International Baseline Projections For 1998 – 2010arkansas-ag-news.uark.edu/pdf/189.pdf · 2018. 2. 8. · International Baseline Projections For 1998 – 2010 ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE

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The general structure of the model and the estimating equa-tions for each country are presented in an unpublished paperby Wailes, et al., 1997b.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


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


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.


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


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-


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


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


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.


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


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-


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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


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


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-


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-


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.


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


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


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


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


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-


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


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


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-


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-


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


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.


44

Fig. 34. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Italy rice.

Fig. 35. Arkansas Global Rice Model 1998 projections: Spain rice.


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.


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.


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,


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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-


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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)

Documents

International Baseline Projections For 1998 – 2010arkansas-ag-news.uark.edu/pdf/189.pdf · 2018. 2. 8. · International Baseline Projections For 1998 – 2010 ARKANSAS GLOBAL RICE