Tweet
AUTHORITIES AGAINST FARMERS
Naira Hayrumyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/economy22220.html
Published: 16:09:54 - 14/06/2011
A fund has been established under the Ministry of Agriculture with
the purpose to help farmers who bore losses due to natural hazards.
What assistance will the fund provide the farmers, whose holdings were
hit by hail, has not been determined, but it is unlikely the state
could cover the expense of the peasants. Most likely, some people
will be provided with seeds and seedlings, but they are unlikely to
save the people who rely on the benevolence of nature.
The experience of developed countries evidences that the practice
of helping farmers who suffer from natural hazards does not justify
itself. This requires long-term investments in two main directions.
Methods to fight natural hazards, in particular frostbite and hail,
are not few in the world. Many technologies, starting from anti-hail
systems and finishing with folding field covers, which you can pull
over the land in a few seconds, exist.
The second main direction is the agricultural insurance. Prime
Minister Tigran Sargsyan, comparing the development of Armenia's
economy with Georgia, said that they solved all the problems with
tax and customs administration, while we have developing banks and
insurance business. Just as banks in Armenia do not contribute to the
economy, so the insurance in Armenia is not directed to the benefit
of ordinary citizens, but the accumulation of funds.
First of all farmers, who depend on the weather more than anyone
else, need insurance. But the representatives of Russian RosGosStrakh
Insurance Company have already issued that it is not worth to dwell
on the agricultural insurance in Armenia for the next 10 years. It
is very expensive because the insurance companies will have to pay
compensations too often.
How are these problems solved in developed countries? There,
the country subsidizes a part of the insurance payments, so it is
interested in the fact that the peasants suffer as little as possible
from the natural hazards. Consequently, the state subsidizes new
technical means to protect farmers from natural hazards. In the end,
both the farmers, who are insured against the vagaries of nature,
and the state, which currently provides food security and low prices
for products, win.
But such a logical approach to the problem is possible only in case
the power is able to consider long-term plans instead of working
from election to election. If the authorities are interested that
the farmers make profit, while food prices decline, it must raise
funds for the insurance of the villages and the introduction of
new technologies. The rejection of these steps suggests that the
government is interested in the growth of imports of agricultural
products, because people engaged in the import are in the power.
Naira Hayrumyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/economy22220.html
Published: 16:09:54 - 14/06/2011
A fund has been established under the Ministry of Agriculture with
the purpose to help farmers who bore losses due to natural hazards.
What assistance will the fund provide the farmers, whose holdings were
hit by hail, has not been determined, but it is unlikely the state
could cover the expense of the peasants. Most likely, some people
will be provided with seeds and seedlings, but they are unlikely to
save the people who rely on the benevolence of nature.
The experience of developed countries evidences that the practice
of helping farmers who suffer from natural hazards does not justify
itself. This requires long-term investments in two main directions.
Methods to fight natural hazards, in particular frostbite and hail,
are not few in the world. Many technologies, starting from anti-hail
systems and finishing with folding field covers, which you can pull
over the land in a few seconds, exist.
The second main direction is the agricultural insurance. Prime
Minister Tigran Sargsyan, comparing the development of Armenia's
economy with Georgia, said that they solved all the problems with
tax and customs administration, while we have developing banks and
insurance business. Just as banks in Armenia do not contribute to the
economy, so the insurance in Armenia is not directed to the benefit
of ordinary citizens, but the accumulation of funds.
First of all farmers, who depend on the weather more than anyone
else, need insurance. But the representatives of Russian RosGosStrakh
Insurance Company have already issued that it is not worth to dwell
on the agricultural insurance in Armenia for the next 10 years. It
is very expensive because the insurance companies will have to pay
compensations too often.
How are these problems solved in developed countries? There,
the country subsidizes a part of the insurance payments, so it is
interested in the fact that the peasants suffer as little as possible
from the natural hazards. Consequently, the state subsidizes new
technical means to protect farmers from natural hazards. In the end,
both the farmers, who are insured against the vagaries of nature,
and the state, which currently provides food security and low prices
for products, win.
But such a logical approach to the problem is possible only in case
the power is able to consider long-term plans instead of working
from election to election. If the authorities are interested that
the farmers make profit, while food prices decline, it must raise
funds for the insurance of the villages and the introduction of
new technologies. The rejection of these steps suggests that the
government is interested in the growth of imports of agricultural
products, because people engaged in the import are in the power.