e.7l1/ _.------ s6 /11 /!fJs rc S3~ f ~ fl:, c-' / THE IMPACT OF HIGH-YIELVHJ~ RIe¡; VARIETIE-' IN LATIN AMERICA \ WITII SPECIAL EI>IPHASIS ON COLOMBlA , • A PRELIMINARY REPORT ,~; . ~'!-"-/!\I 'IT ApILa, 1976 ccLJLJ--~\i B1BLIOTL::.CA GILa,nt M. !jc.obú Ra6ae.l P~ada T. R-i.c.e. PlLoglLal11 CentlLo IntelLnac.-i.onal de AglL-i.c.ultulLa TlLop-i.c.al ' ApalLtado A€lLeo 67-13 Cal-i., Colomb-i.a CAVEAT The views and conclu.ions expressed in this Preliminary Report are those of the authors. and should not be construed to represent those of the management or Board of CIAT, nor its donor agencies. • "If we could first know where we are. and whitber we are. tending, we cculd better judge what to do, and how to do it n • Abraham Lincoln (Speech to the Republican State Comaittee. Springfield, Illinois, June 18, 1858). "To say that a thing happened the way it did ia not at all illuminating. We can understand the signifieance of what did happen, only if we contrast it with what might have happenedlt~ Horris Rapbael Cohen (Quoted in R.P. Thomas (1965), itA quantitati~e approach to the study of the effeets of British imperial'poliey upon có­ lonial wélfare: Some preliminary rindings". Journal of Eco­ nomic History, Vol. 25, .No. 11). ( Hi) ACKNOWLEVGEilENTS The autho~s acknowledge. without implication, the contri­ butions of the following pe~sons to this studi: Randolph Barker, Economist, IRRI. Philippines. Dana G. Dalrymple, Economist, OSDA, Washington, D.C. B~uce L. Gardne~, President's Council of Economíc Advis~rs,Washíngton, D.C. U~iel Gutíérrez P., Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota. Reed Hertford, Ford Foundation, Bog.ota. Peter R. Jenníngs, Associate Director for A.gricul tural Scie~es, Rockefeller Foundation, N.Y. Loyd Johnson, Rice P~ogram, CIAT Patricia Ju·~i, Biometrics Unit. CIAT Gustavo López A., Economist, FEDEARROZ, Bogotá. Pe~ Pinstrup-Andersen, Director, Agro-Economic Research Division, I.F.D.C., Alabama. Manuel J. Rosero M., Director, National Rice Program, ICA, Colombia. G. Edward Schuh, Purdue University, U.S.A. Alberto Valdés, Economist, CIAT In addition the study would not have been possible with­ out the collabo~ation of the following Colombian Institutions: INCORA, ICA, DANE, 1DEMA, INCOMEX and Banco de la República, all of whom collabo~ated in providing unpublished data. ¡PlOMAS Para acelerar el proceso de distribución de este docu-· mento y el recibo de los comentarios, se presenta en Ingl~s este documento de trabajo. El informe final se pUblicará . en Inglés y Espafiol. (iv) TABLE OF CCNTENTS Page Ac.knowie.dg e.me.nt.6 .... lO .......................... • ' .......... .. UH) rabie. 06 Content4 ......................... " .. " .......... .. Uv) L¡~.t 06 Ta .bte..6 .......... " " .................................... .. (vi) Li.,st 06 Appendix T,abte,s •.•••• '. ••••.••••• (x) L"¿.ót·on F.¿guJLe..6 ••••••••••••••••••••••••• (xii) 1 INTRO-VUCTION ................................... " .. " .... " .. " .. .. 1 1.1 Th e Se,tt.¿ng ..................... ",. .......... " ...... .. 1 1. 2 , R~ce in Latin Ame~ie4 ••••.•.•..... a 1 • 3 Objeetive,s 06 the Study •••••.•.... 3 1.4 Out¿ine 06 the Rep04t •••••••••••.• q II AN OVERVIEW OF RICE PROVUCTI0N ANV TRAVE IN LATIN AMERIC.A: 1950-1914 •••••••••••• s 2.1 P!Lodac.ti.on .. " ... " ........... ", ..................... .. 5 2.2 T4ade. and T4ade. P~04pect4 ••••••••• 7 HI IMPACT OF HYV',s ON RICE PROVUCTION IN LATIN AMERICA ..... "' ............ " .... " ........................ .. 14 3.1 A4ea Sown to HYV',s ••••••••.•••••.. 3.2 1'1 Cont~ibution 06 HYV',s to Ou.tput ••• 14 IV RICE IN COLOMBIA: Some Economic A,spect,s lB 4. 1 Bac.kgJtou.nd .. ...... " ................................... .. lB 4.2 Re~e.a.Jtc.h ....... ", .. "' ............ " ........................ . 19 4.3 P~oduction and Vi4appea~ance •..•.• 24 4.4 Regional Sh~6t,s in P4oduet~on ••... 28 4.5 PIL..t.c.e.4 " " ............... ,. .. " " " " " " .. " " " " .... " " " 31 4.6 GoveAnment,P4ice,SuppoAt3 •......•. 34 4. 7 CIt edil" " " " " .......... " .... " " " ...... " " ...... " ....." 40 4 .8 Che.mic.a.t Input.ó"""" .. " ...... " .... ,."""" .. " 40 4.9 Labo4 U4age •••.•.•.•.•..........•• 42 4. 10 V~~tAibution od Riee Fa4m~ A4ea and P4oduction by Fa4m Size .•••••• V AN ECONOMIC MOVEL TO MEASURE THE BENEFITS OF HYV',s IN COLOMBIA .......••..••.••••.. 56 5 • 1 The Gene4at Modet •.•••....••.••••• 57 5. 2 Mathematicat Rep4e3entation •••••.• 62 5. 3 E~timation 06 the Shiót Pa4amete4. 63 5.4 [.\ t-imatio n o 6 th e Eta,s t.i.c.~tie4 .... H 5.4.1 Income Eta,stie~ty 06 Vvnand 75 · rv ) TABLE OF CONTE~TS (continuedl P~ge 5.4.2 P4ice Et~~ticity 06 Vemand 77 5.4.3 P4ice Eta~~c~e~ 06 Suppty 79 VI GROSS 8ENEFITS, COSTS ANV NET BENEFITS OF HVV'.6 IN COLOMBIA. ............................................. ~ .. 85 6 .. 1 G1to4~ 8eneá.itó .. ,'. .. .. ........ ...... .. .. .. .... .. .......... 85 6.2 t4timate4 Oft the Q~~ntity ~nd 64044 vatue 06 Additionat Rice Vue to HYV'4 88 6.3 C04t4 06 Rice Re4ea~ch ••.•..••••• ;... 90 6.4 Net 8ene6it4 ud Lttu 06 RetU4/t...... 95 VII VlSTRIBUTION OF NET BENEFITS.............. 99 7.1 IntlLoduc.Uon.......................... 98 7. f Vi..6~ibuti.on 06 Beneóit4 and CUt4 by 7.' Se.c..toJt..6.. .. .. .. .... .... .. .... .... .... .... ...... ........ .. .... .... .. 98 Vi4t~ibution 06 Ben!6Lt4 and C04t4 by Inc.ome. Le.vet................................................ l02 .7.4 Fo~eLgn T~ade, TechnotogLcal Change and Income Vi4t~ibution.............. 115 VIII AN ANALYSlS OF THE MARKETING MARGINS FOR RICE IN COLOMBIA.......................... 121 8.1 ImptLcation4 06 Ma~keting Ma~gLn4.... 121 8.2 Ob4e4ved M.49Ln ••••••••..•.•..•• ~.... 122 8.3 An Inve4tment Cycte Ln Rice MitlLng.; 124 8.4 An AnalY4i4 06 the P~edicted Change in the Fa~m-to-Retait Ma~ketin9 M4Jtg.¿n •••••.••••••••••••••• ,......... 129 8.5 F04mation 06 Rice P~ice4............. 137 SUMMARY ...... ................... " ....................................... .. foo.t=n.ote..4 .... ................. • " .............. ;, ..........." 11+4 'Re. ti e.Jten C.e.4 • '"' .. ....... " • • .. • • • • .. • .. .. • • • • • • • • • .. • .. • • • .. • • • llf.9 Appendi..x Table.6 ........ ";, ....... " ............... ".,,.. 158 Gl.O..4.4MIJ· •• • •••••••• • ••••• ··-··~· •• •••••••••••••• 218 (vi) LlST OF TABLES Table PaRe 1 Production of 'addy Rice in Latin America and in the World: Selected Years ••••••••••.•. 2 Contribution of Five Major Rice Producers in Latin America: Selected Years.~ ••••••••••• 6 3 Annual Average Growth Rates of Production, Area and Yields in Latin America: By Regions. 7 4 Annual Average Net Exports of Milled Rice in Latin America: Five Year Averages: 1950- 1974 .......................................... . a 5 The Five Major Rice Importing and Exporting Countriesin Latin A~erica: Selected Years ••. 10 6 World Rice Trade Flows with Emphasis on Latin America: 1970 •••••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••• 12 7 Estimated Areas Plantad with HYV's in Latin America: 1974 ............................... ".............................. 15 8 Estimated Contribution or HYV's in Latin America excluding Brazil: By Regiona: 1974 ••. 17 9 Percentage Distribution of Varieties in Colombia: 1964-197'......... .•••.••..•.•..•.•. 22 10 Characteristics of Principal Rice Varieties .. 23 11 Area, Production and Yields of Rice by Sector Colombia: 1954-1975.......................... 25 12 Production and Disappearance of Milled Rice: Colombia: 1962-1974 ..................................... ' ... ~... 27 13 Regional Shifts in Colombian Rice Production: 19314-1974 ... "'.................................................................. 29 14 Colombian Rice Prices: 1950-197Q •••.•.••••••• 32 15 Number of Kilograms or Rice that could be Purchased with On~ Kilogram of other Selected Products in the Bogotá Wholesale Market: Selected Years." .... ".""" .. """ .... " ............ ".............. 35 (vii ) LIST OF TABLES I~on~nuedl Table Page 16 Relative Price of Rice By Grade: Bogotá who,lesale Market: Se1ected Yaars ••••••• 35 17 Real Support Prices for Rice: 1965-197~ 38 18 Measures of the Intensity of the PUblic Marketing Sector: 1966-197~ •••••••••••• 39 19 Public Credit for Rice Production: 1968· 197 ........... '. ..... ~ ••••••••••••••••••••• ~l 20 Use of Chemical Inputs fnRice Produc- tion 1965-1974 ............................................... .. ~l 21 E~ti!Date of ~abor Usal1e in Co1ombian R1ce Product~on: Selected Years •••••••• ~3 22 Proportion of Household Expenditures Spent on Rice: By lncome Level for Pive Major Colombian Cities: 1970 ••••••••••• 43 23 Percentage Oistribution of Rice Farms: By Th.ree Categories of Farm Size: Colombia: Selected Years •••..•.••••••.. 47 2~ Percentage Distribution oi Farms wbere Rice i8 the Principal Crop: By Three Categoríes of Farm Size: By Sector: Colombia! Seleeted Years .......................... .. 48 25 Changes in the Number of Farms between 1959 and 1970 where Rice is tbe Princi­ pal Crop: By Three Categories oi Farm Size: By Sector: Colombia ....••••••..•. ~a • 26 Estimated Oistribution of Rice Production: By Farm Size: Upland Sector: 1970 •••••• ; 53 27 Estimated Distribution of Rice Production: By Farm Slze: lrrigated Sector: 1970 •••• 51¡ 28 Es¡ímates of the Proportion of the Area Sown to HYY's Based on Experimental Yíelds for HYV's and the Traditional Yariety: 1964-1974, ................................... . 67 (vii i) tIST OF TAJLES IOonUnue.d) Table Pa~e 29 Estimates of the Yields of Traditional and Improved Va.ietie$1 Colombial 196'- 1974 .... " • " " •. " " " " . " " , " '" •••.•• " ••.•••• " • 69a 30 Estimated Area SO'wn to Up1and Rice in the Absenceof HYV's under Diffe.ent AS$umptions: Colombia: 1969-1974 •••..•• 75 Estimates 01 the Shift Parameters due to HYV's: Colombia: 196.-197 •••••••••.• 76 32 Proportion of Rice Production from the Ir.igated Sector: Colombia: 196'-1974: Three Sub-periods .•• ; ..•••..•••..•••••• 83 • 33 Values of Supp1y E1asticities for Three Sub-periods: g= 0.215 •••••••..•..•.••• 93 34 Values of Supply E1asticitias for Three SUb-periods: e=1.5 , •.••••••••••••••.. 8. 35 Gl'oss Eenefits of New Rice Varieties in Colombia to Consumers and Producers •••• 86 36 Comparison of Preferred Estimates of Total Gross Eenefits with those present­ ed by Ardila (1973) •••...•..•••..••.... 86 37 Estimates of the Quantity and Gross Value of Additiona1 Rice Production in Colombia due to HYV·s:.1964~1974 ••••••• 91 38 Costs ~f Rice Research Pl'ogram in Colombia: 1951-197' •....••.•...•••••••• 93 39 Investment in Rice Research per ton of Irrigated Paddy Rice Productiori in Colombia: 1957-1974 •..••••.•••..••••.•• 94 40 Costs. Net Eenefits and Rates of Return to Rice Research in Colombia: Fol' Various Elasticities of Supply and Demand: 1957 1971t.~ •••• · •••••••••••••••••••••••• "' ...... . 96 (ix) L1ST OF TABLES reont~nuedJ Table Page Size and Distribution of Benefits and Costs of KIVI S in Colombia: 1957-197 ••••••••• 99 .2 Distribution of Gress Benefits Research Costs a~d Net Benefits to Cónsumers: By Level 01 Income: 1970 .••••••••••••••· ••..•• 103 43 Distribution ';f Foregone Producerlncoae By Farm Size: Upland and Irrigatec Sectors ..•.......... ,. •••...... , ...•...•..•••. 105 Distribution of Average Annua1 Research Costs Borne by Producers: By Farm Bize: Total and Per Farm': 1970 ............................. ~ """ .. lO lOS 45 Distributi~n of Annua~ Average Net'Bene- fits Per Farm: By Farm Size: By Sector ••••••• 107 46 Annual Average Net Losses to Producers as a Percentage of 1970 Income: By Sector •••• 108 47 Annual Average Net Benefits to Consumers: By Inco •• Level............................. 110 4S Competitive Position of Colombia as a Rice Exporter: 1968-1974 ••••• ~ •••••••••••••• 119 49 Real Rice Prices and Marketing Margins for Selected Periods: Colombia: 1950- 1974 ................ " ...... " .. .. .. .... .. .. . .. .... .. .. .. ...... .... .. .. .. .. .. ...... 123 50 Marketing Margins for Colombian Rice: 1950-1974 .................................. ".............................. 125 {xl LIST OF APPEHVIX TASLES Table Page 1 Rice Area, Production, Yield and Trade in Latin America 1950-1975 •••••••••••• 159 2 Classification of Colombian Departments by Rice Productlon System: 1963 and 1970 ................................. " ..... . 186 3 Distribution of Farms and Rice Area where Rice is the Principal Crop: Upland Sector of Colombia: By Farm Size: 1959 ...•...•....••........•.... lB7 4 Distrihution of Farms and Rice Area where Rice is the Principal Crop: Irrigated Sector of Co19mbia: By Farm Size: 1959 ...••...••...•..••..•. 188 s Distrihution of Farma and Rice Area where Rice la the Principal Crop: Colombia: By Farm Size: 1959 •••••••• lB9 6 Distribution of Rice Farms, Area, Yields and Production by Farm Size: Colombia: 1966 ............... ~ .......................... .. 190 1 Distribution of Farms where Rice is the Principal Crop: Upland and Irri­ gated Reglons of Colombia: By Farm Size: 1970"" ................................................ .. 191 8 Distrlhution of Rice Farms by Farm Size: Colomhia: Selected Years ..••.. 192 9 Distrihution of Colornhian Rice Parms and Area: 1966 and Estimated Values for 1970 ....................................................... .. 193 10 Distribution of Number of Farms where Rice is the Principal Crop: By Farm Size: By Sector ...•••.•••..•.... 1911 11 Yields of Rice in Irrigation Districts of INCORA: By Variety: 1970-1974 •.•• 195 12 Estimates of the Additional Irrigated 196 (xi) LIST OF APPENVIX TA8LES I eo ntinued I Table Page Area Sown due to the Presence of HYV's: Colombia: 1968-1974: AssumptioD' (A) ..... : ~.o ", .. "' .. .o .. ; .................. .. 196 13 Estimates of the Additional Irrigated Area Sown due to the Presence of HYV's: Colombia: 1968-1974: Assumption (B). 197 Sorne Published Estimates of the Price and Income Elasticities for Rice •••.•• 198 15 Combinations of Supp1y E1asticities Used in the Sensitivity Analysis •.•••. 212 16 Gross Benefits of New Rice Varieties in Colombia to Consumera aud Producers. 213 (xii ) LlS! OF FlGURES Figure Page 1 A Simplified Genealogy of IRRI and reA­ CIAr Ric~ Va~ieti~s .•••••• ~ •••••••••••• 20 2 Regional Distribution of Rice Produetion: By Principal Departments .............................. .. 30 3 Changes in the Relative Priees of Five Commodities to Rice: ~ogot~ wholesale Market •••••• 4 ........................ ~ ..... • 36 Numbers of Rice Farms in Colombia in Selected Years .................................................. ~ 50 5 Distribution of Rice Output in Colombia: By Sector: 1970 ............................................. .. 55 • 6 Graphical Representation of the Model for Estimating the Distribution of Gross Denefits from the rntroduetion of HYV's of Riee ....... ~ •• ,; ............................ . 59 7 Area of Upland Rice: 1954-1974 •••.••.••• 73 8 Simplified Model Showing Impaet 01 HYV's on Equilibrium Priees and Quantities of Rice,,, .................... ,, ................. . 89 9 Distribution of Annual Average Net Senefits to Consumera: By Level of Income .................. ........................................ lO ........ .. 111 10 Distribution of Income and Net Consumer Benefits from HYV's in Colombia •......••• 112 11 Distribution of Annual Average Net Loases to Producers: By Level of Ineome •••.••.. 12 Three Year Moving Average of the Annual Changes in the Farm-to-Retail Marketing Margln: Colombia: 1952-1973 •••..••..••• 127 13 Vertical Shift in the Supp1y Curve of Paddy Rice .. ,.,. ................... jO ....................... '"' ...... .. 134 14 Horizontal Shift in the Demand Curve for> Rice,. .. ~ • ~ .......... , • ,. .... , .............................. .. 135 CHAPT.ER ,. 1 NTRO'OUCTl ON 1.1. Tke Sett~ng The contribution of technical change to agricultural productivity in developed countries (e.g. Griliches, 1958, Haysmi snd Ruttan. 1971) snd in developingcountries (e.g. Scbultz. 196'; &venson and Kislev, 1975) has been widely rec- ognized. However, as noted by Rama1ho de Castro (1974) it • has only recently be en fully appreciated that technical change can take al ternat i ve routes. emphasizing s01lre products at the expense of others. concent~ating On certain ecological zones. or stressing 8ither biochemical or meCbmñcal advances. With continued pressureon food supplies in much of the developing world. togetber with some national and'much inter- national concern ~or the welfare of low income people, atten- tion is being increasingly focused on tbe allocat{on of,pub- lic research monies for agriculture (Arndt et at, ' 1976; Fishel, 1971; Pinstrup-Andersen and Byrnes, 1975). In ap­ praisa1 of potential reiearch projects (Ramalho de Castro, 1974) and in the evaluation of existing or ,ast research (Akino and Hayami, 1975; Ayer and Schuh. 1972). two central economic issues arise; efficiency and equity. The first fa related to tbe economic return on the pub1ic investment in agricultural research¡ was a particular line of research a 2 socially efficient way to invest acaree pubIic research fúnds? Equity refers to the distribution of'the net benefits by econ- omic classes of the .population. It can arise that the two ¡oals, efficiency and equíty may not be mutually exclúsive., Investing in those lines of research which have high net 'payoffa may not necessarily re- sult in an equitable distribution of the bcnefits of technical changé. If a country invested reeearch funde gencrating new technology for an export crop produced solelyby A large-seale commercial agriculture, then while this may satisfy a~ effí- ciency goal of being profitable in. terro of the economic pay- • off to the country, it might have little or no impact on im- proving the distribution of income. Whether or not neN agri- cultural technology is an appropriate vehicle for achieving social equity is an open question; the answer will depend on the nature of the crop, the structure of consumption and produetion, and the alternative tools available for in come distribution. While agricultural technology may prove a long-run catalyst for social and econemic articulation (de Janvry, 1975), expectations that it can selve a broad spectrum of soaial ills in the sbort run may be unrealistic. Whatever the final outcome. equity is becoming a more widely applied criteria for appraising investments in agri­ culture (McNamara, 1973). This study will be concerned with both efficíency and equity criteria in agricultural researah. 3 However, given the abundance of literature referring to social questions fOllowing the introduction of technologica1 changes in agriculture (Falcon, 1970; Hill and Hardin, 1971; Fearse, 1975; Wharton, 1969) and the paucity of empírical studies at the national leve-l, particular attention is focused on the question of equfty. Rice ia one of the most widely produced crops in Latin America; it grown in virtually every countryofthe region, and under a wide of ecologica1.conditions. As a result of the development of high yielding varieties of rice (HYV'5) Latin America is experiencing some of the widely heralded Asian-bo.n "green revolution" in rice production. Starting in the mid-sixties. new material stemming from the Interria­ tiona1 Rice Research Institute in the Philippines has been transferred to and adapted for Latin America. The term HYV is usad througnout this study to refer to the dwarf rices with a higher .grain-straw ratio tnan the traditiona1 varieties. J.3 Objec~ive~ ~ the S~udy (a) To measure the impact of HYV's ón Latin American l'ice production; (b) To measure the size and_ distribution of the econ­ omic benefits resulting from the introduction of HYV's in Colombia. Colombia was selected as tbe country for detailed study, as the adoption of HYY's had been much more widespread than in any other country, and due largely to a strong National Rice Qrowers' Federation (FEDEARROZ). higher quality data was more readily available. In addi tion. the tiBIe available for the study did not permita more extensive coverage in the detail required to fulfill the second objective. 1.4 Outline 06 the Repo4t Chapter 2 presents an overview of rice production and trade in Latin America, and co.cludes with sorne observations on trade prospects. Chapter 3 is dedicated to measuring the additional output of rice in Latin America, due to HYY's, while Chapter ~ is in tended to provide sorne economic back­ ground to the Colombian rice industry, presenting data which will form the basis of subsequent analyses. In Chapter 5 a model ls developed to measure the economic benefits of the introduction of HYY's, and the estimation of the parameters required by the model is discussed. The gross benefits, costs, net benefits, and rates of return are given in Chapter 6, while the distribution of net benefits by income level is discussed in Chapter 7. In Chapter 8, an analysis of the farm-to-retall marketing margin ls presented, and a summary of the study ls given in Chapter 9. CHAPTER ~ AN OVERVIEW OF RICE PROVUCrTON ANV TRAPE IN LATTN AMERICA 2 : 1950 - 1974 ~.1 PILodue:U.on Table 1 presents a 8ummary of the production data fer various regions of Latin America. Region.a1 production grew at an average annual rate of 3.6 percent between 1950 and 197Q. compared with a wor1d growth rate of 2.8 percent. Latin America produced 3.6 percent of wor1d output in 1974 . • TABLE 1 Production of Paddy Rice in Latin America and in the Wor1d: Selected Years Region 1950 1969 1965 1971+ -------------'000 m.t.--------------- Mexico and Caribbean Q05 823 509 1.022 Central America 211 229 332 50J South America 4,249 6,530 9,672 10,155 Latin America Q,B55 7,5Bl 10,513 11,681 World 151,900 239,500 256,617 323,201 Latin American production 18 high1y concentrated (Table 2); over half the output comes from Braiil, and five countries 6 ac~ount for about 80 percept of the productfon. !felds haya been sta tic for 25 years in the region as a whole, averaging 1.7 tons/ha of paddy rice. However, this figure is heavi1y weighted by Srazil (1.2 tons/ha), and disguises such higher 'yields as Colombia (4.2 tons/ha). Uruguay and Peru(3.9 tonl ha), and Argentina (3.8 tons/ha) in 1974. TASLE 2 Contribution of Five Major Rice Producers in Latin Ameriea: Selected !ears Ranking 1950 1960 1965 1971¡ Country % Country % Country % Country % 1 Brazil 65 Srazi1 63 .. Srazil 72 Brazi1 56 2 Colombia 6 Colombia 6 C910mbia 6 Colombia 13 3 Peru 4 Peru 5 Peru 3 Peru I¡ I¡ Hexico I¡ Mexico 4 Mexico 3 Mexico 3 5 Argentina 3 Cuba 4 !Guyana 2 Cuba 3 .~-- Total 82 92 S6 79 Iha pattern of growth of the Latin American rice i~dustry is depicted in Table 3. Two periods vere analyzed; 1950-51¡ to 1965-69, and 1965-69 to 1970-74. The first period sav the expansion in rice output coming from greater area under rice, especially in the land-extensive South America region. Yields vere constant al' falling. Since the mid-sixties (and corre- - 7 sponding to tbe period of intr04uction ofHYV's). yields have risen at an annual average rate of 2.5 percent, oontributing much of the growth in total outpat. Central Amarica has ex­ perienced a notable growth in yields in this latter periodo Overall, the annual average improvement in yields has.been highar than the world figure of 1.5 percent. althoughLatin America as whole ls sti11 below the world average of 2.4 tonsl ha in 1974. TAaLE 3 Average Annual Growth Rates of Production. Area and • Yields in Latin America: ay Regions 1950-54 to 1965-69 1965-69 to 1970-74 Region Produotion Area Yie1ds Production Area Yield s % % % % % % Mexico and 2. 5 1.7 1.0 8.1 5.9 1.9 Caribbean Central America 3.1 2.8 0.0 2.3 -1.3 l~ • O South America 3.8 4.4 -O.l! 3.0 0.9 1.3 Latin America 3.6 l!.1 -O.l! 3.3 1.2 2.5 Latin America as a who1e is a net rice importing regian (Tab1e 4), although its imports represented on1y about 1.5 8 percent of world trade in rice in the period 1970-1974. How- ever, there are marked regional differences in rice trade. South America is a significant rice exporter; but, general1y the import demands of Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America exceed the exportable surplus of South America, making Latin America as a whole a net rice importer. TABLE 4 Average Annual Net Exports of Milled Rice in Latin America: Five Year Averages: 1950-1974 Region 1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69 .1970-74 ---------------------'000 m.t.-------------- Mexico and -301a -235 -232 -244 -381 Caribbean Central America 3 ·-16 -11 -10 -n South America 160 105 141 293 253 Latin America -138 -146 -102 39 -13.2 a Negative sign indicates imports Tables 5 shows the major rice importing and exporting countries. Imports of 350,000 m.t. enter the Caribbean an- nual1y, about two-thirds going to Cuba. This.pattern of imports has been constant for the last twenty-five years. However, the pattern of exports is much less consistent. .. 9 Because so much of Brazilian rice comes from the upland sector which is subject to seasonal fluctuations, Brazil's export- able surplus is variable. Uruguay, Guyana, Surinam and Argentina, have been consistent expórters in the last fifteen years. It is thought tbat almost all South American countries willeither be self-sufficient or exporting in the next few years. Central America as a region is al~o self-sufficient. Hence, in the Western Hemisphere, there are only two rice deficit areas; Canada and the Caribbean. representing a ~om- bined annual .market of about ~OO,OOO m.t. of milled rice. However,the United States, the world's largest exportir • (over 2 million m.t.) is well located to serve these markets. Improved relations with Cuba, could well provide the U.S. once more with a major ma~ket for rice exports in Cuba. Both private (Horrison, 197~) and public (U.S. Department of Com- merce, 1975) pronouncements have shown the interest and im- portan ce of the Cuban market for U.S rice. The Caribbean import market is partially governed by the Caribbean Rice Agreement, which ties many of the principal importing countries to Guyana for 50 percent of their imports until all of Guyana's exportable surplus is marketed (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1972). Hence if Latin American exporters are to significantly increase their level of ex- port in the future, markets outside the Western Hemisphere will have to be sought, in Europe, Africa and perhaps Asia. Data on world trade flows in rice are difficult to ob- TABLE 5 The Five Major Rice Importing and Exporting Countries in Latin America: Se1ected Years Importera Exportera Ranking 1950 Vol. a 1960 Vol. 1974 Vol. 1950 Vol. 1960 Vol. 1974 Vol. 1 Cuba -293 Cuba -160 Cuba -220 Brazi1 95 Guyana 65 Uruguay 73 . 2 Other -54 Other -87 Other -160 Caribbean Caribbean Caribbean Ecuador 62 Ecuador 27 Guyana 71 / 3 Venezuela -28 Bolivia -8 Peru -10" Guyana 30 Surinam 23 Argentina 48 4 Bolivia -8 Venezuela -4 Mexico -100 Mexico 28 Uruguay 6 Surinam 35 5 Costa Rica -2 El Salvador -3 Chile -22 Chile 12. Argentina 5 Venezuela 30 a Milled rice, '000 m.t. ..... o 11 tain and assambla. Tablas 6 presents such data for one year only. 1970. First. the ralat~ve insignificance of Latin Amarica in world trade is avidant¡ this suggaststhat changes Latin American exports would have no influence on world priees; the region is a "price-taker". Of total Latin American ex­ porta of 375.000 m.t. only 25 percent. went to other Latin American countries. Africa and the EEC were important markets for South Amarican axportars. Evanif South Ama~ica could captura all of tha Caribbean market in tha future. it must continua to loo k toward Europa and Arrica for any axpansion . in export markats. Tha U.S. qapartmant of Agriculture (1971. p. 67) projacted a growing import demand to 1980 in both these regions. 81ackeslee et al.(1973. p. 314) also predict gro~ing import demands in Afrioa, end Eastern Europe and USSR until tbe year 2000. Instability in the world price of rice will continue to characterize export markets in the absence of any global stock­ holding scheme. Only a very small percentage (generally less than 5 percent) of world rice production is traded, and most of tbis is within the Asian region. 80th major exporter and importere are locatad in the same monsaanal belt. POOl' seasanal conditions tharefore simultaneously reduce export surpluses and raise import demands, the reverse occurring in goad seasans; price instability ie in part a consequence of this phenomenon. In addftio~. a large proportion of world trade in rice·is based On ooncessfanal sales and government- 12 TAlILE 6 World Rice Trade Flows with Emphasis on Latin America: 1970 Exported by: South Latín America America USA Asia EEC Others Total Imported by: ------------------1000 m.t.----------------- Mexico 16 16 Central America 1 1 1 2 4 Caribbean 75 75 32 130 9 246 South America 17 17 11 11 39 ~ Latín America 93 93 44 130 16 22 305 O.S.A. 1 1 1 Canada 8 8 53 1 62 tEC 87 87 104 16 77 37 321 Other W. Europe 41 41 82 49 51 33 256 Eastern Europe 17 17 81 15 108 221 U.S.S.R. 7 7 44 330 3S1 Asia 25 25 1,232 2,951 126 299 tf,633 Ifrica 83 83 161 318 133 .175 970 Oceania 13 8 3 56 80 Others 13 13 6 11 19 106 1S5 Total 375 375 1,695 3,609 440 1,166 7.285 Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture (1972). 13 to-government contracts. Henee a fai~ly thin market in free­ ly traded rice exists, and thís has to absorb the residual exeesses o~ demand and supply, resulting in a sharp sawings in world export priees. The rapidity and magnitude of changes in the world rice situation is reflected in the faet that by July 1, 1976 world stocks are expected to be 30 percent higher .than ayear before, and have returned to their levels prevail­ ing before the monsoon failure in 1972 (USDA, 1975e. p. 3). A formal projeetion model used by the U.S. Department of Agrieul ture 3. (1971) coneluded that in general the outlook for rice to 1980 waa poor, witp continued downward pressure on world prieea to be expeeted. The World Bank (1975) has predicted rice priees (Bangkok, f.o.b., S percent broken) of' $(US) 240/m.t. (in 1973 dollars) for 1980 and 1985, down 31 pereent on 1973 priees, although stil1 well aboye the level of the 1960's. The diffieulties in making such market price projections are notorious. Efferson (1971) writing in 1971 predieted prieea of $(US) 100-140 for Latin America rice exports up until 1976; by 1974, exporters were receiving $(U3)333 per ton. CHA'PTER 3 IMPAcr OF HVV'A OH RICE 'PROVUCTION IN lATiN AMERICA 3.' A4e4 $own lo HYV'A In 1975, CIAT conducted a postal survey ef Latin Amer- iea ceuntries in an endeaveur te previde up-te-date informa- tion on the sewings and yielda ef HYV's in the regien. This effort was only partially auccessful. and the data ha ve been supplemented with other sources as indicated. Only those • countries tor which data was available are listed in Table 7, which shows the estimated HYV area in 1974. 3.2 Cont4,¿bu.t'¿on 06 HYV'A to Ou.tput The data in Table 7 were used as a basis for .the esti- mating the contribution S of HYV's in 1974 (Table 8). The traditional yfelda were based on the regional averages for 1950-1964, a period prior to the introduction of HYV's. The irrigated sector of Colombia is included to ill~strate the potential impact when adoption is widespread. For Latin America, (excluding Brazil) 1974 rice production was estimat­ ed to be 40.3 percent higher than it would have beeo in the absence of HYV's. If Brazil ia included the corresponding figure is 14.5 percent. This result compares most favorably with the estimate of 4.9 pereent for Asian rice in 1912-1973 TABLE 7 Estimated Areas Planted with HYV's in Latin Americaa : 1974 Country Area Source has Mexico 108,420 CIAT Survey, 1975 Cuba 145,600 Oalrymple, 1976 Dominican Republic 10,000 Dalrymple, 1974 MEXICO ANO CARIBBEAH 264,020 Guatemala 2,200 ClAT Survey, 1975 El Salvador 11,130 CIAT Survey, 1975 Nicaragua 20,700 Dalry:mple, 1976 mA Costa Rica 64,173 CIAT Survey, 1975 Panamá 5,100 CIAT Surv.y~ 1975 m( CENTRAL AMERICA 165,303 r l.' ':;-, , Colombia 270,221 n_, r- '~ L_ ~ ,: Surinam 38,237 CIAT Survey; 1973 ~; jQr¡", Venezuela 40,000 Oalrymp1e, 1974 ~ .• '-...'~. l' 1 ' I ,', Ecuador 61,900 Dalrymp1e, 1976 ~q Peru 28,130 CIAT Survey, 1975 SOUTH AMERICA 438,488 ... U'I LATIN AMERICA 807,811 a Ineludes only those eountries for whieh data was obtainable. It is understood that no HYV's are grown in Guyana or ~hi1e. 16 (Dalrym~le 1975, p.35), and should help dispel the not uncom­ mon impression that the impactO of HYV' s of rice has b.een largely an Asian phenomenon 6 • Two additional comments are in order. The yield supe­ riority attributed to HYV's in line (10) of Table 8, may re­ flect the fact they have been sown on superior land with higher levels of complementary inputs. Of course, in the absence of improved genetic potential the use of superior land and higher input levels may not have been justified. Finally, the estimates of the percentage contribution of HYV's (Table 8) is probably co~servative. The total regional areas and outputs have be en included in Table 8, but only the HYV area for the reporting countries is included. Provided the non-reporting countries have similar yield margins then the additional production due' to HYV's would be greater, were the total HYV area known. TABLE 8 Estimated Contribution of RYV's fn LatinAmeriga ExcludíngBrazil: By Regions: 1974 Mexico Central South and Colombia Latín Ameríca Itero Onits Caribbean America AmeriCa Irrigate'dl (Excl. Brazil ) (l) Total Area '000 has 452.0· 257.1 1,088.0 273 .0 1,797.0 (2) Total Produotíon '000 ro.t 1,022.0 472.2 3,647.1 l,420.1 5,141.4 (3) Yíeld t/ha 2.261 1.837 3.352 5.203 2.861 (4) HYV Area '000 has 264.0 105.3 438.5 210. Z 807.8 (5) Traditional Area '000 has 188·Cl 151.8 649,5 2.1 989.2 ( 6) Traditianal Yield t/ha 1.779 1.284 2.399 3.100 2.040 (7) Traditional Prod. '000 m.t 334.5 194.9 1,558.2 8.4 2,018.0 ( 8 ) RYV Production '000 m.t 687.5 277.3 2,088.9 1,411.1 2,123.4 (9 ) HYV Yield t/ha 2.604 2.633 4.764 5.225 3.8S7 (lO) Yield Margin t/ha 0.825 1.349 2.365 2.125 1.827 (11) Additional Prod. '000 m.t 217.8 142.0 1,037.1 574.2 1,475.9 (12) Additional Prado % 27.1 43.0 39.7 67.9 40.3 Perivations: (5) = ..... (1) - (4) (10) " (9) - (6) ... (6) " Average yield 1950-1964 (ll) " (10) . (4) (7) .= (5) (6) (12) = «11)/«2) - (ll»}~ 100 (8) :! (2) - (7) CHAPTER 4 RICE I~ COLOMBIA: SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS 4.' Ba.c.R.glLound Rice has been grownin Colombia for almost 1100 yeara. and today Is one of the natlon's major agricultural products. Outside of Asia, Colombia ranked fifth in world rice output in 1975; including Asia, it ranked twentieth (aSDA, 1976, p.II). In 1972, rice was the single most important source of • calories in the urban Colombian diet providing 13.6 percent of the calorific intake, or 286 calories per person par day. In addition, it was the second most important aource of pro- teio (after beeE), providing 12.7 p~rcent of the proteing 1n- take, or 6.3 gms. per peraon per day (Departamento Nacional de Planeaci6n, 1974). No attempt is made in this report to trace the total development of the Colombian rice industry; the existing lit- erature contains a wealth of information. Historical aspects have been documented by Jennings (1951), the technical as­ pects by RaSero (1974), field problema by Cheaney and Jennings (1975),economic and iñstitutional development until 1965 by Leurquin (1967), and finally a broad of range of information is given in a mammonth study by L6pez (1966). Tbe present report cannot possibly do justice to all the detailed material documented in these references. and tbe interested reader is 19 urged to consult them. The Colombian rice'research program began in 1957, with a National Rice Program within the Agricultural Minist~y, and the cooperatiOn of the Rockefeller Foundation. At that time, the ta-ll U. S. variety, Bluebonnet-50 was extensively grown. but in 1957 was attacked by a virus dis- ease, hoja blanca causing extensive losses. !he research program was initiated with a primary o~jective of selection • for resistance to this virus. Meanwhile, in 1961. another U.S.A. variety showing some resiatance (Gulfrose) was releas- ed. By 1963 the program had selected Napal for release (see Figure 1), a cross"between the long-graln Bluebonnet-50 and a selection (Palmira 105) for resistance. Napal'a life was short due to its susceptibility to rice blast disease in an attack in 1965. Tapuripa, a Surinamese variety with partíal resiatance, was relea sed in 1965. In 1967 the newly formed Rice 'rogram of CIAT joined in a collaborative effort with the Colomblan program and dwarf lines from IRRI were introduced to the breeding programo In 1968 IR-8 was released, whlch was resistant to hoja blanca, although of inferior grain quality. 1R-22 was recommended in 1970. Two additional releasea, ICA-3 and lCA-10 were never widely grown due to their lower yielda compared with 1R-8 and 20 PETA f1lee-geo I Tangltai (TN-l)x woo-gen Rotan Tl. IR-822 i Taka0J lku 18 -~-:-::-l- Tetep x IR-66S 1C46-~1 - L.- CICA 6 1 12Z4 1 ,1, 1/ 4461 444 o ~4t.21 i 4462 4444 L4422 ._ ____ .. __1 --,---... . Advanc:ed Lines 1976 lCA- FIGURE 1: A Stmplified Genealogy af IRR! and lCA-eIAT Rice V,rietles 21 IR-22. In 1971, ICA and CIAT relea sed the first varietydevel- oped by the joint program, CICA-4, which was more disease resistant and had better grain quality. Thfs variety was followed by CICA-6 in 1974, and at present 6 advance~ lines' (see Figure 1) are undergofng final testing prior to the nam­ ing and release of a further variety. In the regional tests conducted by.ICA at 21 sites throught Colombia in the firet semester of 1975, these 6 lines yi.lded 6.9 tons/ha .• , compar- ed with 5.8 tons/ha for the dwarf varieties presently used commercially •. The principal problem facing the breeding • program is that of blast resistance. The fungus readily adapta, and one al' twa years after planting, varieties resis- tant at the time of release, become susceptible. The present strategy ls ta release a new variety every one 01' two years; a longer term strategy is the incorporation af stable resia- tance; multi-line varieties incarporating a number of,sources af resistance are a further possibllity. Table 9 summarizes some important characteristics of the varieties, and Table 10 the presents the varietal distri- bution in Colombia based on the seed sales of FEDEARROZ. who sell over half of the certified eeed. The introduction of the dwarfs has been rapid and spectacular, virtually replae- ing the previausly predominant Bluebonnet-50. Twa additional pointe should be madej first, much oE the new material has been direetly transferred technology, rather than locally de- 22 TABLE 9 P~rcentage Distributio. of Varietias in Colombia: 1964-1974 Blue- Dwarfs Year bonnet-50 Napal Tapuripa lCA-lO IR-a lR-22 CICA-4 Others % \ % \ \ \ \ % 1964 87 5 - 8 1965 a7 5 8 1966 90 10 1961 80 7 13 1968 53 112 5 1969 50 36 1 5 a 1970 36 26 29 9 1971 35 14 o 37 3 4 7 1972 12 27 30 30 1 1973 2 41 39 18 o 1974 1 31 33 27 B Source: FEDEARROZ (1973 and 1975). veloped; the remainder, Napal and CICA-4, was adapted locally based on importad lines. This serves to undarline the impor- tance of international technology transfer. combined with strong national programs for adaptation and diffusion (Even- son, 1976). Second, Colombian rice producers had had a long experience with varietal changes; the introduction of dwarfs therefore presented no unusual problema of adoption. an as- pect generally attracting much attention in the development and introduction of new agricultural technology. The ~apid and widespread adoption of dwarf ric~was of couree, largely due to thelr yield superiority, responsiveness to higher in- • TABLE 10 Characteristics or the Principal Rice Varieties Resistanceb to: Quallty: Variety Type a. Blast Hoja Sheath MilI1' nge C0 0 k1' ngd ... ' Grain d Grain L Blanca Blight Appearanee Length Bluebonnet-SO Ta11 S S S EX EX EX AIl Blue Belle Ta11 S S S EX EX E~ Long Tapuripa Tall MR S S POOl' EX Good Grain IR-8 DWF S R S POOl' Good V. POOl' Types IR-22 DWF S MS R • EX Good EX CICA-I¡ DWF S R R EX EX Fair CICA-6 DWF MR R R EX Good Good a. Dwarrs (DWF) have a higher grain-straw ratio. b s= susceptible; R= resistance; M= moderately. e POOl' mllling quality is due to high proportion of grains splitting crosswise. d Cooking quality ls pOOl' when there is a low amalose contento resulting in "sticky" product (characteristic of Japonica varieties). ''"" e Due to presence of "vhite bellr". a characferisticwhich. whlle totally unrelated to cooking properties, is difficult to remove through breeding. and has be en a ~ource of consumer bias, and lower priees for IR-8 especially. put levels and improved resistanae, especially to hoja b!dn­ c.a. Any discussion of Colombian rice research and the use of new varieties would be incomplete without. réferences to the role of the National Rice Grower's rederation (FEDEARROZ). With its strong network of advisory services, input sales, training courses, pUblication of technical bUlletins, data gathering services and collaboration with the National Rice Program of ICA in regional testing, it has been an important factor in the development of the Colombian rice industry. The basic data on area, production and yields for the irrigated and upland sectora are given in Table 11. Colombia produces rice under three systems (Leurquin,1967, n.l, p. 221): (i) In leveed fields with controlled water supply (the majority) ; (ii) Swamp riae planted on river banks and "irrigated" by floods; (iii) Upland rice which depends on rainfall. The elassifiaation usad by FEDEARROZ (and throughout • this study) is irrigated (the firat category, together with that part of the third aategory which Is meeh'anized), and upland (tha remainder). TABLE 11 Area, Production and Yields of Paddy Rice: By Sector: Colombia: 1954-191~ Upland Sector Irrigated Sector « Total Production Year Area Produc. Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield IrrJ.- Aated Upland Has m.t. kg/ha Has m.t. kg/ha Has m.t. kg/ha % \ 1954 111,580 123,600 1,105 63,il-20 111,200 2,100 115,000 29il-,800 1,685 58 il-2 1955 103,920 12il-,328 1,196 8il-,070 195,872 2,330 188,000 320,200 1,703 61 39 1956 119,960 130,210 1,085 70,040 212,290 3,021 190,000 342,500 1,803. 62 38 1957 110,250 130,042 1,180 79,750 220,158 2,761 190,000 350,200 1,843 63 37 1958 124,800 147,779 1,184 71,200 232,621 3,267 196,000 380,400 l,9il-1 61 39 1959 153,610 180,366 1,174 52,190 241,734 4,632 205,800 422,100 2,051 57 43 1960 160,230 186,770 1,166 67,070 263,230 3,925 227,300 450,000 1,980 58 42 1961 132,100 200,150 1,515 105,000 273,450 2,604 237,100 473,600 1,997 58 42 1962 154,200 231,310 1,500 125,350 353,690 2,822 279,550 585,000 2,093 60 40 1963 138,600 206,000 1,486 115,400 34il-,000 2,981 254,000 550,000 2,165 62 38 1964 178,300 215,000 1,206 l2il-,200 385,000 3,100 302,500 600,000 1,983 64 36 1965 244,750 275,600 1,126 130,000 396,400 3,049 374,750 672,000 1,793 59 41 1966 236,000 338,600 1,435 114,000 341,400 2,995 350,000 680,000 1,943 50 50 1967 180,850 280,500 1,551 109,850 381,000 3,468 290,700 661,500 2,276 58 42 1968 150,200 250,600 1,668 126,925 535,000 4,221 277,125 786,300 2,837 68 32 1969 134,570 220,275 1,637 115,890 474,225 4,092 250,460 694,500 2,773 68 32 1970 121,113 198,248 1,637 112,100 554,347 il-,945 233,213 752,59-53,220 74 26 1971 109,130 173,696 1,590 1il-4,380 730,652 5,061 253,510 904,348 3,567 81 19 1972 103,220 160,524 1,555 170,620 882,724 5,174 273,840 1,043,284 3,810 85 15 1973 98,8il-0 154,769 1,556 192,020 1,021,102 5,318 290,860 1,175,871 4,Oil-3 87 13 ., 1974 95,6QO 149,830 1,570 272,950 1,420,110 5,200 368,550 1,569,940 4,260 90 10 '" 1975 95,000 152,000 1,600 273,650 1,480,100 5,408 368,650 1,632,100 4,il-27 91 9 « Data for tbe breakdown between the irrigated and up1and secters for 1955 to 1962 were estimated en the baeie of departmental data. For tbe remaining years the data are from FEDEARROZ, except 1975 which are estimates by Oficina de P1aneaci6n del Sector Agrope­ euario, Ministerio de Agricultura. 26 The upland sector is now relatively unimportant; while in 1966 50 percent of the production came from this sector, it only produced 9 psrcent in 1975. This swing has in part besn due to the introduction of new var~eties. In fact, in 1967 when the first impáct on yields vas felt, the upland area started a steady decline. New varisties suited te irri- gated culture gave a comparative advantage to the irrigated seotor and upland production with its static yields, commenc- ed to decline. In the irrigated sectpr, where yields had average 3.0 tI ha for many years, production rose until 1970, due soleley to • higher yields. Then, as rice beoame a profitable crop rela- tive to irrigatedalternatives, the irrigated area doub1ed in the next five years. Total production more than doub1ed between 1970 and 197~. In 1975 the national average yie1d was ~.~ t/ha. This was only O.~ t/ha less than the yield of irrigated commercial checks in the regional trial network of ICA during the first semester of 1975. This remarkab1e 010se- ness of farm and experimental yields contrasts sharply with the gap between potential and actual yields of 6.3 t/ha re- ported for th. Philippines (Herdt and Wickham, 1975. p.167). Table 12 sets out a summary of the annual flows of milled rice. The basic data are all from FEDEARROZ (1975). The reliability ef the data fer human and industrial use is probably questionable; certainly wide variance exists between sources. Based en U.S. Agrioultural Attache reports. Gisla- TABLE 12 Production and Disappearance or Milled Rice: Colombia: 1962-1974 Year Produc- Beginning Total Human 4 E t 4 Seed4 Industria14 Total Ending tionG. Stocks Available Consumption xpor s Use Used Stocks ----------------------------------- '000 m.t. ------------------------------------ 1962 356 5011 406 309 6 20 335 71 1963 333 71 404 374 3 19 396 8 1964 369 8 377 344 21 365 12 1965 414 12 426 380 22 402 24 1966 416 24 440 406 • 20 426 14 1967 414 14 428 404 17 421 7 1968 511 7 511 439 17 456 62 1969 436 62 498 453 21 16 490 8 1970 474 8 482 478 5 14 497 (-15) '1971 567 (-15 ) 552 503 20 523 29 1972 655 29 684 551 2 24 5 482 102 1973 738 102 840 608 20 26 654 186 1974 . 985 186 1,171 648 1 35 S4 748 423 4 From FEDEARROZ (1975). '..".. 28 son (1975) reports 768,000 m.t. of human and industrial use in 1974 compared with 712,000 m.t. in Table 12, and closing stocks of 287,000 m.t. compared with the present estimate of 423,000 m.t. Rice is used for livestock feed, and for beer and bread-making, but the quantities are not known with any certainty. However, the important point of Table 12 is that there have be en no imports and virtually no exports' in the 13 years to 1974. Hence, outside of some recent rises in- stoeks, all of the expanded production has been consumed on the domestic market; whether this consumption was as rice, or indirectly in bread, beer, pork• , poultry Or eggs, need not concern us greatly at this stage 10 In the last forty years, the regional pattern of rice production in Colombia has changed markedly. The production of upland and swamp rice on the North Coast to serve the major consumption centers of Barranquilla, Cartagena and San- ta Marta represented over 50 percent ol Colombian output in 1934 (Table 13). With tbe decline in importance ol upland rice, production became more ~oncentrated in the middle Mag- dalena Valley; the departments ol Huila and Tolima accounted lor 38 percent ol the national output in 1974. With greater use ol machinery and herbicides, production has spread rapid- 1y in the Llanos, and the department of Meta is now the second most important area in Colombia (Figure 2), The Cauca TULE 13 Regional Shifts in Colombian Rice Productíon: 193~-197~ Region Departments 193~ 19~9 1959 1963 1967 1971l- ---------------- t -------.-.------ Northen Colombia Antioquia, Córdoba, Bolívar, Atl!ntico, Sucre, Cesar, S2 28 32 17 31 27 Magdalenaa: Eastern Llanos CaquetA, Meta 5 6 9 14 21 17 Middle Magdalena • Huila, 101ima. cundinamarga. Valley ~O 40 Caldas, Quíndio-Risaralda 11 35 30 35 Cauea Valley Cauea, Valle 13 15 10 10 6 3 - - - - -------- -- Other Areas - 19 16 19 19 7 13 Total 20 100 100 100 100 100 100 --_._.- a: Bolívar, C6rdoba and Magdalena were dívided to ereate the new departments of Suere and Cesar íncluded in 1967 and 1971l-. t'O" b Caldas was divided to created Quindio and Risaralda included in 1967 and 197~. Saurces: 193~, 1949 and 1963 are fromLeurquin (1967)1 1959. 1967 and 1974 are from unpúblished data or FEDEARROZ. N '" .¡,. VI '" So O O O O O • O O, O O O O ,n O ..".<..1,. Tolima (25) !ii Solivar (11) t'l Córdoba (10) .N. ..,. Valle (8) Ull1D .. Meta (8) H c: ~ !lO ~mll1U t1 " ..::.>.. 0.<.1. . Others (38) '1 .... ... tu .. 0<1 ::> o tu c:>. ::> ... .'.". . .. "'- ti> .ti>. .....t.:.! Tclima (26)' m .o.. ... '1 ... .. 2 m .... ... "'- ti> .. t1 ::> Ochers (40) '1 ' !lO t1 .... .' ..... "lO" o "011'1 lO (32) ... ... ti> P O" ... '"d ..... ::r '1 '" t1 ti> O .... .........."'- '-' n .. ..... ¡: n '" .... .. .n " Others (29) ''<" '"d t1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Tolima (29) .g... .... ... '.t".u. . '~"Ll U.II!111,I1I1 Huila .:.r " 11111111111111111111111111111111111 1 Others (26) t.1.. I Of: 31 Valley has contin'ued to decline in impo~tance as the a~ea oe suga~-cane has expanded. In 1948 half the ir~igated area of the count~y was in the Cauca Valley (Lewquin, 1967), but in 1974 only 5 percent of the i~rigateda~ea was in this region (FEDEARROZ, 1975, p.29). The t~endB towa~d g~eater regional specialization were al~eady apparent before the int~oduction of HYV's; it .is probable tbey have heen reinforced by the presence of HYV's, which have inc~eased the comparative ad­ vantage of the irrigated rice areas, and tbe consequent de­ cline in upland production. Nominal and real prices for rice in Colombia are shown in Table 14. The nominal prices are affected so g~eatly by inflation, that attention is focused on the deflated prices. Farm prices averaged $1,437 per ton l2 in 1965-1969 and $1,037 per ton in 1970-1974, a fall of 29 percent during the period of significant impact of the HYV's. The retailprice of first grade rice in Bogotá fell from $3,334 per ton to $2,876, a decline of 14 percent over the same period l '. A frequent source of confusion is the apparent incon­ sistency of a fallíng farm price and expanded rice production. If the farm price fell, why did national output continue to rise So strongly? The simple answer is that with the new technology, rice production costs per ton fell, making ex­ panded output profitable even at the lover prices. Based on 32 TABLE 14 Colombian Rice Prices: 1950-1974 Year Nominal Prices Real Pricesd Priceb Fal'mC Wholesaled Retaild Farm Wholesale Reta!l Index -------- S/m.t. -------- ------- S/ro.t. ------- 1950 350 976 1,020 1,207 3,366 3,517 29 1951 1165 944 1,060 1,453 2,950 3,313 32 1952 345 728 920 1,113 2,348 2,967 31 1953 400 1,126 1,240 1,176 3,318 3,647 34 1954 470 1,032 1,160 1,270 2,789 3,135 37 1955 475 928 1,160 1,284 2,508 3,135 37 1956 485 1,048 1,180 1,244 2,687 3,026 39 1957 615 1,472 1,700 1,337 3,200 3,696 46 1958 750 1,480 1,800 1,471 2,902 3,529 51 1959 770 1,456 1,720. 1,375 2,600 3,071 56 1960 883 1,936 2,180 1,497 3,281 3,695 59 1961 954 1,964 2,360 1,490 2,913 3,688 64 1962 919 1,72B 2,360 1,372 2,579 3,522 67 1963 1,040 2,232 2,569 1,321 2,626 3,012 85 1964 1,347 2,92B 3,480 1,347 2,928 3,480 100 1965 1,703 3,616 4,120 1,592 3,379 3,B50 107 1966 1,884 3,824 4,460 1,507 3,059 3,568 125 1967 1,914 3,848 4,400 1,418 2,850 3,259 135 1968 2,106 4,032 4,520 1,452 2,780 3,117 145 1969 1,887 3,744 4,460 1,217 2,415 2,877 155 1970 1,850 4,200 4,500 1,121 2,545 2,727 165 1971 1,931 11,272 5,060 1,044 2,309 2,735 185 1972 1,881+ 4,408 5,260 893 2,089 2,493 211 1973 2,514 7,OBO 8,000 978 2,755 3,113 257 1974 3 1 ,694 8,960 10,660 1,151 2,783 3,311 322 .- a Deflated by the Price Index given in the last colaron. b Based on the Price Index fol' Workers for 1954 to 197 11, and linked to total Price Index for 1950 to 1953. C Paddy rice pl'ices from Boletin Mensual de Estadistica, No. 277, DANE, p.S3. d Soul'ce: December price for 1st. grade rice in Bogotá, B2nco de la Rep&blica (unpublished data). 33 data from Gislason (1975), the real cost of irrigated rice production in 196' pesos was $1,494 per ton,.$l,401 per ton and $976 per ton, for 1961-1964, 1965-1969 and 1970-1974, respectively. Between the last two periods real productlon costs per ton fell by 30 percen, (Gislason, 1975), or by almostexactly the same amount as the fall in tbe farm price. The continued adoption of new technology in the face of fall­ ing farm prices Is aphenomenon that has be en widely docu­ mented. Cochrane (1958, pp.l06-107), referring to the U.S.A., notes that the farmer "reasons ' 1 can't influence price, but lean Influence my own costs • • 1 can get my costs down ' .•. ···thus the farmer is always on the lookout for new cost­ reducing technologies. Built into the market organization of agriculture, then, fs a powerful incentive for adopting new technologies ••• The peacetfme tendency for aggregate supply to outpace aggregate demand keeps farm prices relatively low·. Cochrane refers to this as the "agricultural treadmill". We have no reason to doubt that a similar effect has besn operative in the Col.ombian rice industry. Early adopte~ (be they larger, better informed or better serviced farmers) test cost-reducing (i.e. yield increasing) technologies. Their additional output initially has little etfeet on price, thus generating temporary abnormal profits. Further adoption is then stimulated, but as output expands, farm priees fall, so that the remaining non-adoptera are forced to either follov suit or witbdrav. The data in Table 9 ia dramatie evidence of the almost total varietal change in Colombia's irrigated sector. Not only did the ~eal price of rice fall as a result of the new varieties, but rice became cheaper relative to other major food items (Table 15). For example, in 1959, one kilo­ gram of beans purchased 1.67 kg of rice; but by 197~, it pur­ chased 3.q7 kg of rice. The period 1970-197Q, corresponding to themajor fmpact of the HYV's, saw a significant change in tbe pricea of major food-stuffs relative to rice (Figure 3). Between 1950 and 1970, there had be en no clear change in the relative price of rice, except.with respect to cassava. But in the final period (1970-197~), rice became ~5 percent cheaper relative to the other commodities. The increased proportion of new varieties, some with poorer milling and cooking qualities tban the traditional variety (Bluebonnet-50), has altered the proportions of the various grades of rice entering the market. While no data on the relative quantities are available. Table 16 shows that firat grade rice has become more expensive relative to second and third grade rice; in the case of second grade rice, the change has been most marked in the period 1970-197Q. 4.6 GOIJelr./UIIM.,t P1!.-ic.e SUppOIt.t Sc.heme Since 19QQ, the governrnent has operated a price support scherne for rice, initially through the Instituto Nacional de Abastecimiento (INA) and latterly through its successor, the 35 TABLE 15 Number 01 Ki10grams 01 Rice that Could be Purchased with one Kilogram of Other Selected Products in the Bogotl Wholesale Market: Selected Years K¡¡.s 01 Rice Purchased with 1 k~ 01: Year . Beans Cassava Maize Potatoes Beef 1950 1. 67 0.31 0.49 0.63 1.43 1955 2.59 0.29 0.41 0.45 2.60 1960 1. 99 0.16 0.36 0.37 2.18 1965 1.82 0.34 0.36 0.37 1.88 1970 2.38 0.48 0.45 0.29 2.64 1974 3.47 0.79 0.51 0.55 2.95 Percentage fal1 in re1ative price of rice between -46% -65% -13% -90\ -12% 1970 and '1974 TABLE 16 Relative Price 01 Rice by Grade: Bogotá Wholesale Market: Selected Years Price 01 First Grade Rice Re1ative to: Year Second Grade Th:/.t'd Grade 1956 1. 07 1. 32 1950 1. 04 1. 57 1965 1. 02 1.66 1970 1. Ol¡ 1. 73 1971¡tI. 1.11 1. 79 ti. For the month 01 October¡ all other years, for December. Source: Bulletin Mensual de Estadísticas. DAME (various issues). 36 240 ,- 1: 1955-1959 II: 1%0-1964 200 nI: 1%5-1969 IV: 1970-1974 ,- , 150 t- .... .... ... ........ o- ............... .... .... >.... .... ~..... ....... >.... ..... -l ... I .... ....... >.... r:l~ He> HH -L- I :-- .... .... ........ ~, '-- Beans Cassava Maize Pota toes Beef FIGURE 3: Changes in the Relative Priee of F1ve Cornmodit1es to Rice: BogotA Who1eaale Market. (1950-1954· 100). Instituto de Mercadeo Agropecuario (IDEMA). At present.there are 2q separate support priees based on the type of rice, humidity, grain quality,and impurities. The maximum and minimum priees are shown in Table 17, deflat- ed to 196q pesos~ together with the average price paid by ¡DEMA for all rice purchased. The stated role of IDEMA has been to stablize the produeer price of rice, although it is doubtful whether it has had either "the finaneial resourcea or the atorage capaeity to influenee price leves signifieant- ly" (Leurquin, 1967, p.233). Gutiérrez and Hertford (1974, p.23) estimated that between 1950 and 1969, IDEMA's actions reduced the eoefficient of variation of farm priees by 13 percent although simultaneously, the average priee received was slightly lower due to state intervention. The data in Table 17, show that the average priee paid by IDEMA was gen- erálly lower than the average farm price reflecting the ori- entation of IDEMA to the low Income consumer, by dealing in lower quality rice. Table 18 shows varfous measures of the intensity of IDEMA's activities in the rice market. Between 1950 and 1965, IDEMA purchased a verysmall proportion of the rice crop, averaging 2 percent per year (Gutiérrez and Hertford, 1974, p.l1). Since 1965, the purchases have been increased, and the real quantity of funds invested by IDEMA in rice has grown (Table 18). In the five year period 1970-197q IDEMA purchased an average of 10 percent of the rice erop. The av- 38 TABLE· 17 Real Support Pricesct for Rice: 1965-1974 SUEEort Prices Average Average Year Prices patd Farm Maxiroum Mínimum . by rDEMA PriceC. $/m.t. S/ro.t. $/m.t. $/m. t. 1965 1,118 692 n.a. 1,592 1966 1,376 932 1,115 1,507 1967 1,519 1,048 1,536 1,419 1968 1,414 903 1,246 1,452 1969 1,290 142 1,029 1,217 1910 1,364 751 963 1,121 1971 1,216 670 790 1,0l¡1¡ 1912 1,066 5BB 81¡2 893 1913 1,078 440 n.a. 978 1974 1,250 704. 1,097 1,151 ct Expressed in 1964 pesos. b Calculated froro unpublished data supplied by Unidad de Es­ tadística, Oficina de Planeación, lDEHA. e From Table 14. erage price paid by lDEMA during 1966-1969 and 1970-1974, was 12 percent below the average farm príce in both periods. This suggests that there was little change in lDEMA's purchasing strategy in terms of the quality mix as a result of the in- troduction of HYV's. Table 18 also gives thepercentage of rOEMA's purchases caming fram the irrigated sector, together with the propor- tion of the national output originating in that sector. !f lDEHA were ta be fOllowing a neutral policy with respect to ita source of purchases (rather than say favoring smaller upland producers or for political reasons, favoring the larger TABLE 18 Measures of the Intensity of the Publie Marketing Sector: 1966-197~ Percentage of Real Value erop Purehased Pereentage of Percentage or by IOEMA based of IPEMA's IOEMA's Purchases National output Year on: b from the from trrig~ted Purehased Irrigated SectorC Sector . Output Valuelt % % $m % % 1966 2.4 <1.8 18.3 n.a. SO 1967 1.8 2.0 18.~ 1¡9 58 1968 8.9 7.6 87.2 ,73 68 1969 20.6 17.6 11¡8.9 76 68 1970 8.1 6.9 58.6 87 7~ 1971 14.2 10.7 101. • 1¡ 89 81 1972 12.7 9.1 SII.6 90 SS 1973 3.6 n"a" n"a. 81 87 197~ 9.9 ..9 " 7 175.6 92 91 It Calculated as: (Average Price Paid by IDEMA x Quantity Purchased by ¡DEMA) I (Average Farm Price x National Output). b In 1961¡ pesos. <'".O e Based on unpublished departmental data supplied by Unidad de Estadísti­ ca, Oficina de Planeación. IOEMA. d From Table 11. 40 irrigated producers) then we wou1d expeet IDEMA's purchases to follow the observed national trend in the distribution of output. In fact, aChi-squared test provided no evidenee to reject the hypothesis that IDEMA was in faet merely shifting ita purchases in 1ine with the national produetion trends from the irrigated and upland seetors. Apparently, there was no deliberate pp1icy of fa.voring one sector or another. Had IDEMA been fOllowing a pOliey of supporting farm incomes, then we would have expeeted a greater proportion of its pur- chases to have come from the upland sector. whieh was eompar- atively disadvantaged due to th• e introduction of new irrigat- ed technology. 4.7 CltedLt Limited data on the public sourees of eredit available for rice produetion (Table 19), indicate that there was no apparent rise in the real amount of eredit per hectare made available publicly during the period of adoption of the neH varieties. 4.8 Chem~c~t lnpuL~ Attempts to examine whether the use of chemiéal products per unit of output rose with the introduction of HYV's meet with severe data limitations. The available data (Table 20) for fertilizers, while incomplete, .show little increase in the 41 TABLE 19 Public Creditd tor Rice Production: 1968-1974 Credit tor Rice Production Credit per Year D Rectare Caja Alraria FFA Total $lII $m $m $ 1968 161 108 269 971 1969 161 87 248 960 1970 179 72 251 1,076 1971 197 81 278 1,097 1972 176 111 287 1,048 1973 114 157 271 932 1974 183 229 412 1,118 It Expressed in 1964 pesos. b Fondo Financiero Agrario. • TABLE 20 Use of Chemical Inputs in Rice Production: 1965-197'¡ Year Fertilizers/1 Insecticides Herbicides Fungicides '000 m.t. --'000 lt. or kg. of Active Ingredient-- 1965 n.a .. 547 424 19 1966 n.a .. 954 740 38 1967 n.a. 962 680 25 1968 n.a. 1,344 457 103 1969 n,a .. 1.430 374 120 1970 n_a .. 1,550 394 129 1971 76.2 1,773 400 144 1972 14.9 1,673 675 270 1973 76.7 2,304 960 a84 1974 80.1 n.a. 1,082 303 /1 Urea and mixed fertilizers. Sources: Fertilizar data. and otber products for 1972-191q from Ministerio de Agricultura (1972-1974); the remaining data from Instituto Colombiano Agropecua­ rio (1973). total quantity applied, implying, a perhaps surprising de- crease from 8_ kgs of fertilizer perton of total rice pro- duetion in 1971, to 51 kgs per ton in 197_. A very crude approximation to the input of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides suggested that their use ~er unit of rice production rose by 20 percent between 1965-1967 and 1971-1913, suggesting that the introduction of HYV's was accompanied by sorne intensified use of these products. The standard commentaries on the "green revolution" in­ variably stress the notion that the improved genetic potential of seed is only expressed under farm conditions when applied • as a "package" with high levels of chemical input s (and better water control). Sketchy as they are, the Colombian data do not appear to lend strong support to this notion, at lea8t in the case of chemlcal inputs. Total fertilizer applications were constantl~ during a period of rapid and widespread ex- tension of HYV's, (implying a lower fertilizer use per unit of output), and the average level of other chemlcal products per unit of output rose very moderately. 4.9 L~bo4 U~age In Table 21, an estimate of the total labor usage in rice production is shown. In the periód since the introduc­ tion of new varieties (1965-1975) the total labor usage has apparently declined by 33 percent. The availability of new varieties gave a comparative advantage to the mechanized ir- TABLE 21 Estimat~ of Labor Usage in Colombian Rice Production: Seleeted Years Sector Year Total Irrigated4 UPland b ------------ ____ .... ____ M._ '000 man-days 1965 2,942 9,976 12,918 1959 1,827 111,593 16,420 1965 11,550 23,251 '27,801 1969 11 ,,056 12,919 16,915 1975 9,578 9,120 18,698 4 Based'on 35 man,..days per ha (Hin. of Agriculture, 1973, p. 30). b • Based on 96 man-days per ha (Hin. of Agriculture. ' 1973, p.30). TABLE 22 'roportion of Household Expenditures Spent en Rice: By Ineome Level for Five Hajor Colombian Cities: 1910 lncome Level ($'QOO/Year) City 120 or 0-18 18-42 42-72 72-120 more % % % % % Bogotá 3.0 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.6 Cali 5.1 4.0 2.5 1.9 1.2 Bucaramanga 2.3 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 Barranquilla 5.2 11.3 3.5 2.6 1.7 Pasto 4.8 3.6 2.2 2. 5 0.8 Source: DANE: Bolet1n He,nsual de Estad1sticas, No.2611-265, July-August 1973, pp.25-31 44 rigated production which uses only 30 percent or the man-days per hsctare or the upland manual system ror labor in rice production. However. it is almost certain that labor usage in the milling. packlng and distribution sector rose as a result or the large increases in production. In addition. the expanded demand for rarm inputs would have increased the demand ror labor for tbeir provision, especially where tbe products are domestically produced. Finally there are two indlrect erfects or expanded rice output on employment. One is the "multiplier affeet"; due to inereased incomes of rice producers. their demand ror non- • farm goods and service increases. Secoodly, ir the priee of rice i8 low to urban consumers, then the pressure for in- creased industrial wages ls diminished (Crisostomo, ~ at, 1971, p.142), Tbis has the efrect of cbeapening tbe cost of labor relative to other input s and hence stimulating the demand for labor in the industrial sector. The strength of this effect depends on the proportion of total family expen- ditures spent on rice. Tbese data, for five major Colombian c!ties are shown in Table 22, aod indicate that especially amoog the lower income groups, rice forms an important part of the total household expenditures. Between 1963 and 1970 nominal wages in the industrial sector rose by 104 pereent while the reta!l price of first grade rice in Bogot! rose only by 75 percent, indicating that as a wage good, rice rep­ resented a dampening effeet on the rise io industrial wages. 45 In conclusion. despite the apparent decline in on-farm labor usage in rice production~ it lIould be presumptuous to conclude that HYV's have beena net labor-saving technologi- cal change. Indirect expansion of the demand for off-farm labor following the large increases in rice production due to HYV's could lIell have offset the 'decline in on-farm labor usage. 4.10 V~t~~buZion 06 Rice Fa4m4, A~ea and P~oduet¡on by Fa~m Súe In this section we preseñt a review of the structure of the rice producing índustry by farm size categoríes, and ln­ dícate hOll this has be en changing over time~ The principal purpose of this somewhat detailed section ls to generate dis­ tributions of rice production by farm size for both the • upland and lrrigated sectors in 1970. Thls information will be needad subsequently as a basis for determining the distri- bution of costs and benefits of the new rice varieties. The analysis is based on unpubllshed census data pro- vided by DANE, for 1959 and 1970, and on a special tabulation by DANE for 1966 (Atkinson, 1970,'p.25). Unfortunately no data exist for years subsequent to 1970, so that the full impact of the introductlon of HYV's on the structure of the rice producing industry cannot be assessed. However, sorne clear trends were already evldent by 1970, and there ls no reason to believe that the pattern of change which was evo lv- ing up to 1970, has not continued. !he census data ror 1959 and 1970 vere available by departments. The rirst step vas to elaasiry these as either ffUpland ff or "Irrigated", on the basia or the pereentage af the production from each system. Fortunately. in almast a11 cases, tnese geo-political boundaries carrespand remarkably elosely to the two types or rice produetion aystems. The classificatian, based on FE DE ARROZ data for 1963 (the c10sest year carresponding to 1959 ror vhich departmental production vere available (Leurquin, 1967, p.299) and 1970, ls presented in Appendix Table 2. The data show a high concentration of production system by departm.nts. !he only lov value of coneern ls the 1970 figure ot 57 pereent of production from the irrigated' sector in Meta; this implies ve have incorrect- ly c•la ssified the remaining 43 pereent upland 'aa irrigated produetion. On the basia of thia classificatio~ Appendix Tables 3, 4 and 5 were constructed tor 1959, and Appendix Table 7 for 1970. The data far 1966 are shawn in Appendix Table 6; ter this year the breakdown by departments was not available. !he 1959 and 1970 censua data refer to farma whieh reported rice as the principal crop, whereas the 1966 data refer tu all rice-producing farms. The most striking reature af revealed by these data is the cancentratian of rice productian in large holdings. In 1959, farms of greater than 100 has represented 15 percent 9 f 47 the farms where rice was the princ'ipal crop, yet tbey sowed 53 percent or the total area of rice in Colombia. In 1966. 32 percent of the farms were over 50 has, and produced 72 percent of the total rice output, 42 percent oOl1ling from· farma of over 200 has. As ahown in Table 23, there has been some tendency for tbe concentration to in crease over time, witb the small and medium size groups declining relative to tbe proportion of large farms (50 bas and over). Tbis trend was partieularly marked in tbe irrigated sector wbere farms over 50 has ac- eounted for 39 percent of all rarma wbere rice was tbe prin- eipal erop in 1959, and 50 pereent in 1970 (Table 24). The only known data far yielda by farm size are shown for 1966 in Appendix Table 6; overall tbey indieate no real differences. except for the largest size group (over 500 has), which did appear to have bigber yields. TAStE 23 Percentage Distribution or Rice Farms: By Three Categories of Farm Size: Colombia: Selected Years Size Group 1959 1966 1970 Has Small (0-5) 30 25 27 Medium (5-50) 49 43 41 Large (50 +) 27 32 32 Total 100 100 100 48 TABLE 24 Percentage Distribution of Farms where Rice is the Principal Crop: By Three Categories of Farm Size: By Sector: Colombia: Selected Years UEland Sector Irrilated Sector Size Group 19,59 19,70 1959 1,97 0 Has % Small (O-S) 32 31 18 12 Íledium (5-50) 44 42 43 38 Large (50 +) 24 27 39 50 Total 100 100 100 100 • TABLE 25 Changes in the Number or Farms Between 1959 and 1970 where Rice i8 the Principal Crop: By Three Categorias of Farm Size: By Sector: Colombia Percentage of Total farms Size Group Upland Sector Irrigated in Irrigated Sector Sector 1959 1970 Has No. , No. % , % Small (0-5) -7,738 -55 -609 -40 4 12 Medium (5-50) -11,885 -59 -795 -23 5 2/j Large (50 +) -5,876 -52 +561 +19 6 l¡O Total -25,499 -56 -843 -11 .15 26 119 At the same time as rice production has become more concentrated in the larger farms the total number of farms declined substantially between 1959 and 1970 (Table 25). Most of this fall was in the upland sector. and evenly distributed across all 812:e "g:roups. "In the i:rrigated sector. the number of small and medium p:roducers declin!ild subst.antially. while the number of large p:roducers inc:reased. In 1970. the irri- gate sector had 26 pe:rcent of the fa:rms. yet produced 711 per- cent of the national rice output. Attention ls now given to estimating the distribution of production in 1970 by farm size group. for both the upland • and irrigated sectors. Figure 11 shows the method of estimating the number af fa:rms in each time periad on the basis of available data (the data not in parentheses). A constant annual :rate of change between 1959 and 1970 vas assumed and the numbe:r or "princi- pal" p:roduce:rs fo:r 1966 estimated as 35,721. The relation between principal and total produce:rs for 1959 and 1970 vas assumed to be the same as rol' 196615 • The numbers or total irrigated and upland produce:rs for 1959 and 1970 were esti- mated on the basis or the known proportions or principal pro- ducers in these two years. For the upland sector the are a sown by the i-th size group in 1970 (A70,i) was based on the area sown in 1959 (A S9 ,!) adjusting upward for the total number of producers in 1959, and downward for the decline in upland area. Number of lUce Farms (96,860) , O Irrf.gated §§ Upland 14,332 (96,860): Estimated T: Total number of farms producing rice. -4,935 P: Number of fara. where ' 53,283 rice Vas the principal ------ ----- eral'. (38,973) ""-- , , , , 7,884 si 82,S28 m ~~ . 26,941 7,041 I I ELJ 45,399 1, , , , , (36.174)~19,900 ,lle :59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Year T l' T' P T P FIGURE 4:, Number of Riee Farms 1n Colombia in Selected Years. o'" 51 This aethod assuaes tbat cbanges in area vere propor- tional across all size groups, an assumption supported by the evidence in Table25. Also. it assumes tbat tbe distribution of area for non-principal grovers vas similar to tbat for pl'incipal grovel'S (as supported by Appendix 1,able 8, vbere tbe inclusion of all gl'overs in 1966 did notaltel' the dis­ tribution significantly). For the irrigated sector the above method 'could not be applied because: (i) The area l'eported by principal grovers exceeded tbe total area repol'ted for tbat year • • (ii) The change' in total area vas not evenly distribut­ ed aeross all fara sizes (Table 25). The folloving procedul'e vas therefol'e adopted. (1) The reported number 01 fal'ms in eacb size gl'OUp in 1959 vas raised in l'atio of 14,332/7,884 (see Fig­ ure 4), giving NF59,i' (ii) The reported area sovn in each size group in 1959 vas lovered by the ratio 52.190/86.078, 01' tbe re- ported total to the reported principal area sown in the irl'igated sectol'. to give,A59.i' (i11) The al'ea per farm (AS9.i/NFS9.i) in 1959 vas then assumed to hold in 1970. and multiplied by tbe number of farms in eaeh size group in 1970, to give A70,i' Eaeh of these vere then raised by the - l'atio 01 tbe actual area in 1970 in the irrigated, 52 sec·tor to the eatimatedtotal (IA70 ¡). As a check i • the al'eaa estimated for 1970 by aize groupa were compared with tbe reported data for 1966 CAppendix Table g) and ahow .tbe expected increaaing trend toward concentration among tbe larger size groups. Appendix Table 10 ahowa tbe number of principal producers in each aize gl'OUp for 1970, compared with ihe reported data for 1959. Finally, the average reported yields in both sectora for 1970 were appl!ed to these Bati.ated areas by size group. to give the distribution of riee production by farm size rOl' each sector in 1910 (Tables 26 snd 21). It ia this informa- tion which viii subsequently be used to allocate tbe distri­ bution of benefits to nev rice varieties, by farm size. The information in Tables 26 snd 27 la sUllmarizad graphically, in Figura 5. Tha much llore unequal distribution of output in the irrigated compared to the upland sector in 1970 is evidente In that year. it is eatimated that tbe lower 50 percent oE the upland farms produced 25 percent oE the upland output; in contraat~ only 9 percent oE tbe irrigat­ ed output came from tbe lower 50 percent of irrigated farms. These results have implications for the distributional impact of the benefits of the nev varieties, as discussed belov in Chapter 7. In conclusion, it ahould be reiterated that the struc­ tural changes noted in rice production ve1'e occurring prior 53 to any pOllaible significant influence of HYV'a.The reaaons for these changes have not bee:n 'exallinad; aucb en inquiry would form e aeparate atudy. TABLE 26 Eati.ated Diatribution of Rie, Pro.duction: By rara Size: Uplan.d Sector: 1970 rarll Size Humber of Farllls Area Production d Has Ho. Has m.t. O - 1 2,180 719 1.177 1 - 2 3,1102 - 486 _,069 2 - 3 2,707 3,280 5,368 3. - 11 1,825 3,193 5,226 I¡ - 5 l,I¡58 3,025 _,951 5 - 10 4,255 9,821 16,076 10 - 20 11,3111 12,31¡2 20.202 20 - 30 2,563 1.355 12.039 30 - 40 1,916 5,855 9,583 40 - 50 1,652 5,265 8.618 50 - 100 11,143 18 ,543 30,354 100 - 200 2,485 16,338 26.745 200 - 500 2,036 15,444 25,2B1 500 - 1,000 390 8,491 '13,899 1.000 - 2,500 131 4,861 1,.957 2.500 + 61 4,095 6.'03 Totals 36.174" 121.113C 198,248 C /.l Assuming a eonstant average yield of 1,637 kg/ha (Table 11). b From Figure 11. C!. Froll. Table 11. 54 TABLE 27 Estimated Distribution of Rice Production: By Farm Size: Irrigated Sector: 1970 Farm Size Number of Area Production a Fal'ms Has No. Has m.t. O. - 1 162 32 158 1 - 2 498 164 811 2 - a 427 U3 658 3 - 4 265 151 747 4 - 5 293 266 1,315 5 - 10 885 908 1J.490 10 - 20 l,é162 2,336 11,553 20 - 30 920 1.934 9.565 30 - 40 816 2.100 10.386 40 - 50 721 2,147 10,618 SO - 100 2,060 8.262 40.857 100 - 200 2.560 21.071 104,197 200 - 500 1.065 22.569 111.605 500 - 1.000 351 16.049 79.363 1,000 - 2,500 276 16.747 82,815 2,500 + 138 17,231 85.209 12,799b Totals 112. 1OOC. 554,147 e « Assullling a constant average yield of 4.945 kg/ha (Tahle 11 ). b FrolD Figure 4. C. FroID Table 11. 100 I" ----------.:..-.,..-------"A , Percentage of Output Upland (U) Irl'lgated (1) 50 I A " . (U) • 25 \ , e 7 ,v' (1) 9 I 7 / ,< :;;::01 ....- ;;>' o 50 100 Parcantage of Fa ... .'."., FIGURE 5: Distribution of Rice Output in Colombia: By Séctor: 1970 CHAPTER 5 AH ECONOUIC MOUEL TO MEASURE TIIE GROSS BENEFITS OF IIYV'4 IN COLOMBIA The desirability of inve.tmant in anypartíeular line of agricultural research can'be judged using a vide variety of technieal, social, econ,omie, and polítieal eriteria. In this study, ve propose to examine the impact of investme.t in rice research in Colombia using two eriteria: effieieney and eqtiity (Akino and Hayami, 1975). By ióM.c.ilr.,u!.!I, we understand the social return on the,scarce resources invested in rice re­ search, Le. vas it a socially efficient vay to invest those, resourees? By equ~t!l. we refer to the distribution of the net benefits by economio olasses of'the' population. There appears to be inereasing concern on the part of donor agencies for the share of the net benefits stemmíng from research at International Centers,whioh are received by people in the lover incorne groups. Given the·dramatio impact of HY" s on the Colombian rice sector, it was felt that ef­ forts should be made to doeument both the size and the dis­ tribution of the benefits of this technologica1 change. In fact, ve vill de'vote more eftort to the distribution of the net benefits, and measure theirmagnitude only as • "by­ produGt". In existing study (Ardi1a, 1973) establishes that the investment in rice research in Colombia up until 1972 had .. 57 a social rate of return of between &0 snd 80 percent. leaving little doubt as. to tbe efficiency isaue. Ve will conaider three groupa of people: (a) Upland rice producera; (b) Irrigated rice producera. (e) Rice consum.ra. In meaauring the ineidence of the net benefits we will estimate tbe groas benéfits for each group and subtraet toeir abare o, the costs df the research. It ia 'elt that a true indicator ot tbe incidence of net benetita of reaearcb inv,est­ ment must be based on ·botb tbe,.l'eturna.nd tbe costs borne by difterent groupa, ratber tban ~nly dividing tbe total gross benefits bebfeen producers. and consumera, as is normally done in studies of this type (e.g. Ardila, 1973; Akino aud Hayami, 1975; Ayer and Schuh, 1972). Ve bave chosen to separate producers into upland and irrigated categoríes, because we are interested in examining the relative benefits accruing to botb groups from a techno­ logieal ehange whieh waa developed speeif.ically fOIl irrigat­ ed culture. Ve develop a general approach for analyzing tbe differential impact of new agricultural technologies whieh, due to limited ecological adaptsb.:l.lity, favor certain zones. 5.1 The Gene~at Modet Ve 'irst present snd describe á graphical repreaentation 58 01 the model; this is followed by its mathematical statement. Tbe model used is an extension of that developed by· Ayer and· Schuh (1972). for the ~ase af cotton in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Our extension involves dividing the total supply af Colombian rice (STR) into two parts; that produced under up­ lsud conditions (SUR) and that comiog from the irrigated sector (SIR), wbere· STR = SUR + SIR (5.1) These tbree supply relationship"(expreased as a lunciion of che expected price of rice) ar& shown in Figure 6 together with the supply, cúrves S~IR and S~TR. The curve gAIR ia the aupply from the irrigsted sector when only trsditi,onal va­ rietiee are ·sown, and SATR the corresponding total supplY. so that S'TR = SUR + S'IR ( 5 .2) The curves S'IR snd S·TR are displaced k percent to the left of SIR and STR reepectively¡ k is tbus the shift parameter, determined by the difference in yield between the dwarf and tall varieties, and the proportion of the total area planted to dwarf rices. The shilts psrametere for SIR and STR are denoted k I and kT, respectively. The demand curve shown by DR. ie s declining fanction of the current price of rice at tbe larm level. In contrast, the­ supply of rice ie postulated to depend on the previous year's • Priee ($/m.t.) le . SUR s'n SIR S'TR / / STa / I / / Pll~- -----------TAf / G , / , ,- ,/ Y 1>/ , /1" / ;3 7L/ / / /~~/~7:f :/ ~ ~F' "-JS 2 I /" ;:::::::~~~~ -DR /' /' ~~ O L K E A Quantity :: Cm. t.) FIGURE 6: Graphieal Representation oi the Model far Estimating the Distribution af GraBa SenefitB from th. Introduction af IlYV's af Rice 60 price. There are four further important assumptions: (i) the rice economy for Colombia ia affectively closed. i.e. the foraign trade in rice. which ls a amall, erratic fra·et1on of total production. ls ignored; (i1) the Colombian rice market operates free from direct government intervention; in facteas noted in Seetion 4.6) from 1950-1969 the proportion purchased by IDEMA was very small; the assumption does moraviol- ence since 1970. Between 1950 and 1969 the diffel'- enee between the actual prices and quantities in the • market and those whieh would hava resulted in the absence of Government intervention bave been esti- mated as 7 pereent snd 2.3 pereent reapeetively (Gutiérrez and Hertford. 1974). (Hi) rice from botb seetors i8 taken to be of identical quality; (iv) the entire analys18 will be condueted at the farro level.· In faet. the meaaurement of benefita to consumera strietly requires thecuse of a retail level demand curve, rather the derived farm level demand curve. Howevar. próvided the marketing mar­ sin (the difference between farm and retail prices) has not changed,' no great violence ia done. Tbe problem of marketing margina is examined in more detail in a aubsequent aeetíon. In Figure 6, P is the expected price which calls fortb 1 . 01. units of production which clear tbe ntarketat a price of P , while P is the price which vould have prevailed in the 2 ! '. absence of eovinga to HYV's. First ve consider only the total benefits (TB) and their distribution!'. Total beoefits to tbe development of the ne" l'ice varieties (in any one year) are given bycomparing the difference between total consumer utility and the real re- source costs of rice production, vith ~nd vithouttbe ne" varieties. loteras of areas shovn in Figure 6, ve can writa TB = (OABe - OAD) - (OEFC·- OEG) (5.3) Thes.e total benefits are divided betveen changes in con­ sumer and producer surplus (AeS and APS), 80 that TB = ACS + APS (5.4) Aes = P BC - P Fe = P Brp ( 5 • 5 ) 2 3 2 3 APS - (OABP - OAD) (OErp - OEG) ( 5 .6) 2 ! Equation (5.6) only gives the global change in producer surplus. As "e wlsh to examine the impact on two groups of producers ve now breakdown APS into the change in upland and irrigated producer surplus (6UPS *nd AIPS)~ so that 6ps = AUPS + 6IPS (5 .7) 6UPS = -P UVP ( 5 .8) 2 3 6IPS = (OKJP OKH) - (OLNP - OLR) (5.9) 2 3 62 Ihe loss in p~oducer surplus in the uplaad secto~. where no technotogical change took place~ ls simply the loss in gross revenue they suffe~ by receiving a· lowe~ price (P in­ a stead of P which would have.prevailed ir the ~xpanded pro- 2 duction had not taken place in the irrigated secto~). As the change in consumer surplus is P BFP • we can note that P UVP 2 3 2 3 le simply a t~ansfe~ froro upland ~Ice producers to consumera; l.e. of the benefits accruing to. consumers. the part shown by P UVP was gained as che expense of upland p~oducers. 2; 3 In summary. the consumers galned, sorne of this galn beiog a tranafer from PI'oducers; upl YI,t; i.e. the observed yields t are higher than the i~proved varieties in regional trials. As n~t all the observad yield is based on improved varieties, this establishes that the experimental data are understanding the yields aehieved on farms. When P ia negative (also non- sensical), it is almost alwaya the case that the observed irrigated yield ia less than the traditional yield in exper- imental eonditions, indicating that the experimental results for the traditional variety overstate the eorresponding farm e f e yie1ds. Rence Yl,t < Y1,t and Yr,t > Yr,t' so that In other words, the experimental margin of yield superiority , 67 TABLE 28 Estimates of the Pl'opol'tion of tbe Al'ea SOlln to HYV's, based on Experimental Yields fol' HYV's and tbe Tl'aditional Val'iety: 1964-1974 Observed Eal!erilllental Yields Implied lrrigated HYV's Tl'aditional .Pl'opol'tion Sown Yielda e to HYV's (Y1;) (Y~,t) (YT;t) (Pt ) leg/ha leg/ha leg/ba , 1964 3,100 5,166 4,336 -149 1965 3,049 4,336 3,462 -117 1966 2,995 3,645_ 1,590 +68 1967 3,468 2,690 2,893 -283 1968 11,221 4,600 3,200 +73 1969 4.'092 3,809 3,096 +139 1970 4, 9r¡ 5 11.8110 3,339 +1'07 1971 5,061 4,372 3.164 +157 1972 5,174 5,2113 2.866 +97 1973 5,318 4,9311 3,393 +125 1974 5,200 5.399 3,086 +91 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1972 Valle 4,560 3.724 +55 Huila 4,890 5.243 11,100 +70 Total 5,180 3,380 +129 1973 Valle 4,310 11,9511 +3,200 Huila 5.350 4,934 3.573 +1U Total 6,000 4.324 +2711 a Fl'om Table 11. 68 is less tban the farm levelmar,gin. We bave therefore rejected experimental data as abasia for estimating the superiorit, of improved varieties at the farm level l9 • We have preferred to base our estimates on ob- served farm level data in tbe following manner. To do this ve need est!mates of Yr,t and Y • at the farm level. Ve T t took P from FEDEARROZ data' (1973 and 1975), assumingtbat: t (a) their sales of improved seed (over 50 percent of total) are representative of tbe total pattero uf sowings to improved varieties1t ; (b) that all tbe improved·seed vas sown under irr!gation. (Tbis was apparently not tbe case, but tbe evidence of the observed upland yielda (Tablell) ahow that there was no apparent impact due to new varieties in tbose areas). Rearranging equation (5.20), we have = Yt - el-pt ) YT,t (5.22) P t where: Y = observed yield under irrigation in year t; t YT,t = the traditional yield that would have prevailed. We touk the average of yeara l~6q-66 vhen 98 percent of tbe irrigated area was suvn to Bluebonnet-50 as the base period, giving a yield of 3.aQ9 kg/ha. We tben fitted the folluwing equatiun:, 69 (5.23) obta!ning .. ~ Ve then assum~d that the estimated residuals (&t = 1 Y t - t' from this equation were due to climatic factors, and that thp traditional yields (YT,t) would ha ve varied in the same rro­ portion. Using y = 3,O~B «€t/Yt) + 1) (S.2't) T,t • we simulated the traditional yields for eaeh year. Vith th8se data, and by applying equation (5.22), we ohtained the rnsults for Yr shown in Table 29. In 1966, the estimated yiel,l su- ,t periority was very slightly negative; however the area sown to improved varleties was only 0.2 pereent so we restricted the difference to zero. The initial rise in Y1 ,t is consist­ ent with improved information about cultural practices a~ ex- periencs grew¡ the subsequent fall, as ·the varieties splAnd to more marginal landa. The average superiority of the ;10- proved varieties hetween 1970 and 1972 is estimated at 2.7 tons/ha. This compares with 2.1 tons/ha.ip the Irrigation Districts of INCORA (see Appendix Table 11). Rosero (1975) estimates the superiority at 2.6tons/ha for this periodo The results in Table 29 would be sufficient to allow us to proceed with the estimation of the shift parameter, kt 69. TAlLE 29 Estimate8 of the Ti.ld. • of Tradi1:ional and l.proved Varieties: CololllbiilH 1964---1974 Obllerved Tradhional Propoi'tiou Yield of a Yeal:' Yield Varietyb Sovu to hlproved A HYV's Val:'ietiesd (Y , t (YT , t) (P) . (YI,t) - J'cg/ba kg/ha , kg/ha 1964 3,100 3,092 5.1 . 3,248 1965 3,049 3,007 5.0 3,847 1966· . 2~995 3,023 0.2 -e 1967 3,468 3,292 6.9. 5,84~ .1969 4,221 3.164 . 112.6 5,645 1969 4,092 3,039 42.6 .5.510 1970. 11,9"5 3,339 58.8 6,070 1971 5,061 3,417 57.2 6,291 1972 5,174 3,007 87.11- 5,486 1973 5,319 '2,936 97.8 5,371 1974 5,200 2,935 99.2 5,219 a From Table 11. b From ~qua1:ion (5.24). e Fro. FEDEARROZ (1973 aud 1975). d From equadan (5.22). e No va1ue vas estimated all the difference betveen tradit!ona1 aud improved varieties vas sligbt1y negative. 70 (far example. in the manner out1ined by Ayer and Schuh. 1912). However, we belie.ve that fer the case of rice in Colombia tbis w.ou1d understate the true contribution of the HIV' s. lhe reason for this is tbat ~t seems reasenab1e to essume tbat at 1eaat part ofthe expansion in the irrigated ar.ea was ~..!<:>_ the presence 21 of HYV·s. Hance rathar than attribute ta the H'V's on1y the yie1d diffsrentia1 on .a11 1and sown. we a1so include all the production from the additiona1 area sown dus to the presence of HYV's. On this basls, the following equa­ tiona were used to calculated kI • and k'.t respectively . t • (5.25) (5,26) where: AN,t = area of irrigated land that would have besn sown to meet domestic requirements in the absence Di H'V's; AA ,t = additiona1 area sown due ta presence of HYV's; Q¡.t = total production from irriga~ed sector in year t; QT,t • total rice production in yeer t, 71 To apply equations(S.2S) and (5.26) ve must first determine the additional ares sovn (AA.t) due to HYV's; AN.t i8 the given by subtraeting AA.t fro. tbe total area actually sown • .T be followlng steps 8ummarize. tbe prooedur" used. (1) Tbe araa 01 upland rioe vhiah would have been aovo in the absenee of high yie1ding vsrieties vas es­ timated. (ii) Hultiplying thls by the actual yields of theupland sector gives tbe produation lrom the upland sector. (Iii) The domestic demand vas ~stimated by inllating the domestie produetion ~r thé periodI96~-67 by a factor 01 6.636 percent p.a. based on a populatlon growth rate of 3 peroent p.a •• a real inoome growth rate of 6.76 peroent p.a., a.nd an income elasticity of demand of 0.538 (see Seet10n 5.~). (iv) The differenee between tbe domestic demand and the produetion from the upland sector was taken as the production whieb vould have had to come from the irrigated seetor. (v) Dividing tbis produotion by tbe yie1da in ·the Irri- gated sector, gives the irrigated are a needad Tvo methods of estlmatlng tbe upland area in the absence of HYV's vere used, in order to test the sensit1vity 01 the shift p~rameters to this factor. (A) First, the following equation for the area of upland 72 rice was fitted. ; 91,031 - 202.53~ P + 9,299 t - 1~9 t 2 (5.27) (-1.77) t (1.26) (~O.32) n = 21; R2 = 0.62; DW = 1.O~ where: AU,t = area sown to up1and rice in year, t; P = proportion of the irrigated sector sown tn "YV' s t year t; t = time. The proportion of the ir~igated sector sown to AYVta (P ) was included as an exp1anatory variable on the basis t that higher valu·es of P t would mean higher output from the irrigated sector, lower national prices and hence less area sown to upland rice (where no techno10gica1 change took place). The actual areas sown to upland riee area shown in Figure 7, together with the areas predieted by equations (5.27). To estimate the jrea sown in the absence of HYV's.P , was con­ t strained to zero, the values of AU,t predicted from (5.27). These values are also shown in Figure 7. (D) The seeond method of estimating the area of upland rice in the absence of AYV's wassimp1y to take the historieal area prior to the rise in upland area in 1964, and use this figure for the subsequent • years. The average area sown during the years 1954-1963 was 73 Area Actual ('000 Has.) FUted (Equat101.'l (5.27)) oO·"oO •• Q Preclicted in ab­ sence af BYV·. 250 _ ,, 1 '. . .. .... , " .00 0-° 200 ,, 0 0 (1:'1 > " DD , ,, 150 :1"' • ... " ....' '~: " ," 100 50 62 67 71 74 YearS FIGURE 71 Area af Upland Rice: 1954-1974 • 130,925 has. Ihis figu.re Iras then applied to tbe period 1968- 197~22. In Table 30, the upland area sown under the two dif­ ferent assumptions is given. The additional areas of irri­ gated rice sown du~ to the pr~sence of the HYV's under the twoassumptions (A) and (B) are shown in Appendix Tables 12 and 13, respectively. A1I tbe data needed to estimate the shift parameters (kI,t and kT,t) are now available, and tbe results of applying equations (5.25) and (5.26) are shown in Table 31, for assump­ tions (A) and (B). Given the relatively minor differences in the shift pararneters under the.two sets of assumptions, only those relating to set (A) are used in the subsequent analysis. In conclusion it should be stressed that tbe method of estimatingthe yield superiority employed aboye, does not pretend to isolate tbe changein genetic potential from the use of improyed cultural practices, better water control and pos­ sibly higher input levels. Tbe view is taken tbat,tbese are complernentary input s necessary for the express ion of tbe yield potential embodied in the naw yarieties. Without tbem, that potential may not haye besn realized (Kawano et al., 1974); bence. measuring tbe return to tbe genetic' potential alon., would be an artificial exereise. Estimates of income elasticity of demand, and tbe price elasticities of demand and suppiy, are required. 75 TUtE 30 Estimated Area Sown to Upland Rice in tb~ Abaence of H~V's under Different Aasumptiona: Colombia: 1969 - 1974 Area Sown to Upland Rice a In Abaence of HTV'a: Tear Actual _ (A) (B) FrolllEquation Simple Projection (5.27) ------~---------~-·-----ha8----------------------- 1968 15t'1.200 196,977 130,925 1969 134,570 201,656 130,925 • 1970 121.113 206,037 130.925 1971 109.130 209,822 130,925 1972 103. no 213.905 130.9-25 1973 98,840 217,392 130,925 1974 95,600 220,591 130,925 a From Table 11. s .4. I Pinstrup-Andersen (unpub1isbed data) provides an estimate for the city of Cali of 0.34. Wh:l.la we lIIigh~ aecept tb:l.s as indicative of tbe urban aector (55 pareent of the population) it is likely that tbe rural sector would display a bigher value. Datafrom.otber publisbed atudies for Latin American countries 23 gave tbe following values tor the. urban and rural TABLE 31. Estimates of the Shift Parametérs due to HYV's: Co1.ombia: 1.964 - 1974 , Ass.umption (A) Assumptioll(B) . Year Irrigated . Yield b Productiona SuperiSlrity (A1,t) (Y1,t-YT,t) k 1,t kT,t k I • t k: T, t m.t kg/ha 1964 385,000 156 0.26 0.17 0.26 0.17 • 1965 396,400 840 1. 38 0.81 1.38 0.81 1966 3l¡1,400 O 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1967 381,000 2,551 5.07 2.92 5.07 2.92 1968 535,700 2,481 35.03 23.87 36.75 25.00 1969 474,225 2,471 29.82 20.36 28.59 19.58 . 1970 554,347 2,731 39.56 29.16 33.92 24.94 1971 730,652 2,874 44.09 35.62 44.29 35.79 1972 882,724 2,479 59.96 50.75 55.27 46.84 1973 1,021,102 2,435 65.89 57.20 59.25 51.52 .... '" 1974 1,420.110 2,348 73.68 66.65 68.9'+ 62.11 a From Tab1.e 11. b From Tab1.e 29. 77 in come elasticities of demando Income Elasticity of Demand Country Urban Rural Chile 0.20 0.40 Mexico 0.18 0.55 Peru 0.21 0.46 Venezuela 0.20 0.40 Simple Average 0.1975 0.4525 The implied average ratio of the rural to urban elas- ticity (2.29:1), was applied to• the Cali estimate. to give 0.779 ( = 0.34 x 2.29) for I'ural Colombia. The rural and urban figures were then weighted by the proportions of the population in each sector. ny = 0.45 (0.779) T 0.55 (0.34) (5.28) n = 0.538 Y Tbe resulting national estimate of 0.538, is between 0.5, tbe value estimated by FAO (1971) 'for Colombia, and 0.6 estimated by ECLA (1969). Cruz de Schlesinger and Ruiz (1967) estimated a value of 0.982, but this was for the period 1950- 1963, and given rising real incomes, the current value i3 likely to be lower. 5.4.2 There are only t.wo known estimates of the price elas- 78 ticity of demand for Colombian rice. The éstimate of 1.372 presented by Guti~rrez'and Hel'tford (19711), was not adopted fol' the following reasons: (i) 1t is consldevablÚh!gher than one. would intuitive­ ly expect for an agriculturai commodity facing e5- sentially a domestic market. (il) 1t was calculated from a time series regression using prlces ol paddy rice rather than the retal1 prices (to which consumers would supposedly respond). This would not do .v.io lencs to the estimate of the price elastlclty of de~and ff the relation between the farm and retall 'price had be en cons'tant; but as we discuss '¡ater (see Ch;á'pter 8) this bas not been the case. (lil) Tbeir result comes from a restricted demand equatlon (where a value fir tbe 'Incomerellsticlt, was impos­ ed). wbose R2 value is inéxplicably larger tbat for thelr unrestricted model (p.16). (iv) Appendlx Table 111 ~hows the values oftbe price elasticity of demand for rice for 36 different countries and regions; .in all. 53 different esti- mates. Wblle It la recognizedtbat tbese estimates come from widely varying social and economic clr- cumstances. it is interestlng to note tbat tbe maximum value ls -0.65, while the simple average (excluding Gutierrez ánd Hertford) 18 -0.309. 79 We started by accepting Pinatrup-Andersen's value for Cali of -0.3S~ as a proxy for the Colo.bian urban sector. Ve calculated. a value fol' tb. rural a.ctor 01 -0. • 575, by in- flating the urban. value uai.ng tb. pl'oportiona 101' the Venezuelan results (the only othar Latin 'American country I'P.- porting rural anduJoban valu.a). . Th.n by •• .tghting "itb the population proportions we obta!nedl ~ = 0.'5 (-0.51$) • 0.55 (-0 •• _5) (5.29) n '" -Ó. • 4~9 Given th!. approximate method a.. l deriving n, .e felt tbat a sensitivity analy8is would be warranted. We tharefore ex·· aminad values of -0.300 ap.d -1!.7S_ •. Tbe firat is generall} the 10wer bound of tbe lower income countries in Appendix Tablel~¡ tbe latter value reported by Cruz de Scblesinger and Ruiz (1967) ia takeb as tbe upper bound al tbe ~easible ranee. 5.4.3 As indicated in tbe m~del. we require estimates of the elasticities of supply of irrigated (1), upland (U), and. total rice output. The only known e.timate 2 \ i8 a valus of 0.23·5 for total output, presented by Guti'zirez and Hertford (197_). lt is derived froll s supply equation ineo:rporatlng an expected price, t·he p:rice of aeaalle (a cOlllpeti tor in production, in the irrig.atedaeetor) and tbe area sown; 96 pe:rcent of the var:f.ationin'ColO1lÍbianOU1;put betweell 1950 and 80 1969 was explained. We start our analysis by accepting thi~ value, as the short-run sUPPlY" elasticity or total rice out- puto It ia in keeping with the valuea from other country studies shown in Appendix Table l~. However, we must now derive separate estimates of the elastieitiea ror the irri- gated and upland seetors. From the identity where Q la output and the subacripts T. I, and U refer to tota~ uplan~ and irrigated res~ectively, then it can he sim- plyshown that (5.30) so that if we can find either eU or E r , given the other and E, together kith ~ (the proportion of output from the irri- gated sector), we can solve ror the remaining unknown elas- ticity. In an attempt to estímate EU' we fitted the following supply function for the upland sector. -1.47 + O.99A U,t T O.OlPR t- 1 + O.6PC(t_l),(t_3) (10.5) (0.1) (3.1) -O.Ol¡ PY t_l T O.02PS _ (5.31) t 1 - 0.35PI\_1 (-0.3) (0.1) (-1.7) n = 0.96; DW :. 2.00 81 where: Qu : output of upland rice in Colombia; AU.t = area sown to upland rice in year t; PR _ = price of rice·in t-1; t 1 PC(t_1) , (t-3) = average price of eattle in preceeding 3 years; PYt-l = price of cassava in year t-1¡ PS _ price 1 = of sesame in year t t-1; PM 1 = price of maize t- in year 1;-1. • Values in parentheses are the values of students "t" stat18tic, and all variables are expressed in logarithmic formo The level of variance of output explained is high, due in large part to inclusion of area sown. However, this and the lalged price of cattle are the only two signif1cant var- iables. The lagged price of cattle carrles a positive signo Much of the upland rice comes from the tlorth COlist, and Piedmont areas of the Llanos. In these areas cattle competes with upland rice for land. However, higher cattle prices stimulate the demand for greater areas of pasture, and as rice is frequently used as' a trahsition erop in the clearing of land and establishment of pasture then the positive 1:'0- lationship between cattle priees and upland rice output is as expected. The cassava snd maize coefficients have the expect- 82 ed negativa signs, but the price of sesame has a positiva, but non-signifíeaot eoefficient~5. Tha estimuted price elastiaity of supply of upland rice (EU' is 0.01, but the eoeffieient is not signifieantly dif­ ferent from zero. While 'we have preferred a more intuitive approaeh (deserib~d below) to estimating (E ) and (El)' these U results do suggest that the elastieity of upland rice supply is probably low, and almost certainly lower than the elastic- ity of supply of irrigated output. As the praportian (a)'of autput eoming frorn the irrigat­ ed sector ehanged fro~ 50 to. 90,per~eot over the period 196~- • 1974, three su-periads were seleeted and the average valua af 1 taken for each wUb-period (Table 31). We oow argue that and from equation (5.30), we can derive the two boundary val- ues of El corresponding to EU = O, and EU = El' in e8ch of the thrae sUb-periods. Tha mid-point of the possible range of values far El was arbitrari1y choase~ and the correspand­ ing values of EU ealeu1ated. The resu1ts are shawn in Table 33, tor the preferred estimate af E = 0.235, and in Table 3~ for a value of E = 1.500. Appendix Table 15 presents the six sets of e1astieity va1ues which are used in the Sen- sitivity analysis. e3 TABtE 32 Proportion of Rice Production from the Irrigated Sector: Colombia:· 1964-1974: Three Sub-periods Average Proportion of Sub-period Total Output from the Irrigated Seetora ( el) 1961¡-1967 0.58 1968-1971 0.73 1972-1971! 0.87 a From Table 11 •. - TABLE 33 Values of Supply Elasticities for Three Sub-periods: t = 0.235 .. _-- Value of tI Impljercentage of Net Benefits Income $ $ % 1 O - 6,000 385 l2.8 2 6,OOl - 12,000 6 ... 2 1.1 3 l2,OOl - l8,OOO 530 3.5 4 lB,OOl - 24,000 333 1.6 5 24,001 - 30,000 348 1.3 6 30,000 - 36,000 353 1.2 7 36,001 - 48.000 342 0.8 B 4B,OOl - 60,000 200 0.4 9 60,OOl - 12,000 128 0.2 10 72.00l - 84,000 232 0.3 II 8 .... 000 + 135 O.l a The distribution shown in Table 42 had to be reduced to that shown in this Table. as the number of households per income group was not available for the more detailed distribution. ...... <> 111 Annual Avera,e Net Benefits 12 as a Per- centage of 1970 ·11 Income ('1.) 10 9 8 7 6 ·5 4 1- 3 2 1 i ; II 1I II-~ 1 2 3 .4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Income Level F!GURE 9: Distribution of Annual Average Net Beneflts to Consumere: By Level of Income 112 100r-------------------~-----~ ___ ~ (B) 75 Pereeotage af Net Benefita (B) Pereentage of tneome (1) 50 28 l--~----(/ (1) 25 o • 25 SO 75 100 Peteentage of Housebolds FIGURE 10: Distribution of tneome and NetCoo­ sumer Benefits froln HYV's in Colombia· 113 holda (an arbitrary point marked on the graph) receive 4 percent of the income in COlombia, but capturad 28 percent of the net benefits due to new rice varieties. Another reading (not marked) is that 50 percent of the households receive 14 percent oi the income but captured 64 percent of the benefits. Turning to producers~ the group most severely affeated was the small (i.e. low income) upland producera. For these producers, the annual average income foregone through lower rice prices (and no compensating technological change), re­ presented a high proportion of their assumed 1970 income. To the extent that their actual incomes were below the rural sector average, this impact would have be en even more pro­ nounced. On the other hand, the foregona income to the irri­ gated producers variad more erratically depending on the size group. with the haaviest relative burdens falling on the 200-1,000 hectares group. However, the absolute impaet may well be overatated if irrigated producers had ineomes aboye the nationsl average for rural income ~arners. Figure 11 shows the distributional impact on producers. In eonclusion. the positive benefits of the techno1og­ ical ehange all aecrued to consumers, with the lowest income households receiving the largest gain. absolutely and rela­ tively. The foregone income to producers appeared to fa11 most heavily on the small upland producers. Even if the average annual consumer benefits are ineluded as benefits to upland producers. the amall upland producer atill appears as 114 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 . 1 10 20 -30 '1 -40 50 -60!-1-- '-­ !- ..,70 '-L.,- (a) Upland Producers 80 Annual '1 O Average • 10 . Net -20 I LOBses ·30 - as a -40 !- Percentage 1-- !- '--L- of 1970 -50 L..... "- !- Income -60 '-- :"70 1-- -80 (b) Irriga te 1966 1,552 103 509 ~7 2,061 137 U! -197 - 97 1967 1,432 101 409 ~5 1,84~ ~30 -220 -~97 ~968 1,328 91 337 12 1,665 115 -176 -134 ~969 1,198 98 462 ~9 1,660 ~36 - 5 - 78 (continued) TABLE SO (continuad) Farm-to- Who1esa1e-to- Farm-to- Three Year Who1esa1e Retai1 Retai1 , Annua1 Moving Avarag e Year Change in of the Annua1 , a b Changes in Absoluta Re1ative Abso1ute Re1ative Absoluta Relativa Farm-to- Retai1 Margin Retai1 Margin $ , $ t $ % $ $ 1970 1,424 127 182 7 1,606 143 - 54 9 197"1 1,265 121 426 18 1,691 162 85 - 20 1972 1,196 134 404 19 1.6ÓO 179 - 91 176 1973 1,777 182 358 13 2,135 218 53,5 156 1974 1,632 142 528 19 2,160 lB8 25 - • a The absoluta differences are based on the real price data in Tab1e 14. b The re1ative differences are the abso1ute differences expressed as a percentage of the 10wer value in eaeh case. ....., m 127 $ 260 240 220 ~OO 180 l{jO 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 O ·20 53 55 73 -40 -60 ·80 -100 ·120 -140 .160 ·180 -200 -220 -240 -260 FIGURE 12: Three Year Hoving Average of tbe Annual Cbanges in tbe Farm-to-Retatl Marketing Margtn: . Colombia: 1952-1973 128 rising trend in the farm-to-retail margin observed sinae 1967, is nothing more than s eyelieal upswing in the margina, wbieh eyele has been :repeatedly observed over a 22 year pe­ riod. Unfortunate~y, onlysporadíe data on installed eapae­ íty in tbe mi;Lling sector are availab1e to provide a test of this investment eyele hypothesis. However, the observations that do exist, are eonsistent with the explanation proposed for ayaliaal pattern of Figure 11. In 1961, insta11ed milling aapaeity was reported to be double the production of paddy.riae. and strong competition existed among millers to obtain paddy rice (Cruz de Schlesinger and Ruiz, 1967, p.14). Data for the years 1964 and 1967, in­ dieate that installed eapaeity did rise between those two years, as· the.cyc1iea1 model would ha ve predieted (Leurqufn, 1967, p. 257 and FEOEARROZ,. unpublished data). Riley eta.t. (1970, p.210) note that in 1968, the Department of Valle had 15 rice mills which were operated at 18 pereent of eapaoity, a1though this is partly a 10ca1ized phenomenon ref1eeting dee1ining rice produetion in the region. The eyelios1 investment behaviour proposed to explain the pattern of ehanges in the riae marketing margfn depends in part on the argument that the milling sector repeatedly overinvests in insta11ed eapaeity, approximate1y every 5 to ,6 years. One possib1e explanation for this overinvestment, wou1d be if the investment had to be made in large diserete 129 lumps. Tbis is reje~ted bowever, as rice milling is not sub­ ject to such large economics of scale; in 1964 there were 340 rice milIs in the country (Leurquin. 1967, p.257), snd 353 in 1967 (FEDEARROZ, unpublisbed data). Repeated overinvestment implies tbat.there ia n~ learning procesa on. tbe part of the milling sector, snd in addition. tbeir ability to predlct the demand for their services is poor. This Is somewbat surpris­ ing in viev of the fact that the larger mille~s themselves are frequentlygrowers, and also obtain paddy rice by contracta with independent farmers. These phenomena should result in a more predictable throughput of~addy rice. Hovever. whataver the explanation of the cycle, it does strongly suggest that the introduction of tbe new varieties vas not necessarily ac­ companied by an increasingly cartelized marketing atructure, capturing abnormal profits. 9. 4 An Ana..ty.sü 0.6 the. Plte.dic.te.d Cha.nge .i.n the Fa.Jtm-to­ Retai.t Ma.ltketing Ma.ltg.i.n In thia aection ve examine the question: by hoy mueh could tbe farm-to-retall margin have been expected to changa due to the introduction of tbe HYV's and tbe concomitant risa in output of paddy rice? Gardner (1975) has presented ananalytical framework which allows tbis question to be addressed. When there is a technical improvement which shifts the crop supply function, bDth the farm price and the retail price can be expected to 130 fall (as shown in Table 49). But for the marketing sector to produce, transporto store snd distribute more polished rice, will require more of the otber input s used by this sector (labor, milling m~chinery~ etorage and traneport services, packaging materials, etc). The increased demand for these inputs will raise theirprices so long as their elasticities 'of supply are not infinite. This will raiss the co~t of non­ farm inputs to the marketing sector relative to the price of paddy rice, hence increasing the ratio of the retail to the farm price (as shown in the last column of Table 49) • • Let the marketing sectorls production function be: MR = f(PR.O) (8.1 ) i.e. the sector produces (and distributes) milled rice (MR), using as ita inpute, paddy rice purchased from growers (PR), and other marketing services,(O). The demand by final consumers of milled rice is de- pendent on the retail price Pr , and other factors (population, incorne etc), N, which shift the demand curve. MR :: D(P , N) r (9.2) To theee equations are added the supply and demand equatione lar each of the input s PR and O. The milling sector ie assumed to demand profit-maximizing quantities of PR snd O, so that in both casss the valus marginal product of the input will be equated to ita price: 131 (8.3) (8 .4) where the physical margi~al p. roducts are represented by f O and f Mi (the first partial derivatives of (8.1) with respect ta O and MR, respectively). The supply functions af paddy rice and other inpute to the mi11ing induetry are given by: ( 9 .5) .. (9.6) where W aud Tare ehifters of the respective supply curves. In the present studY. the relationship of interest is the elasticity (E ) of the ratio (Pr/Pf) with raspect to the sup- W ply curve shifter (W) of paddy rice, i.e. ( S .7) Based on the competitiva model autlined above, Gardner (1975, p.402) has derived the expression ter this elasticity, whieh ls given by: ( 9 • S) where: 132 E EO = t:he elasticities of supply of the marketing PR, inputs; viz paddy rice (PR) and othar (O); n = elasticity of demand for milled rice; SpR'SO = the value shares of paddy rice and other input s e.~. SpR= (PR).Pf!(MR).Pr ; and SO: 1 - SU; O = the elasticity of substitution of paddy rice for other marketing input s in the production of mi'lled rice; EW : the elasticity of Pf witb respect to W¡ this is set equal to 1, so that EW measures tha elasticity of (Pr!Pf> with respect to a change in W sufficient to shift the supply of paddy rice by 1 percent. Hovever, direct application of (8.8) would be inappro- priate liS it was derivad assuming no shift in the demand for milled rice. This assumption ia patently violated in the case of the present analysis, extending over an eleven year periodo Ideally, one requires a new formulation of Ew in which shifts in the demand for milled ri~e are allowed. How-- ever, a less sophisticated (and analytical1y simpler) approach ia adopted here. Increases in the demand for mil1ed rice can be expected to reduce the marketing margin,'3 while increases in the supply of paddy rice would tend to viden the margino The elasticityof the marketing margin with respect to a shift in the demand curve ;La given (Gardner, 1975 p.401) by: 133 (8 .9) where Tl N ie the e1asticit-y of demand for milled rice with re­ spect to N, and D is the denominator of equation (8.9). Tbe analysis is based on the change between 1965-1967 and 1972-197Q.The vertical shift in the supply curve was ca1cu1ated "by eva1uating the 1972-197Q total supply curve ~ ~ at the average production Eo~ 1965-1961 (see figure 13). The percentage changa in W was then calcu1ated as (100(66-1506»/ 1506 = -95.6 percent. To estimate the horizontal shift in the demand curve, the 1965-1967 demand curve was eva1uated at the average retail price in 1912-1914, (sea figure 14) and the resu1ting percent­ age change in N eva~uated as (100(1,263,023 - 709,256»/ 709.256 = 18 percent. The fo1lowing va1ues cf the parameters were used to Tl = -0.449 TlN,E:¡¡ = 1 E: pR = 0.235 E: = 0.4 O To estimate the value share oE paddy rice (SpR) write: 1.506 f----------""lf.-... - __D - 6S 67 671..167 Quant1ty (FR) FIGURE 13: Vertical Shift in t~ Supply Curve of Faddy Rice Retal1 Price (Pr) 5 _ 65 67 5 _ 72 74 3,559 I Y.. 2,972 I /' "1" Y D65-67 D _ 72 74 671,167 709,256 1,263,032 Quantity ~ FIGURE 14: "Horizontal Shift in the Demand Curve for Rice w VI 136 PR (9.10) MR The assumed milling ~ati~ gives: 1 ton (PR) = 0.65 tons (MR) o~ FR ::: 0.65 (8.11) MR The ~verage ~atio o, (Pf/Pr) Eor the twope~iods was ud.d. giving a value of 0.38; this results in a value 'o~ SpR o, 0.24 f~om (8.10). It is likely that the substitution possibi1ities ~e· tween paddy rice and other inputs in the p~oduction o, milled ~ice are limited, imp1ying a 10w va1ue o, o. Ga~dner (1975, p.406) suggests a method whereby an approximation t'o a can be obtained. a '" (8.12) Using equstions (8.10) and (8.11) snd supe~scripts o and 1 for the perioda 1965-1967 and 1972-1974, reapectively, (0.65(P /Pr)l- 0.6S(P"Pr ')/O.6S(P,/P )' a '" f r = 0.2 (8.13) «Pr/P,)1 ~ (Pr/P,}·)/(Pr/P,)· This estimate of a agrees with the intuitiva reasoning that 137 tbe elasticity of substitution wou1d be 10w. Using these values, Ew and EN were calculated as -0.4 and -0.33 respee- tively. tA( P r /P f> Id N=O " EW(\AW) :: (-0.4)(95'.6) .. 3S% (8.14) and %A(P r lP f ildW=o :: EN(%AN) :: (-0.33)(78) " -26% (9.15) giving a total "net" effeet of (38-26 ) or 12 percent¡ i.e., if tbe rice marketing sector bad behaved in accord with the competitive pricing mode1 implieit in tbese derivations, artd had been ful1y adjusted to the ehange in the output due to HYV's. we would ha ve expected a 12 percent increase in the. marketing margino In faet, the margin rose from 2.36 to 2.95 (see Table 40), or by 25 pereent. However, it is suggested in conclusion, that this result, rather tban necessarily indicating an imperfectly competitive marketing sector, mere­ ly reflects tbe dynamic adjustment process outline aboye. The normal ayclical pattern of rises and falls in tbe market­ ing margin were oaaurring. Tbe marketing margin widened somewbat due to non-ayelieal eompetitive forees fOllowing the rapid inerease in paddy rice production, the "remainder H oi the observed rise heing due to the cyolieal investment pattern. 8.5 Fo~n~tion 06 Rice P~iceó In an .ttempt to partiallY explain tbe formation of 138 the retail price of first grade rice in Bogotá, a model presented by 1immer (197~) was tested. Basically, this model is built on t.he following identity: PI' = ( tx )(1/c)Pf + A (8.16 whe:re P ,P "rétail and farm prices of rice, respectively; l' f ce" refle;cts proportional marketing cha:rges. if • ~ 1, tben tbe:re a:re no proportional charges; A = absolute marketing cha:rges; c " mill!ng ratio. By adding a random e:r:ror term to equation (S.lS), the model can be fitted using simple linear regression. If A is sig- nificantly greater than zero, t~en there ie evidence of ab- solute marketing charges, i.e. the costs of marketing are in- dependent of the pe:r unit value of rice. If the reciprocal of (¡ Ic is .much less than an expected millirg ratio of say 0.65, there would be evidence of proportional charges; i.e. costs varying with the pe:r unit value of rice. The following equation \olas estimated: P :: l,39~ + 1.~5Pf (8.17) l' (3.7) (~. 9) R 2 " 0.51; D-W " 1. 6; n " 25. where the t- values are given in parentheses. The estimate ·139 of A is significantly greater than zero, and the reciprocal of the farm pricecoefficient is 0.69, close to an. expected value of 0.65 in the absence of proportional charges. Hence ve conclude that the marketing charges are absolute rather than proportionai, confirmed by the constant absolute margin shovn in Table 49. An additional run of equation (S.l7) gavea:na~significant coefficient for a variable reflecting the proportion of the crop coming fram HYV's. This added further support to the hypothesis that there were no abnormal rises in the marketing margin associated with the introduc­ tion of HYV's. In conclusion,-we find no evidence to support the rather widely held contention that an imperfectly com­ petitive milling-marketing sector exercised its market power to capture abnormal profits following the introduction of. new rice varieties. , CHAPTER 9 SUMUARY The principal highlights of tbis report are: 1) Sinee 1950 rice produetion in Latin Ameriea bas grown at an annual average rate o~ 3.6 pereent, eompared with 2.8 pereent for world output. 2) Latin Ameriea produead 3..6 pereent of world output in . 197~; Brazil and Colombia are tbe major produeers, representing 56 pereent and 13 pereent respeetiYelY, of Latin Ameriea production in 197~. 3) Unti1 tbe mid-sixties, yields ~ere eonstant, but rislng yields aeeounted for 75 pereent· of the inerease in produetion between 196& and 197~. ~) On1y tba Caribbean is a net importing region witb Cuban imports aeeounting for balf tbe region'stotil. 5) In 1970, OYer 75 pereent of Latin American exports were sold outside tbe region. Futuré expansion in exports will likely depend on markets in Europe and Afrioa. S) In 197~, at least 800,000 heetares (or 12 pereent) oi tbe rice area was sown to dwarf yarieties. 7) In 197~, Latin American output was 14.5 percent bigher tban it would baye been in tba absenee of HYV's; ex- eluding Brazil. this figureis ~0.3 pereent. In 1972- 141 1973 Asian production was estimated to be 4.9 pe~cent. higher due to the presence of HYV's. 8) In Colombia the introduction of new varieties commenced in 1964 as a result,of an expanded program of rice research in ICA and with thesubsequent 60llaboration of CIAT. 9) Adoption of HYV's has been rapid and widespread; they now occupy virtually all the irrigated sector. 10) National average ylelds have risen from 1.8t/ha in 1965 to 4.4t/ha in 1975. 11) A strong national rice gr~wer's, federation (FEDEARROZ) has undoubtedly contributed to the rapid rise in output. 12) New varieties developed for irrigated culture gave a comparative advantage to the irrigated sector, displacíng upland production. In 1966 tipland production was 50 percent of Colombian output; in 1975 it was 9 percent. 13) Rice prices fell (in real terms) as a'result of the expanded output. In the period 1965-1969, the aver~ge farm price was $1,437 per ton. In 1970~1974 it was $1,037 per ton, a fall of 28 percent. The costa of production per ton fell by 30 percent over the same periodo 14) Rice became cheaper relatlve to other major foodstuffs; in 1965 1 kg. of beans purchased 1.82 kgs of rice; by 1974, it purchased 3.47 kgs. of rice. 15) Colombian rice ,roductlon is conaen~rated in large irrigated holdings. In 1970 it is estimated that almost 70 percent of the national output carne froro irrigated farms ofover 50 has. 16) Rice is the majar item in the Colombian diet; in 1972 it was the most important so urce of calories (13.6 percent} and.the second most important source of proteins (12.7 percent). 17) The development and release of HYV' s was a highly ef- ficient use of public and private funds; the research program was estimated to have generated an internal rate • of return of 94 percent. 18) The gross value of additional rice production between 1964 and 1974 was estimated at $(U8) 350 m. 19) Rice prices were much lower than they would haye been in the absence of HYV's; hence Colombian bonsumers He re the beneficiaries of the research programo Both abso- lutely, and relatiyely, the greatest net benefits went to the lowest income consumers. Fifty percent of. Colombian households receive 14 percent of the income, but captured 62 percent of the net benefits. from the introduction of HYV·s. 20) Producers of rice would haye received higher prices and had higher incornes in the absence of the new va- rieties. Small upland producers were the most severely affected, but numerically they are a minor group 1113 (about 6,000 in 1970). 21') No evidence was found that the .marketing sector captured abnormal profits from the introduction of HYV's. 22) The net benefi ts we~e highly skewed toward .the law income consumer, as almost all the additional output was ·sold on the domestic market. 23) Protection given to the manufacturing sector has allowed Colombia to maintain an overvalued exchange rate which has discouraged potential rice exports. 211) The domestic price has now.. fallen·to the point that exporting appears profitable. 25) If Colombia becomes a consistent rice exporter (as appeara probable) future benefita fron new rice technology will accrue to producers and foreign consumers rather than to Colombian consumera, as has been the case. FOOTNOTES 1 Throughout this report, the term Latin America is used to include Mexico,Central America, the Caribbean and South America. 1 In Appendix Table 1, data for production,.area, yields and trade in rice are given by country for Latin America for 1950-1974. 3 The U.S. Department of Agriculture is presently further developing a global model of rice production, disappearance, prices and trade (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975a). , The authors acknowledge the close cooperation of Dana G. Dalrymple in obtaining the information in this section. 5 The method used follows Dalrymple (1975). • Pearse (1975) states, that-"rice is the second cereal in total production in Latin America. but there have been few attempts to introduce IRRI .eeds ••• in Latin America .•• little progress has been made in prom6ting the use of HYV'sU. 7 For a more complete discussion see Hertford (1976) and Rosero (1974). • For details of the performance of these lines in region trlals, see Rosero (1975). t The question of exports in 1974 is far from clear. A landsllde blocked the road from the Llanos cutting off a major rice producing area froro the Bogot& market. Rice was apparently exported to Venezuela during this periodo The af­ ficial export figures of the Banco de la Rep~blica sbow 1.~OD tons of rice exported in 1974. Tbe U.S. Department of Agri­ culture (1975b, p.34) reports 176,000 tona of exporta in 1914, and alternatively no exports (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975c, p. 5). lO When considering the distribution of benefits of the ex­ panded production to consumers, the form in which rice is consumed is of obvious importance; if large amounts were pro­ cea sed and enterad the market as high-income livestock pro­ duats. then the pattern of consumer benefits would be marked­ ly affected. However, while sketchy, the data seem to fn­ dicate that the total amount used outside direct human con­ sumption ia amall. Table 11 showa the Fedearraz figure of 64,000 tons (net of seed) and the Ministerio of Agricultura (1975, p.28) reports 81,000 tons. 11 Leurquin (1967) preserita a detailed analysis of histor­ ieal forees which"shaped the geographical pattern of rice pro­ duction. 12 All monetary data in "this report are in Colombian pesos, unless otherwise noted. 13 A detailed examination of the marketing margins is made in Chapter 8. l~ Fertilizer prices rose during this period, which undoubt­ edly aeeounts fór some restralnt in their use, and perhaps a slower inerease in yields that would have oceurred had fer­ tilizer priees been eonstant. 15 As sbown in Appendix Table 8, tbe aize distribution for 1966 which inc1udes al1 producers differed very little from that for the two end perioda (1~59 snd 1970) based on prin­ cipal producers. 16 Where poasible we have maintained tbe same notation as Ayer and Schuh (1972), to faei1itate comparison. 17 Impllcitly, we are assuming tbe elasticity of demand for rice ia finite. n"'For c1arity, we have omitted the time subscript, t. ,19 Jennings (personal communication) argues that the re­ gional trials are not specifically designed to measure yield superiority; a wide range of other characteristies are a1so considered. 10 lh 1974, 40,835 m.tons of certified seed were produced. which at 150 kg/ha. was suffieient to sow all the irrlgated area (ICA. 1974. p.30). 21 The area of rice sown in government sponsored irrigation districts rose from 27,114 has. In 1971 to 65,587 in 1974; i.e. during the period of rapid expansion of the HYV's. The use of dwarfs rose from 12 p~rcent in the" first semester of 1970 to ahout 80 percent in 1975 (a11 data are from unpublish­ ed sources of" INeORA). This expansion in area reflects in part, tbe re1atiye profitability of rice groning with the nen BYV's". 22 Tbe years 1964-1967 were elimlnated from this ana1ysis, as the proportion sown to HYV's was 1ess than 5 percent. im­ plying that any additional area sown due to the HYV's would have neg1igihle. 146 21 See AppendiK Table 14. 2~ The supply function p~esented by Cruz de Schlesinger and Ruíz (1967)only contains a trend va~iable. 25 Gutiérrez and Hertford (1974) found a similar result in their equatlon for totál rice supply. 26 In including the costs of Inte~national Cooperation we apparently contradict the previous argument that "only those costs incurred by Colombian should be included. The assumption Is however, that had those externally provided funds not gone to rice research that would have been avail­ able to Colombia for investment in othe~ areas with a simi­ lar pay-off; i.e. they did have an opportunity cost for Colombia. 21 Personal communlcation, Division de Presupuesto y Finanzas, Sección Ejecución y Análisis Presupuestal, Decembe~ 18, 1975. • 29 The mathematical definition of the Inte~nal Rate of return is that rate p which makes n • í (Net Benefits), (1+p)-1 = O 1=1 1 rt is recognized that when more than one sign change occurs in the net benefit stream (as in the case of Table 40), there ls a problem of multiple solutions to this equa­ tion (Hirshleifer, 1970, p.?7).rIn fact, tbe net benefit streams of Table 40 theoretically have two internalrates of return which satisfy the aboye equation. However, in this case the pertu~bation below zero in 1966 is so slight that eliminating if (by reversing the signs for 1965 and 1966) makes no detectable difference in the Internal Rates of Return shown in Table 40. The ana1ysis was conducted for the 30 year period 1957- 1986. The leve1 or net benefits for 1974 was assumed to continue throughout the period 1975-1986. This simply im~ plies that were the 1974 level of expenditures to be contin­ ued until 1996, they would continue to generate the level of gross benefits obse~ved in 1974. In fact, because the aboye equation involves discounting all the values back ta 1957 and the rates of return are al1 high, the results are very insensitive to the assumptions made concerning future costs and benefits. 147 29 Calcu1ated as the ratio of the present value of Grosa Benefits to the preaent value of Research Costa, using a dis­ count factor of 10 percent (Harberger~ 1972, p.155). 3. These high returns are not uncommon in agricultural ra­ sear.ch. Ayer and Schuh (1972. p. 581) report an internal ratc oí return of 89 percent for cotton in Sao Paulo Brazil; Akino and Hayami (1975, p.S) report values up te 75 percent for rice in Japan; Peterson (1967, p.669) reports 20 to 30 percent for peultry in U.S.A; Barletta (1974) reporta 75 percent fo!' wheat in Mexico; Griliches (1958) reports 35 percent for corn in U.S .A; Ardila (19"13) refHH'ts 58 to 82 percent for rice in Colombia up until 1971; and MonteS (1973) reports 76 te 9r percent for soybeans in Colonbia. SI This assumes that the rice consumption patterns in tbe rural areas correspond to the urban data shown in Table 42. Onestudy of rural food consumption. reports that in a non-rice growing rural area, 10 percent of calories and pro­ telns in the average family diét carne from rice (Swanherg and Shipley, 1975). These data are only slightly below the urban figures reportad in Seetion ,.~. Other rice producing areas, and traditional consuming areas su eh as the Atlantic Coast, could be expected to have higher levels of rice consumption. 32 This result assumes that no imports would have occurred despite the higher domestic rice prices whi¿h wou1d have pre~ vailed in the absence of HYV's. 33 Ardila and Va1derrama (1975) report that the equitable distributlon of Income is a criteria employed within ICA for selecting projects. Lopes Neto (1975) reportsa similar cr!­ teria is inc1uded "in tbe definition of priorities and re­ source allocation for research". (p.40). 3' For a model relating the level of industrial protectioD to the price of forelgn exchange.see Scobie and Johnson (1974). 35 rheir study includes three Latin American countries; Brazil. Argentina and Mexico. 3. Sorne of the production in 1974 was carried over as stock s into 1975 when Colombia did recommence exporting rice. '7 At the same time it should he noted that prior to 1974 Colombia maintained a tariff of 45-55 percent against importad rice for consumption, indicative of the vaéi11ation batween a consumer-orientated and a producer-orientated'rice policy that has typified government intervention (Leurquin, 1967). , 1llS S8 Their estimate is based on a similar value of the level oE efrective protection given to manufacturing; however, tuere lis no raason to assume that arractive protaction rate meas~ ures directly the overvaluation. See Harberger (1972),p.125. a9 The authors are indebted to Bruce L. Gardner or the President's Council of Economic Advisors. Washington, D.C. for his guidance and insights in the preparation or this Chapter. ~o Indicative of the "anti-intermediary" sentiment is the fact that whol~salers and assemblers or rice cannot use ware­ house receipts as co11ateral for bank.loans (Riley et al., p.217). ~1 As suggested by Carlson (1969, p.161) and attempted by Chew (1971). ~2 Leurquin (1967 n.23, p.25S) cites evidence or similar prica competition among Lousiana millers, and Slater et al. (1969 p.9-IIS) note the exlstence of excess rice mi11ing ca­ pacity in the San Francisco River region of N.E. Brazil . • , This result depends on the assumption that the elastic­ ity or supply or paddy rice is less than the elasticity of supp1y of other inputs to the marketing sector (Gardner. 1975 p.406) • •• This is round by taking the average or equation (5.13) eva1uated for each year from 1972 to 1974. • REFERENCES 150 Akino, M. and Hayami, r. (1975) "Efficiency and e9uity in public researcn: Rice breeding in Japan's econom~c develop­ roent" , American Journal. of Agricul tural Economics,.~: 1-10. Ardila V., J. (1973) Rentabilldad Social de Las Inversiones en Investigaci6n de Arroz en Colombia, Unpublished MS. Theejs, lCA/Universidad Nacional, Bogotá. Ardila V., J. and ValdeI'ramaCh.,.g·.(1975) "The decision-maklng process applied to I'esearch I'eSOUI'ce allocation in a national institution: The case of ICA in Colombia", in Pinstrup­ Andersen and Byrnes (eds.), 1975. Arndt, T.M. et al. (ede,), (1976) Resource Allocation and Productivit in National and Inter~n~a~t~iro~n~a~l~A·~r~i~c~u~l~t~u-r-a~l~Research. Univers~ty of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis forthcom~ng. Arrondee. V. (1968) Economics of Rice Trade Among Countries of Soutneast Asia, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Min­ nesata. • Atkinson, L.J. (1970) Agricultural Productivity in Colombia, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural EconoMía Report, No.66. Ayer, H.W. and Scnuh, G.E. (1972) "Bocial rates of return and other aspects of agricultural research: The case of cotton in Sao Paulo, Brazil-, American Journal of Agricultural Eco­ nomics, 54: 557-69. Barker, R. (1966) "The response of production to change in. rice price", Philippine Economic Journal,!: 276. BaI'letta A., N. (1971) Costs and Social Benefita of Agri­ cultural Research in Mexico, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Uni­ versity of Chieago. Barroclough, S.L. (1970) "Agricultural policy and land reform", Journal of Polítical tconomy, 78: 906-47. Basit, A. (1971) Projections of Demand and Supply oi Wheat and Rice in Pakistan, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Washington State University. Battelle Memorial Institute (1969) Projections of Supply and Demand lor Selected Agricultural Producta: Central Ame- rica, 1965-180, Columbus, Ohio. Berhrman, J. (1968) Supply Response in Underveloped Agri~ culture, North Holland~ Amsterdam. Berry, A. (197.) "Distribuci6n de fincas por tamafio, distri- 151 buci6n del ingreso y eficiencia de la producción agrícola en Colombia", in H. Gómez O. and W. Wiesner D. Lecturas Sobre Desarrollo Económico Colombiano, Fundación para la &ducaci6n Superior y el Desarrollo, Bogotá. Blackeslee, L.L. et al. (1973) World Food Production, Demand and Trade. Iowa State University Press, Ames. Brandow, G.E. (1961) Interrelationships among Demanda far Fara Producta and Implications for Control of Market Supply, Pennsylvania State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 680. Brandt, S. et al. (1965) "Re1acoes area-preco de algodao no Estado de Sao Paulo", Agricultura em Sao Paulo,~: 31-3B. Carlson, G.A. (1969) A decision theoretic approach tu crop disease prediction and control, unpub1ished Ph.D. thesis, University of Californiá, Davis. Centre de Recherches (1967) Produetion and Uses of Selected Farm Products.in France, Paris •. Cheaney, R.L. and Jennings, P.R. Field problems of rice in Latin America, CIAT, Series GE-1S, Cali. Chew, L.K. (1971) A Proposed Model for Planning of Pricing and Import Po11cy for Rice Based on lneome and We1f~re considerations, Ma1aysian Agricu1tura1 Research and Develop­ ment Institute, Agricultura1 Economics BUlletin, Vo1.I, No.6. Cochrane, W. (195B) Agricultural Prices, University of Minnesota Presa, Minneapolis. Consejo de Bienestar Rural (1965) Long Term Forecasts of Supply and Demand of Agricultural and Livestock Production in Venezuela, Caraces, Crisostomo, M.C. et al. (1971) "The new rice technology and labor absorption in Philippine agricul.ture", Malayan Eco­ nomic Review,~: 117-58. Cruz de Sch1esinger, L. and Ruiz, L.J. (1967) Mercadeo de Arroz en Colombia, Centra de Estudios sobre Desarrolla Eco­ n6mico, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá. Cummings, J.T. (19711) uThe supp1y response of Bangalee rice and cash crop cultivators·, Bang1adesh Development Studies, 11: 863. Dalrymple, D.G. (19711) Development and Spread of High-Yielding 152 Varieties of Wheat and Rice in the Less Developed Rations, U.S. Department of Agriculture, F~reign AgricultuTal Eco­ nomic Report No.9S. Dalrymple, D.G. (1915) Measuring the Green Revolution: The Impact of Research on Wheat and Rice Production, U.S. Depart­ ment of Agriculture, Foreígn Agricultural Economíc Report, No.106. Dalrymple, D.G. (1916), Latín America: HYV's of Rice, Unpublished manuscript. Davidson, B.R. and Martin, B.R. (1965) "The relationship between yields on farms snd in experimen'ts", Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics,!: 129-~O. de Janvry, A. et al. (1912) "Estimates of demand parameters under consumer budgeting: An application to Argentina", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 5~: ~2B. de Janvry, A. (1915) "The pol!tical economy of rural develop­ ment in Latin America: An interpretation", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57: ~90-99. Departamento Nacional de Planeación (1914) Plan Nacional de Alimentación y Nutrición, Documento DNP-UDS-DPN-Ol1. ~ogotl. Departaiento ~e Planeación Nacional (1975) An~lisis General de la Estructura Arancelaria Colombiana vigent en Febrero de 1915, Unidad de Estudios Indu.triales, Documento DNP­ UE1, Bogotá. Dix, R.H. (1961) Colombia: The Political Dimensions of Change, Yale University Press, New Haven. Dudley,L. and Sandilands, R.J. (1915) "The side effects of foreign aid: The case of p.L.~eO wheat in Colomb ia ", E·co- nomic Develo,pment and Cultural Change, 23: 325-36. Duloy, J.H. and Norton, R.D. (1973) "CHAe:A programming model of Kexican agriculture", in L.M. Goreux and A.S. Manne (eds.) Multilevel Planning: Case Studiea in. Kexico, North Holland, Amsterdam. ECLA (1969) Report on Colombian Agricultural POliey, Mimeo. Efferson, J.N. (1911) "Situaoi6n del mercado mundial del arroz", én Politicas arroceras en Am~rica Latina, CIAT, Cal!. Evenson, R.E. and Kislev, Y. (1975) Agricultura~ Research and Productivity, rale University Press, New Haven. 153 Evenson, R.E. (1976) "Comparative evidence on returns to investment in national and international research", in T.M. Arndt et al. (eda.) (1976). Falcon, H.P. (1970) "The green revolution: Generations of problems", American Journal of A~ricultural Economics, 52: 698-710. FEDEARROZ (1973) Informe de Gerencia, Bogotá. FEDEARROZ (1975) Informe de Gerencia, Bogotá. Fishel, H.L. (ed.) (1971) Resource Allocation in Agricultural Research. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. .---- rood and Agriculture Organization (1971) Proyecciones para Productos Agricolas, 1970-1980, Rome. Gardner, B.L. (1975) "The farm-retail price spread in a competitive food industry", American Journal of Agricultural Economics,~: 399-~09. • George, P.S. and King, G.A. (1971) Consumer Demand for rood Commodities in the U.S. with Projections for 1980, Giannini Foundation, Monograph No.26. Getulio Vargas Foundation (1968) Project~ons of Supjly and Demand for Agricultural Products or Brazil through 1985. Gislason, C. (1975) Producción del Arroz en Colombia, unpublished manuscript, OEA, Washington. Grant, H.R. (1967) nA model for estimating the costs of government export programs ror rice", Agricultural Economias Research,~: 77. Griliahes, Z. (1958) "Research costs and social returns: Hybrid corn and related innovations", Journal of Political Economy,~: ~19-31. Guti~rrez A., N. and Hertford, R. (197~) Una evaluación de la intervención del gobierno en el mercado de arroz en .Colombia~ CIAT, Folleto Técnico No.~, Cali. Harberger, A.C. (1970) "Economic policy problems in Latin America", Journal of Political Economy, 78: 1007-16. Harberger, A.~. (1972) Project Evaluatiori, MacMillan, London. Hayami, Y. and Ruttan, V.H. (1971) Agricultural Development: An International Perspective. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 154 Herdt, R.W. and Wickham, T.H. (1975) "Exp10ring the gap between potential and actual rice yieldi in the Philippines", Food' Reaearch Inatitute Studiea,~: 163-81. Hertford, R. (1976) "Returns to agricultural researcb in Colombia", in T.M. Arndt e~ al. (eda.) 197• • Hi11, F.F. and Hardin, L.S. (1971) "Crop production successea and emergin'g problems in developing countries", in K.L. Turk (ed.) Some lsaues Emer in from Recent Brea)-throu ha in Food Product10n, Cornell Un vers ty Press, tbaca. Hirkhljifer,J. (1970) Inveatment, Interest and Capital, Prentice-Ha1l Englewood cliffs. Hussain, S.M. (1974) "A note on farmer response to price in East Pakistan", Pakistan Development Review, 4: 93-106. Instituto Colombiano Agropeduario (1973) Los Insumos Agrope­ cuarios en Colombia, Tomos 1 y 11, Bogotl.· • Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (1974) Informe de Gerencia, Bogotá. Jallade, J.P. (1974) Public Expendit~res on Education and Income Distribution in Colombia, World Bank Staff OccasionQl ' Papera, No .18.' Jennings, P.R. (1961)"Historia del aultivo del arroz en Co­ lombia", Agricultura Tropical, 17: 79-89. Jennings, P.R. (1974)"Rice breeding and world food pro4~ctiann, Science, 186: 1085-88. Kawano, K. et al. (1974) "Intra-speaifia competition, compe­ tition with weeds and spaaing response in riae", Crop Seienee, 111: 841-45. Leurquin, P.P. (1967) "Riae in Colombia: A aase study in a g t' i a u 1 t u r a 1 d e ve 1 o p me n t", .:.F.::o:;:o:;d~R:.:.e::..::.s:::e.:::ac!r.::a:.:h~I::.n:.:.s:::...!:t.:!i..::t~u:.;t;.:e,,-S~t=u~do:.i:.::e:;::.a , 7: 217-303. Little, r.M.D. et al. (1970) Industt'y and Trade in Some Developing Countries: A Comparative Study, Oxfot'd University Press, Landon. Lopes Neto, A.S. (1975) "Meahanisms for alloaating resouraes in app1ied agricultural researah at EMBRAPA in Brazil", in Pinstrup-Andet'sen and Byrnes (eda.) 1975. L6pez F., R. (1966) Arroz, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Agronomía, Pa1mira. mimeo. 155 McNamara, R.S. f1973) Address to the Board of Governors, World Bank Group, Nairobi, Kenya. Mandell. P.I. (1971) "The rise of the modern Brazilian rice" industry: Demand expansion in a dynamic economy", rood Research Institute Studies, 10: 162-219." - Mandell, P.I. (1973)"A eKpansao da moderna rizicultura: creciento da oferta numa econ6mica din4mica", Revista Brasi­ leira de" Economia,~: 169-236. Mangahas, M.A. etal. (1966) "'rice and market relationships for rice and corn in the Philippines", American Journal of Agricultural Economics,!!: 655-703. " Mears, L. and Barker, R. (1966) "Effect of rice price policy on the growth of the Philippine economy: An analytical frame­ work" , Philippine Economic Journal,l: 130. Merrill,W.C. (1967)'''Setting the price of Peruvisn rice", American Journal of Agriculturgl Economics, liS: 389-1102. Ministerio de Agricultura (1972-1975) Programas Agr1colas, Oficina de Planeaci6n.Sector Agrop~cuario, Bogot4. Molta F., G.L. (1969) Estudio de los Consumidores de la Ciudad de Cali PMIUR, Informe T~cnico No.7, Cali. Montes, G. (1973) Evaluaci6n de un Programa de Investigaci6n Agrícola: El Caso de la Soya, Unpublished M.S. Thesis Uni- versidad de Los Andes, Bogotá. " Morrison, C. B. (19711) "A1I right, what about Cuba? ", Rice Journal, 11: p.lI. Nasol, R.L. (1971) "Demand analysis for rice in the Philippines", Journal of Agricultural Economics snd Development,!: 1-13. Pariago, E. (1969) An Evaluation of Agricultural Prices for Selected Food Products: Brazil, Unpub~ished Pb.D. thesis, Purdue University. Pastore, A.C. (1971a) "A oferta do productos agricolas no Brazil", Estudios Econ6micos,!: 35-70. Pastore, A.C. (1971b) "A oferta de productos agrícolas no Brazil", Pesquisa ePlaneajamento. 1: 171-2"311. Pearse, A. (1975) The Sociál and Economic Implications of Large-Scalelntroduction of New Varieties of Food Grain: An Overview Report, UNRISD, Geneva. 156 Peterson, W.L. (1967) "Returns to poultry research in the United States", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49: 656-69. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. and Byrnes, F.C. (eds.), (1975) Methods for Allocating Resources in Applied Agricultural Researc:h in Latin America. CIAT, series CE-l1, Cali. Ramalho de Castro, J.P. (1974) "An economic model for es­ tablishing priorities for agricultural researcb and a test for the Brazilian economy", Unpubllshed Pb.D. thesis, Purdue University. Riley, H. et al. (1970) Market Coordination in the Development of the Cauea Valley Region-Colombia, Miahigan State University, Latin America Studies Center, Researcb Report No.5. Rosero M., M.J. (1974) El Cultivo'del Arroz, ICA-FEDEARROZ, Manual de Asistencia Técnica, No.9 • • Rosero M., M.J. (1975) Informe Anual de Progreso: Programa Nacional de Arroz, ICA, Palmira. Schultz, T.V. (1964) Transforming Traditional Agricultui~. Yale University Press, New Haven. Saobie, G.M. and Johnson, P.R. (1974) "Protection and the exchange trade: An analysis of tbe New Zealand foreign exchange market ", Econom ia Record, 54: 534- 5 4 Secretaria de Agricultura (1966) Projections of Supply and Demand for Agricultural Products in Mexico to 1965, 1970, 1975, Banao de Mexico, Mexico. Slater, C.C. et al. (1969) Market Process in the aecipe Area of Northeast Brazil, Michigan State University, Latin American Studies Center, Researcb Report No.2. Swanberg, K.G. and Shipley, E. (1975) "The nutritional status of the rural family in East Cundinamarca, Colombia", Food Researah Institute Studies,~: 111-26. Timmer, C.P. (1974) "A model of rice marketing margins in Indonesia", Food Research Institute Studies, 12.: 145-67. Toyama, N.K. and Pescarin, R.M.C. (1970) "Projecoeo da oferta agrícola do Estado de Sao Paulo", Agricultura em Sao Paulo, 12: 1-97. U.S. Department of Agriculture (1971) Horld Demand Prospects for Grain in 1980 with Emphaaia on Trade by the Less Developed Countries, Foreign Agricultural Economía Report, No.75. U.S. Department of Agriculture (1972) Review of Vorld Rice Markets and Major Supplies, FAS-M-246. 151 U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975a) World Rice Study' Disappearance, Production, and Prica Relationships Used to Develop the Model, ERS-608. • U.S. Department of Agricultura (1915b) The Agricultural Situation in the Western Hemispbere: Review of 1914 and outlook for 1975, Foreign Agricultura} Economic Report No.103. U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975c) Rice Market News, 56: No.51. U.S. Department of Agriculture (1916), Rice Market News, 57: No.4. U.S. Department of Commerce (1975) "On resumption of trad. with Cuba: The issues defined", Interameriaan Economia Affairs, 29: 67-12. • Universidad Agraria (1969) Long Term Projections of Supply and Demand of Selected Agricultural Commodities through 1980, Programa de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo,La MOlina, Perú. Universidad Cat61ica (1969) Demand and Supply Projections for Agricultural Products, 1965-1980, Santiago. Van de Wetering, H. and Cures, M. (1966) Proyecciones de la Demandá de Productos Agropecuarios para los afias 1961-71, Ministerio de Agricultura, Oficina Sectorial d. Planifica­ ci6n Agraria, Lima. Villas, A.T. (1972) Estimativas de Funcoes de Oferta de Arroz para o Estado de Goias e Suas Implicacoea Economicas: Periodo 1948-1969, Unpublished M.S. thesis, Universidad Federal de Vicoaia, Wharton, C.J. (1969) "The green revolution: Cornucopia or pandora's box?n, Foreign Affairs, .7: 464-16. World Bank (1975) Priae Forecasts for Major Primary Com­ modities, Report No.Si4. Al'Pf:HVIX TABLf:S 159 APPENDIX TABLE 1 RICE AREA, PRODUCTION, YIELD AND TRADE IN LATIN AMERICA 1950 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS l!¡;T EXPORT s 'OOOhas '000 m.t t/ha ---------'000 ro. t . -------~ MEXICO 106 187. 1.7 28 Oa 28 Cuba 69 101¡ 1.5 o 293 -293 Other Caribbean 83 111¡ 1.3 O 54 - 5t¡ CARIBBEAN 152 218 1.4 O 347 -347 Belize 1 3- 3. O. O 1 - 1 Costa Rica 31¡ 53 1.5 o 2 - 2 El Salvador 11 22 2.0 O O O Guatemala 8 8 1.0 O 1 - 1 Honduras 11 17 1.5 O O O Nicaragua 16 23 1.'1 2 O 2 Panama 67 85 1.2 O· O O CENTRAL AMERICA 148 211 1.4 2 t¡ - 2 Argentina 47 141 3.0 O O O Bolivia 16 18 1.1 O 8 - a Brazil 1,967 3,182 1.6 95 o 9S Chile 23 40 1.7 12 O 12 Colombia 133 291 2.1 O 1 - 1 Ecuador S2 113 2.1 62 O 52 Fr. Guiana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana t¡6 112 2.t¡ 30 O 30 Paraguay 12 19 1.5 O O O Peru 51 207 4.0 O 26 - 26 Surinam la 50 2.7 4 O 4 Uruguay 12 37 3.0 11 O 11 Venezuela 36 39 1.0 O 28 - 28 SOUTH At1ERICA 2,413 1I,2t¡9 1.7 2111 64 150 LATIN AMERICA 2,819 4,a65 1.7 2t¡t¡ 415 -171 160 APPEHOIX TAllI,}; 1 (Continued) RICE AREA. PRODUCTION. YIELO ANO TRADt I11 LATIN AMERICA 1951 COUNTRY AREA PROOUCTION YIELO EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. tlha ---'-------'000 m.t. --------- !1EXICO 104 177 1.7 1 O 1 Cuha 74 116 1.5 O 291 -291 Oth el' C ar2'b b can 88 123 1. 3 O 62 - 62 CARIBBEAN 162 239 1.4 O 353 -353 Belize O 1 O 1 - 1 Costa Rica 28 38 1.3 O O O El Salvador 15 31 2.0 O 2 - 2 Guatemala 9 11 1.2 O 1 - 1 Honduras 11 18 1.6 O O O Nicaragua 19 26 1.3 8 O 8 Pan ama 66 86 1.3 O 4 - 4 CENTRAl, AHERrCA 14B 211 1.4 B B O Argentina 56 174 3.1 O O O ~ Bolivia 15 lB 1.1 O 9 - 9 lJrazil 1.873 2,93J. 1.5 165 O 165 Chil() 25 80 3 .2 2 O 2 Colombia 145 297 2.0 O 7 - 7 Ecuador 73 111 1.5 7 O 7 fr. Guyana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 45 113 2.4 31 O 31 Paraguay 9 16 1.7 O O O Peru 59 265 4.4 O 27 - 27 Surinam 19 5B 3.0 4 O 4 Uruguay 13 47 3.6 11 O 11 Venezuela 33 40 1.2 O 25 - 25 SOU!!! AllER! e A 2,167 ", ISO 1.7 220 69 151 LATIN AHERICA 2,781 4,777 1.7 229 430 -201 161 APPENDIX TADLE 1 (Continuad) RICE AREA, PRODUCTIO~, rIELD AND TRiDE IN LATllt A"tRICA 1952 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION HELD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPOR1S 'OOOhas '000 m. . t .. t/ha ----------'000 m. t. --------- XICO SI¡ 151 1.7 2 O 2 Cúba 63 167 2.6 O 215 -215 Other Caribbean 92 129 1.4 O 56 - 56 RIBBEAN 155 296 1.9 O 211 -211 Belize 1 1 1.0 .o 1 - 1 Costa Rica 29 41 1." O O O El Salvador 16 27 1.6 O O O Guatemala 8 10 1.2 O O O Honduras 10 17 1.7 O , O O Nicaragua 2 '1 31 1.2 5 O 5 Panama 67 92 1.3 O 3 - 3 NTRAL AflBRICA 155 219 1. " 5 4 1 Argentina .' 61 194 3.1 2 O 2 Bolivia 15 24 1.6 O O O Brazil 2,07? 3,072 1.'1 172 O 172 Chile 32 93 2 .9 O 4 - 4 Colombia 150 320 2.1 8 O 8 Ecuador 85 126 1.4 57 O 57 Fr. Guyana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 62 19'1 3.1 28 O 28 Paraguay 7 16 2.2 O O O Peru 66 277 '1.1 O 15 - 15 Surinam ?O 5'+ 2.7 9 O 9 Uru¡;;uay 15 53 3. 5 13 O 13 Venezuela " O !Jg 1.2 O 3 - 3 UT1! AI1r.RICA ? , ó ~ 5 4,I¡72 1.7 289. 23 266 TIN MII:RICA 1, O 1 ~ 5,138 1.7 296 298 - 2 162 ! APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA. PRODUCT.ION. YIELD AND TRADE In LATIN AME RICA 1953 I COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS 'OOOh.as '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m·. t. --------- '·IEXICO 9'1 151 1.5 O O O -Cuba 85 IBa 2.1 o 255 -255 Other Caribbean 93 133 1.4 :2 56 - 51¡ CARIBBEAN 178 313 1.7 2 321 -319 -Belize 1 1 1.0 O i 1 Costa Rica - 37 I¡S 1.2 O O O El Salvador 1 11 23 1.5 O O O Guatemala 10 11 1.1 O' O O Honduras . 11 18 1.6 1 O 1 nicaragua 34 50 1.'1 18 O 18 Panama - ?O 111 1 . U n " , n CEllTRAL Af.lERICA lfl6 262 1. '1 19 1 18 Argentina . 73 212 2.9 14 O 11¡ Bolivia 17 28 1.6 O 9 - 9 Brazil 2, l¡ 2 S 3,367 1.3 3 O 3 Chile 29 87 3.0 I¡ 6 - 2 Colombia 153 272 1.7 19 O 19 Ecuador 101 182 LB 33 O 33 rr. Guyana O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 53 135 2 .5 liO O liD Paraguay 9 20 2 .2 O O O Pel'u n.'3 259 3.7 1'+ O 1'+ Surinarn :>0 58 2.9 7 O .7 Uruguay 17 61 3.5 . 7 O 7 Venezuela ~ R 58 1.2 O 7 - 7 SOUTB AflERICA 1,01? 4,739 1.5 1'11 23 118 LATIN AIlr:RICA 1,'170 5,'¡65 1.5 162 345 -183 163 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Cont~nued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION, YIELD AND TRADE IN LATIN AMERICA 195~ COUNTR'i AREA PRODUCTION YIEtD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXrORTS 'OOOhas '000 m. t. t/ba ----------'000 m.t. --------- MEXICO 90 1:70 l.B O O O Cuba 93 2~5 2.6 O 197 -197 Other Caribbean 127 150 1.1 O q7 - 47 CARIBBEAN 220 345 1.7 O 244 -2"4 , BeU 'le 1 1 1.0 O 2 2 Costa Rica 311 38 1.1 O O O El Salvador 12 24 2.0 2 7 5 Guatemala 8 10 1.2 O 1 1 Honduras 10 17 l.7 O 2 '2 Nicaragua 18 25 1.3 10 O 10 Pan ama 111 9'1 1.1 O Q O CEllTRAL AHERICA ] f; t=, 21 11 1.2 12 12 O t Argentina r; r. 172 3.1 36 O 36 BOlivia ] 1) 29 1.& O O O Bra dI ¿,~1? 3,737 1. 11 O O O Chile ,1 n 93 3.1 1 O 1 Colombia 175 29 1, 1.6 O 31 - 31 Ecuador fi1 1 S'l :> • t¡ 20 O - 20 Fr. Guyanil O O O O 1 1 Guyana 5'1 1117 2 . ti 37 O 37 Paraguay 11) lB l.R O O Peru G2 249 11 • O 21 O 21 Surinam 22 77 3.5 6 O 6 Uruguay 20 69 3 .11 28 O 28 Venezuela ':? 1')2 1.1} O 2 2 SOUTU A1ICRICA '1,I);j~ S, 1 11 n 1.6 lllll 3 '1 11l¡ LATIN M1GRIC¡\ 1, 5 ~ '1 5,910 l. C, 160 290 -130 164 I APPENDlX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION. YIELD AND TRAD& IN LATIN AMERICA 1955 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS- MET EXPOR1'S 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. -------- MEXICO 16 210 2.1 O O O Cuba lH 318 2.3 O 108 -108 Other Caribbean 1:>8 150 1.1 O 65 - 65 CARIBBEAN 2C2 460 1.7 O 173 . -113 -Belize 1 1 1.0 O 1 - 1 Costa Rica 36 34 0.9 O 6 - 6 El Salvador 10 20 2.0 1 6 - 5 Guatemala , B 9 1.1 O 2 - 2 Honduras 11 18 1.6 O 2 - 2 Nicaragua 19 22 1.1 O 1 - 1 Panama 07 ' 98 1:1 O. O O CENTRAL ABERIeA 17'2 202 1.1 1 18 ~ 17 Argentina . .s 't lh4 a.o 32 O 32 Bolivia 19 32. 1.6 O 11 - 11 Brazi1 ?,555 3,489 1.3 3 O 3 Chile 28 511 1.9 O O O Colombia 188 320 1.7 O 2 - 2 Ecuador 59 126 2.1 21 O 21 Fr. Cuyana Q O O Q 1 1 Guyana - 58 130 2.2 54 O 54 Paraguay 'l 19 2.1 O - O Peru n 2',3 3. 6 O 19 - 19 Surinam ?2 65 2. él 12 O 12 I Uruguay In 64 3.3 8 O 8 Venezuela - 55 60 1.1 O 1 - 1 SOUT!! flflERICA :1,11:1 " ,766 1.5 130 34 16 LATIN MERICA 1,31'3 S,li46 1.5 131 225 - 94 - . 165 APPEIDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION, YIELD ARD TIADE IN LATIR AMSIICA 1956 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YISLD EXPORTS IMPORTS IET EIPORIS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- MEXICO 115 235 2.0 1 o 1 Cuba 162 369 2.2 O 136 -136 Other Caribbean 129 158 1.2 O 61 - 61 CARI13BEflN 291 527 1.8 O 197 -197 , Belize 1 2 2.0 O 1 - 1 Costa Rica 37 50 1.3 O .6 - 6 El Salvador 16 27 1.6 O . - l¡ Guatemala 8 la 1.2 o' 6 - 6 Honduras 12 20 1.6 O O O Nicaragua 25 30 1.2 O 5 - 5 Panama 85 96 1.1 O 1 - 1 CENTRAL MIERICA 184 235 1.2 O 23 - 23 Argentina 57 193 3.3 37 O 37 " Bolivia 17 27 1.5 . O 6 - 6 Bradl ?~S25 tl,072 1.6 103 O 103 Chile 2 ¡ " I¡ 2.0 O O O Colombia ' l'lf) 342 LB O O Ecuador 50 126 2~5 12 O 12 Fr. Guyana O O Q O 1 - 1 Guyana !) 1! 134 2 • t~ I¡ 2 O 42 Paraguay , 10 23 2.3 O O O Peru F, O 246 4,1 O O O Surinam 2S 71 :2 ; 8 15 1 14 Uruguay 3 57 6.3 35 O 35 Venezuela I¡ O '17 1.1 O O O -~ SOUTll AHr:RICA 1~Ofil 5,402 1.7 244 8 23\') LATIN MIr:RICA 3,ñ51 6,399 1.7 245 228 17 166 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) I RICE AREA. PRODUCTlon. YIELD AND TRADE. IN LATIR AHERICA 1957 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIEtD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t" -_ ... _----- MEXICO 117 240 2.0 6 O 6 C'uba 109 261 2.3 O 191 -191 Other Car:ibbean 129 75 0.5 O 78 - 78 CARIBBEAU 238 336 1.1¡ O 269 -269 . Beli>:e 1 2 2.0 O 1 - 1 Costa Rica 37 3 11 0.9 O 4 - 4 El Salvador 16 27 1.6 1 1 O Guatemala . 9 11 1.2 O 4 - 4 Honduras 13 21 1.6 O 1 - 1 Nicaragua 21¡ 33 1.3 2 1 1 Panama 09 a6 0.9 O 2 - :/ CEnTRAL AMERICA 18g 21/1 1.1 3 ·14 - 11 Argentina ~ 50 217 3.6 21¡ O 211 BOlivia 7 11 1.5 O 12 12 Brazil - 7,515 3,829 1.S O O O Chile 29 77 2.6 O 1 - 1 Colombia BO 350 1.8 O 10 10 Ecuador - 70 176 2.5 38 O 38 Fr. Guyana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 67 117 1.7 39 O 39 Paraguay ¡¡ 20 '2 .5 O O Peru O 71 285 4.0 O 20 20 Surinam - 28 55 1.9 11 1 I 10 Uruguay 17 SO 3./¡ 7 O 7 Venezuela 10 22 0.7 O O O SOUT!! AtlERICJI 1,011? 5,217 1.6 11'1 ',5 74 LATIN M!ERICA 3,531) h,007 1.6 128 328 -200 1 167 APPEKDIX TABLEl (Continued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTIOK, YIELD AND TRADE IN LATIN AIH:RICA 1958 COUNTRY AREA PROOUCTION YIELO EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m. t. ' t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- MBUCO 121 252 2.0 7 1 - 6 Cúba 110 253 2.3 O 193 -193 Other' Caribbean 131 179 1.3 O 83 - 83 CARIBBEAH 241 432 1.7 O 276 -276 'Belize 1 2 2.0 O 1 - 1 Costa Rica 115 57 1.2 O 5 - 5 El Salvador 13 20 1.5 1 1 O Guatemala 10 12 1.2 O 3 - 3 Hondur'as 11 lB 1.6 O 3 - 3 Nicarilgua 23 33 1.4 1 3 - 2 Panama 9S 11 '¡ 1.2 - O 1 - 1 CENTRAL, AHERI Cl, DB 256 1.2 2 17 - 15 , ArGentina 52 162 3.1 37 O 37 Bolivia 13 21 1.6 O 11 - 11 Brazil 2,68:1 '1,101 1. 5 52 O 52 Chile 41 33 2.0 O 4 - 4 Colombia 196 380 1.9 O O O Ecuador il'l 155 1.8 28 O 28 Fr'. Guyana O o O o 1 - 1 Guyana 74 152 2.0 18 O 18 Paraguay 7 16 2.2 O O O Peru 70 249 3.5 O 45 - 45 Surinam 31 85 2.7 15 2 13 Uruguay lfi 49 2.7 9 O 9 Venezuela 12 19 1.5 O I¡O - I¡O SOUTll /IllERICA 3,231 5,1.~72 1.6 159 103 56 - LA nll MIERICA 3,9 1,1 6,1¡12 1.6 168 397 -229 168 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA. PRODUCTION, TIELD AND TRADE IN I LATIN AMERICA 1959 I COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION TIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t .. --------- MEXICO 127 261 2.0 10 O 10 Cu'ba 168 326 1.9 O 203 - 203 Other Caribbean 127 176 1.3 O 77 - ,77 CARIBBEAN 295 502 1.7 O 280 - 280 'Belize 1 1 1.0 O 2 2 Costa Rica - Sil 55 O • 9 O 8 8 El Salvador - 9 19 2.1 l 1! 3 Guatemala - 11 15 1.3 , O' 1 l Honduras - 13 2l 1.6 O 1 1 ¡Hcaragua - 21 32 1.5 2 l 1 Panama 97 119 1.2 O 1 - 1 Cr:NTRA!. ABERleA 210 262 1.2 3 lB - 15 , Argentina 56 190 3.3 9 3 6 Bolivia 16 23 1.4 O 9 - 9 Brazil 2 .. t')66 4,795 1.6 10 O 9 Chile ti O no 2.7 o 9 - 9 Colombia 205 I¡ 22 2. O O O O Ecuador . R9 181\ 2.1 17 O 17 Fr. Guyana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 83 190 2.2 57 O 57 I Paraguay 7 15 2.1 1 O 1 Peru 87 350 4.1 O O O Surinam 29 79 2.8 18 O 8 Uruguay f 1'1 53 3.7 1 O 1 Venezuela 28 39 1.3 O 27 - 27 SaUT!! Af1ER ICA 1,f>11 6, '160 1.7 113 ~9 6~ , LATIN Al1ERICA I¡ ,251 7,I,8S 1.7 126 31!7 - 221 169 APPEIIDIX TABLE 1 CContinued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION, YIELD AIID TRADE IN LATIN AME RICA 1960 COUNTRY hRLA PRODUCTION YIELD ExrORTS HIPORTS MET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha -----;..----'000 m. t, --------- MEXICO 1'12 328 2.3 2 22 - 20 Cu'ba 160 323 LO O 160 - 160 Other Caribbean 138 172 1.2 O 81t - 81t CARIBBEAN 2'la 1t95 1.6 O 21t1t - 244 'Belize 1 1 1.0 O 2 - 2 Costa Rica 53 56 LO O O O El Salvador 11 19 1.7 1 4 - 3 Guatemala 10 14 1.4 O O O Ilondul:'as 4 7 1.7 1 :1 - 1 Nicaragua 21 34 1.6 1 O 1 Panama - 89 97 1.0 '1 - 1 CENTRAL ABERreA 189 228 1.2 3 9 - 6 Argentina ~ 'p; 149 3 • 2 5 1 4 BolIvia 28 59 2.1 O 2 - :1 Brazil 2,966 !i,795 1.6 O O O Chile 40 109 2.1 O 16 - 16 Colombia 227 '150 1.9 O O O Ecuador 76 175 2.3 27 O 27 Fr. Guyana O O o O O O Guyana 89 197 2.2 65 O 65 Paraguay 15 32 2.1 O O O Peru 87 358 '1.1 O 26 - 26 Surinam 30 al 2.7 23 O 23 Uruguay 14 53 3.7 6 e 6 Venezuela '12 72 1.7 e 27 - 27 seU!ll AHERIeA J,GGO 6,530 1.7 126 72 54 LATIN Al1ERICA !i,289 7,581 1.7 131 347 - 216 170 1 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION. YIELO AHD TRADE IN LATIN AMERICA 1961 ! COUNTR'i' AREA PRODUCTION YIELO EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- MEXICO 146 333 2.2 3 O 3 Cuba 150 213 1.4 O 185 - lB5 Other Caribbean 132 173 1.3 9 SO - 71 CARIBBEAH 282 386 1.3 9 265 - 256 ·Belize 1 1 1.0 O 1 - 1 Costa Rica 54 61 1.1 O O O El Salvador 9 17 1.8 2 :1 O Guatemala 9 13 1. I~ O O O Honduras 4 7 1.7 O 2 - 2 Nicaragua 24 39 1.6 O 6 - 6 Panama lOO 110 1.1 O. 1 - 1 • CENTRAL AMERICA 2 In 24(\ 1.2 2 12 - 10 r Argentina j 53 lB2 3.4 10 O 9 j Bolivia 30 60 2.0 O 4 - 4 Brazi1 3,17 1, 5,513 1,7 .. 151 O 151 Chile ',' '1 83 2.8 9 9 O Colombia 237 473 1.9 O 39 - 39 Ecuador 119 203 1.7 21 O 21 Fr. Guyana O O O O 1 1 Guyana - ).06 19'1 1.8 91 O 91 Paraguay 1 [~ 35 2.5 O O O Peru DI 332 4.0 O 9 - 9 I Surinam I 2S 72 .:1 • B 19 O 19 Uruguay 16 59 3.6 20 .0 20 Venezuela 58 81 1.3 O 12 - 12 SOUTl! A!1ERrc.~ 3., 9t~2 .- 7,287 1.8 321 74 2117 LATIN ,A.MERICA 4,571 .8 ,254 LR 335 351 - 16 171 APPENOIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION. YIELD ANO TRADE IN LATIN AME RICA 1962 , COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION ,YIELO EXPORTS IHPORTS NET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- HEXICO 13l¡ 289 2.1 63 O 63 Cuba 164 230 1.4 O 160 - 160 Other Caribbean 132 171 1.2 O 87 - 87 CARIBBEAH 296 lJOl 1.3 O 2lJ7 - 2'17 ,Belize 1 1 l. O ' O O O Costa Rica 50 62 1.2 O O O El Salvador 11 24 2.1 1 4 - 3 Guatemala 10 16 1.6 O O O Honduras 5 1 1.4 1 nicaragua 1 O 1.6 'Panama ~~ ~ 7 ~ I~ .1. 1 1 T 1 CI:¡ITRAL AHERICA 200 258 1.2 5 12 - 7 Argentina 52 170 3.4 38 " O 38 Bolivia 30 62 2.0 O 8 - 8 Drazil 3,350 5,443 1.6 IPl O 44 Chile 33 81l 2. 5 25 6 19 Colombia 280 585 2.0 4 3 1 Ecuador 110 209 1.9 5 O 5 Fr. Guyana o O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 100 203 2.0 80 O 80 Paraguay 16 37 2.3 O l - 1 Peru 87 374 4.2 O 1 - 1 SurinaP.l 27 79 2.9 21 O ' 21 Uruguay 18 61 3.3 25 O 25 Venezuela 69 103 1 .1, O 4 . - 4 " SOUTll A!lI:RICA '1 ,172 7,t11B 1.7 242 24 218 LATIN AHERICA ",802 9,366 1.7 310 283 27 - 172 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RiCE AREA, PRODUCTION, !IELD AND TRADE IN LATIN AMERICA 1963 COONTR! AREA PRODOCTION !IELD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS . 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha --.:.-------'000 m·. t .. --------- MEXICO 135 296 2.1 O 2 - 2 Cuba 85 HO 1.6 O 1011 -1011 Other Caribbean 60 ll8 1.9 ·0 83 - 83 CAR!BBEAI~ 1 115 258 1.7 O 187 -187 ·Belize O O O O 4 - 4 Costa Rica 5 " 64 1.1 O O O El Salvador 9 20 2.2 :> 2 O Guatemala 11 18 1.6 O O O Honduras 4 6 1.5 O O O Nicaragua n 29 1.3 1 10 - 9 Panama 103 111 1.0 O 4 - 4 CENTRAL AMERICA 202 248 1.2 3 20 - 17 Argentina 54 r 190 3.5 1 1l O . 1 t¡ Bolivia 32 65 2.0 O O O Brazil 3,722 5,580 1." O O O Chile 33 86 2.6 O 12 - 12 Colombia 254 550 2.1 3 O 3 Ccuador 110 211 1.9 34 O 34 Fr. Guyana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana B2 161 1.9 73 O 73 Paraguay 15 28 1.8 O O O Peru 73 270 3.6 O 43 - 113 Surinam 28 75 2.6 22 O 22 Uruguay 21 77 3.6 14 O 111 Venezuela 74 131 1.7 O 3 - 3 ¡ 1 SOU!!! AHERICA 11,49 !3 7,421> 1.6 160 59 101 t i • LATIN AMERICA 4,980 8,226 1.6 163 25·8 -105 J I 173 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA. PRODUCTION, YltLD AND TRADE IN LATIN AMERICA 1964 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m. t. --------- MEXICO 133 274 2.0 O 3 - 3 Cuba 71 123 1.7 O 152 -152 Other Caribhean 78 142 1.8 O 113 -113 CARIBllEAll 149 265 1.7 O 265 -265 ·Belize O 2 - 2 Costa Ríen 55 70 1.2 O O O El Salvador 15 31 2.0 2 1 1 Guatemala 11 20 1.8 1 - 1 Honduras 6 S 1..3 O 2 - '2 Nicaragua 23 43 1.8 1 '9 - B Pan ama - 121 120 1.0 O 5 - 5 CENTRAL M1ERICA 231 300 1.2 4 19 - 15 , Argentina 58 2G8 3. 9 6 O 6 Bolivia 28 63 2.2 O O O Brazil 1.1,182 6,114 1.4 12 O 12 Chile 31 92 2.9 O 13 - 13 Colombia 302 600 1.9 O O O Ecuador 110 164 1.4 11 O 11 Fr. Guyana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 125 244 1.9 79 O 79 Paraguay 15 37 2.3 O O O Peru 82 351 '1. 2 O 49 - '19 Surinam JO 88 2.9 14 O 1'1 Uruguay 21 47 2.2 26 O 26 Venezuela 'll H6 1.8 O 2 - 2 SOU'",! ! AMERICA 'J O l S7 8,23'+ 1.6 148 55 83 LA1'IN AHJ::RICA' 5,GOO 9,073 1.6 152 352 -200 174 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continue'd) RICE AREl'., PRODUCTION, YIELD AND TKADE IN LATIN AI1ERICA 1965 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- MEXICO 153 287 1.8 O 24 - 24 Cuba 38 55 1.4 O 258 -258 Other Caribbean 72 167 2.3 O 85 - S5 CARIBBEAI 110 222 2.0 O 3lJ3 -343 ,Belize - - O 1 - 1 Costa Rica 56 74 1.3 O 5 - 5 tI Salvador 13' 32 2.lJ S 3 2 Guatemala 10 17 1.7 3 O 3 Honduras 8 9 1.1 2 2 O Nicaragua 25 48 1.9 :2 9 - 7 Panama 133 152 1.1 O O o CENTRAL MIERICA 245 332 1.3 12 20 - 8 Argentina v I¡ 7 165 3 • 5 35 O 35 Bolivia 27 1j2 1.5 O O O Brazil '1 , /) O 5 7,580 1.8 236 - 236 Chile 3l 71 2.2 O 12 - 12 Colombia 3 '/ t¡ 672 1.7 O O O Ecuador 90 173 1.9 O 6 - 6 Fr. Guyana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 136 258 1.8 95 O 95 Paraguay 16 37 2.3 O O O. Peru 75 294 3.9 O 115 -115 ,l Surinam 29 90 3.1 21 O 21 Uruguay 28 90 :3 .2 20 O 20 í Venezuela 105 200 1.5 20 j " 16 1 1 SOUTII AIIl::RICA Jr , 1) 6 3 9,672 1.9 Ij 27 138 289 l. LATIN Al1ERIC,' 5,1171 10,513 1.9 1j39 525 - B6 1 J 175 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA, PROOUCTION, rIELD AND TRADE IN LATIN AMERICA 1965 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION rlELD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS , 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha -------'---'000 m.t. --------- MEXICO 165 390 2.3 O 8 - 8 Cuba 32 68 2.1 O 140 -140 Othar Caribbean 116 23;1 2.0 O 87 - 87 CARIBBEAN 148 301 2.0 O 227 -227 . Belize 2 1 O. 5 O 1 - l Costa Rica. se, 82 1.4 O 6 - 6 El Salvador 20 47 2.3 7 6 1 Guatemala 12 18 1.5 O 4 - 4 Honouras 5 5 1.0 O 7 - 7 Nicaragua 2 f~ 56 2.3 2 13 11 . Panamil 131 140 LO O O O CENTRAL AHERICA 250 349 1.3 9 37 - 28 .. Argentina 62 217 3.5 46 O 46 Bolivia 2ll 47 L6 O 2 - 2 Brazi1 1, , 2 ~ 1 5,050 1.1 278 O na Chile 29 89 3.0 O 32 - 32 Colombia 350 680 1.9 O O O Ecuador 100 204 2.0 23 O 23 Fr. Guyana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 125 249 1.9 109 O 109 Paraguay 17 38 2.2 O O O Peru gl3 374 3.8 O 58 - 58 Surinam 29 98 3.3 20 O 20 Uruguay 32 107 3.3 45 O 45 Venezuela 10'! 210 2.0 50 4 46 -- SOUTII M1ElUCA ",263 7,363 1.3 571 97 474 LATIN AHERrCA 5,02f' 8,~O3 1.4 580 369 211 I 176 API'ENDIX 'lABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION, fIELD AND TRADE IN LATIN AMJ:RICA 1967 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION y tELD EXPORTS IMPORTS MET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- MEXICO 167 430 2.5 O O O Cúba t¡4 94 2.1 O 31 - 31 Other Caribbean 130 195 1.5 O 101 -101 CARIBBEAU 174 289 1.6 O 132 -132 Belize 2 3 1.5 O 1 - 1 Costa Rica 60 06 1.4 1 6 - 5 El Salvador 28 72 2. 5 lI! 1 13 Guatemala 13 20 1.5 O 2 - 2 Honduras 7 O 1.1 O 7 - 7 Hicaragua 25 64 2.4 O 10 - 10 Panama . 1? q I ~ 1 1 1 o n n CENTRAL AHERICA 2f;5 110 1, 1 .. 5 15 27 - 12 Al'gentina ~ 71 2(l3 3.9 34 O 34 Bolivia 38 66 1.7 O O O Bl'azi1 11,558 5.600 1.2 32 O 32 Chile 32 'J 1, 2.9 O 14 - 14 Colombia 290 661· 2. 2 O O o Ecuador 105 lB2 1.7 O O O Fr. Guyana O O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 103 198 1.9 102 O 102 Paraguay 17 39 :2. 2 O O O Peru 107 461 4 • 3 O 72 - 72 Surinal'1 3'1 120 3 .5 18 4 14 Uruguay 34 116 3.4 37 O 37 Venezuela 11 11 223 1.9 63 O 63 SOUT!! AHERICA ; - 5,503 0.043 1.4 286 91 195 j ,.- - ! LATIN A~jER!CA ~,100 9,166 1.5 301 250 51 I APPENPIX TABLE 1 (CQntinued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION, YIELD AND TRADE IN LATIN AMERICA 196B COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS MET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --_ ... _---- MEXICO 157 365 2.3 116 O 116 Cu'ba 08 100 1.1 O 1115 -1115 Other Caribbean 130 223 1.7 O 112 -112 CARIBDEAN 218 323 1.4 O 267 -267 , Belize 2 :< 1.0 O 2 - 2 Costa Rica 35 56 1.6 1 3 - 2 El Salvador 27 74 2.7 23 20 3 Guatemala 1 '1 24 1.7 2 3 - 1 Honduras 6 7 1.1 2 7 - 5 Nicaragua 32 67 2.0 2 12 - 14 Panama 179 157 1 2 O O O CENTRA ¡, At1ER 1 CA ¿Ji 5 387 1.5 30 47 - 17 Argentina Be 345 3.9 41 O 41 .- Boljvia 35 58 1.9 o O o Brazil '-1,) 5 ~1 3 5,300 .1.1 143 o 143 Chile 16 37 2.3 O 14 - 14 Colombia 277 786 2.8 O O O Ecuador 60 127 2.1 O 4 - 4 Fr. Guyana O O O O O O Guyana 127 . 214 1.6 96 O 96 Paraguay 16 47 2.9 O 1) O· Peru 76 286 3.7 O 29 - 29 Surinarn ~5 116 3 .3 30 O 30 Uruguay 11 104 3.3 19 O -19 Venezuela 115 245 2.1 33 5 28 SOUTII AMJ:RICA .- 5 , tl? 9 7,675 1.4 362 52 310 LATIN ABERICl, r)~OI.~9 8,750 1.4 l¡38 366 72 179 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION, YIELD AND TRADE IN LATIN AME RICA 1969 COUNTRY ARtA PRODUCTION YIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS MET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- ~IEXICO 167 3&1 2.1 O 5 - 5 Ctiba l'I6 205 1.1¡ O 155 155 Other - Caribbean 1'15 21<4 1.6 O 105 - 105 ,¡ 1 CARIBBEAl, 291 41¡9 1.5 O 260 - 260 -Belize 2 2 1.0 O O O Costa Rica 3S 62 1.7 5 O 5 El Salvador 22 33 1.5 12 6 11< Guatemala 14 2S 1.7 1 3 2 Honduras 5 6 1.2 O 1 - 1- Nicaragua 3:1 67 1.7 6 O 6 Panama 126 164 l.3 O O O CE!lTRAL AHERICII ¿113 359 1.4 2 '1 . 10 11< Argentino 102 !¡ 07 3.9 7/j O 71¡ .' Bolivia 35 58 1.6 O O O Bl'ilzil '1,595 5,595 1.2 70 O 70 Chile ~r LO 76 3.0 O 67 - 67 Colombia 250 69/j 2.7 16 O 16 Ecuador 109 233 2.1 O 5 - 5 Fr. Guyana (l O O O 1 - 1 Guyana 113 173 1.5 74 O 71< Paraguay 20 58 2.9 O O O Peru 132 480 3.6 O SO - 50 Surinam 36 120 3.3 15 O 15 Uruguay 2A 134 4.7 68 O 68 Venezuela 1 ?:1 21¡1j 1.9 '1 5 Ij SOUT!! MIERICA 5,570 0,272 l. " 326 128 198 LATIN AHERICA 6,271 9,1¡l;1 1.5 350 1<03 - 53 ,179 APPENOIX TABtE 1 (Continuad) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION, YIELD AND TRAOE IN LATIN AMERICA 1970 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIELO EXPORTS IMPORTS MET EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha -----~----·OOO m.t. --------- MEXleo 200 330 1.6 O 16 - 16 Cuba 128 325 2.5 O 139 - 139 Other Caribbean 151 267 1.7 O 107 - 107 CARIBBEAN 279 593 2.1 O 211 6 - 211 5 -Belize 2 3 1.5 O 2 - '2 Costa Rica 36 66 1.8 O O O El Salvador 27 111 1.5 3 O 3 Guatemala 14 26 1.8 2 2 O Honduras 5 6 1.2 O O O Nicaragua 43 68 1.5 20 O 20 Pan ama 122 155 1.2 O O O CENTRAL AMERICA 249 365 1.11 25 . II 21 , Argentina 77 288 3.7 91 O 91 BOlivia 37 62 1.8 O O O Brazil lI,125 6,315 1.5 9S O 95 Chile 26 73 2.8 O 17 - 17 Colombia 233 752 3.2 5 O 5 Ecuador 85 184 2.1 O 1 1 fr. Guyana O O O O 1 1 Guyana 119 222 1.8 67 O 67 Paraguay 20 58 2.9 O O O Peru 133 601 lI.S O 6 - 6 Surinam 36 120 3.3 20 O 20 Uruguay 37 ,140 3.7 lI2 O 42 Venezuela 110 2411 2.2 60 5 55 SOUTIl Al'IERICf, 5,038 9,059 1.7 380 30 350 LA T IN AMERICA 5 ,766 10, 347 1 .7 405 296 - 109 i, 180 , APPE1{D'IX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA. PRODUCTION, YIELD. AND T.RADE IN LATIN. AMERICA i 1971 j j COUNTRY ARtA PRODUCTION YIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS NET EXPORTS ¡ "OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- ,1 1. MEXICO 169 338 2.0 O 1 1 ¡1 - Cuba 130 330 2.5 O 284 - 284 1, Other Caribbean 183 312 1.7 O 114 - 114 I i CARIBBEAN 313 642 2.0 O 398 - 398 ¡ ¡i . Belize 2 3 1.5 O 2 - 2 , Costa Rica 40 74 LB O 16 - 16 1, El Salvador 28 43 1.5 3 4 - 1 1, Guatemala 1 1 , 1 26 1.8 O 2 - 2 Honduras * 7 6 O 3 - 3 I Nicaragua 4S 72 1.6 8 O a ,l Panama 125 165 1.3 O 23 - 23 J CENTRAL flHERICfI ! 261 389 1.l¡ 11 SO - 39 1 Argentina ~ 93 315 3 • 3 82 O 82 ¡ Bolivia 38 77 2.0 O O O Brazil 4,400 5,130 1.1 149 2 147 Chile 31 70 2.2 O 50 - SO ¡ Colombia 254 90l¡ 3. 5 O O O ! Ecuador 80 175 2.1 O O O Fr. Guyana i O O O 37 7 30 Guyana I 94 lB5 1.9 69 O 69 Paraguay 20 60 O O O 1 Peru ~ • O 137 616 4.4 O O O Surinam 36 120 3. 3 35 35 Uruguay O 28 106 3.7 74 O 74 Venezuela ! 110 206 LB O 4 - 4 SOUT!! AlIERIC A 5,321 7,96l¡ 1.l¡ "46 63 383 1 ' LATIN MltRICA 6,06t¡ 9,333 1.5 1¡57 512 - 55 I J 181 APPEIIOIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA, PROOUCTION, YIELO ANO TRAOE IN LATIII AME RICA 1972 COUHTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIELD EXPORTS IMPORTS HE! EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- MEXlCO 165 420 2.5 16 1 15 Cuba 1110 350 2.5 O 256 -256 Other Caribbean 147 291¡ 2.0 O 138 -138 CARIBBEAN 287 6411 2.2 O 394 -391¡ . Belize 2 I¡ 2.0 O 2 - 2 Costa Rica 32 89 2.7 O 2 - 2 El Salvador 11 36 3.2 O 1 - 1 Guatemala 16 38 2.3 O 2 - 2 Honduras 15 16 1.0 O 5 - 5 Nicaragua 26 74 2.8 5 O 5 Panama 105 125 1.1 O 6 - 6 CENTRAL AHERICA 207 382 1.11 5 18 -13 ,- Argentina 83 294 3.5 8 O 8 Bolivia !¡ 6 76 1.6 1 O 1 Brazil 11, B 21 7,100 1.4 1 9 - 8 Chile 26 86 3.3 O 55 -55 Colombia 273 1,043 3.8 3 O 3 Ecuador 61 171 2.8 O O O Fr. Guyana O O O 33 1 32 Guyana 80 147 LB 71 O 71 Paraguay 22 39 1.7 O O O Peru 131 552 4.2 O O O Surinam '10 130 3.2 33 O 33 Uruguay 31 128 4.1 45 O 45 Venezuela 1"; 5 165 2.5 O 2 - 2 SOUTH A1IERICA ;,~F.?9 9,931 1.7 195 67 128 LATlN AME RICA f:., J r, B 11,371 1.7 216 480 -26'4 1 182 ¡ APPENOIX TAELE 1 (Continued) ,I RICE AREA. PRODUCTION, YIELO AND TRAOE IN LATIN AHERICA 1973 COUNTRY. AREA PRODUCTION YIELO EXPORTS IMPORTS liET EXPORTS I i I 'OOOhas 'ODOro.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. ---- .... ---- i HEUCO 170 408 2.4 12 38 - 26 ! Cuba 150 375 2.5 O 220 -220 I OtÍler Caribbean' 1l¡5 271 1.8 O 1~0 -140 CARIBBEAH 296 646 2.1 O 360 -360 1 1 ·Belize 2 l¡ 2.0 O 2 - 2 j j Costa Rica 32 90 2.8 O l - 1 El Salvador 7 26 3.7 O 1 - 1 J Guatemala 19 38 2. O O 2 - 2 ~ Honduras H 17 1.0 O 5 - 5 ,! Nicaragua 28 al 3.0 O o o ?anama 105 162 1.5 . O 1 - l 1 1 j CElITRAL AMERICA 209 4 lB 2.0 o 12 - 12 l Argentina ~ f 77 260 3.7 34 O 34 Bolivia 11} j 69 1.6 O O O Brazi1 1" 'lOO 7,500 1 . 5 33 6 27 j ; Chile 19 55 2.8 O 53 - 53 j Colombia 2'J0 1,175 l¡.0 20 O 20 Ecuador &11 152 2.3 O 5 - 5 Fr. Guyana O O Q 30 1 29 Guyana 93 99 1.0 48 O 48 Paraguay ·22 44 2.0 O O O Peru J27 451 3.1 55 O 55 Sur inarn '1 1 138 3.3 3& O 36 Uruguay 35 137 3.9 65 O 65 Venozue1a 136 272 2 • () 7 O 7 SOUTH AHERICA :),fl1l-S 10,352 1.7 328 65 263 - LATIN AMERrCA G,')20 11,824 1.8 3l¡0 l¡75 -135 183 APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued) RICE AREA, PRODUCTION, YIELD AND TRADE IN LATIN AME RICA 19111 COUNTRY AREA PRODUCTION YIEtD EXPORTS IMPORTS NE! EXPORTS 'OOOhas '000 m.t. t/ha ----------'000 m.t. --------- MEXICO 170 408 2.4 O . 100 -100 Cuba 160 400 2.5 O 220 -220 Other Caribbean 122 214 1.7 O 160 -160 CARIBBEAN 282 6111 2.1 O 380 -380 , Belize 2 " 2.0 O 2 - 2 Costa Rica 55 143 2.6 O O O El Salvador 10 34 3.1¡ O O O Guatemala 21 67 3 .1 O O O Honduras 12 23 1.9 O 4 - 11 Nicaragua 27 73 2.7 27 O 27 Panama . 1 1 5 1 5 q 1 .3 Q o o CENTRAL AHERIC!\ 2 1,2 503 2 .1 27 6 21 . Argentina (TI APPENDTX TABLE 3 Distribution of Farms and Rice Araa where Rice is the Princ!fBl Crop: Uplan¿ Seetora of Colombia: By Farm Size; 1959 :~umber Area IAre~ PERCEtlTAGE OF: CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES OF: Farr:¡ S ize of of !per Rice I Farm Upland Farms Total 70tal Upland Tatal Upland Total Upland Total Area Area Farms Farms Area Area Farms Farms has. no. nas. has. o.•. % % % % % % % O - 0.5 300 145 0.48 -b -b 1 -b - - - - 0.5 - 1 1,331 691 0.52 1 -b 3 2 1 - 3 2 1 - 2 3,887 2,888 0.74 2 1 9 7 3 1 12 9 2 - 3 3,553 3,811 1. 07 3 2 e 7 6 3 20 16 3 - '+ 2,792 3,710 1.33 3 :2 6 5 9 5 26 21 4 - 5 2,211 3,515 1.59 2 2 5 4 11 7 31 25 5 - 10 6,238 11,410! 1. 83 8 5 14 12 19 12 45 37 10 - 20 5,227 14,340 2.,3 o 10 6 14 12 29 lB 59 49 20 - 30 3,265 8,545 2.6:2 5 4 7 6 35 22 66 54 30 - 40 2,399 6,803 2,84 5 3 5 5 40 25 71 59 40 - 50 1,876 6,117 3.26 4 3 1+ 4 44 28 75 63 50 - 100 5,223 21,543 4.12 15 10 11 10 59 38 87 73 100 - 200 3,235' 18,982 5.87 13 a 7 6 72 ,1<6 94 79 200 - 500 1,915 17,943 9.37 13 8 4 4 85 54 98 83 500 - 1,000 528 9,865 18.68 7 4 1 1 92 58 99 84 1,000 - 2,500 251 5,648 22.50 5 2 1 -b 97 60 100 85 2,500 + 168 4,758 28.32 3 2 -l) -h 100 ',62 100 85 - - - - ..... Totals 45,399 140,711< 3.10 100 62 .100 85 ----_._.- ----_._.- .... a Departments of Antioquia, Bolivar, Boyaca, Cardaba, Meta, Narifio and Santander. b Less than 0.5% ........... ,~-"" ......' _.,. ..._ ,~"-~"""","""~,."""'., •• ~-,....- ,J"... __, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. .. ' __, _,"'"_""- _ .• ,...,.,_,.,.,"""",• .•• __ ,,,.,,_,_ _ '~"",,,",_.,.,,",, __~ ",_.,~.,,,,_,,,'<4<_ =_ ;.,~_ """""" _... .... _,, _ APPENDIX TAllLE ~ Distribution of Farms and Rice Area where Rice is the Principal Crop: Irrigated Seetora of Colombia: By Farm Size: 1959 ¡:1umber " Areal Are a PERCENTAGE OF: I CU:IULATlVEPERCEN'l'AGES OF: I :'arr.:. Síze I of, of I per I ' I ?armsl R. ' ce II Farm Irrigated¡Totalllrrigated Total Irr~gated Total lrrigated Total ~ Area A~ea Farms Farms Area Area Farms ,Farms has. no. has. has. 95 % % % " " 'ti • O - 0.5 20 13 0.65 -b -b -b -b - - - - 0.5 - 1 152 49 0.32 -b -b 2 -b - - 2 - - 1 - 2 490 355 0.72 -b -b 6 1 - - 8 1 2 2 428 402 0.94 -b -b 5 1 13 2 3 - - - 4 256 245 0.96 -b -b 3 1 - - 16 3 t; - 5 168 284 1.63 -b -b 2 1 2 1 18 '+ 5 - 10 757 1,443 1.91 2 1 10 1 '+ 2 28 5 la - 20 942 3,009 3.19 3 1 12 2 7 3 40 7 20 - 30 69'1 2,714 3.91 3 1 9 1 10 '1 ~9 8 30 - 40 589 2,820 '1.79 3 1 7 1 13 5 56 ~ 40 - 50 401 2,223 5.54 3 1 5 1 16 6 61 10 50 - 100 1,282 9,570 7.46 11 '1 17 :1 27 10 78 12 100 - 200 899 13,761 15.31 16 6 11 2 43 16 89 14 200 - 500 549 21,639 39.42 25 10 7 1 6S 26 96 15 500 - 1,000 15~ 13,950 85.06 16 6 2 -b S'I 32 98 15 L, Oo o - 2,500 67 7,562 112.87 9 3 1 -o 93 35 99 15 2,500 ... 26 6,039 232.27 7 3 -o -b 100 38 100 15 rotals 7,SB4 86,078 10~92 100 3B 100 15 - - - - ---_.- --_.- a Departments of Atlantico, Caldas, Cauca,Cundinamarca, Huila, Magdalena, Norte de Santander, Tolima and Valle. ' ~ b ~ Less thán 0.5% ~ APPEUDIX TABLE 5 Distributlon of Farms and Rice Area where Rice is the Principal Crop: Colombia: By Farm Size: 1959 . ~ Percentq.ge Cumulat~ve :¡uf.1b~r I Area Ared ,¡ of: of cf Percentage of per Percentage of Farms Farffi Size Farms IRice Total Total Total Total With lrrigatíon ¡Fa.!'1'l1 Ar~a No. of Area No. of Farms Farms has. no. has. has. % ".. % % % O - O. 5 320 158 0.49 -a 1 - 1 6 0.5 - 1 1,~83 7~O 0.50 -a 3 - ~ 10 1 - 2 ~,377 3,2l1S 0.7~ 1 8 1 12 11 2 - 3 3,981 4,312 1. 06 2 7 3 - 19 11 3 !¡ 3,048 3,955 1. 30 2 6 5 25 B 4 - S 2,379 3,799 1. 60 2 l¡. 7 29 1 5 - la 6,995 12,853 1. 84 6 13 13 42 11 la - 20 7,169 17.,349 2.42 8 14 21 56 13 20 - 30 3,959 11,259 2.84 S 7 26 63 lB 30 ., 40 2,988 9,623 3.22 l¡. 6 30 69 20 40 - 50 2,277 a.3~0 3.66 4 4 34 73 18 50 - 100 6,505 31,113 4.78 13 12 47 B5 20 100 - 200 4,134 32.743 7.92 ll1 8 61 93 22 200 - 500 2,464 39,582 16.06 17 5 78 98 22 500 .- 1,000 592 23,815 34.lIl 11 1 89 99 24 1,000 - 2,500 318 13,210 41.54 6 1 95 . 100 21 2,500 + 194 10,797 55.65 5 -a .. 100 100 13 Tota1s 53,2S3 226,792 lI.25 100 100 - - 15 ~~_._.- .... a m Less than 0.5% ti> "'''''''_. ... _,''"- ,1;. ...- __' ....... ' ..." ..... ~.~"'.....,., ' __~ "''''v. . '''',,', 'j[.""-' ...... ,""""'" '_, •. ......,-...-...,'k_""""""" "'""" ,"' .... _'~_,,"'" '_W"",,,,_,,,,,,,,_~ __ , """"'-~, ... "".,,-.-,""._ '~"",,, ..... ---~---- APPElIDIX TABLE 6 Dist~ibution of Rice Farms, A~ea, Yields and P~oduction by Farm' Size: Color.;~ia: 1966 , Farr.l TI 7ot 1 ';l ........ duclr~ ,\"""o~a> -1 !1~,!'''.\\'.'.,''.'..'',' ''~'' I iY';, .. ,.--i ,!;".}V-"-\/"-"\"l,., I --... -... -; ............ . Percentage of: ¡i CPeurmcueInatlve .. - .. I - - 1 '- - --- tages of: :-:!a.r"" ........ ~"""" ... ~"~_""~,.,> .. "'._' .... ..u~~, __ '-'_ __* '''-........ y"......".".""'~'-""" ..' ""'_,"""',. . _,. .. ___, . .... __~ '-' __ -'_~,~_,,"_'_"~ APPENDIX TABLE 12 Estimates of the Add1tional Irrigated Area Sown due to the Presenoa of BYV·.: Colombia: 1968-1974 Assumption (A) .C:pland Sector ¡ Irri.o:ated Sector Year Area a in I I AREA Absence v.... :'l -e_1 .~... b Pr0ductlor. ¡! .v,..a,. ._._· O~.'" Irriga~ed "" 1 of HYV's Production b Yield Required Actual Additional :¡;l"'1ar.¿ (A ) ( JI. ) :1 eeded N ,1: (.A l , t) (AA,t) has. kg/ha m. t • m.t. m.t. kg/ha ------------has.------------- 1968 196,977 1,568 323,558 696,732 368,174 4,221 87,224 126,925 39,701 1969 201,656 1,637 330,111 71t2,'l68 412,857 4,092 100,894 115,890 14,996 1970 206,037 1,637 337,282 792,272 1+51+,990 4,945 92,010 112,100 20,090 1911 209,822 1,590 333,617 > 81+1+,847 511,230 5,061 101,011+ 144,380 43,366 1972 213,905 1,555 332,622 900,911 568,289 5,174 109,836 170,620 60,764 1973 217,392 1.556 338.,252 960,695 622.433 5,318 117,043 192,020 74,977 1974 220,581 1,570 346,312 1,024,447 678,134 5,200 130,410 272,950 142,540 - - ~ a From r"~ gure 7 . ~~ b From Table 11. ... .. ~ """"''f'" "'", ",M! * MM J_ id. Y.' ,4$ LA" APPENDIX TABLE 13 Estimates of the Additiona1 lrrigated Area Sown due to the Presenca of HYV's: Colombia: 1963-197' Assumpt ion (B) I _ ... _ ....... _---] Upland Sector I Irrigated ::;ector "leal" Area in IAbsence Yie1da Production Nationa1 Production YieId a AREA jOf Demand ¡¡eeded Required Actual Additional HYV's . ( B ) (AN,t) (Ar,t) (AA,t) has kg!ha m. t • m. • t . m. t . kg!ha ------------has.-------------- 1968 130,925 1,666 216,383 696,732 478,349 4,221 113,326 126,925 13,599- 1969 130,925 1,637 214,324 7!¡2,968 528,644 4,092 129,190 115,890 ° 1970 130,925 1,637 21!¡,324 792,272 577,948 4,91¡.S 116,875 112,100 O i 1971 130,925 1,590 208,171 844,847 636,676 5,061 ] 125,800 144,380 18,580 1972 130,925 1,555 203,588 900,911 697,323 5,174 134,774 170,620 35,846 1973 130,925 1,556 203,719 960,695 756,976 5,318' 142,342 192,020 49,679 1974 130 1,570 205,552 1,024,·447 818,895 5,200 157,480 272,950 115,470 1 '925 a From Tab1e 11. ."<.'.O". eH' t 11 ~. ___, \ '"........,,,. ., __~ ""'_'J:. ___~ _____. .....,., ....._ ,_.'"'_, ___' ''''''''~'' ........... ~_'""''''''',~ ___ . __. ." ""~ _____" """"" ______ ~._. ______ .~~. ..~ , ______ APPENDIX TABLE 1~ Sorne PUblished Estimates of Price and Ineome Elastlcities for Rice .¡ Country Priee Elastieity ~r Ineome Souree R~gion Suppl,,:' Jer:a~¿ j :::lasticity Afghanístan 0.6 FAO (1971) Albania O. 3 FAO (1971) Algeria 0.4 FAO (1971) Angola 1.0 FAO (1971) Argentina 0.4 -0.3 USDA (1971) Argentina 0.1 FAO (1971) Argentina -0.~35 0.536 de Janvry et al. (1972) Asia and Far rast 0.3 FAO (1971) Australia 0.0 FAO (1971) Australia and New Zealand 0.3 -0.3 USDA (1971) Austria 0.3 FAO (1971) Bangladesh 0.13 (SR)a -0.lB05 Cummings (1974 ) 0.19 (LR)b Belgium - .... ID Luxemburg O • 2 E'AO (1971) '" APPENDIX TABLE 14 (cont!nued) Country Price Elasticity or Income Source Region Supply Dernand Elasticity Bolivia O. 5 FAO (1971) Brazil O • 2 FAO (1971) Erazil Rural Urban North East 0.53 0.53 Getulio Vargas East 0.30 0.19 Foundation (1969) South Ó. 21 . 0.14 Total 0.33 0.21 Brazil O. 31 (SR) Pastore (1971a) 1.17 (LR) Braz!l 0.31 (SR) -0.10 Pariago (1969) 1.74 (LR) Brazil -0.1805 Mandell (1971) Brazil -0.16 Mandell (1973) Brazil (Golas) 0.30 (SR) Villas (1972) 0.34 (LR) Brazil (Sao 0.61 (SR) Pastore (1971b) Paulo) 1. 96 (LR) ....... Brazil (Sao 0.42 (SR) Toyama and Pescariñ (1970) ... Paulo 0.69 (LR) _~_.'"'~_~.'_'-..1_. '_ ___ ~ __ """ ___ ........ """~_, APPENDIX TABLE 1~ (continued) Ceuntry PI' ice Elast icity er Ineome Seuree Regien Supply 1 Demand Elasticity Brazil (Sao 0.62 (SR) Brandt et al. (1965 ) Paulo 4.10 (LR) nul~~ria O. 2 rAO (1971) Burma 0.1 rAO (1971) Burundi 0.8 rAO (1971) Cameroon 1.2 rAe (1971) Cenada -0.3 USDA (1971) Cana da O. 2 rAO (1971) Caribl¡ean 0.29 rAO (1971) Central Afriea 0.75 rAO (1971) Central Africa Republic 1.3 rAO (1971) Central America 0.27 rAO (1971) Central America and Mexico 0.4 -0.5 USDA (1971) Ceylon O.~ rAO (:1.971) Chad 1.1 rAO (1971) .., o Chile o.~ (H) Universidad Católica' (1969) o Ch i na (P. R . ) o.~ rAO (1971) W""',""flillu ;% ';¡U"i~Pi>"«1,1 .Al ~*j\ ;~ry.;~'I'mJ;$" "",'h'fUA.,",, '.,Ji U L, A, ,0 ,_:'; .....~ APPENDIX TABLE 1~ (éontinued) Country 'rice Elasticity or Ineome Souree Region S.upply I Demand Elasticity Colombia O. 5 rAO (1971) Colombia -0.754 0.982 Cruz de Sehlesinger and Ruiz (1967) Colombia 0.235 -1. 372 Gutiérrez and Hertford (197l¡) Colombia 0.6 Eela (1969) Colombia (CalO 0.48 (L)e Molta (1969) 0.27 (M)d 0.04 (H)e Colombia (Cali) -0.426 {VL)fO.~l (VL) P. Pinstrup-A~dersen -0.400 (L) 0.39 (L) (Unpublished) -0.397 (M) 0.39 (M) -0.262 (H) 0.25 (H) O (VH;¡¡; 0.1 9 (VH) -O. 35~ (AV]! 0.34 (AV) Communist As la 0.2 -0.1 USDA (1971) Congo (D.R.) 1.2 FAO (1971) Congo (P.R.) 1.0 rAO (1971) ~ o Costa Rica O. 3 rAO (1971) "" ~."", .... I'-_~""'~"-"""""""""""'M'"~ ,:,~._~__ .......-..... .......... '-_W ___. .._ _~ APPENDIX TABLE 14 (continued) Country Price Elasticity or Income Source Region Supply I Demand Elasticity Cuba 0.2 rAO (1971) Cyprus 0.3 rAO (1971) Czechoslovakia O. 1 FAO (1971) Dahomey 1.2 FAO (1971) Denmark 0.3 rAO (1971) Dominican Republic 0.6 rAO (1971) El Salvador 0.5 Battelle Mem. Inst. (1969) El Salvador 0.6 rAO (1971) Ecuador -O • 5 rAO (1971) Etn iopia 0.6 rAO (1971) tastero S" Am. 0.4 -0.3 USDA (1971) East Africa O • 2 -0.3 USllA (1971) East Africa 0.17 rAO (1971) East Asia and Pacific O. 3 -0.3 USDA (1971) Eastern Europe 0.3 -0.3 USDA (1971) Eastern Europe 0.18 rAO (1971) "o" EEC 0.3 -0.3 USDA (1911) "" EEC 0.11 rAO (1971) • • AFPENDIX TABLE 1~ (continued) Country Friee Elasticity or Income Region Supply I Demand Elasticity Source Finland 0.0 France -0.1 Centre de Recherehes (1967) France O. 2 rAO (1971) Gabon 1.2 rAO (1971) Gambia 0.2 FAO (1971) Germany (D.R.) 0.1 FAO (1971) Germany (West) 0.3 • rAO (1971) Ghana O.B rAO (1971) Greece 0.3 rAO (1971) Guatemala 0.6 rAO (1971) Gu.inea. O.~ rAO (1971) Guyana 0.2 FAO (1971) Haiti 0.7 rAO (1971) Hong Kong, 0.2 FAO (1.971) Honduras 0.6 FAO (1971) Hungary 0.2 tAO (1971) Iceland 0.5 rAO (1971) India O.~ FAO (1971) ""w"" Indonesia 0.7 FAO (1971) b '''''''h ....~ _ 1'1 ,¡, i" ", ___ .-.............~ .." "'""'" "W~ .. ' '""""'_ _. ................. ,..-.:..Io"_"""'--""_~.~" ..... _ ...... ____~ APPENDIX TABLE 1~ (continued) Country 01' Frice Elasticity Income Source Region Supply I Demand Elasticity Irelan¿ O. 5 . no (1971) !.ran {) .·3 rAO (1971) Iraq 0.7 rAO (1971) Israel 0.1 rAO (1971) Italy -0.2 rAO (1965) Ital] 0.0 rAO (1971) Ivory Coast 0.5 rAO (1971) Jamaica 0.4 rAO (1971) Japan 0.4 -0.3 USDA (1971) Japan 0.2 -0.2 Akino and Hayami (1975) Japan 0.1 FAO (1971) Japan 0.007 (SR) Arl'omdee (1968) 0.03 (LR) -0.3 0.16 Jordan 0.6 FAO (1971) Kenya 0.7 FAO (1971) Khmer Rep. O.~ FAO (1971) Korea (North) 0.'1 FAO (1971) Korea( Rep. ) O • 3 rAO (1971) 'o" ~ Latin America 0.25 FAO (1971) "'.",..,..,...,.,., .. ll) ...... Ji! fflOO .~,!I "*'& ....... F ,,";¡;¡¡ a; .;>Y"'~)!. ). ". APPENDIX TABLE 14 (eontinued) Country Priee Elastieity 01' lneoroe Seurce Regien Supply 1 Demand Elasticity Laoa 0.4 FAO (1971) Liberia 0.1 FAO (1971) Libia 0.8 FAO (1971) Lebanon O. 3 FAO'(1971) Madagascar 0.4 rAO (1971) Malil.ysia 0.19 FAO (1971), Malaysia 0.5 -0.3 Chew (1971) Malawai 1.2 FAO (1971) Mali 0.5 FAO (1971) Malta 0.3 FAO (1971) Maritius 0.4 rAO (1971) Mauritania 1.0 FAO (1971) Mexico 0.49 (R)i 'Seco de Agr. (1966) 0.18 (U)j Mexieo 0.3 FAO (1971) Mexieo -0.3 Duloy and Norton (1973) Mongolia 0.3 FAO (1971) NI Q Meroceo 0.4 rAO (1971) '" Mezarobique 0.8 FAO (1971) ".,. ~._~,-'" ------~-~; ". ... I¡:lf~~. Ó"H' • • .'4-~_~',,,-,_,_.... __ ""--........~ """ APPENDIX TABLE 14 (continu·ed) Country l'rice Elastícity or Income Source Regíon Supply 1 Demand Elasticíty Mear East 0.23 rAO (1971) Napal 0.3 rAO (1971) tletherlands 0.2 rAO (1971 ) New Zealand 0.1 rAO (1971) Nicaragua O.I¡ rAO (1971) Niger 1.0 FAO (1971) Nigeria 0.9 rAO (1971) North Africa 0.3 -0.5 USDA (1971) Norway 0.4 rAO (1971) Oceania 0.01 rAO (1971) Other Western O. 3 -0.3 USO A (1971) Europe 0.24 rAO (1971) Paldstan -0.529 Basit (1971) Paldstan 0.3 FAO (1971)' Pakistan (Punjab) 0.31 Hussain (1964) Panama 0.2 FAO (1971) Paraguay 0.3 FAO (1971) N Pertí O. 5 -0.1 1. 40 Herrill (1967) o '" Pera 0.3 rAO (1971) ..; APPENDIX TABLE 14 (con~inued) Country Price Elasticity or Income Source Regien Supply I D._em--a_nd Elasticity ........ _- Perú O. 3 Van de Wetering and Cureo (1966) l'eru 0.21 (U) Universida~ Agraria (1969) 0.46 (R) 0.27 (AV) Philippines 0.09-0.23 Barker (1966) Philippines - O • 5 0.4 Meara and Barker (1966) Philippines -0.3 Naso~ (1971) Philippinea 0.3 (SR) Mangahas .et a~. (1966) 0.5 (LR) 0.2 FAO (1971) Poland 0.2 FAO (1971) Portugal O. 1 rAO (197!) Puerto Rico 0.4 rAO (1971) Rhodesia O. B tAO (1971) Romania 0.2 rAO (1971) Rwanda 0.9 rAO (1971) Sabah 0.1 rAO (1971) Sarawak 0.1 rAO (1971) Saudi Arabia 0.6 FAO (1971) ~( •• ... (1 ...., .". _~',,( f," -"""~......... ........._ ,hl_'""",,", l' "'>~--........... ...... ~~.~ __" "",,~ APPENDIX TABLE 14 (continued) Country Price Elasticity or Income - Source Region Supply I Demand Elasticity - Senegal 0.4 FAO (1971) Sierra Leone 0.3 no (1971) Singapore O. 1 FAO (1971) Somali 1.0 FAO (1971) ...... i Rural j Urban 212 1 APPENDIX TABLE 15 I Co~binations of Supply Elasticitiesa Usad in the Sensitivity Analysis i E " 0.235 ( " 1.5 YEAR El (' ~U e U r 19 [.~ 0.118 0.32 0.750 2,,01f3 1965 0.118 0.32 0.750 2,Ol¡3 1966 0.118 0.32 0.750 2,0"3 1967 O.ll~ 0.32 0.750 2.01¡3 1968 0.116 0.279 0.7"E l,77B 1969 O.l16 0.279 0.7~8 I 1,778 ¡ 1970 0.116 0.279 0.74B 1,778 1971 O.1Hi 0.279 0.711a 1,778 1972 (1.115 0.253 0.750 1,612 1973 0.115 0.253 0.750 1,612 I a ¡;nch Bet of supp1y alasticitias vas run vith thr~c demand e1asticities (-o.a, -0.""9 and -0.7S~) to eive six sets of rasults~ 1 213 APPENDIX TABLE 16 a Gross Benefits of New Rice Varieties in Colombia to Consumers and Produaers In = - 0.300 and t = 0.235) to toregone Ga ins Inaome to Producers Total Year Gross Consumers Upland Irrigated Total Benefits -------- ... -- ----------$m----------------- - ... ----- 1964 11.6 ... 1.6 -1. 9 -3.5 1.1 . 1965 29.3 -12.0 -10.2 -22.2 7.1 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1967 95.~ -41. 3 -32.9 -74.2 21.7 1968 1,450.9 -339.3 -53'1.6 -1,073.9 377.0 1969 847.5 -304.9 -333.4 -638.3 209.2 1970 1,1¡8H.9 -479.0 -621.9 -1,100.9 388.0 1971 2,''\10.9 -(,05.7 -1,166.9 -1,772.6 647.3 1972 5,r,17.fl -1,376.2 -2,669.5 -4,045.7 1,572.1 1973 10,257.5 ~2,410.4 -4,887.8 -7,298.2 2,959.3 19711 30,flUf,.3 -6,531.8 -15,296.9 -21,828.7 9,057.6 a Expressed in 1964 pesos 1 2H I, j j APrCKDIX TABL& J6 (Continuad) J '1 ¡ Groaa Renafita of Uav Rice Varieties in Colomhia to Consumers an.d Producers ' n = -0.300 and E • 1.500 1 Ga"ins to Forer;one lncome to Producers Total Year Consume!"n Gross Uoland Irril!ated Total Be,nefits -----,------ .... _--- -----$m---------------- -_ ... _. ... -~- ¡ 1964 4 .5 -1.6 -2.4 -4.0 0.5 . 1965 29.2 -12.D -13.3 -25.3 3.9 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1967 95.9 -1!l.3 -45.4 -86.7 9.2 1968 ¡1 1,450.'1 -539.3 -646.8 -1.186.1 261¡.8 1969 8'17. G -304.9 -420.1 -725.0 122.6 ¡ 1970 1, 'lar.. '3 -479.0 -731¡.6 -1,213.6 275.3 j 1971 2,419.9 -605.7 -1,319.3 -1.925.0 494.9 1972 S,fit7.0 -1,376.2 -2.900.0 -I¡,276.2 1,341.6 1973 10,257.5 -2.'110,4 -5,137.2 -7,5'17.6 2,709.9 1974 30,886. 1 -6,531.8 -15,721.8 -22,253.6 8.632.7 I 1 ,1 ¡ ¡, 215 J\I'I'r:NDIX TJ\BLE 16 (Continued) GroSR Benefits of Dew Rice Varieties in Colomhia to Consumers and Producers r¡ = -0.1¡1I9 and e: :: °1 ,500 t r' • Foregone Income to to P1:'oducern Total ,,,'11ns Year Gross Consnmer:; UD1and Irrigated Total Benefits ----------- -----------$m---------------- -------- 196q 3.0 -1.1 -1.'1 -2.5 0.5 1965 19.5 -0.0 -7.6 -15.6 3.9 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1967 63.0 -27 .1 -27.1 -5'1.2 a.a 1968 823.G -304.0 -320.1 -624.1 199.5 1969 495.0 -177.2 - 227.1 -I¡Oq.3 90.7 1970 flOG.O -256.7 -358.8 -615.5 190.5 1971 1,2?B.O -302.2 -605.5 -907.7 320.3 1972 2,3 1¡LIl -550.8 -I,08:L8 -1,633.6 708.2 1973 3,826.1 -050.6 -1,627.1 -2,477.7 1,348.4 197~ 9 , 3 '1 O • O i-1,817.~ -3,960.9 -5,778.3 3,561.7 i I 216 AJ'PCNDIX rARte]6 (Continued) Gross Banefits of New Rice Varieties in ¡ l Colombia to Consumers and PrQducers ,,= -0.754 and E =' 6.235 t Year Gaíns tu Fureeone Income to ProduceN. Total Consumera Gross Upland Irrigated Total Benefits --- ... ------- -----------$m------~--------- -------- I 1964 1.8 -0.7 -0.1 -0.8 1.0 1965 11.6 -4.7 -0.1 -4.8 6.8 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1967 37.0 -15.9 -0.2 -16.1 20.9 1968 431.9 -158.6, -5.8 -164.\¡ 267. 5 1 1969 2&5.2 -94.6 -15.6 -110.2 155.0 I 1970 408.3 -12íl.S -30.1 -158.9 249.11 1971 S~3.0 -143.9 -00.8 -224.7 368.3 1972 98 '1.5 -223.4 -131.3 -354.7 629.9 1973 1,'191.2 -315.1 -172. tl -I!B7.3 1,003.7 1971¡ 3,164.8 -567.4 -'117.9 -985.3 2.179.5 , J 217 APPENDIX TABLE 16 (Continued) Gross Benefits oí New Rice Varieties in Colombia to Consumers and Producers Gains to r~regone Income to Pl"oducers Total Year Consumers Gross Upland Irrigated Total Benefits ----------- -----------~m---------------- -------- 1964 l.B -0.1 -0.6 -l.3 0.5 , 1965 ll. fi -4.8 -3.0 -7.8 3.a 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1967 37. O -15.9 -12.7 -28.6 B.4 196a 431.9 -158.6 -118.0 -276.& 155.3 1969 265.2 -94.6 -102.3 -196.9 69.3 1970 "00.3 -128.8 -142.7 -271.5 136. a 1971 5'1;).0 -143.9 -233.1 -377.0 216. o 1972 911". S -223." -361. a -585.2 399.4 1973 1,'491. ) -315.1 -·,21.9 -737.0 754.2 1914 3,16'4.() -567.4 -a42.8 -1.410.2 1,754.6 : 218 GLOSSARY CIAT: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical DAME: Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estad1stica FEDEARROZ: Federaci6n Nacional de Arroceros ICA : Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario IDEMA: Instituto de Mercadeo Agropecuario INCORA: Instituto Colombiano de R'eforma Agrarfa IRRI: International Rice Research Institute HYV's: High yielding varieties f I ha hectares m.t. metric tons 1 n.a . not available I I