OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 - OECD.org

Loading...

OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.

THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO) OF THE UNITED NATIONS The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations leads international efforts to defeat hunger. FAO’s mandate is to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy. Serving both developed and developing countries, FAO acts as a neutral forum where all nations meet as equals to negotiate agreements and debate policy. FAO is also a source of knowledge providing access to information in print and electronic format. We help developing countries and countries in transition modernize and improve agriculture, forestry and fisheries practices and ensure good nutrition for all. Since our founding in 1945, we have focused special attention on developing rural areas, home to 70 per cent of the world’s poor and hungry people. FAO’s activities comprise four main areas: putting information within reach; sharing policy expertise; providing a meeting place for nations; bringing knowledge to the field.

This work is published under the responsibilities of the Secretary-General of the OECD and the Director General of FAO. The views expressed and conclusions reached in this report do not necessarily correspond to those of the governments of OECD member countries, or the governments of the FAO member countries. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Also available in French under the title: Perspectives agricoles de l’OCDE et de la FAO 2007-2016

© OECD/FAO 2007 No reproduction, copy, transmission or translation of this publication may be made without written permission. Applications should be sent to OECD Publishing [email protected] or by fax 33 1 45 24 99 30. Permission to photocopy a portion of this work should be addressed to the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, fax 33 1 46 34 67 19, [email protected] or (for US only) to Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive Danvers, MA 01923, USA, fax 1 978 646 8600, [email protected]

FOREWORD

Foreword

T

his is the third occasion that the Agricultural Outlook report has been prepared jointly by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. The report draws on the commodity, policy and country expertise of both Organisations in providing a medium-term assessment of future prospects in the major world agricultural commodity markets. The report is published annually, as part of a continuing effort to promote informed discussion of emerging market and policy issues. This edition of the Agricultural Outlook offers an assessment of agricultural markets covering cereals, oilseeds, sugar, meats, milk and dairy products over the period 2007 to 2016. It takes account of the enlargement of the European Union, from twenty-five to twenty-seven member states and for the fist time includes explicitly assumptions on biofuel production. The market assessments are based on a set of projections that are conditional on specific assumptions regarding macroeconomic conditions, agricultural and trade policies and production technologies; it also assumes average weather conditions. Using the underlying assumptions, the Agricultural Outlook presents a plausible scenario for the evolution of agricultural markets over the next decade and provides a yardstick or benchmark for the analysis of agricultural market outcomes that would result from alternative assumptions. This year’s projections are set against a backdrop of a steady global economic growth over the medium term, slowing population growth, continuing low inflation, and markets that globally are responding to the challenge of a rapidly changing biofuel industry. Global economic growth is propelled mainly by fast growing economies of large developing countries. In particular, the emerging economies of China, India, Brazil and Russia are key to global and agricultural market developments. Over the projection period, the countries in the non-OECD region are expected to continue to experience a much stronger increase in consumption of agricultural products than countries in the OECD area. This trend is driven by population and, above all, income growth – underpinned by rural migration to higher income urban areas. The strong growth in demand in many developing and emerging economies is also expected to spur expansion in imports and provide the impetus to the development of domestic production capacity. But exports are growing strongly in a number of developing countries as well. As a result, OECD countries as a group are projected to lose production and export shares in many commodities to non-OECD countries. Growth in the use of agricultural commodities as feedstock to a rapidly increasing biofuel industry is one of the main drivers in the outlook and one of the reasons for international commodity prices to attain a significantly higher plateau over the outlook period than has been reported in the previous reports. However, new production technologies, changes in biofuel policies, or unexpected price changes in crude oil and feedstock prices could significantly alter market developments in the future. The projections and assessments provided in this report are the result of close co-operation between the OECD and FAO Secretariats and national experts in member countries, and thus reflect the combined knowledge and expertise of this wide group of participants. As a result of FAO participation in the Outlook, the country coverage of the projections has been considerably extended to a larger number of developing countries and developing country regions. A jointly developed

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

3

FOREWORD

modelling system, based on the OECD’s Aglink and FAO’s Cosimo models, facilitated the assurance of consistency in the projections. The fully documented outlook database, including historical data and projections, is available through the OECD-FAO joint Internet site www.agri-outlook.org. Within the OECD, this publication is prepared by the Trade and Agriculture Directorate, while at FAO, the Trade and Markets Division was responsible for the report.

Acknowledgements. This Agricultural Outlook was prepared by the following staff members of the OECD and FAO Secretariats: At the OECD, the team of economic and market analysts of the OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate that contributed to this report consisted of Loek BOONEKAMP (team leader), David DOWEY, Céline GINER, Garry SMITH, Pavel VAVRA (baseline co-ordinator) and Martin VON LAMPE. Research and statistical assistance were provided by David DOWEY, Armelle ELASRI, Alexis FOURNIER and Claude NENERT. Secretarial services and co-ordination in report preparation was provided by Christine CAMERON. Technical assistance in the preparation of the Outlook database was provided by Eric ESPINASSE and Frano ILICIC. Many other colleagues in the OECD Secretariat and member country delegations furnished useful comments on earlier drafts of the report. At FAO, the team of economists and commodity officers from the Commodities and Trade Division contributing to this edition consisted of Abdolreza ABBASSIAN, El Mamoun AMROUK, Concepcion CALPE, Kaison CHANG, Merritt CLUFF, Piero CONFORTI, Cheng FANG, David HALLAM (team leader), Holger MATTHEY (baseline co-ordinator), Jennifer NYBERG, Adam PRAKASH, Grégoire TALLARD, Peter THOENES, Koji YANAGISHIMA and Carola FABI from the Statistics Division. AliArslan GURKAN and Alexander SARRIS initiated support for FAO’s Cosimo modelling project. Research assistance and database preparation was provided by Claudio CERQUILINI, Daniela CITTI, Berardina FORZINETTI, John HEINE, Massimo IAFRATE, Marco MILO and Barbara SENFTER. Secretarial services were provided by Rita ASHTON and Silvia RIPANI.

4

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Outlook in Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

Chapter 1.

Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The main underlying assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions related to evolving biofuel production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Main trends in commodity markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A short review of historical patterns in trade flows for agricultural products . . . . .

12 12 17 20 30 37

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

Annex A. Statistical Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annex B. Trade Annex Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annex C. Glossary of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 72 78

List of boxes 1.1. Partial stochastic analysis: Variability around deterministic projections . . . . . . .

33

List of tables 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. A.1. A.2. A.3. A.4. A.5. A.6. A.7. A.8. A.9. A.10. A.11. A.12.

Where population and income is projected to grow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumption and production annual (least squares) growth rates, 2007-16 . . . . Consumption and production of OECD countries as a share of world total . . . . . Total merchandise and agriculture exports 1985-2004 (with and without intra-EU trade) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leading agro-food exporting countries (average 1985-89 and 2000-04) . . . . . . . . . Economic assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World prices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World trade projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Main policy assumptions for cereal markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World cereal projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Main policy assumptions for oilseed markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World oilseed projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Main policy assumptions for meat markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World meat projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Main policy assumptions for dairy markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World dairy projections (butter and cheese). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World dairy projections (powders and casein) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

14 22 23 38 39 48 50 52 54 57 58 60 61 63 65 68 69

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.13. A.14. B.1. B.2. B.3.

Main policy assumptions for sugar markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World sugar projections (in raw sugar equivalent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concordance of product groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 20 exporters and importers of bulk products (excludes intra-EU) . . . . . . . . . . Top 20 exporters and importers of horticultural products (excludes intra-EU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.4. Top 20 exporters and importers of semi-processed products (excludes intra-EU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.5. Top 20 exporters and importers of processed products (excludes intra-EU) . . . . .

70 71 73 74 75 76 77

List of figures 1.1. Trends in output growth in selected countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Expansion of US ethanol production and corresponding use of maize . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Ethanol and bio-diesel use in the EU to increase – based on wheat, rapeseed and imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. Canadian ethanol and bio-diesel production to expand, using growing cereal quantities in particular. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. Expanding Chinese ethanol industry to increase maize use for biofuels . . . . . . . 1.6. Continued growth in Brazil cane-based ethanol production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7. Outlook for world crop prices to 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8. Outlook for world livestock product prices to 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9. The range of world oilseed yields in the stochastic simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10. Evolution range of the world oilseed price (expressed in real terms) in the stochastic simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11. Outcomes of stochastic simulations versus deterministic baseline in 2016: Relation between world oilseed price (expressed in real terms) and world oilseed yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12. Outcomes of stochastic simulations versus deterministic baseline in 2016: Relation between world maize price (expressed in real terms) and world coarse grains yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13. Outcomes of stochastic simulations versus deterministic baseline in 2016: Relation between world oilseed price (expressed in real terms) and world coarse grains yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14. Outcomes of stochastic simulations versus deterministic baseline in 2016: Relation between world oilseed and maize prices (both expressed in real terms) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.15. Agriculture export share (excludes intra-EU trade) by income group (1985-2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16. Share of agriculture exports (excludes intra-EU trade) by stage (1985-2004) . . . . . 1.17. Exports of bulk and horticultural products by various groups of countries (1985-2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.18. Exports of semi processed and processed products by various groups of countries, 1985-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

13 18 19 19 20 21 29 29 33 34

35

35

36

36 40 41 41 42

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and abbreviations AAFC ACP AMAD AI BRIC BSE CAFTA CAP CCC CET CIS CPI CRP CMO CO2 Cts/lb cwe DBES DDA DDG dw EBA ECOWAP ECOWAS EPAs ERS est. EU EU15 EU10 EU27 FAO FMD FOB FSRI ACT FTA GDP

Agriculture and agri-food Canada African, Caribbean and Pacific countries Agricultural Market Access Database Avian influenza Brazil, Russia, India, China Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Central American Free Trade Agreement Common Agricultural Policy (EU) Commodity Credit Corporation Common External Tariff Commonwealth of Independent States Consumer Price Index Conservation Reserve Program of the United States Common Market Organisation for sugar (EU) Carbon dioxide Cents per pound Carcass weight equivalent Date-based Export Scheme Doha Development Agenda Dried Distiller’s Grains Dressed weight Everything But Arms Initiative (EU) West Africa Regional Agricultural Policy Economic Community of West African States Economic Partnership Agreements (between EU and ACP countries) Economic Research Service of the US Department for Agriculture Estimate European Union Fifteen member states of the European Union Ten new member states of the European Union from May 2004 Twenty seven member states of the European Union (including Bulgaria and Romania from 2007) Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Foot and Mouth Disease Free on board (export price) Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (US) of 2002 Free Trade Agreement Gross Domestic Product

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

7

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

G10 G20 GDPD GM HFCS HS kt LAC LDCs LICONSA lw MERCOSUR MFN Mha MPS Mt MTBE NAFTA OECD OIE PCE PROCAMPO PPP PSE pw rse rtc RFS

rwt SEAC SFP SMP SPS STRV t t/ha TRQ UK UN URAA UNCTAD US USDA VAT vCJD

8

Group of 10 countries (see Glossary) Group of 20 developing countries (see Glossary) Gross Domestic Product Deflator Genetically modified High Fructose Corn Syrup Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System Thousand tonnes Latin America and the Caribbean Least Developed Countries Leche Industralizada Live weight Common Market of the South Most Favoured Nation Million hectares Market Price Support Million tonnes Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether North American Free Trade Agreement Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development World Organisation for Animal Health Private Consumption Expenditure Mexican Farmers Direct Support Programme Purchasing Power Parity Producer Support Estimate Product weight Raw sugar equivalent Ready to cook Renewable Fuels Standard in the US, which as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 adjusts fuel standards in favour of ethanol and other biofuels and sets increased mandated biofuel consumption quantities Retail weight Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee Single Farm Payment Skim milk powder Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures Short Tons Raw Value Tonnes Tonnes/hectare Tariff rate quota United Kingdom The United Nations Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture United Nations Conference on Trade and Development United States of America United States Department of Agriculture Value added tax New Creutzfeld-Jakob-Disease

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

WAEMU WMP WTO

West African Economic and Monetary Union Whole milk powder World Trade Organisation

Symbols AUD ARS bn BRL CAD CNY EUR gal ha hl INR KRW lb Mn MXN NZD p.a. RUB THB USD ZAR

Dollars (Australia) Pesos (Argentina) Billion Real (Brazil) Dollars (Canada) Yuan (China) Euro (Europe) Gallons Hectare Hectolitre Indian rupees Korean won Pound Million Mexican pesos Dollars (New Zealand) Per annum Ruble (Russia) Thai baht Dollars (United States) South African rand

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

9

OUTLOOK IN BRIEF

Outlook in Brief ●

Currently strong world market prices for many agricultural commodities in international trade are, in large measure, due to factors of a temporary nature, such as drought related supply shortfalls, and low stocks. But, structural changes such as increased feedstock demand for biofuel production, and the reduction of surpluses due to past policy reforms, may keep prices above historic equilibrium levels during the next 10 years.



Higher commodity prices are a particular concern for net food importing developing countries as well as the poor in urban populations, and will evoke on-going debate on the “food versus fuel” issue. Furthermore, while higher biofuel feedstock prices support incomes of producers of these products, they imply higher costs and lower incomes for producers that use the same feedstock in the form of animal feed.



The expectation that world market prices have attained a higher plateau may facilitate further policy reform away from price support. This would reduce the need for border protection and would provide flexibility for tariff reductions.



Growing use of cereals, sugar, oilseeds and vegetable oils to satisfy the needs of a rapidly increasing biofuel industry, is one of the main drivers in the outlook. Over the outlook period, substantial amounts of maize in the US, wheat and rapeseed in the EU and sugar in Brazil will be used for ethanol and bio-diesel production. This is underpinning crop prices and, indirectly through higher feed costs, the prices for livestock products as well.



Given that in most temperate zone countries ethanol and bio-diesel production are not economically viable without support, a different combination of production technologies, biofuel policies and crude oil prices than is assumed in this Outlook could to lead to lower prices than are projected in this Outlook.



The assumed strong growth in demand in many developing and emerging economies will spur expansion in imports as well as provide the impetus to the development of domestic production capacity. As a result, OECD countries as a group are projected to lose production and export shares in many commodities to non-OECD countries over the outlook period.



Measured by global imports, world trade is projected to grow for all commodities reviewed in this report, without exception. By 2016, and compared to the average for 2001-05, trade expansion remains modest for SMP (7%), is situated at 13% to 17% for coarse grains and wheat respectively, but grows by between over 50% for beef, pigmeat and WMP and by close to 70% for vegetable oils.



Imports grow more strongly in developing countries than in OECD countries for all products except vegetable oils. And for all products except wheat and coarse grains, these growing markets are increasingly satisfied through larger exports from other developing countries. Agricultural world markets are thus characterised by growing south-south trade, raising the competition for exporting countries within the OECD.



The growing presence on export markets of Argentina and Brazil is staggering. While Brazil’s growth is mostly concentrated in sugar, oilseeds and meats, Argentina’s export performance also covers cereals and many dairy products. Other growing exporters in the developing and transition economies include Russia and the Ukraine for coarse grains, Viet Nam and Thailand for rice, Indonesia and Thailand for vegetable oils, and Thailand, Malaysia, India and China for poultry.



Import growth is much more widely spread across countries. However, China’s dominance of oilseeds and oilseed products trade is striking. By 2016, China will have become the world’s largest importer of oilseed meals and it will have further consolidated its leading position in imports of oils and oilseeds. For the latter product, its share in global imports will have risen to almost 50%.

10

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 © OECD/FAO 2007

Chapter 1

Overview

11

1. OVERVIEW

Introduction The Agricultural Outlook is a collaborative effort of the OECD in Paris and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations in Rome. Its main purpose is to produce an updated annual 10-year assessment of global commodity markets that includes analysis of recent developments and emerging issues, bringing together the commodity, policy and country expertise of both Organisations. The projections for production, consumption, stocks, trade and prices described and analysed in this report cover the years 2007 to 2016. The projections are presented in the Statistical Annex, and can be viewed in more detail at the website www.agr-outlook.org. They reflect many specific assumptions concerning key external factors such as macroeconomic performance, agricultural and trade policies, and trends in technologies as well as consumer preferences. The projections do not take account of weather shocks and related impacts on crop yields and livestock production, nor are changes considered to agricultural and trade policies – anticipated or otherwise – that have yet to be adopted by legislation or international agreements. Such deviations from these assumptions constitute some of the important uncertainties in the Outlook, the potential impacts of which are also assessed in this report.

The main underlying assumptions Global economic growth may be the strongest in decades Brightened prospects prevail in the macroeconomic climate for this year’s Outlook. Global economic growth has remained vigorous through 2006. Demand continues to be strong in OECD countries with output growth in the OECD area remaining robust and nearterm prospects optimistic, in particular in OECD member countries in Europe, Australia and Asia. GDP growth for the OECD area increased to 3.2% in 2006 and is expected to remain buoyant at close to 2.5% throughout the outlook horizon. In per capita terms, economic growth is anticipated to be the strongest in recent times, due to, among other factors, the spread of technology and globalization of markets as well as an income dividend due to declining population growth.1 The recent downturn of activity in the United States is not expected to last beyond the short-term, and thereafter growth is assumed to remain solid. Conversely, short-term prospects are bright for Canada, the US’s main trading partner, given the stable economic climate in this country as well as expanding trade reinforced by high commodity prices. In the European Union (EU), confidence prevails now that solid growth seems to finally have taken root, even though output is assumed to moderate over the outlook period. The recovery is also established in Japan, but with weakening potential over the longer term coming chiefly from its ageing workforce. In the short term, interest rates are expected to notch upwards in both of these latter countries while the euro and yen continue to appreciate against the dollar, diminishing the prospects for EU agricultural exports but boosting import demand in Japan. Activity has surged back in Mexico with GDP growth rates beyond 2009 expected to exceed 4%, and the dynamic economies of Korea and Turkey

12

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

continue to steam ahead. In the near-term, a rebound is also expected in Australia, which, if it eventually spreads to New Zealand, will bring renewed optimism in this latter country as well after several years of declining performance. Because of their growth potential, the large emerging economies of China, India, Brazil and Russia are key drivers of global economic growth. Moreover, the relative significance and growth potential of their agricultural sectors mean that they play an expanding role in world trade of agricultural commodities. Higher responsiveness of food demand to income growth imply that income gains in Russia and the high growth developing countries will translate directly into increased consumption, in particular for high value-added food items such as meat and dairy products.

Figure 1.1. Trends in output growth in selected countries Annual growth in real GDP, percentage change from previous period Australia Mexico

% 5

EU15 United States

Japan

Argentina India

%

Brazil Russia

China

10

4

8

3

2015

2016

2014

2013

2011

2012

2010

2009

2007

2008

2006

2005

2004

2015

2016

2013

2014

2011

2012

2010

2009

2007

0

2008

0

2006

2

2005

1

2004

4

2003

2

2003

6

Source: OECD Economic Outlook, No. 80 (December 2006), World Bank Global Economic Prospects 2007 (November 2006).

With rising investment, surging demand and expanding trade prospects, output growth is expected to remain strong in China and India over the outlook period, providing the dynamic behind activity throughout much of Asia. Export demand, in particular for agricultural commodities, is essential to continued GDP growth in the main South American economies. Exports should spur a return to solid growth in Brazil which is expected to remain strong thereafter at near 4%. In Argentina, however, the rapid growth of the past few years should slow somewhat. Likewise, economic growth in Russia, as in other CIS countries, should dampen slightly amid concerns over fiscal discipline, but growth rates in both countries are assumed to remain higher than in most OECD countries. Even though economic growth in the BRIC countries is expected to remain high by OECD standards, the assumed growth rates are nevertheless lower than they were in the recent past. Population and income growth assumptions constitute the principal elements of the global economic outlook in that they are the key drivers in demand developments, but also because with globalisation, differences in regional growth prospects increasingly determine both the future landscape of the world agricultural markets and global trade patterns. While recent fluctuations have some impact on short term economic growth expectations, over the longer term, projected growth rates are based on broad assumptions

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

13

1. OVERVIEW

about the trends of such diverse underlying factors as fertility, ageing, urbanisation, land use and production technology, not to mention the structure and evolution of labour and capital markets. In general, these factors change slowly over time, and in any case they are not specifically taken into account in the present projections.

Growth in developing countries should increase potential for south-south agricultural trade As illustrated in Table 1.1, income growth is closely related to population growth. The regions where income growth is the highest, like Africa, Asia and Latin America, are also those where population growth is the highest, at rates close to or exceeding 4% on average over the next decade. Countries in these regions often have a comparative advantage in the production of labour-intensive agricultural commodities such as fruits and vegetables due to a substantial supply of low-cost labour and relatively limited resources of arable land. Nevertheless, available crop land in these countries is usually utilised for year-round cultivation of products such as sugar and rice or other staples. As shown later in this section in the review of historical patterns of agricultural trade flows, exports of semi-processed and processed agricultural and horticultural product have been much larger in lower middle-income countries than they have been in low-income countries.2 For higher value agricultural commodities such as meat and dairy products, demand is more responsive to the rising incomes in emerging economies than it is in the mature markets of OECD countries. In high growth developing countries this will continue to lead growth in imports not only of processed products, but also of bulk agricultural commodities destined for budding domestic processing industries.

Table 1.1. Where population and income is projected to grow Population in 2006, million. Average annual growth over 10 year period and income share, percentage Population

World

Income

1997-2006

2007-2016

2006 million

1997-2006

2007-2016

2006 income share

1.23

1.08

6 530

2.86

3.05

100

Africa

2.20

2.04

923

4.21

4.32

1.8

Latin America and Caribbean

1.40

1.17

564

2.27

3.79

5.9

North America

1.02

0.86

332

2.81

2.62

32.3

Europe

0.29

0.06

527

2.20

2.13

27.6

Asia

1.15

0.98

4 150

3.55

4.02

30.3

Oceania

1.36

1.08

33

3.33

2.72

2.0

Note: Income is measured by GDP at USD 2000 market prices. Average annual growth is the least-squares growth rate (see glossary). Source: UN World Population Prospects (2004 Revision), World Bank Global Economic Prospects 2007 (November 2006).

Much of the uncertainty in constructing a global economic outlook comes from projecting the nominal elements such as price indices and exchange rates. It is more difficult to gauge the long-term dynamics of these variables which are influenced by a wide variety of economic and political factors, particularly when in some countries their recent trends have been unstable. Interest rate differentials, unprecedented global liquidity in financial markets and high volatility commodity prices, in particular oil and energy prices, contribute to the inherent uncertainties related to making assumptions for a ten year outlook horizon.

14

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

Inflation is assumed to remain low in OECD countries, despite high commodity prices Inflation expectations remain low in most developed countries, as governments are assumed to enforce low inflation targets through the use of appropriate monetary policies. Throughout the OECD, consumer prices have shown substantial resilience over recent years to oil price movements despite being subjected to upward pressure from strong commodity price increases. Nevertheless, in most OECD countries consumer price inflation is anticipated to remain below 3%, and in many is closer to 2% in the medium term. For the OECD as a whole, inflation was contained at 2.4% in 2006; it is assumed to fall and to remain below 2% by 2010. In the recent past, monetary policy responses in major OECD countries have been swift as inflation measures neared the upper thresholds of established targets. Although several years of sustained tightening in the United States have ended, interest rates in the euro area and Britain have risen over the past year and seem to have contained price pressures. Even in Japan, positive but low inflation at the end of 2006 has led to the Bank of Japan to abandon its five-year long zero interest rate policy. The observed effectiveness of these measures in developed OECD economies has led to longer-term expectations that prices will remain under control in these countries.

Food price inflation is an increasing concern in emerging economies Conversely, in many rapidly growing developing countries, inflation has become more and more of a concern over the past year. Whereas large increases in the prices of non-agricultural commodities have widely been attributed to the strong demand and accelerating growth in these emerging economies, more and more, price pressure is being felt in markets through increased demand for food products. This pressure can be either direct, through growing demand and changes in consumption patterns as incomes rise, or indirect as alternative uses of food crops, such as inputs for biofuels, have led to higher domestic prices. As energy prices have subsided over the past year, food price inflation has been increasingly accused of driving higher headline inflation. In India, inflation rates above 6% have led to both fears of an overheating economy and concern that surging demand for wheat will continue to exceed supply. In Argentina, where beef consumption per capita is the highest in the world, beef exports were temporarily banned in an attempt to lower domestic beef prices and help cut economy-wide inflation levels. Mexico too, despite moderate inflation expectations, has experienced dramatic increases in maize flour prices.

World oil prices remain high relative to historical levels The world benchmark Brent crude oil price assumption underlying this year’s Agricultural Outlook is based on the assumption for the (real) average price of OECD crude oil imports of the International Energy Agency’s 2006 World Energy Outlook. The nominal Brent price is assumed to decline over the medium term to about USD 55 by 2012, rising again slowly thereafter to finish just over USD 60 by the outlook horizon. This price path is significantly higher than in last year’s outlook reflecting the sustained tightness of oil markets. Price pressure has been maintained as geopolitical tensions combine with processing capacity constraints to keep global supply from the major oil producers below demand. With the easing of this tightness, the world price should decline. However, in the longer term beyond 2012, rising marginal production costs of non-OPEC producers may tend to impart market power to a small number of dominant, Middle East OPEC members whose collective investment and production policies are generally expected to push prices higher.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

15

1. OVERVIEW

Increasing global focus on the exchange rates of high growth developing economies The depreciation of the US dollar against several major currencies, including the euro, Japanese yen, the Chinese yuan and the Brazilian real that began in 2006, is not expected to persist beyond the near term. While a stronger euro may dampen the euro area’s export prospects the weaker dollar is not expected to substantially impact Brazil’s and China’s booming export markets. The renewed strength of the yen will improve the import position of Japan, a major importer of US agro-food products. Likewise, the continuing appreciation of the Korean won throughout the outlook period, in the context of strong domestic growth and rising incomes, would help drive an expansion in Korean agricultural imports. With the expansion of global trade opportunities, there is an increasing importance placed on the exchange rates of developing countries vis-à-vis the US dollar because of their prime influence on global terms of trade and external imbalances. Of particular interest is the Chinese yuan, which has appreciated by almost 5% since the adoption of a more flexible management system in July 2005 and is expected to appreciate further over the outlook period. In strong growth countries like Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico and Russia, export markets are expanding solidly. Yet over the longer term to 2016, projected inflation rates are higher than in the United States, amid strong demand growth, in particular for imports. This constitutes a depreciating influence on the exchange rate vis-à-vis the dollar.

Domestic support and trade policies affect agricultural markets Agricultural and trade policies play an important role in both domestic and international agricultural markets, directly affecting the levels of production and consumption of agricultural commodities and food products. More and more, agricultural policies are directed towards achieving specific objectives (e.g. environmental performance or biofuel development) and beneficiaries (e.g. specific groups of farmers) within broader goals with respect to national, regional or global concerns (e.g. domestic and trade policy reform, income inequality, food quality and safety, global warming, etc.). At the same time, non-agricultural policies, such as energy, environment and rural development policies, have a growing impact on the agri-food sector. Policies influence the composition and levels of both production and consumption, thereby creating (or sometimes correcting) market distortions and influencing prices. No conjecture as to the future outcome of negotiations for the completion of the Doha Development Agenda is incorporated in the Outlook projections and consequently, it is assumed that trade policies as agreed in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) will hold for the entire period to 2016. As noted later in this chapter in the review of trade flows, despite the URAA, trade in agricultural products continues to be dominated by a relatively small number of countries. Trade flows are increasingly influenced by policies that have been negotiated as part of regional trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative of the European Union and the Mercosur agreement between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The policy assumptions of the Outlook take into account the provisions of these agreements, in addition to existing bilateral preferential trade provisions covering specific agricultural commodities. Regional or bilateral trade agreements have not always been explicitly taken into account in the underlying modeling system but allowance for such agreements has been made where they are expected to have an impact on growth in trade. This is the case for both the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Australia-US FTA, which is expected to have a substantial impact on Pacific region beef trade.

16

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

This Outlook makes no anticipation of changes to agricultural policies which may be part of forthcoming farm legislation in the United States. Although current legislation is slated for expiry in 2007, the programmes and provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRI) of 2002 are assumed to continue for the entire Outlook period and moreover, no changes are anticipated in crop loan rates which are extended at constant levels through to 2016. The requirements of the Renewable Fuels Standard (the Energy Policy Act of 2003, modified 2005) have been taken into account, as discussed later in this section under the assumptions related to biofuel production. The main policy elements of the EU Common Agricultural Policy Reform of 2003, as described in previous editions of the Outlook, are assumed to remain unchanged. For other countries, established support measures and policy programmes (such as PROCAMPO in Mexico) are implemented as legislated. Where well-defined termination dates exist, they are factored into the projections; otherwise payments, provisions and other policy measures are assumed to continue through 2016. For sugar, projections take into account the EU sugar reform implemented as of 1 July 2006, which includes a progressive cut in price support of 36% over four years and the reduction of EU sugar subsidised exports from the current level of 7.6 Mt to the agreed URAA limit of 1.4 Mt. The provisions also include a progressive reduction of duties followed by unrestricted sugar exports to the EU from LDC countries under the EBA Initiative from 2009. Another important development which has been taken into account in the sugar projections is the resolution of a long standing sweetener dispute between the US and Mexico under NAFTA which has resulted in an elimination of both the consumption tax on Mexican beverages manufactured with HFCS and, from 2008, of export restrictions and duties which should spur exports of Mexican sugar to the US.

Assumptions related to evolving biofuel production World markets for cereals, sugar and, increasingly, oilseeds and palm oil, are strongly influenced by developments in biofuels. Production of renewable energy, in general, and biofuels in particular, has risen rapidly to the top of the policy agendas in many countries and has become a major issue for markets. There are numerous motives behind political support for biofuels and the composition and priorities of objectives differ across countries. Most of the objectives can be grouped within three broad categories. First, concerns about future energy supplies; in particular expectations of finite availability of crude oil and increasing reliance on oil imports from countries considered as less reliable suppliers; second, environmental concerns – most notably the increased emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) as one of the main causes for climate change; and finally, the development of new markets for agricultural produce and hence increased revenues for farmers. This Outlook does not analyse the developments in the biofuels sector, but treats biofuel production through implicit and exogenous assumptions in a number of countries. In particular these include the US, the EU, Canada and China, while ethanol production in Brazil is an explicit part of the sugar baseline.

US The US is assumed to substantially increase its ethanol production, which predominantly is based on domestic maize. Ethanol output and corresponding maize use is assumed to grow by almost 50% in 2007, and while growth rates are assumed to decline thereafter, US ethanol production is still assumed to double between 2006 and 2016 (Figure 1.2). This expansion would exceed the requirements stated in the Renewable Fuel OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

17

1. OVERVIEW

Figure 1.2. Expansion of US ethanol production and corresponding use of maize Total ethanol production

Renewable fuel standard

Maize use (ri. axis)

Billions litres (ethanol) 50

Millions tonnes (maize) 120

45 100

40 35

80

30 25

60

20 40

15 10

20

5 0

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

0

Source: ERS.

Standard (RFS) by far. In consequence, maize use for fuel production, which has doubled from 2003, would increase from some 55 Mt or one-fifth of maize production in 2006 to 110 Mt or 32% at the end of the projection period. Bio-diesel production, in contrast, is assumed to remain relatively limited in the US, due to lower profitability caused by high feedstock costs. Soya oil use for bio-diesel production is expected to reach 2 Mt in 2007 and to further increase to 2.3 Mt in 2011, with no growth assumed for the remaining projection years.

EU Biofuel production and use in the EU was historically for bio-diesel based on oilseeds, mostly rapeseed. Increasingly it is assumed that ethanol, made mostly from wheat and maize, will become important on EU markets. Despite growth in total biofuel use by some 170% between 2006 and 2010, however, it is assumed that the share of biofuels in total transport fuel consumption will not exceed 3.3% in energy terms, rather than the 5.75% target envisaged by the EU Biofuels Directive. Further growth is, however, expected throughout the projection period (Figure 1.3). Despite some increased imports of biofuels, this growth in biofuel markets translates into strongly increased demand for feedstock products. Use of wheat in particular is set to increase twelvefold and to reach some 18 million tonnes by 2016. Growth in the use of oilseeds (largely rapeseed) and maize is less dramatic, but would still reach 21 Mt and 5.2 Mt by 2016, respectively.

Canada Compared to both the US and the EU, biofuel production in Canada (a country with large fossil-based energy resources) is small in absolute terms. In 2006, ethanol production doubled and bio-diesel production commenced. In addition to this, the Canadian government announced its intention to regulate biofuel by mandating a 5% ethanol blend in gasoline by 2010 and a 2% bio-diesel blend in on-road diesel and heating-oil by 2012. In this report projections it is assumed that these mandates are met. In compliance with the 5% target, ethanol production, based to a larger extent on maize and to a smaller part on wheat,

18

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

Figure 1.3. Ethanol and bio-diesel use in the EU to increase – based on wheat, rapeseed and imports Bio-diesel Maize for ethanol

Ethanol

Oilseeds for bio-diesel Wheat for ethanol

Billions litres (biofuels) 35

Millions tonnes (crop use) 25

30

20

25 15

20 15

10

10 5

5 0

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

0

Note: Ethanol and bio-diesel data before 2006 refer to production, from 2006 to 2016 to consumption. Source: EU Commission, OECD Secretariat.

is assumed to grow by another 150% in 2007 to reach almost 1.9 billion litres in 2009, compared to 550 million litres in 2006. Little growth, following the increased gasoline use, is assumed for the remainder of the projection period. Bio-diesel production is assumed to see an even stronger growth in relative terms, though at much lower levels. Standing at 70 million litres in 2006, bio-diesel production is assumed to reach 600 million litres by 2012, with little growth thereafter (Figure 1.4). About half the growth in bio-diesel production is expected to be derived from oilseed oils; the remainder should be made from yellow grease and tallow. The assumed growth in ethanol production would consume significant quantities of maize and wheat. Maize use for ethanol is assumed to increase from 1 Mt or 4% of domestic production in 2006 to

Figure 1.4. Canadian ethanol and bio-diesel production to expand, using growing cereal quantities in particular Ethanol

Bio-diesel

Maize use

Wheat use

Billions litres (biofuels) 3.0

Millions tonnes (grains use) 4.0 3.5

2.5

3.0 2.0

2.5

1.5

2.0 1.5

1.0

1.0 0.5 0

0.5 1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

0

Source: AAFC.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

19

1. OVERVIEW

almost 3.4 Mt or more than 13% in 2008 before growing at a slow pace only for the rest of the projection period. Wheat use will remain less important, but with an increase to close to 1.5 Mt from 2009, ethanol production is still assumed to consume some 5.5% of domestic production by 2016.

China Fuel ethanol production in China is assumed to grow steadily and to reach some 3.8 billion litres by 2016, up from 1.5 billion litres in 2006. Most of the fuel ethanol is expected to be based on maize, even though other feedstocks are being used or their use is currently under exploration. Maize use for fuel ethanol should exceed 9 Mt in 2016, compared to 3.5 Mt in 2006 (Figure 1.5).

Figure 1.5. Expanding Chinese ethanol industry to increase maize use for biofuels Ethanol production

Maize use

Billions litres (ethanol) 5

Millions tonnes (maize) 10 9 8

4

7 3

6 5

2

4 3

1

2 1

0

2005

2010

2015

0

Source: ERS.

Brazil In contrast to the other countries, ethanol production in Brazil is not based on an assumption, but explicitly projected. Ethanol production in Brazil is expected to continue its growth at increased rates, and to reach some 44 billion litres by 2016, 145% more than what was produced in 2006. As ethanol yields per tonne of sugar are expected to increase, sugar cane used in ethanol production would grow less in relative terms, but would still grow by 120% over the 10 years projected (Figure 1.6) and would represent some 60% of total sugar cane output, up from less than 50% today.

Main trends in commodity markets Compared with previous editions of the Agricultural Outlook, developments in bioenergy policy, technology, and feedstock production have become even more important factors in future outcomes for commodity markets. While the run-up in commodity prices in 2006 is only partially due to increased demand for bioenergy feedstocks, this Outlook presents projections that show some considerable changes in price projections from past reports. Agricultural markets have been reacting to higher energy prices since 2000 in that commodity production costs have increased. But increased demand for agricultural products

20

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

Figure 1.6. Continued growth in Brazil cane-based ethanol production Ethanol production

Sugar cane use

Billions litres (ethanol) 50

Millions tonnes (sugar cane) 600

45 500

40 35

400

30 25

300

20 200

15 10

100

5 0

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

0

Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

in the form of bioenergy feedstocks, largely from sugar, maize, vegetable oils and wheat, constitute an important change from previous market situations. While the emergence of these prospects has been noted in past editions of this report, it is now a major point of discussion and analysis worldwide. What remains to be seen is whether bioenergy constitutes a lasting structural change for agricultural markets, and a change which is revealed by a higher plateau for real prices. Another question is whether there will be increased uncertainty and more price variability with higher dependence on developments in the energy market, including the policies that affect them. Globalisation and the rising importance of key emerging economies are having diverse effects on world agricultural markets. The assumed strong growth in demand will initially spur expansion in import demand of processed products as well as agricultural raw materials. Subsequently, growing demand provides the impetus to the development of domestic production capacity, especially given the unprecedented level of global liquidity and the acceleration of foreign direct investment flows towards emerging markets. For example, investment in processing capacity is expected to be particularly strong in India and China, and it is a shared priority of many governments in high growth developing countries to capture a larger share of the added value in domestically consumed agricultural products. Trade patterns are also changing. In the context of growing global markets, larger export shares are not only gained by displacing competitors, but more importantly by growing faster than others. Against this background, OECD countries as a whole are projected to lose export shares in many commodities to non-OECD countries over the outlook period. These developments taken together lead to the projection of lower production and consumption growth prospects in the OECD region than in the developing and former transition countries for all of the 15 agricultural commodities listed in Table 1.2, but wheat. The largest growth differentials occur in the high value added products such as beef, pigmeat, butter and SMP, but also sugar. They affect production and consumption equally. The bulk of the global production growth for these products, and most of the consumption growth as well, will originate in developing countries and transition economies.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

21

1. OVERVIEW

Table 1.2. Consumption and production annual (least squares) growth rates, 2007-16

Total

Production

Consumption

%

%

OECD

Non-OECD

Total

OECD

Non-OECD

Wheat

0.7

1.0

0.5

0.8

0.9

0.8

Rice

0.9

0.1

1.0

0.9

0.1

1.0

Coarse grains

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.2

0.9

1.5

1.0

0.5

1.5

1.0

0.5

1.5

Oilseeds

2.1

1.3

2.6

1.9

1.3

2.2

Oilseed meal

2.1

1.4

2.5

2.1

0.9

3.2

Beef

1.5

0.2

2.4

1.5

0.2

2.4

Pig meat

1.7

0.4

2.3

1.7

0.5

2.2

Poultry meat

1.9

1.0

2.6

1.9

1.1

2.4

Milk

1.8

0.7

2.8

..

..

..

Butter

2.2

–0.2

3.6

2.3

0.0

3.4

Cheese

1.3

1.1

2.1

1.3

1.1

2.0

Skim milk powder

1.0

0.6

2.1

1.1

1.0

1.3

Whole milk powder

2.4

2.2

2.6

2.5

1.0

2.8

Vegetable oils

2.5

1.6

2.8

2.5

2.4

2.6

Sugar

1.8

0.3

2.2

1.8

0.5

2.2

Coarse grains used for feed

Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

As a result, Table 1.3 shows that developing and transition countries will take a growing share of total world production and consumption over the outlook period – and that the share of OECD countries is consequently declining – for the majority of products. The exceptions are for wheat and coarse grains, where the OECD’s share in global production is increasing. OECD shares in milk powders are much larger for production than they are for consumption and the production shares decline initially before stabilising. The largest losses in shares over the outlook period are for butter and milk, but also for meat products, especially beef. These products have much larger growth potential in developing countries, in particular in the largest amongst them such as Brazil, China and India, than in the mature markets of the OECD. While the OECD’s coarse grains production share is increasing and the consumption share is stable, that for feed use is declining, reflecting the growing importance of biofuel use in OECD countries. Production and consumption shares are decreasing only slightly for cheese, for which OECD countries remain dominant market players.

Cereal markets recover from production shortfalls while biofuel use of maize increases Under the assumption of a return to normal yields, and the incentive of currently higher prices, global cereal production is projected to recover from the shortfalls experienced in the past year. The unprecedented demand for maize coming from rapidly growing biofuel production in the United States is in the process of transforming the coarse grain market. The impact of these changes on cereal markets may gradually ease over the years, but that will much depend on the evolution of renewable fuel policies and further development of the biofuel industry, particularly from a technological perspective. Driven by current low stocks and high prices there will be a shift towards more area planted in cereals, either from reallocation of land from other crops in the main OECD producers (Australia, Canada and the US), from land taken out of set aside (EU) or out of CRP reserves (US) or from cultivation of new land in many developing countries, particularly in South and Latin America.

22

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

Table 1.3. Consumption and production of OECD countries as a share of world total

Wheat Rice Coarse grains Coarse grains used for feed

Production

Consumption

%

%

2006

2011

2016

2006

2011

2016

39.6

43.0

43.3

33.6

34.3

34.2

5.0

4.9

4.7

5.2

5.1

4.8

50.8

52.6

52.5

50.2

50.9

50.0

..

..

..

54.7

53.0

51.8

Oilseeds

42.1

38.5

37.7

39.4

38.4

36.9

Oilseed meal

40.0

38.6

37.0

53.6

49.6

46.8

Beef

41.1

37.7

36.3

41.5

38.6

37.1

Pig meat

34.9

32.5

30.2

33.6

31.4

29.5

Poultry meat

45.5

43.1

41.8

43.8

41.2

40.2

Milk

46.6

44.0

41.6

..

..

..

Butter

41.3

36.1

32.4

35.8

31.3

28.3

Cheese

78.4

77.6

76.9

76.0

75.7

74.9

Skim milk powder

76.7

73.0

73.7

54.6

54.0

54.1

Whole milk powder

46.1

43.6

43.8

19.5

17.7

16.7

Vegetable oils

26.0

25.4

23.8

35.4

35.8

35.2

Sugar

24.0

22.4

21.0

26.9

24.7

23.3

Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

Nevertheless, beyond the initial years of the outlook, much of the growth in output is expected to stem from area productivity gains as world prices decline from current highs. The bulk of wheat and coarse grain production will continue to be concentrated with the largest producers, the EU, China and the United States, along with India for wheat, dominating over half of total world output. By 2016 global production will reach 673 million tonnes of wheat and 1.2 billion tonnes of coarse grains. Exports have been substantially reduced in recent years in several important countries, in particular because of severe drought in Australia, but also because of poor harvests in the EU and the United States. But global cereal trade is projected to rebound and grow at close to 1.5% annually over the outlook period. The EU is expected to surpass Canada and Australia as the second largest wheat exporter after the United States. However, the recuperation of traditional export sources will be supplemented by export expansion in Russia, the Ukraine and Argentina and in Brazil for coarse grains, while Chinese exports of both cereals are expected to diminish.

Developing countries cereal imports set to grow Significant import demand for wheat will continue to develop in India, and will grow further in Brazil and Egypt as well as in an increasing number of developing countries. Although the Outlook projects expanding exports from the CIS countries and Argentina, most of the growth in import demand will be satisfied through larger shipments from OECD countries. Rising per capita incomes and developing food markets are behind the swelling demand that has outpaced domestic production capacity. More generally growth in per capita food consumption of wheat is expected to remain modest in most countries. Despite the prospects of increased biofuel use of maize, which will be largely grown domestically, demand growth for coarse grains in world markets will be predominantly driven by increased feed demand from thriving livestock industries in emerging economies OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

23

1. OVERVIEW

such as China, India and Argentina. Import growth in China will augment its position as a major coarse grain importer. While the quantities of coarse grains destined for dominant importers such as Japan, Korea, Mexico and Saudi Arabia remain broadly stable throughout the outlook, a rising share will be headed for key importers such as China, Egypt and the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as Colombia and Chile.

Rice production set to expand More than cereals, rice is an essential crop for many developing countries because its cultivation is particularly suited to their climate and arable land characteristics, and consequently, rice has been a staple food in their traditional diet. While growth in wheat and coarse grain consumption is linked to increases in per capita incomes, growth in rice consumption remains tied to underlying population growth, with per capita consumption expected to rise only slightly over the outlook period, mostly because of growth in Africa. Nevertheless, rice production is set to expand, in part because of policies in many developing countries to promote rice cultivation as a means of supporting farmer incomes and limiting rural emigration, as well as both national and regional efforts to encourage food self-sufficiency, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Still, the largest production gains will come from the major rice producers, such as India, Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam. Rice stocks throughout the world have declined dramatically from their high levels of the past decade and there has been a significant increase in global rice trade. At the same time rice export prices have risen, with particularly sharp escalations in recent years. The trend in trade expansion is expected to persist, with prices climbing even higher in the short-term before beginning a gradual decline. Underlying this expansion is the higher import dependency projected for Asian producers such as China and Indonesia, along with growing demand in Turkey and in Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia. In addition, changes to trade policy in some OECD countries, like scaled back import duties in the EU and an enlarged quota in Korea, will also spur imports. In terms of exports, despite recent contractions, steady growth in the longer term will continue to be driven by the small number of dominant market players in Asia, principally Thailand, but also Viet Nam and India, with only moderate export growth expected in the United States.

Global oilseed production and oilseed meal exports to expand Biofuels are also strong drivers of oilseeds markets both directly through demand for oilseed oils in the bio-diesel production process and indirectly through the impact of the relative prices of oilseeds and maize which affect the competition for arable land between these crops, particularly in the US. Furthermore, because of rapidly rising maize prices relative to those for oilseeds, there is an increasing demand for oil meals to replace maize in livestock feed rations as a source for energy. In the current context of high cereal prices, oilseed meals are cheaper than coarse grain sourced feed – but this relative cost advantage may be short lived as maize-based ethanol production develops, feed will become available from low-cost distiller by-products, creating new sources of competition for oilseed derived protein meals, particularly in the United States. OECD oilseed production will remain broadly stable with most of the changes taking place through crop reallocation and a geographical redistribution of production. Oilseed production in Brazil and Argentina will intensify as arable land is diverted from pasture to oilseed crops. With Brazilian production growing by 3.9% per year on average over the outlook period, it will overtake the United States by 2009 as the world’s largest oilseed

24

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

exporter. Argentina will cultivate its position as a regional hub for oilseed crushing with differential export tax enticements and investment in processing capacity contributing to promote the domestic crushing industry. This will lead to a 33% rise in protein meal exports as well as higher exports of both meal and oil to satisfy growing import demand in China. By 2016, China will have become the world’s largest importer of oilseed meals and it will have further consolidated its leading position in imports of oils and oilseeds. For the latter product, its share in global imports will have risen to almost 50%. Increasing world livestock production will continue to drive the consumption of oilseed-derived protein meal, with most of the growth taking place in developing countries. Oilseed meal consumption in the non-OECD region will swell by over 55% with over two-thirds of the growth attributed to Brazil and China alone because of expanding livestock production. While the EU should continue to hold its position as the largest importer of oilseed meals, its import dependency will diminish as a growing proportion of the region’s protein meal consumption comes from domestically produced and crushed oilseeds, in particular rapeseed meal. The nurturing of bio-diesel production capacity will stimulate oilseed oil demand in the EU which, when combined with the growing demand for oilseed and palm oil for food use, will almost double EU imports of vegetable oils over the outlook period. Despite strong investment led growth in China’s domestic oilseed oil production capacity, expanding demand for food oils will continue to spur imports in this country as well as in India. Largely driven by income growth, vegetable oils, both from oilseed crops and from palm, will remain the fastest growing commodity in terms of consumption covered in this Outlook. Within this overall context, growth rates of the developing countries almost double those of developed countries. Over time, increased vegetable oil consumption has made a large contribution to increased calorie consumption. Use of vegetable oils for bioenergy purposes is expected to grow strongly, and may alter trade patterns and the consumption mix in diets in some countries/regions depending on policies in place. This may be particularly the case in the EU where bioenergy use of vegetable oils has been mostly oriented to the use of rapeseed oil.

A closer link between sugar and ethanol Brazil is the world’s leading sugar and ethanol producer and currently accounts for around 40% of world sugar trade. Demand for sugarcane-based ethanol by domestic motorists and for export is expected to continue to rise at a rapid rate and to account for a larger share of Brazil’s sugar cane crop. However, these developments are not expected to unduly constrain the amount of cane available for sugar production and sugar exports projected to rise strongly and to exert a moderating influence on world price prospects over the coming decade. Further production and trade growth is also expected in other leading sugar exporting countries, such as Australia and Thailand. Following reform of its sugar regime, the EU is expected to reduce production in a context of rising imports and tight controls on subsidized exports and may eventually challenge the Russian Federation for its role as the leading sugar importer. Mexican sugar exports to the US should increase when duties and restrictions are eliminated under NAFTA in 2008, although rising consumption is expected to reduce its exportable surplus. Countries in Asia are expected to experience the fastest growth in sugar consumption, with China, Indonesia, Korea and Japan remaining significant sugar importers.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

25

1. OVERVIEW

Developing countries increasingly dominant in the meat outlook The global outlook for meat is increasingly characterised by rising production and consumption trends of developing countries and a more stable and mature path of development for markets of OECD countries. Still, animal disease outbreaks in recent years have affected established trade patterns for meat products, led to short-term perturbations to supply and demand in major trading countries and an increased market share of disease-free exporting countries. In response to these outbreaks, consumption decisions in OECD countries will be to a greater extent driven by quality assurances such as traceability, meat-packing requirements and processing controls which reinforce an underlying preference for premium quality meats. While per capita consumption in high income countries is expected to increase only marginally over the outlook period, rising incomes and the ensuing diversification of diets will lead to a shift towards significantly higher meat consumption in developing countries, representing more than 80% of expected world growth. Much of this expansion will take place in Asia and the Pacific region, and will reflect in particular the rise in consumption of pigmeat. Over the outlook period, world meat production is expected to grow by 1.7% per year, mostly because of expanding markets in Brazil, China and India. As a result, the production share of major OECD producers will continue to fall, despite expectations of renewed growth in the United States. With trade recovering from the effects animal disease outbreaks, a small number of major exporters, namely Brazil, the US, Canada, Argentina and Australia, will remain dominant in world markets with export growth particularly strong in South America. By 2016, net exports of Brazil are expected to surpass those of the four others combined to take a 28% share of total world meat exports. Beef trade is continuing to recover between the US and Canada ensuring that the United States remains the world’s largest meat importer at the end of the outlook period followed by Japan and Russia. The burgeoning economies and strong income growth in Korea, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and the Philippines will contribute to a considerable rise in meat imports in these countries, increasing their importance in regional markets. Import dependency in meat products is likewise expected to grow in many other dynamic developing countries as nascent demand surpasses the domestic capacity for meat production throughout the duration of the outlook period.

Growing importance of developing countries in dairy supply and demand One of the most prominent trends in the Agricultural Outlook is the increasing importance of developing countries in the supply and demand for dairy products. Milk production gains over the outlook period will be overwhelmingly driven by output growth in non-OECD countries. Expansion in India, the largest individual producing country in the world, where surging demand growth will stimulate a strong increase in milk and butter production, will be especially marked. Driven by substantial yield gains, strong growth in milk production is also expected in China. This contrasts the moderate growth in the OECD area where milk production mainly increases due to gains in Oceania and the United States and is chiefly constrained by domestic production controls in many other countries. The escalation of world dairy prices of recent years may now be regarded as symptoms of broader structural changes. First, urbanisation and higher incomes have shifted diets in emerging economies towards higher consumption of not only butter and cheese, but also to increasingly more versatile milk powders. These trends have been encouraged by

26

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

growth in dairy marketing as retailing channels develop and through government programs in some countries. Second, with technological advances and wider global investment there is a shift towards higher value-added processing of dairy products. In developing countries this includes improvements in storage and processing capacity which allows the production of more fresh dairy products, but also improved processing of WMP. In the mature markets of developed countries, value-added innovation means increased convenience and a wider variety of products, in particular cheeses and flavoured fresh dairy products, which cater to specific consumer tastes. Lastly, but indeed not least importantly, with dairy market reform, intervention stocks have broadly ceased to be systematically unloaded onto world markets while at the same time, subsidised exports have diminished significantly. Both of these distortionary policy practices, which traditionally had the effect of holding down international dairy prices, are thus likely to be much less prevalent over the outlook period than in previous years.

Dairy exports continue to be dominated by OECD countries Nevertheless, trade in world dairy markets will continue to be dominated by the traditional OECD exporters of Australia, New Zealand and the EU, with growth expected for all products except butter. Trade remains regional, with for example, intra-EU trade larger than all remaining global trade put together. Still, non-OECD countries gain export share in butter and SMP, filling the place left by declining EU exports in light of diminished intervention stocks. Argentina’s surging milk production is behind its emergence as an up-and-coming WMP and cheese exporter, while exports of these products from the EU should remain roughly stable. Rising exports of all dairy products are expected from New Zealand. Russia, Japan and the US will continue to be key cheese importers while more and more milk powders are destined for milk reconstitution in developing countries, most notably in the Middle East and North Africa but also in Mexico. China’s strong increase in consumption of dairy products will be largely met by a sharp growth in domestic production with only a marginal growth in imports, in particular of whole milk powder.

High world prices for most products at the beginning of the outlook period Actual world prices rose much more strongly in 2006 than earlier anticipated for cereals and dairy products, and to a lesser extent also for oilseeds, but weakened markedly for sugar. Are these unexpected price developments the result of systemic changes in commodity markets, leading to longer term price strength? Or are they the result of short term factors, such as weather-related production shocks, with prices in the longer term returning to their historical equilibrium levels? In looking at the price developments that have taken place in 2006, a number of factors have been identified as contributing to the observed price changes for the agricultural products covered by the Agricultural Outlook. ●

For cereals, weather-related shortfalls in production have occurred in a number of producing countries and regions such as the US, the EU, Canada, Russia, Ukraine and most notably in Australia, where production fell by more than 50%. In a global context of low global cereal stocks in recent years, these lower supplies have been a strong factor underpinning world prices.



Reduced global stocks and production were confronted with stronger than expected demand for cereals for biofuel production, notably in North America and Europe. This additional demand compounded the already tight supply situation and contributed to

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

27

1. OVERVIEW

further strengthening of world cereal prices. It is noteworthy, however, that the combined cereal supply shortfall in North America, Europe and Australia in 2006 of over 60 Mt was nearly four times larger than the 17 Mt increase in cereal use for ethanol in these countries. ●

Growing cereal use for ethanol lead to a reduction in planted acreage to oilseeds, particularly in the US, in favour of maize. Increasing cereal prices relative to those for oilseeds caused this land reallocation. As a knock-on effect, oilseed prices then also increased as a result of tightening supplies and this price strength was enhanced by rising demand for meals as a cereal feed substitute and increasing demand for vegetable oils for bio-diesel production.



World sugar prices surged in late 2005 and early 2006 to reach 25-year highs under the pressure of tight global supplies and growing linkages between international sugar and oil prices, but then fell back again later in the year. Sugar prices remained below earlier expectations for 2006-07, reflecting abundant supplies, higher stocks and an emerging global surplus. Sugar reform in the EU and the retraction of large white sugar supplies from the international market contributed to a widening white sugar premium in 2006.



Continuing solid demand for dairy products in combination with rising feed costs and reduced overall supplies, most notably in the European Union and Australia, accounted for most of the price increase for these products, particularly for milk powders. Policy reforms in the EU are behind the reduction in EU dairy surpluses and the drop in subsidised exports. This may constitute a more permanent element of price strength in world dairy markets.



World meat prices stayed in line with earlier expectations for 2006. Abundant supplies and the demand-reducing impacts of Avian influenza continued to exert downward pressure on prices for pigmeat and poultry. A number of factors, including FMD in Brazil, drought induced slaughter in Australia, and export taxes in Argentina, offset each other to keep beef prices leveled. Lamb prices, however, fell more strongly than earlier expected for 2006 due to drought-induced slaughter in Australia.

World market prices in the medium term remain above previous projections The foregoing would suggest that much of the observed variation between actual and projected prices in 2006 can be explained largely by short-term production shocks and resulting supply/demand imbalances. But longer-term influences may also be at work, even though they may have been masked by the more traditional market fundamentals. For instance, policy reform leading to lower use of export subsidies may have lifted prices for dairy products and sugar. And maize prices in the US have undoubtedly been supported by increased biofuel production. There is obviously growing interest in many countries in the development of renewable energy supplies based on the use of agricultural feedstocks. This link is well established in the case of the US and Brazil, and is emerging as an important additional dimension to global demand for cereals, oilseeds and sugar products over the projection period. In a context of generally lower global stocks in recent years, this additional demand is expected to underpin prices and to lead to price levels for field crops that are, on average, higher than in past projections. Nevertheless, cereal, oilseed and sugar prices are expected to fall below current or recent peak levels. Higher average crop prices and associated feed costs, in turn, lead to higher livestock product prices over the outlook period as well.

28

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

There are a number of uncertainties in relation to biofuel markets and how important they will prove to be in underpinning prices in agricultural markets in the future. These uncertainties include the nature of agricultural and trade policies that will be implemented to nurture biofuel production from domestic agricultural crops, the pace of technological progress in developing viable “second generation” biofuel production plants that utilise cellulosic feedstocks rather than food and feed crops, and the future price of oil. A different combination of these factors than is anticipated in this Outlook could lead to lower prices than are now projected.

Cereal prices lose some of their current strength Trends in nominal world indicator prices for the different commodities are shown, first for crop commodities in Figure 1.7, and then for livestock products in Figure 1.8. World cereal prices have been driven higher as the weather-related production shortfalls of the past year and dwindling global stocks have tightened supply on world markets. They should decline towards the end of the outlook horizon, but should stay substantially higher than prices

Figure 1.7. Outlook for world crop prices to 2016 Index of nominal prices, 1996 = 1 1.6

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

Coarse grains

1.2

1.2

Wheat

1.1 1.0

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5 1996

0.5 1996

2006

2011

2016

Refined sugar

1.0

0.9

0.8

2001

1.1

Oilseed

1.0

Rice

0.9

1.2

Vegetable oil

1.1

0.9

Raw sugar

0.8

Oilseed meal

0.7 0.6

2001

2006

2011

2016

0.5 1996

2001

2006

2011 2016

Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

Figure 1.8. Outlook for world livestock product prices to 2016 Index of nominal prices, 1996 = 1 1.6

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

Poultry

Cheese

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.1

Beef

1.1

1.3

Butter

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5 1996

0.5 1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2001

2006

2011

Whole milk powder

1.0

0.6

Pigmeat

Skim milk powder

2016

0.5 1996

2001

2006

2011 2016

Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

29

1. OVERVIEW

observed over the past decade because of expanding food demand in developing countries as well as budding demand for maize in ethanol production. Very similar prospects are seen in rice markets, with expanding global food demand as incomes and populations grow pushing international prices to their highest levels in a decade, before falling back gradually.

Price strength in the oilseed sector dominated by vegetable oils Oilseeds and oilseed meals prices will continue to rise through 2007 partly as a result of the run-up in cereal prices that have made oilseed protein meals to become a more a cost-competitive animal feed. In subsequent years however prices will gradually fall back as supply and demand adjust. For the sugar market, world indicator prices had swelled to quarter-century highs during the 2005/06 marketing year, almost doubling in the space of two years. However, their subsequent decline in 2006/07 as sugar balances moved into surplus has been equally dramatic, particularly for raw sugar which fell 27%. Sugar prices will remain under pressure throughout the outlook period, with the white sugar margin remaining substantial, particularly in the first years, as high quality EU white sugar is pulled from world markets under reforms to the EU sugar regime.

Meat prices stay above recent averages A return to normal market conditions for meat products has brought about diminishing world prices. For beef, this trend will continue for most of the projection period, with prices moderately strengthening again during the outer years. Pigmeat prices rally in the first years of the outlook to 2009, but thereafter remain stable. A similar trend prevails for poultry prices, although they are expected to continue to rise for a longer period before stabilising, reflecting growing demand in North and Latin America and in Europe. World prices of dairy products, which had escalated strongly in 2006 and 2007, will remain at these elevated levels throughout the outlook, partly reflecting the structural changes that reforms have brought about on world markets.

Uncertainties Weather-related production shocks, future policy developments, animal diseases outbreaks and unstable macroeconomic performance are among the main uncertainties affecting the prospects for world agricultural markets over the medium term. The effects of recent drought in Australia attest to this degree to which such shocks may impact markets – wheat and coarse grain production fell by more than half in 2006, and in a context of global cereal production shortfalls, contributed to rising world prices. While economic growth seems to be firming up in Europe and Japan, recent years have shown that optimism about future output growth has sometimes been premature and does not necessarily mean that growth in demand, imports or exports will be forthcoming. Past experience has shown that it is very difficult to predict the future level of world oil prices, or even to correctly guess the direction in which they will move. Yet, the outlook projections are dependent upon a world oil price assumption – one that is felt to be the most consistent assumption available for the 10-year projection horizon.

30

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

Trade and domestic support policy The future of international trade policy is a key uncertainty in this outlook. If and when the Doha Development Agenda of multinational trade negotiations come to a conclusion, the agreement will result in generally lower barriers to trade in agricultural products and diminished levels of domestic support for agricultural production. The overall outcome would be less distortion to world markets, leading to a better distribution of production according to comparative advantages, implying increased trade in agricultural commodities and generally higher world prices; but there may be downward price pressure from increased competition in some specific markets where protection has traditionally shielded producers from declining world prices. While the effects of regional trade agreements, such as CAFTA, have been implicitly incorporated in the outlook projections, it is difficult to accurately gauge the response in the diverse range of agricultural sectors to increased liberalisation, particularly during implementation periods. Similarly, there is a general trend toward more bilateral agreements, which may both reinforce existing trade patterns as well as creating new and unanticipated trade channels. A forthcoming United States’ farm bill may have significant implications given the relative importance of US agricultural output and its dominant position in world markets. As any new policies will be likely implemented as soon as 2008, only the second year of the current outlook projections, any substantial changes to domestic support payments and crop loan rates would have consequential impacts on the present projections, which are based on policy assumptions according to the 2003 FSRI Act. The future developments in the biofuel industry – in particular in terms of policy and technological developments – are unclear, and this implies uncertainty for agricultural markets, especially those for cereals, oilseeds and sugar crops. Earlier in this section an overview of biofuel assumptions were presented which set the foundations for the current outlook. However, public support measures are necessary in a majority of countries (and in almost all OECD countries) for biofuel production to be profitable. The form and substance of these biofuel policies can have significant implications for biofuel production but also for cereal, oilseed and sugar use, for feed prices and subsequently for livestock numbers and meat and dairy production. Moreover, most biofuel policies are new and it is not clear which measures are most effective in achieving the mix of objectives such as lower fossil fuel dependence or less greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention domestic support for farmers. It is natural to assume that these measures may be adjusted in unpredictable ways over the coming decade as biofuel production unfolds. In addition, even if this Outlook assumes crude oil prices in a range from USD 55 to USD 60, it is not excluded that lower prices may prevail, impacting on the profitability of ethanol/bio-diesel production and demand and prices for feedstocks.

Animal disease impacts As previously stressed, the current outlook has been produced within the context of “normal” conditions for the meat sector, which is to say an absence of animal disease outbreaks and no explicit accounting of animal disease restrictions on production, trade or consumption. At the same time, the projections anticipate a recovery from trade disruptions resulting from recent disease outbreaks. These recent occurrences include reduced beef trade in North America due to BSE, export restrictions on beef and pigmeat following FMD in Argentina and Brazil and the effects of Avian influenza in Asia and Europe. Any renewed occurrences would likely reduce the speed of recovery. OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

31

1. OVERVIEW

Since the magnitude and extent of potential epizootics is by nature unknown, the evolution of global meat markets could be dramatically different from the baseline anticipated in the outlook if either fresh outbreaks of known diseases occur or if a new epizootic of an unfamiliar disease strikes. Nevertheless, substantial international efforts have been made to limit the impacts of new outbreaks. On the supply side, these include the regionalisation of export embargoes, more stringent animal health and inspection regulations as well as implementation of vaccination policies. On the demand side, consumers have been reassured by measures to ensure early detection of infection, information on potential health risks, improved production control standards and efforts to ensure meat traceability. The implications of animal disease occurrences have been investigated in recent joint OECD-FAO work on animal disease scenarios.

Strong growth in emerging economies The projections have been produced under the assumption that the strong growth in countries such as China, India and Brazil will persist, in turn spurring broader growth in Asia and South America. All three countries have a growing presence in agricultural markets, albeit India is less of a trader than the other two. However, the robust growth in these countries is a relatively recent and unprecedented phenomenon, therefore it is difficult to foresee the consequences of expansion being plagued by what are commonly referred to as downside risks. Inflation is one of these risks. There has been increasing speculation that the economy in India is overheating and that with demand outpacing supply, imports cannot keep up. Additionally, price pressure on commodities and food products is compounded by the lack of consolidation in markets. In Brazil, with historical bouts of high inflation, there are risks that strong export growth will, as in Argentina, drive domestic prices higher. While China does not currently have significant inflation worries – indeed its projected inflation rate is lower than that of the United States – there may be some risk inherent to the future path of the Yuan-US dollar exchange rate. The assumption in this report, in the aim of consistency, implies constant exchange rates in real terms from 2008 and thus, because of the differential in inflation rate vis-à-vis the United States, there is an appreciation of the Yuan in the medium term, before depreciation over the outer years of the outlook period. The Yuan is currently under a flexible, but managed system, yet it is widely anticipated that given the current size of Chinese dollar reserves, the Yuan might appreciate, perhaps over the entire period of the outlook. If this were the case, then Chinese agricultural imports may be even larger than projected in the outlook, and simultaneously, exports may be diminished. Lastly, past government policies in favour of self-sufficiency in both China and India have impeded the flow of imports of some agricultural commodities. While decisions in such a direction are not anticipated, further policies of this type would have an impact on the outlook for agricultural trade.

32

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

Box 1.1. Partial stochastic analysis: Variability around deterministic projections The projections presented in this Outlook are deterministic in the sense that they correspond to a particular market environment that is conditioned by specific assumptions on exogenous variables. However, there are uncertainties concerning that environment, notably with respect to key assumptions with regard to weather and macroeconomic conditions. Varying these assumptions would directly affect the outlook accordingly: the question is by how much and what would be the implications for the projections. If assumptions for these variables were to be at least partly defined by a range of possible values, then projection outcomes can be assessed for the many resulting different situations. The process is then partially stochastic rather than deterministic, in the sense that the range of assumptions defines a range of projection outcomes. Thus, a set of more robust projections can be generated where uncertainty can at least be described by a range around the specific deterministic baseline. The analysis presented in this box is carried out with the use of the Aglink-Cosimo model that has been applied in the generation of the baseline projections. Details on the process of doing partial stochastic analysis are given in the methodology section of the Outlook. To carry out the stochastic experiments, the model is calibrated to the final set of baseline projections and is then simulated 500 times under different values for yields (to allow for weather variability) and for GDP and inflation (to allow for variability in key macroeconomic variables). These simulations provide a set of 500 different outcomes for all projection variables, in particular for the evolution of world market prices, which is assessed below. Figure 1.9 illustrates the process of undertaking a stochastic analysis. It presents the evolution of world oilseed yields in the 500 stochastic simulations by three lines: The average value of the 500 stochastic simulations for the focus variable, the 10% percentile value, i.e. the value below which 10% of the simulations can be found and the 90% percentile, i.e. the value below which 90% of the simulations can be found. These three lines give an overview of the projected distribution of world oilseed yields for each year in the projection period. The world oilseed yield is an aggregate measure. It summarises the yield information from all producing countries and as such is a production weighted aggregate of the different yield simulations in producing countries. The figure underlines the fact that historical deviations from trend for world oilseed yields have been globally, and at least historically, relatively modest.

Figure 1.9. The range of world oilseed yields in the stochastic simulations 10% percentile of the empirical distribution Average value of stochastic simulations

90% percentile of the empirical distribution

Yield in tonne/hectare 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8

2000

2002

2004

2006

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

33

1. OVERVIEW

Box 1.1. Partial stochastic analysis: Variability around deterministic projections (cont.) Price impacts with partial stochastic simulations Figure 1.10 presents the evolution of world oilseed prices expressed in real terms when deterministic assumptions on yields and macroeconomic variables are replaced by a range determined through stochastic simulations. The particular interest of Figure 1.10 is to see the combined effect of the different simulation assumptions on the world price of a given commodity. One first point to underline is that the evolution of the average of world oilseed prices expressed in real terms over the stochastic simulation is different from the evolution of the deterministic baseline. In 2016, the world oilseed price expressed in real terms in the deterministic baseline is 8% lower than the average of stochastic simulations. This is due to interactions between the different variables that are being shocked in the stochastic analysis in comparison to the benchmark scenario and to the non linearity of the Aglink-Cosimo model. Another interesting point regarding the distribution of outcomes of stochastic simulations for world oilseed prices is that there is a diversity of outcomes around the average of the stochastic simulation. At the end of the projection period, half of the stochastic outcomes are within a range of –20% to +15 % around the average stochastic outcome whereas the complete range of outcomes is much wider.

Figure 1.10. Evolution range of the world oilseed price (expressed in real terms) in the stochastic simulations 10% percentile of the empirical distribution Average value of stochastic simulations 75% percentile of the empirical distribution

90% percentile of the empirical distribution 25% percentile of the empirical distribution Deterministic baseline

USD/tonne 350

300

250

200

150

100

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Drivers for world oilseed prices expressed in real terms What drives the uncertainty in world oilseed price projections (expressed in real terms) that have been illustrated in Figure 1.10? Obviously many variables as well as interactions between variables influence the evolution of world commodity prices, but the focus here is on the relation between world yields and world price levels only. To answer the question, a simple comparison is presented in the next four graphs. They show the respective projected distributions in 2016 of four variables: World oilseed yields, world coarse grains yields, the world maize price and the world oilseed price, both expressed in real terms. The deterministic baseline is also shown in the different figures.

34

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

Box 1.1. Partial stochastic analysis: Variability around deterministic projections (cont.) Figure 1.11 shows that the relationship between world oilseed prices and yields is not obvious. The distribution of prices expressed in real terms and yields is fairly strongly concentrated with relatively few outliers. The deterministic baseline outcomes are within that part of the stochastic distribution that is most heavily concentrated.

Figure 1.11. Outcomes of stochastic simulations versus deterministic baseline in 2016: Relation between world oilseed price (expressed in real terms) and world oilseed yields Stochastic simulations

Deterministic baseline

Average of stochastic simulations

World oilseed price in USD/tonne (expressed in real terms) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2.20

2.25

2.30

2.35

2.40

2.45

2.50 2.55 World oilseed yield in tonne/ha

The relationship between world coarse grains yields and the world maize price is presented in Figure 1.12. The negative correlation between yields and prices seems to be more obvious and stable than in the case of oilseeds. Again the deterministic baseline projection is in the most concentrated part of the cloud of points.

Figure 1.12. Outcomes of stochastic simulations versus deterministic baseline in 2016: Relation between world maize price (expressed in real terms) and world coarse grains yields Stochastic simulations

Deterministic baseline

Average of stochastic simulations

World maize price in USD/tonne (expressed in real terms) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 3.55

3.60

3.65

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

3.70

3.75 3.80 3.85 World coarse grains yield in tonne/hectare

35

1. OVERVIEW

Box 1.1. Partial stochastic analysis: Variability around deterministic projections (cont.) Figures 1.13 and 1.14 illustrate both the same point: World oilseed prices expressed in real terms are directly influenced by world coarse grain markets. If coarse grain yields are low then world maize prices tend to be high, and this in turn tends to push world oilseed prices higher too.

Figure 1.13. Outcomes of stochastic simulations versus deterministic baseline in 2016: Relation between world oilseed price (expressed in real terms) and world coarse grains yields Stochastic simulations

Deterministic baseline

Average of stochastic simulations

World oilseed price in USD/tonne (expressed in real terms) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 3.55

3.60

3.65

3.70

3.75

3.80 3.85 World coarse grains yield in tonne/ha

Figure 1.14. Outcomes of stochastic simulations versus deterministic baseline in 2016: Relation between world oilseed and maize prices (both expressed in real terms) Stochastic simulations

Baseline

Average of stochastic simulations

World oilseed world price in USD/tonne (expressed in real terms) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

36

0

20

40

60

80

100 120 140 160 180 World maize price in USD/tonne expressed in real terms

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

Box 1.1. Partial stochastic analysis: Variability around deterministic projections (cont.) Conclusion Partial stochastic analysis has only a partial coverage of uncertainties; this analysis focuses on exogenous uncertainties linked to climate and macroeconomic evolution. There are several other sources of uncertainty in the benchmark projections. In particular, there is an empirical uncertainty on the estimation of the parameters used in the model jointly developed by the OECD and the FAO and an endogenous uncertainty on the functioning of agricultural markets. Despite these limitations, the information that partial stochastic analysis is of interest for better assessing the evolution of agricultural commodity markets would be possible from the analysis of a deterministic baseline. This box has described how a partial stochastic analysis has been undertaken with the 2007 Agricultural Outlook projections. A number of conclusions emerge from this analysis using the Aglink-Cosimo model: First, the deterministic baseline projections differ slightly from the averages of stochastic simulations. Second, stochastic projections of world crop prices (expressed in real terms) are relatively highly concentrated around the average. And finally, the analysis underlines strong price correlations across commodities.

A short review of historical patterns in trade flows for agricultural products The Agricultural Outlook provides an assessment of the evolution of agricultural markets and trade over the next 10 years, assuming constant policies and “normal” weather conditions. As the focus of the Outlook is on selected temperate-zone products, occasionally it is useful to review the trade developments of the entire agriculture and food sectors in the recent past to place current and future developments in perspective. This section reviews agricultural and food trade over the twenty-year period from 1985 to 2004 and puts the spotlight on agriculture as defined at the WTO, i.e. including the whole gamut of produce from farm gate to dinner plate. In order to simplify the presentation, the commodity composition of agricultural trade has been segregated into four broad sub-sectors following the classification in Regmi et al. (2005). These categories are: 1) bulk commodities such as wheat or coffee; 2) horticultural commodities such as bananas or cut flowers; 3) semi-processed commodities such as live animals or vegetable oils; and 4) processed products, i.e. goods that require extensive transformation prior to consumption such as chocolates, beverages, and fresh or chilled meats. This classification is primarily based upon the relative dependence of production upon land and climatic conditions. While products in the first two categories depend disproportionately on land availability, geography, and climatic conditions, those in Categories 3 and 4 are less dependant upon those factors and in principle, can be produced almost anywhere.3 A complete listing of the products and the concordance with the trade data is given in Table B.1. As the period that is reviewed ends before the enlargement of the EU to 27 member states, references to aggregate EU data in this section covers members prior to 2004, that is, EU15 only.

Evolution in total agricultural and merchandise trade During the twenty-year period 1985 to 2004, world agricultural exports (excluding intra-EU trade) increased more than threefold from USD 123 billion to USD 393 billion4 resulting in an annual compound growth rate averaging 6.3% a year (Table 1.4). Over the same time period however, total world merchandise exports expanded at an even faster

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

37

1. OVERVIEW

Table 1.4. Total merchandise and agriculture exports 1985-2004 (with and without intra-EU trade) Data exclude intra-EU

Data include intra-EU trade

Total agricultural Total merchandise Agriculture share exports exports of total

Total agricultural Total merchandise Agriculture share exports exports of total

No. of countries reporting

Billion USD

Billion USD

Per cent

Billion USD

Billion USD

Per cent

1985

123

1 071

11.5

175

1 477

11.9

88

1986

126

1 137

11.1

194

1 656

11.7

98

1987

134

1 335

10.1

218

1 980

11.0

95

1988

156

1 590

9.8

248

2 307

10.8

96

1989

179

1 858

9.6

274

2 628

10.4

102

1990

189

2 105

9.0

300

3 037

9.9

105

1991

190

2 208

8.6

308

3 137

9.8

103

1992

212

2 093

10.1

341

3 081

11.1

106

1993

212

2 573

8.2

327

3 411

9.6

111

1994

245

2 928

8.4

372

3 908

9.5

118

1995

290

3 464

8.4

438

4 661

9.4

134

1996

313

3 741

8.4

463

4 968

9.3

139

1997

316

3 899

8.1

456

5 124

8.9

146

1998

295

3 832

7.7

435

5 106

8.5

144

1999

277

4 006

6.9

416

5 301

7.9

152

2000

284

4 683

6.1

411

5 955

6.9

164

2001

292

4 425

6.6

423

5 719

7.4

161

2002

300

4 459

6.7

443

5 788

7.6

153

2003

352

5 166

6.8

527

6 742

7.8

149

2004

393

6 140

6.4

594

8 032

7.4

131

6.29

9.63

6.63

9.32

Growth rate

rate, increasing more than fivefold from USD 1.1 trillion to USD 6.1 trillion, revealing an average compound growth rate of 9.6% a year. Given different growth rates in total merchandise exports and agricultural exports, the share of agricultural exports to total merchandise fell from almost 12% of the total in 1985 to about 7% of total merchandise exports in 2004 (Table 1.4). The value of agriculture and total merchandise exports increased over the time period examined because countries exported more products and because more countries became engaged in trade (globalization). Between 1985 and 2004, the number of reporting countries or economic regions (all referred to as countries) increased from 88 to 130, with the number of reporting countries reaching 164 in 2000. Of this number, only 74 countries are considered consistent traders, defined as countries with at least 18 years of reported exports during the sample. These countries increased their merchandise exports more than fivefold during this period growing from USD 1 trillion in 1985 (96% of total merchandise exports) to USD 5.6 trillion (these figures and all figures in the rest of the section exclude intra-EU trade) in 2004 (92% of total). Agricultural exports by this group of countries grew from USD 119 billion USD 362 billion, representing 96% and 92% of total agricultural exports in 1985 and 2004 respectively. This information suggests that exports are relatively concentrated; although globalisation has led to more countries participating in trade, they play a relatively minor role. Which countries are the major world exporters, how has this changed over time, and what share of agricultural exports do they control? In the 1985 to 1989 period, the US was the largest

38

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

agricultural exporter with an average of USD 34.3 billion in exports (about 23% of total), followed by the EU15 with almost USD 30 billion (20% of total). Australia, with an average of USD 9.7 billion was the third largest exporter followed by the Canada and Brazil. These OECD countries exported, on average, some 54% of the world total in that period. Table 1.5 shows the remaining top exporters and indicates that eight of the leading exporting countries are not OECD countries and that the leading agricultural exporting countries exported on average about 80% of the world total during this time. Among the members of the EU15, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are among the top 10 exporting countries. Twenty years later, the leading exporting countries remained basically the same, except that Colombia and Hong Kong (China) were replaced by Indonesia and Spain, and even though the value of exports more than doubled, the market share of the leading exporters fell as other countries expanded their exports. The share of the leading countries listed in Table 1.5 fell to 75% of the total. In addition, individual ranking also changed. The EU15 jumped ahead of the US to become the largest exporter while Brazil replaced Australia as the third largest exporter with an average market share of 5.5% a year. Although most of the leading exporters are OECD countries, developing countries increased their market share and the top exporting developing countries increased their share of trade slightly to 21% of the total. A more comprehensive representation of the relative dominance of OECD countries in world agricultural trade is shown in Figure 1.15 below. The figure breaks out world exports based on countries grouped by income and the 30 OECD countries.5 Based on this level of

Table 1.5. Leading agro-food exporting countries (average 1985-89 and 2000-04) Data exclude intra-EU trade Average 1985-89 Economy

USD billion

Data exclude intra-EU trade Average 2000-04 Share (%)

Economy

(1) United States

34.34

22.80

(1) EU15

(2) EU15

29.86

19.83

of which:

France

6.99

4.64

Netherlands

Netherlands

4.33

2.87

United Kingdom

3.95

Germanya

USD billion

Share (%)

61.78

18.68

11.08

3.35

9.34

2.82

Germany

9.20

2.78

2.63

United Kingdom

6.66

2.01

3.93

2.61

Italy

6.59

1.99

Italy

2.54

1.69

Denmark

4.56

1.38

Denmark

2.49

1.65

Spain

3.92

1.19

(3) Australia

9.65

6.41

(2) United States

60.18

18.19

(4) Canada

7.38

4.90

(3) Brazil

18.18

5.49

(5) Brazil

6.61

4.39

(4) Canada

17.72

5.36

(6) China

6.12

4.06

(5) Australia

16.16

4.89

(7) New Zealand

4.40

2.92

(6) China

14.00

4.23

(8) Argentina

4.22

2.80

(7) Argentina

12.54

3.79

(9) Thailand

3.50

2.32

(8) Mexico

8.36

2.53

(10) Malaysia

2.76

1.83

(9) New Zealand

8.05

2.43

(11) Colombia

2.57

1.71

(10) Malaysia

7.45

2.25

(12) Mexico

2.47

1.64

(11) Thailand

7.38

2.23

(13) Turkey

2.35

1.56

(12) India

5.80

1.75

(14) Hong Kong (China)

2.31

1.53

(13) Indonesia

5.27

1.59

(15) India

2.28

1.51

(14) Turkey

4.15

1.25

120.81

80.22

Total above

247.02

74.67

of which:

Total of above

France

a) Excludes data for the German Democratic Republic.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

39

1. OVERVIEW

Figure 1.15. Agriculture export share (excludes intra-EU trade) by income group (1985-2004) % 80

OECD

Upper-middle-income

Lower-middle-income

Low-income

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

aggregation, the share of agricultural exports of OECD countries peaked in 1987-88 at almost 70% of exports but fell from this high level to around 60% in the latter years (Figure 1.15).6 The share of high income non-OECD countries (not shown in figure) also declined somewhat from around 4% in 1985 to 3% in 2004 and that of low income countries from around 6% in 1985 to around 4% in 2004. The declining share from OECD and highincome countries has been captured by the middle income countries. The upper-middleincome countries increased their share from around 8% in 1985 to around 11% in 2004, while lower middle income countries increased their share from 19% to 23% of the total during this time. Shifting the focus to the G20 7 group of developing countries – countries with particularly strong views on agricultural trade in the Doha negotiations – the data reveals that total merchandise exports by this group increased almost 13 times to USD 1.3 trillion, representing 21% of world’s total in 2004. The average growth rate of 14% per year considerably outpaced that of all exporting countries. Total agricultural exports by the G20 on the other hand increased only fourfold to USD 111 billion in 2004 or 28% of the world total. Reflecting the different growth rates of agricultural and merchandise exports, the export sector of this group of countries exhibited traits similar to all countries, namely, the share of agricultural goods to total merchandise exports declined. During the 20 years from 1985, the value of agricultural exports in total exports dropped by 19 percentage points to 9% in 2004.

Evolution in the exports of the four agricultural sub-sectors Within an overall growing agricultural export trade over the 20-year period, the value of exports in each of the four sub-sectors, bulk, horticultural, semi-processed and processed, also expanded, but at very different rates of growth. While exports of bulk commodities increased at an annual growth rate of 2.6% a year, the growth in exports of horticultural products was much faster at 8.6% a year. Nevertheless, the share of these two broad groups of commodities – both heavily dependant upon land and climatic conditions – in the value of total agricultural exports fell from 45% to 30% from 1985 to 2004 (Figure 1.16).

40

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

Figure 1.16. Share of agriculture exports (excludes intra-EU trade) by stage (1985-2004) Bulk

% 50

Horticulture

Semi-processed

Processed

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Within the group of goods that are less dependent on climatic conditions, exports of semi-processed products grew at 5.9% a year to more than USD 97 billion in 2004, with a little changed share in total agricultural exports. On the other hand, exports of highly processed products increased fivefold from USD 35 billion in 1985 to USD 177 billion in 2004, raising their share in total agricultural exports from 28% to 42%. The average annual growth rate of these products, 8.9% a year, is comparable to the annual average growth rate of total merchandise exports. OECD countries are the largest exporters of bulk commodities but their share of the total declined during the 20-year period from 61% in 1985 to 54% in 2004 (Figure 1.17). Most of this was captured by lower-middle-income countries whose share in total bulk product exports more than doubled during the period to 28%. Bulk exports by low- and upper-middle-income countries are of lesser importance but nevertheless exhibited much stronger growth than the OECD countries.

Figure 1.17. Exports of bulk and horticultural products by various groups of countries (1985-2004) Low-income USD billion 80 70

Lower-middle-income

Bulk products

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

Upper-middle-income USD billion 45 40

OECD

Horticultural products

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

41

1. OVERVIEW

Looking at individual countries (EU15 counting as one), the US, Canada and the EU15 are the top three exporters of bulk commodities with an annual average export value of USD 17.2 billion, USD 3.8 billion and USD 3.2 billion respectively during the 1985 to 1989 period, representing more than half of average world exports during those years (Table B.2). Even though many countries export bulk products, trade is concentrated and the top 20 exporters captured on average more than 91% of world total. But, over time, the concentration of the top 20 exporting countries declined and stood at 86% in 2000 to 2004 period. Within this overall trend, the relevance of OECD countries is declining and by 2004 there were only five OECD countries among the leading 20 exporters of bulk commodities. Thus, unlike the exports of all agricultural products where the OECD countries dominate, exports of bulk commodities that depend more on climatic conditions, and land availability has shifted more toward developing countries. Production of horticultural commodities is also relatively location specific, i.e. relatively more dependent on land and climatic conditions. As already stated, trade in this sector has been much more dynamic than trade in bulk products. While the OECD dominates horticultural exports with a total of USD 24 billion in 2004, the strongest growth was exhibited by the upper-middle-income countries, with an growth rate of 10.8% a year to USD 6 billion in 2004 (Figure 1.18). As a group the G20 exhibited a high growth rate (9.6% per year, not shown in the graph), followed by the OECD countries (9.4%), the lower-middle-income countries (8%) and the low-income countries with an average annual growth of horticulture exports of 5.8%.

Figure 1.18. Exports of semi processed and processed products by various groups of countries, 1985-2004 Low-income USD billion 100 90

Lower-middle-income

Semi-processed products

80 70 60 50 40 30

Upper-middle-income USD billion 180 160

Processed products

140 120 100 80 60

20

40

10

20

0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

OECD

0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

As for bulk commodities, the leading horticultural exporting country is the US with an average of USD 2.2 billion a year during the 1985 to 1989 period and USD 6.2 billion a year for the 2000 to 2004 period representing 16% of the world’s total of these products during each of these periods (Table B.3). The rank ordering of the leading horticultural product exporters has changed over time, but overall and in contrast to trade in bulk commodities, the importance of OECD countries in horticultural products trade increased with its share of total horticultural exports growing from 46% in 1985 to 54% in 2004. The third agricultural sub-sector, semi processed products includes products that are less dependant on climatic conditions with key inputs into their production process that

42

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

are importable. This group of products as mentioned above is the second largest exported sub-sector. As a group, OECD countries increased their exports in this segment by 4.9% a year to USD 48.1 billion in 2004 (Figure 1.18). Nevertheless, their share in the world total fell by 10 percentage points to an average of about 50% as that of upper-middle-income developing countries increased by 6 percentage points to 14% of the total in 2000-04 reflecting an average growth rate of 8.2% a year. Strong export growth of 7.3% per year to USD 30 billion in 2004 was also exhibited by members of the G20 (not shown in the figure). Exports of semi-processed products by the least developed countries (not shown in the figure) increased from USD 166 million to USD 693 million in 2003. But with slower growth than that of other developing countries, their share in world total exports hardly changed. The EU15 and the US are the world’s largest exporters of semi-processed products, with respective shares of total world trade in 2004 of 17% and 16%. On average, the EU15 exported some USD 13.4 billion a year during 2000-04 and the US just above USD 13 billion (Table B.4). The final group of products considered here those with the highest level of transformation or processing prior to consumption. Production of this group of products is not very location specific, is very little concerned with climatic conditions, most of the required inputs can be sourced from practically anywhere and other considerations loom more important in firms decisions as to where to locate. This group of products has the largest share of agricultural exports and has the highest growth rate. OECD exports of processed products have grown by more than 8% per year since 1985 to USD 120.4 billion in 2004 (Figure 1.18). But, although from a much lower base, exports in this segment by upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries grew at double digit rates, averaging respectively 13.6% and 10.7% per year, reaching respectively USD 14.1 billion and USD 34 billion in 2004. OECD countries dominate trade in this segment: The six leading processed product exporters are all members of the OECD; the number of OECD countries in the top 20 increased to 15 by 2004; and on average these countries exported almost USD 87 billion a year or 60% of the total (Table B.5). Nevertheless, reflecting the very high growth rates in processed product exports by developing countries, these countries are increasing their share in total world trade. For instance, processed products became the most important export segment for the G20 countries, overtaking exports of bulk or semi-processed products. Their share of total world exports increased from 15% to 23% since 1985. Other developing countries (except the least developed countries) also demonstrated impressive growth rates in exporting products in this market segment. In general, the export data reveal the extent of globalisation with the share of the leading exporting countries declining over the 1985 to 2004 period. This illustrates that more countries are contesting agricultural export markets and that more countries have entered the global markets while existing competitors below the group in the top 20 increased their competitiveness and their share of the market. Overall, the share of exports by OECD countries has declined in three of the four broad aggregates discussed (except for horticultural markets). The data also reveal that despite the policy changes that have occurred since the mid-1990s and the implementation of the URAA, agricultural trade continues to be dominated by a relatively small number of countries, with the leading 20 exporting countries controlling more than 70% of the exports in each of the four segments examined.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

43

1. OVERVIEW

Evolution of agricultural imports Turning our attention to the flip side of the issue, the data show that growth of agricultural trade based on imports is the same as that described above based on exports. For example, agricultural imports increased at an average growth rate of 6.5% a year, but still lagged behind that of all merchandise trade resulting in agriculture’s share of world merchandise trade based on imports declining from 10% of the total in 1985 to slightly above 6% in 2004. In terms of the composition of trade, import developments are also similar to those for exports with the share of bulk commodities in total agricultural imports falling and that for processed products increasing. The Least Developed Countries seem to be more engaged in importing rather than exporting agricultural goods as their share of world imports during the last 10 years has been above 1% in contrast to less than 0.5% in exports. OECD countries share of imports fell from more than 74% of the total at the beginning of the period to the low-60% in the later years, while the import share of developing countries other than low income, increased from around 13% at the beginning of the period to around 26% in the later years. Demand for bulk commodities by the OECD countries has fallen particularly with its share in total world imports of bulk products falling from 72% on average during the period between 1985 and 1989 to 51% for the 2000 to 2004 period. In contrast, import demand for bulk commodities by developing countries expanded at a faster rate, increasing their share of the market. Import demand increased the fastest among upper-middle-income countries, averaging 11.4% a year, followed by lower-middle-income countries with an annual growth rate of 9.1%. The same trend prevailed for imports of processed products where imports by the OECD countries grew at an annual rate of 8.2% compared to double digit rates for many developing countries. Consequently, the share in world imports of processed products by OECD countries fell to 68% by 2004. Import demand by upper-middle-income countries increased at an average rate of 13.4% a year expanding their demand more than 10 times from USD 1.7 billion in 1985 to USD 17.9 billion in 2004. Lower-middle-income countries also increased their demand at a double digit rate averaging 10.2% a year. Their demand expanded more than 6 times from USD 2.8 billion in 1985 to USD 18.1 billion in 2004. Low-income countries expanded their demand for this class of commodities about threefold from USD .9 billion in 1985 to USD 2.9 billion in 2004. (Tables B.2 to B.5 contain a list of the leading importing countries for each of the four sub-sectors.) It is noteworthy that import demand also expanded for the G20 countries, the group that is considered to have an export orientation at the WTO negotiations. Double digit growth in import demand by the G20 countries was registered in each of the four sub-sectors and their total imports of agricultural products grew by more than 11% per year between 1985 and 2004, raising their share of total world imports from 10.8% during 1985-89 to 17.2% during the 2000-04 period (compared to an average share of 17.7% of world exports). This phenomenon was not confined to one or two large members, a development that would lead to misleading interpretations. Rather large import demand was exhibited by a majority of the members. Average imports for the 2000 to 2004 period by three members, China, Indonesia, and Mexico, placed them among the leading 20 importing countries, while a total of 13 members were among the top 50 agricultural importers. Furthermore, of these 13 important importers, 7 led by Mexico, Egypt and Venezuela were on average net importers of agricultural goods during the 2000 to 2004

44

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

1.

OVERVIEW

period. It is particularly striking that the average growth in import demand for bulk commodities by the G20 group of countries, 11.1% a year, outpaces that of global growth or growth by OECD. Consequently, the G20 as a group switched from being net exporters of bulk products on average during 1985-89 to being net importers during 2000-04. For the other three sub-sectors however, strong growth in imports was more than offset by an even stronger expansion in exports. As a result, the G20 maintained their net export position in these set of commodities and in total agricultural trade. Another group of countries that has joined ranks at the WTO negotiations is the G10.8 This group of countries is thought to have more of an import orientation in the negotiations. While their agricultural imports indeed increased by 6.2% a year from 1985 to 2004, their share of total world imports declined from an average of 21.2% in the 1985-89 period to 18.4% in the 2000-04 period. And as total merchandise imports increased at an even faster rate, averaging 8.8% a year, the agriculture share of total imports by these countries fell from 11% in 1985 to 7% by 2004. Most of the growth in agricultural imports by the G10 has occurred in processed products. These grew at an annual average rate of 9.7%, increasing their share of agricultural imports to almost half on average during 2000-04. On the other hand, import demand for bulk commodities moderated during the 20-year period, growing by only 2.4% a year. As a result their share in total agricultural imports declined from an average of 35% of total in 1985-89 to 21% in 2000-04.

Summary To summarize, between 1985 and 2004 trade in agriculture products (whether measured by the value of exports or imports) increased substantially both due to an expansion in trade by existing countries and due to new countries participating in the globalisation of markets. Agricultural trade did not increase as fast as all merchandise trade, resulting in a declining share of agriculture in world trade, to less than 10% in recent years. This trend of a falling share of agriculture in total merchandise trade is persistent across all income levels and geopolitical groupings, and is consistent with a similar pattern of agriculture capturing a declining share of an economy’s income. The trade data between 1985 and 2004 also show that even though there are more and more countries participating in trade, a relatively small number of countries continue to capture most of this trade whether one is referring to agriculture or non-agriculture goods. The concentration ratio of the top 4 or top 20 exporting countries, although dropping moderately over the 20-year period, is still rather high, with the top 20 exporting countries accounting for almost 80% of total merchandise exports or 73% of total agricultural exports in 2004. LDCs, the group of countries who are receiving special consideration in the Doha Development Agenda are not very big participants in the expansion of agriculture trade, accounting for less than 1% of the total. Members of the OECD continue to dominate agriculture trade although their share of the total has declined somewhat over the 20-year period. Most of the gains have been made by countries that are in the G20 and other developing countries that are not LDCs. The data suggest that the dynamics of agricultural trade is chiefly about trade in processed products. The growth rate for this sector (8.5% a year) is comparable to the growth rate of non-agricultural products and as a result this group of commodities has steadily increased its share of agriculture trade, to 41% of total exports (45% of total

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

45

1. OVERVIEW

imports) in 2004. Trade in bulk products on the other hand is growing at the lowest rate (3.7% a year based on exports and 2.6% a year based on imports) among the agricultural sectors and as a result the share of bulk products in agricultural trade has declined from 37% to 19% of exports (from 34% to 21% of imports) during the 20 years since 1985. Patterns in the exports of each of the four agriculture sub-sectors – bulk products, horticulture, semi-processed products and processed products – follow those of agriculture in general. The top 4 or 20 exporters continue to dominate but their share has declined somewhat. The OECD countries continue to account for a majority of trade, and they tend to dominate trade in processed products. Nevertheless, developing countries other than LDCs have increased their importance in the trade of agricultural products in all the sub-sectors but especially for bulk commodities. Trade developments by some groups of countries are particularly striking given the stance of these countries in the current Doha Round of trade negotiation. For instance, agricultural exports for the G20 have decreased in importance as the share of agricultural exports to total merchandise exports has declined from 28% of the total in 1985 to 9% in 2004. Members of the G20 as a group have become net importers of bulk products while remaining overall net exporters in agriculture. The development in agricultural trade by the G10 group of countries is also noteworthy. This group of countries has an import orientation in the current Doha negotiation. However, both their share in world agricultural imports as the share of agricultural imports in total imports by these countries has fallen over time.

Notes 1. These and other macroeconomic assumptions in this section are based on the OECD, World Bank and UN sources which are explained in detail in footnote a to Table A.1 of the Statistical Annex. 2. There appears to be an income threshold beyond which entry into export markets becomes more feasible. This in turn implies that the benefits from globalisation may depend on income levels. 3. See Regmi et al. (2005) for more details on the rationale for the product classification scheme. 4. All values are stated in nominal US dollars. Trade data are from UN COMTRADE. 5. Country classification by income is from the World Bank and is based on per capital gross national income as of 2005; http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/CLASS.XLS. 6. If intra EU trade is included, the share of OECD countries in world trade is considerably higher, averaging 74% of the total in the last four years. 7. Members of the G20 are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt (Arab Republic of), Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela RB and Zimbabwe. 8. Members are: Bulgaria, Chinese Taipei, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea Republic, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Norway and Switzerland.

46

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Statistical Tables

47

ANNEX A

Table A.1. Economic assumptions Average 2006 est. 2001-05

Calendar yeara

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

REAL GDPb Australia

%

3.2

2.6

3.0

3.4

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

Canada

%

2.6

2.8

2.7

3.1

2.9

2.5

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

EU15

%

1.4

2.8

2.4

2.4

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

Japan

%

1.5

2.8

2.0

2.0

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

Korea

%

4.5

5.0

4.4

4.6

4.9

4.9

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

Mexico

%

1.8

4.7

3.6

3.7

3.9

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

New Zealand

%

3.4

1.5

1.3

2.0

2.9

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

Norway

%

2.1

2.4

3.2

2.7

2.5

2.9

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

Switzerland

%

1.1

3.0

2.2

2.0

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

Turkey

%

4.5

6.1

5.3

6.3

7.5

7.1

7.1

7.3

7.3

7.3

7.3

7.3

United States

%

2.4

3.3

2.4

2.7

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

Argentina

%

2.3

7.7

5.6

4.0

4.6

4.4

4.1

3.9

3.7

3.4

3.2

3.2

Brazil

%

2.2

3.5

3.4

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.5

China

%

9.5

10.4

9.6

8.7

8.4

8.1

7.8

7.5

7.1

6.8

6.5

6.5

India

%

7.0

8.7

7.7

7.2

6.9

6.7

6.4

6.1

5.9

5.6

5.3

5.3

Russia

%

6.1

6.8

6.0

5.5

5.1

4.7

4.3

3.9

3.5

3.1

2.7

2.7

South Africa

%

3.8

4.6

3.9

4.3

4.2

4.0

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.5

3.4

3.4

OECDc, d

%

2.0

3.2

2.5

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

Australia

%

2.3

2.8

2.6

2.7

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

Canada

%

2.6

1.4

1.3

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

EU15

%

2.0

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

Japan

%

–1.0

–0.4

0.4

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Korea

%

3.4

2.1

2.9

3.0

2.6

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

Mexico

%

5.9

3.1

3.4

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

New Zealand

%

1.4

2.7

2.7

2.0

1.8

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

Norway

%

1.7

2.2

2.1

2.6

2.6

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

Switzerland

%

0.8

1.4

0.9

1.2

0.9

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

Turkey

%

27.1

10.2

7.3

6.0

5.1

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.6

United States

%

2.2

2.8

2.2

2.2

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

Argentina

%

10.6

9.8

9.7

9.0

8.2

7.5

7.0

6.4

5.8

5.2

4.6

4.0

Brazil

%

9.1

5.5

5.2

5.2

3.9

4.7

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.6

China

%

1.4

1.4

2.0

2.8

2.4

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

India

%

3.6

6.2

5.8

5.0

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

5.7

Russia

%

6.1

10.0

8.5

8.0

6.5

5.7

5.2

5.0

4.7

4.5

4.3

4.0

South Africa

%

3.8

4.8

5.6

4.7

5.1

5.1

5.1

5.1

5.1

5.1

5.1

5.1

OECDc, d

%

2.5

2.4

2.2

2.2

2.0

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.9

2.0

2.0

2.0

PCE DEFLATORb

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

48

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.1. Economic assumptions (cont.) 2006 est. (million)

Calendar yeara

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

POPULATION Australia

%

20.5

1.03

1.01

1.01

0.99

0.98

0.98

0.96

0.97

0.96

0.96

Canada

%

32.6

0.88

0.85

0.83

0.82

0.82

0.80

0.80

0.79

0.79

0.79

EU27

%

490.6

0.15

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

Japan

%

127.9

0.08

0.06

0.03

0.01

–0.02

–0.05

–0.07

–0.10

–0.13

–0.15

Korea

%

48.5

0.33

0.31

0.29

0.27

0.25

0.23

0.22

0.20

0.18

0.16

Mexico

%

105.4

1.17

1.13

1.10

1.08

1.06

1.04

1.01

1.00

0.98

0.96

New Zealand

%

4.1

0.73

0.67

0.62

0.64

0.61

0.61

0.65

0.60

0.60

0.57

Norway

%

4.6

0.47

0.47

0.45

0.47

0.46

0.46

0.46

0.46

0.48

0.47

Switzerland

%

7.4

0.15

0.12

0.12

0.11

0.09

0.11

0.08

0.08

0.09

0.09

Turkey

%

73.0

1.33

1.31

1.28

1.25

1.21

1.18

1.14

1.11

1.07

1.04

United States

%

299.2

0.94

0.93

0.91

0.90

0.88

0.86

0.85

0.83

0.82

0.80

Argentina

%

39.1

0.91

0.89

1.01

0.99

0.97

0.95

0.93

0.92

0.90

0.88

Brazil

%

188.2

1.14

1.12

1.23

1.19

1.15

1.11

1.07

1.04

1.01

0.98

China

%

1 301.2

0.63

0.63

0.58

0.58

0.58

0.58

0.58

0.56

0.53

0.51

India

%

1 117.7

1.26

1.22

1.38

1.35

1.33

1.30

1.27

1.24

1.21

1.18

Russia

%

142.5

–0.53

–0.53

–0.44

–0.45

–0.46

–0.47

–0.48

–0.49

–0.50

–0.51

South Africa

%

47.6

0.37

0.39

0.08

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.04

0.06

OECDc

%

1 213.9

00.54

0.52

0.50

0.49

0.47

0.46

0.44

0.43

0.41

0.40

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Average 2006 est. 2001-05

Calendar yeara EXCHANGE RATE Australia

AUD/USD

1.60

1.33

1.31

1.32

1.33

1.34

1.35

1.37

1.38

1.39

1.40

1.42

Canada

CAD/USD

1.41

1.13

1.14

1.13

1.13

1.13

1.13

1.13

1.14

1.14

1.15

1.15

European Union

EUR/USD

0.93

0.80

0.78

0.78

0.77

0.77

0.77

0.77

0.77

0.77

0.77

0.77

Japan

JPY/USD

116.2

116.5

118.1

115.9

114.2

112.8

111.5

110.3

109.1

107.9

106.7

105.6

Korea

‘000 KRW/USD

1.18

0.95

0.94

0.92

0.90

0.89

0.88

0.87

0.86

0.85

0.84

0.83

Mexico

MXN/USD

10.39

10.91

10.92

10.99

11.08

11.18

11.31

11.42

11.54

11.67

11.79

11.91

New Zealand

NZD/USD

1.84

1.55

1.52

1.50

1.50

1.49

1.49

1.49

1.49

1.49

1.49

1.50

Argentina

ARS/USD

2.56

2.87

2.79

2.65

2.78

2.92

3.06

3.19

3.32

3.44

3.56

3.67

Brazil

BRL/USD

2.78

2.47

2.60

2.73

2.79

2.85

2.91

2.98

3.04

3.11

3.18

3.25

China

CNY/USD

8.24

7.85

7.64

7.44

7.46

7.50

7.55

7.60

7.65

7.71

7.76

7.82

India

INR/USD

46.30

45.70

47.20

48.11

49.78

51.62

53.60

55.65

57.78

60.00

62.30

64.69

Russia

RUB/USD

29.7

27.3

26.4

25.5

26.3

27.1

27.9

28.6

29.3

29.9

30.5

31.0

South Africa

ZAR/USD

8.85

6.97

7.10

7.37

7.57

7.80

8.04

8.30

8.56

8.82

9.10

9.39

34.18

65.22

67.16

65.50

61.31

58.38

55.59

54.64

56.13

57.66

59.24

60.85

WORLD OIL PRICE Brent crude oil price

USD/barrel

a) For OECD member countries, historical data for population, real GDP, private consumption expenditure deflator and exchange rate were obtained from the OECD Economic Outlook, No. 80, December 2006. For non-member economies, historical macroeconomic data were obtained from the World Bank, November 2006. Assumptions for the projection period draw on the recent medium-term macroeconomic projections of the OECD Economics Department, projections of the World Bank, responses to a questionnaire sent to member country agricultural experts and for population, projections from the United Nations World Population Prospects Database, 2004 Revision (medium variant). Data for the European Union are for the euro area aggregates. b) Annual per cent change. The price index used is the private consumption expenditure deflator. c) Excludes Iceland. d) Annual weighted average real GDP and CPI growth rates in OECD countries are based on weights using 1995 GDP and purchasing power parities (PPPs). For a complete description of the technical assumptions made, please see the Methodology section. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

49

ANNEX A

Table A.2. World pricesa Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

WHEAT Priceb

USD/t

152.0

204.0

204.5

197.5

191.8

186.1

184.6

184.5

183.1

181.7

182.4

183.2

USD/t

103.6

140.4

158.9

157.6

147.1

143.3

144.0

140.8

138.4

138.6

139.5

138.2

USD/t

238.4

311.4

352.1

360.3

347.8

331.9

331.0

336.3

336.3

330.2

326.2

326.0

USD/t

266.0

289.8

310.4

311.7

306.5

300.8

297.4

297.7

295.4

295.1

298.4

299.6

USD/t

201.0

204.9

215.2

217.0

212.8

207.5

204.6

203.1

198.4

196.3

199.1

200.8

USD/t

520.6

590.7

618.0

619.7

622.9

611.9

610.8

608.5

612.4

613.9

615.4

613.9

Price, raw sugarh

USD/t

217.6

253.5

242.5

235.9

231.5

235.9

240.3

238.1

238.1

240.3

241.4

242.5

Price, refined sugari

USD/t

269.7

360.5

341.7

330.7

319.7

319.7

319.7

314.2

310.9

310.9

309.7

308.6

Price, EUj

EUR/100 kg dw

244.1

285.2

250.4

258.4

258.0

257.0

259.2

258.8

258.7

259.4

259.8

260.9

Price, USAk

USD/100 kg dw

282.0

303.6

303.4

299.0

297.1

288.5

285.0

279.4

279.0

286.2

293.8

297.7

Price, Argentinal

ARS/100 kg dw

307.1

427.3

323.2

352.2

354.9

361.1

374.6

384.4

406.6

436.0

455.4

480.3

Price, EUm

EUR/100 kg dw

134.9

141.4

142.4

153.6

148.6

139.2

143.9

137.3

136.7

138.2

139.9

142.3

Price, USAn

USD/100 kg dw

136.4

145.0

126.2

154.4

165.4

165.4

157.8

160.8

162.5

158.8

161.3

160.6

Price, Brazilo

BRL/100 kg dw

187.7

216.2

202.2

280.2

302.5

313.3

306.1

316.3

332.6

339.2

347.1

361.2

Price, EUp

EUR/100 kg rtc

102.8

101.5

100.5

104.3

106.7

108.8

105.9

104.2

108.3

109.3

110.3

111.3

Price, USAq

USD/100 kg rtc

141.8

140.9

159.5

164.8

171.5

179.3

183.0

182.1

180.4

176.6

178.0

177.5

NZD/100 kg dw

390.1

330.0

325.4

333.8

343.6

351.9

361.0

370.0

378.8

387.5

396.1

404.7

USD/100 kg

155.9

186.5

196.2

193.0

188.3

188.3

195.1

200.9

209.7

215.1

220.2

222.6

USD/100 kg

231.3

272.8

300.4

310.9

303.2

300.0

301.0

300.5

301.9

304.2

305.9

307.3

USD/100 kg

185.7

234.9

259.4

269.0

266.3

259.3

253.6

250.3

247.9

249.6

249.0

251.7

COARSE GRAINS Pricec RICE Priced OILSEEDS Pricee OILSEED MEALS Pricef VEGETABLE OILS Priceg SUGAR

BEEF AND VEAL

PIG MEAT

POULTRY MEAT

SHEEP MEAT Price, New Zealandr BUTTER Prices CHEESE Pricet SKIM MILK POWDER Priceu

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

50

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.2. World pricesa (cont.) Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

WHOLE MILK POWDER Pricev

USD/100 kg

190.8

229.4

254.6

262.7

256.7

248.2

250.3

249.0

251.0

252.4

252.8

253.1

Wholesale price, USAw USD/100 kg

50.6

74.5

79.0

83.5

90.7

91.3

92.4

91.4

90.6

90.3

89.0

89.2

438.8

486.0

480.3

481.9

468.2

457.9

442.5

451.0

440.2

444.9

439.8

439.4

WHEY POWDER CASEIN Pricex

USD/100 kg

a) This table is a compilation of price information presented in the detailed commodity tables further in this annex. Prices for crops are on marketing year basis and those for meat and dairy products on calendar year basis (e.g. 05/06 is calendar year 2005). b) No. 2 hard red winter wheat, ordinary protein, USA f.o.b. Gulf Ports (June/May); less EEP payments where applicable. c) No. 2 yellow corn, US f.o.b. Gulf Ports (September/August). d) Milled, 100%, grade b, Nominal Price Quote, NPQ, f.o.b. Bangkok (August/July). e) Weighted average oilseed price, European port. f) Weighted average meal price, European port. g) Weighted average price of oilseed oils and palm oil, European port. h) Raw sugar world price, New York, No. 11, f.o.b. stowed Caribbean port (including Brazil), bulk spot price. i) Refined sugar price, London, No. 5 , f.o.b. Europe, spot. j) Producer price. k) Choice steers, 1 100-1 300 lb lw, Nebraska – lw to dw conversion factor 0.63. l) Buenos Aires wholesale price linier, young bulls. m) Pig producer price n) Barrows and gilts, No. 1-3, 230-250 lb lw, Iowa/South Minnesota – lw to dw conversion factor 0.74. o) Producer price. p) Weighted average farm gate live chickens, first choice, lw to rtc conversion of 0.75, EU15 starting in 1995. q) Wholesale weighted average broiler price 12 cities. r) Lamb schedule price, all grade average. s) F.o.b. export price, butter, 82% butterfat, northern Europe. t) F.o.b. export price, cheddar cheese, 40 lb blocks, northern Europe. u) F.o.b. export price, non-fat dry milk, extra grade, northern Europe. v) F.o.b. export price, WMP 26% butterfat, northern Europe. w) Edible dry whey, Wisconsin, plant. x) Export price, New Zealand. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

51

ANNEX A

Table A.3. World trade projections Average 2006 est. 2001-05

IMPORTS Wheat

Coarse grains

Rice

Oilseed meals

Vegetable oils

Beefa

Pigmeata

Poultry

Butter

Cheese

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

kt

OECD

kt

25 721

23 464

24 058 23 884 23 972 24 210 24 358 24 558 24 633 24 856 25 082 25 278

Developing

kt

84 367

86 006

88 651 92 236 91 204 93 291 94 466 96 487 98 461 100 205 102 290 104 505

Least Developed Countries kt

8 121

7 298

109 435 108 532 111 184 114 743 113 869 116 054 117 340 119 508 121 518 123 416 125 639 127 971

8 025

8 207

8 396

8 762

8 974

9 279

9 618

9 942 10 204 10 511

World trade

kt

OECD

kt

50 254

50 243

45 898 48 230 49 334 49 193 48 622 48 501 49 000 49 230 49 072 49 143

Developing

kt

72 159

72 214

70 810 74 307 74 977 75 101 76 785 78 773 79 816 81 184 82 751 84 887

Least Developed Countries kt

1 952

2 046

104 995 106 537 102 205 107 308 108 919 108 723 109 776 111 531 113 116 114 841 116 115 118 227

29 810

29 300

World trade

kt

OECD

kt

4 951

4 661

Developing

kt

24 595

24 490

2 484

2 645

2 778

2 871

2 942

2 446

2 691

2 965

3 267

3 663

30 979 31 831 32 849 33 512 34 097 34 352 35 259 36 074 37 093 37 954 4 989

5 290

5 445

5 573

5 640

5 695

5 790

5 907

5 967

6 020

25 714 26 391 27 287 27 790 28 285 28 479 29 303 29 995 30 910 31 676

4 339

4 668

World trade

kt

68 035

79 704

81 635 83 941 84 622 85 183 86 751 88 158 89 394 90 741 91 847 93 597

OECD

kt

34 213

33 157

32 550 31 745 33 169 32 019 32 894 32 435 31 497 30 989 31 240 31 799

Developing

kt

41 131

53 707

55 949 59 086 58 521 60 314 61 152 63 020 65 250 67 159 68 036 69 278

Least Developed Countries kt

90

90

4 821

112

5 055

113

5 187

117

5 370

121

5 456

124

5 580

128

5 888

133

6 127

137

6 425

140

6 750

141

World trade

kt

49 457

58 423

59 698 60 815 61 421 61 933 63 273 64 180 64 826 65 756 66 708 67 867

OECD

kt

31 182

35 397

35 855 36 026 35 334 35 170 34 665 34 742 34 932 35 222 34 944 34 559

Developing

kt

19 169

24 166

25 176 26 117 27 448 28 036 29 825 30 621 30 913 31 510 32 780 34 255

Least Developed Countries kt

95

93

34 584

43 320

45 117 46 593 47 740 48 971 50 462 52 407 54 157 55 791 57 121 58 450

76

64

63

65

68

69

70

72

72

72

World trade

kt

OECD

kt

7 658

11 021

11 601 12 105 12 298 12 995 13 258 14 276 14 956 15 485 15 779 16 050

Developing

kt

26 681

32 367

33 856 34 738 35 752 36 277 37 490 38 435 39 544 40 718 41 885 43 094

Least Developed Countries kt

1 701

2 061

2 131

2 207

2 280

2 370

2 451

2 535

2 615

2 697

2 780

2 866

World trade

kt

5 963

6 424

6 969

7 176

7 584

7 851

8 062

8 321

8 613

8 843

9 097

9 337

OECD

kt

3 578

3 230

3 677

3 840

3 974

4 050

4 171

4 268

4 381

4 491

4 554

4 610

Developing

kt

2 176

2 691

2 924

3 008

3 215

3 372

3 466

3 587

3 764

3 829

3 979

4 040

Least Developed Countries kt

87

119

150

171

222

258

278

297

313

317

323

324

World trade

kt

3 999

4 301

4 700

4 927

5 055

5 130

5 279

5 443

5 576

5 680

5 766

5 901

OECD

kt

2 304

2 320

2 430

2 507

2 541

2 615

2 721

2 840

2 957

3 078

3 181

3 297

Developing

kt

1 352

1 488

1 762

1 849

1 866

1 868

1 941

2 010

2 083

2 106

2 115

2 134

Least Developed Countries kt

33

44

57

75

64

65

74

83

85

78

71

71

World trade

kt

7 563

7 479

8 060

8 353

8 541

8 783

9 077

9 475

9 741

9 948 10 180 10 588

OECD

kt

1 994

1 908

2 044

1 964

1 769

1 866

2 031

2 193

2 335

2 464

2 511

2 669

Developing

kt

4 247

4 129

4 562

4 887

5 255

5 410

5 517

5 819

6 027

6 177

6 321

6 620

Least Developed Countries kt

363

383

435

461

511

537

544

555

564

565

583

593

World trade

kt

697

708

760

799

818

833

842

852

855

863

867

878

OECD

kt

145

129

133

137

138

140

144

147

150

152

153

155

Developing

kt

399

430

452

460

459

471

474

479

478

482

486

492

Least Developed Countries kt

10

10

19

19

19

20

21

21

21

21

22

22

World trade

kt

1 401

1 459

1 497

1 545

1 593

1 624

1 666

1 710

1 750

1 792

1 833

1 876

OECD

kt

758

725

767

785

804

822

843

863

883

903

923

944

Developing

kt

550

589

595

615

624

640

656

672

686

703

722

741

Least Developed Countries kt

15

18

27

32

34

35

36

38

39

42

45

47

1 396

1 582

1 642

1 661

1 726

1 815

1 872

1 950

2 012

2 076

2 139

2 203

Whole milk powder World trade

kt

OECD

kt

88

85

82

80

81

81

80

81

81

81

81

82

Developing

kt

1 340

1 525

1 582

1 598

1 661

1 750

1 806

1 882

1 943

2 005

2 066

2 128

Least Developed Countries kt Skim milk powder

2008

World trade

Least Developed Countries kt Oilseeds

2007

86

112

115

120

126

132

138

144

150

155

161

167

1 167

1 196

1 190

1 178

1 161

1 169

1 182

1 184

1 205

1 198

1 210

1 244

World trade

kt

OECD

kt

223

191

196

195

199

204

211

218

224

228

237

244

Developing

kt

1 039

1 097

1 081

1 067

1 046

1 052

1 063

1 063

1 082

1 072

1 080

1 111

Least Developed Countries kt

42

23

22

23

24

25

26

22

18

16

14

12

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

52

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.3. World trade projections (cont.) Average 2006 est. 2001-05

EXPORTS Wheat

Coarse grains

Rice

Oilseed meals

Vegetable oils

Pigmeata

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

kt kt

109 435 108 532 111 184 114 743 113 869 116 054 117 340 119 508 121 518 123 416 125 639 127 971 72 970

73 916

72 143 76 376 77 540 78 916 79 610 81 394 82 447 83 183 84 641 86 082

Developing

kt

19 282

17 789

18 549 19 203 18 301 18 511 18 693 18 885 19 171 19 374 19 555 19 759

Least Developed Countries kt

130

82

121

123

125

128

130

133

135

137

Butter

Cheese

139

141

World trade

kt

104 995 106 537 102 205 107 308 108 919 108 723 109 776 111 531 113 116 114 841 116 115 118 227

OECD

kt

74 790

78 235

69 156 71 019 71 371 71 015 72 003 75 221 77 692 80 047 81 002 83 047

Developing

kt

28 413

23 492

28 073 30 567 30 825 30 797 30 765 29 113 28 288 27 716 27 387 27 141

Least Developed Countries kt

1 377

2 028

29 810

29 300

World trade

kt

OECD

kt

4 892

4 241

Developing

kt

23 732

25 591

3 518

3 303

2 937

2 887

2 916

1 962

1 888

1 871

1 873

1 819

30 979 31 831 32 849 33 512 34 097 34 352 35 259 36 074 37 093 37 954 4 751

4 773

4 818

4 925

4 955

5 047

5 193

5 321

5 384

5 394

26 766 27 598 28 570 29 127 29 681 29 845 30 605 31 292 32 248 33 100

496

855

World trade

kt

68 035

79 704

81 635 83 941 84 622 85 183 86 751 88 158 89 394 90 741 91 847 93 597

1 716

OECD

kt

35 632

38 699

40 964 39 117 35 847 32 979 32 461 32 320 32 555 33 139 33 521 33 760

Developing

kt

30 446

36 660

36 083 39 935 43 413 46 973 49 045 50 486 51 290 51 991 52 511 53 755

Least Developed Countries kt

18

18

49 457

58 423

59 698 60 815 61 421 61 933 63 273 64 180 64 826 65 756 66 708 67 867

18

1 656

18

1 868

19

1 995

19

1 887

19

1 748

19

1 778

19

1 649

19

1 744

19

1 975

19

World trade

kt

OECD

kt

8 256

10 336

10 495 10 684 11 417 11 218 11 467 11 474 11 394 11 409 11 447 11 613

Developing

kt

41 978

47 122

48 109 48 914 48 819 49 421 50 461 51 329 52 001 52 874 53 736 54 670

Least Developed Countries kt

9

10

34 584

43 320

World trade

kt

OECD

kt

2 691

2 286

Developing

kt

33 005

41 332

11

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

45 117 46 593 47 740 48 971 50 462 52 407 54 157 55 791 57 121 58 450 2 120

1 794

1 749

1 597

1 674

1 984

2 041

1 874

1 654

1 441

43 581 45 254 46 396 47 755 49 105 50 705 52 360 54 119 55 624 57 119

67

70

72

73

74

75

76

77

79

80

82

84

World trade

kt

5 963

6 424

6 969

7 176

7 584

7 851

8 062

8 321

8 613

8 843

9 097

9 337

OECD

kt

3 643

3 163

3 325

3 357

3 450

3 555

3 641

3 730

3 862

3 952

4 035

4 088

Developing

kt

2 807

4 086

4 352

4 519

4 846

5 077

5 235

5 419

5 566

5 724

5 890

6 086

Least Developed Countries kt

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

World trade

kt

3 999

4 301

4 700

4 927

5 055

5 130

5 279

5 443

5 576

5 680

5 766

5 901

OECD

kt

3 202

3 831

3 785

3 840

3 839

3 871

3 926

4 001

4 097

4 141

4 170

4 202

Developing

kt

1 094

1 228

1 125

1 351

1 547

1 651

1 777

1 899

1 951

2 028

2 103

2 251

2

5

Least Developed Countries kt Poultry

2016

OECD

Least Developed Countries kt Beefa

2008

World trade

Least Developed Countries kt Oilseeds

2007

World trade

kt

7 563

7 479

8 060

8 353

8 541

8 783

9 077

9 475

9 741

9 948 10 180 10 588

OECD

kt

3 769

3 607

3 681

3 653

3 737

3 792

3 827

3 924

3 970

3 804

3 824

3 898

Developing

kt

3 953

4 354

4 590

4 772

4 963

5 156

5 464

5 751

5 908

6 219

6 316

6 602

Least Developed Countries kt

6

5

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

World trade

kt

697

708

760

799

818

833

842

852

855

863

867

878

OECD

kt

741

684

626

575

584

596

602

608

603

603

602

603

Developing

kt

49

61

54

57

56

57

57

58

63

66

67

70

Least Developed Countries kt

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

World trade

kt

1 401

1 459

1 497

1 545

1 593

1 624

1 666

1 710

1 750

1 792

1 833

1 876

OECD

kt

1 196

1 186

1 150

1 146

1 159

1 177

1 206

1 240

1 265

1 291

1 314

1 339

Developing

kt

137

198

239

274

293

305

318

326

339

351

361

373

Least Developed Countries kt Whole milk powder World trade OECD Developing Least Developed Countries

kt kt kt kt

1 396 1 185 382 3

1 582 1 245 499 4

1 642 1 245 570 4

1 661 1 235 593 4

1 726 1 269 625 4

1 815 1 330 654 4

1 872 1 359 682 4

1 950 1 414 705 4

2 012 1 453 728 4

2 076 1 489 755 4

2 139 1 526 781 4

2 203 1 563 807 4

Skim milk powder

kt kt kt kt

1 167 970 108 2

1 196 803 137 2

1 190 771 167 2

1 178 766 158 2

1 161 739 169 2

1 169 745 171 2

1 182 740 188 2

1 184 753 177 2

1 205 756 200 2

1 198 782 168 2

1 210 813 150 2

1 244 841 157 2

World trade OECD Developing Least Developed Countries

a) Excludes trade of live animals. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

53

ANNEX A

Table A.4. Main policy assumptions for cereal markets Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

Crop yeara

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

ARGENTINA Crops export tax

%

16

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Rice export tax

%

8

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

CANADA Tariff-quotasb Wheat

kt

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

in-quota tariff

%

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

out-of-quota tariff

%

62

62

62

62

62

62

62

62

62

62

62

62

kt

399

399

399

399

399

399

399

399

399

399

399

399

in-quota tariff

%

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

out-of-quota tariff

%

58

58

58

58

58

58

58

58

58

58

58

58 101

Barley

EUROPEAN UNIONc, d Cereal support pricee

EUR/t

101

101

101

101

101

101

101

101

101

101

101

Cereal compensationf, g

EUR/ha

261

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

Rice support priceh

EUR/t

239

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

Compulsory set-aside rate

%

9

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Set-aside paymentg

EUR/ha

261

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

Direct payment for rice

EUR/ha

564

470

470

470

470

470

470

470

470

470

470

470

Wheat tariff-quotab

kt

2 587

3 780

3 780

3 780

3 780

3 780

3 780

3 780

3 780

3 780

3 780

3 780

Coarse grain tariff-quotab

kt

3 349

3 469

3 469

3 469

3 469

3 469

3 469

3 469

3 469

3 469

3 469

3 469

Wheat

mt

15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

Coarse grainsi

mt

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

10.8

Subsidised export limitsb

JAPAN Rice land diversion program ’000 ha

1 008

1 020

1 020

1 020

1 020

1 020

1 020

1 020

1 020

1 020

1 020

1 020

Wheat support pricej

’000 JPY/t

138

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

119

Barley support pricek

’000 JPY/t

119

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Wheat tariff-quota

kt

5 740

5 740

5 740

5 740

5 740

5 740

5 740

5 740

5 740

5 740

5 740

5 740 0.0

in-quota tariff

’000 JPY/t

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

out-of-quota tariff

’000 JPY/t

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

1 369

1 369

1 369

1 369

1 369

1 369

1 369

1 369

1 369

1 369

1 369

1 369

Barley tariff-quota

kt

in-quota tariff

’000 JPY/t

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

out-of-quota tariff

’000 JPY/t

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39 682

Rice tariff-quotal

682

682

682

682

682

682

682

682

682

682

682

in-quota tariff

kt ’000 JPY/t

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

out-of-quota tariff

’000 JPY/t

341

341

341

341

341

341

341

341

341

341

341

341

KOREA Wheat tariff

%

6.4

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.4

5.4

Maize tariff-quota

kt

6 102

6 102

6 102

6 102

6 102

6 102

6 102

6 102

6 102

6 102

6 102

6 102

in-quota tariff

%

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

out-of-quota tariff

%

409

404

404

404

404

404

404

404

404

404

404

404 54

Barley tariff-quota

kt

52

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

in-quota tariff

%

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

out-of-quota tariff

%

364

359

359

359

359

359

359

359

359

359

359

359

kt

185

205

205

205

205

205

205

205

205

205

205

205

%

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Rice quotal in-quota tariff

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

54

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.4. Main policy assumptions for cereal markets (cont.) Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

Crop yeara

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

10

MERCOSUR Wheat tariff

%

11

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Coarse grain tariff

%

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

Rice tariff

%

11

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

MEXICO Cereal income paymentm

MXN/ha

906

980

1 013

1 045

1 078

1 111

1 145

1 180

1 217

1 254

1 293

1 332

Wheat NAFTA tariff

%

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Fidelist social program

MXN mn

425

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tortilla consumption subsidy MXN mn

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2 501

2 501

2 501

2 501

2 501

2 501

2 501

2 501

2 501

2 501

2 501

2 501

Maize tariff-quota

kt

in-quota tariff

%

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

out-of-quota tariff

%

197

194

194

194

194

194

194

194

194

194

194

194

Barley tariff-quota

kt

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

in-quota tariff

%

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

out-of-quota tariff

%

117

115

115

115

115

115

115

115

115

115

115

115

UNITED STATES Wheat loan rate

USD/t

100.5

101.0

101.0

101.0

101.0

101.0

101.0

101.0

101.0

101.0

101.0

101.0

Maize loan rate

USD/t

76.8

76.8

76.8

76.8

76.8

76.8

76.8

76.8

76.8

76.8

76.8

76.8

Wheat

USD/t

17.0

16.9

16.9

16.9

16.9

16.9

16.9

16.9

16.9

16.9

16.9

16.9

Maize

USD/t

10.3

10.3

10.3

10.3

10.3

10.3

10.3

10.3

10.3

10.3

10.3

10.3

Prod. flex. contract payment

CRP areasn

Mha

6.1

6.9

7.2

6.6

6.3

6.5

6.7

6.9

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

Wheat

Mha

2.9

3.5

3.6

3.3

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.8

Coarse grains

Mha

3.2

3.4

3.5

3.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.7

Subsidised export limitsb Wheat

Mt

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

14.5

Coarse grains

Mt

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

USD/t

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Wheat support price

CNY/t

135

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Coarse grains support price

CNY/t

117

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Rice support price

CNY/t

440

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Wheat tariff-quota

kt

8 935

9 636

9 636

9 636

9 636

9 636

9 636

9 636

9 636

9 636

9 636

9 636

Wheat EEP paymento CHINA

in-quota tariff

%

1.8

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

out-of-quota tariff

%

65.9

65.0

65.0

65.0

65.0

65.0

65.0

65.0

65.0

65.0

65.0

65.0

Coarse grains tariff

%

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Maize tariff-quota

kt

6 390

7 200

7 200

7 200

7 200

7 200

7 200

7 200

7 200

7 200

7 200

7 200

in-quota tariff

%

2.9

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

out-of-quota tariff

%

45.8

41.7

41.7

41.7

41.7

41.7

41.7

41.7

41.7

41.7

41.7

41.7

Rice tariff-quota

%

4 522

5 320

5 320

5 320

5 320

5 320

5 320

5 320

5 320

5 320

5 320

5 320

in-quota tariff

%

1.9

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

out-of-quota tariff

%

53.7

51.7

51.7

51.7

51.7

51.7

51.7

51.7

51.7

51.7

51.7

51.7

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

55

ANNEX A

Table A.4. Main policy assumptions for cereal markets (cont.) Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

Crop yeara

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

1 403

INDIA Input subsidy rate coarse grainsp INR/t

1 529

1 403

1 403

1 403

1 403

1 403

1 403

1 403

1 403

1 403

1 403

Input subsidy rate ricep

INR/t

762

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

700

Input subsidy rate wheatp

INR/t

2 002

2 082

2 082

2 082

2 082

2 082

2 082

2 082

2 082

2 082

2 082

2 082

Maize

INR/t

5 080

5 400

5 400

5 400

5 400

5 400

5 400

5 400

5 400

5 400

5 400

5 400

Rice

INR/t

5 080

5 700

5 700

5 700

5 700

5 700

5 700

5 700

5 700

5 700

5 700

5 700

Wheat

INR/t

6 240

6 500

6 500

6 500

6 500

6 500

6 500

6 500

6 500

6 500

6 500

6 500

Rice export subsidy

INR/t

3 222

3 133

3 133

3 133

3 133

3 133

3 133

3 133

3 133

3 133

3 133

3 133

Wheat export subsidy

INR/t

1 975

1 941

1 941

1 941

1 941

1 941

1 941

1 941

1 941

1 941

1 941

1 941

Wheat tariff

%

88

88

88

88

88

88

88

88

88

88

88

88

Maize tariff

%

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

Rice tariff

%

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

Barley tariff

%

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Minimum support price

a) b) c) d)

Beginning crop marketing year – see Glossary of Terms for definitions. Year beginning 1 July. Prices and payments in market euro – see Glossary of Terms. EU farmers also benefit from the Single Farm Payment (SFP) Scheme, which provides flat-rate payments independent from current production decisions and market developments. The total amount spent under the SFP scheme, before modulation, is assumed to increase from 26.9 billion euro in 2005 to 28.4 billion euro in 2008 for the total of the 15 former member states. The final number is equivalent to 233 euro per hectare of eligible farm land on average. For the accession countries, payments are phased in with the assumption of maximum top-ups from national budgets. Due to modulation, between 2.7% and 4.6% of the total SFP will go to rural development spending rather than directly to the farmers. e) Common intervention price for soft wheat, barley, maize and sorghum. f) Compensatory area payments. g) Actual payments made per hectare based on program yields. h) Subject to a purchase limit of 75 000 tonnes per year. i) The export volume excludes 0.4 mt of exported potato starch. The original limit on subsidised exports is 10.8 mt. j) Government purchase price, domestic wheat. k) Government purchase price, barley, 2nd grade, 1st class. l) Husked rice basis. m) Applies to producers of wheat, maize and sorghum. n) Includes wheat, barley, maize, oats and sorghum. o) Average per tonne of total exports. p) Indian input subsidies consist of those for electricty, fertiliser and irrigation. Note: The source for tariffs and Tariff Rate Quotas is AMAD (Agricultural market access database). The tariff and TRQ data are based on Most Favoured Nation rates scheduled with the WTO and exclude those under preferential or regional agreements, which may be substantially different. Tariffs are simple averages of several product lines. Specific rates are converted to ad valorem rates using world prices in the Outlook. Import quotas are based on global commitments scheduled in the WTO rather than those allocated to preferential partners under regional or other agreements. For Mexico, the NAFTA in-quota tariff on maize and barley is zero, while the tariff-rate quota becomes unlimited in 2003 for barley and 2008 for maize. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

56

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.5. World cereal projections Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

Crop yeara

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

WHEAT OECDb Production

mt

253.5

236.3

265.5

271.5

271.9

276.5

279.0

281.9

284.7

287.0

289.1

291.6

Consumption

mt

205.0

209.1

212.6

216.2

218.1

220.9

223.9

225.0

226.3

228.1

229.3

230.3

Closing stocks

mt

56.6

44.1

48.9

51.6

51.9

52.8

52.6

52.7

53.3

53.9

54.1

54.5

Production

mt

341.0

359.7

362.8

368.8

368.0

369.5

370.6

373.6

375.4

378.3

378.9

381.0

Consumption

mt

403.8

412.3

411.1

417.5

421.6

426.2

428.1

431.7

434.2

438.2

440.8

443.7

Closing stocks

mt

138.5

117.1

118.7

124.2

125.8

125.5

124.9

125.4

126.0

126.2

125.5

125.4

Production

mt

594.5

596.0

628.3

640.3

639.9

646.1

649.5

655.5

660.0

665.3

668.0

672.6

Consumption

mt

608.8

621.4

623.7

633.8

639.7

647.1

652.0

656.6

660.5

666.2

670.1

674.0

Closing stocks

mt

195.1

161.2

167.6

175.8

177.7

178.3

177.6

178.1

179.3

180.1

179.6

179.9

Priced

USD/t

152.0

204.0

204.5

197.5

191.8

186.1

184.6

184.5

183.1

181.7

182.4

183.2

Production

mt

509.0

498.4

551.4

573.3

584.1

586.6

592.2

600.9

606.0

610.2

615.9

622.2

Consumption

mt

479.9

510.2

534.9

549.7

558.6

564.5

569.1

573.8

576.9

579.6

584.1

587.9

Closing stocks

mt

107.6

86.5

79.7

80.6

84.1

84.4

84.1

84.5

84.9

84.7

84.6

84.9

Production

mt

441.3

482.1

494.1

508.6

520.1

525.6

533.5

540.0

545.6

549.6

556.6

562.1

Consumption

mt

468.8

505.3

514.5

521.1

532.8

540.3

549.7

558.0

566.0

572.4

580.0

587.0

Closing stocks

mt

133.9

117.6

114.8

119.5

123.2

124.8

126.4

129.5

132.1

134.5

137.4

140.9

Production

mt

950.2

980.5

1 045.5

1 081.9

1 104.3

1 112.2

1 125.6

1 140.9

1 151.6

1 159.7

1 172.5

1 184.3

Consumption

mt

948.7

1 015.5

1 049.4

1 070.8

1 091.4

1 104.7

1 118.8

1 131.8

1 143.0

1 152.0

1 164.0

1 174.9

Closing stocks

mt

241.5

204.1

194.5

200.1

207.3

209.2

210.5

214.0

217.0

219.1

222.0

225.8

Pricee

USD/t

103.6

140.4

158.9

157.6

147.1

143.3

144.0

140.8

138.4

138.6

139.5

138.2

Non-OECD

WORLDc

COARSE GRAINS OECDb

Non-OECD

WORLDc

RICE OECDb Production

mt

22.5

21.2

22.3

21.9

21.8

22.0

21.9

21.9

22.1

22.2

22.1

22.1

Consumption

mt

22.4

22.2

22.4

22.5

22.7

22.7

22.8

22.8

22.7

22.7

22.7

22.7

Closing stocks

mt

8.3

7.6

7.7

7.7

7.4

7.3

7.1

6.9

6.9

6.9

7.0

7.0

Production

mt

381.2

403.6

407.1

413.7

417.6

423.4

422.4

428.8

431.1

438.7

440.5

447.0

Consumption

mt

395.8

404.6

408.4

411.3

414.6

421.4

423.0

427.4

429.8

436.5

440.5

446.0

Closing stocks

mt

97.0

79.5

77.5

78.9

80.7

81.5

79.6

79.9

80.0

81.2

80.1

80.0

Production

mt

403.6

424.8

429.4

435.6

439.4

445.4

444.3

450.8

453.2

460.9

462.7

469.0

Consumption

mt

418.2

426.8

430.7

433.8

437.3

444.1

445.8

450.1

452.6

459.2

463.1

468.6

Closing stocks

mt

105.2

87.1

85.2

86.5

88.1

88.8

86.7

86.8

86.9

88.1

87.1

86.9

Pricef

USD/t

238.4

311.4

352.1

360.3

347.8

331.9

331.0

336.3

336.3

330.2

326.2

326.0

Non-OECD

WORLDc

a) Beginning crop marketing year – see Glossary of Terms for definitions. b) Excludes Iceland but includes the 8 EU members that are not members of the OECD. c) Source of historic data is USDA. d) No. 2 hard red winter wheat, ordinary protein, USA f.o.b. Gulf Ports (June/May); less EEP payments where applicable. e) No. 2 yellow corn, US f.o.b. Gulf Ports (September/August). f) Milled, 100%, grade b, Nominal Price Quote, NPQ, f.o.b. Bangkok (August/July). est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

57

ANNEX A

Table A.6. Main policy assumptions for oilseed markets Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

Crop yeara

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

ARGENTINA Oilseed export tax

%

19.5

27.5

27.5

27.5

27.5

27.5

27.5

27.5

27.5

27.5

27.5

27.5

Oilseed meal export tax

%

16.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

Oilseed oil export tax

%

16.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

24.0

Soybean oil

%

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

Rapeseed oil

%

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

%

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.4

Oilseed compensatione, f

EUR/ha

261

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

Compulsory set-aside rate

%

9.0

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Set-aside paymentf

EUR/ha

260.5

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

AUSTRALIA Tariffs

CANADA Tariffs Rapeseed oil EUROPEAN UNIONc, d

Tariffs Soybean oil

%

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

Rapeseed oil

%

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

bn JPY

23.6

23.5

23.5

23.5

23.5

23.5

23.5

23.5

23.5

23.5

23.5

23.5

Soybean oil

JPY/kg

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

Rapeseed oil

JPY/kg

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9 1 032

JAPAN New output payments Soybeans Tariffs

KOREA Soybean tariff-quota

kt

1 032

1 032

1 032

1 032

1 032

1 032

1 032

1 032

1 032

1 032

1 032

in-quota tariff

%

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

out-of-quota tariff

%

493

487

487

487

487

487

487

487

487

487

487

487

183

142

155

150

147

144

142

141

139

138

138

138

906

980

1 013

1 045

1 078

1 111

1 145

1 180

1 217

1 254

1 293

1 332

Soybean (for food) mark up ’000 KRW/t MEXICO Soybeans income paymentg MXN/ha Tariffs Soybeans

%

33.4

33.0

33.0

33.0

33.0

33.0

33.0

33.0

33.0

33.0

33.0

33.0

Soybean meal

%

25.4

23.8

23.8

23.8

23.8

23.8

23.8

23.8

23.8

23.8

23.8

23.8

Soybean oil

%

45.6

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

45.0

185.6

183.7

183.7

183.7

183.7

183.7

183.7

183.7

183.7

183.7

183.7

183.7

mha

2.1

2.3

2.4

2.2

2.1

2.2

2.1

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.9

1.9

Rapeseed

%

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Soybean meal

%

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

Rapeseed meal

%

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

Soybean oil

%

12.7

12.7

12.7

12.7

12.7

12.7

12.7

12.7

12.7

12.7

12.7

12.7

Rapeseed oil

%

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

kt

141

141

141

141

141

141

141

141

141

141

141

141

UNITED STATES Soybeans loan rate

USD/t

CRP area Soybeans Tariffs

Subsidised export limitsb Oilseed oils

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

58

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.6. Main policy assumptions for oilseed markets (cont.) Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

Crop yeara

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

CHINA Soybeans support price

CNY/t

1 332.6

1 501.0

1 549.2

1 597.7

1 647.4

1 700.7

1 754.9

1 810.8

1 868.2

1 929.0

1 992.1

2 058.7

Tariffsb Soybeans

%

14.9

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

Soybean meal

%

8.0

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

Soybean oil in-quota tariff %

7.2

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

kt

6 426

7 998

7 998

7 998

7 998

7 998

7 998

7 998

7 998

7 998

7 998

7 998

Input subsidy rate, oilseedsh

R/T

3 596

3 360

3 360

3 360

3 360

3 360

3 360

3 360

3 360

3 360

3 360

3 360

Soybean tariff

%

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Rapeseed tariff

%

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Sunflower tariff

%

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Oilseed tariff

%

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Soybean meal tariff

%

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

Rapeseed meal tariff

%

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Sunflower meal tariff

%

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Soybean oil tariff

%

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

Rapeseed oil tariff

%

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

Sunflower oil tariff

%

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

Palm oil tariff

%

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

Vegetables oil tariff

%

198

198

198

198

198

198

198

198

198

198

198

198

Vegetable oil tariff-quota INDIA

a) b) c) d)

Beginning crop marketing year – see Glossary of Terms for definitions. Calendar year, except for China and subsidised export limit in USA, beginning 1 July. Prices and payments in market euro – see Glossary of Terms. EU farmers also benefit from the Single Farm Payment (SFP) Scheme, which provides flat-rate payments independent from current production decisions and market developments. The total amount spent under the SFP scheme, before modulation, is assumed to increase from 26.9 billion euro in 2005 to 28.4 billion euro in 2008 for the total of the 15 former member states. The final number is equivalent to 233 euro per hectare of eligible farm land on average. For the accession countries, payments are phased in with the assumption of maximum top-ups from national budgets. Due to modulation, between 2.7% and 4.6% of the total SFP will go to rural development spending rather than directly to the farmers. e) Compensatory area payments, before penalties. f) Payments made per hectare based on regional yields. g) Weighted average of autumn/winter and spring/summer. h) Indian input subsidies consist of those for electricty, fertiliser and irrigation. Note: The source for tariffs and Tariff Rate Quotas is AMAD (Agricultural market access database). The tariff and TRQ data are based on Most Favoured Nation rates scheduled with the WTO and exclude those under preferential or regional agreements, which may be substantially different. Tariffs are simple averages of several product lines. Specific rates are converted to ad valorem rates using world prices in the Outlook. Import quotas are based on global commitments scheduled in the WTO rather than those allocated to preferential partners under regional or other agreements. For Mexico, the NAFTA tariffs on soybeans, oil meals and soybean oil are zero after 2003. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

59

ANNEX A

Table A.7. World oilseed projections Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

Marketing yeara

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

OILSEEDS OECDb Production

mt

113.2

127.0

121.9

125.5

128.3

128.8

130.2

131.4

133.7

135.5

137.0

138.6

Consumption

mt

110.5

118.8

120.5

122.8

126.4

128.2

130.8

131.7

132.5

133.2

134.6

136.4

Crush

mt

99.3

105.8

107.8

110.3

113.9

115.7

118.3

119.2

120.1

120.9

122.3

124.1

mt

19.7

28.7

21.6

17.0

16.2

15.9

15.7

15.6

15.7

15.8

15.9

16.2

Production

mt

150.3

175.0

180.6

188.0

194.7

201.6

207.7

212.6

217.3

220.9

224.7

229.0

Consumption

mt

152.4

183.0

191.5

197.6

199.8

205.0

209.6

215.0

220.7

225.4

229.3

233.4

Crush

mt

127.3

157.2

166.7

173.1

175.2

180.2

184.6

189.8

195.3

199.8

203.6

207.5

mt

8.4

9.4

9.3

9.5

9.5

9.4

9.5

9.3

9.4

9.4

9.4

9.4

Production

mt

263.5

302.0

302.5

313.5

322.9

330.5

337.9

344.0

350.9

356.4

361.7

367.6

Consumption

mt

263.0

301.8

312.0

320.4

326.1

333.2

340.4

346.7

353.2

358.6

363.9

369.8

Crush

mt

226.6

262.9

274.5

283.4

289.1

295.9

302.9

309.0

315.4

320.7

325.9

331.6

Closing stocks

mt

28.0

38.1

30.9

26.5

25.7

25.3

25.2

24.9

25.1

25.2

25.4

25.6

Priced

USD/t

266.0

289.8

310.4

311.7

306.5

300.8

297.4

297.7

295.4

295.1

298.4

299.6

Closing stocks Non-OECD

Closing stocks WORLDc

OILSEED MEALS OECDb Production

mt

71.5

75.7

77.0

78.6

81.0

82.3

84.0

84.7

85.4

85.9

86.9

88.2

Consumption

mt

94.4

100.8

102.4

103.8

104.9

106.2

107.2

108.0

108.9

109.7

110.4

111.1

Closing stocks

mt

2.6

2.4

2.3

2.4

2.4

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.6

2.6

2.6

Production

mt

92.3

113.5

120.6

125.3

126.8

130.4

133.6

137.5

141.5

144.8

147.5

150.4

Consumption

mt

66.8

87.4

94.4

98.8

101.5

105.1

109.2

112.9

116.6

119.7

122.8

126.1

Closing stocks

mt

4.8

5.0

4.8

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.3

5.5

5.7

5.8

6.0

6.1

Production

mt

163.7

189.2

197.6

203.9

207.8

212.7

217.7

222.2

226.9

230.7

234.4

238.6

Consumption

mt

161.2

188.2

196.8

202.6

206.4

211.3

216.4

220.9

225.5

229.4

233.1

237.2

Closing stocks

mt

7.4

7.4

7.1

7.2

7.4

7.7

7.8

8.0

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

Pricee

USD/t

201.0

204.9

215.2

217.0

212.8

207.5

204.6

203.1

198.4

196.3

199.1

200.8

Non-OECD

WORLDc

VEGETABLE OILS OECDb Production

mt

24.5

26.7

27.4

28.2

29.2

29.7

30.4

30.6

30.8

31.0

31.4

32.0

Consumption

mt

29.4

35.7

37.2

38.6

39.8

41.1

42.0

42.9

43.8

44.7

45.6

46.6

Closing stocks

mt

2.4

2.9

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

Production

mt

60.8

76.1

79.5

82.6

84.3

86.9

89.1

91.9

94.7

97.7

100.1

102.6

Consumption

mt

53.3

65.2

67.9

70.0

71.6

73.2

75.3

77.4

79.6

81.7

83.7

85.7

Closing stocks

mt

5.5

6.3

6.2

6.4

6.4

6.6

6.6

6.7

6.7

6.8

6.9

7.0

Production

mt

85.3

102.9

106.9

110.8

113.5

116.6

119.5

122.6

125.5

128.7

131.5

134.6

of which: palm oil

mt

31.0

39.2

40.4

42.1

43.2

44.7

45.8

47.5

49.1

51.0

52.5

54.1

Consumption

mt

82.6

100.8

105.1

108.6

111.3

114.3

117.3

120.3

123.3

126.4

129.3

132.3

Closing stocks

mt

Oil pricef

USD/t

Non-OECD

WORLDc

7.9

9.2

8.8

8.8

8.9

9.0

9.0

9.1

9.1

9.2

9.2

9.3

520.6

590.7

618.0

619.7

622.9

611.9

610.8

608.5

612.4

613.9

615.4

613.9

a) Beginning crop marketing year – see Glossary of Terms for definitions. b) Excludes Iceland but includes the 8 EU members that are not members of the OECD. c) Source of historic data is USDA. d) Weighted average oilseed price, European port. e) Weighted average meal price, European port. f) Weighted average price of oilseed oils and palm oil, European port. est.: Estimation. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

60

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.8. Main policy assumptions for meat markets Average 2006 est. 2001-05

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

ARGENTINA Beef export tax

%

4

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15 76

CANADA Beef tariff-quota

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

76

in-quota tariff

%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

out-of-quota tariff

%

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

kt pw

45

Poultry meat tariff-quota

kt pw

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

in-quota tariff

%

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

out-of-quota tariff

%

197

197

197

197

197

197

197

197

197

197

197

197

Beef basic pricec, d, e

EUR/kg dw

2.38

2.22

2.22

2.22

2.22

2.22

2.22

2.22

2.22

2.22

2.22

2.22

Beef buy-in pricec, f

EUR/kg dw

n.a.

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

Pig meat basic priced

EUR/kg dw

1.51

1.51

1.51

1.51

1.51

1.51

1.51

1.51

1.51

1.51

1.51

1.51

Sheep meat basic price

EUR/kg dw

5.04

5.04

5.04

5.04

5.04

5.04

5.04

5.04

5.04

5.04

5.04

5.04

Sheep basic rateg

EUR/head

n.a.

21.00

21.0

21.0

21.0

21.0

21.0

21.0

21.0

21.0

21.0

21.0

Male bovine premiumh

EUR/head

178

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Adult bovine slaughter premiumi EUR/head

76

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Calf slaughter premium

EUR/head

37

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Suckler cow premium

EUR/head

156

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Beef tariff-quota

kt pw

216

216

216

216

216

216

216

216

216

216

216

216

Pig meat tariff-quota

kt pw

167

167

167

167

167

167

167

167

167

167

167

167

Poultry meat tariff-quota

kt pw

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

Sheep meat tariff-quota

kt cwe

285

285

285

285

285

285

285

285

285

285

285

285

Beefj

kt cwe

990

990

990

990

990

990

990

990

990

990

990

990

Pig meatj

kt cwe

588

588

588

588

588

588

588

588

588

588

588

588

Poultry meat

kt cwe

431

431

431

431

431

431

431

431

431

431

431

431

EUROPEAN UNIONa, b

Subsidised export limitsd

JAPANk Beef stabilisation prices Upper price

JPY/kg dw

1 010

1 010

1 010

1 010

1 010

1 010

1 010

1 010

1 010

1 010

1 010

1 010

Lower price

JPY/kg dw

780

780

780

780

780

780

780

780

780

780

780

780

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

Beef tariff

%

Pig meat stabilisation prices Upper price

JPY/kg dw

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

Lower price

JPY/kg dw

365

365

365

365

365

365

365

365

365

365

365

365

Pig meat import systeml Tariff

%

Standard import price

JPY/kg dw

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

410

410

410

410

410

410

410

410

410

410

410

410

%

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

Beef tariff

%

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

Beef mark-up

%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Pig meat tariff

%

23

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

Poultry meat tariff

%

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

Pig meat tariff

%

46

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

Pig meat NAFTA tariff

%

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Poultry meat tariff-quota

kt pw

41

41

41

41

41

41

41

41

41

41

41

41

Poultry meat tariff KOREA

MEXICO

in-quota tariff

%

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

out-of-quota tariff

%

231

228

228

228

228

228

228

228

228

228

228

228

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

61

ANNEX A

Table A.8. Main policy assumptions for meat markets (cont.) Average 2006 est. 2001-05

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

RUSSIA Beef tariff-quota

458

463

468

474

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

in-quota tariff

%

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

out-of-quota tariff

%

58

40

52

50

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

n.a.

476

485

494

502

502

502

502

502

502

502

502 15

Pigmeat tariff-quota

kt pw

kt pw

in-quota tariff

%

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

out-of-quota tariff

%

80

60

55

50

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

618

1 131

1 171

1 212

1 252

1 252

1 252

1 252

1 252

1 252

1 252

1 252

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25 697

Poultry meat tariff-quota in-quota tariff

kt pw %

UNITED STATES Beef tariff-quota

657

657

697

697

697

697

697

697

697

697

697

in-quota tariff

kt pw %

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

out-of-quota tariff

%

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

Beef tariff

%

23

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

Pig meat tariff

%

17

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

Sheep meat tariff

%

17

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

Poultry meat tariff

%

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

Beef tariff

%

105

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Pig meat tariff

%

105

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Sheep meat tariff

%

96

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

Poultry meat tariff

%

93

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

Eggs tariff

%

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

CHINA

INDIA

SOUTH AFRICA Sheepmeat tariff-quota

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

in-quota tariff

kt pw %

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

out-of-quota tariff

%

110

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

96

a) Prices and payments in market euro – see Glossary of Terms. b) EU farmers also benefit from the Single Farm Payment (SFP) Scheme, which provides flat-rate payments independent from current production decisions and market developments. The total amount spent under the SFP scheme, before modulation, is assumed to increase from 26.9 billion euro in 2005 to 28.4 billion euro in 2008 for the total of the 15 former member states. The final number is equivalent to 233 euro per hectare of eligible farm land on average. For the accession countries, payments are phased in with the assumption of maximum top-ups from national budgets. Due to modulation, between 2.7% and 4.6% of the total SFP will go to rural development spending rather than directly to the farmers. c) Price for R3 grade male cattle. d) Year beginning 1 July, except for E10 which is calendar year. Poland has a commitment on export subsidies on unspecified meat. e) Ending 1 July 2002, replaced by basic price for storage. f) Starting 1 July 2002. g) A supplementary payment of 7 euro per head is provided for Less Favoured Areas. h) Weighted average of all bull and steers payments. i) Includes national envelopes for beef. j) Includes live trade. k) Year beginning 1 April. l) Pig carcass imports. Emergency import procedures triggered from November 1995 to March 1996, from July 1996 to June 1997, from August 2001 to March 2002, from August 2002 to March 2003 and from August 2003 to March 2004. Note: The source for tariffs and Tariff Rate Quotas (excluding Russia) is AMAD (Agricultural market access database). The tariff and TRQ data are based on Most Favoured Nation rates scheduled with the WTO and exclude those under preferential or regional agreements, which may be substantially different. Tariffs are simple averages of several product lines. Specific rates are converted to ad valorem rates using world prices in the Outlook. Import quotas are based on global commitments scheduled in the WTO rather than those allocated to preferential partners under regional or other agreements. For Mexico, the NAFTA in-quota tariff on poultry meat is zero and the tariffrate quota is unlimited from 2003. est.: Estimate. n.a.: Not available. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

62

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.9. World meat projections Average 2006 est. 2001-05

Calendar year

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

OECDa BEEF AND VEALb Production

kt cwe

26 564

26 918

27 182

27 119

26 859

26 717

26 615

26 674

26 933

27 216

27 500

27 647

Consumption

kt cwe

26 481

26 930

27 542

27 601

27 381

27 211

27 143

27 209

27 450

27 752

28 017

28 168

Ending stocks

kt cwe

1 021

876

865

864

865

865

865

866

866

866

867

866

Per capita consumption

kg rwt

15.6

15.5

15.8

15.7

15.5

15.4

15.3

15.2

15.3

15.4

15.5

15.5

Price, Australiac

AUD/100 kg dw

295

265

252

245

249

247

248

250

256

269

280

293

Price, EUd

EUR/100 kg dw

244

285

250

258

258

257

259

259

259

259

260

261

Price, USAe

USD/100 kg dw

282

304

303

299

297

289

285

279

279

286

294

298

Price, Argentinaf

ARS/100 kg dw

307

427

323

352

355

361

375

384

407

436

455

480

PIG MEATg Production

kt cwe

36 399

37 455

37 770

37 593

37 787

37 936

38 065

38 208

38 313

38 529

38 799

39 052

Consumption

kt cwe

35 271

35 787

36 232

36 099

36 307

36 498

36 673

36 860

36 977

37 269

37 614

37 946

Ending stocks

kt cwe

780

832

827

808

814

818

823

821

821

818

813

813

Per capita consumption

kg rwt

23.1

23.0

23.2

23.0

23.0

23.0

23.0

23.0

23.0

23.0

23.2

23.3

Price, EUh

EUR/100 kg dw

135

141

142

154

149

139

144

137

137

138

140

142

Price, USAi

USD/100 kg dw

136

145

126

154

165

165

158

161

162

159

161

161

POULTRY MEAT Production

kt rtc

35 857

37 302

37 616

37 960

38 463

38 926

39 243

39 577

39 871

40 090

40 489

40 848

Consumption

kt rtc

34 069

35 696

35 922

36 271

36 494

36 999

37 447

37 846

38 236

38 749

39 175

39 617

Ending stocks

kt rtc

1 127

1 105

1 162

1 162

1 163

1 164

1 165

1 166

1 166

1 167

1 168

1 169

Per capita consumption

kg rwt

25.2

25.9

25.9

26.0

26.0

26.3

26.5

26.6

26.8

27.0

27.2

27.4

Price, EUj

EUR/100 kg rtc

103

102

101

104

107

109

106

104

108

109

110

111

Price, USAk

USD/100 kg rtc

142

141

159

165

171

179

183

182

180

177

178

178

SHEEP MEAT Production

kt cwe

2 793

3 252

2 769

2 799

2 806

2 868

2 902

2 898

2 888

2 846

2 896

2 922

Consumption

kt cwe

2 428

2 883

2 449

2 474

2 464

2 518

2 549

2 535

2 512

2 456

2 490

2 501

Ending stocks

kt cwe

520

560

559

558

557

554

546

533

515

491

462

428

Per capita consumption

kg rwt

1.8

2.1

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.7

Price, Australial

AUD/100 kg dw

332

291

287

294

303

310

318

326

334

342

349

357

Price, Australiam

AUD/100 kg dw

173

98

103

107

112

117

122

127

133

138

143

148

Price, New Zealandn

NZD/100 kg dw

390

330

325

334

344

352

361

370

379

387

396

405

kg rwt

65.6

66.5

66.6

66.5

66.3

66.4

66.5

66.6

66.8

67.2

67.6

67.9

TOTAL MEAT Per capita consumption

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

63

ANNEX A

Table A.9. World meat projections (cont.) Average 2006 est. 2001-05

Calendar year

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Non-OECD BEEF AND VEAL Productiono

kt cwe

35 018

38 676

39 519

40 562

41 653

42 983

44 228

45 151

45 974

46 913

47 926

48 780

Consumption

kt cwe

34 663

37 959

38 613

39 532

40 586

41 916

43 103

44 019

44 864

45 800

46 813

47 657

Per capita consumption

kg rwt

4.7

5.0

5.0

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.3

5.4

5.4

5.5

5.5

5.6

Ending stocks

kt cwe

78

66

66

66

66

66

66

66

66

66

66

66

Productiono

kt cwe

60 572

69 964

73 027

74 295

76 128

78 478

79 241

81 642

83 596

85 170

87 454

90 269

Consumption

kt cwe

61 332

70 834

74 344

75 528

77 256

79 512

80 192

82 518

84 438

85 903

88 077

90 772

Per capita consumption

kg rwt

9.3

10.4

10.8

10.8

10.9

11.1

11.1

11.2

11.4

11.4

11.6

11.8

Ending stocks

kt cwe

52

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

PIG MEAT

POULTRY MEAT Production

kt rtc

41 581

44 638

45 653

47 340

48 867

50 614

51 891

52 966

54 428

55 818

56 721

57 692

Consumption

kt rtc

43 128

45 894

47 085

48 971

50 690

52 391

53 486

54 512

55 939

57 095

58 055

58 991

Per capita consumption

kg rwt

7.4

7.6

7.7

7.9

8.1

8.3

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.6

8.7

Ending stocks

kt rtc

244

165

174

174

176

177

178

179

180

182

182

182

SHEEP MEAT Production

kt cwe

8 541

9 311

9 548

9 784

10 007

10 232

10 463

10 676

10 897

11 106

11 319

11 519

Consumption

kt cwe

8 867

9 657

9 914

10 179

10 418

10 652

10 893

11 112

11 340

11 558

11 782

12 002

Per capita consumption

kg rwt

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.8

Ending stocks

kt cwe

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

kg rwt

23.0

24.6

25.1

25.5

25.8

26.3

26.4

26.7

27.0

27.2

27.5

27.8

TOTAL MEAT Per capita consumption

a) Excludes Iceland but includes the 8 EU members that are not members of the OECD. Carcass weight to retail weight conversion factors of 0.7 for beef and veal, 0.78 for pig meat and 0.88 for sheep meat. Rtc to retail weight conversion factor 0.88 for poultry meat. b) Do not balance due to statistical differences in New Zealand. c) Weighted average price of cows 201-260 kg, steers 301-400 kg, yearling < 200 kg dw. d) Producer price. e) Choice steers, 1 100-1 300 lb lw, Nebraska – lw to dw conversion factor 0.63. f) Buenos Aires wholesale price linier, young bulls. g) Do not balance due to consumption in Canada which excludes non-food parts. h) Pig producer price. i) Barrows and gilts, No. 1-3, 230-250 lb lw, Iowa/South Minnesota – lw to dw conversion factor 0.74. j) Weighted average farmgate live fowls, top quality, (lw to rtc conversion of 0.75), EU15 starting in 1995. k) Wholesale weighted average broiler price 12 cities. l) Saleyard price, lamb, 16-20 kg dw. m) Saleyard price, wethers, < 22 kg dw. n) Lamb schedule price, all grade average. o) Includes trade of live animals. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

64

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.10. Main policy assumptions for dairy markets Average 2006 est. 2001-05

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

ARGENTINA Dairy export tax

%

6

5

CANADA Milk target priceb

CADc/litre

62

71

72

75

76

76

77

77

78

78

79

80

Butter support price

CAD/t

6 161

6 992

7 077

7 233

7 309

7 367

7 426

7 485

7 545

7 606

7 666

7 728

SMP support price

CAD/t

5 227

5 834

5 760

6 044

6 180

6 165

6 151

6 181

6 237

6 308

6 377

6 451

Dairy subsidy

CAD/hl

0.37

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Cheese tariff-quota

kt pw

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

in-quota tariff

%

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

out-of-quota tariff

%

246

246

246

246

246

246

246

246

246

246

246

246

Subsidised export limitsc Cheese

kt pw

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

SMP

kt pw

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

EUROPEAN UNIONd, e Milk quotaf

mt pw

139

143

143

143

144

144

144

144

144

144

144

144

Butter intervention price

EUR/t

3 190

2 708

2 528

2 462

2 462

2 462

2 464

2 464

2 464

2 464

2 464

2 464

SMP intervention price

EUR/t

2 014

1 798

1 747

1 747

1 747

1 747

1 747

1 747

1 747

1 747

1 747

1 747

Butter tariff-quotas

kt pw

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

Cheese tariff-quota

kt pw

103

103

103

103

103

103

103

103

103

103

103

103

SMP tariff-quota

kt pw

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

Butter

kt pw

412

412

412

412

412

412

412

412

412

412

412

412

Cheese

kt pw

332

332

332

332

332

332

332

332

332

332

332

332

SMP

kt pw

323

323

323

323

323

323

323

323

323

323

323

323

Subsidised export limitsa

JAPAN Direct payments

JPY/kg

11

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Cheese tariffg

%

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

Tariff-quotas Butter

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

in-quota tariff

%

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

35

out-of-quota tariff

%

733

733

733

733

733

733

733

733

733

733

733

733

kt pw

116

116

116

116

116

116

116

116

116

116

116

116

SMP

kt pw

in-quota tariff

%

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

out-of-quota tariff

%

210

210

210

210

210

210

210

210

210

210

210

210 0.3

WMP

t pw

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

in-quota tariff

%

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

out-of-quota tariff

%

316

316

316

316

316

316

316

316

316

316

316

316

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

65

ANNEX A

Table A.10. Main policy assumptions for dairy markets (cont.) Average 2006 est. 2001-05

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

KOREA Tariff-quotas Butter

kt pw

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

in-quota tariff

%

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

out-of-quota tariff

%

89

89

89

89

89

89

89

89

89

89

89

89

kt pw

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

SMP in-quota tariff

%

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

out-of-quota tariff

%

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176 0.6

WMP

kt pw

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

in-quota tariff

%

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

out-of-quota tariff

%

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

176

%

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

MEXICO Butter tariff Tariff-quotas Cheese

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

in-quota tariff

%

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

out-of-quota tariff

%

127

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

SMP

kt pw

kt pw

in-quota tariff

%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

out-of-quota tariff

%

127

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

MXN mn

264

377

377

377

377

377

377

377

377

377

377

377

Liconsa social programme RUSSIA Butter tariff

%

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Cheese tariff

%

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

UNITED STATESh Milk support priceb

USDc/litre

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

Target pricei

USDc/litre

n.a.

37.3

37.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Butter support price

USD/t

2 121

2 315

2 315

2 315

2 315

2 315

2 315

2 315

2 315

2 316

2 316

2 316

SMP support price

USD/t

1 864

1 764

1 764

1 764

1 764

1 764

1 764

1 764

1 764

1 764

1 764

1 764

Butter tariff-quota

kt pw

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

in-quota tariff

%

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

out-of-quota tariff

%

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

112

kt pw

Cheese tariff-quota

135

135

135

135

135

135

135

135

135

135

135

135

in-quota tariff

%

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

out-of-quota tariff

%

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

Butter

kt pw

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

SMP

kt pw

68

68

68

68

68

68

68

68

68

68

68

68

Subsidised export limitsa

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

66

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.10. Main policy assumptions for dairy markets (cont.) Average 2006 est. 2001-05

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

INDIA Milk tariff

%

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

Butter tariff

%

47

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

Cheese tariff

%

41

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

Whole milk powder tariff

%

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

SOUTH AFRICA Milk powder tariff-quota

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

in-quota tariff

kt pw %

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

out-of-quota tariff

%

89

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

a) Year ending 30 June. b) For manufacturing milk. c) The effective volume of cheese and SMP subsidized exports will be lower reflecting the binding nature of subsidized export limits in value terms. d) Prices and payments in market euro – see Glossary of Terms. e) EU farmers also benefit from the Single Farm Payment (SFP) Scheme, which provides flat-rate payments independent from current production decisions and market developments. The total amount spent under the SFP scheme, before modulation, is assumed to increase from 26.9 billion euro in 2005 to 28.4 billion euro in 2008 for the total of the 15 former member states. The final number is equivalent to 233 euro per hectare of eligible farm land on average. For the accession countries, payments are phased in with the assumption of maximum top-ups from national budgets. Due to modulation, between 2.7% and 4.6% of the total SFP will go to rural development spending rather than directly to the farmers. f) Total quota, EU27 starting in 1999. g) Excludes processed cheese. h) Year beginning 1 January. i) The counter-cyclical payment is determined as a 45% difference in 2005 and a 34% difference in 2006 and 2007, between the target price and the Boston class I price. Note: The source for tariffs and Tariff Rate Quotas (except Russia) is AMAD (Agricultural market access database). The tariff and TRQ data are based on Most Favoured Nation rates scheduled with the WTO and exclude those under preferential or regional agreements, which may be substantially different. Tariffs are simple averages of several product lines. Specific rates are converted to ad valorem rates using world prices in the Outlook. Import quotas are based on global commitments scheduled in the WTO rather than those allocated to preferential partners under regional or other agreements. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

67

ANNEX A

Table A.11. World dairy projections (butter and cheese) Average 2006 est. 2001-05

Calendar yeara

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

BUTTER OECDb Production

kt pw

3 694

3 592

3 627

3 580

3 549

3 536

3 545

3 544

3 536

3 537

3 536

3 540

Consumption

kt pw

3 079

3 094

3 138

3 121

3 107

3 108

3 114

3 112

3 113

3 115

3 117

3 122

Stock changes

kt pw

9

–28

28

25

–1

–24

–24

–26

–27

–28

–28

–28

Production

kt pw

4 454

5 104

5 388

5 480

5 761

5 997

6 272

6 469

6 726

6 910

7 165

7 375

Consumption

kt pw

4 890

5 547

5 891

6 009

6 300

6 544

6 823

7 023

7 272

7 454

7 707

7 916

Production

kt pw

8 148

8 696

9 014

9 060

9 310

9 533

9 816

10 013

10 262

10 446

10 701

10 914

Consumption

kt pw

7 969

8 642

9 029

9 130

9 407

9 653

9 936

10 135

10 385

10 569

10 824

11 038

Stock changes

kt pw

3

–25

27

24

–3

–26

–27

–29

–31

–31

–31

–32

Pricec

USD/100 kg

156

186

196

193

188

188

195

201

210

215

220

223

Non-OECD

WORLD

CHEESE OECDb Production

kt pw

13 849

14 702

14 789

14 984

15 160

15 326

15 454

15 652

15 820

15 993

16 168

16 355

Consumption

kt pw

13 410

14 218

14 470

14 660

14 825

14 978

15 098

15 277

15 436

15 601

15 770

15 950

Stock changes

kt pw

0

22

–64

–38

–20

–7

–7

–2

2

5

7

10

Production

kt pw

3 787

4 047

4 076

4 151

4 252

4 358

4 456

4 549

4 644

4 735

4 827

4 914

Consumption

kt pw

4 194

4 491

4 490

4 544

4 640

4 746

4 851

4 958

5 058

5 155

5 250

5 341

Production

kt pw

17 636

18 749

18 864

19 135

19 412

19 684

19 910

20 201

20 465

20 728

20 995

21 269

Consumption

kt pw

17 605

18 709

18 960

19 204

19 465

19 723

19 949

20 235

20 494

20 755

21 020

21 292

Stock changes

kt pw

–8

15

–71

–45

–27

–14

–14

–9

–5

–2

0

3

Priced

USD/100 kg

231

273

300

311

303

300

301

301

302

304

306

307

Non-OECD

WORLD

a) Year ending 30 June for Australia and 31 May for New Zealand in OECD aggregate. b) Excludes Iceland but includes the 8 EU members that are not members of the OECD. c) F.o.b. export price, butter, 82% butterfat, northern Europe. d) F.o.b. export price, cheddar cheese, 40 lb blocks, northern Europe. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

68

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.12. World dairy projections (powders and casein) Average 2006 est. 2001-05

Calendar yeara

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

SKIM MILK POWDER OECDb Production

kt pw

2 741

2 397

2 481

2 390

2 359

2 370

2 391

2 425

2 444

2 484

2 518

2 552

Consumption

kt pw

1 984

1 783

1 852

1 762

1 771

1 792

1 824

1 858

1 887

1 912

1 929

1 948

Stock changes

kt pw

–30

–46

8

3

1

1

1

1

1

–1

0

0

Non-OECD Production

kt pw

742

727

771

791

826

844

885

900

931

920

925

912

Consumption

kt pw

1 473

1 483

1 489

1 505

1 509

1 528

1 556

1 578

1 606

1 618

1 644

1 653

Production

kt pw

3 484

3 124

3 251

3 181

3 185

3 214

3 276

3 325

3 375

3 404

3 443

3 463

Consumption

kt pw

3 457

3 266

3 341

3 268

3 280

3 320

3 381

3 437

3 493

3 530

3 573

3 601

Stock changes

kt pw

–30

–44

10

4

3

3

3

3

3

0

2

2

Pricec

USD/100 kg

186

235

259

269

266

259

254

250

248

250

249

252

WORLD

WHOLE MILK POWDER OECDb Production

kt pw

1 819

1 946

1 945

1 946

1 990

2 057

2 093

2 154

2 205

2 250

2 295

2 341

Consumption

kt pw

720

785

782

790

801

806

814

820

832

841

850

860

Production

kt pw

1 801

2 277

2 377

2 472

2 559

2 633

2 708

2 769

2 831

2 895

2 952

3 010

Consumption

kt pw

2 712

3 245

3 352

3 432

3 551

3 687

3 791

3 907

4 007

4 108

4 200

4 296

Production

kt pw

3 620

4 223

4 321

4 418

4 549

4 690

4 801

4 923

5 036

5 145

5 246

5 352

Consumption

kt pw

3 432

4 030

4 133

4 222

4 352

4 494

4 605

4 727

4 840

4 949

5 050

5 155

Priced

USD/100 kg

191

229

255

263

257

248

250

249

251

252

253

253

USD/100 kg

51

74

79

83

91

91

92

91

91

90

89

89

USD/100 kg

439

486

480

482

468

458

442

451

440

445

440

439

Non-OECD

WORLD

WHEY POWDER Non-OECD Wholesale price, USAe CASEIN Pricef

a) Year ending 30 June for Australia and 31 May for New Zealand in OECD aggregate. b) Excludes Iceland but includes the 8 EU members that are not members of the OECD. c) F.o.b. export price, non-fat dry milk, extra grade, northern Europe. d) F.o.b. export price, WMP 26% butterfat, northern Europe. e) Edible dry whey, Wisconsin, plant. f) Export price, New Zealand. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

69

ANNEX A

Table A.13. Main policy assumptions for sugar markets Crop yeara

05/06 06/07 est. 07/08

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

MAIN ASSUMPTIONS FOR SUGAR MARKETS ARGENTINA Tariff, sugar

ARS/t

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

Cane allocation to sugar

%

50.0

50.2

49.1

48.0

47.0

45.8

44.5

43.3

42.3

41.4

40.6

39.8

Tariff, raw sugar

%

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

Tariff, white sugar

%

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

Ethanol blending ratio with gazoline

%

25.0

23.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

Tariff, raw sugar

CAD/t

27.7

27.7

27.7

27.7

27.7

27.7

27.7

27.7

27.7

27.7

27.7

27.7

Tariff, white sugar

CAD/t

35.4

35.4

35.4

35.4

35.4

35.4

35.4

35.4

35.4

35.4

35.4

35.4

BRAZIL

CANADA

CHINAb TRQ sugar

kt

1 954

1 954

1 954

1 954

1 954

1 954

1 954

1 954

1 954

1 954

1 954

1 954

Tariff, in-quota, raw sugar

%

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Tariff, in-quota, white sugar

%

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

Tariff, over-quota

%

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

%

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Applied tariff, white sugar EUe Reference price, white sugarc

EUR/t

632

632

632

542

404

404

404

404

404

404

404

404

Effective quotad

kt rse

18 803

15 910

17 427

17 485

17 143

17 057

16 924

16 773

16 583

16 361

16 108

16 188

Quantity limit

kt rse

1 431

1 431

1 431

1 431

1 431

1 431

1 431

1 431

1 431

1 431

1 431

1 431

Value limit

000 EUR 531 660 531 660 531 660 531 660 531 660 531 660 531 660 531 660 531 660 531 660 531 660 531 660

Subsidised export limits

Tariff, raw sugar

EUR/t

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

340

340

Tariff, white sugar

EUR/t

419

419

419

419

419

419

419

419

419

419

419

419

%

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

FIJI Applied tariff, white sugar INDIA Intervention price, sugar cane

INR/t

750

750

750

750

750

750

750

750

750

750

750

750

Applied tariff, raw sugar

%

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

%

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

%

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

INDONESIA Tariff, white sugar JAMAICA Applied tariff, white sugar JAPAN Minimum stabilisation price, raw sugar JPY/kg

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

Tariff, raw sugar

JPY/kg

71.8

71.8

71.8

71.8

71.8

71.8

71.8

71.8

71.8

71.8

71.8

71.8

Tariff, white sugar

JPY/kg

103.1

103.1

103.1

103.1

103.1

103.1

103.1

103.1

103.1

103.1

103.1

103.1

%

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

18.0

%

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0

KOREA Tariff, raw sugar MADAGASCAR Applied tariff, white sugar MEXICO Mexico common external tariff, raw sugar

MXN/t

4 301

4 308

4 315

4 340

4 377

4 418

4 466

4 512

4 560

4 608

4 656

4 705

Mexico common external tariff, white sugar

MXN/t

4 301

4 308

4 315

4 340

4 377

4 418

4 466

4 512

4 560

4 608

4 656

4 705

For notes, see end of the table. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

70

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX A

Table A.13. Main policy assumptions for sugar markets (cont.) Crop yeara

05/06 06/07 est. 07/08

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

RUSSIA Tariff, raw sugarf

%

Tariff, white sugarf

USD/t

26.5

68.7

75.7

80.1

83.2

80.1

77.2

78.6

78.6

77.2

76.4

75.7

340.0

340.0

340.0

340.0

340.0

340.0

340.0

340.0

340.0

340.0

340.0

340.0

UNITED STATESe Loan rate, cane sugar

USD/t

397

397

397

397

397

397

397

397

397

397

397

397

Loan rate, beet sugar

USD/t

504.9

504.9

504.9

504.9

504.9

504.9

504.9

504.9

504.9

504.9

504.9

504.9

TRQ, raw sugar

kt rse

2 549

1 853

1 755

1 080

1 080

1 080

1 080

1 080

1 080

1 080

1 080

1 080

TRQ, refined sugar

kt rse

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

Raw sugar 2nd tier WTO tariff

USD/t

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

339

White sugar 2nd tier WTO tariff

USD/t

357

357

357

357

357

357

357

357

357

357

357

357

Raw sugar 2nd tier NAFTA tariff

USD/t

100

67

33

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

%

105.0

105.0

105.0

105.0

105.0

105.0

105.0

105.0

105.0

105.0

105.0

105.0

%

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

%

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

SOUTH AFRICA Tariff, raw sugar TANZANIA Applied tariff, white sugar VIET NAM Applied tariff, white sugar

a) Beginning crop marketing year – see the Glossary of Terms for definitions. b) Refers to mainland only. c) Reference price for consumers. d) Production that receives official support. Includes the 10 new member countries from May 2004, Bulgaria and Romania. e) In addition, price based special safeguard actions may apply. f) Assumes a wholesale price target of USD 470 per tonne as the basis for setting the floating tariff duty. The source for tariffs (except United States and Russia) is AMAD. The source for Russia and United States tariffs is ERS, USDA. est.: Estimate. rse: Raw sugar equivalent. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

Table A.14. World sugar projections (in raw sugar equivalent) Average 06/07 est. 07/08 01/02-05/06

Crop yeara

08/09

09/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

14/15

15/16

16/17

39 429

OECD Production EU bio-ethanol

kt rse kL

41 974

38 769

38 360

38 099

38 395

38 471

38 273

38 522

38 780

38 999

39 206

889

973

921

1 047

1 132

1 288

1 463

1 621

1 777

1 930

2 082

2 236

Consumption

kt rse

40 734

41 036

41 178

41 459

41 702

41 943

42 185

42 406

42 624

42 840

43 056

43 271

Closing stocks

kt rse

18 755

17 323

17 337

16 443

16 033

15 649

14 787

14 156

13 668

13 328

13 193

12 954

kt rse

103 147

NON-OECD Production Brazil bio-ethanol

kL

13 943

123 023 124 850 123 881 122 870 127 670 132 744 137 145 138 893 142 201 145 136 147 971 19 398

21 486

23 573

25 661

28 248

30 836

33 423

36 011

38 599

41 186

43 774

Consumption

kt rse

103 334

111 738 117 411 119 973 122 694 125 454 128 246 131 093 133 972 136 876 139 798 142 736

Closing stocks

kt rse

45 094

Production

kt rse

145 120

161 792 163 210 161 980 161 265 166 141 171 017 175 667 177 673 181 200 184 343 187 400

Consumption

kt rse

144 068

152 774 158 589 161 432 164 397 167 396 170 431 173 499 176 596 179 716 182 854 186 007

Closing stocks

kt rse

63 848

73 118

77 738

78 286

75 155

73 899

74 486

76 654

77 731

79 215

80 704

82 096

Price, raw sugarb

USD/t

217.6

253.5

242.5

235.9

231.5

235.9

240.3

238.1

238.1

240.3

241.4

242.5

Price, white sugarc

USD/t

269.7

360.5

341.7

330.7

319.7

319.7

319.7

314.2

310.9

310.9

309.7

308.6

55 795

60 401

61 843

59 121

58 250

59 699

62 498

64 063

65 887

67 511

69 142

WORLD

a) Beginning crop marketing year – see the Glossary of Terms for definitions. b) Raw sugar world price, New York No. 11, f.o.b. stowed Caribbean port (including Brazil), bulk spot price, September/August. c) Refined sugar price, London No. 5, f.o.b. Europe, spot, September/August. est.: Estimate. Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

71

ANNEX B

ANNEX B

Trade Annex Tables

72

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX B

Table B.1. Concordance of product groupings Description

HS code

Primary bulk commodities Coffee Tea Coffee mate Wheat Rye Barley Oats Corn Rice Sorghum Other grains Soybeans Peanuts Oilseeds Cotton linters Cocoa beans Tobacco Cotton Hemp

09011 0902 0903 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1201 1202 1204-1207 14042 1801 24011-24013 5201-5203 5302

Semi-processed Live animals Pig fat Hairs Animal products Dried, shelled beans Coffee husks Grain flours, groats Starch Inulin Wheat gluten Copra Soy flour and meal Sowing seeds Roots, seeds cut/crushed Straw, husks, fodder Gum, lac, plant extracts Furnishing material Animal fat Vegetable oils Inedible fats, oils Crude glycerol Wax Degras Sugar Cocoa products Grain products Oilseed cake Plant waste material Pet food material Glycerol/sorbitol/mannitol Special plant oils Proteins/gelatins/starches Amylaceous substance Fatty acids, alcohols Hides, skins Fur Silk Wool Flax

0101-0106 0209 0501-0503 0504-0511 0713 09019 1101-1103 11081 11082 1109 1203 1208 1209 1211 1213, 1214 1301, 1302 1401-1404 1501-1503, 1505, 1506 1507-1516 1518 1520 1521 1522 17011 1802-1806 2301-2303 2304-2306 2308 2309 2905 33011-33013, 33019 3501-3505 38091 3823-3824 4101-4103 4301 5001-5003 5101-5103 530

Description Produce/horticulture Planting material Cut flowers/plants Vegetables Roots, tubers Coconut Brazilnut Cashew nuts Other nuts Fruit Frozen fruit Dried fruit Pepper Vanilla Cinnamon Cloves Nutmeg Mace Cardamom Other seeds Other spices Spice mix Hops Stone fruit Sugarbeet Sugarcane Processed Fresh, chilled meats Processed meat Dairy products Eggs and products Honey Other animal products Processed vegetables Processed fruit Coffee Processed grains Other vegetables Fish and animal oils Prepared meats Sugar, sweeteners Chocolates Flour preparations Pasta Tapioca Other preparations Prepared vegetables Prepared fruit Extracts, essences, broths Beverages Vinegar Tobacco products Other products

HS code

0601-0602 0603-0604 0701-0709 0714 08011 08012 08013 08021-08025, 08029 0803-08010 08119 08131-08135 09041-09042 905 09061-09062 0907 09081 09082 09083 09091-09095 09101-09105 091091, 091099 12101, 12102 12123 121291 121292

0201-0208 0210 0401-0406 0407-0408 0409 0410 0710-0712 0811-0812, 0814 09012, 09014 1104-1107 1212 1504, 1517 1601-1603 1701-1704 1806 1901 1902 1903 1904-1905 2001-2005 2006-2009 2101-2106 2201-2208 2209 2402-2403 3502

Note: The Harmonized System (HS) provides a nomenclature for classifying internationally trade goods. The definitions of HS commodity groupings up to the 6-digit level are established by the World Customs Organization (www.wcoomd.org/ie/En/en.html).

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

73

ANNEX B

Table B.2. Top 20 exporters and importers of bulk products (excludes intra-EU) Average bulk exports (1985-89)

United States

USD billion

Share

17.16

37.16

Canada

3.78

8.18

EU15

3.22

6.98

of which:

Average bulk imports (1985-89) USD billion

Share

15.42

32.15

Germanya

3.96

8.26

Netherlands

1.92

4.00

EU15 of which:

France

1.30

2.83

Italy

1.91

3.99

Germanya

0.52

1.13

Spain

1.57

3.26

United Kingdom

0.51

1.11

France

1.52

3.16

Australia

2.42

5.23

United Kingdom

1.48

3.09

Brazil

2.24

4.86

Belgium-Luxembourg

0.81

1.68

Colombia

2.00

4.32

Portugal

0.75

1.57

China

1.87

4.05

Japan

7.64

15.93

Argentina

1.82

3.93

United States

4.09

8.53

Thailand

1.39

3.01

Korea, Republic of

1.92

4.01

Côte d'Ivoire

1.36

2.95

Chinese Taipei

1.90

3.95

India

1.07

2.31

China

1.57

3.27

Pakistan

0.88

1.90

Mexico

1.04

2.17

Mexico

0.74

1.61

Algeria

0.85

1.77

Kenya

0.57

1.23

Egypt, Arab Republic of

0.75

1.57

Indonesia

0.57

1.23

Saudi Arabia

0.72

1.50

Zimbabwe

0.41

0.89

Brazil

0.67

1.40

Sri Lanka

0.39

0.84

Indonesia

0.67

1.39

Cameroon

0.37

0.79

Canada

0.61

1.27

42.24

91.47

37.84

78.91

Total of above

Total of above

Average bulk exports (2000-04)

United States

USD billion

Share

Average bulk imports (2000-04) Share

14.05

18.99

20.16

30.74

Brazil

5.58

8.50

Canada

4.13

6.30

Germanya

3.06

4.13

Australia

4.09

6.24

Netherlands

2.33

3.15

Argentina

3.88

5.91

Italy

1.95

2.64

EU15

3.25

4.96

Spain

1.72

2.33

United Kingdom

1.19

1.61

France

1.13

1.53

of which:

EU15

USD billion

of which:

France

1.19

1.82

Germanya

0.86

1.32

Japan

7.55

10.20

China

2.28

3.47

China

6.19

8.36

India

2.12

3.23

United States

3.84

5.19

Thailand

2.05

3.13

Mexico

3.60

4.87

Côte d'Ivoire

1.74

2.65

Korea, Republic of

2.67

3.61

Viet Nam

1.20

1.82

Indonesia

2.11

2.85

Colombia

0.88

1.35

Chinese Taipei

1.87

2.53

Indonesia

0.76

1.16

Brazil

1.71

2.31

Pakistan

0.74

1.13

Turkey

1.48

2.00

Russian Federation

0.71

1.08

Egypt, Arab Republic of

1.46

1.97

Ukraine

0.71

1.08

Iran, Islamic Republic of

1.36

1.84

Sri Lanka

0.69

1.05

Algeria

1.31

1.77

Kazakhstan

0.58

0.89

Saudi Arabia

1.28

1.73

Ghana

0.58

0.88

Canada

1.17

1.59

56.13

85.57

51.64

69.81

Total of above

Total of above

a) Excludes data for the German Democratic Republic.

74

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX B

Table B.3. Top 20 exporters and importers of horticultural products (excludes intra-EU) Average horticulture exports (1985-89) USD billion

Average horticulture imports (1985-89)

Share

USD billion

United States

2.15

15.52

EU15

EU15

1.65

11.85

of which:

of which:

Share

7.25

37.54

Germanya

1.87

9.67

Netherlands

0.56

4.03

France

1.32

6.83

Italy

0.31

2.20

United Kingdom

1.04

5.38

Turkey

0.78

5.60

Netherlands

1.02

5.30

Thailand

0.75

5.37

Italy

0.51

2.62

Mexico

0.67

4.84

Belgium-Luxembourg

0.33

1.70

India

0.52

3.74

Sweden

0.28

1.47

Chile

0.47

3.39

Austria

0.23

1.20

China

0.44

3.15

Spain

0.20

1.02

Israel

0.42

3.06

United States

3.70

19.18

Colombia

0.39

2.82

Japan

1.83

9.46

New Zealand

0.39

2.77

Canada

1.57

8.14

Costa Rica

0.34

2.43

Switzerland

0.79

4.11

Indonesia

0.30

2.15

Hong Kong, China

0.59

3.06

Brazil

0.28

2.02

Singapore

0.44

2.27

Singapore

0.28

2.02

Saudi Arabia

0.32

1.65

Morocco

0.27

1.93

Norway

0.28

1.47

Honduras

0.27

1.91

Kuwait

0.23

1.21

Philippines

0.25

1.79

Chinese Taipei

0.21

1.08

Ecuador

0.24

1.72

Malaysia

0.18

0.92

10.84

78.07

17.40

90.10

Total of above

Total of above

Average horticulture exports (2000-04) USD billion

Average horticulture imports (2000-04)

Share

USD billion

Share

13.82

29.64

United States

6.20

16.32

EU15

EU15

5.05

13.29

of which: Germanya

2.94

6.31

Netherlands

2.06

5.41

United Kingdom

2.26

4.85

Spain

0.79

2.09

Netherlands

2.08

4.46

Italy

0.71

1.86

France

1.76

3.78

Mexico

3.13

8.23

Belgium-Luxembourg

1.66

3.57

China

1.68

4.41

Italy

0.99

2.13

Turkey

1.56

4.10

Spain

0.96

2.07

Chile

1.47

3.87

United States

10.03

21.51

Ecuador

1.27

3.35

Japan

3.51

7.52

Colombia

1.13

2.98

Canada

2.99

6.42

Canada

1.05

2.75

Russian Federation

1.37

2.95

Costa Rica

1.00

2.63

Switzerland

1.31

2.80

India

0.96

2.54

Hong Kong, China

1.20

2.57

South Africa

0.83

2.19

Poland

0.75

1.62

New Zealand

0.74

1.96

Mexico

0.73

1.57

Iran, Islamic Republic of

0.72

1.89

China

0.66

1.42

Thailand

0.63

1.66

Singapore

0.65

1.39

Argentina

0.60

1.57

Saudi Arabia

0.56

1.19

Israel

0.59

1.54

Norway

0.53

1.15

Brazil

0.55

1.45

India

0.52

1.11

29.17

76.74

38.64

82.85

of which:

Total of above

Total of above

a) Excludes data for the German Democratic Republic.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

75

ANNEX B

Table B.4. Top 20 exporters and importers of semi-processed products (excludes intra-EU) Average semi processed exports (1985-89) USD billion

Average semi processed imports (1985-89)

Share

USD billion

share

14.24

32.08

Germanya

United States

8.02

19.55

EU15

EU15

6.68

16.30

of which:

of which:

2.75

6.20

Germany

1.34

3.26

Italy

2.73

6.14

France

1.07

2.60

France

2.36

5.32

Netherlands

1.03

2.52

United Kingdom

1.72

3.87

Italy

0.69

1.69

Netherlands

1.65

3.73

United Kingdom

0.59

1.44

Spain

0.89

1.99

Australia

4.09

9.98

Belgium-Luxembourg

0.62

1.41

China

2.41

5.88

Japan

4.68

10.54

Malaysia

2.17

5.29

United States

4.33

9.75

Brazil

2.05

4.99

Korea, Republic of

1.84

4.15

New Zealand

1.68

4.10

Hong Kong, China

1.55

3.50

Argentina

1.44

3.52

Taiwan, China

1.42

3.20

Canada

1.41

3.45

China

1.28

2.89

Hong Kong, China

0.95

2.31

Canada

1.11

2.50

Singapore

0.91

2.23

India

0.94

2.11

Indonesia

0.91

2.21

Singapore

0.87

1.95

Turkey

0.73

1.77

Mexico

0.81

1.82

Japan

0.60

1.47

Algeria

0.71

1.59

Philippines

0.56

1.37

Switzerland

0.63

1.41

Chile

0.54

1.31

Egypt, Arab Republic of

0.62

1.39

35.15

85.72

35.01

78.86

a

Total of above

Total of above

Average semi processed exports (2000-04)

EU15

USD billion

Share

13.40

16.77

of which:

Average semi processed imports (2000-04)

EU15

USD billion

Share

17.70

20.72

of which:

Germanya

3.13

3.97

Italy

3.19

3.73

Netherlands

2.14

2.71

Germanya

2.97

3.48

France

1.63

2.07

Netherlands

2.51

2.93

Denmark

1.02

1.29

France

2.39

2.80

Italy

1.42

1.80

United Kingdom

2.14

2.50

United Kingdom

0.97

1.22

Spain

1.62

1.89

Belgium

0.92

1.16

United States

9.01

10.55

United States

13.01

16.49

China

6.44

7.54

Malaysia

5.86

7.43

Japan

5.92

6.93

Argentina

5.76

7.30

India

3.13

3.67

Brazil

4.07

5.15

Korea, Republic of

2.66

3.12

Australia

3.98

5.05

Canada

2.59

3.03

Canada

3.95

5.01

Mexico

2.34

2.73

China

3.43

4.34

Hong Kong, China

2.23

2.61

Indonesia

3.30

4.18

Chinese Taipei

1.61

1.88

India

1.60

0.02

Poland

1.44

1.68

New Zealand

1.55

0.02

Turkey

1.38

1.62

Hong Kong, China

1.26

0.02

Thailand

1.24

1.45

Japan

0.97

0.01

Russian Federation

1.21

1.42

Peru

0.95

0.01

Indonesia

1.15

1.35

63.10

74.20

60.05

91.02

Total of above

Total of above

a) Excludes data for the German Democratic Republic.

76

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX B

Table B.5. Top 20 exporters and importers of processed products (excludes intra-EU) Average processed exports (1985-89) USD billion EU15

Average processed imports (1985-89)

Share

18.31

USD billion

36.93

of which:

United States EU15

Share

11.85

23.36

8.73

17.21

France

4.40

8.88

of which:

United Kingdom

2.82

5.69

United Kingdom

2.28

4.49

Netherlands

2.67

5.38

Germanya

2.09

4.12

Germanya

1.93

3.90

France

1.28

2.53

Denmark

1.88

3.79

Italy

0.78

1.54

Italy

1.32

2.66

Netherlands

0.60

1.17

Ireland

0.92

1.85

Japan

7.82

15.40

Canada

2.25

4.43

Hong Kong, China

2.06

4.06

Spain

0.80

1.62

United States

7.01

14.14

Australia

2.93

5.91

Switzerland

1.46

2.88

New Zealand

2.32

4.67

Saudi Arabia

1.45

2.86

Brazil

2.04

4.11

Singapore

1.01

2.00

Canada

1.98

4.00

Chinese Taipei

1.01

1.98

China

1.40

2.83

Mexico

0.70

1.37

Chinese Taipei

1.19

2.40

Australia

0.65

1.27

Switzerland

1.08

2.18

China

0.63

1.24

Hong Kong, China

1.05

2.12

Malaysia

0.63

1.23

Thailand

1.02

2.05

Egypt, Arab Republic of

0.62

1.23

Argentina

0.78

1.57

Norway

0.53

1.04

Mexico

0.66

1.33

Korea, Republic of

0.49

0.96

41.76

84.26

41.88

82.52

Total of above

Total of above

Average processed exports (2000-04) USD billion EU15

Average processed imports (2000-04)

Share

40.08

USD billion

27.21

of which:

Share

United States

28.20

18.79

Japan

20.07

13.37

19.69

13.12

France

7.86

5.34

EU15

United Kingdom

5.42

3.68

of which:

Netherlands

5.09

3.45

Germanya

5.15

3.43

Germany

4.88

3.31

United Kingdom

4.72

3.14

Italy

4.30

2.92

France

2.13

1.42

Denmark

3.35

2.27

Netherlands

2.13

1.42

Belgium-Luxembourg

2.14

1.45

Canada

6.93

4.62

Spain

2.12

1.44

Russian Federation

5.80

3.86

United States

20.80

14.12

Mexico

5.12

3.41

Canada

8.59

5.83

Hong Kong, China

4.63

3.09

Brazil

7.98

5.42

Korea, Republic of

3.50

2.33

Australia

7.58

5.14

Switzerland

3.04

2.03

China

6.62

4.49

Saudi Arabia

2.65

1.77

New Zealand

5.75

3.90

Singapore

2.61

1.74

Mexico

3.88

2.63

Chinese Taipei

2.36

1.57

Thailand

3.61

2.45

Australia

2.19

1.46

Poland

2.72

1.84

China

2.10

1.40

Argentina

2.31

1.57

Malaysia

1.60

1.06

Hong Kong, China

2.21

1.50

Norway

1.28

0.85

Switzerland

2.17

1.47

Philippines

1.22

0.81

114.29

77.60

113.00

75.28

a

Total of above

Total of above

a) Excludes data for the German Democratic Republic.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

77

ANNEX C

ANNEX C

Glossary of Terms AMAD Agricultural Market Access database. A co-operative effort between Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, EU Commission-Agriculture Directorate-General, FAO, OECD, The World Bank, UNCTAD and the United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Data in the database is obtained from countries’ schedules and notifications submitted to the WTO.

Avian influenza Avian influenza is an infectious disease of birds caused by type A strains of the influenza virus. The disease, which was first identified in Italy more than 100 years ago, occurs worldwide. The quarantining of infected farms, destruction of infected or potentially exposed flocks, and recently inoculation are standard control measures.

Atlantic beef/pigmeat market Beef/pigmeat trade between countries in the Atlantic Rim.

Baseline The set of market projections used for the outlook analysis in this report and as a benchmark for the analysis of the impact of different economic and policy scenarios. A detailed description of the generation of the baseline is provided in the chapter on Methodology in this report.

Biofuels In the wider sense defined as all solid, fluid or gaseous fuels produced from biomass. More narrowly, the term biofuels comprises those that replace petroleum-based roadtransport fuels, i.e. bio-ethanol produced from sugar crops, cereals and other starchy crops that can be used as an additive to, in a blend with or as a replacement of gasoline, and bio-diesel produced mostly from vegetable oils, but also from waste oils and animal fats, that can be used in blends with or as a replacement of petroleum-based diesel.

Biomass Biomass is defined as any plant matter used directly as fuel or converted into other forms before combustion. Included are wood, vegetal waste (including wood waste and

78

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX C

crops used for energy production), animal materials/wastes and industrial and urban wastes, used as feedstocks for producing bioproducts.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) A fatal disease of the central nervous system of cattle, first identified in the United Kingdom in 1986. On 20 March 1996 the UK Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) announced the discovery of a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease (vCJD), a fatal disease of the central nervous system in humans, which might be linked to consumption of beef affected by exposure to BSE.

Cereals Defined as wheat, coarse grains and rice.

CAFTA CAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement between Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the United States.

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) The European Union’s agricultural policy, first defined in Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome signed in 1957.

CAP reform The EU Commission has published a Communication on the Mid-Term Review on the Common Agricultural Policy in July 2002, in January 2003 the Commission adopted a formal proposal. A formal decision on the “CAP reform – a long-term perspective for sustainable agriculture” was taken by the EU farm ministers. The reform includes far-reaching amendments of current policies, including further reductions in support prices, partly offset by direct payments, and a further decoupling of most direct payments from current production.

Coarse grains Defined as barley, maize, oats, sorghum and other coarse grains in all countries except Australia, where it includes triticale and in the European Union where it includes rye and other mixed grains.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) A major provision of the United States’ Food Security Act of 1985 and extended under the Food and Agriculture Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, the Food and Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is designed to reduce erosion on 40 to 45 million acres (16 to 18 million hectares) of farm land. Under the programme, producers who sign contracts agree to convert erodable crop land to approved conservation uses for ten years. Participating producers receive annual rental payments and cash or payment in kind to share up to 50% of the cost of establishing permanent vegetative cover. The CRP is part of the Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program. The 1996 FAIR Act authorised a 36.4 million acre (14.7 million hectares) maximum under CRP, its 1995 level. The maximum area enrolled in the CRP was increased to 39.2 million acres in the 2002 FSRI Act.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

79

ANNEX C

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) The heads of twelve sovereign states (except the Baltic states) have signed the Treaty on establishment of the Economic Union, in which they stressed that the Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Armenia, Republic of Belarus, Republic of Georgia, Republic of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Republic of Uzbekistan and Ukraine on equality basis established the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Common Market Organisation (CMO) for sugar The common organisation of the sugar market (CMO) in the European Union was established in 1968 to ensure a fair income to community sugar producers and self-supply of the Community market. At present the CMO is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 318/2006 (the basic regulation) which establishes a restructuring fund financed by sugar producers to assist the restructuring process needed to render the industry more competitive.

Crop year, coarse grains Refers to the crop marketing year beginning 1 April for Japan, 1 July for the European Union and New Zealand, 1 August for Canada and 1 October for Australia. The US crop year begins 1 June for barley and oats and 1 September for maize and sorghum.

Crop year, oilseeds Refers to the crop marketing year beginning 1 April for Japan, 1 July for the European Union and New Zealand, 1 August for Canada and 1 October for Australia. The US crop year begins 1 June for rapeseed, 1 September for soyabeans and for sunflower seed.

Crop year, rice Refers to the crop marketing year beginning 1 April for Japan, Australia, 1 August for the United States, 1 September for the European Union, 1 October for Mexico, 1 November for Korea and 1 January for other countries.

Crop year, sugar A common crop marketing year beginning 1 September and extending to 31 August, used by FO Licht, the primary data source for sugar supply and demand balances for the OECD’s World Sugar Model.

Crop year, wheat Refers to the crop marketing year beginning 1 April for Japan, 1 June for the United States, 1 July for the European Union and New Zealand, 1 August for Canada and 1 October for Australia.

Decoupled payments Budgetary payments paid to eligible recipients who are not linked to current production of specific commodities or livestock numbers or the use of specific factors of production.

80

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX C

Direct payments Payments made directly by governments to producers.

Doha Development Agenda The current round of multilateral trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation that were initiated in November 2001, in Doha, Qatar.

Domestic support Refers to the annual level of support, expressed in monetary terms, provided to agricultural production. It is one of the three pillars of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture targeted for reduction.

Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) Trade negotiations currently being negotiated between the EU and the African, Caribbean Pacific (ACP) group of developing countries. The outcome of the negotiations will be a series of new Free Trade Agreements (FTA) replacing the Lomé system of preferential access to the European market for the ACP countries from 2008.

Ethanol A biofuel that can be used as a fuel substitute (hydrous ethanol) or a fuel extender (anhydrous ethanol) in mixes with petroleum, and which is produced from agricultural feed-stocks such as sugar cane and maize.

Everything But Arms (EBA) The Everything But Arms (EBA) Initiative eliminates EU import tariffs for numerous goods, including agricultural products, from the least developed countries. The tariff elimination is scheduled in four steps from 2006/07 to 2009/10.

Export credits (with official support) Government financial support, direct financing, guarantees, insurance or interest rate support provided to foreign buyers to assist in the financing of the purchase of goods from national exporters.

Export restitutions (refunds) EU export subsidies provided to cover the difference between internal prices and world market prices for particular commodities.

Export subsidies Subsidies given to traders to cover the difference between internal market prices and world market prices, such as for example the EU export restitutions. Export subsidies are now subject to value and volume restrictions under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Foot and mouth disease is a highly contagious disease, which chiefly affects cloven-hoofed animal species (cattle, sheep, goats and pigs). Its symptoms are the appearance of vesicles (aphthae) on the animals’ mouths (with a consequent reduction in OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

81

ANNEX C

appetite) and feet. It is caused by a virus which may be found in the animals’ blood, saliva and milk. The virus is transmitted in a number of ways, via humans, insects, most meat products, urine and faeces, feed, water or soil. Although the mortality rate in adult animals from this disease is generally low and the disease presents no risk for humans, because it is highly contagious, infected animals in a given country are generally put down and other countries place an embargo on imports of live animals and fresh, chilled or frozen meat from the country of infection; in that case, only smoked, salted or dried meat and meat preserves may be imported from the country concerned. In addition, given the possibility of contagion between different species of cloven-hoofed animals, when foot and mouth disease breaks out in one species in a given country, exports of meat from all four types of animal are suspended

G10 Members of the G10 are: Bulgaria, Chinese Taipei, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea Republic, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Norway and Switzerland.

G20 Members of the G20 are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt (Arab Republic of), Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela RB and Zimbabwe.

FSRI Act, 2002 Officially known as the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This US farm legislation replaces the FAIR Act of 1996, covering a wide range of commodity programmes and policies for US agriculture for the period 2002-07.

Gur, khandasari Semi-processed sugars (plantation whites) extracted from sugarcane in India.

Industrial oilseeds A category of oilseed production in the European Union for industrial use (i.e. biofuels).

Intervention purchases Purchases by the EC Commission of certain commodities to support internal market prices.

Intervention purchase price Price at which the European Commission will purchase produce to support internal market prices. It usually is below 100% of the intervention price, which is an annually decided policy price.

Intervention stocks Stocks held by national intervention agencies in the European Union as a result of intervention buying of commodities subject to market price support. Intervention stocks may be released onto the internal markets if internal prices exceed intervention prices; otherwise, they may be sold on the world market with the aid of export restitutions.

82

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX C

Inulin Inulin syrups are extracted from chicory through a process commercially developed in the 1980s. They usually contain 83 per cent fructose. Inulin syrup production in the European Union is covered by the sugar regime and subject to a production quota.

Isoglucose Isoglucose is a starch-based fructose sweetener, produced by the action of glucose isomerase enzyme on dextrose. This isomerisation process can be used to produce glucose/fructose blends containing up to 42% fructose. Application of a further process can raise the fructose content to 55%. Where the fructose content is 42%, isoglucose is equivalent in sweetness to sugar. Isoglucose production in the European Union is covered by the sugar regime and subject to a production quota.

Least squares growth rate The least-squares growth rate, r, is estimated by fitting a linear regression trend line to the logarithmic annual values of the variable in the relevant period, as follows: Ln(xt) = a + r * t.

Loan deficiency payments (United States) Loan deficiency payments are a type of support whereby, for wheat, feed grain, upland cotton, rice and oilseeds, a producer may agree to forgo loan eligibility and receive an output subsidy, the rate of payment of which is the amount by which the applicable county’s loan rate exceeds the marketing loan repayment rate. Producers may elect to apply for this payment during the loan availability period on a quantity of the programme crop not exceeding their loan-eligible production. This, combined with marketing loan gains, represent the benefits made available to US farmers when commodity prices fall relative to loan rates.

Loan rate The commodity price at which the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) offers nonrecourse loans to participating farmers. The crops covered by the programme are used as collateral for these loans. The loan rate serves as a floor price, with the effective level lying somewhat above the announced rate, for participating farmers in the sense that they can default on their loan and forfeit their crop to the CCC rather than sell it in the open market at a lower price.

Luxembourg agreement A formal decision on further “CAP reform – a long-term perspective for sustainable agriculture” was taken by the EU Council of farm ministers meeting in Luxembourg on 26 June 2003. The reform includes far-reaching amendments of current policies, including further reductions in support prices, partly offset by direct payments and a further decoupling of most direct payments, such as the new single farm payment from current production. The different elements of the reform will enter into force in 2004 and 2005. A single farm payment will enter into force in 2005. If a member state needs a transitional period due to its specific agricultural conditions, it may apply the single farm payment from 2007 at the latest.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

83

ANNEX C

Market access Governed by provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture which refer to concessions contained in the country schedules with respect to bindings and reductions of tariffs and to other minimum import commitments.

Marketing allotments (US sugar programme) Marketing allotments designate how much sugar can be sold by sugar millers and processors on the US internal market and were established by the 2002 FSRI Act as a way to guarantee the US sugar loan programme operates at no cost to the Federal Government.

Marketing Assistance Loan Programme US loan programme, in operation since 1986 and designed to provide producers of certain crops with financial assistance when prices are low while avoiding a disadvantage of the traditional loan programme (see loan rate), i.e. the accumulation of government stocks that depress prices when disposed of. The programme effectively guarantees farmers a minimum price. Farmers can obtain payments in two ways. They can sell the crop and repay the loan at the posted county price (a USDA estimate of the local market price) and keep the difference known as “marketing gain”. They can also obtain a payment without taking out a loan – see loan deficiency payments.

Marketing year, oilseed meal Refers to the marketing year beginning 1 October.

Marketing year, oilseed oil Refers to the marketing year beginning 1 October.

MERCOSUR A multilateral agreement on trade, including agricultural trade between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The agreement was signed in 1991 and came into effect on 1 January 1995. Its main goal is to create a customs union between the four countries by 2006.

Market Price Support (MPS) Payment Indicator of the annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures creating a gap between domestic market prices and border prices of a specific agricultural commodity, measured at the farm gate level. Conditional on the production of a specific commodity, MPS includes the transfer to producers associated with both production for domestic use and exports, and is measured by the price gap applied to current production. The MPS is net of financial contributions from individual producers through producer levies on sales of the specific commodity or penalties for not respecting regulations such as production quotas (Price levies), and in the case of livestock production is net of the market price support on domestically produced coarse grains and oilseeds used as animal feed (Excess feed cost).

84

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX C

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) A chemical gasoline additive that can be used to boost the octane number and oxygen content of the fuel, but can render contaminated water undrinkable.

Mid-Term Review See Luxembourg agreement on CAP reform.

Milk quota scheme A supply control measure to limit the volume of milk produced or supplied. Quantities up to a specified quota amount benefit from full market price support. Over-quota volumes may be penalised by a levy (as in the European Union, where the “super levy” is 115% of the target price) or may receive a lower price. Allocations are usually fixed at individual producer level. Other features, including arrangements for quota reallocation, differ according to scheme.

Modulation A partial transfer of support from the first (support to agriculture) to the second pillar (support to other rural activities) of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). With the latest reform of the CAP, modulation was made compulsory, resulting in a gradual reduction of payments directly to farmers with the aim of boosting rural development.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) A trilateral agreement on trade, including agricultural trade, between Canada, Mexico and the United States, phasing out tariffs and revising other trade rules between the three countries over a 15-year period. The agreement was signed in December 1992 and came into effect on 1 January 1994.

Oilseed meal Defined as rapeseed meal (canola), soyabean meal, and sunflower meal in all countries, except in Japan where it excludes sunflower meal.

Oilseeds Defined as rapeseed (canola), soyabeans, and sunflower seed in all countries, except in Japan where it excludes sunflower seed.

Pacific beef/pigmeat market Beef/pigmeat trade between countries in the Pacific Rim where foot and mouth disease is not endemic.

PROCAMPO A programme of direct support to farmers in Mexico. It provides for direct payments per hectare on a historical basis.

Producer Support Estimate (PSE) Indicator of the annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers, measured at farm gate level, arising from policy OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

85

ANNEX C

measure, regardless of their nature, objectives or impacts on farm production or income. The PSE measure support arising from policies targeted to agriculture relative to a situation without such policies, i.e. when producers are subject only to general policies (including economic, social, environmental and tax policies) of the country. The PSE is a gross notion implying that any costs associated with those policies and incurred by individual producers are not deducted. It is also a nominal assistance notion meaning that increased costs associated with import duties on inputs are not deducted. But it is an indicator net of producer contributions to help finance the policy measure (e.g. producer levies) providing a given transfer to producers. The PSE includes implicit and explicit payments. The percentage PSE is the ration of the PSE to the value of total gross farm receipts, measured by the value of total production (at farm gate prices), plus budgetary support. The nomenclature and definitions of this indicator replaced the former Producer Subsidy Equivalent in 1999.

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) Purchasing power parities (PPPs) are the rates of currency conversion that eliminate the differences in price levels between countries. The PPPs are given in national currency units per US dollar.

Recourse loan programme Programme to be implemented under the US FAIR Act of 1996 for butter, non-fat dry milk and cheese after 1999 in which loans must be repaid with interest to processors to assist them in the management of dairy product inventories.

Saccharin A low calorie, artificial sweetener used as a substitute for sugar mainly in beverage preparations.

Scenario A model-generated set of market projections based on alternative assumptions than those used in the baseline. Used to provide quantitative information on the impact of changes in assumptions on the outlook.

Set-aside programme European Union programme for cereal, oilseed and protein crops that both requires and allows producers to set-aside a portion of their historical base acreage from current production. Mandatory set-aside rates for commercial producers are set at 10% until 2006.

Single Farm Payment With the 2003 CAP reform, the EU introduced a farm-based payment largely independent of current production decisions and market developments, but based on the level of former payments received by farmers. To facilitate land transfers, entitlements are calculated by dividing the reference amount of payment by the number of eligible hectares (incl. forage area) in the reference year. Farmers receiving the new SFP are obliged to keep their land in good agricultural and environmental condition and have the flexibility to produce any commodity on their land except fruits, vegetables and table potatoes.

86

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

ANNEX C

SPS Agreement WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary measures, including standards used to protect human, animal or plant life and health.

Support price Prices fixed by government policy makers in order to determine, directly or indirectly, domestic market or producer prices. All administered price schemes set a minimum guaranteed support price or a target price for the commodity, which is maintained by associated policy measures, such as quantitative restrictions on production and imports; taxes, levies and tariffs on imports; export subsidies; and public stockholding.

Tariff-rate quota (TRQ) Resulted from the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Certain countries agreed to provide minimum import opportunities for products previously protected by non-tariff barriers. This import system established a quota and a two-tier tariff regime for affected commodities. Imports within the quota enter at a lower (in-quota) tariff rate while a higher (out-of-quota) tariff rate is used for imports above the concessionary access level.

Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) The terms of the URAA are contained in the section entitled the “Agreement on Agriculture” of the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. This text contains commitments in the areas of market access, domestic support, and export subsidies, and general provisions concerning monitoring and continuation. In addition, each country’s schedule is an integral part of its contractual commitment under the URAA. There is a separate agreement entitled the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures. This agreement seeks establishing a multilateral framework of rules and disciplines to guide the adoption, development and the enforcement of sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures in order to minimise their negative effects on trade. See also Phyto-sanitary regulations and Sanitary regulations.

Vegetable oil Defined as rapeseed oil (canola), soyabean oil, sunflower seed oil and palm oil, except in Japan where it excludes sunflower seed oil.

Voluntary Quota Restructuring Scheme Established as part of the reform of the European Union’s Common Market Organisation (CMO) for sugar in February 2006 to apply for four years from 1 July 2006. Under the scheme, sugar producers receive a degressive payment for permanently surrendering sugar production quota, in part or in entirety, over the period 2006-07 to 2009-10.

WTO World Trade Organisation created by the Uruguay Round agreement.

OECD-FAO AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK 2007-2016 – © OECD/FAO 2007

87

OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16 PRINTED IN FRANCE (00 2007 1M 1 P) – No. 88353 2007

Loading...

OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 - OECD.org

OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATION...

779KB Sizes 1 Downloads 3 Views

Recommend Documents

OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017 - UV
ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to

Outlook 5-04.qxd - Kensington Outlook
May 2, 2004 - dents from Kensington Hilltop Elementary school to portable classrooms on the Portola. Middle School campu

An Outsider's Kashmir - Outlook Traveller - Outlook India
Nov 1, 2016 - This June, I planned my trip with a good load of guilt. ... I did realise after a while in Srinagar that c

Yale Outlook - Outlook - Office 365 - Microsoft Office
No information is available for this page.Learn why

Economic Outlook
The Economic Outlook provides CMIE's view on the Indian economy. It interprets new data releases continuously; provides

Agricultural Economics
theory underlying agricultural economics and the methods used in empirical analysis of agricultural issues are similar .

Agricultural Finance
1.2.4 The global flows of commodities. 10. 1.2.5 Back to the future: a new age for barter. 11. 1.2.6 The sources of info

2013 Texas Agricultural Custom Rates - Extension Agricultural
vary in survey methodology to pre-2011 Texas Custom Rate Statistics Reports, and may not be directly comparable. The sur

agricultural economics - CCS Haryana Agricultural University
UNIT-V: Business/Trade cycles – Its meaning, phases, characteristics and types, Concepts of economic growth models. Su

Planning an agricultural subsurface drainage system : Agricultural
People considering installation of a drainage system should also know their rights and responsibilities concerning the r