Macro-Economic Overview of ECO Countries
2002-2003
CONTENTS
Pages
Foreword
Introduction
Production and Growth
Inflation and Exchange rate
Trade Balance, Exports and Imports
Foreign Direct Investment and External Debt
Prospects for the ECO Regional Economy in 2004-2005
ECO Countries Key Indicators 2003
1-2
3-5
5-11
11-15
15-23
23-27
27-29
TABLE-1
TABLE-2
TABLE-3
TABLE-4
TABLE-5
TABLE-6
TABLE-7
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
43-44
45
45
46
47-48
POPULATION
POPULATION GROWTH RATE
TOTAL LABOUR FORCE
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
GDP at CURRENT PRICES
GDP Per CAPITA
GDP GROWTH RATE
TABLE-8 COMPOSITION OF GDP BY SECTORS
TABLE-9 PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUES
TABLE-10 SHARE OF TAXES IN PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUES
TABLE-11 PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURES
TABLE-12 TOTAL FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT
TABLE-13 AVERAGE INFLATION RATE
TABLE-14 TOTAL PRODUCTION OF ENERGY
TABLE-15 TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY
TABLE-16 TOTAL LENGTH OF RAILWAYS
TABLE-17 NET TON-KILOMETERS CARRIED BY RAILWAYS
TABLE-18 TOTAL LENGTH OF ASPHALTED ROADS
TABLE-19 NUMBER OF HOSPITAL BEDS PER 10,000 POPULATION
TABLE-20 NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS PER 10,000 POPULATION
TABLE-21 ADULT LITERACY RATE
TABLE-22 NUMBER OF INCOMING TOURISTS
TABLE-23 ECO COUNTRIES TOTAL EXTERNAL TRADE
TABLE-24 ECO INTRA-REGIONAL TRADE
TABLE-25 TOTAL EXTERNAL DEBT
TABLE-26 EXTERNAL DEBT/GDP
TABLE-27 EXCHANGE RATE: ANNUAL AVERAGE
References
FOREWORD
This brief publication is prepared to provide snapshots of the recent macroeconomic developments and future prospects, particularly in each ECO member state,
and generally in the ECO region to highlight areas for a strengthened regional economic
cooperation. It also includes “ECO Countries Key Indicators 2003” presenting the most
current available economic, financial, and social data on the ECO member countries
during 1996-2002. The data series of ECO Countries Key Indicators 2003 are compiled
from three major sources, namely, the ECO Secretariat database, the member countries of
ECO, and regional and international organizations/agencies. Hence, although exclusive
attempts are made to present the data obtained from member countries, however,
considering the highlighting data limitations, gaps, inconsistencies, lack of
harmonization, and age of data revealed to obtain data from international agencies as
well.
Regional cooperation constituted one of the most important pillars of ECO
countries’ development. The amazing pace of development in communications and
information technologies and transfer of international capital without recognizing borders
have all contributed to the process of globalization and lead interdependency and mutual
solidarity became more necessary. At the global level which is involved in shaping and
even creating new phenomena would show that even the big economies are seeking
shelters within various economic regional grouping and blocks such as NAFTA, SAARC,
EFTA, EU, ASEAN, APEC, etc. This situation of course is, then, a reflection of the
global atmosphere where small economic entities are finding it extremely difficult to
survive in a highly competitive atmosphere. In this direction, ECO provides a unique
opportunity for the member states to overcome, to a certain degree, the challenges, and
repercussions of globalization and needs to further develop its relations within the
framework of regional economic cooperation. Moreover, cooperation at the regional level
is the bridge between national realities and global priorities. Regional cooperation plays
such a critical role because the actors involved in global processes occupied highly
unequal positions. Hence, regional action allows the voice of smaller countries to be
heard within the global order.
Sustainable development within the ECO region shall be defined, as development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs. ECO countries call for improving the quality of life for all the
region's people without increasing the use of natural resources beyond the region's
carrying capacity. At this point, efforts to spur mutually reinforcing and enduring
economic liberalization and strengthen cooperation for regional policies that are apt for
sustainable way of life in the region require the integration of action in four key areas:
economic growth and equity; transport infrastructure development; utilization of natural
resources cost-effectively; trade and social development. For the land-locked member
countries of ECO and with economies in transition and developing, regional cooperation,
offer assistance to respond to the challenges of globalization. It also provides avenues for
the use of the limited resources of the countries in the region and the integration of those
countries into the global economy. In this perspective it is appealed that the international
donor community to be more attentive and responsive to this regional context.
1
ECO countries represent a region of superlatives. It is vast about 8 million square
kilometers (twice the size of European Union) and populated with 370 million inhabitants
sharing common cultures. Exceptionally region is rich in natural endowments and
situated in a geographic position, which affords special opportunities and poses unique
challenges. ECO is a heterogeneous group of countries in terms of being under diverse
socio-economic achievements. For over a decade Azerbaijan, and Central Asian countries
of former Soviet republics namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan have been striving to carry out market and structural reforms. On the other
hand, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey can be classified as developing countries. The average
GDP per capita in the ECO countries in 2002 was fairly below the world’s average of
5,202 US$ dollars, which varies from 174 US dollars in Afghanistan to 2,608 US$ dollars
in Turkey. Both the developing and transition economies of ECO have been carrying out
the restructuring programmes to move towards more liberal economic systems. The
existence of free and open market relations in the region requires that certain conditions
be maintained. Several issues require policy attention, including ways to maintain sound
macroeconomic fundamentals and implement ongoing reforms in the region.
Nevertheless, ECO countries as a group are growing faster than the global economy as
well as some other groups of countries. Progress is being made on both fronts as can be
seen in the declining rates of inflation, lower fiscal deficits and improved current account
positions. Although economic growth in ECO region is projected to settle to more
sustainable rates in 2004-2005, oil and gas sector and intraregional trade and strong
consumer demand will remain a major driver of growth in ECO region over the next
2 years. Progressively, the whole of the region will benefit from the dynamism in
intraregional trade. Overall, confidence is high in the economic outlook for the region.
Considering the large number of people requesting accessing information on ECO
member states and the role of ECO Secretariat in disseminating reliable information on
the region, it is hoped that this study providing a general view in terms of macroeconomic situation in the ECO region would be of interest and useful for the readers. I
am confident that the study will serve as an additional impetus for further constructive
activities of all parties concerned for the good of ECO region and its people. The member
states, as well as general readers are welcome to provide any relevant information for the
further improvement of this publication.
Tehran, August 2004
Askhat Orazbay
Secretary General
1. Introduction
After growth of less than 2 percent for over two years, the world economy gained
momentum in 2003. Following the war in Iraq, which made oil prices more volatile and
outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in early 2003, economic growth in
an increasing number of countries shifted to a measurably higher gear in the second half
of the year, raising the growth of gross world product (GWP) for 2003 as a whole to 2.5
percent. Despite some lingering uncertainties and downside a risk, the economic recovery
2
is expected to strengthen and broaden further, raising global economic growth to 3.2
percent in 2004. The growth of world trade is expected to reach 7.5 percent in 2004, up
from 4.7 percent in 2003. The improved performance and outlook does not, however,
compensate for the subdued growth of the previous two years when world per capita
output failed to increase.
The global economy, including the ECO region, showed considerable strength in
2003. Indeed, estimates suggest that regional GDP growth in 2003 will exceed the
performance in 2002 (7.3 percent). Inflationary pressures have risen only slightly, despite
higher commodity prices and volatility in the energy markets, as a result, monetary
authorities virtually across the region have been able to maintain an environment of low
interest rates. Buoyant global growth, already reflected in rising stock markets, is adding
to business and consumer confidence and should translate into higher corporate
investment activities in the region, thus providing a platform for faster growth in the
medium term.
The ECO region is geographically vast and well endowed with potential
economic resources in different sectors, such as agriculture and arable land, energy and
mining, human resources, and a vast strategic trading constituency. Yet, this inherent
potential does not manifest itself in the form of reasonable levels of economic and social
development in the ECO countries as a group. Despite many unfavourable factors, the
economies of the region displayed impressive resilience since 2000. The economies of
the member states were slightly affected by the global downturn in 2001 but GDP growth
picked up in the region in 2002 and 2003. This was mainly on account of the recovery of
Turkey from negative growth in 2001 and higher growth in Pakistan and the Iran.
Concurrently, in other member states of ECO after the setbacks associated with their
transition economies have achieved sound growth for a number of consecutive years. The
already high rates of growth prevailing in countries such as Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and
Turkmenistan went up further in 2003. Kazakhstan continued to make progress in
developing its energy resources and maintained its robust growth of recent years and
Kyrgyzstan emerged smartly from negative growth while Uzbekistan improved upon its
somewhat modest growth rate in 2002. Moreover, Afghanistan is also in progress to
experience strong growth owing to the stimuli from reconstruction efforts, the resumption
of agricultural growth, and the implementation of sound economic policies.
Growth in the region was achieved on the back of growing investor and consumer
confidence that attracted, enhanced external capital to resource-rich economies and
facilitated greater macroeconomic stability, particularly exchange rate stability, as
production increased and inflation declined virtually in most of the economies of the
region.
Nevertheless, core development challenge within the region is to ensure
productive work and a much better quality of life for almost 370 million inhabitants. On
the other hand, significant achievements in economic and human welfare in ECO
countries as measured by average human development indicators should be
acknowledged. In hindsight, the region has displayed considerable resilience in dealing
with the 1997-1998 crisis and in meeting the challenges it posed in both economic and
3
social fields. The implied shortfall in output in the region translates into lower levels of
job creation and, through reduced tax yields, new pressures on government budgets. The
2001-2002 slowdown provided another opportunity to fashion new policy responses to
promote growth in 2003 and, for the region as a whole, to resume its pace of economic
and social development. The immediate policy challenge, therefore, is to regain and
sustain the momentum of growth in the region. A point to emphasize is that sustaining the
momentum of growth is necessary not merely for its own sake but to provide
Governments with the resources to address emerging social issues and problems and
alleviate poverty and social distress progressively through the higher levels of
employment made possible by durable growth.
ECO as a developing region has to manage to grow at a reasonable pace thus far
through a combination of supportive domestic policies and greater international and
intraregional trade. Sustaining growth in the region would depend on stimulating
domestic demand. In other words, the growth stimulus from a rebound in world trade and
hence from net exports is likely to be moderate among the ECO countries over the next
years. In particular, much will depend on the course of commodity and energy prices over
the coming months. The economic rebound in late 2002, combined with domestic
policies, was expected to lead to a higher pace of growth in the region.
On the other hand, it has to be recognized, too, that reforms are an essential,
continuing process that needs to be securely anchored in a realistic framework of
development strategies in ECO countries. Ten years have passed since the ECO member
countries of which Central Asia and Azerbaijan embarked on the transition from a
command economy to the establishment of a market system. Over the past decade, two
general patterns of transition have materialized. Rapid liberalization, progress in largescale privatization and sustained macroeconomic stabilization has been coupled with
progressive structural reform and institutional change. However, the transition process is
not yet complete as they continue to struggle to implement macroeconomic stabilization,
basic institutional, and policy reforms. The combination of regional and country
programmes would help these different stages of transition and challenges to overcome
by these countries of the region. On the domestic front, given the higher or rising levels
of public debt in many member countries, a fundamental question is the degree to which
fiscal stimulus can be maintained over the medium term without running the risk of
getting caught in the debt trap, a situation where debt starts to grow faster than the means
to service it. The issue of fiscal sustainability arises in most of the ECO member
economies, including those where the budget deficits have historically existed for some
time and where public debt, as a ratio of GDP, has risen to a high level. This rising
incidence of domestic macroeconomic imbalances may presage increase of risks in
regional financial markets in 2004, affecting business and consumer confidence alike.
Furthermore, ECO countries need to remain strongly committed to
macroeconomic prudence, good governance, and flexibility in day-to-day economic
management and be alert to unforeseen dangers. Simultaneously, Governments must
facilitate structural change to enable their economies to maintain competitiveness in a
globalizing world economy. For the long term, the greatest challenges for the ECO
countries in particular emanate from meeting the Millennium Development Goals and
4
agreements on sustainable development reached at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002)
2. Production and Growth
Output accelerated in most countries in the region in 2003 as compared with the
previous year. The ongoing reform of policies and structures implemented by ECO
member states, particularly those which are in economies in transition bolstered
consumer and investor confidence, thus sustaining inward external resource transfers
(both private and public) and steady growth in domestic demand. The agricultural sector
plays an important role in income and employment generation, and hence in poverty
reduction in the economies of the region. However, it is still primarily dependent on
weather conditions owing to insufficient irrigation and drainage facilities.
Looking to the economies of the ECO member states, individually, massive FDI
inflows to Azerbaijan for the development of oil and gas resources were the main
stimulus to economic growth, with GDP going up by more than 11 percent in 2003
compared to 10.6 percent in 2002. There was a healthy expansion in industrial output of
6.1 percent during 2003 although that was confined mainly to the oil and gas sectors.
Higher production of oil, gas, energy, and water, in turn, helped to lower energy imports
in 2003. Agricultural output in 2003 was constrained by lack of credit for farmers and
investment in agricultural infrastructure. Domestic production of agricultural machinery
and the promotion of agricultural exports are among the focal areas of government policy
in the country.
Afghanistan is in the process of rebuilding its economy, particularly agriculture,
energy, housing, education, and export-related industries as part of its efforts to feed the
population, create jobs, attract foreign investment, and earn desperately needed hard
currency. GDP growth was estimated to reach 29.0 percent (or about US$ 4 billion in real
terms) in fiscal year 2002-2003, as a result of international assistance and spending and a
robust expansion of agricultural production (excluding the illicit cultivation and
production of opium and its derivatives). Total output was expected to rise by a further 20
percent in the following fiscal year. Agriculture, owing to higher rainfall as well as the
increased availability and better quality of seeds, fertilizer, and other inputs with a
relative share of about 52 percent of GDP was a source of employment of three quarters
of the population in fiscal year 2002-2003. Total cereal production (consisting of wheat,
barley, maize and rice) went up by over four fifths, to 3.6 million tons. Output of
premium export crops such as raisins, fruits, and walnuts recovered strongly, although
that of several agro-products (including livestock and orchard and plantation items)
would take longer to reach pre-conflict levels. Agricultural production remained on a
strong upward trend in fiscal year 2003-2004 as well, with cereal production rising by 50
percent to 5.4 million tons, although further increases in output will require considerable
investment in repairing and rehabilitating irrigation facilities.
Industry accounted for 24.1 percent of GDP, while the service sector, which
contributed less than a quarter of GDP, expanded by 15.5 percent in fiscal year 20022003. The impact of international assistance has been most visible in the construction and
service sectors in the wake of an improving security situation and the return of numerous
5
refugees to reclaim their former homes. There was also a rapid rise in the manufacturing
of cement, beverages, and bottled water and in retail trade, while the carpet-weaving
industry is being restored and nurtured. Large-scale private investment has been limited
to telecommunication and the rehabilitation and new construction of hotels. In this
context, a significant and sustained increase in private investment would require a
market-oriented regulatory framework, as well as a functioning legal and banking system.
In Kazakhstan, GDP growth of more than 9.2 percent in 2003 was driven largely
by higher industrial production (which expanded by almost 9 percent in 2003) and
positive impact of continued institutional and banking reforms and strong inflows of FDI,
foreign trade earnings, latter consisting largely of oil and gas products. For example, oil
production was expected to increase from 47 million tons in 2002 to 52 million tons in
2003 and further to 61 million tons in 2005, and this upward trend was mirrored by a
sharp rise in export value, by 33.4 percent in 2003. Oil revenues alone directly made up
more than a quarter of the country’s GDP and a more diversified economy remained a
policy priority for Kazakhstan. Engineering plants were also restructured to better serve
the booming oil, gas industry, and other construction projects. The agricultural sector,
which provided employment for around 35 percent of the labour force, thus remained the
second-largest employer. Agricultural output grew by 1 percent in 2003. The grain
harvest, at 15 million tons, was expected to be lower than in 2002 because of adverse
weather conditions. Agricultural development was one of the main priority areas in
Kazakhstan, where a new Land Code, introduced in 2003, provided for the institution of
private ownership of agricultural land.
Considering the size of the GDP, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are the smallest
economies of the region. Kyrgyzstan showed a contraction in GDP in 2002. In fact, GDP
growth declined marginally from 5.3 percent in 2001 to -0.5 percent in 2002, a setback
due largely to a decline of more than 13 percent in industrial production. Agricultural
output could not offset the slackening activities as it went up by 3 percent in 2002, owing
in part to insufficient liquidity for agricultural producers. Economic growth was
constrained by a slowdown in market-oriented reforms and industrial restructuring, postprivatization reforms in the agricultural sector and the after-effects of a monetary
squeeze. However, GDP expanded by 6.7 percent in 2003, due largely recovery of
industrial production (by 17 percent), with the most dynamic sectors being manufacturing
activities and electricity generation. The manufacturing upturn, in turn, was driven by
significant growth in food processing and light industrial output. Gold mining was also
recovering from the crisis of 2002. By contrast, there was a marginal growth in
agricultural output (by 4 percent) due to the bad weather conditions and other constraints
associated with inadequate agricultural reform. In particular, the expected decrease in
grain harvests affected the food situation in the country during 2003.
The GDP of Tajikistan went up by 9.5 percent in 2002 compared with 2001.
Industrial production, up by 8.0 percent over the same period, benefited from the
continued growth in the aluminium sector. This sector had accounted for up to 60 percent
of industrial output in previous years and for more than half of the country’s total export
earnings. Agricultural output increased by almost 10.6 percent in 2002, making it the
fastest-growing economic sector. GDP growth in Tajikistan was sustained at a high rate,
6
10.2 percent in 2003 and industrial production went up by more than 10 percent. In
particular, there was a considerable increase in the production of consumer goods, which
resulted in double-digit growth of retail trade turnover (by 24.5 percent in 2003). Rising
real wages in Tajikistan boosted consumer demand and contributed to the recovery of
domestic production, while better irrigation and the improved availability of inputs were
behind the record harvest of cotton and a good wheat crop in 2003. The cotton output, for
example, was up by 14 percent. However, the growth prospects in Tajikistan were
somewhat constrained by low levels of capital investment and relatively large deficits in
the external current accounts.
Driven by the continued expansion of the oil and gas sector and a boom in
construction, the GDP of Turkmenistan went up by 19.8 percent in 2002. In 2002, value
added by the various sectors of GDP went up by 17-19 percent. Meanwhile, in
Turkmenistan, GDP growth was expected to speed up further to 23.1 percent in 2003
owing mainly to raising output in the leading sectors, namely, hydrocarbons, and cotton.
Within the industrial sector, priority was accorded to developing the oil and gas sector,
construction activities, and textile manufacturing. Hydrocarbons remained the principal
engine of economic growth in Turkmenistan and energy-based activities have received
the bulk of both State and foreign investment over the last few years. The agricultural
sector met the production target of 2.3 million tons of wheat, a record grain harvest, in
2002. However, the cotton crop was poor owing to adverse weather conditions. Only
about 0.5 million tons of cotton, or a quarter of the planned target, had been harvested by
November 2002. Construction activities were another important source of production
growth, however, while a harvest of 2.5 million tons of grain in 2003 contributed to food
self-sufficiency.
Uzbekistan recorded steady economic progress, with GDP growing by 4.2
percent during 2002. The expansion was driven by higher industrial production, by
almost 8.5 percent, and agricultural output, by over 6 percent. In particular, the grain
harvest increased from 4 million tons in 2001 to 5.3 million tons in 2002. GDP in
Uzbekistan was expected to expand marginally, to 4.4 percent in 2003. A slight decline in
the growth rate of industrial production to 6.2 percent was recorded in 2003. There was a
moderate growth in agricultural output in 2003 although the grain harvest still exceeded
domestic demand. However, the main export earner and the largest source of employment
in the country, the cotton sector, faced considerable difficulties such as a shortage of
credit and adverse weather conditions in the spring of 2003. A new agricultural contract
system was expected to be introduced in Uzbekistan in 2004 to improve market-based
management and incentive structures, among other objectives. The new system also
envisaged the transformation of all collective farms and other agricultural units into a
system of leases. Services comprised the fastest-expanding sector, growing by more than
12.7 percent in 2002. To foster greater private activities and services, measures have been
introduced to crack down on interference by local officials in the operations of small and
medium-sized businesses and to lighten their tax burden. In response, all light industrial
enterprises with foreign investment were exempted from all taxes, except VAT until the
beginning of 2005, so as to enable them to upgrade and modernize their technologies and
expand consumer goods production.
7
Development at the side of larger economies of the ECO region, Turkey has been
experiencing relatively sharp swings in economic production in the recent past. The
economy contracted by 7.5 percent in 2001 as a result of the massive earthquakes and
financial crisis of 2000-2001. However, GDP expanded by 7.8 percent in 2002, an upturn
driven by strong foreign investments, coupled with an improved business climate, robust
export performance, strong agricultural production, and large inventory rebuilding. There
was, in addition, a sharp rise in public consumption and investment during the second
half of the year reflecting accelerated government spending ahead of early elections held
in November 2002. The upturn was also a positive response to a variety of policy
measures aimed at (a) reducing uncertainties in the financial markets through the
implementation of urgent measures to enhance the stability of interest and exchange
rates, (b) completing structural reforms to promote economic efficiency and (c) focusing
macroeconomic policies on economic stabilization to ensure a rapid economic turnaround
and a more sustainable growth path. Compared to previous year, the economic recovery
tapered off slightly in 2003 with GDP growth registered at 5.8 percent. Although the war
in Iraq was short, but precarious security situation have relatively affected tourism
revenues and economic activities.
Meanwhile, a higher level of activities in the oil sector, rising domestic demand,
increased business confidence and recovery in agricultural output helped to maintain a
robust rate of economic growth of 6.5 percent in Iran in 2002-2003. GDP grew by 5.8
percent a year on average over the first three years of the country’s third five-year
development plan (2000/01-2005/06). A higher expansion in total output was largely
underpinned by a significant increase of around 7.5 percent in non-oil production
activities. Domestic demand (including private and public investment) grew reasonably
quickly as a result of enhanced business confidence as well as monetary and fiscal
stimuli. Good weather conditions helped to bolster agricultural performance, so that
output grew from 4.2 percent to over 10 percent between fiscal year 2001 and 2002,
while the industrial sector sustained a high growth rate of around 7 percent. The
continued expansion of value added in service activities, amounting to 4.8 percent in
2001 and 5.1 percent in 2002, helped to widen employment opportunities further with
unemployment falling to 12.8 percent in 2002-2003 from 14.2 percent a year earlier.
Compared to previous year, the economic recovery continued to expand slightly in 2003
with GDP growth registered at 6.9 percent.
There was a noticeable pickup in economic activities in Pakistan so that GDP
rose by over 5.1 percent in fiscal year 2002-2003, compared with 3.4 percent in the
previous year. A strong surge in aggregate demand, including private investment, and a
sustained external account surplus, among other improvements in macroeconomic
fundamentals, combined with good weather conditions, contributed to a broad-based
acceleration in economic activities. Agricultural sector posted an impressive recovery and
production went up by over 4 percent in 2003 compared with stagnant output growth in
the previous year. Another contributor to strong growth was the exceptional performance
of the large-scale manufacturing sector, which expanded by 8.7 percent in 2003 against
the previous year’s 4.9 percent. Export-led demand for manufactures continued to
increase as a result of better access to key foreign markets as well as the supportive
stance of the central bank in holding down the appreciation of the rupee while
8
simultaneously pushing down interest rates to historically low levels. Additionally, the
service sector had been growing at a faster pace than that of the commodity-producing
sectors for quite some time. This trend remained unchanged in 2003 as the service sector
grew by 5.3 percent, compared with 4.1 percent in 2002.
With a total population of about 369.9 million (almost 6.0 percent of the world
population), the combined GDP of the ECO countries amounted to US$ 423 billion in
2002. This made up only 1.3 percent of the world GDP. The economic recovery
achieved by the ECO countries as a group accelerated significantly in 2000 with
average real GDP growth recorded at 6.2 percent compared to 0.6 percent contraction
in 1999. However, due to the weakened world economic activity in late 2000 and
during 2001, combined GDP of the ECO countries dropped to US$ 403.6 billion and real
output growth declined to 1.1 percent in 2001, relatively affected by negative growth
(7.5) achieved by Turkey. Nevertheless, ECO countries recovered significantly and real
output growth increased to 7.3 percent in 2002. The ECO countries average per capita
GDP in 2001 and 2002 remained at US$ 1,111 and US$ 1,144 respectively owing to high
population growth (2.0 percent during 2001-2002) of the region. At the individual country
level, Afghanistan (US$ 174) and Tajikistan (US$ 189) were the country with the lowest
per capita GDP in 2002, while Turkey was the highest (US$ 2,608) in the same year.
TABLE 1: ECO Countries GDP and per capita GDP
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
403.5
423.0
GDP* (billion US $)
391.7
378.6
431.6
As % of World
1.3
1.2
1.4
1,212
1,151
1,211
1,111
1,144
3.3
3.5
-0.6
3.9
6.2
5.7
1.1
4.0
7.3
3.3
*
Per capita GDP (US $)
**
GDP growth rate (%)
Developing countries
1.3
1.3
(*) Figures for 1998,1999 calculated without data of Afghanistan
(**) The figures calculated without data for Afghanistan.
Sources: World Development Report 2003, World Bank, ECO Secretariat database.
Throughout the period under consideration (1998-2002), the ECO countries
achieved the highest average real GDP growth rate of 7.3 percent in 2002. This rate was
comparably higher than the average growth rate of the developing countries in that year.
However, the growth performance of the region slowed down steadily in 2001 in which
the average real GDP growth rate fell to 1.1 percent in 2001. In general, similar trends
were observed in developing countries. In 2002, except Kyrgyzstan (-0.5) all the
economies of the ECO member countries registered a positive GDP growth. Overall
(except 1999 and 2001), it appears that the ECO countries performed quite similar to the
developing countries even during 1998 when the Asian financial crisis reached its peak.
Yet, the recovery in the year 2002 was stronger in the groups of ECO countries (except
Kyrgyzstan). This means that, the ECO members were able to benefit enough from the
strengthening of world economic activities.
9
FIGURE-1: GDP Growth and Unemployment rates of the ECO region* (%)
10. 0
8. 0
6. 0
4. 0
2. 0
0. 0
-2. 0
1996
1997
1998
GDP growth
1999
2000
2001
2002
Unemployement
Note: (*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan
Changes in the growth pattern of the member states economies over the years
have brought corresponding changes in the employment structure, though agriculture
sector remained the largest employer (39.6 percent) in the region. The performance of
labour market in the region compared to previous year increased by 2.1 percent and
accounted to 122.4 million (4.0 percent of total world) in 2002. However, as shown in
Figure-1 average unemployment rate (without data of Afghanistan) of the ECO region in
2002 increased slightly to 8.2 percent, compared to the level of previous year of 8.1
percent.
3. Inflation and Exchange rate
Price stability and low levels of inflation rates are essential factors for maintaining
macroeconomic stability in the economies of the ECO member states. The governments
of ECO countries paid special attention and applied different fiscal and monetary policies
over the last decade to control inflation and maintain price stability in their economies.
Because of these efforts, the average rates of inflation have fallen considerably in most of
the countries, particularly in the second half of the 1990s. However, with few exceptions,
inflation was on a downward trend in ECO member states in the past few years.
TABLE 2: Average inflation rates in ECO member countries*
(Annual % change in consumer prices)
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
ECO countries
41.9
41.1
23.9
31.2
18.9
Developing countries
10.6
6.9
6.1
5.7
5.6
(*) The figures do not include data for Afghanistan.
Sources: ECO Secretariat database, Economic and social survey of Asia and the Pacific 2003, UNESCAP, Statistical Database of
SESRTCIC, Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Reports (London, 2001).
The regional perspective, as may be seen from Table-2, inflation remains
relatively high, but halved since 1998. Nevertheless, as inflationary pressures build up in
line with stronger demand, countries are expected to gradually raise interest rates. The
extent of their monetary tightening will also depend on the increase in international
10
interest rates, government borrowing requirements, and exchange-rate movements. The
average inflation rate in the developing countries declined to 10.6 percent in 1998 and
further to only 5.6 percent in 2002. Similar patterns but with higher rates were observed
in the ECO countries. The ECO member states managed to curb the average inflation rate
and bring it down to a low level of 23.9 percent in 2000. However, the average inflation
rate realised by the group of ECO countries in 2001 ascended to 31.2 percent, but
effective monetary and fiscal policies of the countries enabled the region to realize 18.9
percent inflation rate in 2002. At the individual country level, Afghanistan, Turkey and
Uzbekistan were the countries with the highest inflation rate of 52.3 percent, 29.7 percent
and 22.0 percent in 2002 respectively and Kyrgyzstan with the lowest rate of 2.3 percent
in the same year.
Turning to member states, the exchange rate, which fluctuated widely in late 2001
and early 2002 due to political and economic uncertainties, strongly affected consumer
prices in Afghanistan. Subsequently, with the increasing availability of goods, inflation
declined to 3.5 percent in the first 8 months of 2002. However, uncertainties over the
introduction of a new currency in the last quarter of 2002 contributed to a sharp
depreciation of the exchange rate, while consumer prices rose by a cumulative 52.3
percent during 2002. With the completion of the currency conversion in January 2003
and after an introductory bout of speculative depreciation, the exchange rate strengthened
and has stabilized to around AF48/US$1 since May 2003. Stability is maintained through
a managed float regime and this was expected to instill confidence in the currency and
support price stability, given the rapid transmission of exchange rate fluctuations to
domestic prices. Monetary expansion has been programmed and implemented to keep
pace with the increase in the transactions demand for money, which has been met by
accumulation of foreign exchange reserves. These reserves stood at US$ 568 million in
late September 2003, well above the AF22.4 billion currency in circulation. Tight
monetary policy as well as increased supplies of staple foodstuffs, the average monthly
inflation remained close to zero and the 12-month inflation rate fell to 51 percent by
August 2003. The consumer price index (CPI) covered 50 items, mainly food in Kabul. It
was expanded to include 200 items and the collection of price data was expected to cover
all major provincial cities in the near future.
A tight monetary policy and domestic currency stability contributed to relatively
low rates of inflation in Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan. In particular, Azerbaijan has
sustained great price stability in the region for the last four years. However, the
elimination of preferential tariffs for energy and transport services in January 2002 and
the increase in real wages by about 15 percent in the first half of 2002 pushed up
consumer price inflation marginally from 1.5 percent in 2001 to 2.8 percent in 2002. In
Azerbaijan, inflationary pressures were both lower and moderate in absolute terms, the
net outcome from a combination of tight monetary policy and the stability of the national
currencies in 2003. Inflation remained subdued, with the average annual CPI rising by 2.2
percent in 2003. While the nominal exchange rate of the national currency against the
dollar remained virtually unchanged in 2003. The real effective exchange rate depreciated
by an estimated 13.1 percent, giving domestic producers a competitive edge. The overall
inflation could be marginally higher in Azerbaijan in 2004 due to government
11
commitments to increase employment and wages in the hydrocarbons sector and to
liberalize energy prices.
Kyrgyzstan recorded a year-on-year price deflation of 0.3 percent in May 2002.
However, the monthly consumer prices were pushed up in June 2002 as a result of higher
prices for food products, which constituted a major part of the consumption basket in the
country, inflation rate decreased from 3.7 percent in 2001 to 2.3 percent by the end of
2002. The budget of Kyrgyzstan for 2003 was based on an annual inflation target of 5
percent but with slight deviation consumer prices rose by 5.6 percent in 2003. This price
increase was due mainly to higher food prices, which, in turn, were attributable to the
cancellation of VAT exemptions previously granted to large agricultural producers. In
addition, there was a modest rise in the prices and costs of services while a reduction in
the excise tax on fuel in 2003 contributed to a decline in non-food prices. Meanwhile, in
the first half of 2003, the national currency of Kyrgyzstan appreciated by about 10
percent and interventions by central banking authorities in the foreign exchange market
were designed to smooth out sharp daily fluctuations and strengthen the international
reserve position.
Inflation in Turkey, though still high in absolute terms, has been on the decline in
recent years, for example, from over 68.5 percent in 2001 to 29.7 percent in 2002. The
increase in food prices was at the lowest rate in the last 15 years, thus moderating
somewhat domestic inflation. The macroeconomic policies and structural reforms carried
out under the new economic programme became the determining factors in the struggle
against inflation, leading in the process to a decrease in future inflationary expectations.
Other stabilizing factors included weak domestic demand, a marginal increase in
consumption and investment expenditure, and the stability of the Turkish lira. Helped by
stable and low world prices, Turkey reduced the rate of increase in the CPI to 25.3
percent in 2003 and further to 12 percent in 2004 and to single digit numbers in 2005.
The Turkish lira depreciated against the euro in 2003 but its value remained relatively
stable against the dollar.
The downward trend in inflation continued in Pakistan with price increases
amounting to just over 3.1 percent in fiscal year 2003, from 3.5 percent in the previous
year. Among the stabilizing factors were the improved availability of essential food
commodities, lower credit costs, excess capacity in most industries, appreciation of the
Pakistan rupee, the greater availability of credit at low interest rates for production
purposes, prudent fiscal management and effective sterilization of the monetary impact of
massive capital inflows. Driven by current account and capital account surpluses, the
surplus in the overall balance of payments amounted to US$ 4.6 billion or 6.7 percent of
GDP in 2003, boosting the accumulation of foreign exchange reserves to a record US$
11.7 billion by the end of fiscal year 2003. Notably in this connection, the major portion
of the increase in foreign exchange reserves came from non-debt-creating inflows. The
Pakistani rupee continued to appreciate against the dollar, by 3.9 percent during fiscal
year 2003 on top of an appreciation of 6.7 percent in the previous year.
There was some pickup in consumer prices in Iran, which reached to 15.8 percent
in fiscal year 2002, as compared with 11.4 percent in the previous year. Food prices rose
by 19.4 percent in 2002, as against 7.3 percent in 2001. This was considerably faster than
12
the increases in non-food prices, despite the government subsidy for basic foodstuffs,
such as wheat, rice, vegetable oil, and sugar. Strong domestic demand, partly fuelled by
higher public spending, along with a relatively accommodating monetary policy led to
the acceleration of monetary growth, to 27.5 percent in 2002, and higher prices. Inflation
was estimated to rise to 16.8 percent in 2003, and concerted efforts at greater price
stabilization at a lower level have been among the highest priorities of monetary policy in
the country. The multi-tier exchange rate regime was abolished in March 2002 and the
unified exchange rate was relatively stable against the dollar, as indicated by the low
market premium. The central bank has been pursuing a managed floating regime, with
limited intervention to smooth out rate fluctuations. In addition, the Government allowed
foreign branches of domestic banks to operate in the offshore foreign exchange market
for current, and some capital, account transactions. This broadened access to foreign
exchange contributed to a convergence of the exchange rates in the domestic and offshore
markets.
Higher pensions and public sector wages in Uzbekistan pushed inflation up to 22
percent in 2002. The country had been experiencing high rates of inflation for several
years. However, monthly inflation was on a downward trend in the middle of 2002 owing
to a seasonal fall in food prices and an increase in the production of consumer goods. In
fact, Uzbekistan experienced deflation of almost 4 percent in June 2002. The tight credit
policy of the Central Bank of Uzbekistan (CBU) over 2003 as well as the fiscal squeezes
lowered inflation to about 13.9 percent. In 2003, the Uzbekistan undertook wide-ranging
measures for currency liberalization, including the unification of exchange rates, the
creation of a free market in foreign exchange and the elimination of restrictions on access
to hard currency for enterprises. Previously three different kinds of exchange rates
(namely, the exchange bureau rate, the official rate and the commercial rate) had existed
in the country. As a result of these policy changes, the official exchange rate was
generally stable in 2003 and the spread between the official exchange rate and the blackmarket rate was minimal, below 5 percent in mid-2003. The national currency was
expected to be fully convertible in 2004.
Relatively stable domestic food prices and government price controls in
Turkmenistan have helped to keep inflation at the relatively stable level of 7-9 percent in
the last few years. Consumer prices went up by 7.8 percent in 2002, a sharp decline from
inflation of 20.1 percent in 1999. While the official exchange rate of the national
currency, pegged at TMM 5,200/US$1, remained unchanged, the parallel market rate
appreciated by 7.4 percent to about TMM 20,000/US$1. This helped reduce open
inflation, as measured by the official CPI to 5.5 percent in 2003.
Inflation was also on a downward trend in Kazakhstan, falling from 17.8 percent
in 1999 to 9.8 percent a year later and to around 6.4 percent in 2001. In 2002, however,
consumer prices went up by 6.6 percent, reflecting rising wages, large-scale hardcurrency inflows and an amnesty for capital repatriation, the last two factors contributed
to an expansion in the money supply, which served to fuel inflation in 2002. In 2003,
end-of period inflation was 6.4 percent, 1 percentage point higher than the planned target,
mainly due to higher prices for gasoline and bread products in the last months of the year.
This was caused by a jump in the prices for gasoline in the Russian Federation, which led
13
to an increase in exports of local gasoline to that country (Kazakhstan’s main trading
partner), thus reducing domestic supply and by government intervention to raise the price
of grain. During 2003, the Tenge strengthened against the dollar by 12.6 percent in real
terms, driven by large export earnings and foreign exchange inflows from increased
private external borrowing and FDI. Under the managed float arrangement, NBK
continued its policy of intervening in the market to prevent undue appreciation of the
currency, though with limited tools for sterilization this led to a 52.2 percent expansion in
reserve money. In contrast to its performance against the dollar, the Tenge recorded real
devaluations against the euro by 6.9 percent, which helped sustain the competitiveness of
domestic producers.
A tight monetary policy and a stable level of food stocks resulted in a substantial
reduction of inflation in Tajikistan, from 60.6 percent in 2000 to 14.5 percent in 2002.
However, average inflation in 2003 was unexpectedly high at 17.1 percent, exceeding the
9.0 percent target set by the National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT). The year-on-year
increase to December, however, was held to 13.8 percent due to better price performance
in the last 2 months of the year. While price pressures from higher tariffs for electricity
and gas introduced under the energy sector reforms had been expected, the uptick in
inflation stemmed from two unanticipated factors: the sharp increase in prices of
imported grains and wheat flour caused by severe droughts in neighboring countries
producing these commodities, and an unintended loosening of monetary policy that
resulted in a steep 44.4 percent increase in the money supply (M2). The nominal
exchange rate against the dollar was kept at about TJS3.09/US$1 for most of the year.
4. Trade Balance, Exports and Imports
World trade performance was adversely affected by the ripple effects following
the events of 11 September 2001 and slower economic growth in major export markets.
During this period, the ECO countries exports have also been lackluster. However, later
the economies of the region have benefited from global trade recovery and move toward
further liberalization. In 2002, export volume of the region grew by 15 percent and the
countries of the region continued to diversify their markets. There was a relatively strong
expansion of external trade with most countries in the region recording double-digit
growth. Moreover, most countries in ECO region recorded a significant expansion in
export earnings in 2003, with the former being attributable largely to favourable prices
for energy products. Growth in world trade consistently strengthened throughout 2003,
and remained strong in the beginning of 2004, growing at double-digit rates. World
export volume expanded by 4.7 percent in 2003 about 1 percentage point faster than in
2002. The strong performance of world trade in the first quarter of 2004 should translate
in world trade volume growth of around 8-8.5 percent in 2004, slowing somewhat to
about 6-7 percent by 2005. The economies of the region should further benefit from this
greater trade and trade volume of the region is projected to increase in 2004 notably
through expanded trade opportunities. This forecast, however, depends critically on
world commodity and energy prices, and positive developments in Iraq. Business and
consumer confidence had been relatively depressed in the region in 2003 due to the buildup to war in Iraq, the invasion, and its aftermath, as well as to the persistence of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
14
ECO countries, particulary Pakistan experienced, by and large, favourable
outcomes in external trade in 2003. Both exports and imports registered impressive
growth, the current account posted a large surplus, workers’ remittances continued to
surge. Pakistan’s export earnings, which fell marginally by 0.7 percent to US$ 9.1 billion
in 2001-2002, were on track to reach 22.2 percent to US$ 11.1 billion in 2002-2003. In
fiscal year 2001, there were cancellations of export orders, particularly those destined for
United States and European markets, and higher freight charges on all cargo entering and
leaving Pakistan. Earnings on primary commodity exports (e.g., rice, raw cotton, fish and
fruits) registered the largest contraction at almost 15 percent. However, textile
manufactures, which constituted about two thirds of total exports, registered an increase
of 25 percent in 2002-2003. Receipts from other manufactured exports grew by almost 11
percent, with engineering goods, chemicals and pharmaceutical products, petroleum
products and sports goods showing high growth rates. Import expenditure, at US$ 12.2
billion in 2003, represented an increase of 18.2 percent as compared with negative
growth of 3.6 percent in the previous year. Almost one fourth of imports consisted of oilrelated products, which grew by 9 percent in value owing to higher oil prices. Higher
spending on non-food and non-oil imports, by almost 22 percent in 2003, was
instrumental in improving local production and manufacturing activities; notably, in this
context, imports of machinery were up by one third in 2003. Pakistan registered lower
import expenditure on food items, with the value of imported sugar and soybean oil
falling by over 90 and 70 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, a stronger expansion of
export earnings in 2003 further lowered the trade deficit to a 10-year low of US$ 1.1
billion and the current account surplus improved to 5.9 percent of GDP in 2003, from 4.8
percent in the previous year, on account of a lower service account deficit plus a sharp
rise in current transfers inwards.
Iran had recorded a substantial rise in export earnings amounting US$ 28 billion
of almost 18 percent in fiscal year 2002, as against a contraction of 16 percent for the
previous year, because of better oil prices despite a lower export volume in 2002.
Earnings on carpets, in particular, were also particularly strong. Oil and gas accounted for
around 80 percent of total merchandise exports while non-oil exports also registered
higher growth in 2002. In dollar terms, the value of exports in fiscal year 2003 was
estimated as remaining virtually at the level attained in the previous year. A significant
rise in earnings on non-oil exports helped to offset the somewhat smaller exports of oil
owing to lower prices. Imports exceeding US$ 23 billion had grown at a high rate, over
31 percent in 2002 on top of an increase of over one fifth in the earlier year, as a result of
buoyant domestic demand, recent trade liberalization measures and a build-up of
inventories in the period leading up to the Iraq war. In particular, some of the recent
liberalization in the trade regime included the consolidation of customs duty rates and
other import charges and fees into a single customs duty rate set at 4 percent, the
elimination of various exemptions from the customs duty and the ongoing replacement of
non-tariff barriers with tariffs plus a significant reduction in non-tariff barriers. Import
spending on capital and intermediate goods constituted more than 80 percent of the total,
and total imports continued to grow by an estimated 19.4 percent in 2003. Largely as a
result, the current account surplus of 3.3 percent of GDP in 2002 turned into a small
deficit in 2003.
15
Similarly, exports from Turkey staged a strong recovery and growing at the rate
of 12.8 percent in 2001, expanded by about 15.1 percent reaching US$ 36 billion in 2002.
Manufactured exports, accounting for 93 percent of the total export value, consisted
largely of textiles and garments, construction materials, household appliances and
electrical goods, and motor vehicles and parts. The EU accounted for just over a half of
Turkey’s exports while some 10 percent of exports went to the United States. Despite a
significant appreciation of the Turkish lira in real terms, the momentum of export growth
continued into 2003 with earnings rising by over 29 percent. In Turkey, a rebound in
import spending occurred in 2002 owing to stronger growth in private consumption and
gross fixed investment and to higher prices of non-oil commodities. Imports increased
even more rapidly at 24.5 percent to exceed US$ 51 billion in 2002, following a sharp
contraction of 24 percent in the previous year. The main categories of imported goods
were intermediate goods, including steel and plastics, electronic components, and oil and
gas. Investment goods (mostly industrial machinery) accounted for around 17 percent of
total imports, and consumer goods another 10 percent. The main sources of imports apart
from the EU were the United States, Switzerland, Japan, the Russian Federation, and
Saudi Arabia. Iraq has the potential to become a major trading partner of Turkey once the
security situation improves in Iraq and its economy starts functioning normally.
Expenditure on imports continued to be on a rising trend in 2003 owing to a recovery in
domestic demand and higher oil prices, surging by more than 31.4 percent in 2003.
Supported by tourism and inward remittances from overseas workers, the external
services account registered a substantial surplus. As a result of a large trade deficit,
however, the usual deficit in the current accounts was projected to rise to around 3
percent of GDP in 2003.
Despite a narrow export base and lower oil prices, export earnings in Kazakhstan
rose from US$ 8.63 billion in 2001 to US$ 9.67 billion in 2002. Among other major
traders in the region such as Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, Kazakhstan became the fourth
biggest trader country with total trade volume of about US$ 16 billion in 2002. Import
spending increased by 2.1 percent in 2002 to US$ 6.5 billion. The direction of trade was
largely unchanged, with the Russian Federation being the largest trading partner of
Kazakhstan, supplying more than half of the imports and taking over one fifth of the
exports. Kazakhstan increased its trade surplus from US$ 3 billion in 2002 to US$ 4.6
billion in 2003, owing to a significant gain in export receipts, which reached US$ 12.9
billion in 2003. Oil and gas accounted for more than one half of the country’s export
earnings. Spending on imports led by greater imports of capital goods and construction
materials rose by more than 26 percent to reach US$ 8.3 billion in 2003.
Azerbaijan ran a trade surplus of US$ 502.1 million in 2002, which was slightly
lower than that recorded for 2001 (US$ 883.4 million). In part, this decline was due to the
strong expansion in imports (by 16.4 percent) in 2002 because of higher spending on
machinery and equipment used for the construction of two new oil pipelines. There was
also a hike in food imports in response to rising domestic demand, a development that
partly reflected rising real wages in the oil and related sectors. However, there was a
considerable fall of 6.3 percent in export revenue, from US$ 2.3 billion in 2001 to US$
2.1 billion in 2002. This setback was due mainly to lower oil prices and the restrictive
measures introduced in 2002 to prevent oil export leakages. The accelerating investment
16
in and expansion of the hydrocarbons sector of Azerbaijan also contributed to
deterioration in the trade balance. The trade surplus in 2002 became a deficit of US$ 34
million in 2003 despite an increase of about 20 percent in export revenue (to US$ 2.6
billion) owing to higher demand for oil and continued high oil prices. Oil exports
accounted for nearly three fifths of total export receipts although earnings from chemicals
and metals also grew rapidly as a result of the strong expansion in the industrial sector.
The most significant import items were machinery and base metals for the construction of
new oil pipelines.
The value of Kyrgyzstan’s foreign trade grew by 13.7 percent during 2002, to
US$ 1,072.2 million. There was a marginal increase in export earnings (by 2.0 percent),
so that the large increase in import spending of about 25.6 percent contributed to a
negative trade balance of US$ 101.2 million. However, higher world prices for gold and
several agricultural exports from Kyrgyzstan and a recovery in electricity sales to
neighbouring countries brought a modest pick-up in export earnings to US$ 485.5 million
for 2002 as a whole. In 2003, the import expenditure of Kyrgyzstan continued to exceed
export receipts, a reflection of rising investment in the capital goods and gold sectors.
Exports rose by 19.7 percent (to US$ 582 million) mainly due to a recovery in gold
exports, but non-gold exports fell as electricity and agricultural exports shrank. Imports
expanded by more than 22 percent (to US$ 717 million) in 2003, resulting in a widening
trade deficit from the US$ 101.2 million recorded in 2002 to US$ 135 million in the
following year.
Tajikistan’s trade deficit US$ 30.9 million recorded in 2001 was turned to surplus
to US$ 23.0 million in 2002. There was an increase of 13.3 percent and about 4.8 percent
in export revenue and import spending, respectively. Tajikistan relied heavily on
imported energy and raw materials from CIS countries for its aluminium production.
Aluminium and cotton remained the principal sources of export earnings, accounting for
up to seven tenths of total export earnings. In 2002, trading activities benefited
considerably from the resumption of rail links with, and the lowering of transit tariffs in
neighbouring countries. The trade surplus of Tajikistan during 2002 again became a
deficit of US$ 83 million in the following year because of a steep rise of more than 22
percent in import outlays compared with an expansion of 8.3 percent in export revenue
(to US$ 798 million) in 2003. Aluminium continued to be the main export item,
providing more than half of merchandise earnings, while cotton brought in another one
fifth in the same period.
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan implemented their import-substituting
industrialization policies in 2002 through the introduction of trade restrictions such as
import licences, government certificates, and limits on hard currency sales. During 2002,
import spending from Uzbekistan nevertheless rose by 1.2 percent owing mainly to an
increase in imported machinery and equipment, which accounted almost for 44 percent of
all imports of goods and services. Export earnings marginally increased from US$ 3.14
billion in 2001 to US$ 3.18 billion in 2002, mainly owing to a decline in the value of
cotton, food and energy exports. Trade liberalization (including through the reduction of
customs duties and the promotion of cross-border trade) continued to be one of the main
areas of focus of trade policy in Uzbekistan in 2003. As a whole, the trade surplus was
17
expected to reach US$ 422 million in 2003, with exported goods and services thus rising
by just under 7 percent in 2003. The depreciation of the local currency contributed to an
expanded external market for the country’s products, about two fifths of which (in terms
of value) consisted of manufactured and finished goods from the import substituting
industries. Meanwhile, there was only a modest rise in imports of goods and services,
reflecting in part policy measures to conserve the stock of foreign exchange reserves.
Turkmenistan was developing its textile industry to raise domestic employment
and add value to cotton-processing capacity and manufacturing activities. However, the
gas and oil sectors remained the main contributors to export earnings, with a relative
share of more than four fifths. Turkmenistan’s receipts from exports rose by 9.0 percent
to reach US$ 2.8 billion in 2002. The merchandise trade surplus nearly doubled to US$
1.27 billion in 2003 from US$ 736 million in 2002. Exports surged by 30.3 percent to
US$ 3.72 billion, largely on account of high world prices for energy products and cotton
fiber. This was partly offset by a 15.6 percent rise in imports, which reached US$ 2.45
billion. Reflecting the Turkmenistan’s policy to increase exports with high value added,
the share of petrochemicals in total exports rose to 18.3 percent in 2003 from 14.2
percent in 2002, while the share of natural gas and crude oil fell to 58.6 percent from 69.4
percent. At the same time, the commodity composition of imports did not change
significantly, with machinery and equipment accounting for about half of total imports.
Estimates of Afghanistan’s balance of payments suggest that exports of goods
totaled US$ 113 million in fiscal year 2001 and US$ 101 million in fiscal year 2002, with
domestic exports, mainly agricultural products, and carpets. Most of the re-exports,
mainly from Iran to Pakistan to minimize import tariffs and domestic sales taxes, were
unofficial. Re-establishment of an effective customs administration may slow future
growth in unofficial re-exports.
According to official records, Pakistan accounted for about a quarter of
Afghanistan’s exports in fiscal year 2002, followed by Finland, Germany, and the United
Arab Emirates. Imports of goods were estimated at US$ 551 million in fiscal year 2001
and US$ 950 million the following year. Higher import spending on machinery and
equipment, automobiles and consumer goods reflects the revival of private sector
activity. Japan accounted for more than two fifths of the official import value, including
re-exports, in fiscal year 2002, followed by the Republic of Korea and Pakistan. Although
commodity food aid went up from US$ 71 million to US$ 94 million in fiscal years 2001
and 2002, it was expected to fall in fiscal year 2003 with higher production of domestic
cereals.
Although a number of restrictive rules and regulations remain in place,
Afghanistan now follows a very liberal trade regime with a simplified tariff regime to be
in place by the end of 2003 and reform of the customs administration under
implementation. There is virtually no control on imports, exports, payments on invisibles
and capital transactions in Afghanistan, and only a commercial licence, required for all
businesses, was necessary for engaging in external trading activities. While Afghanistan
is a landlocked country dependent on its neighbouring countries for access to the sea, it is
also an important transit location for trade between Iran and Pakistan as well as between
18
Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. A feasibility study to run a natural gas pipeline from
Turkmenistan to Pakistan was being undertaken, and its construction could yield
substantial transit and easement fees. The quality of the transport infrastructure, security,
and border administration, however, still needs to be improved. Normalization of trade
relations and discussion of new transit and trade agreements with Iran, and Pakistan in
2003 together with other regional initiatives was expected to lead to more transit trade.
FIGURE-2 ECO Countries Total External Trade ($ US mln)
120000
100000
80000
IMPORT
60000
EXPORT
40000
20000
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
During the five-year period (1998-2002) under consideration, the total
merchandise exports of the ECO member states reached its peak of US$ 94.6 billion in
2002. The region dominated 1.47 percent and 1.54 percent of the world merchandise
exports and imports respectively in 2002. The intra-exports in the ECO region accounted
for 5.4 percent in 2002. The figures in Table-3 show that the average rates of change in
merchandise exports of ECO countries dropped sharply in 1998 when most of the
members experienced negative rates of growth in their merchandise exports reflecting the
effect of the Asian crisis. However, the following years (except 2001) witnessed a strong
recovery in export performance when member countries registered the highest average
rates of change in their merchandise exports in 2002. After 1998, export performance of
the region deteriorated again and experienced negative rates of growth (1.1 percent) in
2001, affected by the slowdown of world economy and the deterioration in world
commodity prices.
In fact, despite that the ECO countries registered high average rate of change in
merchandise exports in 2002 (14.9 percent), region’s share in the total merchandise
exports of the world increased by a mere 0.2 percentage point over the previous year.
This means that the ECO countries were, in general, unable to benefit enough from the
world trade output in 2002 and, consequently, from the enlargement of world trade by
increasing their share in it. It is also observed that the exports of the ECO countries were
heavily concentrated in Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. For example, these countries
accounted for 79.7 percent of the total ECO members’ exports in 2002, where Turkey
alone accounted for 38.1 percent.
TABLE 3: ECO Trade (Billion US $)
1998
Exports
59.3
Imports
81.3
Total Trade Volume
140.6
1999
68.7
75.4
144.1
19
2000
83.2
93.0
176.2
2001
82.3
84.9
167.2
2002
94.6
103.3
197.9
Total Exports (Annual % change)
Intra-ECO Exports*
Intra-Trade Ratio* (%)
-11.2
6.1
5.3
16.0
5.0
5.0
21.1
5.5
5.3
-1.1
5.1
5.1
14.9
5.4
5.2
(*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan.
Sources: ECO Secretariat database, International trade statistics 2002, WTO.
In general, the trend of export performance in the ECO region during the period
under consideration can be explained, in part, by the negative effects of the world
recession that took place in the two-year period of 1997-98 and particularly in 2001. It
can also be explained, by the sharp fall in world commodity prices and the decline in
official financial flows to countries in the same period. However, in the two-year period
of 1999-2000, the improved situation and recovery in the world economy as well as the
improvement in world commodity prices, particularly in 2002, positively affected the
trend of export performance.
The ECO member states had made efforts to promote intra-trade and taken
significant steps forward for improvement of regulatory frameworks and removal of tariff
and non-tariff barriers in the region. The regional intra trade situation is, however, far
from satisfactory when compared to preceding year and the prospect of an imminent
change does not seem very likely unless private initiatives backed by political will of the
member states are given momentum. So far, the scope and depth of trade linkages served
as the main channel of transmission of external shocks between the member states. Total
intra-regional trade volume of ECO region (excluding Afghanistan data) in 2002
increased to US$ 10.2 billion from US$ 8.6 billion in 2001. The intra-trade ratio of the
ECO region (excluding Afghanistan data) in 2002 alike the previous years could not
overpass the threshold of 6.0 percent.
According to 2002 statistics, the share of intra regional export of Pakistan was just
4.9 percent, Turkey 2.9 percent, Iran and Kazakhstan 3.1 percent and 8.5 percent
respectively. While for Azerbaijan it amounted 7.8 percent, for Turkmenistan 21.3
percent, for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan 22.3 percent and 26.6 percent respectively.
The import expenditure of ECO countries was deteriorating since 1997, but reached
its peak in 2002 with US$ 103.3 billion. While this amount accounted for 1.54 percent of
the total merchandise imports of the World, corresponded to an increase by 0.23
percentage point over the previous year. In 2001, import performance weakened and
amounted to US$ 84.9 billion. Overall, the ECO region’s total trade data reveals a volume
of US$ 167.2 billion in 2001. It accounted US$ 197.9 billion in 2002, when compared to
preceding year an overall increase of 18.4 percent was observed in the total trade volume
in the region. The ECO member states as a group recorded trade balance deficits in all
the years over the period 1998-2002. The export/import rate of the region recorded at
96.9 percent in 2001 and lowered to 91.5 percent in 2002. However, the export/import
rate was the highest in 2001 but the region had the lowest trade deficit in 2001 and
amounted to US$ 2.5 billion, the figure for 2002 reached to US$ 8.7 billion in 2002.
FIGURE-3: Export/Import of ECO region (%)
20
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Concerning regional and global integration efforts, Pakistan, Turkey, and
Kyrgyzstan are WTO members while other countries in the region continued to negotiate
WTO accession in 2003. At present, some 215 regional trade agreements (RTAs) and
bilateral trade agreements (BTAs) are operational in the world. By 2007, some 300 such
agreements are expected to be in force. Some 40 percent of global trade is currently
conducted within existing or emerging RTAs and BTAs, and it is estimated that more
than a half will be covered by RTAs by 2005. ECO countries have concluded and
continuing to sign BTAs, as part of a their trade trends. To this end, ECO members also
adopted the ECO Trade Agreement (ECOTA) in second half of 2003 and agreed to
consider the “fast track approach” which envisages bringing down tariff to 10 percent in
next five years. The said agreement would enhance the liberalization of regional trade by
removal of regional trade barriers and encourage to increase the ratio of inter and intratrade. At this point, it should be underlined that a key challenge for RTAs among
developing countries has been the effective implementation of their liberalization
programmes. Experience shows that the degree of implementation of such RTAs has
been greater for traditional and less sophisticated agreements focusing on trade in goods
than for agreements that seek “deeper” integration and cover such issues as investment,
competition policy and government procurement. The latter type of agreements tend to
lag behind the planned time frame.
The widening, deepening and consolidation of regional integration among
developing countries has had differing impacts on intra-group trade. Between 1990 and
2001, the share of such trade within the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) rose
from 8.9 percent to 21.8 percent and was consistently between 20 and 25 percent for
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, except during the Asian
financial crisis. The ratio is less in the Central American Common Market (CACM) (15.0
percent), the Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (UEMOA) (13.5 per cent),
the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) (13.4 percent) and the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) (10.9 percent). Among African groupings, the shares
of intraregional trade of the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa
(COMESA), the Communauté Economique et Monétaire de l’Afrique Centrale
(CEMAC) and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) were only
5.2 percent, 1.3 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively, in 2001. For the ECO region, it is
expected that full implementation of ECO Trade Agreement (ECOTA-2003) by member
states would truly prove to be a major step towards expansion in intra-regional trade
which stood at 5.2 percent in 2002.
5. Foreign Direct Investment and External Debt
21
In 2003, global FDI flows were about US$ 653 billion, similar to 2002,
suggesting a bottoming-out after the downturn from the peak of US$ 1.4 trillion in 2000.
FDI inflows declined in 108 out of 195 economies in 2002. The regional unevenness of
flows in 2002 continued into 2003. The main factors behind this downturn in FDI were
slow global economic growth, including the delayed recovery in the major developed
economies, lower corporate profitability, falling stock market valuations, and the decline
in privatization in some countries. The continuing low number and value of cross-border
mergers and acquisitions (M&As) the key driving force behind global FDI flows since
the late 1980s contributed heavily to the stagnation in FDI. FDI flows are expected to
rebound in 2004. The strengthening global economy, improved corporate profitability, a
recovery in M&A transactions and growing investor confidence will all provide a
stimulus for FDI flows. Flows to individual countries, regions, and sectors will depend on
economic growth, corporate profitability and corporate strategies, the scope for, and
speed of, privatization and security and safety considerations.
In the ECO member states, liberalization of laws and regulations on foreign
investment continued and a series of steps were taken to simplify various administrative
procedures. FDI inflows to the region (Figure-4) boosted from US$ 4.5 billion in 1998 to
about US$ 10 billion in 2001. All these served thus to support and accelerate financial
stabilization process, development of domestic financial markets, resource exploitation
activities and privatization programmes in several member states economies. Then again,
FDI inflows to the region slightly decreased and amounted to US$ 8.3 billion in 2002
attracting 1.3 percent of global FDI.
Considering the region with particular respect to member states, the capital
account of the Iran registered a sizeable surplus with the continuation of sizeable FDI
mainly in the oil sector. The new law for the attraction and promotion of foreign
investment, approved in June 2003, introduced significant measures to liberalize
investments in the non-oil sector, thus attracting considerable interest from foreign
investors. The country also returned to the international capital markets in 2002, with the
issue of two five-year euro bonds (worth 625 million and 375 million euros), in part to
serve as a benchmark for the corporate sector of the country. FDI inflows into Iran have
also remained on a relatively stable level for the last few years, which amounted US$ 50
million in 2001, slightly decreased to US$ 37 million in 2002.
Turkey received the highest FDI inflow in 2001 amounting to US$ 3,288 million,
but in 2002 the figure fall sharply to US$ 590 million. However, in terms of FDI stock
inward, Turkey with US$ 18.5 billion as of 2002 has the biggest share in the ECO region.
Among the major steps carried out to promote external investment were constitutional
amendments to allow international arbitration, the approval of a new FDI law in June
2003 to improve conditions for foreign investments (replacing the earlier legislation
which had been in place since 1954) and the establishment of an investment promotion
agency. FDI flows into Pakistan increased significantly in relative terms with 18 percent
of total inflows during the last 10 years (1993-2002). FDI surged by about 100 percent,
from US$ 485 million in 2001 to US$ 798 million in 2002. About two thirds of such
investment went to the oil and gas and power sectors.
22
Despite a global decline in FDI, several economies of ECO continued to see
strong capital inflows. The resource inflows were uneven, however, with the oil and gas
sectors in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan remaining the most attractive areas
for FDI. The Kazakhstan economy was also driven by higher FDI in oil-related
production and export capacities. In 2001, for example, the country received the largest
annual inflows since independence (more than US$ 4.5 billion), with the stock of FDI
estimated at US$ 13.7 billion for the decade 1992-2002. The Law on Investment
approved in January 2003 was important in improving the investment climate in
Kazakhstan. The legislation included the best clauses of the previous investment law
together with additional provisions based on international experience relating to foreign
investment. Turkmenistan continued to receive FDI in its main economic sectors:
hydrocarbons, construction, and textiles. To some extent, however, exchange rate
restrictions and a business environment not yet fully conducive to foreign investors
hampered such inflows. The peak inflows into Turkmenistan, with a high of US$ 233
million being recorded in 1995. After the fall of FDI in 1998, inflows were steadily rising
until 2002, when they fell by one third to a value of US$ 100 million.
Export-oriented gold mining was another attraction for FDI in the region.
Particularly, foreign investment was considered vital for the development of the economy
and export activities in Kyrgyzstan. In 2002, the country was the destination of US$ 116
million of FDI, with the large bulk of this external resource used for the development of
gold mining in Kumor. In 2003, a new assistance programme for Kyrgyzstan, amounting
to US$ 171 million in credit, was approved by the World Bank to foster the development
of private sector activities, including small businesses in the energy, agricultural and
agro-processing sectors, among other focal areas.
Generally, in 2002, FDI flows to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan totaled some US$
434 million and US$ 81 million respectively. Most of FDI in Tajikistan went into the
mining and textiles sectors, representing 42 percent and 45 percent of FDI stocks
respectively. Azerbaijan was the destination during 2002 for US$ 2,012 million of FDI,
used mainly for the construction of new oilfields and pipelines. This, in turn, provided a
stimulus to domestic investment, which rose by more than 70 percent in 2003, with nine
tenths of capital investment going to the oil and gas sectors. FDI accounted for about 85
percent of the total fixed capital formation in Azerbaijan and it was expected to reach
US$ 10 billion over the next 3 years, an amount that about doubled the FDI received by
the country during 1996-2002.
FDI inflows into Afghanistan continue to be minimal, although they rose
temporarily from nearly nothing to US$ 1 million in 2001, following the end of the war.
Although financial inflows into Afghanistan were largely in the form of bilateral grants
and highly concessional loans, the amount pledged to cover reconstruction in
Afghanistan was relatively low, compared with the amount pledged to other post-conflict
countries in recent years. In terms of aid per capita per year, Afghanistan received US$
67 during 2002-2003, as against US$ 256 in the case of Timor-Leste during 1999-2001.
During those periods, aid approached only 40 percent of Afghanistan’s estimated GDP
but exceeded 60 percent of Timor-Leste’s. Preliminary needs assessment for the donor
conference for Afghanistan held at Tokyo in January 2002 estimated a total of US$14.6
23
billion would be required to underpin economic and social recovery, excluding
humanitarian assistance, over 10 years with US$ 4.9 billion for the first two and a half
years. At the conference, pledges were made for US$ 4.5 billion over the first five years
and US$ 2.1 billion in grants during the first 15 months. Of these amounts, over US$ 1.8
billion in grants and US$ 100 million in loans were disbursed, but two thirds of the
disbursed amount was dedicated to humanitarian assistance. Very little of the amount
disbursed in fiscal year 2002 went to the government budget in view of its limited
administrative capacity at the level of the line ministries.
FIGURE-4: FDI and Total External Debt of ECO countries (Billion US$)
250.0
12.0
200.0
10.0
8.0
150.0
6.0
100.0
4.0
50.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
1996
1997
1998
External Debt
1999
2000
2001
2002
FDI
The debt service burden on the member countries continued to be heavy and total
regional debt increased from US$ 170.5 billion in 1999 to US$ 182.0 in 2000, and
further increased to around US$ 204.5 billion in 2002, thus pressure on the balance of
payments increased. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkey had relatively high
debt-to-GDP ratio levels of more than 60-70 percent in 2002. Most of the debt was owed
to multilateral lenders, such as IMF and the World Bank, plus the Paris Club of
international creditors. Turkmenistan is also among the bilateral lenders, mainly through
their energy exports to other countries. The external debt of the country amounted to US$
2,303 million in 2000. The restructuring of Kyrgyzstan’s foreign debt by the Paris Club
in March 2002 not only alleviated a potential debt payment crisis in 2003 but also
improved the prospects for economic growth in the country. The total external debt
compared to 2002 increased by US$ 238 million and amounted to US$ 1,754 million by
the end of 2003.
In Iran, external debt fell by 11 percent to US$ 7.2 billion in 2001. The ratio of
outstanding external debt to GDP dropped from 6.1 to 5.0 percent in 2000-2001. The
amount of external debt of Iran has increased, totaling about US$ 9.2 billion or just 8
percent of GDP in fiscal year 2002. Of the outstanding debt, about 23 percent was shortterm. External debt was expected to rise marginally in 2003 along with the projected
current account deficit in the balance of payments. An increase in non-debt-creating
external flows, the Paris Club debt restructuring, and a debt write-off of US$ 1 billion
significantly improved the debt profile of Pakistan in 2003. External debt amounted to
US$ 29.8 billion in 2002-2003 as a percentage of GDP decreased from 46 to 42 percent
compared to previous year. Retirement of some external debts and the replacement of
24
expensive debt by soft loans from international financial institutions have helped in
reducing debt servicing costs.
By contrast, Turkey’s external debt has risen steadily, reaching US$ 131.2 billion
or 72.3 percent of GDP in 2002 compared with US$ 113.8 billion in 2001. Medium and
long-term foreign debt (contracted largely by the public sector) was put at US$ 116
billion or about 88 percent of the total, and short-term debt at US$ 15.2 billion, the latter
was held almost entirely by the private sector.
The substantial FDI inflows also enabled Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan to reduce
their foreign debt burden. In net terms, the latter country did not have external debt as
most of the external obligations consisted of intra-company loans in the energy sector.
Kazakhstan’s external debt was increased from US$ 15.1 billion in 2001 to US$ 18.2
billion in 2002. External resource inflows, including new bond issues, were expected to
help to diversify the economy away from its heavy reliance on hydrocarbon resources.
The foreign debt of Azerbaijan was about US$ 1.4 billion in 2002 increased from a gross
external debt position of US$ 452 million in 1996.
Tajikistan succeeded in reducing its foreign debt in 2002, from US$ 1.2 billion (or
124.2 percent of GDP in 2000) to US$ 982 million (or 81 percent) at the end of 2002.
Moreover, the Government had also reached an agreement with the Russian Federation
on restructuring its US$ 300 million debt over a 3-year period. The foreign debt of
Kyrgyzstan, which amounted to more than 100 percent of GDP in 2001-2003, was
expected to reach $1.7 billion in 2003. Improvements in fiscal policy and revenue
generation would help to reduce public borrowing from the present level of 8 per cent of
GDP per year to 3 per cent in the medium term.
Uzbekistan had a relatively strong position in servicing their external debt owing
to the strong export performance by the former country, and large resource inflows.
Uzbekistan stabilized its foreign debt stock, which accounted for about 45.6 percent of
GDP in 2002. Afghanistan’s national development budget for fiscal 2003 includes US$
1.8 billion of humanitarian and reconstruction projects to be financed by donor grants but
commitments were US$ 500 million short of that amount. International assistance over
the next several years needs to be in the form of grants in order to avoid future debtservicing difficulties; relief of existing claims and regularization of relations with all
creditors were essential to ensure the sustainability of debt-service payments.
6. Prospects for the ECO Regional Economy in 2004-2005
The economic recovery in ECO region, which was weakened in 2001 (1.1
percent), strengthened considerably in 2002 (7.3 percent) making it the one of the most
dynamic regions in the world. Buoyant growth in the ECO countries represents an
impressive turnaround after the 2001 slowdown. ECO countries as a group are growing
faster than the global economy as well as some other groups of countries. Progress is
being made on both fronts as can be seen in the declining rates of inflation, lower fiscal
deficits and improved current account positions. This progress is providing greater
stability in exchange rates and a more stable environment for investment, both domestic
and foreign. However, institutional progress has been slower and more uneven, especially
25
in the financial sector, a key interface between the real economy and the saving and
investment decisions of individuals. Although substantial imbalances remain in the world
economy, growth in major industrial countries is projected to be quite robust, while ECO
countries, the improved external environment, combined with high oil prices, strong
domestic demand and buoyant intraregional trade, will allow the region to grow in 2004–
2005 at annual rates similar to pervious year. Particularly, the oil and gas sector will
continue to drive growth in the hydrocarbon-producing countries of ECO such as
Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.
The economies of ECO countries generally showed significant resilience in 2003.
Despite the war in Iraq and outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
epidemic, developments of the countries in the ECO region in 2002-2003 and the first
quarter of 2004 show that the economic fundamentals of the region are strong. Domestic
demand has been picking up. In this context, it is worth noting that avian influenza
impact on regional growth was modest as happened with SARS in 2003.
Prospects for 2004 are for an easing of the collective growth rate of the region.
The outlook for Iran for fiscal year 2004 is favourable, the investment and growth
momentum under the impetus of the economic reforms of the past few years is expected
to sustain the expansion in both oil-related and non-oil activities and hence in domestic
demand to underpin projected GDP growth at around 7 percent in 2004. Depending on
the realization of the hopes for peace, security, and further stability raised by the adoption
of the Constitution and on the success of the national elections planned for 2004, 20
percent GDP growth in fiscal year 2003 for Afghanistan is predictable driven by
continued strong growth in agriculture and donor finance-induced growth in services and
construction. Turkey’s economy is expected to come up against sluggish growth in the
EU, its principal trading partner. In Turkey, output expansion is expected to be robust at
around 10 percent in 2004, with the agricultural sector making some gains over the
previous year but GDP growth projected to stand around 5 percent in 2005. Pakistan
could expect a slight improvement of economic growth to 5.3 percent in 2004 (the
Government’s strategy is to expand aggregate output further to 6 percent in a couple of
years). Economic growth in the other member states of ECO, by and large, was expected
to moderate somewhat in 2004-2005 mainly due to a weakening of external stimuli,
including less buoyancy in the export prices for natural resources. Meanwhile, the
economies of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are expected to be affected by limited
investment and sluggish domestic demand. Thus, GDP growth could decelerate to 4.1
percent in 2004 and pick up somewhat to 4.5 percent in 2005 in Kyrgyzstan, and about 8
percent in 2004 and about 5 percent in 2005 as the recovery phase is completed in
Tajikistan. GDP of Azerbaijan is projected to grow by 9.0 percent in 2004 and by 12.5
percent in 2005, based on oil sector projects and price of crude oil. Although preliminary
estimates for GDP growth in Kazakhstan is at 7–7.5 percent in the medium term, but
rising exports of oil from a new hydrocarbon-bearing area at Karachaganak and
Kashagan and continued high investment could push up GDP growth to 9.5 percent in
2005. GDP growth is expected to remain buoyant in Turkmenistan, at around 10 percent
per year in 2004–2005, driven largely by continuing expansion of production and export
of energy products. In Uzbekistan GDP growth is projected not to improve significantly
from the 2003 rate of about 4 percent, although the outturn in 2004 could be slightly
26
higher at about 4.5 percent if the global recovery and buoyant import demand in
Uzbekistan’s main markets are sufficiently strong. The outlook for 2005 would brighten
if farm privatization and policy reforms could be accelerated.
Furthermore, on current trends, growth is expected to pick up additional
momentum in 2004 should the global economy build up steam, via strong household
consumption and higher corporate investment expenditures, in 2004. Barring significant
negative shocks, the collective growth rate in the ECO region should be largely sustained.
Nevertheless, several issues require policy attention, including ways to maintain sound
macroeconomic fundamentals and implement ongoing reform. In addition, cross-border
collaboration and initiatives will be needed to foster and accelerate cooperation across a
wide range of issues facing the region. An important point is that the brighter economic
outlook for 2004-2005 will present a timely opportunity to strengthen policies aimed at
resolving macroeconomic imbalances, addressing the fragility of banking and financial
systems, and implementing structural policy reforms to progressively improve the
investment climate. The implementation of such reforms and the combination-for the first
time since the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98-of buoyant domestic, regional, and
international markets should significantly boost business investment in the region.
Assuming robust growth in ECO countries over the next 2 years, and in the absence of
major unforeseen shocks, aggregate GDP growth for ECO region is projected at 6.0
percent in 2004 and 6.2 percent in 2005. Although economic growth in ECO region is
projected to settle to more sustainable rates in 2004-2005, oil and gas sector and
intraregional trade and strong consumer demand will remain a major driver of growth in
ECO region over the next 2 years. Progressively, the whole of the region will benefit
from the dynamism in intraregional trade.
Overall, confidence is high in the economic outlook for the region. Prospects for
2004-2005 indicate a continuation of existing trends on the assumption that the region
experiences no negative shocks, the unravelling of global imbalances does not generate
major disruptions in the financial markets and the economies of the region are able to
maintain sound macroeconomic fundamentals while implementing ongoing programmes
of reform and sustaining competitiveness at the same time. Achieving an appropriate
balance between macroeconomic stability and restructuring in pursuit of sustainable
growth will be crucial to the region’s development. However, at the same time as growth
picks up steam in the ECO region, new policy issues will inevitably arise in the years
ahead. In addition, short-term policy issues have to be placed within a longer-term
continuum. Most countries in the ECO region have to confront major development
challenges that go beyond short-term economic management and embody structural
change, such as progress in poverty eradication, in accordance with internationally agreed
goals and commitments. Consequently, achieving an appropriate balance between
macroeconomic stability and restructuring in pursuit of sustainable growth will be crucial
to the region’s development.
27
ECO Countries Key Indicators 2003
TABLE-1 POPULATION (Thousand people)
1996
1997
1998
Countries
Afghanistan
19,875
20,287
Azerbaijan
7,763
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
60,055
15,578
4,657
127,510
5,769
62,873
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
ECO Region
World Total
ECO Share in
World Total (%)
1999
2000
2001
2002
20,570
20,896
21,391
22,500
23,300
7,838
7,913
7,983
8,049
8,111
8,172
60,938
15,334
4,725
130,560
5,823
64,015
61,836
15,073
4,797
133,610
5,939
65,157
62,745
14,927
4,865
136,690
6,064
66,293
63,664
14,869
4,915
139,960
6,188
67,420
64,604
14,846
4,955
142,860
6,313
68,529
65,540
14,863
4,993
145,960
6,441
69,626
4,710
4,779
4,920
5,097
5,285
5,505
5,788
23,224
23,561
23,954
24,312
24,650
24,964
25,272
332,014 337,859 343,769
349,871
356,391
363,187
369,955
5,754,687 5,834,497 5,913,781 5,992,485 6,070,581 6,134,100 6,211,100
5.77
5.79
5.81
5.84
5.87
5.92
5.96
1999
2000
2001
2002
TABLE-2 POPULATION GROWTH RATE (%)
1997
1998
28
Countries
Afghanistan
2.1
1.4
1.6
2.4
5.2
3.6
Azerbaijan
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
1.5
-1.6
1.5
2.4
0.9
1.8
1.5
-1.7
1.5
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.5
-1.0
1.4
2.3
2.1
1.7
1.5
-0.4
1.0
2.4
2.0
1.7
1.5
-0.2
0.8
2.1
2.0
1.6
1.4
0.1
0.8
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.4
3.0
1.7
1.7
1.4
3.6
1.5
1.8
1.3
3.7
1.4
1.9
1.3
4.2
1.3
1.9
1.0
5.2
1.2
1.9
1.3
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
ECO Region
World
Note : Calculated on the basis of Table-1
TABLE-3 TOTAL LABOUR FORCE (Thousand people)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Countries
Afghanistan
8,115
8,281
8,394
8,524
8,724
9,001
9,341
Azerbaijan
3,719
3,732
3,744
3,748
3,748
3,763
3,778
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
16,027
7,490
1,792
36,408
1,731
21,804
16,723
7,440
1,792
38,183
1,842
22,755
17,375
7,053
1,811
39,078
1,855
23,385
18,020
7,056
1,901
39,400
1,791
23,878
18,559
7,107
1,913
40,263
1,794
23,078
19,139
7,479
1,939
41,840
1,872
23,491
19,819
7,400
1,977
42,750
1,904
23,818
2,296
11,376
110,757
2,766,528
1,976
8,709
111,433
2,811,555
2,006
8,833
113,534
2,856,635
2,039
8,924
115,280
2,901,714
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
ECO Region Total
World Total
ECO Share in
World Total (%)
2,120
2,179
2,244
9,018
9,174
9,368
116,324 119,878 122,398
2,946,769 2,991,656 3,036,587
3.9
4.0
4.0
TABLE-4 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (%)
1996
1997
1998
29
1999
2000
2001
2002
Countries
Afghanistan
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
9.1
13.0
4.3
6.1
2.6
6.5
13.1
13.0
3.1
5.9
2.8
6.8
12.4
13.1
3.1
5.9
3.2
6.9
13.5
13.5
2.9
7.8
3.0
7.7
14.3
12.8
3.0
7.8
2.7
6.5
14.2
10.4
3.1
7.8
2.3
8.4
12.8
9.3
3.1
7.8
2.5
10.3
3.3
0.4
6.2
1.9
0.3
6.9
2.0
0.4
6.8
2.1
0.4
8.0
2.4
0.4
7.8
2.6
0.4
8.1
2.5
0.4
8.2
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
ECO Region Average*
Note: (*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan.
TABLE-5 GDP at CURRENT PRICES (Million US $)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
…
…
…
…
2713
2618
4048
3181
3961
4447
4584
5273
5708
6156
97990
21041
1802
62275
1053
181077
114191
22172
1768
61989
926
188735
79951
22139
1634
62799
1314
201561
90000
16854
1226
60791
1085
183214
130745
18292
1367
55159
987
198389
144595
22154
1531
60243
1066
147285
115912
24447
1615
69576
1217
181569
Countries
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
*
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan**
Turkey
Turkmenistan**
Uzbekistan**
ECO Region Total***
World Total
ECO as % of World ***
Note:
2003
2610
2911
3857
13907
14733
14976
17068
384329
411085
391732
378679
29185163 29693500 29638131 30694072
1.32
1.38
1.32
1.23
4932
6754
8800
13783
11635
9707
431640
403589
423047
31507991 31192437 32312146
1.37
1.29
1.31
(*) Figures in national currency converted according to GDP composition at oil and non-oil exchange rate of
corresponding years.
: (**) Figures in national currency converted at exchange rate of corresponding years.
: (***) Figures for 1996,1997, 1998,1999 calculated without data of Afghanistan.
TABLE-6 GDP Per CAPITA ($ US)
1996
1997
1998
30
1999
2000
2001
2002
Countries
Afghanistan
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
127
116
174
Azerbaijan
410
505
562
574
655
704
753
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
1,632
1,351
387
488
183
2,880
1,874
1,446
374
475
159
2,948
1,293
1,469
341
470
221
3,093
1,434
1,129
252
445
179
2,764
2,054
1,230
278
394
159
2,943
2,238
1,492
309
422
169
2,149
1,769
1,645
323
477
189
2,608
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
ECO Average*
World Average
425
599
1,231
5,072
546
625
1,294
5,089
592
625
1,212
5,012
757
702
1,151
5,122
933
559
1,211
5,190
1227
466
1,111
5,085
1,520
384
1,144
5,202
Note
: Calculated on the basis of Table-1 and Table-5
: (*) Figures for 1996,1997, 1998,1999 calculated without data of Afghanistan.
TABLE-7 GDP GROWTH RATE (%)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Countries
Afghanistan
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
1.3
5.8
10.0
7.4
11.1
9.9
10.6
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
4.9
0.5
7.1
1.7
-16.7
7.0
2.4
1.7
9.9
3.5
1.7
7.5
4.0
-1.9
2.1
4.2
5.3
3.1
1.8
2.7
3.7
3.9
3.7
-4.7
5.1
9.8
5.4
2.2
8.3
7.4
5.4
13.5
5.3
3.4
10.2
-7.5
6.5
9.5
-0.5
5.1
9.5
7.8
7.0
1.7
5.0
3.3
-11.3
5.2
4.9
3.6
7.0
4.3
3.3
2.2
16.5
4.3
-0.6
3.1
18.6
3.8
6.2
3.9
20.4
4.2
1.1
1.3
19.8
4.2
7.3
1.7
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
ECO average*
World
Note: (*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan
31
TABLE-8 COMPOSITION OF GDP BY SECTORS (%)
Countries
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Sectors
Agriculture
Industry
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
57.0
53.3
52.0
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
23.2
26.0
24.1
Service
n.a
24.9
25.9
49.2
14.4
38.1
n.a
20.0
25.3
54.7
13.6
35.9
n.a
18.0
22.0
60.0
16.2
30.7
n.a
18.2
28.2
53.6
13.6
34.4
19.8
15.9
36.0
48.1
11.6
39.4
20.7
14.8
37.6
47.6
11.2
37.2
23.9
14.0
37.3
48.7
11.8
38.0
47.5
12.1
25.6
62.3
46.2
11.1
42.7
25.7
50.5
11.5
25.6
62.9
41.1
16.5
42.3
25.9
53.1
8.6
29.3
62.1
35.9
16.3
47.8
25.4
52.0
9.9
32.9
57.2
34.8
21.7
43.5
25.9
49.0
8.2
38.5
53.3
34.2
25.0
40.8
24.6
51.6
8.7
36.2
55.1
34.5
23.1
42.4
24.1
50.2
7.9
35.4
56.7
34.4
17.9
47.7
23.6
24.8
25.5
25.6
25.0
25.2
25.0
25.0
49.5
48.6
49.0
49.1
50.2
50.0
51.4
36.0
32.0
25.1
25.4
27.0
26.5
26.4
25.7
38.3
15.9
24.2
22.0
46.0
13.6
24.2
20.1
54.8
16.9
21.4
21.7
52.9
14.6
21.9
23.9
49.1
13.6
22.5
22.7
50.8
11.4
24.2
22.1
51.5
11.7
24.1
Agriculture
Industry
Service
Agriculture
Industry
Service
Agriculture
Industry
Service
Agriculture
Industry
Service
Agriculture
Industry
Service
Agriculture
Tajikistan
Turkey
Industry
Service
Agriculture
Industry
32
Service
Agriculture
Turkmenistan Industry
Service
Agriculture
Industry
Uzbekistan
Service
59.9
62.2
61.7
63.5
63.9
64.4
64.2
12.6
54.4
33.0
22.4
26.1
51.5
20.1
33.0
46.9
28.3
15.6
56.1
25.2
27.5
47.3
26.8
14.9
58.3
24.9
31.4
43.7
29
14.3
56.7
23.0
35.0
42.0
30.1
14.2
55.7
23.8
37.0
39.2
30
14.2
55.8
20.8
36.0
43.2
30.6
14.1
55.3
TABLE-9 PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUES (Million US $)
Countries
Afghanistan
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
132
Azerbaijan
469
643
602
679
799
843
936
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
32697
3610
306
10626
205
40644
35594
3708
293
10419
195
45478
30600
3953
302
10015
231
52611
52677
3335
207
10461
201
47931
59709
4213
210
9157
137
61312
71600
5088
259
10078
161
48000
20753
5353
307
11993
205
57360
n.a
3471
649
4765
640
4423
749
4643
1285
4895
1031
n.a
n.a
n.a
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
TABLE-10 SHARE OF TAXES IN PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUES (%)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Countries
Afghanistan
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
92.3
90.7
90.6
83.6
80.4
91.0
91.8
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
21.9
73.3
74.9
84.4
65.9
27.8
73.0
75.4
82.6
60.8
45.1
69.7
77.7
83.4
55.0
42.3
82.9
73.6
75.6
55.8
35.0
87.5
76.5
81.2
92.8
33.3
85.2
73.3
76.3
91.9
30.6
91.7
72.7
74.9
87.6
33
Turkey
82.4
84.7
83.8
87.0
82.5
81.6
76.6
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
98.0
80.0
94.0
94.2
89.0
92.1
81.0
94.6
n.a
93.9
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
2000
2001
2002
TABLE-11 PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURES (mln US $)
1996
1997
1998
1999
Countries
Afghanistan
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
349
Azerbaijan
561
738
683
791
854
867
958
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
32416
4161
405
14955
196
56612
37340
4532
386
15381
188
60467
40497
4820
351
11707
229
72007
53206
3919
239
14364
191
77027
62429
4236
237
12414
143
85033
73529
5177
253
13125
160
71654
23311
5438
324
14721
196
80547
n.a
3818
654
5546
716
4779
748
5151
1270
5234
1085
n.a
n.a
n.a
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
TABLE-12 TOTAL FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT (mln US $)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1
-2
0
6
0
1
0
Azerbaijan
621
1,111
1,352
755
664
900
2,012
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
26
1,674
153
918
18
914
53
2,107
86
601
94
852
24
1,233
136
376
164
953
35
1,852
109
470
275
813
39
2,781
90
322
323
1,707
50
4,557
90
485
354
3,288
37
4,106
116
798
434
590
Countries
Afghanistan
34
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
ECO Total
World Total
ECO as % of World
108
90
4,522
386,140
1.2
108
167
5,178
478,082
1.1
62
89
131
25
20
25
4,326
4,423
6,082
686,028 1,079,083 1,392,957
0.6
0.4
0.4
150
64
9,938
823,825
1.2
100
81
8,273
651,189
1.3
TABLE-13 AVERAGE INFLATION RATE (% Annual Change in CPI)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
-43.4
52.3
Azerbaijan
19.1
3.7
-0.8
-8.5
1.8
1.5
2.8
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
23.2
28.7
32.0
11.8
370.2
76.5
17.3
11.2
13.0
7.8
159.8
99.1
18.1
1.9
16.8
5.7
2.7
69.7
20.1
17.8
39.9
3.6
30.1
68.8
12.6
9.8
9.6
4.4
60.6
39.0
11.4
6.4
3.7
3.5
12.5
68.5
15.8
6.6
2.3
3.1
14.5
29.7
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
992.4
54.0
21.4
70.9
19.8
29.0
20.1
29.1
7.4
25.0
11.7
27.2
7.8
22.0
2001
2002
Countries
Afghanistan*
Note:
(*) CPI (Kabul, March-March, percent change)
TABLE-14 TOTAL PRODUCTION OF ENERGY (th.t.o.e)
1996
Countries
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Iran
Kazakhstan*
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan*
1997
1998
1999
2000
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
1980
n.a
n.a
16445
16078
18181
20959
20884
21699
21736
220169
57800
2749
24165
14886
225391
52300
2862
24745
14005
230845
49100
2507
25917
14422
219691
47498
2807
26497
15797
241932
51635
4148
27335
14247
232322
55384
3867
29075
14382
227446
58331
3411
31142
15302
35
Turkey
28283
29078
30234
28673
27977
27407
24569
Turkmenistan*
Uzbekistan
1013
48900
9498
50955
9416
54175
8860
54800
9943
54557
10614
53850
10707
55892
Note : (*)
Values are in mln.kw.h.
TABLE-15 TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY (th.t.o.e)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
2140
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
15424
15315
15271
14441
14852
15182
15257
Iran
Kazakhstan*
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan*
Turkey
81184
64600
4348
22647
14068
68878
86107
56600
3999
23345
14103
56830
88513
53000
3797
24111
14667
57870
88322
50263
3945
25285
15607
59137
92040
54369
4937
25256
15580
61211
90454
56782
4495
25604
15731
56703
96927
58159
4815
26313
16087
58772
Turkmenistan*
7220
8003
Uzbekistan
43900
44508
Note : (*) Values are in mln.kw.h.
8204
46653
8439
48751
9050
50388
9552
48899
10049
50838
Countries
Afghanistan
TABLE-16
TOTAL LENGTH OF RAILWAYS (km)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
2,123
2,117
2,117
2,116
2,116
2,116
2,122
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
5,612
14,358
417
8,775
483
8,600
5,995
14,421
417
8,775
483
8,607
6,264
14,403
417
7,791
483
8,607
6,398
14,362
417
7,791
483
8,682
6,668
14,530
417
7,791
533
8,671
7,156
14,588
417
7,791
n.a
7,265
14,312
417
7,791
n.a
8,671
8,671
Countries
Afghanistan
36
Turkmenistan
2,313
2,317
2,398
Uzbekistan
3,482
3,500
3,500
*
ECO Region
46,163
46,632
45,980
Note : (*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan
2,445
3,500
46,194
2,520
3,500
46,746
2,523
3,900
…
2,523
4,000
…
TABLE-17 NET TON-KILOMETERS CARRIED BY RAILWAYS (mln.ton-km)
Countries
Afghanistan
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
2,778
3,515
4,702
5,052
5,770
6,141
6,980
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
13,638
112,688
480.8
4,607
1,719
9,018
14,400
106,425
471.6
4,447
1,384
9,717
12,638
103,045
465.6
4,330
1,458
8,466
14,082
91,700
353.8
3,612
1,282
8,446
14,179
124,985
337.9
4,520
1,326
9,895
14,613
135,653
331.6
4,573
1,250
7,562
15,842
133,088
394.6
5,605
1,086
7,224
Turkmenistan
7,004
7,675
7,701
Uzbekistan
19,600
16,498
15,672
ECO Region* 171,533
164,533
158,478
Note : (*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan
7,337
14,304
146,169
6,303
15,021
182,337
6,437
15,732
192,292
7,476
18,428
196,123
TABLE-18 TOTAL LENGTH OF ASPHALTED ROADS (km)
Countries
Afghanistan
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
7,054
7,018
7,033
7,034
7,034
7,035
7,034
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
85,000
82,400
n.a
126,117
12,700
97,000
94,162
79,000
16,100
133,462
12,700
106,791
94,068
80,900
17,200
137,352
12,700
117,955
99,000
80,900
17,200
138,200
12,700
128,707
101,000
81,300
17,200
144,652
12,700
138,572
113,112
82,600
17,200
148,877
n.a
145,611
n.a
88,388
17,200
151,028
n.a
150,873
37
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
n.a
n.a
12,098
75,200
12,193
75,300
12,236
76,500
12,236
73,600
12,236
74,400
12,236
74,900
TABLE-19 NUMBER OF HOSPITAL BEDS PER 10,000 POPULATION
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Countries
Afghanistan
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
95.7
93.3
91.6
89.9
87.8
86.0
85.0
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
16.4
106.0
86.7
6.3
72.9
24.8
15.8
89.8
86.0
6.4
70.0
25.7
16.0
82.6
82.9
6.0
67.7
25.5
16.5
72.6
79.2
6.5
67.7
25.7
16.6
72.1
74.5
7.0
65.8
25.8
16.9
74.4
65.6
6.9
63.4
25.5
16.9
75.3
58.1
6.8
62.1
25.5
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
102.0
72.5
70.5
65.3
59.6
58.2
59.5
56.4
50.4
55.9
50.7
55.8
50.2
57.8
1999
2000
2001
2002
TABLE-20 NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS PER 10,000 POPULATION
1996
1997
Countries
Afghanistan
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
38.0
37.3
36.4
36.1
36.5
36.3
36.5
3.3
37.4
33.2
6.1
20.9
11.3
3.7
35.9
31.5
6.2
20.1
11.7
3.8
35.6
30.9
6.4
20.6
11.7
3.9
34.0
30.3
6.6
21.1
11.9
3.9
33.0
29.1
6.9
21.6
12.1
3.3
34.6
28.2
7.1
21.0
12.9
3.3
36.1
27.3
7.3
20.1
13.4
Turkmenistan
31.0
29.8
29.8
30.0
Uzbekistan
33.2
34.3
33.9
33.2
(*) Physicians employed in the ministry of health and medical education
29.3
32.8
28.8
32.4
28.6
31.9
*
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
38
1998
TABLE-21 ADULT LITERACY RATE (%)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Countries
Afghanistan
31.5
n.a
33.4
35.0
36.9
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
98.3
98.4
98.5
98.8
98.8
98.8
98.8
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
72.9
98.9
97.0
42.2
99.0
85.2
65.7
99.1
97.0
43.6
99.0
85.1
68.0
99.3
97.0
45.0
99.0
85.8
69.0
99.5
98.7
47.1
99.1
86.3
70.1
99.5
98.7
49.0
99.5
86.5
68.7
99.5
98.7
50.5
99.5
86.3
70.4
99.5
98.7
51.6
99.5
87.5
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
98.0
99.0
98.0
99.0
98.0
99.1
98.0
99.2
98.0
99.2
98.0
99.2
98.0
99.2
TABLE-22 NUMBER OF INCOMING TOURISTS (th.)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
5.0
5.0
5.0
n.a
4.0
n.a
n.a
Azerbaijan
n.a
306
483
602
681
767
793
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
573
394
48.6
369
0.7
7,888
764
284
87.4
375
2.1
9,063
1,008
257
59.4
429
3.2
8,638
1,321
394
48.3
432
4.5
7,487
1,342
1,683
58.8
557
7.7
10,428
1,402
n.a
98.6
500
n.a
1,585
n.a
157.2
498
n.a
11,619
13,248
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
29.3
366.0
11.6
368.1
8.6
484.2
4.1
488.0
3.3
n.a
5.2
n.a
10.8
n.a
Countries
Afghanistan
39
TABLE-23 ECO COUNTRIES TOTAL EXTERNAL TRADE ($ US mln)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
500
436
373
411
550
551
950
173
201
209
167
186
113
101
Countries
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Import
Export
Balance
Import
Export
Balance
Import
Export
Balance
Import
Export
Balance
Import
Export
Balance
Import
-327
960.6
631.3
-329.3
14,989
22,391
-235
794.3
781.3
-13
14,123
18,381
-164
1,076.5
606.2
-470.3
14,286
13,118
-244
1,035.9
929.7
-106.2
13,433
21,030
-364
1,172.1
1,745.2
573.1
15,086
28,461
-438
1,430.9
2,314.3
883.4
18,129
23,904
-849
1,665.4
2,167.5
502.1
23,786
28,186
7,402.0
4,241.1
5,911.1
1,670.0
837.7
505.4
-332.3
11,894.0
4,258.0
4,300.8
6,497.0
2,196.2
709.3
603.8
-105.5
10,118.0
-1,168.0
4,313.9
5,334.1
1,020.2
841.5
513.6
-327.9
9,432.0
7,597.0
3,655.1
5,871.6
2,216.5
599.7
453.8
-145.9
10,309.0
13,375.0
5,040.0
8,812.2
3,772.2
554.1
504.5
-49.6
10,729.0
5,775.0
6,445.6
8,631.5
2,185.9
467.2
476.1
8.9
10,340.0
4,400.0
6,584.0
9,670.3
3,086.3
586.7
485.5
-101.2
12,220.0
Export
8,320.0
8,628.0
7,779.0
8,569.0
9,202.0
9,135.0
11,160.0
Balance
-3,574.0
-1,490.0
-1,653.0
-1,740.0
-1,527.0
-1,205.0
-1,060.0
668.1
750.3
711.0
663.1
675.0
682.4
715.0
Import
Tajikistan
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Export
Balance
Import
Export
Balance
Import
Export
Balance
770.1
745.7
102.0
-4.6
43,627.0 48,559.0
23,224.0 26,261.0
-20,403.0 -22,298.0
1,011.1
1,681.5
670.4
1,183.4
751.1
-432.3
40
596.6
688.7
-114.4
25.6
45,921.0 40,671.2
26,973.9 26,587.2
-18,947.1 -14,084.0
1,007.5
593.9
-413.6
1,478.3
1,187.0
-291.3
784.3
651.5
738.0
109.3
-30.9
23.0
54,502.8 41,399.1 51,553.8
27,774.9 31,334.2 36,059.1
-26,727.9 -10,064.9 -15,494.7
1,785.0
2,505.5
720.5
2,349.0
2,620.2
271.2
2,119.4
2,855.6
736.2
Import
Export
Uzbekistan
Balance
Import
Export
ECO Region
Balance
ECO Total Trade Volume
ECO Export/Import (%)
Import
Export
World Total
Balance
Import
ECO Share in
World Total (%) Export
4,710.0
4,185.0
3,290.0
3,110.0
2,945.0
3,121.0
3,160.0
4,210.0
4,025.0
3,530.0
3,235.0
3,265.0
3,144.0
3,184.0
-500.0
-160.0
240.0
125.0
320.0
23.0
24.0
83,438.6 85,159.1 81,252.4 75,366.3 93,039.0 84,915.2 103,340.3
67,817.4 66,874.9 59,254.3 68,719.0 83,240.6 82,323.8 94,607.0
-15,621.2 -18,284.2 -21,998.1 -6,647.3
-9,798.4 -2,591.4 -8,733.3
151,256.0 152,034.0 140,506.7 144,085.3 176,279.6 167,239.0 197,947.3
81.3
78.5
72.9
91.2
89.5
96.9
91.5
5,535,000 5,725,000 5,664,000 5,901,000 6,697,000 6,452,000 6,693,000
5,391,000 5,577,000 5,496,000 5,708,000 6,445,000 6,191,000 6,455,000
-144,000 -148,000 -168,000 -193,000 -252,000 -261,000 -238,000
1.51
1.49
1.43
1.28
1.39
1.32
1.54
1.26
1.20
1.08
1.20
1.29
1.33
1.47
TABLE-24 ECO INTRA-REGIONAL TRADE ($ US mln)
MEMBER
Afghanistan Azerbaijan
STATES
IMP EXP IMP
Iran
Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Total ECO
% of Total
Trade
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP
IMP
EXP
… 41.5
25.4 0.6
0.43 24.0
0.4 22.4
0.4 …
… …
…
…
…
1998
Afghanist
an
1999
-
-
1.3
… 3.8
0.1 8.4
0.3 3.2
-
-
0.2
… 11.8
0.4 12.5
… 2.6
… 89.8
36.0 2.4
0.08 0.7
0.6 45.0
1.1 …
… …
…
…
…
2000
-
-
0.8
0 39.7
1.1 64.4
0 4.8
0.2 135.4 36.0 2.9
0.09 8.9
0.5 41.8
1.0 …
… …
…
…
…
2001
-
-
0.2
… …
… 19.9
… 1.8
… 157.0 23.7 3.4
0.08 7.7
0.4 46.2
1.1 …
… …
…
…
…
2002
-
-
…
… …
… 22.0
… 50.0
… …
…
…
… 207.0 23.0 …
… …
1998 0.0
1.2
-
-
42.6 44.5 44.4
10.6 1.2
4.4 0.4
0.02 0.20
1.6 219.7 135.8 26.4
13.9 2.8
2.0 337.7 214.0 31.4
35.3
Azerbaija
n
1999 0.0
0.2
-
-
47.4 22.7 24.9
4.1 2.0
3.7 2.7
0.1 0.20
10.8 143.0 69.1 13.0
8.7
0.4
0.7 233.6 120.1 22.6
12.9
2000 0.0
0.8
-
-
56.8
7.7 57.6
6.7 3.2
1.9 1.6
0.3 0.10
19.6 128.5 105.0 9.6
8.2
0.8
1.1 258.2 151.3 22.0
8.7
2001 0.0
0.2
-
-
55.4
9.1 99.5
2002 0.0
0.7
-
-
57.9 29.9 149.9
Iran
… …
…
…
…
6.6 1.4
0.3 0.8
3.6 0.90
12.1 148.2 67.4 135.2
12.0 6.1
3.1 447.5 114.4 31.3
4.9
11.6 0.7
1.1 1.1
2.5 0.40
28.0 156.2 83.4 119.8
8.7
3.8 487.4 169.7 29.3
7.8
1.4
1998 0.0
3.0 38.0 120.0
-
-
87.0
29.0 14.0
12.0 27.0
35.0 4.0
25.0 271.0 158.0 5.0
102.0 27.0
53.0 473.0 537.0
3.3
4.1
1999 0.4
11.0 25.0 119.0
-
-
131.0
24.0 10.0
18.0 23.0
50.0 2.0
22.0 227.0 183.0 13.0
122.0 20.0
3.4
2.8
2000 1.0
41.0 24.0 248.0
-
-
344.0 333.0 20.0
20.0 40.0
64.0 1.0
32.0 233.0 165.0 10.0
87.0 50.0
49.0 451.4 598.0
1071.
81.0 723.0 0
4.8
3.8
2001 0.7
35.8 20.4 208.4
-
-
270.0
31.6 14.8
16.4 58.7
78.7 1.2
38.4 266.4 61.4 10.8
73.0 51.1
81.2 694.1 624.9
3.8
2.6
2002 0.1 125.0 21.3 251.5
-
-
240.0
47.5 9.4
21.1 70.4 123.7 3.7
52.8 337.2 84.3 20.2
89.1 40.2
76.6 742.5 871.6
3.1
3.1
118.2 400.3 440.4
9.3
8.3
1998 0.3
Kazakhst
an
1999 0.2
7.6 10.0
29.3 9.4
76.5
-
-
51.1
60.3 0.5
2.3 3.6
42.8 204.3 92.4 25.7
11.0 95.4
11.4 4.3
30.9 7.8
91.6
-
-
32.5
59.1 1.6
2.1 3.0
43.3 106.1 36.5 17.8
12.6 92.8
66.0 266.1 353.5
7.3
6.0
2000 0.0
57.9 9.9
46.8 13.3 203.3
-
-
30.1
58.3 2.0
1.5 4.7
52.6 144.0 62.3 43.4
7.1 70.5
133.5 317.9 623.3
6.3
7.1
2001 0.0
18.2 10.7
69.3 11.0 208.9
-
-
33.5
86.5 1.0
0.5 2.3
61.2 137.0 74.2 77.5
14.2 81.1
150.2 354.1 683.2
5.5
7.9
2002 0.0
31.1 15.5 112.7 12.4 309.9
-
-
31.8 108.6 1.2
0.4 3.0
45.8 173.7 97.4 74.6
15.3 86.5
101.0 398.7 822.2
6.1
8.5
1998 0.0
2.6 7.2
2.9 7.7
5.4 75.3
85.5
-
-
1.5
0.5 6.4
8.3 37.4
7.4 8.2
1.2
122.2
38.5 265.9 152.3 31.6
29.7
Kyrgyzsta
n
1999 0.1
1.5 3.4
2.4 8.6
7.6 72.7
45.0
-
-
0.2
0.4 4.0
9.5 23.1
4.6 7.8
2.8
50.0
46.6 169.9 120.4 28.3
26.5
2000 0.1
4.0 2.4
4.5 8.7
6.7 57.4
33.4
-
-
0.2
0.1 1.9
7.5 26.8
7.2 18.7
2.7
74.6
89.4 190.8 155.5 34.4
30.8
2001 0.0
2.1 0.4
1.6 6.6
8.2 81.8
39.0
-
-
0.2
0.1 1.5
6.7 15.8
13.8 9.0
1.5
66.7
48.0 182.0 121.0 39.0
25.4
2002 0.0
4.4 2.4
5.6 4.3
4.7 123.9
36.8
-
-
0.3
0.03 3.5
10.2 17.0
16.4 1.7
2.4
60.1
27.8 213.2 108.3 36.3
22.3
41
TABLE-24 ECO INTRA-REGIONAL TRADE ($ US mln) (continued)
MEMBER
STATES
Afghanistan Azerbaijan
IMP
Iran
Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP
EXP IMP EXP
1.9 78.0
11.3 0.3
12.6 0.0
4.1
-
-
1.2
4.2 132.6 35.0 0.8
2.1
64.6
11.9 315.2
131.6 3.3
1.7
Pakistan 1999 40.9 115.3 0.8
1.6 130.3 11.5 0.6
7.9 0.1
3.1
-
-
0.5
1.8 106.5 61.1 4.1
1.9
25.1
10.0 308.9
214.2 3.0
2.5
2000 30.1 142.6 0.8
0.9 370.6 24.0 0.4
9.5 0.0
2.6
-
-
0.6
2.0 47.5
100.2 1.3
0.7
5.3
9.9 456.6
292.4 4.3
3.2
2001 22.8 168.0 0.0
0.8 157.4 29.1 0.3
8.6 0.0
1.1
-
-
0.4
1.6 34.7
98.0 0.6
3.7
5.3
5.2 221.5
316.1 2.1
3.5
2002 34.8 315.7 0.3
1.9 302.6 63.2 0.3
10.3 0.0
1.5
-
-
0.2
0.2 125.8 146.3 0.5
1.7
1.8
6.2 466.3
547.0 3.8
4.9
1998 0.5
0.6
1.8
0.4 11.3
13.6 51.9
10.0 5.3
5.8
0.2
0.3
-
-
3.9
0.4 31.3
8.7
227.3 125.7 333.5
165.5 46.9 27.7
Tajikistan 1999 0.1
2.2
15.6
0.02 10.4
13.5 78.8
3.6 7.2
3.9
0.2
0.1
-
-
1.4
1.0 15.2
1.3
264.4 181.0 393.3
206.6 59.3 30.0
2000 0.04
2.6
63.1
0.1 7.6
12.6 82.4
5.7 7.6
2.7
0.1
0.1
-
-
4.0
58.4 31.3
4.7
182.8 92.6 378.9
179.5 56.1 22.9
2001 0.1
3.1
33.5
0.5 10.0
29.9 89.1
3.1 9.6
3.1
0.1
0.2
-
-
9.3
75.1 63.5
9.7
232.0 156.7 447.2
281.4 65.5 43.2
2002 0.3
6.3
41.1
0.5 15.6
28.4 72.3
3.5 4.0
0.4
0.1
0.03
-
-
10.4
118.5 60.7
9.9
92.8
1998 1.0
21.9 50.3
327.2 433.0 194.7 253.7 214.3 6.8
41.5 57.4
63.6 7.9
9.8
-
-
42.0
95.8 96.2 156.2 948.3
1999 0.7
0.7
44.0
248.1 635.9 157.8 295.9 96.6 2.8
23.2 25.4
128.5 4.0
5.3
-
-
67.0
2000 0.5
8.0
95.6
230.4 815.7 235.8 346.4 118.7 2.4
20.6 82.2
52.9 16.5
4.5
-
-
2001 0.4
7.0
78.1
225.2 839.8 360.5 90.3
17.4 101.3 31.2 13.7
15.6
-
-
2002 1.1
20.2 64.6
231.4 921.0 334.0 203.9 160.2 17.6 24.0 117.7 57.5 40.7
10.9
-
-
1998 0.4
20.4 15.2
42.6 18.0
144.3 28.6
25.3 2.1
Turkmenis
tan
1999 2.3
40.9 18.8
48.2 66.2
163.0 19.0
2000 1.1
38.0 36.6
37.0 90.9
242.0 19.7
2001 1.2
21.9 61.6
2002 0.01
1998 8.8
119.8 6.3
EXP IMP
% of
Total Trade
48.5 0.6
Turkey
EXP IMP
Total
ECO
Turkmenistan Uzbekistan
EXP IMP
1998 37.1
IMP EXP IMP
Turkey
28.8 297.3
196.4 41.6 26.6
1,124.9 2.1
4.2
106.6 47.5
99.1 1,123.3 866.0 2.8
3.3
97.9
120.2 85.8
82.6 1,543.0 873.6 2.8
3.1
71.7
105.3 36.0
89.7 1,237.7 971.7 3.0
3.1
106.3 110.0 75.3
93.7 1,548.2 1,041.9 3.0
2.9
5.8
0.5
2.1 7.1
27.3 149.0 112.5
-
-
39.6
7.1 260.5
387.4 25.9 65.2
11.5 3.0
7.8
3.2
6.0 3.0
11.9 260.1 128.3
-
-
49.8
6.0 425.4
423.6 28.8 35.7
5.3 4.6
23.2 2.2
0.5 6.7
29.1 253.3 186.0
-
-
35.3
6.0 450.4
567.1 25.2 22.6
7.1 121.4 301.6 15.1
13.2 4.0
6.9
1.9
0.03 19.1
50.5 163.6 126.8
-
-
52.6
13.8 440.5
541.8 18.8 20.7
28.6 28.2
8.1 80.9
355.6 26.5
1.9 4.9
1.1
2.5
0.7 14.7
33.6 233.5 168.1
-
-
37.6
11.5 428.8
609.2 20.2 21.3
11.8 3.0
2.3 19.0
31.2 162.6 122.0 20.2 51.2 3.8
2.8 15.8 122.3 198.0 45.3 10.2
Uzbekista
n
1999 2.7
16.0 2.6
2.5 26.9
40.1 126.3 148.7 46.6 52.2 6.9
2000 0.3
10.9 4.3
3.6 44.9
72.2 215.6 100.8 94.0 50.9 4.8
2001 0.3
11.1 8.5
3.8 47.5
82.0 194.9 118.0 49.4 76.4 2.6
2.3 20.5
2002 0.2
61.5 5.5
5.2 31.9
174.1 181.5 81.8 35.0 76.6 3.9
2.1 15.8 101.1 87.7
42
41.3
-
-
441.4
430.0 13.4 12.2
3.3 31.3 120.1 148.0 66.1 10.0
76.3
-
-
401.4
525.3 12.9 16.2
3.7 19.3 100.9 97.1
99.4 18.1
175.4
-
-
498.2
617.7 16.9 18.9
85.7 105.9 81.4 26.5
138.4
-
-
456.1
598.9 14.6 19.1
64.5
-
-
373.5
669.7 11.8 21.0
102.7 11.8
TABLE-25 TOTAL EXTERNAL DEBT ($US mln)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
5,626
5,584
5,326
5,322
5,309
5,319
5,313
Azerbaijan
452
548
661
964
1,162
1,270
1,356
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
16,835
5,807
738
28,285
867
79,632
12,117
7,750
898
28,982
1,106
84,236
13,999 10,357
9,932 12,081
1,079
1,288
29,673 29,456
1,179
1,233
96,411 102,975
7,953
12,685
1,386
26,900
1,226
118,685
7,214
15,157
1,423
28,145
1,017
113,811
9,250
18,201
1,517
29,787
982
131,264
751
2,330
1,771
2,760
2,303
4,373
n.a
4,627
n.a
4,360
Countries
Afghanistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
2,259
3,213
2,015
4,773
TABLE-26 EXTERNAL DEBT/GDP (ratio)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
..
14.2
..
13.8
..
14.9
..
21.0
195.7
203.2
131.3
Azerbaijan
22.0
22.2
22.0
Iran
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkey
17.2
27.6
41.0
45.4
82.3
44.0
10.6
35.0
50.8
46.8
119.4
44.6
17.5
44.9
66.0
47.3
89.7
47.8
11.5
71.7
105.0
48.5
113.6
56.2
6.1
69.3
101.4
48.8
124.2
59.8
5.0
68.4
93.0
46.7
95.4
77.3
8.0
74.4
93.9
42.8
80.7
72.3
Turkmenistan
37.5
67.9
77.6
Uzbekistan
16.8
18.7
21.5
Note : Calculated on the basis of Table-23 and Table-5
52.2
28.0
46.7
31.7
..
39.8
..
44.9
Countries
Afghanistan
43
TABLE-27 EXCHANGE RATE: ANNUAL AVERAGE (nat.cu/$)
Countries
Afghanistan
Currency
Afghani
Symbol
AF
Azerbaijan
Iran
Azerbaijan manat AZM
Iranian rial
Rls
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Tenge
Som
Pakistan rupee/s
Somoni
T
Som
PRe/PRs
TJS
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
20.22
25.10
37.48
48.86
67.31
55.73
44.78
4,295.5
3,986.8
3,868.8
4,118.0
4,474.2
4,656.4
4,792.6
1,751.5* 1,752.5* 1,752.5*
4445.5** 4781.50** 6468.36**
67.28
75.42
78.29
12.84
17.37
20.77
36.17
41.722
46.79
292.9
560.6
778.3
1,752.5*
8657.68**
119.64
39.02
51.77
1,237
1,752.5*
8188.13**
142.14
47.72
58.44
1,831
1,752.5*
…
**
8008.45 8018.94**
146.73
153.41
48.45
46.94
61.43
58.50
2,372
2,764
Turkey
Turkish lira
TL
81,386
152,071
260,974
420,126
623,704 1,225,412 1,505,840
Turkmenistan Turkmen manat TMM
3,870
4,256
4,808
5,200
5,200
5,200
5,200
Uzbekistan
Sum
SUM
30.2
40.2
94.56
124.72
236.2
423.31
769.5
Note: (*) Official Exchange Rate (**) Market Exchange Rate, since the beginning of 1381 (2002-2003), multiple
exchange rates are unified and thereafter reference exchange rate is determined in interbank market.
44
References
1. ECO Secretariat database
2. National Organizations
Data and information were also obtained from the following national organizations:
Azerbaijan – National Bank of Azerbaijan
State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan Republic
Iran- Statistical Centre of Iran
Central Bank of Iran
National Bank of Iran
Customs Administrations of Iran
Kazakhstan – Agency on Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan
National Bank of Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic – National Bank of Kyrgyz Republic
National Statistical Committee of Kyrgyz Republic
Pakistan – Federal Bureau of Statistics
Statistics Division, Ministry of Finance, and Economic Affairs Division
Annual Budget Statement, Government of Pakistan
Pakistan, Board of Investment
Tajikistan – National Bank of Tajikistan
State Committee on Statistics
Ministry of Economy and Trade of Tajikistan
Turkey-State Institute of Statistics
State Planning Organization of Turkey
Undersecretariat of Treasury of Turkey
Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade of Turkey
Turkmenistan – Central Bank of Turkmenistan
Ministry of Economy and Finance
National Institute of State Statistics and Information
Uzbekistan – Ministry of Macroeconomics and Statistics of the Republic of Uzbekistan
3. Regional and International Organizations
Data and information were also obtained from the following regional and international
organizations:
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
International Energy Agency (IEA)
Energy Information Administration (EIA)
45
International Labor Organization (ILO)
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
World Trade Organization (WTO)
International Trade Centre (ITC)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
United Nations Population Division
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD)
World Bank (WB)
World Health Organization (WHO)
World Resources Institute (WRI)
Asian Development Bank (ADB)
Islamic Development Bank (IDB)
CIS Interstate Statistical Committee
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries
(SESRTCIC)
Three ECO countries have varying fiscal years not corresponding to the calendar year.
Whenever the statistical series, e.g. national accounts or government finance, are compiled by
fiscal year, these are presented under single year captions corresponding to the period in which
most of the fiscal year falls, as follows:
Member Country
Afghanistan
Iran
Pakistan
Fiscal Year
21 March 2002 to 20 March 2003
21 March 2002 to 20 March 2003
1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003
46
Year Caption
2002
2002
2002