Foodstuff prices remain unstable in lesser developed economies despite the recent stability from price fluctuations. Subsidies mean rich countries are undercutting the poor countries’ farmers and discouraging investments where they are most needed. No one doubts the system of distribution is tied tightly into the commodities market, if less so than before. The “players” having recourse to those funds have interests far from those of the end-consumer.
There is the currency problem that in its entirety hinges around the weak US dollar. Trades are largely affected in that international currency commodity prices reflect the volatility presently seen in currency trades. Dealers are still buying ahead to secure their accustomed profits not in the least concerned about the effects of those essentially unenlightened capitalist practices that lift prices indiscriminately. All the evidence points to the intentionally weakening their dollar under the previous administration to offset the country’s impossibly huge debt as the dollar is getting cheaper as each day passes and the Iraq-Afghanistan invasions continue.
Then, in parallel, there are the protectionist moves disguised as the promotion of environmentalism, fair trade and labor rights where developed-country style provisions are lobbied into undeveloped countries’ manufacturing sectors. The effect of these policies in countries, such as Bangladesh, was to put many young girls in the textiles trade on the street, as factories closed for reasons of no under-age employment. But it wasn’t as if there were schools for the unemployed young people to go to instead.
This kind of protectionism is also going toward the defeat of China as manufacturing giants invincible, ad factories are moving out of the special zones into the remoter regions, e.g., Chengdu in Sichuan and Changsha in Hunan, and factories are even abandoning China altogether and moving to Vietnam and Cambodia, and even India. The trend is for large multinational corporations to adopt a “China-plus-one” strategy out that Asia manufacturing presence and to minimize risk by having that open-ended choice to pick the cheapest and leave the others and move on. Even Chinese manufacturers are opening up plants in other parts of Asia – TLC Corps is upgrading its facilities in Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines. The same is happening in agribusiness.
Farming today in most places is controlled by vested interests like the innocent-sounding graziers unions that hold courses where corporate outsiders or government officials—of governments that have sold out to those corporations—come in and inform of the latest seed varieties and their associated fertilizers, weed killers and pesticides, the schedule of planting plus applications, the sources where you get those—and yes: “…we stock them and offer free delivery and you get a juice blender if you join up today.” Those graziers unions are locked-in to larger corporations and when investigating the origins of those corporations to get back to a Dow Jones or Nestle. It is amazing how far and deep the tentacles of those multinational conglomerates stretch. Farmers need to be able to operate freely but in making their own decisions, they need free access to information, not information dovetailed by others.
As eager-for-dollar countries earmark more land for industrial use and residences lose their own high flyers because this money-go-around is creating a bubble of the upper moneyed-class in economically undeveloped countries, the small- and medium-sized farmers are getting squeezed and the landless are increasing in number and are in some instances on the rebound from the big cities--having learned the hard way that to be destitute in a city is much worse than being unemployed in one’s own home town among relatives. It is as though everything is out of control, but that is really a fallacy. In the end, it all depends on the little man seeing that what is done on the micro level really does make a difference—immediately, to that one, that family, that company in its local situation—thus the country as a whole. That’s where the effort needs be placed. The whole shebang needs to be decentralized. That, in turn, can affect changes at the macro level.—“the trickle-up effect.” Then, people can cease worrying about the macro-news so daily repeated as problematic. There is quite enough to do locally and within the immediate situation to keep everyone busy—and fed.
In the case of rig prices in the Philippines, the world’s largest rice importer, beyond the affordability of the poor sector, the government response, the promise by the Arroyo crowd of putting lots of money into rejuvenating farming, is so predictable. Where will that money go? Will it get to the small farmer? No! It will go to the already well funded institutes like the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), into high-yield variety research. While the IRRI has done and is doing excellent research--they have been into that for 20 years—how will they solve any problem now? They have already supplied the answers: These need implementation.
Then there is the matter of land security and legal titles. Unless a small grower has title to his land there is no guarantee of security and it takes time consuming TLC to build a good soil; thus legalization of ownership is an imperative. For the big landowners this is not a problem because they can buy their way through the legal process if someone arrives on the doorstep threatening security of tenure. Most of Asia is without that infrastructure of laws that make the carrying of capital possible. Capitalism works within a legal framework and without that there is now way to accumulate capital, to organize vale, and to be able to transfer it. It is the rule of law that makes the market economy—a legal property system, good contracts, good administration of justice and proper representation on paper. No contract means no credit, no way of constituting a company that can issue shares, thus nothing to sell against investment.
The smaller scale rice farmer can opt out of the agri-biz approach and bring imethods of cultivation where preparing the land prior to planting is the norm, using locally available leaf toppings and green manuring with much less reliance on synthetic fertilizers—also falling back on old proven varieties that cannot match the HYVs in terms of volume of product but are less (up-front financially) demanding and versatile, hardier, meaning less disease and pest worries—as slower growth means a stronger, more resilient plant. Ice and other products fro hardy plants also store better.
Many learned farmers argue that a lack of genetic variation makes specific strains more susceptible to getting wiped out by a single pest or pathogen, or to gradual climate change. In 1970, 15% of the US corn crop was destroyed when blight swept the grain belt. In the mid-19th century, the Irish potato crop crashed, causing famine that killed a million people. The reason? Dominant plant varieties were too genetically alike and therefore vulnerable to he same enemies. Local produce needs to feed the locals first with only the surplus going to export to far away place. Of course, a region can have cash crop but profits must go to regional coffers, not the central government-business groups. This will wrest away from others control over the distribution and assure neighbors are fed first. This done countrywide would have the desired decentralization effect.
The Little Man holds the key to the door of the path to the only way out. He must regain control. It’s the David and Goliath scenario in the 21st century. On the macro level, governments as country managers need to tae another look at the benefits of unenlightened industrialization of everything. What is the real merit in producing the cheapest shoe? Will your cheap shoe be the one chosen by Wal-Mart? What is the reason to sacrifice an entire strata of working-class people on the altar of consumerism? The price of foodstuffs needs to be locally contained. The distribution and marketing controls must be wrested away from those whose motives are profit-based. Decentralization is the key. The rich-poor gap must be bridged locally, hen the Big City will also look after itself and live in a more proportionate way with the lifestyles that do not marginalize the countryside.
*Tony Hen is a free-lance journalist who is based in Hong Kong (since 1980). He is chairman of the Humanist Association of Hong Kong.
No comments:
Post a Comment