Concluding a sensitive debate
Monday, 17 September 2007
HOW much cash earning from a crop does actually generate a reasonable amount of profit for it to be called a cash crop? This is a matter that merits an in-depth review and consideration to appreciate the situation in the country's jute and sugar sectors. Some quarters have alleged that the acceptance of the conditionalities of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund has led to critical conditions of the sectors. In this connection, the recent closure of four state-owned jute mills and a report about the uncertainty being faced by the sugar industry have been cited by such quarters while reviewing the findings of a study report on markets and prices. Farmers, according to such circles, are now reluctant to raise the two important cash crops of jute and sugarcane, as they receive no official policy support. However, such views have been strongly contested by the functionaries of the present caretaker government who have disclaimed about having acted on the advice of none of the multilateral organisations. All governments since 1991, provided a total amount of Tk 75 billion as subsidy to the state-run mills and the present caretaker government as well extended as much as Tk 3.0 billion as subsidy in the last six months, the same functionaries have noted.
Subsidy to any industry -- jute, sugar or whatever, means that the sector concerned is not profitable and that it is being kept artificially afloat at the expense of state funds. It is thus debatable whether jute and sugarcane should be any more called cash crops in this country. If this weak economy has to support each and every sector in one way or another with money from the state fund, where will the money come from? While a debate is there accusing a specific foreign country for subsidising its export of sugar to this country, which is a unfair practice and not in accord with the rules of the World Trade Organisation, there is no allegation suggesting that the jute sector is being subverted from without. There was, however, a complaint from the local exporters at one stage alleging that raw jute export to India was periodically facing non-trade barriers.
Since jute still remains a sensitive subject because of the involvement of a large number of farmers in its cultivation, the debate on jute should be settled with a definite conclusion. People should know for certain whether the natural fibre has any immediate prospect of revival as a real cash crop with greater world market demand or a continued depressed demand is sure to send it into oblivion. The persistent division of opinion on this issue at the national level will only provoke unnecessary debates periodically. It may even unduly sensitise farmers and workers engaged in the sector to lead to unrest. For the obvious reason, the renewed debate on jute should be ended with a definite conclusion, drawn jointly by the government and experts.
Undisturbed industrial peace in the age of global competition is necessary for enhanced productivity in mills and factories. On the other hand, unrest in the industrial belt, however periodic, tarnishes the image of the country and drives away prospective foreign investors. The nation can thus ill afford to keep up any divisive issue alive for long. The ministry of jute and that of finance should jointly sit with the private sector jute mill owners, top managers of the state-run jute mills corporation and the jute research institute together with local experts and opinion leaders to find out whether jute has really any big prospect and if it has what is the direction. Conclusive opinion in this regard may help preclude industrial unrest and social convulsions.
Subsidy to any industry -- jute, sugar or whatever, means that the sector concerned is not profitable and that it is being kept artificially afloat at the expense of state funds. It is thus debatable whether jute and sugarcane should be any more called cash crops in this country. If this weak economy has to support each and every sector in one way or another with money from the state fund, where will the money come from? While a debate is there accusing a specific foreign country for subsidising its export of sugar to this country, which is a unfair practice and not in accord with the rules of the World Trade Organisation, there is no allegation suggesting that the jute sector is being subverted from without. There was, however, a complaint from the local exporters at one stage alleging that raw jute export to India was periodically facing non-trade barriers.
Since jute still remains a sensitive subject because of the involvement of a large number of farmers in its cultivation, the debate on jute should be settled with a definite conclusion. People should know for certain whether the natural fibre has any immediate prospect of revival as a real cash crop with greater world market demand or a continued depressed demand is sure to send it into oblivion. The persistent division of opinion on this issue at the national level will only provoke unnecessary debates periodically. It may even unduly sensitise farmers and workers engaged in the sector to lead to unrest. For the obvious reason, the renewed debate on jute should be ended with a definite conclusion, drawn jointly by the government and experts.
Undisturbed industrial peace in the age of global competition is necessary for enhanced productivity in mills and factories. On the other hand, unrest in the industrial belt, however periodic, tarnishes the image of the country and drives away prospective foreign investors. The nation can thus ill afford to keep up any divisive issue alive for long. The ministry of jute and that of finance should jointly sit with the private sector jute mill owners, top managers of the state-run jute mills corporation and the jute research institute together with local experts and opinion leaders to find out whether jute has really any big prospect and if it has what is the direction. Conclusive opinion in this regard may help preclude industrial unrest and social convulsions.