Incorporated

Clean
Both Cambodia and Vietnam are struggling to qualify their rice crops as a single brand in an attempt to hope to gain better consumer acceptance of their eport rice produce and thereby hope to raise the ability to export more and/or at a higher value.

The Phnom Penh Post (Oct. 29) does its best to put forward Cambodia's case and quest as the Cambodian officials see fit:

'Cambodia must focus on building a single recognisable brand for its premium fragrant rice to strengthen its international marketing efforts, Minister of Commerce Sun Chanthol said yesterday.“Once the consumer recognises our rice brand, as well as the design of the rice package, we will be able to fetch a higher price for our premium rice,” Chanthol said during a roundtable discussion with the British Ambassador.
....
Cambodia’s Phka Rumduol – a long-grain, aromatic variety of rice – has been awarded the World’s Best Rice at the annual World Rice Conference for three years running. But efforts to market the premium rice variety overseas have stumbled on labeling.
The most prevalent export label, “fragrant rice”, has been deemed too general, while the alternative label “jasmine rice” is also used by Thailand for their premium variety.
While Cambodia’s fragrant rice comes in a number of varieties, such as Phka Romdeng, Phka Romeat, and Phka Rumduol, the commerce minister said all should be marketed under an umbrella brand name.
“We should promote and stick to ‘Phka Romduol’,” he said. “This is what won the contest, so please let’s focus on this name and register it as a trademark or trade name for future use.”
Chanthol said the branding should extend beyond a name and include the packaging, which should incorporate traditional Khmer design elements and his ministry’s seal of approval'.

Though the comprehension in this task is apparent, there seems to be uncertainty on how to move forward. 

Until recently Cambodia was known for it's poor quality rice, despite the evident superior traits as demanded by consumers. Now if there's a need for a single brand (which might make sense) why focus on a Khmer name and add traditional Khmer design?

When Cambodian rice finally hits the shops be it elsewhere in Asia, in Europe, the America's or Africa there's little to suggest that consumers there are going to be persuaded by branding as initialised by Cambodia. Consumers will go by local brands which they trust. Possibly in combination with international certification, f.i. an organic certificate, a fair trade certificate, etc.

So in this, Cambodia should solely focus on the less consumer driven export trade. Having more varieties will probably not assist in this process, so a single brand / name could work. So why not Cambodian Fragrant Rice as an umbrella brand? One that allows all the other varieties to be included as long as they meet visual quality standards as well as other traits such as fragrancy, cooking quality. Even have exporters limit themselves: they are only allowed to export these varieties and are to be held accountable if not. If wanting to export another variety, they need official clearance, etc. Seems pretty easy.

Vietnam is struggling with the same. Vietnamnetbridge (Nov. 15): 

'The Vietnam Food Association (VFA) has suggested that Jasmine and Japonica rice varieties can be chosen for development into Vietnam’s national rice brand. However, experts say they are not a reasonable choice'.

It seems that these have been included to raise awareness in export markets:

'Of the 4.3 million tons of rice exported by VFA’s member companies in the first nine months of 2015, Japonica rice only accounted for one percent'. 

Jasmine rice however does account for around 25% of the current production, so seems a more obvious choice.

'Japonica has been suggested for specialty rice. However, he [Huynh The Nang, VFA’s chair] stressed that the Japonica VFA has suggested is not the pure Japanese variety, but the one created by cross-breeding by a Vietnamese company, which also has round grains like Japanese Japonica.

Xuan [Professor Vo Tong Xuan] believes that the rice variety mentioned by Nang is DS1 created by the Vietnam Agriculture Genetic Institute. Meanwhile, Xuan does not think DS1 could be welcomed by Japanese.

Though DS1 also has round grain like Japonica, DS1 is less soft than Japonica and therefore, it could not be rolled to make sushi'.

Sush so to say? 
It all seems a bit opportunistic. Why not go for a three pronged attempt like Vietnamese general, Vietnamese frangrant and Vietnamese cross?

Interestingly, the Vietnamese Tuoitrenews website (Nov. 26) notes how domestic urban consumers in Vietnam's south are avoiding local Vietnamese varieties for Cambodia imports.

'Some rice businesses in the southern province of Tien Giang have begun sourcing rice from Cambodia to distribute to Ho Chi Minh City and neighboring localities, instead of that grown in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, known as the country’s granary'.

Besides the perceived superior quality traits (less sticky after cooking) there's more:

'Professor Vo Tong Xuan, a seasoned rice expert, confirmed that many Vietnamese consumers are eating Cambodian rice as the grain is ‘cleaner’ than that grown in Vietnam, thanks to the sparse use of insecticides'.

So why not go for Cambodian Clean, an organic fragrant high quality rice?

 

Plastic
Let's continue with the topical cambodian and rice updates

Rains on end, time to take stock. Phnom Penh Post (Oct. 30):

'As a fickle rainy season that has seen areas of the country plagued by drought draws to a close, Cambodia’s rice production remains nearly on target, though food insecurity is still a problem for individual communities, according to the World Food Programme.

...

Though this year’s rice crop may not reach last year’s record of 9.4 million tonnes, less than 1 per cent of the crop was destroyed, and food supplies will be sufficient for the country at large, according to WFP country director Gianpietro Bordignon'.

Southeast Asia Globe questions Cambodia's rice industry (Oct. 25) and the future:

'A combination of erratic weather, poor infrastructure and an inefficient government has experts predicting that Cambodia’s rice industry could collapse within a decade.

...

Although the Kingdom is proud of its rice industry and even wins international awards for high-quality grains, the government has done little to help the sector. Song Saran, chairman of Amru Rice, the country’s biggest exporter, says that if this attitude doesn’t change, the outlook is bleak.

“We are in danger. It’s a business with very small margins, and it’s a high-risk commodity,” he says. Most experts are in agreement. 

....

Rather than the government providing loans at low- or zero-interest rates such as those offered in Thailand and Vietnam, a network of loan sharks caters to Cambodia’s small-scale farmers, preying on their dead-end situations following natural disasters.  

...

In Vietnam and Thailand, millers pay no more than ten cents per kilowatt of electricity. In Cambodia, it’s roughly twice as much. Transportation is also a headache. Using trucks that navigate potholed roads means that getting a tonne of rice from a Cambodian farm to a mill typically costs about $10. In Vietnam, where infrastructure such as railway lines is in place, it costs about $3'.

It sketches a bleak future for the Cambodian rice industry, one based on increased competition, with little possibility to drive down costs.  
Then again complaining doesn't seem to work, so focus on the positives: quality. As the lead above suggests, financing becomes less of a headache, thus relieving the whole chain.

Quality? Extraordinary circumstances in Poipet, rice containing plastic particles. The Phnom Penh Post (Oct. 26):   

'A rice-milling company has admitted to letting pieces of plastic from its machinery make their way into bags of rice after residents and authorities in Banteay Meanchey’s Poipet town raised fears of “plastic rice” upon finding their rice abnormally sticky since the Pchum Ben holiday.

...

Reached yesterday, Minh Bo, 60, the company’s owner, said that while the rice itself wasn’t plastic, pieces from the milling equipment appeared to have made their way into the bags.

“We admit to our technical mistake leading to the break-up from the plastic plank in the miller getting into the rice, and to not checking it properly before bagging and sending it to the market,” he said'.

Going up
Move over Cambodia.

Big news from Thailand (the Nation, Nov. 9): a rotten rice auction. 

'The Commerce Ministry will open bidding for thousands of tonnes of rotten rice from government stockpiles this month for supply to the industrial sector.
... 
After the auction, the ministry will set up a monitoring team to inspect rice being transferred from warehouses to non-food industries to ensure the rice is not used for consumption. 
The rotten rice is expected to be used for ethanol, biomass, and non-food production'. 

The Thai government is thinking that climate change will be working in their favour (The Nation, Nov. 17): 

'The Commerce Ministry is set to release 13 million tonnes of rice from the government's stockpiles by the end of 2018, while it expects Thailand to export at least nine million tonnes of rice next year due to lower-than-normal rice supplies globally because of climate change'. 

However the article refers to the El Niño effect which probably is not due to climate change. And it's effect has lead to lower rice production in Thailand itself, thus the sign of encouraging prices. But not necessarily more money in Thailand's pockets. Sort of an own goal.

Then again maybe the Nation sourced their article from the wrong official. Thai soothsayers believe the slow slide in export prices of rice will come to a halt. Bangkok Post (Oct 31): 

'The government and the private sector agree that Thai rice prices are unlikely to fall further because of state measures and low supplies brought on by the drought'. 

And though the government applauds itself, none of their policies have sorted any effect to lead to higher prices. Other than down selling their stocks which lowered prices. Same-same, different story? 
In the past in Europe the way to stabilise prices was to destroy the stored goods altogether, this way the government takes the loss fully, while farmers come out scotch free.

Bucking the trend, Lao farmers will be stimulated to grow more rice, according to the Vientiane times (Nov. 5):

'The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is asking farmers around the country to grow 4.2 million tonnes of rice this fiscal year, seeking to boost commercial production and ensure food security'.

But there will be no fat carrots (nor sticks), so it's more wishful thinking.

Criticize

While in Thailand rice farmers seem to be shunned, rubber farmers initially  will not get what they want: subsidies. So reports the Bangkok Post (Oct. 21):

'The government will not provide a cash subsidy for struggling rubber farmers, as it could open Thailand to criticism in the global trade arena, but will instead promote local consumption of rubber to boost the price'.

Whatever the arguments contra subsidies, the Thai government has decided against their own thinking. No production subsidies, though a subsidy on land under rubber. Now expect this system to be fraught with fraud. 

And the returns? No production, no extra selling, possible even more land being brought under rubber.  
But a potential vote buyer. And this from a junta which blames a democratic government of financial ruin. Hmmmm .....  
Read all from the Bangkok Post (Nov. 3). 

If the Thai government had wanted to make an impact, they might have tried to subsidize the cutting down of older plantations to be replaced with forest while banning any new plantations. Less rubber on the market, potentially higher prices, farmers rewarded for work in restructuring and forest cover maintained / expanded. If only things were all so simple.

Pockets
Further trade issues, notably the all encompassing Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The BBC (Nov. 6) has an index file on the TPP, for all of us commoners to try understand the deal made. Note that the deal is no less than 6,000 pages. It highlights the complexity of such a deal with currently sceptics slowly gaining momentum in their push to shelve the deal before it's actually signed.

Thailand itself remains wary of the TPP (Bangkok Post, Oct. 24). It notes that it already has many trade agreements with partnership countries. And the Thai are also involved with other trade pacts upcoming. Note that the many comments on this article are quite negative of the TTP.

Not TTP, but very much in the trade corner there's this article from the Economist (Nov. 14). It notes how many countries like to try to get the rice market to sway their way:

'The market for rice is more distorted than that for any other staple. Rice growers pocketed at least $60 billion in subsidies last year, according to the OECD'. 

It also notes how the consumers in importing countries are footing the bill with poorer households relatively more affected than the more fortunate. Adverse export policies also contribute, from countries banning exports to Thailand's feat to (try to) corner the rice export market.

Ignorance

When policies come home. Cambodia's land policies are very weak and with some government colluding, their own laws can be circumvented. However it looks like a catch up is in the process.

Vietnam Rubber Group loses it's FSC accreditation so reports the Phnom Penh Post (Oct. 28):

'In a damning report, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) claims Vietnam Rubber Group has been involved in “illegal activities”, which include converting about 50,000 hectares of evergreen forest into rubber plantations without public consultation, ignoring land claims from local people, allowing illegal logging and destroying wildlife sanctuaries.

...

VRG could not be reached for comment'.

A day later, same newspaper:

'Asia's largest sugar producer, Mitr Phol, is responsible for violating the rights of hundreds of villagers in Oddar Meanchey who saw their land grabbed, homes destroyed and livestock killed to make way for plantations, according to the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT)'. 

Also under scrunity. Looks like a new trend?

Targets

Behind

A couple of seemingly non-related articles once again featuring the curse of company politics forcing lab developed foods on consumers. With too many unknowns concerning the outcome. Other than lining the pockets of whom we already know (thanks to Thomas Piketty): the rich getting richer ...

It all seems innocent.

While sceptics are holding the fort in Europe, the US is still full steam ahead for GM crops. Or so it seems. The latest are potatoes. The New York Times (Nov. 7):

'A potato genetically engineered to reduce the amounts of a potentially harmful ingredient in French fries and potato chips has been approved for commercial planting, the Department of Agriculture announced on Friday.

The potato’s DNA has been altered so that less of a chemical called acrylamide, which is suspected of causing cancer in people, is produced when the potato is fried.

...

But the approval comes as some consumers are questioning the safety of genetically engineered crops and demanding that the foods made from them be labeled. Ballot initiatives calling for labeling were rejected by voters in Oregon and Colorado this week, after food and seed companies poured millions of dollars into campaigns to defeat the measures.

...

Genetically modified potatoes failed once before. In the late 1990s, Monsanto began selling potatoes genetically engineered to resist the Colorado potato beetle. But the market collapsed after big potato users, fearing consumer resistance, told farmers not to grow them. Simplot itself, after hearing from its fast-food chain customers, instructed its farmers to stop growing the Monsanto potatoes.

This time around could be different, however, because the potato promises at least potential health benefits to consumers. And unlike Monsanto, Simplot is a long-established power in the potato business and presumably has been clearing the way for acceptance of the product from its customers'.

All-in-all a not so positive article for GM proponents. But then again they have the approval in the bag. 

The same innocence applies to this article concerning GM eggplant in Bangladesh (CGIAR, Oct. 10):

'Any day now, a hundred Bangladeshi smallholder farmers will be planting their annual aubergine crop.  But this year this select band will not be planting their usual seeds of the crop they call brinjal and many know as the eggplant.
These family farmers, chosen by the country’s agricultural researchers, will be growing a genetically modified (GM) variety.  Bt brinjal has been developed by crop scientists in Bangladesh and neighbouring India to fight off insects that often halve yields and force farmers into daily spraying with dangerous pesticides.
...
For many, that is a much bigger and more immediate issue, especially with key GM technologies dominated by a handful of companies — most notably, and most notoriously, Monsanto. But do we have to translate a fear of big bad agribusiness into a fear of GMs?  Why, to put it another way, should the devil have all the best tunes?  If our main problem with the technology is who owns it, then let’s liberate it for the common good.
...
Yes, the technique is owned by Monsanto.  And the company got a lot of stick for initially charging high prices for Bt cotton, when it was first introduced in India two decades ago to fight bollworm.  But Monsanto doesn’t see any profits in a crop like brinjal.  Though one of South Asia’s most popular vegetables, it is mostly grown by poor smallholders.  So a decade ago, the company gave local scientists free use of the gene to put into brinjal and other local crops, such as chickpeas.
...
Now you might see Monsanto’s free licensing of their technology for brinjal as a Trojan Horse to get GMs into potentially big seed markets like India.  You might be right.  But surely it is also a chance to take a valuable new technology out of the hands of its rich owners and use it in the service of family farmers'.

The author also gets some stick from respondents as he seemingly avoids some of the more contentious issues. One response laid to rest our distrust of Monsanto's ulterior interests:

'You forgot to mention that Mahyco, the Indian seed company who developed Bt Brinjal is 26% owned by Monsanto?
You also forgot to mention that Mahyco Mahyco became India’s first commercial entity to be accused of bio-piracy, or misappropriation, of local germplasm'.

The author also forgot that the seemingly public good of helping farmers also has a distinct private interest: getting consumers used to GM foods. Bangladesh can hardly be an example of consumer protection. Even China, which has invested heavily on hybrid rice, will seek to avoid GM foods from being imported.

And thus we come to the rhetoric concerning Golden Rice: GM rice, again very innocently engineered to pursue a public good (higher vit. A) intake, but to opponents just the next step with which private companies will assault public consumption.

Once again IRRI, the globe's biggest rice research center for public good has given it's support to the development of Golden Rice (Oct. 30):

'“No farmer must be left behind” was the challenge addressed to 1,500 scientists and delegates, hailing from 69 countries, who are here in Bangkok to attend the 4th International Rice Congress (IRC2014).
“This call to action adds all the more to our resolve to continue the research on Golden Rice, a potential new food-based approach to help fight vitamin A deficiency (VAD), a form of hidden hunger,” said Dr. Violeta Villegas, Golden Rice project coordinator at IRRI'.

It again questions it's distracters and emphasises it's public good. 
But fails to see how the introduction of Golden Rice is paving the way for private companies to do likewise, but with the potential profit not being dedicated to a public good, but to private investors ...

Interesting in this is the blog post by Sally Brooks from June last year, referring to a UK government standpoint (hoping for more GM). She replies:

'This is not the first time that the specific case of the Golden Rice project has been deployed as the lynchpin of an argument for policy and regulatory changes to accelerate the commercialisation on GM crops in general. This is problematic for a number of reasons which I have set out in a new article
...
As well as bringing more heat than light to an already overheated debate, the deployment of Golden Rice as ‘poster child’ in the GM crop debate has had serious consequences for the way the research has been carried out ‘on the ground’ over the years. In research stations in Southeast Asia, the pressure cooker environment surrounding the project has not been conducive to the kind of open discussion and debate – among crop scientists, nutritionists, public health experts, and others – that an ambitious research effort such as this warrants and requires. Unfortunately, too much hype ‘upstream’ has tended to close down opportunities for open scientific enquiry and debate ‘downstream’, just where it is most needed '.

With the outcome yet to take place, debate could at least take a backseat until the pro's (and cons0 have been able to prove their case. In real terms.

No surprises

While we're on institutional nonsense let's bring ADB's most recent nonsense on Cambodia. The Phnom Penh Post (Oct. 30) has an article on an ADB report:

'Cambodia's rice industry remains hindered by the size of cultivation land and an absence of domestic milling facilities as well as irrigation, according to an Asia Development Bank (ADB) report launched this week.

The ADB’s study, released Tuesday and titled Improving Rice Production and Commercialization in Cambodia, states that Cambodia’s average rice yield ranks the lowest among almost all Southeast Asian nations.

...

The study concludes that agricultural productivity in Cambodia would increase with strengthened land titling and skills development efforts from the Cambodian government, and improved access to finance, which in turn could prompt investment in irrigation and domestic milling.

...

Srey Chanthy, independent economist, said the ADB report’s findings were not surprising and represent the same issues that have been plaguing Cambodia’s rice industry for almost two decades.

“If we thought we had all the answers, then why is the issue still there? We have to ask how policy is being implemented,” Chanthy said, adding that little domestic revenue is spent on strengthening the agriculture sector.

Chanthy said improving knowledge and skills in farming should be the first priority for the Cambodian government. He called for commercial banks and microfinance institutions to increase the amount of credit available to the fledgling industry from an estimated $800 million to more than $1 billion'.

It is hardly revealing, wonder how much the study cost. It also means questioning the data itself. Thailand is a no. 1 country in export but has a very low productivity, comparable to Cambodia ....

Other rice news from Cambodia. The Phnom Penh Post (Oct. 6):

'The latest rice export figures have disappointed industry representatives with a lower-than-expected increase over the first nine months.

A report from the Cambodian Ministry of Agriculture published Saturday shows that from January to September, the Kingdom exported about 270,000 tonnes of rice, up 1.2 per cent from the same nine-month period last year'.

Out of touch

Phnom Penh Post (Oct. 24) with the latest on it's cassava industry:

'Cassava industry officials have brushed off concerns over an industry-wide slowdown amid the release of third-quarter export data.

The latest figures from the Ministry of Agriculture show that from January to September, Cambodia exported about 1.2 million tonnes of cassava. The third-quarter figure is equal to just 62 per cent of last year’s annual export total of more than 2 million tonnes'.

The same source (Oct. 17) has an interesting interview with Chan Sophal (an independent agriculture economist) concerning growing of vegetables. The background:

'But despite agriculture sustaining the livelihoods of the vast majority of the country, Cambodia still imports a large portion of its vegetables from neighbouring countries – Vietnam and Thailand – just to meet domestic demand.' 

One of the reasons, the interview emphasizes, is that Cambodia doesn't have the correct techniques. However much of what is imported are vegetables which can't grow in Cambodia, climatically. 

It is a strange interview as Chan Sophal seems to be out of touch with how to grow vegetables: 

'Vegetable growing is far more different and requires a new set of skills, compared to rice where you simply sow the seed and leave it there. Our farmers do not have this vegetable growing attitude as it requires so much attention and farming technique. The big issues are capital and skill. To start a commercial vegetable plantation, farmers need at least half a hectare to a hectare of land area and at least $5,000 to $10,000 to invest in irrigation systems, which reduce labour costs and ensure high yields. Only farmers with adequate capital will be able to run this kind of plantation'. 

In my experience vegetable growing is an ideal way to generate income for often resource poor farmers, simply because capital is not required, there's little risk and the market easily can absorb what's produced.

In other vegetable news we witnessed a knee-jerk reaction. Phnom Penh Post reports (Oct. 14): 

'Cambodian authorities are stepping up inspection efforts of vegetable imports along the border after Vietnamese produce shipped to the European Union was found to contain harmful bacteria, an official from the Kingdoms import inspection unit said yesterday'. 

This thinking would imply that (hygiene) standards in Vietnam are worse than in Cambodia. At the very best these standards are equal ...

Over to the rubber front which has many similarities: an important crop for many farmers and high prices disappearing. 

Let's start off with Cambodian news on rubber.

Counting the losses
The Cambodian Daily (Oct. 16) reports on Asian wide measures to shore up the rubber market:

'Representatives from Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea met in Malaysia and agreed not to sell rubber below $1,500 per ton, said Men Sopheak, secretary-general of the Association for Rubber Development in Cambodia.

The move will hopefully give those in Cambodia’s rubber industry, which has seen many producers abandon the trade of late due to shrinking profits, more incentive to continue production, he said'.

The Cambodian Daily (Nov. 8) notes that after the agreement prices rose. But for how long?

More rubbery news partially from Cambodia. But it starts in Vietnam. Apparently Vietnam's drive to business success is once again driving corruption. This time round it's the state run Vietnam Rubber Group which has lost a couple of hundred million $ in the past 5 years. Thanhniennews (Nov. 10): 

'State inspectors have recommended penalties for rampant financial mismanagement at the state-owned Vietnam Rubber Group which lost nearly US$391 million over the course of six years

...

One major violation, according to the inspectors, was the group's significant investment in the Phu Rieng-Kratie Rubber Company which began cultivating rubber in Cambodia in 2007.

Mismanagement of the foreign subsidiary may have resulted in VND483 billion ($22.75 million) in losses, not to mention nearly $1.9 million in loans the company cannot pay back.

Much of this money was lost due to Phu Rieng-Kratie Rubber's investments in non-core businesses, the inspectors said'. 

Most though were investments outside rubber plantations which yielded nada. The Phnom Penh Post chimes in (Nov. 12):

'In 2011, VRG said it had invested $200 million in 100,000 hectares of plantations in Cambodia. Companies are legally allowed to own only 10,000 hectares in economic land concessions.

In February, Phu Rieng Kratie Co transferred 90 per cent of its shares to a Singapore-registered company called Kratie Plantations Holdings, owned by investor David Gardner [most probably website].

Gardner, who could not be reached by phone or email yesterday, is listed as director of Asian and African investments for Global Forest Partners, a multibillion-dollar US-based investment fund which has received money from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation to conduct climate change mitigation programs.

In November last year, Gardner became director of the board of another VRG subsidiary with a 10,000-hectare rubber plantation in the same district.

According to a Global Witness report released last year, VRG has 161,344 hectares of rubber plantations in the Kingdom'. 

Obscuring the truth?

Over in Thailand, the Nation (Oct. 12) dedicates an article to the reverse side of the disappearing of subsidies for rubber farmers: 

'As rubber prices slump, hard-up farmers in Thailand -- the world's top producer of the commodity -- are appealing for a bailout, testing the junta's resolve to end populist policies and an entrenched subsidy culture.

...

With dawn creeping over his plantation in Pa Ko subdistrict of Phang Nga province, Jade Charongan said tapping his 500 trees for the once-lucrative sap yields around $130 a month.

Three years ago he earned five times that amount ...

...

Farmers’ groups are calling on the military government to guarantee the price at 80 baht a kilo.

They also want the suspension of a plan to release 210,000 tonnes of stockpiled -- but fast-degrading -- rubber to the market, fearing it will further depress prices.

Their disquiet threatens a fallout with the junta'.

The Nation (Oct. 19) follows up with a small article on how farmers are measuring up government price policies:

'Rubber farmers in Surat Thani said yesterday the government's goal to push for a price of Bt60 per kilogram while also providing farmers Bt1,000 per rai, for up to 15 rai as in a fertiliser subsidy, was acceptable'.

On the 29th the Nation notes the discontent.

'Leaders of rubber farmers in the South have expressed disappointment with the government subsidy of Bt1,000 per rai, limited to a maximum of 15 rai each.

Tossapol Kwanrod, chairman of the rubber and palm oil farmers' network in 16 southern provinces, said the government had ignored calls from the rubber farmers to offer sustainable solutions. It had opted to provide short-term remedies similar to those of previous governments'.

Counting the cost

The Bangkok Post has the inside story on the rice pledge scheme: 

'The government's rice stocks have been found to be in a very poor state, with as much as 90% classified as substandard — and the cost to the state could be 580-700 billion baht'. 

That would be 18-20 billion US$! It continues:

'On Tuesday, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha revealed the outcome of a nationwide rice audit led by ML Panadda Diskul, permanent secretary for the Prime Minister's Office, that reported only 10% of the 18 million tonnes of rice was of good quality.

"The report shows 70% of the rice is tainted with a yellow colour, while the rest is in bad condition and not edible and should only be allocated for ethanol production," said Gen Prayut.

The inspection also found about 100,000 tonnes of rice missing.

...

A Commerce Ministry source said the figure of only 100,000 tonnes of rice missing from state stocks was quite insignificant compared with the 3 million tonnes reported missing in June 2013 by former deputy finance permanent secretary Supa Piyajitti, who chaired a subcommittee overseeing the accounts of the pledging scheme'.

Then later (Nov. 6) it reports losses might just reach 1 trillion Thai bhat (~30 billion $US). It's a very extensive account with lots of doomsday scenario's: it even emphasizes that the country will go broke if an elected (and democratic) government ever gets into power!

And on the thirteenth, Bangkok Post notes the following:

'More than a dozen rice-pledging schemes since 2004 have cost the country 682 billion baht, but about 76% of those losses were caused by the previous government’s four programmes, the Finance Ministry said'.

So what is the cost?

Ways forward

The Nation (Oct. 20) notes the new Thai government policy towards rice farmers:

'Rice farmers nationwide will today receive the government subsidy of Bt1,000 per rai - up to 15 rai - per household.

The registration period for the subsidy will continue until November 15'.

The Bangkok Post on the same day mentions that the first farmers already have the cash on their accounts.

But there are other ways to help poor people. Take this example (The Nation, November 5): 

'A large area of public land covering 5,000 plots in 22 provinces is set to be distributed by the middle of next year so poor and landless citizens around the country can rent areas to grow crops for at least five years, the Lands Department announced yesterday'. 

Farmers were not satisfied, they want to have something they can sell ...

The news follows Thai Prime Minister recent promise to help poor Thais regain happiness via the allocation of public land as a gift in the New Year.

The future for rice marketing may well be niche marketing. Bangkok Post (Oct. 29) has an interesting example of doing business via Facebook:

'Sirimanee Maneethapho, a new-generation farmer in tambon Tha Tarn of Bang Krathum district, said she and her friends had been contacted by a middleman to grow Hom Nil rice in the previous crop with a promise of getting 10,000 baht a tonne for unmilled rice. The group bought seed from the middleman, who said the rice would be sold to health-conscious consumers.

But after they harvested the rice, the middleman did not show up to buy the produce as promised. Ms Sirimanee said at that time she was in urgent need of money to care for her sick mother so she decided to try advertising Hom Nil rice on Facebook. To her surprise, the product received a warm welcome, so much so that she could sell almost five tonnes within three months at around 30,000 baht each. For the new crop, Ms Sirimanee has allowed pre-orders. She plans to grow riceberry — a crossbred variety between brownish purple and black aromatic rice — as well as white jasmine, fragrant and white rice'.

Manipulation

Bangkok Post (Oct. 9) mentions that now the rice pledging scheme has ended, the rice export market has returned to the old situation: Thailand returns to the no. 1 position. Excerpt:

'Two years after losing its place as the world's biggest rice exporter, Thailand has displaced India to return to the top spot, global-industry information firm IHS Inc said Thursday'.

It also mentions this sentence which seems to go beyond that of impartial reporting:

'Global buyers refused to buy it [rice pledged] in retaliation for Ms Yingluck's attempt to manipulate the market by hoarding grain'.

Bangkok Post (Oct. 29) in an unrelated article has these lines:

'Prices have dropped 19% this year, heading for the biggest loss since 2001 and helping keep a lid on global food costs that the United Nations said fell for a sixth month in September. The Bloomberg Agriculture Index of seven commodities slid the most last quarter since 2008 as the USDA projects combined global output of rice, corn, soybeans and wheat will advance to a record this season'.

Regional

The Laotian government announces more land deals with China, now also in the south of Laos. So reports the Vientiane Times (Oct. 29): 

'The project will cover an area of 10,000 hectares and the project activities will include rice plantations, irrigation systems, livestock husbandry, fruit tree plantations and modern processing factories'.

The Lao government hopes to increase production of rice for export (Vientiane Times, Oct. 10):

'The government is focusing on increasing rice production for export sales as the country has been growing enough to meet local demand for more than ten years.

In response to the recommendations of the government, farmers all around the country have been changing their growing methods by adopting new planting techniques and acquiring improved seeds.

A large number of farmers have shifted to a more automated form of ploughing and seeding for their rice planting and again at harvest time as the use of the machines speeds up the work and requires much less labour'.

Vietnamnet (Oct. 30) has an article on how subsidies on rice and rice growing work for Vietnam. They don't. 

'The policy on rice subsidy does not benefit Vietnamese farmers and consumers, as rice export prices are even lower than domestic prices'.

One way for a solution would be to remove VAT tax of 5% levied on domestic consumption.

Obvious

Schocking
Probably the most important news this month is the report published by GRAIN conerning issues of land grab. 
With the increased agricultural prices of the last few years, land grabbing has become a pandemic which seems to be never-ending. From the summary:

'Despite the inherent shortcomings of the data, we feel confident in drawing six major conclusions:

1. The vast majority of farms in the world today are small and getting smaller
2. Small farms are currently squeezed onto less than a quarter of the world's farmland
3. We are fast losing farms and farmers in many places, while big farms are getting bigger
4. Small farms continue to be the major food producers in the world
5. Small farms are overall more productive than big farms
6. Most small farmers are women.

Many of these conclusions might seem obvious, but two things shocked us. One was to see the extent of land concentration today, a problem that agrarian reform programmes of the 20th century were supposed to have solved. 
... 
The other shock was to learn that, today, small farms have less than a quarter of the world's agricultural land ...'. 

The report is a damning of current policies driving farmers off their land, mostly for the acquired land to be distributed to wealthy investors who struggle to meet the efficiencies of those farmers who have been displaced. When, if ever, will this stop?

Pay-back

With prices for rice dropping, inevitably victims are falling. 

Victim 1? Apparently the Cambodian company named Megagreen Imex Cambodia was in line for fame and especially fortune in the nation's rice export dream. Phnom Penh Post (Jun. 6):

'In December 2011, the managing director of Megagreen Imex Cambodia, Renne Outh, proudly announced that his firm had inked a $21 million deal to be the first to ship Cambodian rice to the Philippines.

Nearly two and a half years on, not a single Cambodian grain has reached Manila. Export figures for the first five months of 2014 show that Megagreen, once among the top 10 rice exporters in the country, has fallen to 48th out of 84.

The failed Philippines deal marks a pattern of broken promises, as the agricultural wholesaler now finds itself besieged by creditors and lawsuits seeking damages in excess of $1 million, with flawed agreements from one end of the supply chain to the other'.

Lower prices have meant that Cambodia's rice millers are left with unsold produce. And supposedly banks with unpaid loans. Phnom Penh Post (June 18) hints why:

'Cambodian rice currently trades at $440 per tonne. Meanwhile, rice in Thailand and Vietnam is selling for $385 per tonne and $405 per tonne respectively.

With the next harvest season due to begin in just three months, Lim Bun Heng, chairman of rice export firm Loran Group, said that millers had been pressuring his company to find buyers for Cambodian grain.

...

A rice mill owner, who asked not to be named for fear of damaging his business’s reputation, said that he had more than 2,000 tonnes of rice waiting for a buyer in Battambang province.

The mill owner added that he had accrued over $400,000 worth of bank loans to buy the rice off local farmers in the hope of selling it on to exporters for overseas markets.

“To pay back the bank only, I am forced to sell the paddy off at a lower price than what I bought it for,” he said'.

Expect the bill for these losses to be passed on to farmers come next harvest 

Another loser in the making? Vietnamnet reports (June 6) on the countries dealings with the Philippines: 

'Vinafood 1 and Vinafood 2 have been severely criticized for offering overly low bids in an effort to obtain the contract with the Philippines. Analysts believe that Vietnam made a major mistake when analyzing the situation, which then led to the wrong decision. Tuan of Thinh Phat [company] pointed out that Thailand was the major rival of Vietnam in the bid for the rice export contract because it was nearer to the Philippines than India and Pakistan, which allows savings on transportation costs. However, Tuan said Thailand should not have been considered a threat to Vietnam. NFA said that the Philippines would only accept rice harvested no earlier than four months ago. Thailand stopped collecting rice in February 2014. “This means that Thailand only had rice harvested in 2012 and 2014, and that Vietnam was the only seller in the market,” Tuan said'.

Re-wiring

The rice pledge scheme in Thailand. As it's now being wrapped up by the junta, there are a few articles concerned. first, the Nation (May 25) mentions that 

'The ousted government was able to pay about Bt100 billion to the farmers until now, but another Bt90 billion is still owed to 80,000 farmers'. 

The only reason for the outstanding amounts not to be made was that the prevoius government was a caretaker government. Luckily the junta has no law to uphold so can do as it pleases. Another PR activity.

The Bangkok Post (May 26) however mentioned that farmers were happy (who isn't nowadays?) as stalled payments were now being paid.

Thai farmers now having been paid, want new handouts. So mentions the Bangkok Post (June 2): 

'Songpon Poonsawat, chairman of the Council of Farmers in Ang Thong province, said his organisation would propose short-term assistance packages for the NCPO [the junta] to consider, to help farmers suffering as a result of lower prices. Mr Songpon suggested the intervention be carried out for the next two crops, until the market price of rice returns to normal'.  

But what is normal?

Then some confusing news. The Nation (June 5) has a short item on the end of the rice-pledging scheme: 

'Former Democrat MP Warong Dechgitvigrom Thursday called on the National Council for Peace and Order to end the controversial rice-pledging scheme'. 

It has already ended.

'He said the NCPO should replace the scheme with a rice price guarantee'. 

In other words: a rice pledging scheme!

And on June 8, farmers came up with a new proposal (Nation): 

'Rice farmers yesterday proposed that the National Council for Peace and Order set a price for rice based on the average production cost plus a 40 per cent profit margin so they can survive'. 

That also looks like a rice-pledging scheme. The Bangkok Post notes (June 10) that the military are unsure what to do. Going by previous experiences they fail to take decisions unless you criticize them... They prefer to shoot the messenger of bad news.

The junta has spoken and there will be a new subsidy scheme. The Bangkok Post (June 18): 

'Gen Chatchai said that participants agreed with the idea of a "cultivation subsidy" and soft loans for rice growers nationwide in the 2014/2015 crop season. The subsidy was set at 500 baht per rai (1,600 square metres) for up to 15 rai (24,000 square metres) per family, based on rice growers' estimated cultivation costs of about 4,000 baht per rai'.

One problem will be the way the subsidies will be doled out, probably through subsidies to ag input sellers. While there may be limitations on hand-outs per family, there will be all of a sudden be a lot more families in Thailand ....

Top dog
The bargain sales have resulted in Thailand returning to the top of the rice exporting nations. The first five months of this year have seen this sale recapture the buyers spirits and Thailand is yet again the no. 1 exporter in terms of tonnage. Bangkok Post (June 4): 

'Somkiat Makcayathorn, secretary-general of the Thai Rice Exporters Association, said on Wednesday that from Jan 1 to May 20, 2014, Thailand exported a total of 3.93 million tonnes, surpassing India (3.74 million tonnes) and Vietnam (2.4 million tonnes) in the same period'.  

Hurrah! Back to no. 1. But why obsess with who is no. 1? Surely it should be the income generated for the nation which should count. The article continues to assist the junta's PR machine: 

'The fall happened when the Yingluck Shinawatra government increased the price of Thai rice through its loss-ridden rice-pledging scheme, which promised over-market  prices to farmers. Many were never paid'. 

It appears that the exporters and general traders and millers are the ones cheering. Farmers are a lot more quiet ...

Meanwhile, Channelnewsasia (June 4) reports on the Thai Rice Exporters Association's prediction of a 20% rise in exports for Thailand this year.

Est
The Bangkok Post has the story on the losses of the old rice-pledging scheme (May 28): 

'Estimated losses from the previous five crops under the Yingluck Shinawatra government’s rice-pledging scheme could be lower than 500 billion baht, says the Finance Ministry'. 

Or 15 billion US$! Inflation? PR? Hmmm, ...

The previous government and their sceme (-ing?)? They should be tried: 
* loss of nearly 3 million tonnes (swept under the carpet?), 
* poor quality and 
* failure to calculate what the loss was. 
The Bangkok Post (June 10) reports that the former government want a quick resolution on the charges. As everything is in a flux, there probably can't be any conviction unless one based on politics.

As Thailand has no clue as to what they have stockpiled in the past it comes as no surprise that the Bangkok Post reports (June 13) that an audit will take place. We also know that the audit will find less rice than expected ...

National affairs

The Cambodia Daily (June 3) sees the positives in a 1% rise in rice exports from Cambodia. Quite confusing as it also mentions rising imports to or from Thailand?

But ..., the problems in Thailand have had an impact on Cambodian direct exports to Thailand. They have nearly disappeared, so reports the Phnom Penh Post (May 29).

Real growth lies elsewhere. Via Phnom Penh Post (May 19) it is reported that Cambodian organic rice is finding a market in Hongkong:

'While the US and Germany have traditionally been the key markets for Cambodian organic rice, with about 300 tonnes sent there last year, CEDAC president Yang Saing Koma told the Post that his organisation has exported 30 tonnes to Hong Kong this year, as the market for the Kingdom’s natural produce expands'.

With rice losing favour, the rural sector is losing a taste for alternatives. The Cambodian Daily (May 27) notes that cassave exports are also down:

'Cassava exports dropped by about $25 million during the first four months of 2014 compared to the same period last year, according to figures provided by the Ministry of Commerce on Monday.

From January to April this year, Cambodia exported 203,934 tons of cassava, worth about $13 million, the figures show. In the corresponding period last year, 273,415 tons, worth about $38 million, were exported'. 

A typical double whammy: lower prices and less production. This contrasts heavily with black pepper. Cultivated in patches near the coatsal towns of Kep - Kampot as well as near Kampong Cham, production was on the up, so reported the Phnom Penh Post (May 27):

'Kampot pepper has the WTO’s geographical indication (GI) status linking the quality of the product to its origin. Exports and prices have been on the rise since receiving the status in 2010.

The total cultivated area of GI Kampot pepper reached 90 hectares this year, twice that of 2013 – but it will still be years before many of these plants mature and are ready for harvest.

Him Anna, a pepper farmer in Kampot, told the Post that she had exported 3 tonnes of pepper this year and the market was hungry for more. “There is huge demand in the market with a very good price, but until now we still have a problem with supply.”' 

Let's just hope that prices remain attractive and markets can deal with the upsurge in acreage from Cambodia. It remember that the Malaysian state of Sarawak had the intention of cornering the pepper market, however expansion didn't reap rewards.

Well with farmers being caught with increased corporisation, they are now urged to go green, so reports the Phnom Penh Post (May 23): 

'Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture have called on farmers to cease using chemical pesticides and adopt environmentally friendly methods in an effort to increase yields and reduce damage to produce. Hem Em, a farmer with 7 hectares of pepper-growing land in Kampong Cham, said he had spent more than $300 on pesticides this season to ward off pests.

“If we do not use pesticide, we will not be able to harvest crops because the insects destroy the flower and our crops give no fruits,” he said'.

It wouldn't hurt if green produce was paid more, but that's probably not the message.

Founding father
The Phnom Penh Post (May 23) on the new Cambodian Rice Federartion (CRF). An interview with  CRF’s newly elected president and CEO of SOMA Group, Sok Puthyvuth. Some of the Q and A's:

'How is your rice body going to represent farmers?
This is the foundation of the rice sector. If the foundation is not strong, forget about the millers or exporters.

One of our major priorities is to really look at the foundations of the sector, how have the farmers been doing? Whether the access to all this support, like finance, fertiliser or techniques are up to date? 

...

Your father is the deputy prime minister. Have your family ties helped you land the CRF job?
I am the new generation. You could say it is a coincidence that I happen to be in this position, but it was not appointed. We went through an election. I don’t think people voted for me because of who I am. If they feel that I am someone who doesn’t know what I am talking about, I don’t think they would have voted for me'.

An earlier article by Phnom Penh Post (May 20) also noted that his father-in-law is the PM himself ..., so that might help, certainly with the election process. It also noted that all other industry bodies would be dissolved ...

The Phnom Penh Post (May 30) has an interesting coverage of a rice industry workshop:

'The rice industry's quest for greater quality at lower cost reached a dead end yesterday at a conference in Phnom Penh, with exporters and farmers polarised on how to achieve greater returns for the industry.

The workshop, titled "Improving Rice Value Chain and Enhancing Farmers’ Livelihoods", was attended by more than 70 farmer representatives, businesses and government officials. On one side exporters want farmers to provide a better-quality rice grain, but on the other, farmers cannot afford the premium to pay for the higher-quality seed ... Kan Vesna, a farmers representative from Battambang province, rebutted the millers concerns, saying millers systematically reducing prices across the industry created little incentive for farmers to improve their crops'.

With prices dropping and companies feeling the pinch, no doubt lower prices for farmers will be the indiustry's answer to their problems (passing on the buck).

The Cambodian Daily comes with a farmer based article (May 30) concerned with the same workshop:

'Cambodia’s rice farmers are being neglected amid the government’s push to ramp up exports of milled rice to one million tons by the end of next year, a goal that will only be reached with improved cultivation, agriculture experts and farmers said Wednesday at the Royal University of Phnom Penh'.

Mitigating

The World Bank has some bad news: world food prices are going up (source). We never see this sort of alarmist news when prices are dropping (though we never notice it in the shops  ..., lower prices mean more profit for end-use companies ...). The price rise is lead by rises in wheat and maize, due to political instability in Ukraine and wider implications of the conflict. Only rice prices were dropping ... The report also notes: 

'Food price shocks can both spark and exacerbate conflict and political instability, and it is vital to promote policies that work to mitigate these effects'. 

The only way forward is to reverse policies on creation of national reserves. For years the World Bank has been advocating selling of strategic stocks thus exacerbating price rises! Another hmmmm

World prices seem to be on the drop at least in the short term. India has announced to offload it's reserves on the internal market so as to drive down prices and thus inflation (source). But that means less exports further on down the road and eventually higher prices.

King

Meanwhile farmers are proving to spoil local markets in Laos. According to Vientiane Times (May 23):

'The price of rice in the markets of Borikhamxay and Luang Namtha provinces increased 500 kip per kilogram this week, while staying the same in most other provinces. The price rise is believed to be caused by some farmers stocking their rice to consume through the wet season, causing a shortage in the markets'. 

Oddly the article features no official response to the price rises. Are Lao farmers king?