친환경농산물 생산비 및 소득 차이 비교분석

Abstract

· 이 연구는 쌀, 감자, 상추, 포도 등 네 가지 품목을 대상으로 저농약재배, 무농약재배, 유기재배 등 친환경농산물 인증 유형별 생산비 조사자료를 기초로 관행농업에 대비한 생산비 및 소득 격차의 체계적인 분석을 위해 수행되었음.

· 친환경농업 실천농가의 인증유형별 생산비 및 소득차이를 알아보기 위해 국립농산물품질관리원에서 추천한 농가를 대상으로 인증경력, 영농장부 작성 및 지역별 분포를 고려하여 쌀 71농가, 감자 29농가, 상추 43농가, 포도 55농가 등 총 198개 농가를 대상으로 심층면담에 의한 생산비 조사를 실시함.

· 조사 대상 농가의 경영유형 구성비를 보면 쌀의 경우 개별 경영 80.4%, 영농법인 11.8%, 기타가 7.8%로 나타났고, 상추의 경우는 개별 경영이 76%, 영농법인이 16%, 기타 8.0%로 조사됨. 감자와 포도 재배 농가는 개별 경영이 각각 94.7%와 91.2%로 대부분이 개별 농가의 경영 형태로 이루어지고 있는 것으로 나타남.

· 조사 대상 농가의 친환경농업 의사결정에 영향을 미친 요인으로 “개방화 시대 미래 농업의 대안”이라는 응답이 46.5%로 가장 높은 비중을 차지하고, 다음으로 “환경문제 해결을 위한 사명감”이 38.6%로 나타나 실천농업인의 친환경농업에 대한 인식도는 적극적이고 열의적인 것으로 평가되었음.

· 친환경 벼 재배농가의 단보당 생산비는 일반 관행농업인 530천원에 비해 친환경 인증유형별로 1.4～1.7배 정도로 저농약재배 747천원, 무농약재배 837천원, 유기재배 922천원에 달하는 것으로 조사됨. 한편 단보당 소득의 경우 일반 관행농가 536천원을 기준으로 저농약재배는 76.5%수준인 410천원, 무농약재배는 84.9% 수준인 455천원, 유기재배는 97.7% 수준인 524천원으로 조사됨.

· 친환경 벼 재배농가와 일반 관행농가와의 연차별 소득차이는 인증 1년차의 경우 단보당 소득수준은 309천원으로 관행농가 536천원에 비해 227천원 낮은 것으로 나타남. 2년차, 3년차, 4년차의 소득격차 수준은 각각 180천원, 120천원, 32천원으로 실천경력이 증가할수록 소득격차가 점차 줄어드는 것으로 나타남. 5년차의 단보당 소득수준은 575천원으로 관행농가보다 7.2% 높은 수준인 39천원의 격차를 보이는 것으로 분석됨. · 친환경 상추 재배농가의 단보당 생산비는 관행농업의 4,111천원에 비해 친환경 인증유형별로 1.1～1.23배 수준으로, 저농약재배는 4,523천원, 무농약재배는 4,893천원, 유기재배는 5,080천원에 달하는 것으로 조사됨. 단보당 소득은 일반 관행재배시 2,871천원에 비해 저농약재배는 71.5% 수준인 2,054천원이며, 무농약재배는 91% 수준인 2,617천원, 유기재배는 93.6% 수준인 2,688천원으로 조사됨.

· 친환경 감자 재배의 단보당 생산비는 관행농업의 838천원에 비해 친환경 인증유형별로 1.06～1.2배 수준으로, 저농약재배는 892천원, 무농약재배는 954천원, 유기재배는 1,013천원에 달하는 것으로 나타남. 단보당 소득은 일반 관행재배시 523천원에 비해 저농약재배는 89.9%인 470천원, 무농약재배는 82.7%인 433천원, 유기재배는 79.7% 수준인 417천원으로 유기재배로 갈수록 소득은 낮아지는 것으로 조사됨.

· 친환경 노지포도 재배의 단보당 생산비는 일반 관행농업의 2,102천원에 비해 친환경 인증유형별로 1.22～1.42배 수준으로, 저농약재배 2,564천원, 무농약재배 2,762천원, 유기재배 2,983천원 수준으로 나타남. 단보당 소득은 일반 관행재배시 2,223천원에 비해 저농약재배는 1.01배인 2,251천원으로 약간 높은 수준으로 조사됨. 한편 무농약재배는 관행농업 대비 93.8% 수준인 2,086천원, 유기재배는 89.1% 수준인 1,982천원으로 나타남.

· 친환경 시설포도 재배 농가의 생산비는 관행 시설포도 생산비 4,768천원에 비해 친환경 인증유형별로 1.16～1.33배 수준으로, 저농약재배 5,521천원, 무농약재배 6,018천원, 유기재배 6,353천원 수준으로 나타남. 단보당 소득은 일반 관행농가 4,891천원 대비 저농약재배는 1.02배인 4,998천원, 무농약재배는 95.7%인 4,680천원, 유기재배는 91.8%인 4,489천원으로 나타남. · 친환경농업 실천 농가의 관행농업 대비 농가소득 증감여부에 대한 설문조사의 응답결과는 약 55.1% 정도가 친환경농업 실천이 농가소득에 도움이 되는 것으로 나타났음. 그러나 실제로 농가 생산비 조사를 통한 소득분석 결과 상대적으로 높은 생산비로 인해 전반적으로 관행농업보다 소득이 낮은 것으로 분석되었음. · 친환경농업이 정착 단계에 이르는 경우는 관행농업과 유사한 소득 수준을 올릴 수 있는 것으로 분석됨. 관행농업으로부터 친환경농업으로 전환하기 위해서는 4~5년간의 이행기간 동안에 소득보전 등 적절한 인센티브 조치가 필요한 것으로 분석됨.

· 친환경농업의 도입과 관련 이행 초기에는 수량 감소와 생산비도 증가한 반면 판로망이 구축되지 않아 농가수취가격의 프리미엄 수준도 낮아 소득감소가 불가피하므로 관행재배시의 소득수준이 유지될 수 있도록 소득 감소분이 보상될 수 있는 직접지불제 단가조정 등 적절한 정책프로그램이 보완 또는 개발되어야 할 것임.

· 친환경농업과 관행농업간의 소득격차는 가격 프리미엄 수준에 달려있으므로 친환경농업을 확산·정착시키기 위해서는 친환경농산물이 적절하게 유통되어 높은 가격 프리미엄이 유지될 수 있도록 판로망 구축 등 적절한 정책 프로그램 개발이 시급함.

· 친환경농업 인증유형별로 관행농업과의 생산비 격차는 실천경력에 따른 기술수준이 관건이므로 농민들이 수량 감소의 위험을 감수하며 실천농법을 수용할 수 있는 친환경재배 기술이 개발되어야 함.

· 친환경농산물 생산비 조사대상 표본은 친환경농산물 인증농가 중 영농장부 작성 또는 자체 경영분석을 하고 있는 농가를 대상으로 한 유의추출로 이루어졌음. 따라서 친환경농산물 생산비 조사결과는 친환경농업 실천경력이 낮거나 또는 인증을 받지 않은 실천농가들의 생산비 및 소득과는 현실적으로 차이가 있을 수 있음을 밝혀둠. · 친환경 벼 재배의 연차별 생산비 및 소득 차이에 관한 자료는 시계열 조사로 이루어진 자료가 아니고 횡단면 조사 자료를 기초로 하고 있어 실제로 친환경농업을 실천하는 개별농가의 동태적 변화를 반영하는데는 한계가 있음. 향후 연구에서는 친환경농업을 실천하는 대표 농가를 선정하여 매년 생산비 조사를 기초로 수년간 자료가 축적된 후 연차별 생산비 및 소득변화에 관한 분석을 다루는 보다 체계적인 연구가 이루어져야 할 것임. · 향후 우리나라 친환경농업을 미래농업의 핵심 분야로 육성키 위해서는 대표적인 친환경농업 실천농가의 영농장부 작성과 이를 기초로 한 생산비 조사가 공식적으로 이루어 질 수 있는 방안이 수립되어 속히 추진되어야 할 것임.

ABSTRACT

Sustainable farm management practices are based on minimizing the use of synthetic chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides and represent an environmentally friendly attempt to make the best use of natural resources. The types of environmentally friendly farming practices are classified as a low-pesticide farming with low level of chemical pesticides use (less than 50% of quantity used in conventional farming), no-pesticide farming with no pesticides used, and organic farming with no chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The acceptability of sustainable farm management practices depends largely on their ability to generate acceptable level of farm incomes. Farmers can be persuaded to switch to practices that are more profitable, and they can be persuaded to adopt practices that are more beneficial to the environment of those practices will not reduce their income too much; however, most will not accept large reduction incomes to grows crops in a more environmentally friendly fashion. However, there is mixed evidence as to whether farmers' incomes are comparable with sustainable and conventional farm management practices. In this note, this study investigates comparison of economic performances between conventional and environmentally friendly farming practices using the survey data. Information about the productivity of sustainable farming systems comes from several sources such as research plots and case studies using actual farms surveys. A wide ranging, face-to-face survey was made of 198 environmentally friendly farms which consist of 71 rice farms, 29 potato farms, 43 lettuce farms, and 55 grape farms. A series of in-depth interviews were conducted using a questionnaire during the period of November 25 to December 5, 2003. This actual farm survey addressed issues ranging from production costs and revenues of environmentally friendly agricultural products and structure to farm information sources, attitudes to sustainability, the values and views of farmers on a number of sustainable agricultural issues. The data set for conventional farming practices as a baseline was derived from the official statistics in rice sector by Korea National Statistical Office (2003) and in potato, lettuce, and grape sectors by Rural Development Adminstration (2003). Major findings of this study are summarized as follows: 1) Yield level in farming practice is an important factor of the relative physical productivity performance of sustainable farming systems. The yields of sustainable rice farming practices are 5.26t ha-1 in organic, 5.63t ha-1 in no-pesticide, and 6.11t ha-1 in low-pesticide, about 7 to 20 percent below the conventional average which is amount of 6.54t ha-1. The yields of lettuce farming are 78.5 percent in low-pesticide (35.2t ha-1), 63.5 percent in no-pesticide (28.5t ha-1), and 54.9 percent in organic (24.63t ha-1), compared to 44.86t ha-1 for the conventional. The yields of potato farming are 77.7 percent in low-pesticide (19.63t ha-1), 62.7 percent in no-pesticide (15.82t ha-1), and 53.8 percent in organic (13.59t ha-1), compared to 25.25t ha-1 for the conventional. The yields of grape farming under the field are 77.9 percent in low-pesticide (14.96t ha-1), 65.6 percent in no-pesticide (12.6t ha-1), and 53.3 percent in organic (10.25t ha-1), compared to 19.22t ha-1 for the conventional. The yields of grape farming under the greenhouse are 93.0 percent in low-pesticide (17.87t ha-1), 80.7 percent in no-pesticide (15.5t ha-1), and 66.7 percent in organic (12.82t ha-1), compared to 19.21t ha-1 for the conventional. 2) Generally, lower yields are achieved in organic farming than in conventional agriculture. The lower yields are primarily due to the reduced use of yield-promoting inputs. Through the conscious avoidance of synthetic fertilizers and plant-protection chemicals, it is often not possible for the genetic potential of the crop to be fully exploited. In practice, part of yield variability may be attributable to differences in soil quality and climate, technology, and management ability. 3) Strong market demand for environmentally-friendly agricultural products has led to high premium prices. In particular, certified organic products can achieve prices significantly above the price level for conventional products. The price premiums of rice are 54.8 percent in organic, 29.6 percent in no-pesticide, and 10.2 percent in low-pesticide, respectively. The price premiums of lettuce are 92.7 percent in organic, 62.2 percent in no-pesticide, and 15.3 percent in low-pesticide. The price premiums of potato are 87.2 percent in organic, 57.7 percent in no-pesticide, and 26.2 percent in low-pesticide. The price premiums of grape under the field are 90.2 percent in organic, 56.5 percent in no-pesticide, and 35.8 percent in low-pesticide. The price premium of grape under the greenhouse are 50.1 percent in organic, 25.4 percent in no-pesticide, and 11.1 percent in low-pesticide, respectively. 4) Production costs of environmentally-friendly rice farming are 1.4 times (7,470,000Won ha-1 in low-pesticide) to 1.7 times (9,220,000Won ha-1 in organic) higher than that of amount 5,300,000Won ha-1(equivalent to USD 4,491 ha-1) in conventional farming. The revenues from environmentally-friendly farming are depends are the physical productivity and farm-gate price premiums. The revenues of environmentally-friendly rice farming are 76.5 percent (4,100,000Won ha-1) in low-pesticide, 84.9 percent (4,550,000Won ha-1) in no-pesticide, 97.7 percent (5,240,000Won ha-1), compared to 5,360,000Won ha-1 (equivalent to USD 4,542 ha-1) for the conventional. 5) Production costs of environmentally-friendly lettuce farming are 1.11 times (45,230,000Won ha-1 in low-pesticide rice) to 1.23 times (50,800,000Won ha-1) higher than that of amount 41,110,000Won ha-1(equivalent to USD 34,839 ha-1) in conventional farming. The revenues of environmentally-friendly lettuce farming are 71.5 percent in low-pesticide (28,710,000Won ha-1), 91.0 percent in no-pesticide (26,170,000Won ha-1), and 93.6 percent in organic (26,880,000Won ha-1), compared to 28,710,000Won ha-1 (equivalent to USD 24,331 ha-1) for the conventional. 6) Production costs of environmentally-friendly potato farming are 1.06 times (8,920,000Won ha-1 in low-pesticide) to 1.2 times (10,130,000Won ha-1 in organic) higher than that of amount 8,380,000Won ha-1(equivalent to USD 7,102 ha-1) in conventional farming. The revenues of environmentally-friendly potato farming are 89.9 percent in low-pesticide (4,700,000Won ha-1), 82.7 percent in no-pesticide (4,330,000Won ha-1), and 79.7 percent in organic (4,170,000Won ha-1), compared to 5,230,000Won ha-1 (equivalent to USD 4,432 ha-1) for the conventional. 7) Production costs of environmentally-friendly grape farming under the field are 1.22 times (25,640,000Won ha-1 in low-pesticide) to 1.42 times (29,830,000Won ha-1 in organic) higher than that of amount 21,020,000Won ha-1(equivalent to USD 17,813 ha-1) in conventional farming. The revenues of environmentally-friendly grape farming under the field are 101.0 percent in low-pesticide (22,510,000Won ha-1), 93.8 percent in no-pesticide (20,860,000Won ha-1), and 89.1 percent in organic (19,820,000Won ha-1), compared to 22,230,000Won ha-1 (equivalent to USD 18,839 ha-1) for the conventional. 8) Production costs of environmentally-friendly grape farming under the greenhouse are 1.16 times (55,210,000Won ha-1 in low-pesticide) to 1.33 times (63,530,000Won ha-1 in organic) higher than that of amount 47,680,000Won ha-1(equivalent to USD 40,407 ha-1) in conventional farming. The revenues of environmentally-friendly grape farming under the greenhouse are 102.2 percent in low-pesticide (49,980,000Won ha-1), 95.7 percent in no-pesticide (46,800,000Won ha-1), and 91.8 percent in organic (44,890,000Won ha-1), compared to 48,910,000Won ha-1 (equivalent to USD 41,449 ha-1) for the conventional. 9) The revenue differences between environmentally-friendly and conventional rice farming are gradually decreasing as to sustainable practicing careers. After 4th year in acquiring certified environmentally-friendly rice production, the revenue generated from sustainable farming practices would be higher than that of conventional farming. The analytical result shows that the revenue of sustainable farm management practices after 5th year would be higher than that amount of 389,000Won ha-1 (equivalent to USD 330 ha-1). 10) Farmers have shown rapidly increasing interest in sustainable farm management practices. In recently, many farmers who adopted sustainable farm management practices including organic and no-pesticide farm management practices were motivated by reasons relating to the health and safety of their families and consumers, and by idealistic convictions about soil and land stewardship. The relative economic performance of sustainable and conventional farming practices is sensitive to the ratio of input costs to the value of outputs. Both sustainable and conventional farmers are vulnerable to fluctuations in both input and output prices, but the effect of a given change will differ between the two farming systems. 11) The results of the accounts survey reviewed in this study indicate that factors production receive about the lower remuneration in sustainable farming than conventional counterpart. Substantial price premiums on outputs are essential for the economic viability of sustainable farming. Consumers' lack of willingness to pay significant price premiums on rice seems to be the most important obstacle to the expansion of sustainable farm management practices. Thus, conversion payment for promoting sustainable rice management practices need to compensate for cost increases and/or income reduction during the three to five years within switching periods depending on the realization of farm-gate premium prices. 12) Even within the limit of the data collected for this empirical study, there may be errors. The samples drawn from purposive sampling method may not accurately represent the larger populations of farms from which they drawn as a result of the manner in which they were selected. Errors may arise from reliance on farmer's report of yields, field operations, purchased inputs, and other data used in the calculations. For further research on analysing economic performance of sustainable farm management practices, we need for developing methodology of dynamic green budgeting and for minimizing errors using the accurate farmers' book recording. Researchers: Kim, Chang-Gil and Tae-Young Kim E-mail address: changgil@krei.re.kr