Transcript The semi-subsistence profile of the Romanian agriculture

PAUN ION OTIMAN, COSMIN SALASAN
Romanian Academy – Branch of Timişoara,
Research Centre for Sustainable Rural
Development of Romania



agricultural households <1ha represents 44% of
total, but less than 8% of the total area
50% of the private individual farms have 1-10
ha, and only 2.19% have 10-50 ha
For the farms with legal status, the size
category 1-10 ha, represents less than one third
of the total number, less than 20% are between
10 and 100 ha, while the last category
accounting farms with more than 100 ha has
over 40% of total and covers more than 95% of
the total area
Size (ha)
< 0,1
0,1 - 0,3
0,3 - 0,5
0,5 – 1
1–2
2–5
5 – 10
10 – 20
20 – 30
30 – 50
50 – 100
> 100
<1
1 – 10
10 – 50
50 – 100
> 100
Number of farms
Area (hectares)
Individual
Individual
Farms w. legal
Farms w. legal
status
status
private farms
private farms
273525
19
12888,31
0,68
522028
510
90604,28
87,56
279085
334
108163,18
123,28
609440
559
437283,05
380,01
799143
923
1156767,60
1207,35
963453
2141
3014849,36
7050,04
297638
2358
2002599,91
14938,65
68897
1231
908632,21
15595,69
9156
392
220628,37
9468,86
5988
571
228861,26
22294,77
3587
1204
243876,80
89176,79
2467
7141
541154,22
4626414,26
Percentages
43,92
8,18
7,24
0,01
53,73
31,19
68,86
0,48
2,19
12,62
15,15
0,99
0,09
6,93
2,72
1,86
0,06
41,08
6,04
96,65



The farms with less than one hectare that do
not qualify for direct payments amount
1.684.078 private farms and 1.422 farms with
legal status covering an area of 649.530 ha
The total number of farms having more than 1
ha is 2.150.329
Over three years, from 2007 to 2009, the total
number of direct payments decreased by
108.328 farms out of which 96.259 households
of less than 5 ha



In 2010, 354.317 holdings belonged to the SSH
category of 2-8 ESU.
Out of those, 147.554 households are headed by
people of 65 years of age or more.
At the same time, the households with less
than 2 ESU amount 3.871.242 among which
1.659.739 are owned by persons of 65 years and
above.


The physical size of the farms could be of less
relevance, especially for the relatively small
ones, as the production type and the level of
production intensification can change the
economic size of farms.
Related to the property aspects, over 90% of the
total land area is registered into ownership and
about 8% covers different forms of rent. About
1/3 of this area under rent is given free of any
charge for farming

Without the certitude of the pre-accession
effects mainly given the lack of coherence in
agricultural policy before and during that time
horizon, 324.802 farms, with or without legal
status, disappeared during two years before
the accession moment



Out of the total employment, 9.369 thousand
people, almost one fourth (2,22 million) are
represented by farmers and qualified workers in
agriculture, forestry and fishery
40% of active people in agriculture have 55 years
or over
286.339 people were released from the farming
activity, 97% of them being former temporary
employees. The largest part of these came from the
farms with less than 10 ha, and the effect was four
times higher for the class 1-10 ha than for the class
with less than 1 ha



Total number of farms - 3.931.350,
99,54% in individual private farms and 0,45%
in farms with legal status,
Represented a work place for 6.467.571 people,
98,92% on individual private farms and 1% on
farms with legal status.

A total of 4.716.969 people had the status of
employees:
4.645.202 temporary employees (98,47%),
 52.975 permanent employees (1,12%) and
 18.792 farm heads (0,39%).


This situation allows the consideration of
71.767 work places as permanent employment,
which represents only 1,5% of the total
employment in the agricultural sector


In terms of expenditure and self-consumption, in
national average the employees have a share of
92% cash expenditure in their total expenses
structure while the farmers only amount 52,7%, the
rest of 47,3% being represented be the equivalent
self-consumption
3.172.280 households are consuming more than
half of their own production representing 80,7% of
total holdings. At the same time 2.621.860
households (or 85,6%) consuming more than 50%
of their production have less than 1 ESU

Based on household characteristics, farm
characteristics, behavioural characteristics,
characteristics of the external environment and
viability, the major types of semi-subsistence
households are:
Rural diversifiers,
 Rural pensioners,
 Farmers,
 Rural newcomers.
The five characteristics are supported by 72 variables


Rural diversifiers have the highest level of
formal education, the highest absolute annual
non-farm income, and the highest share of nonfarm income in household net income (65.8%).
The agricultural production is 2/3 selfconsumed having the lowest the share of farm
net income in household net income (16.7%).
Among the four types, the rural diversifiers
have the largest number of produced
agricultural goods with the smallest level of
purchased inputs in animal production.

Rural pensioners have the highest age of the
household head and a long experience in
managing the farm low formal education. They
have the lowest farm net income and also the
lowest annual household net income. Almost
2/3 of their production is self-consumed. The
households are the smallest farms both in
economic size and cultivated agricultural area.
2/3 of the products are issued by the animal
production and the usage of purchased inputs
is the highest.

The farmers have the highest level of
agricultural qualification and a high experience
in managing the farm. The share of farm net
income in household net income is by 1/3
higher than previous two categories. The
absolute farm net income is the highest of the
sample. The commercial orientation of the
household is proved by the lowest share of
own used agricultural production in total
agricultural production.

The farmers… more than 1/5 of these
households are headed by women. The farms
are the largest in both, economic size and
agricultural area. These households have the
highest share of crop production in total
agricultural production and a low number of
agricultural products (10 products). Moreover,
they achieve the highest yields cereals. With a
low use of purchased inputs for animal
production per unit of animal production,
these households also achieve the highest milk
performance

Rural newcomers have the lowest age among
the farm operators, the least experience in
managing the farm and the lowest level of
formal education. They produce mainly for the
market and have a low share of own used
agricultural production in total agricultural
production, while the share of farm net income
in household net income is high. These
households have the lowest household's cash
balance of all, indicating the lack of ability to
derive sufficient income from farming or from
other income sources.
Ratio
1
0
Rural diversifiers
Rural pensioners
Farmers
Rural newcomers
Sample
Viablity considering earned net income
Viability considering earned net income and received subsidies
Viability condisering earned net income and received social security benefits
Viability considering household net income


The National Rural Development Programme
in Romania allocates as public expenditure
476.077.390 Euro and establishes as
achievement indicator to support 76.172 semisubsistence farms, wrongly as a maximum of
63.477 SSH can be financed out of that amount
Until October 2011, 34.501 projects in total were
approved for financing for a total amount of
258.757.500 Euro



Semi-subsistence households have the
flexibility to slightly increase their production
level
Policy support in favor of commercial
conversion of SSH in not effective or not in
place
The education level of the SSH heads is poor
and their management is based mainly on
practical experience


The smallest farms (bellow 10 ha) act as a
growth reservoir, generally, but also for those
moving out of semi-subsistence
A slight transition from semi-subsistence to
commercial dimensions is expected under the
current conditions and the Romanian
specificities, however not due to the policy
instruments intervention

The social dimension of the subsistence and
semi-subsistence are part of the agri-culture
and should also be treated as a social value
instead of transferring it completely from
EAFRD to ESF