Olive Tree Farming in Jaen: Situation With the New Cap and Comparison With the Province Income Per Capita.

Table 4. Main social-economic variables in Jaén olive tree farming in 2000

Note: observations in every type of olive farm are in brackets.

Another relevant aspect to be mentioned is labour work which is very abundant in this
sector (D. Barranco et al. 2001) in spite of the slow but progressive substitution of labour work
per capital. Observing number of working-days per kilograme produced, we find that there is
small difference in this relation from 1994 to 2000. The working-days are in 1994 9.47, 16.52
and 20.98 for marginal, dry and irrigated lands and in 2000 are 4.64, 15.7 and 14.27 for
marginal, dry and irrigated land respectively. These figures show that only marginal olive farm
has increased the use of labour work while in the other two it has been reduced by the effect of
crop increase and part of it by capital increment.

Finally, it is observable than direct gross margin has sensibly been decreased in years
1994, 1999 and 2000 versus 1991 as the effect of labour work (we lack of labour work data and
labor work expenditure). However, total expenditure and revenue have been increased in these
years and there is a tendency to continue like that. In fact, if we observe the years 1994 and
1999 the expenditure and revenue are higher than 1991, but in 2000 crop year two variables are
reduced as a result of scarce rainfall the year before and feature olive tree biennial in two
successive years. In the case of irrigated lands, subventions increase, but expenditures increase
even more. That is the reason why the result for this farm type is inferior to the one obtained in
1994.

The second part of the results belongs to the simulation process. Once the modifications
of the variables have been introduced within AGROS programme and considering data taken
from crop years 1999 and 2000 (real data from the first two reference crop years taken from the
recent CMO reform to the olive farming) the results got were presented in Figure 1. Simulation

12

<<   <   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   >   >>