philippine statistics authority and marketing of agricultural... · prices and marketing of...

PRICES AND MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Philippine Statistics Authority 16TH FLOOR, ETON CYBERPOD CENTRIS 3,

EDSA CORNER QUEZON AVENUE, BRGY. PINYAHAN, QUEZON CITY MACROECONOMIC ACCOUNTS SERVICE AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNTS DIVISION

Tel. No. 376-1954

[email protected]

https://www.psa.gov.ph/



TERMS OF USE Agricultural Indicators System (AIS) is a publication of the Philippine Statistics Authority. The PSA reserves exclusive right to reproduce this publication in whatever form. Should any portion of this publication be included in a report/article, the title of the publication and the PSA should be cited as the source of the data. The PSA will not be responsible for any information derived from the processing of data contained in this publication.

ISSN-2012-0435 DECEMBER 2016



MODULES OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS SYSTEM

1. Agricultural Structures and Resources

2. Agricultural Credit

3. Output and Productivity

4. Economic Growth: Agriculture

5. Food Sufficiency and Security

6. Food Consumption and Nutrition

7. Agricultural Exports and Imports

8. Redistribution of Land

9. Population and Labor Force

10. Prices and Marketing of Agricultural Commodities

11. Gender-based Indicators of Labor and Employment in Agriculture 12. Inputs

i



TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii 16

Table 5b.Farm - retail price gap of selected agricultural commodities, Philippines, 2011-2015(in percent)

COMMODITIES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015P

CerealsRice 151 137 138 127 165Corn grain, yellow 66 73 90 63 72Corn grain, white 32 48 37 57 78

Vegetables & LegumesGarlic 69 111 142 61 153Ginger 145 203 143 102 101Onion, Red Creole 64 49 95 89 121Cabbage 196 242 240 233 196Pechay, native 150 158 151 146 151Ampalaya 107 101 106 120 103Eggplant 106 117 134 125 144Squash 140 139 157 162 154Tomato 190 199 187 205 190Carrots 163 204 199 166 164Gabi 177 186 195 200 171White potato 126 130 108 149 180Sweet potato 112 121 131 115 122Habitchuelas 176 169 166 169 173Mongo 52 65 53 58 53Peanut with shell, dry 67 78 70 65 55Stringbeans 110 118 108 109 107

FruitsBanana Lakatan 129 128 122 167 166Calamansi 110 138 174 132 163Mango carabao ripe 124 128 132 138 162Pineapple, Hawaiian 139 122 136 115 116

P - preliminary

FOREWORD i

LIST OF TABLES iii


Table 1a. Palay: production and percentage of produce marketed by region,Philippines, 2011-2015 6

Table 1b. Corn: production and percentage of produce marketed by region,Philippines, 2011-2015 7

Table 2a. Palay procurement: level and percentage distribution by region,Philippines, 2011-2015 8

Table 2b. Rice injection: level and percentage distribution by region,Philippines, 2011-2015 9

Table 3. Producer price index for agriculture, Philippines, 2011-2015 10

Table 4a. Consumer price index by item, Philippines, 2011-2015 13

Table 4b. Consumer price index by month, Philippines, 2015 14

Table 5a. Farm-wholesale price gap of selected agricultural commodities,Philippines, 2011-2015 15

Table 5b. Farm-retail price gap of selected agricultural commodities,Philippines, 2011-2015 16

Table 6. Producer's share in consumer peso, selected agricultural commodities, Philippines, 2011-2015 17



14

Tabl

e 4b

.Co

nsum

er p

rice

inde

x by

mon

th, P

hilip

pine

s, 20

15(2

006=

100)

(in p

erce

nt)

ITEM

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Ave

All I

tem

s14

1.0

141.

214

1.0

141.

314

1.2

141.

314

1.5

141.

714

1.4

141.

614

2.3

142.

614

1.5

Food

and

Non

-Alc

ohol

ic B

ever

ages

157.

515

6.9

156.

315

6.5

156.

415

6.3

156.

915

7.6

157.

315

7.5

159.

115

9.0

157.

3Al

coho

lic B

ever

ages

and

Tob

acco

179.

718

0.6

181.

218

1.5

181.

818

2.1

182.

518

2.6

182.

718

3.2

184.

918

6.4

182.

4Cl

othi

ng a

nd F

ootw

ear

135.

013

5.5

135.

713

5.8

135.

913

6.2

136.

513

6.6

136.

613

6.8

137.

213

7.5

136.

3Ho

usin

g, W

ater

, Ele

ctri

city

, Gas

,an

d O

ther

Fue

ls12

8.6

129.

713

0.0

130.

713

0.2

129.

412

9.4

128.

812

7.9

127.

912

8.0

128.

312

9.1

Furn

ishi

ng, H

ouse

hold

Equ

ipm

ent a

nd

Rout

ine

Mai

nten

ance

of t

he H

ouse

130.

013

0.3

130.

413

0.7

130.

813

0.9

131.

013

1.1

131.

213

1.3

131.

513

1.7

130.

9He

alth

138.

413

8.6

138.

713

8.7

138.

913

9.0

139.

513

9.5

139.

613

9.9

140.

214

0.4

139.

3Tr

ansp

ort

125.

812

7.1

127.

512

7.5

127.

912

8.1

127.

912

7.3

127.

512

7.8

127.

712

8.8

127.

6Co

mm

unic

atio

n92

.792

.692

.692

.692

.692

.692

.792

.792

.792

.792

.792

.792

.7Re

crea

tion

and

Cultu

re11

4.7

114.

911

4.9

115.

011

5.0

115.

311

5.4

115.

511

5.6

115.

611

5.8

115.

911

5.3

Educ

atio

n15

2.6

152.

615

2.6

152.

615

2.6

157.

915

8.0

158.

115

8.1

158.

115

8.1

158.

115

5.8

Rest

aura

nt a

nd M

isce

llane

ous

Good

san

d Se

rvic

es12

9.5

129.

612

9.7

129.

812

9.8

130.

013

0.2

130.

313

0.4

130.

613

1.0

131.

213

0.2



1 12

Marketed Volume of Palay and Corn The “marketed volume of farmers’ produce” is an indicator that provides a measure of the farmers’ level of operation on the quantity of the agricultural production that is sold by the farmers for a given period. The total marketed volume of palay as a proportion to the total palay production slightly increased to 59.86 percent in 2015 from 59.75 percent in 2014. Nine out of the 16 regions exhibited increasing proportions in 2015. Cagayan Valley registered the biggest proportion of marketed palay at 74.20 percent. About 65 to 69 percent of the palay harvests were sold by the farmers in Northern Mindanao, Zamboanga Peninsula, ARMM and Davao Region. In contrast, the least proportion at around 40.0 percent was noted each in Western, Central and Eastern Visayas (Table 1a). In the case of corn, the proportion of the country’s production that was sold declined to 82.03 percent in 2015 from the 2014 record of 83.50 percent. By region, the highest proportion of the marketed volume of corn was still reported in Ilocos Region at 99.65 percent. This was followed by Central Luzon at 97.08 percent, Cagayan Valley at 96.33 percent and CAR at 95.00 percent. In ARMM, about 90.71 percent of the region’s harvests were marketed. On the other hand, Central and Eastern Visayas indicated the smallest proportions at 21.99 percent and 21.75 percent, respectively (Table 1b).

Government Procurement and Injection of Palay Government plays an important role in the marketing of palay through its procurement and injection programs. Procurement refers to the volume of government purchases directly from the farmers and farmers’ organizations at support price. This is being done to stabilize consumer price and to have continuous supply of the commodity. On the other hand, injection is the distribution by the government in the market through direct selling to end-user or to accredited outlets. The indicators of government procurement and injection show the extent of government intervention in palay marketing. In 2015, the volume of palay procurement reached 227,935 metric tons nationwide. This was nearly nine times higher than the 2014 record of 26,481 metric tons. At the regional level, palay procurement remained biggest in MIMAROPA at 97,486 metric tons in 2015. This accounted for 42.77 percent of the national palay procurement. About 10 to 14 percent

Table 3Producer Price Index… (continued)

Commodity 2013 2014 2015

Pomelo 141.1 127.2 148.0Rambutan 127.5 117.4 124.2Watermelon 124.1 136.5 150.8

Commercial Crops 138.6 173.5 154.0Abaca 108.4 124.3 135.5Cacao, dry beans 107.6 146.2 156.0Coconut, green, young (buko) 247.9 282.4 298.2Coconut, matured 157.8 210.6 191.6Coffee, Arabica, dry beans 145.6 155.6 187.3Coffee, Excelsa, dry beans 160.0 167.8 180.8Coffee, Robusta, dry beans 148.7 166.8 164.3Pili nut, with hull 153.7 149.4 143.1Rubber, Cuplump 111.5 71.7 56.3Sugarcane Centrifugal, sugar 120.9 119.7 136.1Tobacco, Burley, dry 109.3 173.9 177.3Tobacco, Native, dry 133.4 107.7 106.4Tobacco, Virginia, dry 138.7 163.9 139.8

Livestock 138.0 147.1 141.7Carabao for slaughter 140.4 200.3 150.1Cattle for slaughter 130.8 135.7 138.3Goat for slaughter 153.2 163.0 165.4Hogs, upgraded for slaughter 138.2 145.0 140.8

Poultry 124.4 134.1 134.0Chicken Broiler, backyard 111.0 113.2 119.1Chicken Broiler, commercial 116.4 128.4 120.2Chicken egg, other breed, backyard 149.6 162.7 158.3Chicken egg, other breed, commercial 126.9 134.5 135.2Chicken Layer culls 95.4 135.1 179.0Chicken native/improved 140.5 144.4 144.7Duck egg, backyard 148.8 163.1 165.8Duck egg, commercial 135.8 138.0 138.7Duck for meat, backyard 142.3 148.1 154.8Duck for meat, commercial 128.5 155.0 136.3

Fishery 127.6 132.3 129.5Bangus 137.9 142.7 143.0Seaweed 147.2 156.9 122.6Tigerprawn 106.8 108.1 112.4Tilapia 126.8 132.7 131.7

ALL ITEMS 141.0 156.1 147.1



42.77 percent of the national palay procurement. About 10 to 14 percent shares on palay procurement were noted in Western Visayas, Bicol Region and Central Luzon ranging from 23,834 to 33,786 metric tons. Nine regions indicated shares of less than one (1) percent each. Of these regions, Central Visayas and ARMM had the lowest volume of procurement at 27 metric tons and 76 metric tons, respectively (Table 2a). The country’s volume of rice injection was reduced to 942,656 metric tons in 2015, lower by 28 percent from the 2014 level of 1,316,599 metric tons. The biggest rice injection was continuously reported in NCR at 203,742 metric tons, comprising almost one fifth of the total volume of rice sold or distributed in 2015. About 12 percent share or 112,200 metric tons of rice were sold by the government in Central Visayas. Rice injection in the regions of Central Luzon, CALABARZON, Bicol Region and Davao Region contributed 6.94 percent to 9.07 percent equivalent to 65,436 metric tons to 85,469 metric tons of rice. On the other hand, Caraga with 6,691 metric tons of rice sold registered the smallest share at 0.71 percent of the national rice injection (Table 2b).

Producer Price Index (PPI) The PPI describes the movement of farm prices by commodity and commodity groups in a given year compared to a base year (2006). On the average, the prices received by farmers for their produce decreased as PPI for agriculture dropped to 147.1 percent in 2015. This indicates that the average farm price in 2015 was 47.1 percentage points higher than base year record. In 2015, the average PPI of cereals contracted to 157.9 percent. Specifically, PPI of palay went down to 166.0 percent while PPIs of yellow corn and white corn slid to 131.9 percent and 144.5 percent, respectively. PPI of vegetables and legumes increased to 131.1 percent in 2015. Majority of the vegetables and legumes exhibited an upward trend. Ginger Hawaiian recorded the biggest PPI which increased to 672.2 percent in 2015 or more than six times higher than the price in 672.2 percent in 2015 or more than six times higher than the price in 2006 base year. This was followed by asparagus with PPI going down to 666.1 percent. Ginger native and black pepper came next as their respective PPIs surged to 549.2 percent and 471.0 percent. Declining and

11 2


Commodity 2013 2014 2015

Pepper finger, green 120.5 114.1 124.3Squash 127.5 131.5 139.6Stringbeans 123.6 129.8 144.0Sweet peas, baguio 144.6 114.8 109.9Tomato 120.2 93.2 110.6Upo 138.1 138.7 144.3

Rootcrops and Tubers 147.2 131.0 127.1Carrots 107.3 104.0 145.5Cassava, fresh tubers 148.7 120.9 105.7Gabi Cebu 125.3 148.7 169.7Gabi Tagalog 202.6 202.8 210.2Radish 170.8 162.3 178.3Sweet Potato 153.1 167.0 181.9Turnips 150.6 169.5 258.2Ube 87.5 141.3 202.4White/Irish Potato 149.6 123.4 109.6

Fruits 146.9 155.2 160.6Avocado 98.8 176.4 151.0Banana, Bungulan, green 180.0 218.3 225.2Banana, Lakatan, green 190.1 207.6 211.7Banana, Latundan, green 146.1 164.8 169.1Banana, Saba, green 184.7 184.4 187.4Calamansi 142.8 159.5 144.3Durian 78.2 78.2 83.2Guapple 147.5 155.3 151.3Jackfruit, ripe 116.5 126.5 129.3Lanzones 81.2 112.0 97.4Mandarin, Ladu 91.3 111.0 115.1Mandarin, Szinkom 135.7 135.6 139.1Mango, carabao, green 110.1 107.0 118.9Mango, indian, green 120.4 124.1 111.8Mango, piko, green 106.2 117.4 133.9Papaya, Hawaiian 105.0 142.3 126.3Papaya, native 84.6 88.6 97.5Papaya, solo 237.7 249.0 248.7Pineapple, Hawaiian 165.2 183.0 188.7



respective PPIs surged to 549.2 percent and 471.0 percent. Declining and below the 2006 price levels were noted only for onion native and onion red creole in 2015. For root crops and tubers, PPI dropped to an average of 127.1 percent. All the crops under this commodity group exhibited PPIs at more than 100 percent. The highest and increasing PPIs were noted in turnips at 258.2 percent, gabi tagalog at 210.2 percent and ube at 202.4 percent.

Fruits posted the highest PPI among the commodity groups which reached 160.6 percent in 2015. PPI of papaya solo topped, however, it decreased to 248.7 percent. Green banana lakatan and bungulan came next with corresponding PPIs increasing to 211.7 percent and 225.2 percent. Less than 100 percent PPIs were observed for durian, lanzones and papaya native. The average PPI of commercial crops declined to 154.0 percent in 2015. Green and young coconut (buko) reported the highest PPI which hiked to 298.2 percent. Except for rubber cuplump, all the reference commercial crops registered PPIs above 100 percent of which most of these crops exhibited decreasing PPIs in 2015. The 2015 PPIs of livestock and poultry products were going down to 141.7 percent and 134.0 percent, respectively. For livestock products, PPI was lowest for cattle at 138.3 percent and highest for goat at 165.4 percent. Both products showed increasing PPIs. Poultry products had PPIs ranging from 119.1 percent for chicken broiler backyard to 179.0 percent for chicken layer culls. Majority of the poultry products exhibited uptrends. PPI of fishery in 2015 decreased to an average of 129.5 percent. Low PPI was recorded for tiger prawn at 112.4 percent while it was high for bangus at 143.0 percent (Table 3).

Consumer Price Index (CPI) The CPI allows comparison of the changes in the average retail prices of the different groups of the commodities commonly consumed by the households.

3 10

6

Table 3Producer Price Index for Agriculture, Philippines, 2013-2015(2006=100)(in percent)

Commodity 2013 2014 2015

Cereals 156.1 179.6 157.9Palay, other variety, dry 14% mc 163.5 192.5 166.0Corngrain, matured, yellow 127.8 140.0 131.9Corngrain, matured, white 151.7 151.3 144.5

Vegetables and Legumes 121.1 123.9 131.1Ampalaya 115.5 106.4 128.8Asparagus 663.3 686.2 666.1Banana Blossom 174.4 187.5 142.3Cabbage 110.8 124.7 166.1Camote tops 136.3 144.7 157.6Cauliflower 163.3 168.7 178.5Chayote 106.4 101.2 150.3Cucumber 119.2 116.5 129.6Eggplant long, purple 108.4 124.3 112.9Garlic 59.0 125.8 102.5Ginger, Hawaiian 248.1 619.7 672.2Ginger, native 201.2 426.3 549.2Habitchuelas 115.3 116.2 128.5Kangkong 125.7 143.5 158.1Mongo, green (labo) 142.2 154.4 167.1Mongo, green (shiny) 138.6 162.7 163.8Mongo, yellow (shiny) 142.8 150.5 151.7Okra 117.8 118.9 139.2Onion Leeks 205.2 166.6 218.8Onion, native (red shallot) 157.9 124.5 80.7Onion, red creole (bermuda Red) 71.1 78.8 63.4Patola, baguio 136.4 138.2 137.6Patola, native 154.8 143.6 166.6Peanut, with shell, dry 152.5 158.3 173.4Peanut, with shell, fresh 156.0 167.9 166.6Peanut, without shell, dry 183.9 182.1 180.6Pechay, baguio 138.9 149.9 197.9Pechay, native 152.5 159.9 159.1Pepper bell, red and green 152.1 124.9 147.1Pepper black 238.2 341.0 471.0



From 2011 to 2015, CPI for all items continuously increased from 126.1 percent to 141.5 percent. It indicates that in 2015, the average price paid by the consumers for all items was 41.5 index points higher than the 2006 price level. Throughout these years, the CPIs of all the commodity groups, except communication, were on the uptrend and sustained above the 2006 record. Alcoholic beverages and tobacco remained with the highest CPI at 182.4 percent in 2015. This was followed by food and non-alcoholic beverages at 157.3 percent and education at 155.8 percent. The least CPI was still registered for recreation and culture at 115.3 percent (Table 4a). In 2015, the monthly CPI for all items moved up and down. It ranged from 141.0 percent in January to 142.6 percent in December. The month-on-month CPIs for alcoholic beverages and tobacco showed continuous increase from 179.7 percent in January to 186.4 percent in December. For food and non-alcoholic beverages, the monthly CPIs exhibited fluctuating trend with January having the lowest CPI at 157.5 percent and December the highest at 159.0 percent (Table 4b).

Price Gap Price gaps or mark ups of the different agricultural crops between the farmgate and the wholesale and retail levels indicate the formation of prices and the shares of market participants in the prices paid by the consumers. The farm-wholesale price gap of rice recovered from its downtrend in 2014. It went up from 115 percent in 2014 to 147 percent in 2015. This indicates that the price mark-up of rice from farm to wholesale level was 147 percent of the farm price. Similarly, widening of price gap was noted for corn; 29 percent for yellow corn and 8 percent for white corn. Majority of the reference vegetables posted increasing farm-wholesale price gaps in 2015. The biggest increments in price gap were reported in garlic and onion red creole which rose to 81 percent and 61 percent, respectively. The highest but decreasing farm-wholesale price gap in 2015 was recorded for gabi at 134 percent. On the other hand, the smallest price gap was noted for mongo green labo at 22 percent. In the case of fruits, increasing price gaps were noted in calamansi at 64 percent, mango at 46 percent and pineapple at 43 percent. Banana lakatan indicated the biggest gap which dropped to 103 percent (Table 5a).

9 4

Tab

le 2

b.

Ric

e in

ject

ion

: le

vel p

erc

en

tage

dis

trib

uti

on

by

regi

on

, Ph

ilip

pin

es,

20

11

-20

15

(Le

vel i

n m

etr

ic t

on

s)

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

Ph

ilip

pin

es1

,11

3,3

94

10

07

66

,23

11

00

75

8,6

57

10

01

,31

6,5

99

10

09

42

,65

61

00

NC

R2

47

,50

12

2.2

31

98

,44

42

5.9

01

54

,99

42

0.4

33

23

,82

82

4.6

02

03

,74

22

1.6

1C

AR

20

,59

51

.85

11

,71

21

.53

16

,44

82

.17

35

,50

62

.70

21

,55

52

.29

Ilo

cos

Reg

ion

54

,66

34

.91

30

,75

64

.01

52

,35

96

.90

71

,33

85

.42

43

,40

04

.60

Ca

gaya

n V

all

ey2

5,6

69

2.3

11

1,0

12

1.4

41

6,9

34

2.2

32

8,8

17

2.1

92

0,9

22

2.2

2C

entr

al

Luzo

n1

15

,88

31

0.4

17

2,0

13

9.4

06

6,9

88

8.8

31

21

,76

89

.25

85

,46

99

.07

CA

LAB

AR

ZON

10

0,8

39

9.0

67

5,4

13

9.8

47

0,6

76

9.3

21

27

,12

09

.66

81

,99

58

.70

MIM

AR

OP

A5

3,8

69

4.8

44

9,6

47

6.4

86

8,4

86

9.0

34

9,2

18

3.7

45

6,1

88

5.9

6B

ico

l R

egio

n9

3,3

22

8.3

84

9,8

75

6.5

14

1,1

81

5.4

39

8,2

54

7.4

66

8,5

07

7.2

7W

este

rn V

isa

yas

26

,06

42

.34

45

,68

55

.96

35

,34

74

.66

76

,88

45

.84

29

,00

03

.08

Cen

tra

l V

isa

yas

63

,41

45

.70

32

,33

84

.22

54

,61

67

.20

12

3,8

65

9.4

11

12

,20

01

1.9

0Ea

ster

n V

isa

yas

58

,82

15

.28

40

,74

85

.32

37

,15

64

.90

52

,26

43

.97

50

,04

65

.31

Zam

bo

an

ga P

enin

sula

50

,49

84

.54

26

,37

53

.44

27

,83

43

.67

45

,45

43

.45

25

,22

02

.68

No

rth

ern

Min

da

na

o5

9,3

88

5.3

33

0,2

18

3.9

42

0,8

13

2.7

43

3,4

05

2.5

42

5,2

36

2.6

8D

ava

o R

egio

n6

7,1

79

6.0

33

9,8

50

5.2

03

5,8

86

4.7

36

3,2

97

4.8

16

5,4

36

6.9

4SO

CC

SKSA

RG

EN3

7,1

58

3.3

41

7,4

67

2.2

82

2,0

72

2.9

13

4,3

71

2.6

12

5,9

83

2.7

6C

ara

ga2

5,4

44

2.2

92

3,5

06

3.0

71

5,3

15

2.0

29

,93

50

.75

6,6

91

0.7

1A

RM

M1

3,0

88

1.1

81

1,1

73

1.4

62

1,5

54

2.8

42

1,2

76

1.6

22

1,0

67

2.2

3

20

14

20

15

REG

ION

20

11

20

12

20

13



For the farm-retail price gap, rice recorded a significant increase to 165 percent in 2015. Price gaps of yellow and white corn widened to 72 percent and 78 percent, respectively. Narrowing of the farm-retail prices gaps were reported in most reference vegetables. Cabbage had the biggest price gap which declined remarkedly to 196 percent. This was followed by tomato and gabi with corresponding price gaps going down to 190 percent and 171 percent. The widest gain in price gap was posted by garlic at 153 percent and white potato at 180 percent. Peanut and mongo continued to register lower farm-retail price gap which slid to 55 percent and 53 percent, respectively. For fruits, price gap of banana went down to 166 percent in 2015. Price gaps of calamansi, mango and pineapple posted increases to 163 percent, 162 percent and 116 percent, respectively (Table 5b).

Producer’s Share in Consumer Peso

This indicator presents the proportion of the prices received by the farmers to the final price of the commodity. It gives a measure of the share of the producers compared to the share of the traders. It also indicates which commodity gives the farmer, the bigger share. In 2015, the share of rice producer to the commodity’s retail price went down to 38 percent. Reduced shares were noted for yellow and white corn farmers at 58 percent and 56 percent, respectively. Similar trend was likewise reported for coconut producers whose share dropped to 31 percent in 2015. Increasing shares of growers were reported in majority of the reference vegetables and legumes. Peanut farmers still enjoyed higher share but this was reduced to 75 percent in 2015. The share of mongo growers went up to 65 percent. There was a notable reduction in the share of garlic producer which slid to 40 percent. The lowest producers’ shares were registered for cabbage, tomato, white potato, gabi and habitchuelas ranging from 34 to 37 percent. In the case of fruits, growers of calamansi, mango, papaya and pineapple exhibited reduction in their shares to the final price ranging from 38 percent to 46 percent (Table 6).

5 8

Tab

le 2

a.P

alay

pro

cure

me

nt:

leve

l an

d p

erc

en

tage

dis

trib

uti

on

by

regi

on

,P

hili

pp

ine

s, 2

01

1-2

01

5(L

eve

l in

me

tric

to

ns)

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

Ph

ilip

pin

es2

74

,98

11

00

36

0,8

82

10

03

65

,58

21

00

26

,48

11

00

22

7,9

35

10

0

CA

R4

29

0.1

66

,09

91

.69

5,0

71

1.3

93

30

.12

2,6

30

1.1

5Il

oco

s R

egio

n1

7,1

96

6.2

54

9,5

08

13

.72

21

,18

45

.79

2,0

39

7.7

01

2,4

96

5.4

8C

aga

yan

Va

lley

22

,16

88

.06

48

,54

41

3.4

54

3,6

95

11

.95

11

40

.43

21

,61

59

.48

Cen

tra

l Lu

zon

15

,36

05

.59

55

,30

21

5.3

27

8,4

94

21

.47

55

62

.10

33

,78

61

4.8

2C

ALA

BA

RZO

N2

,83

51

.03

2,0

50

0.5

74

,83

51

.32

96

33

.64

2,1

36

0.9

4M

IMA

RO

PA

13

5,6

15

49

.32

12

8,6

64

35

.65

10

9,7

22

30

.01

11

,76

34

4.4

29

7,4

86

42

.77

Bic

ol

Reg

ion

34

,05

91

2.3

92

6,7

97

7.4

32

9,8

72

8.1

71

,11

24

.20

28

,86

41

2.6

6W

este

rn V

isa

yas

37

,96

61

3.8

12

7,0

80

7.5

02

2,0

70

6.0

45

,99

82

2.6

52

3,8

34

10

.46

Cen

tra

l V

isa

yas

42

0.0

21

06

0.0

33

67

0.1

06

80

.26

27

0.0

1Ea

ster

n V

isa

yas

1,1

88

0.4

31

,42

10

.39

7,4

60

2.0

41

,28

14

.84

1,2

31

0.5

4Za

mb

oa

nga

Pen

insu

la1

,44

30

.52

1,3

09

0.3

64

,96

71

.36

75

32

.84

30

00

.13

No

rth

ern

Min

da

na

o3

44

0.1

31

,38

10

.38

3,6

28

0.9

96

67

2.5

25

81

0.2

5D

ava

o R

egio

n5

70

0.2

12

,34

50

.65

13

,73

23

.76

46

91

.77

1,0

35

0.4

5SO

CC

SKSA

RG

EN5

,45

11

.98

6,4

90

1.8

01

0,7

57

2.9

45

86

2.2

11

,19

60

.52

Ca

raga

31

60

.11

1,2

83

0.3

68

,83

22

.42

71

0.2

76

43

0.2

8A

RM

M-

-2

,50

40

.69

89

60

.25

80

.03

76

0.0

3

20

14

20

15

REG

ION

20

11

20

12

20

13



7 6

Tab

le 1

b.

Co

rn:

pro

du

ctio

n a

nd

pe

rce

nta

ge o

f p

rod

uce

mar

kete

d b

y re

gio

n,

Ph

ilip

pin

es,

20

11

-20

15

PR

OD

'N

%P

RO

D'N

%

PR

OD

'N

%P

RO

D'N

%

PR

OD

'N

%

Ph

ilip

pin

es6

,97

18

3.2

87

,40

78

2.2

87

,37

78

4.2

17

,77

18

3.5

07

,51

98

2.0

3

CA

R2

19

91

.95

22

58

6.7

22

42

92

.77

24

59

2.7

42

38

95

.00

Ilo

cos

Reg

ion

38

89

8.7

54

35

99

.24

44

89

9.2

64

77

98

.88

49

19

9.6

5C

aga

yan

Va

lley

1,6

02

93

.88

1,8

76

90

.05

1,7

14

94

.61

1,8

57

96

.00

1,8

01

96

.33

Cen

tra

l Lu

zon

18

89

6.8

72

11

89

.56

22

89

6.3

42

41

96

.43

27

19

7.0

8C

ALA

BA

RZO

N5

88

1.5

05

96

7.1

97

57

5.7

67

47

4.7

16

56

7.1

5M

IMA

RO

PA

84

89

.00

87

75

.86

10

57

7.6

91

08

80

.24

12

58

1.6

0B

ico

l R

egio

n2

15

89

.67

23

18

8.4

52

58

90

.80

28

69

0.2

02

44

86

.88

Wes

tern

Vis

aya

s3

10

76

.54

33

16

2.7

23

46

70

.54

36

87

6.5

13

50

66

.90

Cen

tra

l V

isa

yas

17

71

0.0

41

72

16

.22

17

31

8.0

21

64

20

.24

15

02

1.9

9Ea

ster

n V

isa

yas

84

47

.78

87

37

.43

89

43

.71

88

44

.22

91

21

.75

Zam

bo

an

ga P

enin

sula

20

03

9.4

12

11

35

.80

20

83

6.8

12

23

34

.40

22

04

2.3

3N

ort

her

n M

ind

an

ao

1,2

12

79

.16

1,2

29

82

.79

1,1

85

84

.12

1,1

97

80

.91

1,2

16

70

.84

Da

vao

Reg

ion

19

16

3.3

81

99

65

.16

22

76

4.8

82

80

64

.55

22

46

0.3

5SO

CC

SKSA

RG

EN1

,17

19

5.7

71

,20

19

0.7

51

,30

68

7.2

71

,33

88

2.9

41

,23

98

1.7

1C

ara

ga7

68

0.0

99

06

2.6

81

07

71

.18

12

57

5.2

01

19

80

.86

AR

MM

79

77

1.5

27

65

84

.23

66

78

6.9

07

00

84

.56

67

39

0.7

1

20

14

20

15

REG

ION

20

11

20

12

20

13

Tab

le 1

a.P

alay

: p

rod

uct

ion

an

d p

erc

en

tage

of

pro

du

ce m

arke

ted

by

regi

on

,P

hili

pp

ine

s, 2

01

1-2

01

5

PR

OD

'N

%P

RO

D'N

%

PR

OD

'N

%P

RO

D'N

%

PR

OD

'N

%

Ph

ilip

pin

es1

6,6

84

55

.70

18

,03

35

7.4

71

8,4

39

59

.17

18

,96

85

9.7

51

8,1

50

59

.86

CA

R4

29

51

.38

45

35

4.9

94

60

55

.20

45

35

6.9

24

01

57

.23

Ilo

cos

Reg

ion

1,6

03

43

.82

1,7

38

55

.67

1,7

50

58

.08

1,7

96

60

.63

1,7

77

60

.88

Ca

gaya

n V

all

ey2

,14

56

7.8

52

,42

66

8.9

22

,42

37

0.2

62

,51

57

1.7

52

,49

07

4.2

0C

entr

al

Luzo

n2

,61

66

0.9

83

,22

16

2.2

93

,40

96

4.0

43

,76

56

5.2

43

,30

46

3.1

4C

ALA

BA

RZO

N3

99

54

.47

38

94

8.7

14

12

55

.80

40

65

9.0

23

93

56

.09

MIM

AR

OP

A9

82

61

.99

1,0

31

59

.21

1,0

34

63

.20

1,0

82

62

.32

1,0

82

63

.04

Bic

ol

Reg

ion

1,0

71

53

.54

1,1

73

55

.25

1,2

43

54

.50

1,2

58

55

.64

1,2

64

54

.73

Wes

tern

Vis

aya

s2

,24

54

3.1

32

,29

24

3.7

2,0

91

39

.84

2,0

53

36

.90

2,0

57

40

.89

Cen

tra

l V

isa

yas

32

34

1.2

53

27

35

.43

48

38

.59

33

93

7.7

63

36

40

.87

East

ern

Vis

aya

s9

84

40

.47

99

53

9.6

99

03

9.8

19

83

41

.59

95

64

0.3

7Za

mb

oa

nga

Pen

insu

la6

22

64

.62

61

96

9.6

26

39

64

.86

65

76

2.5

76

62

66

.34

No

rth

ern

Min

da

na

o6

11

61

.92

63

76

5.3

86

75

65

.92

71

46

5.8

77

25

65

.73

Da

vao

Reg

ion

41

76

9.0

14

49

69

.88

42

26

9.8

34

52

68

.43

44

26

9.2

0SO

CC

SKSA

RG

EN1

,24

46

4.2

91

,27

16

0.8

11

,34

86

5.1

81

,36

56

4.4

21

,29

26

3.6

7C

ara

ga4

17

54

.53

46

95

4.8

75

84

58

.83

57

45

8.4

14

81

60

.89

AR

MM

57

75

6.2

35

43

60

.97

61

27

4.8

05

57

73

.97

48

86

6.4

9

20

14

20

15

20

11

20

12

20

13

REG

ION



For the farm-retail price gap, rice recorded a significant increase to 165 percent in 2015. Price gaps of yellow and white corn widened to 72 percent and 78 percent, respectively. Narrowing of the farm-retail prices gaps were reported in most reference vegetables. Cabbage had the biggest price gap which declined remarkedly to 196 percent. This was followed by tomato and gabi with corresponding price gaps going down to 190 percent and 171 percent. The widest gain in price gap was posted by garlic at 153 percent and white potato at 180 percent. Peanut and mongo continued to register lower farm-retail price gap which slid to 55 percent and 53 percent, respectively. For fruits, price gap of banana went down to 166 percent in 2015. Price gaps of calamansi, mango and pineapple posted increases to 163 percent, 162 percent and 116 percent, respectively (Table 5b).

Producer’s Share in Consumer Peso

This indicator presents the proportion of the prices received by the farmers to the final price of the commodity. It gives a measure of the share of the producers compared to the share of the traders. It also indicates which commodity gives the farmer, the bigger share. In 2015, the share of rice producer to the commodity’s retail price went down to 38 percent. Reduced shares were noted for yellow and white corn farmers at 58 percent and 56 percent, respectively. Similar trend was likewise reported for coconut producers whose share dropped to 31 percent in 2015. Increasing shares of growers were reported in majority of the reference vegetables and legumes. Peanut farmers still enjoyed higher share but this was reduced to 75 percent in 2015. The share of mongo growers went up to 65 percent. There was a notable reduction in the share of garlic producer which slid to 40 percent. The lowest producers’ shares were registered for cabbage, tomato, white potato, gabi and habitchuelas ranging from 34 to 37 percent. In the case of fruits, growers of calamansi, mango, papaya and pineapple exhibited reduction in their shares to the final price ranging from 38 percent to 46 percent (Table 6).

5 8

Tab

le 2

a.P

alay

pro

cure

me

nt:

leve

l an

d p

erc

en

tage

dis

trib

uti

on

by

regi

on

,P

hili

pp

ine

s, 2

01

1-2

01

5(L

eve

l in

me

tric

to

ns)

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

Ph

ilip

pin

es2

74

,98

11

00

36

0,8

82

10

03

65

,58

21

00

26

,48

11

00

22

7,9

35

10

0

CA

R4

29

0.1

66

,09

91

.69

5,0

71

1.3

93

30

.12

2,6

30

1.1

5Il

oco

s R

egio

n1

7,1

96

6.2

54

9,5

08

13

.72

21

,18

45

.79

2,0

39

7.7

01

2,4

96

5.4

8C

aga

yan

Va

lley

22

,16

88

.06

48

,54

41

3.4

54

3,6

95

11

.95

11

40

.43

21

,61

59

.48

Cen

tra

l Lu

zon

15

,36

05

.59

55

,30

21

5.3

27

8,4

94

21

.47

55

62

.10

33

,78

61

4.8

2C

ALA

BA

RZO

N2

,83

51

.03

2,0

50

0.5

74

,83

51

.32

96

33

.64

2,1

36

0.9

4M

IMA

RO

PA

13

5,6

15

49

.32

12

8,6

64

35

.65

10

9,7

22

30

.01

11

,76

34

4.4

29

7,4

86

42

.77

Bic

ol

Reg

ion

34

,05

91

2.3

92

6,7

97

7.4

32

9,8

72

8.1

71

,11

24

.20

28

,86

41

2.6

6W

este

rn V

isa

yas

37

,96

61

3.8

12

7,0

80

7.5

02

2,0

70

6.0

45

,99

82

2.6

52

3,8

34

10

.46

Cen

tra

l V

isa

yas

42

0.0

21

06

0.0

33

67

0.1

06

80

.26

27

0.0

1Ea

ster

n V

isa

yas

1,1

88

0.4

31

,42

10

.39

7,4

60

2.0

41

,28

14

.84

1,2

31

0.5

4Za

mb

oa

nga

Pen

insu

la1

,44

30

.52

1,3

09

0.3

64

,96

71

.36

75

32

.84

30

00

.13

No

rth

ern

Min

da

na

o3

44

0.1

31

,38

10

.38

3,6

28

0.9

96

67

2.5

25

81

0.2

5D

ava

o R

egio

n5

70

0.2

12

,34

50

.65

13

,73

23

.76

46

91

.77

1,0

35

0.4

5SO

CC

SKSA

RG

EN5

,45

11

.98

6,4

90

1.8

01

0,7

57

2.9

45

86

2.2

11

,19

60

.52

Ca

raga

31

60

.11

1,2

83

0.3

68

,83

22

.42

71

0.2

76

43

0.2

8A

RM

M-

-2

,50

40

.69

89

60

.25

80

.03

76

0.0

3

20

14

20

15

REG

ION

20

11

20

12

20

13



From 2011 to 2015, CPI for all items continuously increased from 126.1 percent to 141.5 percent. It indicates that in 2015, the average price paid by the consumers for all items was 41.5 index points higher than the 2006 price level. Throughout these years, the CPIs of all the commodity groups, except communication, were on the uptrend and sustained above the 2006 record. Alcoholic beverages and tobacco remained with the highest CPI at 182.4 percent in 2015. This was followed by food and non-alcoholic beverages at 157.3 percent and education at 155.8 percent. The least CPI was still registered for recreation and culture at 115.3 percent (Table 4a). In 2015, the monthly CPI for all items moved up and down. It ranged from 141.0 percent in January to 142.6 percent in December. The month-on-month CPIs for alcoholic beverages and tobacco showed continuous increase from 179.7 percent in January to 186.4 percent in December. For food and non-alcoholic beverages, the monthly CPIs exhibited fluctuating trend with January having the lowest CPI at 157.5 percent and December the highest at 159.0 percent (Table 4b).

Price Gap Price gaps or mark ups of the different agricultural crops between the farmgate and the wholesale and retail levels indicate the formation of prices and the shares of market participants in the prices paid by the consumers. The farm-wholesale price gap of rice recovered from its downtrend in 2014. It went up from 115 percent in 2014 to 147 percent in 2015. This indicates that the price mark-up of rice from farm to wholesale level was 147 percent of the farm price. Similarly, widening of price gap was noted for corn; 29 percent for yellow corn and 8 percent for white corn. Majority of the reference vegetables posted increasing farm-wholesale price gaps in 2015. The biggest increments in price gap were reported in garlic and onion red creole which rose to 81 percent and 61 percent, respectively. The highest but decreasing farm-wholesale price gap in 2015 was recorded for gabi at 134 percent. On the other hand, the smallest price gap was noted for mongo green labo at 22 percent. In the case of fruits, increasing price gaps were noted in calamansi at 64 percent, mango at 46 percent and pineapple at 43 percent. Banana lakatan indicated the biggest gap which dropped to 103 percent (Table 5a).

9 4

Tab

le 2

b.

Ric

e in

ject

ion

: le

vel p

erc

en

tage

dis

trib

uti

on

by

regi

on

, Ph

ilip

pin

es,

20

11

-20

15

(Le

vel i

n m

etr

ic t

on

s)

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

LEV

EL%

Ph

ilip

pin

es1

,11

3,3

94

10

07

66

,23

11

00

75

8,6

57

10

01

,31

6,5

99

10

09

42

,65

61

00

NC

R2

47

,50

12

2.2

31

98

,44

42

5.9

01

54

,99

42

0.4

33

23

,82

82

4.6

02

03

,74

22

1.6

1C

AR

20

,59

51

.85

11

,71

21

.53

16

,44

82

.17

35

,50

62

.70

21

,55

52

.29

Ilo

cos

Reg

ion

54

,66

34

.91

30

,75

64

.01

52

,35

96

.90

71

,33

85

.42

43

,40

04

.60

Ca

gaya

n V

all

ey2

5,6

69

2.3

11

1,0

12

1.4

41

6,9

34

2.2

32

8,8

17

2.1

92

0,9

22

2.2

2C

entr

al

Luzo

n1

15

,88

31

0.4

17

2,0

13

9.4

06

6,9

88

8.8

31

21

,76

89

.25

85

,46

99

.07

CA

LAB

AR

ZON

10

0,8

39

9.0

67

5,4

13

9.8

47

0,6

76

9.3

21

27

,12

09

.66

81

,99

58

.70

MIM

AR

OP

A5

3,8

69

4.8

44

9,6

47

6.4

86

8,4

86

9.0

34

9,2

18

3.7

45

6,1

88

5.9

6B

ico

l R

egio

n9

3,3

22

8.3

84

9,8

75

6.5

14

1,1

81

5.4

39

8,2

54

7.4

66

8,5

07

7.2

7W

este

rn V

isa

yas

26

,06

42

.34

45

,68

55

.96

35

,34

74

.66

76

,88

45

.84

29

,00

03

.08

Cen

tra

l V

isa

yas

63

,41

45

.70

32

,33

84

.22

54

,61

67

.20

12

3,8

65

9.4

11

12

,20

01

1.9

0Ea

ster

n V

isa

yas

58

,82

15

.28

40

,74

85

.32

37

,15

64

.90

52

,26

43

.97

50

,04

65

.31

Zam

bo

an

ga P

enin

sula

50

,49

84

.54

26

,37

53

.44

27

,83

43

.67

45

,45

43

.45

25

,22

02

.68

No

rth

ern

Min

da

na

o5

9,3

88

5.3

33

0,2

18

3.9

42

0,8

13

2.7

43

3,4

05

2.5

42

5,2

36

2.6

8D

ava

o R

egio

n6

7,1

79

6.0

33

9,8

50

5.2

03

5,8

86

4.7

36

3,2

97

4.8

16

5,4

36

6.9

4SO

CC

SKSA

RG

EN3

7,1

58

3.3

41

7,4

67

2.2

82

2,0

72

2.9

13

4,3

71

2.6

12

5,9

83

2.7

6C

ara

ga2

5,4

44

2.2

92

3,5

06

3.0

71

5,3

15

2.0

29

,93

50

.75

6,6

91

0.7

1A

RM

M1

3,0

88

1.1

81

1,1

73

1.4

62

1,5

54

2.8

42

1,2

76

1.6

22

1,0

67

2.2

3

20

14

20

15

REG

ION

20

11

20

12

20

13



respective PPIs surged to 549.2 percent and 471.0 percent. Declining and below the 2006 price levels were noted only for onion native and onion red creole in 2015. For root crops and tubers, PPI dropped to an average of 127.1 percent. All the crops under this commodity group exhibited PPIs at more than 100 percent. The highest and increasing PPIs were noted in turnips at 258.2 percent, gabi tagalog at 210.2 percent and ube at 202.4 percent.

Fruits posted the highest PPI among the commodity groups which reached 160.6 percent in 2015. PPI of papaya solo topped, however, it decreased to 248.7 percent. Green banana lakatan and bungulan came next with corresponding PPIs increasing to 211.7 percent and 225.2 percent. Less than 100 percent PPIs were observed for durian, lanzones and papaya native. The average PPI of commercial crops declined to 154.0 percent in 2015. Green and young coconut (buko) reported the highest PPI which hiked to 298.2 percent. Except for rubber cuplump, all the reference commercial crops registered PPIs above 100 percent of which most of these crops exhibited decreasing PPIs in 2015. The 2015 PPIs of livestock and poultry products were going down to 141.7 percent and 134.0 percent, respectively. For livestock products, PPI was lowest for cattle at 138.3 percent and highest for goat at 165.4 percent. Both products showed increasing PPIs. Poultry products had PPIs ranging from 119.1 percent for chicken broiler backyard to 179.0 percent for chicken layer culls. Majority of the poultry products exhibited uptrends. PPI of fishery in 2015 decreased to an average of 129.5 percent. Low PPI was recorded for tiger prawn at 112.4 percent while it was high for bangus at 143.0 percent (Table 3).

Consumer Price Index (CPI) The CPI allows comparison of the changes in the average retail prices of the different groups of the commodities commonly consumed by the households.

3 10

6

Table 3Producer Price Index for Agriculture, Philippines, 2013-2015(2006=100)(in percent)

Commodity 2013 2014 2015

Cereals 156.1 179.6 157.9Palay, other variety, dry 14% mc 163.5 192.5 166.0Corngrain, matured, yellow 127.8 140.0 131.9Corngrain, matured, white 151.7 151.3 144.5

Vegetables and Legumes 121.1 123.9 131.1Ampalaya 115.5 106.4 128.8Asparagus 663.3 686.2 666.1Banana Blossom 174.4 187.5 142.3Cabbage 110.8 124.7 166.1Camote tops 136.3 144.7 157.6Cauliflower 163.3 168.7 178.5Chayote 106.4 101.2 150.3Cucumber 119.2 116.5 129.6Eggplant long, purple 108.4 124.3 112.9Garlic 59.0 125.8 102.5Ginger, Hawaiian 248.1 619.7 672.2Ginger, native 201.2 426.3 549.2Habitchuelas 115.3 116.2 128.5Kangkong 125.7 143.5 158.1Mongo, green (labo) 142.2 154.4 167.1Mongo, green (shiny) 138.6 162.7 163.8Mongo, yellow (shiny) 142.8 150.5 151.7Okra 117.8 118.9 139.2Onion Leeks 205.2 166.6 218.8Onion, native (red shallot) 157.9 124.5 80.7Onion, red creole (bermuda Red) 71.1 78.8 63.4Patola, baguio 136.4 138.2 137.6Patola, native 154.8 143.6 166.6Peanut, with shell, dry 152.5 158.3 173.4Peanut, with shell, fresh 156.0 167.9 166.6Peanut, without shell, dry 183.9 182.1 180.6Pechay, baguio 138.9 149.9 197.9Pechay, native 152.5 159.9 159.1Pepper bell, red and green 152.1 124.9 147.1Pepper black 238.2 341.0 471.0



42.77 percent of the national palay procurement. About 10 to 14 percent shares on palay procurement were noted in Western Visayas, Bicol Region and Central Luzon ranging from 23,834 to 33,786 metric tons. Nine regions indicated shares of less than one (1) percent each. Of these regions, Central Visayas and ARMM had the lowest volume of procurement at 27 metric tons and 76 metric tons, respectively (Table 2a). The country’s volume of rice injection was reduced to 942,656 metric tons in 2015, lower by 28 percent from the 2014 level of 1,316,599 metric tons. The biggest rice injection was continuously reported in NCR at 203,742 metric tons, comprising almost one fifth of the total volume of rice sold or distributed in 2015. About 12 percent share or 112,200 metric tons of rice were sold by the government in Central Visayas. Rice injection in the regions of Central Luzon, CALABARZON, Bicol Region and Davao Region contributed 6.94 percent to 9.07 percent equivalent to 65,436 metric tons to 85,469 metric tons of rice. On the other hand, Caraga with 6,691 metric tons of rice sold registered the smallest share at 0.71 percent of the national rice injection (Table 2b).

Producer Price Index (PPI) The PPI describes the movement of farm prices by commodity and commodity groups in a given year compared to a base year (2006). On the average, the prices received by farmers for their produce decreased as PPI for agriculture dropped to 147.1 percent in 2015. This indicates that the average farm price in 2015 was 47.1 percentage points higher than base year record. In 2015, the average PPI of cereals contracted to 157.9 percent. Specifically, PPI of palay went down to 166.0 percent while PPIs of yellow corn and white corn slid to 131.9 percent and 144.5 percent, respectively. PPI of vegetables and legumes increased to 131.1 percent in 2015. Majority of the vegetables and legumes exhibited an upward trend. Ginger Hawaiian recorded the biggest PPI which increased to 672.2 percent in 2015 or more than six times higher than the price in 672.2 percent in 2015 or more than six times higher than the price in 2006 base year. This was followed by asparagus with PPI going down to 666.1 percent. Ginger native and black pepper came next as their respective PPIs surged to 549.2 percent and 471.0 percent. Declining and

11 2


Commodity 2013 2014 2015

Pepper finger, green 120.5 114.1 124.3Squash 127.5 131.5 139.6Stringbeans 123.6 129.8 144.0Sweet peas, baguio 144.6 114.8 109.9Tomato 120.2 93.2 110.6Upo 138.1 138.7 144.3

Rootcrops and Tubers 147.2 131.0 127.1Carrots 107.3 104.0 145.5Cassava, fresh tubers 148.7 120.9 105.7Gabi Cebu 125.3 148.7 169.7Gabi Tagalog 202.6 202.8 210.2Radish 170.8 162.3 178.3Sweet Potato 153.1 167.0 181.9Turnips 150.6 169.5 258.2Ube 87.5 141.3 202.4White/Irish Potato 149.6 123.4 109.6

Fruits 146.9 155.2 160.6Avocado 98.8 176.4 151.0Banana, Bungulan, green 180.0 218.3 225.2Banana, Lakatan, green 190.1 207.6 211.7Banana, Latundan, green 146.1 164.8 169.1Banana, Saba, green 184.7 184.4 187.4Calamansi 142.8 159.5 144.3Durian 78.2 78.2 83.2Guapple 147.5 155.3 151.3Jackfruit, ripe 116.5 126.5 129.3Lanzones 81.2 112.0 97.4Mandarin, Ladu 91.3 111.0 115.1Mandarin, Szinkom 135.7 135.6 139.1Mango, carabao, green 110.1 107.0 118.9Mango, indian, green 120.4 124.1 111.8Mango, piko, green 106.2 117.4 133.9Papaya, Hawaiian 105.0 142.3 126.3Papaya, native 84.6 88.6 97.5Papaya, solo 237.7 249.0 248.7Pineapple, Hawaiian 165.2 183.0 188.7



1 12

Marketed Volume of Palay and Corn The “marketed volume of farmers’ produce” is an indicator that provides a measure of the farmers’ level of operation on the quantity of the agricultural production that is sold by the farmers for a given period. The total marketed volume of palay as a proportion to the total palay production slightly increased to 59.86 percent in 2015 from 59.75 percent in 2014. Nine out of the 16 regions exhibited increasing proportions in 2015. Cagayan Valley registered the biggest proportion of marketed palay at 74.20 percent. About 65 to 69 percent of the palay harvests were sold by the farmers in Northern Mindanao, Zamboanga Peninsula, ARMM and Davao Region. In contrast, the least proportion at around 40.0 percent was noted each in Western, Central and Eastern Visayas (Table 1a). In the case of corn, the proportion of the country’s production that was sold declined to 82.03 percent in 2015 from the 2014 record of 83.50 percent. By region, the highest proportion of the marketed volume of corn was still reported in Ilocos Region at 99.65 percent. This was followed by Central Luzon at 97.08 percent, Cagayan Valley at 96.33 percent and CAR at 95.00 percent. In ARMM, about 90.71 percent of the region’s harvests were marketed. On the other hand, Central and Eastern Visayas indicated the smallest proportions at 21.99 percent and 21.75 percent, respectively (Table 1b).

Government Procurement and Injection of Palay Government plays an important role in the marketing of palay through its procurement and injection programs. Procurement refers to the volume of government purchases directly from the farmers and farmers’ organizations at support price. This is being done to stabilize consumer price and to have continuous supply of the commodity. On the other hand, injection is the distribution by the government in the market through direct selling to end-user or to accredited outlets. The indicators of government procurement and injection show the extent of government intervention in palay marketing. In 2015, the volume of palay procurement reached 227,935 metric tons nationwide. This was nearly nine times higher than the 2014 record of 26,481 metric tons. At the regional level, palay procurement remained biggest in MIMAROPA at 97,486 metric tons in 2015. This accounted for 42.77 percent of the national palay procurement. About 10 to 14 percent


Commodity 2013 2014 2015

Pomelo 141.1 127.2 148.0Rambutan 127.5 117.4 124.2Watermelon 124.1 136.5 150.8

Commercial Crops 138.6 173.5 154.0Abaca 108.4 124.3 135.5Cacao, dry beans 107.6 146.2 156.0Coconut, green, young (buko) 247.9 282.4 298.2Coconut, matured 157.8 210.6 191.6Coffee, Arabica, dry beans 145.6 155.6 187.3Coffee, Excelsa, dry beans 160.0 167.8 180.8Coffee, Robusta, dry beans 148.7 166.8 164.3Pili nut, with hull 153.7 149.4 143.1Rubber, Cuplump 111.5 71.7 56.3Sugarcane Centrifugal, sugar 120.9 119.7 136.1Tobacco, Burley, dry 109.3 173.9 177.3Tobacco, Native, dry 133.4 107.7 106.4Tobacco, Virginia, dry 138.7 163.9 139.8

Livestock 138.0 147.1 141.7Carabao for slaughter 140.4 200.3 150.1Cattle for slaughter 130.8 135.7 138.3Goat for slaughter 153.2 163.0 165.4Hogs, upgraded for slaughter 138.2 145.0 140.8

Poultry 124.4 134.1 134.0Chicken Broiler, backyard 111.0 113.2 119.1Chicken Broiler, commercial 116.4 128.4 120.2Chicken egg, other breed, backyard 149.6 162.7 158.3Chicken egg, other breed, commercial 126.9 134.5 135.2Chicken Layer culls 95.4 135.1 179.0Chicken native/improved 140.5 144.4 144.7Duck egg, backyard 148.8 163.1 165.8Duck egg, commercial 135.8 138.0 138.7Duck for meat, backyard 142.3 148.1 154.8Duck for meat, commercial 128.5 155.0 136.3

Fishery 127.6 132.3 129.5Bangus 137.9 142.7 143.0Seaweed 147.2 156.9 122.6Tigerprawn 106.8 108.1 112.4Tilapia 126.8 132.7 131.7

ALL ITEMS 141.0 156.1 147.1



13

Table 4a.Consumer price index by item, Philippines, 2011-2015(2006=100)(in percent)

ITEM 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

All Items 126.1 130.1 134 139.5 141.5

Food and Non-Alcoholic Beverages 136.6 139.9 143.8 153.4 157.3Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 122.6 128.7 167.0 175.7 182.4Clothing and Footwear 118.4 123.9 128.4 132.9 136.3Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas,and Other Fuels 120.3 125.8 127.9 130.8 129.1Furnishing, Household Equipment and Routine Maintenance of the House 116.8 121.1 125.1 128.5 130.9Health 124.3 128.3 132.1 136.4 139.3Transport 122.9 125.7 126.5 127.7 127.6Communication 92.4 92.5 92.7 92.4 92.7Recreation and Culture 106.7 109.5 112 114.1 115.3Education 130.3 136.3 142.5 149.5 155.8Restaurant and Miscellaneous Goodsand Services 119.3 123.1 126.1 128.5 130.2



14

Tabl

e 4b

.Co

nsum

er p

rice

inde

x by

mon

th, P

hilip

pine

s, 20

15(2

006=

100)

(in p

erce

nt)

ITEM

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Ave

All I

tem

s14

1.0

141.

214

1.0

141.

314

1.2

141.

314

1.5

141.

714

1.4

141.

614

2.3

142.

614

1.5

Food

and

Non

-Alc

ohol

ic B

ever

ages

157.

515

6.9

156.

315

6.5

156.

415

6.3

156.

915

7.6

157.

315

7.5

159.

115

9.0

157.

3Al

coho

lic B

ever

ages

and

Tob

acco

179.

718

0.6

181.

218

1.5

181.

818

2.1

182.

518

2.6

182.

718

3.2

184.

918

6.4

182.

4Cl

othi

ng a

nd F

ootw

ear

135.

013

5.5

135.

713

5.8

135.

913

6.2

136.

513

6.6

136.

613

6.8

137.

213

7.5

136.

3Ho

usin

g, W

ater

, Ele

ctri

city

, Gas

,an

d O

ther

Fue

ls12

8.6

129.

713

0.0

130.

713

0.2

129.

412

9.4

128.

812

7.9

127.

912

8.0

128.

312

9.1

Furn

ishi

ng, H

ouse

hold

Equ

ipm

ent a

nd

Rout

ine

Mai

nten

ance

of t

he H

ouse

130.

013

0.3

130.

413

0.7

130.

813

0.9

131.

013

1.1

131.

213

1.3

131.

513

1.7

130.

9He

alth

138.

413

8.6

138.

713

8.7

138.

913

9.0

139.

513

9.5

139.

613

9.9

140.

214

0.4

139.

3Tr

ansp

ort

125.

812

7.1

127.

512

7.5

127.

912

8.1

127.

912

7.3

127.

512

7.8

127.

712

8.8

127.

6Co

mm

unic

atio

n92

.792

.692

.692

.692

.692

.692

.792

.792

.792

.792

.792

.792

.7Re

crea

tion

and

Cultu

re11

4.7

114.

911

4.9

115.

011

5.0

115.

311

5.4

115.

511

5.6

115.

611

5.8

115.

911

5.3

Educ

atio

n15

2.6

152.

615

2.6

152.

615

2.6

157.

915

8.0

158.

115

8.1

158.

115

8.1

158.

115

5.8

Rest

aura

nt a

nd M

isce

llane

ous

Good

san

d Se

rvic

es12

9.5

129.

612

9.7

129.

812

9.8

130.

013

0.2

130.

313

0.4

130.

613

1.0

131.

213

0.2



15

iv

Table 5a.Farm- wholesale price gap of selected agricultural commodities,Philippines, 2011-2015(in percent)

COMMODITIES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015P

CerealsPalay/Rice (other variety) 134 124 124 115 147Corn grain yellow 27 27 37 12 29Corn grain white 14 16 12 6 8

VegetablesGarlic 31 57 85 28 81Ginger 56 71 52 45 52Onion, red Creole 25 9 35 28 61Cabbage 76 86 86 90 80Pechay , native 74 81 60 59 62Ampalaya 39 29 34 39 40Eggplant 43 35 36 40 58Squash 39 27 37 39 40Tomato 88 84 83 84 84Carrots 63 98 80 70 75Gabi 93 91 132 160 134White potato 53 54 42 69 74Sweet potato 29 33 43 35 47Habitchuelas 84 73 64 69 79Mongo green, labo 17 10 8 18 22Peanut with shell dry 68 66 60 56 73Stringbeans 29 22 20 20 24

FruitsBanana Lakatan (green) 88 80 67 110 103Calamansi 54 64 78 55 64Mango, Carabao (green) 69 36 46 41 46Pineapple, Hawaiian 54 41 53 24 43

P - preliminary



TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii 16

Table 5b.Farm - retail price gap of selected agricultural commodities, Philippines, 2011-2015(in percent)

COMMODITIES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015P

CerealsRice 151 137 138 127 165Corn grain, yellow 66 73 90 63 72Corn grain, white 32 48 37 57 78

Vegetables & LegumesGarlic 69 111 142 61 153Ginger 145 203 143 102 101Onion, Red Creole 64 49 95 89 121Cabbage 196 242 240 233 196Pechay, native 150 158 151 146 151Ampalaya 107 101 106 120 103Eggplant 106 117 134 125 144Squash 140 139 157 162 154Tomato 190 199 187 205 190Carrots 163 204 199 166 164Gabi 177 186 195 200 171White potato 126 130 108 149 180Sweet potato 112 121 131 115 122Habitchuelas 176 169 166 169 173Mongo 52 65 53 58 53Peanut with shell, dry 67 78 70 65 55Stringbeans 110 118 108 109 107

FruitsBanana Lakatan 129 128 122 167 166Calamansi 110 138 174 132 163Mango carabao ripe 124 128 132 138 162Pineapple, Hawaiian 139 122 136 115 116

P - preliminary

FOREWORD i

LIST OF TABLES iii


Table 1a. Palay: production and percentage of produce marketed by region,Philippines, 2011-2015 6

Table 1b. Corn: production and percentage of produce marketed by region,Philippines, 2011-2015 7

Table 2a. Palay procurement: level and percentage distribution by region,Philippines, 2011-2015 8

Table 2b. Rice injection: level and percentage distribution by region,Philippines, 2011-2015 9

Table 3. Producer price index for agriculture, Philippines, 2011-2015 10

Table 4a. Consumer price index by item, Philippines, 2011-2015 13

Table 4b. Consumer price index by month, Philippines, 2015 14

Table 5a. Farm-wholesale price gap of selected agricultural commodities,Philippines, 2011-2015 15

Table 5b. Farm-retail price gap of selected agricultural commodities,Philippines, 2011-2015 16

Table 6. Producer's share in consumer peso, selected agricultural commodities, Philippines, 2011-2015 17



17

Table 6Producer's share in consumer peso, selected agricultural commodities,Philippines, 2011-2015(in percent)

COMMODITY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015P

Cereals Rice special 40 42 42 44 38 Corngrain yellow 60 58 53 61 58 Corngrain white 76 68 73 64 56

Commercial Coconut, matured 41 30 30 35 31

Vegetables & Legumes Garlic 59 47 41 62 40 Ginger 41 33 41 49 50 Onion Red Creole 61 67 51 53 45 Cabbage 34 29 29 30 34 Pechay, native 40 39 40 41 40 Ampalaya 48 50 49 45 49 Eggplant 49 46 43 45 41 Squash 42 42 39 38 39 Tomato 34 33 35 33 34 Carrots 38 33 33 38 38 Gabi (for ginataan) 36 35 34 33 37 White potato 44 43 48 40 36 Sweet potato 47 45 43 47 45 Habitchuelas 36 37 38 37 37 Mongo, green, labo 66 60 65 63 65 Peanut without shell, dry 77 80 78 79 75 Stringbeans 48 46 48 48 48 Fruits Banana, Lakatan (green) 44 44 45 37 38 Calamansi 48 42 37 43 38 Mango, Carabao (green) 45 44 43 42 38 Papaya, Hawaiian 59 47 45 58 56 Pineapple, Hawaiian 42 45 42 47 46

P - preliminary



MODULES OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS SYSTEM

1. Agricultural Structures and Resources

2. Agricultural Credit

3. Output and Productivity

4. Economic Growth: Agriculture

5. Food Sufficiency and Security

6. Food Consumption and Nutrition

7. Agricultural Exports and Imports

8. Redistribution of Land

9. Population and Labor Force

10. Prices and Marketing of Agricultural Commodities

11. Gender-based Indicators of Labor and Employment in Agriculture 12. Inputs

i



REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Philippine Statistics Authority 16TH FLOOR, ETON CYBERPOD CENTRIS 3,

EDSA CORNER QUEZON AVENUE, BRGY. PINYAHAN, QUEZON CITY MACROECONOMIC ACCOUNTS SERVICE AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNTS DIVISION

Tel. No. 376-1954

[email protected]

https://www.psa.gov.ph/

mailto:[email protected]

philippine statistics authority and marketing of agricultural... · prices and marketing of...

Documents