Economic and Sector Work Report No. 100066-MM MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS February 26, 2016 fundedby Funded by: Economic and Sector Work Report No. 100066-MM MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS February 26, 2016 fundedby Funded by: © 2016 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433 All rights reserved: This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. This production of this volume was supported by the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT), with financial assistance from Australia, Denmark, the European Union, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Mitsubishi Corporation. The views expressed herein should not be taken to reflect the official opinion of any of the LIFT donors Rights and Permission The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying or transmitting any of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. • For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, www.copyright. com. • All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. contents LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES VII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XII ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS XIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XIV CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY AND SURVEY TOOLS 3 CHAPTER 3: FACTORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 7 3.1 LAND 7 3.2 LABOR 12 3.3 CAPITAL/PRODUCTIVE ASSETS 15 CHAPTER 4: FARM CROPPING DECISIONS 20 CHAPTER 5: MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 22 5.1 YIELDS 23 5.2 HARVEST 25 5.3 SALES OF PADDY 26 5.4 PADDY PRICES 28 5.5 SEEDS 29 5.6 FERTILIZERS 32 5.7 CHEMICALS 34 5.8 LABOR 35 5.9 LIVESTOCK, MACHINERY, AND FUEL 37 5.10 PROFITABILITY 37 5.11 IMPACT OF CROP ESTABLISHMENT ON PROFITABILITY 40 5.12 IMPACT OF ADOPTION OF HYBRID SEEDS ON PROFITABILITY 42 5.13 IMPACT OF FERTILIZER USE ON PROFITABILITY 43 5.14 IMPACT OF FARM SIZE ON PROFITABILITY 44 5.15 IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION ON PROFITABILITY 45 5.16 IMPACT OF GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD ON PROFITABILITY 45 5.17 INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS 46 CHAPTER 6: DRY SEASON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 49 6.1 YIELDS 50 6.2 SALES 50 6.3 SEEDS AND CROP ESTABLISHMENT 51 6.4 FERTILIZERS 52 6.5 CHEMICALS 54 6.6 LABOR 55 6.7 LIVESTOCK, MACHINERY, AND FUEL 57 6.8 PROFITABILITY 57 6.9 INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS 59 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS contents CHAPTER 7: BEANS AND PULSES PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 60 7.1 BLACK GRAM 61 7.2 GREEN GRAM 63 7.3 CHICKPEAS 64 CHAPTER 8: MAIZE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 67 CHAPTER 9: OILSEED PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 70 CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT 73 REFERENCES 79 ANNEX 1: METHODOLOGY, APPROACH, AND SURVEY AREAS 81 ANNEX 2: CONVERSION FACTORS 97 ANNEX 3: FARM LAND 99 ANNEX 4: FARM HOUSEHOLD LABOR 113 ANNEX 5: PRODUCTIVE ASSETS – CAPITAL 119 ANNEX 6: CROPPING DECISIONS 124 ANNEX 7: RICE PRODUCTION 126 ANNEX 8: MONSOON RICE FARM BUDGETS 148 ANNEX 9: OFF-SEASON RICE PRODUCTION 179 ANNEX 10: PULSE PRODUCTION 191 ANNEX 11: OILSEED AND MAIZE PRODUCTION 216 vi LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Figure 1: Farm Budget Calculation Framework 4 Figure 2: Farm Size by Ecoregion 7 Figure 3: Number of Parcels by Farm by Region 8 Figure 4: Mode of Land Acquisition by Region 9 Figure 5: Geographical Location and Slope of Parcels 10 Figure 6: Proportion of Irrigated Plots by Season and Region 11 Figure 7: Primary Source of Water for Irrigation by Region 11 Figure 8: Wages, International Comparison 14 Figure 9: Education of Household Head by Region 15 Figure 10: Possession of Agricultural Tractors by Region 16 Figure 11: Possession of Draught Oxen by Region 17 Figure 12: Farmers with Loans and Loan Amounts 18 Figure 13: Source of Agricultural Loans for Farmers 19 Figure 14: Duration of Loans in Months 19 Figure 15: Paddy Yields, 2013/14, International Comparison 23 Figure 16: Monsoon Rice: Average Yield by Farm Size and Region 24 Figure 17: Months for Harvesting Monsoon Rice by Region 25 Figure 18: Average Paddy Prices, 2013 28 Figure 19: Farm-Gate Paddy Prices, Wet Paddy, International Comparison, 2013 28 Figure 20: Types of Rice Seed Used by Farmers by Region 30 Figure 21: Growth Duration of Monsoon Rice Production 31 Figure 22: Application Rates of Various Fertilizers by Region 32 Figure 23: Prices of Key Inputs by Region 34 Figure 24: Distribution of Labor by Task for Monsoon Rice Production 35 Figure 25: Distribution of Labor by Type for Monsoon Rice Production 36 Figure 26: Labor Productivity, 2013 Monsoon Season, International Comparison 36 Figure 27: Distribution of Expenditures of Livestock, Machinery, and Fuel by Region 37 Figure 28: Farm Profits and Labor Productivity by Ecoregion 38 Figure 29: Revenues and Production Costs of Monsoon Rice by Region 39 Figure 30: Breakdown of Production Costs of Monsoon Rice by Region 39 Figure 31: Margins and Labor Productivity for Monsoon Rice by Crop Establishment 40 Figure 32: Yields and Labor Needs for Monsoon Rice by Crop Establishment 40 Figure 33: Net Margins for Monsoon Rice, International Comparison 46 Figure 34: Structure of Production Costs, Monsoon Rice, International Comparison 47 Figure 35: Percent of Farmers Growing Dry Season Rice by Ecoregion 49 Figure 36: Paddy Yields for Monsoon and Dry Seasons by Ecoregion 50 Figure 37: Percentage of Farmers Using Fertilizers in the Dry Season by Ecoregion 52 Figure 38: Application Rate of Nutrients for Monsoon and Dry Season Rice by Ecoregion 53 Figure 39: Labor Productivity, 2013/14 Season, International Comparison 56 Figure 40: Revenues and Production Costs for Dry Season Rice 58 Figure 41: Net Margins for Monsoon and Off-Season Rice, International Comparison 59 Figure 42: Revenues and Production Costs of Black Gram by Ecoregion 62 Figure 43: Revenues and Production Costs for Green Gram by Ecoregion 64 Figure 44: Revenues and Production Costs for Chickpeas by Ecoregion 65 Figure 45: Profitability and Labor Productivity for Beans and Pulses by Farm Size 66 Figure 46: Types of Seed Used for Maize 67 Figure 47: Use and Application Rates of Fertilizers for Maize 68 Figure 48: Revenues and Production Costs for Maize 68 Figure 49: Types and Sources of Seed Used for Oilseeds 70 Figure 50: Revenues and Production Costs for Oilseeds 71 Figure 51: Map of Surveyed Regions and States, Myanmar 85 vii MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 52: Map of Surveyed Districts in Ayeyarwady Region 86 Figure 53: Map of Surveyed Districts in Bago Region 87 Figure 54: Map of Surveyed Districts in Sagaing Region 88 Figure 55: Map of Surveyed Districts in Shan State 89 Figure 56: Means of Transportation to Market by Region 91 Tables Table 1: Irrigation Coverage, Selected Countries 10 Table 2: Wages and Labor Intensity in Rice Systems, International Comparison, 2013/14 12 Table 3: Labor Use for Rice Production in Major Asian Rice Bowls, 1994-1999 13 Table 4: Paddy Area and Mechanization, International Comparison 16 Table 5: Ownership of 4-Wheel Tractors, Percent of Households 17 Table 6: Agricultural Wages, Labor Input, and Labor/Capital Ratio, Intern. 17 Comparison, 2013/14 Table 7: Average and Median Monthly Interest Rate by Source 19 Table 8: Crops Grown Across All Seasons, % Practicing Farmers 20 Table 9: Percentage of Farmers Producing Rice by Season and Region 21 Table 10: Classification of Farms by Size 22 Table 11: Paddy Yields in Myanmar 24 Table 12: Production and Consumption of Rice by Region 26 Table 13: Net Rice Seller Position by Farm Size 27 Table 14: Farm-Gate Prices as a Percentage of Wholesale and FOB Prices, 29 Intern. Comp., 2013 Table 15: Supply of and Demand for Rice Seed in Myanmar, 2013/14 30 Table 16: Terms of Trade for Monsoon Rice, International Comparison, 2013 33 Table 17: Fertilizer Use by Micronutrient, 2013 Wet Season, International Comparison 34 Table 18: Labor Input and Wages 35 Table 19: Farm Budgets for Monsoon Rice by Region 38 Table 20: Crop Establishment Methods for Monsoon Rice, International Comparison 41 Table 21: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Type of Seed 42 Table 22: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Intensity of Fertilizer Use 43 Table 23: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Fertilizer Mix 44 Table 24: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Farm Size 44 Table 25: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Extent of Mechanization 45 Table 26: Profitability of Monsoon Rice, International Comparison 47 Table 27: Proportion of Rice Sellers by Season 50 Table 28: Fertilizer Use by Nutrient, 2014 Dry Season, International Comparison 53 Table 29: Fertilizer Prices by Season 54 Table 30: Labor Use in Rice Systems, Dry Season, International Comparison 55 Table 31: Wages by Season and Ecoregion 56 Table 32: Farm Budgets for Monsoon and Dry Season Rice by Region 57 Table 33: Profitability of Dry Season Rice Production by Farm Size, Ayeyarwady 58 Table 34: Profitability of Black Gram 62 Table 35: Profitability of Green Gram 64 Table 36: Profitability of Beans and Pulses 65 Table 37: Profitability of Maize 69 Table 38: Profitability of Oilseeds 72 Table 39: Survey Farm Sample 82 Table 40: Phase I: Sample Allocation by AEZ, Region, and State 82 Table 41: Township Surveyed and Net Sown Acres 83 viii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Table 42: Distribution of Households by Size of Main Dwelling 92 Table 43: Distribution of Households by Roof and Wall Materials 93 Table 44: Distribution of Households by Main Source of Water 94 Table 45: Distribution of Households by Main Source of Electricity 95 Table 46: Time Spent in Minutes to Reach Specific Services 96 Table 47: Traders’ Standardized Conversions from Local Units by Crop 97 Table 48: Processing Ratios for Edible Oilseed Crops 98 Table 49: Average Farm and Plot Size 99 Table 50: Number of Parcels per Farm by Category 100 Table 51: Proportion of Parcels by Plot Size 101 Table 52: Payment for Land (to Lessors and Taxes) by Category 102 Table 53: Land Users’ Right Certificate and Other Documents by Category 103 Table 54: Mode of Land Acquisition by Category 104 Table 55: Years of Land Acquisition by Category 105 Table 56: Use of Plots as Collateral for Loans by Category 106 Table 57: Location of Parcels and Exposure to Erosion by Category 107 Table 58: Type of Soils by Category 108 Table 59: Water Irrigation by Season and Category 109 Table 60: Main Source of Water Irrigation by Category 110 Table 61: Use of Water Pumps for Irrigation by Category 111 Table 62: Average Expense for Irrigation by Season 112 Table 63: Breakdown of Total Income of Household Head 113 Table 64: Number of Household Members 114 Table 65: Sex Ratio and Dependency Ratio 115 Table 66: Gender and Age of Household Head 116 Table 67: Education of Household Head 117 Table 68: Proportion of Households Having Media Equipment 118 Table 69: Proportion of Households Having Transportation Equipment 119 Table 70: Proportion of Households Having Agricultural Tractor, Incl. Power Tiller 120 Table 71: Proportion of Households Having Agricultural Tractor by Category 121 Table 72: Proportion of Households Having Water Pump and Harvesting Equipment 122 Table 73: Proportion of Households Having Draught Oxen 123 Table 74: Main Cultivated Crops 124 Table 75: Farm Crop Choices in Monsoon and Dry Seasons 125 Table 76: Farm Size and Cultivated Areas for Rice by Season 126 Table 77: Cultivated Area, Production, and Yields for Rice by Season 127 Table 78: Proportion of Farms Harvesting Rice by Month and by Category 128 Table 79: Proportion of Sellers of Rice by Season 129 Table 80: Percentage of Sales of Rice Production by Season 130 Table 81: Type of Clients and Place of Sales for Monsoon Rice 131 Table 82: Type of Rice Seeds Used by Farmer by Season 132 Table 83: Quantity of Rice Seeds Used by Farmer by Type of Seeds and by Season 133 Table 84: Source of Rice Seeds by Season 134 Table 85: Cultivated Variety of Rice by Season 135 Table 86: Month of Sowing/Transplanting Rice by Season 136 Table 87: Rice Crop Establishment by Season 137 Table 88: Proportion of Users of Fertilizers for Rice by Season 138 Table 89: Average Fertilizer Consumption for Rice by Season 139 Table 90: Application Rate of Fertilizers for Rice by Season 140 Table 91: Fertilizer Consumption by Nutrient for Rice by Season 141 Table 92: Percentage of Users and Average Costs of Chemicals for Rice by Season 142 Table 93: Family Labor Use for Rice by Season 143 ix MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Table 94: Hired Labor Use for Rice by Season 144 Table 95: Permanent Labor Use for Rice by Season 145 Table 96: Breakdown of Total Labor Use by Task for Rice Production 146 Table 97: Breakdown of Total Labor Use by Type of Labor for Rice Production 147 Table 98: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget: Overall Sample 148 Table 99: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Brackish Water Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 149 Table 100: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Freshwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 150 Table 101: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Saltwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 151 Table 102: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in East Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago 152 Table 103: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in West Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago 153 Table 104: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Bago 154 Table 105: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing 155 Table 106: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing 156 Table 107: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing 157 Table 108: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Border Area Ecoregion, Shan State 158 Table 109: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Northern Interior Ecoregion, Shan State 159 Table 110: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Southern Interior Ecoregion, Shan State 160 Table 111: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget by Crop Establishment 161 Table 112: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget by Type of Seeds Used 162 Table 113: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget by Level of Fertilizer Use 163 Table 114: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget by Types of Fertilizer Used 164 Table 115: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Brackish Water Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 165 Table 116: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Freshwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 166 Table 117: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Saltwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 167 Table 118: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in East Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago 168 Table 119: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in West Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago 169 Table 120: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in River Area Ecoregion, Bago 170 Table 121: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing 171 Table 122: Monsoon Farm Budget by Farm Size in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing 172 Table 123: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing 173 Table 124: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Border Area Ecoregion, Shan State 174 Table 125: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Northern Interior Ecoregion, 175 Shan State Table 126: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Southern Interior Ecoregion, 176 Shan State Table 127: Monsoon Rice Budget by Mechanization 177 Table 128: Monsoon Rice Budget by Gender of Household Head 178 Table 129: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget in Saltwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 179 Table 130: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing 180 Table 131: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing 181 Table 132: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget in Border Area Ecoregion, Shan State 182 Table 133: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget by Method of Plantation 183 Table 134: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget by Level of Fertilizer Used 184 Table 135: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget by Type of Fertilizer Used 185 Table 136: Dry Season Rice Budget by Farm Size in Saltwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 186 Table 137: Dry Season Rice Budget by Farm Size in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing 187 Table 138: Dry Season Rice Budget by Farm Size in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing 188 Table 139: Dry Season Rice Budget by Farm Size in Border Area Ecoregion, Shan 189 Table 140: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget by Gender of Household Head 190 Table 141: Pulse Production: Characteristics of Pulse Farms 191 Table 142: Pulse Production, Sales, and Yields 192 Table 143: Pulse Production: Source of Seeds Procurement 193 x LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Table 144: Pulse Production: Users of Fertilizers 194 Table 145: Pulse Production: Consumption and Application Rate of Fertilizers 195 Table 146: Pulse Production: Use of Chemicals 196 Table 147: Pulse Production: Breakdown of Total Use of Labor by Type 197 Table 148: Black Gram Farm Budget in Brackish Area Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 198 Table 149: Black Gram Farm Budget in Freshwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 199 Table 150: Black Gram Farm Budget in East Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago 200 Table 151: Black Gram Farm Budget in West Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago 201 Table 152: Black Gram Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Bago 202 Table 153: Black Gram Farm Budget by Farm Size 203 Table 154: Black Gram Farm Budget by Gender of Household Head 204 Table 155: Green Gram Farm Budget in Brackish Area Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady 205 Table 156: Green Gram Farm Budget in East Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago 206 Table 157: Green Gram Farm Budget in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing 207 Table 158: Green Gram Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing 208 Table 159: Green Gram Farm Budget by Farm Size 209 Table 160: Green Gram Farm Budget by Gender of Household Head 210 Table 161: Chickpea Farm Budget in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing 211 Table 162: Chickpea Farm Budget in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing 212 Table 163: Chickpea Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing 213 Table 164: Chickpea Farm Budget by Farm Size 214 Table 165: Chickpea Farm Budget by Gender of Household Head 215 Table 166: Cultivated Area, Production, and Yields of Oilseeds and Maize 216 Table 167: Production and Sales of Oilseeds and Maize 217 Table 168: Type of Seeds Used for Oilseed and Maize Production 217 Table 169: Source of Seeds for Oilseeds and Maize 218 Table 170: Consumption of Fertilizers for Oilseeds and Maize 218 Table 171: Average Application Rate of Fertilizers for Oilseeds and Maize 219 Table 172: Proportion of Users of Chemicals and Application Rate 220 for Oilseeds and Maize Table 173: Total Labor Use and Ratio by Tasks and Type of Labor 221 Table 174: Maize Farm Budgets, Shan State 222 Table 175: Groundnut Farm Budget, River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing 223 Table 176: Sesame Farm Budgets, Sagaing 224 Table 177: Sunflower Farm Budget, Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing 225 xi MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by the World Bank’s Agricultural Global Practice in the East Asia and Pacific Region as a part of the Reimbursable Advisory Services to the Livelihoods and Food Security Multi-Donor Trust Fund (LIFT) in Myanmar. We thank the European Union and governments of Australia, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America for their kind contributions to LIFT. We thank the Mitsubishi Corporation, a private sector donor, for their contribution to the Fund. The team preparing the report consisted of Sergiy Zorya (Task Team Leader, Senior Agriculture Economist, GAFDR), Paavo Eliste (Lead Rural Development Specialist, GAFDR), David Dawe (Senior Economist, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), and Daphne Khin Swe Swe Aye (Consultant, GAFDR). The collection of primary data was carried out by the team from the Myanmar Marketing Research Development. David Dawe from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Piedad Moya from the International Rice Research Institute helped design the survey and provided quality control for data collection. Francesco Goletti and Jean Claude Randrianarisoa from Agrifood Consulting International analyzed data and prepared the background reports. The team is grateful to Andrew Kirkwood, Harald Kreuscher, Curtis Slover, and Antoine Valere Ghislain Deligne from the LIFT’s Fund Management Office for technical input and support provided during the preparation of the report, and to Jacquetta Elizabeth Hayes for the report’s dissemination. The opportunity to present and discuss preliminary findings at the LIFT Annual Forum in Nay Pyi Taw in November 2014 and at the workshop in Yangon in January 2016 is particularly appreciated. Svetlana Edmeades (Senior Agriculture Economist, GFADR), Elliot Wamboka Mghenyi (Senior Agriculture Economist, GFADR), and Habib Naser Raab (Senior Economist, GMFDR) served as peer reviewers. Ulrich Zachau (Country Director, EACTF), Abdoulaye Seck (Country Manager, EACMM), Nathan Belete (Practice Manager, GAFDR), Louise Scura (Program Leader, EACTF), and Steven Jaffee (Lead Rural Development Specialist, GAFDR) supported this work and provided guidance during the preparation of the report and its dissemination. Amy Gautam (Consultant, GFADR) edited the report, Tiina Joosu-Palu (Consultant, GFADR) prepared communication materials, and Aye Marlar Win (Program Assistant, EACMM) and Poonyanuch Chulsukon (Program Assistant, EACTF) provided logistical support. xii MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS AEZ Agro-ecological zone ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database FOB Free on board GDP Gross domestic product Ha Hectares HH Household K Potassium LIFT Livelihoods and Food Security Multi-Donor Trust Fund MMK Myanmar Kyat MADB Myanma Agricultural Development Bank MOAI Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation N Nitrogen P Phosphorus Tons Metric ton USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture $ US dollar xiii MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 This report was prepared by the World Bank in partnership with the Livelihoods and Food 4 The four main findings of the report are as follows: Security Multi-Donor Trust Fund (LIFT). Both the World Bank and the LIFT are actively involved in a. Myanmar’s farming systems are diversified supporting Myanmar’s agriculture sector given its more than commonly thought. While during significance in poverty reduction and food security, the monsoon season most farms produce and they both consider the lack of reliable farm data paddy, during the cool and dry seasons most to be a significant constraint to designing effective farms produce crops other than paddy, mainly programs and policies. This report fills some of the beans and pulses, oilseeds, and maize. data gaps. The presented results are based on a 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey of 1,728 farm households in four regions (Ayeyarwady, Bago, Sagaing, and Shan b. The analysis reconfirmed that agricultural State1) of Myanmar that covered major crops grown productivity in Myanmar is low, irrespective of in the surveyed regions during the monsoon and dry what indicators are used, limiting the sector’s seasons. These crops include beans and pulses, oil contribution to poverty reduction and shared seeds, and maize. prosperity. 2 In addition to presenting the collected data, the report offers the first analysis of these data. It c. Low productivity is a result of multiple factors, many of them associated with the undersupply of quality public services such as research, focuses on the assessment of the extent of crop diversification and an analysis of farm production extension, and rural infrastructure, in delivery economics, in particular (partial factor) productivity of which the government has a key role to play. of agricultural land and labor and crop profitability. Future analyses can include more elaborate d. Going forward and given that paddy is less assessments of farm production function, total factor profitable and more costly to produce than productivity, and efficiency. They can also include the other crops in most agro-ecological zones, analysis of value chain constraints of the major especially during the cool and dry seasons, it agricultural commodities, including institutional is desirable to redesign public programs from factors affecting production decisions and profitability exclusive support of paddy production to outcomes. support for broad-based agricultural development. 3 The survey is not nationally representative and its results need to be interpreted in that context. It focused on farm households residing in main village tracts, which usually have better access to market, 5 These findings are substantiated with evidence from the agricultural survey. They are also supported by cross-country comparisons for rice finance, and public services. The results therefore tell production and profitability. a story about farms with better opportunities and most likely better farming outcomes. This focus was chosen to study Myanmar’s commercial production areas and to facilitate international comparisons, as most international studies follow a similar approach, focusing on advanced farmers in commercial production areas. 1 Unless otherwise noted, the terms “Ayeyarwady, Bago, Sagaing, and Shan State” refer to the respective administrative regions rather than to towns, rivers, or other places with the same name (i.e., the word “Region” is implied but does not follow each instance of the region’s name). xiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Finding No. 1: Farming systems are Finding No. 2: Agricultural productivity diversified in Myanmar in Myanmar is low, limiting the sec- tor’s contribution to poverty reduction 6 Most farms produce paddy during the monsoon season, mainly due to excessively high humidity, and shared prosperity which makes it difficult to produce other crops. Monsoon paddy is the main crop for both small and large farms and across all ecoregions. Out of 1,728 10 Irrespective of what indicators are used, agricultural productivity in the surveyed commercial production areas of Myanmar was found surveyed households, 1,373 (80 percent) reported to be very low. Let’s start with paddy. Paddy yields (or producing monsoon paddy. land productivity), labor productivity, and profitability in Myanmar are all low compared to performance in 7 Yet very few surveyed farmers practiced rice monoculture during the year. Most produce two key production areas of Asia’s other rice bowls. Within Myanmar, paddy productivity and profitability are crops per year. Farming systems are well diversified, lowest in Ayeyarwady and Sagaing and highest in Shan with paddy production prevailing during the monsoon State. The survey found average paddy yield in 2013/14 while other crops are produced during the cool and to be 2.7 tons/hectare (ha) dry paddy equivalent or 3.5 dry seasons. Only 336 farmers produced paddy during tons/ha wet paddy equivalent. This is identical to the the dry season, while most of the rest produced beans average yield reported by the U.S. Department of and pulses. Agriculture. The official statistics report 3.8 tons/ha. It is not clear whether this is wet or dry paddy equivalent, 8 The most widely planted beans and pulses in Myanmar are chickpeas, black gram, and green but in either case it is above the yield found in the survey. This firmly puts Myanmar on the lower end of the Asian rice productivity spectrum (Figure 1ES). Note gram. During the dry season, their production was observed in seven ecoregions, while during the that the yields of most other crops included in the monsoon season beans and pulses were produced survey were also consistently lower than those officially only in the dryland and river areas of Sagaing. A large reported. number of farmers (787 out of 1,728) were producing one of these three types of pulses, depicting the importance of this category of crops in Myanmar 11 Labor productivity was also found to be low, reflecting low yields and high labor intensity of agriculture. Myanmar is the world’s second largest agricultural production. The example of monsoon exporter of beans and pulses after Canada, and the rice shows that one day of work generates only 23 kg customers include India, United Arab Emirates, of paddy in Myanmar, compared to 62 kg in Cambodia, Thailand, Bangladesh, and China. In 2014, the export 429 kg in Vietnam, and 547 kg in Thailand (Figure 2ES). value of beans and pulses was $835 million, larger Myanmar’s labor productivity in rice production is than the export value of rice, estimated at roughly $630 higher during the dry season but is still very low in million. international comparison. 9 A variety of other crops were grown during the cool and dry seasons. Sagaing was the main 12 Farm practices are still largely labor-intensive. Farming in Myanmar looks today as it did in Thailand and Vietnam 15-20 years ago. In Ayeyarwady, location for oilseeds production – i.e., sesame, farmers spend more than 100 days per hectare of groundnuts, and sunflower seeds. In Shan State, maize monsoon paddy compared to 52 days in Cambodia, 22 is an important crop. In addition, one out of ten farmers days in Vietnam, and 11 days in Thailand (Figure 3ES). in the northern and southern interior ecoregions of Shan State grew culinary crops (mainly chilies, onion, garlic, and potatoes). xv MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 1ES: Myanmar Yields Are Among Lowest in Asia 8 7 6 Yield, tons/ha 5 4 3 2 1 0 h s ia a nd ar m a a s e di in di es de in nm na la bo Ch In pp n la ai et do m ya ng Th ili Vi Ca In M Ph Ba Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey and USDA. Figure 2ES: Low Yields and High Labor Use Keep Myanmar’s Labor Productivity Low 600 500 Monsoon Productivity, kg/day Dry Season 400 300 200 100 - es a ia ar nd a m a i es in di d in m a la bo Ch In tn pp n n ai do m ya e Th ili Vi Ca In M Ph Note: Data for Myanmar are for Ayeyarwady. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. Figure 3ES: Myanmar’s Monsoon Paddy Production Is Most Labor Intensive 140 120 100 Days/ha 80 60 40 20 0 s ia ia ar nd m na a e es di d in nm a la i bo tn Ch In pp n ai do m e ya Th ili Vi Ca In M Ph Note: Data for Myanmar are for Ayeyarwady. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. xvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 Low labor productivity reflects the low wages and the low use of capital. During the 2013 of expensive farm equipment is unaffordable. monsoon season, the daily wage was $2.0 in the Delta and Dry Zones. Although the wage rose to $3.0-3.4/ 14 Low productivity of land and labor results in low profits from producing paddy in Myanmar. day during the dry season, it remained low in In 2013/14, the net margin/profit from producing international comparison (Figure 4ES). Capital in monsoon paddy averaged $114/ha, ranging from $88/ Myanmar is, on the other hand, expensive and in short ha in Ayeyarwady to $337/ha in Shan State. The higher supply. Except in Shan State, the rental machinery profit in Shan State is explained by its proximity to market is essentially nonexistent. Some mechanized China, which resulted in higher farm-gate prices and services are available, as the survey shows, but they lower input prices compared to other parts of Myanmar. are of low diversity and poor quality. Many farmers The profitability of dry season paddy was higher, use draught oxen instead as an intermediate means ranging from $170/ha in Sagaing and $279/ha in of mechanization, and only a few own power tillers Ayeyarwady to $427/ha in Shan State. Yet these profits and small tractors. As the labor market tightens in are still low compared to those achieved by farmers the future, the rental machinery market will become in Asia’s other key rice bowls (Figure 5ES). vitally important for small farms, for whom ownership Figure 4ES: Myanmar’s Wages Are Still Very Low China Thailand Vietnam Philippines Indonesia India Cambodia Myanmar 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Wage, $/day Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. Figure 5ES: Myanmar Has the Lowest Profits from Rice Production China Thailand Indonesia Philippines Vietnam Cambodia Dry season rice Monsoon season rice India Myanmar 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Net margin, $/ha Note: Data for Myanmar are for Ayeyarwady. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. xvii MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 15 Profits from producing paddy in Myanmar vary significantly, making it difficult to use averages. 16 Although higher than for paddy, the profits from producing other crops included in the Profits tend to increase along with increased farm survey are low on average. Data for cross-country size. Small farms had higher yields but failed to comparisons/benchmarking for non-rice crops are translate higher yields into higher profits. Economies not available to support this point, but the survey shows of scale allowed large farms to adopt more modern that at the current level of profitability, agricultural technologies and save on costs. Male-headed income alone is insufficient for poverty reduction in households, the vast majority in this survey, managed most cases. Farmers with one hectare of farmland to achieve higher profits than female-headed and producing two crops a year cannot rely on households. The situation varies by crop and by agricultural income to pull all members of their ecoregion, with the differences sometimes households out of poverty. Most crop combinations2 insignificant, but male-headed households earned grown by the surveyed households did not raise their higher incomes for many crops. Profits were also per capita agricultural income3 above the regional influenced by ecoregions’ natural conditions, seeding rural poverty line (Table 1ES). techniques, fertilizer use, and other factors. Table 1ES: Agricultural Income Is Insufficient to Pull Small Farms Out of Poverty Monsoon MP + Dry MP + MP + MP + MP + MP + paddy (MP) season Black Green Chickpeas Sesame Maize only paddy gram gram Ayeyarwady: Rural poverty line: $364 Brackish water 106 258 416 Freshwater 74 185 Saltwater 67 266 Bago: Rural poverty line: $354 East alluvial 101 198 200 West alluvial 71 172 River area 33 160 Sagaing: Rural poverty line: $354 Dryland 16 53 52 Irrigated tract 1 78 181 82 River area 7 250 28 65 Shan State: Rural poverty line: $405 Border area 64 169 292 Northern interior 82 369 Southern interior 141 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 2 The only crop combination that generated per capita income higher than the poverty line was monsoon rice and dry season’s green gram in Ayeyarwady. 3 Agricultural income is the gross margin calculated as revenues less all costs excluding family labor. xviii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Finding No. 3: Low agricultural seed availability. The situation for other crops in productivity is the result of multiple Myanmar is even worse than for paddy: the public system does not produce enough good seeds and the factors, many of which are associated enabling environment for the private sector is not with the undersupply of quality conducive enough to stimulate seed imports or agricultural public goods production and multiplication of seeds in the country. It is not a surprise that most Myanmar farmers use 17 Agricultural productivity is affected by many their own saved seeds, a practice that keeps yields factors. Some of them are beyond the immediate low. influence of agricultural policy makers. A decrease in labor availability can be driven by rising wages outside of agriculture. Changes in the cost of working capital 19 Another example of a problem resulting from the undersupply of public goods such as (interest rate) largely reflect macroeconomic agricultural research and extension is farmers’ poor developments rather than agriculture sector knowledge about fertilizer use. Myanmar farmers performance. Land prices can increase or decrease widely use urea and compound fertilizers for paddy responding to the changes in demand from industry production in both monsoon and dry seasons, but often or urban development. Yet many factors affecting farm at inefficient application rates and inappropriate production can be influenced by the government nutrient composition. During the monsoon season, through service delivery and an enabling policy farmers apply only half of the nitrogen (N) and environment. The survey found many examples of phosphorus (P) rates applied in other Asian countries, public services that even when delivered to farmers while during the dry season the application of these did not have any visible impact. fertilizers was above the levels observed in other countries. In addition, Myanmar farmers overuse N 18 Take the case of seeds. The supply of certified and P at the expense of potassium (K), resulting in paddy seeds is estimated to meet not more relatively low partial factor productivity of N. One than 1 percent of the potential demand. Locally kilogram of N in Myanmar’s dry season generated produced good seeds are unavailable even to farmers only 30 kg of paddy compared to 72 kg in Thailand and residing in the main village tracts. For comparison, Vietnam (Figure 6ES). Despite the higher yields the supply of good rice seeds is estimated to satisfy 10 triggered by this higher use of fertilizers, high fertilizer percent of demand in Cambodia, while farmers in users obtained profits below those of low fertilizer Thailand and Vietnam do not have any problem with users. Figure 6ES: Myanmar Has the Lowest Partial Factor Productivity of Nitrogen 80 Use of nitrogen, kg of paddy/kg of N 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ar ia s nd ina es ine ia m an m Ch n p Ind aila tna My Indo ilip Th Vie Ph Note: Data for Myanmar are for Ayeyarwady. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. xix MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 20 A final example of the undersupply of high quality public programs is Myanmar’s poor costly to produce. In particular, labor use was lower, making these crops more attractive in areas with a record on irrigation. Irrigation coverage in Myanmar high labor deficit during peak harvest times. is relatively low: in 2014-2015, only about 3 million ha of agricultural land were part of public irrigation systems, which constituted 15 percent of crop area. 22 The situation is more nuanced by ecoregion because not all crops are equally suitable. For This is much lower coverage than in Indonesia and the brackish water area in Ayeyarwady and the irrigated Thailand (about 30 percent), China (about 50 percent), tract area in Sagaing, growing green gram was most and Vietnam (70 percent). profitable (Table 3ES). In the east alluvial ecoregion of Bago, however, the labor productivity for rice and green gram was similar, while variable costs and water Finding No. 4: Given that in many requirements were different: both were highest for agro-ecological zones paddy is less paddy. Farmers with access to irrigation and working profitable than other crops, the capital/loans can make good money producing dry season paddy. But those in drier places without access government needs to gradually shift to working capital have to pick more economically its focus from paddy production to suitable crops, usually pulses and oilseeds. broad-based agricultural support to better leverage agriculture for poverty reduction 23 Shifting the public policy focus from paddy production to broad-based agricultural development and profitability of overall farming systems offers high rates of return. Producing more 21 The survey confirmed that paddy is the major crop grown in Myanmar during the monsoon and getting higher paddy yields does not automatically lead to higher farm incomes. The freedom of selection season but other crops are much more important of least costly and most profitable crops and high during the dry season. The survey also found paddy attention to efficiency and profitability of production not to be the most profitable crop. Except for chickpea (i.e., producing more by using less inputs or using and sesame, all other crops generated higher profits inputs better instead of using more to achieve higher (Table 2ES). Most profitable was green gram, widely yields) are the keys to ensuring high returns to land produced in the Dry Zone and the Delta. Chickpea and and labor in Myanmar agriculture. sesame were less profitable than paddy but were less Table 2ES: In Myanmar, Land and Labor Profits for Pulses and Oilseeds Are in General Higher Than For Paddy Net margin, Labor productivity, Production costs, Labor use, $/ha $/day $/ha days/ha Monsoon paddy 114 4.75 510 103 Dry season paddy 246 9.20 626 63 Black gram 267 9.29 237 45 Green gram 581 15.92 355 51 Chickpeas 141 6.85 266 42 Groundnuts 324 8.32 421 65 Sesame 202 8.54 217 44 Sunflower seeds 377 15.68 121 30 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. xx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 3ES: Dry Season Paddy Can Compete with Other Crops Only in Some Ecoregions Net margin, Labor productivity, Production costs, Labor use, $/ha $/day $/ha days/ha Brackish water, Ayeyarwady Paddy 279 10.16 517 51 Black gram 241 7.40 287 57 Green gram 643 13.39 346 66 East alluvial, Bago Paddy 279 10.16 517 51 Black gram 255 8.52 256 49 Green gram 335 9.80 337 52 Irrigated tract, Sagaing Paddy 288 9.64 533 60 Green gram 787 16.06 459 84 Chickpeas 181 8.73 282 35 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 24 More attention to profitability would favor crop diversification but to meaningfully support this, agricultural programs need to broaden their scope and coverage well beyond rice. The public seed production system, for example, which currently focuses almost exclusively on hybrid rice varieties, needs to broaden its scope to include planting materials for a diverse range of paddy and other crops, building on Myanmar’s rich agro-diversity and farmers’ economic considerations. Agricultural extension services would need to increase outreach to farmers and crop coverage to accelerate adoption of modern farm technologies. Irrigation systems need to be more flexible and provide demand-driven irrigation services to enable farmers to pursue the best crop mix/rotation patterns in different areas and in response to market opportunities. xxi 140 120 100 Days/ha 80 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Wage, $/day ( ) ( ) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Net margin, $/ha rk;d pyg; rk;d pyg; + rk;d pyg; + rk;d pyg; + rk;d pyg; + rk;d pyg; + rk;d pyg; + aEGpyg; rwfy J yJwp D r d ;f ukvm;yJ ESr;f ajymif; {&m0wD - aus;vufEr G ;f yg;rI owfrw S r f sO;f - 364 a':vm qm;"mwfygaoma& 106 258 416 a&csK d 74 185 qm;iefa& 67 266 yJc;l - aus;vufEr G ;f yg;rI owfrw f sO;f - 354 a':vm S r ta&SUEIe;f ajr 101 198 200 taemufEe I ;f ajr 71 172 jrpf{&d,m 33 160 ppfui kd ;f - aus;vufEr G ;f yg;rI owfrw S rf sO;f - 354 a':vm ajcmufaoGUajr 16 53 52 qnfa&aomufty k p f k 1 78 181 82 jrpf{&d,m 7 250 28 65 &Sr;f jynfe,f- aus;vufEr G ;f yg;rI owfrw S rf sO;f - 405 a':vm e,fpyfa'o 64 169 292 ajrmufzuftwGi;f yki d ;f 82 369 awmifzuftwGi;f yki d ;f 141 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 zya; 2ES: ®mn\maNuic\cMt∑c\ eyB¨y¥Aa;®Pc\. p´N˙c\. S^T∑k\q^;N˙Mm¥a;At∑k\ e®myaN˙c\. Alup\qma; Ak¥oi;A®mt\m¥a;m˙a Sn\spå;Tk\ puimui®mc\.ma;påqv\" G ;f rSk vkyo tom;wiftusK;d Nzpfxe f w f m;ukex k f pGr;f &nf ukex f w f &dwf k p f m; toH;k NyKrkS vkyo a':vm^[ufwm a':vm^&uf a':vm^[ufwm &uf^[ufwm rd;k pyg; 114 4.75 510 103 aEGpyg; 246 9.20 626 63 rwfy J 267 9.29 237 45 yJwp d ;f D r 581 15.92 355 51 ukvm;yJ 141 6.85 266 42 aNryJ 324 8.32 421 65 ESr;f 202 8.54 217 44 aeBumaph 377 15.68 121 30 kd y owif;t&if;tjrpf - 2013-14 jrefrmhpu f sKd ;a&;qef;ppfavhvmcsuf MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS xxx introduction CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 This report is about the economics of farm production in selected regions of Myanmar. It provides baseline information on prevailing farm pieces of crucial information at a sufficient level of representation to help inform policy decisions.6 For example, while many agree that the level of fertilizer practices, technologies, productivity, and economic use is suboptimal, the level of fertilizer use per hectare outcomes of farming across a wide range of agro- of land is not clear. Furthermore, it is not clear how it ecological zones in four regions of Myanmar: varies by region, crop (off-season paddy, monsoon Ayeyarwady, Bago, Sagaing, and Shan State.4 The paddy, other crops), or ecosystem (dry land or irrigated survey included the 2013 monsoon season and the tract). Knowing the level of use and how it varies across 2014 off-season (cool and dry season). It covered 1,728 regions and production environments is essential for farmers in main village tracts; i.e., farmers with better understanding the possible production impact of access to market, finance, and public services, thereby alleviating credit constraints. More importantly, such telling a story about farms with better opportunities knowledge could also provide rough estimates of how and most likely better farming results. Comparisons much farmers’ income would rise if fertilizer use in productivity and profitability are made across increased. This knowledge in turn could help prioritize seasons (monsoon and cool and dry), farms of different investments and policy interventions. Fertilizer use sizes, and those featuring different patterns of land provides just one example use, crop rotations, and farming practices based on 3 an analysis of representative farm enterprise models. The extent of mechanization for different farm Most data are disaggregated by gender. Where operations (including availability of mechanization possible, Myanmar is benchmarked with its peers: services), the importance of farm saved seed versus Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and other Asian seed bought in the market, and the relative importance countries. Altogether, this report is among the first in of family versus hired labor are other key data that the country to build on accurate primary data and to provide evidence on which to rank different types of cover a wide range of details pertaining to farm interventions. For example, there is a need for better production economics.5 understanding of dynamics in labor availability and cost of hired labor, draught power availability, the cost 2 The report’s specific value added is in closing knowledge gaps on the basic facts about farming and availability of farm equipment and services, and costs of mechanized farming systems vis-à-vis those systems, and farm productivity and profitability. It is of labor-intensive practices. Such analysis can help known that many farms produce variety of crops in determine the scale of production where economic Myanmar but the full extent/magnitude of diversification and technical factors seem to lead to either more of farming systems across the seasons is not well productive use of farm mechanization or where known. In addition, information on input use, production productivity improvements are possible through costs, and profits is not accurate or largely nonexistent adoption of more labor-intensive methods. in Myanmar. While several studies recently estimated the costs of rice production, they did not contain some 4 Unless otherwise noted, the terms “Ayeyarwady, Bago, Sagaing, and Shan State” refer to the respective administrative regions rather than to towns, rivers, or other places with the same name (i.e., the word “Region” is implied but does not follow each instance of the region’s name). 5 Note that the survey does not include livestock and fisheries due to the need for different approaches in data collection compared to crops. 6 They also did not have information on crops other than rice. 1 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 4 A distinction is made between land and labor productivity. While both assets are important, an 6 The role of agriculture in reducing poverty is well recognized in the country. Leveraging agriculture increase in land productivity (i.e., crop yield) may not for reducing rural poverty is a key government priority. necessarily lead to an increase in labor productivity The 2014/15 Systematic Country Diagnostic of the World (i.e., income), which is critical for poverty reduction. Bank Group stressed the importance of raising returns Using better seeds, applying more fertilizers, and to agricultural land and labor to end poverty in putting more machines on farm fields are necessary Myanmar. Along with other reports, it identifies low but insufficient actions to increase the returns to labor. agricultural productivity as a central reason for high Low income per hectare may actually generate more rural poverty. It acknowledges that with the slow income per capita depending on the number of farm creation of nonfarm jobs, agriculture will continue to laborers employed or total days spent in the field. employ many people for years to come and affect job These nuances need to be much better understood in creation beyond primary production, e.g., in Myanmar and the discussion shifted in the direction agroprocessing and food distribution services. of farm incomes rather than strictly on production and 7 yields. This report provides details that can be used for designing effective programs and policies to 5 Why is the above information important? Because agriculture is a large and important sector in leverage agriculture’s role in poverty reduction. It starts with a presentation of the survey methodology, Myanmar. Although the agriculture share in gross the survey tools, and the framework for analyzing farm domestic product (GDP) has fallen in recent years, it profitability (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 presents the factors is still close to a third (MOAI 2015a). Agriculture makes of agricultural production – land, labor, and capital up around one quarter of Myanmar’s total merchandize – of the surveyed farms. Chapter 4 describes the exports and employs more than half of the workforce prevailing production choices/mixes in the monsoon (World Bank 2015a). Crops account for three quarters and off-seasons. Chapter 5 analyzes the economics of agriculture GDP. Although rice is the largest in terms of monsoon rice production and profitability. Chapter of output, beans and pulses account for half of value 6 presents an analysis of production and profitability added in crops. Therefore policies targeted at for off-season rice. Chapters 7, 8, and 9 analyze the increasing productivity of these crops could have non-rice crop production and profitability for beans important macroeconomic and poverty alleviation and pulses, maize, and oilseeds, respectively. Chapter implications. The latter ranged between 26-37 percent 10 summarizes the key findings. Eleven annexes in 2010 depending on the methodology used. Many include all details and results of the 2013/14 Myanmar rural people, including farmers, are poor: rural areas agricultural survey, including elaborative farm budgets account for 76 percent of all the poor in the country. for each crop.   2 METHODOLOGY AND SURVEY TOOLS CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY AND SURVEY TOOLS 7 8 Ayeyarwady, Bago, Sagaing, and Shan State were selected as target areas for data collection. They 10 Within each of these 96 main villages, all agricultural households were listed and represent a rich variety of agro-ecological zones/ organized under the categories of smallholder ecoregions and farming systems in Myanmar. The farmer (owns less than 5 acres), medium holder Myanmar Marketing Research and Development farmer (owns 5-10 acres) and large holder farmer Organization designed the survey and collected the (owns more than 10 acres). Individual farmers who data, with technical support from the International double-cropped (two target crops or one target crop Rice Research Institute, the Philippine Rice Research and one nontarget crop) were then chosen from each Institute, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture of the three size categories according to simple Organization (FAO). Data were collected for the 2013/14 random sampling, with the number of farmers in each agricultural season, through two survey rounds. The category proportional to the number of each category targeted crops were paddy, pulses and beans, oilseeds, of farms in that village. Main villages are likely to have and maize. The survey does not cover areas specialized better agricultural performers than more remote in horticultural or industrial crops. villages. They are likely to be the most economically active, receive more public services, have better access 9 The first round of the survey was conducted from to markets, and represent long-established production November to December 2013. In each of the four areas with better soils and production environments. selected regions/states, three representative ecosystems were chosen (see below). Within each of the 12 region-specific ecosystems, two townships were 11 The decision to select farmers from main villages was driven by a number of considerations. randomly selected using probability proportional to First, most studies with international comparisons size based on the net sown acres of each township. use a similar approach by collecting data from more Within each of these 24 townships, four village tracts developed farming areas, often equipped with (an administrative unit composed of groups of villages) irrigation. To compare the Myanmar findings with were chosen by simple random sampling. In Shan those of its peers required a similar approach. Second, State, with the exception of Taunggyi Township, village the limited budget available to the team required tracts were not selected at random but chosen in prioritization and clear focus on capturing the state consultation with Township Agricultural Officers, who of farm production economics in selected regions. could advise on village tracts with a satisfactory Third, insecurity in some areas precluded the team security situation. Within each village tract, the main from surveying more remote villages. village was selected to minimize the survey team’s transport costs. If the selected main village turned out to have less than half of its area planted to the 12 It follows that the findings of this analysis should not be interpreted as Myanmar’s target crops, another randomly selected main village averages. They need to be seen as an insight into the elsewhere in the township was chosen as a substitute. production economics of better-performing farms mainly growing rice during the monsoon season and 7 See Annex 1 for more details, including maps showing the survey areas. Annex 2 presents the conversion factors used in this report. 3 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS other crops during the off-season, including second characteristics (Table 40A, Table 41A, Figure 51A, season rice, in selected regions of Myanmar. The Figure 52A, Figure 53A, Figure 54A, and Figure 55A in surveyed farmers are more receptive to adopting new Annex 1). They are the following: and modern technologies. They represent the upper a. Ayeyarwady’s ecoregions include the land tier of farmers, those using higher application rates under saltwater, brackish water, and of fertilizers and better-quality seed, and likely having freshwater. These areas are the part of better access to services such as credit, equipment the larger Delta Region agro-ecological rental, and irrigation. Overall, the results illustrate zone (AEZ). the profitability of agricultural production when b. Bago’s ecoregions are west alluvial, east adequate level of inputs and more modern technologies alluvial, and east/west flooded lands. are used. Together with Sagaing, they belong to the larger Dry Zone AEZ. 13 The survey collected information from 1,728 farmers during the first round. In some cases, c. Also part of the larger Dry Zone AEZ, Sagaing’s ecoregions include irrigated data on yield for plots observed during the first round tract land, dryland, and riverbed areas. were not available at the time of the survey, so the d. Shan State’s ecoregions include southern team collected the yield information during the second interior, northern interior, and border round. This was mostly the case for farmers in Labutta areas representing the Shan Plateau/ Township in Ayeyarwady due to flooding that caused Mountainous Region AEZ. delayed cropping. By region, the sample included 484 households in Ayeyarwady, 380 households in Bago, 501 households in Sagaing, and 363 households in 16 Data for the second round of the survey were collected during the months of March to May Shan State. They represent 0.07 percent of all farms 2014. The interviewers returned to the same in those regions (Annex 1, Table 39A8). households visited in 2013 and requested information on second season rice and other crops (maize, pulses 14 Respondents were farmers who met the following criteria: (i) had resided in the village and beans, oilseeds) for the summer crop. Out of the 1,728 initially selected farms, about 56 percent provided at least two years; (ii) expressed availability and information on non-rice production, mainly pulses, willingness to participate fully in the survey; (iii) was and about 20.5 percent on rice production. The actively cultivating land, whether as a landowner, land remaining households grew a nontarget crop (e.g., tenant, or landowner who rents additional land; and fruits, culinary crops) during the second season, and (iv) was the head of the household or a household further data on those crops were not collected. member who led the farm work. 15 The townships within each state or region were 17 The survey data is used to analyze farm profitability through construction of farm organized under three clusters defined by budgets. Figure 1 presents the farm budget calculation geographical area and zone-specific agro-ecological framework. Figure 1: Farm Budget Calculation Framework GROSS REVENUE LIVESTOCK MATERIAL COST OF MACHINERY HIRED LABOR FAMILY LABOR INPUTS CAPITAL FUEL GROSS MARGIN NET MARGIN Source: Own presentation. 8 See Annex 1 for more details, including maps showing the survey areas. Annex 2 presents the conversion factors used in this report. 4 METHODOLOGY AND SURVEY TOOLS 18 The farm budget components are calculated in the following manner: then applied to all farmers, even those who owned their own livestock/ a. Gross revenue is calculated by multiplying machinery. This is essentially the yield (quantity produced as reported opportunity cost of using their own by farmers) with farm-gate prices. equipment – if they did not use it on Yields and farm-gate prices for budget their own farm, they could rent it out estimates are in wet paddy equivalent. to another farmer. In cases where farmers did not sell iv. The cost of working capital is proxied their production, prices were estimated by a sum of costs multiplied by an using the median farm-gate prices at the interest rate. The relevant costs are ecoregion level, thus imputing a value of those for material inputs, livestock, rice for own consumption. machinery, and fuel plus hired labor, b. Total costs are broken down into five excluding labor costs related to subcategories: (i) material inputs, harvest and post-harvest activities comprising seeds, fertilizers, manure, (because outputs can be sold once and chemicals; (ii) hired labor; (iii) costs harvested, these labor costs do not of using livestock, machinery, and fuel; need to be financed). If the sale of (iv) computed cost of working capital; and outputs is delayed, then any financing (v) imputed costs of family labor: of harvest labor costs required is not i. The cost of seeds was computed a production cost but is more properly using the quantity of seeds and the viewed as a cost of marketing. The actual prices for farmers purchasing interest rate is a weighted average of hybrid seeds, certified seeds, or two interest rates, with the weights noncertified seeds from different being the fractions of farmers who sources. For farmers using their own borrowed money and those who did seeds, the median prices of dry paddy not. For farmers who borrowed, the at the ecoregion level were used. In interest rate is the median interest sum, seeds are monetized whether rate for a six-month loan (the most purchased or self-supplied. common loan duration) within each ii. Only the costs of hired labor are ecoregion. For farmers who did not considered at this point. A value is borrow money, the interest rate imputed for family and permanent used is equal to half of that used labor, but this is done at a later stage for borrowers, as a proxy for the and is not included here. opportunity cost of own capital. iii. Because not all farmers own livestock v. The own farm labor cost, including and machinery, they are often rented permanent labor living on the farm, in, while other farmers use their is imputed using person-hours of own livestock and machinery. Thus labor allocated to farm production two ways exist to calculate the cost multiplied by the average wage rate for of these services. One is to use hired labor for a similar task. Where the purchase price of livestock or the cost of hired labor is missing for machinery and annualize it using a particular task, the average hourly estimates of depreciation, salvage rate for all tasks is used. value, the opportunity cost of capital, c. The three profitability indicators used and other parameters. The other is to are – gross margin, net margin, and use rental rates for these services. labor productivity: Given its relative simplicity, the i. Gross margin is gross revenue latter approach was used. For the less costs excluding family labor. sake of consistency, average rental The gross margin is essentially the rates were calculated for the various income accruing to a household that services used by farmers who rent in owns the land it tills: returns to family these services; these numbers were (and permanent) labor employed on 5 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS the farm, returns to land, and returns to management skills. 20 The results of the survey were compared with international data from the Food and ii. Net margin is gross revenue less total Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical costs or, equivalently, gross margin Database (FAOSTAT) and the U.S. Department of less the imputed value of family (and Agriculture (USDA). In addition, rice data were permanent) labor. It is essentially benchmarked against selected countries in Asia, the farm profit after assuring payment data for which came from three studies carried out in to own family labor at market wage 2014 and 2015. The first is a study on Cambodia carried rates, i.e., the returns to land and out by the World Bank (2015a). It analyzes farm management skills. production economics in the major rice-producing iii. Labor productivity is computed areas (Takeo, Prey Veng, and Svay Rieng Provinces in by dividing gross revenue net of South-East region and Battambang and Banteay input costs by the number of days Meanchey Provinces in North-West region) in 2013. of labor spent on farm production The second study includes China, India, Indonesia, the regardless of the source (family, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. It was carried out hired, or permanent). This indicator by a joint team from the Philippine Rice Research gives an idea of how productive farm Institute, International Rice Research Institute, labor is in growing a particular crop. Benguet State University, and Philippine Council for Labor productivity tends to be high Agriculture and Fisheries (Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015). when large amounts of capital (e.g., It covers a total of 603 farmers in intensively cultivated machines) are used, when high- areas of Asian commercial production rice bowls quality land is used, or when skillful during the January-June 2013 harvest (i.e., dry/off- farm managers are employed. Labor season in Myanmar) and July-December 2013 harvest productivity is crucial for achieving (i.e., monsoon season in Myanmar). The third study is high standards of living, and tends to still ongoing, but is already providing relevant be higher in rich countries relative to information on rice value chains in the Greater Mekong poor countries. Subregion, covering Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. It is being carried out by the 19 Annex 8 presents detailed farm budgets for each ecoregion and farm size. The latter allows World Bank (2015c) to deepen knowledge, foster cross- county experience sharing, and promote dialogue on some basic analysis of scale economies in Myanmar’s how to better leverage rice sector development for agriculture sector. In addition, the farm budgets are poverty reduction. constructed to compare profitability by: (i) type of crop establishment (transplanting versus direct seeding); (ii) adoption of different types of seeds; (iii) quantity of 21 All three mentioned studies present data for 2013 that are comparable to the 2013/14 fertilizers used (low, medium, or high) and type of Myanmar survey. Moreover, the farm budgets are fertilizer used (none, urea, or urea and NPK); and (iv) calculated in the same way as in the Myanmar report gender of the household head. and focus on the more productive farmers in the main rice-producing areas, as in this report. This makes the results of all three studies meaningfully comparable to the results of the Myanmar study herein.   6 FACTORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION CHAPTER 3: FACTORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 3.1 LAND 23 Land is the important factor of production in agriculture. The greater the land available, the Significant disparities are also observed across ecoregions. The saltwater ecoregion in Ayeyarwady more farm income can be derived from it. In the sample (districts of Labutta and Pyapon) is characterized by of 1,728 farm households, the average farm size was a high percentage of farms with more than 2 ha of land 8.26 acres or 3.34 hectares (ha)9 (Table 49A). This (83 percent of all households). In contrast, smallholders average size is slightly higher than the average for dominate in the districts of Kyaukme (66 percent) and Myanmar from the 2010 Agricultural Census (estimated Muse (85 percent) of Shan State. at 6.34 acres) but is consistent with the average for the four regions included in the survey. The smallest farms are in Shan State and the largest in Ayeyarwady 25 The size structure of farms in Myanmar is similar to that in most Asian countries. Most and Sagaing (Figure 2). The average farm size of male- farms are small in the broader international headed households (3.37 ha) is only marginally larger comparison and will remain small in the future. Even than that of female-headed households (3.15 ha). . large farms with 5-10 ha in Myanmar, large in an Asian context, are small compared to farms in Australia, the 24 Small farms, defined in this report those having less than 2 ha, can be found in all United States, or even southern Europe. Land constraints play a role: even in the future (2050), regions. But there are more of such farms in Sagaing Myanmar’s agricultural land endowment per projected (61 percent of all farms) and Shan State (69 percent) total population will be small compared to that of than in Ayeyarwady (33 percent) and Bago (46 percent). Australia and the United States, the global agricultural Figure 2: Farm Size by Ecoregion 4.0 3.5 Farm size, ha 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 - er er r l ct a a r r at at ate v ia vial rea nd tra are a re erio erio lu lu a a r nt nt w w w sh esh alt al t al iver y l ed er de rn i rn i i t s s R Dr gat Riv r ck Fr S Ea We i Bo the the B ra Irr or u N So Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 9 In the main text, land area is presented in “ha” for consistency with international comparisons. Tables in the annexes present land data in “acres,” the more commonly used land metric in Myanmar. 7 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS powerhouses. A large role is also played by Myanmar’s limited. Second, for farm households to keep up with high agricultural labor force, a factor that can be their nonfarm counterparts, it will be essential for overcome in the future in contrast to the limited land them to grow more profitable crops (primarily availability. In Japan and South Korea, for example, nonstaples) and diversify their incomes into nonfarm low land availability is compensated for by small sectors (or leave farming entirely). Third, the agricultural labor forces, 1.0 and 2.3 percent of total productivity of land needs to be high to provide good population, respectively, resulting in much larger farm incomes, putting a premium on sustainable land average farm sizes than in Myanmar. and water management. Fourth, with higher wages and a labor shortage, mechanization will eventually 26 Along with economic growth, agricultural employment in Myanmar will decline, which occur but will need to work at smaller field scales than in North America or Australia.10 Most farms will have will automatically increase the average size of farms. to mechanize through rental markets as farm sizes Agricultural land area can also expand but urbanization (i.e., a low land/labor ratio) will simply not be large and stronger forest protection will be limiting factors enough to profitably work machinery full-time without for significant agricultural area expansion. The extent renting out to other farmers. and speed of reduction in agricultural labor will depend on the ability of nonfarm sectors to create jobs and absorb today’s farm labor, as well as migration 28 With regard to mechanization, the good news is that in some areas of Myanmar, most farms opportunities. But even if the agricultural population operate only one parcel of land.11 In Ayeyarwady, 68 shrinks to 5 percent of total population by 2050, percent of farms have only one parcel,12 including 83 agricultural land availability in Myanmar will still be only percent of farms in the saltwater ecoregion (Table 4.3 ha per farmer, or 8.6 ha per household assuming 50A). Most parcels in Ayeyarwady are between 2.6-5.0 two farmers per household. In other words, it will not acres in size (Table 51A). In Sagaing, however, the be as large as in Australia, Europe, and the United States. proportion of farmers with one parcel declines to 40 percent. Overall, half of the surveyed farmers operate 27 Several policy implications emerge. First, relying on large farm sizes alone to solve the one land parcel; 26 percent have two parcels, 14 percent have three parcels, and only 10 percent have farm income problem in Myanmar will work only for four or more parcels. Large land fragmentation is only a tiny minority because the land resource is simply observed in Sagaing and Shan State (Figure 3). Figure 3: Number of Parcels by Farm by Region 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan One parcel 2 parcels 3 parcels 4 and more parcels Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 10 Higher wages and fewer laborers available, however, will not automatically trigger mechanization as the experience of Indonesia and the Philippines demonstrates. An enabling environment for a rental machinery market in terms of laws and regulations as well as farmers’ access to working capital are also necessary to ensure rapid and efficient replacement of labor by machines. See more discussion in Chapter 3.3. 11 This is the issue worth noting. For example, in Red River Delta the average farm holding is below 0.5 ha with this typically being divided into 3 to 7 parcels of different quality land, scattered throughout the village/commune. 12 A parcel is defined as any piece of land entirely surrounded by other land, water, road, forest, etc., not forming part of the holding. 8 FACTORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 29 The weak land rental market in Myanmar has prevented movement of land from less to 32 Most landowners said they could use land as loan collateral but very few actually did so more efficient farmers. No farmer in the survey (Table 56A). The supply of long-term credit requiring sample in Ayeyarwady reported renting land (Table the use of land as collateral is very limited in Myanmar. 52A). The proportion of farmers reporting that they Moreover, some land is in communal/customary rented land was a mere 1 percent in Bago and Sagaing ownership and cannot be used for collateral by and 3 percent in Shan State, despite the relatively high individuals. rental payments. Rental payments averaged $830/ha in Bago and Shan State. 33 With regard to soil types, most parcels in the survey sample were located in lowlands, 30 Many reasons explain the inactive rental market in Myanmar. One is the low land tax except in Shan State. Most land plots in Shan State and to a lesser extent in Sagaing were upland plots rates and the soft enforcement of tax payments; i.e., (Figure 5). Sagaing was also characterized by 5 percent most landowners did not pay taxes at all in 2013/14 of kayland (i.e., plots located along rivers). These are (Table 52A). Another reason is the uncertainty over fertile lands made up by alluvial deposits left by river future land reform. Almost 90 percent of households floods during the rainy season. Some land plots surveyed possessed documents proving their land reportedly have high erosion, especially in hilly regions, ownership (Table 53A), including half of households as well as in the saltwater ecoregion of Ayeyarwady with a land use right certificate. But they did not know (Table 57A). Land texture determines the types of crops the extent of security of those documents or what will best suited for cultivation. For example, clay is the happen to their land that is operated/leased by other main type of soil for lowland plots, which are mostly farmers at the time of reform. suitable for rice production (Table 58A). Upland plots in Shan State were qualified as sandy by farmers. 31 As a result, most land operated by farmers is either inherited or purchased. Between half 34 The productivity, intensity of use, and value and three-fourths of farmers acquired their land from of land increase along with access to water. inheritance, with the lowest proportion in Bago and With irrigation, farmers are willing to invest more in the highest in Sagaing (Table 54A). The land market the use of modern inputs, labor, and services, taking for purchase was more active in Ayeyarwady and Bago, into account the reduced climatic risks such as drought with more than half of land obtained by purchase; and flooding. Unfortunately, irrigation coverage in transactions picked up slightly during 2005-2013 (Table Myanmar is relatively low. In 2011/12, 2.12 million ha of 55A). Other modes of acquisition were quite important agricultural land were part of public irrigation systems, in Shan State (Figure 4), where farmers got land from according to MOAI (2013). This constituted 12 percent the government and communities or through land of crop area and was much smaller than in other Asian clearing. countries, except Cambodia (Table 1). Figure 4: Mode of Land Acquisition by Region 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan Inheritance Purchase Other Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 9 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 5: Geographical Location and Slope of Parcels 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan Lowland Upland Kailand Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Table 1: Irrigation Coverage, Selected Countries Country Full control actual irrigated Arable land Share of irrigated areas area (ha) 2011-2012 (ha) 2011 in arable land (%) Cambodia 317,225 4,000,000 7.9 China 54,218,976 111,598,500 48.6 Indonesia 6,722,299 23,500,000 28.6 Malaysia 340,717 1,800,000 18.9 Myanmar 2,120,000 17,640,000 12.0 Philippines 1,879,084 5,400,000 34.8 South Korea 880,400 1,492,000 59.0 Thailand 5,059,914 15,760,000 32.1 Vietnam 4,585,500 6,500,000 70.5 Source: FAO 2012 for irrigation statistics and the World Development Indicators for arable land. 35 In the survey sample, the extent of irrigation significantly varied by region and season 36 Most farmers in Shan State used private solutions, pumping water from rivers (Table (Figure 6 and Table 59A). On one hand, farmers in 61A). Many farmers identified pumps as an efficient Ayeyarwady and Bago barely used irrigation in the wet equipment to overcome the lack of hard irrigation season, as their fields received enough water from infrastructure such as dams, and at the same time to rains. In the dry season, 64 percent of plots in reduce the likelihood of production loss due to droughts freshwater ecosystem of Ayeyarwady were irrigated, and floods. Pumps were also used to drain water from while other land areas remained unirrigated. On the flooded fields when needed. other hand, most land in Sagaing was under irrigation in all seasons, with water coming from both public systems (canals and wells) and rivers (Figure 7 and Table 60A). In Shan State, the use of irrigation was highest in the dry season. 10 FACTORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION Figure 6: Proportion of Irrigated Plots by Season and Region 100% 80% % of plots 60% 40% 20% 0% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan % in wet season % in cool season % in dry season Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Figure 7: Primary Source of Water for Irrigation by Region 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan Canal Well Rivers Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 37 The average cost of irrigation was about $49/ ha, though it varied significantly by region and season (Table 62A). In the cool season, this rate increased to $74/ha and in the dry season fell to $17/ season. The cost was mainly related to the use of labor ha, probably due to either free provision of water in for irrigation, diesel to pump water, rental of pumping public canals or a limited supply of water in the dry equipment, and other expenses, but not actual season. In other regions, very few farmers reported payments for water. In the irrigated tract area of paying for irrigation at all. Sagaing, farmers spent $62/ha for irrigation in the wet 11 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 3.2 LABOR 38 Rural labor is another important factor of agricultural production. Agriculture is the 40 High labor use in Myanmar, combined with low use of material inputs and capital, leads primary source of livelihoods for most rural dwellers. to low farm labor productivity. People spend too much Even for households owning land that complement time on paddy and have less time for other crops, other total income by working off their farms, agricultural jobs, and other activities. In many Asian countries, the income was the main source of income (Table 63A). high share of agricultural labor in the national accounts For landless households, working on farms is (Table 2, fourth column) distorts the true picture of essentially a matter of survival; it is essential to make labor productivity in rice production by pushing it ends meet. downwards. It ignores the much lower labor input in terms of person-days (Table 2, third column). In 39 More than half of the total labor force in Myanmar is estimated to work in agriculture contrast, Myanmar’s high share of agricultural labor in total labor appears to reflect the actual situation of low labor productivity due to high labor inputs. (World Bank 2015b). Prevailing farming practices are highly labor-intensive and agricultural wages are low. Farm wages in Myanmar in the 2013 monsoon season were only $1.8-2.5/day, the lowest in a sample of 41 In terms of labor intensity of rice production, Myanmar looks today as some of its neighbors selected Asian countries (Table 2). In the 2014 dry did 10-15 years ago. In the 1990s, from 60-170 days season, wages grew to $3.0-3.5/day, showing rapid were spent per hectare of paddy land in the commercial growth, but not sufficient to reach the levels observed major rice Asian bowls (Table 3). With the rise of wages in peer countries. As a result of low wages and the and the development of private sector-driven rental high cost of capital, rice production practices in machinery services, the labor intensity of rice Myanmar are labor-intensive: 131 days are spent per production decreased significantly in most countries. ha of paddy in Ayeyarwady, the main rice-producing Nowadays labor allocations there are 11-50 days (Table area of the country, compared to 11 days in Thailand, 2). In China, for example, the labor intensity of rice 22 days in Vietnam, and 52 days in Cambodia, the production declined from 80 days/ha in the 1990s to countries competing with Myanmar on global rice 35 days/ha in 2014. markets. It appears that Myanmar currently has the highest labor intensity of wet paddy commercial production in Asia. Table 2: Wages and Labor Intensity in Rice Systems, International Comparison, 2013/14 Country Average wage, Labor input, wet season rice, Agricultural labor in total $/day days/ha labor force, % (2015) Cambodia 4.0 52 51 China 19.3 35 35 India 4.2 78 47 Indonesia 7.5 96 35 Myanmar 1.8 (2.5) 131 (103) 63 Thailand 10.0-16.5 11 40 Vietnam 8.9 22 47 Philippines 7.8 70 32 Note: Data for Myanmar are for Ayeyarwady; the average for the four regions is in parentheses. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: Columns 1 and 2, 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. Column 3, World Development Indicators. 12 FACTORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION Table 3: Labor Use for Rice Production in Major Asian Rice Bowls, 1994-1999 Country Region Labor, days/ha China Zhejiang 80 India Tamil Nadu 170 Indonesia West Java 115 Philippines Central Luzon 58 Thailand Central Plains 18 Vietnam Mekong Delta 83 Source: Moya et al. 2004. 42 It is important to note, however, that higher wages alone are not sufficient to trigger the 44 Returning to the survey results, the average household size in Myanmar was 5.85, ranging quick replacement of labor by machinery. The from 5.22 in Ayeyarwady to 6.21 in Bago (Table 64A). examples are Indonesia and the Philippines. Labor On average, households contain more women than use in rice production there declined over time but men, with the exception of Bago, where the proportion remains very high compared to China, Thailand, of men is 0.52 (Table 65A). This difference is likely to Vietnam, or even Cambodia. Many challenges face be the effect of hired employees living at the household, their rental machinery markets, ranging from private of which 90 percent are men. In Bago, about 10 percent sector-unfriendly regulations to social resistance to of the household members are hired individuals, while replacing wage labor by machines. Myanmar can take in other regions the proportion is about 1 percent. note of this. 43 Farm wages are determined by many factors, 45 The presence of hired members in the household lowers the dependency ratio, including the prevailing wages outside resulting in more available labor for productive tasks. agriculture. Wages are expected to increase as per The dependency ratio13 ranged from 48 percent in Bago capita income increases. Looking at daily average to 57 percent in Sagaing (Table 65A). The average age wages across Asia (Figure 8, left side), it becomes of hired household members was 30 years. In the clear why agricultural wages in Myanmar are so low: district of Thayarwadi in the west alluvial ecoregion, they follow wages in other parts of the economy. Wages the dependency ratio was 39 percent and the proportion in Myanmar are among the lowest. Note that the of hired members was 17 percent. On the opposite end average wages in developing countries of Asia are still of the spectrum was Katha in the river area ecoregion, very low compared to their more developed peers, with a dependency ratio of 72 percent. The gender of with a large gap (Figure 8, right side). In Japan, for the household head also affected the dependency ratio: example, the minimum wage is $6/hour or $48/day it was higher for male-headed households (54 percent) (assuming an 8-hour work day). Wages received by than for female-headed households (50 percent). most people are much higher than the minimum wage. Wages in Europe and the United States are even higher than in Japan, and much higher than in developing Asia. 13 The dependency ratio is a measure showing the number of dependents (aged 0-14 and over the age of 65) to the total number of household members aged 15-64.The lower the ratio, the higher the number of active members taking care of non-active members. 13 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 8: Wages, International Comparison Daily Minimum Wage, $, end Sept. 2014 Daily Wage, $, 2013 Japan USA US$/day Canada Germany Britian France 0 50 100 150 200 Minimum Median Source: The Economist based on the Philippines Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. National Wages and Productivity Commission. 46 The quality of human capital in Myanmar agriculture is very low. More than 70 percent TV possession was more common than radio possession, with more than half of the sampled of household heads did not attend school beyond the households owning a TV in all regions, with the primary level (Figure 9). The proportion of household exception of farmers in Sagaing (44 percent) (Table heads with little or no education was very high, at more 68A). At least one member in about 39 percent of the than 90 percent in Shan State, of which about 50 sampled households had a cell phone, with the lowest percent have no education (Table 67A). The situation proportion in Sagaing (17 percent) and the highest in was a bit better in Ayeyarwady (districts of Hinthada, Shan State (56 percent).14 Landline phones are Maubin, Labutta, and Pathein) and Bago (district of extremely rare, with ownership at about 5 percent Thayarwadi), where more than one out of five heads overall. The rate dropped to 1 percent in Shan State of households finished secondary school and between and 3 percent in Sagaing. In the saltwater ecoregion 5-17 percent went through tertiary school and beyond. township of Labutta, however, the percent of farmers The policy implication is that extension services, on- using a cell phone was just 6 percentage points above farm training, and vocational skills improvement those using landline phones (25 percent versus 19 programs are absolutely necessary to uplift farm labor percent). productivity in Myanmar. 47 Female heads of households were less 49 With the development of mobile technologies, cell phones are expected to play an important educated than male household heads. On role in terms of dissemination and access to average, 19 percent of men did not have any formal information and improving farmers’ skills and education compared to 30 percent of women (Table capacity. For example, the use of text messages for 67A). While 9 percent of men received tertiary and dissemination of technical and price information is higher education, the share for women was only 4 increasing due to its low cost. A slight bias toward percent. male-headed households existed in terms of possession of media equipment: on average, lower 48 Many households in the survey sample possessed media equipment or cell phones. proportions of female-headed households had a TV, radio, or cell phone. 14 In 2014, the national average cell phone ownership was 33 percent, according to the 2014 Myanmar Population and Housing Census. Owner- ship of cell phones is increasing rapidly in the country, however. 14 CAPITAL/PRODUCTIVE ASSETS Figure 9: Education of Household Head by Region 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% r r ct r r te te te r via l l a d a ea rio rio wa wa a via are an tra are ar te te tw lu lu l ed r in in ish h l al al er ry er de es Sa st t Ri v D at Ri v r er n rn ck Fr Ea es ig Bo he Br a W Irr or th ou t N S Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan No education Primary education Secondary education Tertiary and beyond Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 3.3 CAPITAL/PRODUCTIVE ASSETS 50 Capital is usually required to raise labor productivity in agriculture. The use of capital available. Even farmers are expanding into service provision, providing tillage and harvesting services for neighboring farmers (USAID 2015). Competition in crop production is associated with mechanization, which can have many advantages, including more between tractor dealers is heated and has led to the timely completion of planting and harvesting, reduced introduction of leasing options, in addition to bank post-harvest losses, and others. These factors financing options. certainly play a role in decisions to mechanize, but perhaps the two most important factors are the level of wages and the land/labor ratio: higher wages and 52 In Myanmar, according to the survey, the share of farms owning motorized agricultural land/labor ratios should lead to adoption of labor- equipment varied from 12 percent in Sagaing to 26 saving technologies and greater use of machinery percent in Ayeyarwady (Figure 10), and the type of (Dawe 2015). Social factors also play a role in terms of machinery owned differed by region. Shan State is accepting machinery to replace labor. characterized by a high number of farmers with power tillers, reaching 45 percent of all farmers (Table 70A). 51 The level of agricultural mechanization in Myanmar is still low in regional comparison. The share is about 20 percent in Ayeyarwady and 10 percent in Bago and Sagaing. About one-fifth of farmers in Ayeyarwady own small tractors, and Bago The example is the percentage of farmers using combine harvesters or threshers (Table 4). It is not a has the highest percentage of farmers owning a surprise given the low wages in rural areas, the excess medium-size tractor (15 percent). Except in Ayeyarwady, agricultural labor, and the still-lacking infrastructure many farmers own several pieces of machinery and and regulatory environment for machinery service equipment (for example, a power tiller and small providers. The small size of farms also matters but tractor). The age of this machinery is unknown, though experience from other countries shows that this most is likely very old. problem can be overcome through rental machinery services. The rental machinery market has been booming in other Asian countries. Many know about 53 Ownership of four-wheel tractors in the survey sample was much higher than the regional the advances made in China, Thailand, and Vietnam, average ownership reported in the 2014 Myanmar especially in the core rice producing areas (Table 4). Population and Household Census. According to the But even in Cambodia, another poor country with Census, the national average ownership is only 2.5 mostly small farms, mechanization has greatly percent. Shan State has the highest rate (6.9 percent); advanced: in 2013, 73 percent of all land preparation other regions are much lower, around 2 percent (Table was done by machinery (Chan 2014). The number of 5). Ownership rates in the 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural tractors increased 145 percent between 2004 and 2013, survey were much higher, confirming that the 2013/14 and the number of power tillers increased 648 percent. Myanmar agricultural survey included mostly better- Machinery and equipment services are readily off and more productive farmers. 15 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 4: Paddy Area and Mechanization, International Comparison Average paddy area Farmers using combine cultivated, ha harvesters/threshers, % China 0.36 100 India 3.33 99 Indonesia 1.67 0 Myanmar 2.14 1 Philippines 2.06 3 Thailand 4.39 100 Vietnam 1.38 100 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Figure 10: Possession of Agricultural Tractors by Region 50 Small tractor Medium tractor 40 Large tractor Power tiller % of all farms 30 20 10 0 Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 54 Ownership of harvesting equipment was much lower than that of tractors. For rice, only 0.5 73A). On the other hand, the share of farms without draught oxen in Bago was only 22 percent. The average percent of surveyed farmers had a combine harvester. number of draught oxen per farm was 1.7. The mode These farms were located in Ayeyarwady and Shan was two draught oxen (38 percent of the cases); about State (Table 71A). However, a greater proportion of 14 percent of farms owned three to four animals; and farmers owned a thresher for post-harvest tasks: 17 only 2 percent owned more than four animals. percent in Ayeyarwady and 5-6 percent in the other regions (Table 72A). 57 As a result, Myanmar’s rice production, a proxy for typical farming practices, has been less 55 Instead, most farmers in Ayeyarwady, Bago, and Sagaing owned and used draught oxen capital-intensive than that of most Asian countries. The average labor cost/machine cost ratio in 2013/14 (Figure 11). Oxen constitute an intermediate solution in Myanmar was 2.1 (Table 6), meaning that farmers par excellence in developing countries, where most spent twice as much on labor, hired and own, as on farmers face high initial costs of mechanization. mechanized services. In Thailand this ratio was 0.9, Draught oxen provide power for agricultural production in China 1.2, and in Vietnam 1.6. Myanmar fares similarly and transportation. Oxen have inherent risks related with India but more favorably than Cambodia, the to their health and availability of feed, however. Philippines, and Indonesia. In the latter two countries, very small farm sizes, policy barriers to rental 56 In areas with higher wages and good access to affordable machinery, such as in Shan machinery markets, and social resistance to mechanization explain the high labor/machinery ratios State, ownership of draught oxen was low: about 79 despite the relatively high wages (Dawe 2015). percent of farms in Shan State did not own them (Table 16 CAPITAL/PRODUCTIVE ASSETS Table 5: Ownership of 4-Wheel Tractors, Percent of Households Region 2013/14 Survey, % 2014 Population Census, % Ayeyarwady 26 2.5 Bago 24 1.9 Sagaing 13 1.8 Shan State 14 6.9 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey and MIP 2015. Figure 11: Possession of Draught Oxen by Region 90 80 70 60 % of farms 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan None 1-2 oxen 3-4 oxen Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Table 6: Agricultural Wages, Labor Input, and Labor/Capital Ratio, Interna- tional Comparison, 2013/14 Country Average wage, Labor input, wet season rice, Labor/machine ratio, $/day days/ha wet season rice Cambodia 4.0 52 3.0 China 19.3 11 1.2 India 4.2 78 1.9 Indonesia 7.5 94 11.8 Myanmar* 1.8 (2.5) 131 (103) 2.1 (2.0) Philippines 7.8 69 2.6 Thailand 10.0-16.5 10 0.9 Vietnam 8.9 23 1.6 Note: Data for Myanmar are for Ayeyarwady; the average for the four regions is in parentheses. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. 17 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 12: Farmers with Loans and Loan Amounts 120 200 Loan amount, $/acre 100 150 % of farmers 80 60 100 40 50 20 0 - Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan % of farms with loans Loan, $/acre Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 58 The use of mechanized services and inputs depends on access to working capital, among 60 For the monsoon season, the main source of loan was the Myanma Agricultural several other factors. In Myanmar, farmers in general Development Bank (MADB). About 71 percent of do not have the access to long-term capital, preventing farmers received MADB loans (Figure 13). Money investments in agricultural machinery and other lenders constituted the second major source of capital, productive assets at least for the large farms, for whom with 11 percent of farmers accessing funds from them. owning machinery can make economic sense (World Other important sources were other financial Bank and LIFT 2014a). For farms with small land areas institutions, family and friends, and rice companies. buying expensive agricultural machines is often unprofitable, and what they need is the access to short- term working capital to purchase mechanized services. 61 Most of the loans, about 65 percent, were for six months (Figure 14). This is in line with MADB’s In Myanmar, it is a common practice among farmers lending policy. A small number of loans (10 percent) to get agricultural loans. In the survey, about two out were for five months, and another 10 percent for seven of three farmers had ongoing loans in 2013. About 67 to eight months. Very few loans lasted more than one percent of these farms had one loan, about 30 percent year. had two different loans, and 3 percent had three loans. 59 The highest loan coverage was in Ayeyarwady and Bago. Almost all farmers there reported having loans (97-98 percent of farmers), with an average loan amount of $125/acre (Figure 12).15 In Sagaing, 54 percent of farmers had loans, with an average amount of $172/acre. The lowest proportion of farmers having loans was found in Shan State (less than 15 percent), where the loan amount averaged $125/acre. It could be that many farmers in Shan State have contract farming arrangements with Chinese traders, for example, where inputs are provided in advance, with payments made by outputs after the harvest. This reduces the need to obtain loans. 15 An access to finance in more remote villages may be lower than reported in the surveyed main village tracts. 18 CAPITAL/PRODUCTIVE ASSETS Figure 13: Source of Agricultural Loans for Farmers Financial Rice companies Other & institutions 5% Community 7% 1% Family and friends 5% MADB Money leders 71% 11% Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Figure 14: Duration of Loans in Months 70 60 50 % of Loans 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Duration, months Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Table 7: Average and Median Monthly Interest Rate by Source Source of Loan N Average Median monthly interest, % monthly interest, % MADB 1,124 0.80 0.80 Money lender 170 5.40 5.00 Family and friends 73 4.13 5.00 Microfinance institution 111 2.42 2.50 Rice company 87 1.11 1.00 Other 24 2.59 2.50 Total 1,589 1.60 0.80 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 19 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS CHAPTER 4: FARM CROPPING DECISIONS 63 About 60 percent of Myanmar farmers are estimated to produce more than one crop in 65 Very few farmers from the survey practiced rice monoculture. The exception was farmers a calendar year, according to the 2015 household in the saltwater ecoregion of Ayeyarwady, where 97 survey conducted by the World Bank for poverty percent of farmers reported producing only rice (Table assessment. Our survey targeted such farmers, i.e. 8). In Myanmar, farming systems are diversified, with producing more than one crop, and their cropping paddy production prevailing during the monsoon while decisions are presented below. other crops are produced during the cool and dry season (off-season) (Table 75A). For major crops such 64 Myanmar is well known for producing rice. Rice is the most cultivated crop (Table 74A). as rice, pulses, and maize, farmers do not mix different crops on the same plot. However, mixed cropping was It is produced in all ecoregions and AEZs, but mainly more common for sesame (33 percent of parcels), during the monsoon season. Beans and pulses are sunflowers, and culinary crops. Only 3 percent of plots the second most grown crop in the country, most of mixed pulses with other crops. which are produced during the cool and dry season. Other important crops include maize, groundnuts, sesame, sunflower, and culinary crops. Table 8: Crops Grown Across All Seasons, % Practicing Farmers Only rice Only Only oil Rice+ Rice+ Rice+ 3 or more maize seeds maize pulses oilseed crops Ayeyarwady Brackish water 9 88 3 Freshwater 38 41 11 Saltwater 97 Bago East alluvial 2 97 2 West alluvial 10 1 87 1 1 River area 9 84 2 6 Sagaing Dryland 45 1 1 2 3 41 Irrigated tract 40 1 20 12 24 River area 2 2 1 49 32 Shan State Border area 58 2 33 Northern interior 16 19 42 1 Southern interior 4 24 51 3 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 20 FARM CROPPING DECISIONS Table 9: Percentage of Farmers Producing Rice by Season and Region Monsoon Off-season Ayeyarwady Brackish water 100 Freshwater 100 Saltwater 100 94 Bago East alluvial 100 2 West alluvial 99 5 River area 100 15 Sagaing Dryland 65 29 Irrigated tract 96 48 River area 60 6 Shan State Border area 98 58 Northern interior 81 2 Southern interior 70 1 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey and MIP 2015. 66 Yet rice is still the most cultivated crop. In Ayeyarwady, Bago, the irrigated tract in percent of farmers were growing off-season pulses. In the northern and southern interior ecoregions in Sagaing, and the border area of Shan State, essentially Shan State, maize constituted the second most all farms grew rice during the monsoon season (Table cultivated crop during the monsoon and off-seasons. 9 and Table 75A). The proportions were also high in Sagaing had the most diversified mix of crops during other ecoregions, with the lowest figure being 60 both the monsoon and off-seasons. percent in the river area of Sagaing. 67 On the other hand, only a few ecoregions had 69 Sagaing was the main location of oilseeds production. Sesame was produced in the rice growers during the off-season. Some of dryland and river areas, mostly during the monsoon the highest numbers were in the saltwater of season. Groundnut production was concentrated in Ayeyarwady (94 percent of farmers), and the irrigated the river area, with 23 percent of farmers producing tract (48 percent) and dryland areas (29 percent) of it during the monsoon season and 83 percent during Sagaing. In two other ecoregions (river area of Bago the off-season. Mustard production was practiced by and border area of Shan State), 15 percent and 58 10-20 percent of farmers in the irrigated tract and percent of farmers grew rice in the off-season, dryland areas, but only by a negligible percent of respectively. farmers in the river area. 68 The second most cultivated crop was pulses, a group that comprises black gram, green 70 A variety of other crops were grown in other places. About one out of ten farmers in the gram, chickpeas, pigeonpeas, and other grams. India northern and southern interior ecoregions of Shan State and China are the largest buyers of Myanmar beans grew culinary crops (mainly chilies, onion, garlic, and and pulses. During the off-season, between 48 percent potatoes), especially during the off-season. The (dryland area) to 89 percent (brackish water area) of freshwater ecoregion was characterized by 20 percent the surveyed farms grew at least one type of pulse. and 7 percent of farmers cultivating tobacco (including The exception was Shan State, where less than 2 betel) during the monsoon and off-seasons, respectively. 21 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS CHAPTER 5: MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 71 Chapter 5 presents the results of the survey 10). The second group had medium-size farms, with on monsoon rice cultivation. The number of an average land size of 2.7 ha. The third group included observations is reduced to one main plot per household large farms, with an average landholding of 6.4 ha. of those producing rice in the monsoon season with This type of analysis reveals information on the a nonmissing quantity produced, which represents existence of scale economies in rice production in about 80 percent of total farms (1,373 out of the total Myanmar and on the variability of labor productivity 1,728 observations). All statistics in this chapter relate across farm sizes. to these 1,373 plots. As such, statistics for the northern and southern interior ecoregions in Shan State should be interpreted with care because of their relatively 73 The distributions of farms by size for rice cultivation varied by region. Large and low number of sample plots (35 and 22, respectively) medium-size farms dominated rice production in (Table 76A). Ayeyarwady and Bago: more than 75 percent of farms fell in this category. On the contrary, Sagaing and Shan 72 In addition to the analysis by ecoregion, the State had smaller farms, constituting about one-third data were analyzed by gender of the household (Sagaing) to one-fifth (Shan State) of the sampled rice head and farm size. All 1,728 farmers were categorized producers in these regions. A slight difference was into three groups of similar size, based on their total found between male- and female-headed rice- landholding. The first group had the smallest farm producing households in term of farm size distribution size, with an average landholding below 1.1 ha (Table (3.2 ha for men versus 2.6 ha for women). Table 10: Classification of Farms by Size Number of Acres per farm, Ha per farm, farms average average Small farm [0.1-4.5 acres] 483 2.63 1.06 Medium farm [4.51-9.0 acres] 435 6.70 2.70 Large farm [>9.0 acres] 455 15.70 6.35 Source: Own presentation. 22 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 5.1 YIELDS16 74 Many discussions are held in Myanmar about paddy yields. On one hand, the MOAI reported tons/ha. The average was 2.56 tons/ha for the monsoon season and 3.41 tons/ha for the off-season (Table 11). Note that these data come from relatively more an average yield of 3.84 tons/ha in 2012/13 (MOAI 2015b). On the other, the USDA reported 2.7 tons/ha for productive farms, and farms outside of this survey are Myanmar. The USDA records put Myanmar on the likely to have lower yields. The survey results are much lower end of the Asian spectrum, the second lowest closer to the data from USDA than MOAI. Even the just above Cambodia (Figure 15), while official statistics weighted average wet paddy yield was 3.35 tons/ha, put Myanmar solidly in the middle. implying that official yield data (3.8 tons/ha) are biased upward and that the actual yield gap of Myanmar 75 The survey provides some empirical evidence in this regard. But before yields from the survey compared to its peers is quite high. During the monsoon season, the lowest yields were found in Sagaing and the highest in Shan State, with Ayeyarwady and Bago are presented, it is important to note that USDA and most international statistical databases report yields in the middle (Table 77A). No significant gender in “dry paddy equivalents.” Myanmar’s paddy yields disparities were found for monsoon rice yields. may be reported in “wet paddy equivalents,” implying that they are inflated compared to dry paddy equivalents. The estimated conversion factor from 77 In Shan State, small farms had considerably higher yields than medium and large farms wet to dry in Myanmar is 0.814, assuming 25 percent (Figure 16). The yield difference reached 74 percent. average moisture content in wet paddy, 14 percent In other regions, the inverse relationship between yield average moisture content in dry paddy, and about 5 and farm size was not as strong as in Shan State, percent impurities in wet paddy. 17 except in Sagaing and, to a lesser extent, Bago. In Ayeyarwady, the average yield for small farms was 76 The weighted average paddy yield in dry equivalent in the surveyed sample was 2.73 only 10 percent higher than for large farms (Table 77A). Figure 15: Paddy Yields, 2013/14, International Comparison 7 6 5 Yield, tons/ha 4 3 2 1 0 es a ar nd h am ia a a di es in di es in nm la bo tn Ch In ad pp on ai m e ya gl Th ili Vi d Ca M n In Ph Ba Source: USDA. 16 In the main text, yields are presented in “tons/ha” for consistency with international comparisons. Tables in the annexes present yield data in “kg/acre,” the more common measurement in Myanmar. 17 The conversion factor is calculated as the ratio of dry yield to wet yield = (1-Moisture Content of Wet Paddy-Impurities)/(1- Moisture Content of Dry Paddy) = (1-0.25-0.05)/(0.86) = 0.814. 23 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 11: Paddy Yields in Myanmar Region No. of Kg/acre, Tons/ha, Tons/ha, farms wet paddy wet paddy dry paddy Monsoon Season Ayeyarwady 474 1,261 3.12 2.54 Bago 380 1,234 3.05 2.48 Sagaing 345 1,111 2.75 2.23 Shan State 174 1,722 4.26 3.46 Weighted average* 1,274 3.15 2.56 Dry Season Ayeyarwady 151 1,746 4.31 3.51 Sagaing 150 1,426 3.52 2.87 Shan State 35 2,649 6.55 5.33 Weighted average* 1,681 4.15 3.41 Yield Simple average 3.65 2.97 Weighted average* 3.35 2.73 Note: *Weighted by number of farmers by region. ** Weighted by season, assuming that 80 percent of paddy is produced during the monsoon season and 20 percent during the dry season. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Figure 16: Monsoon Rice: Average Yield by Farm Size and Region 5.0 Yields in tons/ha, wet paddy 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 Small farms Medium farms Large farms Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 24 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 5.2 HARVEST 78 About 56 percent of farmers harvested rice in November, 23 percent in October, and 18 holding, and consumption. The types of shocks included: a. Social shocks such as death or sickness percent in December/January (Figure 17). This means that 99 percent of the fields were harvested between of a family member, or other social event October and December (Table 78A). Farmers in Shan affecting the family’s capacity to conduct State harvested more in October (early) compared to its agricultural production. farmers in Sagaing, who harvested rice mostly in b. Income shocks such as reduced resources December. from wage or remittances, or business failure and bankruptcy. 79 The timing of the harvest appears to have an effect on yields. For example, about 16 percent c. Production shocks, especially natural shocks such as drought and flooding, but also crop failure, pest attacks, and other of plots were harvested in December and these plots in general show lower yields (530 kg/ha less) compared weather-related disasters. to those harvested in September. This is a large d. Price shocks for both inputs and outputs. difference, and suggests that some research on the e. Other shocks such as theft. optimal time period for planting could be useful. Of course, farmers might not be able to follow the agronomically optimal time for planting due to various 81 On average, production shocks were the most frequent of all shocks. Nearly one-sixth of all constraints, but it would still be useful to know the farmers (16 percent) mentioned production shocks, optimal period as a point of reference for decision with farmers in the districts of Sagaing (44 percent), making. Various weather shocks from year to year Taunggyi (30 percent), Katha (24 percent), and Monywa might also mean that the optimal period for planting (23 percent) affected particularly often. Social shocks ex-post is substantially different from the optimal ranked second with a 12 percent response. Farmers in period as determined ex-ante. Katha, Sagaing, Taunggyi, and Kyaukme districts (Sagaing and Shan State) were concerned about income 80 The survey asked farmers about their perception of the likely impact of various shocks, with 4 percent of farmers in each of these districts mentioning them. One farmer out of ten in Shan State reported that price shocks affected them. shocks on their agricultural production, asset Figure 17: Months for Harvesting Monsoon Rice by Region 80% 70% 60% % of plots 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan August September October November December Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 25 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 5.3 SALES OF PADDY 82 Rice market in Myanmar has been liberalized (World Bank and LIFT 2014a), similar to the the share of dried paddy was larger than in Ayeyarwady. In Shan State, on the other hand, most paddy was dried before sale and most farmers went to the nearest market for other agricultural commodities. Transactions are based on the market principles and towns to sell their paddy at higher prices. there are no policy barriers for cross-regional movement of goods. Regional markets are well integrated. Differences in regional rice prices are 85 Most sellers of rice in the sample were “net” sellers.18 In other words, they produced more determined by marketing unit costs, distances to major than they consumed. The survey found that per capita consumption centers and export markets (Yangon annual consumption of milled rice ranged from 112 kg and the border with China), and rice variety and its in Sagaing to 152 kg in Bago, while per capita production quality. Most rice produced domestically (12.6 million of paddy was 361 kg in Sagaing, 1,078 kg in Bago and tons in 2014/15) is also consumed domestically (10.6 1,238 kg in Ayeyarwady. Production exceeded million tons), according to the USDA. Export accounts consumption in all regions (Table 12). In most instances, for only 15 percent of production, but it has been rising households sold about 90 percent of the available over time. More than half of total export goes to China surplus, except in Sagaing where actual sales exceeded through cross-border trade. African countries are the the derived surplus on average. This means that most important buyers of formal exports, although farmers in Sagaing sold rice after harvest and bought Myanmar is also able to penetrate in higher value some amounts later to meet their own consumption markets such as in the EU. requirements. 83 Most surveyed farms sell most of their paddy. About 85 percent of farmers said they sell all 86 The share of sales in production increased with farm size. In Sagaing and Ayeyarwady, for or portions of their paddy production (Table 79A). By example, small farms sold 93 percent and 51 percent region, 95 percent of farmers in Ayeyarwady and Bago of their production respectively, a lower percentage were rice sellers. The proportions went down to 75 compared to 97 percent and 67 percent for medium- percent in Shan State and further to 64 percent in size farms and 100 percent and 75 percent for large Sagaing. The percentage of sellers was as low as 27 farms (Table 79A). More than half of the medium-size percent in the district of Taungoo in Sagaing and as and large farms were selling wet rice; i.e., just after high as 100 percent in Pathein in Ayeyarwady and in the harvest. This could be the consequence of the lack Loilen, Taunggyi, and Kyaukme in Shan State. of drying facilities, with large farms not having enough drying pavement to handle the larger production 84 On average, 67 percent of total paddy production was being sold (Table 80A). In quantities. Often, prices are quite low during these periods. Only 12 percent of farmers reported having invested in drying pavement. This is especially a Ayeyarwady most paddy was sold in the form of wet paddy and largely to traders who came to villages problem for farmers in Ayeyarwady, where there is (Table 81A). In Bago and Sagaing, most paddy was also usually more rain. sold mainly to traders in the form of wet paddy, but Table 12: Production and Consumption of Rice by Region Production per Consumption Surplus Surplus Actual sale capita per capita* per capita per farm Region Kg of paddy Kg of paddy Kg of paddy Kg of paddy Kg of paddy Ayeyarwady 1,238 237 1,001 5,206 4,499 Bago 1,078 253 825 5,114 4,352 Sagaing 361 187 174 1,063 1,434 Shan State 657 200 457 2,697 2,439 Note: *Milling ratio of paddy into rice is assumed to be 60 percent. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 18 This situation may not be a representative national picture. 26 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY Table 13: Net Rice Seller Position by Farm Size Net surplus Surplus as share of Sales as share of per farm production production Kg/paddy % % Ayeyarwady Small farms 1,935 64 62 Medium farms 4,270 79 66 Large farms 8,263 86 71 Bago Small farms 1,731 55 50 Medium farms 4,882 78 61 Large farms 7,396 80 67 Sagaing Small farms 145 10 60 Medium farms 1,215 55 66 Large farms 2,129 67 66 Shan State Small farms 2,336 68 50 Medium farms 4,431 81 73 Large farms 4,422 80 76 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 87 Interestingly, even small farms were net sellers of rice. They produced more than the Development Strategy, MOAI assumed per capita rice consumption of 175 kg (MOAI 2015b). The results of the members of their households consumed (Table 13). survey are comparable with the results of the 2010 Small farms sold almost all surplus available. household survey used for poverty assessment (IHLCA). Its average consumption was found to be 145 88 Finally, it is important to mention that the per capita rice consumption levels found in the kg per capita, including 117 kg in urban areas and 155 kg in rural areas. The implication of lower-than- survey were lower than generally perceived in perceived rice consumption is lower domestic Myanmar. According to the survey, average per capita utilization of rice and a larger surplus available for rice consumption was 132 kg. In the National Rice exports. 27 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 5.4 PADDY PRICES 89 In the 2013 monsoon season, the average wet paddy price was MKK 210/kg or $214/ton.19 for dry paddy was 64 percent higher. In comparison, the wholesale price of Emata rice in Yangon was $390/ ton in 2013 (FAO). Prices of wet paddy were below the price of dry paddy except in the harvest months of September and October, when both prices were very similar (Figure 18). The average price of dry paddy was 14 percent 91 In Ayeyarwady, the main rice-producing area in Myanmar, the average farm-gate price of above that of wet paddy ($244/ton versus $214/ton). wet paddy was $200/ton. This price was the lowest amongst the peer countries, and closest to prices in 90 Great variability existed across regions, however. The average wet paddy price in Shan Vietnam (Figure 19). It should be noted that Thai prices in 2013/14 were inflated due to its rice pledging scheme. With the scheme’s closure, the prevailing farm-gate State was 68 percent higher than the price in Ayeyarwady ($340/ton versus $200/ton), and the price price in Thailand dropped to $240/ton in 2014/15. Figure 18: Average Paddy Prices, 2013 300 250 200 $/ton 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Wet Paddy Dry Paddy Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Figure 19: Farm-Gate Paddy Prices, Wet Paddy, International Comparison, 2013 400 350 Price, $/ton, wet paddy 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Myanmar Vietnam Cambodia Thailand Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey and World Bank 2015c. 19 The exchange rate used for conversions in this study is MKK 979 per 1 US$, the prevailing exchange rate in November-December 2013. 28 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 92 The low farm-gate price in Myanmar is a result of many factors. Some are related to the poor costs, and high export costs in the Port of Yangon (World Bank and LIFT 2014a and World Bank 2015c). quality of harvest (high moisture, many impurities, All these costs reduce the share of wholesale and etc.) and the multiple number of varieties used by export prices received by producers (Table 14). Without farmers, which makes it difficult for rice mills to find reducing these downstream costs, farm-gate prices large volumes of uniform variety. Others are related in Myanmar have little scope to increase, as they need to the high costs in the downstream parts of the value to remain competitive with prices offered by competing chain, including high milling costs, high transport exporters. Table 14: Farm-Gate Prices as a Percentage of Wholesale and FOB Prices, International Comparison, 2013 Countries Paddy farm-gate price in wholesale Paddy farm-gate price in rice price in country capital, % FOB rice price, % Myanmar 47 49 Cambodia 53 48 Vietnam 64 63 Thailand 77 70 Note: In Vietnam, An Giang represents the wholesale market relevant to producers in Mekong Delta Region. The national capital Hanoi is supplied with rice mainly by Red River Delta farmers. Source: World Bank 2015c. 5.5 SEEDS 93 According to the survey responses, most farmers used their own seeds saved from 95 The low use of certified seeds was due to their low supply. The current supply of certified rice previous harvests. The use of certified seeds was seeds was estimated to satisfy less than 1 percent of observed in all ecoregions but was at the low level potential demand (Table 15). For comparison, the (Figure 20). Less than 7 percent of farmers reported supply/demand ratio was 10 percent in Cambodia, 117 using certified seeds (Table 82A), and even this small percent in Thailand, and 100 percent in Vietnam. When figure is probably an overestimation given the low MOAI reports that 1.5 percent of paddy area is under supply of paddy seeds in Myanmar (Table 15). Purchased hybrid varieties, 55 percent under high-yielding seeds were likely assumed to be certified, yet this was varieties, 20 percent under high-quality varieties, and not always true. The adoption of certified seeds did 23 percent under local varieties, there is no connection not differ much across farm size. between this information and the actual use of new seeds by farmers. Table 15 implies that most farmers 94 In addition, some farmers used hybrid seeds, but this happened exclusively in Shan State. simply reuse old (farmer saved) seeds for many years. About 66 percent of farmers in the southern interior ecoregion and 92 percent in the border area reported 96 Farmers’ most common sources of seed procurement, outside the use of own using hybrid seeds. Almost all small farms in Shan production, were relatives, neighbors, and friends in State used hybrid seeds. The percentage dropped to Ayeyarwady, Bago, and Sagaing (Table 84A). The next 52 percent for medium-size farms and 4.5 percent for most commonly used suppliers were input traders large farms. Large farms with no access to low- and markets at the village level. Cooperatives and interest credit appear to have difficulties procuring government sources were barely used, except in the relatively large amounts of costly hybrid seeds. brackish (16 percent of farmers) and the freshwater 29 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 20: Types of Rice Seed Used by Farmers by Region 100% 80% % of farmers 60% 40% 20% 0% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan State Hybrid Certified Farmer Saved Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Table 15: Supply of and Demand for Rice Seed in Myanmar, 2013/14 Supply Demand Breeder seeds, tons 2.96 Foundation seeds, tons 3.80 Registered seeds, tons 197.49 Estimate of the supply of certified seeds, tons 1,000* Paddy sown area, million ha 7.28 Per hectare seed use, kg 120 Demand for seed, tons 873,600 Adjusted demand for seed, tons** 288,300 Ratio of supply to demand, % 0.35 Note: *Data on production of certified seeds are not available. A generous estimate is that it is five times the volume of registered seeds. **Adjustment assumes that good seeds can be used over the course of three years, after which the farmer needs to buy new seeds. Source: van den Broek et al. 2015 and own estimates. (13 percent) ecoregions in Ayeyarwady and the river 86 percent, respectively) (Table 85A). And farmers in area in Bago (11 percent). For farmers in Shan State, Sagaing used three types: Letywezin (35 percent), the most used source was traders because of the high Emata (21 percent), and Meedon (31 percent). In Shan percentage of hybrid seed users. Hybrid seeds need State, hybrid seed use was correlated with the choice to be renewed every year, or else a large drop-off in of Emata variety. A fourth varietal group, Ngasein, was yield occurs. adopted by farmers in Sagaing (13 percent) and, at a lower magnitude by farmers in Bago and Ayeyarwady 97 For rice cultivar, the preference varied across regions. Farmers in Ayeyarwady preferred (4 percent each). varieties from the Letywezin group (73 percent of farmers). In Bago and Shan State, farmers mainly 98 The main months of sowing/transplanting spread from May to August. A slight variation used varieties from the Emata group (77 percent and existed across regions: in Bago and Shan State, the 30 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY peak was in June; in Sagaing and Ayeyarwady, July and 71 percent in Ayeyarwady (Table 87A). Monsoon was the peak (Figure 21 and Table 86A). The average rice occupied farm land during 135 days.20 The shortest age of a rice seedling was 30 days at the day of growth duration was in the brackish water ecoregion transplanting, with practically no difference across in Ayeyarwady (123 days) and the longest in the dryland regions. The amounts of seeds used, however, varied ecoregion in Sagaing (145 days), 21 which was 18 percent from 59 kg/ha for transplanted plots in Shan State to longer than the shortest cycle (Figure 20). These 128 kg/ha for direct seeding in Ayeyarwady. With the growth durations are much longer than those in most System of Rice Intensification, the amount of seeds other ASEAN22 countries, especially in the Mekong can be reduced to 25 kg/ha, and it is suggested that Delta of Vietnam, where many varieties used have a farmers transplant seedlings of less than 10 days of growth duration of approximately 90 days. The growth age. The System of Rice Intensification, however, duration depends on several factors, mainly the rice requires well-controlled irrigation water, good leveling variety. Having a short-cycle crop allows more flexibility of the rice field, and labor-intensive transplanting as in increasing cropping intensity. In addition, it can the method of crop establishment. reduce the risks of being affected by drought and flooding. Short-duration varieties will not be a solution 99 Among surveyed farms that grew monsoon rice, 86 percent of households established for all farmers, but developing some that are adapted to growing conditions in Myanmar should be a major the crop by transplanting. This included almost all priority of research and extension systems. farmers in Shan State and Sagaing, 88 percent in Bago, Figure 21: Growth Duration of Monsoon Rice Production 160 140 Number of days 120 100 80 60 40 20 - er er l t r r t t ter ia ia l n d ac ea r ea r io rio wa wa wa ll uv lluv la d tr ar ra te te h h t a y te ve r de in in ki s es Sa l st st a Dr a Ri r n n ac Fr Ea e rig Bo h er her Br W Ir rt ut No So Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 20 Average based on 752 plots (out of 1,373) that contained information on both the date of sowing and harvesting. 21 Data from southern interior ecoregion show 154 days but this is based on only 3 observations. 22 Association of Southeast Asian Nations. 31 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 5.6 FERTILIZERS 100 According to a 1999 study of the Myanmar Agriculture Service, agricultural soil in the proportion went down to 37 percent for NPK, 19 percent for T-super, and less than 2 percent for potash (Table 88A). No common trend was found across regions but country lacks organic matter. Many rice plots are characterized by phosphorus (P) deficiency, particularly generally the percentage of small farms using in Bago, Ayeyarwady, and Sagaing. About one-third of fertilizers was lower than that of large farms (e.g., the sampled soils are acid, which reduces the T-super in Ayeyarwady, NPK in Bago and Sagaing, and availability of phosphate to plants (Yu Lwin et al. 2013). urea in Sagaing). In Shan State, small farms were Soils in Myanmar, therefore, require fertilization, but more likely to use NPK and T-super than large farms. better soil knowledge is also required to ensure application of nutrients in the proper quantities. 103 The proportion of farmers using urea was quite high, above 80 percent in all 101 According to FAOSTAT, average consumption23 of fertilizers in Myanmar is ecoregions, with the exception of the river area (Sagaing) where the use rate was very low (13 percent). The proportions came close to 100 percent very low, at 10-12 kg/ha in 2012. Yet the 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey shows that many farmers in Shan State’s ecoregions (Table 87A). The application do use fertilizers, especially urea, and often apply them rate of urea varied from relatively low (62 kg/ha in in large quantities. Urea is a nitrogen (N) fertilizer, and Bago) to quite high (297 kg/ha in Shan State) (Table N is the most common macronutrient used in rice 90A; note that the numbers in this table are in kg/acre, cultivation around the world, including Myanmar. In not kg/ha). In Sagaing, the average application rate cases of intensive rice cropping (two to three times a among users was 144 kg/ha and in Ayeyarwady 124 kg/ year), the replenishment of P and potassium (K) ha (Figure 22). An exceptionally high application rate nutrients is also required. But the application of these of 347 kg/ha was observed in the border area, while nutrients was found to be low, probably because of in all other ecoregions it remained below 240 kg/ha. Myanmar’s still low rice production intensity. The use A substantial difference in application rate by farm of organic fertilizers in any form (compost, cow dung, size was only observed in Bago and Shan State: large farm residues, manure, etc.) was barely observed. farms applied less urea than small farms (236 kg/ha versus 322 kg/ha in Shan State, and 61 kg/ha versus 102 About nine out of ten sampled farmers were using urea for their monsoon rice. The 85 kg/ha in Bago). Figure 22: Application Rates of Various Fertilizers by Region 350 300 Fertilizer use kg/ha 250 200 150 100 50 - Urea NPK t-super Potash Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan State Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 23 The average consumption is the ratio of the quantity of fertilizers used over the total cultivated area, including non-users. The average ap- plication rate for any particular type of fertilizer is the total quantity of that fertilizer used divided by the total area receiving that particular type of fertilizer; i.e., for users only. 32 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 104 NPK users were about one-fourth to one- third of the sampled farms in Ayeyarwady, commonly recommended application rate across Asia for monsoon rice is about 95 kg of N per ha, and for Bago, and Shan State, but the proportion was dry season rice 110 kg of N per ha. Actual use may differ relatively high in the dryland and the irrigated tract from these blanket recommendations depending on ecoregions in Sagaing. In general, the percentage of agro-ecology and site-specific factors, but this general users was lower compared to users of urea, and a recommendation is a useful benchmark for Myanmar. large difference existed between small and medium- In Myanmar’s Ayeyarwady, the application of N among size/large farms. Table 87A shows the highest adopters was only 53 kg per ha. Farmers used small proportion of NPK users in the irrigated tract and quantities of P and K nutrients (Table 91A), thereby dryland ecoregions. The proportion of users in the depleting their soils and keeping productivity low. northern interior ecoregion was also quite high (60 percent). The lowest percentages were in the saltwater (Ayeyarwady) and river area (Sagaing) ecoregions, with 107 Several reasons explain the low application rates of fertilizer in Myanmar. One of the less than 1 percent of farmers using NPK. The average most important is economic. In Ayeyarwady, for application rate was 120 kg/ha, ranging from 77 kg/ha example, farm-gate prices for monsoon paddy are in Bago to 245 kg/ha in Shan State (Table 90A). relatively low (Figure 18) while urea prices are relatively high in regional comparison. Therefore, the relative/ 105 The third mostly commonly used fertilizer was T-super, adopted by 28 percent of effective fertilizer prices in Myanmar are much higher than in other countries (Table 16). In other words, farmers in Ayeyarwady, 6-7 percent in Bago and fertilizers are simply too expensive relative to paddy Sagaing, and 49 percent in Shan State. The average prices in Myanmar, thereby making the marginal value application rate was 133 kg/ha, with farmers in Shan of output less likely to pay for the increased use of State again applying the highest rate (239 kg/ha) and inputs. farmers in Bago putting the lowest amount (27 kg/ha) on their rice fields. Other fertilizers such as gypsum and potash were barely used, with adoption rates of 108 Prices of inputs in Myanmar showed significant regional variation. For seeds, less than 2 percent in each region (Figure 21). prices paid by farmers were the lowest in Ayeyarwady ($0.25/kg) and the highest in Shan State ($0.77/kg), as 106 In international comparison, Myanmar farmers applied much less fertilizer and most rice seeds there were more expensive hybrid seeds (Figure 23). For urea and NPK, prices were used much less of all nutrients than their peers. In lowest in Ayeyarwady and Shan State due to their the main rice-producing areas of South and East Asia, proximity to import sources, and highest in Bago. the use of N is more than 100 kg per ha (Table 17). A Table 16: Terms of Trade for Monsoon Rice, International Comparison, 2013 Myanmar Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Paddy price, wet, $/ton 200 240 376 220 Urea price, $/ton 440 425 426 357 Urea to paddy price ratio 2.20 1.77 1.13 1.62 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey and World Bank 2015c. 33 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 23: Prices of Key Inputs by Region 0.8 0.7 0.6 Price in $/kg 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 - Rice Seeds Urea NPK Ayeyarwadi Bago Sagaing Shan Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Table 17: Fertilizer Use by Micronutrient, 2013 Wet Season, International Comparison Nutrients China India Thailand Vietnam Myanmar* Use, kg/ha Nitrogen (N)** 198 105 88 99 53 Phosphorus (P) 29 21 22 31 15 Potassium (K) 110 33 10 35 3 Share in total use, % Nitrogen (N) 59 66 65 60 75 Phosphorus (P) 9 13 16 19 21 Potassium (K) 33 21 19 21 4 Note: * For Myanmar, Ayeyarwady is used as the major rice-producing area. ** N is a component of chlorophyll (important in photosynthesis) and amino acids (building blocks of protein). P plays a major role in photosynthesis and is a source of nucleic acids for DNA and RNA. K improves overall plant health and helps fight disease (Source: cropnutrition.com). Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for other countries. 5.7 CHEMICALS 110 The types of pesticides surveyed in the study included insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, differed by region, from $0.2/ha in Bago to $9.3/ha in Sagaing, and by farm size, with small farms spending as much as $3.3/ha in Shan State and large farms molluscicides, and rodenticides. Only the first three types of pesticide were used by the sample farmers spending from zero to $8.3/ha in Sagaing. – no one reported the use of molluscicides or rodenticides. Since there are too many types and brand names of pesticides with different amounts of active 112 Herbicides were used by 6.3 percent of farmers. The adoption rates were relatively ingredients, the analysis focused on the costs rather high in Ayeyarwady and Sagaing (near 10 percent) and than the quantity applied per hectare. very low (1-2 percent) in the two other regions. On average, each farmer spent less than a dollar per 111 Insecticide use in monsoon rice production varied greatly across regions. The proportion hectare ($0.7/ha) on herbicides. Large farms might be expected to use more herbicides, with small farms using labor to control weeds, but no evidence of such of users went from almost none in Bago to 12 percent in Ayeyarwady, 27 percent in Shan State, and 37 percent a trend was found in the survey data. in Sagaing (Table 92A). The average expenditures also 34 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 5.8 LABOR 113 Labor is currently the most important factor of production in Myanmar’s agriculture. Data share of labor use, about 30-40 percent (Figure 24). Harvest and post-harvest was the second most important use, ranging from 21-30 percent across on labor use were collected for three types of labor – family, permanent, and hired– and for a variety of regions. Land preparation varied from 19-28 percent, specific tasks. For rice production, agricultural tasks while crop management accounted for the rest of the were divided into seven groups: (i) seedbed preparation; labor use, ranging between 12-19 percent. (ii) main plot preparation; (iii) crop establishment (i.e., transplanting or sowing); (iv) crop management; (v) irrigation and drainage; (vi) harvest; and (vii) post- 115 In terms of regional variability, monsoon rice production was much more labor-intensive harvest. The amount of labor allocated to each in Ayeyarwady than in the other three regions, with agricultural task for each type of labor was recorded total labor use roughly 50 percent higher. One key in hours. reason is that farm wages are much lower in Ayeyarwady ($1.84/day) than in the other regions, 114 On average for the sampled farms, rice production required 332 hours of total labor where they range from about $2.50/day in Bago and Sagaing to $4.17/day in Shan State (Table 18). Thus, labor use is higher in Ayeyarwady for each of the four per acre, varying from 278 hours in Bago to 424 hours in Ayeyarwady (Table 97A). This translates into 103 key groups of activities: land preparation, crop person-days (days)/ha on average, ranging from 86 establishment, crop management, and harvest/post- days/ha in Bago to 131 days/ha in Ayeyarwady (Table harvest. 18).25 Crop establishment accounts for the largest Table 18: Labor Input and Wages Labor input Cost of labor Cost of labor Days/ha MKK/hour $/day Ayeyarwady 131 225 1.84 Bago 86 298 2.43 Sagaing 88 309 2.52 Shan State 88 511 4.17 Weighted average 103 303 2.47 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Figure 24: Distribution of Labor by Task for Monsoon Rice Production 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Ayeyarwadi Bago Sagaing Shan state Land preparation Sowing and transplanting Crop management Harvest and post harvest Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 25 This estimate assumes an 8-hour work day. 35 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 116 Hired labor accounted for 54 percent of total labor use in Ayeyarwady, 61 percent in Shan 117 A comparison of labor use and yields across countries shows low labor productivity in State, 75 percent in Sagaing, and 81 percent in Bago Myanmar.26 One day of labor generated only 23 kg of (Figure 25 and Table 97A). Bago and Ayeyarwady were wet paddy, compared to 62 kg in Cambodia, 429 kg in also characterized by the relative importance of Vietnam, and 547 kg in Thailand (Figure 26). Low labor permanent labor, 14 percent and 9 percent of total productivity in Myanmar is a result of the country’s use, respectively (Table 97A). Figure 25 provides a relatively high labor use and low yields. snapshot of the structure of labor by type across the four regions. Figure 25: Distribution of Labor by Type for Monsoon Rice Production 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan state Family Permanent Hired Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Figure 26: Labor Productivity, 2013 Monsoon Season, International Comparison 600 Productivity, kg/day 500 400 300 200 100 - s a ia ar nd a m a e si in di d in nm na la ne bo Ch In pp ai et do m ya Th ili Vi Ca In M Ph Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 26 Later in the report, the monetary expression of labor productivity is introduced, complementing this quantitative presentation of labor productivity. 36 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 5.9 LIVESTOCK, MACHINERY, AND FUEL 118 Farmers in Myanmar have started to use services for rice production. These services and fuel in Bago ($59/ha). In Sagaing, expenditures on services amounted to $138/ha. The lowest expenditures were for farmers in Bago ($59/ha), out consist of renting tractors or draught oxen for land plowing, leveling, and transportation, and threshers of which 37 percent was for hiring draught oxen. In for post-harvest. When machinery is involved, the spite of the high ownership of oxen, the hire of draught rental rate depends on whether the machine owner oxen was also important in Sagaing, accounting for 21 provides the fuel or if the farmer contracting for the percent of total livestock, machinery, and fuel service must provide the fuel. expenditures (Figure 27). For farmers in Shan State, where the rate of possession of a power tiller was quite 119 Farmers in Shan State reported spending $203/ha on animals, machinery, and fuel, high, expenditures on fuel reached 44 percent of service costs, but only 5 percent for hiring draught oxen. The highest use of draught oxen was observed the highest among the four regions. This is more than double the expenditures in Ayeyarwady ($89/ha) and in the west alluvial ecoregion, where it accounted for more than three times the cost of livestock, machinery, 45 percent of total service costs. Figure 27: Distribution of Expenditures of Livestock, Machinery, and Fuel by Region 200 Expenditures in $/ha 150 100 50 - Ayeyarwadi Bago Sagaing Shan Draught oxen Fuel Equipment rental Other Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 5.10 PROFITABILITY 120 The average gross margin for monsoon paddy, weighted by the number of farms in Average margins for monsoon rice were very low in Sagaing in 2013/14. Farmers in Ayeyarwady achieved similar gross margins to those in Bago, but net margins each ecoregion, was $204/ha, the net margin was $114/ha, and the labor productivity was $4.75/day were lower due to the higher use of labor. The high (Table 19). The variation (standard deviation) of gross labor use in Ayeyarwady also led to low labor and net margins was high, pointing to the divergent productivity. In Sagaing, in spite of the low margins, performance of farmers in Myanmar and suggesting labor productivity was comparable to that in Ayeyarwady that caution be taken when using average figures. due to the lower amount of labor used there for paddy Gross and net margins were highest in Shan State. production. 37 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 19: Farm Budgets for Monsoon Rice by Region Number of Gross margin, Net margin, Labor productivity, farms $/ha $/ha $/day Ayeyarwady 474 203 88 3.30 Bago 380 196 146 5.12 Sagaing 345 71 3 3.85 Shan State 174 490 337 9.67 Simple average 240 143 5.48 Weighted average 204 114 4.75 Standard deviation 87 74 1.11 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 121 Monsoon rice production was quite profitable in four ecoregions (east alluvial in Bago, and 122 The different profitability outcomes are explained by differences in revenues and border area, northern interior, and southern interior costs. In Ayeyarwady, Bago, and Sagaing, the gross in Shan State), with higher net margins and labor revenues were quite similar, in the range of $512/ha productivity than in the other ecoregions (Figure 28). to $558/ha (Figure 29). The gross revenues in Shan Farmers in these ecoregions achieved net margins State were more than two times higher, at $1,220/ha ranging from $251/ha to $358/ha, and labor productivity on average, due to the considerably higher yields (Table above $8.0/day. Another four ecoregions were 77A) and higher farm-gate prices than in Bago and moderately profitable, with net margins between $71/ Sagaing. Total costs in Shan State, however, were ha and $153/ha: river area in Sagaing, west alluvial in twice as high as in the other regions due to the Bago, and brackish and freshwater in Ayeyarwady. application of larger amounts of fertilizers, the Labor productivity in these four ecoregions ranged purchase of expensive hybrid seeds, and the highest from $3.1/day to $5.2/day. The other four ecoregions wage rate in the country. Among the three remaining (river area in Bago, dryland and irrigated tract in regions, total production costs were lowest in Bago Sagaing, and saltwater in Ayeyarwady) were marginally ($391/ha) and highest in Sagaing ($509/ha). profitable at best, with negative net margins in the latter two. Net margins ranged from negative to $30/ ha and labor productivity from $3.0/day to $3.8/day. Figure 28: Farm Profits and Labor Productivity by Ecoregion 12 600 Gross margin Net Margin 10 500 400 8 $/ha 300 $/day 200 6 100 4 0 2 -100 Int ior ior h ter lt W er r A ct he Inte a r Al ial a a rA l ted d ate 0 So hern Are Ri luvia Ri Tra re re Sa Wat r er iga Lan Fr h Wa v We Allu er Int r ior r lt W r ve ract a rio r y Al ial a a ve ve es ate rA l Sa Wate ted nd ate So ern Are rd kis es Dr rn Ri luvia re re er st st he Inte v a o hW T rA We llu ac Ea Irr ry L B rth er Irr rt ut h Br A ve rd rn kis No D st st iga Ri Bo Fr ac Ea ut Br No Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 38 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY Figure 29: Revenues and Production Costs of Monsoon Rice by Region 1,200 1,000 Revenue 800 $/ha 600 400 200 - Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan Costs exc. family labor Family labor costs Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 123 The largest share of total costs belonged to labor. Labor accounted for 42 percent of 124 The financial outcomes were affected by specific ecoregion characteristics. In total costs in Sagaing and Shan State, 51 percent in addition, they were determined by the type of crop Ayeyarwady, and 55 percent in Bago (Figure 30, left establishment, types of seed used, application of side). Among intermediate inputs, fertilizers accounted fertilizers, farm size, and gender. These factors are for the lion’s share, while spending on seeds was analyzed in turn below. modest, pointing to the low use of good-quality seeds (Figure 30, right side). Capital, including livestock, machinery, fuel and interest on working capital, accounted for 21-27 percent of total costs. Figure 30: Breakdown of Production Costs of Monsoon Rice by Region 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 0% 20% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan 0% Ayeyarwady Bago Sagaing Shan Seed Fertilizer Chemicals Hired Labor Inputs Labor Capital Family labor Livestock, Machinery, Fuel Interest on Capital Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 39 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 5.11 IMPACT OF CROP ESTABLISHMENT ON PROFITABILITY 125 The most commonly used crop establishment method in the monsoon season was 126 Transplanting is often considered a better technology compared to direct seeding. transplanting. In the survey, 86 percent of households Because of more uniform plant spacing, it allows better transplanted monsoon rice, with almost all farmers control of weeds through the use of mechanized in Shan State and Sagaing, 88 percent in Bago, and 71 equipment and better development of rice plants, percent in Ayeyarwady using this method of crop which in turn leads to higher yield. Indeed, in the establishment (Table 87A). Compared to farmers sample farms, the average yield in dry paddy equivalent practicing direct seeding, farmers adopting was 2.60 tons/ha for transplanting versus 1.94 tons/ transplanting gained 70 percent higher net margins ha for direct seeding (Table 111A). Transplanting ($153/ha versus $92/ha) and higher labor productivity involves higher costs of production, however. In the ($4.32/day versus $3.69/day) (Figure 31). sample, it used 29 percent more labor: 110 days/ha for transplanting versus 85 days/ha for direct seeding (Figure 32). All other costs were comparable. Figure 31: Margins and Labor Productivity for Monsoon Rice by Crop Establishment 700 4.5 Labor Productivity ($/day) 600 4.2 Margins ($/ha) 500 400 3.9 300 200 3.6 100 0 3.3 Transplanting Direct Seeding Gross Revenue ($/ha) Net Margins ($/ha) Labor productivity ($/day) Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Figure 32: Yields and Labor Needs for Monsoon Rice by Crop Establishment 120 3.5 Yield, wet paddy (tons/ha) 100 3.0 Labor (days/ha) 2.5 80 2.0 60 1.5 40 1.0 20 0.5 0 0.0 Transplanting Direct Seeding Total labor Yields (wet paddy) Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 40 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 127 Direct seeding was more common in Ayeyarwady (29 percent of parcels) 128 In countries where wages increased, mechanization advanced and the use of compared to Sagaing (3 percent) and Bago (12 direct seeding, which is less labor-intensive, became percent). Availability of labor was reported as a more common. Essentially all farmers in the main constraint to transplanting. In such cases, farmers producing areas of China, Thailand, and Vietnam could potentially adopt improved direct seeding practice direct seeding (Table 20) and manage to methods (i.e., mechanical seeders to facilitate crop produce good financial results, much better than management) and use herbicides to control weeds. farmers in Myanmar (see Chapter 6.8). As wages in But no farmers reported using mechanical Myanmar increase to the levels of Vietnam, Thailand, transplanters in the current survey. Labor shortages and China, direct seeding is certain to become more will become more critical in Myanmar in the future if common. Forward-looking agronomic research wages increase further. should look into this coming transition in the country. Table 20: Crop Establishment Methods for Monsoon Rice, International Comparison Share of farmers Share of farmers using transplanting direct seeding Cambodia 60 40 China 0 100 India 99 1 Indonesia 100 0 Myanmar 71 (86) 29 (14) Philippines 79 21 Thailand 0 100 Vietnam 0 100 Note: Data for Myanmar are for Ayeyarwady; the average for the four regions is in parentheses. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 for all other countries. FAOSTAT for farm labor statistics. 41 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 5.12 IMPACT OF ADOPTION OF HYBRID SEEDS ON PROFITABILITY 129 The adopters of hybrid seeds obtained significantly higher yields than the adopters 131 One of the most important reasons for the low use of hybrid seeds outside of Shan State of other seeds. The average wet paddy yield of adopters is unfavorable economics. Farmers in Shan State get of hybrid seeds was 4.37 tons/ha compared to 3.43 much higher paddy prices than in other regions, due tons/ha obtained by the adopters of certified OPV to their proximity to China, the largest importer of rice (open-pollinated varieties) seeds and 2.92 tons/ha by in the world and the largest user of such seeds. At the the adopters of farmer saved seeds (Table 112A). Most prices prevailing in Shan State ($279/ton), the use of hybrid seed adopters were in Shan State, while the hybrid seeds is quite profitable (Table 21). Yet the use proportion of hybrid seed users in the other three of hybrid seeds at the country-average paddy price regions remained insignificant. The high use of hybrid ($182/ton) is not profitable at all. The net margin seeds in Shan State is due to its proximity to China, actually turns negative and labor productivity declines the ultimate buyer of hybrid rice. Hybrid rice is often to $4.46/day, which is about the same as for other directly contracted from China. seeds. Indeed, in the countries where hybrid seeds are used (in large numbers only in China and 130 The survey shows that hybrid rice was not widely used in other parts of the country. Philippines), farmers who use these seeds often get lower output prices, as hybrid seeds are seen to give Several reasons explain this. First, the Myanmar higher yields but a lower-quality product (e.g., a lower people do not eat hybrid rice, so when it is produced head rice recovery). It seems that some progress has it needs to be sold to China. Farmers bear the risk of been made in reducing this problem over the years as failure to sell the harvest across the border. Second, a result of substantial research, but the problem still this technology is still new to farmers, and hybrid seed exists (Prasad, Viraktamath, and Mohapatra 2014). is not widely available. Third, hybrid seed is expensive and requires more significant upfront investments than other types of seeds. The price of hybrid seeds 132 Outside Shan State, the use of certified OPV seeds is more profitable than the use of ($2.7/kg) is on average five times higher than the price farmer saved seeds. Certified seeds seem to give of certified seeds ($0.3/kg). Total costs for producing higher net margins, primarily due to higher yields monsoon rice using hybrid seeds are twice as high as (Table 112A). Higher adoption of these seeds is largely those associated with using other seeds (Table 21). constrained by their very low supply, as presented in Table 15 and discussed in Chapter 5.6. Table 21: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Type of Seed Hybrid Certified Other Farm-gate price, $/ton 279 182 186 Gross margin, $/ha 480 235 203 Net margin, $/ha 309 155 126 Labor productivity, $/day 9.09 4.24 3.96 Total costs, $/ha 909 470 416 Yields, dry paddy, tons/ha 3.48 2.74 2.32 Farm-gate price, $/ton 182 Gross margin, $/ha 66 Net margin, $/ha -115 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 42 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 5.13 IMPACT OF FERTILIZER USE ON PROFITABILITY 133 It is anticipated that the use of fertilizers will increase yields and eventually profits. To and the fertilizer quantity required for those soils. Yet with a total application rate of 392 kg/ha of urea, NPK, and T-super (high users), yields are still expected to study the impact of fertilizer use, the sampled farms were divided into three equal-size groups based on be much higher than the 3.3 tons/ha achieved. Another their expenditures on fertilizers, which is a proxy for reason could be an inefficient mix of nutrients applied, the level of nutrients allocated per hectare. The first an issue briefly studied below. group (lowest expenditures on fertilizers) spent $23/ ha on fertilizers, the second group spent $74/ha, and the third group spent $178/ha (Table 22). Table 113A 136 It is expected that the right balance of fertilizer nutrients will increase the profitability of rice presents the detailed farm budgets for each quintile production. Yet this does not seem to be the case in of fertilizer users. Myanmar. Farmers applying urea along with NPK obtained higher yields and generated higher revenues 134 Surprisingly, in the sampled farms, higher use of fertilizers led to lower gross and net but the increase in production did not offset the cost of additional fertilizers. The use of this mix of fertilizers was associated with higher use of labor and inputs, in margins. Although the highest users generated the largest revenues due to higher yields, the costs addition to higher spending on fertilizers themselves. associated with the use of more fertilizers and higher The farm sample was divided into three groups. Non- use of labor, animals, machines, and fuel exceeded users of urea accounted for 11 percent of all farmers; the yield gains. The high users generated the lowest adopters of urea accounted for 52 percent; and gross and net margins, although the labor productivity adopters of both urea and NPK accounted for the of the highest users was above that of the medium remaining 37 percent. Farmers who did not use urea users. generated the lowest margins, demonstrating the importance of urea in rice production. But the adopters 135 Several reasons could explain the low supply response of fertilizers. Fertilizers can be of of urea and the mix of urea and NPK achieved similar margins, although the latter group had slightly higher labor productivity (Table 23 and Table 114A). Farmers poor quality. A probably more important reason is that farmers do not have adequate knowledge regarding applying both urea and NPK did not appear to get the the use of fertilizers, including the nature of their soils maximum out of a more balanced fertilization of soils. Table 22: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Intensity of Fertilizer Use Low Use Medium Use High Use Application of fertilizers, kg/ha 30 137 392 Cost of fertilizers, $/ha 23 74 178 Yield, wet paddy, tons/ha 2.74 3.13 3.28 Total costs, $/ha 330 426 617 Gross margin, $/ha 233 221 204 Net margin, $/ha 168 136 109 Labor productivity, $/day 4.52 3.95 4.24 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 43 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 23: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Fertilizer Mix No Use of Urea Urea Users Users of Urea + NPK Cost of fertilizers, $/ha 22 64 113 Yield, wet paddy, tons/ha 2.16 3.09 3.18 Gross margin, $/ha 152 233 226 Net margin, $/ha 76 148 149 Labor productivity, $/day 3.83 4.14 4.36 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 5.14 IMPACT OF FARM SIZE ON PROFITABILITY 137 The analysis of farm size and yields in Chapter 5.2 showed an inverse relation 139 In Ayeyarwady and Bago, profitability increased with farm size. The average net between them, strong in Shan State but relatively margin of small farms in Ayeyarwady was $40/ha weak in other regions (Figure 16). Does an inverse compared to $166/ha achieved by large farms. In Bago, relationship also exist between farm size and the average net margin of small farms was $142/ha, profitability? The answer is “yes” when considering and of large farms, $156/ha (Annex 8). the overall sample, but the situation differs by region. 138 In general, small farms generated higher 140 Irrespective of the profitability per hectare, large farms naturally generated higher revenues per hectare due to higher yields. profits per farm. Many small farms are below 1 Although they incurred higher costs, their gross and hectare, so they cannot rely solely on rice production net margins were higher than those of large farms for their livelihood. Unlike large farms, households (Table 24). Labor productivity of small farms was also with small landholdings need to complement their higher. income from rice with other income earned inside and outside of agriculture. Table 24: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Farm Size Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Number of farms 483 432 458 Revenues, $/ha 753 567 542 Yield, wet paddy, tons/ha 3.40 3.10 2.85 Total costs, $/ha 590 445 399 Labor use, days/ha 108 107 104 Gross margin, $/ha 268 200 217 Net margin, $/ha 163 122 143 Labor productivity, $/day 5.18 4.02 4.03 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 44 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 5.15 IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION ON PROFITABILITY 141 It is not necessary for a farmer to own machinery in order to mechanize farm 142 Not surprisingly, total labor use was 10 percent lower for mechanized farms. operations, due to the existence of rental markets Expenditures on material inputs were about 21 percent for machinery services. Thus, while most farmers do higher on mechanized farms, but on balance gross not own machines, more than 60 percent of farms margins for mechanized farms were slightly higher mechanized at least one of the four land preparation (5 percent). This led to slightly higher net margins operations (rotavating, harrowing, plowing, leveling) ($121/ha versus $94/ha) for mechanized farms, which in monsoon rice production. Overall, across all 12 is not that substantial of a difference (Table 25 and ecoregions, farm budgets were not substantially Table 127A). Similar conclusions hold for off-season different for mechanized and non-mechanized farms rice production, and are not discussed further in that (with mechanized farms being defined as those that chapter. mechanized at least one of the four land preparation operations). Farms that used draught oxen for all of these operations are considered non-mechanized. Table 25: Profitability of Monsoon Rice by Extent of Mechanization Mechanized Farms Non-mechanized Farms Number of farms 856 517 Revenues, $/ha 599 554 Yield, wet paddy, tons/ha 2.44 2.35 Total costs, $/ha 478 460 Labor use, days/ha 101 112 Gross margin, $/ha 198 188 Net margin, $/ha 121 94 Labor productivity, $/day 4.45 3.95 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 5.16 IMPACT OF GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD ON PROFITABILITY 143 The gender of the household head had the small impact on the profitability of monsoon generated $138/ha and $170/ha net margins, respectively. Female-headed households achieved slightly higher labor productivity (Table 128A). Overall, rice production. The male- and female-headed households in the sample (1,211 and 162, respectively) the difference between the two groups was small. 45 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 5.17 INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS 144 In international comparison, the profitability of monsoon rice in Myanmar looks dismal. cannot maintain domestic prices above world market prices because they would not be able to sell their rice to other countries. On average they make $350-400 In Ayeyarwady, the main rice-producing area in the country, the average net margin was $139/ha. This is of profit per hectare. Thailand is an anomaly among much lower than the averages in the main producing exporters (Figure 33), with its net margin in 2013 areas of other major Asian rice producers, both temporarily comparable to that of net importing exporters and importers (Figure 33). Even if some countries. This was the effect of the Thai rice pledging farms achieve double the average in Myanmar, it would scheme operating during the time of survey in 2013. still be below the average margins in Cambodia and That scheme doubled farm-gate prices, making it India, the two poorest countries in this sample along impossible for Thailand to compete on world markets with Myanmar. (see Poapongsakorn 2014 for details). Thailand could not export its rice, the stocks piled up, and budget 145 When making international comparisons, it is important to differentiate between net expenditures grew substantially. The rice pledging scheme was eventually abolished in 2014 and domestic prices started to return to a much lower, market- exporters and net importers of rice. This is because net importers tend to artificially increase domestic clearing level (in 2013, the average farm-gate price of prices through import tariffs and non-tariff barriers, ordinary rice in Central Plains was $375/ton, versus which in turn leads to higher profits. Net importers $240/ton in 2015). At the lower prices, net margins in intentionally keep domestic prices above world market Thailand are similar to those of other exporters. prices to stimulate domestic production and discourage imports. For example, China, Indonesia, and the Philippines, all large net importers, follow such 147 What makes Myanmar’s profits smaller than those in other net exporting countries? policies. In the long run, higher output prices also Production costs in Myanmar were comparable to trigger an increase in production costs, partially costs in Cambodia, and half those in India and Vietnam reducing profits, but overall farmers in net importing (Table 26). Thus, it was mainly the low gross revenue countries generate higher profits than in net exporting that made Myanmar’s profit very small compared to countries because of higher output. other countries. Yields were low, comparable only with Cambodia, and Myanmar’s paddy prices were the 146 Myanmar belongs to the latter group, the net exporters of rice. These countries lowest. Figure 33: Net Margins for Monsoon Rice, International Comparison Philippines Importers Indonesia China Net Vietnam Thailand Exporters Myanmar India Net Cambodia 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Net margin/profit, $/ha Note: Data for Myanmar are for Ayeyarwady. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. 46 MONSOON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY Table 26: Profitability of Monsoon Rice, International Comparison Cambodia India Myanmar Thailand Vietnam China Indonesia Philippines Yield tons/ha 3.20 4.71 3.44 6.09 6.12 8.02 6.65 4.52 Paddy price $/ton 240 244 169 386 200 406 400 364 Gross revenue $/ha 768 1,149 582 2,350 1,244 3,256 2,690 1,648 Seed 20 52 27 138 68 163 20 57 Fertilizers 80 95 75 199 224 339 146 203 Chemicals 20 22 1 113 141 303 149 38 Hired labor 188 280 136 79 74 91 559 390 Own labor 25 57 104 82 128 498 128 72 Animal, machines, 71 181 94 188 127 493 56 181 fuel & oil Interest on capital 0 10 7 8 11 1 38 43 Other costs 22 45 0 42 27 22 72 78 Total costs $/ha 426 741 444 849 800 1,910 1,168 1,062 Net margin $/ha 342 408 137 1,501 423 1,346 1,536 587 Note: Data for Myanmar are for Ayeyarwady. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. Figure 34: Structure of Production Costs, Monsoon Rice, International Comparison Philippines 43% Indonesia 59% China 31% Vietnam 25% Thailand 19% Myanmar 54% India 45% Cambodia 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Inputs Labor Capital Source: Derived from Table 25. 47 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 148 Production costs in Myanmar were among the lowest, comparable to those in In these other key rice-producing areas, many farmers rent in land to expand their cultivated areas or rent Cambodia. This is good news to some extent, as low out land to allow themselves to concentrate on nonfarm costs result in higher profits even with lower gross income. Due to land scarcity and high demand for revenues. The problem with low costs in Myanmar, urban development, land rental fees can be large in however, is that they are a result of low input use rather some of these areas, ranging from $200-300/ha in than high production efficiency (Figure 34). Low yields India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam to $600- and gross revenues for farmers are the biggest 950/ha in China and Indonesia (Bordey et al. 2014 and problem. Myanmar needs to invest heavily in creating 2015). These costs are not included above to make the better varieties, developing an improved seed delivery international data more comparable with Myanmar, system, improving farmer knowledge about fertilizer where the land rental market is still rudimentary, use, and developing infrastructure to cut marketing making it difficult to assign a value to land. As presented costs and thereby raise farm prices naturally, not in Chapter 3.1, no farmer reported renting land in artificially. Ayeyarwady. The proportion of farmers reporting land rentals was a meager 1 percent in Bago and Sagaing 149 The production costs in Table 26 and Figure 34 for peer countries do not include land and just 3 percent in Shan State. Yet even the inclusion of land rental expenses in the production costs of peer rents, which are more common outside Myanmar. countries would still result in higher profits than in Myanmar.   48 DRY SEASON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY CHAPTER 6: DRY SEASON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 150 A relatively small share of farmers produces dry season rice compared to monsoon rice. rice production is estimated at 20 percent (World Bank and LIFT 2014a), which seems to roughly correspond to the share of farmers producing rice during that The dry season harvest lasts from March to mid-June depending on ecoregion. Only 336 out of 1,728 surveyed season. farm households grew dry season rice. They constituted 19 percent of farmers who produced rice during the monsoon season (Figure 35). Almost all of these 151 Chapter 6 follows the structure of Chapter 5 on monsoon rice. It is briefer due to the farmers were concentrated in four ecoregions: smaller diversity of ecoregions and it combines the saltwater in Ayeyarwady,30 dryland and irrigated tract analysis of production and profitability in one chapter, in Sagaing, and border area in Shan State.31 For the focusing on similarities and differences with monsoon country as a whole, the share of dry season rice in total rice production. Figure 35: Percent of Farmers Growing Dry Season Rice by Ecoregion 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Brackish Salt water West River area Irrigated Border Southern water Fresh East alluvial Dry land tract River area area Northern interior water alluvial interior Grow second season rice Do not grow second season rice Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 30 In general, the saltwater ecoregion is known for difficulty of producing paddy in dry season due to high water salinity. Yet, the interviewed farmers in this survey were located in the areas suitable for paddy production, and results of their performance is reported in this chapter. 31 Nineteen farmers were growing dry season rice outside of the four key dry season rice ecoregions. But because there are so few of them, and because they were scattered across ecoregions, they are not included in the ecoregional analysis. 49 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 6.1 YIELDS 152 Paddy yields during the dry season were higher than those achieved during the 153 Despite the higher level in the dry season, paddy yields in Myanmar remained below monsoon season. In Ayeyarwady, the difference was yields in peer countries. In the commercial rice areas 76 percent, in Sagaing 40-54 percent, and in Shan of Asia, the wet paddy yield in the dry season harvest32 State 35 percent (Figure 36). In dry paddy equivalent, ranged from 4.77 tons/ha in India (the lowest) to 7.01 the weighted average yield was 3.38 tons/ha, 25 percent tons/ha (the highest) in Indonesia (Bordey et al. 2014 higher than the 2.56 tons/ha average during the and 2015). In Ayeyarwady, the wet paddy yield was only monsoon season (Table 11). Yields remained the lowest 3.51 tons/ha. Dry season yields in Shan State compared in Sagaing and the highest in Shan State. more favorably to those in other key Asian production areas. Figure 36: Paddy Yields for Monsoon and Dry Seasons by Ecoregion Yield, dry paddy equivalent, tons/ 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 ha 2.0 1.0 0.0 Salt Water Dry Land Irrigated Tract Border Area Monsoon Dry season Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 6.2 SALES 154 A greater percentage of farmers sold rice from the dry season crop compared to the during the harvest time. Average farm-gate prices were lower than for the monsoon harvest. Lower prices may not always prevail in the dry season, but in 2013- monsoon harvest (Table 27). They also sold large shares of their production: the second rice crop in 14 the world market rice prices were declining, which Myanmar is clearly a commercial one. Most of the was then reflected in lower prices during the dry harvest was sold as wet paddy, as rains often come season than during the monsoon season. Table 27: Proportion of Rice Sellers by Season Monsoon % of sellers % of sale Dry Season % of sellers % of sale Saltwater, Ayeyarwady 94.9 68.4 95.4 70.5 Dryland, Sagaing 77.5 66.3 83.5 60.3 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 83.1 66.4 87.3 86.1 Border area, Shan State 70.1 61.9 97.1 89.4 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 32 In most Asian countries, January-June is considered dry season. In Indonesia, however, it is July-December. 50 DRY SEASON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 6.3 SEEDS AND CROP ESTABLISHMENT 155 Two types of rice dominated dry season production (Emata and China), although 159 Most farmers in the dry season practiced direct seeding, in contrast to the monsoon different types were used in different ecoregions. season during which transplanting prevailed. All Almost all sampled farmers in the saltwater ecoregion farmers in Ayeyarwady applied direct seeding (Table used Emata (Table 83A), mainly saved from their 87A). In Sagaing, the share of such farms was 61-72 previous harvests (66 percent). The other 34 percent percent. In Shan State, however, all farmers used got their seeds from local market merchants or transplanting, the same as in the monsoon season. relatives/friends (Table 85A). The choices were more Farm size did not appear to affect the decision on crop diversified in Sagaing, where farmers adopted both establishment, except in the irrigated tract ecoregion Emata and China varieties. Most seed was bought or in Sagaing, where large farms tended to transplant received from outside of the farm, in contrast to mostly more. The choice between transplanting and direct using own seeds during the monsoon season in this seeding was not much affected by the gender of the ecoregion. In Shan State, most farmers used the China household head. variety and bought their seeds from traders. 156 Farmers adopted different varieties of rice 160 Paddy was sown or transplanted between December and April, depending on the in the dry season than in the monsoon ecoregion. In the saltwater ecoregion, more than 80 season. Farmers in the saltwater ecoregion shifted percent of plots were directly sown in December, with from the Letywezin group during the monsoon season the remainder sown in January. Crop establishment to Emata during the dry season (Table 85A). Farmers in the main field started a bit later in the border area, in the dryland area grew the China variety during the with a peak in January (31 percent), but these were the dry season, shifting away from the Letywezin and months for transplanting, which means that the tasks Meedon groups used during the monsoon season. In at the nursery plots started earlier in November/ the irrigated tract ecoregion, adoption of varieties from December. For the two ecoregions in Sagaing, almost the Nga Sein group dropped to 10 percent during the all plots were established in March and April. The rice dry season from 21 percent during the monsoon growth cycle lasted for about 120 days for direct seeding season. In the border area, rice farmers predominantly and a bit longer for transplanted rice, resulting in a used the China variety in the dry season, while 88 harvest starting in March/April for the saltwater area, percent of farmers adopted Emata varieties during predominantly in July for irrigated tract and dryland the monsoon season. areas, and June-July for the border area. 157 The shorter cycle of Emata varieties, which are recommended for dry season rice, could 161 The median age of transplanted seedlings for dry season rice was 30 days in the dryland be behind the major shift to them during the dry and irrigated tract areas, but twice that in the border season. Two types of Emata variety exist: (i) one for area (60 days). Transplanting old seedlings implies a medium- or long-duration crops, which is more lengthy rice production cycle for the border area, resistant to floods and more suitable for rainfed starting in November and ending only in June of the lowland areas; it is often used by farmers in the Delta; following year. The age of the seedlings in the border and (ii) a short-duration variety mostly suitable for the area was striking, depicting the dominance of farmers irrigated lowlands, and mostly used by farmers during who continue to use the traditional way of transplanting the dry season. The adoption of the Chinese varieties rice seedlings. Indeed, the age of transplanted could be related to their shorter cycle as well, making seedlings is much lower in other Asian countries, them suitable for dry season rice production. typically between 20-30 days in key rice-growing areas. A lower seedling age at transplanting reduces 158 Low use of certified seeds prevailed during the dry season, just as in the monsoon “transplanting shock” when the plant is uprooted from the nursery and planted in the main field, thereby season. During the off-season, 80 percent (irrigated helping to improve the ultimate yield achieved. In the tract) to 98 percent (saltwater) of sampled farmers absence of well-controlled irrigation and drainage, used regular seeds, often from the previous harvest. farmers tend to use older plants that are more resistant The exceptions were farmers in the border area, with to flooding. use of hybrid seeds peaking at 77 percent of the sample in this ecoregion. 51 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 162 Direct seeding is less costly and less labor- and water-intensive than transplanting, but 163 Labor productivity shows a more nuanced story. During the monsoon season, labor in Myanmar it seems to be less profitable in both the productivity for farmers who transplanted was higher monsoon and dry seasons. Yields from transplanted than for those who used direct seeding, at $4.32/day plots were 35 percent higher than from direct seeded and $3.69/day, respectively (Table 112A). Yet during the plots, at 3.12 tons/ha versus 2.32 tons/ha during the dry season, farmers practicing direct seeding obtained monsoon season, and 17 percent higher during the higher labor productivity, at $9.67/day compared to dry season, at 4.63 tons/ha versus 3.95 tons/ha (Table $6.88/day for transplanting (Table 133A). This was due 111A and Table 133A). Farmers also used fewer seeds to the much lower labor requirement for direct seeding with transplanting, by 7 percent (monsoon season) to during the dry season (52 days/ha) compared to 53 percent (dry season). However, transplanting transplanting (90 days/ha). required more use of labor, inputs, livestock, machinery and fuel, and working capital. The overall result was a higher net margin for transplanted plots. 6.4 FERTILIZERS 164 The proportion of farmers using fertilizers on dry season rice was quite high. Almost during the monsoon season. The percentage of fertilizer users did not change substantially across monsoon and off-season rice production. No significant all selected farmers used at least one type of fertilizer. The most commonly used fertilizers were urea, NPK, difference was found in the use of fertilizers across and T-super (Table 88A and Figure 37). Potash fertilizer farm size or by gender of the household head. was infrequently used, by only 2-3 percent of farmers in the saltwater and border areas. Each ecoregion had its preferred fertilizers. In the saltwater and border 165 Fertilizer application rates were much higher during the dry season than during areas, the ranking was urea, T-super, and less the monsoon season (Figure 38 and Table 91A). In the commonly, NPK. The ranking shifted to urea, NPK, dry season, they were actually higher than rates in and then T-super in Sagaing’s dryland and irrigated Thailand and Vietnam (Table 28), which was not the tract ecoregions. These patterns were also observed case during the monsoon season (Table 17). Figure 37: Percentage of Farmers Using Fertilizers in the Dry Season by Ecoregion 100 80 % of farmers 60 40 20 - Salt water Dry land Irrigated tract Border area Urea NPK t-super Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 52 DRY SEASON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY Figure 38: Application Rate of Nutrients for Monsoon and Dry Season Rice by Ecoregion 200 Application rate, kg/ha 150 100 50 0 Monsoon Dry season Monsoon Dry season Monsoon Dry season N N P P K K Salt water Dry land Irrigated tract Border area Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 166 Compared to other countries’ mix of nutrients, Myanmar’s farmers tend to 167 The spatial price differentials for fertilizer in Myanmar showed similar patterns by overuse N and P. This nutrient mix may lead to low season. They were the cheapest in the border and partial factor productivity of N. Myanmar farmers saltwater areas due to their proximity to China and easy produced only 31 kg of paddy from 1 kg of N (Table 28). access to the Port of Yangon, respectively. Prices were In China it was 40 kg, and in Thailand and Vietnam, 72 highest in Sagaing (Table 29). Fertilizer prices were kg. generally lower during the dry season due to the decline in world market fertilizer prices over the course of 2013.33 Table 28: Fertilizer Use by Nutrient, 2014 Dry Season, International Comparison Nutrients China India Thailand Vietnam Myanmar* Use, kg/ha Nitrogen (N) 162 107 79 93 137 Phosphorus (P) 20 20 21 26 78 Potassium (K) 90 37 10 29 3 Share in total use, % Nitrogen (N) 60 65 72 63 63 Phosphorus (P) 7 12 19 18 36 Potassium (K) 33 23 9 20 1 Partial factor productivity 40 62 72 72 31 of nitrogen, kg of paddy/kg of N Note: *For Myanmar, Ayeyarwady’s saltwater ecoregion is used as a proxy for the main rice-producing area. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for other countries. 33 The world market price relevant for the 2013 monsoon season is assumed to be May 2013, and November 2013 for the 2014 dry season. 53 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 168 Most soils in Myanmar lack organic fertilizers, but as in the monsoon season, gypsum were observed in the saltwater and irrigated tract ecoregions. Combined with soil erosion, which takes out the upper layer most fertile soils, the farmers did not apply organic matter to their plots during the dry season. There was no observation of application of organic fertilizers application is critical farmers applying manure or bringing cow dung or to maintain soil fertility in Myanmar. Chemical spreading farm residues on the rice plots during the fertilizers cannot provide all necessary elements. In second rice season. Often, farmers burned crop mountainous regions with high rainfall and acidic soil, residues before plowing or used straw for animal water erosion intensifies the effect of lack of organic feeding, resulting in further loss of soil organic matter. matter on agricultural yields. In the dryland area, wind Only one or two isolated cases of farmers using erosion results in a similarly poor soil fertility situation. Table 29: Fertilizer Prices by Season Region Fertilizer Monsoon season Dry season Ayeyarwady Urea, $/kg 0.44 0.26 NPK, $/kg 0.48 0.35 Bago Urea, $/kg 0.71 n/a NPK, $/kg 0.66 n/a Sagaing Urea, $/kg 0.54 0.43 NPK, $/kg 0.51 0.44 Shan State Urea, $/kg 0.38 0.31 NPK, $/kg 0.28 0.35 World Urea, $/kg 0.34 0.31 DAP, $/kg 0.49 0.35 Potassium, $/kg 0.39 0.33 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey and World Bank Pink Sheets for world market fertilizer prices. 6.5 CHEMICALS 169 On average, about half of the farmers used insecticides, herbicides, and, to a lesser percent in the border area. Expenditures on insecticides did not vary much across regions, averaging $12/ha. Overall, more farmers used insecticides during the extent, fungicides during dry season rice production (Table 92A). The share of insecticide users ranged dry season compared to the monsoon season, and from 48 percent of farmers in the dryland area to 63 average expenditures per hectare were also higher.34 34 The survey team encountered difficulties in identifying pesticides by their names, particularly in the border area where farmers use pesti- cides from China. The user instructions and other information on the package are in Chinese, precluding farmers from knowing exactly the type of pesticides they use, the application rate, and precautions for use. They often rely on information from traders or relatives/friends in this regard. There was no record of molluscicide or rodenticide use. 54 DRY SEASON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 6.6 LABOR 170 The distribution of labor by ecological regions indicates that some tasks were and post-harvest was a peculiarity of the border area. Another characteristic of that area was its high share of family labor in total labor use (about 50 percent), reserved for family labor and some activities required the assistance of hired labor. For example, irrigation probably resulting from the smaller size of plots and tasks as well as crop management were reserved for higher wages in Shan State. family labor. These types of tasks require supervision and careful attention on the work quality, and were thereby more taken up by family labor, often allocated 172 The border area was the only ecoregion where labor use was higher during the dry to the head of the household. Crop establishment and season than during the monsoon season. In the other harvest/post-harvest are the main bottlenecks in rice ecoregions, labor use dropped significantly, mainly production, requiring more labor than the family can due to the switch from transplanting to direct seeding. supply. These tasks must be conducted within a limited In spite of the higher labor needs for harvest and post- time span; given the relatively large farm size in many harvest activities caused by higher yield during the dry regions of Myanmar compared to the quantity of family season, the net effect on labor use was mostly negative labor to cover the needs, hired labor is required for (Table 97A). Labor use in the saltwater ecoregion these seasonal activities. declined from 126 days/ha to 51 days/ha. In Sagaing, the decline was less dramatic but still negative, from 171 In the border area, in addition to the specific tasks previously discussed, activities related 92 days/ha to 71 days/ha in the dryland area and from 86 days/ha to 60 days/ha in the irrigated tract area. to the nursery plots were also managed by family labor. On average, farmers in this ecoregion allocated 783 hours/ha (or 98 days/ha) to dry season rice 173 Despite the lower labor intensity of dry season rice, the use of labor in Myanmar cultivation, of which 44 percent was for transplanting, was still higher than in peer countries. In countries 25 percent for crop management, 15 percent for with which Myanmar competes on world markets (i.e., harvest and post-harvest, and 16 percent for the Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam), labor use was much nursery plot. Harvest and land preparation, both lower (Table 30). Only India, Indonesia, and the mechanized, each accounted for 5 percent of total Philippines use more labor for dry season rice than labor use (Table 97A). This low use of labor for harvest Myanmar. Table 30: Labor Use in Rice Systems, Dry Season, International Comparison Countries Labor use, person days/ha Cambodia 27 China 20 India 77 Indonesia 96 Myanmar 51 (62) Philippines 68 Thailand 10 Vietnam 22 Note: Data for Myanmar is for Ayeyarwady; the average for the four regions is in parentheses. Data for other countries refer only to one key rice-growing area. Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015 for all other countries. 55 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 174 Due to the higher yields and lower labor use in the dry season, labor productivity (in kg 176 The analysis of the wage rate by task shows different categories depending on the task. of paddy per day of work) in Myanmar increased For example, in the border area, hired labor for land compared to labor productivity in the monsoon preparation, harvest, and post-harvest activities season. But it remained much lower than in peer received a 24-72 percent higher wage rate compared countries (Figure 39). to those hired for other tasks (transplanting, irrigation, seedbed preparation). The same patterns were 175 The wages of hired labor increased in all regions in the dry season compared with observed in the dryland area, where hired labor for land preparation, harvest, and post-harvest got about 50 percent higher wages than for other tasks; in the the monsoon season. Average wages increased by 16 percent in Shan State and 65 percent in Ayeyarwady irrigated tract area, they were 20-65 percent higher. (Table 31). Wages remained highest in Shan State. The The wage rate was more uniform in the saltwater reason for the wage increase in the dry season could ecoregion, where the variation remained within the be an overall trend of rising wages in Myanmar. 20 percent range. Two factors may explain the Another reason could be increased migration of variability across tasks: demand and supply factors landless laborers to outside the agricultural production and differences in skills. areas due to lower demand for labor during the dry season. Figure 39: Labor Productivity, 2013/14 Season, International Comparison 600 Productivity, kg/day 500 400 300 200 100 - s ia a nd ar am a a ne di in s di nm la ne bo pi Ch n In ai et p do m ya Th ili Vi Ca In M Ph Monsoon Dry Season Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey, Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015, and World Bank 2015c. Table 31: Wages by Season and Ecoregion Monsoon, $/day Dry season, $/day Ayeyarwady (saltwater area) 1.85 3.05 Sagaing (irrigated tract area) 2.64 3.40 Shan State (border area) 4.69 5.43 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 56 DRY SEASON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 6.7 LIVESTOCK, MACHINERY, AND FUEL 177 Motor pumps and equipment for land preparation were the types of machines dominant practice remained manual harvesting, followed by the use of mechanical threshers. Some farmers were starting to use harvesters, however: most commonly used by farmers. The intensity of their use for dry season rice production varied across about one out of five sampled farmers in the saltwater regions. Sampled farmers in Shan State were the most area and one out of ten in the irrigated tract area. intensive users of mechanical equipment: 100 percent used tractors for seedbed preparation and for harrowing, 100 percent used a combine for harvesting, 179 Crop establishment is done manually. There was no observation of farmers using and 69 percent used motorized pumps for irrigation. mechanical transplanters or seeders. These types of In the saltwater ecoregion, about 83 percent of farmers agricultural equipment are either not yet known by used motorized pumps for irrigation, denoting a farmers in Myanmar or are not cost-effective compared contrast between the lack of irrigation infrastructure to the manual/traditional methods of doing these and the availability of water in this ecoregion. The use tasks. These types of equipment are also not yet of motorized pumps increases costs but additional available on rental markets. Possession of draught revenues often cover them. oxen is common in Myanmar, so the proportion of farmers seeking to rent draught oxen services was 178 For rice harvesting, a combine was the most common piece of equipment adopted by low. When farmers needed to rent services for land preparation, they turned to tractor owners instead. farmers in the border area. In other regions, the 6.8 PROFITABILITY 180 The profitability of dry season rice was higher than that of monsoon rice. The average gross 181 As in the monsoon season, profitability was highest in Shan State, followed by the margin for dry season paddy, weighted by the number irrigated tract and saltwater areas. Farmers in the of farms in each ecoregion, was $325/ha compared to dryland area received the lowest profits.35 The different $204/ha during the monsoon season (Table 32). The profitability outcomes are explained by differences in net margin was $246/ha compared to $114/ha, and the revenues and costs. The high costs in Shan State are labor productivity was $9.20/day compared to $4.75/ more than compensated by the higher gross revenue day during the monsoon season. The standard deviation compared to other regions, the latter due to higher of profitability indicators, however, was higher than prices and yields (Figure 40). during the monsoon season, pointing to the less homogenous results and probably the large impact of weather on production during the dry season. Table 32: Farm Budgets for Monsoon and Dry Season Rice by Region No. of farms Gross margin, Net margin, Labor $/ha $/ha productivity, $/day Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Ayeyarwady 474 151 203 332 88 279 3.30 10.16 Bago 380 0 196 n/a 146 n/a 5.12 Sagaing 345 150 71 231 3 170 3.85 7.50 Shan State 174 35 490 698 337 427 9.67 12.39 Weighted average 204 325 114 246 4.75 9.20 Standard deviation 87 236 74 151 1.11 2.84 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 35 See the details of the budget by ecoregion in Tables 128A, 129A, 130A, and 131A. 57 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 40: Revenues and Production Costs for Dry Season Rice 1,800 1,600 Revenue 1,400 1,200 1,000 $/ha 800 600 400 200 - Ayeyarwady Sagaing Shan Costs excl. family labor Family labor costs Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 182 Profitability was affected by ecoregion specificities. In addition, it was affected by increased and costs declined along with farm size (Table 33 and Table 136A).36 This is consistent with the the type of crop establishment, application rate of results for the monsoon season in Ayeyarwady. In fertilizers, farm size, and gender. These factors are Sagaing, however, small farms achieved higher net analyzed in turn below. margins than large farms during the monsoon season, a difference from the results found in the dry season. 183 The level of fertilizer use was unexpectedly inversely related to profitability during the Another difference is the positive relationship between farm size and yields in the dry season in both dry season. For high users of fertilizers, the average Ayeyarwady and Sagaing. During the monsoon season, net margin was $119/ha compared to $322/ha for low- small farms had higher yields. and medium-level users (Table 134A). The adopters of urea only, however, were able to obtain higher profits (Table 135A). When urea was combined with NPK, 185 Male-headed households generated higher profits than female-headed households profits declined, pointing to the low use efficiency of (Table 140A). On average, net margins in male-headed NPK vis-à-vis their high costs, and overall the low households were 60 percent higher than in female- partial factor productivity of nutrient use (Table 28). headed households ($175/ha for women versus $280/ ha for men). The differences in net margins were 184 Large farms managed to obtain higher profits per hectare and higher labor largely due to the 12 percent difference in yields: 3.7 tons/ha for female-headed and 4.2 tons/ha for male- productivity than small farms in both Ayeyarwady headed farms. and Sagaing. In the saltwater area, for example, profits Table 33: Profitability of Dry Season Rice Production by Farm Size, Ayeyarwady Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Number of farms 30 50 71 Revenues, $/ha 747 779 808 Yield, wet paddy, tons/ha 3.98 4.20 4.34 Total Costs, $/ha 599 549 465 Labor Use, man-days/ha 65 55 48 Gross margin, $/ha 237 294 390 Net margin, $/ha 149 230 342 Labor productivity, $/day 6.99 8.66 11.16 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 58 DRY SEASON RICE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 6.9 INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS 186 Although higher than for monsoon rice, the profitability of production of off-season rice in Myanmar was still low in international comparison. In Ayeyarwady, the country’s main rice-producing area, the average net margin was $279/ha. This was much lower than the averages in other rice-producing countries (Figure 41), though it came somewhat close to the margins in Cambodia and India. Figure 41: Net Margins for Monsoon and Off-Season Rice, International Comparison Importers Philippines Indonesia Net China Vietnam Exporters Thailand Myanmar Monsoon season Net India Dry season Cambodia - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Net margin/profit, $/ha Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey for Myanmar data, World Bank 2015a for Cambodia, and Bordey et al. 2014 and 2015. 36 See Tables 137A, 138A, and 139A for the other three ecoregions. 59 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS CHAPTER 7: BEANS AND PULSES PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 187 Chapter 7 analyzes the farming practices and profitability of producing beans and in Ayeyarwady. They are grown more densely by farmers in regions with harsher climatic conditions, pulses. The most widely planted beans and pulses in especially erratic rainfall. Compared to rice and Myanmar are chickpeas, black gram, and green gram. oilseeds, pulses have a shorter growing period, and During the off-season survey (covering cool and dry thus are able to accommodate a shorter wet period. seasons), their production was observed in seven For the survey, data on black gram were collected ecoregions, while during the monsoon season beans from 558 farmers within five ecoregions: the brackish and pulses were produced only in the dryland and river and freshwater areas in Ayeyarwady each accounted areas of Sagaing (Table 75A). A large number of for about one-fourth of the sample; about one-fifth farmers (787 out of 1,728) were producing one of these each were in the east and west alluvial ecoregions; three types of pulses, depicting the importance of this and about one out of ten farmers were in the river area category of crops in Myanmar agriculture. According in Bago. Data on green gram were collected from 113 to the official statistics, in 2014/15 the total area sown farmers within four ecoregions: 50 percent were in with beans and pulses was 4.5 million ha, the second the river area in Sagaing; 19 percent were in the largest crop area after paddy (7 million ha) (MOAI irrigated tract in Sagaing; 17 percent were in the 2015b). brackish water area in Ayeyarwady; and 13 percent were in the east alluvial ecoregion in Bago. Chickpea 188 Myanmar is the world’s second largest exporter of beans and pulses (after Canada) was the third type of pulse commonly grown; 116 farmers within three ecoregions of Sagaing grew and the largest exporter in the ASEAN region. chickpeas, 54 percent of them in the dryland area, 37 Customers include India, United Arab Emirates, percent in the irrigated tract, and less than 10 percent Thailand, Bangladesh, and China. In 2014, the export in the river area. value of beans and pulses was $835 million, larger than the export value of rice, roughly estimated at $630 million.37 191 Production of beans and pulses was mostly for sale, thereby constituting an important source of cash for farmers. At the time of the 189 Myanmar produces more than 20 varieties of beans and pulses. Pulses are mainly interviews, 75 percent of black gram, 81 percent of green gram, and more than 67 percent of chickpea grown during the winter period, sown in November- production had been already sold (Table 142A). There December, and harvested in February-March. Out of was no mention of selling fresh beans, they were sold 1,728 interviewed farmers, about 45 percent grew as dried products. The proportions of farmers selling beans and pulses during the 2014 off-season versus beans and pulses were also high: the lowest proportion 20 percent growing rice (Table 8 and Table 75A). in any ecoregion was 86 percent. The proportion reached 100 percent in the west alluvial ecoregion for 190 Beans and pulses are mostly produced in the Dry Zone AEZ (Bago and Sagaing) and black gram, in the river area (Sagaing) for green gram, and in the irrigated tract and river areas for chickpea. 37 This assumes a volume of 1.8 million tons and an average export price of $350/ton. 60 BEANS AND PULSES PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 7.1 BLACK GRAM 192 The average dried beans yield was 780 kg/ ha. The yield variation among ecoregions 196 Labor use in black gram production averaged 45 days/ha. Black gram requires was small. This average yield is much lower than much less labor than off-season rice (63 days/ha) and reported by the official statistics. In 2013, the yield of monsoon rice (103 days/ha). The lowest and highest dried beans was reported as 1,370 kg/ha (FAOSTAT). overall labor use were observed in the ecoregions within Ayeyarwady (Table 147A). Among different tasks, 193 Black gram farmers used 80 kg of seeds per ha, without significant variation across harvest and post-harvest took the most time; a lot of labor was hired for these tasks to complete the harvest regions. The price of seeds ranged from $0.64/kg in on time, reduce losses, and ensure quality. A late the freshwater ecoregion to $0.80/kg in both the harvest results in high losses due to shattering of pods brackish water and river areas (Table 143A), but most and attacks from insects and rats. The reliance on farmers (85 percent) used their own seeds from hired labor was required due to the lack of harvesting previous harvests. Only 10 percent of farmers machinery for pulses in general. purchased seeds from local traders or merchants, and the remaining 5 percent got their seeds from friends and relatives. The proportion of farmers 197 Labor costs accounted for the largest share of production costs, especially the cost of purchasing seeds from traders exceeded 15 percent hired labor (Figure 42). The intensity of use and cost only in the brackish water and west alluvial ecoregions. of inputs also determined the level of production costs. The same percentages were observed across farms Expenses on animals, machinery, and fuel were of different sizes and gender of the household head. relatively small. Seeds accounted for a large share of production costs, so farmers seemed to prefer to recycle their own seeds. This in turn, however, led to the low yields 198 Farmers sold black gram from February to July. Revenues ranged from $442/ha in observed in this survey. Bago’s freshwater area to $612/ha in the river area (green points on Figure 42). The observed prices had 194 Black gram producers hardly used fertilizers. The proportion of urea users an increasing trend, with prices higher in July ($0.94/ kg) than in February and April ($0.59-$0.69/kg). Prices varied from 3-5 percent (Table 144A). For NPK, the in Myanmar strongly follow prices in India, the main percentage of users dropped to less than 1 percent, importer of Myanmar pulses. The increase in prices and practically no farmers used T-super. The adopters, therefore could have simply reflected price however, applied large quantities of urea and NPK.38 developments in India and other importing countries. The application rates of urea ranged from 35.5 kg/ha in the east alluvial ecoregion to 84.4 kg/ha in the west alluvial ecoregion. For NPK, the application rates 199 The average gross margin was $296/ha. The net margin was not much less than the averaged 30.0 kg/ha. gross margin, $267/ha, due to the low use of own family labor (Table 34).39 Labor productivity was $9.29/day. 195 In contrast to fertilizers, the use of chemicals was quite high, which is expected for pulse 200 The profitability of black gram was higher production. Pulses are very sensitive to pests. But than that of rice, especially monsoon rice. during the survey it was observed that farmers opted In Ayeyarwady, off-season rice can compete with black for treatment, not prevention. The use of chemicals, gram in terms of both net margins and labor productivity therefore, was quite high and varied among ecoregions. but it cannot compete in terms of working capital The percent of users ranged from 46 percent in the requirements. The producers of black gram need half freshwater to 88 percent in the brackish water the amount of cash needed by rice producers. ecoregions (Table 146A). The percentages in the other Moreover, such comparisons are not always three ecoregions were close to 50. straightforward because farmers growing off-season 38 The use of large amounts of urea on pulses is quite surprising since by nature, these types of plants are auto-sufficient in N needs. Keep in mind, however, that only a few farmers used these large amounts. 39 See detailed black gram farm budgets in Tables 148A, 149A, 150A, 151A, and 152A. 9 61 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 42: Revenues and Production Costs of Black Gram by Ecoregion 700 600 Costs ($/ha) 500 400 300 200 100 - Brackish Fresh Water East Alluvial West Alluvial River Area Water Inputs Hired labor Family labor Capital Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. rice do not grow pulses at the same time. In fact, there is regional specificity, which may depend on various 201 Farm size appears to not significantly affect the net margins for black gram. Labor factors such as the availability of water, labor, and productivity was slightly higher for large farms (Table markets, soil quality and fertility, and the farming 153A). Male-headed households achieved 17 percent system. Most farmers in the saltwater, dryland, higher net margins compared to female-headed farms irrigated tract, and border areas grew rice during the ($265/ha versus $227/ha) and 18 percent higher labor off-season while farmers in the brackish water, productivity ($8.68/day versus $7.37/day) (Table 154A). freshwater, east and west alluvial, and river areas cultivated black gram. Table 34: Profitability of Black Gram No. of Gross margin, Net margin, Labor prod., Total costs, farms $/ha $/ha $/da y $/ha Ayeyarwady 279 279 250 9.02 234 Bago 279 313 283 9.57 240 Average 558 296 267 9.29 237 Monsoon rice Ayeyarwady 474 203 88 3.30 469 Bago 380 196 146 5.12 391 Average 1,373 204 114 4.75 510 Off-season rice Ayeyarwady 151 332 279 10.16 517 Sagaing 150 231 170 7.50 575 Average 336 325 246 9.20 626 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 62 BEANS AND PULSES PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 7.2 GREEN GRAM 202 The data for green gram came from 113 farmers in four ecoregions: the brackish 206 The average labor use was only slightly higher than for black gram. Total use water are in Ayeyarwady, the east alluvial ecoregion ranged from 53 days/ha in Sagaing to 66 days/ha in in Bago, and the irrigated tract and river areas in Ayeyarwady. In all regions, the peak labor requirement Sagaing. The average yield was 933 kg/ha, lower than was during harvest and post-harvest periods. Between the national average reported by MOAI, the same case 60-80 percent of total labor time was spent on these as with black gram. In 2013, the average official dried two tasks (Table 147A). As for black gram, most labor bean yield was 1,370 kg/ha (FAOSTAT). The yield in used for harvest and post-harvest tasks was hired: Ayeyarwady and the irrigated tract area in Sagaing, more than 80 percent of labor during harvest was hired, however, came close to the national average, at 1,075 implying the lack of mechanization. Green gram plots kg/ha and 1,134 kg/ha, respectively. managed by women required twice as much labor as male-managed plots (107 days/ha versus 56 days/ha). 203 Farmers used various quantities of seeds per hectare. The lowest application rate Among the reasons for the differences was the higher amount of labor time spent by women on crop was observed in the irrigated tract area (35 kg/ha) and management and the higher use of hired labor for the highest in the east alluvial ecoregion (84 kg/ha). harvest (Table 160A). The low seed application rate but high yield in the former may be explained by the use of a different cultivar and more efficient production management. 207 Labor costs accounted for the largest share of production costs, especially the cost of Similar to the situation with black gram, more than hired labor (Figure 43). The intensity of input use and two-thirds of green gram producers used their own their costs also determined the level of production saved seeds from previous harvests. About 22 percent costs. High expenses on seeds and chemicals bought seeds from merchants or on local markets, accounted for most of the spending on inputs. Expenses and the remaining 9 percent received seed from on animals, machines, and fuel were relatively small relatives and friends (Table 143A). in all ecoregions. 204 The proportion of fertilizer users for green gram was higher than for black gram, but 208 Green gram was more profitable than black gram. The average gross margin was $625/ was still relatively low compared to rice production. ha and the average net margin reached $581/ha (Table In the river area, for example, about 20 percent of 35), more than twice the profitability of black gram farmers adopted urea and T-super, though the (Table 34). Labor productivity was 70 percent higher, proportion of NPK users remained low even there, at although the production of green gram required 5 percent (Table 144A). In the irrigated tract area, the slightly more labor (55 days/ha) than the production percentages of users and application rates were of black gram (45 days/ha). Green gram has higher especially small, though yields were the highest in production costs, however, a possible reason for many this ecoregion. farmers to pick black gram or chickpeas. The profits for green gram grew along with an increase in farm 205 Almost all farmers producing green gram used pesticides, including all farmers in size (Table 159A). In addition, male-headed households generated much higher profits than female-headed the irrigated tract area (Table 146A). Most of the households, with the gap being the largest among all expenditures were for insecticides, with application crops included in this survey (Table 160A). closely related to the degree of pest attacks. The use of herbicides and fungicides was limited. 40 See detailed farm budgets for green gram by ecoregion in Tables 155A, 156A, 157A, and 158A. 63 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 43: Revenues and Production Costs for Green Gram by Ecoregion 1,400 1,200 Costs ($/ha) 1,000 800 600 400 200 - Brackish East Alluvial Irrigated River Area Water Tract Inputs Hired labor Family labor Capital Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Table 35: Profitability of Green Gram No. of Gross margin, Net margin, Labor prod., Total costs, farms $/ha $/ha $/day $/ha Ayeyarwady 19 693 643 13.39 346 Bago 15 355 335 9.80 337 Sagaing 79 660 613 17.69 361 Average 113 625 581 15.92 355 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 7.3 CHICKPEAS 209 Chickpea is the third group of pulses covered in this survey. Chickpea production 212 Farmers producing chickpeas used fertilizers more frequently than producers was found in all ecoregions of Sagaing, but not in the of black and green gram. In the dryland area, 49 other three regions. percent and 54 percent of farmers used urea and NPK, respectively. These proportions were 30 percent and 210 Chickpea was produced by 116 farm households. The yield averaged 0.9 tons/ha, 53 percent in the irrigated tract area. The application rates of urea and NPK were 21 kg/ha and 48 kg/ha, respectively. lower than the national average of 1.46 tons/ha reported by FAOSTAT for 2013. 211 Regarding the source of seeds, the story is 213 Large shares of farmers in the irrigated tract area (91 percent) and the river area similar to that of the grams. Most seeds were (80 percent) used chemicals, mostly insecticides. saved from own production. When purchased, however, The proportion dropped to 30 percent in the dryland they accounted for more than 60 percent of material area, which is perhaps expected given that it is arid inputs. That is an important reason why farmers used and faces a lower incidence of pests. their own seeds; in addition, good seeds may not have been available to buy. Lack of good seeds is one reason why yields are low. 214 The average labor use was 42 days/ha, which made chickpeas the least labor- 64 BEANS AND PULSES PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY intensive among the beans and pulses. Half of labor time was used for harvest and post-harvest activities. 216 The profitability of chickpeas was the lowest amongst the beans and pulses. It was even The other half was allocated to land preparation, lower than the profitability of off-season rice in the sowing, and crop management (Table 147A). This was irrigated tract area of Sagaing (Table 36),42 the more balanced compared to green and black gram, ecoregion where both rice and pulses were produced where 60-70 percent of labor was allocated to harvest during the off-season. When water is available for rice and post-harvest activities. By source, the use of hired production in the dry season, rice seems to be more labor was highest for land preparation and post- profitable than chickpeas, assuming farmers have harvest activities. access to finance. The working capital requirements for rice production were twice as high as for chickpeas. 215 Labor costs were the second largest component of production costs (Figure 44). Compared to grams, however, off-season rice was less profitable and required much more working These costs were less than the cost of material inputs, capital. mainly seeds and chemicals. Figure 44: Revenues and Production Costs for Chickpeas by Ecoregion 600 500 Costs ($/ha) 400 300 200 100 - Dry Land Irrigated Tract River Area Inputs Hired labor Family labor Capital Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. Table 36: Profitability of Beans and Pulses No. of Gross margin, Net margin, Labor prod., Total costs, farms $/ha $/ha $/day $/ha Black gram 558 296 267 9.29 237 Green gram 113 625 581 15.92 355 Chickpeas 116 173 141 6.85 266 Off-season rice, irrigated 71 339 288 9.64 533 tract area, Sagaing Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 42 See the detailed farm budgets for chickpeas by ecoregion in Tables 161A, 162A, and 163A. 65 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 217 Profitability increased along with farm size for all of the beans and pulses. Economies of scale were especially strong in production of green gram and, to a lesser extent, chickpeas (Figure 45). The production of black gram showed positive but relatively weak economies of scale. Figure 45: Profitability and Labor Productivity for Beans and Pulses by Farm Size 600 500 Net Margins $/ha 400 300 200 100 0 Small farms Medium farms Large farms Black Gram Green Gram Chick Peas 18 Labor Productivity $/day 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Small farms Medium farms Large farms Black Gram Green Gram Chick Peas Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 66 maize PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY CHAPTER 8: MAIZE PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 218 During the survey, farmers producing maize were found only in Shan State. They and about 81 percent in the southern interior ecoregions (Figure 46 and Table 168A). This situation highlights the availability of maize hybrid seeds in the parts of produced maize during the monsoon season. While growing in importance, maize is still a minor crop in the country near China, a large supplier of hybrid Myanmar. According to MOAI (2015a), total maize area seeds. Another large supplier of hybrid maize seeds in 2012 was 415,000 hectares, which is only 10 percent is Thailand, especially by CP group, involved in contract of the area sown to beans and pulses and 6 percent farming, feed milling and integrated poultry industry. of the area sown to paddy. In the survey, 180 farmers produced maize, 54 percent of them in the southern interior and 46 percent in the northern interior 221 The use and application rates of fertilizers were relatively high. In the northern interior, ecoregions of Shan State. 94 percent of farms applied urea and 73 percent of farms applied NPK (Figure 47, Table 170A and Table 219 The average yield of maize was 3.95 tons/ ha (Table 166A). This was close to the national 171A). In general, farmers in the northern interior ecoregion applied more fertilizers than in the southern interior ecoregion, perhaps due to their greater use average yield reported by MOAI (3.87 tons/ha). of hybrid seeds and closer proximity to China. The 220 Most farmers used hybrid seeds. Overall, about nine out of ten farms used hybrid greater fertilizer use could be the reason for the 17 percent higher yields achieved there (4.15 tons/ha versus 3.64 tons/ha). seeds for maize – all farmers in the northern interior Figure 46: Types of Seed Used for Maize 120 Proportion of farms, % 100 80 60 40 20 - Northern interior Southern interior Hybrid Certified Other Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 67 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Figure 47: Use and Application Rates of Fertilizers for Maize 250 100 Application rates, kg/ha Proportion of Users, % 200 80 150 60 100 40 50 20 0 0 Urea NPK T-super Northern interior Southern interior % Users: North % Users: South Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 222 Labor use for maize production was 62 days/ha. In both regions, about 43 percent 223 All maize producers reported to have sold at least some of their crop, with the share of labor was used for harvest and post-harvest tasks, typically around 95 percent (Table 167A). Since maize 30 percent for crop management, and 20 percent for output prices were similar in both ecoregions, the land preparation (Table 173A). Land preparation difference in gross revenue (green points in Figure 48) included plowing, harrowing, leveling, side-plowing, was due to differences in yield. Higher gross revenue and cleaning of fields. Crop management consisted was sufficient to compensate for higher production of field monitoring, applying fertilizers and chemical cost in the northern interior ecoregion, leading to and non-chemical inputs, and weeding. In the absence slightly higher net margins. The largest cost item was of herbicide use, weed control required a large amount labor in both the northern and southern interior of labor. The share of family labor in total use was 34 ecoregions. percent in the northern interior and 55 percent in the southern interior ecoregions. Figure 48: Revenues and Production Costs for Maize 1,200 1,000 Costs ($/ha) 800 600 400 200 - Northern Interior Southern Interior Inputs Hired labor Family labor Capital Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 68 maize PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY Table 37: Profitability of Maize No. of Gross margin, Net margin, Labor prod., Total costs, farms $/ha $/ha $/day $/ha Northern interior 83 919 767 18.04 513 Southern interior 97 810 744 16.36 396 Total or weighted average 180 854 759 17.04 450 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 224 The average gross margin for maize producers was $854/ha (Table 37).43 The average net margin was $759/ha and the labor productivity was $17.04/day. The working capital requirement was comparable among ecoregions ($323/ha on average). The profitability of maize production was the highest among all crops analyzed in this survey. 43 See the detailed farm budget of maize production in Table 174A. 69 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS CHAPTER 9: OILSEED PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 225 In the survey, oilseeds included groundnut, sesame, and sunflower, all produced only during the sesame production season. The average sunflower yield was 730 kg/ha, slightly higher than MOAI’s average of 647 kg/ha. in Sagaing. Groundnuts were produced by 36 farms in the river area. Sesame was produced by 50 farms in the dryland and river areas. Sunflower seeds were produced by 17 farms in the dryland ecoregion. 227 Most seeds used in oilseed production were saved from previous harvests. Some farmers used hybrid seeds for groundnut but this share 226 The average yields for oilseeds were close to the averages reported by MOAI. The was small, just 3 percent (Figure 49, left side). Sesame was the only oilseed crop for which some farmers used certified seeds (Figure 49, right side). average yield for groundnut kernel was 0.68 ton/ha, slightly above the average yield reported by MOAI (0.62 ton/ha). For sesame, the average yields for dried seeds varied from a low of 169 kg/ha in the dryland area to 228 Not many groundnut growers applied fertilizers, but most applied chemicals 208 kg/ha in the river area (Table 166A).44 These yields (Table 171A and Table 172A). Only 28 percent of farmers were lower than the average yields reported by MOAI used NPK and 11 percent used urea. But those who in 2013 (395 kg/ha). Discussions with farmers indicated did use fertilizers applied relatively high quantities. that the low yield was the consequence of drought Chemicals, in particular insecticides, were used by 86 percent of groundnut growers. Figure 49: Types and Sources of Seeds Used for Oilseeds 100 100 Proportion of farms, % 80 Proportion of farms, % 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 - 0 Groundnut: River Sesame: Dry land Sesame: River Sunflower: Dry Groundnut: River Sesame: Dry land Sesame: River Sunflower: Dry area area land area area land Traders Friends/Relatives Previous harvest Hybrid Certified Other Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 44 Myanmar is one of the leading global producers of sesame, producing even more than China and India. 70 OILSEED PRODUCTION AND PROFITABILITY 229 For sesame production, farmers in the river area rarely used fertilizers, with the 232 Farmers used the most labor for crop management and harvest. These two proportion of users below 5 percent for NPK and activities accounted for about 70 percent of labor use below 20 percent for urea. On the other hand, about for groundnut, more than 60 percent for sesame, and half of sesame producers in the dryland area used 65 percent for sunflower (Table 173A). The average urea and/or NPK and applied them at high rates (about daily wage rate for hired labor was $2.30/day. 70 kg/ha). Also, more than half of sesame producers in the river area treated their crops against pests by using insecticides, but that proportion was about one 233 Farmers sold sesame seeds and sunflower seeds as a dry product. The average prices in seven in the dryland area. were $2.4/kg for sesame seeds and $0.73/kg for sunflower seeds. For groundnut, farmers had a choice 230 For sunflower production, about two-thirds of farmers used urea, but at a lower of selling fresh or dried products, with the difference in prices between dry and fresh about 11 percent. application rate compared to that used for other oilseeds. The same pattern was observed for NPK: a high proportion of users (88 percent) but a relatively 234 All oilseed growers reported to have sold at least part of their crops (Table 167A). low application rate (52 kg/ha). No chemicals were About 75 percent of groundnut had been sold, 90 used for sunflower production. percent of sesame, and 66 percent of sunflower. 231 The average number of person-days of work per hectare was 65 for groundnut, 44 for 235 Production costs were highest for groundnut and lowest for sunflower seeds sesame, and 30 for sunflower seeds. For oilseeds, (Figure 50). Gross revenues were highest for groundnut farmers mostly used hired labor (Table 173A): the and lowest for sesame. The structure of production shares of hired labor in total labor use for groundnut, costs varied by crop. Due to the high cost of seeds, sesame, and sunflower seeds were 75 percent, 53 material inputs accounted for 47 percent of the total percent, and 41 percent, respectively. costs of groundnut production, while labor costs accounted for 40 percent. Labor was the largest cost in the production of both sesame seeds (66 percent) and sunflower seeds (about 45 percent). Expenditures on livestock, machinery, and fuel averaged 18 percent for all oilseeds. Figure 50: Revenues and Production Costs for Oilseeds 800 700 600 Costs ($/ha) 500 400 300 200 100 - Groundnut Sesame Sunflower Seeds Inputs Hired labor Family labor Capital Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 71 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 38: Profitability of Oilseeds No. of Gross margin, Net margin, Labor prod., Total costs, farms $/ha $/ha $/day $/ha Groundnut 36 356 324 8.32 421 Sesame 50 275 202 8.54 217 Sunflower seeds 17 396 377 15.68 121 Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 236 The highest profits were generated by producers of sunflower seeds (Table 38).45 The net margin from sunflower seeds ($377/ha) was comparable to that of groundnut ($324/ha) but the lower labor intensity (30 days/ha versus 65 days/ha) resulted in twice as high labor productivity for producers of sunflower seeds ($15.68/day) relative to those of groundnut producers ($8.32). Production of sunflower seeds also required the lowest amount of working capital (and thus lower production costs), making this crop the most attractive one for cash- constrained farmers. The lower labor use for sesame (44 days/ha) resulted in a slightly higher labor productivity for producers of sesame in spite of the small gross and net margins compared to producers of groundnut. 45 See the detailed farm budgets for oilseeds by type in Tables 175A, 176A, and 177A. 72 SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT CHAPTER 10: SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT 237 Agriculture can play an important role in poverty reduction in Myanmar given its 239 First, most farms in Myanmar are relatively small, even though they are larger than large share in GDP and labor force on one hand and the rice-based farms in the region. Farms are the high unrealized agricultural potential on the generally larger in Ayeyarwaddy and Bago and smaller other. Yet there is the limited knowledge on prevailing in Sagaing and Shan State, but are mostly between 1 farming practices, the situation with production factors and 3 ha. This small farm size limits the income that (land, labor, and capital), farm cropping choices, can be derived from land use. Several policy profitability of various crops, and determinants of implications emerge. First, relying on increasing farm profitability. Knowledge is also limited on actual size alone to solve the low farm income problem in problems faced by farmers, market failures, and the Myanmar will work only for a tiny minority because implications of the government correcting them. This the land resource is simply limited. Second, for farm report sheds light on some of these issues; the key households to keep up with their nonfarm counterparts, findings are presented below. They are based on the it will be essential to grow more profitable crops initial analysis of the primary farm data from 1,728 (primarily nonstaples) and diversify their incomes into farm households residing in Ayeyarwady, Bago, and nonfarm sectors (or leave farming entirely). Third, the Sagaing regions, and Shan State, representing 0.07 productivity of land needs to be high to provide good percent of all farms in those regions. These areas farm incomes, putting a premium on sustainable land reflect the rich variety of agro-ecological zones/ and water management. Fourth, with higher wages ecoregions and farming systems in Myanmar. Data and a labor shortage in the future, mechanization will were collected for the 2013/14 agricultural season, eventually occur but will need to work at smaller field through two survey rounds, and the targeted crops scales than in North America or Australia. Most farms were paddy, pulses and beans, oilseeds, and maize. will have to mechanize through rental markets as farm sizes will simply not be large enough to profitably work 238 The findings of the report should not be interpreted as Myanmar’s averages. They machinery full-time without renting out to other farmers. need to be seen as an insight into the production economics of better-performing farms mainly growing rice during the monsoon season and other crops 240 One way to increase land productivity by overcoming low land availability is to during the off-season, including second season rice, increase access to water. Usually with irrigation, in selected regions of Myanmar. The surveyed farmers farmers are willing to invest more in the use of modern are more receptive to adopting new and modern inputs, labor, and services, taking into account the technologies. They represent the upper tier of farmers, reduced climatic risks such as drought and flooding. those using higher application rates of fertilizers and Yet irrigation coverage in Myanmar is relatively low. better-quality seed, and likely having better access to In 2011/12, 2.12 million ha of agricultural land were part services such as credit, equipment rental, and of public irrigation systems. This constituted 12 percent irrigation. Overall, the results illustrate the profitability of crop area, much lower than in other Asian countries, of agricultural production when adequate level of where this figure ranges from 30 percent in Indonesia inputs and more modern technologies are used. and Thailand to 70 percent in Vietnam. 73 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 241 Second, the prevailing farming practices, especially for paddy, are highly labor- farms also matters but experience from other countries shows that this problem can be overcome through rental machinery services, which are booming intensive, mainly due to low agricultural wages. Farm wages in Myanmar were only $1.8-2.5/day in the 2013 in other Asian countries but lacking in Myanmar. monsoon season and $3.0-3.5/day in the 2014 dry season. These wages are much lower than in neighboring countries. As a result, farm production 244 Fifth, most farms produce paddy during the monsoon season, mainly due to the practices in Myanmar are labor-intensive. For paddy, excessively high humidity level for production of other 131 days are spent per ha in Ayeyarwady, the main crops, but diversify to other crops during the dry paddy-producing area of the country, compared to 11 season. During the monsoon season, paddy is the days in Thailand, 22 days in Vietnam, and 52 days in main crop for both small and large farms and across Cambodia, the countries competing with Myanmar on all ecoregions. Out of 1,728 surveyed households, 1,373 global rice markets. Labor use for paddy production (80 percent) reported producing monsoon paddy. In during the monsoon season in other regions of Ayeyarwady, Bago, the irrigated tract in Sagaing, and Myanmar was above 80 days. In the production costs the border area of Shan State, all farms grew rice of paddy in surveyed farms, labor accounted for the during the monsoon season. The proportions were largest share: 42 percent in Sagaing and Shan State, also high in other ecoregions, with the lowest figure 51 percent in Ayeyarwady, and 55 percent in Bago. being 60 percent in the river area of Sagaing. Hired labor accounted for 54 percent of total labor use for paddy production in Ayeyarwady, 61 percent in Shan State, 75 percent in Sagaing, and 81 percent in Bago. 245 Yet very few farmers from the survey practice rice monoculture during the year. Farming systems are well diversified, with paddy 242 Third, the quality of human capital in Myanmar agriculture is very poor. More production prevailing during the monsoon season while other crops are produced during the dry season. Only 336 farmers produced paddy during the dry than 70 percent of household heads did not attend school beyond the primary level. The proportion of season, as most produced beans and pulses. During household heads with little or no education was very the off-season, between 48 percent (dryland area in high, at more than 90 percent in Shan State, of which Sagaing) to 89 percent (brackish water area in about 50 percent have no education. Female heads of Ayeyarwady) of the surveyed farms grew at least one households were less educated than male household type of pulse. The exception was Shan State, where heads. On average, 19 percent of men did not have any less than 2 percent of farmers grew off-season pulses. formal education compared to 30 percent of women. In the northern and southern interior ecoregions in While 9 percent of men received tertiary and higher Shan State, maize constituted the second most education, the share for women was only 4 percent. cultivated crop during the monsoon and off-seasons. It appears that extension services, on-farm training, and vocational skills improvement programs are absolutely necessary to uplift farm labor skills in 246 A variety of other crops were grown in other places. Sagaing was the main location of Myanmar, and with it their productivity. oilseeds production – i.e., sesame, groundnuts, and sunflower seeds. About one out of ten farmers in the 243 Fourth, the extent and quality of agricultural mechanization in Myanmar are very low. northern and southern interior ecoregions of Shan State grew culinary crops (mainly chilies, onion, garlic, and potatoes), especially during the off-season. The Few farmers own machines and not many have access to rental services. The situation is better in Shan State, freshwater area in Ayeyarwady was characterized by while most farms in Ayeyarwady, Bago, and Sagaing 20 percent and 7 percent of farmers cultivating tobacco use draught oxen instead. Oxen constitute an (including betel) during the monsoon and off-seasons, intermediate solution par excellence in developing respectively. countries, where most farmers face high initial costs of mechanization. The low extent of agricultural mechanization is not a surprise given the low wages 247 The most widely planted beans and pulses in Myanmar are chickpeas, black gram, in rural areas, the excess agricultural labor, and the and green gram. During the off-season, their still-lacking infrastructure and regulatory environment production was observed in seven ecoregions, while for machinery service providers. The small size of during the monsoon season beans and pulses were 74 SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT produced only in the dryland and river areas of Sagaing. A large number of farmers (787 out of 1,728) were 251 Eighth, farmers rarely use good seeds. Most farmers use their own seeds. Less than 7 producing one of these three types of pulses, depicting percent of farmers reported using good seeds the importance of this category of crops in Myanmar purchased outside of their farms. Some farmers use agriculture. hybrid seeds, but this is happening exclusively in Shan State (about 66 percent of farmers in the southern 248 Myanmar is the world’s second largest exporter of beans and pulses (after Canada) interior ecoregion and 92 percent in the border area reported using hybrid seeds). The low use of good and the largest exporter in the ASEAN region. seeds is mainly a result of their low supply. The current Customers include India, United Arab Emirates, supply of good rice seeds coming out of the public seed Thailand, Bangladesh, and China. In 2014, the export system was estimated to satisfy only less than 1 percent value of beans and pulses was $835 million, larger of potential demand. For comparison, the supply/ than the export value of rice, estimated at roughly $630 demand ratio was 10 percent in Cambodia, 117 percent million.46 in Thailand, and 100 percent in Vietnam. 249 Sixth, paddy yields are low in Myanmar. The weighted average yield in dry equivalent 252 Ninth, most farmers widely use urea for paddy production, but at low rates. The in the surveyed sample was 2.73 tons/ha. The average proportion of farmers using urea was quite high, above was 2.56 tons/ha for the monsoon season and 3.41 80 percent in all ecoregions, with the exception of the tons/ha for the dry season. These data come from river area (Sagaing) where the use rate was very low relatively more productive farms, and farms outside (13 percent). The proportions came close to 100 percent of this survey are likely to have lower yields. The survey in Shan State’s ecoregions. The average application results are much closer to the yield reported by the rate of N during the monsoon season was 53 kg/ha, USDA than the MOAI. During the monsoon season, low by international comparison. In the main rice- the lowest yields were found in Sagaing and the highest producing areas of South and East Asia, the use of N in Shan State, with Ayeyarwady and Bago in the middle. is more than 100 kg/ha. A commonly recommended application rate across Asia for monsoon paddy is 95 250 Seventh, average paddy prices in the Delta and Dry Zone regions were lower than kg of N per ha, and for dry season paddy 110 kg of N per ha. Actual use may differ from these blanket those in neighboring countries, while fertilizer prices recommendations depending on agro-ecology and were higher. In Ayeyarwady, the average farm-gate site-specific factors, but this general recommendation price of wet paddy was $200/ton, while urea prices is a useful benchmark for Myanmar. were $440/ton. The resulting price ratio of urea to paddy was 2.2. In comparison, the same ratio was 1.8 in Cambodia, 1.6 in Vietnam, and 1.1 in Thailand. Low 253 Several reasons explain the low application rates of fertilizer in Myanmar. One of the farm-gate prices in Myanmar are a result of many most important is economic. In Ayeyarwady, for factors. Some are related to the poor quality of output example, farm-gate prices for monsoon paddy are (due to high moisture, many impurities, etc.) and the relatively low while urea prices are relatively high in multiple number of varieties used by farmers, which regional comparison. Therefore, the relative/effective makes it difficult for rice mills to find large volumes fertilizer prices in Myanmar are much higher than in of uniform variety. Others are related to the high costs other countries. Another reason is farmers’ poor in the downstream parts of the value chain, including knowledge about optimal usage and the lack of soil high milling, transport, and export costs. All these maps to provide information about specific soil nutrient costs reduce the share of farm-gate prices in wholesale requirements. and export prices. Without reducing these downstream costs, farm-gate prices in Myanmar have little scope to increase, as they need to remain on par with prices 254 In addition to low application rates, farmers in Myanmar used an unbalanced nutrient offered by competing exporters. mix. Farmers mainly use N (75 percent of all nutrients) at the expense of K (5 percent of all nutrients), while 46 Myanmar is one of the leading global producers of sesame, producing even more than China and India. 75 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS farmers in other key Asian rice-growing areas use research should look into this coming lower ratios of N to P and K. This unbalanced application transition in the country. of nutrients reduces yield response and, consequently, b. The adopters of hybrid seeds obtained farm profits in Myanmar. significantly higher yields than the adopters of other seeds, but not always 255 Tenth, the average gross margin for monsoon paddy was $204/ha, the net higher profits. The average wet paddy yield of users of hybrid seeds was 4.37 margin was $114/ha, and the labor productivity was tons/ha compared to 3.43 tons/ha $4.75/day. Gross and net margins were highest in obtained by the users of certified open- Shan State and lowest in Sagaing. Monsoon paddy was pollinated varieties and 2.92 tons/ha quite profitable in four ecoregions (east alluvial in by the users of own saved seeds. Most Bago, and border area, northern interior, and southern hybrid seed users were in Shan State, interior in Shan State), with higher net margins and due to its proximity to China, the ultimate labor productivity than in the other ecoregions. supplier of hybrid seeds and buyer of Farmers in these ecoregions achieved net margins hybrid rice. The survey shows that hybrid ranging from $251/ha to $358/ha and labor productivity rice was not widely used in other parts above $8.0/day. The lowest profits and productivity of the country. Several reasons explain were observed in river area in Bago, dryland and this. First, the Myanmar people do not irrigated tract in Sagaing, and saltwater in Ayeyarwady. eat hybrid rice, so when it is produced Net margins there ranged from negative to $30/ha it needs to be sold to China for noodle and labor productivity from $3.0/day to $3.8/day. production. Usually hybrid rice is priced lower. Farmers bear the risk of failure 256 The financial outcomes were affected by specific ecoregion characteristics and to sell the harvest across the border. Second, this technology is still new to other factors such as the type of crop establishment, farmers, and hybrid seeds are not widely types of seed used, application of fertilizers, farm available. Third, hybrid seed is about size, and gender: nine times more expensive than other a. Farmers transplanting rice during certified seeds. At the input and output the monsoon season obtained higher prices prevailing in Shan State, the use profits. Because of more uniform plant of hybrid seeds is profitable, but at the spacing, transplanting allows better country-average paddy prices it is not. control of weeds than direct seeding, In other regions, the net margin turns which in turn leads to higher yield. In negative and labor productivity declines the surveyed farms, the average yield to $4.46/day, which is about the same in dry paddy equivalent was 2.60 tons/ as for other seeds. This profitability ha for transplanting versus 1.94 tons/ consideration needs to be taken into ha for direct seeding. Yet transplanting account when promoting hybrid seeds in involves higher costs of production: 110 different parts of the country. days/ha are required for transplanting c. The higher use of fertilizers did not versus 85 days/ha for direct seeding. always result in higher profits. The In countries where wages are high and survey found that higher use of fertilizers mechanization options are available, often led to lower gross and net margins. the use of direct seeding becomes more Although the highest fertilizer users common: essentially all farmers in the generated the largest revenues due to main producing areas of China, Thailand, higher yields, the costs associated with and Vietnam practice direct seeding the use of more fertilizers and higher and manage to produce good financial use of labor, animals, machines, and results, much better than farmers fuel exceeded the yield gains. Several in Myanmar. As wages in Myanmar reasons could explain the low supply increase to the levels of these countries, response of fertilizers. Fertilizers can direct seeding is certain to become more be of poor quality. A probably more common. Forward-looking agronomic important reason is that farmers do not 76 SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT have adequate knowledge regarding the use of fertilizers, including the nature 257 Eleventh, the profitability of monsoon paddy in Myanmar looks dismal in international of their soils and the fertilizer quantity comparison. In Ayeyarwady, the main rice-producing required for those soils. Another reason area in the country, the average net margin was $139/ could be an inefficient mix of nutrients ha. This is much lower than the averages in the main applied: adding NPK to urea did not producing areas of other major Asian rice producers, improve profits much, pointing to the low which range from $342 in Cambodia to $423 in Vietnam. efficiency of fertilizer use. Even if some farms achieve double the average in d. The use of mechanized services did Myanmar, it would still be below the average margins not affect profitability much. Across all in Cambodia and India, the two poorest countries in 12 ecoregions, farm budgets were not this sample along with Myanmar. substantially different for mechanized and non-mechanized farms (with mechanized farms defined as those that 258 What makes Myanmar’s profits smaller than those in other net exporting countries? mechanized at least one of four land Production costs in Myanmar were comparable to preparation operations). Total labor use costs in Cambodia, and half those in India and Vietnam. was 10 percent lower for mechanized Thus, low gross revenues primarily explain Myanmar’s farms, while expenditures on material relatively small profits compared to those of other inputs were about 21 percent higher on countries. Yields were low, comparable only with mechanized farms, but on balance gross Cambodia, and Myanmar’s paddy prices were the margins for mechanized farms were lowest. only 5 percent higher. e. Farm size matters for profit generation. In all regions, smaller farms generated 259 Twelfth, the profitability of dry season paddy was higher than monsoon season higher revenues per hectare due to paddy. The average gross margin for dry season paddy higher yields, and the labor productivity was $325/ha compared to $204/ha during the monsoon of small farms was also higher. Yet in season. The net margin was $246/ha compared to some regions (Ayeyarwady and Bago), $114/ha, and the labor productivity was $9.20/day profitability increased with farm size. compared to $4.75/day (due to higher profits and lower The average net margin of small farms labor use, due to the move from transplanting to direct in Ayeyarwady was $40/ha compared seeding). As in the monsoon season, profitability was to $166/ha achieved by large farms. In highest in Shan State, followed by the irrigated tract Bago, the average net margin of small in Sagaing and saltwater areas in Ayeyarwady. farms was $142/ha, and of large farms, Although higher than for monsoon paddy, the $156/ha. Irrespective of the profitability profitability of production of dry season paddy in per hectare, large farms naturally Myanmar was still much lower than the averages in generated higher profits per farm. Many other rice-producing countries, though it came small farms are below one hectare, so somewhat close to the margins in Cambodia and India. they cannot rely solely on rice production for their livelihood. Unlike large farms, households with small landholdings 260 Thirteenth, maize was the most profitable among all crops surveyed. Yet it was found need to complement their income from to be produced only in Shan State, where it competed rice with other income earned inside and with paddy production during the monsoon season. outside of agriculture. The average gross margin was $854/ha, the net margin f. The gender of the household head had was $759/ha, and the labor productivity was $17.04/ a small impact on the profitability of day. The reason for high profitability of maize production monsoon rice production. Female- in Shan State is its proximity to China, which facilitates headed households in the sample the region’s use of high-yielding hybrid seeds (about generated slightly higher net margins nine out of ten farms used hybrid seeds) and enables and labor productivity. it to sell output at remunerative prices to China. 77 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 261 Fourteenth, during the dry season beans and pulses were the most popular crops in 263 Several suggestions emerged regarding future research based on the collected the Dry Zone and Delta. This popularity is due to data to help close the knowledge gap in Myanmar. several reasons. First, some types of beans, especially This report presents the initial analysis of the rich green gram, are more profitable than dry season primary data, focusing on the prevailing farming paddy. In Sagaing, for example, the net margin of green practices, extent of diversification, partial factor gram was $613/ha compared to $170/ha for paddy. productivity, analysis of farm profitability, and a simple Second, beans and pulses are cheaper to produce analysis of determinants of profitability of paddy than paddy, and a readily available market exists. production. Future research can include analysis of Average paddy production costs in the dry season were production functions and total factor productivity, $626/ha compared to $510/ha for black gram and $355/ econometric analysis of the role various factors play ha for green gram. Third, beans and pulses require in determining farm productivity and profitability, and less water and labor, which are in deficit during the analysis of why farmers choose one technology over dry season. As a result of the latter, labor productivity others. Institutional differences among regions and increases. The average labor productivity was $9.3/ specific aspects of value chains for various commodities day for black gram, $15.9/day for green gram, and can be studied to better explain farm production $9.6/day for paddy. choices and farm profitability and develop recommendations to unleash the constraints to 262 Finally, oilseeds were mainly produced in Sagaing region during the dry season. growth. Furthermore, this report establishes the baseline for future studies of changes in farm production economics over time, creating a solid Oilseeds include groundnut, sesame, and sunflower seeds. The production of oilseeds was less profitable foundation for future research and applied policy than that of beans and pulses, yet many farmers turned studies.  to their production due to the low requirement for labor and working capital. The total costs of producing sunflower ($121/ha) and sesame ($217/ha) were the lowest amongst all crops in the survey. 78 SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT REFERENCES Bordey, F., P. Moya, J. Betran, C. Launio, A. Litonjua, R. Manalili, A. Mataia, J. Besenio, F. Macalinta, R. Malasa, E. Marciano, M. Milanes, S. Paran, G. Redondo, R. Relado, M. San Valentin, I. Tanzo, E. Tulay, S. Valencia, C. Viray, and C. Yusongco. 2014. “Benchmarking The Cost and Profitability of Paddy Production in Selected Asian Rice Bowls.” Philippine Rice Research Institute, International Rice Research Institute, Benguet State University, and Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries. Bordey, F., P. Moya, J. Betran, C. Launio, A. Litonjua, R. Manalili, A. Mataia, J. Besenio, F. Macalinta, R. Malasa, E. Marciano, M. Milanes, S. Paran, G. Redondo, R. Relado, M. San Valentin, I. Tanzo, E. Tulay, S. Valencia, C. Viray, and C. Yusongco. 2015. “Benchmarking The Cost and Profitability of Paddy Production in Selected Asian Rice Bowls.” Philippine Rice Research Institute, International Rice Research Institute, Benguet State University, and Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries. Presentation to the Executive Committee of the Philippine Department of Agriculture. Chan, S. 2014. “Agricultural Mechanization in Cambodia.” Presentation for UN-CSAM Second Regional Forum on Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization. September 9-11. Serpong, Indonesia. Dawe, D. 2015. “Agricultural Transformation of Middle-Income Asian Economies: Divrsification, Farm Size and Mechanization.” Paper prepared as a part of the World Bank-coordinated “Farmgate to Market Study on Managing the Agri-Food Transition in East Asia.” FAO. 2012. “Irrigation in Southern and Eastern Asia in Figures: Aquastat Survey 2011.” FAO Water Report 37. Rome. MIP. 2015. “The 2014 Myanmar Population and Housing Census: The Union Report.” Department of Population, Minstry of Immigration and Population, Maynmar. MOAI. 2013. “Outline of the Irrigation Department.” Ministry of Agricultre and Irrigation, Myanmar. MOAI. 2015a. “Myanmar Agriculture in Brief 2014.” Ministry of Agricultre and Irrigation, Myanmar. MOAI. 2015b. “Myanmar Rice Sector Development Strategy.” Ministry of Agricultre and Irrigation, Myanmar. Moya. P., D. Dawe, D. Pabale, M. Tiongco, N. Chien, S. Devarajan, A. Diathiharti, N. Lai, L. Niyomvit, H. Ping, G. Redondo, and P. Wardana. 2004. “The Economics of Intensively Irrigated Rice in Asia.” In: Increasing the Productivity of Intensive Rice Systems through Site-Specific Nutrient Management, ed. A. Dobermann and D. Dawe. Enfield, N.H (USA) and Los Banos (Philippines): Science Publishers, Inc. and International Rice Reseacrh Institute. Poapongsakorn, N. 2014. “The Benefits and Costs of a Paddy Pledging Policy: The Experience of Thailand.” In: Rice in the Shadow of Skyscrapers. Policy Choices in a Dynamic East and Southeast Asian Setting, ed. Dawe, D., S. Jaffe, and N. Santos. FAO, IRRI, and World Bank. 79 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Prasad, A. H., B. Viraktamath, and T. Mohapatra. 2014. “Hybrid Rice in India.” In Hybrid Rice Development in Asia: Assessment of Limitations and Potential, pp. 89-102. Proceedings of the Expert Consultation organized by the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Asia Pacific Seed Association, 2-3 July. USAID. 2015. “An Analysis of Three Commodity Value Chains in Cambodia: Rice, Horticulture, and Aquaculture.” Presentation prepared by Leveraging Economic Opportunities (LEO) project for the US Agency for International Development, March. Van den Broek, J., F. Jongeleen, A. Subedi, and N. Lin Oo. 2015. “Pathways for Develping the Seed Sector of Myanmar: A Scoping Study.” Wageningen University Report CDI-15-081. World Bank. 2015a. “Cambodian Agriculture in Transition: Risks and Opportunities.” Economic and Sector Work Report No. 96308-KH. Agriculture Global Practice. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2015b. “Myanmar: Systematic Country Disgnostic.” World Bank, Washington DC. World Bank. 2015c forthcoming. “Leveraging Rice Sector Development for Poverty Reduction in the Greater Mekong Region.” World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank and LIFT. 2014a. “Myanmar: Capitalizing on Rice Export Opportunities.” Economic and Sector Work Report No. 85804-MM. Agriculture Global Practice, World Bank, Washington, DC, and Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund, Yangon, Myanmar. World Bank and LIFT. 2014b. “Myanmar Agricultural Development Bank: Initial Assessment and Restructuring Options.” Economic and Sector Work Report. World Bank, Washington, DC, and Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund, Yangon, Myanmar. Yu Lwin, H., T. Myint, S. Than, and N. Myo Aung. 2013. “Transforming Agriculture of Myanmar.” Yezin Agricultural University, Nay Pyi Taw.   80 ANNEX 1 ANNEX 1: METHODOLOGY, APPROACH, AND SURVEY AREAS 1 Ayeyarwady, Bago, and Sagaing Regions and Shan State were selected as target areas for the data collection. They represent a rich variety of agro- farmer (owns less than 5 acres), medium holder farmer (owns 5 to 10 acres) and large holder farmers (owns more than 10 acres). Individual farmers who ecological zones/ecoregions and farming systems in double-cropped (two target crops or one target crop Myanmar. The Myanmar Marketing Research and and one nontarget crop) were then chosen from each Development Organization designed the survey and of the three size categories according to simple collected the data, with technical support from the random sampling, with the number of farmers in each International Rice Research Institute, the Philippine category proportional to the number of each category Rice Research Institute, and the United Nations Food of farms in that village. Main villages are likely to have and Agriculture Organization. Data were collected for better agricultural performance than more remote the 2013/14 agricultural season, through two survey villages. They are likely to be more economically active, rounds. The targeted crops were paddy, pulses and receive more public services, have better access to beans, oil crops, and maize. markets, and represent long-established production areas with better soils and production environment. The first round of the survey 2 The first round of this survey was conducted from November to December 2013. In each of the four 4 The decision to select farmers from main villages was driven by a number of considerations. First, most studies with international comparisons use a selected regions/states, three representative similar approach by collecting data from more ecosystems were chosen (see below). Within each of developed farming areas, often equipped with the 12 region-specific ecosystems, two townships were irrigation. A comparison of the findings from Myanmar randomly selected using probability proportional to with its peers required a similar approach. Second, size based on the net sown acres of each township. the limited budget available to the team required Within each of these 24 townships, four village tracts prioritization and clear focus on capturing the state (an administrative unit composed of groups of villages) of farm production economics in selected regions. were chosen by simple random sampling. In Shan Third, insecurity in some areas precluded the team State, with the exception of Taunggyi Township, village from surveying more remote villages. tracts were not selected at random, but were chosen in consultation with Township Agricultural Officers, who could advise on village tracts with a satisfactory security situation. Within each village tract, the main 5 The survey collected information from 1,728 farmers during the first round. However, in some village was selected to minimize the survey team’s cases data on yield for plots observed during the first transport costs. If the selected main village turned round were not available at the time of the survey, so out to have less than half of its area planted to the the team collected the yield information during the target crops, another randomly selected main village second round. This was mostly the case for farmers elsewhere in the township was chosen as a substitute. in Labutta Township in Ayeyarwady due to flooding that caused delayed cropping. By region, the sample included 484 households in Ayeyarwady, 380 3 Within each of these 96 main villages, all agricultural households were listed and households in Bago, 501 households in Sagaing, and 363 households in Shan State. They represent 0.07 organized under the categories of smallholder percent of all farms in these regions (Table 39A). 81 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 39: Survey Farm Sample Region Total number of Number of farms Farms surveyed as % farms surveyed of all farms Ayeyarwady 711,575 484 0.07 Bago 513,750 380 0.07 Sagaing 748,168 501 0.07 Shan State 524,654 363 0.07 Total 2,498,147 1,728 0.07 Source: Myanmar Agricultural Census 2010 and the 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 6 Respondents were farmers who met the following criteria: (i) had resided in the village at least two 7 The townships within each state or region were organized under three clusters defined by years; (ii) expressed availability and willingness to fully geographical area and zone-specific agro-ecological participate in the survey; (iii) was actively cultivating characteristics (Table 40A, Table 41A, and Figure 51A). land whether as the landowner, land tenant, or They are the following: landowner who rents additional land; and (iv) was the a. Ayeyarwady’s ecoregions include the land head of the household or a household member who under saltwater, brackish water, and fresh- led the farm work. water. These areas are the part of the larg- er Delta Region agro-ecological zone (AEZ) (Figure 52A). Table 40: Phase I: Sample Allocation by AEZ, Region, and State Stratum Agro-ecological First stage Second stage zone (Township) (Village tract) 1 Ayeyarwady Saltwater area 2 8 2 Brackish water 2 8 3 Freshwater 2 8 4 Total 6 24 5 Bago West alluvial 2 8 6 East alluvial 2 8 7 East/west flooded land/river 2 8 8 Total 6 24 9 Sagaing Irrigated tract 2 8 10 Dryland 2 8 11 River area 2 8 12 Total 6 24 13 Shan State Southern interior 2 8 14 Northern interior 2 8 15 Border area 2 8 16 Total 6 24 Grand total 24 96 Source: Own estimates. 82 ANNEX 1 b. Bago’s ecoregions are west alluvial, east d. Shan State’s ecoregions include southern alluvial, and east/west flooded lands. interior, northern interior, and border areas Together with Sagaing, they belong to the representing the Shan Plateau/Mountainous larger Dry Zone AEZ (Figure 53A). Region AEZ (Figure 55A). c. Also part of the larger Dry Zone AEZ, Sagaing’s ecoregions include irrigated tract land, dryland, and riverbed areas (Figure 54A). Table 41: Township Surveyed and Net Sown Acres Sr. State/Region District Township Stratum Total Net Village HH Sown Acres Tract Sample 1 Ayeyarwady Pathein Kyonpyaw brackish water 153,463 4 80 2 Pathein Yegyi brackish water 158,052 4 80 3 Hinthada Hinthada freshwater 176,793 4 80 4 Myaungmya Nyaungdon freshwater 126,365 4 80 5 Labutta Labutta saltwater area 334,071 4 80 6 Pyapon Pyapon saltwater area 174,897 4 80 Total 24 480 7 Bago Bago Kyauktaga east alluvial 294,310 4 64 8 Taungoo Phyu east alluvial 274,625 4 64 9 Bago Kawa east/west flooded land 352,918 4 64 10 Taungoo Htantabin east/west flooded land 148,279 4 64 11 Pyay Shwedaung west alluvial 118,212 4 64 12 Thayarwady Okpho west alluvial 179,086 4 64 Total 24 384 13 Sagaing Monywa Budalin dry land 221,084 4 84 14 Shwebo Tabayin dry land 250,464 4 84 15 Monywa Yinmabin irrigated tract 165,896 4 84 16 Shwebo Shwebo irrigated tract 191,008 4 84 17 Katha Banmauk river area 36,798 4 84 18 Sagaing Myaung river area 91,737 4 84 Total 24 504 19 Shan State Muse Muse border area 27,358 4 60 20 Muse Namhkan border area 43,032 4 60 21 Kyaukme Kyaukme northern interior 86,632 4 60 22 Lashio Lashio northern interior 131,761 4 60 23 Loilen Nansang southern interior 59,532 4 60 24 Taunggyi Taunggyi southern interior 132,407 4 60 Total 24 360 Grand Total 96 1,728 Source: Myanmar Census of Agriculture 2010 and the 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 83 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS The second round of the survey 8 Data for the second round of the survey were collected during the months of March to May 2014. The interviewers returned to the same households visited in 2013 and requested information on the second season rice and other crops (maize, pulses and beans, oil seeds) for the summer crop. Out of the 1,728 initially selected farms, about 56 percent provided information on non-rice production, mainly pulses, and about 20.5 percent on rice production. The remaining households grew a nontarget crop (e.g., fruits, culinary crops) during the second season, and further data particular to these crops were not collected. The maps below show the location of village tracts visited during the survey. 84 ANNEX 1  Figure 51: Map of Surveyed Regions and States, Myanmar Source: World Bank.   85 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS  Figure 52: Map of Surveyed Districts in Ayeyarwady Region Source: World Bank.   86 ANNEX 1   Figure 53: Map of Surveyed Districts in Bago Region Source: World Bank.   87 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS  Figure 54: Map of Surveyed Districts in Sagaing Region Source: World Bank.   88 ANNEX 1  Figure 55: Map of Surveyed Districts in Shan State Source: World Bank.   89 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Characteristics of the survey areas 9 The dwelling mode for the sampled households is to have a one-story house, with the floor level Labutta, and Pyapon) and no households in the district of Pyay in Bago use this type of water infrastructure. used to store equipment and keep livestock. The proportions of households having a dwelling with two levels were as low as 18 percent in Ayeyarwady to as high as 52 percent in Shan State (Table 42A). About 12 Access to electricity varies greatly across regions. About 88 percent of farmers in Shan State have access to electricity, more than double the two out of three farmers in Muse, Taungoo, and access for farmers in Ayeyarwady (37 percent); and Taunggyi mainly lived in a two-story house. However about two out of three in Sagaing and in Bago (Table at the low end, between few and 10 percent of the 45A). The proportion is very low in the freshwater area sampled households still lived in a hut; these were (district of Hinthada and Maubin at 29 percent) and in concentrated in Ayeyarwady, especially in the saltwater the saltwater area (district of Pyapon and Labutta at ecoregion (24 percent), of which 29 percent were in 34 percent). For the source of electricity, public grid Pyapon and 19 percent in Labutta. Gender did not affect distribution and private generator dominate in the type of dwelling. Ayeyarwady and Bago; public and community distribution in Sagaing; and public grid in Shan State 10 Dwellings’ walls are often made of wood and (more than 68 percent). However, the data do not show bamboo though stone is used more in Shan the share of farmers unable to access electricity even State. For the roof, more than 70 percent of households when the service is available at the village level. in every region use zinc and tin; and for the floor, brick Producing own electricity is common in five ecoregions: and cement are the most used material (Table 43A). southern interior, northern interior, river areas, Shan State is characterized by more households using saltwater, and west alluvial. In these cases, most wood (64 percent) and bamboo (11 percent) as floor farmers use a fuel generator to produce electricity. even though their walls are made of cement and brick. About one out of three farmers in Sagaing (32 percent) still has bare soil as a floor; the proportion is still high 13 The survey uses four measures to assess the access to services by households: social in the district of Shwebo (one out of five) and in the service through access to the nearest health clinics district of Kyaukme (one out of ten). and source of drinking water used, and economic services through access to markets and access to 11 Wells and boreholes are the most frequently the nearest public transportation. Access was observed infrastructure, although the assessed both by the time spent to reach these services proportion of each type of water source varies by and by the distance in kilometers. For the analysis, regions. Access to public water infrastructure peaks however, the consultant team used the time spent to 88 percent in Ayeyarwady and goes as low as 36 since the distance may be misleading because of percent in Shan State (Table 40A). A well is a hole or different means of transportation, which in turn is shaft sunk to obtain water. A spring is where water related to the quality of the road infrastructure. comes naturally to the surface. A borehole is drilled to tap into the water table. In wells, boreholes, and springs, the water goes through some natural filters 14 Farmers spent about 30 minutes to reach the nearest health clinic, 15-30 minutes to the (clay, sand, and soil) before being used by the nearest transportation station, 25-30 minutes to the population. Borehole is the most common market, and 1-10 minutes to the water source. The infrastructure in Ayeyarwady and Bago (53 percent times to access health clinics are essentially the same and 40 percent of the water sources, respectively). for all regions, ranging from 23 minutes in Shan State The most rudimentary source of water is rivers, still to 33 minutes in Bago (Table 46A). Even across used by about one in ten farmers, mostly located in ecoregions, no huge disparities are found. Some Ayeyarwady (27 percent) and Shan State (12 percent). households need more time but the proportion of such The use of pipe is still limited, with the exception of households remain low (e.g., less than 5 percent of farmers in the dryland (12 percent) and irrigated tract households spent more than two hours to reach the areas (12 percent) in Sagaing. No sampled farmers in nearest health clinic). several districts of Ayeyarwady (Hinthada, Maubin, 90 ANNEX 1 15 The average time to access a water source ranges between one minute (Bago) and nine 17 Motorized vehicles (cars and motorcycles) are the most frequently used means of minutes (Ayeyarwady). Less than 2 percent of the transportation for farmers in Bago and Shan State. sampled households spend more than 30 minutes to Farmers in Ayeyarwady and Sagaing still rely more on get their water. Most of these households are located foot to get to their preferred market places. About 10 in the districts of Labutta and Pyapon in the saltwater percent of farmers in Bago and Ayeyarwady use oxcart ecoregion and in the district of Loilen in the southern for their transportation; this percentage drops below interior ecoregion. 2 percent for households in Sagaing and Shan State. There are about 34,000 km of roads for a country larger 16 The average time to get to the preferred market ranges between 25-32 minutes. Access to than 653,000 square kilometers (i.e., 0.05 km of road per square kilometer of land). Most roads are in poor market is a critical factor for agricultural production, condition, with only 358 km of expressway. Waterways both for input supply and output sales. Figure 56 shows are about 12,800 km but not all major towns can be that the time to get transportation is pretty much reached this way. Myanmar also has about 5,000 km similar for all four regions. However, if one needs of railways but they are in poor condition. public transportation such as a taxi, then Sagaing has the highest time at more than 30 minutes, almost double the figures for other regions. The time spent to reach the nearest clinic is also very close to the duration to get to market, denoting a critical issue on the access to health service providers. Figure 56: Means of Transportation to Market by Region Source: 2013/14 Myanmar agricultural survey. 91 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 42: Distribution of Households by Size of Main Dwelling In percent from total HH number N 2 stores 1 store hut BY REGION Ayeyarwady 480 18 72 10 Brackish water 160 20 76 4 Freshwater 160 24 73 3 Saltwater 160 10 66 24 Bago 384 51 48 1 East alluvial 128 55 43 2 West alluvial 128 50 50 0 River area 128 49 51 0 Sagaing 504 39 61 0 Dryland 168 58 42 0 Irrigated tract 168 26 73 1 River area 168 32 68 0 Shan State 360 52 47 1 Border area 120 73 27 0 Northern interior 120 40 57 3 Southern interior 120 41 57 2 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 143 10 76 15 Medium 168 13 76 11 Large 169 31 64 5 Bago Small 98 40 59 1 Medium 144 48 52 0 Large 142 63 37 1 Sagaing Small 158 21 78 1 Medium 174 36 64 0 Large 172 59 41 0 Shan State Small 183 56 43 2 Medium 97 46 53 1 Large 80 49 50 1 BY SEX Female 225 38 59 3 Male 1,503 39 58 3 92 ANNEX 1 Table 43: Distribution of Households by Roof and Wall Materials In percent from total HH number Roof Zinc Wall stone Wall wood Wall bamboo Wall other BY REGION Ayeyarwady 70 10 43 30 17 Brackish water 89 11 51 36 3 Freshwater 90 15 51 26 8 Saltwater 31 5 26 29 39 Bago 82 21 38 38 3 East alluvial 76 29 20 48 2 West alluvial 91 7 55 36 2 River area 80 28 37 30 5 Sagaing 81 16 35 39 10 Dryland 82 23 38 32 8 Irrigated tract 80 15 24 48 13 River area 80 10 44 37 9 Shan State 97 48 9 40 3 Border area 100 48 7 38 8 Northern interior 93 52 6 43 0 Southern interior 98 45 15 40 0 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 71 6 36 41 16 Medium 67 5 42 32 21 Large 71 18 49 19 14 Bago Small 69 13 23 60 3 Medium 78 14 44 38 4 Large 95 35 40 24 1 Sagaing Small 78 8 44 34 14 Medium 78 13 28 49 10 Large 86 27 34 34 5 Shan State Small 97 46 6 43 5 Medium 95 46 13 40 0 Large 99 54 11 35 0 BY SEX Female 83 21 38 31 9 Male 81 22 31 38 9 93 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 44: Distribution of Households by Main Source of Water In percent from total HH number Pipe Well Spring Borehole Other BY REGION Ayeyarwady 0 19 1 53 27 Brackish water 1 16 0 83 1 Freshwater 0 18 0 73 9 Saltwater 0 22 3 04 71 Bago 2 50 0 40 8 East alluvial 2 41 0 56 1 West alluvial 1 62 0 36 2 River area 2 47 0 28 23 Sagaing 12 63 0 22 3 Dryland 22 46 0 27 5 Irrigated tract 12 63 1 24 1 River area 3 79 0 14 4 Shan State 2 59 17 11 12 Border area 1 64 30 5 0 Northern interior 2 71 17 0 1 Southern interior 3 42 4 18 34 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 0 18 1 63 17 Medium 1 20 1 54 26 Large 0 18 1 44 37 Bago Small 2 51 0 40 7 Medium 0 53 0 38 9 Large 4 46 0 42 8 Sagaing Small 11 66 0 19 4 Medium 11 64 1 22 3 Large 15 58 0 24 3 Shan State Small 2 64 21 6 6 Medium 1 55 18 11 15 Large 1 51 6 21 20 BY SEX Female 8 49 2 30 11 Male 4 46 4 33 13 94 ANNEX 1 Table 45: Distribution of Households by Main Source of Electricity In percent from total HH number No electricity With electricity Public Private Community BY REGION Ayeyarwady 63 37 13 15 9 Brackish water 52 48 34 09 5 Freshwater 71 29 6 14 9 Saltwater 66 34 0 21 14 Bago 34 66 27 20 19 East alluvial 25 75 34 16 25 West alluvial 45 55 23 21 11 River area 33 67 23 24 20 Sagaing 32 68 26 16 26 Dryland 26 74 35 14 24 Irrigated tract 30 70 42 08 19 River area 38 62 0 26 36 Shan State 12 88 59 23 6 Border area 1 99 86 1 13 Northern interior 8 92 61 31 0 Southern interior 28 73 32 36 5 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 75 25 10 8 7 Medium 64 36 15 13 8 Large 51 49 14 22 13 Bago Small 40 60 16 22 21 Medium 38 63 24 17 21 Large 27 73 37 22 15 Sagaing Small 39 61 20 13 28 Medium 33 67 29 16 22 Large 23 77 27 20 30 Shan State Small 5 95 74 11 9 Medium 20 80 46 32 2 Large 19 81 41 36 4 BY SEX Male 36 64 29 19 15 Female 40 60 30 11 20 95 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 46: Time Spent in Minutes to Reach Specific Services In percent from total HH number Clinic Taxi Market Water BY REGION Ayeyarwady 31.1 15.6 27.8 8.9 Brackish water 28.2 12.4 19.6 4.1 Freshwater 29.0 12.6 26.7 7.5 Saltwater 36.1 21.9 36.9 15.2 Bago 33.4 16.3 31.8 1.0 East alluvial 34.0 15.8 34.9 0.4 West alluvial 32.5 15.0 34.4 1.3 River area 33.6 18.0 26.1 1.3 Sagaing 28.1 32.9 30.3 3.1 Dryland 25.8 21.7 20.0 1.9 Irrigated tract 29.1 34.1 34.4 2.8 River area 29.4 43.0 36.4 4.6 Shan State 23.1 14.1 25.9 5.0 Border area 21.5 7.8 20.5 1.7 Northern interior 24.2 5.8 24.2 2.8 Southern interior 23.8 28.8 32.8 10.7 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 29.9 14.7 24.3 7.8 Medium 33.6 18.0 30.6 9.0 Large 29.7 14.0 27.8 9.8 Bago Small 33.5 17.0 30.8 1.2 Medium 32.8 16.5 32.6 1.0 Large 33.8 15.5 31.6 0.8 Sagaing Small 30.9 39.6 34.7 3.9 Medium 25.7 31.2 29.0 3.1 Large 28.0 28.5 27.5 2.5 Shan State Small 20.6 8.9 21.0 2.5 Medium 21.5 16.1 27.3 5.7 Large 31.1 23.5 35.1 10.0 BY SEX Male 29.4 20.4 28.8 4.6 Female 27.2 21.2 30.2 5.0 96 ANNEX 2 ANNEX 2: CONVERSION FACTORS 1 Conversion rates in Myanmar vary by region and by the actor involved. For example, a farmer may quote productivity in baskets (volume), but a trader or and ask clarifying questions if needed. The interviewers recorded the data exactly as farmers reported them, and the actual conversions were completed in the wholesaler deals in weights and metric units. head office in Yangon with the data team to minimize Enumerators for the data collection were trained on conversion errors. The conversion factors are the commonly quoted units by all actors in the market presented below. chain, as well as on rough formulas for how to convert Table 47: Traders’ Standardized Conversions from Local Units by Crop SN CROP Equivalent weight Regional weight (viss) basis/bag per local basket for wholesale market lbs/ kg/ Basket/ Yangon Man- Pyay Pakoku Monywa Taung- basket basket ton dalay gyi 1 Paddy 46 20.87 47.92 2 Rice 75 34.02 29.39 30 30 30 30 20 30 3 Wheat 72 32.66 30.62 4 Black gram 72 32.66 30.62 60 60 20 20 5 Green gram 72 32.66 30.62 60 56.25 20 19 19 6 Pigeonpea 72 32.66 30.62 60 20 20 20 7 Chickpea 69 31.3 31.95 57.25 20 19 19 8 Cow pea 72 32.66 30.62 60 60 20 19 9 Rice bean 72 32.66 30.62 60 20 20 10 Sultini 69 31.3 31.95 11 Sultapya 69 31.3 31.95 12 Butterbean 69 31.3 31.95 56.25 20 19 19 13 Soybean 72 32.66 30.62 60 53.25 20 18 14 Pebyugalay 69 31.3 31.95 15 Pegyi (Dolichos lablab 69 31.3 31.95 60 55.25 20 19 19 16 Pegya 69 31.3 31.95 17 Garden pea 72 32.66 30.62 60 59.25 20 20 20 18 Lentil 72 32.66 30.62 19 Pe nauk 72 32.66 30.62 20 Kidney bean 69 31.3 31.95 54 18 21 Bocate 72 32.66 30.62 60 20 22 Maize (Corn) 55 24.95 40.08 23 Sesame 54 24.49 40.83 45 45 15 15 24 Groundnut- pod 25 11.34 88.18 25 Groundnut- kernal 50-55 22.93 43.61 26 Sunflower 32.4 14.51 68.89 27 9 Note: 1 viss = 3.6 lbs (1.63 kg) for all crops except rice; 1 viss of rice = 3.75 lbs; standard packing basis for milled rice: 1.5 basket = 30 viss; 1 basket = 16 pyi. 97 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 2 Other conversions are presented below. Table 48: Processing Ratios for Edible Oilseed Crops crop feed stock oil outturn process ratio (viss) (viss) (Percent) Groundnut seeds 100 35.38 35.38 Sesame 15 7.1 47 Sunflower 9 2.75 30.6 Fertilizers Type of fertilizer Nutrient content Size Urea 46 % N 50 kg bag TSP (T-Super) 46 % P2 O5 50 kg bag MOP (Potash) 60 % K2 O 50 kg bag NPK 50 kg bag Liquid measure: 1 gallon = 320 tablespoons Customary land area measurement unit in Delta Zone villages 1 acre = 12 plots 1 plot = 10 bamboo pole length squared 1 bamboo pole length = 6 feet 12 plots = 43,200 square feet (ca. 1 acre, 43560 square feet) Standard measured paddy field plot = 16 plots for one unit field 1 Khwat = 16 plots 98 ANNEX 3 ANNEX 3: FARM LAND Table 49: Average Farm and Plot Size Average farm Average farm Average main plot Average main size (acres)* size (Ha) size (acres)* plot size (Ha) BY REGION Ayeyarwady 8.55 3.46 5.85 2.37 Brackish water 7.19 2.91 4.83 1.96 Freshwater 6.65 2.69 3.93 1.59 Saltwater 11.80 4.78 9.84 3.98 Bago 8.87 3.59 4.85 1.96 East alluvial 9.07 3.67 5.05 2.04 West alluvial 7.55 3.06 3.78 1.53 River area 9.99 4.04 5.92 2.40 Sagaing 8.91 3.61 3.53 1.43 Dryland 10.58 4.28 3.93 1.59 Irrigated tract 7.57 3.06 3.27 1.32 River area 8.59 3.48 3.33 1.35 Shan State 6.31 2.55 3.01 1.22 Border area 2.12 0.86 1.76 0.71 Northern interior 6.11 2.47 2.78 1.12 Southern interior 10.69 4.32 3.71 1.50 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 2.83 1.15 2.21 0.89 Medium 6.63 2.68 5.00 2.02 Large 15.29 6.19 8.76 3.55 Bago Small 3.01 1.22 2.19 0.89 Medium 6.69 2.71 3.75 1.52 Large 15.13 6.12 6.93 2.80 Sagaing Small 2.72 1.10 1.68 0.68 Medium 6.75 2.73 2.63 1.07 Large 16.79 6.79 5.04 2.04 Shan State Small 2.21 0.90 1.79 0.72 Medium 6.66 2.69 2.76 1.12 Large 15.25 6.17 4.14 1.67 BY SEX Male 8.33 3.37 4.19 1.70 Female 7.79 3.15 3.95 1.60 OVERALL 8.26 3.34 4.16 1.68 * Average farm size based on 1,728 farms. * Average plot size based on 3,432 plots. 99 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 50: Number of Parcels per Farm by Category In percent from total HH number N One parcel 2 parcels 3 parcels 4 or more parcels BY REGION Ayeyarwady 701 68 17 5 9 Brackish water 238 67 23 7 3 Freshwater 271 59 18 6 17 Saltwater 192 83 10 3 04 Bago 702 55 30 12 4 East alluvial 230 56 30 10 4 West alluvial 256 50 31 15 4 River area 216 59 29 9 3 Sagaing 1,274 40 30 18 12 Dryland 452 37 30 19 14 Irrigated tract 389 43 31 17 9 River area 433 39 30 19 12 Shan State 755 48 26 14 12 Border area 145 83 14 3 0 Northern interior 264 45 30 15 10 Southern interior 346 35 29 19 18 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 183 78 9 2 11 Medium 223 75 15 2 7 Large 295 57 24 10 9 Bago Small 135 73 22 4 1 Medium 257 56 30 12 1 Large 310 45 33 15 7 Sagaing Small 255 62 28 8 2 Medium 446 39 32 20 9 Large 573 30 30 22 18 Shan State Small 226 81 16 3 0 Medium 234 41 35 15 8 Large 295 27 27 22 24 BY SEX Male 2,988 50 27 13 10 Female 444 51 25 15 9 100 ANNEX 3 Table 51: Proportion of Parcels by Plot Size In percent from total HH number Less than Between 1 Between 2.6 Between 5 More than 1 acre and 2.5 acres and 5 acres and 10 acres 10 acres BY REGION Ayeyarwady 12 16 30 28 14 Brackish water 9 22 35 27 6 Freshwater 23 20 30 23 5 Saltwater 2 3 22 37 36 Bago 12 25 34 21 9 East alluvial 13 26 28 23 10 West alluvial 13 28 39 17 3 River area 8 21 34 23 14 Sagaing 17 34 31 15 3 Dryland 12 28 37 19 4 Irrigated tract 18 38 30 12 2 River area 21 36 26 13 4 Shan State 18 37 34 8 1 Border area 35 50 14 1 0 Northern interior 18 40 34 7 0 Southern interior 11 30 43 13 3 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 27 30 43 0 0 Medium 8 11 32 49 0 Large 6 11 19 30 33 Bago Small 27 39 33 0 0 Medium 12 26 40 23 0 Large 5 18 29 28 19 Sagaing Small 35 46 18 0 0 Medium 20 38 35 8 0 Large 7 25 34 27 7 Shan State Small 32 52 16 0 0 Medium 16 37 42 5 0 Large 9 27 43 18 4 BY SEX Male 15 29 32 17 6 Female 16 31 29 21 4 101 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 52: Payment for Land (to Lessors and Taxes) by Category % of HHs leasing land Average leasing % of HHs paying Average tax and paying lease payment ($/acre) land tax paid ($) BY REGION Ayeyarwady 0 65 0.51 Brackish water 0 60 0.48 Freshwater 0 58 0.36 Saltwater 0 81 0.70 Bago 1 333.31 0 0.72 East alluvial 3 333.31 0 0.72 West alluvial 0 0 River area 0 0 Sagaing 1 75.86 24 3.93 Dryland 2 27.29 35 5.37 Irrigated tract 1 97.38 19 1.38 River area 1 183.86 16 3.36 Shan State 3 340.53 31 0.15 Border area 7 481.61 9 0.44 Northern interior 4 172.83 8 0.07 Southern interior 1 393.77 58 0.13 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 0 59 0.26 Medium 0 65 0.49 Large 0 68 0.67 Bago Small 1 278.86 0 Medium 2 212.04 0 0.72 Large 0 1,115.42 0 Sagaing Small 2 174.67 26 4.47 Medium 1 58.22 23 2.66 Large 1 3.51 24 4.59 Shan State Small 4 366.93 14 0.22 Medium 3 323.54 28 0.20 Large 3 327.82 47 0.10 BY SEX Male 2 261.70 28 1.48 Female 0 232.64 33 1.38 102 ANNEX 3 Table 53: Land Users’ Right Certificate and Other Documents by Category In percent from total HH number N With Request for Paper from Overall with Certificate Certificate local authorities documents BY REGION Ayeyarwady 701 47 13 27 87 Brackish water 238 46 5 42 93 Freshwater 271 41 19 25 86 Saltwater 192 55 14 11 80 Bago 702 21 9 69 98 East alluvial 230 20 12 65 97 West alluvial 256 18 9 72 99 River area 216 25 6 69 99 Sagaing 1,274 88 5 4 97 Dryland 452 91 4 2 97 Irrigated tract 389 91 5 1 97 River area 433 82 6 9 96 Shan State 755 44 7 6 57 Border area 145 66 4 7 77 Northern interior 264 37 5 9 51 Southern interior 346 40 9 3 52 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 183 49 11 26 86 Medium 223 47 11 26 84 Large 295 45 15 28 89 Bago Small 135 17 16 67 100 Medium 257 16 6 77 98 Large 310 26 9 62 97 Sagaing Small 255 86 3 5 94 Medium 446 84 9 2 96 Large 573 92 3 4 98 Shan State Small 226 56 4 4 65 Medium 234 38 6 10 54 Large 295 41 8 3 53 BY SEX Male 2,988 55 8 23 86 Female 444 66 6 17 89 103 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 54: Mode of Land Acquisition by Category In percent from total HH number N Inheritance Purchase Other BY REGION Ayeyarwady 701 46 52 2 Brackish water 238 40 58 2 Freshwater 271 48 51 1 Saltwater 192 49 47 3 Bago 702 42 55 2 East alluvial 230 45 47 5 West alluvial 256 45 53 0 River area 216 33 66 1 Sagaing 1,274 76 20 2 Dryland 452 74 21 1 Irrigated tract 389 76 21 2 River area 433 77 17 2 Shan State 755 58 19 18 Border area 145 77 12 2 Northern interior 264 56 17 20 Southern interior 346 52 23 23 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 183 44 54 2 Medium 223 55 43 1 Large 295 40 58 2 Bago Small 135 44 51 4 Medium 257 46 51 1 Large 310 37 59 2 Sagaing Small 255 79 17 3 Medium 446 72 22 3 Large 573 77 20 0 Shan State Small 226 73 14 5 Medium 234 53 21 21 Large 295 51 20 26 BY SEX Male 2,988 56 35 6 Female 444 73 23 2 104 ANNEX 3 Table 55: Years of Land Acquisition by Category In percent from total HH number Before 1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2005 2005-2013 BY REGION Ayeyarwady 19 22 24 14 21 Brackish water 22 22 18 17 21 Freshwater 20 20 22 13 25 Saltwater 15 25 32 13 15 Bago 22 26 23 15 12 East alluvial 20 25 20 19 13 West alluvial 24 26 27 12 9 River area 21 28 20 14 16 Sagaing 35 22 22 9 10 Dryland 38 23 14 11 10 Irrigated tract 33 22 25 9 11 River area 34 20 28 6 10 Shan State 18 20 27 13 17 Border area 23 22 17 11 18 Northern interior 17 16 33 11 16 Southern interior 16 21 27 15 18 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 17 20 20 14 28 Medium 22 21 25 15 17 Large 18 24 25 14 19 Bago Small 20 26 17 19 17 Medium 25 23 23 18 11 Large 21 29 25 11 12 Sagaing Small 28 18 27 8 18 Medium 32 16 25 13 10 Large 40 27 17 5 7 Shan State Small 18 20 21 12 22 Medium 20 18 28 13 15 Large 16 20 31 14 16 BY SEX Male 25 22 24 12 14 Female 30 24 19 9 17 105 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 56: Use of Plots as Collateral for Loans by Category Can use plot as Had used plot Had land Plot under the responsi- collateral, % as collateral, % conflict, % bility of HH Head, % BY REGION Ayeyarwady 89 3 1 86 Brackish water 97 1 0 82 Freshwater 88 1 0 86 Saltwater 79 7 5 90 Bago 95 2 2 91 East alluvial 93 1 3 92 West alluvial 98 5 0 92 River area 94 0 3 88 Sagaing 97 3 2 87 Dryland 97 3 0 88 Irrigated tract 99 3 0 85 River area 95 3 5 87 Shan State 81 3 1 94 Border area 86 0 1 92 Northern interior 83 3 0 95 Southern interior 78 3 2 95 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 93 3 1 92 Medium 90 3 0 86 Large 85 3 3 82 Bago Small 93 4 1 84 Medium 98 2 4 95 Large 95 2 0 91 Sagaing Small 95 3 6 84 Medium 95 5 1 90 Large 99 2 0 86 Shan State Small 84 0 1 94 Medium 79 3 2 93 Large 81 4 1 95 BY SEX Male 91 3 1 91 Female 95 4 3 78 106 ANNEX 3 Table 57: Location of Parcels and Exposure to Erosion by Category Location of parcels, % Erosion status, % Lowland Upland Kailand Flat slope Eroded plot BY REGION Ayeyarwady 95 4 1 91 9 Brackish water 99 0 0 95 5 Freshwater 88 9 3 92 2 Saltwater 99 1 0 84 18 Bago 99 1 0 82 4 East alluvial 100 0 0 80 6 West alluvial 98 2 84 2 River area 98 2 0 82 5 Sagaing 54 39 7 93 9 Dryland 54 46 0 97 5 Irrigated tract 70 28 2 92 8 River area 38 44 18 90 16 Shan State 40 59 1 67 18 Border area 92 7 1 83 13 Northern interior 36 64 0 51 21 Southern interior 22 77 1 73 17 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 92 5 3 96 4 Medium 95 4 1 90 9 Large 97 3 0 89 8 Bago Small 100 0 0 87 5 Medium 98 2 0 80 3 Large 98 2 0 82 4 Sagaing Small 80 15 5 89 11 Medium 59 36 5 94 12 Large 38 53 9 94 6 Shan State Small 71 28 0 75 15 Medium 30 70 0 55 24 Large 25 74 1 71 14 BY SEX Male 70 27 3 84 10 Female 58 38 4 89 9 107 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 58: Type of Soils by Category In percent of all soil types N Loamy Clay Sandy BY REGION Ayeyarwady 701 27 64 9 Brackish water 238 39 48 12 Freshwater 271 31 57 12 Saltwater 192 5 94 1 Bago 702 41 47 12 East alluvial 230 53 31 15 West alluvial 256 43 47 10 River area 216 24 63 13 Sagaing 1,274 22 63 15 Dryland 452 16 75 9 Irrigated tract 389 29 68 3 River area 433 21 48 31 Shan State 755 7 53 40 Border area 145 4 88 8 Northern interior 264 3 47 50 Southern interior 346 11 44 45 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 183 30 57 13 Medium 223 25 67 8 Large 295 26 67 7 Bago Small 135 36 55 10 Medium 257 48 39 14 Large 310 37 51 13 Sagaing Small 255 22 75 4 Medium 446 25 61 14 Large 573 19 60 21 Shan State Small 226 4 73 23 Medium 234 8 48 44 Large 295 8 43 48 BY SEX Male 2,988 23 58 19 Female 444 24 59 17 108 ANNEX 3 Table 59: Water Irrigation by Season and Category No. of HHs % of land No. of HHs % of land area No. of HHs % of land area using irrigation area irrigated using irrigation irrigated in using irrigation irrigated in in wet season in wet season in cool season cool season in dry season dry season BY REGION Ayeyarwady 693 2 377 3 14 50 Brackish water 236 1 231 3 0 0 Freshwater 267 5 138 5 11 64 Saltwater 190 1 8 0 3 0 Bago 695 5 676 2 118 6 East alluvial 228 1 227 0 71 0 West alluvial 254 8 238 2 28 14 River area 213 6 211 6 19 16 Sagaing 1,132 62 841 45 572 59 Dryland 422 65 268 39 288 66 Irrigated tract 347 85 227 72 156 90 River area 363 36 346 32 128 3 Shan State 742 23 103 28 198 66 Border area 142 39 16 81 122 95 Northern interior 256 28 18 44 18 67 Southern interior 344 14 69 12 58 5 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 180 3 96 4 6 50 Medium 221 1 131 5 3 100 Large 292 3 150 2 5 20 Bago Small 135 2 132 2 27 15 Medium 256 7 247 2 44 2 Large 304 5 297 3 47 4 Sagaing Small 243 80 165 66 118 64 Medium 399 65 274 46 206 60 Large 490 50 402 36 248 55 Shan State Small 220 36 20 75 124 93 Medium 233 20 18 39 22 59 Large 289 17 65 11 52 6 BY SEX Male 2,839 28 1,712 22 765 55 Female 423 28 285 23 137 47 109 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 60: Main Source of Water Irrigation by Category % of HHs Canal Well Rivers % of HHs with responded positively private irrigation BY REGION Ayeyarwady 4 1 2 0 3 Brackish water 3 0 3 0 3 Freshwater 8 2 5 1 5 Saltwater 1 0 0 1 0 Bago 7 4 2 1 2 East alluvial 1 1 0 0 0 West alluvial 8 7 0 1 0 River area 12 5 6 2 6 Sagaing 65 37 11 17 8 Dryland 70 59 2 10 1 Irrigated tract 88 36 32 20 24 River area 38 15 1 21 1 Shan State 35 6 8 21 8 Border area 94 0 41 53 40 Northern interior 30 6 0 23 0 Southern interior 15 9 0 6 0 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 5 1 3 1 3 Medium 4 0 4 0 4 Large 3 1 2 0 2 Bago Small 2 0 0 2 Medium 9 7 2 1 1 Large 7 4 3 1 3 Sagaing Small 80 47 9 24 7 Medium 70 39 12 19 9 Large 54 31 11 12 8 Shan State Small 68 3 25 40 24 Medium 24 2 1 21 1 Large 19 12 0 6 BY SEX Male 34 16 7 11 6 Female 36 20 5 12 4 110 ANNEX 3 Table 61: Use of Water Pumps for Irrigation by Category % of HHs % of water pump users % of motor Average % of water pump provided out of households water pump power (HP) users out of total response provided response users number of farms BY REGION Ayeyarwady 4 73 95 9.2 2.7 Brackish water 3 100 86 11.9 2.9 Freshwater 7 63 100 7.0 4.4 Saltwater 0 0 Bago 7 59 93 13.0 4.1 East alluvial 1 100 100 30.5 0.9 West alluvial 8 24 60 13.0 2.0 River area 12 85 100 11.2 10.2 Sagaing 61 22 99 19.3 13.7 Dryland 65 6 100 14.8 4.0 Irrigated tract 86 24 100 18.2 20.6 River area 35 51 99 21.3 17.8 Shan State 35 40 100 12.1 13.8 Border area 94 69 100 12.6 64.8 Northern interior 30 6 100 10.8 1.9 Southern interior 14 11 100 6.4 1.4 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 4 63 100 8.0 2.7 Medium 4 67 100 10.0 2.7 Large 3 89 88 9.2 2.7 Bago Small 2 0 0 Medium 9 52 92 17.4 4.7 Large 7 74 94 10.2 5.5 Sagaing Small 80 24 98 20.0 19.6 Medium 66 26 100 20.0 17.3 Large 49 17 100 17.5 8.4 Shan State Small 68 55 100 12.7 37.2 Medium 23 30 100 10.5 6.8 Large 19 7 100 8.0 1.4 BY SEX Male 32 30 99 15.9 9.7 Female 34 24 100 16.4 8.3 111 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 62: Average Expense for Irrigation by Season % of HH with Average expense % of HH with Average % of HH with Average response in wet season response in expense cool response in expense dry wet season ($/acre) cool season season ($/acre) dry season season ($/acre) BY REGION Ayeyarwady 1 8.38 1 35.03 4.31 Brackish water 1 4.09 2 39.10 4.09 Freshwater 3 8.86 1 29.95 1 4.43 Saltwater Bago 3 12.32 2 8.28 1 10.96 East alluvial 1 8.15 West alluvial 2 17.73 13.79 1 16.39 River area 6 10.76 5 7.73 1 5.53 Sagaing 19 16.55 11 21.78 6 4.90 Dryland 19 5.71 3 2.93 9 3.49 Irrigated tract 24 24.77 19 29.84 8 7.13 River area 15 19.32 12 15.95 1.10 Shan State 6 11.24 3 22.35 11 45.83 Border area 19 17.99 11 24.52 53 50.66 Northern interior 2 2.03 1 13.28 3 5.04 Southern interior 5 2.31 1 18.20 0.23 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 2 12.88 2 30.70 1 4.43 Medium 1 1.56 2 36.25 Large 1 7.29 47.46 1 4.09 Bago Small 1 0.26 1 7.66 Medium 4 16.06 2 15.99 1 11.95 Large 3 9.91 2 3.87 1 13.28 Sagaing Small 26 16.46 16 16.53 6 2.88 Medium 22 14.28 11 19.40 6 5.96 Large 13 19.60 9 28.44 5 4.93 Shan State Small 14 15.79 6 23.50 33 50.97 Medium 2 7.12 3 25.49 4 16.79 Large 5 2.36 1 3.87 1 0.59 BY SEX Male 9 15.66 5 23.34 5 27.31 Female 9 12.14 6 12.31 5 15.70 112 ANNEX 4 ANNEX 4: FARM HOUSEHOLD LABOR Table 63: Breakdown of Total Income of Household Head In percent from total income N Wage earner Farming Nonfarm Others BY REGION Ayeyarwady 480 3 96 1 0 Brackish water 160 3 96 2 0 Freshwater 160 3 97 1 0 Saltwater 160 3 96 2 0 Bago 384 7 91 2 1 East alluvial 128 5 92 2 2 West alluvial 128 9 91 0 0 River area 128 8 89 3 0 Sagaing 504 11 84 5 0 Dryland 168 15 81 4 0 Irrigated tract 168 8 87 5 0 River area 168 10 83 7 0 Shan State 360 3 92 5 0 Border area 120 2 92 7 0 Northern interior 120 0 94 6 0 Southern interior 120 8 89 2 1 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 143 3 94 3 0 Medium 168 1 99 0 0 Large 169 4 94 2 0 Bago Small 98 2 94 4 0 Medium 144 8 89 1 1 Large 142 10 90 0 0 Sagaing Small 158 10 78 12 0 Medium 174 9 88 3 0 Large 172 14 85 1 0 Shan State Small 183 3 90 7 0 Medium 97 3 95 2 0 Large 80 5 91 3 1 BY SEX Male 1,503 6 91 3 0 Female 225 9 88 3 0 113 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 64: Number of Household Members N Mean Median Min Max BY REGION Ayeyarwady 2,160 5.2 5.0 1.0 11.0 Brackish water 692 5.0 5.0 1.0 10.0 Freshwater 691 4.9 5.0 1.0 10.0 Saltwater 777 5.6 5.0 1.0 11.0 Bago 2,116 6.2 6.0 1.0 15.0 East alluvial 774 6.8 7.0 2.0 15.0 West alluvial 650 5.6 5.0 1.0 9.0 River area 692 6.2 6.0 2.0 13.0 Sagaing 2,636 6.1 6.0 1.0 13.0 Dryland 867 6.0 6.0 1.0 11.0 Irrigated tract 822 5.7 5.0 1.0 13.0 River area 947 6.5 6.0 1.0 13.0 Shan State 1,837 5.9 6.0 2.0 15.0 Border area 661 6.3 6.0 2.0 15.0 Northern interior 586 5.5 5.0 2.0 10.0 Southern interior 590 5.7 5.0 2.0 11.0 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 613 4.9 5.0 1.0 9.0 Medium 711 5.0 5.0 1.0 10.0 Large 836 5.6 6.0 1.0 11.0 Bago Small 474 5.5 5.0 2.0 10.0 Medium 757 5.8 6.0 1.0 12.0 Large 885 6.9 7.0 2.0 15.0 Sagaing Small 832 6.2 6.0 1.0 13.0 Medium 873 5.9 6.0 1.0 13.0 Large 931 6.2 6.0 2.0 11.0 Shan State Small 932 5.9 5.0 2.0 15.0 Medium 480 5.6 5.0 2.0 10.0 Large 425 6.1 6.0 2.0 11.0 BY SEX Female 1,000 5.3 5.0 1.0 11.0 Male 7,749 5.9 6.0 1.0 15.0 114 ANNEX 4 Table 65: Sex Ratio and Dependency Ratio N Sex ratio Dependency ratio Proportion of permanent BY REGION Ayeyarwady 2,160 0.47 0.55 0.01 Brackish water 692 0.46 0.59 0.01 Freshwater 691 0.47 0.54 0.01 Saltwater 777 0.49 0.53 0.01 Bago 2,116 0.52 0.48 0.10 East alluvial 774 0.50 0.56 0.07 West alluvial 650 0.57 0.41 0.13 River area 692 0.51 0.46 0.09 Sagaing 2,636 0.46 0.57 0.01 Dryland 867 0.47 0.57 0.01 Irrigated tract 822 0.46 0.49 0.00 River area 947 0.46 0.63 0.01 Shan State 1,837 0.49 0.55 0.01 Border area 661 0.51 0.66 0.00 Northern interior 586 0.49 0.54 0.01 Southern interior 590 0.49 0.44 0.01 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 613 0.46 0.62 0.00 Medium 711 0.46 0.52 0.01 Large 836 0.50 0.52 0.02 Bago Small 474 0.51 0.58 0.03 Medium 757 0.52 0.50 0.09 Large 885 0.53 0.42 0.14 Sagaing Small 832 0.46 0.67 0.01 Medium 873 0.46 0.51 0.00 Large 931 0.47 0.52 0.01 Shan State Small 932 0.50 0.60 0.01 Medium 480 0.50 0.55 0.00 Large 425 0.49 0.44 0.01 BY SEX Female 1,000 0.38 0.50 0.02 Male 7,749 0.50 0.54 0.03 115 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 66: Gender and Age of Household Head N Ratio of Ratio of female Average age Median age male-headed headed (years) (years) BY REGION Ayeyarwady 480 0.88 0.12 53.60 52.00 Brackish water 160 0.87 0.13 55.18 54.00 Freshwater 160 0.86 0.14 54.75 53.00 Saltwater 160 0.92 0.08 50.88 51.00 Bago 384 0.92 0.08 52.76 52.00 East alluvial 128 0.89 0.11 51.48 51.50 West alluvial 128 0.93 0.07 54.10 52.00 River area 128 0.95 0.05 52.70 53.50 Sagaing 504 0.82 0.18 54.35 53.00 Dryland 168 0.79 0.21 55.39 54.50 Irrigated tract 168 0.86 0.14 53.87 53.00 River area 168 0.80 0.20 53.79 53.00 Shan State 360 0.88 0.13 50.03 50.00 Border area 120 0.87 0.13 52.18 52.00 Northern interior 120 0.94 0.06 49.84 50.00 Southern interior 120 0.82 0.18 48.06 49.50 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 143 0.88 0.12 53.10 52.00 Medium 168 0.85 0.15 53.74 52.00 Large 169 0.91 0.09 53.89 54.00 Bago Small 98 0.90 0.10 52.47 51.50 Medium 144 0.90 0.10 53.12 53.50 Large 142 0.96 0.04 52.59 52.00 Sagaing Small 158 0.77 0.23 53.30 52.50 Medium 174 0.85 0.15 52.99 52.00 Large 172 0.82 0.18 56.69 56.00 Shan State Small 183 0.86 0.14 50.63 50.00 Medium 97 0.90 0.10 49.56 50.00 Large 80 0.89 0.11 49.20 50.00 116 ANNEX 4 Table 67: Education of Household Head In percent from total HH number N No Primary Secondary Tertiary and education education education beyond BY REGION Ayeyarwady 480 12 61 20 7 Brackish water 160 9 59 20 13 Freshwater 160 13 58 24 6 Saltwater 160 16 67 16 1 Bago 384 4 64 15 17 East alluvial 128 9 65 9 17 West alluvial 128 2 63 18 16 River area 128 2 64 18 16 Sagaing 504 21 62 10 7 Dryland 168 15 65 10 10 Irrigated tract 168 25 60 11 4 River area 168 21 61 10 8 Shan State 360 49 44 5 2 Border area 120 60 33 6 2 Northern interior 120 56 43 1 0 Southern interior 120 32 58 8 3 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 143 13 62 17 8 Medium 168 14 61 18 7 Large 169 10 61 24 5 Bago Small 98 5 64 15 15 Medium 144 2 71 13 14 Large 142 6 57 16 20 Sagaing Small 158 23 59 13 6 Medium 174 17 67 8 7 Large 172 22 60 10 8 Shan State Small 183 55 38 5 1 Medium 97 44 53 2 1 Large 80 41 49 6 4 BY SEX Female 225 30 60 6 4 Male 1,503 19 58 14 9 117 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 68: Proportion of Households Having Media Equipment In percent from total HH number Radio TV Landline Cell phone BY REGION Ayeyarwady 66 67 9 44 Brackish water 66 74 9 49 Freshwater 63 73 4 47 Saltwater 69 55 13 36 Bago 51 73 5 45 East alluvial 48 66 6 47 West alluvial 48 80 2 39 River area 55 74 8 49 Sagaing 50 44 4 17 Dryland 43 44 3 28 Irrigated tract 59 45 4 17 River area 49 42 4 8 Shan State 32 77 1 56 Border area 23 96 1 87 Northern interior 30 65 1 45 Southern interior 44 71 1 36 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 59 57 2 29 Medium 70 64 5 41 Large 69 80 17 59 Bago Small 44 56 2 27 Medium 49 74 3 44 Large 57 85 10 59 Sagaing Small 42 42 3 10 Medium 46 36 1 19 Large 62 54 8 23 Shan State Small 28 84 1 66 Medium 27 66 0 42 Large 49 75 3 50 BY SEX Male 52 66 5 40 Female 44 52 3 35 118 ANNEX 5 ANNEX 5: PRODUCTIVE ASSETS – CAPITAL Table 69: Proportion of Households Having Transportation Equipment In percent from total HH number Bike Motorcycle Car Trailer Boat BY REGION Ayeyarwady 62 45 0 14 28 Brackish water 73 58 0 19 5 Freshwater 81 56 1 21 12 Saltwater 33 19 0 2 68 Bago 72 66 1 5 4 East alluvial 77 64 2 5 2 West alluvial 73 69 0 3 0 River area 66 64 2 6 9 Sagaing 61 73 1 3 1 Dryland 65 73 1 6 0 Irrigated tract 66 68 0 2 0 River area 52 77 1 1 2 Shan State 21 91 6 51 0 Border area 29 97 13 75 0 Northern interior 10 92 4 36 0 Southern interior 24 85 3 41 0 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 68 33 0 8 14 Medium 64 44 1 9 28 Large 56 55 0 24 40 Bago Small 61 51 0 1 1 Medium 76 63 0 1 2 Large 77 79 4 11 7 Sagaing Small 51 62 0 1 1 Medium 58 74 1 3 1 Large 73 81 1 3 0 Shan State Small 23 92 6 56 0 Medium 11 84 6 36 0 Large 29 99 8 56 0 BY SEX Male 57 68 2 17 9 Female 48 60 0 14 4 119 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 70: Proportion of Households Having Agricultural Tractor, Incl. Power Tiller In percent from total HH number Ecological Zone Not owner Owner Brackish water 63.8 36.3 Freshwater 51.3 48.8 Saltwater 55.0 45.0 East alluvial 61.7 38.3 West alluvial 69.5 30.5 Dryland 82.1 17.9 Irrigated tract 70.2 29.8 River area 75.3 24.7 Border area 16.7 83.3 Northern interior 55.0 45.0 Southern interior 51.7 48.3 Total 61.8 38.3 120 ANNEX 5 Table 71: Proportion of Households Having Agricultural Tractor by Category In percent from total HH number Small tractor Medium tractor Large tractor Power tiller BY REGION Ayeyarwady 18 8 0 19 Brackish water 14 6 0 18 Freshwater 10 14 0 26 Saltwater 31 4 1 14 Bago 7 15 2 12 East alluvial 9 12 2 20 West alluvial 5 19 1 6 River area 5 14 3 10 Sagaing 5 8 0 11 Dryland 2 8 0 08 Irrigated tract 7 7 0 17 River area 5 9 0 7 Shan State 8 5 1 46 Border area 8 7 3 69 Northern interior 9 2 1 33 Southern interior 8 7 0 34 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 8 3 0 8 Medium 15 8 0 14 Large 30 12 1 34 Bago Small 2 4 1 1 Medium 6 10 0 7 Large 11 27 4 25 Sagaing Small 3 1 0 6 Medium 5 9 0 10 Large 7 13 0 15 Shan State Small 9 3 2 51 Medium 6 2 0 32 Large 10 13 1 49 BY SEX Male 10 10 1 21 Female 6 4 0 17 121 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 72: Proportion of Households Having Water Pump and Harvesting Equipment In percent from total HH number Motor Manual Thresher Harvester Dry pavement water pump water pump BY REGION Ayeyarwady 5 1 17 1 26 Brackish water 5 0 9 1 32 Freshwater 4 2 4 0 23 Saltwater 1 36 1 24 Bago 5 1 5 0 4 East alluvial 7 0 5 0 5 West alluvial 0 2 3 0 4 River area 7 2 8 0 3 Sagaing 3 8 6 0 6 Dryland 5 7 10 0 7 Irrigated tract 2 11 7 1 5 River area 2 5 3 0 5 Shan State 16 1 5 1 8 Border area 23 0 3 4 18 Northern interior 8 1 6 0 4 Southern interior 17 2 5 0 3 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 6 1 3 1 17 Medium 2 1 11 0 26 Large 7 1 33 1 34 Bago Small 4 1 2 0 5 Medium 1 1 1 0 1 Large 8 2 12 0 6 Sagaing Small 3 8 1 0 4 Medium 2 10 6 1 6 Large 5 6 11 0 6 Shan State Small 15 1 3 2 12 Medium 13 2 5 2 3 Large 21 0 9 0 6 BY SEX Male 7 3 9 1 12 Female 8 4 4 0 11 122 ANNEX 5 Table 73: Proportion of Households Having Draught Oxen In percent from total HH number Average None 1-2 oxen 3-4 oxen More than 4 number BY REGION Ayeyarwady 1.74 42 34 15 4 Brackish water 1.76 33 45 16 3 Freshwater 1.13 58 29 08 4 Saltwater 2.34 36 27 22 4 Bago 2.10 22 55 17 2 East alluvial 2.26 16 63 15 0 West alluvial 1.86 23 55 20 2 River area 2.17 27 48 16 3 Sagaing 1.84 32 46 16 2 Dryland 1.73 35 44 17 2 Irrigated tract 1.73 39 40 14 2 River area 2.06 23 54 17 2 Shan State 0.99 79 12 5 1 Border area 0.15 93 6 2 0 Northern interior 0.68 70 20 8 1 Southern interior 2.13 74 10 4 2 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 1.27 55 29 10 5 Medium 1.36 48 35 14 1 Large 2.53 27 36 21 5 Bago Small 1.37 44 44 9 1 Medium 1.82 19 66 13 1 Large 2.88 10 52 27 3 Sagaing Small 1.22 54 32 10 1 Medium 1.75 31 52 11 2 Large 2.49 14 52 26 2 Shan State Small 0.24 90 7 2 1 Medium 0.99 67 21 9 1 Large 2.69 68 13 6 1 BY SEX Male 1.75 41 38 14 2 Female 1.27 51 35 10 2 123 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS ANNEX 6: CROPPING DECISIONS Table 74: Main Cultivated Crops In percent of all crops Paddy Pulses Maize Sesame Culinary Sunflower Other crops BY REGION Ayeyarwady 93 4 3 Brackish water 99 1 Freshwater 85 9 6 Saltwater 96 3 1 Bago 12 85 2 East alluvial 13 87 West alluvial 12 84 4 River area 12 86 2 Sagaing 52 32 4 3 6 5 Dryland 53 27 3 4 12 5 Irrigated tract 70 23 2 2 2 1 River area 35 46 7 2 4 9 Shan State 48 2 43 6 1 Border area 90 6 3 1 Northern interior 41 3 53 1 2 1 Southern interior 35 2 51 10 2 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 90 8 2 Medium 93 4 4 Large 95 3 2 Bago Small 4 94 1 1 Medium 14 84 2 Large 14 83 3 Sagaing Small 81 13 3 4 Medium 57 26 4 4 5 7 Large 36 45 4 3 8 6 Shan State Small 70 27 3 Medium 39 3 47 9 2 Large 37 3 53 1 5 2 BY SEX Male 51 30 10 1 3 2 3 Female 52 27 9 2 2 3 5 124 ANNEX 6 Table 75: Farm Crop Choices in Monsoon and Dry Seasons Percentage of Practicing Farmers BY REGION Rice Wheat Maize Ground Sesame Mustard Pulses Tobacco Perennial Culinary Millet nut crops crops MONSOON SEASON Ayeyarwady Brackish water 100 1 1 Freshwater 100 1 2 20 1 Saltwater 100 2 1 Bago East alluvial 100 1 West alluvial 99 1 1 River area 100 1 Sagaing Dryland 65 14 2 3 30 17 11 1 1 4 Irrigated tract 96 1 1 2 12 9 2 1 River area 60 20 1 23 21 23 1 2 Shan State Border area 98 1 6 Northern interior 81 74 6 1 3 Southern interior 70 1 96 3 3 3 4 DRY SEASON Ayeyarwady Brackish water 4 2 90 1 Freshwater 50 7 1 Saltwater 94 Bago East alluvial 2 2 98 West alluvial 5 1 1 88 2 River area 15 1 6 90 Sagaing Dryland 29 13 2 2 7 24 41 1 1 4 Irrigated tract 48 7 8 4 14 44 River area 6 20 1 83 6 2 18 2 1 Shan State Border area 58 3 37 1 2 Northern interior 2 2 8 2 4 1 10 Southern interior 1 1 2 2 3 5 125 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS ANNEX 7: RICE PRODUCTION Table 76: Farm Size and Cultivated Areas for Rice by Season In percent of all crops Monsoon Rice Off-Season Rice Rice area in acres Rice area in acres BY REGION N Farm size acres hectare % rice acres hectare % rice Ayeyarwady 474 8.5 5.3 2.12 62 Brackish water 159 7.2 4.6 1.85 63 Freshwater 159 6.6 4.5 1.82 68 Saltwater 156 11.7 6.7 2.71 57 8.1 3.27 69 Bago 380 8.8 5.4 2.20 62 East alluvial 128 8.9 5.8 2.34 65 West alluvial 128 7.6 4.4 1.78 58 River area 124 9.9 6.1 2.48 62 Sagaing 345 7.2 2.2 0.89 30 Dryland 102 10.2 3.1 1.24 30 4.1 1.66 40 Irrigated tract 160 7.4 2.5 1.00 34 3.1 1.26 42 River area 83 3.3 0.6 0.23 17 Shan State 174 3.8 2.5 0.99 65 Border area 117 2.2 1.8 0.74 85 2.0 0.79 91 Northern interior 35 3.6 2.9 1.19 82 Southern interior 22 12.7 4.9 2.00 39 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 127 2.7 2.3 0.93 86 3.5 1.40 Medium 164 6.2 4.4 1.78 71 6.4 2.58 Large 183 14.4 8.0 3.24 55 11.3 4.56 Bago Small 94 2.9 2.4 0.99 83 Medium 132 6.4 4.5 1.82 71 Large 154 14.4 8.1 3.26 56 Sagaing Small 127 2.5 1.3 0.52 50 2.6 1.05 Medium 116 6.1 2.3 0.92 37 3.7 1.48 Large 102 14.3 3.2 1.30 22 5.2 2.12 Shan State Small 135 2.0 1.9 0.75 92 2.0 0.79 Medium 23 6.1 4.0 1.60 65 Large 16 15.3 5.2 2.11 34 BY SEX Male 1,211 7.8 4.2 1.72 5.6 2.27 71% Female 162 6.2 3.7 1.48 4.3 1.76 70% OVERALL 1,373 7.7 4.2 1.69 5.5 2.21 71% Note: Rice area is main plot on which rice is produced. 126 ANNEX 7 Table 77: Cultivated Area, Production, and Yields for Rice by Season Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Area Yields Production Area Yields Production (acres) (kg/acre)* (kg) (acres) (kg/acre)* (kg) BY REGION Ayeyarwady 5.3 1,259 6,442 Brackish water 4.6 1,483 6,822 Freshwater 4.5 1,303 5,864 Saltwater 6.7 991 6,640 8.1 1,746 14,143 Bago 5.4 1,233 6,663 East alluvial 5.8 1,355 7,859 West alluvial 4.4 1,272 5,597 River area 6.1 1,071 6,533 Sagaing 2.2 1,157 2,104 Dryland 3.1 927 2,874 4.1 1,298 5,322 Irrigated tract 2.5 1,006 2,515 3.1 1,553 4,814 River area 0.6 1,538 923 Shan State 2.5 1,451 4,168 Border area 1.8 1,958 3,524 2.0 2,649 5,297 Northern interior 2.9 1,377 3,993 Southern interior 4.9 1,018 4,988 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 2.3 1,322 3,029 3.5 1,611 5,572 Medium 4.4 1,234 5,420 6.4 1,701 10,841 Large 8.0 1,204 9,644 11.3 1,754 19,750 Bago Small 2.4 1,291 3,143 Medium 4.5 1,387 6,245 Large 8.1 1,146 9,224 Sagaing Small 1.3 1,103 1,406 2.6 1,383 3,584 Medium 2.3 973 2,218 3.7 1,377 5,048 Large 3.2 986 3,173 5.2 1,439 7,542 Shan State Small 1.9 1,834 3,418 2.0 2,649 5,297 Medium 4.0 1,373 5,439 Large 5.2 1,055 5,510 BY SEX Male 4.2 1,219 5,172 5.6 1,691 9,478 Female 3.7 1,284 4,706 4.3 1,480 6,437 OVERALL 4.2 1,226 5,117 5.5 1,672 9,134 * In wet paddy equivalent. ** Simple averages by ecoregion, farm size, and sex. 127 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 78: Proportion of Farms Harvesting Rice by Month and by Category Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Aug/Sep Oct Nov Dec/Jan Feb/Mar Apr May-June July BY REGION Ayeyarwady 0.8 16.6 67.8 14.9 Brackish water 0.8 32.8 65.1 1.3 Freshwater 1.8 19.3 74.3 4.6 Saltwater 3.4 65.2 31.4 57.0 41.6 1.4 Bago 1.3 35.9 60.3 2.5 East alluvial 47.2 51.8 0.9 West alluvial 0.9 16.1 75.1 7.9 River area 2.9 39.6 57.5 - Sagaing 5.6 2.3 10.7 81.3 Dryland 3.5 96.5 14.1 85.9 Irrigated tract 10.7 0.9 9.3 79.1 2.3 9.9 87.8 River area 0.5 29.6 69.8 - Shan State 3.9 43.9 44.7 7.5 Border area 5.8 44.5 48.6 1.0 49.7 50.3 Northern interior 3.9 53.6 39.1 3.4 Southern interior 33.6 42.2 24.2 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 16.2 74.3 9.5 41.4 55.7 2.9 Medium 0.7 15.8 70.1 13.3 50.5 44.9 4.5 Large 0.9 17.0 65.4 16.7 61.6 38.4 Bago Small 0.9 25.8 66.6 6.8 Medium 1.5 32.8 61.3 4.4 Large 1.3 39.3 58.6 0.8 Sagaing Small 1.5 8.7 18.6 71.2 3.3 9.5 87.2 Medium 3.2 1.1 10.3 85.4 10.6 89.4 Large 9.6 0.2 7.1 83.1 16.5 83.5 Shan State Small 6.6 47.5 43.6 2.3 49.7 50.3 Medium 44.0 53.8 2.2 Large 32.9 38.1 29.1 BY SEX Male 2.0 23.8 56.5 17.7 38.0 29.4 5.6 27.0 Female 0.3 22.9 50.3 26.5 40.5 10.4 15.5 33.6 OVERALL 1.8 23.7 55.9 18.6 38.2 27.7 6.5 27.6 128 ANNEX 7 Table 79: Proportion of Sellers of Rice by Season Monsoon Rice (% of farms) Off-season Rice (% of farms) Sellers Wet paddy Dry paddy Milled paddy Sellers Wet paddy Dry paddy Milled paddy BY REGION Ayeyarwady 96.2 80.6 16.7 1.3 Brackish water 100.0 81.8 19.5 0.6 Freshwater 93.7 81.1 13.2 Saltwater 94.9 78.8 17.3 3.2 95.4 86.1 9.3 Bago 95.3 62.1 18.4 15.3 East alluvial 93.0 37.5 16.4 39.1 West alluvial 99.2 81.3 18.0 0.8 River area 93.5 67.7 21.0 5.6 Sagaing 63.8 36.2 26.7 1.2 Dryland 77.5 43.1 31.4 2.9 83.5 78.5 5.1 Irrigated tract 83.1 50.0 33.8 0 87.3 78.9 8.5 River area 9.6 1.2 7.2 1.2 Shan State 74.7 10.9 62.6 2.3 Border area 70.1 12.0 56.4 2.6 97.1 85.7 11.4 Northern interior 74.3 2.9 68.6 2.9 Southern interior 100.0 18.2 86.4 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 93.7 83.5 9.4 0.8 100.0 86.7 13.3 Medium 96.9 82.6 14.3 0.6 96.0 90.0 6.0 Large 97.3 76.9 23.7 2.2 93.0 83.1 9.9 Bago Small 92.6 59.6 11.7 21.3 Medium 96.2 66.7 17.4 12.9 Large 96.1 59.7 23.4 13.6 Sagaing Small 51.2 27.6 23.6 91.5 83.1 8.5 Medium 67.2 41.4 23.3 2.6 85.2 81.5 3.7 Large 75.5 41.2 34.3 1.0 75.7 67.6 8.1 Shan State Small 68.9 11.1 55.6 3.0 97.1 85.7 11.4 Medium 91.3 91.3 Large 100.0 25.0 81.3 BY SEX Male 85.1 55.7 25.2 5.1 90.3 82.6 7.7 Female 85.2 53.7 27.8 6.2 97.4 84.2 13.2 OVERALL 85.1 55.5 25.5 5.2 91.1 82.7 8.3 129 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 80: Percentage of Sales of Rice Production by Season In percent from total sale Monsoon Rice (% of total production) Off-season Rice (% of total production) Total Sales Wet paddy Dry paddy Milled paddy Total Sales Wet paddy Dry paddy Milled paddy BY REGION Ayeyarwady 69.9 51.4 17.7 0.9 Brackish water 69.4 50.6 18.3 0.6 Freshwater 73.9 59.3 14.6 Saltwater 68.4 48.1 18.9 1.4 70.5 54.3 16.1 Bago 65.1 37.0 22.6 5.5 East alluvial 66.1 30.7 24.6 10.9 West alluvial 62.7 47.2 15.3 0.2 River area 65.2 39.0 24.8 1.4 Sagaing 65.1 36.8 28.0 0.3 Dryland 66.3 33.7 32.0 0.6 60.3 59.0 1.3 Irrigated tract 66.4 41.1 25.3 86.1 77.5 8.7 River area 4.8 0.1 4.7 Shan State 62.9 12.8 49.1 1.0 Border area 61.9 7.4 54.1 0.4 89.4 80.8 8.6 Northern interior 44.8 0.2 41.1 3.5 Southern interior 76.9 28.8 48.0 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 61.6 56.4 5.0 0.2 89.1 73.7 15.4 Medium 65.8 54.4 11.3 0.1 81.4 74.2 7.2 Large 71.3 50.4 19.9 1.1 68.2 50.5 17.6 Bago Small 49.5 34.6 5.6 9.3 Medium 60.8 41.2 13.8 5.7 Large 67.2 36.0 26.1 5.2 Sagaing Small 59.9 38.6 21.3 82.8 73.9 8.9 Medium 66.3 47.0 19.3 0.1 79.7 79.0 0.6 Large 65.5 30.5 34.5 0.5 59.9 54.9 4.9 Shan State Small 50.0 7.0 40.9 2.1 89.4 80.8 8.6 Medium 72.5 72.5 Large 76.2 36.1 40.1 BY SEX Male 67.0 43.8 20.5 2.7 69.8 54.7 15.1 Female 70.3 35.7 32.3 2.3 88.8 84.9 4.0 OVERALL 67.4 43.0 21.7 2.7 70.7 56.1 14.6 130 ANNEX 7 Table 81: Type of Clients and Place of Sales for Monsoon Rice In percent from total sale Final consumers Millers Traders Others WET PADDY SALES Ayeyarwady 3.7 5.8 90.3 0.3 Bago 2.4 7.3 90.3 Sagaing 13.5 8.1 73.0 5.4 Shan State 21.1 68.4 10.5 DRY PADDY SALES Ayeyarwady 1.4 12.2 86.5 Bago 5.4 94.6 Sagaing 3.3 6.6 90.2 Shan State 3.7 13.8 78.9 3.7 MILLED RICE SALES Ayeyarwady 20.0 80.0 Bago 11.5 61.5 26.9 Sagaing 66.7 33.3 Shan State 66.7 33.3 Villages Nearby villages Closest town Itinerant traders WET PADDY SALES Ayeyarwady 69.4 12.7 8.2 9.8 Bago 68.1 6.8 24.2 1.0 Sagaing 50.0 13.9 36.1 Shan State 21.1 26.3 42.1 10.5 DRY PADDY SALES Ayeyarwady 63.5 13.5 16.2 6.8 Bago 62.2 5.4 32.4 Sagaing 33.9 9.7 53.2 3.2 Shan State 27.5 8.3 50.5 13.8 MILLED RICE SALES Ayeyarwady 40.0 40.0 20.0 Bago 46.2 7.7 46.2 Sagaing 50.0 50.0 Shan State 66.7 33.3 131 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 82: Type of Rice Seeds Used by Farmer by Season In percent from total sale Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Hybrid Certified Other Hybrid Certified Other BY REGION Ayeyarwady 9.1 90.9 Brackish water 14.5 85.5 Freshwater 11.3 88.7 Saltwater 1.3 98.7 1.3 98.7 Bago 7.1 92.9 East alluvial 3.9 96.1 West alluvial 6.3 93.8 River area 11.3 88.7 Sagaing 3.5 96.5 Dryland 4.9 95.1 13.9 86.1 Irrigated tract 3.8 96.3 19.7 80.3 River area 1.2 98.8 Shan State 75.9 4.6 19.5 Border area 92.3 3.4 4.3 77.1 22.9 Northern interior 65.7 5.7 28.6 Southern interior 4.5 9.1 86.4 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 12.6 87.4 100.0 Medium 9.3 90.7 100.0 Large 6.5 93.5 2.8 97.2 Bago Small 4.3 95.7 Medium 6.8 93.2 Large 9.1 90.9 Sagaing Small 1.6 98.4 15.3 84.7 Medium 4.3 95.7 16.7 83.3 Large 4.9 95.1 18.9 81.1 Shan State Small 88.1 3.7 8.1 77.1 22.9 Medium 52.2 4.3 43.5 Large 6.3 12.5 81.3 BY SEX Male 9.5 7.2 83.3 8.1 7.0 84.9 Female 10.5 1.9 87.7 7.9 15.8 76.3 OVERALL 9.6 6.6 83.8 8.0 8.0 83.9 132 ANNEX 7 Table 83: Quantity of Rice Seeds Used by Farmer by Type of Seeds and by Season In kg per acre Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Hybrid Certified Other Overall Hybrid Certified Other Overall BY REGION Ayeyarwady 45.9 51.8 51.4 Brackish water 42.6 49.5 48.6 Freshwater 48.1 56.0 55.2 Saltwater 55.5 50.7 51.0 91.3 86.4 86.5 Bago 50.3 44.8 45.2 East alluvial 43.4 44.8 45.1 West alluvial 35.9 42.4 42.3 River area 57.4 46.7 48.0 Sagaing 43.3 44.4 44.3 Dryland 38.2 49.1 49.0 56.1 52.9 53.4 Irrigated tract 47.6 42.3 43.2 48.8 62.2 60.0 River area 34.8 30.6 32.7 Shan State 18.2 35.8 23.7 Border area 15.4 31.2 16.1 12.3 41.7 18.0 Northern interior 21.7 35.6 25.8 Southern interior 39.4 36.4 36.5 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 45.8 55.3 54.0 80.4 80.4 Medium 42.0 53.1 52.1 87.9 87.9 Large 48.9 50.6 50.5 91.3 86.6 86.7 Bago Small 45.5 46.4 46.4 Medium 44.2 46.2 46.1 Large 52.7 43.8 44.6 Sagaing Small 18.4 40.8 40.3 63.1 57.7 58.5 Medium 49.3 44.9 45.1 60.8 58.1 58.5 Large 43.8 45.7 45.6 40.9 54.3 51.7 Shan State Small 17.0 34.9 18.6 12.3 41.7 18.0 Medium 16.9 37.0 26.6 Large 39.4 35.4 36.1 BY SEX Male 18.5 47.2 47.8 46.2 12.3 58.6 78.1 75.0 Female 15.2 55.3 47.0 45.8 12.8 60.7 76.7 73.5 OVERALL 18.2 47.5 47.7 45.7 12.3 58.9 78.0 74.9   133 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 84: Source of Rice Seeds by Season In percent to all farms Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Traders Relatives NGO/ Own Traders Relatives NGO/ Own Business Friends Government Business Friends Government BY REGION Ayeyarwady 12.2 28.1 10.3 49.4 Brackish water 10.7 25.8 16.4 47.2 Freshwater 9.4 25.8 13.2 51.6 Saltwater 16.7 32.7 1.3 49.4 25.8 8.6 0 65.6 Bago 4.5 10.5 7.4 77.6 East alluvial 3.9 10.9 6.3 78.9 West alluvial 3.9 6.3 5.5 84.4 River area 5.6 14.5 10.5 69.4 Sagaing 4.9 12.8 2.0 80.3 Dryland 10.8 16.7 2.9 69.6 48.1 26.6 0 25.3 Irrigated tract 3.8 16.9 1.9 77.5 52.1 16.9 0 31.0 River area 0 0 1.2 98.8 Shan State 79.3 5.2 0.6 14.9 Border area 91.5 1.7 0 6.8 77.1 0 0 22.9 Northern interior 74.3 8.6 0 17.1 Southern interior 22.7 18.2 4.5 54.5 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 11.8 31.5 14.2 42.5 23.3 16.7 0 60.0 Medium 12.4 26.1 9.3 52.2 28.0 2.0 0 70.0 Large 12.4 27.4 8.6 51.6 25.4 9.9 0 64.8 Bago Small 5.3 9.6 7.4 77.7 Medium 3.8 15.2 4.5 76.5 Large 4.5 7.1 9.7 78.6 Sagaing Small 2.4 7.9 0.8 89.0 50.8 25.4 0 23.7 Medium 5.2 17.2 3.4 74.1 50.0 18.5 0 31.5 Large 7.8 13.7 2.0 76.5 48.6 21.6 0 29.7 Shan State Small 88.9 2.2 0 8.9 77.1 0 0 22.9 Medium 60.9 17.4 0 21.7 Large 25.0 12.5 6.3 56.3 BY SEX Male 16.6 16.6 6.8 60.0 39.3 14.1 0 46.6 Female 17.9 15.4 1.9 64.8 63.2 10.5 0 26.3 OVERALL 16.8 16.5 6.2 60.6 42.0 13.7 0 44.3 134 ANNEX 7 Table 85: Cultivated Variety of Rice by Season In percent to all farms Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Letywezin Emata Meedon Ngasein Letywezin Emata China Ngasein BY REGION Ayeyarwady 73.4 19.4 3.0 4.2 Brackish water 88.1 10.1 1.9 Freshwater 91.2 7.5 1.3 Saltwater 40.4 41.0 9.0 9.6 0.7 99.3 Bago 18.4 77.1 0.3 4.2 East alluvial 1.6 92.2 6.3 West alluvial 32.0 67.2 0.8 River area 21.8 71.8 0.8 5.6 Sagaing 34.8 21.2 30.4 13.6 Dryland 16.7 46.1 24.5 12.7 60.8 39.2 Irrigated tract 15.0 13.8 50.0 21.3 29.6 60.6 9.9 River area 95.2 4.8 Shan State 14.4 85.6 Border area 12.0 88.0 14.3 85.7 Northern interior 2.9 97.1 Southern interior 45.5 54.5 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 84.3 11.8 1.6 2.4 100.0 Medium 74.5 14.9 4.3 6.2 100.0 Large 65.1 28.5 2.7 3.8 1.4 98.6 Bago Small 23.4 72.3 - 4.3 Medium 20.5 75.8 0.8 3.0 Large 13.6 81.2 - 5.2 Sagaing Small 52.8 13.4 26.0 7.9 35.6 61.0 3.4 Medium 30.2 17.2 40.5 12.1 44.4 51.9 3.7 Large 17.6 35.3 24.5 22.5 64.9 27.0 8.1 Shan State Small 9.6 90.4 14.3 85.7 Medium 17.4 82.6 Large 50.0 50.0 BY SEX Male 40.3 45.0 8.2 6.5 0.3 69.1 28.5 2.0 Female 46.3 38.3 13.0 2.5 47.4 50.0 2.6 OVERALL 41.0 44.2 8.7 6.0 0.3 66.7 31.0 2.1 * There is no China variety during monsoon season and no Meedon variety during dry season rice production. 135 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 86: Month of Sowing/Transplanting Rice by Season In percent to all farms Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice May June July Aug Dec Jan-Feb Mar Apr BY REGION Ayeyarwady 5.3 38.9 49.4 6.4 Brackish water 10.0 55.7 33.2 1.0 Freshwater 7.3 54.6 36.1 2.0 Saltwater 0.7 16.4 69.8 13.1 92.2 7.8 Bago 9.0 67.0 22.9 1.2 East alluvial 10.3 63.4 25.4 0.8 West alluvial 3.6 66.5 26.7 3.2 River area 11.5 70.9 17.5 Sagaing 4.3 12.3 43.6 39.9 Dryland 8.0 47.9 44.1 3.4 61.7 34.9 Irrigated tract 8.1 12.2 39.5 40.2 2.7 56.7 40.6 River area 42.5 48.5 9.0 Shan State 25.5 42.5 26.9 4.9 Border area 37.7 40.3 22.0 29.7 47.0 23.3 Northern interior 10.5 53.4 26.7 8.0 Southern interior 15.5 36.4 36.6 11.5 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 4.1 41.1 47.4 7.4 88.7 11.3 Medium 7.5 41.7 46.3 4.6 85.9 14.1 Large 4.6 37.2 51.2 7.0 95.1 4.9 Bago Small 3.1 63.1 33.8 Medium 9.7 57.0 30.3 2.9 Large 9.7 72.5 17.3 0.5 Sagaing Small 1.5 11.8 46.0 40.6 65.2 34.8 Medium 4.7 12.7 33.0 49.6 5.1 54.5 40.4 Large 5.3 12.2 50.8 31.7 3.6 60.5 35.8 Shan State Small 32.4 40.8 23.0 3.3 29.7 47.0 23.3 Medium 14.7 56.9 28.4 Large 16.5 31.7 36.8 15.0 BY SEX Male 8.3 46.4 36.9 8.4 63.7 8.1 17.0 11.2 Female 5.6 40.9 41.6 11.9 50.1 6.2 34.2 9.5 OVERALL 8.0 45.8 37.4 8.8 62.5 7.9 18.6 11.0 136 ANNEX 7 Table 87: Rice Crop Establishment by Season Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Direct Seeding Transplanting Direct Seeding Transplanting % users Seeds:Kg/acre % users Seeds:Kg/acre % users Seeds:Kg/acre % users Seeds:Kg/acre BY REGION Ayeyarwady 29.1 51.8 70.9 51.2 Brackish water 30.8 43.8 69.2 50.9 Freshwater 11.9 48.3 88.1 56.4 Saltwater 44.9 57.8 55.1 46.6 100.0 85.3 Bago 11.8 43.1 88.2 45.7 East alluvial 100.0 44.7 West alluvial 100.0 42.1 River area 36.3 43.1 63.7 52.3 Sagaing 2.9 45.8 97.1 44.3 Dryland 9.8 45.8 90.2 48.8 72.2 57.2 27.8 48.1 Irrigated tract 100.0 42.5 60.6 67.7 39.4 44.5 River area 100.0 30.7 Shan State 100.0 23.7 Border area 100.0 16.1 100.0 19.7 Northern interior 100.0 25.9 Southern interior 100.0 36.8 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 23.6 54.5 76.4 53.8 100.0 81.1 Medium 28.0 53.9 72.0 51.3 100.0 87.5 Large 33.9 50.5 66.1 50.5 100.0 85.5 Bago - - Small 8.5 50.6 91.5 46.0 62.2 50.4 Medium 7.6 42.3 92.4 46.4 62.3 43.6 Large 17.5 42.6 82.5 45.2 59.5 44.2 Sagaing Small 1.6 34.0 98.4 40.5 71.2 28.8 19.7 Medium 0.9 29.8 99.1 45.2 70.4 29.6 Large 6.9 49.3 93.1 45.4 54.1 45.9 Shan State Small 100.0 18.6 100.0 Medium 100.0 26.6 Large 100.0 36.1 BY SEX Male 14.6 49.1 85.4 45.5 74.2 75.9 25.8 36.6 Female 9.9 47.2 90.1 45.6 78.9 75.9 21.1 22.3 OVERALL 14.1 48.9 85.9 45.5 74.7 75.9 25.3 35.2 137 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 88: Proportion of Users of Fertilizers for Rice by Season Percent of users Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Urea NPK T-super Potash Urea NPK T-super Potash BY REGION Ayeyarwady 89.5 23.8 27.8 1.5 Brackish water 96.9 40.9 17.0 1.3 Freshwater 89.3 29.6 13.2 0.6 Saltwater 82.1 0.6 53.8 2.6 98.7 5.3 91.4 2.0 Bago 90.3 29.7 5.8 0.8 East alluvial 96.1 31.3 3.9 0 West alluvial 95.3 32.8 7.8 0.8 River area 79.0 25.0 5.6 1.6 Sagaing 72.8 60.6 6.7 2.6 Dryland 94.1 81.4 4.9 2.9 91.1 82.3 22.8 0 Irrigated tract 90.0 78.8 11.3 3.8 93.0 70.4 19.7 0 River area 13.3 0 0 0 Shan State 98.9 39.1 48.9 0 Border area 99.1 36.8 51.3 0 100.0 28.6 74.3 2.9 Northern interior 97.1 60.0 42.9 0 Southern interior 100.0 18.2 45.5 0 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 89.0 27.6 17.3 0.8 100.0 6.7 93.3 3.3 Medium 87.0 23.0 25.5 2.5 98.0 6.0 90.0 2.0 Large 91.9 22.0 37.1 1.1 98.6 4.2 91.5 1.4 Bago Small 94.7 19.1 3.2 0 Medium 93.2 33.3 7.6 0 Large 85.1 33.1 5.8 1.9 Sagaing Small 52.0 40.2 3.9 1.6 91.5 81.4 15.3 0 Medium 81.0 69.0 10.3 3.4 92.6 64.8 20.4 0 Large 89.2 76.5 5.9 2.9 91.9 86.5 32.4 0 Shan State Small 98.5 40.0 51.1 0 100.0 28.6 74.3 2.9 Medium 100.0 47.8 43.5 0 Large 100.0 18.8 37.5 0 BY SEX Male 87.3 36.1 19.3 1.3 96.0 39.3 59.1 1.0 Female 82.1 40.7 17.3 1.9 94.7 42.1 52.6 2.6 OVERALL 86.7 36.6 19.1 1.4 95.8 39.6 58.3 1.2 138 ANNEX 7 Table 89: Average Fertilizer Consumption for Rice by Season In kg per acre Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Urea NPK T-super Potash Urea NPK T-super Potash BY REGION Ayeyarwady 44.8 8.3 11.5 0.3 Brackish water 53.3 17.3 7.5 0.3 Freshwater 38.9 10.7 4.7 0.2 Saltwater 43.0 0.4 18.5 0.3 119.7 6.7 70.4 0.3 Bago 22.6 9.6 0.6 0.3 East alluvial 17.6 6.9 0.3 0 West alluvial 29.5 11.0 1.0 0.9 River area 23.9 9.9 0.8 0.2 Sagaing 42.5 50.8 3.8 0.8 Dryland 45.3 49.8 2.3 1.0 75.8 73.0 17.7 0 Irrigated tract 45.8 57.9 5.1 0.9 61.6 47.1 8.9 0 River area 5.6 0 0 0 Shan State 118.1 39.8 47.4 Border area 139.3 45.0 57.4 160.6 46.4 97.7 1.5 Northern interior 98.4 61.5 51.5 Southern interior 91.7 8.9 23.4 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 40.9 8.4 6.2 0.2 91.1 5.5 74.4 0.2 Medium 48.4 10.4 8.0 0.6 112.0 5.5 68.6 0.8 Large 43.8 7.2 14.2 0.2 126.5 7.3 70.7 0.1 Bago Small 32.5 6.7 0.5 0 Medium 22.3 9.1 1.3 0 Large 20.9 10.4 0.3 0.5 Sagaing Small 29.2 39.2 3.1 0.5 69.7 67.0 12.1 0 Medium 43.0 55.1 4.9 0.8 77.6 68.5 18.4 0 Large 48.7 53.2 3.2 1.1 62.6 52.8 11.4 0 Shan State Small 128.3 47.7 58.0 0 160.6 46.4 97.7 1.5 Medium 110.5 48.1 40.6 0 Large 95.5 7.2 22.7 0 BY SEX Male 41.2 16.2 8.8 0.3 106.3 24.7 55.3 0.2 Female 48.7 21.2 13.2 0.4 108.7 25.0 49.6 0.6 OVERALL 43.7 18.6 10.3 0.3 106.5 24.7 54.8 0.3 139 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 90: Application Rate of Fertilizers for Rice by Season In kg per acre Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Urea NPK T-super Potash Urea NPK T-super Potash BY REGION Ayeyarwady 50.0 34.6 41.4 19.8 Brackish water 55.0 42.3 44.2 27.3 Freshwater 43.5 36.2 35.6 33.3 Saltwater 52.4 62.4 34.4 12.3 121.3 126.7 77.1 15.3 Bago 25.0 32.4 10.9 38.6 East alluvial 18.3 22.1 7.7 West alluvial 31.0 33.5 12.2 113.5 River area 30.3 39.5 14.3 10.5 Sagaing 58.4 83.9 56.9 32.3 Dryland 48.1 61.2 46.9 32.6 83.2 88.8 77.8 0 Irrigated tract 50.9 73.5 45.3 22.7 66.3 66.8 45.2 0 River area 42.3 0 0 0 Shan State 119.5 101.9 96.9 Border area 140.5 122.4 111.9 160.6 162.5 131.6 52.2 Northern interior 101.3 102.5 120.2 Southern interior 91.7 48.9 51.5 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 46.0 30.6 35.8 21.8 91.1 83.1 79.7 5.4 Medium 55.6 45.4 31.6 25.6 114.3 91.5 76.2 39.5 Large 47.7 32.6 38.4 14.2 128.3 173.9 77.2 8.9 Bago Small 34.4 35.2 15.8 0 Medium 23.9 27.3 16.8 0 Large 24.5 31.6 5.9 26.0 Sagaing Small 56.2 97.5 78.9 29.4 76.2 82.4 79.3 0 Medium 53.1 79.9 47.6 23.1 83.8 105.6 90.5 0 Large 54.6 69.5 54.7 36.3 68.1 61.0 35.1 0 Shan State Small 130.3 119.1 113.4 160.6 162.5 131.6 52.2 Medium 110.5 100.5 93.4 Large 95.5 38.3 60.6 BY SEX Male 47.1 44.9 45.5 25.7 110.8 63.0 93.6 22.1 Female 59.3 52.1 76.4 22.7 114.8 59.5 94.2 23.5 OVERALL 50.4 50.8 54.0 25.1 111.1 62.5 93.9 21.6 140 ANNEX 7 Table 91: Fertilizer Consumption by Nutrient for Rice by Season In kg per acre Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium BY REGION Ayeyarwady 21.4 5.9 1.4 Brackish water 26.1 5.1 2.8 Freshwater 18.9 3.2 1.7 Saltwater 19.9 8.3 0.3 55.7 31.7 1.2 Bago 11.3 1.2 1.6 East alluvial 8.2 0.9 1.2 West alluvial 14.6 1.6 2.3 River area 11.9 1.3 1.6 Sagaing 24.6 6.8 8.1 38.5 12.5 9.4 Dryland 26.2 6.2 8.3 42.2 15.1 11.0 Irrigated tract 26.1 8.0 9.0 33.0 8.6 7.1 River area 2.6 0 0 Shan State 58.3 24.8 6.0 Border area 68.6 29.7 6.8 78.5 47.6 7.9 Northern interior 51.9 29.1 9.2 Southern interior 44.0 11.0 1.3 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 19.7 3.6 1.4 42.4 33.3 0.9 Medium 23.3 4.6 1.9 52.1 30.7 1.3 Large 20.9 7.0 1.2 58.9 31.8 1.2 Bago Small 15.6 0.9 1.0 Medium 11.0 1.4 1.3 Large 10.6 1.2 1.9 Sagaing Small 17.3 5.3 6.2 38.8 12.0 10.1 Medium 25.3 7.7 8.7 42.5 15.0 10.3 Large 27.7 6.7 8.6 34.1 10.3 7.9 Shan State Small 63.8 30.3 7.1 78.5 47.6 7.9 Medium 55.6 22.7 7.2 Large 44.6 10.7 1.1 BY SEX Male 20.5 5.5 2.6 51.4 26.8 3.8 Female 24.5 7.9 3.4 52.5 24.3 4.1 OVERALL 20.9 5.7 2.7 51.5 26.6 3.9 *Calculation of nutrient is based on 46% of nitrogen for urea; 10% of nitrogen, 10% of phosphorus, and 15% of potassium for NPK; 44% of phosphorus for T-super; and 60% of potassium for potash. 141 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 92: Percentage of Users and Average Costs of Chemicals for Rice by Season In MMK per acre Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Insecticides Herbicides Insecticides Herbicides % users Costs % users Costs % users Costs % users Costs BY REGION Ayeyarwady 12.2 702 7.6 263 Brackish water 8.2 139 12.6 620 Freshwater 1.3 91 9.4 283 Saltwater 27.6 1,439 0.6 1 57.6 3,741 7.9 193 Bago 0.3 68 1.6 52 East alluvial 3.1 150 West alluvial 0.8 1 River area 0.8 184 0.8 11 Sagaing 37.4 3,690 12.8 1,028 Dryland 47.1 2,782 13.7 1,144 48.1 3,908 63.3 4,775 Irrigated tract 50.6 4,706 18.8 1,060 59.2 8,573 40.8 3,509 River area Shan State 27.0 1,328 0.6 5 Border area 22.2 1,135 0.9 9 62.9 4,671 0 0 Northern interior 25.7 2,466 Southern interior 54.5 606 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 7.1 276 8.7 860 63.3 5,443 6.7 241 Medium 8.7 258 5.0 197 66.0 4,579 8.0 143 Large 18.8 996 9.1 178 49.3 3,186 8.5 206 Bago Small 1.1 2 Medium 1.5 42 Large 0.6 113 1.9 66 Sagaing Small 26.0 3,027 8.7 624 57.6 5,331 55.9 3,700 Medium 44.0 4,553 16.4 2,039 48.1 8,748 55.6 5,771 Large 44.1 3,322 13.7 413 54.1 3,176 43.2 3,159 Shan State Small 23.0 1,308 0.7 8 62.9 4,671 Medium 21.7 2,041 Large 68.8 612 BY SEX Male 17.2 881 6.7 276 55.0 4,381 27.2 1,427 Female 16.7 1,324 3.7 208 65.8 4,467 26.3 1,041 OVERALL 17.1 1,025 6.3 269 56.3 4,389 27.1 1,393 142 ANNEX 7 Table 93: Family Labor Use for Rice by Season In hours per acre Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Prepa- Planting Manage- Harvest Prepa- Planting Manage- Harvest ration ment ration ment BY REGION Ayeyarwady 36.4 11.4 65.5 19.2 Brackish water 40.2 14.5 36.4 21.1 Freshwater 26.5 16.9 90.8 14.0 Saltwater 25.7 13.5 90.0 21.8 7.6 4.1 26.6 13.0 Bago 16.4 3.4 4.6 3.9 East alluvial 14.9 4.3 3.6 2.0 West alluvial 22.1 5.2 7.9 6.4 River area 13.6 2.5 4.2 5.9 Sagaing 22.1 4.6 30.5 10.5 Dryland 19.3 3.5 34.8 10.6 11.4 3.2 32.4 20.3 Irrigated tract 20.9 15.9 28.2 10.7 9.6 3.2 28.8 16.1 River area 50.5 34.0 19.9 40.8 Shan State 46.9 20.3 22.9 20.3 Border area 53.9 25.4 27.2 23.4 45.0 10.6 72.4 26.1 Northern interior 45.5 26.4 17.7 24.9 Southern interior 34.2 4.9 19.3 9.8 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 48.6 18.9 121.5 30.1 10.4 3.8 47.4 23.5 Medium 38.3 10.9 85.5 24.4 9.8 3.7 36.0 15.1 Large 33.1 10.2 45.0 14.6 6.3 4.3 20.2 10.7 Bago Small 35.0 7.7 12.6 7.5 Medium 20.6 3.5 5.1 4.0 Large 11.0 2.6 2.9 3.2 Sagaing Small 24.7 8.2 32.2 12.3 9.0 2.9 34.1 18.0 Medium 23.2 4.7 25.4 11.0 11.7 3.4 30.5 18.7 Large 19.9 2.7 33.7 9.1 10.9 3.2 29.0 19.0 Shan State Small 52.1 23.3 26.2 23.3 45.0 10.6 72.4 26.1 Medium 45.5 27.2 17.2 23.7 Large 32.5 3.7 19.4 7.7 BY SEX Male 29.1 8.3 35.6 12.6 10.2 4.2 30.2 15.4 Female 19.9 8.0 37.8 13.0 6.6 2.5 23.7 12.3 OVERALL 28.1 8.3 35.8 12.6 9.9 4.1 29.6 15.1 143 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 94: Hired Labor Use for Rice by Season In hours per acre Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Prepa- Planting Manage- Harvest Prepa- Planting Manage- Harvest ration ment ration ment BY REGION Ayeyarwady 23.2 108.1 8.2 91.6 Brackish water 37.3 104.4 8.9 94.8 Freshwater 18.8 116.6 6.2 95.7 Saltwater 13.5 103.3 9.4 84.4 7.7 2.2 9.5 79.2 Bago 43.4 84.7 28.1 66.4 East alluvial 44.7 108.1 30.7 59.5 West alluvial 36.7 77.8 37.0 58.1 River area 49.0 65.2 19.1 75.9 Sagaing 50.8 86.4 19.8 47.2 Dryland 59.4 97.5 15.3 46.8 4.9 31.4 15.9 107.5 Irrigated tract 47.9 76.0 25.6 46.2 6.1 36.0 13.9 82.4 River area 17.1 55.5 1.7 54.0 Shan State 8.7 90.4 12.6 66.5 Border area 7.7 103.5 7.6 41.0 6.2 128.2 6.2 20.5 Northern interior 2.5 82.4 8.4 58.3 Southern interior 17.4 71.2 26.7 126.3 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 25.8 123.8 10.2 92.3 11.2 3.1 13.1 87.7 Medium 25.0 107.3 8.5 85.0 8.8 2.2 8.3 84.8 Large 25.0 99.0 5.5 81.1 6.8 2.1 9.5 75.9 Bago Small 43.8 76.5 26.5 59.0 Medium 44.7 76.3 29.8 67.5 Large 42.7 90.3 27.6 67.3 Sagaing Small 49.5 90.1 14.4 44.8 7.2 29.9 13.9 93.3 Medium 48.8 98.1 17.2 48.3 5.3 27.1 10.5 100.3 Large 53.0 75.2 24.7 47.6 4.0 42.2 20.8 97.3 Shan State Small 6.4 101.2 7.2 46.5 6.2 128.2 6.2 20.5 Medium 5.0 84.3 13.9 68.9 Large 19.5 64.7 27.4 124.4 BY SEX Male 33.4 92.3 16.3 70.7 6.9 16.3 11.0 83.1 Female 37.6 107.7 20.1 76.6 7.0 15.1 11.4 75.0 OVERALL 33.8 93.9 16.7 71.3 6.9 16.2 11.1 82.4 144 ANNEX 7 Table 95: Permanent Labor Use for Rice by Season In hours per acre Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Prepa- Planting Manage- Harvest Prepa- Planting Manage- Harvest ration ment ration ment BY REGION Ayeyarwady 33.6 7.9 7.3 9.7 Brackish water 49.0 8.1 6.5 9.9 Freshwater 24.1 4.7 11.0 8.7 Saltwater 22.9 6.8 4.6 10.5 3.9 1.1 7.0 4.8 Bago 18.8 3.6 1.1 1.8 East alluvial 11.9 2.4 1.1 1.1 West alluvial 29.4 5.8 0.5 1.7 River area 17.7 3.2 1.4 2.7 Sagaing 0.7 0.1 1.0 0.1 Dryland 1.4 0.2 2.4 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 Irrigated tract 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 - River area Shan State 0.7 2.7 0.7 1.7 Border area 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1 Northern interior Southern interior 2.8 10.5 2.9 6.6 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 8.2 1.1 5.1 2.4 1.5 0.3 4.2 1.5 Medium 24.8 6.3 7.9 8.7 3.1 0.7 4.2 3.9 Large 42.8 10.0 7.4 11.6 4.5 1.3 8.5 5.5 Bago Small 7.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 Medium 17.9 1.9 0.6 0.8 Large 21.4 5.0 1.4 2.7 Sagaing Small Medium 0.4 0.1 0.1 Large 1.3 0.2 2.3 0.3 2.2 0.3 1.0 0.3 Shan State Small Medium Large 3.6 13.7 3.8 8.5 BY SEX Male 21.6 5.1 3.5 5.1 2.9 0.7 4.8 3.5 Female 20.5 3.6 5.8 4.1 2.4 0.9 4.9 0.2 OVERALL 21.5 5.0 3.7 5.0 2.8 0.7 4.8 3.2 145 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 96: Breakdown of Total Labor Use by Task for Rice Production In percent to total labor use Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Prepa- Planting Manage- Harvest Prepa- Planting Manage- Harvest ration ment ration ment BY REGION Ayeyarwady 23.2 30.1 19.4 27.4 Brackish water 33.4 29.3 11.0 26.3 Freshwater 16.7 30.8 24.1 28.4 Saltwater 15.5 30.4 26.4 27.7 11.5 4.4 25.9 58.2 Bago 28.4 33.2 12.2 26.1 East alluvial 24.5 40.9 12.1 22.5 West alluvial 30.6 30.8 15.8 22.7 River area 31.0 26.5 9.3 33.1 Sagaing 26.9 33.3 18.7 21.1 Dryland 27.2 35.3 17.8 19.8 7.6 15.2 21.3 55.9 Irrigated tract 26.9 31.4 21.0 20.6 8.2 19.9 21.8 50.1 River area 24.4 33.4 7.8 34.4 Shan State 19.1 38.5 12.3 30.1 Border area 21.2 44.6 12.0 22.2 16.4 43.9 24.9 14.8 Northern interior 17.7 40.9 9.9 31.5 Southern interior 16.4 26.1 14.8 42.7 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 10.2 49.1 4.1 36.6 11.2 3.5 31.1 54.2 Medium 11.1 47.5 3.7 37.6 12.1 3.6 26.8 57.5 Large 11.9 47.0 2.6 38.5 11.3 5.0 24.5 59.2 Bago Small 21.3 37.2 12.9 28.7 Medium 20.5 35.0 13.6 30.9 Large 18.7 39.6 12.1 29.5 Sagaing Small 24.9 45.3 7.2 22.5 7.8 15.7 23.0 53.5 Medium 23.0 46.2 8.1 22.7 8.2 14.7 19.8 57.4 Large 26.4 37.5 12.3 23.8 7.5 19.8 22.0 50.6 Shan State Small 4.0 62.7 4.5 28.8 16.2 44.0 24.9 14.8 Medium 2.9 49.0 8.1 40.0 Large 8.3 27.4 11.6 52.7 BY SEX Male 15.7 43.4 7.7 33.3 10.6 11.2 24.3 53.9 Female 15.6 44.5 8.3 31.6 9.9 11.4 24.7 54.0 OVERALL 15.7 43.5 7.7 33.1 10.5 11.2 24.3 53.9 146 ANNEX 7 Table 97: Breakdown of Total Labor Use by Type of Labor for Rice Production Monsoon Rice Off-season Rice Family Perma- Hired Total Family Perma- Hired Total % % Hours/Acre % nent % % Hours/Acre BY REGION Ayeyarwady 32.3 14.2 53.5 424 Brackish water 30.3 19.2 50.5 433 Freshwater 31.4 11.6 57.0 433 Saltwater 35.9 10.0 54.1 408 30.8 10.0 59.2 167 Bago 10.3 9.2 80.6 278 East alluvial 8.1 5.6 86.3 284 West alluvial 14.0 13.0 73.0 290 River area 9.6 9.9 80.5 260 Sagaing 24.7 0.7 74.6 286 Dryland 23.1 1.5 75.4 299 29.4 0.8 69.8 229 Irrigated tract 22.5 0.2 77.3 279 29.3 0.3 70.4 197 River area 52.4 0 47.6 285 Shan State 37.5 2.0 60.5 289 Border area 44.8 0 55.2 290 48.6 0.4 50.9 317 Northern interior 43.1 0 56.9 264 Southern interior 20.6 6.9 72.5 330 BY FARM SIZE Ayeyarwady Small 44.9 3.4 51.7 488 41.0 3.7 55.4 208 Medium 36.8 11.0 52.2 433 35.7 6.6 57.7 181 Large 26.7 18.6 54.7 385 26.7 12.7 60.6 156 Bago Small 22.7 3.0 74.3 277 Medium 12.2 7.8 80.0 273 Large 7.1 10.9 82.0 278 Sagaing Small 28.0 0 72.0 276 30.7 0 69.3 208 Medium 23.2 0.2 76.6 277 31.0 0 69.0 207 Large 24.2 1.5 74.3 270 26.9 1.7 71.4 230 Shan State Small 43.6 0 56.4 286 48.9 0 51.1 315 Medium 39.8 0 60.2 286 Large 19.2 9.0 71.8 329 BY SEX Male 25.7 10.6 63.8 338 31.7 6.3 62.0 189 Female 22.2 9.6 68.2 356 27.8 5.2 67.0 162 OVERALL 25.3 10.5 64.2 331 31.4 6.2 62.4 187 147 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS ANNEX 8: MONSOON RICE FARM BUDGETS Table 98: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget: Overall Sample Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,237.0 191 235,685 Costs Seeds Kg 45.7 301 13,738 Urea Kg 43.7 474 20,713 NPK Kg 18.6 472 8,773 T-Super Kg 10.3 364 3,745 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,231 Pesticides Unit 1,293 Total material inputs 49,493 Seed bed Hours 24.3 414 10,067 Land preparation Hours 6.6 359 2,359 Transplanting Hours 97.1 267 25,935 Irrigation Hours 0.1 260 26 Crop Management Hours 15.9 168 2,665 Harvest Hours 55.1 250 13,768 Post-harvest Hours 15.3 332 5,098 Total hired labor 214.4 279 59,922 Seed bed Hours 12.1 414 5,035 Land preparation Hours 31.4 361 11,338 Transplanting Hours 12.9 267 3,450 Irrigation Hours 3.2 281 905 Crop Management Hours 38.3 168 6,439 Harvest Hours 4.0 250 989 Post-harvest Hours 14.3 332 4,752 Total own labor 116.3 279 32,909 Seed bed Unit 4,468 Land preparation Unit 10,900 Crop management Unit 79 Harvest and postharvest Unit 6,167 Fuel Unit 8,165 Draught oxen Unit 5,900 Other services Unit 7,686 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 43,373 Working capital before interest Unit Interest on working capital Total Costs MMK/acre Gross margin MMK/acre Gross margin $/ha Net margin MMK/acre Net margin $/ha Labor productivity $/day 4.40 Total labor Days/ha 105 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,434 Average cultivated area Ha 1.75 Number of observations 1,373 148 ANNEX 8 Table 99: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Brackish Water Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,482.7 171 252,926 Costs Seeds Kg 48.6 208 10,115 Urea Kg 53.3 419 22,330 NPK Kg 17.3 488 8,436 T-Super Kg 7.5 386 2,907 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,899 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 758 Total material inputs 46,446 Seed bed Hours 9.0 342 3,068 Land preparation Hours 9.9 271 2,694 Transplanting Hours 124.5 189 23,570 Irrigation Hours 0.0 167 5 Crop Management Hours 6.5 201 1,306 Harvest Hours 71.6 252 18,061 Post-harvest Hours 25.2 253 6,385 Total hired labor 246.8 223 55,089 Seed bed Hours 10.8 348 3,757 Land preparation Hours 41.9 270 11,320 Transplanting Hours 11.7 190 2,232 Irrigation Hours 0.8 189 152 Crop Management Hours 97.3 202 19,627 Harvest Hours 3.4 251 854 Post-harvest Hours 19.7 254 5,013 Total own labor 185.7 223 42,955 Seed bed Unit 782 Land preparation Unit 6,282 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 7,591 Fuel Unit 4,664 Draught oxen Unit 8,928 Other services Unit 7,944 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 36,191 Working capital before interest Unit 113,280 Interest on working capital 2447 Total Costs MMK/acre 183,128 Gross margin MMK/acre 112,753 Gross margin $/ha 278 Net margin MMK/acre 69,798 Net margin $/ha 176 Labor productivity $/day 3.81 Total labor Days/ha 134 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,917 Average cultivated area Ha 1.85 Number of observations 159 149 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 100: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Freshwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,302.8 160 207,950 Costs Seeds Kg 55.2 208 11,481 Urea Kg 38.9 442 17,211 NPK Kg 10.7 431 4,619 T-Super Kg 4.7 363 1,722 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 307 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 374 Total material inputs 35,713 Seed bed Hours 7.6 312 2,370 Land preparation Hours 6.7 271 1,809 Transplanting Hours 120.7 191 23,038 Irrigation Hours 0.0 295 9 Crop Management Hours 16.3 97 1,580 Harvest Hours 64.1 270 17,280 Post-harvest Hours 20.5 335 6,891 Total hired labor 235.9 225 52,977 Seed bed Hours 11.9 347 4,134 Land preparation Hours 41.4 273 11,309 Transplanting Hours 14.3 191 2,721 Irrigation Hours 1.2 269 325 Crop Management Hours 95.3 103 9,775 Harvest Hours 2.5 265 663 Post-harvest Hours 30.1 338 10,163 Total own labor 196.7 225 39,090 Seed bed Unit 1,489 Land preparation Unit 10,698 Crop management Unit 25 Harvest and postharvest Unit 5,141 Fuel Unit 6,819 Draught oxen Unit 7,331 Other services Unit 6,517 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 38,019 Working capital before interest Unit 102,538 Interest on working capital 2,215 Total Costs MMK/acre 168,015 Gross margin MMK/acre 79,026 Gross margin $/ha 195 Net margin MMK/acre 39,936 Net margin $/ha 101 Labor productivity $/day 3.12 Total labor Days/ha 134 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,563 Average cultivated area Ha 1.82 Number of observations 159   150 ANNEX 8 Table 101: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Saltwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 990.9 203 201,425 Costs Seeds Kg 51.0 242 12,315 Urea Kg 43.0 433 18,623 NPK Kg 0.4 470 203 T-Super Kg 18.5 479 8,848 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 141 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 1,440 Total material inputs 41,570 Seed bed Hours 29.6 332 9,825 Land preparation Hours 7.6 311 2,355 Transplanting Hours 98.0 201 19,672 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 0.9 359 326 Harvest Hours 52.4 186 9,736 Post-harvest Hours 22.2 268 5,932 Total hired labor 210.6 227 47,855 Seed bed Hours 21.7 337 7,322 Land preparation Hours 72.3 315 22,743 Transplanting Hours 27.6 204 5,628 Irrigation Hours 1.3 235 297 Crop Management Hours 43.2 379 16,399 Harvest Hours 7.1 192 1,362 Post-harvest Hours 24.6 268 6,597 Total own labor 197.9 227 60,346 Seed bed Unit 9,851 Land preparation Unit 9,524 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 14,954 Fuel Unit 12,164 Draught oxen Unit 6,068 Other services Unit 12,432 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 64,993 Working capital before interest Unit 138,751 Interest on working capital 2,997 Total Costs MMK/acre 217,762 Gross margin MMK/acre 54,567 Gross margin $/ha 134 Net margin MMK/acre -5,780 Net margin $/ha -15 Labor productivity $/day 2.96 Total labor Days/ha 126 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 1,950 Average cultivated area Ha 2.71 Number of observations 156 151 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 102: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in East Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,354.6 180 244,429 Costs Seeds Kg 45.1 192 8,653 Urea Kg 17.6 666 11,722 NPK Kg 6.9 711 4,936 T-Super Kg 0.3 758 207 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,538 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 150 Total material inputs 27,206 Seed bed Hours 42.7 435 18,576 Land preparation Hours 4.0 448 1,811 Transplanting Hours 101.9 293 29,865 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 30.5 154 4,706 Harvest Hours 60.3 241 14,545 Post-harvest Hours 3.5 334 1,177 Total hired labor 243.0 291 70,680 Seed bed Hours 7.7 436 3,334 Land preparation Hours 20.7 446 9,239 Transplanting Hours 5.3 307 1,617 Irrigation Hours 0.1 287 42 Crop Management Hours 4.6 154 706 Harvest Hours 0.9 232 214 Post-harvest Hours 2.0 333 676 Total own labor 41.3 291 15,829 Seed bed Unit 3,528 Land preparation Unit 4,197 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,172 Fuel Unit 2,378 Draught oxen Unit 12,547 Other services Unit 3,836 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 28,658 Working capital before interest Unit 110,823 Interest on working capital 2,494 Total Costs MMK/acre 144,867 Gross margin MMK/acre 115,391 Gross margin $/ha 284 Net margin MMK/acre 99,562 Net margin $/ha 241 Labor productivity $/day 6.17 Total labor Days/ha 88 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,665 Average cultivated area Ha 2.34 Number of observations 128 152 ANNEX 8 Table 103: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in West Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,271.7 182 231,025 Costs Seeds Kg 42.3 227 9,596 Urea Kg 29.5 725 21,373 NPK Kg 11.0 658 7,213 T-Super Kg 1.0 598 589 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,511 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 1 Total material inputs 40,283 Seed bed Hours 34.9 407 14,192 Land preparation Hours 2.4 404 952 Transplanting Hours 78.2 307 24,029 Irrigation Hours 0.0 750 3 Crop Management Hours 36.7 146 5,361 Harvest Hours 48.1 360 17,333 Post-harvest Hours 10.6 366 3,875 Total hired labor 210.8 312 65,744 Seed bed Hours 11.8 409 4,823 Land preparation Hours 40.4 402 16,228 Transplanting Hours 11.3 307 3,486 Irrigation Hours 0.4 681 287 Crop Management Hours 8.2 150 1,228 Harvest Hours 2.2 362 790 Post-harvest Hours 4.7 366 1,729 Total own labor 79.0 312 28,572 Seed bed Unit 3,204 Land preparation Unit 3,158 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 3,277 Fuel Unit 2,813 Draught oxen Unit 17,898 Other services Unit 2,906 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 33,257 Working capital before interest Unit 118,076 Interest on working capital 2,657 Total Costs MMK/acre 170,513 Gross margin MMK/acre 89,084 Gross margin $/ha 219 Net margin MMK/acre 60,512 Net margin $/ha 153 Labor productivity $/day 5.30 Total labor Days/ha 90 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,502 Average cultivated area Ha 1.78 Number of observations 128 153 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 104: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Bago Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,071.1 151 161,611 Costs Seeds Kg 48.0 224 10,745 Urea Kg 23.9 699 16,728 NPK Kg 9.9 565 5,593 T-Super Kg 0.8 383 311 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 2,778 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 232 Total material inputs 36,387 Seed bed Hours 39.1 418 16,358 Land preparation Hours 8.4 493 4,132 Transplanting Hours 66.3 294 19,486 Irrigation Hours 0.0 375 10 Crop Management Hours 18.7 164 3,062 Harvest Hours 69.2 221 15,263 Post-harvest Hours 7.5 351 2,625 Total hired labor 209.2 291 60,936 Seed bed Hours 10.5 416 4,374 Land preparation Hours 22.1 493 10,886 Transplanting Hours 5.7 294 1,683 Irrigation Hours 0.6 333 186 Crop Management Hours 4.1 164 678 Harvest Hours 2.8 234 656 Post-harvest Hours 5.4 356 1,910 Total own labor 51.2 291 20,374 Seed bed Unit 2,528 Land preparation Unit 5,209 Crop management Unit 219 Harvest and postharvest Unit 1,655 Fuel Unit 2,944 Draught oxen Unit 13,039 Other services Unit 3,870 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 29,463 Working capital before interest Unit 108,899 Interest on working capital 2,450 Total Costs MMK/acre 149,611 Gross margin MMK/acre 32,374 Gross margin $/ha 80 Net margin MMK/acre 12,000 Net margin $/ha 30 Labor productivity $/day 3.84 Total labor Days/ha 80 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,107 Average cultivated area Ha 2.48 Number of observations 124 154 ANNEX 8 Table 105: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 926.9 231 214,100 Costs Seeds Kg 49.0 301 14,741 Urea Kg 45.3 542 24,565 NPK Kg 49.8 441 21,997 T-Super Kg 2.3 495 1,118 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 428 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 3,926 Total material inputs 66,775 Seed bed Hours 50.4 379 19,104 Land preparation Hours 9.6 345 3,306 Transplanting Hours 103.0 272 28,064 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 15.3 232 3,539 Harvest Hours 38.9 299 11,623 Post-harvest Hours 9.0 292 2,639 Total hired labor 226.4 302 68,302 Seed bed Hours 11.4 384 4,399 Land preparation Hours 9.9 332 3,302 Transplanting Hours 3.6 281 1,025 Irrigation Hours 13.7 310 4,227 Crop Management Hours 22.6 232 5,247 Harvest Hours 4.7 295 1,381 Post-harvest Hours 6.2 286 1,765 Total own labor 72.1 302 21,345 Seed bed Unit 6,752 Land preparation Unit 6,619 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 3,390 Fuel Unit 6,603 Draught oxen Unit 11,756 Other services Unit 10,298 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 45,728 Working capital before interest Unit 166,544 Interest on working capital 3,747 Total Costs MMK/acre 205,898 Gross margin MMK/acre 29,547 Gross margin $/ha 73 Net margin MMK/acre 8,202 Net margin $/ha 21 Labor productivity $/day 3.85 Total labor Days/ha 92 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 1,824 Average cultivated area Ha 1.24 Number of observations 102 155 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 106: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,006.0 189 190,268 Costs Seeds Kg 43.2 323 13,945 Urea Kg 45.8 529 24,252 NPK Kg 57.9 503 29,142 T-Super Kg 5.1 513 2,618 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,066 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 5,766 Total material inputs 76,791 Seed bed Hours 42.3 435 18,378 Land preparation Hours 6.6 505 3,335 Transplanting Hours 77.6 318 24,691 Irrigation Hours 1.0 229 225 Crop Management Hours 26.7 177 4,709 Harvest Hours 34.7 283 9,813 Post-harvest Hours 12.3 313 3,837 Total hired labor 201.1 323 64,988 Seed bed Hours 11.6 424 4,915 Land preparation Hours 11.8 536 6,326 Transplanting Hours 2.2 311 696 Irrigation Hours 11.9 236 2,799 Crop Management Hours 18.1 178 3,223 Harvest Hours 0.7 306 220 Post-harvest Hours 6.5 311 2,019 Total own labor 78.3 323 20,198 Seed bed Unit 5,690 Land preparation Unit 8,316 Crop management Unit 202 Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,058 Fuel Unit 6,641 Draught oxen Unit 9,048 Other services Unit 9,512 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 41,787 Working capital before interest Unit 169,916 Interest on working capital 3,823 Total Costs MMK/acre 207,587 Gross margin MMK/acre 2,879 Gross margin $/ha 7 Net margin MMK/acre -17,319 Net margin $/ha -44 Labor productivity $/day 3.13 Total labor Days/ha 86 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 1,979 Average cultivated area Ha 1.00 Number of observations 160 156 ANNEX 8 Table 107: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,538.3 139 213,761 Costs Seeds Kg 32.7 237 7,767 Urea Kg 5.6 497 2,805 NPK Kg T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 993 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit Total material inputs 11,565 Seed bed Hours 1.4 817 1,141 Land preparation Hours 4.2 489 2,048 Transplanting Hours 63.3 292 18,492 Irrigation Hours 0.1 1,060 150 Crop Management Hours 2.8 38 104 Harvest Hours 51.7 235 12,173 Post-harvest Hours 12.2 427 5,215 Total hired labor 135.7 290 39,323 Seed bed Hours 26.3 289 7,602 Land preparation Hours 19.1 486 9,281 Transplanting Hours 36.5 292 10,656 Irrigation Hours 19.9 279 5,542 Crop Management Hours 8.0 288 2,314 Harvest Hours 12.6 238 3,009 Post-harvest Hours 26.4 427 11,265 Total own labor 148.8 290 49,669 Seed bed Unit 2,766 Land preparation Unit 24,481 Crop management Unit 2,811 Harvest and postharvest Unit 12,656 Fuel Unit 19,564 Draught oxen Unit 11,943 Other services Unit 8,237 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 82,460 Working capital before interest Unit 115,960 Interest on working capital 2,505 Total Costs MMK/acre 185,521 Gross margin MMK/acre 77,908 Gross margin $/ha 192 Net margin MMK/acre 28,239 Net margin $/ha 71 Labor productivity $/day 5.24 Total labor Days/ha 88 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 3,027 Average cultivated area Ha 0.26 Number of observations 83 157 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 108: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Border Area Ecoregion, Shan State Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,957.9 271 529,923 Costs Seeds Kg 16.1 3,254 52,406 Urea Kg 139.3 368 51,216 NPK Kg 45.0 272 12,238 T-Super Kg 57.4 247 14,219 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 191 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 1,144 Total material inputs 131,413 Seed bed Hours 3.7 597 2,183 Land preparation Hours 4.1 665 2,701 Transplanting Hours 103.7 572 59,303 Irrigation Hours 0.1 583 65 Crop Management Hours 7.3 393 2,877 Harvest Hours 22.9 537 12,306 Post-harvest Hours 18.0 679 12,196 Total hired labor 159.8 574 91,631 Seed bed Hours 29.2 595 17,363 Land preparation Hours 24.6 668 16,431 Transplanting Hours 25.4 578 14,651 Irrigation Hours 10.9 574 6,251 Crop Management Hours 16.3 512 8,369 Harvest Hours 9.2 540 4,984 Post-harvest Hours 14.2 679 9,647 Total own labor 129.8 574 77,696 Seed bed Unit 676 Land preparation Unit 16,553 Crop management Unit 97 Harvest and postharvest Unit 17,234 Fuel Unit 30,059 Draught oxen Unit 4,925 Other services Unit 13,413 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 82,957 Working capital before interest Unit 281,499 Interest on working capital 4,222 Total Costs MMK/acre 387,920 Gross margin MMK/acre 219,699 Gross margin $/ha 541 Net margin MMK/acre 142,003 Net margin $/ha 358 Labor productivity $/day 10.40 Total labor Days/ha 89 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 3,852 Average cultivated area Ha 0.74 Number of observations 117 158 ANNEX 8 Table 109: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Northern Interior Ecoregion, Shan State Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,377.2 293 402,984 Costs Seeds Kg 25.8 836 21,578 Urea Kg 98.4 389 38,223 NPK Kg 61.5 292 17,975 T-Super Kg 51.5 312 16,067 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg Organic fertilizers Kg 43 Pesticides Unit 2,466 Total material inputs 96,351 Seed bed Hours 1.2 422 510 Land preparation Hours 0.2 375 57 Transplanting Hours 81.6 528 43,139 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 8.1 244 1,986 Harvest Hours 45.5 480 21,849 Post-harvest Hours 12.7 617 7,854 Total hired labor 149.4 505 75,395 Seed bed Hours 20.2 366 7,385 Land preparation Hours 25.2 307 7,746 Transplanting Hours 26.2 520 13,642 Irrigation Hours 5.7 503 2,851 Crop Management Hours 11.9 263 3,132 Harvest Hours 11.1 484 5,364 Post-harvest Hours 14.2 618 8,793 Total own labor 114.5 437 48,913 Seed bed Unit 5,376 Land preparation Unit 16,563 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 17,800 Fuel Unit 14,907 Draught oxen Unit 7,443 Other services Unit 11,179 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 73,268 Working capital before interest Unit 215,312 Interest on working capital 4,845 Total Costs MMK/acre 298,772 Gross margin MMK/acre 153,125 Gross margin $/ha 377 Net margin MMK/acre 104,212 Net margin $/ha 263 Labor productivity $/day 9.03 Total labor Days/ha 82 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,710 Average cultivated area Ha 1.19 Number of observations 35 159 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 110: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget in Southern Interior Ecoregion, Shan State Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,017.7 352 358,146 Costs Seeds Kg 36.5 488 17,831 Urea Kg 91.7 442 40,534 NPK Kg 8.9 335 2,983 T-Super Kg 23.4 318 7,457 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg Organic fertilizers Kg 281 Pesticides Unit 606 Total material inputs 69,692 Seed bed Hours 8.0 216 1,736 Land preparation Hours 9.6 371 3,578 Transplanting Hours 70.3 380 26,715 Irrigation Hours 0.0 23 Crop Management Hours 26.5 233 6,166 Harvest Hours 84.1 197 16,584 Post-harvest Hours 40.3 371 14,965 Total hired labor 238.8 292 69,768 Seed bed Hours 11.1 259 2,867 Land preparation Hours 25.5 351 8,945 Transplanting Hours 15.7 405 6,354 Irrigation Hours 4.8 293 1,402 Crop Management Hours 17.7 225 3,977 Harvest Hours 12.2 190 2,318 Post-harvest Hours 4.3 365 1,576 Total own labor 91.2 292 27,438 Seed bed Unit 1,455 Land preparation Unit 12,970 Crop management Unit 455 Harvest and postharvest Unit 7,141 Fuel Unit 14,672 Draught oxen Unit 4,801 Other services Unit 12,661 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 54,154 Working capital before interest Unit 162,064 Interest on working capital 3,501 Total Costs MMK/acre 224,552 Gross margin MMK/acre 161,033 Gross margin $/ha 397 Net margin MMK/acre 133,595 Net margin $/ha 337 Labor productivity $/day 6.78 Total labor Days/ha 102 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,002 Average cultivated area Ha 2.00 Number of observations 22 160 ANNEX 8 Table 111: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget by Crop Establishment Transplanting Direct Seeding Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,290.1 191 246,753 957.8 174 166,665 Costs Seeds Kg 45.5 293 13,343 48.9 230 11,246 Urea Kg 44.5 492 21,859 31.5 464 14,632 NPK Kg 18.6 472 8,785 8.9 501 4,463 T-Super Kg 9.5 374 3,546 8.3 443 3,673 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,292 709 Organic fertilizers Kg 7 Pesticides Unit 1,254 955 Total material inputs 50,085 35,678 Seed bed Hours 28.8 405 11,681 20.6 376 7,759 Land preparation Hours 6.4 357 2,298 7.2 413 2,968 Transplanting Hours 116.5 261 30,443 Irrigation Hours 0.1 269 28 0.02 167 3 Crop Management Hours 18.5 169 3,121 8.7 136 1,182 Harvest Hours 54.5 266 14,519 63.0 202 12,726 Post-harvest Hours 14.5 330 4,781 17.9 301 5,366 Total hired labor 239.4 279 66,873 138.4 250 34,543 Seed bed Hours 15.8 405 6,392 4.7 376 1,760 Land preparation Hours 34.3 357 12,234 43.0 413 17,780 Transplanting Hours 13.4 261 3,514 Irrigation Hours 3.3 269 874 1.2 167 196 Crop Management Hours 33.0 169 5,569 51.9 136 7,065 Harvest Hours 3.7 266 990 4.4 202 890 Post-harvest Hours 12.7 330 4,181 18.5 301 5,552 Total own labor 116.2 294 33,754 136.1 266 33,243 Seed bed Unit 2,603 1,339 Land preparation Unit 3,639 3,776 Crop management Unit 112 Harvest and postharvest Unit 5,360 3,894 Fuel Unit 8,731 7,016 Draught oxen Unit 4,098 1,878 Other services Unit 8,059 7,359 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 32,612 25,262 Working capital before interest Unit 130,271 77,391 Interest on working capital 2,814 1,672 Total Costs MMK/acre 186,138 130,398 Gross margin MMK/acre 94,369 69,510 Gross margin $/ha 232 171 Net margin MMK/acre 60,615 36,266 Net margin $/ha 153 92 Labor productivity $/day 4.32 3.69 Total labor Days/ha 110 85 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,538 1,885 Average cultivated area Ha 1.58 2.34 Number of observations 1,180 193 161 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 112: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget by Type of Seeds Used Hybrid Certified Other Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,767.8 273 482,535 1,391.6 178 265,798 1,181.1 182 225,598 Costs Seeds Kg 18.2 2,498 45,440 47.5 282 13,370 47.7 231 11,020 Urea Kg 130.0 375 48,762 38.6 549 21,200 37.1 506 18,756 NPK Kg 43.1 276 11,913 21.0 517 10,845 14.8 504 7,488 T-Super Kg 57.0 267 15,204 6.6 373 2,449 6.7 445 2,985 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 140 1,747 1,194 Organic fertilizers Kg 13 6 Pesticides Unit 1,306 521 1,242 Total material inputs 122,779 50,132 42,690 Seedbed 3.5 546 1,885 24.6 426 10,491 28.8 398 11,475 Land preparation Hours 3.1 661 2,034 10.8 316 3,420 6.5 368 2,373 Transplanting Hours 98.9 539 53,349 101.0 232 23,442 93.0 247 22,939 Irrigation Hours 0.1 583 48 0.1 380 44 0.1 235 20 Crop Management Hours 8.9 324 2,900 15.4 181 2,795 17.1 160 2,731 Harvest Hours 29.7 475 14,107 64.5 270 17,423 57.1 244 13,919 Post-harvest Hours 18.0 631 11,373 21.7 376 8,156 14.5 295 4,264 Total hired labor 162.2 528 85,695 241.1 276 66,451 221.4 265 58,673 Seedbed 27.4 546 14,950 14.2 426 6,042 12.8 398 5,088 Land preparation Hours 23.8 661 15,749 27.9 316 8,808 37.3 368 13,722 Transplanting Hours 30.2 539 16,304 8.9 232 2,061 9.9 247 2,433 Irrigation Hours 9.5 583 5,548 2.7 380 1,031 2.5 235 581 Crop Management Hours 16.9 324 5,478 53.8 181 9,748 36.5 160 5,820 Harvest Hours 12.4 475 5,884 4.0 270 1,090 3.3 244 815 Post-harvest Hours 13.6 631 8,593 13.1 376 4,921 13.9 295 4,088 Total own labor 133.9 537 72,506 125.9 312 33,701 118.8 278 32,546 Seedbed 841 2,484 2,435 Land preparation Unit 3,708 3,844 3,649 Crop management Unit 171 53 89 Harvest and postharvest Unit 19,599 3,782 4,335 Fuel Unit 30,335 7,255 7,217 Draught oxen Unit 3,245 5,739 3,528 Other services Unit 15,808 9,967 7,306 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 73,708 33,124 28,569 Working capital before interest Unit 256,703 124,128 111,750 Interest on working capital 5,545 2,681 2,414 Total Costs MMK/acre 360,233 186,090 164,893 Gross margin MMK/acre 194,882 95,318 82,620 Gross margin $/ha 480 235 203 Net margin MMK/acre 122,376 61,617 50,074 Net margin $/ha 309 156 126 Labor productivity $/day 9.09 4.24 3.96 Total labor Days/ha 91 113 105 Yield Kg/ha 3,478 2,738 2,234 Average cultivated area Ha 0.84 1.95 1.77 Number of observations 140 82 1,151 162 ANNEX 8 Table 113: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget by Level of Fertilizer Use Low Use Medium Use High Use Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,107.5 178 197,141 1,266.8 176 222,959 1,326.5 217 287,843 Costs Seeds Kg 45.8 220 10,048 48.1 243 11,665 44.1 419 18,503 Urea Kg 10.2 612 6,246 38.4 500 19,216 88.9 462 41,047 NPK Kg 1.6 676 1,105 11.7 540 6,326 43.6 442 19,247 T-Super Kg 0.6 537 335 5.4 458 2,450 26.1 361 9,399 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,314 1,086 1,124 Organic fertilizers Kg 14 2 Pesticides Unit 239 1,380 2,219 Total material inputs 19,286 42,137 91,541 Seedbed 30.3 405 12,284 24.5 400 9,810 26.9 395 10,608 Land preparation Hours 6.1 349 2,118 6.3 373 2,338 7.7 384 2,964 Transplanting Hours 86.7 244 21,154 99.0 238 23,591 96.4 314 30,272 Irrigation Hours 0.0 408 7 0.0 313 14 0.2 237 55 Crop Management Hours 16.8 166 2,794 17.7 144 2,555 14.8 198 2,935 Harvest Hours 58.7 233 13,674 57.8 257 14,835 50.6 275 13,929 Post-harvest Hours 10.3 331 3,413 16.4 291 4,771 19.9 353 7,033 Total hired labor 213.0 264 56,283 226.8 260 58,976 219.1 313 68,500 Seedbed 11.8 405 4,781 12.9 400 5,154 17.1 395 6,737 Land preparation Hours 33.6 349 11,738 41.4 373 15,456 31.8 384 12,220 Transplanting Hours 9.3 244 2,267 12.5 238 2,970 10.7 314 3,351 Irrigation Hours 1.2 408 471 2.6 313 818 5.4 237 1,286 Crop Management Hours 26.3 166 4,372 41.3 144 5,966 44.2 198 8,766 Harvest Hours 3.1 233 721 4.4 257 1,131 4.1 275 1,128 Post-harvest Hours 10.7 331 3,551 14.8 291 4,303 16.6 353 5,857 Total own labor 98.5 305 27,902 132.5 288 35,799 131.8 308 39,346 Seedbed 1,864 2,763 2,463 Land preparation Unit 3,412 3,790 3,835 Crop management Unit 123 61 86 Harvest and postharvest Unit 3,897 4,733 7,107 Fuel Unit 5,516 7,102 13,993 Draught oxen Unit 4,559 3,289 2,989 Other services Unit 5,927 7,839 10,694 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 25,297 29,589 41,183 Working capital before interest Unit 83,779 111,096 180,263 Interest on working capital 1,810 2,400 3,894 Total Costs MMK/acre 130,578 168,901 244,464 Gross margin MMK/acre 94,465 89,857 82,725 Gross margin $/ha 233 221 204 Net margin MMK/acre 66,563 54,059 43,380 Net margin $/ha 168 136 109 Labor productivity $/day 4.52 3.95 4.24 Total labor Days/ha 96 111 108 Yield Kg/ha 2,179 2,492 2,610 Average cultivated area Ha 1.83 1.87 1.38 Number of observations 458 458 457 163 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 114: Monsoon Rice Farm Budget by Types of Fertilizer Used No Use of Urea Urea only Urea + NPK Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 874.9 177 154,862 1,274.4 180 224,526 1,285.3 197 253,210 Costs Seeds Kg 42.4 239 10,148 49.2 239 11,793 44.6 323 14,426 Urea Kg 44.0 519 22,820 49.5 467 23,100 NPK Kg 13.1 539 7,054 0.0 30.4 470 14,269 T-Super Kg 2.5 400 1,004 0.1 17.8 387 6,886 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 570 2,150 562 Organic fertilizers Kg 13 1 Pesticides Unit 687 261 2,028 Total material inputs 19,463 37,038 61,272 Seedbed 26.0 369 9,601 27.1 400 10,858 27.6 408 11,253 Land preparation Hours 9.0 366 3,299 5.3 394 2,090 7.0 355 2,499 Transplanting Hours 53.9 257 13,859 98.9 246 24,288 98.7 274 27,036 Irrigation Hours 0.0 417 8 0.0 245 12 0.1 266 35 Crop Management Hours 8.0 132 1,056 18.6 174 3,239 16.9 162 2,732 Harvest Hours 51.2 234 11,982 62.2 244 15,189 52.6 263 13,863 Post-harvest Hours 10.0 320 3,213 14.0 321 4,481 17.2 325 5,581 Total hired labor 163.8 272 44,512 231.3 264 61,064 223.2 286 63,732 Seedbed 10.2 369 3,756 15.0 400 6,014 13.3 408 5,420 Land preparation Hours 37.2 366 13,613 37.9 394 14,943 34.2 355 12,145 Transplanting Hours 14.1 257 3,633 12.5 246 3,060 8.9 274 2,427 Irrigation Hours 2.1 417 869 1.6 245 384 4.0 266 1,065 Crop Management Hours 23.1 132 3,053 38.1 174 6,635 38.5 162 6,226 Harvest Hours 4.9 234 1,147 4.4 244 1,085 3.2 263 834 Post-harvest Hours 16.5 320 5,282 12.9 321 4,140 13.9 325 4,518 Total own labor 110.9 299 31,353 125.2 289 36,260 118.0 293 32,634 Seedbed 2,853 2,015 2,513 Land preparation Unit 3,596 3,761 3,607 Crop management Unit 326 39 78 Harvest and postharvest Unit 4,526 4,456 5,672 Fuel Unit 6,572 6,908 9,946 Draught oxen Unit 4,086 4,648 2,817 Other services Unit 5,709 7,454 8,769 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 27,690 29,281 33,414 Working capital before interest Unit 76,470 107,713 138,974 Interest on working capital 1,652 2,327 3,002 Total Costs MMK/acre 124,670 165,970 194,053 Gross margin MMK/acre 61,546 94,817 91,791 Gross margin $/ha 152 233 226 Net margin MMK/acre 30,193 58,556 59,157 Net margin $/ha 76 148 149 Labor productivity $/day 3.83 4.14 4.36 Total labor Days/ha 85 110 105 Yield Kg/ha 1,721 2,454 2,529 Average cultivated area Ha 1.39 1.83 1.67 Number of observations 184 492 697 164 ANNEX 8 Table 115: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Brackish Water Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,533.1 165 253,075 1,466.9 163 238,423 1,478.8 177 261,986 Costs Seeds Kg 47.1 214 10,094 49.2 210 10,353 48.7 205 9,980 Urea Kg 53.2 431 22,908 54.8 417 22,881 51.9 415 21,525 NPK Kg 12.4 526 6,541 19.9 471 9,391 16.9 499 8,444 T-Super Kg 9.3 388 3,591 4.8 370 1,782 8.9 392 3,502 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,774 2,126 1,929 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 2,183 262 624 Total material inputs 47,090 46,796 46,005 Seedbed 8.3 268 2,234 10.4 452 4,684 8.3 281 2,336 Land preparation Hours 11.2 251 2,820 9.6 288 2,756 9.7 272 2,626 Transplanting Hours 129.2 197 25,427 115.5 202 23,388 113.4 183 20,789 Irrigation Hours 0.2 167 25 Crop Management Hours 14.4 206 2,972 8.5 205 1,734 2.4 190 451 Harvest Hours 72.3 290 20,953 63.3 285 18,030 73.9 228 16,822 Post-harvest Hours 30.0 244 7,305 27.4 257 7,042 22.6 251 5,652 Total hired labor 276.1 230 63,519 236.6 245 58,058 235.1 211 49,696 Seedbed 12.8 268 3,420 11.5 452 5,182 8.8 281 2,472 Land preparation Hours 40.4 251 10,153 41.4 288 11,916 39.8 272 10,807 Transplanting Hours 10.7 197 2,096 8.2 202 1,662 7.4 183 1,358 Irrigation Hours 1.7 167 287 0.2 245 55 0.7 211 147 Crop Management Hours 133.0 206 27,382 93.3 205 19,150 81.4 190 15,489 Harvest Hours 2.3 290 680 3.2 285 907 3.5 228 807 Post-harvest Hours 20.3 244 4,940 23.1 257 5,928 17.2 251 4,305 Total own labor 225.3 232 48,958 183.3 276 44,799 162.7 231 35,386 Seedbed 659 712 1,108 Land preparation Unit 5,425 3,885 1,482 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 6,740 6,010 8,152 Fuel Unit 5,527 6,398 8,453 Draught oxen Unit 7,768 1,462 323 Other services Unit 9,986 7,822 8,113 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 36,105 26,288 27,631 Working capital before interest Unit 146,714 131,142 123,332 Interest on working capital 3,169 2,833 2,664 Total Costs MMK/acre 198,814 178,774 161,382 Gross margin MMK/acre 103,192 104,448 135,990 Gross margin $/ha 254 257 335 Net margin MMK/acre 54,235 59,649 100,604 Net margin $/ha 137 151 254 Labor productivity $/day 3.27 3.60 4.26 Total labor Days/ha 155 130 123 Yield Kg/ha 3,016 2,886 2,910 Average cultivated area Ha 0.94 1.76 2.73 Number of observations 51 50 58 165 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 116: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Freshwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,254 172 215,239 1,301 164 213,073 1,316 151 199,112 Costs Seeds Kg 56.4 212 11,966 55.5 209 11,606 54.1 206 11,165 Urea Kg 33.7 435 14,670 42.3 446 18,839 38.1 441 16,796 NPK Kg 7.7 426 3,260 11.3 446 5,056 11.1 419 4,661 T-Super Kg 1.7 297 500 3.3 409 1,362 7.3 353 2,581 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 493 597 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 251 405 433 Total material inputs 31,140 37,865 35,636 Seedbed 9.8 267 2,611 3.0 296 878 9.0 360 3,244 Land preparation Hours 12.9 272 3,508 6.1 282 1,723 4.6 255 1,173 Transplanting Hours 148.8 188 27,943 124.0 195 24,239 90.5 188 17,053 Irrigation Hours 0.2 295 51 Crop Management Hours 8.7 237 2,073 15.1 94 1,411 20.4 70 1,426 Harvest Hours 59.7 292 17,411 65.5 290 18,978 65.1 239 15,556 Post-harvest Hours 25.5 308 7,856 21.5 247 5,318 16.8 457 7,663 Total hired labor 267.9 231 61,890 239.3 223 53,307 215.2 222 47,720 Seedbed 16.0 267 4,264 14.6 296 4,321 6.9 360 2,499 Land preparation Hours 36.1 272 9,829 47.5 282 13,415 35.6 255 9,089 Transplanting Hours 13.0 188 2,447 15.9 195 3,108 10.2 188 1,925 Irrigation Hours 2.8 295 831 0.5 223 105 1.0 222 228 Crop Management Hours 131.5 237 31,170 104.8 94 9,804 68.7 70 4,804 Harvest Hours 4.3 292 1,255 3.5 290 1,007 1.1 239 261 Post-harvest Hours 30.8 308 9,498 34.4 247 8,509 25.3 457 11,561 Total own labor 235.0 266 59,294 222.5 233 40,268 151.3 256 30,367 Seedbed 1,726 811 31 Land preparation Unit 8,760 4,391 1,176 Crop management Unit 47 Harvest and postharvest Unit 6,606 4,072 1,655 Fuel Unit 9,940 10,275 7,127 Draught oxen Unit 5,526 1,224 719 Other services Unit 8,909 9,293 11,803 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 41,514 30,066 22,511 Working capital before interest Unit 134,543 121,238 105,868 Interest on working capital 2,906 2,619 2,287 Total Costs MMK/acre 196,473 164,124 138,522 Gross margin MMK/acre 77,790 89,217 90,957 Gross margin $/ha 192 220 224 Net margin MMK/acre 18,496 48,949 60,590 Net margin $/ha 47 124 153 Labor productivity $/day 2.83 2.92 3.49 Total labor Days/ha 155 143 113 Yield Kg/ha 2,469 2,561 2,591 Average cultivated area Ha 0.89 1.75 3.34 Number of observations 58 62 39 166 ANNEX 8 Table 117: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Saltwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 954.4 193 184,016 922.7 204 188,506 1,018.3 203 207,116 Costs Seeds Kg 65.4 229 14,950 50.8 229 11,647 49.9 246 12,264 Urea Kg 29.0 432 12,518 49.4 437 21,595 42.1 432 18,193 NPK Kg 0.7 470 318 T-Super Kg 10.9 428 4,653 16.9 484 8,183 19.8 480 9,506 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 631 129 105 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 1,091 707 1,758 Total material inputs 33,844 42,261 42,144 Seedbed 24.3 321 7,777 38.2 299 11,404 28.0 350 9,795 Land preparation Hours 26.5 317 8,408 11.1 286 3,176 5.1 326 1,674 Transplanting Hours 39.0 186 7,242 79.1 190 15,042 95.3 199 18,957 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 2.5 430 1,085 0.5 539 248 1.0 314 303 Harvest Hours 50.6 220 11,138 51.3 252 12,935 53.0 162 8,580 Post-harvest Hours 35.3 290 10,224 25.5 296 7,551 19.9 255 5,089 Total hired labor 199.7 250 49,847 217.2 249 54,155 213.2 217 46,251 Seedbed 9.6 321 3,073 17.2 299 5,126 25.2 350 8,811 Land preparation Hours 70.3 317 22,310 57.2 286 16,367 78.2 326 25,481 Transplanting Hours 10.2 186 1,886 16.4 190 3,111 20.8 199 4,135 Irrigation Hours 2.0 250 510 1.9 249 481 0.9 217 204 Crop Management Hours 81.5 430 35,046 77.2 539 41,630 29.3 314 9,207 Harvest Hours 16.8 220 3,693 4.9 252 1,233 6.9 162 1,119 Post-harvest Hours 34.2 290 9,892 29.0 296 8,582 22.1 255 5,632 Total own labor 266.5 288 76,410 210.9 302 76,530 190.4 260 54,588 Seedbed 4,724 4,925 2,865 Land preparation Unit 4,738 5,435 1,593 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 11,738 9,102 3,113 Fuel Unit 10,170 12,418 8,957 Draught oxen Unit 5,491 744 331 Other services Unit 10,529 14,842 9,670 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 47,390 47,466 26,530 Working capital before interest Unit 131,081 143,882 114,926 Interest on working capital 2,831 3,108 2,482 Total Costs MMK/acre 210,332 223,520 171,996 Gross margin MMK/acre 50,103 41,516 89,708 Gross margin $/ha 123 102 221 Net margin MMK/acre -26,306 -35,014 89,708 Net margin $/ha -66 -88 89 Labor productivity $/day 2.45 2.55 3.16 Total labor Days/ha 144 132 125 Yield Kg/ha 1,878 1,815 2,003 Average cultivated area Ha 1.02 1.83 3.53 Number of observations 18 49 89 167 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 118: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in East Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,402.3 181 254,199 1,360.2 180 244,892 1,349.5 181 243,681 Costs Seeds Kg 47.7 196 9,356 44.3 196 8,672 44.3 188 8,328 Urea Kg 33.0 656 21,631 16.3 689 11,199 12.7 649 8,274 NPK Kg 8.4 741 6,192 5.2 718 3,730 9.2 689 6,321 T-Super Kg 0.6 700 412 0.3 708 178 0.1 894 85 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 519 677 2,722 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 81 185 Total material inputs 38,110 24,539 25,915 Seedbed 45.0 439 19,767 45.0 412 18,518 38.4 467 17,920 Land preparation Hours 5.2 420 2,175 3.4 462 1,591 3.6 433 1,552 Transplanting Hours 79.6 346 27,521 77.1 320 24,656 138.3 261 36,045 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 26.7 188 5,011 31.2 137 4,282 31.3 164 5,138 Harvest Hours 46.5 377 17,515 63.2 260 16,394 59.6 200 11,914 Post-harvest Hours 6.4 395 2,528 3.1 308 957 3.2 308 975 Total hired labor 209.3 356 74,517 223.0 298 66,399 274.2 268 73,543 Seedbed 11.4 439 5,001 7.6 412 3,123 6.6 467 3,063 Land preparation Hours 29.9 420 12,558 20.8 462 9,599 16.7 433 7,254 Transplanting Hours 6.7 346 2,327 4.2 320 1,332 5.7 261 1,479 Irrigation Hours 0.3 356 100 0.2 298 49 0.1 268 37 Crop Management Hours 9.1 188 1,703 2.5 137 338 4.7 164 768 Harvest Hours 0.9 377 323 1.0 260 257 1.1 200 219 Post-harvest Hours 3.1 395 1,213 2.4 308 732 1.7 308 530 Total own labor 61.3 360 23,226 38.5 314 15,431 36.6 300 13,350 Seedbed 2,360 1,222 2,590 Land preparation Unit 1,903 1,605 5,298 Crop management Unit 85 - Harvest and postharvest Unit 235 2,364 5,754 Fuel Unit 1,429 2,152 6,349 Draught oxen Unit 16,422 2,905 2,701 Other services Unit 8,091 3,390 3,037 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 30,439 13,724 25,730 Working capital before interest Unit 143,066 104,661 125,188 Interest on working capital 3,090 2,261 2,704 Total Costs MMK/acre 169,383 122,353 141,242 Gross margin MMK/acre 108,043 137,970 115,789 Gross margin $/ha 266 340 285 Net margin MMK/acre 84,817 122,539 102,439 Net margin $/ha 214 309 259 Labor productivity $/day 6.48 6.82 5.56 Total labor Days/ha 84 81 96 Yield Kg/ha 2,759 2,676 2,655 Average cultivated area Ha 1.01 1.90 3.67 Number of observations 34 45 32 168 ANNEX 8 Table 119: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in West Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,192.8 186 221,904 1,259.4 184 231,620 1,305.9 179 233,960 Costs Seeds Kg 41.4 233 9,643 44.2 223 9,862 40.8 231 9,424 Urea Kg 35.2 730 25,665 27.2 724 19,706 29.1 726 21,112 NPK Kg 3.6 568 2,065 11.7 652 7,619 13.6 701 9,558 T-Super Kg 0.8 402 341 0.5 627 317 1.3 627 809 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 180 2,458 1,175 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 6 Total material inputs 37,901 39,961 42,078 Seedbed 26.2 395 10,343 35.3 359 12,667 35.9 448 16,089 Land preparation Hours 4.3 401 1,733 3.0 369 1,123 1.3 478 636 Transplanting Hours 77.3 278 21,462 73.0 351 25,637 81.2 288 23,355 Irrigation Hours 0.0 750 19 - - - - - - Crop Management Hours 30.6 159 4,850 36.2 162 5,882 39.4 128 5,047 Harvest Hours 42.9 376 16,143 51.8 343 17,752 47.1 369 17,366 Post-harvest Hours 9.9 389 3,849 12.2 295 3,601 9.6 425 4,072 Total hired labor 191.2 306 58,399 211.6 315 66,661 214.4 310 66,564 Seedbed 11.4 395 4,492 11.2 359 4,023 12.3 448 5,487 Land preparation Hours 40.5 401 16,242 40.6 369 14,998 39.0 478 18,635 Transplanting Hours 12.1 278 3,369 7.4 351 2,606 13.2 288 3,797 Irrigation Hours 0.7 750 553 0.5 315 158 0.2 310 75 Crop Management Hours 18.7 159 2,974 8.6 162 1,404 4.7 128 604 Harvest Hours 4.6 376 1,712 0.8 343 263 2.2 369 801 Post-harvest Hours 6.8 389 2,629 4.3 295 1,255 4.4 425 1,866 Total own labor 94.8 393 31,970 73.4 313 24,707 75.9 349 31,266 Seedbed 1,504 1,737 2,708 Land preparation Unit 259 4,007 1,094 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,876 2,283 4,036 Fuel Unit 3,056 1,947 4,531 Draught oxen Unit 19,260 9,613 3,883 Other services Unit 4,145 3,642 4,183 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 31,100 23,229 20,435 Working capital before interest Unit 127,400 129,851 129,077 Interest on working capital 2,752 2,805 2,788 Total Costs MMK/acre 162,121 157,363 163,130 Gross margin MMK/acre 91,752 98,963 102,096 Gross margin $/ha 226 244 251 Net margin MMK/acre 59,782 74,256 70,830 Net margin $/ha 151 187 179 Labor productivity $/day 5.17 5.44 5.27 Total labor Days/ha 88 88 90 Yield Kg/ha 2,347 2,478 2,569 Average cultivated area Ha 0.98 1.70 2.38 Number of observations 32 47 49 169 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 120: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in River Area Ecoregion, Bago Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,262.4 161 203,837 1,551.6 128 189,920 875.9 160 140,447 Costs Seeds Kg 50.5 221 11,143 49.9 218 10,878 47.0 225 10,591 Urea Kg 28.9 609 17,616 23.8 662 15,782 23.3 733 17,082 NPK Kg 8.3 508 4,201 10.7 510 5,478 9.8 589 5,746 T-Super Kg 3.2 394 1,279 0.0 460 9 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 2,907 3,545 2,580 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 43 276 Total material inputs 35,866 37,006 36,284 Seedbed 36.8 369 13,586 38.7 405 15,689 39.5 434 17,151 Land preparation Hours 14.2 792 11,233 8.6 367 3,138 6.9 466 3,219 Transplanting Hours 71.8 260 18,709 78.9 319 25,194 53.3 283 15,084 Irrigation Hours 0.1 375 18 Crop Management Hours 21.4 257 5,496 21.3 188 4,020 17.8 139 2,468 Harvest Hours 66.5 306 20,346 67.3 305 20,538 70.0 173 12,078 Post-harvest Hours 7.5 338 2,519 5.2 506 2,617 7.4 318 2,340 Total hired labor 223.0 329 73,423 224.8 322 72,459 198.9 270 53,721 Seedbed 11.1 369 4,083 9.7 405 3,935 10.5 434 4,536 Land preparation Hours 21.1 792 16,748 26.1 367 9,577 19.0 466 8,861 Transplanting Hours 6.1 260 1,598 3.1 319 987 4.4 283 1,255 Irrigation Hours 0.2 329 59 0.5 322 170 0.6 375 227 Crop Management Hours 9.1 257 2,327 5.1 188 964 3.0 139 412 Harvest Hours 3.5 306 1,059 1.7 305 508 2.8 173 490 Post-harvest Hours 4.6 338 1,549 4.7 506 2,356 5.2 318 1,671 Total own labor 56.6 379 27,422 52.3 345 18,498 47.1 312 17,452 Seedbed 4,974 1,982 1,651 Land preparation Unit 3,284 5,129 4,544 Crop management Unit 135 156 Harvest and postharvest Unit 3,588 1,347 2,894 Fuel Unit 4,776 2,768 3,410 Draught oxen Unit 18,827 5,393 3,667 Other services Unit 5,977 3,890 2,776 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 41,426 20,645 19,098 Working capital before interest Unit 150,716 130,109 109,103 Interest on working capital 3,255 2,810 2,357 Total Costs MMK/acre 181,394 151,418 128,911 Gross margin MMK/acre 49,866 66,000 28,988 Gross margin $/ha 123 163 71 Net margin MMK/acre 22,443 47,502 11,536 Net margin $/ha 57 120 29 Labor productivity $/day 4.77 4.69 3.35 Total labor Days/ha 86 86 76 Yield Kg/ha 2,484 3,053 1,723 Average cultivated area Ha 0.96 1.88 3.66 Number of observations 28 40 56 170 ANNEX 8 Table 121: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 920.5 229 210,573 1,006.2 229 230,749 882.4 234 206,375 Costs Seeds Kg 46.9 287 13,455 52.9 316 16,743 46.0 295 13,563 Urea Kg 36.7 549 20,145 42.0 539 22,656 50.8 545 27,683 NPK Kg 46.9 466 21,825 49.6 445 22,090 53.8 431 23,170 T-Super Kg 1.4 347 470 3.8 546 2,093 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 199 525 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 2,648 4,444 4,201 Total material inputs 58,074 66,601 71,233 Seedbed 59.2 432 25,587 44.0 336 14,768 51.7 402 20,793 Land preparation Hours 11.7 330 3,877 12.6 340 4,295 6.6 377 2,468 Transplanting Hours 131.1 279 36,525 124.1 255 31,629 75.4 310 23,368 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 16.5 249 4,105 11.0 296 3,257 17.9 201 3,598 Harvest Hours 55.5 282 15,621 41.3 334 13,819 32.0 271 8,689 Post-harvest Hours 8.1 280 2,258 9.4 259 2,436 8.7 332 2,895 Total hired labor 282.6 312 88,075 242.6 290 70,271 195.7 319 62,377 Seedbed 10.6 432 4,573 13.0 336 4,375 10.9 402 4,373 Land preparation Hours 2.4 330 798 8.9 340 3,016 11.1 377 4,187 Transplanting Hours 2.0 279 565 2.9 255 741 4.4 310 1,376 Irrigation Hours 19.4 312 6,057 10.6 290 3,059 15.3 319 4,884 Crop Management Hours 19.1 249 4,759 17.2 296 5,105 28.2 201 5,666 Harvest Hours 5.5 334 1,842 6.0 271 1,626 Post-harvest Hours 3.7 280 1,040 5.9 259 1,525 6.4 332 2,139 Total own labor 57.5 314 17,791 64.0 301 19,664 82.7 316 24,251 Seedbed 5,708 7,348 4,004 Land preparation Unit 7,263 6,023 3,510 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 3,763 4,756 2,121 Fuel Unit 7,117 6,421 8,091 Draught oxen Unit 16,294 9,157 1,258 Other services Unit 6,746 9,175 9,371 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 47,211 42,980 28,354 Working capital before interest Unit 193,360 179,853 161,964 Interest on working capital 4,177 3,885 3,498 Total Costs MMK/acre 215,328 203,401 189,714 Gross margin MMK/acre 13,037 47,012 40,912 Gross margin $/ha 32 116 101 Net margin MMK/acre -4,755 27,348 16,660 Net margin $/ha -12 69 42 Labor productivity $/day 3.49 4.20 3.73 Total labor Days/ha 105 95 86 Yield Kg/ha 1,811 1,980 1,736 Average cultivated area Ha 0.99 1.21 1.36 Number of observations 18 37 47 171 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 122: Monsoon Farm Budget by Farm Size in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 995.2 192 191,172 894.5 182 162,502 1,080.0 194 209,331 Costs Seeds Kg 41.9 338 14,155 39.6 317 12,577 45.3 330 14,964 Urea Kg 34.6 526 18,217 47.2 538 25,374 47.0 526 24,730 NPK Kg 50.7 525 26,624 64.4 488 31,448 52.9 513 27,160 T-Super Kg 6.0 604 3,597 8.2 513 4,197 2.7 309 822 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 944 1,200 895 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 5,623 9,063 3,555 Total material inputs 69,159 83,860 72,125 Seedbed 44.5 412 18,329 38.9 474 18,413 41.5 445 18,456 Land preparation Hours 7.6 487 3,680 6.1 549 3,356 6.7 468 3,149 Transplanting Hours 79.0 355 28,087 82.6 327 26,969 75.2 295 22,193 Irrigation Hours 1.8 61 109 0.7 314 210 0.9 330 281 Crop Management Hours 16.4 228 3,749 22.9 204 4,657 30.3 161 4,863 Harvest Hours 20.6 312 6,433 34.5 190 6,550 41.1 325 13,352 Post-harvest Hours 13.7 332 4,564 9.1 247 2,263 13.1 348 4,543 Total hired labor 183.7 354 64,951 194.7 321 62,416 208.7 320 66,836 Seedbed 11.8 412 4,866 10.3 474 4,882 11.0 445 4,885 Land preparation Hours 8.9 487 4,326 12.3 549 6,732 9.3 468 4,332 Transplanting Hours 2.4 355 854 3.1 327 1,002 0.9 295 277 Irrigation Hours 12.9 61 791 9.5 314 2,987 12.2 330 4,016 Crop Management Hours 19.8 228 4,516 15.2 204 3,091 16.9 161 2,709 Harvest Hours 0.7 312 207 1.0 190 196 0.3 325 98 Post-harvest Hours 5.4 332 1,805 6.5 247 1,621 6.1 348 2,115 Total own labor 61.9 313 17,364 57.9 329 20,512 56.6 339 18,433 Seedbed 6,192 5,607 5,992 Land preparation Unit 10,983 5,852 4,553 Crop management Unit 296 462 Harvest and postharvest Unit 1,462 3,128 1,636 Fuel Unit 8,822 8,470 6,977 Draught oxen Unit 12,266 6,346 1,586 Other services Unit 8,441 9,094 9,336 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 48,757 38,958 30,081 Working capital before interest Unit 182,868 185,235 169,042 Interest on working capital 3,950 4,001 3,651 Total Costs MMK/acre 204,181 209,747 191,126 Gross margin MMK/acre 4,355 -26,734 36,639 Gross margin $/ha 11 -66 90 Net margin MMK/acre -13,009 -4,882 18,206 Net margin $/ha -33 -119 46 Labor productivity $/day 3.77 2.27 4.01 Total labor Days/ha 76 78 82 Yield Kg/ha 1,958 1,760 2,125 Average cultivated area Ha 0.71 0.97 1.29 Number of observations 48 59 53 172 ANNEX 8 Table 123: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,611.4 143 230,789 1,543.4 148 228,633 1,669.0 163 271,739 Costs Seeds Kg 27.9 275 7,659 38.4 228 8,756 24.3 216 5,250 Urea Kg 5.7 621 3,567 5.8 435 2,523 NPK Kg T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,779 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit Total material inputs 11,227 13,058 5,250 Seedbed 5.5 6,324 8.8 421 3,712 Land preparation Hours 9.3 570 5,312 15.2 380 5,754 Transplanting Hours 64.2 322 20,639 44.9 367 16,504 40.0 533 21,333 Irrigation Hours 0.1 89 1.1 429 464 Crop Management Hours 1.9 71 Harvest Hours 37.5 313 11,711 56.6 200 11,334 24.0 583 14,000 Post-harvest Hours 9.0 460 4,137 21.3 367 7,804 Total hired labor 127.5 379 48,284 147.9 308 45,572 64.0 552 35,333 Seedbed 26.5 379 10,040 19.6 421 8,239 29.3 552 16,194 Land preparation Hours 23.6 570 13,434 30.6 380 11,620 47.3 552 26,132 Transplanting Hours 30.4 322 9,779 41.6 367 15,269 65.3 533 34,844 Irrigation Hours 15.3 379 5,776 6.1 429 2,602 6.7 552 3,681 Crop Management Hours 7.4 379 2,801 7.6 308 2,348 552 Harvest Hours 11.2 313 3,507 14.4 200 2,888 31.3 583 18,278 Post-harvest Hours 28.0 460 12,890 29.7 367 10,911 24.0 552 13,250 Total own labor 142.3 400 58,226 149.6 353 53,875 204.0 554 112,379 Seedbed 1,689 1,547 20,000 Land preparation Unit 9,425 1,392 13,333 Crop management Unit 3,140 8,507 13,333 Harvest and postharvest Unit 7,677 9,080 27,333 Fuel Unit 12,369 16,145 50,667 Draught oxen Unit 6,476 6,463 Other services Unit 4,096 5,712 4,293 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 44,873 48,846 128,960 Working capital before interest Unit 104,384 107,476 169,543 Interest on working capital 2,255 2,321 3,662 Total Costs MMK/acre 164,864 163,673 285,585 Gross margin MMK/acre 124,151 118,835 98,534 Gross margin $/ha 306 293 243 Net margin MMK/acre 65,925 64,960 -13,845 Net margin $/ha 166 164 -35 Labor productivity $/day 6.27 5.48 6.58 Total labor Days/ha 83 92 83 Yield Kg/ha 3,170 3,037 3,284 Average cultivated area Ha 0.22 0.26 0.15 Number of observations 61 20 2 173 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 124: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Border Area Ecoregion, Shan State Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,953.3 271 529,360 2,120.1 265 562,558 Costs Seeds Kg 16.2 3,248 52,494 15.8 3,227 50,863 Urea Kg 138.4 368 50,949 145.7 364 53,071 NPK Kg 41.8 274 11,481 70.5 258 18,211 T-Super Kg 62.6 247 15,456 16.3 268 4,366 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 215 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 1,056 1,801 Total material inputs 131,651 128,312 Seedbed 3.9 548 2,120 2.0 1,327 2,649 Land preparation Hours 4.4 664 2,896 2.0 625 1,222 Transplanting Hours 103.5 566 58,549 107.6 611 65,750 Irrigation Hours 0.1 583 73 Crop Management Hours 7.5 411 3,067 7.3 194 1,426 Harvest Hours 22.0 559 12,280 31.0 411 12,721 Post-harvest Hours 15.8 770 12,129 35.1 364 12,768 Total hired labor 157.1 580 91,114 185.0 522 96,536 Seedbed 28.2 548 15,443 37.2 1,327 49,353 Land preparation Hours 26.4 664 17,563 11.2 625 7,004 Transplanting Hours 23.9 566 13,531 36.7 611 22,406 Irrigation Hours 11.5 583 6,682 6.6 522 3,467 Crop Management Hours 16.3 411 6,698 16.7 194 3,249 Harvest Hours 9.4 559 5,259 7.8 411 3,214 Post-harvest Hours 13.9 770 10,733 16.2 364 5,913 Total own labor 129.6 586 75,908 132.5 579 94,605 Seedbed 214 Land preparation Unit 2,684 Crop management Unit 262 Harvest and postharvest Unit 20,044 12,001 Fuel Unit 36,710 24,332 Draught oxen Unit 2,612 Other services Unit 18,110 10,738 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 80,636 47,070 Working capital before interest Unit 303,401 271,918 Interest on working capital 6,553 5,873 Total Costs MMK/acre 385,863 372,397 Gross margin MMK/acre 91,114 284,766 Gross margin $/ha 530 701 Net margin MMK/acre 139,498 190,161 Net margin $/ha 352 480 Labor productivity $/day 10.18 10.55 Total labor Days/ha 89 98 Yield Kg/ha 3,808 4,171 Average cultivated area Ha 0.70 1.42 Number of observations 110 7 174 ANNEX 8 Table 125: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Northern Interior Ecoregion, Shan State Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,515.8 296 449,117 1,190.5 284 337,729 Costs Seeds Kg 26.2 875 22,939 25.4 802 20,365 Urea Kg 96.8 393 38,053 103.3 382 39,473 NPK Kg 65.8 287 18,913 55.3 301 16,645 T-Super Kg 43.5 314 13,670 64.9 310 20,144 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg Organic fertilizers Kg 61 Pesticides Unit 2,125 3,073 Total material inputs 95,761 99,700 Seedbed 0.5 562 295 2.3 375 866 Land preparation Hours 0.3 375 98 Transplanting Hours 94.1 563 52,972 65.3 459 29,959 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 6.2 232 1,428 11.7 253 2,957 Harvest Hours 59.7 462 27,608 25.1 540 13,561 Post-harvest Hours 14.1 649 9,170 10.4 573 5,939 Total hired labor 174.9 524 91,570 114.8 464 53,282 Seedbed 22.6 562 12,716 17.0 375 6,366 Land preparation Hours 21.6 375 8,118 30.3 464 14,088 Transplanting Hours 21.2 563 11,939 32.5 459 14,924 Irrigation Hours 8.4 524 4,415 1.5 464 703 Crop Management Hours 13.0 232 3,008 10.8 253 2,738 Harvest Hours 9.8 462 4,533 12.3 540 6,625 Post-harvest Hours 13.3 649 8,617 15.3 573 8,764 Total own labor 109.9 481 53,346 119.7 447 54,208 Seedbed 2,845 842 Land preparation Unit 7,966 3,246 Crop management Unit 147 Harvest and postharvest Unit 23,634 19,546 Fuel Unit 26,437 23,385 Draught oxen Unit 6,714 5,771 Other services Unit 8,539 16,105 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 76,282 68,894 Working capital before interest Unit 263,613 221,876 Interest on working capital 5,694 4,793 Total Costs MMK/acre 322,653 280,876 Gross margin MMK/acre 179,810 111,061 Gross margin $/ha 443 273 Net margin MMK/acre 126,464 58,853 Net margin $/ha 319 144 Labor productivity $/day 9.38 7.48 Total labor Days/ha 88 72 Yield Kg/ha 2,982 2,342 Average cultivated area Ha 0.99 1.68 Number of observations 25 10 175 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 126: Monsoon Rice Budget by Farm Size in Southern Interior Ecoregion, Shan State Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 942.1 312 293,744 1,055.0 361 381,123 Costs Seeds Kg 39.2 494 19,400 36.1 485 17,523 Urea Kg 88.0 444 39,092 95.5 442 42,195 NPK Kg 14.0 310 4,340 7.2 350 2,513 T-Super Kg 24.0 318 7,620 22.7 319 7,248 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg Organic fertilizers Kg 359 Pesticides Unit 560 612 Total material inputs 71,012 70,451 Seedbed 3.7 380 1,400 9.2 198 1,825 Land preparation Hours 6.7 494 3,320 10.3 347 3,578 Transplanting Hours 92.8 242 22,480 64.7 434 28,070 Irrigation Hours 0.0 2,500 30 Crop Management Hours 24.2 317 7,660 27.4 213 5,822 Harvest Hours 81.0 258 20,880 85.6 182 15,540 Post-harvest Hours 46.2 429 19,820 38.8 346 13,445 Total hired labor 254.6 297 75,560 236.0 289 68,310 Seedbed 12.9 380 4,915 10.6 198 2,096 Land preparation Hours 26.8 494 13,260 25.5 347 8,858 Transplanting Hours 9.1 242 2,208 17.3 434 7,521 Irrigation Hours 3.8 297 1,140 5.1 2,500 12,715 Crop Management Hours 15.4 317 4,884 18.0 213 3,836 Harvest Hours 12.5 258 3,219 11.8 182 2,152 Post-harvest Hours 4.4 429 1,888 4.4 346 1,508 Total own labor 85.0 345 31,514 92.8 603 38,686 Seedbed 1,388 Land preparation Unit 8,240 4,955 Crop management Unit 180 Harvest and postharvest Unit 7,480 8,020 Fuel Unit 17,996 20,332 Draught oxen Unit 3,120 2,764 Other services Unit 10,384 16,500 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 47,220 54,138 Working capital before interest Unit 193,792 192,899 Interest on working capital 4,186 4,167 Total Costs MMK/acre 229,492 235,752 Gross margin MMK/acre 95,796 184,057 Gross margin $/ha 236 453 Net margin MMK/acre 64,282 145,371 Net margin $/ha 162 367 Labor productivity $/day 4.93 7.22 Total labor Days/ha 105 102 Yield Kg/ha 1,854 2,076 Average cultivated area Ha 1.69 2.11 Number of observations 6 16 176 ANNEX 8 Table 127: Monsoon Rice Budget by Mechanization Mechanized Farms Non-Mechanized Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,241.1 191 237,297 1,196.1 184 219,567 Costs Seeds Kg 45.5 308 14,025 47.4 229 10,873 Urea Kg 44.4 469 20,805 37.3 530 19,788 NPK Kg 19.3 471 9,068 11.9 490 5,819 T-Super Kg 10.7 357 3,807 6.6 473 3,122 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,240 1,062 Organic fertilizers Kg 8 2 Pesticides Unit 1,327 946 Total material inputs 50,281 41,612 Seed bed Hours 23.2 420 9,763 34.8 376 13,015 Land preparation Hours 6.6 355 2,334 6.6 394 2,607 Transplanting Hours 96.87 270 26,125 100.0 240 24,039 Irrigation Hours 0.1 258 27 0.1 290 16 Crop Management Hours 15.6 169 2,637 18.4 160 2,947 Harvest Hours 54.7 249 13,625 59.0 258 15,202 Post-harvest Hours 15.4 335 5,170 14.6 299 4,372 Total hired labor 212.5 281 59,685 233.5 267 62,290 Seed bed Hours 11.6 420 4884 17.4 376 6548 Land preparation Hours 29.8 355 10593 47.7 394 18788 Transplanting Hours 12.8 270 3458 14.1 240 3377 Irrigation Hours 3.3 258 941 1.9 290 551 Crop Management Hours 38.8 169 6561 32.6 160 5210 Harvest Hours 4.0 249 996 3.6 258 921 Post-harvest Hours 14.5 335 4852 12.5 299 3746 Total own labor 114.9 281 32,286 129.7 267 39,141 Seed bed Unit 4,683 2,314 Land preparation Unit 11,979 115 Crop management Unit 78 86 Harvest and postharvest Unit 6,415 3,689 Fuel Unit 8,746 2,358 Draught oxen Unit 4,314 21,762 Other services Unit 7,828 6,270 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 44,042 36,676 Working capital before interest Unit 135,213 121,004 Interest on working capital 2,921 2,893 Total Costs MMK/acre 189,214 182,334 Gross margin MMK/acre 80,368 76,374 Gross margin $/ha 198 188 Net margin MMK/acre 48,083 37,233 Net margin $/ha 121 94 Labor productivity $/day 4.45 3.95 Total labor Days/ha 101 112 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,442 2,353 Average cultivated area Ha 1.77 1.55 Number of observations 856 517 177 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 128: Monsoon Rice Budget by Gender of Household Head Men Women Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,218.8 188 229,133 1,283.7 198 254,180 Costs Seeds Kg 48.0 268 12,897 48.9 271 13,269 Urea Kg 41.2 490 20,169 48.7 471 22,918 NPK Kg 16.2 467 7,558 21.2 532 11,290 T-Super Kg 8.8 389 3,423 13.2 367 4,848 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,184 1,130 Organic fertilizers Kg 7 Pesticides Unit 1,157 1,532 Total material inputs 46,393 54,986 Seed bed Hours 27.1 402 10,905 28.0 394 11,037 Land preparation Hours 6.2 371 2,315 9.6 354 3,404 Transplanting Hours 92.3 262 24,204 107.7 253 27,281 Irrigation Hours 0.1 296 15 0.4 229 89 Crop Management Hours 16.2 170 2,755 19.7 135 2,656 Harvest Hours 56.0 251 14,068 58.0 260 15,051 Post-harvest Hours 14.7 329 4,847 18.6 285 5,303 Total hired labor 217.0 277 60,051 243.7 268 65,213 Seed bed Hours 13.9 402 5,589 11.1 394 4,364 Land preparation Hours 36.8 371 13,651 29.3 354 10,390 Transplanting Hours 10.9 262 2,850 10.6 253 2,680 Irrigation Hours 2.9 296 852 2.6 229 590 Crop Management Hours 36.2 170 6,140 41.1 135 5,534 Harvest Hours 3.8 251 948 4.6 260 1,183 Post-harvest Hours 13.9 329 4,586 12.5 285 3,569 Total own labor 120.9 297 34,614 112.7 273 28,310 Seed bed Unit 2,326 2,628 Land preparation Unit 3,565 4,533 Crop management Unit 88 108 Harvest and postharvest Unit 4,987 5,833 Fuel Unit 8,354 8,774 Draught oxen Unit 3,387 6,079 Other services Unit 7,977 7,455 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 30,692 35,433 Working capital before interest Unit 118,220 135,280 Interest on working capital 2,554 2,922 Total Costs MMK/acre 174,304 186,865 Gross margin MMK/acre 89,443 95,625 Gross margin $/ha 220 235 Net margin MMK/acre 54,829 67,315 Net margin $/ha 138 170 Labor productivity $/day 4.31 4.16 Total labor Days/ha 104 110 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,398 2,526 Average cultivated area Ha 1.72 1.48 Number of observations 1,211 162 178 ANNEX 9 ANNEX 9: DRY SEASON RICE PRODUCTION Table 129: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget in Saltwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,729.0 182 315,118 Costs Seeds Kg 86.3 253 21,810 Urea Kg 119.1 296 35,227 NPK Kg 6.5 229 1,495 T-Super Kg 70.5 297 20,938 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 151 Organic fertilizers Kg 20 Pesticides Unit 3,939 Total material inputs 83,581 Seed bed Hours Land preparation Hours 7.8 332 2,585 Transplanting Hours 2.3 355 810 Irrigation Hours 3.2 349 1,129 Crop Management Hours 6.3 403 2,548 Harvest Hours 46.0 368 16,957 Post-harvest Hours 33.5 404 13,531 Total hired labor 99.1 379 37,560 Seed bed Hours Land preparation Hours 11.3 332 3,557 Transplanting Hours 5.1 355 1,611 Irrigation Hours 10.8 349 3,634 Crop Management Hours 22.3 403 8,722 Harvest Hours 2.4 368 884 Post-harvest Hours 15.3 404 6,189 Total own labor 67.1 369 24,597 Seed bed Unit Land preparation Unit 11,620 Crop management Unit 2,482 Harvest and postharvest Unit 6,505 Fuel Unit 24,814 Draught oxen Unit 3,096 Other services Unit 7,310 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 55,826 Working capital before interest Unit 146,479 Interest on working capital 3,164 Total Costs MMK/acre 204,729 Gross margin MMK/acre 134,987 Gross margin $/ha 332 Net margin MMK/acre 110,390 Net margin $/ha 279 Labor productivity $/day 10.16 Total labor Days/ha 51 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 3,402 Average cultivated area Ha 3.27 Number of observations 151 179 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 130: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,298.3 207 268,354 Costs Seeds Kg 53.4 413 22,044 Urea Kg 76.2 414 31,510 NPK Kg 73.3 456 33,470 T-Super Kg 18.0 295 5,291 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 2,194 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 8,718 Total material inputs 103,227 Seed bed Hours 0.3 511 171 Land preparation Hours 4.5 436 1,972 Transplanting Hours 31.7 415 13,155 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 16.1 308 4,960 Harvest Hours 64.6 480 31,013 Post-harvest Hours 42.9 440 18,892 Total hired labor 160.2 438 70,163 Seed bed Hours 2.9 511 1,523 Land preparation Hours 9.6 436 4,207 Transplanting Hours 3.3 415 1,349 Irrigation Hours 20.6 438 9,020 Crop Management Hours 12.5 308 3,844 Harvest Hours 0.8 480 374 Post-harvest Hours 19.8 440 8,741 Total own labor 69.5 433 29,060 Seed bed Unit 583 Land preparation Unit 4,894 Crop management Unit 232 Harvest and postharvest Unit 11,509 Fuel Unit 8,471 Draught oxen Unit 4,700 Other services Unit 6,726 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 37,115 Working capital before interest Unit 160,601 Interest on working capital 3,614 Total Costs MMK/acre 243,179 Gross margin MMK/acre 54,235 Gross margin $/ha 134 Net margin MMK/acre 25,175 Net margin $/ha 64 Labor productivity $/day 5.57 Total labor Days/ha 71 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 2,554 Average cultivated area Ha 1.66 Number of observations 79 180 ANNEX 9 Table 131: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,553.4 209 325,259 Costs Seeds Kg 60.0 325 19,492 Urea Kg 62.4 422 26,320 NPK Kg 48.1 434 20,901 T-Super Kg 8.8 367 3,217 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 2,679 Organic fertilizers Kg 600 Pesticides Unit 12,086 Total material inputs 85,295 Seed bed Hours 0.3 418 132 Land preparation Hours 5.8 532 3,099 Transplanting Hours 35.0 324 11,336 Irrigation Hours 0.8 378 297 Crop Management Hours 13.2 309 4,075 Harvest Hours 53.4 452 24,152 Post-harvest Hours 29.0 486 14,088 Total hired labor 137.6 416 57,179 Seed bed Hours 3.6 418 1,506 Land preparation Hours 6.3 532 3,279 Transplanting Hours 3.2 324 1,047 Irrigation Hours 17.7 378 6,887 Crop Management Hours 11.4 309 3,487 Harvest Hours 1.3 452 563 Post-harvest Hours 14.4 486 6,661 Total own labor 57.8 414 23,428 Seed bed Unit 127 Land preparation Unit 7,748 Crop management Unit 51 Harvest and postharvest Unit 12,445 Fuel Unit 9,539 Draught oxen Unit 4,887 Other services Unit 7,033 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 41,829 Working capital before interest Unit 146,064 Interest on working capital 3,286 Total Costs MMK/acre 211,018 Gross margin MMK/acre 137,669 Gross margin $/ha 339 Net margin MMK/acre 114,241 Net margin $/ha 288 Labor productivity $/day 9.64 Total labor Days/ha 60 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 3,056 Average cultivated area Ha 1.26 Number of observations 71 181 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 132: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget in Border Area Ecoregion, Shan State Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 2,648.7 243 690,874 Costs Seeds Kg 17.5 2,289 40,045 Urea Kg 162.2 302 49,028 NPK Kg 44.8 344 15,403 T-Super Kg 99.4 208 20,659 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 542 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 4,713 Total material inputs 130,390 Seed bed Hours 4.2 626 2,656 Land preparation Hours 1.8 752 1,367 Transplanting Hours 129.8 610 79,193 Irrigation Hours 2.8 662 1,843 Crop Management Hours 3.6 664 2,365 Harvest Hours 8.1 854 6,929 Post-harvest Hours 12.4 1,121 13,920 Total hired labor 162.8 665 108,273 Seed bed Hours 30.8 626 20,980 Land preparation Hours 15.1 752 10,802 Transplanting Hours 10.7 610 6,542 Irrigation Hours 43.1 662 29,312 Crop Management Hours 30.1 664 19,501 Harvest Hours 6.6 854 5,632 Post-harvest Hours 19.4 1,121 21,857 Total own labor 155.8 756 114,625 Seed bed Unit 6,180 Land preparation Unit 17,237 Crop management Unit 7,886 Harvest and postharvest Unit 34,331 Fuel Unit 77,582 Draught oxen Unit Other services Unit 19,671 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 162,887 Working capital before interest Unit 380,701 Interest on working capital 5,711 Total Costs MMK/acre 521,886 Gross margin MMK/acre 283,614 Gross margin $/ha 698 Net margin MMK/acre 168,988 Net margin $/ha 427 Labor productivity $/day 12.39 Total labor Days/ha 98 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 5,601 Average cultivated area Ha 0.79 Number of observations 35 182 ANNEX 9 Table 133: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget by Method of Plantation Transplanting Direct Seeding Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,915.0 192 365,762 1,632.6 191 311,822 Costs Seeds Kg 38.3 633 24,236 80.9 272 21,978 Urea Kg 88.0 360 31,697 109.6 316 34,642 NPK Kg 54.5 447 24,347 19.9 380 7,554 T-Super Kg 32.6 237 7,750 58.4 299 17,472 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 2,169 582 Organic fertilizers Kg 104 88 Pesticides Unit 5,634 5,830 Total material inputs 95,937 88,145 Seedbed 1.9 562 1,043 Land preparation Hours 3.5 438 1,528 7.2 362 2,606 Transplanting Hours 102.4 451 46,165 2.0 362 724 Irrigation Hours 0.7 663 471 2.6 348 899 Crop Management Hours 17.1 305 5,224 7.4 378 2,781 Harvest Hours 45.1 535 24,129 49.1 391 19,202 Post-harvest Hours 26.4 628 16,561 35.1 406 14,259 Total hired labor 197.0 483 95,121 103.3 392 40,471 Seedbed 14.6 562 8,231 Land preparation Hours 9.9 438 4,320 10.8 362 3,895 Transplanting Hours 5.7 451 2,551 4.7 362 1,690 Irrigation Hours 25.2 663 16,724 12.9 348 4,476 Crop Management Hours 16.7 305 5,110 20.3 378 7,670 Harvest Hours 2.4 535 1,300 2.1 391 820 Post-harvest Hours 18.6 628 11,665 15.8 406 6,424 Total own labor 93.1 512 49,901 66.5 374 24,974 Seedbed 789 Land preparation Unit 4,436 5,090 Crop management Unit 461 733 Harvest and postharvest Unit 20,313 7,039 Fuel Unit 25,630 22,696 Draught oxen Unit 1,839 576 Other services Unit 9,419 7,363 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 62,886 43,496 Working capital before interest Unit 213,254 138,652 Interest on working capital 4,604 2,995 Total Costs MMK/acre 308,451 200,081 Gross margin MMK/acre 107,212 136,741 Gross margin $/ha 264 337 Net margin MMK/acre 57,311 111,741 Net margin $/ha 145 282 Labor productivity $/day 8.66 9.30 Total labor Days/ha 90 52 Yield Kg/ha 3,768 3,212 Average cultivated area Ha 1.23 2.54 Number of observations 85 251 183 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 134: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget by Level of Fertilizer Used Low Use Medium Use High Use Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,668.5 191 319,193 1,693.6 193 326,871 1,653.5 193 319,116 Costs Seeds Kg 73.6 298 21,901 78.2 293 22,936 73.1 303 22,167 Urea Kg 61.1 370 22,586 105.8 293 30,955 179.5 315 56,587 NPK Kg 12.2 471 5,773 14.2 391 5,566 57.0 380 21,660 T-Super Kg 25.4 353 8,979 60.6 238 14,423 94.4 311 29,399 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 688 759 1,048 Organic fertilizers Kg 180 54 Pesticides Unit 5,194 5,010 7,705 Total material inputs 65,300 79,648 138,620 Seedbed 0.2 566 138 0.3 454 130 0.3 695 183 Land preparation Hours 8.4 328 2,743 5.4 449 2,442 5.5 366 2,008 Transplanting Hours 18.8 422 7,949 13.1 508 6,654 15.5 413 6,401 Irrigation Hours 2.3 344 806 1.1 444 501 3.7 350 1,291 Crop Management Hours 10.4 389 4,058 6.7 293 1,972 8.4 358 3,007 Harvest Hours 46.2 474 21,887 50.0 358 17,891 50.5 378 19,103 Post-harvest Hours 35.9 457 16,397 29.5 392 11,587 35.8 426 15,242 Total hired labor 122.3 441 53,978 106.2 388 41,176 119.7 395 47,235 Seedbed 2.3 566 1,319 2.0 454 888 1.8 695 1,231 Land preparation Hours 12.0 328 3,923 8.6 449 3,870 11.0 366 4,007 Transplanting Hours 5.0 422 2,118 3.9 508 1,976 5.6 413 2,297 Irrigation Hours 12.2 344 4,176 15.6 444 6,941 17.3 350 6,053 Crop Management Hours 17.9 389 6,956 17.7 293 5,174 25.3 358 9,067 Harvest Hours 2.1 474 993 1.5 358 533 3.0 378 1,132 Post-harvest Hours 15.8 457 7,212 15.3 392 5,986 18.0 426 7,662 Total own labor 67.2 426 26,697 64.5 414 25,368 81.9 427 31,449 Seedbed 62 144 151 Land preparation Unit 5,348 4,119 5,477 Crop management Unit 935 184 915 Harvest and postharvest Unit 8,883 8,960 8,897 Fuel Unit 18,608 26,700 26,023 Draught oxen Unit 956 510 721 Other services Unit 8,205 6,584 8,038 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 42,997 47,201 50,221 Working capital before interest Unit 123,991 138,548 201,732 Interest on working capital 2,678 2,993 4,357 Total Costs MMK/acre 191,650 196,386 271,883 Gross margin MMK/acre 154,239 155,853 78,862 Gross margin $/ha 380 384 194 Net margin MMK/acre 127,542 130,485 47,223 Net margin $/ha 322 329 119 Labor productivity $/day 10.15 10.56 6.26 Total labor Days/ha 59 53 62 Yield Kg/ha 3,283 3,332 3,253 Average cultivated area Ha 2.43 2.17 1.97 Number of observations 129 107 100 184 ANNEX 9 Table 135: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget by Type of Fertilizer Used No Urea Urea only Urea + NPK Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,520.9 193 293,529 1,782.2 187 323,179 1,550.5 207 320,948 Costs Seeds Kg 72.9 316 23,056 82.1 274 22,474 56.9 382 21,746 Urea Kg 122.9 300 36,828 78.8 407 32,072 NPK Kg 50.5 474 23,985 84.2 395 33,265 T-Super Kg 15.4 226 3,477 72.4 291 21,087 15.1 336 5,095 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 4,669 143 1,985 Organic fertilizers Kg 415 21 224 Pesticides Unit 5,162 4,226 9,883 Total material inputs 60,764 84,779 104,270 Seedbed 0.4 607 262 0.2 578 114 0.4 537 216 Land preparation Hours 10.3 217 2,238 7.2 344 2,473 5.0 491 2,433 Transplanting Hours 31.2 241 7,531 8.4 531 4,481 33.8 409 13,807 Irrigation Hours 0.4 400 154 2.8 370 1,021 1.5 321 467 Crop Management Hours 3.4 329 1,108 5.9 388 2,297 16.6 332 5,489 Harvest Hours 56.0 467 26,177 44.9 374 16,792 56.8 475 26,956 Post-harvest Hours 40.0 499 19,946 32.0 417 13,331 37.9 450 17,065 Total hired labor 141.7 405 57,415 101.4 400 40,509 151.8 438 66,433 Seedbed 2.0 607 1,214 1.6 578 896 3.4 537 1,811 Land preparation Hours 11.5 217 2,509 11.5 344 3,948 8.5 491 4,151 Transplanting Hours 4.2 241 1,024 5.4 531 2,882 3.3 409 1,352 Irrigation Hours 13.8 400 5,520 13.5 370 4,985 17.6 321 5,633 Crop Management Hours 9.4 329 3,106 20.9 388 8,091 18.4 332 6,096 Harvest Hours 0.5 467 230 2.3 374 862 2.0 475 928 Post-harvest Hours 15.3 499 7,654 16.0 417 6,658 16.9 450 7,616 Total own labor 56.9 405 21,258 71.1 400 28,323 69.9 438 27,587 Seedbed 111 49 269 Land preparation Unit 5,248 5,169 4,528 Crop management Unit 738 771 496 Harvest and postharvest Unit 8,949 8,295 10,469 Fuel Unit 13,098 27,321 13,729 Draught oxen Unit 1,462 408 1,540 Other services Unit 9,423 7,629 7,482 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 39,029 49,642 38,513 Working capital before interest Unit 118,086 144,806 165,195 Interest on working capital 2,399 3,128 3,568 Total Costs MMK/acre 180,867 206,380 240,372 Gross margin MMK/acre 133,921 145,112 108,163 Gross margin $/ha 330 357 266 Net margin MMK/acre 112,663 116,799 80,576 Net margin $/ha 284 295 203 Labor productivity $/day 9.04 10.00 7.48 Total labor Days/ha 61 53 68 Yield Kg/ha 2,992 3,400 3,051 Average cultivated area Ha 1.88 2.58 1.65 Number of observations 14 199 123 185 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 136: Dry Season Rice Budget by Farm Size in Saltwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,611.0 184 295,985 1,700.6 182 308,701 1,754.1 182 319,860 Costs Seeds Kg 80.4 259 20,825 87.9 254 22,278 86.7 252 21,849 Urea Kg 91.1 405 36,902 112.0 355 39,775 126.5 267 33,842 NPK Kg 5.5 66 366 5.5 529 2,905 7.3 150 1,104 T-Super Kg 74.4 425 31,667 68.6 332 22,764 70.7 269 19,026 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 72 427 35 Organic fertilizers Kg 33 Pesticides Unit 5,684 4,760 3,409 Total material inputs 95,516 92,909 79,297 Seedbed Land preparation Hours 11.2 313 3,523 8.8 333 2,944 6.8 332 2,241 Transplanting Hours 3.1 398 1,229 2.2 383 835 2.1 329 706 Irrigation Hours 5.9 424 2,501 3.4 270 919 2.8 363 1,006 Crop Management Hours 7.2 445 3,195 4.9 392 1,936 6.8 396 2,677 Harvest Hours 44.9 360 16,161 47.9 404 19,352 44.9 356 15,978 Post-harvest Hours 42.8 375 16,056 36.9 437 16,122 31.0 396 12,257 Total hired labor 115.1 371 42,665 104.2 404 42,108 94.3 370 34,865 Seedbed Land preparation Hours 12.0 313 3,755 12.9 333 4,306 10.8 332 3,578 Transplanting Hours 4.1 398 1,647 4.4 383 1,668 5.6 329 1,851 Irrigation Hours 18.4 424 7,809 11.9 270 3,222 9.6 363 3,470 Crop Management Hours 33.3 445 14,804 28.3 392 11,094 19.1 396 7,571 Harvest Hours 4.5 360 1,615 1.9 404 760 2.4 356 840 Post-harvest Hours 20.5 375 7,697 17.1 437 7,486 13.9 396 5,512 Total own labor 92.8 386 37,328 76.5 370 28,536 61.4 362 22,822 Seedbed Land preparation Unit 9,695 8,253 3,289 Crop management Unit 4,157 851 385 Harvest and postharvest Unit 11,126 7,941 5,803 Fuel Unit 22,690 24,352 27,964 Draught oxen Unit 236 110 238 Other services Unit 10,173 9,353 6,739 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 58,077 50,860 44,417 Working capital before interest Unit 160,040 150,402 130,343 Interest on working capital 3,534 3,249 2,815 Total Costs MMK/acre 237,329 217,660 184,216 Gross margin MMK/acre 96,184 119,576 158,466 Gross margin $/ha 237 294 390 Net margin MMK/acre 58,856 91,041 135,644 Net margin $/ha 149 230 342 Labor productivity $/day 6.99 8.66 11.16 Total labor Days/ha 64 56 48 Yield Kg/ha 3,170 3,346 3,451 Average cultivated area Ha 1.40 2.58 4.56 Number of observations 30 50 71 186 ANNEX 9 Table 137: Dry Season Rice Budget by Farm Size in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,292.9 205 264,757 1,191.0 204 243,310 1,371.6 207 284,599 Costs Seeds Kg 55.6 422 23,455 52.6 398 20,962 53.1 416 22,093 Urea Kg 68.1 420 28,629 92.9 461 42,772 67.6 368 24,878 NPK Kg 72.9 397 28,943 92.6 479 44,402 59.7 463 27,661 T-Super Kg 13.5 323 4,352 29.6 243 7,202 11.5 370 4,257 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,189 2,743 2,110 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 8,204 11,899 6,778 Total material inputs 94,773 129,980 87,777 Seedbed 0.6 560 351 0.2 429 87 0.3 500 148 Land preparation Hours 6.5 475 3,103 3.9 423 1,655 4.0 418 1,690 Transplanting Hours 28.2 385 10,872 26.4 356 9,374 36.3 451 16,398 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 15.0 290 4,337 8.1 408 3,287 21.7 288 6,266 Harvest Hours 58.6 497 29,105 69.4 405 28,065 63.8 531 33,885 Post-harvest Hours 48.4 450 21,776 45.2 474 21,423 39.2 407 15,938 Total hired labor 157.3 442 69,544 153.1 417 63,891 165.4 449 74,324 Seedbed 1.9 560 1,079 3.5 429 1,501 2.8 500 1,381 Land preparation Hours 5.9 475 2,798 10.4 423 4,377 10.8 418 4,529 Transplanting Hours 2.6 385 1,007 3.0 356 1,061 3.9 451 1,745 Irrigation Hours 25.6 442 11,331 20.6 417 8,580 18.2 449 8,179 Crop Management Hours 8.2 290 2,366 14.2 408 5,788 13.0 288 3,753 Harvest Hours 1.3 497 654 0.4 405 156 0.8 531 432 Post-harvest Hours 21.0 450 9,467 18.8 474 8,934 19.8 407 8,048 Total own labor 66.6 443 28,701 70.8 416 30,397 69.3 435 28,066 Seedbed 449 164 400 Land preparation Unit 6,632 4,120 2,841 Crop management Unit 351 286 682 Harvest and postharvest Unit 10,018 8,210 7,977 Fuel Unit 8,271 9,569 9,321 Draught oxen Unit 4,703 1,314 607 Other services Unit 5,339 5,708 7,628 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 35,763 29,370 29,456 Working capital before interest Unit 141,199 173,752 141,734 Interest on working capital 3,223 3,753 3,061 Total Costs MMK/acre 232,003 257,390 222,685 Gross margin MMK/acre 61,455 16,317 89,980 Gross margin $/ha 151 40 222 Net margin MMK/acre 32,754 -14,080 61,914 Net margin $/ha 83 -36 156 Labor productivity $/day 5.90 3.79 6.53 Total labor Days/ha 69 69 72 Yield Kg/ha 2,544 2,343 2,699 Average cultivated area Ha 1.13 1.56 2.20 Number of observations 24 27 28 187 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 138: Dry Season Rice Budget by Farm Size in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,452.3 211 306,653 1,583.3 205 324,559 1,687.7 214 361,687 Costs Seeds Kg 60.9 344 20,941 65.0 297 19,317 46.8 364 17,023 Urea Kg 71.0 429 30,444 60.7 410 24,852 44.3 440 19,496 NPK Kg 62.5 420 26,241 41.8 430 17,969 27.1 505 13,681 T-Super Kg 11.0 367 4,046 6.1 317 1,932 10.8 418 4,530 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 4,281 1,867 882 Organic fertilizers Kg 287 2,699 Pesticides Unit 9,674 17,414 4,994 Total material inputs 95,628 83,639 63,305 Seedbed 0.2 350 81 0.1 875 74 1.1 364 386 Land preparation Hours 7.0 641 4,491 6.4 421 2,707 1.9 406 783 Transplanting Hours 31.2 357 11,142 28.0 270 7,542 63.9 340 21,735 Irrigation Hours 1.9 379 709 - - - - - - Crop Management Hours 11.1 318 3,532 13.2 310 4,106 17.2 292 5,024 Harvest Hours 56.9 383 21,762 54.3 463 25,147 44.3 631 27,960 Post-harvest Hours 25.9 517 13,381 30.3 500 15,175 32.1 387 12,439 Total hired labor 134.2 411 55,098 132.3 414 54,751 160.6 426 68,327 Seedbed 3.3 350 1,171 3.5 875 3,053 4.5 364 1,630 Land preparation Hours 6.5 641 4,185 5.9 421 2,483 7.1 406 2,898 Transplanting Hours 3.0 357 1,087 3.8 270 1,024 2.1 340 721 Irrigation Hours 20.8 379 7,884 14.8 414 6,127 16.4 426 6,972 Crop Management Hours 13.6 318 4,311 10.9 310 3,396 9.0 292 2,628 Harvest Hours 2.4 383 907 0.8 463 384 - 631 - Post-harvest Hours 12.3 517 6,342 17.2 500 8,609 14.6 387 5,636 Total own labor 61.9 421 25,888 57.0 465 25,077 53.7 406 20,485 Seedbed 142 53 96 Land preparation Unit 8,287 4,304 3,692 Crop management Unit 28 133 Harvest and postharvest Unit 12,099 13,630 13,651 Fuel Unit 10,593 10,056 8,236 Draught oxen Unit 2,632 3,154 1,627 Other services Unit 7,368 5,861 6,607 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 41,150 37,058 34,041 Working capital before interest Unit 156,733 135,127 125,274 Interest on working capital 3,385 2,919 2,706 Total Costs MMK/acre 221,149 203,445 188,864 Gross margin MMK/acre 111,392 146,191 193,308 Gross margin $/ha 274 360 476 Net margin MMK/acre 85,504 121,114 172,823 Net margin $/ha 216 306 436 Labor productivity $/day 8.35 9.97 11.07 Total labor Days/ha 61 58 66 Yield Kg/ha 2,857 3,115 3.320 Average cultivated area Ha 1.00 1.41 1.87 Number of observations 35 27 9 188 ANNEX 9 Table 139: Dry Season Rice Budget by Farm Size in Border Area Ecoregion, Shan Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 2,839.3 244 692,354 Costs Seeds Kg 18.0 2,234 40,146 Urea Kg 160.6 303 48,689 NPK Kg 46.4 340 15,792 T-Super Kg 97.7 208 20,315 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 591 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 4,685 Total material inputs 130,218 Seedbed 4.4 617 2,699 Land preparation Hours 1.9 758 1,415 Transplanting Hours 128.2 610 78,239 Irrigation Hours 2.7 663 1,780 Crop Management Hours 3.6 668 2,378 Harvest Hours 8.1 851 6,888 Post-harvest Hours 12.4 1,124 13,933 Total hired labor 161.2 666 107,333 Seedbed 30.2 617 18,633 Land preparation Hours 14.7 758 11,167 Transplanting Hours 10.6 610 6,454 Irrigation Hours 43.1 663 28,596 Crop Management Hours 29.3 668 19,561 Harvest Hours 6.6 851 5,572 Post-harvest Hours 19.6 1,124 21,982 Total own labor 154.1 756 111,966 Seedbed 1,092 Land preparation Unit 4,812 Crop management Unit 1,456 Harvest and postharvest Unit 35,026 Fuel Unit 69,655 Draught oxen Unit Other services Unit 15,293 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 127,335 Working capital before interest Unit 344,065 Interest on working capital 7,432 Total Costs MMK/acre 484,284 Gross margin MMK/acre 320,036 Gross margin $/ha 788 Net margin MMK/acre 208,070 Net margin $/ha 525 Labor productivity $/day 12.76 Total labor Days/ha 97 Yield Kg/ha 5,572 Average cultivated area Ha 0.79 Number of observations 35 189 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 140: Dry Season Rice Farm Budget by Gender of Household Head Men Women Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1.691.5 192 324,759 1,479.9 195 288,587 Costs Seeds Kg 75.0 297 22,322 73.5 300 22,038 Urea Kg 106.3 319 33,865 108.7 348 37,882 NPK Kg 24.7 401 9,918 25.0 398 9,966 T-Super Kg 55.3 287 15,833 49.6 379 18,807 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 669 2,191 Organic fertilizers Kg 16 841 Pesticides Unit 5,830 5,521 Total material inputs 88,452 97,245 Seedbed 0.3 551 141 0.3 654 206 Land preparation Hours 6.7 372 2,483 6.7 323 2,157 Transplanting Hours 16.3 446 7,248 15.1 395 5,971 Irrigation Hours 2.3 355 801 2.9 415 1,222 Crop Management Hours 8.8 357 3,125 8.4 372 3,137 Harvest Hours 49.2 406 19,961 42.3 455 19,241 Post-harvest Hours 34.0 428 14,540 32.7 460 15,020 Total hired labor 117.4 412 48,300 108.5 433 46,954 Seedbed 2.1 551 1,154 1.8 654 1,159 Land preparation Hours 11.0 372 4,080 7.3 323 2,344 Transplanting Hours 4.9 446 2,206 3.4 395 1,339 Irrigation Hours 14.6 355 5,164 15.1 415 6,259 Crop Management Hours 20.4 357 7,278 13.5 372 5,023 Harvest Hours 2.3 406 931 0.6 455 294 Post-harvest Hours 16.6 428 7,116 11.9 460 5,455 Total own labor 71.9 412 27,928 53.5 433 21,873 Seedbed 113 90 Land preparation Unit 4,973 5,244 Crop management Unit 660 1,047 Harvest and postharvest Unit 8,641 11,630 Fuel Unit 23,087 23,344 Draught oxen Unit 580 2,514 Other services Unit 7,839 5,772 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 45,893 49,641 Working capital before interest Unit 148,143 159,578 Interest on working capital 3,200 3,447 Total Costs MMK/acre 213,773 219,159 Gross margin MMK/acre 138,915 91,300 Gross margin $/ha 342 225 Net margin MMK/acre 110,986 69,427 Net margin $/ha 280 175 Labor productivity $/day 9.21 8.48 Total labor Days/ha 58 50 Yield Kg/ha 3,328 2,912 Average cultivated area Ha 2.27 1.76 Number of observations 298 38 190 ANNEX 10 ANNEX 10: PULSE PRODUCTION Table 141: Pulse Production: Characteristics of Pulse Farms N Farm size (acre) Cultivated area (Acre) % land under pulses BLACK GRAM By Ecoregion Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 135 9.9 6.6 77.2 Freshwater, Ayeyarwady 144 7.0 4.7 73.9 East alluvial, Bago 113 9.2 5.7 71.6 West alluvial, Bago 105 7.8 4.5 63.3 River area, Bago 61 9.0 4.9 62.9 By Farm Size Small 3.4 2.8 84.7 Medium 7.9 5.4 68.4 Large 17.7 9.2 53.9 By Gender Men 8.5 5.3 70.6 Women 8.4 5.4 74.4 GREEN GRAM Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 19 10.2 5.4 62.0 East alluvial, Bago 15 6.3 4.6 75.1 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 22 7.1 2.9 47.9 River area, Sagaing 57 9.8 6.5 70.7 By Farm Size Small 3.8 2.8 76.9 Medium 7.7 4.8 61.5 Large 15.7 8.7 57.0 By Gender Men 9.2 5.6 66.1 Women 5.7 2.3 57.2 CHICKPEAS Dryland, Sagaing 63 11.7 3.6 37.3 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 43 10.0 5.2 56.8 River area, Sagaing 10 11.4 2.0 19.9 By Farm Size Small 3.4 1.9 60.0 Medium 8.0 3.6 45.2 Large 18.6 5.7 31.5 By Gender Men 11.0 4.0 41.6 Women 11.1 4.1 49.0 Note: Land under pulses refers to the size of the main plot on which pulses are produced. 191 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 142: Pulse Production, Sales, and Yields Production Yield Yield % of % of product (kg)* kg/acre kg/ha sellers sold BLACK GRAM By Ecoregion Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 2,262 343 847 94.8 84.0 Freshwater, Ayeyarwady 1,365 290 718 98.6 87.0 East alluvial, Bago 1,795 315 778 98.2 87.1 West alluvial, Bago 1,350 300 741 100.0 89.4 River area, Bago 1,681 343 848 91.8 89.9 By Farm Size Small 881 315 777 97.6 89.8 Medium 1,627 301 745 98.7 86.8 Large 2,835 308 761 93.8 83.2 By Gender Men 1,628 307 759 97.2 87.3 Women 1,692 313 774 96.6 84.8 GREEN GRAM Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 2,347 435 1,074 89.5 79.4 East alluvial, Bago 1,340 291 720 93.3 84.0 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 1,331 459 1,134 95.5 91.4 River area, Sagaing 2,275 350 865 100.0 89.6 By Farm Size Small 829 296 732 97.4 90.2 Medium 1,664 347 857 94.7 84.3 Large 2,861 329 813 97.2 87.9 By Gender Men 1,849 330 816 96.2 87.2 Women 693 301 745 100.0 91.3 CHICKPEAS Dryland, Sagaing 1,193 331 819 85.7 70.3 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 2,076 399 987 100.0 88.1 River area, Sagaing 688 344 850 100.0 92.7 By Farm Size Small 696 366 905 91.7 83.9 Medium 1,150 319 789 93.8 82.6 Large 2,259 396 979 90.9 71.9 By Gender Men 1,456 364 958 93.6 80.7 Women 1,296 316 700 86.4 70.9 Note: Production refers to the production from main plot, not total area devoted to specific crop. 192 ANNEX 10 Table 143: Pulse Production: Source of Seeds Procurement Source of Seeds for Pulses Application rate and Costs of seeds Trader/Lo- Relative/ Own Kg of Unit price of Costs of seeds cal market Friends seeds seed/ha seeds in $/kg in $/ha BLACK GRAM By Ecoregion Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 17.0 0.7 82.2 76.4 0.80 60.2 Freshwater, Ayeyarwady 7.6 11.1 81.3 82.9 0.64 53.3 East alluvial, Bago 5.3 6.2 88.5 80.8 0.72 58.4 West alluvial, Bago 16.2 6.7 77.1 77.9 0.68 52.7 River area, Bago 8.2 1.6 90.2 85.0 0.80 68.6 By Farm Size Small 14.6 7.8 77.6 80.2 0.68 54.4 Medium 10.3 4.5 85.2 81.1 0.76 59.9 Large 6.9 4.6 88.5 78.7 0.74 58.4 By Gender Men 10.8 5.8 83.4 80.6 0.71 57.0 Women 13.6 5.1 81.4 76.5 0.85 61.9 GREEN GRAM Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 15.8 5.3 78.9 60.0 1.23 73.9 East alluvial, Bago 26.7 13.3 60.0 83.0 1.04 85.0 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 40.9 31.8 27.3 33.6 2.04 67.6 River area, Sagaing 15.8 84.2 65.3 1.21 79.4 By Farm Size Small 23.1 15.4 61.5 64.0 1.33 79.5 Medium 21.1 7.9 71.1 57.2 1.43 75.0 Large 22.2 2.8 75.0 60.5 1.31 76.1 By Gender Men 20.2 8.7 71.2 60.9 1.33 76.7 Women 44.4 11.1 44.4 57.6 1.58 79.0 CHICKPEAS Dryland, Sagaing 23.8 4.8 71.4 99.7 0.54 55.1 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 25.6 16.3 58.1 145.1 0.59 85.7 River area, Sagaing 10.0 90.0 136.6 0.58 79.0 By Farm Size Small 29.2 25.0 45.8 141.1 0.55 77.8 Medium 31.3 4.2 64.6 121.0 0.57 71.3 Large 11.4 4.5 84.1 106.6 0.56 60.4 By Gender Men 22.3 7.4 70.2 124.6 0.57 71.6 Women 27.3 13.6 59.1 98.9 0.55 55.2 193 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 144: Pulse Production: Users of Fertilizers Percentage of fertilizer users Urea NPK T-Super BLACK GRAM By Ecoregion Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 3.0 0.7 Freshwater, Ayeyarwady 4.9 East alluvial, Bago 2.7 0.9 0.9 West alluvial, Bago 2.9 River area, Bago 4.9 By Farm Size Small 3.4 Medium 4.0 0.4 Large 3.1 0.8 0.8 By Gender Men 3.8 0.4 0.2 Women 1.7 GREEN GRAM Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 5.3 East alluvial, Bago 13.3 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 4.5 River area, Sagaing 19.3 5.3 21.1 By Farm Size Small 15.4 7.7 Medium 13.2 10.5 15.8 Large 8.3 8.3 By Gender Men 12.5 3.8 10.6 Women 11.1 11.1 CHICKPEAS Dryland, Sagaing 49.2 54.0 1.6 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 30.2 53.5 11.6 River area, Sagaing 10.0 By Farm Size Small 41.7 45.8 Medium 37.5 39.6 2.1 Large 38.6 61.4 11.4 By Gender Men 36.2 48.9 6.4 Women 50.0 50.0 194 ANNEX 10 Table 145: Pulse Production: Consumption and Application Rate of Fertilizers Average Consumption (kg/ha) Application Rate (kg/ha) Urea NPK T-Super Urea NPK T-Super BLACK GRAM By Ecoregion Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 1.7 0.3 57.5 35.3 Freshwater, Ayeyarwady 2.0 41.7 East alluvial, Bago 0.9 0.3 0.1 35.5 30.9 13.7 West alluvial, Bago 2.4 84.4 River area, Bago 3.8 78.2 By Farm Size Small 1.2 35.1 Medium 3.3 0.2 81.3 35.3 Large 1.1 0.2 0.1 34.7 30.9 13.7 By Gender Men 2.1 0.1 55.5 33.1 13.7 Women 1.0 61.8 GREEN GRAM Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 2.2 41.2 East alluvial, Bago 8.2 61.5 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 0.9 20.6 River area, Sagaing 10.4 10.8 16.7 53.7 205.9 79.1 By Farm Size Small 9.1 3.4 59.1 44.6 Medium 6.9 16.8 14.8 52.3 159.6 94.0 Large 3.8 7.0 46.1 83.7 By Gender Men 6.9 6.1 8.7 54.9 159.6 82.6 Women 4.6 4.6 41.2 41.2 CHICKPEAS Dryland, Sagaing 29.5 37.8 0.7 59.9 70.1 41.2 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 20.4 58.9 11.9 67.4 110.2 102.5 River area, Sagaing 8.2 82.4 By Farm Size Small 31.5 52.5 75.5 114.6 Medium 25.9 30.9 1.8 69.1 77.9 86.5 Large 18.6 49.4 10.6 48.1 80.5 93.4 By Gender Men 23.9 42.3 5.9 66.2 86.4 92.2 Women 25.7 42.8 51.5 85.6 195 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 146: Pulse Production: Use of Chemicals % Users Consumption Application rate Application rate MMK/acre MMK/acre $/ha BLACK GRAM By Ecoregion Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 88.1 9,596 10,886 27.5 Freshwater, Ayeyarwady 45.8 3,013 6,574 16.6 East alluvial, Bago 46.9 3,390 7,227 18.2 West alluvial, Bago 52.4 2,796 5,339 13.5 River area, Bago 50.8 4,794 9,433 23.8 By Farm Size Small 54.6 5,782 10,583 26.7 Medium 59.2 4,333 7,321 18.5 Large 61.5 4,206 6,836 17.3 By Gender Men 58.3 4,659 7,989 20.2 Women 55.9 6,332 11,321 28.6 GREEN GRAM Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 78.9 20,131 25,499 64.4 East alluvial, Bago 33.3 2,342 7,026 17.7 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 100.0 16,340 16,340 41.2 River area, Sagaing 59.6 5,641 9,457 23.9 By Farm Size Small 64.1 14,163 22,094 55.8 Medium 68.4 6,727 9,832 24.8 Large 69.4 8,074 11,626 29.3 By Gender Men 67.3 8,949 13,296 33.6 Women 66.7 18,657 27,986 70.6 CHICKPEAS Dryland, Sagaing 30.2 2,103 6,974 17.6 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 90.7 5,646 6,225 15.7 River area, Sagaing 80.0 19,615 24,519 61.9 By Farm Size Small 54.2 6,365 11,751 29.7 Medium 54.2 5,345 9,867 24.9 Large 61.4 3,685 6,004 15.2 By Gender Men 59.6 5,055 8,485 21.4 Women 45.5 4,376 9,627 24.3 196 ANNEX 10 Table 147: Pulse Production: Breakdown of Total Use of Labor by Type Total Labor % family % permanent % hired Hours/Acre BLACK GRAM By Ecoregion Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 186 29.8 0.9 69.3 Freshwater, Ayeyarwady 112 26.1 1.5 72.5 East alluvial, Bago 160 20.7 1.0 78.4 West alluvial, Bago 134 34.6 0.7 64.7 River area, Bago 143 24.8 2.1 73.1 By Farm Size Small 160 30.6 1.0 68.4 Medium 140 26.9 1.1 72.0 Large 145 23.0 1.5 75.4 By Gender Men 146 27.8 1.1 71.1 Women 160 23.4 1.4 75.2 GREEN GRAM Brackish water, Ayeyarwady 206 26.1 2.3 71.6 East alluvial, Bago 170 18.8 1.8 79.4 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 216 28.9 71.1 River area, Sagaing 129 25.0 75.0 By Farm Size Small 218 27.5 0.2 72.3 Medium 187 26.3 73.7 Large 173 19.9 1.8 78.3 By Gender Men 180 24.4 0.6 75.0 Women 347 28.0 0.9 71.1 CHICKPEAS Dryland, Sagaing 154 41.1 58.9 Irrigated tract, Sagaing 112 40.1 59.9 River area, Sagaing 150 52.7 47.3 By Farm Size Small 157 39.4 60.6 Medium 166 41.5 58.5 Large 139 43.1 56.9 By Gender Men 152 42.8 57.2 Women 161 36.8 63.2 197 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 148: Black Gram Farm Budget in Brackish Area Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 343.0 610 209,243 Costs Seeds Kg 31.2 791 24,714 Urea Kg 0.7 285 192 NPK Kg 0.1 429 24 T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 4,317 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 8,134 Total material inputs 37,382 Land preparation Hours 8.5 284 2,416 Seeding Hours 2.2 276 612 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 12.5 273 3,423 Harvest Hours 80.0 303 24,232 Post-harvest Hours 31.8 279 8,855 Total hired labor 135.0 293 39,538 Land preparation Hours 4.9 284 1,400 Seeding Hours 3.0 276 853 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 24.9 273 7,263 Harvest Hours 3.0 303 900 Post-harvest Hours 14.7 279 4,097 Total own labor 50.6 286 14,514 Land preparation Unit 3,139 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,240 Fuel Unit 3,818 Draught oxen Unit 5,201 Other services Unit 6,647 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 21,046 Working capital before interest Unit 64,880 Interest on working capital 1,401 Total Costs MMK/acre 113,882 Gross margin MMK/acre 109,875 Gross margin $/ha 277 Net margin MMK/acre 95,361 Net margin $/ha 241 Labor productivity $/day 7.40 Total labor Days/ha 57 Yield Kg/ha 848 Average cultivated area Ha 1.08 Number of observations 135 198 ANNEX 10 Table 149: Black Gram Farm Budget in Freshwater Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 290.1 604 175,227 Costs Seeds Kg 33.0 630 20,763 Urea Kg 0.6 349 224 NPK Kg T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 447 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 3,652 Total material inputs 25,086 Land preparation Hours 5.0 386 1,923 Seeding Hours 0.4 285 114 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 1.1 270 292 Harvest Hours 64.0 331 21,181 Post-harvest Hours 14.7 313 4,593 Total hired labor 85.1 330 28,102 Land preparation Hours 3.4 386 1,319 Seeding Hours 4.2 285 1,163 Irrigation Hours 0.3 330 49 Crop Management Hours 4.2 270 1,113 Harvest Hours 1.1 331 368 Post-harvest Hours 14.2 313 4,443 Total own labor 27.3 321 8,455 Land preparation Unit 1,610 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 970 Fuel Unit 5,147 Draught oxen Unit 1,819 Other services Unit 799 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 10,346 Working capital before interest Unit 37,760 Interest on working capital 850 Total Costs MMK/acre 72,838 Gross margin MMK/acre 110,844 Gross margin $/ha 280 Net margin MMK/acre 102,389 Net margin $/ha 258 Labor productivity $/day 10.53 Total labor Days/ha 35 Yield Kg/ha 717 Average cultivated area Ha 0.76 Number of observations 144 199 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 150: Black Gram Farm Budget in East Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 315.1 643 202,655 Costs Seeds Kg 32.7 706 23,070 Urea Kg 0.3 389 120 NPK Kg 0.1 520 38 T-Super Kg 0.1 450 33 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 5,287 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 2,232 Total material inputs 30,779 Land preparation Hours 3.5 367 1,273 Seeding Hours 0.4 357 130 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 1.6 327 511 Harvest Hours 99.8 292 29,171 Post-harvest Hours 23.5 301 7,083 Total hired labor 128.7 297 38,168 Land preparation Hours 5.3 367 1,998 Seeding Hours 4.8 357 1,717 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 8.7 327 2,858 Harvest Hours 0.7 292 196 Post-harvest Hours 11.3 301 3,445 Total own labor 31.2 320 10,212 Land preparation Unit 8,217 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,562 Fuel Unit 5,236 Draught oxen Unit 3,586 Other services Unit 1,567 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 21,167 Working capital before interest Unit 53,860 Interest on working capital 1,212 Total Costs MMK/acre 101,539 Gross margin MMK/acre 111,329 Gross margin $/ha 281 Net margin MMK/acre 101,116 Net margin $/ha 255 Labor productivity $/day 8.52 Total labor Days/ha 49 Yield Kg/ha 778 Average cultivated area Ha 0.94 Number of observations 113 200 ANNEX 10 Table 151: Black Gram Farm Budget in West Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 300.2 639 191,744 Costs Seeds Kg 31.6 665 21,011 Urea Kg 1.0 175 171 NPK Kg T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 7,626 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 2,257 Total material inputs 31,065 Land preparation Hours 4.9 295 1,440 Seeding Hours 0.1 313 37 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 1.0 276 289 Harvest Hours 70.3 231 16,275 Post-harvest Hours 11.8 310 3,671 Total hired labor 88.2 246 21,713 Land preparation Hours 15.6 295 4,692 Seeding Hours 4.2 313 1,321 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 11.7 276 3,368 Harvest Hours 2.3 231 553 Post-harvest Hours 12.0 310 3,659 Total own labor 45.8 274 13,594 Land preparation Unit 5,775 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,350 Fuel Unit 4,123 Draught oxen Unit 5,126 Other services Unit 1,015 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 18,389 Working capital before interest Unit 51,221 Interest on working capital 768 Total Costs MMK/acre 85,529 Gross margin MMK/acre 119,800 Gross margin $/ha 302 Net margin MMK/acre 106,215 Net margin $/ha 268 Labor productivity $/day 9.55 Total labor Days/ha 41 Yield Kg/ha 741 Average cultivated area Ha 0.73 Number of observations 105 201 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 152: Black Gram Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Bago Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 343.2 707 242,560 Costs Seeds Kg 34.4 850 29,271 Urea Kg 1.5 268 415 NPK Kg T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 3,885 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 3,592 Total material inputs 37,164 Land preparation Hours 6.6 393 2,579 Seeding Hours 0.5 355 164 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 1.6 262 413 Harvest Hours 83.3 303 25,209 Post-harvest Hours 17.4 329 5,715 Total hired labor 109.2 312 34,080 Land preparation Hours 9.4 393 3,682 Seeding Hours 4.7 355 1,690 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 10.2 262 2,901 Harvest Hours Post-harvest Hours 9.7 329 3,181 Total own labor 34.0 324 11,454 Land preparation Unit 2,422 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 4,415 Fuel Unit 2,959 Draught oxen Unit 3,742 Other services Unit 1,975 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 15,514 Working capital before interest Unit 55,834 Interest on working capital 1,206 Total Costs MMK/acre 99,419 Gross margin MMK/acre 154,596 Gross margin $/ha 390 Net margin MMK/acre 143,142 Net margin $/ha 361 Labor productivity $/day 11.55 Total labor Days/ha 44 Yield Kg/ha 848 Average cultivated area Ha 0.80 Number of observations 61 202 ANNEX 10 Table 153: Black Gram Farm Budget by Farm Size Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 315.3 614 193,410 301.0 626 188,426 308.1 635 195,580 Costs Seeds Kg 32.0 662 21,191 32.4 761 24,612 32.4 715 23,149 Urea Kg 0.6 428 266 1.1 189 203 0.4 414 172 NPK Kg 0.04 429 18 0.04 520 22 T-Super Kg 0.04 450 19 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 5,190 3,684 4,085 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 5,426 4,460 3,991 Total material inputs 32,073 32,976 31,438 Land preparation Hours 5.1 387 1,990 5.5 297 1,649 6.5 333 2,153 Seeding Hours 0.5 305 151 0.9 288 247 1.1 286 322 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 5.4 244 1,328 3.3 296 982 5.6 280 1,572 Harvest Hours 76.5 287 21,909 77.3 305 23,598 83.2 289 24,026 Post-harvest Hours 23.8 294 6,985 21.2 286 6,053 20.9 307 6,398 Total hired labor 111.3 291 32,363 108.2 301 32,529 117.2 294 34,471 Land preparation Hours 5.9 387 2,297 7.8 297 2,310 6.2 333 2,058 Seeding Hours 4.1 305 1,265 3.9 288 1,123 4.1 286 1,164 Irrigation Hours 0.1 291 37 0.1 301 30 - 294 - Crop Management Hours 17.1 244 4,182 14.2 296 4,194 10.2 280 2,864 Harvest Hours 2.7 287 787 1.9 305 575 0.8 289 236 Post-harvest Hours 16.9 294 4,974 12.9 286 3,695 11.0 307 3,384 Total own labor 47.0 301 13,542 40.7 296 11,927 32.3 298 9,705 Land preparation Unit 4,604 3,474 1,486 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 4,090 2,249 1,239 Fuel Unit 4,644 5,367 5,618 Draught oxen Unit 916 588 286 Other services Unit 2,980 2,733 2,579 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 17,234 14,412 11,209 Working capital before interest Unit 52,776 50,266 46,695 Interest on working capital 1,140 1,086 1,009 Total Costs MMK/acre 96,352 92,929 87,833 Gross margin MMK/acre 110,600 107,424 117,453 Gross margin $/ha 272 265 289 Net margin MMK/acre 97,058 95,497 107,747 Net margin $/ha 245 241 272 Labor productivity $/day 8.09 8.23 8.66 Total labor Days/ha 49 46 46 Yield Kg/ha 778 744 761 Average cultivated area Ha 1.13 2.17 3.74 Number of observations 205 223 130 203 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 154: Black Gram Farm Budget by Gender of Household Head Men Women Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 306.9 636 195,252 313.1 618 193,434 Costs Seeds Kg 32.5 705 22,884 31.1 881 27,379 Urea Kg 0.8 269 202 0.5 440 209 NPK Kg 0.04 474 18 T-Super Kg 0.02 450 8 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 4,062 4,753 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 4,173 6,832 Total material inputs 31,347 39,174 Land preparation Hours 5.5 338 1,846 9.1 279 2,535 Seeding Hours 0.8 296 222 2.1 267 564 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 4.0 291 1,159 10.3 231 2,372 Harvest Hours 80.2 292 23,453 73.8 317 23,394 Post-harvest Hours 20.6 299 6,150 29.6 278 8,232 Total hired labor 111.0 296 32,830 124.9 297 37,096 Land preparation Hours 6.7 338 2,258 7.6 279 2,121 Seeding Hours 4.1 296 1,211 3.4 267 907 Irrigation Hours 0.1 296 21 297 Crop Management Hours 12.9 291 3,756 15.0 231 3,467 Harvest Hours 1.7 292 495 1.0 317 321 Post-harvest Hours 12.8 299 3,837 13.6 278 3,792 Total own labor 38.3 302 11,578 40.7 278 10,608 Land preparation Unit 2,849 3,196 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,195 2,191 Fuel Unit 5,376 4,945 Draught oxen Unit 468 1,040 Other services Unit 2,590 3,797 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 13,478 15,169 Working capital before interest Unit 48,052 59,813 Interest on working capital 1,038 1,292 Total Costs MMK/acre 90,270 103,339 Gross margin MMK/acre 116,559 100,703 Gross margin $/ha 287 248 Net margin MMK/acre 104,982 90,095 Net margin $/ha 265 227 Labor productivity $/day 8.68 7.37 Total labor Days/ha 46 51 Yield Kg/ha 742 757 Average cultivated area Ha 2.15 2.17 Number of observations 499 59 204 ANNEX 10 Table 155: Green Gram Farm Budget in Brackish Area Ecoregion, Ayeyarwady Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 435.1 901 391,754 Costs Seeds Kg 23.2 1,181 27,360 Urea Kg 0.3 400 105 NPK Kg T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 5,695 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 14,458 Total material inputs 47,619 Land preparation Hours 18.1 276 4,988 Seeding Hours 2.4 282 668 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 11.6 281 3,261 Harvest Hours 68.8 395 27,169 Post-harvest Hours 35.6 314 11,190 Total hired labor 136.5 346 47,277 Land preparation Hours 10.4 276 2,861 Seeding Hours 2.3 282 644 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 40.2 281 11,372 Harvest Hours Post-harvest Hours 16.4 314 5,160 Total own labor 69.3 320 20,037 Land preparation Unit 2,694 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit Fuel Unit 6,806 Draught oxen Unit 4,195 Other services Unit 6,886 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 20,581 Working capital before interest Unit 77,118 Interest on working capital 1,666 Total Costs MMK/acre 137,180 Gross margin MMK/acre 274,611 Gross margin $/ha 693 Net margin MMK/acre 254,574 Net margin $/ha 643 Labor productivity $/day 13.39 Total labor Days/ha 64 Yield Kg/ha 1,075 Average cultivated area Ha 0.88 Number of observations 19 205 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 156: Green Gram Farm Budget in East Alluvial Ecoregion, Bago Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 291.0 914 265,886 Costs Seeds Kg 33.6 1,000 33,573 Urea Kg 4.2 372 1,575 NPK Kg T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 17,139 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 1,658 Total material inputs 53,944 Land preparation Hours 1.9 357 694 Seeding Hours 0.3 333 111 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours Harvest Hours 116.9 268 31,282 Post-harvest Hours 20.7 302 6,254 Total hired labor 139.9 274 38,341 Land preparation Hours 5.4 357 1,925 Seeding Hours 3.4 333 790 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 6.6 274 828 Harvest Hours Post-harvest Hours 14.7 302 4,506 Total own labor 30.1 298 8,050 Land preparation Unit 12,964 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 7,593 Fuel Unit 8,011 Draught oxen Unit 1,067 Other services Unit 1,458 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 31,093 Working capital before interest Unit 85,842 Interest on working capital 1,931 Total Costs MMK/acre 133,360 Gross margin MMK/acre 140,575 Gross margin $/ha 355 Net margin MMK/acre 132,526 Net margin $/ha 335 Labor productivity $/day 9.80 Total labor Days/ha 53 Yield Kg/ha 719 Average cultivated area Ha 0.76 Number of observations 15 206 ANNEX 10 Table 157: Green Gram Farm Budget in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 459.1 1,075 493,339 Costs Seeds Kg 14.0 1,906 26,603 Urea Kg NPK Kg 0.3 760 247 T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,693 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 14,322 Total material inputs 42,864 Land preparation Hours 3.1 350 1,098 Seeding Hours 0.6 424 242 Irrigation Hours 4.0 185 739 Crop Management Hours 5.9 368 2,187 Harvest Hours 120.0 389 46,707 Post-harvest Hours 5.4 351 1,887 Total hired labor 139.1 344 52,860 Land preparation Hours 7.5 350 2,590 Seeding Hours 3.3 424 1,415 Irrigation Hours 13.7 185 1,922 Crop Management Hours 19.0 368 7,727 Harvest Hours 13.3 389 5,566 Post-harvest Hours 20.7 351 7,355 Total own labor 77.5 344 26,574 Land preparation Unit 5,545 Crop management Unit 5,218 Harvest and postharvest Unit 5,500 Fuel Unit 24,906 Draught oxen Unit 2,526 Other services Unit 13,347 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 57,041 Working capital before interest Unit 104,171 Interest on working capital 2,344 Total Costs MMK/acre 181,683 Gross margin MMK/acre 338,230 Gross margin $/ha 854 Net margin MMK/acre 311,656 Net margin $/ha 787 Labor productivity $/day 16.06 Total labor Days/ha 67 Yield Kg/ha 1,134 Average cultivated area Ha 0.48 Number of observations 22 207 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 158: Green Gram Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 350.1 984 344,269 Costs Seeds Kg 25.7 1,210 31,168 Urea Kg 4.0 411 1,662 NPK Kg 3.6 452 1,616 T-Super Kg 6.3 630 3,937 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 5,372 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 4,999 Total material inputs 48,754 Land preparation Hours 5.0 529 2,664 Seeding Hours 0.3 455 150 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 2.1 483 994 Harvest Hours 80.7 416 33,599 Post-harvest Hours 7.9 469 3,719 Total hired labor 96.1 428 41,126 Land preparation Hours 7.1 529 3,640 Seeding Hours 3.6 455 1,629 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 12.0 483 5,726 Harvest Hours 0.9 416 379 Post-harvest Hours 9.6 469 4,522 Total own labor 33.2 470 15,896 Land preparation Unit 9,843 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 1,910 Fuel Unit 5,873 Draught oxen Unit 1,329 Other services Unit 1,786 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 20,740 Working capital before interest Unit 73,302 Interest on working capital 1,649 Total Costs MMK/acre 128,166 Gross margin MMK/acre 231,999 Gross margin $/ha 586 Net margin MMK/acre 216,103 Net margin $/ha 545 Labor productivity $/day 18.32 Total labor Days/ha 40 Yield Kg/ha 865 Average cultivated area Ha 1.06 Number of observations 57 208 ANNEX 10 Table 159: Green Gram Farm Budget by Farm Size Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 296 982 290,672 347.1 984 341,448 329.0 982 323,078 Costs Seeds Kg 25.5 1,187 30,235 25.0 1,231 30,795 24.5 1,224 29,996 Urea Kg 4.6 405 1,862 3.6 459 1,639 1.6 415 662 NPK Kg 7.8 458 3,586 T-Super Kg 1.8 367 676 7.4 729 5,406 2.9 540 1,551 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 6,839 7,129 6,003 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 12,773 6,031 6,045 Total material inputs 52,386 54,586 44,257 Land preparation Hours 7.9 382 3,026 4.5 499 2,240 7.0 374 2,620 Seeding Hours 0.7 319 235 0.5 347 187 0.8 362 279 Irrigation Hours 0.9 344 304 0.4 234 82 0.3 31 10 Crop Management Hours 4.9 342 1,662 3.5 341 1,186 3.7 387 1,432 Harvest Hours 114.7 364 41,800 95.5 406 38,764 88.0 380 33,393 Post-harvest Hours 11.9 366 4,364 12.2 355 4,328 14.9 378 5,635 Total hired labor 141.0 353 51,390 116.5 364 46,787 114.7 3 43,370 Land preparation Hours 6.3 382 2,422 6.3 499 3,167 7.2 374 2,687 Seeding Hours 3.4 319 1,093 3.2 347 1,108 3.3 362 1,176 Irrigation Hours 4.6 344 1,593 1.3 234 310 0.3 31 8 Crop Management Hours 20.0 342 6,833 22.2 341 7,574 12.2 387 4,723 Harvest Hours 5.5 364 1,998 1.6 406 634 0.2 380 68 Post-harvest Hours 17.9 366 6,570 11.3 355 3,991 10.9 378 4,108 Total own labor 57.8 353 20,509 45.9 364 16,785 33.9 319 12,771 Land preparation Unit 6,728 6,100 5,763 Crop management Unit 552 220 Harvest and postharvest Unit 4,186 2,995 1,516 Fuel Unit 8,469 8,139 6,980 Draught oxen Unit 1,803 429 1,092 Other services Unit 4,239 3,604 3,609 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 25,977 21,486 18,960 Working capital before interest Unit 83,588 79,767 67,558 Interest on working capital 1,806 1,723 1,459 Total Costs MMK/acre 152,067 141,367 120,817 Gross margin MMK/acre 159,114 216,866 215,032 Gross margin $/ha 392 534 530 Net margin MMK/acre 138,605 200,081 202,261 Net margin $/ha 350 505 511 Labor productivity $/day 9.44 14.02 14.95 Total labor Days/ha 61 50 46 Yield Kg/ha 731 857 813 Average cultivated area Ha 1.13 1.94 3.52 Number of observations 39 38 36 209 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 160: Green Gram Farm Budget by Gender of Household Head Men Women Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 333.0 982 324,060 301.0 982 295,582 Costs Seeds Kg 24.8 1,218 30,217 25.2 1,268 32,012 Urea Kg 2.7 415 1,139 2.4 880 2,097 NPK Kg 2.4 458 1,119 T-Super Kg 4.1 624 2,568 2.4 920 2,193 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 6,267 12,762 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 6,978 14,847 Total material inputs 48,289 63,912 Land preparation Hours 6.2 405 2,514 11.9 368 4,385 Seeding Hours 0.7 349 241 0.8 382 310 Irrigation Hours 0.3 300 82 4.6 31 143 Crop Management Hours 3.6 364 1,319 9.9 367 3,622 Harvest Hours 93.4 384 35,829 139.8 400 55,863 Post-harvest Hours 13.4 370 4,954 18.5 359 6,649 Total hired labor 117.6 362 44,939 185.5 318 70,972 Land preparation Hours 6.7 405 2,714 8.7 368 3,210 Seeding Hours 3.3 349 1,136 3.5 382 1,330 Irrigation Hours 1.2 300 345 7.3 31 229 Crop Management Hours 16.0 364 5,837 32.8 367 12,040 Harvest Hours 1.0 384 384 16.8 400 6,707 Post-harvest Hours 12.0 370 4,426 20.8 359 7,453 Total own labor 40.1 362 14,842 89.9 318 30,969 Land preparation Unit 5,897 9,959 Crop management Unit 172 Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,095 12,095 Fuel Unit 7,452 11,647 Draught oxen Unit 985 2,002 Other services Unit 3,556 8,317 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 20,155 44,021 Working capital before interest Unit 72,601 116,393 Interest on working capital 1,568 2,514 Total Costs MMK/acre 129,794 212,388 Gross margin MMK/acre 209,109 114,163 Gross margin $/ha 515 281 Net margin MMK/acre 194,266 83,194 Net margin $/ha 490 210 Labor productivity $/day 13.90 6.53 Total labor Days/ha 49 85 Yield Kg/ha 798 728 Average cultivated area Ha 2.27 0.94 Number of observations 104 9 210 ANNEX 10 Table 161: Chickpea Farm Budget in Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 334.9 443 146,566 Costs Seeds Kg 36.5 536 19,552 Urea Kg 10.5 423 4,444 NPK Kg 15.8 627 9,886 T-Super Kg 0.2 700 161 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 950 Organic fertilizers Kg 15 Pesticides Unit 2,076 Total material inputs 37,084 Land preparation Hours 12.4 294 3,646 Seeding Hours 5.7 266 1,516 Irrigation Hours 0.3 331 89 Crop Management Hours 27.9 224 6,252 Harvest Hours 43.9 249 10,947 Post-harvest Hours 11.7 332 3,880 Total hired labor 101.9 286 26,330 Land preparation Hours 11.3 294 485 Seeding Hours 3.6 266 1,011 Irrigation Hours 1.4 331 455 Crop Management Hours 19.2 224 4,287 Harvest Hours 6.0 249 1,556 Post-harvest Hours 10.2 332 3,359 Total own labor 51.6 283 11,153 Land preparation Unit 1,638 Crop management Unit 220 Harvest and postharvest Unit 3,449 Fuel Unit 1,859 Draught oxen Unit 8,747 Other services Unit 7,079 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 22,993 Working capital before interest Unit 71,580 Interest on working capital 1,611 Total Costs MMK/acre 99,170 Gross margin MMK/acre 58,548 Gross margin $/ha 148 Net margin MMK/acre 47,396 Net margin $/ha 120 Labor productivity $/day 5.73 Total labor Days/ha 47 Yield Kg/ha 818 Average cultivated area Ha 0.59 Number of observations 63 211 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 162: Chickpea Farm Budget in Irrigated Tract Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 399.1 460 183,439 Costs Seeds Kg 58.9 587 34,630 Urea Kg 6.6 429 2,817 NPK Kg 23.1 549 12,690 T-Super Kg 7.1 331 2,332 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 578 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 5,229 Total material inputs 58,276 Land preparation Hours 3.2 360 1,138 Seeding Hours 2.2 331 738 Irrigation Hours 2.4 314 738 Crop Management Hours 15.0 243 3,642 Harvest Hours 42.5 271 11,518 Post-harvest Hours 6.1 312 1,903 Total hired labor 71.3 305 19,677 Land preparation Hours 8.3 360 2,982 Seeding Hours 4.9 331 1,600 Irrigation Hours 3.2 314 1,005 Crop Management Hours 7.6 243 1,856 Harvest Hours 4.0 271 1,087 Post-harvest Hours 13.0 312 4,133 Total own labor 40.9 305 11,657 Land preparation Unit 357 Crop management Unit 2,888 Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,553 Fuel Unit 5,278 Draught oxen Unit 3,670 Other services Unit 4,525 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 19,272 Working capital before interest Unit 83,805 Interest on working capital 1,810 Total Costs MMK/acre 111,698 Gross margin MMK/acre 84,403 Gross margin $/ha 213 Net margin MMK/acre 71,741 Net margin $/ha 181 Labor productivity $/day 8.73 Total labor Days/ha 35 Yield (dried paddy equivalent) Kg/ha 986 Average cultivated area Ha 0.85 Number of observations 43 212 ANNEX 10 Table 163: Chickpea Farm Budget in River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 343.9 469 161,213 Costs Seeds Kg 47.4 566 26,872 Urea Kg 3.5 500 1,744 NPK Kg T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 5,125 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 17,443 Total material inputs 51,184 Land preparation Hours 5.7 300 1,706 Seeding Hours 5.4 251 1,345 Irrigation Hours 0.7 500 349 Crop Management Hours 6.0 221 1,326 Harvest Hours 43.9 216 9,495 Post-harvest Hours 14.4 340 4,912 Total hired labor 76.1 252 19,132 Land preparation Hours 16.8 300 5,051 Seeding Hours 6.0 251 1,510 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 24.9 221 5,514 Harvest Hours 2.5 216 546 Post-harvest Hours 24.0 340 8,153 Total own labor 74.2 266 20,773 Land preparation Unit 163 Crop management Unit 1,367 Harvest and postharvest Unit 6,144 Fuel Unit 2,346 Draught oxen Unit 6,398 Other services Unit 10,078 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 26,496 Working capital before interest Unit 82,405 Interest on working capital 1,780 Total Costs MMK/acre 119,365 Gross margin MMK/acre 62,621 Gross margin $/ha 158 Net margin MMK/acre 20,773 Net margin $/ha 106 Labor productivity $/day 5.86 Total labor Days/ha 46 Yield Kg/ha 850 Average cultivated area Ha 0.29 Number of observations 10 213 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 164: Chickpea Farm Budget by Farm Size Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 366.0 446 163,236 318.9 446 142,274 396.0 446 176,616 Costs Seeds Kg 48.4 551 26,659 50.7 576 29,210 45.7 567 25,894 Urea Kg 12.2 392 4,765 8.5 412 3,519 6.9 446 3,083 NPK Kg 18.8 552 10,367 16.1 744 11,990 19.9 527 10,508 T-Super Kg 2.1 400 820 5.2 326 1,684 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 422 685 1,130 Organic fertilizers Kg 16 Pesticides Unit 4,776 4,151 4,269 Total material inputs 46,988 50,376 46,583 Land preparation Hours 14.8 318 4,708 7.9 288 2,268 6.0 323 1,955 Seeding Hours 4.6 295 1,348 4.0 286 1,143 4.0 271 1,096 Irrigation Hours 1.7 355 597 1.7 326 551 1.0 298 284 Crop Management Hours 26.4 259 6,826 22.0 215 4,731 19.8 235 4,667 Harvest Hours 40.8 278 11,343 45.8 244 11,153 42.7 264 11,263 Post-harvest Hours 12.4 345 4,271 8.5 339 2,877 8.7 318 2,756 Total hired labor 100.7 308 29,093 89.8 283 22,723 82.3 285 22,021 Land preparation Hours 9.6 318 3,064 11.3 288 3,245 9.3 323 2,995 Seeding Hours 2.9 295 847 3.3 286 948 5.3 271 1,428 Irrigation Hours 2.1 355 762 2.3 326 744 2.1 298 638 Crop Management Hours 13.5 259 3,493 16.2 215 3,472 12.2 235 2,862 Harvest Hours 6.8 278 1,879 4.4 244 1,066 4.7 264 1,233 Post-harvest Hours 16.9 345 5,842 11.8 339 4,009 11.1 318 3,527 Total own labor 51.9 308 15,886 49.2 283 13,485 44.6 285 12,683 Land preparation Unit 1,760 856 346 Crop management Unit 506 2,031 1,169 Harvest and postharvest Unit 4,583 3,226 2,595 Fuel Unit 4,721 5,159 4,848 Draught oxen Unit 9,262 4,219 2,261 Other services Unit 8,369 7,233 6,265 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 29,200 22,723 17,483 Working capital before interest Unit 89,667 81,792 72,068 Interest on working capital 1,937 1,767 1,557 Total Costs MMK/acre 123,104 111,073 100,328 Gross margin MMK/acre 56,018 44,686 88,972 Gross margin $/ha 138 110 219 Net margin MMK/acre 40,132 31,201 76,288 Net margin $/ha 101 79 193 Labor productivity $/day 5.98 5.10 8.06 Total labor Days/ha 47 43 39 Yield Kg/ha 904 788 979 Average cultivated area Ha 0.76 1.44 2.32 Number of observations 24 48 44 214 ANNEX 10 Table 165: Chickpea Farm Budget by Gender of Household Head Men Women Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 364.1 446 162,389 315.5 446 140,701 Costs Seeds Kg 49.8 573 28,530 39.1 548 21,445 Urea Kg 6.8 422 2,887 13.0 431 5,598 NPK Kg 19.9 596 11,847 12.3 616 7,594 T-Super Kg 4.4 342 1,490 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 1,002 461 Organic fertilizers Kg 45 Pesticides Unit 4,350 3,959 Total material inputs 50,106 39,101 Land preparation Hours 7.1 306 2,179 9.5 317 2,998 Seeding Hours 4.0 273 1,090 4.4 303 1,339 Irrigation Hours 1.5 319 482 0.4 313 112 Crop Management Hours 20.4 224 4,575 24.9 251 6,274 Harvest Hours 43.5 273 11,875 44.1 193 8,498 Post-harvest Hours 9.4 316 2,980 7.0 403 2,808 Total hired labor 86.0 285 23,181 90.3 297 22,030 Land preparation Hours 10.2 306 3,115 9.5 317 2,995 Seeding Hours 4.8 273 1,298 2.5 303 748 Irrigation Hours 2.5 319 800 0.9 313 266 Crop Management Hours 12.0 224 2,703 21.0 251 5,274 Harvest Hours 5.3 273 1,437 2.6 193 510 Post-harvest Hours 12.8 316 4,057 8.0 403 3,242 Total own labor 47.6 285 13,410 44.4 297 13,034 Land preparation Unit 419 1,726 Crop management Unit 1,492 1,113 Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,992 3,125 Fuel Unit 4,483 6,925 Draught oxen Unit 3,465 4,450 Other services Unit 7,125 5,532 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 19,977 22,871 Working capital before interest Unit 78,409 72,696 Interest on working capital 1,694 1,570 Total Costs MMK/acre 108,367 98,606 Gross margin MMK/acre 67,432 55,129 Gross margin $/ha 166 136 Net margin MMK/acre 54,022 42,095 Net margin $/ha 136 106 Labor productivity $/day 6.59 5.74 Total labor Days/ha 41 42 Yield Kg/ha 880 763 Average cultivated area Ha 1.63 1.64 Number of observations 94 22 215 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS ANNEX 11: OILSEED AND MAIZE PRODUCTION Table 166: Cultivated Area, Production, and Yields of Oilseeds and Maize N Average Total Average Average area acre production yield yield kg kg/acre kg/ha BY ECOREGION Maize North interior 83 3.76 6,510 1,720 4,251 South interior 97 4.69 7,069 1,472 3,638 Groundnut (rain) River area 36 2.55 589 275 680 Sesame (early) Dryland 22 2.63 169 69 169 River area 28 3.37 247 84 208 Sunflower Dryland 17 3.72 1,000 295 730 BY GENDER Maize Male 156 4.23 6,819 1,597 3,947 Female 24 4.49 6,762 1,519 3,753 Groundnut (rain) Male 28 2.53 557 272 672 Female 8 2.63 699 287 710 Sesame (early) Male 37 3.11 228 84 208 Female 13 2.88 169 58 144 Sunflower Male 13 4.04 1,070 293 723 Female 4 2.69 773 304 752 216 ANNEX 11 Table 167: Production and Sales of Oilseeds and Maize N Total Ratio Quantity Ratio production sellers sold quantity kg kg sold BY ECOREGION Maize North interior 83 6,510 1.00 6,285 0.98 South interior 97 7,069 1.00 6,507 0.93 Groundnut (rain) River area 36 589 1.00 437 0.75 Sesame (early) Dryland 22 169 1.00 148 0.88 River area 28 247 1.00 232 0.91 Sunflower Dryland 17 1,000 1.00 700 0.66 BY GENDER Maize Male 156 6,819 1.00 6,375 0.94 Female 24 6,762 1.00 6,602 0.99 Groundnut (rain) Male 28 557 1.00 417 0.77 Female 8 699 1.00 508 0.68 Sesame (early) Male 37 228 1.00 212 0.91 Female 13 169 1.00 147 0.85 Sunflower Male 13 1,070 1.00 764 0.65 Female 4 773 1.00 490 0.67 Table 168: Type of Seeds Used for Oilseed and Maize Production In percent to total seed use N Hybrid Cerified Other BY ECOREGION Maize North interior 83 100 South interior 97 81 18 1 Groundnut (rain) River area 36 3 97 Sesame (early) Dryland 22 5 95 River area 28 100 Sunflower Dryland 17 100 217 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 169: Source of Seeds for Oilseeds and Maize In percent to all sources N Traders Friends/ Cooperatives, Previous Relatives Commercial harvest firms BY ECOREGION Maize North interior 83 98 1 1 South interior 97 62 5 33 Groundnut (rain) River area 36 14 8 78 Sesame (early) Dryland 22 27 18 55 River area 28 36 18 46 Sunflower Dryland 17 6 94 Table 170: Consumption of Fertilizers for Oilseeds and Maize In kg per acre N Urea NPK T-super BY ECOREGION Maize North interior 83 53.9 68.2 15.9 South interior 97 17.5 23.9 29.8 Groundnut (rain) River area 36 4.6 8.6 1.4 Sesame (early) Dryland 22 15.7 12.7 River area 28 1.2 1.8 Sunflower Dryland 17 12.2 18.5 BY GENDER Maize Male 156 34.2 45.7 22.6 Female 24 34.5 35.1 28.2 Groundnut (rain) Male 28 5.7 7.8 1.8 Female 8 0.9 11.4 Sesame (early) Male 37 7.3 6.2 Female 13 8.4 7.5 Sunflower Male 13 14.6 20.6 Female 4 4.3 11.9 218 ANNEX 11 Table 171: Average Application Rate of Fertilizers for Oilseeds and Maize % of Application % of HH Application % of HH Application HH rate urea using NPK rate NPK using rate t-super using (kg/acre) (kg/acre) t-super (kg/acre) urea BY ECOREGION Maize North interior 94 57.36 73 92.78 22 73.31 South interior 39 44.61 36 66.20 57 52.48 Groundnut (rain) River area 11 41.37 28 30.81 3 50.00 Sesame (early) Dryland 55 28.74 45 27.88 River area 18 6.86 4 50.00 Sunflower Dryland 71 17.22 88 20.99 BY GENDER Maize Male 66 51.85 53 85.96 40 56.01 Female 54 63.75 54 64.78 42 67.70 Groundnut (rain) Male 11 52.78 21 36.17 4 50.00 Female 13 7.14 50 22.78 Sesame (early) Male 30 24.59 19 32.98 Female 46 18.12 31 24.48 Sunflower Male 77 18.97 92 22.28 Female 50 8.51 75 15.83 219 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 172: Proportion of Users of Chemicals and Application Rate for Oil- seeds and Maize N % of HH Application % of HH Application using rate using rate insecticide insecticides herbicide herbicide ($/acre) ($/acre) BY ECOREGION Maize North interior 83 4 0.67 South interior 97 1 7.56 0.01 18.16 Groundnut (rain) River area 36 86 12.78 Sesame (early) Dryland 22 14 9.70 5 3.19 River area 28 61 4.60 Sunflower Dryland 17 BY GENDER Maize Male 156 2 0.67 1 18.16 Female 24 4 7.56 Groundnut (rain) Male 28 82 12.24 Female 8 100 14.35 Sesame (early) Male 37 46 5.68 Female 13 23 3.59 8 3.19 Sunflower Male 13 Female 4 220 ANNEX 11 Table 173: Total Labor Use and Ratio by Tasks and Type of Labor Total Land Plantation Crop Harvest Post- Family hours/ preparation % mang. harvest labor acre % % % % % BY ECOREGION Maize North interior 202.4 23 8 27 31 12 34 South interior 202.3 17 8 32 28 15 55 Groundnut(rain) River area 217.4 17 2 43 28 9 75 Sesame(early) Dryland 185.6 18 3 34 26 19 53 River area 118.7 19 2 29 33 17 53 Sunflower Dryland 98.0 16 4 42 23 14 41 BY GENDER Maize Male 200.3 20 8 28 29 14 43 Female 210.9 17 7 36 30 10 56 Groundnut (rain) Male 204.8 16 2 42 30 9 73 Female 232.6 21 3 46 21 8 83 Sesame (early) Male 167.4 18 2 31 29 21 51 Female 190.2 20 3 33 31 12 58 Sunflower Male 100.4 16 5 39 27 14 43 Female 97.7 16 4 54 12 15 35 221 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 174: Maize Farm Budgets, Shan State Northern Interior Southern Interior Average Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 1,729.7 293 506,991 1,507.5 299 451,359 1,598.0 297 474,100 Costs Seeds Kg 5.0 4,195 21,084 4.9 4,092 20,238 5.0 4,134 20,583 Urea Kg 48.6 398 19,350 15.5 440 6,826 29.0 411 11,926 NPK Kg 67.4 304 20,487 17.1 456 7,787 37.6 345 12,958 T-Super Kg 13.9 307 4,266 35.4 330 11,664 26.6 325 8,652 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg 427 233 312 Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 31 297 189 Total material inputs 65,645 47,046 54,619 Land preparation Hours 5.0 497 2,467 10.1 328 3,303 8.0 371 2,963 Seeding Hours 3.7 481 1,764 8.8 347 3,041 6.7 377 2,521 Irrigation Hours 0.04 417 16 0.04 417 10 Crop Management Hours 23.4 408 9,535 43.7 299 13,042 35.4 328 11,614 Harvest Hours 36.9 407 15,019 47.1 237 11,143 42.9 296 12,721 Post-harvest Hours 7.7 463 3,557 13.9 303 4,229 11.4 347 3,955 Total hired labor 76.6 422 32,340 123.6 281 34,775 104.4 323 33,784 Land preparation Hours 43.3 497 21,561 30.1 328 9,875 36.1 371 13,391 Seeding Hours 15.4 481 7,381 13.2 347 4,574 14.2 377 5,366 Irrigation Hours 3.1 422 1,314 3.1 417 1,296 Crop Management Hours 41.7 408 17,021 27.7 299 8,283 33.9 328 11,116 Harvest Hours 39.1 407 15,936 27.0 237 6,399 32.5 296 9,637 Post-harvest Hours 13.3 463 6,152 17.5 303 5,297 15.5 347 5,396 Total own labor 125.1 446 69,365 78.1 303 34,427 97.2 356 46,203 Land preparation Unit 30,369 18,091 20,543 Crop management Unit 251 149 Harvest and postharvest Unit 10,652 9,845 10,174 Fuel Unit 6,932 10,517 9,057 Draught oxen Unit 2,833 1,473 2,027 Other services Unit 7,480 7,115 7,264 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 33,371 38,174 36,218 Working capital before interest Unit 112,781 104,622 107,944 Interest on working capital 2,436 2,354 2,429 Total Costs MMK/acre 203,157 156,776 173,252 Gross margin MMK/acre 373,199 329,010 346,961 Gross margin $/ha 919 810 854 Net margin MMK/acre 303,834 294,582 300,758 Net margin $/ha 767 744 759 Labor productivity $/day 18.04 16.36 17.04 Total labor Days/ha 62 62 62 Yield Kg/ha 4,272 3,729 3,948 Average cultivated area Ha 0.62 0.77 0.70 Number of observations 83 97 180 222 ANNEX 11 Table 175: Groundnut Farm Budget, River Area Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 230.7 1,279 295,082 Costs Seeds Kg 37.2 1,626 60,456 Urea Kg 3.8 431 1,644 NPK Kg 6.3 609 3,854 T-Super Kg 3.3 200 653 Other inorganic fertilizers Kg Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 11,461 Total material inputs 78,068 Land preparation Hours 21.4 301 6,455 Seeding Hours 2.2 265 588 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 76.1 190 14,431 Harvest Hours 61.3 402 24,636 Post-harvest Hours 13.6 340 4,627 Total hired labor 174.7 299 50,737 Land preparation Hours 18.6 301 5,611 Seeding Hours 3.2 265 856 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 25.6 190 4,860 Harvest Hours 7.8 402 3,126 Post-harvest Hours 5.9 340 2,012 Total own labor 42.3 299 16,466 Land preparation Unit Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 4,984 Fuel Unit 1,425 Draught oxen Unit 4,752 Other services Unit 8,595 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 19,755 Working capital before interest Unit 119,297 Interest on working capital 1,789 Total Costs MMK/acre 166,815 Gross margin MMK/acre 144,732 Gross margin $/ha 356 Net margin MMK/acre 128,266 Net margin $/ha 324 Labor productivity $/day 8.32 Total labor Days/ha 65 Yield Kg/ha 558 Average cultivated area Ha 0.42 Number of observations 36 223 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS Table 176: Sesame Farm Budgets, Sagaing Dry Land River Area Average Unit Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Quantity Price Total Gross Revenue Kg 64.2 2,474 158,791 73.2 2,326 170,301 69.8 2,378 165,928 Costs Seeds Kg 2.3 1,982 4,640 7.0 1,859 13,073 5.3 1,880 9,869 Urea Kg 14.8 474 7,016 0.7 699 508 6.1 491 2,980 NPK Kg 11.6 720 8,330 0.5 350 185 4.7 694 3,280 T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit 1,235 2,604 2,084 Total material inputs 21,220 16,370 18,213 Land preparation Hours 17.9 208 3,731 5.6 325 1,815 10.3 248 2,543 Seeding Hours 3.6 257 933 0.5 267 127 1.7 259 433 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 37.0 257 9,499 22.2 252 5,582 27.8 254 7,070 Harvest Hours 34.2 294 10,062 34.9 246 8,578 34.7 264 9,142 Post-harvest Hours 9.6 804 7,711 5.7 870 4,929 7.2 837 5,986 Total hired labor 102.4 364 31,935 68.8 392 21,030 81.5 372 25,173 Land preparation Hours 19.1 208 3,973 21.5 325 6,990 20.6 248 5,111 Seeding Hours 3.8 257 977 2.2 267 582 2.7 259 701 Irrigation Hours Crop Management Hours 39.0 257 10,013 13.1 252 3,307 22.3 254 5,671 Harvest Hours 19.6 294 5,761 10.9 246 2,670 14.5 264 3,821 Post-harvest Hours 26.9 804 21,672 14.8 870 12,907 19.5 837 16,359 Total own labor 83.3 364 42,397 49.9 392 26,457 62.6 372 31,662 Land preparation Unit 12,500 1,533 3,842 Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 138 48 82 Fuel Unit 604 849 756 Draught oxen Unit 5,415 2,350 3,515 Other services Unit 5,934 4,661 5,145 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 12,955 8,152 9,977 Working capital before interest Unit 48,338 32,046 38,236 Interest on working capital 1,044 692 860 Total Costs MMK/acre 109,552 72,701 85,885 Gross margin MMK/acre 91,637 124,057 111,705 Gross margin $/ha 226 305 275 Net margin MMK/acre 49,239 97,601 80,043 Net margin $/ha 124 246 202 Labor productivity $/day 6.18 10.81 8.54 Total labor Days/ha 57 37 44 Yield Kg/ha 129 148 140 Average cultivated area Ha 0.43 0.55 0.50 Number of observations 22 28 50 224 ANNEX 11 Table 177: Sunflower Farm Budget, Dryland Ecoregion, Sagaing Unit Quantity Price (Kyat) Total Gross Revenue Kg 268.7 734 197,310 Costs Seeds Kg 6.0 650 3,878 Urea Kg 10.1 400 4,043 NPK Kg 16.5 360 5,924 T-Super Kg Other inorganic fertilizers Kg Organic fertilizers Kg Pesticides Unit Total material inputs 13,845 Land preparation Hours 5.1 297 1,514 Seeding Hours 2.2 209 466 Irrigation Hours 0.3 250 63 Crop Management Hours 14.2 171 2,426 Harvest Hours 26.8 163 4,355 Post-harvest Hours 5.8 217 1,224 Total hired labor 54.3 185 10,048 Land preparation Hours 10.6 297 3,155 Seeding Hours 3.7 209 775 Irrigation Hours 5.9 250 1,466 Crop Management Hours 19.5 171 3,347 Harvest Hours 8.4 163 1,371 Post-harvest Hours 5.9 211 1,240 Total own labor 43.5 217 11,354 Land preparation Unit Crop management Unit Harvest and postharvest Unit 2,842 Fuel Unit 518 Draught oxen Unit 2,268 Other services Unit 6,342 Total livestock, machinery and fuel 11,971 Working capital before interest Unit 30,284 Interest on working capital 681 Total Costs MMK/acre 47,899 Gross margin MMK/acre 160,765 Gross margin $/ha 396 Net margin MMK/acre 149,411 Net margin $/ha 377 Labor productivity $/day 15.68 Total labor Days/ha 30 Yield Kg/ha 542 Average cultivated area Ha 0.61 Number of observations 17 225 MYANMAR: ANALYSIS OF FARM PRODUCTION ECONOMICS 226 No. 57, Pyay Road (Corner of Shwe Hinthar Road), 6 ½ mile, Hlaing Twonship, Yangon, Myanmar Tel: +95 1 654 824 Email: myannar@worldbank.org www.worldbank.org/myanmar www.facebook.com/WorldBankMyanmar