Macro-Economic Overview of ECO Countries

2002-2003

CONTENTS
Pages

Foreword 1-2
Introduction 3-5
Production and Growth 5-11
Inflation and Exchange rate 11-15
Trade Balance, Exports and Imports 15-23
Foreign Direct Investment and External Debt 23-27
Prospects for the ECO Regional Economy in 2004- 27-29
2005
ECO Countries Key Indicators 2003
TABLE-1 POPULATION 30
TABLE-2 POPULATION GROWTH RATE 30
TABLE-3 TOTAL LABOUR FORCE 31
TABLE-4 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 31
TABLE-5 GDP at CURRENT PRICES 32
TABLE-6 GDP Per CAPITA 32
TABLE-7 GDP GROWTH RATE 33
TABLE-8 COMPOSITION OF GDP BY SECTORS 34
TABLE-9 PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUES 35
TABLE-10 SHARE OF TAXES IN PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUES 35
TABLE-11 PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURES 36
TABLE-12 TOTAL FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT 36
TABLE-13 AVERAGE INFLATION RATE 37
TABLE-14 TOTAL PRODUCTION OF ENERGY 37
TABLE-15 TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY 38
TABLE-16 TOTAL LENGTH OF RAILWAYS 38
TABLE-17 NET TON-KILOMETERS CARRIED BY RAILWAYS 39
TABLE-18 TOTAL LENGTH OF ASPHALTED ROADS 39
TABLE-19 NUMBER OF HOSPITAL BEDS PER 10,000 40
POPULATION
TABLE-20 NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS PER 10,000 POPULATION 40
TABLE-21 ADULT LITERACY RATE 41
TABLE-22 NUMBER OF INCOMING TOURISTS 41
TABLE-23 ECO COUNTRIES TOTAL EXTERNAL TRADE 42
TABLE-24 ECO INTRA-REGIONAL TRADE 43-44
TABLE-25 TOTAL EXTERNAL DEBT 45
TABLE-26 EXTERNAL DEBT/GDP 45
TABLE-27 EXCHANGE RATE: ANNUAL AVERAGE 46
References 47-48

FOREWORD

This brief publication is prepared to provide snapshots of the

recent macro-economic 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

2
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.
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

3
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 macro-economic 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 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.

4
 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 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

5
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 large-scale 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.

6
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 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

7
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 2002-2003. 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 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.

8
 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,
post-privatization 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, 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

9
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.
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

10
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

11
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 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
GDP* (billion US $) 391.7 378.6 431.6 403.5 423.0
As % of World 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3
Per capita GDP (US $) *
1,212 1,151 1,211 1,111 1,144
GDP growth rate (%) **
3.3 -0.6 6.2 1.1 7.3
Developing countries 3.5 3.9 5.7 4.0 3.3
(*) Figures for 1998,1999 calculated without data of Afghanistan

12
(**) 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.
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 1999 2000 2001 2002

GDP growth 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

13
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
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

14
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 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

15
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,

16
as against 7.3 percent in 2001. This was considerably faster than 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 black-market 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

17
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 hard-currency 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 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

18
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 build-up
to war in Iraq, the invasion, and its aftermath, as well as to the
persistence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
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
oil-related 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

19
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.
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,

20
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

21
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 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

22
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 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

23
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
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
60000 IMPORT

40000 EXPORT

20000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

24
 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 1999 2000 2001 2002
Exports 59.3 68.7 83.2 82.3 94.6
Imports 103.
81.3 75.4 93.0 84.9 3
Total Trade Volume 144. 176. 167. 197.
140.6 1 2 2 9
Total Exports (Annual % -11.2 16.0 21.1 -1.1 14.9
change)
Intra-ECO Exports* 6.1 5.0 5.5 5.1 5.4
Intra-Trade Ratio (%)
*
5.3 5.0 5.3 5.1 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

25
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 (%)

26
 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 intra-
trade. 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

27
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
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

28
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.
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

29
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$14.6 billion would be required to
underpin economic and social recovery, excluding humanitarian
assistance, over 10 years with US$ 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$)

30
 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 1999 2000 2001 2002

External Debt 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 short-
term. 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 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$

31
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 debt-
servicing 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

32
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 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

33
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 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

34
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.

35
ECO Countries Key Indicators 2003

TABLE-1 POPULATION (Thousand

people)

19 19 19
96 97 98 1999 2000 2001 2002
Countries
Afghanistan 19,875 20,287 20,570 20,896 21,391 22,500 23,300
Azerbaijan 7,763 7,838 7,913 7,983 8,049 8,111 8,172
Iran 60,055 60,938 61,836 62,745 63,664 64,604 65,540
Kazakhstan 15,578 15,334 15,073 14,927 14,869 14,846 14,863
Kyrgyzstan 4,657 4,725 4,797 4,865 4,915 4,955 4,993
Pakistan 127,510 130,560 133,610 136,690 139,960 142,860 145,960
Tajikistan 5,769 5,823 5,939 6,064 6,188 6,313 6,441
Turkey 62,873 64,015 65,157 66,293 67,420 68,529 69,626
Turkmenistan 4,710 4,779 4,920 5,097 5,285 5,505 5,788
Uzbekistan 23,224 23,561 23,954 24,312 24,650 24,964 25,272
ECO Region 332,014 337,859 343,769 349,871 356,391 363,187 369,955
5,754,68 5,834,49 5,913,78 5,992,48 6,070,58 6,134,10 6,211,10
World Total 7 7 1 5 1 0 0
ECO Share in
World Total
(%) 5.77 5.79 5.81 5.84 5.87 5.92 5.96

TABLE-2 POPULATION GROWTH RATE

(%)

19
1997 98 1999 2000 2001 2002
Countries
Afghanista
n 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 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4
Kazakhsta
n -1.6 -1.7 -1.0 -0.4 -0.2 0.1
Kyrgyzstan 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.8
Pakistan 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.2
Tajikistan 0.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0
Turkey 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6
Turkmenist
an 1.5 3.0 3.6 3.7 4.2 5.2

36
Uzbekistan 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2
ECO
Region 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9
World 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3

Note : Calculated on the basis of Table-1

TABLE-3 TOTAL LABOUR FORCE (Thousand

people)

19 199 199
96 7 8 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 16,027 16,723 17,375 18,020 18,559 19,139 19,819
Kazakhstan 7,490 7,440 7,053 7,056 7,107 7,479 7,400
Kyrgyzstan 1,792 1,792 1,811 1,901 1,913 1,939 1,977
Pakistan 36,408 38,183 39,078 39,400 40,263 41,840 42,750
Tajikistan 1,731 1,842 1,855 1,791 1,794 1,872 1,904
Turkey 21,804 22,755 23,385 23,878 23,078 23,491 23,818
Turkmenistan 2,296 1,976 2,006 2,039 2,120 2,179 2,244
Uzbekistan 11,376 8,709 8,833 8,924 9,018 9,174 9,368
ECO Region
Total 110,757 111,433 113,534 115,280 116,324 119,878 122,398
2,766,5 2,991,6 3,036,5
World Total 28 2,811,555 2,856,635 2,901,714 2,946,769 56 87
ECO Share in
World Total (%) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0

TABLE-4 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (%)

19 19 19
96 97 98 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 9.1 13.1 12.4 13.5 14.3 14.2 12.8
Kazakhstan 13.0 13.0 13.1 13.5 12.8 10.4 9.3
Kyrgyzstan 4.3 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1
Pakistan 6.1 5.9 5.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8
Tajikistan 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.5

37
Turkey 6.5 6.8 6.9 7.7 6.5 8.4 10.3
Turkmenistan 3.3 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.5
Uzbekistan 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
ECO Region
Average* 6.2 6.9 6.8 8.0 7.8 8.1 8.2
Note: (*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan.

TABLE-5 GDP at CURRENT PRICES (Million US $)

19 19 19
96 97 98 1999 2000 2001 2002
Countries
Afghanistan … … … … 2713 2618 4048
Azerbaijan 3181 3961 4447 4584 5273 5708 6156
Iran* 97990 114191 79951 90000 130745 144595 115912
Kazakhstan 21041 22172 22139 16854 18292 22154 24447
Kyrgyzstan 1802 1768 1634 1226 1367 1531 1615
Pakistan 62275 61989 62799 60791 55159 60243 69576
Tajikistan** 1053 926 1314 1085 987 1066 1217
Turkey 181077 188735 201561 183214 198389 147285 181569
Turkmenistan** 2003 2610 2911 3857 4932 6754 8800
Uzbekistan** 13907 14733 14976 17068 13783 11635 9707
ECO Region Total*** 384329 411085 391732 378679 431640 403589 423047
291851 296935 296381 306940 311924 323121
World Total 63 00 31 72 31507991 37 46
ECO as % of World ***
1.32 1.38 1.32 1.23 1.37 1.29 1.31

Note: (*) 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)

199 199 19
6 7 98 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 1,632 1,874 1,293 1,434 2,054 2,238 1,769
Kazakhstan 1,351 1,446 1,469 1,129 1,230 1,492 1,645
Kyrgyzstan 387 374 341 252 278 309 323
Pakistan 488 475 470 445 394 422 477

38
Tajikistan 183 159 221 179 159 169 189
Turkey 2,880 2,948 3,093 2,764 2,943 2,149 2,608
Turkmenistan 425 546 592 757 933 1227 1,520
Uzbekistan 599 625 625 702 559 466 384
ECO Average* 1,231 1,294 1,212 1,151 1,211 1,111 1,144
World Average 5,072 5,089 5,012 5,122 5,190 5,085 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 (%)

199 19 19 1999 2000 2001 2002

6 97 98
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 4.9 2.4 4.0 1.8 5.1 5.4 6.5
Kazakhstan 0.5 1.7 -1.9 2.7 9.8 13.5 9.5
Kyrgyzstan 7.1 9.9 2.1 3.7 5.4 5.3 -0.5
Pakistan 1.7 3.5 4.2 3.9 2.2 3.4 5.1
Tajikistan -16.7 1.7 5.3 3.7 8.3 10.2 9.5
Turkey 7.0 7.5 3.1 -4.7 7.4 -7.5 7.8
Turkmenistan 7.0 -11.3 7.0 16.5 18.6 20.4 19.8
Uzbekistan 1.7 5.2 4.3 4.3 3.8 4.2 4.2
ECO average* 5.0 4.9 3.3 -0.6 6.2 1.1 7.3
World 3.3 3.6 2.2 3.1 3.9 1.3 1.7
Note: (*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan

39
TABLE-8 COMPOSITION OF GDP BY SECTORS
(%)

Countries Sectors 19 19 19 1999 2000 2001 2002

96 97 98
Agricultur
e n.a n.a n.a n.a 57.0 53.3 52.0
Afghanistan Industry n.a n.a n.a n.a 23.2 26.0 24.1
Service n.a n.a n.a n.a 19.8 20.7 23.9
Agricultur
e 24.9 20.0 18.0 18.2 15.9 14.8 14.0
Azerbaijan Industry 25.9 25.3 22.0 28.2 36.0 37.6 37.3
Service 49.2 54.7 60.0 53.6 48.1 47.6 48.7
Agricultur
e 14.4 13.6 16.2 13.6 11.6 11.2 11.8
Iran Industry 38.1 35.9 30.7 34.4 39.4 37.2 38.0
Service 47.5 50.5 53.1 52.0 49.0 51.6 50.2
Agricultur
e 12.1 11.5 8.6 9.9 8.2 8.7 7.9
Kazakhstan Industry 25.6 25.6 29.3 32.9 38.5 36.2 35.4
Service 62.3 62.9 62.1 57.2 53.3 55.1 56.7
Agricultur
e 46.2 41.1 35.9 34.8 34.2 34.5 34.4
Kyrgyzstan Industry 11.1 16.5 16.3 21.7 25.0 23.1 17.9
Service 42.7 42.3 47.8 43.5 40.8 42.4 47.7
Agricultur
e 25.7 25.9 25.4 25.9 24.6 24.1 23.6
Pakistan Industry 24.8 25.5 25.6 25.0 25.2 25.0 25.0
Service 49.5 48.6 49.0 49.1 50.2 50.0 51.4
Agricultur
e 36.0 32.0 25.1 25.4 27.0 26.5 26.4
Tajikistan Industry 25.7 22.0 20.1 21.7 23.9 22.7 22.1
Service 38.3 46.0 54.8 52.9 49.1 50.8 51.5
Agricultur
e 15.9 13.6 16.9 14.6 13.6 11.4 11.7
Turkey Industry 24.2 24.2 21.4 21.9 22.5 24.2 24.1
Service 59.9 62.2 61.7 63.5 63.9 64.4 64.2
Agricultur 12.6 20.1 25.2 24.9 23.0 23.8 20.8

40
 e
Turkmenist Industry
an 54.4 33.0 27.5 31.4 35.0 37.0 36.0
Service 33.0 46.9 47.3 43.7 42.0 39.2 43.2
Agricultur
e 22.4 28.3 26.8 29 30.1 30 30.6
Uzbekistan Industry 26.1 15.6 14.9 14.3 14.2 14.2 14.1
Service 51.5 56.1 58.3 56.7 55.7 55.8 55.3

TABLE-9 PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUES (Million

US $)

199 199 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

6 7 8
Countries
Afghanistan n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a 132
Azerbaijan 469 643 602 679 799 843 936
Iran 32697 35594 30600 52677 59709 71600 20753
Kazakhstan 3610 3708 3953 3335 4213 5088 5353
Kyrgyzstan 306 293 302 207 210 259 307
Pakistan 10626 10419 10015 10461 9157 10078 11993
Tajikistan 205 195 231 201 137 161 205
Turkey 40644 45478 52611 47931 61312 48000 57360
Turkmenista
n n.a 649 640 749 1285 1031 n.a
Uzbekistan 3471 4765 4423 4643 4895 n.a n.a

TABLE-10 SHARE OF TAXES IN PUBLIC SECTOR

REVENUES (%)

1996 199 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

7 8
Countries
Afghanista
n 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 21.9 27.8 45.1 42.3 35.0 33.3 30.6
Kazakhsta 73.3 73.0 69.7 82.9 87.5 85.2 91.7

41
n
Kyrgyzstan 74.9 75.4 77.7 73.6 76.5 73.3 72.7
Pakistan 84.4 82.6 83.4 75.6 81.2 76.3 74.9
Tajikistan 65.9 60.8 55.0 55.8 92.8 91.9 87.6
Turkey 82.4 84.7 83.8 87.0 82.5 81.6 76.6
Turkmenist
an 98.0 94.0 89.0 81.0 n.a n.a n.a
Uzbekistan 80.0 94.2 92.1 94.6 93.9 n.a n.a

TABLE-11 PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURES (mln

US $)

199 199 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

6 7 8
Countries
Afghanistan n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a 349
Azerbaijan 561 738 683 791 854 867 958
Iran 32416 37340 40497 53206 62429 73529 23311
Kazakhstan 4161 4532 4820 3919 4236 5177 5438
Kyrgyzstan 405 386 351 239 237 253 324
Pakistan 14955 15381 11707 14364 12414 13125 14721
Tajikistan 196 188 229 191 143 160 196
Turkey 56612 60467 72007 77027 85033 71654 80547
Turkmenista
n n.a 654 716 748 1270 1085 n.a
Uzbekistan 3818 5546 4779 5151 5234 n.a n.a

TABLE-12 TOTAL FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT (mln US

$)

19 19 19 1999 2000 2001 2002

96 97 98
Countries
Afghanistan 1 -2 0 6 0 1 0
Azerbaijan 621 1,111 1,352 755 664 900 2,012

42
Iran 26 53 24
35 39 50 37
Kazakhstan 1,674 2,107 1,233
1,852 2,781 4,557 4,106
Kyrgyzstan 153 86 136
109 90 90 116
Pakistan 918 601 376
470 322 485 798
Tajikistan 18 94 164
275 323 354 434
Turkey 914 852 953
813 1,707 3,288 590
Turkmenistan 108 108 62
89 131 150 100
Uzbekistan 90 167 25
20 25 64 81
ECO Total 4,522 5,178 4,326
4,423 6,082 9,938 8,273
1,079,08 1,392,95
World Total 386,140 478,082 686,028 3 7 823,825 651,189
ECO as % of
World 1.2 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.3

TABLE-13 AVERAGE INFLATION RATE (% Annual Change in CPI)

1996 19 19 1999 2000 2001 2002

97 98
Countries
Afghanistan
* 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 23.2 17.3 18.1 20.1 12.6 11.4 15.8
Kazakhstan 28.7 11.2 1.9 17.8 9.8 6.4 6.6
Kyrgyzstan 32.0 13.0 16.8 39.9 9.6 3.7 2.3
Pakistan 11.8 7.8 5.7 3.6 4.4 3.5 3.1
Tajikistan 370.2 159.8 2.7 30.1 60.6 12.5 14.5
Turkey 76.5 99.1 69.7 68.8 39.0 68.5 29.7
Turkmenist
an 992.4 21.4 19.8 20.1 7.4 11.7 7.8
Uzbekistan 54.0 70.9 29.0 29.1 25.0 27.2 22.0
Note: (*) CPI (Kabul, March-March, percent change)

TABLE-14 TOTAL PRODUCTION OF ENERGY

(th.t.o.e)

43
 199 199 199 1999 2000 2001 2002
6 7 8
Countries
Afghanistan n.a n.a n.a n.a 1980 n.a n.a
Azerbaijan 16445 16078 18181 20959 20884 21699 21736
Iran 220169 225391 230845 219691 241932 232322 227446
Kazakhstan* 57800 52300 49100 47498 51635 55384 58331
Kyrgyzstan 2749 2862 2507 2807 4148 3867 3411
Pakistan 24165 24745 25917 26497 27335 29075 31142
Tajikistan* 14886 14005 14422 15797 14247 14382 15302
Turkey 28283 29078 30234 28673 27977 27407 24569
Turkmenista
n* 1013 9498 9416 8860 9943 10614 10707
Uzbekistan 48900 50955 54175 54800 54557 53850 55892
Note : (*) Values are in mln.kw.h.

TABLE-15 TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY

(th.t.o.e)

19 19 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

96 97 8
Countries
Afghanistan n.a n.a n.a n.a 2140 n.a n.a
Azerbaijan 15424 15315 15271 14441 14852 15182 15257
Iran 81184 86107 88513 88322 92040 90454 96927
Kazakhstan* 64600 56600 53000 50263 54369 56782 58159
Kyrgyzstan 4348 3999 3797 3945 4937 4495 4815
Pakistan 22647 23345 24111 25285 25256 25604 26313
Tajikistan* 14068 14103 14667 15607 15580 15731 16087
Turkey 68878 56830 57870 59137 61211 56703 58772
Turkmenist
an* 7220 8003 8204 8439 9050 9552 10049
Uzbekistan 43900 44508 46653 48751 50388 48899 50838
Note : (*) Values are in mln.kw.h.

TABLE-16 TOTAL LENGTH OF RAILWAYS

44
(km)

199 199 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

6 7 8
Countries
Afghanistan 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 5,612 5,995 6,264 6,398 6,668 7,156 7,265
Kazakhstan 14,358 14,421 14,403 14,362 14,530 14,588 14,312
Kyrgyzstan 417 417 417 417 417 417 417
Pakistan 8,775 8,775 7,791 7,791 7,791 7,791 7,791
Tajikistan 483 483 483 483 533 n.a n.a
Turkey 8,600 8,607 8,607 8,682 8,671 8,671 8,671
Turkmenista
n 2,313 2,317 2,398 2,445 2,520 2,523 2,523
Uzbekistan 3,482 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,900 4,000
ECO Region* 46,163 46,632 45,980 46,194 46,746 … …
Note : (*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan

TABLE-17 NET TON-KILOMETERS CARRIED BY RAILWAYS

(mln.ton-km)

19 199 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

96 7 8
Countries
Afghanista
n 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 13,638 14,400 12,638 14,082 14,179 14,613 15,842
Kazakhsta
n 112,688 106,425 103,045 91,700 124,985 135,653 133,088
Kyrgyzstan 480.8 471.6 465.6 353.8 337.9 331.6 394.6
Pakistan 4,607 4,447 4,330 3,612 4,520 4,573 5,605
Tajikistan 1,719 1,384 1,458 1,282 1,326 1,250 1,086
Turkey 9,018 9,717 8,466 8,446 9,895 7,562 7,224
Turkmenis
tan 7,004 7,675 7,701 7,337 6,303 6,437 7,476
Uzbekistan 19,600 16,498 15,672 14,304 15,021 15,732 18,428

45
ECO
Region* 171,533 164,533 158,478 146,169 182,337 192,292 196,123
Note : (*) Calculated without data of Afghanistan

TABLE-18 TOTAL LENGTH OF ASPHALTED ROADS (km)

199 199 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

6 7 8
Countries
Afghanistan 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 85,000 94,162 94,068 99,000 101,000 113,112 n.a
Kazakhstan 82,400 79,000 80,900 80,900 81,300 82,600 88,388
Kyrgyzstan n.a 16,100 17,200 17,200 17,200 17,200 17,200
Pakistan 126,117 133,462 137,352 138,200 144,652 148,877 151,028
Tajikistan 12,700 12,700 12,700 12,700 12,700 n.a n.a
Turkey 97,000 106,791 117,955 128,707 138,572 145,611 150,873
Turkmenista
n n.a 12,098 12,193 12,236 12,236 12,236 12,236
Uzbekistan n.a 75,200 75,300 76,500 73,600 74,400 74,900

TABLE-19 NUMBER OF HOSPITAL BEDS PER 10,000 POPULATION

1996 19 19 1999 2000 2001 2002

97 98
Countries
Afghanista
n 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 16.4 15.8 16.0 16.5 16.6 16.9 16.9
Kazakhsta 106.0 89.8 82.6 72.6 72.1
n 74.4 75.3
Kyrgyzstan 86.7 86.0 82.9 79.2 74.5 65.6 58.1
Pakistan 6.3 6.4 6.0 6.5 7.0 6.9 6.8
Tajikistan 72.9 70.0 67.7 67.7 65.8 63.4 62.1
Turkey 24.8 25.7 25.5 25.7 25.8 25.5 25.5

46
Turkmenist
an 102.0 70.5 59.6 59.5 50.4 50.7 50.2
Uzbekistan 72.5 65.3 58.2 56.4 55.9 55.8 57.8

TABLE-20 NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS PER 10,000

POPULATION

1996 19 19 1999 2000 2001 2002

97 98
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
Iran* 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.3
Kazakhstan 37.4 35.9 35.6 34.0 33.0 34.6 36.1
Kyrgyzstan 33.2 31.5 30.9 30.3 29.1 28.2 27.3
Pakistan 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.3
Tajikistan 20.9 20.1 20.6 21.1 21.6 21.0 20.1
Turkey 11.3 11.7 11.7 11.9 12.1 12.9 13.4
Turkmenista
n 31.0 29.8 29.8 30.0 29.3 28.8 28.6
Uzbekistan 33.2 34.3 33.9 33.2 32.8 32.4 31.9
(*) Physicians employed in the ministry of health and medical education

TABLE-21 ADULT LITERACY RATE

(%)

199 199 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

6 7 8
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 72.9 65.7 68.0 69.0 70.1 68.7 70.4
Kazakhstan 98.9 99.1 99.3 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5
Kyrgyzstan 97.0 97.0 97.0 98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7

47
Pakistan 42.2 43.6 45.0 47.1 49.0 50.5 51.6
Tajikistan 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.1 99.5 99.5 99.5
Turkey 85.2 85.1 85.8 86.3 86.5 86.3 87.5
Turkmenist
an 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0
Uzbekistan 99.0 99.0 99.1 99.2 99.2 99.2 99.2

TABLE-22 NUMBER OF INCOMING TOURISTS

(th.)

1996 19 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

97 8
Countries
Afghanistan 5.0 5.0 5.0 n.a 4.0 n.a n.a
Azerbaijan n.a 306 483 602 681 767 793
Iran 573 764 1,008 1,321 1,342 1,402 1,585
Kazakhstan 394 284 257 394 1,683 n.a n.a
Kyrgyzstan 48.6 87.4 59.4 48.3 58.8 98.6 157.2
Pakistan 369 375 429 432 557 500 498
Tajikistan 0.7 2.1 3.2 4.5 7.7 n.a n.a
Turkey 7,888 9,063 8,638 7,487 10,428 11,619 13,248
Turkmenista
n 29.3 11.6 8.6 4.1 3.3 5.2 10.8
Uzbekistan 366.0 368.1 484.2 488.0 n.a n.a n.a

TABLE-23 ECO COUNTRIES TOTAL EXTERNAL TRADE ($ US

mln)

19 19 19 1999 2000 2001 2002

96 97 98
Countries
Import 500 436 373 411 550 551 950
Afghanistan Export 173 201 209 167 186 113 101
Balanc -327 -235 -164 -244 -364 -438 -849

48
 e
Import 960.6 794.3 1,076.5 1,035.9 1,172.1 1,430.9 1,665.4
Azerbaijan Export 631.3 781.3 606.2 929.7 1,745.2 2,314.3 2,167.5
Balanc
e -329.3 -13 -470.3 -106.2 573.1 883.4 502.1
Import 14,989 14,123 14,286 13,433 15,086 18,129 23,786
Iran Export 22,391 18,381 13,118 21,030 28,461 23,904 28,186
Balanc
e 7,402.0 4,258.0 -1,168.0 7,597.0 13,375.0 5,775.0 4,400.0
Import 4,241.1 4,300.8 4,313.9 3,655.1 5,040.0 6,445.6 6,584.0
Kazakhstan Export 5,911.1 6,497.0 5,334.1 5,871.6 8,812.2 8,631.5 9,670.3
Balanc
e 1,670.0 2,196.2 1,020.2 2,216.5 3,772.2 2,185.9 3,086.3
Import 837.7 709.3 841.5 599.7 554.1 467.2 586.7
Kyrgyzstan Export 505.4 603.8 513.6 453.8 504.5 476.1 485.5
Balanc
e -332.3 -105.5 -327.9 -145.9 -49.6 8.9 -101.2
Import 11,894.0 10,118.0 9,432.0 10,309.0 10,729.0 10,340.0 12,220.0
Pakistan Export 8,320.0 8,628.0 7,779.0 8,569.0 9,202.0 9,135.0 11,160.0
Balanc
e -3,574.0 -1,490.0 -1,653.0 -1,740.0 -1,527.0 -1,205.0 -1,060.0
Import 668.1 750.3 711.0 663.1 675.0 682.4 715.0
Tajikistan Export 770.1 745.7 596.6 688.7 784.3 651.5 738.0
Balanc
e 102.0 -4.6 -114.4 25.6 109.3 -30.9 23.0
Import 43,627.0 48,559.0 45,921.0 40,671.2 54,502.8 41,399.1 51,553.8
Turkey Export 23,224.0 26,261.0 26,973.9 26,587.2 27,774.9 31,334.2 36,059.1
Balanc - - - -
e -20,403.0 -22,298.0 -18,947.1 14,084.0 26,727.9 10,064.9 15,494.7
Import 1,011.1 1,183.4 1,007.5 1,478.3 1,785.0 2,349.0 2,119.4
Turkmenistan Export 1,681.5 751.1 593.9 1,187.0 2,505.5 2,620.2 2,855.6
Balanc
e 670.4 -432.3 -413.6 -291.3 720.5 271.2 736.2
Import 4,710.0 4,185.0 3,290.0 3,110.0 2,945.0 3,121.0 3,160.0
Uzbekistan Export 4,210.0 4,025.0 3,530.0 3,235.0 3,265.0 3,144.0 3,184.0
Balanc
e -500.0 -160.0 240.0 125.0 320.0 23.0 24.0
103,340.
Import
83,438.6 85,159.1 81,252.4 75,366.3 93,039.0 84,915.2 3
ECO Region Export 67,817.4 66,874.9 59,254.3 68,719.0 83,240.6 82,323.8 94,607.0
Balanc
e -15,621.2 -18,284.2 -21,998.1 -6,647.3 -9,798.4 -2,591.4 -8,733.3
ECO Total Trade 151,256. 152,034. 140,506. 144,085. 176,279. 167,239. 197,947.
Volume 0 0 7 3 6 0 3
ECO Export/Import
(%) 81.3 78.5 72.9 91.2 89.5 96.9 91.5
5,535,00 5,725,00 5,664,00 5,901,00 6,697,00 6,452,00 6,693,00
Import
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5,391,00 5,577,00 5,496,00 5,708,00 6,445,00 6,191,00 6,455,00
Export
World Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Balanc -144,000 -148,000 -168,000 -193,000 -252,000 -261,000 -238,000

49
 e
ECO Share in Import 1.51 1.49 1.43 1.28 1.39 1.32 1.54
World Total
Export
(%) 1.26 1.20 1.08 1.20 1.29 1.33 1.47

TABLE-24 ECO INTRA-REGIONAL TRADE ($ US mln)

% of
MEMB Afghani Azerbaij Kazakhs Kyrgyzs Pakista Tajikist Turkmeni Uzbekist Total Total
ER stan an Iran tan tan n an Turkey stan an ECO Trade
STATE
S IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP
19 25. 0.4
98 - - 1.3 … 3.8 0.1 8.4 0.3 3.2 … 41.5 4 0.6 3 24.0 0.4 22.4 0.4 … … … … … …
Afgha 19 11. 36. 0.0
nistan 99 - - 0.2 … 8 0.4 12.5 … 2.6 … 89.8 0 2.4 8 0.7 0.6 45.0 1.1 … … … … … …
20 39. 135. 36. 0.0
00 - - 0.8 0 7 1.1 64.4 0 4.8 0.2 4 0 2.9 9 8.9 0.5 41.8 1.0 … … … … … …
20 157. 23. 0.0
01 - - 0.2 … … … 19.9 … 1.8 … 0 7 3.4 8 7.7 0.4 46.2 1.1 … … … … … …
20 207. 23.
02 - - … … … … 22.0 … … … 0 0 … … … … 50.0 … … … … … … …
19 42. 44. 10. 0.0 219. 135 337. 214.
98 0.0 1.2 - - 6 5 44.4 6 1.2 4.4 0.4 2 0.20 1.6 7 .8 26.4 13.9 2.8 2.0 7 0 31.4 35.3
Azerba 19 47. 22. 10. 143. 233. 120.
ijan 99 0.0 0.2 - - 4 7 24.9 4.1 2.0 3.7 2.7 0.1 0.20 8 0 69.113.0 8.7 0.4 0.7 6 1 22.6 12.9
20 56. 19. 128. 105. 258. 151.
00 0.0 0.8 - - 8 7.7 57.6 6.7 3.2 1.9 1.6 0.3 0.10 6 5 0 9.6 8.2 0.8 1.1 2 3 22.0 8.7
20 55. 12. 148. 135. 447. 114.
01 0.0 0.2 - - 4 9.1 99.5 6.6 1.4 0.3 0.8 3.6 0.90 1 2 67.42 12.0 6.1 3.1 5 4 31.3 4.9
20 57. 29. 149. 11. 28. 156. 83. 119. 487. 169.
02 0.0 0.7 - - 9 9 9 6 0.7 1.1 1.1 2.5 0.40 0 2 4 8 8.7 1.4 3.8 4 7 29.3 7.8
19 120 29. 12. 35. 25. 271. 158. 53. 473. 537.
98 0.0 3.0 38.0 .0 - - 87.0 0 14.0 0 27.0 0 4.0 0 0 0 5.0 102.0 27.0 0 0 0 3.3 4.1
19 119 131. 24. 18. 50. 227. 183. 49. 451. 598.
Iran 99 0.4 11.0 25.0 .0 - - 0 0 10.0 0 23.0 0 2.0 22.00 0 13.0 122.0 20.0 0 4 0 3.4 2.8
20 248 344. 333 20. 64. 233. 165. 81. 723. 107
00 1.0 41.0 24.0 .0 - - 0 .0 20.0 0 40.0 0 1.0 32.00 0 10.0 87.0 50.0 0 0 1.0 4.8 3.8
20 208 270. 31. 16. 78. 266. 81. 694. 624.
01 0.7 35.8 20.4 .4 - - 0 6 14.8 4 58.7 7 1.2 38.44 61.410.8 73.0 51.1 2 1 9 3.8 2.6
20 125. 251 240. 47. 21. 123 52. 337. 76. 742. 871.
02 0.1 0 21.3 .5 - - 0 5 9.4 1 70.4 .7 3.7 8 2 84.320.2 89.1 40.2 6 5 6 3.1 3.1
19 29. 76. 60. 42. 204. 92. 118 400. 440.
98 0.3 7.6 10.0 3 9.4 5 - - 51.1 3 0.5 2.3 3.6 8 3 4 25.7 11.0 95.4 .2 3 4 9.3 8.3
Kazak 19 30. 91. 59. 43. 106. 66. 266. 353.
hstan 99 0.2 11.4 4.3 9 7.8 6 - - 32.5 1 1.6 2.1 3.0 3 1 36.517.8 12.6 92.8 0 1 5 7.3 6.0
20 46. 13. 203 58. 52. 144. 133 317. 623.
00 0.0 57.9 9.9 8 3 .3 - - 30.1 3 2.0 1.5 4.7 6 0 62.343.4 7.1 70.5 .5 9 3 6.3 7.1
20 69. 11. 208 86. 61. 137. 150 354. 683.
01 0.0 18.2 10.7 3 0 .9 - - 33.5 5 1.0 0.5 2.3 2 0 74.277.5 14.2 81.1 .2 1 2 5.5 7.9
20 112 12. 309 108 45. 173. 97. 101 398. 822.
02 0.0 31.1 15.5 .7 4 .9 - - 31.8 .6 1.2 0.4 3.0 8 7 4 74.6 15.3 86.5 .0 7 2 6.1 8.5
19 85. 38. 265. 152.
98 0.0 2.6 7.2 2.9 7.7 5.4 75.3 5 - - 1.5 0.5 6.4 8.3 37.4 7.4 8.2 1.2 122.2 5 9 3 31.6 29.7
Kyrgyz 19 45. 46. 169. 120.
stan 99 0.1 1.5 3.4 2.4 8.6 7.6 72.7 0 - - 0.2 0.4 4.0 9.5 23.1 4.6 7.8 2.8 50.0 6 9 4 28.3 26.5
20 33. 89. 190. 155.
00 0.1 4.0 2.4 4.5 8.7 6.7 57.4 4 - - 0.2 0.1 1.9 7.5 26.8 7.2 18.7 2.7 74.6 4 8 5 34.4 30.8
20 39. 13. 48. 182. 121.
01 0.0 2.1 0.4 1.6 6.6 8.2 81.8 0 - - 0.2 0.1 1.5 6.7 15.8 8 9.0 1.5 66.7 0 0 0 39.0 25.4
20 123. 36. 0.0 10. 27. 213. 108.
02 0.0 4.4 2.4 5.6 4.3 4.7 9 8 - - 0.3 3 3.5 2 17.0 16.41.7 2.4 60.1 8 2 3 36.3 22.3

50
TABLE-24 ECO INTRA-REGIONAL TRADE ($ US mln) (continued)
% of
MEMBE Afghanis Azerbaij Kazakhs Kyrgyzs Pakista Tajikist Turkmeni Uzbekis Total Total
R tan an Iran tan tan n an Turkey stan tan ECO Trade
IM
STATES IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP P EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP IMP EXP
199 37. 132.
8 1 48.5 0.6 1.9 78.0 11.3 0.3 12.6 0.0 4.1 - - 1.2 4.2 6 35.0 0.8 2.1 64.6 11.9 315.2 131.6 3.3 1.7
Pakist 199 40. 115. 130. 106.
an 9 9 3 0.8 1.6 3 11.5 0.6 7.9 0.1 3.1 - - 0.5 1.8 5 61.1 4.1 1.9 25.1 10.0 308.9 214.2 3.0 2.5
200 30. 142. 370. 100.
0 1 6 0.8 0.9 6 24.0 0.4 9.5 0.0 2.6 - - 0.6 2.0 47.5 2 1.3 0.7 5.3 9.9 456.6 292.4 4.3 3.2
200 22. 168. 157.
1 8 0 0.0 0.8 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
200 34. 315. 302. 125. 146.
2 8 7 0.3 1.9 6 63.2 0.3 10.3 0.0 1.5 - - 0.2 0.2 8 3 0.5 1.7 1.8 6.2 466.3 547.0 3.8 4.9
199 227. 125. 46.
8 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 3 7 333.5 165.5 9 27.7
Tajikist 199 264. 181. 59.
an 9 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 4 0 393.3 206.6 3 30.0
200 0.0 182. 56.
0 4 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 8 92.6 378.9 179.5 1 22.9
200 232. 156. 65.
1 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 0 7 447.2 281.4 5 43.2
200 118. 41.
2 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 5 60.7 9.9 92.8 28.8 297.3 196.4 6 26.6
199 327. 433. 194. 253. 214. 42. 156. 1,124.
8 1.0 21.9 50.3 2 0 7 7 3 6.8 41.5 57.4 63.6 7.9 9.8 - - 0 95.8 96.2 2 948.3 9 2.1 4.2
199 248. 635. 157. 295. 128. 67. 1,123.
Turkey 9 0.7 0.7 44.0 1 9 8 9 96.6 2.8 23.2 25.4 5 4.0 5.3 - - 0 106.6 47.5 99.1 3 866.0 2.8 3.3
200 230. 815. 235. 346. 118. 16. 97. 1,543.
0 0.5 8.0 95.6 4 7 8 4 7 2.4 20.6 82.2 52.9 5 4.5 - - 9 120.2 85.8 82.6 0 873.6 2.8 3.1
200 225. 839. 360. 119. 101. 13. 71. 1,237.
1 0.4 7.0 78.1 2 8 5 90.3 8 6.3 17.4 3 31.2 7 15.6 - - 7 105.3 36.0 89.7 7 971.7 3.0 3.1
200 231. 921. 334. 203. 160. 17. 117. 40. 106 1,548.1,041.
2 1.1 20.2 64.6 4 0 0 9 2 6 24.0 7 57.5 7 10.9 - - .3 110.0 75.3 93.7 2 9 3.0 2.9
199 144. 149. 112. 25.
8 0.4 20.4 15.2 42.6 18.0 3 28.6 25.3 2.1 5.8 0.5 2.1 7.1 27.3 0 5 - - 39.6 7.1 260.5 387.4 9 65.2
Turkme 199 163. 260. 128. 28.
nistan 9 2.3 40.9 18.8 48.2 66.2 0 19.0 11.5 3.0 7.8 3.2 6.0 3.0 11.9 1 3 - - 49.8 6.0 425.4 423.6 8 35.7
200 242. 253. 186. 25.
0 1.1 38.0 36.6 37.0 90.9 0 19.7 5.3 4.6 23.2 2.2 0.5 6.7 29.1 3 0 - - 35.3 6.0 450.4 567.1 2 22.6
200 121. 301. 19. 163. 126. 18.
1 1.2 21.9 61.6 7.1 4 6 15.1 13.2 4.0 6.9 1.9 0.03 1 50.5 6 8 - - 52.6 13.8 440.5 541.8 8 20.7
200 0.0 355. 14. 233. 168. 20.
2 1 28.6 28.2 8.1 80.9 6 26.5 1.9 4.9 1.1 2.5 0.7 7 33.6 5 1 - - 37.6 11.5 428.8 609.2 2 21.3
199 162. 122. 20. 15. 122. 198. 13.
8 8.8 11.8 3.0 2.3 19.0 31.2 6 0 2 51.2 3.8 2.8 8 3 0 45.3 10.2 41.3 - - 441.4 430.0 4 12.2

51
Uzbeki 199 126. 148. 46. 31. 120. 148. 12.
stan 9 2.7 16.0 2.6 2.5 26.9 40.1 3 7 6 52.2 6.9 3.3 3 1 0 66.1 10.0 76.3 - - 401.4 525.3 9 16.2
200 215. 100. 94. 19. 100. 16.
0 0.3 10.9 4.3 3.6 44.9 72.2 6 8 0 50.9 4.8 3.7 3 9 97.1 99.4 18.1 175.4 - - 498.2 617.7 9 18.9
200 194. 118. 49. 20. 105. 14.
1 0.3 11.1 8.5 3.8 47.5 82.0 9 0 4 76.4 2.6 2.3 5 85.7 9 81.4 26.5 138.4 - - 456.1 598.9 6 19.1
200 174. 181. 35. 15. 101. 102. 11.
2 0.2 61.5 5.5 5.2 31.9 1 5 81.8 0 76.6 3.9 2.1 8 1 87.7 7 11.8 64.5 - - 373.5 669.7 8 21.0

TABLE-25 TOTAL EXTERNAL DEBT ($US mln)

199 199 199 1999 2000 2001 2002

6 7 8
Countries
Afghanistan 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 16,835 12,117 13,999 10,357 7,953 7,214 9,250
Kazakhstan 5,807 7,750 9,932 12,081 12,685 15,157 18,201
Kyrgyzstan 738 898 1,079 1,288 1,386 1,423 1,517
Pakistan 28,285 28,982 29,673 29,456 26,900 28,145 29,787
Tajikistan 867 1,106 1,179 1,233 1,226 1,017 982
102,97
Turkey 79,632 84,236 96,411 5 118,685 113,811 131,264
Turkmenista
n 751 1,771 2,259 2,015 2,303 n.a n.a
Uzbekistan 2,330 2,760 3,213 4,773 4,373 4,627 4,360

TABLE-26 EXTERNAL DEBT/GDP (ratio)

1996 19 19 1999 2000 2001 2002

97 98
Countries
Afghanistan .. .. .. .. 195.7 203.2 131.3

52
 Azerbaijan 14.2 13.8 14.9 21.0 22.0 22.2 22.0
Iran 17.2 10.6 17.5 11.5 6.1 5.0 8.0
Kazakhstan 27.6 35.0 44.9 71.7 69.3 68.4 74.4
Kyrgyzstan 41.0 50.8 66.0 105.0 101.4 93.0 93.9
Pakistan 45.4 46.8 47.3 48.5 48.8 46.7 42.8
Tajikistan 82.3 119.4 89.7 113.6 124.2 95.4 80.7
Turkey 44.0 44.6 47.8 56.2 59.8 77.3 72.3
Turkmenist
an 37.5 67.9 77.6 52.2 46.7 .. ..
Uzbekistan 16.8 18.7 21.5 28.0 31.7 39.8 44.9
Note : Calculated on the basis of Table-23 and Table-5

TABLE-27 EXCHANGE RATE: ANNUAL AVERAGE (nat.cu/

$)

19 19 19 1999 2000 2001 2002

96 97 98
Symbo
Countries Currency l
Afghanista
n Afghani AF 20.22 25.10 37.48 48.86 67.31 55.73 44.78
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan manat AZM 4,295.5 3,986.8 3,868.8 4,118.0 4,474.2 4,656.4 4,792.6
Iran Iranian rial Rls 1,751.5* 1,752.5* 1,752.5* 1,752.5* 1,752.5* 1,752.5* …
4781.50* 6468.36* 8018.94
4445.5** * *
8657.68** 8188.13** 8008.45** **

Kazakhstan Tenge T 67.28 75.42 78.29 119.64 142.14 146.73 153.41

Kyrgyzstan Som Som 12.84 17.37 20.77 39.02 47.72 48.45 46.94
Pakistan PRe/PR
Pakistan rupee/s s 36.17 41.722 46.79 51.77 58.44 61.43
58.50
Tajikistan Somoni TJS 292.9 560.6 778.3 1,237 1,831 2,372
2,764
1,505,8
Turkey Turkish lira TL 81,386 152,071 260,974 420,126 623,704 1,225,412 40
Turkmenist Turkmen TMM
an manat 3,870 4,256 4,808 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200

53
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.

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

54
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)
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

55
single year captions corresponding to the period in which most of the fiscal
year falls, as follows:

Member Country Fiscal Year Year Caption

Afghanistan 21 March 2002 to 20 March 2003 2002
Iran 21 March 2002 to 20 March 2003 2002
Pakistan 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 2002

56