preface - elibrary.ttri.edu.khelibrary.ttri.edu.kh/resources/files/public/2003-palm sugar.pdf ·...

PREFACE The Value Chain Study for Palm Sugar provides the first analysis of the value chain analysis of palm sugar in Cambodia. The study is based on field data collected in a survey of farmers, organizations, and companies involved in the palm sugar value chain. The field work was conducted during July and August 2015. The report has been prepared by Agrifood Consulting International (ACI). The Consultants would like to acknowledge the guidance and support of the Trade Training and Research Institute (TTRI) of the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC).

ABBREVIATIONS

ACI Agrifood Consulting International AGOA American Growth Opportunity Act ASEAN Association of Southeast Asia Nations CTIS Cambodia’s Trade Integration Strategy EbA Everything but Arms EFSA European Food Safety Authority ELC Economic Land Concessions FA Forestry Administration FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FDA Food and Drug Administration FLEGT Forest, Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade GI Geographic Indication GiX Glycemic Index GSP General System of Preferences HS Harmonized System ITC International Trade Center MAFF Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries MOC Ministry of Commerce NGO Non-Government Organization RGC Royal Government of Cambodia SEZ Special Economic Zone TSDP Trade Development Support Program TTRI Trade Training and Research Institute VCA Value Chain Analysis VPA Voluntary Partnership MFN Most favored nation

Contents

WHY A VALUE CHAIN STUDY OF PALM SUGAR? ............................................................................1

Organization of the Interim Report ..........................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION TO PALM SUGAR IN CAMBODIA ..........................................................................2

GLOBAL SUGAR TRADE AND THE MARKET FOR SUGAR SUBSTITUTES...........................................3

PALM SUGAR IN CAMBODIA .........................................................................................................6

Trade of Palm Sugar from Cambodia .......................................................................................6 Production ...............................................................................................................................6 Potential of Production of Palm Sugar .....................................................................................6 Technology...............................................................................................................................8 Organization of supply chain..................................................................................................12 Demand and Market Trends ..................................................................................................13 Value Chain Actors .................................................................................................................14 Policies ...................................................................................................................................16 SWOT Analysis .......................................................................................................................19

FINDINGS FROM PALM SUGAR PRODUCER SURVEY ....................................................................20

The Sample of Producers of Palm Sugar ................................................................................20 Characteristics of Palm Sugar Producers ................................................................................20 Associations ...........................................................................................................................21 Geographic Indication (GI) .....................................................................................................22 Sap Collection ........................................................................................................................24 Processing ..............................................................................................................................34 Knowledge and Quality Control .............................................................................................42 Organic Certification ..............................................................................................................43 Marketing and Production Cost .............................................................................................44 Overall Trends ........................................................................................................................46 Suggestions by Respondents ..................................................................................................48 Challenges and Solutions .......................................................................................................49 Summary ................................................................................................................................49

FINDINGS FROM PALM SUGAR COMPANIES ...............................................................................51

General Information ..............................................................................................................51 Contract Farming ...................................................................................................................52 Buying and Collection ............................................................................................................53 Re-Processing or Refining ......................................................................................................59 Marketing and Exporting .......................................................................................................59 Suggestions and Others .........................................................................................................61 Summary ................................................................................................................................62

CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................63

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................65

ANNEX 1 COCONUT PALM SUGAR GLYCEMIC INDEX ..................................................................66

Palm Sugar Value Chain Study

Trade Training and Research Institute 1

WHY A VALUE CHAIN STUDY OF PALM SUGAR?

The palm sugar value chain is anchored on a traditional product used by farmers and consumers in Cambodia for ages. The sap of the palm tree is used to make a sugar paste that is highly appreciated in the cuisine of Cambodia. Over the past 15 years, the palm sugar subsector has witnessed the emergence of a new product that has attracted the interest of companies and exporters. The new product is sugar powder made from the sap of the sugar palm tree. This innovation was introduced by the company Confirel in the mid-2000 and it has being well received by foreign buyers who are looking for alternatives to white sugar. Palm sugar from Cambodia has attractive features such as low glycemic index, organic production, and pleasant taste and perfume. A number of initiatives by NGOs and the RGC (including the promulgation of GI for Kampong Speu palm sugar) have promoted the production of palm sugar particularly in Kampong Speu province.

Until now, however, there has not been any study of the palm sugar value chain that explains how the value chain is organized and its key constraints and opportunities. In the absence of data, it is difficult to make evidence-based recommendations.

This report aims at filling this information gap by providing information about the value chain that is based on a detailed field work with producers and companies. A detailed and in depth representative survey of farmers and companies has been undertaken during the months of July and August 2015. The survey was representative and was undertaken with the help of survey tools reported in ANNEX

Organization of the Report The study is organized into four parts. First, the study provides an overall introduction to palm sugar in Cambodia and global sugar trade. Second, the study describes the production, trade, and technology of palm sugar in Cambodia and conduct an overall SWOT analysis. Third, the study reports the findings from the field work. Finally, the study give the general conclusions and recommendations.



INTRODUCTION TO PALM SUGAR IN CAMBODIA

Palm sugar is a sugar that is extracted from the sap of palm trees. Numerous varieties of palm tree are tapped for their sugar, and the characteristics of each of these sugars is different in terms of taste, nutritional contents, health properties, and aroma. The two most widely known palm sugars

are sugar from palmyra palms and coconut palms. Palm sugar from Cambodia is extracted from palmyra palms. Palm sugar and coconut palm sugar are often confused. These sugars are similar in their uses and

are made with similar processes but originate from different botanical sources and have a slightly different chemical compositions. Coconut palm sugar is produced from the sap of cut flower buds of the coconut palm tree (Cocos nucifera). Palm sugar is produced from the sap of various palm trees. This sap is collected from the top of the tree, after removing the flowers. Sources of palm sugar include the Palmyra palm (Borassus genus), the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) and the sugar date palm (Phoenix sylvestris), and more recently, the saps of the sugar palm (Arenga pinnata) and nipa palm (Nypa fruticans).

The palm tree in Cambodia common name in Khmer is “Thnot”. The scientific name is “Borassus flabellifer” Sugar palm is a type of plant classified as palm tree with a single stem, large stump, and cylindrical trunk with height of 10-25m. Their roots have lateral characteristics and no main root. The trunk is rough and dark in color with diameter of 20- 60cm and varies according to the quality of soils. The bunch of leaves is a fan form and clustered on the top of the tree. Midrib of palm tree is thick and smooth; has yellow-green color when it is young; yellow-brown color when it is older; and has thorns along both edges in the form of chainsaw teeth. Male and female flowers of sugar palms are differentiated morphologically. Male flower of sugar palm has long and rounding form with size of 2-4 cm and length of 30-50 cm, whereas female flower has a form of rounding fruit with the length of 50-70 cm which yield fruits from 20 to 50. Sugar palm fruit is round and dark-brown color on the bottom part and green color on the top; and changes the color to dark-yellow when it ripens. The diameter of the palm fruit is 13-20 cm which varies according to the quality of the soil, the exploitation for sugar palm juice, and the age of the trunk.

Figure 1 Cambodian Palm Sugar Trees



Sugar palm is a popular plant in Cambodia, and it is an identity that Khmer people recognize as a view of their territory since the ancient time until present with an expression that “sugar palm tree is a shelter of Khmer house”.

Figure 2 Palms at one of the entrances of Angkor Wat. Angkor Wat is the symbol of Cambodia and the largest religious site in the world.

In Khmer society, sugar palm tree has many advantages which include roots and male flowers of sugar palm tree used for traditional medicine to cure malaria and sexual diseases. Palm tree can be used for construction of houses, shelter for animals, boats, or construction materials. Currently, palm tree has been used as valuable crafting production in the market. Leaves for roof and wall of the houses, braiding mats, hats, boxes or trunks; and sometime can be used for inscribing or writing. Palm tree fruit and juice are popular within Khmer society. The very green palm fruit is used as vegetable for special food called Samlor Kako, green palm fruit is eaten and ripe palm fruit is used to make a jelly called Thnot Jelly.

The production of sugar from palm tree juice is a tradition of Khmer People since ancient time until present. However, it is only in the past 10 years that the production of sugar from sugar palm tree has started to be considered commercially and innovations have been introduced both in the technology and marketing of the product.

GLOBAL SUGAR TRADE AND THE MARKET FOR SUGAR SUBSTITUTES

Global consumption of sugar for 2015/16 is forecast at 173.4 million metric tons and global export at 54 million tons. Current prices at $320/ton have shown a declining trend over the recent past, but the market for sugar substitutes (both artificial and natural) has been increasing and is forecast to reach over $14 billion by 2020.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Angkor_wat_temple.jpg



Sugar substitutes market is expected to witness growth owing to rising concern over diseases such as diabetes and obesity. Sugar substitutes act as an alternative with low calorific value and majorly used as an artificial sweetener in health care, food & beverage and personal care industries. Increasing application scope of sugar substitutes in frozen foods, baked products and confectioneries is expected to have a positive impact on market in the near future.

Most commercial sugar is produced from two main sources: sugarcane and sugar beets with sugarcane accounting for about 75% of global production and sugar beets supplying nearly all of the remaining production. Other minor commercial sources include the date palm, sorghum and the sugar maple. Brazil is the world's largest sugar producer (36% of the total), followed by India (the world's largest consumer with 29.1% of world production), the EU (15.5% of production), Thailand (11.4%) and China (10.8%). Export are dominated by Brazil (24.4% of total exports), followed by Thailand 8.3%(), and Australia (3.7%)

Figure 3 Top Global Producers of Sugar



Figure 4 Top Global Exporters of Sugar

Artificial and natural sugar substitutes are increasing in importance. U.S. FDA has approved the use of aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, neotame and advantame as artificial sweeteners in numerous food & beverage applications. Similarly, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also approved the use of various sugar substitutes which includes aspartame as a low calorie product. Aforementioned regulatory support is expected to have a positive impact on sugar substitutes market in the near future. As of 2013, PepsiCo markets its low calorie carbonated drink Diet Pepsi on a global scale. Diet Pepsi mainly comprise aspartame as a flavoring agent and is approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the UK Food Standards Agency, EFSA and Canada's Health Canada. Malaysian company PureCircle markets its sugar substitutes under the brand name Reb A, which is extracted from stevia plant and is 400 times sweeter than sugar with a reduced calorie value. Within this growing market for sugar substitutes, the market for natural substitutes is growing considerably, but it is still small relatively to overall market. Natural sugar substitutes already in the market include: maple syrup, agave syrup, molasses, honey, coconut palm sugar, stevia, xylitol, lo han, brown rice syrup, date sugar. Perhaps the main success in this category is stevia with an estimated market value of $8 billion1.

1 http://www.stevia.co/opportunity/market-size



Palm sugar is produced in few countries mostly in Southeast Asia and South Asia. There are not available data on trade of palm sugar globally, but the volumes are likely to be tiny (less than 1,000 tons) relatively to the volume of sugar trade (54 million tons).

PALM SUGAR IN CAMBODIA

Trade of Palm Sugar from Cambodia The main change in palm sugar in Cambodia over the past decade has been the emergence of a small industry involved in producing granulated sugar (often referred to as sugar powder) for export. Prior to 2005, there was virtually almost no production or export of palm sugar. The growth of the industry has been helped by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) in 2010 through the designation of Geographic Indication (GI) for the palm sugar produced in the province of Kampong Speu. Traditionally, palm sugar has been consumed as either paste or in blocs. These traditional uses have a limited trade potential. However, in its granulated form, palm sugar can reach a wider market since its use is similar to white sugar. The Harmonised System (HS) does not have a separate HS code for palm sugars, instead it is traded under 1702.90; ‘sugars not elsewhere specified’. Therefore, it is difficult to assess global trade in palm sugar.

In the case of Cambodia palm sugar, there is no system of collection of data for exports. Interviews with the key actors however indicate very small volumes between 70 and 100 tons in 2014. Most of this amount is exported to Asian countries (Korea, Japan, Taiwan), Europe (France, Germany), and US. Overall, the value of trade in palm sugar is still tiny, although increasing. In 2014, the export value of palm sugar is estimated between $190,000 and $290,000. There are no imports of palm sugar in the country. Export prices of organic palm sugar vary between $2.7 and $2.9 per kg, while ordinary palm sugar prices vary between $1.4 and $1.6 per Kg.

Production Production of palm sugar includes traditional uses (paste and bloc) for the domestic market and palm sugar powder (mostly for exports, around 100 tons; and a small share for the domestic market, around 30 tons). Most of the domestic consumption is in the form of paste which can be used for cooking or also directly. A preliminary assessment based on rapid appraisal conducted with 20 households from Phnom Penh and Kampong Cham indicate an average yearly consumption of 5 kg of palm sugar (in paste form) per household. Given a population of 2.8 million households, the overall volume of palm sugar (in paste form) produced in Cambodia is estimated to be about 14,000 tons. Converting the paste into powder form (applying a coefficient of 65%), this is equivalent to 9,100 tons of palm sugar powder. Based on this estimate, the export volume (approximately 100 tons) is only one percent of total production.

Potential of Production of Palm Sugar



Palm sugar is obtained by processing the sap of flower of the palm sugar tree. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) does not maintain updated statistics on palm sugar trees. However, the latest statistics obtained from the Department of Planning and Statistics (DPS) indicate about 3 million trees in Cambodia. Four provinces have the highest number of palm trees (each with more than 10% of the total) and include Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Speu, Kampong Thom, and Prey Veng). Table 1 Number of Palm Trees by Province

Province 2005 2010 Percentage in 2010

Banteaymenchey 4,900 4,900 0.2%

Battambang 41,282 41,282 1.4%

Kampong Cham 120,455 120,455 4.0%

Kampong Chhnang 395,500 395,500 13.2%

Kampong Speu 311,132 311,132 10.4%

Kampong Thom 757,500 757,500 25.3%

Kampot 36,650 36,650 1.2%

Kandal 257,500 257,500 8.6%

Koh kong 3,438 1,420 0.0%

Kratie 42,785 42,785 1.4%

Phnom Penh 2,732 2,732 0.1%

Preh Vihear 7,899 7,899 0.3%

Prey Veng 348,594 348,594 11.6%

Pursat 167,654 167,654 5.6%

Siem Reap 138,997 138,997 4.6%

Steung Treng 14,400 13,000 0.4%

Svay Reing 135,040 135,040 4.5%

Takeo 215,878 215,878 7.2%

TOTAL 3,002,336 2,998,918 100.0%

Source. DPS/MAFF Using an estimated productivity of 80 kg of palm sugar powder/tree, the potential for palm sugar production in Cambodia is about 240,000 tons. The current estimated production of 9,100 tons represents only 4% of the potential. So the potential for expanding production of palm sugar is considerable. In terms of value assuming an export price of $2.7/kg, the potential of palm sugar is $648 million. This potential does not take into account several economic and technical constraints such as:

Market absorption capacity

Constraints on labor

Physical access to the trees

Different ages of trees and varying productivity

Cost of production

Competition with other substitutes (eg coconut palm sugar) At the same time, the potential calculated above assumes the existing technology for production and processing of palm suga. The potential could be further expanded by innovations such as:



Cultivation of sugar palm trees in a plantation (eg 200 trees/ha)

Improved varieties with higher sugar productivity (eg to 100 kg/tree)

Land expansion (eg instead of 3 million trees, expand to 6 million trees)

Improving cooking technology (eg larger and more efficient stoves)

Improved processing technology (eg from household based to factory system)

Improved packaging (eg vacuum)

Product development (eg candies, biscuits, cakes) Relatively to cane sugar, the palm tree would require considerable less water (in fact the palm tree is drought tolerant), less inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides, and would have a positive effect on soil nutrition. Palm tree would be more environmental sustainable and more adaptable to climate change. In terms of sugar productivity, the palm tree could be more productive than sugarcane2.

Technology The processing of sugar palm sap into palm sugar consists of three main steps: collection, processing, and packaging.

Collection

During the harvest season starting in December and ending in June, farmers climb to the top of the palm tree and select the flowers to be used for extracting the nectar. After selecting the flowers, they use traditional instruments to stimulate sap production and they repeat the operation every morning for 3-7 days. Once they observe that the flower is ready to provide sap, farmers soak the flowers into normal water for one night by using bamboo or plastic containers. Then they complete the process by making a small cut into the flower and collect the sap into the containers by climbing the tree twice in the same day and getting all the sap from the selected flowers.

2 Assuming a very productivity of sugarcane (at 120 ton/ha) and a sugar content of 12%, the yield would be 14.4 tons/ha, compared to a productivity of 20 tons/ha in a potential 200 trees/ha at 100 kg sugar per sugar palm tree.



Figure 5 Climbing up the palm tree to collect the sap

Figure 6 Collecting palm juice

Traditionally farmers use bamboo containers to collect palm sap but recently they have started to use plastic containers because it is lighter and lasts longer. When collecting the sap, a small piece of PoPel or Koki wood is put inside the container to slow down fermentation process of palm sap and to protect from antioxidant. The amount of Popel (Shorea cochinchinensis Pierre) or Koki (Hopea in Dipterocarpaceae Family) wood in the container depends on the size of the container and the volume of sap to be received. Instead of Popel and Koki, chemicals such as Sodium Bensoat, Sodium Metabisulfite and Sodium Bisulfite can be used; however Sodium Metabisulfite and Sodium Bisulfite are being forbidden by Camcontrol and would not be acceptable for organic certification.

http://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=Go2XBOPl2V-2MM&tbnid=kqpxWA-LvzRSTM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://xroadsconnection.blogspot.com/2012/02/palm-tree-and-making-palm-sugar.html&ei=cWKuU93yB_TP4QTOvICICg&bvm=bv.69837884,d.ZGU&psig=AFQjCNGjl5xHD4qm4ELP3uj_7tU3gXtcOQ&ust=1404023721745560



Figure 7 Traditional tools to squeeze the flower. The long tool is for the male tree and the short one for the female tree. The small piece of wood is Popel

wood.

Figure 8 Bamboo containers used to collect the sap from the flowers. The sap is collected daily from the trees.

Figure 9 Plastic containers used to collect palm sugar flower sap

Processing Soon after (within 4 hours) collecting the sap, farmers put the sap in large vats of about 35 liters and boil it for about 2 hours to concentrate it and evaporate the moisture. Depending on how heavily the sugar is processed, it may be sold in the form of powder, paste, or it may be dried out and molded into blocks to make it easier to handle.



The cooking of sap is done using wood as fuel. With the help of organizations such as CIRP, CEDAC, and SNV farmers have been introduced to more efficient cook stoves able to produce heat more efficiently and with less smoke, thus reducing the cost of fuel and the production of smoke.

Figure 10. Process Flow to Produce Palm Sugar Firewood is used as fuel for boiling the sap. Other fuels such as rice husk or gas are not used due to their non-availability or high prices. Apart from the introduction of more efficient cook stove, the cooking process is traditional using wood as fuel. As wood for fuel is increasingly scarce, it is likely that the cost of traditional cooking will increase in the future and the use of firewood is not sustainable for expansion of the industry. Palm sugar varies in color from a light golden color to a rich dark brown. It tends to be extremely grainy, with dried forms being highly crumbly, and it is typically minimally processed. Many people like to use it in cooking because it is so coarse and unprocessed, and many Southeast Asian recipes call specifically for this type of sugar. The light processing leaves much of the flavor of the sugar intact, creating an almost molasses-like flavor.

Filtering the collected palm sap

Put inside Pan (about 35 liters of palm sap)

Cooking for 2-2.5 hours then take out from the stove

Agitation for 20 minutes till getting cool

Grinding/sieving with sieve (5kg of sugar)

Put inside plastic bag for sale



Figure 11 Boiling the sap collected from the palm tree

Figure 12 Stirring the cooked juice/palm sugar paste to remove water, cool down and crystallize the sugar.

Packaging At the farm level, palm sugar in its powder form is put into plastic containers or plastic bags. For paste, plastic containers are used. For sugar bloc, palm leaves are used. In the case of companies such as Confirel and Sovannak, packaging is a little more sophisticated, but overall packaging technology for palm sugar is not yet well developed. For example, there is no vacuum packgaging.

Figure 13 Plastic containers for sugar powder from the KAMPATRACO

Figure 14 Blocks of palm sugar, molded into palm leaves, soon after cooling.

Organization of supply chain The supply of palm sugar is almost entirely sourced by smallholder farmers who collect sap and through a simple process of boiling produce different forms of sugar. There are no large size producers of palm sugar, the maximum amount produced by any producers is about 2 tons. They use their own trees or rent trees in other farmers’ fields. There is no cultivation of sugar palm tree in a plantation form. Trees are growing either in paddy fields or in their periphery.



Some companies oriented to export or production of sugar powder buy sugar in larger quantities directly from farmers or from a cooperative. Exports are done either directly to buyers or through the use of organic wholesale chain in the destination country. There is one cooperative of palm sugar farmers in Kampong Speu (KAMPATRAC) and association for the promotion of palm sugar (KSPSPA). Companies such as CONFIREL and SAVANNAK organize their own farmers, particularly if organic certification is needed.

The palm sugar produced in Kampong Speu enjoys a status given by the Geographic Indication of the Ministry of Commerce.

Demand and Market Trends While domestic consumption of palm sugar is steady and consists mainly of the paste and bloc form, the powder form is destined primarily to exports but is also found in local supermarkets, restaurants, cafés , hotels, and organic products shops. Globally, the demand for alternatives to refined white sugar produced by either sugarcane or sugar beet is increasing. The global consumer is paying increasing attention to organic products and healthy products with minimum refining. The greatest health benefit of palm sugar is the low glycemic index3 (around 35 versus 90 for white refined sugar), which means that palm sugar does not have the blood-sugar spiking effect ('sugar high') that regular refined sugar causes. Palm sugar is a nutrient-rich, low-glycemic crystalline sweetener that looks, tastes, dissolves and melts almost exactly like sugar, but it's completely natural and unrefined. This nectar from which palm sugar is produced is rich in a number of key vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, including potassium, zinc, iron, and vitamins B1, B2, B3 and B6.

Palm sugar is never refined or bleached like white sugar. So the nutrients it was made with are still in the product. That's rare for sweeteners, most of which are highly refined. Even stevia is highly refined in its white powder form (real stevia is a green herb).

3 The low GIX property of palm sugar is based on so far limited scientific evidence. The study from the Philippines that provides the finding of low GI is available on the website of a company that sells coconut palm sugar (See Annex 1). This doesn’t mean the number is inaccurate, but it would be important to have also another credible source. There are not studies yet on GI content of palm sugar from Cambodia. Therefore the GI property of palm sugar from Cambodia are not known with precision.



Palm sugar is not a calorie-free sweetener. It has calories like any carbohydrate, but due to its relatively low glycemic index (GIX), its calories are absorbed into the bloodstream at a significantly slower rate than regular refined sugar. This property should be of interest to anyone who is monitoring their blood sugar levels and attempting to avoid blood sugar spikes. Palm sugar isn't medicine; it's a food with a surprisingly low GIX, considering its sweet taste. The sugar palm tree is drought resistant, does not need much inputs (water, fertilizer, pesticides) and is considered sustainable and climate change resilient. This has an additional appeal for consumers who put value on environmental sustainability and climate change resilience.

Value Chain Actors

Figure 15 Palm Sugar Value Chain

Farmers. Farmers are smallholders often cultivating paddy during the rainy season. During the dry season they engage in palm sugar production collecting the sap from their own trees or from tree on the land of other farmers. The production unit consists usually of husband and wife and the labor division consists in the husband climbing the tree to collect the sap and the wife cooking the sap until it becomes sugar. In the case of sugar powder, additional labor is spent to sieve the crystallized sugar and reduce it to a fine granulated form. A household engaged in palm sugar production can add between $1000 and $2000 dollar to the household income during the season. Most production of palm sugar occurs between January and May. Cooperatives. The Kampong Speu Palm Tree Agricultural Cooperative (KAMPATRACO) located in Trapeang Kampos Village, Phnom Touch Commune, Oudong District, Kampong Speu Province was established in 2011. Currently, the cooperative includes 100 members of which 65 are also the members of the Association for the Promotion of Kampong Speu Palm Sugar (KSPA), established in 2009. These 65 members are palm sugar producers, while remaining 35 member are not palm sugar producers. The Cooperative makes a business on palm sugar and agricultural inputs like rice seed, fertilizer, and pesticides, but the main income is from palm sugar.

Producers

Cooperative

Consumers

Traders

Companies

Domestic

Market

Exporters



In 2015, 30 members produced powder sugar for the Cooperative with a total volume of 60 tons, while the remaining members produced about 70 tons for CONFIREL. The Cooperative in the future will not allow private companies to buy directly from producers who are member of the cooperative, instead the purchase will have to be done through the management of the Cooperative. The Cooperative in 2015 bought the following volumes from farmers: 60 tons of powder sugar, 15 tons of sugar paste, and 0. 3 tons of block sugar with the price of Riel 4600/kg, Riel 3000/kg and Riel 4600R/kg, respectively.

The Cooperative has sold the products to 6 companies namely; Farmlink (Kampot Province), Kata (in PP), Tep Gold (in PP), Sovannak (in PP) and Style Dalin (in PP). Next year, the cooperative plans to expand members producing powder sugar to about 150 producers due to high demand from Korean investors who want to make a contact purchasing 32 tons of powder sugar every month from the next season. To reach 150 powder sugar producers, the cooperative has to train more members and do a quality control every month. Associations. The Kampong Speu Palm Sugar Promotion Association (KSPSPA) includes 142 households producing palm sugar and six companies buying and exporting the GI product to countries including Japan, the United States, France and England. The household members are located within 15 villages belonging to 3 Communes and 3 Districts namely; Oudong and Samrong Tong District, Kampong Speu Province and Ang Snuol District, Kandal Province. Exports of Kampong Speu palm sugar with geographical indication status increased this year thanks to growing demand from South Korea and France. According to KSPSPA president Sam Saroeun, exports of Kampong Speu palm sugar reached 75 tonnes this year, an increase of 50 per cent compared to the same period last year. The association is also planning to sign a deal with a Korean buyer, which will boost both sugar palm production and exports. Companies. There are currently only 7 companies processing and trading palm sugar. Perhaps the best known is CONFIREL. CONFIREL was founded in 2001 by Dr Hay Ly Eang in Cambodia with a unique belief: Improving the local populations’ life conditions by allowing them to use one of their major endangered natural resource: the sugar palm tree. This idea was put into practice by promoting its productions following various forms: sweets, wines, spirits, table sugar, and vinegar. Over the years, many products have been added to the Confirel range such as Kampot Pepper, Herbal Tea, probiotic products. This is the largest and best organized company in Cambodia producing palm sugar. In 2015 it exported 60 tons of palm sugar to several countries including Korea, Japan, Taiwan, France, Canada, and the US. About 20 tons of palm sugar are sold domestically. Products of CONFIREL are exported with different certification including organic certification from ECOCERT, USDA Organic, TUV Sud Good Manufacturing Practices, AB, and COORA. Confirel buys palm sugar from about 30 farmers who are ECOCERT certified; dries their products and eliminates impurity to assure consistent quality of the products and has a well-developed system of packaging. It exports directly and through chains of organic wholesalers. KATA started in 2012 focusing on exports of agricultural products from Cambodia, Over the past three years, it has exported black and white sesame to Japan and Korea, jasmine rice (Phka Malis) to Germany, and only recently in 2015 has started exports of palm sugar to Korea. The company



buys from the cooperative KAMPOTRACO in Kampong Speu. By May 2015, the company has exported 3 tons of powder sugar to Korea and this year it expects to export 19 tons of palm sugar. In 2009, French NGO GERES developed an improved cooking stove, designed to produce high quality granulated palm sugar, using up to 30% less wood-fuel than traditional stoves. An opportunity for the traditional producers to save costs on energy and to sell a higher quality product at a better price. To push the sales and foster the adoption of this new solution among traditional palm sugar producers, “SOVANNAK PALM SUGAR” brand was created and rapidly convinced regular customers: supermarkets, restaurants & tourist shops. In 2013, as the business was reaching a milestone, GERES decided to hand it over to a young Khmer entrepreneur willing to develop it. Sovannak Palm Sugar is now 100% Khmer company. Sales are about 10 tons.

Policies On April 2, 2010, the Ministry of Commerce’s Department of Intellectual Property announced the registration of the first two geographical indications in Cambodia, for Kampot Pepper and Kampong Speu Palm Sugar. Applications for four more local products are currently pending. The registrations were made under an interim procedural order, “Prakas on the Procedures for the Registration and Protection of Marks of Goods Which Include a Geographical Indication” (No. 105 MOC, May 18, 2009), which sets forth the basic registration procedures and rights conferred by a GI. Under this order, only agricultural goods, foodstuffs, handcrafted goods and other goods produced or transformed in Cambodia are eligible for registration. Registrations are valid for an initial term of ten years, renewable for subsequent ten-year terms indefinitely. A complete Law on Geographical Indications is currently being drafted in order to meet Cambodia’s WTO obligations. The draft would allow for the registration of foreign GIs and establish a GI Board to administer the new system. In partnership with GRET, the Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Agriculture, CIRD facilitated to form and provide capacity building support to KPPA (Kampot Pepper Promotion Association) and KSPA (Kampong Speu Palm Sugar Promotion Association), and KAMPACO (cooperative of Kampot pepper producers). KPPA and KSPA are inter-professional associations comprising of farmers (majority) and market actors, which were registered with the Ministry of Interior. Their missions are to manage, promote and protect (under GI ministerial Prakas for the moment, GI law in the future) the Kampot peper GI (for KPPA) and Kampong Speu palm sugar GI (for KSPA) that were recently officially registered with the Ministry of Commerce as the first two Protected Geographical Indications in Cambodia.

It is widely believed the that GI for Kampot pepper has been very successful in establishing a brand and increasing the prices to producers, whereas the GI for Kampons Speu palm sugar has been less successful. It is not clear the reasons for the different success. It is a topic that will need to be examined during the course of the study. The five pillar of GI include:

i. A "GI ORGANIZATION", generally an inter-professional organization which bring together producers, operators and traders of the product.



ii. A DELIMITATIONof the production area.The GI name shall be used only by producers and operators within the delimited area.

iii. A BOOK of SPECIFICATIONS which describe the good and the production methods. The GI name shall be used only for goods produced in compliance with these specifications.

iv. A CONTROL and TRACEABILITY system which guarantee that all the goods sold with the GI names have been produced within the delimited area and according to the Book of Specifications.

v. A PROVEN LINK between the specificity of the good and its origin, based on natural, geographical, historical or human factors.

Figure 16 The Five Pillars of GI

The specifications for Kampong Speu palm sugar have been developed with the help of the industry (e.g. CONFIREL provided input) and NGOs such as GRET, CEDAC, and Cambodia Institute for Research and Rural Development (CIRD).



Figure 17 Delimitation of Areas for GI of Palm Sugar

The delimited geographical area for the production of Kampong Speu palm sugar consists in the following districts:

Oudong and Samrong Tong district, Kampong Speu province;

Ang Snuol district, Kandal province. To produce “Kampong Speu palm sugar”, the producer has to harvest the sap of the palm trees which are in the district above and the palm trees have to grow on sandy soil with at least 0.80 meters of deep, gravel soil and well drained. The sap collection and the processing of “Kampong Speu Palm Sugar” have to be done in the 3 districts above. The packaging of “Kampong Speu palm sugar” can be done in these 3 districts above or in the bordering districts as below:

Kampong Tralach, Sameakki Mean Chey, Rolea Bier and Krong Kampong Chhang of Kampong Chhnang

Oral, Thpong, Phnom Sruoch, Basedth, Kong Pisey and Krong Chbar Mon in Kampong Speu

Kandal Stoeung and Ponhea Lueu in Kandal

Phnom Penh Municipality Protected Geographical Indications are expected to raise more added-value and protects the producers from the competition with generic products through the isolation of niche markets. Therefore, GIs help to keep jobs in rural area though direct increase of prices of the production, and indirect benefit such as the development of tourism in the area. It is also a way to preserve cultural heritage and biodiversity. The extent to which this has happened for GI of Kampong Speu



palm sugar has still to be assessed. Also, it is not clear how the control and traceability system for GI products actually works in practice.

SWOT Analysis Strengths

Largely organic product

Minimum processing with no refining of sugar

Health benefit associated to low glycemic index. Rich in minerals and vitamins

Geographic indication established

Cultural and landscape value

Sugar palm tree resistant to drought

Sugar palm tree requires minimum external inputs and is beneficial to the soil

High productivity of sugar palm tree in terms of sugar

Pleasant taste and fragrance

Weaknesses

Few farmers are organically certified

Technologies largely traditional

Collection labor intensive and not safe

Processing rudimentary

Weak quality assurance systems

Lack of research and extension

Little marketing research

Processing uses woodfire which is increasingly expensive and unsustainable

Declining availability of popel wood as organic anti-fermentation agent.

Opportunities

Tap the large potential for production

Establish plantations

Brand Khmer Sugar as organic healthy product

Promote palm tree for building resilience to climate change

Crop and income diversification for farmers

Threats

Competition from similar products such as coconut palm sugar currently marketed globally by Philippines, Indonesia, India, and Sri Lanka

Figure 18 SWOT Analysis of Palm Sugar Value Chain in Cambodia



FINDINGS FROM PALM SUGAR PRODUCER SURVEY

The Sample of Producers of Palm Sugar The survey of palm sugar producers covered 4 provinces including Svay Rieng, Kampong Thom, Kampong Chhnang, and Kampong Speu. The choice of the provinces was motivated by the desire to identify the differences between provinces where there are farmers producing powder sugar, particularly the differences between Kampong Speu where a Geographic Indication (GI) for palm sugar has been established and other provinces where there is no GI. Additionally, the sample includes three different groups within Kampong Speu which is the key province for the product on palm sugar powder: the group of produces who are part of the Kampong Speu Palm Sugar Association (KSPA), the group of producers who are producing certified organic palm sugar (Confirel Association), and the group who are not members of either KSPA or organic producer group.

Overall the sample of producers represent a production of 180 tons of palm sugar of which 57 tons of palm sugar powder. The sample of farmers represent about 40% of sales of palm sugar powder. Most of the farmers are of similar size, therefore it can be confidently argued that this survey is the largest sample on the value chain so far conducted in Cambodia and allows to draw robust conclusions. The survey included 90 palm sugar producers (see Table 2) comprising 10 respondents (11% of the

sample) from Svay Chrum District in Svay Rieng Province; 10 respondents (11% of the sample) from Santok District in Kampong Thom Province; 10 respondents (11% of the sample) from Rolea Ear District in Kampong Chhnang Province; and 60 respondents (67% of the sample) from Samrong Tong and Oudong District in Kampong Speu Province. Among respondents in Kampong Speu Province, 30 are members of the Promotion of Kampong Speu Palm Sugar Association (KSPA), 20 are non-member of Promotion of Kampong Speu Palm Sugar (KSPA) and the rest are a member of Confirel Association producing organic sugar as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Distribution of Respondents by Provinces and Type

Type Svay Rieng

Province

Kampong Thom

Province

Kampong Chhnang Province

Kampong Speu

Province

TOTAL

Ordinary producers 10 10 10 30

Non-KSPA members 20 20

KSPA members 30 30

Organic producers 10 10

TOTAL 10 10 10 60 90

Characteristics of Palm Sugar Producers The average age of respondents in Svay Rieng, Kampong Thom, Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Speu Province is 40.2, 42.3, 41.2, and 48.2 years old, respectively (see Table 3). The average age



of respondents in KSPA, Non-KSPA and Confirel Organic Association was 48.3, 48.8, and 46.4 years old, respectively. The average age of all respondents in four provinces was 44.5 years old. In general most of the palm sugar producers are not young. During the interviews, several respondents, particularly those more advanced in age, pointed out that palm sugar production is a hard job with little perspective for young people. The average household size in the four provinces is around five. Respondents from Kampong Thom Province had the largest household size, while the smallest household size was in Kampong Chhnang Province. Looking at different association in Kampong Speu Province, average household size was similar varying from 5.5 to 5.7. Two third of the respondents indicated palm tree to grow on sandy soils and 32.3% sandy loamy soils. The soil characteristics change from province to province, with Kampong Speu using sandy soil exclusively. This feature of the soil is related to the quality characteristics of the sap extracted from the tree (see section 0).

Table 3 Characteristics of Palm Sugar Producers

Province

Age Household size % of Soil type where palm

tree grows

Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Sandy-soil

Sandy-loam-soil

Black-soil

Svay Rieng* 40.2 25 55 5.2 3 7 100

Kampong Thom 42.3 32 60 5.9 4 8 90 10

Kampong Chhnang*

41.2 32 54 4.7 3 6 100

Kampong Speu 48.2 33 66 5.6 3 9 100

Non-KSPA 48.8 35 65 5.5 3 8 100

KSPA 48.3 33 66 5.7 3 9 100

Confirel-Organic 46.4 37 60 5.6 4 7 100

ALL (n=90) 44.5 25 66 5.4 3 9 66.6 32.2 1.1

*more sandy compared with Kampong Thom Associations

In Svay Rieng province there is no palm sugar association or cooperative; however, there is a small group with 11 members called Powder Palm Sugar Producer group, created in 2014 by PADEE Project. In 2015, these members got technical assistance on powder palm sugar making and some members have started to produce palm sugar as a pilot. In Prasath Commune, Santok District, Kampong Thom Province, once cooperative called Beung Tokk Beung Tuoy Fishery Cooperative was established in 2007 by an OXFAM Project; the main aim of the cooperative is to protect fishery area from illegal fishing. In the commune, there are many palm trees so some members formed a palm sugar producer group in order to get technical assistance and marketing. The first association is Promotion of Kampong Speu Palm Sugar (KSPA), established in 2009 and located in Phnom Touch Commune, Oudong District, Kampong Speu Province. The second association is Confirel Association, established in 2007 by Confirel Company



in the same location as KSPA. Currently, the members of Confirel association have merged with KSPA. The members of these above organizations indicated they do not pay to be a member of the organization. All respondents said that there were members of the cooperative/association. The reasons that they want to become a members of Beung Tokk Beung Tuoy Fishery Cooperative are get high price and technical assistance, while, 93%, 90% and 17% of KSPA member gets high price, technical assistance and marketing, respectively. Confirel Association, respondents said that 100%, 90% and 20% is get high price, technical assistance and marketing, respectively. In overall the reasons that they want to become a member of the association showed that 97% of respondents want to get high price, 90% of respondents want to get technical assistance and 13% of respondents want to get a good marketing.

Table 4 Reasons to be Member of Association

Kampong Thom Province

Kampong Speu Province

TOTAL

Reason

Beung Tokk Beung Tuoy

Fishery Cooperative

Promotion of Kampong Speu

Palm Sugar (KSPA)

Confirel Organic

Association

n=10 n=30 n=10 50

Expect to receive High Price (% respondents)

100 93 100 97

Expect to receive Technical Assistance (% respondents)

100 90 80 90

Expect to have access to Markets (% respondents)

0 17 20 13

Geographic Indication (GI)

On April 2, 2010, the Ministry of Commerce’s Department of Intellectual Property announced the registration of geographical indications for Kampong Speu Palm Sugar. The survey asked

producers in the province various questions regarding the GI program to producers of palm sugar

located in Samrong Tong and Oudong Districts. The responses indicated that 90% of KSPA producers know about GI and 10% are not sure what GI is. In the case of Confirel Organic producers, 10% know about GI, while other 10% and 80% are not sure and do not know, respectively. For non-KSPA producer, 100% indicate they do not know about GI even though they are located in the GI area (see Table 5). It is noted that to become a GI product the key conditions

are that: (i) the tree has to be identified as GI tree; (ii) the producers have to follow GI specifications in collecting palm sap; and (iii) they have to use only allowed materials and processing methods.

Table 5 GI Awareness

Response about GI Awareness KSPA Non-KSPA Confirel-Organic TOTAL



n=30 n=20 n=10 n=60

Know (% respondents) 90 0 10 46.6

Not Know (% respondents) 0 100 80 46.6

Not Sure (% respondents) 10 0 10 6.6

When asked more specifically to explain the features of GI, respondents indicated various criteria for palm sugar to be classified as GI, including no chemical substance, sap source and processing, type of container used, book of GI and inspection and control system. The most important criteria perceived to be required for GI in the view of respondent no chemical substance, sap has to be processed immediately and sap has to be from GI location (see Table 6). In conclusion, apart from the producers in KSPA, there does not seem much knowledge

regarding GI among producers, even in the GI area. The knowledge of GI among KSPA is limited, considering that several training activities have been implemented over the past few years. According to producers, even buyers from Phnom Penh, tdo not know about GI and GI sugar. Table 6 Main features of GI Knowledge

3 main features

KSPA Non-KSPA

Confirel-Organic TOTAL

n=60 n=30 n=20 n=10

No. % No. % No. %

Chemical substances are not allowed 25 83.3 0 0 0 0 41.6

Sap has to be processedimmediately 23 76.6 0 0 0 0 38.3

Sap has to be from GI locations 19 63.3 0 0 1 10 33.3

Tubes have to be in bamboo 5 16.6 0 0 0 0 8.3

There must be a Book of GI Requirements

3 10 0 0 1 10 6.6

There must be a system of Inspection and Control

2 6.6 0 0 0 0 3.3

A GI association must be in place 1 3.3 0 0 0 0 1.6

Sap has to get from tree growing at sandy-soil

0 0 0 0 1 10 1.6

GI is given by MOC for 10 year period

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Among the 29 respondents of KSPA having some knowledge of GI, two respondents said that they did not get benefit from GI in term of price or marketing while the remaining 27 respondents said that they got benefit from GI either in terms of higher price (88.8%) or in terms of better access to markets (85.2%). Table 7 Benefits of GI for the Members of the Association knowing of GI

Benefits of GI

KSPA members-knowing of GI n=27

No. %

High Price 24 88.8

Access to Market 23 85.2



Most of the KSPA association (96.3%) knowing about GI, also have heard about the GI book and all of them got training in GI; however only 55.5% of them actually read the Book of Specifications (the book is available in Khmer and is about 15 pages). Table 8 Knowledge of Book of GI and Training among Members of Association

GI Book and Its requirement KSPA members-knowing of GI

n=27

No. %

Knowing of GI Book 26 96.3

Used to read GI Book 15 55.5

Got training on GI 27 100

Compliance with GI specifications has been carried out through three types of inspections. Most of the inspections were carried out by the KSPA/Cooperative, followed by NGO inspections and only a few by MOC personnel. Table 9 GI Inspectors from different organizations

Inspectors from different organizations

Respondents n=30

No. %

KSPA Association/cooperative 29 96.6

NGOs 18 60

MoC 6 20

The price of GI and Non-GI sugar is the same when producers sell to private traders (see Table 10).

Apparently private traders do not care or know much about GI characteristics. They just look at the color of sugar and give a price as normal sugar on market. During 2015 however, the KSPA paid about 400-500 Riel/kg higher price for GI paste sugar than private traders; the problem for producers was that the amount of sugar purchased by the KSPA was very limited. Before 2015, KSPA gave the same price or even lower price of past sugar than private traders.

Table 10 Price of GI and Non-GI Palm Sugar when selling to Private Traders

Price

KSPA members n=30

No. %

Different 0 0

Not-different 12 40

Not know 18 60

Sap Collection The average number of palm tree used by producers varies between 21 and 36 trees among the four provinces, with an overall average of 25 trees (see Table 11). Produces use both their own



trees and rented trees. On average they own 10 trees and rent 15 trees. In Kampong Thom and Kampong Chhnang, the percentage and number of rented trees is higher than in other provinces. In some cases, producers use only rented tree and in other cases they use only owned trees. When renting a tree, the rent is usually given in terms of sugar, with an average rent value of Kg 4.7 per season per tree and in few cases it is 10,000 Riel per season. Table 11 Palm Tree Tapped for Palm Sugar by Producers

No. Palm Tree No. Owned No. Rent Cost/tree/season

Province Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Kg of sugar

Riel

Svay Rieng 21.3 14 27 9.8 0 15 11.5 2 23 5.2 10,000

Kampong Thom

36.5 25 55 9 0 25 27.5 0 48 5.2

Kampong Chhnang

29 15 50 6.7 0 20 22.3 10 50 6.9

Kampong Speu

23.4 10 40 11.2 0 30 12.2 0 35 4.1

Non-KSPA 21.5 10 33 11.3 0 30 10.5 0 31 3.5

KSPA 24.4 15 40 12.4 0 30 12 0 35 4.1

Confirel-Organic

23.5 15 30 7.7 0 20 15.8 0 30 5

ALL (n=90) 25.2 10 55 10.3 0 30 14.9 0 50 4.7 10,000

Most of the trees reported were more than 25 years old. The old trees give more sap, have long and more flowers so the duration for collecting sap is also longer. Table 12 Age of the Palm Trees

Province Av No. of trees

Less than 15 years old

15-25 years old More 25 years old

Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max

Svay Rieng 21.3 1 0 10 2 5 10 18.3 10 20

Kampong Thom

36.5 2 0 10 5.7 0 24 28.8 6 55

Kampong Chhnang

29 2.9 0 15 8.1 0 20 17.3 0 50

Kampong Speu

23.4 0.8 0 15 1.8 0 30 20.9 0 40

Non-KSPA 21.5 1.2 0 15 0.7 0 5 20 0 33

KSPA 24.4 0.4 0 7 2.1 0 20 22 0 40

Confirel-Organic

23.5 1 0 10 3 0 30 20 0 30

ALL (n=90) 25.2 1.2 0 15 3 0 30 21 0 55

Table 13 Criteria for Selecting Palm Tree (% of Respondents)

Group Many

flowers/clusters Strength and much

leaves Gentle (easy to

squeeze)



Svay Rieng 100 70 20

Kampong Thom 80 90 30

Kampong Chhnang

90 70 10

Kampong Speu 86 63 26

Non-KSPA 65 65 30

KSPA 93 63 17

Confirel-Organic 100 60 30

ALL 89 73 22

Some trees start to have flowers (1 or 2 clusters) since November so harvesting sap can start early. Generally, trees give many clusters of flowers starting from February. Depending on the experience and skill of the operator, the strength of the tree, the age of the tree and the length of the flower, the operator can get sap from one flower for 2 to 4 months. Usually, operators stop climbing trees in June when the rainy season starts. As long as they are flowers on the tree, one can get sap. But, if there is a rain, the quality of sap is not good, degree of sweetness decreases and it is difficult to climb because of wind and lightning. Table 14 Months when Operator Climb Tree (% of respondents)

Province/ month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Svay Rieng

100 100 100 100 100 10 0 0 0 0 20 50

Kampong Thom

100 100 100 100 100 50 0 0 0 0 60 90

Kampong Chhnang

90 90 100 100 100 20 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kampong Speu

53 97 98 100 100 36 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-KSPA

75 95 95 100 100 40 10 0 0 0 0 25

KSPA 40 97 100 100 100 30 0 0 0 0 0 13

Confirel-Organic

50 100 100 100 100 50 0 0 0 0 0 0

ALL 68 97 99 100 100 33 1 0 0 0 9 25

At the beginning of the season, the number of trees giving flower is low, however, the operators have still to climb and get sap otherwise the sap is lost. The operators become busy from February and very busy in March and April when trees give most flowers.

Table 15 Percentage of Trees harvested by Month

Province/ month

Avg No. tree

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Svay Rieng

21.3 48 84 100 97 57 5 0 0 0 0 6 17

Kampong Thom

36.5 57 85 100 95 63 25 0 0 0 0 12 38



Kampong Chhnang

29 35 76 100 90 61 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kampong Speu

23.4 23 69 100 99 72 22 0 0 0 0 0 5

Non-KSPA

21.5 39 81 100 94 68 22 0 0 0 0 0 10

KSPA 24.4 18 62 100 99 69 19 0 0 0 0 0 4

Confirel-Organic

23.5 19 65 100 100 82 33 0 0 0 0 0 0

ALL 25.2 34 73 100 97 67 19 0 0 0 0 3 11

Overall, in November only three percent of trees have flowers from which sap can be extracted and this percentage increases to 100 in March. After March, the flowers declined and after July, there is no more climbing, even though some flowers still remain in the tree. The producers decide that during the period August to October, climbing tree is not worthwhile because of rains, low quality of sap, low volumes of sap, and high risks in climbing due to storm and lighting.The amount of sap collected depends on the amount of trees harvested and the strength and age of trees and more female trees. Young trees give little sap because of short flowers and are also affected easily by climate. Table 16 Percentage of Sap collected by Month

Province/ month


Svay Rieng 9 16 27 28 15 0.5 0 0 0 0 1 3.5

Kampong Thom

11 17 22 21 13 6 0 0 0 0 3 7

Kampong Chhnang

10 20 28 24 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kampong Speu 6 17 27 27 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 1

Non-KSPA 8 19.5 25 24 16 6 0.5 0 0 0 0 1

KSPA 4 16 29 28 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 1

Confirel-Organic

5 16 26 27 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

ALL 7 17 27 26 16 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

The degree of sweetness of sap depends on the flower, the location, the climate and the skill of the operator. The shorter the flower the higher the sweetness content. Trees growing on sandy soils with small rock underneath give sweeter sap but the amount of sap is less than in trees growing on sandy-loamy soil as in Kampong Thom Province. Trees growing in upland areas far from rice fields or wet areas give sweeter sap. Climate also effects the quality of sap: rain and wet soil reduce sweetness. According to the operator even the skill of the operator affect the quantity of sap that can be squeezed from flowers and the degree of sweetness. Most sweetness is from March when the climate is dry. Table 17 Degree of Sugar Content by Month

Province/ month


Svay Rieng

M M H H M M L L



Kampong Thom

M M H H H M L L

Kampong Chhnang

L M H H H H

Kampong Speu

M M H H H H L

Non-KSPA

M M H H H H L

KSPA M M H H H H L

Confirel-Organic

M M H H H H

Note: L=Low; M= Moderate; and H=High Sandy soil like in Kampong Speu does not give much sap but the sweetness of the sap is high. The soil in Svay Rieng and Kampong Chhnang is sandy loamy soil but there is more sand compared with sandy-loamy-soil in Kampong Thom. The sandy-loamy-soil in Kampong Thom has higher content of clay so tree gives more sap but the sweetness is lower. Table 18 Average Production of Sap and Sugar per Tree and per Season

Province Average Liter of sap/tree/ season (L)

Average Sugar/ tree/ season (kg)

Max of sap/ tree/season

(L)

Average Liter of sap/season (L)

Average Sugar/season

(kg)

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Svay Rieng 645 776 77 95 792 13,030 16,330 1,602 2,019

Kampong Thom 1,006 1,152 101 115 1,165 35,700 41,670 3,540 4,170

Kampong Chhnang 642 776 73 88 910 18,320 22,010 2,120 2,552

Kampong Speu 605 765 72 89 849 14,001 17,182 1,674 2,022

Non-KSPA 641 815 76 95 883 14,110 17,310 1,664 2,045

KSPA 595 755 71 87 848 14,122 17,350 1,694 2,017

Confirel-Organic 559 693 67 83 785 13,419 16,420 1,634 1,994

ALL 671 823 77 93 895 17,468 21,185 1,990 2,398

All respondents use family members to climb the tree as indicated in Table 19. In each family there is only one person climbing the trees. The work is very demanding in terms of long hours. The operators usually climb the trees twice per day; the first climbing starts very early in the morning around 3am; and the second climbing is done in the afternoon starting at 1-2 pm. They spend between 8 minutes and 15 minutes on each tree (see Table 21)

Table 19 Labor involved in Climbing the Trees

Province Father Husband Son Nephew No.

days/ season

working hours/

Working hours/

Avg hours/

day % Age % Age % Age % Age



Day (busy months)

Day (starting &

ending)

Svay Rieng 20 51 80 38 0 0 161 8

5 6.5

Kampong Thom 0 90 43 10 20 0 197 11

5 8.0

Kampong Chhnang 0 100 41 0 0 149 10

5 7.5

Kampong Speu 9 60 88 47 0 6 30 149 8

5 6.5

Non-KSPA 15 62 75 46 0 3 30 161 9

5 7.0

KSPA 12 59 88 47 0 0 143 9

5 7.0

Confirel-Organic 0 100 47 0 0 146 8

5 6.5

ALL 7 57 91 45 1 20 1 30 156 9

5 7.0

Table 20 Numbers of Trees climbed per day and Time spent on the Tree

Province Numbers of tree Duration spent for one tree (mn)

Average Min Max <10 m 10-15 m >15 m

Svay Rieng 25 16 32 8 11 14

Kampong Thom 38 25 60 7 11 15

Kampong Chhnang 37 25 60 10 11 15

Kampong Speu 29 15 45 9 12 15

Non-KSPA 27 15 45 8 11 14

KSPA 30 18 40 8 11 15

Confirel-Organic 28 15 40 10 12 16

ALL 30 15 60 8 11 15

Usually, climbers walk from their homes to the trees. Sometimes, the sap collectors (who could be the wife or the son) use the bicycle or the motor bike to collect the sap. The distance of trees from the home and the duration of time needed to reach the trees is shown in Table 21. Collecting sap and taking sap home promptly is very important and climbers need 1-2 persons to help in transporting the sap from the tree to the processing unit, located their premises. In Svay Rieng Province, 100% of climbers had a sap collector and 70%, 20% and 10% of the collectors transport the sap by walking, motorbike and bicycle, respectively. In Kampong Thom Province, 90% had a sap collector and 50%, 30% and 20% used walking, motorbike and bicycle to collect sap and take sap home, respectively. In Kampong Chhnang Province, 100% had a sap collector and 80% and 20% used walking and bicycle means to collect and take sap home, respectively. However, in Kampong Speu Province, 87% had a sap collector and 96%, 2% and 2% used walking, motorbike and bicycle to collect and take sap home.



The sap collectors have four main roles: first they clean and wash containers with hot water; second they put popel4 inside the clean sap containers; third they collect sap containers from each tree; and fourth they take the containers home.

Table 21 Distance of trees from home and duration taken to go there by walking

Province

Distance of trees from home and duration taken to go there

<200 m 200-500 m 500-1000 m >1000 m

No. Period

(minutes) No.

Period (minutes)

No. Period

(minutes) No.

Period (minutes)

Svay Rieng 7 3 10 6 4 11 0

Kampong Thom 12 3 10 7 10 10 4 10

Kampong Chhnang 10 3 14 6 5 10 0

Kampong Speu 6 3 8 7 8 12 1 15

Non-KSPA 5 3 9 8 8 14 1 15

KSPA 6 4 8 6 9 12 1 15

Confirel-Organic 11 2 6 8 6 13 0

ALL 7 3 9 7 8 12 1 13

Two typical maps of trees and their location relatively to the processing units are illustrated in

Figure 19:

4 Popèl wood (Shorea cochinchinensis, Hopea recopei and Shorea roxburghiana) or Koki wood (Hopea helferi, Hoea helferi and Hoepa pierrei) wood is put in each container before to put it

on the tree, in order to slow down the fermentation of the sap.



Figure 19 Location of Palm Trees and Distance from a Processing Unit in Kampong Speu

Processing Unit

Kampong Speu Province

Sandy-soil

Tree 1distance 30 mHeight 7 mAge < 30 yearsClimbing 10mn

10 m10 m3 m 3 m

Tree 2,3 & 4distance 40 mHeight 7 mAge < 30 yearsClimbing 10mn

Connector ladder is used

Tree 5distance 50 mHeight 9 mAge < 30 yearsClimbing 10mn

10 m

3 m


Tree 6 & 7distance 70 mHeight 10 mAge < 30 yearsClimbing 11mn

3 m

Tree 14 & 15distance 30-40 mHeight 7-10 mAge < 30 yearsClimbing 11mn




Figure 20 Location of Palm Trees and Distance from a Processing Unit in Kampong Thom

Climbers do not use any safety device. They often experience accidents, in some cases even

serious injuries, as indicated in Table 22.

Table 22 Accidents in Tree Climbing

% Accident Many time so far Injury

Svay Rieng 50 1-2 Seriously & little

Kampong Thom 50 1-2 Seriously & little

Kampong Chhnang 30 1-2 Seriously & little

Kampong Speu

Non-KSPA 20 1-2 Seriously & little

KSPA 10 2-6 little

Confirel-Organic 0

ALL 22 1-6 Seriously & little

The method used to climb tree has not changed much over time. Climbers tie up bamboo ladders to the tree by using wooden supports and copper wire (in the past they used bamboo wire). If trees are close to each other (about 2-3 meters), they put connections between one tree and the

Processing Unit

Kampong Thom Province

Sandy-Loam-soil

Site1= 10 Treesdistance 200-300 mHeight 12-15 mAge 50 yearsClimbing 10 mnA-B= 10-15 mC-D= 10-15 mA-B-C-D= 10-30 m

Bloc A = 2 treesTree-tree 2-4 mConnector ladder is used

Bloc B = 2 treesTree-tree 2-4 mConnector ladder is used

Bloc D = 3 treesTree-tree 2-4 mConnector ladder is used

Bloc C = 3 treesTree-tree 2-4 mConnector ladder is used

Site2= 20 Treesdistance 500-800 mHeight 8-10 mAge 30 yearsClimbing 7 mnA-B-C-D-E-F= 20-100 mBloc F = 2 trees

Tree-tree 20-30 m

Bloc A = 4 treesTree-tree 2-4 mConnector ladder is used

Bloc B = 5 treesTree-tree 2-4 mConnector ladder is used

Bloc C = 3 treesTree-tree 2-4 mConnector ladder is used

Bloc E = 2 treesTree-tree 2-4 mConnector ladderis used



next, thus avoiding to climb twice. Before starting the normal climbing and squeezing of flowers, they test climb and prepare the tree by cleaning and making suitable space in the flower cluster area at the top of the tree. Collecting sap from female tree: There are four main steps for female tree sap collection. First is to select and clean flowers, second is to squeeze flowers for few days depending on characteristic of flowers, third is to cut flowers slightly and do the second squeeze for few days, and fourth is to cut flowers and collect sap everyday by container with popel inside.

Collecting sap from male tree: There are several steps for collecting sap from male tree. The first is to select and clean flowers. The second is to squeeze flowers for few days depending on the characteristics of the flowers. The third is to cut flowers slightly then soak in water for few days. The fourth is to cut flowers and do the second squeezing for few days more, and the fifth is to cut flowers slightly and collect sap every day. Even though the method of collecting sap is the same as in the past, some materials are a bit different such as plastic containers instead of bamboo containers. For GI and organic association, one container can be used for only one cluster flower. It means that sap from other flowers is not allowed to flow into the same container. The container has to be cleaned before cutting for new sap. Less than half of the respondents have planted new trees (see



Table 23). Most of the trees have been planted in the past 10 years, but the numbers are still

a small one (an average of 11 trees among the 43% of respondents who plant trees.



Table 23 Average Number of Palm Tree grown per respondent growing tree and its age

Respondent growing tree

<10 years 10-20 years >20 years

% Avg

No. of trees

Still standing

Avg No. of trees

Still standing

Avg No. of trees

Still standing

Svay Rieng 60 12 6

2 1 2 2


1 1 0 0

Kampong Chhnang 50 9 0

0 6 0 0

Kampong Speu 40 9 6

1 1 4 3

Non-KSPA 30 14 9

2 2 6 0

KSPA 53 8 5

1 1 3 3


0 0 10 10

ALL 43 11 7

1 1 3 2

Processing

Almost all respondents reported that they did not sell palm sap. The few who did, they sold small quantities for Riel 450 per liter. None of the respondents buy palm sap from others for processing or any other purposes. Table 24 shows percentage of respondents producing different type of palm sugar by province.

Table 24 Percentage of Respondents producing different Type of Palm Sugar by Province

Powder Paste Bloc Syrup

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Svay Rieng (n=10) 7 70 8 80

3 30 0 0

Kampong Thom (n=10) 7 70 10 100

3 30 0 0

Kampong Chhnang (n=10) 7 70 9 90

0 0 0 0

Kampong Speu (n=60) 39 65 48 80

7 12 2 3

Non-KSPA (n=20) 0 0 20 100

1 5 1 5

KSPA (n=30) 29 97 28 47

6 20 1 3

Confirel-Organic (n=10) 10 100 0 0

0 0 0 0

ALL (n=90) 60 67 75 83

13 14 2 2

It is noted that all respondents using improved cook stove told that the advantages of it were taking less time, using less wood-fire, receiving a good quality of sugar and having less ashes. The table 24 shows number and percentage of respondents using improved cook stove.



Table 25 Number and Percentage of respondents using improved cook stove by province

No. % Year Starting to Use Improve Cook Stove

Svay Rieng (n=10) 1 10 2015

Kampong Thom (n=10) 0 0

Kampong Chhnang (n=10) 3 30 2012-13

Kampong Speu (n=60) 48 80

Non-KSPA (n=20) 9 45 2012-15

KSPA (n=30) 30 100 2009-15

Confirel-Organic (n=10) 9 90 2009-15

ALL (n=90) 52 58

Paste Sugar Making Process. The first step is to filter sap into a pan; the second is to boil the cleaned sap and take foreign matter out. The duration for boiling depends on amount of sap, type of fuel used, type of cook stove and operator. The third step is to stir/agitate for some time, and the fourth step is to put inside containers. There are two sizes of pan: 60 and 90 liters capacity. It takes around 290 minutes or 5 hours to finish 100 liters of sap. Powder Sugar Making Process. The first step is to filter sap into pan; the second step is to boil the cleaned sap and take foreign matter out; the third step is to take out from the stove then stirring/agitating; the fourth step is to break it into a very small piece; the fifth step is to sieve it, and the sixth step is to dry it under the sunlight for 3-4 hours then put inside plastic bag. Even though the size of the pan is 60 or 90 liters, processors put around 30-40 liters of sap at once for making powder sugar. The average time spent for 100 liters of sap is 7 hours not including 3-4 hours for sun drying. Bloc Sugar Making Process. The first step is to filter sap into pan; the second step is to boil it and take foreign matter out; the third step is to stir and agitate; the fourth step is to put into molds; and fifth step is to take out from the molds then store. For making bloc sugar, it takes around 10-15 minutes longer than paste sugar. Syrup Sugar Making Process. The first step is to filter sap into pan; the second step is to boil and take foreign matter out; the third step is to stir/agitate; and fourth step is to put inside containers. For making syrup sugar, it takes about 5-10 minutes less than paste sugar. Chemical substance use: Respondents in Svay Rieng and Kampong Thom Province did not use any chemical substance, while 50% of respondents in Kampong Chhnang Province used Sodium Hydrosulfite to make sugar whiter. Two respondents in Kampong Speu Non-Association used chemical substances which were provided by middleman from Phsar Depor in Phnom Penh to make sugar whiter. However, they did not know the name of the chemical substance. There are two ways that they can put the substance to make sugar whiter which first is to put it inside sap container with popel and the second is to put it during boiling sap.



Table 26 and Table 27 show the quantities of powder sugar and paste sugar that can be obtained from sap during the season.



Table 28 shows the relationship between soil type and sap sweetness. From one unit of paste sugar one can get about 80% of powder sugar and about 95% of bloc sugar. Kampong Thom Province gave the lowest percent of sugar that can be obtained from sap, namely about 8.5kg of powder sugar and 9.3 kg of paste sugar.

Table 26 Different Quantities of Powder Sugar obtained from 100 liters of Sap Suring the Season

Powder Sugar


Svay Rieng (n=7) 8 9.3 11 11

10 NA 7

Kampong Thom (n=6) 8 8.2 9.1 9.3

8.8 8.5 7.3

Kampong Chhnang (n=6) 7.6 8.5 9 8.8

8.3 8 NA

Kampong Speu (n=59) 9.4 9.4 11.3 11.7 11.7 11.7

8.8

Non-KSPA (n=20) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

KSPA (n=29) 9.1 9.1 11.0 11.4 11.5 11.5 8.8

Confirel-Organic (n=10) 10.1 10.4 12.3 12.5 12.5 12.5

NA

ALL (n=90) 8.6 9.2 10.8 11.1 10.9 11.2

7.9

Table 27 Different Quantities of Paste Sugar obtained from 100 liters of Sap Suring the Season

Paste Sugar


Svay Rieng (n=8) 9.6 10.8 12.6 12.6

11.5 NA 8.7

Kampong Thom (n=10) 9.4 10 10.9 11

10.5 9.8 8.7

Kampong Chhnang (n=10) 9.7 11.3 11.6 11.8 11.8 11.5

NA

Kampong Speu (n=53) 10.3 10.9 13.0 13.3 13.3 13.3

9.6

Non-KSPA (n=20) 10.3 10.8 12.6 12.9 13.0 13.0

9.0

KSPA (n=30) 10.3 10.9 13.0 13.4 13.4 13.8 10.3

Confirel-Organic (n=3) 11.0 12.0 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7

NA

ALL (n=90) 9.9 10.8 12.5 12.7 12.6 12.8

9.0



Table 28 Quantities of sugar obtained from 100 liters of sap (kg or %)

Soil Type Powder Paste Bloc

Av Min Max Av Min Max Av Min Max

Svay Rieng Sandy-Loam-Soil

10.4 9 11 12 10.5 13 12 10 13

Kampong Thom

Sandy-Loam-Soil

8.5 8 10 9.3 8 10 9.3 8 10

Kampong Chhnang

Sandy-Loam-Soil

8.7 8 10 11.2 10 12 NA NA NA

Kampong Speu

Sandy-Soil 10.9 8 14 12.5 10 15

Non-KSPA Sandy-Soil NA NA NA 11.9 10 14 NA NA NA

KSPA Sandy-Soil 10.6 8 14 12.6 10 15 12.5 12 14

Confirel-Organic

Sandy-Soil 11.7 10 13.5 14.7 14 15 NA NA NA

ALL 10.3 8 14 12 10 15

The duration taken to make different types of sugar depends on type of cook stove, type and quality of fuel or wood-fire. For Svay Rieng and Kampong Thom Province where they used a traditional cook stove, cooking time takes longer.

Table 29 Duration (minutes) spent for making different types of sugar

Powder Paste Bloc

Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max

Svay Rieng 514 450 550 334

270 380 370 350 390

Kampong Thom 476 420 540 283

240 360 280 260 320

Kampong Chhnang 383 350 450 258

220 310 NA NA NA

Kampong Speu 404 315 500 297 200 390

Non-KSPA NA NA NA 342 240 390 NA NA NA

KSPA 391 315 490 267 200 365 272 200 380

Confirel-Organic 440 390 500 288 260 305

NA NA NA

ALL 424* 315* 550* 294 200 390

Note: *not including a drying period under sunlight taking bout 180-240 minutes. The duration is based on an amount of 100 liters of sap.



Compared the use of traditional and improved cook stove, it shows that an improved cook stove takes 1 hours less than traditional cook stove for boiling sap. Table 30 Period (minutes) spent for making different sugar using improved cook stove

Cook Stove

Powder Paste

Av Min Max Av Min Max

Svay Rieng Improved 450 450 450 330

330 330

Kampong Thom Improved NA NA NA NA

NA NA

Kampong Chhnang Improved 357 350 360 270

220 310

Kampong Speu Improved 404 315 500 292 200 390

Non-KSPA Improved NA NA NA 342 240 390

KSPA Improved 391 315 490 267 200 365

Confirel-Organic Improved 440 390 500 288 260 305

ALL Improved 402* 315 500 291 200 390

Note. *not including a drying period under sunlight taking bout 180-240 minutes. The duration is based on an amount of 100 liters of sap

Table 31 Period (minutes) spent for making different sugar using Traditional cook stove

Cook Stove

Powder Paste

Av Min Max Av Min Max

Svay Rieng Traditional 514 450 550 334

270 380

Kampong Thom Traditional 476 420 540 283

240 360

Kampong Chhnang Traditional 383 350 450 258

220 310

Kampong Speu Traditional 500 500 500 347 240 390

Non-KSPA Traditional NA NA NA 342 240 390

KSPA Traditional 500 500 500 300 300 300

Confirel-Organic Traditional NA NA NA NA NA NA

ALL Traditional 463 350 500 310 220 390

Note. *not including a drying period under sunlight taking bout 180-240 minutes. The duration is based on an amount of 100 liters of sap Table 32 Period (minutes) spent for making different sugar using different types of cook stove

Powder Paste

Cook Stove Av Min Max Av Min Max

Traditional 463 350 500 310 220 390

Improved 402* 315 500 291 200 390



Variation + 61* + 19

Improved + Traditional 424 315 550 294 200 390

Note. *not including a drying period under sunlight taking bout 180-240 minutes. The duration is based on an amount of 100 liters of sap

All respondents used family member to make sugar. The average number of labor used is almost the same in the four provinces ranging from 1.8 to 2 persons per family. The average of working hour per day is a bit different ranging from 6.2 hours per day in Svay Rieng to 8.4 hours for Confirel-Organic producers (see Table 33). Table 33 Family member, days per season and hours per day to make sugar

Svay Rieng

Kg Thom

Kg Chhnang

Kg Speu

Non-KSPA

KSPA Confirel-Organic

ALL

Family Labor

Avg

(busy months)

2.5 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 2 2.1 2.2

Avg

Starting &ending months

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Avg

2 2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8

Min 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1

Max 5 4 3 5 5 3 3 5

No. days/

season

Avg

161 197 149 149 161 143 146 156

Min 110 170 117 90 90 115 120 90

Max 200 222 175 210 210 210 170 222

Hours/ day

Avg (busy

months) 7.4 10.2 7.6 9 7.8 9.5 9.7 8.8

Avg

Starting & ending months

5 6 5 6 5 7 7 6

Avg

6.2 8.1 6.3 7.5 6.4 8.3 8.4 7.3

Min 4 8 5 4 4 6 6 4

Max 10 15 12 15 11 15 15 15

Table 34 Numbers of person-working-day-season (8 hours/day basic)

Climbing tree Processing Total

Svay Rieng 131 250 381




Non-KSPA 141 232 373

KSPA 125 252 377




ALL 137 256 393

Most respondents use wood as fuel in addition to other biofeed such as stems of palm trees and coconut trees (see Table 35. In most cases respondents both buy and collect biofuel from the forest. Only a small number of respondents depend only on purchased fuel (see Table 36). No respondents use gas for a cook stove. It is not clear if the price of gas and gas cook stove is not economical. It is clear however, that the price of fire-wood has been increasingly considerably over the past 5 years (see Table 37). Table 35 Percentage of Respondents using different fuel for processing

Wood-fire Stem of palm tree or coconut tree Piece of clothes

Svay Rieng 30 100 0




Non-KSPA 80 80 5

KSPA 90 90 0


ALL 84 84 1

Table 36 Percentage of Respondents getting fuel for processing

Buy Only Buy and collect from forest Collect around home or forest

Svay Rieng 0 0 100


Kampong Chhnang 0 60

40


Non-KSPA 30 3 35

KSPA 7 73 20


ALL 15 51 34

Table 37 Price of Wood-fire and Quantity of Sugar from 1 m3 of Wood-fire

Price of wood-fire (Riel/m3) Powder sugar

(kg/m3 of wood fire) Paste sugar

(kg/m3 of wood fire)

Svay Rieng 35,000 70 80

Kampong Thom 50,000 87 99

Kampong Chhnang 51,667 73 87

Kampong Speu 46,810 75 85

Non-KSPA 45,000 NA 83

KSPA 46,667 75 86



Confirel-Organic 51,000 76 87

ALL 47,644 77 87

Respondents did not use gas for boiling sap because they said gas is very expensive, not available in their location and it needs special cook stove for gas. The price of gas is reported in table 37 and refers to the prices from gas sellers in district town and provincial town. However, it is not known how much of sugar can be producer per unit of gas so a cost comparison with wood fire is not possible. The price of wood-fire is getting up every year.

Table 38 Price of Gas and wood-fire in last few years

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Gas (Riel/48kg) 136,595

Wood-fire (Riel/cube meter) 34,529 37,304 40,737 45,271 47,933

Knowledge and Quality Control Apart from the group of producers in Kampong Speu who do not belong to KSPA and are not engaged in the Confirel Organic group, most of other producers have received training and knowledge about various activities such as powder sugar making, collecting the sap, improve

cook stoves, oganic certification, and GI specifications (see Table 39).

Table 39 Number of respondents receiving knowledge from the training course

Powder sugar

making Collecting the

sap Cook stove

Organic certification

GI Specification

Svay Rieng (n=7)

7 6 5 4 0

Kampong Thom (n=7)

7 4 5 0 0

Kampong Chhnang (n=7)

7 5 6 0 0

Kampong Speu (n=40)

39 31 30 26 25

Non-KSPA (n=0)

KSPA (30) 29 25 30 16 25

Confirel-Organic (10)

10 6 9 10 0

ALL (61) 60 46 46 30 25

They all know how to check quality of sugar and buyers also check quality before buying except two respondents in Kampong Speu Non-Association did not know how to check quality and buyers also did not check. Table 38 shows criteria for quality checking made by producers and buyers.

Table 40 Percentage of producers and buyers checking sugar quality by criteria

Criteria Producer’s check Buyer’s check



Moisture Content 52 65

Ph 0 2

Color 94 94

Brix 31 32

Hygiene 85 86

Smells 63 55

Chemical substance 0 63

foreign matter 72 85

The incentive to produce better quality is reflected in higher prices, about 10% of the price of

normal quality (see Table 41).

Table 41 Different Price between good quality and normal quality of paste sugar

Respondent

No. % Price Different (Riel/kg)

Svay Rieng 9 90 500




Non-KSPA 17 85 300

KSPA 30 100 400


ALL 86 96 400

Organic Certification

All respondents in the Confirel Organic Associations reported that their products are organic certified. About 30% of the producers got certified in 2007, 30% in 2008, 20% in 2009, 10% in 2012, and 10% in 2015. They all have received a training course on organic sugar making and the advantages of being members producing organic sugar is reflected in better access to market, higher prices, better quality, and safety (see Table 42). The price of organic and non-organic paste sugar is the same for private buyers or middleman because they do not know or do not care if it is organic. However, the price of paste sugar is about 500 Riel/kg different once the KSPA Association buys. But, the amount of sugar that Association orders is very limited. The price of powder sugar is fixed at 4,400Riel/kg for selling to Confirel or Association because of the contract. Table 42 Price between good quality and normal quality of paste sugar

Respondents

Organization check for organic certification No. %

ECOCERT 10 100

Company 10 100



NGOs 3 300

Advantages of organic certification No. %

Access to market 9 90

Price 10 100

Better quality 5 50

Safety 5 50

Marketing and Production Cost

Plastic bag is used for power sugar, and plastic, iron-made container and clay jar are used for paste sugar, while palm leave basket is used for bloc sugar. Power sugar is produced only to sell to Companies, NGOs and Associations while paste sugar and bloc sugar are sold to private middleman, villagers and relatives. For GI paste sugar in 2015, the price is the same as normal sugar once selling to private middleman but the price is about 400-500 Riel/kg higher if there is an order from the Association but the order from the association is very limited. However, before 2015 the association gave the same price or even lower to GI paste sugar compared with private middleman. Analysis of costs and benefits across different provinces (see Table 43) indicates an average income of about Riel 4.7 million (or USD 1,200). The return to labor however is relatively low, on average equal to about Riel 12,000 per day of work (USD 3). This compares negatively to similar calculations for major crops (see ACI 2014 Cambodia Agriculture in Transition).

There is variation among provinces and also in terms of producers who are members of associations. For example, farmers engaged in certified organic product fare a little better, with average income equal to Riel 5.8 million (about USD 1,450) with a return to labor of almost Riel 15,000 (or USD 3.7).

The overall picture however is not of a sector where farmers are making substantial income that can complement or supplement income from other sources. The labor requirements of palm sugar activities (both tree climbing and processing) are considerable: palm sugar production is hard work and unless innovation in breeding of sugar palm, technologies of climbing, and technologies in processing are introduced, it will be difficult for the sector to expand and reap the opportunities of global demand for healthier and organic types of sugar.

Table 43 Production Cost and Benefit Analysis

Sugar (kg)

Incomes (Riel)

Expenditures (Riel)

Net incomes

(Riel)

Person-working-

days /season*

Return to labor for

one person-

working-day (Riel)

Svay Rieng

2013 1,723 3,730,000

2014 1,663 4,378,500



Sugar (kg)

Incomes (Riel)

Expenditures (Riel)

Net incomes

(Riel)

Person-working-

days /season*

Return to labor for

one person-

working-day (Riel)

2015 1,803 5,181,700 787,447 4,394,253 381 11,547

Kampong Thom

2013 4,167 10,753,620

2014 3,885 11,243,000

2015 3,796 12,701,000 4,258,226 8,442,774 596 14,168

Kampong Chhnang

2013 2,245 4,779,000

2014 2,293 4,987,000

2015 2,141 4,758,000 1,695,717 3,062,283 351 8,719

Kampong Speu

2013 1,727 4,253,567

2014 1,820 5,362,610

2015 1,711 5,943,130 1,254,950 4,688,180 372 12,588

Kampong Speu-

Non-SKPA

2013 1,645 3,149,500

2014 1,790 4,143,500

2015 1,730 4,182,500 1,840,303 2,342,197 373 6,282

Kampong Speu-SKPA

2013 1,773 4,315,800

2014 1,837 5,440,887

2015 1,704 6,619,260 1,288,474 5,330,786 377 14,132

Confirel

2013 1,750 6,275,000

2014 1,830 7,566,000

2015 1,690 7,436,000 1,553,214 5,882,786 395 14,895

ALL

2013 2,052 4,990,277

2014 2,082 5,883,600

2015 1,997 6,488,251 1,784,519 4,703,732 393 11,962

Note: *person-working-day for climbing tree to collect sap plus person-working-day for processing



Table 44 Production Cost Analysis for 2015 Production ALL

Expenditures (Riel)

Bamboo Ladders (1) Wood-fire (2) TOTAL (1&2)

Riel

% of all expenditures

Riel % of all

expenditures % of

expenditures

Svay Rieng 787,447 128,000 16 236,050 30 46

Kampong Thom

4,258,226 528,600 12 2,725,000 64 76

Kampong Chhnang

1,695,717 418,000 25 746,000 44 69

Kampong Speu

1,254,950 83,172 31 515,333 41 72

Kampong Speu-Non-

SKPA 1,840,303 321,650 17 460,000 25 42

Kampong Speu-SKPA

1,288,474 433,244 34 623,667 48 82

Confirel 1,553,214 356,000 23 301,000 19 42

ALL 1,784,519 374,848 21 755,450 42 63

Overall Trends Over the past three years, respondents have not increased the overall palm sugar production. This production is hovering around 180 metric tons of palm sugar (see Table 45). However, powder sugar production has been increasing steadily from a total of almost 30 tons in 2013 to over 57 tons in 2015. Producers find that prices of powder sugar are more attractive than other types of sugar (past, bloc, or syrup). Table 45a Total Sugar Production from 2013-2015 by different types (kg) and group

Svay Rieng Kampong Kampong Chhnang Kampong Speu

2013

Powder 0 1,770 2,950 24,890

Paste 10,030 39,300 19,500 76,900

Bloc 7,200 60 0 1,200

Syrup 0 0 0 600

TOTAL 17,230 41,670 22,450 103,590

2014

Powder 0 1,345 830 35,548

Paste 10,230 36,300 22,100 71,950

Bloc 6,400 1,200 0 1,100

Syru 0 0 0 600

TOTAL 16,630 38,845 22,930 109,198

2015

Powde 678 2,160 1,310 53,262

Paste 11,150 34,200 20,100 47,300

Bloc 6,200 1,600 0 1,320

Syru 0 0 0 750

TOTAL 18,028 37,960 21,410 102,632

Table 46b Total Sugar Production from 2013-2015 by different types (kg) and group



Non-KSPA KSPA Confirel-Organic ALL

2013

Powder 0 11,890 13,000 29,610

Paste 32,300 40,100 4,500 145,730

Bloc 0 1,200 0 9,000

Syrup 600 0 0 600

TOTAL 32,900 53,190 17,500 184,940

2014

Powder 0 18,248 17,300 37,723

Paste 34,800 36,150 1,000 140,580

Bloc 400 700 0 8,700

Syru 600 0 0 600

TOTAL 35,800 55,098 18,300 187,603

2015

Powde 0 36,362 16,900 57,410

Paste 33,500 13,800 0 112,750

Bloc 500 820 0 9,120

Syru 600 150 0 750

TOTAL 34,600 51,132 16,900 180,030



Table 47a Average Sugar Production from 2013-2015 by different types (kg) and group

Svay Rieng Kampong

Thom Kampong Chhnang

Kampong Speu

2013

Powder 0 177 295 415

Paste 1,003 3,930 1,950 1,282

Bloc 720 60 0 20

Syrup 0 0 0 10

TOTAL 1.723 4,176 2,245 1,727

2014

Powder 0 135 83 592

Paste 1,023 3,630 2,210 1,199

Bloc 640 120 0 18

Syrup 0 0 0 10

TOTAL 1,663 3,885 2,293 1,820

2015

Powder 67 216 131 888

Paste 1,115 3,420 2,010 788

Bloc 620 160 0 22

Syrup 0 0 0 13

TOAL 1,803 3,796 2,141 1,711

Table 48b Average Sugar Production from 2013-2015 by different types (kg) and group

Non-KSPA KSPA Confirel-Organic ALL

2013

Powder 0 396 1,300 329

Paste 1,615 1,337 450 1,619

Bloc 0 40 0 100

Syrup 30 0 0 7

TOTAL 1,645 1,773 1,750 2,055

2014

Powder 0 608 1,730 419

Paste 1,740 1,205 100 1,562

Bloc 20 23 0 97

Syrup 30 0 0 7

TOTAL 1,790 1,837 1,830 2,084

2015

Powder 0 1,212 1,690 638

Paste 1,675 460 0 1,253

Bloc 25 27 0 102

Syrup 30 5 0 8

TOAL 1,730 1,704 1,690 2,000

Suggestions by Respondents The main concern of respondents is price. They perceive that the price they receive is not sufficiently high for this value chain to continue expanding and attract new labor (see Table 49).



In comparison to this, other suggestions to improve technical knowledge, establish a company to sell palm sap, improvement in cook stove and price of wood fire are considered less important. Table 49 Suggestions by Respondents

Suggestions (n=90) No. %

The price of sugar should be higher 90 100

Need technical assistance 20 22

Want to have a company to sell palm sap 16 18

Need an improved cook stove 12 13

Price of wood-fire should be cheaper 3 3

They should not pay to local authorities when collecting wood-fire from forest 2 2

Fuel can replace wood-fire 1 1

Challenges and Solutions Respondents have indicated a number of challenges for future development of the value chain and in some cases they have proposed solutions as follows: Labor saving technologies:

Stirring sugar is hard work and takes considerable time. The suggestion is to have an electric motor to replace labor’ force

Drying power sugar takes 3-4 hours, need people and large space. Even it is not a heavy work but it takes long time and depends on the sunlight. Dryer should be a one option.

Climbing tree is constrained by shortage of labor. Tree climbers are becoming older as younger generations migrate to the city for more remunerative jobs. Labor saving technologies in climbing the trees should be found. Making connections among trees saves the time of climbing and in the case of Kampong Thom it is not unusual that 4-5 trees are connected. But also other solutions could be possible if palm tree growing would be started as an intensive crop.

Bamboo ladders are becoming more expensive and their quality become poorer (they need to be replace only after 1 year of use).

Improving safety: Although few in younger generations want to continue the climbing practice of their fathers, parents do not allow because it is dangerous and can make a little money Summary Palm sugar making is a traditional activity in Cambodia. Over the past 10 years, there have been some new developments within the industry stimulated by the demand of companies for powder palm sugar. The traditional forms of palm sugar (paste, cake and syrup) continue to exist, but the powder sugar seems to be growing at high rate. Technology of climbing trees has hardly changed over time. This is a hard and dangerous job. The return to labor is very modest and not attractive to younger generations. Mechanization of tree



climbing is possible but not economical in a context where trees are sparse and there is no palm sugar crop production system. In processing, the production of sugar powder at the household level has been introduced not only in Kampong Speu but also in other provinces, both provinces contiguous to Kampong Speu (eg Kampong Thom, Kampong Chhang), but also further out provinces like Svay Rieng. Training by NGOs and the introduction of an improved cook stove have contributed to the growing production of sugar powder.

Most processing however is still largely manual. Cook stoves are fed mostly by woodfire which is collected by the forest; stirring of the palm sap in the boiling vats is done by hand; elimination of foreign matters sieving is done by hand; drying is done by sun.

The result is a considerable amount of labor that is used in palm sugar production. Over one season, a typical household will use 393 person day with the result that return to labor is low and less than in major crops such as rice, maize, cassava, and vegetables.

Simple and probably cost efficient innovations could be introduced such as gas cooking, automatic stirrup and sieving, electric drying which could cut the labor in processing by a factor of 80% The improvements in processing would be rather straightforward. More difficult would be improvement in climbing technology. The major change would be to transform palm tree production into a crop production through the following:

Use high density palm tree (example 150-175tree per ha)

Improve breeding of tree to ensure shorter productive period (instead of 15 years have 8 years) and higher yield (from 70 kg of sugar to 100 kg of sugar per tree and per season)

Introduce mechanization to climb the tree (cost effective only in a plantation system)



FINDINGS FROM PALM SUGAR COMPANIES

General Information The Consultant identified seven companies involved in palm sugar: Confirel, Kata, Sovannak, Bright Starling, CEDAC, Farmlink and Gold Palm Sugar. It is not clear if other companies are doing this business, but if there are, they must be either start-ups or very small. The study was able to meet with only six amongst these seven. Farmlink in Kampot Province was not available for the interview. Among these six companies, five are located in Phnom Penh and Gold Palm Sugar is located in Kampong Thom Province (see Table 50). Confirel was the first company to do business on palm sugar. It was established in 2001 and started business on palm sugar in 2005. It was followed by CEDAC which was established in 2004 and started business on palm sugar in 2006. The other companies were more recently established: Bright Starling and Sovannak started business palm sugar in 2013 and Gold Palm Sugar and Kata started in 2015 (see Table 50). Table 50 Year of Establishment of Companies and Starting year with Palm Sugar

Confirel Sovannak

Bright Starling

CEDAC Gold Palm

Sugar Kata

Location Phnom Penh

Phnom Penh

Phnom Penh

Phnom Penh

Kampong Thom

Phnom Penh

Year Established

2001 2014 2010 2004 2003 2012

Year started with Sugar

2005 2013 2013 2006 2015 2015

Year became a member of KSPA

2009 Not a

member Not a

member 2010

Not a member

2014

In the following sections of this chapter, we will refer to the companies with codes (eg A, B, C, …) in order to protect the confidentiality of data of the respondents. Five among six companies are selling more than one product; the exception being company C which is specialized in palm sugar. Company A and D derive a large part of their income from pepper. Company C and F makes a major incomes from palm sugar, while company E makes a major incomes from vegetable and other ingredient. Company B makes incomes from palm sugar, organic fertilizer and milled-rice. Among the six companies, Company A and B have exported palm sugar directly, while Company C sold sugar to buyers overseas and these buyers organized the shipping. Company E has been selling agricultural products for a long time and palm sugar is a small part of its business; however the company has planned to increase local sale volume and export directly starting from 2016. So far, Company E has sold powder sugar to Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City and sent product there through bus (Table 51).



Table 51 Percentage of Company Income derived from various Products

Company Palm Sugar

Pepper Milled

Rice Vegetables and Fruit

Others: ingredient, beverage,

inputs

A 10 50 40

B NA NA NA NA NA

C 100

D 15 80 5

E 5 5 25 30 35

F 70 30

Confirel is a vice president, Kata is a committee member and CEDAC is an ordinary member of the Association for the Promotion of Kampong Speu Palm Sugar (KSPA) and they became a member since the KSPA formed except Kata which became a committee member in 2014. The reasons they wanted to become a member of KSPA are to buy powder sugar, receive GI status, and produce organic sugar. Some companies have made contract farming arrangement either with members of KSPA or with Kampong Speu Palm Tree Agricultural Cooperative (Kampatraco). Kampatraco was formed by KSPA and some members of KSPA are members of Kampatraco as well. Kampatraco was established to promote KSPA and find markets for palm sugar. Its policy is that all companies should buy sugar from Kampatraco. The role of Kampatraco is to buy sugar from members of KSPA, make contract farming arrangements with companies purchasing sugar and give some benefit back to KSPA. When Confirel purchased organic sugar from member of KSPA, Confirel had to give 200Riel/kg as extra to KSPA. Kampatraco also has to give 200Riel/kg as extra to KSPA so that the price of sugar bought from Kampatraco was a bit higher. According to the leadership of Kampatraco, the cooperative has received orders for about 400 tons of powder sugar for 2016. Palm sugar is a natural product made by small household in rural area that is now showing potential for exports. More and more companies and NGOs are interested in the sector both for business purposes and development of productive employment in rural areas.

Contract Farming

Four out of six companies have made contract farming arrangements either with members of KSPA or Kampatraco (Table 52). Company A has made contract farming arrangements directly with group of organic palm sugar producers who are member of KSPA; Company B and C have made a contract with Kampatraco and Company E has made a contract with both member of KSPA and Kampatraco. Before 2014, Company E made a contract directly only with members of KSPA and its contract was informal without any paper document signed. In 2015, members of KSPA who had supplied sugar to Company E in the past could not meet the order because several members of their group had moved to work in industrial factories. To deal with it, Company E



made a contract with Kampatraco for powder sugar and also made a contract directly with members of KSPA for paste sugar; however the amount that Kampatraco could supply was much less than required. Table 52 Contract Farming Features

Company Contract Farming

Year started

Type of Sugar Remarks

A Yes 2005 Organic sugar Only with members of

KSPA

B Yes 2015 GI powder With Kampatraco

C Yes 2014 GI powder With Kampatraco

D No

E Yes GI powder and

paste sugar With Kampatraco and

members of KSPA

F No

In the contract farming arrangement with Kampatraco, Company B provided 30% of total money 30 days in advance. Company E provided little money in advance to members of KSPA and without any interest rate, while Company A and C do not provide any money in advance. The quality indicators that companies check when buying palm sugar include moisture content, color, hygiene, brix, smell and chemical substance. Almost all company check quality visually; only Company C reported that it tested a few samples in the lab. Irrespective of whether there is a written contract or not, companies report that they only buy good quality products. Five amongst six companies do not intend to invest in production except Company A. However, four amongst the six companies intend to establish processing units in rural area to expand their business, increase production, create job and increase incomes for the community. Company D does not intend to establish processing unit because the company focuses mostly on pepper and its market for sugar is still very limited.

Buying and Collection

Table 53 Source of Palm Sugar

Company Organic Powder

GI Powder

GI Paste Ordinary Powder

Ordinary Paste

Ordinary Bloc

A Kampong

Speu Kampong

Speu

B Kampong

Speu

C Kampong

Speu

Kampong Chhnang

D Kampong

Speu



E Kampong

Speu Kampong

Speu

F Kampong

Thom

- Kampong Thom

- Pursat

Kampong Thom

Five companies have been purchasing 100% of palm sugar either from Kampatraco or members of KSPA in Kampong Speu Province. Company A, B, D, and E have bought only in Kampong Speu Province for these last few years. Company C has bought sugar from Kampong Speu and Kampong Chhnang Province. In 2013 and 2014, it bought 100% and 80% from Kampong Chhnang Province, respectively, because there was a collaborative project there. In 2015, it bought 40% from Kampong Chhnang Province and 60% from Kampong Speu Province. Company F has bought sugar from Kampong Thom Province and Pursat Province where 100% of powder sugar bought from Kampong Thom Province and 20% of paste sugar from Pursat Province (Table 53). Table 54 Proportion of Palm Sugar obtained from different Suppliers

Co. Products

2013 2014 2015

% from member of KSPA

% from Kampa traco

% from

Others


% from Kampa traco

% from

Others


% from Kampa traco

% from

Others

A

Organic Powder

100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0

GI Powder

0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0

B GI Powder

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0

C

GI Powder

0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 0

Ordinary Powder

0 0 100 100 0 100 100 0 100

D GI Powder

0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0

E

GI Powder

100 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0

GI Paste 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0

F

Ordinary Powder

0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100

Ordinary Paste

0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100

Bloc 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100

Table 54 showed that Company A bought organic sugar directly from members of KSPA and GI sugar was bought directly from Kampatraco. Company D bought 400kg of GI powder sugar from Kampatraco in 2014. Company C started buying sugar from the Kampatraco in 2014, however it still has purchased ordinary powder sugar in Kampong Chhnang Province. Company E also started buying powder sugar directly from the Kampatraco in 2015. Company B is purchasing sugar from the Kampatraco.



Table 55 Amount of different powder sugar purchased (Ton)

Co.

2013 2014 2015

Organic

GI powd

er -

Kampa

traco

GI powd

er-member of KSPA

Ordinary

powder from others

Organic

GI powd

er -

Kampa

traco

GI powd

er-member of KSPA

Ordinary

powder from others

Organic

GI powd

er -

Kampa

traco

GI powd

er-member of KSPA

Ordinary

powder from others

A NA NA NA NA 45 5 0 0 80 15 0 0

B 0 0 0 8.5 0 3.6 0 10.8 0 5.7 0 3.7

C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0

D 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0

E 0 0 3 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 1.5 0 0

F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

TOTAL

30* NA 3

8.5 45 9 2.5

10.8 80 53.2 0

4.7

Note. Organic purchases in 2013 are estimated at 30 tons by the authors. Table 55 showed that the amount of organic sugar purchased by Company A almost doubled from an estimated 30 tons in 2013 to 45 tons in 2014 and reached 80 tons in 2015. Total amount of GI powder sugar bought from Kampatraco also rocketed from 9 tons in 2014 to 53.2 tons in 2015. On the other hand the GI powder sugar volume that Company E bought directly from members of the KSPA decreased from 3 tons in 2013 to 2.5 tons in 2014 and zero ton in 2015. In case of Company B, in 2013 it bought 8.5 tons of ordinary powder sugar from Kampong Chhnang Province, in 2014 it bought 10.8 tons and 3.6 tons from Kampong Chhnang Province and Kampatraco, respectively, and in 2015 it bought 3.7 tons and 5.7 tons from Kampong Chhnang and Kampatraco, respectively.

Figure 21 below shows that the amount of powder sugar (organic and GI powder sugar) bought in Kampong Speu either from Kampatraco or directly from members of KSPA increased tremendously from an estimated 33 tons in 2013 to 56.5 tons in 2014 and reached 133.2 tons in 2015. Amount of powder sugar purchased from other provinces tended to decrease. It was 8.5 tons in 2013 and increased to 10.8 tons in 2014 but decreased to 4.7 tons in 2015. The line representative for sugar purchased from Kampong Speu Province-KSPA has moved closer to line of total amount of powder sugar purchased by all companies interviewed. This may show that KSPA and Kampatraco has performed its activities well and tend to become a main supplier for all companies.



Figure 21 Comparison powder sugar purchased in Kg Speu and other provinces

Table 56 Proportion of Powder Sugar purchased by Month (%)

Co. Jan Feb Mar Apr May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

A 18 18 18 18 18 5 5

B 20 20 30 15 10 0 5

C 25 25 25 25 0 0 0

D 5 20 25 25 15 10 0

E 10 20 25 25 15 0 5

F NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Average

15.6

20.6

24.6

21.6

11.6 3 3

Figure 22 below shows that the amount of sugar purchased in December is very little and increases gradually till the highest volume at 24.6% in March and then decreases gradually to 21.6% in April to 11.6% and 3% in May and June, respectively. This matches with similar pattern of production of farmers (see section 0).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2013 2014 2015

Amount of Palm Sugar Powder Bought by Companies (tons)

From KSPA

From Others

TOTAL



Figure 22 Proportion of powder sugar purchased by month (%)

Organic Certification is provided by Ecocert S.A which makes a yearly audit and is quite expensive. Ecocert is specialized in the certification of organic agricultural products and for exporting agricultural products from Cambodia, certification from Ecocert is needed. GI is released by the Ministry of Commerce (MoC) but the GI product is certified by Ecocert and it costs 5,000 USD per year. For the year of 2015 and 2016, fee for GI product certification is paid by donors and MoC, Kampatraco said. The quality indicators that the companies check before getting sugar from members of KSPA or Kampatraco are moisture content, color, hygiene, brix, smell and chemical substance. The checks are made visually except Company B which got few samples analyzed in lab. Based on the contract farming, only good quality sugar was accepted by five companies, while once gave 200Riel/kg as premium for good quality product.

Companies making contract farming arrangements with Kampatraco do not send technical staff to check producers’ performance because they confident that the cooperative will make the necessary checks. On the other, companies do send their own staff or assign a key group leader to make checks when making contracts with member of KSPA. However, during the harvest season companies’ staff always go and collect sugar so at the time they check quality. Five companies pay cash upon taking deliveries; in some cases, the payment is delayed by a few days. Once gave 30% and 30 days in advance. Among companies interviewed, Confirel has provided technical assistance like training courses and improved cook stove to community. The remaining companies rely on KSPA and thought that producers had been well trained by KSPA. Table 57 Proportion of different Types of Sugar purchased (kg) and its Price (Riel/kg)

Co. Products 2013 2014 2015

Kg

Price (Riel/kg)

Kg Price

(Riel/kg) Kg

Price (Riel/kg)

http://www.ecocert.com/en/what-organic-agricultural-product



A

Organic Powder

NA NA 45,000 NA 80,000 NA

GI Powder NA NA 5,000 NA 15,000 NA

B GI Powder 31,000 5,000

C

GI Powder 3,600 5,000 5,700 5,200

Ordinary Powder

8,500 4,600 10,800 4,800 3,700 5,000

D GI Powder 400 5,000

E GI Powder 3,000 4,300 2,500 4,500 1,500 5,000

GI Paste 3,500 2,800 3,500 3,100 3,500 3,100

F

Ordinary Powder

1,000 10,000

Ordinary Paste

5,000 4,000

Bloc 100 5,000

The price of organic powder sugar purchased from members of KSPA was not told by the Company because it was confidential but producers said the price was 4,000Riel/kg in 2013, 4,200Riel/kg in 2014 and 4,400Riel/kg in 2015. The price of GI powder sugar was the same as the price of organic powder sugar; however from 2016 KSPA and Kampatraco will differentiate the price between organic powder and GI powder sugar. Although some companies bought powder sugar directly from the members of KSPA, they had to pay 200Riel/kg as extra to the KSPA. Kampatraco also has to pay 200Riel/kg as extra to KSPA. The price of GI powder sugar bought from Kampatraco was 5,000Riel/kg and 5,200Riel/kg in 2014 and 2015, respectively. The price of GI paste sugar bought directly from members of KSPA was 3,100Riel/kg. It was strange that once company bought an ordinary powder sugar in Kampong Thom Province at the price of 10,000Riel/kg, paste sugar was 4,000Riel/kg and bloc was 5,000Riel/kg. Comparing with the price of GI powder sugar in Kampong Speu, it was double. The Company said that it wanted to promote local products and increase incomes to producers there. However, next year it has a plan to buy sugar from KSPA as well.

Figure 23 also showed that price of sugar increased gradually from year to year. The price of GI sugar in Kampong Speu and ordinary powder sugar in Kampong Chhnang is not significantly different; however the price of organic powder sugar in Kampong Speu Province looked very low because Confirel bought directly from members of KSPA and just paid 200Riel/kg as extra to KSPA. It was strange that price of ordinary powder sugar in Kampong Thom Province was very high, 10,000Riel/kg.



Figure 23 Comparison price of different powder sugar by province

Re-Processing or Refining

Only Confirel makes many products from sugar such as candy, wine, vinegar, spirit, and sauce. All remaining five companies had checked moisture content and hygiene before sale and some companies also re-dry powder sugar before sale.

Marketing and Exporting Companies use plastic bag for powder sugar and plastic container for paste sugar. However, baskets made from palm leave are also used by Bright Starling. Gold Palm Sugar has been using plastic bag, ordered from China, Thailand and Vietnam but it is costly (about 50% of retails price). For example, one company mentioned that the price of the packaging is 50% of the farmer price of sugar. Table 58 shows that 34.9 tons, accounting for 25% of all types of powder sugar sold locally and 103 tons, accounting for 75% of the total, was exported. Although the export percentage is high, the volume is still very little. Two among four companies exported mostly with 71 and 31tons. Table 58 Powder sugar sold in 2015 by company

Local sale Export) REMARKS

Company (%) (Ton) (%) (Ton)

A 25 23.75

75 71.25 Organic and GI powder

sugar

B 0 0 100 31 GI powder sugar

C 90 8.8 10 0.6

The buyers in oversee contact with a shipping company to ship sugar there. Sovannak does not involve in



shipping. But this year, it plans to export directly.

D 90 1.35 10 0.15

Sold to Vietnamese in Hi Chi Minh. CEDAC sent sugar there through Bus and the price was the same as local sale. This year, CEDAC plans to export formally directly.

E 100 1 0 0

TOTAL 34.9 103

For local sale, 90% of sugar was sold in Phnom Penh and 10% in Provinces. Most of sugar was sold in Supermarkets in Phnom Penh and little was sold in Provinces like Siep Reap and Kampot Province. It is believed that buyers include upper income class and foreign buyers. Table 59 Share of local sale

Company Phnom Penh (%)

Provinces (%) REMARKS

A NA NA

B 0 0

C 80 20

D 30 60 Kampot and Siem Reap

E 100

F 90 10 Sold in supermarkets in Phnom Penh and 1 supermarket in Siem Reap Province

The price of local sale depends very much on target clients and the packaging. In the case of Company C, its target clients are foreigners and packaging material is nice but costly: the price of powder sugar was 15 USD per kg. Company E used good packaging material imported from China, Thailand and Vietnam, so the price of powder sugar was 7.5 USD/kg. It was noted that the price of ordinary powder sugar and GI powder sugar is the same, 2.2 USD/kg.

Table 60 Average price of sugar for local sale (USD/kg)

Co. Products 2013 2014 2015 REMARKS

A Organic Powder NA NA NA

GI Powder NA NA NA

B GI Powder 2.2 2.2 The price is the same GI and

Non-GI because the buyers do not know and care about GI

Ordinary Powder 2 2.2 2.2

C GI Powder 15 15

Good plastic bag and covered by smock outside. The clients of Starling are foreigners. Starling bought 400kg of powder sugar in 2014 and till now it has not finished yet.

D GI Powder 2.5 2.75 2.75 Ordinary Plastic bag is used

GI Paste 1.5 1.5 1.5



E

Ordinary Powder 7.5 Plastic bag designed and imported from China, Thailand. One bag contains 200g and 500g of sugar.

Ordinary Paste 1.9 Plastic container is used

Bloc 2.25

Table 61 Average price of powder sugar for export (USD/kg)

Products

2013 2014 2015 Country

Co. Q P Q P Q P Q= Ton, P= $/kg

A

Organic Powder

NA NA NA NA NA NA To EU, USA, Japan, Taiwan, Korea. ASEAN Countries

GI Powder

NA NA NA NA NA NA

B GI Powder

31 1,375 To Korea

C Ordinary Powder

0.8 3,000 0.9 2,250 0.6 3,000

85% to Hong Kong and the rest to Taiwan. The buyers contact shipping company to ship products there.

D GI Powder

0.25 2,750 0.15 2,750 To Vietnam by Bus

Table 62 Comparison buying price and exporting price in 2015

Company Product Buying value

($/T) Exporting value

($/T) Gross benefits

($/T)

A

Organic Powder

NA NA

GI Powder NA NA

B GI Powder 1,250 1,375 125

C Ordinary Powder

1,250 3,000 1,750

D GI Powder 1,250 2,750 1,500

All companies expected that amount of powder sugar for export will increase. Company A has confident that it may export 300tons per year in next 5 years. Company C and D also expect that in next 5 years, it may export 200 to 250 tons per year and the volume will increase gradually. Suggestions and Others

Companies made several suggestions and interventions for the Government:



- Provide training courses on quality control and production technique to producers - Establish palm sugar cooperative/association to expand production in other

provinces - Promote more GI sugar in Kampong Speu Province because GI now still seems to be

very new - Strengthen KSPA and provide loan for members of KSPA - Improve cook stove and materials used - Promote companies for export, reduce expenditures for export - Help companies to find exporting markets - Send companies to attend expo.

Summary The survey of companies indicates a small industry in terms of size and number of participants. Even though the exports are growing, they are within a 140 tons for palm sugar, and this include exports of different companies. Only Company A has established contract farming arrangements to produce organic sugar. Other companies’ supplies are mostly of GI sugar supplied by the cooperative in Kampong Speu Exports are in response to buyers’ demand and there is no active marketing strategy. Some companies are involved in training of farmers and quality control, but overall the companies are not very active in processing or production; they limit their role primarily to packaging, quality control, and trading.



CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Over the past 15 years, the palm sugar industry in Cambodia has been successful in building upon a commodity that has been traditionally used as a main ingredient in the cuisine of Cambodia and identifying a product - palm sugar powder - with potential for export and attractive to foreign buyers for its healthy attributes and its organic mode of production. The Government has been responsive to this new trend and has established a geographic indication with the aim of promoting this product. Companies and NGOs have been involved in training of producers and certification of organic production. Overall, however, the sector remains still very traditional. Most operations, from climbing to processing are done manually, and the return to labor of farmers is low, even in comparison with other mainstream sectors like rice, maize, cassava, and vegetables. The major constraint to the expansion of the sector is the supply of palm sugar sap. The sap is currently obtained by farmers climbing the tree, an operation that is dangerous and requires considerable labor during the 6 months of production. Given the low return to labor, it is doubtful that a serious increase in demand (from currently 140 tons to say above 1000 tons) could be met with the traditional system. Farmers complain about low prices. Indeed farmer prices could be raised and volume increased without any substantial detriment to the industry. However, there are fundamental technological constraints that, unless resolved, will limit the commercialization and expansion of the sector. One set of problems is related to processing and another set of problems is related to sap production. The case of processing is easier to resolve. Simple equipment to process sap could be introduced to reduce the labor requirements and improve productivity and quality. However, the supply of sap is the major. Unless palm sugar is cultivated as a crop, it is doubtful that the sector can expand much beyond the thousand tons volume per year. In the case of sugar palm plantations, the production could be organized and mechanized and move to a commercial level (several thousand or tens of thousands of tons). For the sector to have a major expansion it requires long-term investment by the government in the production basis. The fundamental change is the introduction of sugar palm as a crop. That will require the establishment of nurseries and the cultivation of sugar palm on an intensive basis, for example 150 to 200 trees/ha. The establishment of nurseries should also be accompanied by an effort in research and extension on varieties that are high yielding, with shorter times to maturity, and with higher sugar content. At the same time, extension on improved crop husbandry, including management of pests and diseases and water use management.



The following matrix summarizes the main recommendations, the role of public and private sector, and the time frame (short-term, medium term, and long term). Table 63 Recommendation Matrix

Stage of value chain

Recommendation Key Actors Term

Input to production

Establishment of nurseries GDA

Short-term

Development or importation of high yielding varieties with shorter maturity

GDA Short-term

Study on soil and water use management

GDA, CARDI Short-term

Production Demonstration farms GDA Short-term

Improved system for collection of sap

GDA Short-term

Improved methods of sap collection, with possible use of mechanization

GDA Medium-term

Promotion of crop cultivation GDA innovation fund to private companies/farmers

Medium-term

Processing Identification of organic substitute of popel

GDA, CARDI Short-term

Improved stove using gas or electricity

GDA and investment fund to promote private sector innovations

Short-term

Mechanized system for stirring and sieving

GDA and investment fund to promote private sector innovations

Short-term

Product development GDA and investment fund to promote private sector innovations

Short-term

Trade and Marketing

Improved packaging MOI and innovation fund to promote private sector innovation

Short-term

Brand recognition (differentiation from coconut palm sugar)

MOC Medium-term

Business to consumer platforms for organic products trade

MOC Short-term

Participation in trade fair for organic products

MOC Short-term

Research on health and nutrition effects of palm sugar

MOH Short-term



Organic certification MAFF and MOC Short-term

REFERENCES CIRD 2010. Book of Specifications of Kampot Palm Sugar, Cambodian Insitute for Research and Rural Development, Accessed 15 June 2015, http://www.cird.org.kh/files/Book%20of%20specification%20of%20Kampong%20Speu%20palm%20sugar_English.pdf International Association for Stevia Research 2004, World Market of Sugar and Sweeteners Markets and Markets 2015 Sugar Substitutes Market worth $14,355.0 Million by 2019, Accessed 23 June 2015 at http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/sugar-substitute.asp MOC and MAFF 2010 Protected Geographical Indications in Cambodia USDA/FAS 2015 Sugar: World Markets and Trade, United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service

http://www.cird.org.kh/files/Book%20of%20specification%20of%20Kampong%20Speu%20palm%20sugar_English.pdf

http://www.cird.org.kh/files/Book%20of%20specification%20of%20Kampong%20Speu%20palm%20sugar_English.pdf

http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/sugar-substitute.asp

http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/sugar-substitute.asp



ANNEX 1 COCONUT PALM SUGAR GLYCEMIC INDEX Source: http://coconutpalmsugar.com/Glycemic_Index_Explained.html Coconut palm sugar has a glycemix inded (GIX) of 35. The Philippine Food and Nutrition Research Institute used the following procedure to determine the Glycemix Index (GI) value of coconut palm sugar:

Fifty grams (240 ml) standard glucose tolerance test beverage (Medic Orange 50, Product no. 089) and fifty (50) grams of coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) sugar was fed in random order to ten (10) human subjects.

Blood samples (0.3-0.4 ml) were collected after feeding through finger prick using a 7ml Vacutainer at zero (0) hour, and thereafter at every 15 min interval for 1 hour, and every 30 min or the next hour.

The serum was separated from the blood using a refrigerated Effendorf centrifuge, and analyzed for glucose levels on the same day using a Clinical Chemistry Analyzer after calibration with the glucose standard (Glucofix Reagent1: Menarini Diagnostics, Firenze, Italy).

The blood sugar levels of the ten (10) healthy human subjects given coconut palm sugar and reference glucose food samples were graphed against the time of study. The incremental area under the glucose response curve (IAUC) of the coconut palm sugar was calculated geometrically ignoring the area below the fasting level (Wolever et al.,1991). The Glycemic Index (GI) of the coconut palm sugar was calculated as GI = IAUC of the test food / IAUC of standard glucose multiplied by 100. It’s index value is 35.

Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load: Glycemic Index takes into account the quality of the carbohydrate in a food and ignores its quantity. A glycemic index value therefore tells us only how rapidly a particular carbohydrate turns into sugar. It doesn’t tell how much of that carbohydrate is in a serving of a particular food. Both the things are important to understand a food’s effect on blood sugar. Glycemic load considers the quality and the quantity of carbohydrate content of the foods. The following table gives a values for low, medium and high glycemic load for foods.

Low GI = 55 or less

Medium GI = 56 - 69

High GI = 70 or more *Values are with reference to Glucose. Foods that have a low glycemic index invariably have a low glycemic load, while foods with an intermediate or high glycemic index range from very low to very high glycemic load. Therefore, you can reduce the glycemic load of your diet by limiting foods that have both a high glycemic index and a high carbohydrate content.

http://coconutpalmsugar.com/Glycemic_Index_Explained.html



According to Dr. Trinidad, a scientist from the Food and Nutrition Research Institute - Department of Science and Technology the Glycemic Index (GI) is the glucose response of an individual from food relative to a standard glucose solution. Low G I food is good for proper control and management of diabetes mellitus (type II diabetes) and has been shown to lower total and LDL cholesterol. It is also good for weight maintenance therefore prevents overweight and obesity. Their findings indicate the glycemic index of 35 for pure coconut palm sugar. Please note that some coconut palm sugar on the market, in particular palm sugar from Thailand, is also mixed with cane sugar and other malt based ingredients. The glycemic index value alone does not give accurate picture of the food. The glycemic load (GL) takes both the things into account. The glycemic load is the glycemic index divided by 100 multiplied by its available carbohydrate content. The glycemic load of coconut palm sugar is 1.4, or 1 when rounded off.

preface - elibrary.ttri.edu.khelibrary.ttri.edu.kh/resources/files/public/2003-palm sugar.pdf ·...

Documents