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 not with standingthere 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 owndoings.
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 bo!
ll 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 tr! actor 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.
Views
presented here are of those of the writer and Pakissan.com is
not liable them.
|