10th january,2014 rice news by riceplus magazine

10TH January,2014

Rice News by

Riceplus Magazine

[email protected]

BOC warned vs release of seized smuggled riceBy Eva Visperas, The Philippine Star

Posted at 01/10/2014 3:20 AM | Updated as of 01/10/2014 3:20 AM

ROSALES, Pangasinan, Philippines – The peasant coalition Samahang Industriya ng Agrikultura (Sinag) threatened

to file a suit against the Bureau of Customs (BOC) if the agency releases seized rice that have no import permits.

Rosendo So, Sinag president, told The STAR yesterday that the BOC should stand firm and stop the release of

seized imported rice amid reports that smugglers are resorting to court actions to prevent Customs authorities from

implementing the seizure of shipments.

He said if the BOC gives in to pressure, it would set a bad precedent and many culprits would repeat the wrong

procedure because they could get away with it anyway.

Jesse Dellosa, BOC deputy commissioner for intelligence, said they noticed the shift in strategy of rice smugglers in

the past months.

So said rice importers should first apply for import permits from the National Food Authority (NFA), which is the

proper procedure.

“It should not be that when the shipment is already here then you apply (for permits). That is wrong,” So added.

Dellosa said at least P725 million worth of smuggled rice had been seized since September from 1,936 shipping

containers.

These entered the country through the ports of Manila, Davao, Cebu, Cagayan de Oro and Batangas.

The BOC should not release the shipment because it involves illegal entry, So said.

He said when seizure had been made, the owners said they could get import permit from the NFA and they set an

appointment with the agency. But the NFA refused to issue the permit, he added.

Lawyer Argee Guevarra, who earlier exposed the alleged anomaly in the NFA’s rice importation, had urged the

government to run after a certain “Buddy R” and not the fictional rice smuggler “David Tan.”

Guevarra said Buddy R is a trader engaged with the Department of Agriculture who manages the kickbacks in

connection with government-to-government (G2G) deals.

He said Buddy R is engaged in buying NFA properties at a very cheap price and selling or leasing the same at a

higher cost.

“This Buddy R is the government’s David Tan in rice smuggling who is in charge of determining and distributing

kickbacks from G2G scheme. He went to Singapore to receive kickbacks in relation to the April 2013 G2G rice

importation from Vietnam,” Guevarra claimed.

He said this trader was among those he already charged before the office of the Ombudsman last month.

He urged the Department of Justice to run after Buddy R who, industry sources revealed, is a businessman

surnamed “Roa.”

Last November, he said Roa raked in huge kickbacks from the importation of 500,000 metric tons of rice at a price of

$462 per metric ton.

“Buddy R is a real person while David Tan is a product of fiction, a bogeyman or a phantom created to cow legitimate

rice traders who oppose the G2G scheme. I will ask the DOJ to investigate this person to know his dealings and

identify his handlers, including (Agriculture Secretary Proceso) Alcala and a congressman from Mindanao,“ Guevarra

stressed.

Last Wednesday, Guevarra said that exposure of David Tan is part of a grand scheme to divert the public’s attention

from the real culprits in rice smuggling.

He previously filed a complaint against DA and NFA officials before the justice department and a separate plunder

case against the same officials before the Office of the Ombudsman.

“Again, I say the witch hunt for a certain David Tan is obviously part of a grand plot to instill fear among legitimate rice

traders who can be accused of being Tan himself. Buddy R is a real person while Tan is a fictional character created

to ensure Alcala et al‘s absolute control of the industry,” Guevarra pointed out. – With Edu Punay

Fates of wild rice, mines intertwined in northern Minnesota

Thursday, January 09 2014

Written by Dan Kraker, Minnesota Public Radio News,

Wild rice, the iconic grain that grows across much of the northern half of the state, is at the center of a contentious

debate over mining and the environment.

A 40-year-old state law limits how much of a mining byproduct called "sulfate" can be discharged into wild rice producing waters. Prompted by mining industry concerns that the standard is too stringent, the state has been giving it another look and will release results of its two-year study Monday.

For members of the state's Indian tribes, wild rice is sacred.

Jim Northrup, who has harvested wild rice on Perch Lake on the Fond du Lac reservation for over half a century, said the grain called "manomin" in Ojibwe is a gift from the Creator that led his people to first settle here.

"The old stories said we'd move west until we came to a spot where food grew on the water," Northrup said. "And that perfectly describes manomin. It's become our identity now. It's who we are."

Wild rice is now part of all of Minnesota's identity. It's even the official state grain. The plant's significance helped lead to a 1973 state law to protect it from sulfate pollution, a form of sulfur that occurs naturally in the environment, that's also a byproduct of industrial activities like wastewater treatment and mining.

The law limits sulfate discharges into wild rice producing waters to 10 milligrams per liter during periods when the rice may be susceptible to damage. It's based on research done by John Moyle, a biologist for the Minnesota Department of Conservation in the 1930s and 40s that found that no large wild rice stands grew in waters high in sulfate.

But the standard went largely unenforced until 2010, when the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency began to ask mining companies to document wild rice plants in lakes and streams where they discharge wastewater. The following year the agency issued a permit that limited sulfate discharges at U.S. Steel's Keewatin Taconite operation, known as Keetac.

Nancy Schuldt, water resource policy director for the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, said high levels of sulfate have been measured in those waters, and wild rice stands are disappearing.

"The poster child would be Sandy and Little Sandy lake, at the toe of the Minntac Tailings basin," she said. "A generation ago, band members from Grand Portage for instance, were having rice camps there, and there would be familial gatherings and it was a meeting place. And now there's no rice to harvest."

But mining companies and some northern Minnesota lawmakers questioned the science behind the standard.

In 2010 the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce sued to overturn it, although the case was eventually dismissed by the courts. Bills were introduced to weaken it. In the end, lawmakers set aside $1.5 million for a two-year study to determine whether the standard is scientifically valid. The results will be released later Monday.

"The study actually relies on multiple lines of investigation," said Shannon Lotthammer, director of the MPCA's environmental analysis and outcomes division. She said scientists have gathered more field data from northern Minnesota and have conducted experiments on wild rice plants in glass jars in the lab and in plants grown outside in plastic tubs, to try to learn exactly what effect sulfate has on the plants.

An important question is whether sulfate by itself is the main culprit, Lotthammer said. Scientists theorize that hydrogen sulfide damages wild rice. In an oxygen-starved environment like the muck in wild rice lakes, bacteria essentially breathe in sulfate, and exhale hydrogen sulfide, which can be toxic to plants.

"It's sulfate then being converted into sulfide in the sediment, and the sulfide affecting the wild rice through the roots," explained Lotthammer.

The study's results should provide more clarity. But Lotthammer said it will take the MPCA until the end of February to answer a key question: "Do we believe that there's a reason to support, a scientific basis to support a change to the standard, and if so, does it look like the standard should be higher or lower, based on this new information?"

The MPCA's decision is sure to be highly scrutinized, particularly by the mining industry. "We just believe that a standard should be based on science, and that companies shouldn't be required to invest maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, until we have science backing up whatever the appropriate sulfate level is for a standard to protect wild rice," said Frank Ongaro, executive director of Minnesota Mining. The industry group represents copper-nickel mines like PolyMet, currently under environmental review.

PolyMet officials say they will meet the current standard.

Supporters of the law argue it is based on sound science. Under the federal Clean Water Act, the burden of proof is on MPCA to show scientific proof before changing the standard, said Paula Maccabee, an attorney for WaterLegacy, a group that opposes the PolyMet proposal.

"I think that's what we're counting on, is that, our laws don't make it easy for political pressure to weaken water quality standards," she said.

The MPCA will analyze study results for the next two months. In April the agency will begin a rulemaking process to address any recommended changes to the wild rice standard, and to designate which waters are subject to the sulfate limits.

Minnesota Public Radio News can be heard on MPR's statewide radio network of online atminnesota.publicradio.org .

Wild rice, the iconic grain that grows across much of the northern half of the state, is at the center of a contentious

debate over mining and the environment.

A 40-year-old state law limits how much of a mining byproduct called "sulfate" can be discharged into wild rice producing waters. Prompted by mining industry concerns that the standard is too stringent, the state has been giving it another look and will release results of its two-year study Monday.

For members of the state's Indian tribes, wild rice is sacred.

Jim Northrup, who has harvested wild rice on Perch Lake on the Fond du Lac reservation for over half a century, said the grain called "manomin" in Ojibwe is a gift from the Creator that led his people to first settle here.

"The old stories said we'd move west until we came to a spot where food grew on the water," Northrup said. "And that perfectly describes manomin. It's become our identity now. It's who we are."

Wild rice is now part of all of Minnesota's identity. It's even the official state grain. The plant's significance helped lead to a 1973 state law to protect it from sulfate pollution, a form of sulfur that occurs naturally in the environment, that's also a byproduct of industrial activities like wastewater treatment and mining.

The law limits sulfate discharges into wild rice producing waters to 10 milligrams per liter during periods when the rice may be susceptible to damage. It's based on research done by John Moyle, a biologist for the Minnesota Department of Conservation in the 1930s and 40s that found that no large wild rice stands grew in waters high in sulfate.

But the standard went largely unenforced until 2010, when the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency began to ask mining companies to document wild rice plants in lakes and streams where they discharge wastewater. The following

year the agency issued a permit that limited sulfate discharges at U.S. Steel's Keewatin Taconite operation, known as Keetac.

Nancy Schuldt, water resource policy director for the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, said high levels of sulfate have been measured in those waters, and wild rice stands are disappearing.

"The poster child would be Sandy and Little Sandy lake, at the toe of the Minntac Tailings basin," she said. "A generation ago, band members from Grand Portage for instance, were having rice camps there, and there would be familial gatherings and it was a meeting place. And now there's no rice to harvest."

But mining companies and some northern Minnesota lawmakers questioned the science behind the standard.

In 2010 the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce sued to overturn it, although the case was eventually dismissed by the courts. Bills were introduced to weaken it. In the end, lawmakers set aside $1.5 million for a two-year study to determine whether the standard is scientifically valid. The results will be released later Monday.

"The study actually relies on multiple lines of investigation," said Shannon Lotthammer, director of the MPCA's environmental analysis and outcomes division. She said scientists have gathered more field data from northern Minnesota and have conducted experiments on wild rice plants in glass jars in the lab and in plants grown outside in plastic tubs, to try to learn exactly what effect sulfate has on the plants.

An important question is whether sulfate by itself is the main culprit, Lotthammer said. Scientists theorize that hydrogen sulfide damages wild rice. In an oxygen-starved environment like the muck in wild rice lakes, bacteria essentially breathe in sulfate, and exhale hydrogen sulfide, which can be toxic to plants.

"It's sulfate then being converted into sulfide in the sediment, and the sulfide affecting the wild rice through the roots," explained Lotthammer.

The study's results should provide more clarity. But Lotthammer said it will take the MPCA until the end of February to answer a key question: "Do we believe that there's a reason to support, a scientific basis to support a change to the standard, and if so, does it look like the standard should be higher or lower, based on this new information?"

The MPCA's decision is sure to be highly scrutinized, particularly by the mining industry. "We just believe that a standard should be based on science, and that companies shouldn't be required to invest maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, until we have science backing up whatever the appropriate sulfate level is for a standard to protect wild rice," said Frank Ongaro, executive director of Minnesota Mining. The industry group represents copper-nickel mines like PolyMet, currently under environmental review.

PolyMet officials say they will meet the current standard.

Supporters of the law argue it is based on sound science. Under the federal Clean Water Act, the burden of proof is on MPCA to show scientific proof before changing the standard, said Paula Maccabee, an attorney for WaterLegacy, a group that opposes the PolyMet proposal.

"I think that's what we're counting on, is that, our laws don't make it easy for political pressure to weaken water quality standards," she said.

The MPCA will analyze study results for the next two months. In April the agency will begin a rulemaking process to address any recommended changes to the wild rice standard, and to designate which waters are subject to the sulfate limits.

Minnesota Public Radio News can be heard on MPR's statewide radio network of online atminnesota.publicradio.org .

US Faults FG’s Claim of Self-Sufficiency in Rice Production by 2015

09.01.2014Data from the United States Government obtained by THISDAY yesterday have punctured the claims by the federal government that Nigeria would achieve self-sufficiency in rice production in the year 2015.

Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, had last year announced that going by the massive increase in rice production across the country occasioned by the implementation of the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) and the Growth Enhancement Scheme (GES) of the federal government, indigenous rice producers will be able to produce all the rice needed in the country by 2015, thereby setting the stage for a ban on the importation of the commodity by next year.

But a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) report yesterday showed that rice farmers and millers in Nigeria believe the decision to ban rice imports completely in 2015 could be counter-productive and require  a review to protect the interests of the local rice industry.

According to the USDA, Nigeria’s rice imports in 2013-14 are estimated to reach around 3 million tonnes, about 3.4 percent higher than about 2.9 million tonnes of rice imports beyween 2012-2013. This is mainly because the projected increase in rice production in 2013-14 falls short of consumption requirement.

The USDA noted that Nigeria’s rice production in 2013-14 is expected to reach around 2.7 million tonnes, up by about 12.5 percent from previous year's production of about 2.4 milln tonnes.

However, the report noted that rice consumption in Nigeria is projected to increase to around 6 million tonnes in 2013-14, up about 11 percent from around 5.4 million tonnes in the previous year.

Responding to the USDA report, Special Adviser to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr. Olukayode Oyeleye, warned that whatever information comes from the US

with respect to rice should be taken with a pinch of salt, considering the fact that the US is one of the biggest exporters of rice to Nigeria and the policy banning rice importation by 2015 will therefore impact on them negatively.

"There is the likelihood of a political undertone to what is coming from the US in Nigeria's quest for self-sufficiency in rice production and consumption. It is the same thing we expect to happen with our policy that targets reduced wheat importation," Oyeleye said.

He added that the ATA and GES were poised to end the nation's dependence on other countries of the world for food and rice is no exception, stressing that under the schemes, government targets the production of over 3million tonnes of rice and coupled with outputs from other rice farmers who are not in the scheme, the country would not be needing rice from abroad in 2015.

A statement from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recently noted that due to increased rice output in Nigeria and Ghana, global rice production was forecast to outpace consumption in 2012/13, resulting in an upward revision of 5 million tonnes in 2013 closing inventories..

"World rice carryover stocks are expected to rise by seven per cent, or 10 million tonnes, to a new high of almost 170 tonnes, marking the eighth consecutive year of stock accumulation," FAO stated. "As a result, the world rice stock-to-use ratio was  forecast to rise to 35.5 percent in 2013."

The federal government hiked rice import tariffs sharply in the beginning of 2013 and is planning to ban rice importation completely by 2015.

Government officials also disclosed that the move will help boost local production and save billions of dollars for the economy. However, high tariffs have led to a surge in smuggling of rice in to the country.

According to the Nigerian Customs Service, rice worth about N27 billion (around $170 million) entered the country illegally during the first five months of 2013 alone.

Smuggled rice is seen as a major threat to the development of Nigeria’s rice sector. According to local sources, while a bag of smuggled rice costs N6,500 (around $41), locally produced processed rice costs around N11,500 (around $72). Some Nigerian farmers have raised concerns over the increase in smuggling of rice, which they say is due to the government decision to hike rice import tariffs.

However, commodities market watchers say a complete rice ban in 2015 will be unfeasible as local production cannot meet consumption demand.

According to the watchers, about 40 per cent of rice consumption in Nigeria is met by rice imports from India, Thailand and China, despite high tariffs. Farmers equally argued that the

government efforts such as agriculture loans should be directed to reach more farmers directly to help increase production. Members of the Nigerian Rice Millers and Traders Association NRMTA have also expressed concern that the government's efforts to improve local rice production are not seen in all production stages.

Millers claimed that while rice area in the country had increased by about 25 per cent from two million hectares in 2012-13 to 2.5 million hectares in 2013-14, significant changes in processing and milling are lacking.