Abbreviated

An interesting article throwing up SOME NEW quandaries was to be found in the NZ Herald (Nov. 2). 

Focusing on pine it raises the question, when is GM GM? discussing new technologies:

'They are novel DNA-changing techniques that blur the lines around what is and what isn't genetic engineering. Their names alone are fuse blowing: zinc-finger nuclease (ZFN), TALENs (transcription activator-like effector nucleases), cisgenics, oligo-directed mutagenesis (ODM) and others.
These molecular technologies, which target specific genes, offer potential to breed crops, trees and animals with desirable traits and block out less desired aspects more accurately and efficiently than traditional GM and non-GM techniques'.

And though the at the heart of this New Zealand discussion is pine, it also notes that it could erode NZ's green food image:

'It sets up the potential for exporters to inadvertently send traces of a ZFN organism to Europe and potentially trigger market objections," Terry says.
He cites kiwifruit as an example of a crop that could be inadvertently contaminated through the spread of pollen from pines with ZFN-altered DNA'.

At stake of course is what is what. If GMO is to be avoided, what is ZFN? And what lies ahead? Does anyone have an answer? Or are we to leave the dicussion for scientists (= trustworthy?), activists, businesses or lawyers   ....?

Thai state of affairs

While Thailand sees yet a implosion, it's rice pledge scheme is at the heart of not only it's critiques but also in the center of the political struggle. Despite all it's misgivings the largely rural electorate sees rice-pledging as it's return on investment.

It's thus funny to see the opposition trying to make hay out of the scheme (Nation, 28). As if they have a ready answer for the non-urban electorate. And as the PM says, we know what the shortcomings are, no news there.


In the past month the IMF waded into the Thai debate slash quagmire (Bangkok Post, Nov. 13). 
It urges a rethink. 
Because it is eroding public confidence in Thailand's finances. 
Well, so may be, but confidence in the country has long ago ebbed away and the constant cycle of protest / counter protest / election landslides and mini-coups has a lot more to do with that ....

The Thai government though, believe they are in the good. According to the Nation (Nov. 13): 

'This helps boost the economy, as farmers’ income will rise and their debt will decline. As such, their purchasing power is increasing ...'. 

There's no counter-argument? 
Well, the cost of the scheme may not reflect well on the benefits, the potential for financial ruin remains. Debt may well go up. Too much middle man involvement (reading skimming). And graft possibilities.

So it's not so strange to hear of delayed payments to farmers. Where is all the money coming from? And how to pay for the rice buying? The answer are bonds. 
The Bangkok Post (Nov. 20) notes that the government will put a 3-year bond on the market to finance further purchases. Will it be succesful? It might as it provides higher returns for investors. And more debt for the government ...

However, despite this cash infusion (and delay in payments), liquidity of Thailand's agricultural bank (BAAC) seems to be ok (Bangkok Post, Nov. 23).

'Previously, the Public Debt Management Office (PDMO) disclosed a plan to raise funds of 140 billion baht for the 2013-14 main crop, with 75 billion baht to be raised through government bonds to finance the scheme and borrowing in the form of term loans. "Part of the proceeds from the PDMO will be used to repay the bank for the accrued debt from the subsidy where it is supposed to be cleared by thefiscal-2014 budget. The bank's liquidity crunch is an immediate crisis, so we need to use the budget to handle this first," said Mr Tanusak. He insisted that by doing so, the government's paddy scheme is financially manageable'.

That's why there is no need for the sale of bonds? That might contradict earlier plans, so lets assume they are still on the rails. The rice pledge scheme will receive a new infusion of cash (Bangkok Post, Oct. 30), that's all. And so will others ...

How much is lost is a big question mark.

The so-called Post Audit Committee has been doing some calculations and puts the loss at 330 milllion baht (just 10 billion $US!) or nearly 60% of what was paid in by the government (Nation, Nov. 6).

Bailouts if not coming from the financial sector have to be seen overseas.

Hope is still pinned on China. More rumours of possible deals in the pipeline. The Bangkok Post (Nov. 21) describes claims of a government to government deal between Thailand and the state enterprise of Heilongjiang. 1.2 million ton apparently sold based on global prices. Probably meaning another heavy write-off. One snag, as I see it, the rice will be partially be used as cheap hand-out to 

'poverty stricken nations'.

Which means that these nations won't buy any rice anymore ... Oh and the deal is ex-warehouse revealing that the Chinese might have some issues with quality. Or lack of ...

It's also noted by the same newspaper, the same day that there are questions to be asked. The above. And:

'Nipon Poapongsakorn, a former president of the Thailand Development Research Institute and now a fellow at the TDRI, also questioned the validity and viability of the contract, noting that China's state state enterprises are allowed to import only half the yearly total, with the balance to be handled by private Chinese firms'.

The best way to get your money back is to sell. This from Reuters (Nov. 13):

'The results of the earlier tenders were disappointing. The government sold just 240,000 tonnes of rice in three tenders in July and August out of the 660,000 tonnes offered and another 53,000 tonnes out of the 300,339 tonnes offered in October.

Buyers would prefer to obtain fresh rice from the current harvest than buy from the stocks, traders said'.

No silver lining.

Others seek to address how much rice is stocked and hanging above the market.

Oryzae.com (Nov. 21) mentions stocks taken by USDA are near to 15 million tonnes, excluding the 2 million recently pledged. 

The Bangkok Post (Nov. 21) has it's own take on the stocks of rice in Thailand:

'The Thai holdings will surge 18% to 14.9 million tonnes in 2013 and 2014, the International Grains Council forecasts.

...

Bad weather that hurt crops in the Philippines as well as in India will provide price support in the near term, said Samarendu Mohanty, senior economist at the International Rice Research Institute, based in Los Banos, the Philippines. Output in India may drop as much as five million tonnes to about 100 million to 105 million tonnes in 2013 and 2014, Mohanty said.

"With these Philippines and India cases, and China importing more, I don't think the price will go down any more," said Mohanty, forecasting a gain of as much as $30 a tonne by the end of March. "The upside is limited by ample supply in the market and stockpiles in Thailand."'

Bigger is better so it seems and no guessing that Thailand wants to become the worlds no. 1 rice exporter.

'Thailand is maintaining its original projection to export seven million tonnes of rice this year and is set to reclaim its previous role as world’s top rice exporter next year, according to the Commerce Ministry'. 

So reports the MCOT English News (Nov. 20).

Away from the serious business (or not?), the Not the Nation (Nov. 20) announces that the rice stacks will be transformed:

'Attempting to counter accusations of economic mismanagement, the government unveiled today a bold proposal to turn all of its unsold rice stocks into a “world-class tourist attraction and sports destination” by creating the world’s largest artificial ski mountain.

At a joint press conference with the Tourism Authority of Thailand, prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra revealed images of the proposed 340-meter high hill, complete with five automated chairlifts and a 200-room ski lodge and hotel at the base'.

!!!

Time for something different?

Well If the government doesn't know what policy to follow, why not ask businessmen themselves? 
Charoen Pokprahand (CP) chairperson Dhanin Chearavanont explains (Bangkok Post, Oct. 27) that the way forward is to cut rice production by a third!

'He suggested the government urge farmers to cut down their rice planting and grow other crops by offering a subsidy of 1,500 baht per rai. Supply would shrink and that should drive up prices'. 

One of the current weaknesses of the rice-pledging is government graft, surely that will not go away with this! Whatsmore, how do you stimulate farmers to not produce rice if data concerning farmers and farms is inadequate?

The same article also reveals that losses can never be as high as some claim as the newly appointed permanent secretary at the Finance Ministry is

 'experienced'. 

That he claims, despite not having seen the figures themself!

The remedy, IMF suggests, is to cut the rice subsidies and distribute the savings in other subsidies? So where does the public confidence erosion stop?

What is the reaction by the Thai government?  Take a hike! Predictable.
  

Bloomberg.com (Nov. 13):

'Thailand said that it will press on with a $21 billion rice-purchase program, spurning a call from the International Monetary Fund to end the loss-making intervention and telling the lender its approach is better'.

A potential idea. Even though rice pledge prices are above market prices, farmers should focus on niche markets. The Bangkok Post (Nov. 12) mentions

'experts' 

suggesting farmers to switch to rice seed production or to higher value rice varieties such as:

'Khao Leum Pua black glutinous rice and Rice Berry, two highly nutritious grains with strong demand'.

Price implications

With stocks increasing in thailand what are the implications for the wider global market?

Malaysian Insider (Oct. 30) notes that export prices for Thai riceare at a 3 year low ... Outlook is for prices to drop further ...

Bloomberg (Nov. 21) has another take on Thailands rice pledging. Not that revealing though. The stocking and non-selling is driving prices down, even though the Philippines may import more.

On the other hand, in a sign of changing market conditions, Thai rice exporters are also moving away from their grumpy stand (Bangkok Post, Nov. 25). Or is the simply no more way down ...?

Varia

Bangkok Post (Nov. 5) notices that the Philippines will have it's first genetically modified rice in 2-3 years. It weighs the pro's and con's but has little to add.

Arsenic and rice. A major news item (Nov. 19) in the past weeks has been a study in Bangladesh which links arsenic in groundwater with higher levels in rice.

'Even small amounts of arsenic, over a long time, can cause cancer of the bladder, kidney, lung or skin, previous research has found'. 

No real solutions other than diversifying palate. Might have some implications for bangladeshi exports. And Cambodia might well have similar problems.

Reeling in non-partizanship. Previously stated here, German official aid is teaming up with private funding from Bayer. signalling hybrid rice as avenue of the near future, opposition to the is wastage of public funds is increasing. CTA (Nov. 28):

'In fact, Oxfam and numerous other NGOs oppose the GFP in its entirety. It "threatens to turn small farmers into mere appendages of the business and agriculture models of agro-business", according to the Environment and Development Forum, a broad alliance including Oxfam, the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation, Brot für die Welt (Bread for the World) and the human rights organisation FIAN'.

Regional news

The Irrawaddy (Oct. 30) has a nice piece on Burma's emerging rice export industry:

'Domestic media reported last week that Burma’s export earnings have already slumped about US$100 million so far in this financial year because of weaker harvests caused by poor weather. But a bigger problem is an export market bloated with better-quality rice than Burmese growers can produce, said Samarendu Mohanty, an economist with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)'.

Bloomberg (Nov. 27) also picks up on this story and mentions that Burma wants to export near to 5 million tonnes in a year or 5. There are quite a few problems ahead, but the Burmese are brimming with confidence. What might not help are prices dropping ...

Another country affected by the less than optimal export market for rice is of course Vietnam. Export projections have been revised downward so says Vietnam News (Nov. 11):

'The Vietnam Food Association (VFA) readjusted the rice export target for 2013 from 7.5 million tons to 6.7 million, reflecting four months of decreased exports.

...

Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Tran Tuan Anh told Vietnam News Agency that the country's low rice export turnover was due to competition from India and Pakistan in the African market.

The two countries' favorable geographical locations made their transport fees more competitive, while difficulties in payment and transport forced Vietnam's exporters to rely mostly on intermediaries, he said'. 

Strange as China is one of the biggest importers ...

On the other side like the Burmese there is another sign of hope for Thailand. Why? The sell-off in Vietnam has finished. Apparently nothing is left! Vietnam.news (Nov. 25): 

'“The rice volume in stock is modest, which may be not enough to fulfill the signed contracts. Meanwhile, the sale on the domestic market goes well,” Tuan [Le Thanh Tung, a senior official of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD)]said.

“We fear that we may miss the opportunity to export rice to the Philippines, when the country needs more rice to relive the people in the typhoon stricken areas,” he added'.

Big news: The Nation (Nov. 22) reports that Cambodian jasmine rice has been awarded the accolade of world's best rice. For a second year running ...

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.

Winners and losers

Losing out
Far from a happy new year, Thailand's rice exporters are expecting tough times. The Bangkok Post reported on the the third of January how the nation will be facing increased competition from none other than Vietnam and Cambodia:

'He [Chookiat Ophaswongse, honorary president of the Thai Exporters Association (TREA)] said Hom Mali rice also faced competition from Cambodian fragrant rice, which is sold at over $800 a tonne [as opposed to $1100 for Hom Mali]. The Cambodian rice has a comparable quality to Thai rice in terms of aroma and appearance'.

Adding to their woes, Thailand has 'lost' a couple of million tonnes of rice. The Bangkok Post (6 January 2012) reports that the Thai government is short of 5 million tonnes which they had expected to be part of the 10 million tonnes mortgage scheme. As exporters and millers are also reporting low stocks, the question is where is all the rice? Supposedly intelligent answers can be forwarded to the Thai government.

And on the horizon, possible lower prices? An indication that high commodity prices may not sustain is given by Bloomberg (12-01-2011) which reports on dropping global prices for corn, wheat and soy. Will rice follow? Logic says yes, as farmers respond positively to price incentives, demand stagnates and governments worldwide announce increased stocks. With the exception of Thailand that is ...

Winners?
Cambodia on the other hand seems to churning out major strides in both production as well as export.
Rice output from Cambodia has increased despite wide-spread flooding. An upturn of 2% is on the cards according to the Phnom Penh Post (26-12-2011). The same publication (13 January 2012) reported rising milled rice exports from 40,000 tonnes in 2010 to 100,000 in 2011.
An example? TTY Corporation which has long been an investor in Cambodia's rural sector, seems to have cornered the China-Cambodia rice trade after receiving permission to export up to 200,000 tonnes during 2012. So states the Phnom Penh Post (30-12-2011). In the age of free trade when one nation is seeking to access virtually every natural resource available, why ponder about such tedious things as official approval?

And more is in the pipeline. In the Phnom Penh Post (2 January 2011) a report that Hainan Agpro Inc intends to invest

'$500 million in Cambodia's agriculture sector'.

Though these intentions seem to be limited to revving up the rice export potential of Cambodia, the company 'supported' by the local government of Hainan own expertise seems to be limited to tropical fruits.

Business as usual
Short of reporters, Thailand's Nation (27-12-2011) gives up space for Bayer CropScience to comment on the recent floods whereby they expect their fungicides to sell better. It also wants to help out: '

The company has offered a programme in the Central area whereby it recommends a certain chemical spraying method, which has been proved to increase yield by at least 10 per cent. The programme will encourage farmers to use the right quantity of chemical spray at the right time'.

But will they make a profit? Tying in with their cooperation, but not related to recent floods the company hopes to produce new hybrids with aasistance by the IRRI.

'The aim of the programme is to improve rice quality and yield'.

And is not to make a profit?

Payback? Commercial success for Philippines premier hybrid rice company, SL Agritech, could see it list on Manila's bourse. Businessworldonline notes the cash reaped will retire debts and assist foreign expansion. Hopefully they can count on the Philippine's continued subsidies, it certainly enhances their business model. Note how they count on Cambodia as a promising breeding ground ground for their venture ...

Just another note of caution. Lays, globally known for it's range of potato chips, is being sued by the brave Julie Gengo as lays seem to be claiming all their ingredients are 'natural' which in their belief includes GM soy and corn. Are rice hybrids natural?

Hardly a day goes by in Cambodia in which the local press are not dedicating their local business news sections to the increasing production and export of agricultural products.
Take for instance Phnom Penh Posts:

• July 8: Exports of rice quadruple. The officially reported quantities that is, the leakage over the border has probably remained the same. But still the added value is accruing to Cambodia, which is good for the country and the rice sector in general.
• July 6: Vietnam's deep-water links spur Phnom Penh Port growth. Shipping via Ho-Chi-Minh is cheaper. Khmer Rice has exported more than 10,000 tonnes this year.
• June 28: KOGID begins rice shipment. The South Korean owned firm is starting to send rice to the United Arab Emirates. They would also like to see the export of corn, cassava and (soy?)beans.
• June 27: Corn exports earmarked. Producers are increasingly switching from cassava to corn production due to the increasing prices. KOGID again and CP Cambodia are fueling demand both domestically and through export. Official statistics point to a 50% increase in export.
• June 24: Farmers flock to cassava. A bit contradictory to the June 27 article, it mainly points out that cassava trumps cotton which seems logic. Official statistics report exports of cassava are up by 74%.
• June 22: Millers get export orders from mainland. LORAN and Golden Rice both report orders from China for fragrant rice.
• June 20: Growing taste for cassava as exports rise by 74%. Prospects are good.
• June 13: Boost in paddy purchase. Rice millers have purchased 10% more in the past seven months over the same period. Acleda Bank is quoted as saying loans for rice millers increased by 15-20%.

So at least on the above evidence one is lead to believe that hybrid rice production in Cambodia will be at best a marginal activity. The official exports of rice are increasingly going to sophisticated markets with a preference for traditional fragrant varieties.

Vietnews reports (3 July 2011) on a strange phenomena: cooperative rice farms under the guidance of profit seeking companies:

'It brought together 458 farming households whose fields were located near each other. They planted their rice on the same day and tended to their fields with production techniques provided by company officials.
The company supplied the rice seeds, fertilisers and other inputs in advance to the farmers without any interest rate, and bought all harvested paddy'.

Though the article quotes company claims that farmers earned profits of 150%, it fails to state compared to what nor whether the farmers actually received the extra profits.

A different plan for profit sharing has been devised in Laos. The Vientiane Times (21 June) reports that the Lao Agriculture Development Corp Company will launch an organic rice project in the province of Xieng Khouan. Farmers will receive bio-fertilizer and advice 'free' but be forced to sell the surplus production to the company at prices 40% below market price.
Now I doubt whether this will be a success, price is the number 1 incentive for almost all producers all over the world, Laos included. Take away the price and producers will look to satisfy their own needs. sod the rest. Or seek to 'smuggle' out their over production so as to pocket the 40% themselves. Wish the Corp Company success with that.

Back to hybrid rice. Bayer has settled with farmers in the US for just $750 million! That's a big mistake, showing how sensitive companies should be when introducing hybrid rice.
One problem for farmers in Southeast Asia is the lack of transparency between governments and companies as well as the lack of justice after complaints.
Surely Thai authorities will try to build in safeguards while pursuing popularizing hybrid rice? If export values drop for Thai rice because of hybrid contamination, what then?
Looking at more detail it's in the Philippines where there is little or no export of rice and north Vietnam with the same position where hybrid rice is 'popular', though again without government intervention, this may not be the case. Surprisingly Bayer Cropscience itself is very quiet on this deal ...