Sector Level Analysis of Alternative Payment Limits Patrick Westhoff September 22, 2003

advertisement

Sector Level Analysis of

Alternative Payment Limits

Patrick Westhoff

September 22, 2003 www.fapri.missouri.edu

Stricter payment limitations scenario policy assumptions

• Each Census of Agriculture farm operation can receive no more than:

− $40,000 in direct payments

− $60,000 in counter-cyclical payments

− $175,000 in marketing loan benefits

• No generic certificates, loan defaults, or paper reorganizations to avoid limits

• Stylized scenario—does NOT reflect specific legislation

Other assumptions underlying the analysis

Farm consolidation has continued since

1997 Census

Effects of limits on CCPs and LDPs depend on prices

Producers will find ways to adapt to limitations over time

Assumptions and modeling approach are explained more fully in report

Effects at 2004 baseline prices if producers do not adjust to limits (from

Table 1 in the report)

Rice

Cotton

Sorghum

Wheat

Corn

Soybeans

% of farms w/ limited payments

44%

23%

3%

1%

2%

2%

% of prod.

on limited farms

77%

62%

23%

14%

14%

14%

% of prod.

ineligible for paym’t

39%

30%

8%

6%

6%

4%

Type of payment limited

Direct

CCP

Direct

Direct

Direct

Direct

FAPRI estimates based on projected farm distributions, crop mixes, and payment rates.

Proportion of cotton crop ineligible for payments if producers do not adjust (Fig. 1)

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

0.25

0.28

0.31

0.34

0.37

0.40

0.43

0.46

0.49

0.52

0.55

0.58

0.61

0.64

Cotton farm price, $/lb.

Direct Payments Counter-cyclical Payments Loan Deficiency Payments

FAPRI estimates based on projected farm distributions, crop mixes, and payment rates.

Proportion of production ineligible for

2004 payments if producers do not adjust to limits (Table 2)

Cotton

Rice

Corn

Soybeans

Wheat

Sorghum

Direct payments

25.7%

39.0%

5.7%

4.4%

6.5%

7.8%

Countercyclical payments

26.7%

19.8%

3.4%

2.4%

4.7%

5.7%

Figures represent average of FAPRI results for 500 alternative futures.

Loan deficiency payments

4.8%

8.5%

0.6%

0.5%

0.2%

1.4%

Effects of stricter limits on 2004 area planted and prices (Table 3)

Crop

Cotton

Rice

Corn

Soybeans

Wheat

Sorghum

6 Crops

Change in area (mil. a.)

-0.51

-0.25

0.01

0.11

-0.02

0.06

-0.61

Change in area (%)

Change in price ($)

-3.66% 0.011/lb.

-7.92% 0.399/cwt

Change in price (%)

2.30%

8.23%

0.01% -0.001/bu.

-0.04%

0.15% -0.008/bu.

-0.17%

-0.04% 0.002/bu.

0.05%

0.61% -0.004/bu.

-0.19%

-0.25%

Figures represent average of FAPRI results for 500 alternative futures.

Effects of stricter payment limits on cotton and rice area (Fig. 2)

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Crop Year

Cotton Rice

Figures represent average of FAPRI results for 500 alternative futures.

Effects of stricter payment limits on 2004 cotton area at different prices (Table 4)

2003 cotton price

Under 40 cents/lb.

40-50 cents/lb.

Over 50 cents/lb.

Change in 2004 cotton area

-1.17 mil. a.

-0.51 mil. a.

-0.22 mil. a.

Figures represent the average of 2004 area results for each price category from FAPRI’s analysis of 500 alternative futures.

Possible impacts on other crops

(from NFAPP at ASU)

• Planting flexibility provisions

Deters entry into produce sectors

• Payment limitations

Induces entry into produce sector?

• Pros: Already, long term transition from cotton to produce (California); higher returns in produce.

• Cons: More volatile returns in produce; high startup costs; lengthy establishment periods; contract production

Possible impacts on other crops (from

NFAPP at ASU)

• Possible entry into produce

Cotton growing regions – California,

Arizona, Georgia

• Similar climatic requirements; existing infrastructure

• Will it occur?

• Potential impact

− Likely very modest…

Effects of stricter limits on average FY

2004-12 government farm program outlays (Table 3)

Crop

Cotton

Rice

Corn

Soybeans

Wheat

Sorghum

Total CCC,

Conservation

Baseline

($ mil./yr.)

2,513

1,142

5,304

2,044

2,124

413

19,952

Limits

($ mil./yr.)

2,321

1,044

5,225

2,032

2,084

404

19,520

Change

($ mil./yr.)

Change

(%)

-192 -7.63%

-98 -8.60%

-79 -1.49%

-12 -0.59%

-40 -1.89%

-9 -2.11%

-431 -2.16%

Figures represent average of FAPRI results for 500 alternative futures.

Effects of stricter limits on average

2004-12 farm income and land values

(Table 3)

Crop Baseline

($ mil./yr.)

Limits

($ mil./yr.)

Change

($ mil./yr.)

Change

(%)

Payments

Crop sales

Other income

Rental costs

Other costs

Net farm inc.

Land value ($/a., end of yr.)

17,648

112,767

138,446

14,108

205,316

49,437

17,213

112,761

138,423

13,998

205,202

49,198

-435

-6

-22

-110

-114

-238

-2.47%

-0.01%

-0.02%

-0.78%

-0.06%

-0.48%

1,485.32

1,479.55

-5.78

-0.39%

Figures represent average of FAPRI results for 500 alternative futures.

Concluding comments

Effects of payment limits are hard to estimate—many uncertainties

This analysis is of a stylized limitation—not of specific legislation

FAPRI tries to provide useful information, but does not support or oppose proposals

For more information, see full report at www.fapri.missouri.edu

Download