• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Japan to go from 2.4 million farmers to 400,000 farmers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Japan to go from 2.4 million farmers to 400,000 farmers

    Squeezing out family farmers

    By AKIO OGAWA, Special to The Asahi Shimbun



    Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's government is busy spreading pain far and wide. Victims include the man, woman and child on the street, who are facing, among other problems, hiked fees for national health service, dismantled labor protection rules and reduced child care programs.

    In addition, average citizens are bracing for higher premiums for pensions, smaller benefits and more taxes, while the high and mighty await large tax breaks for stock investments and cuts in inheritance taxes.

    Yoichi Tashiro, a professor of economics at the graduate school of Yokohama National University, notes that farmers have been missing from the mass media's list of victims of Koizumi's brutal juggernaut.

    In his latest book, ``Nihon ni Nogyo wa Iki-nokoreru ka'' (Can agriculture survive in Japan?, Otsuki Shoten, 2,400 yen), Tashiro warns that millions of family farmers, especially those with small and medium-sized holdings, are destined to fade away fast.

    Like most other reform programs trumpeted by Koizumi, the professor argues, his farm and rural policies are just an extension or acceleration of those long practiced by the Liberal Democratic Party, big business and the bureaucracy.

    The book notes that a new agricultural basic law was enacted in 1999, replacing the 1961 basic law that guaranteed all farmers an existence and equal income, at least on paper.

    Under the new basic law, all these guarantees disappeared. Then in 2000, the LDP proposed that the nation's 2.4 million primary farmers be reduced to 400,000 in the future. Farm outlays in national and local budgets would go to those chosen few.

    Why 400,000? Tashiro delved into mountains of documents and came across a report prepared in 2000 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries that most city dwellers or family farmers, for that matter, have never heard of.

    The report envisages a 2010 agricultural scene of from 330,000 to 370,000 farmers with salaries rivaling those of people in industrial and service sectors, plus 30,000 to 40,000 others in corporate and other enterprises related to agriculture.

    Perhaps too late, family farmers now realize the new basic law formally allowed corporations to own farmland and their agents to become members of agricultural cooperatives for the first time since the war.

    Under these arrangements, some farm experts and economists feared, big businesses would grab up fields and paddies in urban areas and turn them into apartment houses or office and shopping centers.

    But Tashiro presents a worst-case scenario with trading houses, banks and other big businesses controlling most of the selected 400,000 large farms and agricultural cooperatives.

    True, a 2000 census showed that persons 65 years or older represented 55 percent of all farmers, large and small. Thus, it seems just a matter of time before family farmers disappear into a historical oblivion, but now the government is aggressively accelerating the process.

    Pet projects get priority

    To make matters worse, the Koizumi government has begun cutting public works projects for rural towns and villages, while keeping big projects like highways, airports and dams intact.

    There are numerous wasteful public works projects, but it is also true that many smaller public works have long been lifelines for family farmers, making up for the income gap with city dwellers.

    In addition, the Koizumi administration has begun reducing subsidies to rural areas, using the savings for his pet programs focused on what he calls the rebirth of cities.

    Bluntly put, however, his pet programs are designed to help developers build tall apartment houses and office buildings in Tokyo, Osaka, Fukuoka and other big cities.

    Until a few decades ago, farmers in this country looked like new aristocrats and were the envy of factory and office workers in cities. Every farm family owned a couple of cars, lived in a big house and enjoyed fat government subsidies for its products, especially rice. What has brought about the decline?

    Tashiro puts farmers' plight in a historical perspective.

    First, the nation's farmers have become a small minority from a majority as a result of fast industrialization and urbanization since the end of the war. Even in 1970 the agricultural sector totaled 20.7 percent of the total population but dropped to 4.8 percent in 1997.

    Second, agricultural technology has made great progress, producing giant surpluses of rice. In fact, the government is taking a third of the country's paddies out of cultivation and spending thousands of millions of yen to store surplus rice.

    Third, farm exporters led by the United States have torn down most of Japan's protectionist barriers for farm products, with the nation's self-sufficiency rate down to 40 percent, lowest among advanced industrialized nations.

    In his latest book the author notes that since the end of the Cold War the United States has increased pressure on Japan to open up its farm market faster and on all fronts, since Washington no longer has to worry about Tokyo's full support in any confrontation with Russia.

    In Tashiro's eyes, Japan's ruling elite decided to sacrifice farmers years ago to secure export markets in the United States and elsewhere. He points out that the ruling party felt it could ignore farmers, once its primary power base, after they became a tiny minority.

    Tashiro's book forces readers to look at the bleak future of the nation's rural landscape, perhaps their hometowns or villages, and to shudder.

    It is a sad picture, as small family farmers have kept this country's remote areas green and their rivers running since ancient times.

    * * *

    The reviewer is a former senior writer for the Asahi Evening News.(IHT/Asahi: March 29,2002)

    #2
    This is such a depressing story. Government sanctioned butchery of real peoples' lives.

    Comment


      #3
      You could have substituted "Canada" for "Japan" in just about every sentence. That is the way of the world, whether we like it or not.

      Comment


        #4
        "That is the way of the world, whether we like it or not." Aaaaargh! You're doing it again Cowman! We are not supposed to be helpless bystanders in our own destiny. This is supposed to be a democracy. We can change things if we want to enough. Let's vote for whoever really believes in democracy and education and knowledge and all that GOOD stuff.

        Comment


          #5
          "this is supposed to be a democracy" And Deb what is democracy? Mob rule? Without a bill of rights that includes the right to own property, democracy is the most evil form of government around! The Americans have this right, we do not! Therefore, the majority can take away everything you have with no compensation!
          Therefore we have a country where the government confiscates our property with no compensation(gun law). And a country that denies us free speech(so-called hate law) and denies us the right to association(again so-called hate law). We live in the modern police state and are controlled by a political and economic elite.We call it a democracy...it is supposed to be rule by the majority with respect for the minority. So you get to vote for dog A or dog B: but they are still both dogs! In the American model(a republic) the rights of the individual take precedence over the rights of the majority(and are protected by law!). In Canada the rights of the majority take precedence over the rights of the individual...the hive mentality. In other words the American model represents individual freedom while the Canadian model represents slavery to the collective!!! There is your political science lesson for the day!!!

          Comment


            #6
            Are you saying the 30 million non-farm people's rights are less important than the 300,000 or so farmers rights?

            Comment


              #7
              I am saying that the rights of the individual are paramount! Over the collective rights of 30 million. Now I am not saying that one person can hold up the will of the majority...but his property rights must be respected. An Example: If the country needs a road through my property then they can do it for the good of the majority. But because I have the right to own property then I must be compensated fairly. The notorius gun law confiscates WITHOUT compensation.Therefore it is state theft or theft by the majority. If the majority decides something is evil and wants to abolish it that is fine but pay me for my evil but legal property.
              Now the American system doesn't always respect their own laws. A good case would be the ending of slavery! Now good or evil slaves were real LEGAL property before the war. And the owners should have been compensated!
              If the state can take away one right for the good of the majority then what is to stop them from taking others? What if the day comes when the ideas of say Islam become unacceptable to the majority? We can ban the faith...afterall it might be concieved as good for the majority. And because we're not moslem we go along with it. And then it's the Catholics....well I'm sure you've heard this one before!
              What happens when we give up our God given individual rights to the hive is we begin to slip back into slavery.

              Comment


                #8
                If all private property owners were good people and everyone shared in the wealth and saw that nobody went hungry or became lonely, I would agree with private property rights. But it's the crooks that spoil everything. I don't believe in private property rights when that one property owner can subdivide his land and build 23 houses and pollute the water, destroy the view, the ranching community, the wildlife migrations and basically poke a finger in God's eye. The county council in Cardston, which is made up of backwoods people that never read a newspaper or magazine, also believe private property rights are everything. they have no idea that where they live is the most beautiful area of the planet. It is in the last remaining foothills parkland with only 1% under protection in the entire province. They are raping a beautiful daughter (or mother) for a few more tax dollars. They could make far more money just charging people to come and stare at the beauty, but they are so profoundly blind to the uniqueness of the area and have taken it for granted so many years, that they haven't the tiniest shred of wisdom about the place. Their great desire for upholding a person's private property rights will result in their being cursed for generations after the landscape is gone.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Whoa Deb!!, Private property would be okay if the people who owned it didn't let anyone be lonely??? And shared all their wealth?? Deb, I seriously have to ask you what planet are you from? Did you know that the USSR is gone?
                  When you state that that land down by Waterton is the most beautiful in the world I hope you realize that is only your opinion? And try to be more tolerant of the municipal council...after all the people in that county voted them in? Are you saying everyone down there are backwoods hicks? Just because you don't agree with progress doesn't mean you have to be derogatory about a whole county!
                  I do believe you could be a watermelon...which is...the definition of an environmentalist...Green on the outside, red on the inside!!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Not all progress is good. Some is shortsighted and destructive.

                    A lot of ranchers bitch and complain about all the subdivisions and disappearing ranchland but they don't try to do anything about it.

                    What is it with you people? Why is it that when someone stands up and says we need to share our good fortune with others that they are suddenly communists? Some people say Ralph Klein and George Bush are the real communists.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      In the last issue of Grain News there is an excellent article on what is happening in the U.S. in regards to the eastern slopes. Written by Wayne Burleson a pasture management consultant.
                      Basically the article says the old ranching familys are being bought out by wealthy newcomers who are not interested in ranching. In other words they want a rich playground. Ted Turner would be a good example.
                      Is this the future of our eastern slopes? Already a lot of the old time ranches are owned by wealthy oil men. Just look at the land around Turner Valley and Longview. The stream of upscale SUVs going into Calgary every morning has become the scandal of that area.
                      Now is this what we want? A wealthy elite owning all this "beautiful" land?(although I would submit to you: fairly worthless land from a productive point of view?)

                      Comment

                      • Reply to this Thread
                      • Return to Topic List
                      Working...