10Economics of Agriculture SI - 1 UDK: 631.1(498)
EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR INPUTS IN THE ROMANIAN AGRICULTURE
Crina Turtoi1, Camelia Toma2, Camelia Gavrilescu3
Abstract
The paper assumes that the trends of the Romanian agriculture structural characteristics and of the main inputs are basic elements in assessing the development potential of the sector. The results show that the current endowment of Romanian agriculture with technical means, together with poor management at farm level cannot ensure timely performance of agricultural operations as required by proper technologies. Several causes of this situation have been identified, including: excessive land fragmentation, low scale use of material and technical base, poor operation of irrigation systems, inadequate farm and inputs management in general. This leads to low productivity and crop losses, compared with the situation in other EU Member States.
Key words: agriculture, holdings, land fragmentation, mechanization, irrigation, labour force.
INTRODUCTION
The main areas covered by the analysis were: (i) the structural changes in the structure of the utilized agricultural area and its distribution by main land use categories, reflected in the data of the 2002 Agricultural Census, Farm Structure Surveys 2005 and 2007; and (ii) evolution of the main inputs (equipment, irrigations, fertilizers, labour force) during the analysed period.
1. Trend of the holdings structural characteristics The final results of the 2002 General Agricultural Census (GAC) are indicating a severe
1 Dr. Crina Turtoi, Institute of Agricultural Economics, Romanian Academy, Bucharest , Casa Academiei Romane, Calea 13 Septembrie 13, sector 5, Bucure§ti, cod 050711, cturtoi@ yahoo.com
2 Dr. Camelia Toma Institute of Agricultural Economics, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, cameliatoma2004@yahoo.fr
3 Dr. Camelia Gavrilescu Institute of Agricultural Economics, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, cami_gavrilescu@yahoo.com
fragmentation of the Romanian land capital (figure 1). Family farms utilized 55.3% of the total agricultural area of the country and had an average size of 1.73 ha/holding. At the other end, the legal entities utilised 44.7% of the total agricultural area of country and had an average size of 274.4 ha/holding4. About 0.2% of the total number of holdings, sized over 100 ha, are utilising almost 47% of the total UAA, in holdings with an average size of 641 ha/holding. The largest concentration of holdings (22.2 %) corresponds to 2-5 ha land size category and is utilising 20.9% of the total UAA, with an average size of 3.05 ha/holding.
Census results revealed a predominant orientation of the family farms towards subsistence agriculture (table1).
Figure 1: Number of holdings and structure of UAA by size classes
<0.1 0.1-0.5 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-20 20-50 50-100 >100
1JAA size - ha ►
Share of the class in total farms 1-1 Share of the class intotallJAA Half aim
Source: General Agricultural Census 2002, Romania, National Institute of Statistics, 2004
Table 1. Destination of the agricultural production by the farm's legal status
Legal status of the farm Destination ofthe agricultural production TOTAL
Only for self consumption The surplus may be marketed Mainly for marketing
Number of holdings
Share in total Family Farms 76.7 21.2 2.1 100.0
Share ill total Legal Entities 32.5 19.7 47.S 100.0
Share in Total holdings 76.5 21.2 2.3 100.0
Total Utilized Agricultural Area (ha)
Share in total UAA of the Family Farms 52.0 40.6 7.4 100.0
Share in total UAA of the Legal Entities 21.2 IS. 2 60.7 100.0
Share ill Total UAA of the country 3,8.2 30.6 31.1 100.0
Source: General Agricultural Census 2002, Romania, National Institute of Statistics, 2004
4 General Census of Agriculture 2002, Volume 1, table 3, pg. 3, National Institute of Statistics 416 EP 2012 (59) SI - 1 (415-421)
Out of the total Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA), 38.2% was utilized only for self consumption by 76.5% of the holdings, 30.6% of UAA was utilized by 21.2% of the holdings that were occasionally marketing the surplus, while only 7% of the UAA was utilized by the remaining 2.3% of the holdings for obtaining a production mainly marketing oriented. In the period 2002-2007, significant changes occurred in the structure of Family Farms (FF), by UAA size classes and use categories (table 2). The number of FF in the class under 5 ha, diminished by 14%, with different allocation on land use categories (decline by 11% in arable land, by 19% in permanent crops and by 24% in permanent pastures and meadows). An increase by 45% was noticed in the number of holdings in the class 5-20 ha, by 80% in the class 20-50 ha and by 19% in the class over 50 ha.
Table 2. Trend in the number of family farms, by size classes and use categories, 20022007 ('000 holdings)
Family farms ('000) Arable land Kite he ti gardens Peí inane ut meadoiw íind pa s tur es Pertnnt]tut crop;
2002 2005 2007 2002 2005 2007 2002 2005 2007 2002 2005 2007
<2 ha 2195 2006 1843 2038 1703 1740 927 771 602 792 620 603
2-5 ha 916 985 928 659 659 673 533 529 513 397 382 362
5-20 ha 244 345 355 175 235 260 153 209 232 96 132 136
20-50 ha 8 15 15 5 9 11 3 9 8 2 4 5
> 50 ha 5 6 6 3 3 4 1 3 3 1 1 7
TOTAL 336S 3356 3146 2879 2609 2688 1616 1520 1357 1288 1140 1107
Source: GAC 2002, FSS 2005, FSS 2007, NIS Romania
The number of Legal Units (LU) experienced a continuous decrease for all categories of land use (Table 3).
Table 3. Trend in the number of LU, by size classes and use categories, 2002-2007 (number of holdings)
Legal Units (number) Arable laud Permanent meadows aud pastures Permanent crops
2002 2005 2007 2002 2005 2007 2002 2005 2007
< 2 ha 3048 1975 1571 1766 1279 937 430 331 230
2-5 ha 2386 1899 1749 1235 1013 967 273 208 181
5-20 ha 4049 3516 3069 2020 1830 1756 466 421 325
20-50 ha 801 672 755 342 344 400 137 125 124
>50 ha 7127 5480 5881 4072 3561 3566 978 611 466
TOTAL 17411 13542 13025 9435 8027 7626 2284 1696 1326
Source: GAC 2002, FSS 2005, FSS 2007, NIS Romania
We can associate these trends with the agricultural policy that stimulated the association process, taking into account as well that the increase of the UAA has been a pre-conditions for holdings to qualify for access to development funds.
2. Evolution of the main inputs
In order to estimate the mechanization level of agricultural holdings, the tractor fleet has been investigated by development regions (figure 2). The slight increase in the number of tractors resulted in reducing the load of arable land per tractor, which reached an average of 55.1 hectares of arable land/physical tractor (FSS 2007). The value of this indicator is, however, far beyond the normal parameters needed for the current conditions of Romania (25-35 ha / tractor). There are large disparities by development regions as well: the load varies from 33.2 ha arable land/tractor in Central region to almost 90 ha arable land/tractor in the South-East.
Figure 2. Arable land and arable land/tractor, by legal status of the holdings, by development regions
FF = Family farms; LU = Legal units
Source: authors' calculations based on the General Census of Agriculture 2002, NIS, 2004
With 55 hectares of arable/tractor, Romania is attending a low level of endowment, versus 4.2 ha of arable land/tractor in Austria, 5.0 ha of arable land/tractor in Italy, 7.9 ha of arable land/tractor in Belgium, 14.6 ha of arable land/tractor in France, etc.
According to the data of 2002 GAC, few holdings applied irrigation (figure 3). Figure 3. Share of holdings that applied irrigations in total number of holdings and share of irrigated area in total UAA
FF = Family farms; LU = Legal units
Source: authors' calculations based on the General Census of Agriculture 2002, NIS, 2004
By regions, the share of irrigated area in the utilized agricultural area of the region had the highest values in the region Bucharest (12.5% of UAA), followed by the region S-E (11.6% of UAA), the region N-E (8.6% of UAA), the region South (6.8%) and the region S-V (3.2% of UAA). The largest share of irrigated areas in total UAA belongs to Legal units (LU). The number of holdings that applied irrigations, both under individual and common operation system decreased by almost 60%, while the effectively irrigated area decreased by 57% (table 4).
Table 4. Agricultural holdings and area arranged for irrigation and total irrigated area, by UAA size classes, 2002-2007
Size classes of the UAA TOTAL
< 2 ha 2-5 ha 5-20 ha 20-50 ha > 50 ha
Area arranged for irrigation Holdings uuinber 2002 172,434 60578 14,645 1,040 2,354 251,051
2007 65,262 28,197 7,346 543 898 102,246
Area - ha 2002 117,025 180,195 107,343 31,443 1,074,813 1,510,819
2007 53.388 84,148 56.558 16,409 404.826 615,328
Irrigated area Holdings uuinber 2002 72.053 5.242 1,319 405 803 79,822
2005 31.352 2.719 1,132 93 146 35,442
2007 29,223 2,919 741 139 343 33,365
Area - ha 2002 30,484 14,114 11,128 12,621 332,172 400,518
2005 14,118 8,052 9,315 2,749 58,960 93,194
2007 15,511 8,215 7,538 4,471 137,717 173,452
Source: General Agricultural Census 2002, FSS 2005, FSS 2007, NIS
Figure 4. Trend of using chemical fertilizers in Romanian agriculture, by type, during 1986-2003
Source: Romania's Statistical Yearbook, 1987-2010 series, NIS
As compared to the other EU Member States, the amount of chemical fertilizers applied in Romania is 4 times lower, far below the technological requirements (41 kg/ha in 2007). This represents both an asset and a constraint (figure 4). The total consumption of N, P, K kg/agricultural ha correspondingly decreased in the same period, from 86.4 kg/ha in 1986, to about 24 kg/ha (1999-2009 average).
Figure 5. Economic efficiency of utilizing labour (GVA/ person working in agriculture) in Romania, compared to EU-27 (2006)
Source: Calculations based on Agriculture in the European Union, Statistical and Economic Information, Eurostat, 2008
As compared with other EU Member States, Romania has the highest share of population employed in agriculture (30%), in total employed population (2007) (figure 5). On a full-time basis (expressed in Annual Working Units) it has been estimated that only one-third of the total number of persons involved in agricultural activities would be really needed (based on 2002 GAC data).
Conclusions
The low profitability in Romania's agriculture resulted in the decapitalization of this sector and represented the main factor of agricultural production stagnation. The large gaps compared to the EU Old Member States (EU-15) also stem from the differences in the agricultural support policy. The European Union largely supported the increase of the agricultural output as well as farm modernization for more than 40 years. The New Member States will no longer get production subsidies from the Community, the support will go mainly for rural development. The effects of the new agricultural production mechanisms cannot be predicted yet, mainly for the New Member States. The human factor, with a decisive role in the increase of agricultural performance, largely depends on the development of entrepreneurial skills among the large mass of farmers.
