?ART-TIME FARMING in CYPRUS a Pilot Study

4d,).

University of Reading Department of Agricultural Economics & Management

?ART-TIME FARMING IN CYPRUS A Pilot Study

i C CIAN NOM1C5 RICHARD PEARCE RIC,- Li LTLI RAL LIEG i 4 081

Development Study No.21

1981 Price £2•00 PART-TIME FARMING IN CYPRUS

A Pilot Study

RICHARD PEARCE

,•

JULY 1981. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to Barclays Bank International for financing both my trip to Cyprus and this publication.

I am also extremely indebted to members of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Republic of Cyprus, for their advice, co-operation and support during the survey.

I wish to thank colleagues of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, University of Reading, who have assisted me, particularly Martin Upton for his continually helpful advice and encouragement during the writing of this essay, and Douglas Thornton for invaluable comments on an earlier draft.

Thanks are also due to Ginny Hume for her creative cartography, Audrey Collins for her excellent typing and to my friend Rubavathy for her patient forebearance.

A special thank you is in order to the part-time farmers of Cyprus for their warm hospitality and willing co-operation.

I alone am responsible for any errors contained herein. CONTENTS

PART ONE INTRODUCTION Page No.

1.1 The objectives of the study. 1 1.2 The Cyprus economy. 4 1.3 The issue in general. 10

• PART TWO THE SURVEY : RESULTS and ANALYSIS

2.1 Sampling and data collection. 16 2.2 Age, education and migration. 20 2.3 Occupation structure. 25 2.4 Land tenure and land use. 31 2.5 Farm productivity. 36 2.6 Non-land resources. 39 2.7 Household indebtedness. 41 2.8 The structure of household income. 44 2.9 The importance of off-farm occupations. 46 2.10 The performance of part-time holdings. 50 2.11 Trends in part-time farming. 56

PART THREF, CONCLUSIONS 62

APPENDIX 69

Map 1 The agro-economic regions. Map 2 The sampled villages. Tables A.1 - A.24.. CONVERSIONS

AREA

1 donurn 1,600 square yards 0.33 acre 0.133 hectare

WEIGHTS 1 oke 1.2 kilograms (kg) 2.64 pounds (lbs)

CURRENCY 1 Cyprus pound (EC) 1000 mils 1.2 Sterling pounds (C) 2.34 U.S. dollars (%)

(exchange rates are approximate for June 30th 1981) LIST OF TABLES

Table number

1. Age structure of part-time farmers, 2. Education of part-time farmers and their families. 3- Migration of children of part-time farmers and the migration propensity of farmers. 4. Occupational structure of part-time farmers. 5- Employment characteristics of farmers. 6. Household farm labour profile. 7. Farmers' contribution to on-farm labour supply. 8. Land tenure : part-time and total farmers. Operated 9- and Irrigated areas : part-time and total farmers. 10. Plots her holding. 11. Mean number of crops per holding. 12. Gross margins for sampled farms. 13. Non-land assets per farmer and proportion of operated area irrigated. 14. Degree and extent of indebtedness, source and purpose of debt. 15. Proportion of household income derived from the farm. 16. Occupational characteristics of part-time farmers. 17. Irrigated area and related characteristics. 18. Fixed assets and gross margins. 19. Indebtedness and fixed assets. 20. Trends in farm income and employment. 21. Reasons for changes in on-farm income as a proportion of total household income. 22. Reasons for changes in allocation of time to on-farm activities. 23. Factors inhibiting increasing agricultural activity. 24. Activity preferences of farmers. 25. Location of farmers experiencing changes in time/income. 26. Characteristics of farmers experiencing changes in income. 27. Characteristics of farmers with changing time allocation. Table number

A.1. General economic indicators. A.2. Sectoral economic indicators. A.3. General agricultural indicators. A.4. Proportion of holders with off-farm occupation by agro-economic region. A-5- Grouping of agro-economic regions by zone and sub-zone. A.6. Villages selected according to agro-economic region, locational characteristics and number of farmers interviewed. A.7. Outline of data groups. A.8. Age, education and migration of part-time farmers and their families. A.9. Part-time farmers by category of off-farm occupation. A.10. Employment characteristics of part-time farmers. A.11. Household farm labour profile. A.12. Land tenure (sample farms). A.13. Land tenure (census data for villages visited). A.14. Land use (sample farms). A.15. Cropping pattern. A.16. Production of part-time farmers. A.17. Value of non-land assets per farmer. A.18. Incidence, sources and purposes of indebtedness. A.19. Proportions of income by source. A.20. Trends in farm income and on-farm employment. A.21. Reasons given for changing farm income. A.22. Reasons for changes in farmers' time spent on the farm. A.23. Reasons inhibiting farmers from devoting more time to agriculture. A.24. Preferences concerning occupation and location. PART ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The objectives of the study.

This study represents the pilot stage of a larger investigation into the characteristics and importance of part-time farming in Cyprus. The research is a co-operative activity of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, University of Reading with the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources of the Government of Cyprus.

It is probable that Cypriot agriculture has been characterised by the existence of many part-time farmers for some considerable time. It is possible also that the proportion of such farmers has increased following the occupation of part of Cyprus by the Turkish armed forces in 1974, and the consequent flow of refugees to the south. The Agricultural Census carried out in 1977, which was an attempt to re-establish a detailed picture of the rural economy following the disruption caused by the invasion and partition, was in part devoted to an investigation of rural employment. The findings indicated that farmers with off-farm occupations comprised 55.04% of the total. For the great majority of these - 94% - the off-farm occupation was the most important in terms of the number of hours allocated to it. It was also reported that 35.41% of all farmers were not gainfully employed in agriculture, (i.e. occupied), for more than two months of the year. For farmers 1 with no off-farm activity, this figure was 24.66%. Thus the importance of off-farm activity for the productive employment of farmers is apparent.

Having established the significance of part-time farming for Cypriot agriculture, it becomes important to investigate the underlying features of their farm and non-farm activities and any associated trends over time.

Such an investigation becomes pertinent for the following reasons. Firstly, where part-time farmers are responsible for a significant proportion of agricultural production, the design of policies related to the agricultural sector must be such that account is taken of the likely way in - 2 -

which such farmers are likely to respond. Thus knowledge of the pattern of production, investment profile and labour use within part-time agriculture is essential.

Secondly, where part-time farming is particularly prevalent in specific 2 areas, such as in the mountain and dry-land regions of Cyprus, information concerning the employment pattern of farmers in off-farm activities, and any changes which are occurring over time in the allocation of their labour between activities, provides a necessary backdrop to any plans concerning the stabilisation of population movements and the provision of rural services. Such plans are contained, for example, in integrated rural development schemes such as the Pitsilia Development Project.

Thus a fuller understanding of part-time farming in Cyprus may act as a guideto the shaping of future policies and the determination of agriculture's role in the wider economy.

It is against this background that the project was conceived. Designed 3 as a two-stage project, this report represents completion of the first part.

This initial stage, which comprises a survey of part-time farmers undertaken in August and September 1980, plus this report based on analysis of the survey data, is in essence a pilot stage, designed both to provide an overview of part-time agriculture in Cyprus, and the necessary material for the identification of those important and relevant characteristics of part-time farmer activity which the second stage should be orientated towards. Thus it is primarily concerned with the occupational pattern, resource endowment and investment profile of the farmers.

The second, and main, stage of the project will entail a more comprehensive and in-depth investigation of appropriate aspects of these relevant characteristics, following the findings and recommendations of this study, for the purpose of guiding future policy decisions.

Part I of the study contains a general introduction to the economy of Cyprus and the position of agriculture within it, plus a theoretical discussion of the principal underlying issues related to part-time farming. Part II presents the main findings of the survey plus analysis of the information acquired, whilst Part III attempts some tentative conclusions. The main body of statistical data is contained in an Appendix. 1.2 The Cyprus Economy

An eastern Mediterranean island of some 3572 square miles, Cyprus, or the Island of Aphrodite, has a total population of 620,000 people. Of these approximately eighty per-cent are Greek Cypriots, who, since the Turkish invasion of 1974, are confined to the southern part of the country, whilst the Turkish Cypriots live in the northern 38% of the island currently 4 occupied by the Turkish armed forces.

Since 5 the 1974 invasion the life and economy of Cyprus has under- gone severe disruption, being effectively partitioned and suffering from the displacement 6 of large sections of the population. The Greek Cypriot community was particularly affected since, according to some estimates, 70% of the island's economic and natural resources are concentrated in the occupied north.7

Topographically Cyprus is dominated by the Troodos mountains, which rise to a height of 2000 feet above seal level, and climatically by its aridity, rainfall being low, at an annual average of 500 mm, and mainly confined to the few winter months, particularly December and January.8

The population is growing at a rate of 1% per annum, and has an increasingly urban flavour, the rural population having fallen between 1974 and 1979. In fact rural-urban migration has been a significant post- independence feature, given that during the period 1960-1974 the urban population grew by 31%, whilst the rural population increased by only

After a period of adjustment following the invasion the economy grew rapidly, although since 1976 at a declining rate. Nevertheless in 1979 it recorded a rate of growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in real terms of 6.6%, and it is estimated that real incomes since 1974 have 10 increased by In 11 1979 per capita Gross National Product stood at ZC1917.

What is particularly noticeable about this period is the increased contribution of the manufacturing and construction industries and the decline in importance of the agricultural sector as a proportionate contributor to GDP. The two most important productive industries, however, continue to be agriculture and manufacturing, with 12% and 17% of GDP. More detailed information can be obtained from Tables A1-3 in the Appendix.

External economic relations have increasingly focused away from the United Kingdom and traditional markets to the north, towards Eastern Europe and, particularly, the Arab countries, although the European Economic Community (EEC) continues to be the main trading partner.

The Balance of Payments has generally been in surplus during recent years, although a 1979 deficit of =11.5 million was turned into a EC4 million surplus in 1980, largely through a record inflow of foreign capital. The visible trade balance has persistently been in deficit and this deficit is reduced rather than eliminated by surplus on the invisible account. In spite of this reserves stood at =155 million at the end of 1980, although the need to improve the trading position of the economy is apparent.

The most important souurce of Cypriot imports is the EEC (mainly the UK), with manufacturers and machines being the main categories of commodities concerned - 54% of the total. The principal export market, on the other hand, is to the Arab countries, with this expanding market accounting for over 40% of the total. The agricultural and manufacturing sectors provide the bulk of commodities exported.

Capital accumulation, (gross investment) was near =200 million in 1979 (34% of GDP), of which nearly 40% involved outlays in the provision of housing. The construction industry's share of total gross investment was approximately 70%, with transport, storage and communications accounting for over one fifth. Such an emphasis is explained by the severe housing shortage after 1974, when one third of the Greek population became refugees, and by the disruption to prevailing patterns of communication following the partition of the island. It is expected that, given the improvements in housing conditions that have been achieved, the trend will be towards a higher proportion of capital formation in productive industry.

Bank lending totalled over =350 millions, with a third going to finance foreign and domestic trade. Manufacturing absorbed 26% of borrowed funds, with the construction industry being the next most important borrower receiving 13% of the total. The economically active population numbered 205 thousand for whom agriculture provided the largest source of employment with 22% of the labour force, followed by manufacturing (18%). Unemployment fell from 16% in 1975 to under 2% in 1979, although the 1980 figures indicated a slight increase, and employment may become more of a problem as the construction boom subsides. Detailed information of the structural composition of the Cyrpiot economy can be found in Table A2.

Of particular interest to this study is the role which agriculture plays in the Cypriot economy. Agriculture has traditionally been the island's main income earner, both domestically and in terms of foreign exchange. Since Independence in 1960, however, the economic base has diversified considerably, as has the range of commodities exported. Nevertheless the sector remains of critical importance to the economy both as an employer and source of export earnings.

The characteristics of the rural economy can be categorised into four 12 main types, based on agro-economic features. The topography, water availability and range of product varies accordingly.

The slopes of the Troodos mountains dominate much of central Cyprus, and here deciduous fruit or wine grape production provides a difficult living for farmers whose lives are further complicated by relatively poor communications. Tourism and mining provide additional sources of employment, and many also travel to urban centres to supplement their earnings. It is within this zone that the Pitsilia Rural Development Scheme has been introduced, - an attempt to improve the economic and social variability of the Pitsilia area.

To the south and west of the mountain zone lies the predominantly vine growing region. In this main rainfed area the grapes are generally grown under contract to the Keo factory, based in Lim:assol. The introduction of new and improved varieties has been encouraged, in order to raise the quality of wine and thereby to sustain and increase the earnings from wine exports. The dry-land areas, mainly to the south and east of Nicosia, are characterised by cereal production interspersed with olive and carob trees. Where irrigation is possible, however, legume and vegetable production are more common. Salinity has become something of a problem in many of these irrigated areas in recent years. It is in this zone that most of the livestock production takes place.

The coastal areas are amongst the most productive in Cyprus, aided by more plentiful supplies of irrigation water. The main crops grown include potatoes in the eastern part of the island and citrus fruits and table grapes elswhere. Bananas and, increasingly tobacco, are also grown on the western coast.

With such a sparse and seasonal rainfall the availability of irrigation water is critical in determining both the pattern and the volume of production. At present 13.4% of agricultural land is irrigated, although irrigated crops comprise 614-% of total output.13 Plans are underway to increase the proportion of area irrigated, for example through the Southern Conveyor Project, but given the continuing problem of salinity in some areas, the availability of irrigation facilities is likely to remain a constraint to the agricultural potential of the island.

Although agriculture may play a declining role in terms of the economy as a whole, in absolute terms it continues to grow, with output increasing by over 14% in money terms in 1979. As might be expected in a fast growing economy, however, the rate of growth of other sectors has continued to out- pace agriculture, such that its share in GDP in 1979 declined to under 12%. This compares with nearly 17% in 1975. At the same time, these figures under- estimate the real importance of agriculture since the proportion of GDP originating in the agricultural sector has remained steady at around 25%

Agriculture remains a principal foreign exchange earner of the economy, being the source of over a quarter of total exports. This figure has declined from a third in 1975 even though agricultural exports have been increasing. The foremost commodity exported is the potato, although citrus exports have been expanding considerably since the loss of the main citrus growing area of Morphou to the Turkish army in 1974. The sector is also the main national employer, and the proportion of the economically active population employed in agriculture has remained fairly constant at approximately 22% since the invasion. Such figures can be misleading, however, because of the large number of farmers who have off- farm occupations. Even though the industry is likely to continue to be of importance, it seems probably that its role as principal employer will diminish, a process speeded by schemes furthering the rationalisation of 14 landholding and increasing mechanisation.

A third of Government development expenditure was allocated to agriculture in 1979, when particular emphasis was placed on the further development and utilisation of irrigation facilities. Thus the importance of the sector to the national economy both currently and in the foreseeable future is well recognised.

Some six percent of bank lending was for agricultural purposes in 1979, although the proportion borrowed by the rural sector would have been considerably higher, since it is probable that the majority of loans taken by farmers are for non-agricultural investments. Credit is mostly provided through village co-operatives, who are funded by the Co-operative Bank and indirectly in part through national and international private banks.

The co-operative movement also plays a very active role in physical aspects of distribution, being the principal source of most farm inputs. The marketing of many farm products takes place through statutory commissions and marketing boards, such organisations exist for grain, potatoes, grapes, 16 milk, olives and citrus. Notable exceptions in this respect are vegetable and deciduous fruit crops, both of which, of course, present greater problems of storage.

A government subsidised insurance scheme is also operative, providing, on a compulsory basis, cover against weather and disease borne production losses in vine, cereal, potato and deciduous fruit production. Certain inputs are also subsidies from Government funds, in particular irrigation water and feed grains. Further assistance also comes in the form of price 17 support schemes for cereal and wine grape productions. Agricultural incomes have increased in recent years, although not as fast as in other sectors of the economy, and the earnings differential has been widening. This fact itself lies at the core of the interest underlying this study as does the significance of the role that agriculture will continue to play within the Cypriot economy, and the recognition of this reflected in Government policies. The relevant data pertaining to the Industry is presented in Table A3. - 10-

1.3 The issue in general

It is appropriate to begin any discussion of part-time farming with consideration of the range of phenomena the term can be used to describe.

18 Commentators differ in the criteria they use in definition, although invariably the standards employed is measurement concern characteristics of the farm household rather than the farmholding. Which characteristics are considered germaine, however, will depend largely on the underlying purposes of classification. For example if an investigation intends to discover the extent of rural surplus labour and the potential labour transfer to other sectors, some definitional criterion related to time spent in agricultural activity by the household head would be appropriate. On the other hand if the preponderant interest is with the ability of agriculture to sustain an acceptable level of living for the existing number of households engaged in such activity, then a more suitable criterion is one related to the proportion of income earned by the household from the farm holding.

Thus the adopted method of classification is likely to be V based on one or other (or some combination) of two alternative measures:-

(a) The number of hours worked in agriculture and/or outside. (b) The relative income earned from agriculture as opposed to elsewhere. The precise manner in which any definition is arrived at, and What 19 cut-off points are used can be found elsewhere. It is likely, however, that the ultimate choice will be influenced by the known characteristics of any context and by the particular set of problems under investigation.

Irrespective of the basis upon which it is measured, (and it is possible, in any case, that time or income based definitions will lead to similar estimates of the proportion of the farming/rural population classified as part-time farmers), the interesting questions related to part-time farming concern the underlying cause, and implications, of its existence.

Any process of economic change, if that process involves industrialisation in some form, or a broadening of the range of economic activity, will have implications for the size and performance of the agricultural sector. Traditionally this sector was seen as a source not only of consumption goods and raw materials for newly developing industries, but also as supplier of the requisite labour force. That this approach has been rendered outmoded in many contexts of high population growth accompanied by proportionately large rural-urban population movements, does not detract from its underlying relevance, only from its coNunctural appropriateness.

Such economic developments, therefore, invoke the possibility of a widening of work opportunities, frequently opportunities involving greater remuneration than agricultural occupations.

Apart from being the most common source of both goods and labour necessary to industrialisation, the agricultural sector is often the provider of investment funds. The methods of extraction of such an agricultural 'surplus' are several, but however such a sectoral transfer of funds is accomplished, one likely result, at least in the initial stages of such developments, is to squeeze the incomes of agricultural producers. In the longer term, with the possibility of feedback of industrial inputs into the farm sector, the pressure for structural change within the sector intensifies.

These two tendencies, one creating downward pressure on farm incomes, the other providing greater rewards to labour outside the sector, set in play a process of rural-urban migration.

In the short-run at least, however, for a wide spectrum of cultural and social, as well as economic reasons, occupational mobility may be greater than residential mobility, so that the new recruit to the industrial labour force may well retain cultural and economic ties with the farm sector. The typical pattern here is illustrated by the part-time farmer who, whilst involved full-time in occupations off the farm, still maintains an agricultural holding through the application of both his own "spare-time" labour and the labour of other members of his household.

In the long-term 'other things being equal', contact with new and emerging cultural and social forms of activity may break the umbilical cord tying the part-time farmer to the villages, and the migration becomes - 12 - permanent and complete. "Other things" are seldom equal, however, and the likelihood of such a mechanical sequence occurring will depend on a number of factors:-

(a) The ability of the non-farm sectors to continue to provide employment. (b) The ability of urban centres of employment to provide both residential accommodation and civic amenities to the farm household at an acceptable cost. i.e. the pace and pattern of industrialisation. (c) The rate of economic growth and the elasticities of demand for agricultural products. (d) The extent of structural and technological change within agriculture. i.e. the maintenance of agricultural/non agricultural income differentials. That all these factors are, to some extent, interrelated is apparent, but of equal relevance is the point that all are subject to Government policy and intervention.

Before developing the theme of policy options and their implications it is useful to briefly summarise the perspective of the above discussion. There are two main strands:- First that the emergence of part-time farming coincides with the dislocation of the existing structure of an economy concomitant with industrialisation. Second that this phenomenon (of part- time farming) is ultimately likely to be a transitional one, a reflection of the need (in economic terms) for a restructuring of the farm sector, a restructuring made both desirable and possible by the intrusion of industrial inputs into farm production.

To some degree, at least, governments have the ability to influence the course of events, and to determine within limits the importance and persistence of part-time farming. This is not to suggest that such decisions rest entirely with governments, or that economic and demographic junctures will not themselves be profoundly influential in determining the periodisation of change, but only that by focusing on the policy alternatives, can one emphasis possible advantages of sustaining the part-time sector beyond the level which "market forces" might dictate. In this context the following points are relevant:- 3

1. Beyond a certain point the migration of large numbers of farm households to urban centres of employment either in search of, or in response to urban based occupations, renders the per-capita cost of social welfare and amenity provision in rural areas untenable. In addition such costs in urban areas are increased through overcrowding.

2: Economic growth rarely follows a smooth trend. The existence of a pool of labour not wholly dependant on either industry or agriculture can help to absorb 'surplus' labour during an economic recession thus reducing levels of unemployment. Once migration has occurred and the severance from the farm is complete the possibility of agriculture providing a safety net for part of the industrial labour force becomes obviated.

3. The existence of a significantly large proportion of par - time farming households may foster a faster rate of accumulation and therefore economic growth in the industrial sector. This can occur for the following reasons:- first the partial provision of household income from agriculture may lower the supply price of labour to industry. Second the partial dependence on off-farm income may lower the 20 supply price of wage goods to industry. In addition the influence of a significant proportion of part-time farmers may arguably make for a more quiescent and less unionised industrial labour force, since the social and ideological perspectives of the farmers are likely to be rural and fragmentary rather than urban and 21 homogenous.

4. There will often be a gamut of social and cultural reasons why governments might wish to maintain the variability of village life and rural traditions, and thus a rural population of significant proportions.

Of course the case may be that a contraction of the part-time sector is considered desirable. Such a view may be precipitated by the following circumstances: 1. Where part-time farming itself is considered productively inferior to full-time farming. For example where the maintenance of a large number of small holdings inhibits the development of large-scale agriculture and the opportunity of utilising more technologically efficient methods.

2. Where it provides a constraint on the growth of the industrial labour force in the presence of labour scarcity.

3. Other, not necessarily economic reasons, such as the desire to concentrate the population geographically.

In the context of policy design improvement, therefore, researchers may be motivated either by welfare concern, where part-time farmers constitute a relatively under-privileged section of the community, or by a desire to examine the productivity aspects of part-time farming. In some contexts both these factors will simultaneously be of interest.

In any event the Government will have a range of policy instruments at its disposal through which to fulfil its objectives, ranging from comprehensive schemes such as integrated area development projects, which improve the viability of rural communities in general, to more selective instruments such as credit provision, tax imposition and exemption, pricing policies and intervention in marketing organisation. Such policies can be aimed directly at part-time farmers or affect them only indirectly as part of general agricultural policy.

The underlying feature of part-time farming, it has been argued above, is that it is brought about by farmers attempting to respond to normal market pressures of a growing economy in particular development contexts.

Completeness requires, however, that mention be made of a further category of part-time farmers, i.e. those who from the secure basis of. employment/self employment in sectors outside agriculture, seek to enjoy the benefits of living in a rural environment. The part-time farm holding 22 merely becomes a vehicle for this purpose, rather than a crucial determinant of household income. Thus this category usually constitute what are known as hobby farmers, and their decision making, being determined - 15 -

more by subjective factors than objective economic criteria, is a less amenable area to prediction. In any case, the likelihood that these farmers constitute a significant proportion of a nation's farmers, or make an important contribution to agricultural production, is generally remote, although the possibility that many landowners will retain land solely because it is an appreciating asset when otherwise committed outside the sector, can make the distinction between those two categories less clearcut. In fact the lack of land mobility in many countries in response to such an economic rationale, as well as for cultural and social reasons can be problematic in so far as it inhibits a testructuring of the sector. In these contexts part-time farming is a symptom of such immobility.

Concentrating on farmers in the first category, one of three end results is likely for such households:-

(a) The abandonment of farming altogether. (b) Some stabilisation of the earnings capacity of the household. i.e. Part-time farming becomes a permanent feature. (c) A return to full-time farming. For many, part-time farming may be an interim adjustment before solution (a) occurs, for others market circumstances, and/or the use of outside earnings to generate on-farm investment, may make one of the other solutions possible. For a significant proportion to be able, in the long run, to choose solution (b) may necessitate government policies which directly or indirectly facilitate such an event.

The above preamble suggests, in fact, that the issue of part-time farming is a many sided one about which it is difficult to make general statements. Nevertheless it is one which is important enough in many economies to merit investigation and clarification. PART TWO

THE SURVEY : RESULTS and ANALYSIS

2.1 Sampling and data collection

Following discussions between the author and members of the Agricultural Economics Section, M.A.N.R., The Agricultural Research Institute, the Department of Statistics and Research, Ministry of Finance, the Southern Conveyor Project and the Land Consolidation Authority, it was decided that the villages to be visited were to be chosen systematically rather than at random, in order that the ultimate sample should not only be as comprehensive as possible in its coverage of Cypriot agricultural conditions, but also reflect the importance of communications to part-time farmer activity.

The agricultural area of Cyprus can, for the purposes of analysis, be usefully divided into four agro-economic zones, which for convenience are 23 referred to as vine, mountain, dry-land and coastal zones. (see maps in Appendix). These zones can be further divided into twenty-four agro- economic regions, these classifications, both zonal and regional, being based upon prevailing patterns and conditions of production.

In selecting the villages each zone was sub-divided into two, the divisions based upon the relative similarity of agro-economic regions. From each of these eight sub-zones two villages were selected, one close to an 24 urban location or other centre of off-farm employment, and one relatively far. It was not possible to adopt rigid distance criteria in this instance, since physical distance becomes less meaningful when widely varying road conditions make mileage no indicator of travelling time. A measure of common sense was, therefore, supplemented instead. Each village was chosen from a different agro-economic region, so that the coverage would be as broad as possible.

Sixteen villages were selected by this process. It was felt that time might allow twenty-one villages to be visited, so a further five were chosen as reserves. These would only be visited should the survey proceed without hitch in the original sixteen. The reserves were selected on the basis of strengthening the representation of areas in the sample, which it was felt, required more weight if it was to reflect as broadly as possible the characteristics of Cypriot part-time agriculture. The procedures followed are illustrated through perusal of Tables A5 and A6 and associated maps. Table A5 contains a list of agro-economic regions subdivided into zones and sub-zones. Table A6 contains a full list of selected villages, together with their agro-economic and locational characteristics and the number of farmers interviewed in each.

Ideally a sample of both full and part-time farmers would have been desirable for comparative purposes, but owing to the preliminary nature of the survey and the pressure of time - only four weeks could be allowed for interviewing - it was decided to sample only part-time farmers.

Given the importance attached to soliciting information on non-farm activities, it was also decided that the sample frame should include only ' farmers with off-farm occupations. This effectively became a working definition of part-time farmers.

In this context, a sensible minimum sample size, it was agreed, would be sixty farmers. Thus, if four farmers were interviewed from each village, the minimum number would be sixty-four and the maximum eighty-four, depending on how many of the reserve villages were visited.

Four farmers, it was felt, would also be a realistic number to interview in any day, allowing time for travel and search. We were also advised that more than one visit per village would be prejudicial to respondent co- operation, since suspicion and mistrust take time to grow, but inevitably do so.

The sample frame used was that of the 1977 Agricultural Census, and a random sample of part-time farmers was taken. Eight names were taken per village.

Eight instead of four names were taken in order to allow for wastage', i.e. the sample frame was already three years old and some farmers might have left either part-time farming or the village or be otherwise inaccessible. Given that no return visits were catered for, sufficiently flexibility -18

had to exist in order that the minimum number of interviews might be completed. In the event, this proved a wise precaution, since often the four farmers interviewed proved to be the only possibilities remaining from the original eight. In fact, in one village - Palechori, only three farmers could be found.

A further justification for this flexibility was that it created the opportunity to increase the size of the sample in the larger villages, thus giving them more weight in the total. In two such villages - Tseri and Kato Dheftera, five interviews took place.

In cases where more than the requisite four could be found, it was left to the accompanying extension officer to select those interviewed on the basis of likelihood of co-operation. It was felt that any bias result- ing would be small and a worthwhile price to pay for the greater reliability of the information gathered.

The interviewing was conducted by Mr. Zannetis of the Agricultural Economics Section, M.A.N.R., and the author, with the co-operation and assistance of the appropriate extension officer. The interviews were conducted in Greek with Mr. Zannetis translating the information simultaneously. The basis of the survey was a questionnaire designed in consul- tation with representatives of the bodies listed above.

The co-operation, advice and assistance from the Agricultural Economics Section, M.A.N.R., from the Cypriot agricultural extension service and, of course, from the farmers themselves was such as to enable visits to all twenty-one villages and eighty-five interviews to be successfully carried out. Thus the survey was completed according to schedule on September 26th, 1980.

In order to further analyse and to bring out, where possible, the salient features of the results, the information has been presented in terms of ten data groups.

Apart from evidence relating to the whole sample, the material is presented separately for those villages selected on the basis of being near to an employment centre (group N) and those which are more remote -19 -

(group R). In addition, the data has been categorised according to zone (groups M, V, D and C). Three further data groups have been added in the hope of further clarifying any zonal differences. Ora and Marathounda in some respects reflect more the characteristics of mountain than dry-land villages, particularly in forms of observable poverty and lifestyle. These.

I have been included with group M villages and excluded from group D to create groups M* and D*. Group C includes the village of Kouklia which manifested peculiar and temporary features to the extent that it was in the midst of a land consilidation programme, leading to some of the respondents having temporarily reduced their farming activity pending allocation of newly con- solidated land. Kouklia has, therefore, been left out of account in forming group C.

The list of data groups and their characteristics can be found in Table A7. - 20 -

2.2 Age, Education and Migration.

Rural-urban migration is an almost inevitable feature of an industrialising economy, particularly where rationalisation of methods of farm production releases labour for absorption elsewhere. The decision to move can be influenced by many factors, both "push" and "pull", but it is mainly related to relative levels of income in the agricultural and non- agricultural sectors, and the distribution of income within these sectors.

As noted in 1.3 high levels of industrialisation can also bring about population movements in the opposite direction, as higher income groups seek to escape the external diseconomies of urban location.

In the context of a relatively declining farm sector, part-time farming may provide an alternative to migration in the residential sense, and thus stabilise or reduce rural-urban movements of population as dependence on farm income is reduced.

The provision and encouragement of opportunities for achieving off- farm incomes, therefore, may stem the tide which often threatens to empty the countryside of its population and thus increase the cost per capita of what amenity provision remains, whilst overburdening the resources of urban location.

Nevertheless, the extent to which part-time farming will provide a real alternative to migration will depend in part upon the subjective preferences of the individuals concerned, and these will be influenced, in turn, by age and level of education.

It is possible that the age structure of part-time farmers might provide some indication of possible reasons for off-farm working and its likely persistence, particularly where the average age differs between groups or between past and full-time farmers. For example if one assumes that younger farmers are more mobile, then one might expect the mean age of part-time farmers to be significantly lower than that of their full- time counterparts. - 21 -

A further possible explanation of such a difference in age structure might be the size and age group of the family. Given land in short supply and limited opportunities of expanding the intensive margin of cultivation, farmers with a young and large family (high consumer/worker ratio) may be forced into off-farm activites in order to obtain a satisfactory livelihood. As children grow and leave (the consumer/worker ratio falls), then the necessity for supplementary income falls and the household reverts to a full-time farming family.

It may be, alternatively, that part-time farmers are young, aspiring full-time farmers attempting to use off-farm income to deepen their on- farm resource endowment.

Thus three possible reasons can be postulated explaining possible correlations between age and the degree of non-farm activity. These concern:- 1. The job mobility of farmers 2. Size and age of families 3. Initial resource endowment These explanations of course might well be mutually reinforcing.

It is more difficult to suggest reasons why part-time farmers might be significantly older than other farmers. One possible explanation, howeveri would be where heavy outmigration from rural areas occurs. In this context one could expect a greater propensity to migrate amongst existing part-time farmers, and also that the young and more educated will be more likely to migrate than the old and less literate for both economic and social reasons.

Whether or not this is the case and the extent to which the part-time population was also decreasing either relatively or absolutely would in addition depend on the ,extent to which part-time farming provided a feasible alternative to migration for those full-time farmers unable to maintain their status and income.

This outcome is therefore dependent on three propositions:- 1. That part-time farmers have a greater propensity to migrate than full-time farmers. -22-

2. That age is negatively correlated both with propensity to migrate and years in education. 3. Part-time farmers are migrating at a faster rate than full-time farmers are taking up off-farming activity. The economic and social factors relating edcuation to migration gather force in the context of structural economic change. Education provides a passport to new and growing industries with new skills and higher incomes. The young possess greater mobility to the extent that family commitment and therefore economic cost of movement will be lower. Also being less deeply embedded in the cultural and social mores of rural society they are less subjectively dependent on that society for the maintenance of their wellbeing.

Any positive relationship between level of education and migration will often be most clearly seen when comparing attitudes and actions of successive generations, since variation in educational achievement tends to be most marked between generations. One would expect, therefore, a higher propensity to migrate amongst the children of present holders, relative to their parents with both age and education levels combining to reduce future farming popula- tions.

Survey information with regard to age is listed in Table A8. The mean age for the total sample is 46.4 years which compares closely with an average 25 for all farmers of 49.1 years. The variation between subgroups is also very small, although farmers from mountain and dry-land zones are slightly older. One can say, nevertheless, that age would not appear to be a factor related directly to the incidence of part-time farming.

Table 1. Age structure of art-time farmers.

Total R M V D C M* D* Sample Mean age of holders 46.4 47.0 45.8 48.1 43.8 48.6 44. 49.9 45.8 43.2 (years)

Information regarding the years spent in education both by farmers and their children was solicited. The proportion of children attending both high school and some form of further educational training, such as university or technical college was calculated. The calculations were made up on the following basis:- Every year of age over twelve years and up to eighteen -23

for any child contributes an equal number to total eligible years. The total of these spent in high school is then expressed as a proportion. All children over eighteen are considered eligible for further education and the proportion taking this up is calculated. Males currently in the army are excluded from the number eligible.

Table 2 Education of yart-time farmers and their families

Total sample NIRMVDCM* D* C*

Education of holders (years) 6.6 6.3 6.8 5.8 6.4 6.6 7.3 5.5 7.5 7.4

% children with high school education 83.8 88.5 78.6 81.5 85.3 85.4 80.9 78.4 95.2 80.1

% children with further education 32.9 31.1 31.2 12.5 15.7 52.5 36.1 9.7 84.7 40.0

The results are tabulated in Table 2. They indicate that very few farmers received more than primary education, although the great majority of their children attend high school and a substantial proportion continue for further training. The child born to parents in the mountain regions is, like the father, likely to receive less education on average relative to those born elsewhere, whilst dry-land farmers appear to attach a very high degree of importance to their children's education. Group D*, in fact, comprises the village of Tseri, Kato Dheftera, Orounda and Athienou. Of these the first two are close to Nicosia, whilst the latter is one of the largest villages of Cyprus, suggesting perhaps, that proximate availability of education opportunity has some influence.

To estimate the propensity to migrate all children, either married and/or in employment were considered eligible, the proportion considered to have migrated being those having left the village. Any movement to a nearby village was not considered as migration, since the possibility of active involvement with the farm still remained. Thus migration would almost always imply moving to the town or abroad. 24

Table 3 Migration of children of part-time farmers and the migration propensity of farmers.

Total sample 62.5 62.5 0.0 % male children migrating 56.4 59.3 53.5 50.0 100.0 75.1 11.2 % total children migrating 54.9 48.6 49.1 43.3 56.2 74.0 22.9 53.5 77.5 16.7 % part—time farmers willing 21.1 18.4 27.7 52.6 43.7 7.7 4.2 44.4 0.0 0.0 to migrate

As can be seen from Table 3, children of farmers in the coastal zone are far less disposed towards leaving than children from elsewhere, as might be expected since the agricultural potential of such areas is greater. The high rate of male migration from the vine zone is interesting, although generally the proportion of children moving away is high, probably demonstra- ting a lack of optimism concerning the future for agricultural activity, especially from the limited resource base of those farmers sampled. _ 25

2.3 Occupational structure

The very existence of part-time farming can imply a relative decline of the agricultural sector, at least in so far as the phenomenon is due to farmers seeking supplementary sources of income. The structure of off- farm occupations, therefore, provides an indication of the likely motivation and persistence of these activities.

Where the off-farm activity involves a significant level of skill, training or education, one might assume that it also involves the farmer in a higher degree of off-farm commitment than activities requiring no particular knowledge or aptitude.

The future development of industries providing farmers with additional income also has a bearing on the future of part-time farming, any cyclical downturn increasing the likelihood of either of two alternatives - full- time farming or migration. If the farm is incapable of providing an acceptable family income, even allowing for any reduction in aspirations, then the result may be a search for full-time employment elsewhere - a search which may be unrequited leading possibly to an increase in urban unemployment. Thus the continued availability of non-agricultural employment for farmers will be an essential underpinning of policies designed to maintain a part-time farming sector as a barrier against further rural- urban population movements. Such security will be of interest whether the farmers are wage earning or self-employed.

The location of off-farm activities together with the distance travelled reveal something of the likely persistence of part-time farming and ultimately of the viability of rural communities. One can argue that the necessity of travelling long distances, combined with continually being confronted by urban lifestyle and "culture" will most probably end in migration, in contrast to the context where alternative employment opportunities are available locally.

The occupational pattern is described by Table A9. Each column sums to more than 100% because some farmers have more than one off-farm occupation and therefore appear under more than one heading. Pertinent information relating to the total sample is provided below in Table 4. _26

Table 4 Occupational structure of part-time farmers

EMployed categories Self-employed categories

Total 67.1 Total 43.5 Construction 15.3 Transport 12.9 Government Retailing 11.8 Central & Local 15.3 collar) (blue Construction 7.1 Public Servant/Professional 14.1

Total proportion with more than 10.6 one off-farm occupation

Although approximately 10% of farmers fall into the category of having more than one off-farm activity, the proportion is not equally spread amongst the regions, with those far from any employment centre, (group R) tending to possess a variety of sources of income. Those in the vine zone clearly have least inclination towards multiple employment, whilst those in the dry-land regions possess most. The information suggests that this multi- plicity of income sources is due more to need rather than the existence of employment opportunities.

As might be expected the dependence on employed rather than self- employed income is greatest in villages closest to centres of employment. Farmers from all regions are in fact very dependent on employment opportunities except those in the coastal areas where self-employment provides the most common form of off-farm activity.

The major sources of employment for the sample as a whole are the construction industry and public authorities, whilst transport and retailing provide the main self-employed forms of activity. The same pattern is described for the more remote villages (group R), although group N farmers find most employment in what are usually more remunerative occupations such as engineering and professional activities.

In the mountain zone, perhaps unsurprisingly, transport provides the most frequent source of off-farm income, in both employed and self-employed categories, with manual work in primary industries (mainly forestry) providing a relatively high measure of opportunity. - 27 -

The chief characteristic of the vine zone is the overwhelming importance of the construction industry, perhaps because many of these villages lie within easy access of the major areas of tourist industry expansion, (Paphos and Limassol), and because of the above-average extent of re- settlement in this zone. These concentrations might also contribute to the relatively low numbers of self-employed in the zone.

A high proportion of public servants appear in dry-land areas, particularly within group D*. Three of the four villages in this group are of above average size and two of them are close to Nicosia, which could provide part of the explanation of this employment characteristic. Also manufacturing features more prominently than usual in these villages.

In coastal areas Central and Local Government appears as an important employer, although the high degree of self-employment noted previously, is perhaps the most marked feature of this zone. In this case the main industrial influences are transport and construction.

The pattern of off-farm work is varied making it difficult to draw any general conclusions. To the extent that this is appropriate however, one can say that the dependence on employed rather than self-employed activity is particularly noticeable, with the construction industry being the major provider of employment.

Table 5 demonstrates that approximately half the farmers found their off-farm activity in an urban locality, the average distance travelled being ten miles. Three-quarters of the respondents worked full-time in their non-agricultural activities, giving an average proportion of total working time spent in non-farm occupations of 86.6%. Table 5 Einployment characteristics of farmers

Proportion in urban location (I%) 49.4 Proportion of time spent in off—farm occupation 86.6 Mean distance travelled (miles) 10.5 Proportion with seasonality Proportion full—time in off—farm 75.3 pattern 10.6 occupation (%) Proportion of wives with off—farm occupation 10.6 Regional and more detailed information is given in Table A.10. As might be expected farmers from the more remote villages were less likely to find employment in towns, but perhaps the surprising feature of this aspect is the large percentage of those in coastal regions finding work in rural areas. A fact echoed by the relatively short distances travelled - indicating that greater off-farm opportunities exist locally in this zone. Equally striking is the fact that farmers from the vine zone have a high propensity to work in the town and to travel long distances to work. The indication here is of a depressed local economy.

The proportion working full-time in their non-farm occupations might reveal something of the extent to which non-farm work is merely a supplement to agricultural income or whether it figures as the major activity. Given that the great majority, both in the total sample and throughout the regions are occupied full-time in off-farm work, and that only a very small proportion of time is devoted to agriculture, one might interpret the information as indicating that farming, in general, features very much as a minor activity for part-time farmers, the pattern of work fitting around the requirements of the outside occupation(s).

This conclusion is reinforced by data concerning the proportion of farmers whose non-farm activities show a seasonal pattern. The implication here being that, given the seasonal nature of much agricultural production, any seasonality in non-agricultural work is likely to a great extent to be a reflection of the prior requirements of farming. As can be seen from Table A.10 whilst those in remote areas show a stronger influence of seasonality, presumably coinciding with their higher propensity to be self-employed, in general this is not a significant feature except in the coastal zone where the importance of both self-employment and agricultural activity appears to be more pronounced.

The proportion of wives having occupations outside the household and agriculture may to some extent indicate the precariousness of farm income, although it is likely that there are many other factors intervening also. Nevertheless the area where this appears most frequently is the mountain zone, particularly if one takes group M* as most typically representing mountain villages when relative income is under examination. The relevance of this factor is reinforced by the evidence from the coastal -29 -

zone which records, in association with a greater proportion of farmers' time spent in agriculture, relatively fewer wives obliged to supplement the household income in this manner.

The quantity of time spent on the farm by various members of the household is of interest for two reasons. Firstly the absolute quantity will be, to some extent at least, a reflection of the subjective (if not objective) importance attached to agriculture as a provider of income. Secondly, the relative quantities provided by the particular household members will reflect the degree to which farming is becoming merely a subsidiary occupation carried on by family members other than the household head. Some care is needed in interpreting these results, however, since where the absolute quantity of time spent on the farm is small, one woUld expect the household head to shoulder the main burden. This pattern is likely to be reinforced through sociological pressures as the acceptability of farm work participation by wives becomes reduced through identification with different cultural patterns. Thus a high relative quantity registered for the part-time farmers themselves may be a reflection of either, at one extreme, close identification with agriculture, or, at the other, a relationship which has already been allbut severed.

The information presented in Table 6 and Table A.11 describes the farm labour profile of the family,,,

Table 6 Household farm labour4rofile

Mean weeks/annum on farm Proportion of total weeks on farm (%) Total H.H. Farmer Farmer's Total H.H. Farmer Farmer's Other H.H. . wife minus wife members farmer

26.6 9.7 13.5 16.9 36.4 50.8 12.8

H.H. = household

The data related to family members other than the husband or wife has been estimated as follows: Activity by children under twelve years old has been discounted. The contribution of those between twelve and sixteen years has been included but reduced to a value of seventy-five percent of the original figure. Thus, the total quantity of time refers to a notion of standard adult man/days. Female labour has been considered as equivalent to male labour, since for the great majority of tasks this would certainly be the case. 30

The information can be interpreted as referring to total permanent labour since no permanent labour was hired, although the employment of casual labour, particularly for harvesting, was common.

For the total sample an input of twenty-seven standard weeks per family is recorded, of which the farmer contributes ten weeks and other household members seventeen. Farmers' wives are the most active partici- pants in part-time agriculture, providing fractionally over half of the labour, with the farmers themselves contributing a little over a third.

As might be expected, following the information provided in Table A9 and Table 7 below those household living closest to locations providing easy access to non-farm employment devote less time to agriculture than those from the more remote villages, although in the latter it is the wives rather than the husbands who are the major source of farm labour.

Table 7 Farmer's contribution to on farm labour supply

Total M V D C M* D* C* sample

Mean weeks/annum on 26.6 22,7 30.3 25.1 39.2 18.3 29.0 28.7 9.9 31.6 farm (per household)

Proportion of stove by 36.4 45.5 42.1 36.4 39.4 50.7 45.1 33.3 63.3 40.9 farmer (%)

If one takes group D* as being most typical of dry-land village patterns in this context, one can see that although the household labour input is very low, the proportion of this undertaken by the farmer is very high, perhaps reflecting a lack of identification with agriculture on the lines outlined above. In contrast in the coastal zones a high labour input coincides with a main contribution by the farmer.

In the mountain zone, where total input is intermediate and the vine zone where it is relatively high, the farmers' wives shoulder the main burden of the farmwork, reflecting, at least partially one suspects, a context where agriculture still commands much importance and interest, but where the household head is forced to devote the major part of his time to providing income from other sources, leaving the remaining members of the family to ensure the continued operation of the farm. - 31 -

2.4 Land tenure and Land use

It is possible that population growth and problems of labour absorption in non-agricultural sectors, together with a lack of off-farm mobility arising from cultural ties to the land, will lead to increasing partition of holdings over time, rendering individual units less and less able to provide adequate income. This will be compounded by a relative decline in the markets for some agricultural commodities concomitant with industrialisation, unless market space grows simultaneously.

The size of operational holding is therefore of critical importance in taking stock of the genesis of part-time farming and its future directions. Thus not only land owned, but also area rented as well as the form, and level, of rent concerned will have considerable bearing on the possibilities of maintaining a viable farm unit, and in turn on the incidence of part-time farming.

Of course one is concerned here with cultivable land i.e. land which is profitable to cultivate. The distinction between uncultivated and uncultivable land becomes blurred as market and/or technological conditions of production change, and the extensive margin of cultivation moves. Examples of such changes in the Cypriot case are the transport of soil to watered areas in Kokkinokhoria in response to salinity problems, the result of such enterprise increasing the cultivable area, and the lack of viability of unterraced mountain land in the context of increasing costs of production.

A further factor affecting the viability of holdings is the degree of fragmentation. Where land is heavily fragmented the costs of transport, diseconomies of small unit size and consequent disincentives to investment reduce the profitability of farming and the incomes to be derived from it. Of course fragmentation is not undesirable per se, in part it can occur through sound principles of crop husbandry, but it has long been recognised as an intractable problem of Cypriot agriculture.

In many agricultures straightforward comparisons of operated area are misleading without account being taken of the availability of irrigation water. In Cyprus, for example, an irrigated area has many times the earning capacity of an otherwise identical unirrigated area. This impact - 32 -

will not only be manifest in forms of improved physical yield, but also creates the possibility of growing higher value crops.

Apart from such general features of land operation and use, the specific cropping pattern possible in any context, (geographic and economic), will bear upon the incidence of part-time farming. The necessity may occur to mould farm labour demands around the demands of the off-farm activity, depending on the relative importance of the two sources of income. This latter demand may be seasonal, leading to possible clashes with peak farm-labour requirements for certain crops. On the other hand it may be more stable, in which case farmers may attempt to minimise farm labour demand overall, both through crop selection and simplification of the cropping sequence.

The ability to manipulate the cropping pattern, and the availability of casual labour may therefore be imperative to the feasibility of part- time farming.

The main facets of land tenure for the sample farms are described in Table A.12, with data pertaining to all farmers, both part and full-time, from the selected villages, presented in Table A.13, the information contained in this table is calculated from the 1977 Agricultural Census, and presented for the purpose of comparison. The most relevant features of both are described below in Table 8.

Table 8 Land Tenure : Part-time and total Farmers

Total V D C M* D* C* sample

Owned area Sample 29.2 38.3 30.0 21.4 27.2 29.4 31.5 30.7 25.6 33.3 (donums) Census 32.7 23.8 38.4 20.9 31.4 31.5 44.5 26.4 27.1 23.2

%age renting in Sample 14.1 10.5 17.0 10.5 18.7 15.4 12.5 14.8 11.1 15.0 Census 24.8 15.8 31.5 4.1 27.1 31.3 34.7 14.0 27.5 24.5

Mean area (donums) Sample 2.4 2.1 3.4 -0.7 3.6 4.0 1.3 1.9 3.7 1.6 rented in Census 5.3 2.8 7.2 1.1 4.7 8.2 6.3 3.6 7.4 2.5

Although there are substantial variations between farms as indicated by the standard deviations in Table A.12 the average size does not vary to any great extent between groups, most figures being close to that for -33 - the total sample, although the mean size of farm is smaller in the mountain zone. This is also the case for all farms in the area, and generally the land ownership structure shows a similar pattern for both part and full-time farmers, although the census figures show rather more variation between groups. The high figure for group C is due to the extensive land consolidation which has taken place in Kouklia, providing an atypical influence.

The similarity between the two sets of figures is perhaps surprising since one might have expected the presence of full-time farmers in the census data to increase the average size of holding. This is partially compensated by the greater propensity to lease land exhibited by full- time farmers. Table 8 demonstrates that part-time farmers are less likely to rent land, and for those that do the average area leased is significantly smaller. Again, the census data showthe influence of Kouklia in groups R and C, the other noticeable feature being the reduced import.e. ance of leasing by farmers in the mountain zone.

Since the land area relevant to the study is extremely variable in soil type, fertility and availability of water, the size of operated holding and area of irrigation are more revealing variables than the quantity of land owned.

The operated area refers to land rented and owned minus any area uncultivable or left uncultivated for an indefinite period. It will include, therefore, any land in temporary fallow.

• The land use pattern of the sampled farmers is presented in Table A.14 and for all farmers in Table A.13. The most pertinent information is summarised below in. Table 9.

Table 9 Operated and Irrigated Areas : Part-time and total Farmers

Total V D C M* D* C* sample

Operated area Sample 17.7 13.9 20.7 11.0 23.1 23.2 13.4 16.7 20.1 14.5 (donuffis) Census 20.8 18.1 22.8 10.8 23.9 25.7 22.2 14.7 26.4 17.8

Irrigated area Sample 3.7 2.6 4.6 3.1 0.7 2.3 7.7 2.6 2.8 8.7 (donums) Census 5.6 3.7 7.0 2.2 0.8 4.0 13.3 1.7 5.7 9.6 -34 -

For part-time farmers those from mountain regions operate the smallest holdings, although the availability of irrigation water is generally greater than in the vine or dry-land zones. In these zones although the operated area is relatively high, the paucity of irrigation limits the productive potential of the farms, unlike coastal regions where the availability of water is generally much greater.

Thus coastal part-time farmers appear best equipped in terms of effective area even though mean holding size may be smaller than for the sample as a whole. Of course such information is only a general guide to the relative viability of holdings, since not only is there considerable variation between farms within zones, but also the importance of water to particular crops and their suitability to particular soils and topography will influence the real potential of part-time farming. Nevertheless, the evidence from previous sections on employment patterns, indicating the greater capacity of part-time farms in the coastal zone to absorb household labour, is reinforced by the data on land use.

Comparison of the sample and census patterns on land use reveals part-time farmers to have, on average, a size of operated holding only slightly below that of all farmers taken together, and this situation is reversed for the mountain zone. Sampled farmers here also have a higher proportion of operated area under irrigation, i.e. 28% as opposed to 20% (group M). Even so, the census data indicates that part-time farmers in general are able to irrigate a smaller part of the holding and, therefore, the viability of part-time holdings is below that of full-time farms, although the difference is much less marked than might have been expected. In interpreting these results, however, one should take account of the large proportion of part-time farms included in the census figures.

One might have expected that part-time farmers would possess the more fragmented holdings. The sampled farmers. however, have markedly fewer plots per holding relative to others, and this surprising result is reflected throughout the regions as shown in Table 10 below: 35

Table 10 Plots per holding

Total V D C M* D* sample Plots/operated holding Sample farms 4.2 3.2 5.0 4.1 4.5 5.6 2.5 5.2 4.7 2.7 Census 6.8 6.2 7.2 8.4 7.3 7.7 4.2 9.1 6.1 4.3

The cropping pattern of sampled farms is described by Table A.15. Of course the crops grown will, to a large extent, be determined by the soil type and topography of the particular region. The most interesting feature is the small number of crops grown per farm, as demonstrated in Table 11.

Table 11 Mean number of crops her holding

Total N R M V D C sample M* C* Mean number 2.4 1.8 crops/holding 2.8 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.3

With 2.4 crops per holding the average part-time farmer has a relatively simple cropping pattern, perhaps to minimise labour requirements. The data also indicate that farmers in villages close to employment centres are more specialised than others, and that mountain zone farmers grow a wider variety of crops. These variations cannot, it seems, be explained by the variety of crops suitable to particular areas, since this is narrower for the mountain region than elsewhere. -36-

2.5 Farm productivity

The productivity of part-time holdings is of interest for two main reasons:- First knowledge of the output potential of such farms, where they are numerically important, will be of prime interest to those responsible for rural planning and policy formulation at all levels. This is particularly so when there are productivity differences between full and partttime farmers, and the relative numbers in the two groups are changing.

Second, such information may throw light on the underlying causes of decisions to seek off-farm supplementary income, and on the future direction of part-time agriculture, i.e. the ability to achieve an acceptable level of income from a holding will depend in part upon the yield of crops or livestock per unit of land, and on the ability to grow high value crops. Both of these factors will be dependent upon the quantity of other resources available for combination with land and labour, water being often the critical resource. Of course some soils will be of relatively inferior quality, which will result in a relatively lower value of output irrespective of the utilisation of non-land inputs, but any theoretical distinction between soil fertility and use of non-land resources as determinants of productivity levels easily becomes blurred in reality, especially when the provision of irrigation water is important to the productive activity.

Apart from the size of holding operated, therefore, any need for supplementary income may stem from the lack of productivity of the holding. In addition the earnings outside the farm amy provide an opportunity for capital accumulation and investment in non-land resources leading to improvements in farm productivity. In this case the outside occupation may be temporarily held until such time as the holding becomes viable.

As suggested above any general measurement of productivity must take account not only of yield per crop, but also of the type of crop, since in a commercialised agriculture, it is the monetary value of output which is the critical measurement. At the same time a high gross output may be a reflection of intensive use of purchased inputs. Therefore a more meaningful measurement of productivity in relation to the incidence of part-time farming, is one which takes account of variations in input expenditure, 37

namely gross margins i.e. a measurement of output value minus variable input costs. In this calculation no allowance is made for family labour inputs.

During the survey, information was therefore solicited concerning average yields of crops grown and the quantities of inputs used. The information concerning inputs was generally given in expenditure terms, and that pertaining to output was translated into money using price inform- 26 ation from the 1979 Agricultural Survey. Respondents' yield estimates were compared with output norms contained in Norm Input-Output Data of the 27 main crops of Cyprus, and where the disparity was very marked, even after allowing for any extraneous factors, some adjustments were made. In the great majority of cases, however, the information given appeared credible, and the evidence on productivity which it provides is felt to be as accurate an assessment as a survey of this nature can provide. This evidence can be found in Table A.16, and the most significant figures, those for gross margins, are reproduced below in Table 12.

Table 12 Gross Margins for sampled farms

Total Sample NRMVD C M* D* C* G.M. (ZC) 528 323 695 334 463 482 808 295 5o6 853 G.M./aonum (se) 35.6 28.3 401.4 32.4 22.0 25.4 57.8 28.0 28.9 62.6

One clear result is the greater return to part-time farming obtained in the coastal zone, a result which might be expected given the evidence of the previous sections on migration, employment and land use. Farms close to alternative employment opportunities show poorer results than those in the more remote villages, possibly in part reflecting a reduced interest in and dependence on agriculture. In terms of gross margin per donum farmers in the vine zone fare worst, although this can largely be explained by the lack of irrigation in the area. The larger farm size in this area compensates, to an extent for lack of productivity and the gross margin per farm is on a par with that for dry-and farms, leaving the smaller mountain holdings as the least remunerative.

As might be expected, the variations between farms is substantial as the standard deviations indicate, although the vine area holdings show a -38 -

greater uniformity in performance.

The level of output is broadly reflected in the pattern of input use, although the value of inputs used is lower in the dry-land and vine zones reflecting the lower intensity implied in the gross margin figures, which in turn is due to the lack of water. The main inputs used were chemical fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides, and casual labour, all of which can economically be used in greater quantities in the presence of irrigation. 2.6 Non-land resources

The association between ownership of non-and resources and productivity and its implications for the viability of full-time farming have been noted in the previous section. One would expect, other things being equal, that the value of non-land assets owned by the farmer are both a reflection and a determinant of the profitability of the holding.

Where the reason for seeking off-farm employment is the inadequacy of farm income, therefore, one can postulate that part-time farmers will possess a lower value of capital stock per unit of land than full-time farmers. Furthermore the greater the dependence on farm income amongst part-time farmers, the greater the value of capital stock they are likely to possess.

In reality, however, any such relationship is likely to be modified by a host of other factors such as the availability of water, the nature of the soil and possible pattern of cropping, the size of the holding itself together with other influences of a socio-economic nature which have shaped investment patterns previously, - such as family size, education funding and dowry provision.

Of importance too will be the availability of contractors, since the ability to hire their machinery services obviates, to a degree, the necessity of ownership. This is true for certain types of capital only, however, since ownership is more appropriate for machines which are in constant or frequent use as opposed, for example, to harvesting and cultivating equipment.

Respondents were asked to give information on the nature of non-land assets owned, their age and an estimate of current value. In most cases the information forthcoming was of original cost rather than current value, and estimates of the latter were calculated using price indices from the Agricultural Survey and discounting according to appropriate guidelines laid down in the Norm Input-Output Data. The main forms of non-land asset were irrigation equipment and other machinery. Very few farmers possess farmbuildings of any value. The most common form of non-irrigation equipment was a small tractor.

As many farmers had cultivating and harvesting operations carried out by contractors, the mean value of these assets is not great at X625 per farm. This of course, conceals considerable variation as can be ascertained from Table A17 due partly to a significant number possessing no such assets at all.

The group data, listed below, show coastal farmers to own substantially more non-land assets than those from other groups, a reflection of the greater investment in and productivity of part-time farming in these areas.

Table 13 Mean non-land assets per farmer and proportion of operated area irripted

Total D* C sample Non-land assets 625 532 700 578 477 331 1075 453 408 1172 (LC) area Operated 20.9 18.7 22.2 28.2 3.0 9.9 57.5 15.6 13.9 60.0 irrigated (96)

The relatively low level of non-land resources in the vine and dry- land zones can be accounted for by the lack of water for irrigation in these areas, investment in irrigation equipment being the preponderant form overall. In fact when one compares the proportion of operated area irrigated with the ownership of non-land assets (see Table 13) there appears to be a high degree of association between the two. 2. 7 Household indebtedness

The existence and degree of indebtedness can be indicative of both the cause of part-time farming and of the long-run attachment of such farmers to the agricultural sector. The reasons for borrowing are of particular interest, since borrowing in order to invest in fixed capital equipment reveals a degree of confidence in the future viability of the farming enterprise,and of course past borrowing for this purpose relates to the value of non-land resources per unit of land and the discussion in the previous section.

Loans for consumption purposes are generally indicative of poverty and the inability of household income to provide a satisfactory level of subsistence. Where such loans account for a substantial proportion of indebtedness, one would expect to find a large number of part-time farmers whose ability to survive within the agricultural sector must be increasingly doubted.

Much borrowing is often for private or social purposes, not directly related to production or household consumption. The necessity of meeting social obligations, however, can lead to the uptake of additional income earning activities in order to repay debts incurred for such purposes. Thus, for example, the need to provide a dowry could put considerable strain on a household's resources if the family is "blessed" with a large number of daughters, making off-farm employment unavoidable.

Apart from the reasons for obtaining credit, the decision to borrow is itself of interest. This, of course, reflects an ability to obtain credit at an acceptable rate of interest. The source of funds can be a reflection of this ability, as well as having implications for the rate of interest, with institutional sources generally providing credit more cheaply, but carrying, for example, more stringent conditions governing the ability to repay.

A high level of indebtedness from institutional sources would therefore imply considerable confidence on the part of both debtors and creditors concerning the future provision of funds for repayment. -42 -

Given the consistency and predictability of income from wage employment (and many types of self-employed ventures) relative to farm income, it is possible that part-time farmers may be more able to acquire and service debts and thus to invest in the agricultural enterprise. Never- theless any comparison of the borrowing and investment profiles of part and full-time farmers would have to take account of a wider range of variables pertaining to each.

Information regarding indebtedness is presented in Table A.18. It describes the proportion of households indebted and the size, source and purpose of these debts.

Over 62% of farmers are indebted and the averagedebt per indebted farmer is near to fifteen hundred pounds, although debt-size varies considerably. The main purpose of borrowing, which is overwhelmingly from institutional sources such as local or national co-operative organisations, is for what are described as social reasons. These mainly concern house purchase and construction associated with dowries.

Nearly a third of indebtedness arises from loans for investment in fixed capital equipment. Table 14 gives the information pertaining to the total sample.

Table 14 Degree and extent of indebtedness, source and purpose of debt (Total sample)

% hdh. Mean debt/ % debt from Purpose of Del)t5 Indebted iniebted h.h. Institutional (EC) souree Farm inputs Inv. Social Consumption

62.3 1,445 82.4 14.5 32.8 46.8 5.3

Indebtedness is most prevalent in coastal and vine regions and least amongst dry-land farmers. Coastal farmers record the highest quantity of debt per household and exhibit the most productive use of borrowed resources with 39% being for fixed investments (group C*). Group D* farmers neglect on-farm investment entirely, the majority of debt being for social purposes - 86%. Farmers in the vine zone mainly borrow to pay for farm inputs (41%), although the quantity of debt per household is significantly lower than elsewhere. Mountain farmers, although indebted mainly for social reasons 57% - record the highest incidence of debt for household consumption at 17%.

The information on non-land assets and debt structure reflects the impression, consistent throughout this report, that part-time farmers in general fall into two main categories: those who are struggling to maintain a foothold in agriculture and finding it increasingly difficult to do so, and those for whom a combination of occupations has proved a relatively auccessful and dynamic symbiosis. One can tentatively suggest that the former category are typified by farmers in the mountain villages, whilst the latter farmers are most commonly found in coastal areas. -44-

2.8 The structure of household income

Household income is the most critical variable of interest in two respects. Firstly income level is a measure of relative material wellbeing and secondly it illustrates the degree of dependence on farm and non- farm sources.

Relative income data provide a basis for conjecture concerning the occupational stability of particular groups, as well as highlighting areas of concern for Government policy. Comparisons of income levels between full and part-time farmers and between part-time farmers of differing locations would be useful in this respect. Such comparisons, however, are not possible given the limited nature of the survey, and the most that can be achieved in this respect is to contrast the farm gross margins obtained by part-time farmers from differing regions, these figures giving a rough approximation of farm income. (see section 2.5 above).

The extent to which households are dependent on outside sources to meet material requirements provides an indicator of both the ability of the farm to provide household needs and therefore possible reasons for seeking additional income elsewhere, and also of the existence and suitability of off-farm employment opportunities. In addition such information throws some light on the likely future development of part- time farming.

Where alternative income earning possibilities exist and the dependence on farming limited, the strength of the household's active association with the land, in the future, is likely to be both weak and precarious, whereas a holding which contributes substantially to household income is arguably more likely to elicit investment and enterprise in efforts to sustain or increase its viability.

The proportion of farmers income derived from agriculture and from off-farm activities are listed in Table A.19. Where direct information on the source of income could not be obtained, estimates were made based on the farm output figures described in section 2.5 and data on incomes published by the Ministry of Finance in Statistics of Wages, Salaries and 28 Hours of Work. This was necessary in only a minority of cases and the - 1+5 -

information concerning income showed itself, on the whole, to be consistent with that on production.

Fractionally over a quarter of household income was derived from the farm, with the highest proportion earned through off-farm employed activities.

Table 15 Proportion of household income derived from the farm

Total sample D C M* D* C* age income from 26.3 21.6 31.3 agriculture 13.0 31.7 28.8 29.5 21.0 23.7 31.5

Table 15 shows farmers in the vine zone to be most dependent on agricultural income, together with those from the coastal zone. The most distinctive feature, however, is the dependence of mountain-based farmers on off -farm occupations, particularly those in group M. This feature is, perhaps, expected given the productivity figures recorded in Section 2.5. The relevant standard deviations suggest this dependence is relatively uniform. -46-

2.9 The importance of off-farm occupations

In order to explain the incidence of part-time farming and to understand more fully any likely future changes, consideration of the ways in which these farmers are integrated with both the farm and non-farm sectors will be of interest.

Apart from the relative dependence on one or other sector as a source of household income, of additional interest is the extent and manner of involvement in the non-farm sector, and the preferences which this involvement reflects concerning such issues as location of residence and the desire to see sons and daughters follow into either sector.

Thus some farmers may consider themselves and their families firmly entrenched in the farming sector and view the continued productivity and viability of the holding as something of paramount importance, whilst others may view farming operations increasingly as adjuncts to their main occupation outside the sector. The time devoted to each activity and the proportions of income so derived provide only a static view and do not on their own imply that any particular pattern is either stable or desired.

In the event there will be a balance of time spent in either activity ranging between two extremes.

1. Where farming appears very much as an incidental occupation, perhaps in terms of lifestyle provision rather than as a provider of income; 2. Where the non-farm occupation has the function of providing supplementary income to provide for security or investment funds, making use of otherwise unused labour.

Some of the survey results pertinent to the above discussion are drawn together in the table below:-

Table 16 Occupational characteristics of art-time farmers Mean number of years in off-farm occupation 19.8 Mean %ageP of income from off-farm occupation 73.7 Mean %age of time in off-farm occupation 86.6 Mean %age full-time in off-farm occupation 76.3 Mean %ageP with no seasonal pattern in off-farm occupation 89.4 Proportion with preference for more on-farm activity 56.5 -47 -

The picture which emerges is of a pattern of part-time farming where off-farm activity is overwhelmingly the main occupation with 87% of farmers' time spent in these activities, and 7496 of total income derived from such sources. The fact that most household farm labour (64%) is supplied by family members other than the main breadwinner reinforces this view.

The dominance of the off-farm occupation can also be seen in the lack of seasonal variation which occurs in the allocation of time to such activities, suggesting that it is the labour demand of farming which is moulded around that of other work rather than vice-versa.

Nevertheless a majority of farmers - 56% - would prefer to give more of their time to the farm, and only 21% proved willing to move to the town. Undoubtedly most farmers subjectively still ally themselves to the farm sector and are keen to maintain their links with it, although the regional variations are also illuminating.

The most clear regional distinction is between coastal farmers (group C*) and the remainder. Not only do they earn a smaller proportion of household income from non-farm activities - 65% - but also the propensity to migrate is much smaller with only 17% of children leaving (and 0% of male children). They also exhibit a greater degree of seasonality in their allocation of time to outside occupations.

This pattern particularly contrasts with that of the mountain farmers (group M), for whom agriculture provides only a small proportion of total income - 13% - who show little evidence of seasonality in activities and manifest a high degree of outmigration, even though there exists a high preference for farmwork.

Some differences emerge when comparing evidence from the remote villages with group N. Whilst both groups have a similar record concerning the number of children leaving, group R households rely more on agricultural income - 31% compared with 22% - show a significantly greater influence of the seasons - 17% against 3% - and allocate less time to off-farm activities - 1+8 -

These differences are mainly as might be expected, since those further from employment opportunities will be forced to rely more on agriculture. This point gains further emphasis if one takes into account that only 60% of farmers from group R were employed full-time in their non-farm occupations compared with 80% from group N, and that the corresponding figures for those expressing a preference for farmwork were 66% and 45%.

It should be noted here that two of the five villages in the coastal group C* also fall into group N, thus the influence of these more productive farmers cannot totally explain these differences.

From Table A.8 it is apparent that the sampled farmers differ little in age from full-time farmers, thus it would appear that part-time farming is neither a preoccupation of the young, seeking to establish themselves more fully in agriculture, nor of the old who have passed part of their land to other family members rendering their own holdings less viable. This is supported by evidence on land-holdings discussed in the following section.

Nevertheless, the prime motivation for undertaking off-farm work is probably a lack of viability of existing holdings. As noted above, 56% of respondents would prefer to spend more of their working time on the farm, and the main factor inhibiting them from doing so is the insufficiency of income it can provide (see Table 16).

This picture is true across the regions with the exception of the dry- land zone. In these villages only a minority wish to devote more of their time to agriculture - 28% in group Ds, and in the main these farmers seek no change in their allocation of their labour. The main reason given for this is a lack of interest in farming.

Some explanation for this can be found in the type of off-farm occupation held by these farmers, since a relatively high proportion are employed by local or national government or as professionals and possess, therefore, off-farm incomes which are above average in terms of both level and security. -49 -

The question of security of household income may be significant. Undoubtedly farming is plagued by a higher level of uncertainty than most occupations, and such uncertainty is of great importance at low levels of income.

If one makes the assumption that employment provides greater security than self-employment, the fact that the bulk of farmers are wage or salary earners reinforces the view that the uncertainty of farm income, as well as its inadequacy, is a motivation for taking a second occupation. Of course one cannot attach too much significance to this since many other factors will intevene in the choice of occupation. Nevertheless, the fact that coastal farmers are significantly more disposed towards self-employment, as well as having substantially higher incomes, does lend credence to this view.

In general off-farm occupations are more important than farming, both as a main source of income and for the provision of financial security. The propensity to migrate on the part of household members is high, even though the majority of farmers still feel a strong subjective association with the land. This association appears on the wane amongst those in the dry-land zone, whilst coastal farmers appear to have more confidence regarding the viability of their holdings. _50

2.10 The performance of part-time holdings

The question of the viability of part-time holdings is one of some importance, particularly since lack of viability can be interpreted as the most common reason for farmers seeking additional occupations.

Whilst a viable holding per se can be taken to imply one capable of providing "adequate" return to the households endeavour, where adequate implies both subjective notions of material welfare and objective notions of opportunity cost, what determines viability is less easily defined. Certainly the quantity of land held and the form of tenure is important, but equally so are factors discussed in previous sections such as soil fertility, water availability, non land resources and market structure. Also of relavance will be the size and age composition of the household dependent on the particular holding.

Nevertheless it is upon holding size that attention is usually most immediately focused, and if a lack of viability is an Underlying feature of part-time holdings this suggests such holdings may be of small size relative to those providing the sole source of household income.

A perusal of the survey results of Tables A.12 and A.14 and Table A.13 based on the census data show mean holding size amongst part-time farmers not to be substantially less than that of their full-time counterparts. This is the case whether owned or operated holdings are considered and is perhaps unexpected.

There are two points at issue here: firstly, whether these statistics provide any real indication of viability, and, secondly, whether one can, in any case, expect such a phenomenon.

As suggested above the quantity of land operated is an inadequate indicator of viability without further information, (particularly in the Cypriot context), regarding access to irrigation facilities. Certainly the census average figures show a higher proportion of land irrigated at 27% of operated area, as opposed to 21% for the sample part-time farmers. Compari- sons of fertility and non-land assets are not possible from available evidence. A straightforward comparison of productivity, i.e. output per donum would provide the clearest evidence, and the estimates of crop yield 51

for the sample farmers were consistently at the low end of the range given by the norm input-output data, but this itself provides no concrete indication of relatively low productivity without some account being taken of local and specific conditions.

Thus even if part-time holdings are smaller and less endowed with irrigation facilities, the differences are not sufficient in this context to suggest that the viability of such holdings is generally lower than that of full-time holdings.

Even if there were no differences between the two groups, however, this is inadequate proof that non-viability was not the underlying cause of the search for other occupations, since this might merely imply that many full-time farmers were prepared to accept lower levels of income. Certainly the OECD study found the incomes of part-time farmers were 29 generally higher.

A further factor to be borne in mind when comparing these statistics is that the census data refers to all farmers, not just full-timers and that part-time farmers constitute a substantial proportion of the whole, thus any real difference between part and full-time farmers may be greater than those indicated.

In attempting to understand any regional variations it is of great importance to take into account the proportion of area irrigated. These proportions are listed below in Table 17, together with other relevant data.

Table 17 Irrigated area and related characteristics

Total sample V D C M* D* C*

%age of operated area irrigated 20.9 18.7 22.2 28.2 3.0 9.9 57.5 15.6 13.9 60.0

G.M./donum 35.6 28.3 40.4 32.4 22.0 25.4 57.8 28.0 28.9 62.6

%age income from farm 26.3 21.6 31.3 13.0 31.7 28.8 29.5 21.0 23.7 31.5 %age of time on farm 13.4 8.2 16.7 9.2 19.4 16.1 14.1 19.8 7.9 11.1 _ 52

As might be expected there is a strong correlation between gross margin per donum and proportion of area irrigated with a correlation co- efficient of 0.97. Nevertheless, no such relationship appears between the proportion of income from the farm or the proportion of time spent on the farm and irrigated area where the co-efficient values are o.17 and -0.29.

The use of any single variable as an indicator of farm viability is obviously misleading. Nevertheless, the small size of farms operated by farmers in the mountain areas, given their above average levels of irrigation are likely to be of significance in explaining the low proportion of income from farming and low proportion of time devoted to agriculture. At the same time the high proportion of operated area under irrigation in coastal areas, undoubted plays a key role in producing the relatively high levels of production and farm income amongst these farms.

As noted previously - Part 2, Section 4 - the number of plots per holding is generally lower amongst part-time farmers that full-time farmers, a surprising feature given the difficulties fragmentation creates, and the likely impediment to profitable production.

There is some difference in the sample results across the regions, however, with coastal farmers suffering less than others from this problem, with only 2.5 and 2.7 plots per holding (groups C and C*), compared to an overall average of 4.2 and a maximum of 5.6 in group D.

Perhaps just as important as fragmentation is the type of access the farmer has to the holding. Obviously where this is only by foot the possibilities of establishing more progressive techniques are limited. Again coastal farmers fare better than others with those from mountain regions, on the whole, possessing very limited access.

Differing cropping patterns found in the regions can also explain the varying income earning potential of part-time farms, since, for example, citrus production has become, following the 1974 invasion, a relatively profitable enterprise leading to a considerable number of new plantations, while wine grapes and deciduous fruit have experienced a relative market decline adding to the problem of the already beleaguered mountain farmers. _53_

If there is insufficient direct evidence to suggest meaningful differences in land ownership and land use between part and full-time farmers, the sample data do show the importance of these factors to the viability of part-time holdings themselves, and suggest underlying reasons for the regional variations.

As indicated in the foregoing discussion a purposeful comparison of the productivity of part-time farming with a similar group of full-time farmers is not possible from available evidence.

Productivity is nevertheless an important issue since, given the numerical importance of this group of farmers to Cypriot agriculture, the productive potential of part-time farmers is of considerable interest to future policy decisions concerning the farm sector. It is also important as a determinant of profitability and therefore for any attempt to predict the future pattern of activity of part-time farmers themselves. For instance a reasonable return from such holdings may be a necessary condi- tion for their continued occupation, and, therefore, for the ability of rural areas to maintain this section of the population, stem rural-urban drift and make feasible the provision of rural amenities. Thus if it is a long-term aim to maintain the viability of rural communities and avoid the congestion and. unemployment which over-rapid urbanisation can bring, then the creation and maintenance of a viable part-time agriculture must be a policy objective.

Comparison of the data from different regions does provide evidence of the relative potential of some areas, and pinpoints the dangers facing others. Table 18 presents both gross margin figures, together with the mean value per donum of fixed assets.

Table 18 Fixed assets and pross margins

CCM V m* D* C* Mean value of 52 .A/donum 21 14 83 27 20 81 G.M./aonum 32 22 25 58 28 29 63 G.M./holding 334 463 482 808 295 506 853

Of course the productivity of any holding will depend on the range of crops it can produce as well as its size and the quantity of non-land assets associated with it. The relationship between non-land resources per holding and total gross margin over the total sample produces a correlation co-efficient of 0.50. For the relationship between non-land assets per holding and gross margin per donum the co-efficient is 0.27. Thus while the quantity of such assets owned may go some way towards explaining the viability of holdings, it is not strongly correlated with productivity per unit of land.

The importance of ownership diminishes where markets exist for the hire of these assets, and while ownership is usually necessary in the case of irrigation equipment, many farmers were reliant upon contractors for the mechanised operations associated with fertilising, cultivating and harvesting. It is perfectly feasible, therefore, for a farmer with a very productive part-time holding to own no non-land fixed assets at all.

Comparison of the profitability of holdings across the regions does show the importance of these resources to the viability of farms. That there are strong associations between asset ownership and gross margins is self-evident. This will partly be a reflection of the lack of water (and, therefore, irrigation equipment) in the dry-land and vine zones. Even so, the high value of these assets in the coastal area may play an important part in its relative performance.

Thus the scarcity of fixed capital equipment in many areas probably constitutes something of a problem. Farmers will not invest unless the returns from investment justify it. This is especially so in the case of borrowed capital. Table 19 compares gross margins with borrowing for investment in fixed assets.

Table 19 Indebtedness and fixed assets

M V D C M* D* C* Borrowing for Inv. 249 152 317 704 472 0 832 Per indebted farmer G.M ./donum 32 22 25 58 28 29 63

Coastal farmers, as might be expected, show a far greater propensity to borrow for investment purposes, i.e. they appear to possess greater confidence in the future viability of their holdings. Again the presence of -55 -

water seems to be of significance here, since farmers in the dry-land and vine zones are particularly ill-disposed towards such borrowing.

The variations in gross margins are reflected by the proportion of fixed assets owned per donum and the willingness to borrow to increase these assets. A question, therefore, arises concerning the future of part-time farming in the less productive areas. The responsiveness of farmers to investment opportunity appears not to be lacking, rather it is the low profitability of such ventures which is the stumbling block. This is almost certainly the case for the mountain region where the desire to remain in agriculture is strongly expressed, but where a paucity of resources in general makes the ability to do so problematic. -56-

2.11 Trends in part-time farming

While a cross-sectional view of part-time farming in Cyprus is important for a fuller understanding of its incidence and characteristics, knowledge concerning changes over time can help to clarify many of the issues raised. It is for this reason that information pertaining to Tables A.20 to A.24 was elicted. Farmers' assessments of any changes in their dependence on farm income and the proportion of time devoted to farm work, together with the reasons for these changes, throw some light on those factors which underlie the incidence of part-time activity and likely future directions.

The extent of dependence on farm income was outlined in section 2.8. Just as significant as absolute proportions of income is the trend in these proportions over time. Information related to such trends can be found in Table A.20. This information is based on subjective assessment by the respondents rather than quantitative information, nevertheless it provides a useful guide to any changes taking place either in income or employment patterns.

Data for a number of the sample groups is shown in Table 20.

Table 20 Trends in farm income and employment

Farm income On-farm employment %age of farmers Inc. Stable Dec. Inc. Stable Dec. Total sample 27.1 45.9 27.1 17.6 62.3 20.0 Group M* 22.2 40.8 37.0 7.4 70.4 22.2 Group V 50.0 43.7 6.2 31.2 62.5 6.2

Farmers in more remote villages appear to be turning to off-farm activities at a faster rate than those near employment centres, whose time allocation is more stable, but in general, changes in farm income appear more marked than in on-farm employment where a more stable pattern emerges. This seems to be the case for all regions, although there are substantial differences between data groups. Dry-land farmers exhibit the least propensity for change, and those from coastal areas the highest, but perhaps the most significant trends emerge from groups M* and V, with the mountain group eAribiting a decline and those from the vine zone an increase - 57 -

in both incomes and employment. The upward direction of farm income in this region is probably partly explained by the replanting of vineyards which has taken place in some districts.

Table A.21 relates changes in income to reasons given for these changes. Again, this evidence is the result of the farmers' subjective perceptions, but there is no reason to doubt its accuracy. The main factor contributing to an increasing proportion of income derived from the farm is on-farm investment, indicating the potential importance of off-farm incomes as sources of investment funds.

The health of the farmers features here also. This is because, in a number of cases, farmers have been forced to give up off-farm activities due to ill-health or age, thus becoming more reliant on the farm.

The results for the main sample are given below:-

Table 21 Reasons for changes in on-farm income its airroportion of total household income

Reasons (%) Insufficient .Insufficient Investment Input Output Interest Health Other land water (on-farm) T;n7s Prices Increasing 87.4 4.3 8.7 Decreasing' 20.8 4.2 29.2 29.2 4.2 20.8

The factors singled out by those farmers for whom farm income was decreasing are more varied, although rising input prices and falling output prices figure prominently as does insufficient access to land. It is difficult to draw conclusions from the inter-group variations, since often factors contributing to a decline in income will be related to the particular features of crops and markets specific to a region.

Those factors responsible for an increasing or decreasing proportion of time being devoted to the farm, reinforce the previous information related to changes in farm income, in explaining the underlying trends in household activity. Table A.22 describes the data in full, and information related to the total sample is presented in Table 22. -58 -

Table 22 Reasons for changes in allocation of time to on-farm activities

Reasons (%)

Insufficient Insufficient Investment Input Output Health Other income land (on—farm) prices prices

Increasing 66.7 6.7 6.7 13.3 6.7 Decreasing 23.5 29.4 5.9 23.5 5.9 17.6

On-farm investments play a major part in facilitating an increasing proportion of farmers' time being devoted to the farm, whereas the quantities of income, of land operated and prices of inputs and outputs figure prominently in influencing those whose activities are increasing elsewhere.

As well as obtaining information on the reasons underlying any changes in activity or income, all farmers were asked for the main reasons prevent- ing them from devoting more of their working time to agriculture. The results are shown in table A.23 and those for the total sample in Table 23.

Table 23 Factors inhibiting increasing agricultural activity

Reasons (%)

Output Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Marketing Input Health Interest Other Investment prices Income land water arrange— prices ments

38.8 9.4 12.9 2.3 4.7 5.9 2.3 3.5 17.6 9.4

Of most import is the inability of agriculture to provide adequate income for the household, a feature repeated across all data groups. longer Second in importance is the fact that nearly a fifth of farmers no have sufficient interest in agriculture to merit devoting more time to it. This lack of interest is most pronounced amongst dry-land farmers, particularly group D*, and is substantially more common in villages close to off-farm employment opportunities. The most significant factor, by a large margin, in both mountain and vine zones is the size of farm income, whilst coastal farmers, particularly those in group C*, are constrained by lack of irrigation facilities as much as anything else.

Tables A.24 and 24 outline the farmers' preferences concerning occupations and location of residence. As might be expected, given the evidence presented previously in this section, only a minority - 26% - of farmers - 59 - are satisfied with their present allocation of time between on and off- farm activities, the majority - 56% - would prefer to devote more time to the farm, but are constrained from doing so for the reasons outlined above, although 20% have a preference for their off-farm occupation, and presumably see no long-term future for themselves in agriculture. Almost the same number would be prepared to migrate to the town should the opportunity arise, a reflection of potential mobility.

Table 2k :.A.ctivitz_preferences of farmers (total sample)

Working preferences (%)

More on-farm More off-farm No change 56.5 20.0 25.9

The porportion of those willing to work for others in agriculture is, as one might expect, less in group N than in group R. As between the zones, dry-land and coastal farmers seem least keen to work on other farms, whilst those from the mountain regions appear more mobile both with regard to location as well as activity.

The evidence indicates that overwhelmingly it is on-farm investment which is the main reason facilitating greater income from or time allocated to the farm, and that this feature is uniform across all regions. Furthermore for those recording adverse changes, input prices figure prominently as a reason as does the quantity of land farmed. This suggests that the ability of many farmers to sustain an income from agriculture is being reduced by an inadequacy of total 'resources in the context of changing market conditions. This is particularly the case in mountain areas where reliance on deciduous crops and wine grape production, coupled with a below average size of holding, renders this group of farmers most vulnerable.

Table A.20 shows the proportions for whom income contribution and time allocation related to the farm are changing. For purposes of further clarifying the differing characteristics of these farmers they have been treated as separate groups. Table 25 shows the location of such farmers according to agro-economic zone. Table 25 Location of farmers experiencing changes in time/income

MVDC Total

No. with inc. farm income 5 8 2 8 23

No. with inc. time allocation 1 5 2 7 23

No. with dec. farm income 5 1 7 9 15

No. with dec. time allocation 3 1 5 8 17

While some polarisation is occurring amongst farmers in coastal and mountain regions, most farmers seem optimistic in the vine zone, most probably due to the influence of areas where replanting has taken place, while they are pessimistic in dry-land villages, stressing the problems of dry-land farming in non-vine growing areas.

Closer examination of those farmers experiencing an upward or downward trend in farm income is provided by the data in Table 26.

Table 26 Characteristics of farmers experiencing changes in income

%age total Mean income from Operated %age Value of Borrowing -G.M. agrUrs.) farm area Irrig. TarN.L.A. _forTer Inv. (cc) Tir Farmers with inc. income 44.2 28.2 17.7 36 535 209 625 Farmers with dec. income 48.3 28.4 17.3 18 364 466 488 Total sample 46.4 26.3 17.7 21 625 474 528

Differences in age between the groups is small, as is the dependence of households upon farm income. Area operated is similarly uniform. The most significant differences lie in the proportion of operated area under irrigation and the degree to which various groups are borrowing in order to increase the value of fixed assets. Those for whom income is increasing, and who are relatively well-endowed with irrigation facilities, are less likely to incur debt for investment purposes than those whose irrigated acreage is much smaller. One can infer from this that, in the main, those farmers whose holdings are losing viability are prepared to incur debt to ameliorate this tendency. The implication here, as elsewhere, is that it is those already possessing irrigation facilities whose position is most secure. Similar information pertaining to those farmers allocating a changing proportion of their time to the farm is contained in Table 27.

Table 27 Characteristics of farmers with changing time allocation

%,aV total Mean income from Operated %age Value of Borrowing G.M. a,se (yrs.) farm area IrriE. N.L.A. for Inv. TE7 Tir "TEET

Farmers with inc. time 45.6 22.5 20.4 38 614 608 603 Farmers with dec. time 48.5 27.6 15.2 24 572 733 507 Total sample 46.4 26.3 17.7 21 625 474 528

Again the substantial differences revolve around the proportion of operated area irrigated and, as might be expected, those increasing their labour input are those able to irrigate a significant proportion of it. These farms have also borrowed an above average quantity for investment.

Surprisingly farmers who are devoting more of their time to off-farm activities have also borrowed substantially for this purpose, reinforcing the impression' gained above that it is the farmers whose holdings are most vulnerable in the sense of providing a diminishing income or absorbing a falling proportion of labour, who are borrowing most to improve the viability of the enterprise.

The discussion of these groups brings out two main features: firstly, it stresses, once more, the importance of irrigation to part-time Cypriot agriculture, and, secondly that those whom circumstances might push from agriculture altogether are, in general, attempting to remain firmly established as part-time farmers. -62 -

PART THREE

CONCLUSIONS

Any conclusions from an undertaking of this kind, given its pilot nature and consequent lack of detailed investigation, must be only tentative.

Furthermore the profile of part-time farming which emerges from the survey results illustrates the dangers of an aggregate view which does not encompass what are often important variations within a given set of observations. Nevertheless some preliminary concluding remarks are in order even if any implications require further verification from a more comprehensive and comparative study.

As noted in section 2.2. the mean age of farmers sampled does not differ significantly from that of all farmers suggesting that possible influences on the incidence of part-time farming outlined in the introduction to this section, such as family size and dependency ratio, would not appear to be important.

All the data relevant to this section has been brought together in Table A. 4. The relationship between the propensity to migrate is apparent when inter-generational differences are taken into account, although the cross regional data suggests there are also other strong influences at work. Indeed the information suggests that education levels and migration are not only partially and tenuously related, but are themselves subject to common determinants such as the profitability and viability of part- time holdings. For example families in the dry-land zone not only receive more years of education, but also have a high propensity to migrate. Those from coastal areas, however, whilst also amongst the most educated have little tendency to leave the villages. Furthermore the mountain zone provides the highest proportion of farmers willing to migrate yet education levels are lowest in these regions. Overall the high proportion of migrating offspring reflects the questionable long-run viability of many part- time holdings outside of the coastal regions. -63 -

The great majority of part-time farmers, it seems, have been involved with outside occupations for some considerable time, although most still subjectively identify themselves with the farm sector and are concerned to expand this part of their activities. The two most common sources of off- farm income are the construction industry and either local or central government. The importance of the farmer may present some problems for the future as the recent construction boom subsides, most probably leading to a greater reliance on the farm as a source of income. Those employed by public authorities are in a more secure position, although it should be stressed that the majority of these are unskilled outside of agriculture and often employed in relatively unremunerative work.

The large majority of farmers engaged full-time in non-farm activities is particularly significant. Given that the major family labour input is through the farmers' wives, this suggests the possibility of farming becoming an increasingly residual activity, at least in some areas.

Of course a cropping pattern which leads to a high concentration of seasonal labour demands, in the context of the possibilities of hiring local contractors or casual labour is likely to increase such a dependence on permanent female labour, as the continuous labour demand will be insufficient to divert the head of the household from full-time work elsewhere. The continuity of part-time farming, therefore, becomes dependent on the willingness and ability of the farmers' wives to bear this burden.

Relative exceptions to this pattern occur, for reasons outlined in section 2.3 in the coastal and dry-land zones, but the greater participation by the farmers in coastal areas is itself a reflection of the relative prosperity of farming in this zone.

The preponderance of full-time employment outside of agriculture, even on the more viable coastal farms, suggests the desire for greater income security as well as the provision of more adequate household income, is an important feature underlying the uptake of off-farm occupations.

This is further borne out by the fact that although the mean area operated is not substantially less than the average for the country as a whole, the relatively small area under irrigation would make part-time - 64 -

farmers less able to withstand the vagaries of agricultural markets if they were dependent solely on the farm for their livelihood.

The off-farm income can, therefore, generally be seen to provide a security of income which the majority, at present, would be loathe to do without.

Comparisons of full and part-time farmers with respect to landholding size were, to some extent, possible, although the inability to compare associated variables such as land fertility, non-land resouces etc., make such comparisons more circumspect. Nevertheless the similarity between the two groups in holding size is surprising, particularly so in the most marginal areas such as the mountain zone where part- time holdings are in fact larger on average than those of the full census. •Since these figures refer to operated area this result cannot be attributed to variations in ownership of uncultivable land.

This unexpected result is partly, at least, explained by the higher proportion of area irrigated on full-time holdings, although again in the mountain zone the reverse is the case. This is obviously a phenomenon requiring further investigation, but it can be noted that those farmers sampled from the mountain areas had the highest average age. If the age of farmers in general in these regions should prove to be significantly greater than elsewhere, such evidence would suggest part-time farming to be a response to agriculture generally in decline, those gaining outside employment being those most pressed or most able to find work. In this context comparisons of family size and dependency ratios might prove fruitful.

Given there exists a spectrum of productivity and profitability in the context of Cypriot agriculture, it is possible, admittedly at a high level of generalisation, to put farms from mountain and coastal regions at opposite ends of this spectrum. It is interesting to note that part- time holdings at the most profitable end of the spectrum, i.e. in the coastal zone, are not only the smallest in relation to their full-time counterparts, but possess a lower relative proportion of operated area under irrigation - exactly the opposite picture emerges from the mountain zone. - 65 -

One can speculate, therefore, that the motivation for seeking off- farm employment differs in these areas, whilst in one (the mountain zone) evidence suggests it is the profitability of agricultural activity in seneral and in that particular environment, in the other it is the viability and labour absorption of the particular holdin5.

Unfortunately it is not possible to make comparisons of productivity between part and full-time farmers, and the acquisition of suitable information for this purpose should be a priority of the second, more comprehensive stage of this study. Predictably the influence of water availability has a determining influence on the value of production per donum, given the importance of this resource to agriculture. Perhaps the most notable feature in this respect is the wide difference between farm performance in the coastal zone viz a viz the remainder, with mountain holdings showing least return.

Some relationship between farm profitability and the ownership of non-farm resources is to be expected, for reasons outlined in sections 2.6 and 2.7. But, as demonstrated in section 2.10, the relationship is not strong with a correlation co-efficient of 0.5.

In circumstances, however, where holdings are small and the range of operation narrow and concentrated into short-time periods, the possibility of hiring both machines and operators reduces any dependence on owned capital stock. The exceptions are those fixed assets necessary to the provision of irrigation. It is not surprising, therefore, that ownership of such resources is most pronounced on coastal farms, where the greater availability of irrigation water, and more profitable investment opportunities combine to provide both the means and the motive for more extensive capital ownership.

Indebtedness is common amongst the sampled farmers and the ability of many farmers to sustain heavy borrowing, is surprising. The overwhelming majority of loans are from the local co-operative society and interest rates are not excessive, nevertheless an opportunity to compare the data with that from a comparative group of full-time farmers might be enlightening. This might reinforce judgement concerning the extent to which part-time farmers are able to borrow because of the collateral provided by their off- farm occupations, or whether the need to service debts leads to the uptake of these occupations. -66 -

There is evidence to support the view that it is the paucity of farm income which leads to farmers becoming part-time, but this is related to the ability to repay and the two factors may well be reinforcing. Certainly the major cause of indebtedness is for 'social" purposes, i.e. mainly dowries, the occurrence of which is largely unrelated to questions of income and profitability, being the product of chance and custom. The extent to which the dowry system in particular and indebtedness in general contributes to the incidence of part-time farming merits further enquiry.

Borrowing for productive purposes is nevertheless substantial, most particularly amongst coastal farmers, depicting the innovation and determined attitudes which exist in the villages. The suitability of such a characterisation is borne out by evidence presented in section 2.11 which suggests that those whom circumstances might push from agriculture altogether are, in general, attempting to remain established as part- time farmers.

It must be emphasised that this study is a preliminary one, preparing the ground for more intensive investigation. The conclusions drawn are therefore tentative and serve primarily the purpose of identifying salient characteristics of Cypriot part-time farmers. The problems of putting these characteristics in perspective point to the need for obtaining information related to a comparative group of full-time farmers. Greater knowledge of the pattern of on-farm expenditures and labour use and of the relative productivity of the two groups would lead to a deeper understanding of part-time agriculture and the contribution it might make to the Cypriot economy. - 67

FOOTNOTES

1. These calculations are derived from the Census of Agriculture, 1977 volume TI : Employment in Agriculture. Published by the Department of Statistics and Research, Ministry of Finance, Republic of Cyprus.

2. See Appendix, Table A4.

3. I am grateful to Martin Upton and Douglas Thornton of the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Reading, and Members of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, (M.A.N.R.), Cyprus, for comments on an earlier draft.

4. "Cyprus", Financial Times Survey, May 21st 1981.

5. Where the words Cyprus and Cypriot are used throughout this report they refer to what constitutes the Republic of Cyprus excluding the area currently occupied by the Turkish armed forces.

6. For background information on the political history leading up to the 1974 invasion see: "The Greek Gift", P. Loizos, Blackwell 1975, and "Cyprus", Report No. 30, Minority Rights Group, 1976.

7. Financial Times, op cit.

8. "Socio-economic Aspects of Rainfed Agriculture in Cyprus", S. Papachristodoulou, .....Ericultural Research Institute, M.A.N.R. Cyprus January 1979.

9. Source: Demographic Report 1979. Published by Statistics and Research Department, Ministry of Finance, Cyprus.

10. Financial Times, op cit.

11. Unless otherwise stated the information contained in this section (1.2), is derived from the following sources: Central Bank of Cyprus: Bulletin, June 1980; Central Bank of Cyprus: Annual Report 1979; Cyprus Popular Bank Ltd: Newsletter, November - December 1980.

12. S. Papachristodoulou, op cit.

13. S. Papachristodoulou, op cit.

14. "Problems and Policies related to the Agricultural Labour Force in Cyprus", P.M. Aristotelous, Department of Agriculture, M.A.N.R. Cyprus 1979.

15. See Part Two, section 7 of this report.

16. "A study of Marketing Costs and Margins of Major Food Commodities in Cyprus", P.M. Aristotelous, M.A.N.R. Cyprus, 1979.

S. Papachristodoulou, op cit. -68-

18. The recent economic literature on the subject of part-time farming is not extensive. Useful publications include: "Part-time Farming in 0.E.C.D. Countries", General Report and Country Reports, 0.E.C.D. 1978; "The place of part-time farming in Rural and Regional Development", Ruth Gasson (Ed.) Centre for European Agricultural Studies, Wye College, 1977, and "Part-time Farming - Problem or Resource in Rural Development, A.M. Fuller and J.A. Mage (Eds) University of Guelph, 1975.

19. 0.E.C.D. General Report op cit.

20. Interesting discussion of this topic can be found in "Rural Class Formation in East Africa", L. Cliffe, Journal of Peasant Studies, No. 2 1977.

21. For further discussion of these and related issues see: "Social Determinants of Part-time Farming in Italy", A. Cavazzani, in A.M. Fuller and J.A. Mage (Eds), op cit.

22. An additional reason for the acquisition of such holdings may be speculative investment.

23. S. Papachristodoulou, op cit.

24. E.G. a tourist resort or mine.

25. Calculated from the Agricultural Census, op cit.

26. Published by The Statistics and Research Department, Ministry of Finance, Cyprus 1979.

27. Published by The Agricultural Research Institute, M.A.N.B, Cyprus 1976.

28. Statistics and Research Department, Ministry of Finance, 1979.

29. OECD General Report, op cit. "MAP 1 — AGROECONOMIC REGIONS"

1 Mountain zone Coastal zone

Vine zone

Dryland zone

II 101111111111 V Jr+...MEM MIIMIMIIIL, Villages visited AdIIIIIIIINI"IIIIIrraIIIIMMIIIIIIILMrMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIh.a1111111111111111/0 • /11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/ "..."1"1".1111111111MIMINIM111111111111L1IMVIIIML a WIFr IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIsomur ak --...... ;"....._wir.,:a...••••olawuromummoull111111411111111 ML 1111111MINPA111111111111111111111111111111111111 ...i..... Mg IMIIIIIMISIMMI1111111111111111 jar- 21111111 111119 IIIIIIIIIMINIMINIMIL All 11111111011111 .111111111MRIVISIMIIMIt1111111111111111111111111111.11111111111111 Ir/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111.1101101111.11111111111111 11111111111111.111111111111111111/111111111 TAINMIIIIMMIMINIMINI IMMUMMINIM 1 1111111111111111611111111ILIMMIMI MMIL"./111111111111 Ali 23 .... /11111111111111111111MMINIIIIII On.7.10/1111111111 MI vinummussumermnii MIMI rum M111. Agro-economic Regions 11111111111141p111111/=4111111111111 110.11111MIM LAMMMIMr"1111111 JIB .' IINM Mr `1""- ...... - , 1. - Paralimni Iflirafill "'II" 2. Kokkinokhoria • 3. Larnaca Coastal 4. Larnaca Mountainous 5. Larnaca mixed farming 6. Dheftera 1r1101 111 iirliliii 111 7. Astromeritis — Akaki 1 8. Solea Mill1 I I 19 9. Marathasa 10. Pitsilia 11. Tillyria 20 12. Nicosia mixed farming 13. Nicosia suburbs 14. Mantarine 15. Coumandaria Limassol 16. Deciduous trees Limassol 17. Vine Limassol 18. Pissouri Limassol 19. Limassol mixed farming 20. Limassol Coastal 21. Vines Paphos 22. Paphos Coastal 23. Paphos semi-mountainous 24. Polis Khrysokhous Coastal " MAP 2 - SAMPLE VILLAGES"

Villages visited 1. Kakopetria 2. Yerakies 3. Kyperounda 4. Palechori 5. Pera Pedhi 6. Tsadha 7. Kritou Marrottou 8. Louvaras 9. Arsos 10. Tseri 11. Athienou 12. Ora 13. Marathounda 14. Kato Dheftera 15. Orounda 16. Kiti 17. Kouklia 18. Sotira 19. Ypsonas 20. Kato Pyrgos 21. Argaka APPENDIX 71

APPENDIX

Table Al General Economic Indicators 1979

Total population (000) 621 Population growth rate (%) 1 Urban population (%) 52.7

Gross National Product at market prices (EC.M.) 631.5 Per capita Gross National Product (X) 1017.7

Gross Domestic Product at market prices (c.M.) 610.5 Total fixed investment at market prices (X.M.) 195.0 Total bank credit (X.M.) 354.9

Retail Price Index (July 76 - 77 .100) 128.4

Economically active population (000) 205 Unemployed (%) 1.8

Balance of payments Current Account -72.6 Visible balance -171.7 Invisible balance 99.1 Capital Account 54.0 Net errors and omissions 7.1 Net monetary movement 11.5

Sources: Central Bank of Cyprus, Bulletin June 1980. Central Bank of Cyprus, Annual Report 1979. Cyprus Popular Bank Ltd., Newsletter November-December 1980. -72 -

Table A2 Sectoral Economic Indicators 1978

Share of Industrial Economically Gross Bank lending Sector GDP origin of active Investment (%) GDP population (%) (%) (%) (V)) Agriculture 12.0 25.0 22.0 7-7 6.5 Mining & Quarrying 1.9 7.4 1.0 0.8 1.2 Manufacturing 17.8 35.6 17.6 12.4 26.5 Energy, Gas & Water 1.5 6.0 0.7 2.4 (2) Construction 11.0 17.8 9.0 3-7 12.7 Storage Transport, 11.5 27.5 4.0 21.7 1.2 & Communication Wholesale & Retail 16.2 39.0 8.8 6.6 33.13 trade Banking, Insurance & - 5.8 11.2 1.7 0.5 Real Estate Public Authorities 4.9 15.2 5.6 0.6 2.8 4 Services 6.7 15.8 13.3 5.8 4.4 1 Other 10.7 19.1 16.3 37.81 11.6

Notes 1. Housing 2. included under Public Authorities 3. including International Trade 4 Tourism

Origin of Exports Destination of Imports (%) Food and Live Animals 26.2 12.3 Beverages and Tobacco 16.5 3.4 Crude Materials 7-3 2.1 Mineral Fuels 2.4 11.0 Animal and Vegetable oils 0.2 1.1 Chemicals 2.5 6.8 Manufactured goods 39-3 34.9 Machinery and Transport 5.4 27.1 equipment Other 0.2 1.3

Source: Central Bank of Cyprus Bulletin 1979. 47

- 73 -

Table A3 General Azricultural Indicators

1979 %ageP change over 1978

Gross Domestic Production in Agriculture EC 64.3M 14.4 Agricultural Production as proportion of GDP 11.5% - 0.5 Proportion of economically active population 21.6% - o.4 Government development expenditure in agriculture CC 10.8 +37.0 Bank lending in Agriculture CC 24.5 1.2 Proportion of gross fixed Capital formation 7.7% + 0.1 Proportion of total exports 26.0% - 7.5

Value of Agricultural Production (1979) area (donums) value(CC 000) Cereals 349400 5938.0 Legumes 25900 illo.6 Industrial crops 468o 274.7 Fodder crops 181600 2899.5 Potatoes 55000 12648.0 Other vegetables 38365 11493.3 Grapes 256000 1184o.o Citrus 38100 6807.9 Other fruits 27800 3769.1 Nuts 39050 i3ok.o Olives l0000 3780.0 Carobs 60000 888.1 Meat 21489.6 Milk 8152.4 Eggs 2573.0

Sources: Central Bank of Cyprus : Bulletin 1979. Agricultural Survey 1979. - 71+ -

Table A4 Proportion of Holders with off-farm occupation by Agro-economic region

Region

Mountain Zone Solea 69.32 Marathasa 57.03 Pitsilia 63.32 Deciduous Trees Limassol 53.49

Vine Zone Vines Paphos 35.58 Vines Limassol 33.37 Commandaria Limassol 50.48

Dryland Zone Larnaca Mixed Farming 55.92 Limassol Mixed Farming 63.42 Nicosia Mixed Farming 63.18 Nicosia Suburbs 82.43 Dheftera 66.29 Astromeritis - Akai 52.31 Paphos Semi-Mountainous 40.16 Larnaca Mountainous 45.82 Mandarine Limassol 50.30

Coastal Zone Paralimni 47.07 Kokkinokhoria 32.62 Larnaca Coastal 42.00 Pahos Coastal 65.26 Pissouri 37.66 Limassol Coastal 69.00 Polis Khrysokhous Coastal 57.35 Tylliria 66.67

Source: calculated from Census of Agriculture 1977 Volume 1. - 75 -

Table A5 Grouping of Agro-economic re ions by zone and sub zone

Mountain Zone

Solea -) North of Troodos Marathasa j (different varieties) Pitsilia - Project Area Deciduous Trees Limassol - South of Troodos

Vine Zone

Vines Paphos - considerable new planting Vines Limassol -) little new planting Coumandaria Limassol )

Dry-land Zone

Larnaca Mixed Farming Limassol Mixed Farming ) mostly plains land Nicosia Mixed Farming ) Nicosia Suburbs ) Dheftera ) substantial irrigation Astromeritis Akaki .) .) Paphos semi-mountainous Larnaca mountainous ) more mountainous Mandarine Limassol

Coastal Zone _) Paralimni Kokkinokhoria ) vegetable production Larnaca Coastal ) Paphos Coastal -) Pissouri Limassol Coastal ) semi-tropical fruit production Polis Khrysokhous Coastal ) Tylliria .) -76 -

Table A6 Villages selected according to agro-economic region, locational characteristics and number of farmers interviewed.

Region Characteristic Farmers Interviewed

Kakopetria Solea Tourist influenced Yerakies Marathasa Remote If Kyperounda Pitsilia Close to mine If Palechori Pitsilia Remote 3 (Reserve) Pera Pedhi Deciduous Trees Remote If

Tsadha Vines Paphos Near Paphos Kritzu Marrottou Vines Paphos Remote Louvaras Coumandaria Distant from main road Arsos Vines Limassol Tourist influenced

Tseri Nicosia Mixed Close to Nicosia Farming Athienou Larnaca Mixed Difficult Farming communications Ora (Reserve) Larnaca Mountainous Remote Marathounda Paphos Semi- Near Paphos Mountainous Kato Dheftera Dheftera Close to Nicosia (Reserve) Orounda Astromeritis - Far from main town Akaki

Kiti Larnaca Coastal Close to Larnaca Kouklia . Paphos Coastal Remote Sotira Kokkinokhoria Potato producing (Reserve) area Ypsonas . Limassol Coastal Close to Limassol Kato Pyrgos Tylliria Remote Argaka (Reserve) Polls Khrysokhous Close to main road Coastal -77 -

Table A7 Outline of data groups

Group No. in sample Villages 38 Kakopetria Kyperounda (Close to employment centre) Tsadha Arsos

Tseri Marathounda Ypsonas Kato Dheftera Kiti

1+7 Yerakies Orounda (Remote from employment centre) Athienou Kouklia Kritou Marrottou Kato Pyrgos Argaka Pera Pedhi Louvaras Ora Palechori Sotira

Kakopetria Yerakies (Mountain zone) Kyperounda Pera Pedhi Palechori

V 16 Kritou Marrottou Tsadha (Vine zone) Louvaras Arsos

Teeni Orounda (Dryland zone) Athienou Marathounda Ora Kato Dheftera

Kato Pyrgos Argaka (Coastal zone) Kouklia Ypsonas Sotira Kiti - 78 -

Table A7 (cont.)

Group No. in sample Villages

M* 27 Kakopetria Yerakies (Mountain zone plus Kyperounda Pera Pedhi Ora and Marathounda) Palechori Ora Marathounda

D* 18 Tseri Orounda zone minus (Dryland Athienou Kato Dheftera Ora and Marathounda)

C* 20 Kato Pyrgos Argaka zone minus (Coastal Ypsonas Sotira Kouklia) Kiti Table A8 Age, education and migration of part-time farmers and their families

Mean Age Education Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of Group of holders of holders children having children having male children total children (years) (years) high school further migrating migrating education education

Total Sample 46.4 6.6 83.8 32.9 56.4 54.9

47.0 6.3 88.5 31.1 59.3 48.6 45.8 6.8 78.6 31.2 53.5 49.1

48.1 5.8 81.5 12.5 50.5 43.3 V 43.8 6.4 85.3 15.7 100.0 56.2 1 -.I 48.6 6.6 85.4 , 52.5 75.1 74.0 q) 1 44.3 7.3 80.9 36.1 11.2 22.9 M* 49.9 5.5 78.4 .9.7 62.5 53.5 D* 45.8 7.5 95.2 84.2 62.5 77.5 C* 43.2 7.4 80.1 40.0 0.0 16.7

Group N = villages near employment source R= remote villages It M = mountain zone V. vine zone It D = dryland zone C = coastal zone M*. mountain zone plus villages 10 and 17 D*= dryland zone excluding villages 10 and 17 C*= coastal zone excluding village 6 Table A9 Part-time farmers by category of off-farm occupation

Employed Categories % Sample group

Total R M V D C M* D* C* Sample 27.8 20.0 Public Servant/Professional 14.1 14.8 12.8 10.5 6.2 19.2 16.7 7.4 11.1 10.0 Engineer/Mechanic 7.1 15.8 0 5.2 6.2 7.7 8.3 3.7 o Manufacturing 3.5 7.9 4.2 5.2 o 11.5 o 3.7 16.7 0 Transport 4.7 0 8.5 21.0 0 0 0 14.8 0

Manual worker in Primary 7.1 13.2 6.4 21.0 6.2 7.7 4.2 22.2 0 5.0 Industry 5.0 Construction 15.3 13.2 17.0 10.5 43.7 7.7 8.3 11.1 5.6 1 ("blue Government employee 15.3 10.5 19.1 0 18.7 23.1 16.7 11.1 16.7 15.0 too collar") 0 1 0 Miner 2.3 5.2 0 10.5 0 0 0 7.4 0 72.2 Total in employed categories 67.1 76.3 59.6 73.7 75.0 69.2 54.2 70.4 55.0

Self-employed Categories % 0 0 Textiles 2.3 2.6 4.2 10.5 0 3.8 0 7.4 15.0 Transport 12.9 7.9 17.0 15.8 12.5 7.7 16.7 11.1 11.1 11.1 10.0 Retailing 11.8 10.5 12.8 5.2 6.2 19.2 12.5 14.8 11.1 0 Mechanic 3.5 o 6.4 5.2 o 7.7 o 3.7 Construction 7.1 7.9 6.4 10.5 o o 16.7 7.4 o 20.0 10.0 Manufacturing 3.5 2.6 4.2 o o 3.8 8.3 o 5.6

Total in self-employed 43.5 34.2 48.9 47.4 25.0 38.5 54.2 44.4 38.9 55.0 categories 16.7 10.0 % with >1 off-farm occupation io.6 5.3 14.9 10.5 0 11.5 8.3 7.4 Table A10 Einployment characteristics of part-time farmers Sample group Total Einployment characteristic N P M V sample D C M* D* C* Proportion in urban location 49.4 63.2 36.2 47.4 81.2 50.0 29.2 44.4 33.3 25.0 Mean distance travelled 10.5 9.3 10.6 9.2 20.8 7.1 2.3 13.0 4.7 2.4 (miles) Proportion full time in off- 81.6 59.6 73.7 68.7 73.1 62.5 farm occupation 75.3 74.1 61.1 70.0. Proportion with seasonality 10.6 2.6 17.0 5.3 12.5 3.8 20.8 in off-farm occupation 3.7 5.7 20.0 Mean/age time in off-farm 86.6 91.8 83.3 90.8 80.6 83.9 85.9 80.2 occupation 92.1 38.9 Proportion of wives with off- 10.6 10.5 10.6 10.5 6.2 19.2 4.2 18.5 11.1 farm occupation 5.0

Table All Household farm labour profile Sample group Total Mean weeks/annum on farm N R M V D C M* D* sample C* Total household 26.6 22.7 30.3 25.1 39.2 18.3 29.0 28.7 9.9 31.6 Farmer 9.7 8.5 10.8 9.2 15.6 5.3 11.2 9.2 3.5 11.3 Farmer's wife 13.5 11.0 15.4 14.6 19.8 10.6 11.4 16.8 5.5 13.1 Total household-farmer 16.9 14.2 19.5 15.9 23.6 13.0 17.8 19.5 6.4 20.3 Proportion of total weeks on farm Farmer 36.4 45.5 42.1 36.4 39.4 50.7 45.1 33.3 63.3 40.9 Farmer's wife 50.8 40.7 46.7 55.3 50.5 38.4 36.2 56.0 28.6 40.0 Other household members 12.8 13.8 11.2 8.3 10.1 10.8 18.6 10.6 8.1 19.1 Table Al2 Land tenure (Sample farms)

Total Sample V D C M* D* C* 1 Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Owned Area (donums)2 29.2 22.4 28.3 20.5 30.0 23.9 21.4 18.2 27.2 15.9 29.4 18.6 31.5 28.2 30.7 23.1 25.6 18.4 33.3 29.0 No. Plots/holding 6.8 6.0 6.3 4.2 7.2 7.2 7.5 8.4 5.7 2.8 8.6 6.4 5.1 4.4 9.5 8.6 6.1 4.1 5.5 4.6 Irrigated area 3.9 5.6 2.6 3.6 5.0 6.7 3.1 3.2 0.7 1.2 2.9 4.5 7.8 7.7 2.6 2.9. 3.6 5.2 7.9 7.2

3 Area rented in 17.3 18.0 12.0 12.2 20.0 20.6 6.7 4.6 19.3 19.5 26.2 24.9 10.5 11.0 13.1 11.6 33.0 38.2 10.5 11.0 Area rented out 20.6 18.2 20.2 18.1 21.5 26.2 0 0 0 0 26.0 21.7 16.5 17.3 0 0 26.0 21.7 16.5 17.3

Prop. af farmers 14.1 10.5 17.0 10.5 18.7 15.4 12.5 14.8 11.1 15.0 renting in co

Propn. of farmers 8.2 13.1 4.2 0 0 11.5 16.7 0 16.7 20.0 renting out

1. S.D. = Standard deviation.

2. All area measurements are in donums. 1 donum = 0.33 acres = 0.133 hectares. 3. Areas rented in and out refer to areas per farmer leasing. 1 Table A13 Land tenure (Census data for villages visited)

Total V D Sample C m* D* C*

2 Mean Area owned (donums) 32.7 23.8 38.4 20.9 31.4 31.5 44.5 26.4 27.1 23.2

Mean operated area 20.8 18.1 22.8 10.8 23.9 25.7 22.2 14.7 26.4 17.8

Mean irrigated area 5.6 3.7 7.0 2.2 0.8 4.0 13.3 1.7 5.7 9.6

Mean fallow area 4.9 3.7 5.9 0.8 3.2 10.3 4.2 5.1 7.5 3.9

Mean no. : Plots/holding 6.8 6.2 7.2 8.4 7.3 7.7 4.2 9.1 6.1 4.3 00

Proportion renting in 24.8 15.8 31.5 4.1 27.1 31.3 34.7 14.0 27.5 24.5

1. Source: Calculated from Census of Agriculture 1977.

2. All area measurements are in donums. Table A14 Land use (Sample farms)

Total Sample V D C M* D* C* 1 Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. , 2 Operated Area (donums) 17.7 17.3 13.9 11.3 20.7 20.6 11.0 8.2 23.1 13.2 23.2 25.6 13.4 9.9 16.7 14.8 20.1 28.1 14.5 9.9 3.4 4.7 5.1 2.7 1.4 No. Plots per operated 4.2 3.4 3.2 2.2 5.0 4.0 4.1 3.0 4.5 2.4 5.6 4.8 2.5 1.5 5.2 holding 3.2 0.7 1.2 2.3 3.5 7.7 7.3 2.6 2.9 2.8 4.0 8.7 7.6 Irrigated area(operated) 3.7 5.3 2.6 3.5 4.6 6.2 3.1 7.5 2.9 10.7 2.3 4.9 1.2 3.1 Fallow 2.5 7.7 3.4 9.6 1.8 5.7 1.7 7.3 0.7 3.0 3.3 9.8 2.6 13.5 17.1 2.1 3.5 15.8 27.8 Uncultivated/ 9.9 17.5 9.5 14.7 10.1 19.6 9.5 16.3 5.7 6.4 8.5 13.2 14.1 25.7 uncultivable

2.3 2.6 to farm (miles) 3-5 3.2 3.6 2.8 4.2 3.1 3.8 3-5 Mean distance co 83.3 80.0 Propn. with road access 71.8 76.3 68.1 52.6 62.5 80.8 83.3 59-3 11.1 20.0 Propn. with track access 14.1 13.2 14.9 15.8 12.5 11.5 16.7 14.8

Propn. with foot access 14.1 10.5 17.0 31.6 25.0 7-7 0.0 25.9 5.6 0.0

1. S.D. = Standard deviation. 2. All area measurements are in donums. Table A15 Cropping pattern

Total sample N R M V D C M* D* C* M.P.1 P.F.2 M.P. P.F. M.P. P.F. M.P. P.F. M.P. P.F. M.P. P.F. M.P. P.F. M.P. P.E. M.P. P.F. M.P. P.F.

Cereals 20.0 36.5 21.4 31.6 20.2 40.4 0 0 9.7 37.5 38.0 61.5 20.9 37.5 6.9 14.8 44.6 66.7 21.5 40.0 Vegetables 3.6 11.8 0 0 6.5 23.4 3.4 15.8 0.3 6.2 2.3 11.5 7.3 16.7 2.4 11.1 3.3 16.7 8.8 200

Legumes 3.9 14.1 1.2 10.5 6.0 17.0 0 0 2.9 12.5 9.0 34.6 2.1 4.2 2.1 14.8 9.8 27.8 2.5 5.0 Wine Grapes 32.2 41.2 35.1 42.1 30.0 38.3 49.0 68.4 82.0 100.0 9.3 11.5 10.7 12.5 43.4 59.3 0 o 10.0 10.0 Table Grapes 1.5 2.3 3.4 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.4 8.3 0 o 0 0 6.4 10.0 Citrus 8.7 17.6 2.1 5.3 14.0 27.7 0 0 0 0 1.3 15.4 23.7 41.7 0.4 11.1 1.2 11.1 25.8 45.0

Tree crops 22.8 42.3 31.5 44.7 16.3 40.4 47.5 84.2 2.0 25.0 32.9 50.0 8.9 12.5 44.8 77.8 30.5 44.4 10.6 15.0 Other crops 4.8 15.3 2.6 2.6 6.2 25.5 0 0 2.2 18.7 3.3 11.5 11.3 33.3 0 o 4.7 16,7 10.0 25.0 Co Mean No. Crops/holding 2.4 1.8 2.8 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.3

1. Mean proportion of total area in crop. 2. Proportion of farmers growing crop. Table A16 Production of part-time farmers

Total D* sample V

Mean value of output/donuml 62.3 52.1 71.0 49.6 37.8 41.0 111.5 45.7 43.1 117.1 Standard deviation 66.5 40.1 81.1 39.5 22.9 38.0 97.1 37.4 41.0 96.4 Mean value of inputp/donums 26.5 21.5 30.5 16.5 15.9 15.6 53.3 17.2 14.0 54.4 Standard deviation 29.1 19.8 34-5 14.3 9.0 13.6 40.3 15.2 11.3 40.0 Mean Gross Margin 528.5 322.7 694.8 334.4 462.9 481.7 807.6 295.2 505.7 853.5 Standard deviation 650.9 298.5 799.2 298.7 426.7 506.2 973.9 304.5 577.4 1013.4 Mean Gross Margin/donum 35.6 28.3 40.4 32.4 22.0 25.4 57.8 28.0 28.9 62.6 Standard deviation 1+1+.1+ 32.2 52.0 37.6 19.0 31.3 63.4 33.3 35.8 61.1

Co all mean values expressed in=

Table A17 Value of non-land assets per farmer

Total M* D* sample Mean value of non-land 625 532 700 578 477 331 1075 453 408 1172 assets/farmer (CC) Standard deviation 982 969 997 1132 728 674 1166 973 786 1241 Table A18 Incidence, sources and purposes of indebtedness

Total V D CM* C* sample

Percentage of households indebted 62.3 65.8 57.6 52.6 81.2 42.3 79.2 55.5 33.3 80.0

Mean debt/indebted household (EC) 1445 1879 1093 1240 715 1774 1862 1588 1350 2156

Standard deviation 1588 2026 936 1467 482 1675 1960 1757 1044 2004

Percentage of debt from institutional 82.4 78.9 80.0 57.7 77.8 91.0 86.6 76.3 84.6 86.2 sources

of debt from non-institutional Percentage 17.6 21.1 19.9 42.3 22.2 9.0 13.4 23.7 15.4 13.8 sources 1 co Percentage of debt for farm inputs 14.5 9.2 22.7 6.1 41.4 21.3 6.3 18.9 15.6 4.4

Percentage of debt for farm investments 32.8 30.6 36.8 20.1 21.2 17.9 37.8 29.7 0.0 38.6

Percentage of debt for social purposes 46.8 56.9 31.6 56.8 28.7 59.7 53.0 40.1 86.4 54.o

Percentage of debt for consumption 5.3 3.2 8.9 16.9 8.6 1.0 2.9 11.4 0.0 3.0 Table A19 Proportions of income by source

Total V D CM* D* C* sample Percentage income derived from farm 26.3 216 31.3 13.0 31.7 28.8 29.5 21.0 23.7 31.5

Standard deviation 22.8 18.1 27.0 12.8 22.7 23.5 26.0 21.9 20.2 24.0

through off-farm Percentage income 1 77.3 81.3 74.0 84.8 71.2 78.3 73.8 82.6 78.8 69.1 employment

Standard deviation 19.8 17.3 21.4 14.q 22.0 19.7 22.7 15.9 20.2 21.4

Percentage income through off-farm self- 0 6o.3 74.4 64.7 84.6 59.2 62.7 65.3 73.1 73.1 68.5 employmentl

Standard deviation 24.6 18.8 27.3 16.2 25.6 24.9 26.5 27.4 17.2 25.9

1. Farmers with both employed and self-employed off-farm occupations are included in both categories. Table A20 Trends in farm income and on-farm employment

Total D* C* sample

farm Percentage with increasing 27.1 23.7 29.8 26.3 50.0 7.7 33.3 22.2 5.6 40.0 income

Percentage with stable farm income 45.9 52.6 40.4 42.1 43.7 65.4 29.2 40.8 83.3 30.0

Percentage with decreasing farm 27.1 23.7 29.8 31.6 6.2 23.1 37.5 37.0 11.1 30.0 income

Percentage spending increasing 17.6 10.5 23.4 5.3 31.2 7.7 29.2 7.4 5.6 35.0 proportion of time on farm

propor- Percentage spending stable 62.3 73.7 53.2 78.9 62.5 73.1 37.5 79.4 83.3 40.0 tion of time on farm

Percentage spending decreasing 20.0 15.8 25.5 15.8 6.2 19.2 33.3 22.2 11.1 25.0 proportion of time on farm Table A21 Reasons given for changing farm income

Total R M V sample D C M* D* C* 1 2 Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec.

Insufficient land 20.8 10.0 25.0 14.3 25.0 20.0 7.7 100.0

Insufficient water 4.2 6.2 12.5 7.7

Investments 87.4 88.9 85.7 'moo 87.5 50.0 87.5 83.3 100,0 87.5

Prices of inputs 29.2 30.0 25.0 28.6 35.0 30.0 30.8 33.3

Prices of outputs 4.3 29.2 40.0 7.1 18.7 28.6 100.0 37.5 12.5 10.0 38.5 12.5 16.7 \.0 0 Health 8.7 11.1 7.1 12.5 50.0 16.7

Lack of interest 4.2 10.0 14.3 7.7 in farm Other 20.8 10.0 25.0 14.3 40.0 7.7 50.0

Note: The reason a number of columns sum to more than 100 is because some farmers gave more than one reason for changes in income.

1. Inc. = farmers with increasing farm income.

2. Dec. = farmers with decreasing farm income. Table A22 Reasons for changes in farmers' time spent on the farm

Reasons for change Total (percentage) sample N P M V D C M* D*

1 2 Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec. Inc. Dec.

Insufficient income 23.5 33.3 16.7 40.0 25.0 28.6 20.0 from farming

Insufficient land 29.4 16.7 33.3 25.0 40.0 25.0 14.3 1000

Insufficient water 1 80.0 100.0 85.7 85.7 vD Investments 66.7 549 50.0 72.7 8.3 _A i Prices of inputs 6.7 23.5 33.3 9.1 16.7 lom 25.0 20.0 25.0 50.0 28.6 40.0

Prices of outputs 6.7 5.9 9.1 8.3 25.0 14.3 14.3 14.3

Health 13.3 25.0 9.7 20.0 504 50.0

Other 6.7 17.6 25.0 16.7 25.0 504 25.0 1000 404

Note: The reason a number of columns sum to more than 100 is because some farmers gave more than one reason for changes in time spent on the farm.

1. Inc. = farmers with increasing time on-farm

2. Dec.. farmers with decreasing time on-farm Table A23 Reasons inhibiting farmers from devoting more time to aviculture

Reasons Total sample

Insufficient income 38.8 36.8 38.3 52.6 50.0 26.9 29.2 48.1 22.2 25.0

Insufficient land 9.4 2.6 21.3 10.5 0.0 19.2 16.7 7.4 27.8 10.0

Insufficient water 12.9 15.8 12.8 5.3 6.2 19.2 20.8 11.1 16.7 25.0

Investments 2.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 6.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Marketing arrangements 4.7 7.9 2.1 10.5 0.0 0.0 4.2 7.4 0.0 5.0

Prices of inputs 5.9 2.6 8.5 5.3 12.5 0.0 8.3 3.7 0.0 10.0

Prices of outputs 2.3 0.0 4.2 5.3 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.7 5.6 0.0

Health 3.5 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 7.4 5.6 0.0

Interest 17.6 26.3 12.8 10.5 18.7 26.9 12.5 11.1 33.3 15.0

Other 9.4 5.3 14.9 10.5 6.2 3.8 20.8 7.4 5.6 25.0 Table A24 Preferences concering occupation and location

Farmers' Preferences

Total V D C M* D* C* sample Proportion preferring to work 56.5 44.7 66.0 73.7 62.5 30.8 66.7 63.0 27.8 65.0 more in farming

Proportion preferring to work 20.0 26.3 14.9 21.0 18.7 23.1 12.5 22.2 22.2 15.0 more in non-farm occupations

Proportion preferring no change 25.9 31.6 23.4 10.5 18.7 50.0 20.8 18.5 55.6 20.0

Proportion willing to work as 37.6 31.6 42.5 83.3 43.7 19.2 20.8 66.7 11.1 15.0 farmworkers

Proportion willing to migrate 21.1 18.4 27.7 52.6 43.7 7.7 4.2 44.4 0.0 0.0 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES SERIES

1. September 1966 Contrasting Policies in Irrigation Development: Sudan and India D.S. Thornton

2. July 1967 The Marketing of Groundnuts in The Sudan E.M. Low

3. December 1967 Agriculture in South West Nigeria M. Upton

4. December 1967 Agricultural Credit in Botswana A. Harrison

5. May 1969 Irrigation in Botswana M. Upton

6. May 1969 The Economics of Irrigation Development - A Symposium S.G. Sandford, R.F. Wynn D.S. Thornton

7. February 1970 Agricultural Extension in Botswana B.G. Lever

8. January 1971 Cattle Marketing in Botswana D.J. Ansell

9. June 1971 Policies and Institutions in Ghanaian Agriculture H. Mettrick

10. November 1971 Limes in Montserrat M. Upton

11. October 1972 Farm Power in West Pakistan C.E. Finney

12. June 1973 Agriculture in South East Ghana Volume I. Summary Report D.S. Thornton

June 1973 Agriculture in South East Ghana Volume II. Special Studies G.E. Dalton and R.N. Parker

14. December 1974 Planning Agriculture in Low Income Countries - A Symposium M.P. Collinson, C.E. Finney, S.R.C. Low, P. Zuckerman, H. Casey, M. Upton

15. December 1974 Production and Marketing of Tea in Malawi R.W. Palmer Jones 16. July 1975 Farm Surveys in Malawi J. Farrington

17. July 1979 Small Scale Water Storage and Irrigation: An economic assessment for South West Nigeria Allison Ansell and Martin Upton

18. July 1981 Group Farming in North West Nigeria Anthea Dickie

19. September 1981 Farm Power in Bangladesh Volume I G.J. Gill

20. September 1981 Farm Power in Bangladesh Volume II H. Mettrick and P. James

* Out of Print ISBN 0 7049 0697 X