Agriculture in Syria

Water is a scarce resource in Syria as it is throughout the Middle East, but Syria is more fortunate than many other countries. Sufficient rainfall supports cultivation in the Fertile Crescent - an arc from the southwest, near the border with Israel and Lebanon, extending northward to the Turkish border and eastward along that border to Iraq. The other main area of cultivation is along the Euphrates and its major tributaries and is dependent on irrigation.

Rainfall is highest along the Mediterranean coast and on the mountains just inland, with Syria's limited forestry activities being concentrated in the higher elevations of these mountains. Rainfall diminishes sharply as one moves eastward of the mountains paralleling the coast and southward from the Turkish border. The arc of cultivation from the southwest (and east of the coastal mountains) to the northeast is largely semiarid, having as annual rainfall between 300 and 600 millimeters. Areas south and east of the arc receive less than 300 millimeters of rain annually, classifying the land as arid. Grass and coarse vegetation suitable for limited grazing grow in part of this arid belt, and the rest is desert of little agricultural value.

Rainfall is mainly between October and May. Without irrigation, cropping is finished by winter, when the climate is very hot and dry. Moreover, the amount of rainfall and its timing varies considerably from year to year, making rain-fed farming extremely risky. When rains are late or inadequate, farmers do not even plant a crop. Successive years of drought are not uncommon and cause havoc not only for farmers but for the rest of the economy. In the mid-1980s, about two-thirds of agricultural output (plant and animal production) depended on rainfall.

The bulk of the country is arid, with little vegetation. In 1984, nearly 20% was classified as desert, and another 45% was classified as steppe and pasture, although its grazing capacity was very limited. Less than 3% of the land was forested, with only part of it commercially useful. Cultivatable land amounted to 33% of the total area. In 1984, 91.7% of the total cultivable area of 6.17 million hectares was cultivated.

Major expansion of the cultivated area occurred in the 1940s and 1950s. Much of the expansion was the result of investment by wealthy urban merchants. Their innovations included large-scale use of farm machinery, pumps, and irrigation where possible, and different tenure arrangements for farm operators than were used in other parts of the country. But the efforts of the merchants of Aleppo and other commercial centers largely exhausted the potential for bringing new land under cultivation. The area of cultivation (6.9 million hectares) and land irrigated (760,000 hectares) peaked in 1963 and has been appreciably smaller since then. In 1984, approximately 5.7 million hectares were under cultivation, with 618,000 irrigated.

Opinions differ as to the causes of the decline of cultivated and irrigated areas after 1963. Some observers say that marginal lands brought under cultivation proved uneconomical after a few years and were abandoned. Others claim that the merchant developers used exploitative techniques that eventually reduced the productivity of the soil. Still other observers blame land-reform measures, which coincided with the decline of the cultivated and irrigated areas. Each view is probably somewhat valid.

In the future, expansion of the cultivated area will be slow and costly. Although the Euphrates irrigation projects will provide water to bring additional land under cultivation, growth will be partly offset by the loss of arable land to urban expansion, roads, and other facilities for a growing population. After the disappointing results of the Euphrates irrigation projects through the mid-1980s, the government began to develop rain-fed agriculture to offset potential setbacks in the Euphrates scheme. Drainage investments also will be required to maintain cultivation on some irrigated areas that currently suffer from water logging or excessive salinity.

Agriculture was Syria's main economic activity until mid 1970s. It was the most significant economic sector when Syria gained independence in 1946, experiencing the fastest growth during the 1940s and early 1950s. Syria's notables made large investments in irrigation and land development. The rest fields of the economy were accelerated by the rapid growth of the cultivated land and increased productivity. However, by the late 1950s, land reforms policy caused a drop in agricultural output. Agriculture's share of the GDP barely increased by 3.2% between 1953 and 1976. From 1976 through 1984, growth slowed to 2% annually. Thus, as other industries grew faster than agriculture, agriculture's significance to the economy decreased.[4] In 1950 the first Syrian constitution placed a limit on the size of farm holdings, but the necessary implementing legislation was not passed until 1958, after the union of Syria and Egypt.[5]

In 1959, the United Arab Republic was born, a hybrid new state that gathered Syria and Egypt under one national leader, Nasser. Although the union lasted only for three years, some of the measures that were undertaken had long-term effects on Syria, including agriculture.[6] This is mainly because Syria’s environmental and social conditions were different from those in Egypt.[7] Previously in Egypt, Nasser conducted land reforms based on the type of watering system.[8] In this regard, the lands were divided in two categories according to irrigation type. When the two countries were united, Nasser applied in Syria the same policy he installed previously in Egypt. However, many studies have demonstrated that this division was short-sighted and ineffective in Syria as it led to impoverishing the farmers and demolishing Syrian farming eventually.[9]

Pre-1958:

Farming land was not distributed, it was rather earned, bought, or claimed by inheritance law.[10] A small percentage of the rural population possessed most of the farming land while the majority of the locals were farmers. About 70% of the countryside population did not own any land, and they earned their living through wage labor or sharecropping. Furthermore, 10-15% of the population in the country owned limited properties of less than 10 hectares. Big estates owned by only 2.5% of all landowners controlled almost 40% of all agricultural land.[11]

1958-1961

After Syria formed the United Arab Republic with Egypt in 1958, land reforms were installed in Syria following the same pattern of those in Egypt. Personal possession of land was limited to 80 hectares of irrigated land and 300 hectares of non-irrigated land. The rest of the personal properties were expropriated by the state. the owners were set to compensation plans that spanned 75 years. However, the original owners were not compensated fully. contrastingly, the farmers received a maximum of 8 hectares of irrigated or 30 of non-irrigated land per person.[12]

1963-1966

The Baath Military Coup installed a harsher limit on landownership with a maximum of 15 to 55 hectares per individual for irrigated land and between 80 and 200 hectares per individual for non-irrigated land. This limit was based on the fertility of land itself. The speed at which the expropriation of land occurred increased so that almost one million hectares were eventually expropriated and 240.000 hectares had been redistributed in a span of a year and a half.[13]

1966-1970

With another military coup in 1966, the land expropriated from large landowners were no longer redistributed. In stead, the lands became state-owned properties where farmers work and do not have rights to ownership. In addition, the state decided the kinds of the crops to be planted, handling, and marketing of the products. Particularly growing cotton and wheat.[14]

1970-2000

In 1970, Hafiz al-Asad came to power while the agrarian sector was stagnating. The pursuit of a state capitalist economy forced the original land owners to leave the country or to be marginalized. Instead of the private capital, the state had to invest in farming heavily. However, the government failed to fill the gap left by the original landlords. As a result, Hafiz al-Assad invited investors back to Syria. The landlords were encouraged to start investing again in the state-owned landholdings, while the state dealt with the local farmers who had small-holdings.[15] The land reforms strategy of Nasser was finalized in the 1970s.[16] The former large estates were reduced in size, while the number of small-holdings increased, depopulating the countryside effectively as farmers were not supported anymore by the government and they were not able to sustain continuous cropping.[17] As a result, farmers families started leaving the countryside and migrating to the outskirts of large cities like Damascus and Aleppo.[18] The catastrophic effects of land reforms policy on agriculture in Syria were quite noticed by the 1990s.[19] Producing of the strategic crops was heavily subsidized. However, the government decided to reduce the subsidies for seeds, chemical fertilizer, and pesticides. In addition, heavy agrarian equipment were not subsidized, which minimized the local farming and impoverished the local farmers.[20]

The remaining farmers became completely dependent on governmental support, which manifested in loans, as well as seeds and fertilizers support. However, farming and crops output was degrading with time. The degradation of the effective agricultural sector in Syria, including productivity and capacity would be attributed to the national land reforms of 1958, maintained by the Assad regime but seldom meticulously planned economically and financially speaking.[21]

Government involvement in agriculture was minimal prior to Syria's union with Egypt. Although state intervention in the agricultural sector increased following the union, the government avoided playing a direct role in cultivation. In 1984, private farmers tilled 74 percent of the cultivated land, cooperatives 25 percent, and public organizations (essentially state farms) 1 percent.

Government involvement arose indirectly from socialist transformation measures in various parts of the economy and directly from government efforts to fill the void in the countryside caused by land reform. As an example of the former, the Agricultural Cooperative Bank, a private bank established in the eighteenth century but inherited by the socialist regime, in the mid-1960s became the single source for direct production credits to farmers. The bank had limited funds and confined itself almost completely to short-term financing, the bulk of which went to cotton growers. Part of its lending was in kind—primarily seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers at subsidized prices. Although the bank appeared effective, there was insufficient credit through the 1960s and early 1970s for farmers who did not grow cotton and for long-term loans for such needs as machinery or capital improvements. In the mid-1970s, the flow of funds to the bank increased, thus allowing it to expand its lending to the agricultural sector. The bank became an important influence in shaping farmers' production decisions, particularly in cotton.

In the 1960s, government marketing organizations for the major agricultural commodities were established. The Cotton Marketing Organization, as noted, had a complete monopoly. Organizations for tobacco and sugar beets had purchasing monopolies, set the farm purchase prices, and supervised the processing and marketing of their respective commodities. An organization for grains set prices, purchased some of the farmers' surplus, and supervised the marketing of the remainder through private dealers. The government also set prices for several other agricultural commodities, most imports, and many consumer items.

Some economists attributed part of the stagnation in agriculture to the government's pricing of farm produce. Farm prices remained unchanged over long periods and by the 1970s and 1980s were quite low relative to world prices. Some smuggling out of farm products for sale in Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon resulted as well as some black marketing in controlled commodities. Pricing also was not coordinated to achieve agricultural goals. Although the Ministry of Agriculture attempted to get farmers to increase wheat production, the government's desire to keep basic food costs low for urban consumers imposed low grain prices for farmers. The ministry also urged farmers to shift irrigated areas from cotton to wheat at the same time that the farm price of cotton was raised relative to that of wheat.

Aware of the problems, officials made efforts to improve pricing policy. By 1977 prices paid to farmers had risen substantially and favored grains and some industrial crops over cotton. In fact, the 1977 prices (when converted to dollars at the official exchange rate) paid to farmers for wheat, soybeans, and sugar beets were substantially higher (more than 100 percent for wheat) than the prices paid to American farmers for those products. In 1985 the government again raised procurement prices for a variety of crops. Prices for hard wheat rose by 9 percent, soft wheat by 14 percent, red lentils by 13 percent, white lentils by 18 percent, and barley by 22 percent from the preceding year.

When land reform was introduced, those receiving expropriated or government land were required to join farm cooperatives. Cooperatives were expected to furnish the organization, techniques, credit, and joint use of machinery to replace and expand the functions supplied by the landowners and managers of the large estates. Syrian farmers' individualism and aversion to cooperatives may explain their apparent preference for renting land from the government rather than buying the land and having to join a cooperative. Whether the cause was aversion by farmers or an inability by the government to organize and staff cooperatives, as some economists suggest, the cooperative movement grew slowly until the early 1970s, but accelerated thereafter. In 1976 there were 3,385 agricultural cooperatives with 256,000 members—more than double the number and membership in 1972. By 1984 there were 4,050 agricultural cooperatives with 440,347 members. Statistics do not distinguish between cooperatives for farmers receiving expropriated or government land and voluntary cooperatives of established landowners.

Officials expected cooperatives eventually to mitigate, if not eliminate, two serious agricultural problems. First, farmers tended to specialize in certain crops without practicing crop rotation. Second, substantial amounts of arable land were left fallow each year. In the 1970s, government extension workers and cooperatives strongly urged farmers to rotate cropping in a pattern that would maintain the fertility of the soil and avoid having cultivable fields left fallow. Cooperatives were also expected to facilitate the use of machinery after land reform reduced the average size of farms, partly by cooperative ownership of equipment and partly by pooling small plots into an economically sized bloc that would then be cultivated as a single unit in the cropping rotation. By 1986 it was not clear how much success cooperatives had achieved in crop rotation or mechanization, but statistics showed an accelerated use of farm equipment by the agricultural sector after the October 1973 War.

Because only about 16% of the cropped area was irrigated, the output of agriculture (both plant and animal) was heavily dependent on rainfall. The great variation in the amounts and timing of rainfall can immediately cause very substantial shifts in areas planted, yields, and production, but the effect on livestock is less predictable. When drought is unusually severe or prolonged, loss of animals may depress livestock production for several years. In 1984 crop production accounted for 72 percent of the value of agricultural output; livestock and animal products, 28 percent. Livestock alone, not counting products such as milk, wool, and eggs, were 11 percent of the total.

In 1984, crop production amounted to LS 13.6 billion. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) valued Syrian 1985 production at US$1.1 billion. Grains contributed 15 percent to the value of total crop production in 1984, in contrast to 41 percent in 1974. Industrial crops remained 20 percent of the total. Fruits rose from 15 to 25 percent of the total, and vegetables rose from 16 to 35 percent. In 1984, grain continued to be planted on 66 percent of the cultivated land, consistent with the mid-1970s percentage.

Fluctuations in rainfall resulted in major variations in crop production throughout the 1980s. In 1980, wheat was planted on 1.4 million hectares, yielding 2.2 million tons—the largest wheat harvest since the early 1960s. In 1984, wheat planted on 1.1 million hectares produced only 1.1 million tons. In 1980 and 1984, barley was planted on 1.2 million hectares, but production fell from 1.6 million tons in 1980, the peak year, to 303,500 tons in 1984, revealing the impact of the drought on rain-dependent crops. In 1985 wheat and barley crops rebounded to 1.7 million tons and 740,000 tons, respectively. In 1984, Syria grew a record 60,000 tons of corn.

Earlier stagnation of agricultural output meant primarily stagnation of grain production. Instead of exporting wheat, in the 1980s Syria became a net importer. In 1985, Syria imported 1.4 million tons of wheat, worth more than LS 800 million. In addition, cereal imports rose from LS 368 million in 1982 to LS 1.6 billion in 1984, amounting to 56 percent of the LS 2.85 billion bill for food imports that year.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the government encouraged greater grain production by providing improved high-yield seeds, raising prices paid to farmers, and urging shifts toward wheat growing on some irrigated land formerly planted in cotton. Its intent was to raise grain output at least to self-sufficiency to ease the pressure on the balance of payments. Beginning in the late 1970s, the government showed increased interest in improving rain-fed agriculture and acquired funding from the World Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the UN Development Program for a US$76.3 million project to expand food production and raise the standard of living in Daraa and As Suwayda provinces. In addition, Syrian agriculture benefited from research projects undertaken by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas' (ICARDA) branch office located near Aleppo. ICARDA helped develop the Sham-1 durum wheat and Sham-2 bread wheat used by Syrian farmers in the mid-1980s and demonstrated through its research the positive effect of phosphate fertilizers on barley crops in dry areas, encouraging the government to consider a change in agricultural strategy.

In the 1980s, vegetables and fruits exhibited the fastest growth rates of the various crops, although they started from a low base. Urbanization and rising incomes spurred cultivation of these products, which were also generally exempt from official price control. Fruits and vegetables were grown primarily in the northwest and coastal plain in irrigated fields and where rainfall and groundwater were greatest. However, Syria lagged considerably behind Lebanon in cultivation of fruits and vegetables in similar terrain, and seasonal fruits were consistently smuggled in from Lebanon in the 1980s.

During the Syrian Civil War, the country lost $16 billion of crop and livestock production, in which household livestock ownership has sunk at nearly 50% for each of cattle, sheep, goats and poultry.[23]

Cotton

Cotton production in comparison with wheat, barley and olive oil production in 1000 metric tonnes since 2010.[24]

Syria has produced cotton since ancient times, and its cultivation increased in importance in the 1950s and 1960s. Until superseded by petroleum in 1974, cotton was Syria's most important industrial and cash crop, and the country's most important foreign exchange earner, accounting for about one-third of Syria's export earnings. In 1976, the country was the tenth largest cotton producer in the world and the fourth largest exporter. Almost all the cotton was grown on irrigated land, largely in the area northeast of Aleppo. Syrian cotton was medium staple, similar to cotton produced in other developing countries but of lower quality than the extra-long staple variety produced in Egypt. The cotton was handpicked, although mechanical pickers were tried in the 1970s in an attempt to hold down rising labor costs.

Cotton production (cotton lint) rose from 13,000 tons in 1949 to 180,000 tons in 1965. However, land reform and nationalization of the cotton gins precipitated a sharp decline in output in the next few years. Beginning in 1968 and during the 1970s annual lint production hovered around 150,000 tons. However, in 1983 and 1984, Syria enjoyed a record cotton crop of 523,418 tons, and the third highest yield in the world, estimated at 3 tons per hectare. To a large measure, this increase was attributable to the government's raising cotton procurement prices by 44 percent in 1981–82, and by another 20 percent in 1982–83.

Although the area under cotton cultivation has declined since the early 1960s, yields have increased as a result of improved varieties of seed and increasing amounts of fertilizer. The area planted dropped from over 250,000 hectares in the early 1960s to 140,000 hectares in 1980. In response to the jump in procurement prices by 1984, it increased to 178,000 hectares. As domestic consumption of cotton increased in the 1960s and 1970s, the government built several textile mills to gain the value added from exports of fabrics and clothes compared with exports of raw cotton. In the 1980s, cotton exports averaged 120,000 tons, ranging from a low of 72,800 tons to a record of 151,000 tons in 1983. Syria's seed cotton harvest was 462,000 tons in 1985, about 3 percent higher than in 1984. Approximately 110,000 tons of the 1985 harvest were destined for export markets. Major foreign customers in 1985 included the Soviet Union (18,000 tons), Algeria (14,672 tons), Italy (13,813 tons), and Spain (10,655 tons).

Olive groves in Western-Syria, Homs Governorate.

The government's goal of expanding and diversifying food production created intense competition for irrigated land and encouraged the practice of double cropping. Because cotton did not lend itself to double cropping, the cultivated cotton area was declining in real terms. However, the area under cultivation and significance of other industrial crops substantially increased during the 1980s. For example, the government initiated policies designed to stimulate sugar beet cultivation to supply the sugar factories built in the 1970s and 1980s. The area under cultivation for sugar beets rose from 22,000 hectares in 1980 to 35,700 hectares in 1984, with sugar beet harvests totaling over 1 million tons in 1984. Syria, however, still imported LS 287 million worth of sugar in 1984. USDA estimated that Syria would achieve tobacco self-sufficiency in 1985, with harvests of 12.3 million tons (dry weight) compared with 12.2 million tons in 1984. Although yields per hectare fell slightly in 1985, USDA expected imports to match exports. In 1984, Syria imported 559 tons of tobacco and exported 225 tons. Other important commercial crops included olives and tomatoes.

This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Country Studies. Federal Research Division.

• Country studies