Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts

Friday, November 29, 2019

Low farm incomes is killing agriculture



French farmers drove to Paris to protest low farm incomes -- Al Jazeera photo

A New York farmer, who also works as a lawyer, tweeted this the other day: “Headed home, I tried to work in the law office today, but my head is full of the disasters I am seeing on the dairy farms and in rural areas. Even long time farmers in my area are trying to sell land to save the rest of the farm. Where is this headed? I don't know.” Well, if such a deepening farm crisis should dominate one of the most productive agricultural systems in the world, it’s time to pause and rethink.

The question that needs to be asked is whether the US agricultural policy is deliberately aimed at decimating the farm sector? And in that sense whether Indian agriculture too is intentionally (or unintentionally) moving in that direction? To say that the landholdings in India are too small to be economically viable is understandable but why is that even in the United States, where the average farm size is 444 acres, small family farms should be on way out? Why is that in Australia, where the average farm size is 4,331 hectares, should agriculture become unviable? Going by the economy of scale there seems to be no plausible reason why farmers in America and for that matter in Australia should be quitting farming. If small holdings are unviable how come even large holdings are becoming uneconomical, unless of course policy makers refuse to admit that farmers everywhere in the world, not only in India, are being denied real time prices, depriving them of their rightful income.   

First of all, let’s be clear. The US has always been for pushing small farmers out of agriculture. Look at it, even at a time when US agriculture is passing through turbulent times, the American Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue unabashedly acknowledges: “In America, the big get bigger and the small go out.” This echoes what a former US Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz, who served under President Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, had famously said: “Get big or get out.” This was followed by a cleverly drafted narrative of “feeding the world”, pushing farmers to produce large surpluses that actually dipped prices. Such a deliberate policy has left US small farmers struggling. Many of them are going out of business and quitting agriculture in desperation.

The policy to get big serves as an invitation for an increasing corporate control over agriculture, which is also becoming an unwritten policy for the developing world to follow. In addition, whether it is the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) treaty, trade policies have been very conveniently tweaked to provide an enabling environment for big agribusiness giants to step in. As competitiveness became the market mantra, developing as well as least developing countries are being increasingly forced to open up for cheaper agricultural products, thereby displacing millions of small farmers in the bargain.

To illustrate, the biggest dairy farm in China is spread over 22,500,000 acres, an area equal to that of Portugal. According to worldatlas.com, this farm houses around 100,000 cows. The second biggest dairy farm, spread over 11,000,000 acres, is also in China. The remaining eight of the top ten big dairy farms are situated in Australia, which despite the size are under stress. No wonder, the push for seeking an unfettered access into India through the regional mega RCEP treaty, which India has for the time rightly decided to stay out. Considering that 10 million people are involved in dairying in India, imagine the destruction of livelihoods from cheaper dairy imports from Australia, New Zealand and China.     

Returning back to agriculture, rural America, like rural India, is faced with a severe agrarian crisis. Like in India, where the average income of farming families in 17 states, which is roughly half the country, stands at a paltry Rs 20,000 a year, the US agriculture is not doing good either. More than half of US farmers have a negative income. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, 91 percent farmers and farm workers face distress. Besides affecting their mental health, the severity of the crisis is such that 87 percent farmers fear they will have to abandon farming. Accordingly, farm debt in 2019 is expected to soar to $ 416 billion, the highest since 1980. For several decades, farm gate prices have remained frozen when adjusted for inflation. Prevailing onion prices for instance are no different from the prices farmers received 30 years back. Corn prices have remained static for almost five decades.

If such a worsening farm crisis is happening in a country which applies state-of-the-art technology in agriculture, and is often projected as an example to be followed by the rest of the world, isn’t it time to re-evaluate how inappropriate is the argument for pushing in more sophisticated technology (often unwanted) in Indian agriculture? No one is against technology but it has to be relevant depending on the needs, and not pushed to simply benefit commercial interests. If in a country which is completely high-tech in agriculture, the suicides rate in rural areas is 45 per cent higher than in urban areas isn’t it time to redesign Indian agriculture, focusing more on sustaining small farms thereby reducing the rural urban migration? Shouldn’t the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare therefore embark on a fresh strategy to bring in policies tuned in more to domestic needs that make farming environmentally sustainable and economically viable?

An OECD-ICRIER study has shown that Indian farmers have been suffering a loss of 14 per cent every year in farm incomes for almost two decades, between 2000-01 and 2016-17.  This has largely benefitted the consumers who paid 25 per cent less for all agricultural commodities every year. In other words, it is the farmers who have been subsidising the country all these years. An outcome of the global economic design which aims to deliberately keep farm prices low, farmers’ anger is brewing across the world. As farm protests spill on the streets in Germany, Holland, Canada, America and India, the reason for growing farm anger was best summed up by Ian McLachlan, President of the National Farmers Federation of Australia, who had sometimes back while addressing a farmers rally said: “We’re sick and tired of subsidising the rest of Australia.” #

Farm tech bring pushed to benefit Corporates. The Tribune. Nov 30, 2019.

READ MORE - Low farm incomes is killing agriculture

Sunday, November 17, 2019

India stays out of RCEP treaty


15 members of RCEP --Wikipedia map

Soon after assuming office, when the US President Donald Trump withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) mega-trade agreement between 12 countries, which shared a common coastline on the Pacific and made up for 40 per cent of the global GDP, it came in for a lot of criticism. Terming it as a “horrible deal” President Trump was convinced that the treaty, which was meant to remove 18,000 tariffs on agricultural and manufactured goods, would steal American jobs.

Withdrawing from another mega-trade deal -- the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) -- which covers 45 per cent of the global population and accounts for 25 per cent of world’s GDP, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a statement a few days ago, said: “When I measure the RCEP Agreement with respect to the interests of all Indians, I do not get a positive answer. Therefore, neither the Talisman of Gandhiji nor my own conscious permits me to join RCEP.” Remarkable words, indeed. Again, like US President Trump, what perhaps weighed on Prime Minister’s mind were the massive job losses and livelihood destruction expected on removing tariffs on 92 per cent of the tradable goods, including manufacturing and agriculture.

At a time when the dominant economic thinking is swayed towards globalisation, a strong leader demonstrating political courage to withstand the tide is certainly admirable. More so, at a time when dominant economic thinking creates a fear of the unknown – how much the country will miss out by not being a part of the proposed free trade agreement (FTA), some term the phenomenon as Fear of Missing Out (FOMO), the Prime Minister’s assertion for fairness and balance is legitimate. Such a precautionary approach becomes absolutely essential knowing that in the past too India had entered into free trade agreements with 12 of these RCEP countries (including the 10-member ASEAN grouping) with the same illusion of finding an access into their markets only to register a whopping trade deficit of $ 107.28 billion. The assumption that getting into an RCEP agreement at this stage will further widen the trade deficit and hit agriculture the most therefore is not entirely unfounded.

Similarly, the over enthusiasm with which India went on signing Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) on the presumption that it will promote investments were in reality vague and without proper homework. As the number of arbitrations increased, India terminated 58 of these BITs.

Given this backdrop, it is quite obvious that the fear of unknown has been over-hyped. If the FTAs with the Asian countries were pushed in the search of penetrating important markets and participating in the value chains of East Asian economies, it didn’t work. To Illustrate, India’s trade deficit with the 10-member ASEAN, signed in 2010, has increased by 250 per cent. It is therefore quite obvious that the Indo-ASEAN Agreement was signed without any adequate assessment, no proper scrutiny and was perhaps based more on the unknown FOMO factor. Otherwise there is no reason that the exposure to 10 Asian countries markets should fail to provide any significant trade outcomes. It is therefore heartening to know that the Prime Minister has now called for a review of Indo-ASEAN trade agreement. In fact, not only Indo-ASEAN there is a dire need to review all the bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements that India has so far signed.

There are lessons in store. When the multilateral World trade Organisation (WTO) treaty came into effect, a lot of euphoria was generated. We were told that a multilateral trading system – based on one country one vote principle – would obliterate the need to get in cumbersome and time consuming bilateral agreements. But over the years, this was proved wrong with more than 300 bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) signed, which in principle were WTO plus treaties with stronger intellectual property rights (IPRs) and aggressive push to open up markets. Since most countries already are into bilateral agreements – with emphasis on zero tariff imports and removal of non-tariff barriers -- I fail to understand how any incremental growth can be expected from regional treaties where majority members are already having separate FTAs. Unless of course the new grouping includes a giant like China (with which India has a trade deficit of $ 53 billion) and countries like Australia and New Zealand (like in the RCEP) which desperately eye to get a foothold into India’s dairy (and farm sectors) to pull out their own dairy sector from distress.

The extra precaution with which India wants to engage with RCEP trade partners is therefore quite justified. Although the Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal lays out three conditions – strict rules of origin, updated base duty period, from 2014 to be moved to 2019, and auto-trigger mechanism – to be addressed before re-entering the RCEP negotiations, India’s decision making should be guided by more detailed studies and more open and transparent stakeholder dialogues. The Ministry of Commerce cannot be allowed to work in isolation, and needs to take other ministries on board. Reports saying that China was upset at India opening up issues like auto-trigger at times of volume surge, changing the base duty etc a few months before the treaty was being finalised raises questions over the competence of Indian negotiators. How come for seven years of RCEP negotiations, they failed to bring up these crucial issues that India is in any case fighting for in the ongoing Doha Development Round of WTO. 

Even during the earlier days of WTO negotiations, the promise of a drastic reduction in the monumental agricultural subsidies being provided by the richest trading block – the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – was projected to act like a ‘big bang’ for India’s farm exports. This was a gigantic mistake. Except for a jugglery in the way these agricultural subsidies were very conveniently shifted between the three boxes – green, amber and blue (in WTO parlance) – these subsidies have remained more or less intact. The 28-member EU provides $ 65 billion in farm subsidies, three times of what the US gives, and any quick effort to sign an FTA with these two giants must be carefully evaluated in the light of the damage it can inflict on India’s agriculture. Considering that 600 million people are engaged in agriculture, directly or indirectly, it is important to weigh the fallout on farm livelihoods before rejoicing over the market access an FTA provides. Nor can agriculture be sacrificed anymore for some gains in the services sector. Let’s treat Mahatma’s talisman as the preamble for any future trade negotiations. #


India holds its own. The Tribune. Nov 15, 2019
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/india-holds-its-own/860892.html?fbclid=IwAR1-S3eR9t3Fg4Lcn25eVXYWSVjqbnlcnwGRu9muy4aRpdp5McRabJCG8vU
READ MORE - India stays out of RCEP treaty