|
Fallacy in current agriculture growth?
Dr. Zafar Altaf
The Finance Minister's bugling notwithstanding, Azizjan economist of the Finance
Ministry (previous Darian, from Dar) in tow also notwithstanding, there should
have been a disclaimer by them saying that if the arithmetic does not work out
and if the sums are not right we are not to be blamed because we gave up
simplicity for complexity.
The Economic Survey went in short supply. It was probably marked secret, not to
be distributed. Then one learnt that the binding had not been done and that was
the reason. The goons that distribute the document do not understand that the
document is a document of confidence and not a document of hate and
frustrations. That the more transparent the 'bander bant' [literally
distribution of goodies between monkeys] the better it is for the nation. The
doings and the misdoings of the country and the international sphere are
reflected in the document. For after all we have gone to the gutters because of
the international mischief's and not because of our own doings.
All these 'Raw' or in reverse 'war' agents are responsible for the loss of
appetite of the nation. For after all the colorful cover is an indication of the
colors inside the document. The cover is an indication of the chaos that is
portrayed inside the flaps. The intention is to look at what is indicated and to
try and see how the thinking goes. Are we so shallow as to talk of credits all
the time or can we fail once in a while? One disclaimer has already been
mentioned the second disclaimer is that the policy makers without prejudice to
the reasons may at times use the opposite reasoning to justify their actions and
that their shall not be any questions as to the opposing views. If there are the
reporter should come to the rooms of the authority where he will be suitably
dealt with.
Now for the growth indicated in agriculture. The reasoning is not understood of
the effect of drought on major crops is devastating but it is beneficial on
minor crops. Probably the reasoning is that the rains and water was short for
the growth of major crops but sufficient for the minor crops and that the
marginal farmers that grow this crop managed to get separate water
dispensations. If that were so the ministry needs to be congratulated. The
reasoning of the finance minister is also to be scrutinised for he said that
agriculture's real growth was -2.6 per cent last year plus this year's 1.4 per
cent and that makes it 4 per cent. Now that yardstick needs to be applied to all
the constituents of agriculture. Try it the results are surprising. Anything can
be said to the public and since there are no contentious voices the statements
will never be called what it palpably is - a load of rubbish. Let us see how?
The provisional figures are to be looked at. These show massaging of production
figures e.g. the cotton figures have two surprising numbers. That despite the
low prices farmers will be able to sow more areas. We know that when the farmers
are let down as they have been by the TCP and the Commerce Ministry they will
show less response and the classical case of the cobweb theorem will come in to
play. The credibility with the farmers is at an all time low. This because of
the free market ploys that have been used by the present decision makers.
Short-term gains for long-term dissensions have been the choice. So be it. The
yield figures also show the obvious fudging of numbers. The farmer does not have
the cash for protecting and obtaining that kind of yield especially when he is
uncertain of the price that he will get. The risk will not be covered. That is
as simple as it goes. The farmer especially the cotton farmer has to spray his
crop at least seven times. With American boll worm playing havoc there is very little that the farmer can do if he is not
certain of the price of the output.
Let us go to Sugarcane. In a water starved economy how will you get an increase
of 10.2 per cent. The use of water in this cop is much more than in rice. In
rice, which in the case of Basmati is a 140 days crop the requirement of water
is upwards of 2000 tons of water to produce 1 ton of rice. What will it be for
sugarcane when the crop takes one year to mature? Simple, much more than you and
I can think of. And yet the provisional figures show an increase of
area Surprised. Where is the drought if sugarcane cultivation is on the increase. The
production of sugarcane has taken a jump of upwards of 5 million tons on the
production side. Correct me by looking at the table provided. With less off take
of fertilizer and shortage of water I thought there would be double jeopardy but
instead the yield will increase by 5.9 per cent. Call King Canute here and now.
Now he will not be rolling back the waves. The production of rice has shown a
decline of 19.2 per cent and the yield a decline of 9.1 per cent. You see something wrong in this? Try. In the case of
wheat the production shortfall is 2.9 per cent and the yield loss is only 0.5
per cent. Good. The area has decreased and the production has been shown as
provisional. Why? The wheat crop comes in April and the mistry [no spelling
mistake] was unable to get the figures. If they were unable to do so prudence
requires that you err on the right side. Question is - what is the right side -
the truthful one or the one that lies.
One is reminded of the ACR in respect of an officer. The report stated that the
officer was not good at secretariat work and atrocious in the field. And then
was added 'A very balanced officer'. That seems to be the order of the day.
Balance the negative by showing another crop has on the positive side. Who will
remember these figures next year? The minor crops are not monitored and the
figures are hypothetical. Of the minor crops only Mung has the capability to
show an increase than others. Mash and Masoor are not in that category for a
variety of reasons. But the most important figure is the increase in Bajra by 9
per cent. Blow me with anything - feather would be weighty enough.
What does this growth and these figures indicate but the self- glorification of
the perpetuator? The sums as I said do not tally. The reasoning is as atrocious
as the cry of anguish of the Agriculture Development Commissioner in the Federal
Committee on Agriculture's meeting recently when he said to the provinces "Why
don't you understand that we have to show growth come what way". Borlaug, the
noble laureate, must be red under his ears. For the off-take of fertilizer
already on the low side further declined by 9.1 per cent. How in God's name then
have these figures been asserted? Provinces must answer. The water shortage
indicated is and I quote 'the flows in the major rivers declined by 30.8 per
cent. Any idea how much water shortage will be at the farmer's gate? Similarly
when the farmer is trapped for and starved of resources his main fear is his
family. It may not be the fear of the perpetuators. With the tractors in
monopoly situation how do you counter the price of tractor and the cost of the seed? If tractors are available for one and a half
lacs from the world market why is the Pakistani farmer paying nearly 6 lacs of
rupees. Reason and rationality have been thrown over board. I suggest that the
mighty Azizjan should look at the decision-making factors that were responsible
for the growth in this sector. And then he might- just might come to some earth
shattering decision. That is how it goes. The livestock sector will be touched
upon in a subsequent writing.
By Dr. Khalid Shouq
|
Pakissan.com;
|
