Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

1312 Economic Variability of "SRI" and Policy Implications in Sri Lanka

Presented by:
A.P.S. Fernando
Faculty of Agriculture
Rajarata University of Sri Lanka

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

1312 Economic Variability of "SRI" and Policy Implications in Sri Lanka

  1. 1. ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF “SRI” AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS A.P.S. Fernando Faculty of Agriculture Rajarata University of Sri Lanka
  2. 2. An overview Scope and limitations of the study Socio-economic background of farmers Land tenure and use Farm mechanization and labour use Productivity and output Cost benefit and profitability Conclusions and policy implecations
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. Figure 1:Average monthly income by employments of SRI participants 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Wage labour Skilled labour Govt. emp. Self emp. Private emp. (Rs/month) Figure 2: Average monthly income by employments of Non-SRI participants 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Wage labour Skilled labour Govt. emp. Self emp. Private emp.(Rs/month) Wage labour Skilled labour Govt. emp. Self emp. Private emp. Contribution of income from off-farm employment sources
  5. 5. 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. employment Self employment Privte employment Figure 3.a Engagement in off-farm employment by SRI farmers Figure 3.b Composition of off-farm income of SRI farmers
  6. 6. Table 2: Tenure status of lowlands of SRI participants Region Deeds Grants Permits Leased Rent in Encroach Shared Hambantota 58.8 7.1 3.5 7.1 18.7 2.4 2.4 Nawagatt. 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. 5.6 Thambutt. 61.0 4.9 n.a. 4.9 22.0 2.4 4.8 Wanatawill. 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. 8.7 n.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 4.8 Nawagatt. 50 NA 12.5 NA 37.5 NA NA Rambukka. 66.7 NA NA NA 22.2 NA 11.1 Thambutt. 50 3.1 NA 6.3 12.5 NA NA Wanatawill. 57.2 14.3 NA 4.1 24.4 NA NA Warakapola 57.1 NA NA 14.3 28.6 NA NA n.a.-not available and figures given in the table are percentages except land endowment 2. Land tenure and land use
  7. 7. Table 4: Allocation of lowlands by SRI participants Location Average lowland endowment (ac) SRI Non-SRI Yala Maha Yala Maha Hambantota 2.07 (85) 0.53 0.49 1.55 1.58 Nawagattegama 3.60 (12) NA 0.92 2.3 3.5 Rambukkana 0.94 (18) 0.64 0.64 0.47 0.47 Thambuttegama 2.12 (41) 0.25 0.63 1.7 1.7 Wanatawilluwa 3.61 (19) 0.67 0.78 2.67 2.88 Warakapola 0.56 (25) 0.34 0.34 0.39 0.39 Average 2.58 (200) 0.49 0.63 1.51 1.75 Cases reported are given in parentheses
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. Table 7: Ownership of machinery by participant group Type of machine SRI (%) Non-SRI (%) Four-wheel tractor 1.3 0.4 Two-wheel tractor 19.2 15.8 Weeder 10.8 3.8 Seeder/transplanter 2.1 0.0 Combine harvester 2.5 0.4 Water pump 0.4 0.8 Threshing machine 0.4 0.4 3. Farm mechanization and labour use
  10. 10. Activities demanding high labour are: Leveling and transplanting Harvesting Threshing and winnowing 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
  11. 11. Figure 5: Labour use per ac of padddy by region 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All Mandays/ac Non- SRI SRI
  12. 12. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SRI Non-SRI Familymale Familyfemale Hiredmale Hiredfemale Figure 6: Labour participation by gender, origin and region
  13. 13. 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)
  14. 14. Figure 7: Average labour productivity 0 20 40 60 80 100 SRI with improved varieties SRI with traditional varieties Non-SRI Kg/manday
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. * 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) 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All Rs/ac Non- SRI SRI
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. * Highest profit is from SRI with improved varieties * Reasons are three-fold: a. High price of seed paddy b. High land productivity of SRI with improved varieties c. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. Thank you

    Be the first to comment

    Login to see the comments

Presented by: A.P.S. Fernando Faculty of Agriculture Rajarata University of Sri Lanka

Views

Total views

1,515

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

93

Actions

Downloads

9

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×