Area Handbook for Romania Part 30

As a result of the government's industrialization policy, the relative importance of agriculture in the economy has declined. During the decade of the 1960s the contribution of agriculture to national income, in terms of arbitrarily established official prices, dropped from about 30 to 20 percent, even though half the working population continued to be employed on farms and farm output was gradually rising. The growth in output, however, did not keep pace with official plans, mainly because of a lack of income incentives for farmers under the government's low farm-price policy and because of inadequate investment and fertilizer inputs. The farm problem has been exacerbated by the generally low qualifications of the farm labor force and by the prevalence of widespread underemployment.

Various revisions in agricultural organization and methods of compensation made from 1968 to 1971 did not produce any marked improvement by the end of that period. The failure of agricultural output, including livestock products, to advance according to plans created economic difficulties by depriving the country of potential exports urgently needed to pay for industrial imports. It has also hampered the improvement of the population's protein-deficient diet.

Substantial advances in all phases of agriculture are planned for the 1971-75 period. In the light of past experience, attainment of the established goals is uncertain. The full production potential of agriculture remains largely unexploited.

AGRICULTURAL REGIONS

Natural conditions are generally favorable for agricultural development.

A varied topography has produced diversified regional weather and soil conditions. The climate is basically continental, with warm summers and cold winters, but the growing season is relatively long--from 180 to 210 days.

The amount of precipitation fluctuates from year to year, which results in recurrent droughts. Rainfall averages about twenty-five inches, ranging from only fifteen inches on the Dobruja plateau to forty inches in the mountainous regions. In the princ.i.p.al farming regions, annual precipitation averages about twenty-three inches in the fertile southern plain but dips below twenty inches in the hilly regions of Moldavia in the northeastern part of the country. Moisture is generally sufficient during the spring growing period (see ch. 3).

Soils vary from mountain-type soils to heavy, relatively infertile podzolic soils in the plateaus and rich chernozem (black earth) soils in the plains. About 20 percent of the agricultural land is of the chernozem type. Alluvial soils cover the flood plains of the Danube River.

Topography and climate divide the country into five agricultural zones, the most important of which is Walachia. Walachia includes the rich southern plains, where half the country's grain is grown. Almost half the vineyards and orchards are located in the foothills surrounding the plains. Vegetable production is also important in this area, especially near the city of Bucharest. Despite the fertility of this region's soils, production in Walachia fluctuates because of recurrent summer droughts.

Transylvania, the largely mountainous region in the central and northwestern parts of the country, receives substantial rainfall but has relatively infertile soils. Livestock production predominates on the mountain pastures and meadows. Grain and potatoes are the major crops in the central basin.

Moldavia in northeastern Romania has generally poor soils and receives scant rainfall. Corn is the main crop in this zone, followed by wheat and potatoes.

The Banat region on the country's western border has the most favorable natural conditions for agriculture. Chernozem soils predominate, and the seasonal distribution of rainfall is more propitious than in Walachia.

Grain, primarily wheat, is the princ.i.p.al crop; fruits and vegetables are also important.

The Dobruja plateau in southwestern Romania is the country's least important farming area. Although soils are generally fertile, cultivation is limited by inadequate rainfall. Grain, sunflowers, and legumes are grown in this area.

To combat the destructive effects of recurrent droughts, a large-scale program of irrigation was undertaken by the government. Execution of the program, however, has consistently lagged behind the plans.

LAND USE

In 1970 agricultural land comprised almost 37 million acres (63 percent of the country), about two-thirds of which was arable. The balance was devoted to pastures, meadows, vineyards, and orchards. During the decade of the 1960s substantial additions to the agricultural area were made through various land improvement measures. At the same time, however, large acreages were diverted to industrial and residential uses, particularly of the more valuable arable land. The net result was an increase in the total farmland area, mainly in orchards and pastures, and a decline in the arable acreage (see table 7).

_Table 7._ _Land Use in Romania, Selected Years, 1960-70[1]_ (in thousands of acres)

------------------------------------------------------------------- 1960 1962 1969 1970 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Agricultural Land Arable 24,268 24,515 24,146 24,050 Pasture 6,953 6,924 7,426 7,420 Meadow 3,427 3,447 3,506 3,499 Vineyard 768 744 857 857 Orchard 529 662 1,053 1,067 Total Agricultural Land 35,945 36,292 36,988 36,893 ------ ------ ------ ------ Forest Land 15,822 15,807 15,607 15,604 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Agricultural land by type of use and forest area.

Source: Adapted from _Anuarul Statistic al Republicii Socialiste Romania_, 1970 (Statistical Yearbook of the Socialist Republic of Romania, 1970), Bucharest, 1970, pp. 246-247.

Forests occupied an area of 15,604,000 acres in 1970, the equivalent of about 27 percent of the country's land surface. The forest acreage declined slowly but steadily after 1961, for a total loss of almost 247,000 acres.

Slightly more than two-thirds of the more than 24 million acres of crop area in 1969 was under grains. Technical crops for industrial uses, consisting mainly of oilseeds and sugar beets, and fodder crops occupied almost one-fourth of the sown area. The remainder of less than 10 percent was devoted to legumes, potatoes, vegetables, and melons and to seed-producing and experimental plots. Half the grain acreage was devoted to corn, which is used for food and feed by the farmers; and more than two-fifths was under wheat, which is the staple food of the urban population.

The grain acreage declined in absolute and in relative terms after 1960, when it accounted for almost three-fourths of the sown area. All other major crop acreages, excluding that under sugar beets, increased during the 1960-69 period (see table 8). Romanian economists attributed the shift in the crop pattern to the government's emphasis on adapting crop production to the economic needs of the country and to the natural conditions of individual farms. A severe flood in the spring of 1970, the worst in the country's history, reduced the crop area by nearly 1.25 million acres below the level of 1969.

_Table 8._ _Cultivated Acreage in Romania, by Major Crops, 1960 and 1969_ (in thousands of acres)

-------------------------------------------------------------- Crop 1960 1969 -------------------------------------------------------------- Grain Wheat 7,008 6,817 Corn 8,826 8,137 Other 1,626 1,263 ------ ------ Total 17,460 16,217 Legumes 381 474 Technical crops (for industrial uses) Oleaginous 1,396 1,576 Sugar beets 494 445 Other 252 341 ------ ------ Total 2,142 2,362 Potatoes 722 754 Vegetables and melons 516 591 Fodder crops 2,711 3,356 Seed-producing and experimental plots 119 235 ------ ------ Total Cultivated Acreage 24,051 23,989 -------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Adapted from _Anuarul Statistic al Republicii Socialiste Romania 1970_, (Statistical Yearbook of the Socialist Republic of Romania, 1970), Bucharest, 1970, pp. 306-307.

Encroachment by builders upon agricultural and, more particularly, arable land was facilitated by the government's policy, pursued until the spring of 1968, of treating land as a free good and a.s.signing no value to it in calculating the cost of industrial and housing investment projects. Arable land was especially attractive to builders because it required no expenditure for leveling.

In an attempt to prevent further waste of valuable farmland, a law for the protection and conservation of agricultural land was pa.s.sed in May 1968. The law prohibited the diversion of farm acreages to nonagricultural uses, with the exception of special cases which, depending upon the nature and location of the land involved, required the approval of either the Council of State, the Council of Ministers, or the Superior Council of Agriculture (a government agency that functioned in lieu of a ministry for several years). Nonagricultural state organizations that held land that they could not cultivate were obligated to surrender it without payment to neighboring state or collective farms.

The conservation law enjoined socialized (collective and state) farms and private farmers to put all land to optimum use; called for a review of the building code to reduce the land areas allowed to individual construction projects; provided for the inclusion of the value of land in construction costs; and spelled out various other measures to safeguard and improve agricultural land. The law also directed the establishment of a land register, excluding lands of the socialized farms, to facilitate stricter controls over the remaining private farmers, who held 9.2 percent of the agricultural land and 4.6 percent of the arable acreage.

Heavy fines and criminal penalties, including imprisonment up to one year, were provided for infringements of the conservation law by enterprises and individuals. During the first year of the law's operation, fines were also to be imposed upon holders of uncultivated arable land, of improperly maintained orchards and vineyards, and of meadows and pastures on which maintenance work did not comply with agrotechnical rules. Like the establishment of the land register, this provision was also aimed at private farmers. A further provision stated that lands on which the described conditions continued after the first year were to be a.s.signed to socialized farms for cultivation. The transferred land could be subsequently restored to the original owners under conditions prescribed by the Superior Council of Agriculture. The effect of the punitive regulations on private farm property was not apparent from the official statistics for 1968 and 1969.

Shortly after the adoption of the conservation law, the deputy chairman of the State Committee for Construction, Architecture, and Systematization published an article in which he stated that mere administrative regulations by the committee and the Superior Council of Agriculture could not ensure the proper use of land, particularly on the collective farms. He called for the development of appropriate economic levers based on an adaptation of "the systems that limit land waste in some capitalistic markets." This official's concern about the efficacy of the new legislation was well based. By 1970 the arable acreage had declined by 158,000 acres, at an average annual rate more than half again as large as the annual losses during the 1962-68 period.

ORGANIZATION

Collective and state farms are the princ.i.p.al types of farm organization (see table 9). Substantial areas of state agricultural land are also operated as subsidiary farms by various industrial and other economic organizations. Small private farms survive mainly in the mountainous regions where collectivization is impractical. In 1970 the state owned 30 percent of the farmland, about half of which was cultivated by state farms. Almost 61 percent of the land belonged to collective farms, including 6.6 percent in plots for the personal use of their members.

The collective farm population consisted of almost 3.5 million families, including more than 10 million collective members. About 9 percent of the farmland was in the possession of private farmers.

_Table 9. Agricultural Land in Romania, by Type of Ownership, 1969_ (in thousands of acres)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arable Pasture Meadow Vineyard Orchard Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- State agricultural units 4,959 5,545 264 148 173 11,089 (State farms) (4,129) (688) (170) (133) (148) (5,218) Collective farms 18,075 1,315 1,712 682 692 22,476 (Private plots) (1,969) (20) (54) (262) (121) (2,426) Private farms 1,112 566 1,530 27 188 3,423 ------ ----- ----- --- ----- ------ Total 24,146 7,426 3,506 857 1,053 36,988 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Adapted from _Anuaral Statistic al Republicii Socialiste Romania, 1970_ (Statistical Yearbook of the Socialist Republic of Romania, 1970), Bucharest, 1970, p. 253.

In order to raise agricultural productivity and output, the state and collective farm sectors underwent frequent organizational changes, the latest of which went into effect in February 1971. There was not sufficient evidence in early 1972 on the extent to which they had been put into practice and even less information on their economic effects.

Collective Farms

At the beginning of 1971 there were 4,626 collective farms, officially called agricultural production cooperatives, comprising more than 22 million acres of farmland, about 18 million acres of which were arable.

Their number had declined by 1,800 through consolidation during the preceding decade. The farms had an average of about 750 families and 1,000 able-bodied members each.

The average acreage of collective farmland per family in 1970 amounted to 6.4 acres, including a private family plot of about 0.7 acres.

Although the family plots const.i.tuted only 6.6 percent of the country's farmland and 8.2 percent of the arable acreage, they accounted for a substantially larger share in the output of various crops and livestock products.

Information on the organization of individual collective farms and of the collective farm sector as a whole is inadequate, particularly with regard to the range of responsibilities and authority of the various administrative ent.i.ties. The organizational framework has been complicated by the proliferation of new measures and regulations since 1967. Farm operations are carried out in common, under the direction of an administrative and management body theoretically accountable to the general a.s.sembly, composed of all the members of a collective farm.

Groups of workers are organized into so-called brigades for the performance of specialized tasks. The farm management includes a chairman, a director, a management council, brigade leaders, and trained technicians specialized in various aspects of farm operation.

Intercooperative councils are charged with responsibility for improving collective farm management by initiating and coordinating cooperation on various levels among neighboring farms for better use of their physical and human resources. Collective farms are subordinated to the National Union of Agricultural Production Cooperatives and are also subject to the direction of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Industry, and Waters (referred to as the Ministry of Agriculture) and of county authorities.

Collective farm a.s.sociations are organized for various types of specialized production.

In theory and according to law, but not in actual practice, collective farms are jointly owned by their members. The ownership supposedly extends to the land, other productive resources, and the annual farm output. About 11 percent of the collective farm land, however, is allocated for the personal use of members, and almost half the livestock other than horses is individually owned. No information is available on the existence of any provision for the compensation of members who are authorized to leave the farms for employment in other sectors of the economy.

Regulations concerning the allocation of their income by collective farms among investment funds and various social and other obligatory funds and distribution to members were modified in late 1970 or early 1971 with a view to stimulating the members' interest in raising the efficiency of production. Under the old system, distribution to members was made from residual funds remaining after all statutory public and social obligations were met. The revised farm statutes authorize the farms' general a.s.semblies to allocate net income in ratios ranging from 18 to 25 percent for investment and from 75 to 82 percent for consumption. In actual practice, however, income distribution is reported to follow a somewhat different pattern, which tends to reduce the share available for distribution to members. The new regulations have not altered the generally acknowledged fact that farm incomes remain very low, particularly on the poorer farms.

The system of remuneration for collective farmers was also modified in 1970 with a view to strengthening work incentives. The new method provides for monthly payments on account, in cash and in kind, based on the farms' planned annual receipts and for a share of profits in excess of those planned. Payment to individual members is to be based on centrally established work norms and rates of pay for various categories of operations, similar to the practice in industry and construction. The system is intended to relate individual remuneration more closely to the quant.i.ty and quality of the work performed and thereby to eliminate inequities of the earlier method. It is also meant to provide a steady and a.s.sured income to all members who contribute a specified minimum of workdays per month. If, for reasons beyond its control, a farm's receipts turn out to be lower than the amount legally distributed to its members during the year, the shortage may be covered by a long-term bank credit. As a further inducement for farmers to remain on the land, their social security benefits, generally much lower than those of industrial workers, were substantially liberalized.

The extent to which the new pay system has been put into practice is not known. Effective January 1, 1971, a minimum wage of 300 lei (for value of leu, see Glossary) per month was to be paid to all male farmers who worked regularly at least twenty days and to all women who worked fifteen days. A survey published by a collective farm organ in March of that year found that within a single county twenty-one out of twenty-two farms had not taken the trouble to forward the necessary doc.u.ments to the Agricultural Bank and apply for the funds with which to pay their members. Various excuses were offered by the farm chairmen for their lack of action. The chairmen, farm directors, and brigade leaders, however, were reported to have taken appropriate steps to secure their own minimum pay.

The marketing of farm products by collective farms is based on officially fixed prices and monopoly-buying powers of state procurement agencies and the food-processing industry. Products move into government stocks through contracts between the farms and state agencies for quant.i.ties specified by the government; through payments in kind for services rendered by agricultural mechanization stations, flour mills, and other specialized government agencies; and, in the case of meat and wool, in the form of compulsory deliveries. Any products remaining after the obligations to the state have been met may be sold in open markets.

State Farms