Countries of the World/COUNTRYS.BIN/dp/0277/02776.txt

Text File | 1991-06-25 | 30KB | 490 lines

$Unique_ID{COW02776}
$Pretitle{246}
$Title{Panama
Chapter 3C.   Agriculture}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Dennis M. Hanratty, Sandra W. Meditz}
$Affiliation{HQ, Department of the Army}
$Subject{percent
land
production
million
panama
government
manufacturing
united
increased
1970s}
$Date{1987}
$Log{Harvesting Bananas*0277601.scf
}
Country:     Panama
Book:        Panama, A Country Study
Author:      Dennis M. Hanratty, Sandra W. Meditz
Affiliation: HQ, Department of the Army
Date:        1987

Chapter 3C.   Agriculture

     For centuries, agriculture was the dominant economic activity for most of
Panama's population. After construction of the canal, agriculture declined;
its share of GDP fell from 29 percent in 1950 to just over 9 percent in 1985.
Agriculture has always employed a disproportionate share of the population
because of its labor-intensive nature. Nevertheless, the percentage of the
labor force in agriculture has also dropped, from 46 percent in 1965 to 26
percent in 1984.

     In 1985 crops accounted for 63.3 percent of value added in agriculture,
followed by livestock (29.5 percent), fishing (4.3 percent), and forestry (2.9
percent). Despite its relative decline, agriculture was the main supplier of
commodities for export, accounting for over 54 percent of total export
earnings in 1985. The agricultural sector satisfied most of the domestic
demand. The principal food imports were wheat and wheat products, because
climatic conditions precluded wheat cultivation. In 1985 the value of food
imports was US$108.7 million (8.8 percent of total imports), only half that of
food exports.

     Between 1969 and 1977, the government undertook agrarian reform and
attempted to redistribute land. The expanded role of the state in agriculture
improved social conditions in rural areas, but long-term economic effects of
the agrarian reform were modest. In the early and mid-1980s, the government
sought to reverse the decline of agriculture by diversifying agricultural
production, lowering protection barriers, and reducing the state's role in
agriculture. In March 1986, the government instituted major changes in the
agricultural incentives law and removed price controls, trade restrictions,
farm subsidies, and other supports.

Land Use

     Panama's land area totals approximately 7.7 million hectares, of which
forests account for 4.1 million hectares, followed by pasture land (1.2
million hectares), and permanently cultivated fields (582,000 hectares). About
2 percent of the land was used for roads and urban areas. Nearly all of the
cultivated and pasture land was originally forested. A large amount of virgin
land has been opened up for cultivation by the Pan- American Highway.

     Panama's climate and geology impose major constraints on the development
of agriculture. Heavy rainfall throughout the year prevents cultivation of
most crops on the Atlantic side of the continental divide (see Regions of
Settlement, ch. 2). The Pacific side has a dry season (December to April) and
accounts for most of the cultivated land (see fig. 9). The mountainous terrain
also restricts cropping. In addition, the country does not have high-quality
soils. Most of the areas classified as cultivable are so considered on the
assumption that farmers will practice conservation measures, but many do not.
The topsoil is thin in most areas, and erosion is a serious problem. Most of
the nearly level areas conducive to cultivation are in the provinces of Los
Santos, Cocle, Veraguas, and Chiriqui.

     A further constraint on production is the practice of slash-and-burn
cultivation, in which trees, brush, and weeds are cut and then burned on the
patch of ground selected for cultivation. Indians utilized the slash- and-burn
method for centuries, and the Spanish made few changes in techniques. In the
1980s, most farmers practiced a slash-and-burn type of shifting cultivation.
The thin and poor-quality topsoil yielded an initially good harvest, followed
by a smaller harvest the second year. Typically, the land was cultivated for
only two years, and then the farmer repeated the process on another plot,
allowing the first plot to rest ten years before refarming.

     Much of the farming was of a subsistence nature and accomplished with a
minimum of equipment. Plowing was generally not practiced on subsistence
farms; the seeds were placed in holes made by a stick. Tree cutting, land
clearing, weeding, and harvesting were accomplished with a few kinds of
knives, principally the machete and the axe, which comprised the major farm
implements.

Land Tenure and Agrarian Reform

     Before the 1950s, land was readily available to anyone who was willing to
clear and plant a plot. The cutting and clearing of forests greatly
accelerated as the population increased. By the 1960s, subsistence farmers
sometimes reduced the rest period of cleared plots from ten years of fallow to
as few as five years because of the inavailablity of farm land. The reduced
fallow period diminished soil fertility and harvests. Consequently, cropped
acreage peaked during the 1960s. The hard life and low income farmers
accelerated the exodus of workers from the countryside to the cities (see
Rural Society and Migration, ch. 2).

     The long period when new land was easily obtainable contributed to a
casual attitude toward land titles. In 1980, only 32.9 percent of the 151,283
farms had such titles. The decline in available agricultural land has made
land titling more necessary. Moreover, insecure tenure has been a particularly
severe constraint to improved techniques and to commercial crop production.
The cost of titling a piece of land, however, has been too high for most
subsistence farmers.

     Between 1969 and 1977, the government attempted to redistribute land. In
the late 1980s, however, the distribution of land and farm incomes remained
very unequal. In 1980, 58.9 percent of farms had an annual income below
US$200. The issue of unequal land distribution, however, has not been as
explosive in Panama as in many other Latin American countries. This was
because of the service-oriented nature of the economy and because about half
of the population lived in or near Panama City. Also, about 95 percent of all
farm land was owner-operated, and virtually all rural families owned or
occupied a plot.

     In an effort to redistribute land, the government acquired 500,000
hectares of land and expropriated an additional 20 percent of the land. About
three-quarters of the land acquired was in the provinces of Veraguas and
Panama. By 1978 over 18,000 families (about 12 percent of rural families in
the 1970 census) had access to either individual plots or collectively held
land as a result of the redistribution. The land acquisition created
uncertainty, however, and adversely affected private investment in
agriculture, slowing production in the 1970s.

     As part of its agrarian reform, the government placed heavy emphasis on
organizing farmers into collectives for agricultural development. Several
organizational forms were available, the two most important being
asentamientos (settlements) and juntas agrarias de produccion (agrarian
production associations). The distinctions between the two were minor and
became even more blurred with time. Both encouraged pooling of land and
cooperative activity. In some instances, land was worked collectively. Other
organizational forms included marketing cooperatives, state farms, and
specialized producers' cooperatives for milk, chickens, or pigs. Growth of
these agricultural organizations slowed by the mid-1970s, and some disbanded,
as emphasis shifted to consolidation.

     The cost of agrarian reform was high. The government channeled large
amounts of economic aid to organized farmers. Rural credit was greatly
increased; farm machinery was made available; improved seeds and other inputs
were supplied; and technical assistance was provided. Cooperative farm yields
increased, but these higher yields were not impressive, considering