MS4 level being good citizen -imperative- (1) (1).pdf
Session 6.2 small scale rubber farming, china
1. Small scale rubber farming and income risk in
Xishuangbanna, China
Hermann Waibel, Shi Min
Institute of Development and Agricultural Economics,
School of Economics and Management, Leibniz University Hannover
Jikun Huang
Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Chinese Academy of Sciences
3. Background
Conditions of Xishuangbanna Dai autonomous prefecture
•
•
•
Located in the southern of China, bordering Laos, Myanmar
95% of area is mountain
Diversity of Ethnic Minorities
• Development of rubber economy
•
•
•
1950-60s: Introduction of rubber
1970-80s: Rubber expansion by state-own farms
Since 1990s: Expansion of rubber plantation by Small scale farmers
• Consequences of rubber for smallholders
•
•
Increase in household income and changes in livelihoods
Potential environmental and food security risks
Current researches status
•
•
•
Most previous studies are qualitative analysis or smaller case studies
Poor representation of smallholder rubber farming in Xishuangbanna
Insufficient quantitative information on rubber farming (e.g. yield, input use)
4. Objectives
Survey and analyze the status quo of smallholder rubber farming
•
e.g. Land use, Input, Yield, Productivity, Revenue
Identify and discuss the critical values for rubber yield and price by
breakeven analysis
Assess the contribution of rubber to household income
Explore the potential income riskiness of small rubber farmers using
appropriate income diversification indices
5. Data
•
Baseline survey of SURUMER-SP9 on March 2013
Questionnaire design
Pre-survey: July 2012
Pre-test: December 2012
•
Sampling
Stratified random sampling design
(Based on population, rubber area
and geographic location)
8 townships; 42 villages
•
Enumerators training
5 days training:
3 days class room lectures and exercises
2 days field training
•
Household survey
Compensation 30 Yuan /per household
612 households
Response rate 84 % (of sample drawn)
6. Results
Rubber farming
•
Land use for rubber farming
Percent in total rubber
land
(mu/person)
Share of rubber land area
in total land area
(%)
13.36
10.57
81%
100%
Han
Dai
Hani
Yi
Bulang
Jinuo
Yao
Others
10.46
10.11
18.30
24.04
15.18
18.20
15.91
5.29
6.47
8.58
16.69
15.63
10.52
14.84
10.16
4.33
75%
85%
88%
69%
72%
79%
58%
82%
2.7%
47.5%
17.7%
15.2%
8.5%
6.0%
2.3%
0.1%
Altitude≤800 meters
800<Altitude≤1000
meters
Altitude>1000 meters
County
Menghai
Jinghong
Mengla
12.74
10.53
85%
68.1%
12.93
9.75
74%
27.0%
35.39
21.81
62%
5.0%
10.71
9.80
18.23
7.46
8.35
14.12
77%
84%
79%
8.9%
36.6%
54.5%
Total land area
(mu/person)
Categories
All sample (612
households)
Ethnic
Rubber land area
Altitude
7. Results
Contribution of rubber to household income by category
Total net income
Rubber net income
Percentage of rubber income
Yuan/person/year
Yuan/person/year
in total
16515.72
6842.24
41%
0 year
14262.97
6692.15
47%
1-6 years
15570.10
6985.37
45%
7- 16 years
21555.41
6729.40
31%
Han
18150.01
3336.54
18%
Dai
12845.30
7024.08
55%
Hani
22805.97
13372.22
59%
Yi
22783.56
1179.63
5%
Bulang
16674.77
6493.13
39%
Jinuo
39343.31
8791.59
22%
Yao
5313.97
-1228.05
-23%
Categories
Total
Education of household head
Ethnic groups
8. Results
Contribution of rubber to households income by category
Total net income
Rubber net income
Percentage of rubber income
Yuan/person/year
Yuan/person/year
in total
Altitude≤800 meters
16890.27
8537.672
51%
800<Altitude≤1000 meters
12850.11
3768.178
29%
Altitude>1000 meters
51437.13
-1812.035
-4%
Menghai
10195.23
2686.73
26%
Jinghong
14944.51
7177
48%
Mengla
20408.45
7869
39%
Categories
Altitude
County
9. Results
Cost of rubber farming input in 2012 (Yuan/mu)
Categories
Total expenses
Expense items
Fertilizer
Pesticide
Hiring labor
164.72
134.90
24.87
4.94
0 year
168.59
137.26
29.95
1.39
1-6 years
156.82
131.71
23.06
2.05
7- 16 years
177.60
139.05
22.24
16.31
Han
262.56
220.64
34.99
6.93
Dai
185.13
157.24
26.19
1.70
Hani
151.98
101.00
25.27
25.71
Yi
89.28
70.28
16.25
2.74
Bulang
110.57
86.53
23.23
0.80
Jinuo
126.28
96.92
22.31
7.04
Yao
106.34
90.36
15.98
0.00
All samples (1667 plots)
Education of household head
Ethnic groups
11. Results
Productivity and Revenue of rubber plantation in 2012 (Yuan/mu)
Rubber cake
Gross Revenue
Net revenue
kg/mu
Yuan/mu
Yuan/mu
112.02
2341.30
2158.73
0 year
126.28
2579.72
2383.42
1-6 years
109.40
2286.15
2114.28
7- 16 years
96.94
2118.48
1929.57
Han
128.43
2011.68
1833.69
Dai
113.13
2395.54
2197.85
Hani
105.00
2470.62
2294.80
Yi
118.76
1929.84
1818.00
Bulang
95.76
2015.79
1945.95
Jinuo
108.78
2072.36
1926.61
Yao
40.00
520.00
113.00
Categories
All samples (842 harvested plots)
Education of household head
Ethnic groups
12. Results
Productivity and Revenue of rubber plantation in 2012 (Yuan/mu) cont.
Rubber cake
kg/mu
Gross Revenue
Yuan/mu
Net revenue
Yuan/mu
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than 10 years
91.94
117.68
128.18
1788.59
2527.47
2760.83
1619.37
2358.88
2552.85
Altitude≤800 meters
800<Altitude≤1000 meters
altitude>1000 meters
117.19
95.96
43.33
2536.95
1716.16
1430.00
2351.15
1543.06
1346.00
Menghai
Jinghong
Mengla
82.11
119.99
107.95
2323.36
2480.51
2141.36
2106.61
2271.80
2005.94
Categories
Harvest phase
Altitude
County
13. Results
County
Breakeven point (mean)
Price (Yuan/kg)
Yield (kg/mu)
Total samples
28.36
46.73
21.97%
Menghai
55.08
66.24
31.65%
Jinghong
35.80
56.06
27.31%
Mengla
10.59
28.02
11.65%
14. Results
•
Distribution of distance between actual price and breakeven price
Kernel density distribution
Cumulative distribution
0
0
.2
.01
.4
.02
Total
.6
.03
.8
.04
1
Total samples
-400
-300
-200
-100
Price_minus_Breakevenprice
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 2.5700
0
100
-400
-300
-200
-100
Price_minus_Breakevenprice
0
100
15. Results
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
Cumulative distribution of distance between price and breakeven price for the three
counties.
0
•
-400
-300
-200
-100
Price_minus_Breakevenprice
Menghai
Mengla
Jinghong
0
100
16. Results
•
Percent of Yield below Breakeven point by
harvest phase
30%
25%
•
Percent of Yield below Breakeven point by
altitude
Altitude>800
29.50%
26.89%
20%
21.77%
15%
16.05%
700<Altitude≤800
26.09%
600<Altitude≤700
19.33%
10%
5%
Altitude≤600
15.64%
0%
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than 10
years
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
17. Results
Categories
Total sample
Rubber
Crops except rubber
Livestock
Off farm Employment
Self-employment
Natural resource extraction
Cash gift
Public transfers
Source
612
607
403
111
143
66
444
213
409
Income
Yuan/person/year
19530.71
8477.80
4811.86
1317.05
1790.61
2070.30
169.77
623.05
270.27
Net Income
Yuan/person/year
16515.72
6842.24
4164.83
600.44
1790.61
2070.30
153.98
623.05
270.27
18. Results
•
Calculation results of Shannon Equitability Index
Average: 0.48
•
Shannon Equitability Index by Ethnicity
Highest: Yao 0.69
Lowest: Bulang 0.39
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.69
0.3
0.2
0.39
0.45
0.48
0.48
0.49
0.49
0.55
0.1
0
Bulang
Hani
Total samples
Yi
Han
Dai
Jinuo
Yao
19. Results
• Shannon Equitability Index by education level of household head
Education of household head
0 year
1-6 years
7- 16 years
Shannon equitability index
0.47
0.49
0.49
• SEI by share of rubber land in total
0.6
•
SEI by household location
Categories
SEI
Altitude
0.5
Altitude≤800 meters
800<Altitude≤1000 meters
0.57
Altitude>1000 meters
0.27
Menghai
0.51
Jinghong
0.47
Mengla
0.4
0.45
0.49
County
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Percent≤0.5
0.5<Percent≤0.8
0.8<Percent≤1
20. Results
•
Effect of income diversification on rubber farming riskiness
- Index of income diversification :
Shannon Equitability Index(SEI)
- Index of farming riskiness:
For the plots which actual yield below
breakeven points:
Riskiness=|yield minus Breakeven yield|
21. Conclusions
Rubber has taken over the rural economy in Xishunangbanna and other parts of
Southern China (81% of the total land is used for rubber cultivation) and poverty
has been reduced in the area.
Land usage, Input, productivity and revenue of smallholders rubber farming differ
among ethnic groups, locations and the characteristics of household head.
Over 40 % of household income is now from rubber farming
Over 20% of rubber plots (in harvest phase) are below the breakeven point
indicating riskiness of rubber farming which is affected by ethnic groups, harvest
phase and altitude.
Diversity in income sources is 0.48 low on average (SEI = 0.48) but varies by ethnic
minority groups (Yao = 0.69) and (Bulang =0.39).
There is some notion of a kind of “optimal diversity” based on our simple risk
measure.
Econometric analysis can provide more insights into the opportunities and risks of
rubber farming.
Reply comments:1. The objective of this tableis to show the land use for rubber farming. i.e. the share of rubber land area in total land area.“Percentage in total” just means the share of rubber land area in total land area. 81% illustrate that about 81% of land area are used for planting rubber for the total samples.For the different ethnic groups, we want to compare the differences of land use share for rubber.As we know, Dai and Hani people plant rubber earliest, and Yao people are the last.So the results suggest that the ethnic group who planted rubber earlier, the share of land use for rubber is higher.The ethnic group planted rubber more later, the share of land use for rubber is less.For the different altitude/counties, it is the similar explains.With the increasing of altitude, the share of land use for rubber is decreasing.2.For your comments, I agree with you that we should calculate the frequency.It could show the basic rubber land situation of our samples and describing our sample distributions by different categories.But I think it totally depends on our sample selections, It is unavailable to identify the differences of land use for rubber.So I suggest that at this moment, we just use the current table.
Left side of the dashed line denotes that price is below the breakeven point, and net revenues of these rubber plots are negativeThe variation of distance in the left side illustrates the riskiness of rubber farming Reply your comment:The reasons that the actual price be below break even price more than 100:It is because that some rubber plots are the first year to harvest. In this situation, the farmers only harvest several times, so the production is very low. But they still need to invest. Hence breakeven price is quit large.e.g. the yield of first year is 2 kg/mu, and the price is 10yuan/kg. expense of input is 150 Yuan/mu, cost of family labor is 300yuan/mu.So the breakeven price is (300+150)/2=225yuan/kg, thus the distance 10-225=-215So there are several points where the actual price is below break even price more than 100.
Here we need not to assume that rubber harvest starts after 6 year.Because the Harvest phase in the bar graph is just the productive phase.The productive phase is divided into three sub phase:1-5 years: means it is the first to 5th year after the beginning of harvesting. Named: Initial phase of harvesting.6-10years: means it is the 6th to 10th year after the beginning of harvesting. Named: Middle phase of harvestingMore than 10 years: means it is already harvested more than 10 years. Named: Final phase of harvesting