Т00.926 Э15,Э1В 344.176 3Э1 209 188 Э8.901 29.924 19.751 65Э.00(► 615,000 2.Э54,000 2,OG6,000 hacedonla 48 41 48 205,798 255.112 268.8Э5 210 1]1 99 249.119 1Эб.78Э 119,]57 157,000 158,000 556,000 40G,U00 5lovenla 20 2) 29 48.760 49.915 47.658 7) 62 бэ 42.059 ЭЭ,3)4 26,Э54 195,000 180,000 1.Э18.000 1.150,000 5erD1a 122 128 282 405,400 671.424 752,4Э0 765 55) 110 451,749 Эб1.842 229,Э7В 1.09Э,0'JO 1.085,000 4,11),000 4,547.000 - Proper Э8 4) 11Э - 100.757 14Ф.112 478 Э11 255 118.548 109.ЭЭ4 66,192 682.000 694,000 Э.259,000 Э,214.000 - Voyvodlna 79 91 111 Э45,947 414,972 558.990 23� 178 1Э1 272.456 222.372 145,188 ЭОВ,ООО 28Э,000 1.082.000 951,000 - Kosovo 5 6 28 59,440 55.735 69,268 54 Э8 18 33.745 Э0,1Эб 17.Э98 10Э.000 108.000 4Э6,000 Э76,000 \` _.1 TABLE 11-3 AGRICULTURAL LAND IN SOCIAL HOLDINGS Total area cultivable land arable land pastures and gardens a) Total 1967 4,403,289 1,453,299 1,185,931 2,892,810 1970 4,427,947 1,489,309 1,231,035 2,881,593 1973 4,381,476 1,506,448 1,256,986 2,810,539 1975 4,402,730 1,535,142 1,276,951 2,796,943 b) Kombinats and State Farms 1967 1,171,678 873,480 767,859 274,363 1970 1.321,143 975,188 860,995 324,115 1973 1.511,530 1,059,392 973,287 427,112 1975 1,488,537 1,117,944 995,328 341,542 c) Economies of cooperatives 1967 832,053 409,382 328,088 417,262 1970 618,153 320,647 263,816 292,112 1973 .462,768 234,497 196,751 224,364 1975 394,312 209,804 174.908 181,795 Source: Statistical Yearbook of SFRY 1971 & 1976 JALE 11-4 PERSONS WORKING IN SOCIAL HOLDINGS Number of Total number permanent Agronom and technicians Veteri- Economists holdings of persons workers in with univer- with secon- naries with univ- with secon- working agriculture sity and dary school sity and dary school higher school higher school a) Total 1967 2.238 255,970 163,725 6,547 8.575 1,732 1,247 6,529 1970 1,929 202,325 133,107 7,454 8,891 2,316 1,175 7,728 1973 1,745 202,194 133,561 7,848 9,623 2,577 1,249 8,453 1975 2.363 206,470 140,619 8,476 10,253 2,741 1,258 8,780 b) Combinats and State Farms 1967 287 143,874 97,499 3,435 3,919 886 748 3,039 1970 270 .118,311 88,203 4,342 4,591 934 715 3,861 1973 306 127,349 94,477 5,009 5,898 1,028 803 4,711 1975 868 137,677 105,615 5,612 6,761 1,069 830 5,131 c) Economies of cooperatives 1967 1,600 95.026 56,936 2,122 3,870 718 448 3,169 1970 1,102 67,750 33,150 1.642 3,061 457 347 3,168 1973 832 52.441 25,504 1,272 2,364 334 295 2,740 1975 841 49,539 22,639 1,198 2,276 340 291 2,689 Source: Statistical Yearbook of SFRY 1971 & 1976 TABLE 11-5 INDICATORS OF GROWTH OF PRODUCTIVITY IN SOCIAL HOLDINGS SOCIAL PRODUCT 1972 PRICES Per capital unit Year Total Per cultivable area Per employed person Din/1000 Mill.Din. Din/ha 1961=100 Din/person 1961=100 Fixed Assets 1961=100 1961 4827 4161 100 20,197 100 848 100 1965 6561 4643 112 23,102 114 577 68 1969 8931 6088 146 42,938 213 461 54 1975 11369 7406 178 55,189 273 - - Source: SFRY 1976 Table 106-9 TABLE 11-6 Source: FAO Yearbook, 1967-1970 and PRODUCTION OF MAJOR CROPS 1966-1975 Statistical Yearbook of - Thousand tons - Yugoslavia, 1971 & 1976 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Total 85,590 23,965 .2,288 25,006 21.826 24,270 23,760 25,371 27,370 26,074 ereals 13,907 13 206 12 092 13,653 11 611 14,010 13,685 14 140 15,624 15,010 Wheat 4,601 4.2 4.36 48 T.M 5,604 4,843 4.750 6,28 4D0f Rye 176 171 138 135 127 134 120 118 120 98 Meslin 29 26 21 22 18 17 14 .13 13 11 Maize 7,980 7,200 6,810 7,821 6,933 7,443 7,930 8,253 8,031 9,389 4arley 713 606 450 459 402 464 487 676 794 703 Oats 386 363 295 308 309 312 260 298 353 368 Rice 23 20 18 28 32 36 31 32 31 37 Industrial Cro s 45702 40275 364 49186 32401 3.480 3712 3 933 4 751 4,632 Henmp for f1 i re 3M 2 7384 10 -iM 70 -i- 569 Sugar beet 4,030 3,680 2,910 3,636 2,948 2,961 3,274 3,338 4,300 4,213 Flax for fibre 12 10 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cotton 6 10 9 9 12 10 7 8 7 6 Tobacco S4 54 44 46 49 44 62 65 59 70 Sunflower- 282 250 309 390 264 347 277 434 298 272 Lops 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 6 6 5 Rapeseed 3 5 7 9 11 18 14 8 12 13 Other Crops 4 521 :4.121 4,093 4 373 4 230 4,222 3 650 4,418 4,562 3,733 Poatoes Y2w 7w ira Woo 7n?m ion Rn 2M394 Onions & Garlic 252 266 247 261 322 306 294 332 354 268 Tomatoes 333 322 323 328 313 355 368 412 415 355 Beans 216 199 175 192 188 173 154 197 178 166 Peas 13 14 13 16 17 18 15 18 19 12 Melons & Watermelon 481 520 445 432 400 418 413 485 469 538 Fruits 2,460 2,363 2 739 3594 2_S84 2 558 2,713 2,880 2,733 2,699 ATes --2T4 AT i 483 300 'ii 7 - -4T -7 D Pears 84 87 99 111 90 112 91 141 93 140 Plums & Prunes 723 705 721 1,292 896 817 972 615 682 950 Cherries 52 48 50 50 54 59 50 52 56 55 Peaches 47 54 48 58 57 62 68 68 69 63 Apricots 22 26 16 35 22 17 29 24 29 20 Grapes 1,230 1,050 1,270 1,499 1,101 1,096 1,139 1,450 1,080 1,029 Figs 26 23 20 20 22 18 17 16 14 15 lives 30 40 11 7 8 16 12 15 11 26 Walnut 32 29 39 34 34 26 51 29 1 TABLE II-7 LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS 1966-1975 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Number of Livestock, thousand head Lattle 5,584 5,710 5,693 5,261 5,029 5,138 5,148 5,366 5,681 5,872 Bulls for service 34 33 33 39 28 30 29 21 27 31 Oxen 653 663 682 652 592 563 522 474 476 470 Buffaloes 59 63 44 44 46 64 66 59 62 66 Pigs 5,118 5,525 5.865 5,093 5,544 6,562 6,216 6,342 7,401 7,683 Sheep 9,868 10,329 10,346 9,730 8,974 8,703 8,326 7,774 7,852 8,175 Horses 1,131 1,134 1,126 1,109 1,076 1,048 1,015 964 945 922 Poultry 31,685 35,153 35,974 37,142 40,854 44,954 44,584 49,206 54,685 54,991 Beehives 717 770 825 853 896 959 956 776 789 856 Products Milk (m.litres) 2,615 2,712 2,735 2,723 2,655 2,650 2,879 3,159 3,531 3,688 Wool (tons) 13,456 13,841 13,523 12,667 11,953 11,381 9,617 9,551 10,306 10,664 Eggs (million) 1,996 2,126 2,186 2,476 2,868 2,937 2,964 3,201 3,674 3,590 Honey (Tons) 3,910 4,564 4,286 5,075 5,095 3,991 3,568 5,419 4,694 3,774 Beef (th.tons) 227 256 292 275 245 263 266 272 309 330 Pork 287 .309 323 287 339 384 340 308 393 390 Nutton 48 50 59 55 48 52 50 50 49 56 Poultry 88 95 107 120 142 149 144 160 181 188 Total Meat 709 780 858 806 847 922 875 857 1,012 1,052 Source: Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia, 1971 & 1976 iABLL ,,L8 PRODUCTION OF MAJOR CROPS BY REGION 1975 SER BIA Bosnia - Monte- Serbia SFRJ tlerc. negro Croatia Macedonia Slovenia VoJvodina Kosovo Proper All Serbia 8000 '000 '000 '000 1000 '000 1000 '000 '000 '000 Tons Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Cereals Pheat 4404 209 4.7 10 0.2 783 17.8 287 6.6 138 3.1 1578 35.8 255 5.8 1141 26.0 2977 67.6 Rye 98 6 6.1 1 1.0 15 15.3 30 30.6 9 9.2 2 2.0 7 7.2 28 28.6 37 37.8 Barley 703 71 10.0 9 1.3 135 19.2 73 10.4 16 2.3 296 42.1 21 3.0 82 11.7 399 56.8 Oats 368 97 26.4 4 1.1 87 23.6 10 2.7 12 3.3 20 5.4 27 7.3 111 30.2 158 42.9 Maize 9389 699 7.4 49 0.2 2202 23.5 97 1.0 212 2.3 3586 38.2 228 2.4 2346 25.0 6160 65.6 Industrial Crops lem for fibre 52 1 1.9 0 0 6 11.5 0 0 0 0 39 75.0 1 1.9 5 9.7 45 86.6 flax for fibre 1.4 0.5 35.7 0 0 0.6 42.9 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 0.3 21.4 0.3 21.4 Cotton 6 - - - - - - 6 100.0 - - - - - - 0 - 0 - Sugar Beet 4213 26 0.6 - - 886 21.0 113 2.7 0 0 2817 66.9 55 1.3 316 7.5 3188 75.7 Tobacco 70 10 14.3 0 0 10 14.3 34 48.6 - - 6 8.6 2 2.8 8 11.4 16 22.8 Hops 4.6 - - - - - 0 0 - - 2.9 63.0 1.7 37.0 - - - - 1.7 37.0 Sunflower 272 0 0 - - 30 11.0 27 9.9 0 0 187 68.8 7 2.6 21 7.7 215 79.1 Other Crops Potatoes 2394 300 12.5 39 1.6 623 26.0 82 3.4 468 19.6 310 13.0 74 3.1 498 20.8 882 36.9 Beans 166 27 16.3 1 0.6 28 16.9 13 7.8 6 3.6 9 5.4 15 9.0 67 40.4 91 54.8 Cabbage & Kale 689 86 12.5 11 1.6 143 20.7 43 6.2 59 8.6 86 12.5 27 3.9 234 34.0 347 50.4 Source: Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia 1976 .ABL .1-9 DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK BETWEEN SECTORS 1965-1975 Number of Cows Number of Cattle Number of Sows Number of Sheep Total Social Individual Total Social Individual Total Social individual Total Social individual 1965 2,520,000 144,489 2,375,511 5,219,000 479,080 4,739,920 1,072,000 66,733 1,005,267 9,433,000 459,127 8,973,873 1968 2,855,000 115,225 2,739,775 5,693,000 327,847 5,365,153 1,024,000 71,607 952,393 10,346,000 313,772 10,032,228 1970 2,786,000 101,957 2,684,043 5,029,000 346,522 4,682,478 958,000 90,924 867,076 8,974,000 241,655 8,732,345 1971 2,774,233 101,957 2,672,276 5,137,923 346,522 4,791,401 1,120,368 90,924 1,029,444 8,703,0142 241,655 8,461,387 1972 2,785,811 98,686 2,687,125 5,147,544 353,547 4,793,997 1,105,669 88,821 1,016,848 8,325,512 230,455 8,095,057 1973 2,920,713 93,139 2,827,475 5,366,270 414,217 4,952,053 1,161,397 85,606 1,075,791 7,774,442 217,344 7,557,098 1974 3,055,645 93,336 2,962,309 5,680,737 494,594 5,186,143 1,311,736 90,741 1,220,995 7,851,700 222,456 7,629,244 1975 3,195,060 94,563 3.100,497 5,872,207 412,765 5,459,442 1,374,970 92,535 1,282,435 8,175,160 230,024 7,945,136 Total = 100 1965 100 5.7 94.3 100 9.2 90.8 100 6.2 93.8 100 4.9 95.1 1968 100 :4.0 96.0 100 5.8 94.2 100 7.0 93.0 100 3.0 97.0 1970 100 3.7 96.3 100 6.9 93.1 100 9.5 90.5 100 2.7 97.3 1971 100 3.7 96.3 100 6.7 93.3 100 8.1 91.9 100 2.8 97.2 1972 100 3.5 96.5 100 6.9 93.1 100 8.0 92.0 100 2.8 97.2 1973 100 3.2 96.8 100 7.7 92.3 100 7.4 92.6 100 2.8 97.2 1974 100 3.1 96.9 100 8.7 91.3 100 6.9 93.1 100 2.8 97.2 1975 100 3.0 97.0 100 7.0 93.0 100 6.7 93.3 100 2.8 97.2 q. fABL- .11-l. PRODUCTION OF MAJOR CROPS BY SECTOR 1966-1975 1966 1967 I 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 SOCIAL 000 '000 1000 000 000 0000 '000 0000 '000 '000 SECTOR Tons Growth Tons Growth Tons Growth Tons Growth Tons Growth Tons Growth Tons Growth Tons Growth Tons Growth Tons Cereal PNheat 1403 8.6 1524 8.1 1647 9.5 1804 -21.2 1422 38.9 1975 -7.9 1819 -2.8 1768 37.0 2423 -28.2 1739 Barley 236 -31.4 162 -33.3 108 -3.7 104 -16.4 87 49.4 130 20.8 157 60.1 252 15.9 292 -16.8 243 Maize 1173 23.0 1270 0.8 1280 -1.6 1259 -17.0 1045 26.7 1324 1.7 1347 1.3 1364 -2.6 1328 19.4 1586 Industrial Crops Hemp 184 -20.1 147 -81.6 27 51.8 41 53.6 63 -11.1 56 -21.4 44 0 44 6.8 47 -27.7 34 Sugar beet 2375 -11.2 2109 -14.4 1806 10.1 1988 -9.1 1807 7.5 1942 22.7 2383 -7.0 2217 28.4 2846 -1.4 2806 Sunflower 171 -9.4 155 30.3 202 24.2 251 -37.8 156 35.3 211 -23.2 162 29.6 210 -29.0 149 -11.4 132 Other Crops Potatoes 83 4.8 .87 -6.9 81 1.2 82 -18.3 67 6.0 71 -49.3 36 -13.9 31 38.7 43 -30.2 30 PRIVATE SECTOR Cereal Wiea 3197 3.1 3296 -17.7 2713 13.4 3076 -23.0 2368 53.3 3629 -16.7 3024 -1.4 2982 29.4 3859 -30.9 2665 Barley 477 -6.9 444 -23.0 342 3.8 355 -11.3 315 6.0 334 -1.2 330 28.5 424 18.4 502 -8.4 460 Maize 6807 -12.9 5930 -6.8 5530 18.7 6562 -10.3 5888 3.9 6119 7.6 6583 4.6 6889 -2.7 6703 16.4 7803 Industrial Crops Hemp 125 -8.8 114 -59.6 46 -6.5 43 0 43 -18.6 35 -25.7 26 3.8 27 -18.5 22 -18.2 18 Sugar beet 1655 -5.1 1571 -29.7 1104 49.3 1648 -30.8 1141 -10.7 1019 -12.6 891 25.8 1121 29.7 1454 -3.2 1407 Sunflower 111 -14.4 95 12.6 107 129.9 246 -56.1 108 25.9 136 -15.4 115 94.8 224 -33.5 149 -6.0 140 Other Crops Potatoes 3147 -13.8 2713 3.5 2809 9.0 3062 -4.2 2897 -0.6 2881 -17.7 2370 24.2 2943 4.8 3084 -23.3 2364 Source: Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia 1971 & 1976 ...A E .11 SECTOR SHARES-IN MARKET PRODUCTION OF MAJOR CROPS AND VEGETABLES IN 1975 Total Market Total market production 1/ market production of the Total Production Production 1/ in per cent of total social sector in per cent Product in in production of total market production 1/ Wheat and rye 4,502 1,961 43.6 65.4 Maize 9,389 1,510 16.1 58.5 Sugar beet 4,213 3,381 80.2 69.6 Sunflower 272 174 64.0 48.9 Tobacco 70 63.4 90.6 0.6 Beans 166 15.8 9.5 7.0 Potatoes 2,394 130 5.4 16.2 Tomatoes 355 57 16.1 24.2 Apples 370 132 35.7 90.2 Table Grapes - 53.6 - 62.1 Plums 950 64.7 (.8 19.9 Vine - 177 59.3 1/, Without individual production sold in individual markets Source: Statistical Yearbook, SFRY 1976. BLE 112 PARTICIPATION OF THE SOCIAL 'SECTOR IN THE MARKET PRODUCTION OF HEAT 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 ----------------------- per cent of total market production ------------------------- Pig meat 43.1 46.0 40.4 34.1 34.2 36.9 43.0 35.7 36.5 Cattle and heifer 33.0 30.4 21.9 24.6 25.0 23.9 24.6 26.8 24.4 Calves 17.9 14.3 9.8 6.6 6.3 6.8 13.7 8.8 5.4 Sheep 12.5 10.3 9.0 8.1 8.1 7.6 7.2 6.1 7.8 Poultry 77.7 77.3 81.7 80.4 86.1 88.0 86.7 82.5 79.1 Estimated from'official statistics TABLE 1-*13 PARTICIPATION OF SOCIAL SECTOR IN COMMODITY PRODUCTION (%) 1966 1971 1974 Wheat 65.7 67.4 65.2 Maize 43.7 57.0 61.3 Sugar beet 43.4 68.0 68.1 Sunflower 61.9 65.2 53.1 Pigs 37.9 23.0 26.6 Cattle 31.1 23.0 37.9 CROPPING PATTERN IN SOCIAL ESTATES Total area ---------Grains -- Indus. Fodder Year sown Total Wheat Maize crops Vegetables crops 1966 100 67.1 35.6 19.7 16.7 1.7 14.5 1970 100 72.2 48.7 18.8 17.7 1.6 8.5 1974 100 74.0 44.9 20.8 16.5 1.6. 7.9 Source: Statistical bulletin nos. 485, 692, 923 - Farming. Fruit and grape growings. TABLE 11-14 DISTRIBUTION UF LAND AREA 1N SOCIAL SECTOR Lroups of Distribution in number Distribution of agro estates by of estates % area in %. size 1965 1970 1974 1965 1970 1974 COMBINATS Up to 500 ha 23.1 21.2 39.2 1.1 0.7 1.5 500 - 1000 ha 7.4 9.3 8.8 1.4 1.3 2.1 1u00 - 2500 ha 22.7 16.0 17.9 9.7 5.2 9.6 250 - 5000 ha 21.3 23.8 16.2 18.7 16.3 18.7 Over 5000 ha 25.5 29.7 17.9 69.1 76.5 68.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 FARMERS' COOPERATIVES Up to 500 ha 80.1 75.3 74.7 22.3 16.7 15.2 500 - 1000 ha 9.9 10.7 10.5 15.9 15.3 14.4 1000 - 2500 ha 7.0 10.6 11.1 24.6 35.2 34.5 2500 - 5000 ha 2.2 2.5 2.7 18.3 19.0 19.5 Over 5000 ha 0.8 0.9 1.0 18.9 13.8 16.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL FOR ALL SOCIAL ESTATES Up to 500 ha 72.6 64.6 70.4 10.6 5.1 5.4 500 - 1000 ha 9.6 10.4 8.7 7.9 5.2 5.7 1000 - 2500 ha 9.2 11.7 10.1 16.6 13.5 15.2 2500 - 5000 ha 4.7 6.7 5.6 18.7 17.1 18.6 Over 5000 ha 3.9 6.6 5.2 46.2 59.1 55.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Statistical Yearbook 1961-1976 'TAbLc' III-Po INDICATORS OF PRODUCTIVITY AND TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY IN SECTORS Relative Yield Index (Average for all sectors.,= 100) Indiv.in Indiv.with- Indiv. in Indiv.wjth- All Coopera- out Coopera- Coopera- out Coopera- Year Sectors Social tion tion Social tion tion Yield of wheat in 100 kg/ha 1965 20.5 32.5 24.3 15.8 158.5 118.5 77.0 ' 1968 21.8 33.6 23.8 16.0 154.1 109.2 73.4 1970 20.7 29.1 21.1 16.5 140.6 101.9 79.7 1971 29.1 40.6 33.4 25.2 139.5 114.8 86.6 1972 25.2 36.5 27.8 21.2 144.8 110.3 84.1 1973 28.0 42.2 31.9 23.3 150.7 113.9 83.2 1974 34.1 48.8 38.0 28.7 143.1 111.4 84.2 1975 27.3 40.1 29.9 22.6 146.9 109.5 82.8 Yield of maize in 100 kg/ha 1965 23.1 44.9 34.2 17.1 194.4 148.1 74.0 1968 27.6 52.2 40.1 20.6 189.1 145.3 74.6 1970 29.5 55.0 43.0 23.2 186.4 145.8 78.6 1971 30.8 53.8 44.7 28.1 174.7 145.1 91.2 1972 33.3 55.9 45.6 30.7 167.9 136.9 92.2 1973 34.7 52.8 47.9 32.5 152.2 138.0 93.7 1974 35.6 57.8 49.2 33.1 162.4 138.2 93.0 1975 39.7 60.8 52.9 37.1 153.1 133.2 93.4 Yield of sugar-beet in 100 kg/ha 1965 329 379 265 224 115.2 80.5 68.1 1968 369 439 312 133 119.0 84.6 36.0 1970 346 394 299 202 113.9 86.4 58.4 1971 350 397 293 285 113.4 83.7 81.4 1972 413 459 353 326 111.1 85.5 78.9 1973 387 421 361 334 108.7 93.3 86.3 1974 412 450 376 353 109.2 91.3 85.7 1975 392 420 353 346 107.1 90.1 88.3 Contd. JABL .1-1t -6bnt- Relative Yield Index (Average for all Sectors . 100) Indiv.in Indiv.with- Indiv. In Indiv.with- All Coopera- out coopera- Coopera- out coopera- Year Sectors Social tion tion Social tion tion Yield of sunflower in 100 kg/ha 1965 16.7 19.0 14.0 113.8 83.8 1968 19.2 21.9 15.6 114.1 81.3 1970 13.6 14.9 12.02 109.6 88.4 1971 19.0 20.9 16.5 110.0 86.8 1972 16.2 17.6 17.6 108.6 90.1 1973 19.3 19.4 19.3 100.5 100.0 1974 14.9 16.2 13.7 108.7 91.9 1975 17.0 14.9 13.3 106.4 95.0 Yield of potatoes in 100 kg/ha 1965 73 114 73 156.2 100.0 1968 86 181 85 210.5 98.8 1970 89 166 89 186.5 100.0 1971 89 197 88 221.3 98.9 1972 75 165 77 220.0 98.7 1973 93 189 92 203.2 98.9 1974 96 182 96 189.6 100.0 1975 75 134 75 178.7 100.0. Milk production kg per cow 1965 1,184 3,018 778 254.8 65.7 1968 1,196 3,482 798 291.1 66.7 1970 1,186 3,764 803 317.3 67.7 1971 1159 3692 1055 318.6 91.0 1972 1167 3937 1065 337.4 91.3 1973 1235 4000 1141 323.9 92.4 1974 1363 3956 1273 290.2 93.4 1975 1361 4090 1275 300.5 93.7 IAftE 11-16 CHANGES IN ACREAGE PATTERN IN SR of Serbia (individual Sector) Total available area = 100 Year Fields and Vine- Arable Agricultural Uncultivated veg.gardens Orchard yards Meadows area Pastures area Forests land 1966 66.4 4.0 2.4 8.0 80.5 4.5 85.3 11.7 3.0 1970 65.6 4.1 2.4 8.3 80.4 4.3 84.7 11.9 3.4 1974 63.7 4.0 2.4 9.5 79.6 4.3 83.9 12.8 3.3 CROPPING PATTERN IN SR of Serbia (individual sector) Total seeded area - 100 ---------------- G RA IN 5 I-ndus-t-r--- -GRAINIndustrral Year Total Wheat Maize Crops Vegetables Fodder 1966 79.9 27.2 44.8 4.7 5.0 10.4 1970 76.3 27.0 43.5 4.6 4.9 14.2 1974 71.9 24.3 41.0 5.3 5.7 17.1 Y(Aj) TABLE 11-18 INCOME OF PEASANT HOUSEHOLDS BY SOURCE Household Income Farm Off 1974 Total Cash Holding Holding - Dinar/year - All Farms 42,993 31,230 21,310 21,683 0 - 2 ha 35,229 27,746 11,233 23,996 2 - 3 ha 38,968 28,249 17,706 21,262 3 - 5 ha 42,854 30,449 22,238 20,616 5 - 8 ha 50,762 34,727 31,136 19,626 More than 8 ha 60,427 41,805 40,259 20,168 SOURCE: Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia 1976 M f 19 MARKET PRODUCTION AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL PRO0UCTION BT SECTORS 1968 1969 1970 1971 5 Total Soca Private Total S F I Private Total 5 oca Private Total So a Privat Wheat 39 66.9 20.6 43 80.3 20.4 38 70 19.9 35 68 19 Maize 15.5 41 9.5 15.2 62.4 6.2 15.3 56 0.2 12 40 6 Sugar beets 75 71.8 70.4 10 10.6 75.7 74 65 88 71 74 66 Sunflower 80 82.5 75 77 70 89.2 69 11 66 76 81 67 Pork 41 95.3 27.6 37 80.8 26.9 38 70 31 43 69 36 milk 79 76.9 9.3 20 79.2 11.2 21 81 12 22 81 14 1972 1973 1974 1975 Z Total Social Private Total Social Private Total Social Prfvate Total Social Private Wheat 39 11 21 39 77 17 42 72 24 44 74 25 maize 12 39 6.3 16 57 8.2 14 52 6.7 16 56 8.0 Sugar beets 79 66 69 83 89 71 71 72 67 80 84 13 Sunflower 70 73 66 I 82 15 72 75 68 64 64 64 Pork 42 if 34 32 63 23 39 67 32 42 - - Milk 23 81 16 24 84 17 23 83 17 24 - - RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SECTORS IN THE PRODUCTION OF CROPS ------------------AREA-------------------- --------------PRODUCTION-------------------- Indiv. in Indiv.without Indiv.in Indiv.without Year Social cooperation cooperation social cooperation cooperation Wheat 1965 17.4 21.6 61.0 27.4 25.5 47.1 1968 24.3 17.8 57.9 37.8 19.5 42.7 1970 26.7 17.4 55.9 37.5 17.8 44.7 1973 24.7 11.2 64.1 37.2 12.8 50.0 1975 26.9 11.6 61.5 39.5 12.7 47.8 Maize 1965 7.9 23.0 69.1 15.2 33.8 51.0 1968 10.0 20.1 69.9 18.8. 29.2 52.0 1970 8.1 18.5 73.4 15.1 27.0 57.9 1973 10.9 13.9 75.2 16.5 19.2 64.3 1975 11.0 16.3 72.7 16.9 21.7 61.4 Sugar- 1965 58.6 34.2 7.2 67.5 27.6 4.9 beet 1968 52.1 42.5 5.4 62.1 36.0 1.9 1970 53.9 42.0 4.1 61.3 36.3 2.4 1973 66.9 32.5 0.6 66.4 30.1 3.5 1975 62.2 31.6 6.2 66.6 29.0 4.4 Sunflower 1965 52.8 47.2 60.4 39.6 1966 57.3 42.7 65.4 34.6 1970 53.8 46.2 59.0 41.0 1973 48.3 51.7 48.4 51.6 1975 45.7 54.3 48.5 51.5 Potatoes 1965 1.5 98.5 2.2 97.8 1966 1.3 98.7 2.8 97.2 1970 1.2 98.8 2.3 97.7 1973 0.5 99.5 1.0 99.0 1975 0.7 99.3 1.3 98.7 TABLE 11-21 Supply of seeds to cooperants Seeds in tons Fruit Grafts and Fertilisers Chemicals for Work adimals Concentrate feed Year Wheat Maize trees Residues in in 000 tons plant protection in 000 tons in 000 000 in 000 tons Cattle Pigs Sheep 1971 71106 14188 3229 1209 922 9130 19421 24657 10644 582 1972 66492 18446 1275 1150 1067 9843 6788 16247 3157 573 1973 70284 16787 2008 2642 1138 10601 64040 23672 15719 548 1974 72863 11532 1289 4178 1106 10393 15399 17249 22535 625 1975 72703 12557 1645 4809 1143 10703 TABLE 11-22 COOPERATION WITH SMALL HOLDINGS IN CROP PRODUCTION Year No.of co- Volume of work done on small holdings by machines of social estates operants Ordinary Deep plough- Trushing Ousting Treshing Spraying Spraying in 000 ploughing ing and of seeds Seeding rolling Harvesting in 000 of fruit of vine- and stubble trenching in tons singling tons trees in yards in ploughing in 000 ha 000 tons ha in 000 ha 1971 671 366 261 1560 372 18 308 1188 660 389 1972 611 224 166 1580 307 16 316 977 684 192 1973 530 270 165 1526 308 10 269 836 188 528 1974 524 213 126 580 236 10 276 996 201 333 1975 527 242 182 990 281 12 255 763 122 423 .ABLL -23 ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION OF MAJOR CROPS IN COOPERATION 1/ Year -------------heat --------------- -------------- Maize ------------ ----------Sugar beet------------ Harvested Yield total Harvested Yield total Harvested Yield total area in in 000 tons area in in 000 tons area in' in 000 tons 000 ha per ha 000 ha per ha 000 ha per ha 1970 320 675 21.1 436 1872 43.0 36 1070 299 1971 273 912 33.4 453 2024 44.7 30 871 293 1972 243 677 27.8 402 1832 45.6 23 814 353 1973 191 608 31.9 330 1582 47.9 28 1004 361 1974 209 794 38.0 327 1607 49.2 37 1382 376 1975 187 559 29.9 385 2040 52.9 34 1220 353 1/ Only cooperation under contract was taken into account. TABLE 11-24 COOPERATION WITH SMALL HOLDINGS IN LIVESTOCK - EXPRESSED IN 000 1/ No.of ---------------- CATTLE -------------------------- ---------------------- PIGS ------------------------------ coop- Fattened Fattened Baby beef Fattened pigs Fat. for Sheep Poultry Year erants Total bullocks calves over 350 Cattle Total Bacon for meat Lard Total Total 1970 318 394 62 212 114 5 1370 71 1211 87 42 23269 1971 331 414 71 237 99 8 1694 51 1554 89 61 23901 1972 287 422 70 230 112 9 1479 54 1367 57 1 23208 1973 275 531 86 295 145 5 1143 36 1064 43 17 26898 1974 273 517 85 274 153 4 1613 76 1525 12 4 35739 1975 312 419 104 198 106 11 1650 62 1574 14 11 36840 1/ No.of heads supplied by small holders under contractual cooperation. TABLE 11-25 TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF FOOD Total in '000 tons 1965 1969 1970 1974 cereals (flour) 3,713 3,644 3,534 3,665 wheat 3,080 3,116 3,039 3,192 maize 540 459 468 456 potatoes 1,230 1,282 1,270 1,403 beans 172 179 163 165 fresh vegetables 1,005 1,240 1,436 1,617 meat 521.9 618 630 791.3 beef and veal 121 174 167 215 pork 279 275 277 347 sheep 38 46 41 44 poultry 80 119 141 182 fat 277 330 356 420 pork lard 137 149 150 190 olive oil 3 2 4 4 other vegetable oil 121 159 180 210 butter 16 20 22 16 fresh milk (1000 hl.) 13,260 15,190 14,780 17,150 cheese 93 lOT 101 116 eggs 76 112 137 160 sugar 465 505 542 654 wine (1000 hl) 4,840 5,760 5,480 5,710 Source: Statistical Yearbook 1971& 1976. Table 124-1 TABLE 11-26 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF FOOD Kg per head 1965 .1969 1970 1974 1975 1985 Plan cereals (flour) 194.1 179.1 182.2 185.7 wheat 161.8 153.1 156.7 161.7 148 128 maize 27.7 22.6 24.1 23.1 potatoes 63.0 63.0 65.5 71.1 73-77 *75 beans 8.8 8.8 8.4 8.4 fresh vegetables 51.5 60.9 74.0 81.9 meat 26.7 30.2 32.6 40.1 37-39 52 beef and veal 6.2 8.5 8.6 10.9 8.6 13 pork 14.3 13.5 14.3 17.6 16.5 22 sheep 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.2 poultry 4.2 5.8 7.3 9.2 7.4 8 fat 14.2 16.2 18.3 21.2 pork lard 7.0 7.3 7.7 9.6 7.5-8 olive oil 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2) other- vegetable oil 6.2 7.8 9.3 10.6) 8.5-10 butter 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.8 fresh milk (1000 hl) 68.0 74.6 76.2 86.9 cheese 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.9 eggs 78 110 141 162 155-165 sugar 23.8 24.8 27.9 33.1 28-30 35 wine 24.8 28.3 28.3 28.9 Source: Statistical Yearbook SFRY 1971 Table 124-2 1970 and 1971 Documentation for the Social plan of Yugoslavia IABL, .1-2, INCOME ELASTICITY COEFFICIENTS OF DEMAND FOR FOOD FAO OECD Per Capita Yugoslavia 1976-1980 projections projections Consumption exports 1976-1980 Kq Wheat and Rye -0.2 1/ -0.1 (62-75) 196-185 -0.5 -0.01 -0.2 (75-85) Potatoes -0.2 1/ 0.4 (62-75) 74-70 0 (75-85) Sugar 0.7 1/ 0.7 1/ 31-37 0.5 1/ 0.05 Eggs 0.7 1/ 0.7 1/ 160-185 0.6 1/ Total Meat - - 44-50 0.4 0.4 Beef meat 0.8 1/ 0.7 1/ 13-13 Pork meat 0.7 1/ 0.6 1/ 17-20 Poultry 0.8 1/ 1.0 1/ 9-10 oil 10.5-13 0.03 Milk 140-175 0.4 1/ Semi log function Source: FAO and OECD Publications, Institute of Agricultural Economics, Belgrade. TABLE II-?L. BALANCE OF AGRICULTURAL TRADE U.mil.din.-US $= 17 d 1911 1972 1973 1974 1975 1. Export Food processing industries 1,194 1,107 1,608 1,742 1,794 Tobacco industries 557 566 577 717 1,235 Agriculture 3,985 5,128 5,895 5,005 5,260 Crops 536 421 1,202 1,697 897 Fruit 116 143 119 189 246 Livestock 2,673 3,852 3,735 2,027 2,938 Fishing 42 52 48 101 132 Domestic processing 618 660 791 991 1,047 Feed 4,369 5,676 6,780 5,670 6,370 Drinks and tobacco 1,049 983 1,024 1,338 1,762 Oils and fats 72 19 47 135 26 2. Imports Food processing industries 2,584 2,926 4,704 4,629 4,935 Tobacco industries 61 91 57 44 229 Agriculture 4,565' 4,152 6,628 11,426 5,716 Crops 2,565 2,137 2,467 6,147 2,287 Fruit 539 526 662 973 1,104 Livestock 1,206 1,213 3,035 3,873 1,813 Fishing 115 116 172 227 181 Domestic processing 140 160 292 206 331 Feed 4,923 5,130 8,496 11,154 6,674 Drinks and Tobacco 113 119 140 169 459 Oils and fats 826 715 366 912 1,779 3. Balance Food processing industries -1,390 -1,819 -3,096 -2,887 -3,141 Tobacco industries + 496 5 + 520 + 673 +1,006 Agriculture - 580 + 97 - 733 -6,421 - 456 Crops -2,029 - ,76 -1,265 -4,450 -1,390 Fruit - 423 - 383 - 543 - 784 - 858 Livestock +1,467 +2,639 + 700 -1,846 +1,125 Fishing - 73 - 64 - 124 - 126 - 49 Domestic processing + 478 + 500 + 499 + 785 - + 716 Feed - 554 + 546 -1,716 -5,484 - 304 Drinks and Tobacco + 936 + 864 + 884 +1,169 +1,303 Oils and fat - 754 - 696 - 319 .- 777 -1,753 -*TAL .11I-- DEVELOPMENT OF THE TERMS OF TRADE FOR AGRICULTURAL GOODS ON THE DOMESTIC MARKET . prices 1965 = 100 .1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 producer prices total 117 113 108 119 137 173 212 267 303 342 crop farming 103 102 104 108 115 155 182 195 263 326 fruit growing & viticulture 130 121 113 110 114 156 211 296 370 470 Livestock breeding 125 121 110 130 161 193 247 323 333 350 Wholesale prices Agricultural tools and implements 114 131 140 143 153 183 214 248 345 455 Building materials 115 137 139 149 173 207 233 263 370 515 Chemicals for use in agriculture 156 161 164 156 166 188 216 276 400 528 Retail prices Index of retail prices without food products 124 134 140 149 164 187 217 253 333 413 Agricultural tools and implements 140 159 169 172 190 227 258 292 385 512 Building materials 133 133 136 143 167 204 226 263 370 474 Cost of living index I Clothing'and footwear 126 140 148 161 177 200 231 279 345 421 Index of nominal personal i receipts 138 157 172 198 234 n.a. n.a. n.a n.a n.a Source: Estimation from Statistical Yearbook SFRY 1971 Table 121 and 122 TABLE 11-30 DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL TRADE FROM 1966 TO 1975 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1. Total Exports (m. dinars) 3,838.7 4,367.6 3,482.7 3,835.3 4,307.4 5,736 6,802 8,080 7,464 8,289 Agricultural products and Fisheries 2,654.4 3,095.2 2,451.1 2,648.0 2,741.8 3,985 5,129 5,895 5,005 5,260 Food processing industry 774.2 899.3 715.1 927.6 1,171.2 1,194 1,107 1,608 1,742 1,794 Tobacco and Tobacco products 410.1 373.1 316.5 259.7 394.4 557 566 577 717 1,235 2. Total Imports (m.dinars) 3,779.9 3,330.5 2,464.4 2,700.0 3,855.0 7,210 7,170 9,389 16,098 10,880 Agricultural Products 3,007.6 2,288.8 1,618.8 2,022.3 2,585.0 4,565 4,153 6,628 11,425 5,716 Food processing industry .755.3 1,034.1 838.3 647.7 1,233.5 2,584 2,926 2,704 4,629 4,935 Tobacco and Tobacco Products 17.0 7.6 7.3 30.0 36.5 61 91 57 44 229 3. Trade Balance (1-2) 58.8 1,037.1 1,018.3 1,135.3 452.4 -1,474 - 368 -1,309 -8,634 -2,591 Source: Institute of planning N TABLE 11-31. PLANNED ANNUAL GROWTH RATES OF AGGREGATE PRODUCTION IN AGRICULTURE FROM 1975-1980 Social Sector Private Sector Total SFRY 8.0 3.0 4.0 Bosnia 9.5 3.0 3.8 Montenegro 7.5 3.5 4.3 Croatia 7.2 3.9 4.8 Macedonia 8.0 2.3 4.0 Slovenia 6.0 3.2 3.5 Serbia proper 6.7- 3.0 3.6 Voyvodina 9.9 3.4 6.0 Kosovo SRS 8.0 3.1 4.0 Source: Institute of Planning, Beograd, and Social Plan of Yugoslavia, Draft, November 1971. TABLE 11-32 PLANNED PRODUCTION CONSUMPTION AND TRADE SURPLUS 1980 1000 tons Production Consumption Trade Balance Per Capita Consumption Kg Wheat and rye 6,200 5,900 30 C 185 Maize 11,000 9,500 + 1500 20 Sugar 925 925 + 0 37 Oil 315 315 + 0 13 Tobacco 90 55 + 35 - Potatoes 3,600 3,500 + 100 70 Meat total 1,250 1,080 + 170 50 - beef 375 295 + 80 13 -pork 490 440 + 50 20 - mutton 70 55 + 15 2.5 - poultry 225 223 + 2 10 Milk 4,350 4,350 + 0 175 Eggs 4,400 4,400 + 0 185 TABLE 11-33 OBJECTIVES FOR.THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCTION OF MAJOR AGRICULTURAL GOODS UNTIL 1980 '000 tons Production Plan Planned annual 1975 1980 growth rate Wheat and rye 4,502 6,200 7.5 Maize 9,389 11,000 3.4 Sugar beet 4,213 7,400 15.1 Sunflower 272 700 31.5 Tobacco 70 90 5.7 Meat 1,052 1,250 3.8 Milk (mill lit) 3,688 4,350 3.6 Eggs (mill pieces) 3,590 4,500 5.1 Source: Social Plan of Yugoslavia, 1976-1980 November 1976. Table III-1 GUARANTEED MINIMUM AND REALISED FARM GATE PRICES N.D. per Kg 1973 1974 1975 1976 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Wheat Hara 1.40 1.38 2.00 207 2.30 2.18 2.50 Soft 1.30 1.80 2.10 2.20 Maize 1.10 1.10 1.30 1.77 1.70 2.31 1.70 Rice (Unmilled) 3.05 3.59 3.63 5.92 5.85 6.96 7.00 Potatoes 0.74 1.63 1.10 1.20 1.30 2.09 1.30 kaw Cotton 7.30 7.31 10.00 9.56 12.10 11.47 12.10 Hemp 0.71 0.82 1.04 0.94 1.25 1.31 1.25 Wool 50.15 23.55 59.70 27.11 74.00 30.75 74.00 Cattle live 12.25 20.62 16.65 18.74 19.55 18.48 19.55 Young cattle 11.00 17.98 15.00 19.12 17.60 15.89 17.60 Pigs 9.35 13.72 13.50 14.69 15.40 15.60 19.50 Sheep 8.55 12.12 11.60 11.89 16.20 11.76 16.20 broilers 8.80 15.23 16.50 17.84 16.90 19.93 16.90 Sugar beet 0.37 0.35 0.41 0.42 0.51 0.50 0.58 Soya beans 2.70 - 3.50 - 5.25 - 5.55 Sunflower 2.70 2.71 3.70 3.09 5.25 5.31 5.55 Tobacco 22.00 19.96 26.00 26.65 34.00 36.17 34.00 Milk 1.98 2.12 2.34 2.39 2.81 2.86 2.81 1 = Guaranteed or minimum prices 2 = Average realised prices Table IIT-2 AVERAGE PRODUCER PRICES IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR FROM 1966-197"-' ' 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Wheat and rye private 0.86 0.84 0.91 0.93 0.96 1.24 1.33 1.37 2.05 2.21 social 0.93 0.92 0.96 0.95 0.97 1.28 1.37 1.38 2.07 2.16 sarley private 0.71 0.69 0.74 0.75 0.78 1.21 1.24 1.35 1.90 2.26 social 0.83 0.77 0.86 0.87 0.92 1.34 1.44 1.44 1.94 2.48 Sugar beets private 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.27 0.35 0.42 0.49 social 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.28 0.36 0.42 0.51 Maize private 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.59 0.73 1.11 1.16 0.99 1.73 2.30 social 0.68 0.65 0.66 0.64 0.78 1.12 1.18 1.15 1.79 2.33 Sunflower private 1.12 1.15 1.32 1.36 1.37 2.18 2.47 2.66 3.07 5.17 social 1.30 1.31 1.47. 1.45 1.49 2.32 2.63 2.76 3.12 5.55 ToDacco private 10.37 9.26 8.76 9.22 10.08 13.37 18.73 19.91 26.55 36.14 social 12.54 13.75 12.14 14.72 11.59 14.83 16.97 19.09 29.39 38.62 Potatoes private 0.57 0.53 0.57 0.52 0.60 0.66 1.05 1.60 1.14 2.00 social 0.65 0.59 0.67 0.62 0.65 0.76 1.25 1.95 1.65 2.60 Fattened pigs private 5.56 5.31 4.66 6.22 7.36 7.62 8.87 13.31 14.25 14.94 social 5.89 5.87 5.32 6.56 7.78 8.23 9.60 14.23 15.51 16.67 Fattened private 5.13 4.93 4.31 4.98 6.90 8.57 11.31 14.15 13.93 13.28 cattle social 5.89 5.86 5.23 5.95 7.77 9.56 12.94 15.65 15.38 15.70 Fattened private 5.93 5.83 5.25 6.33 7.95 9.77 13.47 16.31 15.44 15.41 young cattle social 6.61 6.75 6.23 6.95 &.47 10.57 14.65 17.52 16.55 16.89 Calves for private 6.54 6.83 6.14 7.68 10.16 11.84 14.92 20.67 18.76 18.51 slaughtering social 7.11 7.63 7.23 7.79 10.27 12.08 14.82 20.25 19.10 18.69 Milk private 0.97 0.93 0.92 0.94 1.03 1.40 1.92. 2.05 2.33 2.78 social 1.12 1.10 1.13 1.17 1.20 1.61 2.08 2.25 2.55 3.01 Eggs private 0.34 0.28 0.29 0.33 0.39 0.43 0.59 0.78 0.83 0.95 social 0.55 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.55 0.60 0.70 0.93 0.99 1.11 Source: Institute of Marketing, Belgrade. TAULL IIi-3 PRODUCER PRICES AND GUARANTEED MINIMUM PRICES BETWEEN 1966-1975 Guaranteed minimum price = 100 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1974 1975 Wheat 102 100 102 101 102 102 109 99 Maize 109 104 105 102 119 100 136 136 Young cattle 104 106 98 109 132 168 113 95 Hogs 113 109 99 121 143 147 109 101 Broilers 166 158 154 162 178 173 108 118 Milk 111 110 113 116 119 107 102 102 Source: Institute of Planning, Belgrade TABLE II-4 PERCENT CUSTOMS DUTY (a), IMPORT TAX (b), CUSTOM EVIDENCE (c), and EQUILISATION TAX (d) Ye.ar Product 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1. Wheat (a) - - - - - - - - - - (b) - - - - - - - - - - (c)- - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (d) - -3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL - - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 . Maize (a) - - - - - - - - - - (b)- - - - - - 1.7 2 2 2 (c)- - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I (d) - - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL - - 4 4 4 4 5.7 6 6 6 3. Beef (a) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 (b) - - - - 2.3 3.9 6 6 6 8.7 (c)- - 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i (d)- - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 7 7 11 11- 13.3 14.9 17 17 17 19.7 4. Pork (a) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 (b) - - - - 2.3 3.9 6 6 6 8.7 (c) - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (d)- - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 8 8 12 12 14.3 15.9 18 18 18 20.7 5. Tractors (a) 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 17 5 5 5 (b) - - - - 2.3 3.9 3.6 2 2 2 (c) - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (d) - - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 27.5 27.5 31.5 31.5 33.8 35.4 24.6 11 11 11 6. Farm Machinery (a) 21 21 21 21 21 21 14 7.5 5 5 (b) - - - - 2.3 3.9 3.6 2 2 2 (c) - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (d) - - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 21 21 25 25 27.3 28.9 21.6 13.5 11 11 7. Agric.Chemicals (a) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 iO 10 10 (b) - - - - 2.3 3.9 6 6 6 8.7 (c) - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (d) - - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 10 10 14 14 16.3 17.9 20 20 20 22.7 8. hedicines (a) 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 (b) - - - - 2.3 3.9 3.1 2 2 2 (c) - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (d) - - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 11.5 11.5 15.5 15.5 17.8 19.4 18.6 17.5 17.5 17.5 Cont'd. TABLE 111-4 (Cont'd). Ye ar Proauct 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 9. Fuel (a) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (b) - - - - 2.3 3.9 6 6 6 8.7 (c) - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (d) - - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 10 10 13 13 16.3 17.9 20 20 20 22.7 IO.Feeding stuffs (a) - - - - - - - - - 5 (protein) (b) - - - - - - 1.7 2 2 2 (c) - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (d)- - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL - - 4 4 4 4 5.7 6 6 11 1.Fertilizers (a) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6.5 (b) - - - - 2.3 3.9 6 6 6 8.7 (c) - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (d) - - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 TOTAL 4 4 8 & 10.3 11.9 14 14 14 19.2 TABLE 111-5 Social Product (Gross Value Added) of Manufacturing and Mining Industries Industry 1965 1970 1975 Coal and Coke 1,503.9 1,729.8 6,340 Petroleum 857.3 1,037.5 6,523 Iron and Steel 1,113.4 1,713.2 7,661 Non-ferrous metals 1,345.3 2,111.7 6,823 Non-metallic minerals 851.8 1,439.1 4,326 Metal products 5,744.6 10,454.9 34,162 Shipbuilding 536.6 943.1 3,012 Electrical equipment 1,525.1 3,109.9 9,510 Chemicals 2,233.5 3,973.7 13,796 Building materials 1,214.8 2,571.6 7,924 Wood products 1,964.9 4,150.8 11,545 Paper and pulp 676.2 1,114.4 4,198 Textiles and clothing 3,974.6 5,899.2 20,125 Leather products 803.5 1,241.7 4,691 Rubber products 383.6 623.4 2,064 Food and drink manufacturing 2,678.6 5,135.0 17,805 Printing and publishing 961.8 2,137.0 6,250 Tobacco manufactures 927.1 899.8 4,141 Motion picture production 61.1 103.8 225 Miscellaneous manufacturing 193.0 291.0 869 Total, manufacturing, mining and quarrying 29,560.4 50,680.6 T71 ,990 Agriculture 18,867.5 21,634.0 74,149 Other industries 31,087.0 84,892.6 251,698 Total Social Product 79,514.9 157,207.2 497,837 Source: Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia.- TABLE 111-6 Distribution of Imports by Type of Import Control Percentage of imports Liberalised Conditionally LB+ Global Commodity Licences Total Year (LB) Free (LBO) L80 Exchange Quota (DK Quota (GDK) and RK) Total imports 1967 16.9 24.0 40.9 54.4 4.6 0.1 100.0 1971 28.7 - 28.7 45.7 20.3 5.3 100.0 1975 n.a. n.a. 45.2 17.2 21.6 16.0 100.0 Reproduction 1967 24.7 34.4 59.1 39.9 0.9 0.1 100.0 Materials 1971 40.1 - 40.1 35.7 22.9 1.3 100.0 1975 n.a. n.a. 46.9 12.9 22.5 17.7 100.0 Equipment 1967 - 0.8 0.8 99.1 - 0.1 100.0 1971 1.4 - 1.4 79.5 7.6 11.5 100.0 1975 n.a. n.a. 43.5 32.2 10.5 13.8 100.0 Consumer 1967 9.7 15.3 25.0 51.6 23.3 0.1 100.0 Goods 1971 20.4 - 20.4 42.6 29.5 7.5 100.0 1975 n.a. n.a. 37.9 8.5 42.7 10.9 100.0 Source: "Yugoslavia: Devel6pment with Decentralisation", Table 12.3 updated by Institute of Agricultural Economics, Belgrade TABLE 11-7 Average Customs Tariffs by Production Sector INDUSTRY 1967 1969 1971 1975 Electric power - - - - Coal and coke 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.3 Petroleum 5.0 6.9 6.8 5.7 Iron and steel 6.7 9.8 8.3 8.4 Non-ferrous metals 2.3 3.0 2.7 3.3 Non-metallic minerals 9.7 10.3 10.3 9.9 Metal products 24.0 25.1 21.3 14.4 Shipbuilding 1.8 1.1 1.7 0.3 Electrical equipment 20.4 21.7 19.4 13.6 Chemicals 7.9 10.1 9.8 8.1 Construction materials 3.1 5.2 4.2 4.7 Wood products 6.1 7.9 6.5 7.0 Pulp and paper 7.8 11.4 11.7 9.8 Textiles and clothing 9.1 11.2 11.6 9.9 Leather and footwear 10.8 13.1 13.4 13.1 Rubber products 9.1 7.6 10.5 12.4 Food processing 4.6 4.8 3.8 2.2 Printing 7.3 12.3 5.5 2.7 Tobacco manufacture 16.6 11.8 10.8 10.3 Film production 2.3 6.2 3.3 3.8 Total industry 13.6 15.0 13.1 9.8 Agriculture 2.4 1.9 1.5 2.0 Forestry 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.4 Total agriculture and forestry .. .. .. 2.4 Overall total 12.3 13.9 12.1 9.4 Source: "Yugoslavia: Development with Decentralisation", Table 12.2, updated by Institute of Agricultural Economics, Belgrade. 〔 斗巡二 邊fj A N N E X II CALCULATIUN OF THE INCENTIVE AND COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE COEFFICIENTS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR Page 1. INTRODUCTION I 2. DATA BASE 2 3. METHODOLOGY 3 4. TABLES I - 46 Tables 1 - 3 Individual & Social Sector Wheat Production Calculation of the Nominal Protection Coefficient ('IIPC') 4 Social Sector Wheat Production FRY Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 5 Social Sector FRY Wheat Calculation of the Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 6 8 Individual & Social Sector Maize Production Calculation of the Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPCj 9 Social Sector Maize Production FRY calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 10 Social Sector Maize Production FRY Calculation of the Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 11 Social Sector FRY Beef Production Calculation of the Nominal Protection Coefficients (NPC) 12 Social Sector FRY Beef Production Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EP'6) 13 Social Sector FRY Beef Production Calculation of the Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 14 Social Sector FRY Pig Production Calculation of the Nominal Protection Coefficients (NPCJI is Social Sector FRY Pig Production Calculation of Value Added and the Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 16 Social Sector FRY Pig Production Calculation of the Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 17 Individual Sector Wheat Production Serbia Proper Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) is Individual Sector Wheat Production Serbia Proper - Calculation of the Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 19 Individual Sector Maize Production Serbia Proper - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 20 Individual Sector Maize Production Serbia Proper - Calculation of the Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 21 Individual Sector Serbia Proper Beef Production - Calculation of the Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC) 22 Individual Sector Beef Production Serbia Proper - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 23 Individual Sector Beef Production Serbia Proper - Calculation of the Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 24 Individual Sector Pig Production Serbia Proper - Calculation of the Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC) 25 Individual Sector Pig Production Serbia Proper - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 26 Individual Sector Pig Production Serbia Proper - Calculation of Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 27 Individual Sector Wheat Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 28 Individual Sector Wheat Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of the Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 29 Individual Sector Maize Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 30 Individual Sector Maize Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 31 Individual Sector Beef Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC) 32 Individual Sector Beef Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 33 Individual Sector Beef Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 34 Individual Sector Pig Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC) 35 Individual Sector Pig Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 36 Individual .Sector Pig Production SAP Voyvodina - Calculation of Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 37 Individual Sector Wheat Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 38 Individual Sector Wheat Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) 39 Individual Sector Maize Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 40 Individual Sector Maize Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC, 41 Individual Sector Beef Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Nominal Protection Coefficient (HPC) 42 Individual Sector Beef Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 43 Individual Sector Beef Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC" 44 Individual Sector Pig Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC) 45 Individual Sector Pig Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Value Added and Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) 46 Individual Sector Pig Production SAP Kosovo - Calculation of Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (DRC) ANNEX II Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION To assess the effects of price and subsidy policy on the agricultural sector four of the major agricultural products were selected for study. These were: a) Wheat b) Maize c) Beef d) Pig meat These products were chosen for the following reasons: a) Cereals are by for the most important crops occupying 70 percent of arable land and producing around 60 percent of total crop production. Wheat is the staple food of the human population, while maize, as well as being an important export crop, is a major input of the livestock sector. Wheat because of shortfalls in domestic production has frequently had to be imported. b) Beef and maize are two of the major agricultural exports, while in most years pig meat is exported in considerable quantities. c) Beef and pig meat are two of the major outputs of the livestock sector accounting for about 70 percent of meat production. d) All four products are produced by both the social and individual sectors. e) Data on production costs and returns were available from the Agricultural Economics Institute survey of the social sector for these four products over the period 1966-1975, where as this was not the case for some other major products. 2. DATA BASE a) INDIVIDUAL SECTOR For the study of prices and subsidies to be useful the incentive and comparative advantage coefficients had to be calculated for the individual sector as well as the social sector. The former produces ANNEX II Page 2 70 percent of the agricultural social product, farms 85 percent of the cultivable land, employs 96 percent of the agricultural manpower and owns over 90 percent of the livestock. However unlike the social sector no detailed data on the cost and returns from individual crop and livestock products is available. The Agricultural Economics Institute undertakes an annual survey of farm incomes in Serbia. This involves 12,000 farms and covers the three parts of Serbia namely Serbia Proper, SAP Voyvodina and SAP Kosovo. Because the survey covers such widely differing farming systems, levels of production and income it is generally considered to provide an accurate reflection of the performance of the individual sector throughout the Federation. To reflect the differing stages of development and farming system found in the individual sector the coefficients were calculated for: i) Serbia Proper ii) SAP Voyvodina iii) SAP Kosovo b) SOCIAL SECTOR Data for the social sector coefficient was obtained from the Institute's annual survey of production costs and returns of the major agricultural products in the social sector. This covers five out of the six Republics and while data is available on a Republic basis it is doubtful if the coefficients calculated would be very different. There is less difference in the land quality, production systems and technology between the Republics than in the individual sector. The Institute's survey obtains data from 16 enterprises comprising 87 units. This is equivalent to 12-13 percent of land cultivated by the social sector. The enterprises surveyed have 13 percent of pigs, 16 percent of beef cattle and 18 percent of cows in the social sector. The distribution of the units between the Republics is as follows: ANNEX li Page 3- Enterprises Units Serbia 7 45 Croatia 3 24 Slovenia 2 4 Bosnia - Herc. 2 8 Macedonia 2 6 TOTAL 16 87 c) PERIOD OF ANALYSIS It was decided to calculate the coefficients for the years 1966-1975 because:- 1) 1965 marked a change in agricultural price policy. The objective of the new policy was to enable farmers to obtain their returns from the market. Product Prices were raised very substantially and a wide ranging system of input subsidies and premiums was abolished. The coefficients enable the development of this policy to be followed. ii) Data from the Institutes survey of the social sector does not go back much further than 1965. When undertaking the fieldwork for the study the 1975 data from the Institute's survey of the individual sector was unavailable. As a result coefficients for this sector could only be calculated for nine years i.e. 1966-1974. 3. METHODOLOGY 1. GENERAL a) Calculation of the coefficients follows the methodology used by Bela Balassa in the West African study. b) As there are trade restrictions in the form of quotas for a number of products the duties alone could not be used as the measure of protection. World prices of the comparable item had to be established when calculating the incentive coefficients. ANNEX II Page 4 c) Because the data for the two sectors was obtained from different sources the calculation of value added could not be undertaken in the same way. d) As no detailed data could be obtained from the meat processing industries it was not possible to include in the calculation of the coefficients that proportion of the beef and pig meat which is sold as meat products. The coefficients. relate to that proportion sold as beef or pork. However, the food processing industry as a whole was one of the non agricultural industries for which the incentive and comparative advantage coefficients have been calculated. 2. CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (NPC) a) Wheat (Table 1 - 3) During the last ten years wheat has been imported in most years. Importation is under the direction of the Directorate for Food Reserves and as there is control of.imports the duty which has been 4 percent for most of that time has not been used to calculate the degree of protection. Instead the calculation of the border price and the NPC have been as follows:- i) fob prices Atlantic Gulf port of US No.2 ordinary wheat have been obtained for the years 1966/67 to 1975/76 from data published by International Wheat Council. These have been converted to cif Yugoslavia prices using known freight rates and converted to dinar prices using the exchange rates supplied by the central bank. ii) Farm gate prices from both the Social and Individual Sectors for the harvests of 1966-1975 i.e. corresponding to the cereal years 1966/67 to 1975/76 for both sectors were obtained from the Institute of Agricultural Economics' survey data. ANNEX II Page 5 iii) The farm gate prices were divided by the cif prices to give the NPC on the assumption that transportation and handling costs between port and consumer and between farm and consumer were the same. iv) When calculating the individual sector NPC the cif price was reduced by 10 percent as it was felt that grain produced by the individual sector was not of the same quality as US No.2. Evidence to support this assumption was that:- a) the farm gate prices were lower than those in the social sector, and the guaranteed prices reflecting a reported quality difference. b) the difference in guaranteed prices between grades A & B and C was around 10 percent. v) Actual cif prices were not used because:- a) the trade statistics are for calendar years and not cereal years, important when cereal prices change quickly. b) wheat imports may tend to occur towards 'the end of the cereal year when domestic stocks are running low. b) Maize. (Tables 6 - 8) The method of calculating the NPC was the same as that used for wheat. US No.2 yellow fob Atlantic Gulf ports was used as the basis for the border price. The fob price of Yugoslavia's own maize exports was not used as the -border price because maize may have been exported after harvest to obtain foreign exchange and then imported later in the year when supplies were low so giving an fob price which.did not reflect the average for the year. c) Beef. (Tables 11, 21, 31 & 41) Interruptions to the international meat trade in recent years have resulted in a lack of world price data. This has prevented the calculation of a complete series of cif Yugoslavia prices in the way ANNEX II Page 6 done for wheat and maize. A further complication concerns quality differences. A lot of the beef exported by Yugoslavia is baby beef for the EEC market and probably not comparable in quality to that produced by other exporters. To avoid these problems the border price used has been the fob Yugoslavia price of Yugoslavia's beef exports taken from the trade statistics. !As the social sector produces beef for the export market it was assumed to be of the same quality as that exported. However, the lower farm gate prices for the individual sector and discussions in Yugoslavia indicate that the beef produced by that sector is of a lower quality due to differences in breed and methods of production. 2 The border price therefore has been reduced by 10 percent in an attempt to make a fair comparison. Before comparing farm gate prices with border prices these must be converted to a dead weight basis and allowances made for the costs and margins incurred in slaughtering. The FAG conversion factor for Yugoslavia (1.93) has been used to convert liveweight to deadweight. In the absence of any available Yugoslavia data on slaughtering costs UK figures have been used taken from a series of official reports. In calculating the NPC, the transport and handling costs of meat from the meat packer and the port to the consumer are assumed to be the same. d) Pigs (Tables 14, 24, 34 and 44) The method of calculating the NPC was the same as for beef except that there was no reduction in the border price to allow for a lower quality product from the individual-sector. Unlike beef, the production techniques used are essentially the same in both 1/ The average price of live animals 6xported could have been used except most of these are for further fattening so the price comparison would not have been a fair one. 2/ Social sector beef production is based on a cereal diet and high rates of weight gain while that in the individual sector is based more on forage crops. ANNEX II Page 7 sectors and the quality of the product has been assumed to be similar. This is supported by the farm gate prices which do not show the differences found between the sectors with beef. 3. CALCULATION OF THE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (EPC) SOCIAL SECTOR (Tables 4, 9, 12, 15) a) Domestic Value Added Average production costs and returns data per ha was provided for wheat and maize and per 100 kg LW for beef and pigs. To enable the value added to be calculated the following adjustments had to be made:- i) The fertilizer subsidy was added back. This was taken to equal 20 percent of the gross cost i.e. the cost recorded in the production cost data was equal to 80 percent of the total cost. ii) The depreciation rates were doubled as those used in the survey were little more than the minimum rates specified by Government and unrealistically low. Rates used Rates used in in survey calculating value added Tractors 13 26 Combine harvestors 9 18 Other machinery 9 18 iii) Some of the cost centres used in the survey had to be broken down into their components, for cxample management and selling costs were split into salaries and wages 80 percent building depreciation 10 percent and office materials 10 percent. Drying costs were 80 percent materials (mainly fuel) 10 percent machinery depreciation and 10 percent wages. iv) Machinery materials were assumed to be 50 percent fuel and oil and 50 percent spare parts. Annex II Page v) Income from insurance claims was excluded. Non tradeables, which only formed a small percentage of the inputs were broken down into materials and value added as follows:- a) Aerial crop spraying materials 50 percent machinery 'depreciation 20 percent value added 30 percent b) Insurance materials 10 percent value added 90 percent c) Building depreciation materials 50 percent value added 50 percent The value added was assumed to be 30-50 percent wages and salaries. . Those material inputs which although traded domestically are not traded internationally were all grouped as "others - not traded internationally". All minor material items traded internationally were grouped as "others - not broken down'. The following additional assumptions were made in the case of beef and pigs. a) Concentrate feed costs were split into cereals and protein as follows: Cereals Protein Beef 87.5 12.5 Pigs 90 10 Cereals were assumed to be made up of wheat and maize in the following proportions 50:50 and 2S:75 for pigs and beef respectively. b) The costs of young animals introduced into the units for fattening were treated as non-traded items and broken down into their components. Annex II Pag"--,, For young cattle the breakdown was as follows:- Stock depreciation 10 Concentrate feed 30 Vet & medicines 6 Labour 17 Machinery .11 Fertilizer 11 Seed 4 Miscellaneous 11 TOTAL 100 while for young pigs the breakdown used was as follows:- Concentrate feed 70 Labour 15 Stock depreciation 3 Miscellaneous 12 TOTAL 100 However as the transfer from rearing to fattening units were based on market prices the above figures were adjusted for profit/or loss. This was done by assuming that in each year the profit or loss from rearing was the same percent of output as recorded by the fattening units. b) Value Added in Border Prices To convert the input costs from domestic prices to border prices the methodology was as follows: The duty was taken as the measure of protection for those items not subject to restrictive import control. This was done for: - fertilizers - protein feeding stuffs. - medicines - plant protection chemicals - fuel ANNEX II Page 1 - The NPC for all machinery items, which are subject to import controls was taken as 0.9. This figure is derived from data in the IBRD appraisal or IMT Tractor Factory Expansion Project. - For those items not internationally traded the NPC was taken as 1. * The NPC for the livestock depreciation was that calculated for the output in the year in question. - For cereal seed inputs the NPC was that calculated for the output from the preceding harvest, while for cereal feed inputs it was the NPC from the current harvest. i/ - The NPC for the minor internationally traded inputs i.e. hothers - not broken down" was the weighted average NPC for all the other inputs. With the NPC for the output already known the value added in border prices could then be calculated. 4. CALCULATION OF THE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (EPC) INDIVIDUAL SECTOR. (Tables 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, 29,.32, 35, 37, 39, 42 & 45). a) Domestic Value Added The actual.output per farm of wheat, maize, cattle and-pigs was recorded by the survey. Purchased wheat and maize seed was similarly recorded. The allocation of the other inputs was as follows:- Fertilizer, crop protection chemicals and miscellaneous items were assumed to be used only on the cultivated land 2/ and allocated to I/ Because the cereal year and calendar.years differ this NPC should be from two harvests. .2/ This is a reasonable assumption as little if any fertilizer and chemicals would be used on the permanent pasture, waste and woodlands. ANNEX II Page 11 the crops on a per hectare basis as were contract cultivation costs. Fertilizer costs were increased to take account of the subsidy in the same way as for the social sector enterprises Contract harvesting costs were allocated to cereal crops on a per hectare basis. The use of home grown seeds and feed was calculated from a breakdown between wheat seed, maize seed and feed provided for a sample of five farms in each area for the five years for which this data was available. To enable value added to be calculated the contract charges were broken down as follows:- Depreciation 25 Repairs 25 Fuel 10 Labour 30 Profit 10 TOTAL 100 The depreciation charge recorded by the survey was split between buildings and machinery on the basis of data provided by the institute for 1966 when this item was first included. No subsequent breakdown was available. Machinery depreciation was allocated to the crops on the same per hectare basis as for fertilizer etc. As with the social sector the depreciation charges were considered unrealistically low and so were doubled. The allocation of the costs to beef and pi production were somewhat more complex. Foagean buildin epreciation costs were allocated to beef production as o lows:- ANNEX II Page 12- - the proportion of livestock production i.e. meat to the total production of livestock and livestock products was determined. - this percentage was applied to the cost figures to give allocations to meat production. - This was further split down to give an allocation to beef production on the basis of the percentage of cattle output as a percent of the total output of meat from grazing animals i.e. cattle, sheep and horses. LConcentratp fan ~t, LEwere allocated to-beef in the 'ratio of These procedures were followed for each year in each region. In the case of pig production costs were allocated in the same proportion to output as found in the social sector. This was done because the methods of production are similar in both sectors. This simple procedure could not be followed with beef because, while the social sector production is based on intensive concentrate feeding, that in the individual sector is more traditional. The Institute's survey determines farm income and does not include any wage costs. However data on the annual labour requirements was provided as follows:- wheat 40 man hours/ha maize 140 man hours/ha beef 170 man hours/head pigs 65 man hours/head Using the survey data these were converted to per farm figures on the basis of a) hectares grown for wheat and maize and b) liveweight produced for beef and pigs. In the case of beef and pigs it was assumed that the liveweight of the average animal sold was 300 Kg beef and 90 Kg for pigs. The labour hours were then multiplied by the average wage for unskilled workers in the social sector, to give the cost per product for the average farm. ANNEX II Page 13 b) Value Added in Border Prices The procedure followed was identical to that used to convert the social sector data to border prices. 5. CALCULATION OF THE EFFECTIVE SUBSIDY COEFFICIENT (ESC) SOCIAL SECTOR Tables 4, 9, 12 & 15. a) Social Sector The EPCs were adjusted to take account oF the subsidy on credit which reduced the cost to around half the average rate. There were other subsidies received by agricultural enterprises. However it was difficult to obtain data about these let alone quantify them. These subsidies were: - Income tax exemption for investment in agriculture - Reduction of import duty on agricultural equipment not produced in Yugoslavia - Elimination of the dinar deposit requirement for foreign credits - Increase in foreign exchange retention quota. With the exception of the above items,social agricultural enter- prises receive the same taxation and subsidy treatment as non agricultural social enterprises. b) Individual Sector No adjustments were made to the EPCs for the following reasons:- i) The individual sector has received little i.n the way of credit during the last ten years. ii) It was not possible to determine whether farmers paid more or less taxes than other private sector enterprises. Further study is needed to obtain the necessary data, as farmers pay taxes on the basis of the production potential of their land and other individuals pay on the basis of net income i.e. gross income less costs necessary to earn that income. ANNEX II Page 14 6. CALCULATION OF THE DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (DRC) (Tables 5, 10, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 28, 30, 33, 36, 38, 40, 43, 46). a) Social Sector The value added was calculated in terms of the opportunity of the primary factors of production measured in border prices as follows:- i) Capital The average written down value of the capital invested in machinery, buildings and livestock was obtained by multiplying up the depreciation figures in border prices for each item. Therefore the machinery and livestock depreciation figures were multiplied by 5 and the building depreciation figure by 10. The average working capital investment was calculated by subtracting interest charoes, rent and depreciation from total costs and multiplying by 0.67 as generally more costs are incurred in the early stages of production. The working capital figures were then converted to border prices using the conversion factor (see below). The opportunity cost of capital was taken as 9 percent and this is discussed in section III C of the main report. ii) Labour The statistics show that in social sector agriculture 20 percent of labour was unskilled and that unskilled labour received 77 percent of the average wage in the period being studied. As a result 15 percent of the farm wage costs could be regarded as earnings of unskilled labour. This was shadow priced at 70 percent of its market cost and the derivation of this figure is given in detail in section III C of the main report. All other labour both farm and non farm was regarded as ski1&d and has been shadow priced at 100 percent of its market cost. The total opportunity cost of labour was converted to border prices using the conversion factor (see below). ANNEX II Page 15 iii) Land The opportunity cost of land ieach year has been taken as its value in border prices in ad lternative use. The alternatives taken were as follows: for w4at maize, for maize wheat, and for the little forage grown (0.03 ha per 100 Kg LW) for beef production an average of wheat and maize. The land required by pigs was too small to be worth including in the calculation. The calculation of the opportunity cost is described in section III of the main report. The figures were calculated for each year and included in the DRC calculation without any averaging. b) Individual Sector Exactly the same procedure as for the social sector was followed in calculating the opportunity cost of the primary factors of production with the following exceptions:- i) The farm labour was assumed to be all unskilled and so was shadow priced at 70 percent of the market cost. This assumption is unlikely to be completely accurate, but no data is available to enable any other assumption to be made. ii) No opportunity cost for the permanent pasture used for beef production was included. It was assumed that such land had no alternative use value. The land allocated for fodder production for beef was calculated in the same way that the forage production costs were allocated first to livestock i.e. meat and livestock products. The livestock figure was the split between cattle, sheep and horses. Both sets of allocations were on the basis of output. Conversion Factors In each year these are used to convert the labour cost and the working capital to border prices for use in calculating the DRC. The total material costs in border prices are divided by the total material costs in domestic prices for each product in each year and a simple average calculated as shown below:- ANNEX II Page1 Year Wheat Maize Beef Pig Meat Average 1966 1.03 1.02 1.06 1.10 1.05 1967 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.07 1.04 1968 1.01 1.02 0.99 1.01 1.01 1969 1.00 1.02 1.00 0.98 1.00 1970 0.97 1.01 1.09 1.11 1.05 1971 1.00 1.02 0.96 0.93 0.98 1972 0.97 0.99 1.12 1.23 1.08 1973 1.04 1.00 1.39 1.81 1.31 1974 1.17 1.02 1.06 1.21 1.12 1975 1.03 0.98 0.97 1.05 1.01 ;(01,"r0'AL aun. SOCIAL SECTOR WHEAT PRODUCTION CALCULATION dF TilE ACIonNAL PROTECTIOA COEFFICIENT (fPC) Table I a) Border Price Calculation US cents/Kg. Year US No.2 Hard Freight Rates Adjusted Freight cif Exchange Rate cif cif Winter Ord. Gulf-Rotterdam Rate Gulf- Yugoslavia ND/US Cent 3/ Yugoslavia Yugoslavia fob Gulf. Yugoslavia ND/kg less 10% ND/kg 4/ 1966/67 6.61 0.40 0.8 7.41 0.125 0.93 0.04 1967/68 6.17 0.48 1.0 1/ 7.17 0.125 0.90 0.81 1968/69 6.28 0.37 0.8 1/ 7.08 0.125 0.89 0.80 1969/70 5.33 0.62 0.0 1/ 6.13 0.125 0.77 0.69 1970/71 6.03 0.62 1.4 1/ 7.43 0.1375 1.02 0.92 1971/72 6.03 0.30 0.6 6.63 0.1600 1.06 0.95 1972/13 9.11 0.73 1.4 10.51 0.1660 1.74 1.57 1973/74 17.71 1.58 3.2 20.91 0.1559 3.26 2.93 1974/75 16.35 0.99 1.8 18.15 0.1655 3.00 2.70 19/5/76 2/ 15.37 0.52 1.0 16.37 0.1714 2.81 2.53 Source: World Wheat Statistics International Wheat Council. 1/ Actual recorded rates. approx 2X Gulf-Rotterdam rate and the same ratio used to calculate rates for the other years. flo allowance made for insurance costs as data not obtained. 2/ 8 months only. 3/ Average rate calculated from data supplied by the Central Bank. 4/ For comparison with wheat produced by the individual sector where quality is lower than that from the socialist sector. 10% approximately reflects the difference in guaranteed price between grades A & 8, and C. \ Inl'VIAI ANO SOCIAL SECTOR WkEAT PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION Table 2 COEFFICIENTS (NPC) b) Farm Gate Prices 1/ ND/Kg Year Social Individual Sector Sector Serbia SAP SAP FRY Proper Voyvodina Kosovo 1966/67 q 3 0.95 J' 0.67 0.51 0.74 1967/68 q 0.91 '/ 0.66 0.55 0.74 1968/69 4 0.96 9 / 0.69 0.62 0.74 1969/70 6s 0.95 ,e 13 0.69 0.62 0.78 1970/71 7 1.08 41 ,96 0.69 0.64 0.89 1971/72 /, 1.28 ,9 /, q 0.92 0.67 1.02 1972/73 1, 1.37 3 1.00 0.76 1.11 1973/74 1,3S- 1.47 1, 3 1.01 0.66 1.14 1974/75 ,o 2.21 ).70 1.48 1.14 1.19 1975/76 ),/4 2.49 ), ) n.a. n.a. n.a. I/ Source: Institute of Agricultural Economics Survey data. IN"DUf' r -D SOCIAL SECTOR WhEAT PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (NPC) Tous4 3 c). Calculation of the Nominal Protection Coefficients (NPC) Year Social Individual Sector Sector Serbia SAP SAP FRY Proper Voyvadina Kosovo 1966/67 1.02 0.80 0.61 0.88 1967/68 1.01 0.81 0.68 0.91 1968/69 1.08 0.86 0.78 0.93 1969/70 1.23 1.00 0.90 1.13 1970/71 1.06 0.75 0.70 0.97 1971/72 1.21 0.97 0.71 1.07 1972/73 0.79 0.64 0.48 0.71 1973/74 0.45 0.34 0.23 0.39 1974/75 0.74 0.55 0.42 0.44 1975/76 0.89 n.a. n.a. n.a. 50С1А1 SECTOR MNiAT PRODUCTIOH Fд► CAICULATION OF YALUE ADUEO AND EFfEC11YE PROTECTION COEFf'1C1Ef11 Е� РС) ТаЬ1е 4 Иеи dlnars ha 1966/67 1967/бВ 1968/69 i969/70 19)0/)1 1971/72 191?/13 (973/74 197•./75 1915/7о а Ь а Ь а• Ь а Ь а 6 а Ь а Ь а Ь i i� а Ь tlalue of Productlon - - - Gra1n 424з 1160 3954 з915 з�7 3525 Э1)0 �65 зз92 з200 5714 472з 57Э8 7264 6719 144Э0 12D1b 152JS 1070Э 12026 - StraЧ В5 85 16 ]6 56 56 68 68 51 51 64 64 51 5) 54 _W_ В9 _ 09 6Э бэ Tota1 4Э28 4245 40Э0 э991 386э Э581 з8Э8 31J3 з449 Э257 57)6 4707 5789 7Э15 6117 149В4 12105 16Э27 10766 12009f F1д[ег1д1 Costs - �еед 105 405 391 389 з87 Э84 397 3G8 422 Э1] 4Э5 410 516 427 532 674 592 1Э15 825 1115 Fert141ser 574 552 61Э 590 500 бз7 596 552 604 618 567 507 72?. бзз 871 7b4 96з 84S 1590 1ЭЭ4 Crop prakettlon cheлicals 45 4i 40 зб 46 to 5э 47 4r 49 бз s4 61 51 95 79 109 9о 107 15г Others (Not trsded 1п[егпаtlопаllу) 108 108 10з 103 108 10а BS 95 85 • 85 1з4 1Э9 109 109 182 102 э12 з1? Э59 Э59 11дch1nery (materlals) эе5 4ге 429 477 зе9 4з2 405 45о 41з 459 4s6 507 s2e 587 64з 714 097 997 1107 1Э19 (Depreciation) 502 550 560 622 191 S46 520 578 655 6t7 607 674 688 764 б78 75Э 95б 1062 1129 �1254 Others (not broken доып) 76 78 9Э 95 89 90 10Э 1рз 112 109 14з 143 154 150 185 19Э Т.Э5 277 Э26 Э76 Fue1 188 171 201 186 17е 151 186 165 196 ➢69 2zo 187 2зь 197 .�19 -_ 24з 1о0 зао 52а 4з1 То[а1 lrедааЫ es 2283 2Э41 Z139 2440 226В ?294 2)45 2Э48 24Э4 2з79 625 2616 Э014 2918 477 3602 4•t72 6238 61Э1 ЬЗОО � Уа1ие Аддед 2015 1904 1591 149Э 1595 1287 149з 185 1015 878 з153 2171 27)5 U97 Э296 11Э02 163э 11089 46Э5 5789 Agrlcultura) aages . 645 665 596 6Э7 72д 8В7 1009 1225 1)5Э 22э4 A4Justed Уа1ие Аддед ((or E.S.C.) 2177 17Э5 1765 1668 1181 7756 Т992 Э505 7цб7 y0gg ЕРс 1.о7 1.07 1:24 1.9о 1.16 1.45 о.бз о.г9 О.ь9 � О.ео Е5С 1.14 1.16 1.�i 2.12 1.Э5 1.55 0.68 О.э) 0.72 0.00 а= Jcmestlc prlces �- horder prices \ � Table 5 SOCIAL SECTOR FRY WHEAT CALCULATION OF ME DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (nRC) )966/67 067/68 1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1912/73 1973/74 1974/75 106/76 CAPITAI I/ licichinery 2790 3110 2730 2890 3085 3370 3820 3765 5310 6270 Working 1750 1990 1679 11117 2233 2132 2764 3205 3951 4176 Total 4540 5100 4409 4101 5318 5502 6574 7050 9261 10446 Opportunity Cost @ 9% 409 459 397 424 479 495 592 635 833 940 LAMIR Farm Skilled 548 565 506 541 612 754 858 1041 1490 1899 Farm Unskilled 6a 70 62 67 76 93 106 M 184 235 Ron Farm Skilled so so so 63 56 71 85 97 141 210 Tota) ---i93 626 i6i 744 918 1049 1267 1815 2344 Conversion Factor 1.0 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.06 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 1.01 Total 721 632 661 781 900 1133 1660 2033 2367 LAHO j/ (40) (1041) 14 608 (454) 1502 4007 3619 1685 Value Added ---7-- (Opportunity Cost) 2214 790 (12) 1099 1850 941 3227 6302 6485 4992 Value Added eorder Prices 1904 1493 1287 785 878 2171 4397 11382 11089 5789 Domestic Resource Cost Coefficient (ORC)r 1.40 . 131 0.43 0.73 t 0. 68 0.06 I/ Border Prices 21 Domestic prices J/ Waoics of unskilled lahpur equal :ppjx 15% total form wages. 'dpportunity cost Is equal to 70Z of the unskilled wage rate. Opportunity cost 0 f I I ki I led workers - warket wage-L INDIVIDUAL AND Table 6 SOCIAL SECTOR MAIZE PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (NPC) a) Border Price Calculation US cents/Kg Year US No.2 Yellow Adjusted Freight cif Exchange Rate cif cif foh Gulf Rate Gulf- Yugoslavia NO/US Cent 3/ Yugoslavia Yugoslavia Yugoslavia ND/Kg less 10% ND/Kg 4/ 1966/67 5.94 0.8 6.74 0.125 0.84 0.76 1967/68 4.99 1.0 1/ 5.99 0.125 0.75 0.68 1968/69 4.91 0.8 5 5.71 0.125 0.71 0.64 1969/70 5.39 0.8 1/ 6.19 0.125 0.77 0.69 1970/71 6.34 1.4 17 7.74 0.1375 1.06 0.95 1971/72 5.23 0.6 5.83 0.1600 0.93 0.84 1972/73 7.17 1.4 8,57 0.1660 1.42 1.28 1973/74 11.59 3.2 14.79 0.1559 2.31 2.08 1974/75 13.18 1.8 14.98 0.1655 2.48 2.23 1975/76 2/ 12.43 1.0 13.43 0.1714 2.30 2.07 Source: Economic Coniission for Europe 1/ See Wheat Table No. 2/ Part year only. 3/ Average rate calculated from data supplied by the Central Bank. 4/ See Wheat Table No. Table 7 INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL SECTOR MAIZE PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (NPC) b) Farm Gate Prices 1/ ND/Kg Year SociAl Individual Sector Sector Serbia SAP SAP FRY Proper Voyvodina Kosovo 1966/67 0.64 0.60 0.54 0.66 1967/68 0.63 0.58 0.53 0.59 1968/69 0.64 0.61 0.54 0.66 1969/70 0.64 0.62 0.55 0.69 1970/71 0.73 0.76 0.68 0.83 1971/72 0.90 1.07 1.05 1.10 1972/73 1.07 1.08 1.03 1.22 1973/74 1.24 ,6 1.11 0.93 1.17 1974/75 2.09 1.56 1.70 1.58 1975/76 2.22 ,Q n.a. n.a. n.a. 1/ Source: Institute of Agricultural Economics Survey Data Table 8 INDIVIDUAL AND - SOCIAL SECTOR MAIZE PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (NPC) c) Nominal Protection Coefficients (NPC) Year Social Individual Sector Sector Serbia SAP SAP FiY Proper Voyvodin'a Kosovo 1966/67 0.76 0.79 0.71 0.87 1967/68 0.84 0.85 0.78 0.87 1968/69 0.90 0.95 0.84 1.03 1969/70 0.83 0.90 0.80 1.00 1970/71 0.69 0.80 0.72 0.87 1971/72 0.97 1.27 1.25 1.31 1972/73 0.75 0.84 0.80 0.95 1973/74 0.54 0.53 0.45 0.56 1974/75 0.84 0.70 0.76 0.71 1975/76 0.97 n.a. n.a. n.a. Table 9 SOCIAL SECTOR MAIZE PRODUCTION FRY CALCULATION OF VALUE ADDED AND EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (EPC) !0/ha 1966/67 1967/68 1968/69 1969/70 1970/171 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 19/76 a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b E b a b Value of Production - Grain 4100 5395 3560 4238 3193 3548 4205 5066 4533 6570 5088 5245 6887 9182 7176 13289 138.0 16464 15894 16385 - Straw 76 76 48 48 47 47 44 44 47 47 42 42 3 3 20 20 17 17 40 40 Total 4176 5471 3608 4286 3240 3595 4249 5110 4580 6617 5130 5287 6890 9185 7 196 13309 13847 16481 15934 16425 Material Costs - Feed 84 84 123 162 156 186 130 145 128 154 140 202 211 217 234 312 2(2 486 391 465 Fertiliser 635 610 711 683 711 658 703 651 705 639 7 650 899 788 976 856 1225 1074 2121 1061 Crop protection 81 74 94 86 96 85 94 83 106 91 139 118 205 171 228 190 341 284 480 391 Others (not traded internationally) 154 154 180 180 119 119 224 224 276 276 270 270 160 160 271 271 316 316 198 198 Machinery (materials) 375 417 408 453 396 440 428 476 413 526 497 551 644 715 776 863 1154 1282 1405 1561 (Depreciation) 674 749 772 857 815 906 949 1055 1144 1272 959 1065 1302 1448 1370 1522 2099 2331 2143 2381 Others (not broken down) 84 86 88 91 91 93 115 117 184 185 134 136 247 245 246 246 524 535 587 575 Fuel 383 348 414 377 413 365 , 443 392 533 458 496 421 726 605 835 696 1411 1176 1647 1342 Total Tradeables 2470 2522 2790 2889 2797 2852 3086 3143 3509 3601 3371 3421 4394 4349 4936 4956 73?2 7484 8972 8771 Value Added 1706 2949 ( 818 1397 442 743 1163 1967 1031 3016 1759 1866 2496 4836 2260 8353 6515 8997 6962 7651 Agricultural wages 1271 1213 1183 1297 1542 1646 2185 2473 -3398 4253 E.P.C. 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.34 0.94 0.52 0.27 0.72 0.91 Value added for EPC 1866 995 653 1380 1242 2008 2808 2679 6997 7597 ESC 0.63 0.71 0.88 0.70 0.41 1.08 0.58 0.32 0.70 0.99 a , domestic prices . border prices Tab.e o0 NO/ha SOCIAL SECTOR MAIZE PRODUCTION FRY CALCULATION OF THE DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (DRC) 1966/67 1967/68 1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 1975/76 CAPITAL 1/ Machinery 3745 4285 4530 5275 6360 5325 7240 7610 11655 11905 Working capital 2167 2268 2138 2285 2774 2695 3872 5325 6530 7478 Total 5912 6553 6668 7560 9134 8020 11112 12935 18185 19383 Opportunity Cost @ 9% 532 590 600 680 822 722 1000 1164 1637 1744 LABOUR 2/ Farm skilled 3/ 1080 1031 1006 1102 1311 1399 1857 2102 2888 3615 Farm unskilled 3 133 127 124 136 162 173 229 260 357 447 Non Farm skilled 44 51 42 35 37 58 75 67 95 118 Total labour 1257 1209 1172 1273 1510 1630 2161 2429 3340 4180 Conversion Factor (1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 1.01 Total 1320 1257 1184 1273 1586 1597 2334 3182 3741 4222 LAND 1/ 787 313 258 (300) (382) 776 2672 9087 .8223 2482 Value Added (Opportunity Cost) 2639 2160 2042 1653 2026 3095 6006 .13433 13601 8448 Value Added Border Prices 2949 1397 743 1967 3016 1865 4836 8353 8997 7651 Domestic Resource Cost Ratio (0RC) 0.89 1.55 2.75 0.84 0.67 1.66 1.24 1.61 1.51 1.10 - - ___ V__ __ _ 1/ Border prices 2/ Domestic prices 3/ Wages of unskilled labour equal approx 15% total farm wages. Opportunity cost is equal to 70% of the unskilled wage rate. Opportunity cost of all skilled workers = market wage. Table 11 FRY SOCIAL SECTOR BEEF PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (NPC) Year Av.LW Av.DW 1/ Av.DW Value Value Slaughtering 2/ Value Ex Border NPC Farm Farm etc % turnover Meat Price 3/ Gate Gate Packer NO/Kg ND/Kg 1966 6.75 13.03 0.98 14.01 11.97 1.17 1967 6.59 12.72 0.96 13.68 12.31 1.11 1968 6.20 11.97 0.90 12.87 9.40 1.37 1969 7.05 13.61 1.02 14.63 11.38 1.29 1970 8.73 16.85 1.27 18.12 15.30 1.18 1971 10.86 20.96 1.58 22.54 20.53 1.10 1972 14.96 28.87 2.17 31.04 30.24 1.03 1973 17.50 33.78 2.54 36.32 39.54 0.92 1974 17.48 33.74 2.54 36.28 30.35 1.20 1975 18.84 36.36 2.74 39.10 25.79 1.52 1/ Lw x 1.93 FAO Conversion factor for Yugoslavia 2/ In the absence of Yugoslavia data UK figures used average 7% added for slaughtering etc. costs and margins. 3/ Fob Yugoslavia price used. Table 12 FRY SOCIAL SECTOR OEEF PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF VALUE ADDED AND THE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFrICIENT (EPC) ND/100 Kg LW Year 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) Ib) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) Value of Production - cattle 675 577 659 594 620 453 705 647 873 740 1086 987 1496 1452 1750 1902 1748 1457 1884 1239 - dung 20 20 23 23 23 23 13 13 12 12 13 13 12 12 11 11 29 29 25 25 Total 695 597 682 617 643 476 718 6560 885 752 1099 1000 1508 1464 1761 1913 1777 1486 1908 1264 Materials Grain 214 258 226 257 263 277 234 252 280 354 363 352 456 600 569 1094 677 816 778 837 Protein 31 31 32 32 38 37 33 32 40 38 52 50 65 61 81 76 97 92 111 100 Fertiliser 123 118 115 111 103 95 90 83 87 79 107 96 139 122 196 172 217 190 233 195 Seed 33 33 31 31 26 26 25 25 27 27 33 33 34 34 56 56 58 58 62 62 Medicines 31 28 30 27 34 29 31 27 35 30 40 34 45 38 73 62 72 61 91 77 Others(not int traded) 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 11 11 12 12 Cow depreciation 47 40 50 45 48 35 47 36 53 45 57 52 75 73 116 126 123 103 127 84 Machinery depn. 35 39 34 38 35 39 33 37 36 40 40 44 57 63 77 86 87 97 91 101 Hepairs 28 31 27 30 28 31 27 30 28 31 32 36 45 50 63 70 71 79 78' 87 Fuel 28 25 27 25 28 25 27 24 28 24 32 27 45 38 63 53 71 59 78 64 Others(not broken down 62 65 64 67 68 67 62 62 65 71 75 7? 102 115 148 206 165 174 173 168 Total 6414( 77 644 671 678 668 615 614 686 746 838 803 1070 1201 1450 2009 1649 1740 1834 1787 Value added 54 (80) 38 (54) (35)(192) 103 (54) 199 6 261 197 438 263 311 (96) 128 (254) 74 (523) Farn wages 136 135 134 130 145 166 219 297 350 382 Non farm wages 4 7 5 3 6 6 10 11 17 21 EPC - - - 33.17 1.32 1.67 - - - ESC - - - - 35.06 1.39 1.74 - - a = domestic prices b = border prices (\ I FRY S"ATL S-'"lR F' PR""-TIC. -LCI" 'ION -- TH"I 'iEST IES1 E C- COE ,El DRC ..blL New dinars/100 kg LW 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 .1971 1972 - 1973 1974 1975 CAPITAL 1/ Machinery 195 190 195 185 200 220 315 430 485 505 Buildings 82 206 268 235 254 232 475 565 736 747 Breeding stock 200 225 175 180 225 260 365 630 515 420 Working capital 449 444 431 425 524 605 859 1333 1233 1238 Total 926 1065 1069 1025 1203 1317 2014 2958 2969 2910 Opp Cost @ 9% 83 96 96 93 108 119 181 266 267 262 LABOUR 2/ Farrm - skilled 3/ 116 115 114 111 123 141 186 252 298 325 - unskilled* 14 14 14 14 15 17 23 31 37 40 Non farm 3/ 4 7 5 3 6 6 10 11 17 21 Total 134 136 133 128 144 164 i 219 294 352 386 Conversion factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 1.01 Total 1/ 141 141 134 128 151 161 237 385 394 390 LAND 4/ 28 (2) (12) (4) 3 5 63. 196 178 63 otal Valye Added 252 235 218 217 262 285 481 847 839 715 Opportunity cost) 252 235 218 2684437 Value Added Border Prices (80) (54) (192) (54) 6 197 263 (96) (254) (523) DRC - - - - 43.67 1.45 1.83 - - - 1/ Border Prices 2/ Domestic prices 3/ Wages of unskilled labour equal approx. 15% total farm wages. Opportunity cost is equal to 70% of the unskilled wage rate. Onportunity cost of all skilled workers = market wage. 4/ 0.03 ha/100 kg LW produced. Alternative use wheat and maize. SRY - SOCIAL SECTOR PIG PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (NPC) Table 1' Year Fan Gate Farm Gate 1/ Slaughtering 2/ Ex Meat Packer Border NPC L.W. I D.W. etc % turnover- D.W. value I Price 3/ ND/Kg ND/Kg 1966 6.22 8.33 0.63 8.96 10.08 0.89 1967 5.81 7.79 0.59 8.38 10.97 0.76 1968 5.29 7.09 0.53 7.62 11.32 0.67 1969 6.56 8.79 0.66 9.45 12.74 0.74 1970 7.79 10.44 0.79 11.23 12.04 0.93 1971 8.18 10.96 0.82 11.78 10.90 1.08 1972 9.60 12.86 0.97 13.83 12.83 1.08 1973 14.35 19.23 1.45 20.68 30.56 0.68 1974 15.26 20.45 1.54 21.99 24.35 0.90 1975 16.36 21.92 1.65 23.57 19.46 1.21 1/ L.W. x 1.34 FAO Conversion factor for Yugoslavia 2/ In the absence of Yugoslavia data UK figures used average 7% added for slaughtering etc. costs on margins. 3/ Fob Yugoslavia used Table 15 FRY SOCIAL SECTOR PIG PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF VALUE ADDED AND-THE-EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (EPC) ND/100 Kg LW Year 1966 1967 - 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 (alue (b (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (aI(b)L(a)k(b Value of Production Pigs 622 699 581 764 529 790 656 886 779 838 818 757 960 889 1435 2110 1526 1696 1636 1352 Dung 6 6 6 6 5 5 3 3 6 6 4 4 3 3 4 4 9 9 9 9 Total 628 705( 587)770( 534) 795 659 889 785 844 822 761 963 892 1439 2114 1535 1705 1645 1361 Materials Cereals 357 401 387 416 376 380 352 342 394 448 523 480 602 782 763 1526 968 1225 1103 1186 Protein 39 39 42 42 43 41 38 37 44 42 58 56 67 63 84 79 109 103 122 110 Medicines 10 9 13 12 14 12 12 10 13 11 16 13 20 17 21 18 26 22- 29 25 Others(not int traded) 5 5 4 4 6 6 4 4 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Stock depreciation 8 9 8 11 8 12 8 11 9 10 10 9 12 11 16 24 19 21 21 17 Machinery depn. 10 11 11 12 11 12 12 13 15 17 15 17 19 21 20 22 22 24 20 22 materials 9 10 9 10 9 10 10 11 10 11 12 13 16 18 18 20 20 22 22 24 Fuel 9 8 9 8 9 8 10 9 10 9 12 10 16 13 18 15 20 17 22 18 Others Int traded 17 19 20 21 20 20 19 19 20 22 25 23 33 41 37 67 47 57 52 54 Total 464 511 503 536 496 501 465 456 520 575 674 624 789 970 981 1775 1236 1496 1396 1461 Value added 164 194 84 234 38 294 194 433 265 269 148 137 174 (78) 458 339 269 209 249 100 Wages Fattening 37 40 36 43 48 58 73 89 101 119 Growing 36 39 42 39 41 49 61 71 96 110 Non farm 6 8 7 * 7 7 8 - 11 13 17 16 EPC 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.45 0.99 1.08 - 1.35 1.29 2.49 ESC 0.90 0.42 0.17 0.48 1.02 1.17 1.41 1.42 2.80 a = Domestic prices b = border prices IqOCIAI SECTo[ :U-,fIflN CAICULATION OF THC' .iC RESOURCES COST COEFF[ICET (DRC) Table16 I_ New dinars/100 kg LW year 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 CAPITAL 1/ Hachinery 55 60 60 65 85 85 105 110 120 110 Buildings 142 184 186 192 184 194 366 446 494 476 Breeding stock 45 55 60 55 50 45 55 120 105 85 Working capital 385* 394 365 375 449 504 647 1040 1066 1069 Total 627 693 671 687 768 828 1173 1716 1785 1740 Opp.cost 4 9% 56 62 60 62 69 75 106 154 161 157 LABOUR 2/ Farm - skilled 3/ 62 67 66 70 76 91 114 136 167 195 - unskilled 3/ 8 8 8 9 9 11 14 17 21 24 Non-farm 6 8 7. 7 7 8 11 13 17 16 Total 76 83 81 86 92 110 139 166 205 235 Conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 1.01 Total 1/ 80 86 82 86 97 108 150 217 230 237 LAND - - - - - - - - - Total Value Added (Opportunity Cost) 136 148 142 148 166 183 256 371 391 394 Value Added Border Prices 194 234 294 433 269 137 (78) 339 209 100 DRC 0.70 0.63 0.48 0.34 0.62 1.34 - 1.09 1.87 3.94 1/ Border Prices 2/ Domestic Prices 3/ Wages of unskilled labour equal approx. 15% of total farm wages. Opportunity cost is equal to 70% of the unskilled wage rate. Opportunity cost of all skilled workers = market wages. I.dble ii INDIVIDUAL SECTOR I41EAT PRODUCTION SERBIA PROPER - CALCULATION4 OF VALUE ADDED AU0 EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (EPC) ND/farm 1966/67 1967/68 19 8/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b. a b Value of Production 1649 2061 1489 1838 1331 1548 1237 1237 1225 1633 2152 2219 2309 3733 2335 6868 4033 7333 Ilaterials Seed 271 339 178 223 292 360 332 '386 367 367 506 675 643 663 738 1153 950 2794 Fertilizer 101 97 115 )1l 114 106 120 111 118 107 160 143 201 176 228 200 306 255 Plant Protection 23 21 25 23 28 25 31 27 30 26 34 .29 39 33 48 40 56 47 Machinery depn. 84 93 80 89 82 91 78 87 84 93 94 104 96 107 114 127 158 176 Machinery hire chges - depreciation .58 64 56 62 62 69 64 71 72 80 96 107 126 140 142 158 180 200 - repairs 29 32 28 31 31 34 32 36 36 40 48 53 63 70 71 79 90 100 - fuel 11 10 11 10 13 12 13 12 14 12 20 17 25 21 28 23 36 30 Miscellaneous 149 169 165 133 151 170 155 168 160 162 209 246 248 251 310 403 367 749 Total 726 825 658 732 773 867 825 898 88 887 1167 1374 41 141 16/9 Z 1J 1 Value Added 923 1236 831 1106 558 681 412 339 44 746 985 645 948 656 Labour - farm 154 158 154 163 173 209 279 403 450 - machinery hire 35 33 30 38 43 59 76 CS 108 E.P.C. 0.75 0.75 0.82 1.22 0.46 1.17 0.42 0.14 0.63 a = eomestic prices b = border prices iT '- IC INDIVIDUAL SECTOR 141EAT PRODUCTION SERBIA PROPER - CALCULATIOR OF THE DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (DRC) NO/farm 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 CAPITAL I/ Machinery 785 755 600 790 865 1056 1235 1425 1880 Working 544 497 556 592 662 817 1139 1677 1773 Total 1329 1252 1356 1302 1521 1872 2374 3102 3653 Opportunity Cost 9 95 120 13 122 124 137 168 214 279 329 LABOUR 2 Farm 3f 108 110 101 114 122 146 195 203 315 Non Farm 35 33 )8 38 43 59 76 05 1Of Total 143 143 145 152 166 205 211 368 423 Conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 Total 150 149 146 152 173 201 293 482 414 LAND 866 450 371 697 773 676 1680 3179 3293 Value Added 1136 112 f.39 97n t081 Inak 21f7 al e-A Value Added Border Prices 1236 1106 681 339 746 845 2272 4685 2902 Domestic Resource Cost DRC 0.92 0.64 0.94 2.01 1.45 1.24 0.96 0.04 1.31 / border Prices 2/ Domestlc prices 3J Opportunity Cost 70% market wage ITat - 19 INDIVIOUAL SECTOR MAIZE PRODUCTION SERBIA PROPER - CALCULATIOU OF VALUE ADDED AND EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (EPC) ND/fanm 1966/67 1967/68 1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 a b a b a b a .b a b a b a b a b a b Value of Production 1896 2400 1599 1881 1695 1784 2063 2292 2242 2803 373U 2943 3999 4761 _40 8321 6566 9380 Materials Seed 46 58 25 33 61 72 76 - 80 95 106 144 180 207 163 241 287 301 568 Fertilizer 131 126 150 144 149 138 161 149 175 159 230 205 283 248 340 298 451 376 Plant Protection 30 27 33 30 37 32 42 37 45 39 48 42 54 45 72 60 82 68 Machinery depn. 100 120 104 116 106 118 104 116 124 138 136 151 134 149 172 191 230 256 Machinery hire chges - depreciation .74 82 72 80 82 91 86 96 106 118 140 156 178 198 210 233 264 293 - repairs 37 41 36 .40 41 46 43 48 53 106 70 78 89 99 105 117 132 147 - fuel 15 14 15 14 16 14 17 15 21 18 20 24 35 29 42 35 53 44 Miscellaneous 193 205 216 227 195 203 207 211 237 263 301 317 348 331 464 478 539 627 Total 634 673 651 684 687 714 736 752 856 947 1097 1153 1328 1262 1646 1699 2052 2379 Value Added 1262 1727 948 97 00 iff. U - : 64 §6 5 7 1262 32 948 &1 18Z5. -ZW 1790 26Z7. 349Aa 4514 70ai1 Labour - farm 541 552 537 560 606 731 976 1413 1904 - nachincry hire 45 44 49 51 64 84 106 126 159 E.P.C. 0.73 0.79 0.94 0.86 0.75 0.70 0.76 0.42 0.64 a = domestic prices b - border prices INDIVIOUAL SECTOR MAIZE PRODUCTION SERBIA PROPER - CALCULATION OF THE 00HESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (ORC) RD/fam 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 CAPITAL / fachinery 1010 1030 1045 1060 1280 1535 1135 2120 2145 Yorking 130 -746 734 7M5 912 1074 1518 2460 2717 Total 1740 1776 1779 1835 2192 2609 3253 4580 5462 Opportunity Cost 0 9 151 160 160 165 197 235 293 412 492 LA3UR 2 FarM 3/ 379 387. 376 392 424 512 684 989 1333 Non Farm 45 44 49 5) 64 84 106 126 159 Total 424 431 425 443 488 596 790 1115 1492 Conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 Total 445 448 429 443 512 684 853 1461 1611 LA%D 1254 1106 635 84 646 685 2471 5863 3201 Value Added 1056 1714 1124 692 1355 1504 3617 7736 6364 Value Added Dorder Prices 1727 1197 1070 1540 1856 1790 3499 6622 7001 Domestic Resource Cost ORC 1.07 1.43 1.05 0.45 0.13 0.84 1.03 1.17 0.77 1/ border Prices f Domestic prices 3/ Opportunity Cost 7 0 market wage i Ta' 12l INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SERBIA PROPER BEEF PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (NPC) Year Av.L.W Av. D.W. 1/ Slaughtering Av.D.W. Border NPC Value Value etc. % 2/ Value ex Price Farm Farm turnover ~ Meat 3/ Gate Gate Packer NO_ ND, kg 1966 5.36 10.34 0.72 11.06 10.77 1.03 1967 4.62 8.92 0.62 9.54 11.08 0.86 1968 4.72 9.11 0.64 9.75 8.46 1.15 1969 6.40 12.35 0.86 13.21 10.24 1.29 1970 8.32 16.06 .1.12 17.18 13.77 1.25 1971 9.71 18.74 1.31 20.05 18.48 1.08 1972 12.24 23.62 1.65 25.27 27.22 0.93 1973 17.87 34.49 2.41 36.90 35.59 1.04 1974 14.90 28.76 2.01 30.77 27.32 1.13 1/ LW x 1.93 FA0 conversion factor for Yugoslavia. 2/ In the absence of Yugoslavia data UK figures used average 7% added for slaughtering etc. costs and margins. 3/ fob Yugoslavia less 10% as a proportion of the meat is not of comparable quality to that exported. Table 22 IDIVIOUAL SECTOR BEEF PRODUCTION SERBIA PROPER - CAICIILATiIO Of VALUE ADED AN EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (EPC) N0/ far 1966 1961 1968 19;9 1970 1971 1912 1913 1974 a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b Value of Production )036 1006 933 1086 930 809 1240 961 1865 1492 2154 1994 2913 3132 4735 4563 4074 3605 Materials Grain 547 659 533 606 678 608 622 669 761 63 1118 1085 1390 1829 1789 3440 2356 7839 Protein 78 78 76 76 83 8 69 66 109 105 159 153 199 188 255 241 331 318 Fertlilser 22 21 32 31 32 30 38 35 49 45 67 60 83 73 121 107 172 151 Crop protection 5 5 1 6 8 1 10 9 13 II 14 12 16 13 26 22 32 27 Machinery depn. 18 20 22 24 22 24 25 28 35 39 40 44 40 44 6 68 89 99 Machinery hire - depreciation 7 8 7 8 10 II 12 13 20 22 24 27 33 37 50 56 63 70 - repairs 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 1 10 It 12 13 17 19 25 28 32 36 -fuel 2 x I 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 5 4 7 6 10 8 12 10 Miscellaneous 33 38 46 51 41 43 40 61 66 19 81 84 103 127 166 277 207 238 Building depn. 67 78 68 16 66 69 62 65 77 93 84 82 03 102 114 190 159 183 Total 1M 913 796 883 847 880 894 945 1144 1371 1610 1398 1971 2438 2618 4437 3459 3971 Value Added 253 93 131 202 83 (71) 346 16 721 121 544 596 942 694 2117 116 615 (366 Labour 40S 432 426 4411 523 612 872 1157 1556 - machinery 4 4 6 7 12 14 20 30 30 - buildin!s 34 34 33 31 39 42 42 57 "0 E.P.C. 2.72 0.68 - 21.6 6.96 0.91 1.36 18.25 - a - domestic prices b - border prices Table 23 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR BEEF PRODUCTION SERBIA PROPER - CALCULATION OF THE DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (ORC) ND/farm 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 CAPITAL Y/ Buildings 780 760 690 650 930 820 1020 1900 1830 Machinery 140 160 175 205 305 355 405 620 845 Working 798 815 822 858 1116 1438 1989 3197 361q Total 1718 1735 1687 1713 2351 2613 344 5712 6791 Opportunity Cost 6 91 155 156 152 154 212 235 307 514 566 LABOUR 2/ Farm 3/ 284 302 298 314 366 470 610 810 1089 lion Farm 38 38 39 38 51 56 62 87 118 Total 322 340 337 352 417 526 672 897 1207 Conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 Total 338 354 340 352 438 515 726 1175 1352 LAND 203 181 108 120 250 239 708 1883 1553 Value Added 696 691 600 626 900 969 1741 3572 3471 Value Added Border Prfces 93 202 (7l) 16 121 596 694 116 (366) Domestic Resource Cost DRC 7.48 3.42 - 39.14 7.43 1.66 2.51 30.79 - 1/ border Prices 2 Domestic prices 3/ Opportunity Cost )0% market wage Table 24 IRDIVIOUAL SECTOR SERGIA PROPER PIG PRODUCTION - CALCULATIOil OF l1E I1OiIIAL PROTECTION COEFFICIIiT (:#PC) Year Average LU Average Old Slaughtering Average Nt Border iPC Value Fam Value Farm etc. % J2 Value ex * Price 3/ Gate Gate / turnover meat packer NL g nil, 0 1966 5.85 1.84 0.65 8.39 10.08 0.83 1967 5.05 6.77 0.41 7.24 10.97 0.66 1968 4.86 6.51 0.46 6.91 11.32 0.62 1969 7.21 9.14 0.60 10.42 12.14 0.82 1970 8.35 11.19 0.18 11.91 12.04 0.99 1911 8.51 11.40 0.80 12.28 10.90 1.13 1972 10.37 13.90 0.91 14.81 12.83 1.16 1913 15.92 21.33 1.49 22.82 30.56 0.75 1974 14.88 19.94 1.40 21.34 24.35 0.83 1/ L x 1.34 FA0 Conversion factor for Yugoslavia 2/ In the absence of Yugoslavia data UK figures used average 1t for slaughtering etc. costs and margins. 3/ fob Yugoslavia used. Table 25 IDIVIDUAL SECTOR PIG PRODUCTION - CALCULATION OF VALUE ADDED AND THE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (EPC) ND/fdrm 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 974 SEPOIA PROPER a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b Value of Production 1347 1623 1209 1832 1201 1938 1976 2410 2472 2497 2544 2251 3309 2853 5250 7000 5012 5764 Materials 995 1096 1036 1104 1116 1127 1394 1367 1638 1811 2086 1931 2711 3333 3579 6476 4084 4943 Vdlue Added 352 527 173 728 85 811 582 1043 034 686 458 320 598 (480 1671 524 988 821 Labour - farm 613 656 676 798 882 1141 1486 1831 2470 - non farm 13 16 36 21 22 25 38 47 56 E.P.C. 0.67 0.24 0.10 0.56 1.22 1.43 - 3.19 1.20 a = domestic prices b = border prices ТоЬ �� �б 1NU1V[DUAL SECYOR P1G PaOGUCTION 5ERB1A PROPER - CA1CU1.AT10t9 OF Т11Е DOHESTIC RESOURCE COST COEfF1C1EMT'(t�?С) ND farn 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 197Э 1974 САРlТА1 J Breeding 1lvescock 127 121 145 146 141 1)1 177 Э87 Э50 Buildings Э15 Э85 . 4Э4 5)0 699 518 1Э72 2l48 1814 1Wchlnery 119 12б 1Э0 200 26Э 250 ЭЬЭ 405 404 Norktng 109Э 11Э7 ' 1165 1404 1695 2046 2896 45Э4 47Э7 Tota1 1654 1769 1ЛЛZ 2Э20 2698 ЭЛ19 4Л08 7479 7Э1Э Opportunity Cost 8 9t 149 159 169 209 2�3 272 4ЭЭ 61Э 65Я 1ABOUR 2/ Fвrп Э/ 429 459 47Э 559 617 799 1040 12Л5 1729 11оп fanд 1Э 16 16 2) 22 25 ЭВ 47 56 Tola1 442 475 4@9 5Л0 639 824 107Л 1ЭЭ2 17Л5 Cunverslon Factor 1.о5 1.о4 1.Ot t.o0 1.о5 о.9с 1.ое 1.э1 1.1г Tota1 464 494 494 580 671 808 1164 1145 1999 LAt10 - - - - - - - - - Vэ1ие Аддед 61Э 65Э Ьб] 709 914 10Л0 1596 2417 265Т Vз1ив Аддед Border Prlces 52) /?А 911 104Э 606 Э20 (4Е0) 524 Л21 Oowestlc Resource Cost UkC 1.i6 0.9Л О.В2 U.7o ➢.ЭЭ Э.Э7 - 4.61 Э.24 ' 1/ border Prlces 2/ Oaпestlc prices J Oppartunlty Cost �Оц warkгt Чауе � '` ( , ,, � � г�, ._. � ь.-.� ьс 2i 11101V1D11AL 5EC10R 1tl1EAT PRODUCT10i1 S.А.Р. УОУУ00111Л - CALCULA710t1 OF VALUE ПDПЕО АЧО EFFECTIVE PROTEC110iT COCFf1CtCt11 ЕРС) t1D/ f arm 1966/б) 1967/6В 1968/69 19б9/70 .1970/71 1971/72 1912/7Э 197Э/74 197а/75 а Ь а Ь' в b а Ь а Ь а Ь а Ь а Ь а Ь У�1ие of Productlon 1009 2966 2412 Э547 2405 зо8з 2а58 3176 г416 з45t зб44 513z Э7оо 77ро збзl 15701 692б 1ы 9и 1laterlals � 5сед 213 448 104 170 3D8 57Т 471 '604 490 55Э 600 857 695 919 678 1412 1015 <417 Frrlllizer 125 120 180 164 220 204 250 2Э1 Z11 246 244 26Э ЗОО ЗЭЭ 400 Э51 b64 502 P1ant Protectlon 15 14 14 13 20 18 20 18 22 19 21 18 30 25 31 26 55 4G Machlnery дерп. 102 113 1Т6 129 1Э2 147 134 149 160 178 148 164 150 116 1б8 181 25В 2Е1 t•Чchlnery hlre chges - deprгciation •90 100 90 100 128 142 194 216 190 21) 218 242 280 320 Э20 356 356 39G - repalгs 45 50 45 50 69 71 91 108 95 10G 109 121 144 160 160 11В 178 190 - fueT 18 16 18 16 26 2Э Э9 Э5 38 3Э 44 37 58 40 64 53 71 59 MisceTlaneous 78 100 163 185 138 166 84 94 120 135 170 202 156 18) 04 1Т0 414 963 Tota1 746 961 130 827 1116 1342 1289 1455 1402 1481 1604 1904 1909 2222 1905 260 '0 � Va1ue Аддед ТОЬЭ 2005 1602 2720 1289 1741 1569 1721 1014 1970 2040 3228 1791 5406 1726 13106 3915 9546 Labuur , - iarm 112 132 150 164 165 101 2ЭЭ 22В 325 � - machinery hire 53 5Э 77 116 114 . 13) 17Э 192 214 Е.Р.С. 0.5Э 0.62 0.14 0.91 0.51 0.63 0.3Э 0.1Э 0.41 а � doпwstlc prices Ь = border prices , \ � �. \ ��� �� � -"�, .�. _ Т�ьiе гн YHUiY10UAl SЕСТОр И11ЕАТ PROOUCTION S.A.P. УОУУОд1i1А -CALCUTATlОМ Of 111Е Def9EST1C RESOURCE С05Т COEfF1C1Et1T (DRC) НВ fats 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 197) 1972 197Э 1974 CAF1TRl 1/ . F1achlnery 1065 1145 1415 1В25 1945 20Э0 248U 2715 Э415 а:оrкiп9 4ет 49� 7о4 вз1 взб lote 1зs2 1ы 2 г2оз toLa1 1547 16Э9 2119 2656 2881 3148 Э8Э2 4327 56iB Opportunlty Cost ! 9Х 1Э9 14В 19Э 2Э9 259 2ВЗ Э45 Э89 506 1ле0иа 1 farw З/ 78 92 i05 115 116 12) 16Э 1b0 228 Non Fane 6Э 5] 7) 116 114 1Э1 17Э 192 214 Tota1 1Э1 145 182 2Э1 2Э0 259 ЗЭЬ Э52 442 Converslon Factor 1.os 1.w 1.о1 t.� 1.о5 о.98 1.ло 1.з1 1.tг тосаl 1Эе 1st 1В4 гЭ1 24г г5з ЭбЭ 4ы 4�5 LAf10 (В21 1721 11>6 ?122 ЗОЗО 185Э Э911 6186 6R00 Уа1ие Аддед 2) 02] _1l�6 . Va1ue Аддед Border Prlces 7дУ �54F Do�aestic Resource Cost DRC 1.05 0.74 1.04 1.51 1.79 0.74 0.84 0.54 0.82 J 8order Prlces J Oomestlc prfces Э/ Opportunlty Cost i0x warket ыаgе ��� . � �` li � Table 29 IRDIVIDUAL SECTOR HAIZE PRODUCTION S.A.P._VOYVODIIIA -,CALCULATHNI or VALUE AODED AND EFFECTIVE PROTECT10H COEFrICIENT (EPC) NO/farm 1966/67 1967/68 1968/69 19 9/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 a b a b a b a b a b a b a I b a b a b Value of Production 5531 7790 5696 7303 5354 6374 6085 7606. 7298 10136 12501 10001 12526 15658 11246 24991 20555 27046 liaterials Seed 74 195 - - 197 253 166 '221 210 263 319 443 452 362 454 5611 504 1120 Fertilizer 340 27 448 431 474 439 495 458 561 510 753 672 925 Oll 1108 972 1638 1437 Plant Protection 42 38 35 32 43 38 40 35 46 40 55 47 72 60 86 72 136 113 Machinery depn. 278 309 290 322 286 318 262 291 332 369 380 422 386 429 468 520 636 707 l1achinery hire chges - depreciation 242 269 222 247 276 307 384 427 392 436 558 620 700 778 806 9&4 878 976 - repairs 121 134 111 123 138 153 192 213 196 218 279 310 350 389 443 492 439 468 - fuel 49 S2 44 46 55 59 77 81 79 83 112 )20 140 137 177 186 1/5 201 Miscellaneous 214 228 406 423 296 315 166 05 265 279 436 469 379 372 232 244 1022 1175 Total 1360 1452 1556 1624 )765 1882 1802 1901 2081 2)98 28921 3103 3404 3338 31154 4038 5420 6217 Value Added 4171 6338 4140 5679 3589 4492 4283 5705 52)7 7938 96091 6098 9122 2320, 7392,20953 15127 20829 Labour - farm 11.72 1151 1133 1140 1.194 1627 1981 2213 2811 - machinery hire 146 133 165 230 236 335 420 531 526 E.P.C. 0.66 0.73 0.8 0.75 0.66 1.39, 0.74 0.35 0.73 a - domestic prices b - border prices a- 'A ab ie 30 INDIVIOUAL SECTOR HAIZE PRODUCTION S.A.P. VOYVODIP4 -CALCULATIOi OF THE 0OMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (O11C) 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 CAPITAL I Machinery 2890 2845 3)35 3590 4025 5210 6035 7520 8415 Working 1448 1619 1692 1692 1961 2571 3415 402 5441 Total 4338 4464 4827 5282 5986 7781 9450 12122 IUass Opportunity Cost * 9$ 390 402 434 475 539 700 85) 1091 1247 LABOUR 2/ Far 3/ 750 806 793 198 836 1139 1387 1549 1968 flon Fate 146 133 165 230 236 335 420 531 576 Total 096 939 958 1028 1072 1474 1807 2080 2494 Conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 Total 941 977 968 1028 1126 1445 1952 2726 2793 LAtl 4729 6039 2935 2471 3041 6904 11626 33952 21099 Value Added 6050 7418 ( 43 3910 4106 0i4 14479 1716L 219 Value Added Border Prices 6330 519 492 $705 79I1 A9n -123I20 m 2nn Domestic Resource Cost DRC 0.96 1.31 0.97 0.70 0.59 1.31 ).17 1.80 1.21 / border Prices 2/ Domestic prices 3/ Opportunity Cost )0% market wage Table 31 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SAP YOYVODINA BEEF PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (NPC) Year Av.LW Av.DW 1/ Slaughtering Av.DW Border NPC Value Value etc. % 2/ Value Ex Price Farm Farm turnover Meat 3/ Gate Gate Packer NI/kg ND/kg 1966 6.00 11.58 0.81 12.39 10.77 1.15 1967 5.78 11.16 0.78 11.94 11.08 1.08 1968 5.11 9.86 0.69 10.55 8.46 1.25 1969 6.78 13.09 0.92 14.01 10.24 1.37 1970 7.03 13.57 0.95 14.52 13.77 1.05 1971 10.09 19.47 1.36 20.83 18.48 1.13 1972 13.61 26.27 1.84 28.11 27.22 1.03 1973 16.55 31.94 2.24 34.18 35.59 0.96 1974 15.05 29.05 2.03 31.08 27.32 1.14 I/ LW x 1.93 FAO Conversion factor for Yugoslavia. 2/ In the absence of Yugoslavia data UK figures used average 7% added for slaughtering etc. costs and margins. 3/ fob Yugoslavia less 10% as a proportion of the meat is not of comparable quality to that exported. 1fab,c .l2 iмolYloual. sЕстоа eEEi Paooucn�t sAP yoyыoottuь - сСПlсиитlом oi Уа�иЕ аооЕо ама EffECт(yE РаотЕспом coEFF1c1EMт (ЕРс) м0/farл 1966 1967 1968 1969 9470 197D 1972 l973 1974 -�_ а Ь а Ь а b а Ь в b а b а Ь а_ b- а b Уа1ие of Productlan 965 ВЭ9 109Э 1012 920 7Эб 1245 909 1491 1420 2236 1919 ЭООЬ 2996 4455 4641 4112 Э60) Naccrlals Graiп 491 542 505 574 49Э 519 581 625 739 9J5 10В2 1050 1172 1542 1661 ЭТ94 ?347 282о Proteln 70 70 72 72 )0 67 8Э 8(1 105 101 155 1�9 167 15В 2Э7 224 ЭЭ5 Э16 fertiltser Э5 Э4 �1 Э9 Э9 ЭЬ 46 4Э 59 54 61 54 75 бб 108 95 15о 1Э2 Crop protectlon 1 4 3 3 Э Э 4 4 5 4 4 Э 6 5 9 о Т2 10 Machinery дерп. 2В �1 21 ЭО 24 27 24 27 ЭЬ 40 Э1 Э1 Э2 Эб 45 50 59 ЬЬ Machlnery hlre - depreclatlon 16 18 19 2) 12 13 22 24 2о Э1 29 Э2 Э9 4Э 5о 64 4) 46 - repalrs 8 9 9 10 6 7 1) 12 11 ТЬ 15 В) 2о 22 29 Э2 20 22 - fuel з Э 4 1 2 2 4 4 6 5 Ь 5 е 7 12 1о 9 8 M1sг.e1laneous 22 25 Э7 40 24 25 16 17 28 7Э ЭЬ Э5 ЭО 29 2Э Э9 94 1бе Ouildtrv� дерп. 61 59 5Э 67 5Э 55 5Э 56 61 77 61 61 65 81 103 175 129 140 Tola1 728 845 170 850 726 751 о44 В92 1081 1292 1402 1440 1615 14о9 228Е Эе91 3196 ]LE4 Уа1ие Аддед ?Э7 (Ь) Э2Э 162 194 (1В) 40) 11 110 128 154 5Э9 147) 1f107 217о 750 916---(77) labour Э75 � 40G Эоо 42Э 454 612 027 11РЛ � 1556 - bu11d1n9s 26 27 27 21 3) Э2 l3 52 65 - irachlпery 15 15 17 2) 2Э TQ З) 5Э ЭС Е.Р.С. - 1.99 - 2Э.б Э.2 1.1 1.46 2.09 - � • гk�estlc prlces --- - -- --- ---------- ---- - -- -•-- ---- - --------- b = bor�ler prlces ' �у� �с� - � )Tab ie h INDIVIDUAL SECTOR BEEF PRODUCTION S.A.P. VOYVODINA CALCULATION OF THE DnMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (ORC) no/farm 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 CAPITAL I/ Buildings 590 570 550 560 730 610 010 1750 1480 Machinery 245 255 200 255 355 330 395 570 560 Work f ng 7JU 783 72) 815 1058 1373 1711 2953 3471 Total 1545 1608 1471 1630 2143 2313 2916 5273 5511 Opportunity Cost @ 9% 139 145 132 147 193 208 262 475 496 LABOUR 21 Farm 235 284 272 296 346 470 579 826 1009 Non Farm 41 46 40 48 54 60 70 105 103 TotEl 276 330 312 344 400 530 649 931 If92 Conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 ).08 ).31 1.12 Total --290-- 343 315 344 4 20 519 701 1220 1 335 LAND 491 477 240 309 495 401 M9 2492 1705 Value Added 920 965 687 780 Mn 1?09 IP32 07 r Value Added Border Prices (6) 162 1 1.) 17 128 q 1007 7 5n --- (IIj- Domestic Resource Cost DRC - 5.96 - 47.04 B.f6 2.24 5. ria I/ Lorder Prices 21 Domestic prfres 31 Opportuntcy Cost 09 merket wa9c Jable 34 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR S.A.P. VOYVODINA PIG PRODUCTION - CALCULATION OF TIE IINOAL PROTECTION COEFFICIEI (HPC) Year Average LIN Average Oil Slaughterln Average DW Border fPC Value Fare Value Fare etc. % 2 V Value ex Price 3/ Cate Gate j turnover meat packer lig 9ND1 kg 1966 6.09 8.16 0.61 8.73 10.08 0.07 1967 4.87 6.53 0.46 6.99 10.97 0.64 1968 4.63 6.20 0.4 6.63 11.32 0.59 1969 6.13 9.02 0.63 9.65 12.14 0.76 1970 7.47 10.01 0.10 10.71 12.04 0.89 1971 8.00 10.72 0.75 11.47 10.90 1.05 1972 9.80 13.13 0.92 14.05 12.03 1.10 1973 15.13 20.27 1.42 21.69 30.56 0.11 1974 13.29 11.81 1.25 19.06 24.35 6.78 1/ LtI x 1.34 FAD Conversion factor for Yugoslavia 2/ In the absence of Yugoslavia data UK figures used average 7% for slaughtering etc. costs and margins. 3/ fob Yugoslavia used. Table 35 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR PIG PRODUCTION - CALCULATION OF VALUE ADDED AND THE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (EPC) ND/farm 1966 1967 1960 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b S.A.P. VOYVODINA Value of Production 3509 4033 2916 4556 2365 4008 3751 4936 6005 6747 6460 6152 7166 6515 11002 15496 11198 14356 Materials 2593 2856 2499 2663 2197 2219 2647 2596 3978 4399 5297 4904 5871 7218 7500 13570 9017 10914 Value Added 916 1177 417 1893 168 1789 1104 2340 2027 2348 1163 1248 1295 (703) 3502 1926 2181 3442 Labour - farm 1631 lu37 142 1640 2394 3107 3411 400P 6114 - non farm 34 40 31 40 54 63 82 92 124 E.P.C. 0.78 0.22 0.09 0.47 0.86 0.93 - 1.82 0.63 a = domestic prices b = border prices Ian ie 3b INDIVIDUAL SECTOR PIG PRODUCTION S.A.P. VOVVODINA CALCULATION OF THE DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT JORC) I10/fars 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 CAPITAL I/ Breeding livestock 253 313 291 303 380 371 405 859 831 Buildings 819 926 048 1080 1449 1460 2970 4506 3998 Machinery 300 306 272 378 639 656 703 850 094 Norking 2801 2782 2343 2150 4294 5330 6410 9M 195a Total 4173 4327 3160 4511 6770 7817 10560 15894 jf637L Opportunity Cost 0 95 376 389 318 406 609 704 951 1430 1506 LABOUR 2/ Farm 3/ 1072 1146 981 1148 1676 2175 2388 2834 4280 ifon fara 34 40 31 40 54 63 82 99 124 Total 1106 1186 1012 1188 1730 2238 2470 2933 4404 Conversion factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 ).12 Total 1161 1233 1022 1ies 1817 2193 2668 3e42 4932 LAND - . . -. Value Added 1531 16Z2 _J160 ?1A7 2E 2847 ue .522 -63 Value Added Border Prices i7lL IH93 J L 19 P1 2148 Iran (701) 1-2 ladp Oonestfc Resource Cost ORC 1.31 0.86 0.76 0.68 1.03 2.32 - 2.74 1.01 1/ forder Prices 2 Domestic prices 3/ Opportunity Cost 20% market wage (DAJ tab i. )7 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR UWEAT PRODUCTIOR S.A.P. KOSOVO - CALCULATIO11 OF VALUE ADDED ARD EFFECTIVE PROTECTIO1 COEFFICIENT (EPCL ND/farm 1966/67 1967/68 1968/69 1969/70 190/71 1971/72 192/173 1973/74 1974/75 a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b Value of Production 1340 1523 1595 1753 1312 1411 1574 1393 2079 2143 2656 2482 2852 4017 2730 7000 3054 6964 Materials Seed 314 357 225 256 334 367 347 373 453 401 599 616 763 713 853 1201 1090 2795 Fertilizer 113 109 120 115 84 78 100 93 134 122 164 146 196 172 248 218 279 245 Plant Protection 6 5 6 5 7 6 5 4 9 8 12 .10 7 6 12 10 9 8 Machinery depn. 40 44 40 44 40 44 40 44 48 53 56 62 54 60 68 76 88 98 Machinery hire chges - depreciation .42 47 46 51 50 56 62 69 80 89 114 127 156 173 182 202 196 218 - repairs 21 23 23 26 25 28 31 34 40 44 57 63 78 87 91 101 98 109 - fuel 8 7 9 8 10 9 12 11 16 14 23 19 31 26 37 31 40 33 Miscellaneous 80 87 74 80 146 151 179 185 200 187 330 337 377 363 446 531 420 824 Total 623 679 543 585 696 743 776 813 980 918 1355 1382 1662 1600 1937 2370 2220 4330 Value Added 717 844 1052 1168 616 668 798 580 1099 1225 1301 1100 1190 2417 793 4630 844 2634 Labour - farm 150 ISS 149 161 170 226 266 305 369 - machinery hire 25 28 31 37 48 . 68 93 110 119 E.P.C. 0.85 0.9 0.92 1.38 0.9 1.18 ).49 0.17 0.32 a - domestic prices b = border prices lable .d INDIVIOitl. SECTOR MIEATPRODUCTION S.A.P. KOSOVO - CALCULATION OF THE DOESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (ORC) ND/ a m 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1911 1972 1973 1974 CAPITAL / Machinery 456 476 500 565 710 946 1165 890 1580 Working 504 445 532 504 753 971 1110 1 19IMq-- Total 959 920 1032 1149 1463 1916 2475 2734 --199 Opportunity Cost S 9 86 83 93 103 132 172 223 246 306 LABOUR 2/ Fare 3) 105 109 104 113 119 158 186 214 258 Non farm 25 28 31 31 48 68 93 110 119 Total 130 137 135 150 167 226 279 3?4 377 Conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 Total 137 142 136 Ko 175 221 301 424 422 [AND M6 Si 179 274 854 212 954 2055 J]95 Value Added 587 14? 414.577 116fi1 ifis 1478- ?2si _2923? Value Added 8order Prices 844 1168 66 50) 1225 J1A0 411 4610 -204- Domestic Fesource Cost ORC 0.70 0.64 0.62 0.91 0.95 0.65 0.61 0.59 1.11 1/ Dord..r Prices 2 Domestic prices 3/ Opportunity Cost 10% market wage Table 39 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR MAIZE PRODUCTION S.A.P. KOSOVO - CALCULATION OF VALUE ADDED AND EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (FPC) ND/farm 1966/67 1967/68 1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b Value of Production 1114 1280 1184 1361 1205 1170 1387 1381 1811 2082 229E 1754 2664 2804 2677 4780 3755 5289 Materials Seed 21 24 20 23 27 30 31 33 42 37 SE 58 66 62 75 106 98 251 Fertilizer 119 114 118 113 91 84 109 101 136 124 15i 141 186 163 253 222 288 253 Plant Protection 5 5 6 5 7 6 5 4 9 8 11 9 7 6 12 10 10 8 Machinery depn. 44 49 40 44 42 47 42 47 48 53 5 60 50 56 68 76 . 92 102 Machinery hire chges - depreciation .44 49 46 51 56 62 66 73 82 91 11 122 148 164 186 207 204 227 - repairs 22 24 23 26 28 31 33 37 41 46 5 61 74 82 93 103 102 113 - fuel 9 9 9 9 11 11 13 13 16 16 2; 22 29 29 37 39 41 49 Miscellaneous 84 88 73 75 159 164 194 200 204 204 31 323 359 359 456 480 434 523 Total 348 362 335 346 421 435 493 508 570 579 783 796 939 921 1180 1243 1269 1526 Value Added 766 918 849 1015 784 735 894 879 1233 1503 151 958 1745 1883 1497 3537 2485 3763 Labour - farm 05t 531 569 610 606 76 886 1090 1335 - machinery hire 26 27 33 40 49 66 09 Ill 122 E.P.C. 0.83 0.84 1.07 1.02 0.82 1.58 0.93 0.42 0.66 a - domestic prices b - border prices I> Table 40 IIIIVIDAL SECTOR MAIZE PRODUCTION S.A.P. KOSOVO - CALCULATION OF THE DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COfFICIENT (ORC) ND/farm 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1911 1972 1913 1974 CAPITAL Y Machinery 490 475 545 600 120 910 1100 1415 1645 Working 592 562 626 693 776 949 1227 1067 1823 Total 1082 1031 111 1293 1496 1859 2327 3282 3468 Opportunity Cost 0 9% 97 93 105 116 135 167 209 295 312 LADOUR 2/ Farm 3/ 389 372 398 427 424 533 620 163 935 lon Farm 26 27 33 40 49 66 89 111 122 Total 415 399 431 467 473 599 709 874 1057 Conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 Total 436 415 435 467 497 587 766 1145 1184 LAND 650 925 473 353 936 680 1801 3EOO 1956 Value Added 1191L* 141L 10W1 93fi I_.SGR 1414 2777fi 2 3V Value Added Border Prices .--qlia- Inis 13 . 7 11n9 arm nn jF a. V 17 .--171I Domestic Resource Cost ORC 1.30 1.41 1.38 1.6 1.04 3.50 1.47 1.40 0.92 1/ border Prices 2/ Oomestic prices 3/ Opportunity Cost 2 market wage Table 41 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SAP KOSOVO - BEEF PRODUCTION CALCULATION OF THE NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (NPC) Year Av. LW Av. DW 1/ Slaughtering Av.DW Border NPC Value Value etc. % 2/ Value Ex Price Farm Farm turnover Meat 3/ Gate Gate Packer ND Kg N Kg 1966 5.30 10.23 0.72 10.95 10.77 1.02 1967 4.12 7.95 0.56 8.51 11.08 0.77 1968 3.98 7.68 0.54 8.22 8.46 0.97 1969 7.86 15.17 1.06 16.23 10.24 1.58 1970 8.13 15.69 1.10 16.79 13.77 1.22 1971 8.59 16.58 1.16 17.74 18.48 0.96 1972 9.77 18.86 1.32 20.18 27.22 0.74 1973 14.19 27.39 1.92 29.31 35.59 0.82 1974 13.84 26.71 1.87 28.58 27.32 1.05 1/ LW x 1.93 FAO Conversion Factor for Yugoslavia. 1 2/ In the absence of Yugoslavia data UK figures used average 7% added for slaughtering etc. costs and margins. 3/ fob Yugoslavia less 10% as a proportion of the meat is not of comparable quality to that exported. 161ь 1ND1Y10UAL SECTOfl OEEF PRO11UCi10N SAP KOSOYO - CALCUlAT10tl OF YALUE А011Е0 АИО EfFECT1YE PROTECTION COEfF1C1CNT �EPC) ND farя 19ьб 1967 196е 1969. 1ч70 1971 1972 ` 197э � 1974 а Ь а__ Ь а Ь а Ь а Ь_ а_ Ь_ __а '_Ь_ _а (_ Ь_ а Ь Уа1ие of Productlon 509 499 484 629 461 415 1102 69) 1071 870 1285 1эЭ9 161э 2100 2461 э004 2947 2807 Natcrlals Grain . 295 э55 э7э э18 324 341 470 505 544 689 782 759 1055 1э8В 1294 2400 1724 2077 Proteln 42 42 48 48 46 44 67 64 78 75 Т12 108 151 147 1Л5 I75 246 2Э2 Fег�111:ег з э 4 э э з е 7 е 7 7 6 1з 11 2э zo зв зэ Crop procectlon - - - - - - - - - - - 1 ? 1 1 Иасl�lпегу depn. 1 1 1 1 , 2 2 2 2 э э 2 2 4 4 6 7 12 1э 11ach1nery hlra - deprecletion 1 1 1 1 1 1 D 1 2 2 2 2 5 6 10 11 15 11 - repa 1 rs - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 э э 5 6 е з - fue) - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 2 2 3 э N1sce11aneous 2 2 Э 3 6 6 10 11 12 15 11 14 26 ээ 41 7э 59 69 Du(lding дерп. 49 50 49 54 38 40 47 19 56 68 61 59 бб Н4 96 171 1э7 159 Tota) 39l 462 4э9 4fl8 421 4эВ 606 640 704 860 981 95) 1324 167Э 166Э 2954 2247 .^.61Э Уа1ие Аддед 116 э) 45 141 4о э7 496 57 эб7 1в эо4 з0а 209 507 аоо 50 704 194 LяЬоиг 1'19 254 25) э22 ` 309 45э 607 756 1215 ~ aachlnery - - 1 1 1 1 э � 6 9 - bulialn�s 25 25 19 га 2Н э1 эз 4в бч ,� �Е-Р-с-- з.14 О.з2 1.ое о.7 2о.4 о.7в о.57 16.0 з.бз �' л = domestic prlces � � Ь • Ьогдег prlгes - J ` ��. � �.. .- I - dUlh 4, 1 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR BEEF PRODUCTION S.A.P. KOSOVD - CALCULATION OF THE DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (ORC) NOI fa m 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 CAPITAL I/ Buildings Soo 540 400 490 680 590 840 1710 1590 Machinery 10 10 Is is 25 20 50 90 150 Working 398 270 441 605 690 920 1369 2072 2530 Total 988 820 856 Ilio 1395 1530 2259 3872 4270 Opportunity Cost @ 9% 89 74 77 100 126 138 203 348 384 LABOUR 21 1 Farm 3/ 139 178 176 225 216 317 425 529 051 Non Farm 25 25 20 25 29 32 36 54 78 Total 164 203 196 250 245 349 461 583 929 conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 Total 172 211 198 250 1 257 342 498 764 1040 LAND 14 29 12 Is 52 17 97 M 290 Value Added 276 314 287 365 435 497 798 1305 1714 Value Added Border Prices 37 141 37 57 18 308 507 so -124- Domestic Resource Cost DRC 7.43 2.2.1 7.76 6.40 24.14 1.28 1.57 27.71 6.84 J/ border Prices Domestic prices 3/ Opportunity Cost )0% market wage 'N" table 44 INDIVIOUAL SECIOR S.A.P. KOSOVO Pl6 PRODUCTIOII - CALCULATIOI OF THE ANIIIIAL PROTECTIO0 COEFFICIENT (IPC) Year Average L Average Ow Slaughtering Average D Border NPC Value Farm Value Fare etc. I Value ex Price 3/ Gate Gate j/ turnover meat packer 1966 6.51 8.80 0.62 9.42 10.08 0.93 1967 6.54 8.76 0.61 9.37 10.91 0.85 1968 6.14 1.69 0.54 8.23 )1.32 0.73 1969 1.59 10.11 0.11 10.88 12.74 0.85 1970 8.06 10.80 0.76 11.56 12.04 0.96 1911 9.11 12.21 0.85 13.06 - 10.90 1.20 1972 10.41 14.03 0.98 15.01 12.83 1.11 1973 16.25 21.78 1.52 23.30 30.56 0.76 1974 15.29 20.49 1.43 21.92 24.35 0.90 If Lit x 1.34 FA0 Conversion factor for Yugoslavia y In the absence of Yugoslavia data UK figures used average 11 for slaughtering etc. costs and margins. 3/ fob Yugoslavia used. Table 45 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR PIG PRODUCTION - CALCULATION OF VALUE ADDED AND THE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (EPC) N0/fam 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 S.A.P.KOSOVO a b a b a b a 6 b a b a b a b a b a b Value of Production 488 525 495 582 569 779 868 1021 1004 1046 998 832 1161 992 1887 2483 2215 2461 Materials 361 398 424 452 529 534 612 600 665 735 818 757 951 1169 1286 2327 1784 2159 Value Added 127 127 71 130 40 245 256 421 339 311 180 75 210 (177) 601 156 431 302 Labour - farm 199 lO 274 330 371 *I21 517 648 1054 - non farm £ 7 7 9 9 10 13 17 25 E.P.C. 1.00 0.55 0.16 0.61 1.09 2.40 - 3.85 1.43 a = domestic prices b - border prices Table 46 INDIVIDUAL SECTOR PIG PRODUCTION S.A.P. KOSOVO - CALCULATION OF THE 0OESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENT (DRC) 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1911 1972 1973 1974 CAPITAL II Breeding lfvestoct 32 41 62 66 63 50 98 Ill 178 Buildings 116 166 202 250 242 225 486 173 7173 Machinery 44 50 61 89 106 100 128 144 178 Working 300 424 620 608 691 785 1012 1 2057 Total 512 61 851 1012 1110 1160 1724 2707 3181 Opportunity Cost 0 91 51 l 77 0 JiOn in4- us -244---M- - LABOUR Y Farm 3 139 146 192 231 260 295 362 454 738 [ion Farm 5 7 7 9 9 10 13 17 26 Total 144 153 199 246 269 305 375 471 763 Conversion Factor 1.05 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.08 1.31 1.12 Total 151 1S9 201 246 282 299 405 617 856 LAND - - - - - - - - - Value Added 202 29 .2701 337 ___392_ 403 5(0 061 1141 Value Added Border Prices 127 130 246 421 311 73 (177) 166 302 Domestic Resource Cost DRC 1.59 1.69 1.13 0.80 1.23 5.38 - 5.52 3.70 / order Prices 2 N (ikestic prices 3/ Opportunity Cost 10 market wage ANNEX III C ON TENTS Page CALCULATION OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY COEFFICIENTS 1. INTRODUCTION. 1 2. NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS 1 3. EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS 4 4. EFFECTIVE SUBSIDY COEFFICIENTS 10 5. DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENTS 10 ANNEX III Page 1 CALCULATTON'OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY COEFFICIENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Protection and comparative advantage coefficients were calculated for the following non-agricultural industries:- Iron and steel Electrical equipment Textiles and clothing Food and drink manufacturing Calculations were made in the first place for 1970, the latest year for which comprehensive input-output statistics are available. Also, in order to get as up-to-date a picture as possible, estimates were made for 1975, still using the 1970 input-output data as a basis. General policies towards the industrial sector, the reasons for selecting the four industries above and the results of our calculations are presented in Section III.D of the main body of the report. In this Annex we describe the process of calculating the coefficients. 2. NOMINAL PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS As explained in Section III.D of the Report, some products of the four industries studied are subject to protection by import quotas, to price regulation and to other controls, as well as to protection by import duties. Therefore we considered making a direct comparison of "border" and domestic market prices of representative products, using the foreign trade statistics (to derive c.i.f. or f.o.b. prices) and published tables of producer prices.* It was found that generally the trade statistics were insufficiently broken down to enable comparison with domestic prices of specific products; in the few cases where the categories appeared to match, the apparent price differential was often implausible, perhaps because of quality differences. The alternative of obtaining detailed information from producers, importers and exporters was not practicable, owing to the limited time at our disposal and the large number of products on which price data would have been required. * Statistical Bulletin 971-8GD, Table 3-1. ANNE. Page 2 In the,most detailed of the 1970 input-output tables, each of the four industries studied is further broken down into several .sub-divisions. The import duty estimated for each industry was in effect a weighted average of the duties applicable to each sub-division. Data on tariffs was obtained on our behalf by the Institute of Agricultural Economics, Belgrade. They gave the highest and lowest tariffs applying within each industry sub- division: we took the mid-point as being the average. No detailed information was forthcoming on export incentives ana controls. The principal incentive is restitution of import duty paid on inputs. This represents only a small proportion of the value of exports, and so as a reasonable approximation we used the estimates of Schrenk and Yang* for the respective industries. To illustrate the method, we show the calculation of the 1970 NPC for electrical equipment in Table 1. Domestic sales are estimated by subtracting exports from production. They and exports are converted to border prices and then summed to obtain total production at border prices. The NPC is the ratio of domestic price and border price values of output. No input-output data are yet published for years later than 1970. Moreover, for 1975 no data required for our purposes are available on sub-divisions of our four industries. However, in calculating the border price values, domestic sales were sub-divided in the same proportions as in 1970, and the border price value of each sub-division estimated in the same way as in Table 1. Production and export totals were taken from tables 106-16 and 114-7 in the 1976 Statistical Yearbook: they appeared to be on somewhat different bases, and so 1975 exports were adjusted by using the ratio that had applied in 1970 between the corresponding figure in the Yearbook and that given in the input-output tables. The calculation of the 1975 NPC for the electrical equipment industry is summarised below:- * Yugoslavia: Preliminary Estimates of Country Parameters for Economic Analysis of Projects (internal Bank paper, January 10th 1975), Annex Table 1. TAL, I Page 3 NPC, Electrical Equipment Industry, 1970 Machinery Household Cables & Radio Other Total & Apparatus Apparatus Conductors and TV Electrical Industry Production * 2,528 1,758 1,748 2,201 1,166 9,402 (mn.dinars) Exports* 451 163 574 305 159 (mn.dinars) Domestic sales 2,077 1,595 1,174 1,896 1,007 (mn.dinars) Export rebate, average(percent) 2 2 2 2 2 Import duties etc. L (percent) 29 37J 291 29) 281 Exports, border prices 442 160 563 299 156 (Mn.dinars) Domestic sales, border 1,610 1,160 907 1,464 784 prices (mn.dinars) Total output, border 2,052 1,320 1,470 1,763 940 7,545 prices (mn.dinars) NPC 1.232 1.332 1.189 1.248 1.240 1.246 * Source: Inter-Industry Relations of the Economy of the SFRY in 1970, Table 5-1 (input-output). Figures are in domestic market prices. # Including customs and border taxes and import surtax, as well as specific tariffs. N -1 ANNEX 111 Page 4 (a) Production, domestic prices 32,415 mn.dinars (b) Export (adjusted estimate), domestic prices 5,558 mn.dinars (c) Domestic sales, domestic prices /(a)-(b)7 26,857 mn.dinars (d) Exports, border prices (assuming 2% rebate) 5,449 mn.dinars (e) Domestic sales, border prices (sum of border price values of estimated sub-divisional sales) 21,291 mn.dinars (f) Production, border prices 26,740 mn.dinars (g) NPC / (a) i (f) 7 1.212 3. EFFECTIVE PROTECTION COEFFICIENTS (a) EPC's in 1970 The most detailed (98 industry) input-output tables were used as the source of input data. We identified 46 industries as being significant suppliers of tradeable goods to one or more of the four groups of industries under study. The input of each of these 46 into each industry within the four industry-groups was extracted from the input-output table; the figures were then added across to obtain the total consumption of each input by each industry-group. Tariffs plus other import taxes were used to convert the in:puts to border price terms - with the exception only of inputs of wheat, cattle and pigs into parts of the food and drink industry, where we used the NPC's calculated in this study for the agricultural products concerned. .For the residual of unimportant tradeable inputs, for which we did not have specific tariff information, a standard conversion factor was used for conversion to border price values: this was based on the average import duty on materials estimated by Schrenk and Yang for 1973, adjusted for changes in tariffs between 1970 and 1973, plus additional import taxes. The following were treated as non-tradeable inputs:- Production and distribution of electricity Construction Transport and communications Trade and catering Servicing arts and crafts Public utilities ANNEX III Page 5 The inputs of each of these into each of our four industry-groups could be ascertained from a 29-industry input-output tabla*. Using the same source, the tradeable inputs were divided into value added, depreciation and a residual. The non-tradeable inputs into the non-tradeable inputs themselves were estimated, using the relevant input-output coefficients*; they too were decomposed in the way described. The residual from the two stages of decomposition was treated as a tradeable input, and adjusted to border prices using the standard conversion factor mentioned above. Depreciation of the capital assets of each of the four industries was ascertained from the input-output tables (it is believed that depreciation is often underestimated in Yugoslav statistics, but we were in no position to check or correct the figures). To this was added the depreciation component of non-tradeable inputs, estimated in the way described in the last paragraph. The tradeable proportion of the combined depreciation was assumed, in the case of the electrical equipment industry, to be the same as that for non-capi:tal inputs, i.e. 90.62 percent; for the other three industries a.similar figure (90 percent) was applied. For three of the four industries, the tradeable element of depreciation was converted to border prices using a conversion factor based on Schrenk and Yang's estimate of the average duty on equipment. It was adjusted to .a 1970 basis in the same way as for the standard conversion factor described earlier. Capital equipment for the iron and steel industry was however assumed to be subject to the "priority industry* maximum tariff of 5 percent; the other industries were assumed to pay full duties. Table 2 illustrates the calculation of value added in domestic and border prices, taking electrical equipment as an example. The EPC is of course the ratio of value added at domestic market prices and value added at border prices, i.e. 3,731,234 1 2,716,567 = 1.374 in the case of electrical equipment. * 'Tables 3-1 and 3-2. !AiLE 2 Page 6 VALUE ADDED, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY, 1970 Value at Import Other Total Duty Value at Market duty import and taxes border prices (%) taxes* average prices ('000 (%) (%) ('000 dinars) dinars) INPUTS Tradeable: Ferrous metallurgy 672,594 0-20 6j 161 577,334 Other non-ferrous metals 842,932 1-3 6j 8j 776,896 Rolling mills, non-ferrous 252,122 1-7 6j 10 228,16E Metal semi-products 638,469 0-1 6j 7 596,700 Electrical machinery 387,528 10-35 6j 29 300,409 Cables and conductors 451,934 2-3 6j 291 348,984 Radio and TV 365,453 20-26 6j 29J 282,203 Other electrical 196,849 8-36 6j 28J 153,190 Plastic materials and fibres 157,479 0-20 61 161 135,175 Final wood products 183,513 5-20 6j 19 154,213 Other specified 776,399 0-50 6j 20** 646,850 Other unspecified 333,433 6j 161 286,209 Non-tradeable (tradeable component) 93,163 61 161 79,968 DEPRECIATION (tradeable component) 318,497 6j 211 262,137, TOTAL, INPUTS'AND DEPRECIATION 5,670,365 4,828,433 OUTPUT 9,401,711 24.6A 7,545,000 VALUE ADDED 3,731,346 2,716,567 * Averaged over 12 months. ** Weighted average of 36 product-groups, for which specific tariff rates were known. Nominal protection oefficient = 1.246). Page 7 (b) EPC's in 1975 To calculate 1975 EPC's the same general approach was used as for 1970, as far as the data permitted. For 1975, information is available by "branch" of the economy (each of the four industries under study is a branch), giving output, depreciation and total inputs as well as other relevant data. To break down the inputs, the 50-industry 1970 input-output tables were used*, in which the manufacturing sector is divided by "branch". The figures were adjusted for relative price increases (which might reflect changes in relative protection as well as other causes) by applying the most relevant-seeming price indices, and then scaling down to the known total of inputs. The process of price adjustment is shown in Table 3, taking the electrical equipment industry as an illustratia'. To obtain the average import duties on principal inputs, the more detailed 1970 input figures were used as weights. For example, the calculation of the average protection on metal products used in the electrical equipment industry was as follows:- Inputs 1970, (b) t Supplying electrical Duty, 1975 .! + (c)7 industry (a) industry (b) (mid-point) (c) inJ Metal semi-products 638,469 3 619,873 Other machines and equipment 57,822 13 51,170 Rail vehicles 5,247 101 4,748 Road vehicles 19,626 171 16,703 Metal products, not elsewhere specified 83,857 2L 69,018 TOTAL 805,021 5.7 761,512 The average duty protection in this case is 5.7 percent, which is arrived at by dividing the total of the left-hand column of figures by that of the * Table 4-2 TABLE 3 Page 8 PRICE ADJUSTMENT OF INPUTS, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY, 1975 Coefficient Price Index (1) Coefficient 1970* 1975 A x B 1975A Branch (A) (8) () Ct 13,94 Electricity 0.783 257 201 1.4 Coal 0.143 372 53 0.4 Petroleum 0.206 463 95 0.7 Iron and Steel 7.153 320 2,288 16.4 Non-ferrous metal 12.474 240 2,994 21.5 Non-metallic minerals 1.914 206 374 2.7 Building materials 0.054 222 12 0.1 Metal products 9.480 198 1,877 13.5 Shipbuilding - - - Electrical equipment 15.845 168 2,662 19.1 Chemicals 4.303 247 1,063 7.6 Paper 0.946 205 194 1.4 Timber 2.257 174 393 2.8 Textiles 0.358 193 69 0.5 Leather 0.012 174 2 - Rubber 0.426 213 91 0.7 Food 0.002 247 -- Tobacco - - Printing 0.144 228 (2) 33 0.2 Motion pictures - - Miscellaneous manufacturing 0.021 228 (2) 5 - Crops - - - Fruit - - - Livestock - - - Fishing - - - Forestry 0.004 189 1 - Projecting - - - House building 0.136 228 (2) 31 0.2 Civil engineering - - Finishing 0.045 228 (2) 10 0.1 Cont'd. TABLE 3 (ContdN Page 9 ,- Railway 0.561 257 (4) 59 0.4 Shipping 0.004 257 (4) 1 - River transport 0.003 257 (4) 1 - Air transport 0.012 257 (4) 3 - Road transport 0.617 257 (4) 159 1.1 Communi cati ons 0.227 228 (2) 52 0.4 Transhipment 0.072 228 (2) 16 0.1 Retail 0.417 251 (5) 105 0.8 Wholesale 1.900 272 (3) 517 3.7 External trade 1.008 272 (3) 274 2.0 Storage 0.348 272 (3) 95 0.7 Catering - - Metal services 0.280 228 (2) 64 0.5 Electrical services 0.190 228 (2) 43 0.3 Wood services 0.023 228 (2) 5 - Tailors' services - Shoemakers' services -- Other handicraft 0.016 228 (2) 4 - Public utilities 0.232 228 (2) 53 0.4 Scrap 0.183 228 (2) 42 0.3 TOTAL 69.276 13,941 100.0 * Proportion of output (%) Proportion of total inputs of materials and services (%) (1) Producer price (1970 = 1CO) except where otherwise indicated (2) Average for industrial products (3) Wholesale index (4) Road vehicles, fuel etc. index (5) Retail index ANNEX III Page 10 - right-hand column (giving a figure of 1.057). Lesser inputs were converted to border prices using a standard conversion factor, derived from Schrenk and Yang's estimates by the same method as described above for 1970. Non-tradeable inputs were totalled and then divided between value added, depreciation and tradeable inputs, by applying the proportions which had been calculated for 1970. The tradeable part was converted to border prices with the standard factor mentioned in the last paragraph. Depreciation in the four industries was obtained from the Table 106-16 of the 1976 Statistical Yearbook, as were production and total input figures. To it was added the depreciation component of the non-tradeable inputs. The tradeable proportion of the combined depreciation was assumed to be the same as in 1970, i.e. 90 percent in most cases. It was converted to border prices using an equipment conversion factor estimated in the same way as that for 1970 (except, of course, that 1975 import duties were taken into account). For illustration the calculation of the 1975 value added of the electrical equipment industry, at both domestic and border prices, is summarised in Table 4. For convenience, the value figures are shown as percentages of the.total domestic value of inputs. The EPC is of course the ratio of the bottom figures in the left and right-hand columns, i.e. 47.8 i 39.3 = 1.22. 4. EFFECTIVE SUBSIDY COEFFICIENT For reasons explained in Section III.D.4 of the report,. the ESC of the four industries was assumed to be the same as the EPC. 5. DOMESTIC RESOURCE COST COEFFICIENTS (a) Shadow Prices Our assumptions regarding the shadow prices of land, capital and labour have been discussed in Section III.C.1 of the main body of the report. Here is presented their application in calculating DRC's for the four manufacturing industries under study. TABLE 4 Page 11 VALUE ADDED, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY, 1975 Coefficient, Import Other Total duty Coefficient market duty, import and taxes border prices* average taxes prices* INPUTS (%) 0. Tradeable: Iron and steel 16.4 12.5 8 20.5 13.6 Non-ferrous metals 21.5 2.6 12.5 15.1 18.7 Non-metallic minerals 2.7 17.2 12.5 29.7 2.1 Metal products 13.5 5.7 12.5 18.2 11.4 Electrical equipment 19.1 13.6 12.5 26.1 15.1 Chemicals 7.6 11.1 12.5 23.6 6.1 Paper and pulp 1.4 12.5 12.5 25.0 1.1 Wood products 2.8 12.5 12.5 25.0 2.2 Other 2.9 8.0 12.5 20.5 2.4 Non-tradeable (tradeable component) 1.7 8.0 12.5 20.5 1.4 DEPRECIATION (traaeable component) 4.1 11.0 12.5 23.5 3.3 TOTAL, INPUTS AND DEPRECIATION 93.7 77.4 OUTPUT 141.5 21.2A 116.7 VALUE ADDED 47.8 39.3 * Percentage of total domestic market.value of inputs of materials and services. A Nominal protection(coefficient.= 1.212). ANNEX III Page 12 - First, however, the standard conversion factor used at some stages of the calculations should be explained further. It is not the same as the factor mentioned in connection with the EPC, because there it related only to import protection whereas here it should take account of exports. We used the same formula as Schrenk and Yang; M + X CF = M (1 + tm) + X (1 - t ). The same figures of imports (M) and exports (X) were also used, and the same average export rebate (a negative value of tx). The average import protection (t ) in 197Q was estimated by taking the Schrenk and Yang figure for 1973 and calculating roughly the weighted average difference between 1970 and 1973 rates of protection; a similar process was used to estimate the level of protection in 1975. The SCF's resulting from these calculations were:- 1970 0.90 1975 0.89 (b) Capital Data on fixed and working capital in 1970 were obtained from Table 109-19 of the 1972 Statistical Yearbook. As the figures there are aggregated on an "organisation" basis rather than the establishment basis of our value added estimates, an adjustment was made using the ratio of net fixed assets on the two different bases in 1974 (fixed asset data on an establishment basis are available for 1974*). To estimate the resource cost of capital in border price terms, the OCC was multiplied by the SCF. The calculation of the cost of capital of the electrical equipment industry in 1970 is shown below, for illustration:- * From an issue of the Statistical Bulletin. ANNEX III Page 13 Fixed assets, after depreciation, -2,208 mn.dinars organisation basis Working capital, organisation basis 4,538 mn.dinars Total capital, organisation basis 6,746 mn.dinars Total capital, establishment basis 6,807 mn.dinars (x 1.009) Opportunity cost, border prices 551 mn.dinars (9% x 0.9 = 8.1%) No capital data are yet available for 1975, so that estimates had to be made on the basis of 1974 statistics. Fixed asset figures were taken from the establishment-principle data mentioned above; working capital, from the Statistical Yearbook, was adjusted to the establishment basis in a similar way to that followed for the 1970 estimates (described above). To estimate the capital employed in 1975, the 1974 net fixed assets were increased by the same proportion as depreciation, and the working capital estimate by the same proportion as output (depreciation and production data, as mentioned earlier in this Annex, are available for 1975. (c) Land Land represents a very minor part of the total costs of manufacturing industry, but a token allowance was made for its resource cost, on the assumption that land is not included in the fixed asset statistics which were used in calculating the resource cost of capital. The amount of land used by each industry was estimated from employment, by applying assumed "worker densities". For iron and steel we assumed a density of 20 workers per hectare, for the other.industries 100 workers per hectare. To estimate a "market price" of land, the rates of compensation applicable when urban land is expropriated for building purpose were used. These gave a price of 476,900 dinars per hectare for land in Belgrade in 1976. This was deflated to 1975 and 1970 using the index of industrial producer prices. The cost in annual terms was arbitrarily assumed to be 10% of the estimated "price" of land. It was then converted to border price terms by applying the SCF. ANNEX III Page 14 As an example, the calculation of the resource cost of land used by the electrical equipment industry in 1970 is shown below:- Density 100 workers per ha. Employment (adjusted to establishment basis) 89,000 Total land use 890 ha. Value at 1976 prices (476,900 dinars per ha) 424.4 mn.dinars Value deflated to 1970 prices 152.6 mn.dinars Annual cost, domestic prices 15.3 mn.dinars (10 percent) Annual cost, border prices (x 0.9) 13.7 mn.dinars (d) Labour -Our method of estimating the shadow cost of labour is described fully in Section III.C.1 of the main body of the report. Data on employment, incomes and taxes were taken from Statistical Yearbooks. Unskilled employment figures had to be converted from an organisation to an establishment basis: this was done by applying the ratio of total employment on the two different bases, usinq 1974 figures from Table 105-2 in the 1976 Yearbook and from the establishment-principle source referred to earlier. The latest industry-by-industry statistics of unskilled employment, published in the 1975 Yearbook, relate to 1972: to obtain estimates for 1975, the same percentage increase as occurred for total employment in the industries concerned was applied. The method of calculation of labour resource costs is best demonstrated by an example. The process of estimation for the electrical equipment industry in 1970 is shown below:- ANNEX( III Page 15 Unskilled workers:- Average net "wage" in economy (average of 1969 and 1971*) 895 dinars per month Opportunity cost at domestic prices (0.66 x 895) 591 dinars per month Opportunity cost at border prices, using agricultural conversion factor (1.05) 621 dinars per month Urbanisation cost at domestic prices (0.427 x 895) 382 dinars per month Urbanisation cost at border prices, using SCF (0.9) 344 dinars pei month Total "shadow wage" (621 + 344) 965 dinars per month Employment of unskilled in electrical industry, organisation basis 10,638 Employment, establishment basis 10,383 Shadow cost of unskilled labour, monthly (10,383 x 965) 10.02 mn.dinars per month Shadow cost of unskilled labour, annual 120.2 mn.dinars per year. Other workers:- * Total net incomes in electrical industry, 1970 1,300.5 mn.dinars Less unskilled incomes (10,383 x 955 x 12) - 119.0 mn.dinars Net incomes of other workers 1,181.5 mn.dinars Taxes and contributions (42.7%) 504.5 mn.dinars Gross incomes of other workers, 1,686.0 mn.dinars domestic prices Gross incomes of other workers, 1,517.4 mn.dinars border prices {x SCF). Total shadow cost of labour:- Unskilled 120.2 mn.dinars Other workers 1,517.4 an.dinars TOTAL 1,637.6 mn.dinars * 1970 data not published in Yearbook. ANNEX III Page 16 (f) DRC calculation Since the value added which is the denominator of the DRC includes the value added part of non-tradeable inputs, an addition had to be made to the resource costs of capital, land and labour which had been calculated in the way described earlier. This was done in a very simple fashion, by using the ratio of value added with and without the non-tradeables' component, in domestic prices. In the 1970 calculations, a further adjustment was made to reconcile the resource cost estimates, based on Yearbook statistics, with the input-output tables from which the value added estimates were derived: the ratio of the input totals in the two sources was applied. The calculation of the 1970 and 1975 DRC's of the electrical equipment industry is summarised below:- 1970 DRC:- Resource costs: Capital 551 mn.dinars Land 14 mn.dinars Labour 1,638 mn.dinars TOTAL 2,203 mn.dinars Adjusted for non-tradeables' share of net value added ( 3,731) (x T.79p) 2,614 n.dinars Adjusted to input-output table basis (x 5,905,72) 2,384 mn.dinars ( 6 ,476,500) Net value added at border prices 2,717 mn.dinars DRC (2,348 i 2,717) 0.88 ANNEX III Page - 1975 DRC:- Resource costs: Capital 1,570 mn.dinars Land . 41 mn.dinars Labour 5,039 mn.dinars TOTAL 6,650 mn.dinars Adjusted for non-tradeables' share of net value added x 47.8) 8,579 mn.dinars Net value added at border prices 9,002 mn.dinars DRC (8,579 t 9,002) 0.95 INSTITUTE FOR AG.tICULTURAL 3CO.,CL:ICS - BELG.aAE Slobodan ýili± 1DUanka Ivanovid AGRICUL TUi AL PRICES ASD SU,>. IjIBS I N Y U G 0 O L A V I A - The slructure of the. aGricultuxal sector Belgrade, Decemdber 1976. II - EUGLU±hi I au SU 2.1 Basic onaracteristics of the develo2ment of socio-economic sUstem of Yugoslavia based on self-manarement in the post-war period Yugoslav economic system in the period up to 195o slightly differed from those prevailing in other socialist countri- es. Easential characteristics thereof might be sumnarized as follows: state ownership of the means of production, central planning and administrative economic controls. Since positive characteristics of such a system have been relatively quickly exhausted in our circumstances, a change was necessary to introduce a system, which starting from marxist aasumptions, would be adequate to our specific con- ditions, experiences and needs. Such a system waS formally inaugurated in 195a by enactment of the Law on wforkers'Self- management. A new form of socialist development has been pro- claimed, essentially different from all b7 Jm tms exis- ting 'modelsu. In the Yrogramme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, the system was delned as : "social system based on social ownership of the means of production, where tue associated direct producers manage the production, the income is distributed in conformity with the principle : to each accordini to his work, and where under the control of working class, underoing tranaformation itself, all social relations cnaracterized by class antagonism and all elements of exploitation of other man's work, are gradually done away with". 1, An enterprise, as an autonomous self-managinC organization established in the aim of carrying out specific economic acti- vities, has become the main cell of the economic system. Zmplo- yees in each enterprise were entitled under the Law on ',orkers' Self-management, to decide on all major problems concerning the operations. Through their self-managing bodies,they adopt proauction plans, decide on income distribution, approve balan- ce sheets, decide on integration with other enterprises, etc. The function of enterprise management was devided into..leader- ship, entrusted to the director and other executive bodies and management itself within the competence of self-managing bo- dies: workers'councils and management boards of employees. Lead- ership provided for the implementation of executive functions within the sphere of production set-up Knd business relations with third parties. In the course of the first hal. of bee self-management got introduced into all non-productive institutions (only the sec- tor of self-employed farmers and craftsmen were not involved) so that this can be taken as the point when the system pre- dominated in all the spheres of economic and social life. 1/Yugoslavia's way, irogramme of the League of Yugoslav Communists, All Nations Press, New York, 1958 hince the sysein haR been conceived aR antidogmaic one, n nr the irocess of permanent 'evolution and improvement in cor- relation to tkie development of productIve forces and social consciousness, new qualitative changes took place at the be- ¿ainnin of 7os, on the basis of constitutional amendments adopted in 1971. These were further elaborated in the Cons- titution in 1973 and in the Law on Associated Labour, enacted by the end of 1976. The basic target of all the changes was further development of self-man..gement social system in Yu- Cos.Lavia and introduction of so called direct sel£-mano.gement. At the same time possibility has been created for the workers in a part of work org;anlzation makin up work entity, where the results of t=eir joint labour can be independently deno- minated an a value, either within the work organization or on the market, and where they can pursue their socio-economic .and other self-management right, to u.rjanize such a part of work org I zatiLonL n11-to a a.ic orgSaJ i of SCC P7it Ur Aur Al) an elz al I 1khi - wUitin t h n t Uit, _as they di etr-ie- at the level of the enterprise as a whole. A bor enty ir de1 emed t he a p of +r%ut hiona1nely portion of nöcIal labour in work organization where the workers arc direetly linked by single labour process -nd thereby interdependent , and where the workers, utilizing the resources from jolit labour create joint labour results. irtbeur result of the workqrs can be independently d-enomii4ed as a value if-a part of the work organization,formed as a basic organization, is capable of earning gross income and in the manner and under the conditions stipulated under the Law on Associated Labour. If the workers or a management body of tne work organization consider that in any one part thereof, or of the basic organi- zations the conditions stipulated under the Law h:ave been met so that such a part can be organized as a basic organiza- tion, they are obliged to move the inItiative and to convene genera.. meeting of tne woricers employed therein for a-praisal of the conditions for the establishment of a basic organiza- tion. The workers in the basic organization of associated labour form workers'council as a managing body to manage the work and operations ok the basic organization, If the basic organi. zation employs less than o workers, the workers'council shall not be formed, but all the workers shall exercise the function of the workers'council and decide by expressing their own views on the matters in the mpetence of workers'council. Wdorkers'council e a basic organization is made up of the delegates of the workers from all paits of labour process therein. The composition of the workers'council must corres- pond to the.social structure of the workers in-the b:-sic or- ganization and number of delegates is related tc the number of workers.-of each respective part of labour process in the work organization. The delegates of the workers on the council ure elected for the term of two eears. Ecn worker employed with the basic organization is entitled to bf elected.. Nobody can be elected for more th-n two successive terms of office. Neither the director, nor other executive officers responsi- ble to the workers'council can be elected thereon. In a work or,ranization employing less than >o workers an executive body may be elected,- with the same rights, ooligations and respon- sibilities entrusted to the executive body of the workers' council. 1xecutive body is particularly responsible for: pro- posing the draft statute and drafts of other self-management general enactments to be passed by the workers'counci.L, pro- posing the plan nnd guidelines to the director concerning implementation of the decisions of the workers'council and 6- control. thereof. Viorkers'council of a basic oreanization of associated labour determines development plan of the b;sic organization, business policy, measures for implementatioL of business policy and plan, takes decisions on lending and borrowing with respect to current operations in conformity with the plan of the basic organization, approves financial statements and balance sheets, elects, appoints tand recalls the executive body and the director, provines for guidelines and instructions to the executive body and director and controls the work thereo". About the decisions relevant to the enterprise as a whole, the workers'council or general meeting of the workers cf each iUAL express their views through their representatives in the central workers'coucil of the enterprise. Joint actions at the level of the enterprise are undertaken only if and when all BUALs a6ree th,reto. Chaiges in socio-econoiaic system in the course of last thirty years were reflected in the economic system in general, plan- nine system and marxKet relations, but A detailed analysis of all these elements of economic structure is beyond the pur- pose of this paper. 2.2 General economic develoDment and the role and significance of agriculture therein The post-war economic aevelopment of lugoslavia is characterized by a very fast rate of growth of the economy- in general, nnd by the changes in its structure caused particularly by high rate of growth of industrial production.1/' ational per capita incomu also -permanently increased. The changes in the econo- mic structure lead to the decrease in relative importance of A primary production alonL with concurent increase in sLgnifi- cance of secondary and tertial activities. Past decreAse in the relative importance of agriculture is of particular sig- nificance, which does not mean however, that this econoamic sphere is no longer of importance for Yugoslavia. On tae con- trary, agricultural sector is still of exceptional importance, "/In the period 1975/1956 the index of growth of national income was 309 (calculated in constant prices of 1972) that mearis that the annual rate of rrowth in the economy was 7.1/. Industrial rate of growth was 9. c nd agricul- tural ;.5,. ( soci:.l sector lo.4-.., individual 2.5";).If we would take the period 1975/1946 the rates would be even higher. particul rly because of . ,- necessity to ensUre to the growing argricultural population sufficient volume of Ligh qualicy food; - possioility of export of our products with compari- tive advantages ; - jrovision of healthy, young and qualified labourers for the development of other sectors and increase in .Z- income or farmers; - development of internal marketrfor industrial pr -ducts and Bervices. Throughout the post-war period the mumbe--agricultural po- pulation was permanently decreasing dm-!htv-a- at a rather fat rate ( in 1939 it was 75.1; in 1953 : 6C-.7"; 1961 : 49.6.; 1971 : 38.2?;; 1975 : 32.97;). Relative participatiou of active agricultural oopulation within total active population has aLso been permanently de- creasing ( 195p : 6oj'.; 1961:565; 1971:43.8,, 1975:38.5-A). 1/ The share of agriculture in social product has also been permpnently falling; it is the main :huracteristic of prog- ressive economic development in general.k 1959/61 :24.4; 1969/71 : 17.67-;1972: 16.7Z; 1975:16%).Tte same concerns the share of agriculture in gross national income. As to participation'of agriculture in total exports Pnd im- ports, relative decrease was also recorded, but it must te taken into-account that quite a lot.of prime agricultura2 products are further processed and exported as industri,?.l product. 1/social product = national income + depreciation All these indicators, however, do not prove the thesis of industrial determinism aoout the uecline of the role and siz,nificvnce of agriculture within the process of economic developm..nt, but only illustratt the fact that the general laws of economic development have been manifested in us in more or less tne same way as in other countries.,.Taking into account natural and climatic conuitions in the big part of Yugoslavia and quality of soils in major agricultural reg- ions, we may say that conditions for the development of agri- culture are exceptionally favourable in low land and river valleys. Unfortunately, mountanous regions, taking up --/4 of the territory ,do not favour the production of crops,but there are considerable potentials for livestock. The results accomplished in adricultural production so far, and the fu- ture tasks1/ are illustrative of the significance of this economic activity and therefore the development of agricul- ture received particular attention in the development plans and in the economic policy. Production and yield of basic agricultural commodities in Yugoslavia in01974 and 1975 ) Table 1 Yroduction Yield in in ooo tons Quint/ha Wdheat and rye 5,465 29.7 .aize 8,71o 37.6 Sugar beet 4,256 4o2.o Sunflower 285 14.45 Potato 2,76o 85.5 P..'.0. 1/ lievelopuent plan of Yugoslavia anticipates that by 198o sufficient quantity of almost all agricultural products shall have been ensured for '.ugoslav mk.r.xet and partially *for exports. Taole 1- continued Beef 33o Pork 390 Hutton 56 loultry 188 2.3 liain ch.racteristics of akricultural develoDment in Yuxoslavin in Dost-war -period Throughout the post-war period, as it used to be earlier, agriculture continued to be one of major economic activi- ties in Yu;oslavia. Irrespective of -he fact that in enerRl it was poorly equiped with modern tocnnical and techu.ologi- cal aids, characterized by traditionalism and absence pf sidnificant innovations, in circumstances of post-war poli- tical and economic d4ficulties, the contribution of agricul- ture towards overall economic development was much greater than its importance in terms of production of individual food products. Numely, 'agriculture employed vast majority of population, greatly contributed to the national income and financed, out of its savingn, the development of neti ... I . * - - primpry industry. Therefore it broadly 4ffected the whole economy and even other spheres. agriculture itself, because of its role within the overall. economic development, as well as because of a rushed - collectivis..tion, could* not develop in that period; stagnation in the -volume of production of major crops and livestock was a natural consequence. .ta certain point it became clear that further development of overall economy'ana increase. of non-agriculturalpopulation *imposed the need to develop :griculture to prevent negative effects of disproportiou,.te underdevelopm:nt of agricul- ture on economic development on the whole. Fin.-lly, the situation at that time in the primary distribution adversely effected living standard of many inhabitantn of our country. By the end of 5os, when aisproportionate development of a,;ri- culture became iapeaiment to further overall economic nnd social development, it was obvious that neither the develop- ment of this economic sphere not increased volume or better quality of products could be reasonably expected witnout investments into modern technique an=. technology, particul- arly on big8er socially owned estateE. formed in the pos-.-war period. Therefore in the period 1951-1965 considetable funds were invested into aCriculture, social estates got equipped, advisory services advanced, experiments initiated in terms of introduction and development of domestic varieties of maize, wheat and other crops, deep milking cows were introd- uced on social estates and bigger utilization of fertilizers and of other reproduction means of industrial origin. Since the fundi-vailable were far from sufficient to cover en- ormous needs, it has been impossible to invest broadly in a6riculture; that would have been irrational from the social standpoint because of the existing a&rarian structure and the need for furtner development of other brances of economy. Therefore attention was focused on the development and tec- funictl ;nd tecuioluical advauce of social sector in a&ri- culture. There were still perplexities about the development of pri- vete sector. It was unheld that forced-collectivization rt a tme of inadequate ecoxiomic, poiitical and social condi- tiois resulted iu evidently necative experiances ; the .r>- cess of socialization in L.,riculture, an . rule, t:kes long- er than in other economic epneres, which should be t;,Ven in- to account, -zid therpfore the oevelopuent o- production of many ,;mal.j nolaings takin up a big part of production cn- pacities had to oe enhanced. Since these loldings were small and hardly accumulttive, it was aeemed that it would be soc- ially justiXied to base furtaer development of proiuc- tion by cmall noldin,s on cooperation wita socially-,;ned estates that were gettine equipped and staffed at n. fas-: rate. It shortly proved to be the ri&hT waj of agricultu- r:Ld aevelopment, of its moaernizatiozi and increased produc- tion. Holdirns involved in coopez;Ltion recorded fFster in- creoseTin the production of major products, which immInontly effected overall commodity producticn thereof. In tlt wa cooperetion became characteristic, end for 7ugoslavia specifi: *way of development of agriculture*of dual structure. estri- ction to maximum lo hn of Arable Land per individunl owner, modest income and posuibilities for reproduction of these farms have naturally imposed such a way. At that time, and by 19b5, the year of major economic reform, under the motto of decentralization, democratization and deetatization, pre- vailed the opinion that development of individual sector should be cautiously pursued bec.ause of possible deftrmi- ties an soci;Ll pcoblems. Thaerefore the acquisition of own mtehantZl of pr'oduclion (heavy machines) was rectricted -u.A sales and purcnase of %Lricultural products were in th.e iiono- Ioly of cooperatives. After 1965 n,w ineans of production and technology poured into individual sector, partly because of powerful sTioulue given by price increase of agricultural products, as well E-s because of chaned policy of the development. Thereby the substance of coooeration 6ot changed. Locially owned esti.tes continued of course to assist small holders; howevcr, social- ly owned estates were oriented to bil, machines that coIuld not be ol;imized on swall holdings.OocperKtion in livestock, mechanization, provision of funds for reproduction and pur- cnase of agricultural products particularly developed.1fow- ever, at %ne some time, certain wev-c points have been mani<es- ted adversely effecting overall agricultural development. *'irst of all, cooperation was more an expression of temporary n?ed on both sicLes than tne matter of agreement and awareness *f necessity for u long-term cooperation. The partners hzvP often: pursued short-term policy and hve not always jointly end equitably srLred the cake. It was one of rare cectors where self-manaement relations were underdeveloped. uoc-p3r- atives and other aricultural -rganize.tions have graduplly turned to themselves and the trade, and there were certain st.ndstills in tne process of integration of agricultural .*ro- duction. Ho.:ever, as soon as it was observed that it could adversely effect the development of this specific economic activity, as well as many others closely linked thereto, a;- soon -.s it wks ev3.dent that independent development of small holdings is seriously'limited in Yugoilavia's condi- tion, a tendency arouse to strengtAen cooperation betw"een the two sectors, on an economic basis. In the course of recent years, particularly follcovint the enactment of the Law on Association of !armers, of the :.F!%Y Constitution and Law on Associated Labour, there hpve been tendencies to strengthen business cooper,tion in P.Cricult - re, on a lon4: term basis, share in risks and profits, to i- crease the influence of associated f:rmers in self-rv-tnain bodies and thereby rise . =eir own interest in tite ultimR- te destiny of their products. This change in relat:onship as a new qualit-y, in a short period -incc it ensuec , cuLld not get fully expressed, mostly becs,use oi certain probl 3ms on the market of agro-products. however, it was alri!ady Jcl.t that the chanees took positive direction, evidenced by iii- creased number of farmers entering long-term coope.atio-i witt social orgtnizations and amon6 themselves, by stead:, protuc- tion in recent years, growin6 volume -f commodity p.,oduction, its bewtter quality and assortment. :Iith the view to the purpose and charicter of this stuay,we shall herein.fter briefly discuss maLn characteristics of the development of social and indiviiual sectors in the course of last decade, without detailed analysis of al-, the aspects of adricultural development. 2.4 Subjects in adric6-ltural production In Yugoslav a6riculture many dual and even bi-dual charac-teristici are apparent. First of all there Pre two main sectors. Th, first, in major 6rain-belts, excellently equipped with mod- ern technique, technology ind qualified experts is so called social a6ro sector. In future it shall be extended and at pre- sent serves as a sort of a lever to the development of agri- culture in general. However, in certain larts of the countr- tilat sector is still relatively undeveloped, and its produc- tion capacities are modest. The latter is the sector of small holdings. There is a big difference with respect to their size, production potentials, market proauction, etc. The characteristics of both sectors shall be explained hereinafter. 2.4.1 Basic characteristics of socially owned estates In 190o 3,b79,ooo ha or 24,41j out of total agricultural area was in social sector, and in 1975 it uas 4.4o2,73o h-t or5 L). There were no significant changes in total acreage. It was reduced from 15.1 million ha to 14.5 n.ha. however, partici- pation of socia.L sector in total agricultural land consider- ably increased. It was augmented mainly by pure.,ase of pri- vate land, by turning the pastures into arable land and by meliorations. The purchase as a form of augmentation of acre- kge in social ownership started in 1954 and Decame even more significant in 1958. In the period 196.-1966 there was thn highest purchase of private land (48.8-). since 1966, npmeLy after the economic reform, the process of extension of so:ial sector has been going on slowly. Peasons are to be looked for in the.reduced sienific>nce df agro cooperatives, %hich by that time hed the leading role in the purchase - b-..' 1964 / ~.�1 / '' �� i � / ,.. !// � �1fв / I`�� �� . . � .� 1 � tдеу purcaased 55i• oS ац рцг::нiвед 1 лс! . '�haa, thE: � � + ule rаяаоав os econousc а.lгlггч; hi„h t:ian р: icea �.• г • j fяat иры�д �еад { яvеги�;е рг1�е lасrмивад 1а :ие ре_•: 1� гуио-lуоq by aevea t�eь i uatavour::Ыe г�угv сгг�11 t�: : дsсгепаед sвv2tцa Suada ыi•.и езиовlс �r�яаlгагiопа, ,; �:xteaaiaa оУ аос:аl secsor ''аЫе � 1 8- (i' Cb' ..1��е' lnоб-1�71 _ �, ,� ""`__'`� Fцrtbuae oS privнte lацд 156,335 29•7 Z56,872 :8.n ц3,о58 '11.5 5: Laad lшрго- тетопt td�,315 •59.4 3�,441 �u.s а9,33у �4.: :п Total 2Т7,е5о 38.о 290 „t3 :9.8 ib2,397 гг.2 7:. Тlie Ъig,�est вzрвваiоа oS aoeial пве �аг ыF� нсаiиvед 1т, lнад нгеае. бо,• ot totлl вzp�aioa Dafalla Qo�vvel3a:� r:тс btв. 2t ые salw n look lato а 1г•nd цпа�;а р.etera гhвте 1п гг. a�sad рягtlсiрицаа oi plawed Yielaa я.sд vм8е.г.�Ъ1е Е:•r.:• пад ааnеыг�+it двс.-еапед partldlp :tion •�� рг sгvtes (:at1� lапд цпаgе рхггаг.s оа soe1: •1 •га т,+►z еа 1а ��.У tоъц ava11:•D1e ara:i =1оо 'iяЪ1в З - .�. 'tear Рlоыед flelcs Оге�- V1ae- *tea- .L.'а.b1в Рапт- :•Сг. • ес �:• .` епа aris r��lа доvв lьад агеа se._!�_. � - 19бб 53.д 2.> >.а 5.у й3.е :5•� °д•' 1у7о 54.8 2.о 1.З 5.о b3.7 i<.1 уб.= 1у74 5и.4 1.9 1..: 5.1 оа.й �i.4 Ч�•� :;оцх�сев . аг...tlзцсгl �1lcгtia ао.71о нпд у2у - ::ис.�•=- ' еа tяtea . ------• •� - -. , .. _. ,--�----- . ._ _- - .ince lgoo total niunber of cocial esi;,tes dec reased bLt concurenti,y Lhe -ize thereuf increksed %t;,blt-. 4). Qha2ij,es i2L number I-IrLd size of sucial estates TPble 4 No.of est;-tes 0 size - r,:. 19LO 1965 197o 1974 196o 19u5 l,c,7o 197, zDocial farms and estates 475 2b2 -b9 486 163o 368o 493-1 3188 F--Lrmer-: co- operatives 147 lo 8 o lu5o - - i.gro co- operatives 4obo 1937 11o2 813 1:)o 47o 561 519 Total 47o3 2229 1371 1299 3do 91o 1415 .Uibtribution in ;Dociel frms and estates lo.1 12.7 19-u 37.4 5o.4 54.8 66.1 78.6 Farmers co- operatives '21.1 o.4 8.3 o.8 - - Ai;ro cu- opcratives 6b.8 86.9 bo.4 bd.6 41.3 44.4 31.9 _1-4 Total 100.0 100.0 100-0100.0 lo').o ILOO.0 100.0 1-0.0 Sources : : tRtistical year book 19%,1-1,)76 lehis tenaency is particularl% marked in agro combinates and estates. In 19uo there were 475 combinates nnd estates or lo.1 in terms if total nuaber Of SOC:Lal estates and izL 197o it declined tu 2t)q n,=ely lg.u-..,. At tho sabie time 68.1,,, o ri,;ricultural lana in social sector was at the disporal u.7 cumoixi:Lzes ond estates, Ln the ,?eFLr 19'74 there were 4bU CJM- L)iziates namely 37.4 CUL of all social-'. o%%ned estates ant they disposed with 78.b of agricultur%l area. Farmers co- operatives participate wil:h 62.6,,, of -;otal number of holdings and cover 21.4 , of total agricultural -xea. vhi. process; of :.cret:<tion of nocial esi,vtes w-unt on rein 1ivel* f ast. The following table shows tb..tl it particUlrly concernes social estates rnd comoimates. 13.2p bef Ils the agriculTural orgunizations with up to 2,5uo ha per estates, while the part3cipation of farms with over 5,ooo ha is almost 7o. Acreage allotment by socia. estates Table 5 Groups of Distribution in Distr.bution of agro estates by number of estatesl a:ea -n '/ size 1965 197o 1974 L96A 197 1974 Up to - 5oo ha 23.1 21.2 39.2 1.1 o.7 1.5. 5oo -looo " 7.4 9.3 8.8 1.4 1.3 2.1 looo - 25oo 22.7 16.o 17.9 9.7 5.2 (.6 2500 - 5ooo " 21.3 23.8 16.2 18.7 16.3 10.7 over 5000 25.5 29.7 17.9 69.1 76.5 6t.1 total loo.o ljo.o loo.oloo.o loo.o o0.o - Ptrmers cooy)eratives - Up to 5o ha 8o.1 75.3 74.7 22.3 16.7 15.2 500 - looo " 9.,j lo.7 1o.5 15.9 15.3 1Z.4 looo - 25oo " 7.o lo.6 11.1 24.6 35.2 3'.5 25oo - Sooo " 2., 2.5 2.7 16.3 19.0 1: .5 over 5oo, " o.8 0.9 1.o 18.9 13.8 1.4 Total looloo.o loo.o loo.i loo.o loo.o -liotal ior all soci ,l osta- es - Up to 5uo ha 72.6 64.6 70.41110. 5.1 !.4 So - looo 0 9.6 10.4 8.7 7.' 5.2 &.7 looo - 25oo 9.2 11.7 10.1 16.0 13.5 15.2 25oo - 5ooo " 4.7 a.7 5.6 .o,' 17.1 1i.6 over 5000 " 3.9 6.6 5.. 46.. 59.1 55.1 Total loo.o loo.o loo.o loo.o loo.o loo.o Source : 6tatitical yer ooolc 1961-1972 1 In 1974/75 bcsides or-;gnizr.tions of Rskociated lab*ur the buasic orC:nizations h:vv bLe also taken into -ccount. Therefore certain data which miZht seem inconsistent, must be ii,ter- preted in terms of this note. There al3o appear3 increase in number of farm up to 5oo ha in 1974 comphrea to 197o becnue BOALs within a composite or,anization were taken into ,cco=t which otherwiae accordin6 to their acreage falls within higher category. In ti-rmas ofJ' LeL.ioU:Ll cil.tribution, the un-jor*it' of bi& or- aisattions :a.re in law lauin areas of VojvuAii aind 'ulvoniji. First of all the wost of .6ro estites and co.bin.ttes are situated in 6ocialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Soci.list itepublics of Croatia and hacedonia, while the m- jority of farmers'cooperatives are in Serbia proper (5o'). It should be t_ien into account that farmers'cooperatives constitute smaller production units in agricultural produc- tion in terms of their size, except in Vojvodina and T icedo- nia wnere they are more importmnt. Parallel witzi the process of augmentation of social estatei, there was the process of concentration of manpower, pp7ticil- arly qualified. Out of total number of employees in social estates over 6o, of permanent workers are with the agro combinates and farms and participation of experts is even higher, over 7o.. Table 7 shows that in 1974 participation wE.s reduced in kener.l. Th! basic reason is in statistical follow-up, which, ai, alr.ady mentioned, takes into account all the organizations of as- sociated labour within one composite organization,presenting no real situation, therefore. The fact that the total nu.Aber of employees in 1973 was 2o2,194 and in 1974 was increased by mure than 4 thousand to 2o6,826 substantiatts the exppla- nation. ACREAGE ;.LL6thbIT ON tUCIAL L6TATES BY h±PUBLICS A14D ImVINCES Table 6 Ttbl( 6. AveraGe estate Regional kegionall dist- size in ha aistribu- ributiou of tion of es- acreage ._ tates 1971 1974 1971 1974 1971 1974 - Iscates and combinates - Serbia proper 2,16o 1,oo8 17.2 29.4 7.1 9.3 Vojvodina 5,771 4,856 29.2 22.8 32.3 34.8 Kosovo 9,465 2,474 2.2 5.o 4.o 4.5 SR of $erbia 4,662 ?,668 46.6 58.o 43.4 48.o SR of Croatia 7,312 4,65o 16.4 15.2 23.1 22.2 lR of Lilovenial,545 1,b43 10,2 6.o 3.0 3.1 S of Bosnia 5,953 2,355 b.9 9.9 7.9 7.3 Sh of Maced. 6,832 5,ooo lb.1 9.9 21.1 17.3 oh of honten- egro 4,217 4,b57 1.8 1.o 1.5 1.5 SPh of Yugos. 5,208 3,188 loo.o loo.o loo.o Loo.o - Cooperatives - Serbia proper 278 262 3o.o 31.4 16.9 15.8 Vojvodina 1,159 1,o6o 16.8 16.8 38.2 34.4 Kosovo 923 967 3.1 2.2 5.7 4.1 SR of Serbia 6-o 559 49.9 50.4 6o.8 54.3 SR of Croatia lo3 105 2o.6 23.1 4.2 4.7 SR of Slovenia 518 497 5.8 6.5 5.9 6.2 SR of bounia 323 413 .10.1 7.4 6.4 5.9 SR hacedonia 933 1,288 11.9 11.5 21.7 28.4 S of hontene. Z92 211 1.7 1.1 1.e 0.5 SPR of Yugosl. 5o9 519 loo.o 100.0 loo.o loo.o source : %tatistical year book - 1971-1975 Survey of employees with social estates Table 7 Year Total no. Perm.nent T-xzerts of employrees workers Paculty or I'econtary high school eaucation - rstates and combinates - 1965 526.3 411.9 10.3 22.0 197o 434.d 322.9 18.6 34.5 1974 76.o 2o6.o 12.7 23.; Table 7- continueo - Cooperatives - 1965 5b.7 43.4 1.2 3.9 1970 59.o 27.3 1.8 6.1 1974 U4.9 3o.4 2.o 6.5 - other social farms- 19b5 lls.4 9o.U e.3 0.2 197o 132.6 85.3 5.1 11.7 1974 lob.4 7o.6 4.9 9.c Source 1966- 1975 Taken in feneral, the development of social estates in last 15 years took the course of augmentation both in terzs of size :-nd staff, and today they constitute large social aLri- cultural orGanizations. To appraise trie production characteristics in social est:Ltes we shall start from cropping pattern in social sector. A survey for the last decade 1966-1974 provides for the followinL. image (Table 8 Cropping p)Lttern in social estates Table 8 Yea Tot:-l area Grains Indust. Podder sown Total Whuat 1--aize crops xts crops 1966 loo b7.1 35.t 19.7 1.7 1.7 14.5 197o loo 72.2 48.7 18.8 17.7 1.6 8.5 1974 loo 74.o 44.9 eo.8 16.5 1.6 . 7.9 Source : Dtatisiical bulletin nos. 485,692,923 - Par-aing. fruit and grape growings. dheat acreage considerably increased, and that under fodder decreaset due to the reduction in livest-ck fund. Par ;ici- pation of acreage under industrial plants is mostly s ;agnai t. 12",e mo.t import%ant inaicators of the accomplished crop production intensity :4.re the yields per unit of capacity. Yield in ouintals/ha on social estates in iFRY Wheat ?.aize Sugar beet Sun lloder # l9o7-b9 35.8 34.5 431 20.2 % 1970-72 35.4 55.2 41o 17.8 0 1973-75 44.o 57.1 438 17.o Source : Statistical bulletins SZ3 and "Parming,fruit and grape growinG' for respective years. In the period under review certain cvangcs have also taken place in totai number of cattle, as a capacity in ;jricul- t:iral proAuct:j .n next to land tillage, as evident in the following survey : Total number of pigs in social estates in JfRY in ooo Tota 1 a ws 1967-69 855 .77 1970-72 1,o47 89. 1973-75 1,176 92.7 Total number of cattle in social estates in SPRY in ooo Cattle Particiration of social e3tates in C:4ttle Cows 19b1-65 462 1966-7o 367 b.8 4.2 i 1971-75 4o5 7.3 3.1 L;ource : Statistcal year book 1961-1975 In socia.Ll ' owned estates there was a tendency of fall in total number of cattle and cows, but it ceased in imst five years. It did not adversely effect livestock pi-oauctiol which owin to the change in breed composition recorded an increase per unit of capacity. To judpe the accomplishect livestock production intensity we shall take average meat production per breeder in last five years. Production of beef 1'roduction of porc in kg per cow in kF per saw 1971 87 347 1972 78 293 1973 86 235 1974 96 286 *1975 99 326 1ource : Statistical ye;,r book 1972-1976 In the period 1972-73 pig proc.uctioi. dropped, in 1974 downward trend was stopped and in 1975 an increase was recorded. Jeef production recodred slight increase. Participation of social sector in overall production of beef was 16.7 '; in the period 1969-1971 and-L20,5 6 in the period a972-74, while pork pi.)du- ction in the same period was 19.7 . and..a2,i resp-ecti-'ely. As far as commodity production is ctncerned, sociallb owned estates provide for the biggest market volume of the prime aGricultural products. Participation of social sector in commodity production (-) Table'9 19b6 1971 1974 Wheat 65.7 67.4 Maize 43.7 57.o Sugar beet 43.4 68.o GD Sunflower 61.9 65.2 Pigs 37.J 34.1 Cattle 31.1 23.o ditn respect to fertilizers consumption, it has been c-nsi- derably incl-eased in last, ten -,ears, althuugh in several recent years there was a full in total quantities of fer- tilizers used. But, wnen utlized quantities of fertilizers are rec.Jlculated into active material than it does become evident that consumption permanently increases.(Table lo) Pertilizer consumption Table lo Totally consumed queaz- itctive m:terial ities of fertilizers in in ooo tons 000 tous Total ;oc.secto 1964-1966 2,o36.6 1,152.1 472.5 196 -L971 1,746.1 87o.8 628.1 1972-1974 1,852.2 748.4 698.8 Source : Statistical year book 1965-1975 r.nd .;tatistical oulletins SZU for respective years :-echanis&.tLon of agro production at sociaLly 'wned ustrtes developed euch faster in the period 1961-1965 thrm in 197'- 1971 and 'L972-74. In terms of number if -ractorz in the period 19i1-1965 an increase was recardet., and in the peziods whict folluwed a decrease7. The basic ce;ts-n is that tractors of law drivind power were replaced by b.LgGer ones. It is shown in Table 11. Survey of the number of tractors Fnd combines in social estates Table 11 T r a c t o r s Combines "L'1 no. Total R2 OLHP /trac.ozal no. j 1901-1962 34,126 1,384,834 4o 6,64o 1964-19o5 40,512 1,8o9,o9C 44 12,3oo 0 197o-1971 'd,574 1,395,458 52 11,3oo 0 1972-1974 25,o41 1,427,5o7 69 lo,943 Lource :ztaietical year book 1962-1975 and Jt.bulletin )ZS "tfci?1 :k.*ro est;ttes"for respective years e.4.e B.vic charoacteri3tics of small Aoldings Individual sector in Yugoslav .griculture is on important factor in the eevelopment and st%uility of agriculture and of overall economy. Its re.Lative importince is less than tl-at of social sector, the yields are lower, Ps its market share Pnd income, but irrespective of ,-Ll tnese facts indiviaual sector is going to have m:.jor role in the near future. since L966 steady and realistic polic2 of i.dividual eector developmcnt has been establis4ed. liamuly, an attitude w!s taken that the cooperation between individtn:1 .nd Socitl sectorr throuch forms of cooperution ot associatiun can bring cons- derable pouitive effects in prvduction of many adro producl.s. In conformity therewith it has been decided thpt the develop- ment of this sector should be allowed as long as there wiL1 be positive effects, with the tendenc' that through firms of cooperution with various subjects in nociFI sector, the indiv:- dual one should gradually trznsform auc, do away with :e-rtive chNracteristics that represent cn objoctive obstacLe lor its own and to-.al further development. .*t that time the monopoly of ag ro cooper-atives in the ju.rcL.tse of agricultural products wtus cpncelled and a possibili4y pro- vided that other manufacturing and tradinLz or-itniziti. as y engage in cooperation with the individaul sector. k1so the own- ers of small holdings were 1iven an opportunity to purclia:e mechanisation for tilling own land and serve the others. igh!r prices oO a6ro products =nd -ll theze novelties alon,.with practical equalization of ararian polic.- for sociall,, and privately ownea holdins lead to 'vu increase in the volume of toal rund cormoity production in private holain-s. Today in iuio i thire ikre about 2,too,ooo small holLdncs. The averae Rrable erea per holfing is 3.27 ha ( out of iotal lo million ta of arable land 8.5 million or 85/ belongs to small holders). These holidns rre: undoubtedly and b% all criteria sinall ana each of them d4vided into several plots. In- major farm products holdings particip,.te as follows : a)wheAt 62.4i, b) maize d3,, c) sue_ar beet 27.2;, d) sun flower 41.5>. In meat production their participation is 74.81. , milx 88.5> and eCws 74.9,V. Their contribution towards mmrket surpluts is however cousiaerably lower ( in case zf wheat 33.7 an.1 maize 44.4".). In to;c.l j,urchase of agro prolucts small holdi i;s participate with 54- and in total mecmanical power wita 5E' and in social product of agriculture with 767.b Detailed data on small holdings in SnY are not Annally col - lectad but on the occasion of regular agricultural census. However, the In:*titute for ?ricultur:l Economics mRkes en- cual investigpt.on tamonC 1,ooo small holders in Sociilist Republic of 6eruia ( VojvodinA, Konovo and 5erbii proper). The data about Socialist Republic of Serbia bectuse **f its diversity in conditions and a6ricultural opportunitie. .Lay be usea to illustrnte certain indicators for Yugoalavic.. in general, since ;,ver,Ce values for both P.re the s;.me in t) e elements covered by tue analysis. To illust:rte the situa ion on tnese holdings we shall take the data from the above m n- tioned ...questionnaire. Diata on aiitul holdinb6s inaicate that mixea production witaout speci"Lizartion preaominates, There mre P.bout 761,; of such holdin6s. T'here ,,re :Lbout 11'e- of those where Livest-c%k produ- cTIon participr,tes with-7oP in total production value, 2 where industrial crops participate with over 5of., 370 of those with vetetable participation of over So in total vplue of production, the same for those specialized in grapfs ani vine (3%;), o.23% specialized in fruit growing (over 5o0* of the value of fruits in total value of the production) an, 51 of those where farming participa-es with over 65.. Maximum small holdings are lo hectares of arable land. Distri- bution of holdings and of tot.-.L acreaee is provided in table on acreage allotment. Those data imply that th changes are slow. About 7oof the holdings have up to 5 ha and these occupy about 41; of total acreaee. Acreage allotment of small holdings in UIR of Oeruia - in 7 Table 12 Size of hld4ing 1966 197o 1974 distribution o.' holdings in 4- Total loo loo lo Up to- 2 ha 25.9 2b.8 26.6 2 - 3 " 16.4 15.7 Ib*3 3 - 5 " 24.8 26.3 45.2 5 - U - 20.9 19.9 2o.- 8-lo 7.7 7.1 7. over lo n 4.2 4.3 4.o - distribution of total acreage n Total loo loo 100 Up to- 2 ha 7.1 7.3 7.'- 2 - 3 " 9.8 9.5 3 - 5 11 23.2 25.o 24.1 5 - 8 " 31.2 >o.3 >o., 8 - lo 16.3 15.2 lb.. Uver 10 12.4 12.7 12.C Changea in acreage .attern in Uh of Herbia ( inividual sector ) Total available area a loo - D-ole 13 Year Pielae ar.a Orchard Vine- Mea- ^rable kaetures Agricultural porests Uncultivated veg*gardens yards dows area nrea iend 1966 66.4 4.0 2.4 8.o fo.5 4.5 05.3 11.7 3.o 197o 65.6 4.1 2.4 8.3 bo.4 4.3 84.7 11.9 3.4 1974 63.7 4.o 2.4 9.5 79.6 4.5 d3.9 12.8 3.3 Oropping pattern in in 81R of Berbia ( individual sector ) Total seeded area - loo Year graina table 14 Total iheat 1akze Total__Whea_t _ )!size_ Industrial crops Vegetables Poader 1966 79.9 27.2 .5. lo.4 197o 7o. 27.o 43.5 4.6 4.9 14.2 1974 71.9 24.2 .1.0 5. 17.1 U,17 Rented land in SR of Serbi4 Table 15 Get Let 1966 197o 1974 1966 197o 19"4 Per holding inc. in questionnaire o.oo3 o.o3 o.o2 ha o.o7 0.o7 0.4 Per holding that gets 1.06 1.o8 1.o8 Pet holding that lets 2.18 1.93 1.82 - value in new dinars - Per holding incl. in questionnaire - 34 55 - 92 2o4 Per holding that gets - 1198 2693 Per holding that lets - 2498 5185 Out oi all Pvailable acreage plowed land and vegetable gardens take up about 66% and alterations in cropping patterns are negligible (Table 13). Grains predominate and particularly maize (Table 14) Table 15 pzovides for the data on rented land. It is obvisouly of*no major importance. Concerning technical and technolugical characteristics of the holdings the situL-tion considerably improved in c)m- parison to the situation several years ago, but it stiLl cannot be compared to the level of mechanisation prevaLlin- in the majority of West 1uropean countries. There are about 62! of the holdings cultivating land by plough, 3.9% dispo- se with seeders for coarse grains, 54% have horse driven vehicles, lo.9 have tractors, 6.5 S electro-motors, and O.U have trucks ( all as of the end of 1974 ). Pertiliser consumption per I hectare of arable land amounted to 2t1 kg in 1966, 3o5 kg in 1970 and 327 xg in 1974. Over 6550 of the holdings purchase seeds and planting material (average pur- chase value of seeds per 1 ha of seeded area was as follows: 1966 = 55 din ; 197o - lo4 din ; 1974 - 216 din.). Average number of household members has been steady, iamely 4.6 of which 2.8 active. Out of total number of active man- power in the countr 22.3 5 ir permanently employed elswhere and 77.7 S makes up for agricultural manpower. In average per 1 ha of arable land hired hel# accounts for 2.4 days a year. All presented data on individual holdings indicate that in spite of the fact that sonsiderable percentage of protuctive capacities are held thereby, they do not accomplish results that might be expected, due to a number of circumatant-ee. Table 16 shows thLs volume of production of main farm.ng products, as well as number of cattle on small holdinz;s in SYRY. Production of main crop prodacts and number of cattle on individual holdings in SMR - in ooo tons or heads - Table 16 1966 1971 1975 Wheat 3197 3629 2665 Maize 68o7 6119 7303 Sugar beet 1655 1019 1407 Sun flower ll 136 140 Potato 3147 2881 2364 Cattle 5153 4784 54o9 Pigs 4356 5489 5363 Poultry 2795 35223 39715 In Table 17 we present the data on total production of main agricultural products per holding involved in such a produ- ction. There are differeut tendencies by products. As far, as the yield is concerned (T-.ble 18) there axe vaziations frok year to year with a slight tendency of increase. If these data would be compared to those of the social sector there is a considerable difference with the view to yield in favour of socially owned estates. YMEny are of the op..- nion that those reserves are the main potential for the- increase of overall production in agrictlture. Total production of main agr.cultural products per holding involved in production - Sh of Serbia : crops in quintals weight gain in kg for cattle Table 17 Product 1966 197o 1974 Wheat 26.o 23.2 33.4 Maize 49.6 47.2 58.8 Sugar beet 149 190 342 Sun flower 8.8 11.3 16.7 Tobacco 3.4 3.5 4.1 Cattle 283 317 383 Pigs 372 475 .519 Sheep lo8 125 16o lJoultry 63 78 lol Yields of major agro products quintals/ha- Sh of Oerbia-individual sector . U Table 18 Product 1966 197o 1974 Wheat 25.3 22.1 34.6 Maize 35.6 36.6 47.4 Sugar Beet 342 323 495 Sun flower .19.2 14.5 18.8 Tobacco 9.3 8.5 8.8 It is almost impossible nowadays To talk of an autarkic producTion in -ugoslav agriculture. There is almost nc nolding that could be defined as " subsistence" holdiig. The market share thereof substantially rises parallel to the increase in acreage per holding. In 1966 it was 46.3% ( in terms of total value of agricultural production on sma21 hol- dings), in 197o it was 5.5b and in 1974 59.8%. The data in table 19 indicate the distribution of hold:ngs by market share. In time function this dastribution has a positi- ve trend. - Coooerazion and association It has been pointed out that cooperation, namely partnersbip between the individual and social- sectors constitutes the basic characteristic of the development and transformatior of Yugoslav auriculture. The basic argument in favour of such -a way of transformation is reflected in the fact that cooper- ation provides F means of non-compulasty entry into pr:.vate property, where on a. voluntary and gradual basis and ;rough economic measures, modern technology ad modern menns of production may be introduced in the rural farms. Specific feature of cooperation in Yugoslavia, compared to that in other countries that practice it lies in the supl )rt rendered tnrough agrarian policy and economic documents o*' the government. Today the target is further development o:' cooperation, so called association as an advanced form of coopera1ation, as iti) provides for logg-term cooperation, steady conditions and joint participation in profit and loss. This aspect of cooperation has been supported in ri.cent years, particularly because classic cooperation , including all forms of cooperation in the sphere of supplies and ser- vices as well as purchase of commodities has considerably exhausted its resources and it was necessary to crekte a type of closer link between the two production sectors. So called " associated" holdings today are practically equal to social sector in all aspects, among others they also particilate in decision makin6 process within separate organizational units in agricultural work organizations. However, this aslect of cooperation is still developing, it is new and needs time and economic assumptions to swing in*;o practice. As far as cooperati.. itself is concorned, it is undoL.btedly very important for the development of holdings involNed. The ds.ta clearly show that these holdings accomplished better production results, thanks to higher yield. The data in t%bles accompanying this presentation illustrate -the dev- elopment of cooperation in the course of 7os. Data in Table eo show the significance o: cooperation in res- pect to supply of reproduction material to the fErmers. ,'cope of cooperption fluctuates with a tendency of increase. Services rendered to small holders ;hrough cooperation obviouhlA decline. These holdings art. today ever better equipped Lnd that type of cooperation is no longe2 nee ed as it useci to be, although it still 4s (Tble 21). Datk. in TPble '? are extremely interesting. They show that the yield of crops in cooper;Ltion is better tian in s;iall holdinu.i in eneral. The 0ruae t. ble provides fc an ins4ght into the scope of cooper.tion if total acreage is taken as criteria for total production of individual crops. In table :3 the d:'ta on scope of cooperation in livesiock production have been providcd for, showing that only il shetp breedinC the cooperation declines, while in all other it is growing. Significance of cooperation can be discussed in variou, ways. Dobody in Yudoslavia doubts its positive effects. Howiver, many effects by their very nature are indirect or oftei of a qualitative ch;:.racter, therefore thr above mentioned qutnti- tative indicators should be corrected keeping in mind that thanks to cooperation new technology has been introduced, that the labour is more rationally used, tha-. there a:e new breeds of cattle. By means of cooperatio:. it is al:3o possible to exert inf1L.ence on the rolimof produ..tion and yield, social overhead capital and construction of facilities for culture, education and social services. Participation of cooperatives and people engaged in cooperation is also of si&nificance in terms of construction .of roads, water supply systems ani similar facilities in the settlements where far- zero live. Development ,of cooperation and particularly of association shall rece,ve special attention also in future. Regiozal differences with respect to the acopo* and level of cotipera- tion are still rather big. Contribut:Lon of cooperatio:. to- wards increase in production, particularly commodity pro- duction is very sidnificant, so expansion of the scope of association and cooperation has been taken as a possibilit' for utilization of considerable potentials for the increas* of production of agro products and in economically mos; so umd way. Therefore cooperation and association in the coming period shall be particularly encouraged by agrarian and economic measu- res. . Supply of seeds to .-cooperants Table 2o Seeds in tone Pruit Grafts Fertill- Uhemlt Year ..,eat iaize trees and re-zerR in cls for Work inimals Concentrate feed in ooo sidues ooo tons plant protectionOAttle Pigs Sheep in ooo tons in ooo in oo, tons 1971 711o6 14188 3229 1209 922 913o 19421 24657 lo644 582 1972 66492 18446 1275 1150 lo67 9843 6788 16247 j157 573 64o4o 23672 15719 548 1973 7o284 16787 2ooB 2642 1138 lo6ol 64oo32 4849 58 141o5 28393 48494 680 1974 72863 11532 1289 4178 11o6 10393 15399 17249 22535 625 197L __.72793 ..12557 --.1645 _- 48 -.1143 _ Cooperation with small holdings in crop production Taole 21 Year No.of co- Volume of work done on small holdings oy machines of social estates operante Ordinary Deep pl- Trqshing Dusting, Tresh- Sprsying Spraying in ooo ploughing uoghing of seeds seed- rollinj liarv- ing . of fruit of vine- and stubble and tr- in tons ing singling eating in ooo trees in yards in plouighing enching toi . 000 tons na - -- i n-ooo-ha -. -..-... in ooo-he.~ -eoh1 0671 6 2 372 18 3o8 1188 66o 3891 1971 671 366 261 156o 3o7 16 316 977 684 192 1972 611 274 166 158o 3o lo 269 83 188 5ea 1973 53o 21o 165 1526 236 lo e7b 996 2ol 333 1974 524 213 126 58o 281 12 255 763 122 443 1975 527 242 182 99o ___._ Areade and production of major crops in cooperation 1) I Y-s t2, Maize Sugar beet YearWheat Mize .il-ret--l Y 4arvested Yield Y.ilar eted total id ?e ha phaare flia:L 000 otlin k&a areahAn ooo hao ag hin to ooo tone 1872 43.o 36 lo7o 299 197o 32o 675 21.1 436 2o24 44.7 o871 293 1971 273 912 33.4 4534 1832 45.6. 23 814 353 1972 243 677 27.9 4o 1582 47.9 28 loo4 361 1973 191 6o8 31*9 33o 16o7 49.2 37 1302 376 1974 2o9 794 38.o 327 ' 2o4o 13. ? 1975 187 559 29.9 )85 l) UnxLj uOoperation under contract was taken into account O. Cooperation with small holdings in livestock - expressed in ooo Table 23 iear No.of Cattle CaPigs coop- Total Fattened Pattened Baby beef ttle Total bacon Fattened Fattc Sheep Poultry erants bullocks calves over 350 pigs for for Total Total meat lard 1970 318 394 62 212 114 137o 71 1211 87 42 23269 1971 331 414 71 237 99 8 1694 51 1554 89 61 23901 1972 287 422 7o 230 112 9 1479 54 1`0 57 1973 275 531 86 295* 145 5 1143 36 1o64 43 17 26898 1974 273 517 85 274 153 1613 76 1525 12 4 35739 1975 312 419 lo4 198 1o6 11 i65u 62 1'74 14 11 3684o 1) No of heads supplied by small holdres under contractual coperktion Oooperation with small holdinge in livestock - expressed in ooo Tuble 23 iear No.of Cattle O e ooop- Total Fattened Pattened Baby eef Cattle Total aoon Fattened atte Sheep oultry orants bullocks calves over 35o pigs for for Total Total meat lard 197o 318 394 62 212 114 1370 71 lell 87 42 L326'j 1971 331 414 71 237 98 1694 51 1554 69 61 23901 1972 287 422 7o 230 112 9 1479 54 1307 57 1 232oO 15 1143 36 io64 43 17 . 26098 1973 275 531 86 295' 145 1613 76 1525 12 4 3539 1974 273 517 85 274 156 30So 62 1574 14 11 36840 1975 312 419 1o4 1go to6 1) No of heads supplied by small holdroes under contractual cuoperhtion