Rice farming

in the
Philippines:
some facts and
opportunities
V. Bruce J. Tolentino, Ph.D.
Deputy Director-General
International Rice Research Institute
September 2015
R. Mendoza (June 2015)

Yes!
But how?
 Areas
planted
to rice
Notes:
Average net surplus (deficit) 2004-08
Supply=milled production
Demand=food demand + 10% other
uses
 Total Paddy Production

1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012

Rice Production (paddy, million tons)

Philippines 3.9 5.6 7.6 9.9 12.4 15.8 18.0

Thailand 10.2 13.9 17.4 17.2 25.8 31.6 30.6

Vietnam 9.0 10.2 11.6 19.2 32.5 40.0 44.2

 Population

Country 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012

PHILIPPINES 36.7 48.1 60.7 76.5 92.3 100.0

VIETNAM 44.9 54.0 67.1 78.8 87.1 88.8

THAILAND 36.9 47.5 54.5 61.4 65.5 64.5

 Consumption per capita in kg/person
We like rice!
70

65

Global, per
person = 65 kg
60

55
Thailand = 140 kg
Myanmar = 228 kg
50
Philippines = 120 kg
45
Vietnam = 215 kg
 Rice consumption by income
group: urban
140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

2000 2003 2006

 Rice consumption by income
group: rural Philippines
160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

2000 2003 2006

 Rice: still a “normal good”
in the Philippines
Urban Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Rice, 1ST class 78.6 93.9 98.9 102.9 107.3
& ord.
Rice, NFA 13.9 7.1 4.9 2.7 1
Total 92.7 101.1 104 105.8 108.6

Rural Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Rice, 1ST class 76.15 103 114.3 117.2 120.6
and ord.
Rice, NFA 12.67 8.8 5.3 2.3 1.9
Total 89.16 112.2 120 120 123

Source: Balagtas, Yorobe and Rejesus

2.4 M Filipino
rice farmers

Average
farm size of
1.14 ha.
Changes in rice farming in the
Philippines: Insights from five
decades of IRRI Loop Survey

Kei Kajisa
September 3, 2015
 IRRI Loop Survey
•Initiated in 1966, every 4-5
years until 2011-12, 23 rounds;
•Detailed records on rice
production in both wet and dry
seasons.
•The world’s longest survey
series of rice farming and rice
farm families.
Central
Luzon
Loop
Survey

• Surveyed farms at specific kilometer posts

along highway “loop” (50th, 100th, 150th etc.)
• Same field surveyed, even when the operator
changes)  Plot-level panel data
 Land tenure
100%

90%

80%

70% Mortgaged-in
60%
Borrowed
50%
Share tenant
40%
Leaseholder
30%
Owner
20%

10%

0%

Land reform: since 1963, speeded up from

1972, then again 1987  # of owner-
cultivators↑
 Rice Harvested Area, Philippines
Million Hectares
5

0
1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012
 Cropping intensity
2

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
1966-67 1970-71 1974-75 1979-80 1982-83 1986-87 1990-91 1994-95 1998-99 2003-04 2007-08 2011-12

Irrigation dev’t: UPRIIS (1975), Low-lift

pumps (1990s~)  cropping intensity ↑
 Rice Harvested Area*

1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012

Harvested Rice Area (million ha.)

Philippines 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.3 4.0 4.4 4.7

Thailand 6.1 6.9 9.2 8.8 9.9 12.1 10.8

Vietnam 4.7 4.7 5.6 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.7

* Including double- or triple-cropped irrigated areas

 Irrigated rice area, 1970s and 2010s
100
1970s 2010s

80

60
Irrigated area (%)

40

20

0
BGD IND MMR VNM PHL IDN CHN
 WS
Diffusion of MVs
100%
100%
DS
90%
90%

80%
80%

70% 70%
Hybrid
60% 60%
Mv4
50% 50%
Mv3
40% 40% Mv2
30% 30% Mv1
20% 20% TV
10% 10%

0% 0%
1966 1970 1974 1979 1982 1986 1990 1994 1999 2003 2008 2011 1967 1971 1975 1980 1987 1991 1995 1998 2004 2007 2012

Switch to newer MV very MV2: short duration,

pest and disease
rapid: 70-90% of farmers resistant
w/in 4 years. Very few MV3: MV2+ grain quality
MV4: MV3+tolerance to
hybrid users environmental stress
 Adoption of MVs, 1975-2010
120
1975 2010
100

80
Area under MV (%)

60

40

20

0
BGD IND MMR VNM PHL IDN THA CHN JPN
 Fertilizer price and use
NPK application, WS
N Price, WS

• Introduction of MV  fertilizer demand

•  fertilizer use ↑ (regardless of p↑)
• N use in 1980s close to recommended level
 Fertilizer (NPK) use, 1970-2009
400
1970 2009
Fertilizer use (kg/ha cropland)

300

200

100

0
IND VNM PHL THA CHN JPN
 Insecticide use
(kg active ingredients per ha)

Education campaigns & IPM  reduction of

insecticide use
Direct seeding since 80s  increasing herbicide
use
 Maintaining low
insecticide use
• Philippines farms use the lowest amount
than other countries: Thai, Vietnam,
Indonesia, and China;
• New varieties released since 1997 have
less resistance to pests and diseases
(Laborte et. al, 2015);
• Should resistance traits again be added
to future varieties? Are there alternative
approaches to pest management?
 Yield growth over 5 decades

Yields more than doubled. DS yields steadily

increased. WS yields plateaued at 4 t/ha.
 Rice paddy yields
1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012

Rice Yield (average, ton/ha)

Philippines 1.2 1.7 2.2 3.0 3.1 3.6 3.8

Thailand 1.7 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.8

Vietnam 1.9 2.2 2.1 3.2 4.2 5.3 5.7

 4
Rice Yield Growth, Philippines

3.5

0.8%
3

3.9%
2.1%
2.5

1.5

1
1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Source: BAS, 2013
 Small scale mechanization
Land preparation: WS Threshing: WS
100%
100%
90%
90%

80%
80%
Big thresher
70%
Rotavator 70%

60%
60% Large tractor (4W)
Small
50% 50%
Power tiller (2W) thresher
40% 40%

30%
Animal Manual
30%
threshing
20%
20%

10%
10%

0%
0%

Small scale mechanization has proceeded rapidly.

Carabaos still useful sides and corners of fields
 DS farm labor over time
Substitute hired
MV is labor using for “porcientuhan”
crop care.  Labor labor for more
use increased Mechanization, direct expensive family
seeding (in DS only), labor
short duration MVs
 Declining real paddy price
Real
2012
price

• Net rice buyers (marginal farmers and

urbanites) are the beneficiaries of GR.
Monthly rice price index: PH vs Thai rice, 2000-14

Philippines domestic rice price

SWS

Thailand domestic rice price

 Changes in farm profit
Real price
at 2012

• Declining profit in WS, almost zero in 2000s.

• Maintained profit in DS.
 Stagnant WS yield

WS yields plateaued at 4 t/ha. Kajisa (2015):

major reason is flood, a man-made disaster.
 Man-made floods?
Highway blocks water flow

Poultry farm blocks water flow

Central Luzon flooding is very site-specific.

Irrigation vs. flood control?
 Reducing losses
due to floods
WS flooding is worsening:

•A man-made disaster? Flooded

areas in patches, seriousness varies
by location.

•What is best approach? Breeding or

engineering?
 Submarino rice survives
17 to 21 days of flooding
IR64-Sub1
Samba-Sub1
IR49830 (Sub1)
Samba IR64 Samba
IR42 IR49830 (Sub1)
IR42
IR64
IR49830 (Sub1) IR64
IR64-Sub1
Samba IR64-Sub1
Samba-Sub1
IR42
IR42

IR49830 (Sub1)
IR64-Sub1
IR49830 (Sub1)

Samba
Samba-Sub1

IR64
 Factors behind profit changes
Gross revenue
• DS: Paddy market price ↓ < Yield ↑ 
Revenue ↑
• WS: Paddy market price ↓ > Yield -- 
Revenue ↓
Total costs
• Total cost stable (both DS and WS);
• Farmers have substituted less expensive
inputs (hired labor) for more expensive
inputs (family labor).
 Schooling has improved
100%

90%

80% College
70%

60% High
50% school
40% Elementary
30%

20%
No
10% education
0%
1966-67 1970-71 1974-75 1979-80 1982-83 1986-87 1990-91 1994-95 1998-99 2003-04 2007-08 2011-12

Average schooling: 5 years in 1966, 9 in 2011;

Increasing number of HS and college graduates
among younger farmers.
 Changes in income sources
100%

90%
Other sources (rentals, etc.)

80%
Remittances
70%

60%
Off-farm employment
50%

40% Livestock and poultry

30%

20% Nonrice crop

10%
Rice
0%
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Rice farming has become just a side business.

The family farm now managed by family member, with
aged parent remaining in HH.
 Rural aging (1979-2011)
1979:
average
age of
farm
operator:
43

2011:
average
age of
farm
operator:
59

Young exit to industrial, service sectors;

Current rural pyramid looks like those in DCs.
 Increasing % of
female-headed farm HH
1966- 1970- 1974- 1979- 1982- 1986- 1990- 1994- 1998- 2003- 2007- 2011-
67 71 75 80 83 87 91 95 99 04 08 12

Male 100 100 98 99 99 98 96 94 89 85 87 81

Fe-
2 1 1 2 4 6 11 15 13 19
male

Possible key factors:

• Death of husband
• Sons are working in non-farm sectors.
 Land Non-ag
reform sector
development
Farmer-
operators
Farmer
Irrigation Frequent aging
Farm
develop- release of
Income ↑
ment MVs

Further
Traditio- Non- mechani-
Green Investment
nal rice farm zation (e.g.
Revolution in schooling
farming Jobs↑ combine
harvester)

Labor
income Hired
Real ↑ labor
rice P
↓
Landless
agri labor
 Obstacles to improved
productivity
• Prolonged land reform inactive land
rental market little land consolidation 
weaker adoption of improved seeds,
technology, mechanization  dormancy or
decline in productivity;

• Land improvement constrained  Rolling

landscape, soft soils, and small plots 
difficult to operate combine harvesters 
location specific diffusion.
 Labor inefficiencies
Outsourcing of farm labor may
increase inefficiency:
• Frequent replacement of labor;

• New laborers increasingly less

skilled and unfamiliar with specific
agro-ecological characteristics of
the farms they work upon.
R. Mendoza, June 2015
Conflicting missions and metrics
DA NFA
Key Farmers Consumers
constituents
Other DA staff Rice sector businessmen;
stakeholders Local governments NFA staff
Politicians Politicians
Key R&D Buy paddy from farmers;
instruments Extension Hold stocks of paddy;
Jobs Import rice;
Giveaways (farm inputs Store rice;
and equipment, small Regulate entry and trade.
infra)
Key Farm productivity; Rice retail price;
performance Self-sufficiency; Rice business profitability;
metrics Farm paddy price; Consumer welfare;
Farmer income.