Food Outlook

Global Market Analysis
global information and early warning system on food and agriculture GIEWS

„
November 2010
fOCUS
International prices of most agricultural commodities have increased in recent
months, some sharply. The FAO Food Price index has gained 34 points since the
previous Food Outlook report in June, averaging 197 points in October, only 16
points short from its peak in June 2008. The upward movements of prices were
connected with several factors, the most important of which were a worsening
of the outlook for crops in key producing countries, which is likely to require large
draw downs of stocks and result in tighter global supply and demand balances in
2010/11. Another leading factor has been the weakening of the United States Dollar
(US Dollar) from mid-September, which continues to sustain the prices of nearly all
agricultural and non-agricultural traded commodities. The increase in international
prices of food commodities, all of which accruing in the second half of 2010, is
boosting the overall food import bill in 2010 closer to the peak reached in 2008.
The pressure on prices to rise was first felt in the cereal market, most notably
for wheat and barley, in August. This prompted FAO to call for an extraordinary
meeting on 24 September 2010 to discuss the underlying causes and possible
remedies. The meeting clearly identified the importance of reliable and up-
to-date information on crop supply and demand to cope with unexpected
developments in world markets. More transparency and a better understanding
of the role of commodity futures markets and government responses were also
viewed as necessary to address price volatility. The full report of the meeting is
included in the Special Feature section of this issue of Food Outlook.
Amid fears of a repeat of the price surge experienced in 2008, FAO expects
supplies of major food crops in 2010/11 to be more adequate than two years
ago, mainly because of much larger reserves. The fact that supplies of rice,
wheat and white maize, the most important staple food crops in many vulnerable
countries, are also more ample lessens the risk of a repeat of the 2007/08 crisis
in the current season. Nonetheless, following a series of unexpected downward
revisions to crop forecasts in several major producing countries, world prices
have risen alarmingly and at a much faster pace than in 2007/08.
Attention is now turning to plantings for the next (2011/12) marketing season.
Given the expectation of falling global inventories, the size of next year’s crops
will be critical in setting the tone for stability in international markets. For
major cereals, production must expand substantially to meet utilization and to
reconstitute world reserves and farmers are likely to respond to the prevailing
strong prices by expanding plantings. Cereals, however, may not be the only
crops farmers will be trying to produce more of, as rising prices have also made
other commodities attractive to grow, from soybeans to sugar and cotton.
This could limit individual crop production responses to levels that would be
insufficient to alleviate market tightness. Against this backdrop, consumers may
have little choice but to pay higher prices for their food. With the pressure on
world prices of most commodities not abating, the international community
must remain vigilant against further supply shocks in 2011 and be prepared.
Market summaries 3-12
Market assessments 13-60
Cereals 12
Wheat 13
Coarse grains 19
Rice 24
Cassava 30
Oilseeds, oils and meals 36
Sugar 43
Meat and meat products 47
Milk and milk products 51
Fish and fishery products 54
Special features 61-69
Ŷ Wheat Rust: A growing threat
to world food security 61
Ŷ Strengthening market signals
for global price discovery 63
Ŷ Report of the Extraordinary
Intersessional Meeting of the
Intergovernmental Groups on
Grains and Rice 68
Statistical appendix tables 70-105
Market indicators 106-118
Developments in the futures 106
Ocean freight rates 111
Implied volatilities 112
Food import bills 114
The FAO price indices 116
TABLE OF CONTENTS
100
170
240
310
380
2009 2010
2002-2004=100
Dairy
Oils & Fats
Cereals
Sugar
Meat
O S A J J M A M F J D N O
FAO Food Price Indices
(October 2009 - October 2010)
1h|s report |s pr|nted on eco|og|ca| paper us|ng eco|og|ca| mater|a|s.
Acknow|edgements
The Food Outlook report is a product of the FAO Trade and Markets Division. It is written by a team of economists, whose names
and contacts appear under their respective market summary contributions. The report benefited from research support by many
staff, namely, Claudio Cerquiglini, Julie Claro, Barbara Ferraiolo, Berardina Forzinetti, David Mancini, Patrizia Mascianá, Marco
Milo, Shirley Mustafa, Fiorella Picchioni, Turan Rahimzadeh, Barbara Senfter and Stefania Vannuccini.
Special thanks go to Rita Ashton for compiling the report and overall administrative support, as well as to Claudio Cerquiglini,
for preparing the charts and statistical tables. Additionally, the team is grateful to Adrianna Gabrielli and Nancy Hart for their
editorial assistance.
Market summar|es
„ November 2010 3
Cerea| market summary
Unexpected production shortfalls driven by weather
events negatively influenced the outlook for global
cereal supply in the early months of the 2010/11
marketing season from July to October. Rarely
have markets exhibited this level of uncertainty and
sudden turns in such a brief period of time. World
cereal production this year, which is currently put
at 2 216 million tonnes, is 2 percent below the
previous year’s level and, although it represents the
third largest crop on record, it is 63 million tonnes
less than the forecast reported in the June 2010
Food Outlook. Most of the downward revision,
involving wheat and coarse grains, following cuts
in production in major grain producing countries
in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
and disappointing yields in the EU, Canada and the
United States.
As production numbers were trimmed, policy
responses in the form of export restrictions by
some countries also contributed to anxiety in
world markets. International prices surged rapidly,
renewing worries over the tightening cereal supply
and demand balance. In recent weeks, developments
in other food markets and the slide in the US Dollar
have further underpinned cereal prices and volatility.
Against this background, the size of next year’s
harvest becomes increasingly critical. For stocks to
be replenished and prices to return to more normal
levels, large production expansions are needed in
2011, especially for wheat and major coarse grains.
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
2 285.5 2 263.4 2 216.4 -2.1
Trade
2
281.3 273.6 267.3 -2.3
Total utilization
2 181.8 2 226.0 2 253.8 1.3
Food
1 027.6 1 040.5 1 056.6 1.5
Feed
758.0 761.1 764.0 0.4
Other uses
396.2 424.3 433.2 2.1
Ending stocks
520.4 552.4 512.5 -7.2
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
152.1 152.2 152.7 0.3
LIFDC (Kg/year)
3
155.9 155.9 156.5 0.4
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
23.4 24.5 22.5
Major exporters’ stock-to-
disappearance ratio (%)
17.8 17.7 14.9
FAO cereal price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
238 174 173 -1
World cereal market at a glance
1
1
Rice in milled equivalent
2
Trade data refer to exports based on a July/June marketing season for wheat and
coarse grains and on a January/December marketing season for rice
3
Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries
Cereal production, utilization and stocks
300
400
500
600
700
800
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
10/11 08/09 06/07 04/05 02/03 00/01
Million tonnes Million tonnes
f’cast
Stocks (right axis)
Production (left axis) Utilization (left axis)
Contact persons:
Abdolreza Abbassian
Phone: +39-06-57053264
E.mail: Abdolreza.Abbassian@fao.org
Paul Racionzer
Phone: +39-06-57052853
E.mail: Paul.Racionzer@fao.org
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 4
Wheat market summary
World wheat markets have undergone major
turbulence in 2010/11, stemming largely
from unexpected production shortfalls due to
unfavourable weather conditions in a number of
major producing countries, the CIS in particular.
FAO’s latest forecast for 2010 wheat production
stands at 648 million tonnes, which is 29 million
tonnes less than predicted in the June 2010 Food
Outlook. The bulk of this downward revision
reflects a sharp fall in production in the Russian
Federation and smaller than expected harvests in
many other countries which have offset improved
prospects for production in Argentina, Australia
and the United States.
Although global production in 2010 is set
to decline by at least 5 percent from 2009,
wheat stocks have proven sufficient to cover
this year’s decline in world output, especially in
major exporting countries. World wheat closing
inventories are forecast to fall to 181 million
tonnes, 10 percent below the 2010 level but still
25 percent above the critically low level of 2008.
The tightening of the wheat supply and demand
balance gave rise to sharp price increases from
the onset of the current season in July, with
prices surging most during August, when the
Russian Federation decided to ban exports. Since
September, prices have remained firm, although
below the peaks reached in August, supported
by the tighter supplies but also by the increase in
maize prices and the slide in the US Dollar.
Attention is now increasingly on production
prospects for 2011 but, with winter plantings in
major producing countries of CIS lagging behind
last year and unfavourable weather hampering
early crop development in the United States, prices
are expected to remain high and volatile for the
remainder of the season.
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
684.8 682.6 647.7 -5.1
Trade
1
139.1 128.1 121.0 -5.6
Total utilization
647.3 659.8 668.0 1.2
Food
453.3 461.0 467.1 1.3
Feed
120.7 122.3 125.0 2.2
Other uses
73.3 76.4 75.9 -0.7
Ending stocks
179.8 200.9 180.9 -9.9
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
67.1 67.4 67.5 0.1
LIFDC (Kg/year)
57.5 58.0 58.2 0.3
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
27.3 30.1 27.3
Major exporters’ stock-to-
disappearance ratio (%)
2
17.5 21.7 18.4
Wheat price index *
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
235 154 159 2
World wheat market at a glance
* Derived from International Grains Council (IGC) Wheat Index
1
Trade data refer to exports based on a common July/June marketing season
2
Major exporters include Argentina, Australia, Canada, EU and the United States
Contact persons:
Abdolreza Abbassian
Phone: +39-06-57053264
E.mail: Abdolreza.Abbassian@fao.org
Paul Racionzer
Phone: +39-06-57052853
E.mail: Paul.Racionzer@fao.org
Wheat production, utilization and stocks
100
150
200
250
300
500
550
600
650
700
10/11 08/09 06/07 04/05 02/03 00/01
Million tonnes Million tonnes
f’cast
Stocks (right axis)
Production (left axis) Utilization (left axis)
Market summar|es
„ November 2010 5
Coarse gra|n market summary
Contrary to early-season forecasts that pointed to an
increase in global output of coarse grains, the latest
FAO forecast puts this year’s production at 1 102
million tonnes, down 2 percent from 2009 and well
below the 2008 record. As the season for the 2010
crops progressed, unfavourable weather conditions
took their toll in several major producing countries.
In particular, barley in the Russian Federation and
Ukraine was severely affected by drought, while
maize in the United States yielded considerably less
than the bumper levels initially expected. While world
production would still be the third largest ever, it will
nevertheless fall short of the anticipated utilization
of 1 126 million tonnes. This implies a considerable
drawdown of world inventories this season.
World coarse grain stocks are forecast to reach
198 million tonnes by the close of seasons in 2011,
down as much as 12 percent from their opening
levels. As a result, the world stocks-to-use ratio
for coarse grains could fall to 17.1 percent, down
from 20 percent in 2010 but still above its low of
15.2 percent in 2006/07. World trade is expected
to reach 116 million tonnes, up 1.2 percent from
the previous season, with major exporters meeting
most of the anticipated increase in world exports
and countries in Asia and Europe accounting for
most of the expansion in world imports.
This season’s tightening of the global supply
and demand balance of coarse grains is reflected
in the sharp increases in international prices, with
feed barley and maize prices in October up 70
and 40 percent, respectively, from October 2009.
Considering that prices of coarse grains at this time
of the year, corresponding with the main harvest
period in northern hemisphere, should normally be
at their seasonal lows, there is a strong likelihood
that prices may rise even further from these already
high levels.
World coarse grain market at a glance
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
1 142.4 1 125.2 1 102.0 -2.1
Trade
1
113.0 114.7 116.0 1.2
Total utilization
1 089.4 1 113.3 1 125.7 1.1
Food
192.2 191.5 195.6 2.1
Feed
625.0 626.6 626.8 0.0
Other uses
272.1 295.1 303.2 2.7
Ending stocks
216.5 225.3 198.4 -12.0
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
28.5 28.0 28.3 0.9
LIFDC (Kg/year)
29.4 28.7 29.1 1.3
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
19.5 20.0 17.1
Major exporters’ stock-to-
disappearance ratio (%)
2
14.6 14.7 8.8
FAO coarse grain price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
211 157 164 5
1
Trade data refer to exports based on a common July/June marketing season
2
Major exporters include Argentina, Australia, Canada, EU and the United States
Coarse grain production, utilization and stocks
100
150
200
250
300
800
900
1000
1100
1200
10/11 08/09 06/07 04/05 02/03 00/01
Million tonnes Million tonnes
f’cast
Stocks (right axis)
Production (left axis) Utilization (left axis)
Contact persons:
Abdolreza Abbassian
Phone: +39-06-57053264
E.mail: Abdolreza.Abbassian@fao.org
Paul Racionzer
Phone: +39-06-57052853
E.mail: Paul.Racionzer@fao.org
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 6
R|ce market summary
Prospects for rice production in 2010/11 have
deteriorated since the start of the season,
following weather-related setbacks, including
severe flood damage to crops in Asia, especially
in Pakistan. Despite the setbacks, global rice
output this season is forecast to reach a record
level, sufficient to cover world consumption
without the need to draw down reserves. On
the contrary, the anticipated large world output
could translate into a sizeable increase in 2011
global rice carryover stocks – to what would be
their highest level since 2002.
After several months of relative calm, import
demand gained vigour in the second part of
2010, with Bangladesh and Indonesia becoming
particularly active buyers. As a result, the
forecast for trade in 2010 has been raised to a
level that is 5 percent above 2009, with much of
the yearly increase expected to be met through
larger exports from the United States and Viet
Nam. On the other hand, amid expectations of
reduced import needs and tightening supplies in
key exporting countries, rice trade may contract
somewhat in 2011.
Reflecting relatively good crops in major
importing countries and the release of large
reserves by key exporters, prices in the first ten
months of 2010 were lower year-on-year for all
types of rice except the lower quality Indica, for
which demand has recently soared. Reflecting
temporary tightness of export supplies until the
secondary paddy crops are harvested in March/
April 2011, international rice quotations could
rise in the coming months, especially against
the backdrop of firm grain prices and a weak
US Dollar.
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE (milled basis)
Production
458.3 455.6 466.7 2.4
Trade
1
29.3 30.8 30.3 -1.7
Total utilization
445.1 452.9 460.2 1.6
Food
382.1 388.0 393.9 1.5
Ending stocks
124.1 126.2 133.2 5.6
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
56.5 56.7 56.9 0.4
LIFDC (Kg/year)
68.8 68.9 69.0 0.1
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
27.4 27.4 28.5 3.8
Major exporters’ stock-to-
disappearance ratio (%)
2
21.3 16.6 17.6 6.0
FAO rice price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
295 253 223 -12.5
World rice market at a glance
1
Calendar year exports (second year shown)
2
Major exporters include India, Pakistan, Thailand, the United States and Viet Nam
More detailed information on the rice market is available in the FAO Rice Market
Monitor which can be accessed at: http://www.fao.org/economic/est/publications/
rice-publications/rice-market-monitor-rmm/en/
Contact person:
Concepción Calpe
Phone: +39-06-57054136
E.mail: Concepcion.Calpe@fao.org
Rice production, utilization and stocks
60
90
120
150
180
350
380
410
440
470
10/11 08/09 06/07 04/05 02/03 00/01
Million tonnes, milled eq. Million tonnes, milled eq.
f’cast
Stocks (right axis)
Production (left axis) Utilization (left axis)
Market summar|es
„ November 2010 7
Cassava market summary
After 15 years of uninterrupted growth, global
cassava production is forecast to fall to 249
million tonnes in 2010, a decline of over 2
million tonnes from the record of the previous
year, reflecting poor harvests in Asia, particularly
in Thailand.
In spite of the drop in production, world
trade in cassava products is set to undergo a
further expansion in 2010, underpinned by
an expected sharp rise in the import demand
for cassava chips as feedstock for the ethanol
industry. International cassava flows will once
again be confined mostly to Southeast Asia and
some cross-border transactions where cassava is
grown. Thailand is expected to be the leading
source of trade supplies, with its dominance
reaffirmed by the slump in sales by Viet Nam.
On the import side, Mainland China is likely to
remain the major destination of trade in cassava
products.
Prices of internationally traded cassava
products rose to record levels in 2010. A sharp
cut in Thai exportable supplies, owing to a
collapse in production, was the main reason
behind the firmer prices but a weak US Dollar
also provided support. Cassava product prices
are expected to remain firm in 2011, although
much will depend on the demand for cassava
products for feed and industrial use, especially
ethanol. These prospects will in turn be
influenced by developments in the competing
global maize sector.
Contact person:
Adam Prakash
Phone: +39-06-57054948
E.mail: Adam.Prakash@fao.org
International cassava and Thai domestic prices
0
200
400
600
2010 2009 2008 2007
USD per tonne
Flour/Starch
(Super High Grade f.o.b Bangkok)
Chips to China
(f.o.b Bangkok)
Roots
(Thai domestic)
Source: Thai Tapioca Trade Association
2008 2009
estim.
2010
f’cast
Change
2010 over
2009
(million tonnes fresh root equiv) %
WORLD BALANCE
Production 239.9 251.0 248.7 -0.9
Trade 18.9 28.2 29.2 3.8
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption
World (kg/year) 16.9 17.7 17.6 -0.9
Developing (kg/year) 21.3 22.2 22.0 -0.9
LDC (kg/year) 62.6 65.8 68.9 -4.7
Sub Saharan Africa (kg/year) 106.4 111.2 114.8 3.2
FAO cassava prices 2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
USD/tonne %
Chips to China (f.o.b. Bangkok) 171.1 137.4 199.1 52.4
Starch (f.o.b. Bangkok) 383.6 281.3 496.0 87.1
Thai domestic root prices 57.2 41.4 76.1 98.8
World cassava market at a glance
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 8
O||seeds market summary
At the onset of the 2010/11 season, reports
of lower than expected crops of both oilseeds
and coarse grains lent new support to prices in
the oilseed complex, driving the FAO indices for
oilseeds, oils and meals to 24-month highs in
October. Current forecasts for 2010/11 suggest
that total oilcrop output will remain close to
the 2009/10 record level as anticipated declines
for soybeans, rapeseed and copra would
be compensated by the rising cottonseed,
groundnut and palmkernel output. However,
with meal and oil utilization anticipated to
expand further, the market situation is expected
to remain tight, in particular in the case of oils
and fats.
While global production of both, oils and
meals is anticipated to be near record, the
respective stock-to-use ratios are forecast to fall.
Such outlook, together with the possibility of
strong competition for land between soy, maize
and wheat in 2011, suggests that world prices
of oilseeds, meals and oils could remain firm
throughout the current season.
Contact person:
Peter Thoenes
Phone: +39-06-57053498
E.mail: Peter.Thoenes@fao.org
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Oilmeals/cakes
Oils/fats
Oilseeds
FAO monthly international price indices for
oilseeds, oils/fats and meals/cakes (2002-2004=100)
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
TOTAL OILSEEDS
Production
409.5 454.8 453.7 -0.3
OILS AND FATS
Production
161.5 172.0 174.6 1.5
Supply
184.8 194.2 198.8 2.4
Utilization
163.6 169.9 178.0 4.7
Trade
86.2 88.9 90.8 2.2
Stock-to-utilization ratio (%)
13.6 14.2 13.2
MEALS AND CAKES
Production
100.0 116.0 115.4 -0.5
Supply
117.9 130.6 134.6 3.1
Utilization
104.6 109.5 114.9 4.9
Trade
62.3 66.8 69.9 4.6
Stock-to-utilization ratio (%)
14.0 17.4 16.4
FAO price indices (Jan-Dec)
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
Oilseeds 205 161 165 3.0
Oilmeals/cakes 195 194 216 14.2
Oils/fats 225 150 181 23.2
World oilseed and product markets at a glance
Note: Refer to Table 13 for further explanations regarding definitions and coverage
Market summar|es
„ November 2010 9
Sugar market summary
World sugar production is expected to reach
168.8 million tonnes in 2010/11, which
represents an increase of 7.7 percent over
the 2009/10 season. For the first time since
2007/08, global production is to surpass
consumption, but the surplus may be subject to
downward revisions as the season progresses.
The increase in production is largely attributed
to significant expansion in area, prompted by
strong international sugar prices over the past
12 months. Growth in world sugar consumption
is set to recover from a slowdown in 2009/10, as
buoyant economic activity in 2010/11 stimulates
sugar intake in several emerging and developing
countries. World trade is expected to decline
by 5 percent, constrained by reduced export
availabilities in several producing countries. As
a result, and given a strong global demand,
international sugar prices may well remain
relatively high and volatile in the coming months.
World sugar market at a glance
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change:
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
151.05 156.66 168.80 7.75
Trade
47.50 53.30 50.62 -5.03
Utilization
160.79 162.59 166.09 2.15
Ending stocks
60.89 54.80 56.37 2.87
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
22.96 22.94 23.16 0.96
LIFDC (Kg/year)
13.50 13.59 13.58 -0.08
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
37.87 33.70 33.94
ISA Daily Price Average
(US cents/lb)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
12.80 18.14 20.07 16.8
Contact person:
El Mamoun Amrouk
Phone: +39-06-57056891
E.mail: ElMamoun.Amrouk@fao.org
International Sugar Agreement (ISA)
8
13
18
23
28
2009
2010
2008
2007
US cent per lb.
D N O S A J J M A M F J
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 10
Meat and meat products market summary
World meat trade is forecast to grow by
2.8 percent in 2010, to 26.1 million tonnes,
sustained by a brisk growth in pig meat, but also
by gains in bovine and poultry meat. However,
in the case of poultry, the most widely traded
meat, the expansion of world exports is likely
to be constrained by the imposition of sanitary
restrictions by major importers. Increased
purchases from Asian countries are expected
to fuel much of the expected increase of meat
trade, more than compensating for a 15 percent
reduction of imports by the Russian Federation,
which had emerged as the second largest meat
importer in 2009, after China.
According to the FAO Meat Price Index,
world meat prices between January and October
2010 averaged 14 percent higher than in the
same period in 2009, and similar to the levels
witnessed in 2008.
World meat production in 2010 is antici-
pated to grow by a mere 1 percent, to 286
million tonnes, restrained by reduced animal
inventories, high feed costs and a relatively weak
consumer demand, which will make it difficult
for producers to transfer the full increases of
costs to prices.
Contact person:
Pedro Arias
Phone: +39-06-57054098
E.mail: PedroMarcelo.Arias@fao.org
FAO international meat price indices
(2002-2004 = 100)
75
100
125
150
175
200
2010 2009 2008 2007
Bovine
Pigmeat
Poultry
Ovine
Total meat
World meat markets at a glance
2008 2009
estim.
2010
f’cast
Change:
2010
over
2009
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
279.4 283.9 286.2 0.8
Bovine meat
65.2 65.7 65.0 -1.1
Poultry meat
91.9 93.7 95.7 2.2
Pigmeat
104.0 106.1 107.0 0.9
Ovine meat
12.9 12.9 13.0 0.1
Trade
25.9 25.4 26.1 2.8
Bovine meat
7.4 7.4 7.6 3.0
Poultry
11.1 11.1 11.3 1.5
Pigmeat
6.3 5.8 6.1 5.3
Ovine meat
0.9 0.8 0.8 1.9
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
41.7 41.9 41.8 -0.3
Developed (Kg/year)
81.5 81.1 80.7 -0.4
Developing (kg/year)
31.0 31.5 31.5 0.1
FAO meat price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct*
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
128 118 134 14.0
* September and October estimates
Market summar|es
„ November 2010 11
Da|ry market summary
Strong import demand from Asian countries and
the Russian Federation has driven dairy product
trade to historically high levels in 2010, with the
demand largely met by higher exports from New
Zealand and the United States. Dairy product
prices in international trade have remained firm,
in particular butter, which in October reached
an all-time high.
FAO’s latest forecast of world dairy production
for 2010 stands at 710.7 million tonnes, 1.7
percent more than last year. Production in
developed countries is forecast to grow by
around 1 percent, while that of developing
countries may increase by 2.4 percent. On a
per capita basis, consumption of milk and milk
products in developing countries may increase
by 1 kg per capita in 2010, from 66.4 to 67.5
kg, fuelled by strong economic growth in Asia.
2008 2009
estim.
2010
f’cast
Change:
2010
over
2009
million tonnes milk equiv. %
WORLD BALANCE
Total milk production 694.2 698.8 710.7 1.7
Total trade 42.0 43.5 46.0 5.7
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year) 104.0 103.5 104.1 0.6
Developed countries (Kg/year) 246.3 243.8 244.3 0.2
Developing countries (Kg/year) 66.0 66.4 67.5 1.5
Trade - share of prod. (%) 6.0 6.2 6.5
FAO dairy price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
220 142 199 57
World dairy market at a glance
Contact person:
Pedro Arias
Phone: +39-06-57054098
E.mail: PedroMarcelo.Arias@fao.org
FAO international dairy price index
(2002-2004=100)
50
150
250
350
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994
The index is derived from a trade-weighted average of a selection
of representative internationally traded dairy products.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 12
f|sh and l|shery products market summary
On average, the latest trade information indicates
that two years after the drastic fall at the end of 2008,
prices in September 2010 were only 1 percent below
the peak of September 2008, with aquaculture prices
11.6 percent higher whereas prices of wild species
were 10 percent lower. According to the FAO Fish
Price Index, prices over January to September were,
on average, 8.5 percent higher year-on-year.
Aquaculture producers of many of the exported
commodities responded to the economic crisis in late
2008 and throughout 2009 by reducing stocking
levels, thus affecting future production. Since
then, demand in many developing countries has
rebounded, especially in Asia and South America.
Developed country demand for farmed products is
picking up, and prices for products such as shrimp,
catfish, tilapia and salmon have risen significantly
in 2010. For capture fisheries, the picture is more
mixed with some prices negatively affected by large
harvests, whereas others have strengthened as lower
fishing quotas resulted in reduced supply.
The price outlook for the rest of 2010 and early
2011 is positive, with demand firming in most
markets and supply expected to remain stable.
2008 2009
estim.
2010
f’cast
Change
2010 over
2009
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
142.3 145.1 147.0 1.3
Capture fisheries
89.7 90.0 89.8 -0.2
Aquaculture
52.5 55.1 57.2 3.8
Trade value (exports USD
billion)
102.0 95.4 101.9 6.8
Trade volume (live weight)
55.2 54.9 55.3 0.7
Total utilization
Food
115.1 117.8 119.5 1.5
Feed
20.2 20.1 20.1 -0.1
Other uses
7.0 7.2 7.4 2.8
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
Food fish (kg/year)
17.1 17.2 17.3 0.3
From capture fisheries (kg/year)
9.3 9.2 9.0 -1.7
From aquaculture (kg/year)
7.8 8.1 8.3 2.6
FAO Fish price index
2008
Sept.
2009
Sept.
2010
Sept.
Change
Sept. 2010
over
Sept. 2009
%
128 117 127 8.5
World fish market at a glance
Contact person:
Audun Lem
Phone: +39-06-57052692
E.mail: Audun.Lem@fao.org
The FAO fish price index (2005=100)
70
90
110
130
150
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994
Data source: Norwegian Seafood Export Council
FAO total fish price index
Capture total Aquaculture Total
Market assessments
„ November 2010 13
Figure 1. Year-to-year change in cereal production
-3
0
3
6
9
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
Percentage
estim. f’cast
Figure 2. Cereal stocks and ratios
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
0
5
10
15
20
25
Million tonnes Percent
Major Exporters Rest of the World
World Stock-to-use ratio
Stock-to-disappearance ratio of Major Exporters
estim. f’cast
MARKL1 ASSLSSMLN1S
CLRLALS
Unexpected decline in production leads to
smaller inventories
FAO’s forecast for world cereal production in 2010 now
stands at 2 216 million tonnes, including milled rice. This is
2 percent below last year’s level and the second consecutive
decline, but still the third largest crop on record. All of the
reduction is in wheat and coarse grains (primarily barley)
in several major producing and exporting countries where
sowings were cut back due to reduced price prospects at
planting time and/or drought during the growing season,
which severely impacted yields. Contrary to most other
cereals, the global output of rice will grow in 2010 to a new
record level, reflecting more favourable monsoon rains over
the season, especially in India.
Regarding the first of the 2011 cereal crops, many
of which have already been planted, early prospects are
generally favourable. The bulk of winter grain planting is
almost complete in the northern hemisphere where the
overall area is expected to expand in response to favourable
price prospects. In the southern hemisphere, most of the
main maize crop has been planted in South America.
Plantings have increased in Argentina but may have declined
somewhat in Brazil. In Southern Africa, early indications
suggest a smaller maize area in South Africa, the main
producing country, although the recent strengthening of
maize prices may encourage some late planting.
World cereal trade in 2010/11 is forecast to contract by
2 percent to 267 million tonnes, with declines in barley,
wheat and rice more than offsetting an increase in maize
trade. The fall in wheat imports reflects smaller purchases
by several countries in Asia while small increases in imports
are anticipated for Africa and Europe. The slight 2011
contraction in rice trade mainly reflects expectations of
reduced imports by Asian countries. By contrast, trade in
coarse grains is forecast to increase, driven by higher maize
demand because of tightening barley and feed wheat
supplies.
World cereal utilization is forecast at 2 254 million
tonnes in 2010/11, pointing to a growth of around
1.3 percent from 2009/10. This compares with over
2 percent growth rates registered during the past three
seasons. However, food, feed and industrial utilization of
major cereals all seem to be keeping pace with recent trends
– the anticipated slower growth in total utilization mostly
stems from this year’s decline in world cereal production
which inherently lowers the level of post-harvest losses,
another component of the total cereal utilization. Total food
consumption of cereals is forecast to reach 1 057 million
tonnes, up 1.5 percent from the previous season. World
feed use of cereals is expected to increase marginally as in
the previous season, by less than 1 percent, to 764 million
tonnes. For coarse grains, total feed use is forecast to remain
stagnate for the third season in a row because of continuing
difficult economic conditions dampening livestock demand
and, hence, production in the developed countries.
World cereal stocks for crop seasons ending in 2011 are
forecast to fall to 512 million tonnes, down 7 percent from
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 14
LARL¥ PROSPLC1S fOR 2011 WHLA1 AND MAIZL CROPS
Significant increases in production are needed to avert a major tightening of supplies in
2011/12
Amid the tightening of global balances for some grains in the current season and the related sharp rise in international prices,
attention is already turning to the prospects for the 2011 crops which, along with the 2010/11 closing stocks, will determine
supplies in 2011/12. For wheat, assuming utilization in 2011/12 remains close to the ten-year trend, an estimated increase of at
least 3.5 percent in world production in 2011 would be required in order to prevent a further drawdown of global wheat reserves
in 2012. However, in view of the fact that wheat utilization has exceeded the ten-year trend for two consecutive seasons, should
this be the case again next season, the increase in global production would have to be higher than 3.5 percent to prevent wheat
stocks from plunging to critically low levels. The supply of maize, another major cereal, also has become a concern this season. For
the maize supply and demand balance to improve in 2011/12, world production needs to increase by at least 6 percent compared
with 2010.
Planting of the winter grain crops is almost complete in the northern hemisphere and sowing of maize is well underway in the
southern hemisphere. In the EU, conditions for the winter grain planting have been generally favourable, with wheat area forecast
to rise by about 3 percent compared with the previous season. Although some of the increase may come at the expense of oilseed
rape because of adverse weather in August/September, it is also expected that a significant amount of land under voluntary
set-aside may be brought back into wheat production for the 2011 harvest in response to attractive wheat prices. In the eastern
part of Europe, autumn sowing in the Russian Federation has been significantly impeded because of this year’s severe drought.
Although the Russian Federation’s winter wheat area is tentatively estimated to be well down from the previous year’s level, spring
wheat planting could increase significantly to bring the overall wheat area close to the average of the past few years. However,
having a higher proportion of spring crops, which yield much less than winter crops, would imply lower than normal yield potential
for the 2011 crop. In Ukraine, planting conditions have improved after a dry start and the winter wheat area should be near last
year’s average. In North America, the United States’ winter wheat planting, virtually complete by the end of October, increased in
area by a significant 2 to 3 million hectares over last year’s 40-year low. However, crop conditions as of early November remained
far from ideal, especially in Kansas, a major producing state. In Asia, conditions reportedly have been satisfactory in China and
India for winter wheat planting and the areas sown in both countries are thought to have changed little from the previous year’s
about-average levels. Based on the current planting information and assuming normal weather conditions and average yields,
global wheat production could increase sufficiently to avoid further supply deterioration in 2011/12.
In the southern hemisphere, sowing of the main maize crops for harvest in 2011 is already well underway in the major producing
countries. In South America, the bulk of the planting in Argentina has been completed under favourable conditions and beneficial
rains have increased soil moisture reserves, vitally important for the development of crops later in the season. Helped by the good
planting conditions, and in response to increased price prospects, early indications suggest that the maize area has increased
significantly from last year’s already above-average area, providing potential for a bumper crop next year. However, in Brazil, the
main maize crop area, mostly in southern parts of the country, is thought to have declined slightly due to earlier dry weather that
delayed the start of the planting season. Although about 40 percent of Brazil’s annual maize production is now produced from the
secondary season crop, which follows soybeans, there are already concerns that the area to be planted next year may be limited
because of the late start to the soy season. In Southern Africa, the main maize crops for harvest in 2011 are also being planted.
As of mid-October, South African farmers’ planting intentions pointed to a 10 percent decrease in the area planted to maize for
the 2011 harvest.
While high prices encourage farmers to dedicate more area to maize for next year, planting areas in major producing countries,
such as in the United States, the world’s largest producer, were already at their peaks in 2010. Therefore, any further expansion
would require a switch of area from competing crops. This situation calls for a close monitoring of plantings for 2011 in order to
determine if next year’s production could increase sufficiently to prevent a further drawdown of already low stocks.
Market assessments
„ November 2010 15
Figure 3. Wheat export price (US no. 2 H.W. Gulf)
100
200
300
400
500
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
USD per tonne
J M A M F J D N O S A J
their relatively high opening levels. The decline marks the
first dip in world cereal inventory in three years. World stocks
of coarse grains are forecast to decline most, by 12 percent.
Maize stocks are forecast to fall by 6 percent while
inventories of barley could plunge by as much as 35 percent.
Wheat stocks are also foreseen to contract sharply, by
10 percent. Nearly all the reductions in grain stocks are
anticipated to occur in the major exporters and the CIS. By
contrast, given the expected rise in world rice production,
rice stocks are expected to increase by 6 percent. Based on
the current expectations for production and utilization this
season world cereal stocks-to-use ratio in 2010/11 is likely to
decline by 2 percentage points to 22.5 percent, which would
be lower than was anticipated at the start of the season but
still well above the 30-year low of 19.6 percent registered in
2007/08.
Given this season’s tighter market situation, prices of
most cereals have risen sharply. The FAO Cereal Price Index
averaged 219 points in October 2010, 5 percent above
the September average, but up as much as 32 percent, or
53 points, from October 2009. Among the major cereals,
international prices of barley, maize and wheat increased the
most. Between July and October, wheat and coarse grains
increased by 35 and 47 percent respectively while rice prices
gained 14 percent.
WHLA1
PRICLS
International wheat prices have increased
sharply
International wheat prices started to increase rather
unexpectedly at the beginning of the current season in July.
Prices hit their highest 2010 level in August, as production
prospects in a number of major producing countries began
to look far less promising than originally anticipated. The
main problem areas were the drought-stricken Russian
Federation and Kazakhstan, but unfavourable weather also
lowered production in Canada, the EU and Ukraine as well
as in several importing countries, including many countries
of northern Africa. An export restriction imposed by the
Russian Federation, starting from mid-August and eventually
extended to 30 June 2011, was also an important factor in
driving up world prices. However, because of generally good
supply prospects, international prices fell towards the end of
September and early October, before rebounding strongly
following a sudden surge in maize prices in October and the
slide in the US Dollar. In October, the benchmark US No. 2
Hard Red Winter, f.o.b., averaged USD 291 per tonne,
down slightly from September but 37 percent higher than in
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
2 285.5 2 263.4 2 216.4 -2.1
Trade
2
281.3 273.6 267.3 -2.3
Total utilization
2 181.8 2 226.0 2 253.8 1.3
Food
1 027.6 1 040.5 1 056.6 1.5
Feed
758.0 761.1 764.0 0.4
Other uses
396.2 424.3 433.2 2.1
Ending stocks
520.4 552.4 512.5 -7.2
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
152.1 152.2 152.7 0.3
LIFDC (Kg/year)
3
155.9 155.9 156.5 0.4
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
23.4 24.5 22.5
Major exporters’ stock-to-
disappearance ratio (%)
17.8 17.7 14.9
FAO cereal price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
238 174 173 -1
Table 1. World cereal market at a glance
1
1
Rice in milled equivalent
2
Trade data refer to exports based on a July/June marketing season for wheat and
coarse grains and on a January/December marketing season for rice
3
Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 16
Figure 4. CBOT wheat futures for March
150
200
250
300
350
USD per tonne
M A M J J A S O N
2010 values 2011 values
Table 3. Wheat production: leading producers
(2009 and 2010)
Country * 2009
estim.
2010
f”cast
Change: 2010
over 2009
million tonnes %
EU 138.5 136.0 -1.8
China (Mainland) 115.1 115.1 -
India 80.7 80.7 -
United States 60.4 60.1 -0.4
Russian Federation 61.7 42.0 -32.0
Canada 26.8 22.2 -17.3
Pakistan 24.0 23.9 -0.7
Australia 21.7 23.0 6.2
Ukraine 20.9 17.6 -15.8
Turkey 20.6 19.5 -5.3
Kazakhstan 17.0 13.0 -23.5
Iran Islamic Rep. of 13.0 14.5 11.5
Argentina 7.5 11.5 53.5
Egypt 8.5 8.6 0.9
Uzbekistan 6.6 6.8 1.7
Other countries 59.5 53.3 -10.5
World 682.6 647.7 -5.1
* Countries listed according to their position in global production
(average 2008-2010)
July, although still 40 percent below the record reached in
March 2008.
In recent weeks, wheat prices also have been influenced
by concerns about lower plantings in the Russian
Federation and Ukraine, unfavourable crop conditions in
the United States and, more generally, by expectation of an
insufficient increase in overall plantings, as farmers in many
major producing countries are likely to increase plantings of
other crops as well. This prospect, combined with tightening
maize supplies and a weak US Dollar, continue to underpin
wheat futures. As of early November, wheat futures in
Chicago for March delivery were quoted at around USD 280
per tonne, up 41 percent from the corresponding period
a year ago and 39 percent higher than at the start of the
season in July.
PRODUC1ION
Global wheat output falls significantly in 2010
FAO’s latest forecast for global wheat output in 2010 now
stands at 648 million tonnes, much less than had been
expected earlier in the season and 5 percent down from
2009. The wheat crop was forecast to be smaller than last
year from the outset of the season because of planting
reductions and expected return to normal yields in some
major producing and exporting countries. However, as
the season progressed, adverse weather in some parts
curtailed yields far more than anticipated bringing this year’s
production levels further down.
Most of the major 2010 wheat crops have already been
harvested. Latest estimates in Asia indicate a small decline
in the aggregate output of wheat in 2010. In the Near
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
684.8 682.6 647.7 -5.1
Trade
1
139.1 128.1 121.0 -5.6
Total utilization
647.3 659.8 668.0 1.2
Food
453.3 461.0 467.1 1.3
Feed
120.7 122.3 125.0 2.2
Other uses
73.3 76.4 75.9 -0.7
Ending stocks
179.8 200.9 180.9 -9.9
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
67.1 67.4 67.5 0.1
LIFDC (Kg/year)
57.5 58.0 58.2 0.3
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
27.3 30.1 27.3
Major exporters’ stock-to-
disappearance ratio (%)
2
17.5 21.7 18.4
Wheat price index *
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
235 154 159 2
Table 2. World wheat market at a glance
* Derived from International Grains Council (IGC) Wheat Index
1
Trade data refer to exports based on a common July/June marketing season
2
Major exporters include Argentina, Australia, Canada, EU and the United States
Market assessments
„ November 2010 17
Figure 5. Wheat exporters
0 10 20 30 40




2009/10 estimate 2010/11 forecast
Million tonnes
United
States
EU
Canada
Argentina
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Australia
Russian
Federation
East subregion, increased output in the Islamic Republic
of Iran offset weather-reduced crops in Afghanistan,
the Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey. In North Africa,
output was severely reduced by a drought in Tunisia and
Morocco that was already underway at planting time.
In Europe, the final harvest outcomes were below early
season expectations in parts of the EU, due to insufficient
precipitation during the season in some areas and heavy
rains in others. However, it was severe drought in the two
main producing CIS countries in Europe – the Russian
Federation and Ukraine – that was behind the bulk of the
downward revisions to the global output forecast as the
season progressed. The two countries are also responsible
for much of the reduction in the world production
compared with last year. Output in the Russian Federation
alone is estimated to have fallen by about 19 million
tonnes. In North America, the 2010 wheat crop estimate
in the United States rose as the season progressed and,
despite a significant reduction in plantings, above-average
yields have resulted in an output that is virtually unchanged
from the previous year. By contrast, production in Canada
fell further than expected, as adverse spring weather was
followed by unfavourable weather for crop maturation,
which is expected to depress further the final harvested
area and yields.
In South America, production is expected to recover
sharply from last year’s reduced level, reflecting a return
to normal weather conditions in Argentina (the main
producing country) after last year’s drought. In Oceania,
prospects for the wheat crop in Australia remain mixed,
with the outlook very good in the eastern producing areas,
but poor in western Australia where drought persists.
Overall, Australia’s 2010 output forecast is up slightly from
2009, at 23 million tonnes.
1RADL
Wheat trade to decrease in 2010/11
World wheat trade in 20010/11 (July/June) is forecast to
reach 121 million tonnes, 1 million tonnes higher than was
forecast in September,
1
but down almost 5 million tonnes,
or 4 percent, from 2009/10 and as much as 16 million
tonnes, or 12 percent, below the 2008/09 all time high
of 137 million tonnes. The decline in this season’s imports
mostly reflects substantially lower wheat purchases by
several countries in Asia, which would more than offset small
increases in imports in Africa and in Europe.
Total wheat imports by countries in Asia are forecast
to fall to 53 million tonnes, down 8 million tonnes from
the previous season. Most of this decline would be due
to reduced purchases by the Islamic Republic of Iran,
reflecting a bumper crop and the country’s decision to ban
imports of wheat. In addition, imports of feed wheat by
the Republic of Korea are likely to be smaller, because of
reduced supplies from the Black Sea region. Lower imports
are also forecast for Mainland China, the Syrian Arab
Republic and Thailand, mostly because of large carryovers
from the previous season. Smaller imports are anticipated
in Bangladesh because of large domestic supplies and in
Afghanistan, because of this year’s above-average domestic
output coupled with reduced availabilities from the nearby
exporting countries.
In Africa, aggregate imports are forecast to exceed
35 million tonnes, 1 million tonnes higher than in the
previous season. The increase reflects a significant jump in
deliveries to several countries in North Africa, up almost
2 million tonnes from the previous season to nearly
22 million tonnes. Larger imports by Morocco, which
suffered from a severe drought, and by Tunisia, because
of a smaller harvest, account for the bulk of the expected
increase in imports in North Africa. In order to stabilize
supplies, Morocco suspended its 135 percent import duty
on soft wheat from mid-September until the end of this
year. By contrast, with domestic production at a record
high and large carryovers from the previous season, this
season’s wheat imports by Egypt, the world’s largest
wheat importer, are likely to decline by 1.2 million tonnes,
to 9 million tonnes. Total wheat imports by countries in
1
GIEWS Crop Prospects and Food Situation, No.3 September 2010
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 18
sub-Saharan Africa are forecast to decline by 1.2 million
tonnes to 13.6 million tonnes, the lowest level since
2007/08, mainly driven by reductions in Kenya and
Nigeria.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, total wheat
imports in 2010/11 are forecast to approach 20 million
tonnes, up marginally from the previous season. Imports by
Brazil, the region’s largest wheat importer, are forecast to
remain unchanged at 6.5 million tonnes, mainly because
this year’s production rose to above-average levels, sufficient
to meet the anticipated increase in food consumption. By
contrast, Mexico will need higher imports this season to
compensate for the decline in domestic wheat production.
Wheat imports in Mexico are forecast to increase by 300 000
tonnes, to 3.3 million tonnes.
Total imports in Europe are put at 9.6 million tonnes, up
nearly 2 million tonnes from the previous season’s reduced
level. The increase is almost entirely due to large purchases
by the Russian Federation following this year’s severely
reduced harvests.
Total wheat exports by the five traditional exporters are
forecast to approach 92 million in 2010/11, up 14 percent
from the previous season’s level. Shipments from the
Unites States are forecast to reach 33.5 million tonnes,
the highest since 1995/96 and 9 million tonnes more than
in 2009/10. Following a recovery in domestic production,
exports from Argentina are forecast to increase sharply.
Larger sales are also anticipated for Australia and the
EU while Canada is expected to ship less wheat than last
season because of a decline in its domestic production. This
strong rebound in exports from the five major exporters
should more than offset a sharp decline in sales from the CIS
countries.
Wheat exports from the Russian Federation in 2010/11
are estimated at only 3.5 million tonnes, down 14 million
tonnes from the previous season. Following this year’s
drought-reduced crop, the Russian Federation imposed a ban
on all grain exports from mid-August to the end of 2010.
This ban has recently been extended to 30 June 2010, while
a ban on wheat flour exports will be lifted in January 2011.
Exports from Ukraine also have been curtailed following
this year’s production. Wheat shipments from Ukraine are
currently forecast at 6 million tonnes, down 3 million tonnes
from 2009/10 and less than half the level in 2007/08 when
Ukraine shipped a record 12.6 million tonnes. In October,
the Government imposed a 2.7 million tonne quota on grain
exports until the end of 2010 which includes 500 000 tonnes
of wheat. Smaller exports are also anticipated in
Kazakhstan and Turkey, following a reduction in domestic
production.
U1ILIZA1ION
Wheat utilization in 2010/11 to exceed trend
As a result of the decline in world wheat production and
the increase in prices of wheat since the beginning of the
season, the world wheat utilization in 2010/11 is forecast
at 668 million tonnes, down from the earlier estimate
of 675 million tonnes published in the June 2010 Food
Outlook. However, even at the current forecast level, world
wheat utilization would be 1.2 percent above the previous
season’s level and still slightly above the ten-year trend.
World food consumption of wheat in 2010/11 is
anticipated to rise by 1.3 percent, to 467 million tonnes.
Developing countries account for most of the increase,
consuming 334 million tonnes on aggregate, 1.5 percent
more than in 2009/10. In general, the growth in food use is
likely to keep pace with the population growth, with global
wheat consumption remaining steady at around 68 kg per
person per annum and at around 60 kg per person in the
developing countries.
Total wheat feed utilization is forecast to increase by
2 percent, to 125 million tonnes in 2010/11. This compares
with 1.3 percent growth in 2009/10. In spite of the increase
in prices, demand for wheat in developed countries remains
strong because of its price advantage over high protein
ingredients. Nearly 100 million tonnes of wheat are expected
to be destined for feed in 2010/11 in the developed
countries, up slightly from the previous season. In the EU,
the largest market for feed wheat, this season’s feed usage
of wheat could approach 53 million tonnes, slightly below
the previous season’s level due to tighter supplies. However,
larger wheat feed usage is expected in the CIS countries,
in particular in the Russian Federation where it could reach
20 million tonnes, the highest volume since 1993 and
3.5 million tonnes more than in the previous season. The
large increase in wheat usage is expected to offset sharp
declines in the use of barley and maize for feed because
of their even tighter domestic supplies. Among the other
usages of wheat, the industrial use also is expected to
increase in 2010/11, with most of the anticipated expansion
likely to occur in the EU, mainly because of growing demand
for ethanol.
S1OCKS
Wheat inventories to fall sharply World wheat
stocks are currently forecast to reach 181 million tonnes
by the close of the crop seasons in 2011. This is 13 million
tonnes below FAO’s first forecast, which was reported in the
June 2010 Food Outlook. The downward revision puts world
Market assessments
„ November 2010 19
wheat stocks at some 20 million tonnes, or 10 percent,
below the previous season’s high level, but still around
36 million tonnes, or 25 percent, above the 2008 critically
low of 145 million tonnes. The revision reflects a notable
downward adjustment to 2010 production levels in several
important wheat producing countries, in particular in the
CIS, as well as significant upward adjustments to forecasts
for exports from the United States and the EU. Among
the CIS countries, inventories in the Russian Federation
alone are likely to decline by over 4 million tonnes because
of the drought-devastated production in 2010. Based on the
latest forecasts for world stocks and utilization, the global
stock-to-use ratio for wheat in 2010/11 is expected to drop
to 27.3 percent in 2010/11 from 30.1 percent in 2009/10.
However, the ratio remains well above the 30-year low of
22.3 percent registered in 2007/08.
Total wheat stocks held by the major exporters are
forecast to reach 49 million tonnes, down 6 million tonnes
from their opening level but still the second highest in five
years and 19 million tonnes more than in 2008. Among
the major exporters, the largest decrease is expected in the
United States where, despite a steady production level,
season-end wheat inventories are projected to decline by
3.5 million tonnes to 23.1 million tonnes because of much
larger exports and domestic utilization than in the previous
season. Nonetheless, inventories in the United States
would be the second largest since 2001, and nearly three
times higher than its low in 2008. Similarly, stocks in the
EU are set to decline by 2.5 million tonnes, to 15.5 million
tonnes, driven by an increase in exports as well as a decline
in this year’s production. On aggregate, however, the
ratio of stocks held by the major exporters to their
disappearance (i.e. domestic utilization plus exports) is
forecast to reach 18.4 percent, down 3.3 percentage points
from the previous season but well above the critically low
ratio of 11.8 percent in the high-price 2007/08 season.
COARSL GRAINS
PRICLS
Tight markets leading to higher prices
Unexpected weather events have driven up prices of most
coarse grains since the start of the 2010/11 season in July.
In recent weeks, the slide in the US Dollar and other outside
market factors also contributed to price increases. Barley
prices were among the first to rise sharply, especially after
the Russian Federation’s August decision to ban all grain
exports in response to a severe drought that cut this year’s
production. Feed barley prices surged in August and remained
high in September. Prices rose further in October when French
feed barley price (f.o.b. Rouen) averaged USD 264 per
tonne, up 52 percent from July and as much as 72 percent
Figure 6. Wheat stocks and ratios
0
50
100
150
200
250
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
0
7
14
21
28
35
Million tonnes Percent
Major Exporters Rest of the World
World Stock-to-use ratio
Stock-to-disappearance ratio of Major Exporters
estim. f’cast
Table 4. World coarse grain market at a glance
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
1 142.4 1 125.2 1 102.0 -2.1
Trade
1
113.0 114.7 116.0 1.2
Total utilization
1 089.4 1 113.3 1 125.7 1.1
Food
192.2 191.5 195.6 2.1
Feed
625.0 626.6 626.8 0.0
Other uses
272.1 295.1 303.2 2.7
Ending stocks
216.5 225.3 198.4 -12.0
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
28.5 28.0 28.3 0.9
LIFDC (Kg/year)
29.4 28.7 29.1 1.3
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
19.5 20.0 17.1
Major exporters’ stock-to-
disappearance ratio (%)
2
14.6 14.7 8.8
FAO coarse grains price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
211 157 164 5
1
Trade data refer to exports based on a common July/June marketing season
2
Major exporters include Argentina, Australia, Canada, EU and the United States
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 20
Figure 8. CBOT maize futures for March
100
150
200
250
USD per tonne
M A M J J A S O N
2010 values 2011 values
Figure 7. Maize export price (US no. 2 yellow, Gulf)
100
150
200
250
300
2010/11
2009/10
2008/09 2007/08
USD per tonne
J M A M F J D N O S A J
from October 2009. International maize prices also increased
sharply but unlike barley, the increase in maize prices occurred
mostly after September, with a sudden surge in early October
on news of lower yields in the United States than earlier
anticipated. The price of the benchmark US maize prices
(Yellow, No. 2, f.o.b.) averaged USD 236 per tonne in
October, up nearly 47 percent since the beginning of the
season and 40 percent higher than in October 2009. Maize
prices are supported by continuing supply tightness of barley
and feed wheat. Sorghum (Yellow Gulf) prices also have
risen sharply this season, although not by as much as barley,
averaging USD 231 per tonne in October, up 33 percent from
the same month in 2009. In recent weeks, prices have been
underpinned further by the slide in the US Dollar. As of early
November, Chicago maize futures for March delivery stood
at USD 232 per tonne, up as much as 47 percent from the
corresponding period last year. At current levels, maize prices
are only 16 percent below the peak reached in June 2008.
PRODUC1ION
Coarse grains output in 2010 to fall
FAO’s latest forecast for world production of coarse grains
in 2010 has been revised down further in recent weeks
and now stands at 1 102 million tonnes. Contrary to early-
season forecasts pointing to an increase in global output,
the current forecast is now 2 percent down from last year,
although still the third largest crop ever. As the 2010 crop
seasons progressed, unfavourable weather conditions
took their tolls in several major producing countries. In
particular, barley was severely affected by drought in the
Russian Federation and Ukraine while maize yields in the
United States turned out considerably lower than the
bumper levels initially expected.
Regarding maize, the major coarse grain grown
worldwide, world production in 2010 is now forecast at
831 million tonnes, only 1 percent up from 2009. The
outlook for the United States, which alone accounts for
about 40 percent of global maize output, has changed
considerably since October. Although plantings increased
in the United States, it became evident as harvesting
progressed that yields had not matched the bumper levels
achieved in the previous year and output was forecast some
3 percent down from the record 2009 level. Elsewhere, a
larger crop had been gathered earlier in the year in South
America. Production in Argentina recovered from drought
in 2009 and Brazil increased its output to a bumper level. In
Southern Africa, where the harvest was completed several
months ago, good-to-bumper crops were gathered in most
countries. In Asia, China, the world’s second largest maize
producer, again reaped a bumper crop, maintaining the high
level achieved in the preceding two years.
FAO’s latest forecast for world production of barley in
2010 now stands at 125 million tonnes, 7 percent down
from the previous year’s level. Although a smaller barley crop
was already forecast earlier in the season when plantings
declined throughout the major producing countries,
the reduction has been amplified by adverse weather
during the growing season. Throughout the EU countries,
which together account for the bulk of the global barley
production, dry weather impaired yields resulting together
with reduced plantings, in a 15 percent reduction in this
year’s aggregate harvest. The most notable reductions were
in the Russian Federation and Ukraine where, due to the
Market assessments
„ November 2010 21
Table 5. Coarse grain production: leading
producers (2009 and 2010)
Country * 2009
estim.
2010
f”cast
Change: 2010
over 2009
million tonnes %
United States 349.5 332.7 -4.8
China (Mainland) 173.1 175.4 1.3
EU 155.5 139.0 -10.6
Brazil 53.7 57.9 8.0
India 34.2 37.6 10.1
Russian Federation 33.4 19.6 -41.5
Mexico 30.1 30.8 2.4
Argentina 16.5 28.6 73.0
Canada 22.6 22.1 -2.3
Ukraine 24.0 22.1 -8.0
Nigeria 21.0 20.9 -0.7
Indonesia 17.6 18.0 2.2
South Africa 13.1 14.2 8.2
Australia 13.0 12.7 -2.3
Ethiopia 13.1 12.8 -2.3
Other countries 154.8 157.6 1.8
World 1 125.2 1 102.0 -2.1
* Countries listed according to their position in global production
(average 2008-2010)
Figure 9. Barley production
0
60
120
180
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
Million tonnes
EU
Canada
CIS
Others
estim. f’cast
severe drought, the barley crops are estimated to have fallen
by about 50 and 20 percent respectively compared with
2009.
The forecast of world sorghum output in 2010 is put at
59 million tonnes, 2.6 percent up from the previous year’s
crop but well below the 2008 bumper level of 66 million
tonnes. Among the major producing countries, output
decreased somewhat in the United States but recovered in
Argentina after last year’s drought-reduced crop.
1RADL
Higher demand for maize pushes up world
trade in 2010/11
World trade in coarse grains is forecast to expand by
1.2 percent to 116 million tonnes in 2010/11 (July/June),
reflecting an increase in maize import demand that is
expected to drive up maize trade to 91 million tonnes, up
3 million tonnes from the previous season but still 11 million
tonnes below the all time high reached in 2007/08. By
contrast, exports of all other major coarse grains are likely to
remain unchanged or even fall slightly below 2009/10 levels.
Trade in barley is expected to decline by 300 000 tonnes
to 16 million tonnes, while trade in sorghum is forecast
to reach 6 million tonnes, down 1.1 million tonnes. Trade
in oats is seen falling to 1.9 million tonnes, down 300 000
tonnes from the previous season, due to smaller imports by
the United States.
Imports by nearly all regions are forecast to increase in
2010/11. In Asia, the biggest market for coarse grains, the
largest increases in imports are forecast for Mainland China
and the Republic of Korea. In Mainland China, despite
expectation of a record crop, maize imports are forecast
to reach at least 1.5 million tonnes, the highest since the
mid-1990s. Strong feed demand and rising domestic maize
prices are encouraging larger world purchases by China.
Imports of coarse grains by the Republic of Korea are
forecast to increase by 800 000 tonnes, to 9 million tonnes,
the highest in three years, as low exportable supplies of feed
wheat from the Black Sea region this season encouraged
the country to increase its purchases of coarse grains (mostly
maize).
Imports in Africa are also up from the previous season.
However, the bulk of the increase is expected in the northern
subregion, as most countries in sub-Saharan Africa are likely
to import the same volume as, if not less than, the previous
season because of good domestic production. Egypt is
forecast to import 500 000 tonnes more maize than in
2009/10 because of growing feed demand while Algeria,
Morocco and Tunisia are all expected to purchase more
coarse grains, to compensate for sharp reductions in their
barley production. Sub-Saharan Africa’s aggregate imports
have been put at 4.2 million tonnes, 100 000 tonnes below
the previous season’s level and the smallest since 2006/07.
This is partly driven by an increase of nearly 500 000 tonnes
in production, boosted by a record crop in eastern Africa.
The Sudan’s above average sorghum production could
depress imports by at least 200 000 tonnes. The Niger’s
higher millet and sorghum production may also result in
lower imports.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 22
Total coarse grain imports by countries in Latin America
and the Caribbean are forecast to reach 27 million tonnes,
an increase of nearly 1 million tonnes. Most of the increase
is expected in Mexico, the region’s largest market, where
imports are forecast to reach 11.5 million tonnes, up
1.1 million tonnes from the previous season. Larger imports
of sorghum, due to a decline in domestic production and
maize account for most of the increase.
In Europe, total imports are forecast up sharply, mostly
because of larger purchases by the EU and the Russian
Federation. In the EU, following smaller maize and barley
harvests, imports of maize are forecast to increase by
2.1 million tonnes while the Russian Federation is also
returning to the market as a major maize buyer this season,
because of the feed shortages caused by the devastating
drought.
Turning to exports, total shipments from the EU are
forecast to rise by 2.6 million tonnes, with a surge in sales
of barley more than offsetting a decline in maize exports.
Larger exports of barley and sorghum are also forecast for
Australia. By contrast, exports from the world’s largest
exporter, United States, could decline slightly, to 54 million
tonnes. Among other exporting countries, the production
shortfall in major producing CIS countries, in particular
the Russian Federation, has hampered exports. After
small early-season sales, the ban on grain exports from the
Russian Federation has halted all shipments since August.
In Ukraine, exports of barley are forecast to fall sharply
because of smaller domestic production and the recent
imposition of an export quota. However, this season’s
shrinking supplies from the CIS countries are likely to be
largely offset by higher sales from Brazil and South Africa.
India and Indonesia may also export the same, if not more,
than in 2009/10. As a result of significant maize surpluses,
Malawi and Zambia have lifted their export restriction this
season.
U1ILIZA1ION
Utilization grows but remains below trend
World total utilization of coarse grains in 2010/11 is
forecast to increase to 1 126 million tonnes, up 1.1 percent
from the estimate for 2009/10 and nearly 2 percent, or
24 million tonnes, above the 2010 anticipated production.
At this level, total utilization would be slightly below the ten-
year trend for the first time in four years. Food use is forecast
to grow fastest followed by industrial usage, whereas feed
use is likely to remain stagnant, especially in the developed
countries. As a whole, the developed countries account for
slightly over one-half of total utilization of coarse grains,
while the developing countries, with nearly four times the
population, make up the other half. Food use of coarse
grains is forecast to reach 196 million tonnes, 2 percent
higher than in 2009/10. Developing countries account for
80 percent of the food use of coarse grains, with nearly
130 million tonnes in the Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries
(LIFDCs). The expected increase from the previous season is
to rely on larger local maize supplies, following production
gains in Asia, especially in India, and several countries in sub-
Saharan Africa.
Coarse grains are largely used for animal feed and, for
2010/11, world feed utilization of coarse grains is currently
forecast to reach 627 million tonnes, up marginally (less
than 1 percent) from 2009/10. In the developing countries,
Figure 10. Coarse grain imports by region
0
20
40
60
80

2009/10 estimate
2010/11 forecast
Million tonnes
Asia Africa Europe South
America
Central
America
Figure 11. Coarse grain exporters
0 20 40 60
2009/10 estimate 2010/11 forecast
Million tonnes
United
States
EU
Canada
Brazil
Ukraine
Argentina
Australia
Russian
Federation
Market assessments
„ November 2010 23
Figure 12. Coarse grain utilization
0
350
700
1050
1400
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
Million tonnes
Feed use
Other uses
Food use
estim. f’cast
feed use is anticipated to increase for the third season in
a row, reaching 294 million tonnes, up 3 percent from
2009/10. Most of the expansion is expected in China but
also in Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico and South Africa.
However, in the developed countries, the aggregate feed
use is forecast to contract for the third consecutive season,
to 333 million tonnes, or 1.3 percent less than in 2009/10.
The economic slow-down which has curbed demand for
livestock products and reduced barley supply. The bulk of
the anticipated contraction in feed use in the developed
countries is expected in several CIS countries where barley
is an important source of animal feed. The biggest decline
is forecast for the Russian Federation, where the amount of
barley used for feed in 2010/11 could be halved from the
previous season’s level, to around 5 million tonnes. Despite
much higher maize prices this season, feed usage of maize
in the United States, which is the world’s largest producer
and consumer of maize, could increase by 3 percent to
135 million tonnes. This would still fall below the record
156 million tonnes in 2004/05. The growing utilization of
dried distillers grains (DDGs), a primary co-product of ethanol
production, in feed rations has been mostly responsible
for containing the growth in maize feed demand in the
United States in recent years.
Among different industrial usages of coarse grains,
growth in recent years has stemmed mainly from the ethanol
sector. FAO does not compile information on industrial use
of grains but bases its assessments on data and analyses
published by the International Grains Council (IGC).
According to the IGC, total industrial use of coarse grains
in 2010/11 could approach roughly 263 million tonnes,
up around 2 percent from the previous season. Ethanol is
expected to account for almost 144 million tonnes of this
use, of which some 119.4 million tonnes for production
of fuel-ethanol in the United States, up 3.6 million tonnes
from the previous season. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recent approval of 15 percent
ethanol blends (E15) in cars built since 2007 will contribute
to the growth in ethanol demand and hence maize usage in
the longer term. However, its near-term impact, especially in
the current season, is expected to be limited mostly because
of logistical obstacles, such as the need for upgrading station
tanks, pumps and general handling infrastructure. On the
other hand, fuel-ethanol exports from the United States are
increasing, mainly because of more limited export supplies
of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and a weak US Dollar,
indirectly sustaining domestic demand for maize in the
United States.
S1OCKS
A sharp fall in world stocks
World coarse grain stocks are forecast to reach 198 million
tonnes by the close of the 2011 seasons, down as much as
11.2 percent, or 26 million tonnes, from their opening levels.
This anticipated sharp decrease follows three seasons of
consecutive build-up in world inventories of coarse grains.
The 198 million tonne figure is 5 million tonnes below the
first forecast published in the June 2010 Food Outlook.
Among the major coarse grains, maize stocks are set to
decline by nearly 6 percent to 161 million tonnes, while
inventories of barley could fall by as much as 35 percent,
to a three-year low of 23 million tonnes. Nearly all the
reductions are anticipated to occur in the major exporting
countries and the large CIS producing countries. At the
current forecast level, the world stocks-to-use ratio for
coarse grains would fall from 20 to 17.1 percent, in 2010/11
but still above its 2006/07 low of 15.2 percent.
Among the major exporters, the largest decrease is
anticipated in the United States where, based on a forecast
decline in this year’s production together with an expected
increase in utilization, stocks may be drawn down by as
much as 49 percent, or 24 million tonnes, to just under
25 million tonnes – the lowest since 1996. The bulk of the
decline is associated with much smaller maize reserves,
which are likely to dip to around 21 million tonnes. At
this low level, the stocks-to-use ratio for maize in the
United States would stand at 7 percent, the lowest in 15
years. A sharp decline is also forecast for the EU, with total
inventories plunging to 14 million tonnes, down 43 percent,
or 10.5 million tonnes, from their opening levels. Most of
the decrease in the EU ending stocks would reflect barley
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 24
inventories, which are expected to fall by 8 million tonnes
to 5.5 million tonnes because of smaller production and
larger exports. Overall, the major exporter’s stock-to-
disappearance ratio (i.e. domestic consumption plus
exports) in 2010/11 is expected to reach only 9 percent,
down nearly 6 percentage points from the previous season
and below the ten-year low of 12 percent registered in
2006/07.
Large drawdowns of stocks are forecast for the Russian
Federation (mostly barley) as well as Brazil, Canada and
the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, coarse grain stocks
in several countries are also forecast to increase, mainly
because of higher domestic production, most notably in
Argentina, China and South Africa.
RICL
IN1LRNA1IONAL PRICLS
Rice prices remain relatively subdued
Against a backdrop of sharply rising agricultural
commodity prices, the international rice market
has stood out as rather quiet since July. Rice prices
underwent only moderate increases, influenced by rising
international wheat quotations, but also on fears of
large losses from flooding in Pakistan and, subsequently,
from the passage of storms in the Philippines, Thailand
and Viet Nam. Based on the FAO All Rice Price Index,
rice prices gained 14 percent between July and October,
far less than the other cereals, as some of the pressure
was mitigated by the release of ample rice supplies from
stocks in Viet Nam and Thailand. In fact, despite their
recent strength, prices in the first ten months of 2010
averaged 12 percent less than in the corresponding
period in 2009, with all market segments, except lower
quality rice, faring more poorly.
The price of the “Thai white rice 100% B”
benchmark, which had reached a year low of USD 466
per tonne in July, stood at USD 510 per tonne in
October 2010, reflecting renewed sales and the strength
of the Thai baht, but still remaining short of the
October 2009 level of USD 535 per tonne. By contrast,
prices of the lower quality rice were well above one
year ago, with fully broken rice particularly expensive in
Thailand. However, virtually all qualities saw Thai prices
jumping in the first weeks of November, under concern
over flood damage. Export quotations in both Pakistan
and Viet Nam were also substantially higher. In Pakistan,
the rises reflected tightening supplies and logistical
difficulties following the floods while, in Viet Nam, they
were associated with dwindling reserves and the raising of
minimum export prices.
Although of lesser relevance than for wheat or maize,
rice Chicago futures have also risen sharply since early
July 2010. For instance, the quotation of rice for delivery
in January 2011 has gained over 40 percent since July,
revealing expectations of further price strength in the
coming months. Indeed, unless India relaxes its ban on
non-premium rice exports, world supplies for trade may
remain limited at least until the 2010/11 secondary crops
are harvested in March/April next year. Until then, world
rice prices are likely to remain on the rise, especially in a
context of firm agricultural commodity prices and a weak
US Dollar.
Figure 14. Coarse grain stocks and ratios
0
100
200
300
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
0
7
14
21
Million tonnes Percent
United States Rest of the World
World Stock-to-use ratio
Stock-to-disappearance ratio of Major Exporters
estim. f’cast
Figure 13. US maize stocks and stock-to-use-ratio
0
30
60
90
120
150
10/11 05/06 00/01 95/96 90/91 85/86
0
20
40
60
80
100
Million tonnes Percent
Closing stocks Stock-to-use ratio
f’cast
Market assessments
„ November 2010 25
Figure 15. Rice export price
(Thai 100% B, f.o.b. Bangkok)
200
400
600
800
1000
2009
2008
2007
2010
USD per tonne
D N O S A J J M A M F J
Figure 16. FAO rice price indices (2002-2004=100)
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010
Indica: Low Quality
Indica: High Quality Japonica
Aromatic
O S A J J M A M F J D N O
Figure 17. Global rice paddy production and area
550
600
650
700
750
10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
125
135
145
155
165
Million tonnes Million ha
Production Area
estim. f’cast
PRODUC1ION
Although deteriorating, the outlook for global
rice production in 2010/11 remains positive
Global rice production
2
in the 2010/11 season is currently
forecast to reach 467 million tonnes. This is substantially
less than the 472 million tonnes foreseen at the beginning
the season and reported in the June issue of Food Outlook,
but still 11 million tonnes above 2009/10. The downgrading
of the outlook reflects problems resulting from the La
Niña weather anomaly which has prevailed since mid-
2010. Estimates for this year’s production in Argentina,
Brazil and Peru have been revised downward since June,
but most of the recent worsening prospects concerned
northern hemisphere countries, which are now harvesting
their main crops. For instance, production forecasts were
trimmed for China, where a combination of drought and
floods depressed early rice crop results, but also for the
Democratic Republic of Korea, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Myanmar, the Philippines and the Republic
of Korea, which all faced setbacks. The most important
factor in the worsening of this season’s outlook was the
dramatic floods that wiped out large tracts of maturing
crops in Pakistan in August. Outside Asia, crop expectations
for Egypt, the EU and United States were also curtailed.
However, 2010/11 production forecasts have been raised for
Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and
Viet Nam and for several West African countries, which
benefited from excellent growing conditions this season, as
well as Madagascar.
Compared with the previous season, the outlook
for world rice production in 2010/11 remains positive.
The current estimate of 472 million tonnes puts global
production at 2.4 percent, or 11 million tonnes, more than
in 2009/10 when adverse weather conditions depressed
rice output in Asia. The increase is expected to stem from a
3 percent rebound in the world area planted to rice, while
yields are forecast to fall slightly to 2.88 tonnes (milled basis)
per hectare. Much of the global production recovery would
be accounted for by India, where the pattern of this year’s
monsoon rains has been far more favourable than in 2009.
According to the latest forecasts, India’s rice output may rise
to a record 100 million tonnes, up from 89 million tonnes
last season.
Notwithstanding the negative effects from drought,
floods or typhoons, sizeable production gains are also
2
Production figures all expressed in milled rice equivalent.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 26
Figure 18. World rice trade and FAO rice export
price index
0
15
30
45
11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02
0
100
200
300
Million tonnes, milled eq. 2002-2004=100
Exports
FAO Rice Export
Price Index
estim. f’cast
anticipated in Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam on the back of
expansionary programmes, which often promote the use
of hybrid rice. On the other hand, reduced harvests are
predicted in Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of
Korea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar,
Pakistan, the Republic of Korea and Thailand, mostly
reflecting the late arrival of the rainy season and the
subsequent excessive rains and storms. In Pakistan, the
devastating August floods affected the important paddy-
growing provinces of Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh,
impairing 871 000 ha of rice plantings, mainly IRRI-6 rice
varieties, but largely sparing basmati rice crops. Overall, the
country is estimated to have lost around 2 million tonnes
of standing rice crop (milled basis), bringing the production
forecast down to 4.2 million tonnes, far less than the
6.7 million tonnes reaped in 2009/10. In Africa, the outlook
for this season’s rice crops is generally positive, with a few
exceptions. Among these, the most important concerns
Egypt, the leading African producer. Egypt’s output is set
to contract by 18 percent as a result of a sharp reduction
in plantings to comply with the government ceiling of 462
000 ha (1.1 million feddan), a measure intended to save
water. Apart from Egypt, Benin, Cameroon, Malawi,
Mozambique and Rwanda may also face a contraction,
mostly associated with negative growing conditions.
The situation in these countries contrasts with sweeping
production gains expected in the rest of the region, with
particularly large increases forecast in Burkina Faso, Chad,
Cote d’Ivoire, the Gambia, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali,
Mauritania, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, on the back
of generally good rainfalls and continued development
assistance to the sector. In Latin America and the Caribbean,
where the largest producers are already preparing for
the new season, rice crops harvested early this year
were substantially short of the previous season’s level in
Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, reflecting the late arrival of
rains at the end of 2009 followed by excessive precipitation
and limited sunshine. Production is also expected to fall in
Bolivia, Chile, Peru and Venezuela, following a cutback
of plantings, often associated with unsatisfactory producer
prices. By contrast, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and
Paraguay are foreseen to harvest larger crops this season.
In the other regions, USDA’s forecast as of
November 2010 put production in the United States at a
record 7.397 million tonnes, 7 percent above the previous
season, much less than had been predicted in the past
few months. The increase in the United States this season
can be credited to a 17 percent expansion of plantings,
as erratic weather conditions in the south central states
impaired yields. Larger water entitlements to producers
boosted production in Australia to its highest level since
2006, with further large output increases predicted for
2011. By contrast, smaller harvests in France and Italy,
which experienced unfavourable weather conditions, are
foreseen to reduce the EU’s rice production by 4 percent to
2.1 million tonnes.
1RADL
Larger imports by Asian countries to boost rice
trade in 2010
FAO estimates of global rice trade in calendar 2010 stands
at some 30.8 million tonnes, 5 percent, or about 1.5 million
tonnes more than in 2009. The increase in 2010 world
imports is being sustained through purchases by Asian
countries, in particular Bangladesh, Mainland China,
Indonesia and the Philippines, most of which were
conducted under the aegis of government agencies with the
purpose of taming domestic inflation. Deliveries to Brazil,
EU and Nigeria are also predicted to end somewhat higher
than last year.
The United States and Viet Nam are foreseen to
account for much of the anticipated expansion of world
exports in 2010, with shipments from both nations recording
double digit growth. Reflecting very large deliveries before
the floods, Pakistan’s sales in 2010 are foreseen to hover
around 3.1 million tonnes, outpacing the 2.9 million tonnes
of last year. Strong demand by Near East countries is also
boosting shipments from the EU. Despite the maintenance
of restrictions, exports from both Egypt and India are
Market assessments
„ November 2010 27
Figure 19. Rice imports by region
0
4
8
12
16
11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02
Africa
Asia Latin America
Europe
Million tonnes, milled eq.
Others
estim. f’cast
forecast to be higher than in 2009. By contrast, relatively
high domestic prices may depress deliveries from Thailand,
while administrative hindrances are reported to have slowed
sales by Myanmar. Rice exports from Argentina and Brazil
are also forecast to end lower.

Reduced imports by Asian countries may
depress international trade in rice in 2011
Given the latest outlook for global production in 2010/11,
which determines much of next year’s individual country’s
needs for import and their availabilities for export, world rice
trade in calendar 2011 is forecast at 30.3 million tonnes, which
is 1.7 percent, or about 500 000 tonnes, less than the 2010
estimate.
The slight contraction mainly reflects expectations of
reduced imports by Asian countries, which are anticipated
to fall to 14.1 million tonnes in 2011 from 14.5 million
tonnes this year. Indeed, good 2010/11 crops are expected
to depress shipments to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and
especially the Philippines which was the most important
destination for rice trade in 2010. On the other hand, the
Democratic Republic of Korea and Indonesia are likely
to step up their imports, in the first case to increase the size
of national reserves and, in the second case, to compensate
for a production shortfall this season. Both Thailand and
Viet Nam, the two leading rice exporters, also may need
to buy more rice to bolster their exports, with inflows from
border countries facilitated under the Asean Free Trade
Agreement. Among Near East Asian countries, Afghanistan,
Iraq and Saudi Arabia are foreseen as well, to step up
imports in 2011. Given expectations of bumper crops, the
volume of rice delivered to African countries is foreseen
to fall somewhat behind last year, to an overall 9.7 million
tonnes, mainly reflecting reduced purchases by Nigeria. On
the other hand, the sharp contraction of output in Egypt
may require that authorities import around 100 000 tonnes,
which would help the country maintain a minimum level of
exports. In Latin America and the Caribbean, rice imports
are now forecast to shrink by almost 6 percent to 3.3 million
tonnes, two-thirds of which are destined for Central America
and the Caribbean. The reduction would be mainly on
account of Brazil, but also Chile, Colombia and Ecuador.
Rice purchases by the EU are forecast to rise by 150 000
tonnes to 1.2 million tonnes in 2011, partly to compensate
for the 2010 production shortfall.
Limited supplies are expected to hinder the ability of
several of the major world rice suppliers to export next
year. Pakistan, in particular, may have to cut shipments
sharply, especially of the IRRI-6 varieties, which were greatly
damaged by this year’s floods, while sales of the high quality
basmati rice could be maintained. Overall, Pakistan’s exports
are set to contract by 42 percent to 1.8 million tonnes. In the
case of Viet Nam, extremely large deliveries this year may
well constrain exports in 2011 to around 6.5 million tonnes,
down from a 7.0 million tonne estimate for 2010. On the
other hand, falling production this season is also likely to
restrain shipments from Cambodia, Egypt and the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic. Much of these shortfalls
are likely to be filled by Brazil and India and, especially, by
Thailand, which may export 9 million tonnes, up from the
8.3 million tonnes estimate for the current year. Following
hints of a strongly increased crop, to be harvested in April,
Australia may also reappear as an active world rice supplier
in 2011.
Figure 20. Rice exports by the major exporters
0
5
10
15

2010 estimate
2011 forecast
Million tonnes, milled eq.
India Pakistan Thailand USA Viet Nam Others
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 28
U1ILIZA1ION
Rice food consumption set to expand largely in
line with population
In 2011, global rice utilization, including food, feed and
other uses, is anticipated to amount to some 460 million
tonnes, 1.6 percent, or 7 million tonnes more than the
current estimate for 2010. The bulk of the total is likely to be
destined for human consumption, now foreseen to absorb
394 million tonnes, compared with 388 million tonnes this
year. On the other hand, the volume of rice fed to animals
in 2011 is gauged unchanged at around 12 million tonnes,
while other scopes (including seeds, non-food industrial
usage and waste) are forecast to take up around 54 million
tonnes, up from less than 53 million tonnes in 2010.
Under present expectations, the expansion in world
population would be the principal driver of rice food
consumption growth, with per capita food intake projected
stable at close to 57 kg per year. At the regional level, more
rice per inhabitant is forecast to be available in 2011 than
2010 in Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania, but
less in Latin America and the Caribbean, with little change
now foreseen in Africa. Although slowly converging, wide
differences in per capita intake continue to prevail across
continents, with over 82 kg consumed in Asia and barely 5.2
kg in Europe.
Domestic prices at the wholesale or retail levels in some
representative locations evolved in different directions this
year, reflecting the particular supply/demand situations
prevailing in individual countries, rather than international
price movements. Compared with one year ago, the latest
domestic price quotations in Asia were reported stable or
falling in Nepal, the Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka and
Thailand, but rising in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China,
Indonesia and Viet Nam. The pattern exhibited in Africa
also was not uniform, with prices generally lower than in the
previous year in eastern Africa, higher in the southern part
of the continent and mixed in the rest of the region. Prices
tended to weaken in Latin America and the Caribbean.
S1OCKS
Good 2010/11 crops to boost global rice stocks
in 2011
According to the latest forecasts, world rice production
in 2010/11 would exceed global rice utilization by close
to 7 million tonnes, which is expected to beef-up global
rice carryover stocks from 126 million tonnes in 2010 to
133 million tonnes in 2011, the highest level since 2002.
Much of the increase would accrue to China and India,
the two largest rice holders, with a combined 71 percent
of the world total. Expectations of larger 2010/11 crops are
much behind the anticipated build-up of 2011 inventories
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE (milled basis)
Production
458.3 455.6 466.7 2.4
Trade
1
29.3 30.8 30.3 -1.7
Total utilization
445.1 452.9 460.2 1.6
Food
382.1 388.0 393.9 1.5
Ending stocks
124.1 126.2 133.2 5.6
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
56.5 56.7 56.9 0.4
LIFDC (Kg/year)
68.8 68.9 69.0 0.1
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
27.4 27.4 28.5 3.8
Major exporters’ stock-to-
disappearance ratio (%)
2
21.3 16.6 17.6 6.0
FAO rice price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
295 253 223 -12.5
Table 6. World rice market at a glance
1
Calendar year exports (second year shown)
2
Major exporters include India, Pakistan, Thailand, the United States and Viet Nam
More detailed information on the rice market is available in the FAO Rice Market
Monitor which can be accessed at: http://www.fao.org/economic/est/publications/
rice-publications/rice-market-monitor-rmm/en/
Figure 21. Global rice closing stocks and stock-
to-use ratio
50
80
110
140
170
10/11 08/09 06/07 04/05 02/03 00/01
0
10
20
30
40
Million tonnes Percent
World Stocks Stock-to-use ratio
f’cast
Market assessments
„ November 2010 29
Table 7. Monthly retail prices of rice in selected markets
Latest available quotation. Latest available quotation compared to.
/1
$VLD Month USD/Kg 3 months earlier 6 months earlier 1 vear earlier 2 vears earlier
Bangladesh: Ntl. Avg. (coarse) Aug-10 0.42 12° 10° 52° -9°
Cambodia: Phnom Penh (mix)* Aug-10 0.40 -10° -10° 23° -20°
China: Hubei (Indica Iirst quality)* Oct-10 0.43 0° 0° 2° 8° 7°
India: Delhi Oct-10 0.48 0° 0° -7° 0° 0° 0° 0°
Indonesia: Ntl. Avg. Sep-10 0.95 11° 13° 26° 31°
Japan: Tokyo Ku-area (Non-glutinous) Sep-10 5.34 -1° 0° 0° -2° -4°
Republic oI Korea: Ntl. Avg. Oct-10 1.81 0° 0° -3° -7° -10°
Myanmar: Ntl. Avg. Jul-10 0.40 0° 0° 13° 13° 8°
Nepal: Kathmandu (coarse) Jul-10 0.47 9° 9° -5° 3°
Pakistan: Karachi (irri) Oct-10 0.42 6° 6° 10° -15°
Philippines: Ntl. Avg. (well-milled) Jul-10 0.74 0° 0° 1° 0° 0° -11°
Sri Lanka: Colombo (white) Oct-10 0.48 9° 3° -13° -13°
Thailand: Bangkok (5° broken)* Aug-10 0.41 1° -19° -20° -36°
Viet Nam: Dong Thap (25° broken) Sep-10 0.39 26° 20° 35° 19°
:HVWHUQ$IULFD Month USD/Kg 3 months earlier 6 months earlier 1 vear earlier 2 vears earlier
Burkina Faso: Ouagadougou (imported)* Oct-10 0.67 6° 6° -6° -11°
Cape Verde: Santiago (imported) Sep-10 1.10 1° 1° 6° 23°
Chad: N'Djamena (imported) Aug-10 0.90 0° 0° 0° 0° -1° -23°
Mali: Bamako (imported)* Oct-10 0.57 -3° 4° -12° -19°
Mauritania: Nouakchott (imported) Aug-10 0.97 0° 0° -13° 41° 30°
Senegal: Dakar (imported) Aug-10 0.79 0° 0° 0° 0° 9° -8°
&HQWUDO$IULFD Month USD/Kg 3 months earlier 6 months earlier 1 vear earlier 2 vears earlier
Cameroon: Yaunde Aug-10 0.86 -1° 0° 0° -2° -1°
Dem. Rep. Congo: Kinshasa (imported) Aug-10 1.09 -1° -1° 8° 46°
(DVWHUQ$ILUFD Month USD/Kg 3 months earlier 6 months earlier 1 vear earlier 2 vears earlier
Burundi: Bujumbura Jul-10 0.93 -8° -16° -4° 15°
Djibouti: Djibouti (imported)* Sep-10 0.61 2° -2° -13° -36°
Rwanda: Kigali* Sep-10 0.82 -18° -22° -29° -31°
Somalia: Mogadishu (imported) Sep-10 0.68 2° 4° -25° - -
Uganda: Kampala* Oct-10 0.57 -16° -33° -36° -41°
United Rep. oI Tanzania: Dar es Salaam* Oct-10 0.68 -2° -16° -24° -15°
6RXWKHUQ$IULFD Month USD/Kg 3 months earlier 6 months earlier 1 vear earlier 2 vears earlier
Madagascar: Ntl. Avg. (local) Oct-10 0.53 14° - - 3° -3°
Malawi: Lilongwe Sep-10 1.23 0° 0° - - 4° 3°
Mozambique: Maputo Oct-10 0.80 15° 21° 42° 52°
&HQWUDO$PHULFDDQGWKH&DULEEHDQ Month USD/Kg 3 months earlier 6 months earlier 1 vear earlier 2 vears earlier
Costa Rica: Ntl. Avg. (Iirst quality) Sep-10 1.53 1° 1° 19° 17°
Dominican Rep: Santo Domingo (Iirst quality) Sep-10 1.23 -6° -5° -4° 4°
El Salvador: San Salvador Jul-10 1.11 4° 9° -18° -19°
Guatemala: Ntl. Avg. (second quality) Sep-10 1.07 -1° -1° -1° -2°
Haiti: Port-au-Prince (imported) Oct-10 0.95 -5° -21° -13° -36°
Honduras: Tegucigalpa (second quality)* Oct-10 0.71 -5° -11° -16° -34°
Mexico: Mexico City (sinaloa)* Oct-10 0.69 -4° -9° -12° -24°
Nicaragua: Ntl. Avg. (second quality) Sep-10 0.91 -1° 1° -1° -17°
Panama: Panama City (Iirst quality) Oct-10 1.07 0° 0° 4° 0° 0° 0° 0°
6RXWK$PHULFD Month USD/Kg 3 months earlier 6 months earlier 1 vear earlier 2 vears earlier
Bolivia: La Paz (grano de oro)* Oct-10 0.87 5° -7° -4° -24°
Brazil: Ntl. Avg. Sep-10 1.17 -1° -2° -7° -17°
Colombia: Bogota (Iirst quality)* Sep-10 1.00 0° 0° -6° 12° -11°
Ecuador: Ntl. Avg. Sep-10 0.85 2° -1° 1° -3°
Peru: Lima (corriente) Sep-10 0.73 1° 1° -22° -30°
Uruguay: Ntl. Avg. Sep-10 0.90 -1° -2° -3° -8°
1RUWK$PHULFD Month USD/Kg 3 months earlier 6 months earlier 1 vear earlier 2 vears earlier
United States: City Avg. (long grain, uncooked) Sep-10 1.59 -2° -5° -5° -15°
(XURSH Month USD/Kg 3 months earlier 6 months earlier 1 vear earlier 2 vears earlier
Italy: Milan (Arborio Volano)* Oct-10 1.48 0° 0° 17° 25° -2°

Quotations in the month specified in the second column were compared to their levels in the preceding
three, six, twelve and twentv-four months. Price comparisons were made in nominal local currencv units.
* Wholesale prices.
Sources. Associa:ione Industrie Risiere Italiane (AIRI), FAO/GIEWS National Food Price database, Korea Agricultural Marketing Information Service (KAMIS), Monthlv Report on the Retail Price
Survev, Japan Ministrv of Internal Affairs and Communications, Monthlv Report on Socio Economic Data, Statistics Indonesia, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Percentage price increase
Percentage price decrease
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 30
in the two countries, as well as in Bangladesh, Indonesia
and Sri Lanka in Asia, Mali and Madagascar in Africa,
and the United States in North America. Conversely, a
sizeable drawdown of reserves is predicted in Myanmar,
Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea,
Thailand and Viet Nam, as well as in Brazil, Egypt,
Nigeria and Venezuela. From a trade-status perspective,
stocks held by the five major rice exporting countries
(Thailand, Viet Nam, Pakistan, United States and India)
are anticipated to rise by 1.7 million tonnes to 27.9 million
tonnes, mainly on account of increases in India and the
United States. Rice stocks carried over by traditional
importing countries, on the other hand, are forecast to
remain stable around 22.8 million tonnes.
At the forecast level of 133 million tonnes, the world
stocks-to-use ratio, an important indicator of world
food security, would equal 28.5 percent next year, an
improvement from the 27.4 percent estimated for 2010
and the highest value since 2002. The relation of rice
inventories held by the five top rice exporters to their
disappearance (utilization plus exports) gives an indication
of the future availability for trade and, as such, is also
forecast to move up from 16.6 percent in 2010 to
17.6 percent in 2011, a sign that the market may ease in
the course of next year.
CASSAvA
PRICLS
International quotations soar to record highs in
2010
Prices of internationally traded cassava products have surged
in 2010. The most pronounced increases were registered by
Thai cassava flour and starch (f.o.b. Bangkok), which from
January to October 2010, traded some 85 percent higher on
average than the corresponding period last year. In July 2010,
quotations reached an all-time high of almost USD 600 per
tonne, although by October, they had lost around 10 percent
of their value. International prices for Thai cassava chips
(destined for Mainland China) have risen steadily month-by-
month. Quotations surpassed a record high in April 2010, and
had gained a further 15 percent, reaching USD 225 per tonne
in September before falling back slightly in October.
Some of the support to Thai reference export prices has
been provided by strong currency movements. Thai currency
has risen 17 percent against the US Dollar since April 2009,
with almost half of this strengthening occurring in the
past four months. However, the principal factor behind
across-the-board price rises has been the sharp cut in Thai
exportable supplies, owing to an exceptional contraction in
the country’s cassava harvest in 2010. In an attempt to arrest
the surge in prices and to shore up export competitiveness,
Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce has intervened by releasing
into the marketplace small quantities from official stocks of
cassava products from official stocks thought to be around
900 000 tonnes.
Against this backdrop, demand for cassava products
continues to soar in Mainland China, the world’s principal
buyer of the commodity. Cassava constitutes a competitive
substitute for maize as a raw material in the industrial
sector, especially starch and ethanol. A policy that provides
support to the domestic price of maize in Mainland China
has boosted international inflows of cassava, providing an
additional lift to quotations.
The upturn in quotations could have been even more
pronounced were it not for the continued slump in demand
for feed pellets in traditional import markets. Cassava
blended with protein-rich meals, such as soymeal, is an
effective substitute for coarse grains and wheat, but
throughout much of 2010, adequate feed grain supplies in
the EU, the traditional destination of cassava feed products,
has limited its need to import cassava pellets.
The currently tight supply and demand balance is
expected to lend substantial support to cassava product
prices in 2011, and there could be scope for additional rises
Figure 22. Stocks held by the five major rice
exporters and stock-to-disappearance ratio
0
15
30
45
10/11 08/09 06/07 04/05 02/03 00/01
0
10
20
30
Million tonnes, milled eq. Percent
f’cast
Closing Stocks
Stock-to-disappearance ratio
Market assessments
„ November 2010 31
Figure 23. International cassava and Thai
domestic prices
0
200
400
600
2010 2009 2008 2007
USD per tonne
Flour/Starch
(Super High Grade f.o.b Bangkok)
Chips to China
(f.o.b Bangkok)
Roots
(Thai domestic)
Figure 24. Feed ingredient prices
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2009 2008 2007
USD per tonne
Cassava-Soymeal 80%/20%
China domestic maize Maize (US No. 2, Yellow)
Figure 25. Thai Baht - US dollar exchange rate
28
31
34
37
2010 2009 2008 2007
Thai Bath per USD
in the near term. First and foremost is the strong likelihood
of a consecutive contraction in Thailand’s cassava crop
in 2011. The sector, which is principally geared towards
supplying the international marketplace, will face lower
exportable supplies thus putting upward pressure on
quotations. Second, the prospect of global maize shortages
will raise the demand for cassava in markets where the two
commodities compete with each other.
The growing use of cassava chips as a feedstock for
ethanol distilleries in Asia has buoyed global demand for
cassava in energy and alcohol production in recent years.
However, now it could stall, given that ethanol prices
reportedly have risen above gasoline prices in the region,
particularly in Mainland China. This might only be temporary,
given the current upward trend in crude oil prices. Finally,
despite ample supplies, Viet Nam has struggled to participate
in export markets in 2010 owing to uncompetitive pricing
relative to Thai benchmark prices. Consequently, such large
surpluses, estimated to be around 20 percent of global
potential trade, will overhang markets next year.
PRODUC1ION
Expansion in global cassava production could
stall in 2010
After 15 years of uninterrupted growth, global cassava
production is forecast to fall to 249 million tonnes in 2010,
Source: Thai Tapioca Trade Association
2008 2009
estim.
2010
f’cast
Change
2010 over
2009
(million tonnes fresh root equiv) %
WORLD BALANCE
Production 239.9 251.0 248.7 -0.9
Trade 18.9 28.2 29.2 3.8
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption
World (kg/year) 16.9 17.7 17.6 -0.9
Developing (kg/year) 21.3 22.2 22.0 -0.9
LDC (kg/year) 62.6 65.8 68.9 -4.7
Sub Saharan Africa (kg/year) 106.4 111.2 114.8 3.2
Trade - Share of prod (%) 7.9 11.2 11.8 4.8
FAO cassava prices 2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
USD/tonne %
Chips to China (f.o.b. Bangkok)) 171.1 137.4 199.1 52.4
Starch (f.o.b. Bangkok) 383.6 281.3 496.0 87.1
Thai domestic root prices 57.2 41.4 76.1 98.8
Table 8. World cassava market at a glance
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 32
a decline of over 2 million tonnes from the record of the
previous year. This potential contraction is mostly due
to poor crops in Asia. Disease and drought problems in
Thailand could see production fall by around 27 percent
from the bumper crop gathered in 2009. Around 160
000 ha are thought to have been lost to pink mealybug
infestation. Authorities have attempted to suppress the
outbreak by importing wasps from West Africa and are
conducting research into new resistant strains to protect
the crop, which is cultivated by around 400 000 farm
households.
Regarding diseases afflicting cassava, the cassava
mosaic virus causes withering of plant leaves, limits
photosynthesis and inhibits the growth of the tuberous root.
The virus can be spread either by whitefly or by transplanting
diseased material. Towards the latter half of the 1980s,
the virus underwent a virulent mutation in Uganda causing
the complete loss of leaves. Each year, the mutated virus is
estimated to be spreading at a directional rate of 80 km,
destroying in total an estimated 35 million tonnes of African
cassava annually. Already the virus has infected the whole of
Uganda, and parts of Burundi, the Republic of the Congo,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. In the
past few years, cassava brown streak disease – a viral
infection that destroys the root – has been identified as a
major threat to cassava cultivation worldwide. Spread by
CASSAvA PLS1S AND
DISLASLS
Pests, including the pink cassava mealybug
(Maconellicoccus hirsutus), the traditional cassava
mealybug (Phenacoccus manihoti) and the cassava
green mite (Mononychellus tanajoa), pose a severe
threat to cultivation in tropical and subtropical regions,
especially Africa and Southeast Asia. Infestation can
cause losses of up to 80  percent in cassava harvests.
Pest outbreaks were common during the 1970s and
1980s, but in recent decades, the threat has been
mitigated largely by control measures undertaken
by the Institute of International Tropical Agriculture
(IITA). IITA implemented biological countermeasures in
the form of Apoanagyrus lopezi and Anagyrus lopezi
(both parasitoidal wasps), to fight mealybugs and
Typhlodromalus aripo (a predatory mite), to fight the
cassava green mite.
white flies, visible signs of the virus are not readily apparent
and, worryingly, varieties engineered for resistance to
cassava mosaic disease are increasingly susceptible to brown
streak.
With high prices prevailing throughout much of the
year, peaking at around USD 84 (2 500 baht) per tonne in
October 2010, the Thai price insurance programme set at
USD 54 (1 700 baht) per tonne has been redundant. This is
also likely to continue next year, when the buying price has
been set at USD 60 (1 900 baht) per tonne.
The industrial utilization of cassava in the form of ethanol
has been the main driver of the sizeable expansion in the
crop’s cultivation throughout the region. Sectors have
benefited from the allocation of additional land for cassava,
and from subsidies and mandatory ethanol-gasoline blending
requirements. Over the past few years, Mainland China
has initiated large-scale investments within and outside its
borders to expand cassava output for ethanol production.
Food security concerns have compelled Mainland China to
extend a moratorium on new grain-based ethanol plants
and, as a result, roughly over half of Mainland China’s fuel
ethanol and alcohol output are now derived from root
crops, namely cassava and sweet potato. In the space of
five years, 2005-2009, Mainland China’s cassava production
more than doubled from 4 million tonnes to 8.7 million
tonnes. Expectations initially pointed to yet another record
for Mainland China’s 2010 cassava harvest, but drought
problems have affected yields with output potentially falling
to 8 million tonnes.
Estimates for Viet Nam put the 2010 harvest at around
8.7 million tonnes, the second highest crop ever gathered in
the country. In the past decade, the sector has undergone
remarkable expansion, driven predominantly by the needs
of the international market. However, progress is likely to
be moderated by policy measures to limit cassava area to
no more than 450 000 ha compared with 560 000 ha at
present. This restraint is the reaction to the deforestation
that has resulted from the expansion of cassava fields and
concerns over land degradation. Officials have announced
that productivity improvements will be stepped up to
compensate for the area shortfall. Environmental concerns
also have surfaced over the rapid expansion of cassava
farming in Cambodia. Foreign direct investment by
Mainland China to meet its growing appetite for cassava
as an energy feedstock and for starch production has
contributed to a surge in cassava plantings in Cambodia.
Production in 2010, estimated at 3.6 million tonnes, could
approach the record harvest of 2008. In the Philippines,
sustained efforts to develop competitive national animal feed
and ethanol industries could lead to another record cassava
Market assessments
„ November 2010 33
Figure 26. Brazil cassava root producer prices
50
75
100
125
150
2010 2009 2008 2007
USD per tonne
output of 2.2 million tonnes. The country has earmarked
doubling its cassava area by 2014 in order to meet its
domestic requirements.
In other major producing countries of the region, cassava
output has been characterized by robust growth in India
and Indonesia. Both had exceptional outcomes last year,
and 2010 is likely to continue the growth, with production
projected to rise by around 500 000 tonnes in each country
from 2009 levels. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic
has announced plans to construct a large cassava ethanol
refinery funded by a Chinese firm, which reportedly has
prompted a 50 000 ha expansion in cassava acreage. The
country currently forecasts its cassava production to increase
by 50 000 tonnes, reaching 200 000 tonnes in 2010.
In Africa, continued turbulence in the global market for
traded food staples constantly reminds many vulnerable
countries to look toward indigenous crops, such as cassava,
as an alternative to potentially expensive and volatile
imported cereals. As a “crisis crop”, indigenous to the
region, cassava roots require few inputs, and can be left
in the ground for well over a year and harvested when
food shortages arise or when prices of preferred cereals
become prohibitive. While this attribute makes an accurate
assessment of cassava production particularly difficult, it
nonetheless is behind an anticipated expansion of African
output of over 3 percent, to some 135 million tonnes in
2010.
Ongoing long-term programmes for the
commercialization of cassava as a food crop constitute
the major factor behind Africa’s positive prospects, but
government food-security initiatives with the support of
international donors have also played an important role.
Support often takes the form of distribution of high-yielding
and disease-resistant planting material, extension activities to
introduce “good agricultural practices”, as well as measures
to strengthen the value chain, notably food processing for
value-added cassava products.
At the country level, Nigeria, the world’s leading
producer, could see production reach a new height of
45.5 million tonnes, up 1 percent from 2009, while Ghana’s
output could surpass 12 million tonnes for the second year
in a row. Domestic investment in the sector assisted by good
weather could yield strong gains in Mozambique and the
United Republic of Tanzania, with estimates of the 2010
cassava crop approaching 9 million tonnes in each country.
Foreign investment is also set to play a role in boosting
production elsewhere in the region. For instance, Mainland
China reportedly has provided substantial financial support
to the cassava sector in Liberia, a new entrant to its rising
* Estimate
** Forecast
2007 2008 2009* 2010**
(000 tonnes)
WORLD 116 207 124 778 130 395 134 604
Africa 117 449 104 952 118 461 121 469
Nigeria 43 410 44 582 45 000 45 700
Congo, Dem. Rep. of 15 004 15 013 15 027 15 100
Ghana 10 218 11 351 12 231 12 500
Angola 9 730 10 057 12 828 13 500
Mozambique 5 039 8 500 9 100 9 700
Tanzania, United Rep.of 6 600 6 600 6 600 8 700
Uganda 4 973 5 072 5 179 5 000
Malawi 3 239 3 491 3 000 2 300
Madagascar 2 400 2 400 2 400 2 400
Other Africa 15 593 17 711 19 032 19 704
Latin America 36 311 36 429 37 024 36 606
Brazil 26 639 26 541 26 600 26 000
Paraguay 4 800 5 100 5 300 5 400
Colombia 1 363 1 288 1 444 1 500
Other Latin America 3 509 3 500 3 680 3 706
Asia 76 398 80 280 85 641 78 167
Thailand 26 916 25 156 30 088 22 000
Indonesia 19 988 21 593 22 039 22 500
Viet Nam 8 193 9 396 8 557 8 700
India 8 232 9 056 9 623 10 000
China, mainland 7 875 8 300 8 700 8 000
Cambodia 2 215 3 676 3 497 3 600
Philippines 1 871 1 942 2 044 2 200
Other Asia 1 108 1 161 1 093 1 167
Oceania 284 278 271 277
Table 9. World cassava production
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 34
investment portfolio in the region. In Malawi, drought
conditions prevailing much of this year will likely lead to
output contraction in the order of 20 percent. Similarly,
in Uganda, 2010 harvest prospects are expected to be
downgraded due to an outbreak of cassava brown streak
disease.
The 2010 production outlook for Latin America and
the Caribbean points to a small expansion reflecting an
anticipated increase in harvested area in Brazil, the region’s
largest producer. Producer prices, while volatile, began
moving upwards in the middle of last year and have had
a positive effect on planting decisions. As for Colombia
and Paraguay, the region’s other major cassava producing
countries, little is known about the current situation, but
both countries have experienced firm growth in cassava
production in recent years.
Outlook for 2011
Prospects for global production in 2011 appear somewhat
mixed. For instance, in Thailand, early official estimates
for the 2011 crop show a further contraction of around
4 percent. The decline was initially estimated to be much
larger, but there has been improved confidence in the
sector’s ability to contain the mealybug infestation.
Improved returns for competing crops, especially sugar
cane, could also limit recovery in Asia. But, on the other
hand, sustained public support and private investment in
scaling-up cassava crops to meet the needs of the food
sector in Africa and the industrial and energy sectors
in Asia could provide an impetus for a return to global
production growth. Regarding the energy sector, the recent
reduction of the ethanol tariff in Mainland China from
30 to 5 percent is likely to trigger significant investment
in integrated cassava-ethanol facilities involving new
plantations.
1RADL
Asia drives global cassava trade to new heights
in 2010
Despite the downturn in global production, world trade
in cassava products in the current year is expected to rise
by 4 percent to a record 14.7 million tonnes (chip and
pellet weight equivalent). This forecast is based on rising
international need for cassava as a feedstock for ethanol
production combined with the sustained competitiveness of
cassava starch relative to grain-based products.
Robust global demand has resulted in a stronger pace of
cassava shipments from Thailand, by far the world’s largest
international supplier. Overall, the country is anticipated
Table 11. Thai trade in cassava
2005 2006 2007 2008
000 tonnes
Total 9 240 6 810 9 402 11 590
Flour and starch total 4 416 3 963 4 991 5 626
Japan 729 873 746 744
China 694 611 1 220 1 368
Chinese prov. of Taiwan 548 483 684 631
Indonesia 667 417 617 901
Malaysia 256 296 412 483
Others 1 523 1 284 1 311 1 500
Chips and pellets 4 824 2 848 4 411 5 964
China 3 168 1 214 4 237 5 925
Republic of Korea 20 480 111 15
European Union 1 436 989 17 5
Others 200 170 46 20
Table 10. World exports of cassava
(product weight equivalent)
2007 2008 2009 2010
000 tonnes
Total 11 192 9 452 14 089 14 625
Flour and Starch 4 686 4 265 8 062 7 636
Thailand 4 416 3 963 4 991 5 626
Viet Nam 1 328 946 2 735 1 641
Others 269 302 335 369
Chips and Pellets 6 506 5 187 6 027 6 989
Thailand 4 824 2 848 4 411 5 964
Viet Nam 527 437 1 265 759
Indonesia 210 170 160 96
Others 156 169 191 170
1
In product weight of chips and pellets
1
In product weight of chips and pellets
Source: Thai Tapioca Trade Association (TTTA)
to ship around 11.6 million tonnes (chip and pellet weight
equivalent) of cassava chips, pellets and starch in 2010, up
by 38 percent in volume from 2009.  Shipments are likely
to be sustained from the country’s stocks given the huge
downgrading of the 2010 cassava crop. Viet Nam recently
emerged as a major competitor, but its 2010 cassava
product exports are likely to contract by 40 percent from last
year’s excellent performance to around 2.4 million tonnes,
owing to a rise in export quotations. Pegged to the US
Dollar, currency movements have also adversely affected Viet
Nam’s competitiveness in export markets.
Mainland China looks set to strengthen its position as the
most important buyer on the international stage, accounting
Market assessments
„ November 2010 35
for almost 70 percent of all cassava imports in 2010. A
policy introduced last November that subsidizes domestic
maize purchases to meet demand in deficit areas rather
than through imports, combined with inventory control,
has pushed up maize prices considerably in the country.
The policy has reinforced the competitiveness of imported
cassava, even though cassava products are being traded
around record price levels.
Global imports of chips are again expected to be
dominated by Mainland China, principally to meet capacity
of the burgeoning cassava-based ethanol sector. Indeed,
demand for chips by the country is set to underpin world
trade in chips and pellets in 2010, by 14 percent from the
previous year to just over 7 million tonnes. In the past year,
Viet Nam has assisted Thailand in meeting this demand, but
is likely to play a very minor role in 2010. Regarding cassava
starch and flour, global transactions are expected to fall
moderately short of the record volume traded in 2009, with
Thailand again expected to capture share at the expense
of Viet Nam in a market orientated towards supplying
neighbouring destinations.
These developments reaffirm that international cassava
trade within Southeast Asia is being increasingly confined
to fulfil industrial requirements in the subregion, with
a small amount of cross-border transactions. Prospects
for development of a truly global market for cassava are
becoming more unlikely.
Outlook for 2011
The trade outlook for 2011 is once again on the positive
side. However, much depends on Mainland China’s
continued presence in the global marketplace which, in
turn, relies on the country’s policy that gives cassava a
competitive edge over grain-based substitutes, and on
the likelihood of further increases in the price of imported
maize. Cassava quotations are expected to be attractive
in this context and could underpin a rise in pellet and chip
shipments to the feed and industrial sectors around the
world.
Indeed, the degree of capacity utilization and expansion
in cassava-based ethanol industries in Mainland China will
play an important role in determining trade prospects. The
demand for processing cassava into energy will depend on
the margin of ethanol returns, the competitiveness of other
feedstocks and the ethanol price relative to petroleum.
In this regard, the surge underway in global sugar and
molasses quotations and an upward trend in the price of
petroleum may well prompt Asian countries to rely more on
cassava to meet ethanol mandates and industrial alcohol
demand.
U1ILIZA1ION
Food and ethanol drive cassava utilization in
2010
Regarding food utilization, initiatives that target cassava to
meet rising dietary staple needs have been undertaken in
many vulnerable countries. This is particularly evident in sub-
Saharan Africa, where consumption of cassava (mostly in the
form of fresh roots and basic processed products) is on the
increase. With the expected overall production rising faster
than population per capita food availability looks set to rise
in the region by around 3.6 kg to around 115 kg.
Measures to promote domestic cassava flour over
imported cereals, either for direct consumption or through
blending, remain active throughout the world and
constitute an important determinant in higher cassava food
consumption. Brazil mandates to incorporate 10 percent
cassava flour in wheat flour, which an estimated 50 percent
of the country’s cassava crop. Though several major
producing countries in West Africa also have promoted this
initiative, many have fallen short of enforcement, owing to
the limited availability of cassava flour. At present, Nigeria
is considering a parliamentary bill officially mandating a
10 percent blend.
The cassava demand from ethanol sectors for meeting
mandatory blending will again emerge as a significant driver
in the expansion of cassava utilization. A typical distillery
can produce about 280 litres (222 kg) of 96 percent pure
ethanol from 1 tonne of cassava roots with 30 percent starch
content.
In Mainland China, an estimated 650 million litres of
ethanol will be produced from cassava in 2010, requiring
around 5 million tonnes of dried cassava. While the country
has secured agreements with several neighbouring countries
to supply its ethanol industry with the feedstock, the
reduction in Mainland China’s ethanol tariff has led several
of them to gear up towards exporting the biofuel instead of
the raw feedstock. For instance, in Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, construction could soon begin on an ethanol
refinery with a productive capacity of around 390 million
litres per year. Similarly, Viet Nam has plans to construct
an ethanol facility with an annual capacity of 125 million
litres. The factory will provide one-half of its volume to the
domestic market, with the remainder going for export.
Utilization of cassava as animal feed, in the form of
dried chips and pellets, is mostly concentrated in Brazil and
Colombia in Latin America and the Caribbean, Nigeria in
Africa, and Mainland China and the Republic of Korea in
Asia. Little is known as to how feed usage has fared in
the former two regions, but the demand for cassava feed
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 36
Figure 28. CBOT soybean futures for March
250
350
450
550
650
USD per tonne
M A M J J A S O N
2009 values 2010 values 2011 values
ingredients in Asia remains weak. Similarly, in Europe,
cassava applications in the manufacture of feed ingredients
have been virtually non-existent in the past two years.
However, given the rising global scarcity of grain-based
products, prospects of a resurgence in the feed usage of
cassava have brightened.
OILSLLDS, OILS AND MLALS

PRICLS
4

Strong rebound in world prices in recent
months
Following the 2007/08 surge and subsequent decline, in
early 2009 prices for oilcrops and oilcrop products again
embarked on an upward trend. Renewed price firmness
over the 2008/09 marketing season (October-September)
mirrored market fundamentals, in that world production of
both oilmeals and oils fell short of global demand for the
second consecutive season, driving the respective stock-to-
use ratios down.
During 2009/10, the overall supply and demand situation
eased thanks in particular to a strong rise in world soybean
production. However, international prices did not relax - for
a number of reasons. For example, in the case of meals,
during the first half of the season, the world market relied
totally on supplies from the United States, where stocks
had dropped to a historical low. Then, during the second
half of 2009/10, South America’s new crop took unusually
long to reach the market, and rape, sunflower and fishmeal
supplies became increasingly tight, thus sustaining prices.
Also for oils and fats, global supplies remained tight relative
to demand, and the global stock-to-use ratio recovered
only partially from the previous season’s critically low level.
Forecasts of slowing growth in palm oil production caused
additional concern. A number of external factors also added
to the price firmness in the oilseed complex, in particular the
growing weakness of the US Dollar and the relative strength
of mineral oil prices.
3
Almost the entire volume of oilcrops harvested worldwide is crushed in order
to obtain oils and fats for human nutrition or industrial purposes and cakes and
meals used as feed ingredients. Therefore, rather than referring to oilseeds, the
analysis of the market situation is mainly undertaken in terms of oils/fats and
cakes/meals. Hence, production data for oils (cakes) derived from oilseeds refer
to the oil (cake) equivalent of the current production of the relevant oilseeds,
i.e. do not reflect the outcome of actual oilseed crushing nor take into account
changes in oilseed stocks. Furthermore, the data on trade in and stocks of oils
(cakes) refer to the sum of trade in and stocks of oils and cakes plus the oil (cake)
equivalent of oilseed trade and stocks.
4
For details on prices and corresponding indices, see appendix Table A24.
Figure 27. FAO monthly international price
indices for oilseeds, oils/fats and oilmeals/cakes
(2002-2004=100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Oilmeals/cakes
Oils/fats
Oilseeds
Towards the end of the 2009/10 season, the prospect of
lower than expected outturns in 2010/11 oilcrops, but also
grains, lent new support to prices in the oilseed complex. At
the same time, unabated growth in soybean import demand
(primarily from China), fears that some countries could
contemplate restricting exports, prolonged weakness in the
US Dollar and continued firmness in the energy market also
helped to sustain prices. As a result, by October 2010, the
FAO price indices for oilseeds, oils and meals had climbed
to levels not reached during the preceding 24 months and,
in the case of meals, the index even exceeded the values
recorded during the 2008 price surge.
Market assessments
„ November 2010 37
Figure 30. FAO monthly price index for meals/
cakes (2002-2004=100)
150
180
210
240
2008/09
2009/10
2007/08
S A J J M A M F J D N O
Figure 31. FAO monthly price index for oils/fats
(2002-2004=100)
100
150
200
250
300
2009/10
2008/09
2007/08
S A J J M A M F J D N O
Figure 29. FAO monthly price index for oilseeds
(2002-2004=100)
130
160
190
220
250
2008/09
2009/10
2007/08
S A J J M A M F J D N O
PRICL S1RLNG1H IN
1HL OILSLLD COMPLLX
COULD PLRSIS1
1HROUGHOU1 2010/11
Current forecasts for 2010/11 suggest that total
oilcrop output could remain close to last season’s
record level. However, with meal and oil utilization
expected to expand further, global production of
meals is anticipated to exceed world demand by a very
small margin, while a new production deficit is likely
to develop for oils/fats. Global meal inventories could
decrease marginally, while inventories of oils should
fall markedly. Based on these forecasts, stock-to-use
ratios for both meals and oils would drop, with the
oils ratio reaching a critically low level. Meanwhile,
tight export availabilities should slow expansion in
oilseed product trade. These market fundamentals,
together with the likely persisting strong price
linkage between soy and maize/wheat, point toward
continued strength - throughout 2010/11 - in world
prices of oilseeds, meals and particularly, vegetable
oils. Soybean futures in Chicago exceeded USD 460
per tonne in the first week of November, compared
with USD 360 1 year earlier. Following the release
of the USDA report on 9 November, which pointed
to a tighter supply situation, the price of soybeans
for delivery in March 2011 surged even higher, to
USD 492 per tonne. There are, however, four key
unknowns that will impact whether and by how
much world prices will increase beyond their present
level: (i) the impact of the currently developing La
Niña weather pattern on the next South American
soy crop and on Southeast Asia’s palm oil production;
(ii) next year’s allocation of land among soy, maize
and wheat, primarily in the United States, as all
three commodities appear to be at risk of additional
tightness in 2011/12; (iii) the pattern of energy
prices, which will influence vegetable oil demand by
biodiesel producers; and (iv) the development of the
United States currency, given its influence on global
trade patterns.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 38
Table 12. World production of major oilseeds
2007/08 2008/09
estim.
2009/10
f’cast
Change
2009/10
over
2008/09
%
million tonnes
Soybeans 211.7 260.5 257.6 -1.1
Cottonseed 41.8 39.9 44.3 11.1
Rapeseed 58.4 60.8 56.5 -7.1
Groundnuts (unshelled) 35.4 32.8 34.2 4.1
Sunflower seed 34.7 32.4 32.4 0
Palm kernels 11.6 12.0 12.6 5.4
Copra 5.2 5.8 5.3 -10.0
Total 398.8 444.2 442.9 -0.3
Note: The split years bring together northern hemisphere annual crops harvested
in the latter part of the first year shown, with southern hemisphere annual crops
harvested in the early part of the second year shown. For tree crops, which are
produced throughout the year, calendar year production for the second year
shown is used.
OILSLLDS
Global 2010/11 oilcrop output to match last
season’s record level
After last season’s extraordinary rise in production, global
oilcrop output is forecast to remain virtually unchanged in
2010/11. At the current estimate of 453.7 million tonnes,
global output would closely trail last season’s all-time record.
As to individual oilseeds, a year-on-year fall in production is
expected for soybeans, rapeseed and copra. However, these
drops should be offset almost entirely by rising cottonseed,
groundnut and palmkernel production. The anticipated
recovery in cottonseed is particularly noteworthy, as output
is anticipated to increase by more than 10 percent, mainly
on account of improved crops in India and the United
States. With regard to rapeseed, global output is expected
to fall markedly below the average of recent years after
adverse weather depressed production in major producing
areas, notably Canada, the EU and the Ukraine. Production
in China is also reported lower, due to continued gradual
contraction in area. While unfavourable weather conditions
in Eastern Europe also hampered sunflower seed cultivation,
global output should remain unchanged thanks to
production rises in Argentina, India and Turkey.
World soybean production is anticipated to reach
257.6 million tonnes, the second highest on record after
last year’s all-time high, as farmers respond to firm soybean
prices and due to generally beneficial weather conditions.
Among northern hemisphere producers, the United
States reported a record-breaking harvest for the second
5
This section refers to oils from all origins, which – in addition to products derived
from the oil crops discussed under the section on oilseeds – include palm oil,
marine oils as well as animal fats.
consecutive year. Record crops are also anticipated in
Canada and the Ukraine. While extensive plantings and
favourable weather also helped sustain production in India,
a further shrinking in area and output is reported from
China. In the southern hemisphere, where planting of the
soybean crop has only just started, current forecasts point
to a production decrease compared with last season’s peak.
Yields should revert to the historic average considering the
ongoing transition from the rainy El Niño weather pattern to
dryer La Niña conditions. In Brazil, attractive profit margins
were expected to support plantings, but dry weather may
eventually curtail sowings and negatively affect yields. Below
normal rainfall also could affect the crop in Argentina,
where, in addition, some areas may be shifted in favour of
grain and sunflower seed. Consequently, South America’s
combined soy output could shrink by over 3 percent this
season to about 130 million tonnes, still the second highest
output on record.
OILS AND fA1S
5
Ample carry-in stocks to sustain global oil/fat
supplies
Current 2010/11 crop forecasts translate into a 1.5 percent
increase in global oils/fats production, much weaker than
the average 4 percent growth experienced over the past five
seasons. Oil extracted from annual oilcrops is in fact expected
to shrink given the disappointing harvests of the two key
high oil-yielding oilseeds - rape and sunflower - and increased
reliance on low oil-content soybeans. However, perennial
crops are expected to compensate this fall, particularly palm
oil, production of which is forecast to grow by a healthy
6.5 percent (i.e. double the rate recorded last year), due to the
developing La Niña weather pattern which tends to augment
rainfall throughout Southeast Asia, as well as further increases
in mature area, notably in Indonesia. Global oils/fats supplies,
which comprise 2010/11 production plus global 2009/10
ending stocks, should expand by over 2 percent, thanks
to good stock positions at the beginning of this season.
However, the projected year-on-year supply growth remains
weak in historic terms. Among the main producing countries,
domestic availability of oils/fats is set to expand in particular
in Argentina, Brazil, India and Indonesia, with abundant
2009/10 ending stocks contributing greatly in Argentina and
Brazil. Availability should also expand, though less strongly,
in the United States. However, modest or zero growth is
Market assessments
„ November 2010 39
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change
2010/11 over
2009/10
million tonnes %
TOTAL OILSEEDS
Production
409.5 454.8 453.7 -0.3
OILS AND FATS
1
Production
161.5 172.0 174.6 1.5
Supply
2
184.8 194.2 198.8 2.4
Utilization
3
163.6 169.9 178.0 4.7
Trade
4
86.2 88.9 90.8 2.2
Stock-to-utilization ratio (%)
13.6 14.2 13.2
MEALS AND CAKES
5
Production
100.0 116.0 115.4 -0.5
Supply
2
117.9 130.6 134.6 3.1
Utilization
3
104.6 109.5 114.9 4.9
Trade
4
62.3 66.8 69.9 4.6
Stock-to-utilization ratio (%)
14.0 17.4 16.4
FAO price indices (Oct-Sep)
(2002-2004=100)
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Change:
2009/10 over
2008/09
%
Oilseeds 217 156 162 3.8
Oilmeals/cakes 202 180 215 19.4
Oils/fats 243 144 173 20.1
Table 13. World oilseed and product markets at a
glance
Note: Refer to footnote 3 in the text for further explanations regarding definitions
and coverages
1
Includes oils and fats of vegetable, animal and marine origin
2
Production plus opening stocks
3
Residual of the balance
4
Trade data refer to exports based on a common October/September marketing
season
5
All meal figures are expressed in protein equivalent; meals include all meals and
cakes derived from oilcrops as well as meals of marine and animal origin
Figure 32. Global production and utilization of
oils/fats
-4
-2
0
2
4
140
150
160
170
180
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
Million tonnes Million tonnes
estim. f’cast
Balance (production minus utilization, right axis)
Production (left axis) Utilization (left axis)
expected in China and Malaysia, while exceptional drops in
supplies are forecast for Canada, the EU and the Ukraine,
mostly owing to poor harvests.
Consumption growth to continue due to rising
food use and biodiesel applications
Global demand for oils/fats is anticipated to continue
expanding in 2010/11. With an estimated year-on-year rise
of 4.7 percent, consumption growth would exceed the
average rate of the last four seasons. Negative demand
response to firming oils/fats prices should be limited as
population and economic growth boost average per caput
use among developing countries. Renewed growth in
demand from the biodiesel industry will also contribute
to the rise in consumption. Higher mandatory blending
rates and the creation of additional production capacity in
numerous countries are behind such expansion. Biodiesel
production is anticipated to account for at least half of this
season’s rise in global consumption.
As in past years, a major portion of global demand
growth is expected to originate in Asia, with China as
the dominant player and food uses as the main source of
growth. With consumption exceeding 33 million tonnes,
up more than 5 percent from last season, Mainland China
remains the world’s largest consuming nation. In India
and Indonesia, Asia’s second and third largest consumers,
demand is expected to expand by 3-4 percent. Other
developing countries with strong expansion rates include
Argentina and Brazil, where consumption growth will
be driven by rising purchases from the biofuel industry.
Year-on-year, total consumption is estimated to rise almost
40 percent in Argentina and 15 percent in Brazil, with
biodiesel production absorbing, respectively, around 60 and
30 percent of domestic soyoil output. Also in Canada, the
EU and the United States consumption growth should be
driven primarily by biodiesel demand. In the EU, however,
growth could be less strong than in recent years due to the
implementation of complex directives on bioenergy use,
which may temporarily slow activities. EU demand growth
also should be constrained by the anticipated drop in
domestic supplies, including low carryover stocks from last
season. In the United States, consumption should recover
from the recent drops thanks to renewed growth in biodiesel
production following higher utilization mandates, although
this assumes the reintroduction of the customary production
incentives. Overall, increasingly ambitious biodiesel
production/consumption targets are likely to significantly
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 40
Figure 33. World closing stocks and stock-to-use
ratio of oils/fats (including the oil contained in
seeds stored)
0
10
20
30
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
11
13
15
17
Million tonnes Percent
World Stocks Stock-to-use ratio
estim. f’cast
Figure 34. Total oil/fat imports by region or major
country (including the oil contained in seed imports)
0
8
16
24
32
2010/11 2008/09 2006/07 2004/05 2002/03
Latin America
Asia excl. China (total) Europe
China (total)
Million tonnes
United States & Canada Africa
f’cast
Figure 35. Oil/fat exports by major exporters
(including the oil contained in seed exports)
0
5
10
15
20
25
2009/10 estimate
2010/11 forecast
Million tonnes
United
States
Indonesia Canada Malaysia Argentina Brazil
affect the availability and trade of vegetable oils for food
and other traditional uses. Commodity-wise, consumption
growth will be fuelled primarily by soyoil, followed by palm
oil. The anticipated reliance on soyoil reflects this season’s
poor sunflower and rapeseed harvests and the fact that
South America’s expansion in biodiesel production will be
largely soyoil based.
Production deficit vis-à-vis demand to drive
inventories down
As opposed to last season, global oils/fats demand in
2010/11 is anticipated to exceed production and, in turn,
lead to a drop in global inventories. The production shortfall
is estimated to amount to 3.3 million tonnes or 2 percent.
Global inventories (measured as oils/fats inventories per se,
plus the oil contained in stored oilseeds) are projected to fall
to 23.5 million tonnes, representing a year-on-year drop of
3 percent. Given this season’s poor rape and sunflower seed
harvests, global stocks of the respective oils are expected
to contract markedly. The fall should however be partly
offset by a build-up of palm oil and, to a lesser extent, soyoil
inventories. With regard to major stockholding countries, a
net decrease in stocks appears likely in Canada, primarily
reflecting weak production; in Argentina, Brazil and India,
mostly resulting from rising domestic consumption; and in
the EU, due to both factors. Significant stocks rebuilding is
expected only in Indonesia and Malaysia. The anticipated
fall in global stocks combined with the projected rise in
world consumption would cause the stock-to-use ratio to
drop to 13.2, which, if confirmed, would be the lowest level
recorded in the last ten years and would suggest additional
price firmness in international oils/fats markets during
2010/11.

Oils/fats trade to expand further in 2010/11,
though at a below average rate
In 2010/11, global trade in oils/fats (including the oil
contained in traded oilseeds) is forecast to reach 90.8 million
tonnes, expanding by 2 percent from last season’s level.
The anticipated growth is below-average and this is mostly
because of higher biodiesel blending obligations that are
expected to come into force in the world’s leading suppliers
of soy oil (the United States, Argentina and Brazil) which
Market assessments
„ November 2010 41
could limit the growth in export availabilities. While total
shipments should grow beyond last season’s record volume
in the United States, the sales of Argentina and Brazil are
likely to fall short of past levels. Furthermore, poor harvests
in certain oilcrops, notably rape and sunflower seed, are
expected to reduce export availabilities in some nations,
notably Canada and CIS countries. The key growth element
in the export market will be Indonesia’s and Malaysia’s
record palm oil shipments. Consequently, and contrary to
last season, trade expansion is anticipated to rely primarily
on palm oil and not soyoil. With regard to imports, China
continues to account for close to one-quarter of global
demand, while purchases by other Asian countries add up
to another third. Both China and India, the region’s two
main importers, continue to rely on foreign purchases for
domestic consumption - more than 60 percent in Mainland
China and almost 50 percent in India. India’s imports could
fall slightly, due to this season’s ample harvests and because
rising domestic prices are likely to trigger a release of stocks
and an acceleration in crushing. Purchases by the EU, the
world’s second largest importer, are expected to climb to a
new record, given the concurrence of poor rapeseed harvests
with further rising demand from biofuel producers.
MLALS AND CAKLS
ó
Global meal supplies to rise, also thanks to
abundant opening stocks
Assuming current 2010/11 crop forecasts materialize, global
meals/cakes production should remain about unchanged
compared with last season’s all-time record. The anticipated
7 percent drop in rapeseed and 1 percent drop in soybean
meal output should be partly offset by rising production of
cottonseed, palmkernel, groundnut and fish meal. World
supplies of meals/cakes (which comprise 2010/11 production
plus 2009/10 ending stocks) are anticipated to expand by
around 3 percent. Last season’s strong recovery in soybean
stocks should allow overall supplies to climb to an all-time
record. With regard to main producers, higher supply
estimates in India and the United States are based on
this season’s ample crops. By contrast, Argentina, Brazil
and China would owe their improved availabilities primarily
to high carry-in stocks. In the EU, the combination of low
carry-in stocks with poor harvests is expected to result in an
unusual drop in supplies.
6
This section refers to meals from all origins, which – in addition to products
derived from the oil crops discussed under the section on oilseeds – include fish
meal as well as meals of animal origin.
Meal consumption to grow in spite of firm
prices
Global consumption of meals/cakes is forecast to expand by
almost 5 percent in 2010/11 despite historically high prices.
Commodity-wise, the share of soymeal in total consumption
is likely to rise this season owing to reduced availabilities of
sunflower and rapeseed meal. While consumption should
expand worldwide, much of the growth is likely to be
concentrated in Asia. Mainland China alone should account
for over 40 percent of global demand expansion, driven
by rising population and income combined with surging
per capita consumption of livestock products, which can
only be satisfied via industrial livestock rearing employing
protein-rich feedstuffs. Mainland China’s consumption is
projected to grow by 10 percent, to almost 30 million tonnes
(in protein equivalent), or roughly one-fourth of the world
total. In Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, average
demand growth is expected to remain below 3 percent. In
the EU, meal consumption could recover from its recent
drops, given initial signs of a revival of livestock production
and rising prices of competing feed grains. By contrast, with
only modest gains in livestock production and continued
availability of attractively priced distilled dried grain,
United States meal demand is expected to remain below
historic levels. Overall, the outlook for global feed demand
and meal consumption remains uncertain, as additional
strength in international prices of maize and other feedgrains
could temper the projected increases in livestock production
and thus feed demand.
Figure 36. Global production and utilization of
meals/cakes
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
Million tonnes Million tonnes
estim. f’cast
Balance (production minus utilization, right axis)
Production (left axis) Utilization (left axis)
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 42
Figure 39. Meal/cake exports by major exporters
(including the meal contained in seed exports)
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009/10 estimate
2010/11 forecast
Million tonnes
United
States
Canada India Paraguay Argentina Brazil
Figure 38. Total meal/cake imports by region or
major country (including the meal contained in
seed imports)
0
20
40
60
2010/11 2008/09 2006/07 2004/05 2002/03
Latin America
Asia excl. China (total) Europe
China (total)
Million tonnes
United States & Canada Africa
f’cast
Global meal production expected to barely
exceed demand
In 2010/11, world meal production is anticipated to surpass
consumption by barely 0.5 percent, unlike last season when
production exceeded demand by an ample margin. Global
inventories (which include meal inventories plus the meal
contained in stored oilseeds) should remain about unchanged
with lower stocks in Argentina, the EU and Brazil offset by
an increase in inventories held in the United States. As to
the different meals, rising soymeal stocks are anticipated to
compensate for the drop in global rapeseed meal inventories.
Due to the projected solid increase in meal consumption, the
global stock-to-use ratio could fall, compared with last season,
but remain close to the average of the past three seasons.
Expansion in trade to slow down compared
with last season
After last season’s 7 percent rise in global meals/cakes
transactions (expressed in protein equivalents and including
the meal contained in oilseeds traded), trade is anticipated to
grow by less than 5 percent in 2010/11. Global trade in meals,
estimated at over 70 million tonnes, continues to rely to a
very large extent on soy, which, forecast at a record 60 million
tonnes, would be the basis for virtually all of this season’s
anticipated expansion. A contraction is expected in rapeseed
and sunflower meal trade. Argentina and Brazil should
account for the bulk of increased soy and soymeal exports.
Although below-record harvests are forecast in both countries,
they still should be in a position to expand shipments thanks
to high carryover stocks from last season. Sales by the
United States are forecast to grow only marginally from
last season’s record level, as increased supplies could be used
to reconstitute inventories that lingered well below average
levels during the two past seasons. In India, a good harvest
and releases from stocks are expected to allow a recovery in
soymeal shipments. As to sunflower and rapeseed meal, an
anticipated reduction in export availabilities stems mainly from
recent production shortfalls in CIS countries. With regard
to meal imports, more than 60 percent of the projected rise
in import demand is expected to occur in Asia, primarily
Mainland China, whose meal purchases are forecast to swell
to a record 48 million tonnes (in product weight, including the
meal contained in imported oilseeds), driven by the livestock
sector’s rapid expansion and disappointing domestic oilseed
production. Other areas where imports are likely to rise are
the EU and the Russian Federation, both of which have
reported poor domestic harvests that are expected to lead to a
deficit in meal supplies.
Figure 37. World closing stocks and stock-to-use
ratio of meals/cakes (in protein equivalent and
including the meal contained in seeds stored)
10
15
20
25
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
10
15
20
25
Million tonnes Percent
World Stocks Stock-to-use ratio
estim. f’cast
Market assessments
„ November 2010 43
Figure 40. International Sugar Agreement (ISA)
8
13
18
23
28
2009
2010
2008
2007
US cent per lb.
D N O S A J J M A M F J
SUGAR
PRICLS
A tight market prospect underpins the
increased prices
Soon after reaching a 30-year peak in January 2010,
international prices declined for four straight months before
trending upward in the second half of the year. They
averaged US 15.85 cents per pound in June, rising further
to US 18.51 cents per pound in August, and reaching US
24.6 cents per pound (USD 543 per tonne) in October. The
surge in sugar quotations was prompted by the prospects of
a tight sugar market for 2010/11, as less than ideal weather
conditions impacted several sugar exporting countries in the
form of floods and droughts, significantly reducing cane and
beet yields. However, these expected reductions are foreseen
to be compensated by gains in Brazil, the world’s largest
producer and exporter of sugar, and India, the world’s
largest sugar consuming country. As such, and based on
the latest available supply and demand information, market
fundamentals do not justify the extent of the current surge
in prices, particularly as the stock-to-use ratio is projected to
remain still at an acceptable level. Other factors contributing
significantly to the rise in sugar prices include the
depreciation of the US Dollar and the latest strengthening of
energy prices.
PRODUC1ION
7

World sugar production to increase in 2010/11
World sugar production is expected to reach 168.80 million
tonnes in 2010/11, which represents an increase of
7.7 percent over the 2009/10 season. The growth is mostly
attributed to a significant recovery in production in India, as
a result of an expansion in sugar-cane area and generally
favourable weather. Also, higher prices witnessed over the
past 12 months encouraged the use of fertilizers and other
inputs, which contributed to higher yields in most producing
countries. The bulk of the expansion is expected to take
place in the developing countries, where production is
forecast to grow by 10.3 percent, as opposed to almost no
growth in the developed countries. For the first time since
2007/08, world production in 2010/11 is expected to surpass
consumption – the surplus is predicted to hover around
2.7 million tonnes, but will likely be subject to downward
revisions as the season progresses.
In South America, production is predicted to expand
by 6.2 percent in 2010/11. Output in Brazil is set to reach
just about 40 million tonnes, which is 7.2 percent above
last season, although below early estimates, as drought
hampered sugar-cane development of late season varieties.
However, the drought period contributed to an increase in
sugar content which helped offset some of the decrease in
cane yields. It is estimated that by the end of the 2010/11
season, about 45 percent of total sugar-cane harvest will
be allocated for the production of sugar. This is up from
7
Sugar production figures refer to centrifugal sugar derived from sugar cane
or beet, expressed in raw equivalents. Data relate to the October/September
season.
Table 14. World sugar market at a glance
2008/09 2009/10
estim.
2010/11
f’cast
Change:
2010/11
over
2009/10
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
151.05 156.66 168.80 7.75
Trade
47.50 53.30 50.62 -5.03
Utilization
160.79 162.59 166.09 2.15
Ending stocks
60.89 54.80 56.37 2.87
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
22.96 22.94 23.16 0.96
LIFDC (Kg/year)
13.50 13.59 13.58 -0.08
World stock-to-use ratio (%)
37.87 33.70 33.94
ISA Daily Price Average
(US cents/lb)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
12.80 18.14 20.07 16.8
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 44
Table 15. World sugar production
2009/10 2010/11
million tonnes
Asia 52.53 61.27
Africa 10.83 11.05
Central America 11.67 11.82
South America 45.43 48.25
North America 7.31 7.69
Europe 23.96 23.78
Oceania 4.94 4.95
World 156.66 168.80
Developing countries 117.33 129.45
Developed countries 39.33 39.35
GROWING DLPLNDLNCL
ON fLW LXPOR1LRS
Over the past ten months, world sugar market prices
went from a 30-year monthly record level achieved in
January to a 12-month low in May, before reverting back
to an upward trend and eventually soaring to again a 30-
year high by early November. So far, 2010 represented
the sixth most volatile year since 1970, which, in part,
reflects the increasing concentration in the export market.
Between 2005 and 2009, the top five sugar exporters
accounted for 66 percent of world trade, up from 62
percent in the period of 2000 to 2004. For 2010/11,
that share is estimated to reach 74 percent, with Brazil
accounting for 52 percent of world sugar trade. If the
analysis takes into account only the raw sugar market,
then Brazil would account for about 65 percent of all raw
sugar traded globally. When accounting for the fact that
the quantities exported to the EU and the United States
under trade agreements do not enter the world market,
then Brazil would account for about 75 percent of all
the raw sugar traded at the world level. A high degree
of export concentration implies that market uncertainties
related to the size of supply in Brazil and the other four
main sources of export can result in large price spikes and
price swings such as those witnessed in recent months.
With import expected to grow over the medium term, this
will further exacerbate the pressure on the sugar industry
of the major exporters – unless a broad-base expansion of
supply takes place in other producing countries in reaction
to the current high prices. A broad-base supply response
would be conducive to a relative reduction in overall price
volatility.
44 percent in 2009/10, driven by better margins than those
realized when converting cane into ethanol. In Colombia,
the second largest producer in the region, increases in sugar-
cane area should boost production to 2.5 million tonnes
in 2010/11, with high domestic sugar prices favouring the
transformation of cane into sugar over ethanol. Assuming
favourable growing conditions, output in Argentina
should increase, despite the implementation of new ethanol
mandates which could slow expansion in the coming years.
In Central America, sugar production in Mexico
should increase significantly over last year’s level, as
more than adequate rains and improved use of fertilizers
are set to boost cane harvest. The bumper crop should
enable the country to export greater quantities of sugar
to the United States under the North America Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and, at the same time, meet domestic
demand – which in recent years has slowed due to greater
usage of high fructose maize syrup (HFCS) imported
from the United States by local industry at the expense
of locally produced sugar. In Guatemala, rising domestic
prices, driven by buoyant internal demand, should support
output expansion despite less than ideal weather, while
output in Cuba is set to fall, as poor infrastructure and low
productivity continue to constrain the subsector.
In spite of difficult growing conditions in several sugar
producing countries, total sugar production in Africa is
projected to reach 11 million tonnes in 2010/11, which is
170 000 tonnes or 2 percent above the previous season.
The increase in output is attributed to expansion of area and
processing capacity. Strong domestic consumption growth
and improved access to the EU market under the Everything-
But-Arms Initiative (EBA) and the Economic Partnership
Agreements (EPAs) are the factors behind large investment
efforts in Africa. However, insufficient trade infrastructure
and on-farm technology adoption constrain further gains
in output and export. In South Africa, the largest sugar
producer in the region, sugar production is forecast to decline
by 1.7 percent to 2.3 million tonnes in 2010/11, because of
dry weather in Zululand that is likely to reduce sugar-cane
yields. Sugar production in Egypt, the second largest sugar
producer in Africa, is expected to remain about the same as
last year. While area under sugar cane has been stagnant
over the years, due to scarce land and water resources, beet
sugar is expanding, with area reportedly forecast to reach
151 200 ha. Production in the Sudan is now expected to
reach 980 000 tonnes on the back of expansion in processing
capacity. Although the Sudan plans to become a net exporter
of sugar by 2014, with foreign direct investments from Gulf
States and Brazil, it still will require imports this season to
meet buoyant internal demand.
Market assessments
„ November 2010 45
Figure 41. Sugar production by major producing
countries
0
15
30
45

2009/10 estimate
2010/11 forecast
Million tonnes
USA Mexico India Brazil China Thailand EU
Figure 42. Sugar production in India
10
15
20
25
30
35
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07
Million tonnes
f’cast estim.
Gains are also foreseen in Kenya, where output is set
to grow by about 3.1 percent due to near normal rainfall in
the western part of the country where most of the sugar-
cane farming takes place and to increased mill capacity in
the newly revived sugar mill on the coast of the country.
In Mozambique, sugar output is expected to reach 480
000 tonnes, up 17.4 percent from last season, prompted
by expansion in planted area, which has increased by
20 percent per year since 2000. Sugar cane is also expected
to become one of the main feedstocks used for biofuel
production, as the Government has recently approved a
national biofuel policy to limit dependence on imported fossil
fuels. As such, sugar production and export will increasingly
depend on the amount of cane diverted to ethanol
production. Above-average rainfall is set to raise production
in the United Republic of Tanzania to 340 000 tonnes,
which is 14.6 percent higher than 2009/10. Projects are
underway in the United Republic of Tanzania to introduce
high-yielding varieties and improved technologies, both at
the farm and mill level, to cut production cost which is a
major hurdle to production growth.
The 2010/11 marketing season for sugar production in
Asia remains extremely uncertain for a number of reasons,
such as uncertainty as to the level of weather-related
damage to sugar-cane crops in Pakistan and Thailand. For
the moment, sugar output in Asia is expected to increase by
16.6 percent over 2009/10, mainly on the back of significant
gains in India. Output in that country is estimated to reach
26 million tonnes, due to good monsoon rains and notable
expansion in area, which is forecast to reach 4.8 million ha,
up 15 percent from last season. Record sugar-cane prices
in 2009/10 encouraged farmers to plant additional area
under sugar cane and encouraged better crop management
practices and input use. Early estimates in Thailand indicate
that sugar output will decline by 4 percent in 2010/11 due
to dry conditions in major cane-growing areas. However,
these estimates may be revised, most likely upwards, when
the crushing season begins in early December. The offsetting
effect could come from an increase in area allocated to sugar
cane when farmgate prices surged to a record USD 38 per
tonne (1 200 baht), up 26 percent from the support price.
An increase in production is expected in China for 2010/11
as a result of a significant surge in area planted under beet
(40 percent) in the three main beet producing regions.
Propelled by high domestic prices in 2009/10, farmers shifted
to beet, although smaller but still significant expansion is
also expected in cane growing areas. In Pakistan, estimates
for sugar production in 2010/11 are still very uncertain due
to flood damages that hit the country early this summer.
However, estimates have been constantly revised upward in
recent weeks, as the damage to sugar cane turned out to be
less than expected. Production is now predicted to overcome
last year’s level by 270 000 tonnes. Output in Japan is also
set to increase in 2010/11, while losses are anticipated in
Indonesia and Turkey.
In Europe, the latest estimates of sugar production in the
EU indicate a decline of 3.6 percent over 2009/10, largely
due to a 4 percent reduction in beet area and average level
yields. Despite a significant increase of about 40 percent
in area sown to beet, sugar output is expected to decline
in the Russian Federation as a result of severe drought
that impacted crop development. Gains are anticipated in
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 46
Figure 43. Sugar closing stocks and
stock-to-use ratio
0
20
40
60
80
2010/11 2009/10 2008/09
0
10
20
30
40
Million tonnes Percent
World Stocks Stock-to-use ratio
f’cast estim.
Ukraine, as the impact of the dry weather was less than
early predictions.
In the rest of the world, production in the United States
is forecast to surpass the 2009/10 level, on expectations of
higher beet and cane yields. In Australia, high international
prices in 2009 spurred a sharp increase in sugar-cane area,
reversing the downward trend observed since 2002/03.
However, excessive rains have delayed cane crushing
meaning reduced sugar content and, as such, production will
be lower than last season.

U1ILIZA1ION
World sugar consumption to expand, but
below long-term trend
Global economic recovery is expected to stimulate
consumption growth, mostly in emerging and developing
countries and, as such, world sugar consumption in 2010/11
is to reach 166 million tonnes, about 2.1 percent more than
in 2009/10. This would result in world per capita sugar
consumption remaining steady at 23.2 kg per annum.
Demand will likely be sustained by the manufacturing and
food preparation sectors, including the beverage industries.
These sectors constitute the bulk of total sugar consumption
and are relatively sensitive to changes in income. Sugar
intake in the developing countries is set to expand by
3.2 million tonnes, accounting for 71.4 percent of global
consumption. In the generally more mature markets of
the developed countries, consumption is to increase by
0.62 percent. Positive prospects for the global economy are
expected to support sugar consumption growth, but high
domestic sugar prices prevailing in many consuming regions,
notably in China and Indonesia, will limit further expansion
in sugar intake.
1RADL
World trade to contract as export availabilities
decline
Latest FAO estimates of world sugar imports stand at
about 50 million tonnes in 2010/11 (October/September),
a 6 percent decline over the previous season, largely driven
by high world prices. However, forecasts at this early stage
of the season are subject to much uncertainty. After being
the main driver of growth in world trade in 2009/10, India
is expected to import about 1 million tonnes in the new
season, down by 83 percent from last year. Due to a tight
domestic market, India undertook a number of measures to
relax import restrictions, such as the extension of duty free
imports of raw and white sugar until 31 December 2010.
However, with supply expected to recover significantly
in 2010/11, India is under pressure to revert to import
restrictions to protect the local industry. In Europe,
shipments to the EU are also set to decline on the back of
lower imports under the EBA and EPA trade commitments,
as international prices provide relatively better remunerative
returns than the EU internal market. Imports by the Russian
Federation, the third largest sugar importer in 2009/10,
are expected to increase by about 10 percent to 2.5 million
tonnes, in order to compensate for expected shortfalls
in domestic supply, with the bulk of the raw imports
originating in Brazil.
Asia’s scenario is one of steady consumption growth
led by increases in population and income. Purchases by
Indonesia are expected to amount to 2.8 million tonnes,
27 percent above last year’s total, and recent expansions in
its refining capacity should strengthen its position as one of
the major regional import destinations. Indonesia is expected
to import most of its sugar from Thailand because of freight
advantage and quality standards that meet its requirements.
China is projected to purchase 93 200 tonnes more than
last season to accommodate for increases in sugar intake
and replenish critically low state reserves. Last year, China
released large amounts of stocks to curb rising domestic
sugar prices.
In the rest of the world, deliveries to the United States
are forecast at 2.3 million tonnes, a 4 percent decline over
the previous year, as gains in production are foreseen for
2010/11. Additional imports may be needed in the course
of the season to rebuild reserves, as the United States’
current stock level is at an historic low. Similarly, imports
Market assessments
„ November 2010 47
Figure 44. FAO international meat price indices
(2002-2004=100)
75
100
125
150
175
200
2010 2009 2008 2007
Total meat
Bovine
Pigmeat
Ovine
Poultry
by countries in Africa are expected to decline by around
3 percent to 9.7 million tonnes, as improving domestic
supplies substitute for imports.
Despite higher production in some exporting countries,
export availabilities are expected to decline due to strong
domestic demand and the need for exporters to rebuild
stocks that were used extensively during the first half of
2009/10 when international prices reached record levels.
Brazil, the world’s largest sugar exporter, is now expected
to ship about 26 million tonnes, up 2.4 percent from
2009/10, prompted by large supply availability and attractive
international prices in comparison with ethanol prices.
However, bottlenecks in port infrastructure may limit further
export growth. In 2010/11, Brazil will account for slightly
more than half of global export and should be among those
that benefit most from the elevated world sugar prices. Sales
from Thailand, the world’s second largest sugar exporter,
are expected to decline by 5 percent to 4.8 million tonnes
due to an anticipated reduction in production. Exports
to the countries of Asia should be the main destination
for Thai sugar, driven by the implementation of new
trade agreements that allow duty free access, notably to
the markets of South Korea and Malaysia. Exports from
Australia, the world’s third largest exporter, are likely to
decrease slightly from their 2009/10 levels, as its exportable
surplus may shrink. Similarly, shipments from Cuba,
Guatemala and South Africa are foreseen to fall, given
strong internal demand and a drop in domestic production.
MLA1 AND MLA1 PRODUC1S
BOVINE MEAT
PRODUC1ION
Reduced cattle numbers constrain output
growth
Provisional estimates indicate that 2010 global beef production
will be 65 million tonnes, a 1 percent decrease from 2009, as
larger outputs from Brazil and India fail to offset production
declines in other large producing countries. In South America,
beef output in 2010 is expected to decrease by 3 percent, to
14.8 million tonnes. This stems from a record fall in Argentine
beef production, estimated in excess of 800 000 tonnes, due
to the combined effects of a severe drought in 2009 and the
persistence of low farmgate prices. In Australia and New
Zealand, output could stagnate due to herd rebuilding and,
according to USDA, beef output in the United States may
fall by 1 percent, to below 11.8 million tonnes. In the EU,
2010 production may stagnate at 8 million tonnes. In the
Russian Federation, where the national beef herd is down
over 2 percent, due to the slaughtering of cattle during
the severe summer drought that affected pasture growth,
output is likely to expand slightly, by 1 percent to 1.76 million
tonnes. In Asia, production is expected to contract in China
by 4 percent because of low returns and high feed costs, to
6.2 million tonnes, and in Pakistan by 3 percent after severe
floods affected livestock production. In India, where buffalo
meat is a by-product of the dairy industry, production will grow
by 4 percent to 2.95 million tonnes. In Africa, beef production
is revised upwards from improved weather conditions, and is
now expected to increase by 1 percent, to 4.9 million tonnes.
In West Africa, the growing season brought abundant rains,
and pastures recovered from the persistent dry conditions that
affected Chad and the Niger earlier in the year. In East Africa,
pasture conditions and water availability also have improved in
Ethiopia, Kenya and Southern Sudan.
World production growth in 2011 is expected to be
constrained once again by low cattle numbers and high
feed costs. In the United States, according to USDA, the
stagnation will be due to the high cow and heifer slaughter
rates, while in Australia, output also could stagnate while
farmers, encouraged by favourable weather, rebuild their
herds. Output in Argentina and Uruguay are expected to
fall as a direct consequence of the low calving rates during
the severe drought of 2009, whose effects on output are
expected to be felt mostly next year. Conversely, production
in Brazil and India is set to continue expanding next year,
thanks to higher cattle numbers and firm prices both at
home and abroad.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 48
1RADL AND PRICLS
Exports expand but prices remain firm
World beef exports in 2010 will grow by 3 percent to reach
7.6 million tonnes, as lower shipments from Argentina
may be offset by larger exports from Brazil, India and the
United States. Despite the expansion in supply, 2010 beef
prices are some 26 percent higher than last year and similar
to those in 2008, during the soaring food prices episode.
Constrained by low domestic supplies, exports from
Argentina may fall by 40 percent, to some 230 000 tonnes
less than in 2009. However, the fall for the aggregate of
South America is less severe, as ample cattle numbers in
Brazil are allowing a positive response to the growing
demand, with exports up by 5 percent, to almost 1.6 million
tonnes. In the United States, USDA reports that exporters
will expand their shipments this year by 17 percent in volume
terms, to just over 1 million tonnes, due to favourable world
beef prices. In India, buffalo meat exports are anticipated to
expand by 5 percent to 785 000 tonnes, due to a growing
demand for this meat in Asia and the Middle East. In
Australia, poor sales performance at the beginning of the
year brought fears of a significant fall in exports. However,
exports accelerated in the second half, thanks to a higher
demand from Japan and the United States, and are now
expected to fall by only 1 percent, to 1.24 million tonnes.
Beef imports in the “foot-and-mouth disease
(FMD) market” will expand significantly – in the
Russian Federation by 8 percent to 1 million tonnes,
and in Asian countries by 8.4 percent to 3 million tonnes.
Conversely, tight supplies from Oceania restrict an expansion
of trade in the “FMD-free market” (main importers
include Canada, Japan, Mexico and the United States),
with imports forecast to be 490 000 tonnes in the EU and
688 000 tonnes in Japan. According to USDA, imports
in the United States are down by 3 percent, to 1 million
tonnes, because of tight supplies from Oceania and sanitary
import restrictions imposed on Brazilian beef.
The 2011 trade forecast points to strong demand from the
United States, Russian Federation, Asian countries and the
EU, against tight export supplies caused by reduced herds and
more expensive feed concentrates compared with 2010.
SHEEP AND GOAT MEAT
PRODUC1ION
Rebuilding of flocks constrains output growth
Sheep and goat meat production is set to remain virtually
unchanged in 2010 at 13 million tonnes due to restocking.
Dry weather in recent years reduced supply in key
producing areas including Oceania, South America and
parts of Africa, but timely and abundant rains this year,
coupled with strong lamb prices, are encouraging farmers
Figure 45. Evolution of meat/feed index prices
(2002-2004=1)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Beef Poultry Pigmeat
Table 16. World meat markets at a glance
2008 2009
estim.
2010
f’cast
Change:
2010
over
2009
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
279.4 283.9 286.2 0.8
Bovine meat
65.2 65.7 65.0 -1.1
Poultry meat
91.9 93.7 95.7 2.2
Pigmeat
104.0 106.1 107.0 0.9
Ovine meat
12.9 12.9 13.0 0.1
Trade
25.9 25.4 26.1 2.8
Bovine meat
7.4 7.4 7.6 3.0
Poultry
11.1 11.1 11.3 1.5
Pigmeat
6.3 5.8 6.1 5.3
Ovine meat
0.9 0.8 0.8 1.9
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year)
41.7 41.9 41.8 -0.3
Developed (Kg/year)
81.5 81.1 80.7 -0.4
Developing (kg/year)
31.0 31.5 31.5 0.1
FAO meat price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct*
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
128 118 134 14.0
* September and October estimates
Market assessments
„ November 2010 49
to rebuild their flocks and herds. Some output growth
has been observed in these areas which compensates
for the decline in Europe. A steady decline of ovine meat
production continues in the EU, as well as in the Russian
Federation where a severe drought affected pasture
growth and halted production growth. The outlook for
2011 is for better herd conditions, higher calving rates, and
a 4 percent expansion of production.

1RADL AND PRICLS
Record high sheep meat prices
Ovine meat exports in 2010 are up by 1.9 percent, to
848 000 tonnes, driven mainly by larger shipments from
Oceania. In the EU – the largest market for ovine meat
imports representing one-third of the world’s total – imports
are anticipated to fall by 5 percent, to 267 000 tonnes,
due to reduced demand. However, sustained purchases
from the Near East and China, where imports could
expand by 10 percent to 365 000 tonnes, would more
than compensate for the shortage. This strong demand has
put an upward pressure on world prices, which reached
record levels this year. Prices of carcasses from New Zealand
reached USD 5 3344 per tonne in London in September,
the highest in a decade. Favoured by attractive prices, sheep
meat supplies from Australia and New Zealand expanded
by 2.6 percent this year, capturing 85 percent of world
sheep meat trade with a combined volume of 725 000
tonnes. The 2011 outlook is for demand from the Near East
to remain strong and for a sustained expansion of exports
from both Oceania and South America.
PIG MEAT
PRODUC1ION
Pig meat production stagnates
World pig meat production is set to increase by a mere
1 percent in 2010, to 107 million tonnes. This is the
second poorest growth of the decade, after 2007 when
production was affected by a massive culling of pigs in
China following an outbreak of Porcine Reproductive
and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) disease. In the EU, the
second largest producer after China, a steady decline of
pig meat prices since June 2010, coupled with higher feed
prices, is constraining output growth, while analysts from
USDA anticipate a 3 percent fall in the United States,
the third largest producer, from lower slaughters and
lighter carcass weights. In Asia, China this year may be
the only large producing country with significant output
growth, increasing some 2 percent to 50 million tonnes.
Growth has been boosted by a government strategy to
achieve self-sufficiency in pig meat, which includes state
purchases, producer price support and subsidies to scale-up
production. Production is expected to remain unchanged
in the Philippines and Viet Nam, and in Japan to fall by
2 percent due to the slaughtering of sows following an
outbreak of FMD. In addition to China, output increases
have been seen in Brazil and the Russian Federation – in
Brazil, a mere 1.3 percent growth, spurred mainly by the
steady increase of domestic demand, and in the Russian
Federation, a steep expansion of pig meat production in
the first half of the year suggested double digit growth,
but a severe drought that affected feed availability has
substantially reduced the foreseen expansion to below
4 percent. The global outlook for pig meat production in
2011 is for a 2 percent expansion, mainly due to higher
growth in China from government support, and in
Brazil from strong domestic demand, with production in
developed countries stagnating due to an increase in the
price of feed concentrate.
1RADL AND PRICLS
Strong demand and sustained prices
Contrary to production, pig meat trade in 2010 is expected
to expand significantly and reach 6 million tonnes, a
5 percent increase over 2009. This growth represents a
significant recovery from the 8 percent decrease felt in 2009,
when trade was disrupted by food safety issues. Pig meat
price levels are firm from sustained demand, with levels
some 30 percent higher than last year. In the United States,
the world’s largest pig meat exporter, the USDA has revised
predictions of pig meat exports upwards to 8 percent growth
this year, or 1.9 million tonnes. Exports by the EU also have
recovered from the sharp contraction last year, growing
by 19 percent to 1.68 million tonnes, owing to increased
deliveries to the Russian Federation, its main customer.
Brazilian exports, however, have been revised downwards
quite substantially because of a stronger than expected
domestic demand, and may fall by 12 percent this year, to
631 000 tonnes. The expansion of import this year is driven
by larger purchases from developing countries in Asia, which
account for 60 percent of import growth, plus Japan and
Mexico. Conversely, imports by the Russian Federation
should fall by 4 percent, to 730 000 tonnes, due to sanitary
import restrictions for non-heat treated pig meat, and the
fact that it reduced its quota for preferential tariff imports by
11 percent, to 500 000 tonnes.
International pig meat demand in 2011 is expected to
remain strong, in line with the progressive growth of the
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 50
Figure 46. Russian Federation: Development of
meat imports
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
estim. f’cast
Bovine meat
Poultry meat
Pigmeat
Thousand tonnes
world economy. Pig meat trade is also expected to increase,
with higher demand from Asia expected to be fulfilled from
higher shipments from Europe and the United States.
However, the possibility that high feed costs may constrain
output in the months to come brings much uncertainty to
the availability of pig meat for export next year. Exports from
the EU to the Republic of Korea, currently its fourth largest
customer, are anticipated to increase next year following
the signing of a free trade agreement between the two
countries.
POULTRY MEAT
PRODUC1ION
Strong demand fosters production growth
World poultry production in 2010 is expected to expand
by over 2 percent to reach 95.7 million tonnes, with all
major exporting countries experiencing some degree of
growth. In the United States, the world’s largest poultry
producer and a top exporter, official estimates of broiler
and turkey production point to an aggregate output
growth of 1.8 percent, to 19.3 million tonnes. Brazilian
output is recovering from the fall of last year and is set
to grow by 3.6 percent, to 10.7 million tonnes, thanks
to strong demand from domestic and world markets.
Production in the EU, favoured by the high consumer cost
of beef and pig meat, is expected to grow by 1.6 percent
to 12.1 million tonnes. In Asia, China’s poultry production,
sustained by a strong domestic demand, is set to expand
by 3.7 percent, to 16.3 million tonnes, and in Thailand
production is predicted to expand by 6 percent, to
1.2 million tonnes, mainly for exports to Asian countries.
In the Russian Federation, the sector experienced strong
momentum the first half of the year, underpinned by
investments in new large poultry processing plants and
attractive prices following an increase in demand and
reduced imports. A severe summer drought affected cereal
crops, creating a tight feed supply situation and slowing
production growth, but output is nevertheless estimated to
expand by 11 percent, to 2.6 million tonnes. Conversely,
output in Pakistan will fall by about 25 percent, to 500
000 tonnes, following severe floods that killed small
livestock. Globally, the expansion of poultry production is
set to continue in 2011, as producers take advantage of
the expected persistence of high prices in competing meats,
although much will depend on the evolution of prices of
feed concentrates as they represent a key component of
total production costs.
1RADL AND PRICLS
Changes in trade policy regimes create
uncertainties
Poultry trade may grow by 1.5 percent in 2010, reaching
11.3 million tonnes. An important fall in exports by the
United States, which until 2009 was the world’s largest
poultry meat exporter, will be more than compensated by
larger shipments from other major suppliers. Brazil is likely to
become this year the world’s largest poultry meat exporter.
The fall of exports from the United States is mainly
due to the Russian Federation’s prohibition on imported
chlorine-treated meats which began in January 2010.
Although some exports are being shifted to Hong Kong,
where United States exports almost trebled this year, and
a depreciation of the US Dollar against major currencies
has increased its competitiveness, United States exports
may nevertheless fall this year by 5 percent to 3.7 million
tonnes. The United States poultry trade was disrupted
this year by Mainland China’s January 2010 imposition of
anti-dumping duties, which blocked its exports of chicken.
Brazil is benefiting from these sanctions by expanding its
deliveries to the Russian Federation, and not to the detriment
of developing countries whose imports of Brazilian poultry
remain unchanged. Brazil exports will grow by 4 percent, to
just below 4 million tonnes, to become the world’s largest
poultry meat exporter. China is anticipated to expand its
shipments of cooked poultry by 30 percent to Europe and
Asian markets. Thailand’s poultry exports, all of which
are cooked, are expected to increase in response to higher
demand from Asia, by 8 percent to 644 000 tonnes.
Market assessments
„ November 2010 51
The Russian Federation is expected to import some 511
000 tonnes of poultry meat this year, 47 percent less than
in 2009, due mainly to reduced preferential tariff quotas
and the imposition of import bans on the grounds of food
safety. In addition, new legislation to be enacted by the
Russian Federation in January 2011 will prohibit the use of
frozen poultry for processing, a measure that will favour
domestic producers and negatively affect exporters of frozen
poultry, notably Brazil. In Japan, the third largest importer,
slow imports in the first half of the year are accelerating in
the second half, taking advantage of a stagnation of world
prices due to surpluses in the United States, and will grow
by 13 percent. Purchases from Hong Kong SAR, Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also may increase
substantially. Contrary to other meats, where prices have
increased steadily through the year, world poultry prices,
measured in US Dollar terms, have been stable and only
4 percent higher than last year. It is remarkable how little
international poultry prices increased this year, considering
how expensive alternative animal proteins are. Its poor
performance has been blamed on the relative abundance of
poultry meat for export from the United States following the
collapse of the Russian Federation market.
The outlook for poultry trade in 2011 is favourable. A
tight supply situation in beef and pig meat should strengthen
the demand for cheaper sources of animal proteins, and thus
creating favourable conditions for trade expansion. However,
trade routes are likely to experience some readjustments due
to an intensification of quantitative import restrictions by the
Russian Federation, which has announced that it is rapidly
reaching self-sufficiency on poultry.
MILK AND MILK PRODUC1S
PRICLS
The monthly FAO price index of international dairy products,
which consists of a basket of export prices in Oceania for
whole milk powder (WMP), butter, skim milk powder (SMP)
and cheese, has remained firm so far in 2010, in contrast
with the significant swings observed in the past two years.
The FAO index was 198 in September 2010, similar to its
level in January 2010 but 38 percent higher than the average
for 2009. While this represents a strong recovery from
last year, it still remains 20 percent below its peak value in
early 2008. However, compared with the base period of
2002–04, prices have doubled. Export prices in Oceania in
September 2010 were USD/tonne 4 100 for butter, 3 140 for
SMP, 3 360 for WMP and 3 950 for cheese.
Factors contributing to the sustained firm prices include
strong demand from Asia, the Russian Federation and
some oil exporting countries and, more recently, a steady
weakening of the USD against major currencies which
increases dollar-denominated commodity prices. On the
supply side, relatively weak growth in milk production from
reduced cattle herds, particularly in some exporting regions,
has underpinned firm prices. International prices have passed
through to farm gate prices in the EU and United States,
and higher milk over feed price ratios have favoured more
intensive use of feed concentrates and cow yields compared
with last year. There has been an expectation that trade
would expand from these countries towards the end of
2010, thus putting a downward pressure on milk prices.
However, the rapid escalation of grain prices since August
is putting upward pressure on feed prices and may curtail
expansion of milk production next year.
PRODUC1ION
World milk production in 2010 is expected to reach
710.3 million tonnes, an increase of 1.6 percent from last
year. Although this represents a recovery from the low
performance of 2009, it nevertheless remains below the
2.1 percent average annual growth experienced in the past
decade. Additional output from China and India, the major
contributors to the expansion of production, amount to
8.4 million tonnes, and account for 58 percent of the world
increase. Brazil, the EU and the United States also play their
parts by adding another 2.6 million tonnes.
Figure 47. FAO international dairy price index
(2002-2004=100)
50
150
250
350
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994
The index is derived from a trade-weighted average of a selection
of representative internationally traded dairy products.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 52
With an output of 257 million tonnes in 2010, Asia
remains the region with both the largest milk production
and the highest rate of annual growth. However, an initial
forecast for 4 percent production growth has been reduced
to 2.6 percent due to lower output in Pakistan, where
production is expected to fall by 8 percent due to heavy
floods: over 1.2 million head of livestock (excluding poultry)
died in the flood, and another 14 million head decreased
their yields from lower fodder supply and animal diseases.
In addition, the loss of livestock represents a significant
deterioration of the food situation of small farmers who
rely on animal husbandry for a considerable share of their
income. The most affected province was Punjab, followed
by Sindh and Kyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). Conversely, milk
output in India is forecast to reach 114 million tonnes,
expanding by 4 percent and in China 44.2 million tonnes,
expanding by 10 percent. These growth rates, conservative
relative to their recent track records, are based on low
farmgate milk prices and high feed prices and, in China, the
recurrence of incidents related to milk contamination with
melamine.
In North America, the USDA anticipates that
United States’ milk production in 2010 may increase
by 1.1 percent this year, to 87 million tonnes, due to
improvements in cow yields and a slowing of cow slaughter
rates. Production in the EU is forecast to grow by only
1 percent, to 133 million tonnes, as producers and traders
adapt to the new trade environment created by the reform of
the milk sector, in particular the gradual increase in production
quotas. In the Russian Federation, drought this summer led
to poor pasture conditions and affected cereal production.
Though export restrictions of cereals have somewhat
contained the increase of feed prices, milk production growth
is set to grow only slightly this year, reaching an estimated
32.9 million tonnes. As for South America, where pasture-
based production systems prevail and a normal spring
season is favouring pasture growth, the outlook points to a
2.5 percent growth in 2010, to 61.3 million tonnes.
In Oceania, firm farm-gate prices and good weather
conditions have created a favourable environment for
farmers to expand output this season (July-June 2010/11).
Milk production in New Zealand is expected to reach
17.8 million tonnes representing 6 percent growth from the
2009/10 season, while in Australia growth may be more
moderate, some 2 percent to 9.2 million tonnes, due to high
feed prices.
In Africa, milk production is expected to expand slightly
in 2010, by 1.3 percent to reach 37.4 million tonnes, mainly
from output growth in Kenya and South Africa. In West
Africa, the growing season brought abundant rains in May
and June, and pastures recovered from the persistent dry
conditions that affected Chad and the Niger earlier in
the year. Rains have also been adequate in Central Africa
since the beginning of the cropping season. In East Africa,
the availability of pasture and water has improved in most
pastoralist areas such as southeastern Ethiopia (Somali
region), inland Djibouti and Somalia (except Northeast and
Central regions), with positive effects on milk production.
1RADL
World trade of dairy products may expand in 2010, driven
by strong demand from Asian countries and the Russian
Federation. Export growth mainly results from larger
shipments from the United States, New Zealand and the
EU. Export volumes of SMP, butter and cheese could
increase considerably, and those of WMP would stagnate.
Larger exports from the EU stem from the likely release
of public stocks and, thus, larger volumes for export
since October 2009, the last time intervention purchases
were recorded. All public stocks of butter have been
released, but 198 000 tonnes of SMP were still available in
September 2010. Larger shipments from the United States
are supply driven, the result of traders’ increasing interest
in attractive export prices, while the expansion of New
Zealand exports is due to higher milk production,
90 percent of which is industrialized for exports. On the
demand side, the bulk of dairy products traded, except
for cheese, is traditionally bought by developing countries.
In general terms, 2010 is seeing strong import growth
Figure 48. EU intervention prices, price and
export refund for butter and skim milk powder
0
1500
3000
4500
10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
SMP (interv. price)
SMP Refund
SMP (export price) Butter (export price)
Butter (interv. price)
Butter Refund
Euro per tonne
Market assessments
„ November 2010 53
in Asian countries and the Russian Federation, and a
sluggish demand from Africa. Import markets, however, are
substantially different according to the product considered,
and should be looked at separately.
By product
Whole Milk Powder (WMP) prices are firm in 2010, as
tight supplies are facing strong demand. World exports of
WMP are slowly approaching the 2 million tonnes mark in
product weight. China imported unprecedented volumes
of this product in early 2010, almost twice as high as the
total volumes imported last year, while higher purchases
from Algeria and Venezuela during the second half of
the year are contributing to sustaining prices at firm levels.
On the export side, WMP shipments from Argentina
virtually collapsed in the first half of 2010, but recovered
in recent months thanks to an increase in availabilities.
There is anticipation from traders that higher WMP stocks
may be available soon from New Zealand, where farmers
are looking forward to a record output in the (July-June)
2010/11 season. In Oceania, the WMP export price in
October 2010 was USD/tonne 3 463, compared with USD/
tonne 2 850 in October 2009.
The world cheese market is strong this year both in terms
of prices and volumes. Trade will likely expand by 5 percent
to over 2 million tonnes, mainly from larger supplies from
the EU to developed countries and the Russian Federation,
where the easing of recessionary pressures has progressively
fostered an expansion of imports. Imports by Japan, the
Republic of Korea and Mexico, significant players in the
2008 2009
estim.
2010
f’cast
Change:
2010
over
2009
million tonnes milk equiv. %
WORLD BALANCE
Total milk production 694.2 698.8 710.7 1.7
Total trade 42.0 43.5 46.0 5.7
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
World (kg/year) 104.0 103.5 104.1 0.6
Developed countries (Kg/year) 246.3 243.8 244.3 0.2
Developing countries (Kg/year) 66.0 66.4 67.5 1.5
Trade - share of prod. (%) 6.0 6.2 6.5
FAO dairy price index
(2002-2004=100)
2008 2009 2010
Jan-Oct
Change:
Jan-Oct 2010
over
Jan-Oct 2009
%
220 142 199 57
Table 17. World dairy market at a glance
world market, have recently expanded fast after a sluggish
start. Cheese imports by Mainland China will double this
year with an estimated volume of 28 000 tonnes. Factoring
in imports from the Province of Taiwan and Hong Kong
brings total import growth for China to an estimated
27 percent. Purchases from the Russian Federation will
grow by about 10 percent in 2010. The export price of
cheese in Oceania in October 2010 was USD/tonne 4 013,
up from USD/tonne 3 213 in October 2009.
Butter trade may expand by 6 percent this year to 970
000 tonnes. Despite the expansion of exports, import
demand is so firm that it has pushed prices to levels similar
to their peaks during the price surge of 2008. Demand is
strong from the Russian Federation, Southeast Asia and
the Middle East, whose combined imports are expected
to expand by 10 percent this year, to 388 000 tonnes.
Exports increased mostly from the EU and New Zealand.
Public stocks of butter in the EU are virtually exhausted,
but abundant milk supplies from New Zealand this spring
is contributing to easing some price pressure in the short
run. The price of butter in Oceania in October 2010 was
USD/tonne 4275, which compares with USD/tonne 2750 in
October 2009.
World exports of skim milk powder (SMP) could expand
significantly this year, by 13 percent in 2010 and beyond
1.5 million tonnes in product weight, mostly from larger
shipments by New Zealand and the United States early
in the year. This forecast, however, assumes the EU will
speed up its release of intervention stocks towards the end
of the year. EU stocks were 197 000 tonnes in September,
down from 258 000 tonnes in January 2010. Exports from
Figure 49. FAO indices of dairy and feed prices
(2002-2004=100)
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2009 2008
Feed price index Dairy price index
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 54
Australia, traditionally the fourth largest exporter, could
not expand because of short domestic production. Import
demand is firm from China, Indonesia, Malaysia and
Mexico. These countries import close to half of the world
trade of SMP, and their sustained purchases have kept world
prices firm throughout the year. African imports of SMP may
fall by some 4 percent, mainly due to lower purchases by
Algeria, the second largest world importer of this product.
SMP export price in Oceania in October 2010 was USD/
tonne 3 175, which compares with USD/tonne 2 488 in
October 2009.
The dairy trade outlook in 2011 is for growth, sustained by
larger shipments from Argentina, Australia, New Zealand
and the United States. Meeting the optimistic forecast,
however, depends on low feed prices towards the end of
2010 and early 2011. Should feed prices increase significantly
in the next few months, then export growth may slow down,
or even stagnate if exporters choose to rebuild their stocks
of dairy products. Import demand should remain firm next
Table 18. Major exporters of dairy products
2006-08
Average
2009
prelim.
2010
f’cast
thousand tonnes
WHOLE MILK POWDER
World 1 919 1 962 1 982
New Zealand 644 818 880
EU* 428 420 420
Australia 142 133 105
Argentina 140 146 125
SKIM MILK POWDER
World 1 180 1 347 1 526
New Zealand 279 408 470
United States 314 249 299
EU* 155 227 360
Australia 148 167 130
BUTTER
World 854 916 968
New Zealand 370 475 500
EU* 202 143 160
Belarus 55 86 87
Australia 64 84 88
CHEESE
World 1 835 2 000 2 098
EU* 579 577 660
New Zealand 285 290 284
Australia 195 162 186
Belarus 92 121 133
* Excluding trade between the EU Member States. From 2007: EU-27
year, notably from the Russian Federation, where demand
is growing strong but a shortage of feed could prevent an
expansion of domestic production. A more uncertain output
is foreseen for China imports, where domestic demand is
also growing fast, but where a recurrence of incidents of
melamine contamination of milk continues to erode consumer
confidence in domestic produce.
fISH AND fISHLR¥
PRODUC1S
GLOBAL fISH LCONOM¥
The negative trends in international fishery trade registered
in late 2008 and throughout 2009 have reversed, with all
the major producing and exporting countries expected to
increase sales this year. During January–July 2010, fishery
exports from China, the number one supplier, grew by
an impressive 26.8 percent, exports from Thailand were
7.8 percent higher than the same period last year, and
Norway’s exports were also up significantly.
Import value also increased by varying degrees in the
traditional developed markets during January–June 2010.
Compared with the same period in 2009, imports by
the United States increased 16 percent, the EU was up
5.5 percent in extracommunity trade, Japan increased
5 percent and Australia, the largest seafood market in the
Pacific, reported 20 percent growth in imports.
This trend is even more prominent in developing
countries. Brazil, China, Hong Kong SAR, Republic of Korea,
Malaysia and Mexico experienced double-digit growth in
fishery import values. Strong national currencies relative to
the USD and fast economic growth in Brazil, China, India,
Indonesia and Malaysia have boosted domestic purchases of
fishery products and prices throughout 2010 for export. The
positive trend in global fishery trade is expected to continue
for the remainder of the year.
In particular, demand for farmed shrimp, salmon, tilapia
and pangasius catfish among others, has been strong this
year, boosting exports from major producing countries such
as China, Norway, Thailand and Viet Nam.
Emerging market demand is generally strong, with much
higher growth rates than in any of the traditional developed
country markets. As most world supply comes from developing
countries, this is boosting regional trade and, at the same time,
increasing exports from developed country producers.
Supplies of farmed shrimp from Asia and Latin America
and the Caribbean have been affected by both lower
Market assessments
„ November 2010 55
Figure 50. FAO Fish Price Index (2005=100)
70
90
110
130
150
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994
Data source: Norwegian Seafood Export Council
FAO total fish price index
Capture total Aquaculture Total
stocking levels and some disease-related problems, resulting
in higher international market prices. Improved consumer
demand has also supported the price rise, keeping the
market firm throughout 2010. In the farmed salmon
sector, the supply shortage in Chile coupled with strong
demand, particularly from Europe, Asia and Latin America
(Brazil), have boosted prices worldwide. In Chile, however,
production is now recovering.
Demand for tropical farmed fish, such as pangasius
catfish and tilapia, has been strong across the world. These
species are gaining consumer acceptance even in markets
where they were totally unknown just a few years ago.
Encouraged by the success of Vietnamese catfish and
Chinese tilapia, producers in other countries have recently
started to expand export markets for freshwater fish fillets.
In Asia, growing demand in the region for live fish has led
to high market prices. In response, ASEAN country producers
are aiming to develop full-cycle marine aquaculture of Asian
seabass, groupers and brackish-water tilapia.
The tuna industry has suffered from supply shortages due
to poor fishing and stricter resource management measures,
particularly in the Pacific Ocean. The supply situation is
expected to remain tight, thus keeping tuna prices firm.
The United States and European tuna markets have been
affected by economic downturn, but demand is expected to
improve in 2011.
SHRIMP: MARKL1 1IGH1, PRICLS RISING
AND NO NLW fARMLD SUPPL¥ UN1IL
MARCH NLX1 ¥LAR
The brisk international shrimp trade observed during
January–June has continued during the second half of the
2008 2009
estim.
2010
f’cast
Change
2010 over
2009
million tonnes %
WORLD BALANCE
Production
142.3 145.1 147.0 1.3
Capture fisheries
89.7 90.0 89.8 -0.2
Aquaculture
52.5 55.1 57.2 3.8
Trade value (exports USD
billion)
102.0 95.4 101.9 6.8
Trade volume (live weight)
55.2 54.9 55.3 0.7
Total utilization
Food
115.1 117.8 119.5 1.5
Feed
20.2 20.1 20.1 -0.1
Other uses
7.0 7.2 7.4 2.8
SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
Per caput food consumption:
Food fish (kg/year)
17.1 17.2 17.3 0.3
From capture fisheries (kg/year)
9.3 9.2 9.0 -1.7
From aquaculture (kg/year)
7.8 8.1 8.3 2.6
FAO Fish price index
(1998-2000)
2008
Sept.
2009
Sept.
2010
Sept
Change
Sept. 2010
over
Sept. 2009
%
128 117 127 8.5
Table 19. World fish market at a glance
year. With lower than expected supplies of farmed shrimps,
export prices moved up in July, August and September,
reaching levels the export industry had not experienced
for the last five years. Increasing imports in September–
October by the United States together with European
markets anticipate the Christmas festive season, but
purchasing is likely to slow down in November.
Strong Asian currencies related to the US Dollar and a
recovery in consumer demand have channelled products
to the regional markets in East Asia firming prices. Chinese
buyers have been particularly active, importing fresh and
frozen vannamei from Thailand, often outbidding western or
Japanese buyers.
In Japan this year, there is increasing demand for semi-
processed and processed products in the national market.
Total shrimp imports were up 2.5 percent in the first half of
2010, despite higher prices.
EU markets for shrimp are growing this year, reaching
250 000 tonnes, valued at around EUR 1.17 billion, up
2.6 percent in quantity and 6.5 percent in value during the
first half year. Imports of processed/value-added shrimp
products grew by 6.4 percent.
Shrimp sales in the United States are still supported by
steady home consumption whereas the restaurant trade has
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 56
Figure 51. US frozen BT shrimp prices
3
4
5
6
2010 2009
India (BT H/L 21/25, DDP)
Bangladesh (BT H/L 21/25)
USD per lb.
Figure 52. Frozen tuna raw material prices
0
1
2
3
4
2010 2009
Yellowfin (10 kg./up, Japan)
Albacore (10 kg./up, Japan)
Skipjack (4lb./up, Thailand)
USD thousand per tonne
not improved much. Higher imports of prepared products
are indicative of this trend.
Reports from Indonesia and Viet Nam indicate that the
current raw material shortage will continue in the coming
months. Although harvests have improved in India, with the
end of the shrimp farming season in Asia, no new crops are
expected to come to market until March 2011.
1UNA: POOR fISHING KLLPS SUPPL¥ DOWN
BU1 PRICLS DO NO1 MOvL LXCLP1 fOR
CANNING MA1LRIAL
Lower fishing is reducing tuna supply as a lack of buying
interest keeps prices low, further depressing landings. Over
time, buyers will be forced to come back to the market to
fulfil orders which should lead to some firming of prices.
Canning sales were disappointing in 2009 but have
recovered somewhat this year. Prices of skipjack and
yellowfin tuna for canning continue to rise because of
lower catches in the Eastern and Western Pacific. This
year’s canned tuna production in Italy and Spain will
decline because of the shortage of material, in particular
cooked loin supplies from Asia and Latin America. French
canneries have faired better as their traditional sources in
Cote d’Ivoire, Madagascar and Mauritius have remained
stable.
In Japan, tuna supplies will be lower this year, with a
reduction in both domestic production and imports. EU
imports of cooked tuna loins were 11 percent lower at 51
600 tonnes during the first five months. Poor fishing in
the Eastern Pacific contributed to declining supplies from
Ecuador and El Salvador. Supplies from Thailand fell by
31 percent, and Indonesia and Viet Nam were also down.
In the United States, the non-canned tuna market has
been positive with frozen tuna loins and steaks gaining
popularity in the retail and catering trade. The average
import price of frozen tuna fillets has been stable at
USD 8.50–8.70/kg. Overall, United States canned tuna
sale value has been growing since 2004 but declining in
volume, with average prices of canned tuna increasing
during the period. Harsh economic times usually boost
canned tuna sales, as consumers switch to cheaper
products. However, last year’s higher prices of the raw
material made canned tuna more expensive and United
States canned tuna consumption declined to 2.5 lbs per
capita, down 10.7 percent. Imports by the United States
of canned tuna have been growing strongly to compensate
for a 22 percent decline in domestic packing. Imported
quantities were up by 5.3 percent in 2009 and 24.9 percent
in the first half of this year. However, total canned tuna
supply to the United States dropped to 344 000 tonnes in
2009 from 382 000 tonnes the previous year.
The Thai tuna industry continues to expand in global
markets, gaining a stronghold in the United States and
Middle Eastern markets and successfully penetrating
emerging markets in Africa and Latin America and the
Caribbean.
Market assessments
„ November 2010 57
Figure 53. US groundfish wholesale prices
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Cod fillets
USD per lb.
Alaska Pollack fillets
Hake fillets
GROUNDfISH: POSI1IvL SHOR1-1LRM
OU1LOOK AL1HOUGH LONG-1LRM
PROSPLC1S HLAvIL¥ INfLULNCLD B¥
fARMLD SPLCILS
The outlook for groundfish markets is relatively positive in
the short term, because of expected supply constraints for
tilapia and pangasius. Fishing quota increases are expected
next year for Alaska pollock and haddock, whereas hake
supplies from Argentina are likely to remain tight with price
increases foreseen.
Prices in the European Alaska pollock market are stable,
both for whole fish and fillets. The fishing B-season in the
United States went well. A quota increase between 900 000
and 1.1 million tonnes is forecast for next year.
The slow recovery in the European economy, is expected to
strengthen demand for groundfish products, including value-
added products such as surimi. Strong demand for cod in the
United Kingdom and in southern Europe has boosted demand
also thanks to a stronger Euro. EU cod prices increased slightly
as a result of the new regulations on EU catch certificates that
reduced import availability from the beginning of 2010.
United States cod consumption is in long-term decline,
falling 59 percent between 1997 and 2009, to 0.2 kg/pc.
United States hake imports are also falling.
CLPHALOPODS: BL11LR DLMAND IN
CLPHALOPOD MARKL1 IS 1HWAR1LD B¥
LOW SUPPL¥
International markets for cephalopods have been influenced
by disappointing squid catches in the Southwest Atlantic.
As this is the second weak season in a row, there is some
concern about the health of the biomass. With demand
for squid showing some upward movement, prices are
rising quickly. The situation for octopus is not much better.
Morocco’s current two-month ban is limiting supply resulting
in rising octopus prices.
In the Southeast Atlantic, squid catches have been
moderate. A lack of squid from other sources has driven
prices higher in Southern Africa. With low stock levels in the
distribution pipeline, the market has reacted quickly to the
growing shortages.
With a reduction in production over the last decade,
the outlook for cephalopods is not very positive. Although
catches of the various species historically have shown some
cyclical variation, many observers fear that the major cause
is inadequate management measures in the main fishing
areas. The situation is aggravated by unclear borders in some
of the richest fishing areas which has made it difficult to
establish cooperation among the bordering states. This has
left prospects quite uncertain, and prices are expected to rise
further.
Imports by Spain, the leading market for squid, showed
an 8 percent rebound in 2010 following a difficult 2009
when squid imports were down 25 percent from 2008.
Italy’s squid purchases also grew this year, up 15 percent
with imports now at the same level as in 2008. Japan’s squid
imports in the first half year declined 15 percent from last
year, while conversely, United States import volumes are on
an upward trend, up 8 percent this year.
1ILAPIA: RLCORD CHINLSL LXPOR1S BU1
GROWING SUPPL¥ CONS1RAIN1S WILL
BOOS1 PRICLS
Prices of tilapia are expected to increase as a result of a
20 percent drop in production of China. Low prices last year
led farmers to reduce stocking levels and a harsh winter
decreased survival rates for the fish.
China, the leading producer, consumer and exporter of
tilapia, saw its exports increase 288 percent during 2004-2009 to
260 000 tonnes. Exports in the first seven months of 2010 rose
to 165 000 tonnes, up 30 percent from the same period in 2009.
Purchases by the United States, the world’s largest tilapia
market, remains steady, despite price increases at source.
Tilapia has become the second most popular fish in United
States retail stores, behind salmon, and the fifth most
popular seafood product overall. During January–July 2010,
imports of frozen tilapia, which comprise 87 percent of
all imports, rose 15 percent to 98 500 tonnes with fillets
increasingly replacing whole fish. Fresh fillet supplies are
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 58
dominated by Central American producers who expect
improved opportunities under the Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) signed in May this year between six producing
countries in Central America and the EU.
Mexico has emerged as an important market for frozen
tilapia from China, with its imports increasing 32 percent, to
25 500 tonnes.
In Europe, pangasius dominates the market for tropical
finfish. However, tilapia is making inroads replacing
traditional coldwater species. An estimated 25 000–30 000
tonnes of tilapia were imported by the EU in 2009 with
China as the dominant supplier followed by Indonesia,
Uganda, Thailand and Ecuador.
Exports are increasing from Southeast Asia, with
Indonesia shipping nearly 10 000 tonnes of fillet to the
United States and EU markets during the first seven months
this year. Thai exports rose to 10 000 tonnes.
PANGASIUS: 1IGH1LR MARKL1 AND GOOD
DLMAND DRIvL PRICLS HIGHLR
Viet Nam, the largest producer and exporter of pangasius,
reported growth of 8 percent in exports during the first
seven months of 2010. However, the sector faces growing
constraints, such as a shortage of raw material, rising feed
and labour costs, and more stringent import requirements in
many markets. Other Asian suppliers now entering foreign
markets are Bangladesh, China and Thailand. From 2011,
all Vietnamese pangasius will be exported as Basa, and at
minimum export prices.
Demand is firm. The EU imported 85 400 tonnes of
frozen pangasius fillet during January–May 2010 . Viet Nam
contributed 86 percent of total supply.
The single largest country market is the United States, where
pangasius now ranks as the tenth most popular fish product.
Imports of pangasius by the United States reached 32 600
tonnes by the end of July, up 8 percent. The United States’
Department of Commerce has increased anti-dumping levies on
catfish from several Vietnamese exporters by 100–120 percent.
At USD 4.22/kg, the levy is higher than the current retail price,
so these companies are likely to sell elsewhere.
The Russian Federation has become an important market
for pangasius, importing 18 000 tonnes of freshwater fillets
including pangasius during January–June 2010. Almost half
(48 percent) was supplied by Viet Nam. However, because of
temporary import restrictions, this represented a 40 percent
decline in exports from Viet Nam compared with the same
period last year.
Demand for pangasius will continue to grow because
of its affordable price and high product versatility. With
increasing demand in domestic as well as international
markets, many Asian countries are increasing production.
SLABASS AND SLABRLAM: 1IGH1LR MARKL1
fOR BRLAM WI1H PRODUC1ION DOWN
fROM LAS1 ¥LAR
The markets for seabass and seabream are relatively stable
with a good balance between demand and supply. Demand
has proven to be more resilient than expected in markets
such as France and Italy, while the situation in Portugal
and Spain remains difficult. Prices have risen somewhat in
the present quarter, due in part to a lower supply – last
year, producers stocked fewer juveniles in response to the
economic crisis. The outlook for prices is positive with rising
quotations expected, especially for bream. Prospects for
2011 are also positive, although a lack of reliable biomass
estimates makes projections of supply difficult.
SALMON
Tight market expecting relief from chile in 2011
Atlantic salmon prices are firming in Europe in the run-up
to Christmas with stable but high prices in the first two-
quarters of 2010. Prices should ease from 2011 onwards,
as Chilean supplies will start arriving on the market.
Industry estimates indicate volume growth for world
salmon supply of 8–10 percent in 2011, and a further
7–12 percent in 2012.
The value of Norway’s salmon exports in 2010 continues
to set record levels, reflecting higher production as well as
higher prices. Chile saw significant drops in exports during
Figure 54. Prices of seabass and seabream in Italy
3
4
5
6
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Euro per kg.
Seabream Seabass
Market assessments
„ November 2010 59
Figure 55. Prices of fishmeal and soybean meal
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
USD per tonne
Fishmeal Soymeal
the first six months with values down 15 percent to USD 1
billion and overall salmon volumes dropping 34 percent to
181 000 tonnes from 274 000 tonnes in 2009.
The EU market held up remarkably well during the
economic slowdown, with good underlying growth in
demand. Growth has been particularly strong in the EU
Member States of Central and Eastern Europe, due in part
to the relocation of much of the European fish smoking
industry to that region.
Japan’s seafood consumption is in long-term decline
and salmon demand is no exception. Imports of salmon in
the first half of 2010 declined to just above 70 000 tonnes,
20 percent less than in 2008.
Salmon imports by the United States fell 6 percent in
terms of volume in January–June 2010 but grew 6 percent in
value, totalling 116 400 tonnes worth USD 897 million. Unit
values were up 13 percent. Wild salmon catches in 2010
were excellent, including the high-value sock-eye salmon
species.
SMALL PLLAGICS
Supply situation mixed in Northern Europe
In the third-quarter of 2010, mackerel catches in Northern
Europe picked up, with large quantities landed and traded.
With supplies ample, prices have declined and are likely to
remain at present levels or slightly lower for the months
ahead.
For herring, supplies have been tighter but prices
stable. Recent herring sales have focused on value-added
products such as fillets and prepared herring. The resource
has recovered well after the total collapse in the mid-1970s
with good landings in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea.
However, worry remains about the resource, with scientists
recommending cuts in the Norwegian spring spawning
herring quota next year. Herring prices have declined slightly
in most markets but are expected to remain at present levels
for some months.
The capelin fishery sector in the Norwegian Sea and
the Barents Sea has varied considerably, both from year to
year and from one fishing area to the other. Traditionally, a
reduction fishery (meal/oil), this is now changing. In 2010, it
is estimated that as much as 80 percent of total landings will
be used for human consumption, up from about 66 percent
in 2009. The main markets for capelin for consumption are
China, Japan, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Prices are much higher on the Japanese market than on the
eastern European markets.
fISH MLAL
Prices easing despite limited stocks and
landings in South America
Production figures during the first half of 2010 by the five
largest producers (Chile, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and
Peru) dropped 2 percent with a 17 percent decline in South
America, due to cold water conditions that caused poor
fishing. However, figures doubled in Northern Europe. This
will change over the next months as spring approaches. In
Peru, the next fishing season in the North/Central area will
open in November with a quota of 2.1 million tonnes.
In Northern Europe, Iceland reported good catches
of herring with landings now at 83 percent of the 165
500 tonne quota. The Icelandic mackerel quota of 130
000 tonnes is almost filled. In Norway, landings for meal
and oil remain low, with most catches going for human
consumption. Less herring is expected for meal and oil this
season compared with 2009.
Stocks in China are slightly up as the domestic
aquaculture industry’s main buying season is completed, and
demand in the coming months is expected to come from the
pig farming sector. Fish meal demand from Chile’s salmon
sector will grow next year.
Exports from Chile and Peru during the first half year
were down drastically. Poor fishing is the cause for the
decline in Peru whereas Chile was hurt by slow fishing plus
damage to the fishmeal processing industry caused by the
earthquake that struck in February 2010.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 60
Figure 56. Prices of fish oil and soybean oil
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
USD per tonne
Fish oil Soybean oil
fISH OIL
Tight market with further price increases
forecast
As expected, fish oil prices have continued to rise as the
recent poor catches in South America are restricting future
supplies. Peruvian landings are expected to increase over the
coming months but overall catches in the region are likely to
be well below the level of 2009.
In Northern Europe, despite good harvests, most
mackerel and herring are going for direct human
consumption. Industrial deliveries appear lower than last
year. Overall production of oil is expected to be below
that of 2009, showing a severe drop during the first six
months of 2010 with a 25 percent decrease in volume
from the main exporters. As for fishmeal, production in
Northern Europe increased, whereas the combined Chilean
and Peruvian output fell back heavily. This was reflected in
export, with both Chile and Peru showing lower volumes in
2010. Conversely, the United States increased its exports of
fish oil by more than 50 percent in 2010, thanks to good
harvests.
Given the high prices, buyers are closely watching catch
levels in Chile and Peru. The foreseen growth in Chile’s
salmon production in 2011 and 2012 will put further
upward momentum on prices.
Spec|a| leatures
„ November 2010 61
Spec|a| leatures
WHLA1 RUS1: A GROWING
1HRLA1 1O WORLD fOOD
SLCURI1¥
This special feature is courtesy of Mr D.P. Hodson, Global
Cereal Rust Monitoring System, Plant Production and
Protection Division, FAO, David.Hodson@fao.org
SUMMAR¥
Throughout recorded history rust fungi have been the most
damaging diseases affecting wheat. Significant changes in
both stem and stripe rust populations currently pose serious
threats to wheat production. Stem rust, once the most
feared disease of wheat, has re-emerged in a new virulent
form, designated as Race Ug99. First identified in East
Africa, Race Ug99 is migrating and mutating rapidly. Most
global commercial wheat cultivars are susceptible to Ug99.
In addition, new, highly aggressive races of stripe rust are
devasting wheat crops in several regions. Breakdown of key
resistance genes and genetic uniformity are driving these
epidemics. Substantial and successful global initiatives are
underway to address the stem rust threat, but similar efforts
are urgently needed for stripe rust. Continued and sustained
investment will be required to address both current and
future challenges posed by wheat rusts.
EMERGING WHEAT RUST THREATS
Adverse weather effects are undoubtedly a primary driver of
wheat production shortfalls and, with climate change, may
increasingly be so. However, they are not the only factor
capable of negatively impacting wheat production. An age-
old threat to wheat has been the rust fungi and these too
are increasingly making the headlines and causing grounds
for renewed concern. The most feared disease of wheat –
stem rust – has re-emerged in a new virulent form, and new
aggressive stripe rust strains are devastating wheat crops in
several countries.
Three species of rust fungi; stem (or black) rust, leaf
(or brown) rust and stripe (or yellow) rust, are the most
important economically damaging diseases affecting wheat
and other small-grain cereals (except rice). Historically,
stem rust was the most feared disease of wheat, inflicting
devastating damage on a periodic basis. Under conditions
highly favourable to stem rust, complete crop loss is possible
on susceptible cultivars. In the first half of the twentieth
century, stem rust damaged wheat crops on a massive scale
across continents. The last major set of epidemics in North
America during the 1950s resulted in more than 40 percent
of the North American spring wheat crop being lost (over 4
million tonnes in 1953/54 alone). These early 20th century
major stem rust epidemics were the driving force behind
national and international mitigation and control efforts.
Predominantly through the widespread use of resistant
cultivars, significant gains in the battle against rust, notably
stem rust, were achieved. By the mid-1990s stem rust was
largely considered to be under control, with low levels of
incidence worldwide. However, the ever changing nature
of rust pathogens and their ability to acquire new adaptive
traits make them a formidable foe. Events of recent years
have highlighted the re-current nature of the threat posed
by rusts. Significant changes in both stem and stripe (yellow)
rust populations make them serious global threats once
again.
The notable successes of the previous decades resulted
in a degree of complacency that stem rust was a vanquished
disease. Priorities shifted and many countries halted breeding
or monitoring activities for stem rust. The resistance
incorporated into the semi-dwarf “green revolution” wheat
varieties during the 1960/70s proved durable and was
increasingly relied upon. Identification of a new virulent strain
of stem rust in the wheat fields of Uganda in 1999 (race
TTKSK – commonly known as Ug99), broke the complacency
and saw stem rust re-emerge as a global threat. The unique
virulence gained by Ug99 (and subsequent variants) has
rendered a very large proportion of the world’s commercial
wheat varieties susceptible to stem rust. Recognition of the
sheer magnitude of current global vulnerability has spurred
international initiatives to address the issue. Since 2005,
the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (BGRI) has coordinated an
international coalition of institutions working to mitigate the
re-emerging wheat rust threat.
Since its initial identification, Ug99 has continued to
mutate and spread. The pathogen is wind-borne and
capable of travelling vast distances (up to several thousand
km). Accidental transmission on infected clothing or plant
material is another concern. Several variants are now
recognized and presence is confirmed in eight countries
(Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kenya, South Africa,
the Sudan, Uganda, Yemen and Zimbabwe). To date, Kenya
is the only country that has suffered any significant loss due
to Ug99, but a serious threat remains and one that cannot
be ignored. Millions of hectares of wheat are planted to
very susceptible varieties and, under suitable conditions, rust
epidemics can develop quickly. In addition, considerable and
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 62
unpredictable time lags can occur between identification of
a new pathotype and a damaging outbreak. The devasting
1950s epidemics in North America were caused by a stem
rust race named 15B, eleven years after its first detection.
Significant and rapid progress has been made in
response to Ug99. New sources of resistance have been
identified; several new resistant cultivars have been
developed and released, many of which are now undergoing
rapid seed multiplication in different countries. The principal
breeding strategy being deployed is the pyramiding of
several minor resistance genes in order to reduce the
likelihood of rapid breakdown by the pathogen. Global
awareness relating to the renewed vulnerability of wheat
to stem rust has increased significantly and there has been
an encouraging resurgence in surveillance and monitoring
activities.
Pathogen changes also underpin the current stripe rust
problems. Since 2000, two highly aggressive strains of stripe
rust have been identified and spread globally. These new
aggressive strains (PstS1 and PstS2) produce many more
spores in a much shorter time than previous strains, and
they appear to have adaptation to warmer temperatures.
These factors combined, result in a significant competitive
advantage for the pathogen and permit the rapid
development of epidemics. Areas once considered too warm
for the development of stripe rust are now experiencing
serious outbreaks. Breakdown of widely deployed resistance
genes by these aggressive strains is another factor driving
the current stripe rust epidemics. Throughout large regions
of Central, West and South Asia and North/East Africa,
genetically uniform wheat cultivars are being grown.
Single cultivars occupy millions of hectares and the same
genetic material is often released in several countries under
a different variety name. The presence of these so-called
“mega-cultivars” has resulted in resistance to stripe rust
often being based solely on the Yr27 resistance gene. The
effectiveness of this Yr27 gene has now broken down and
severe epidemics are occurring as a result.
In 2009, the regional drought that had engulfed much
of the Near East receded, and environmental conditions
favoured the development of stripe rust. Presence of
aggressive stripe rust strains, coupled to virulence on Yr27,
resulted in severe epidemics in several countries, notably:
Algeria, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Morocco and Uzbekistan.
Conditions favouring rust development have continued
into 2010, with mild winters and adequate rainfall in
several countries resulting in early outbreaks of stripe rust.
Since early March, reports of serious outbreaks of stripe
rust have been received from Azerbaijan, Iraq, Lebanon,
Morocco, Turkey, Syria and Uzbekistan. Estimated losses of
over 1 million tonnes are thought to have occurred in Syria
alone. Epidemics continue to devastate susceptible wheat
crops, with Ethiopia currently experiencing the worst stripe
rust outbreaks in many years. Widespread cultivation of
susceptible varieties carrying the Yr27 gene is implicated in
the Ethiopia epidemics.
The current stripe rust situation has highlighted the speed
at which the new, adapted pathotypes is spreading globally.
The range expansion detected for new aggressive strains of
stripe rust (PstS1 and PstS2) may represent the most rapid
spread of an important crop pathogen on a global scale.
Natural airborne movements are one factor but accidental
human-assisted movements are undoubtedly increasingly
important. High disease levels raise the probability of natural
dispersal, but the near exponential growth in international
travel and trade is equally important. Accidental human-
assisted transmission across continents is implicated in many
instances. Genetic uniformity of cropping systems is another
factor that amplifies the risk of significant disease outbreaks.
The cultivation of genetically identical wheat mega-cultivars
across millions of hectares creates ideal conditions for
potential epidemics once resistance breaks down.
CONCLUSION
Given the changes occurring in wheat rust pathogen
populations, how can these affect the future prospects for
global wheat production and food security? At the outset,
it must be clear that wheat rusts are unlikely to destroy
the entire global wheat crop. However, if uncontrolled
and conditions are favourable, they can cause severe
periodic production shortfalls in some affected countries or
regions. The very serious yellow rust epidemics observed in
2010, highlight the reality of this threat. Given favourable
conditions, several factors indicate the possibility for further
severe stripe (yellow) rust outbreaks; the amount of disease
present, the aggressiveness of the pathogen strains and the
slow replacement of susceptible varieties are all a concern.
Stem rust, despite generally low levels of disease outside of
East Africa, requires careful monitoring given current global
vulnerability to the Ug99 lineage. For both rusts, the most
at risk are likely to be small-scale farmers who lack access
to either fungicide for emergency short-term control or
seed of resistant varieties for sustainable long-term control.
Regions with extremely high per capita consumption rates
of wheat, e.g. the Near East, Central Asia, North Africa
and South Asia, are of special concern. The current wheat
rust situation indicates both failure of the existing control
systems but also gives rise to some optimism. Ug99 and
related strains provided a clear warning about excessive
Spec|a| leatures
„ November 2010 63
complacency regarding rust pathogens. However, the global
coordinated response to the re-emergence of stem rust has
been extremely positive. A similar coordinated response is
currently lacking for stripe (yellow) rust, but urgently needed.
Continued investment in mitigation research, sustained
surveillance and monitoring activities, deployment of durable
resistant varieties and effective seed systems will all be
needed to address both current and future challenges posed
by wheat rusts.
SOURCLS Of ADDI1IONAL INfORMA1ION
Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (www. globalrust.org)
FAO Global Rust Monitoring System: Rust SPORE (http://
www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/rust/stem/en/)
Hovmøller, M.S., Yahyaoui, A., Milus, E.A. & Justesen, A.F.
2008. Rapid global spread of two aggressive strains of a
wheat rust fungus. Mol Ecol 17:3818-3826
Mogens Støvring Hovmøller, Stephanie Walter, Annemarie
Fejer Justesen. 2010. Escalating Threat of Wheat
Rusts. Science Vol. 329. no. 5990, p. 369. Available
on-line at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/
summary/329/5990/369
Singh, Ravi P., Hodson, David P., Huerta-Espino Julio et al .
2008. Will stem rust destroy the world’s wheat crop? Adv
Agron 98: 271-309
Red Menace: Stop the Ug99 Fungus Before Its Spores Bring
Starvation. Wired Magazine March 2010. Available on-line
at: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/02/ff_ug99_
fungus/all/1
AGRICUL1URAL fU1URLS:
S1RLNG1HLNING MARKL1 SIGNALS fOR
GLOBAL PRICL DISCOvLR¥
This special feature is courtesy of Ms Ann Berg, Consultant,
Senior Commodity Trader.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the
official opinion of the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.
Agricultural commodity investing is big business. Following
the 1990s deregulation of the financial service sector in the
United States and in Europe, financial firms have poured
colossal sums of money into commodity futures exchange
products in hopes of capturing outsized returns from the
volatile foodstuff market. Agricultural trading volumes have
tripled on the world’s most renowned exchange - CME
Group
1
, and doubled on Euronext Liffe’s soft commodity
complex during the last decade. Euronext Liffe has also
developed liquid contracts in wheat and rapeseed. Described
as “benchmarks,” the price discovery in these contracts
reverberates globally, often creating profound impacts
on domestic policy-making in virtually every country.
High volumes, however, have brought charges of excess
speculation that is proving potentially disruptive to vast
segments of the population. Whether speculation is causing
prices to rise and whether producers benefit from high prices
realized in futures contracts are central questions for debate.
In addition, food price volatility needs addressing.
Globally, futures trading in agricultural markets have
grown exponentially since 2000. Emerging markets
exchanges such as China’s Dalian Exchange and India’s
Multi-Commodity Exchange have experienced greater
volume surges than CME or Euronext Liffe, but have
not attracted large global investment flows. Currency
inconvertibility, strict position limits, frequent government
interventions in both the futures and physical markets
or prohibitions against direct foreign investment have
constrained emerging commodity markets growth globally.
Indeed most recent agricultural exchanges developed as
a response to markets liberalization and have focused on
producer pricing. Following the abolition of government
price supports in 1995, the South African Futures Exchange
2
,
for example, designated over 100 warehouses as delivery
1
The CME Group now comprises the Chicago Board of Trade and the New York
Mercantile Exchange.
2
SAFEX is now the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 64
points in its wheat and maize contracts to best suit producer
risk management needs; China’s and India’s exchanges
seek to promote producer marketing power and rural
development.
Elsewhere, many exchanges have created contracts
to suit their domestic commercial base. The Tokyo Grain
Exchange (TGE) for example launched a yen denominated
maize contract in 1992 that specified physical delivery of
United States origin maize to Japanese ports. Argentina’s
and Brazil’s exchanges, such as the Rosario Futures Exchange
(ROFEX) and the Bolsa di Mercadorias & Futuros (BM&F)
feature contracts customized to their export markets.
Although dwarfed by financial futures notional volumes
which have exceeded one quadrillion US Dollars since 2006,
volumes of agricultural futures are remarkable for their size
as a multiple of physical crop productions. The CME Soft
Red Wheat contract for example, which is used domestically
to hedge a crop of about 400 million bushels (10 million
tonnes), experienced a trading volume in 2008 of 90 billion
bushels, the equivalent of trading the entire crop each
business day.
RLGULA1OR¥ BACKGROUND
Speculation and price distortions on commodity futures
markets have existed as long as the markets themselves.
Market manipulations – especially “squeezes” or “corners”
– were alleged at least once every ten years at the Chicago
Board of Trade after its establishment in the mid-19th
century. In response, the Government of the United States
enacted legislation in 1922 to exert regulatory authority
over commodity futures exchanges and strengthened that
authority in 1936 under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
The CEA made market manipulation a criminal act and
placed limits on individual trader’s positions. In 1974, the
United States Congress established the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, vesting it with broad oversight and
anti-fraud powers.
An important role of the CFTC is to approve position
limits and the specifications of all futures contracts listed
on United States exchanges to ensure that they are
resistant to manipulation. In 1996, it issued an ultimatum
to the CBOT to revise its longstanding maize and soybean
contracts
3
, advising that the contracts no longer complied
with the Commission’s mandate “to prevent or diminish
price manipulation, market congestion, or the abnormal
movement of such commodity in interstate commerce.”
4

The CFTC also has authority over futures traders and
trading firms, including commercial traders. In 1989, when
it perceived that a large commercial exporter was distorting
the price of CBOT soybeans, the CFTC ordered the firm to
substantially reduce its soybean long positions prior to the
May and July delivery periods.
Finally, the CFTC supports market transparency. Each
week it publishes the Commitment of Traders Report (COT).
This report, gathered from the United States exchanges,
categorizes the long, short and spread positions of producer/
users, swaps dealers, and managed money funds, giving
3
CBOT maize and soybean contracts were launched in 1877 and 1936
respectively.
4
The CBOT refigured the contracts from a Chicago/Toledo warehouse receipt
system to an Illinois River shipping certificate system.
0
20
40
60
80
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Wheat Maize Soybeans
Percent
CME historical volatility
0
2
4
6
8
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000
Wheat Maize Soybeans
Millions of contracts
CME futures volume
Spec|a| leatures
„ November 2010 65
a clear picture of the market make-up for each futures
contract.
5
As a member of IOSCO, the CFTC promotes
information sharing on a global basis and the adoption of
“best practices” for overseeing futures contracts. It also
holds round tables on various futures issues which are open
to the public. Most recently, it held a round table focused on
the lack of convergence between cash and futures prices
6
in
the Chicago, Kansas City and Minneapolis wheat contracts.
The European countries have very different futures
trading regulatory models from the United States. In the
United Kingdom, the Financial Service Authority (FSA) – a
non-governmental organization – is granted statutory
powers to regulate futures markets. As of June 2010, it
announced a restructuring plan to be completed by 2012 to
deal more adequately with systemic issues, particularly in the
banking sector. Despite its endorsement of IOSCO principles,
including the Toyko Communcique,
7
according to the FSA
Web site, “[it] does not have dedicated rules for commodities
and commodity derivatives markets.” Established in 2000
in the wake of the Barings Bank failure, the FSA originally
viewed commodity futures trading as a professional users’
market and left its monitoring to the exchanges. By 2007, it
recognized the growing volume in commodity futures and
expressed the potential need for increased futures oversight.
Most recently, following allegations of disorderly markets
associated with the taking of large cocoa deliveries on
Euronext Liffe cocoa contract by a hedge fund, it is assessing
its regulatory role over commodity futures markets in the
forthcoming restructuring.
Elsewhere in Europe, exchange products are under the
purview of the national financial regulators. For example, the
Autorité des marchés financiers oversees the former MATIF
8

milling wheat contract. Similar to the FSA, the AMF has
few delineated supervisory powers over futures exchanges,
relying on exchanges to self-regulate. However, in response
to the current run-up in wheat prices, the Government of
France is calling for international reform to be introduced in
the 2011 review of the Markets and Financial Instruments
Directive (MIFED).
SPLCULA1IvL LIMI1S AND INCRLASLD
vOLUML
Since the CEA enactment, United States exchanges have
placed limits on speculative trading in primary agricultural
contracts. These limits increased dramatically beginning in
the 1990s from the standard 600 contracts for grains and
soybeans to now several thousand, although the spot month
limit remains 600. In addition, the CME restricts any non-
commercial entity from holding more than 600 shipping
certificates or warehouse receipts received on delivery. Bona
fide hedgers are exempt from all limits. The granting of hedge
exemptions
9
to index funds by the CFTC is currently under
review.
The Euronext Liffe wheat, rapeseed and maize contracts
have conservative all months limits compared with CMEs.
Applied to speculators and hedgers alike, the futures
delivery process of these contracts is intended to act as a
price signal system and not a supply sourcing mechanism.
Similar to CME’s tiered structure – limits must be reduced
prior to contract expiry. The London Clearing House, not the
exchange, determines the limits for the most actively traded
grain and oilseed contracts.
5
See addendum.
6
International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO).
6
For various reasons the futures prices have tended to trade at a large premium (as much as 20 percent) to the underlying cash price for the last few years.
7
In 1997, regulators from 17 countries including Japan, the United Kingdom and United States, issued a communiqué (the Tokyo Communiqué) endorsing two guidance
papers, one on best practices for the design and/or review of commodity contracts and another on market surveillance and information sharing. The guidances represent
the first occasion on which regulators responsible for overseeing commodity derivatives markets agreed to international standards for the supervision of these markets.
8
MATIF merged with LIFFE in 1999.
9
A hedge exemption allows an index fund to exceed the speculative limits.
Contract Spot month Single month All months
Maize 600 (76.2 thousand tonnes) 13 500 22 000 (2.79 million tonnes)
Soybeans 600 (81.6 thousand tonnes) 6 500 10 000 (1.37 million tonnes)
Wheat 600 (81.6 thousand tonnes) 5 000 6 500 (890 thousand tonnes)
Rice 600 (54.6 thousand tonnes) 1 800 1 800 (163 thousand tonnes)
Oats 600 (51.6 thousand tonnes) 1 400 2 000 (170 thousand tones)
CME Group agricultural positions limits – number of contracts and tonne equivalent
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 66
In contrast to all other exchange agricultural contracts,
Euronext Liffe’s sugar, coffee and cocoa contracts have
no limits. The lack of limits allowed purportedly a single
hedge fund to take delivery on the 2010 July contract of
approximately 240 000 tonnes of cocoa -virtually all of
the deliverable supplies and equivalent to 7 percent of the
global production. Experts noted that the July price became
so elevated that contract shorts shipped cocoa from New
York warehouses to the Euronext Liffe delivery ports of
Amsterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg to make delivery.
Euronext Liffe recently announced it would collect internal
numbers on the trading types and entities participating in
the soft commodity sector and produce a report similar to
the CFTC’s COT report. To date, neither Euronext Liffe nor
LCH have announced any plans to impose position limits on
soft commodity futures.
Several factors have contributed to increased global
speculative volume in foodstuffs:
• Markets liberalization and decline of price supports,
particularly in the EU under the Common Agricultural
Policy
• Deregulation of the financial service sector in the US
that allowed proprietary trading by banks
• Declining margins in securities trading
• Diversion of foodstuffs into fuel products
• Rising demand for food in emerging markets
• Under-investment in agriculture due to prolonged low
food prices
• Lack of price transmission to producers
• Sudden governmental interventions in the export
market such as export bans, tariffs and quotas
• Ease of access to electronic market place
• Restructuring of primary exchanges from member
organizations to for-profit corporations
GOING fORWARD
Regulatory harmonization
The United States model for creating a regulatory framework
may be a good starting point for regulators in Europe.
Endorsement of IOSCO principles, for example, is ineffective
without collecting information about trading activities
and promulgating appropriate rules and regulations. Also,
over 150 years of futures trading history demonstrates
that position limits are necessary in commodities of finite
supply to curb excessive speculation and hoarding. As far
as agricultural commodities are concerned, FAO could lead
this harmonization process, working with other international
organizations.
Increased transparency
The most common question in futures markets is: To what
degree is speculation driving prices versus commercial
activity? Before the advent of electronic trading, various
brokerage houses provided informal summaries of trading
activities by players from the trading pits each day. Today,
the exchanges themselves or their clearinghouses
10
can
address this question with great precision. The electronic
marketplace produces instantaneous audit trails of order
flow and transactions that are segregated by types of
traders. The exchanges could furnish this data to the
CFTC and have it published daily so that speculative versus
commercial buying/selling could be quantified. Such
information would greatly augment the market snapshot
provided by the COT report by identifying trading types that
are moving prices up or down. Exchanges in other countries
should also adopt such reporting requirements.
Government policy
Sudden government interventions such as embargoes,
heightened export tariffs or quotas have triggered dramatic
futures price spikes over the last few years and are
counterproductive.

Price transmission to producers
Poor price transmission from futures markets to producers is
a critical issue for markets. The dilution of price from futures
to growers results in a weak supply response several factors
contribute to poor price transmission:
• Domestic price protections;
• Opaque local markets;
• Exploitive lending and buying practices by
middleperson;
• Long supply chains;
• Futures delivery points geographically very distant from
growing areas.
Contract Spot month All Months
Milling wheat 2 000 (100 thousand tonnes) 4 000 (200 thousand tonnes)
Rapeseed 1 200 (60 thousand tonnes) 2 400 (120 thousand tonnes)
Maize 1 200 (60 thousand tonnes) 2 400 (120 thousand tonnes)
Euronext Liffe agricultural positions limits – number of
contracts and tonne equivalent
10
The CME Group clears its own trades internally, London Clearing House clears
commodity futures transactions on Euronext Liffe.
Spec|a| leatures
„ November 2010 67
Although most of these issues need addressing on a
country by country basis, the last issue of delivery points can
be addressed either by existing exchanges or by the creation
of new ones. For example, although most of the world’s
cocoa production is in Western Africa – cocoa traded on the
Euronext Liffe
11
contract is priced basis delivery in northern
European ports such as Amsterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg.
A commodity and/or a futures exchange, in the major
producing countries of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana could help
in price transmission from the European demand centres to
growers.
12

Similarly, in a market such as rice, commodity exchanges
could aid regional pricing needs. Because of the varieties of
rice and consumer preferences, no single contract can act as
a global proxy mechanism. The most heavily traded contract
– the CME rough rice contract - prices unmilled rice delivered
in Arkansas warehouses and is most suited to domestic
growers and millers. In Thailand, the Government conducts
open auctions for export procurement via the Agricultural
Futures Exchange of Thailand. This model is an attractive
mechanism for signalling prices to farmers and could be
replicated elsewhere, especially in countries with extensive
rice protection policies. Several Latin American exchanges
organize the trading of agricultural “tariff packages” as a
means for ensuring transparency and price efficiency for the
importation of “sensitive” goods, such as rice and maize.
This too is a valuable price transmission model provided by
exchanges.
Volatility
Volatility in commodity foodstuffs is a result of both
fundamental factors and speculative inflows of managed
money. Sharply differing opinions exist on how institutional
money flows have changed the nature of the markets,
particularly since the expansion of limits. While financial
firms argue that they add volume and liquidity to the market,
others maintain that large order size creates volatility and
jagged price swings. In the August 2010 price hike of
wheat, the CME wheat price moved up limit and down limit
within two consecutive days. High frequency trading is also
a controversial issue – one that a CFTC editorial recently
stated needed “reining in,” commenting that “parasitical
trading does not truly contribute to fundamental market
functions.”
13

Much debated also is the effect of passive fund money
(index funds and swaps dealers), with experts on both
sides arguing whether they have caused chronic price
elevation and steep contango
14
in some futures contracts.
In its 2009 Trade and Development Report, the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
contends that the massive inflow of fund money has caused
commodity futures markets to fail the “efficient market”
hypothesis, as the purchase and sale of commodity futures
by swap dealers and index funds is entirely unrelated to
market supply and demand fundamentals,
15
but depends
rather on the funds’ ability to attract subscribers. Despite
the risk transfer nature of futures trading, in which gains
and losses are equally offset, passive funds have successfully
packaged and sold futures contracts as an alternative
investment class to institutional investors. However, most
would agree that these passive funds do not affect volatility
levels as their only trading activity is a forward “roll” of their
positions and the timings of these rolls are announced in
their prospectus. In the CME wheat contract, swaps dealers
comprise about 40 percent of long open interest or almost
one billion bushels (27 million tonnes) - equivalent to 2½
the size of the United States soft red winter wheat crop.
Managed money (which includes active hedge funds and
passive index funds), comprises another 20 percent of long
open interest as of September 2010.
To address volatility levels, futures exchanges have relied
on both position limits and price limits. Possibly some other
volatility tools could be introduced:
• Limit the size of market orders entered within a
particular time period;
• Ban high frequency trading;
• Apply spot month limit positions for a longer-time
period prior to delivery month;
• Change physical delivery contracts to cash settlement;
• Settle contracts every month – either by delivery or
cash;
• Allow shipping certificates or warehouse receipts to
expire within one year of issuance;
• Reduce leverage by increasing margins;
• Reduce existing position limits.
None of these solutions is without controversy or
downsides; many would be resisted by exchanges as some
would tend to reduce volume and therefore profits.
11
The United States InterContinental Exchange lists a cocoa contract with deliveries
in New York harbour points.
12
Efforts are under way in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire to address commodity pricing.
13
“Rein in the Cyber-Cowboys,” Bart Chilton, CFTC Commissioner, Financial Times,
Sept 6.
14
Contango is a market structure characterized by each successive futures contract
trading at a higher price than the previous one.
15
Trade and Development Report, 2009, Chapter II, “Financialization of
Commodity Markets,” UNCTAD
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 68
Alternatively, exchanges might consider the development
of a global contract, tracking “cheapest global wheat,”
for example. Although such a contract would have to be
carefully constructed, there is a precedent: the Euronext
Liffe white sugar contract (launched in 1983) is a global
free-on-board contract with deliveries in 41 countries and
5 continents. Exchanges could construct a similar contract
for wheat or alternatively develop an index to reflect wheat
prices in several large producing countries (besides the EU
and the United States) such as Argentina, Australia, Canada,
China, India and South Africa and where commodity futures
contracts serve as producer pricing mechanisms. Similarly, an
index such as the one published by the International Grains
Council could be expanded to include more countries. A
global wheat contract could give governments an alternative
view to the current commodity futures prices and enable
better price transmission to producers.
Due to several structural changes in both the futures
markets and the underlying agricultural commodities
markets, prices and volatility levels will probably remain
elevated for the foreseeable future. Higher prices will
be necessary to encourage greater productivity and
infrastructure development. Volatility, however, can be
addressed in part by the exchanges and regulators. Finally,
the world community needs to commence a debate on
whether today’s primary futures exchanges still maintain
their relevance to the underlying commodity markets as
price discovery and risk transfer venues or whether they have
transformed into a contest of players seeking triumph in “a
zero sum game.”
RLPOR1 Of 1HL LX1RAORDINAR¥
IN1LRSLSSIONAL MLL1ING Of 1HL
IN1LRGOvLRNMLN1AL GROUPS ON
GRAINS AND RICL, ROML, I1AL¥, 24
SLP1LMBLR 2010
Following several months of rising international wheat prices,
FAO called for an extraordinary Intersessional meeting of the
Intergovernmental Groups on Grains and Rice. 162 delegates
from 79 countries and nine organizations attended the one-
day event on 24 September 2010. The Report of the meeting
is reproduced herewith .
1. Global cereal supply and demand still appears
sufficiently in balance. While acknowledging the sudden
increase in prices and deterioration of prospects for cereal
markets in recent months, for wheat in particular, the
Groups did not conclude that this situation was indicative of
an impending food crisis. Unexpected crop failure in some
major exporting countries followed by national responses
and speculative behaviour rather than global market
fundamentals, have been amongst the main factors behind
the recent escalation of world prices and the prevailing high
price volatility. The LIFDCs are most adversely affected by
these high prices. The Groups expressed sympathy towards
countries which were affected by natural disasters.
2. The Groups recognize that unexpected price hikes
and volatility are amongst major threats to food security and
that their root causes need to be addressed, in particular:
a) The lack of reliable and up-to-date information on crop
supply and demand and export availability;
b) Insufficient market transparency at all levels including in
relation to futures markets;
c) Growing linkage with outside markets, in particular the
impact of “financialization” on futures markets;
d) Unexpected changes triggered by national food security
situations;
e) Panic buying and hoarding.
3. Given the growing complexity of factors
influencing agricultural commodity markets, the Groups
propose to enhance market information and transparency.
The Groups recommend intensification of FAO’s information
gathering and dissemination at all levels. They specifically
recommend action, including capacity strengthening of
all partners in relation to monitoring planting intentions,
crop development and domestic market information. They
further encourage analysis of different dimensions of
futures markets behaviour, including involvement of non-
commercial traders.
4. The Groups recognize that the CFS, at its next
meeting, will consider issues of vulnerability and risk.
5. The Groups agree that additional work is needed in
the following three areas:
a) Analyses of alternative approaches to mitigating food
price volatility, with a view to support policy decision-
making;
b) New mechanisms to enhance transparency and manage
the risks associated with new sources of market
volatility;
Spec|a| leatures
„ November 2010 69
c) Exploring ways of strengthening FAO’s partnerships with
other relevant organizations working on these issues.
6. As stated in the Declaration of the World Summit
on Food Security of 2009, member countries “agreed to
refrain from taking measures that are inconsistent with the
WTO rules, with adverse impacts on global, regional and
national food security.”
7. The Groups agree that increased investment in
agriculture, new technologies and good policies, amongst
others, are key elements to ensure global food security.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 70
Table A1 (a) & (b) Cereal Statistics 72-73
Table A2 (a) & (b) Wheat Statistics 74-75
Table A3 (a) & (b) Coarse Grains Statistics 76-77
Table A4 (a) & (b) Maize Statistics 78-79
Table A5 (a) & (b) Barley Statistics 80-81
Table A6 (a) & (b) Sorghum Statistics 82-83
Table A7 (a) & (b) Other Coarse Grains Statistics 82-83
Table A8 (a) & (b) Rice Statistics 84-85
Table A9 Cereal Supply and Utilization in Main Exporting Countries 86
Table A10 Total Oilcrops Statistics 87
Table A11 Total Oils and Fats Statistics 88
Table A12 Total Meals and Cakes Statistics 89
Table A13 Sugar Statistics 90
Table A14 Total Meat Statistics 91
Table A15 Bovine Meat Statistics 92
Table A16 Ovine Meat Statistics 93
Table A17 Pigmeat Statistics 94
Table A18 Poultry Meat Statistics 95
Table A19 Milk and Milk Products Statistics 96
Table A20 Fish and fishery products statistics 97
Table A21 Selected International Prices of Wheat and Coarse Grains 98
Table A22 Wheat and Maize Futures Prices 99
Table A23 Selected International Prices for Rice and Price Indices 100
Table A24 Selected International Prices for Oilcrop Products and Price Indices 101
Table A25 Selected International Prices for Milk Products and Dairy Price Indices 102
Table A26 Selected International Meat Prices 103
Table A27 Selected International Meat Prices and FAO Meat Price Index 104
Table A28 Selected International Commodity Prices 105
Stat|st|ca| append|x tab|es
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 71
NO1LS
General
• FAO estimates and forecasts are based
on official and unofficial sources.
• Unless otherwise stated, all charts and
tables refer to FAO data as source.
• Estimates of world imports and exports
may not always match, mainly because
shipments and deliveries do not necessarily
occur in the same marketing year.
• Tonnes refer to metric tonnes.
• All totals are computed from
unrounded data.
• Regional totals may include estimates
for countries not listed. The countries
shown in the tables were chosen based
on their importance of either production
or trade in each region. The totals
shown for Central America include
countries in the Caribbean.
• Estimates for China also include those
for the Taiwan Province, Hong Kong SAR
and Macao SAR, unless otherwise stated.
• Up to 2006 or 2006/07, the European
Union includes 25 member states. From
2007 or 2007/08 onwards, the European
Union includes 27 member states.
• ‘-‘ means nil or negligible.
Production
• Cereals: Data refer to the calendar year
in which the whole harvest or bulk of
harvest takes place.
• Sugar: Figures refer to centrifugal
sugar derived from sugar cane or beet,
expressed in raw equivalents. Data relate
to the October/September season.
Utilization
• Cereals: Data are on individual country’s
marketing year basis.
• Sugar: Figures refer to centrifugal
sugar derived from sugar cane or beet,
expressed in raw equivalents. Data relate
to the October/September season.
Trade
• Trade between European Union
member states is excluded, unless
otherwise stated.
• Wheat: Trade data include wheat flour
in wheat grain equivalent. The time
reference period is July/June, unless
otherwise stated.
• Coarse grains: The time reference
period is July/June, unless otherwise
stated.
• Rice, dairy and meat products:
The time reference period is January/
December.
• Oilseeds, oils and fats and meals
and sugar: The time reference period
is October/September, unless otherwise
stated.
.
Stocks
• Cereals: Data refer to carry-overs at the
close of national crop seasons ending in
the year shown.
COUN1R¥ CLASSIfICA1ION
In the presentation of statistical material,
countries are subdivided according to
geographical location as well as into the
following two main economic groupings:
“developed countries” (including the
developed market economies and the
transition markets) and “developing
countries” (including the developing
market economies and the Asia centrally
planned countries). The designation
“Developed” and “Developing”
economies is intended for statistical
convenience and does not necessarily
express a judgement about the stage
reached by a particular country or area in
the development process.
References are also made to special
country groupings: Low-Income Food-
Deficit Countries (LIFDCs), Least Developed
Countries (LDCs). The LIFDCs include
77 countries that are net importers of
basic foodstuffs with per caput income
below the level used by the World Bank
to determine eligibility for International
Development Aid (IDA) assistance (i.e. USD
1 735 in 2006). The LDCs group currently
includes 50 countries with low income
as well as weak human resources and
low level of economic diversification. The
list is reviewed every three years by the
Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations.
DISCLAIMLR
The designations employed and
the presentation of material in this
publication do not imply the expression
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of
the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning
the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries.

food Out|ook
„ November 2010 72
Table A1 (a). Cereal statistics
Production Imports Exports
2006-2008 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009 2010
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 952.5 987.2 999.3 127.7 135.1 128.0 45.1 44.7 43.1
Bangladesh 30.9 34.4 35.6 3.2 4.2 2.9 - - -
China 406.3 423.1 426.2 8.6 10.7 10.8 4.3 1.1 3.3
India 209.1 204.0 218.6 2.9 0.4 0.4 5.7 3.5 4.1
Indonesia 49.8 58.2 59.1 6.7 6.1 6.2 0.3 1.6 1.7
Iran, Islamic Republic of 18.9 17.6 19.1 7.9 8.7 6.6 0.5 1.0 1.0
Iraq 3.2 2.1 3.5 4.4 5.2 4.9 - - -
Japan 9.0 8.6 8.8 25.5 25.5 25.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
Kazakhstan 18.3 20.5 15.2 0.1 0.1 - 8.1 8.5 6.8
Korea, Republic of 5.0 5.3 4.8 12.2 12.9 12.4 0.1 0.1 0.1
Myanmar 20.9 21.0 20.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.0
Pakistan 31.8 34.5 32.1 1.6 0.2 0.6 4.0 3.6 2.3
Philippines 17.3 17.2 18.1 5.2 5.6 4.9 - - -
Saudi Arabia 2.6 1.4 1.1 9.8 11.7 11.9 - - -
Thailand 24.8 25.4 24.7 1.7 2.2 1.9 10.0 9.1 9.5
Turkey 30.8 33.2 32.0 3.5 3.7 3.6 2.0 4.5 3.2
Viet Nam 28.8 30.3 30.8 2.2 3.1 2.9 5.1 7.0 6.5
AFRICA 136.6 153.6 153.6 59.1 59.2 61.1 5.6 6.4 7.2
Algeria 3.3 6.0 4.5 7.8 7.0 7.7 - - -
Egypt 20.8 20.9 20.6 13.0 15.2 14.6 0.7 0.5 0.3
Ethiopia 14.7 16.3 15.9 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.1
Morocco 5.7 10.2 7.1 5.3 3.7 6.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Nigeria 23.0 23.7 23.6 5.3 5.8 5.2 0.5 0.6 0.5
South Africa 11.4 15.1 15.8 2.7 2.5 2.6 1.4 2.2 2.5
Sudan 5.8 3.6 5.5 1.7 2.0 1.9 0.3 - 0.1
CENTRAL AMERICA 39.6 40.6 41.1 25.1 24.5 25.7 1.3 1.3 1.2
Mexico 33.8 34.4 34.7 14.7 14.2 15.6 1.0 1.1 1.0
SOUTH AMERICA 126.1 116.7 135.7 24.1 24.9 25.1 36.9 32.4 35.8
Argentina 37.9 24.9 41.0 - - - 25.0 20.6 21.9
Brazil 65.5 67.1 70.8 9.0 8.7 8.4 8.7 8.0 10.3
Chile 3.1 3.4 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.3 0.1 - -
Colombia 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.8 5.0 5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Peru 3.5 4.1 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.3 - - -
Venezuela 3.8 3.3 3.3 2.6 3.1 3.5 0.1 0.1 -
NORTH AMERICA 434.0 466.3 444.7 9.2 8.3 7.7 114.1 104.3 111.6
Canada 50.9 49.5 44.3 2.7 2.8 2.5 22.3 21.2 20.5
United States of America 383.1 416.8 400.3 6.5 5.6 5.3 91.8 83.1 91.1
EUROPE 429.6 463.5 405.3 23.8 13.0 18.2 52.6 65.7 48.2
European Union 274.5 296.1 277.2 18.7 9.1 11.7 21.4 23.3 26.9
Russian Federation 87.5 95.8 62.2 1.1 0.7 3.2 16.4 20.3 4.1
Serbia 8.1 9.0 9.0 0.1 - 0.1 1.3 1.8 1.7
Ukraine 36.4 45.0 39.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 12.3 20.0 15.1
OCEANIA 27.1 35.5 36.7 1.2 1.3 1.3 14.7 18.8 20.3
Australia 26.2 34.7 35.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 14.7 18.8 20.3
WORLD 2 145.6 2 263.4 2 216.4 270.3 266.4 267.3 270.4 273.6 267.3
Developing countries 1 202.4 1 239.3 1 275.8 200.0 207.6 204.0 78.5 73.5 77.4
Developed countries 943.2 1 024.1 940.6 70.3 58.9 63.3 191.8 200.1 189.9
LIFDCs 914.0 954.2 974.0 86.8 90.4 86.6 20.8 15.8 17.9
LDCs 133.4 144.1 149.0 22.6 24.6 21.4 4.6 5.1 6.0
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 73
Table A1 (b). Cereal statistics
Total Utilization Stocks ending in Per caput food use
06/07-08/09 2007-2009 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2010 2011
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) (. . . . . . . . . . Kg/year . . . . . . .)
ASIA 1 014.9 1 055.3 1 075.9 284.1 335.4 343.7 160.2 161.3 162.2
Bangladesh 33.8 36.8 37.9 5.6 8.0 8.5 174.4 182.0 184.9
China 395.6 411.5 420.9 175.0 215.6 228.0 151.1 151.6 152.2
India 200.8 207.0 212.0 35.3 35.8 38.6 153.8 153.3 154.9
Indonesia 55.6 60.8 62.8 5.9 8.6 9.4 206.3 210.6 211.8
Iran, Islamic Republic of 25.7 26.4 26.2 3.8 4.0 2.5 200.4 197.4 197.0
Iraq 7.7 7.4 8.1 2.9 2.4 2.7 178.4 178.9 179.6
Japan 34.3 33.6 33.8 3.9 3.8 3.7 131.5 130.5 130.4
Kazakhstan 9.9 10.5 10.3 3.8 7.2 5.3 161.2 166.2 166.4
Korea, Republic of 17.1 17.4 17.4 2.7 3.2 3.2 129.7 128.9 128.8
Myanmar 19.9 20.6 20.6 5.7 5.1 4.5 247.1 251.8 251.9
Pakistan 29.4 31.3 31.9 2.8 2.9 1.4 139.4 141.9 142.1
Philippines 22.0 22.1 23.1 3.4 4.9 4.8 159.4 161.9 163.8
Saudi Arabia 12.8 13.2 13.4 3.6 3.3 2.9 139.4 135.1 134.7
Thailand 16.7 17.6 17.6 4.9 6.4 6.0 142.1 148.5 149.6
Turkey 33.0 31.9 32.5 5.5 4.6 4.5 222.0 221.5 222.3
Viet Nam 25.9 27.2 27.1 5.9 5.1 5.1 208.4 212.0 211.8
AFRICA 190.0 203.0 208.2 28.7 32.7 31.7 148.3 149.8 148.9
Algeria 11.6 12.7 12.9 3.6 3.7 3.0 229.7 231.7 232.5
Egypt 32.4 34.3 35.2 4.6 7.4 7.1 267.4 269.4 269.2
Ethiopia 15.3 16.9 17.2 1.0 1.8 1.5 166.8 169.1 168.9
Morocco 11.0 12.6 12.8 2.6 2.9 2.9 239.7 244.6 246.3
Nigeria 27.8 28.6 28.6 1.5 1.4 1.0 141.2 139.2 137.7
South Africa 13.4 14.3 14.8 2.3 3.2 4.0 171.3 172.5 172.2
Sudan 7.1 6.7 7.4 2.3 1.2 1.1 154.7 154.1 154.6
CENTRAL AMERICA 63.2 65.2 66.1 5.2 4.9 4.7 167.3 168.0 167.8
Mexico 47.4 49.0 49.9 3.3 3.0 2.6 201.8 202.6 202.8
SOUTH AMERICA 111.7 117.4 122.3 15.4 14.8 16.4 120.9 123.1 121.8
Argentina 13.4 11.3 14.7 5.1 1.3 4.8 132.8 134.5 133.2
Brazil 63.9 69.0 70.4 5.2 8.2 6.5 117.7 117.4 117.0
Chile 6.1 6.7 6.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 151.9 175.4 151.8
Colombia 8.1 8.6 8.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 101.4 103.6 104.2
Peru 6.7 7.1 7.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 133.2 140.3 139.2
Venezuela 6.1 6.7 6.8 0.9 0.6 0.5 127.6 131.9 132.9
NORTH AMERICA 330.7 359.1 369.6 67.4 89.4 60.1 111.9 108.1 109.8
Canada 30.7 28.7 29.0 10.7 13.6 10.8 103.1 96.8 96.1
United States of America 300.0 330.4 340.6 56.7 75.8 49.3 112.9 109.3 111.3
EUROPE 401.0 409.5 395.4 52.6 68.9 48.4 140.0 139.5 140.0
European Union 274.0 280.2 274.4 32.5 43.1 30.2 132.8 133.5 134.4
Russian Federation 69.8 76.7 68.0 10.2 16.1 9.4 150.3 150.0 149.4
Serbia 7.0 7.1 7.5 1.0 1.3 1.1 164.6 164.3 164.0
Ukraine 24.2 24.9 25.3 4.7 5.6 5.3 169.3 169.7 169.8
OCEANIA 17.1 16.5 16.4 6.1 6.3 7.5 91.7 90.3 91.2
Australia 15.1 14.5 14.3 5.7 6.0 7.1 103.3 101.9 103.4
WORLD 2 128.6 2 226.0 2 253.8 459.5 552.4 512.5 151.4 152.2 152.7
Developing countries 1 300.7 1 359.7 1 391.1 319.3 370.1 380.5 156.0 157.1 157.6
Developed countries 827.9 866.3 862.8 140.1 182.3 132.0 133.6 132.5 133.2
LIFDCs 957.8 1 006.1 1 030.0 262.5 314.5 327.0 154.8 155.9 156.5
LDCs 149.3 161.8 165.6 26.4 29.7 28.6 147.5 150.9 150.8
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 74
Table A2 (a). Wheat statistics
Production Imports Exports
2006-2008 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009 2010
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 279.4 297.9 293.3 54.3 60.9 52.7 15.0 15.1 15.0
Bangladesh 0.8 1.0 1.0 2.1 3.5 2.5 - - -
China 110.1 115.1 115.1 1.9 3.1 2.2 1.1 0.1 2.1
of which Taiwan Prov. - - - 1.1 1.2 1.2 - - -
India 74.6 80.7 80.7 2.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5
Indonesia - - - 5.3 5.4 5.4 - - -
Iran, Islamic Republic of 13.1 13.0 14.5 3.2 3.4 1.7 0.5 1.0 1.0
Iraq 1.9 1.4 2.0 3.4 3.9 3.6 - - -
Japan 0.9 0.7 0.8 5.3 5.3 5.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Kazakhstan 15.3 17.0 13.0 - 0.1 - 7.6 7.9 6.5
Korea, Republic of - - - 3.2 4.3 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Pakistan 21.8 24.0 23.9 1.6 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5
Philippines - - - 2.7 2.8 2.9 - - -
Saudi Arabia 2.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 1.8 2.0 - - -
Thailand - - - 1.1 1.5 1.1 0.1 - -
Turkey 18.3 20.6 19.5 2.4 3.1 2.8 1.9 4.0 3.0
AFRICA 21.6 26.4 22.7 33.1 34.4 35.4 1.1 1.1 0.8
Algeria 2.3 3.6 3.0 5.3 4.7 5.2 - - -
Egypt 7.9 8.5 8.6 8.2 10.2 9.0 - - -
Ethiopia 2.6 3.1 3.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 - - -
Morocco 3.9 6.3 4.0 3.2 2.0 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Nigeria 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.3 3.7 3.2 0.3 0.2 0.1
South Africa 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.3
Tunisia 1.2 1.7 0.9 1.8 1.4 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
CENTRAL AMERICA 3.7 4.1 3.7 7.0 6.7 7.0 1.0 1.1 1.0
Cuba - - - 0.7 0.8 0.8 - - -
Mexico 3.7 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.0 3.3 0.9 1.0 0.9
SOUTH AMERICA 20.4 16.9 20.5 13.3 12.9 13.1 10.6 7.6 7.7
Argentina 13.1 7.5 11.5 - - - 9.6 5.2 6.0
Brazil 4.2 5.0 5.3 7.0 6.5 6.5 0.4 1.2 0.7
Chile 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 - - -
Colombia - - - 1.4 1.3 1.3 - - -
Peru 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 - - -
Venezuela - - - 1.6 1.5 1.7 - - -
NORTH AMERICA 82.3 87.2 82.3 2.8 2.8 2.6 46.3 42.2 50.5
Canada 24.6 26.8 22.2 - 0.1 0.1 17.8 18.0 17.0
United States of America 57.7 60.4 60.1 2.8 2.7 2.5 28.5 24.2 33.5
EUROPE 209.3 228.0 201.9 9.6 7.4 9.6 36.7 47.1 31.0
European Union 129.5 138.5 136.0 6.8 5.3 5.5 16.1 20.0 21.0
Russian Federation 52.8 61.7 42.0 0.4 0.1 2.0 13.8 17.5 3.5
Ukraine 17.4 20.9 17.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.7 9.0 6.0
OCEANIA 15.6 22.0 23.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 10.8 14.0 15.0
Australia 15.3 21.7 23.0 - - - 10.8 14.0 15.0
WORLD 632.2 682.6 647.7 120.8 125.8 121.0 121.4 128.1 121.0
Developing countries 295.6 313.8 313.1 95.5 101.8 95.3 19.1 16.4 17.4
Developed countries 336.6 368.8 334.6 25.3 24.0 25.6 102.3 111.7 103.6
LIFDCs 245.7 265.1 262.1 53.1 56.6 52.0 4.0 1.5 3.6
LDCs 9.5 11.8 11.6 13.0 15.6 12.8 0.1 0.2 0.1
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 75
Table A2 (b). Wheat statistics
Total Utilization Stocks ending in Per caput food use
06/07-08/09 2007-2009 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2010 2011
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) (. . . . . . . . . . Kg/year . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 316.3 333.0 338.8 95.4 109.7 102.5 63.4 64.3 64.6
Bangladesh 3.1 3.4 3.2 0.9 2.2 2.5 18.6 19.4 18.3
China 109.3 114.2 116.6 53.0 57.0 55.7 64.6 64.6 64.9
of which Taiwan Prov. 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 46.1 46.9 47.3
India 75.4 79.6 81.5 16.3 19.0 18.0 58.4 59.9 60.7
Indonesia 5.0 5.2 5.5 2.3 2.6 2.6 18.9 19.4 20.3
Iran, Islamic Republic of 15.5 16.1 16.3 2.7 2.9 1.8 165.6 165.8 165.2
Iraq 5.3 5.4 5.5 2.7 2.3 2.5 131.1 130.7 130.6
Japan 5.9 5.7 5.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 41.6 41.3 41.3
Kazakhstan 7.3 7.8 8.2 3.3 6.6 5.0 147.4 151.3 151.5
Korea, Republic of 3.3 3.9 3.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 48.3 48.6 48.5
Pakistan 22.6 23.6 24.5 1.2 1.0 0.4 116.4 116.0 115.3
Philippines 2.7 2.8 2.9 0.4 0.6 0.6 25.6 25.5 25.6
Saudi Arabia 2.7 2.9 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.3 97.4 98.4 98.3
Thailand 1.0 1.3 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 11.4 13.9 14.3
Turkey 19.0 19.1 19.4 2.3 2.6 2.5 197.7 197.2 198.1
AFRICA 53.7 57.7 58.7 13.1 15.9 14.4 50.0 50.7 50.1
Algeria 8.0 8.5 8.8 2.8 2.7 2.1 207.5 209.5 210.3
Egypt 15.8 16.8 17.5 2.7 5.5 5.6 182.0 184.0 185.3
Ethiopia 3.5 4.0 4.0 0.2 0.6 0.5 39.9 41.1 40.9
Morocco 7.0 7.9 7.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 186.8 190.7 191.5
Nigeria 3.1 3.3 3.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 18.6 19.2 19.1
South Africa 2.9 3.0 3.0 0.5 0.8 0.7 57.7 57.3 57.3
Tunisia 2.8 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 213.5 217.1 216.9
CENTRAL AMERICA 9.9 10.1 10.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 46.0 46.4 46.0
Cuba 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - - 57.8 57.3 57.3
Mexico 6.3 6.4 6.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 50.2 51.1 50.6
SOUTH AMERICA 24.3 25.3 25.2 5.0 2.9 3.6 59.4 60.4 59.3
Argentina 4.9 4.8 5.0 2.8 0.2 0.9 116.8 116.7 116.8
Brazil 10.5 11.0 11.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 51.8 52.1 52.2
Chile 2.2 2.6 2.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 122.1 144.3 121.0
Colombia 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 27.2 27.1 26.5
Peru 1.7 1.8 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 57.4 57.3 56.6
Venezuela 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 56.5 56.0 56.8
NORTH AMERICA 38.8 38.2 39.5 18.8 34.4 29.1 83.0 79.5 80.4
Canada 7.7 7.3 7.6 5.9 7.8 6.0 86.6 81.1 79.7
United States of America 31.1 30.8 32.0 12.9 26.6 23.1 82.7 79.3 80.5
EUROPE 182.1 187.7 187.7 25.3 34.2 26.6 112.4 112.0 112.4
European Union 121.3 123.8 122.5 13.7 18.0 15.5 109.7 110.0 110.6
Russian Federation 38.0 43.4 44.8 7.0 12.0 7.7 115.0 115.4 115.2
Ukraine 11.6 12.2 12.1 2.6 2.8 2.4 122.5 123.0 123.3
OCEANIA 8.0 7.9 8.0 3.8 2.9 3.9 69.4 68.9 69.0
Australia 7.1 7.0 7.0 3.6 2.7 3.7 82.7 82.4 82.7
WORLD 633.2 659.8 668.0 162.5 200.9 180.9 67.1 67.4 67.5
Developing countries 371.1 391.2 397.9 106.5 118.0 112.0 59.3 60.1 60.1
Developed countries 262.1 268.5 270.1 56.0 82.8 68.9 97.7 96.8 97.3
LIFDCs 292.2 309.6 315.8 91.9 104.4 99.3 57.3 58.0 58.2
LDCs 22.3 25.5 25.4 5.5 8.1 7.1 25.5 26.7 26.3
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 76
Table A3 (a). Coarse grain statistics
Production Imports Exports
2006-2008 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009 2010
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 271.6 278.6 283.7 59.2 59.7 61.2 5.7 5.4 4.6
China 167.4 173.2 175.5 5.9 6.7 7.7 2.1 0.2 0.2
of which Taiwan Prov. 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.4 4.5 4.6 - - -
India 38.1 34.2 37.6 - - 0.1 1.7 1.0 1.0
Indonesia 13.7 17.6 18.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.5 1.6
Iran, Islamic Republic of 4.2 3.2 3.0 3.5 4.2 3.8 - - -
Japan 0.2 0.2 0.2 19.6 19.5 19.4 - - -
Korea, D.P.R. 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 - - -
Korea, Republic of 0.4 0.4 0.4 8.7 8.2 9.0 - - -
Malaysia 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 - - -
Pakistan 4.0 3.7 4.1 - - - - - -
Philippines 6.6 7.0 7.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 - - -
Saudi Arabia 0.4 0.4 0.4 8.4 9.1 9.0 - - -
Thailand 4.2 4.5 4.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.5
Turkey 12.0 12.2 12.1 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2
Viet Nam 4.3 4.4 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 - - -
AFRICA 100.3 111.1 114.9 16.1 15.1 16.0 3.8 4.9 6.0
Algeria 1.0 2.5 1.5 2.4 2.3 2.5 - - -
Egypt 8.1 8.6 8.9 4.8 5.0 5.5 - - -
Ethiopia 12.1 13.1 12.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1
Kenya 2.9 2.6 3.2 0.7 0.9 0.9 - - -
Morocco 1.7 3.9 3.0 2.1 1.7 2.0 - - -
Nigeria 20.7 21.0 20.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
South Africa 9.4 13.1 14.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 1.2 2.0 2.2
Sudan 5.1 3.1 4.9 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.3 - 0.1
Tanzania, United Rep. of 4.5 4.3 4.7 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
CENTRAL AMERICA 34.3 34.6 35.4 15.8 15.6 16.5 0.2 0.1 0.1
Mexico 30.0 30.1 30.8 10.8 10.6 11.7 0.1 0.1 0.1
SOUTH AMERICA 90.3 82.7 99.5 9.8 10.7 10.9 24.3 22.7 25.7
Argentina 24.0 16.5 28.6 - - - 15.0 14.9 15.4
Brazil 53.5 53.7 57.9 1.4 1.4 1.3 7.9 6.5 9.0
Chile 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.1 0.1 - -
Colombia 1.8 1.8 1.8 3.4 3.6 3.6 0.1 - -
Peru 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.7 - - -
Venezuela 3.0 2.5 2.6 0.9 1.4 1.6 - - -
NORTH AMERICA 345.4 372.1 354.8 5.3 4.5 4.2 64.8 58.6 57.5
Canada 26.2 22.6 22.1 2.3 2.3 2.1 4.6 3.2 3.5
United States of America 319.2 349.5 332.7 3.0 2.2 2.1 60.2 55.4 54.0
EUROPE 217.9 232.6 200.5 12.5 4.1 6.9 15.7 18.3 16.9
European Union 143.1 155.5 139.0 10.7 2.7 5.0 5.2 3.0 5.7
Russian Federation 34.3 33.4 19.6 0.4 0.3 1.0 2.5 2.7 0.5
Serbia 6.1 6.9 7.3 - - - 0.9 1.4 1.4
Ukraine 19.0 24.0 22.1 - - - 6.6 11.0 9.1
OCEANIA 11.2 13.5 13.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.8 4.7 5.2
Australia 10.7 13.0 12.7 - - - 3.8 4.7 5.2
WORLD 1 071.0 1 125.2 1 102.0 119.0 109.9 116.0 118.3 114.7 116.0
Developing countries 481.7 488.0 514.9 78.8 79.6 83.2 32.4 30.4 33.9
Developed countries 589.3 637.3 587.2 40.2 30.2 32.8 86.0 84.3 82.1
LIFDCs 333.6 345.8 356.4 17.2 17.1 18.8 6.9 5.9 6.9
LDCs 58.7 61.3 65.0 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.5
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 77
Table A3 (b). Coarse grain statistics
Total Utilization Stocks ending in Per caput food use
06/07-08/09 2007-2009 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2010 2011
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) (. . . . . . . . . . Kg/year . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 314.2 323.1 331.6 82.1 106.5 114.7 15.1 14.7 15.1
China 160.3 169.3 175.4 62.6 87.9 95.1 9.4 10.2 10.7
of which Taiwan Prov. 4.7 4.5 4.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 7.0 7.0 7.0
India 36.1 34.1 35.3 2.2 1.8 3.1 21.9 19.4 20.0
Indonesia 14.1 15.8 16.3 0.9 1.5 1.9 31.6 33.0 30.4
Iran, Islamic Republic of 7.5 7.7 7.3 0.8 0.9 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Japan 20.0 19.6 19.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 29.0 29.2 29.3
Korea, D.P.R. 2.2 2.1 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 52.2 51.8 52.7
Korea, Republic of 8.9 8.4 8.8 1.7 1.5 2.0 4.4 4.4 4.4
Malaysia 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.7 1.7
Pakistan 3.8 3.9 4.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 8.7 8.5 11.4
Philippines 6.9 6.9 7.0 0.8 1.3 1.5 15.8 15.9 16.1
Saudi Arabia 9.1 9.5 9.7 2.1 1.9 1.6 3.9 3.7 3.7
Thailand 4.0 4.1 4.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.8 2.7 2.7
Turkey 13.4 12.2 12.5 3.2 2.0 2.0 16.9 17.0 16.8
Viet Nam 4.9 5.3 5.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 9.8 11.4 11.4
AFRICA 112.7 119.9 123.4 12.6 13.5 14.6 76.8 77.1 76.8
Algeria 3.5 4.1 4.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 20.0 20.1 20.0
Egypt 12.8 13.7 14.2 0.8 0.8 1.0 46.8 46.8 46.6
Ethiopia 11.8 12.9 13.1 0.8 1.2 1.1 126.1 126.6 126.5
Kenya 3.7 3.8 3.9 0.5 0.1 0.3 87.5 85.7 85.2
Morocco 4.0 4.7 5.0 0.8 1.3 1.3 52.0 52.9 53.9
Nigeria 20.4 20.8 20.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 97.9 95.0 93.7
South Africa 9.7 10.4 10.9 1.7 2.4 3.3 97.4 98.1 97.8
Sudan 5.1 4.5 5.1 1.0 - 0.2 104.0 97.6 97.8
Tanzania, United Rep. of 4.3 4.4 4.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 89.7 87.3 87.6
CENTRAL AMERICA 49.4 51.1 52.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 101.8 102.1 102.0
Mexico 40.4 41.8 42.8 2.8 2.6 2.2 144.6 144.5 144.9
SOUTH AMERICA 72.4 76.5 81.6 9.0 10.4 11.6 25.4 26.3 26.4
Argentina 8.1 6.0 9.2 2.2 1.0 3.8 7.5 7.5 7.4
Brazil 44.8 49.7 51.3 3.9 6.8 5.2 23.2 24.8 25.1
Chile 3.6 3.9 3.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 18.8 19.0 18.8
Colombia 5.0 5.4 5.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 38.0 37.9 37.4
Peru 3.2 3.3 3.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 19.1 20.0 19.4
Venezuela 3.7 4.1 4.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 49.8 49.5 50.4
NORTH AMERICA 287.6 316.8 325.5 47.5 53.8 29.4 18.1 18.2 18.4
Canada 22.6 21.0 21.0 4.7 5.7 4.8 6.5 5.8 6.7
United States of America 265.0 295.7 304.4 42.8 48.1 24.6 19.4 19.5 19.7
EUROPE 214.9 217.8 203.6 26.8 34.2 21.1 22.4 22.5 22.4
European Union 149.8 153.5 148.9 18.4 24.6 14.1 17.5 18.1 18.3
Russian Federation 31.1 32.6 22.4 3.1 4.1 1.7 30.5 29.9 29.4
Serbia 5.2 5.3 5.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 20.9 20.9 20.9
Ukraine 12.4 12.6 13.0 2.0 2.8 2.9 43.3 42.8 42.6
OCEANIA 8.5 8.1 7.9 2.2 3.4 3.6 7.4 7.3 7.2
Australia 7.8 7.3 7.1 2.1 3.3 3.4 10.6 10.6 10.5
WORLD 1 059.7 1 113.3 1 125.7 184.0 225.3 198.4 27.9 28.0 28.3
Developing countries 512.4 533.9 551.8 103.0 129.0 139.0 29.1 29.2 29.5
Developed countries 547.3 579.4 573.8 81.0 96.4 59.4 23.4 23.4 23.4
LIFDCs 331.4 347.4 358.3 79.2 105.2 114.8 28.7 28.7 29.1
LDCs 57.5 61.9 63.7 7.4 7.7 7.9 54.7 56.2 56.1
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 78
Table A4 (a). Maize statistics
Production Imports Exports
2006-2008 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009 2010
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 221.7 233.4 237.0 44.3 42.6 46.2 5.1 4.5 4.2
China 156.7 164.0 166.0 4.4 4.5 6.0 2.0 0.2 0.2
of which Taiwan Prov. - - - 4.3 4.3 4.4 - - -
India 17.9 16.7 18.5 - - 0.1 1.6 1.0 1.0
Indonesia 13.7 17.6 18.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.5 1.6
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1.5 1.2 1.0 2.5 2.7 2.8 - - -
Japan - - - 16.6 16.2 16.5 - - -
Korea, D.P.R. 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 - - -
Korea, Republic of 0.1 0.1 0.1 8.5 8.0 8.8 - - -
Malaysia 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 - - -
Pakistan 3.4 3.2 3.6 - - - - - -
Philippines 6.6 7.0 7.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 - - -
Thailand 4.0 4.3 3.9 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.5
Turkey 3.9 4.3 4.0 0.8 0.2 0.4 - 0.3 0.1
Viet Nam 4.3 4.4 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 - - -
AFRICA 51.9 61.3 65.1 13.5 13.0 14.1 2.6 4.0 5.3
Algeria - - - 2.2 2.2 2.4 - - -
Egypt 7.1 7.7 8.0 4.8 5.0 5.5 - - -
Ethiopia 4.4 4.4 4.4 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Kenya 2.6 2.4 3.0 0.7 0.9 0.8 - - -
Morocco 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.7 1.6 1.8 - - -
Nigeria 7.3 8.8 8.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3
South Africa 8.9 12.6 13.6 0.6 0.1 - 1.1 2.0 2.2
Tanzania, United Rep. of 3.4 3.3 3.6 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
CENTRAL AMERICA 26.8 27.0 28.1 13.7 12.8 13.6 0.2 0.1 0.1
Mexico 23.0 23.0 24.0 8.7 7.8 8.8 0.1 0.1 0.1
SOUTH AMERICA 81.1 74.3 88.7 8.7 9.3 9.5 22.5 20.5 23.6
Argentina 19.4 13.1 22.7 - - - 13.4 13.0 13.5
Brazil 51.2 51.2 55.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 7.8 6.5 9.0
Chile 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 0.1 - -
Colombia 1.7 1.7 1.7 3.1 3.3 3.3 0.1 - -
Peru 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.6 - - -
Venezuela 2.5 2.0 2.2 0.8 1.4 1.6 - - -
NORTH AMERICA 312.6 342.6 329.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 55.2 51.1 50.5
Canada 10.4 9.6 10.9 2.2 2.3 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.5
United States of America 302.2 333.0 318.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 54.7 51.0 50.0
EUROPE 77.7 83.5 81.9 8.8 3.2 5.2 5.2 7.9 7.3
European Union 52.2 57.6 55.8 7.8 2.4 4.5 1.2 1.2 0.7
Russian Federation 4.6 4.3 3.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2
Serbia 5.7 6.4 6.8 - - - 0.9 1.4 1.4
Ukraine 6.9 10.2 11.5 - - - 2.3 5.0 5.0
OCEANIA 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - -
WORLD 772.2 822.8 830.8 91.6 83.3 91.0 90.9 88.1 91.0
Developing countries 370.8 381.8 404.0 61.6 60.4 65.6 29.2 27.1 31.0
Developed countries 401.4 440.9 426.9 30.0 22.9 25.4 61.6 61.0 60.0
LIFDCs 251.5 268.6 275.1 13.6 13.2 15.7 5.6 5.0 6.2
LDCs 28.2 32.5 33.8 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.8 3.0
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 79
Table A4 (b). Maize statistics
Total Utilization Stocks ending in Per caput food use
06/07-08/09 2007-2009 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2010 2011
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) (. . . . . . . . . . Kg/year . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 248.9 262.0 269.2 72.5 97.6 107.0 8.5 9.0 9.1
China 147.9 158.4 164.4 60.6 85.5 92.5 5.5 6.7 7.3
of which Taiwan Prov. 4.5 4.3 4.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
India 16.0 16.6 16.3 1.8 1.5 2.8 6.0 6.1 5.7
Indonesia 14.0 15.7 16.2 0.9 1.5 1.9 31.4 32.8 30.2
Iran, Islamic Republic of 3.9 4.1 3.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0
Japan 16.8 16.3 16.4 1.2 0.9 1.0 26.7 26.7 26.8
Korea, D.P.R. 2.0 2.0 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 49.7 49.8 50.7
Korea, Republic of 8.4 7.9 8.3 1.6 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9
Malaysia 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.7 1.7
Pakistan 3.3 3.4 3.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 6.9 7.0 10.1
Philippines 6.9 6.9 7.0 0.8 1.3 1.5 15.7 15.9 16.1
Thailand 3.8 3.9 3.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.3 1.3 1.2
Turkey 4.6 4.3 4.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 13.1 13.2 13.1
Viet Nam 4.8 5.2 5.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 9.7 11.4 11.4
AFRICA 63.2 69.0 71.8 6.9 7.9 9.7 39.0 40.0 40.0
Algeria 2.2 2.1 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 3.7 3.7 3.7
Egypt 11.8 12.8 13.3 0.8 0.8 1.0 43.3 43.4 43.2
Ethiopia 4.3 4.4 4.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 45.3 42.9 42.8
Kenya 3.4 3.5 3.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 81.8 79.7 80.4
Morocco 1.8 1.8 2.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 10.9 10.6 10.5
Nigeria 7.1 8.5 8.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 31.7 34.3 34.4
South Africa 9.1 9.8 10.3 1.6 2.2 3.1 92.6 93.4 93.2
Tanzania, United Rep. of 3.4 3.4 3.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 69.4 66.4 66.4
CENTRAL AMERICA 39.8 40.7 41.4 3.2 2.6 2.7 100.7 100.9 100.9
Mexico 31.2 31.8 32.7 2.2 1.6 1.5 144.2 144.1 144.6
SOUTH AMERICA 64.0 68.4 72.5 7.8 9.3 9.9 23.9 24.7 24.9
Argentina 5.2 4.0 6.2 1.6 0.5 2.5 7.3 7.3 7.3
Brazil 42.1 46.8 48.4 3.6 6.5 5.0 22.1 23.7 24.1
Chile 3.0 3.0 3.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 16.8 16.9 16.7
Colombia 4.6 4.9 4.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 36.4 36.4 35.9
Peru 2.8 2.9 3.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 13.0 13.1 13.0
Venezuela 3.2 3.6 3.7 0.3 0.3 0.4 49.3 49.0 49.9
NORTH AMERICA 263.1 293.4 303.6 40.5 45.1 22.9 14.8 15.0 15.1
Canada 12.3 11.7 12.0 1.6 1.8 1.9 3.4 3.3 3.3
United States of America 250.7 281.7 291.6 39.0 43.4 21.0 16.0 16.2 16.4
EUROPE 82.9 80.6 79.6 9.6 8.4 8.6 7.4 7.3 7.3
European Union 60.0 60.8 60.1 6.8 6.0 5.5 7.3 7.7 7.7
Russian Federation 4.6 4.4 3.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.8 2.8 2.8
Serbia 4.8 4.9 5.4 0.6 0.9 0.9 19.3 19.3 19.2
Ukraine 4.7 5.0 5.7 0.3 0.6 1.4 11.9 11.6 11.9
OCEANIA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.7 2.6 2.6
WORLD 762.4 814.6 838.6 140.6 171.1 160.9 16.6 17.2 17.3
Developing countries 387.0 411.0 425.4 87.3 114.2 125.0 17.3 18.0 18.1
Developed countries 375.4 403.6 413.2 53.3 56.9 35.9 13.8 13.8 13.9
LIFDCs 247.4 266.5 274.6 71.4 97.8 107.5 14.5 15.3 15.5
LDCs 28.0 31.4 32.2 3.7 4.8 5.1 25.4 26.6 26.6
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 80
Table A5 (a). Barley statistics
Production Imports Exports
2006-2008 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009 2010
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 20.8 20.1 19.3 12.8 14.5 12.9 0.6 0.8 0.3
China 3.6 2.9 2.7 1.4 2.1 1.6 - - -
India 1.3 1.7 1.3 - - - - - -
Iran, Islamic Republic of 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 - - -
Iraq 0.7 0.5 1.2 - 0.1 - - - -
Japan 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 - - -
Kazakhstan 2.1 2.6 1.5 0.1 - - 0.4 0.6 0.2
Saudi Arabia - - - 6.6 7.4 7.0 - - -
Syria 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.4 - - -
Turkey 7.6 7.3 7.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
AFRICA 5.1 9.4 6.9 1.6 0.8 1.0 - - -
Algeria 0.9 2.4 1.4 0.2 0.1 - - - -
Ethiopia 1.6 1.9 1.9 - - - - - -
Libya 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 - - -
Morocco 1.5 3.7 2.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 - - -
Tunisia 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.3 - - -
CENTRAL AMERICA 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 - - -
Mexico 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 - - -
SOUTH AMERICA 2.5 2.4 2.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0
Argentina 1.5 1.4 1.9 - - - 0.7 0.6 0.9
NORTH AMERICA 15.4 14.5 12.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 2.4 1.3 1.5
Canada 10.8 9.5 8.3 - - - 1.8 1.1 1.3
United States of America 4.6 4.9 3.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2
EUROPE 92.2 95.3 73.4 0.9 0.4 0.9 9.9 10.0 8.9
Belarus 2.0 2.0 1.8 - - - - - -
European Union 59.4 62.0 52.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 3.6 1.5 4.5
Russian Federation 19.0 17.9 8.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 2.0 2.4 0.3
Ukraine 9.8 11.7 9.0 - - - 4.2 6.0 4.0
OCEANIA 6.8 8.4 9.1 - - - 3.0 3.6 4.3
Australia 6.5 8.0 8.8 - - - 3.0 3.6 4.3
WORLD 143.4 150.8 124.5 16.8 17.2 16.0 16.7 16.3 16.0
Developing countries 25.5 28.6 26.9 13.5 14.5 13.0 0.9 0.9 1.1
Developed countries 117.9 122.2 97.6 3.3 2.8 3.1 15.8 15.4 14.9
LIFDCs 11.3 13.7 12.8 2.5 2.5 2.1 0.1 - -
LDCs 2.1 2.5 2.4 - - - - - -
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 81
Table A5 (b). Barley statistics
Total Utilization Stocks ending in Per caput food use
06/07-08/09 2007-2009 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2010 2011
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) (. . . . . . . . . . Kg/year . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 34.1 33.7 32.8 7.8 7.2 6.1 0.6 0.7 0.6
China 5.0 4.4 4.2 1.0 1.7 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.1
India 1.2 1.7 1.3 - - - 0.9 1.2 0.9
Iran, Islamic Republic of 3.6 3.6 3.4 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4
Iraq 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.1 - 0.1 4.1 4.0 4.1
Japan 1.6 1.5 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 2.2 2.4 2.4
Kazakhstan 1.8 1.9 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
Saudi Arabia 7.0 7.4 7.3 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.1
Syria 1.4 1.5 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 12.6 12.6 12.5
Turkey 8.3 7.3 7.5 2.4 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.1
AFRICA 6.9 8.7 8.5 1.7 2.6 2.0 3.4 3.4 3.4
Algeria 1.2 2.0 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.5 16.2 16.3 16.4
Ethiopia 1.6 1.9 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 15.7 16.4 16.1
Libya 0.4 0.4 0.5 - - - 13.3 12.9 12.6
Morocco 2.1 2.9 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 41.0 42.2 43.2
Tunisia 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.2 8.8 8.8 8.7
CENTRAL AMERICA 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - -
Mexico 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - -
SOUTH AMERICA 2.3 2.4 2.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5
Argentina 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.6 - - -
NORTH AMERICA 12.9 12.3 12.0 3.6 5.1 3.9 0.5 0.5 0.5
Canada 8.2 7.7 7.4 2.0 2.6 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.3
United States of America 4.7 4.6 4.7 1.6 2.5 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.6
EUROPE 81.8 83.8 75.4 12.2 18.2 8.2 1.2 1.4 1.4
Belarus 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 - - -
European Union 55.9 57.6 56.1 8.5 13.5 5.5 0.8 0.8 0.8
Russian Federation 16.2 16.9 10.0 1.8 2.3 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4
Ukraine 5.4 5.4 5.5 1.3 1.8 1.3 8.1 10.9 10.8
OCEANIA 4.6 4.2 4.6 1.6 2.5 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2
Australia 4.2 3.8 4.3 1.5 2.5 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
WORLD 143.5 146.1 136.9 27.2 36.2 23.5 1.0 1.1 1.1
Developing countries 39.2 40.6 39.9 8.6 9.1 8.0 1.0 1.1 1.0
Developed countries 104.3 105.5 97.0 18.6 27.0 15.5 1.1 1.2 1.2
LIFDCs 14.0 15.2 15.0 2.4 3.6 3.4 1.0 1.1 1.0
LDCs 2.0 2.5 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.6 1.7 1.7
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 82
Table A6 (a). Sorghum statistics
Production Imports Exports
2006-2008 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009 2010
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 10.8 9.6 10.4 1.6 1.9 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
China 2.3 1.6 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - -
India 7.4 7.0 7.5 - - - - - -
Japan - - - 1.3 1.7 1.4 - - -
AFRICA 25.7 23.4 25.5 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4
Burkina Faso 1.6 1.5 1.7 - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1
Ethiopia 2.7 3.0 2.9 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 -
Nigeria 9.4 8.7 8.7 - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1
Sudan 4.4 2.6 4.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 - 0.1
CENTRAL AMERICA 6.5 6.7 6.4 1.8 2.4 2.6 - - -
Mexico 6.1 6.2 5.9 1.8 2.4 2.6 - - -
SOUTH AMERICA 5.3 4.9 6.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.1
Argentina 2.7 1.8 3.6 - - - 0.9 1.3 1.0
Brazil 1.6 1.8 1.6 - - 0.1 0.1 - -
Venezuela 0.5 0.5 0.4 - - - - - -
NORTH AMERICA 10.6 9.7 8.6 - - - 4.9 4.2 3.8
United States of America 10.6 9.7 8.6 - - - 4.9 4.2 3.8
EUROPE 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 - -
European Union 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 - -
OCEANIA 2.3 2.7 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.7
Australia 2.3 2.7 1.2 - - - 0.6 0.8 0.7
WORLD 61.8 57.6 59.1 7.0 6.3 6.0 7.3 7.1 6.0
Developing countries 48.2 44.3 48.4 3.1 4.1 4.1 1.7 2.0 1.5
Developed countries 13.6 13.3 10.7 3.9 2.1 1.9 5.5 5.1 4.5
LIFDCs 36.1 32.4 35.3 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4
LDCs 14.8 13.0 15.0 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3
Table A7 (a). Other coarse grain statistics - millet, rye, oats and other grains
Production Imports Exports
2006-2008 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009 2010
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 18.4 15.5 17.1 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.1 - -
AFRICA 17.7 16.9 17.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3
CENTRAL AMERICA 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - -
SOUTH AMERICA 1.4 1.1 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - -
NORTH AMERICA 6.9 5.4 4.6 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.8
EUROPE 47.4 53.2 44.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6
OCEANIA 1.6 1.9 2.4 - - - 0.2 0.3 0.2
WORLD 93.6 94.1 87.7 3.5 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.1 3.0
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 83
Table A6 (b). Sorghum statistics
Total Utilization Stocks ending in Per caput food use
06/07-08/09 2007-2009 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2010 2011
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) (. . . . . . . . . . Kg/year . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 12.2 11.4 12.1 1.0 1.1 0.9 2.0 1.7 1.8
China 2.4 1.7 1.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.4
India 7.4 7.0 7.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.4 4.8 5.2
Japan 1.2 1.5 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 - - -
AFRICA 25.5 25.0 25.8 2.5 1.6 1.7 20.1 19.7 19.7
Burkina Faso 1.5 1.6 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 83.2 83.7 83.5
Ethiopia 2.7 3.0 3.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 27.1 28.3 28.0
Nigeria 9.4 8.7 8.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 46.9 43.1 43.2
Sudan 4.3 3.8 4.3 0.7 - 0.2 86.5 80.7 81.6
CENTRAL AMERICA 8.3 9.2 9.3 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0
Mexico 7.9 8.7 8.8 0.5 0.8 0.6 - - -
SOUTH AMERICA 4.6 4.4 5.2 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Argentina 1.7 1.0 1.9 0.4 0.2 0.7 - - -
Brazil 1.6 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.3 0.1 - - -
Venezuela 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - - - - -
NORTH AMERICA 5.8 5.9 4.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 - - -
United States of America 5.8 5.9 4.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 - - -
EUROPE 2.7 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
European Union 2.6 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
OCEANIA 1.9 1.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2
Australia 1.8 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 - - -
WORLD 61.1 58.5 58.8 6.8 6.2 6.1 4.2 4.0 4.1
Developing countries 49.1 48.2 50.5 4.6 3.7 4.0 5.1 4.9 5.0
Developed countries 12.0 10.3 8.3 2.2 2.5 2.1 0.3 0.3 0.3
LIFDCs 35.8 34.2 35.7 3.2 2.1 2.3 6.4 6.1 6.2
LDCs 14.3 14.6 15.4 2.2 1.4 1.6 14.1 14.3 14.2
Table A7 (b). Other coarse grain statistics - millet, rye, oats and other grains
Total Utilization Stocks ending in Per caput food use
06/07-08/09 2007-2009 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2010 2011
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) (. . . . . . . . . . Kg/year . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 19.1 16.0 17.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 4.0 3.3 3.6
AFRICA 17.1 17.1 17.3 1.6 1.3 1.1 14.3 13.9 13.7
CENTRAL AMERICA 0.2 0.2 0.3 - - - 0.2 0.2 0.2
SOUTH AMERICA 1.6 1.3 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.9
NORTH AMERICA 5.8 5.2 5.2 2.2 2.5 1.6 2.8 2.7 2.8
EUROPE 47.5 52.4 47.7 4.5 7.1 4.0 13.5 13.5 13.5
OCEANIA 1.5 1.7 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.4 4.3 4.3 4.2
WORLD 92.8 94.0 91.4 9.5 11.8 7.9 6.2 5.7 5.9
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 84
Table A8 (a). Rice statistics
Production Imports Exports
06/07-08/09 2007-2009 2007-2009
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2010 2011
average
2010 2011
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes, milled equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 401.5 410.7 422.3 14.2 14.5 14.1 24.4 24.2 23.5
Bangladesh 29.2 32.4 33.5 1.1 0.7 0.3 - - -
China 128.9 134.8 135.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.1
of which Taiwan Prov. 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1
India 96.4 89.1 100.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.0 2.3 2.6
Indonesia 36.1 40.6 41.0 0.8 0.5 0.6 - 0.1 0.1
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - -
Iraq 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.2 1.2 - - -
Japan 7.9 7.7 7.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2
Korea, D.P.R. 1.4 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 - - -
Korea, Republic of 4.6 4.9 4.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 - -
Malaysia 1.5 1.6 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - -
Myanmar 19.5 19.5 19.4 - - - 0.6 0.8 0.8
Pakistan 6.0 6.7 4.2 - - - 2.8 3.1 1.8
Philippines 10.7 10.2 11.1 2.0 2.5 1.9 - - -
Saudi Arabia - - - 0.9 0.8 0.9 - - -
Sri Lanka 2.3 2.5 2.8 0.1 0.1 - - - -
Thailand 20.6 20.8 20.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 9.3 8.3 9.0
Viet Nam 24.6 25.9 26.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 5.1 7.0 6.5
AFRICA 14.8 16.0 16.1 9.9 9.8 9.7 0.7 0.5 0.4
Cote d’Ívoire 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 - - -
Egypt 4.8 3.8 3.1 0.1 - 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.3
Madagascar 2.5 3.0 3.2 0.1 - - - - -
Nigeria 2.3 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.0 1.8 - - -
Senegal 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 - - -
South Africa - - - 0.9 0.9 1.0 - - -
Tanzania, United Rep. of 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.2 - - -
CENTRAL AMERICA 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 - - 0.1
Cuba 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 - - -
Mexico 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 - - -
SOUTH AMERICA 15.5 17.1 15.8 1.0 1.3 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.4
Argentina 0.8 0.9 0.8 - - - 0.4 0.5 0.5
Brazil 7.8 8.4 7.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6
Peru 1.7 2.0 2.0 0.1 - - - - -
Uruguay 0.9 0.9 0.8 - - - 0.8 0.7 0.7
NORTH AMERICA 6.2 6.9 7.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.1 3.5 3.6
Canada - - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - -
United States of America 6.2 6.9 7.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.1 3.5 3.6
EUROPE 2.4 2.9 2.9 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.2 0.3 0.3
European Union 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
Russian Federation 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 - 0.1 0.1
OCEANIA 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1
Australia 0.3 - 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
WORLD 442.4 455.6 466.7 30.5 30.8 30.3 30.5 30.8 30.3
Developing countries 425.2 437.6 447.9 25.8 26.2 25.5 27.1 26.7 26.2
Developed countries 17.2 18.0 18.8 4.7 4.6 4.8 3.5 4.1 4.2
LIFDCs 334.7 343.3 355.5 16.5 16.7 15.8 9.9 8.4 7.4
LDCs 65.2 71.0 72.3 7.1 6.4 6.1 1.9 2.4 2.4
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 85
Table A8 (b). Rice statistics
Total Utilization Stocks ending in Per caput food use
06/07-08/09 2007-2009 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2010 2011
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes, milled equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . .) (. . . . . . . . . . Kg/year . . . . . . . .)
ASIA 384.3 399.2 405.5 106.5 119.2 126.6 81.8 82.3 82.6
Bangladesh 29.7 32.4 33.6 4.7 5.8 6.0 151.2 157.3 161.3
China 126.1 128.0 128.9 59.5 70.6 77.2 77.1 76.9 76.6
of which Taiwan Prov. 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 46.6 45.6 45.3
India 89.2 93.3 95.3 16.8 15.0 17.5 73.5 74.0 74.2
Indonesia 36.5 39.8 41.1 2.8 4.5 4.9 155.8 158.2 161.2
Iran, Islamic Republic of 2.8 2.5 2.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 33.3 30.2 30.4
Iraq 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 40.0 41.5 42.1
Japan 8.4 8.2 8.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 60.9 60.0 59.9
Korea, D.P.R. 1.9 1.9 1.9 - - 0.1 74.9 73.4 73.1
Korea, Republic of 4.9 5.1 4.9 0.7 1.0 0.8 77.0 75.9 76.0
Malaysia 2.4 2.5 2.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 81.0 81.6 81.7
Myanmar 18.6 19.1 19.2 5.6 5.0 4.4 236.6 239.7 239.8
Pakistan 2.9 3.7 3.2 0.6 0.9 0.1 14.4 17.5 15.4
Philippines 12.5 12.3 13.3 2.2 3.1 2.8 118.0 120.5 122.0
Saudi Arabia 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 38.1 33.0 32.8
Sri Lanka 2.3 2.6 2.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 108.0 113.5 117.3
Thailand 11.6 12.2 12.2 4.6 5.9 5.6 128.0 131.9 132.6
Viet Nam 20.0 20.4 20.4 4.5 3.3 3.1 186.0 186.1 186.2
AFRICA 23.6 25.4 26.0 2.9 3.3 2.7 21.6 22.0 22.0
Cote d’Ívoire 1.3 1.3 1.3 - - - 59.9 57.2 57.7
Egypt 3.8 3.8 3.6 1.1 1.2 0.5 38.5 38.6 37.3
Madagascar 2.6 2.9 3.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 119.6 122.4 118.2
Nigeria 4.2 4.5 4.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 24.8 25.0 25.0
Senegal 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 83.6 83.2 83.4
South Africa 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.1 - - 16.2 17.1 17.1
Tanzania, United Rep. of 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 20.2 20.1 20.1
CENTRAL AMERICA 3.9 4.0 4.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 19.5 19.6 19.8
Cuba 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - - 72.0 71.9 72.8
Mexico 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - - 7.1 7.0 7.2
SOUTH AMERICA 15.0 15.6 15.4 1.4 1.6 1.2 36.1 36.4 36.1
Argentina 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 8.5 10.3 9.0
Brazil 8.5 8.3 8.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 42.6 40.4 39.7
Peru 1.8 2.1 2.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 56.7 63.1 63.3
Uruguay 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 11.7 13.4 13.7
NORTH AMERICA 4.3 4.2 4.5 1.1 1.2 1.7 10.8 10.3 11.0
Canada 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.0 9.8 9.7
United States of America 3.9 3.8 4.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 10.8 10.4 11.1
EUROPE 4.0 4.0 4.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 5.1 5.1 5.1
European Union 2.9 2.9 3.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 5.5 5.4 5.5
Russian Federation 0.7 0.7 0.7 - - - 4.8 4.8 4.9
OCEANIA 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.1 - - 14.9 14.1 14.9
Australia 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 - - 9.9 8.9 10.2
WORLD 435.7 452.9 460.2 112.9 126.2 133.2 56.4 56.8 56.9
Developing countries 417.2 434.6 441.4 109.8 123.1 129.5 67.5 67.9 67.9
Developed countries 18.5 18.3 18.8 3.1 3.2 3.8 12.5 12.2 12.4
LIFDCs 334.1 349.2 355.9 91.4 104.8 112.9 68.8 69.2 69.3
LDCs 69.6 74.4 76.4 13.5 13.9 13.6 67.2 68.0 68.3
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 86
Table A9. Cereal supply and utilization in main exporting countries (million tonnes)

Wheat
1
Coarse Grains
2
Rice (milled basis)
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
UNITED STATES (June/May) UNITED STATES UNITED STATES (Aug./July)
Opening stocks 8.3 17.9 26.6 45.1 47.1 48.1 0.9 1.0 1.2
Production 68.0 60.4 60.1 326.3 349.5 332.7 6.4 6.9 7.4
Imports 3.0 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.3 2.1 0.6 0.6 0.6
Total Supply 79.3 81.0 89.1 374.4 398.9 382.9 7.9 8.5 9.1
Domestic use 34.1 30.8 32.0 276.2 295.7 304.4 4.0 3.9 4.0
Exports 27.3 23.6 34.0 51.1 55.0 53.9 3.0 3.5 3.6
Closing stocks 17.9 26.6 23.1 47.1 48.1 24.6 1.0 1.2 1.5
CANADA (August/July) CANADA THAILAND (Nov./Oct.)
3

Opening stocks 4.4 6.5 7.8 4.1 6.4 5.7 4.2 5.3 5.9
Production 28.6 26.8 22.2 27.4 22.6 22.1 21.0 20.8 20.5
Imports 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.0 2.3 1.9 0.4 0.3 0.4
Total Supply 33.0 33.5 30.1 33.4 31.3 29.7 25.5 26.4 26.8
Domestic use 7.9 7.3 7.6 21.6 21.0 21.0 11.7 12.2 12.2
Exports 18.6 18.4 16.5 5.4 4.6 3.9 8.5 8.3 9.0
Closing stocks 6.5 7.8 6.0 6.4 5.7 4.8 5.3 5.9 5.6
ARGENTINA (Dec./Nov.) ARGENTINA INDIA (Oct./Sept.)
3

Opening stocks 4.0 1.3 0.2 3.0 2.2 1.0 16.7 21.4 15.0
Production 8.4 7.5 11.5 27.0 16.5 28.6 99.2 89.1 100.3
Imports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Supply 12.4 8.7 11.7 30.0 18.7 29.7 116.0 110.6 115.4
Domestic use 4.8 4.8 5.0 7.5 6.0 9.2 92.4 93.3 95.3
Exports 6.3 3.7 5.8 20.4 11.8 16.6 2.1 2.3 2.6
Closing stocks 1.3 0.2 0.9 2.2 1.0 3.8 21.4 15.0 17.5
AUSTRALIA (Oct./Sept.) AUSTRALIA PAKISTAN (Nov./Oct.)
3

Opening stocks 3.5 3.1 2.7 1.8 2.5 3.3 0.4 1.0 0.9
Production 21.4 21.7 23.0 13.8 13.0 12.7 7.0 6.7 4.2
Imports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Supply 24.9 24.8 25.7 15.5 15.5 16.0 7.3 7.7 5.1
Domestic use 7.1 7.0 7.0 8.6 7.3 7.1 3.5 3.7 3.2
Exports 14.7 15.1 15.0 4.5 4.9 5.4 2.9 3.1 1.8
Closing stocks 3.1 2.7 3.7 2.5 3.3 3.4 1.0 0.9 0.1
EU (July/June) EU VIET NAM (Nov./Oct.)
3

Opening stocks 9.5 18.5 18.0 15.8 23.0 24.6 4.4 4.3 3.3
Production 150.5 138.5 136.0 163.3 155.5 139.0 25.8 25.9 26.1
Imports 7.9 5.3 5.5 4.1 2.7 5.0 0.4 0.5 0.6
Total Supply 167.9 162.3 159.5 183.2 181.1 168.7 30.6 30.7 30.0
Domestic use 124.3 123.8 122.5 154.8 153.5 148.9 20.4 20.4 20.4
Exports 25.1 20.5 21.5 5.5 3.0 5.7 6.0 7.0 6.5
Closing stocks 18.5 18.0 15.5 23.0 24.6 14.1 4.3 3.3 3.1
TOTAL OF ABOVE TOTAL OF ABOVE TOTAL OF ABOVE
Opening stocks 29.7 47.3 55.3 69.7 81.1 82.7 26.5 32.9 26.3
Production 276.9 254.8 252.8 557.7 557.1 535.1 159.3 149.6 158.5
Imports 10.9 8.2 8.0 9.1 7.3 9.1 1.5 1.5 1.7
Total Supply 317.5 310.3 316.0 636.5 645.5 626.9 187.3 183.9 186.5
Domestic use 178.2 173.7 174.1 468.7 483.5 490.7 132.0 133.5 135.1
Exports 92.0 81.3 92.8 86.8 79.3 85.5 22.5 24.2 23.5
Closing stocks 47.3 55.3 49.2 81.1 82.7 50.7 32.9 26.3 27.8
1
Trade data include wheat flour in wheat grain equivalent. For the EU semolina is also included.
2
Argentina (December/November) for rye, barley and oats, (March/February) for maize and sorghum; Australia (November/October) for
rye, barley and oats, (March/February) for maize and sorghum; Canada (August/July); EU (July/June); United States (June/May) for rye,
barley and oats, (September/August) for maize and sorghum.
3
Rice trade data refer to the calendar year of the second year shown.
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 87
Table A10. Total oilcrops statistics (million tonnes)
Production

Imports Exports
06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 124.2 123.6 125.5 58.8 76.0 79.9 2.6 2.1 2.2
China

57.9 56.5 55.9 40.0 55.3 60.4 1.4 1.2 1.2
of which Taiwan Prov. 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.3 2.2 2.3 - - -
India 35.1 33.9 36.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4
Indonesia 8.0 9.1 9.6 1.5 1.9 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Iran, Islamic Republic of 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - -
Japan 0.3 0.3 0.3 6.4 6.2 6.1 - - -
Korea, Republic of 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 - - -
Malaysia 4.5 4.7 4.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 - - -
Pakistan 4.8 5.2 4.6 1.0 1.5 1.1 - 0.1 0.1
Thailand 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 - - -
Turkey 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.2 - 0.1 0.1
AFRICA 16.3 16.2 16.5 2.6 3.1 3.0 0.8 0.8 0.8
Nigeria 4.7 4.8 4.8 - - - 0.1 0.2 0.2
CENTRAL AMERICA 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.9 6.1 6.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Mexico 0.7 0.7 0.7 5.3 5.4 5.4 - - -
SOUTH AMERICA 118.7 142.9 139.0 3.4 1.7 1.3 42.1 49.1 50.2
Argentina 46.9 58.5 56.5 2.3 0.1 0.1 10.3 13.9 12.7
Brazil 61.7 71.5 70.3 0.1 0.1 - 26.6 28.1 30.5
Paraguay 6.2 7.9 7.3 - 0.1 0.1 4.1 4.9 5.1
NORTH AMERICA 104.8 116.6 118.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 42.6 51.4 53.7
Canada 14.8 17.2 15.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 9.2 10.2 9.8
United States of America 90.0 99.4 102.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 33.4 41.2 43.9
EUROPE 43.5 51.5 49.7 19.6 19.4 20.3 3.4 3.9 3.6
European Union 25.6 30.2 29.1 18.5 17.8 18.4 0.9 1.0 1.0
Russian Federation 7.9 8.1 8.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Ukraine 8.1 10.8 10.3 - - - 2.0 2.5 2.3
OCEANIA 2.1 3.0 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.4 1.8
Australia 1.7 2.6 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.3 1.8
WORLD 410.7 454.8 453.7 92.4 108.5 112.4 92.4 108.7 112.5
Developing countries 255.3 279.0 277.1 63.3 79.6 83.1 45.4 51.9 53.2
Developed countries 155.4 175.8 176.6 29.2 28.8 29.2 47.0 56.8 59.3
LIFDCs 127.9 127.5 128.9 43.7 60.6 65.0 3.2 2.6 2.7
LDCs 10.0 9.9 9.9 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
1
The split years bring together northern hemisphere annual crops harvested in the latter part of the first year shown, with southern
hemisphere annual crops harvested in the early part of the second year shown; for tree crops which are produced throughout the year,
calendar year production for the second year shown is used.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 88
Table A11. Total oils and fats statistics
1
(million tonnes)
Imports Exports Utilization
06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 33.0 35.9 36.9 37.2 41.6 43.4 77.7 85.2 88.3
Bangladesh 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - - 1.4 1.4 1.4
China 10.6 10.8 11.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 29.5 32.8 34.5
of which Taiwan Prov. 0.4 0.4 0.4 - - - 0.9 0.9 0.9
India 6.7 8.8 8.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 16.2 18.0 18.6
Indonesia 0.1 0.1 0.1 16.5 19.3 20.9 5.5 6.5 6.8
Iran 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.6 1.7
Japan 1.1 1.1 1.2 - - - 3.1 3.0 3.1
Korea, Republic of 0.8 0.9 0.9 - - - 1.1 1.2 1.2
Malaysia 1.2 1.9 1.9 16.3 17.9 18.4 3.9 4.2 4.0
Pakistan 2.0 2.0 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.4 3.7 3.8
Philippines 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1
Singapore 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6
Turkey 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.3 2.3 2.3
AFRICA 6.7 7.2 7.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 12.1 12.7 12.9
Algeria 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 - - 0.6 0.7 0.8
Egypt 1.5 1.8 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.8 2.1 2.2
Nigeria 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.0 2.0 2.1
South Africa 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
CENTRAL AMERICA 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 4.5 4.5 4.6
Mexico 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.9 2.9 3.0
SOUTH AMERICA 2.2 2.4 2.5 10.7 8.4 8.6 10.9 13.4 15.7
Argentina 0.1 - 0.1 6.9 5.4 5.8 1.5 2.8 3.9
Brazil 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.4 1.7 1.5 6.0 6.8 7.8
NORTH AMERICA 3.7 4.2 4.1 5.6 6.5 6.5 17.2 16.8 18.2
Canada 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.1 2.6 2.6 0.9 0.9 1.0
United States of America 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.9 16.4 15.9 17.2
EUROPE 13.3 13.4 14.2 5.0 5.9 5.5 33.9 36.3 37.2
European Union 10.8 10.9 11.7 1.9 2.1 2.1 28.4 30.3 31.1
Russian Federation 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 3.5 3.5 3.6
Ukraine 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 2.7 2.5 0.8 1.1 1.1
OCEANIA 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.1 1.1
Australia 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7
WORLD 61.9 66.0 67.6 61.9 66.0 67.6 157.3 169.9 178.0
Developing countries 42.1 45.6 46.6 50.1 52.4 54.4 100.1 110.7 116.4
Developed countries 19.7 20.3 21.1 11.8 13.6 13.2 57.2 59.2 61.6
LIFDCs 28.1 31.1 31.5 20.1 23.6 24.9 69.8 77.1 79.9
LDCs 4.2 4.3 4.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 7.0 7.1 7.1

1
Includes oils and fats of vegetable, marine and animal origin.
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 89
Table A12. Total meals and cakes statistics
1
(million tonnes)
Imports Exports Utilization
06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09 06/07-08/09
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
average
2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 24.2 27.1 28.6 13.6 13.0 14.2 103.0 118.4 126.5
China 2.4 3.2 3.3 1.4 1.8 1.9 52.0 65.3 71.0
of which Taiwan Prov. 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - - 2.4 2.3 2.3
India 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.6 3.8 5.2 11.1 11.8 12.4
Indonesia 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.4
Japan 2.4 2.6 2.8 - - - 7.1 7.0 7.0
Korea, Republic of 3.4 3.6 3.6 - - - 4.5 4.6 4.7
Malaysia 0.9 1.1 1.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.8 2.0
Pakistan 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.8 3.0 3.0
Philippines 1.8 1.6 1.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 2.3 2.3 2.4
Saudi Arabia 0.6 0.5 0.5 - - - 0.6 0.5 0.5
Thailand 2.6 2.9 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.5 4.7 4.9
Turkey 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.1 - - 3.1 3.2 3.3
Viet Nam 2.2 3.1 3.3 - - - 2.5 3.1 3.5
AFRICA 3.5 3.9 4.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 9.1 9.8 10.1
Egypt 0.5 0.6 0.6 - - - 1.7 2.0 2.1
South Africa 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.8 1.8 1.8
CENTRAL AMERICA 3.5 3.4 3.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 8.2 8.0 8.1
Mexico 1.9 1.8 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 6.1 5.9 6.1
SOUTH AMERICA 4.2 4.2 4.9 43.2 41.1 45.4 23.5 24.8 25.7
Argentina - - - 26.5 24.8 28.4 3.7 4.6 4.8
Bolivia - - - 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.4
Brazil 0.2 0.2 0.3 12.6 12.6 13.1 14.0 13.9 14.3
Chile 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.2 1.3
Paraguay - - - 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7
Peru 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.5 0.9 0.9 1.0
Venezuela 1.1 1.0 1.2 - - - 1.2 1.3 1.3
NORTH AMERICA 3.5 2.6 2.8 11.0 13.1 11.8 36.2 32.3 32.7
Canada 1.5 1.2 1.2 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.3 1.9 2.0
United States of America 2.0 1.5 1.6 8.4 10.4 8.8 33.9 30.4 30.7
EUROPE 32.3 30.4 31.5 4.2 4.9 4.4 60.5 61.5 63.4
European Union 29.7 28.0 29.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 55.2 55.4 56.5
Russian Federation 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.9 2.7 3.0 3.7
Ukraine 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6 2.2 2.1 0.3 0.6 0.5
OCEANIA 1.7 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.4 2.4 2.5
Australia 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - - 1.4 1.4 1.5
WORLD 72.9 73.4 77.1 73.2 73.3 76.9 242.8 257.3 269.0
Developing countries 31.5 34.5 36.6 57.7 55.0 60.4 133.1 150.5 159.8
Developed countries 41.4 38.9 40.5 15.5 18.4 16.5 109.7 106.8 109.2
LIFDCs 9.9 11.4 11.7 11.2 10.4 11.8 79.0 94.2 100.8
LDCs 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.2 3.4 3.4
1
Includes meals and cakes derived from oilcrops as well as fish meal and other meals from animal origin.

food Out|ook
„ November 2010 90
Table A13. Sugar statistics (million tonnes, raw value)
Production Utilization Imports Exports
2009/10 2010/11 2009/10 2010/11 2009/10 2010/11 2009/10 2010/11
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 52.5 61.3 76.5 77.2 29.4 26.5 9.7 9.5
China 12.8 13.9 17.0 17.0 1.9 2.0 0.1 0.1
India 17.6 26.0 24.6 24.7 6.0 1.0 0.1 1.1
Indonesia 3.1 2.8 5.3 5.5 2.2 2.9 - -
Japan 0.9 0.9 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.3 - -
Malaysia - - 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 0.2 0.2
Pakistan 3.3 3.6 4.3 4.3 0.8 1.5 0.1 0.1
Philippines 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
Thailand 7.3 7.0 2.7 2.7 - - 5.1 4.8
Turkey 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.2 - - - 0.1
Viet Nam 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.4 0.5 - -
AFRICA 10.8 11.1 15.5 16.1 9.5 9.7 5.0 3.9
Egypt 1.8 1.8 2.8 2.9 1.1 1.2 0.2 0.2
Ethiopia 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 -
Kenya 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 - -
Mauritius 0.5 0.5 - 0.1 - - 0.6 0.5
Mozambique 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
South Africa 2.3 2.3 1.6 1.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.9
Sudan 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2
Swaziland 0.6 0.7 - 0.1 - - 0.6 0.6
Tanzania, United Rep. of 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 - 0.1
CENTRAL AMERICA 11.7 11.8 8.9 9.1 1.3 1.0 4.1 4.0
Cuba 1.4 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.1 - 0.8 0.7
Dominican Republic 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 - - 0.2 0.2
Guatemala 2.3 2.4 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.5
Mexico 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3
SOUTH AMERICA 45.4 48.2 20.9 22.4 1.4 1.3 27.4 27.5
Argentina 2.4 2.5 1.9 2.0 - - 0.8 0.5
Brazil 37.2 39.9 13.1 14.6 - - 25.2 25.8
Colombia 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.6 0.1 - 0.9 0.9
Peru 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 -
Venezuela 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.4 - -
NORTH AMERICA 7.3 7.7 10.7 10.9 3.7 3.7 0.2 0.2
United States of America 7.2 7.6 9.4 9.5 2.4 2.3 0.2 0.1
EUROPE 24.0 23.8 28.8 28.8 7.6 6.6 3.0 1.7
European Union 17.2 16.6 18.5 18.7 3.7 2.7 2.0 0.7
Russian Federation 3.6 3.4 6.1 5.8 2.3 2.5 0.1 0.1
Ukraine 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.4 0.4 - 0.3
OCEANIA 4.9 4.9 1.3 1.5 0.4 0.3 3.8 3.8
Australia 4.7 4.6 1.0 1.0 - - 3.6 3.6
Fiji 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
WORLD 156.7 168.8 162.6 166.1 53.1 49.9 53.2 50.6
Developing countries 117.3 129.5 115.4 118.6 37.2 34.4 45.0 43.9
Developed countries 39.3 39.3 47.2 47.5 16.0 15.6 8.3 6.8
LIFDCs 49.3 58.8 72.6 73.6 24.4 21.1 5.2 5.1
LDCs 3.8 4.0 7.0 7.2 5.0 5.2 1.9 1.3
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 91
Table A14. Total meat statistics
1
(thousand tonnes, carcass weight equivalent)
Production Imports Exports Utilization
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 118 683 120 205 11 481 12 271 3 347 3 606 126 817 128 870
China 78 020 79 490 3 046 3 293 1 480 1 620 79 585 81 164
of which Hong Kong, SAR 179 183 1 735 2 001 726 755 1 188 1 428
India 6 816 7 026 2 2 708 812 6 110 6 216
Indonesia 2 658 2 701 110 118 6 5 2 762 2 814
Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 565 2 314 184 298 27 27 2 723 2 585
Japan 3 233 3 194 2 610 2 760 17 16 5 827 5 938
Korea, Republic of 1 952 2 034 731 772 25 13 2 658 2 793
Malaysia 1 303 1 334 230 244 33 33 1 500 1 544
Pakistan 2 540 2 318 21 21 26 29 2 536 2 310
Philippines 2 829 2 846 245 261 15 16 3 060 3 091
Saudi Arabia 766 779 782 820 56 57 1 493 1 542
Singapore 109 111 268 288 26 23 350 376
Thailand 2 165 2 206 5 5 619 668 1 552 1 544
Turkey 1 952 1 933 92 97 122 95 1 923 1 935
Viet Nam 3 477 3 461 625 671 33 33 4 069 4 098
AFRICA 13 485 13 672 1 818 1 918 132 147 15 170 15 443
Algeria 606 608 87 86 - - 693 694
Angola 130 144 360 383 - - 490 527
Egypt 1 278 1 256 238 262 9 10 1 507 1 508
Nigeria 1 165 1 186 2 2 - - 1 166 1 188
South Africa 2 234 2 273 290 313 38 49 2 487 2 537
CENTRAL AMERICA 8 270 8 376 2 385 2 576 308 340 10 347 10 613
Cuba 291 298 222 290 - - 512 588
Mexico 5 694 5 751 1 659 1 722 135 154 7 218 7 319
SOUTH AMERICA 36 255 36 295 790 857 7 824 7 781 29 221 29 370
Argentina 5 054 4 339 41 45 836 637 4 260 3 746
Brazil 22 383 23 092 39 48 5 971 6 110 16 450 17 030
Chile 1 366 1 377 202 220 277 255 1 291 1 342
Colombia 2 161 2 169 56 59 109 113 2 108 2 115
Uruguay 741 742 17 18 387 388 371 372
Venezuela 1 276 1 244 372 399 - - 1 648 1 643
NORTH AMERICA 46 065 45 951 2 382 2 355 8 243 8 401 40 204 39 905
Canada 4 450 4 447 652 650 1 664 1 715 3 438 3 383
United States of America 41 614 41 502 1 711 1 685 6 579 6 686 36 746 36 501
EUROPE 55 269 55 831 5 392 4 956 2 947 3 244 57 714 57 543
Belarus 907 932 58 71 182 176 784 827
European Union 43 802 43 966 1 748 1 702 2 591 2 907 42 959 42 761
Russian Federation 6 543 6 919 2 710 2 299 70 57 9 183 9 161
Ukraine 1 922 1 898 364 345 39 36 2 247 2 207
OCEANIA 5 868 5 880 359 381 2 550 2 545 3 678 3 716
Australia 4 048 4 025 179 197 1 673 1 660 2 554 2 561
New Zealand 1 341 1 371 50 50 874 883 517 538
WORLD 283 895 286 210 24 607 25 314 25 351 26 063 283 151 285 462
Developing countries 168 622 170 439 13 058 14 015 11 523 11 773 170 157 172 681
Developed countries 115 273 115 771 11 549 11 299 13 828 14 290 112 994 112 781
LIFDCs 107 142 108 937 3 908 4 001 1 835 2 062 109 214 110 876
LDCs 7 859 8 027 1 000 1 068 4 4 8 854 9 091
1
Including “other meat”.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 92
Table A15. Bovine meat statistics (thousand tonnes, carcass weight equivalent)
Production Imports Exports Utilization
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 16 266 16 065 2 736 2 966 906 1 021 18 039 18 017
China 6 425 6 189 410 503 109 124 6 706 6 568
India 2 848 2 950 1 1 683 785 2 166 2 166
Indonesia 443 454 89 100 1 1 531 554
Iran, Islamic Republic of 370 250 123 195 - - 493 445
Japan 517 510 689 688 7 6 1 196 1 193
Korea, Republic of 267 280 276 302 4 1 507 588
Malaysia 28 28 145 150 6 6 167 172
Pakistan 1 441 1 400 5 5 17 20 1 429 1 385
Philippines 284 287 118 115 6 7 395 396
AFRICA 4 829 4 882 551 549 71 72 5 309 5 358
Algeria 127 129 81 80 - - 208 209
Angola 74 87 101 102 - - 175 189
Egypt 355 330 180 190 5 5 530 515
South Africa 780 780 13 15 7 8 786 788
CENTRAL AMERICA 2 383 2 436 448 472 185 205 2 647 2 704
Mexico 1 700 1 731 323 335 52 61 1 971 2 005
SOUTH AMERICA 15 361 14 840 381 324 2 791 2 681 12 951 12 482
Argentina 3 376 2 532 2 2 580 348 2 798 2 186
Brazil 8 935 9 230 31 40 1 510 1 586 7 456 7 684
Chile 210 215 155 160 11 11 354 364
Colombia 936 940 2 2 106 110 833 832
Uruguay 590 600 2 2 348 357 244 245
Venezuela 320 320 180 108 - - 500 428
NORTH AMERICA 13 146 13 083 1 367 1 322 1 357 1 552 13 178 12 912
Canada 1 255 1 285 240 228 448 489 1 047 1 024
United States of America 11 891 11 798 1 123 1 090 909 1 063 12 127 11 884
EUROPE 10 929 10 933 1 557 1 630 340 354 12 146 12 209
European Union 7 927 7 895 495 490 150 160 8 272 8 225
Russian Federation 1 741 1 758 934 1 008 37 33 2 638 2 733
Ukraine 454 450 13 12 19 21 447 441
OCEANIA 2 805 2 770 47 49 1 726 1 710 1 126 1 108
Australia 2 148 2 118 9 9 1 255 1 242 902 885
New Zealand 637 632 9 10 470 466 177 176
WORLD 65 719 65 008 7 088 7 312 7 376 7 596 65 397 64 790
Developing countries 36 065 35 433 3 263 3 460 3 936 3 966 35 339 34 934
Developed countries 29 654 29 575 3 825 3 853 3 440 3 631 30 058 29 857
LIFDCs 17 377 17 319 763 777 999 1 134 17 141 16 963
LDCs 2 840 2 927 152 149 2 2 2 990 3 074
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 93
Table A16. Ovine meat statistics (thousand tonnes, carcass weight equivalent)
Production Imports Exports Utilization
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 7 631 7 687 333 365 49 51 7 915 8 001
Bangladesh 220 225 - - - - 220 225
China 3 868 3 904 103 110 15 15 3 957 4 000
India 719 720 - - 20 21 699 699
Iran, Islamic Republic of 497 498 1 2 - - 498 500
Pakistan 425 400 - - 8 8 418 392
Saudi Arabia 104 105 65 70 5 5 164 170
Syria 198 200 - - - - 198 200
Turkey 299 300 1 1 - - 300 301
AFRICA 2 256 2 278 47 45 15 15 2 287 2 308
Algeria 201 201 5 5 - - 206 206
Nigeria 258 264 - - - - 258 264
South Africa 131 131 12 10 1 1 143 140
Sudan 343 345 - - 1 1 342 344
CENTRAL AMERICA 122 123 34 30 - - 156 153
Mexico 97 97 21 16 - - 118 113
SOUTH AMERICA 332 322 7 7 36 29 303 300
Brazil 109 111 7 7 - - 116 117
NORTH AMERICA 119 113 103 106 9 9 213 210
United States of America 103 98 80 83 8 9 175 172
EUROPE 1 331 1 255 300 285 16 18 1 615 1 521
European Union 1 030 948 280 267 10 12 1 300 1 203
Russian Federation 183 185 10 8 - - 192 193
OCEANIA 1 155 1 184 40 40 707 725 488 499
Australia 675 675 - - 335 342 340 333
New Zealand 480 508 5 4 372 383 112 129
WORLD 12 948 12 963 863 878 832 848 12 978 12 993
Developing countries 9 733 9 789 417 445 100 95 10 049 10 139
Developed countries 3 215 3 174 446 434 732 753 2 928 2 854
LIFDCs 8 083 8 145 111 121 39 41 8 155 8 225
LDCs 1 495 1 515 7 7 1 1 1 500 1 521
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 94
Table A17. Pigmeat statistics (thousand tonnes, carcass weight equivalent)
Production Imports Exports Utilization
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 59 724 60 788 2 624 2 842 505 476 61 918 63 161
China 49 881 50 958 787 909 423 407 50 244 51 460
of which Hong Kong, SAR 120 122 546 628 185 150 481 600
India 481 483 1 1 3 3 479 481
Indonesia 650 670 1 1 1 1 650 671
Japan 1 310 1 280 1 085 1 128 1 - 2 414 2 415
Korea, D.P.R. 185 190 4 4 - - 189 194
Korea, Republic of 1 062 1 097 366 360 9 - 1 474 1 457
Malaysia 199 204 21 25 7 5 213 224
Philippines 1 710 1 700 54 70 2 2 1 763 1 768
Thailand 756 700 - 1 16 16 740 685
Viet Nam 2 553 2 550 45 55 33 33 2 565 2 572
AFRICA 1 080 1 096 172 180 11 12 1 240 1 265
Madagascar 55 55 - - - - 55 55
Nigeria 222 225 - - - - 222 225
South Africa 313 320 33 35 4 4 342 351
Uganda 110 110 - - - - 110 110
CENTRAL AMERICA 1 658 1 667 716 731 87 96 2 287 2 302
Cuba 179 182 27 30 - - 206 212
Mexico 1 162 1 161 574 580 72 82 1 664 1 659
SOUTH AMERICA 4 674 4 725 84 89 856 776 3 902 4 038
Argentina 230 230 32 36 2 2 261 264
Brazil 2 924 2 962 1 1 714 631 2 210 2 332
Chile 514 515 7 5 140 143 380 377
Colombia 179 180 9 7 - - 188 187
Venezuela 168 175 11 15 - - 179 190
NORTH AMERICA 12 387 11 988 604 629 2 751 2 901 10 236 9 716
Canada 1 945 1 902 182 200 1 016 1 022 1 111 1 080
United States of America 10 442 10 086 416 424 1 735 1 879 9 119 8 631
EUROPE 26 075 26 233 1 132 1 142 1 507 1 766 25 700 25 609
Belarus 380 385 26 40 45 40 360 385
European Union 21 888 21 976 38 40 1 413 1 680 20 513 20 336
Russian Federation 2 169 2 252 760 730 25 21 2 904 2 961
Serbia 620 620 15 16 6 6 628 629
Ukraine 527 500 156 167 - - 682 667
OCEANIA 460 465 212 230 35 34 637 661
Australia 324 325 164 182 35 34 453 473
Papua New Guinea 68 68 3 4 - - 71 72
WORLD 106 058 106 962 5 544 5 846 5 754 6 061 105 919 106 752
Developing countries 65 314 66 476 2 388 2 575 1 455 1 355 66 301 67 696
Developed countries 40 744 40 485 3 157 3 271 4 299 4 707 39 618 39 056
LIFDCs 53 471 54 589 534 619 301 313 53 705 54 895
LDCs 1 098 1 122 121 125 - - 1 219 1 247
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 95
Table A18. Poultry meat statistics (thousand tonnes, carcass weight equivalent)
Production Imports Exports Utilization
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 33 153 33 738 5 746 6 055 1 853 2 023 37 046 37 770
China 16 439 17 022 1 740 1 765 916 1 056 17 263 17 731
of which Hong Kong, SAR 44 45 891 989 490 550 445 484
India 2 624 2 726 - - 1 2 2 623 2 724
Indonesia 1 435 1 435 15 12 - - 1 450 1 447
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 682 1 550 60 100 26 26 1 716 1 624
Japan 1 394 1 392 797 903 9 10 2 183 2 285
Korea, Republic of 613 647 78 99 12 12 679 734
Kuwait 44 44 280 300 2 2 322 342
Malaysia 1 075 1 100 45 50 19 22 1 101 1 128
Saudi Arabia 580 590 620 647 40 41 1 160 1 196
Singapore 91 95 119 125 8 7 203 213
Thailand 1 134 1 208 1 1 596 644 539 565
Turkey 1 308 1 300 90 95 117 90 1 281 1 305
Yemen 140 145 110 130 - - 250 275
AFRICA 3 933 4 002 1 019 1 113 27 39 4 925 5 076
Angola 8 8 174 190 - - 182 198
South Africa 988 1 020 232 253 20 31 1 200 1 242
CENTRAL AMERICA 3 987 4 030 1 167 1 322 34 37 5 119 5 315
Cuba 33 34 180 240 - - 213 274
Mexico 2 633 2 659 725 776 9 10 3 349 3 425
SOUTH AMERICA 15 650 16 167 316 435 4 074 4 228 11 892 12 374
Argentina 1 263 1 389 7 7 214 246 1 055 1 150
Brazil 10 385 10 759 1 1 3 724 3 870 6 662 6 890
Chile 615 620 40 55 118 94 537 581
Venezuela 779 740 181 275 - - 960 1 015
NORTH AMERICA 20 165 20 516 299 288 4 089 3 901 16 423 16 920
Canada 1 212 1 223 204 196 181 185 1 235 1 234
United States of America 18 953 19 293 85 81 3 907 3 716 15 178 15 676
EUROPE 15 740 16 218 2 243 1 738 999 1 020 16 984 16 936
European Union 11 914 12 105 835 805 936 973 11 813 11 937
Russian Federation 2 360 2 635 964 511 7 2 3 318 3 144
Ukraine 894 900 195 165 19 14 1 070 1 051
OCEANIA 1 039 1 046 56 58 40 34 1 055 1 070
Australia 880 885 4 4 34 27 850 862
New Zealand 137 140 1 1 6 7 131 134
WORLD 93 668 95 717 10 845 11 010 11 116 11 282 93 443 95 461
Developing countries 53 640 54 815 6 911 7 455 5 927 6 252 54 622 56 016
Developed countries 40 028 40 903 3 934 3 555 5 189 5 030 38 821 39 445
LIFDCs 24 995 25 621 2 461 2 445 464 541 26 991 27 525
LDCs 1 807 1 829 695 762 - - 2 502 2 591
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 96
Table A19. Milk and milk products statistics (million tonnes, milk equivalent)
Production Imports Exports
2006-2008 2009 2010 2006-2008 2009 2010 2006-2008 2009 2010

average average average

estim. f’cast estim. f’cast estim. f’cast
ASIA 238.6 250.9 257.4 20.5 22.4 25.2 5.4 5.0 4.8
China 38.8 40.6 44.6 2.1 3.3 4.1 0.5 0.2 0.2
India
1
103.9 110.0 114.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6
Indonesia 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.2
Iran, Islamic Republic of 7.6 7.8 8.0 0.4 0.6 0.7 - -
0 1
Japan 8.0 7.9 7.9 1.4 1.2 1.2 - -
-
Korea, Republic of 2.2 2.1 2.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 - -
-
Malaysia - 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.2
Pakistan 32.2 34.4 31.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 - - -
Philippines - - - 1.2 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.2
Saudi Arabia 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.3
Singapore - - - 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.7 0.6 0.6
Thailand 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1
Turkey 12.2 12.5 12.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1
AFRICA 35.7 36.9 37.4 7.1 7.4 7.1 0.7 1.0 1.0
Algeria 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.4 1.8 0.7 1.0 1.0
Egypt 5.5 5.9 6.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.6
Kenya 4.1 4.2 4.4 - - - - - -
South Africa 3.1 3.1 3.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Sudan 7.4 7.4 7.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - -
Tunisia 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - 0.1
CENTRAL AMERICA 15.4 16.0 16.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 0.4 0.4 0.5
Costa Rica 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - - 0.1 - 0.1
Mexico 10.6 11.0 11.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 0.1 0.1 0.1
SOUTH AMERICA 57.2 59.8 61.3 1.6 2.0 2.0 3.2 3.0 3.1
Argentina 10.2 10.4 10.4 - - - 1.6 1.6 1.7
Brazil 26.8 28.9 30.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3
Colombia 7.0 7.5 7.5 - - - 0.1 - -
Uruguay 1.5 1.4 1.5 - - - 0.6 0.8 0.7
Venezuela 1.8 1.7 1.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 - - -
NORTH AMERICA 92.4 94.1 95.3 2.4 2.1 1.7 3.7 3.1 3.6
Canada 8.1 8.2 8.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
United States of America 84.3 85.9 87.1 1.9 1.7 1.4 3.5 2.9 3.5
EUROPE 215.5 215.0 217.2 4.7 4.5 4.9 12.9 13.2 14.5
Belarus 6.0 6.6 6.9 - - 0.1 1.7 2.2 2.2
European Union 151.1 153.0 154.9 1.4 1.2 1.1 9.5 9.4 10.8
Russian Federation 32.0 32.6 32.9 2.5 2.4 2.7 0.2 0.2 0.2
Ukraine 12.4 11.6 11.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.6
OCEANIA 25.0 26.1 25.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 14.8 17.8 18.5
Australia
2
9.6 9.4 9.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.7 3.7 3.3
New Zealand
3
15.3 16.7 16.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 11.1 14.1 15.2
WORLD 679.7 698.8 710.7 40.9 43.4 45.9 41.0 43.5 46.0
Developing countries 318.5 334.2 342.1 31.0 34.1 35.2 9.5 9.2 9.1
Developed countries 361.2 364.6 368.5 9.9 9.7 9.7 31.5 34.6 35.8
LIFDCs 239.8 253.0 260.1 11.1 12.8 14.3 4.2 4.6 4.6
LDCs 24.3 25.0 25.2 2.7 2.8 2.9 0.1 0.1 0.1

1
Dairy years starting April of the year stated (production only).
2
Dairy years ending June of the year stated (production only).

3
Dairy years ending May of the year stated (production only).
Note: Trade figures refer to the milk equivalent trade in the following products: butter (6.60), cheese (4.40), milk powder (7.60), skim
condensed/evaporated milk (1.90), whole condensed/evaporated milk (2.10), yoghurt (1.0), cream (3.60), casein (7.40), skim milk (0.70). The
conversion factors cited refer to the solids content method. Refer to IDF Bulletin No. 390 (March 2004).
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 97
Table A20. Fish and fishery products statistics
1

Capture fisheries
production
Aquaculture fisheries
production
Exports Imports
2007 2008 2007 2008 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010
estim. f’cast. estim. f’cast.
Million tonnes (live weight equivalent) USD billion USD billion
ASIA 46.3 46.9 44.2 46.7 35.0 34.1 37.7 32.9 30.5 33.7
China
2
16.0 16.0 31.7 33.1 12.1 12.2 14.3 8.3 8.3 9.6
of which: Hong Kong SAR 0.2 0.2 - - 0.5 0.8 0.8 2.4 2.5 2.8
Taiwan Prov. 1.2 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.9
India 3.9 4.1 3.1 3.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
Indonesia 5.1 5.0 1.4 1.7 2.5 2.3 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.3
Japan 4.3 4.2 0.8 0.7 1.7 1.6 1.9 14.9 13.2 14.0
Korea, Rep. of 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.5 2.9 2.7 3.2
Philippines 2.5 2.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2
Thailand 2.3 2.5 1.4 1.4 6.5 6.2 7.1 2.4 2.0 2.1
Viet Nam 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.5 4.6 4.7 5.0 0.4 0.5 0.5
AFRICA 7.2 7.2 0.8 0.9 4.8 4.6 4.8 3.0 3.1 3.4
Ghana 0.3 0.3 - - - - - 0.1 0.1 0.1
Morocco 0.9 1.0 - - 1.7 1.5 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.1
Namibia 0.4 0.4 - - 0.6 0.6 0.6 - - -
Nigeria 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9
Senegal 0.4 0.4 - - 0.2 0.2 0.3 - - -
South Africa 0.7 0.6 - - 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3
CENTRAL AMERICA 2.0 2.1 0.3 0.3 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.1
Mexico 1.5 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4
Panama 0.2 0.2 - - 0.4 0.3 0.3 - - -
SOUTH AMERICA 13.9 13.8 1.4 1.4 10.4 9.4 9.9 1.9 1.9 2.0
Argentina 1.0 1.0 - - 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Brazil 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.8
Chile 3.8 3.6 0.8 0.8 3.9 3.6 3.8 0.3 0.1 0.1
Ecuador 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.2
Peru 7.2 7.4 - - 2.4 2.2 2.3 0.1 0.1 0.1
NORTH AMERICA 6.0 5.5 0.7 0.6 8.5 7.8 8.5 16.2 15.1 16.4
Canada 1.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 3.7 3.3 3.7 2.0 2.0 2.2
United States of America 4.8 4.3 0.5 0.5 4.5 4.1 4.5 14.1 13.1 14.2
EUROPE 13.2 13.0 2.4 2.3 38.9 35.5 36.9 50.5 46.6 48.2
European Union
2
5.2 5.1 1.3 1.3 26.2 23.6 24.7 44.7 41.4 42.5
of which Extra -EU 4.4 3.8 4.1 23.9 22.0 22.2
Iceland 1.4 1.3 - - 2.1 1.7 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.1
Norway 2.4 2.4 0.8 0.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 1.2 1.1 1.2
Russian Federation 3.5 3.4 0.1 0.1 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.3
OCEANIA 1.3 1.1 0.2 0.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.3 1.4
Australia 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1
New Zealand 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1
WORLD
3
89.9 89.7 49.9 52.5 102.0 95.4 101.9 107.4 99.5 106.1
Developing countries 65.6 66.3 45.9 48.7 51.1 48.8 52.8 24.2 23.4 26.2
Developed countries 24.2 23.4 4.0 3.9 50.9 46.6 49.0 83.2 75.8 79.7
LIFDCs 35.4 35.9 38.8 41.0 19.8 19.5 21.7 8.2 8.4 9.4
LDCs 7.9 8.1 1.8 1.9 2.6 2.6 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.5
1
Production and trade data exclude whales, seals, other aquatic mammals and aquatic plants. Trade data include fish meal and fish oil.
2
Including intra-trade. Cyprus is included in the European Union as well as in Asia.
3
For capture fisheries production, the aggregate includes also 63 346 tonnes in 2007 and 59 408 in 2008 of not identified countries, data
not included in any other aggregates.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 98
Table A21. Selected international prices of wheat and coarse grains (USD/tonne)
Wheat Maize Barley Sorghum
Period US No. 2
Hard Red
Winter Ord.
Prot.
1
US Soft Red
Winter No.
2
2
Argentina
Trigo Pan
3
US No. 2
Yellow
2
Argentina
3
France feed
Rouen
Australia
feed Eastern
States
US No. 2
Yellow
2
Annual (July/June)
2004/05 154 138 123 97 90 132 123 99
2005/06 175 138 138 104 101 133 128 109
2006/07 212 176 188 150 145 185 185 155
2007/08 361 311 322 200 192 319 300 206
2008/09 270 201 234 188 180 178 179 170
2009/10 209 185 224 160 168 146 154 165
2009 – October 212 175 214 168 176 153 149 174
2009 – November 227 204 214 172 175 158 156 175
2009 – December 221 207 240 166 177 153 154 182
2010 – January 213 197 236 167 177 149 149 177
2010 – February 207 192 221 162 164 140 147 169
2010 – March 204 191 211 158 160 138 148 167
2010 – April 200 187 228 156 161 143 153 160
2010 – May 196 190 243 163 170 136 159 164
2010 – June 181 183 206 152 163 131 159 156
2010 – July 212 218 212 160 171 173 180 168
2010 – August 272 257 277 174 198 261 253 185
2010 – September 303 276 299 206 229 255 259 215
2010 – October 291 266 294 236 248 264 263 231
1
Delivered United States f.o.b. Gulf
2
Delivered United States Gulf
3
Up River f.o.b.
Sources: International Grain Council and USDA
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 99
Table A22. Wheat and maize futures prices (USD/tonne)
December March May July
Dec 2010 Dec 2009 Mar. 2011 Mar. 2010 May 2011 May 2010 July 2011 July 2010
Wheat
Sept 27 260 167 270 174 274 180 270 186
Oct 5 244 163 257 170 262 174 262 179
Oct 12 261 182 274 189 279 193 279 198
Oct 19 247 190 261 197 268 201 272 205
Oct 26 254 194 269 201 276 205 279 208
Nov 2 255 190 270 197 278 202 281 206
Nov 9 265 191 280 198 290 203 293 208
Maize
Sept 27 202 133 207 138 209 142 210 145
Oct 5 193 134 198 139 200 143 201 146
Oct 12 228 150 232 155 234 158 213 161
Oct 19 215 152 220 157 222 160 222 163
Oct 26 225 149 230 154 232 157 234 160
Nov 2 227 150 232 156 235 159 236 163
Nov 9 227 152 232 158 235 162 237 165
Source: Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT)
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 100
Table A23. Selected international prices for rice and price indices
International prices (USD per tonne) FAO indices (2002-2004=100)
Indica
Period Thai 100% B
1
Thai
broken
2
US long
grain
3
Pakisan
Basmati
4
Total High
quality
Low
quality
Japonica Aromatic
Annual (Jan/Dec)
2006 311 217 394 516 137 135 129 153 117
2007 335 275 436 677 161 156 159 168 157
2008 695 506 782 1 077 295 296 289 314 251
2009 587 329 545 937 253 229 197 341 232
Monthly
2009 – October 535 303 504 750 232 213 182 304 228
2009 – November 558 338 528 750 241 227 207 295 227
2009 – December 618 394 544 750 249 238 234 283 224
2010 – January 601 426 542 830 251 232 237 289 232
2010 – February 576 410 590 865 242 227 218 283 231
2010 – March 543 388 522 880 219 213 205 235 232
2010 – April 500 341 510 856 204 197 185 221 230
2010 – May 475 322 485 760 200 192 181 221 221
2010 – June 474 327 467 760 210 193 187 250 214
2010 – July 466 345 452 752 214 189 191 261 214
2010 – August 472 373 441 750 217 192 197 263 216
2010 – September 499 414 449 750 232 205 227 266 224
2010 – October 510 432 488 975 244 216 236 281 246
1
White rice, 100 percent second grade, f.o.b. Bangkok, indicative traded prices.
2
A1 super, f.o.b. Bangkok, indicative traded prices.
3
United States No.2, 4 percent brokens f.o.b.
4
Basmati: ordinary, f.o.b. Karachi.
Note: The FAO Rice Price Index is based on 16 rice export quotations. ‘Quality’ is defined by the percentage of broken kernels, with high (low) quality referring to rice with
less (equal to or more) than 20 percent brokens. The sub-index for Aromatic Rice follows movements in prices of Basmati and Fragrant rice.
Sources: FAO for indices. Rice prices: Jackson Son & Co. (London) Ltd., Thai Department of Foreign Trade (DFT) and other public sources.
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 101
Table A24. Selected international prices for oilcrop products and price indices
International prices (USD per tonne) FAO indices (2002-2004=100)
Period Soybeans
1
Soybean oil
2
Palm oil
3
Soybean
cake
4
Rapeseed
meal
5
Oilseeds Edible/soap
fats/oils
Oilcakes/meals
Annual (Oct/Sept)
2003/04 322 632 488 257 178 121 116 114
2004/05 275 545 419 212 130 105 105 104
2005/06 259 572 451 202 130 100 125 107
2006/07 335 772 684 264 184 129 153 148
2007/08 549 1325 1050 445 296 217 202 243
2008/09 422 826 627 385 196 156 144 180
2009/10 429 924 806 388 220 162 173 215
Monthly
2008 - October 394 928 545 338 156 151 153 162
2008 - November 378 824 488 323 155 143 133 154
2008 - December 366 737 508 307 172 137 126 154
2009 - January 411 788 553 369 202 152 134 169
2009 - February 386 744 571 378 215 144 131 172
2009 - March 380 728 590 346 208 141 129 165
2009 - April 410 802 699 383 220 151 147 175
2009 - May 472 893 799 441 230 174 168 196
2009 - June 504 894 734 445 227 184 160 200
2009 - July 467 834 641 428 186 169 144 198
2009 - August 474 891 722 437 186 171 156 204
2009 - September 424 850 676 428 192 155 150 206
2009 - October 427 891 676 413 187 158 152 207
2009 - November 442 939 728 422 196 164 162 216
2009 - December 448 931 791 425 219 167 169 224
2010 - January 435 919 793 407 243 163 169 221
2010 - February 406 915 804 393 230 154 169 214
2010 - March 410 920 832 381 200 156 175 213
2010 - April 412 900 826 378 205 157 174 224
2010 - May 406 864 813 353 226 153 170 214
2010 - June 408 860 794 342 194 154 168 206
2010 - July 426 911 811 361 225 162 174 211
2010 - August 457 1002 901 389 245 175 192 213
2010 - September 468 1036 910 398 277 180 198 218
2010 – October* 490 1149 985 413 288 191 217 227
* Preliminary.
1
Soybeans: US, No.2 yellow, c.i.f. Rotterdam.
2
Soybean oil: Dutch, f.o.b ex-mill.
3
Palm oil: Crude, c.i.f. Northwest Europe.
4
Soybean cake: Pellets, 44/45 percent, Argentina, c.i.f. Rotterdam.
5
Rapeseed meal: 34 percent, Hamburg, f.o.b. ex-mill.
Note: The FAO indices are calculated using the Laspeyres formula; the weights used are the average export values of each commodity for the 2002-2004 period. The
indices are based on the international prices of five selected seeds, ten selected oils and fats and seven selected cakes and meals.
Sources: FAO and Oil World.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 102
Table A25. Selected international prices for milk products and dairy price index
International prices (USD per tonne) FAO dairy price
index
(2002-2004=100)
Period Butter
1
Skim milk powder
2
Whole milk powder
3
Cheddar cheese
4
Annual (Jan/Dec)
2006 1 774 2 218 2 193 2 681 128
2007 2 959 4 291 4 185 4 055 212
2008 3 607 3 278 3 846 4 633 220
2009 2 335 2 255 2 400 2 957 142
Monthly
2009 - October 2 725 2 488 2 850 3 213 158
2009 - November 3 688 3 375 3 525 4 263 208
2009 - December 4 100 3 375 3 550 4 425 216
2010 - January 3 800 3 063 3 300 4 200 202
2010 - February 3 688 2 750 3 125 4 013 191
2010 - March 3 725 2 875 3 175 3 800 187
2010 - April 3 800 3 550 3 750 3 963 204
2010 - May 4 075 3 500 3 963 4 025 209
2010 - June 4 050 3 225 3 850 3 950 203
2010 - July 4 000 3 138 3 375 3 950 198
2010 - August 4 000 2 982 3 150 3 900 193
2010 - September 4 100 3 138 3 357 3 950 198
2010 - October 4 275 3 175 3 463 4 013 203
1
Butter, 82 percent butterfat, f.o.b. Oceania; indicative traded prices
2
Skim Milk Powder, 1.25 percent butterfat, f.o.b. Oceania, indicative traded prices
3
Whole Milk Powder, 26 percent butterfat, f.o.b. Oceania, indicative traded prices
4
Cheddar Cheese, 39 percent max. moisture, f.o.b. Oceania, indicative traded prices
Note: The FAO Dairy Price Index is derived from a trade-weighted average of a selection of representative internationally-traded dairy products
Sources: FAO for indices. Product prices: Mid-point of price ranges reported by Dairy Market News (USDA)
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 103
Table A26. Selected international meat prices
Pigmeat prices (USD per tonne) Bovine meat prices (USD per tonne)
Period United States Brazil Japan United States Argentina Japan Australia
Annual (Jan/Dec)
2006 1 986 1 964 4 540 3 803 2 270 5 685 2 547
2007 2 117 2 034 4 500 4 023 2 385 5 925 2 603
2008 2 270 2 834 5 117 4 325 3 615 6 275 3 138
2009 2 202 2 020 5 617 3 897 2 526 5 409 2 636
Monthly
2009 - August 2 246 1 889 5 533 3 883 2 357 5 494 2 727
2009 - September 2 169 1 956 5 762 3 855 2 252 5 406 2 727
2009 - October 2 105 2 071 5 798 3 648 2 476 5 566 2 648
2009 - November 2 121 2 179 5 890 3 739 2 581 5 845 2 756
2009 - December 2 169 2 167 5 830 3 862 2 813 5 830 2 800
2010 - January 2 229 2 316 5 753 3 986 2 930 5 874 2 951
2010 - February 2 233 2 309 5 813 4 076 3 016 5 813 3 125
2010 – March 2 286 2 385 5 786 4 337 3 270 5 963 3 349
2010 – April 2 533 2 576 5 619 4 426 4 438 5 961 3 596
2010 - May 2 557 2 563 5 705 4 428 4 562 6 172 3 478
2010 - June 2 624 2 499 5 780 4 577 4 440 6 000 3 197
2010 - July 2 574 2 473 6 010 4 514 3 387 6 147 3 210
2010 - August 2 576 2 578 6 152 4 653 3 765 5 988 3 365
Pig Meat Prices
UNITED STATES - Export unit value for frozen product - Foreign Trade Statistics of the United States Census Bureau
BRAZIL - Export unit value for pig meat, fob – A.B.I.P.E.C.
JAPAN - Pork Import Price (cif) : Frozen Boneless Cuts – A.L.I.C..
Bovine Meat Prices
UNITED STATES - Frozen beef, export unit value - Foreign Trade Statistics of the United States Census Bureau
ARGENTINA - Export unit value of frozen beef cuts - S.A.G.P.yA.
JAPAN - Beef Import Price (c.i.f.) : Boneless Cuts, fresh or chilled – A.L.I.C.
AUSTRALIA - Up to Oct 02: cow forequarters frozen boneless, 85 percent chemical lean, cif the United States port (East Coast) ex-dock
From Nov 02: chucks and cow forequarters - World Bank.
food Out|ook
„ November 2010 104
Table A27. Selected international meat prices and FAO meat price indices
Poultry meat prices (USD per tonne) FAO indices (2002-2004=100)
1
Period USA Japan Brazil Total meat Bovine meat Pig meat Poultry meat
Annual (Jan/Dec)
2006 734 1 852 1 180 107 117 95 114
2007 935 1 964 1 443 112 121 98 135
2008 997 3 064 1 896 128 139 108 175
2009 989 2 541 1 552 118 118 110 153
Monthly
2009 - August 1 022 2 318 1 734 119 119 111 156
2009 - September 1 002 2 311 1 695 118 118 111 153
2009 - October 974 2 191 1 683 117 117 109 149
2009 - November 1 019 2 165 1 743 120 121 111 153
2009 - December 1 029 2 036 1 470 120 124 111 142
2010 - January 1 052 2 196 1 725 124 128 112 155
2010 - February 1 048 2 341 1 707 125 132 114 157
2010 - March 1 034 2 392 1 693 129 139 115 157
2010 - April 1 043 2 430 1 742 135 148 120 159
2010 - May 1 055 2 649 1 748 137 148 121 165
2010 - June 1 011 2 675 1 706 137 144 124 162
2010 - July 1 038 2 742 1 788 134 140 125 167
2010 - August 996 2 836 1 752 138 144 126 166
Poultry Meat Prices
UNITED STATES - Broiler cuts, export unit value - Foreign Trade Statistics of the United States Census Bureau
JAPAN - Broiler Import Price, cif; Frozen, other than leg quarters - A.L.I.C.
BRAZIL - Export unit value for chicken, fob - A.B.E.F.
The FAO Meat Price Indices consist of three poultry meat product quotations (the average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights), four bovine meat product quotations
(average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights), two pig meat product quotations (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights), one ovine meat product
quotation (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights): the four meat group average prices are weighted by world average export trade shares for 2002-2004.
Stat|st|ca| append|x
„ November 2010 105
Table A28. Selected international commodity prices
Currency and
unit
Effective date Latest quotation One month ago One year ago Average
2005-2009
Sugar (ISA daily price) US cents per lb 02-11-10 27.83 21.35 22.89 13.13
Coffee (ICO daily price) US cents per lb 03-11-10 170.14 151.68 121.09 106.54
Cocoa (ICCO daily price) US cents per lb 03-11-10 130.87 129.66 152.97 95.71
Tea (FAO Tea Composite Price) USD per kg 30-09-10 2.85 2.83 3.18 2.10
Cotton (NYBOT)
1
US cents per lb 29-10-10 123.59 100.37 66.88 58.92
Jute “BTD” USD per tonne 29-10-10 800.00 820.00 630.00 425.40
(Fob Bangladesh Port)
Wool (64’s, London)
2
Pence per kg
1
Quotation is from NYBOT (New York Board of Trade) as of July 2007
2
Quotation discontinued as of July 2007
„ November 2010 106
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
Introduction
In the June 2010 issue of Food Outlook, an article entitled
“Futures Markets, Portfolio Diversification and Food Prices”
examined the growing use of the maize, wheat and soybean
futures and options markets at the Chicago Board of Trade
(CBOT) for investment purposes. Some have expressed concern
that this structural change in the markets’ composition has
had deleterious effects on pricing, and the article presented
some of the recent literature addressing this issue as well as
descriptive data on market participation made available on
a weekly basis by the United States market regulator, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
This note provides updated data from the CFTC with a
focus on how the market composition has changed between
2009 and 2010, and in the past six months, with respect to
the activity of “non-traditional” market users such as swap
dealers, money managers, and index traders.
Recent Price Volatility and Commentary on the
Role of Speculators in the Markets
Concerns about speculation in the futures markets are not new,
but recent price volatility has once again brought the issue into
the headlines. For example, on 8 October, the United States
Department of Agriculture released its World Agricultural Supply
and Demand Estimates and Crop Production reports. The
reports revised downward previous estimates of the production
and stocks of maize, wheat and soybeans. The estimates took
many analysts by surprise. At the CBOT that day, futures prices
for all three commodities rose by the maximum allowable
amount -- USD 0.30/bushel for maize, USD 0.60/bushel for
wheat, and USD 0.70/bushel for soybeans.
On 10 October, the Financial Times reported the results of
a poll which indicated that respondents in several countries
believe speculators are more responsible than weather,
government action or other factors for rising food prices. The
article cited the recent price rises, commenting that they have
raised fears of another food crisis.
Updated Data on Participation in the Maize,
Wheat and Soybean Futures Markets
Tables 1-3 provide data on the open positions, or “open
interest,” held by various participants in the three markets.
“Long” (or buy) positions in futures and options on futures
are combined. Data are drawn from three CFTC databases
permitting “snapshot” comparisons between April 2009
and April 2010, October 2009 and October 2010, and April
2010 and October 2010. Data are given for both 5 and 12
October 2010 to examine whether the limit day at the CBOT
on 8 October triggered any immediate adjustments in open
positions. The explanatory notes for the tables provide more
detail on the various categories of market participants.
Table 1 illustrates a big jump in year-over-year open
interest in all three markets and the increase in open interest
that occurred following the 8 October 2010 limit move. In
the maize market, the share of this open interest held by
commercial traders (i.e. hedgers) is sharply lower in October
2010. Conversely, the share held by non-commercials (i.e.
investors), and their net long positions, are sharply higher.
There were significant increases in soybeans, as well. Non-
commercials in the wheat market were net short on each date
examined.
Table 2 focuses on “Index Traders”; i.e. managed funds,
pension funds, certain swap dealers and other traders which
engage in futures trading, mostly on the long side, with
positions aimed at replicating commodity indexes, as part of
portfolio diversification strategies. These participants have
been broken out from the commercial and non-commercial
categories, and placed in a separate category. Index traders’
share of long open interest is lower in October 2010 than it
was in April 2010 or October 2009. These traders account for
a larger share of the long open interest in the wheat market
relative to maize or soybeans. Net long positions in October
2010 were large in all three markets.
Table 3 draws on a database that provides further insights
on market participation. Data are given on traditional market
users, “Producers/Merchants/Processors/Users,” as well as
“Swap Dealers” and “Money Managers”. Here, all swap
dealers are included in one category, those which do index
trading and those that do not. (Swap dealers that use the
markets for hedging are included in the commercial category
in Tables 1 and 2.) Money managers conduct futures trading
on behalf of investors. Market shares of swap dealers on
the long side have fallen somewhat in the past 6 and 12
months in all three markets. As for money managers, their
shares of long open interest and net long positions have
risen significantly in the case of maize. In the wheat market,
their relative importance in long open interest has declined
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FUTURES: THE ROLE OF SWAP DEALERS, MONEY MANAGERS
AND INDEX TRADERS IN THE UNITED STATES MAIZE, WHEAT AND SOYBEAN FUTURES
AND OPTIONS MARKETS – AN UPDATE
Contributed by Frank S. Rose, College of Business, Lewis University, Romeoville, Illinois, United States
„ November 2010 107
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
year-over-year but remained stable in 2010. In the soybean
market, the share of long open interest year-over-year has not
changed but the share has increased somewhat between April
and October 2010. Net long positions of money managers in
the soybean market increased substantially in October 2010.
Conclusion
Of the three CBOT markets considered, maize and soybean
futures and options experienced the most noteworthy
increases in the long open interest of “non-traditional”,
investment-driven participants in the past 6 and 12 months.
The data show a low, and often falling, share of long open
interest held by “traditional” participants, but much of their
activity is on the short side, hedging against price declines.
Going forward, it can be expected that investors seeking
portfolio diversification will continue to watch for opportunities
in futures and options. As recovery from the financial crisis
proceeds, investors’ risk tolerances are likely to change,
impacting the flow of investment funds into these markets.
Returns in the stock and bond markets, and the impact of
the US Dollar’s value on commodity prices are among the
considerations that will influence investors’ decisions on
market positioning.
It is important to note that this descriptive examination of the
composition of open interest in the maize, wheat and soybean
markets at the CBOT says nothing about the impact of the changes
in market participation on prices. More rigorous analysis would be
required before statements of cause and effect could be made.
References
Barchart, www.barchart.com.
Blas, Javier, “Speculators at Fault for Food Prices, says Poll,”
Financial Times, October 10, 2010, www.ft.com.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC),
“Commitments of Traders Reports (Futures and Options
Combined),” 2009 – 2010, www.cftc.gov.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC),
“Commitments of Traders Supplemental Reports (Futures and
Options Combined),” 2009 – 2010, www.cftc.gov.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC),
“Disaggregated Commitments of Traders Reports (Futures
and Options Combined),” 2009 – 2010, www.cftc.gov.
Rose, Frank S., “Futures Markets, Portfolio Diversification
and Food Prices,” Food Outlook; Food and Agriculture
Organization, June 2010, www.fao.org.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Crop
Production, October 8, 2010, www.usda.gov.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), World
Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, October 8, 2010,
www.usda.gov.
Explanatory Notes for Tables 1 - 3
Table 1: Open interest data were taken from the CFTC’s Commitments of Traders Reports (Futures and Options Combined) for
April 7, 2009, April 6, 2010, October 6, 2009, October 5, 2010 and October 12, 2010. Cash prices were taken from Barchart. Open
interest is the total of all futures and options contracts (5 000 bushels/contract) entered into and not yet offset by a transaction,
delivery or exercise. “Long positions” are outstanding buy positions. “Commercial Traders” are those who are hedging a cash
market position. “Non-Commercial Traders” are those holding positions for other reasons, usually investing.
Table 2: Data were taken from the CFTC’s Commitments of Traders Supplemental Reports (Futures and Options Combined).
In this database, managed funds, pension funds and other passive investors from the “Non-Commercial Traders” category,
and certain swap dealers and other non-traditional hedgers from the “Commercial Traders” category, are placed in the “Index
Traders” category. “Index Traders” establish predominantly long positions aimed at replicating commodity indexes for portfolio
diversification purposes.
Table 3: Data were taken from the CFTC’s Disaggregated Commitments of Traders Reports (Futures and Options Combined).
In this database, the open interest data are separated into four different categories. “Producers/Merchants/Processors/Users”
primarily engage in the production, processing, packing or handling of the physical commodity, and use futures and options to
hedge associated risks. “Swap Dealers” engage primarily in swap transactions related to the commodity, and use futures and
options to hedge or manage associated risks. “Money Managers” are engaged in managing and conducting futures and options
trading on behalf of clients. The database also has an “Other Reportables” category which includes other traders with large open
interest positions which are not placed in one of the other categories. This category is not included in Table 3 since its open interest
positions are primarily reported as spreads; i.e., long and short positions are nearly equivalent.
„ November 2010 108
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
Thousands of Contracts, with percent of total open interest in parentheses
CBOT Maize CBOT Wheat CBOT Soybeans
Total Open Interest
April 2009 1 252.0 417.1 476.9
April 2010 1 522.8 552.8 578.1
October 2009 1 378.0 430.2 607.9
October 5, 2010 2 110.8 624.8 802.3
October 12, 2010 2 357.1 649.0 882.9
Commercial Traders – Long Positions
April 2009 554.6 (44.3%) 185.5 (44.4%) 174.8 (36.7%)
April 2010 731.8 (48.1%) 293.4 (53.1%) 288.2 (49.8%)
October 2009 589.5 (42.8%) 203.9 (47.4%) 267.4 (44.0%)
October 5, 2010 718.4 (34.0%) 329.8 (52.8%) 320.3 (39.9%)
October 12, 2010 768.4 (32.6%) 337.0 (51.9%) 351.8 (39.9%)
Non-Commercial Traders – Long Positions
April 2009 562.0 (44.9%) 200.6 (48.1%) 252.7 (53.0%)
April 2010 642.6 (42.2%) 220.8 (39.9%) 241.0 (41.7%)
October 2009 661.7 (48.0%) 192.3 (44.7%) 288.7 (47.5%)
October 5, 2010 1 189.7 (56.4%) 249.3 (39.9%) 419.8 (52.3%)
October 12, 2010 1 367.1 (58.0%) 265.4 (40.9%) 467.1 (52.9%)
Non-Commercial Traders – Net Long Positions
April 2009 85.7 -1.1 75.3
April 2010 8.7 -49.3 10.5
October 2009 140.0 -23.0 31.4
October 5, 2010 434.6 -9.6 149.7
October 12, 2010 449.8 -16.1 162.7
Cash Prices (USD)
April 2009 4.05/bushel 4.62/bushel 10.47/bushel
April 2010 3.45 3.97 9.20
October 2009 3.93 3.27 9.85
October 5, 2010 4.62 5.97 10.33
October 12, 2010 5.56 6.51 11.37
Table 1: Open Interest of Commercial and Non-Commercial Traders; Selected Chicago Board of Trade Markets
„ November 2010 109
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
CBOT Maize CBOT Wheat CBOT Soybeans
Commercial Traders – Long Positions
April 2009 325.0 (26.0%) 55.6 (13.3%) 75.5 (15.8%)
April 2010 312.4 (20.5%) 67.7 (12.2%) 126.5 (21.9%)
October 2009 277.7 (20.2%) 46.6 (10.8%) 131.4 (21.6%)
October 5, 2010 294.8 (14.0%) 117.9 (18.9%) 146.6 (18.3%)
October 12, 2010 337.4 (14.3%) 121.0 (18.6%) 173.2 (19.6%)
Non-Commercial Traders – Long Positions
April 2009 497.6 (39.7%) 166.9 (40.0%) 223.6 (46.9%)
April 2010 567.9 (37.3%) 190.1 (34.4%) 211.9 (36.6%)
October 2009 573.5 (41.6%) 149.4 (34.7%) 255.6 (42.1%)
October 5, 2010 1 102.3 (52.2%) 218.1 (34.9%) 388.5 (48.4%)
October 12, 2010 1 279.3 (54.3%) 233.9 (36.0%) 435.1 (49.3%)
Index Traders – Long Positions
April 2009 294.0 (23.5%) 163.6 (39.2%) 128.5 (26.9%)
April 2010 494.1 (32.4%) 256.5 (46.4%) 190.8 (26.9%)
October 2009 399.9 (29.0%) 200.2 (46.6%) 169.0 (27.8%)
October 5, 2010 511.0 (24.2%) 243.2 (38.9%) 204.9 (25.5%)
October 12, 2010 518.8 (22.0%) 247.6 (38.1%) 210.7 (23.9%)
Index Traders – Net Long Positions
April 2009 251.3 136.3 111.2
April 2010 452.1 220.1 169.9
October 2009 355.2 175.6 145.9
October 5, 2010 480.5 196.3 193.0
October 12, 2010 479.7 197.7 194.4
Table 2: Open Interest of Commercial, Non-Commercial and Index Traders; Selected Chicago Board of Trade Markets
Thousands of Contracts, with percent of total open interest in parentheses
„ November 2010 110
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
Table 3: Open Interest of Producers/Merchants/Processors/Users Swap Dealers and Money managers; Selected
CBOT Maize CBOT Wheat CBOT Soybeans
Producers/Merchants/Processors/Users - Long Positions
April 2009 294.0 (23.5%) 45.7 (11.0%) 67.4 (14.1%)
April 2010 279.5 (18.4%) 59.1 (10.6%) 119.8 (20.7%)
October 2009 243.5 (17.7%) 38.4 (8.9%) 121.3 (20.0%)
October 5, 2010 252.5 (12.0%) 91.7 (14.7%) 135.2 (16.9%)
October 12, 2010 290.6 (12.3%) 95.5 (14.7%) 161.7 (18.3%)
Swap Dealers - Long Positions
April 2009 260.6 (20.8%) 139.7 (33.5%) 107.5 (22.5%)
April 2010 452.3 (29.7%) 234.3 (42.4%) 168.4 (29.1%)
October 2009 346.0 (25.1%) 165.5 (38.5%) 146.0 (24.0%)
October 5, 2010 466.0 (22.1%) 238.1 (38.1%) 185.1 (23.1%)
October 12, 2010 477.9 (20.3%) 241.5 (37.2%) 190.1 (21.5%)
Swap Dealers – Net Long Positions
April 2009 182.6 98.7 85.1
April 2010 389.6 174.8 141.8
October 2009 270.8 118.8 104.9
October 5, 2010 382.7 176.0 157.4
October 12, 2010 380.6 177.4 161.2
Money Managers - Long Positions
April 2009 216.6 (17.3%) 93.9 (22.5%) 127.0 (26.6%)
April 2010 292.6 (19.2%) 101.0 (18.3%) 120.4 (20.8%)
October 2009 305.0 (22.1%) 98.9 (23.0%) 141.0 (23.2%)
October 5, 2010 598.6 (28.4%) 118.3 (18.9%) 207.4 (25.9%)
October 12, 2010 646.6 (27.4%) 128.8 (19.9%) 221.3 (25.1%)
Money Managers - Net Long Positions
April 2009 61.1 7.5 67.4
April 2010 -18.2 -50.2 19.0
October 2009 132.0 -11.9 38.1
October 5, 2010 401.1 16.2 138.5
October 12, 2010 410.4 11.9 146.1
Thousands of Contracts, with percent of total open interest in parentheses
„ November 2010 111
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
OCEAN FREIGHT MARKET
(December 2009 – mid-May 2010)
While remaining volatile, ocean freight rates for grains and
oilseeds eased between mid-May and October 2010, reflecting
surplus tonnage capacity and the northern hemisphere
summer slowdown in chartering activity. In June and July
dry bulk rates fell sharply in all market sectors, especially for
larger-sized tonnage; the leading negative factors included
weaker demand for minerals caused by higher prices for raw
materials, a reduction in steel output in China and a build-
up of prompt tonnage. The arrival of newly-built ships,
which this year are expected to be more than double those
commissioned in 2009, added to the bearish sentiment.
In August, however, Capesize and Panamax rates increased
markedly due to a renewed surge in demand for minerals,
both in Asia and Europe, as well as a tightening tonnage
supply in the Pacific. Despite steady demand for grains and
oilseeds, handysize rates showed only a modest rise as surplus
spot tonnage increased, particularly in the Atlantic, on routes
from the US Gulf and out of South America. Following a
sharp drop in Black Sea grain exports, additional volumes
were shipped from the EU and US.
The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) in mid-July having dipped to its
lowest point in 15 months, bounced back in August, mainly
because of increased Capesize activity. However, by the end of
October it was still nearly one-third lower than in May. Over
the same period, the IGC Grain Freight Index (GFI)
1
declined
by only 13 percent.
In June/July, Panamax rates fell in both basins due to an
oversupply of tonnage, with owners struggling to find cargoes,
largely due to seasonal factors. Towards August, however, the
sector found some support from improved demand, higher
freight futures and some tightening in tonnage availability.
Due to Black Sea cancellations, after the Russian Federation’s
export ban, several buyers looked for wheat tonnage out
OCEAN FREIGHT RATES
Contributed by the International Grains Council (www.igc.org.uk)
of Argentina and other origins. However, the rise in rates
was short-lived: the market fell back in mid-September due
to reduced trading activity and excess tonnage, particularly
in the US Gulf, as more ships headed into the area. Heavy
September rains delayed loading in the Brazilian ports of
Santos and Paranagua, creating considerable congestion. In
the six months to the end of October, rates for transatlantic
roundtrips fell by more than half to about USD 17 700 daily.
In Southeast Asia, rates remained weak in October due to the
oversupply of tonnage, particularly on routes from Indonesia.
The Atlantic Handysize/Supramax market, after falling
in mid-2010, remained depressed, despite some increase
in chartering activity on routes from the US Gulf and South
America in September. The weakness was largely attributed
to excess fleet capacity, with a number of ballasters looking
for cargoes, notably in the eastern Mediterranean. October
grain fixtures included a cargo from Argentina to the EU (Italy)
at USD 28.00/tonne, while business from the US Gulf to the
Mediterranean ranged between USD 27 500 and USD 28 750
daily. In the Pacific, a trip from China and Indonesia was fixed
at USD 20 500 daily.
Capesize rates fell most steeply in the middle of the year,
as China curtailed its mineral imports following a 23 percent
increase in iron ore prices. Tonnage overcapacity also weighed.
However, the sector rebounded in August after China stepped
up its purchases of thermal coal because of higher electricity
Ocean freight indices
October 2008-October 2010 (May 2005=6000)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
2010 2009 2008
Baltic dry index
IGC grain freight index
1
The GFI distinguishes grain routes from mineral and other dry bulk routes also
included in more general dry bulk indices such as the Baltic Dry Index (BDI). The
GFI is composed of 15 major grain routes, representing the main grain trade flows,
with five rates from the United States, and two each from Argentina, Australia,
Canada, the European Union and the Black Sea. Vessel sizes are adequately
represented, with ten Panamax rates and five in the Handysize sector. The GFI is
calculated weekly, with the average for the four weeks to 18 May 2005 taken as
its base of 6000.
„ November 2010 112
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
needs during the hot summer. In October, a reduction in iron
ore prices triggered restocking at China’s steel mills, further
boosting rates and almost returning Capesize levels to those
seen in May.
Contact person:
Yuri Makarov
Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7513 1122
E.mail: YMakarov@igc.int
IMPLIED VOLATILITIES
With concerns rising about the increasing un-predictability in
international markets, Food Outlook now regularly features an
analysis of implied volatility. Based on the expectation of major
commodity exchanges, the metric provides an insight into
which direction global markets for several key commodities
are likely headed as well as the uncertainty about future price
movements.
In the aftermath of the 2007/08 turmoil, implied volatilities
for wheat, maize and soybeans steadily fell after more certainty
was in reinstated into markets. Soybean volatility for instance
fell to a 32 month low in May 2010. However, soon afterward
when doubts began to emerge over Russia’s ability to meet
grain export commitments, followed by similar concerns over
United States maize prospects and with expected demand
outstripping soybean supply, implied volatility began to move
SELECTED ROUTES (monthly averages) USD/tonne
Brazil/EU ARAH US Gulf/EU ARAH US Gulf/Japan US Gulf/S. Korea
Vessel size Handysize Panamax Panamax Panamax
Oct'09 40 32 58 61
Nov'09 40 36 64 67
Dec'09 41 36 69 72
Jan'10 42 38 72 75
Feb'10 42 36 68 71
Mar'10 44 37 69 71
Apr'10 47 38 71 73
May'10 50 40 73 75
Jun'10 49 37 70 72
Jul'10 42 31 55 57
Aug'10 45 32 57 59
Sep'10 44 32 62 64
Oct'10 41 28 59 61
upwards again for all three commodities. As implied volatility
is measured as a percentage of the deviation in the futures
price (six months ahead) from underlying expected value,
under reasonable assumptions, one can say using the most
recent data in October ‘the market estimates with 68 percent
certainty that prices will change by 36 percent for wheat, 35
percent for maize and 28 percent for soybeans’.
In broad perspective, unpredictable events in the past few
months, many of which were profound, have translated to
higher uncertainty ahead for traders, but the scale of increases
in implied volatility suggest that markets to not expect that
the world is heading towards a repeat of the 2007/08 event,
at least for the moment.
„ November 2010 113
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators

Measuring Implied Volatility
Implied volatility represents the market’s expectation of how much the price of a commodity is likely to move in the future. It
is called “implied” because, by dealing with future events, it cannot be observed, and can only be inferred from the prices of
derivative contracts such as “options”.
An “option” gives the bearer the right to sell a commodity (put option) or buy a commodity (call option) at a specified price for
a specified future delivery date. Options are just like any other financial instrument, such as futures contracts, and are priced
based on the market estimates of future prices, as well as the uncertainty surrounding these estimates. The more divergent are
traders’ expectations about future prices, the higher the underlying uncertainty and hence the implied volatility of the underlying
commodity.
Does implied volatility matter? Prices of derivative commodities are determined by underlying expectations and uncertainties
about such expectations, pertinent to the market and the commodity. Hence, implied volatility, as reflected or inferred by the
prices of derivative contracts, is an important component of the price discovery process and is a barometer as to how traders
expect prices to evolve in the shorter term.
In a broad perspective, unpredictable events in the past few months, many of which were profound, have translated to higher
uncertainty ahead for traders, but the scale of increases in implied volatility suggest that markets do not expect that the world is
heading towards a repeat of the 2007/08 event, at least for the moment.
Implied volatilities (annual)
1990-2010
Implied volatilities (monthly)
October 2007 to October 2010
15
25
35
45
55
2010 2009 2008 2007
Wheat Maize Soybeans
Percent
0
10
20
30
40
10 08 06 04 02 00 98 96 94 92 90
Wheat Maize Soybeans
Percent
Implied Volatilities: 1990-2010 and May-2007 to May-2010
The Black-Scholes model was used to compute implied volatilities from Chicago Board of Trade underlying data. Key inputs and assumptions
are as follows: (i) 6-month time expiration on contracts; (ii) settlement premium for the call options ‘at the money’ i.e. with a strike price
nearest to the settlement price for the futures contract associated with the call option contract (mid-monthly prices were used); (iii) option
strike price; (iv) futures settlement price and (v) 6-month US treasury bill yields were assumed for the risk-free rate.
„ November 2010 114
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
FOOD IMPORT BILLS
Monthly fertilizers and crude oil prices
November 2008 to November 2010
Soaring crop prices in the past few months have begun translating
into higher demand for fertilizers. After remaining flat in the first
six months of 2010, international fertlizer quotations are on the
rise, especially those for urea and diammonium phosphate (DAP).
Rising petroleum and natural gas prices also contributted to their
strengthening after phosphate prices had been under strain from
large exports by China and increased supplies from Saudi Arabia.
Amples availabilities, however, are still bearing down on potash
quotations. With substantial pressure for larger global harvests
next year, fertilizer usage could further intensify, resulting in
higher fertilizer quotations. In addition, the prospect of additional
gains in crude oil prices could push the cost of derived nitrate
production, which would also shore up fertilizer prices in 2011.
0
30
60
90
0
300
600
900
2010 2009 2008
USD per tonne USD per barrel
Evolution of the US Dollar exchange rate
1
November 2008 to November 2010
The US Dollar has experienced a fair degree of volatility over the
past 12 months, but since June it has fallen interruptedly against
major currencies, losing around 7 percent of its value in real
terms. The decline in the dollar has given significant support to
commodity prices in world markets over this period.
80
85
90
95
2010 2009 2008
January 1980=100
1
Price-adjusted major currencies US Dollar index
Source: US Federal Reserve Sources: IMF, World Bank
Global cost of imported food could again
surpass USD 1 trillion in 2010
At USD 1.026 trillion, the forecast cost of importing
foodstuffs at the global level in 2010 would be some USD 133
billion or 15 percent more than in 2009, and only a fraction
short of the landmark USD 1.031 trillion reached in 2008.
Under a new methodology, which re-categorizes products in
concordance with international trade classifications, global
food import bills in 2010 are strongly characterized by sharply
rising expenditures on products other than cereals and stable
cereal costs, confirming the trend that emerged in the June
report.
On the back of sustained economic recovery and rising
freight costs, particularly in the latter half of the year, non-
cereals are expected to account for almost all the annual
growth in global food bills, with values foreseen to surpass
the record levels registered in 2008. The cost of imported
livestock products, especially dairy, is expected to increase by
almost USD 50 billion, under the combined effect of higher
import volumes and prices.
The composition of the imported food basket, by and
large, mirrors a return to economic growth in many countries,
with large increases expected for the high-value products. In
particular, expenditures on vegetables and fruits could climb
by USD 25 billion to USD 191 billion, firmly establishing this
product group as the most expensive in the globally traded
food basket. Strong gains are also anticipated for vegetable
oils and for fish products. In spite of soaring sugar quotations
since mid-2010, the annual rise in the global sugar bill
could be limited to around 8 percent owing to a foreseen
contraction in trade. In contrast, the world cereal import bill
in 2010 is expected to remain virtually unchanged from the
„ November 2010 115
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
Contact person:
Adam Prakash
Phone: +39-06-57054948
E.mail: Adam.Prakash@fao.org
previous year’s level. Compared with 2009, a reduction in
wheat traded volume and in rice quotations could offset
the impact of higher prices of wheat and coarse grains on
global cereal trade value. The recent turmoil in grain markets
is not expected to dent the overall benefit of relatively
stable expenditures on imported cereals in 2010.The cost of
Forecast changes in global food import
bills by type
2010 over 2009 (%)
Rising global demand for non-staple foodstuffs has boosted food
import bills to near record levels. Higher international prices for
livestock products and vegetable oils twinned with larger trade
volumes are likely to lead to much greater import costs for those
commodities compared to 2009. On the other hand, rice bills are
expected to fall by the end of the year, since quotations are still
foreseen to average lower than last year and transactions virtually
unchanged.
-15 0 15 30 45 60
Percent
Dairy
Meat
Wheat
Rice
Vegetables
and Fruits
Vegetable Oils
and Animal Fats
Oilseeds
Fish
Sugar
Coarse Grains
Forecast import bills of total food and major foodstuffs (USD billion)
World Developed Developing LDC LIFDC Sub-Saharan
Africa
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
TOTAL FOOD 892.8 1 026.0 587.0 676.9 305.8 349.1 22.5 24.9 136.1 163.6 25.1 27.8
Vegetable and Fruits 165.9 191.4 130.9 151.0 35.0 40.4 2.0 2.3 13.9 16.0 1.8 2.0
Cereals 127.9 128.8 60.0 61.8 67.9 67.1 8.5 7.5 29.1 25.6 9.9 9.6
Meat 113.7 133.8 84.4 98.1 29.3 35.7 1.4 1.7 6.9 8.4 1.7 2.0
Fish 93.8 108.2 72.3 83.4 21.5 24.8 0.4 0.5 7.2 8.3 2.3 2.6
Dairy 57.7 86.7 39.8 59.5 17.9 27.2 1.4 2.2 6.6 10.9 1.6 2.4
Vegetable, Oils and Animal Fats 66.1 81.8 31.3 38.7 34.8 43.1 3.4 4.4 21.8 27.9 2.5 3.2
Oilseeds 52.2 58.5 19.7 20.5 32.5 38.0 0.4 0.7 23.7 36.1 0.2 0.2
Sugar 38.6 41.6 21.8 24.2 16.8 17.4 2.4 2.8 9.1 10.7 2.4 2.6
purchasing food on the international market place for the
most economically vulnerable groups is also set to increase
in 2010. LDCs expenditures could register an 11 percent
rise, but at 20 percent, the foreseen rise in Low-Income Food
Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) bills would be the highest of all
economic groups, far exceeding the increase at the global
level. Putting this in a broader perspective, foodstuffs could
account for roughly 17 percent of all expenditures on imports
of vulnerable countries, compared with a world average of
only 7 percent. Much respite for them could come by way of
a considerable fall in the cost of importing cereals on account
of robust domestic production prospects, but much higher
expenditures on other foods easily counteract these gains.
With 2010 drawing to a close, attention is now on
prospects for next year. Sharp increases in international
quotations for grains, sugar and products in the oilseed
complex in recent months are already a cause for concern. It
is unlikely that the effects of higher prices will be contained
within their respective sectors, as many of these commodities
constitute major feedstock ingredients for the livestock or
biofuel sectors. With price increases largely reflecting scarcity
in export supply, global competition for securing foodstuffs is
set to intensify.
„ November 2010 116
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2009 2008 2007
2002-2004=100
Global food consumption
price index
FAO food
price index
The FAO global food consumption price index
and FAO food price index
October 2007 to October 2010
THE FAO PRICE INDICES
FAO Global Food Consumption Price Index
The FAO Global Food Consumption Price Index tracks
changes in the cost of the global food basket as portrayed
by the latest FAO world food balance sheet (see http://fao-
stat.fao.org.). After falling almost to a three-year low in June
2010, the index began rebounding sharply thereafter, reach-
ing a 24-month high of 214 points in October. This implies
that the cost of the typical food basket around the world is
now more than double its cost in 2002-2004. Rising grain
prices in recent months, which carry a higher weight in food
consumption, are responsible for most of the gain in 2010,
but across the board increases in quotations of most other
commodities, especially vegetable oils and animal fats, also
contributed.
FAO Food Price Index *
The FAO Food Price Index averaged 197 points in October
2010, up 25 percent from the corresponding period last year
and 4 percent above the September average. The Index climbed
for the fourth consecutive month, reaching its highest level in
27 months. The October average was only 7 percent, or 16
points, below its record high value of June 2008. International
prices of nearly all the commodities included in the index rose,
but in particular sugar, soybeans and coarse grains.
The FAO Cereal Price Index averaged 219 points in October
2010, 5 percent above the September average, but up as
much as 32 percent, or 53 points, from October 2009. Despite
increasing steadily in recent months, the Index still falls short of
the peak value of 274 points reached in April 2008. International
prices of all cereals increased in recent months with export prices
of barley, maize and wheat climbing fastest, mostly because of
production shortfalls in major producing countries, especially in
the CIS. Between July and October, prices of wheat and coarse
grains increased by 35 and 47 percent, respectively, while rice
prices gained 14 percent.
The FAO Oils/Fats Price Index averaged 217 points in October
2010, which is high in historic terms. Compared with October
2009 the index was up 66 points or 43 percent, remaining,
however, some 23 percent below the June 2008 peak. The
firmness in prices is the result of relatively slow growth in
global oils/fats production, not keeping pace with a sustained
expansion in demand from both food and biodiesel sectors.
The FAO Meat Price Index averaged 138 points in October
2010, up 12 percent from January and 18 percent from October
last year. International poultry and pig meat prices experienced
a steady upward trend all through the year; reflecting in the
early months the recovering world economy and more recently
a tightening of supplies due to increasing production costs.
Beef and ovine meat prices constrained by tight supplies from
reduced herds remained at firm levels.
The FAO Dairy Price Index averaged 203 points in October
2010. The index hovered around 200 points between January
* The FAO food price indices are updated on monthly basis and are available on
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/
„ November 2010 117
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
100
170
240
310
380
2009 2010
2002-2004=100
110
140
170
200
230
2009
2008
2010
2007
2006
2002-2004=100
Dairy
Oils & Fats
Cereals
Sugar
Meat
Food Commodity Price Indices FAO Food Price Index
D N O S A J J M A M F J
O S A J J M A M F J D N O
and October 2010, reaching a mean of 199 over the period,
56 percent more than in January-October 2009. The strength
reflected a dynamic demand from Asia and some oil exporting
countries and relatively tight world availabilities for export.
Despite their 2010 rally, in October dairy prices were still 25
percent cheaper than their November 2007 peak. However, at
USD 4150 per tonne in October, butter prices had overshoot
that record by 3 percent.
The FAO Sugar Price Index averaged 345 points in October
2010, up 7 percent from the corresponding period last year,
but still 8 percent down from the 30-year peak reached in
January 2010. International sugar prices rose steadily between
May 2010 and October 2010 on the back of deteriorating
supply prospects for the new 2010/11 season and an expected
increase in import demand.
The FAO Food Price Index is a measure of the
monthly change in international prices of a basket
of food commodities.
The FAO Food Commodity Price Indices show
changes in monthly international prices of major
food commodities.
„ November 2010 118
Market |nd|cators
Market indicators
Food Price Index
1
Meat
2
Dairy
3
Cereals
4
Oils and Fats
5
Sugar
6
2000 90 94 95 85 68 116
2001 92 94 107 86 68 123
2002 90 90 82 95 87 98
2003 98 99 95 98 101 101
2004 111 111 123 107 112 102
2005 115 113 135 103 104 140
2006 122 107 128 121 112 210
2007 154 112 212 167 169 143
2008 191 128 220 239 225 182
2009 152 118 142 174 150 257
2009 October 157 117 158 166 152 321
November 169 120 208 171 162 316
December 172 120 216 171 169 334
2010 January 174 124 202 170 169 376
February 170 125 191 164 169 361
March 163 129 187 158 175 265
April 165 135 204 155 174 233
May 164 137 209 155 170 216
June 163 137 203 151 168 225
July 167 134 198 163 174 247
August 177 138 193 185 192 263
September 189 138 198 208 198 318
October 197 138 203 219 217 345
FAO Food Price Index
1
Food Price Index: Consists of the average of six commodity group price indices mentioned above weighted with the average export shares of each of the groups for
2002-2004: in total 55 commodity quotations considered by FAO Commodity Specialists as representing the international prices of the food commodities noted are
included in the overall index.
2
Meat Price Index: Consists of three poultry meat product quotations (the average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights), four bovine meat product quotations
(average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights), two pigmeat product quotations (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights), one ovine meat product
quotation (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights): the four meat group average prices are weighted by world average export trade shares for 2002-2004.
3
Dairy Price Index: Consists of butter, SMP, WMP, cheese, casein price quotations; the average is weighted by world average export trade shares for 2002-2004.
4
Cereals Price Index: This index is compiled using the grains and rice price indices weighted by their average trade share for 2002-2004. The grains Price Index consists
of International Grains Council (IGC) wheat price index, itself average of nine different wheat price quotations, and one maize export quotation; after expressing the
maize price into its index form and converting the base of the IGC index to 2002-2004. The Rice Price Index consists of three components containing average prices
of 16 rice quotations: the components are Indica, Japonica and Aromatic rice varieties and the weights for combining the three components are assumed (fixed) trade
shares of the three varieties.
5
Oil and Fat Price Index: Consists of an average of 11 different oils (including animal and fish oils) weighted with average export value shares of each oil product for
2002-2004.
6
Sugar Price Index: Index form of the International Sugar Agreement prices with 2002-2004 as base.
Market indicators
For enquiries or further information contact:
Abdolreza Abbassian
Trade and market Division
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Via delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome - Italy
Telephone: 0039-06-5705-3264
Facsimile: 0039-06-5705-4495
E-mail: Abdolreza.Abbassian@fao.org or giews1@fao.org
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this report do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of
its frontiers or boundaries.
Food Outlook is published by the Trade and Market Division of FAO under Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS).
It is a biannual publication (June and November) focusing on developments affecting global food and feed markets. Each
report provides comprehensive assessments and short term forecasts for production, utilization, trade, stocks and prices on a
commodity by commodity basis and includes feature articles on topical issues. Food Outlook maintains a close synergy with
another major GIEWS publication, Crop Prospects and Food Situation, especially with regard to the coverage of cereals. Food
outlook is available in English, French, Spanish and Chinese.
Food Outlook and other GIEWS reports are available on the internet as part of the FAO world wide web (http://www.fao.org/) at
the following URL address: http://www.fao.org/giews/. Other relevant studies on markets and global food situation can be found
at http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation.
This report is based on information available up to early November 2010.

The Food Outlook report is a product of the FAO Trade and Markets Division. It is written by a team of economists, whose names and contacts appear under their respective market summary contributions. The report benefited from research support by many staff, namely, Claudio Cerquiglini, Julie Claro, Barbara Ferraiolo, Berardina Forzinetti, David Mancini, Patrizia Mascianá, Marco Milo, Shirley Mustafa, Fiorella Picchioni, Turan Rahimzadeh, Barbara Senfter and Stefania Vannuccini. Special thanks go to Rita Ashton for compiling the report and overall administrative support, as well as to Claudio Cerquiglini, for preparing the charts and statistical tables. Additionally, the team is grateful to Adrianna Gabrielli and Nancy Hart for their editorial assistance.

Unexpected production shortfalls driven by weather events negatively influenced the outlook for global cereal supply in the early months of the 2010/11 marketing season from July to October. Rarely have markets exhibited this level of uncertainty and sudden turns in such a brief period of time. World cereal production this year, which is currently put at 2 216 million tonnes, is 2 percent below the previous year’s level and, although it represents the third largest crop on record, it is 63 million tonnes less than the forecast reported in the June 2010 Food Outlook. Most of the downward revision, involving wheat and coarse grains, following cuts in production in major grain producing countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and disappointing yields in the EU, Canada and the United States. As production numbers were trimmed, policy responses in the form of export restrictions by some countries also contributed to anxiety in world markets. International prices surged rapidly, renewing worries over the tightening cereal supply and demand balance. In recent weeks, developments in other food markets and the slide in the US Dollar have further underpinned cereal prices and volatility. Against this background, the size of next year’s harvest becomes increasingly critical. For stocks to be replenished and prices to return to more normal levels, large production expansions are needed in 2011, especially for wheat and major coarse grains.

World cereal market at a glance 1
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Change 2010/11 over 2009/10

estim.

f’cast

million tonnes

%

WORLD BALANCE Production Trade
2

2 285.5 281.3 2 181.8 1 027.6 758.0 396.2 520.4

2 263.4 273.6 2 226.0 1 040.5 761.1 424.3 552.4

2 216.4 267.3 2 253.8 1 056.6 764.0 433.2 512.5

-2.1 -2.3 1.3 1.5 0.4 2.1 -7.2

Total utilization Food Feed Other uses Ending stocks

SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year)
3

152.1 155.9 23.4 17.8

152.2 155.9 24.5 17.7

152.7 156.5 22.5 14.9

0.3 0.4

World stock-to-use ratio (%) Major exporters’ stock-todisappearance ratio (%) FAO cereal price index (2002-2004=100)

2008

2009

2010 Jan-Oct

Change:
Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 %

238
1 2

174

173

-1

Rice in milled equivalent Trade data refer to exports based on a July/June marketing season for wheat and coarse grains and on a January/December marketing season for rice 3 Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries

Cereal production, utilization and stocks
Million tonnes 2300 Million tonnes 800

2200

700

2100

600

Contact persons: Abdolreza Abbassian Phone: +39-06-57053264 E.mail: Abdolreza.Abbassian@fao.org Paul Racionzer Phone: +39-06-57052853 E.mail: Paul.Racionzer@fao.org

2000

500

1900

400

1800

00/01

02/03

04/05

06/07

08/09

10/11
f’cast

300

Production (left axis) Stocks (right axis)

Utilization (left axis)

3

5 27.8 682.mail: Abdolreza. which is 29 million tonnes less than predicted in the June 2010 Food Outlook.1 659.1 125. with prices surging most during August.8 139. Contact persons: Abdolreza Abbassian Phone: +39-06-57053264 E. stemming largely from unexpected production shortfalls due to unfavourable weather conditions in a number of major producing countries.org World wheat market at a glance 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Change 2010/11 over 2009/10 estim.4 0.mail: Paul.4 200.5 67.6 1.1 -5.3 235 154 159 2 * Derived from International Grains Council (IGC) Wheat Index 1 Trade data refer to exports based on a common July/June marketing season 2 Major exporters include Argentina. prices have remained firm.5 58.0 30.0 75. f’cast million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE Production Trade 1 684. wheat stocks have proven sufficient to cover this year’s decline in world output.World wheat markets have undergone major turbulence in 2010/11. Australia and the United States. Canada. although below the peaks reached in August.1 647. EU and the United States Wheat production. 10 percent below the 2010 level but still 25 percent above the critically low level of 2008. prices are expected to remain high and volatile for the remainder of the season.0 122. Australia.3 76.9 -5.8 461. when the Russian Federation decided to ban exports. The tightening of the wheat supply and demand balance gave rise to sharp price increases from the onset of the current season in July.3 2. FAO’s latest forecast for 2010 wheat production stands at 648 million tonnes.0 467. supported by the tighter supplies but also by the increase in maize prices and the slide in the US Dollar.7 73. Although global production in 2010 is set to decline by at least 5 percent from 2009.1 0.7 67.3 120. Since September.1 57.7 -9.7 121. especially in major exporting countries. World wheat closing inventories are forecast to fall to 181 million tonnes.0 668.3 179.3 18.3 17.Abbassian@fao.3 453.org Paul Racionzer Phone: +39-06-57052853 E.1 21.2 -0.Racionzer@fao.9 Total utilization Food Feed Other uses Ending stocks SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year) World stock-to-use ratio (%) Major exporters’ stock-todisappearance ratio (%) 2 Wheat price index * (2002-2004=100) 2008 2009 2010 Jan-Oct Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 67.9 180.4 58. utilization and stocks Million tonnes 700 Million tonnes 300 650 250 600 200 550 150 500 00/01 02/03 04/05 06/07 08/09 10/11 f’cast 100 Production (left axis) Stocks (right axis) Utilization (left axis) 4 . Attention is now increasingly on production prospects for 2011 but.6 128.2 27.2 1. The bulk of this downward revision reflects a sharp fall in production in the Russian Federation and smaller than expected harvests in many other countries which have offset improved prospects for production in Argentina.9 647. with winter plantings in major producing countries of CIS lagging behind last year and unfavourable weather hampering early crop development in the United States. the CIS in particular.

7 -12.7 1 113.4 113.8 303. the world stocks-to-use ratio for coarse grains could fall to 17.1 0.6 626.mail: Paul.7 20.0 272.4 -2. respectively. while maize in the United States yielded considerably less than the bumper levels initially expected.1 percent. down from 20 percent in 2010 but still above its low of 15.0 14. with feed barley and maize prices in October up 70 and 40 percent.Racionzer@fao.5 626.4 19. from October 2009.1 2.1 216.2 percent from the previous season.7 28. down as much as 12 percent from their opening levels.9 1.3 1 102. unfavourable weather conditions took their toll in several major producing countries. down 2 percent from 2009 and well below the 2008 record. Contact persons: Abdolreza Abbassian Phone: +39-06-57053264 E. with major exporters meeting most of the anticipated increase in world exports and countries in Asia and Europe accounting for most of the expansion in world imports.1 225.org Paul Racionzer Phone: +39-06-57052853 E. should normally be at their seasonal lows.6 28.3 191.7 195.1 8. the latest FAO forecast puts this year’s production at 1 102 million tonnes. barley in the Russian Federation and Ukraine was severely affected by drought. it will nevertheless fall short of the anticipated utilization of 1 126 million tonnes.2 114. Considering that prices of coarse grains at this time of the year. EU and the United States Coarse grain production.8 0.2 1.0 116.2 percent in 2006/07.0 Total utilization Food Feed Other uses Ending stocks SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year) World stock-to-use ratio (%) Major exporters’ stock-todisappearance ratio (%) 2 FAO coarse grain price index (2002-2004=100) 2008 2009 2010 Jan-Oct Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 28.3 29. As a result.0 1 089. Australia. f’cast million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE Production Trade 1 1 142.3 211 1 157 164 5 Trade data refer to exports based on a common July/June marketing season 2 Major exporters include Argentina. World coarse grain stocks are forecast to reach 198 million tonnes by the close of seasons in 2011.org World coarse grain market at a glance 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Change 2010/11 over 2009/10 estim.1 17. This season’s tightening of the global supply and demand balance of coarse grains is reflected in the sharp increases in international prices. While world production would still be the third largest ever. World trade is expected to reach 116 million tonnes. As the season for the 2010 crops progressed.5 1 125.mail: Abdolreza.6 295. up 1.2 625.2 198. This implies a considerable drawdown of world inventories this season.5 29.5 14. utilization and stocks Million tonnes 1200 Million tonnes 300 1100 250 1000 200 900 150 800 00/01 02/03 04/05 06/07 08/09 10/11 f’cast 100 Production (left axis) Stocks (right axis) Utilization (left axis) 5 . In particular.4 192.Contrary to early-season forecasts that pointed to an increase in global output of coarse grains. Canada.0 1 125.0 28. corresponding with the main harvest period in northern hemisphere. there is a strong likelihood that prices may rise even further from these already high levels.0 2.1 1.Abbassian@fao.

Thailand.4 16.0 2008 2009 2010 Jan-Oct Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 295 1 2 253 223 -12. On the other hand. prices in the first ten months of 2010 were lower year-on-year for all types of rice except the lower quality Indica.9 27.7 1. amid expectations of reduced import needs and tightening supplies in key exporting countries.5 17.1 3.8 6.3 29.6 Total utilization Food Ending stocks SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year) World stock-to-use ratio (%) Major exporters’ stock-todisappearance ratio (%) FAO rice price index (2002-2004=100) 2 56.mail: Concepcion. for which demand has recently soared.5 5.9 133.Prospects for rice production in 2010/11 have deteriorated since the start of the season. import demand gained vigour in the second part of 2010.9 69. Reflecting temporary tightness of export supplies until the secondary paddy crops are harvested in March/ April 2011. Reflecting relatively good crops in major importing countries and the release of large reserves by key exporters. especially against the backdrop of firm grain prices and a weak US Dollar. Despite the setbacks. global rice output this season is forecast to reach a record level. World rice market at a glance 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Change 2010/11 over 2009/10 estim.4 -1. following weather-related setbacks. f’cast million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE (milled basis) Production Trade 1 458.8 452.5 Calendar year exports (second year shown) Major exporters include India.2 466. the anticipated large world output could translate into a sizeable increase in 2011 global rice carryover stocks – to what would be their highest level since 2002.Calpe@fao.1 124. After several months of relative calm. 470 Million tonnes.1 455.org 350 00/01 02/03 04/05 06/07 08/09 10/11 f’cast 60 Production (left axis) Stocks (right axis) Utilization (left axis) 6 . 180 440 150 410 120 380 90 Contact person: Concepción Calpe Phone: +39-06-57054136 E. Pakistan. On the contrary.3 460.4 0. especially in Pakistan. milled eq.2 393.8 27. rice trade may contract somewhat in 2011. milled eq. with much of the yearly increase expected to be met through larger exports from the United States and Viet Nam. international rice quotations could rise in the coming months.6 0.2 2.1 382.7 68.org/economic/est/publications/ rice-publications/rice-market-monitor-rmm/en/ Rice production.6 1. As a result. with Bangladesh and Indonesia becoming particularly active buyers.9 388.4 21. the forecast for trade in 2010 has been raised to a level that is 5 percent above 2009.0 126. utilization and stocks Million tonnes.0 28.6 56. sufficient to cover world consumption without the need to draw down reserves. including severe flood damage to crops in Asia.5 68.7 30.3 445.3 56.fao. the United States and Viet Nam More detailed information on the rice market is available in the FAO Rice Market Monitor which can be accessed at: http://www.6 30.

2 65. These prospects will in turn be influenced by developments in the competing global maize sector.1 52.1 383.9 21. particularly in Thailand.2 137.o. a decline of over 2 million tonnes from the record of the previous year. was the main reason behind the firmer prices but a weak US Dollar also provided support.o.b. A sharp cut in Thai exportable supplies. International cassava flows will once again be confined mostly to Southeast Asia and some cross-border transactions where cassava is grown.0 28.7 22. Mainland China is likely to remain the major destination of trade in cassava products.9 -0. On the import side.7 3.mail: Adam.8 SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption World (kg/year) Developing (kg/year) LDC (kg/year) Sub Saharan Africa (kg/year) FAO cassava prices 16. Bangkok) Thai domestic root prices 171.4 281.6 57.7 29.4 199.4 2008 17. Thailand is expected to be the leading source of trade supplies.0 68.org 200 Roots (Thai domestic) 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 7 . In spite of the drop in production. reflecting poor harvests in Asia. especially ethanol.9 3. with its dominance reaffirmed by the slump in sales by Viet Nam.8 Source: Thai Tapioca Trade Association International cassava and Thai domestic prices USD per tonne 600 Flour/Starch 400 (Super High Grade f.3 62.After 15 years of uninterrupted growth. World cassava market at a glance 2008 2009 estim.6 106. Cassava product prices are expected to remain firm in 2011. Prices of internationally traded cassava products rose to record levels in 2010.o. world trade in cassava products is set to undergo a further expansion in 2010. underpinned by an expected sharp rise in the import demand for cassava chips as feedstock for the ethanol industry.9 -4.Prakash@fao.1 496.1 98. 2010 f’cast Change 2010 over 2009 % (million tonnes fresh root equiv) WORLD BALANCE Production Trade 239.3 41.b Bangkok) Contact person: Adam Prakash Phone: +39-06-57054948 E.2 -0.6 22.b. Bangkok) Starch (f.o.b Bangkok) Chips to China (f. global cassava production is forecast to fall to 249 million tonnes in 2010.9 114.2 Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 USD/tonne % Chips to China (f.9 251.4 87.8 2010 Jan-Oct -0. although much will depend on the demand for cassava products for feed and industrial use. owing to a collapse in production.9 18.2 248.2 2009 17.0 76.8 111.

mail: Peter. World oilseed and product markets at a glance 2008/09 2009/10 estim.9 69.9 88.2 Note: Refer to Table 13 for further explanations regarding definitions and coverage FAO monthly international price indices for oilseeds. maize and wheat in 2011. rapeseed and copra would be compensated by the rising cottonseed.7 -0.5 454. suggests that world prices of oilseeds.0 130. 2010/11 f’cast Change 2010/11 over 2009/10 % million tonnes TOTAL OILSEEDS Production OILS AND FATS Production Supply Utilization Trade Stock-to-utilization ratio (%) MEALS AND CAKES Production Supply Utilization Trade Stock-to-utilization ratio (%) FAO price indices (Jan-Dec) (2002-2004=100) 100. meals and oils could remain firm throughout the current season.8 453.5 184.2 1.4 4. the market situation is expected to remain tight. oils and meals is anticipated to be near record.9 16.8 13.8 178. groundnut and palmkernel output.0 14.9 104.org 100 Oilseeds 50 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 8 . oils/fats and meals/cakes (2002-2004=100) 300 250 Oils/fats 200 Oilmeals/cakes 150 Contact person: Peter Thoenes Phone: +39-06-57053498 E. Current forecasts for 2010/11 suggest that total oilcrop output will remain close to the 2009/10 record level as anticipated declines for soybeans.4 2010 Jan-Oct -0. with meal and oil utilization anticipated to expand further.3 161.0 2008 409.2 23.8 163. Such outlook.4 134. While global production of both. reports of lower than expected crops of both oilseeds and coarse grains lent new support to prices in the oilseed complex.8 17.6 172. driving the FAO indices for oilseeds.6 Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % Oilseeds Oilmeals/cakes Oils/fats 205 195 225 161 194 150 165 216 181 3.0 194.1 4.9 4. together with the possibility of strong competition for land between soy.6 109.2 169.0 90.2 174.5 3.At the onset of the 2010/11 season.5 2. oils and meals to 24-month highs in October.6 114.5 66. the respective stock-to-use ratios are forecast to fall. in particular in the case of oils and fats.4 2009 115.3 14.6 62.Thoenes@fao.7 2.9 14.6 86.6 198.2 13.0 117.2 116. However.

75 -5.50 160. World sugar market at a glance 2008/09 2009/10 estim. As a result. The increase in production is largely attributed to significant expansion in area.30 162.59 33.96 -0. World trade is expected to decline by 5 percent.96 13.org 13 2007 8 J F M A M J J A S O N D 9 .37 7.14 20.8 million tonnes in 2010/11. international sugar prices may well remain relatively high and volatile in the coming months. as buoyant economic activity in 2010/11 stimulates sugar intake in several emerging and developing countries.mail: ElMamoun.Amrouk@fao.66 53. constrained by reduced export availabilities in several producing countries.94 2010 Jan-Oct 0.58 33. and given a strong global demand.8 International Sugar Agreement (ISA) US cent per lb.59 54.09 56.80 18. global production is to surpass consumption. but the surplus may be subject to downward revisions as the season progresses. For the first time since 2007/08. Growth in world sugar consumption is set to recover from a slowdown in 2009/10.7 percent over the 2009/10 season. 2010/11 f’cast Change: 2010/11 over 2009/10 million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE Production Trade Utilization Ending stocks 151.89 156.50 37.07 16.World sugar production is expected to reach 168.70 2009 23.87 2008 22.80 168.05 47.08 Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 12.87 SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year) World stock-to-use ratio (%) ISA Daily Price Average (US cents/lb) 22.80 50.16 13.03 2.15 2. which represents an increase of 7.79 60. 28 2010 23 2009 18 2008 Contact person: El Mamoun Amrouk Phone: +39-06-57056891 E.94 13.62 166. prompted by strong international sugar prices over the past 12 months.

world meat prices between January and October 2010 averaged 14 percent higher than in the same period in 2009.1 12. Increased purchases from Asian countries are expected to fuel much of the expected increase of meat trade. high feed costs and a relatively weak consumer demand. the expansion of world exports is likely to be constrained by the imposition of sanitary restrictions by major importers.1 7.1 6. However.7 107. to 286 million tonnes.8 -1.1 2. According to the FAO Meat Price Index.8 percent in 2010. in the case of poultry.0 13. 2010 f’cast Change: 2010 over 2009 million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE Production Bovine meat Poultry meat Pigmeat Ovine meat Trade Bovine meat Poultry Pigmeat Ovine meat 279. after China.2 91.4 11. World meat production in 2010 is anticipated to grow by a mere 1 percent. which will make it difficult for producers to transfer the full increases of costs to prices.0 1. sustained by a brisk growth in pig meat. which had emerged as the second largest meat importer in 2009.9 25.7 106.1 5. and similar to the levels witnessed in 2008.Arias@fao.1 Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 128 118 134 14.8 286.4 65.org 100 Pigmeat 75 2007 Ovine 2008 2009 2010 10 .1 million tonnes. restrained by reduced animal inventories.5 5. World meat markets at a glance 2008 2009 estim. more than compensating for a 15 percent reduction of imports by the Russian Federation.1 2.7 81.9 7.0 26.9 65.7 31.4 11.World meat trade is forecast to grow by 2.9 81.3 -0.1 0. the most widely traded meat.1 31.0 12.4 7.8 0.5 31.mail: PedroMarcelo.0 * September and October estimates FAO international meat price indices (2002-2004 = 100) 200 175 Poultry Bovine 150 125 Total meat Contact person: Pedro Arias Phone: +39-06-57054098 E.0 95.9 SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) Developed (Kg/year) Developing (kg/year) FAO meat price index (2002-2004=100) 41.3 0. but also by gains in bovine and poultry meat.7 93.9 283.9 0.5 2009 41.0 2008 41. to 26.5 2010 Jan-Oct* -0.4 0.2 65.2 0.8 80.3 6.9 25.3 1.8 3.8 0.6 11.9 104.

0 246.7 million tonnes. fuelled by strong economic growth in Asia. while that of developing countries may increase by 2.7 5.0 698. 1.3 66. with the demand largely met by higher exports from New Zealand and the United States.7 percent more than last year. from 66. Dairy product prices in international trade have remained firm.3 67. which in October reached an all-time high.2 1.8 43.share of prod.5 kg.7 46. 2010 f’cast Change: 2010 over 2009 million tonnes milk equiv.Strong import demand from Asian countries and the Russian Federation has driven dairy product trade to historically high levels in 2010.2 2009 104. in particular butter.4 percent.Arias@fao. (%) FAO dairy price index (2002-2004=100) 104. consumption of milk and milk products in developing countries may increase by 1 kg per capita in 2010. % WORLD BALANCE Total milk production Total trade 694.0 2008 103.org 50 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 The index is derived from a trade-weighted average of a selection of representative internationally traded dairy products.6 0.8 66.5 6.4 to 67.7 SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) Developed countries (Kg/year) Developing countries (Kg/year) Trade . On a per capita basis.5 710. FAO’s latest forecast of world dairy production for 2010 stands at 710.5 2010 Jan-Oct 0. Production in developed countries is forecast to grow by around 1 percent.mail: PedroMarcelo. 11 .0 6.5 243.0 1.5 Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 220 142 199 57 FAO international dairy price index (2002-2004=100) 350 250 150 Contact person: Pedro Arias Phone: +39-06-57054098 E.4 6.1 244.2 42. World dairy market at a glance 2008 2009 estim.

demand in many developing countries has rebounded. 17. especially in Asia and South America.5 percent higher year-on-year.8 0. For capture fisheries. 2009 % 128 117 127 8. the picture is more mixed with some prices negatively affected by large harvests.5 -0. 0.0 8.1 95.2 3.2 101.3 2010 Sept. the latest trade information indicates that two years after the drastic fall at the end of 2008.8 20.5 102. 2010 over Sept.4 55. with demand firming in most markets and supply expected to remain stable. and prices for products such as shrimp. According to the FAO Fish Price Index.1 20.2 9.0 145.1 7.3 -0.0 89.2 8.3 9.1 7.2 119. The price outlook for the rest of 2010 and early 2011 is positive. thus affecting future production. 17. Developed country demand for farmed products is picking up. whereas others have strengthened as lower fishing quotas resulted in reduced supply. f’cast million tonnes WORLD BALANCE Production Capture fisheries Aquaculture Trade value (exports USD billion) Trade volume (live weight) Total utilization Food Feed Other uses 115.2 7. with aquaculture prices 11.1 90.On average.6 Change Sept.8 2008 Sept. 8.8 57.1 9.Lem@fao.2 54.7 52.mail: Audun.9 55.1 2.1 2009 Sept.org 70 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 FAO total fish price index Aquaculture Total Data source: Norwegian Seafood Export Council Capture total 12 . prices in September 2010 were only 1 percent below the peak of September 2008. Since then.8 SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: Food fish (kg/year) From capture fisheries (kg/year) From aquaculture (kg/year) FAO Fish price index 17.9 % 1.3 7. World fish market at a glance 2008 2009 2010 Change 2010 over 2009 estim.4 147. Aquaculture producers of many of the exported commodities responded to the economic crisis in late 2008 and throughout 2009 by reducing stocking levels. prices over January to September were.0 117.3 142.3 89.5 20.0 55.8 6.7 1.6 percent higher whereas prices of wild species were 10 percent lower. catfish. on average.3 -1.5 The FAO fish price index (2005=100) 150 130 110 90 Contact person: Audun Lem Phone: +39-06-57052692 E. tilapia and salmon have risen significantly in 2010.7 2.

food. up 1. The slight 2011 contraction in rice trade mainly reflects expectations of reduced imports by Asian countries. World feed use of cereals is expected to increase marginally as in the previous season. most of the main maize crop has been planted in South America. reflecting more favourable monsoon rains over the season. production in the developed countries. the global output of rice will grow in 2010 to a new record level. trade in coarse grains is forecast to increase. This is 2 percent below last year’s level and the second consecutive decline. hence. The fall in wheat imports reflects smaller purchases by several countries in Asia while small increases in imports are anticipated for Africa and Europe. by less than 1 percent. Plantings have increased in Argentina but may have declined somewhat in Brazil. driven by higher maize demand because of tightening barley and feed wheat supplies. Contrary to most other cereals. This compares with over 2 percent growth rates registered during the past three seasons. although the recent strengthening of maize prices may encourage some late planting.3 percent from 2009/10. which severely impacted yields. early prospects are generally favourable. wheat and rice more than offsetting an increase in maize trade. total feed use is forecast to remain stagnate for the third season in a row because of continuing difficult economic conditions dampening livestock demand and. with declines in barley. World cereal utilization is forecast at 2 254 million tonnes in 2010/11. especially in India. many of which have already been planted. By contrast. Year-to-year change in cereal production Percentage 9 Figure 2. 2010/11 f’cast Major Exporters -3 2006 2007 2008 2009 estim. another component of the total cereal utilization. For coarse grains. World cereal stocks for crop seasons ending in 2011 are forecast to fall to 512 million tonnes. the main producing country. pointing to a growth of around 1. Regarding the first of the 2011 cereal crops. In Southern Africa. feed and industrial utilization of major cereals all seem to be keeping pace with recent trends – the anticipated slower growth in total utilization mostly stems from this year’s decline in world cereal production which inherently lowers the level of post-harvest losses. to 764 million tonnes. but still the third largest crop on record. Cereal stocks and ratios Million tonnes 1000 800 Percent 25 20 15 10 5 0 6 600 400 3 200 0 0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 estim. Total food consumption of cereals is forecast to reach 1 057 million tonnes. World cereal trade in 2010/11 is forecast to contract by 2 percent to 267 million tonnes.Unexpected decline in production leads to smaller inventories FAO’s forecast for world cereal production in 2010 now stands at 2 216 million tonnes. Rest of the World 2010 f’cast World Stock-to-use ratio Stock-to-disappearance ratio of Major Exporters 13 . The bulk of winter grain planting is almost complete in the northern hemisphere where the overall area is expected to expand in response to favourable price prospects. down 7 percent from Figure 1. including milled rice.5 percent from the previous season. However. In the southern hemisphere. All of the reduction is in wheat and coarse grains (primarily barley) in several major producing and exporting countries where sowings were cut back due to reduced price prospects at planting time and/or drought during the growing season. early indications suggest a smaller maize area in South Africa.

an estimated increase of at least 3. should this be the case again next season. In Ukraine. In Asia. attention is already turning to the prospects for the 2011 crops which. planting areas in major producing countries. in view of the fact that wheat utilization has exceeded the ten-year trend for two consecutive seasons. In the EU. a major producing state. For wheat. While high prices encourage farmers to dedicate more area to maize for next year. is thought to have declined slightly due to earlier dry weather that delayed the start of the planting season. Helped by the good planting conditions. assuming utilization in 2011/12 remains close to the ten-year trend. This situation calls for a close monitoring of plantings for 2011 in order to determine if next year’s production could increase sufficiently to prevent a further drawdown of already low stocks.Significant increases in production are needed to avert a major tightening of supplies in 2011/12 Amid the tightening of global balances for some grains in the current season and the related sharp rise in international prices. the increase in global production would have to be higher than 3. were already at their peaks in 2010. However. and in response to increased price prospects. As of mid-October. sowing of the main maize crops for harvest in 2011 is already well underway in the major producing countries. the main maize crops for harvest in 2011 are also being planted. which yield much less than winter crops. virtually complete by the end of October. in Brazil. there are already concerns that the area to be planted next year may be limited because of the late start to the soy season. In the southern hemisphere. any further expansion would require a switch of area from competing crops. 14 . However. early indications suggest that the maize area has increased significantly from last year’s already above-average area. South African farmers’ planting intentions pointed to a 10 percent decrease in the area planted to maize for the 2011 harvest. However. increased in area by a significant 2 to 3 million hectares over last year’s 40-year low. However. mostly in southern parts of the country. planting conditions have improved after a dry start and the winter wheat area should be near last year’s average.5 percent in world production in 2011 would be required in order to prevent a further drawdown of global wheat reserves in 2012. will determine supplies in 2011/12. conditions for the winter grain planting have been generally favourable. global wheat production could increase sufficiently to avoid further supply deterioration in 2011/12. such as in the United States. providing potential for a bumper crop next year. especially in Kansas. vitally important for the development of crops later in the season.5 percent to prevent wheat stocks from plunging to critically low levels. In South America. spring wheat planting could increase significantly to bring the overall wheat area close to the average of the past few years. conditions reportedly have been satisfactory in China and India for winter wheat planting and the areas sown in both countries are thought to have changed little from the previous year’s about-average levels. along with the 2010/11 closing stocks. The supply of maize. For the maize supply and demand balance to improve in 2011/12. Based on the current planting information and assuming normal weather conditions and average yields. the world’s largest producer. another major cereal. would imply lower than normal yield potential for the 2011 crop. In North America. world production needs to increase by at least 6 percent compared with 2010. autumn sowing in the Russian Federation has been significantly impeded because of this year’s severe drought. In Southern Africa. it is also expected that a significant amount of land under voluntary set-aside may be brought back into wheat production for the 2011 harvest in response to attractive wheat prices. In the eastern part of Europe. having a higher proportion of spring crops. Although about 40 percent of Brazil’s annual maize production is now produced from the secondary season crop. which follows soybeans. the main maize crop area. the bulk of the planting in Argentina has been completed under favourable conditions and beneficial rains have increased soil moisture reserves. crop conditions as of early November remained far from ideal. the United States’ winter wheat planting. with wheat area forecast to rise by about 3 percent compared with the previous season. Planting of the winter grain crops is almost complete in the northern hemisphere and sowing of maize is well underway in the southern hemisphere. Although some of the increase may come at the expense of oilseed rape because of adverse weather in August/September. also has become a concern this season. Therefore. Although the Russian Federation’s winter wheat area is tentatively estimated to be well down from the previous year’s level.

4 267.5 761.4 2 263. averaged USD 291 per tonne.6 2 226. Maize stocks are forecast to fall by 6 percent while inventories of barley could plunge by as much as 35 percent.5 17.6 764.9 24.2 155.1 424.4 17.5 14. million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE Production Trade 2 2 285.b.3 1.0 396.9 23. World stocks of coarse grains are forecast to decline most. was also an important factor in driving up world prices.3 2 253.. starting from mid-August and eventually extended to 30 June 2011. Wheat export price (US no.5 0.o.8 1 056. the EU and Ukraine as well as in several importing countries. wheat and coarse grains increased by 35 and 47 percent respectively while rice prices gained 14 percent. Given this season’s tighter market situation. Between July and October. but unfavourable weather also lowered production in Canada. The decline marks the first dip in world cereal inventory in three years.6 758. 2 Hard Red Winter.5 percent.5 22. Gulf) USD per tonne 500 400 2007/08 300 2010/11 2008/09 200 2009/10 100 J A S O N D J F M A M J 15 . maize and wheat increased the most. rice stocks are expected to increase by 6 percent. down slightly from September but 37 percent higher than in SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year) 3 152. f.3 1.W. 5 percent above the September average.0 1 040. from October 2009. The main problem areas were the drought-stricken Russian Federation and Kazakhstan.8 152.2 512. An export restriction imposed by the Russian Federation. by 12 percent. because of generally good supply prospects.0 433.8 1 027. In October. World cereal market at a glance 1 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Change 2010/11 over 2009/10 estim.1 155.3 0.6 percent registered in 2007/08.4 World stock-to-use ratio (%) Major exporters’ stock-todisappearance ratio (%) FAO cereal price index (2002-2004=100) 2008 2009 2010 Jan-Oct Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 238 1 2 174 173 -1 Rice in milled equivalent Trade data refer to exports based on a July/June marketing season for wheat and coarse grains and on a January/December marketing season for rice 3 Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries their relatively high opening levels. Based on the current expectations for production and utilization this season world cereal stocks-to-use ratio in 2010/11 is likely to decline by 2 percentage points to 22.5 281. Prices hit their highest 2010 level in August. By contrast. the benchmark US No. international prices of barley.5 -2. as production prospects in a number of major producing countries began to look far less promising than originally anticipated. However. international prices fell towards the end of September and early October. before rebounding strongly following a sudden surge in maize prices in October and the slide in the US Dollar. 2 H. but up as much as 32 percent.1 -7.3 2 181.3 552.2 Total utilization Food Feed Other uses Ending stocks International wheat prices have increased sharply International wheat prices started to increase rather unexpectedly at the beginning of the current season in July. The FAO Cereal Price Index averaged 219 points in October 2010. or Figure 3. given the expected rise in world rice production. Nearly all the reductions in grain stocks are anticipated to occur in the major exporters and the CIS. Among the major cereals.1 -2.9 0. which would be lower than was anticipated at the start of the season but still well above the 30-year low of 19.4 273. Wheat stocks are also foreseen to contract sharply.4 2.4 2 216. f’cast 53 points. prices of most cereals have risen sharply.2 520. including many countries of northern Africa.7 156.Table 1. by 10 percent.7 152.

1 Global wheat output falls significantly in 2010 FAO’s latest forecast for global wheat output in 2010 now stands at 648 million tonnes.5 0.6 128.7 67.2 1. as farmers in many major producing countries are likely to increase plantings of other crops as well.3 179. as the season progressed.5 53.1 42.6 17.8 24. This prospect.1 80.7 121. Canada. As of early November. up 41 percent from the corresponding period a year ago and 39 percent higher than at the start of the season in July.9 1. Australia. adverse weather in some parts curtailed yields far more than anticipated bringing this year’s production levels further down.5 115.5 67.1 80.9 180.8 53.7 26.3 2.6 136.5 6. continue to underpin wheat futures.7 -10. World wheat market at a glance 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Change 2010/11 over 2009/10 estim. However.7 20.0 -17.0 13.9 23. Most of the major 2010 wheat crops have already been harvested.2 -15.5 58. more generally.4 -32.3 76. 2010 f”cast Change: 2010 over 2009 % million tonnes EU China (Mainland) India United States Russian Federation Canada Pakistan Australia Ukraine Turkey Kazakhstan Iran Islamic Rep.6 59.7 73. unfavourable crop conditions in the United States and. by expectation of an insufficient increase in overall plantings.6 6. although still 40 percent below the record reached in March 2008.7 -1.8 -0.4 61.0 668. In the Near * Countries listed according to their position in global production (average 2008-2010) 16 .4 58. wheat prices also have been influenced by concerns about lower plantings in the Russian Federation and Ukraine. of Argentina Egypt Uzbekistan Other countries World 138.6 1.3 2010 values 2011 values July.5 11.0 467.0 21.3 453. EU and the United States Table 3. Latest estimates in Asia indicate a small decline in the aggregate output of wheat in 2010.1 21.0 17.5 8.3 18. The wheat crop was forecast to be smaller than last year from the outset of the season because of planting reductions and expected return to normal yields in some major producing and exporting countries.5 -5.2 -0.5 11.5 13.5 27.9 20.Figure 4. In recent weeks.0 115.0 75.0 22.4 0.7 6.1 647.1 659.7 60.8 139.0 7.5 8.3 -0.9 250 Trade 1 Total utilization Food 200 Feed Other uses 150 Ending stocks M A M J J A S O N SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year) 67.7 -9.8 682. wheat futures in Chicago for March delivery were quoted at around USD 280 per tonne.9 -5.1 0.9 647. CBOT wheat futures for March USD per tonne 350 Table 2.1 57.4 200. World stock-to-use ratio (%) Major exporters’ stock-todisappearance ratio (%) Wheat price index * (2002-2004=100) 2 2008 2009 2010 Jan-Oct Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 235 154 159 2 * Derived from International Grains Council (IGC) Wheat Index 1 Trade data refer to exports based on a common July/June marketing season 2 Major exporters include Argentina.1 -5.6 19.3 647.5 682.7 60.0 14.8 -5.8 461. f’cast 300 million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE Production 684.1 125.3 -23. Wheat production: leading producers (2009 and 2010) Country * 2009 estim. combined with tightening maize supplies and a weak US Dollar.0 30.0 122. much less than had been expected earlier in the season and 5 percent down from 2009.3 120.2 27.2 23.3 17.

1 but down almost 5 million tonnes. Output in the Russian Federation alone is estimated to have fallen by about 19 million tonnes. mostly because of large carryovers from the previous season. below the 2008/09 all time high of 137 million tonnes. By contrast. and by Tunisia. Total wheat imports by countries in Asia are forecast to fall to 53 million tonnes. In South America.3 September 2010 2009/10 estimate 2010/11 forecast 17 . In Oceania. due to insufficient precipitation during the season in some areas and heavy rains in others.2 million tonnes.East subregion. production in Canada fell further than expected. it was severe drought in the two main producing CIS countries in Europe – the Russian Federation and Ukraine – that was behind the bulk of the downward revisions to the global output forecast as the season progressed. as adverse spring weather was followed by unfavourable weather for crop maturation. up almost 2 million tonnes from the previous season to nearly 22 million tonnes. increased output in the Islamic Republic of Iran offset weather-reduced crops in Afghanistan. No. aggregate imports are forecast to exceed 35 million tonnes. the world’s largest wheat importer. reflecting a return to normal weather conditions in Argentina (the main producing country) after last year’s drought. Overall. the 2010 wheat crop estimate in the United States rose as the season progressed and. imports of feed wheat by the Republic of Korea are likely to be smaller. The increase reflects a significant jump in deliveries to several countries in North Africa. By contrast. In addition. The two countries are also responsible for much of the reduction in the world production compared with last year. the Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey. The decline in this season’s imports mostly reflects substantially lower wheat purchases by several countries in Asia. are likely to decline by 1. which would more than offset small increases in imports in Africa and in Europe. down 8 million tonnes from the previous season. In Europe. Wheat exporters Russian Federation Argentina Ukraine Kazakhstan Australia Canada EU United States 0 10 20 Million tonnes 30 40 Wheat trade to decrease in 2010/11 World wheat trade in 20010/11 (July/June) is forecast to reach 121 million tonnes. output was severely reduced by a drought in Tunisia and Morocco that was already underway at planting time. with the outlook very good in the eastern producing areas. or 4 percent. account for the bulk of the expected increase in imports in North Africa. with domestic production at a record high and large carryovers from the previous season. 1 GIEWS Crop Prospects and Food Situation. 1 million tonnes higher than was forecast in September. Australia’s 2010 output forecast is up slightly from 2009. above-average yields have resulted in an output that is virtually unchanged from the previous year. In order to stabilize supplies. Smaller imports are anticipated in Bangladesh because of large domestic supplies and in Afghanistan. Total wheat imports by countries in Figure 5. this season’s wheat imports by Egypt. In North Africa. Morocco suspended its 135 percent import duty on soft wheat from mid-September until the end of this year. but poor in western Australia where drought persists. because of reduced supplies from the Black Sea region. reflecting a bumper crop and the country’s decision to ban imports of wheat. Most of this decline would be due to reduced purchases by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Lower imports are also forecast for Mainland China. In North America. to 9 million tonnes. Larger imports by Morocco. prospects for the wheat crop in Australia remain mixed. because of a smaller harvest. which suffered from a severe drought. because of this year’s above-average domestic output coupled with reduced availabilities from the nearby exporting countries. However. which is expected to depress further the final harvested area and yields. 1 million tonnes higher than in the previous season. In Africa. the final harvest outcomes were below early season expectations in parts of the EU. production is expected to recover sharply from last year’s reduced level. the Syrian Arab Republic and Thailand. or 12 percent. despite a significant reduction in plantings. at 23 million tonnes. from 2009/10 and as much as 16 million tonnes.

The increase is almost entirely due to large purchases by the Russian Federation following this year’s severely reduced harvests. This ban has recently been extended to 30 June 2010. down from the earlier estimate of 675 million tonnes published in the June 2010 Food Outlook. The downward revision puts world 18 . the Russian Federation imposed a ban on all grain exports from mid-August to the end of 2010. 1.3 million tonnes. the lowest level since 2007/08. In spite of the increase in prices. the industrial use also is expected to increase in 2010/11. However.3 percent growth in 2009/10.3 percent. Mexico will need higher imports this season to compensate for the decline in domestic wheat production. slightly below the previous season’s level due to tighter supplies. Larger sales are also anticipated for Australia and the EU while Canada is expected to ship less wheat than last season because of a decline in its domestic production.sub-Saharan Africa are forecast to decline by 1. In the EU. the world wheat utilization in 2010/11 is forecast at 668 million tonnes. with most of the anticipated expansion likely to occur in the EU. down 14 million tonnes from the previous season. the Government imposed a 2. Among the other usages of wheat. up marginally from the previous season. Following a recovery in domestic production. In Latin America and the Caribbean. up 14 percent from the previous season’s level. mainly because this year’s production rose to above-average levels. Wheat utilization in 2010/11 to exceed trend As a result of the decline in world wheat production and the increase in prices of wheat since the beginning of the season. which was reported in the June 2010 Food Outlook. up slightly from the previous season. down 3 million tonnes from 2009/10 and less than half the level in 2007/08 when Ukraine shipped a record 12.2 million tonnes to 13. This is 13 million tonnes below FAO’s first forecast. in particular in the Russian Federation where it could reach 20 million tonnes. mainly driven by reductions in Kenya and Nigeria. This strong rebound in exports from the five major exporters should more than offset a sharp decline in sales from the CIS countries. Developing countries account for most of the increase. Wheat imports in Mexico are forecast to increase by 300 000 tonnes. This compares with 1. Total wheat exports by the five traditional exporters are forecast to approach 92 million in 2010/11. are forecast to remain unchanged at 6. World food consumption of wheat in 2010/11 is anticipated to rise by 1. Smaller exports are also anticipated in Kazakhstan and Turkey. Total imports in Europe are put at 9. consuming 334 million tonnes on aggregate. even at the current forecast level. following a reduction in domestic production. sufficient to meet the anticipated increase in food consumption. In October. larger wheat feed usage is expected in the CIS countries. while a ban on wheat flour exports will be lifted in January 2011.5 million tonnes. Shipments from the Unites States are forecast to reach 33. up nearly 2 million tonnes from the previous season’s reduced level. the growth in food use is likely to keep pace with the population growth.5 million tonnes. Wheat exports from the Russian Federation in 2010/11 are estimated at only 3. to 467 million tonnes. Nearly 100 million tonnes of wheat are expected to be destined for feed in 2010/11 in the developed countries. to 3.5 million tonnes more than in the previous season. world wheat utilization would be 1. Wheat shipments from Ukraine are currently forecast at 6 million tonnes. the region’s largest wheat importer. to 125 million tonnes in 2010/11.2 percent above the previous season’s level and still slightly above the ten-year trend. Imports by Brazil.5 percent more than in 2009/10.6 million tonnes.6 million tonnes. By contrast. with global wheat consumption remaining steady at around 68 kg per person per annum and at around 60 kg per person in the developing countries. total wheat imports in 2010/11 are forecast to approach 20 million tonnes. the largest market for feed wheat. Exports from Ukraine also have been curtailed following this year’s production.7 million tonne quota on grain exports until the end of 2010 which includes 500 000 tonnes of wheat. mainly because of growing demand for ethanol. Total wheat feed utilization is forecast to increase by 2 percent.6 million tonnes. this season’s feed usage of wheat could approach 53 million tonnes. Wheat inventories to fall sharply World wheat stocks are currently forecast to reach 181 million tonnes by the close of the crop seasons in 2011. Following this year’s drought-reduced crop. In general.5 million tonnes. demand for wheat in developed countries remains strong because of its price advantage over high protein ingredients. exports from Argentina are forecast to increase sharply. The large increase in wheat usage is expected to offset sharp declines in the use of barley and maize for feed because of their even tighter domestic supplies. However. the highest since 1995/96 and 9 million tonnes more than in 2009/10. the highest volume since 1993 and 3.

driven by an increase in exports as well as a decline in this year’s production.1 million tonnes because of much larger exports and domestic utilization than in the previous season. but still around 36 million tonnes. as well as significant upward adjustments to forecasts for exports from the United States and the EU. However.1 1. Feed barley prices surged in August and remained high in September. Based on the latest forecasts for world stocks and utilization. the ratio of stocks held by the major exporters to their Table 4.6 626. Barley prices were among the first to rise sharply.0 1 089.4 113.1 8.3 191.0 116.1 17. inventories in the United States would be the second largest since 2001.o. or 25 percent.4 19. stocks in the EU are set to decline by 2.4 -2.5 14. World coarse grain market at a glance 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Change 2010/11 over 2009/10 estim. or 10 percent.7 20. despite a steady production level.0 272.5 million tonnes.5 29. down 3. Australia.0 14. Among the CIS countries. below the previous season’s high level.3 211 1 2 157 164 5 Trade data refer to exports based on a common July/June marketing season Major exporters include Argentina.5 626.2 114. Prices rose further in October when French feed barley price (f.3 1 102. inventories in the Russian Federation alone are likely to decline by over 4 million tonnes because of the drought-devastated production in 2010.9 1. to 15.2 1. down 6 million tonnes from their opening level but still the second highest in five years and 19 million tonnes more than in 2008.7 28.1 225. Among the major exporters. and nearly three times higher than its low in 2008. On aggregate.4 percent. however. In recent weeks.3 percentage points from the previous season but well above the critically low ratio of 11. Similarly. EU and the United States 19 .e.3 percent registered in 2007/08. Tight markets leading to higher prices Unexpected weather events have driven up prices of most coarse grains since the start of the 2010/11 season in July.1 2.7 -12. 2010/11 f’cast Major Exporters Rest of the World World Stock-to-use ratio Stock-to-disappearance ratio of Major Exporters wheat stocks at some 20 million tonnes.5 million tonnes. in particular in the CIS.6 295.Figure 6. the largest decrease is expected in the United States where.6 28.1 216.3 percent in 2010/11 from 30. f’cast million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE Production Trade 1 1 142. the global stock-to-use ratio for wheat in 2010/11 is expected to drop to 27. Rouen) averaged USD 264 per tonne. above the 2008 critically low of 145 million tonnes.0 2.b. the ratio remains well above the 30-year low of 22.2 198.3 29.5 million tonnes to 23. up 52 percent from July and as much as 72 percent 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 estim. The revision reflects a notable downward adjustment to 2010 production levels in several important wheat producing countries. Canada. especially after the Russian Federation’s August decision to ban all grain exports in response to a severe drought that cut this year’s production.2 625. Nonetheless. season-end wheat inventories are projected to decline by 3. domestic utilization plus exports) is forecast to reach 18.8 percent in the high-price 2007/08 season.0 28.8 303.0 1 125. Total wheat stocks held by the major exporters are forecast to reach 49 million tonnes. the slide in the US Dollar and other outside market factors also contributed to price increases.0 Total utilization Food Feed Other uses Ending stocks SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year) World stock-to-use ratio (%) Major exporters’ stock-todisappearance ratio (%) 2 FAO coarse grains price index (2002-2004=100) 2008 2009 2010 Jan-Oct Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 28.7 195.1 0.8 0.4 192.7 1 113.5 1 125. Wheat stocks and ratios Million tonnes 250 200 150 100 50 0 Percent 35 28 21 14 7 0 disappearance (i.1 percent in 2009/10.

up 33 percent from the same month in 2009. which together account for the bulk of the global barley production. Throughout the EU countries. maize prices are only 16 percent below the peak reached in June 2008. Elsewhere. Coarse grains output in 2010 to fall FAO’s latest forecast for world production of coarse grains in 2010 has been revised down further in recent weeks and now stands at 1 102 million tonnes. In recent weeks. In Asia. the current forecast is now 2 percent down from last year. 7 percent down from the previous year’s level. only 1 percent up from 2009. Contrary to earlyseason forecasts pointing to an increase in global output. dry weather impaired yields resulting together with reduced plantings. which alone accounts for about 40 percent of global maize output. has changed considerably since October. As of early November. good-to-bumper crops were gathered in most countries. the reduction has been amplified by adverse weather during the growing season. Although a smaller barley crop was already forecast earlier in the season when plantings declined throughout the major producing countries. Sorghum (Yellow Gulf) prices also have risen sharply this season. No.) averaged USD 236 per tonne in October. 2.o. Regarding maize.b. the increase in maize prices occurred mostly after September. world production in 2010 is now forecast at 831 million tonnes. International maize prices also increased sharply but unlike barley. although not by as much as barley. Maize prices are supported by continuing supply tightness of barley and feed wheat. unfavourable weather conditions took their tolls in several major producing countries.Figure 7. the major coarse grain grown worldwide. due to the 20 . where the harvest was completed several months ago. up nearly 47 percent since the beginning of the season and 40 percent higher than in October 2009. 2 yellow. In particular. Gulf) USD per tonne 300 Figure 8. a larger crop had been gathered earlier in the year in South America. China. At current levels. CBOT maize futures for March USD per tonne 250 250 2008/09 2010/11 2007/08 200 200 150 150 2009/10 100 M A M J J A S O N 100 J A S O N D J F M A M J 2010 values 2011 values from October 2009. f. averaging USD 231 per tonne in October. in a 15 percent reduction in this year’s aggregate harvest. although still the third largest crop ever. Although plantings increased in the United States. the world’s second largest maize producer. Maize export price (US no. FAO’s latest forecast for world production of barley in 2010 now stands at 125 million tonnes. up as much as 47 percent from the corresponding period last year. The outlook for the United States. In Southern Africa. As the 2010 crop seasons progressed. prices have been underpinned further by the slide in the US Dollar. The most notable reductions were in the Russian Federation and Ukraine where. barley was severely affected by drought in the Russian Federation and Ukraine while maize yields in the United States turned out considerably lower than the bumper levels initially expected. The price of the benchmark US maize prices (Yellow. Production in Argentina recovered from drought in 2009 and Brazil increased its output to a bumper level. maintaining the high level achieved in the preceding two years. again reaped a bumper crop. with a sudden surge in early October on news of lower yields in the United States than earlier anticipated. Chicago maize futures for March delivery stood at USD 232 per tonne. it became evident as harvesting progressed that yields had not matched the bumper levels achieved in the previous year and output was forecast some 3 percent down from the record 2009 level.

6 13.1 16. Trade in barley is expected to decline by 300 000 tonnes to 16 million tonnes. In Asia.5 million tonnes. despite expectation of a record crop.8 28.0 -0.6 22.2 -2. Strong feed demand and rising domestic maize prices are encouraging larger world purchases by China.8 -2.1 155. down 1.0 21.2 million tonnes.0 13. the highest in three years.4 139.9 37.8 1.8 157. to compensate for sharp reductions in their barley production. the barley crops are estimated to have fallen by about 50 and 20 percent respectively compared with 2009.2 percent to 116 million tonnes in 2010/11 (July/June). 21 .5 173. The Niger’s higher millet and sorghum production may also result in lower imports.1 -41. Trade in oats is seen falling to 1.3 -2. Among the major producing countries. boosted by a record crop in eastern Africa. as most countries in sub-Saharan Africa are likely to import the same volume as. Barley production Million tonnes 180 120 60 0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 estim. This is partly driven by an increase of nearly 500 000 tonnes in production. output decreased somewhat in the United States but recovered in Argentina after last year’s drought-reduced crop. Coarse grain production: leading producers (2009 and 2010) Country * 2009 estim.2 8. 2.3 -10. the bulk of the increase is expected in the northern subregion. the highest since the mid-1990s. Morocco and Tunisia are all expected to purchase more coarse grains.1 154.6 24. if not less than.0 -4.0 -2.3 -8. 100 000 tonnes below the previous season’s level and the smallest since 2006/07.7 34. By contrast. as low exportable supplies of feed wheat from the Black Sea region this season encouraged the country to increase its purchases of coarse grains (mostly maize). reflecting an increase in maize import demand that is expected to drive up maize trade to 91 million tonnes. Imports in Africa are also up from the previous season.Table 5.2 332. In Mainland China. The forecast of world sorghum output in 2010 is put at 59 million tonnes. 2010/11 f’cast EU Canada CIS Others severe drought.4 73.0 17.1 13.1 million tonnes.6 19. million tonnes United States China (Mainland) EU Brazil India Russian Federation Mexico Argentina Canada Ukraine Nigeria Indonesia South Africa Australia Ethiopia Other countries World 349.8 1 125. the previous season because of good domestic production. The Sudan’s above average sorghum production could depress imports by at least 200 000 tonnes.5 2. while trade in sorghum is forecast to reach 6 million tonnes. Egypt is forecast to import 500 000 tonnes more maize than in 2009/10 because of growing feed demand while Algeria. due to smaller imports by the United States.6 8.7 2.7 175.0 14.1 20. 2010 f”cast Change: 2010 over 2009 % Higher demand for maize pushes up world trade in 2010/11 World trade in coarse grains is forecast to expand by 1.0 57.6 30. down 300 000 tonnes from the previous season.4 30.5 53.6 percent up from the previous year’s crop but well below the 2008 bumper level of 66 million tonnes.9 million tonnes. the largest increases in imports are forecast for Mainland China and the Republic of Korea. up 3 million tonnes from the previous season but still 11 million tonnes below the all time high reached in 2007/08.3 1.5 22.2 12. However.1 22.0 10. Sub-Saharan Africa’s aggregate imports have been put at 4.6 1 102. maize imports are forecast to reach at least 1. to 9 million tonnes. Imports of coarse grains by the Republic of Korea are forecast to increase by 800 000 tonnes. exports of all other major coarse grains are likely to remain unchanged or even fall slightly below 2009/10 levels.1 * Countries listed according to their position in global production (average 2008-2010) Figure 9. Imports by nearly all regions are forecast to increase in 2010/11.2 33.7 12.9 18. the biggest market for coarse grains.

imports of maize are forecast to increase by 2. Utilization grows but remains below trend World total utilization of coarse grains in 2010/11 is forecast to increase to 1 126 million tonnes. The expected increase from the previous season is to rely on larger local maize supplies. Coarse grain exporters Russian Federation 2009/10 estimate 2010/11 forecast 60 Canada Australia EU Brazil 40 Ukraine Argentina 20 United States 0 20 Million tonnes 40 60 0 Asia Africa South America Central America Europe 2009/10 estimate 2010/11 forecast Total coarse grain imports by countries in Latin America and the Caribbean are forecast to reach 27 million tonnes. mostly because of larger purchases by the EU and the Russian Federation. or 24 million tonnes. especially in India. has hampered exports. because of the feed shortages caused by the devastating drought. By contrast. 2 percent higher than in 2009/10. Food use is forecast to grow fastest followed by industrial usage. As a whole.6 million tonnes. this season’s shrinking supplies from the CIS countries are likely to be largely offset by higher sales from Brazil and South Africa. total utilization would be slightly below the tenyear trend for the first time in four years. could decline slightly. especially in the developed countries. than in 2009/10. However. with a surge in sales of barley more than offsetting a decline in maize exports. to 54 million tonnes. up 1. make up the other half. At this level. Most of the increase is expected in Mexico. total imports are forecast up sharply. up marginally (less than 1 percent) from 2009/10. 22 . and several countries in subSaharan Africa. In the developing countries. Malawi and Zambia have lifted their export restriction this season. due to a decline in domestic production and maize account for most of the increase. with nearly four times the population. As a result of significant maize surpluses. Developing countries account for 80 percent of the food use of coarse grains.1 million tonnes from the previous season. United States. world feed utilization of coarse grains is currently forecast to reach 627 million tonnes. In Europe. the production shortfall in major producing CIS countries. After small early-season sales. Coarse grain imports by region Million tonnes 80 Figure 11. for 2010/11. exports of barley are forecast to fall sharply because of smaller domestic production and the recent imposition of an export quota. Larger imports of sorghum. exports from the world’s largest exporter. In Ukraine. Food use of coarse grains is forecast to reach 196 million tonnes. in particular the Russian Federation. the ban on grain exports from the Russian Federation has halted all shipments since August. following smaller maize and barley harvests. total shipments from the EU are forecast to rise by 2. up 1. the developed countries account for slightly over one-half of total utilization of coarse grains. if not more.1 percent from the estimate for 2009/10 and nearly 2 percent. Among other exporting countries. above the 2010 anticipated production. Coarse grains are largely used for animal feed and. an increase of nearly 1 million tonnes. Larger exports of barley and sorghum are also forecast for Australia.5 million tonnes. where imports are forecast to reach 11. while the developing countries. the region’s largest market. whereas feed use is likely to remain stagnant. In the EU. with nearly 130 million tonnes in the Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDCs). Turning to exports. India and Indonesia may also export the same.1 million tonnes while the Russian Federation is also returning to the market as a major maize buyer this season.Figure 10. following production gains in Asia.

could increase by 3 percent to 135 million tonnes. Egypt. 2010/11 f’cast Feed use Other uses Food use expected to account for almost 144 million tonnes of this use. or 10. This anticipated sharp decrease follows three seasons of consecutive build-up in world inventories of coarse grains. On the other hand. up around 2 percent from the previous season. or 24 million tonnes. or 1. growth in recent years has stemmed mainly from the ethanol sector. fuel-ethanol exports from the United States are increasing. pumps and general handling infrastructure. Ethanol is A sharp fall in world stocks World coarse grain stocks are forecast to reach 198 million tonnes by the close of the 2011 seasons. reaching 294 million tonnes. feed usage of maize in the United States. from their opening levels. The bulk of the decline is associated with much smaller maize reserves. in the developed countries. while inventories of barley could fall by as much as 35 percent. The bulk of the anticipated contraction in feed use in the developed countries is expected in several CIS countries where barley is an important source of animal feed. indirectly sustaining domestic demand for maize in the United States.3 percent less than in 2009/10. to around 5 million tonnes.2 percent. which is the world’s largest producer and consumer of maize. The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recent approval of 15 percent ethanol blends (E15) in cars built since 2007 will contribute to the growth in ethanol demand and hence maize usage in the longer term. feed use is anticipated to increase for the third season in a row. This would still fall below the record 156 million tonnes in 2004/05. to 333 million tonnes. up 3.6 million tonnes from the previous season. Coarse grain utilization Million tonnes 1400 1050 700 350 0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 estim.Figure 12. mainly because of more limited export supplies of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and a weak US Dollar. or 26 million tonnes. from their opening levels. A sharp decline is also forecast for the EU. Mexico and South Africa. up 3 percent from 2009/10. Despite much higher maize prices this season. stocks may be drawn down by as much as 49 percent. down 43 percent. The 198 million tonne figure is 5 million tonnes below the first forecast published in the June 2010 Food Outlook. The growing utilization of dried distillers grains (DDGs). Nearly all the reductions are anticipated to occur in the major exporting countries and the large CIS producing countries. FAO does not compile information on industrial use of grains but bases its assessments on data and analyses published by the International Grains Council (IGC). the stocks-to-use ratio for maize in the United States would stand at 7 percent. According to the IGC. which are likely to dip to around 21 million tonnes. Among different industrial usages of coarse grains. down as much as 11. its near-term impact. is expected to be limited mostly because of logistical obstacles. especially in the current season. Brazil. Most of the decrease in the EU ending stocks would reflect barley 23 . Among the major exporters.2 percent. the largest decrease is anticipated in the United States where. At this low level. such as the need for upgrading station tanks. of which some 119. where the amount of barley used for feed in 2010/11 could be halved from the previous season’s level. At the current forecast level.1 percent. maize stocks are set to decline by nearly 6 percent to 161 million tonnes. Most of the expansion is expected in China but also in Argentina. a primary co-product of ethanol production.5 million tonnes. Among the major coarse grains. However. based on a forecast decline in this year’s production together with an expected increase in utilization.4 million tonnes for production of fuel-ethanol in the United States. in feed rations has been mostly responsible for containing the growth in maize feed demand in the United States in recent years. to just under 25 million tonnes – the lowest since 1996. the lowest in 15 years. with total inventories plunging to 14 million tonnes. the aggregate feed use is forecast to contract for the third consecutive season. to a three-year low of 23 million tonnes. total industrial use of coarse grains in 2010/11 could approach roughly 263 million tonnes. in 2010/11 but still above its 2006/07 low of 15. the world stocks-to-use ratio for coarse grains would fall from 20 to 17. However. The biggest decline is forecast for the Russian Federation. The economic slow-down which has curbed demand for livestock products and reduced barley supply.

influenced by rising international wheat quotations. Thailand and Viet Nam. down nearly 6 percentage points from the previous season and below the ten-year low of 12 percent registered in 2006/07. especially in a context of firm agricultural commodity prices and a weak US Dollar. as some of the pressure was mitigated by the release of ample rice supplies from stocks in Viet Nam and Thailand. 24 . the major exporter’s stock-todisappearance ratio (i. prices of the lower quality rice were well above one year ago. which are expected to fall by 8 million tonnes to 5. world rice prices are likely to remain on the rise. 2010/11 f’cast 0 United States Rest of the World World Stock-to-use ratio Stock-to-disappearance ratio of Major Exporters inventories. reflecting renewed sales and the strength of the Thai baht. virtually all qualities saw Thai prices jumping in the first weeks of November. mainly because of higher domestic production. far less than the other cereals. However. world supplies for trade may remain limited at least until the 2010/11 secondary crops are harvested in March/April next year. The price of the “Thai white rice 100% B” benchmark. Rice prices underwent only moderate increases. the international rice market has stood out as rather quiet since July. subsequently. stood at USD 510 per tonne in October 2010. In fact.e. Overall. except lower quality rice. By contrast. revealing expectations of further price strength in the coming months. with fully broken rice particularly expensive in Thailand. Export quotations in both Pakistan and Viet Nam were also substantially higher. the rises reflected tightening supplies and logistical difficulties following the floods while. the quotation of rice for delivery in January 2011 has gained over 40 percent since July. despite their recent strength. with all market segments. faring more poorly. Indeed. Although of lesser relevance than for wheat or maize. 90 60 60 40 30 20 0 85/86 90/91 95/96 00/01 05/06 0 10/11 f’cast Closing stocks Stock-to-use ratio Figure 14. For instance. Based on the FAO All Rice Price Index. rice Chicago futures have also risen sharply since early July 2010. but also on fears of large losses from flooding in Pakistan and. most notably in Argentina. from the passage of storms in the Philippines. coarse grain stocks in several countries are also forecast to increase.5 million tonnes because of smaller production and larger exports. Large drawdowns of stocks are forecast for the Russian Federation (mostly barley) as well as Brazil. US maize stocks and stock-to-use-ratio Million tonnes 150 Percent 100 120 80 Rice prices remain relatively subdued Against a backdrop of sharply rising agricultural commodity prices. in Viet Nam. China and South Africa. unless India relaxes its ban on non-premium rice exports. In Pakistan. prices in the first ten months of 2010 averaged 12 percent less than in the corresponding period in 2009. Until then. under concern over flood damage. which had reached a year low of USD 466 per tonne in July. they were associated with dwindling reserves and the raising of minimum export prices. domestic consumption plus exports) in 2010/11 is expected to reach only 9 percent. rice prices gained 14 percent between July and October.Figure 13. but still remaining short of the October 2009 level of USD 535 per tonne. Canada and the Islamic Republic of Iran. However. Coarse grain stocks and ratios Million tonnes 300 Percent 21 200 14 100 7 0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 estim.

India’s rice output may rise to a record 100 million tonnes. Myanmar. the EU and United States were also curtailed. which benefited from excellent growing conditions this season. 2010/11 production forecasts have been raised for Cambodia. as well as Madagascar. Bangkok) USD per tonne 1000 Although deteriorating. The downgrading of the outlook reflects problems resulting from the La Niña weather anomaly which has prevailed since mid2010. The most important factor in the worsening of this season’s outlook was the dramatic floods that wiped out large tracts of maturing crops in Pakistan in August. the outlook for global rice production in 2010/11 remains positive Global rice production2 in the 2010/11 season is currently forecast to reach 467 million tonnes. This is substantially less than the 472 million tonnes foreseen at the beginning the season and reported in the June issue of Food Outlook. floods or typhoons. but also for the Democratic Republic of Korea. but still 11 million tonnes above 2009/10. but most of the recent worsening prospects concerned northern hemisphere countries. the outlook for world rice production in 2010/11 remains positive. 25 . while yields are forecast to fall slightly to 2. Much of the global production recovery would be accounted for by India. production forecasts were trimmed for China. sizeable production gains are also 800 2008 600 2009 2010 400 2007 200 J F M A M J J A S O N D Figure 16. Sri Lanka. the Philippines and the Republic of Korea. Notwithstanding the negative effects from drought. more than in 2009/10 when adverse weather conditions depressed rice output in Asia. The current estimate of 472 million tonnes puts global production at 2. Estimates for this year’s production in Argentina. up from 89 million tonnes last season. According to the latest forecasts.88 tonnes (milled basis) per hectare. or 11 million tonnes.b. The increase is expected to stem from a 3 percent rebound in the world area planted to rice. Global rice paddy production and area Million tonnes 750 Million ha 165 700 155 650 145 600 135 550 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 125 estim. For instance. FAO rice price indices (2002-2004=100) 350 300 250 200 150 O N D J F M A M J J A S O 2009 Indica: Low Quality Indica: High Quality 2010 Aromatic Japonica Figure 17. Brazil and Peru have been revised downward since June. Malaysia.o. which are now harvesting their main crops. Outside Asia. which all faced setbacks.Figure 15. where the pattern of this year’s monsoon rains has been far more favourable than in 2009. Lao People’s Democratic Republic. where a combination of drought and floods depressed early rice crop results.4 percent. f. Compared with the previous season. crop expectations for Egypt. However. Indonesia. f’cast Production Area 2 Production figures all expressed in milled rice equivalent. Thailand and Viet Nam and for several West African countries. Rice export price (Thai 100% B.

Sri Lanka and Viet Nam on the back of expansionary programmes. Pakistan.5 million tonnes more than in 2009. Punjab and Sindh.7 million tonnes reaped in 2009/10. Apart from Egypt. far less than the 6. with further large output increases predicted for 2011. Indonesia. or about 1. Malawi. Despite the maintenance of restrictions. Pakistan’s sales in 2010 are foreseen to hover around 3.1 million tonnes. Benin. EU and Nigeria are also predicted to end somewhat higher than last year. Myanmar. in particular Bangladesh. Mainland China.1 million feddan). Reflecting very large deliveries before the floods. Nigeria and Sierra Leone. reflecting the late arrival of rains at the end of 2009 followed by excessive precipitation and limited sunshine. Mauritania. Brazil and Uruguay. rice crops harvested early this year were substantially short of the previous season’s level in Argentina. Ecuador.8 million tonnes. Cameroon. f’cast Exports FAO Rice Export Price Index 26 . Colombia. Mexico and Paraguay are foreseen to harvest larger crops this season. The United States and Viet Nam are foreseen to account for much of the anticipated expansion of world exports in 2010. Peru and Venezuela. Overall. the leading African producer. milled eq. The increase in 2010 world imports is being sustained through purchases by Asian countries. exports from both Egypt and India are Figure 18. much less than had been predicted in the past few months. 5 percent.2 million tonnes. On the other hand. the country is estimated to have lost around 2 million tonnes of standing rice crop (milled basis). impairing 871 000 ha of rice plantings. By contrast. USDA’s forecast as of November 2010 put production in the United States at a record 7. Guinea. bringing the production forecast down to 4. In the other regions. China. Lao People’s Democratic Republic. outpacing the 2. a measure intended to save water. Indonesia and the Philippines. the Philippines.397 million tonnes. Strong demand by Near East countries is also boosting shipments from the EU. which experienced unfavourable weather conditions. Chad. Deliveries to Brazil. Production is also expected to fall in Bolivia. with particularly large increases forecast in Burkina Faso. Madagascar. The increase in the United States this season can be credited to a 17 percent expansion of plantings. the outlook for this season’s rice crops is generally positive. on the back of generally good rainfalls and continued development assistance to the sector. 45 2002-2004=100 300 30 200 15 100 0 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 0 estim. with shipments from both nations recording double digit growth.anticipated in Bangladesh. The situation in these countries contrasts with sweeping production gains expected in the rest of the region. By contrast. In Latin America and the Caribbean. mostly associated with negative growing conditions. smaller harvests in France and Italy. Mozambique and Rwanda may also face a contraction. following a cutback of plantings. often associated with unsatisfactory producer prices. In Pakistan. most of which were conducted under the aegis of government agencies with the purpose of taming domestic inflation. the Democratic Republic of Korea. with a few exceptions. the Republic of Korea and Thailand. Cote d’Ivoire.1 million tonnes. are foreseen to reduce the EU’s rice production by 4 percent to 2. where the largest producers are already preparing for the new season. Larger imports by Asian countries to boost rice trade in 2010 FAO estimates of global rice trade in calendar 2010 stands at some 30.9 million tonnes of last year. the Gambia. but largely sparing basmati rice crops. which often promote the use of hybrid rice. as erratic weather conditions in the south central states impaired yields. World rice trade and FAO rice export price index Million tonnes. Larger water entitlements to producers boosted production in Australia to its highest level since 2006. Mali. 7 percent above the previous season. Among these. the most important concerns Egypt. the devastating August floods affected the important paddygrowing provinces of Balochistan. Egypt’s output is set to contract by 18 percent as a result of a sharp reduction in plantings to comply with the government ceiling of 462 000 ha (1. reduced harvests are predicted in Cambodia. Chile. mainly IRRI-6 rice varieties. In Africa. mostly reflecting the late arrival of the rainy season and the subsequent excessive rains and storms.

extremely large deliveries this year may well constrain exports in 2011 to around 6.5 million tonnes. Egypt and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. to step up imports in 2011. with inflows from border countries facilitated under the Asean Free Trade Agreement. Sri Lanka and especially the Philippines which was the most important destination for rice trade in 2010. Reduced imports by Asian countries may depress international trade in rice in 2011 Given the latest outlook for global production in 2010/11. Australia may also reappear as an active world rice supplier in 2011.2 million tonnes in 2011. falling production this season is also likely to restrain shipments from Cambodia. rice imports are now forecast to shrink by almost 6 percent to 3. Following hints of a strongly increased crop. which determines much of next year’s individual country’s needs for import and their availabilities for export. by Thailand. while sales of the high quality basmati rice could be maintained. 27 . Pakistan’s exports are set to contract by 42 percent to 1. especially of the IRRI-6 varieties. but also Chile. Iraq and Saudi Arabia are foreseen as well. down from a 7. Colombia and Ecuador.5 million tonnes this year. up from the 8. also may need to buy more rice to bolster their exports. Given expectations of bumper crops.Figure 19. The reduction would be mainly on account of Brazil. mainly reflecting reduced purchases by Nigeria. which may export 9 million tonnes. milled eq. In Latin America and the Caribbean.7 percent. Overall. the volume of rice delivered to African countries is foreseen to fall somewhat behind last year.0 million tonne estimate for 2010. partly to compensate for the 2010 production shortfall. On the other hand. Rice imports by region Million tonnes. Among Near East Asian countries. Both Thailand and Viet Nam. Much of these shortfalls are likely to be filled by Brazil and India and. to an overall 9. On the other hand. The slight contraction mainly reflects expectations of reduced imports by Asian countries. f’cast Asia Africa Latin America Europe Others Figure 20. to be harvested in April. 15 2010 estimate 2011 forecast 10 5 0 India Pakistan Thailand USA Viet Nam Others forecast to be higher than in 2009. to compensate for a production shortfall this season. which would help the country maintain a minimum level of exports.1 million tonnes in 2011 from 14. the two leading rice exporters. 16 12 8 4 0 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 estim.3 million tonnes estimate for the current year. in the second case. Rice exports from Argentina and Brazil are also forecast to end lower. in particular.3 million tonnes. the sharp contraction of output in Egypt may require that authorities import around 100 000 tonnes. Rice exports by the major exporters Million tonnes.7 million tonnes. which are anticipated to fall to 14. two-thirds of which are destined for Central America and the Caribbean. world rice trade in calendar 2011 is forecast at 30.8 million tonnes. In the case of Viet Nam. or about 500 000 tonnes. Pakistan. milled eq. which is 1. By contrast. which were greatly damaged by this year’s floods. the Democratic Republic of Korea and Indonesia are likely to step up their imports. On the other hand. Indeed. good 2010/11 crops are expected to depress shipments to Bangladesh. especially. Afghanistan. relatively high domestic prices may depress deliveries from Thailand. Limited supplies are expected to hinder the ability of several of the major world rice suppliers to export next year. in the first case to increase the size of national reserves and. while administrative hindrances are reported to have slowed sales by Myanmar. Rice purchases by the EU are forecast to rise by 150 000 tonnes to 1.3 million tonnes. less than the 2010 estimate. may have to cut shipments sharply.

Under present expectations.4 -1. including food. the volume of rice fed to animals in 2011 is gauged unchanged at around 12 million tonnes. but less in Latin America and the Caribbean. with per capita food intake projected stable at close to 57 kg per year. higher in the southern part of the continent and mixed in the rest of the region.4 16. or 7 million tonnes more than the current estimate for 2010. Thailand.3 445. while other scopes (including seeds. feed and other uses.1 124.3 56.5 50 0 Calendar year exports (second year shown) Major exporters include India.5 17. Europe. world rice production in 2010/11 would exceed global rice utilization by close to 7 million tonnes.7 1.Rice food consumption set to expand largely in line with population In 2011.3 29. Cambodia.9 27.6 56.3 460.6 0.9 69. Prices tended to weaken in Latin America and the Caribbean.6 1. On the other hand.8 452.7 30. global rice utilization.1 455. Compared with one year ago. the Republic of Korea.1 382.0 140 30 110 20 80 10 295 1 2 253 223 -12. but rising in Bangladesh. with little change now foreseen in Africa.2 kg in Europe. rather than international price movements. with prices generally lower than in the previous year in eastern Africa.2 466. compared with 388 million tonnes this year. up from less than 53 million tonnes in 2010.9 388.6 percent. Expectations of larger 2010/11 crops are much behind the anticipated build-up of 2011 inventories Total utilization Food Ending stocks SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year) World stock-to-use ratio (%) Major exporters’ stock-todisappearance ratio (%) 2 FAO rice price index (2002-2004=100) 2008 2009 2010 Jan-Oct Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % Figure 21. Although slowly converging. Global rice closing stocks and stockto-use ratio Million tonnes Percent 40 170 56.1 3. reflecting the particular supply/demand situations prevailing in individual countries.4 0.5 5. Pakistan. The bulk of the total is likely to be destined for human consumption. Indonesia and Viet Nam. the United States and Viet Nam More detailed information on the rice market is available in the FAO Rice Market Monitor which can be accessed at: http://www. North America and Oceania.5 68. Good 2010/11 crops to boost global rice stocks in 2011 Table 6.8 27. is anticipated to amount to some 460 million tonnes. The pattern exhibited in Africa also was not uniform.6 30.7 68. now foreseen to absorb 394 million tonnes. which is expected to beef-up global rice carryover stocks from 126 million tonnes in 2010 to 133 million tonnes in 2011. the latest domestic price quotations in Asia were reported stable or falling in Nepal.8 6.0 28. At the regional level. the two largest rice holders. with over 82 kg consumed in Asia and barely 5.fao.2 2. China.6 According to the latest forecasts.2 393. with a combined 71 percent of the world total. Much of the increase would accrue to China and India. f’cast million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE (milled basis) Production Trade 1 458.9 133.org/economic/est/publications/ rice-publications/rice-market-monitor-rmm/en/ 00/01 02/03 04/05 06/07 08/09 10/11 f’cast World Stocks Stock-to-use ratio 28 . the expansion in world population would be the principal driver of rice food consumption growth. the highest level since 2002. wide differences in per capita intake continue to prevail across continents. 1.0 126.4 21. World rice market at a glance 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Change 2010/11 over 2009/10 estim. Domestic prices at the wholesale or retail levels in some representative locations evolved in different directions this year. non-food industrial usage and waste) are forecast to take up around 54 million tonnes. more rice per inhabitant is forecast to be available in 2011 than 2010 in Asia. Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Monthly retail prices of rice in selected markets 29 .Table 7.

7 million tonnes to 27. Against this backdrop. Thai currency has risen 17 percent against the US Dollar since April 2009. a sign that the market may ease in the course of next year. The upturn in quotations could have been even more pronounced were it not for the continued slump in demand for feed pellets in traditional import markets. A policy that provides support to the domestic price of maize in Mainland China has boosted international inflows of cassava. with almost half of this strengthening occurring in the past four months. the Philippines. In July 2010. quotations reached an all-time high of almost USD 600 per tonne. they had lost around 10 percent of their value. Indonesia and Sri Lanka in Asia.o. but throughout much of 2010. stocks held by the five major rice exporting countries (Thailand. Stocks held by the five major rice exporters and stock-to-disappearance ratio Million tonnes. 45 Percent 30 30 20 15 10 0 00/01 02/03 04/05 06/07 08/09 10/11 f’cast 0 Closing Stocks Stock-to-disappearance ratio 30 .6 percent in 2011. the world stocks-to-use ratio. an important indicator of world food security. and there could be scope for additional rises Figure 22. traded some 85 percent higher on average than the corresponding period last year. as well as in Bangladesh. especially starch and ethanol. Thailand and Viet Nam. as well as in Brazil. providing an additional lift to quotations. which from January to October 2010. mainly on account of increases in India and the United States.4 percent estimated for 2010 and the highest value since 2002. The most pronounced increases were registered by Thai cassava flour and starch (f. Quotations surpassed a record high in April 2010. milled eq. Cassava blended with protein-rich meals. However. At the forecast level of 133 million tonnes. on the other hand.b. a sizeable drawdown of reserves is predicted in Myanmar. the principal factor behind across-the-board price rises has been the sharp cut in Thai exportable supplies. and the United States in North America. Some of the support to Thai reference export prices has been provided by strong currency movements. is an effective substitute for coarse grains and wheat. Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce has intervened by releasing into the marketplace small quantities from official stocks of cassava products from official stocks thought to be around 900 000 tonnes. an improvement from the 27. Bangkok). is also forecast to move up from 16. Nigeria and Venezuela. The currently tight supply and demand balance is expected to lend substantial support to cassava product prices in 2011. reaching USD 225 per tonne in September before falling back slightly in October. such as soymeal.8 million tonnes. the world’s principal buyer of the commodity. the traditional destination of cassava feed products. From a trade-status perspective. Viet Nam. International quotations soar to record highs in 2010 Prices of internationally traded cassava products have surged in 2010. are forecast to remain stable around 22. Pakistan.6 percent in 2010 to 17. In an attempt to arrest the surge in prices and to shore up export competitiveness. owing to an exceptional contraction in the country’s cassava harvest in 2010. and had gained a further 15 percent. Rice stocks carried over by traditional importing countries. Pakistan. Mali and Madagascar in Africa. Cassava constitutes a competitive substitute for maize as a raw material in the industrial sector. although by October. Nepal. would equal 28. International prices for Thai cassava chips (destined for Mainland China) have risen steadily month-bymonth. adequate feed grain supplies in the EU. has limited its need to import cassava pellets.5 percent next year. Egypt.9 million tonnes. as such. United States and India) are anticipated to rise by 1. the Republic of Korea. demand for cassava products continues to soar in Mainland China. Conversely. The relation of rice inventories held by the five top rice exporters to their disappearance (utilization plus exports) gives an indication of the future availability for trade and.in the two countries.

o.US dollar exchange rate Thai Bath per USD 37 Production Trade 239.2 2009 17.2 11. First and foremost is the strong likelihood of a consecutive contraction in Thailand’s cassava crop in 2011.6 22.0 68.8 Thai domestic root prices 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Thai Tapioca Trade Association 31 .8 111.b Bangkok) Chips to China (f. This might only be temporary. Finally.4 281.8 2010 Jan-Oct -0.Share of prod (%) FAO cassava prices 31 USD/tonne % Chips to China (f.7 29. 150 100 Table 8.b.o.1 98. The growing use of cassava chips as a feedstock for ethanol distilleries in Asia has buoyed global demand for cassava in energy and alcohol production in recent years. Second. which is principally geared towards supplying the international marketplace.2 248. However.2 -0.9 -4. 250 200 Expansion in global cassava production could stall in 2010 After 15 years of uninterrupted growth.8 11. Viet Nam has struggled to participate in export markets in 2010 owing to uncompetitive pricing relative to Thai benchmark prices.1 496.0 76. will face lower exportable supplies thus putting upward pressure on quotations.1 52. Thai Baht .9 -0.Figure 23.7 22.0 28.2 4.b Bangkok) 200 Roots (Thai domestic) 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 24.7 3.9 251.1 383. global cassava production is forecast to fall to 249 million tonnes in 2010. Feed ingredient prices USD per tonne 300 in the near term. estimated to be around 20 percent of global potential trade. the prospect of global maize shortages will raise the demand for cassava in markets where the two commodities compete with each other.o. such large surpluses. Consequently.9 114. Bangkok) 28 171. will overhang markets next year. given the current upward trend in crude oil prices.4 87. The sector. 2010 f’cast Change 2010 over 2009 % China domestic maize Cassava-Soymeal 80%/20% Maize (US No.9 3.b.2 65. International cassava and Thai domestic prices USD per tonne 600 Flour/Starch 400 (Super High Grade f.9 2008 17.3 62.2 137.9 21. particularly in Mainland China.8 SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption World (kg/year) Developing (kg/year) LDC (kg/year) 16.6 106. despite ample supplies. given that ethanol prices reportedly have risen above gasoline prices in the region. 2. Yellow) (million tonnes fresh root equiv) WORLD BALANCE Figure 25.3 41.4 199. Bangkok)) Starch (f.o.9 18. now it could stall. World cassava market at a glance 2007 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 estim.6 57.8 Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 34 Sub Saharan Africa (kg/year) Trade .4 7.

namely cassava and sweet potato. limits photosynthesis and inhibits the growth of the tuberous root.7 million tonnes. could approach the record harvest of 2008. Already the virus has infected the whole of Uganda. This is also likely to continue next year. which is cultivated by around 400 000 farm households. pose a severe threat to cultivation in tropical and subtropical regions. The virus can be spread either by whitefly or by transplanting diseased material. and parts of Burundi. the traditional cassava mealybug (Phenacoccus manihoti) and the cassava green mite (Mononychellus tanajoa). Expectations initially pointed to yet another record for Mainland China’s 2010 cassava harvest. In the Philippines. Pest outbreaks were common during the 1970s and 1980s. Regarding diseases afflicting cassava. the cassava mosaic virus causes withering of plant leaves. and from subsidies and mandatory ethanol-gasoline blending requirements. varieties engineered for resistance to cassava mosaic disease are increasingly susceptible to brown streak. estimated at 3. Mainland China has initiated large-scale investments within and outside its borders to expand cassava output for ethanol production. when the buying price has been set at USD 60 (1 900 baht) per tonne. In the past decade. but in recent decades. Infestation can cause losses of up to 80 percent in cassava harvests. to fight mealybugs and Typhlodromalus aripo (a predatory mite). Around 160 000 ha are thought to have been lost to pink mealybug infestation. the mutated virus is estimated to be spreading at a directional rate of 80 km. IITA implemented biological countermeasures in the form of Apoanagyrus lopezi and Anagyrus lopezi (both parasitoidal wasps). but drought problems have affected yields with output potentially falling to 8 million tonnes. the sector has undergone remarkable expansion. In the past few years. driven predominantly by the needs of the international market. as a result. Disease and drought problems in Thailand could see production fall by around 27 percent from the bumper crop gathered in 2009. Spread by white flies. the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. sustained efforts to develop competitive national animal feed and ethanol industries could lead to another record cassava 32 . Mainland China’s cassava production more than doubled from 4 million tonnes to 8. Over the past few years. the second highest crop ever gathered in the country. visible signs of the virus are not readily apparent and. However. Estimates for Viet Nam put the 2010 harvest at around 8. peaking at around USD 84 (2 500 baht) per tonne in October 2010. the Thai price insurance programme set at USD 54 (1 700 baht) per tonne has been redundant. The industrial utilization of cassava in the form of ethanol has been the main driver of the sizeable expansion in the crop’s cultivation throughout the region. Each year. roughly over half of Mainland China’s fuel ethanol and alcohol output are now derived from root crops. Environmental concerns also have surfaced over the rapid expansion of cassava farming in Cambodia. cassava brown streak disease – a viral infection that destroys the root – has been identified as a major threat to cassava cultivation worldwide.7 million tonnes. Food security concerns have compelled Mainland China to extend a moratorium on new grain-based ethanol plants and. Authorities have attempted to suppress the outbreak by importing wasps from West Africa and are conducting research into new resistant strains to protect the crop. the virus underwent a virulent mutation in Uganda causing the complete loss of leaves. the Republic of the Congo. including the pink cassava mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus). especially Africa and Southeast Asia. In the space of five years. With high prices prevailing throughout much of the year. Officials have announced that productivity improvements will be stepped up to compensate for the area shortfall. Production in 2010. Foreign direct investment by Mainland China to meet its growing appetite for cassava as an energy feedstock and for starch production has contributed to a surge in cassava plantings in Cambodia.6 million tonnes. to fight the cassava green mite. Towards the latter half of the 1980s. 2005-2009. destroying in total an estimated 35 million tonnes of African cassava annually. Sectors have benefited from the allocation of additional land for cassava. the threat has been mitigated largely by control measures undertaken by the Institute of International Tropical Agriculture (IITA). worryingly. This restraint is the reaction to the deforestation that has resulted from the expansion of cassava fields and concerns over land degradation. progress is likely to be moderated by policy measures to limit cassava area to no more than 450 000 ha compared with 560 000 ha at present. This potential contraction is mostly due to poor crops in Asia. a decline of over 2 million tonnes from the record of the previous year.Pests.

and 2010 is likely to continue the growth. Figure 26. with production projected to rise by around 500 000 tonnes in each country from 2009 levels. mainland Cambodia Philippines Other Asia Oceania * Estimate ** Forecast 116 207 117 449 43 410 15 004 10 218 9 730 5 039 6 600 4 973 3 239 2 400 15 593 36 311 26 639 4 800 1 363 3 509 76 398 26 916 19 988 8 193 8 232 7 875 2 215 1 871 1 108 284 124 778 104 952 44 582 15 013 11 351 10 057 8 500 6 600 5 072 3 491 2 400 17 711 36 429 26 541 5 100 1 288 3 500 80 280 25 156 21 593 9 396 9 056 8 300 3 676 1 942 1 161 278 130 395 118 461 45 000 15 027 12 231 12 828 9 100 6 600 5 179 3 000 2 400 19 032 37 024 26 600 5 300 1 444 3 680 85 641 30 088 22 039 8 557 9 623 8 700 3 497 2 044 1 093 271 134 604 121 469 45 700 15 100 12 500 13 500 9 700 8 700 5 000 2 300 2 400 19 704 36 606 26 000 5 400 1 500 3 706 78 167 22 000 22 500 8 700 10 000 8 000 3 600 2 200 1 167 277 as an alternative to potentially expensive and volatile imported cereals. Both had exceptional outcomes last year. The country currently forecasts its cassava production to increase by 50 000 tonnes. While this attribute makes an accurate assessment of cassava production particularly difficult. As a “crisis crop”. and can be left in the ground for well over a year and harvested when food shortages arise or when prices of preferred cereals become prohibitive. Brazil cassava root producer prices USD per tonne 150 125 100 75 50 2007 2008 2009 2010 33 . The country has earmarked doubling its cassava area by 2014 in order to meet its domestic requirements. as well as measures to strengthen the value chain. Foreign investment is also set to play a role in boosting production elsewhere in the region. Rep.5 million tonnes. Ongoing long-term programmes for the commercialization of cassava as a food crop constitute the major factor behind Africa’s positive prospects. At the country level. World cassava production 2007 2008 2009* 2010** (000 tonnes) WORLD Africa Nigeria Congo. In Africa. up 1 percent from 2009. Support often takes the form of distribution of high-yielding and disease-resistant planting material. cassava roots require few inputs. continued turbulence in the global market for traded food staples constantly reminds many vulnerable countries to look toward indigenous crops.Table 9. Domestic investment in the sector assisted by good weather could yield strong gains in Mozambique and the United Republic of Tanzania. Mainland China reportedly has provided substantial financial support to the cassava sector in Liberia. while Ghana’s output could surpass 12 million tonnes for the second year in a row. For instance. indigenous to the region. cassava output has been characterized by robust growth in India and Indonesia. reaching 200 000 tonnes in 2010. but government food-security initiatives with the support of international donors have also played an important role. with estimates of the 2010 cassava crop approaching 9 million tonnes in each country. such as cassava.2 million tonnes. could see production reach a new height of 45. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic has announced plans to construct a large cassava ethanol refinery funded by a Chinese firm. it nonetheless is behind an anticipated expansion of African output of over 3 percent. the world’s leading producer. which reportedly has prompted a 50 000 ha expansion in cassava acreage. notably food processing for value-added cassava products. to some 135 million tonnes in 2010. a new entrant to its rising output of 2. of Ghana Angola Mozambique Tanzania. extension activities to introduce “good agricultural practices”. United Rep.of Uganda Malawi Madagascar Other Africa Latin America Brazil Paraguay Colombia Other Latin America Asia Thailand Indonesia Viet Nam India China. Dem. In other major producing countries of the region. Nigeria.

  Shipments are likely to be sustained from the country’s stocks given the huge downgrading of the 2010 cassava crop.investment portfolio in the region. could also limit recovery in Asia. while volatile. Viet Nam recently emerged as a major competitor. especially sugar cane. up by 38 percent in volume from 2009. Thai trade in cassava 2005 2006 2007 2008 000 tonnes Total Flour and starch total Japan China Chinese prov. the country is anticipated to ship around 11. Table 10. owing to a rise in export quotations. This forecast is based on rising international need for cassava as a feedstock for ethanol production combined with the sustained competitiveness of cassava starch relative to grain-based products.6 million tonnes (chip and pellet weight equivalent) of cassava chips. but its 2010 cassava product exports are likely to contract by 40 percent from last year’s excellent performance to around 2. accounting 34 . The 2010 production outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean points to a small expansion reflecting an anticipated increase in harvested area in Brazil.4 million tonnes. Regarding the energy sector. The decline was initially estimated to be much larger. by far the world’s largest international supplier. Robust global demand has resulted in a stronger pace of cassava shipments from Thailand. of Taiwan Indonesia Malaysia Others Chips and pellets China Republic of Korea European Union Others 1 9 240 4 416 729 694 548 667 256 1 523 4 824 3 168 20 1 436 200 6 810 3 963 873 611 483 417 296 1 284 2 848 1 214 480 989 170 9 402 4 991 746 1 220 684 617 412 1 311 4 411 4 237 111 17 46 11 590 5 626 744 1 368 631 901 483 1 500 5 964 5 925 15 5 20 In product weight of chips and pellets Source: Thai Tapioca Trade Association (TTTA) Asia drives global cassava trade to new heights in 2010 Despite the downturn in global production. In Malawi. on the other hand. But. As for Colombia and Paraguay. drought conditions prevailing much of this year will likely lead to output contraction in the order of 20 percent. the region’s largest producer. began moving upwards in the middle of last year and have had a positive effect on planting decisions. World exports of cassava (product weight equivalent) 2007 2008 2009 2010 000 tonnes Total Flour and Starch Thailand Viet Nam Others Chips and Pellets Thailand Viet Nam Indonesia Others 1 11 192 4 686 4 416 1 328 269 6 506 4 824 527 210 156 9 452 4 265 3 963 946 302 5 187 2 848 437 170 169 14 089 8 062 4 991 2 735 335 6 027 4 411 1 265 160 191 14 625 7 636 5 626 1 641 369 6 989 5 964 759 96 170 In product weight of chips and pellets Outlook for 2011 Prospects for global production in 2011 appear somewhat mixed. but both countries have experienced firm growth in cassava production in recent years. in Uganda. Mainland China looks set to strengthen its position as the most important buyer on the international stage. but there has been improved confidence in the sector’s ability to contain the mealybug infestation. Similarly.7 million tonnes (chip and pellet weight equivalent). Producer prices. currency movements have also adversely affected Viet Nam’s competitiveness in export markets. early official estimates for the 2011 crop show a further contraction of around 4 percent. world trade in cassava products in the current year is expected to rise by 4 percent to a record 14. sustained public support and private investment in scaling-up cassava crops to meet the needs of the food sector in Africa and the industrial and energy sectors in Asia could provide an impetus for a return to global production growth. little is known about the current situation. Overall. 2010 harvest prospects are expected to be downgraded due to an outbreak of cassava brown streak disease. the region’s other major cassava producing countries. Table 11. in Thailand. the recent reduction of the ethanol tariff in Mainland China from 30 to 5 percent is likely to trigger significant investment in integrated cassava-ethanol facilities involving new plantations. Pegged to the US Dollar. pellets and starch in 2010. For instance. Improved returns for competing crops.

Little is known as to how feed usage has fared in the former two regions. Viet Nam has plans to construct an ethanol facility with an annual capacity of 125 million litres. but is likely to play a very minor role in 2010. Brazil mandates to incorporate 10 percent cassava flour in wheat flour. In this regard. where consumption of cassava (mostly in the form of fresh roots and basic processed products) is on the increase. Regarding cassava starch and flour. The policy has reinforced the competitiveness of imported cassava. the degree of capacity utilization and expansion in cassava-based ethanol industries in Mainland China will play an important role in determining trade prospects. Utilization of cassava as animal feed. 35 . In the past year. For instance. Nigeria in Africa. The factory will provide one-half of its volume to the domestic market. A typical distillery can produce about 280 litres (222 kg) of 96 percent pure ethanol from 1 tonne of cassava roots with 30 percent starch content. This is particularly evident in subSaharan Africa. Indeed. A policy introduced last November that subsidizes domestic maize purchases to meet demand in deficit areas rather than through imports. initiatives that target cassava to meet rising dietary staple needs have been undertaken in many vulnerable countries. With the expected overall production rising faster than population per capita food availability looks set to rise in the region by around 3. The cassava demand from ethanol sectors for meeting mandatory blending will again emerge as a significant driver in the expansion of cassava utilization. Viet Nam has assisted Thailand in meeting this demand. owing to the limited availability of cassava flour. remain active throughout the world and constitute an important determinant in higher cassava food consumption. Though several major producing countries in West Africa also have promoted this initiative. Global imports of chips are again expected to be dominated by Mainland China. At present. the reduction in Mainland China’s ethanol tariff has led several of them to gear up towards exporting the biofuel instead of the raw feedstock. with a small amount of cross-border transactions. either for direct consumption or through blending. but the demand for cassava feed Outlook for 2011 The trade outlook for 2011 is once again on the positive side. even though cassava products are being traded around record price levels. with the remainder going for export. an estimated 650 million litres of ethanol will be produced from cassava in 2010. principally to meet capacity of the burgeoning cassava-based ethanol sector. Nigeria is considering a parliamentary bill officially mandating a 10 percent blend. Cassava quotations are expected to be attractive in this context and could underpin a rise in pellet and chip shipments to the feed and industrial sectors around the world. in the form of dried chips and pellets. global transactions are expected to fall moderately short of the record volume traded in 2009. and Mainland China and the Republic of Korea in Asia. in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Indeed. has pushed up maize prices considerably in the country. demand for chips by the country is set to underpin world trade in chips and pellets in 2010.for almost 70 percent of all cassava imports in 2010. the competitiveness of other feedstocks and the ethanol price relative to petroleum. However. is mostly concentrated in Brazil and Colombia in Latin America and the Caribbean.6 kg to around 115 kg. Similarly. in turn. much depends on Mainland China’s continued presence in the global marketplace which. Prospects for development of a truly global market for cassava are becoming more unlikely. and on the likelihood of further increases in the price of imported maize. which an estimated 50 percent of the country’s cassava crop. While the country has secured agreements with several neighbouring countries to supply its ethanol industry with the feedstock. the surge underway in global sugar and molasses quotations and an upward trend in the price of petroleum may well prompt Asian countries to rely more on cassava to meet ethanol mandates and industrial alcohol demand. Food and ethanol drive cassava utilization in 2010 Regarding food utilization. Measures to promote domestic cassava flour over imported cereals. many have fallen short of enforcement. In Mainland China. construction could soon begin on an ethanol refinery with a productive capacity of around 390 million litres per year. with Thailand again expected to capture share at the expense of Viet Nam in a market orientated towards supplying neighbouring destinations. combined with inventory control. requiring around 5 million tonnes of dried cassava. by 14 percent from the previous year to just over 7 million tonnes. These developments reaffirm that international cassava trade within Southeast Asia is being increasingly confined to fulfil industrial requirements in the subregion. relies on the country’s policy that gives cassava a competitive edge over grain-based substitutes. The demand for processing cassava into energy will depend on the margin of ethanol returns.

thus sustaining prices. 36 . FAO monthly international price indices for oilseeds. However. Renewed price firmness over the 2008/09 marketing season (October-September) mirrored market fundamentals. the prospect of lower than expected outturns in 2010/11 oilcrops. At the same time. lent new support to prices in the oilseed complex. 100 Oilseeds 50 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Figure 28. sunflower and fishmeal supplies became increasingly tight. fears that some countries could contemplate restricting exports. Therefore. by October 2010. driving the respective stock-touse ratios down. the analysis of the market situation is mainly undertaken in terms of oils/fats and cakes/meals. CBOT soybean futures for March USD per tonne 650 550 450 350 250 M A M J J A S O N 2009 values 2010 values 2011 values 3 4 Almost the entire volume of oilcrops harvested worldwide is crushed in order to obtain oils and fats for human nutrition or industrial purposes and cakes and meals used as feed ingredients. oils and meals had climbed to levels not reached during the preceding 24 months and. During 2009/10. As a result. prolonged weakness in the US Dollar and continued firmness in the energy market also helped to sustain prices. cassava applications in the manufacture of feed ingredients have been virtually non-existent in the past two years. given the rising global scarcity of grain-based products. However. For details on prices and corresponding indices. Towards the end of the 2009/10 season. rather than referring to oilseeds. A number of external factors also added to the price firmness in the oilseed complex. the overall supply and demand situation eased thanks in particular to a strong rise in world soybean production. Forecasts of slowing growth in palm oil production caused additional concern. during the second half of 2009/10. international prices did not relax . Then. the world market relied totally on supplies from the United States. Hence. in early 2009 prices for oilcrops and oilcrop products again embarked on an upward trend. unabated growth in soybean import demand (primarily from China). South America’s new crop took unusually long to reach the market.for a number of reasons. Also for oils and fats. in that world production of both oilmeals and oils fell short of global demand for the second consecutive season. the index even exceeded the values recorded during the 2008 price surge.ingredients in Asia remains weak. global supplies remained tight relative to demand. in Europe. prospects of a resurgence in the feed usage of cassava have brightened. the FAO price indices for oilseeds. do not reflect the outcome of actual oilseed crushing nor take into account changes in oilseed stocks. in particular the growing weakness of the US Dollar and the relative strength of mineral oil prices. Similarly. i. where stocks had dropped to a historical low. Figure 27. and rape. in the case of meals. oils/fats and oilmeals/cakes (2002-2004=100) 300 250 Oils/fats 200 Oilmeals/cakes 150 Strong rebound in world prices in recent months Following the 2007/08 surge and subsequent decline. production data for oils (cakes) derived from oilseeds refer to the oil (cake) equivalent of the current production of the relevant oilseeds. the data on trade in and stocks of oils (cakes) refer to the sum of trade in and stocks of oils and cakes plus the oil (cake) equivalent of oilseed trade and stocks. see appendix Table A24. in the case of meals. and the global stock-to-use ratio recovered only partially from the previous season’s critically low level. For example. during the first half of the season.e. Furthermore. but also grains.

which will influence vegetable oil demand by biodiesel producers. Global meal inventories could decrease marginally. (ii) next year’s allocation of land among soy. FAO monthly price index for oils/fats (2002-2004=100) 300 2007/08 250 200 2009/10 150 Current forecasts for 2010/11 suggest that total oilcrop output could remain close to last season’s record level. Meanwhile. tight export availabilities should slow expansion in oilseed product trade. while inventories of oils should fall markedly.throughout 2010/11 . four key unknowns that will impact whether and by how much world prices will increase beyond their present level: (i) the impact of the currently developing La Niña weather pattern on the next South American soy crop and on Southeast Asia’s palm oil production. vegetable oils. point toward continued strength . Based on these forecasts. stock-to-use ratios for both meals and oils would drop. There are. and (iv) the development of the United States currency. together with the likely persisting strong price linkage between soy and maize/wheat. given its influence on global trade patterns. 2008/09 100 O N D J F M A M J J A S 37 . maize and wheat. global production of meals is anticipated to exceed world demand by a very small margin. the price of soybeans for delivery in March 2011 surged even higher. FAO monthly price index for meals/ cakes (2002-2004=100) 240 2009/10 2007/08 210 180 2008/09 150 O N D J F M A M J J A S Figure 31. FAO monthly price index for oilseeds (2002-2004=100) 250 2007/08 220 190 2008/09 160 2009/10 130 O N D J F M A M J J A S Figure 30. while a new production deficit is likely to develop for oils/fats.in world prices of oilseeds. However. meals and particularly. with the oils ratio reaching a critically low level.Figure 29. with meal and oil utilization expected to expand further. These market fundamentals. however. compared with USD 360 1 year earlier. as all three commodities appear to be at risk of additional tightness in 2011/12. to USD 492 per tonne. primarily in the United States. Following the release of the USDA report on 9 November. which pointed to a tighter supply situation. (iii) the pattern of energy prices. Soybean futures in Chicago exceeded USD 460 per tonne in the first week of November.

Global 2010/11 oilcrop output to match last season’s record level
After last season’s extraordinary rise in production, global oilcrop output is forecast to remain virtually unchanged in 2010/11. At the current estimate of 453.7 million tonnes, global output would closely trail last season’s all-time record. As to individual oilseeds, a year-on-year fall in production is expected for soybeans, rapeseed and copra. However, these drops should be offset almost entirely by rising cottonseed, groundnut and palmkernel production. The anticipated recovery in cottonseed is particularly noteworthy, as output is anticipated to increase by more than 10 percent, mainly on account of improved crops in India and the United States. With regard to rapeseed, global output is expected to fall markedly below the average of recent years after adverse weather depressed production in major producing areas, notably Canada, the EU and the Ukraine. Production in China is also reported lower, due to continued gradual contraction in area. While unfavourable weather conditions in Eastern Europe also hampered sunflower seed cultivation, global output should remain unchanged thanks to production rises in Argentina, India and Turkey. World soybean production is anticipated to reach 257.6 million tonnes, the second highest on record after last year’s all-time high, as farmers respond to firm soybean prices and due to generally beneficial weather conditions. Among northern hemisphere producers, the United States reported a record-breaking harvest for the second

consecutive year. Record crops are also anticipated in Canada and the Ukraine. While extensive plantings and favourable weather also helped sustain production in India, a further shrinking in area and output is reported from China. In the southern hemisphere, where planting of the soybean crop has only just started, current forecasts point to a production decrease compared with last season’s peak. Yields should revert to the historic average considering the ongoing transition from the rainy El Niño weather pattern to dryer La Niña conditions. In Brazil, attractive profit margins were expected to support plantings, but dry weather may eventually curtail sowings and negatively affect yields. Below normal rainfall also could affect the crop in Argentina, where, in addition, some areas may be shifted in favour of grain and sunflower seed. Consequently, South America’s combined soy output could shrink by over 3 percent this season to about 130 million tonnes, still the second highest output on record.

Ample carry-in stocks to sustain global oil/fat supplies
Current 2010/11 crop forecasts translate into a 1.5 percent increase in global oils/fats production, much weaker than the average 4 percent growth experienced over the past five seasons. Oil extracted from annual oilcrops is in fact expected to shrink given the disappointing harvests of the two key high oil-yielding oilseeds - rape and sunflower - and increased reliance on low oil-content soybeans. However, perennial crops are expected to compensate this fall, particularly palm oil, production of which is forecast to grow by a healthy 6.5 percent (i.e. double the rate recorded last year), due to the developing La Niña weather pattern which tends to augment rainfall throughout Southeast Asia, as well as further increases in mature area, notably in Indonesia. Global oils/fats supplies, which comprise 2010/11 production plus global 2009/10 ending stocks, should expand by over 2 percent, thanks to good stock positions at the beginning of this season. However, the projected year-on-year supply growth remains weak in historic terms. Among the main producing countries, domestic availability of oils/fats is set to expand in particular in Argentina, Brazil, India and Indonesia, with abundant 2009/10 ending stocks contributing greatly in Argentina and Brazil. Availability should also expand, though less strongly, in the United States. However, modest or zero growth is

Table 12. World production of major oilseeds
2007/08 2008/09 estim. 2009/10 f’cast Change 2009/10 over 2008/09 %

million tonnes

Soybeans Cottonseed Rapeseed Groundnuts (unshelled) Sunflower seed Palm kernels Copra Total

211.7 41.8 58.4 35.4 34.7 11.6 5.2 398.8

260.5 39.9 60.8 32.8 32.4 12.0 5.8 444.2

257.6 44.3 56.5 34.2 32.4 12.6 5.3 442.9

-1.1 11.1 -7.1 4.1 0 5.4 -10.0 -0.3

Note: The split years bring together northern hemisphere annual crops harvested in the latter part of the first year shown, with southern hemisphere annual crops harvested in the early part of the second year shown. For tree crops, which are produced throughout the year, calendar year production for the second year shown is used.

5

This section refers to oils from all origins, which – in addition to products derived from the oil crops discussed under the section on oilseeds – include palm oil, marine oils as well as animal fats.

38

Table 13. World oilseed and product markets at a glance
2008/09 2009/10 estim. million tonnes TOTAL OILSEEDS Production OILS AND FATS Production Supply2 Utilization3 Trade4 Stock-to-utilization ratio (%) MEALS AND CAKES5 Production Supply
2 3 1

2010/11 f’cast

Change 2010/11 over 2009/10 %

409.5

454.8

453.7

-0.3

161.5 184.8 163.6 86.2 13.6

172.0 194.2 169.9 88.9 14.2

174.6 198.8 178.0 90.8 13.2

1.5 2.4 4.7 2.2

100.0 117.9 104.6 62.3 14.0 2007/08

116.0 130.6 109.5 66.8 17.4 2008/09

115.4 134.6 114.9 69.9 16.4 2009/10

-0.5 3.1 4.9 4.6

Utilization Trade4

Stock-to-utilization ratio (%) FAO price indices (Oct-Sep) (2002-2004=100)

Change: 2009/10 over 2008/09 % 3.8 19.4 20.1

Oilseeds Oilmeals/cakes Oils/fats

217 202 243

156 180 144

162 215 173

Note: Refer to footnote 3 in the text for further explanations regarding definitions and coverages 1 Includes oils and fats of vegetable, animal and marine origin 2 Production plus opening stocks 3 Residual of the balance 4 Trade data refer to exports based on a common October/September marketing season 5 All meal figures are expressed in protein equivalent; meals include all meals and cakes derived from oilcrops as well as meals of marine and animal origin

numerous countries are behind such expansion. Biodiesel production is anticipated to account for at least half of this season’s rise in global consumption. As in past years, a major portion of global demand growth is expected to originate in Asia, with China as the dominant player and food uses as the main source of growth. With consumption exceeding 33 million tonnes, up more than 5 percent from last season, Mainland China remains the world’s largest consuming nation. In India and Indonesia, Asia’s second and third largest consumers, demand is expected to expand by 3-4 percent. Other developing countries with strong expansion rates include Argentina and Brazil, where consumption growth will be driven by rising purchases from the biofuel industry. Year-on-year, total consumption is estimated to rise almost 40 percent in Argentina and 15 percent in Brazil, with biodiesel production absorbing, respectively, around 60 and 30 percent of domestic soyoil output. Also in Canada, the EU and the United States consumption growth should be driven primarily by biodiesel demand. In the EU, however, growth could be less strong than in recent years due to the implementation of complex directives on bioenergy use, which may temporarily slow activities. EU demand growth also should be constrained by the anticipated drop in domestic supplies, including low carryover stocks from last season. In the United States, consumption should recover from the recent drops thanks to renewed growth in biodiesel production following higher utilization mandates, although this assumes the reintroduction of the customary production incentives. Overall, increasingly ambitious biodiesel production/consumption targets are likely to significantly

expected in China and Malaysia, while exceptional drops in supplies are forecast for Canada, the EU and the Ukraine, mostly owing to poor harvests.

Figure 32. Global production and utilization of oils/fats
Million tonnes 180 Million tonnes 4

Consumption growth to continue due to rising food use and biodiesel applications
Global demand for oils/fats is anticipated to continue expanding in 2010/11. With an estimated year-on-year rise of 4.7 percent, consumption growth would exceed the average rate of the last four seasons. Negative demand response to firming oils/fats prices should be limited as population and economic growth boost average per caput use among developing countries. Renewed growth in demand from the biodiesel industry will also contribute to the rise in consumption. Higher mandatory blending rates and the creation of additional production capacity in

170

2

160

0

150

-2

140 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
estim.

-4 2010/11
f’cast

Production (left axis)

Utilization (left axis)

Balance (production minus utilization, right axis)

39

affect the availability and trade of vegetable oils for food and other traditional uses. Commodity-wise, consumption growth will be fuelled primarily by soyoil, followed by palm oil. The anticipated reliance on soyoil reflects this season’s poor sunflower and rapeseed harvests and the fact that South America’s expansion in biodiesel production will be largely soyoil based.

recorded in the last ten years and would suggest additional price firmness in international oils/fats markets during 2010/11.

Oils/fats trade to expand further in 2010/11, though at a below average rate
In 2010/11, global trade in oils/fats (including the oil contained in traded oilseeds) is forecast to reach 90.8 million tonnes, expanding by 2 percent from last season’s level. The anticipated growth is below-average and this is mostly because of higher biodiesel blending obligations that are expected to come into force in the world’s leading suppliers of soy oil (the United States, Argentina and Brazil) which

Production deficit vis-à-vis demand to drive inventories down
As opposed to last season, global oils/fats demand in 2010/11 is anticipated to exceed production and, in turn, lead to a drop in global inventories. The production shortfall is estimated to amount to 3.3 million tonnes or 2 percent. Global inventories (measured as oils/fats inventories per se, plus the oil contained in stored oilseeds) are projected to fall to 23.5 million tonnes, representing a year-on-year drop of 3 percent. Given this season’s poor rape and sunflower seed harvests, global stocks of the respective oils are expected to contract markedly. The fall should however be partly offset by a build-up of palm oil and, to a lesser extent, soyoil inventories. With regard to major stockholding countries, a net decrease in stocks appears likely in Canada, primarily reflecting weak production; in Argentina, Brazil and India, mostly resulting from rising domestic consumption; and in the EU, due to both factors. Significant stocks rebuilding is expected only in Indonesia and Malaysia. The anticipated fall in global stocks combined with the projected rise in world consumption would cause the stock-to-use ratio to drop to 13.2, which, if confirmed, would be the lowest level

Figure 34. Total oil/fat imports by region or major country (including the oil contained in seed imports)
Million tonnes 32

24

16

8

0

2002/03

2004/05

2006/07

2008/09

2010/11
f’cast

Asia excl. China (total) Latin America United States & Canada

Europe China (total) Africa

Figure 33. World closing stocks and stock-to-use ratio of oils/fats (including the oil contained in seeds stored)
Million tonnes 30 Percent 17

Figure 35. Oil/fat exports by major exporters (including the oil contained in seed exports)
Million tonnes 25

2009/10 estimate
20

2010/11 forecast

20

15 15

10

13

10

5 0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
estim.

2010/11
f’cast

11 0 Argentina Brazil Canada Indonesia Malaysia United States

World Stocks

Stock-to-use ratio

40

notably Canada and CIS countries. with only modest gains in livestock production and continued availability of attractively priced distilled dried grain. the combination of low carry-in stocks with poor harvests is expected to result in an unusual drop in supplies. By contrast. which – in addition to products derived from the oil crops discussed under the section on oilseeds – include fish meal as well as meals of animal origin. are expected to reduce export availabilities in some nations. United States meal demand is expected to remain below historic levels. Production (left axis) Utilization (left axis) Balance (production minus utilization. The key growth element in the export market will be Indonesia’s and Malaysia’s record palm oil shipments. to almost 30 million tonnes (in protein equivalent). Million tonnes 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 2010/11 f’cast 6 This section refers to meals from all origins. global meals/cakes production should remain about unchanged compared with last season’s all-time record. groundnut and fish meal. due to this season’s ample harvests and because rising domestic prices are likely to trigger a release of stocks and an acceleration in crushing. In the EU. Commodity-wise. which can only be satisfied via industrial livestock rearing employing protein-rich feedstuffs. While consumption should expand worldwide. Meal consumption to grow in spite of firm prices Global consumption of meals/cakes is forecast to expand by almost 5 percent in 2010/11 despite historically high prices. China continues to account for close to one-quarter of global demand. continue to rely on foreign purchases for domestic consumption . With regard to main producers. also thanks to abundant opening stocks Assuming current 2010/11 crop forecasts materialize. notably rape and sunflower seed. Last season’s strong recovery in soybean stocks should allow overall supplies to climb to an all-time record. Mainland China’s consumption is projected to grow by 10 percent. Global meal supplies to rise. In Africa. Overall. meal consumption could recover from its recent drops. The anticipated 7 percent drop in rapeseed and 1 percent drop in soybean meal output should be partly offset by rising production of cottonseed. the world’s second largest importer. Global production and utilization of meals/cakes Million tonnes 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 estim. By contrast. are expected to climb to a new record. while purchases by other Asian countries add up to another third. or roughly one-fourth of the world total.more than 60 percent in Mainland China and almost 50 percent in India.could limit the growth in export availabilities. the outlook for global feed demand and meal consumption remains uncertain. Both China and India. the share of soymeal in total consumption is likely to rise this season owing to reduced availabilities of sunflower and rapeseed meal. While total shipments should grow beyond last season’s record volume in the United States. driven by rising population and income combined with surging per capita consumption of livestock products. given the concurrence of poor rapeseed harvests with further rising demand from biofuel producers. as additional strength in international prices of maize and other feedgrains could temper the projected increases in livestock production and thus feed demand. right axis) 41 . Mainland China alone should account for over 40 percent of global demand expansion. the region’s two main importers. and contrary to last season. much of the growth is likely to be concentrated in Asia. poor harvests in certain oilcrops. Argentina. Latin America and the Caribbean. Purchases by the EU. Furthermore. higher supply estimates in India and the United States are based on this season’s ample crops. palmkernel. India’s imports could fall slightly. the sales of Argentina and Brazil are likely to fall short of past levels. In the EU. Figure 36. given initial signs of a revival of livestock production and rising prices of competing feed grains. With regard to imports. average demand growth is expected to remain below 3 percent. trade expansion is anticipated to rely primarily on palm oil and not soyoil. World supplies of meals/cakes (which comprise 2010/11 production plus 2009/10 ending stocks) are anticipated to expand by around 3 percent. Brazil and China would owe their improved availabilities primarily to high carry-in stocks. Consequently.

the global stock-to-use ratio could fall. trade is anticipated to grow by less than 5 percent in 2010/11. including the meal contained in imported oilseeds). 2010/11 f’cast 10 World Stocks Stock-to-use ratio to reconstitute inventories that lingered well below average levels during the two past seasons. Meal/cake exports by major exporters (including the meal contained in seed exports) Million tonnes 50 2009/10 estimate 40 2010/11 forecast 30 20 10 0 Argentina Brazil Canada India Paraguay United States 42 . Although below-record harvests are forecast in both countries. As to sunflower and rapeseed meal. rising soymeal stocks are anticipated to compensate for the drop in global rapeseed meal inventories. which. estimated at over 70 million tonnes.Figure 37. As to the different meals. Global trade in meals. world meal production is anticipated to surpass consumption by barely 0. primarily Mainland China. Other areas where imports are likely to rise are the EU and the Russian Federation. the EU and Brazil offset by an increase in inventories held in the United States. more than 60 percent of the projected rise in import demand is expected to occur in Asia. Global inventories (which include meal inventories plus the meal contained in stored oilseeds) should remain about unchanged with lower stocks in Argentina. Global meal production expected to barely exceed demand In 2010/11. would be the basis for virtually all of this season’s anticipated expansion. Total meal/cake imports by region or major country (including the meal contained in seed imports) Million tonnes 60 40 20 0 2002/03 2004/05 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11 f’cast Expansion in trade to slow down compared with last season After last season’s 7 percent rise in global meals/cakes transactions (expressed in protein equivalents and including the meal contained in oilseeds traded). A contraction is expected in rapeseed and sunflower meal trade. World closing stocks and stock-to-use ratio of meals/cakes (in protein equivalent and including the meal contained in seeds stored) Million tonnes 25 Percent 25 20 20 15 15 10 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 estim. as increased supplies could be used Asia excl. but remain close to the average of the past three seasons. forecast at a record 60 million tonnes. Due to the projected solid increase in meal consumption. driven by the livestock sector’s rapid expansion and disappointing domestic oilseed production. compared with last season. an anticipated reduction in export availabilities stems mainly from recent production shortfalls in CIS countries. Sales by the United States are forecast to grow only marginally from last season’s record level. unlike last season when production exceeded demand by an ample margin. With regard to meal imports. Figure 38. China (total) Latin America United States & Canada Europe China (total) Africa Figure 39. Argentina and Brazil should account for the bulk of increased soy and soymeal exports. they still should be in a position to expand shipments thanks to high carryover stocks from last season. continues to rely to a very large extent on soy.5 percent. whose meal purchases are forecast to swell to a record 48 million tonnes (in product weight. In India. both of which have reported poor domestic harvests that are expected to lead to a deficit in meal supplies. a good harvest and releases from stocks are expected to allow a recovery in soymeal shipments.

Output in Brazil is set to reach just about 40 million tonnes.87 2008 World sugar production to increase in 2010/11 World sugar production is expected to reach 168. Data relate to the October/September season.2 percent in 2010/11.37 7. 28 A tight market prospect underpins the increased prices Soon after reaching a 30-year peak in January 2010.Figure 40.03 2. For the first time since 2007/08. and reaching US 24. rising further to US 18. about 45 percent of total sugar-cane harvest will be allocated for the production of sugar. the world’s largest sugar consuming country.51 cents per pound in August.30 162.75 -5. higher prices witnessed over the past 12 months encouraged the use of fertilizers and other inputs.6 cents per pound (USD 543 per tonne) in October. They averaged US 15. although below early estimates. It is estimated that by the end of the 2010/11 season. the world’s largest producer and exporter of sugar.66 53.50 160. which represents an increase of 7. as a result of an expansion in sugar-cane area and generally favourable weather. production is predicted to expand by 6.59 33. significantly reducing cane and beet yields.8 last season.79 60.7 million tonnes.08 Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 12. 2010/11 f’cast Change: 2010/11 over 2009/10 million tonnes % WORLD BALANCE Production Trade Utilization Ending stocks 151.96 13.16 13. The bulk of the expansion is expected to take place in the developing countries. This is up from 7 Sugar production figures refer to centrifugal sugar derived from sugar cane or beet. The surge in sugar quotations was prompted by the prospects of a tight sugar market for 2010/11.2 percent above World (kg/year) LIFDC (Kg/year) World stock-to-use ratio (%) ISA Daily Price Average (US cents/lb) 22. However. but will likely be subject to downward revisions as the season progresses. these expected reductions are foreseen to be compensated by gains in Brazil. Also. and based on the latest available supply and demand information.80 18. as drought hampered sugar-cane development of late season varieties.05 47.62 166. In South America.80 168.94 2010 Jan-Oct 0. Other factors contributing significantly to the rise in sugar prices include the depreciation of the US Dollar and the latest strengthening of energy prices.15 2.14 20.85 cents per pound in June.09 56. particularly as the stock-to-use ratio is projected to remain still at an acceptable level. market fundamentals do not justify the extent of the current surge in prices.96 -0. the drought period contributed to an increase in sugar content which helped offset some of the decrease in cane yields.87 SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: 22.80 50.50 37.70 2009 23. as opposed to almost no growth in the developed countries. The growth is mostly attributed to a significant recovery in production in India.89 156. which is 7.59 54.80 million tonnes in 2010/11.07 16. expressed in raw equivalents. However. As such. and India. 23 2010 2009 18 2008 13 2007 8 J F M A M J J A S O N D Table 14. international prices declined for four straight months before trending upward in the second half of the year. as less than ideal weather conditions impacted several sugar exporting countries in the form of floods and droughts.3 percent. where production is forecast to grow by 10. World sugar market at a glance 2008/09 2009/10 estim. which contributed to higher yields in most producing countries.58 33.7 percent over the 2009/10 season. 43 . International Sugar Agreement (ISA) US cent per lb. world production in 2010/11 is expected to surpass consumption – the surplus is predicted to hover around 2.94 13.

35 44 percent in 2009/10.80 129. Production in the Sudan is now expected to reach 980 000 tonnes on the back of expansion in processing capacity. because of dry weather in Zululand that is likely to reduce sugar-cane yields.96 4.5 million tonnes in 2010/11. If the analysis takes into account only the raw sugar market. that share is estimated to reach 74 percent. the top five sugar exporters accounted for 66 percent of world trade. sugar production is forecast to decline by 1. world sugar market prices went from a 30-year monthly record level achieved in January to a 12-month low in May. Although the Sudan plans to become a net exporter of sugar by 2014. Sugar production in Egypt.78 4. then Brazil would account for about 65 percent of all raw sugar traded globally. Table 15.Over the past ten months. it still will require imports this season to meet buoyant internal demand. while output in Cuba is set to fall.82 48.43 7. in part.3 million tonnes in 2010/11. A broad-base supply response would be conducive to a relative reduction in overall price volatility. rising domestic prices. up from 62 percent in the period of 2000 to 2004. In Central America.25 7. In spite of difficult growing conditions in several sugar producing countries.53 10. For 2010/11. as poor infrastructure and low productivity continue to constrain the subsector. meet domestic demand – which in recent years has slowed due to greater usage of high fructose maize syrup (HFCS) imported from the United States by local industry at the expense of locally produced sugar. which is 170 000 tonnes or 2 percent above the previous season. With import expected to grow over the medium term. driven by better margins than those realized when converting cane into ethanol. 2010 represented the sixth most volatile year since 1970. with Brazil accounting for 52 percent of world sugar trade. sugar production in Mexico should increase significantly over last year’s level.7 percent to 2. total sugar production in Africa is projected to reach 11 million tonnes in 2010/11. due to scarce land and water resources.69 23. In Guatemala. at the same time.45 39. with high domestic sugar prices favouring the transformation of cane into sugar over ethanol.33 61. reflects the increasing concentration in the export market. When accounting for the fact that the quantities exported to the EU and the United States under trade agreements do not enter the world market. In Colombia. Strong domestic consumption growth and improved access to the EU market under the EverythingBut-Arms Initiative (EBA) and the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are the factors behind large investment efforts in Africa. which.94 156. output in Argentina should increase. this will further exacerbate the pressure on the sugar industry of the major exporters – unless a broad-base expansion of supply takes place in other producing countries in reaction to the current high prices. despite the implementation of new ethanol mandates which could slow expansion in the coming years.27 11. So far. However. with area reportedly forecast to reach 151 200 ha. driven by buoyant internal demand.67 45. Between 2005 and 2009. the second largest sugar producer in Africa. the second largest producer in the region. The bumper crop should enable the country to export greater quantities of sugar to the United States under the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and. While area under sugar cane has been stagnant over the years. insufficient trade infrastructure and on-farm technology adoption constrain further gains in output and export. should support output expansion despite less than ideal weather. 44 . with foreign direct investments from Gulf States and Brazil.95 168. before reverting back to an upward trend and eventually soaring to again a 30year high by early November. as more than adequate rains and improved use of fertilizers are set to boost cane harvest. The increase in output is attributed to expansion of area and processing capacity.83 11. the largest sugar producer in the region. Assuming favourable growing conditions.66 117. beet sugar is expanding. World sugar production 2009/10 2010/11 million tonnes Asia Africa Central America South America North America Europe Oceania World Developing countries Developed countries 52.33 39.31 23. A high degree of export concentration implies that market uncertainties related to the size of supply in Brazil and the other four main sources of export can result in large price spikes and price swings such as those witnessed in recent months. increases in sugarcane area should boost production to 2. then Brazil would account for about 75 percent of all the raw sugar traded at the world level. is expected to remain about the same as last year.05 11. In South Africa.

most likely upwards. up 17. Above-average rainfall is set to raise production in the United Republic of Tanzania to 340 000 tonnes. An increase in production is expected in China for 2010/11 as a result of a significant surge in area planted under beet (40 percent) in the three main beet producing regions. Sugar production in India Million tonnes 35 2009/10 estimate 2010/11 forecast 30 25 30 20 15 15 0 10 China India Thailand Mexico Brazil USA EU 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 estim.6 percent higher than 2009/10. which is forecast to reach 4.1 percent due to near normal rainfall in the western part of the country where most of the sugarcane farming takes place and to increased mill capacity in the newly revived sugar mill on the coast of the country. due to good monsoon rains and notable expansion in area. Projects are underway in the United Republic of Tanzania to introduce high-yielding varieties and improved technologies. where output is set to grow by about 3. Record sugar-cane prices in 2009/10 encouraged farmers to plant additional area under sugar cane and encouraged better crop management practices and input use. the latest estimates of sugar production in the EU indicate a decline of 3. As such. For the moment.8 million ha. mainly on the back of significant gains in India. sugar output is expected to reach 480 000 tonnes. up 15 percent from last season. which has increased by 20 percent per year since 2000. as the damage to sugar cane turned out to be less than expected. sugar output in Asia is expected to increase by 16. Output in Japan is also set to increase in 2010/11. In Europe. Despite a significant increase of about 40 percent in area sown to beet. Early estimates in Thailand indicate that sugar output will decline by 4 percent in 2010/11 due to dry conditions in major cane-growing areas. sugar production and export will increasingly depend on the amount of cane diverted to ethanol production. Sugar production by major producing countries Million tonnes 45 Figure 42. In Pakistan. Production is now predicted to overcome last year’s level by 270 000 tonnes. to cut production cost which is a major hurdle to production growth. Sugar cane is also expected to become one of the main feedstocks used for biofuel production.Figure 41. sugar output is expected to decline in the Russian Federation as a result of severe drought that impacted crop development. these estimates may be revised. such as uncertainty as to the level of weather-related damage to sugar-cane crops in Pakistan and Thailand. although smaller but still significant expansion is also expected in cane growing areas. both at the farm and mill level. which is 14. In Mozambique. estimates for sugar production in 2010/11 are still very uncertain due to flood damages that hit the country early this summer. when the crushing season begins in early December. However. while losses are anticipated in Indonesia and Turkey. largely due to a 4 percent reduction in beet area and average level yields.6 percent over 2009/10. 2010/11 f’cast Gains are also foreseen in Kenya. farmers shifted to beet. estimates have been constantly revised upward in recent weeks. prompted by expansion in planted area.4 percent from last season. The offsetting effect could come from an increase in area allocated to sugar cane when farmgate prices surged to a record USD 38 per tonne (1 200 baht).6 percent over 2009/10. Propelled by high domestic prices in 2009/10. up 26 percent from the support price. Gains are anticipated in 45 . as the Government has recently approved a national biofuel policy to limit dependence on imported fossil fuels. However. The 2010/11 marketing season for sugar production in Asia remains extremely uncertain for a number of reasons. Output in that country is estimated to reach 26 million tonnes.

However. Due to a tight domestic market. but high domestic sugar prices prevailing in many consuming regions. In Europe. on expectations of higher beet and cane yields.8 million tonnes. are expected to increase by about 10 percent to 2. In the rest of the world.5 million tonnes.2 million tonnes. notably in China and Indonesia. India undertook a number of measures to relax import restrictions. Demand will likely be sustained by the manufacturing and food preparation sectors. as gains in production are foreseen for 2010/11. with the bulk of the raw imports originating in Brazil. excessive rains have delayed cane crushing meaning reduced sugar content and. Imports by the Russian Federation. 2010/11 f’cast 0 World Stocks Stock-to-use ratio World trade to contract as export availabilities decline Latest FAO estimates of world sugar imports stand at about 50 million tonnes in 2010/11 (October/September).2 kg per annum. production will be lower than last season. a 6 percent decline over the previous season.62 percent. such as the extension of duty free imports of raw and white sugar until 31 December 2010. as such. imports 46 . 27 percent above last year’s total. including the beverage industries. a 4 percent decline over the previous year. as such. Figure 43. deliveries to the United States are forecast at 2. forecasts at this early stage of the season are subject to much uncertainty. China is projected to purchase 93 200 tonnes more than last season to accommodate for increases in sugar intake and replenish critically low state reserves. production in the United States is forecast to surpass the 2009/10 level. After being the main driver of growth in world trade in 2009/10. Last year. This would result in world per capita sugar consumption remaining steady at 23. about 2. India is under pressure to revert to import restrictions to protect the local industry. world sugar consumption in 2010/11 is to reach 166 million tonnes.1 percent more than in 2009/10. largely driven by high world prices. In the rest of the world. reversing the downward trend observed since 2002/03. Similarly. In the generally more mature markets of the developed countries.4 percent of global consumption. Purchases by Indonesia are expected to amount to 2. Sugar intake in the developing countries is set to expand by 3. These sectors constitute the bulk of total sugar consumption and are relatively sensitive to changes in income. Asia’s scenario is one of steady consumption growth led by increases in population and income. down by 83 percent from last year. consumption is to increase by 0. Positive prospects for the global economy are expected to support sugar consumption growth. as the United States’ current stock level is at an historic low. India is expected to import about 1 million tonnes in the new season. and recent expansions in its refining capacity should strengthen its position as one of the major regional import destinations. In Australia.Ukraine. with supply expected to recover significantly in 2010/11. Sugar closing stocks and stock-to-use ratio Million tonnes 80 Percent 40 60 30 40 20 20 10 World sugar consumption to expand. Additional imports may be needed in the course of the season to rebuild reserves. However. China released large amounts of stocks to curb rising domestic sugar prices. the third largest sugar importer in 2009/10. Indonesia is expected to import most of its sugar from Thailand because of freight advantage and quality standards that meet its requirements. 0 2008/09 2009/10 estim. will limit further expansion in sugar intake. accounting for 71. as the impact of the dry weather was less than early predictions. high international prices in 2009 spurred a sharp increase in sugar-cane area. but below long-term trend Global economic recovery is expected to stimulate consumption growth. in order to compensate for expected shortfalls in domestic supply. shipments to the EU are also set to decline on the back of lower imports under the EBA and EPA trade commitments.3 million tonnes. as international prices provide relatively better remunerative returns than the EU internal market. However. mostly in emerging and developing countries and.

by 1 percent to 1.8 million tonnes. In South America. In Africa. In the Russian Federation. and in Pakistan by 3 percent after severe floods affected livestock production. the world’s third largest exporter. production in Brazil and India is set to continue expanding next year. Brazil. rebuild their herds. as improving domestic supplies substitute for imports. the stagnation will be due to the high cow and heifer slaughter rates. to below 11. In 2010/11. Kenya and Southern Sudan. In East Africa.8 million tonnes. and is now expected to increase by 1 percent. 2010 production may stagnate at 8 million tonnes. where buffalo meat is a by-product of the dairy industry. given strong internal demand and a drop in domestic production. beef production is revised upwards from improved weather conditions. driven by the implementation of new trade agreements that allow duty free access. export availabilities are expected to decline due to strong domestic demand and the need for exporters to rebuild stocks that were used extensively during the first half of 2009/10 when international prices reached record levels. 200 175 Poultry Bovine 150 Total meat 125 100 Pigmeat 75 2007 Ovine 2009 2010 2008 47 . BOVINE MEAT Figure 44.7 million tonnes. to 6. notably to the markets of South Korea and Malaysia. the growing season brought abundant rains. However. Similarly. Despite higher production in some exporting countries. In India. World production growth in 2011 is expected to be constrained once again by low cattle numbers and high feed costs. due to the combined effects of a severe drought in 2009 and the persistence of low farmgate prices.76 million tonnes. is now expected to ship about 26 million tonnes. estimated in excess of 800 000 tonnes. Output in Argentina and Uruguay are expected to fall as a direct consequence of the low calving rates during the severe drought of 2009. are expected to decline by 5 percent to 4. shipments from Cuba. while in Australia. Exports from Australia. to 14. a 1 percent decrease from 2009. Conversely. the world’s second largest sugar exporter. output could stagnate due to herd rebuilding and. prompted by large supply availability and attractive international prices in comparison with ethanol prices. output is likely to expand slightly. In the United States. encouraged by favourable weather.95 million tonnes. to 4. In Australia and New Zealand. up 2. bottlenecks in port infrastructure may limit further export growth. In the EU. Guatemala and South Africa are foreseen to fall. and pastures recovered from the persistent dry conditions that affected Chad and the Niger earlier in the year. production will grow by 4 percent to 2. Brazil will account for slightly more than half of global export and should be among those that benefit most from the elevated world sugar prices. where the national beef herd is down over 2 percent. are likely to decrease slightly from their 2009/10 levels. output also could stagnate while farmers.by countries in Africa are expected to decline by around 3 percent to 9. beef output in 2010 is expected to decrease by 3 percent. whose effects on output are expected to be felt mostly next year. according to USDA. the world’s largest sugar exporter. due to the slaughtering of cattle during the severe summer drought that affected pasture growth. thanks to higher cattle numbers and firm prices both at home and abroad. Sales from Thailand. as its exportable surplus may shrink. This stems from a record fall in Argentine beef production. as larger outputs from Brazil and India fail to offset production declines in other large producing countries. pasture conditions and water availability also have improved in Ethiopia. Exports to the countries of Asia should be the main destination for Thai sugar. In Asia.4 percent from 2009/10.2 million tonnes. production is expected to contract in China by 4 percent because of low returns and high feed costs.9 million tonnes. according to USDA.8 million tonnes due to an anticipated reduction in production. In West Africa. FAO international meat price indices (2002-2004=100) Reduced cattle numbers constrain output growth Provisional estimates indicate that 2010 global beef production will be 65 million tonnes. beef output in the United States may fall by 1 percent.

9 7.9 283.1 0.1 12.0 2008 41.7 107.0 95. Asian countries and the EU.0 2005 Bovine meat 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Poultry Pigmeat Ovine meat Beef Poultry Pigmeat SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) Developed (Kg/year) 41. Evolution of meat/feed index prices (2002-2004=1) 1. as ample cattle numbers in Brazil are allowing a positive response to the growing demand.7 106.1 2.0 1. Mexico and the United States). Japan.1 2.5 2009 41. In India.9 81.0 * September and October estimates of trade in the “FMD-free market” (main importers include Canada.4 65.5 Table 16.9 104.1 Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % Exports expand but prices remain firm World beef exports in 2010 will grow by 3 percent to reach 7.3 1.24 million tonnes.1 6.4 11.5 2010 Jan-Oct* -0.6 11. buffalo meat exports are anticipated to expand by 5 percent to 785 000 tonnes.9 25.8 80. exports accelerated in the second half.8 0. SHEEP AND GOAT MEAT Rebuilding of flocks constrains output growth Sheep and goat meat production is set to remain virtually unchanged in 2010 at 13 million tonnes due to restocking.1 5.5 5. World meat markets at a glance 2008 2009 estim. to almost 1.7 31.3 6. Constrained by low domestic supplies. with exports up by 5 percent. due to a growing demand for this meat in Asia and the Middle East.9 25.8 -1. are encouraging farmers 48 . because of tight supplies from Oceania and sanitary import restrictions imposed on Brazilian beef. to some 230 000 tonnes less than in 2009. to 1. In Australia. Dry weather in recent years reduced supply in key producing areas including Oceania. South America and parts of Africa. with imports forecast to be 490 000 tonnes in the EU and 688 000 tonnes in Japan.0 12.2 0.4 11.8 286. However.8 0.8 3.7 93. The 2011 trade forecast points to strong demand from the United States. However. In the United States.4 7.9 0. as lower shipments from Argentina may be offset by larger exports from Brazil.6 million tonnes. poor sales performance at the beginning of the year brought fears of a significant fall in exports.2 91. According to USDA.4 0.0 % WORLD BALANCE Production Bovine meat Poultry meat 279.0 26. Russian Federation.7 81. exports from Argentina may fall by 40 percent.0 13. coupled with strong lamb prices. Despite the expansion in supply.4 percent to 3 million tonnes.1 31.3 -0.Figure 45. India and the United States. 2010 f’cast Change: 2010 over 2009 million tonnes 1. but timely and abundant rains this year. Conversely. Beef imports in the “foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) market” will expand significantly – in the Russian Federation by 8 percent to 1 million tonnes. to 1 million tonnes. to just over 1 million tonnes. and in Asian countries by 8.5 Pigmeat Ovine meat Trade 0. due to favourable world beef prices. thanks to a higher demand from Japan and the United States. against tight export supplies caused by reduced herds and more expensive feed concentrates compared with 2010. tight supplies from Oceania restrict an expansion Developing (kg/year) FAO meat price index (2002-2004=100) 128 118 134 14. during the soaring food prices episode.1 7.3 0. and are now expected to fall by only 1 percent. USDA reports that exporters will expand their shipments this year by 17 percent in volume terms.9 65.5 31. 2010 beef prices are some 26 percent higher than last year and similar to those in 2008.6 million tonnes.2 65. imports in the United States are down by 3 percent.9 0. the fall for the aggregate of South America is less severe.

and the fact that it reduced its quota for preferential tariff imports by 11 percent. to 848 000 tonnes. This strong demand has put an upward pressure on world prices. pig meat trade in 2010 is expected to expand significantly and reach 6 million tonnes. A steady decline of ovine meat production continues in the EU. when trade was disrupted by food safety issues. plus Japan and Mexico. but a severe drought that affected feed availability has substantially reduced the foreseen expansion to below 4 percent. Some output growth has been observed in these areas which compensates for the decline in Europe. However. In the EU – the largest market for ovine meat imports representing one-third of the world’s total – imports are anticipated to fall by 5 percent. its main customer. while analysts from USDA anticipate a 3 percent fall in the United States. spurred mainly by the steady increase of domestic demand. Brazilian exports. The expansion of import this year is driven by larger purchases from developing countries in Asia. to 631 000 tonnes. a mere 1. as well as in the Russian Federation where a severe drought affected pasture growth and halted production growth. due to sanitary import restrictions for non-heat treated pig meat. and in Japan to fall by 2 percent due to the slaughtering of sows following an outbreak of FMD. the highest in a decade. with production in developed countries stagnating due to an increase in the price of feed concentrate.9 million tonnes. In Asia. and a 4 percent expansion of production.to rebuild their flocks and herds.6 percent this year. to 730 000 tonnes. the USDA has revised predictions of pig meat exports upwards to 8 percent growth this year. driven mainly by larger shipments from Oceania. a 5 percent increase over 2009. where imports could expand by 10 percent to 365 000 tonnes. the third largest producer. Pig meat price levels are firm from sustained demand. imports by the Russian Federation should fall by 4 percent. which includes state purchases. and may fall by 12 percent this year. a steady decline of pig meat prices since June 2010. In the EU. capturing 85 percent of world sheep meat trade with a combined volume of 725 000 tonnes. a steep expansion of pig meat production in the first half of the year suggested double digit growth. owing to increased deliveries to the Russian Federation.9 percent. sustained purchases from the Near East and China. increasing some 2 percent to 50 million tonnes. Strong demand and sustained prices Contrary to production. after 2007 when production was affected by a massive culling of pigs in China following an outbreak of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) disease. is constraining output growth. to 500 000 tonnes. output increases have been seen in Brazil and the Russian Federation – in Brazil. sheep meat supplies from Australia and New Zealand expanded by 2. Favoured by attractive prices. the world’s largest pig meat exporter. have been revised downwards quite substantially because of a stronger than expected domestic demand. to 267 000 tonnes. which account for 60 percent of import growth. 49 . Prices of carcasses from New Zealand reached USD 5 3344 per tonne in London in September. producer price support and subsidies to scale-up production. higher calving rates. or 1. which reached record levels this year. due to reduced demand. Production is expected to remain unchanged in the Philippines and Viet Nam. mainly due to higher growth in China from government support. In addition to China.68 million tonnes. coupled with higher feed prices. and in Brazil from strong domestic demand.3 percent growth. and in the Russian Federation. The outlook for 2011 is for better herd conditions. This is the second poorest growth of the decade. to 107 million tonnes. however. growing by 19 percent to 1. the second largest producer after China. Growth has been boosted by a government strategy to achieve self-sufficiency in pig meat. would more than compensate for the shortage. China this year may be the only large producing country with significant output growth. The 2011 outlook is for demand from the Near East to remain strong and for a sustained expansion of exports from both Oceania and South America. with levels some 30 percent higher than last year. Exports by the EU also have recovered from the sharp contraction last year. from lower slaughters and lighter carcass weights. Record high sheep meat prices Ovine meat exports in 2010 are up by 1. This growth represents a significant recovery from the 8 percent decrease felt in 2009. International pig meat demand in 2011 is expected to remain strong. In the United States. Conversely. The global outlook for pig meat production in 2011 is for a 2 percent expansion. in line with the progressive growth of the PIG MEAT Pig meat production stagnates World pig meat production is set to increase by a mere 1 percent in 2010.

to just below 4 million tonnes.2 million tonnes.8 percent. Brazil is likely to become this year the world’s largest poultry meat exporter. The United States poultry trade was disrupted this year by Mainland China’s January 2010 imposition of anti-dumping duties. Although some exports are being shifted to Hong Kong. mainly for exports to Asian countries. the expansion of poultry production is set to continue in 2011. In Asia.3 million tonnes.6 million tonnes. sustained by a strong domestic demand. by 8 percent to 644 000 tonnes. are expected to increase in response to higher demand from Asia. Thailand’s poultry exports. the possibility that high feed costs may constrain output in the months to come brings much uncertainty to the availability of pig meat for export next year.world economy. Pig meat trade is also expected to increase.7 million tonnes. output in Pakistan will fall by about 25 percent. An important fall in exports by the United States. to 19. with all major exporting countries experiencing some degree of growth.3 million tonnes. currently its fourth largest customer.6 percent to 12. United States exports may nevertheless fall this year by 5 percent to 3. which until 2009 was the world’s largest poultry meat exporter. to 16. reaching 11. thanks to strong demand from domestic and world markets. to 2. China’s poultry production. to 500 000 tonnes. 2010 f’cast 50 . to 1. as producers take advantage of the expected persistence of high prices in competing meats. are anticipated to increase next year following the signing of a free trade agreement between the two countries. where United States exports almost trebled this year.3 million tonnes. the sector experienced strong momentum the first half of the year. and in Thailand production is predicted to expand by 6 percent. POULTRY MEAT Strong demand fosters production growth World poultry production in 2010 is expected to expand by over 2 percent to reach 95.7 million tonnes.7 percent. China is anticipated to expand its shipments of cooked poultry by 30 percent to Europe and Asian markets. Figure 46.7 million tonnes. is set to expand by 3. Exports from the EU to the Republic of Korea. creating a tight feed supply situation and slowing production growth. In the Russian Federation. to 10. although much will depend on the evolution of prices of feed concentrates as they represent a key component of total production costs. with higher demand from Asia expected to be fulfilled from higher shipments from Europe and the United States. Conversely. Changes in trade policy regimes create uncertainties Poultry trade may grow by 1. favoured by the high consumer cost of beef and pig meat. underpinned by investments in new large poultry processing plants and attractive prices following an increase in demand and reduced imports. is expected to grow by 1. The fall of exports from the United States is mainly due to the Russian Federation’s prohibition on imported chlorine-treated meats which began in January 2010. the world’s largest poultry producer and a top exporter. Brazilian output is recovering from the fall of last year and is set to grow by 3. all of which are cooked. official estimates of broiler and turkey production point to an aggregate output growth of 1. In the United States. Russian Federation: Development of meat imports Thousand tonnes 4000 3000 Poultry meat 2000 Pigmeat 1000 Bovine meat 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 estim.6 percent. and a depreciation of the US Dollar against major currencies has increased its competitiveness. Globally. will be more than compensated by larger shipments from other major suppliers. but output is nevertheless estimated to expand by 11 percent. following severe floods that killed small livestock. Production in the EU. which blocked its exports of chicken. However. A severe summer drought affected cereal crops. to become the world’s largest poultry meat exporter. Brazil is benefiting from these sanctions by expanding its deliveries to the Russian Federation. and not to the detriment of developing countries whose imports of Brazilian poultry remain unchanged. Brazil exports will grow by 4 percent.5 percent in 2010.1 million tonnes.

more recently. Figure 47. the major contributors to the expansion of production. it still remains 20 percent below its peak value in early 2008. 250 150 50 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 The index is derived from a trade-weighted average of a selection of representative internationally traded dairy products. However. World milk production in 2010 is expected to reach 710.1 percent average annual growth experienced in the past decade. similar to its level in January 2010 but 38 percent higher than the average for 2009. a measure that will favour domestic producers and negatively affect exporters of frozen poultry. and higher milk over feed price ratios have favoured more intensive use of feed concentrates and cow yields compared with last year. However. the rapid escalation of grain prices since August is putting upward pressure on feed prices and may curtail expansion of milk production next year. 3 360 for WMP and 3 950 for cheese. In addition. and thus creating favourable conditions for trade expansion. and account for 58 percent of the world increase. particularly in some exporting regions. skim milk powder (SMP) and cheese. trade routes are likely to experience some readjustments due to an intensification of quantitative import restrictions by the Russian Federation. However. new legislation to be enacted by the Russian Federation in January 2011 will prohibit the use of frozen poultry for processing. the third largest importer. it nevertheless remains below the 2. FAO international dairy price index (2002-2004=100) 350 The monthly FAO price index of international dairy products. where prices have increased steadily through the year. butter. considering how expensive alternative animal proteins are.3 million tonnes. has remained firm so far in 2010. 3 140 for SMP. Purchases from Hong Kong SAR. Export prices in Oceania in September 2010 were USD/tonne 4 100 for butter. Additional output from China and India. thus putting a downward pressure on milk prices. On the supply side. notably Brazil.6 million tonnes. Although this represents a recovery from the low performance of 2009. Factors contributing to the sustained firm prices include strong demand from Asia. Brazil. which consists of a basket of export prices in Oceania for whole milk powder (WMP).6 percent from last year. While this represents a strong recovery from last year. has underpinned firm prices. world poultry prices. an increase of 1.4 million tonnes. relatively weak growth in milk production from reduced cattle herds. Contrary to other meats. prices have doubled. due mainly to reduced preferential tariff quotas and the imposition of import bans on the grounds of food safety. compared with the base period of 2002–04. The outlook for poultry trade in 2011 is favourable. A tight supply situation in beef and pig meat should strengthen the demand for cheaper sources of animal proteins. in contrast with the significant swings observed in the past two years. slow imports in the first half of the year are accelerating in the second half. taking advantage of a stagnation of world prices due to surpluses in the United States. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also may increase substantially. the Russian Federation and some oil exporting countries and. 51 . In Japan. There has been an expectation that trade would expand from these countries towards the end of 2010. Its poor performance has been blamed on the relative abundance of poultry meat for export from the United States following the collapse of the Russian Federation market. and will grow by 13 percent. International prices have passed through to farm gate prices in the EU and United States. The FAO index was 198 in September 2010. measured in US Dollar terms.The Russian Federation is expected to import some 511 000 tonnes of poultry meat this year. amount to 8. 47 percent less than in 2009. have been stable and only 4 percent higher than last year. a steady weakening of the USD against major currencies which increases dollar-denominated commodity prices. which has announced that it is rapidly reaching self-sufficiency on poultry. It is remarkable how little international poultry prices increased this year. the EU and the United States also play their parts by adding another 2.

in China. Export volumes of SMP. butter and cheese could increase considerably. Rains have also been adequate in Central Africa since the beginning of the cropping season. All public stocks of butter have been released.3 percent to reach 37. World trade of dairy products may expand in 2010. conservative relative to their recent track records. In North America. to 87 million tonnes.4 million tonnes. On the demand side. and those of WMP would stagnate. is traditionally bought by developing countries. In addition. In East Africa. In the Russian Federation. price) SMP Refund Butter (export price) Butter (interv. price and export refund for butter and skim milk powder Euro per tonne 4500 3000 1500 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 SMP (export price) SMP (interv. Production in the EU is forecast to grow by only 1 percent. EU intervention prices. Asia remains the region with both the largest milk production and the highest rate of annual growth. Export growth mainly results from larger shipments from the United States. due to high feed prices. expanding by 4 percent and in China 44. except for cheese.2 million tonnes. but 198 000 tonnes of SMP were still available in September 2010. In general terms. some 2 percent to 9. price) Butter Refund and June. the outlook points to a 2. in particular the gradual increase in production quotas. the growing season brought abundant rains in May Figure 48. the last time intervention purchases were recorded. with positive effects on milk production. the recurrence of incidents related to milk contamination with melamine. As for South America. to 61. milk output in India is forecast to reach 114 million tonnes. In West Africa. milk production is expected to expand slightly in 2010. New Zealand and the EU. to 133 million tonnes.1 percent this year. are based on low farmgate milk prices and high feed prices and. mainly from output growth in Kenya and South Africa. Though export restrictions of cereals have somewhat contained the increase of feed prices.2 million tonnes. due to improvements in cow yields and a slowing of cow slaughter rates. Conversely. 2010 is seeing strong import growth 52 . However. Larger shipments from the United States are supply driven. In Africa.2 million head of livestock (excluding poultry) died in the flood. expanding by 10 percent. the loss of livestock represents a significant deterioration of the food situation of small farmers who rely on animal husbandry for a considerable share of their income. thus. In Oceania. where production is expected to fall by 8 percent due to heavy floods: over 1. the availability of pasture and water has improved in most pastoralist areas such as southeastern Ethiopia (Somali region). where pasturebased production systems prevail and a normal spring season is favouring pasture growth.6 percent due to lower output in Pakistan.8 million tonnes representing 6 percent growth from the 2009/10 season. and pastures recovered from the persistent dry conditions that affected Chad and the Niger earlier in the year. drought this summer led to poor pasture conditions and affected cereal production. followed by Sindh and Kyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK). the result of traders’ increasing interest in attractive export prices.With an output of 257 million tonnes in 2010. inland Djibouti and Somalia (except Northeast and Central regions). and another 14 million head decreased their yields from lower fodder supply and animal diseases. as producers and traders adapt to the new trade environment created by the reform of the milk sector. by 1. while in Australia growth may be more moderate. Larger exports from the EU stem from the likely release of public stocks and. the bulk of dairy products traded. driven by strong demand from Asian countries and the Russian Federation. larger volumes for export since October 2009. reaching an estimated 32.3 million tonnes. firm farm-gate prices and good weather conditions have created a favourable environment for farmers to expand output this season (July-June 2010/11). 90 percent of which is industrialized for exports. Milk production in New Zealand is expected to reach 17. milk production growth is set to grow only slightly this year.5 percent growth in 2010. These growth rates. while the expansion of New Zealand exports is due to higher milk production. the USDA anticipates that United States’ milk production in 2010 may increase by 1. an initial forecast for 4 percent production growth has been reduced to 2. The most affected province was Punjab.9 million tonnes.

mostly from larger shipments by New Zealand and the United States early in the year.5 2010 Jan-Oct 0.0 6.5 710. Exports increased mostly from the EU and New Zealand. Purchases from the Russian Federation will grow by about 10 percent in 2010. but abundant milk supplies from New Zealand this spring is contributing to easing some price pressure in the short run.share of prod. are substantially different according to the product considered.1 244. By product Whole Milk Powder (WMP) prices are firm in 2010. import demand is so firm that it has pushed prices to levels similar to their peaks during the price surge of 2008. which compares with USD/tonne 2750 in October 2009. Factoring in imports from the Province of Taiwan and Hong Kong brings total import growth for China to an estimated 27 percent. World exports of WMP are slowly approaching the 2 million tonnes mark in product weight. while higher purchases from Algeria and Venezuela during the second half of the year are contributing to sustaining prices at firm levels.7 SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS Per caput food consumption: World (kg/year) Developed countries (Kg/year) Developing countries (Kg/year) Trade .8 66. the WMP export price in October 2010 was USD/tonne 3 463. whose combined imports are expected to expand by 10 percent this year. On the export side. World dairy market at a glance 2008 2009 estim. where the easing of recessionary pressures has progressively fostered an expansion of imports. Southeast Asia and the Middle East. % WORLD BALANCE Total milk production Total trade 694. Cheese imports by Mainland China will double this year with an estimated volume of 28 000 tonnes. compared with USD/ tonne 2 850 in October 2009.2 1. The export price of cheese in Oceania in October 2010 was USD/tonne 4 013.0 2008 103. assumes the EU will speed up its release of intervention stocks towards the end of the year.8 43. however. almost twice as high as the total volumes imported last year. China imported unprecedented volumes of this product in early 2010. EU stocks were 197 000 tonnes in September. where farmers are looking forward to a record output in the (July-June) 2010/11 season. This forecast. down from 258 000 tonnes in January 2010. as tight supplies are facing strong demand.0 246. by 13 percent in 2010 and beyond 1. have recently expanded fast after a sluggish start. significant players in the world market. and a sluggish demand from Africa. The world cheese market is strong this year both in terms of prices and volumes. but recovered in recent months thanks to an increase in availabilities.6 0.7 5. World exports of skim milk powder (SMP) could expand significantly this year.0 698. Import markets.5 Change: Jan-Oct 2010 over Jan-Oct 2009 % 220 142 199 57 in Asian countries and the Russian Federation.4 6.7 46.3 66. Public stocks of butter in the EU are virtually exhausted. the Republic of Korea and Mexico. Butter trade may expand by 6 percent this year to 970 000 tonnes. The price of butter in Oceania in October 2010 was USD/tonne 4275. Trade will likely expand by 5 percent to over 2 million tonnes.5 243. and should be looked at separately. mainly from larger supplies from the EU to developed countries and the Russian Federation.3 67.5 6. however. Demand is strong from the Russian Federation. In Oceania. Despite the expansion of exports.Table 17.0 1. Exports from Figure 49. to 388 000 tonnes.2 2009 104. There is anticipation from traders that higher WMP stocks may be available soon from New Zealand.5 million tonnes in product weight. (%) FAO dairy price index (2002-2004=100) 104. up from USD/tonne 3 213 in October 2009. FAO indices of dairy and feed prices (2002-2004=100) 300 250 200 150 100 2008 2009 2010 Feed price index Dairy price index 53 . WMP shipments from Argentina virtually collapsed in the first half of 2010.2 42. Imports by Japan. 2010 f’cast Change: 2010 over 2009 million tonnes milk equiv.

however. grew by an impressive 26. sustained by larger shipments from Argentina. the number one supplier.8 percent. Compared with the same period in 2009. Hong Kong SAR. China. traditionally the fourth largest exporter. Meeting the optimistic forecast. This trend is even more prominent in developing countries. and their sustained purchases have kept world prices firm throughout the year. Supplies of farmed shrimp from Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean have been affected by both lower 54 .Table 18.8 percent higher than the same period last year. Indonesia and Malaysia have boosted domestic purchases of fishery products and prices throughout 2010 for export. exports from Thailand were 7. In particular. with much higher growth rates than in any of the traditional developed country markets. and Norway’s exports were also up significantly. SMP export price in Oceania in October 2010 was USD/ tonne 3 175. Indonesia. could not expand because of short domestic production. this is boosting regional trade and. depends on low feed prices towards the end of 2010 and early 2011. salmon. Import demand is firm from China. Import demand should remain firm next The negative trends in international fishery trade registered in late 2008 and throughout 2009 have reversed. Japan increased 5 percent and Australia. increasing exports from developed country producers. Major exporters of dairy products 2006-08 Average 2009 prelim. has been strong this year. African imports of SMP may fall by some 4 percent. which compares with USD/tonne 2 488 in October 2009. tilapia and pangasius catfish among others. Malaysia and Mexico experienced double-digit growth in fishery import values. demand for farmed shrimp. 2010 f’cast thousand tonnes WHOLE MILK POWDER World New Zealand EU* Australia Argentina SKIM MILK POWDER World New Zealand United States EU* Australia BUTTER World New Zealand EU* Belarus Australia CHEESE World EU* New Zealand Australia Belarus 1 835 579 285 195 92 2 000 577 290 162 121 2 098 660 284 186 133 854 370 202 55 64 916 475 143 86 84 968 500 160 87 88 1 180 279 314 155 148 1 347 408 249 227 167 1 526 470 299 360 130 1 919 644 428 142 140 1 962 818 420 133 146 1 982 880 420 105 125 year. Thailand and Viet Nam. During January–July 2010. but where a recurrence of incidents of melamine contamination of milk continues to erode consumer confidence in domestic produce. the largest seafood market in the Pacific. The positive trend in global fishery trade is expected to continue for the remainder of the year. Republic of Korea. notably from the Russian Federation. imports by the United States increased 16 percent. the second largest world importer of this product. Malaysia and Mexico. Emerging market demand is generally strong. reported 20 percent growth in imports. with all the major producing and exporting countries expected to increase sales this year. New Zealand and the United States. Norway. where domestic demand is also growing fast. Brazil. Strong national currencies relative to the USD and fast economic growth in Brazil. then export growth may slow down. Should feed prices increase significantly in the next few months. Australia. * Excluding trade between the EU Member States. fishery exports from China. at the same time. or even stagnate if exporters choose to rebuild their stocks of dairy products. where demand is growing strong but a shortage of feed could prevent an expansion of domestic production. India. the EU was up 5. mainly due to lower purchases by Algeria. A more uncertain output is foreseen for China imports. As most world supply comes from developing countries. From 2007: EU-27 Australia. China.5 percent in extracommunity trade. Import value also increased by varying degrees in the traditional developed markets during January–June 2010. The dairy trade outlook in 2011 is for growth. These countries import close to half of the world trade of SMP. boosting exports from major producing countries such as China.

5 102. but purchasing is likely to slow down in November.3 2010 Sept 0.8 20.3 89.1 9. 2010 over Sept. 17. producers in other countries have recently started to expand export markets for freshwater fish fillets.0 89.Figure 50. reaching 250 000 tonnes. particularly in the Pacific Ocean. f’cast 130 million tonnes WORLD BALANCE 142. 2009 % 128 117 127 8.9 55.7 52.2 7. Total shrimp imports were up 2.7 2. thus keeping tuna prices firm. Per caput food consumption: Food fish (kg/year) From capture fisheries (kg/year) From aquaculture (kg/year) FAO Fish price index (1998-2000) 17. With lower than expected supplies of farmed shrimps. EU markets for shrimp are growing this year. has been strong across the world. In the farmed salmon sector. the supply shortage in Chile coupled with strong demand.8 57.3 % 1. The United States and European tuna markets have been affected by economic downturn. production is now recovering. Imports of processed/value-added shrimp products grew by 6. but demand is expected to improve in 2011. In Chile. 17. have boosted prices worldwide. Improved consumer demand has also supported the price rise.7 110 Production Capture fisheries Aquaculture 90 Trade value (exports USD billion) Trade volume (live weight) 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 70 1994 Total utilization Food 115.6 Change Sept. export prices moved up in July.0 8. growing demand in the region for live fish has led to high market prices. In Japan this year.0 55.2 3.4 1.4 percent.2 8. there is increasing demand for semiprocessed and processed products in the national market.0 117. ASEAN country producers are aiming to develop full-cycle marine aquaculture of Asian seabass.2 119. These species are gaining consumer acceptance even in markets where they were totally unknown just a few years ago.8 FAO total fish price index Aquaculture Total Data source: Norwegian Seafood Export Council Capture total Feed Other uses SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS stocking levels and some disease-related problems.2 9.6 percent in quantity and 6. In Asia. World fish market at a glance 2008 2009 2010 Change 2010 over 2009 estim.8 6.4 54. FAO Fish Price Index (2005=100) 150 Table 19. such as pangasius catfish and tilapia.0 55. however. despite higher prices. importing fresh and frozen vannamei from Thailand.17 billion.8 2008 Sept. groupers and brackish-water tilapia.5 The brisk international shrimp trade observed during January–June has continued during the second half of the year. The supply situation is expected to remain tight. Encouraged by the success of Vietnamese catfish and Chinese tilapia.1 7.1 7. up 2. Asia and Latin America (Brazil). Shrimp sales in the United States are still supported by steady home consumption whereas the restaurant trade has 55 . Demand for tropical farmed fish.1 95.3 7.3 -0. August and September. keeping the market firm throughout 2010.2 101.5 -0.1 90. Chinese buyers have been particularly active. In response. valued at around EUR 1. The tuna industry has suffered from supply shortages due to poor fishing and stricter resource management measures. often outbidding western or Japanese buyers.8 0.1 2009 Sept. Strong Asian currencies related to the US Dollar and a recovery in consumer demand have channelled products to the regional markets in East Asia firming prices. particularly from Europe.3 -1.1 2.2 145.5 percent in value during the first half year. resulting in higher international market prices.5 20. reaching levels the export industry had not experienced for the last five years. Increasing imports in September– October by the United States together with European markets anticipate the Christmas festive season.1 20.5 percent in the first half of 2010.3 9.9 147.

Madagascar and Mauritius have remained stable. Supplies from Thailand fell by 31 percent.Figure 51. gaining a stronghold in the United States and Middle Eastern markets and successfully penetrating emerging markets in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. However. with the end of the shrimp farming season in Asia. Harsh economic times usually boost canned tuna sales. Japan) Skipjack (4lb. Figure 52. Japan) Albacore (10 kg. EU imports of cooked tuna loins were 11 percent lower at 51 600 tonnes during the first five months. Thailand) 56 . The Thai tuna industry continues to expand in global markets.9 percent in the first half of this year. Higher imports of prepared products are indicative of this trend. Over time. The average import price of frozen tuna fillets has been stable at USD 8. Although harvests have improved in India. with average prices of canned tuna increasing during the period. as consumers switch to cheaper products. 6 5 4 3 2009 2010 India (BT H/L 21/25. In the United States.70/kg. and Indonesia and Viet Nam were also down. DDP) Bangladesh (BT H/L 21/25) not improved much. United States canned tuna sale value has been growing since 2004 but declining in volume./up. Imported quantities were up by 5. US frozen BT shrimp prices USD per lb. Canning sales were disappointing in 2009 but have recovered somewhat this year. tuna supplies will be lower this year. no new crops are expected to come to market until March 2011. Overall.5 lbs per capita.7 percent. buyers will be forced to come back to the market to fulfil orders which should lead to some firming of prices. down 10. Reports from Indonesia and Viet Nam indicate that the current raw material shortage will continue in the coming months. Prices of skipjack and yellowfin tuna for canning continue to rise because of lower catches in the Eastern and Western Pacific. However./up. This year’s canned tuna production in Italy and Spain will decline because of the shortage of material. Poor fishing in the Eastern Pacific contributed to declining supplies from 4 3 2 1 0 2009 2010 Yellowfin (10 kg. further depressing landings. Ecuador and El Salvador. total canned tuna supply to the United States dropped to 344 000 tonnes in 2009 from 382 000 tonnes the previous year. In Japan. last year’s higher prices of the raw material made canned tuna more expensive and United States canned tuna consumption declined to 2. with a reduction in both domestic production and imports./up. French canneries have faired better as their traditional sources in Cote d’Ivoire.50–8. Frozen tuna raw material prices USD thousand per tonne Lower fishing is reducing tuna supply as a lack of buying interest keeps prices low.3 percent in 2009 and 24. in particular cooked loin supplies from Asia and Latin America. the non-canned tuna market has been positive with frozen tuna loins and steaks gaining popularity in the retail and catering trade. Imports by the United States of canned tuna have been growing strongly to compensate for a 22 percent decline in domestic packing.

China. remains steady. whereas hake supplies from Argentina are likely to remain tight with price increases foreseen. including valueadded products such as surimi. rose 15 percent to 98 500 tonnes with fillets increasingly replacing whole fish. consumer and exporter of tilapia. because of expected supply constraints for tilapia and pangasius.0 2. up 15 percent with imports now at the same level as in 2008. During January–July 2010. 3. behind salmon. Prices in the European Alaska pollock market are stable. With a reduction in production over the last decade. With low stock levels in the distribution pipeline. to 0. Strong demand for cod in the United Kingdom and in southern Europe has boosted demand also thanks to a stronger Euro. As this is the second weak season in a row. This has left prospects quite uncertain.5 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Cod fillets Alaska Pollack fillets Hake fillets Prices of tilapia are expected to increase as a result of a 20 percent drop in production of China. Italy’s squid purchases also grew this year.1 million tonnes is forecast for next year. Purchases by the United States. US groundfish wholesale prices USD per lb. In the Southeast Atlantic. Exports in the first seven months of 2010 rose to 165 000 tonnes. International markets for cephalopods have been influenced by disappointing squid catches in the Southwest Atlantic. up 30 percent from the same period in 2009. while conversely.The outlook for groundfish markets is relatively positive in the short term. there is some concern about the health of the biomass. A quota increase between 900 000 and 1.2 kg/pc. Low prices last year led farmers to reduce stocking levels and a harsh winter decreased survival rates for the fish. up 8 percent this year. and prices are expected to rise further. Imports by Spain.5 1. both for whole fish and fillets. Japan’s squid imports in the first half year declined 15 percent from last year. EU cod prices increased slightly as a result of the new regulations on EU catch certificates that reduced import availability from the beginning of 2010. United States cod consumption is in long-term decline. A lack of squid from other sources has driven prices higher in Southern Africa. The situation for octopus is not much better. Morocco’s current two-month ban is limiting supply resulting in rising octopus prices. despite price increases at source. Fresh fillet supplies are 57 . The situation is aggravated by unclear borders in some of the richest fishing areas which has made it difficult to establish cooperation among the bordering states.5 2. the leading producer. squid catches have been moderate. prices are rising quickly. Fishing quota increases are expected next year for Alaska pollock and haddock. showed an 8 percent rebound in 2010 following a difficult 2009 when squid imports were down 25 percent from 2008. saw its exports increase 288 percent during 2004-2009 to 260 000 tonnes. Although catches of the various species historically have shown some cyclical variation. the market has reacted quickly to the growing shortages. The fishing B-season in the United States went well. imports of frozen tilapia. and the fifth most popular seafood product overall.0 1. which comprise 87 percent of all imports. Figure 53. the leading market for squid. United States import volumes are on an upward trend. is expected to strengthen demand for groundfish products. United States hake imports are also falling. Tilapia has become the second most popular fish in United States retail stores. falling 59 percent between 1997 and 2009. the outlook for cephalopods is not very positive. many observers fear that the major cause is inadequate management measures in the main fishing areas. The slow recovery in the European economy. the world’s largest tilapia market.0 0. With demand for squid showing some upward movement.

such as a shortage of raw material. reflecting higher production as well as higher prices. Tight market expecting relief from chile in 2011 Atlantic salmon prices are firming in Europe in the run-up to Christmas with stable but high prices in the first twoquarters of 2010. and a further 7–12 percent in 2012. Other Asian suppliers now entering foreign markets are Bangladesh. many Asian countries are increasing production. as Chilean supplies will start arriving on the market. up 8 percent. The single largest country market is the United States. Uganda. In Europe. reported growth of 8 percent in exports during the first seven months of 2010. although a lack of reliable biomass estimates makes projections of supply difficult. Mexico has emerged as an important market for frozen tilapia from China. rising feed and labour costs. Imports of pangasius by the United States reached 32 600 tonnes by the end of July. importing 18 000 tonnes of freshwater fillets including pangasius during January–June 2010. Prices should ease from 2011 onwards. However. At USD 4. the levy is higher than the current retail price. the largest producer and exporter of pangasius. With The markets for seabass and seabream are relatively stable with a good balance between demand and supply. Figure 54.dominated by Central American producers who expect improved opportunities under the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) signed in May this year between six producing countries in Central America and the EU. where pangasius now ranks as the tenth most popular fish product. this represented a 40 percent decline in exports from Viet Nam compared with the same period last year. so these companies are likely to sell elsewhere. The outlook for prices is positive with rising quotations expected. and at minimum export prices. Exports are increasing from Southeast Asia. The value of Norway’s salmon exports in 2010 continues to set record levels. 6 5 4 3 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Seabream Seabass increasing demand in domestic as well as international markets.22/kg. Thai exports rose to 10 000 tonnes. Industry estimates indicate volume growth for world salmon supply of 8–10 percent in 2011. Demand for pangasius will continue to grow because of its affordable price and high product versatility. the sector faces growing constraints. Viet Nam. while the situation in Portugal and Spain remains difficult. Prices of seabass and seabream in Italy Euro per kg. However. producers stocked fewer juveniles in response to the economic crisis. Viet Nam contributed 86 percent of total supply. all Vietnamese pangasius will be exported as Basa. The Russian Federation has become an important market for pangasius. Thailand and Ecuador. From 2011. China and Thailand. tilapia is making inroads replacing traditional coldwater species. especially for bream. to 25 500 tonnes. with its imports increasing 32 percent. An estimated 25 000–30 000 tonnes of tilapia were imported by the EU in 2009 with China as the dominant supplier followed by Indonesia. with Indonesia shipping nearly 10 000 tonnes of fillet to the United States and EU markets during the first seven months this year. However. and more stringent import requirements in many markets. Almost half (48 percent) was supplied by Viet Nam. Chile saw significant drops in exports during 58 . due in part to a lower supply – last year. Demand is firm. The United States’ Department of Commerce has increased anti-dumping levies on catfish from several Vietnamese exporters by 100–120 percent. The EU imported 85 400 tonnes of frozen pangasius fillet during January–May 2010 . Prospects for 2011 are also positive. Demand has proven to be more resilient than expected in markets such as France and Italy. because of temporary import restrictions. pangasius dominates the market for tropical finfish. Prices have risen somewhat in the present quarter.

Imports of salmon in the first half of 2010 declined to just above 70 000 tonnes. Wild salmon catches in 2010 were excellent. Poor fishing is the cause for the decline in Peru whereas Chile was hurt by slow fishing plus damage to the fishmeal processing industry caused by the earthquake that struck in February 2010. a reduction fishery (meal/oil). However. The Icelandic mackerel quota of 130 000 tonnes is almost filled. including the high-value sock-eye salmon species.the first six months with values down 15 percent to USD 1 billion and overall salmon volumes dropping 34 percent to 181 000 tonnes from 274 000 tonnes in 2009.1 million tonnes. Prices of fishmeal and soybean meal USD per tonne 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fishmeal Soymeal 59 . For herring. the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The EU market held up remarkably well during the economic slowdown. The resource has recovered well after the total collapse in the mid-1970s with good landings in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea. In Northern Europe. 20 percent less than in 2008. with large quantities landed and traded. prices have declined and are likely to remain at present levels or slightly lower for the months ahead. Iceland reported good catches of herring with landings now at 83 percent of the 165 500 tonne quota. Lithuania. figures doubled in Northern Europe. Prices easing despite limited stocks and landings in South America Production figures during the first half of 2010 by the five largest producers (Chile. up from about 66 percent in 2009. totalling 116 400 tonnes worth USD 897 million. this is now changing. due to cold water conditions that caused poor fishing. This will change over the next months as spring approaches. Fish meal demand from Chile’s salmon sector will grow next year. Denmark. Herring prices have declined slightly in most markets but are expected to remain at present levels for some months. the next fishing season in the North/Central area will open in November with a quota of 2. Supply situation mixed in Northern Europe In the third-quarter of 2010. However. Norway and Peru) dropped 2 percent with a 17 percent decline in South America. it is estimated that as much as 80 percent of total landings will be used for human consumption. supplies have been tighter but prices stable. In Peru. with scientists recommending cuts in the Norwegian spring spawning herring quota next year. due in part to the relocation of much of the European fish smoking industry to that region. Less herring is expected for meal and oil this season compared with 2009. both from year to year and from one fishing area to the other. with good underlying growth in demand. In 2010. Japan. Japan’s seafood consumption is in long-term decline and salmon demand is no exception. Recent herring sales have focused on value-added products such as fillets and prepared herring. with most catches going for human consumption. Prices are much higher on the Japanese market than on the eastern European markets. mackerel catches in Northern Europe picked up. With supplies ample. Salmon imports by the United States fell 6 percent in terms of volume in January–June 2010 but grew 6 percent in value. worry remains about the resource. In Norway. Iceland. Unit values were up 13 percent. landings for meal and oil remain low. The main markets for capelin for consumption are China. Stocks in China are slightly up as the domestic aquaculture industry’s main buying season is completed. Figure 55. Growth has been particularly strong in the EU Member States of Central and Eastern Europe. and demand in the coming months is expected to come from the pig farming sector. Traditionally. The capelin fishery sector in the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea has varied considerably. Exports from Chile and Peru during the first half year were down drastically.

with both Chile and Peru showing lower volumes in 2010. Peruvian landings are expected to increase over the coming months but overall catches in the region are likely to be well below the level of 2009. fish oil prices have continued to rise as the recent poor catches in South America are restricting future supplies. This was reflected in export. Prices of fish oil and soybean oil Tight market with further price increases forecast As expected. Conversely. the United States increased its exports of fish oil by more than 50 percent in 2010. Given the high prices. The foreseen growth in Chile’s salmon production in 2011 and 2012 will put further upward momentum on prices. most mackerel and herring are going for direct human consumption. whereas the combined Chilean and Peruvian output fell back heavily. production in Northern Europe increased. Overall production of oil is expected to be below that of 2009. In Northern Europe. Industrial deliveries appear lower than last year. USD per tonne 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fish oil Soybean oil 60 .Figure 56. thanks to good harvests. buyers are closely watching catch levels in Chile and Peru. showing a severe drop during the first six months of 2010 with a 25 percent decrease in volume from the main exporters. As for fishmeal. despite good harvests.

The unique virulence gained by Ug99 (and subsequent variants) has rendered a very large proportion of the world’s commercial wheat varieties susceptible to stem rust. Events of recent years have highlighted the re-current nature of the threat posed by rusts. but a serious threat remains and one that cannot be ignored. notably stem rust. An ageold threat to wheat has been the rust fungi and these too are increasingly making the headlines and causing grounds for renewed concern. and new aggressive stripe rust strains are devastating wheat crops in several countries. Predominantly through the widespread use of resistant cultivars. Ug99 has continued to mutate and spread. broke the complacency and saw stem rust re-emerge as a global threat. highly aggressive races of stripe rust are devasting wheat crops in several regions. Stem rust. Global Cereal Rust Monitoring System. under suitable conditions. Significant changes in both stem and stripe (yellow) rust populations make them serious global threats once again. The last major set of epidemics in North America during the 1950s resulted in more than 40 percent of the North American spring wheat crop being lost (over 4 million tonnes in 1953/54 alone). stem (or black) rust. Accidental transmission on infected clothing or plant material is another concern.P. inflicting devastating damage on a periodic basis. but similar efforts are urgently needed for stripe rust. However. By the mid-1990s stem rust was largely considered to be under control. considerable and 61 . Priorities shifted and many countries halted breeding or monitoring activities for stem rust.org Throughout recorded history rust fungi have been the most damaging diseases affecting wheat. EMERGING WHEAT RUST THREATS Adverse weather effects are undoubtedly a primary driver of wheat production shortfalls and. are the most important economically damaging diseases affecting wheat and other small-grain cereals (except rice). with climate change. Historically. Identification of a new virulent strain of stem rust in the wheat fields of Uganda in 1999 (race TTKSK – commonly known as Ug99). In addition. The most feared disease of wheat – stem rust – has re-emerged in a new virulent form. stem rust was the most feared disease of wheat. Several variants are now recognized and presence is confirmed in eight countries (Ethiopia. Since its initial identification. In addition. Race Ug99 is migrating and mutating rapidly. First identified in East Africa. designated as Race Ug99. leaf (or brown) rust and stripe (or yellow) rust. Kenya is the only country that has suffered any significant loss due to Ug99. Plant Production and Protection Division. Uganda. The notable successes of the previous decades resulted in a degree of complacency that stem rust was a vanquished disease. complete crop loss is possible on susceptible cultivars. South Africa. To date.Hodson@fao. Three species of rust fungi. David. Hodson. new. Breakdown of key resistance genes and genetic uniformity are driving these epidemics. with low levels of incidence worldwide. may increasingly be so. The pathogen is wind-borne and capable of travelling vast distances (up to several thousand km). were achieved. the Sudan. FAO. Most global commercial wheat cultivars are susceptible to Ug99. the Islamic Republic of Iran. However. Continued and sustained investment will be required to address both current and future challenges posed by wheat rusts. Recognition of the sheer magnitude of current global vulnerability has spurred international initiatives to address the issue. once the most feared disease of wheat. These early 20th century major stem rust epidemics were the driving force behind national and international mitigation and control efforts. Kenya. Under conditions highly favourable to stem rust.This special feature is courtesy of Mr D. Yemen and Zimbabwe). In the first half of the twentieth century. rust epidemics can develop quickly. Substantial and successful global initiatives are underway to address the stem rust threat. Significant changes in both stem and stripe rust populations currently pose serious threats to wheat production. Since 2005. the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (BGRI) has coordinated an international coalition of institutions working to mitigate the re-emerging wheat rust threat. significant gains in the battle against rust. stem rust damaged wheat crops on a massive scale across continents. The resistance incorporated into the semi-dwarf “green revolution” wheat varieties during the 1960/70s proved durable and was increasingly relied upon. Millions of hectares of wheat are planted to very susceptible varieties and. they are not the only factor capable of negatively impacting wheat production. has re-emerged in a new virulent form. the ever changing nature of rust pathogens and their ability to acquire new adaptive traits make them a formidable foe.

how can these affect the future prospects for global wheat production and food security? At the outset. and they appear to have adaptation to warmer temperatures. Central Asia. Given favourable conditions. Presence of aggressive stripe rust strains. Genetic uniformity of cropping systems is another factor that amplifies the risk of significant disease outbreaks. the Near East. Accidental humanassisted transmission across continents is implicated in many instances. West and South Asia and North/East Africa. resulted in severe epidemics in several countries. genetically uniform wheat cultivars are being grown. despite generally low levels of disease outside of East Africa. coupled to virulence on Yr27. Widespread cultivation of susceptible varieties carrying the Yr27 gene is implicated in the Ethiopia epidemics. Afghanistan. Throughout large regions of Central. the regional drought that had engulfed much of the Near East receded. Single cultivars occupy millions of hectares and the same genetic material is often released in several countries under a different variety name. The effectiveness of this Yr27 gene has now broken down and severe epidemics are occurring as a result.g. These new aggressive strains (PstS1 and PstS2) produce many more spores in a much shorter time than previous strains. Since 2000. notably: Algeria. and environmental conditions favoured the development of stripe rust. adapted pathotypes is spreading globally. the aggressiveness of the pathogen strains and the slow replacement of susceptible varieties are all a concern. the most at risk are likely to be small-scale farmers who lack access to either fungicide for emergency short-term control or seed of resistant varieties for sustainable long-term control. High disease levels raise the probability of natural dispersal. Natural airborne movements are one factor but accidental human-assisted movements are undoubtedly increasingly important. However. The current stripe rust situation has highlighted the speed at which the new. Conditions favouring rust development have continued into 2010. Regions with extremely high per capita consumption rates of wheat. Ug99 and related strains provided a clear warning about excessive 62 . Stem rust. Morocco. they can cause severe periodic production shortfalls in some affected countries or regions. Morocco and Uzbekistan. The devasting 1950s epidemics in North America were caused by a stem rust race named 15B. e. Since early March. several factors indicate the possibility for further severe stripe (yellow) rust outbreaks. Azerbaijan. eleven years after its first detection. if uncontrolled and conditions are favourable. Global awareness relating to the renewed vulnerability of wheat to stem rust has increased significantly and there has been an encouraging resurgence in surveillance and monitoring activities. Estimated losses of over 1 million tonnes are thought to have occurred in Syria alone. Lebanon. but the near exponential growth in international travel and trade is equally important.unpredictable time lags can occur between identification of a new pathotype and a damaging outbreak. Pathogen changes also underpin the current stripe rust problems. it must be clear that wheat rusts are unlikely to destroy the entire global wheat crop. Iraq. the amount of disease present. The current wheat rust situation indicates both failure of the existing control systems but also gives rise to some optimism. with mild winters and adequate rainfall in several countries resulting in early outbreaks of stripe rust. several new resistant cultivars have been developed and released. two highly aggressive strains of stripe rust have been identified and spread globally. Breakdown of widely deployed resistance genes by these aggressive strains is another factor driving the current stripe rust epidemics. Epidemics continue to devastate susceptible wheat crops. CONCLUSION Given the changes occurring in wheat rust pathogen populations. reports of serious outbreaks of stripe rust have been received from Azerbaijan. In 2009. The range expansion detected for new aggressive strains of stripe rust (PstS1 and PstS2) may represent the most rapid spread of an important crop pathogen on a global scale. Turkey. For both rusts. The very serious yellow rust epidemics observed in 2010. The presence of these so-called “mega-cultivars” has resulted in resistance to stripe rust often being based solely on the Yr27 resistance gene. Significant and rapid progress has been made in response to Ug99. New sources of resistance have been identified. These factors combined. are of special concern. The cultivation of genetically identical wheat mega-cultivars across millions of hectares creates ideal conditions for potential epidemics once resistance breaks down. Areas once considered too warm for the development of stripe rust are now experiencing serious outbreaks. highlight the reality of this threat. many of which are now undergoing rapid seed multiplication in different countries. The principal breeding strategy being deployed is the pyramiding of several minor resistance genes in order to reduce the likelihood of rapid breakdown by the pathogen. North Africa and South Asia. requires careful monitoring given current global vulnerability to the Ug99 lineage. with Ethiopia currently experiencing the worst stripe rust outbreaks in many years. result in a significant competitive advantage for the pathogen and permit the rapid development of epidemics. Syria and Uzbekistan.

Following the abolition of government price supports in 1995. Rapid global spread of two aggressive strains of a wheat rust fungus. sustained surveillance and monitoring activities. David P. Described as “benchmarks. 2008. However. & Justesen.org/cgi/content/ summary/329/5990/369 Singh. the South African Futures Exchange2. Available on-line at: http://www. however.. M.. no.. Yahyaoui.sciencemag.org) FAO Global Rust Monitoring System: Rust SPORE (http:// www. In addition. Ravi P. Whether speculation is causing prices to rise and whether producers benefit from high prices realized in futures contracts are central questions for debate. Annemarie Fejer Justesen. Wired Magazine March 2010. frequent government interventions in both the futures and physical markets or prohibitions against direct foreign investment have constrained emerging commodity markets growth globally. Stephanie Walter. food price volatility needs addressing. strict position limits. Escalating Threat of Wheat Rusts. Indeed most recent agricultural exchanges developed as a response to markets liberalization and have focused on producer pricing. 2010. designated over 100 warehouses as delivery Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (www. Agricultural commodity investing is big business. Milus. 1 63 . E. A.complacency regarding rust pathogens.fao. Science Vol. Emerging markets exchanges such as China’s Dalian Exchange and India’s Multi-Commodity Exchange have experienced greater volume surges than CME or Euronext Liffe. Will stem rust destroy the world’s wheat crop? Adv Agron 98: 271-309 Red Menace: Stop the Ug99 Fungus Before Its Spores Bring Starvation. for example.A. the global coordinated response to the re-emergence of stem rust has been extremely positive. 329. 5990. This special feature is courtesy of Ms Ann Berg. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Hodson.” the price discovery in these contracts reverberates globally. Euronext Liffe has also developed liquid contracts in wheat and rapeseed. p.CME Group1.S.org/agriculture/crops/rust/stem/en/) Hovmøller. 369. Continued investment in mitigation research. Huerta-Espino Julio et al . but have not attracted large global investment flows. have brought charges of excess speculation that is proving potentially disruptive to vast segments of the population. financial firms have poured colossal sums of money into commodity futures exchange products in hopes of capturing outsized returns from the volatile foodstuff market. deployment of durable resistant varieties and effective seed systems will all be needed to address both current and future challenges posed by wheat rusts. Senior Commodity Trader. but urgently needed.F. High volumes. Agricultural trading volumes have tripled on the world’s most renowned exchange . globalrust. A. Mol Ecol 17:3818-3826 Mogens Støvring Hovmøller. and doubled on Euronext Liffe’s soft commodity complex during the last decade. Available on-line at: http://www. Currency inconvertibility. 2008. A similar coordinated response is currently lacking for stripe (yellow) rust. Following the 1990s deregulation of the financial service sector in the United States and in Europe.com/magazine/2010/02/ff_ug99_ fungus/all/1 The CME Group now comprises the Chicago Board of Trade and the New York Mercantile Exchange. futures trading in agricultural markets have grown exponentially since 2000. Consultant. often creating profound impacts on domestic policy-making in virtually every country.wired. Globally.. 2 SAFEX is now the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.

such as the Rosario Futures Exchange (ROFEX) and the Bolsa di Mercadorias & Futuros (BM&F) feature contracts customized to their export markets. Each week it publishes the Commitment of Traders Report (COT). and managed money funds. China’s and India’s exchanges seek to promote producer marketing power and rural development. This report. An important role of the CFTC is to approve position limits and the specifications of all futures contracts listed on United States exchanges to ensure that they are resistant to manipulation. many exchanges have created contracts to suit their domestic commercial base. vesting it with broad oversight and anti-fraud powers. Market manipulations – especially “squeezes” or “corners” – were alleged at least once every ten years at the Chicago Board of Trade after its establishment in the mid-19th century. Elsewhere. volumes of agricultural futures are remarkable for their size as a multiple of physical crop productions. 4 The CBOT refigured the contracts from a Chicago/Toledo warehouse receipt system to an Illinois River shipping certificate system. In response. market congestion.”4 The CFTC also has authority over futures traders and trading firms. advising that the contracts no longer complied with the Commission’s mandate “to prevent or diminish price manipulation. it issued an ultimatum to the CBOT to revise its longstanding maize and soybean contracts3. 3 64 . experienced a trading volume in 2008 of 90 billion bushels. gathered from the United States exchanges. categorizes the long. short and spread positions of producer/ users. The CME Soft Red Wheat contract for example. Although dwarfed by financial futures notional volumes which have exceeded one quadrillion US Dollars since 2006. Finally. the CFTC supports market transparency. the Government of the United States enacted legislation in 1922 to exert regulatory authority over commodity futures exchanges and strengthened that authority in 1936 under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). the equivalent of trading the entire crop each business day. The CEA made market manipulation a criminal act and placed limits on individual trader’s positions. Speculation and price distortions on commodity futures markets have existed as long as the markets themselves. Argentina’s and Brazil’s exchanges. giving CBOT maize and soybean contracts were launched in 1877 and 1936 respectively. In 1974. In 1989. the CFTC ordered the firm to substantially reduce its soybean long positions prior to the May and July delivery periods. or the abnormal movement of such commodity in interstate commerce. In 1996. including commercial traders. swaps dealers.CME historical volatility Percent 80 CME futures volume Millions of contracts 8 60 6 40 4 20 2 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Wheat Maize Soybeans Wheat Maize Soybeans points in its wheat and maize contracts to best suit producer risk management needs. when it perceived that a large commercial exporter was distorting the price of CBOT soybeans. which is used domestically to hedge a crop of about 400 million bushels (10 million tonnes). the United States Congress established the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The Tokyo Grain Exchange (TGE) for example launched a yen denominated maize contract in 1992 that specified physical delivery of United States origin maize to Japanese ports.

The guidances represent the first occasion on which regulators responsible for overseeing commodity derivatives markets agreed to international standards for the supervision of these markets. For example. Bona fide hedgers are exempt from all limits. exchange products are under the purview of the national financial regulators. the CFTC promotes information sharing on a global basis and the adoption of “best practices” for overseeing futures contracts. It also holds round tables on various futures issues which are open to the public. In the United Kingdom. In addition. However. not the exchange. Most recently. As of June 2010. These limits increased dramatically beginning in the 1990s from the standard 600 contracts for grains and soybeans to now several thousand. Applied to speculators and hedgers alike. issued a communiqué (the Tokyo Communiqué) endorsing two guidance papers. Despite its endorsement of IOSCO principles. the Autorité des marchés financiers oversees the former MATIF8 milling wheat contract. the United Kingdom and United States. United States exchanges have placed limits on speculative trading in primary agricultural contracts. the Government of France is calling for international reform to be introduced in the 2011 review of the Markets and Financial Instruments Directive (MIFED).37 million tonnes) 6 500 (890 thousand tonnes) 1 800 (163 thousand tonnes) 2 000 (170 thousand tones) See addendum. it is assessing its regulatory role over commodity futures markets in the forthcoming restructuring. Since the CEA enactment. CME Group agricultural positions limits – number of contracts and tonne equivalent Contract Maize Soybeans Wheat Rice Oats 600 600 600 600 600 Spot month (76. Similar to CME’s tiered structure – limits must be reduced prior to contract expiry.2 thousand tonnes) (81. International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). 9 A hedge exemption allows an index fund to exceed the speculative limits.6 thousand tonnes) (81. the Financial Service Authority (FSA) – a non-governmental organization – is granted statutory powers to regulate futures markets. rapeseed and maize contracts have conservative all months limits compared with CMEs.5 As a member of IOSCO. 5 6 65 . The London Clearing House. By 2007.7 according to the FSA Web site. one on best practices for the design and/or review of commodity contracts and another on market surveillance and information sharing. although the spot month limit remains 600. it announced a restructuring plan to be completed by 2012 to deal more adequately with systemic issues. including the Toyko Communcique. following allegations of disorderly markets associated with the taking of large cocoa deliveries on Euronext Liffe cocoa contract by a hedge fund. 8 MATIF merged with LIFFE in 1999.a clear picture of the market make-up for each futures contract. The Euronext Liffe wheat. The European countries have very different futures trading regulatory models from the United States. 7 In 1997. Elsewhere in Europe. the CME restricts any noncommercial entity from holding more than 600 shipping certificates or warehouse receipts received on delivery. 6 For various reasons the futures prices have tended to trade at a large premium (as much as 20 percent) to the underlying cash price for the last few years. Similar to the FSA. the AMF has few delineated supervisory powers over futures exchanges. relying on exchanges to self-regulate. Kansas City and Minneapolis wheat contracts.6 thousand tonnes) Single month 13 500 6 500 5 000 1 800 1 400 All months 22 000 (2. regulators from 17 countries including Japan. the FSA originally viewed commodity futures trading as a professional users’ market and left its monitoring to the exchanges. “[it] does not have dedicated rules for commodities and commodity derivatives markets. The granting of hedge exemptions9 to index funds by the CFTC is currently under review. it held a round table focused on the lack of convergence between cash and futures prices6 in the Chicago. the futures delivery process of these contracts is intended to act as a price signal system and not a supply sourcing mechanism. Most recently.79 million tonnes) 10 000 (1. in response to the current run-up in wheat prices.6 thousand tonnes) (54. it recognized the growing volume in commodity futures and expressed the potential need for increased futures oversight.” Established in 2000 in the wake of the Barings Bank failure.6 thousand tonnes) (51. particularly in the banking sector. determines the limits for the most actively traded grain and oilseed contracts.

Experts noted that the July price became so elevated that contract shorts shipped cocoa from New York warehouses to the Euronext Liffe delivery ports of Amsterdam. FAO could lead this harmonization process. Today. Euronext Liffe recently announced it would collect internal numbers on the trading types and entities participating in the soft commodity sector and produce a report similar to the CFTC’s COT report. 66 . over 150 years of futures trading history demonstrates that position limits are necessary in commodities of finite supply to curb excessive speculation and hoarding. • Opaque local markets. Regulatory harmonization The United States model for creating a regulatory framework may be a good starting point for regulators in Europe. coffee and cocoa contracts have no limits. for example. • Exploitive lending and buying practices by middleperson. The dilution of price from futures to growers results in a weak supply response several factors contribute to poor price transmission: • Domestic price protections. The lack of limits allowed purportedly a single hedge fund to take delivery on the 2010 July contract of approximately 240 000 tonnes of cocoa -virtually all of the deliverable supplies and equivalent to 7 percent of the global production. heightened export tariffs or quotas have triggered dramatic futures price spikes over the last few years and are counterproductive.Euronext Liffe agricultural positions limits – number of contracts and tonne equivalent Contract Milling wheat Rapeseed Maize Spot month 2 000 (100 thousand tonnes) 1 200 (60 thousand tonnes) 1 200 (60 thousand tonnes) All Months 4 000 (200 thousand tonnes) 2 400 (120 thousand tonnes) 2 400 (120 thousand tonnes) Endorsement of IOSCO principles. • Futures delivery points geographically very distant from growing areas. Also. To date. The electronic marketplace produces instantaneous audit trails of order flow and transactions that are segregated by types of traders. the exchanges themselves or their clearinghouses10 can address this question with great precision. In contrast to all other exchange agricultural contracts. Exchanges in other countries should also adopt such reporting requirements. As far as agricultural commodities are concerned. Several factors have contributed to increased global speculative volume in foodstuffs: • Markets liberalization and decline of price supports. Government policy Sudden government interventions such as embargoes. Euronext Liffe’s sugar. 10 The CME Group clears its own trades internally. The exchanges could furnish this data to the CFTC and have it published daily so that speculative versus commercial buying/selling could be quantified. Antwerp and Hamburg to make delivery. Price transmission to producers Poor price transmission from futures markets to producers is a critical issue for markets. is ineffective without collecting information about trading activities and promulgating appropriate rules and regulations. particularly in the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy • Deregulation of the financial service sector in the US that allowed proprietary trading by banks • Declining margins in securities trading • Diversion of foodstuffs into fuel products • Rising demand for food in emerging markets • Under-investment in agriculture due to prolonged low food prices • Lack of price transmission to producers • Sudden governmental interventions in the export market such as export bans. Such information would greatly augment the market snapshot provided by the COT report by identifying trading types that are moving prices up or down. • Long supply chains. working with other international organizations. London Clearing House clears commodity futures transactions on Euronext Liffe. various brokerage houses provided informal summaries of trading activities by players from the trading pits each day. tariffs and quotas • Ease of access to electronic market place • Restructuring of primary exchanges from member organizations to for-profit corporations Increased transparency The most common question in futures markets is: To what degree is speculation driving prices versus commercial activity? Before the advent of electronic trading. neither Euronext Liffe nor LCH have announced any plans to impose position limits on soft commodity futures.

especially in countries with extensive rice protection policies. in which gains and losses are equally offset. For example.” UNCTAD 14 67 . in the major producing countries of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana could help in price transmission from the European demand centres to growers. The United States InterContinental Exchange lists a cocoa contract with deliveries in New York harbour points. futures exchanges have relied on both position limits and price limits. • Ban high frequency trading. in a market such as rice. High frequency trading is also a controversial issue – one that a CFTC editorial recently stated needed “reining in. A commodity and/or a futures exchange. Sept 6. Because of the varieties of rice and consumer preferences.12 Similarly. This model is an attractive mechanism for signalling prices to farmers and could be replicated elsewhere. swaps dealers comprise about 40 percent of long open interest or almost one billion bushels (27 million tonnes) . with experts on both sides arguing whether they have caused chronic price elevation and steep contango14 in some futures contracts.”13 Much debated also is the effect of passive fund money (index funds and swaps dealers). others maintain that large order size creates volatility and jagged price swings. 13 “Rein in the Cyber-Cowboys. such as rice and maize. and Hamburg. particularly since the expansion of limits. Possibly some other volatility tools could be introduced: • Limit the size of market orders entered within a particular time period. comprises another 20 percent of long open interest as of September 2010. Volatility Volatility in commodity foodstuffs is a result of both fundamental factors and speculative inflows of managed money. 11 Contango is a market structure characterized by each successive futures contract trading at a higher price than the previous one.” commenting that “parasitical trading does not truly contribute to fundamental market functions. many would be resisted by exchanges as some would tend to reduce volume and therefore profits. as the purchase and sale of commodity futures by swap dealers and index funds is entirely unrelated to market supply and demand fundamentals. CFTC Commissioner. no single contract can act as a global proxy mechanism. the CME wheat price moved up limit and down limit within two consecutive days. • Reduce leverage by increasing margins. The most heavily traded contract – the CME rough rice contract .15 but depends rather on the funds’ ability to attract subscribers. “Financialization of Commodity Markets. the Government conducts open auctions for export procurement via the Agricultural Futures Exchange of Thailand.” Bart Chilton. However. most would agree that these passive funds do not affect volatility levels as their only trading activity is a forward “roll” of their positions and the timings of these rolls are announced in their prospectus. In the CME wheat contract. commodity exchanges could aid regional pricing needs. • Allow shipping certificates or warehouse receipts to expire within one year of issuance. • Change physical delivery contracts to cash settlement. 12 Efforts are under way in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire to address commodity pricing. Antwerp. the last issue of delivery points can be addressed either by existing exchanges or by the creation of new ones. • Apply spot month limit positions for a longer-time period prior to delivery month. 2009. This too is a valuable price transmission model provided by exchanges.Although most of these issues need addressing on a country by country basis. In its 2009 Trade and Development Report. passive funds have successfully packaged and sold futures contracts as an alternative investment class to institutional investors. Managed money (which includes active hedge funds and passive index funds). • Reduce existing position limits. To address volatility levels. In Thailand. 15 Trade and Development Report. • Settle contracts every month – either by delivery or cash. Despite the risk transfer nature of futures trading. Financial Times. In the August 2010 price hike of wheat. None of these solutions is without controversy or downsides.prices unmilled rice delivered in Arkansas warehouses and is most suited to domestic growers and millers. Several Latin American exchanges organize the trading of agricultural “tariff packages” as a means for ensuring transparency and price efficiency for the importation of “sensitive” goods.equivalent to 2½ the size of the United States soft red winter wheat crop. While financial firms argue that they add volume and liquidity to the market. Chapter II. the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) contends that the massive inflow of fund money has caused commodity futures markets to fail the “efficient market” hypothesis. although most of the world’s cocoa production is in Western Africa – cocoa traded on the Euronext Liffe11 contract is priced basis delivery in northern European ports such as Amsterdam. Sharply differing opinions exist on how institutional money flows have changed the nature of the markets.

” for example. prices and volatility levels will probably remain elevated for the foreseeable future. d) Unexpected changes triggered by national food security situations. Finally. can be addressed in part by the exchanges and regulators. The LIFDCs are most adversely affected by these high prices. The Groups recommend intensification of FAO’s information gathering and dissemination at all levels. c) Growing linkage with outside markets. 2. The Groups recognize that unexpected price hikes and volatility are amongst major threats to food security and that their root causes need to be addressed. While acknowledging the sudden increase in prices and deterioration of prospects for cereal 5. crop development and domestic market information. the Groups did not conclude that this situation was indicative of an impending food crisis. the Groups propose to enhance market information and transparency. the world community needs to commence a debate on whether today’s primary futures exchanges still maintain their relevance to the underlying commodity markets as price discovery and risk transfer venues or whether they have transformed into a contest of players seeking triumph in “a zero sum game. Due to several structural changes in both the futures markets and the underlying agricultural commodities markets. including involvement of noncommercial traders. at its next meeting. have been amongst the main factors behind the recent escalation of world prices and the prevailing high price volatility. China. Australia. however. Exchanges could construct a similar contract for wheat or alternatively develop an index to reflect wheat prices in several large producing countries (besides the EU and the United States) such as Argentina. including capacity strengthening of all partners in relation to monitoring planting intentions. They specifically recommend action. e) Panic buying and hoarding. 4. b) New mechanisms to enhance transparency and manage the risks associated with new sources of market volatility. in particular the impact of “financialization” on futures markets. for wheat in particular. A global wheat contract could give governments an alternative view to the current commodity futures prices and enable better price transmission to producers.Alternatively.” markets in recent months. 162 delegates from 79 countries and nine organizations attended the oneday event on 24 September 2010. Although such a contract would have to be carefully constructed. b) Insufficient market transparency at all levels including in relation to futures markets. Canada. 1. with a view to support policy decisionmaking. The Groups recognize that the CFS. Following several months of rising international wheat prices. Higher prices will be necessary to encourage greater productivity and infrastructure development. The Groups agree that additional work is needed in the following three areas: a) Analyses of alternative approaches to mitigating food price volatility. India and South Africa and where commodity futures contracts serve as producer pricing mechanisms. an index such as the one published by the International Grains Council could be expanded to include more countries. Volatility. tracking “cheapest global wheat. in particular: a) The lack of reliable and up-to-date information on crop supply and demand and export availability. there is a precedent: the Euronext Liffe white sugar contract (launched in 1983) is a global free-on-board contract with deliveries in 41 countries and 5 continents. Unexpected crop failure in some major exporting countries followed by national responses and speculative behaviour rather than global market fundamentals. 68 . Global cereal supply and demand still appears sufficiently in balance. FAO called for an extraordinary Intersessional meeting of the Intergovernmental Groups on Grains and Rice. The Report of the meeting is reproduced herewith . 3. Given the growing complexity of factors influencing agricultural commodity markets. will consider issues of vulnerability and risk. exchanges might consider the development of a global contract. Similarly. The Groups expressed sympathy towards countries which were affected by natural disasters. They further encourage analysis of different dimensions of futures markets behaviour.

amongst others. member countries “agreed to refrain from taking measures that are inconsistent with the WTO rules.” 7. As stated in the Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security of 2009. 69 . with adverse impacts on global. new technologies and good policies. regional and national food security.c) Exploring ways of strengthening FAO’s partnerships with other relevant organizations working on these issues. 6. The Groups agree that increased investment in agriculture. are key elements to ensure global food security.

Table A1 (a) & (b) Cereal Statistics Table A2 (a) & (b) Wheat Statistics Table A3 (a) & (b) Coarse Grains Statistics Table A4 (a) & (b) Maize Statistics Table A5 (a) & (b) Barley Statistics Table A6 (a) & (b) Sorghum Statistics Table A7 (a) & (b) Other Coarse Grains Statistics Table A8 (a) & (b) Rice Statistics Table A9 Table A10 Table A11 Table A12 Table A13 Table A14 Table A15 Table A16 Table A17 Table A18 Table A19 Table A20 Table A21 Table A22 Table A23 Table A24 Table A25 Table A26 Table A27 Table A28 Cereal Supply and Utilization in Main Exporting Countries Total Oilcrops Statistics Total Oils and Fats Statistics Total Meals and Cakes Statistics Sugar Statistics Total Meat Statistics Bovine Meat Statistics Ovine Meat Statistics Pigmeat Statistics Poultry Meat Statistics Milk and Milk Products Statistics Fish and fishery products statistics Selected International Prices of Wheat and Coarse Grains Wheat and Maize Futures Prices Selected International Prices for Rice and Price Indices Selected International Prices for Oilcrop Products and Price Indices Selected International Prices for Milk Products and Dairy Price Indices Selected International Meat Prices Selected International Meat Prices and FAO Meat Price Index Selected International Commodity Prices

72-73 74-75 76-77 78-79 80-81 82-83 82-83 84-85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

70

General
• FAO estimates and forecasts are based on official and unofficial sources. • Unless otherwise stated, all charts and tables refer to FAO data as source. • Estimates of world imports and exports may not always match, mainly because shipments and deliveries do not necessarily occur in the same marketing year. • Tonnes refer to metric tonnes. • All totals are computed from unrounded data. • Regional totals may include estimates for countries not listed. The countries shown in the tables were chosen based on their importance of either production or trade in each region. The totals shown for Central America include countries in the Caribbean. • Estimates for China also include those for the Taiwan Province, Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR, unless otherwise stated. • Up to 2006 or 2006/07, the European Union includes 25 member states. From 2007 or 2007/08 onwards, the European Union includes 27 member states. • ‘-‘ means nil or negligible.

Trade
• Trade between European Union member states is excluded, unless otherwise stated. • Wheat: Trade data include wheat flour in wheat grain equivalent. The time reference period is July/June, unless otherwise stated. • Coarse grains: The time reference period is July/June, unless otherwise stated. • Rice, dairy and meat products: The time reference period is January/ December. • Oilseeds, oils and fats and meals and sugar: The time reference period is October/September, unless otherwise stated. .

basic foodstuffs with per caput income below the level used by the World Bank to determine eligibility for International Development Aid (IDA) assistance (i.e. USD 1 735 in 2006). The LDCs group currently includes 50 countries with low income as well as weak human resources and low level of economic diversification. The list is reviewed every three years by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Stocks
• Cereals: Data refer to carry-overs at the close of national crop seasons ending in the year shown.

In the presentation of statistical material, countries are subdivided according to geographical location as well as into the following two main economic groupings: “developed countries” (including the developed market economies and the transition markets) and “developing countries” (including the developing market economies and the Asia centrally planned countries). The designation “Developed” and “Developing” economies is intended for statistical convenience and does not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process. References are also made to special country groupings: Low-Income FoodDeficit Countries (LIFDCs), Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The LIFDCs include 77 countries that are net importers of

Production
• Cereals: Data refer to the calendar year in which the whole harvest or bulk of harvest takes place. • Sugar: Figures refer to centrifugal sugar derived from sugar cane or beet, expressed in raw equivalents. Data relate to the October/September season.

Utilization
• Cereals: Data are on individual country’s marketing year basis. • Sugar: Figures refer to centrifugal sugar derived from sugar cane or beet, expressed in raw equivalents. Data relate to the October/September season.

71

Table A1 (a). Cereal statistics
Production 2006-2008 average 2009
estim.

Imports 2010
f’cast

Exports 2010/11
f’cast

06/07-08/09 average

2009/10
estim.

06/07-08/09 average

2009/10
estim.

2010/11
f’cast

(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . million tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)

ASIA
Bangladesh China India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Japan Kazakhstan Korea, Republic of Myanmar Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Thailand Turkey Viet Nam

952.5 30.9 406.3 209.1 49.8 18.9 3.2 9.0 18.3 5.0 20.9 31.8 17.3 2.6 24.8 30.8 28.8 136.6 3.3 20.8 14.7 5.7 23.0 11.4 5.8 39.6 33.8 126.1 37.9 65.5 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.8 434.0 50.9 383.1 429.6 274.5 87.5 8.1 36.4 27.1 26.2 2 145.6 1 202.4 943.2 914.0 133.4

987.2 34.4 423.1 204.0 58.2 17.6 2.1 8.6 20.5 5.3 21.0 34.5 17.2 1.4 25.4 33.2 30.3 153.6 6.0 20.9 16.3 10.2 23.7 15.1 3.6 40.6 34.4 116.7 24.9 67.1 3.4 3.8 4.1 3.3 466.3 49.5 416.8 463.5 296.1 95.8 9.0 45.0 35.5 34.7 2 263.4 1 239.3 1 024.1 954.2 144.1

999.3 35.6 426.2 218.6 59.1 19.1 3.5 8.8 15.2 4.8 20.8 32.1 18.1 1.1 24.7 32.0 30.8 153.6 4.5 20.6 15.9 7.1 23.6 15.8 5.5 41.1 34.7 135.7 41.0 70.8 3.0 3.9 3.9 3.3 444.7 44.3 400.3 405.3 277.2 62.2 9.0 39.8 36.7 35.8 2 216.4 1 275.8 940.6 974.0 149.0

127.7 3.2 8.6 2.9 6.7 7.9 4.4 25.5 0.1 12.2 0.1 1.6 5.2 9.8 1.7 3.5 2.2 59.1 7.8 13.0 1.3 5.3 5.3 2.7 1.7 25.1 14.7 24.1 9.0 2.9 4.8 3.1 2.6 9.2 2.7 6.5 23.8 18.7 1.1 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.2 270.3 200.0 70.3 86.8 22.6

135.1 4.2 10.7 0.4 6.1 8.7 5.2 25.5 0.1 12.9 0.2 0.2 5.6 11.7 2.2 3.7 3.1 59.2 7.0 15.2 1.2 3.7 5.8 2.5 2.0 24.5 14.2 24.9 8.7 3.3 5.0 3.1 3.1 8.3 2.8 5.6 13.0 9.1 0.7 0.2 1.3 0.2 266.4 207.6 58.9 90.4 24.6

128.0 2.9 10.8 0.4 6.2 6.6 4.9 25.4 12.4 0.2 0.6 4.9 11.9 1.9 3.6 2.9 61.1 7.7 14.6 1.1 6.0 5.2 2.6 1.9 25.7 15.6 25.1 8.4 3.3 5.0 3.3 3.5 7.7 2.5 5.3 18.2 11.7 3.2 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.1 267.3 204.0 63.3 86.6 21.4

45.1 4.3 5.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 8.1 0.1 0.7 4.0 10.0 2.0 5.1 5.6 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.4 0.3 1.3 1.0 36.9 25.0 8.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 114.1 22.3 91.8 52.6 21.4 16.4 1.3 12.3 14.7 14.7 270.4 78.5 191.8 20.8 4.6

44.7 1.1 3.5 1.6 1.0 0.5 8.5 0.1 1.0 3.6 9.1 4.5 7.0 6.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.6 2.2 1.3 1.1 32.4 20.6 8.0 0.1 0.1 104.3 21.2 83.1 65.7 23.3 20.3 1.8 20.0 18.8 18.8 273.6 73.5 200.1 15.8 5.1

43.1 3.3 4.1 1.7 1.0 0.5 6.8 0.1 1.0 2.3 9.5 3.2 6.5 7.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 2.5 0.1 1.2 1.0 35.8 21.9 10.3 0.1 111.6 20.5 91.1 48.2 26.9 4.1 1.7 15.1 20.3 20.3 267.3 77.4 189.9 17.9 6.0

AFRICA
Algeria Egypt Ethiopia Morocco Nigeria South Africa Sudan

CENTRAL AMERICA
Mexico

SOUTH AMERICA
Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Peru Venezuela

NORTH AMERICA
Canada United States of America

EUROPE
European Union Russian Federation Serbia Ukraine

OCEANIA
Australia

WORLD
Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs

72

7 7.4 2.6 169. .6 197.2 6.3 91. .0 165.0 2.0 340.5 25.0 14. .9 132.9 6.1 168.5 166.7 269. .5 319.0 2.5 221.4 6.5 280.0 1.9 212. . 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.1 19.6 28.7 359.5 14.1 862.2 129.8 6.7 3. Stocks ending in 2010/11 f’cast Per caput food use 2011 f’cast 2007-2009 average 2010 estim.6 4.9 190.0 202.7 6.0 12. .7 172.1 24.7 7. . .Table A1 (b).9 108.3 2.0 327.9 1.8 55.2 128.3 36.8 231.1 111.1 0.0 4.7 90.3 131. . . Republic of Myanmar Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Thailand Turkey Viet Nam 1 014.4 22.1 33.1 6.4 11.7 65.7 30.) (.5 2.5 0.1 28.4 128.6 4.4 151.4 66.3 6.9 162.7 267.6 167.4 335.7 3. .3 16.3 1 006.6 16.2 3.2 172.8 28.9 232. . .9 33.8 7.4 4.3 14. .1 5.8 147.8 206.2 4.8 1 075.3 137. Kg/year . .5 133.9 17.4 142.7 8.0 69.1 13.2 12.8 202.6 139. .6 140. .4 8. .8 26.0 169.5 228.0 132.1 222.6 31.1 31.7 866.3 17.0 149.3 200.4 20.6 1 300.9 957.9 35.2 8.6 1.8 96.7 52.1 96. .4 0.0 28.4 159.2 157.3 154.4 68.8 1 030.4 20.6 29.5 17.4 5.1 2 128.) 160.5 7.1 161.6 130.2 154.7 3.1 10.1 134.6 32. .4 13.3 6.4 156.9 420.9 1.0 215.2 1.4 7.2 132.9 16.4 169.6 89. .8 104.1 208.4 14.0 117.0 401.2 184.1 2.0 164.3 3.3 314.5 117.3 140.4 3.7 56.2 171.6 32.3 2 253.7 5. .4 409.0 4.2 4.7 13.8 8. .1 32.5 5.8 251.0 0.0 7.4 164.0 62.1 5.9 3.9 246.8 109.7 459.4 30. .8 1.4 3. .8 197.2 168.8 49.4 166.8 91. . million tonnes .5 161.6 154.0 38.6 111.5 161.9 28.8 68.6 75.3 5. . .7 8.5 2.6 153. .9 67.4 0.1 1.0 35.6 32.7 167.5 132.9 37.2 1.9 211. .6 31.2 174.3 201.4 63.4 111.1 132.0 274.0 60.8 117.1 49.8 149.1 148. .6 123.9 122.0 151.7 33.1 4.7 2.5 60.2 47.2 0.5 1.0 11.8 2. .0 0.0 1 359.9 4. .7 70. .7 300. .9 251.9 101. .9 130.1 5.9 43.5 2 226. . .8 148.4 175.3 101.6 7.6 395. .6 35.4 103.1 163.5 1.2 139.7 2.0 208. . .8 7.4 370.6 9.4 1.8 13.1 262.8 121.2 17.2 17.5 269.2 156.7 3.7 343.9 109.8 369.8 239.8 26.3 210.9 161.3 48.9 3.6 25.0 7.3 22.2 49.1 139.3 5.3 229.8 3. .2 103.5 380.1 330.5 150. .3 182. . .8 395.9 5.7 247.6 6.7 34.9 29.4 131.9 3.4 8. .6 200.9 12. .0 133.7 5.6 4.7 7.4 4.9 23.6 175. Islamic Republic of Iraq Japan Kazakhstan Korea.4 152.9 135.4 149.3 5. 2010/11 f’cast (.5 10.9 3.4 148.8 134.6 10.3 16.6 5.4 17.4 133.9 150.6 284.1 5. .0 1.8 133.6 1.8 2.9 140.7 34.5 29.4 178.3 11.7 157.5 207.8 2.3 8.3 169.6 222.8 ASIA Bangladesh China India Indonesia Iran.4 33.6 AFRICA Algeria Egypt Ethiopia Morocco Nigeria South Africa Sudan CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Peru Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Serbia Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 73 . .9 27.6 14.0 24.7 103.4 274.1 1.7 827.5 212.0 12. .8 2.2 0.0 151.4 139.5 27.8 141.9 6.9 152.1 244.5 150.4 4.1 6. .8 120.1 8.2 154.5 154. Cereal statistics Total Utilization 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.0 25.3 9.9 103. . .8 411.2 76.8 150.7 7.4 15.7 6.3 151.2 117.6 31.3 1 055.9 142. . .1 15.4 1.3 69.0 179.7 151.2 5.7 149.2 203.3 211.8 7.1 112.3 164.1 63.4 178.1 13. .0 6.4 10.4 3.3 7.3 140.5 155.9 1.2 9.2 12.9 1.3 139.3 6.1 512.7 330.1 153. .2 127.4 7.1 182.0 27.1 16.6 133.6 14.8 10.8 16.7 141.9 3.5 5.2 17.3 15. . .0 4. .5 26.9 152.5 2.8 1 391.4 166.0 134.0 552.2 3.

0 115.5 9. .2 0.1 16.0 15. .8 3.1 0.3 3.8 24.6 2. . .2 26.1 1.6 1.0 2. .9 136.7 20.2 60.0 15.2 0.7 3.0 17.) ASIA Bangladesh China of which Taiwan Prov.0 0.3 1.2 1.4 228.1 1.2 1.5 2. .8 0.0 24. .7 4.4 1.0 3.Table A2 (a).2 18. .0 33. .6 26.0 14.2 3. .1 AFRICA Algeria Egypt Ethiopia Morocco Nigeria South Africa Tunisia CENTRAL AMERICA Cuba Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Peru Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 74 .3 0.6 3.1 20. .0 12.1 34.1 5.1 1.6 5.8 1.2 295.2 0. .2 0. .2 0.8 17.3 5.6 3.1 0.0 1.8 293.4 15.1 0.9 6. .5 52.5 11.5 2. .5 2.0 0. 2010/11 f’cast (.2 1. .6 0.0 1.7 20. .0 42. .4 6.1 11.1 80.6 313.2 0.6 52.8 101.3 4.7 682.2 1.9 0.8 2.0 1.7 1.1 4. .6 15.1 201.6 54.3 129.0 138.7 0.2 82.6 2.2 1. .8 0. .5 0.0 0.0 21. .2 9. .6 15.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 1.2 1. .1 1. .1 7.6 52.2 18. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.0 1.4 5.4 19.8 3.0 1.0 0.9 5. .9 7.1 4.1 6.5 1.1 3.5 2.0 0.0 0. .0 0.2 3.2 3.3 2.6 5. . .4 1.1 2. . .5 2.7 2.1 1.0 17.9 4.7 13.4 13. Imports 2010 f’cast Exports 2010/11 f’cast 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.5 17.4 13.5 3.7 50.3 1. .2 15.5 5.6 23.1 2. India Indonesia Iran. .5 1.5 25.5 2.0 128.1 0.3 1.3 0. .7 3.9 3. . .3 21.0 7.8 5.5 36. million tonnes . .0 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.5 3.7 3.1 2.1 13. Wheat statistics Production 2006-2008 average 2009 estim.4 111.0 14.3 0.3 21.0 115.8 95.1 0.3 0.5 1.8 9. .9 15.6 2.8 10.4 103.4 3. .9 3. .3 0.3 53. .0 21.7 9.1 2.4 5.1 74. .7 121. . .5 4.3 3.1 1.6 1.7 10.1 1.1 0.2 1.7 3.1 13.5 0.0 56.9 0.3 3.8 265.1 6. . .9 10.1 11.9 1.3 7. .2 47.5 0.6 57.7 313.5 1.1 15.6 8.2 1.4 46.2 42. .9 7.3 632.1 4.1 1.9 2. .4 4.0 0.0 4.3 7.1 0.0 17. .0 23. .1 80. .6 0.8 15.6 120.3 13.7 16. . .3 23.8 60.1 2.7 0.4 0. .0 0.4 5. .0 1.0 20. .2 0.2 0.0 60.7 17.5 297.3 17.1 0. .1 0.3 1. .0 3.1 1.7 19. Republic of Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Thailand Turkey 279. .9 22.1 102.4 3. .0 2. .2 2.7 3. .3 0.5 22.9 0.8 121. .5 3.2 1.5 6.0 8.7 1.1 1.5 61.1 0.6 336.3 24.0 3.9 5. .6 6.1 0.9 2.4 0.4 3. .8 35.5 5.0 0.1 334.6 0.6 245.4 0.8 0.0 121.0 24. .2 1.8 28.8 7. .2 0.4 1.7 209.3 8.0 12.5 3.2 82. .6 0.7 2.3 5.3 6.2 0.7 14.3 25.7 6.0 647. .6 5.5 9.3 1.8 1. .8 110.0 95.7 7.3 0.6 3.9 0.9 1.8 13.6 125.0 0.5 0.0 1. Islamic Republic of Iraq Japan Kazakhstan Korea.1 16. .0 0. .5 31.0 0. .6 13.2 87.0 0.6 9.6 262.8 2. .3 22.1 2. .8 368. .4 33.0 1.3 7.3 7.1 0.7 10.1 2.7 20.

1 57.7 213.8 1.5 1.6 64.0 10. .3 22.4 95.3 ASIA Bangladesh China of which Taiwan Prov.5 14.5 55.0 11.7 1.4 25.6 59.9 3.8 2.1 0.4 18.5 0.0 187.9 2.0 2.2 0.6 2.3 30.2 2.2 1.4 18.0 7.2 18.9 10.7 200.4 0. .6 1. .7 67.3 4.4 8.6 162.7 3. .3 0. .3 1.0 397.7 41. .8 3.6 115.1 58.5 98. .8 130.0 2.0 26.3 24. Islamic Republic of Iraq Japan Kazakhstan Korea.1 0.1 315.5 5.0 2.5 5.5 64.3 40. .1 2. .3 69.3 5. .0 7.5 2.0 2. . .6 98.1 60.3 198.3 19.5 56.2 5. .8 52.4 25.6 0.8 7.6 1.7 209. .7 39. .3 151.1 0.1 0.3 51.1 0.1 0.8 1.5 112.2 116.9 186.8 122.3 64.7 5.2 123.0 2.2 79.9 197.1 292.7 180.2 57.1 182.5 0.5 7.6 82.6 0.4 57. .7 115. .1 5.6 1.6 57.9 19.9 191.7 0. .7 20.1 59.8 6.5 44.7 67.4 48. .8 17.8 3.0 68.5 16.0 19.3 48. .8 51.5 46.7 64.7 112. . .4 11.3 116.4 2.0 115.9 3.0 7.3 2. .6 38.3 2.8 0.2 16.8 50.3 16.0 0.8 2. .6 3.2 50.0 0.6 2.8 12.1 46.6 18.0 82.5 16.5 109.4 0.6 0.2 371.1 41.3 38.8 18.3 56.3 185.3 1.2 7.1 262.2 57.4 114.9 270.0 0.3 1.8 2. 2010/11 f’cast (.3 50.6 0.1 57. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.Table A2 (b).3 5.6 0.1 121. .8 2.1 57.6 1.9 0.3 27.0 91.2 2.3 0. . .7 50.5 106.7 2.1 AFRICA Algeria Egypt Ethiopia Morocco Nigeria South Africa Tunisia CENTRAL AMERICA Cuba Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Peru Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 75 .7 7. Wheat statistics Total Utilization 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.9 7.8 391. .1 5.6 97.2 3.8 4.8 9.3 217.6 56.2 19.9 2. .6 1.8 104. .7 19.0 57.0 3.3 19.4 0.8 0.0 15. .3 25.1 97.5 4.1 0.9 25. .8 3.4 1.3 14.4 58.6 46. .3 0.7 122.9 23.7 123.1 26.3 2. .8 25.0 86.2 81.4 123.9 165.8 187.) (.6 8.3 151.0 2.5 81.8 0.9 1. . .0 0.0 110.4 7.1 109.2 1.2 0.1 8.0 3. India Indonesia Iran.8 5.4 116.1 633.2 75.2 22. .5 60.9 47. .5 7. .9 59.5 56.0 25.1 190.3 97.3 3.2 7.5 48.5 115.0 10.3 25.3 4.9 12.4 13.4 116.5 7.4 2.2 0.4 3.0 207.9 5.3 1.7 2.3 1.9 112.8 3. Republic of Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Thailand Turkey 316.3 7.5 338.3 13.5 184.5 69.3 60.4 0.7 0.0 23. .5 5.9 99.6 46.7 1.9 2.3 25.4 64.1 29.9 82.6 147.1 144.8 0.8 11. . .7 0.8 6.0 11. .4 165.3 1.3 3. . .1 6.6 2.0 7.2 26.7 8. .8 5.2 59.6 131.7 8.3 13.7 2. .8 26.9 118.1 210.8 1.8 43.2 1.0 26.2 130.0 668. .2 1.5 309.0 3.3 3.2 268.3 216.6 41.3 112.0 2.0 3.7 1.8 1.2 121.1 27.2 0.2 57. .5 5.6 1.2 1.0 12.4 197.5 19.5 1.3 165.2 0.5 83.3 19.3 116.4 0. .7 31.0 79.4 18.3 3.1 0.7 7.4 67.7 80. million tonnes .9 2.3 58.6 15.0 15.4 12.7 24.4 79.1 34.4 56.4 109.1 0.9 53. . .4 5.6 32.7 2.7 8.1 0. .3 333.9 7.5 182.5 2.4 110. Kg/year .0 0.6 116.9 1. .7 52.6 38.0 57.4 82.0 39.) 63.4 0.7 8.4 3.7 1.0 0.1 102.0 122.6 34.8 80.0 82.4 0.9 46.8 3. .0 0.6 6. . .0 68. .9 0.8 6.0 659.1 2.0 53.1 50. .5 2.9 2.6 15. .9 0.8 58. .1 96.6 25.0 41.4 5.1 79.4 18.4 60.7 57. Stocks ending in 2010/11 f’cast Per caput food use 2011 f’cast 2007-2009 average 2010 estim.6 5.

9 21.1 3.8 1.2 4.7 0.4 4.5 232. .8 1.7 0.7 16.7 175.4 0.0 0.1 6.0 78.0 514.7 4.1 22.6 10.2 2.9 5.2 4.1 1.1 332.7 1 071.3 5.3 1.1 13.0 1 125.0 12.5 0.5 4.9 14.6 354.1 38.6 0.9 1.1 0.0 8.P. . .1 0.1 37. .1 5.7 7.4 2.3 34.6 0.4 4. .8 3.0 1.1 3.6 60. million tonnes . .3 0.8 22. .8 118. . .9 1.8 0.6 349.5 1.6 57.7 1.1 2.1 3.8 4.9 4.8 2.2 17.6 1.2 3.8 0.8 114.6 30.5 0.4 65.2 55.2 17.6 0.8 0.2 3.8 9. . United Rep. .7 4.8 1. .5 33.8 2.9 2.9 1.6 7. .6 10.4 0.8 16. 2010/11 f’cast (.2 1.6 0.0 83.0 0. .0 59.1 22. . .4 9.9 4.0 33. .2 6. .5 0.1 2.2 4.1 0.5 AFRICA Algeria Egypt Ethiopia Kenya Morocco Nigeria South Africa Sudan Tanzania.1 13.2 0. .6 18.1 7.7 1 102. .2 7.4 0.3 1. Imports 2010 f’cast Exports 2010/11 f’cast 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim. .3 3.2 12.9 79.0 4.5 10.0 481. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.6 61. . .2 2. .5 5. .7 5. Coarse grain statistics Production 2006-2008 average 2009 estim. .5 1.6 0.5 372.5 0. . .7 589.2 0.6 13. . .0 637.7 1.7 114.8 19.9 2.2 356.4 2.9 143.8 10.6 3.5 12. . .4 18.6 0.0 0.0 0. .7 0.9 0.4 0.3 5.7 16. .6 0.7 20.1 6.4 0.6 4.4 4. .2 5.4 8.3 0.0 0. Islamic Republic of Japan Korea.0 57.1 3.1 19. . .0 6.5 59.1 2.4 86.4 4.8 1.5 19.7 1.2 0.5 5. .1 16.5 3.2 17.6 58.0 7.1 2.2 4. Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Thailand Turkey Viet Nam 271.2 5.8 0.5 4.4 0.4 4. .3 333.2 488.6 30.2 0. .2 217.2 0.7 9.2 1.8 99.7 0.5 8.0 345.5 58.7 35.9 82.7 200.9 2.0 0. .3 30.3 100. . . India Indonesia Iran.5 54.8 0. .4 0. . .3 283.2 0. .1 3.8 1. D.1 64.7 4.2 9. . .5 0.1 34.1 34.4 84.4 2.0 20.0 3.6 0.4 26.6 1.4 111. .3 32.6 173.0 2.3 0.2 116.1 2.1 0. .4 11.7 0. .1 0.1 4.9 5.2 109.0 90.1 4.7 2.1 25.4 1.3 9.5 28.1 82.7 15.1 12.7 15.2 0.9 587.3 0.0 4.6 15.1 15.2 10.6 5.5 53.6 3.9 12.3 6.R.6 3.8 0.2 1.5 0. .3 2. .0 0.2 0.6 3.1 2.0 16. .3 1.4 1.1 4.5 8.6 155.9 6. .7 30. .7 6.8 61.2 0.3 24.0 11. . .1 2.7 14.0 13.4 0.1 0. .0 1.7 2. .4 5.2 12.2 12.3 8.2 116.3 15. .5 11.7 10.5 0.3 22.8 1.6 0.1 4.0 6.9 1.2 19.0 0.2 1.3 2. .3 3.2 2.2 1.8 3.4 0.0 13.5 139. .2 0.5 2. .7 4. Korea.0 0. .2 0.7 1. .4 6.6 167.6 0. .6 3.9 3.4 0. . .) ASIA China of which Taiwan Prov.8 3.2 32. .5 0.1 0.5 13.8 1.2 319.2 15. .4 30. .2 0.4 0. .0 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.1 2. .9 6.9 24.1 0.1 0.6 3.5 9.8 40.0 19.5 0.2 119.9 5. .1 24.7 278.5 34.3 345.1 0.0 2.0 53. of CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Peru Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Serbia Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 76 .7 2.5 1.4 0.1 4.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 2.4 9.0 0. .2 2.4 0.5 8.8 18.7 2.2 0.0 2.Table A3 (a).

0 97.2 325.3 331.4 106.9 1.0 13.7 0. .4 6. .6 85.7 20.7 101.9 5.4 1.8 97.P.1 12.9 331.2 24.8 1 059.8 5.6 21.1 0. .3 533.6 2.1 4. .9 3.8 2.6 3.0 1.4 72.0 2.6 0.5 3.5 32.1 4.0 79.0 103. . D.9 95.0 52.4 29.4 4.6 0.9 42.3 1.6 3.4 77.8 1.8 18.4 61.7 56.0 0. .8 126.8 18. of CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Peru Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Serbia Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 77 .3 19.7 97.8 0.8 7.1 23.7 217.7 0.9 5.9 0.7 3.1 14.7 17.9 1.9 93.0 3.2 23.0 46.4 7.5 34. 2010/11 f’cast (.6 87. million tonnes .4 57.1 169.8 8.0 37. .6 25.4 18.2 18.4 1.1 0.4 29.5 87.7 8.8 2.5 28.4 5.7 16.7 95. Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Thailand Turkey Viet Nam 314.8 10.6 8.3 0.3 225.2 11.8 7.2 160.0 1.9 0.8 11.4 1.9 9.4 76.0 0.1 3.1 ASIA China of which Taiwan Prov.3 119.4 22. . . .6 3.0 1. .6 5. .5 22.9 112.1 9.8 26. Stocks ending in 2010/11 f’cast Per caput food use 2011 f’cast 2007-2009 average 2010 estim. Islamic Republic of Japan Korea.3 1.Table A3 (b). .6 7.7 48.0 214.6 148.1 44.8 3.9 20.8 38.9 5. .4 0.2 13.4 51.4 4.6 52.7 114.1 14.0 0.1 34.7 512.7 2.4 8.1 144.9 579. .3 129.6 1.8 358. . .8 0.5 4.4 2.1 8.5 35.8 4.7 4.3 4.9 0.1 29.0 19.5 23.3 102.4 3.9 0.2 51.9 7.8 20.9 13.6 0.7 82. .0 81.8 6.1 5.2 2.4 3.3 7.R.1 15.5 1.6 175. .1 56.4 29.8 0.0 20.4 10.9 3.1 1. .0 19.2 7.8 144.4 7.0 42.8 9.7 36.) 15.1 0.1 184.4 33.2 2.9 22.7 5.4 25.8 16.1 1.9 2.7 287.1 2.3 8.4 203.1 20. .9 20.1 14.3 53.8 31. . . .4 9. .8 2.7 1. .2 10.0 144.4 2. .4 3. .4 29. .1 18.1 12. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim. .3 7.2 1.9 2.2 15.2 53.3 0. Korea.1 0.5 15.4 547.8 76. .5 21.5 24.3 16.1 13.5 0. India Indonesia Iran.9 42.4 28.0 30.7 4. .2 8.7 19.8 24.1 1.8 573.6 0.4 1.4 19.2 3.7 3.6 0. .6 22.4 105.0 29.9 AFRICA Algeria Egypt Ethiopia Kenya Morocco Nigeria South Africa Sudan Tanzania.2 0.5 23.5 1.7 12.8 11.4 347. Coarse grain statistics Total Utilization 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.7 2.1 41.1 1. .2 3.0 1.1 13.3 1.7 19. .8 7. . . . .7 2.9 2.4 4.1 49.0 2.4 40.4 3.5 18. .9 0.1 62.4 114.6 28.6 0.0 9.1 87.7 2.7 54.0 49.4 28.8 2.3 49.6 3.2 0.5 0.5 5.3 7.9 26. .4 1.3 12.4 50.4 1.7 3. .9 97. .9 9.7 14.1 0.7 0.9 9. .0 89.1 10. .7 10.5 0.9 31.8 37.8 3.4 123.3 63.9 1.1 46.7 10.2 3.2 7.9 5.5 20. .7 3.4 20.4 47.1 0.6 265.7 4.7 7.8 1.8 87. Kg/year .5 30.8 3.1 7.2 2. .4 3.7 52.8 0.6 126.9 0.4 16.7 551.8 81.4 1. .7 22.2 51.1 7.2 7.0 6.8 21.1 4.0 7.0 59.8 0.4 29.0 46. .4 4.7 11.0 304.8 5. .2 14.1 6.9 149.3 52. .5 85.7 15. . .8 19.0 295.8 4.6 4.4 17.4 18.9 2.5 6.6 5.8 1.2 7. .0 96.4 8.4 0.5 0.5 4.4 4.5 4.0 98.6 102.5 19. .0 21. United Rep.3 4.5 18.3 3.1 316.9 3.3 0.7 4.4 198.4 7.9 4.6 9.9 6.6 27.8 0.2 0. .3 10.1 1.) (.2 0.3 1.8 20.6 2. .0 20.2 5.0 11.5 12.8 76.3 29.8 19.7 42.1 97.6 0.0 20.0 49.5 323. .9 43.3 0.5 52.0 1.4 139.8 126.0 2.9 1.5 26.2 4.1 1 125.1 3.5 2.5 0. .2 12.6 0.9 29.6 3.6 10.2 5.5 7.5 20.3 0.4 4.4 104.1 12.3 4.3 29. .8 153.3 1 113.3 0. .8 3.

1 0.0 60.3 51.5 50.3 0. .4 1.3 0.8 7.4 0.0 3. .8 0.3 1. Korea.7 14.2 2.0 1.4 61.4 26.8 404.3 0.6 0.0 1.7 1.7 22.6 0.5 830.2 5.6 4.9 0.5 0.6 13.8 0. .6 0.5 0.1 0.0 4.0 1.6 3.1 3.1 51.1 0. . .8 12.7 0. .8 9.6 25. .0 88.2 4. .1 0. .2 0.9 55.4 6.1 19.2 1.5 4.5 772. .2 0.4 4.3 0.5 57.7 1.6 9.2 1.8 9.7 0.2 0. .1 83.1 27.0 166.6 1.1 12.6 2.0 31.4 2.2 6.3 0.0 88. .4 1.7 0.6 333.2 0. Imports 2010 f’cast Exports 2010/11 f’cast 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.2 370.2 0.2 8.5 2.5 0. . Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Thailand Turkey Viet Nam 221. .7 0.2 0.5 0.1 51.3 0.4 0.3 0. .1 0.3 4.6 5. . Maize statistics Production 2006-2008 average 2009 estim.0 0.1 55.8 0.5 2. .0 0. D. of CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Peru Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Serbia Ukraine OCEANIA WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 78 .4 8. .5 2.4 5.0 4.4 0.1 0.4 2.2 1.7 3. .7 156.4 7. .7 8.9 29.9 4.1 5.5 4.1 8.8 23.6 28.2 2.5 2.5 0.0 4.8 65.9 4.1 24.1 0. .2 3. 2010/11 f’cast (. . .3 0.4 5.7 55.3 8. .1 2.3 4.0 74. .3 27.7 1.0 16.0 1. United Rep.1 0. .P.5 28.6 3.1 91.0 6. . .5 51.0 7.5 0.4 22.8 11.6 4.) ASIA China of which Taiwan Prov.7 5.5 81.6 1.2 1.2 7.8 0.3 0. .Table A4 (a).0 50.6 0. .1 0.0 2.2 61.5 8.1 0. . .9 1.8 401.0 0.R.0 23. . .6 10.8 381.7 52.0 0. .1 91.8 0.5 13. .2 0.1 2.0 AFRICA Algeria Egypt Ethiopia Kenya Morocco Nigeria South Africa Tanzania.1 2. .5 1.6 0.8 0. .2 1. Islamic Republic of Japan Korea. .6 2. .8 440.3 4. .0 81.6 3. .5 0.4 302.3 8.2 7.2 1. .6 4.0 6.4 15.3 7.3 2.9 275.4 2.0 1. .6 7.1 3.9 1.1 0.1 0.8 3.0 426.4 0.5 0.2 1.2 77.2 0.9 1.9 1.1 13. .2 233.5 18. . .7 13.7 8.6 0.6 0.1 0. India Indonesia Iran.4 10.0 83.9 13. .8 4.7 3.1 61.0 7.6 822.4 1. . .1 0.7 13.0 4.3 60. .6 61.5 13.7 17.5 0.3 13.2 1.7 0.0 5. .2 8.3 4.6 0. .4 3.4 2.7 13.7 17.5 16.1 3.6 8.4 251. .0 3.2 0.4 51.9 7.2 4.4 164.7 4.5 0.1 0.6 32.9 268.9 2.2 4.3 0. .8 7. . .8 2.6 5.5 2.0 91.3 0.4 0.7 1. .9 318.3 6.1 33.4 5. .0 18.2 0.2 0.6 30. .6 1.1 13.3 0.1 22.3 90.7 1. .3 2.3 2.7 6.0 342. . .0 1.3 2. .6 46.8 44.6 0.0 13.3 1. .0 6.3 5. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.1 1.1 3. million tonnes . .6 1.1 0.3 1.0 2.2 0.1 0.4 0. .7 16.7 1.3 1.7 1.9 3. . . .1 23.1 0. .0 1. .8 16.0 65.6 1. .4 10.2 329. . .7 5. .8 42.6 0.1 4.3 8.5 312.9 13.5 237.6 2.5 0.5 54.0 0.8 1.8 2.2 0.5 9.1 1.1 20.4 0. .

8 43.7 92. .6 293.6 6.2 1.2 2.7 10.2 48.0 31.2 263.2 1.1 11.6 1.9 1.3 24.2 42.0 0.8 19.7 31. .7 39.4 28.4 4.8 2.9 60.3 0. .4 7.0 26.3 2. . .4 32.5 6.Table A4 (b).9 107.6 9.9 15. United Rep.6 5.8 1.1 7. .6 12.1 140.1 12.7 0. .7 303.6 0.5 34.9 7.6 69.1 1. .0 1.7 30.2 0. .2 274.3 0. .2 42.5 1. .1 32.0 291.9 4.7 3.3 0. .4 10.6 0.0 0.1 2. .3 7.0 15.0 9.2 3.5 1.8 1.9 16. .9 125.9 36.4 6.2 11. .4 5.1 16. .5 0.1 1.1 3. .3 14.8 14.3 0.7 0. Korea.2 8.8 63.5 0. .7 35. .7 2.5 16.8 1.8 31.7 0.4 16.8 4.3 81.4 2.8 4. .9 147.0 92.8 0.4 3.1 3.P.3 6.3 3. .7 16.9 1.8 4. .2 160.9 144.3 0.9 4.7 49.3 0.5 1.4 247. Stocks ending in 2010/11 f’cast Per caput food use 2011 f’cast 2007-2009 average 2010 estim.5 9. .4 13.5 762.1 16.4 1.8 0.9 1.3 26. .1 7.8 1.4 13.9 0.3 5.2 0.4 5.9 0. million tonnes . .3 1.6 17.8 0.1 3.1 114. .9 1.9 13.4 0. . .0 8. .8 10. . .8 4.8 4.7 82.4 387.3 0.7 7.3 16.6 0.2 0.7 7.5 5.0 3.0 6.3 18.7 3.4 4.3 1.9 2.2 0.9 31. .6 34.1 9.7 97.2 7.7 1.1 0.7 80.3 0. .1 12.9 5.5 9.5 0. .5 1.6 17.4 5.6 425.3 16. Kg/year .9 144.5 838.8 19.2 13.3 23.9 3.0 403.8 80.7 144.1 6. .2 64.0 46. .0 26.1 49.0 4. . .8 0.9 15.0 5.5 26. .8 7.6 4. .1 AFRICA Algeria Egypt Ethiopia Kenya Morocco Nigeria South Africa Tanzania.0 262.8 2.7 43.4 39.9 0.0 3.0 13.5 0. .3 40. .2 56.3 3.6 79. .3 0.2 2.0 4.5 25.3 1.6 85.3 5.2 0.0 15.5 1.1 3.4 1. .0 375.0 7. .9 16. .7 43.3 13. .5 814.3 22.0 2.4 1.5 5.3 16.0 35.4 4.3 13.9 2.4 40.5 0.9 15.0 0.2 23.4 66.4 4.4 7.4 269.2 0.1 1.4 0.2 164.4 6. .3 11.0 3.6 2.1 16.2 66.2 9.2 0.7 1.4 42.8 4.1 0.6 0.6 60.3 250.0 3.4 22. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.6 2.4 100.7 3.1 16. Islamic Republic of Japan Korea.6 411.3 45.6 10.9 2.0 8.1 4.8 107.4 6.7 281.4 8. . .7 4.6 15.2 11.6 0.3 2.7 1.8 0.0 49.1 1.8 4.3 53.7 16. Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Thailand Turkey Viet Nam 248.6 0.4 100.6 ASIA China of which Taiwan Prov.6 24.5 0.5 5.4 40.6 87.9 0.0 49.4 413.6 9.6 32.0 4.8 50.4 93.2 2.5 60.3 0.9 2. .7 5.2 0.5 31. .5 0.4 40.1 13.9 0.8 6. India Indonesia Iran.0 0.0 3.3 13.0 8.7 2.2 69.8 3.9 2.3 13.4 0.0 7.7 43.R.3 4.1 171.2 0.7 1. .2 3.0 14.8 68. Maize statistics Total Utilization 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.1 1.5 5.7 72.6 39.1 24.6 4.6 1.2 11.6 266.7 0.4 2.4 1.3 11.2 18. .6 0. .9 0.2 0.0 158.9 7.7 2.4 1.2 0.4 0.8 3.9 21.3 16.2 7.5 41.1 9.7 10.3 16.1 5.9 0. .5 3. of CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Peru Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Serbia Ukraine OCEANIA WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 79 .4 11.9 3.4 3.6 17.9 1.4 2.2 72. .4 100. .3 93.7 1.5 2.3 71. .0 0.3 71.9 3.7 7.0 26.9 97.8 15.4 9.8 3.4 3. .0 0.6 3. .) (.) 8.3 7.6 0.4 6.8 1.0 3.7 49.3 45.2 0.9 79.9 1.5 0.9 3.3 2. 2010/11 f’cast (.4 3.2 0. D.8 19.0 3.8 3.8 36.8 8.5 6.6 60.6 0.2 0.

3 2. .4 1.2 0.0 4. . .0 0.5 2.9 - AFRICA Algeria Ethiopia Libya Morocco Tunisia CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE Belarus European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 80 .8 6.4 1.1 14.9 1.1 17.4 1. . .0 3. .0 17. .5 0. .3 9. .1 2. .5 26. Imports 2010 f’cast Exports 2010/11 f’cast 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.0 1.6 92.0 0. .2 0.2 8.4 0.5 0.0 150.3 4.6 1. .7 1.2 0. . . .2 0. .6 7. . . million tonnes .9 11. .0 4.1 1.8 7.1 0.2 1.3 0.Table A5 (a). .3 0. . Islamic Republic of Iraq Japan Kazakhstan Saudi Arabia Syria Turkey 20.8 2.1 1. .2 14.8 28.2 8.5 16.3 2.2 0.0 3.8 0.9 15.9 0.8 2.0 62.1 0.3 7.8 52.5 0.6 16.3 2.0 59.0 1. .9 95.4 1.1 10.0 0. . Barley statistics Production 2006-2008 average 2009 estim.3 0. .0 3.4 0.0 16.6 0.1 6.8 13.7 0.4 1.5 1.1 2.4 0. . .1 3.5 15.6 1.1 0.5 9. . .5 117.4 0.9 15.2 2.8 1.4 12. .9 0.4 14.4 0.3 0.5 19.5 - 14.3 2.8 0. . 2010/11 f’cast (. . .6 2. .2 0.4 1. .2 1.0 13. .7 0.1 2.2 0.3 4.8 0.4 2. . . . .8 6.0 1.9 97.0 9.2 16.3 0. .6 0.2 0.5 2.4 6.6 5.1 - 0. .9 1.9 12. .6 0.4 7. . .4 0.8 0.5 9. .6 12.7 8. .7 0. .8 0. .1 0.8 0.0 1.1 1.2 0. .6 0.5 0.9 73.9 1. .5 6.2 0.7 2.7 2.5 4.9 1.9 4. .6 0.6 0.8 3.3 0.4 0. .8 124.5 0. .7 2.7 0.8 0.3 0.1 1.9 3.4 8.9 0.3 2.9 7.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.8 4.3 1.2 3.8 0. .) ASIA China India Iran.8 2.1 20. .3 0.4 0.1 0. .8 0.0 9.1 - 0.2 13.5 0.1 8.4 - 0.9 0. .3 3. . . 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.4 19.2 0.5 2.6 0. .2 0.3 0.4 25.5 1.6 3.8 0.6 122.8 0.4 10.9 1. .6 0. . .5 9.2 2. .2 0.4 8.4 0.5 143. .8 0.9 1.1 1.8 2. . .7 0. . . .2 2.0 0.8 2. .5 - 12.6 1.5 3.3 2.3 16. .9 11. . .9 0. . .7 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.

3 14. .3 6. .2 1. .4 10. .5 3.2 143.4 7. .2 9.4 10.2 8.2 0.5 0.0 2.0 1.6 12.1 0.3 1. .9 0.4 0. . 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.1 40. . .9 7.3 1.9 97.6 0.9 1.9 42.4 0.2 15.1 12.1 1.4 1. .3 136.5 2.6 1.5 0.5 0.4 2.8 2.5 36.0 15.0 2. . .0 1.1 0.4 1. .6 4.3 13. . .9 16.9 2.4 0. Kg/year .4 16.4 2.6 2.0 1. .3 1.5 8.1 2.6 1.1 27. .0 0.0 1. .7 0. .3 8.2 8.5 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.1 1.4 0. .8 0.) 0.3 0.0 1.5 2.3 5.8 7.8 2.1 1.6 16.4 4.2 0.5 39.0 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.2 1. .0 0.4 4.6 0.0 1.1 2.4 0.2 AFRICA Algeria Ethiopia Libya Morocco Tunisia CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE Belarus European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 81 .Table A5 (b). . .8 0.1 2. .2 0.7 81.8 146. .6 2.1 0.4 8.4 2.2 1.5 27. million tonnes .8 0.1 12. Barley statistics Total Utilization 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.8 4.6 18.2 0. .1 5.4 4.6 43.7 2.3 1.0 1. .0 15.4 7. .2 2.3 1.8 2.2 8.9 8.1 12. .4 16. .2 0.6 1.5 18.1 0.0 1.8 0. .2 1.5 1.7 13.8 0.2 1.6 4.1 0.1 5.2 3.4 0.2 0. .9 1.4 16. .2 7. . .5 2.0 3.0 33.3 0.9 0.7 12.7 12.7 ASIA China India Iran.5 1.3 2.1 1.6 1. .6 0.3 1. . .6 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.5 3.6 1.7 1.7 0.0 5.5 15.2 8.5 1.1 2.4 0.0 1.8 0.4 2.2 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.7 3.1 1.0 2.2 1.2 0.0 55.4 0.8 1.0 0.6 0. .7 4.2 5. 2010/11 f’cast (.5 2.1 1. Islamic Republic of Iraq Japan Kazakhstan Saudi Arabia Syria Turkey 34.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 1. .7 0.5 0.3 6.5 0.5 7. .1 1.8 0.7 1.8 0. .6 83.0 7.6 0. . .4 4.7 75.1 0.6 0.0 2.8 0.4 4.7 0.0 56.1 10.6 1. . .5 0.3 1.7 0.7 12. . .0 57.8 1.3 3.6 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.3 1.9 0. .1 1.6 105.5 7.4 1.3 0.4 16. .1 1.1 3.2 3.4 1.9 5.) (. . . .4 4.4 8.1 3.5 1.4 0.0 0.1 12. Stocks ending in 2010/11 f’cast Per caput food use 2011 f’cast 2007-2009 average 2010 estim.4 1.5 1.7 4.9 8.4 12.2 3.2 4.5 1.4 1.6 2.3 7. .0 0.9 0.3 16.5 1.2 0.2 1.1 1. .3 2.0 1.5 32.1 1. .9 1.1 0.2 1.6 0.2 104. .9 0.0 1. .5 4. .5 8.9 39.6 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 41.5 2. .1 3.5 23.1 0.6 3. .0 8.2 1.5 0.

5 0.5 10. .4 0. . . . .Table A6 (a).4 2.8 0. .9 94.6 44. . .3 32. .3 4.4 5.3 61.7 57. million tonnes .4 1.2 1.7 5. . .3 3. .9 7.3 7.1 0. Sorghum statistics Production 2006-2008 average 2009 estim.6 0.7 9. . .1 5. .4 0.1 0. . . .2 13.1 1.6 0. .2 0.7 1. .7 0. .0 10.6 44. .1 1. . . .1 1. .1 0. . . .5 1. . . . oats and other grains Production 2006-2008 average 2009 estim.3 2.1 1. . . .1 0.7 1.millet.1 1.4 17.5 16. .1 6.8 7.6 0. . .8 0. .2 59. . .4 0. .1 1.1 2. .1 0. .1 0.6 93.6 6. . . .0 3. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim. . . . .2 1. .1 0. . .9 4.4 1. Other coarse grain statistics .1 17.5 6. .4 2.7 2. . .8 1.9 0.7 0. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.6 15. .2 0.8 2.4 3.2 0. . .2 1. .1 1. .1 1.3 0.4 2.6 0.3 0.4 2.9 0. .5 0.7 35. .9 0. .4 1. .4 8.8 0. million tonnes . . .0 82 .7 0.3 2.1 14. . .8 0.7 0. .7 0. . .6 2.5 0.0 23.1 0.6 2.4 2.8 3.1 7.3 1. .6 10.3 4. .6 0. .1 48. .3 13. .4 4.1 1. . .7 6.2 4.6 0. .5 0.1 0. .3 2. .1 0. rye.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 2.1 17.5 3. . . .3 15.6 0.1 2.0 4. .4 1. . . .6 36. . .1 6.1 4.9 47. .4 4.4 13.5 0.3 1. . .4 53.1 0.9 1.) ASIA China India Japan 10.5 25.4 87.6 1.1 5. . . .6 0. .8 48. .0 5.4 6. .6 0.6 2.2 6. .1 0.6 1. . .2 0.0 1. .1 3. .1 0. .2 0.1 0. . Imports 2010 f’cast Exports 2010/11 f’cast 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.8 0. .7 1. .9 1. . . 2010/11 f’cast (.7 1.6 0. . .1 0. .7 4. .9 0.2 0.3 AFRICA Burkina Faso Ethiopia Nigeria Sudan CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Venezuela NORTH AMERICA United States of America EUROPE European Union OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs Table A7 (a).6 0. .2 4.6 0.8 0.1 1.2 3. .9 0.5 3.1 0. .4 0. .1 0. .4 3. .7 2.9 0.2 0.7 2.2 1.8 0.3 0.1 0. .3 0.6 8.8 9. .7 6.9 0. .9 8.6 2.6 7.5 4. .4 25. . .0 3. .4 0.) ASIA AFRICA CENTRAL AMERICA SOUTH AMERICA NORTH AMERICA EUROPE OCEANIA WORLD 18.3 1.5 0.6 7. .8 1. .1 0.0 8.8 0. .0 0.1 0.8 0. . .1 0. .1 1. .6 0. . .3 3.6 0. .7 0. . . .1 0. .5 0.7 9.1 0. .4 6. .3 0. .9 0.5 0.2 3. .4 10.0 1.4 0.5 0.5 9.5 0. .7 0.6 1. Imports 2010 f’cast Exports 2010/11 f’cast 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.5 2. . 2010/11 f’cast (.9 6.6 2.1 0. .9 0. . . . .0 0.1 0.

.4 5. .3 13.7 58.7 1. .1 0.9 5.1 2.4 7.5 0.3 6.0 17. . .0 17. . million tonnes .5 5.5 1. oats and other grains Total Utilization 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim. .5 28. Stocks ending in 2010/11 f’cast Per caput food use 2011 f’cast 2007-2009 average 2010 estim. .5 1.1 1. .2 0.6 4.4 0.2 1.7 2. .9 0.6 AFRICA Burkina Faso Ethiopia Nigeria Sudan CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Venezuela NORTH AMERICA United States of America EUROPE European Union OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs Table A7 (b).3 0. .5 17. . . .9 91.5 4.2 3.8 1. 2010/11 f’cast (.5 0. . . .2 ASIA China India Japan 12.2 4. .8 0.2 3. .) (.8 9. .4 14. . .4 1. .4 0.7 0. .Table A6 (b). .8 61.7 0.3 6.0 0. . .4 0.2 10. .8 2. .5 4.2 5.5 2.2 0.0 0.9 2.1 5. rye.3 6.1 2.5 0. . .2 1. .2 9.1 14.6 3.4 0.1 0.9 0. .7 9.2 1.8 0.2 19. .3 1.7 94.2 4. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim. Kg/year .1 1.6 2. . .6 1.9 0.9 1. .0 35.7 3. million tonnes .3 0.4 20. . .1 83.0 0. .7 1. .3 1. .6 3.5 0. .) 4.9 4. . .9 1. .2 1.2 0.2 47.3 0.6 0.8 50. . .0 2.5 4. .6 0.6 6. .2 14.9 1.9 2.4 1.3 0. . .5 5.5 5. .1 1.1 8. . .6 4.0 0. . .5 1.millet.1 0. .2 0.6 0. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim. . .4 0. .5 0.0 1. . .8 14.0 1.5 6.3 7. .8 13. .7 0.2 4.0 43.7 0.8 13.7 4.6 5.0 0.2 1. . .1 0. .1 11.7 1. .5 0. .1 0. .5 92.4 0. . .5 2.6 0. .3 0.2 52.3 5.1 2.8 0.4 0. .8 16. Sorghum statistics Total Utilization 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim. .1 0.2 0.4 1.2 2.1 46.2 0. .6 12.0 0. . .2 14.3 0.4 6. .9 0.) 2.6 1. . .7 7.8 19.2 81.4 7.7 3. .3 8.1 2.7 1.1 80.5 8.3 0.3 0.9 ASIA AFRICA CENTRAL AMERICA SOUTH AMERICA NORTH AMERICA EUROPE OCEANIA WORLD 19.3 9.8 5.7 0.4 0.8 0.1 4.6 13.7 28.0 4.3 34.1 0.3 0.6 1.2 8.3 8. .3 43. .4 0. . .1 49.2 1. Kg/year .9 2.8 0. . . .4 1. 2010/11 f’cast (.7 4. . .1 0.2 5.1 0.5 7.7 2.5 48. Stocks ending in 2010/11 f’cast Per caput food use 2011 f’cast 2007-2009 average 2010 estim. .6 4.1 17. .3 0. .7 13. .1 0.9 86.0 0.2 25.9 1. .2 1.4 1. .8 47.5 0. .0 8.9 1.9 0.6 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 3.1 0.4 4.6 1.7 15. Other coarse grain statistics . .7 83.0 1.8 7. . .3 1.3 35. .8 5. . . .2 27. .4 0.3 6. .2 0. .6 1. .2 0.9 0. .6 25.5 25.8 0. .1 0.9 83 . . .) (.4 0.5 4.3 1.5 0.2 2.2 0.0 14. .3 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.2 4.1 12.0 0.7 1.8 4.6 0. .3 5. .4 1. .5 58.1 0. .0 0. .7 83.0 0.3 11.1 1.0 0.9 5.0 1. .1 1.8 0. .

2 0.5 0.1 0.1 4.1 0.2 89.3 0.4 0.9 2. .5 9. Islamic Republic of Iraq Japan Korea.2 2.7 65.5 0.9 6.4 0.6 0.8 3.7 2. .9 2.5 0.5 0.9 6.8 3. .0 0. .2 30.R.2 2. .9 1.8 15.1 40. United Rep. .5 19.5 26.6 7. . .6 19.5 25.8 2.9 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.8 0. .9 0. of CENTRAL AMERICA Cuba Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Peru Uruguay NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 84 .6 0. .7 1.3 20.3 0.3 5.6 1.2 1.5 20.3 0.4 0.5 2. .6 0.3 71.7 0.2 30.9 2.6 1.0 0.8 0. . .7 3.9 0.6 14.8 26.1 2.3 0. .0 0.7 1.8 26. . .7 0.1 0. .1 8.8 0.9 8. .5 7.9 0.7 1.6 3.1 30. D.8 6.6 0. .1 1.2 7.0 0.1 100.9 1. .1 0.3 14.4 3.1 0.0 10.2 2.1 14. .8 9.5 0.4 4.3 0.3 25.3 0. .1 0.8 1.6 0. .4 0.2 0.6 9.9 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.4 1.3 9.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.8 1.6 437.7 6.4 0. .0 0.9 18.9 0.1 16.9 16.6 1.8 0.4 AFRICA Cote d’Ívoire Egypt Madagascar Nigeria Senegal South Africa Tanzania. .2 11.9 0. .7 10.5 0.5 6. Rice statistics Production 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.8 1.2 7.8 0.1 466.4 2.0 343. Imports 2010/11 f’cast Exports 2011 f’cast 2007-2009 average 2010 estim.9 1.5 3.3 33. .2 2.7 0. .4 0.2 0.4 2. . . .3 0. .2 17.2 410.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.5 9. milled equivalent .6 18. .8 0.8 3.4 0.5 1.7 1.9 0.6 1.1 30.5 0.5 6. Korea. .6 0.2 0.3 1.1 3.8 1.5 2.1 2.2 6.5 135.3 0.3 7. .0 0.1 0.3 0.1 2.2 2.6 0.3 0.2 7.8 25.9 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0. .1 0.1 1.1 96.9 6.1 3.5 0.2 4.2 0.9 24.2 128. .5 0.8 355.0 2.1 8. .6 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0. .1 0.7 19.9 1. .2 0.0 0. .1 3.9 0. .9 1.4 134.4 0.5 4.8 0.1 455.5 29.1 0. .1 0.8 20.3 0.2 17.6 16.0 0.1 0.7 32.3 442.7 16.2 334.0 0.4 2.1 1.0 6.9 2.1 0.) ASIA Bangladesh China of which Taiwan Prov.6 0.P.8 2. .4 0.4 4.1 0.4 4.5 0.8 1. . .1 0.7 0.7 0.6 2.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.7 3.1 0. .4 36.3 26.4 425.1 2. .8 9.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 15.8 7.8 0. .1 0.0 1.2 0.6 24. .2 0.8 7.7 1.2 0.5 2.5 4. 2007-2009 average 2010 estim.8 7.3 0.1 0.4 23.2 4.9 0.9 2.7 447.7 2.9 0. 2011 f’cast (.9 0.9 0.4 14. Republic of Malaysia Myanmar Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Sri Lanka Thailand Viet Nam 401.4 0.1 30. . .2 15. .1 0.1 24.Table A8 (a).1 7.5 0.9 2.0 0. .9 0.7 0.1 0.1 0. .6 1. .8 1.7 1.1 0.5 1.5 1.1 1. .7 0. .5 0.4 2.1 0.1 0.3 41.1 30.1 0.3 0. .5 72.3 0. .4 0.0 422.6 0.8 4.6 1. India Indonesia Iran.2 0.9 0.7 4.5 27. .5 4.5 3. million tonnes.

2 74.2 441.6 1. .5 1.1 9.3 3.0 73.2 69. .1 19.0 39. .5 4.5 155.2 0.7 59. Islamic Republic of Iraq Japan Korea.3 0.6 73.2 20.5 8.1 8.5 0.2 1.0 81.5 2.5 2.6 133. Stocks ending in 2010/11 f’cast Per caput food use 2011 f’cast 2007-2009 average 2010 estim.0 2.1 13.8 0.8 2.2 13.1 2.5 0.8 2.4 25. .3 2.1 0.9 0. .6 128.2 20.2 0. .4 0.9 12.8 0. . .0 3. India Indonesia Iran.9 13.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 108.9 0.0 0.9 67.1 4.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 19.7 0.2 30. .0 36.4 69.4 5. .5 12.1 8.8 67.3 0.8 70.0 2.1 0.1 0.3 40.6 3.8 15.6 AFRICA Cote d’Ívoire Egypt Madagascar Nigeria Senegal South Africa Tanzania.4 13.1 0.8 14.0 2.3 0.9 1.4 0.0 23.0 21.1 5. . .3 76.8 117. .9 76.8 0.1 95.1 4. .5 1. Rice statistics Total Utilization 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.1 1.4 0.1 4.1 4.1 3.3 4.0 32.2 0.1 4.4 1.0 0.1 59.0 9.2 30.8 72.1 112.1 0.2 32.4 0.6 1.1 1.8 10.1 5.1 76.2 460. .6 161.6 1.1 46.6 14.1 0.8 355.0 83.5 120.7 17. .1 0.5 4.5 131. .4 106.9 74.1 3.2 25.2 1.1 4.5 119.0 60.0 0.9 0.8 1.2 4.2 104.9 109.6 24.5 4.6 6.2 82.5 19.) 81.1 5.3 39.P.1 91.1 20. .4 67.7 0.0 0.5 1.2 452.7 0. Korea. D. .2 18. .6 0.1 1.1 0.9 14.9 10. .1 22.9 56.1 4.1 0.6 0.2 123.1 2.5 0.9 7.5 0.0 57. .9 2.1 16.8 10.1 93.9 2.2 1.2 77.2 5.9 0. .7 37.1 36.6 71. .3 74. .5 4.1 2.1 19.3 68.8 3.7 0.6 3.6 0.7 239.3 5.9 186.1 1.1 0.3 157.6 4.0 0.6 399.3 0.3 0.9 4.0 38.9 38.8 112.3 ASIA Bangladesh China of which Taiwan Prov.4 75.7 417.3 3.1 2.0 4.4 63.2 20.) (.1 0.1 17.2 0.6 239.9 1.7 0.2 36.9 12.2 0. .4 42. United Rep.5 126.3 0. milled equivalent .5 3.0 186.8 2.4 1.7 63.4 10.6 18.2 38.3 9.4 1.1 89.3 40.2 4.5 0.6 45.9 4.9 0.8 1.9 3.8 33.1 0.6 16. .9 81.2 15.0 81.2 1.5 0.3 41. . Republic of Malaysia Myanmar Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Sri Lanka Thailand Viet Nam 384.1 5.3 349.6 2.3 3.9 126.2 22.2 36.5 119. .R.5 1. .7 12.6 4.0 10.0 0.0 82.9 56.4 18.2 129.5 42.7 126. .9 434.5 33.5 334.2 0. .1 20.2 0.4 128.1 0.7 11.0 77.5 33.2 0.1 5. of CENTRAL AMERICA Cuba Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Peru Uruguay NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 85 .4 10.6 0.9 1.9 45.5 0.0 158.2 3.2 0.3 8.2 1.8 15.6 186.1 5.4 8.4 4.5 60.0 1.3 13.9 2.4 118.8 2.4 0.3 3.Table A8 (b).4 122.2 68.2 8.1 2. 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.4 405. .6 74.9 2.3 8.3 1.3 76.9 5.0 236.3 132.3 29.4 8.1 1.2 0.1 0.4 18.1 0.3 0.4 0.8 7.9 9. . .6 2.7 10.3 11.1 0.9 1.5 68.4 0. million tonnes.4 1.4 1.1 0. .5 72. 2010/11 f’cast (.0 83.8 151.4 5.9 3.3 118.6 122. .3 3.8 4.3 0.0 1.1 1.8 83.1 0.4 26.6 59.6 0.7 11.1 3.2 161.2 0.3 3.6 56.4 0.0 57.1 69.3 0. . .2 41.8 0.9 77.9 12.2 435.8 67.7 0.2 0.9 4.4 1.3 1.7 0. .8 13.3 0.0 128.9 0.8 15.2 19. Kg/year .4 17. .0 7.1 1.7 11.9 73.6 12.2 17.8 5.3 0.8 12.5 0.6 20.8 15. .6 0.2 56.9 4.8 14.3 0.0 113. . .4 25.

3 7.2 7.7 14.5 15.3 25.3 55.3 26.6 4.0 5.5 0.0 5.0 0.)3 EU (July/June) 18. 2008/09 2009/10 estim.1 33.8 3.1 27.5 159.7 276.0 11.6 30.1 1.2 21.9 295.6 2.1 26.3 2.4 28.8 5.4 2.1 116.5 0.0 24.9 7.1 557.4 4.7 2.7 26.7 9. Cereal supply and utilization in main exporting countries (million tonnes) Wheat1 2008/09 2009/10 estim.5 13.7 86.3 EU 23.3 17.2 9.1 4.5 3.3 26.1 27.4 3.3 123.9 3.7 0.5 2.6 5.0 11.9 4.1 7.4 89.0 16.5 20.0 18.0 34.3 0.8 1.2 11.7 0. Coarse Grains2 2010/11 f’cast Rice (milled basis) 2010/11 f’cast 2008/09 2009/10 estim.5 30.5 2. Australia (November/October) for rye.0 374.5 2.8 6.3 17.5 27.3 16.8 1.0 7.4 0.7 VIET NAM (Nov.0 47.2 1.9 3./Sept.3 398.5 159.1 7.3 4.5 1.0 155.0 15.0 3.8 1.0 8.6 5.0 28.7 9.5 11.4 6.4 3.4 25.0 100.1 82.6 17.0 79.9 20.1 626.1 30.5 8. Canada (August/July).3 162./Oct.0 5.3 1.6 15.0 3.7 5.3 645./Oct.9 317.5 50.0 136.1 332.8 81.7 4.1 47.9 10.3 3.0 6.1 32.0 0.7 85.5 468.) AUSTRALIA 2.2 92./Oct.9 167.4 25.1 0.3 21.4 2.5 483.3 26.0 1.6 5.1 2. barley and oats.5 178.0 0.9 60. barley and oats.0 6.6 20.5 15.6 93. 86 .3 34.0 25.) ARGENTINA 2.9 6.7 99.9 1.1 23.5 183.5 5. Argentina (December/November) for rye.5 6.7 8.7 186.9 4.3 82.0 27.4 2.0 5.4 7.8 0.0 4.3 132.4 0.5 18.8 20.0 15.2 16.8 0.9 21.6 0.9 0.3 25.2 8.0 33.0 92.3 4.5 4.1 153.4 30.7 UNITED STATES (Aug.)3 ARGENTINA (Dec.8 3.1 48. 2010/11 f’cast UNITED STATES (June/May) Opening stocks Production Imports Total Supply Domestic use Exports Closing stocks Opening stocks Production Imports Total Supply Domestic use Exports Closing stocks Opening stocks Production Imports Total Supply Domestic use Exports Closing stocks Opening stocks Production Imports Total Supply Domestic use Exports Closing stocks Opening stocks Production Imports Total Supply Domestic use Exports Closing stocks Opening stocks Production Imports Total Supply Domestic use Exports Closing stocks 1 2 UNITED STATES 45.0 3.0 8.9 4.5 21.0 3.3 32.0 48.9 133. (March/February) for maize and sorghum.2 154.0 47.9 29.4 12.2 0.1 115.4 53.6 1.3 2.5 138.7 23.9 124.3 158./July) 0.4 276.0 5.6 1.3 31.2 26.1 18.3 PAKISTAN (Nov. barley and oats.0 1.7 21.7 3. (September/August) for maize and sorghum.3 173.0 30.7 81.8 0.0 15.7 7.5 7.1 92.2 0.6 0.1 636.5 24.1 3.8 8.5 5.7 22.3 15.1 349.5 3.1 110.4 0.0 15.9 149.8 0.4 6.8 0.5 7.5 32.4 7.9 24.9 0.8 49. United States (June/May) for rye. 3 Rice trade data refer to the calendar year of the second year shown.1 5.3 3. (March/February) for maize and sorghum.5 29.3 1.5 23.3 18.Table A9.0 4.0 29.9 490.0 33.4 22.5 0.8 7.8 8.1 14.9 1. EU (July/June).0 7. For the EU semolina is also included.6 16.0 24.5 21.0 24.0 168.6 9.4 21.4 0.5 0.0 316.0 3.5 122.0 3.8 13.6 7.3 3.2 3.)3 AUSTRALIA (Oct.9 4.3 5.7 557.9 2.7 3.7 18.1 47.0 4.7 0.8 8./Nov.2 0.0 0.3 20.3 252.6 60.7 20.4 7.2 1.5 150.8 163.1 4.7 55.5 135.7 6.5 3.4 24.0 22.5 26.1 2.1 326.2 310.1 382.3 254.0 7.8 0.8 22.1 3.6 6.2 5.0 7.7 THAILAND (Nov.0 20.5 79.5 7.3 1.0 174.1 21.6 6.0 INDIA (Oct.1 9.1 21.)3 TOTAL OF ABOVE TOTAL OF ABOVE TOTAL OF ABOVE Trade data include wheat flour in wheat grain equivalent.5 2.0 69.8 12./Sept.3 12.2 51.5 187.1 183.4 95.7 81.7 148.5 55.3 68.0 0.7 3.1 7.0 0.6 81.7 181.6 26.1 0.9 4.4 0.1 9.5 0.4 89.6 8.8 23.5 1.2 16.0 7.4 6.1 0.6 139.0 30.5 5.9 18.4 26.9 304.2 CANADA (August/July) CANADA 6.6 3.4 2.7 0.0 4.0 12.7 535.9 5.0 23.

3 4.1 8.2 4.3 0.8 3.1 0.8 1.2 59.1 0.6 0.5 79.1 53. Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Thailand Turkey 124.4 AFRICA Nigeria CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Paraguay NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 1 The split years bring together northern hemisphere annual crops harvested in the latter part of the first year shown.2 16.8 0.0 2.2 0.3 2009/10 estim.6 454.1 92.0 0.2 3.3 2.4 2.1 20.0 175.3 26.5 1.8 1.4 47. 87 .1 0.Table A10.2 2.2 2.8 6.1 2.1 5.4 83. 06/07-08/09 average 2.7 0.7 6.1 1.1 42.5 30.2 0. with southern hemisphere annual crops harvested in the early part of the second year shown.2 3.1 33.1 1.9 0.9 5.5 4.7 0.4 0.1 0.7 1.9 10.5 1.2 4.0 0.1 0.7 0. calendar year production for the second year shown is used.4 1.4 63.8 90.0 2.4 2009/10 estim.1 2.8 3.8 14.1 10.1 6.1 108. India Indonesia Iran.1 0.7 5.7 9.4 10.1 0. 2010/11 f’cast ASIA China of which Taiwan Prov.6 7.0 43.5 5.2 1.6 0.7 2.5 53.3 3.1 0.9 9.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 25.7 1.9 60.0 0.2 8. Islamic Republic of Japan Korea.2 41.7 410.8 1.4 1.1 16.9 0.0 1.1 42.7 30.1 50.7 92.9 0.5 9.0 56.1 1.7 1.9 76.8 2.5 0. Imports 2010/11 f’cast Exports 2010/11 f’cast 06/07-08/09 average 58.5 71.7 46.7 142.1 36.8 279.8 0.3 108.8 6.0 123.4 1.1 0.9 51.3 19.3 0.7 2.8 1.2 12.5 4.2 10.4 127.8 2.8 40.3 2.4 17.5 55.2 0.3 118.7 277.4 0.1 2.2 4.1 176.2 99.0 0.4 1.9 0.1 10.6 9.2 0.3 155.9 58.4 79.9 125.3 0.1 0.7 255.1 112.2 43.7 139.6 1.8 0.9 16.1 0.3 19.2 33.8 127.1 0.1 0.5 70.3 0.5 0.8 2.7 0.9 61.1 0.9 28.3 0.2 2.5 7.1 0. for tree crops which are produced throughout the year.8 43.6 0.4 2.9 56.0 55.8 2.2 65.1 8.0 2.1 1.0 5.1 0.6 4.3 3.3 2.8 1.5 0.1 13.1 0.4 0.3 2.4 3.8 0.7 0.0 6. Total oilcrops statistics (million tonnes) Production 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.4 45.3 49.1 29.4 453.2 0.8 0.7 51.3 1.2 0.4 2.3 0.2 57.5 0.8 1.3 29.1 1.4 1.2 4.8 60.4 0.1 0.6 1.0 15.7 1.2 0.9 8.8 0.1 35.2 1.9 1.3 7.3 0.6 28.3 18.9 0.1 49.9 116.8 4.2 1.2 104.1 1.8 6.6 0.3 3.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.8 112.1 4.7 102.5 0.9 3.7 29.8 0.6 5.6 17.6 18.5 9.7 118.0 3.0 0.6 128.9 0.6 56.7 1.4 51.9 9.

2 1.1 0.5 3.0 7.6 5.1 0.2 69.3 0.2 2.8 0.4 6.4 8.3 0.3 2.1 1.0 0.4 13.4 67.5 0.1 0.6 3.5 1.5 0.1 2.2 6.9 0.5 2.2 0.3 1.6 46.7 59.5 0.4 66.1 3.1 1.4 85.1 0.4 33.1 10.1 0.9 5. marine and animal origin.1 0.5 4.4 0.7 2.8 18.1 31.4 41.1 3.8 1.6 54.0 0.9 16.6 0.0 1.9 2.0 3.8 0.6 21.1 2.3 10.1 0.8 2.5 2.0 1.3 1.9 5.6 0.1 0.3 12.8 1.8 1.7 0.1 AFRICA Algeria Egypt Nigeria South Africa CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 1 Includes oils and fats of vegetable.4 3. India Indonesia Iran Japan Korea.6 1.7 1.1 1.1 0.1 4.6 23.4 2.6 2.8 6.6 67.6 66.9 0.1 4. 06/07-08/09 average 77. Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Singapore Turkey 33.1 0.1 7.5 14.2 2.4 5.9 0.2 10.2 1.5 0.7 6.5 2.1 8.8 16.7 0.3 31.0 1.5 0.6 0.Table A11.1 1.6 1.0 2009/10 estim.8 1.4 0.1 0.8 0.6 6.1 0.5 0.7 2.2 24.5 6.9 0.6 1.1 0.8 1.0 6.3 0.1 4.6 1.8 0.4 0.9 36.5 0.9 1.7 157.0 1.1 4.2 1.9 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.2 11.1 0.8 0.4 29.8 0.9 0.8 2.9 0.1 19.0 0.9 15.4 34.7 2.0 116.6 1.1 0.2 0.2 31.2 35.1 17.1 0.6 1.4 0.0 7.6 79.9 1.2 16.3 20.3 0.1 4.0 17.1 1.8 7.6 3.4 3.7 2.9 13.6 3.6 13.1 0.1 0.9 16.3 36.5 2.1 0.3 0.1 11.7 178.6 3.8 2.6 5.9 0.1 3.4 5.1 0.8 0.5 4.1 1.7 0.9 28. 88 .1 0.2 2.4 32.2 5.3 61.7 1.2 37.3 30.7 0.2 0.1 8.2 1.9 2.1 57.3 2.6 0.1 1.5 0.3 1.2 3.5 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.9 1.7 3.5 2.0 45.5 1.4 0.3 19.2 1.9 50.0 52.2 0.2 77.9 1.3 100.3 12.4 13.1 0.6 20.4 0.7 1.4 0.6 3.1 0.7 2.9 0.2 2.4 0.1 0.2 4.2 0.7 169.9 2.0 17.5 0.2 0.0 15.5 0.2 11.1 0.1 1.5 1.1 0.3 1.9 18.2 1.6 0.2 0.3 3.2 0.8 1.4 8. Exports 2010/11 f’cast Utilization 2010/11 f’cast 06/07-08/09 average 37.5 4.4 61.7 28.4 1.2 10.9 10.1 0.9 7.9 1.8 0.9 7.6 3.1 0.2 0. 2010/11 f’cast ASIA Bangladesh China of which Taiwan Prov.6 1.3 0.7 0.7 2.8 20.5 0.9 1. Total oils and fats statistics 1 (million tonnes) Imports 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.9 110.3 12.6 0.5 16.2 4.9 42.5 0.6 2.4 43.5 0.9 18.1 88.5 6.5 1.0 1.9 2.6 61.1 18.6 3.1 1.2 13.9 3.4 2009/10 estim.6 0.4 10.7 1.7 6.3 1.2 0.7 3.

Total meals and cakes statistics1 (million tonnes) Imports 06/07-08/09 average 2009/10 estim.7 2.6 1.9 24.1 0.1 3.6 40.7 0.5 29.1 1.2 1.6 0.0 2.1 24.9 0.0 13.8 2.5 1.5 1.1 0.2 3.2 2.4 3.1 2.9 60.0 4.0 4.8 1.2 6.2 0.3 55.9 0.8 2.9 3.0 18.0 8.0 2.7 0.8 3.8 0.6 2.7 63.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 2.4 7.9 3.1 3.2 3.5 0.5 38.0 0.5 11.4 1.6 0.5 11.0 3.3 1.5 1.9 4.3 0.9 1.0 2. Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Thailand Turkey Viet Nam 24.3 32.4 56.8 0.2 0.4 11.4 10.8 0.1 4.5 3.8 1.1 9.4 0.5 11.8 109.5 0.7 4.0 0.2 2.9 1.2 36.0 1.4 65.5 3.5 269.0 12.3 2.4 0.8 3.5 4.4 0.8 3.6 0. 06/07-08/09 average 103.1 2.5 13. India Indonesia Japan Korea.4 1.3 12.6 2.4 0.1 2.0 52.5 1.5 0.7 2.4 3.9 1.8 77.4 118.2 76.5 30.6 4.3 1.5 55.5 2.8 3.6 0.5 1.2 26.3 33.2 0.6 3.5 0.9 5.4 1.9 60.6 2.7 79.9 1.9 0.5 11.8 8.8 4.1 2.4 61.6 1.2 0.8 1.2 2.0 0.0 2.1 0.3 4.8 72.1 0.1 1.1 1.1 0.1 3.6 0.5 28.1 23.0 0.3 11.0 5.5 1.6 0.4 257.Table A12.6 3.4 16.9 2.0 1.7 1.6 0.2 13.2 2.7 3.3 2.9 0.3 150.0 32.1 2.1 1.7 1.4 AFRICA Egypt South Africa CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Paraguay Peru Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 1 Includes meals and cakes derived from oilcrops as well as fish meal and other meals from animal origin.0 2.8 8.2 73.7 15.9 2.4 2009/10 estim.3 0.4 28.2 0.9 0.5 1.7 10.2 0.1 0.6 2.4 0.4 1.8 3.0 0.3 1.4 4.1 0.3 32.2 1.5 0.7 2.9 7.1 0.1 3.5 11.1 1.1 43.1 3.2 100.8 0.3 29.0 4. 89 .4 14.1 1.9 0.0 3.1 12.7 0.2 2009/10 estim.5 9.1 6.6 8.2 57.9 30.7 1.7 1.7 0.4 9.6 31.3 0.2 3.2 0.8 73.1 109.7 0.4 5.8 133.7 0.8 1.2 1.9 31.6 1.2 0.5 2.9 2.5 4.1 25.2 0.1 1.8 3.4 0.2 3.2 0.4 0.1 41.4 27.5 10.6 1.1 2.5 106.0 2.6 1.2 1.4 126.5 55.1 2.8 4.4 14.2 3.4 4.1 45.4 2.6 1.8 0.4 34.9 0.0 2.6 1.8 0.9 11.2 0.2 3.5 71.5 3.0 1.1 0. 2010/11 f’cast ASIA China of which Taiwan Prov.8 4.5 1.0 2.1 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.4 28.8 94.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 73.6 0.3 0.4 13.5 3.9 1.0 1.4 242.7 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 7.1 0.8 8.3 14.1 0.6 2.0 30.3 0.3 0.9 1.3 3.8 3.9 3.1 36.4 3.0 2. Exports 2010/11 f’cast Utilization 2010/11 f’cast 06/07-08/09 average 13.2 0.5 41.6 0.0 159.

2 10.1 0.5 16.3 3.9 0. Imports 2009/10 estim.6 0.7 1. United Rep.8 0.4 0.4 2.6 5.2 1.7 2.2 5.1 0.6 1.8 61.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 5.1 4.5 0.4 7.6 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.8 25.7 2.8 0.7 7.5 39.5 1.8 129.4 22.1 1.1 4.3 1.3 4.2 3.6 7.0 1.4 2.2 1.9 0.6 21.5 25.8 16.7 1.4 28.3 0.4 0.4 47.3 7.9 34.0 77.4 5.3 1.5 0.8 0.1 0.1 3.7 2.4 4.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 3.2 0.1 0.1 166.8 18.2 1.3 5.0 0.3 0.4 0.2 50.2 29.0 11.1 49.6 1.6 1.3 1.2 0.6 2.2 0.7 1.3 3.1 4.5 2.6 0.6 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.9 3.1 7.0 2. Exports 2009/10 estim.1 0.5 1.7 2. Utilization 2009/10 estim.8 17.4 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.2 72.5 1.0 2.7 7.9 9.9 1.4 2.0 26.5 1.8 1.3 0.1 2.1 162.2 24.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 3.5 2.8 3.5 0.6 4.6 0.9 0.3 0.1 3.3 1.2 16.2 0.9 0.6 0.2 48.4 0.1 0.3 49.3 0.2 156.5 17.3 27.5 1.0 0.2 0.1 5.5 15.5 2.1 0.7 5.5 39.6 47.3 2.1 118.3 11.2 1.0 8.0 24.5 0.9 0.3 2.7 0.2 0.8 1. 2010/11 f’cast 2010/11 f’cast 2010/11 f’cast 2010/11 f’cast ASIA China India Indonesia Japan Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Thailand Turkey Viet Nam 52.7 5.3 0.2 0.3 AFRICA Egypt Ethiopia Kenya Mauritius Mozambique South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania.0 0.6 43.6 3.4 2.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 13.1 2.4 9.1 53.5 2.9 9.0 76.3 11.9 4.7 2.3 4.1 1.2 1.5 2.2 17.3 1.5 6.3 39.5 12.7 0.9 26.6 1.9 0.8 5.2 2.8 2.6 3.5 2.1 10.8 0.6 23.6 0.3 0.8 5.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 58.5 1.7 9. Sugar statistics (million tonnes.1 0.8 3.5 2.2 1.3 0.1 0.2 1.8 0.6 1.0 24.5 0.1 1.1 1.0 2.8 0.3 27.7 0.0 0.6 0. of CENTRAL AMERICA Cuba Dominican Republic Guatemala Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Colombia Peru Venezuela NORTH AMERICA United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia Fiji WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 90 .3 0.1 0.1 0.1 7.9 0.0 2.3 0.7 117.3 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.3 6.0 2.6 0.2 0.5 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.6 7.9 3.8 4.2 9.6 3.8 5.0 0.2 0.4 37.4 0.8 0.Table A13.9 2. raw value) Production 2009/10 estim.0 14.3 168.2 45.0 24.1 37.7 2.1 0.4 15.5 8.2 1.9 4.2 10.9 0.2 2.4 5.1 0.9 45.2 0.9 6.6 7.5 4.1 1.3 1.2 53.9 13.7 1.7 0.5 9.3 2.6 115.2 1.1 0.1 1.6 1.5 28.8 18.1 0.5 73.2 0.9 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.3 2.3 0.5 0.9 6.4 0.7 0.8 0.0 17.2 0.2 3.7 0.5 0.6 2.3 20.5 9.

Table A14. Exports 2010 f’cast Utilization 2010 f’cast 2010 f’cast 2009 estim. carcass weight equivalent) Production 2009 estim. Total meat statistics1 (thousand tonnes. Islamic Republic of Japan Korea. 2010 f’cast ASIA China of which Hong Kong. SAR India Indonesia Iran. 91 . 2009 estim. Imports 2009 estim. Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Singapore Thailand Turkey Viet Nam 118 683 78 020 179 6 816 2 658 2 565 3 233 1 952 1 303 2 540 2 829 766 109 2 165 1 952 3 477 13 485 606 130 1 278 1 165 2 234 8 270 291 5 694 36 255 5 054 22 383 1 366 2 161 741 1 276 46 065 4 450 41 614 55 269 907 43 802 6 543 1 922 5 868 4 048 1 341 283 895 168 622 115 273 107 142 7 859 120 205 79 490 183 7 026 2 701 2 314 3 194 2 034 1 334 2 318 2 846 779 111 2 206 1 933 3 461 13 672 608 144 1 256 1 186 2 273 8 376 298 5 751 36 295 4 339 23 092 1 377 2 169 742 1 244 45 951 4 447 41 502 55 831 932 43 966 6 919 1 898 5 880 4 025 1 371 286 210 170 439 115 771 108 937 8 027 11 481 3 046 1 735 2 110 184 2 610 731 230 21 245 782 268 5 92 625 1 818 87 360 238 2 290 2 385 222 1 659 790 41 39 202 56 17 372 2 382 652 1 711 5 392 58 1 748 2 710 364 359 179 50 24 607 13 058 11 549 3 908 1 000 12 271 3 293 2 001 2 118 298 2 760 772 244 21 261 820 288 5 97 671 1 918 86 383 262 2 313 2 576 290 1 722 857 45 48 220 59 18 399 2 355 650 1 685 4 956 71 1 702 2 299 345 381 197 50 25 314 14 015 11 299 4 001 1 068 3 347 1 480 726 708 6 27 17 25 33 26 15 56 26 619 122 33 132 9 38 308 135 7 824 836 5 971 277 109 387 8 243 1 664 6 579 2 947 182 2 591 70 39 2 550 1 673 874 25 351 11 523 13 828 1 835 4 3 606 1 620 755 812 5 27 16 13 33 29 16 57 23 668 95 33 147 10 49 340 154 7 781 637 6 110 255 113 388 8 401 1 715 6 686 3 244 176 2 907 57 36 2 545 1 660 883 26 063 11 773 14 290 2 062 4 126 817 79 585 1 188 6 110 2 762 2 723 5 827 2 658 1 500 2 536 3 060 1 493 350 1 552 1 923 4 069 15 170 693 490 1 507 1 166 2 487 10 347 512 7 218 29 221 4 260 16 450 1 291 2 108 371 1 648 40 204 3 438 36 746 57 714 784 42 959 9 183 2 247 3 678 2 554 517 283 151 170 157 112 994 109 214 8 854 128 870 81 164 1 428 6 216 2 814 2 585 5 938 2 793 1 544 2 310 3 091 1 542 376 1 544 1 935 4 098 15 443 694 527 1 508 1 188 2 537 10 613 588 7 319 29 370 3 746 17 030 1 342 2 115 372 1 643 39 905 3 383 36 501 57 543 827 42 761 9 161 2 207 3 716 2 561 538 285 462 172 681 112 781 110 876 9 091 AFRICA Algeria Angola Egypt Nigeria South Africa CENTRAL AMERICA Cuba Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Uruguay Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE Belarus European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia New Zealand WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 1 Including “other meat”.

Exports 2010 f’cast Utilization 2010 f’cast 2010 f’cast 2009 estim.Table A15. carcass weight equivalent) Production 2009 estim. 2009 estim. Imports 2009 estim. 2010 f’cast ASIA China India Indonesia Iran. Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Philippines 16 266 6 425 2 848 443 370 517 267 28 1 441 284 4 829 127 74 355 780 2 383 1 700 15 361 3 376 8 935 210 936 590 320 13 146 1 255 11 891 10 929 7 927 1 741 454 2 805 2 148 637 65 719 36 065 29 654 17 377 2 840 16 065 6 189 2 950 454 250 510 280 28 1 400 287 4 882 129 87 330 780 2 436 1 731 14 840 2 532 9 230 215 940 600 320 13 083 1 285 11 798 10 933 7 895 1 758 450 2 770 2 118 632 65 008 35 433 29 575 17 319 2 927 2 736 410 1 89 123 689 276 145 5 118 551 81 101 180 13 448 323 381 2 31 155 2 2 180 1 367 240 1 123 1 557 495 934 13 47 9 9 7 088 3 263 3 825 763 152 2 966 503 1 100 195 688 302 150 5 115 549 80 102 190 15 472 335 324 2 40 160 2 2 108 1 322 228 1 090 1 630 490 1 008 12 49 9 10 7 312 3 460 3 853 777 149 906 109 683 1 7 4 6 17 6 71 5 7 185 52 2 791 580 1 510 11 106 348 1 357 448 909 340 150 37 19 1 726 1 255 470 7 376 3 936 3 440 999 2 1 021 124 785 1 6 1 6 20 7 72 5 8 205 61 2 681 348 1 586 11 110 357 1 552 489 1 063 354 160 33 21 1 710 1 242 466 7 596 3 966 3 631 1 134 2 18 039 6 706 2 166 531 493 1 196 507 167 1 429 395 5 309 208 175 530 786 2 647 1 971 12 951 2 798 7 456 354 833 244 500 13 178 1 047 12 127 12 146 8 272 2 638 447 1 126 902 177 65 397 35 339 30 058 17 141 2 990 18 017 6 568 2 166 554 445 1 193 588 172 1 385 396 5 358 209 189 515 788 2 704 2 005 12 482 2 186 7 684 364 832 245 428 12 912 1 024 11 884 12 209 8 225 2 733 441 1 108 885 176 64 790 34 934 29 857 16 963 3 074 AFRICA Algeria Angola Egypt South Africa CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Uruguay Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia New Zealand WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 92 . Islamic Republic of Japan Korea. Bovine meat statistics (thousand tonnes.

Islamic Republic of Pakistan Saudi Arabia Syria Turkey 7 631 220 3 868 719 497 425 104 198 299 2 256 201 258 131 343 122 97 332 109 119 103 1 331 1 030 183 1 155 675 480 12 948 9 733 3 215 8 083 1 495 7 687 225 3 904 720 498 400 105 200 300 2 278 201 264 131 345 123 97 322 111 113 98 1 255 948 185 1 184 675 508 12 963 9 789 3 174 8 145 1 515 333 103 1 65 1 47 5 12 34 21 7 7 103 80 300 280 10 40 5 863 417 446 111 7 365 110 2 70 1 45 5 10 30 16 7 7 106 83 285 267 8 40 4 878 445 434 121 7 49 15 20 8 5 15 1 1 36 9 8 16 10 707 335 372 832 100 732 39 1 51 15 21 8 5 15 1 1 29 9 9 18 12 725 342 383 848 95 753 41 1 7 915 220 3 957 699 498 418 164 198 300 2 287 206 258 143 342 156 118 303 116 213 175 1 615 1 300 192 488 340 112 12 978 10 049 2 928 8 155 1 500 8 001 225 4 000 699 500 392 170 200 301 2 308 206 264 140 344 153 113 300 117 210 172 1 521 1 203 193 499 333 129 12 993 10 139 2 854 8 225 1 521 AFRICA Algeria Nigeria South Africa Sudan CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Brazil NORTH AMERICA United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation OCEANIA Australia New Zealand WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 93 . Imports 2009 estim. Exports 2010 f’cast Utilization 2010 f’cast 2010 f’cast 2009 estim. Ovine meat statistics (thousand tonnes. 2010 f’cast ASIA Bangladesh China India Iran. carcass weight equivalent) Production 2009 estim.Table A16. 2009 estim.

D.R. SAR India Indonesia Japan Korea. Korea. 2009 estim.Table A17. Exports 2010 f’cast Utilization 2010 f’cast 2010 f’cast 2009 estim.P. Imports 2009 estim. Republic of Malaysia Philippines Thailand Viet Nam 59 724 49 881 120 481 650 1 310 185 1 062 199 1 710 756 2 553 1 080 55 222 313 110 1 658 179 1 162 4 674 230 2 924 514 179 168 12 387 1 945 10 442 26 075 380 21 888 2 169 620 527 460 324 68 106 058 65 314 40 744 53 471 1 098 60 788 50 958 122 483 670 1 280 190 1 097 204 1 700 700 2 550 1 096 55 225 320 110 1 667 182 1 161 4 725 230 2 962 515 180 175 11 988 1 902 10 086 26 233 385 21 976 2 252 620 500 465 325 68 106 962 66 476 40 485 54 589 1 122 2 624 787 546 1 1 1 085 4 366 21 54 45 172 33 716 27 574 84 32 1 7 9 11 604 182 416 1 132 26 38 760 15 156 212 164 3 5 544 2 388 3 157 534 121 2 842 909 628 1 1 1 128 4 360 25 70 1 55 180 35 731 30 580 89 36 1 5 7 15 629 200 424 1 142 40 40 730 16 167 230 182 4 5 846 2 575 3 271 619 125 505 423 185 3 1 1 9 7 2 16 33 11 4 87 72 856 2 714 140 2 751 1 016 1 735 1 507 45 1 413 25 6 35 35 5 754 1 455 4 299 301 - 476 407 150 3 1 5 2 16 33 12 4 96 82 776 2 631 143 2 901 1 022 1 879 1 766 40 1 680 21 6 34 34 6 061 1 355 4 707 313 - 61 918 50 244 481 479 650 2 414 189 1 474 213 1 763 740 2 565 1 240 55 222 342 110 2 287 206 1 664 3 902 261 2 210 380 188 179 10 236 1 111 9 119 25 700 360 20 513 2 904 628 682 637 453 71 105 919 66 301 39 618 53 705 1 219 63 161 51 460 600 481 671 2 415 194 1 457 224 1 768 685 2 572 1 265 55 225 351 110 2 302 212 1 659 4 038 264 2 332 377 187 190 9 716 1 080 8 631 25 609 385 20 336 2 961 629 667 661 473 72 106 752 67 696 39 056 54 895 1 247 AFRICA Madagascar Nigeria South Africa Uganda CENTRAL AMERICA Cuba Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE Belarus European Union Russian Federation Serbia Ukraine OCEANIA Australia Papua New Guinea WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 94 . Pigmeat statistics (thousand tonnes. carcass weight equivalent) Production 2009 estim. 2010 f’cast ASIA China of which Hong Kong.

carcass weight equivalent) Production 2009 estim. 2010 f’cast ASIA China of which Hong Kong. Poultry meat statistics (thousand tonnes. Exports 2010 f’cast Utilization 2010 f’cast 2010 f’cast 2009 estim. Imports 2009 estim. Islamic Republic of Japan Korea.Table A18. SAR India Indonesia Iran. Republic of Kuwait Malaysia Saudi Arabia Singapore Thailand Turkey Yemen 33 153 16 439 44 2 624 1 435 1 682 1 394 613 44 1 075 580 91 1 134 1 308 140 3 933 8 988 3 987 33 2 633 15 650 1 263 10 385 615 779 20 165 1 212 18 953 15 740 11 914 2 360 894 1 039 880 137 93 668 53 640 40 028 24 995 1 807 33 738 17 022 45 2 726 1 435 1 550 1 392 647 44 1 100 590 95 1 208 1 300 145 4 002 8 1 020 4 030 34 2 659 16 167 1 389 10 759 620 740 20 516 1 223 19 293 16 218 12 105 2 635 900 1 046 885 140 95 717 54 815 40 903 25 621 1 829 5 746 1 740 891 15 60 797 78 280 45 620 119 1 90 110 1 019 174 232 1 167 180 725 316 7 1 40 181 299 204 85 2 243 835 964 195 56 4 1 10 845 6 911 3 934 2 461 695 6 055 1 765 989 12 100 903 99 300 50 647 125 1 95 130 1 113 190 253 1 322 240 776 435 7 1 55 275 288 196 81 1 738 805 511 165 58 4 1 11 010 7 455 3 555 2 445 762 1 853 916 490 1 26 9 12 2 19 40 8 596 117 27 20 34 9 4 074 214 3 724 118 4 089 181 3 907 999 936 7 19 40 34 6 11 116 5 927 5 189 464 - 2 023 1 056 550 2 26 10 12 2 22 41 7 644 90 39 31 37 10 4 228 246 3 870 94 3 901 185 3 716 1 020 973 2 14 34 27 7 11 282 6 252 5 030 541 - 37 046 17 263 445 2 623 1 450 1 716 2 183 679 322 1 101 1 160 203 539 1 281 250 4 925 182 1 200 5 119 213 3 349 11 892 1 055 6 662 537 960 16 423 1 235 15 178 16 984 11 813 3 318 1 070 1 055 850 131 93 443 54 622 38 821 26 991 2 502 37 770 17 731 484 2 724 1 447 1 624 2 285 734 342 1 128 1 196 213 565 1 305 275 5 076 198 1 242 5 315 274 3 425 12 374 1 150 6 890 581 1 015 16 920 1 234 15 676 16 936 11 937 3 144 1 051 1 070 862 134 95 461 56 016 39 445 27 525 2 591 AFRICA Angola South Africa CENTRAL AMERICA Cuba Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia New Zealand WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 95 . 2009 estim.

4 8.3 7.2 0.3 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 37.1 25.0 9.3 1.2 1.6 57.1 0.4 1.3 1. Republic of Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Saudi Arabia Singapore Thailand Turkey 238.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.60).1 0.7 0.0 1.9 31.0 151.1 0.2 1.2 0.40).1 4.8 3.0 6.4 1.3 0.1 35.7 2009 estim.7 94.1 0.8 334.9 12.3 0. 390 (March 2004).10).1 7. skim milk (0.8 0.6 0.7 0.2 7.1 9.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.4 2.4 0.5 260.6 0.7 14.6 0.4 2.2 0.3 8.2 0.9 2.2 1.7 0.6 0.6 114.4 1. cheese (4.1 8.2 0.9 11.9 154.2 0.1 0.5 0.0 1.3 87.9 2.3 0.1 0.5 0.90).7 4.0 2.6 17.3 2.2 0.0 7.8 3.1 0.0 16.0 25.5 1.0 12.0 9.0 14.1 1.2 0.7 0.5 1.4 25.2 9.4 44.7 12. Imports 2010 f’cast Exports 2010 f’cast 2006-2008 average 20.0 0.8 25.8 10.6 0. Note: Trade figures refer to the milk equivalent trade in the following products: butter (6.9 35.6 0.9 32.1 217.0 0.8 0.1 1.2 6.0 9.1 2. 96 . cream (3.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.4 1.5 1.Table A19.0 5.0 15.9 2.6 15.5 0. Milk and milk products statistics (million tonnes.6 18.7 0. 2010 f’cast ASIA China India1 Indonesia Iran. casein (7.9 9.6 26.6 0.0).1 1.7 0.5 0. skim condensed/evaporated milk (1.2 2.0 6.1 1.1 41.2 7.3 0.6 153.2 4.2 46.2 16.8 710.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.7 11.6 110.4 2.1 61.0 1. Refer to IDF Bulletin No.5 0.4 1.1 1.3 1.5 2.6 253.1 1.4 0.1 1.8 0.5 0.5 4.0 0.1 45.2 2.5 14.3 8.9 1.7 1.2 1.1 4.2 22.2 0.4 2.3 0.2 0.6 1.4 2.3 0.2 0.4 34.0 7.1 0.6 8.0 5.3 0.5 0.2 35.2 1.40).5 6.8 2.2 364.1 2.3 0.3 250.8 103.3 679.4 1.5 12. milk equivalent) Production 2006-2008 average 2009 estim.0 59.2 3.2 2.7 3.9 1.1 2009 estim.6 4.4 2.6 0.6 95.4 3.4 0.2 2.1 9.0 32.4 0.6 0.7 9.2 0.5 4.9 215.7 14.5 9.2 3.9 5.8 92.2 9.4 1.3 215.8 3.7 318.1 3.2 1.0 1.3 10.6 11.7 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.6 38.2 32.2 10.5 361. Dairy years ending May of the year stated (production only).1 0.2 85.9 2.6 1.5 0.6 3.1 32.2 0.4 0.8 0.3 25.1 43.0 0.2 2.1 3.5 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.5 1.8 4. milk powder (7.1 3.1 4.2 34.2 239.1 0.9 10.0 0.1 368.1 0.8 7.9 11.4 0.0 2. yoghurt (1.1 16.9 13. Islamic Republic of Japan Korea.9 4.4 1.5 0.1 0.1 84.3 0. The conversion factors cited refer to the solids content method.9 11.6 0.2 0.1 34.5 36.8 12.1 0. Dairy years ending June of the year stated (production only).60).2 26.5 31. 2006-2008 average 5.70).0 0.4 0.8 7.1 7.5 1.9 1.4 4.3 15.6 1.60).6 0.2 1.1 0.1 1.8 12.7 0.7 2.3 7.9 4.0 7.1 31.1 0.4 28.2 1.2 1. whole condensed/evaporated milk (2.1 43.2 0.2 1.7 698.2 3.7 0.0 257.0 4.9 11.8 24.5 0.5 2.3 0.7 0.9 7.8 1.9 40.4 0.1 0.4 16.1 0.2 7.1 AFRICA Algeria Egypt Kenya South Africa Sudan Tunisia CENTRAL AMERICA Costa Rica Mexico SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Colombia Uruguay Venezuela NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE Belarus European Union Russian Federation Ukraine OCEANIA Australia2 New Zealand3 WORLD Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 1 2 3 Dairy years starting April of the year stated (production only).5 3.4 30.1 4.6 2.1 3.1 40.1 0.8 0.2 10.4 2.5 1.7 342.3 0.4 3.1 0.0 9.

Fish and fishery products statistics 1 Capture fisheries Aquaculture fisheries production production 2007 2008 2007 2008 2008 Exports 2009 estim.1 2.3 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 32. India Indonesia Japan Korea.1 0.6 1.9 8.3 16.1 0.7 9.2 0.8 0.6 0.1 12.9 0.2 3.4 7.9 0.8 2.3 1.1 0. 2008 2009 estim.1 0.1 1.9 4.1 1.6 7.1 2.1 0.5 48.0 5.2 0.4 1.2 3. 97 .7 0.5 0.5 89.2 0.5 1.1 0.3 2.0 0.1 46.1 26.7 1.6 0.2 3.3 1.3 0. Imports 2010 f’cast.9 19.9 101.1 0.6 1.4 22.5 ASIA China2 of which: Hong Kong SAR Taiwan Prov.4 1.5 23.1 0.1 50.4 35.6 2.2 1.8 0.7 4.3 3.9 52.0 0.8 1.8 3.2 0.9 65.7 4.7 1.5 0.8 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.3 1.3 14.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.6 41.2 4.0 0.6 6.4 2.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.1 107.5 0.0 1.9 45.2 0.2 79.3 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 6.8 0.9 2.4 5.8 46. 2010 f’cast.6 2.5 0.0 14.5 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.7 6.1 49.8 13.9 102.7 33.1 1.0 7.3 0.5 3.2 13.1 52.9 0.1 6.9 24.5 2.3 1.5 36.2 14.9 0.1 0.1 1.1 5.7 2.5 2.0 0.4 1.0 0.2 14.6 1.4 0.1 35.2 1.1 44.7 0.8 7.2 2.7 3.2 13.3 4.0 12.4 0.9 0.4 0.1 1.2 1.8 1.9 1.5 23.2 48.0 0.2 0.4 2.8 1.8 0.0 13.1 2. Rep.2 0.1 15.1 0.9 8.4 24.8 46. Million tonnes (live weight equivalent) USD billion 35.6 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 83.8 0.1 106.9 46.7 66.7 14.6 1.9 1.0 4.9 0.3 0.8 0.5 38.4 2.2 4.4 0.5 3.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 AFRICA Ghana Morocco Namibia Nigeria Senegal South Africa CENTRAL AMERICA Mexico Panama SOUTH AMERICA Argentina Brazil Chile Ecuador Peru NORTH AMERICA Canada United States of America EUROPE European Union2 of which Extra -EU Iceland Norway Russian Federation OCEANIA Australia New Zealand WORLD3 Developing countries Developed countries LIFDCs LDCs 1 2 Production and trade data exclude whales.9 16.9 2.0 0.4 8.2 0.5 33.2 35.2 2.6 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.4 1.2 31.7 23.4 2.2 0.3 0.7 4.3 0.3 8.1 16.3 1.2 7.5 89.4 0.9 0.3 1.4 0.6 19.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.5 1.3 9.1 0.5 0.3 0. other aquatic mammals and aquatic plants.8 0.0 51.5 4. Trade data include fish meal and fish oil.4 75.0 21.5 3. Cyprus is included in the European Union as well as in Asia.2 2.5 1.4 48.7 1.0 1.8 0.6 2.1 0.Table A20.1 0.6 2.5 1.8 3.3 9.1 0.4 1.8 2.2 0.6 0.5 44.1 0. the aggregate includes also 63 346 tonnes in 2007 and 59 408 in 2008 of not identified countries.4 7.7 0.3 23.7 4. of Philippines Thailand Viet Nam 46.1 0.1 4.3 2.0 4.4 1.6 2.4 2.3 1.8 0.4 10.2 6.8 0.0 4.4 0.5 USD billion 30.9 0.5 2.3 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 1.7 0.4 2.6 34.3 0.2 8.1 0.2 0.9 41.7 0.5 3.3 2.3 2.4 0.6 0.6 4.9 5.5 2.7 0.3 1.6 0. 3 For capture fisheries production.5 2.2 5.4 3.4 0.4 3.2 42.6 24.6 3.2 1.8 1.4 7.3 0.4 1.2 0.6 2.1 0.1 1.4 1.1 7.1 0.4 3.5 2.8 8.8 0.2 0.9 2.9 1.7 2.6 0.8 49.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 2.2 13.3 0.9 0.0 38.5 0.8 1.9 4.0 0.1 50.7 9.4 0.5 22.8 0.2 0.8 3.2 0.9 2.3 2.1 0.9 26.3 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.0 4.5 0.1 1.9 95.4 2. Including intra-trade.6 37.5 8.1 16.3 3.1 0.7 0.8 0.1 99.6 0.1 0. data not included in any other aggregates.2 2.1 5.0 3. seals.0 2.8 0.6 0.9 2.6 2.1 0.3 1.3 13.

2 Hard Red Winter Ord. 2 Yellow 2 Maize Argentina 3 Barley France feed Rouen Australia feed Eastern States Sorghum US No. 2 Yellow 2 Annual (July/June) 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2009 – October 2009 – November 2009 – December 2010 – January 2010 – February 2010 – March 2010 – April 2010 – May 2010 – June 2010 – July 2010 – August 2010 – September 2010 – October 1 2 154 175 212 361 270 209 212 227 221 213 207 204 200 196 181 212 272 303 291 138 138 176 311 201 185 175 204 207 197 192 191 187 190 183 218 257 276 266 123 138 188 322 234 224 214 214 240 236 221 211 228 243 206 212 277 299 294 97 104 150 200 188 160 168 172 166 167 162 158 156 163 152 160 174 206 236 90 101 145 192 180 168 176 175 177 177 164 160 161 170 163 171 198 229 248 132 133 185 319 178 146 153 158 153 149 140 138 143 136 131 173 261 255 264 123 128 185 300 179 154 149 156 154 149 147 148 153 159 159 180 253 259 263 99 109 155 206 170 165 174 175 182 177 169 167 160 164 156 168 185 215 231 Delivered United States f. Sources: International Grain Council and USDA 98 .o.o. 1 US Soft Red Winter No. 22 Argentina Trigo Pan 3 US No.Table A21. Selected international prices of wheat and coarse grains (USD/tonne) Wheat Period US No.b.b. Prot. Gulf Delivered United States Gulf 3 Up River f.

2011 March Mar. Wheat and maize futures prices (USD/tonne) December Dec 2010 Dec 2009 Mar.Table A22. 2010 May 2011 May May 2010 July 2011 July July 2010 Wheat Sept 27 Oct 5 Oct 12 Oct 19 Oct 26 Nov 2 Nov 9 Maize Sept 27 Oct 5 Oct 12 Oct 19 Oct 26 Nov 2 Nov 9 202 193 228 215 225 227 227 133 134 150 152 149 150 152 207 198 232 220 230 232 232 138 139 155 157 154 156 158 209 200 234 222 232 235 235 142 143 158 160 157 159 162 210 201 213 222 234 236 237 145 146 161 163 160 163 165 260 244 261 247 254 255 265 167 163 182 190 194 190 191 270 257 274 261 269 270 280 174 170 189 197 201 197 198 274 262 279 268 276 278 290 180 174 193 201 205 202 203 270 262 279 272 279 281 293 186 179 198 205 208 206 208 Source: Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) 99 .

with high (low) quality referring to rice with less (equal to or more) than 20 percent brokens. Karachi.o. Bangkok.b.Table A23.2.b. Bangkok. 100 . 4 percent brokens f. 3 United States No. f. Note: The FAO Rice Price Index is based on 16 rice export quotations. Rice prices: Jackson Son & Co.o. (London) Ltd.b. A1 super.. indicative traded prices. 4 Basmati: ordinary.o. f. Sources: FAO for indices.b. The sub-index for Aromatic Rice follows movements in prices of Basmati and Fragrant rice.o. f. Thai Department of Foreign Trade (DFT) and other public sources. 100 percent second grade. ‘Quality’ is defined by the percentage of broken kernels. Selected international prices for rice and price indices International prices (USD per tonne) FAO indices (2002-2004=100) Indica Period Thai 100% B1 Thai broken 2 US long grain 3 Pakisan Basmati4 Total High quality Low quality Japonica Aromatic Annual (Jan/Dec) 2006 2007 2008 2009 Monthly 2009 – October 2009 – November 2009 – December 2010 – January 2010 – February 2010 – March 2010 – April 2010 – May 2010 – June 2010 – July 2010 – August 2010 – September 2010 – October 1 2 311 335 695 587 535 558 618 601 576 543 500 475 474 466 472 499 510 217 275 506 329 303 338 394 426 410 388 341 322 327 345 373 414 432 394 436 782 545 504 528 544 542 590 522 510 485 467 452 441 449 488 516 677 1 077 937 750 750 750 830 865 880 856 760 760 752 750 750 975 137 161 295 253 232 241 249 251 242 219 204 200 210 214 217 232 244 135 156 296 229 213 227 238 232 227 213 197 192 193 189 192 205 216 129 159 289 197 182 207 234 237 218 205 185 181 187 191 197 227 236 153 168 314 341 304 295 283 289 283 235 221 221 250 261 263 266 281 117 157 251 232 228 227 224 232 231 232 230 221 214 214 216 224 246 White rice. indicative traded prices.

i. Note: The FAO indices are calculated using the Laspeyres formula.o.February 2009 . 3 Palm oil: Crude.March 2009 .f.June 2009 .Table A24. The indices are based on the international prices of five selected seeds.2 yellow.July 2009 . the weights used are the average export values of each commodity for the 2002-2004 period.September 2010 – October* 394 378 366 411 386 380 410 472 504 467 474 424 427 442 448 435 406 410 412 406 408 426 457 468 490 928 824 737 788 744 728 802 893 894 834 891 850 891 939 931 919 915 920 900 864 860 911 1002 1036 1149 545 488 508 553 571 590 699 799 734 641 722 676 676 728 791 793 804 832 826 813 794 811 901 910 985 338 323 307 369 378 346 383 441 445 428 437 428 413 422 425 407 393 381 378 353 342 361 389 398 413 156 155 172 202 215 208 220 230 227 186 186 192 187 196 219 243 230 200 205 226 194 225 245 277 288 151 143 137 152 144 141 151 174 184 169 171 155 158 164 167 163 154 156 157 153 154 162 175 180 191 153 133 126 134 131 129 147 168 160 144 156 150 152 162 169 169 169 175 174 170 168 174 192 198 217 162 154 154 169 172 165 175 196 200 198 204 206 207 216 224 221 214 213 224 214 206 211 213 218 227 322 275 259 335 549 422 429 632 545 572 772 1325 826 924 488 419 451 684 1050 627 806 257 212 202 264 445 385 388 178 130 130 184 296 196 220 121 105 100 129 217 156 162 116 105 125 153 202 144 173 114 104 107 148 243 180 215 * Preliminary.April 2010 .February 2010 . c.April 2009 . Hamburg. 101 . 4 Soybean cake: Pellets.b ex-mill. Rotterdam. Argentina.October 2008 . Sources: FAO and Oil World. Rotterdam.November 2009 .May 2010 .f. c. Selected international prices for oilcrop products and price indices International prices (USD per tonne) Period Soybeans 1 Soybean oil 2 Palm oil 3 Soybean cake 4 Rapeseed meal5 FAO indices (2002-2004=100) Oilseeds Edible/soap fats/oils Oilcakes/meals Annual (Oct/Sept) 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Monthly 2008 .b. ex-mill. f.September 2009 .i. 5 Rapeseed meal: 34 percent. ten selected oils and fats and seven selected cakes and meals. 2 Soybean oil: Dutch.January 2009 .December 2009 . Northwest Europe. No.March 2010 .January 2010 .August 2010 . f.f.July 2010 .i. 1 Soybeans: US.October 2009 .o.May 2009 .June 2010 . c.December 2010 .August 2009 . 44/45 percent.November 2008 .

b. f. Product prices: Mid-point of price ranges reported by Dairy Market News (USDA) 102 . Oceania.April 2010 .b. indicative traded prices Whole Milk Powder.January 2010 .December 2010 . indicative traded prices Note: The FAO Dairy Price Index is derived from a trade-weighted average of a selection of representative internationally-traded dairy products Sources: FAO for indices.August 2010 . Oceania.b.May 2010 .o.September 2010 .o. moisture.July 2010 . Selected international prices for milk products and dairy price index International prices (USD per tonne) FAO dairy price index (2002-2004=100) Cheddar cheese 4 Period Butter 1 Skim milk powder 2 Whole milk powder 3 Annual (Jan/Dec) 2006 2007 2008 2009 Monthly 2009 .o. 1. f. 82 percent butterfat.March 2010 .February 2010 .October 2009 .October 1 2 3 4 1 774 2 959 3 607 2 335 2 725 3 688 4 100 3 800 3 688 3 725 3 800 4 075 4 050 4 000 4 000 4 100 4 275 2 218 4 291 3 278 2 255 2 488 3 375 3 375 3 063 2 750 2 875 3 550 3 500 3 225 3 138 2 982 3 138 3 175 2 193 4 185 3 846 2 400 2 850 3 525 3 550 3 300 3 125 3 175 3 750 3 963 3 850 3 375 3 150 3 357 3 463 2 681 4 055 4 633 2 957 3 213 4 263 4 425 4 200 4 013 3 800 3 963 4 025 3 950 3 950 3 900 3 950 4 013 128 212 220 142 158 208 216 202 191 187 204 209 203 198 193 198 203 Butter.November 2009 .Table A25.o. indicative traded prices Skim Milk Powder. f. 39 percent max. Oceania. indicative traded prices Cheddar Cheese.June 2010 .b. f. 26 percent butterfat. Oceania.25 percent butterfat.

Export unit value of frozen beef cuts . 85 percent chemical lean.P.January 2010 .Export unit value for pig meat.Frozen beef.) : Boneless Cuts.i.C. export unit value .World Bank. 103 .Beef Import Price (c.Export unit value for frozen product .I.Pork Import Price (cif) : Frozen Boneless Cuts – A.G.November 2009 . cif the United States port (East Coast) ex-dock From Nov 02: chucks and cow forequarters .August 2 246 2 169 2 105 2 121 2 169 2 229 2 233 2 286 2 533 2 557 2 624 2 574 2 576 1 889 1 956 2 071 2 179 2 167 2 316 2 309 2 385 2 576 2 563 2 499 2 473 2 578 5 533 5 762 5 798 5 890 5 830 5 753 5 813 5 786 5 619 5 705 5 780 6 010 6 152 3 883 3 855 3 648 3 739 3 862 3 986 4 076 4 337 4 426 4 428 4 577 4 514 4 653 2 357 2 252 2 476 2 581 2 813 2 930 3 016 3 270 4 438 4 562 4 440 3 387 3 765 5 494 5 406 5 566 5 845 5 830 5 874 5 813 5 963 5 961 6 172 6 000 6 147 5 988 2 727 2 727 2 648 2 756 2 800 2 951 3 125 3 349 3 596 3 478 3 197 3 210 3 365 1 986 2 117 2 270 2 202 1 964 2 034 2 834 2 020 4 540 4 500 5 117 5 617 3 803 4 023 4 325 3 897 2 270 2 385 3 615 2 526 5 685 5 925 6 275 5 409 2 547 2 603 3 138 2 636 Pig Meat Prices UNITED STATES .S.B.June 2010 .September 2009 .Table A26.I..Up to Oct 02: cow forequarters frozen boneless.August 2009 .A.f.L.December 2010 . AUSTRALIA .October 2009 . JAPAN .P.Foreign Trade Statistics of the United States Census Bureau BRAZIL .C. fresh or chilled – A.C.May 2010 .yA.I. fob – A.February 2010 – March 2010 – April 2010 . JAPAN .L. Selected international meat prices Pigmeat prices (USD per tonne) Period United States Brazil Japan United States Bovine meat prices (USD per tonne) Argentina Japan Australia Annual (Jan/Dec) 2006 2007 2008 2009 Monthly 2009 .July 2010 .E. Bovine Meat Prices UNITED STATES .Foreign Trade Statistics of the United States Census Bureau ARGENTINA .

A. fob .F.July 2010 . two pig meat product quotations (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights). BRAZIL .A.September 2009 . 104 .May 2010 .I. export unit value .Broiler Import Price.B. Frozen.E.January 2010 .June 2010 . four bovine meat product quotations (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights).Export unit value for chicken.August 1 022 1 002 974 1 019 1 029 1 052 1 048 1 034 1 043 1 055 1 011 1 038 996 2 318 2 311 2 191 2 165 2 036 2 196 2 341 2 392 2 430 2 649 2 675 2 742 2 836 1 734 1 695 1 683 1 743 1 470 1 725 1 707 1 693 1 742 1 748 1 706 1 788 1 752 119 118 117 120 120 124 125 129 135 137 137 134 138 119 118 117 121 124 128 132 139 148 148 144 140 144 111 111 109 111 111 112 114 115 120 121 124 125 126 156 153 149 153 142 155 157 157 159 165 162 167 166 734 935 997 989 1 852 1 964 3 064 2 541 1 180 1 443 1 896 1 552 107 112 128 118 117 121 139 118 95 98 108 110 114 135 175 153 Poultry Meat Prices UNITED STATES .Table A27.C.L. one ovine meat product quotation (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights): the four meat group average prices are weighted by world average export trade shares for 2002-2004.Foreign Trade Statistics of the United States Census Bureau JAPAN . other than leg quarters . Selected international meat prices and FAO meat price indices Poultry meat prices (USD per tonne) Period USA Japan Brazil Total meat FAO indices (2002-2004=100)1 Bovine meat Pig meat Poultry meat Annual (Jan/Dec) 2006 2007 2008 2009 Monthly 2009 .Broiler cuts.December 2010 .March 2010 .November 2009 .April 2010 .October 2009 .August 2009 .February 2010 . cif. The FAO Meat Price Indices consist of three poultry meat product quotations (the average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights).

10 58.83 170. London) 2 US cents per lb US cents per lb US cents per lb USD per kg US cents per lb USD per tonne Pence per kg 02-11-10 03-11-10 03-11-10 30-09-10 29-10-10 29-10-10 27.00 21.88 630.13 106.00 13.09 152.18 66.54 95.85 123.92 425.14 130.40 1 2 Quotation is from NYBOT (New York Board of Trade) as of July 2007 Quotation discontinued as of July 2007 105 .66 2. Selected international commodity prices Currency and unit Effective date Latest quotation One month ago One year ago Average 2005-2009 Sugar (ISA daily price) Coffee (ICO daily price) Cocoa (ICCO daily price) Tea (FAO Tea Composite Price) Cotton (NYBOT) 1 Jute “BTD” (Fob Bangladesh Port) Wool (64’s.87 2.71 2.68 129.35 151.00 22.83 100.59 800.89 121.37 820.Table A28.97 3.

and placed in a separate category. investors).e. “Long” (or buy) positions in futures and options on futures are combined. Table 3 draws on a database that provides further insights on market participation. Updated Data on Participation in the Maize. money managers. government action or other factors for rising food prices. all swap dealers are included in one category. Here. hedgers) is sharply lower in October 2010. with positions aimed at replicating commodity indexes. the Financial Times reported the results of a poll which indicated that respondents in several countries believe speculators are more responsible than weather. Recent Price Volatility and Commentary on the Role of Speculators in the Markets Concerns about speculation in the futures markets are not new. Market shares of swap dealers on the long side have fallen somewhat in the past 6 and 12 months in all three markets. Conversely.” as well as “Swap Dealers” and “Money Managers”. Noncommercials in the wheat market were net short on each date examined. as well. WHEAT AND SOYBEAN FUTURES AND OPTIONS MARKETS – AN UPDATE Contributed by Frank S. and USD 0. USD 0.e. those which do index trading and those that do not. or “open interest. their relative importance in long open interest has declined 106 . the United States Department of Agriculture released its World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates and Crop Production reports. Net long positions in October 2010 were large in all three markets. October 2009 and October 2010. and April 2010 and October 2010.60/bushel for wheat. Table 2 focuses on “Index Traders”. Portfolio Diversification and Food Prices” examined the growing use of the maize. but recent price volatility has once again brought the issue into the headlines.e. At the CBOT that day. The explanatory notes for the tables provide more detail on the various categories of market participants.” held by various participants in the three markets. the share of this open interest held by commercial traders (i. are sharply higher. managed funds.USD 0. certain swap dealers and other traders which engage in futures trading. and the article presented some of the recent literature addressing this issue as well as descriptive data on market participation made available on a weekly basis by the United States market regulator. This note provides updated data from the CFTC with a focus on how the market composition has changed between 2009 and 2010. The reports revised downward previous estimates of the production and stocks of maize. For example. and their net long positions. with respect to the activity of “non-traditional” market users such as swap dealers. pension funds. and in the past six months. the share held by non-commercials (i. United States Introduction In the June 2010 issue of Food Outlook. commenting that they have raised fears of another food crisis. Data are given for both 5 and 12 October 2010 to examine whether the limit day at the CBOT on 8 October triggered any immediate adjustments in open positions. In the maize market. and index traders. Data are given on traditional market users. i. on 8 October. As for money managers. wheat and soybean futures and options markets at the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) for investment purposes. Rose.30/bushel for maize. Data are drawn from three CFTC databases permitting “snapshot” comparisons between April 2009 and April 2010. There were significant increases in soybeans.) Money managers conduct futures trading on behalf of investors. Romeoville. MONEY MANAGERS AND INDEX TRADERS IN THE UNITED STATES MAIZE.Market indicators DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FUTURES: THE ROLE OF SWAP DEALERS. Some have expressed concern that this structural change in the markets’ composition has had deleterious effects on pricing. mostly on the long side. The estimates took many analysts by surprise. Index traders’ share of long open interest is lower in October 2010 than it was in April 2010 or October 2009. wheat and soybeans. Wheat and Soybean Futures Markets Tables 1-3 provide data on the open positions. the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).70/bushel for soybeans. These participants have been broken out from the commercial and non-commercial categories. “Producers/Merchants/Processors/Users. College of Business. On 10 October. as part of portfolio diversification strategies. In the wheat market. Table 1 illustrates a big jump in year-over-year open interest in all three markets and the increase in open interest that occurred following the 8 October 2010 limit move. Illinois. (Swap dealers that use the markets for hedging are included in the commercial category in Tables 1 and 2. an article entitled “Futures Markets. their shares of long open interest and net long positions have risen significantly in the case of maize. These traders account for a larger share of the long open interest in the wheat market relative to maize or soybeans. The article cited the recent price rises. Lewis University. futures prices for all three commodities rose by the maximum allowable amount -.

. Conclusion Of the three CBOT markets considered. “Speculators at Fault for Food Prices. pension funds and other passive investors from the “Non-Commercial Traders” category. “Commercial Traders” are those who are hedging a cash market position.fao.cftc.com. The database also has an “Other Reportables” category which includes other traders with large open interest positions which are not placed in one of the other categories. www. Table 2: Data were taken from the CFTC’s Commitments of Traders Supplemental Reports (Futures and Options Combined). Blas. investment-driven participants in the past 6 and 12 months. Cash prices were taken from Barchart. More rigorous analysis would be required before statements of cause and effect could be made.” 2009 – 2010. the share of long open interest year-over-year has not changed but the share has increased somewhat between April and October 2010. www.gov. October 8. and often falling.Market indicators year-over-year but remained stable in 2010.3 Table 1: Open interest data were taken from the CFTC’s Commitments of Traders Reports (Futures and Options Combined) for April 7. April 6. “Index Traders” establish predominantly long positions aimed at replicating commodity indexes for portfolio diversification purposes.com. October 10. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Commitments of Traders Reports (Futures and Options Combined). the open interest data are separated into four different categories. usually investing.” Food Outlook.ft. Table 3: Data were taken from the CFTC’s Disaggregated Commitments of Traders Reports (Futures and Options Combined). 107 . Crop Production. long and short positions are nearly equivalent. Rose. “Swap Dealers” engage primarily in swap transactions related to the commodity. delivery or exercise. www. 2010. Javier. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Open interest is the total of all futures and options contracts (5 000 bushels/contract) entered into and not yet offset by a transaction. 2010. managed funds. It is important to note that this descriptive examination of the composition of open interest in the maize. www. October 6.barchart. In this database. packing or handling of the physical commodity. share of long open interest held by “traditional” participants. Returns in the stock and bond markets. Explanatory Notes for Tables 1 . are placed in the “Index Traders” category.” Financial Times. “Producers/Merchants/Processors/Users” primarily engage in the production.” 2009 – 2010. October 8. 2010. The data show a low. Net long positions of money managers in the soybean market increased substantially in October 2010.gov. This category is not included in Table 3 since its open interest positions are primarily reported as spreads.gov. 2009. Food and Agriculture Organization. hedging against price declines. In this database. 2010. www. www. investors’ risk tolerances are likely to change. i. www. processing. maize and soybean futures and options experienced the most noteworthy increases in the long open interest of “non-traditional”. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).. and the impact of the US Dollar’s value on commodity prices are among the considerations that will influence investors’ decisions on market positioning. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Commitments of Traders Supplemental Reports (Futures and Options Combined).” 2009 – 2010. Frank S. “Non-Commercial Traders” are those holding positions for other reasons. As recovery from the financial crisis proceeds. and use futures and options to hedge associated risks. References Barchart.gov. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. 2010 and October 12. “Money Managers” are engaged in managing and conducting futures and options trading on behalf of clients. 2009.cftc. says Poll. October 5. 2010.usda. it can be expected that investors seeking portfolio diversification will continue to watch for opportunities in futures and options. June 2010.gov. Going forward. and certain swap dealers and other non-traditional hedgers from the “Commercial Traders” category.usda. impacting the flow of investment funds into these markets. “Disaggregated Commitments of Traders Reports (Futures and Options Combined). wheat and soybean markets at the CBOT says nothing about the impact of the changes in market participation on prices.e.org. Portfolio Diversification and Food Prices. “Futures Markets. “Long positions” are outstanding buy positions. and use futures and options to hedge or manage associated risks. www. but much of their activity is on the short side. In the soybean market. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).cftc.

4%) 293.8 (39.7 (48. 2010 Non-Commercial Traders – Long Positions April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.37 April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.Market indicators Table 1: Open Interest of Commercial and Non-Commercial Traders.5 (44.8%) 337.8 (52. 2010 Non-Commercial Traders – Net Long Positions 562.7%) 288.1 607. 2010 Commercial Traders – Long Positions 1 252. 2010 October 12.85 10.8%) 718.3%) 467.0 (41.6 (48.3%) 731.1 554.4 149.6 (42.7 140.45 3.8 (36.4 (32.05/bushel 3.1%) 220.2 (49.1 4.9%) 642.6 (44.3 -23.8%) 267.5 31. with percent of total open interest in parentheses 108 .9%) -1.9 174.0%) 241.62/bushel 3. 2010 October 12.0 1 522.0 185. 2010 October 12.8 4.6 -16.0 -9.7 162.4%) 329.8 1 378.0 2 110.0%) 768.51 252.9%) April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.0%) 320.47/bushel 9.4 (53. 2010 Thousands of Contracts.9%) 75. Selected Chicago Board of Trade Markets CBOT Maize Total Open Interest CBOT Wheat CBOT Soybeans April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5. 2010 October 12. 2010 Cash Prices (USD) April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.8 (39.9 578.9%) 192.3 10.6 449.0 (51.97 3.8 430.20 9.9 (47.0%) 1 189.8 (52.56 200.0%) 85.7 (53.2%) 661.1 (58. 2010 October 12.1 (52.4%) 1 367.1%) 203.4 (34.9%) 351.0 (44.7 (56.8 (48.4 (40.7 (47.7 10.7%) 288.5%) 419.33 11.3 (39.27 5.1 -49.9%) 476.62 5.5 (42.1%) 589.4 (44.9%) 265.3 (39.7 8.3 882.6%) 417.2 624.3 (44.7%) 249.8 649.1 552.8 2 357.9 802.0 434.97 6.93 4.

7%) 218.9 (29.6 (18.4%) 200.0 (24.4 (20.2 480.1 175.7 75. 2010 Thousands of Contracts.1 (34.2%) 294. 2010 Index Traders – Net Long Positions April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.6 (46.1%) 388. Selected Chicago Board of Trade Markets CBOT Maize CBOT Wheat CBOT Soybeans Commercial Traders – Long Positions April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.7 (20.2%) 518.3%) 573.1%) 136.Market indicators Table 2: Open Interest of Commercial.5 479.4 April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.0 194.3%) 294.8 (26.6 196. 2010 October 12.4%) 399.4 (14.6 (38.2%) 1 279.9%) 121.1 355.3 (52.0%) 163.9 193.5%) 277. 2010 October 12.6%) 1 102.1 (34.3 (54.3%) 128.9 145.6 (42.8 (14.3 220.9 (36.3%) 173.1 (32.3%) 497.5 (21.6%) 146.5 (41.9%) 233.9 (37.9%) 247. 2010 Non-Commercial Traders – Long Positions 325.0%) 312.6%) 166.6%) 255.0 (27.5 (26. with percent of total open interest in parentheses 109 .0%) 337.1 (49.4%) 435.6 (13.6%) 223.9%) 169.8 (22.7 (23.2 (46.9%) 190.0%) 190.4%) 149.9 (25.6%) 243.8%) 204.3 197.2%) 256.5 (48.7 (12.9%) 131.9 (36.9%) 211.2 169.0 (26.6 (39. 2010 October 12. Non-Commercial and Index Traders.9 (40.7%) 567.4 (34.5%) 494.6 (10.3 452.6 (39.5%) 210.3%) 67.5 (15.8%) 126. 2010 October 12.2 (19.0 (23.4 (21.9%) 111.0 (18.5 (46.8%) 117.0%) 251.2 (38.7 55.0%) 511.9 (18. 2010 Index Traders – Long Positions April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.2%) 46.

4%) 165.9%) 128.1 141.0 (26.3 (20.2%) 305.Long Positions 294.1 138.3%) 45.4%) 243.7 174.4 (25.4%) 646.1%) 146.0 38.5%) 101.1 (21. 2010 Money Managers .6 (28. 2010 Swap Dealers .1 410.7 (18.5 (38.9 16. 2010 October 12.5 146.2 132. 2010 October 12.0%) 59.7%) 95.5%) 234.4 (29.0 (23. 2010 Money Managers .1%) 241.Market indicators Table 3: Open Interest of Producers/Merchants/Processors/Users Swap Dealers and Money managers.8%) 141.4 (20.7%) 121.0 (23.7 (11.4 98.0%) 185. 2010 October 12.3 (25.9%) 221.5 (17.0 (25.4%) 61.6 (27.8 118.Long Positions 182.8 382.6 (20.1 April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.5 (14.0 177.9%) 91.1 (38.0 (22.4 161.6%) 120.0%) 290.1%) 477.4 93.9 (22.1 (10.8 104.0%) 135.2 127. with percent of total open interest in parentheses 110 .6 (12.Long Positions CBOT Wheat CBOT Soybeans April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.8%) 452.9 85.7%) 139.6 216.3%) 292.4 (14.0 401.9 157.1 -18. 2010 October 12. 2010 Thousands of Contracts.0 (24.5 (37.2 11.3%) 260.Net Long Positions April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.5%) 168.2%) 207.3%) 98.1%) 598.6%) 38.7 380.3 (18.9%) 7.9 (20.3%) 107.2%) 67. 2010 Swap Dealers – Net Long Positions April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.2 (16.4 19.9%) 161.1%) 119.7 (33. Selected CBOT Maize Producers/Merchants/Processors/Users .7%) 252.9 (23.5 (12.1%) 67.1 (23.0%) 118.6 (19.3 (42.2 -11. 2010 October 12.5%) 238.3 (29.5%) 279.5 -50.8 (19.0 (18.1%) 190.8 (20.1%) 466.0 (22.5%) April 2009 April 2010 October 2009 October 5.5 (18.7%) 346.6 (17.8 176.4 (8.5 (22.6 270.7 (14.6 389.

bounced back in August. added to the bearish sentiment. Capesize and Panamax rates increased markedly due to a renewed surge in demand for minerals. The weakness was largely attributed to excess fleet capacity. rates for transatlantic roundtrips fell by more than half to about USD 17 700 daily. The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) in mid-July having dipped to its lowest point in 15 months. The GFI is calculated weekly. of Argentina and other origins. particularly in the Atlantic. The arrival of newly-built ships. with ten Panamax rates and five in the Handysize sector.00/tonne. despite some increase in chartering activity on routes from the US Gulf and South America in September. as more ships headed into the area. the sector rebounded in August after China stepped up its purchases of thermal coal because of higher electricity 111 . Over the same period. both in Asia and Europe. largely due to seasonal factors. which this year are expected to be more than double those commissioned in 2009. as China curtailed its mineral imports following a 23 percent increase in iron ore prices. However. The GFI is composed of 15 major grain routes. by the end of October it was still nearly one-third lower than in May. creating considerable congestion. In the Pacific. as well as a tightening tonnage supply in the Pacific. However. with owners struggling to find cargoes. In August. with five rates from the United States. additional volumes were shipped from the EU and US. In the six months to the end of October.org.igc. after the Russian Federation’s export ban. the leading negative factors included weaker demand for minerals caused by higher prices for raw materials. however. In June/July. The Atlantic Handysize/Supramax market. with a number of ballasters looking for cargoes. however.uk) OCEAN FREIGHT MARKET (December 2009 – mid-May 2010) While remaining volatile. Panamax rates fell in both basins due to an oversupply of tonnage. In Southeast Asia. notably in the eastern Mediterranean. handysize rates showed only a modest rise as surplus spot tonnage increased. after falling in mid-2010. Despite steady demand for grains and oilseeds. ocean freight rates for grains and oilseeds eased between mid-May and October 2010. the IGC Grain Freight Index (GFI)1 declined by only 13 percent. Following a sharp drop in Black Sea grain exports. Heavy September rains delayed loading in the Brazilian ports of Santos and Paranagua. mainly because of increased Capesize activity. a reduction in steel output in China and a buildup of prompt tonnage. Canada. Due to Black Sea cancellations. rates remained weak in October due to the oversupply of tonnage. Australia. In June and July dry bulk rates fell sharply in all market sectors. on routes from the US Gulf and out of South America. Vessel sizes are adequately represented. while business from the US Gulf to the Mediterranean ranged between USD 27 500 and USD 28 750 daily. the European Union and the Black Sea. with the average for the four weeks to 18 May 2005 taken as its base of 6000. the sector found some support from improved demand. remained depressed.Market indicators OCEAN FREIGHT RATES Contributed by the International Grains Council (www. the rise in rates was short-lived: the market fell back in mid-September due to reduced trading activity and excess tonnage. October grain fixtures included a cargo from Argentina to the EU (Italy) at USD 28. especially for larger-sized tonnage. Towards August. and two each from Argentina. representing the main grain trade flows. Capesize rates fell most steeply in the middle of the year. higher freight futures and some tightening in tonnage availability. particularly in the US Gulf. Tonnage overcapacity also weighed. However. a trip from China and Indonesia was fixed at USD 20 500 daily. several buyers looked for wheat tonnage out Ocean freight indices October 2008-October 2010 (May 2005=6000) 8000 IGC grain freight index 6000 4000 2000 Baltic dry index 0 2008 2009 2010 1 The GFI distinguishes grain routes from mineral and other dry bulk routes also included in more general dry bulk indices such as the Baltic Dry Index (BDI). reflecting surplus tonnage capacity and the northern hemisphere summer slowdown in chartering activity. particularly on routes from Indonesia.

a reduction in iron ore prices triggered restocking at China’s steel mills. implied volatility began to move upwards again for all three commodities. Korea Panamax 61 67 72 75 71 71 73 75 72 57 59 64 61 needs during the hot summer.int IMPLIED VOLATILITIES With concerns rising about the increasing un-predictability in international markets. Contact person: Yuri Makarov Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7513 1122 E. Food Outlook now regularly features an analysis of implied volatility. unpredictable events in the past few months. at least for the moment. In October. have translated to higher uncertainty ahead for traders.Market indicators SELECTED ROUTES (monthly averages) USD/tonne Brazil/EU ARAH Vessel size Oct'09 Nov'09 Dec'09 Jan'10 Feb'10 Mar'10 Apr'10 May'10 Jun'10 Jul'10 Aug'10 Sep'10 Oct'10 Handysize 40 40 41 42 42 44 47 50 49 42 45 44 41 US Gulf/EU ARAH Panamax 32 36 36 38 36 37 38 40 37 31 32 32 28 US Gulf/Japan Panamax 58 64 69 72 68 69 71 73 70 55 57 62 59 US Gulf/S. under reasonable assumptions. Based on the expectation of major commodity exchanges. In broad perspective. maize and soybeans steadily fell after more certainty was in reinstated into markets. Soybean volatility for instance fell to a 32 month low in May 2010. implied volatilities for wheat. but the scale of increases in implied volatility suggest that markets to not expect that the world is heading towards a repeat of the 2007/08 event. 35 percent for maize and 28 percent for soybeans’. one can say using the most recent data in October ‘the market estimates with 68 percent certainty that prices will change by 36 percent for wheat. further boosting rates and almost returning Capesize levels to those seen in May. the metric provides an insight into which direction global markets for several key commodities are likely headed as well as the uncertainty about future price movements. many of which were profound.mail: YMakarov@igc. soon afterward when doubts began to emerge over Russia’s ability to meet grain export commitments. As implied volatility is measured as a percentage of the deviation in the futures price (six months ahead) from underlying expected value. 112 . In the aftermath of the 2007/08 turmoil. However. followed by similar concerns over United States maize prospects and with expected demand outstripping soybean supply.

as well as the uncertainty surrounding these estimates. Does implied volatility matter? Prices of derivative commodities are determined by underlying expectations and uncertainties about such expectations. pertinent to the market and the commodity. by dealing with future events. and are priced based on the market estimates of future prices. have translated to higher uncertainty ahead for traders. such as futures contracts. It is called “implied” because. Measuring Implied Volatility Implied volatility represents the market’s expectation of how much the price of a commodity is likely to move in the future. many of which were profound. The more divergent are traders’ expectations about future prices. with a strike price nearest to the settlement price for the futures contract associated with the call option contract (mid-monthly prices were used). it cannot be observed. at least for the moment. is an important component of the price discovery process and is a barometer as to how traders expect prices to evolve in the shorter term. Options are just like any other financial instrument. 113 . (ii) settlement premium for the call options ‘at the money’ i. An “option” gives the bearer the right to sell a commodity (put option) or buy a commodity (call option) at a specified price for a specified future delivery date. Key inputs and assumptions are as follows: (i) 6-month time expiration on contracts. Hence. (iii) option strike price.e.Market indicators Implied volatilities (annual) 1990-2010 Percent 40 Percent 55 Implied volatilities (monthly) October 2007 to October 2010 30 45 20 35 10 25 0 15 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 2007 2008 2009 2010 Wheat Maize Soybeans Wheat Maize Soybeans Implied Volatilities: 1990-2010 and May-2007 to May-2010 The Black-Scholes model was used to compute implied volatilities from Chicago Board of Trade underlying data. and can only be inferred from the prices of derivative contracts such as “options”. In a broad perspective. (iv) futures settlement price and (v) 6-month US treasury bill yields were assumed for the risk-free rate. the higher the underlying uncertainty and hence the implied volatility of the underlying commodity. but the scale of increases in implied volatility suggest that markets do not expect that the world is heading towards a repeat of the 2007/08 event. implied volatility. as reflected or inferred by the prices of derivative contracts. unpredictable events in the past few months.

Strong gains are also anticipated for vegetable oils and for fish products. international fertlizer quotations are on the rise.031 trillion reached in 2008. fertilizer usage could further intensify. are still bearing down on potash quotations.026 trillion. In spite of soaring sugar quotations since mid-2010. the prospect of additional gains in crude oil prices could push the cost of derived nitrate production. In contrast. which re-categorizes products in concordance with international trade classifications. Amples availabilities. especially those for urea and diammonium phosphate (DAP). January 1980=100 95 90 600 60 85 300 30 80 2008 2009 2010 0 2008 2009 2010 0 1 Price-adjusted major currencies US Dollar index Source: US Federal Reserve Sources: IMF. With substantial pressure for larger global harvests next year. with large increases expected for the high-value products. In particular. losing around 7 percent of its value in real terms. with values foreseen to surpass the record levels registered in 2008. The cost of imported livestock products. firmly establishing this product group as the most expensive in the globally traded food basket. The decline in the dollar has given significant support to commodity prices in world markets over this period. resulting in higher fertilizer quotations. the annual rise in the global sugar bill could be limited to around 8 percent owing to a foreseen contraction in trade. On the back of sustained economic recovery and rising freight costs. the forecast cost of importing foodstuffs at the global level in 2010 would be some USD 133 billion or 15 percent more than in 2009. Rising petroleum and natural gas prices also contributted to their strengthening after phosphate prices had been under strain from large exports by China and increased supplies from Saudi Arabia. The composition of the imported food basket. In addition. USD per tonne 900 USD per barrel 90 Evolution of the US Dollar exchange rate1 November 2008 to November 2010 The US Dollar has experienced a fair degree of volatility over the past 12 months. is expected to increase by almost USD 50 billion. confirming the trend that emerged in the June report. mirrors a return to economic growth in many countries. by and large. however. noncereals are expected to account for almost all the annual growth in global food bills. global food import bills in 2010 are strongly characterized by sharply rising expenditures on products other than cereals and stable cereal costs. Under a new methodology. World Bank Global cost of imported food could again surpass USD 1 trillion in 2010 At USD 1. After remaining flat in the first six months of 2010. and only a fraction short of the landmark USD 1. the world cereal import bill in 2010 is expected to remain virtually unchanged from the 114 . under the combined effect of higher import volumes and prices. but since June it has fallen interruptedly against major currencies. expenditures on vegetables and fruits could climb by USD 25 billion to USD 191 billion. which would also shore up fertilizer prices in 2011. especially dairy. particularly in the latter half of the year.Market indicators FOOD IMPORT BILLS Monthly fertilizers and crude oil prices November 2008 to November 2010 Soaring crop prices in the past few months have begun translating into higher demand for fertilizers.

Oils and Animal Fats Oilseeds Sugar 892.4 67.7 81.2 4.8 108.8 2.1 2010 163.0 25.4 2. Sharp increases in international quotations for grains.5 17.4 0.0 61.0 8.org 115 .4 1.4 2010 24.9 36.1 40. compared with a world average of only 7 percent.6 2.4 72.1 13.8 165.9 2.0 130.8 2010 349.8 58.9 27. sugar and products in the oilseed complex in recent months are already a cause for concern.3 39. global competition for securing foodstuffs is set to intensify. rice bills are expected to fall by the end of the year.6 2009 587.9 60.3 7.5 2.6 previous year’s level.0 191.4 3.9 29.8 57.9 127.9 151. foodstuffs could account for roughly 17 percent of all expenditures on imports of vulnerable countries.1 83.Market indicators Forecast import bills of total food and major foodstuffs (USD billion) World Developed Developing LDC LIFDC Sub-Saharan Africa 2009 TOTAL FOOD Vegetable and Fruits Cereals Meat Fish Dairy Vegetable.6 2.0 17.1 1.8 98. since quotations are still foreseen to average lower than last year and transactions virtually unchanged.8 35. attention is now on prospects for next year.1 10.3 19.1 38.4 0.3 1.2 0.Prakash@fao.1 52.0 9.3 21.7 0.2 2.5 38.5 0.5 1.9 1.6 21.7 20. The recent turmoil in grain markets is not expected to dent the overall benefit of relatively stable expenditures on imported cereals in 2010.2 6.8 27. but at 20 percent.9 29. Dairy Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats Meat Vegetables and Fruits Fish Oilseeds Sugar Coarse Grains Wheat Rice -15 0 15 Percent 30 45 60 purchasing food on the international market place for the most economically vulnerable groups is also set to increase in 2010. far exceeding the increase at the global level. Compared with 2009.7 66. It is unlikely that the effects of higher prices will be contained within their respective sectors.7 2.5 1.7 21.4 128.5 41.8 32.8 23.The cost of Forecast changes in global food import bills by type 2010 over 2009 (%) Rising global demand for non-staple foodstuffs has boosted food import bills to near record levels.2 2009 305.0 2.4 2009 22. but much higher expenditures on other foods easily counteract these gains.4 2010 27.9 7.8 9.6 2. the foreseen rise in Low-Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) bills would be the highest of all economic groups.5 16.5 24.5 2. Contact person: Adam Prakash Phone: +39-06-57054948 E.7 24. With 2010 drawing to a close.4 3. LDCs expenditures could register an 11 percent rise.4 59.7 9. Putting this in a broader perspective. a reduction in wheat traded volume and in rice quotations could offset the impact of higher prices of wheat and coarse grains on global cereal trade value. as many of these commodities constitute major feedstock ingredients for the livestock or biofuel sectors.7 2009 25.6 8.6 16.8 133. On the other hand.0 84.4 8.2 43.8 2010 676.0 67.mail: Adam.9 113.8 31.2 86.2 2.4 0.7 2.1 6.3 10.9 34.6 2010 1 026. Much respite for them could come by way of a considerable fall in the cost of importing cereals on account of robust domestic production prospects.7 93. With price increases largely reflecting scarcity in export supply.8 2009 136. Higher international prices for livestock products and vegetable oils twinned with larger trade volumes are likely to lead to much greater import costs for those commodities compared to 2009.1 35.2 38.

The FAO Dairy Price Index averaged 203 points in October 2010. remaining. soybeans and coarse grains. 5 percent above the September average. The FAO Cereal Price Index averaged 219 points in October 2010. International poultry and pig meat prices experienced a steady upward trend all through the year. After falling almost to a three-year low in June 2010.). especially vegetable oils and animal fats. up 25 percent from the corresponding period last year and 4 percent above the September average.org/worldfoodsituation/ 116 . but across the board increases in quotations of most other commodities. The Index climbed for the fourth consecutive month. International prices of nearly all the commodities included in the index rose. Despite increasing steadily in recent months. prices of wheat and coarse grains increased by 35 and 47 percent. Beef and ovine meat prices constrained by tight supplies from reduced herds remained at firm levels. but up as much as 32 percent. from October 2009.fao. also contributed. reaching a 24-month high of 214 points in October. which carry a higher weight in food consumption. but in particular sugar. below its record high value of June 2008. reflecting in the early months the recovering world economy and more recently a tightening of supplies due to increasing production costs. are responsible for most of the gain in 2010. International prices of all cereals increased in recent months with export prices of barley. Between July and October. 100 2007 2008 2009 2010 Global food consumption price index FAO food price index however. the Index still falls short of the peak value of 274 points reached in April 2008. mostly because of production shortfalls in major producing countries. or 53 points. The FAO global food consumption price index and FAO food price index October 2007 to October 2010 2002-2004=100 300 250 200 150 FAO Food Price Index * The FAO Food Price Index averaged 197 points in October 2010. The FAO Oils/Fats Price Index averaged 217 points in October 2010. The index hovered around 200 points between January * The FAO food price indices are updated on monthly basis and are available on http://www. up 12 percent from January and 18 percent from October last year. This implies that the cost of the typical food basket around the world is now more than double its cost in 2002-2004. some 23 percent below the June 2008 peak.fao. The October average was only 7 percent. Rising grain prices in recent months. respectively. the index began rebounding sharply thereafter. The FAO Meat Price Index averaged 138 points in October 2010.Market indicators FAO Global Food Consumption Price Index The FAO Global Food Consumption Price Index tracks changes in the cost of the global food basket as portrayed by the latest FAO world food balance sheet (see http://faostat. Compared with October 2009 the index was up 66 points or 43 percent. which is high in historic terms. reaching its highest level in 27 months. maize and wheat climbing fastest. The firmness in prices is the result of relatively slow growth in global oils/fats production. not keeping pace with a sustained expansion in demand from both food and biodiesel sectors. or 16 points.org. especially in the CIS. while rice prices gained 14 percent.

International sugar prices rose steadily between May 2010 and October 2010 on the back of deteriorating supply prospects for the new 2010/11 season and an expected increase in import demand. reaching a mean of 199 over the period. butter prices had overshoot that record by 3 percent. FAO Food Price Index 2002-2004=100 230 Food Commodity Price Indices 2002-2004=100 380 2008 200 310 Sugar 2007 170 2010 240 Dairy 140 2009 2006 170 Cereals Oils & Fats Meat F M A M J J A S O 110 J F M A M J J A S O N D 100 O N D J 2009 2010 The FAO Food Price Index is a measure of the monthly change in international prices of a basket of food commodities. However. The FAO Food Commodity Price Indices show changes in monthly international prices of major food commodities. The FAO Sugar Price Index averaged 345 points in October 2010. Despite their 2010 rally. 117 . at USD 4150 per tonne in October.Market indicators and October 2010. but still 8 percent down from the 30-year peak reached in January 2010. The strength reflected a dynamic demand from Asia and some oil exporting countries and relatively tight world availabilities for export. in October dairy prices were still 25 percent cheaper than their November 2007 peak. 56 percent more than in January-October 2009. up 7 percent from the corresponding period last year.

2 Meat Price Index: Consists of three poultry meat product quotations (the average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights). 6 Sugar Price Index: Index form of the International Sugar Agreement prices with 2002-2004 as base. The grains Price Index consists 4 of International Grains Council (IGC) wheat price index. four bovine meat product quotations (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights). two pigmeat product quotations (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights). after expressing the maize price into its index form and converting the base of the IGC index to 2002-2004. SMP. WMP. and one maize export quotation. the average is weighted by world average export trade shares for 2002-2004. Japonica and Aromatic rice varieties and the weights for combining the three components are assumed (fixed) trade shares of the three varieties.Market indicators FAO Food Price Index Food Price Index1 Meat2 Dairy3 Cereals4 Oils and Fats5 Sugar6 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 October November December 2010 January February March April May June July August September October 1 90 92 90 98 111 115 122 154 191 152 157 169 172 174 170 163 165 164 163 167 177 189 197 94 94 90 99 111 113 107 112 128 118 117 120 120 124 125 129 135 137 137 134 138 138 138 95 107 82 95 123 135 128 212 220 142 158 208 216 202 191 187 204 209 203 198 193 198 203 85 86 95 98 107 103 121 167 239 174 166 171 171 170 164 158 155 155 151 163 185 208 219 68 68 87 101 112 104 112 169 225 150 152 162 169 169 169 175 174 170 168 174 192 198 217 116 123 98 101 102 140 210 143 182 257 321 316 334 376 361 265 233 216 225 247 263 318 345 Food Price Index: Consists of the average of six commodity group price indices mentioned above weighted with the average export shares of each of the groups for 2002-2004: in total 55 commodity quotations considered by FAO Commodity Specialists as representing the international prices of the food commodities noted are included in the overall index. 3 Dairy Price Index: Consists of butter. itself average of nine different wheat price quotations. 118 . cheese. casein price quotations. 5 Oil and Fat Price Index: Consists of an average of 11 different oils (including animal and fish oils) weighted with average export value shares of each oil product for 2002-2004. The Rice Price Index consists of three components containing average prices of 16 rice quotations: the components are Indica. Cereals Price Index: This index is compiled using the grains and rice price indices weighted by their average trade share for 2002-2004. one ovine meat product quotation (average weighted by assumed fixed trade weights): the four meat group average prices are weighted by world average export trade shares for 2002-2004.

territory.Abbassian@fao. city or area or of its authorities. or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. trade. Other relevant studies on markets and global food situation can be found at http://www. Crop Prospects and Food Situation.org/giews/. For enquiries or further information contact: Abdolreza Abbassian Trade and market Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Via delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome .Italy Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of material in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country. especially with regard to the coverage of cereals.fao. French. stocks and prices on a commodity by commodity basis and includes feature articles on topical issues. It is a biannual publication (June and November) focusing on developments affecting global food and feed markets.org . Food Outlook and other GIEWS reports are available on the internet as part of the FAO world wide web (http://www.org/worldfoodsituation. This report is based on information available up to early November 2010. Food Outlook maintains a close synergy with another major GIEWS publication.org/) at the following URL address: http://www.fao.fao. Telephone: 0039-06-5705-3264 Facsimile: 0039-06-5705-4495 E-mail: Abdolreza. Food outlook is available in English.org or giews1@fao.Market indicators Food Outlook is published by the Trade and Market Division of FAO under Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS). Each report provides comprehensive assessments and short term forecasts for production. Spanish and Chinese. utilization.