By Vestnik Kavkaza
August 22 marks the anniversary of the Russian official accession to the WTO. The Russians have not fully felt the effect of it, as the initiators of the accession to the world trade club promised, but farmers say the work has become even more difficult. The agriculture experts argue that Russia can now support its farmers less than other countries in terms of economic hectare. However, the government has recently approved program of rural development developed by the Ministry of Agriculture for 2014-2017 and till 2020. Funding for the program to 2020 will amount to 299.2 billion rubles. This will create more than 30,000 jobs. However, the experts have criticized the program.
“The general objectives of the program are good”, Pavel Grudinin, deputy chairman of the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the development of the agro-industrial complex, says. “It is clear that agriculture is the foundation of the Russian state, because it is a village. 30 million people live now, today, according to statistics, in villages. If you divide the amount of aid by 30 million a year, you’ll get 8 rubles a month. 8 rubles a month will not save agriculture and rural social development. Therefore, we have repeatedly said that this program should be radically revised. Otherwise, it will not bring anything, except one thing - a conversation that we have a program which is fulfilled. By the way, I’ll give you an example. The program of state support of the village, which has just ended, in 2012 reached only two goals in terms of indicators out of 12. As a result, there was less milk and less agricultural production.
The program says that we must achieve incomes amounting to 50% of urban incomes. Well, who would go to the village to work if he is promised seven stadiums in the entire territory of Russia per year, 9 schools per year and half an urban salary? And roads, communications, electricity and everything else are just as expensive as in the city, and maybe even more. This program cannot be adopted, because it has to be called a program for the sustainable stagnation of agriculture. After joining the WTO we are limited in the support of the so-called "green box" and can allocate a lot of money to social development. But it turns out that for 8 years the federal budget allocates only 90 billion rubles. For example, I’ll say that U.S. agriculture receives 74 billion dollars per year, and we have 90 billion rubles over 8 years. The main thing is to ensure the profitability of farming and to bring our products to the city in order to ensure their affordability. To date, we see in the program only long-term goals and nothing else”.
According to Anatoly Upadyshev, Member of the Public Council of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, “many representatives of ministries and departments have felt very strongly against this program of the Ministry of Agriculture. Of course, I have to say that the program will not solve even the basic needs of the rural population, but at least we're beginning the process. The program is designed to deliver the message, the state delivers the message, and responsible business itself starts to invest in the development of the areas where this business operates. What for? So that we prevent people from leaving, we make young people stay. The program will not solve the problem of Sberbank, which is leaving these areas. You know that for several years Sberbank has been closing offices with one employee. We addressed this problem at all levels, including talking to Gref and the Federation Council of the State Duma, trying to stop this process. Frankly, the results are not what we had hoped for. Postal services are leaving villages, schools are leaving villages. And after that how can we hold there any really good specialists?
It is very tempting for the Ministry of Agriculture to direct 300 billion to support manufacturers of specialized agricultural commodities. But they withdrew the money and sent it in another direction, towards the development of rural areas and the population that lives in these areas. And it's not given that these funds will go directly to support agricultural producers”.
“This program is based on the concept of sustainable development of rural areas, which was adopted a few years ago, in 2010. This concept was adopted, and then given to the government for consideration and approval and already then it was cut a bit”, Alexander Merzlov, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Rural Development, said. “But still it was a holistic document, it was a big step forward. And theoretically this program must comply with this concept, which was the case in its recent editions. Unfortunately, about two months ago, there have been dramatic changes and a shift was made from the development of rural areas to support the agro-industrial complex.
If you look at the goals and objectives of the program adopted and the concept, there are significant differences. Because if the concept aimed at a comprehensive and balanced solution of social, economic and environmental objectives, while maintaining the natural resources and historical and cultural potential of the rural areas, this program is aimed at stimulating investment activity for the development of the agro-industrial complex and the creation of high-tech jobs. This is radically different.
The new program will contribute to the emergence of single-industry towns in rural areas, if we call it for what it is. Such essential areas as the diversification of the rural economy, it is generally the essence of sustainable development of rural areas, have disappeared from the agenda compared to the concept. It is unfortunately not mentioned in the program at all. Environmental policy is also gone almost entirely. And what is sustainable development without environmental policy? Moreover, if previously the concept aimed at increasing employment and the quality of life, here we have the promotion of high-tech jobs in the countryside. Creating a high-tech job in a rural area means the destruction of several non-high-tech jobs.
Even innovation in rural areas is generally based on tradition. This is a subtle point.
The recent changes were made by the developers who do not have a feeling of either the industry or rural areas. The objectives of the concept included the reduction of inter-regional and intra-regional differentiation of the level and quality of life of the rural population. In the new version the program will only exacerbate these issues, because these are spotlight infusion. Of course, the preservation and enhancement of the cultural potential of the village is not there, because it predominantly focuses on the support, although it talks about different forms, but basically it supports agriculture, ie agro-industrial complex. Industrial agriculture, of course, destroys the culture, lifestyle and traditions of the village.
And in general, I want to tell you that the best international practice program for sustainable development of rural areas are mainly aimed at supporting small forms of enterprise, at supporting the peasants, diversification, ie not only agriculture, but also forestry, tourism, and construction business.
It is clear that agriculture is currently facing a number of challenges. This includes errors associated with joining the WTO, and the increase in rates of illnesses, and rising prices for food for cattle, etc. And of course, the agro-industrial complex should be supported. But, in my opinion, not at the expense of the sustainable development of rural areas. We have to think about how to make these moments that have been lost in the very near future appear in some other new programs, because otherwise the rural areas, the population will feel cheated because this is not what they expected from the program.
