Secrets

As much as I hoped that the Facebook page of Mekong Oryza Trading would carry a lot of Cambodian rice related news, the reality has been a little sketchy. Apparently not all snippets have been deemed postworthy and they have become more selective.
Especially when it comes to negatives in the trading practices itself. Where it usually takes just a bleep to post, it took 4 days to mention that the government is concerned about rice trading practices.

And what was said? 
Phnom Penh Post (May 4) mentions price fixing of agricultural produce:

'The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry said yesterday that they were investigating a possible secret agreement between middlemen or traders in the supply chain to manipulate the price of agriculture commodities, leaving farmers with no option but to sell their products at a lower price'. 

Reactions to this article suggest that government may also be part of the problem.

Response was swift, as the PM was reported (Phnom Penh Post, May 5) calling for government officials to stop meddling with trade deals at the expense of farmers:

'Prime Minister Hun Sen urged provincial governors yesterday to stop government officials from colluding with traders to fix agricultural commodity prices, giving farmers no choice but to sell their products at below-market rates'.

The Khmer exporters had earlier criticised the government for it's official practices: their own nations export procedures. The Phnom Penh Post (Apr. 23): 

'The executive committee of the Cambodia Rice Federation (CRF) will meet with two ministries today to explore the possibility of reducing the logistical and energy costs of transporting rice, a key factor to keeping Cambodian rice exports competitive compared to neighbouring countries, a CRF official said.

The meeting is being held with the Ministry of Public Works and Transport and the Ministry of Mines and Energy, said Kim Savuth, head of the CRF’s cost competitiveness executive committee. Savuth added that high energy and logistics costs were some of the main reasons why Cambodian rice remained more expensive than that of its neighbours'.

Motionless

There's little to suggest that world market price changes for rice are imminent, it still a buyers market with prices nudging southwards.

The Nation (May 11) has an article on how exporting nations are competing each other with lower prices, mostly achieved by devaluation of their currencies.

'He said that for every Bt1 the Thai currency weakens against the US dollar, the price of Thai rice drops by about $10 per tonne. 

Vietnam's decision to devalue its currency also cuts the price of its rice by about $3 a tonne'.

Thai stocks of rice are down but not by much. Oryzae.com (May 19) notes that 11 million tonnes remain in storage.

Bangkok Post (May 8) adds that Thailand regaining it's position as the world's biggest exporter may be on the back burner for the time being: 

'Thailand is unlikely to regain its crown as the world's largest rice exporter this year due to the slower-than-expected global economic recovery and a dearth of positive factors'.

Trade talks between Cambodia and China with Cambodia hoping to increase access to China for it's rice (Phnom Penh Post, May 22);

'“It is expected that there will be detailed discussion of Cambodia’s request to double the rice quota to China to 200,000 tonnes,” [Ministry of Commerce spokesman Ken Ratha] said, adding, however, that no agreement or memorandum of understanding is expected to be signed.

It doesn't seem to be China's interest. Phnom Penh Post (Apr. 13):

'China will increase its agricultural imports from Cambodia to include bananas, mango and soybeans, having already signed a food safety and health protocol for the import of corn last year, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

...

Srey Chanthy, independent economic analyst, said increased demand from the Chinese market coupled with sound agricultural policies can help address issues like lack of sustainable supply and low productivity among Cambodia’s farmers.

“It is an issue in the short term. But in the medium and long terms, if no proper strategies are in place, I am afraid that the issue is not only about higher volumes for export, but low productivity, seasonality and regularity of supply, lack of irrigation and efficient water use and management,” he said.

“For the growing season, it may not be problematic. But the problem is how to supply these products and export to China on regular basis throughout the year, with the amounts it demands. Issues are not related to only lack of irrigation and farming techniques, but also lack of farm labor,” he added'.

Meanwhile Vietnam are experiencing another form of trade terms with China. China is physically closing the market (tuiotrenews, Apr. 27): 

'Hundreds of trucks fully loaded with rice have stayed motionless in areas around different such ‘secondary’ border gates in the northern Vietnamese province of Lao Cai in the last ten days.

According to the Ban Quan border guard unit in Lao Cai’s Bao Thang District, Chinese buyers have stopped importing rice from Vietnam in the last two weeks because their authorities have tightened checks along the border'.

Vietnemnet (May 9) also notes how China wants Vietnams rice, but at lower prices:

'Rice exports to China across the border have been stagnant since the second half of April as China unexpectedly barred rice imports from Vietnam.

...

Professor Vo Tong Xuan, who is considered the leading Vietnamese rice expert, noted that despite great advantages, Vietnam still has difficulties in exporting rice to China.
According to Xuan, the majority of rice has been exported across the border by Vietnamese exporters even though they know cross-border exports cannot bring high profit. This is because they do not have to fill out many kinds of documents and do not have to pay tax'. 

Organic rice is reaching more markets. Phnom Penh Post (May 20): 

'Local rice exporter Amru Rice is close to signing an agreement with an American importer to bring Cambodian organic rice to the American market, according to the rice exporter’s chief executive'.

If Japan signs a new trade deal with the US, Thai rice exports to Japan will suffer (Bangkok Post, April 15):

'"As Japan wants its rice to be excluded from the tariff-elimination goal of the TPP, the government must come up with an alternative measure to improve foreign access to the Japanese rice market," said Mr Honma, who advised Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during his first term'. 

So if I understand correctly, if you want to protect your own market you'll need to give away concessions which mean that signee the USA would have preferred access at the cost of Thai rice?

Tales of future dreams. Dreams that were once true. For Burma. Bangkok Post (April 9):

'Dressed in Chelsea football shorts and a wide-brimmed hat, Than Tun toils away in his paddy field on the outskirts of Yangon, sweat pouring down his sinewy arms.

Gruelling work that once helped Myanmar become the world's largest rice exporter is today a Herculean and often lonely job for farmers striving to return the impoverished nation to its former grain prowess.

...

But rotting stocks, creaking infrastructure, heavily indebted farmers and minimal foreign investment are among the hurdles it faces.

...

Rice is a good poverty alleviation tool, he [Sergiy Zorya, a Bangkok-based expert on rice production at the World Bank] explains, because money actually filters down to poor farmers rather than resting in the hands of corporations or middlemen.

He points to Cambodia, which has heavily invested in improving rice production and exports. Over the past 10 year,s each one percent increase in GDP has resulted in reducing the country's poverty rate by 5.2%'.

Growth issues

Phnom Penh (May 19) Post has a long article on the use of glyphosate. 
Despite recent warnings on it's links to cancer (source), the article gives the yea sayers all the space in the articles conclusion:

'Lor Rasmey, spokesman for the ministry, also said yesterday he believed the herbicide to be of only minimal danger, explaining, “In France, they still use it.”

The argument mirrors that commonly used in the US, where as recently as 2010, glyphosate was referred to as a “miracle chemical for farmers”, according to the New York Times.

This language was also parroted in a bulletin for Cambodian farmers distributed by USAID in 2011, which states the “very low toxicity” of glyphosate and recommends it as an effective farming tool.

When asked if the agency would reconsider its endorsement, a spokesman yesterday referred to comments made by Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the situation in Colombia, who told El Tiempo: “I can tell you that glyphosate is used in all states of my country, and believe me, we’d have taken action if there was something wrong.”

Phnom Penh Post (Apr. 20). Cambodia's economy is expanding, but not for the poor where the lower price of rice is impeding investment. This despite misgivings that higher prices for rice are not good for the rural community, sometimes you can never win. An excerpt:

'The agriculture sector, one of Cambodia’s key growth drivers, remains the biggest worry for the World Bank, as a slowdown in the sector will have a ripple effect on poverty alleviation efforts.

“The agricultural sector has decelerated. This is the driver [of the economy] that has slowed the most and the reason is low yield and low rice prices,” said Enrique Aldaz-Carroll, senior country economist at the World Bank'.

Development watch

Cambodia's land policies are nothing to be proud, far from it. So it's no wonder that foreign investment in it's agricultural sector is lagging. One of the more upfront investors, Thailand's Mitr Pohl has announced that it will be pulling out of Cambodia (Phnom Penh Post, 11 May):

'Asia's largest sugar producer, Thailand’s Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation, has withdrawn from its three plantations in Oddar Meanchey province following years of criticism over alleged illegalities and human rights abuses at the concessions, a development watchdog has said.

The announcement itself was not confirmed, and oddly two days later it was in the press that the EU and Mitr Pohl were making

"good progress” towards finalising an agreement with the government over compensation claims made by thousands of villagers from Oddar Meanchey province who were evicted from their homes by Thai sugar giant Mitr Phol'.

But beyond rice there are alternatives. Phnom Penh Post (May 4):

'From January to May this year, more than 1,100 tonnes of longan were exported to China, up 63 per cent from the 676 tonnes last year, according to Sreng Sreang, deputy director of the Pailin Longan Farmers’ Community.

“There has been increasing demand for Pailin longan in the Chinese market, Chinese buyers tell me. They buy longan from us and do the packaging in Thailand before sending them to China,” he said.

Pailin longan is harvested from December to May. One kilogram of longan costs around 5,000 riel, or $1.25, almost a two-fold increase from three years ago when the price stood at $0.70'.

Investment in agribusiness (Phnom Penh Post, Apr. 30). Despite lower prices Mong Reththy company will provide investment in palm oil processing:

'As of February, Reththy’s company had 16,000 hectares of palm oil trees, 8,000 of which were ready for harvesting, with plans to extend the farm to 30,000 in the future.

Last year, the company exported 22,000 tonnes of crude palm oil, up from 19,000 tonnes in 2013. But price falls had significantly cut into the firms revenue'.

Where rice growing nations are having problems with raising prices, tactics to raise rubber prices seem to be having more effect. The Bangkok Post (May 29) notes:

'Rubber prices jumped the most in nine months as shrinking stockpiles in China and steps by the biggest producers to curb supplies bolstered speculation a global glut will dissipate.

The commodity surged 5.5% on the Shanghai Futures Exchange, the daily limit and the biggest gain since July for a most-active contract, to close at 14,195 yuan (US$2,288) a tonne. Prices are up 13% this month, the most since September 2012'. 

For the farmers sake let's hope the prices are gains in reality, but I suspect that this is just a minor hiccup: there's simply too much rubber waiting to be harvested, current prices are simply dissuading collection as they're not covering the costs of harvesting. Any sustained price movement upwards will see collection kick in again, cushioning any gain.

On the other hand, rubber prices going up are not all good news. The rubber bubble has exploded sometime ago (2 years?) and only now does the Thai government see fit to take action on protected forests being encroached on by rubber farmers (Bangkok Post, April 21) as they hausse for planting rubber seemed to indiscriminately target existing forests:

'With the blessing of the National Council for Peace and Order [read military junta], the Royal Forest Department intends over the next two years to seize back one million rai [50,000 ha] of former forest that has been encroached on, cleared and planted in rubber.

This one million rai is just one-quarter of the area of what was once forest reserve land that has been illegally taken over and planted in rubber trees'. 

So much for the protection of forests ...

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.