I could spend a huge amount of this blog on the on-goings in Thailand: rational analysis, past present and future. But I am not.
Much of what has played out in the last few weeks in Thailand concerning rice pledging and political scheming was to be expected. Government is weak and has problems continuing programme: the dèja vu! It's all great when you start the rice pledge programme, but it's like a drug: there's no way you can stop. without tears that is.
So yesterday, Thai farmers were in arms, today it's believed they might get their pay, so they are back on the land. Thai government corrupt? Oh no! Not again!
Despite the good years, it's odd to see how fast some farmers are to switch their allegiance ...
Well what else is there to report about?
Rules, my a**?
We could start off by looking at how Cambodia is struggling to market it's rice. The Phnom Penh Post (Feb. 17) reports on stringent rules concerning providence of it's rice export so as to prove to Europe that yes indeed it is Cambodia produce.
'Exporters requesting a certificate of origin from the Ministry of Commerce will be required to show proof through invoices and receipts that the rice is local.An audit committee consisting of both industry and non-industry representatives is tasked with investigating claims of fraud.Penalties include the permanent revocation of an exporter’s certificate of origin, which strips the business of duty-free access to Cambodia’s largest market'.
If this were to happen, the cost of
exporting Cambodian rice just got more expensive and wrought with
administration, yea! Note that David Van in a comment says it's bollocks, there is
no need for a certificate. So article wrong?
Earlier this month (Feb. 4) the Phnom Penh Post had a re-cap
/ re-hash on the story.
Italy seems to be lobbying for denying no-tariff imports
for Cambodian rice. It's unfair to Italian farmers. This despite the fact that Italy produces different
rice and hardly any note-worthy exports from Cambodia. Reaction:
'David Van [there he is], deputy-secretary general for the Alliance of Rice Producers and Exporters of Cambodia, said in an email yesterday that it was hypocritical of the Italian government to claim developing countries were receiving unfair subsidies, as European countries have long benefited from similar EU deals'.
Trouble is that the importing country sets the rules ....
Lower market prices for Thai rice result in poor conditions for Cambodian rice exports, (Phnom Penh Post, 20 Feb.):
'Stockpiles accumulating since the [Thai rice pledging] scheme was introduced in 2011 have risen to record levels [in Thailand], and an anticipated fire sale has buyers holding out in anticipation of cheap rice flooding the market. Cambodia and other countries are taking the hit'.
Exporters must decide: to move their stock or to accept lower prices.
Elsewhere, the
importance of rice and rice exports to Cambodia was highlighted through
a World Bank assessment which highlighted how the number of poor in
Cambodia had halved since 2004. Main reasons were increasing prices for
rice and higher productivity.
Especially higher prices seems to contradict common logic which says that low prices are good for the poor. They're not.
The article in the Cambodian Daily (Feb. 21) also highlights that though the poor has halved, most now languish in the near-poor category!
Resistance
Or we could note that Burma exports are increasing to Japan (Nation, Feb. 7). As well as smuggling to Thailand. Britain's Telegraph (Feb. 4) has a first-hand report from Burma, opposite Mae Sot, where large scale smuggling is taking place.
Meanwhile in Laos, farmers are apparently defying private armies trying to rob them of their lands (Radio Free Asia, Jan. 22), now why is this not a headline?
'In a rare act of resistance, dozens of rice farmers in northern Laos have defied armed police orders to vacate land seized by a Chinese company wanting to build an airport as part of a casino-driven special economic zone, according to villagers.
The 50-odd farmers refused to budge when policemen, armed with AK-47 assault rifles, moved on Friday to enforce an order by the King Romans (Dok Ngiew Kham) Group for the farmers to leave their rice fields to make way for the construction of the airport in Tonpheung district in Bokeo province'.
Then in the
Philippines where rice smuggling, or rice importing at inflated prices
is all the rage. But those pinpointed alleged receivers are suddenly not
fit to face a Filipino Senate committee (Oryza, Feb. 24).
Up your street
Or we could note that Thai research has found out that their farmers are a lot worse off than Vietnamese and Burmese farmers (despite the higher prices?). Thai farmers are hampered by the high cost of inputs so concludes the article on the research by University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce (Bangkok Post, Feb. 26).
But a quick flick through the article learns that the low productivity is the crux of the discussion and probably the high cost of labour, it's not clear.
Even worse is the conclusion, that it in part is due to the governments rice-pledging scheme. That seems to be the world upside down. But yes, that's how it is seen. The backers are requesting the government (which one?) to use subsidies to drive down production costs.
But how? Will they want to lower labour wages? Give hand-outs to fertlizer and chemical producers?
If you believe rice-pledging was hampered by graft and accountability, then why would you propose even less accountable alternatives?
One mistake (besides graft and accountability; no matter what you do these will always remain a problem in the Thai context) the government made was to think that the rice pledging programme would be self-sufficient: hoarding would lead to higher world prices. Market conditions were not so and the government failed to act.
And now I still being sucked into the discussion ....
Anyway, Siam Kubota's profits will drop so reports the Bangkok Post (Feb. 25 ) mainly due to lower purchasing power of farmers because the price for rice is lower. So, obviously the reverse is true, the rice-pledge has lead to increased investment. Or not?
And the Bangkok Post (Feb. 24) has a rather lengthy exposé in which they calculate that organic rice growing is as profitable as for non-organic. So if their consequence support for lowering input prices (above) is thought through, this would be distorted and yes the subsidies would mean more chemicals on the farms, good to see Bangkok Post jumping on this bandwagon!
