採行生產履歷措施對台灣芒果產業之影響評估

Produce Traceability Impact Analysis on Taiwan Mango Industry

蕭元魁(Yuan-Kuei Hsiao)

指導教授 ： 陳郁蕙

國立臺灣大學/生物資源暨農學院/農業經濟學研究所/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.01804

摘要

面對新回合農業談判之壓力，各國農產品市場必須更加開放，而面對貿易自由化及市場競爭之挑戰，台灣農產品應以生產高品質與高價值之優質農產品為市場行銷利基。由於台灣農產品目前之出口市場及潛在出口市場已紛紛採行農產品生產履歷或可追蹤體系，台灣若擬拓展農產品國際貿易，必須順應世界潮流，遵循國際規範，因此須儘早規劃實施產銷履歷制度，方能與先進國家食品安全規範接軌，並善盡確保國人食品安全之責。
　　行政院農業委員會為加強推動台灣農產品外銷，突顯我國優質農產品特色，2004年選定蝴蝶蘭、烏龍茶、台灣鯛及芒果等四項農產品為當年外銷旗艦農產品。其中，芒果為我國僅次於香蕉第二大水果輸出品項，主要出口地區包括香港、新加坡及日本等地，由於台灣外銷之芒果多具吉園圃標章，品質優良衛生，且集運保鮮、檢疫處理等技術均成熟穩定，因此極具國際競爭力。
　　本研究目的是評估採行農產品生產履歷措施對台灣芒果產業之影響，首先先建立芒果產業之要素及產品市場模型，接著利用可計算部分均衡模型來分析，最後則以敏感度分析評估採行生產履歷措施後對台灣芒果產業之影響效果。台灣芒果品項眾多，主要以愛文、本地種(或新在來種、土芒果)與金煌為最大宗，但受限於資料取得問題，本研究以目前生產最大宗及資料較完整之愛文芒果為研究對象。本研究以2003年臺灣愛文芒果之資料為比較基期，分析實際生產履歷對芒果產品市場及要素市場之影響。依據模擬結果，隨著生產履歷抽檢成本逐漸降低，檢驗成本對愛文芒果之種植面積、地租、農戶數、工資、農藥數量、農藥價格、產量、產地價格與零售價格之影響逐漸縮小。
　　當生產履歷檢驗成本為15元/公斤，對要素市場之影響如下：愛文芒果種植面積降幅為0.66％；地租降幅為2.84％；農戶數降幅為1.28％；而工資降幅為2.23％；每年整個產業農藥投入量降幅為1.56％；農藥價格降幅為1.95％。在產品市場之影響效果方面，在此方案下，整個愛文芒果年產量降幅為1.87％，但產地價格漲幅為39.29％，而零售價格漲幅為2.40％。
　　當生產履歷檢驗成本為3.75元/公斤，對要素市場之影響如下：愛文芒果種植面積降幅為0.16％；地租降幅為0.71％；農戶數降幅為0.32％；而工資降幅為0.56％；每年整個產業農藥投入量降幅為0.39％；農藥價格降幅為0.49％。在產品市場之影響效果方面，在此方案下，整個愛文芒果年產量降幅為0.47％，但產地價格漲幅為9.82％，而零售價格漲幅為0.60％。
　　研究結果整理如下：
一、建立安全農業之第三者認驗證機制及相關法規，以確保生產履歷紀錄資訊之正確性，。
二、調降農產品藥物或重金屬殘留檢(化)驗費用，以促進農產品生產履歷制度之推行。

關鍵字

芒果產業 ； 可計算部份均衡模型 ； 生產履歷

並列摘要

In facing a new round of agricultural negotiation demands, each country’s produce market must become more open to the public in order to meet challenges in trade liberalization and market competition. Taiwan’s produce should draw on superior quality and high value produce as its core market niche. According to the current export and potential market’s considerable preference on produce traceability, if Taiwan plans to expand to international trade, it therefore must adjust to world trends, adhere to global restrictions, likewise immediately map out traceability, so that it can keep track of modern nations’ food safety rules as well as conscientiously taking responsibility in ensuring food safety among citizens.
For the advancement of Taiwan’s farm produce export, the Executive Yuan Council of Agriculture stresses on the high quality features of its harvests. In 2004, it selected four items to become the country’s flagship produce item, namely butterfly orchid, oolong tea, Taiwan sea bream and mangoes. Among which, mango ranks second to bananas for export variety. Major export areas include Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan. Mango exportation has international competitive strength because of its products mostly having Good Agricultural Product (GAP) mark, high quality standards and sanitation, its ability to maintain freshness, and quarantine technology stability.
The research objective is to estimate the gathered produce traceability measurement and its impact against Taiwan Mango Industry. Firstly, establish the essential factors and product market model of the mango industry. Secondly, utilize computational partial equilibrium model to analyze. And lastly, use sensitivity analysis to estimate Taiwan Mango Industry applying production traceability measurement and its subsequent impact. Taiwan has a wide variety of mangoes having majority mainly on Irwin mangoes, native mangoes and Jin-Hwang mangoes. However, due to limitations on data gathering, the research will focus on the largest production and more complete information availability which is the Irwin mango. The study uses year 2003 data on Taiwan’s Irwin Mango as baseline of comparison, the produce traceability analysis is carried out against its impact on mango products and fundamental market. Based on simulation results, when produce traceability’s random sampling cost decreases, impact on inspection costs for Irwin Mangoes’ plant area, rent, farmer households, wages, pesticide quantity, pesticide price, production capacity, farm price and retail price also gradually decreases.
When produce traceability cost is set to fifteen N.T. dollars per kilogram (NT$15/kg), the fundamental market impact are as follows: Irwin Mango plant area decrease level is 0.66%; rent decrease level is 2.84%; farmer households decrease level is 1.28%; wage decrease level is 2.23%; annual overall industry pesticide usage rate decrease level is 1.56%; pesticide price decrease level is 1.95%. With regards to the effect of influence on product market, this case shows that the whole Irwin Mango’s annual production decrease level is 1.87% however farm price increase level is 39.29% and retail price increase level is 2.40%.
Consequently, when produce traceability cost is set to three N.T. dollars and seventy five centavos per kilogram (NT$3.75/kg), the fundamental market impact are as follows: Irwin Mango plant area decrease level is 0.16%; rent decrease level is 0.71%; farmer households decrease level is 0.32%; wage decrease level is 0.56%; annual overall industry pesticide usage rate decrease level is 0.39%; pesticide price decrease level is 0.49%. With regards to the effect of influence on product market, this case shows that the whole Irwin Mango’s annual production decrease level is 0.47% however farm price increase level is 9.82% and retail price increase level is 0.60%.

Research results are as follows:
1. To ensure the accuracy of produce traceability record information, establish safety agriculture third party certification body or other similar regulations.
2. Promote produce traceability implementation by reducing the inspection costs on farm chemicals or heavy metal.

並列關鍵字

Mango Industry ； Computational Partial Equilibrium (CPE) model ； Produce Traceability

參考文獻

台灣農產物價與成本統計月報，1994-2003。台北：行政院農業委員會農糧署。

農業統計年報，1983-2003。台北：行政院農業委員會。

劉銘峰，1996。『芒果栽培』。台北：行政院農業委員會農糧署。

Chang, H.-H. R. N. Boisvert, and D. Blandford, 2005. “Achieving Environmental Objectives Under Reduce Domestic Agricultural Support and Trade Liberalization: An Empirical Application to Taiwan,” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 34(1): 1-16.

Jordan, J. L., R. L. Shewfelt, S. E. Prussia, and W. C. Hurst, 1985. “Estimating Implicit Marginal Prices of Quality Characteristics of Tomatoes,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. 17: 139-146.