Post on 22-Aug-2020
InternationalBaseline Projections
For 1998 – 2010
ARKANSASGLOBAL RICE MODEL
Eric J. Wailes, Gail L. Cramer,Eddie C. Chavez and James M. Hansen
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONDivision of Agriculture University of ArkansasAugust 1998 Special Report 189
Editing: N.G. Wyatt; cover design: Elaine Williams.
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville. Milo J. Shult, Vice President forAgriculture and Director: Charles J. Scifres, Associate Vice President for Agriculture - Research. PS1.1M898.The Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station follows a nondiscriminatory policy in programs and employment.
ISSN:0571-0189 CODEN: AUARAN
iii
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODELINTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
Eric J. Wailes Gail L CramerProfessor L.C. Carter Chair Professor
Dept. of Agricultural Economics Dept. of Agricultural Economicsand Agribusiness and Agribusiness
Eddie C. Chavez James M. HansenResearch Specialist II Research Associate I
Dept. of Agricultural Economics Dept. of Agricultural Economicsand Agribusiness and Agribusiness
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment StationFayetteville, Arkansas
iv
This report on the world rice economy presents recent andprojected trends in consumption, production, trade, stocksand prices. The Arkansas Global Rice Model (AGRM)baseline projections have been developed in collaborationwith the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute(FAFPI) at the University of Missouri-Columbia and IowaState University. The rice baseline model results presentedin this report were developed with FAPRI in January 1998.The AGRM baseline is generated within an international multi-market framework that includes wheat, feed grains, oilseeds,livestock, fiber, fruits and vegetable models. Revisions inproduction, consumption, trade and price data since January1998 have been included in the projections of this report.Updates of this report can be found at the web sitehttp://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/ricersch/.
The general structure of the model and the estimating equa-tions for each country are presented in an unpublished paperby Wailes, et al., 1997b.
The Arkansas Global Rice Model is subject to constantdevelopment and refinement. This research has benefittedfrom previous discussions with colleagues throughout theworld and in workshops on the global rice economy con-ducted in the Unite States, Japan, South Korea, China, Philip-pines, Taiwan and Spain. The research presented in thisreport has been funded by the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Economic Research Service, Agreement No. 96-34351-2537, “Rice Modeling Project-Marketing and Policy”.
An English/Metric conversion table is provided on the lastpage of this report.
PREFACE
CONTENTS
List of tables ................................................................................................................................................................................ viList of figures ..............................................................................................................................................................................viiAbbreviations used in this report .............................................................................................................................................. viii
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9WORLD RICE CONSUMPTION, PRODUCTION, TRADE AND PRICES .......................................................................... 11
Consumption........................................................................................................................................................................ 11Production ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11Trade .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12Long Grain (Indica) Markets ............................................................................................................................................... 13Medium Grain (Japonica) Markets ...................................................................................................................................... 13Stocks .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14Prices ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14Summary.............................................................................................................................................................................. 15
MAJOR EXPORTING COUNTRIES ........................................................................................................................................ 15Thailand ............................................................................................................................................................................... 15United States........................................................................................................................................................................ 17China ................................................................................................................................................................................... 25India ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 26Pakistan ............................................................................................................................................................................... 29Myanmar (formerly Burma) ................................................................................................................................................ 30Vietnam................................................................................................................................................................................ 33Australia .............................................................................................................................................................................. 34Egypt ................................................................................................................................................................................... 36Argentina ............................................................................................................................................................................. 37Uruguay ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39
MAJOR IMPORTING COUNTRIES ........................................................................................................................................ 41Brazil ................................................................................................................................................................................... 41European Union ................................................................................................................................................................... 41Indonesia ............................................................................................................................................................................. 46Iran ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 46Iraq ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 48Saudi Arabia ........................................................................................................................................................................ 50Japan .................................................................................................................................................................................... 50South Korea ......................................................................................................................................................................... 51Taiwan ................................................................................................................................................................................. 53Rest of the World ................................................................................................................................................................. 55
LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................................................... 57TABLES ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 58APPENDIX TABLES................................................................................................................................................................. 70
v
vi
Table 1. World Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 2. Total World Rice Trade (Combined
Medium and Long GrainTable 3. World Rice Net TradeTable 4. World Long Grain Rice TradeTable 5. World Medium Grain Rice TradeTable 6. World Rice Prices and Price RelationshipsTable 7. Thailand Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 8. Detailed U.S. Rice Supply and Utilization (in
English Units)Table 9. U.S. Long Grain Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 10. U.S. Medium Grain Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 11. U.S. Rice Supply and Utilization (in
Metric Units)Table 12. Arkansas Rice Supply by TypeTable 13. Louisiana Rice Supply by TypeTable 14. Texas Rice Supply by Type (Aggregate; Mostly
Long Grain)Table 15. Missouri Rice Supply by Type (Long Grain)Table 16. Mississippi Rice Supply by Type (Mostly Long
Grain)Table 17. California Rice Supply by Type
(Aggregate; Mostly Medium and Short Grain)Table 18. China Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 19. India Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 20. Pakistan Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 21. Myanmar Rice Supply and Utilization
Table 22. Vietnam Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 23. Australia Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 24. Egypt Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 25. Argentina Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 26. Uruguay Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 27. Brazil Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 28. European Union Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 29. Italy Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 30. Spain Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 31. Other EU Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 32. Indonesia Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 33. Iran Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 34. Iraq Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 35. Saudi Arabia Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 36. Japan Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 37. South Korea Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 38. Taiwan Rice Supply and UtilizationTable 39. Rest-of-the-World (ROW) Rice Supply
and UtilizationAppendix Table 1. PopulationAppendix Table 2. Real Gross Domestic Product
(GDP)Appendix Table 3. Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) DeflatorAppendix Table 4. Consumer Price Index (CPI)Appendix Table 5. Exchange RateEnglish/Metric Conversion Table
LIST OF TABLES
vii
Fig. 1. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:World Rice
Fig. 2. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:World Rice Consumption
Fig. 3. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:World Rice Area
Fig. 4. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:World Rice Average Yield
Fig. 5. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:World Rice Production
Fig. 6. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:World Rice Trade
Fig. 7. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Major ROW Importers, 1991-97
Fig. 8. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:World Rice Stocks
Fig. 9. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:World Rice Price
Fig. 10. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections: RicePrices
Fig. 11. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections: Riceand Wheat Prices
Fig. 12. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Thailand Rice
Fig. 13. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:United States Rice Supply
Fig. 14. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Harvested Area of Select States in the United States
Fig. 15. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Arkansas Rice Supply by Type
Fig. 16. Arkansas Global Rice Model1998 Projections:Louisiana Rice Supply by Type
Fig. 17. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Yield of Select States in the United States
Fig. 18. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Production of Select States in The United States
Fig. 19. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Detailed U.S. Total Rice Use
Fig. 20. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections: U.S.Rice Trade and Stocks
Fig. 21. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Nominal and Real U.S. Rice Prices
Fig. 22. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections: U.S.Rice Season Average Farm Prices by Type
Fig. 23. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:China Rice
Fig. 24. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:India Rice
Fig. 25. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Pakistan Rice
Fig. 26. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Myanmar Rice
Fig. 27. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Vietnam Rice
Fig. 28. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Australia Rice
Fig. 29. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Egypt Rice
Fig. 30. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Argentina Rice
Fig. 31. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Uruguay Rice
Fig. 32. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Brazil Rice
Fig. 33. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:European Union Rice
Fig. 34. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections: ItalyRice
Fig. 35. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Spain Rice
Fig. 36. Arkansas Global Rice Model1998 Projections:Other EU Rice
Fig. 37. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Indonesia Rice
Fig. 38. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections: IranRice
Fig. 39. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections: IraqRice
Fig. 40. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Saudi Arabia Rice
Fig. 41. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Japan Rice
Fig. 42. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:South Korea Rice
Fig. 43. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections:Taiwan Rice
Fig. 44. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 Projections: Restof the World Rice
LIST OF FIGURES
viii
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS PUBLICATION
AGRM - Arkansas Global Rice ModelAMS - aggregate measure of support (South Korea)
ASEAN - Association of Southeast Asian NationsCAP - Common Agricultural Policy (European Union)
CORRA - Council for Parnership on Rice Research in AsiaCRRI - Central Rice Research Institute (India)
cwt - hundredweightEEP - Export Enhancement Program
EMU - Economic and Monetary Union (European Union)EU - European Union
FAIR - Federal Agriculture Improvement and ReformFOB - free on boardG-7 - Group of Seven (European Union)
GATT - General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeGDP - gross domestic product
GOM - Government of MyanmarGSM - Export Credit Guarantee programs
ha - hectaresHYV - high-yielding varietyIARI - Indian Agricultural Research Institute
ICAR - Indian Council of Agricultural ResearchIMF - International Monetary FundIRRI - International Rice Research Institute
MAFF - Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Japan)MAP - Market Access (promotion) Program
MARD - Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (Vietnam)MEIS - Myanmar Export Import Services
mmt - million metric tonsMOA - Ministry of Agriculture (Myanmar)
mt - metric tonNPQ - Nominal Price Quotes (Bangkok, Thailand)
NRBN - National Rice Biotechnology Network (India)OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (European Union)
OGL - open general licenseROW - rest of the worldSAFP - season average farm price
SBS - simultaneous buy and sellUS - United States
USDA - United States Department of AgricultureWEFA - Wharton Econometrics Forecasting AssociatesWTO - World Trade Organization
INTRODUCTION
Rice is an important world commodity, accounting for over21 percent of global calorie intake. While production andconsumption are concentrated in Asia, rice is an importantcrop in specific regions in North and South America, Africaand Europe.
The international rice economy is becoming more market-oriented due to a number of changes over the past severalyears. Foremost among these changes is the implementationof the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) ac-cord. The agreement requires 1) market access, the openingof markets to imports in Japan, South Korea and other coun-tries, 2) reductions in aggregate support levels and 3) reduc-tion in export subsidies, notably in the European Union (EU)and the United States (US). A regional initiative, which isalready changing global rice trade, is the free trade agreementin South America, the Mercosur, which includes Argentina,Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay (Bierlen et al., 1997).
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR)Act of 1996 of the US is another important policy initiative.This legislation changed US rice industry policy significantlyby 1) eliminating supply control mechanisms, 2) decouplingfarm income support (deficiency) payments from productiondecisions and 3) reducing export subsidies more quickly thanthe bound rate in the Uruguay Round agreement. Unilateralactions of other countries include adjustments in rice produc-tion infrastructure such as in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Na-tional policy programs resulting in the diversification of crop-ping patterns in traditional rice production countries in South-east Asia are responding to changes in consumer demand anddietary patterns. Prospects for higher resource productivity
for rice based on research and extension programs are beingled by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and itslinkage to national rice research programs such as CORRA,Council for Partnership on Rice Research in Asia. Finally,fundamental demand-determining factors of income and popu-lation growth, as well as dietary changes, continue to influ-ence the world rice economy.
The baseline projections of consumption, production, trade,stocks and prices presented in this paper reflect the latestdevelopments in the international rice industry. The currentbaseline projections include changes relative to previous pro-jection reports (Wailes et al., 1996a,b; 1997a,b). The majorchanges include 1) updated macroeconomic data and popula-tion forecasts from Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Asso-ciates (WEFA) and Project LINK, together with recent mac-roeconomic developments, 2) current rice supply and utiliza-tion data (USDA/ERS, 1998a,b), and other pertinent rice in-dustry information and 3) new supply and demand estimatesfor India by region. Throughout this report data through 1997are actual, and Arkansas Global Rice Model (AGRM) pro-jections are for 1998 and beyond.
Arkansas Global Rice Model projections are based on amulti-country econometric model framework that provides pro-jections for a set of 20 major rice producing and/or tradingcountries and one aggregate rest of world (ROW) region.Projections include national levels of production (area har-vested and yields), utilization, net trade (exports less imports),stocks and prices. Historical data for these variables are fromthe Economic Research Service, US Department of Agricul-ture (Gudmunds, 1998). Estimates for these variables are basedon a set of explanatory variables including exogenous macro-
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODELINTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
Eric J. Wailes, Gail L. Cramer, Eddie C. Chavez and James M. Hansen
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
10
economic factors, such as income, population, inflation rate,technology development and, especially, government-deter-mined policy variables that reflect the various mechanisms bywhich countries intervene in their rice sector economy (Waileset al., 1997b). Macroeconomic data are based on forecastsfrom WEFA and Project LINK (Appendix tables 1-5).
An updated baseline projection for the world rice economyis valuable because it provides a benchmark against which itis possible to evaluate the impacts of policy reforms on riceand changes in supply and/or demand on world rice prices.The need for a revised baseline is reinforced by continuouschanges around the world that directly or indirectly influence
the rice market. The set of countries or regions explicitlyincluded in the model are the US, Thailand, Pakistan, China,India, Myanmar, Vietnam, Australia, Egypt, Argentina, Uru-guay, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, the EU, Iran, Iraq, SaudiArabia, Taiwan and Brazil. Projections for the US are sepa-rated by state and rice type (i.e., long grain and mediumgrain). EU’s rice supply is divided among Italy, Spain andOther EU. Production and consumption projections for Indiaare separated by region: North, East, West and South. Allother countries not listed above are included in the ROWregion. All data on rice quantities in the following discussionand tables are on a white milled basis, except where noted.
Fig. 1. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: World Rice.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
11
WORLD RICE CONSUMPTION, PRODUCTION,TRADE AND PRICES
ConsumptionChanges in world rice consumption are determined prima-
rily by population and income growth and relative food grainprices. Total utilization of rice is projected to increase from379 mmt in 1997 to 438 mmt by 2010 (Table 1 and Figure 1)at a rate of 1.11 percent annually. This growth rate is slightlylower than the 1.24 percent annual growth rate experiencedover the 1991-96 period but is much lower than the growth inrice consumption over the previous 20 years at 2.27 percent(Figure 2).
Several factors are contributing to the rapid slowdown inworld rice consumption. These factors include 1) projectedreductions in population growth rates in many Asian coun-tries (Appendix Tables 1) and 2) diversification in the foodconsumption patterns as a result of changing lifestyles andspending patterns, especially in Asian countries that have ex-perienced rapid industrialization. For some Asian countries,rice has become an inferior good (i.e., rice consumption de-
Fig. 5. World rice production: annual growth rates.
Fig. 4. World rice average yield: annual growth rates.
Fig. 3. World rice area: annual growth rates.
Fig. 2. World rice consumption: annual growth rates.
clines as incomes rise, implying negative income elasticities).In less industrialized Asian nations and a few non-Asian in-dustrialized market economies, such as the US, rice consump-tion increases with income growth.
ProductionThe growth in world rice production necessary to satisfy
the projected consumption levels over the next 13 years (1998-2010) will mainly come from yield increases, as has been thecase for the past 20 years (Figure 3 through Figure 5). Areaharvested is projected to increase only slightly to 150.7 mil-lion hectares (ha) by 2010 from 149.4 million in 1997 (Table1). This increase is equivalent to an annual growth rate ofonly 0.07 percent. Projected area expansion is considerablylower than the annual growth rate observed for the past sixyears (1991-96) and for the past 20 years at 0.23 percent(Figure 3). World rice area harvested has increased by ap-proximately 300 thousand ha per year since 1975, consider-ably less than the 1.9 million ha increase per year during the1966-75 period. World rice area harvested is expected to
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
12
increase to nearly 150 million ha in 1998 as a result of rela-tively high rice prices in 1997.
The world average rice yield was 2.57 metric tons (mt)per ha in 1997 and is projected to increase to 2.90 mt by2010, a 0.95 percent increase per year. This rate of growth iscomparable to the level experienced for the past six years at a1.16 percent growth rate. This projection, however, is muchlower than the 2.04 rate observed for the past 20 years (Fig-ure 4). IRRI research reports on the potential of new “super”rice varieties suggest that farmers will be able to increaseyields by 20-25 percent, with the projected release of thesevarieties beginning at the end of the 1990s (New York Times,1997). Thus, the projected annual yield growth of 0.95 per-cent is realistic. To the extent that yield growth exceeds the0.95 percent growth rate, fewer land resources will be neededto accommodate the consumption projections.
These yield projections do not include weather variablesand therefore reflect, implicitly, an assumption of averageweather. However, the authors recognize that a major sourceof volatility in world rice prices, production and trade is themonsoon climate of many Asian countries. (See box belowon Impact of El Nino.) As such, the year-to-year accuracy of
these projections is not expected to be high. However, thelong-term estimates are clearly consistent with the historicaltrends.
Total production is projected to increase from 383.2 mmtin 1997 to 437.3 mmt by 2010 (Table 1). This increase repre-sents an annual growth rate of 1.02 percent (Figure 5). Sinceit is slightly lower than the consumption growth rate, a gradualdecline of global stock levels is expected towards the end ofthe projection period. World rice production has increased byonly 1.4 percent per year since 1991, well below the 2.28percent annual growth for the 1976-96 period.
TradeTotal world rice trade has expanded at an annual growth
rate of 6.0 percent over the past six years (comparing the1991-92 average with the 1996-97 average). This expansionhas been the result of 1) weather-related production shortfalls(e.g., in Indonesia, China, Philippines and Bangladesh), 2)improving political stability in some rice-consuming coun-tries (e.g., Iraq and Iran) and 3) growth in population andincomes. Total world rice trade is projected to grow by 0.6percent per year from a 23-mmt average for 1997-98 to an
Impact of El NinoWeather accounts for the largest variability in produc-
tion, consumption and trade in the world rice economy.Consistent weather anomalies associated with El Niño,which are well known, affect some major Asian rice pro-ducing countries. The climates of these Asian countriesare typically influenced by oceanic conditions. In the Pa-cific region, the Philippines, Indonesia, eastern Malaysiaand Australia are most greatly affected and Vietnam to alesser degree; and in the Indian ocean region, all of Indiaand Sri Lanka are affected. El Niño usually results in ab-normally dry conditions and warmer climates for thesecountries. The drought of 1982-1983 in these regions wasthe result of El Niño climatic conditions, which was thestrongest El Niño in this century.
El Niño was first defined in the late 18th century. Untilthe early 1960’s, El Niño was used to describe only thelocal warming of ocean currents that moves southwardalong the Peruvian coast. This usually occurs aroundChristmas time. The term “El Niño” today describes thewarming of the tropical Pacific surface waters, which oc-curs every two to seven years. Recent El Niños haveoccurred in 1972-73, 1976-78, 1982-83, 1987, 1991-93and 1997-present. The two most severe were 1982-83and 1997-present.
Rice production, consumption and trade in regions af-fected by El Niño have a significant impact on the worldrice market. The combined countries of India, Malaysia,the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia accounted for one-
third of world rice production and consumption over thepast five years 1991-1996. Indonesia, the Philippines andMalaysia have imported 14 percent of world rice trade;and India and Australia have shipped 15 percent of worldrice exports over the past five years. India and Indonesiaare among the major rice exporting and importing coun-tries of the world. Simultaneous adverse weather condi-tions due to El Niño in these countries could have asignificant effect on the world rice market as a result ofincreased imports for Indonesia, the Philippines and Ma-laysia and decreased exports by India and Australia(Hansen et al., 1998). There could also be a significanteffect on world rice stock levels since these countriesaccount for one-third of the world’s rice inventory. Indo-nesia has been affected most severely by the current ElNiño with record imports of 5 mmt in 1997, an increase of4.2 mmt from last year. Philippine imports increased by684 thousand mt from last year. The total increase inimports for the two countries from the previous year is4.88 mmt, which is 21 percent of total world imports. Thecombined total imports for the two countries in 1997 ac-count for 28 percent of world rice imports.
El Niño had little effect on Indian or Australian rice ex-ports. India’s exports were 541 thousand mt more than theprevious year at 2.5 mmt for 1997. This is quite exceptionalsince India has a consistent history for being very adverselyaffected by El Niños. Australia’s exports were the same asin the previous year at 700 thousand mt.
Impact of El Nino
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
13
average of 24.8 mmt for 2010-11 (Table 2). This projectionreflects a significant slowdown in the growth of rice tradecompared to the recent average annual increase (Figure 6).The trade projection reflects a situation in which the majoreffects of unilateral, regional and multilateral rice trade liber-alization have been substantially realized. Increased politicalstability, especially in the Middle East, has meant a return tomore normal trade volumes in that region. The rapid growthin world rice trade over the past six years has also been theresult of production shortfalls in consecutive years in a num-ber of major Asian rice-consuming nations (Figure 7). Yieldshocks have dramatically influenced trade volume and vari-ability from year-to-year, such as in 1993, 1994 and 1995.
The total world rice trade forecast for 1998 is 21.8 mmt(Table 2). Rice trade will remain thin (i.e., a small percent ofworld consumption). Trade accounted for only 5.6 percent ofconsumption in 1997 and remains at this level over the pro-jection period. Major exporters in 1997 were Thailand, Viet-nam, US, Pakistan, India and China. Major importers in 1997were Indonesia, Philippines, Bangladesh, Brazil, the EU, Iran,Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Indonesia is expected to remain thelargest importer over the projection period, followed by EU,Iran, Brazil and Saudi Arabia.
World net rice trade (exports less imports, or vice versa)is projected to decrease from 20.3 mmt in 1997 to 19.5 mmtin 1998 and increase steadily to 22.2 mmt in 2010 (Table 3).In the case of the EU, for example, total imports in 1997were 1.472 mmt, and total exports were 1.139 mmt, resultingin a net trade (imports) of 333 thousand mt. For the US, onthe other hand, exports (2.728 mmt) substantially exceededimports (0.318 mmt) in 1997.
Long Grain (Indica) MarketsIndica (long grain) rice trade is given in Table 4. Nearly
90 percent of total trade is long grain and aromatic types,such as jasmine and basmati. Major exporters are Thailand,Vietnam, US, Pakistan and India. The US is projected to losemarket share in the long grain export market over time be-cause of reduced production. Major long grain rice importersare Indonesia, Brazil, the EU and the Middle East countries.The US is a rapidly growing market for aromatic rice im-ports, which are projected to increase continuously over theprojection period. The ROW accounted for 36 percent ofimports in 1997; and this share is projected to increase to 49percent in 1998, assuming that the impact of El Niño onIndonesian imports subsides. ROW imports would range from46 to 50 percent over the rest of the projection period.
Medium Grain (Japonica) MarketsThe world medium grain (japonica) rice trade is presented
in Table 5. Japonica trade numbers are rough estimates andare likely overstated because not all trade from China, Italy,Australia and Japan is japonica rice. The major sources of
Fig. 7. Major ROW (rest of the world) importers, 1991-97.
Fig. 6. World rice trade: annual growth rates.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
91 92 93 94 95 96 97
PhillippinesBangladeshSri LankaHong Kong
MexicoS. Africa
1000
MT
japonica rice exports are Australia, China, US and Italy. WhileChina is the world’s largest producer of japonica rice, it isnot expected to dominate this export market as China’s owndomestic demand for japonica rice expands with production.Other sources of japonica rice exports include Japan, Taiwanand Egypt. The major importers of japonica are Japan andSouth Korea due to market access requirements of the GATTaccord. The projection for Taiwan assumes a minimum ac-cess requirement will apply once admitted into the WorldTrade Organization (WTO). Total japonica trade, however,is expected to account for only 14 percent of total world ricetrade if market access rules are not increased for the yearsbeyond 2002 for Japan and 2005 for South Korea. Whileindica rice trade is projected to grow annually at 1.5 percentover the 1997-2010 period, japonica rice trade would de-crease annually by 3.3 percent over the same period.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
14
StocksWorld ending stocks are projected to range from 58 to 61
mmt over the projection period (Table 1). After having de-clined by an annual average of 510 thousand mt (or 0.9 per-cent per year) for the past seven years from 58.6 mmt in 1990to 55 mmt in 1997 (Figure 8), a modest recovery in globalrice stocks is projected, increasing to 61 mmt by 2002 beforedeclining to 58.5 mmt by 2010. Relative to consumption,world stocks are projected to decline slightly, with the stocks-to-use ratio decreasing from 15 percent to 13 percent overthe projection period (which is equivalent to only 1.6 to 1.8months of global rice consumption).
PricesThe international reference price for long grain rice (Thai
5% NPQ FOB) is expected to decrease, in nominal terms, toUS$285 per mt in the 1998 marketing year from $295 in1997 (Table 6). The first half of 1997 was characterized bystrong international rice prices due mainly to the tight longgrain rice stocks; strong demand for Asian fragrant (jasmine)rice; growing demand from Central and South American coun-tries for US rice; and a strong US domestic market. However,international rice prices deteriorated during the second halfof 1997 due to the devaluation of the Thai baht (see furtherdiscussion on this topic under the heading “Thailand” onpage 15). The world indica price is projected to average withinthe range of $289 to $327 per mt from the period 1998through 2010, depending on the dynamics of world rice sup-ply and demand. In real terms (1985 dollars), however, theworld price is projected to decline steadily from $197 per mtin 1997 to $151 by 2010 (Figure 9).
The reference price for medium rice is the No. 2 Califor-nia FOB price. It is projected to increase and remain overUS$400 per mt from 1998 through 2010 from $396 in 1997and gradually increase to $433 by the end of the forecastperiod. The relationship between the indica and japonica riceprices is important where substitution in production is pos-sible. A comparison of the Houston US no. 2 long grain FOBprice to the California no. 2 medium grain price gives anindication of the relationship. Long grain enjoyed a pricepremium of nearly 6 percent in 1997 over medium grain withstrong long grain prices. The long grain price is projected tomaintain a premium over the medium grain, but the premiumis expected to decline to about 1 percent in 1999–beforegradually increasing to about 8 percent in 2010 (Figure 10).
The other price projected is the lower-quality Thai FOB35% broken long grain. Its relationship with the US wheatno. 2 FOB price (Table 6 and Figure 11) is relatively impor-tant in explaining substitution of wheat for rice in the ROWrice consumption projection. The substitution relationship hasan elasticity of demand in the ROW with respect to the priceratio of rice to wheat of -0.27. High wheat prices in 1996
Fig. 8. World rice stocks: annual growth rates.
Fig. 9. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections:world rice price.
Fig. 10. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections:rice prices.
resulted in an unusually high ratio to the Thai 35% price of71 percent. The strength in rice import demand in 1997 pushedrice prices in the same direction as wheat, with the ratiodeclining to 61 percent in 1997. Because the wheat supplyresponse to own price is generally believed to be more elasticthan rice supply to prices, the rice to wheat price ratio is
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
15
expected to remain in the more typical range of 60 to 62percent throughout the projection period.
SummaryChanges in international and domestic agricultural and trade
policies are increasingly shaping the future of the world riceeconomy. Recent agreements at international, regional andnational levels have made the rice industry more market-ori-ented. This means that the major rice producing countriesface an increasingly competitive global rice marketplace.
Relative prices, income and population growth and dietarychanges are expected to continue to determine rice demand.This baseline is influenced by the Asian financial crisis, butan assumption was made that more normal growth rates willresume in three years. Weather, assumed to be normal for thebaseline, will especially, in the monsoon-dependent Asiancountries, continue to be an important determinant of theseasonal variability in the supply and demand for rice. Thisbaseline provides the basis to conduct a wide variety of mar-ket and policy analyses on the rice economy, including evalu-ating and comparing alternative macroeconomic, policy,weather and technology scenarios.
Annual growth rates for global rice trade are expected toslow from a recent growth rate of 6.0 percent to only 0.6percent. Likewise, growth in global rice consumption is ex-pected to be smaller in the future due to shifts in Asian dietstowards protein-based foods as incomes rise. Gains in pro-duction to meet additional consumption needs will mainlycome from yield growth, with only minor increases in areaharvested. While nominal world rice prices are projected toincrease, real prices would continue to decline. Presented be-low is a detailed discussion for each exporting and importingcountry included in the model.
Fig. 11. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1990 projections:rice and wheat prices.
MAJOR EXPORTING COUNTRIES
ThailandThailand is projected to harvest 9.20 million ha of rice in
1998, slightly lower than the 1997 total of 9.27 million (Table7 and Figure 12). The harvested area is expected to declineslightly to 8.68 million by the end of the projection period.Yields in the longer term for Thailand will be determined byfurther adoption of high-yielding varieties, relative costs ofproduction and weather factors. Under the assumption of nor-mal weather, yields are projected to increase from 1.56 mtper ha in 1997 to 1.80 mt in 2010. As a result of changes inarea harvested and yield, rice production is projected to in-crease gradually from 14.5 mmt in 1997 to 15.7 mmt by2010.
Rice demand in Thailand is price inelastic. Per capita riceuse in Thailand is projected to decrease slightly from 144.7kilograms in 1997 to 129.7 kilograms by 2010. Real incomegrowth slowed down in 1997 to 1.2 percent because of thefinancial crisis and is projected to be flat in 1998 beforeincreasing to 3.3 percent in 1999 (and stabilizing around 6.6over the rest of the projection period). Based on a negativerelationship with income, per capita rice consumption de-clines as income increases and dietary habits change. Reflect-ing the country’s relatively low population growth (1.01 per-cent in 1997 and declining to 0.74 percent by 2010), the totalrice consumption increases only slightly from 8.6 mmt in1997 to 8.7 mmt by 2000 and then declines gradually to the1997 level by the end of the forecast period.
Thailand’s economy is export-oriented, supported by a freemarket philosophy. In line with WTO and Association ofSoutheast Asian Nations (ASEAN) commitments, the countryinstituted tariff reductions beginning in January 1995. By early1997, the total number of tariff rate categories was reducedto 6 from 39. Barriers to imports of farm products are beingeased. The government of Thailand ratified the Uruguay Roundagreements in December 1994. Thailand, however, maintainsseveral programs that benefit manufactured products or pro-cessed agricultural products and that may constitute exportsubsidies. These programs include subsidized credit on somegovernment-to-government sales of Thai rice; preferential fi-nancing for exporters in the form of packing credits; tax cer-tificates for rebates of packing credits and rebates of taxesand import duties for products intended for re-export.Thailand’s economy has changed from one primarily basedupon agriculture, with some light industries, to one domi-nated by manufacturing and services. One concern is the lackof skilled managers and workers, aside from inadequate in-frastructure needed for a smooth transition into higher-techindustries. (US Department of State, 1997).
Recently, the country’s finance sector has experienced se-rious difficulties. Based on an agreement with the Interna-
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
16
Fig. 12. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1999 projections: Thailand rice.
tional Monetary Fund, the country suspended 58 troubledfinance companies. The Thai baht began a “managed float”in July 2, 1997, immediately falling in value–declining morethan 40 percent by December 1997. The cheaper currencydid not boost exports because many of the country’s productsare assembled with imported components that come at higherprices. The tight credit situation did not help the recoveryefforts of the business sector. The growth of the country’sgross domestic product substantially slowed down from 6.5percent in 1996 to 1.5 percent in 1997. The country alsoexperienced a budget deficit in fiscal 1997, the first in adecade (US Department of State, 1997).
Against the bleak economic backdrop presented above,Thailand remains the world’s largest rice exporter. Thecountry’s rice industry is becoming more market-oriented.Export taxes and quotas were eliminated in 1986, boosting itsexports. The government also provides discounted credit toexporters. Thailand is projected to maintain its status as thelargest rice-exporting country over the projection period. Thecountry expects to increase its share of the Japanese riceimports as a result of World Trade Organization agreements.Thailand, however, is expected to experience increasing com-petition from Vietnam and Pakistan. Projected total exportsin the 1998 marketing year increase slightly to 5.9 mmt from
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
17
5.8 mmt in 1997 and increase steadily to 7.3 mmt by 2010.Under the GATT accord, Thailand is supposed to import 239thousand mt of rice in 1996, increasing to 250 thousand mt in2004 and remaining at that level over the rest of the projec-tion period. The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, how-ever, reported that actual imports in 1996 were only 107 mtof rice from the US. Ending stocks are expected to increasesteadily to 1.1 mmt 2010 from 734 thousand mt in 1997.
United StatesThe US rice farm program for the period of 1974 through
1995 included three sets of policy instruments to supportprices and incomes of rice producers. These included 1) sup-ply control mechanisms through limitations on or incentivesto reduce acreage planted to rice, 2) price supports through aprice floor, known as the nonrecourse loan rate and 3) in-come supports through deficiency payments, which werecoupled to the production of the rice farmers when they vol-untarily participated in the government rice program. Due torelatively favorable target prices, the rice program typicallyattracted a high participation rate, i.e., over 94 percent ofeligible production. Deficiency payments were important torice producers, accounting for nearly 30 percent of the grossincome of US rice producers from 1990 to 1995. The aver-age annual government cost of the rice program during thesame period was approximately $550 million.
The 1996 FAIR Act significantly changed the price andincome mechanisms for rice and other grains. Supply controlmechanisms were essentially eliminated. Income support wasdecoupled from production of a specific program crop andreplaced by a seven-year production flexibility contract thatprovides annual transition payments to producers who hadparticipated in the commodity programs for at least one ofthe past five years. The FAIR Act established a seven-yearpayment contract with farmers and ranchers. The seven-yearperiod covers 1996 through 2002. Eligibility for payments isnot influenced by current crop planting, production or prices.The contract payments are allocated among farmers from afixed but declining amount by making payment on 85 percentof a calculated base acreage times program yields (Table 8).Under this system, rice producers are provided complete flex-ibility in planting decisions. They receive a rice contract pay-ment whether they produce rice or not. The production deci-sion will be determined primarily by relative market returns.Nonrecourse loans will continue to be available to rice pro-ducers at a maximum rate of $6.50 per hundred weight (cwt).For the purpose of projections, the contract payment is as-sumed in this report to be the same for the period beyond2002.
The FAIR Act retains export assistance programs for riceand other grains. These programs include Export Credit Guar-antee programs (GSM), Market Access (promotion) Programs(MAP), P.L. 480 food aid, and the Export Enhancement Pro-
gram (EEP). EEP subsidizes exports into markets as acountervailing policy to unfair export competition. Exportprograms have been traditionally important for the US riceindustry as 20 to 40 percent of annual rice exports have re-lied upon these government programs in the past.
Projections of rice production are based upon planted acre-age and yield estimates as influenced by market returns. Acre-age is generally determined by net returns to producers, whilechanges in yields over time are driven by research expendi-tures. Total US rice area planted decreased from 3.32 millionacres (1.34 million ha) in 1994 to 3.09 million acres (1.25million ha) in 1995. Under the new policy reform, rice acre-age declined by 10 percent, resulting in only 2.80 millionacres (1.13 million ha) in 1996. Acreage increased to 3.03million acres (1.23 million ha) in 1997 due to attractive pricesand is expected to increase by 5.2 percent to 3.19 millionacres (1.29 million ha) in 1998, mainly due to attractive riceprices relative to competing crops. Over the longer run, areaharvested is expected to decline gradually to 2.83 millionacres (1.15 million ha) due to expected higher returns toother crops and stiffer competition from other major countryproducers (Table 8 and Figure 13).
Long grain harvested acreage increased to 2.26 millionacres (915 thousand ha) in 1997 from 1.96 million acres (795thousand ha) in 1996 and should increase to 2.48 millionacres (1.0 million ha) in 1998 before gradually declining to1.95 million acres (791 thousand ha) in 2010 (Table 9). Me-dium grain acreage, on the other hand, decreased to 773 thou-sand acres (313 thousand ha) in 1997 from 835 thousandacres (338 thousand ha) in 1996 due to relative strength ofthe long grain rice prices. The medium grain acreage in-creases steadily by nearly 1.0 percent thereafter, reaching876 thousand acres (354 thousand ha) in 2010 (Table 10). Incontrast, long grain acreage is projected to decline by 1.1percent per year over the projection period. For purposes ofcomparison with other countries, Table 11 provides US ricesupply and utilization in metric units (milled basis).
US rice acreage by state is presented in Table 12 throughTable 17 and Figure 14. Arkansas’ total rice area increased to1.37 million acres (554 thousand ha) in 1997 from 1.17 mil-lion acres (473 thousand ha) in 1996 and is expected to in-crease further to 1.53 million acres (617 thousand ha) in1998 before stabilizing between 1.23 and 1.27 million acres(498 and 514 thousand ha) over the forecast period. Arkansaslong grain area is expected to increase to 1.32 million acres(536 thousand ha) in 1998 before gradually declining to 996thousand acres (403 thousand ha) in 2010 (a decrease of 1.1percent per year). Arkansas’ medium grain area, however, isexpected to increase by 1.1 percent per year over the sameperiod (Table 12 and Figure 15).
Louisiana’s total rice area increased by nearly 13 thousandacres (5 thousand ha) in 1997 from 533 thousand acres (216
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
18
Fig. 13. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: United States rice supply.
thousand ha) in 1996, with all the gains coming from longgrain area (Table 13 and Figure 16). Louisiana’s total acre-age in 1998 is projected to increase to 588 thousand acres(238 thousand ha). Texas’ area declined to 259 thousandacres (105 thousand ha) in 1997 from 298 thousand acres(121 thousand ha) in 1996 due to late planting and unfavor-able weather (Table 14). Total rice area in Texas is expectedto be lower than last year at 254 thousand acres (103 thou-sand ha) in 1998. Missouri’s rice area increased to 109 thou-sand acres (44 thousand ha) in 1997 from 90 thousand acres(36 thousand ha) in 1996 and is projected to increase bymore than 15 thousand acres (6 thousand ha) in 1998 (Table15). Mississippi’s harvested acreage increased to 238 thou-sand acres (96 thousand ha) in 1997 from 208 thousand acres(84 thousand ha) in 1996 (Table 16) and is expected to de-crease to 220 thousand acres (87 thousand ha) in 1998.California’s acreage increased to 507 thousand acres (205thousand ha) in 1997 from 500 thousand acres (202 thousandha) in 1996 and is expected to decrease by nearly 28 thou-sand acres (11 thousand ha) to 479 thousand acres (194 thou-sand ha) in 1998. Thereafter, California’s acreage would rangebetween 503 to 516 thousand acres (204 to 209 thousand ha)over the projection period. The average annual changes intotal harvested area by state over the projection period are asfollows: Arkansas, -0.7 percent; Louisiana, -0.2 percent; Texas,
-0.9 percent; Missouri, -1.2 percent; Mississippi, -0.9 per-cent; and California, +0.1 percent.
Acreage declines are expected to be offset partially byyield gains resulting from continued research for rice produc-tion (Figure 17). Long grain yields are projected to grow at 1percent per year while medium grain rice yields are projectedto grow about one-half percent per year. The average USrough rice yield decreased to 59.11 cwt per acre (4.77 mt perha, milled) in 1997 from 61.21 cwt (4.83 mt) in 1996 mainlydue to unfavorable weather. Yields are expected to recoverslightly in 1998 to 59.80 cwt (4.83 mt) before steadily in-creasing to 66.63 cwt (5.38 mt) by 2010.
In 1997, the higher acreage (8.4 percent above 1996) off-set the decline in yield (-3.4 percent), resulting in a 4.7 per-cent increase in production at 179.3 million cwt, rough basis(5.86 mmt, milled basis). Production is expected to increasesubstantially in 1998 to 190.9 million cwt (6.23 mmt) due toincreases in both acreage and yields. Thereafter, total riceproduction would decrease gradually to 175.8 million cwt(5.74 mmt) in 2002 before recovering to nearly the 1998level by 2010, following the trend in long grain production.On the average, long grain production would decline slightly,while medium grain production is projected to increase by1.4 percent per year over the projection period. Figure 18shows total US rice production by state.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
19
Fig. 14. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: U.S. harvest area by state.
Total US rice supply increased to 216.3 million cwt roughbasis (7.1 mmt milled basis) in 1997 from 206.3 million cwt(6.58 mmt) in 1996 and would range between 211 and 226million cwt (6.89 and 7.37 mmt) during the rest of the projec-tion period. Imports grow at 3.3 percent per year, driven bythe decline in real Thai 5% fob price and the growth in do-mestic US rice consumption.
Domestic use of rice increased to 107.0 million cwt (3.51mmt) in 1997 from 100.7 million cwt (3.21 mmt) in 1996. Itincreases steadily to 134.6 million cwt (4.39 mmt) by 2010(Figure 19). With a stable population growth of less than onepercent over the forecast period (Appendix Table 1), the ex-
pansion in rice consumption is a result of increased per capitadirect and processed food consumption. The main processedfood uses of rice are cereal, pet food, and package mix. Petfood is the fastest-growing sector in the processed category.The increase in food consumption is driven by growth inincome and declining real retail prices, assuming low levelsof inflation over the period (Appendix Tables 2 and 4). Socio-demographic factors also have been found to be important inexplaining the expansion in US rice consumption (Gao et al.,1995). One of the more important of these variables thatcontributes to the increase in direct food use is the growingAsian and Hispanic population in the US. Hispanics account
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
20
Fig. 15. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Arkansas rice supply by type.
for 10 percent of US total population, and this segment isgrowing at nearly 4 percent per year. Asians account for 4percent of total US population, and the Asian population isgrowing annually at 5 percent.
Other components of domestic rice utilization in the USinclude seed use and brewery demand. Seed demand is de-rived primarily from the number of rice acres planted. It de-clines following the projection of lower rice acreage overtime. Small increases in brewing demand are projected basedupon relatively stagnant demand growth in the demand forbeer in the US.
Exports increased from 78.4 million cwt (2.5 mmt) in 1996to 83.5 million cwt (2.73 mmt) in 1997 and are projected toincrease to 85.8 million cwt (2.80 mmt) in 1998 (Figure 20).Given the relatively inelastic domestic demand for US rice,the availability of domestic rice supply for exports is pro-jected to decline steadily from 79.5 million cwt (2.6 mmt) in1999 to only 68.2 million cwt (2.23 mmt) by 2010. There hasbeen a significant shift in US exports from milled to roughrice, especially over the past four years. During the four-yearperiod 1990-1993, rough rice accounted for less than 7 per-cent of total rice exports on the average. The share of roughrice exports started to increase dramatically in 1994, account-
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
21
Fig. 16. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Louisiana rice supply by type.
ing for 18 percent of total rice exports, up from 5 percent in1993. Over the past four years (1994-1997), rough rice aver-aged about 19 percent of total rice exports. The main reasonfor this shift is the increased demand for rough rice from anumber of Latin American countries, notably Mexico, Brazil,Costa Rica and Venezuela. Other buyers include Colombia,Ecuador, Panama, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala andNicaragua. These countries prefer to import rough rice toimprove utilization of their milling capacities. These coun-tries encourage this situation by setting lower tariffs for roughrice compared to milled rice imports. At the expense of theUS rice milling industry, US rough rice is well-positioned to
maintain its competitive edge in this market segment, notonly geographically but because there are only a very fewcountries that allow rough rice exports. There is no othermajor rice supplier that exports significant volumes of roughrice.
US long grain exports are projected to decrease to 43.5million cwt (1.42 mmt) in 2010 from 64.6 million cwt (2.11mmt) in 1997 as both real Thai 5% FOB price and US exportsupply decline. Medium grain exports, on the other hand,would increase from 19.0 million cwt (619 thousand mt) in1997 to 24.7 million cwt (807 thousand mt) in 2010, mainlydue to the increase in exportable supply, which more than
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
22
Fig. 17. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: U.S. rice yield by state.
compensates for the decline in real medium grain export price.The WTO minimum access requirements for export marketsin Japan and South Korea also support the growth of mediumgrain exports.
Ending stocks are projected to range between 21 and 30million cwt (672 and 964 thousand mt) over the forecastperiod. This translates to a stocks-to-use ratio of 0.11 to 0.15.The relatively large expected crop in 1998 would increasestocks in 1998 to 30.3 million cwt (964 thousand mt) from25.8 million cwt (817 thousand mt) in 1997, which is equiva-lent to a stocks-to-use ratio of 0.15.
The nominal season average farm price (SAFP) decreasedslightly to $9.88 per cwt, rough basis ($218 per mt rough
basis) in 1997 from $9.96 per cwt ($219 per mt) in 1996 andis projected to decline to $9.54 per cwt ($210 per mt) in1998 due to the expected larger US production and endingstocks and weaker international prices. Farm prices declineover the 1999 to 2001 period but then increase from $9.62per cwt ($212 per mt) in 2002 to $10.36 per cwt ($228 permt) by 2010 (Figure 21). The average long grain farm priceincreased slightly to $10.40 per cwt ($229 per mt) in 1997(from $10.32 per cwt or $227 per mt in 1996) because ofstrong rough long grain rice export demand. It is expected todecline to $9.69 per cwt ($214 per mt) in 1998 as a result oflarger supplies. Long grain prices range from $9.49 to $9.86per cwt ($209 to $217 per mt) for the 1999-2003 period.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
23
Fig. 18. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: U.S. rice production by state.
Thereafter, the long grain price increases from $10.02 percwt ($221 per mt) in 2004 to $10.54 per cwt ($232 per mt)by 2010.
The average medium grain farm price decreased from $9.25per cwt rough basis ($204 per mt rough basis) in 1996 to$8.79 per cwt ($194 per mt) in 1997 due to weaker exportdemand for high-quality japonica rice. The average mediumgrain price increases steadily by nearly 1 percent per yearover the projection period (Figure 22). The long grain farmprice maintains a premium over the medium grain farm pricethroughout the entire projection period. The price premiumnarrows from $1.61 per cwt ($35 per mt) in 1997 to $0.50per cwt ($11 per mt) by 2010.
The long grain export price (FOB Houston) decreased to$18.96 per cwt, milled basis ($418 per mt) in 1997 from$20.43 per cwt ($450 per mt) in 1996, and should decrease to$18.57 per cwt ($409 per mt) in 1999 before steadily increas-ing to $21.10 per cwt ($465 per mt) by 2010 (Table 8). Themedium grain export price (FOB California) decreased to$17.94 per cwt ($395 per mt) in 1997 from $18.79 per cwt($414 per mt) in 1996 and should increase steadily to $19.64per cwt ($433 per mt) in 2010. In real terms, both US farmand export prices steadily decline over the projection period.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
24
Fig. 19. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: detailed U.S. total rice use.
Fig. 20. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: U.S. rice trade and stocks.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
25
ChinaChina’s government policies significantly influence its rice
economy. Economic reforms and opening of trade to the out-side world are central to China’s development formula. How-ever, the Five-Year Plan for 1996-2000 also reconfirmed therole of state-owned enterprises, which still directly accountfor 40 percent of total industrial output. About one-half ofstate-owned enterprises were reporting losses in 1997. Theplan targets an 8 percent annual growth in the gross domestic
product (GDP) through 2000 and a further doubling of GDPduring the period 2000-2010. China made substantial adjust-ments to its import tariff schedule in April 1996 and in Octo-ber 1997. Average import tariff had decreased from over 40percent in 1995 to 17 percent in late 1997. China, however,continues to impose barriers to US exports, although trade-liberalizing reforms are being undertaken. Liberalization ofChina’s import regime has not kept pace with liberalizationof its export regime. Aside from high tariffs, numerous non-tariff measures restrict imports. These measures include im-port licensing requirements; import quotas, restrictions andcontrols; tendering requirements; and standards and certifica-tion requirements. China’s restrictive system of trading rightsseverely limits domestic and foreign-invested enterprises’ abil-ity to directly import and export. This system raises the costof imported goods by channeling imports through fee-collect-ing Chinese foreign trade companies. In most cases, US sup-pliers are restricted to sell directly to their ultimate customer.Information on itemized import quotas is not yet published.While announcement was made in early 1996 that tariff-ratequotas would apply, effective April 1996, to imports of rice,wheat, corn, soybeans and vegetable oils, no detailed rulesand quota volumes had been announced as of late 1997. Chinaabolished direct subsidies for exports on January 1, 1991.However, many of the country’s manufactured exports still
Fig. 21. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: nominal and real U.S. rice prices.
Fig. 22. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: U.S. riceseason average farm price by type.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
26
receive indirect subsidies through guaranteed provision ofenergy, raw materials or labor supplies; bank loans that neednot be repaid or with preferential terms; and tax rebates (USDepartment of State, 1997).
In the early 1990’s, the government of China pursued apolicy toward a free market for grains. But from 1994 to1996, government policies for greater control over grain mar-kets have been asserted, largely driven by inflationary pres-sure on food prices as well as a decrease in area sown tograin and international concerns that China may not be ca-pable of producing sufficient grain supply of domestic con-sumption. The Grain Bag Policy was initiated in late 1994and implemented in 1995. This policy gave provincial gover-nors specific responsibilities for grain supply and demand atthe provincial level. Governors must stabilize grain area andproduction, increase production if necessary for self suffi-ciency, maintain stock levels, control grain trade among prov-inces and ensure adequate supplies at the regional level. Thebasic objective is to attain a nationwide aggregate balance ofgrain on the basis of regional balance of grain (Crook, 1996).
Under the ongoing economic reforms, farmers determinetheir rice acreage based not only on the government procure-ment prices but also on expected free market prices and theadoption of new technologies. The government promotes re-search in producing high-yield rice varieties. Currently Chi-nese scientists have reported a new high-yield variety thatwill yield 13.26 mt per ha in test plots and maturity yield of120 days (USDA/FAS, 1997 and 1998). Rice yields currentlyaverage 6 mt per ha. Most of this research is not expected forcommercial use until early next century.
In China rice production has an early, middle and latecrop. The middle crop or single crop is the largest with 40 to45 percent of the production. The remainder of production isduring the early and late seasons, which are nearly equal inoutput. Indica rice is grown in the Southern provinces andalong the Yangtze river. Indica accounts for approximatelythree-quarters of rice production and japonica the rest. EarlyIndica crop accounts for about one-fourth of total rice area.Japonica rice is grown north of the Yangtze river (Crook1996).
Following two years of declining production, rice harvestedarea started to increase in 1995, reaching 31.8 million ha in1997 from 30.3 million in 1994, partly due to favorable gov-ernment policies and market prices. The area harvested in1998 is projected to decline by 247 thousand ha to 31.8million and would decrease steadily to 29.7 million by theend of the projection period. One reason for this decrease isthe decline in real procurement prices, with growth in CPIranging from 10 to 12 percent over the forecast period. Nomi-nal rice procurement price was raised in 1996, by an averageof 30 percent in grain-producing provinces such as Jiangxi,Anhui and Sichuan. Real input prices remained stable. Riceyields in China are influenced by the free market price and
the flow of the new technologies, as well as by governmentprice policies. Yields are projected to increase slightly to4.38 mt per ha in 1998 from 4.37 mt per ha in 1997 andsteadily increase to 4.83 mt per ha by 2010. However, thedecline in area will pull total production slightly down to 139mmt in 1998 from 140 mmt in 1997, before increasing steadilyto 143.4 mmt by 2010 (Table 18 and Figure 23). Off-farmemployment has become a problem for China’s grain produc-tion as farmers find better-paying industrial jobs and ruralindustrial development uses an increasing amount of farm-land.
Chinese annual per capita rice consumption is projected toremain relatively flat in 1998 at 110.8 kilograms and con-tinue declining steadily to 106.6 kilograms by 2010. With anegative income elasticity, per capita consumption declinesslightly as real income grows. Real GDP is projected to growbetween 8 to 9 percent per year over the projection period,one of the fastest growth rates (second only to Vietnam) amongthe rice economies. Total consumption, however, is projectedto continue to increase as population grows slightly (0.9 per-cent in 1998 and slowing to 0.6 percent by 2010). The USDAForeign Agricultural Service (1997) reported that consumerpreferences may be shifting away from the traditionally grownrice varieties in China. Consumers in Shanghai are said toprefer japonica and other high-quality short grain rice variet-ies compared to early rice. Early rice is fed to hogs. The areaplanted to japonica in Heilongjiang province, the largest pro-ducer, increased by 30 percent in 1996.
In 1994, rice exports were banned, and local governmentswere given authority to set ceiling prices. The country was anet importer of 1.97 mmt rice in 1994 due to a weather-related production shortfall. China became a significant netexporter of 612 thousand mt in 1996 and increased again to2.1 mmt in 1997. Thailand dominates China’s official riceimports, and Vietnam, which borders China, dominates unof-ficial trade. In the previous baseline (1997), China was pro-jected to remain as a net importer of rice during the entireprojection period. However, the current baseline projects Chinato be a net exporter throughout the forecast period, with netexports of 1.2 mmt in 1998 but declining steadily to 447thousand mt by 2010. Ending stocks are projected to rangefrom 29 to 31 mmt over the projection period.
IndiaIndia’s economy continues to perform well, and long-term
prospects remain promising. Real GDP grew at a rate of 5percent over the past two years and is expected tocontinuegrowing between 5 and 6 percent over the projection period.The country is attracting sustained interest from the interna-tional investment community despite some concerns aboutinadequate infrastructure, non-transparent government deci-sion-making and large budget deficits (U.S. Department ofState, 1997).
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
27
Fig. 23. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: China rice.
India is experiencing a trend of diverting area from foodgrains to commercial crops, which underlies the sharp declineby more than 3 percent in India’s food grain production inthe 1995 marketing year. While wheat area declined by over0.5 million ha, and coarse cereals by nearly 0.5 million ha,oilseeds area is estimated to have increased by nearly 1 mil-lion ha. Reduction in the use of fertilizers and the cumulativeeffect of unbalanced nutrient use over the years have alsocaused a decline in productivity.
India harvests more rice area than any other country, andit has the second largest production of any country, followingChina. The area harvested is projected to increase from 42.2
million ha in 1997 to 42.9 million in 1998 and steadily in-crease to 43.8 million by 2010 (Table 19 and Figure 24).This increase is driven by technology and infrastructure de-velopment, which is partly offset by the decline in real farmharvest price.
In the current baseline, India is subdivided into four dis-tinct regions–North, South, East and West.1 In 1997, 18.5million ha was harvested in the Eastern region (which is
1Eastern Region: Assam, Orissa, Tripura, West Bengal, Bihar; NorthernRegion: Haryana, Haimachel, Pradesh, Punjab, Uttar, Pradesh, Delhi, Madhya;Southern Region: Karnataka, Kerala, Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh; WesternRegion: Gujarat, Pradesh, Maharashtra.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
28
Fig. 24. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: India rice.
equivalent to 43.6 percent of the total), 8.6 million in theNorthern region (20.2 percent), 7.6 million in the Southernregion (17.8 percent) and 7.8 million in the Western region(18.4 percent). Most of the increase in area occurs in theWestern region, with area growing over 1 percent per year.By 2010, the Western region is projected to harvest nearly 9million ha, which would account for 21 percent of total.
The use of hybrid rice is gaining popularity in India, andseveral research institutions have successfully developed highlypromising hybrids. Increasing use of hybrid rice is observedin Punjab; Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh in North In-dia; and in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in
the South. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)projects that the area under hybrid rice will expand from thecurrent 50 thousand ha to over 2.0 million ha in four years–ornearly 5 percent of total rice area. ICAR has developed sevenlocation-specific hybrid rice varieties, in addition to the sixbeing marketed by private companies. The Indian Agricul-tural Research Institute (IARI) in New Delhi has also devel-oped the first nuclease-bred variety (PNR 381) for the uplandareas of the country. The early-maturing, semi-dwarf rice givessuperior grain quality and is resistant to multiple pests anddiseases of rice. PNR 381, which is widely-used in UttarPradesh, is found suitable both as a direct-seeded crop in
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
29
rain-fed upland areas and as a transplanted crop in irrigatedareas. The Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI) of Cuttackhas also released four new high-yielding rice varieties suit-able for different areas in Orissa. Finally, India plans, throughits national rice biotechnology network (NRBN), to develophybrid rice using biotechnology to improve yields. These de-velopments are indications that technology may provide India’srice industry the competitive edge in the long-run.
More than half of India’s rice crop is rain-fed. Hence, it ishighly dependent on monsoon rains. The country has experi-enced favorable weather over the past nine years, boosting itsproduction. Rice yields are responsive to changes in fertilizerprices and the adoption of high-yielding varieties. Nationalaverage rice yields are projected to increase at an averageannual rate of nearly 1.5 percent, from 1.94 mt per ha in1997 to 2.35 mt by 2010. Total production is projected toincrease to 84 mmt in 1998 from 82.5 mmt in 1997 andwould increase steadily to 102.9 mmt by 2010.
Given the availability of more detailed information on riceconsumption in India by region, per capita rice consumptionhas been revised. As a result, the national average per capitarice consumption is projected to increase steadily from 82.7kilograms in 1997 to 86.4 kilograms in 2010. This situationis substantially different from the 1997 baseline, which pro-jected a decline in per capita consumption. The fastest annualgrowth in per capita consumption is projected in the Northernregion at 2.0 percent, driven by income growth; followed bythe East (0.34 percent) and the South (0.20 percent). Percapita consumption is expected to be stagnant in the Westernregion.
Total consumption is projected to grow steadily due topopulation growth (1.6 percent in 1998 and stabilizing around1.3 percent by 2008) and income growth (5.3 percent in 1998and increasing to 6 percent by 2004). Total consumption in1998 increases to 81.8 mmt from 80.2 mmt in 1997 andincreases steadily to 101.6 mmt by 2010, a growth of 1.84percent per year. The food processing industry is one of themajor growth sectors in India. REI Agro Ltd of Calcutta hasbuilt a Rs218-million, 72-thousand mt per year basmati riceprocessing plant at Bewal in Haryana. The company plans toexport 90 percent of its production to the US, Korea, Europe,Japan and Australia.
Central and state governments still regulate the prices ofmost essential products, including food grains, sugar, edibleoils, basic medicines, energy, fertilizers, water and many in-dustrial inputs (US Department of State, 1997). India usesprocurement prices and open market sales program in orderto stabilize prices. The government sets fixed procurementprices that serve as price floors for producers. A procurementprice prevents substantial declines in the rice price while anopen market sales program prevents significant increases inprice. The minimum export price was eliminated both forbasmati and non-basmati rice in 1994. In 1995, the govern-
ment fixed the sales price of rice exports at the open marketprice. India has used exchange rate policy to improve itsexport competitiveness. Most of the direct export subsidieshave been phased out, but numerous indirect subsidies re-main. These include export promotion measures such as ex-emptions or concessional tariffs on raw materials and capitalinputs and access to special import licenses for restrictedinputs. Export earnings are tax-exempt. Commercial banksalso provide export financing on concessional terms (US De-partment of State, 1997).
India was the world’s fifth largest exporter of rice in 1997.Its primary rice export destinations are Saudi Arabia, UAE,UK, Kuwait, US, Bahrain, Sri Lanka and Oman. Rice exportsincreased dramatically in 1994, amounting to 4.2 mmt, as thecountry relaxed its export quota in response to substantialproduction and stock build-up. Net exports decreased slightlyto 4.0 mmt in 1995 but declined substantially to 2.1 mmt in1996 before recovering slightly to 2.5 mmt in 1997. In the1995 marketing year, India exported basmati rice valued atRs8.5 billion, and non-basmati rice worth Rs37.2 billion. Ex-ports are expected to stabilize around 2 mmt over the forecastperiod. Exports are driven mainly by excess rice supply. TheIndian government’s recent decision to fully enforce a rulethat requires rice millers to sell about 75 percent of rice tostate-run food agencies may have a dampening effect on thecountry’s rice exports. The government has decided to fixexports of food grains at 2 percent of India’s productionevery year. The allocation has been reduced for the next twoyears to 2 percent to give higher priority to domestic foodsecurity requirements. At present, there is no quantitative ceil-ing on export of rice from private stocks, but the ceiling isimposed on non-basmati rice exported from the stocks of theFood Corporation of India.
India and Pakistan have a duopoly over basmati rice ex-ports. The two countries are the only significant producers ofhigh-quality basmati rice in the world. Basmati rice accountsfor only 1 mmt or 5 percent of the total world rice trade. Thegovernment of India plans to introduce futures trading inbasmati rice and non-edible commodities.
With the strong domestic consumption being supported byfavorable production, ending stocks are projected to remainbetween 9 and 12 mmt over the forecast period. The Indiangovernment may decide to impose quantitative restrictions onstocks of non-basmati rice exported on private account, whichare now under open general license (OGL). The relativelylow level of the country’s food grain stocks in the centralpool, due to a decline in procurement, has been a cause forconcern.
PakistanThe government, which assumed office in February 1997,
has emphasized tax and tariff reforms, government and pub-lic enterprise restructuring and downsizing, financial sector
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
30
reform and exchange market reform. Economic performancesince February 1997 has been mixed, with the general economyremaining sluggish and the outcome of important reformsremaining in doubt. Pakistan’s real GDP growth declined to 4percent in 1997 (from 5.4 percent in 1996) due, in part, to thepoor cotton crop and decrease in manufacturing output.
In October 1997, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)provided improved terms on structural adjustment loans. Thisencouraging development, as well as an expected good cropyear, is expected to support the country’s potential economicrecovery. The exchange rate is determined according to amanaged float, with the State Bank of Pakistan making ad-justments against a basket of major currencies. The US dollaris used as an intervention currency to determine other rates.Government authorities devalued the rupee by 8.7 percent inOctober 1997 in the face of domestic inflation, decliningexports and foreign exchange reserves and perceived over-valuation relative to competitors’ currencies (US Departmentof State, 1997).
The macroeconomic objectives for the three-year period(1997-2000) are 1) reduction of external current deficit levelto 4.0 to 4.5 percent of GDP; 2) improving the real GDPgrowth rate to 5 to 6 percent; and 3) reducing inflation toabout 7 percent. In recent years, Pakistan has implementedsignificant trade reforms. Import licenses have been abol-ished on all “freely importable” goods since July 1993.
The basic policy is aimed at increasing rice productionthrough improved yields and government support prices thatare adjusted annually to keep pace with increased costs ofproduction. The government support prices are announcedprior to planting season. The government support price isassumed to increase steadily over time in real terms. Increasesin consumer prices are expected to stabilize at 9.2 percent by2001, from 10.1 percent in 1997 (Appendix Table 4).
Rice production in Pakistan consists of two main varieties:basmati and IRRI-adapted high-yield long grain varieties. Riceis not a subsistence crop but a cash crop grown for export.Rice is the third largest crop after wheat and cotton. Ricecultivation usually follows the wheat crop. Cotton and riceare substitute crops. For example, rice area was up slightly in1997 because of pest and disease problems in cotton produc-tion in the Punjab province. Two major areas of rice produc-tion are Punjab province, with 60 percent of the total ricearea, and Sind province, with 31 percent. Approximately 84percent of Punjab province is basmati rice, and 90 percent ofSind province is IRRI rice (USDA/FAS, 1998).
The rice area harvested in Pakistan is projected to stabi-lize around 2.3 million ha during most of the forecast period(Table 20 and Figure 25). Rice yields in Pakistan are respon-sive to input prices and the adoption of high-yielding variet-ies. Yields per ha in 1998 are expected to increase to 1.94 mtper ha from 1.89 mt in 1997 and increase steadily to 2.21 mt
by 2010. Following the yield trend, total production is pro-jected to increase steadily from 4.37 mmt in 1997 to 5.35mmt by 2010.
Annual per capita consumption of rice in Pakistan is lowerthan in other Asian countries (19.3 kilograms in 1997) and isprojected to remain between 19.3 and 19.5 kilograms overthe projection period. However, a relatively high populationgrowth rate results in an increase in total rice consumptionfrom 2.5 mmt in 1997 to 3.3 mmt by 2010.
Pakistan is the fourth largest rice exporter in 1997 and isprojected to remain as a major exporter in the long run. Netrice exports in 1998 are projected to remain relatively flat at1.9 mmt and would range between 1.8 to 1.9 mmt thereafter.Ending stocks are projected to generally remain in the rangeof 300 to 800 thousand mt over the forecast period.
Myanmar (formerly Burma)Myanmar is moving away from a centralized economy and
trying to re-enter the world community after more than threedecades of economic isolation. The economy has potential,given its rich natural resources and relatively low-wage labor,but considerable political constraints still exist. More than 50percent of its population is within the working ages of 15through 59. Private corporations are now permitted to partici-pate in infrastructural development projects. More than halfof Myanmar’s gross domestic product and half of its foreignexchange earnings come from agriculture, forestry, fishingand livestock.
A number of foreign investments in Myanmar will havedirect benefits to the country’s rice industry. Singapore, rec-ognizing Myanmar’s potential, invested $584 million in thecountry by the end of 1995–accounting for 22 percent ofMyanmar’s total foreign investments. Foreign investments aregoing to 36 projects, including one that is aimed at improvingthe output of the country’s fragrant rice varieties. MarubeniCorporation has been working on a joint-venture with theMyanmar government to produce rice for animal feed. Theventure is expected to produce 150 thousand mt by 2004 andis projected to reach 3.0 mmt per year eventually or about 30percent of the country’s current level of rice production. Ricefeed is planned to be exported to other Asian countries be-yond the year 2000.
Myanmar was once the dominant rice exporting country inthe world, accounting for nearly three-fourths of the worldrice exports in the first half of this century. Production wasseverely disrupted by World War II. Thereafter, Myanmar’sexports became less dependable under intervention policiesof the new independent government.
Rice production in Myanmar is one of the most diversifiedin Asia. Approximately 52 percent of the rice area is rain-fedlowland, 24 percent is deepwater rice, 18 percent is irrigatedlowland, and about 6 percent is upland, where slash and burnmethods typically are used for subsistence production. Irri-
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
31
Fig. 25. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Pakistan rice.
gated rice in the dry season has been expanding, and tradi-tional methods such as Taungya, shifting cultivation on hill-sides, has been declining (Young et al., 1998).
The government of Myanmar (GOM) has maintained aquota system that requires farmers to sell 12 baskets (20.9kg/basket) of rice to the government at a procurement price,which is below the market prices. In late 1997 the govern-ment proposed a new procurement system that allows higherprices and also targets traders and millers for procurementand not just farmers.
The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) had very ambitiousplans for expanding rice area. In 1995, the country imple-
mented a policy requiring two wet-season rice crops on alldesignated rice land. In April 1996 the MOA announced plansto expand monsoon paddy area by 800,000 ha within its sec-ond five-year plan period. This additional land area wouldcome from culturable waste lands, fallow lands and reclaimedlands. But in 1997 the MOA realized it lacks sufficient inputsupplies for this expansion in new area. The new policy em-phasis is directed towards improving yields. But, due to short-age of foreign currency, there has been a lack of urea fertil-izer for the rice crop (USDA/FAS, 1997 and 1998).
Following the current support policies and a more conser-vative government expansion in irrigated rice area than previ-
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
32
ous years forecast, the total harvested area is projected toincrease to 6.25 million ha by 2010 from 5.49 million ha in1997 (Table 21 and Figure 26). The government has devel-oped 800 thousand ha of summer (second crop) irrigatedrice. An additional 750 thousand ha is planned to be broughtinto production over the next decade. Average yields per haare projected to increase steadily by 1.7 percent per year to2.01 mt by 2010 from 1.62 mt in 1997. As a result, totalproduction is projected to grow steadily to 12.6 mmt in 2010from 8.9 mmt in 1997.
Production in 1997/1998 was lower due to a number ofdifferent factors, including heavy flooding in a number of
regions, pests, disease problems, inferior seed qualities, short-age of fertilizer and low water levels for the second crop inthe Irrawady River Delta.
Total rice consumption is projected to increase to 9.4 mmtin 1998 from 9.3 mmt in 1997. Consumption will continue toincrease steadily to 11.8 mmt by 2010 due to rapid popula-tion growth of 2.1 percent and income growth of 2.5 percentper year. Annual per capita consumption ranges from 192 to196 kilograms over the forecast period. Per capita consump-tion, however, may be overstated because of the existence ofa substantial amount of unreported trade with China and dif-ferent ethnic tribes along the borders with Laos and Thailand.
Fig. 26. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Myanmar rice.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
33
While Myanmar is an emerging major exporter in the in-ternational rice market, current trade projections are reviseddownward relative to the previous baseline because thegovernment’s original targets for production are unlikely tobe attained based on the evidence of the past three years. Anincrease in exports is driven mainly by available supply.
Rice imports and exports are controlled by the GOMagency Myanmar Export Import Services (MEIS). Rice can-not be exported by the private sector. MEIS establishes ex-port targets based on production data from the MOA. Re-cently MEIS has lowered export targets because of unreliabledata for production and the risk of causing a domestic short-age and increasing the retail price of rice. Rice is the staplefood, and the price of rice is a politically sensitive issue. Thegovernment needs to maintain sufficient supplies to providesubsidized rice for government employees and military per-sonnel (USDA/FAS, 1998).
Net exports are projected to increase substantially to 216thousand mt in 1998 from 54 thousand in 1997 and steadilyincrease to 777 thousand mt by 2010. Exports in 1996 (15thousand mt) and 1997 are the lowest for Myanmar since1972 when exports were 152 thousand mt. From 1990 through1995 net exports averaged 352 thousand mt per year. Pro-jected ending stocks increase to 514 thousand mt in 1998from 260 thousand mt in 1997 and remain between 600 and800 thousand mt over the forecast period.
The future time frame for increased rice production andexport is difficult to project for Myanmar as governmentalintervention in the rice sector distorts operation of the freemarket and the serious financial problems faced by the gov-ernment constrain economic development. Despite these con-straints, the present government appears to be committed toincreasing rice production and export. The rate of expansionin the future will depend largely on the government’s contin-ued willingness and ability to invest in the rice sector byimproving the infrastructure as well as providing adequateeconomic incentives for rice production. Although the presentprocurement price does not cover production cost, the gov-ernment offsets this apparent inequity to some degree by pro-viding subsidized inputs. This intervention has been reducedover time as the procurement requirement is now only about12 percent of production. On the other hand, free marketprice for remaining paddy appears to provide a strong incen-tive for rice production, e.g., it was over three times thereported farm production cost per metric ton in 1995. Thus,the current main constraint to expanding production seems tobe the poor infrastructural support system, including contin-ued problems with the timely and sufficient supply of keyinputs for high-yield variety (HYV) production, such as chemi-cal fertilizers (Young et al., 1998).
The major factors other than market price that will deter-mine rice production within the next decade are 1) continued
irrigation and drainage development to expand the area ofdry-season paddy and to support multi-cropping; 2) increaseduse of HYV’s, which now account for only about half of riceproduction; and 3) increased use of chemical fertilizer andother modern inputs to achieve higher yields. In the longterm, the irrigation and drainage development potentially couldbe increased to cover virtually all of the rice production ar-eas; multi-cropping potentially could be increased to coverthree crops per year; and more land area could be reclaimedor converted from wasteland to possible rice cultivation(Young et al., 1998).
VietnamAgricultural production in Vietnam was collectivized from
1976 to 1981. Agricultural output was quite low. From 1982to 1987 a contract system was utilized. Farmers had contractswith cooperatives to produce a specific quantity. Productionin excess of the contract was consumed or sold to privatetraders. Vietnam’s transition to family farming (1988-92) fromthe contract system (1982-87) supported the agricultural lib-eralization efforts and provided incentives to producers. Farm-ers were assigned long-term leases on their land, and the landrights were transferable. Farmers were no longer required tosell a part of their production to the state at prices belowthose prevailing in the market. The rice retail market wasprivatized. Food grain subsidies to government employeesand army personnel were eliminated.
Vietnam is attracting foreign investment on several fronts–strengthening the foundation of its ongoing economic growth,especially its agricultural sector. Novartis, one of the firstmajor companies to invest in the country, has broken groundfor a new agrochemical and pharmaceutical complex in DongNai province, near Ho Chi Minh City. The facility will pack-age crop protection chemicals and pharmaceutical productsto be marketed in the country. The products include Tilt, afungicide, and Sofit, a herbicide for rice. Tomen Corporationhas a loan agreement of US$215 million to the VietnamChemical Corporation to build the first phosphate fertilizerplant in Vietnam. The production capacity of the plant is 330thousand mt per year of fertilizer intended for rice produc-tion. Construction is planned to be completed in 1998.Rabobank Nederland, one of the world’s top 40 banks withUS$175 billion in assets, has set up an office in Ho Chi MinhCity and intends to provide finance, market analysis and otherservices “to help Vietnam become a major agricultural pro-ducer.” There are now three Dutch banks with operations inVietnam, helping to support 27 Dutch projects involving atotal investment of US$447 million. Rabobank, however, isthe first Dutch bank to concentrate on agribusiness in thecountry.
Vietnam’s rice industry is also attracting direct investments.Mitsui and Co Ltd (Japan) and two Hong Kong partners(Golden Resources Development International Ltd and the
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
34
Bank of East Asia) have established a joint venture, VietnamResources Rice Processing Industry, to produce refined ricefor export. Golden Resources is said to have 70 percent ofHong Kong’s retail rice market and initiated the joint ventureto diversify its rice supplies. Equity is divided, with fourregional Vietnamese municipalities taking 51.5 percent andthe foreign companies taking 48.5 percent. The US$10-mil-lion project that has been established in My Tho, a majorurban center in Mekong Delta, has an initial full processingcapacity of 90 thousand mt of rough rice. It will be expandedto 180 thousand mt per year by 2000. The Vietnamese gov-ernment also has approved a US$2-million investment projectfor a rice drying system with a capacity of 1 mmt. AnotherUS$18-million project is being undertaken by the govern-ments of Vietnam and Denmark to develop the milling sys-tem in Thai Binh, Soc Trang and Can Tho provinces. Viet-nam has 5000 rice mills with a total annual capacity of 10mmt of rice and has facilities that can husk, sort and polishrice with a capacity of 2.3 mmt per year.
Rice production in Vietnam has increased rapidly over thepast decade due to the economic reforms instituted by thegovernment, as well as expanded use and improvements intechnology. One of the major catalysts of the country’s marchtowards progress is a socio-economic development plan forthe Mekong River delta, which will cost US$6 billion overthe next five years and US$28 billion over the following 10years. The 39,600-square-kilometer delta contributes 60 per-cent of the country’s food output and half of its rice exports.Rice accounts for 70 percent of the delta’s 2.6 million ha ofagricultural land. The goal of the plan is to upgrade the delta’sfood production through intense cultivation and improve thequality of rice. The country’s Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development (MARD) has implemented a US$120-million program to improve the quality of the country’s ricefor the period 1997 through 2000. The focus will be on boost-ing capacity and upgrading facilities for drying, husking,screening and preserving. Another aspect of the program isstandardizing and integrating the collection and processingsystem, which is presently done by the private sector. Thecountry’s Planning and Investment Ministry is to use a $20-million grant from the Danish government to improve ricequality and limit post-harvest losses.
Given the favorable developments on the supply side, ahigh growth rate in rice production is expected to continue inVietnam throughout the projection period. Total area har-vested is projected to increase slightly to 7.16 million ha in1998 from 7.10 million in 1997 and increase slightly to 7.29million by 2010 (Table 22 and Figure 27). Yields per ha areprojected to continue to increase steadily from 2.54 to 3.04mt during the same period. Total production is projected toincrease to 18.7 mmt in 1998 from 18.0 mmt in 1997 andgrow steadily by 1.6 percent annually to 22.1 mmt by 2010.
Due to low but rising per capita incomes, per capita riceconsumption is projected to increase to 193.5 kilograms in1998 from 191.4 kilograms in 1997 and stabilize around 192kilograms during the rest of the forecast period. Vietnam’seconomy is expected to have the fastest growth (10.1 percentin 1997 and stabilizing at 9.5 percent by 2000) among themajor rice economies (Appendix Table 2). Total rice con-sumption will increase to 14.8 mmt in 1998 from 14.4 mmt in1997 and will continue to grow due to population and incomegrowth, reaching 17.1 mmt by 2010.
Vietnam is emerging as a major rice exporter and hasovertaken India and the US as the second biggest rice ex-porter in 1996 and 1997. According to news sources, Iraqagreed to buy 300 thousand mt of Vietnamese rice per yearfor four years. Vietnam raised its export quota from 2.5 mmtto 3.0 mmt during the 1996 marketing year. The countrylimits rice exports by a licensing system but has been pres-sured to liberalize export trade. The country has relaxed thestate’s monopoly on rice trade by allowing private companiesto sell grain abroad. It is also considering replacing its riceexport quotas with a system of export taxes to make the ricesector more flexible and competitive in international markets.In order to boost exports, the government may set aside spe-cial areas for the production of rice for export. In the RedRiver Delta, about 100 thousand ha will be reserved to de-velop improved strains of hybrid rice for export. By the year2000, close to 1 million ha will be set aside in Dong Thap,An Giang, Soc Trang, Can Tho, Long An and Tien Giangprovinces for rice production. Poor quality is identified as amajor threat to the competitiveness of its exports and thereason why Vietnamese rice has a lower price compared torice from other countries. In order to help improve quality,the government is also considering establishing a $20.5 mil-lion rice exporting center in Binh Khanh commune, Can Gioprovince. It has a capacity of 3.7 mmt of rice per year andwould include a plant to process bran and rice husks. Cur-rently, while the southern part of the country produces 11.0mmt per year of rough rice, its milling facilities could processonly 1.3 mmt of high-quality rice per year. The rest is crudelyprocessed by farmers, leading to quality problems.
Projected net rice exports in 1998 are expected to increaseto 3.9 mmt from 3.6 mmt in 1997 and increase steadily to 5.0mmt by 2010. Inadequate information on rice stocks is re-flected in an assumption of zero change over the forecastperiod.
AustraliaAustralia harvested 148 thousand ha of rice in 1997. This
was a decrease of 18 thousand ha from 1996 due to shortageof irrigation water. Harvested area is projected to expand to168 thousand ha in 1998 and gradually increase to 174 thou-sand ha by 2010, based on expectations of normal level forirrigation water (Table 23 and Figure 28). The dominant rice
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
35
Fig. 27. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Vietnam rice.
growing area is in Murray-Darling basin in New South Wales(NSW). NSW has approximately 1,800 irrigated growers(USDA/FAS, 1998). Rice yields in Australia are influencedby market conditions and the development of new technolo-gies. Average yield per ha is projected to decrease to 6.06 mtin 1998 from 6.21 mt in 1997 before increasing steadily to6.75 mt by 2010. Total production in Australia is projected toincrease to 1.2 mmt in 2010 from 918 thousand mt in 1997.
Per capita consumption is projected to grow steadily at 0.8percent per year. Per capita consumption has been growingbecause of an increasing number of Asian immigrants andrising health consciousness among consumers. Total consump-
tion is projected to increase from 290 thousand mt in 1997 to356 thousand in 2010 due to population growth (0.97 percentin 1997 and ranging between 0.7 and 0.9 percent thereafter).The country’s economic growth is projected to stabilize around3.4 percent. While Australia’s economy is dominated by itsservices sector (65 percent of GDP), agricultural and miningsectors (8 percent of GDP combined) account for the bulk(57 percent) of the country’s goods and services exports.
Over 70 percent of Australia’s rice production is exported,driven by aggressive international marketing. Papua NewGuinea is its biggest single customer. Trade with some Pa-cific Island nations is sometimes constrained by economic
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
36
Fig. 28. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Australia rice.
problems and lack of foreign exchange of those countries.Australia provides approximately a quarter of Japanese riceimport quota commitments. Australia is producing rice spe-cifically for the Japanese market and currently expects toprovide 100 thousand mt. Net exports are projected to in-crease to 697 thousand mt in 1998 from 661 thousand mt in1997 and increase steadily to 818 thousand mt by the year2010.
The Australian market is open to imports with zero tariff.The local industry is concerned that imports are taking anincreasing share of the domestic market (currently around 20percent). Asian immigrants prefer fragrant rice such as jas-
mine and basmati. Thailand is the largest supplier at 20-25thousand mt per year. Other suppliers are India, Pakistan,Italy and the US. The rice cooperative has responded to thisimport demand by promoting production of fragrant rice eventhough it has a higher cost of production and requires a pre-mium by producers. Ending stocks remain around 100 thou-sand mt over the projection period.
EgyptRice is planted during May-June and harvested in late
October. All rice production is irrigated and located in theNile delta area in lower Egypt. Most of the rice produced is
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
37
short grain japonica varieties. Rice is a summer crop grownfollowing winter crops with berseem being the most com-mon. Additional winter crops include wheat, broad beans andsugar beets. Rice is the second largest crop in summer fol-lowing corn, and cotton is the third largest crop (USDA/FAS,1998) .
Due to a scarcity of water for irrigation, the government ofEgypt has attempted to restrict rice production to an area of378 thousand ha. Rice production has been more profitablethan that of alternative crops, and the government has notenforced the area restrictions through fines. This has resultedin a rice production area far surpassing the government re-striction for the past four years. In 1996 and 1997 rice areawas 591 and 630 thousand ha, respectively (USDA/FAS,1998).
A new rice policy was announced in November 1997 withthe objective of reducing the area planted to rice. The gov-ernment of Egypt is promoting new rice varieties that arecapable of increasing yields by 40 percent. Rough yield isexpected to increase from an average of 8.5 mt per ha to 12mt per ha. The current level of production could then beachieved with 30 percent less area. This would free up anestimated 3 billion cubic feet of water for the newly reclaimedland. The government plans to have all rice area planted tonew varieties by the year 2000. The 3 billion cubic feet ofwater would be utilized in new agricultural projects to pro-duce high-value horticultural crops (USDA/FAS, 1997 and1998).
Egypt has been instituting reforms to reduce the State’srole and increase reliance on market mechanisms. Some ofthe reforms instituted in 1991 include lifting of foreign ex-change controls, unification of exchange rate, instituting asales tax, reduction of the budget deficit and freeing interestrates. The government is focusing on improving the country’sexport competitiveness, liberalizing its trading regime, en-couraging the private sector, eliminating obstacles to doingbusiness and improving the investment climate. Egypt reducedtariffs across the board effective October 1, 1996, loweringthe maximum tariff from 70 percent to 55 percent and furtherreducing it to 50 percent in July 1997. Egypt became a mem-ber of the WTO in June 1995. Import barriers such as hightariffs and quality control requirements that discriminateagainst imports still remain. Direct export subsidies do notexist in the country. Under its commitment to the World Bank,Egypt has abolished privileges enjoyed by public sector en-terprises (e.g., subsidized inputs, credit facilities, reduced en-ergy prices and preferential custom rates), thus reducing theindirect subsidization of exports (US Department of State,1997).
The harvested rice area in Egypt is projected to decline to600 thousand ha in 1998 from 630 thousand in 1997 andstabilize at 500 thousand ha by 2002 (Table 24 and Figure
29) due to government policy limiting the use of water forrice. Rice yields in Egypt, which are one of the highest in theworld, are projected to increase to 5.02 mt per ha in 1998from 4.69 mt in 1997 and grow steadily to 5.81 mt in 2010(equivalent to an annual growth rate of 1.7 percent). Increasesin yields are mainly driven by improvements in developmentand extension of technology. The yield levels are decreasedrelative to the 1997 baseline due to uncertainties regardingallocation of water, genetic potential of the varieties undertest and soil salinity problems. Total production is projectedto remain within the range of 2.7 to 3.0 mmt over the forecastperiod.
Annual per capita consumption is projected to decreaseslightly to 41.8 kilograms in 1998 from 42.1 kilograms in1997 and decline gradually to 35.1 kilograms by the year2010 as income grows. The country’s economy is forecast togrow by 5.6 percent per year over the forecast period. Due topopulation growth (1.9 percent in 1997 and stabilizing at 1.6percent by 2006), total consumption is projected to remainbetween 2.6 and 2.8 mmt over the forecast period. Net ex-ports are projected to decrease to 124 thousand mt in 1998from 306 thousand in 1997 and decrease steadily to 78 thou-sand mt by the end of the projection period. Ending stocksare projected to range from 600 to 800 thousand mt.
ArgentinaThe comprehensive reform program implemented in Ar-
gentina under the Menem administration began in 1991. Ithas revitalized the country’s economy and has transformedthe country from a closed, highly regulated economy to onebased on market forces and international trade. Price controlson almost all goods and services have been eliminated. Ar-gentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay established the tradebloc Mercosur in 1991 and in January 1, 1995, formed apartial customs union with a common external tariff (rangingfrom zero to 23 percent) covering nearly 85 percent of trade.Chile and Bolivia signed a free trade agreement with Mercosur,exclusive of common external tariff, on October 1, 1996, andApril 30, 1997, respectively. Argentina became a foundingmember of the WTO on January 1, 1995. The Argentinegovernment abolished the import licensing system in 1989and in 1990 cut the average tariff from about 29 percent toless than 10 percent. However, the country’s average tariff isnow higher (nearly 17 percent) because Mercosur’s commonexternal tariff rates are higher (Bierlen et al., 1997; US De-partment of State, 1997).
Argentina experienced severe flooding during the 1997crop year, causing substantial declines both in area and yields.Harvested area in Argentina in 1997 dropped to 195 thou-sand mt from 230 thousand in 1996. Area is expected torecover in 1998 to 232 thousand ha and increase steadily to364 thousand ha by 2010 (Table 25 and Figure 30). Consid-erable land area is available to be developed for rice produc-
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
38
Fig. 29. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Egypt rice.
tion. However, some of these areas, such as in Corrientes, aresubject to excessive flooding. Irrigation systems also need tobe developed at a reasonable cost to sustain the expansion ofrice area. Gains in yield are expected due to improved variet-ies, technology and fertilizer use. Yields decline by over 11percent to 3 mt per ha in 1997 due to flooding. The averageyield per ha is projected to recover to 3.43 mt in 1998 andincrease steadily to 4.15 mt by 2010. With gains in both areaand yield, total production is projected to more than doubleover the forecast period, increasing to 1.5 mmt in 2010 from583 thousand mt in 1997.
Per capita consumption is projected to increase slightly to6.62 kilograms in 1998 from 6.59 in 1997 before increasingsteadily to 7.81 by 2010, an annual growth of 1.3 percent.Total consumption is projected to increase from 231 thou-sand mt in 1997 to 313 thousand by 2010. The country’seconomy is expected to grow between 4 and 5 percent peryear over the projection period. Argentina previously main-tained export taxes on rice, but starting in 1992 a subsidy of2.5 percent was implemented.
As a member of the Mercosur, the Argentine rice industryhas benefitted by an expansion in Brazilian rice imports withprotection of a common external tariff of 20 percent. The
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
39
Fig. 30. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Argentina rice.
country’s total exports are projected to increase substantiallyfrom 399 thousand mt in 1997 to 1.2 mmt by 2010, equiva-lent to an annual growth of close to 9 percent. Ending stockswill range from 70 to 100 thousand mt during the same pe-riod.
UruguayUruguay has a small, relatively open economy. The
country’s economy is historically agriculture-based. Agricul-ture remains important especially in the case of beef, wooland rice. Supported with the country’s Mercosur member-ship, trade is advancing rapidly. Trade with Argentina and
Brazil accounts for nearly half of Uruguay’s total world trade.The US is the third largest trading partner for Uruguay. TheUruguayan government allows the peso to float against thedollar within a seven percent range. The country has no for-eign exchange controls and allows free conversion of thepeso into dollars for transactions. Most of the economy is“dollarized.” Procurement practices are well-defined, trans-parent and closely followed. The country’s present tariff struc-ture is set by the Mercosur (Bierlen et al., 1997).
Uruguay’s rice crop suffered also from severe flooding in1997. While harvested area increased by 5 percent to 163thousand ha, yields decreased by about 10 percent to 4.15 mt
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
40
Fig. 31. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Uruguay rice.
per ha. Harvested area is projected to increase to 168 thou-sand ha in 1998 and expand steadily to 210 thousand by 2010(Table 26 and Figure 31). Uruguay experienced record yieldsof 4.55 mt per ha in 1995 and 4.63 mt in 1996. Yields areexpected to recover in 1998 at 4.52 mt and increase steadilyto 5.31 mt by 2010, which is equivalent to an annual growthof nearly 2 percent. Total production is projected to increaseto 1.1 mmt in 2010 from 678 thousand in 1997.
Total consumption is projected to increase gradually from80 thousand mt in 1997 to 106 thousand in 2010 as popula-tion grows at a decreasing rate (0.9 percent in 1997 to 0.3percent by 2002). Per capita consumption is expected to in-
crease steadily to 31.7 kilograms in 2010 from 25.0 in 1997as incomes grow. The country’s GDP growth is projected todecline to 2.6 percent in 1998 from 3.5 percent in 1997 andstabilize at 1.9 percent by 2001. Inflation rate, while declin-ing, remains high at 26.7 percent in 1997 but is expected todecline and stabilize at 16.2 percent by 2001. As a memberof Mercosur like Argentina, Uruguay has been able to in-crease its exports to Brazil due to the favorable external tar-iff. Brazil has normally imported about 75 percent ofUruguay’s rice. Uruguay rice exports to Brazil are usuallypriced at a premium of $100 per mt above world marketprice. Uruguay exports high-quality long grain rice to non-
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
41
Mercosur markets. The large crop during the 1995/96 cropyear enabled the country to export rice to Iran, Peru, Mexicoand Senegal. The country’s exports are projected to increaseto 1.0 mmt by 2010 from 597 thousand mt in 1997. Endingstocks range from 21 to 46 thousand mt during the sameperiod.
MAJOR IMPORTING COUNTRIES
BrazilBrazil is in the fourth year of an economic restructuring
program designed to bring inflation down, dismantle statecontrol of the economy, reduce market barriers and encour-age greater private sector (including foreign) investment toachieve sustainable long-term growth. The process of tradeliberalization initiated in 1990 has produced significantchanges in the country’s trade regime, resulting in a moreopen and competitive economy (US Department of State,1997).
Brazil’s economy grew around 3.9 percent in 1997 and isprojected to stabilize at 3.6 percent by 2001. Population isexpected to grow at a declining rate, i.e., from 1.1 percent in1997 to 0.8 percent starting in 2005. The country experi-enced the third highest inflation rate in 1996 at 19.5 percent,which is expected to stabilize at 9.8 percent beginning in2002. Since the introduction of a new currency, the Real, inJuly 1994, domestic inflation has dropped from an averagemonthly increase of 50 percent in the first half of 1994 to lessthan one-half percent per month in 1997. This situation hasbeen achieved by maintaining high interest rates to attractforeign capital, a strong currency and market-opening mea-sures, which increased competition and exerted downwardpressure on prices, particularly for traded goods. Brazil is afounding member of the WTO. While the Brazilian govern-ment does not provide direct subsidies to exporters, it offersa number of tax and tariff incentives to encourage exportproduction and encourage the use of local inputs for exportedproducts. Brazil imposed new import financing rules, effec-tive March 1997, that are adversely affecting a range of USexports to Brazil. The rule requires importers to purchaseforeign exchange to pay for most imports upon importationor 180 days in advance, rather than when payment is dueunder the contract (Bierlen, et al., 1997; US Department ofState, 1997).
Brazil has three rice production environments: lowland-irrigated, lowland rain-fed and upland rice areas. Ninety per-cent of the lowland-irrigated area is planted to modern ricevarieties; 80 percent is planted in rotation with two years ofrice and three years of pasture. There are 12,000 producers ofirrigated rice in Brazil. The irrigated rice area is expected togrow at 2.2 percent per year over the forecast period. How-ever, upland rice, which has served as a reclamation crop innew areas that eventually convert to soybeans, has been de-
creasing over time and is projected to decline by 1.7 percentper year over the same period. Total harvested rice area isprojected to decrease by 0.4 percent annually, from 3.3 mil-lion ha in 1997 to 3.1 million by 2010, with the increase dueto a relatively larger decline in upland area compared to theincrease in irrigated area (Table 27 and Figure 32). Produc-tion constraints include the prevalence of red rice, rice waterweevil and low temperatures during flowering time. The av-erage yield per ha is projected to increase steadily from 1.82mt in 1997 to 2.48 mt by 2010, an annual growth of 2.4percent. This high yield growth rate is due in part to theprojected shift to higher-yielding irrigated area and a declinein lower-yielding upland rice area. Total rice production de-clined dramatically in 1997 due to unfavorable weather, i.e.,flood damage in Rio Grande do Sul and drought in the north-eastern part of the country. Production is projected to recoverto 6.5 mmt in 1998 and increase steadily to 7.7 mmt by 2010.
Annual per capita consumption is expected to stabilizearound 48 kilograms over the projection period. Total riceconsumption is projected to continue increasing steadily from7.9 mmt in 1997 to 8.9 mmt in 2010. Brazil is expected toremain a rice-importing country, with projected net importsdecreasing from 1.7 mmt in 1997 to 1.2 mmt in 2010. Mostof Brazil’s imports will come from the Mercosur countriesArgentina and Uruguay. These countries have a major advan-tage because of relatively low transportation and productioncosts. Import tariffs on non-Mercosur rice in 1988 were 13percent, but there was no tariff on imports from Argentinaand Uruguay. Ending stocks are projected to build up to nearly1 mmt by 2010 from 497 thousand mt in 1997.
European UnionThe European Union (EU), the world’s largest economy
and the largest US trade and investment partner, is comprisedof 15 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Fin-land, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK). It is aunique organization in that the member states have ceded toit increasing authority over their domestic and external poli-cies, although not all countries have agreed to monetary union.Those who have agreed are on course to implement the Euromonetary system by achieving a set of “convergence criteria”for monetary union: maximum deficit of 3 percent of GDP;gross national debt of 60 percent of GDP; inflation and inter-est rate levels no more than one and a half percentage pointsabove the average of the three lowest rates among the mem-ber states; and two years of relative exchange rate stability.The EU intends to establish an Economic and Monetary Union(EMU) with a common monetary and exchange rate policyno later than January 1, 1999.
The growth of the EU’s aggregate economy is projected tostabilize at 2.4 percent per year over the projection period.While the EU is important as both a rice importing and ex-
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
42
Fig. 32. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Brazil rice.
porting region, it has traditionally been a net importer and isprojected to remain so over the forecast period. The totalharvested area is projected to decrease gradually from 406thousand ha in 1997 to 379 thousand by 2010 (Table 28 andFigure 33). Italy and Spain account for nearly 85 percent ofEU’s total rice area; hence, discussion in this paper focuseson these two countries.
Italy, which is the world’s fifth largest economy, has un-dergone a dramatic transformation into an industrial power inthe past 50 years. Italy maintains an open economy and is amember of major multilateral economic organizations such as
the Group of Seven (G-7) industrialized countries, the Orga-nization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),The WTO, the IMF and the EU. However, certain character-istics of the Italian economy impede growth and reduce im-port demand. These include rigid labor markets, underdevel-oped financial markets and a continued, heavy state role inthe production sector. There has been some progress at ad-dressing these structural issues. (US Department of State,1997).
Spain’s economy is growing very well. Growth is broadlybased, with support coming from agricultural exports, capital
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
43
goods, investment and private consumption. Much of thecountry’s economic policy has focused on meeting the crite-ria for consideration to join the monetary union. Under theEU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Spanish farm in-comes are protected by direct investments and guaranteedfarm prices that are higher than world prices using high exter-nal tariffs. However, the Uruguay Round agreement requiresthat all import duties on agricultural products be reduced byan average of 36 percent during the six-year period beginningin 2000 (US Department of State, 1997).
Italy represents over 60 percent of EU’s total rice area butis constrained from expanding its area beyond 240 thousand
ha (Table 29 and Figure 34). Spain’s rice area, on the otherhand, is dependent on rain-fed reservoirs. Year-to-year vari-ability in irrigation water supply has the largest impact onSpain’s rice area. Under normal weather, Spain has had enoughwater for approximately 80 thousand ha of rice. Water sup-plies in 1998 are excellent, and rice area is expected to beabove normal, despite the recent toxic sludge contaminationof a 6,000-ha area that includes rice, cotton and horticulturalcrops. Over the longer term, rice area in Spain is projected todecline to 78 thousand ha by 2005 from 111 thousand in1997 (Table 30 and Figure 35). The rest of EU’s rice area
Fig. 33. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: European Union rice.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
44
Fig. 34. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Italy rice.
Fig. 35. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Spain rice.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
45
(France and Greece) is expected to stabilize at 61 thousandha over the forecast period (Table 31 and Figure 36).
The EU average rice yields are projected to be around 4mt per ha during the projection period. Italy’s 1997 averageyield, at 3.87 mt, is 11 percent higher than the previous year’slevel mainly due to adequate water supply. Italy’s yield isexpected to follow trend levels starting in 1998, increasing by0.7 percent per year during the rest of the forecast period.Average rice yield of Spain is projected to grow by about 0.4percent annually during the same period, while average yieldsin other producing countries in the EU are expected to in-crease by 0.6 percent per year. Total EU production is pro-jected to range between 1.5 and 1.6 mmt over the forecastperiod. Italian rice production increases from 901 thousandmt in 1998 to 953 thousand mt by the end of the projectionperiod due solely to yield gains. Spain’s production declinesto 385 thousand mt in 2010 from 559 thousand in 1997.Production of the rest of EU is projected to increase from203 thousand mt in 1997 to 222 thousand in 2010.
As the EU population grows slightly (0.30 percent in 1997and declining to 0.13 by 2006), total rice consumption also isprojected to continue growing marginally, i.e., from 1.9 mmtin 1997 to 2.1 mmt by 2010. Per capita consumption in-creases steadily from 5.36 kilograms in 1997 to 5.93 over thesame period. As a result of reduced import levies and export
subsidies, EU’s net imports are projected to increase from332 thousand mt in 1997 to 568 thousand mt in 2010. EUimposed a quota of 42,650 mt of rice imports for the firstfour months of 1997. Italy’s exports, which are driven byavailable supply and real average medium grain export price,are projected to range between 530 to 560 thousand mtfrom1998 through 2010.
As part of the concessions made to the US as compensa-tion for the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to theEU, the EU agreed to implement tariff quotas for imports of38,000 mt of milled rice and 8,000 mt of brown rice from theUS. On July 1, 1995, the EU implemented its Uruguay Roundcommitment for grains and rice using a reference price sys-tem. The US gained an agreement with the EU, with the EUcommitting to implement a system allowing importers of brownrice the possibility to cumulatively recover duty overages thatmight occur. This agreement was designed as a one-year trialand implemented on July 1, 1997 (US Department of State,1997).
The EU has tightened up rice quality standards as part of asweeping reform of its rice market under the CAP. The regu-lation determining the standard quality of rice (No. 3073/95)replaces the 1976 requirements. It states that paddy rice mustbe of a “sound and fair marketable quality, free of odor.”
Fig. 36. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: other European Union rice.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
46
Moisture content is limited to 14 percent in 1997 and 1998and 13 percent thereafter.
IndonesiaIndonesia has made significant economic progress over
the past three decades. Real GDP grew at an average of over7 percent during the period 1991-1996, with inflation rangingfrom 5 to 10 percent. But by mid 1997 a major financialcrisis confronted Indonesia. The first major catalyst of thecrisis began on July 1, 1997, when Thailand allowed the bahtto float against the dollar and other currencies for the firsttime in 14 years. The baht fell more than 15 percent; traders,economists and The Wall Street Journal lead articles pre-dicted dire affects on other Asian-Pacific currencies. The In-donesian rupee was R2,450 to the US$ in July 1997; byDecember the exchange rate fell to R4,000, and by June 1998it was R10,400. Inflation in the second half of 1997 increasedfrom 5.5 percent in June 1997 to 8 percent by December, butby May 1998 inflation was at 40 percent, shortly after Presi-dent Suharto resigned. The second major catalyst was droughtconditions caused by El Niño. Planting of the main rice cropwas delayed by two months, to December-February, withyields and area harvested both lower. This led to the largestannual rice imports for any country to date.
The government enforces a system of floor and ceilingprices for certain “strategic” food products such as rice. Thecountry launched a set of economic reforms in November1997 that reduced the number of such products. These re-forms were initiated with encouragement from the IMF. Somegoods, such as fertilizer and electricity, enjoy direct govern-ment subsidies. The number of items subject to import li-censes and other non-tariff import barriers such as speciallicensing requirements are being reduced. While distributionin the domestic market is still restricted, the November 1997reform allows foreign firms that produce in Indonesia to di-rectly distribute their products domestically; beginning in 2003,such firms may sell their products at the retail level (USDepartment of State, 1997).
As the third largest rice producing and consuming countryin the world, Indonesia’s participation in international ricetrade in the past has been relatively small but volatile. Attimes it has been a major importer, at other times a signifi-cant exporter. The government has promoted a rice self-suffi-ciency policy for many years. Area harvested in the countryis influenced by farm prices and increasingly by industrialdevelopment, with significant conversion of highly produc-tive rice areas in Java to housing and industrial use. Thegovernment is trying to expand rice production by develop-ing 1.0 million ha of new rice area, specifically in CentralKalimantan. However, progress is constrained because at least400 thousand ha of the 1.0 million new agricultural land maynot be suitable for rice due to thick peat layers. The estimatedcost of the project is Rp5 trillion. The government also plans
to introduce new high-yielding varieties, expand irrigationand encourage the use of more efficient type of fertilizers.The country is also developing 350 thousand ha of farmlandfor rice over 26 provinces distributed across South Celesta,West Java, North Sumatra and West Sumatra–aimed at in-creasing rice production. Java accounts for over half ofIndonesia’s rice production (USDA/FAS, 1997).
Indonesia’s rice area is a function of government supportand input (fertilizer) prices. However, in 1997 Indonesia’srice crop was substantially affected by the El Niño weatherphenomenon, reducing area by 2.4 percent, yield by 1 per-cent and total production by 3.4 percent compared to 1996.The area harvested is projected to recover slightly to 11.3million ha in 1998 from 10.8 million in 1997 and increasesteadily to 11.9 million ha by the year 2010 (Table 32 andFigure 37). Due to a strong national commitment to rice re-search and the adoption of IRRI varieties, yields are pro-jected to increase from 2.86 mt per ha in 1997 to 3.13 mt bythe end of the projection period. Total production is pro-jected to increase to 32.5 mmt in 1998 from 30.9 mmt in1997 and reaching an annual output of 37.3 mmt by 2010.
Per capita use, which has increased over the past severaldecades, reached 166.6 kilograms in 1997 and is expected toremain between 164 and 166 kilograms over the forecastperiod. Per capita consumption is a function of GDP and realretail prices; the positive effect of GDP is counterbalancedby the negative effect of increasing real retail prices. Totalconsumption is projected to increase to 35.2 mmt in 1998from 35.9 mmt in 1997. By 2010, consumption is expected tobe 41.0 mmt due to population growth (1.51 percent in 1997but projected to decline to and stabilize at 1.25 percent by2007).
While Indonesia has a policy of self-sufficiency, produc-tion shortfalls are expected to make the country a net riceimporter during the projection period. Under the GATT ac-cord, Indonesia would phase out non-tariff barriers and re-duce the bound tariff rate to 160 percent by 2004. The ElNiño-related crop shortfall caused Indonesia to become thetop importer in 1997 with net imports of nearly 5 mmt, sixtimes its 1996 quantity and a world record. As in the past, thecountry is expected to remain a source of volatility in theworld rice trade, mainly due to weather-related factors. Netimports are projected to decrease to 2.6 mmt in 1998 and to2.3 mmt in 2000 and gradually increase to 3.7 mmt by 2010.Ending stocks should increase steadily from 1.5 mmt in 1997to 1.8 mmt in 2010 (Table 30).
IranIran’s economic difficulties are an offshoot of the country’s
struggle with a government program of austerity designed tocope with the excesses of the reconstruction boom of theearly 1990s, the government’s failure to implement promisedeconomic reform measures and a stagnant petroleum sector.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
47
Fig. 37. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Indonesia rice.
While the country did not resort to external debt during theeight-year war with Iraq, Iran borrowed heavily during 1988through 1992–leading to the current external debt of nearly$30 billion. The principal of the rescheduled debts becamedue in 1997, and the country’s ability to make timely pay-ments remains uncertain. To aggravate the situation, Iran isnot a member of the WTO, and US investments in and tradewith Iran are prohibited under Executive Order 12959, whichtook full effect in August 1995 (US Department of State,1997).
Iran’s economy grew by 2.6 percent in 1997 and is ex-pected to stabilize at 3.3 percent by 2001. Iran experienced a
high rate of inflation over the past two years (45.6 percent in1996 and 30.2 percent in 1997), which is expected to declineto 23.1 percent in 1998 before stabilizing at 8.5 percent by2001.
Harvested rice area in Iran has recently increased due tothe government’s high domestic price and its support in im-proving the agricultural market infrastructure (e.g., farm-to-market roads) which benefit rice production. The area har-vested is projected to increase from 600 thousand ha in 1997to 609 thousand in 1998, and increase steadily to 707 thou-sand ha by 2010 (Table 33 and Figure 38). Yields per haincrease from 2.67 mt in 1997 to 3.02 mt by 2010. Likewise,
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
48
Fig. 38. Arkansas Global Rice Model projections: Iran rice.
total rice production is projected to grow steadily from 1.6mmt in 1997 to 2.1 mmt by 2010.
Annual per capita consumption is projected to increasegradually from 43.2 kilograms in 1997 to 44.6 kilograms bythe end of the forecast period. Growth in total rice consump-tion is projected to continue, increasing from 2.75 mmt in1997 to 3.73 mmt in 2010, due primarily to population growthof over 3 percent over the forecast period. Total rice con-sumption is also a function of real CIF rice prices and realGDP.
Iran’s government has a monopoly on rice imports. It isexpected to remain a rice-importing country, with imports
increasing to 1.2 mmt in 1998 from 1.0 mmt in 1997. Netimports are expected to grow steadily, reaching 1.6 mmt by2010. Sale of imported rice in Iran is controlled through issu-ance of ration coupons. Ending stocks are expected to rangebetween 500 and 600 thousand mt over the projection period.
IraqA United Nation’s near-total trade and air embargo on
Iraq, and freezing the country’s overseas assets, is still ineffect, and the country’s economy has continued to deterio-rate. For humanitarian reasons, the U.N. Security Councilpassed Resolution 986 in April 1995, allowing Iraq to export
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
49
$1 billion worth of oil every three months and to use theproceeds to purchase food, medicine and other essential itemsfor civilian purposes. The Iraqi government refused to imple-ment the resolution initially but finally agreed to an “oil-for-food deal” in December 1996.
Iraq depends on imports for most of its rice requirementsfor domestic consumption. Domestic production capacity hasimproved in recent years, but it remains vulnerable to weatherand political conditions. It is becoming increasingly difficultfor the government to convince farmers to sell their harvestto the government. Most farmers prefer to hoard their pro-duction or sell it on the black market at much higher pricesthan are paid by the government.
Iraq harvested 140 thousand ha of rice in 1997. Area isexpected to increase by 8,000 ha in 1998 and continue in-creasing gradually to 165 thousand ha by 2010 (Table 34 andFigure 39). Yields per ha are projected to increase steadilyfrom 1.43 mt in 1997 to 1.80 mt in 2010. Total production in1997 remained flat at 201 thousand mt but is projected toincrease steadily thereafter, reaching 297 thousand by 2010.
Total consumption is projected to increase rapidly as popu-lation grows at 3 percent per year and incomes rise. As is truefor Iran, Iraq’s total rice consumption is driven by real CIFrice prices and real GDP. The country’s inflation is assumedto be stable at 4.2 percent. Rice consumption increased sub-
Fig. 39. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Iraq rice.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
50
stantially to 870 thousand mt in 1996 from 450 thousand in1995 due to the food-related relaxation of the ban for hu-manitarian reasons. The consumption estimated for 1997 is800 thousand mt but would increase steadily to 1.2 mmt by2010. Annual per capita consumption is projected to increaseto 37.6 kilograms in 2010 from 36.2 kilograms in 1997.
The government procures and distributes rice. Net importsare projected to range from 700 to 900 thousand mt over theforecast period. Ending stocks are projected to stabilize at200 thousand mt.
Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia prides itself on being a free market economy.
However, while the government tends to encourage commer-cial enterprise, strict interpretation of Islamic mores serves tolimit policy options and opportunities.
The Saudi government has traditionally maintained pricecontrols for basic utilities, energy and many agricultural prod-ucts. Water, electricity and petroleum products are believedto be subsidized, with prices often substantially below thecosts of production in order to share the wealth and spurdevelopment. The country is in the process of accession tothe WTO. The government has reduced subsidies to agricul-ture, resulting in reduced agricultural production availablefor export (US Department of State, 1997).
Since Saudi Arabia has virtually no rice production, itsrice supplies are dependent upon imports. Providing the bestquality rice to consumers at a low price is a major govern-ment policy. While growth in per capita consumption is slow,i.e., from 36 kilograms in 1997 to 37.6 kilograms in 2010,the total consumption forecast shows an increase from 724thousand mt to 1.2 mmt during the same period as populationgrows rapidly, i.e., by 3.3 percent per year; and incomesgrow by 2.3 percent per year (Table 35 and Figure 40). Con-sumption is determined by income and prices of importedrice.
Saudi Arabia is projected to import all of its rice con-sumption requirements. While import subsidies have beenused in the past, most imports are currently sold through theopen market. The government encourages suppliers to com-pete in providing the lowest possible import prices.
JapanJapan’s economic growth stagnated in 1997 due in part to
a consumption tax increase and the end of income tax breaks.So far, the current economic slowdown, which began in mid-1991, has been the longest in the country’s postwar history.The surge in asset prices to unsustainable levels and highrates of capital investment and hiring in the late 1980’s gaveway by 1991 to sharply slower growth, corporate restructur-ing and balance sheet adjustment by businesses. Japan’seconomy is undergoing serious structural pressures, due pri-marily to technology-driven global competition. Japan is a
market economy, with prices generally set in accordance withsupply and demand. However, due to the high level of fixedand personnel costs combined with a complex distributionsystem, gross retail margins are very high–resulting in greaterdownward stickiness in retail prices than would be expectedin other large market economies. Japan is the US’s third larg-est export market while the US is the largest market for Japa-nese exports. However, US exporters still have incompleteaccess in many sectors of the Japanese market (US Depart-ment of State, 1997).
The domestic rice sector in Japan has been insulated frominternational markets through high support prices and tightrestrictions on rice imports. Under the WTO, Japan is re-quired to import according to established minimum accessrequirements. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fish-eries (MAFF) Minister announced in March 1998 that theminimum access rice system should be Japan’s basic stanceunder the next WTO agricultural negotiations as opposed totariffication.2 At the OECD Agricultural Ministers meeting,the MAFF minister expressed that international rule shouldenable Japan to export minimum access rice as food aid.
The minimum access requirement for Japan for the 1998fiscal year is 680 thousand mt. There will be four simulta-neous buy and sells (SBS) tendered for 20 to 30 thousand mteach. For Japanese fiscal year (April 1996-March 1997) thegovernment contracted to purchase 544 thousand mt underthe Uruguay Round minimum access agreement. The US cap-tured 50.1 percent of the minimum access tenders followedby Thailand and Australia with 24 and 16 percent of theshare, respectively (USDA/FAS, 1998).
A new rice diversion policy was introduced in 1997 forJapan’s fiscal year 1988; it will increase the rice diversionprogram and increase compensation for farmers. The firstrice diversion program was initiated in 1969. The primarygoal of the 1998 policy is to reduce domestic stock levels.The rice diversion program is expanded from the 1997 targetof 787 thousand ha to 963 thousand ha in 1998, which is anincrease of 176 thousand ha (USDA/FAS, 1998).
The average rice farm is less than 1 ha. The small farmsize has contributed to a high percentage (80 percent) of part-time farmers. Most farms are family owned. The farm opera-tions are highly mechanized with tractors and mechanical trans-planters.
2 Under market access provision, Japan may import under minimum accesssince imports were less than 5% of domestic consumption under the baseperiod 1986-1988. Under minimum access Japan will provide accessopportunities for imports equal to 3% of the base period consumption in thefirst year agreement, increasing to 5% by the end of the implementation period.Under tariffication, non-tariff border measures are converted to their tariffequivalents. The tariff equivalent is equal to the difference between averageworld market price and average internal price. Countries then use this pricedifference to establish either a specific or an ad valorem tariff.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
51
In 1997, Japan imported 600 thousand mt of rice and ex-ported 250 thousand mt of rice up until April before an-nouncing a shipment of 500 thousand mt of rice as food aidto Indonesia, apparently aimed at easing the burden of itshigh stock levels–resulting in net exports of 150 thousand mt.Japan is projected to be a net importer again in 1998 with netimports of 406 thousand mt and expected to increase steadilyto 724 thousand mt by 2010.
The Japanese government has used land diversion pro-grams to control rice supplies. Rice acreage is influenced bythis government policy and rising costs of production. Thearea harvested is projected to decline to 1.85 million ha in1998 from 1.98 million ha in 1997. To accommodate forhigher yields, imports and limits on storage costs, the riceland diversion program is expected to be managed such thatonly about 1.5 million ha of rice will be harvested by 2010(Table 36 and Figure 41). Japan’s rice yields are influencedby high support prices, production costs and new technology.Subsidies to producers of independently distributed rice arebeing phased out. Yield per ha is projected to increase steadilyfrom 4.67 mt in 1997 to 5.23 mt by 2010. Following thedowntrend in area harvested, production is projected to de-crease from 9.3 mmt in 1997 to 7.6 mmt by 2010.
Japan’s rice consumption is strongly influenced by a nega-tive income elasticity. The country’s per capita use of ricedeclined substantially over the past few decades and is ex-pected to continue declining gradually from 73.3 kilogramsin 1997 to 66.7 kilograms by the year 2010. Income andpopulation growth rates are expected to decline. Consequently,total consumption is projected to decline steadily to 8.5 mmtin 2010 from 9.2 mmt in 1997.
Due to bumper rice harvests between 1994 and 1996, cur-rent ending stocks are excessively large, reaching nearly 3mmt in 1997, substantially higher than the target level of 1.5mmt. MAFF reportedly intends to cut the stockpile by ex-porting rice for food aid and increasing the riceland diversion
requirements. Ending stocks are expected to steadily decline,reaching the target level by 2010.
South KoreaThe Korean economy has enjoyed a sustained expansion
over the past three decades, averaging roughly a 9 percentreal GDP growth per year. However, the GDP growth in1997 slowed to a 6 percent level, largely due to a cyclicworsening in South Korea’s terms of trade, a string of bank-ruptcies of large business conglomerates and the strains thishas placed on the banking system. The Korean economy isnotable for the high degree of concentration of capital andindustrial output in a small number of conglomerates knownlocally as “cabalas.” The 30 largest cabalas account for aboutone-third of the total capital of the domestic financial sectorand about 35 percent of all manufacturing. These cabalas arehighly leveraged; hence, they are susceptible to bankruptciesin periods of economic slowdown (US Department of State,1997).
Korea’s economy is based on private ownership of themeans of production and distribution, with basic pricing deci-sions left to the private sector. Governmental intervention,however, has historically been used to guide the direction ofeconomic development. This includes policy loans and dis-cretionary enforcement of regulatory policies. Korea has low-ered its average tariff rate to 7.9 percent. The typical tradebarriers in Korea are mostly non-tariff related, i.e., non-trans-parent regulations that are subject to the discretion of offi-cials. These cover licensing, inspections and standards, amongothers. Import licensing requirements were removed on allgoods effective January 1, 1997, except for roughly 80 items–mostly agricultural products that are included in the “negativelist.” The Korean government’s restriction on the use of creditto finance imports is a significant barrier to US exports to thecountry. An encouraging development is the country’s acces-sion to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement on
Fig. 40. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Saudi Arabia rice.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
52
Fig. 41. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Japan rice.
January 1, 1997. While the use of tax exemptions to promoteexports is declining, a number of government programs di-rectly support the country’s export industries. These includecustoms duty rebates for raw material imports used in theproduction of exports, short-term export loans for small- andmedium-sized enterprises, rebates on the value-added tax, aspecial consumption tax for export products and corporateincome tax benefits for costs related to the promotion ofoverseas markets, among others (US Department of State,1997).
A review of some key demographic changes that occurredin the country over the past couple of years may offer a better
understanding of the Korean rice industry. From the period1970 through 1995, there was rapid rural-to-urban migrationin the country, with share of rural population declining from45 percent of population to 10 percent. Young people movedto cities, leaving an older population and labor force in thefarm sector. About 23 percent of the farm workers are over60 years old, and 45 percent are women. Farmers are highlydependent on farm income due to the limited off-farm in-come opportunities (USDA/FAS, 1998).
To a large extent, this demographic shift has a dampeningeffect on the country’s agricultural industry in general, andon rice in particular. The country’s major objective has been
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
53
self-sufficiency in rice and increased rural incomes. The riceindustry has been protected and prices have been 3 to 5 timeshigher than world prices. Support policies have included pro-ducer price incentives, restrictions on rice imports and gov-ernment purchases of rice output. In 1997 the Korean gov-ernment purchased 1,224 thousand mt, which is limited byAggregate Measure of Support (AMS) commitment under theWTO. Approximately 96 percent of Korea’s AMS is for rice.In 1997 the Korean government AMS commitment was2,286.5 billion Korean won and will be 1,951.7 billion wonin 1998. This will decrease until 2004 when bound rate (themaximum AMS allowed by WTO established under the Uru-guay Round) will be 1,490 billion won (USDA/FAS, 1998).
Despite these policies, the harvested rice area in SouthKorea is projected to decline annually by 1.9 percent, from1.05 million ha in 1997 to 821 thousand ha by 2010 (Table37 and Figure 42). One factor causing this decline is thedecreasing level of government support prices in real terms.Yields, which are driven by improvements in technology, areprojected to increase gradually to 5.36 mt per ha by 2010from 5.19 mt in 1997. Both 1996 and 1997 have been recordyields for japonica rice due to ideal weather conditionsthroughout the year. The decline in area, however, will causetotal production to decline to 4.4 mmt by the end of theforecast period from 5.4 mmt in 1997. The government willtry to alleviate the effects of declining area by developinghigh yield varieties for rice. Currently two new varieties thathave favorable potential are SUWON 405 and MILYANG103, with test yields of 7.11 mt and 6.86 mt per ha, respec-tively (USDA/FAS, 1998). The object of the Korean govern-ment is to develop a super rice hybrid by 2004 with a yield of10 mt per ha.
One favorable development is that rice farmers appear torespond well to a structural reform program being imple-mented by the MAFF. Over 7,035 rice farming householdshave received financial support from the government to spe-cialize in rice production. The average rice farming area perhousehold rose 56 percent to 3.85 ha per household in 1995from 2.47 ha in 1994. The number of farm households withmore than 5 ha rice land also more than tripled, from 395 to1,426. In order to increase production and pay the govern-ment back, most rice farmers raised two crops a year, thusintensifying the land use rate to 138.3 percent from 129.7percent.
Rice has become an inferior good in South Korea. It isprojected that annual per capita use will decline steadily fromnearly 109 kilograms in 1997 to 92 kilograms by 2010, a 1.3percent annual decline. This decline is due to higher incomes(the country’s GDP grew by 6.1 percent in real terms in1997, but will slow down to and stabilize at 5.7 percent by2001) and higher real retail prices. Consumer prices are ex-pected to increase by 5.1 percent per year during most of the
projection period. Despite the growth in population (1.02 per-cent in 1997 and stabilizing around 0.7 percent by 2007),total consumption is projected to decrease annually by 0.5percent, from 5 mmt in 1997 to 4.7 mmt in 2010.
In terms of trade, while the most explicit barriers to im-ports have declined over time, more subtle barriers remainintact. The typical trade barriers facing exporters into thecountry are the large number of regulations that complicatelicensing, inspections, type approval, marking requirementsand other standards affecting trade.
Under the WTO, South Korea has agreed to increase riceimports from 1 to 2 percent of domestic consumption for fiveyears beginning in 1995, increasing to 2 to 4 percent of con-sumption by 2000 through 2004. With its developing countrystatus and a special clause in the Uruguay agreement, theimplementation period for tariffication is extended to 10 years,from 1995 through 2005. State trading is allowed to continue,and trade will be controlled by the state during the 10-yeargrace period. Korea imported 115 thousand mt in 1995, 77thousand mt in 1996 and 88 thousand mt in 1997. Imports areprojected to increase to 115 thousand mt in 1998 and in-crease steadily to 306 thousand mt by the end of the forecastperiod. In 1997, the US complained about South Korea’spurchase of rice from China through international open bid-ding. The Seoul government, however, has decided to upholdits stance for rice buying through this method. Ending stocksalmost doubled to 1.1 mmt in 1997 compared to the previousyear due to yield-induced increase in production. Ending stocksare expected to decline from 1.1 mmt in 1997 to 700 thou-sand mt level by the end of the projection period.
TaiwanTaiwan’s economy has been characterized by rapid growth
and stability over the past four and a half decades, with realGDP growing at an average of 8.5 percent. Taiwan held thethird largest foreign exchange reserves in the world at $88billion. The growing demands for improved infrastructure andsocial welfare spending have put pressure on Taiwan’s bud-get. Taiwan aims to accede to the WTO and to develop intoan Asia-Pacific regional operations center in the near future.In line with this goal, Taiwan has begun to take unilateralsteps to liberalize its trade and investment regime. Taiwanhas a floating exchange rate system in which the banks setrates independently. The government, however, controls thelargest banks authorized to deal in foreign exchange. Taiwanbegan implementing tariff reductions in July 1997 (U.S. De-partment of State, 1997).
Taiwan plans to reduce supports for rice (along with otherselected crops) over the next five years. On February 20,1998, the US-Taiwan Comprehensive Market Access Agree-ment for Taiwan’s accession to the WTO was signed.
Taiwan rice policy “Rice Diversion Program” was suc-ceeded by the four-year “Paddy and Upland Utilization Ad-
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
54
Fig. 42. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: South Korea rice.
justment Program” implemented in July 1997. The objectiveof this policy is to balance supply and demand of rice. Theprice guarantee programs currently in place will continue forboth the first and second rice crop. Rice farmers will also becompensated for rotating rice crop to other crops, or set landaside (USDA/FAS, 1998). Rice area harvested is projected todecline from 364 thousand ha in 1997 to 216 thousand ha bythe year 2010. This decrease is mainly due to a policy ofreducing the second crop area from production and decliningreal farm harvest prices. Yields per ha, on the other hand, areprojected to increase steadily from 4.04 mt in 1997 to 4.62mt by 2010 (Table 38 and Figure 43). Average yield is a
function of improvements in technology. The expected yieldgain, however, is not adequate to compensate for the sharpdecline in the area harvested–causing a decline in total pro-duction from 1.5 mmt in 1997 to less than 1.0 mmt by theyear 2010.
Per capita consumption is predicted to decline from nearly66 kilograms in 1997 to 47 kilograms by 2010, causing totalconsumption to decrease from 1.4 mmt to 1.1 mmt during thesame period, as per capita incomes increase. Population growthis slightly lower than South Korea’s at 0.9 percent in 1997and declining to 0.74 percent per year starting in 2007.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
55
Fig. 43. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Taiwan rice.
There are few subsidy and tax policies for exports. Taiwan’slow levels of rice and sugar exports enjoy indirect subsidiesthrough guaranteed purchase prices higher than world prices.The government offers guaranteed prices for a portion of riceand other cereal crops produced by farmers. Fertilizer manu-facturing is subsidized by offering lower fuel prices to do-mestic manufacturers. Taiwan has maintained domestic pricesof rice higher than international prices. The government haspurchased rice at two to three times higher than world price.Based on an assumption of Taiwan membership in the WTO,the country is expected to be a net importer of rice starting in1999. Net imports are projected to increase steadily from 110
thousand mt in 1999 to 132 thousand mt by the year 2001and assumed to stabilize at this level over the rest of theprojection period. Ending stocks are expected to be around200 thousand mt over the projection period.
Rest of the WorldWhile the ROW is an aggregate region, there are a number
of pertinent country-specific developments, especially on thedemand side, that have substantial potential impact on worldprices and hence will be mentioned here. One of these devel-opments is the uncertainties brought about by the food short-age in North Korea. Other countries that, time and again, can
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
56
cause uncertainties in the rice market due to unexpectedweather-related imports include Bangladesh and the Philip-pines. In late December 1997, for instance, the Philippineshad to purchase large quantities of rice due to drought broughtabout by El Niño. The strong import demand from the Philip-pines, as well as from Indonesia, during that period causedinternational prices to rise slightly despite continued weak-ness in the Thai currency. Bangladesh is expected to increaserice imports in 1998 due to crop shortfall in 1997.
The ROW is a net rice importer. Area harvested is respon-sive to low-quality rice (Thai 35%) price and technology.Yields are projected according to historical patterns. Con-sumption is responsive to the relative world prices of wheatand Thai 35% rice.
Total harvested area in 1997 was 29.3 million ha and isprojected to increase slightly to 31.3 million ha by 2010, anannual growth rate of 0.5 percent. Yields are expected toincrease steadily from 1.62 mt per ha in 1997 to 1.92 mt bythe end of the projection period (Table 39 and Figure 44). Asa result of gains in both area and yields, total production isprojected to grow by 1.9 percent annually, from 47.4 mmt in1997 to 60.3 mmt by 2010.
Total consumption is projected to increase to 72 mmt in2010 from nearly 59.5 mmt in 1997. The ROW imports areprojected to range from 11 to 12 mmt over the projectionperiod. Ending stocks range between 4 and 6 mmt during thesame period.
Fig. 44. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: rest of the world (ROW) rice.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
57
LITERATURE CITED
Bierlen, Ralph, Eric J. Wailes, Gail L. Cramer. 1997. The Mercosurrice economy. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. ArkansasAgricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 954.
Crook, Frederick W. 1996. China’s agricultural policy developmentsin 1995. China: Situation and Outlook Series 1995. US Dept. ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service, WRS-96-2,Washington, DC, June, 1997.
Gao, X.M., Eric J. Wailes and Gail L. Cramer. 1995. Double-hurdlemodel with bivariate normal errors: An application to U.S. ricedemand. J. Agr. and Applied Econ. 27(2):363-376.
Gudmunds, Karl. 1998. PS&D view. US Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service.
Hansen, James M., Eric J. Wailes and Gail L. Cramer. 1998. Theimpacts of El Niño on world rice production, consumption andtrade. Selected Paper, Southern Agricultural EconomicsAssociation, Annual Meeting. Little Rock, Arkansas. Feb. 1-4,1998.
New York Times. April 6, 1997. Scientists developing “super rice” tofeed Asia. p 5.
US Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Service. 1998a.Rice situation and outlook. RCS-0298.
US Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Service. 1998b.World agricultural supply and demand estimates. WASDE-337.
US Department of Agriculture-Foreign Agricultural Service. 1997and 1998. Country attache reports; grain and feed annual reports,agricultural annual reports and rice reports.
US Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Service. 1996a.Rice situation and outlook. RCS-0298.
US Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Service. 1996b.Rice situation and outlook yearbook. RCS-1996.
US Department of State. 1997. Country reports.Wailes, Eric J., Gail L. Cramer, Eddie C. Chavez and James M.
Hansen. 1997a. Arkansas global rice model: Internationalbaseline projections for 1997-2010. Arkansas AgriculturalExperiment Station Special Report 177.
Wailes, Eric J., Gail L. Cramer and Eddie C. Chavez. 1996a.International rice baseline projections, 1997-2010. Paperpresented at The World Rice Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii.February 20-22, 1996.
Wailes, Eric J., Gail L. Cramer, Eddie C. Chavez and James M.Hansen. 1996b. Analysis and projections of global rice trade.Paper presented at The International Symposium onBiotechnology, Post-Harvest Technology and Supply Projectionof Rice. Kwangju, Korea. November 15, 1996.
Wailes, Eric J., Gail L. Cramer, James M. Hansen and Eddie C.Chavez. 1997b. Structure of the Arkansas global rice model.Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Arkansas,Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Young, Kenneth B., Gail L. Cramer and Eric J. Wailes. 1998. Aneconomic assessment of the Myanmar rice sector: Currentdevelopments and prospects. Arkansas Agricultural ExperimentStation, Research Bulletin 958. Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
58
Tab
le 1
. W
orld
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nit /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)14
8992
.214
9391
.814
9955
1498
1114
9850
1498
4014
9914
1499
8115
0076
1501
4115
0197
1503
3415
0464
1505
7915
0678
Yie
ld (
mt/h
a)2.
552.
572.
602.
622.
652.
672.
702.
722.
752.
772.
802.
822.
852.
882.
90P
rodu
ctio
n(1
000
mt)
3799
3038
3190
3898
4739
3149
3965
3440
0188
4042
3640
7941
4124
9741
6331
4203
1242
4488
4286
2443
3110
4373
20T
otal
Con
sum
ptio
n(1
000
mt)
3789
3037
9330
3866
7839
1482
3957
5339
9921
4041
0140
8225
4124
3041
6624
4207
5542
4912
4291
1643
3408
4376
38N
et E
xpor
ts(1
000
mt)
1727
520
336
1951
719
384
1952
519
732
1995
620
149
2036
720
600
2089
221
225
2152
321
869
2220
4N
et Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
1727
520
336
1951
719
384
1952
519
732
1995
620
149
2036
720
600
2089
221
225
2152
321
869
2220
4E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
5112
054
980
5814
959
817
6059
860
865
6100
060
717
6078
360
491
6004
859
623
5913
158
833
5851
5
Not
e: D
ata
thro
ugh
1997
are
act
ual a
nd A
rkan
sas
Glo
bal R
ice
Mod
el p
roje
ctio
ns a
re fo
r 19
98 a
nd b
eyon
d.
Tab
le 2
. T
otal
Wor
ld R
ice
Tra
de (
Com
bine
d M
ediu
m a
nd L
ong
Gra
in)
Cou
ntry
Uni
ts /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
EX
PO
RT
ER
S(1
000
mt)
1938
622
997
2179
921
691
2185
922
108
2236
622
607
2286
323
129
2343
323
773
2408
224
441
2478
7
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
(100
0 m
t)25
0027
2828
0225
9624
7524
0723
0022
8022
5222
3622
2322
2122
0622
1322
26T
haila
nd(1
000
mt)
5275
5807
5923
6164
6256
6343
6462
6519
6605
6698
6783
6905
7030
7168
7303
Pak
ista
n(1
000
mt)
1834
1907
1914
1888
1861
1827
1798
1781
1772
1770
1791
1819
1858
1901
1947
Mya
nmar
(100
0 m
t)15
5421
625
632
137
341
946
350
654
959
363
968
573
077
7V
ietn
am(1
000
mt)
3270
3621
3940
3977
4089
4248
4414
4509
4646
4754
4855
4941
4987
5035
5056
Chi
na(1
000
mt)
938
2489
1634
1518
1464
1414
1363
1310
1257
1208
1163
1118
1073
1027
982
Indi
a(1
000
mt)
2105
2498
2024
1918
1939
1960
1997
2041
2031
2021
2028
2036
2048
2068
2087
Aus
tral
ia(1
000
mt)
700
701
736
739
770
780
788
798
808
820
832
844
856
868
881
Egy
pt(1
000
mt)
150
306
124
117
111
106
101
9895
9290
8784
8178
Italy
+Oth
er E
urop
ean
Uni
on(1
000
mt)
1331
1139
1059
1043
1035
1043
1046
1052
1055
1059
1059
1054
1050
1048
1048
Japa
n(1
000
mt)
100
750
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Arg
entin
a(1
000
mt)
523
399
549
589
631
674
719
765
817
874
938
1002
1066
1130
1195
Uru
guay
(100
0 m
t)64
559
767
868
770
873
376
079
081
884
787
790
894
097
310
06
IMP
OR
TE
RS
(100
0 m
t)19
386
2299
721
799
2169
121
859
2210
822
366
2260
722
863
2312
923
433
2377
324
082
2444
124
787
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
(100
0 m
t)31
931
831
932
233
434
936
437
939
541
142
644
145
747
348
7T
haila
nd(1
000
mt)
00
243
244
246
247
249
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
Chi
na(1
000
mt)
326
413
423
457
477
492
504
527
545
557
551
546
543
541
535
Japa
n(1
000
mt)
500
600
606
682
758
773
789
804
820
837
854
871
888
906
924
Indo
nesi
a(1
000
mt)
800
4995
2552
2482
2278
2352
2355
2483
2522
2637
2838
3019
3204
3414
3675
Iraq
(100
0 m
t)72
059
972
169
466
769
171
574
076
579
181
784
387
089
892
6Ir
an(1
000
mt)
1000
1000
1231
1242
1271
1300
1331
1362
1394
1427
1461
1496
1532
1569
1607
Sau
di A
rabi
a(1
000
mt)
746
724
757
785
814
842
873
904
937
971
1005
1040
1078
1117
1157
Eur
opea
n U
nion
(100
0 m
t)15
7114
7214
5114
9815
1815
2815
4015
4915
5915
6915
7715
8615
9616
0716
16S
outh
Kor
ea(1
000
mt)
7788
115
135
147
177
210
244
278
281
285
290
295
300
306
Tai
wan
(100
0 m
t)-4
5-4
0-4
011
012
113
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
2A
ustr
alia
(100
0 m
t)35
4039
4143
4547
4951
5355
5759
6163
Bra
zil
(100
0 m
t)10
0016
9815
5413
9514
1313
9413
7713
6313
4313
2813
1112
9512
6712
4112
23R
OW
(100
0 m
t)12
337
1109
011
830
1160
411
773
1178
511
881
1182
111
870
1188
511
871
1190
611
910
1193
311
887
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
59
Tab
le 3
. W
orld
Ric
e N
et T
rade
Cou
ntry
Uni
ts /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
NE
T E
XP
OR
TE
RS
(100
0 m
t)17
275
2033
619
517
1938
419
525
1973
219
956
2014
920
367
2060
020
892
2122
521
523
2186
922
204
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
(100
0 m
t)21
8124
1024
8322
7421
4020
5819
3519
0018
5718
2617
9817
7917
4917
4017
40T
haila
nd(1
000
mt)
5275
5807
5680
5920
6010
6096
6213
6269
6355
6448
6534
6656
6780
6918
7054
Pak
ista
n(1
000
mt)
1834
1907
1914
1888
1861
1827
1798
1781
1772
1770
1791
1819
1858
1901
1947
Mya
nmar
(100
0 m
t)15
5421
625
632
137
341
946
350
654
959
363
968
573
077
7V
ietn
am(1
000
mt)
3270
3621
3940
3977
4089
4248
4414
4509
4646
4754
4855
4941
4987
5035
5056
Chi
na(1
000
mt)
612
2076
1211
1061
987
922
859
783
712
651
612
572
530
487
447
Indi
a(1
000
mt)
2105
2498
2024
1918
1939
1960
1997
2041
2031
2021
2028
2036
2048
2068
2087
Aus
tral
ia(1
000
mt)
665
661
697
699
727
735
741
749
757
767
777
787
797
807
818
Egy
pt(1
000
mt)
150
306
124
117
111
106
101
9895
9290
8784
8178
Arg
entin
a(1
000
mt)
523
399
549
589
631
674
719
765
817
874
938
1002
1066
1130
1195
Uru
guay
(100
0 m
t)64
559
767
868
770
873
376
079
081
884
787
790
894
097
310
06
NE
T IM
PO
RT
ER
S(1
000
mt)
1727
520
336
1951
719
384
1952
519
732
1995
620
149
2036
720
600
2089
221
225
2152
321
869
2220
4
Japa
n(1
000
mt)
400
-150
406
482
558
573
589
604
620
637
654
671
688
706
724
Indo
nesi
a(1
000
mt)
800
4995
2552
2482
2278
2352
2355
2483
2522
2637
2838
3019
3204
3414
3675
Iraq
(100
0 m
t)72
059
972
169
466
769
171
574
076
579
181
784
387
089
892
6Ir
an(1
000
mt)
1000
1000
1231
1242
1271
1300
1331
1362
1394
1427
1461
1496
1532
1569
1607
Sau
di A
rabi
a(1
000
mt)
746
724
757
785
814
842
873
904
937
971
1005
1040
1078
1117
1157
Eur
opea
n U
nion
(100
0 m
t)24
033
239
145
548
348
649
449
650
451
051
853
354
655
956
8S
outh
Kor
ea(1
000
mt)
7788
115
135
147
177
210
244
278
281
285
290
295
300
306
Tai
wan
(100
0 m
t)-4
5-4
0-4
011
012
113
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
2B
razi
l(1
000
mt)
1000
1698
1554
1395
1413
1394
1377
1363
1343
1328
1311
1295
1267
1241
1223
Res
t of W
orld
(100
0 m
t)12
337
1109
011
830
1160
411
773
1178
511
881
1182
111
870
1188
511
871
1190
611
910
1193
311
887
Tab
le 4
. W
orld
Lon
g G
rain
Ric
e T
rade
Cou
ntry
Uni
ts /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
EX
PO
RT
ER
S(1
000
mt)
1619
617
627
1794
117
955
1813
618
414
1870
018
965
1925
019
543
1987
220
238
2057
220
948
2130
2
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
(100
0 m
t)17
9821
0921
9719
7718
3017
4616
1915
8015
3815
1114
8614
7014
4314
3114
19T
haila
nd(1
000
mt)
5275
5807
5923
6164
6256
6343
6462
6519
6605
6698
6783
6905
7030
7168
7303
Pak
ista
n(1
000
mt)
1834
1907
1914
1888
1861
1827
1798
1781
1772
1770
1791
1819
1858
1901
1947
Mya
nmar
(100
0 m
t)15
5421
625
632
137
341
946
350
654
959
363
968
573
077
7V
ietn
am(1
000
mt)
3270
3621
3940
3977
4089
4248
4414
4509
4646
4754
4855
4941
4987
5035
5056
Indi
a(1
000
mt)
2105
2498
2024
1918
1939
1960
1997
2041
2031
2021
2028
2036
2048
2068
2087
Eur
opea
n U
nion
exc
l. Ita
ly(1
000
mt)
731
635
500
501
502
510
513
517
517
518
520
519
516
513
511
Arg
entin
a(1
000
mt)
523
399
549
589
631
674
719
765
817
874
938
1002
1066
1130
1195
Uru
guay
(100
0 m
t)64
559
767
868
770
873
376
079
081
884
787
790
894
097
310
06
IMP
OR
TE
RS
(100
0 m
t)16
196
1762
717
941
1795
518
136
1841
418
700
1896
519
250
1954
319
872
2023
820
572
2094
821
302
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
(100
0 m
t)31
931
831
932
233
434
936
437
939
541
142
644
145
747
348
7T
haila
nd(1
000
mt)
00
182
183
184
185
186
188
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
Chi
na(1
000
mt)
326
413
423
457
477
492
504
527
545
557
551
546
543
541
535
Indo
nesi
a(1
000
mt)
800
4995
2552
2482
2278
2352
2355
2483
2522
2637
2838
3019
3204
3414
3675
Iraq
(100
0 m
t)72
059
972
169
466
769
171
574
076
579
181
784
387
089
892
6Ir
an(1
000
mt)
1000
1000
1231
1242
1271
1300
1331
1362
1394
1427
1461
1496
1532
1569
1607
Sau
di A
rabi
a(1
000
mt)
746
724
757
785
814
842
873
904
937
971
1005
1040
1078
1117
1157
Eur
opea
n U
nion
(100
0 m
t)15
7114
7214
5114
9815
1815
2815
4015
4915
5915
6915
7715
8615
9616
0716
16A
ustr
alia
(100
0 m
t)35
4039
4143
4547
4951
5355
5759
6163
Bra
zil
(100
0 m
t)10
0016
9815
5413
9514
1313
9413
7713
6313
4313
2813
1112
9512
6712
4112
23R
est o
f wor
ld(1
000
mt)
9679
6368
8713
8856
9137
9234
9408
9421
9550
9612
9644
9726
9778
9839
9826
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
60
Tab
le 5
. W
orld
Med
ium
Gra
in R
ice
Tra
deC
ount
ryU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
EX
PO
RT
ER
S(1
000
mt)
3190
5370
3858
3735
3723
3695
3666
3642
3613
3586
3561
3535
3510
3494
3485
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
(100
0 m
t)70
261
960
461
964
466
268
070
071
472
573
775
176
378
280
7A
ustr
alia
(100
0 m
t)70
070
173
673
977
078
078
879
880
882
083
284
485
686
888
1E
gypt
(100
0 m
t)15
030
612
411
711
110
610
198
9592
9087
8481
78Ita
ly(1
000
mt)
600
504
559
542
533
532
533
535
538
541
539
535
534
535
537
Japa
n(1
000
mt)
100
750
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Chi
na(1
000
mt)
938
2489
1634
1518
1464
1414
1363
1310
1257
1208
1163
1118
1073
1027
982
IMP
OR
TE
RS
(100
0 m
t)31
9053
7038
5837
3537
2336
9536
6636
4236
1335
8635
6135
3535
1034
9434
85
Tha
iland
(100
0 m
t)0
061
6161
6262
6362
6262
6262
6262
Japa
n(1
000
mt)
500
600
606
682
758
773
789
804
820
837
854
871
888
906
924
Sou
th K
orea
(100
0 m
t)77
8811
513
514
717
721
024
427
828
128
529
029
530
030
6T
aiw
an(1
000
mt)
-45
-40
-40
110
121
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
Oth
ers
(res
idua
l)(1
000
mt)
2658
4722
3117
2748
2636
2551
2473
2400
2320
2273
2228
2180
2133
2093
2061
Tab
le 6
. W
orld
Ric
e P
rices
and
Pric
e R
elat
ions
hips
Cou
ntry
Uni
ts /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
Tes
tte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stte
stLo
ng G
rain
Ric
e, H
igh
Qua
lity
Tha
i 100
%B
fob
US
$/m
t33
830
629
630
030
030
931
031
731
932
333
033
533
633
734
0T
hai 5
% f
obU
S$/
mt
331
295
285
289
289
297
299
305
307
311
318
323
324
324
327
Tha
i 5%
fob
(19
85$)
US
$/m
t22
719
718
518
217
617
617
117
016
616
416
416
215
815
415
1U
S N
o. 2
, fo
b H
oust
onU
S$/
mt
450
418
413
409
414
424
428
435
438
443
450
456
459
462
466
US
No.
2 -
Tha
i 5%
US
$/m
t11
912
312
812
112
512
712
912
913
113
213
213
313
513
713
9
Long
Gra
in R
ice,
Low
Qua
lity
Tha
i 35%
fob
US
$/m
t25
925
424
424
825
326
026
126
727
027
528
328
929
029
129
2U
S W
heat
No.
2, f
ob G
ulf
US
$/m
t18
415
515
015
115
715
916
016
216
416
617
117
417
517
517
5W
heat
/Tha
i35%
Pric
e R
atio
Rat
io in
%0.
710.
610.
610.
610.
620.
610.
610.
610.
610.
610.
600.
600.
600.
600.
60T
hai 3
5% -
US
Whe
atU
S$/
mt
7599
9597
9610
110
110
510
610
811
211
511
611
611
7
Med
ium
Gra
in R
ice
U.S
. No.
2 M
G R
ice
fob
CA
US
$/m
t41
539
640
940
640
741
141
241
541
742
042
542
843
143
143
3M
G fo
b C
A -
LG
fob
Hou
ston
US
$/m
t-3
5-2
2-4
-3-7
-13
-15
-19
-21
-22
-25
-28
-29
-30
-33
Tab
le 7
. T
haila
nd R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)91
7592
7291
9891
1490
4189
7289
3388
8988
7088
3287
8787
6687
4687
1686
83Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
1.49
1.56
1.57
1.61
1.63
1.64
1.66
1.68
1.69
1.71
1.73
1.75
1.76
1.78
1.80
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)13
660
1449
714
466
1467
014
708
1474
814
836
1491
415
033
1511
915
191
1530
415
417
1554
115
657
Per
-cap
ita U
se (
kg)
145.
2914
4.71
144.
1914
3.41
141.
7914
0.07
138.
3213
7.58
136.
8713
5.75
134.
5813
3.37
132.
1713
0.96
129.
73T
otal
Con
sum
ptio
n(1
000
mt)
8550
8602
8655
8689
8669
8639
8604
8630
8656
8653
8644
8631
8616
8600
8583
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)52
7558
0759
2361
6462
5663
4364
6265
1966
0566
9867
8369
0570
3071
6873
03Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
0.11
0.28
243
244
246
247
249
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
Net
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)52
7558
0756
8059
2060
1060
9662
1362
6963
5564
4865
3466
5667
8069
1870
54E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
646
734
866
928
956
969
988
1002
1024
1042
1055
1073
1093
1116
1137
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
61
Tab
le 8
. D
etai
led
U.S
. R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
(In
Eng
lish
Uni
ts)
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
YIE
LD (
roug
h ba
sis)
Act
ual
(lb/a
c)61
2159
1159
8061
3061
5461
9362
5062
9063
3463
7664
3264
8865
4566
0466
63P
rogr
am(lb
/ac)
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
4827
HA
RV
ES
TE
D A
CR
EA
GE
Pro
gram
Are
a/C
ontr
act A
rea
(100
0 ac
)41
57.9
4157
.241
57.2
4157
.241
57.2
4157
.241
57.2
4157
.241
57.2
4157
.241
57.2
4157
.241
57.2
4157
.241
57.2
Tot
al H
arve
sted
Are
a(1
000
ac)
2799
.030
34.0
3191
.529
24.9
2893
.328
77.8
2812
.228
38.2
2828
.728
27.7
2820
.228
26.3
2816
.928
31.9
2831
.3
SU
PP
LY (
roug
h ba
sis)
(mil.
cw
t)20
6.3
216.
322
6.4
219.
421
5.6
214.
321
1.0
212.
321
3.3
214.
721
6.0
218.
221
9.8
222.
922
5.7
Pro
duct
ion
(mil.
cw
t)17
1.3
179.
319
0.9
179.
317
8.0
178.
217
5.8
178.
517
9.2
180.
318
1.4
183.
418
4.4
187.
018
8.7
Beg
inni
ng S
tock
s(m
il. c
wt)
25.0
27.2
25.8
30.3
27.3
25.3
24.0
22.1
22.0
21.8
21.6
21.3
21.5
21.4
22.2
Impo
rts
(mil.
cw
t)10
.09.
79.
89.
910
.210
.711
.211
.612
.112
.613
.013
.514
.014
.514
.9
DO
ME
ST
IC U
SE
(ro
ugh
basi
s)(m
il. c
wt)
100.
710
7.0
110.
311
2.6
114.
511
6.5
118.
412
0.4
122.
512
4.6
126.
612
8.7
130.
813
3.0
134.
6F
ood
(mil.
cw
t)80
.082
.184
.887
.289
.291
.293
.094
.996
.898
.710
0.6
102.
510
4.5
106.
410
8.4
See
d(m
il. c
wt)
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.0
Bre
win
g(m
il. c
wt)
15.4
15.4
15.3
15.4
15.5
15.6
15.7
15.8
16.0
16.2
16.4
16.6
16.8
17.0
17.1
Res
idua
l(m
il. c
wt)
1.3
5.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
EX
PO
RT
S(m
il. c
wt)
78.4
83.5
85.8
79.5
75.8
73.7
70.4
69.8
69.0
68.5
68.1
68.0
67.6
67.8
68.2
TO
TA
L U
SE
(mil.
cw
t)17
9.1
190.
519
6.1
192.
119
0.3
190.
218
8.8
190.
219
1.5
193.
119
4.7
196.
719
8.4
200.
820
2.7
EN
DIN
G S
TO
CK
S(m
il. c
wt)
27.2
25.8
30.3
27.3
25.3
24.0
22.1
22.0
21.8
21.6
21.3
21.5
21.4
22.2
23.0
PR
ICE
SLo
an R
ate
(US
$/cw
t)6.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
50S
easo
n A
ve. F
arm
Pric
e(U
S$/
cwt)
9.96
9.88
9.54
9.51
9.59
9.41
9.62
9.70
9.82
9.95
10.1
110
.20
10.2
910
.31
10.3
6
Lon
g G
rain
Far
m P
rice
(US
$/cw
t)10
.32
10.4
09.
699.
739.
849.
499.
809.
8610
.02
10.1
510
.33
10.4
110
.51
10.5
010
.54
M
ediu
m G
rain
Far
m P
rice
(US
$/cw
t)9.
258.
799.
159.
079.
119.
249.
309.
409.
479.
589.
719.
829.
919.
9710
.04
L
G-M
G M
argi
n(U
S$/
cwt)
1.06
1.61
0.54
0.67
0.73
0.25
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.57
0.61
0.59
0.60
0.53
0.50
Exp
ort P
rice,
FO
B H
oust
on (
U.S
. No.
2)
(US
$/cw
t)20
.43
18.9
618
.73
18.5
718
.78
19.2
319
.40
19.7
219
.85
20.0
820
.43
20.6
820
.83
20.9
421
.15
Med
ium
Gra
in P
rice,
FO
B C
A (
U.S
. No.
2)
(US
$/cw
t)18
.79
17.9
418
.54
18.4
318
.44
18.6
618
.70
18.8
518
.92
19.0
719
.28
19.4
319
.53
19.5
719
.64
Def
icie
ncy/
CLD
1 /C
ontr
act P
ay R
ate
(US
$/cw
t)2.
772.
712.
852.
752.
532.
041.
981.
981.
981.
981.
981.
981.
981.
981.
98W
orld
Pric
e (
US
$/cw
t)(U
S$/
cwt)
7.51
7.83
6.21
6.31
6.31
6.55
6.59
6.77
6.82
6.94
7.14
7.27
7.31
7.32
7.39
EX
PP
-SA
FP
2 M
argi
n(U
S$/
cwt)
6.26
5.23
5.48
5.37
5.47
6.17
6.03
6.25
6.21
6.27
6.39
6.51
6.53
6.62
6.76
INC
OM
E F
AC
TO
RS
Pro
duct
ion
Mar
ket V
alue
(mil.
US
$)17
0617
7318
2117
0417
0716
7716
9217
3117
6017
9318
3418
7118
9819
2819
55D
efic
ienc
y/C
ontr
act P
aym
ents
(mil.
US
$)47
246
550
048
344
335
834
834
834
834
834
834
834
834
834
8M
arke
ting
Loan
/Cer
tific
ates
(mil.
US
$)0
053
3636
00
00
00
00
00
Tot
al In
com
e(m
il. U
S$)
2178
2238
2374
2223
2186
2035
2040
2079
2108
2141
2182
2219
2246
2276
2303
Ret
urns
Abo
ve V
aria
ble
Cos
t(U
S$/
ac)
227.
7920
4.09
208.
5020
8.15
210.
0018
4.24
195.
3319
7.62
202.
2320
6.92
215.
3121
9.31
230.
6223
7.32
246.
531 C
LD =
cer
tific
ate
of lo
an d
efic
ienc
y.2 E
XP
P =
exp
ort p
rice,
FO
B H
oust
on (
U.S
. No.
2);
SA
FP
= s
easo
n av
erag
e fa
rm p
rice.
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
62
Tab
le 9
. U.S
. Lon
g G
rain
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
YIE
LD (
roug
h ba
sis)
(lb/a
c)57
7754
1355
2656
1456
3856
7957
1757
6158
0458
4859
0359
6160
2060
8561
52
HA
RV
ES
TE
D A
CR
EA
GE
(100
0 ac
)19
64.0
2261
.024
80.4
2105
.720
78.4
2065
.219
87.0
2008
.319
93.4
1991
.519
81.1
1980
.019
65.7
1967
.119
55.7
SU
PP
LY (
roug
h ba
sis)
(mil.
cw
t)13
2.5
146.
116
0.1
150.
114
4.3
142.
113
7.5
137.
813
8.1
139.
214
0.3
142.
014
3.2
145.
314
6.9
Pro
duct
ion
(mil.
cw
t)11
3.7
122.
113
7.1
118.
211
7.2
117.
311
3.6
115.
711
5.7
116.
511
7.0
118.
011
8.3
119.
712
0.3
Beg
inni
ng S
tock
s(m
il. c
wt)
10.4
14.3
13.3
22.0
16.9
14.1
12.8
10.5
10.3
10.1
10.3
10.4
10.9
11.1
11.7
Impo
rts
(mil.
cw
t)8.
79.
79.
89.
910
.210
.711
.211
.612
.112
.613
.013
.514
.014
.514
.9
DO
ME
ST
IC U
SE
+ R
esid
ual
(mil.
cw
t)61
.768
.370
.872
.674
.275
.877
.579
.180
.982
.684
.386
.187
.989
.891
.2E
XP
OR
TS
(mil.
cw
t)56
.564
.667
.360
.556
.053
.449
.648
.447
.146
.345
.545
.044
.243
.843
.5T
OT
AL
US
E +
Res
idua
l(m
il. c
wt)
118.
213
2.9
138.
113
3.2
130.
212
9.3
127.
012
7.5
128.
012
8.9
129.
813
1.1
132.
113
3.6
134.
7E
ND
ING
ST
OC
KS
(mil.
cw
t)14
.313
.322
.016
.914
.112
.810
.510
.310
.110
.310
.410
.911
.111
.712
.2
PR
ICE
SS
easo
n A
vera
ge F
arm
Pric
e(U
S$/
cwt)
10.3
210
.40
9.69
9.73
9.84
9.49
9.80
9.86
10.0
210
.15
10.3
310
.41
10.5
110
.50
10.5
4E
xpor
t Pric
e, F
OB
Hou
ston
(U
.S. N
o. 2
)(U
S$/
cwt)
20.4
318
.96
18.7
318
.57
18.7
819
.23
19.4
019
.72
19.8
520
.08
20.4
320
.68
20.8
320
.94
21.1
5
PR
OD
UC
TIO
N M
AR
KE
T V
ALU
E(m
il. U
S$)
1173
.712
69.1
1328
.811
50.5
1152
.511
13.2
1113
.411
40.3
1158
.811
81.8
1207
.612
28.8
1243
.212
56.8
1268
.5
Tab
le 1
0. U
.S. M
ediu
m G
rain
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
nV
aria
ble
Uni
ts /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
YIE
LD (
roug
h ba
sis)
(lb/a
c)69
2974
1075
6474
5674
7075
0175
3275
7176
0076
3476
8177
2177
5977
8378
06
HA
RV
ES
TE
D A
CR
EA
GE
(100
0 ac
)83
5.0
773.
071
1.1
819.
281
4.8
812.
782
5.2
829.
883
5.2
836.
283
9.1
846.
385
1.2
864.
787
5.7
SU
PP
LY (
roug
h ba
sis)
(mil.
cw
t)73
.269
.565
.768
.870
.771
.772
.973
.974
.775
.075
.275
.776
.177
.178
.3P
rodu
ctio
n(m
il. c
wt)
58.0
57.3
53.8
61.1
60.9
61.0
62.2
62.8
63.5
63.8
64.5
65.3
66.0
67.3
68.4
Beg
inni
ng S
tock
s(m
il. c
wt)
14.4
12.2
12.0
7.7
9.9
10.7
10.7
11.1
11.2
11.1
10.8
10.3
10.1
9.8
10.0
Impo
rts
(mil.
cw
t)1.
20.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
00.
0
DO
ME
ST
IC U
SE
+ R
esid
ual
39.0
38.6
39.5
40.0
40.3
40.7
41.0
41.3
41.7
42.0
42.3
42.6
42.9
43.2
43.3
EX
PO
RT
S(m
il. c
wt)
21.9
19.0
18.5
19.0
19.7
20.3
20.8
21.4
21.9
22.2
22.6
23.0
23.4
24.0
24.7
TO
TA
L U
SE
+ R
esid
ual
(mil.
cw
t)60
.957
.658
.058
.960
.060
.961
.862
.763
.564
.264
.965
.666
.367
.268
.0E
ND
ING
ST
OC
KS
(mil.
cw
t)12
.212
.07.
79.
910
.710
.711
.111
.211
.110
.810
.310
.19.
810
.010
.3
PR
ICE
SS
easo
n A
vera
ge F
arm
Pric
e(U
S$/
cwt)
9.25
8.79
9.15
9.07
9.11
9.24
9.30
9.40
9.47
9.58
9.71
9.82
9.91
9.97
10.0
4M
ediu
m G
rain
Pric
e, F
OB
CA
(U
.S. N
o.2)
(US
$/cw
t)18
.79
17.9
418
.54
18.4
318
.44
18.6
618
.70
18.8
518
.92
19.0
719
.28
19.4
319
.53
19.5
719
.64
PR
OD
UC
TIO
N M
AR
KE
T V
ALU
E(m
il. U
S$)
537.
050
3.6
492.
255
3.8
554.
456
3.4
578.
159
0.6
601.
161
1.4
626.
064
1.8
654.
567
1.1
686.
4
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
63
Tab
le 1
1. U
.S. R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
(in M
etric
Uni
ts)
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)11
3212
2712
9111
8311
7011
6411
3811
4811
4411
4411
4111
4311
4011
4611
45Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
4.83
4.77
4.83
4.95
4.97
5.00
5.05
5.08
5.11
5.15
5.19
5.24
5.28
5.33
5.38
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)54
6658
5762
3358
5558
1558
2157
4058
3158
5258
8959
2459
8960
2161
0761
62Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
319
318
319
322
334
349
364
379
395
411
426
441
457
473
487
Foo
d U
se(1
000
mt)
2551
2680
2770
2846
2912
2978
3037
3099
3162
3224
3286
3349
3412
3477
3541
See
d U
se(1
000
mt)
128
145
137
131
126
122
123
121
121
120
119
118
118
117
98B
rew
er U
se(1
000
mt)
491
503
501
503
506
509
512
517
523
529
535
541
547
554
560
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)32
1135
0836
0436
7737
3938
0538
6839
3440
0140
6941
3642
0442
7343
4443
95P
er C
apita
Use
(kg
)12
.10
13.1
113
.34
13.5
013
.61
13.7
313
.85
13.9
714
.10
14.2
214
.34
14.4
614
.58
14.7
014
.76
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)25
0027
2828
0225
9624
7524
0723
0022
8022
5222
3622
2322
2122
0622
1322
26R
esid
ual
(100
0 m
t)41
180
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
Tot
al U
se(1
000
mt)
5711
6236
6406
6273
6214
6212
6167
6213
6254
6305
6360
6425
6480
6557
6621
End
ing
Sto
cks
(100
0 m
t)87
881
796
486
880
476
169
869
568
868
267
267
867
670
072
7
Tab
le 1
2.
Ark
ansa
s R
ice
Sup
ply
by T
ype
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Long
Gra
in A
rea
(100
0 ac
)91
0.0
1148
.413
24.6
1022
.010
20.2
1015
.498
5.5
995.
599
1.1
992.
099
1.5
994.
499
2.3
996.
799
5.7
Long
Gra
in Y
ield
(pou
nds/
ac)
6050
5630
5776
5832
5851
5887
5925
5963
6003
6044
6096
6151
6209
6272
6339
Long
Gra
in P
rodu
ctio
n(m
il. c
wt)
55.1
64.7
76.5
59.6
59.7
59.8
58.4
59.4
59.5
60.0
60.4
61.2
61.6
62.5
63.1
Med
ium
Gra
in A
rea
(100
0 ac
)26
0.0
220.
520
1.5
248.
124
7.1
244.
924
6.4
245.
024
5.9
245.
224
3.9
245.
324
6.0
250.
325
3.9
Med
ium
Gra
in Y
ield
(pou
nds/
ac)
6500
5806
6087
6157
6178
6199
6221
6243
6265
6287
6339
6394
6454
6519
6588
Med
ium
Gra
in P
rodu
ctio
n(m
il. c
wt)
16.9
12.8
12.3
15.3
15.3
15.2
15.3
15.3
15.4
15.4
15.5
15.7
15.9
16.3
16.7
Tot
al A
rea
(100
0 ac
)11
70.0
1368
.815
26.1
1270
.112
67.3
1260
.312
31.9
1240
.512
37.0
1237
.212
35.5
1239
.712
38.3
1246
.912
49.6
Ave
rage
Yie
ld(p
ound
s/ac
)61
4956
5858
1758
9559
1459
4859
8460
1960
5560
9261
4461
9962
5863
2263
90T
otal
Pro
duct
ion
(mil.
cw
t)71
.977
.588
.874
.974
.975
.073
.774
.774
.975
.475
.976
.877
.578
.879
.9
Tab
le 1
3.
Loui
sian
a R
ice
Sup
ply
by T
ype
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Long
Gra
in A
rea
(100
0 ac
)46
3.0
500.
355
7.6
477.
847
8.7
473.
145
9.8
458.
545
2.9
448.
744
4.2
440.
443
5.0
431.
842
6.9
Long
Gra
in Y
ield
(pou
nds/
ac)
4900
4663
4787
4857
4885
4926
4970
5015
5062
5111
5159
5208
5257
5308
5360
Long
Gra
in P
rodu
ctio
n(m
il. c
wt)
22.7
23.5
26.7
23.2
23.4
23.3
22.9
23.0
22.9
22.9
22.9
22.9
22.9
22.9
22.9
Med
ium
Gra
in A
rea
(100
0 ac
)70
.045
.630
.556
.661
.664
.469
.272
.376
.679
.883
.888
.492
.699
.410
5.9
Med
ium
Gra
in Y
ield
(pou
nds/
ac)
4700
4569
4606
4693
4716
4741
4769
4795
4822
4849
4879
4912
4948
4987
5030
Med
ium
Gra
in P
rodu
ctio
n(m
il. c
wt)
3.3
2.1
1.4
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.6
5.0
5.3
Tot
al A
rea
(100
0 ac
)53
3.0
545.
958
8.1
534.
454
0.4
537.
652
9.0
530.
952
9.4
528.
652
8.1
528.
852
7.6
531.
253
2.8
Ave
rage
Yie
ld(p
ound
s/ac
)48
7446
5547
7848
4048
6549
0449
4349
8550
2750
7151
1451
5852
0352
4852
94T
otal
Pro
duct
ion
(mil.
cw
t)26
.025
.528
.125
.926
.326
.426
.226
.526
.626
.827
.027
.327
.527
.928
.2
Tab
le 1
4.
Tex
as R
ice
Sup
ply
(Agg
rega
te; M
ostly
Lon
g G
rain
)
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Tot
al A
rea
(100
0 ac
)29
8.0
259.
225
3.6
251.
724
9.4
248.
123
6.0
240.
123
8.2
238.
223
4.9
234.
223
1.2
231.
022
9.5
Ave
rage
Yie
ld(p
ound
s/ac
)61
9655
4056
2759
7060
0460
4460
8461
2061
5461
8262
5463
2764
0065
0966
17T
otal
Pro
duct
ion
(mil.
cw
t)18
.514
.314
.315
.015
.015
.014
.414
.714
.714
.714
.714
.814
.815
.015
.2
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
64
Tab
le 1
5.
Mis
sour
i Ric
e S
uppl
y (L
ong
Gra
in)
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Tot
al A
rea
(100
0 ac
)90
.010
8.7
124.
110
4.8
99.9
99.3
93.8
95.6
94.7
94.7
94.2
94.3
93.4
93.6
92.9
Ave
rage
Yie
ld(p
ound
s/ac
)55
5053
0653
3654
0654
3154
5954
8755
1555
4455
7256
0556
3756
7157
0757
45T
otal
Pro
duct
ion
(mil.
cw
t)5.
05.
86.
65.
75.
45.
45.
15.
35.
25.
35.
35.
35.
35.
35.
3
Tab
le 1
6. M
issi
ssip
pi R
ice
Sup
ply
(Mos
tly L
ong
Gra
in)
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Tot
al A
rea
(100
0 ac
)20
8.0
238.
322
0.5
249.
523
0.1
229.
221
1.9
218.
721
6.7
217.
821
6.1
216.
721
3.7
214.
121
0.6
Ave
rage
Yie
ld(p
ound
s/ac
)60
0057
7258
8758
9859
5360
0960
6461
1961
7562
3063
0263
6964
3164
8865
41T
otal
Pro
duct
ion
(mil.
cw
t)12
.513
.713
.014
.713
.713
.812
.813
.413
.413
.613
.613
.813
.713
.913
.8
Tab
le 1
7.
Cal
iforn
ia R
ice
Sup
ply
(Agg
rega
te; M
ostly
Med
ium
and
Sho
rt G
rain
)V
aria
ble
Uni
ts /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
Tot
al A
rea
(100
0 ac
)50
0.0
507.
047
9.1
514.
550
6.1
503.
350
9.7
512.
551
2.8
511.
251
1.3
512.
751
2.6
515.
051
6.0
Ave
rage
Yie
ld(p
ound
s/ac
)75
0083
2483
7483
8684
3684
8785
4185
9786
5587
1687
8188
4088
9289
3889
75T
otal
Pro
duct
ion
(mil.
cw
t)37
.142
.540
.143
.142
.742
.743
.544
.144
.444
.644
.945
.345
.646
.046
.3
Tab
le 1
8. C
hina
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)31
406
3203
031
783
3157
731
367
3114
230
941
3075
230
576
3040
630
246
3009
529
952
2981
429
680
Yie
ld (
mt/h
a)4.
354.
374.
384.
424.
444.
484.
524.
554.
584.
624.
664.
704.
744.
794.
83P
rodu
ctio
n(1
000
mt)
1365
7013
9998
1391
6913
9467
1392
9713
9492
1399
0913
9932
1401
3614
0392
1409
1914
1504
1421
1714
2750
1434
01P
er C
apita
Use
(kg
)10
9.20
111.
1911
0.83
110.
6510
9.90
109.
4710
9.15
108.
7610
8.45
108.
1210
7.74
107.
4110
7.13
106.
8710
6.58
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)13
2134
1358
1813
6593
1375
3113
7704
1382
0913
8815
1392
9313
9827
1402
9614
0707
1411
6214
1676
1422
1814
2724
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)93
824
8916
3415
1814
6414
1413
6313
1012
5712
0811
6311
1810
7310
2798
2Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
326
413
423
457
477
492
504
527
545
557
551
546
543
541
535
Net
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)61
220
7612
1110
6198
792
285
978
371
265
161
257
253
048
744
7E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
2555
627
660
2902
429
899
3050
530
866
3110
130
957
3055
329
998
2959
729
367
2927
829
323
2955
3
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
65
Tab
le 1
9.
Indi
a R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Tot
al A
rea
Har
vest
ed (
1000
ha)
4270
042
428
4287
043
003
4308
643
150
4327
243
344
4340
843
454
4348
843
564
4363
843
718
4381
2
Eas
t (
1000
ha)
1849
418
499
1850
418
512
1852
018
528
1853
618
545
1855
418
563
1857
218
585
1859
718
610
1862
3
Nor
th (
1000
ha)
8506
8572
8764
8764
8750
8734
8782
8780
8767
8731
8679
8660
8635
8610
8591
S
outh
(10
00 h
a)76
2475
6475
9375
9075
9075
9175
8575
8475
8575
8975
9475
9675
9976
0276
04
Wes
t (
1000
ha)
7688
7793
8010
8137
8226
8297
8369
8435
8503
8572
8643
8722
8806
8895
8993
Ave
rage
Yie
ld (
mt/h
a)1.
901.
941.
961.
992.
022.
052.
082.
122.
162.
192.
222.
252.
282.
322.
35
Eas
t (
mt/h
a)1.
591.
631.
641.
671.
701.
731.
761.
791.
851.
881.
911.
941.
972.
002.
03
Nor
th (
mt/h
a)2.
392.
402.
452.
482.
522.
562.
622.
672.
712.
752.
792.
832.
872.
912.
96
Sou
th (
mt/h
a)2.
802.
842.
852.
892.
922.
962.
993.
033.
093.
133.
163.
203.
233.
303.
34
Wes
t (
mt/h
a)1.
301.
321.
331.
351.
371.
391.
411.
431.
451.
481.
501.
521.
541.
571.
59
Tot
al P
rodu
ctio
n(1
000
mt)
8120
082
481
8404
485
515
8701
088
426
9015
491
699
9394
195
378
9672
498
172
9961
310
1365
1029
46
Eas
t(1
000
mt)
2947
530
130
3032
430
891
3146
032
029
3260
033
171
3436
434
938
3551
236
094
3667
737
261
3784
6
Nor
th(1
000
mt)
2030
520
609
2144
321
749
2206
622
375
2301
223
454
2377
024
022
2422
724
520
2479
425
066
2545
0
Sou
th(1
000
mt)
2134
521
460
2164
721
912
2218
422
458
2271
022
980
2344
623
729
2401
924
298
2458
025
102
2538
2
Wes
t(1
000
mt)
9974
1028
210
631
1096
311
300
1156
411
831
1209
412
361
1268
812
966
1326
013
563
1393
614
268
Ave
rage
Per
cap
ita u
se (
kg)
82.3
182
.67
82.9
583
.20
83.4
383
.68
83.9
584
.26
84.6
084
.94
85.2
785
.56
85.8
386
.10
86.3
8
Eas
t (
kg)
165.
3316
4.41
165.
3916
6.14
166.
7616
7.34
167.
9116
8.50
169.
1216
9.72
170.
2917
0.80
171.
1917
1.51
171.
76
Nor
th (
kg)
16.6
616
.66
16.6
716
.74
16.8
617
.08
17.3
717
.74
18.2
018
.63
19.0
919
.59
20.1
520
.80
21.5
4
Sou
th (
kg)
109.
0210
8.70
108.
9110
9.15
109.
4110
9.65
109.
9311
0.21
110.
5111
0.83
111.
1211
1.23
111.
3311
1.42
111.
52
Wes
t (
kg)
37.4
637
.35
37.2
437
.15
37.0
937
.04
37.0
137
.00
37.0
137
.02
37.0
537
.09
37.1
337
.19
37.2
6
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)79
250
8015
681
789
8337
684
950
8653
388
145
8979
291
485
9316
994
856
9651
498
183
9988
510
1624
E
ast
(100
0 m
t)41
790
4227
443
246
4415
445
028
4589
146
752
4761
948
498
4937
150
234
5109
451
934
5276
353
585
N
orth
(100
0 m
t)37
0337
6538
3139
1040
0241
1742
5144
0745
8947
6449
5251
5353
7456
2659
08
Sou
th(1
000
mt)
2395
424
298
2475
525
217
2568
226
140
2660
627
076
2754
928
025
2849
628
924
2935
929
799
3024
6
Wes
t(1
000
mt)
9681
9819
9956
1009
510
238
1038
510
536
1069
110
849
1101
011
174
1134
311
517
1169
711
884
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)21
0524
9820
2419
1819
3919
6019
9720
4120
3120
2120
2820
3620
4820
6820
87E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
1084
510
672
1090
311
124
1124
511
177
1119
011
056
1148
111
668
1150
811
131
1051
399
2491
59
Tab
le 2
0. P
akis
tan
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)22
5223
1623
2423
2323
1923
1323
0623
0723
1323
2123
3523
5223
7223
9424
16Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
1.91
1.89
1.94
1.96
1.98
2.00
2.02
2.04
2.06
2.08
2.11
2.13
2.16
2.19
2.21
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)43
0743
6745
0045
4845
8746
2446
5847
0947
7048
3749
2050
0951
1852
3253
49P
er C
ap U
se (
kg)
19.7
419
.30
19.4
919
.48
19.4
619
.45
19.4
319
.42
19.4
019
.39
19.3
719
.36
19.3
419
.33
19.3
1T
otal
Con
sum
ptio
n(1
000
mt)
2550
2549
2630
2685
2740
2795
2850
2905
2960
3013
3067
3120
3174
3230
3286
Net
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)18
3419
0719
1418
8818
6118
2717
9817
8117
7217
7017
9118
1918
5819
0119
47E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
438
349
306
281
268
269
279
302
340
395
456
526
612
713
829
Tab
le 2
1. M
yanm
ar R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)56
0054
9357
1457
2157
6057
9558
4758
8859
3959
8560
3660
9161
4561
9662
48Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
1.61
1.62
1.73
1.74
1.77
1.79
1.82
1.84
1.86
1.89
1.91
1.94
1.96
1.99
2.01
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)90
0089
2098
7699
5410
189
1038
410
613
1082
811
064
1129
411
538
1179
512
053
1231
312
578
Per
-cap
ita U
se (
kg)
200.
0119
7.10
195.
9619
5.49
195.
3319
5.42
195.
1719
4.80
194.
3219
3.87
192.
9819
2.35
192.
0019
1.91
192.
06T
otal
Con
sum
ptio
n(1
000
mt)
9210
9267
9406
9580
9772
9982
1017
810
372
1056
310
759
1093
411
127
1133
911
571
1182
3N
et E
xpor
ts(1
000
mt)
1554
216
256
321
373
419
463
506
549
593
639
685
730
777
End
ing
Sto
cks
(100
0 m
t)66
026
051
463
372
975
877
576
876
374
975
978
881
882
980
6
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
66
Tab
le 2
2.
Vie
tnam
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Tot
al A
rea
Har
vest
ed (
1000
ha)
7050
7105
7164
7191
7213
7226
7243
7254
7265
7270
7277
7286
7292
7294
7295
Mek
ong
Del
ta (
1000
ha)
3229
3254
3291
3307
3325
3336
3348
3357
3365
3369
3375
3383
3389
3394
3398
Res
t of V
ietn
am (
1000
ha)
3821
3850
3873
3884
3888
3890
3895
3897
3900
3901
3902
3903
3903
3901
3898
Yie
ld A
vera
ge (
mt/h
a)2.
552.
542.
612.
632.
672.
712.
752.
792.
832.
872.
902.
942.
973.
003.
04P
rodu
ctio
n(1
000
mt)
1800
018
011
1871
118
939
1923
619
566
1990
520
227
2054
520
840
2112
821
406
2165
421
912
2214
9P
er C
apita
Use
(kg
)19
9.03
191.
4319
3.54
193.
2319
2.93
192.
5419
2.26
192.
0019
1.82
191.
6919
1.58
191.
5519
1.60
191.
7119
1.87
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)14
730
1439
014
771
1496
315
147
1531
815
492
1571
815
900
1608
516
272
1646
516
667
1687
717
093
Net
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)32
7036
2139
4039
7740
8942
4844
1445
0946
4647
5448
5549
4149
8750
3550
56E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
Tab
le 2
3.
Aus
tral
ia R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)16
614
816
816
816
816
816
916
917
017
117
217
317
317
417
4Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
5.98
6.21
6.06
6.10
6.15
6.21
6.26
6.31
6.37
6.42
6.48
6.54
6.60
6.67
6.75
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)99
291
810
1510
2310
3310
4310
5510
6810
8210
9711
1211
2811
4511
6111
78P
er C
apita
Use
(kg
)15
.34
15.7
115
.83
15.9
616
.09
16.2
216
.35
16.4
816
.61
16.7
416
.88
17.0
117
.15
17.2
817
.42
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)28
029
029
530
030
531
031
532
032
533
033
534
034
535
135
6Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
3540
3941
4345
4749
5153
5557
5961
63E
xpor
ts(1
000
mt)
700
701
736
739
770
780
788
798
808
820
832
844
856
868
881
Net
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)66
566
169
769
972
773
574
174
975
776
777
778
779
780
781
8E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
103
7093
118
119
117
116
115
115
115
115
116
119
122
126
Tab
le 2
4.
Egy
pt R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)59
163
060
057
555
052
550
050
050
050
050
050
050
050
050
0Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
5.06
4.69
5.02
5.08
5.15
5.23
5.30
5.37
5.45
5.51
5.57
5.63
5.69
5.75
5.81
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)29
8929
5730
1229
2128
3427
4526
5026
8727
2327
5527
8628
1728
4628
7529
03P
er C
apita
Use
(kg
)41
.18
42.0
841
.79
41.1
240
.12
39.0
638
.04
37.0
236
.60
36.2
035
.82
35.4
935
.26
35.1
335
.13
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)26
0027
0727
3727
4227
2326
9726
7326
4526
5926
7326
8827
0527
3027
6428
07N
et E
xpor
ts(1
000
mt)
150
306
124
117
111
106
101
9895
9290
8784
8178
End
ing
Sto
cks
(100
0 m
t)67
261
776
882
982
977
164
759
155
954
955
858
361
564
566
2
Tab
le 2
5.
Arg
entin
a R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)23
019
523
223
924
725
626
627
628
729
931
032
333
635
036
4Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
3.39
3.00
3.43
3.48
3.54
3.60
3.66
3.72
3.78
3.84
3.91
3.97
4.03
4.09
4.15
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)78
058
379
483
287
692
197
310
2810
8711
4812
1312
8213
5514
3115
12P
er c
apita
use
(kg
)6.
496.
596.
626.
696.
766.
846.
927.
017.
107.
207.
317.
427.
547.
677.
81T
otal
Con
sum
ptio
n(1
000
mt)
225
231
235
240
245
250
256
262
268
274
281
288
296
304
313
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)52
339
954
958
963
167
471
976
581
787
493
810
0210
6611
3011
95E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
129
8293
9696
9492
9395
9488
8072
7075
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
67
Tab
le 2
6.
Uru
guay
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)15
516
316
817
017
317
718
118
518
919
219
620
020
420
721
0Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
4.63
4.15
4.52
4.57
4.62
4.67
4.74
4.80
4.86
4.93
5.00
5.07
5.15
5.23
5.31
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)71
867
876
077
480
082
685
688
791
794
898
010
1310
4710
8211
17P
er c
apita
use
(kg
)23
.66
25.0
226
.06
26.9
928
.04
28.5
528
.99
29.4
229
.81
30.2
030
.55
30.8
631
.16
31.4
531
.72
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)75
8084
8791
9395
9698
9910
110
210
310
510
6E
xpor
ts(1
000
mt)
645
597
678
687
708
733
760
790
818
847
877
908
940
973
1006
End
ing
Sto
cks
(100
0 m
t)22
2221
2122
2324
2526
2830
3336
4146
Tab
le 2
7.
Bra
zil
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Tot
al A
rea
Har
vest
ed (
1000
ha)
3570
3299
3513
3529
3487
3443
3406
3369
3333
3293
3255
3217
3187
3154
3119
Ir
rigat
ed (
1000
ha)
905
900
1002
1020
1037
1052
1068
1084
1101
1117
1132
1148
1164
1179
1194
U
plan
d (
1000
ha)
2665
2399
2511
2509
2450
2391
2338
2285
2233
2176
2123
2068
2023
1975
1925
Ave
rage
Yie
ld (
mt/h
a)1.
861.
821.
861.
911.
952.
002.
052.
102.
152.
202.
252.
312.
362.
422.
48
Irrig
ated
(m
t/ha)
3.55
3.51
3.56
3.62
3.67
3.72
3.77
3.83
3.88
3.92
3.97
4.02
4.06
4.11
4.15
U
plan
d (
mt/h
a)1.
281.
191.
191.
211.
231.
241.
261.
281.
301.
321.
341.
361.
381.
411.
44T
otal
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)66
2860
0565
4767
3568
1568
9069
8070
6971
6272
4573
3574
2275
3076
3177
27
Irrig
ated
(100
0 m
t)32
1431
5735
6436
9138
0739
1540
3341
4842
6643
8144
9646
1447
3148
4549
56
Upl
and
(100
0 m
t)34
1428
4729
8330
4430
0829
7529
4829
2128
9628
6428
3828
0727
9927
8627
71P
er c
apita
use
(kg
)48
.87
47.8
348
.23
48.3
548
.34
48.3
148
.27
48.2
448
.23
48.2
348
.24
48.2
748
.29
48.3
348
.37
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)79
5078
6980
2181
2181
9782
6483
3183
9884
6685
3586
0486
7687
5088
2689
03N
et Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
1000
1698
1554
1395
1413
1394
1377
1363
1343
1328
1311
1295
1267
1241
1223
End
ing
Sto
cks
(100
0 m
t)66
449
757
758
661
663
666
169
673
477
381
485
590
394
999
5
Tab
le 2
8.
Eur
opea
n U
nion
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
nV
aria
ble
Uni
ts /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)40
840
641
038
738
238
038
038
037
937
937
937
937
937
937
9Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
3.87
4.10
3.90
3.87
3.88
3.90
3.92
3.95
3.97
3.99
4.02
4.04
4.07
4.09
4.11
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)15
8016
6316
0014
9714
8014
8314
9014
9815
0715
1615
2415
3315
4215
5115
60P
er C
apita
Use
(kg
)5.
475.
365.
405.
455.
495.
535.
585.
625.
675.
715.
755.
805.
845.
885.
93T
otal
Con
sum
ptio
n(1
000
mt)
1927
1894
1915
1936
1956
1976
1996
2016
2035
2054
2072
2091
2109
2128
2146
Impo
rts
(100
0 m
t)15
7114
7214
5114
9815
1815
2815
4015
4915
5915
6915
7715
8615
9616
0716
16E
xpor
ts(1
000
mt)
1331
1139
1059
1043
1035
1043
1046
1052
1055
1059
1059
1054
1050
1048
1048
Net
Impo
rts
(100
0 m
t)24
033
239
145
548
348
649
449
650
451
051
853
354
655
956
8E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
271
373
449
467
474
466
453
432
408
379
349
325
304
286
268
Tab
le 2
9. I
taly
Ric
e S
uppl
y
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)23
823
323
724
024
024
024
024
024
024
024
024
024
024
024
0Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
3.48
3.87
3.65
3.68
3.71
3.73
3.76
3.78
3.81
3.84
3.86
3.89
3.92
3.94
3.97
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)82
890
186
688
388
989
690
290
891
592
192
793
494
094
695
3E
xpor
ts (
Japo
nica
)(1
000
mt)
600
504
559
542
533
532
533
535
538
541
539
535
534
535
537
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
68
Tab
le 3
0. S
pain
Ric
e S
uppl
y
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)10
711
111
286
8079
7979
7978
7878
7878
78Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
4.98
5.05
4.72
4.74
4.75
4.77
4.79
4.81
4.82
4.84
4.86
4.87
4.89
4.91
4.93
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)53
355
952
640
638
237
737
737
837
938
038
138
238
338
438
5
Tab
le 3
1. O
ther
EU
Ric
e S
uppl
yV
aria
ble
Uni
ts /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
Are
a H
arve
sted
(E
U-I
ta-S
p) (
1000
ha)
6362
6261
6161
6161
6161
6161
6161
61Y
ield
(E
U-I
ta-S
p) (
mt/h
a)3.
483.
253.
373.
393.
413.
433.
463.
483.
503.
523.
553.
573.
593.
613.
63P
rodu
ctio
n (E
U-I
ta-S
p)(1
000
mt)
219
203
208
208
209
210
211
212
213
215
216
218
219
221
222
Exp
orts
(E
U-I
ta),
Indi
ca(1
000
mt)
731
635
500
501
502
510
513
517
517
518
520
519
516
513
511
Tab
le 3
2.
Indo
nesi
a R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)11
072
1080
611
285
1146
811
589
1168
011
753
1181
411
867
1191
111
945
1196
811
978
1197
111
942
Yie
ld (
mt/h
a)2.
892.
862.
882.
912.
932.
962.
983.
003.
023.
043.
063.
083.
093.
113.
13P
rodu
ctio
n(1
000
mt)
3201
530
917
3254
933
361
3399
334
528
3500
635
442
3584
436
211
3654
236
831
3706
937
246
3734
6P
er-c
apita
Use
(kg
)16
4.13
171.
2616
5.49
165.
0816
5.46
165.
8816
5.76
165.
9816
5.71
165.
6216
5.76
165.
6816
5.38
164.
9216
4.33
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)33
905
3591
135
219
3564
836
245
3685
237
339
3789
938
346
3882
739
356
3982
940
254
4064
341
005
Net
Impo
rts
(100
0 m
t)80
049
9525
5224
8222
7823
5223
5524
8325
2226
3728
3830
1932
0434
1436
75E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
1525
1526
1409
1604
1631
1658
1680
1705
1726
1747
1771
1792
1811
1829
1845
Tab
le 3
3.
Iran
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)60
060
060
961
862
663
464
365
165
966
767
568
369
169
970
7Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
2.67
2.67
2.72
2.74
2.77
2.79
2.82
2.84
2.87
2.90
2.92
2.95
2.97
3.00
3.02
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)16
0016
0016
5516
9417
3317
7318
1218
5118
9119
3119
7120
1220
5320
9421
36P
er C
apita
Use
(kg
)44
.07
43.1
543
.90
44.0
044
.09
44.1
644
.23
44.3
044
.36
44.4
244
.47
44.5
144
.55
44.5
944
.62
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)27
5027
4928
5829
2629
9330
6231
3132
0232
7433
4634
2034
9635
7236
5037
30N
et Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
1000
1000
1231
1242
1271
1300
1331
1362
1394
1427
1461
1496
1532
1569
1607
End
ing
Sto
cks
(100
0 m
t)59
644
747
648
849
951
052
253
454
655
857
058
359
560
862
2
Tab
le 3
4.
Iraq
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
nV
aria
ble
Uni
ts /
Yea
r19
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
0920
10
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)14
014
014
815
115
315
515
615
715
815
916
116
216
316
416
5Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
1.43
1.43
1.45
1.46
1.49
1.52
1.55
1.58
1.61
1.64
1.67
1.70
1.73
1.77
1.80
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)20
020
121
422
122
823
424
124
825
526
126
827
628
329
029
7P
er C
apita
Use
(kg
)40
.65
36.2
136
.62
36.8
036
.99
37.1
337
.26
37.3
637
.45
37.5
237
.56
37.5
937
.61
37.6
137
.59
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)87
080
083
586
589
592
595
798
810
2010
5310
8511
1911
5311
8812
23N
et Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
720
599
721
694
667
691
715
740
765
791
817
843
870
898
926
End
ing
Sto
cks
(100
0 m
t)50
5015
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
020
0
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
69
Tab
le 3
5.
Sau
di A
rabi
a R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Per
Cap
ita U
se (
kg)
37.8
335
.99
36.4
136
.53
36.6
836
.74
36.8
636
.94
37.0
637
.15
37.2
137
.29
37.4
037
.51
37.6
0T
otal
Con
sum
ptio
n(1
000
mt)
736
724
757
785
814
842
873
904
937
971
1005
1040
1078
1117
1157
Net
Impo
rts
(100
0 m
t)74
672
475
778
581
484
287
390
493
797
110
0510
4010
7811
1711
57
Tab
le 3
6.
Japa
n R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)19
7719
8318
5017
4117
0516
8416
6316
4116
1815
9315
6815
4115
1514
8814
61Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
4.76
4.67
4.88
4.91
4.94
4.97
4.99
5.02
5.05
5.08
5.11
5.14
5.17
5.20
5.23
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)94
1392
6590
2285
4284
1483
6283
0682
4481
7580
9980
1679
2578
3277
3876
42P
er c
apita
use
(kg
)73
.73
73.2
572
.86
72.4
571
.97
71.5
471
.10
70.6
370
.13
69.6
069
.05
68.4
767
.87
67.2
666
.65
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)92
5092
0991
8091
5091
0990
7590
3789
9289
4188
8388
1987
4786
7385
9885
22E
xpor
ts(1
000
mt)
100
750
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Impo
rts
(100
0 m
t)50
060
060
668
275
877
378
980
482
083
785
487
188
890
692
4N
et Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
400
-150
406
482
558
573
589
604
620
637
654
671
688
706
724
End
ing
Sto
cks
(100
0 m
t)30
4329
4931
9730
7129
3427
9426
5225
0823
6322
1520
6619
1517
6316
0914
52
Tab
le 3
7.
Sou
th K
orea
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)10
5010
5094
894
494
194
392
189
887
386
986
185
284
283
282
1Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
5.07
5.19
4.97
5.01
5.07
5.10
5.13
5.15
5.18
5.21
5.24
5.27
5.30
5.33
5.36
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)53
2054
4947
1647
2947
7248
0547
1946
2545
2245
2745
1244
8944
6344
3444
02P
er c
apita
use
(kg
)11
0.76
108.
8410
7.24
106.
3010
5.79
104.
3410
2.36
100.
2798
.07
97.2
596
.31
95.2
794
.17
93.0
391
.85
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)50
3750
0049
7749
8250
0749
8649
3648
7848
1148
0947
9847
8147
6147
3747
11Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
7788
115
135
147
177
210
244
278
281
285
290
295
300
306
Exp
orts
(100
0 m
t)0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Net
Impo
rts
(100
0 m
t)77
8811
513
514
717
721
024
427
828
128
529
029
530
030
6E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
605
1141
995
877
789
785
777
768
758
757
756
753
750
746
742
Tab
le 3
8.
Tai
wan
Ric
e S
uppl
y an
d U
tiliz
atio
n
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)34
836
435
530
028
627
125
924
723
923
322
722
322
021
821
6Y
ield
(m
t/ha)
4.08
4.04
4.08
4.18
4.23
4.28
4.32
4.36
4.40
4.42
4.47
4.51
4.55
4.58
4.62
Pro
duct
ion
(100
0 m
t)14
2014
7014
4912
5412
0811
6111
2110
7810
5010
2910
1510
0510
0099
799
8P
er c
apita
use
(kg
)67
.47
65.9
564
.01
62.0
860
.05
57.9
355
.73
53.4
551
.69
50.3
449
.29
48.4
947
.88
47.4
147
.05
Tot
al C
onsu
mpt
ion
(100
0 m
t)14
5014
3014
0013
6913
3512
9912
5912
1711
8711
6511
4911
3911
3311
3011
30N
et Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
-45
-40
-40
110
121
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
End
ing
Sto
cks
(100
0 m
t)22
322
323
322
822
321
621
020
319
819
419
219
018
918
818
8
Tab
le 3
9.
Res
t of W
orld
(R
OW
) R
ice
Sup
ply
and
Util
izat
ion
Var
iabl
eU
nits
/ Y
ear
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Are
a H
arve
sted
(10
00 h
a)30
376
2931
029
324
2941
229
586
2976
229
939
3011
230
289
3046
330
638
3081
630
992
3116
531
338
Yie
ld (
mt/h
a)1.
581.
621.
691.
721.
741.
761.
781.
801.
811.
831.
851.
871.
891.
901.
92P
rodu
ctio
n(1
000
mt)
4805
747
356
4951
250
617
5150
652
357
5321
254
075
5494
255
816
5669
557
577
5846
559
361
6026
2T
otal
Con
sum
ptio
n(1
000
mt)
6067
459
528
6072
161
833
6311
764
007
6495
265
764
6667
167
560
6842
569
336
7022
971
143
7200
1N
et Im
port
s(1
000
mt)
1233
711
090
1183
011
604
1177
311
785
1188
111
821
1187
011
885
1187
111
906
1191
011
933
1188
7E
ndin
g S
tock
s(1
000
mt)
4773
3691
4311
4699
4862
4996
5136
5268
5409
5550
5691
5838
5985
6136
6284
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
70
App
endi
x T
able
1.
Pop
ulat
ion
Cou
ntry
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
(Per
cent
age
Cha
nge
from
Pre
viou
s Y
ear)
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
0.85
0.88
0.89
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.81
0.81
0.80
0.79
0.81
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.80
Tha
iland
1.04
1.01
0.98
0.94
0.91
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.82
0.79
0.77
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Pak
ista
n2.
222.
202.
182.
162.
142.
102.
052.
001.
951.
901.
851.
821.
821.
821.
82M
yanm
ar2.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
102.
10V
ietn
am1.
641.
571.
531.
461.
391.
331.
281.
601.
251.
241.
221.
201.
201.
201.
20C
hina
0.99
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.81
0.76
0.73
0.70
0.67
0.65
0.64
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
Indi
a1.
731.
691.
641.
161.
561.
531.
501.
471.
441.
411.
381.
351.
331.
311.
31A
ustr
alia
0.99
0.97
0.94
0.91
0.88
0.85
0.83
0.80
0.78
0.75
0.73
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
Egy
pt1.
911.
881.
841.
811.
771.
751.
731.
701.
671.
641.
621.
591.
591.
591.
59A
rgen
tina
1.11
1.10
1.09
1.08
1.07
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Uru
guay
0.63
0.95
0.31
0.62
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Japa
n0.
200.
210.
220.
230.
230.
220.
200.
170.
140.
100.
070.
030.
030.
030.
03In
done
sia
1.53
1.51
1.49
1.47
1.44
1.42
1.39
1.37
1.34
1.31
1.28
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Iraq
3.38
3.27
3.17
3.07
2.98
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Iran
2.16
2.10
2.18
2.14
2.12
2.11
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
Sau
di A
rabi
a3.
503.
383.
363.
343.
333.
323.
323.
323.
323.
323.
323.
323.
323.
323.
32E
urop
ean
Uni
on0.
310.
300.
280.
270.
250.
230.
210.
190.
170.
150.
130.
130.
130.
130.
13S
outh
Kor
ea1.
021.
021.
011.
000.
980.
960.
920.
880.
840.
800.
760.
730.
730.
730.
73T
aiw
an0.
890.
880.
860.
850.
830.
820.
810.
800.
790.
780.
760.
740.
740.
740.
74B
razi
l1.
201.
141.
081.
010.
940.
900.
880.
860.
840.
810.
790.
790.
790.
790.
79
App
endi
x T
able
2.
Rea
l Gro
ss D
omes
tic P
rodu
ct (
GD
P)
Cou
ntry
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
(Per
cent
age
Cha
nge
from
Pre
viou
s Y
ear)
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
2.40
3.60
2.40
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
Tha
iland
6.70
1.20
0.00
3.30
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
Pak
ista
n5.
404.
105.
305.
906.
206.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
506.
50M
yanm
ar2.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
472.
47V
ietn
am10
.20
10.1
09.
709.
409.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
50C
hina
(G
NP
)9.
709.
308.
009.
009.
008.
708.
708.
708.
708.
708.
708.
708.
708.
708.
70In
dia
5.20
5.10
5.30
5.40
5.30
5.70
5.60
5.80
6.00
5.80
6.00
5.80
5.80
6.00
6.00
Aus
tral
ia3.
603.
003.
403.
404.
303.
703.
503.
503.
403.
403.
403.
403.
403.
403.
40E
gypt
5.10
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.50
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
Arg
entin
a3.
004.
704.
904.
104.
003.
405.
605.
604.
904.
704.
604.
604.
604.
604.
60U
rugu
ay0.
503.
502.
603.
003.
001.
901.
901.
901.
901.
901.
901.
901.
901.
901.
90Ja
pan
3.70
1.00
1.10
1.50
1.90
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Indo
nesi
a7.
806.
103.
004.
506.
107.
007.
607.
607.
607.
607.
607.
607.
607.
607.
60Ir
an2.
102.
602.
802.
603.
103.
303.
303.
303.
303.
303.
303.
303.
303.
303.
30S
audi
Ara
bia
6.90
0.40
-0.9
02.
302.
502.
402.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
30E
urop
ean
Uni
on1.
402.
402.
702.
802.
402.
402.
402.
402.
402.
402.
402.
402.
402.
402.
40S
outh
Kor
ea7.
106.
103.
304.
806.
305.
705.
705.
705.
705.
705.
705.
705.
705.
705.
70T
aiw
an6.
006.
106.
506.
306.
406.
406.
406.
406.
406.
406.
406.
406.
406.
406.
40B
razi
l2.
803.
900.
504.
004.
103.
603.
603.
603.
603.
603.
603.
603.
603.
603.
60
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
71
App
endi
x T
able
3.
Gro
ss D
omes
tic P
rodu
ct (
GD
P)
Def
lato
r
Cou
ntry
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
(Per
cent
age
Cha
nge
from
Pre
viou
s Y
ear)
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
2.10
2.20
2.40
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.40
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
Tha
iland
5.40
7.40
11.9
08.
906.
404.
904.
904.
904.
904.
904.
904.
904.
904.
904.
90P
akis
tan
9.60
11.0
010
.60
9.80
8.50
8.20
7.90
7.90
7.80
7.70
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.60
Mya
nmar
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
5.66
Vie
tnam
17.8
015
.40
13.7
010
.70
10.0
09.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
509.
50C
hina
7.90
-0.1
01.
503.
203.
202.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
80In
dia
ER
RE
RR
ER
RE
RR
ER
RE
RR
ER
RE
RR
ER
RE
RR
ER
RE
RR
ER
RE
RR
ER
RA
ustr
alia
2.40
2.20
3.20
3.00
3.30
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Egy
pt6.
007.
707.
707.
707.
707.
707.
707.
707.
707.
707.
707.
707.
707.
707.
70A
rgen
tina
2.50
3.10
3.00
4.70
5.40
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
8.30
Uru
guay
30.1
024
.40
24.9
022
.50
15.2
017
.10
17.1
017
.10
17.1
017
.10
17.1
017
.10
17.1
017
.10
17.1
0Ja
pan
0.00
1.50
1.10
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Indo
nesi
a8.
407.
7011
.80
8.60
8.50
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
8.40
Iran
35.9
025
.30
20.6
017
.50
10.5
010
.00
10.0
010
.00
10.0
010
.00
10.0
010
.00
10.0
010
.00
10.0
0S
audi
Ara
bia
6.90
0.40
-0.9
02.
302.
502.
402.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
30E
urop
ean
Uni
on5.
302.
701.
802.
102.
202.
202.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
302.
30S
outh
Kor
ea3.
404.
307.
106.
804.
901.
801.
801.
801.
801.
801.
801.
801.
801.
801.
80T
aiw
an2.
502.
702.
802.
702.
902.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
802.
80B
razi
l18
.60
6.20
8.20
6.80
6.90
7.10
7.10
7.10
7.10
7.10
7.10
7.10
7.10
7.10
7.10
App
endi
x T
able
4.
Con
sum
er P
rice
Inde
x (C
PI)
Cou
ntry
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
(Per
cent
age
Cha
nge
from
Pre
viou
s Y
ear)
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
2.90
2.50
2.90
3.30
3.30
3.20
3.10
2.80
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
Tha
iland
5.90
5.40
5.30
5.20
5.10
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Pak
ista
n10
.20
10.1
09.
509.
609.
409.
209.
209.
209.
209.
209.
209.
209.
209.
209.
20M
yanm
ar6.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
006.
00V
ietn
am10
.60
10.0
09.
509.
408.
107.
907.
907.
907.
907.
907.
907.
907.
907.
907.
90C
hina
9.30
11.0
012
.40
12.1
011
.70
9.80
9.80
9.80
9.80
9.80
9.80
9.80
9.80
9.80
9.80
Indi
a8.
107.
507.
307.
307.
207.
207.
207.
207.
207.
207.
207.
207.
207.
207.
20A
ustr
alia
3.10
2.80
3.60
3.90
3.10
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
Egy
pt12
.00
8.60
7.80
6.40
5.10
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Arg
entin
a0.
202.
503.
104.
004.
606.
306.
306.
306.
306.
306.
306.
306.
306.
306.
30U
rugu
ay30
.10
27.6
024
.30
15.5
017
.40
16.2
016
.20
16.2
016
.20
16.2
016
.20
16.2
016
.20
16.2
016
.20
Japa
n0.
100.
701.
602.
002.
102.
202.
202.
202.
202.
202.
202.
202.
202.
202.
20In
done
sia
8.20
8.60
8.50
8.40
8.20
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
Iraq
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
Iran
45.6
030
.20
21.3
013
.40
9.10
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
Sau
di A
rabi
a1.
201.
701.
801.
000.
900.
900.
900.
900.
900.
900.
900.
900.
900.
900.
90E
urop
ean
Uni
on2.
502.
602.
502.
502.
502.
502.
502.
502.
502.
502.
502.
502.
502.
502.
50S
outh
Kor
ea5.
105.
205.
405.
405.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
10T
aiw
an3.
003.
403.
403.
303.
503.
403.
403.
403.
403.
403.
403.
403.
403.
403.
40B
razi
l19
.50
14.0
011
.20
10.1
09.
609.
609.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
809.
80
ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SPECIAL REPORT 189
72
App
endi
x T
able
5.
Exc
hang
e R
ate*
Cou
ntry
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
(Per
cent
age
Cha
nge
from
Pre
viou
s Y
ear)
Tha
iland
1.50
15.0
025
.00
4.50
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pak
ista
n1.
4012
.90
9.20
8.20
7.60
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
Mya
nmar
-1.5
9-1
.59
-1.5
9-1
.59
-1.5
9-1
.59
-1.5
9-1
.59
-1.5
9-1
.59
-1.5
9-1
.59
-1.5
9-1
.59
-1.5
9 V
ietn
am4.
104.
504.
704.
604.
704.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
40 C
hina
-0.4
0-1
.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.10
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
Indi
a7.
104.
604.
304.
204.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
404.
40 A
ustr
alia
-5.3
04.
50-1
.50
-4.0
0-1
.30
4.50
-0.3
0-0
.30
-0.3
0-0
.30
-0.3
0-0
.30
-0.3
0-0
.30
-0.3
0 E
gypt
0.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
Arg
entin
a-0
.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
Uru
guay
0.00
20.0
017
.71
15.9
312
.98
12.1
612
.00
12.0
012
.00
12.0
012
.00
12.0
012
.00
12.0
012
.00
Jap
an15
.60
9.50
9.80
2.40
-0.7
0-2
.10
-2.1
0-2
.10
-2.1
0-2
.10
-2.1
0-2
.10
-2.1
0-2
.10
-2.1
0 In
done
sia
4.20
20.4
038
.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
Iraq
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Iran
0.20
9.50
9.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Sau
di A
rabi
a0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00 E
urop
ean
Uni
on4.
4012
.60
0.40
-2.1
0-2
.10
-1.0
0-0
.50
-0.5
0-0
.50
-0.5
0-0
.50
-0.5
0-0
.50
-0.5
0-0
.50
Sou
th K
orea
4.30
10.8
026
.20
3.50
2.00
-1.0
0-1
.00
-1.0
0-1
.00
-1.0
0-1
.00
-1.0
0-1
.00
-1.0
0-1
.00
Tai
wan
0.89
0.88
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.82
0.81
0.80
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Bra
zil
9.70
7.50
8.80
5.40
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
*Rel
ativ
e to
the
US
dol
lar.
ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE MODEL: INTERNATIONAL BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR 1998-2010
73
Conversion TableU.S. to Metric Metric to U.S.
multiply multiplyto convert from to U.S. unit by to convert from to metric unit by
length lengthmiles kilometers 1.61 kilometers miles .62yards meters .91 meters yards 1.09feet meters .31 meters feet 3.28inches centimeters 2.54 centimeters inches .39
area and volume area and volumesq yards sq meters .84 sq meters sq yards 1.20sq feet sq meters .09 sq meters sq feet 10.76sq inches sq centimeters 6.45 sq centimeters sq inches .16cu inches cu centimeters 16.39 cu centimeters cu inches .06acres hectares .41 hectares acres 2.47
liquid measure liquid measurecu inches liters .02 liters cu inches 61.02cu feet liters 28.34 liters cu feet .04gallons liters 3.79 liters gallons .26quarts liters .95 liters quarts 1.06fluid ounces milliliters 29.57 milliliters fluid ounces .03
weight and mass weight and masspounds kilograms .45 kilograms pounds 2.21ounces grams 28.35 grams ounces .04
temperature temperatureF C 5/9(F-32) C F 9/5(C+32)