Showing posts with label subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subsidies. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 5, 2021

India needs a rethink on 'free market'

Pic courtesy: Fairtrade Foundation 

All of us like chocolates. But the next time you bite into a chocolate bar, just be reminded. The average income a cocoa farmer earns a day is probably less than the price of a medium-sized chocolate bar that is in your hands. About Rs 100 ($1.30) a day is what a cocoa farmer in Western Africa earns.   

At a time when the $ 210-billion global confectionary industry has been growing leaps and bounds, with chocolate taking the highest market share, the biennial Cocoa Barometer 2020 report illustrates how the prevailing market-driven business model leading to excessive profits for chocolate industry is based on achieving higher productivity of cocoa that in turn has kept nearly 5 to 6 million cocoa farmers perpetually in poverty. Discarding the dependence on markets, if only cocoa farmers had received a minimum support price (MSP) over the decades, it would have helped millions of cocoa farmers ascend the ladder out of poverty, hunger and malnutrition. 

In Britain, after the Milk Marketing Board, which regulated milk prices and marketing, was removed in 1993, the number of dairy farms has come down drastically in the past 25 years -- from 40,000 in 1995 to an estimated 8,310 in 2020. Although 99.9 per cent milk producer had wanted price regulations to continue but market economists thought otherwise. Between 1994 and 2010, milk prices had fallen by 28 per cent and there came a time (in 2015) when prices slumped further by 40 per cent. Farmers were simply unable to even recover the cost of production. The plight and agony emanating from the destruction of farm livelihoods in the process was brushed under the carpet. As a British farmers said: “Every genuine farmer is now stuck unfairly on a treadmill with accumulating debts to meet unless he goes bankrupt, commits suicide or finds another source of income.”    

What happened in Britain or for that matter in Europe was no exception. In America, at least 50 per cent dairy farms have disappeared in the past two decades. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the number of licensed dairy farms had come down from 70,000 in 2003 to 34,000 in 2019.  While small farmers bowed out, mega-dairies have instead taken over. As a result, despite the closure of small dairy farms, milk production has further swelled. This is certainly not what India needs. In a country where roughly 50 per cent of the population remains engaged in agriculture, and which tops the global milk production chart, what India needs is a production system by the masses, where small farmers earn a decent livelihood from an assured price delivery mechanism. 

As expected, ‘free market’ in dairy benefitted the milk processing companies, and pushed small dairy farmers out of business. Thus began a vicious cycle of over-production, bringing down the market prices. Instead of fundamentally addressing the flaws in supply chains, by ensuring assured prices to dairy farmers to begin with, Europe and America focused more on providing bailout packages to temporarily assuage farmer’s ire. British farmers (and also in Ireland) therefore continued to protest against the ‘unfair’ prices and have since been campaigning for a fair deal.   

The tragedy on the dairy farm was further compounded by an unjust WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture which allowed heavily subsidised milk from European countries to be dumped in developing countries. Breaching the five per cent product-specific subsidy support norms for developed countries, EU had actually subsidised skimmed milk powder by 67 per thereby easily dumping cheaper milk in developing countries. In the process, small dairy farmers suffered at both the ends -- in the developed as well as developing countries. 

No wonder, at a time when mainline economists in India are excited at the possibility of ‘free markets’ enhancing farm incomes, Canadian farmers are seeking more protection to save their livelihoods. Three major farm unions in eastern Canada are demanding protection (by way of subsidy and import tariffs) against US President Donald Trump’s recent $ 32 billion subsidy package to American farmers, which they say threatens their survival. “Farmers need to be able to cover the cost of production or many of them will not be able to survive much longer.” 

Now let us look at America. The prosperity that we see on the farm is a reflection of the massive subsidy support. To ensure that small farmers are not wiped out, the US has been coming out with a Farm Bill every five years. In the 2018 Farm Bill, US has expanded the safety-net umbrella for farmers making a provision for $ 867 billion for the next ten years in commodity support, numerous measures to enhance farm incomes as well as for nutrition schemes.

Instead of leaving farmers to face the volatility of markets, the US has time and again come up with programmes to offset the losses incurred. In the 2018 Farm Bill, it has introduced an Agricultural Risk Campaign (ARC) and a Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programme. Both these programme are aimed at covering losses a farmer suffers when crop prices or revenues drop, and covers 24 commodities including wheat, oats, barley, corn, grain sorghum, rice, soybeans, sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe and sesame seed, seed cotton, dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas, large chickpeas, and peanuts. In addition, there are numerous other programmes for relief from natural disasters, crop insurance, structural adjustment and environment. 

Even in China, markets have failed to help increase farm incomes. According to a report in Washington Post, ‘China’s agriculture support includes government purchases at above-market prices, as well as market price support programs, where farmers receive a direct payment from the government if market prices fall below a minimum set price’. This has helped raise farm incomes by 38 percent in wheat, 32 per cent in rice and 29 percent for corn. China provided a farm subsidy support of $ 212 billion in 2016, the highest in the world. The US had challenged this subsidies in the WTO. 

Well, if the agricultural giants realise the inability of markets to help raise farm incomes, India too must rethink its approach. There are significant lessons here. #

India needs a rethink on 'free market'. The Tribune. Dec 30, 2020. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/india-needs-a-rethink-on-free-market-191160?fbclid=IwAR19TsKH-Uxz5Zdyz1UfgKAWdZl1qdrQp6YRuf-cknlwYksvBU83vsLbyHY#.X-30cqEmiYY.twitter

READ MORE - India needs a rethink on 'free market'

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Minimum Support Price for agriculture is increasingly under WTO scanner



Farming will increasingly come under more pressure 

At a time when agriculture distress is at a peak, the pressure from World Trade Organisation (WTO) to seek reduction in the procurement prices for wheat, rice, pulses, cotton and sugarcane is posing a renewed threat to the future of agriculture. WTO pressure to reduce Minimum Support Price (MSP), and Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) in case of sugarcane, comes at a time when Niti Aayog has accepted that the growth in real income of farmers in the past two years has been almost zero.

While Australia and Brazil have dragged India on its burgeoning sugar subsidies to the dispute settlement panel of WTO, which for all practical purposes acts as a court to settle trade disputes, five other countries – Guatemala, European Union, Russia, Costa Rica and Thailand – want to join the dispute settlement consultations, which in simple word means these countries want to be a party in the case against Indian sugar subsidies. Interestingly, while the WTO is planning to question India’s massive subsidisation of sugar, non payment of sugarcane arrears have been ballooning. In Uttar Pradesh alone, cane arrears have grown substantially in past two years, from Rs 4,497-crore in Mar 2017 to reach Rs 12,700-crore on Mar 2019.

The first round of dispute consultations on sugar subsidies with the seven countries begins in the third week of April.

Earlier, 12 countries – including European Union, Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Korea, Thailand, Taiwan and Sri Lanka – had become party to the US challenge of India’s export subsidies, including export incentives for SEZ and merchandise exports. Citing the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) of the WTO, the US had computed the explicit and implicit export subsidies that India is giving at $ 7 billion. That India is under a sharp scanner at the international negotiations was never in doubt but the increase in the number of countries questioning India’s subsidies is certainly a cause for worry.

Let’s go back to the issue of agriculture to see how the WTO is hitting India where it will pain the most. In a separate development, Canada has joined the US in questioning the hike in MSP for pulses over the past few years. On Feb 12, the US along with Canada, filed a notification in the WTO Committee on Agriculture (COA) questioning India's market price support for five types of pulses. Accordingly, India exceeded the permissible limit as defined by WTO in case of price support for chickpea, pigeonpea, moong, black matpe and lentils. The argument US and Canada are using is that India has “under-reported” its market price support for pulses, which is a violation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  

The US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue have at the time of filing the complaint, said: “When calculated according to WTO Agreement on Agriculture methodology, India's market price support for each of these pulses far exceeded its allowable levels of trade-distorting domestic support.” Giving specific details, they have blamed India for deliberately keeping the subsidies under wrap, and presenting a data which is questionable. Claiming that India’s total market price support for pulses ranged from 32 to 85 per cent and adds up to $9.5 billion, they accused India of “under-reporting” these subsidies.

India on the other hand maintains that its total subsidy support for all kinds of pulses comes to 1.8 per cent, and is far less than the permissible limit of 10 per cent. As per WTO norms, the product specific support (which is counted as subsidy) cannot exceed 10 per cent of the value of total production. To understand, in simple words what it means is that if the value of total production of chickpea is Rs 500-crores, the MSP that farmers get for chickpea cannot exceed Rs 50-crore.

While the US, EU, Canada and other countries are saying that India is using a methodology (to calculate the subsidies) which is non-compatible with the WTO methodology, India’s position is that the complainant countries are actually using a faulty methodology. The mistake these countries are doing is that they taking the MSP figures, and reduce from it the external reference price (ESP), set by WTO which is fixed on 1986-89 statistics, and then multiply with the total value of production of a particular crop. This gives a much exaggerated figure. In reality, India does not purchase the entire production at MSP but only a fraction of the total production to meet the food and nutritional security needs of the marginalised communities. The correct way therefore should be to multiply the amount of crop harvest that is purchased at MSP instead of multiplying with total production.

In case of wheat and rice also, US has been challenging India’s calculations for a number of years, saying that the 2013-14 compilation by India was far short of the actual 65 per cent of price support for wheat and 77 per cent for rice. India had claimed that its MSP for both these crops was well within the prescribed limit of 10 per cent.

The basic objective behind the aggressive stance at WTO is to seek more market access for agricultural and dairy products. The US has made this abundantly clear after the US President Donald Trump had withdrawn benefits to steel and aluminium products under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). But the failure on the part of India to impose retaliatory tariffs on 29 US products, including several important agricultural commodities, shows the weakness in its trade policy. India has further extended the deadline for imposing retaliatory custom duties to May 2, hoping that the US may relent.

Much of the blame for opening up the domestic markets to flood of agricultural imports actually rests on India’s failure to take the US to the WTO dispute settlement panel on the question of massive subsidy support being given to US agriculture. We are actually suffering the consequences of our own failure to be combative in trade diplomacy. But what is worrying is that the consequences of all the collective failures to stand up and protect domestic agriculture and thereby India’s food security will fall on the beleaguered farming community, already reeling under a terrible distress. #  

खेती के मोर्चे पर भारत की नई चुनौतियां. Dainik Jagran. April 19, 2019
https://www.jagran.com/editorial/apnibaat-world-trade-organization-concern-report-india-new-challenges-on-farm-focus-19145965.html?fbclid=IwAR286RG7B6dyWHy_F03oRZM5n2Iw6Y4qNkOzc-7eohhl6H51xK8ocRYKzIw

READ MORE - Minimum Support Price for agriculture is increasingly under WTO scanner