Thai Farmers Ass= 35 Rai 200.000B Sufficent/ Your Thoughts

[THAIPHUKET]

.......that a cap of 500,000 baht would be more than sufficient to cover the needs of the majority of farmers in the country, noting that for an average farm of 35 rai, 200,000 baht is sufficient.

Question= is that realistic?

http://tinyurl.com/cx2aky4

[Schmackos]

I am new here ... is that 200,000 for each Rai, or 200,000 for 35 Rai?

[billd766]

Most of the farmers up here that I know of don't have 35 rai anyway.

What happens if farmer A harvests more rice than farmer B with a similar plot of land?

Should they both get the same amount even though one is more efficient than the other?

IMHO they should be paid on the amount of harvest and not on the size of the land.

[Schmackos]

I must admit, I did't bother to click the Bangkok Post link.

Still don't know what the man is on about?

Maybe that's why I am not a rice farmer.

[THAIPHUKET]

Why do you think I posted this in the farming forum in the first place, if not to address members with some knowledge in the matter?

The question is, is this statement by the chairman of the Farming Ass., i.e. supposedly representing farmers, realistic or not?

[Gary A]

These programs are supposed to help poor small farmers and not the huge farmers. To cap the amount per farm makes sense. Unfortunately the rich will find ways around this too.

[jamescollister]

Unfortunately Governments getting involved in any free market system seems to cause more problems, they are buying votes. You can not force the buyers to pay more for something that they can buy elsewhere cheaper. Thailand is a rice exporter, but it can not tell EU or US buyers to pay more, they will shop elsewhere.

This system of setting minimum prices has been tried here on Cassava and rubber, never worked, never will unless you control world supply. All sounds good from a politician on the election trail, but who pays in the end if you have a mountain of rice or whatever that one one wants. Jim

[pnustedt]

I harvest rice near Sisaket and found the rice price pledge last year was quite misleading. The price for rice here was "guaranteed" at up to Bt20/kilo, yet I don't know anyone who got Bt20, even for top quality rice. The normal rate was between Bt14-16.

Most farms here are under 20 rai, although we do have a few customers with 50 to 200 rai. The larger farms did seem able to command higher prices for their crops whereas the small farmers had to take what they could get.

There is a system in place which pays a grant to farmers who attempt to grow a second crop (normally one crop/yr here). We grew a second crop last year and received a grant of Bt500/rai, but this did appear to be discretionary on the local government. I don't think it is an efficient use of public money as the grant is not dependant on the amount or quality of rice harvested, just the area sewn and is open to abuse.

[THAIPHUKET]

From Today= A think tank has asked the government to clarify the origins of 3.3 million tonnes of rice sold in the market now on suspicions they were imported.

One wonders why the small discrepancy between Bt20 and Bt14 does not cause more inquisitive questioning?

[somo]

All these subsidies are open to corruption. Certainly with the so called guaranteed price for cassava.

It was limited to 100 tons farm (about 25 rai) and bits of paper were issued. They were useless as the local buyers refused to honour them. Recently a guy from a buyer about 30 minutes drive away gave MIL 5000 Baht for her bit of paper and took her bank book away. About a week later he returned and escorted her to the bank where she withdrew the 384,000 that had been deposited and she handed it over. They knew to within the hour when the money would arrive so someone in accounting was in on it as well. There are also apparently about 5 intermediaries before the buyer so no one can touch him. It is all one big joke and I for one think it is designed to be. It should not be that difficult to design a subsidy system that actually puts money into the farmers hands.

All sudsidies distort the free market but they are not unusual. The common agricultural policy in Europe is a classic example and the US spends huge amounts subsidising its farmers. Food is a resource most countries are loath to abandon. Being self sufficient in food or close to it is seen as a strategic necessity regardless of the cost.

[Bluetongue]

I concur with your comments re cassava Somo, although I dont know the ins and outs. I do know that towards the end of last month an enormous amount of cassava crossed the border here from Cambodia, a continous stream of trucks 24 hours and all the locals saying they were going to cash in on the subsidy. Its dried to a trickle now as one might expect because there has been a bit of rain and maybe the subsidy had an end date on it?

[jamescollister]

I concur with your comments re cassava Somo, although I dont know the ins and outs. I do know that towards the end of last month an enormous amount of cassava crossed the border here from Cambodia, a continous stream of trucks 24 hours and all the locals saying they were going to cash in on the subsidy. Its dried to a trickle now as one might expect because there has been a bit of rain and maybe the subsidy had an end date on it?

Since 98% of cassava goes to China for ethanol. good chance that is where it was bound. Hard to smuggle convoys of trucks over the border without someone noticing they have no paper work.

There will always be corruption, but doubt the Cambodians would be willing to lose that kind of revenue from China. Jim

[Khonwan]

I think we are here dealing with two issues: 1) should subsidies exist; 2) what is the best mechanism to achieve the objective.

If I can first deal with the second: Abhisit’s guarantee scheme for cassava (since I’m familiar with that) would have ensured that the objective was met in that the subsidy ONLY went to the farmer. He established the scheme and set a guarantee price of Bt2,500 in his ultimate year before the general election. The mechanism (as I understand it) was very simple: should you only receive, say, Bt2,400 per tonne from the mill/yard you would present the receipt to BAAC and have the shortfall made up to Bt2,500 which would be credited to your BAAC account. I may be wrong about aspects of this since it was implemented but not required or used since the market price was much higher. I could see room for corruption in this scheme (though there may have been checks that I’m unaware of) but none that would have disadvantaged the farmer. Yingluck’s scheme was a rehash of her brother’s, which was so obviously going to enrich the middlemen, which I feel sure was intended, at the expense of the farmer.

Should there be a subsidy scheme at all? I believe that most people around the world want farmers to be better rewarded for their very hard work that is so vital to the very survival of all people. I believe that most people in the world want basic food prices to be affordable by all people. I believe that these two objectives are often incompatible when left to free market forces.

Society understands that we must preserve agriculture – the reason is obvious. Many individual countries go further by recognizing that they need to preserve agriculture within their own boundaries to minimise geopolitical risks and ensure food security. Hence the existence of agricultural subsidies in the developed countries, such as the USA, since their absence may well lead to the abandonment of agriculture within those countries in favour of cheaper imports. I fully support the free market but believe, as these governments apparently do, that the production of the most basic vitals must be protected, and protected at a national level.

With regards to cassava coming through the border from Cambodia, my understanding is that the cassava processing infrastructure is still very limited there and that fresh tubers are sent to Thailand for drying and processing. I doubt if the Cambodian farmer has any knowledge as to whether his product will be shipped to China after drying here or be processed by Thai mills and I guess both happens. Those shipments were supposed to have been stopped to ensure they would not benefit from the cassava subsidy scheme but I feel sure, again, that it was known and accepted from the outset that influential people would of course further enrich themselves at the nation’s expense.

Rgds

Khonwan

[96tehtarp]

Most of the paddy owners I know lease out their paddy to other farmers who actually work the land. That's what we do.

The aforementioned plans for rice pledging quotas will amount to a little extra paperwork for farmers who lease (illegally) to others. Just in the same way when it comes time for flood compensation.

Such quotas will not likely hurt small farmers but will hopefully stem BIG corruption which jeopardizes the very spirit of the plan.