PHILIPPINE
INSTITUTE Working
C_IANGING COMPA_iTIVE
FOR DEVELOPMENT Paper
STUDIES
83-03
ADVANTAGE
IN PHILIPPINE
RICE PRODUCTION
by LoJo Unnevehr and A.Mo Bal_aean
CHANGING
L.J.
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE RICE PRODUCTION
Unnevehr
IN PHILIPPINE
and A.Mo Balisacan
ABSTRACT This paper examines Philippine comparative advantage in rice production and whether government policies encourage the rice sector to exploit its advantage° Rice production has grown at 6°0 percent annually in 1970s. This growth has been due to yield increases from newer modern varieties and more fertilizer and to increases in irrigated area° Government policies have contributed to growth principally through irrigation investments. Irrigation is heavily subsidized but other price policies tax producers° Domestic rice prices are slightly below world prices and most input prices are above world levels. The distortion in net incentives however is not large° The net effect of government policy is to provide slightly positive protection for irrigated farms (3.6%) and slightly negative protection for rainfed farms (-4.7%). Rice production on both rainfed and irrigated environments is socially profitable in 1979. Although yields are higher on irrigated fields costs per unit of rice output are similar in rainfed systems° Government policies reduce private profitability in rainfed farms, but in social terms these farms are quite competitive. A comparison of the DRC for irrigated rice with the 1974 estimate of Herdt and Lacsina (1976) shows that rising yields have increased Philippine comparative advantage in rice. Future comparative advantage will depend on the relative growth of yields and irrigation costs. If capital cost per new hectare irrigated continues to grow at past rates, yields will have to increase at least 2°8 percent annually to maintain current comparative advantage° Although the Philippines has a comparative advantage in rice production, exports were unprofitable for the government marketing agency in 1977 to 1979. Government control of exports puts a barrier between world and domestic markets so that world quality premiums are not reflected in domestic prices. The domestic milling industry therefore has no incentive to become competitive in higher quality international markets. Inelastic demand for low-quality Philippine rice on world markets then limits profitable exports. If private traders were allowed to export, they should be able to respond to world market incentives to produce and export good quality rice at a profit.
C4_ING
ODMPABATIgE
A_WAWn_E
IN PHILIR_
RICE _O1" L_ J: Unr_vehr
Philippine years.
rice product/on
Production
and AiM. Balisac_n**
has grown
grew at an average
annual
and 1980 and total .c_c_uctzon doubled aulled
rice.
Philipp_r_s
_
in supply
had e_Dor_hle
re_rMahly
in _-_e last fifteen
rate of 5.3 percent
from 2.5 million
has _
growth
sctrpluses a_
_t
between
bo 5.0 mi/lion
in _
1965
tons of
80 that the
re_bl rice prices
1977 and 1982. Philippine consumers efforts prices
rice _olicy
fmmm fluctuations
to promote
1970s.
tk_ late 1970s raise_ p_ofitably?
will. encourage
the tic8
growth
in rice _on.
in pr_on.
inoanti_ _-and w_t ssason e_ted
_
pric_s.
Gm;_mment
failures
and rising world
issue.
the evidence
dmmest/c
self-mlfficiency
Can the Philippin_w depe_
in rice proc_om
An, examination
on whether and whether
export
in
rice
the Philip@ines go_rmm_t
policies
that advantage.
_/_c]ing
Phillppiae
oc_ti%_
of the impact of governmem_
in rice proci_=hlon follc_s.
in rice product/on of 149 Cemtral
for eight
and w3rld by crop
on bc%ffering
It begins with a review of the 8o_%roes of
and past growth returns
1970s _-used
in reachi_
set'cot to exploit
This papar examimes advantage
SuLx_ms
to this q_estion
advantage
and early
were _:c_ed
a new policy
The an_
has a cc_ti_
in prc_tion
preduction
in t/_e early
in the 1960s
rice farming
are: msmsuxed
Lu=on
farsexs.
systems
policies
Than current
with deta
Social
frcm the IRRI 1979
Social profitability
classified
on
is
by type of cropland,
i.e.
, This paper is a report to the Impact of Economic Policies on Agr.icultural Development Project funded by PIDS and PCARRD. , ,e Research Associate, Agricultural Economics Dept., [REI, and Research Intern. Resource Systems institute, East-West Center.
--
2
rai_ed, One-crop_rrigated, and _ preparation and th_hing.
--
irrigated,and by ._
of powerin
_zdt and Imm_ina(1976)m_mared social
profitability in Philippine rio8 pr_
in 1974.
A comparison of their
[974 results with (mlrfindings shows that cuBpazative adva_ due to technical c_
has increased
and provides some indication about the future
determinants of Rli!ippi_e cc_%_Lrati%_a_vantaqe in l-ice.
Rice _ction
grew at 6.0 percen% annually _
se_mnd half of the 1970s (Table I).
This growth is primarily the reeult uf
the 5.2 percent ammua/ increase in yields. pemcent annually.
_
the first and
growth in _ion
Total arma only _
at 0.8
is disaggregated into growth of
arma and yield for cropland types, it is clear that _
in ylelds on
irrigated land has been the principal source of pr__%
increase, f_llc_d
by grcwth in yields on rainfed land, and the _ Only m_n_
in irrigated area.
a small part of yield growth is d_e to the first _m
varieties (MVs).
Sixty percent of _
rice area was alre_
to M_s in the early 1970s and t_hisincreased _mmwhat late 1970s.
to 72 percent by the
If an a_ditional kilo_m
i0 kilogramsof pa4_yon a_rage, then h_ for about o_-third
of fertilizer
fertilizer
_se
of the growth in yields.
of the yield increase is due to the imp_ MVs on both.irrigated and rainfed land. r_xmsive
_ulanted
Fertilizer use on rice grew fr_n 27.7 kilogramm to 37.7 k_l(_rams
NPK per hectare in the same period.
ao_unts
ad_stion of
pro_uctlvlty of nemar
The older MVs, IR8 and IR20, were
to fertilizer on irrigated fields, _t
_are not.z_sistauf_to pests
-4-
and disease or tmlerant of _oistu_e stress. first short _uration variety.
]_36, _
in 1976, was the
_t mztures in only i!0 _ysw
days for IRS. This allc_se_
doub_,_
c_
with 135
in irrigatedand .ere
fauored rainfed enviromB_nts, and thus contributed to incremses in ares. Furthe_T, ore, IR36 is resistant _
insect pasts and disease so that there ha_
been no widespread crop failures si._ceits in__-T/_.
IR42, released in
1977, and IR50, raleaae_ in 1980, are _Jolerantto m_isture stre_s and soil conditions and _fore __e
_
_
on rainfed farms.
N3_ar M_s are more
farmer's fields because they m_tt_e early, _
a_K_pest resistant (_ix i__
_
drought tolerant,
Table i ). Technical cha_ge in the form of
variehies has been the principal scmroe of growth in Philippine rioe
p_/ction. The grcw_/_in su4_iy led to a _cline altho_h
trade and _tion
S_gply m_sined
fl_tuat_
in _
_
frum 1960 tm 1980,
in individual years (Table 2).
ro%_hly 5 percent £_._r%. of
(Apiraksirikuls 1976), as production _
self-sufficienc_ in the 1960S b_hin_ p3_xilation_.
percent decline in p_oduction from 1972 to 1974 due to p_st an_ ty_
recovered
in i_74.
_interrupted, 1977.
As population
_lippi_e
growth
slo_d
and p_c_ton
a_ounts of rice _
ex_ted
The i_ort_u_e, of different pri0e policy ir__ts t_e growth in production.
D_ri_
¢%_-_g_
growth
ric_ supply re_che_ d_mestic self-_ficle-_c_
Smsll [_t _n_
Tae 20
be_en
in
1977 and 1982.
h_s chamged with
the 1960s the Rice and ODrn A£]_inlstzation
(RC_) %w_ully purchased less than 2 percent of prediction (_able 2). _t
msrMet inte__ntion
primarily took the fon_ of dlshursem_t
of
-5-
Table 2.
Crop year
Rice proc_ion, internatim%_J, _merventicm" in the P_il_s
Production
Net imports
l:xada, _ _,_t (000 _ rica).
Proma'emerits
O_sbur_eremits
maz_t
Cha_ge in
govt,
srx_/cs
1962/63 1963/64 1964/65 1965/66 •1966/67 1967/68 1968169 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74 1.974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81
2578.6 2497.9 2596.4 264.7.2 2661.I 2964.5 2d89,i 3401.7 3472.9 3315,I 2869°5 3636.2 3679,0 4003.7 4196.5 4481.7 4678.i 5093_4 5020.0
256,2 299.9 569.2 108.2 238.6 -40_3 -0.5 * 369.3 440.i 308.1 169.3 145.3 55.2 15.6 -13.4 --38.0 -236,0 -175.0
156.5 26.4 2.1 22.9 56.I 151.6 145,3 50_! 2.1 O.4 4.8 22..0 95.9 163.9 273,9 451.5 423.I 403°i 280.5
366.0 311.6 402.3 2..52.9 150.4 29.6 169.0 60,1 108.7 541.3 252.2 189.8 238,2 259.I 19S.8 136.7 74.7 268.2 255.!
=
Sources: Productiondata are from BAFo_, Diet:_o_ are from proozremnr.sand, d.__m._ from I_A.
46,7 14.6 !69_0 -121, 144,2 81.7 -24,i -]i,0 79,2 24°5 81.9 37.0 3.! -40.0 90.6 267.5 183.7 -Ill,5 -149.5
- 6
umports
in cons_ng
c_nters.
Authority
(NGA), r_
increased
pr_ts,
production
National
since 1977.
exports
replaced by the National
Fcc_ _Drity
purchasing
The task
m_d _eased
(_A),
at least
With growing
_n disbursame/_t declined. thL_c_h
The R_A was
in 1972.
5 percent
the government's
is nu_ to dispose stock
Toe NFA
of the increased
_km_.stic s_ies,
go%_br_nt
Grain
of _a_q31_
role
pro_tion
_idi_Ig.
eov m nt r ol i Impact
on Product
twin goals prices
for producers
_fordable
_
Prices Philippine
and ?_ provide
that pz_sum_y
implement
rice price policy:
domestic
market
thro_h
pric_s
Official
T_
and ceiling
monopoly
ultimately
_epencls cm interrmtiom_l
Year-to-year
char_es
of trade hag been
prices.
the principal
trade and
The sucessful trade,
and any suzlalus disf_
in stocks ba_ means
been
are
are used to
on international
of official
imports
prices
imstr_nts
in d_fense
t_Jgh
mmmmerati_
of rice at stable prices
floor
these goals.
a gover_t
be supplied
exports.
tha_ control supply
c_ations
of official
any 4_.ficit m_st
reflec_
are to provide
steady. 8u_lies
by low income households.
arz_unced
defense
rice policy
since of
tara!! (Table 2), so
of controlling
_tic
and prioss. This
section
c_used domestic
examines
rice prices
tw_ issues. to divarge
r_oresent
the _0cial qoportunity
Therefore
it is of interest
First,
has government
from w_rld
prices?
cost of rice to the _stic
to m_._ure
how far policy
tra_e oontrol
World
prices
economy.
has caused
domestic
price incentives actions
to differ
maintained
prices
represent
prices
meas_
from social prices.
domestic
prices at official
govei_nt whether
goals,
government
Since the Philippines
with CIF prices.
The average
policy objectives.
follc_d
3 and Figure
nominal
in the late 1970s.The 0.99 for 1977
world prices
in the 1960s,
prices
Only
_om
below world
coefficient
(NPC), defined
bo CIF unit values
1960 to 1980.
prices
ware usually
or Thai
Domestic
prices
in the last two decades
%Drld
prices
caused
in the 1960s
adequate
domestic ceiling
1964 to !970 domestic
Therefore
above the ceilir_] price.
price. 1
Go%_rnment-contro!led
to keep ck_estic
to hold domestic
the result
_antities
prices.
supplies
con_s.
best by a
prices
have
{Table
and below to
prices
market
to be above w_re at or
prices
in 1962 rand 1963 we_re i_%0orts sufficient
drm_stic
with
c_n be measured
port and constm_ing center,
ever. though official
levels.
above world prices.
large enough
the last 20 years,
NPC for 1960 to 1970 is 1.15 and declines
on imported
below world price
dumestic
during
to 1981.
The control
prices
prices
to be above
a_rage
prices
protection
the trend of %Drld
1), but tended
imported
the principal
is close to 1.00 for the period
generally
If official
has _ret its price
here as the ratio of Manila wholesale prices,
le%_/s?
of actual and official
on dcmsstic
in Manila,
price
have government
then a c_mparison
has normally
the impact of trade controls cclmparison of prices
Seoond,
that dcmestic
imports
actual domestic Only
prices
at either
prices
favored
to keep
market
in 1968 and 1969 were close_ to the ceiling
in the 1960s __re
prices
ware
world
not usually
or official
producers
slightly
levels, over
-84
Table 3= O0mparJ_onof _rZd _d
CI}"
da_esticrice prices (IV-%_.
(FOB) value
Thai _azila Retail FOB ,_.!_le- ceiling 357: sale price brok_%_
_Izzila Manila _. CiF Thai
1960 i961 1962 1963 1964 1.965 1966 !967 1968 1969
(0.28) * 0.Z_ 0,50 0.45 0,44 0.51 0.58 (0.63) *
.20 .20 ._@ .43a .44a .45a ,53a ,55a .57 .55
1.29
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 ,'975 _976 1977 i97S 19'79 1980 19S1
* .65a 0.54 .55 0,85 .71a 2.24 1.75a 3.35 3.37a 2.21 2.20a i.66 i_72_(2.06)!.67 (2.28>2.35 (2.02)2.19 (2.22) 2.91
.36 .45 /41 .47 .57 .55 .67 ._8 ,64 _60
36 .36 ,36 +36 .34 Z_ 55 ,59 .59 .59
.72 .91 1.35 i,31 1.97 2.O3 I.99 2.05 !.96 2_14 2.29 2.61
.59 .59 ]_07 i,33 i,86 1,90 2.02 2.10 2.10 2.2-5 2.51 2.75
Caiiln_ CIF
Manila _ceiling
Central wbblzsale , floor
1.80 2.25 1,03 i,09 1,30 1,22 1.26 I.24 I., 12 i.09
1.29 0.82 0.72 0.75 1.05 1.08 I.02 0.94 -
1.00 1.25 I 14 1.31 1.66 I 20 122 I.L5 1 08 I.(_
1.16 1.37 0.96 1,00 1_18 1.14 1.03 i.08 0_97 0.97
1o69 1.35 0.58 0.58 0,94 I.20 1.00 0.86 1.06 1.03
I:Ii 1.65 1.62 0.75 0.58 0.95 i.16 1,00 0.83 0,98 0.79
1,09 1.26 0,59 0.56 0.86 i.22 1.26 0.92 1.17 1.13
I,22 1,54 1.07 0.98 1,06 I.!0 0,99 0.97 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.95
I.02 1.22 1.20 LOT 1,17 0.96 i.05 1.04 1.03 0.86 0.90 0.99
Average 1960-1970 Average 197i-i_0 Average 1977-1981
1,15 1,03 0.99
1.32 1.03 0.90
0.96 1.Of i.12
1.20 1.04 0.93
1,08 1.04 0.96
Average 1960-1981
!_0g
!.12
0.99
h12
1.06
0_93 0.94 1.27 1.25 1.31 i.17 i.02
Source, s: CIF (FOB) Values are from Data Series c_nRice $tarlstics in the Philippines(Tsble_I) for 1963-67 and 1971-73. _Z yesrs fro__%B_prices are from Rice Committee _rd of Trade, "[nailand Manila %T_lesaleprices are collectedby Central Bank. Ceiling and floor prices are from _NlZA. C_tral imzon (Cabanacuan)wholesale_es are collectedby BAEcon. _Cen percent added as estimate of tralsportccs_s in order to e?prc_ci_tethe CIF price,
- i0 -
Philippine rose mmrply
d_eto
implemented 1976)o
production
_eclined
global
rationing
Even though
production
domestic
imports
the rising
from the ahnonm_lly
rationing
_tic
prices
so that price policy
producers .2
_
relationship prices
Thai spot price.
(Business meet
There existence reasons
domestic
prices
co_
quantities
in 1980
the official
now favors consumers to w3rld to export
for c_parable
low prices,
in export
1982),
prioss
over
is
unit values slnoe quality
considerable
Furthermore,
subeidies
in part becuase
(Table 3).
stocks
the go_
between
rice _s
9Dvernme_t
the
1977 and 1979
separated
and gra_
to
standards. is an apparent
of export
contradiction
subsidies
for this contradictory
capability.
substantial
of 6k,_estic prices
he exported.
lost P90 million
quality
of subsidized
to keep @nmestic
impl_tation
In spite of these
Day, July,
prices
in 1979 and 1980 w_re sold at prices %_i1 belc_
accu_.ulated that could _t reportedly
in 1974-75,
Domestic
to buffer
have been about equal
exports
prioes
have now fallen below
•1977, hut have been below _hai FOB prices i_w quality
NGA
in 1974.
and to export
producer
Dcmestic
levels.
ha_e been adequate
prices
ceiling
sufficient
prices
(Apiraksirikul,
prices hot a combination
were
floor price,
imclear.
price
%Drld
The newly organized
:in 1973-75
rose above
high world prices
b_low ceiling
and 1981.
imports
below world
Sinoe 1976, 8_Dplies prices
prices
trend of world
and domestic
shortfalls.
and subsidized
they w_re still 40 percent follc_gd
in 1972 and 1973 while
First,
between an
and unexportable evidence
NPC of 1.0 or less and the
surpluses.
regardlng
it seen_s likely that the world
There
Philippine market
are two
export
cannot absorb
low
- ii -
quality
Philippine
world demand rice.
for low quality
Recently
_n/al.
exports at
the world
Indonesia
to (me-half perfectly
million
elastic
rice
maxket
has been
[975),• but Indonesian
the Thai 35 percent is less elastic for low grade
the steadiest
_ports
in 1981
dropped (t_DA).
for Phiiip_ine
hro_sr_ price.
of low grac_ from over
W_rld _
e_0orts,
for high quality
rice may ha%_ been
buyer
sharply
than _mmad
In general
rioe
(S<m_x_,
2 million
for low quality
and the mA_inal
softer than
export
tDns in 1980 rice is st price
is
Icwer than the Thai spot price. The second exports
and most
is the insulation
impor_nt
reason
of dumestic
for the poor. profitability
markets
from world
market
of
standards.
[
The quality
factors
that determine
that determine
prices
in domestic
ar_ 45 peroent
broMsr_,
prices _mrkets.
b_t this _
_n world
Mmet domestic
during
varied
from 61 to 13 percent
below
from those
rice _eS bet_sen
25
detm_{_t
of
thepriceof 35 xcent the price
of 5 psroent
the 19705. Because
exports
are not reflected has no incentiv_ markets.
%_uld haw
are controlled
in d_mestic to becume
The result
of govex_msnt
stocks.
surplus.
be reflected
by the go_srnmmnt,
prices.
_he domestic
competitive
These
f_r high
intervemt/ons
quality
ex_orts
prices
were all_e_d,
and Philippine
e_
quality
in_
premiums therefore
international e_x)rts
raise_ prio_
hut they are an expem_i%_
If private
in 4_m_stic
ha%_
world
milling
in h/gher quality
has been subsidies
been under autarky,
the domestic _uld
differ
is not an _
prioecn u,19 0).on worldmarkets, brokens
markets
and build-up
abov_ what
may of disposing w_rld
they of
qualityprocures could become
- 12
eogpetiti_ _roducer
on w_rld markets.
official
prices_
exported
haw
Thus actual producex
tra_
reduce
the. cost of _intainin
9
incentives o
In summ_ry,
osntrol
Tois _ould
the echievez_nt has been fairly
usually retail
prices
through
prices were
re_ing
objectives,
_it quantities
to _x_pletely
_
period
dK_estic
imported
in importing
in escorting of dm_-tic
as m_asured
hold official
ceiling, pri_s
floor prices
in the current
policy
succ_ssfui,
been inadequate
were below
of trade
of price
years.
surplus
incenti_m_S to pro_e
by
or
prices. l_ars
and
GDWexJmuent _
qt_antity
high quality
rice for
export. _tic
rice prices
C_m_rnment
actions
world rice markets, pri_.
changing
insulated
wilt
bias
less costly
opportunities
Impact on Input Prices
since. 1978.
policy.
major
probably
floor pric_s
on irrigation,
in
in the 1960s
d_e in part prices
to the .has
it has
because
and Value
of limited
Added
price of rice has been declining
The net effect
bias
Maintainirz/ ceilir_ while
distortion
in
exports.
of go%_r_nt
also de..pencls on the pric_s
_pe_itures
any _,
supply has grown
prices.
fr=m the variability
frcx_ a slight prod_zer
to maintain
for profitable
The domestic
markets
in the late 1970s,
as d_m_stic
expensiv_
the lor_]-run trend of %prld
domestic
introducing
costs of implementing
increasingly
_ver,
follcx_d
The h_Cs do show a shift
to a slight co_
bec=me
have
ha_
credit,
policies
of production and fertilizez
relative
to world prices
on producer inputs.
incentives,
GDvelnment
increased
_haxply
in the
-13-
_rly
1970s in response to _he crop failures in 1972 to 1974_ expenditures was to _ncrease _.ion
_dc_tion of the nm_ rice technology. less favorable to products
%_e goal cf
through enucuzagi_
further
Fertilizer and credit policies became
after ckDestic production r_.
This section
examines the recent history of government policies with respmct to inputs and measures the effecti_
rate of protection for rice prodLw_,_o_.
!rriqat/on.. Irrigation investments increase the potent/al prcdt_tivity of land, not only because irrigation allows control o%_arwater and _)uble cr_ng, Natlo,al a_age land.
but because it is csmplemsntary to the use of fertilizer. yiel_
are .6 tons higher On irrigated _
The difference is more dramatic amDng Central _ in 1979.
than on rainfed _
_
by
Irrigated farms obtained 1.2 tons mDre rice in the wet season,
plus an additional 2.5 tons af production in the dry season.
Thus irrigation
has a suhatantial impact on potential yield and private returns. Annual _rnment a/_ly
bet-_n
expenditures for irrigation gr_
at 40 percent
1965 and 1980, from P4 million to P!,972 million.3
The
cost of irrigation in_sstmant per hectare has been rising as m_re difficult projects are _n.
K_i
and Rmyami (1978- 1982) estimate that the
cost per new hectare irrigated rose from an average of P847 in the 1960s to an a,_erageof P2884 in the 1970s.
Irrigation costs par hectare have been rising
at I0 percent annually during the 1970s. The _t costs.
bears all irrigation investmm_t costs ar_ _
uperating
Official irrigation fees in the.Philippines are P374 _er hectare and
actua/ collection is _t â&#x20AC;˘.di_xsion,
the most c_mmn
_
(App_mdix table 2).
For gravity
system in the Philippines, the value of collected
- 14 -
_t_esis only 14 _t -_bus_
of the annual crestscf irrigation per hectare, and
sui_idy is 86 percent (Table 4)4
_
s_mBic%i_sfor
,rrigation s%_stantia!ly increase private profitability for fammars with _:-rigate_lar_, _ndirectly t_h
both a_.ly
through re_m_cion of pri_ate costs and
Fertilizer:
the increase in potential yiel4M. Use of inorganic fertilizer is an im_t
_he r_w rio8 technology.
Central IAtzonfarmers sur_
c_
in 197_ applied 57 to
92 kilograms of nitroge_ per hectare and fertilizer _ of the variable costs of production.
_
_
20 percent
the fertilizer price can he
expected to ha%_ an imp_Wcant influer_ _t
of
_
pr_on
and pm0flts.
fertilizer policy Ln the 1970s _-
at_
to serve the
conflictirg goals of providing incentives to the domestic fertilizer inc]ustry to promote self-sufficiency While also providimg cheap inputs for f_ production°
From 1973 to 1975 a t_-tier price syste_ _ms imp!emmnted to
insulate food proch_ers from high w_rld fertilfzer prioes. to fertil.%zer_./h_uortex_
A subsidy was paid
to cover losaes, and fertilizer _as
distributed through the gD__rnment credit IA-Dgramat roughly half the wDrld price. In !976 wQrld fert/lizex prices d_ unified domestically.
A cash subsidy cont_
fertilizer producers to re_ prioss°
and fert/lizer pri_
ware
to be [mid to ¢kmsetic
them for selli_
fertilizer at Official
Other authors (David and Balisa_can,1981; Te and fferdt,1982) have
shown that producers pay fertilizer p_ioes at or ahov_ w_rld le__ls _nd the subsidy accrues to fertilizer,man_facturers.
Farmars pai(lan a%_rage implicit
tariff of 23 percent on urea and 44 percent on amm_ul
in 1978 (Table 4).
~ 15 -
Table 4.
Implicit
tariffs
on rice production
inputs,
Input
F%ilÂŁppines,
implicit
tariffa/
(percent) Ur ea_b/
23
Ammosulb/
44
Insecticides Irrigation, Irrigation
and herbicides-d/ gravity
pump system,
Hand tractor, 4-wheel Portable
diversion
28 systm_ c/
6" _ axial
-86
flo_ d/
20
i0 hp_d/
tractor_
30
75 hp _d/
thresher,
axial
i0 flc_ d/
i0
Large axial flow thresher _d/
IU
Fuel and lubri,canr_dd/
21
a/Farmer's price divided COSTS, mintl_ one,
by border
price
adjusted
for transport
--b/Ureaand a_mosul are average implicit tariffs for 1978, 1979, 1980 calculated from t'he percent difference between domestic and border price (see David and Balisacan, 1981). C/see
Appendix
d/Based
Table
2.
on legal tariff rates.
1978.
- 16 -
Thus fertilizer subsidies sid0e 1976 bemefit the domaetic industry _ther
t_n
farmers. Credit:
In order to adcgt r_;,_Icgy
t_eededthat are n_mnlly
, l_rg_ c_sh outlays are
fina_ct_ through loans째
_ious
g{_a___T_E_st progran_
in the 19508 and 1960s provided subsidized credit to farm_-s t_h banks and g_nmemt programs).
c_peratives
nlral
(see B_/is, 1982 for a review of these
The amDunt cf formal credit for rice product/on _
during the 15_0s and M_%rs, et.al., (1974) report t_t formal sources of credit a_ted
steadily
in _Jhelate 1960s
for a third of t_tal pr_tion
credit in
Central Luzon. The current __t in I%73.
credit progrmn, Masagana-99 (M-99), %m_ launched
The loen oons/sts of a _ae_._
of _
_s fextiliser and Insecticic_esas well as cash.
_unts The _m_l
loans is 14 pexeemt, su_sg_ntlally balc_ both inforsal _ _cial
ratea o_ _
af inp1ts s_l
interest c_ M-99 rates and the
to 25 per_ento
The M-99 program increased formal credit fo_"ri(_ [_ro_uctionfrom a base of P300 rail/ionin 1970 to P716 million in 1974 when _00,000 farmers _ticlpated.
Due to repayment difficul_es
pr_3ram lendi_
million in 1979, less tha_ the pre-prc_ram legal. Central L_zon fan_vs
hor_
Alt/_
declined to P196 61 percent cf
percent received M-99 loans.
to meet pro_uctlon cests in 1979, cmly 18 Tmas it m3ems that _d_eM-99 program pr_ided
a
c_e-tlme transfe_ of _
to farmers to help o_.m_x_e the effects c__ the
1974 production shortfall.
The apparent decline in the importanc_ of formal
credit is supported by D_vld (1982)_ who reports t_;_ttotal agricultural pruduction loans ha%_ declined as a percent of _l
loans and as a percent of
- 17 -
_gricultural
value adZ_sd since
of rice farmers,
subsidies
1970.
Because
on credit
M-99
read_
are not c_si_
a small
peroentage
in the. following.
a_a/.ysis of incen__i_s. T_
Effecti%,_ Protection
Rate:
%_ne _mct
'_alue added or _eturn_..to dcmM_stic factors effecti_
_r.otection rate
dmmeetic
prices
subsidies
to vml_
c_ irrigation
policies
increase
policies
6b not fair
insecticides,
irrigated is less
added
The EFR is the ratio
in _3rld
profitability
rice producers,
ineenti_
as the price
pr_ction
of 3.6 percent,
Incenti%_8
on these, f_s_
for rice producers
that irrigation
in the _oc#mny.
for rice are v_ry
T_e EPRs
Government
policies
increased
irrigated
predators
t_
benefit
price
without
ha_ area.
_iI
irrigated
Other 9Dw_rs_nt
consumers
and domestic
for rainfed
ar_.
i_ -4.7 percent
and
price policies are no benefits ha%_ _lightly
m/bsidie_
mDze
from the
positive
than _ffset
in the late 1970s:
_cm[m_re_ to _%er
but these
distortior_
ci_._e to zero, and th_s &T(m_th in
any greys distorticr_
favored
(Table 4).
prices..
havre d_clined
are relati_ely
in
Government
_
_t
farms and there
disfx_rtions in inoentives
has occ_._d
a_led
O_r
sys%_ms
Irr.iga'_l systems
sh_wing
by the
of fertili_.ex,
_n_ment
of low Input and pr_c_
pr_.ion
one.
b_tweeD
The E_R for rdi_ed
for rainfed
mmbsidy
effects
of _lue
on
are the only way in _hich
in the. diff_
(Table 5).
irrigation
the n_gati_
is m_um/red
in rice ,_r_-tion.
than the N_R of. -2.0 for 1979.
f_-t_째er reduoe
_Tioe.g, minus
policy
and fuel are all highest than border prices
are reflected
systems
of _rodnction
in'_estment and _tion
private
mmchinery
T_ese _)iicies
(._R).
of __r_t
pr__rs pri_
in net i_nti_es. sliqhtly
policies
manufau_urers
and ha_
h_ve t_, of agrica_.t_xai
- 18 -
7able
5,
Luzon,
Kstimates
of effective
protection
rate on rice pgod_ti_,
Centre!
1979 wet seas.:m_ Effective
'Type of cropland
System a
Power ', Land.
source
for __ Y_rreshing
p reparat ion •
Rainfed
protection rate (%)
i 2
_rimal _im_l
B;in_ai _k._.chine (tilyadora b).
-4.6 -4.9
Irrigated One-rice
crop
3 4
Animal Animal.
Manual Machine
Two-rice
crop
5 6
Tractvr Tractor
Manual Machine _s_Iz flow)
7
Tractor .+ animal c Trac=or • •ani_m Ic
Manual
3.5
M;_ehine (small axial flow)
3.3
g
I (tilyadora °')
axial
4.9 _.8 2.7 2.6
Average : Rainf ed irrigs ted Overa iI
-4.7 3,6 i°5
aone-crop irrigated and ra_nfed _arms tend to use animals for land preparation but most two_.crop rice far_,_ u_e trac_or._sbecause they reduce the turnaround t.ime between crops. It is equa!lly common f.or threshing to he done man_!ly or by larga maahines on rainfed a_d c_.e,.._.erop far_. Two-crop farms thresh. by hand or with swall axial flow threshers• because of the difficulty of bringing large machines into the. wet fields between crops (Cordova et.al. 19_I). bLarge
mechanical
thresher.
CTractors for primary tillage, plowing harrowing before transplanting_
o:_ _'otovation and animal
for fi,mi
- 19 -
_nputs.
In spiteof t/_se unfa_._].e
continued
to grow in all envir_hg
pri<._,
yiel._
__
,_
_'_X_'uc_ion..have
of continuing
in_rfovem_nts
in
r!ce varieties.
,_,,'cg.._P,rc_d__-tuiol_
Sc_ial [r_tit_zbility in Rice production factors
used
dcm_stic
r_
ncz@ed
in production
1979
(Table 6 ).
P8.856
foreign
Rainfed
systems
A cc_:8rison
f_m% 1974 t_ 1979.
cbange
T_ey
farms using both tractor
the
_
is less than the
are s_zialiy
profitable
is a slightly
in
rate of systems
are
more efficient
cn rair_._d farms, because
the higher
prague:riot cost per unit of rice.
_cial]& _ _it/_ irriga_ _
_ystems,
de.cr_,_;e Jn vie/d increase
betwe_
in the a_'age
DRC
5 percent.
of these results
how technical
farms
are lower.
The
resources
in the ERCs am gr_. _roduction
farn%s is 45 perceJ_t_ _ut t_
is only
earned.
are he/Low the shadow exchange
fn _ ic_r
are quite c_titive
fram 6.52 to 6.86
exctmnga
_ofit_bi_e_ 5
rice f_%rming systeh_
farms re_ilts
and rainfed
_t%_
prioss.
hlk_n pr_tion
their costs
cost of dumestic
It is the r_Cie of dumestic
is socially
Differences
earner
because
irrigated
of rice.
l%ice produc_ior_ on J, rrigated
exdla_e
hawev_r,
in world
The e_tJ,[ated B_Cs
yield on irrig_,_d
_s
Luzon
per U3 dollar. 6
not large,
_r_/%
rate, the activity
All the Central
if the social
(DRC) msasure,_ the va,i_ of._stic
one 6bllar's
to value added
shadow exd%ange
profitahl_
is less than the foreiqn
cost ratio
to produce
factor costs
is socially
with
has altered
esti_reted sncial and _rahao
the _Jardt a.n_Jlacgina
(1976) estimate
c_rati_
in the 5 years
advantage
i:rofi_bility
for land
for Cemkral
Luzon
_&'ep_,.--ation _.n4_larg_
scale
TabLe 6. 1979 wet
Sus_nary season,
of. domestic
Svstem '
t_:_source cost
Yield _ milled rice_a_/
(_mponeL'_ts
Produotien Domestic
i_ ri_:e p[od_%ction,
costs b/ Foreign
eight
systems,
Domestic resource costs d/
l_ktg" cost.! / (P/rot)
Central
L_._Jn,
Criticai minimum , world _ r'J.ce e/
Ra in fed I
Animal/_fanual
1.31
I_539
227
268
6.94
205
2
Animal/FLachine
1.31
1,45i
277
26_
6.78
20i
2.42
i, 477
290
268
6.93
209
2.42
i,389
316
268
6.68
202
Irri_ated
one_c roF "
3
Animai/Manua
4
_imal/Machine
Irrigated
I
two-cro__
5
Trac_p_/Manual
2.57
1,326
379
268
6.65
204
6
Tractor/Machine
2.57
1,237
407
268
6.38
197
7
Mixed/Ma_ua]
2.57
1,344
335
268
6.56
200
8
Mixed/Maahine
2.57
i_254
363
2-58
6.29
193
_/Based
on a milli_g
recovery
rate
of 0.65.
b/ -- _ee
Appendix
ÂŁ/Z5%
of
ex-farm
Tables
3 and
4.
prices.
_/Based on exchange
FoO.B. price of $291/mtj rate of PT.38/US$_
_/At: which
DEC
equals
shadow
exchange
the
average
rate
of
e_port
_8.856/US9.
unit
price
for
the
period
1978-Z980;
official
-!
- 22-
ramie
Changes
in social
cosT:s and returns
in rice production.
1974_ _ Foreign
Domestic
1979_/ Total
Foreign
Domestic
Total
88
88
109
37
14b
83
143
226
95
322
417
_rrigation
366
653
1019
288
575
863
Fertillzer
i77
68
245
257
37
294
29
29
50
iii
16
127
205
205
205
205
154
154
476
548
_ee_ _and _reparation
Chemicals Pre-harvest labor
hired
Interest
66
119
185
Threshing a__d harvesting
35
258
293
Family labor
225
225
344
344
Land rent
800
800
1058
1058
2588
3344
3224
4156
Total costs per hectare
756
Yield _/
72
932
2.00
Cost/ton Marketing _orld price
378
1294
6
484
(S/ton)
1672
2.57 363
1254
i617
268 $350
$291
DRC! I mt respective world prices
6..02
6.29
a$ 1979 worid price
7.44
6.29
Sources:
Herdt and Lacsina
_/Tractor
and carabao
used
(1976) and Table
6_ Appendix
Table
4.
for land preparation.
Threshing
by
째/Tractor and carabao used for land preparation. axial-flow machine. c/ Tons milled rice per hectare.
Threshing
by small
q/Foreign costs converted al_0 _7.4/US$ in 1979.
at official
exchange
rate of PT.0/US$
tilyadora
in 1974
- 23 -
_'_the long man, and thus Philippine oom_mrative _
is quite 10bust
_ith respect to wox_id.price. Chencj_ in yields and costs affect the _ocial pr_fitabili'tyof pzo_cing t3nem_rginal increment of rice.. C_ti_ed _aise domestic prices ahov_ _rld _on.
If a-_tional
_ric__s_nless tl_re is ÂŁ_0cthergrowth in
gzo_uh in prod_z_tionis not _ocially profitable,
the country wil/ l_se its _rati%m ac]clitional ri_ _ainfed _
grow%l_h_ domestic demand will
advantage.
Teere are two _ys
in _hich
can be produced if .yieldsdo not co,tinue _o _r_.
o_n he b_t
irrigation cmn raise yields.
int_ _ion
Ac%_litional
or a4_litiona!in%_e_uents in
It is useful to oonsider the_social costa of
increasing rice output in these tmo _ys. l_/nfe_ rice prc_lu_tionin O_tral profitable.
Ret_n%s to family labor in minfed
m_z_et rate for _ired labor. more _:__
E_n
_
privately
systems are less than the
ralr/ed _
in Oemtra! L_mn
is
_ban in some other re_lons, labor oos_.sin Om_:zal la_z>nare
higher.
Thus these famms can be viewed as representati,._of_he
_hilippine rice farm. Luz_,
iazon is only m_mlly
As raiDfed sy_
_mu_gi_sl
are socially profitable i_ C_tral
"a_ditionalproduction on t_infed lam_s is likely to be scxsi._lly
profitable.
R_:_nt growth in yields ca r_infed land has in_se_
p_'ofi_abilityfor t_hisenvironment as well as f_ pz_d_tion
irrigated isnd.
_ial Lncreased
from this envir_a__nt is now socially competitive _ith increases
from irrigated systems. Irrigation in%_stment oosts are rising_in the Philippinee beo_se. additional areas are more diffi_[t
t_ izriq_te.
Heno_ the cost of obtaining
more production tuhxot_hexpansion of irrigated _i's
risi_
also.
Kikochi
- 24 -
:!982) estimates
that capital
c%%s_ispe_ _
[980.
i_ this cost is annualized
a_,
the cDst of irrigation
used to estimate a.06,
the 1979 _RC.
costs,
30 years
_his
_dgher
r_Tains
in
are
than the P863
oost raises
profitable.
_h_wever, could quic_J.y erode
costs
much greater
irrigation
socially
rose to P6660
and c_erat/ons
is P1225 pe_ hectare,
so t_'it rice production
in irrigation
o%_r
,hectare irrigated
the DRC to
O0nti_
growth
l_,ilippine comparative
advantage. The crm_arison
hewn
1974 and 1979 st_w_d the importance
qrowtb
in recg/cing s_cial
o_fset
the risin_ cost _f irrigation
tm grc_ at I0 parop_t n_
cost_s per unit of output_
annually
investment,
and other
to grow at least 2.8 percent
Further
annually
yield growth
if irrigation
costs r_main
constant,
to m_intain
of yield
c_rrent
costs
can
continue
yields
will
social
profitability.
Conclusions Philippine
rice pradnction
c_)untry nc_ _ms an exportable increases
fran nswer mc_exn
has gruwn
surplus.
varieties.
more protractive in all envir_ts resistmnt
and more
Grr_th production principally _idized
tolerant
in production
inuenti_s. through
_/
_l_e
has been due primarily released
to yield
sino8 1976 are
they are pest and _iisease
stress.
policies
without
gross distortions
have contributed
in irrigation.
hut other price policies
in the 1970s
Rice varieties
been achieved
G_ernment
in%_stments
Gruwth
bscause
of mDisture _s
rapidly
Irrigation
re_/ce producer
in
to gr(m_ch costs are heavily
_/_entives.
Darestic
rice
- 25 -
orices are slightly _us
below world
favor irrigate_ Technical
reduced
factor
advantage_.
farms over
c_u_e
will _
_n%_stment
rice production
is socially
Future
rice production
thereby
on the relati%_
growth
there may be scope for expansion
competitive
of rainfed
in both rainfed
and
and irrigation
are _n.
with
areas
and
in irrigated
of yields
projects
yields
c_mparati_
in 1979
advantage
irrigation
seems to be socially
Policies
has increased
increasing
profitable
cumparati%_
costs as nnre costly
inputs are taxed.
farms.
costs per ,unit of output,
envir_ts.
enviro_ts
and most
rainfed
in Philippine
Rice production
irrigated
prices
Rainfed
irrigated
instead
production,
so
of irrigation
investment. Although
the Philippines
unprofitable factors
account
a barrier
has a cc_uarative
for the go%_rnment
marketing
for the losses on exports.
between
domestic
markets
advanta98 agency
_t
and _rld
control
m_rket
Profitable
low quality
Philippine
In order maintmin
q_ality
similar
are the_
the country's
incenti%_s,
_logy
advantage
to deval<_
%_nmiland produces
80 that
demand
for
and additional
cloning,
sorting,
t/_ preeent
on world markets, information.
hut _nfortunately A rough
estimate
Jm rice and quality
high quality
premium
t2_ cost
world
higher
and cum_ared
to obtain
puts
_ domestic
cos Ls of these ac_civities need to be ascertained paid
of exports
standards
by inelastic
com_arati%_
it is necessary
to meet world standards.
milling
limited
Two
ric_.
t_ exploit
producer
processing
exports
exports
in 1977 to 1979.
___l_rt pricein__ntives for qualityare .ot passed_ processors.
in rioe,
rice with
and grading.
The
with the quality study was unable
of the. q_allty
premium
is
- 26 -
_le differer_e _xports. _iiling
between
ti_ T__i 5% pri_
This differer_e costs
a_raqed
in the Philippines
a_raged t_
_uld
Thus
export,
less t_n
the premium. 7
they m_9,11d be able to respo_
and e_%_ort good quality
to provide
rice for exlzort. s.houid be possible f_ov_r._ment costs, Lnce_'_ti_s.
_rld
_arket
Because
tot_l
ton in 1978
of sorting
if pr_ivate millers
has small export
incentives
With
to 1980,
(x_ly $10 to $25 _
additio__%i e_sts
_
for Phili_pi_
_nd _i_l_adi_
_ere _dlcm_d
inoentives
to produce
rice at a profit.
If the Philippines essential
_I_
$64 per _,_n in !977
_IIRRI,1978), it seems li_ely that _
and _3B _it
s%irpl_es
to dsmestic
millers
the. secn]rity that a dc_estic
to open up exports furthex
exploit
to t_he private
o_rati_
in the c_mlng to produoe sarplus trade_
years
it is
better quality
provides,
it
This will reduce
ad_rantag_._and maintain
producer
- 27 _
i. Domestic would hav_ induced rice _re exported
pric_s remsined aho_e world l_s in d'_)se years _ich imports irl_ an open m_rket. !nst_!_d, s_lll quantities of because the o_ficia/, prioe ceiling had been reached.
2. Part of the reason why both floor and oeilin9 pri_ do not hold at _e same ti_e is the narrow margin bet__n offici,l! pri__s. _is m_rgin does not co_r t,he private costs of t_-ade. Governmer_t must re_laos, some. p_rtion of private trade and subsidize m_rketing in order to hold official prices. Unnev_hr (1982) for a cQmplete disc_assion of the oosts and i_msct of m_rketing s_idies. 3. Differe_t _ta sources give oonflicting evidenoe _rrigated area expansion. NIA data sh_, mn incr,_ase of 6 De_ 1965 and 1980, while BA_x)n data show an increase annual].y (I_ARDD 1980; _IIA, vario_ y@ars)_ It is I/kely irrigation in_ment improved existing systems.
area
4. NIA operated gravity systems a_counti_ in 1975 (K_i arc/ }_ayami, 1978).
° about the rate of percent ann_mlly _ i._ percent that smme _x)rtion of
for o¢_e-t2_ird_
irrigated
5. Land, labor, and the cost of capital services are domestic fa_r costs, _ _arMet prices are assumed to represent the _cial opportunity cost of these factors. Act_ml %_c_ for hired labor are assmmm_ to r_@r,i_!!!_:i!_t the. social _ge for both hired and family labor'. Rent p_id hi_ _'share-tenants -_:, landlords, about 25 percent of output after _ction of shared input costs, represents the _adow p_ic_ of land. The,._ti_mted value of capital sevices is the annual _%_preciation of the bord_" pri_e _lacement _lue of the capit_l asset plus 15 percent ann:_l ine_arest. Dog,tic tx_%sportation arc]. _uldling are a!s_ counted as domestic cests. _il t_-adable inputs a_oe a foreign exchange cDst and are value4, at border prioes. N@_-tradable inputs, ,_inly irrigation, are _sed into tradable and n_n-t2a_able _¢_,nts, using, data from Mona (1981). 6. The she_ exchange exohange rate of 7.38 in 1979
is estiTe_ at 20 pexoent _Medalla, 1982).
abo_s
"_le o_!_!iclal
7. This assumes __hat discarded brokens _ some economic Thailand broken_ are sold to the anJaml feeding industry.
value.
In
_2_-
RJ_CFS
Apiraksirikml, S. 1976. Rice trade policy a_ it.rela_es t= natio_l objectives in the Philippine_. M.S. _hesi_, _nlverslty of the Philippines a= Los B_os, LaE_nn, PhillppIDeJ, Bois, Ho 1982. Rice policy in the Philippiues. Ph.D.s _he_s. Research Institute_ Stanfo_'d U_Iver_ity, USA Cordova,
Food
V, and A. Papas, S. Sardido, L.D. Y_ao, _981:_ "Chenges in Practices of Rice Farmers in CenCr_!_l]_zon: 1966-79." IRRI Agricultural Economics Department _er No. 8i-05.
David, C.C. and A.M. Balicasan. 1981. "An Anal,//_isof Fertilizer Policies £n the Philippines." Paper proseD ted at the w_r_k_p ou the Redlrec_ion of Fertillzer Reaearch, T_opical Palace, Hetro Manila, October 26-28. David,
C.C. 1982. "Credit and Price Policies in Pkd_iippine Agrlculture" in "_Why.Cheap Credit Unde_z_ne_ P__ural_e!o_nt," World Bank°
Duff, B.
Falcon,
Herdt,
1978.
"Mechan_zstlou
and Use of M_dern
Rice _azleLies."
W.P. and E,A. Moire. 1979,80. "_teruati_al Food Research i'_%stltuteStu_i_s_ Vol. XV/_
Trade _. 3
in Rice,"
R,_. and T.A_ kecsina. 1976. "The D_me_.ti= _e_r_ CoS_ _ l_=reasing Philippine Rice _roductlon." _;,9_u_mrch%_stitute S!ud!gs, Vol. XV, No. 2.
Herdt, R.W. 1982. _'_z_jeccln_ the A_lan Rice Si_:_: A Policy Framework," Paper presented at the _4o_:k_hop .,_n _Ic_ l_lioleS in Southeast Asia_ Jahar_a, Indonesla_ AsCot 17_20, International Rice Research Philippines. IRRI 1978.
"The Technical P_duction by _I
Kikuchi
Ins£_.tute.
and Econ_mlc
1970_
_3_i_i__2ort
Ch_r_c_:erlsticz
1971.
Los Ba_o_,
of Ei_e Pos_
Systems in _he _icol ltiw_r _si_, ¢' Report Submitted and UPLB t_ _ne _ieol River _l_<_,._.£'n D_v,r_lopmm,_: Programo
and Hayami, 1978. "New R_ee Tech_oio_:_ 8n_ !:>_i_:[ti_!_,_al Irrigation Development Policy," _n Economic Ccr_eq_nc____:!sof_ the New Rice Technology_, IPJ_I.
Kikuehi, Mangahas,
1982. Unpublished
data_
IK_I.
Mo 1972, Philippine _ice p_l:[c_rre,_n_£d_r,_ urban bias. The Philippine Revie_ of _u_Iness Vol. 9, No. I.
:_ _erms of and _con_mlcs. .'
Mangahas , M_ 1975_ The politica ! economy _f _ice in _:h_ _.new society. Food Research institute St,,dies_ Vol. XIV, No. 3. Stamford University.
- 29 -
Meats,
L,A., M. Agabin, T. Anden and R. M_rquez. 1974. Rice Economy of the Pi_ilip_ines. University of the Philippine Press.
Medalla,
1979. "Estimating the Shadow Value of Foreign in Industrial Promotion Policise in the_,
Mova, P.Fo
Exchange." PIDSo
1981. "Benefit Cost Analysis of the Different Types of IrriEati_ Systems in Central Luzon, Philippines." IRRI Agricultural Economics Paper 81_ql.
National
Irrigation
Authority,
various
years,
_ual
Re, ft,
PCARRD.
1980. Data Serieso.on Rice St_at_stles in th_ Phi___._.
S_mboonsup, S. 1975. The patte_m of Thai rice exp_7_ts i955-1972. Master's thesis, Kasetsart Uni_rslcy, Thailand. Te, A. and R.W. Berdt. 1982. ";ertillze= l>rices, Subslales end Rice Production." Paper presented at the 1982 Convestlon of the Philippine Agricultural Econo_cs ,n_ _velo_nt Association, U.S.
USDA,
Deparum_n_ of A@rlculture. 1980. Rice PostharvQet Losses in Developln_ Countries, Science and Education A_inlstratlon, Agrlcultural Reviews and _muals_ ARM-W-12, April. 1982. _'Asia Review ERS, Supplement
Dnnevehr,
of Agriculture 2 to WAS-27.
in. 1981 and Outlook
for ].982.
L.J. 1982. "The Impact of Philippine Goverum_nt Intervention in Rice Markets." Paper presented at the Workshop on Rice Policies in South East Asia, Jak_rta_ Indonesia, _igust 17-20.
-.30-
Appendix
Variety
Table !.
Characteristics
Year of release
Growth duration
of commonly
grown
Disease resistance
1966
135
IR20
1969
130
MR
$
IR36
1976
II0
R
R
IR42
1977
140
R
R
IRS0
1980
105
R
R
IR52
1980
115
R
R
IR56
1982
ii0
R
R
=
susceptible
MR =
moderately
R
resistant
=
resistant
varieties.
Insect resistance
IR8
S
S ,
improved
S
- 31 -,
Appendix gravity
i.
Table 2.
EstimaLes
irr_.gation systam_
Annualized (_/ha)_ / Opera_ion
capital
NiA-charged Palay
Cent_l
investment
and maintenance
Total annualized
2.
of government
cost
â&#x20AC;˘3.
and com_Lunai
Nationa];_ /
.C0mmun_ii/
667
812
cost
._7,_
87g
889
7.0
7.0
374
314
fee
(cavans/ha) ÂŁ/
Value _dl (P/ha) Actual
on. national
198.0 prices.
cos_ (P/ha) 211
(_/ha)
irrigation
Luzo_,
subsidy
NIA collection _e/
Palay
(cavans/ha)
2.24
1.40
Value
(@/ha)
120
75
57
58
86
92
Percent subsidy on gravity irrigation based on: NIA - cha_ged Actual
irrigation
fee
NIA collection
i/With reference to San Fabian River irrigation System for national gravity sys=em .and _o an average of four comm_unal gravity irrigation Systems in Central Luzon for the communal syste_n.$ _/Based on i5% interast rate, 60 years life spa_ _er dam_. 30 years for canal, and i5 years for pump at_ e_gine. I_itial figures are based O_ Moya (1981). _/2.5
cavans/ha
for wet season
aud 3,5 cavans/ha
for dry season.
Appe.radix Table
System
3.
Total
Far__ner'scosts of rice Production
i'Land Seed-a/ prepaL_.7
'
lrri_tion_;
in Central
Fertil[_ectiiizerd--/ aides and
ration_b/
Luzon,
eight sy_ste_,
Ot_%er pre-. Total harve.__t pre-
herhiei_les
hired / labo r---'
h_ _¢es t cos ts
1979 wet season.
Interest on pre-
Harvesting and
Famil_, !abor_"
Lanll . ren_ /
harve_ _brewhces ts-t./, inggl
Pesos-.per heat are I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2,3.'_ 7 2,2O.) 3.p537 ._,404 3,.]38 3,)9_ 3,62._ 3,485
106 106 109 i09 112 112 112 112
490 4_0 490 490 554 554 450 45C_
225 225 i_'_:0 328 120 328 120 367 120 367 120 367 120 367
51 51 11.3 113 159 159 159 159
205 205 205 ? _ ,,O_. .i:.:,95 205 205 205
(I ,07 ; ._.(1,07'7) (1,365) â&#x20AC;˘ "_1,365 ) {i,5.17 ) <1,5i7.) (1,4[<3_) (1,413)
_I _i 102 102
'559 287 .$64 531
282 282 410 !_i0
i.14 IJ4 lU6 1.06
705 _b_ 705 564
344 344 344 _44
_38 538 996 996 1,O58 _,0_8 1,O58 1,058
a/V/_luec_ a_ 150_<_[ of p_lay price received.. b/For _ _racto{" (2..wheel) operated farm_ initial ]._nd _._epa__atic-,n _:osted P2_,O,. ._r:__h-:. ,_ fo_ har_owing_ _304/h_. Animalope_::ated farms req.aired 24.5 maueanimal days (14..5 sr_d i0 MAD for initial land preparation _and harr_ing, respectively), valued at _20/MAD,.9/NL_..-
charge_°irrisation
_,/D_ta source @/oKh_r _/At
fee of _..5 cave -_s/ha_ wet season.
gives only total fertilizer
than hired
costs.
Assumed
to.be all urea.
labor for _and preparation,
15% per a.n_um, appor_.ioned as o_-igip_l cost_ for _ix months,
_/For man_al threshing fee O_ 5% of yield,
and harvesting, i/6 of yie&d; harvesting All shares valued at Bl,OT/kg.
7.5%_
alone,
1/12 of yield; machine
threshing,
h[Doem not in_.lude operator's and family labor used in land preparation and threshing and barvesting_ labo_ used it,. the latter were valued a_d entered like hired la5o_ in these o_ration_. i/25%
_._f yieid,
valued at _l_07/kg.
e eust(_..
Family
,
Appendix Table 4. Allocation of rice production input costs assumption, eight systems, Ce_itral Luzon, 1979 we£ season°
Source of cost/ system
Seed Total
Land preparation
IrriFertigation lizar
to domestic
Insecticides and herbicides
and foreign
Other preharvest hired, labor
Pesos
per hectare
5 -,Ii iI 16 16 16 16
205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205
Total proharvest costs
sources,
ful1_ o[_rade d
Interes_ on proharvest costs
Hat_esting and threshing
Famil_ labor
Land rent
Domestic
1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8
_,016 I,_O1 3,57_ 3,362 3,407 . 3,178 % _,453 3,224
35 35
490 490
36 36 37 37 37 37
490 490 271 271 322 322
23 23 575 _75 5.75 575 575 575
39 33 37 37 37 37
(75_) <758) (1350) (1350) (i141) (1141) (1192) (i192)
?_ 79 154 154 159 i_9 i54 154
359 2_4 664 452 705 476 705 .476
Vor_._.e.i n i 2
29_ 103 _%_53 103
3 4
?03 765
106 106
5 6 7 8
975 1.047 860 932
109 109 !O9 109
210 210 95 95
158 158
36 36
(297) (297)
2_ 28B
2.30 230
79 79
(703) (703)
288 288 288 288
257 257 257 257
1il Iii IIi Iii
(975) (975) (860_ "(860;
33 62 72 72
282 282 410 410 B44 344 344 344
538
538 _96 996 l_ I,O58 1,Ca8 I,O_8
. _