IFPRI - Comparative Advantage of Cultivation of Pulses in Sri lanka, viraji jayaweera

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE OF CULTIVATION OF PULSES IN </p><p>SRI LANKA </p><p>Viraji Jayaweera </p><p>Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management </p><p>Faculty of Agriculture </p><p>University of Peradeniya </p></li><li><p>Outline </p><p> Importance of pulses </p><p> Sri Lankan condition </p><p> Objectives of the study </p><p> Measurements </p><p> Data and data sources </p><p> Green gram </p><p> Black gram </p><p> Cowpea </p><p> Conclusions and recommendations </p></li><li><p>Importance of Pulses </p><p>Health Concerns </p><p> Provide essential amino acids </p><p> Cheap compared to animal protein sources </p><p> Major source of protein for poor population in rural areas and for vegetarian population </p><p>Sustainable Agriculture </p><p> Increase the organic matter content in the soil </p><p> Fix atmospheric nitrogen to enrich the soil fertility </p></li><li><p>Sri Lankan Condition </p><p>Source: Department of Census and Statistics </p><p>Crop Production </p><p>(MT) </p><p>Imports </p><p>(MT) </p><p>Top Three Exporters to Sri </p><p>Lanka </p><p>Green gram 13,890 7,090 Australia, Thailand, Myanmar </p><p>Black gram 9,175 n.a. Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand </p><p>Cowpea 15,070 152,000 Myanmar, Brazil, Madagascar </p><p>0 </p><p>0.5 </p><p>1 </p><p>1.5 </p><p>2 </p><p>2.5 </p><p>3 </p><p>3.5 </p><p>4 </p><p>4.5 </p><p>5 </p><p>1980/81 1985/86 1990/91 1995/96 2002 2005 2006/07 2009/10 2012/13 </p><p>Axis</p><p> Tit</p><p>le </p><p>Share of Total Expenditure on Food and Drink </p><p>Average monthly household quantity consumed </p><p>Suitable to grow </p><p>in many </p><p>geographical </p><p>regions as a third </p><p>season crop </p><p>Source: Department of Census and Statistics, Trade Map (2013) </p></li><li><p>Objectives of the Study </p><p>1. To estimate the Domestic Resource Cost of cultivation of green gram, black </p><p>gram and cowpea in different districts in Sri Lanka </p><p>2. To investigate the effect of incentives provided for both outputs and </p><p>intermediate inputs on pulse produces </p><p>3. To investigate the private and social profitability of green gram, black gram </p><p>and cowpea cultivation in different districts in Sri Lanka </p></li><li><p>Measurements </p><p> Domestic Resource Cost (DRC) </p><p> Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) </p><p> Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC) </p><p> Private Profitability </p><p> Social Profitability </p><p>Green gram Black gram Cowpea </p></li><li><p>Data and Data Sources </p><p> Market and economic prices of </p><p>fertilizer, seeds, labor, machinery </p><p>and output </p><p> Opportunity cost of labor and seeds </p><p> Border taxes on output and </p><p>machinery </p><p>Economic prices were derived from the market prices by taking the effect of </p><p>import tariffs and para-tariffs on the output, subsidies on fertilizers and seeds, </p><p>and import tariffs and para-tariffs on agrochemicals and machinery </p><p> Cost of Cultivation reports of </p><p>Department of Agriculture </p><p> Department of Census and </p><p>Statistics </p><p> Central Bank of Sri Lanka </p><p> Sri Lanka Customs </p></li><li><p>Green Gram </p><p>Unit Districts </p><p>Hambantota Ampara Jaffna Monaragala Kandy Kurunegala </p><p>Private </p><p>Profit Rs./ </p><p>acre 48,299 49,742 50,259 45,358 48,411 48,001 </p><p>Social </p><p>Profit Rs./ </p><p>acre 52,958 29,178 51,103 49,330 28,042 27,635 </p><p>NPC Ratio 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 </p><p>EPC Ratio 1.31 1.31 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 </p><p>DRC Ratio 0.06 0.47 0.06 0.06 0.48 0.49 </p></li><li><p>Black Gram </p><p> Unit Districts </p><p>Anuradhapura Vavuniya Ampara Monaragala Kandy Kurunegala </p><p>Private </p><p>Profit Rs. </p><p>/acre 28,729 14,004 29,347 28,139 30,587 30,342 </p><p>Social </p><p>Profit Rs. </p><p>/acre 25,696 16,684 11,224 24,016 12,331 12,089 </p><p>NPC Ratio 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 </p><p>EPC Ratio 1.53 1.58 1.51 1.54 1.53 1.53 </p><p>DRC Ratio 0.09 0.18 0.63 0.12 0.57 0.58 </p></li><li><p>Cowpea </p><p>Unit Districts </p><p>Ampara Anuradhapura Jaffna Monaragala Kandy Kurunegala </p><p>Private </p><p>Profit Rs./ </p><p>acre 97,443 32,882 11,996 18,955 31,740 -10,550 </p><p>Social </p><p>Profit Rs./ </p><p>acre 66,820 43,232 23,452 31,371 14,087 -19,336 </p><p>NPC Ratio 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 </p><p>EPC Ratio 1.30 1.33 1.37 1.35 1.33 1.52 </p><p>DRC Ratio 0.30 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.68 2.82 </p></li><li><p>Conclusions and Recommendations </p><p> Major determinants of the private and social profitability of pulse cultivation in </p><p>Sri Lanka </p><p> Spatial variability in opportunity costs of labor </p><p> Spatial variability in average yields </p><p> Pulse producers are protected from incentives provided for both outputs and </p><p>intermediate inputs </p><p> Cultivation the green gram, black gram and cowpea is socially profitable in all </p><p>the districts covered in the study, however cowpea is not socially profitable to </p><p>grow in Kurunegala district </p></li><li><p>Conclusions and Recommendations Cont. </p><p> The social profitability of growing pulses in Kandy, Kurunegala and Amapara </p><p>is smaller due to high opportunity cost of labor </p><p>The economic environment in Hambantota, Jaffna, Anuradhapura, Vavuniya </p><p>and Monaragala are more conducive for the cultivation of pulses </p><p> There is a divergence in private and social profits in Hambantota, Jaffna, </p><p>Anuradhapura, Vavuniya and Monaragala districts </p><p> It is recommended to provide of further incentives to the farmers cultivating </p><p>pulses in these areas </p></li><li><p>THANK YOU </p></li></ul>


View more >