Endnotes

¹The classification of land as organic is strict by International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) criteria and includes only land under certified organic production. Such certification requires third party inspection, and although specific standards vary across countries (55 of them have legislation that backs IFOAM type certification) the requirement is always for a complete absence of inorganic external inputs, chemical pesticides etc. It excludes, for example, land with good agricultural practices and low external inputs, which are also regulated in some countries—see the case of the People's Republic of China (PRC), where there are three categories: organic food, green food and non-polluting food (Qiao et al, 2007). If one takes a wider definition of “organic” to include land farmed with low external inputs, the amount would be much larger. In 2002 a Greenpeace report indicated that land that was managed according to ecological principles was about 3 percent of agricultural land in developing countries, while that classified as organic was only about 0.7 percent (Parrott and Marsden, 2002). Thus the former could be as much as 4 times the latter.

²In this paper, Organic Agriculture (OA) refers to certified OA.

³The new accession countries are not included in this comparison. In general their share of organic agriculture covering a much wider range, with the Czech Republic having around 5 percent and Lithuania only 0.25 percent.

⁴Data on land area from different countries are not directly comparable as some countries convert large tracts of low value grazing land to OA, while in others it is high yielding crop land that is converted.

⁵See http://www.organicmonitor.com//100142.htm, accessed January 25th 2008.

⁶ Export Promotion of Organic Production from Africa, www.epopa.info

⁷The issue is currently high on the political agenda. There has been some discussion in Europe, for example, of not granting OA status to products that have been air freighted.

⁸The actual calculations were done in euros. An exchange rate of US$1.2 to the euro has been used, reflecting the exchange rate prevailing at the time of the study.

⁹Hausmann, R. 2007. Biofuels Can Match Oil Production. Financial Times. 7 November.

¹⁰Subsidies are defined in Eurostat as current unrequited payments from government to producers with the objective of influencing their levels of production, their prices or the remuneration of the factors of production. They can take the form of income transfers to producers or consumers of a commodity, or price supports to producers. They can also be indirect, as in the case of biofuels, where demand for the product is artificially raised by mandating their use for transport; or they can be provided by placing tariffs on the imports of competitive products (as is the case with ethanol in the US).

¹¹Wolf, M. 2007. Biofuels: An Everyday Story of Special Interests and Subsidies. Financial Times. 31 October.

¹²Hausmann, R. 2007. Biofuels Can Match Oil Production. Financial Times, 7 November.

¹³In pursuing such gains in efficiency, however, one has to be careful. Strategies for increasing efficiency in crop production through the green revolution have caused collateral damage. Such damages must be avoided with biofuels.

¹⁴These sharp increases in prices will be mitigated if crop yields increase substantially, or if biofuel production becomes based on other raw materials, such as trees and grasses. While there is little sign that the latter is imminent, the improvements in yields are noticeable. The average yield of maize in US has increased about 2 percent a year over the last 15 years, and the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) projects a further improvement of 10 percent over the next 10 years for maize and 5 percent for soy. In Brazil's Sao Paolo region, sugarcane yields increased by 33 percent between 1975 and 2000. At the same time the efficiency of conversion from feedstock to biofuel have also been increasing – at about one percent a year for ethanol, and about 0.3 percent for biodiesel.

¹⁵http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/reports/carbon%20methodology%20and%20tool%20-%20final.pdf.

¹⁶Some studies find even higher costs per ton of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) avoided. Wolf (2007) cites a range from US$150 to US$1000.

¹⁷The most recent IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) Report estimates, based on bottom up studies, that between 16 and 31 gigatons of carbon could be removed at an economically acceptable cost in 2030. Of this 5-7 gigatons can be removed at a cost of less than US$5/ton, 9-17 gigatons at a cost of less than US$20/ton, 13-26 gigatons at a cost of less than US$50/ton. The rest (3-5 gigatons) have a cost of between US$50 and US$100/ton (IPCC IV, 2007). Options at below US$50/ton include: demand side management; improved efficiency in fossil fuel generation; efficient lighting, electric appliances and heating and cooling devices in buildings; more fuel efficient vehicles; heat and power recovery; and more efficient end-use equipment in industry; reforestation and afforestation; and landfill methane recovery.

¹⁸Pen Vuth, Director, Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Improvement, Phnom Penh.

¹⁹Presentation by Keam Makarady, Program Officer, Cambodian Center for Agricultural Studies and Development (CEDAC) to the Regional Conference on Organic Agriculture in Asia, 12-15 December, Bangkok, Thailand.

²⁰There is also a contract farming program for rice under which a company (AKR) provides seeds in credit and agrees to buy the output at a minimum price. It covers about 1000 households but is not an organic program.

²¹http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071014202450.htm

²²Good agriculture practices in this study refers to production practices where appropriate use of agrochemicals is ensured i.e. using pesticides only when necessary and allow for sufficient grace period before harvesting. Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) in this study does not refer to a specific set of standards or certification used in international trade i.e. EUREPGAP, Japan GAP, or any other GAP.

²³J. Anthofer et al. Evaluation of the System of Rice Intensification in Cambodia. Available: http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/

²⁴See, for example, Namara, Weligamage and Barker. 200X. An evaluation of SRI in Sri Lanka. The International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Research Report No.75.

²⁵Mimeo. Provided by Dr. Yang Saing Koma, president, CEDAC, Phnom Penh.

²⁶Tonle Sap consists of the provinces of Banteay Meanchey, Battambang, Kompong Thom, Siem Reap, and Kompong Chhnang/Pursat, The Coastal zone is made up of Kamot, Sihanoukville, Kep and Koh Kong provinces. The Mountain/Plateau region consists of Kompong Speu, Kratie, Mondul Kiri, Preah Vihear, Ratanak Kiri, Stung Treng, Oddar Meanchey and Pailin provinces. Finally the Plains region is made up of Kompong Cham, Kandal, Prey Veng, Svay Rieng and Takeo provinces.

²⁷CEDAC also plans a National Agricultural Program, which aims at enabling 4,000 farmers to go fully organic within three years. The program would increase total organic rice production from around 5,400 ha. to 9,400 ha., with additional organic output up by 2,000 tons in 2008/2009. This report has not estimated the benefits of this fully organic production program separately, although they are likely to be small relative to the benefits of bringing 240,000 households into SRI as estimated here.

²⁸The number is relatively small partly because a number of poor households are landless and partly because of the depth of poverty. The increase in incomes can take some of them above the poverty line but by no means all. Furthermore we should note that the above assume an indiscriminate selection of households across all regions. A more targeted selection of poor households in rice growing areas would achieve a greater reduction in poverty.

²⁹This is based on Lao data indicating a cost of around $580 per household for a small program. Allowing for economies of scale we have taken a cost of $500 per household. Unfortunately no data was available on the costs of the CEDAC program.

³⁰For details see http://www.nedo.go.jp/kokusai/kouhou/190201/2-6b.pdf

³¹An example is the Thai Agriculture Land Reform Office (ALRO) which has allocated land to poor households on condition they grow jatropha and sell the output to a given firm (Biodiesel Cambodia).

³²Dupar, M. and N. Badenoch. 2002. Environment, Livelihoods and Local Institutions: Decentralization in Mainland Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute.

³³Schumann, G. et al, 2006, Study on State Land Leases and Concessions in Lao PDR. Land Policy Study No. 4. Lao- German Land Policy Development Project.

³⁴Meixner, S. 2007. Land concessions leave thousands destitute in Cambodia's heartland. Cambodia Daily. 20 May.

³⁵Official import data for 2005 showed imports of around 130 million liters, but actual consumption was much higher. A long ago as 1995 estimated consumption was 149 million liters and it has certainly gone up significantly since then.

³⁶Data are from Watananonta and Howeler, 2005. In fact the price of cassava has risen since then, making the crop more attractive.

³⁷An issue that has been raised with cassava is its contribution to soil erosion especially in upland areas. Some of this soil moves to lower spots as well as lowlands and delta areas, benefiting them. But there are also negative effects, including loss of fertility in the upland areas where cassava is grown, as well as deposition of eroded sediments in irrigation systems, reservoirs and harbors. The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) reports that while it is known that cassava has such effects, the magnitude cannot be estimated from the sediment loads of the main drainage basins. (http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y2413e/y2413e0a.htm). Yield data for cassava in South East Asia, however, do not show any declining trend over the period 1983 to 2005 (Watananonata and Howeler, 2005).

³⁸Dr. Phouangparisack, Director General (DG), Directorate of Planning in the Lao PDR, personal communication.

³⁹In this report we focus only on OA and GAP rice production. We have not looked at the economic potential for conservation agriculture in detail, due to lack of data. This does not mean, of course, that such a system cannot complement SRI or other rice growing systems.

⁴⁰The yields in the uplands are 60 percent of those in the lowlands and labor inputs are almost double per hectare.

⁴¹The estimate assumes that the US$52 million is spread over four years, and the increases in incomes build up to the maximum of US$5.6 million over those four years. The benefits are taken over 30 years.

⁴²U. Pandey, 2007, 16 June. Laos opening its doors to investors. Bangkok Post
——— 2007, 10 May. Foreign investment exceeds expectations. Vientiane Times.
Indeed many copies of the local English paper Vientiane Times report stories of conflicts with local communities over land concessions.

Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 257.7KB| 46 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [1] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

1. Chumroen Benchavitvilai
   (posted 16 May 2009 / 05:44:46 PM)
   
   In fact all the LDC government must realize that the cost of Biofuel is /will be much more expensive than the mineral fossil fuel at any time.
   If the LDC like Lao,Cambodia and Myanmar wants to promote the Biofuel utilization as the national agenda .The policy makers in all countries must be able to find the satifatory answers to the following questions.
   
   (1) Do the people in the poorest countries of LDC really need to pay for the expensive / high cost of Biofuel as teh real cost is w/o governemtn interention ?
   
   (2) Will the governments of the LDC provide subsidies for Biofuel to keep the Biofuel not to be too much more expensive that the mineral fossil fuel ?
   The subsidies are both in term of production subsidies for lower production cost and consumer subsidies by waiving all related taxes eg energy tax, exile taxes VAT ,Energy fund etc.
   
   (3) It is doubtfully that the governments in all LDC are able to effort to provide any sbsidies for Biofuel .
   Normally the income from the energy usages is one of the main stream for revenue.
   All government in LDC are haing the deficit budget forever.
   Althrogh they may want to promote Biofuel and cover all the subsidies.
   It is impossible to survive.
   
   LDC countries should be the exporter of the Biofuel not teh teh end user of the Biofuel.