1312 economic variability of "sri" and policy implications in sri lanka
DESCRIPTION
Presented by: A.P.S. Fernando Faculty of Agriculture Rajarata University of Sri LankaTRANSCRIPT
ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF “SRI” AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
A.P.S. FernandoFaculty of Agriculture
Rajarata University of Sri Lanka
An overview
Scope and limitations of the studySocio-economic background of farmersLand tenure and useFarm mechanization and labour useProductivity and outputCost benefit and profitabilityConclusions and policy implecations
Table 1:Engagement in economic activity by sample paddy farmers
Main economic activity Non-SRI SRI
Farming (FA) 47.5 44.4
Casual Labour (CL) 18.6 16.8
Skilled Labour 5.9 8.1
Government sector (GE) 5.3 4.7
Private sector (PV) 12.4 10.5
Self Employment (SE) 4.8 12.6
Small Business (SB) 2.8 1.3
Other (OT) 2.7 1.6
Total 100 100
Figures are in percentages
1. Social and economic background of sample paddy farmers
Economic activities of sample paddy farmers
Figure 1: Average monthly income by employments of SRI participants
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Wagelabour
Skilledlabour
Govt.emp.
Self emp. Privateemp.
(Rs/
mon
th)
Figure 2: Average monthly income by employments of Non-SRI participants
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Wagelabour
Skilledlabour
Govt.emp.
Self emp. Privateemp.
(Rs/
mon
th)
Wage labour
Skilled labour
Govt. emp.
Self emp.
Private emp.
Contribution of income from off-farm employment sources
Engagement in off-farm employment and income of SRI farmers
40%
15%10%
30%
5%18%
13%
28%
15%
26%Wage labour
Skilled labour
Govt.employmentSelfemploymentPrivteemployment
Figure 3.a Engagement in off-farm employment by SRI farmers
Figure 3.b Composition of off-farm income of SRI farmers
Table 2: Tenure status of lowlands of SRI participants Region Deeds Grants Permits Leased Rent in Encroach SharedHambantota 58.8 7.1 3.5 7.1 18.7 2.4 2.4Nawagatt. 66.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. 33.3 n.a. n.a.Rambukka. 66.7 n.a. n.a. 5.6 22.2 n.a. 5.6Thambutt. 61.0 4.9 n.a. 4.9 22.0 2.4 4.8Wanatawill. 68.4 10.5 n.a. n.a. 21.1 n.a. n.a.Warakapola 82.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.7 n.a. 8.7n.a.-not available and figures given in the table are percentages
Table 3: Lowland endowment and tenure status of low lands of Non-SRI participants Deeds Grants Permits Leased Rent in Encroach Shared
Hambantota 57.1 2.4 4.8 2.4 23.7 4.8 4.8Nawagatt. 50 NA 12.5 NA 37.5 NA NARambukka. 66.7 NA NA NA 22.2 NA 11.1Thambutt. 50 3.1 NA 6.3 12.5 NA NAWanatawill. 57.2 14.3 NA 4.1 24.4 NA NAWarakapola 57.1 NA NA 14.3 28.6 NA NAn.a.-not available and figures given in the table are percentages except land endowment
2. Land tenure and land use
Table 4: Allocation of lowlands by SRI participants
Location Average lowland endowment (ac)
SRI Non-SRIYala Maha Yala Maha
Hambantota 2.07 (85) 0.53 0.49 1.55 1.58Nawagattegama 3.60 (12) NA 0.92 2.3 3.5Rambukkana 0.94 (18) 0.64 0.64 0.47 0.47Thambuttegama 2.12 (41) 0.25 0.63 1.7 1.7Wanatawilluwa 3.61 (19) 0.67 0.78 2.67 2.88Warakapola 0.56 (25) 0.34 0.34 0.39 0.39Average 2.58 (200) 0.49 0.63 1.51 1.75Cases reported are given in parentheses
Table 5: Allocation of lowlands by different SRI adopter categories Adopter category
Average low land endowment
(ac)
Allocation under SRI
Allocation under Non-SRI
1 1.80 0.40 (22.2) 1.40 (77.8)2 2.65 0.60 (22.6) 2.05 (77.4)3 1.99 0.48 (24.1) 1.51 (75.9)4 3.00 0.75 (25.0) 2.25 (75.0)
Figures given in parentheses are in percentages
Table 6: Land use under different varieties by SRI participants 2011/2012 Maha 2011 Yala 2010/2011 Maha 2010 Yala
SRI with improved varieties (ac)
0.46 (47) 0.46 (38) 0.54 (46) 0.48 (31)
SRI with traditional varieties (ac)
0.68 (35) 0.56 (29) 0.61 (30) 0.60 (16)
Non – SRI improved (ac) 2.22 (127) 2.04 (126) 2.22 (120) 2.23 (108)Cases reported are given in parentheses
Table 7: Ownership of machinery by participant groupType of machine SRI (%) Non-SRI (%) Four-wheel tractor 1.3 0.4Two-wheel tractor 19.2 15.8Weeder 10.8 3.8Seeder/transplanter 2.1 0.0Combine harvester 2.5 0.4Water pump 0.4 0.8Threshing machine 0.4 0.4
3. Farm mechanization and labour use
Activities demanding high labour are:Leveling and transplantingHarvestingThreshing and winnowing
Figure 4: Labour demand by activity
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Ploughing
Bund clearing and plastering
Leveling and transplanting
Water managment
Fertilizer application
Application of org./in org. chemicals
Visits and observations
Harvesting
Threshing and winnowing
Transportation
Mandays / acre
SRI
Non-SRI
Figure 5: Labour use per ac of padddy by region
010203040506070
Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All
Man
days
/ac
Non- SRI
SRI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SRI
Non-SRI Family male
Family female
Hired male
Hired female
Figure 6: Labour participation by gender, origin and region
Table 8: Average land productivity under different production systems (kg/ac)
Production system Ham. Nawa. Ram. Tha. Wan. Wara. All
SRI with traditional varieties
1,217 NA 1,250 1,356 1,516 1,155 1,299
SRI with improved varieties
1,895 2,366 2,105 2,047 1,250 1,840 1,994
Non – SRI 2,423 1,013 1,645 1,834 1,478 1,383 1,629
4. Productivity and output
1. Land productivity is high under SRI with improved varieties followed by non-SRI, and SRI with traditional varieties
2. Therefore, SRI with improved varieties would enhance the average labour productivity as well (kg/man-day)
Figure 7: Average labour productivity
0
20
40
60
80
100
SRI with improvedvarieties
SRI withtraditional varieties
Non-SRI
Kg/
man
day
5. Costs, benefit and profitability
Figure 9: Cost of labour (Rs/ac)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All
Rs.
/ ac
Non- SRI
SRI
Figure 8: Cost of Material and farm power (Rs/ac)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All
Rs/
ac
Non- SRI
SRI
* Rise of total cost of production owing to labour increases* If the labour is not paid (family labour), it is the flip side of the coin*In this analysis, however, environmental costs (particularly water and chemical pollution) have not been taken into account.
Figure 10: Total cost of production with labor (Rs/ac)
010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000
Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All
Rs/
ac
Non- SRI
SRI
Table 9: Average prices of paddy
Product Wet basis(Rs./Kg.)
Dry basis(Rs./Kg.)
Seed paddy
(Rs./Kg.)SRI Traditional 40.5 45.2 47.0
Improved 27.3 29.4 48.3
Non-SRI 27.5 28.4 NA
* Highest profit is from SRI with improved varieties * Reasons are three-fold:
a. High price of seed paddyb. High land productivity of SRI with improved varietiesc. Existence of established market (regular) for seed paddy
Table 10: Average profit under different scenarios (Rs/season/ac)
Wet basis(Rs./season/ac)
Dry basis(Rs./season/ac)
Seed paddy(Rs./season/ac)
SRI Traditional varieties 2,934.40 9,039.70 11,377.90
Improved varieties 4,761.10 8,948.50 46,635.10
Non-SRI Improved varieties 14,210.85 15,676.95 NA
Conclusions
• Participants belong to different tenure groups and farmer classes• None of the farmers fully allocate their lowland endowment under
“SRI”• Only a very few own very basic farm equipment needed for “SRI”• “SRI” is labour-intensive (leveling + transplanting and harvesting)
and involves more family labour• Non-SRI is intensive of non-labour material inputs• “SRI” is more land productive but less productive in labour • Cost of production of SRI is high owing to labour• Production of seed paddy under SRI is more profitable than other
systems
Policy implications
• More appropriate to smallholders with low-income opportunities, but not for large-scale operators
• Development of labour-saving techniques, particularly for 1. transplanting 2. weeding
• SRI could be worthwhile to use in seed paddy production • Establishment of markets or farmer cooperatives, if traditional
varieties are to be practiced, is more challenging
Thank you