Fairy land

The mythical world

Prominent news the past few weeks is a nondescript article in IRRI's Rice Today.

IRRI is feeling the heat (Rice Today, Oct. 8) and responds to it's critics of the development of Golden Rice (GR). 

GR essentially implies adding genes to traditional varieties giving them higher vit. A traits. 

The myths of GR:  

'First is the notion that Golden Rice is some sort of unnatural, monster rice. 
...
Second is the idea that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unsafe, cause cancer or other major health risks, or pose serious environmental problems. 
... 
Finally, there is the idea that Golden Rice is being developed to be sold by big biotechnology companies to profit from poor farmers'.

But in reality it does nothing to allay these fears. See here:

- Approving GR is just a way to soften up resistance to hybrid and GM rice. 

- If GMOs are safe why is there so much public resistance? Why not approve labelling then, is this not a win-win solution?

- Well, big companies are all well versed in PR. Give a crumb here, reap the world there. Syngenta's involvement gives them some pay-back elsewhere with IRRI, for sure ...

Still, kudo's for IRRI facing the music.

Just an afternote: too close for comfort Bayer Cropscience has a big do in Delhi, India called ricefutureforum with IRRI as co-host and has also managed to get Germany's public development agency Giz on board ...

The future according to Bayer is a hybrid one. Yeah, right.

Oh and this. An interesting article from farmanddairy (Oct. 10) highlights recent research which focuses how herbicide resistance can pass from the GM crop to similar weeds: 

'Rice containing an overactive gene that makes it resistant to a common herbicide can pass that genetic trait to weedy rice, prompting powerful growth even without a weed-killer to trigger the modification benefit, new research shows'. 

Though this does not imply that it will happen obviously there may be more risks than we think.

Domestic and global affairs

There's surprisingly little to report on, in Cambodia.

Despite export figures up by 100%, it still falls way behind what the government would like to see (PPP, Oct. 9). Reality check.

Production will remain the same. Is this despite of the floods? Or because of the floods? Source is the Cambodian Herald (Oct. 4).

The Strait Times (Oct. 12) notes how India is becoming Singapore´s source of rice, leaving Thailand behind. No reasons given, is it the price? Consumer preference for Basmati? A miracle?

Some good news for Thai government. The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 14) highlights China's lower than expected rice production. Partly brought on by drought/heat conditions earlier this year it also delves up info on productivity which also is slipping: 

'Analysts cite a shift in land use toward industrial and residential by farmers in the humid southern regions where rice grows best. Production has increasingly moved to more arid northern regions where big yields are harder to get, said Rabobank agriculture analyst Chenjun Pan.

Ms. Pan and other analysts say the rice-yield plateau shows that affordable technological innovations to increase yields may have also reached their limits. Chinese academics have developed a strain of "super rice," capable of doubling the yield to 13.5 tons a hectare, but the hybrid grain remains financially out of reach for most farmers.

A trend of lower Chinese rice production, if sustained, would afford further opportunities to global rice exporters in what is becoming an increasingly attractive market. Overall grain imports are rising along with domestic wealth and worries over illegal levels of toxicity in many kinds of Chinese-produced food'.

More significant I found this snippet: 

'Grain imports in China are a politically sensitive issue. China's military has weighed in publicly against rising corn imports in recent months, with a major general from the People's Liberation Army publishing an essay in a popular newspaper in August arguing that genetically modified corn imports may be a way for the U.S. to threaten China's food security'. 

Well, if this is the view then the expansion of global hybrid rice fuelled in part by Chinese interests might well imply that the intentions need not be humanitarian, nor economic. But a way to strategically gain leverage? Hidden agenda?

The FAO put out another of their quarterly overviews of the world's cereal markets (Oct. 3). It notes the continuing fall of rice prices and the slow expansion of production. The immediate future sees prices going lower yet, not really encouraging for any producers.

And the saga continues

The Nation (Oct. 1) mentions that maybe the Thai rice pledge will continue indefinitely as losses are nowhere near what everybody thinks.

The institutionalizing of the programme has required a need for more storage capacity. The Bangkok Post (Oct. 1) reports on how the Thai state Public Warehousing Organisation hopes to be able to expand compensation. 

However they are up against fraud suspicions as in their previous attempt to expand, the bid winner was announced before the tender process started ...!

Even though exports have dropped since the start of the rice pledging scheme, the Thai government is still comfortable with the ability to export 8-10 million tonnes. So mentions the Nation (Oct. 9).

Funny, to date export volumes for 2013 are nearly 2.5 million tonnes, down more than 30% on the 2012 figures. Let's see where the 8 million come from.

Accounting for losses means that the government hopes to not include humanitarian assistance in it's books, i.e. this should be a write off at full purchase price, rather than the world market price. Who cares? The Nation, Oct. 10.

The accounting section was also at a loss to find out that they had actually bought more rice in the past 2012-2013 season than intended and need another 9 billion Thai Baht (nearly 0.3 billion $US), so reports the Bangkok Post (Oct. 10). Why not?

A blog entry by the Wall Street Journal. Posted on Oct. 7 it gives a good introduction to current issues on the rice pledging scheme. However it also mentions to instil it's own philosophies. For instance it mentions that continuation of current government policies is ill-advised and will lead to increased dissatisfaction with the government. Me thinks the opposite.

Spin doctoring at it's best. A Thai government official notes that food insecurity issues are driving those affected countries into Thai arms and will receive nice quantities of rice imports if they ask politely. 

Or so it seems. 

Reported in the Nation (Oct. 14) it implies that storing most of the globe's exports will result in positive paybacks for the service offered. But what if over-priced in a climate where prices are trending downwards?

The Bangkok Post provides us with news: rice pledging leads to lower global prices (Oct. 15). Nothing new. Stocks in Thailand will increase, by 24% so estimates the USDA. Global prices will drop by 10% by April next year. In the article it refers to Bloomberg's article of 15 Oct. 2013.

Thailand's BAAC needs another 140 billion bath ($4,.5 billion US$) to finance next years pledges, so reports Bangkok Post (Oct. 21). Hope somebody is adding all this up.

 

Bangkok Post (Oct. 11) repeats Thai government assertions that it will be able to sell 1 million tonnes of rice to China. Spread over 5 years ... And bought from private traders not the government. And the same article notes that previous government claims appear to be wishful thinking.

The deal with China is preliminary, concedes Thai PM (Bangkok Post, Oct. 16). Apparently it's just an intention. Salient detail: there might be swap, rice for high speed trains! 

The Nations mentions that exporters are in no mood for cheering (Oct. 15) despite announcements of deals with China. It also notes that the Thai PM is vague on details (Oct. 16). While a day later the Bangkok Post emphasizes the PM implied the agreement was an informal one, i.e. no deal at all. Opposition were making hay with implying the government were imagining deals.

At a loss

Coming from another corner, a former Deputy PM (Pridiyadhorn Devakula) advises the government to hand out the cash directly to the farmers rather than establishing an intricate and fraud-fraught system based on producing rice (Bangkok Post, Oct. 15). 

On the face of it, it does seem more just, but in the end the only thing that ties recipients into the slower growing areas is the production of rice. Fail to reward agricultural production would result in everyone moving into Bangkok and using proxies to earn their share of the pie. Now at least there is some multiplier effect and if the scheme had been introduced before the height of rice prices it would have produced quite an effect. However now the scheme is draining public funds, encouraging fraud while it may well be never-ending.

Bite:

'He [Pridiyadhorn Devakula] cited figures showing that in the two years since implementing the programme, with a total of 48 million tonnes of paddy involved, the government had lost at least 425 billion baht, but rice farmers gained benefits amounting to only 210 billion baht.

More importantly, those who were not farmers gained more than 115 billion baht in benefits, showing that the government had failed to prevent corruption in the rice scheme, he said'. 

High in pointing out current short-comings there seems to be little thought of over how an alternative plan would work, nor how fraud might be avoided. 

As always the Nation chimes in likewise. Or is it vice-versa?

Government refutes Pridiyadhorn Devakula claims. The Nation (Oct. 17) gives air to government rebuttals: nobody knows what the losses are! Not even the government!

Despite assurances to the contrary, former deputy PM / Finance minister (Pridiyadhorn Devakula) sees losses only going up (Bangkok Post, 22 Oct.). The neat sum of losses would be 466 billion baht or nearly 15 billion $US since it's induction.

'Last week, MR Pridiyathorn, also known by his nickname of Mom Oui, gave a press conference in which he called the government's rice-pledging scheme the biggest loss-incurring project ever conceived. At the time, he estimated that if the government could sell all of the pledged rice stockpiles by 2015, it would make losses of at least 425 billion baht _ 205 billion baht from the 2011/2012 crop and 220 billion from the 2012/2013 crop. MR Pridiyathorn's comments prompted government ministers to defend the project. Finance Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong said MR Pridiyathorn, also a former governor of the Bank of Thailand, does not understand the programme's accounting system. Deputy Prime Minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisan, who is also commerce minister, said actual losses from the scheme as of January were only about 100 billion baht. In response to MR Pridiyathorn's latest estimates, Deputy Commerce Minister Yanyong Phuangrach yesterday said it was impossible for the rice scheme to cause as much as 466 billion baht in losses. He said the government has spent about 600 billion baht on the project. It expected to earn 200 billion baht from rice sales by the end of this year. "That means there is a gap of 400 billion baht. But we have more than 10 million tonnes of rice in stock. Even if we sell the rice at half price, we would still earn about 200 billion baht," Mr Yanyong

insisted. He added that his calculation means the government will be only about 200 billion baht short, which amounts to a loss of about 100 billion baht a year. MR Pridiyathorn insisted yesterday that number was impossible based on the rice release information from the ministry itself. "It's clear the ministry's argument is completely wrong. The issue is whether the ministry understands the issue but conceals the loss figures, or if it does not understand anything," MR Pridiyathorn said'.

Alt

Some rice not going into the rice pledge scheme is organic rice. The Bangkok Post (Oct. 14) reports on how a Singaporean entrepreneur is importing into Singapore as well as exporting to other markets northern Thai organic rice priced at 10% above the governments pledging prices. Business is expanding by 10% per annum with current exported quantities heading towards the 1,000 tonnes. 

The Nation carries the same story.

The Nation (Oct. 21) concludes that organic rice is better than feeding off the national rice pledge scheme. Another feel good story about how organic rice has the potential to avoid pitfalls of the industrial lead rice schemes, i.e. by avoiding taking on debt. Pity the story from Thailand's Khon Kaen is scarce on economics.

Unravelling

We could easily fill this blog with 100+ references to what now looks like the end of free handouts for Thai rice farmers. But I won't.

What I will do is try to recap:

Thai politics are thwart with vote-buying. Very often dressed up neatly, launched as a so-called policy, the objective is to hand out cash, with the confidence vote required in return. With most of Thailand's farmers dependent on rice (to a varying degree), a guarantee price was set up, above and beyond what could be expected. The government became the buyer and was only waiting for the international price to follow suit so that the government could off-load it's stores and even make a profit. A win-win situation.

Not. Besides inefficiencies in the process (where did the international rice trader go?) and the stimulation of graft, the rice pledging scheme has run into problems because the price will go down. And will head further south once (or if?) the silo's will be emptied.

In the end all we can say is that rice growing in Thailand was stimulated. Additionally, internationally, prices of rice stabilised, so many consuming countries will be sending a new greetings cards later on this year to Thailand.

But governments shouldn't intervene in commercial processes. And certainly not governments who have no idea what they are doing, who are susceptible to short-term gains and function in an environment where taking say a 10% share of whatever passes along is commonplace.

The beginning of the end?

And things were going hunky-dory. Yeah, there were a couple of blips, a lot of blah blah (opposition jealousy, soothsayers predicting a worse future), but in general things were going well. Farmers (and voters) happy, what more could a government wish for?

And then in steps the international financial community. The same guys that failed to see the current global economical mess, suspected that Thailand might be less well-off (financially) than they thought themselves; the government was only buying / buying and nothing was being sold. And rice is perishable. 

The response: liars! Bangkok Post (June 6):

'The agency [Moody's] noted the losses could exceed 200 billion baht for 2011-12, more than double the Finance Ministry's forecast of 70-100 billion baht. Mr Niwatthamrong [PM's Office Minister], however, said this estimate was exaggerated. He said the 200-billion-baht figure was most likely the amount of money the government spent to purchase rice from farmers rather than the loss incurred'.

The Thai government then goes into overdrive to point out that losses are nowhere as great as that (source). In fact (Nation, June 8) the scheme is still on-going so only when completed will we [Thai tax-payers?] know what the exact cost was.

For more info on the Moody's vs Thai government visit Asian Correspondents background articles pt 1 and pt 2 (!).

But just in case Moody's are correct let's start lowering the intervention price. Or the prelude to political suicide.  Now your supporters are totally cranky.

Bangkok Post (June 10) reports on the possibility of lowering the price by a third, a move by the government, oddly supported by the Thai Farmers Association (TFA):

'Earlier, Prasit Booncheuy, the [TFA] association's president, said a price of 10,000 baht per tonne, down from 15,000 baht a tonne, was acceptable. "Most farmers are willing to accept the lower price. Even though the government offers 15,000-20,000 baht per tonne, the farmers don't get paid fully anyway because of corruption," he said'. 

And we now know that the main reason why the price needs to go down. It's not because of the failure of the system. No, it's the Thai baht's strength (Bangkok Post, June 13).

Lost losses But after testing the waters (are you crazy?), the price will only drop marginally (10-20%) according to reports on June 16 (Nation, Bangkok Post). But nowhere in line with world market prices. Both sources en-passant let readers know:

'The loss of 136 billion baht was based on all expenses in the rice-pledging scheme in its first year _ the 2011/2012 crop year _ including management costs, interest and the estimated value of remaining'.

And more know-how gained:

'Boonsong [Commerce Minister] had earlier said government-pledged rice seeds sold in 5-kg bags at major superstores were safe to eat [or not?] despite being treated with pesticides after the safety time limit. The chemicals are safe after 48 hours for the first type, and 57 days for the second type, and eating this rice after the safety period is not hazardous to health, he said'.

But this has translated into more stringent checks on incoming rice imports in the US (Nation, June 28): 

'The US FDA has ordered every port such as in New York and Chicago to confine Thai rice for random inspection. If the agency finds Thai rice with problems such as contamination, fungus, mold, or over-fumigation five times, the importer would be ordered to refuse Thai rice from exporters.

The source said that such stringent inspection has created concern among American importers as well as Thai rice exporters. Importers could easily turn to order rice from other rice export countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia'.

The article continues to see the flaws in the government intervention:

'Meanwhile, the Commerce Ministry's special taskforce, with cooperation from the Crime Suppression Division, acting against corruption and misconduct in the public sphere, undertook inspection of 2,000 warehouses nationwide and found rice missing from the government's stocks in many provinces'.

Paying the price

Farmers though will suffer from lower prices. The higher prices have meant that land rental values have gone up, eating into the potential profits of farmers (Nation, June 11). The same applies to other inputs. The Nation (June 27) continues:

'Cash return reduced from over Bt3,300 per tonne to Bt360 a tonne, according to BioThai estimates'.

With lower prices on offer these fixed costs won't get cheaper suddenly. So (poorer) farmers will stand to loose substantially. Hence the start of a season of discontent (Bangkok Post, June 19, June 21, Nation June 21, Bangkok Post, June 26, Nation June 26, Nation June 28). The Bangkok Post (June 23) adds:

'Meanwhile, a Bangkok Poll conducted on June 18-20 by the Research Centre at Bangkok University, suggests the prime minister's popularity has plunged. The survey of 1,234 respondents showed the premier's approval rating is now 40.4%, down from 51.2% in November'.

Then comes false securities. Thai government will raise the price once global prices will pick up (Bangkok Post, June 25). Which is unlikely, especially with enormous Thai stocks hovering above the market.

Making hay

My apologies for the above, the intention was to keep it short ...

In the meantime Cambodia is (in absolute terms) slowly making gains in the international market. The Cambodian Daily (June 10) reports on rice exports doubling. Reasoning:

'European countries figure prominently on the list thanks to the European Union’s Everything But Arms trade scheme, which allows Cambodia to export—as the name implies—everything but weapons to member states both duty and quota free.

President of the Federation of Cambodian Rice Exporters Kim Savuth attributed the growing exports to better quality of the product'.

Surprising news (Nation, June 19), Vietnam is to stockpile it's rice produce. Nowhere near Thai dimensions, but still, why try to outsmart the market and lose a wager? 

While Thailand's exports dip, those of Vietnam continue their ascendency (VNS, June 5). And oryzae.com notes (June 28)  that it's own index is nearing a 2 year low, with little or no hope for higher prices. 

Finally

Research on hybrid rice in South Asia concludes that adoption rates are higher with richer farmers but once poorer farmers adopted hybrid rice, the percentage of on-farm consumption was higher for poorer farmers. Which seems logical (source).

Contamination

Are changes near to the current stable global rice market? 

It could be. Three factors: Thai stored rice coming onto the market, possible Vietnamese stockpiling and China's change in taste: no cadmium please! What?

The Wall Street Journal (May 21) has an article of recent unrest in Guangzhou:

'A government test indicated that nearly half the rice sold in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou was contaminated with cadmium, triggering anger from consumers that China's staple food hasn't escaped the widespread pollution tainting its air, water and soil.

...

According to the Guangzhou authorities, the contaminated samples were found to have 0.21 milligram to 0.4 milligram of cadmium in each kilogram of rice. The Chinese government allows a maximum 0.2 mg of cadmium in each kilogram of rice'. 

As the rice originates from Chinese province of Hunan, consumers are advised to seek alternative sources; as with milk powder this may well wet China's appetite for foreign rice (yeah Thailand!). Note the 100+ comments ...

The Bangkok Post (May 27) chimes in: 

'Consumers in China are turning to well-known brands from northern provinces and Thai imports after high traces of cadmium were found in some long-grain rice in the country's South, a commodities analyst said.

Demand for Thai rice, which can cost as much as nine times local grain, is rising, said Wang Shutong, an analyst at commodity information provider Sublime China Information Co (SCI). The price of rice from northeast Heilongjiang province, which produces the short-grain japonica variety, has risen as much as 2.6% this month, according to data tracked by SCI.

...

Sales from mills in Hunan province, the first reported origin of the tainted rice, are stalling and 70% of processing plants have halted operations'. One of the comments: 'Thai rice is also tainted - patents or not, organic or not. It's not as dangerous as China's rice, but, it is loaded with arsenic and pesticide residues. Because the ground water has been tainted by farmers using pesticides. So even farmers growing rice 'organically' are growing it in water tainted with arsenic and pesticide residues, which end up in the rice we are eating'.

International Business Times also (May 28) looks at the cadmium story. It notes: 

'China's imports of Thai rice or grains is expected to surge in the following weeks after the recent discovery of cadmium metal contamination in the grains marketed by Hunan, China's largest rice-producing province.

...

Rice wholesalers in China have stopped selling rice from Hunan, buying from elsewhere in China, and even from Vietnam and Pakistan. In fact, rice grains prices from northeast Heilongjiang province has jumped to as much as 2.6 percent in May, according to data Bloomberg gathered from SCI'.

The other factors: to stockpile or not?

Despite a plethora of articles and comments, Thailands Nation (May 13) reports that officials want to 

'convene to evaluate the [rice pledge revolving] fund's status'. 

Is the bucket of gold (nearly) empty?

An opinion ventilated by Rakesh Sodhia on May 21 in the Nation:

'The government says Thailand will export 8.5 million tonnes in 2013, an increase of 20 per cent over 2012. The Thai Rice Exporters' Association says the figure is 6.5 million tonnes.
I have been in the rice-export business in Thailand for over 30 years and will place my money on the lower figure from the association. The government has no clue how to solve the problems facing the industry and reduce the huge stocks it is holding. If it discounts prices to be competitive against those of Vietnam, India, Pakistan and Myanmar, it will end up losing US$200-$250 per tonne. Meanwhile, the government's storage costs increase daily, since it is paying for space, inspections, fumigation and insurance, in addition to a deterioration in rice quality over time. The government is caught between a rock and a hard place and has nowhere to go'.

Opinion from Bangkok Post (May 23): the day of reckoning is near. For the rice-pledge scheme so it seems. Losses are yet to be accounted for, but once that happens, the free-hand in rice subsidies will quickly disappear so believes Thailand's no. 1 English print.

With virtually all of Thailands' rice tied up in government schemes, it's no surprise that the Nation (May 28) forecasts a bleak future for Thai rice exporters, the real victims of the rice pledge scheme. Not only are competitors eating into the Thai pie, increasingly importing countruies are seeking to establish their own rice self-sufficiency.

As if the Thai government aren't troubled enough domestically, now the foreigners are breathing down the Thai necks. AsiaOne (June 4) notes that ratings agencies (remember, those agencies that failed to see the recent banking crisis) are warning Thailand that their financial goals (and thuis their improved ratings) may well not be reached if the rice pledging scheme continues.

'Thailand - rated "Baa1" with stable outlook - had hoped to win a credit upgrade, to an "A" rating once assigned before the financial crisis in 1997.

But in a statement, Moody's said implied losses of Bt200 billion in the harvest year were much higher than the World Bank's estimate of Bt115 billion (S$4.7 billion) and the Finance Ministry's forecast loss of Bt70-Bt100 billion'.

The knee-jerk reaction. Bangkok Post (June 4): 

'Moody's Investors Service's credit-negative report on the rice pledging scheme is wrong, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said on Tuesday, and the government will issue a report explaining why'. 

Yawn. The Thai government are even losing the plot: 

'During the debate, Boonsong [Commerce Minister] said that the Bt260 billion loss, reportedly cited in an unofficial Finance Ministry report, associated with the scheme was groundless. But he did not produce any proof to support his claim.

...

When asked repeatedly, the PM said: "I told you, that those responsible for finding out the [actual] figures associated with the scheme will make them public later." Asked if the scheme losing such a huge amount would affect her as prime minister, she said "Enough!", and walked off'.

More empty pockets. The Nation (June 5): 

'The Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives says it has an adequate budget to continue the rice-pledging scheme until the end of the latest project, but beyond that, the government will either have to borrow more or accelerate its stockpile releases to earn some rice-sales revenue as soon as possible'.

Is Vietnam following suit? Read this: 

'Vietnam may stockpile 1 million tonnes of milled rice, about a fifth of the current Mekong Delta harvest, in a bid to support prices that have dropped to their lowest in nearly 26 months'.

The above from Pakistan's Business Recorder  (June 2). It also notes that it's mainly businesses that are stockpiling in the short term, are gambling on prices holding or even going up ...

Risk averse

The Cambodia Daily (May 22) reports on efforts by the UN and China to raise cassava exports and enhancing quality at the same time. As with rice, cassava production and exports of raw products are booming.

The Phnom Penh Post (May 23) reports on rising rice regional exports: 

'Kim Savuth, president of the Federation of Cambodian Rice Exporters, told the Post yesterday that milled rice exports to European countries, Cambodia’s traditional market, is still increasing, but its percentage share is gradually decreasing. He said the trend of exports to Asian market is on the rise'.

A cryptic article from the Phnom Penh Post (May 22): 

'Officials are seeking expert firms to implement projects on so-called contract farming and the enhancement of the involvement of farmers’ organisations in paddy collecting and processing, officials said'. 

Some how I don't seem to understand the content of whatever they are hoping to do. Are Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD) and the government in the market for establishing contracts? The only catch I saw was that it was to be financed by AFD for €6 million! Fail to find any additional info on the AFD website ...

The answer to Cambodia's agriculture are loans and irrigation. So say experts as reported by the Phnom Penh Post (May 20): 

'In a meeting on the private sector development in the rice sector, Lim Heng, vice president of the Cambodia Chamber of Commerce, suggested that the government should supply more irrigation systems for better rice output.
“If we do not have enough water systems and still depend on the rainfall, the risk can be very high,” Lim Heng told participants in the meeting. “Therefore financial institutions will be hesitant to give us loans as they think it is too risky.”
He added that if farmers had enough water, crop yields will be better, and the costs of production would be lower.
Irrigation systems in Cambodia are said to be on the rise, but experts in the sector said this is not reflected in day-to-day practices.

...

Experts have long said that the shortage of loan activity in Cambodian agriculture hinders the sector’s development'.

Oryza.com (May 28) shares the thrill of Cambodian rice exporters at being part of the THAIFEX – the World Food of Asia food trade fair.

Giants and more risks

A sleeping giant has awakened. Radio Free Asia reports (May 9) that Burma hopes to export double last years figures of more than 1.5 million tonnes:

'Soe Tun [Myanmar Rice Industry Association central executive member] said Burma had recently set new records in rice exports, referring to a state media report which said the country had exceeded its target of 1.5 million tons in the last fiscal year by about 600,000 tons, marking “the highest amount of rice exported from Burma in the last 46 years.”
“Burma is now fifth in terms of rice exports around the world,” he said, and is poised to grow.
The Southeast Asian nation was the world’s biggest rice exporter for much of the first half of the 20th century until it was overtaken by Thailand after an army coup in 1962 set up nearly five decades of junta rule.
Since taking power in 2011, Thein Sein’s reformist government has quickly revamped Burma’s rice production and reputation as an exporter'.

Vietnamnet reports (May 20) on the problems it faces when exporting to China:

'However, high risks have been existing. The importers from China, the vast market which consumes 1/3 of Vietnam’s total rice exports, have been trying to force the prices down, or threaten to cancel contracts.

...

The director of a rice export company complained he has tasted a bitterness when doing business with a Chinese enterprise.

The Chinese partner ordered 10,000 tons or rice, with the payment to be made after deliveries. When the products docked at the destination ports, the partner, complaining about the quality, insisted on lowering the prices. The rice exporter, who fell into dilemma, had to sell the consignment of goods at a loss'.