A recent article in the Phnom Penh Post (31 march 2011) quotes a Cambodia 'official' of the Ministry of Economy and Finance describing that 350 $ million was needed to help reach the governments rice export target of 1 million ton in 2015. The maths part includes $150 million for investment and $200 million for financing.
Which doesn't seem like a lot. Based on current prices, financing alone would be a shortfall of $400 million of bridging the shortfall in rice export (800,000 ton).
Furthermore it highlighted the gap in knowledge, surely there are more intelligent ways to finance the financing? And in the end it's a revolving fund, you get your money back and most probably won't cost you much. If the government puts it's act together the cost of lending as well as the risk would drop and this way you would be able to compete better.
Surprisingly it also mentions that production is already outstripping demand by more than 3 million tonnes. Which is thus lost? Or exported?
Khmerweekly site is another website which copies freely from the to be paid press in Cambodia. This link gives an interview from the Phnom Penh Post, not really good, but just underlines the need for capital. The exporter would also like to see a tax waiver ...
KI Media (24 February 2011) refers to a VOA article on the 'dire' situation in Cambodia's rice seed sector. It stresses first that better seed can increase production according to the interviewed farmer by a ton per hectare. It the points out that Cambodia's productivity is lower than it's neighbours (not Thailand!) but fails to mention economic returns. Thailand knows that lower productivity often results in higher returns.
It then quotes the Cambodian Economic Institute which claims the seed sector is "backward" and "afraid to modernize". However in my experience, it seems the rice seed sector is on par with those of other developing nations not relying on hybrid rice seed.
It then seems to link this critique with the governments 49% share in the only company producing improved rice seed and assumes that this monopoly is the root cause.
It's not. With a few exceptions, rice seed is of little interest to seed companies globally and if the public sector would not be trying to produce seed there would be none at all.
Other recent articles are from the Thai press (BKK Post, 9 March 2011) where the local seed association is hoping to be able to import hybrid seeds which seems a tactic from the major producers of hybrid seeds to catch up with CP. To sell the deal to policy makers they compare the achievements of maize with the potential for rice. Poor comparison. Animal fodder versus human food.
Which doesn't seem like a lot. Based on current prices, financing alone would be a shortfall of $400 million of bridging the shortfall in rice export (800,000 ton).
Furthermore it highlighted the gap in knowledge, surely there are more intelligent ways to finance the financing? And in the end it's a revolving fund, you get your money back and most probably won't cost you much. If the government puts it's act together the cost of lending as well as the risk would drop and this way you would be able to compete better.
Surprisingly it also mentions that production is already outstripping demand by more than 3 million tonnes. Which is thus lost? Or exported?
Khmerweekly site is another website which copies freely from the to be paid press in Cambodia. This link gives an interview from the Phnom Penh Post, not really good, but just underlines the need for capital. The exporter would also like to see a tax waiver ...
KI Media (24 February 2011) refers to a VOA article on the 'dire' situation in Cambodia's rice seed sector. It stresses first that better seed can increase production according to the interviewed farmer by a ton per hectare. It the points out that Cambodia's productivity is lower than it's neighbours (not Thailand!) but fails to mention economic returns. Thailand knows that lower productivity often results in higher returns.
It then quotes the Cambodian Economic Institute which claims the seed sector is "backward" and "afraid to modernize". However in my experience, it seems the rice seed sector is on par with those of other developing nations not relying on hybrid rice seed.
It then seems to link this critique with the governments 49% share in the only company producing improved rice seed and assumes that this monopoly is the root cause.
It's not. With a few exceptions, rice seed is of little interest to seed companies globally and if the public sector would not be trying to produce seed there would be none at all.
Other recent articles are from the Thai press (BKK Post, 9 March 2011) where the local seed association is hoping to be able to import hybrid seeds which seems a tactic from the major producers of hybrid seeds to catch up with CP. To sell the deal to policy makers they compare the achievements of maize with the potential for rice. Poor comparison. Animal fodder versus human food.
