Showing posts with label banana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label banana. Show all posts

Thursday, December 23, 2021

Failure to get a fair price forces farmers to burn the produce.


Pic courtesy: National Herald

At a time when wholesale price inflation has touched the highest in three decades, there is distressing news on the farm front. Within a span of a week, three farmers have burned their standing crop or the harvested produce at three different locations across the country. The crops are different, but the reason for putting it on fire is the same – failure to get a fair price that covers the actual cost farmers had incurred in its cultivation.

On Dec 11, an angry Chakalu Venkateswarlu, hailing from Kurnool district in Andhra Pradesh, put on fire the 25 bags of onions (each weighing 50 kg) that he had brought to the Kurnool Agricultural Market Yard, when he found the best price being offered to him was Rs 500 per quintal (Rs 5 per kg). Realising that such a low price did not even cover his cost of production, transportation cost and the mandifee, the frustrated farmer preferred to sprinkle petrol on his produce and put it on fire.

Four days later, another farmer from Dhone mandal in Andhra Pradesh, put his 3 acres under banana plantation to fire when the prices in the wholesale market effectively crashed to Rs 2 to Rs 3 per kg. Mallikarjuna claims that he had spent about Rs 5 lakh in cultivating bananas, but when the prices fell so low at the time of third harvest, he felt defeated. All that he had earned from marketing his crop was not more than Rs 1.5 lakh. Out of exasperation therefore he was left with little choice but to burn the plantation.

In Madhya Pradesh, a couple of days later, an irate Shankar Sirfira, a farmer from Deoli, burnt 160 kg of garlic that he had brought to the Mandsaur market yard. In the video clip that went viral on the social media, he was heard saying that he had spent Rs 2.5-lakh on cultivating garlic but all he got in the market was Rs 1-lakh. This did not even cover the cost of cultivation. He said all he wanted from the government was to ensure a fair price to farmers.

The three painful incidents that I have highlighted above may appear to be isolated but are a reflection of the deeper agrarian distress that prevails. There are tens of thousands of farmers cultivating the same crops who are lashed with the same ferocious blow from markets but whose despair, dismay and hopelessness goes unrecorded. When prices crash, economists blame it on supply demand disequilibrium but fail to see the human suffering it unleashes. Not only in India but globally too, the volatility of the markets has destroyed livelihoods, and increasingly forced farmers to abandon farming, sell of their lands and migrate to the cities looking for menial jobs. 

This is no less than mayhem. Take the case of America, where the farm gate prices have been on a steady decline since 150 years thereby gradually pushing farmers out of agriculture. With a hollow disquiet prevailing in the countryside, not only have farm suicides increased but so has mental distress. In the US alone, from where we borrow the failed market reforms in agriculture, as many as 915,725 farm workers and their families are being treated for depression at the Migrant Health Centres that have been set up nationwide. This is happening at a time when hardly 1.5 per cent of the US population now remains in farming. While there may be complex reasons behind the mental health challenges that farmers and farm workers are faced with, fluctuating commodity prices remains on the top.  

But for policy planners and media especially business journalists’ mayhem occurs only when equity indices plunge, when stock markets ends at a lower level. This is how the economic design is cast. While a dominant section of the mainline economists rue the slide in stock markets, they spare no effort in welcoming the low farm prices that eventually leads to increased farm indebtedness, pushing more and more farmers to migrate to the urban centres.  

No wonder, the daggers are already out against any possible move to provide farmers with a guaranteed income by way of a legal sanctity for Minimum Support Price (MSP) for 23 crops for which the prices are announced every year. Some senior economists, who themselves get a guaranteed salary packet linked to inflation every month, are the ones to talk about the virtues of free markets for farmers, which they believe would lead to price discovery. Although I have earlier talked in these columns of how the markets in case of highly commercial products like chocolate and coffee have left millions of primary growers of cocoa beans and coffee bean in Africa and Latin America to live in misery, the case of banana value chains squeezing farmer’s income is no less of an eye-opener. A study shows for every Euro worth of purchase by European consumers, banana producers in Latin America, from where the fruit is imported, receive only 5 to 9 per cent of the end price.

It is the primary producers who play a strenuous role, working the hardest, and yet their share of income in the agricultural value chains is the lowest, not even covering the cost of production. And let’s not forget. For the three commercially important crops – coffee beans, banana and cocoa beans – there is no MSP, nor is there any APMC mandis that we can point our fingers to. It is the big multinationals operating in a competitive environment that actually thrives on sucking farmers’ wealth. Imagine, if the global agricultural chains had set an example by guaranteeing a minimum economic price covering the cost of production plus a reasonable share of profits, farming too would have been a profitable enterprise.

Instead of leaving it to exploitative market forces, as the international evidence has conclusively shown, the time is ripe for India to usher in a new set of ingenious farm reforms that begins by first ensuring a living income for farmers. Guaranteeing an economically-viable livelihood to 50 per cent of the country’s population is the way to bridge the great economic divide. #

Source: Don't let exploitative market forces run riot. The Tribune. Dec 23, 2021. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/dont-let-exploitative-market-forces-run-riot-353356


READ MORE - Failure to get a fair price forces farmers to burn the produce.

Sunday, October 3, 2021

Agri value chains exploit primary producers


A typical agri value chain
Courtesy: gramworkx.medium.com 

* Banana is the cheapest fruit available. It also happens to be the most eaten fruit in Europe and North America. Largely being traded, most banana imports come into Europe from Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica and Dominican Republic. Looking at the so-called efficiency of the value chains that operate, all that the growers earn is anything between 5 to 9 per cent of the end consumer price.

* Coffee is the world’s largest traded commodity providing livelihood to at least 60 million people in more than a dozen countries. But every time you drink a cup of coffee, don’t forget the coffee bean grower gets only a few pence of the price you paid. In India, for the Rs 250 you pay for a cup of coffee in any of the trendy kiosks, farmer gets only Rs 1. 

Strange, isn’t it? For agricultural commodities that are traded globally, and result in massive profits for every player in the agri or food value chain, it is invariably the primary producer – a farmer – who gets to bear the brunt. With a meager share in the end consumer price, they are left with little or no money to sustain their families. Eventually, most farmers end up either committing suicide or abandon farming to move to the cities looking for a menial job. 

This is happening at a time when food value chains are expected to increase competitive performance, and in turn make it profitable for all the collaborators down the line. Makes sense, isn’t it? But then how come while each of the participants in the value chain, and that includes transporter, processor, retailers to name a few ends up raking huge profits from the business enterprise, it is invariably the primary producer who is left pauperized? 

To begin with, let’s first try to know what a food value chain means. According to the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs of the province of Ontario in Canada, ‘a value chain can be defined as a strategic partnership among inter-dependent businesses that collaborate to progressively create value for the final consumer resulting in a collective competitive advantage’. By linking production, processing and marketing activities, the value chains end up ensuring that each of the participant gains economically. 

I am no expert in value chains, more specifically the food value chains. My interest in the role value chains play to link the primary producer with market demands actually arose from curiosity. Every time farm gate prices came down, take the example of wheat price, it is hailed as a sign of efficiency. But every time the price of value added product from wheat goes up, bread is an example, no one would like to call it a sign of inefficiency. It is taken as a natural progression, an outcome of an economic design that thrives essentially on increasing demand, and thereby consumption, to achieve economic growth. 

The wheat example I gave above needs a bit of explanation. Sometimes back I read an interesting analysis by a Canadian author and critic Darrin Qualman. Interestingly, he explains that while the price of wheat in Canada (adjusted for inflation) has come down drastically over a period of150 years, from $ 30 per bushel in 1867 to $ 5 per bushel in 2017, the retail price of 60 loaves that are produced from a bushel of grain actually increased by $ 50 in past four decades, between 1975 and 2015. The question he asks is something to really ponder over. Why is efficiency measured only in terms of reducing the price of wheat for the farmers? 

Take another example of the banana value chain. A study by BASIC and the Make Fruit Fair campaign of Banana Link tells us that hypermarkets and supermarkets are the two dominant players in the value chain, walking away with 35 per cent and 33 per cent of the food sale in Europe. But if we look at the various stages of production and distribution, the most strenuous role is played by the banana growers who toil hard for about 9 months in a year. And yet, in the end, the growers get a price that is not even enough to cover the cost of production. If that is the way we measure efficiency of a value chain, isn’t it time for disruption? 

I can go on and on with examples that illustrate how farmers have been ruthlessly exploited over the period by the so-called efficient food value chains. With concentration of power in the hands of big agribusiness companies, the little margins that farmers were earlier getting is being further squeezed by the big players. Regretting the trend, the US National Farmers Union states that four largest meatpackers control 55 per cent of poultry, 66 per cent of pork, and 85 per cent of beef processing. “These corporations dominate what is grown and how it’s produced, all while paying farmers as little as possible.” 

The US Department of Agriculture’s food dollar series makes it explicitly clear. In 2016, the Economic Research Service of USDA showed that farmer’s share in the end consumer price, measured in terms of a dollar worth of food purchase, averages 14 cents. This was the lowest since 1993 when the series began. With such low incomes, it is quite obvious that farming becomes economically unviable, forcing farmers to quit in large numbers. That is exactly what happened in America, and that’s the trend that is being followed globally. Nevertheless, what becomes abundantly clear is that at the very foundation of the agrarian crisis that prevails in America, and also for that matter what has brought tens of thousands of farmers protesting at the borders of New Delhi for over ten months now, is the devastation wrought by the exploitative food value chains. 

There is nothing sacrosanct about the way agri value chains are designed. Business and management schools, nationally and internationally, must acknowledge that food vale chains need an overhaul. It calls for disruptions on a big scale. Let us not shirk away from that responsibility. The value chains need to be made more responsible towards the primary producer, the very foundation on which the chains operate. That is why the demand for a guaranteed farm price is so crucial to sustain farm livelihoods. The food value chains should be left to adjust accordingly. #

Source: Agri vale chains need an overhaul to rescue farmers. Bizz Buzz. Oct 1, 2021. https://www.bizzbuzz.news/opinion/agri-value-chain-needs-an-overhaul-to-rescue-farmers-1031915

READ MORE - Agri value chains exploit primary producers