Lessons from Three Decades of Green Revolution in the Philippines

Jonna P. Estudillo and Keijiro Otsuka (November 6, 2002)

Jonna P. Estudillo School of Economics University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Philippines Tel. 632-927-9686 to 91; 632-920-5461 FAX 632-920-5462; 632-921-3359 (Address beginning November 15, 2002) Keijiro Otsuka (corresponding author) GRIPS/FASID Joint Graduate Program National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies 2-2 Wakamatsu-cho, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 162-8677 Japan Tel. 81-3-3341-0670 FAX 81-3-3341-1030 Email otsuka@grips.ac.jp The authors would like to thank the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) for providing us the file copy of the Rice Statistics Handbook, 1970-97 and the Loop Survey data. The regional map of the Philippines shown in Figure 1 is also through the courtesy of the Geographic Information System of the Social Sciences Division of IRRI. We also wish to acknowledge the invaluable suggestions given by Cristina C. David and Mahabub Hossain in the early draft of this manuscript. The usual caveat applies.

0

Abstract This paper aims to assess the changing contributions of successive generations of modern varieties (MVs) of rice to yield increase and stability and changes in total factor productivity (TFP) in different ecosystems in the Philippines. We found that the yield increase in irrigated ecosystem has been by far the highest due to the diffusion of pestand disease-resistant MVs, which also contribute significantly to yield stability. MV contribution to yield increase in rainfed ecosystem has been significant but much less while upland environment has experienced an upward trend in yield albeit slowly due to the diffusion of improved traditional varieties and MVs suitable to adverse production environments. The contribution of MVs cum irrigation to TFP growth is about 50 percent in in Central Luzon.

1

1.

Introduction More than three decades have passed since the International Rice Research

Institute (IRRI) released IR8 in 1966, the first modern variety (MV) of rice, which spearheaded the Green Revolution in the Philippines. Since IR8 a large number of rice varieties have been developed by rice scientists and accepted by Filipino farmers. Indeed the Green Revolution is not a one-shot phenomenon but an evolutionary process involving the replacements of earlier MVs by newer MVs with better characteristics (Hayami and Otsuka, 1994). MVs can be classified into three distinct groups based on the dates of release and their distinct characteristics. The first-generation MVs (MV1) consisting of IR series from IR5 to IR34 developed by IRRI and C4 series developed by the University of the Philippines were released from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. MV1 was potentially higher yielding than traditional varieties (TVs) under ideal conditions but not necessarily so on farmers’ fields due to its susceptibility to pests and diseases.1 MV1 is more fertilizer responsive than TVs because it is short in stature and has stiff straws that enable it to bear more grains with greater fertilizer application. Second-generation MVs (MV2) consisting of IR36 to IR62 was released from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s. MV2 was designed to ensure yield stability by incorporating multiple pests and disease resistance. The third-generation MVs (MV3) consisting of IR64 to IR72 and PSBRc2 to PSBRc74 was released from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s. MV3 incorporated better grain quality and stronger host plant resistance. One of the current agenda in rice-breeding

2

programs is to develop rice varieties that are suitable to adverse production environments, e.g. those areas subject to drought, flooding, and poor soil quality (IRRI, 1997).2 It is important to mention that there are other changes in rice farming technologies that have occurred over the study period, which we did not rigorously analyze as these changes are mainly related to the development in MVs. These are irrigation expansion, fertilizer application, herbicide use, integrated pest management, mechanization, and direct-seeding. Some observers of the Green Revolution casts doubt over the sustainability of Green Revolution technologies particularly those that are developed for irrigated rice cropping systems (FAO, 1997). Flinn and DeDatta (1984) and Cassman and Pingali (1995) found an evidence of a downward trend in paddy yields in some long-term experiments using constant level of inputs. Indeed, it is possible that given the declining trend in world rice price, rice yields may stagnate or even decline in the near future in the absence of major research breakthrough (Pingali, Hossain and Gerpacio, 1997). A major question is to what extent the improvements of MVs contributed to sustained enhancement of rice production efficiency in favorable rice growing areas as well as in less favorable areas. Thus, in this study we attempt to explore the contributions of successive generations of MVs to yield increase and stability, and changes in total factor productivity (TFP) in different ecosystems in the Philippines.

1

The most common diseases are blast, bacterial blight, grassy stunt and tungro while the most destructive insects are brown planthopper, green leafhopper, and stemborers. 2 Research at IRRI is now underway to develop a new plant type, dubbed as the “super rice”, which involves major improvements in rice plant architecture. Super rice is designed to have more productive tillers with larger panicles and thick sturdy stem in order to bear greater grain weight (Khush, 1995). Super rice is likely to produce 25-30% more grains than the current MV plant type.

3

Needles to say, yield is an imperfect measure of production efficiency because it is affected by the use of non-land inputs, particularly fertilizer. Yet since the productivity of fertilizer increases with the introduction of MVs, it can be a reasonable proxy for the sum of the direct yield effect and indirect effect of MV adoption through its effects on the application of other yield-increasing inputs. While TFP index is a more desirable indicator of technical efficiency, we cannot estimate it from the official statistics because of the lack of detailed data on the amount and prices of inputs. We estimate TFP index using the Central Luzon Loop survey data collected recurrently by IRRI from 1966 to 1999. It may be worth mentioning that TFP index has limitations: it cannot capture the improvement in allocative efficiency and the socially desirable effects of increase in cropping intensity owing to the introduction of MVs characterized by shorter-growth duration and non-photo period sensitivity. This paper has three remaining sections. Section 2 gives an overview of the Green Revolution in the Philippines as a whole, particularly focusing on yield trends and fertilizer use in different ecosystems using secondary data. Section 3 examines in detail the Green Revolution in Central Luzon (popularly known as the “rice bowl” of the Philippines) by identifying the factors affecting adoption of successive generations of MVs and by assessing the impacts of MV adoption on rice yields and productivity. Finally, Section 4 identifies the lessons that can be drawn from the Philippine experience.

2.

Green Revolution in the Philippines The data in this section comes from the Rice Statistics Handbook, 1970-97, which

is published jointly by the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PHILRICE) and the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) of the Department of Agriculture of the Philippine 4

government. This data set contains information on rice production, yield, and area planted in irrigated, rainfed, and upland ecosystems for the whole Philippines and its 15 regions from 1970 to 1997.3 MVs, however, are not grouped into early and improved MVs in this data set. 2.1 An Overview of the Rice Sector in the Philippines Rice has been traditionally grown in six major regions in the Philippines (see Figure 1). Ilocos, Cagayan Valley, Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog have welldeveloped irrigation infrastructure systems, while Bicol and Western Visayas are endowed with favorable rainfall pattern. These six regions are the frontrunners of the Green Revolution in the country. Central Luzon is by far the largest producer of rice contributing, on average, to 17 percent of the overall rice production in the country from 1970 to 1997 (Figure 2). Western Visayas is the second largest producer followed by Cagayan Valley and Southern Tagalog. Western Visayas has emerged as a major rice producer in more recent years due to the adoption of shorter maturing rice varieties, which made possible a second crop of rice during the monsoon months of June to November. Rice farms in the country are made up of small landholdings averaging less than 3.0 ha, which are commonly operated under owner cultivation (Philippine Census of Agriculture, 1991). There has been a consistent decline in the average size of rice farms from 3.0 ha in 1960 to 1.70 ha in 1991 due to increased population pressure and the implementation of land reform program in the 1970s that sets a limit on the maximum size of operational landholdings (Hayami, Quisumbing and Adriano, 1990).

3

At the time of writing of this paper, PHILRICE and BAS are in the process of assembling the same set of data for 1998 to 2000.

5

Rice is planted in irrigated, rainfed, and upland ecosystems. The share in rice production of irrigated ecosystem increased from 56 percent in 1970 to 75 percent in 1997 due to increased adoption of high-yielding and shorter-maturing MVs that are well suited to irrigated environment (Table 1). On the contrary, the share in rice production of rainfed ecosystem declined from 37 percent in 1970 to 23 percent in 1997 and the share of upland ecosystem declined from 7 percent in 1970 to 2 percent in 1997. 2.2 MV Adoption MVs were designed to have a significant yield advantage over TVs because of their capacity to respond favorably to high fertilizer application and to utilize solar energy effectively (Chandler, 1982). The availability of irrigation is by far the most important physical factor affecting the adoption of MVs (David and Otsuka, 1994). The proportion of the country’s rice area with irrigation rose from 30 percent in 1961 to 60 percent in 1991 (World Rice Statistics, 1995). The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) services a large portion of the area irrigated, while private deep well pumps were used in some of the operational holdings in 1991. In more recent years, there has been no major expansion in irrigated areas serviced by the NIA because public budgetary allocation is mainly geared for the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing irrigation infrastructure (Kikuchi, Maruyama and Hayami, 2002).4 The adoption of MVs was quick and widespread in a short period of time owing partly to the country’s well-developed irrigation systems. Even in as early as 1970, the adoption rate of MVs was as high as 66 percent, and MV adoption ratio reached close to

Hayami and Kikuchi (1978) identified the fluctuations in the world rice price as a primary factor that induced the short-run fluctuations in public irrigation investments.

4

6

90 percent in irrigated ecosystem by 1979 (Table 2). Similarly, MV adoption rate in rainfed ecosystem has increased consistently over time indicating that MVs perform fairly well in rainfed areas with sufficient rainfall. On the contrary, MV adoption rate in the uplands has remained marginal even up to the mid-1980s. MVs planted in the uplands are similar to MVs for lowland areas but are more suited to drought-prone upland environments.5 Upland rice breeding program started early with the release in of C22 in 1972, developed by the University of the Philippines, although up to now the number of MVs developed for the uplands are much less compared to MVs for the irrigated ecosystem. The other upland MVs are UPL Ri5, UPL Ri7, PSBRc1, PSBRc3, PSBRc5, and PSBRc7. These upland MVs have an average yield ranging from 2.2 tons to 3.0 tons per ha based on repeated trials on farmers’ fields.6 These trends clearly show that Green Revolution technology has spread mainly in irrigated ecosystem and to a lesser extent in rainfed ecosystem, but not much in the upland.7 Paddy yield in rainfed ecosystem has likewise increased steadily from about 1.4 tons per ha in 1970 to about 2.0 tons per ha in 1997. Paddy yield has remained low in the upland ecosystem, although there is a clear increasing trend albeit slowly from 0.9 ton per ha in 1970 to 1.5 tons per ha in 1997, which perhaps can be attributed to the diffusion of improved TVs as well as MVs.

5

In the Cordillera Autonomous Region for example, where rice farms are commonly upland, 84 percent of rice varieties planted in medium to high elevation are traditional (Highland Rice Production in the Philippine Cordillera, 2000). 6 A list of rice varieties released from 1991 to 2001 for irrigated, rainfed, cool elevated, saline prone, and upland ecosystems is available at http://www.philrice.gov.ph/variety/variety.htm. 7 The adoption rate of MVs in the uplands as shown in Table 1 is noticeably low in 1996 and 1997 due to the El Nino phenomenon.

7

It is observed that unfavorable regions lagged behind the favorable regions in the adoption of MVs during the early period of Green Revolution (Ruttan, 1977; David and Otsuka, 1994). Regional data from the Philippine Census of Agriculture in 1971 reveal that there was a faster rate of MV adoption in the six major rice-growing regions, where irrigation infrastructures were well developed. MV adoption rates between irrigated and rainfed ecosystems in the early 1970s were almost identical in Ilocos, Central Luzon, and Western Visayas reflecting a favorable rainfall pattern in these regions. 2.3 Yield Trends and Yield Variations Yield increase has been the major source of rice production growth in the country since the mid-1960s when there was no further opening of new rice lands for cultivation (Hayami and Ruttan, 1985). The adoption of MVs is a major factor responsible for yield increase as MVs have yield potential of three to four times the yield capacity of TVs (Khush, 1995). Yield increase, however, has been mainly concentrated in irrigated and shallow rainfed ecosystems since a large number of MVs that were developed have been by far suitable for irrigated and favorable rainfed production environments. Only a few newly released MVs were designed to suit various upland environments. Paddy yield in irrigated ecosystem has increased consistently over time from about 2.0 tons per ha in 1970 to about 3.0 tons per ha in 1997 (Table 3). A major jump in yield can be observed around the late 1970s, when the diffusion rate of pest- and diseaseresistant MV2 had reached fairly high adoption levels. Since then, however, yield increase has been slow perhaps because the majority of MVs planted in irrigated environment are those that are superior with respect to grain quality but are not so superior with respect to yield performance.

8

Yield increase can be partly attributed to increased fertilizer use as yield of MVs respond favorably to higher fertilizer application. Fertilizer application in terms of elemental micronutrients (NPK kg per ha) has increased over time and is generally higher in irrigated than in rainfed ecosystem, indicating that higher fertilizer application is more profitable in irrigated ecosystem (Table 3). Fertilizer use is higher in Ilocos, Central Luzon and Western Visayas than in other regions. One reason for the increased fertilizer application is the decline in urea price relative to paddy price (Estudillo and Otsuka, 2001). Fertilizer productivity in terms of yield per unit of NPK applied has remained fairly constant from 1988 to 1997 in both irrigated and rainfed ecosystem, although the productivity of fertilizer (or yield-fertilizer use ratio) is higher in irrigated ecosystem. This finding is similar to the findings of Tiongco and Dawe (2002) using Loop Survey data and Laguna data where the authors found no significant decline in input productivity over time. These findings casts doubt on the belief of decreasing sustainability of intensive irrigated rice cropping systems (FAO. 1997). Changes in yields of MVs and TVs by ecosystem are shown in Figure 3. There has been an increasing trend in MV yield in irrigated and rainfed ecosystems over time, which is due to continuous improvement of varieties as well as better field management and higher application of inputs. It is also clear that the genetic yield potential of MVs cannot be realized under rainfed conditions as much as in irrigated condition. On the contrary, the yield of MVs in upland has remained low, even though there has been a clear upward trend.

9

In general, the yield of TVs is much less compared to the yield of MVs in irrigated and rainfed environment. However, the yield of MVs and TVs in upland ecosystem is fairly similar which may indicate that the new varieties do not have a significant advantage in terms of increasing yield in the uplands. It is also interesting to note that gaps in yield between ecosystems are larger for MVs than for TVs indicating that the availability of good water supply is more important in the production of MVs than in the production of TVs. We found no significant differences in MV yields between the wet and dry seasons in all ecosystems, even though MVs are not photoperiod sensitive making it suitable for dry season cropping. Otsuka, Gascon and Asano (1994), however, found that MV yields are significantly higher and have greater stability in the dry season on irrigated farms in Central Luzon owing to a good supply of water and absence of typhoons. The contribution of new rice technology to rice production comes in increasing yield in both favorable and unfavorable areas so as to decrease yield variations across regions (Barker and Herdt, 1985). Figure 4 shows the coefficient of variation of rice yield in different ecosystems. Regional yield differential has increased from around 1970 to around 1980 in both irrigated and rainfed ecosystems. During this period MV1, which are high-yielding but susceptible to attacks of pests and diseases, was mainly the new varieties that were adopted in selected areas. The coefficient of variation in irrigated and rainfed ecosystems declined and then remained fairly constant from 1980 to 1990 during the widespread diffusion of MV2. MV2 incorporated resistance against multiple pests and diseases, so that a decline in yield variability was achieved during the period. Yield differential between ecosystems has declined further from 1991 to 1997 indicating that

10

recently released MVs have achieved higher yields in less favorable areas perhaps due to investments in irrigation in these areas and the spread of MVs suitable to less favorable environments. In contrast, yield instability in upland ecosystem has remained high with no clear downward trend, reflecting the diversity of adverse production environments. In summary, we have found an upward trend in paddy yield partly to due to a wider diffusion of high-yielding MVs and increased fertilizer application. Paddy yields are higher in irrigated ecosystem, which indicates that the generic yield potential of MVs are better exploited in irrigated ecosystem. Regional yield differential in irrigated and rainfed ecosystems has declined since the 1980s due to the spread of MVs that incorporated resistant against pests and diseases. Paddy yields have increased in the uplands albeit slowly and yet there has been no clear evidence of declining yield instability. 2.4 Changing Yield Effects of MVs In order to systematically analyze the changing impacts of MV adoption on yield, we estimate yield function in three separate periods of time corresponding to 1970-79, when MV1 is the more popular rice varieties; 1980-89, when MV2 adoption has become widespread; and 1990-97, when MV3 gained higher rates of adoption. In addition, we estimate yield function for 1970-76 before the advent of MV2. We also estimate fertilizer use function (in terms of elemental micronutrients NPK) since yield levels can be affected to a large extent by fertilizer use. The third set of regression function is fertilizer productivity function in terms of kg increase in yield per kg of NPK applied. We group our explanatory variables into three broad categories as follows: (1) environmental and technology variables such as the interaction terms between irrigated

11

ecosystem (IRG) and MV adoption (IRG*MV); between IRG and TV adoption (IRG*TV); between rainfed ecosystem (RNF) and MV (RNF*MV); between the upland ecosystem (UPL) and MV (UPL*MV); and between UPL and TV (UPL*TV); (2) season dummy; (3) regional dummies; and (4) year dummies. We take logarithm for dependent variables, so that the estimated coefficients show roughly percentage change in yield.8 Data on the fertilizer application are available only for irrigated and rainfed ecosystems for 1988-97 with no distinction between the use for MVs and TVs. As is shown in Table 4, the yield of MVs in irrigated ecosystem has been significantly higher and has increased over time compared to the yield of TVs in rainfed ecosystem (the control). The coefficient of the variable IRG*MV is positive and significant and its value has increased from 0.61 in the 1970s to 0.67 in the 1980s, which means that the yield advantage of MVs in irrigated ecosystem over TVs in rainfed ecosystem increased from 1.84 times to 1.97 times from the 1970s to the 1980s. The difference in the estimated coefficients is significant, implying that MV2 is higheryielding than MV1. The contribution of MV2 to improvement in yields is confirmed further from a lower coefficient of IRG*MV in 1970-76 regression, when only MV1 was available. While MV2 is superior to MV1, the years 1970-76 are bad years due to typhoon incidence, so that the yield of MV1 is much below the normal level. The yield of TVs in irrigated environment is significantly higher than the yield of TVs in rainfed ecosystem, even though the yield advantage has remained fairly the same over time. Farmers in rainfed ecosystem has been increasingly adopting recently released MVs that are drought resistant, so that the yield advantage of MVs over TVs planted in

8

The approximation is fairly accurate, if the coefficient is very small. If it is very large, we have to take exponential of the estimated coefficient to assess the percentage change.

12

rainfed ecosystem has increased significantly from the 1970s to the 1980s. Yield of MVs compared to yield of TVs in rainfed ecosystem is higher by 21% in 1970-79 and by about 28% in 1990-97. On the contrary, the yield of both MVs and TVs planted in the upland ecosystem is significantly lower than the yield of TVs planted in rainfed ecosystem. It is, however, interesting to note of the increase in the coefficients of the variables UPL*MV and UPL*TV, which indicates that the yields of MVs and TVs in the uplands have come closer to the yields of TVs in the rainfed environment. This might be due to diffusion of improved TVs and MVs that are suitable for varied upland environments. Yields in all regions are significantly lower than those in Central Luzon partly due to lower levels of fertilizer application and perhaps due to a less extensive government farm extension services. However, there are some indications that the regional yield gap has declined or at least has remained the same over time as shown in the changes in the coefficients of regional dummies. Wet season dummy has positive and significant coefficient in the yield function perhaps because of the increasing incidence of dry season cropping in rainfed areas where rice yields are generally lower during the dry season. Year dummies (which were included in the regression runs but are not shown in Table 4) show that yield remained fairly at about the same level during 1970-79 but yield accelerated during 1980-89 as a result of the diffusion of MV2. Yield gains in 1990-97 are much less compared to yield gains in 1980-89. Fertilizer application is significantly higher by 33% in irrigated ecosystem compared to the rainfed ecosystem (the control), which implies that application of fertilizer is more profitable in irrigated farms (Table 4). As a matter of fact, the coefficient of irrigation dummy is significant in the fertilizer productivity function (in

13

terms of kg yield per kg of NPK applied). The level of fertilizer application in the wet season is not significantly different from that of the dry season (the control) and fertilizer application is higher in Central Luzon (the control) than in any other regions in the country. Despite a significant increase in fertilizer use over time due importantly to decreased fertilizer prices, year dummies in the fertilizer productivity function are all insignificant, suggesting that the rice farming system is sustainable. Overall, our regression results show that MVs have contributed to a significant yield increase in irrigated ecosystem and to a limited extent in rainfed but not in the uplands. There are, however, indications that rice yields have increased in the upland ecosystem as well perhaps due to increased adoption of the improved TVs suitable to marginal areas. Upland rice, however, accounts for a decreasing and small share of rice production in the Philippines. Thus, it seems rational to think that the best strategy to reenergize Green Revolution is to develop new seeds for the irrigated ecosystem that contributes approximately 75 per cent to the world rice production (Dawe, 1998).

3.

Green Revolution in Central Luzon The data in this section comes from the Central Luzon “Loop” Survey, a panel

data set collected and compiled by Social Sciences Division of IRRI for a period of 33 years encompassing the periods before and after the Green Revolution in the Philippines from 1966 to 1999.9 The Loop survey covers a set of sample respondents located along a “loop” of the national highways in Central Luzon covering the provinces of Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Pampanga, and Pangasinan.10 The sample farmers are located in

9

See Herdt (1987) and Estudillo (2002) for a comprehensive discussion of the details of the data set. There are few sample farmers drawn in La Union, which is located in close proximity to Pangasinan so that we group these farmers in Pangasinan.
10

14

irrigated and favorably rainfed rice-growing areas, so that the Loop data is particularly useful for the analysis of the evolution and impacts of the Green Revolution, which took place mainly in favorable rice-growing ecosystems.11 The Loop survey is conducted regularly almost every four years beginning in the wet season of 1966. There were surveys in 1966/67, 1970/71, 1974, 1979/80, 1982, 1986/87, 1990/91, 1994/95, and 1998/99. The survey years 1970 and 1974 are considered bad years due to heavy typhoon damage. The wet season survey was followed by the dry season survey except in 1974 and 1982. The original sample size of the Loop survey in the wet season of 1966 was 92 respondents. This number, however, declined due to attrition over time caused by retirement, refusal of interview, and absence during the survey visit. The sample was expanded in 1979 to include new samples thus increasing the total sample size to 149 farmer respondents. In the latest survey in 1999, the sample size declined to 79 respondents. 3.1 MV Adoption by Generation Irrigation is a critical input in rice production because it can control water supply and increases the effective supply of land by allowing a second crop of rice during the dry season. The ratio of rice area with irrigation in Central Luzon had risen from 60 percent in 1966 to 71 percent in 1979 due to the construction of Pantabangan dam in 1974 (Table 5). The ratio of rice area with irrigation, however, started to decline in 1986 due to the deterioration of the national irrigation facilities in the region, which led some farmers to invest in small-scale pumps to maintain a reliable supply of irrigation water. Cropping intensity increased from 1.1 in 1966-67 to 1.6 in 1979-80 and then decreased

11

This data set to our knowledge is the only data set in the Philippines that contains information on the same set of rice farmers for such an extensive period of time.

15

slightly to 1.5 in 1986-87 to 1998-99. Availability of irrigation water and the adoption of shorter-duration MVs explain the increase in cropping intensity. Shorter maturity period allows some farmers in rainfed areas to catch the late monsoon rain in order to grow a second crop of rice in the months of October and November. It is important to mention that we did not compute cropping intensity index in the regional data because rice area is expanding even between two adjacent seasons in one crop year. Cropping intensity index measures the number of rice crops that can be grown in one year so that ideally this index should be computed when rice area is constant in one cropping season.The entire rice area was under traditional varieties in 1966 when the first survey was conducted (Table 5). The more popular traditional varieties were Inano, Binato, Tjeremas, Raminad and Intan.12 Farmers were quick to adopt MVs such that by 1970, 66 per cent of rice area of sample farmers was planted with MV1. The speed of MV diffusion in Central Luzon in the early period of release of MVs was almost the same as in irrigated ecosystem in the Philippines as a whole. MV1 quickly replaced some popular TVs grown in 1966. Similarly, MV2 quickly replaced MV1, while TVs completely disappeared by 1979. Barely three years after the release of IR36, the adoption ratio of MV2 was already approaching 100 percent in 1979. Pest- and disease-resistant MV2 was accepted so quickly because of the farmers’ experience of the tungro virus epidemic in 1971 that severely reduced the yield of MV1 (Barker and Herdt, 1985). The more popular MV1 were IR5 and IR20, whereas the more popular MV2 were IR36 and IR42.13

12

Inano occupied 23 percent of rice area; Binato 14 percent; Tjeremas 13 percent; Raminad 11 percent; and Intan 8 percent in 1966. 13 IR5 and IR20 combined occupied about 63 per cent of sample farmers’ planted area in 1970, while IR36 and IR42 combined occupied 76 percent in 1979.

16

Sample farmers quickly adopted MV3 and 61 percent MV3 adoption rate was reached by 1986 just a year after the release of IR64. By that time, MV1 was almost completely extinct. IR64 has been by far the most popular rice variety since 1986 because it commands a higher price in the market due to its superior grain quality.14 Adoption rates of MVs in Central Luzon far exceeded the irrigation ratio, suggesting that MVs can be grown profitably in rainfed environment as well. A close examination of the adoption of specific rice cultivars grown by sample farmers shows that no single dominant variety occupies most of the rice fields in specific years and season. This was the case in 1966 when TVs were grown, as well as in recent years when farmers were growing only MVs. Overall, our data clearly show that the diffusion of MVs has been remarkably fast and there has been no reversal back to TVs and older MVs. Varietal improvements and farmers’ acceptance of the newer MVs can be considered as major factors that have contributed to rice production growth in the Philippines. A number of studies in the past had been conducted to identify the determinants of the adoption of MVs in the early period of Green Revolution (Herdt and Capule, 1984; Hossain, 1988; Hazell and Ramasamy, 1991). Since TVs have been almost completely replaced by MVs, what is crucial now is to identify the factors that affect farmers’ decisions to replace older MVs by more improved MVs. MV adoption function is estimated separately for three successive generations of MVs to examine whether the factors affecting the adoption of earlier MVs remain crucially important in the subsequent adoption of later MVs. The dependent variable is

14

IR64 occupied 58 percent of the sample farmers’ planted area in 1986 and 56 percent in 1994. PSBRc18 and PSBRc28 have gained increased popularity as well due to their better grain quality.

17

the percentage of rice area planted to each of the successive generations of MVs. Since the dependent variable ranges from zero to unity, we use the two-limit tobit estimation procedure. We include four sets of independent variables as follows: (1) irrigation ratio defined as the percentage of rice area with irrigation; (2) socio-economic variables such as age and schooling of household head, farm size, and ratio of area under share-tenancy and leasehold-tenancy; (3) provincial dummies; and (4) year dummies. The control variable is the ratio of area under owner-cultivation for the tenancy categories; Pangasinan in the provincial dummies; 1970 in the MV1 adoption function; 1978 in the MV2 adoption function; and 1986 for the MV3 adoption function. There has been a major replacement of TVs by MV1 from 1970 to 1974; MV1 by MV2 from 1979 to 1982; and MV2 by MV3 from 1986 to 1999. The coefficient of irrigation ratio is not significant in the MV1 adoption function due to the widespread and quick adoption of early MVs (Table 6). In contrast, the coefficient of irrigation ratio in the MV2 and MV3 adoption functions are significant indicating that farmers in irrigated areas were faster in adopting MV2 and MV3. Moreover, the coefficients of irrigation ratio in the MV3 adoption function became larger indicating the increased importance of irrigation. A possible reason could be that MV3 is more resistant than MV2 to attacks of various pests and diseases, whose incidence of infestation is more frequent in irrigated environments due to continuous monocropping of rice, the decline in genetic diversity of the more common MVs, and the ability of pests to evolve genetically over successive crops of rice (Estudillo, Fujimura and Hossain, 1999; Estudillo and Otsuka, 2001).

18

We used the age of household head as a proxy variable for experience in rice farming. The coefficient of this variable is not significant in the equations for MV1 and MV2 but highly significant in the equation for MV3. Presumably, MV3 requires more timely application of inputs, which the older and more experienced farmers can better handle than the younger farmers. The coefficient of schooling of head is not significant in any of the MV adoption functions indicating that years of formal schooling is not an important determinant of the adoption of MVs. In the early period of Green Revolution, there were beliefs that the new rice technology was biased in favor of large farmers who have better access to formal credit markets (Lipton and Longhurst, 1989). To fully exploit its yield potential, MVs need application of fertilizer and chemical inputs in higher amounts, which require large cash outlays that small subsistence farmers may not be able to secure. The regression results do not support the above hypothesis, however. The coefficient of farm size is not significant in the MV1 adoption function indicating that in the early MV periods, there was no significant lag in the adoption of MVs by small farmers. Farm size has a negative and significant coefficient in MV2 and MV3 adoption functions in later years indicating that smaller farmers are quicker than large farmers to replace MV1 by MV2 and MV2 by MV3. The coefficients of share and leasehold tenancy are not significant in the MV1 adoption function lending strong support to the generalization of Ruttan (1977) that based on the experience of the early period of Green Revolution, neither farm size nor tenure affected the adoption of MVs. Share-tenants, however, had lower rates of adoption of

19

MV3 than owner farmers, judging from negative and significant coefficient of sharetenancy dummy in the 1986-99 regression. The coefficients of year dummies (which were included in the regression runs but not shown in Table 6) in the MV1 adoption function are all positive but not significant indicating that the spread of MV1 was so fast and widespread even within a short period of time. Similarly, there appears to be no significant diffusion lag in the adoption of MV2 across years, which indicates easy availability of the more superior MV2. Year dummies for 1987, 1990, 1991, 1994, and 1995 are all positive and highly significant in the MV3 adoption function, which means that over time there was a significant increase in the ratio of area planted to MV3. It appears, however, that the spread of MV3 was slower than MV2 partly because IR42, a popular MV2 in the market due to its improved grain quality, remained highly adopted even when a number of the more improved MV3 became available. To summarize, the estimated MV adoption functions clearly show that farmers were quick to shift to newer seeds as it becomes available because newer MVs with much improved traits provided yield stability and higher profits compared to older MVs. The availability of irrigation infrastructure became much more important in the adoption of MV2 and MV3. Socio-economic factors such as age and schooling of head, farm size and tenancy were, in general, not significant determinants of the adoption of MVs. 3.2 Changing Yields of MVs While the yield advantage of MV1 over TVs was limited, the yield advantage of MV2 over MV1 was rather substantial (Table 7). While this can be mainly attributed to the higher yield performance of MV2 we do not downplay that negative effect of the

20

typhoon damage in 1970 and 1974 on the yield of MV1. A major yield boost was gained with the diffusion of MV2 with stronger pest resistance, which was achieved between 1979 and 1982.15 The yield of MV2 reached, on the average, about 4.0 tons per ha in 1979 to 1982. Otsuka, Gascon, and Asano (1994) confirmed that the yield gain

associated with MV2 adoption is statistically significant. It appears, however, that a plateau in rice yield had been reached in the mid-1980s when MV3 became popular. According to Hayami and Otsuka (1994), “the stagnation in yield indicates that yield potential based on conventional breeding methods opened up in the mid-1960s has largely been exhausted by the mid-1980s”. The genetic improvement of MV3 was partly on account of improved grain quality that enabled farmers to earn higher revenues from similar yields obtained from MV2. However, a detailed

examination of yield data by production environment reveals potential contribution of MV3. First of all, the difference in yield between irrigated and rainfed areas became much smaller when MV3 dominated than when MV2 dominated, suggesting that improved varieties suitable for rainfed farming were developed in more recent years. Indeed, rice yield under the irrigated condition was nearly 60 percent higher than under the rainfed condition in 1979 wet season, whereas the corresponding ratio became only 10 to 15 percent since 1986.16 Secondly, there has been upward trend in yield during the dry season since 1987. Because unexpected weather effects are largely absent during the dry season, it is reasonable to assume that this upward trend reflects increasing yield potential of MV3.

15

Varieties belonging to MV1 under ideal field condition with ample use of inputs can reach the yield potential of 5-8 tons per hectare, those belonging to MV2 can reach 6-8 tons per hectare, and those belonging to MV3 can reach 6-10 tons per hectare. 16 Note that yield was particularly low in 1999 importantly because of severe drought.

21

It is interesting to find that paddy yields in Central Luzon were significantly lower during the dry season in 1967 than in the wet season in 1966. This is essentially due to photoperiod sensitivity of TVs. Paddy yields tend to become higher during the dry than wet season thereafter because MVs are photoperiod insensitive. In addition, the amount of elemental NPK applied in the dry season is about 30% higher compared to the wet season. There is also a rising trend in yield during the dry season from 1980 to 1998, which indicates an unexplored potential to further increase yields through good water control and higher application of inputs. We estimate rice yield function in three periods of time in 1970-74 when MV1 replaced TVs; in 1979-82 when MV2 largely replaced MV1; and 1986-99 when MV3 replaced MV2 (Table 8). We use a multi-variate regression model in which the adoption of MVs were included as explanatory variables along with the four sets of independent variables we have included in the MV adoption function.17 In addition we include the interaction term between MV1, MV2 and MV3 with irrigation to quantity, if any, the additional yield effects of MVs planted in irrigated ecosystem. Thus, coefficients of MVs measure the yield effects under rainfed condition. Double log specification is used except for the ratio and dummy variables, so that estimated coefficients are either elasticities or percentage change in the dependent variable when the ratio increases from zero to one. We used year dummies, such as 1970/71 and 1979/80, and dry season dummy to assess the difference in productivity between the wet and dry seasons. The coefficient of MV1 is not significant in the yield function in 1970-74 indicating that the yield advantage of MV1 over TVs is limited. On the contrary, the

17

Assuming the recursive systems of MV adoption and its yield effects, we applied the OLS estimation procedures.

22

yield of MV2 in 1979-82 is 36 percent higher compared to MV1 on rainfed farms. The coefficient of the variable MV2*IRG is not significant indicating that the additional effect on yield of MV2 planted in irrigated farms appears close to zero. Note, however, that MV2 was so widely grown in irrigated areas from 1979 to 1982 (Table 5) that coefficient of irrigation is likely to reflect the effect of MV2 as well. Overall, it is likely that the adoption of MV2 effectively doubled yield. It appears that yield did not increase further with the adoption of MV3, judging from the insignificant coefficient of MV3. Nor there has been evidence of a significant increase in value of output per ha in 1986-99 associated with the adoption of MV3, which is supposed to be characterized by better grain quality. It is, however, important to point out that irrigation dummy is insignificant, either, which indicates that MV3 is equally high-yielding between irrigated and rainfed conditions. This is likely due to the

development of drought resistant varieties. Another important finding is that dry season dummy has become significant in 1986-99 when MV3 dominated, which suggests that the yield potential of MV3 will be higher than that of MV2 during the dry season. The characteristics of household head in terms of age and schooling do not seem to affect yield. Yields in small farms are significantly larger than in large farms giving support to the hypothesis of inverse relationship between farm size and yield. Yield and the value of output per ha in share-tenanted farms is significantly lower compared to owner-cultivated farms in 1986-94.18 Yield on farms in Nueva Ecija is higher, while yield in Pampanga is lower compared to farms in Pangasinan.

18

Hayami and Otsuka (1992) argue that share tenancy is not significantly inefficient and that the inverse relationship does not emerge, unless tenancy contracts are regulated by the land reform law as in the Philippines.

23

Year dummies (which were included in the regression runs but are not shown in Table 8) have positive and significant coefficients in the yield function in 1979-82 and 1986-99, which indicates that there has been a significant increase in yield over time. Yield increase is particularly notable in 1979-82 with the release of insect and diseaseresistant MV2. NPK function (which was estimated but are not shown in the tables) shows that sample farmers have used increased amounts of NPK per ha over time. Fertilizer use is also significantly higher on irrigated farms compared to rainfed farms and significantly more fertilizer is applied on smaller farms. Similarly, the more

educated farmers used significantly more fertilizer than the less educated ones and older farmers used significantly more fertilizer than the younger ones. Fertilizer use was also significantly lower on the sharecropped and leasehold farms than on owner-operated farms. Farmers in Nueva Ecija have higher rates of fertilizer application while those in Pampanga have lower application rates than those in Pangasinan. Cropping intensity function (which was estimated but are shown in the tables) shows that cropping intensity is higher on irrigated farms compared to the rainfed. Irrigation raises cropping intensity significantly by allowing farmers to raise more than one crop of rice in a year. MV2 and MV3 have contributed significantly to an increase in cropping intensity owing to their shorter maturity period. Irrigation and the shorter growth duration of MVs are generally complementary in raising the cropping intensity. In brief, the yield increase associated with the adoption of MV1 has been minimal while rice yield has doubled with the adoption of MV2. There has been no major acceleration in yield despite higher amounts of fertilizer application since the mid-1980s when MV3 became widely adopted.

24

3.2

Changes in Total Factor Productivity We compute the total factor productivity (TFP) index in order to measure the

contribution of successive generations of MVs to technical efficiency of production (See the Appendix for a detailed description of the methodology). TFP is an effective measure of long-run sustainability of a technology (Lynam and Herdt, 1989). As shown in the lower panel of Table 6, the TFP index is lower than 100 from 1967 to 1974 which means that the growth of output is lower than the aggregate growth of input. It is therefore clear that MV1 did not contribute much to enhancing technical efficiency in rice production. On the contrary, TFP index since 1979 exceeds 100 suggesting that MV2 has had a significant efficiency increasing effect. The value of TFP index from 1986, however, has remained fairly similar to those in 1980 and 1982 indicating that the productivity impact of MV3 is fairly equal to that of MV2. Also, the values of TFP index in the dry seasons are generally higher owing to the suitability of MV2 and MV3 for the dry season cropping. Results of the TFP determination function in Table 9 are fairly similar to the yield function in Table 8 suggesting that the changes in TFP is associated with the changes in yield. The coefficient of MV1 is not significantly different from zero indicating MV1 do not contribute significantly in increasing TFP compared to TV. On the contrary, the coefficient of MV2 and IRG are positive and highly significant so that overall the impact of MV2 and irrigated environment combined is to increase technical efficiency in rice production by about 50 percent. Although the coefficient of MV3 is insignificant, indicating that the contribution of MV3 to TFP is similar to that of MV2, it is important to realize that during the recent period of 1986-99 irrigation ratio becomes insignificant

25

but dry season dummy has positive and significant coefficient. The latter results can be taken to imply that MV3 contributed to improvement of TFP under the rainfed condition and during the dry season. It is, however, difficult to verify such effects directly because of the quick and complete dominance of MV3, unless finer classification of MV3 into subgroups with different traits is made. Socio-economic variables such as age and schooling of head and tenancy do not appear to have a significant impact on technical efficiency while provincial dummies indicate that farmers in Nueva Ecija are more technically efficient due probably to their greater access to government extension services. In brief, our findings show that there has been an increase in TFP during the diffusion of MV2 followed by stagnation in productivity in irrigated rice farming system beginning in the early 1980s. The contribution of improved MVs and irrigation to long run sustainability of irrigated rice farming system is particularly important. Tiongco and Dawe (2002) using production function approach have found similar trends therefore casting doubt on the conclusions of the study conducted earlier by Flinn and DeDatta (1984) and Cassman and Pingali (1995) that MV technology is not sustainable.

4.

Lessons from the Philippine Experience It is clear from this study that the Green Revolution is a continuous process

involving evolutionary improvements of MVs with gradual expansion of MV adoption areas to less favorable rice growing areas, steady increases in yields and productivity, and gradual reduction in yield instability. More specifically, there are four critically important findings in this study.

26

First, the contribution of MV to yield increase in irrigated ecosystem has been by far the highest, which demonstrates that the potential of Green Revolution technology can be exploited to the fullest extent in irrigated ecosystem. MV contribution to yield increase in rainfed ecosystem is significant but much less so. Second, yield increased dramatically only with the development and rapid diffusion of pest- and disease-resistant MV2. Indeed, while the yield advantage of MV1 over TVs was negligibly small on the farmers’ fields in Central Luzon, the advantage of MV2 over MV1 was decisively large. The contribution of MV2 and irrigation combined to technical efficiency in irrigated rice farming system is about 50 percent. Third, marginal impacts of newer MVs have diminished and fallen to insignificant levels in recent years, according to the analysis of yield data in the Philippines as a whole, whereas there is an indication that MV contributed to improvements of yield and productivity under the rainfed conditions and during the dry season in Central Luzon. There is also no evidence that yield and productivity gains achieved with adoption of improved MVs are unsustainable. Furthermore, regional yield differential and yield instability have declined considerably and continuously with the widespread diffusion of MV2 and MV3. Fourth, upland environments experienced an upward yield trend albeit slowly perhaps due to increased adoption of improved TVs and MVs suitable to marginal environments. As is argued by David and Otsuka (1994) and Otsuka (2000), it is important to emphasize that irrigated environment is relatively homogeneous, so that new profitable varieties, if developed, can be diffused widely and quickly, so that returns to rice research for irrigated ecosystem tend to be higher. Thus, it is desirable to target the irrigated areas in designing rice research programs, unless the potential to increase yields in irrigated

27

conditions has been largely exhausted. On the other hand, unfavorable areas, particularly upland areas, are heterogeneous, so that a variety of site-specific technologies suitable for particularly environments are required for the enhancement of the productivity. Furthermore, it is scientifically more difficult to develop new varieties for upland areas. Thus, it is doubtful whether it pays to conduct serious research for upland areas at the international research centers, whose mandate is to create “global” or “regional” public goods. Whether site-specific research for upland areas conducted by PHILRICE has achieved sufficiently high payoffs needs to be examined. Finally, it may be worth emphasizing that in order to achieve the further improvement of productivity in rice farming in the Philippines, a new breakthrough is needed which goes far beyond the improved resistance to pests and diseases.

28

APPENDIX: Estimation of Total Factor Productivity In this appendix, we would like to explain how to estimate total factor productivity (TFP) index for each observation in each cropping. First of all, we use the following Tornqvist formula to estimate the total factor productivity index (TFP) cross-sectionally: ln (TFPit/TFP0t) = [ln (Qit) - ln (Q0t)] - (1/2) Σj (sijt + s0jt) [ln (Xijt) - ln (X0jt)] , where subscript “i”, “t”, “0”, and “j” denote i-th farm, t-th period, “average” farm, and jth input, and respectively; Q refers to quantity of output; s stands for factor share (Σj sij = 1); and X corresponds to factor inputs. Factor share of land is estimated from residual, i.e., gross value of production minus the sum of explicit and imputed costs of capital, labor, and current inputs. It is well known that the above formula can be derived if the underlying production function is constant-returns-to-scale translog form and competitive equilibrium holds (Diewert 1976). Since the Tornqvist formula does not satisfy the transitivity, bilateral comparisons may lead to inconsistency. Thus, Caves, Christensen, and Diewert (1982) propose to make a multilateral comparison of i-th observation with the average, i.e., ln (Q0t) = (1/nt) Σi ln (Qit), s0jt = (1/n t)Σi sijt , ln (X0jt) = (1/nt)Σi ln (Xijt) , where n is sample size. In this way, we estimated the TFP index cross-sectionally in t-th period. Thus, (TFPit/TFP0t) measures productivity of i-th farm in comparison with the average productivity in particular cropping season. Secondly, we estimated the TFP index over time using the average in each year: ln (TFP0t/TFP0) = [ln (Q0t) - ln (Q0)] - (1/2) Σj (s0jt + s0j) [ln (X0jt) - ln (X0j)] , 29

where ln (Q0), s0j, and ln (X0j) are averages over m seasons, i.e., ln (Q0) = (1/m) Σ t ln (Q 0t), s0j = (1/m)Σt s0jt , ln (X0j) = (1/m)Σ t ln (X0jt) . Thus, (TFP0t/TFP0) measures productivity of t-th period in comparison with the average productivity over all cropping seasons. Finally, we estimated TFP of i-th farm in t-th period (TFPit) using the estimated cross-sectional TFP index and time-series TFP index in the following way: TFPit = (TFPit/TFP0t) x (TFP0t/TFP0).

30

REFERENCES Barker, Randolf and Robert Herdt (1985), The Rice Economy of Asia. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Cassman, K.G. and Prabhu Pingali (1995), ‘Intensification of Irrigated Rice Systems: Learning from the Past to Meet Future Challenges’, GeoJournal 35, 299-305. Caves, D. W., L. R. Christensen, and W. E. Diewert (1982), ‘Multilateral Comparison of Output, Input, and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers’, Economic Journal 92, 73-86. Chandler, Robert Jr. (1982), An Adventure in Applied Science: A History of the International Rice Research Institute. IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. David, Cristina C., Otsuka, Keijiro (1994), Modern Rice Technology and Income Distribution in Asia. Lynn Rienner, Boulder, CO. Dawe, David (1998), ‘Reenergizing the Green Revolution in Rice’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(5), 948-53. Diewert, W. E. (1976), ‘Exact and Superlative Index Numbers’, Journal of Econometrics 4, 115-145. Estudillo, Jonna P. (2002), ‘Green Revolution in the Philippines: A Perspective from Long-term Household Surveys’, International Rice Research Institute, mimeograph. Estudillo, Jonna P. and Keijiro Otsuka (2001), ‘Has the Green Revolution Ended? A Review of Long-Term Trends in MV Adoption, Rice Yields, and Rice Income In Central Luzon, 1966-99’, Japanese Journal of Rural Economies 3, 51-64.

31

Estudillo, Jonna P., Fujimura, Manabu and Hossain, Mahabub (1999), ‘New Rice Technology and Comparative Advantage in Rice Production in the Philippines, 1966-94’, Journal of Development Studies , 35 (5), 162-85. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (1997), ‘Trends of Yield and Productivity of Modern Rice in Irrigated Rice Systems in Asia’, International Rice Commission Newsletter, 46, 19-25. Flinn, John C. and S.K. De Datta (1984), ‘Trends in Irrigated Rice Yields Under Intensive Cropping at Philippine Research Stations’, Field Crops Research 9, 1-15. Hayami, Yujiro and Masao Kikuchi (1978), ‘Investment Inducement to Public Infrastructure: Irrigation in the Philippines’, Review of Economics and Statistics 60 (1), 70-77. Hayami, Yujiro and Keijiro Otsuka (1992), The Economics of Contract Choice: An Agrarian Perspective , Clarendon Press. Hayami, Yujiro and Keijiro Otsuka (1994), ‘Beyond the Green Revolution: Agricultural Development Strategy Into the New Century’ in Agricultural Technology: Policy Issues for the International Community , edited by Jock Anderson, CAB International. Hayami, Yujiro and Vernon Ruttan (1985), Agricultural Development: An International Perspective , Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. Hayami, Yujiro, Agnes Quisumbing and Lourdes Adriano (1990), Toward An Alternative Land Reform Paradigm: A Philippine Perspective, Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City, Philippines. Hazell, Peter and C. Ramasamy. 1991. The Green Revolution Reconsidered: The Impact

32

of High-yielding Rice Varieties in South Asia. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Herdt, Robert (1987), ‘A Retrospective View of Technological and Other Changes in Rice Farming’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 35, 329-349. Herdt, Robert and Celiz Capule (1984) Adoption Spread and Production Impact of Modern Rice in Asia. Agricultural Policy Research Committee, Tokyo. Hossain, Mahabub (1988) The Nature and Impact of the Green Revolution in Bangladesh . International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. International Rice Research Institute (1997), Sustaining Food Security Beyond the Year 2000. IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. Kikuchi, Masao, Atsushi Maruyama and Yujiro Hayami (2002), ‘Investment Inducements to Public Infrastructure: Irrigation in the Philippines and Sri Lanka Since Independence’ FASID Discussion Paper Series on International Development Strategies, Tokyo, Japan. Khush, Gurdev (1995), ‘Modern Varieties - Their Real Contribution to Food Supply and Equity’, Geojournal 35 (3), 275-284. Lipton, Michael and Richard Longhurst (1989), New Seeds and Poor People . Unwin Hyman, London. Lynam, J.K. and R. Herdt (1989), ‘Sense and Sustainability: Sustainability as an Objective in International Agricultural Research’, Agricultural Economics 3, 381398. Otsuka, Keijiro (2000), ‘Role of Agricultural Research in Poverty Reduction: Lessons from the Asian Experience’, Food Policy 25, 447-462.

33

Otsuka, Keijiro, Fe Gascon, and Seki Asano (1994), ‘Second-Generation MVs and the Evolution of the Green Revolution: The Case of Central Luzon, 1966-90’, Agricultural Economics 10 (3), 283-295. Pingali, Prabhu., Hossain, Mahabub, Gerpacio, Roberta (1997), Asian Rice Bowls: The Returning Crisis? CAB International, Wallingford, UK, in association with the International Rice Research Institute. Philippine Census of Agriculture, 1971. Department of Agriculture, Manila, Philippines. Philippine Census of Agriculture, 1991. Department of Agriculture, Manila, Philippines. Highland Rice Production in the Philippine Cordillera (2000), Philippine Rice Research Institute in collaboration with the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Rice Statistics Handbook, 1970-97 (2000), Philippine Rice Research Institute, Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Ruttan, Vernon (1977), ‘The Green Revolution: Seven Generalizations’, International Development Review, 19 (1): 16-23. Tiongco, Marites and David Dawe (2002), ‘Long-term Evolution of Productivity in a Sample of Philippine Rice Farms: Implications for Sustainability and Future Research”, forthcoming in World Development. World Rice Statistics, 1993-94 (1995). International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.

34

Table 1 Shares of Rice Production by Ecosystem, Philippines, 1970-97

Ecosystem Irrigated Rainfed Upland Total

1970 56 37 7 100

1980 60 37 3 100

1990 71 28 1 100

1997 75 23 2 100

35

Table 2 Adoption of Modern Rice Varieties by Ecosystem in the Philippines, 1970-97 Upland2

Year

Irrigated

Rainfed

Percentage of Area Planted with MVs 1 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 66 70 73 77 80 80 84 86 89 90 88 89 93 92 93 93 93 92 93 94 93 95 96 96 96 94 93 94 43 54 55 61 64 62 65 69 74 78 78 79 82 83 87 86 88 84 83 84 87 91 92 91 90 90 86 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 16 10 8 13 13 18 19 20 17 15 17 17 24 22 13 38 25 33 41 11 6

1 “MVs” means modern varieties of rice.

36

Table 3 Yields and Fertilizer Use by Ecosystem in the Philippines, 1970-97 Year Irrigated Rainfed Upland Yield (tons/ha/season)
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1.97 1.88 1.88 1.82 1.89 2.11 2.03 2.17 2.27 2.50 2.54 2.52 2.63 2.57 2.56 2.83 2.82 2.79 2.82 2.84 2.77 2.80 2.68 2.82 2.84 2.89 2.90 2.98 1.40 1.43 1.27 1.21 1.31 1.35 1.36 1.46 1.47 1.45 1.70 1.70 1.76 1.58 1.79 1.95 2.03 1.89 1.83 1.89 1.87 1.90 1.84 1.83 1.96 1.93 2.08 1.99 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.94 0.90 0.97 0.92 1.06 1.16 1.07 1.01 1.18 1.22 1.31 1.15 1.16 1.36 1.39 1.41 1.39 1.42 1.54 1.48 1.43 1.55

Irrigated

Rainfed

Irrigated

Rainfed

NPK use1 (kg/ha/season)

Fertilizer productivity (yield/NPK use)

70.0 67.1 76.1 67.2 72.3 79.5 74.4 72.9 75.0 79.8

52.0 50.7 51.2 52.4 50.3 60.6 58.1 58.5 65.4 66.6

40.2 42.3 36.4 41.7 37.1 35.4 38.2 39.6 38.7 37.3

35.2 37.3 36.5 36.3 36.6 30.2 33.7 33.0 31.8 29.9

Note: Fertilizer use data are available from 1988 to 1997 in irrigated and rainfed ecosystems only with the exclusion of other years and upland ecosystem. 1 NPK means nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium.

37

Table 4 Rice Yield and Fertilizer Use Function in the Philippines, 1970-97 Variables 1970-79 IRG1 IRG*MV2 IRG*TV3 RNF*MV4 UPL*MV5 UPL*TV6 Dry season CAR7 Ilocos Cagayan Valley Southern Tagalog Bicol Western Visayas Central Visayas Eastern Visayas Western Mindanao Northern Mindanao 0.61** (25.41) 0.39** (16.41) 0.19** (7.97) -0.22** (-6.41) -0.46** (-18.87) -0.11** (-7.44) -0.22** (-5.43) -0.14** (-3.51) -0.12** (-3.01) -0.16** (-3.94) -0.14** (-3.51) -0.21** (-5.15) -0.34** (-8.24) -0.36** (-8.89) -0.05 (-1.25) -0.40** (-9.82) 0.56** (21.47) 0.37** (14.30) 0.16** (6.31) -0.12* (-1.74) -0.44** (-16.64) -0.07** (-4.20) -0.22** (-4.89) -0.21** (-4.63) -0.15** (-3.46) -0.17** (-3.71) -0.17** (-3.71) -0.21** (-4.70) -0.41** (-8.93) -0.38** (-8.38) -0.16** (-3.41) -0.36** (-7.86) 0.67** (34.59) 0.40** (20.90) 0.25** (13.01) -0.19** (-9.37) -0.46** (-22.90) -0.08** (-7.17) -0.24** (-7.20) -0.13** (-3.97) -0.17** (-5.27) -0.22** (-7.06) -0.38** (-12.02) -0.23** (-7.40) -0.64** (-19.85) -0.36** (-11.14) -0.12** (-3.95) -0.10** (-3.10) 0.68** (30.70) 0.37** (16.78) 0.24** (11.15) -0.06** (-2.42) -0.25** (-9.89) -0.07** (-5.60) -0.23** (-5.51) -0.12** (-2.99) -0.19** (-4.59) -0.22** (-5.35) -0.29** (-7.14) -0.19** (-4.64) -0.49** (-11.72) -0.41** (10.07) -0.05 (-1.27) -0.15** (-3.78) ln (yield/ ha) 1970-76 1980-89 1990-97 0.29** (12.61) 0.13** (5.07) ln (NPK/ha) ln (yield/ NPK)9

0.01 (0.72) -0.59** (-8.19) -0.14* (-2.01) -0.43** (-6.07) -0.56** (-7.83) -0.61** (-8.56) -0.37** (-5.15) -0.69** (-9.59) -0.90** (-12.55) -0.55** (-7.69) -0.48** (-6.71)

-0.06** (-2.55) 0.34** (3.89) -0.08 (-1.01) 0.16 (1.86) 0.30** (3.46) 0.18* (2.17) 0.13 (1.54) 0.08 (0.98) 0.38** (4.43) 0.38** (4.40) 0.23** (2.74)

38

Table 4 (Continued) Rice Yield and Fertilizer Use Function in the Philippines, 1970-97 Variables 1970-79 Southern Mindanao Central Mindanao ARMM8 CARAGA Constant -0.19** (-4.71) -0.27** (-6.61) -0.22** (-5.42) -0.72** (-17.40) 0.38** (9.08) 0.66 1565 ln (yield/ ha) 1970-76 -0.23** (-5.08) -0.24** (-5.34) -0.27** (-5.93) -0.73** (-15.84) -0.43** (10.06) 0.67 1043 1980-89 0.06 (1.90) 0.13** (4.12) -0.08** (-2.54) -0.37** (-11.32) 0.50** (15.86) 0.76 1679 1990-97 -0.05 (-1.39) -0.005 (-0.13) -0.15** (-3.90) -0.17** (-4.17) 0.58** (14.44) 0.67 1185 -0.62** (-8.75) -0.74** (-9.84) -0.81** (-11.38) -0.97** (-13.55) 4.45** (64.60) 0.52 570 0.56** (6.53) 0.60** (6.71) 0.47** (5.52) 0.73** (8.46) -3.51** (-41.02) 0.37 565 ln (NPK/ha) ln (yield/ NPK) 9

R-squared No. of Observations

Note: Year dummies are included in the regression model but are not shown in this table. Numbers in parentheses are t-values. ** means significant at 1% level, * means significant at 5% level. 1 IRG refers to the dummy for irrigated ecosystem. 2 IRG*MV refers to the interaction term IRG and dummy for the adoption of modern varieties (MVs) of rice. 3 IRG*TV is the interaction term between IRG and dummy for adoption of traditional variety (TV) of rice. 4 RNF*MV is the interaction term between the dummy for rainfed ecosystem (RNF) and MVs. 5 UPL*MV is the interaction term between upland ecosystem (UPL) and MVs. 6 UPL*TV is the interaction term between UPL and TV. 7 CAR means Cordillera Autonomous Region. 8 ARMM means Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. 9 NPK means nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. Table 4 (Continue) Rice Yield and Fertilizer Use Function in the Philippines, 1970-97 Variables ln (yield/ ha) ln (NPK/ha) ln (yield/ NPK) 9

39

1970-79 Southern Mindanao Central Mindanao ARMM8 CARAGA Constant -0.19** (-4.71) -0.27** (-6.61) -0.22** (-5.42) -0.72** (-17.40) 0.38** (9.08) 0.66 1565

1970-76 -0.23** (-5.08) -0.24** (-5.34) -0.27** (-5.93) -0.73** (-15.84) -0.43** (10.06) 0.67 1043

1980-89 0.06 (1.90) 0.13** (4.12) -0.08** (-2.54) -0.37** (-11.32) 0.50** (15.86) 0.76 1679

1990-97 -0.05 (-1.39) -0.005 (-0.13) -0.15** (-3.90) -0.17** (-4.17) 0.58** (14.44) 0.67 1185 -0.62** (-8.75) -0.74** (-9.84) -0.81** (-11.38) -0.97** (-13.55) 4.45** (64.60) 0.52 570 0.56** (6.53) 0.60** (6.71) 0.47** (5.52) 0.73** (8.46) -3.51** (-41.02) 0.37 565

R-squared No. of Observations

Note: Year dummies are included in the regression model but are not shown in this table. Numbers in parentheses are t-values. ** means significant at 1% level, * means significant at 5% level. 1 IRG refers to the dummy for irrigated ecosystem. 2 IRG*MV refers to the interaction term IRG and dummy for the adoption of modern varieties (MVs) of rice. 3 IRG*TV is the interaction term between IRG and dummy for adoption of traditional variety (TV) of rice. 4 RNF*MV is the interaction term between the dummy for rainfed ecosystem (RNF) and MVs. 5 UPL*MV is the interaction term between upland ecosystem (UPL) and MVs. 6 UPL*TV is the interaction term between UPL and TV. 7 CAR means Cordillera Autonomous Region. 8 ARMM means Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. 9 NPK means nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium.

40

Table 5 Irrigation Ratio, Cropping Intensity, and Adoption of Modern Rice Varieties in Central Luzon, the Philippines, 1966-99

Variable

1966 W1 92 60

1967 D 17 100

1970 W 62 60

1971 D 13 100

1974 W 58 53

1979 W 149 71

1980 D 81 100

1982 W 136 72

1986 W 120 68

1987 D 64 100

1990 W 108 58

1991 D 56 100

1994 W 100 61

1995 D 56 100

1998 D 46 100

1999 W 79 65

Sample size Irrigation ratio (% area) Cropping intensity

1.1

1.2

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

Adoption of MVs (% area) TV 3 MV1 MV2 4 5 MV3
2

100 0 0 0

94 6 0 0

34 66 0 0

8 92 0 0

27 73 0 0

0 8 92 0

0 9 91 0

0 3 97 0

0 1 38 61

0 2 6 92

0 2 8 90

0 3 15 82

0 0 6 94

0 0 0 100

0 0 0 100

0 0 0 100

1 2 3 4

W refers to the wet season and D refers to the dry season. TV refers to traditional rice varieties. MV1 refers to the first generation of modern rice varieties. MV2 refers to the second generation of modern rice varieties.

41

Table 6 Determinants of the Adoption of Modern Rice Varieties in Central Luzon, the Philippines, 1970-99, Tobit Estimation
MV11 (1967-74) Intercept -0.08 (-9.07) 0.04 (4.00) 0.05 (8.51) 0.004 (0.81) -0.05 (-3.74) -0.07 (-3.07) -0.06 (-0.56) 0.84** (1.18) 0.61** (3.26) Tarlac 0.15 (2.85) Pampanga (1.04) 0.46* (0.77) Log likehood ratio -106.21 -41.44 -1078.42 -0.09 (1.88) (2.18) 0.11 (-1.63) 0.76** 0.11* MV2 2 (1978-82) 0.65** (-0.10) 0.06* (0.50) 0.04 (0.26) -0.005 (0.11) -0.06** (-0.66) -0.06 (-0.43) -0.03 (-0.36) 0.18** (4.38) 0.14** (3.51) MV33 (1986-99) -5.69** (3.40) 0.34** (2.12) 1.21** (1.05) 0.31 (-0.34) -0.21** (-2.67) -0.72** (-1.01) -0.05 (-0.76) 0.15 (3.86) 0.33 ** (4.02)

Irrigation ratio

Ln age of head

Ln schooling of head

Ln Farm size

% area under share-tenancy

% area under leasehold-tenancy

Bulacan

Nueva Ecija

1 MV1 refers to the first-generation of modern rices consisting of IR5 to IR34 and C4 series. 2 MV2 refers to the second-generation of modern rices consisting of IR36 to IR62. 3 MV3 refers to the third-generation of modern rices consisting of IR64 to IR74 and PSBRc series.

42

Table 7 Yield of Modern Rice Varieties and Total Factor Productivity Trends in Central Luzon, the Philippines, 1966-99

Variable

1966 1 W

1967 D

1970 W

1971 D

1974 W

1979 W

1980 D

1982 W

1986 W

1987 D

1990 W

1991 D

1994 W

1995 D

1998 D

1999 W

Yield (tons/ha/season) TV 2 2.3 3 MV1 MV2 4 5 MV3 NPK (kg/ha/season) TFP index (1966=100)
7 6

1.9 1.4

2.4 2.6

1.4 2.5

2.1 2.2

2.8 3.6

3.8 4.3

3.0 4.1

5.0 3.5 3.6 67

3.6 4.1 4.3 88

4.9 3.4 3.6 70

5.9 3.5 4.6 103

4.6 3.9 93

4.4 125

4.8 150

3.4 143

9

17

29

59

39

62

78

63

100

72

97

61

74

110

119

135

129

138

115

142

124

134

162

114

1 W refers to the wet season and D refers to the dry season.
2 TV refers to traditional varieties (TVs) of rice 3 MV1 refers to the first-generation of modern rices consisting of IR5 to IR34 and C4 series. 4 MV2 refers to the second-generation of modern rices consisting of IR36 to IR62. 5 MV3 refers to the third-generation of modern rices consisting of IR64 to IR74 and PSBRc series. 6 NPK means nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. 7 TFP means total factor productivity index computed using the Tornqvist formula.

43

Table 8 Determinants of Yields in Central Luzon, the Philippines, 1966-99 Explanatory variables ln yield 1970-74 ln yield 1979-82 ln yield 1986-99 ln value of production per ha 1986-99

MV11 MV22 MV33 IRG4 IRG*MV1 5 IRG*MV26 IRG*MV3 7 Dry season dummy ln age of head ln schooling of head ln farm size Share tenancy Leasehold tenancy Bulacan Nueva Ecija Tarlac Pampanga Constant

0.22 (1.20) 0.31* (1.88) -0.13 (-1.53) 0.04 (0.61) -0.07 (-0.78) 0.05 (0.62)

0.20 (1.05) -0.07 (-0.33)

0.70** (3.39)

-0.33 (-1.52) 0.07 (0.19) 0.16** (3.46) 0.05 (0.56) 0.00 (0.29) -0.10** (-3.27) -0.18** (-2.48) -0.09* (-1.69) 0.12 (1.56) 0.15** (2.70) -0.08 (-1.14) -0.29** (-3.38) 7.99** (20.07) 0.12 624 0.04 (0.42) 0.25** (4.97) 0.08 (0.87) 0.01 (0.63) -0.08** (-2.51) -0.19** (-2.54) -0.13** (-2.15) 0.04 (0.53) 0.13** (2.13) -0.11 (-1.38) -0.29** (-3.27) 8.86** (20.94) 0.40 624

-0.39** (-2.29) 0.05 (0.26) -0.02 (-0.74) -0.13* (1.73) -0.26 (-1.61) -0.19 (-1.12) -0.31 (-1.48) -0.02 (-0.11) -0.16 (-0.61) -0.22 (-0.87) 7.51** (8.34) 0.16 133

0.07 (1.06) 0.10 (1.19) 0.05* (1.69) -0.06 (-1.31) -0.14 (-1.18) -0.04 (-0.45) 0.12 (1.28) 0.25** (3.43) 0.02 (0.21) -0.59** (-5.16) 6.97** (17.22) 0.32 363

R-squared No. of observations

44

Note: Year dummies are included in the regression model but are not shown in this table. Numbers in parentheses are t-values. ** means significant at 1% level, * means significant at 5% level. 1 MV1 refers to proportion of rice area planted with the first generation of modern varieties (MVs) of rice consisting of IR5 to IR34 and C4 series. 2 MV2 refers to proportion of rice area planted with the second generation of MVs
consisting of IR36 to IR62.

3 4 5 6 7

MV3 refers to proportion of rice area planted with the third generation of MVs consisting of IR64 to IR74 and PSBRc series. IRG means the proportion of rice area with irrigation. IRG*MV1 refers to the interaction term between IRG and MV1. IRG*MV2 refers to the interaction term between IRG and MV2. IRG*MV3 refers to the interaction term between IRG and MV3.

45

Table 9 Determinants of Total Factor Productivity in Central Luzon, the Philippines, 1966-94 Explanatory variables MV11 MV22 MV33 IRG4 IRG*MV1 5 IRG*MV2 6 IRG*MV3 7 Dry season dummy ln age of head ln schooling of head ln farm size Share tenancy Leasehold tenancy Bulacan Nueva Ecija Tarlac Pampanga Constant -0.29** (-2.49) -0.09 (-0.66) -0.01 (-0.68) -0.04 (-0.86) -0.11 (-1.01) -0.04 (-0.35) -0.22 (-1.51) -0.07 (-0.59) -0.18 (-0.98) -0.24 (-1.34) 1.21* (1.93) 0.17 121 -0.06 (-1.10) -0.01 (-0.17) -0.00 (-0.24) 0.03 (0.78) -0.07 (-0.79) -0.02 (-0.35) 0.12 (1.51) 0.17** (2.68) 0.07 (0.85) -0.29** (-2.77) 0.66* (1.93) 0.17 347 0.07 (0.55) 0.00 (0.00) 0.41** (2.21) 1970-74 0.09 (0.68) 0.32** (2.05) -0.08 (-1.10) -0.01 (-0.18) 1979-82 1986-99

-0.25 (-1.31) 0.04 (0.53) 0.21** (5.26) -0.03 (-0.50) -0.00 (-0.13) 0.02 (0.74) -0.11* (-1.81) -0.08 (-1.85) 0.21** (3.30) 0.17** (3.52) 0.01 (0.24) -0.01 (-0.19) 1.30** (3.90) 0.12 621

R-squared No. of observations

46

Note: Year dummies are included in the regression model but are not shown in this table. Numbers in parentheses are t-values. ** means significant at 1% level, * means significant at 5% level. 1 MV1 refers to proportion of rice area planted with the first generation of modern varieties (MVs) of rice consisting of IR5 to IR34 and C4 series. 2 MV2 refers to proportion of rice area planted with the second generation of MVs
consisting of IR36 to IR62.

3 4 5 6 7

MV3 refers to proportion of rice area planted with the third generation of MVs consisting of IR64 to IR74 and PSBRc series. IRG means the proportion of rice area with irrigation. IRG*MV1 refers to the interaction term between IRG and MV1. IRG*MV2 refers to the interaction term between IRG and MV2. IRG*MV3 refers to the interaction term between IRG and MV3.

47

Ilocos

Cagayan Valley Southern Tagalog

Central Luzon

Bicol

Western Visayas

Figure 1: Regional Map of the Philippines Map is courtesy of the Geographic Information System of the International Rice Research Institute.

48

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CAR Ilocos Cagayan Valley Central Luzon Southern Tagalog Bicol Western Visayas Central Visayas Eastern Visayas Western Mindanao Northern Mindanao Southern Mindanao Central Mindanao ARRM CARAGA

Figure 2

Average of Regional Rice Production Shares in the Philippines, 1970-97

49

Yield of MVs
4.00 3.50 Yield (tons/ha) 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Irrigated Rainfed Upland

2000

Yield of TVs
4.00 3.50 Yield (tons/ha) 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Irrigated Rainfed Upland

1995

2000

Figure 3 Yield of Modern Rice Varieties and Traditional Rice Varieties by Ecosystem in the Philippines, 1970-97

50

0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 1970 1975 1980 Irrigated Rainfed Upland

1985

1990

1995

2000

Figure 4 Coefficient of Variation in Yields in the Philippines

51

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful