Master thesis: Agroforestry systems in Central Asia
1) Как уже отмечалось в предыдущих комментариях, в случае Кыргызской Республики ключевым моментом взаимовлияния торговли и продовольственной безопасности является политическое решение вступления страны в ВТО.
Имело место большое количество дискуссий касательно этого вопроса, но в области сельского хозяйства страна (как результат ускоренного процесса вступления в ВТО и недостаточного внимания на возможные последствия в отдельных сферах) получила в итоге весьма неблагоприятные условия участия в данном торговом союзе. В частности, отсутствуют возможность оказания разного рода субсидий и мер защиты внутреннего рынка. При условии, что отдельные члены ВТО имеют подобные преимущества, которые им удалось добиться во время длительных переговоров, для Кыргызстана это довольно неравное положение на фоне других членов ВТО.
Ситуация на сегодняшний день: импортозависимость государства от импорта сельскохозяйственных товаров из стран ближнего зарубежья (Россия, Казахстан, которые находятся на этапе завершения переговоров о вступлении в ВТО). Например, любые изменения в объемах экспорта пшеницы из Казахстана и России напрямую влияют на внутренние цены на муку и хлебобулочные изделия в Кыргызстане.
2) Теперь, для того, чтобы добиться определенных разрешений на меры поддержки в данной отрасли, требуются средства и специализированные кадры для ведения переговоров на уровне ВТО. Для развивающихся стран это является важным препятствием в вопросах надлежащей защиты своих интересов на международной арене. Поэтому поддержу, высказанное ранее мнение, что международные организации могут оказать в этом помощь (на основе двухсторонних соглашений). В качестве примера могут стать процессы переговоров по вопросам митигации и адаптации по изменению климата, где такие страны как Узбекистан и Таджикистан сумели добиться поддержки международных организаций для лоббирования своих интересов (в частности, это специалисты и консультанты).
3) В целом расширение мировой торговли сельскохозяйственными товарами (пшеницей, рисом и кукурузой и др.) может иметь большой риск для глобальной продовольственной безопасности в будущем.
Это отражается во множестве факторов:
а) интенсификация сельского хозяйства, которая привела к масштабным экономически эффективным монокультурным плантациям, выгодных для крупных стран экспортеров;
б) результатом того стала «глобализация рационов питания» - когда рис, пшеница, кукуруза, картофель, соя и др. стали ключевым продуктом рациона в большинстве стран мира, ввиду их физической и экономической доступности. Что приводит к «эрозии агробиоразнообразия».
в) рост числа населения и потребности в мясе приводит к росту доли зерновых в качестве корма, сокращая наличие этих продуктов для питания, что сказывается на ценах;
г) упор политики развитых стран на интенсификацию биотоплива, приводит к той же проблеме изъятия продовольственных товаров в производство и к увеличению цен.
В связи с этим странам - членам ФАО важно учитывать эти факторы, которые ухудшают ситуацию с каждым годом в условиях ограниченных природных ресурсов (нефти, земельных ресурсов, нефтяных запасов, удобрений - фосфора и т.д.). Все эти факты не раз озвучивались в ходе заседаний ФАО, и уже ведется определенная работа по усилению продовольственной безопасности. Важно теперь вести переговоры с отдельными сторонами для повышения осведомленности стран членов и выявления возможных компромиссов.
С учетом глобального рыночного механизма международное сообщество могло бы сделать общий осознанный шаг по созданию различных преференций к постепенному снижению влияния упомянутых факторов на будущую продовольственную безопасность:
- например, последним нововведением стали соглашения о Растительных генетических ресурсах и Нагойский протокол об увеличении потенциала растительных генетических ресурсов, в то же время, усиливая роль мелких фермерских хозяйств;
- учитывая, что 80% всех сельскохозяйственных земель составляют естественные сенокосы и пастбищные угодья, различные механизмы поддержки продукции, произведенной с большей долей кормов естественного происхождения, поможет контролировать цены на мясо и постепенно сократить потребность населения в мясе до определенной нормы (и улучшить позиции развивающихся стран на мировом рынке);
- учитывая, малый потенциал мелких фермерских хозяйств, что приводит к утере их производственного потенциала. Усовершенствование техник посева, ухода за посевами, сбора урожая и хранения урожая и т.д. поможет значительно увеличить объемы и качество урожая, что как минимум позволит укрепить самообеспеченность страны и улучшит ситуацию с продовольственной безопасностью.
Нынешние системы торговли, обеспечения продовольствием, переработки с/х продукции в долгосрочном плане имеют тенденцию к саморазрушению, рано или поздно последующие поколения резко ощутят последствия сегодняшних действий. Однако все подобные решения, перечисленные выше, крайне сложны в исполнении, т.к. встречают огромный отпор от существующих производителей-гигантов, экономический успех которых напрямую зависит от сложившейся конъюнктуры рынка. Все же пошаговые действия и постепенное реформирование позволит выровнять нынешний курс на более устойчивое развитие.
As it has already been noticed in the previous comments, the political decision of the country’s accession to the WTO is the key point of mutual interaction of trade and food security.
There’ve been many discussions on this issue, but the country obtained unfavorable conditions for the participation in the trade union (as a result of an accelerated process of accession to the WTO and the lack of attention to the possible consequences for some fields). For example, there is a lack of capacity for subsidizing and measures aimed to protect the domestic market. Considering that some WTO members have such advantages, which were gained during protracted negotiations, therefore, the position of Kyrgyzstan is quite unequal against other WTO members.
Current situation is: the country depends on imports of agri-products from the CIS countries (e.g. Russia and Kazakhstan that are in the final stages of negotiations on accession to the WTO). For example, any changes in the volume of wheat exports from Kazakhstan and Russia have a direct impact on domestic prices of flour and bakery products in Kyrgyzstan.
2) Nowadays, special means and stuff for negotiations on the WTO level are required in order to obtain permits to use support measures for this industry. For developing countries it is a crucial obstacle to an adequate protection of their interests on the international stage. Therefore I endorse the expressed opinion that international organizations can provide assistance in this case (on the basis of bilateral agreements). The negotiations on mitigation and adaptation to climate changes, in which countries such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan were able to win the support of international organizations in lobbying of their interests, could be an example (in particular, it refers to experts and consultants).
3) In general the expansion of the world agricultural trade (wheat, rice and corn market, etc.) can present risk to the future of the global food security.
It is reflected in a variety of factors:
a) agricultural intensification, which led to a large-scale cost-effective monoculture plantations, and which is profitable for large-volume exporting countries;
b) “dietary globalization” is the result – when rice, wheat, corn, potatoes, soybeans, etc. due to their physical and economic accessibility have become the basic food in the most countries of the world. This situation leads to the “erosion of agro-biodiversity”;
c) the population growth and a raising meat demand lead to an increase of the role of grain as fodder, therefore reducing availability of these products for food consumption and affecting prices;
d) developed countries focus their policies on intensification of biofuels, which leads to the situation when food products are used in other production that increase prices.
Due to the aforesaid FAO member-countries should consider these factors that in a resource-constrained environment worsen the situation every year (oil, land, oil reserves, fertilizers - phosphorus, etc. are limited). All these facts have been repeatedly mentioned during FAO meetings, and certain work aimed to enhance food security is being conducted. It is important to pursue negotiations with individual parties in order to raise awareness among member countries and to identify possible compromises.
Given the global market mechanism the international community could make a collective deliberate step for creating various preferences to gradual reduction of the negative impact of these factors on the future food security:
- For example, the agreement on plant genetic resources and the Nagoya Protocol on increasing the capacity of plant genetic resources, at the same time, strengthening the role of small-scale farmers are the latest innovation;
- Considering that 80% of all agricultural lands constitute of natural hayfields and pastures, various support mechanisms for products produced with a higher proportion of feed of natural origin will help to control prices on meat and gradually reduce the demand for it to a certain norm (and to improve the position of developing countries on the world market);
- Given the weak capacity of small farms it leads to the loss of their productive capacity. Improvement of planting techniques, crop tending, harvesting and storage of crops, etc. will significantly increase volume and quality of crops that will strengthen self-sufficiency of the country and improve food security situation.
The current systems of trade, food security, processing of agricultural production in the long term, have a tendency to self-destruction. Sooner or later, the next generations will have repercussions of today's actions. However, all the solutions listed above are extremely difficult to implement, since they meet with a resounding rebuff from existing large producers whose economic success depends on the prevailing market conditions. Non the less step by step actions and gradual reform will allow to align the current course to a more sustainable development.
Klara Dzhakypbekova
>> ENGLISH VERSION BELOW
The issues of the food security are deeply rooted in the sphere of the socio-economic policy of the government because they constitute a strategic component of the country's development. After reviewing the Food Security and Nutrition Program in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2015-2017 years (FSNP), I was very pleased that this document comprehensively covers the key issues of the agricultural sector of Kyrgyzstan. Besides that, the main steps to implement the program have been developed.
I would like to specify the main points that can also be added to this program. These proposals are fairly conservative because of the thoroughness of the food safety problems.
Policy:
a) in the previous messages it was already said about the weak sides of the current Agricultural Policy in the country, which has virtually no clear direction (because of certain circumstances in recent years, the Agricultural Policy has failed to acquire stability and take a specific course for development). In addition, the measures mentioned in the FSNP, perfectly describe the mechanisms of solving the food security problems, but they mainly aimed at eliminating the consequences, rather than at resolving the causes of these problems.
The implementation of the minimum standards of the availability and access to food is determined to the main course of FSNP. Undoubtedly, the main instrument in this matter are the prices. Here I would join the opinion of the majority: in a short term - it may include certain fiscal instruments (tariffs and preferences) in relation to the imported foodstuffs. Although in terms of political context, it will be difficult for Kyrgyzstan to manipulate with such a term as "protectionism" (because of the commitments made to the WTO and CU), nevertheless the situation requires similar measures. A political rhetoric may illustrate it in a different light in the form of subsidies or indexation of the income (or the increase of the green package preferences within the WTO - which were discussed in a previous online consultation on the WTO/CIS conditions).
b) The issues of socio-economic rural development, the improvement of the scientific and technological base, the technological development are particularly important for the resolution of problems of food security. However, the measures proposed in this framework, mainly relate to the agribusiness development sectors in general, which are good as long-term plans. As for short-term activities (in particular by 2017), it is important to pay special attention to the role of the government as the main participant and as a major driving force to resolve this issue. The colleagues from Belarus and Uzbekistan have already noted the importance of the government measures.
It is no secret that the political will in the issues of the food safety has an initial role in Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and even in the foreign countries. So, for example European Committee directly interferes in the issues of agricultural policy of the Member States (for example, the legal restrictions on fishing in the sea and agro-subsidies). Therefore, it is very important for Kyrgyzstan to develop a clear political position in this regard.
Funding:
The main source of funding of FSNP are the donor funds. This component has been indispensable for the entire period of the development of Kyrgyzstan. Measures to attract the donor funds should be continued, however it should not be the main source of funding but an additional one.
Other sources of funding may include PPP, as was noted in the previous comments. Because, in contrast to the traditional commercial investment packages, PPP allows implementing a social component, without which it is difficult to ensure the profitability of investments in agriculture. This component is of special importance (in particular, state subsidies and other conditional preferences) when it comes to organic farming and other environmental land uses.
Therefore, as it was already fairly mentioned in the messages below, commercial investments will generate a smaller share of the social dividends.
Another alternative may be low-interest loans or loans at easier terms, for example, KfW, with the support of which, the GIZ projects work in Kyrgyzstan and around the world, is offering a variety of options for funding public projects pursuant to international agreements. But to ensure the effective use of such borrowed funds it is very important to have clear policy and strong political will. Such projects could be aimed at the creation of the real sector in agribusiness (in particular the mentioned processing plants, and their collection points of the raw materials), and it is important to ensure sales through the import substitution.
Stakeholders:
Food security, as part of the national security of the country should mainly be under the administration of the state bodies. As well as the other national authorities, it will require strengthening of institutionalization and structure to solve the issues raised.
In this case I suggest understanding the structure not only as the creation and support of the state material reserves, but also continuation and strengthening of actions of the government on the collection of raw materials (it was also already noted in the previous comments) at competitive prices. Thus including in the social policy the purchase of agricultural goods from local producers at market prices, respectively for further sale to the population at the lower prices (or in the future for the use in processing industry).
Capacity development:
Here the role of scientific research and constant informing of the country people is very important, it is described in detail in FSNP.
As a possible road map to improve the realization of the FSNP purposes, it is important to lobby increasing of the political will of the government in strengthening of the food security of the country by creation of stable and steady infrastructure by means of public funding and the policy of supporting of the agricultural sector. While the measures on strengthening of the potential, raising awareness, introduction of the new technologies and methods on fields can be further continued in the framework of the cooperation with the partner countries and donor organizations.