文章 Articles

The rise of rice rustling, along with prices

Asian countries are curbing exports of a staple crop to avoid shortfalls at home. In a “perfect storm” of factors, global demand is exceeding supply -- and governments are worrying more about food security. Ian MacKinnon reports.
Article image

Knee-deep in muddy water, her face smeared with sandalwood paste and a broad-brimmed hat atop her head for protection against the broiling sun, Samniang Ketia grins broadly at her good fortune to be in the rice-growing business as she replants shoots for the next harvest two months off.

The 37-year-old woman, who leases a small plot of land in Samblong, central Thailand, knows the price of rice has rocketed -- in some cases nearly doubling in three months -- and that she is about to reap the benefit when she sells what her family does not eat.

But the price rises have a downside and have spawned a new phenomenon: rice rustling. One night, a field of one of Samniang's neighbours was stripped as it was about to be harvested. Local police now have banned harvesting machines from the roads at night, while on the northern plains farmers are camping in their fields, shotguns at the ready against potential rice thieves.

"I've never heard of it happening before, that people have stolen rice," said Lung Choop, 68, who grows rice on his smallholding. "But it's happening now because rice is so expensive. I guess I'll have to guard my own distant fields when they're ready."

Across Asia, the suddenly stratospheric rice prices have prompted countries to ban exports amid fears that shortages could provoke food riots. While prices of wheat, corn and other agricultural commodities have surged since the end of 2006, partly because of extra demand for biofuels to offset rising oil prices, rice has held fairly steady.

However, prices for the staple food of about 2.5 billion Asian people rocketed early this year. Thai rice, the global benchmark, which was quoted at just below $400 a tonne in January, rose to $760 in late March.

Aware that shortages of such a vital staple could spell trouble at home, Asian governments have moved to ensure that their people get enough to eat at a price they can afford -- an insurance policy which, in turn, has raised prices further.

Near the end of March, Cambodia banned all exports for two months to ensure "food security", following the lead of Egypt, a major exporter. Vietnam, which ships five million tonnes abroad each year, declared a 20% cut in exports.

India started the ball rolling in late 2007. With dwindling stocks, the large exporter introduced curbs that effectively banned exports, around four million tonnes. Pakistan and China also introduced curbs.

Hopes that India would re-enter the rice market within the next few months were dashed on March 27, 2008, when the country raised the minimum price for exports from $650 a tonne to $1,000, effectively maintaining the ban, which was escaped only by the foreign currency-earning premium basmati variety.

The Philippines is potentially among the biggest losers; with 91 million people, the country cannot feed itself. After its farmers warned of a looming shortfall, Manila's fast-food outlets offered to serve "half portions" of rice to conserve stocks. The Philippine president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, also has pleaded with Vietnam to guarantee 1.5 million tonnes of rice this year.

In Indonesia, people took to the streets of the capital, Jakarta, in protest at rising rice prices -- and now even Thailand, the world's largest exporter, is bracing itself. The country produces 30 million tonnes of rice a year, and aims to export 8.5 million tonnes. Last year 9.5 million tonnes was sold abroad and more may be exported this year, prompting government ministers to consider curbs. "A rice shortage in the local market is very likely," said Prasert Kosalwit, director general of the Thai government's rice department.

Rice shortfalls were reported in southern Thailand as traders from the northern rice belt bought up stocks at inflated prices. With global rice stocks at their lowest level since 1976, analysts expect price rises to continue until the end of next year. Some analysts predict it could hit $1,000 a tonne before farmers, spurred by the high prices, plant more crops and increase supplies.

Demand outstripped supply by nearly two million tonnes last year. The predicted shortfall this year is more than three million tonnes on the 424 million tonnes required. Across Asia, with its vast and growing population, there is little if any extra land to bring into production, and it may take several years for any "supply response" to materialise.

Growing urbanisation over the longer term in countries such as China and India is cited as a key factor in the rice shortfall, where the increasingly affluent middle classes demand more meat and dairy products, with land turned over to growing feed for livestock.

Rising wealth in Africa has also become a factor. Oil-rich Nigeria is now the largest importer in Africa, a continent which takes the largest share of Thai exports, about 40%. Asia soaks up 35%.

Severe weather across Asia also has damaged production. Record icy temperatures occurred in China and Vietnam, the latter of which also suffered a pest outbreak. Bangladesh endured a devastating cyclone, while Australia suffered a prolonged drought.

"It's been described as a 'perfect storm' of factors that have pushed prices to their highest levels since the 1970s," said Adam Barclay, of the Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

The World Food Programme (WFP) also is alarmed. The extra cost of feeding the 28 million "poorest of the poor" spread across 14 Asian countries will cost $160 million a year and the United Nations agency has asked three dozen donor governments for the cash, part of a $500 million global appeal to offset rising food prices.

"The real danger with rising rice prices,” said Paul Risley, spokesman for WFP Asia, “is that the 'working poor' will simply be pushed into the category of 'poor', who will look to us to feed them. There are hundreds of millions living at, or just below, the poverty line of $1-a-day, spending 70% of their day-labour wages on food.”

"If food costs double,” he added, “they've no opportunity to increase their earnings and no alternative but to reduce what they and their families eat."

Copyright Guardian News & Media Ltd 2008

Homepage photo by my visita lglesia

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

社会责任的重新分配

如上文所述,米价上涨其主要原因为亚洲国家内需扩大,粮食生产成本提高等。但我认为经济全球化也为这次风暴的产生起了催化作用,体现了其负面性。

首先,粮价上涨是市场供不应求的表现,放到古代社会,就是饥荒。从古至今,亚洲历史上有千千万万的饥荒,但为什么只有21世纪的饥荒可以变得国际化?因为我们每个国家都越来越多地依赖于国际贸易。这既是全球趋势,又同时是一把双刃剑。所以,当内需扩大才,减少国际米供货,同时使贫困国家1亿人口陷入粮食危机的时候,世界银行行长佐利克不得不呼吁制定“一个全球食品政策的新政”,以应对食品价格危机。

其次,全球化的负面性还体现在了其对全球贫富分化的影响上。不可否认,发展中国家如中国和印度的内需扩大是中产阶级扩大的结果,这对于国家走向民主是有正面影响的。因为只有中产阶级占了多数的国家,财富才能均衡,才会有民主的可能性。但是,从国与国之间的利益权衡上来看,发展中国家内需扩大,也导致了贫穷国家更加贫穷。所以粮食危机的最终受害者,是那些缺少耕地缺少技术的贫穷国家。

既然看到了问题,就要寻求解决问题的方案。粮食危机的余波会是长期的,我们应对的办法也应该是长期性的。所以,像布什政府的短期补助绝对只是应急措施而已。长期有效的办法是:在国际上,加强食品政策和管理;在国家内,建立更多有效的国家和民间机构来预测和研究粮食问题。这里,值得指出的是,非盈利机构应在这一范畴内肩负起更多指责,从而使‘吃饭’这个基本问题能够脱离政府或商业之间的博弈,以免老百姓成为博弈的牺牲品。

一个社会责任的重新分配应该是这个新世界的又一主题。

VZ

A re-distribution of social responsibilities

As discussed by the article above, the main reason for the rocketing price of rice can be seen as the increase in domestic demand and costs of production. However, I also think the effects of globalisation somehow catalyzed this "storm", showing its dark side.

First off, the high price in rice is a phenomenon of supply not meeting demand. If this happened in the ancient world, it would have resulted in a famine. Look through the history of the Asian world, there were already thousands and thousands of famines, but why can such a "famine" in 21st century become this international? Surely, it is because more and more countries rely on international trade, which is not only a global trend, but also a double-edged sword. So after domestic demand grew, international supply reduced and more than 100 million people from the poorest countries were trapped in the food crisis, the President of World Bank had to call for "a new global food policy" to tackle the crisis of food prices.

Secondly, the dark side of globalisation also affects the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Undeniably, the domestic demand surges in developing countries, such as China and India, are a promising result from the emerging of the countries' middle class, which has a positive influence on the development of democracy in these countries. In the countries with its majority group as the middle class, the distribution of wealth tends to be more homogeneous, which is the foundation of a democratic society. However, on the level of the conflict of interests between countries, the growing domestic demands in developing countries ultimately cause poor countries to become poorer. So I believe the ultimate victims of the food crisis are those poor countries which do not have high technologies and enough farmland.

Since we have seen the problems here, there has to be a solution. It is believed that the ripples of the food crisis will be long lasting, so how we deal with it will be long term actions. Realizing short-term food aid funds from the Bush administration is definitely not a solution in the end. The possible long lasting solutions can be:

1. Internationally, reinforce food policy and management.
2. Domestically, set up more effective governmental agencies and NGOs to study and forecast about the food problem.

It is also worth pointing out that more responsibilities should be carried on by NGOs in this field. The goal for this is that ultimately the "question of eating" can be independent from the game between governments and businesses, avoiding any sacrifice of the countries' civil citizens. A re-distribution of the responsibilities should be the new scheme of the world.

Victor Zhang

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

粮食价格上涨的根本原因是工业化、城镇化加速

第一,工业化、城镇化步伐加快影响了粮食的生产和消费,它导致粮食供求结构性矛盾的重要原因。

其次,工业化、城镇化步伐加快推动粮食生产成本上升。粮食生产的总成本包括生产成本和土地成本。工业化和城镇化建设过程中迅速增长的用地需求及耕地面积的急剧减少导致工业用地价格大幅上升,带动农村土地价格加速上涨;同时,种粮比较效益下降导致种粮机会成本增加。

粮食价格问题:从短期看,加强粮食需求管理,适度调控粮食市场,控制粮价过快上涨。从长期看,提高农业劳动生产率才是实现高层次粮食供求平衡,综合解决粮价稳定和农民增收问题的根本途.

K

Industrialisation, urbanisation leads to rising food prices

Further industrialisation and urbanisation will have a big impact upon food production and consumption, reshaping the the supply-and-demand structure and shoring up the cost of food production and land prices in rural areas.

To tackle the food prices issue, measures to take in the short term include: bettering food demand surveillance and management, moderately regulating the food market, and preventing food prices from rising too quickly.

In the long term, increasing agricultural productivity is the fundamental solution to balance the food supply and demand, stabilise food prices and increase farmers' income.

K

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

技术还是责任?

张先生的观点很正确。粮价上涨最大的受害者的确是最贫穷的国民——通常只有穷人才从事粮食种植。然而,这并不意味着缺乏农业“高技术”是问题所在。粮价上涨部分原因是由于相关的投入(如运输成本)增加。这些投入与上涨的油价有关。请注意,大多数的“高技术”农业及工业化农业都需要化肥——几乎所有的化肥都以石油为原料。这无疑将使粮食成本上升。在全球范围内,粮食产量过剩。粮食的过剩(由于有些政府补贴农业,例如美国)导致全球粮价走低,进而使贫穷的农民更贫穷。他们无法与美国的低价粮竞争。中国的饥饿问题不只是农业技术问题,还是财富分配的问题。富人们不会挨饿。正如张先生所说,需要重新明确社会责任。Adam Curry

Technology Vs. Responsibility

Mr. Zhang makes a good point. Indeed the people most victimized by rising food costs are the poorest citizens--often the very people who grow the food. However, this is not necessarily a problem of the lack of "high technologies" available for farming.

Food prices are rising partly because the associated inputs (such as transportation) are rising. These inputs relate to the rising cost of oil. Now consider that most "high tech" or industrial farming practices require fertilizers--almost all of which are petroleum-based. This would only increase the ultimate cost of food.

Globally there is too much food. The over-abundance of food (thanks to government subsidized farming, as in the USA) drives crop prices down globally, which keeps poor farmers poor. They can't compete with US food prices.

The problem of hunger in China is not just one of farming technology, but of the concentration of wealth. Rich people do not go hungry. As Mr. Zhang says, we need to re-distribute social responsibilities.

Adam Curry