Econ-ity » March 7, 2014

Daily Archives: March 7, 2014

Cooperate to commercialize

contract farming in Nepal“There is no alternative to commercialization of agriculture in Nepal”, said Jaya Mukunda Khanal, Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Nepal Government at the recently concluded Nepal Economic Summit (NES), 2014. Resonating with his views were the agriculture experts, academicians, representatives from donor organizations and most of the participants in the Summit who thought that in a country where agriculture has been long hailed as the do-gooder for the poorest of the poor, the key to transformation lies in commercialization. And one of the many ways which could help Nepal commercialize in agriculture was proposed in the form of contract farming.

For long, what has been largely discussed as being a challenge to the possibilities of commercialization has been the characteristic of land holdings in Nepal—scattered and small land holdings. As it is, small land holdings have been a characteristic of any developing country not just Nepal and the truth remains that this isn’t going to change any time soon. The only way to progress is to work with what we have and make the most of it. In this context, contract farming can play a vital role; and as cooperatives have, so far, been working effectively with smaller communities, it would reap many benefits if contract farming were to be done through cooperatives. And such has been practiced in other developing countries and have yielded good results. In Senegal, Africa, food processing companies work with small land holding farmers (each 0.2-0.5 hectors).  A Thai company works with small holders in Vietnam. Such pro small-farmer contractual arrangement has worked for the benefit of the farmers and hence larger economic growth in both the given examples.

In a competitive market scenario there exists a pressing need to increase production and add value to products to meet both national and international demands. While the world continues to struggle with the needs, the inability of small farmers to reach the markets with finished products; let alone that, to not be able to fit in the value chain due to lack of access to capital and other inputs (seeds, fertilizers) puts the small farmers in the back seat with them being unable to bring about any significant change in their living standards—poverty ridden one generation after the next, they remain thus. Adding to the woes of such small farmers is the inability to mechanize—cost of mechanization is too high for a lone farmer to bear. What a cooperative model does is that it allows for these loopholes to be covered—right form the phase of access to inputs to the post production phase whereby, farmers, unlike at present, are not only able to meet their own subsistence needs but also make profits as a result of fair prices courtesy access to free and competitive markets.

In the wake of the reality that commercialization has been long talked about and now has gone on to be realized as a priority for Nepal’s agriculture sector, contract farming is a step forward and definitely worth the go.

Anita Krishnan

About Anita Krishnan

Krishnan holds dual degrees--in law and sociology. Currently, she works as a Research Associate at Samriddhi, The Prosperity Foundation.

Published by:

Trade Policy for Nepal

Sir Thomas Harris discussing trade policies for Nepal with young parliamentarians and leading businessmen of Nepal

Sir Thomas Harris discussing trade policies for Nepal with young parliamentarians and leading businessmen of Nepal

One of the highlights of globalization and liberalization that followed has been the global trend of cross-border capital flow. Cross-border trades have proliferated, creating new avenues for every prospective player to prosper, even more so, for financial institutions. In 2007 alone, the cross-border capital flow was $11 trillion. For many countries, exports grew faster than their GDP.

But then, in 2008, the world faced the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Twenty largest economies of the world then gathered to discuss how to deal with the crisis. In unison, they decided to not repeat the mistake that was made in the 1930s – protectionism. Today, the efforts of pro-market forces have succeeded by and large. Despite the pledge to stop protectionism, however, many governments have continued to practice one policy or the other that bars free capital flow. It has therefore been such that the damage brought about by the financial crisis in 2008 has not been escaped altogether. In 2013, the cross border capital flow was down to a third of its 2007 figure. FDIs have come down and Doha Round has collapsed.

Today though, one can garner some optimism. Firstly, the world has managed to come out of the recession. The international capital flows are beginning to recover. One of the reasons for this is that international trade itself has become much more diverse. This is evinced by the geo-political shift of power from the west to the east (towards India, China and Japan).

Secondly, although the Doha Round has collapsed effectively, trade liberalization has been the economic approach of most of the countries around the world. In the last 5-8 years, bilateral trade treaties have proliferated, particularly in Asia. The EU, in the last two years has negotiated bilateral trade treaties with India, Malaysia, Korea, Singapore, Canada and many more. Trans-pacific and trans-atlantic trades are also growing in practice and popularity. To the surprise of most of the countries, even China is now willing to join Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) and has applied for membership.

Experts now anticipate a trend in international trade which is different from what has historically been the case. The global economy is shaping up for a different make-up. The anticipation is that from the current 38% stake in global output, that of the emerging markets will reach 63% by the year 2040. Trade between developing countries is also expected to rise to 40% by 2030, which currently stands at 18%.

From historical view-point, Nepal has had problems in benefitting from the global trends owing to its land-locked nature, poor track record in economic activities as evinced by its major deficits in trade of goods and services and remittance-driven nature. Stringent labor law is another impediment to Nepal’s economic growth. While there are extremely difficult and inflexible labor laws, keeping the brain-drain in check is a goal that cannot be achieved. When businessmen/investors cannot hire and fire a labor, that makes for a perfect recipe for mass youth unemployment as in Spain and Greece. Therefore, it is imperative that Nepal set right kind of policies to reap the benefits of the emerging and anticipated global trends.

Firstly, Nepal needs to change its perception of being land-locked and transform it to being market-locked. India and China are growing at over 8%. Even if there growth were to slow down to 5-6%, Nepal would still be surrounded by the fastest growing economies in the world.

Secondly, despite the recent political trend, if Nepal were to switch to pro-business and pro-investment outlook, the interested companies would still face fewer challenges in global trade than they would otherwise face anywhere else in the world. Nepal has comparative advantage in terms of market access. Nepal does not face the protectionist barriers that some other countries face. In Europe, Nepal can export anything but arms and ammunitions. Even India does not have that. There is prospect in terms of FDI. Bilateral trade promotion treaties can entice foreign investors.

Thirdly, Nepal has a comparative advantage over any other Nepal-like countries (development phase wise) – tourism is an example. There is urgent need to work on airports and air services. Nepal can start exporting services like tourism. Eye lenses export from Tilganga Eye Hospital is another example of how Nepal can export medical services. Nepal has comparative advantage in exporting legal services. Exporting services is the key to tap the prospects yielded by the emerging global trends and Nepal is rightly positioned to do so.
However, none of these will happen without the right political adaptations. Nepalese politicians have not been able to rise above the politics-is-the-key mindset. Sufficient focus has not been rendered to bringing economic reforms, removing barriers to business and fostering investment. These are the real political challenges. Modi’s Gujarat experience is the epitome of how politics and economy can move forward together. While the world envies Gujarat’s economic growth, the politicians there are winning elections through economic reforms. Politicians cannot exclusively focus on politics. As politicians, they have a duty to the people to foster prosperity, towards their (voters’) family. One of the fundamentals of politics is to ensure the well-being of the country.

Countries should open up their markets. Studies done by IMF and World Bank have shown that if developing countries open up their markets, they grow, on an average, at 5% a year as opposed to 1.5% of those which did not open up. Another argument for open economies can be derived from the case of Koreas – two countries with same geography and same socio cultural aspects. While South Korea subscribed to the ideals of a liberalized economy, North Korea imposed a closed economy. The current state of economy of these two countries can serve as the best example of how open economies grow faster. Markets bring prosperity across an economy. How to manage this economic growth can later be a political issue.

Through all of this, the role of government will then be that of a monitor and a facilitator. Government should make sure that allocation of resources is done in a proper manner. Private parties should be entrusted with the role of empowering an economy. Private sector’s involvement can generate employment and prosperity sooner. Governments should encourage competition and make sure than corruption is kept at bay.

Property rights, rule of law, transparency and accountability are pre-requisites to economic growth. These are the fundamental issues that no economy can boycott in its path to prosperity. Philippines, like Nepal, was overly dependent on remittance and corruption was a national endemic. Rwanda, with its genocide cases was among one of the most feared countries in the least-developed world. But with the aforementioned reform measures, these countries have done considerably better in terms of economic performance. Philippines moved up 30 places in World Bank’s Doing Business Report in just one year while Rwanda’s current economic growth rate hovers around 6-8% per annum.

With the existing ideological divide in Nepal’s political spectrum, politicians need to understand that they are in power not just to reflect the views of their constituencies, but also to reflect back on those views and take necessary steps – show leadership. Margaret Thatcher is the best example. Showing the right kind of leadership for the betterment of her nation is just what she did. At times of need, she went against her own party’s notions. A practical political leadership is what is required for Nepal to realize its goal of prosperity.

This is an excerpt from an engagement between Sir Thomas Harris, Vice-Chairman, Standard Chartered Capital Markets and some young parliamentarians and businessmen of Nepal. The theme of the discussion was ‘Trade Policies for Developing Economies’

Akash Shrestha

About Akash Shrestha

Akash Shrestha is Coordinator of the Research Department at Samriddhi, The Prosperity Foundation where his focus areas are petroleum trade and public enterprises. He also writes newspaper articles, blogs and radio capsules, based on the findings of the studies conducted by The Foundation.

Published by: