The World’s Largest Open Access Agricultural & Applied Economics Digital Library This document is discoverable and free to researchers across the globe due to the work of AgEcon Search. Help ensure our sustainability. Give to AgE con Search AgEcon Search http://ageconsearch.umn.edu [email protected] Papers downloaded from AgEcon Search may be used for non-commercial purposes and personal study only. No other use, including posting to another Internet site, is permitted without permission from the copyright owner (not AgEcon Search), or as allowed under the provisions of Fair Use, U.S. Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. The Impact of Global Cotton Markets on Rural Poverty in Pakistan David Orden, Abdul Salam, Reno Dewina, Hina Nazli, and Nicholas Minot The authors are, respectively, Senior Research Fellow ([email protected]), in the Markets, Trade and Institutions Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (MTID/IFPRI), Washington, D.C.; former chairman ([email protected]) of the Agricultural Prices Commission now associated with Innovated Development Strategies (IDS) Ltd., Islamabad; Senior Research Assistant ([email protected]), MTID/IFPRI; Senior Research Associate ([email protected]), IDS; Senior Research Fellow ([email protected]), MTID/IFPRI. This paper was prepared as part of a project on crosscutting poverty issues in rural Pakistan. The study was funded by Asian Development Bank (ADB). The full report is available as Background Paper 8, Pakistan Poverty Assessment Update, ADB Islamabad Resident Mission. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, July 23-26, 2006. Copyright 2006 by David Orden, Abdul Salam, Reno Dewina, Hina Nazli and Nicholas Minot. All rights reserved. Readers may take verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. The Impact of Global Cotton Markets on Rural Poverty in Pakistan The incidence of rural poverty in Pakistan increased during the late 1990s after having declined during the 1980s and early 1990s. A number of structural factors have been identified as contributing to rural poverty in Pakistan. Among them are low levels of health and education spending and the unequal of farmland distribution. These structural factors help explain the levels of poverty in Pakistan, but not the increase in poverty in the late 1990s. One hypothesis is that the increase in rural poverty is the result of an adverse trend in world commodity prices, particularly cotton, a major commercial crop, and other agricultural commodities such as wheat, rice, and sugar. The overall objective of this paper is to measure the impact of changes in world commodity prices on poverty in rural Pakistan, with particular focus on cotton prices and the main cotton producing districts of Punjab and Sindh provinces. Global Cotton Markets About one third of global cotton production is traded internationally. The US, Australia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Greece are the five main exporters of cotton, accounting for more than 60% of global cotton exports. The production of the other four major producers (the PRC, India, Pakistan, and Turkey) is destined mainly for local consumption by their own textile industries. For a number of other poor countries, cotton is an important component of their merchandise trade. The United Nations classifies about one third of cotton-producing countries as least developed countries. Cotton is the main cash crop and major source of government revenue, foreign exchange earnings, investment, and economic growth, for several countries in Central and Western Africa, considered the world’s poorest regions. In these developing countries, cotton is an important aspect of the livelihoods of the poor. Around one billion people, mostly in developing countries, are either directly or indirectly involved in the production and marketing of cotton (Towsend 2004). Traditionally Pakistan exported large quantities of raw cotton, but has now shifted to exporting value-added textile products and cotton ‘made ups.’ In recent years, Pakistan has participated in the world market as both an exporter and importer of cotton to meet the requirements of its domestic textile industry. International cotton prices remain an important 1 reference for domestic transactions in cotton lint and hence for prices of seed cotton at the farm level. In view of various technical considerations and characteristics important in determining its quality (such as staple length, micronaire, quality of ginning, and the price received in the international market), Pakistani cotton is grouped with Index B cottons. Average annual world market prices of this group are presented in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. World cotton markets exhibit substantial annual price variability around a slight declining trend in nominal and real terms from 1990/91 to 2004/05. The price of index B cotton decreased from its peak in 1994/95 to trough in 2001/02 by 57.8% in nominal terms. In real terms, the Index B cotton price (in 2000 US dollars) declined from $107.13 per 100 lb to $37.87, a decrease of 64.7%. Table 1: Annual Average Prices of Index B Cottons in International Markets Nominal Price Real Price (2000 = 100) Year (US cents/lb) (US cents/lb) 1990/91 77.22 101.74 1991/92 57.15 64.67 1992/93 50.95 62.53 1993/94 66.44 79.18 1994/95 92.20 107.13 1995/96 81.69 92.30 1996/97 74.24 81.48 1997/98 69.94 75.04 1998/99 55.79 58.94 1999/2000 49.28 50.94 2000/01 53.70 53.70 2001/02 38.95 37.87 2002/03 52.40 50.16 2003/04 66.65 62.38 2004/05 51.20 46.67 Note: Index B is the average of the three cheapest cottons among the following: Orleans/Texas (SLM 1-1-32”); Brazilian type 5/6 (1-1-16”) Argentine Grade c-1/2, (1-1-16”); Turkish Adnast.1 white, (1-1-16”); RG Central Asian (SLM 1-1/16”); Pakistani Sindh/Punjab (SG Afzal 1-1-32”); Indian J-34 SG; and Chinese (Type 527). Prices for 2000/01 onward are based on a revised index as reported in Cotton Outlook 83 (25), 2005. Sources: International Cotton Advisory Committee. Cotton World Statistics. Issues through 1992/93; Cotton Outlook. Various issues 1994/95 onward. 2 120 100 b 80 s/l ent 60 c S U 40 20 0 1990/91 1992/93 1994/95 1996/97 1998/99 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 Nominal Prices (U.S. cents/pound) Real Prices (2000=100) Figure 1: Annual Average Prices of Index B Cottons in International Market Effect of Subsidies and Trade Barriers on World Cotton Prices As for other agricultural commodities, the production and international trade of cotton in most countries has been the subject of considerable government subsidies, border protection, and other interventions. Interventions that cause market distortions include high tariffs, tariff escalation, large domestic production support, vague rules on what constitutes trade-distorting support programs, and considerable export subsidies. ICAC estimates that more than half of world cotton production benefits from direct price and income supports. On the demand side, there is a complex range of trade barriers in the form of tariffs, quotas, and other measures on raw cotton, yarns, textiles, and apparel. Aksoy and Beghin (2004) estimate that the combined support for cotton production by eight major world producers (the US, PRC, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Egypt, Brazil, and Mexico) between 1997/98 and 2001/02 ranged from $3.8 billion to $5.3 billion. Numerous recent studies have attempted to measure the impact of cotton subsidies on world cotton prices and production. These studies have adopted several modeling frameworks, focusing on different countries to examine the impact of subsidies and other policies in recent years, and have shown a range of estimates of the effects of subsidy elimination. Table 2 provides a summary of several studies by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2004) and several other recent studies that are not included in the FAO review. 3 The studies generated divergent results. This divergence reflects partly the particular structure of the models and assumed elasticities, as well as the base period, subsidies considered, and other factors. Estimates of this impact vary, with studies falling into three categories: those reporting relatively small effects (2-5%); those reporting moderate effects (10-25%), and those reporting relatively large effects (near 30% or more). The WTO panel in the Brazil/US cotton case found that US support policies damaged Brazil by depressing world prices but did not give an empirical estimate of the magnitude of this effect. The middle-range estimates receive the most support in the studies. Table 2: Estimated Impacts of Developed Country Subsidies on World Cotton Prices Effect of Decline in Production of Estimated World Subsidy Subsidizing Countries Annual Gains to Source Price Without Removal on WCA Farmerse Subsidies World Price US EU ($ million) ($/lb) (%) (%) (%) ODI (2004)a S/U 0.675 18.0-28.0 15.2 26.6 266.5 F/U 0.688 20.0 8.3 19.8 93.8 S/D 0.700 22.0 13.6 25.2 354.5 F/D 0.732 28.0 1.5 8.9 133.5 Goreaux (2003) 0.589–0.649 2.9–13.4 2.2–14.7 10.0–48.0 37.0–254.0 ICAC (2003)b 2000/01 0.742 21.0 2001/02 0.738 72.4d 504.0 FAO (2004) 0.591–0.600 2.3–5.0 7.4–14.2 16.1–31.7 30.0 FAPRI (2002) 11.4 6.7 70.5 90.37 Reeves, et al. (2001)b 0.474 10.7 15.9 76.0 Sumner (2003)c 0.644 12.6 29.1 116.0 Tokarick (2003) 0.588 2.8 8.6 26.0 EU = European Union, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization, FAPRI = Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, ICAC = International Cotton Advisory Committee, ODI = Overseas Development Institute, WCA = West and Central Africa. a The ODI studies ran four model scenarios where S = single market, F = fragmented market, U = uniform elasticity, and D = differentiated elasticity. For the segmented market assumption, the world price is an average across segments. b All studies use 2000/01 as the simulation year data except ICAC (2003) and Reeves, et al. (2001) which use 2001/02 data. The actual world price was $0.572/lb in 2000/01 and $0.418/lb in 2001/02. c Removal of US support only. d The value of 72% reported in ICAC (2003) is widely considered an outlier among model results. e Where the gain to WCA farmers is not explicitly stated in a study, the value in the table is estimated by using a cotton supply equation for WCA to determine additional export earnings generated by the increase in world price. Source: FAO Trade Backgrounder on issues related to the WTO negotiations on agriculture, 2004. 4 An Overview of Pakistan’s Cotton Sector Pakistan ranks fourth among the world’s cotton-producing countries. Cotton is Pakistan’s largest cash crop and second only to wheat in terms of area sown. On average, the area under cotton has hovered around 3 million ha with nearly 80% of area and production coming from Punjab and 20% from Sindh. Cotton’s share in the value-added from major crops comes to 24% (GoP 2004). The textiles industry, which is Pakistan’s largest industry and a major source of employment in manufacturing depends on domestic cotton production for its supply of raw material. The cotton sector’s performance is crucial for not only the growth and development of agriculture and success of rural poverty alleviation efforts but also for robust growth of the overall economy. Cotton and textiles account for 65% of the country’s foreign exchange earnings. Its byproduct helps reduce Pakistan’s dependence on imports of edible oils and provides feed for livestock and dairy animals. The textile industry has grown significantly in recent years, expanding from 247 mills in 1990/91 to 361 in 2003/04 (GoP 2004). Cotton harvesting is a labor-intensive activity that is an important seasonal source of employment for rural women and children, providing incremental income to rural farm and nonfarm households. In view of their importance to the economy, cotton production and trade have been subject to a number of policy initiatives and government interventions. Over time, however, direct government interventions in the cotton sector have largely been phased out. A cotton support price is still announced by the GoP for each crop year, but production, processing, marketing, and trade-related activities for cotton are concentrated in the private sector, which undertakes imports and exports of cotton in response to market requirements. The GoP’s role in recent years has been limited to annual review and announcement of the support price of seed cotton and some procurement of cotton through the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP). Nominal and Real Domestic Cotton Prices Farmers’ incomes in Pakistan depend on domestic prices as well as on acreage and yield. Three factors that influence the domestic cotton price are: (i) world prices and the extent to which nominal domestic prices move in conjunction with world prices; (ii) inflation in Pakistan; and (iii) changes in the real (inflation-adjusted) exchange rate of the rupee/dollar. Table 3 shows the harvest-season market and government support prices of seed cotton between 1990/91 and 2004/05. Nominal support prices were revised upward in 11 years, and 5 substantially downward once, during the reference period. The average annual growth rate of nominal seed cotton prices during 1990/91 to 2004/05 was 10% compared to the average annual increase of 7.25% in the consumer price index (CPI). Correspondingly, the real value of support prices has trended upward since 1990/91. The nominal price of seed cotton in the domestic market during the reference period was also marked by large fluctuations. The overall mean value of the nominal domestic price of seed cotton for the period under review was PRs730/40 kg, with a coefficient of variation of 34.39%. Table 3: Support and Market Prices of Seed Cotton Nominal Price (PRs/40 kg) Real Price (PRs/40 kg) Year CPI Support Price Market Price Support Price Market Price 1990/91 245 327 43.20 567 758 1991/92 280 334 47.41 591 704 1992/93 300 384 52.07 576 737 1993/94 315 497 57.94 544 858 1994/95 400 785 65.48 611 1,198 1995/96 400 754 72.60 551 1,039 1996/97 500 793 81.11 616 978 1997/98 500 843 87.45 572 964 1998/99 -- 914 92.46 -- 989 1999/2000 -- 641 95.78 -- 669 2000/01 725 900 100.00 725 900 2001/02 780 761 103.54 753 735 2002/03 800 914 106.75 749 857 2003/04 850 1,219 111.63 761 1,092 2004/05 925 885 121.99 758 725 CPI = consumer price index. Note: Real prices are expressed in terms of 2000/01 rupees (PRs). Sources: Market prices are an average of the prices in important producer area markets during the cotton harvest season, and are taken from various reports of the Agricultural Prices Commission and Pakistan Central Cotton Committee. Support prices are adapted from policy reports of the Agricultural Prices Commission and Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Economics. No support price for seed cotton was fixed for the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 crops, while that for the 2000/01 crop was announced by the federal Ministry of Commerce in its Cotton Policy. The CPI is taken from the Pakistan Economic Survey 2004–05 and adjusted in light of the 9.28% inflation reported for 2004/05 in Dawn (16 August 2005). As shown in Table 3, except in 2 recent years (2001/02 and 2004/05), market prices have been higher than support prices. In those years, as market prices fell, the GoP tried to maintain prices above the support price level by procuring cotton lint through the TCP. The TCP procured from the market 0.203 million bales in 2001/02 and 1.6 million bales in 2004/05, but 6 these interventions, notwithstanding their positive impact on market sentiment, failed to sustain the support price announced by the GoP as the price received by cotton growers. In 1999/2000, no support price was agreed on and announced by the GoP; moreover, there was a change in government on 12 October 1999, the middle of the cotton season. The new government took time to design the required policy framework and institutional arrangements for market intervention. In the meantime, international prices continued to fall, exerting downward pressure on domestic prices. The textile industry, taking advantage of low international prices, arranged for substantial imports of cotton from abroad, which also depressed the domestic market price. The market price of seed cotton in the 1999/2000 crop season thus averaged only 70% of the previous year’s level. The nominal domestic market price of seed cotton can also be compared to the nominal world prices implied by the export and import parity prices (border prices) of cotton lint. As estimated from the prices of Index B cottons the import and export parity prices of seed cotton also vary considerably (Table 4 and Figure 2; see the ADB Background Paper 8 for technical discussion of the parity prices). The average value of export parity prices between 1990/91 and 2004/05 comes to PRs733/40 kg, with a coefficient of variation of 31.13%. The average value of import parity prices during this period comes to PRs976/40 kg, with a coefficient of variation of 28.59%. The average increase in nominal export parity price of seed cotton, worked back from the international price of Index B cottons and expressed in rupees, is estimated at 5.52% per year. In contrast, the nominal price of Index B cottons (in $) is estimated to have decreased by minus 2.54% per year on average for the reference period. These opposite trends illustrate the effect of substantial inflation in Pakistan on nominal seed cotton price levels. Comparison of export parity prices with the corresponding domestic market prices of seed cotton shows that the two price series generally track closely together (Figure 2). Even so, in 7 out of 15 years, export parity prices were higher. Import parity prices areon average 25– 35% higher than export parity prices (Table 4 and Figure 2). A comparison of domestic prices with import parity prices indicates that the price of imported cotton was substantially higher than the domestic price. Accordingly, the coefficient of nominal protection, estimated using the import parity price, is always less than one and by a considerable margin. Generally, years in which substantial quantities of cotton were exported are characterized by higher export and 7 import parity prices while those with considerable imports have been years of lower parity prices. Table 4: Domestic and International Nominal and Real Prices of Seed Cotton Nominal Price (PRs/40 kg) Real Price (PRs/40 kg) Year Market Export Parity Import Market Export Import Price Price Parity Price Price Parity Price Parity Price CPI 1990/91 327 473 592 43.20 758 1,096 1,370 1991/92 334 408 503 47.41 704 861 1,061 1992/93 384 385 495 52.07 737 739 951 1993/94 497 527 772 57.94 858 910 1,332 1994/95 785 711 1,045 65.48 1,198 1,086 1,596 1995/96 754 875 995 72.55 1,039 1,206 1,371 1996/97 793 877 1,085 81.11 978 1,082 1,338 1997/98 843 838 1,069 87.45 964 959 1,222 1997/98 914 782 1,030 92.46 989 846 1,114 1999/2000 641 599 989 95.78 669 625 1,033 2000/01 900 981 1,184 100.00 900 981 1,184 2001/02 761 633 971 103.54 735 611 938 2002/03 914 816 1,239 106.75 857 764 1,161 2003/04 1,219 1,198 1,477 111.63 1,092 1,073 1,323 2004/05 885 886 1,180 121.99 725 726 967 CPI = consumer price index. Note: Real prices are expressed in terms of 200/01 rupees (PRs). The export parity price is the harvest season average, and import parity price is the annual average, based on international prices of Index B cottons. Source: Cotton Outlook, various issues for Index B cotton prices. While nominal domestic prices track export parity prices relatively closely, the real price of cotton (adjusted for domestic inflation) depicts more realistically price levels affecting the purchasing power and economic well-being of cotton farmers. Real market prices of seed cotton in Pakistan and real export and import parity prices of seed cotton are compared in Table 4 and Figure 3. The real cotton price in Pakistan dropped in the late 1990s—a similar pattern to world prices in US dollars—but the decline in real prices in Pakistan was moderated by real depreciation of the rupee, which raised the value of world prices in domestic currency. In real terms (adjusted for inflation in Pakistan and the US), the rupee depreciated by 32.5% between 1994/95 and 2001/02. Due to this real depreciation, the real domestic market price of cotton declined by 38.7% between 1994/95 and 2001/02, compared to the world price decline of 64.7% 8