SOVIET CROP PRODUCTION ON RECLAIMED LANDS: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 15, 2008
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 1, 1983
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Directorate of Confidential
Intelligence
Soviet Crop Production
on Reclaimed Lands:
Problems and Prospects
Confidential
GI 83-10204
September 1983
Copy 3 5 5
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Directorate of Confidential
Soviet Crop Production
on Reclaimed Lands:
Problems and Prospects
This paper was prepared byl lof the
Strategic Resources Division, Office of Global Issues.
Comments and queries are welcome and may be
directed to the Chief, Agricultural Assessments
Branch, OGI,
Confidential
G/ 83-10204
September 1983
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Confidential
Summary
Information available
as of 30 July 1983
was used in this report.
Soviet Crop Production
on Reclaimed Lands:
Problems and Prospects
Faced with increasing demands for more and better foods, lagging
agricultural production, and finite land resources, the USSR has opted to
continue a very expensive program of land reclamation through the 1980s.
With 75.7 billion rubles already invested to this end in the period 1966-80,
Soviet planners have earmarked an additional 39 billion rubles-the
largest sum ever-for reclamation during the current plan period, 1981-85.
Although data have not been released for 1986-90, it is clear that, to have
any chance of realizing stated goals, continued emphasis of investment-
which since 1966 has amounted to some 27 percent of the total allocated to
production in the agricultural sector-will be necessary.
Reclamation activities in the 1980s are aimed at increasing farm output by
improving the existing 34.3 million hectares of drained and irrigated land
and by adding 7-10 million hectares to the reclaimed land network by
1990. While some reclamation work will be scheduled during this decade in
all of the USSR republics, the bulk of the effort will take place in the
RSFSR, the Ukraine, and Central Asia, with investments in the RSFSR
and the Ukraine accounting for almost two-thirds of the gross additions
planned. These objectives, if realized, will further strengthen the position of
the reclaimed lands in Soviet agriculture. Although the reclaimed lands
comprised only 10 percent of the cultivated area in 1976-80, these new
fields accounted for all of the USSR's cotton and rice, three-fourths of its
vegetables, one-eleventh of its sugar beets, and one-twelfth of its grain.
Planned investments for reclamation underscore the Soviet intent to
emphasize the development of grain and forage production in the 1980s. By
1990 the Soviets expect reclaimed lands to produce about 35 million tons of
grain, some 18 million tons more than in 1980. Together, the 1990 plans
for grain and forage are to double reclaimed land output of all livestock
feed over the 1976-80 level. At the same time, the increased output of some
specialty crops is expected to parallel the growth anticipated in Soviet
consumer demand. Among the specialty crops, substantial increases in the
production of fruit and vegetables are slated, while the output of cotton, a
leading crop grown under irrigation, is to remain at current levels.
iii Confidential
GI 83-10204
September 1983
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Judged from the perspective of past reclamation accomplishments and
performance thus far during the 1981-85 plan period, the complete
achievement of five-year plan goals in either 1985 or 1990 seems unlikely.
Expansion and improvement of reclaimed land fell far short of the 1976-80
plan, and progress toward current goals has been exceedingly slow. The
poor performance reflects incomplete or untimely funding, unrealistic
scheduling of work, the nonfulfillment of resource inputs by the state, and
the failure of the involved ministries to coordinate their work.
Nevertheless, the USSR will continue to emphasize land reclamation in the
remaining years of this decade. The program has the potential to make a
signficant contribution to the realization of major ongoing Soviet goals,
including the increase and stabilization of farm production, improved
regional self-sufficiency, and the overall reduction of Soviet dependence on
agricultural imports. Hence, despite the complications that now afflict the
effort, add to its costliness, and place the full achievement of reclamation
plans in jeopardy, we expect the continued expansion of reclaimed land in
the USSR. On balance, however, the present program does not appear to
have the capacity-given constantly increased levels of population and
demand-to provide the insurance against the widely varying agricultural
output sought by the Soviet leadership.
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Confidential
Current Constraints on the Reclaimed Lands Program
Long-Term Water Requirements
Long-Term Proposals
Conclusions
7
10
10
10
13
15
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Figure 1
Reclaimed Lands
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
The United States Government has nol recognized
IM1e incorporation of Estonia. Latvia. end Ldhuan,s
into the Soviet Union Other boundary r,preeentation
~e not necessarily authoritative.
Japan
Z r~,
Baltic
VII North Caucasus
XIII Kazakhstan
II Belorussia
VIII Transcaucasus
XIV Central Asia
III Ukraine
IX Northern
XV West Siberia
IV Northwest
X Volga-Vyatka
XVI East Siberia
V Central
XI Volga
XVII Far East
VI Central Chernozem
XII Ural
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97ROO694ROO0200790001-2
onnuennal
Soviet Crop Production
on Reclaimed Lands:
Problems and Prospects
Introduction
In conjunction with the formal adoption in May 1982
of the USSR Food Program,' the Central Committee
of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the
USSR resolved to continue support of costly land
reclamation I policies. In addition, Soviet authorities
have authorized initiation of work on the interregional
transfer of surface water. In taking these actions, the
leadership has specifically endorsed efforts:
? To expand agricultural production by irrigating or
draining an additional 7.1-7.5 million gross hectares
of land by 1985, with another 4.7-7.7 million net
hectares to be reclaimed by 1990.
? To increase the production potential of existing
reclaimed land by taking measures to improve soil
conditions and to preserve and improve irrigation
and drainage facilities already in place.
? To complete the initial phase of the diversion of
rivers in the north European USSR to the Volga
Basin by 1990.
? To complete by 1990 the planning and design of a
project to use Siberian waters for irrigation in
Central Asia.
These decisions underscore continued Soviet concern
over how to satisfy increasing demands for quality
foods while reducing overall dependency of the USSR
Table I
USSR: Planned 1985 and 1990
Reclaimed Land Networks,
Compared With Selected Years
on Western imports.
Growth of the Reclamation Program
Reclaimed lands in the USSR increased from 20.5
million hectares in 1965 to 34.3 million hectares in
1980 (table 1).' During these years, the irrigation
' This program refers to the current set of Soviet agrarian policy
measures, planned through 1990 and collectively designed to
achieve a better coordinated, more efficient, overall development of
the agroindustrial complex. In this way, within resource limits, the
Soviets hope to increase farm output and also to reduce losses of
agricultural commodities en route to customers. The institutional
changes announced at the May 1982 plenum were in support of
In this paper, the term reclaimed lands refers to lands improved
for crop production through the installation of facilities to drain
away surplus moisture or to irrigate crops where precipitation is
deficient. Other reclamation measures are concentrated on improv-
ing drained and irrigated lands. In the reclamation processes, some
agricultural land or from nonarable to cultivated land.
Type of
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Land
Plan
Plan
Total
20.5
21.3
28.1
34.3
36.3
41.0-44.0
reclaimed a
Irrigated
9.9
11.1
14.5
17.5
20.8
23.0-25.0
network increased by 7.6 million hectares, and 6.3
million hectares were added to the inventory of
drained lands. Nevertheless, as of 1980, reclaimed
lands still comprised less than 6 percent of all Soviet
agricultural lands and almost 10 percent of all arable
land (table 2). Although the expansion and improve-
ment of reclaimed lands have not met Soviet expecta-
tions, particularly during the period 1976-80, the
regime remains committed to a program that calls for
36.3 million hectares of reclaimed land by 1985 and
41-44 million hectares by 1990.
The irrigated land area is to increase 19 percent
during 1981-85 and 10 to 20 percent in 1986-90,
reaching 23-25 million hectares by 1990. In contrast,
the 1985 goal for drained land, 15.5 million hectares,
represents an 8-percent decrease in the total amount
of land in this category-even though some 3.7-3.9
million hectares of newly developed drainage are to be
put into operation during 1981-85. More importantly,
in 1986 the Soviets will launch an effort to bring the
total network of drained lands to 18-19 million hec-
tares by 1990
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97ROO694ROO0200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97ROO694ROO0200790001-2
Table 2
USSR: Reclaimed Lands Share of All Farmland
and Crop Areas, 1965-80
Types of Land
or Crops
Drained Irrigated Total Drained Irrigated Total Drained Irrigated Total
Reclaimed a Reclaimed a Reclaimed a
Land used by agricultural
enterprises
Natural meadows and
pastures b
8.3
1.2
9.5
12.2
2.3
14.5
15.0
3.1
18.1
Orchards and vineyards
1.3
19.0
20.3
1.0
21.7
22.7
1.0
25.3
26.4
Private farming plots
1.4
5.9
7.3
1.7
6.1
7.8
2.1
6.4
8.5
19.1
2.1
Potatoes, vegetables,
melons
2.1
5.8
8.0
2.7
8.9
11.6
3.6
11.4
15.1
a Components may not add to the totals shown because of rounding.
b Percentages based only on all-USSR natural meadows.
Distribution of Reclaimed Lands
As of 1980 the reclaimed lands of the USSR were
located primarily in RSFSR (almost 10.9 million
hectares) and the Asian republics (about 8 million
hectares). Elsewhere, reclaimed lands totaled more
than 8.4 million hectares in Belorussia and the Baltic
republics, roughly 4.8 million hectares in the Ukraine
and Moldavia, and more than 2 million hectares in
the Transcaucasus (table 3).
Despite the regional concentration of improved lands,
the drained and irrigated lands of the USSR are
widespread geographically. All of the farms in the
Baltic republics include some drained land and practi-
cally all those in Central Asia have some irrigated
land, but at least a third of the farms in every
economic region include some reclaimed land. In
1980, for example, 40.3 percent of all Soviet farms
included irrigated land and 21.7 percent contained
drained land.
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97ROO694ROO0200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Confidential
Table 3
USSR: Distribution of Reclaimed Lands, Selected Years
USSR, total
RSFSR total
Kaliningrad
Northwest (and Northern)
Central Nonchernozem
Volga-Vyatsk
Central Chernozem
Volga
North Caucasus
Urals
West Siberia
East Siberia
Far East
Belorussia-Baltics
0.4 1.6
5.7 26.2
5.0 203.9
174.0 947.3
32.5 179.5
32.0 143.2
295.8 348.3
14.1 71.1
Ukraine-Moldavia 577.0 1,639.0
Asian republics total 5,850.0 6,950.0
Uzbek 2,639.0 3,006.0
Kirgiz 861.0 910.0
Tadzik 468.0 567.0
Kazakhstan 1,368.0 1,648.0
Transcaucasus total 1,875.0 1,792.0
Georgia 348.0 368.0
Azerbaydzan 1,278.0 1,141.0
, Includes reclaimed agricultural lands available to kolkhozes,
interfarm enterprises, sovokhozes, and other state farms; excludes
reclaimed lands outside the agricultural sector and nonagricultural
lands outside the agricultural sector and nonagricultural lands
within reclaimed land networks.
h Does not include lands equipped with drainage to facilitate
irrigation.
Columns may not add due to rounding.
NA
637.2
1,212.6
NA
NA
523.8
1,039.5
NA
NA
145.4
186.8
NA
NA
25.3
80.1
NA
NA
26.4
82.5
NA
NA
41.4
41.7
NA
NA
22.8
76.4
NA
NA
218.5
216.2
NA
NA
66.2
94.0
NA
NA
211.3
515.0
NA
218.0
4,604.8
6,895.2
8,220.0
2,230.0
1,335.4
2,071.7
2,580.5
7,936.0
3,476.0
955.0
617.0
927.0
1,195.0
274.0 6.5
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
The regional distribution of planned gross additions
to the reclaimed land networks during 1981-90, in
million hectares, are as follows:
RSFSR
3.3
3.7
Ukraine
1.0
1.3
Belorussia
0.11
0.95-0.97
Baltic republics
NA
1.6
Kazakhstan
0.82
Central Asia
1.3-1.5
NA
Transcaucasus
0.34
NA
These goals serve to document the leading role to be
played by the RSFSR in land reclamation during the
1980s. The drainage effort there is to focus primarily
on improvements in the nonchernozem zone. Else-
where, a substantial area of land drainage is planned
for the Baltic republics, Belorussia, and the adjacent
nonchernozem region of the Ukraine.
New irrigation development in the 1980s will also
emphasize installations planned for the RSFSR, par-
ticularly in the North Caucasus and the Volga re-
gions. The 2.2 million hectares of new irrigation
planned for Central Asia and Kazakhstan involve not
only smaller areas but also portend much smaller
rates of growth than those planned for the RSFSR
and the Ukraine. Least significant of all, in an area
sense, are plans for the further irrigation of lands in
the Transcaucasus.
Reclamation: Investments and Returns
Investments. Of a total of 287.4 billion rubles invested
to increase agricultural production in the USSR
during the period 1966-80, 75.7 billion rubles-or
slightly more than 26 percent-were earmarked for
Gross additions are the areas of newly irrigated and drained lands
reportedly placed into operation during respective periods (years).
In contrast, net additions are the differences in the size of irrigation
and drainage networks, based on the total areas reportedly existing
as of specific beginning and ending dates (years). Gross additions
exceed net increases by the extent that existing networks are
abandoned (fall into disrepair) or because development of newly
irrigated or drained tracts requires some overlapping or reconstruc-
reclamation (table 4).5 During the current planning
period, 1981-85, it is anticipated that another 39
billion rubles, about 29 percent of the total allocated
to agricultural production, will be similarly chan-
neled. While investment data for 1986-90 have not as
yet been released, it is clear that the successful
implementation of any of the projects already planned
or now under study will demand investments that are
of at least proportional magnitude.
A comparison of land reclamation investment with the
increase in land area reclaimed in the USSR reveals
that reclamation costs have escalated sharply in the
past two decades. Investment in land reclamation
during the years 1976-80 was 5.1 times greater than
in 1961-65, and 2.3 times greater than in 1966-70.
Meanwhile, between 1965 and 1980, the drainage
network area increased only 59 percent and the
irrigation network only 77 percent. Soviet data indi-
cate that investment per hectare (gross addition basis)
increased from 2,525 rubles in 1966-70 to 4,587
rubles in 1976-80, and such investment is expected to
reach 5,000 rubles per hectare in 1981-85. Calculated
on a net addition basis, investments per hectare in the
same periods amount to 8,671, 6,873, and 20,000
rubles, respectively.
Returns. The Soviets claim high returns for their
investments in reclaimed lands relative to those de-
rived from all USSR cropland (table 5). They state
that the aggregate value of output on the reclaimed
lands is equal to about one-third of the gross value of
all crops produced in the USSR. Moreover, according
to official Soviet data, crops grown on the reclaimed
lands comprise an estimated one-fifth of the net
output of all Soviet farms, that is, of all agricultural
commodities, crop or livestock, sold outside the agri-
cultural sector or consumed by farm worker house-
holds.'
' Investments that directly affect output of agricultural commod-
ities-such as farm machines and equipment, livestock raising
facilities, storage and repair buildings, new orchards, and land
reclamation-in contrast to so-called nonproductive improve-
ments-including farm worker housing, administration buildings,
roads, schools, and community facilities.
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Confidential
Table 4
USSR: Investments in Land Reclamation,
Compared With Other Investment Categories,
Selected Periods
1961-65
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
1981-85
Plan
Total economy
243.5
347.9
493.0
634.1
670.7
Agroindustrial complex
48.2
81.5
130.5
171.0
233.0
Agricultural sector
45.3
74.1
118.4
155.2
172.5
Productive investment
37.7
59.7
99.2
128.5
132.2
Land reclamation
6.7
15.0
26.2
34.5
38.6
Total economy
100
143
202
260
275
Agroindustrial complex
100
169
271
355
483
Agricultural sector
100
164
261
343
381
Productive investment
100
158
263
341
351
Land reclamation
100
224
391
515
576
Table 5
USSR: Gross Output per Unit of Labor and Investment
From Reclaimed and All Cropland, 1976-79
All Reclaimed Ratio: All Reclaimed Ratio:
Cropland Land Reclaimed to Cropland Land Reclaimed to
All Cropland All Cropland
Total--USSR--- NA NA NA 24 49 2.0
RSFSR 2.48 4.63 1.9 12 42 3.5
Ukraine 2.40 3.72 1.6 25 65 2.6
Belorussia 2.12 4.31 2.0 NA NA NA
Latvia 1.89 3.96 2.1 11 36 3.3
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Table 6
USSR: Returns From Irrigated, Drained, and Nonreclaimed
Agricultural Land, 1976-80 Annual Average
Ratio to Nonreclaimed Irrigated as a
Ratio to Drained
USSR average
792
204
RSFSR
460
145
4.2
1.3
698
1,535
Estonia
Uzbek
1,263
15.0
Kirgiz
597
6.7
Tadzik
Georgia
Armenia
According to Soviet calculations, the gross value of
production on irrigated land was 5.8 times that of
production on nonreclaimed lands during the period
1976-80 (table 6). The superior productivity of the
irrigated lands during this period, as measured by the
value of gross output, was due not only to higher
yields but also to the emphasis on producing crops of
high unit value. On the other hand, the crop mix on
the drained lands approximated that which prevailed
on adjacent unreclaimed lands, and their relative
advantage, in terms of value of output, was less
pronounced.
Assessment of the profitability of the USSR reclama-
tion program is complicated by Soviet costs and
returns seemingly assigned arbitrarily and evaluations
consistently based on gross rather than net returns.
Given full allocation of all production costs, including
reclamation, it is probable that returns from produc-
tion on the returned lands would not compensate all of
the inputs involved. Furthermore, the rate of return,
even by Soviet admission, is also slowing; the recovery
of investment in land reclamation, at one time offi-
cially claimed possible in 5 to 6 years, now requires 9
to I1 years.
In the USSR the rate of recovery of investment is
accorded less attention than is the achievement of
agricultural self-sufficiency, particularly as the latter
pertains to the provision of specialized food crops,
technical crops, and feed crops and forage essential to
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Confidential
Table 7
USSR: Planned 1985 Reclaimed Land Production
Compared With 1965 and 1980 Levels
Total grain
5.0
16.5
Wheat
NA
5.2
Corn
0.5
3.0
Rice
0.6
2.8
Other
NA
5.6
Cotton, raw
5.7
10.0
Sugar beets
5.6
Soybeans
Vegetables h
NA
5.6
12.7
Fruits
0.5
1.5
Grapes
0.9
2.4
Forage crops, feed units
8.2
42.6
Quantities are estimated according to Soviet press statements.
Excluding private plot production.
Quantity
25.6
1.5 to 1.6 times 1980 level
8.0
55-percent increase over 1980
6.0
Double 1980 level
3.0
Further development of output
8.6
55-percent increase over 1980
NA
NA
NA
Average 9.2 million during 1981-85; to produce
more fine staple cotton
63.9
the stabilization of output in the livestock sector.'
When viewed from these perspectives, which reflect
the preoccupation of the USSR on the reduction of its
agricultural imports, the potential of the Soviet recla-
mation program-particularly the development of
irrigation-seems good when compared to the less
certain promise afforded by competing agricultural
proposals! Hence, Soviet emphasis on land reclama-
tion appears, on balance, to be both necessary and
justified. Despite complications that will afflict the
effort and undoubtedly prevent the timely achieve-
ment of all that is planned, significant progress in
draining and irrigating unused land may be expected
in the USSR during this decade.
Production Plans. Projected increases in production
on reclaimed lands during the 1980s will stress the
output of grain and forage. Indeed, by 1990 the
Grain and forage crops, including astures rovide more than 90
percent of all USSR livestock feed. ~~
output of all livestock feed from reclaimed lands is to
double the 1976-80 level. The emphasis of these crops
evolves out of Soviet plans to expand and stabilize
livestock feed supplies. Although all specific goals for
the entire decade are not available, they are generally
suggested by announced production plans through
1985 (table 7). By 1985 the reclaimed lands are
expected to produce about 26 million tons of grain,
some 9 million tons more than in 1980; apparently,
another 9-million-ton increase is expected by 1990.
The output of irrigated corn is to double by 1985,
thereby increasing its share of all grain output in
reclaimed land to 23.4 percent, compared with 14.7
percent in the 1976-80 period (tables 8 and 9). By 25X1
1990 the all-USSR output of corn is to double, to 20
million tons, largely by replacing other grains with
corn on irrigated land. Because of the relatively low
official prices established for grain and forage crops,
compared with the high per unit value assigned
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Table 8
USSR: Production From Reclaimed Lands,
Annual Average, Selected Periods
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
All grain
2,563
4,444
6,472
4,118
6,536
10,078
6,681
10,980
16,549
Wheat
674
1,222
1,630
1,956
2,528
3,595
2,630
3,750
5,225
Corn a
Rice a
Rye
Barley
Other
Potatoes
Vegetables
1,501 2,017 2,827 4,893 4,833 5,248
29 47 63
Table 9
USSR: Crops From Reclaimed Lands,
Selected Periods, Percent of All USSR Output
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
Total grain
1.5
2.4
3.2
2.5
3.6
4.9
4.0
6.0
8.1
Wheat
0.7
1.4
1.6
2.2
2.8
3.6
2.9
4.2
5.2
Corn a
Rice a
Rye
Sunflower seeds a
0.5
0.8
1.2
Cotton, raw a
100.0
100.0
100.0
Flax, fiber
5.3
9.1
15.8
a Not grown on drained land.
b Excluding private plot production.
Not grown on irrigated land.
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97ROO694ROO0200790001-2
Confidential
Table 10
Comparison of Crop Yields,
Selected Periods, Annual Average
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
1966-70
1971-75
1976-80
Total grain
13.7
14.7
16.0
19.1
25.4
31.5
19.6
23.6
23.3
Wheat, winter
19.6
22.5
24.7
21.6
23.0
23.4
NA
NA
NA
Corn, grain a
27.2
28.2
32.2
27.0
36.5
48.0
Rice a
33.3
38.6
39.3
33.3
38.6
39.3
Other grain
12.1
12.6
13.7
8.9
15.7
20.8
Cotton a
24.1
27.3
29.3
24.1
27.3
29.3
Sugar beets
228.0
217.0
237.0
327.0
313.0
310.0
NA
NA
NA
Potatoes
115.0
113.0
117.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
130.0
Vegetables
132.0
138.0
153.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
161.0
specialty crops, the increase in value of output on the
reclaimed lands will be limited. Nevertheless, the
need for more livestock feed is an urgent problem that
must be addressed.
Soviet expectations for greater production on irrigated
and drained lands are boosted by the yield records
(table 10). The per hectare output of irrigated grain
increased 65 percent from 1966 to 1980, compared to
the 19-percent increase recorded for grain on drained
lands and a 17-percent increase for all USSR grain.
Most significantly, the 1976-80 irrigated corn crop
yield was 50 percent greater than the all-USSR corn
yield, 70 percent above the yield of irrigated wheat,
and 2.3 times the yield of other irrigated grain. These
differences suggest how output might increase if corn
were to be widely substituted for other irrigated
grains.
Specialty crops will continue to receive priority alloca-
tion of choice lands and other resources, but their
share of the total area of reclaimed land will remain
small. Because Soviet interests are focused more on
improving the quality (length and strength of fiber)
than the quantity of cotton, no increase in cotton
production is planned.
The Soviets would like to produce more rice, but to do
so would require expansion of the cultivated hectarage
in southern areas, where the water is already in short
supply. Hence, increased output of this valuable crop, 25X1
which amounted to 2.3 million tons per annum in the
period 1976-80, will depend primarily on improving
yields on lands already in production. Nevertheless,
the Soviets anticipate that rice output will exceed the
annual average for the period 1976-80 by 20 percent
in 1985 and 40 percent in 1990.
At present, almost all of the Soviet crop of soybeans,
typically totaling about 0.5 million tons, is grown on
the drained lands in the southernmost regions of the
Far East. A desired gradual extension of the crop into
the irrigated areas of Central Asia (mainly southern
Kazakhstan), the Crimea, and the Kuban will require
revisions in soybean growing technology and is handi- 25X1
capped by limited water supplies in these areas. In
recent years, to offset the shortfall in indigenous
production of vegetable oils for human food and of
high protein oilseed meals for livestock feed, soybean
imports have been four times as great as domestic
production. 25X1
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97ROO694ROO0200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Soviet plans for sugar beet production provide for only
a slight expansion of the crop on the irrigated lands in
the European USSR. This plan reflects Soviet deci-
sions to continue sugar imports and to produce more
sweeteners domestically by corn starch hydrolysis.
Also slated for development in the 1980s are special-
ized seed farms on the irrigated lands of the south.
Success in seed development, which has been long
neglected in the USSR, could contribute importantly
to the stabilization and expansion of agricultural
production throughout the USSR. Progress will be
slow, however, because of the poor organization and
administration of plant breeding and seed growing
efforts overall.
Outlook for the 1980s and Beyond
Past Soviet performance suggests that reclamation
plans for the 1980s will probably not be completely
fulfilled. Expansion and improvement of reclaimed
land fell far short of the 1976-80 plan, and drainage
work, which should be completed under the current
plan, is already seriously behind schedule. Further-
more, prospects for irrigation, particularly in the
south, are hampered by a growing scarcity of water
resources. Even in European areas-such as Rostov
Oblast and Krasnodar Kray-local water reserves are
virtually exhausted. We also believe that the persist-
ent lag between original investment and ultimate
increases in production on reclaimed lands in the
USSR will probably continue. Only 28.7 million of
the 34.3 million hectares of the available reclaimed
land are currently being used, largely because of
inadequate inputs of fertilizer, pesticides, and machin-
ery (table 11). Soviet failure to modernize overall
farming practices is restricting yields on reclaimed
lands to a greater degree than on most other farm-
lands. Fundamental improvements in Soviet agrotech-
nology, however, are not likely to occur before the end
of this decade.
Current Constraints on the Reclaimed Lands
Program. Despite generous financial inputs, escalat-
ing costs continue to hamper the improvement and
expansion of irrigated and drained land in the USSR.
For example, current drainage techniques involve
more than cutting open ditches through marshy lands.
Most drainage is effected by the installation of buried
tile, which is relatively expensive to procure and
install. Moreover, tiles do not completely eliminate
the necessity for supplemental surface drainage facili-
ties. Although the share of the drained lands served
by buried tile increased from 19 to 53 percent be-
tween the years 1965 and 1981, almost half of the
existing network has yet to be improved.
The need to reconstruct the existing irrigation net-
work in many areas also demands large inputs of
capital. Seepage and evaporation from open and
unlined canals, particularly in Central Asia and the
Transcaucasus, cause the loss of as much as one-half
of the water diverted to crops. At the same time, flat
terrain makes it difficult to install drainage collection
canals-essential to lowering the water table and
facilitating the removal of harmful salts. Further-
more, the reconstruction of existing systems-by lin-
ing the canals with cement, improving the control
gates and distribution laterals, and adding drain
collectors-often requires idling the irrigation net-
work while the work is in progress.
Long-Term Water Requirements. The implementa-
tion of reclamation plans is complicated by the neces-
sity to acquire large amounts of additional water,
particularly in areas south of the European RSFSR
and in Central Asia. In these areas the need is
growing for water to satisfy municipal and industrial
needs as well as agricultural requirements. The situa-
tion is particularly acute in Central Asia, which
annually consumes some 143.2 km' of water. In some
years consumption there exceeds the supply of renew-
able water available, and when that happens there is
an inevitable drawdown of reservoirs, an increased
recycling of drainage waters, and limited or no water-
ing of crops other than cotton. The Soviets calculate
that their southern European and Central Asian
territories each now need 20 km' of diverted water per
year and over a longer term will need an additional 30
to 40 km' per year. Ultimately, they state, it will be
necessary to divert more than 200 km' of Siberian
water into Central Asia alone
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Table 11
USSR: Utilization of Reclaimed Lands,
Selected Years
Total
Agricultural lands
used by agricultural
enterprises e
Natural mead-
ows and pas-
tures
Orchards and
vineyards
Private farming
plots
Cultivated for-
age crops
Potatoes, vege-
tables, melons
1965
Percent of
Total
1975
Percent of
Total
1980
Percent of
Total
10,600
100.0
13,652
100.0
16,851
100.0
7,150
67.5
9,561
70.0
12,039
71.4
3,486
32.9
4,429
32.4
5,252
31.2
62
0.6
46
0.3
50
0.3
104
1.0
137
1.0
167
1.0
1,431
13.5
2,329
17.1
3,012
17.9
227
2.1
271
2.0
334
2.0
1965
Percent of
Total
1975
Percent of
Total
1980
Percent of
Total
9,897
100.0
14,486
100.0
17,487
100.0
9,270
93.7
13,736
94.8
16,643
95.2
526
5.3
837
5.8
1,068
6.1
889
9.0
1,049
7.2
1,213
6.9
448
4.5
489
3.4
507
2.9
1,772
17.9
3,756
25.9
5,925
33.9
617
6.2
896
6.2
1,052
6.0
Total includes tilled fallow lands not planted but excludes inter-
row and double cropping. For this reason, and also because of
rounding, the sum of the individual uses does not equal the total
used.
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Confidential
Long-Term Proposals. The satisfaction of such re-
quirements has fostered the proposal of a number of
projects. One of them envisions tapping the Neva,
Onega, Severnaya Dvina (Sukhona), Pechora, and
other streams to enhance the flow of the Volga River
(figure 2). Also under discussion is the rerouting of
water from the Danube to enhance irrigation in
Moldavia. Most grandiose of all is the proposal to
redirect southward some part of the Ob and Irtysh
and, eventually, part of the Yenesey. In this plan, Ob-
Irtysh waters would be diverted from just below the
confluence of the two rivers and raised some 100
meters in elevation-via a series of pumping stations
along a diversion canal-to bring them through the
Turgay Gate. From there they will flow by gravity
into Central Asia. Siberian water would be used for
new irrigation in the Turan Depression, and eventual-
ly some of it is to be used to water crops in semitropi-
cal Turkmenistan some 2,000 kilometers from the
point of diversion. The conclusion of this work is
allegedly the key to completion of the 1,100-kilometer
Karakum irrigation and navigation canal across Turk-
Siberian waters to Central Asia. Nevertheless, diver-
sion work could be initiated before the turn of the
century.
menistan.
While the Soviet dialogue on river diversion has
continued for decades without notable progress, con-
struction on "first-stage" projects in the northern
European USSR has apparently been initiated with
the expectation that some flow might be diverted near
the end of this decade. In the first stage, diversion of
about 5.8 km' of water per year is planned from Lakes
Lacha, Vozhe, and Kubenskoye near the upper
reaches of the Sukhona and Onega Rivers; later 3.5
km' is to be diverted from Lake Onega; and finally,
about 9 to 10 km' per year from the Pechora Basin.
About 5.5 km' will be transferred from the Volga, via
a new canal beginning somewhat north of Volgograd,
to roughly double the flow and irrigated area of the
Don. Construction on the new canal is to be started by
1985. Another proposed canal will supply water to
southern areas of Rostov oblast and the northern parts
of Krasnodar Kray.
Siberian project proposals are still being debated, and
it is probable that little more than the refinement of
plans and designs will be effected during this decade.
Impacting on the proposals is the growing pressure to
further develop existing local irrigation potential be-
fore assuming the inherently high cost of diverting
The outcome of Soviet river diversion proposals is still
highly uncertain. The key question is how much of the
diverted flow will be available for crops in southern
regions after the expected severe losses en route.
Diversion would allow expansion of irrigation beyond
what is otherwise possible, but costs will be exhorbi-
tant, if not prohibitive, in relation to Soviet invest-
ment capability, the likely benefits to be derived, and
other alternatives to the development of agriculture.
The presumed extent of adverse ecological effects is a
lesser concern, provided the proposed designs are not
compromised. Claims of possible widespread ecologi-
cal changes because of Siberian stream diversion are
countered by assertions that the impact of diversion
will be less adverse than the consequences of natural
fluctuations in river flow. Concerns over river diver-
sion in the European USSR focus on the existing
pollution of some of the water to be diverted. Ques-
tions also are being raised about the problems that 25X1
might result from ground water seepage along the
diversion routes in both regions.
USSR expectations of benefits to be derived from
river reversal are nevertheless optimistic. Transferring
20 km' into the Volga Basin, the Soviets claim, would
allow the irrigation of up to 4.5 million hectares.
However, considerable improvement in the efficiency
of water use is essential if that amount of water is to
properly irrigate an area that large. Claimed benefits
for Siberian water diversion are also inconsistent with
projected uses of water. An initial transfer of 25 km'
allegedly would add 25-30 million tons of grain
(primarily corn), and the diversion of 60 km' would
add 50-60 million tons.' Achieving even one-half of
the projected output would require a significantly
greater efficiency of water use than now prevails. F_
In comparison, average annual production of all Soviet grain
during 1976-80 was 205 million tons; the 1981-85 and 1986-90
plans call for output to increase to 238-243 million tons and 250-
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Figure 2
Proposed Diversion of Northward-Flowing Rivers
4wt Flow of diverted water
Dam or dike
= Canal
Pumping station
Reservoir
Tselinograd
? Karaganda
T irgay
Gars
Indian claim
.e _4
Cease-Fire Lm'
Chinese line
of control
L-~ India
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Confidential
Moreover, Soviet cost projections for these projects
are tentative at best and apparently understated. The
first-stage European diversion (20 km3) is estimated by
Soviet authorities to require at least several billion
rubles, whereas the required investment for the first
stage of the Siberian transfer (25 km') has been
estimated at 15-30 billion rubles. At the same time
reclamation experts in Central Asia claim that the
reconstruction of existing facilities there would proba-
bly cost at least 10 billion rubles, take 30 years to
complete, remove large amounts of land from irriga-
tion for up to two years, and yet result in saving only
2.5 to 4.0 km' of water per year.
Conclusions
Full achievement of Soviet reclamation plans during
the 1980-90 period, including the irrigation or drain-
age of 7-10 million hectares of land, the completion of
plans and designs for the Siberian river diversion
project, and the construction of parts of the European
USSR river diversion project, is unlikely. These pro-
grams, by Soviet admission, are already well behind
schedule, largely because of incomplete or untimely
funding, unrealistic scheduling, nonfulfillment of crit-
ical resource inputs, and the failure of the Ministry of
Land Reclamation and Water Resources to properly
coordinate its work. Nevertheless it is presumed that
Soviet pursuit of other agricultural policies, including
the increase and stabilization of farm output, the
improvement of regional self-sufficiency in agricul-
tural production, and the reduction of USSR depend-
ency on imports, will continue to drive the effort and
ultimately add to the national store of reclaimed land.
But additions of land thus derived, even if they prove
to be larger than we now anticipate, will not alone
assure either the level or stability of output that the
USSR now seeks.
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
 Confidential
Confidential
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2
Approved For Release 2008/02/15: CIA-RDP97R00694R000200790001-2