Research project proposal

2.0 Objectives / Research questions / Hypothesis
This research is to find out whether establishment of rice free trading will benefit world economy or not, and observe impacts of rice free trade on international and local environments. Development of rice free trade will affect whole population from farmers to consumers. However, it is not easy to find reliable information about negative or positive impacts of the free trading. Therefore, a conclusion of this report will provide a logical suggestion for a global rice market, without any biases from either of green protesters or trade liberalists.
• Hypothesis
Because developed countries with more investment and advanced technology are dominating the international wheat market, developed countries such as the United State and Australia will achieve major success along rice free trading. Multi-National agricultural corporations will take over major rice production, and local farmers such as small landowners will not be able to sustain their rice fields. As a result, if a developing country could not maintain domestic rice production, they have to depend on importing the rice. Moreover, when transportation cost has increased they have to face a rapid increase of food prices.

3.0 Methodology / Approach to Study
This research is a secondary quantitative research.
This research looks at rice farming conditions at four different kinds of countries from other research results, and compares each to find advantages and disadvantages. The first group are developed countries with advanced agricultural technologies such as United States and Australia. The second group are developing countries recognized with an amount of rice exporting such as Thailand and Vietnam. The third group are countries, which are famous food producers and consume all within domestic markets such as China and India. The final country is Japan. Japan is a developed country with advanced technology, but Japanese people hardly export their high-quality and high-price food products.
Particularly, statistics, which show water, fertilizer, oil and energy consumption, the rice field size and numbers of farmers per one kilogram of final rice productions, on all targeted countries are compared to research agricultural efficiency of every country. Moreover, transportation systems that represent cost for connecting to the global rice markets in each country are compared. The difference at efficiency of the statistics and distance to the market provides an answer that which country will be a winner of the free trading.
This report also talks about practical agricultural technology in each group to figure out its environmental sustainability, such as use of solar and wind energy, efficiency of water and energy consumption, and solution to the soil erosion. This information supports a prophecy of future environmental situations at both of winners and losers under the rice free trading era.
This report looks at world development indicators to restore economic development of each group and find out future trend of further economic conditions and transportation costs.

1.3.2 litereture review

1.3.2 with regard to environmental aspects of rice free trading
First of all, it is not easy to define who could have an interest in local environment and which interest should go first. All people have a different interest in the environment from their point of view. Moreover, it is important to decide whether interests of which wildlife species should be included and of which species should not. (Molenaar & Santen, 2006).
The Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture concentrate on rice grain, as it is the most common staple food of about three billion people but it only receive about thirty percent of the world’s developed freshwater resources. Also the rice fields sustain a unique ecosystem such as regulation of water and preservation of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. Although, the rice field with flooded condition creates more greenhouse gas methane than other crop fields do, it makes less nitrous oxide and it tends to pollute groundwater less and use relatively little herbicides. The rice fields are also able to raise local groundwater tables, and it is likely to restore balance of salts in the ground water. (Bouman, Humphreys, Tuong & Barker, 2007)
Schmidt-Rohr, Mao and Olk, (2004) wrote that because long-term rice farming reduces nitrogen in soil and it has a negative effect on productivity, farmers need a technology to artificially supply the nitrogen into the rice field. Triple-cropped rice soil has more lignin and more nitrogen than single-cropped rice soil does. Alternative rice farms for international trading should have lignin and nitrogen rich soil, or a rice industry should have a method to supply it to soil. Therefore, they can produce more rice on a square of land and increase productivity and price competitiveness.
Transport and distribution of the water for agriculture could be a major environmental concern. Nauhou, Boubacar, M. Sc. A. (1999) proposed a hybrid pumping system of renewable solar and wind energy. It would solve problems of further transportation costs, and it can provide sustainable energy. However, this method requires more investment at first, and it is cost effective only using solar or wind energy alone.
Molenaar and Santen (2006) focused on environmental impacts of a dam. The World Bank funded a Maga dam project in Cameroon for a rice irrigation scheme, and it caused a loss of biodiversity. Because a dam limits water supply to wetland plains below, surface water at the wetland is becoming smaller. To control rice cultivation there, the dam has taken a habitat for fish, livestock and wild animals.
Lu, Wu, Pang and Li (2007) mention plastic film mulching cultivation that is a high-efficiency and water-saving technique developed in many regions of China from basin to hilly regions. The technology has different effects at different regions, depending on local eco-system and plastic film cultivation types. This would increase rice production but more experiments can improve the technology to be practical.
Wassmann, Hien, Hoanh and Tuong (2004) talked about rice farming in Vietnam, which is the third largest rice exporter. Vietnam has the average three cropping seasons, and some places have a possibility of harvesting rice four times in a year. A half of Vietnamese rice is produced in Mekong Delta where people can grow only rice. However, the Mekong Delta is often affected by Mekong Basin floods and sea level changes, so artificial water control system would increase rice cropping. This system might affect natural biodiversity at the Mekong Delta.
The rice field causes methane and nitrous oxide, which are greenhouse gases. However, rice-rice cropping farms produce less greenhouse gas than rice-wheat farms do. Water management, temperature regime and fertilizer components change the potential of the rice field as a source of greenhouse gas. An upland rice field creates less greenhouse gas than flooded rice field does, but it is less productive. In the case of flooded rice field, organic matters of soil are hardly changed, compared to other crop field. The rice field is relatively stable and suitable for multi-harvesting in a year. Then, because people have tilled the rice field for years ago, further increase of production tend to have few impacts on environment. (Wassmann, Neue, Ladha & Aulakh, 2003)
Distance between scholarly researchers and rural farmers may cause an inappropriate conclusion of the research. (Levins, 2006).

1.3.1 literature review

1.3.1 with regard to economical aspects of rice free trading
Harvesting rice for export can be a large industry and it will have impacts on communities. Stedman, Parkins and Beckley (2004) mentioned economical risks of depending on a natural resource. Peluso et al (1994, as cited in Stedman, Parkins & Beckley, 2004) point out particular examples of resource dependence connected to poverty. If one company dominated the local industry and they were only able to produce a primary product with low quality, not secondary processing, the company offers people low-skilled jobs at low-salary. In addition, absentee of the land ownership will cause more exploitation by the dominating company.
Nord (1994, as cited in Stedman, Parkins & Beckley, 2004) mentioned some aspects, which decide a level of economic development of a community, such as a number of competitors, technological strength, industrial concentrations and places of ownerships. The locally owned multiple industries tends to attract more investments.
Canadian cities dependent on the forestry industry are likely to face economical problems. For example, Stedman, Parkins and Beckley (2004) cited negative feature of community stability (Kaufmann & Kauffman, 1946), poverty rates (Bliss et al, 1992) and unemployment (Howze et al 1993). However, Overdevest & Green (1995) following Averitt (1968) discover strength of secondary processing such as pulp and paper (as cited in Stedman, Parkins & Beckley, 2004). The secondary industry creates higher income and benefits.
National to local statistics of Educational attainment, migration or population rates, unemployment rates and median family income are useful indicators to measure the well-being of a community. In Canada the well-being of resource dependent communities are very different from each other. Mining and energy industry tends to provide a higher income for a local community, but the fishery industry does not. In the case of forestry dependent communities, they have different kinds of outcomes region by region. Researchers have to look at a specific community to find out whether resource dependence would benefit the community or not. (Stedman, Parkins & Beckley, 2004).
The production process and transportation of the rice require fusel fuel. Different results came out depending on whether comparing oil prices in world real price or in domestic currencies, but the influences of a high oil price to Asian countries are limited to short-term impacts. Oil price inflation and oil price-production growth rates do not have a transparent relationship with Asian economic indexes. (Cunado & Gracia, 2005). The flexibility of the oil price will not have negative affects on Asian demand for rice.
Cramer, Gail, Wails, Eric and Shangnan (1993) stated that increasing international rice trading will increase both of trade volumes and prices and it will bring benefits for most importers and exporters, according to a computer simulation.
On the other hand, Papasian (2005) cited from UN Environment Programme Economic and Trade branch that trade liberalization without environmental concern can trigger economically costly soil degradation, water pollution, loss of biodiversity and destruction of forests. International society should not allow green protectionists to use environmental worry as a tool for banning imports, but it also needs to focus on maintaining global trading to revive people from poverty. As results of indiscriminate trade liberalization, agrochemical use has increased and destructions of forests and wetlands have occurred, following demands for new agricultural land intensified. All trade participants should be educated not to be abused by international markets. Middleman, importers, large-scale producers and the governments tend to increase their profits through the free trade, and individual farmers and consumers are likely to face low incomes or high prices. (Papasian, 2005).
Costs of transportation also affect economical aspects of rice free trading. As transportation costs reduce between rural and urban areas, also agricultural producers can concentrate and achieve economies of scale. The transportation cost is one of important aspects that relate to regional wage rates and development of “production-cost-oriented” firms. (Kilkenny, 1998). Because decrease of transportation cost will encourage international trading, manufacturing of rice will happen with the low oil price. On the other hand, high oil price benefit small local farmers at each regions.
Conditions of infrastructure influence transportation costs as well. Omamo (1998) mentioned that improvement of rural road networks would connect domestic markets and reduce transportation costs. Then, every farmer can specialize in their products and increase their profits. Low transportation cost attracts farmers to cash crops, instead of low-yielding food crops.
Genetically modified technology is also useful to improve productivity. Finding an economically important gene of rice would help transform rice characteristics. (Nakazaki, Okumoto, Horibata, Yamahira, Teraishi, Nishida, Inoue & Tanisaka, 2003). Profits from the free trade of rice would encourage companies to innovate genetic technology, and improve the whole production system and efficiency.
Sugar has played an important role in Cuban history, development and economy. However, the trade volume of sugar is less than a half of wheat trading globally. Along with development of rice free trading, many countries would depend on a rice industry. In Cuba, concentration of investment on the sugar industry and progress of secondary processing technology has provided more employment for skilled workers and increased a national income. Then, economic development and urbanization moved people from countryside without special enforcements, so rural farmers begun enclosing larger sugar farms and increased their productivity. (Levins, 2006)
Levin (2006) also mentioned double cropping of food and cash crops such as sugar and rice with concerning depletion of soil nutrition by a mono-agriculture. Multiple agricultures are less likely to depend on an international price of a crop and tends to be more sustainable.
Wong, Furuse and Maher (1999) pointed out that under a self-sufficient policy, Japanese government controlled whole rice production and supply. Japanese people pay six times the common world price, and the price became more than double of it when relatively cold weather caused poor harvest in year 1994. Without multiple sources of food supply, the price tends to be unsustainable.
In Thailand, rice is not only a staple food but also a cash crop for farmers. Thailand is the major exporter of rice in the world. Krasachat (2004) confirmed that they like to sell their over produced crops to overseas instead of keeping it in the domestic market. On the other hand, that means Thai farmers will not be able to make a profit without surviving the global competition. Because of individual effort, Thai farmers produce a lot of rice but they can improve their efficiency more, looking at expanding the irrigation system and scale efficiency at each climate condition.

Frice free trading

Because of the recent North Korean nuclear crisis, there is a fear of problems with transportation of food from overseas during a war. While a sea-lane to Japan has a problem of proper transportation, we cannot expect an accurate supply of food from overseas. So, it is wise to keep maintaining local food production systems and keep a distance from international rice free trade systems.
On the other hand, in many urban areas, many rice conservationists predicted destruction of rice farms and construction of skyscrapers damage biodiversities, and serious problems such as flooding, but this did not happen. Japanese rice production has strongly relied on machineries, which require fossil fuels from overseas. Japan has imported almost all its oil commodity (Yanotsuneta-kinenkai, 2004, pp.193-201). Even if Japanese people do not import rice itself, it does not mean we can produce our food without international trading anymore. Opinions of rice conservationists have to be reviewed again.
Moreover, there was nowhere Japanese could export rice products because of the expensive production cost and high pricing. These days, because of the economic development in China, people are able to buy high quality Japanese rice even though the price is high.
Therefore, I would like to look at what an exact impact of rice free trading would be on the world economy and environment. If the free trade of rice has negative impacts on the economic and environment in both of exporting and importing countries, people should not move toward it. However, if it has only a positive impact on both countries people should improve the amount of international rice trading. Then, even if there are negative impacts on one side and positive impacts on the other side, comparison of both would provide an answer.

1.2 Background / History
Rice is the most popular source of energy for people all over the world. More than 550 million ton has been produced every year and it is a staple food for more than half of the world population. However, less than 30 million tons of rice has been internationally traded every year. China and India are sources of more than a half of the whole rice production, but Thailand, India, US and Vietnam are major exporters. The rice is likely to be more for domestic consumers, not for foreign markets. As a comparison, about a fifth of the world wheat production is traded through an international market. (Yanotsuneta-kinenkai, 2004, pp.209-280). The worth of rice as a global commodity is lower than wheat.
Asian countries have longer history of rice farming and they are also major rice producers. Nevertheless, in the US farmers produce about three times more rice from a square of farm as people do in Thailand. It means that the US agricultural industry has more productivity than Thai. In the case of wheat trading, more than a half of wheat at the international market is produced in developed world such as the US, Australia, France and Canada, yet China and India are major wheat producers. (Yanotsuneta-kinenkai, 2004, pp.209-280).
In Japan, an average farmer has 2.1 hectares of cropland, and this index is 1.1 hectare in China, 1.0 hectare in Thailand, 141 hectares in the US, 1011 hectare in Australia and 102.6 in New Zealand. (Yanotsuneta-kinenkai, 2004, pp.216-219). Farmers in major exporters of wheat have larger cropland. Still, there is not any relationship between rice exporting countries and their size of cropland per a farmer.
Bouman, Humphreys, Tuong and Barker (2007) say that to meet the increase of food demand with a growing world population, rice production should be increased at a low cost for poor consumers, ensuring profits for farmers. Seeking water-saving technology and sustainable rice farming improves productivity and it will increase on-farm yields by fifty to a hundred percent during the next ten years. (Bouman, Humphreys, Tuong & Barker, 2007).
At least, if a fifth of the rice production became a global commodity like wheat, the trade volume will be the biggest as a crop. So, it would have a wider impact on the world economy.

家康とアメリカ軍

　秀吉後の徳川家康は、冷戦後の米軍に比べ、ほとんど自軍を動かしていなかった。イギリスの名相チャーチルの言葉が思い出される。国際化社会でアメリカ合衆国は徳川幕府のように弱い連邦制の中心地になることは不可能だと言う事だろう。
　徳川家康と秀吉の対決をアメリカの冷戦と比較するのは可能だ。
まずは経済格差だが、アメリカとソビエト連邦の経済力に圧倒的な差があったように、家康が関東で２００万石以上を領していたのに対し、豊臣家は７０万石程度しか持っていなかった。ソ連が社会主義メンバー国を維持する為に相手国を優遇する形で貿易を行い国力を落として行ったように、成り上がりの豊臣家も’譜代家臣’を作る為に諸武将に土地をバラまき、直接領有できる農地は少なくなっていた。また、豊臣秀吉が武将達からの人気を集めていたように、ソ連の方がプロパガンダに成功していた。また、家康一人が秀吉後に権力を握ったように、アメリカが冷戦後のスーパーパワーになっている。徳川家が日本の政治／経済の中心地を抑えていたように、アメリカも政経の中心地を持っている。
　大きな違いは、アメリカが冷戦後も、世界の中心として世界中に軍隊を送りまくって、実戦を戦い続けているにも関わらず，家康は徳川軍を温存し続け全く実戦に出さなかったことだ。現在アメリカの戦場は、南米での麻薬戦争、中東・アフリカでのテロとの戦いから、平和維持活動，人権保護活動まで多岐にわたる。それに比べ，家康・徳川幕府は徹底的に自軍の温存を図った。戊辰戦争が戦闘慣れしていない徳川家の敗北で終わったのは決して、偶然ではない。そう戊辰戦争でさえ，主戦場は江戸ではなく、会津だったのである。家康の政策は日本の長期の平和をもたらし，その後の革命戦争をも早期に決着させることに貢献した。
　あの関ヶ原の戦いでさえ，家康は’徳川軍’を参戦させていない。関ヶ原で戦闘が行われていた時、徳川秀忠が率いる’徳川軍’は中山道で待機していた。家康は関ヶ原戦勝の直後、石田三成の本拠・佐和山城をつくことが出来たが，三成はたとえ関ヶ原で勝っていたとしても江戸城をつくことは出来なかったのである。また、大阪冬の陣／夏の陣でさえ，家康は’徳川軍’を戦場にこそ連れて行きはしたものの実戦はさせていない。実際に、大阪城を落とすために奮戦したのは外様や譜代の大名達である。さらに，天草／島原の乱では’徳川軍’は九州にさえ渡っていない。彼らは遠く後方に控え、九州の武将達を脅すことによって，自分達の血を流すこと無く内戦を終結させたのである。
　ムチ・アメを見せるだけで，振る／配ること無く問題を解決させられるだけの外交力が欲しい。

stock option = expense??

　ストック・オプションは会計上どのように処理されるのが適切なのでしょう。「労働者に対する報酬」であるから、給与と同じように支出に分類されるべきなのでしょうか。それとも、ただ「権利」が譲渡されただけで資金は全く動いていないので、支出には含まれないのでしょうか。　これは未だに議論されているテーマであり、現実にはいくつかの選択肢があります。
　私は、ストック・オプションは’借り入れ’に分類されるべきだと思います。多くの場合がそうであるように、ストック・オプションは被雇用者に対し、給与の代わりの報償として渡されます。しかし、譲渡されるのはあくまで’将来の権利’であり、その時点では’資本の動き’はありませんし、報酬としての正確な価値は誰にも分かりません。これは’株式転換型社債’の一種そのものではないでしょうか。企業は社員に対し、’現時点で給与を支払う’代わりに’将来報酬を受け取る権利’を出すことで、社員から現時点分の給与を借りているのです。そして社員がストック・オプションを行使した時点で、企業は’株式を発行した増資分を、給与の支払いに当てた’状態となり、’支出’が誕生するのです。
　その為、行使される前のストック・オプションは’借り入れ’に分類されているべきであり、ストック・オプションが行使された場合に、行使者が受け取った株価の差額分がその会計年度の’支出・人件費’に計上されるべきなのです。