O možnih razlogih za dvig cen mleka in mesa
admin, sreda, 5. december 2007GOST RAZGLEDOV
dr. Emil Erjavec
Biotehniška fakulteta univerze v Ljubljani, Boku Wien
emil.erjavec@bfro.uni-lj.si
O tem, zakaj bodo slovenski potrošniki deležni nadaljnjih podražitev mlečnih in mesnih proizvodov, nismo doslej dobili bogve smiselne razlage. Ker pa je rast cen družbeno relevanten problem z makroekonomskimi posledicami in učinki na blaginjo vsakogar, velja o vzrokih in posledicah napovedanih dvigov cen vendarle razmisliti.
Najglasnejša je razlaga, da je vse skupaj posledica mednarodnih gibanj cen kmetijskih surovin. To zagotovo ne more v celoti držati za meso in mesne izdelke, ki so predvsem pri rdečem mesu na razmeroma nizki ravni in celo padajo. Visoke cene surovin, predvsem žit, se v svetu še ne odražajo v ceni svinjskega in govejega mesa ter mesnih proizvodov. Slovenska klavna industrija še naprej kupuje razmeroma poceni “surovino” od domačih rejcev. Ti so sicer začeli jamrati, vendar rastoče stroške zaenkrat še nadomeščajo rastoče subvencije ter možnost izvoza živih živali v Avstrijo. Rejci govedi in prašičev od samih podražitev zaenkrat nimajo veliko, dejstvo je, da jim bodo verjetno, s ciljem ohranitve domače surovine, mesarji po teh podražitvah ponudili višjo ceno, da bi jih zadržali na domačem trgu. Stavimo lahko, da cena surovine ne bo šla gor toliko, kolikor bo znašala rast cen izdelkov v trgovinah. Dokler kdo ne postreže s čistimi številkami skozi celotno nabavno in prodajno verigo, ne bo moč verjeti, da renta ni ostala pri mesarjih in trgovini.
Samo nekoliko drugače je v industriji belega mesa. Slovensko perutninarstvo (Perutnina Ptuj, Jata), ki je vertikalno organizirano, za svoje kooperante in za lastno proizvodnjo samo nabavlja krmo na dražjem svetovnem trgu, zato neposredno čuti te podražitve surovin. Svetovni trg se jim neposredno pozna v kalkulacijah stroškov prireje in proizvodnje mesa. Verjetno so bili prav perutninarji s svojo precej specifično zgodbo glavni argument za povišanje cen mesa v trgovinah. Po koliko so perutninarji nabavljali žita seveda ni znano, verjetno ne po najvišji ceni, jasno pa je, da je delež stroškov krme, predvsem preračunano na mesne izdelke, razmeroma majhen. Brez pravih številk povsem zanesljiva presoja ni možna, vendar upam trditi, da je 25 % višja cena čez rob tega, kar zaradi istih vzrokov počne konkurenca v svetu.
Da je na svetovnem trgu pomanjkanje mlečnih izdelkov, je dejstvo. Nekoliko karikirano, Kitajci so začeli piti mleko, možni izvozniki pa imajo ali sušo (Oceanija) ali mlečne kvote (omejitev prireje kot EU) ali pa kot Američani ne uspejo dovolj hitro povečevati prireje. Na slovenski trg vplivajo predvsem Italijani, ki so slovenskim rejcem pripravljeni plačati višjo ceno. Gre za poslovne skrivnosti, sliši pa se, da je po odštetju vseh stroškov in zvijač s preračunavanji cene ta razlika v okviru dveh do štirih centov dodatka na sedanjo ceno - nekaj manj kot 30 centov - za kg surovega mleka. Slovenske mlekarne ne morejo dobiti več mleka na evropskih trgih, ker ga ni, torej morajo dvigniti odkupno ceno, če nočejo, da se jim še več mleka “zlije” čez mejo. Napovedujejo dvig odkupne cene za 3 cente, torej nekako 10 %. Če držijo novinarska poročila, da bodo po jesenskem in napovedanem januarskem zvišanja cen mlečni proizvodi v trgovinah v povprečju dražji za skupno več kot 20 %, in če vemo, da stroški surovine predstavljajo od 30 do 60 % proizvajalčeve cene (odvisno pač od proizvoda), potem bi bil mlekarji upravičeni, do, recimo, dviga za 5 %. To je približno toliko, kot so šle gor cene mlečnih proizvodov v Nemčiji in nekaterih drugih državah. Pri nas bo ta številka nekajkrat višja, zagotovo vsaj dvakrat, ne glede na vso špekulativnost mojih izračunov.
V obeh primerih gre torej za bistvene in hkrati vprašljivo upravičene podražitve. Slednje velja predvsem s stališča, da živimo v tržnem gospodarstvu, na enotnem trgu EU in v konkurenčnem sistemu trgovin. Kot da ekonomija ne bi delovala v celoti. Pa deluje, in še kako, vendar v okvirih strukture trga, ki jo imamo. Hipoteze bi lahko bile naslednje. Prvič, trgovini ta zvišanja ustrezajo, saj pri nespremenjenih relativnih maržah dobi bistveno povečane absolutne zneske. Zaradi nizke cenovne elastičnosti povpraševanja se prihodki trgovin in živilsko-predelovalne industrije pomembno zvišajo, ne glede na manjše nakupe potrošnikov. In ker so septembra uspeli, gre pa za milijone evrov, poskušajo očitno znova. Napade v javnosti in s strani politike bodo že preživeli, le da se renta povečuje.
Kaj pa konkurenca v trgovini ? Zakaj ne odigra svoje vloge? Verjetno velja preprosto pravilo: tudi če ni kartelnih dogovorov med mlekarji in mesarji na eni strani ter med trgovci na drugi strani, imajo vsi isti interes, iste načine delovanja ter se obnašajo kot kolektivni agent. Zakaj bi tekmovali med seboj, če gre tudi bolj udobno? Če k temu dodamo, da so vsi dobro branžno organizirani, z lobisti in piarovci takšne ali drugačne vrste, potem je jasno, kako uspevajo. Preživeti morajo le kakšen dan medijske obravnave, potem pa gredo stvari lepo naprej, kot so začrtali.
Konkurenca med trgovci sicer obstaja, vendar je lahko samo izven treh velikih, ki imajo v glavnem iste dobavitelje, iste proizvode, ista pravila. Drugi trgovci so, tudi zaradi preferenc slovenskih kupcev do slovenskih proizvodov, prisiljeni delovati enako, predvsem pa jih je premalo. Edina konkurenca bi lahko bili trgovski centri v okolici. Na Madžarskem so predaleč, pa tudi navajeni nismo hoditi tja. Na Hrvaškem je dražje, pa še na oni strani “železne zavese EU” so. Ostaneta torej Italija in Avstrija, enotni trg EU, torej. In tu nastopi presenečenje. Mlečni in mesni proizvodi so tam v povprečju, zaradi višje kupne moči ter drugih vzrokov, pomembno dražji. Kolega Miro Rednak, ki je edini poskušal delati resne cenovne analize, pravi, da smo na agregatni ravni na 85 % cen hrane v EU15, italijanske in avstrijske cene pa da so nadpovprečne. Naše trgovine in živilci imajo tako še precej manevrskega prostora za podražitve. Dvigi cen hrane so torej, hočemo ali nočemo, lepo začinjeni tudi s prevzemom evra.
Skrivnost dviga cen hrane potemtakem lahko pojasnimo predvsem z oligopoli v prehranski industriji in trgovini ter evrskim prilagajanjem. Živilci s podražitvami - v zavetrju političnih napadov na trgovino - popravljajo tudi svoj slabši ekonomski položaj po vstopu v EU, z dvigom cen na evropsko raven bodo namreč zlezli iz izgub. Ne bo pa to dovolj za dolgoročno uspešnost, zato bodo morali narediti še kaj več; izkoriščanje naklonjenosti medijev in vlade ne bo prineslo večje konkurenčnosti. Vlada pa je ob vsem skupaj nemočna, ker ni razvila niti mehanizmov za spremljanje cen in marž, kaj šele, da bi znala ukrepati. Podražitve hrane bi bile zrele za ukrepanje Urada za varstvo konkurenco, a ta mora najprej izdelati kriterije, se naučiti gledati v drobovje cenovnih razmerij ter imeti tudi jasne kompetence.
Objavljeno pod gost razgledi.net, gospodarstvo | 
| 
|
Emil, ko bi le ostalo pri vprašanju ali bo UVK izdelal kriterije, bil kompetenten, etc. Če si zadnje tedne spremljal poslovni tisk, je en (mogoče celo edini v Soveniji) znanstveni svetnik že napovedal, da bo resna analiza pokazala, da dvigi cen niso posledica izkoriščanja tržne moči. Vse ostalo, vključno s pošiljanjem faksov iz Laškega v Ljubljano, lahko predvidimo brez posebne domišljije. Zainteresirani torej sploh ne čakajo na prvo potezo UVK, temveč so očitno že v pogonu, da nam prek strokovnih avtoritet, seveda, dokažejo, kako se ti in ostali motimo. Brez dvoma bo takrat precej priložnosti, da bistveno več ljudi iz stroke kot v preteklosti zahteva javno obravnavo teh resnih študij. Sicer bomo lahko ponovno teoretizirali kaj bi UVK moral narediti, pa tega ni storil.
Po moje izjemen zdravorazumski komentar prof. Erjavca. Uf, pa vse kaže v smeri, ki jo v razlogih za inflacijo spekulativno dodal prof. Bogo Kovač, da je v cenah že vključeno inflacijsko pričakovanje, (na teh zemljepisnih širinah že videno) - realnost ga potrjuje.
Tudi glede UK se strinjam - zato ga imamo.
Kaj se nam obeta in kako se zaščititi? Vprašanje za dr. Erjavca.
“DOOMSDAY SEED VAULT” IN THE ARCTIC BILL GATES, ROCKEFELLER AND THE GMO GIANTS KNOW SOMETHING WE DON’T By F. William Engdahl Global Research, December 4, 2007
- One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can’t be accused of is sloth. He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the world’s richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers. In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization. So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at. No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the world’s most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole. Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by international treaty. (see map at url) On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank.’ Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group. DOOMSDAY SEED VAULT The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small village of Longyearbyen. It’s almost ready for ‘business’ according to their releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government. Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time staff, but the vault’s relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any possible human activity. Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future.’ What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world? Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together on a common project, it’s worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things. The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world’s largest owners of patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta, the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the “gene revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970’s; CGIAR, the global network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity through agriculture change. CGIAR AND ‘THE PROJECT’ As I detailled in the book, Seeds of Destruction1, in 1960 the Rockefeller Foundation, John D. Rockefeller III’s Agriculture Development Council and the Ford Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, the Philippines. By 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation’s IRRI, along with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers, the IITA for tropical agriculture, Nigeria, and IRRI for rice, Philippines, combined to form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR). CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Key participants at the Bellagio talks were the Rockefeller Foundation’s George Harrar, Ford Foundation’s Forrest Hill, Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family’s international environmental organizer, who, as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee, organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It was part of the foundation’s decades long focus to turn science to the service of eugenics, a hideous version of racial purity, what has been called The Project. To ensure maximum impact, CGIAR drew in the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Development Program and the World Bank. Thus, through a carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds, the Rockefeller Foundation by the beginning of the 1970’s was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. And shape it did. Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the US to ‘master’ the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially promotion of the GMO ‘Gene Revolution’ in developing countries, all in the name of science and efficient, free market agriculture. THE EUGENICS OF HITLER - GENETICALLY ENGINEERING A MASTER RACE? Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. ‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race. The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.2 The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace. The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same. In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.’ AGRIBUSINESS AND THE ROCKEFELLER GREEN REVOLUTION WENT HAND-IN-HAND. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later. John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950’s. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.” He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few others had a clue back then— a revolution in agriculture production that would concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from the traditional family farmer. 3 A crucial aspect driving the interest of the Rockefeller Foundation and US agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. One vital aspect of hybrid seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity. Hybrids had a built in protection against multiplication. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields similar to its parents, the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was significantly lower than that of the first generation. That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed every year in order to obtain high yields. Moreover, the lower yield of the second generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers without the breeder’s authorization. It prevented the redistribution of the commercial crop seed by middlemen. If the large multinational seed companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house, no competitor or farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. The global concentration of hybrid seed patents into a handful of giant seed companies, led by DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto’s Dekalb laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution. 4 In effect, the introduction of modern American agricultural technology, chemical fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing countries, particularly the larger more established ones, dependent on foreign, mostly US agribusiness and petro-chemical company inputs. It was a first step in what was to be a decades-long, carefully planned process. Under the Green Revolution Agribusiness was making major inroads into markets which were previously of limited access to US exporters. The trend was later dubbed “market-oriented agriculture.” In reality it was agribusiness-controlled agriculture. THROUGH THE GREEN REVOLUTION, THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION AND LATER FORD FOUNDATION WORKED HAND-IN-HAND SHAPING AND SUPPORTING THE FOREIGN POLICY GOALS OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID) AND OF THE CIA. One major effect of the Green Revolution was to depopulate the countryside of peasants who were forced to flee into shantytown slums around the cities in desperate search for work. That was no accident; it was part of the plan to create cheap labor pools for forthcoming US multinational manufactures, the ‘globalization’ of recent years. When the self-promotion around the Green Revolution died down, the results were quite different from what had been promised. Problems had arisen from indiscriminate use of the new chemical pesticides, often with serious health consequences. The mono-culture cultivation of new hybrid seed varieties decreased soil fertility and yields over time. The first results were impressive: double or even triple yields for some crops such as wheat and later corn in Mexico. That soon faded. The Green Revolution was typically accompanied by large irrigation projects which often included World Bank loans to construct huge new dams, and flood previously settled areas and fertile farmland in the process. Also, super-wheat produced greater yields by saturating the soil with huge amounts of fertilizer per acre, the fertilizer being the product of nitrates and petroleum, commodities controlled by the Rockefeller-dominated Seven Sisters major oil companies. Huge quantities of herbicides and pesticides were also used, creating additional markets for the oil and chemical giants. As one analyst put it, in effect, the Green Revolution was merely a chemical revolution. At no point could developing nations pay for the huge amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. They would get the credit courtesy of the World Bank and special loans by Chase Bank and other large New York banks, backed by US Government guarantees. Applied in a large number of developing countries, those loans went mostly to the large landowners. For the smaller peasants the situation worked differently. Small peasant farmers could not afford the chemical and other modern inputs and had to borrow money. Initially various government programs tried to provide some loans to farmers so that they could purchase seeds and fertilizers. Farmers who could not participate in this kind of program had to borrow from the private sector. Because of the exorbitant interest rates for informal loans, many small farmers did not even get the benefits of the initial higher yields. After harvest, they had to sell most if not all of their produce to pay off loans and interest. They became dependent on money-lenders and traders and often lost their land. Even with soft loans from government agencies, growing subsistence crops gave way to the production of cash crops.5 Since decades the same interests including the Rockefeller Foundation which backed the initial Green Revolution, have worked to promote a second ‘Gene Revolution’ as Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway termed it several years ago, the spread of industrial agriculture and commercial inputs including GMO patented seeds. GATES, ROCKEFELLER AND A GREEN REVOLUTION IN AFRICA With the true background of the 1950’s Rockefeller Foundation Green Revolution clear in mind, it becomes especially curious that the same Rockefeller Foundation along with the Gates Foundation which are now investing millions of dollars in preserving every seed against a possible “doomsday” scenario are also investing millions in a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. [end quote] THE REST OF THIS VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE IS FOUND HERE AT URL.: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArt.....cleId=7529 F. William Engdahl is the author of Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation just released by Global Research. He also the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press Ltd.. To contact by e-mail: info@engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net. William Engdahl is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). His writings can be consulted on www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net and on Global Research. -0- FPF - Related: Often I’ve wondered why this group is doing it: making us all commit global suicide. Why they - and this is my personal opinion - take us all into their abyss? The radiation which the Dr. Strangeloves have spread is enough for a half life of 4.5 Billion years, and: ”Unless they have some secret drug against it, they’ll all perish too. Nuclear radiation death can not be avoided by decontamination afterwards,” I wrote earlier. - “Global Suicide?” - Url.: http://portland.indymedia.org/.....8157.shtml Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads. GM food - urgent action needed — THE INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE IN SOCIETY, Tue Dec 4 11:21AM THE INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE IN SOCIETYISIS Press Release 04/12/07URGENT ACTION NEEDED AGAINST PRO-GM ABUSE OF SCIENCE AND… more
Emil, zanimiv članek. Ki pa - za popolno razumevanje - pušča odprto vprašanje, zakaj so naša živilska podjetja danes tako nekonkurenčna in zakaj jih je vstop v EU tako prizadel. Odgovor je zelo preprost in ga je mogoče lepo kvantificirati. Vse ostale predelovalne panoge so šle skozi cenovni šok že v 1990.tih letih, ko smo liberalizirali trgovino z EU (postopna odprava carin do 2001), le kmetijstvu in živilski industriji smo v začetku 1990-tih let dvignili carinske stopnje in druge oblike zaščite (prelevmane itd.) in visoko zaščito (tudi do 45%) ohranili vse do vstopa v EU. Po teoriji (argument mlade industrije) bi morali živilci to obdobje desetih let izkoristiti za učinkovito prestrukturiranje in pripravo na vstop v EU. Vendar tega niso naredili. Še več, vstop v EU jih je dobesedno presenetil in šokiral! Mnoga podjetja sploh niso vedela, da jih čaka tržni red pri sladkorju, kar jim je močno dvignilo cene surovin itd.
Vemo, da je bilo veliko študij narejenih tako na Kmetijskem inštitutu, Biotehniški fakulteti in na Inštitutu za ekonomska raziskovanja, ki so opozarjala na to. Pa vendar je vstop v EU še vedno tako šokiral živilce. Živilci so hudo trpeli zadnji dve leti zaradi hujše tuje konkurence ter povišanja vstopnih stroškov. Letošnje leto pa pač izkoriščajo, da si za nazaj popravijo svoj relativni položaj.
Kaj zdaj? Naj se nam smilijo ali jih je potrebno “priviti”? Krivi so pred vsem sami, ker so udobno živeli v času zaščite. Kako jih lahko privijemo, da ne bomo kot potrošniki še enkrat več plačevali višjih cen kot bi jih lahko v primeru njihove večje konkurenčnosti?
Nimam pametnega odgovora, razen logike, ki jo je Janković striktno uveljavljal pri svojem odnosu do dobaviteljev ali kot jo tuji kupci zahtevajo od naših proizvajalcev komponent - znižanje dobavnih cen vsako leto za nekaj odstotkov. Z Laškim prevzemom Mercatorja je prišlo do preloma te prakse, ki jo je najlepše ilustrirala izjava ASK, da je treba prekiniti s tem nehumanim stiskanjem dobaviteljev (po spominu). Imela je v mislih verjetno samo prenizke rabate za Laško in Union, vendar je logika očitno delovala tudi za druge dobavitelje. No, pa smo dobili inflacijo…
Hvala vsem za prijazen in konstruktiven odziv.
@igor
Ja, dokazati oligopolne rente je težko. Recimo pa, da je na ta način, kot ga prikazujem in s totalnim informacijskim inputom, poznavajoč tehnološka razmerja in cenovne spremembe, ocene rent mogoče tudi dovolj strokovno izvesti. Vprašanje seveda ostaja, ali UVK tovrstne analize izvede (naroči) in to nato ko se cenovni premiki že zgodijo, ali pa se vzpostavi stalni sistem nadzora. Sam sem bolj za slednje. Na nek način sem videl to v ZDA, kjer kmetijsko ministrstvo ima dovolj jasne informacije, kako se reže pogača po celotni agroživilski verigi. V Evropi teh informacij ni na voljo, ne le pri nas. Predstavljam si zelo preprosto, da če imamo inštitucije, ki dnevno opravljajo monitoring ekonomije in kmetijstva(UMAR, KIS), bi to lahko počeli neodvisno tudi na tem področju ter poročali javnosti, kakšno je stanje. To je stalna strokovna naloga v rangu 100.000 evrov. Veliko, vendar prihranki za potrošnike in prispevek k transparentnosti trga bi bil neizmeren. Nekaj podobnega imamo v kmetijstvu z modelnimi kalkulacijami ter ekonomskim računom, ki so se uveljavili kot ključni mehanizem nadzora nad stanjem, kjer ne lobisti, ne politiki in uradniki ne morejo po svoje krojiti resnice.
@Anika
Ja, industrijalizacija kmetijstva je imela precej negativnih posledic in jih še ima. Razviti so s svojo izdatno “pomočjo”, velikokrat delali več škode kot koristi. Še največ je utrpela Afrika, kjer je tradicionalno kmetijstvo uničeno, nadomeščeno pa z monokulturnim gospodarjanjem brez velikih ekonomskih in socialnih koristi za lokalno prebivalstvo. So pa tudi dobre zgodbe, kot so nekatere regije v Indiji, Kitajskem. Kakorkoli, problem lakote se ne rešuje, ampak zaostruje. Brez novih biotehnoloških postopkov tega problema ne bomo rešili na svetovni ravni in Evropa ima tu svojo odgovornost. Industrijalizacija kmetijstva pa je tudi prispevala k učinku tople grede ter pregrevanju. Torej, velik izziv človeštva je, kako kombinirati gospodarski razvoj in varstvo okolja, ali kakor pravi naš kolega Buckwell, kako dosegati prehransko in okoljsko varnost. Velik izziv za vse, predvsem pa za Skupno kmetijsko politiko. Sprejeti moramo tezo, da so kmetje in gozdarji tudi upravljalci s površinami in okoljem, ter da s pridelavo hrane imajo poleg ekonomskih tudi okoljske in prostorske učinke in odgovornost. Seveda to ne sme biti izgovor za novi protekcionizem, ampak za usmerjanje razvoja po principu korenčka in palice.
@jože
Vemo, kaj je bilo in kaj je problem z živilsko industrijo. Šlepali so se na zaščiti kmetijstva in zaostali v razvoju. Pristop in soočenje s konkurenco jih je presenetil. Imaj problem z ekonomijo obsega, svoje (morda le navidezne) višje kakovosti ne znajo vnovčiti. Tale jesenski manever, ni tako slučajen in mi diši po precej usklajeni akciji politike in kapitala. Predvsem je problem, da so v tem “popravljanju krivic” šli predaleč. Zato sem se tudi oglasil. Delovati morajo po istih pogojih kot konkurenca v sosednjih državah, predvsem pa se dvigniti v konkurenčnosti nad raven sosedov. In to sploh ne bi smelo biti tako težko, v regiji namreč prevladuje korporativistični pristop. Primanjkuje pa podjetniške vzpodbude, razvijanje novih proizvodov, izkoriščanja tradicionalnih elementov v proizvodnji “nove” hrane. Razvoj je precej omejen. Že nekaj časa prodajam idejo, da bi lastniki živilske (Istra Benz, KD, Kadi, kmetje,…) morali skupaj z državo izgraditi poseben raziskovalno-razvojni inštitut, ki bi integriral biotehnologijo, tradicijo, promocijo… Na Irskem sem videl tudi tehnološki park, kjer so financirali razvoj raznoraznih idej v živilstvu, ter tako vzpodbujali inovacije. Mi imamo komparativne prednosti v živilstvu! Jemo še zmeraj boljšo hrano v primerjavi z večino evropskih držav (ta je subjektivna, pa vendar…). Dejstvo je tudi, da lastniki ne dobijo dovolj dobrih managerjev za to branžo, ki praviloma ne daje visokih donosov. Zakaj jih ne kupujemo drugje? Prav tako bi morali še bolj poudarjati sledljivost in izkoriščat vertikalno integriranost. Prve ideje so tu in to sorazmerno uspešno (Vipavski pršut, nekateri programi v perutninarstvu). Torej, pobuda države bi se morala premakniti iz tihe podpore oligopolnim rentam (to počnejo tako, da so zbili pogajalsko moč trgovcev) k krepitvi podjetniške inciative in tudi prestrukturiranju. Torej, če odgovorim na tvoje vprašanje: sem za več konkurence, vendar tudi več podpore prestrukturiranju in to predvsem prestrukturiranju v glavah…
EE: Brez novih biotehnoloških postopkov tega problema ne bomo rešili na svetovni ravni in Evropa ima tu svojo odgovornost.
Odprava CAP in USA dotacij kmetijstvu bi veliko vec globalno prispevala! Hrane je prevec samo je nepravicno raspodeljena. Kronicna debelost na Zahodu in lakota v ostanku sveta…
Trg v kmetijstvu je danes oxymoron. Kmetje vs. drzava - dogovorna ekonomija!
@mmm
Lep argument sicer, vendar tudi vsa odprava subvencij razvitih ne rešuje problemov lakote. To je zelo pogosto slišan argument,ki pa je na žalost zgolj stereotip. V kmetijstvo je potrebno vlagati in tehnološki napredek ter trg se ne zgodita sama od sebe. Nobelovec Coase je enkrat lepo rekel, da je “trg potrebno narediti”. Razlika med Azijo in Afriko je prav tem, da so v Aziji imeli razvoj podprt z iskanjem tehnologij in ustvarjanjem trga v Afriki pa zgolj izkoriščanje naravnih resursev. Pa o tem kdaj drugič. Kmetijska politika je vredna kritike, vendar na žalost je le ta preveč ideološka. Iz katerekoli strani.
Spoštovani dr. Erjavec,
zahvaljujem se za Vaš odgovor in nadaljujem z vprašanji:
1. Ali ima RS svojo banko “naravnih semen”?
2. Ali kmetijska politika v najširšem smislu v RS (in tudi v EU) razmišlja o tem, kako bi se prebivalstvo čim več mest etc. oskrbovalo s pridelki in prehrambenimi proizvodi iz najbližje okolice oziroma s pretežno slovenskimi, glede na to, da je Slovenija majhna? Ne gre za “nacionalni interes”, ampak za zmanjševanje stroškov transporta hrane v globalnem smislu. Nafta se bo dražila oziroma lahko pride celo do velikega pomanjkanja. (tudi za kmetijske obdelovalne stroje, gnojila itd.) V ilustracijo navajam:
“Green Revolutions in Cuba and Venezuela”, “How Green is my Garden”?
3. Zakaj se ne pospešuje setev industrijske konoplje?
Prednosti v: “Hemp, The Weed That Could Change the World”.
Morda je moje razmišljanje “romantično”, a bojim se, da nas bo stvarnost kmalu prisilila v take in podobne rešitve. Kolikor mi je znano tudi Hrvaška seljačka stranka trezno in modro razmišlja v tej smeri, kar zadeva kmetijsko politiko; po eni strani imajo pri tem morda celo prednost, saj HR še ni V EU.
Da pa se bo hrana pretežno dražila v svetovnem merilu, je iskati vzroke za to v:
1. Pridelava hrane je odvisna od časovne/sezonske komponente ne glede na še tako intenzivno pospeševanje v nasprotju z industrijo, kjer lahko neka štanca naštanca čedalje več z izboljšanjem proizvodnih pogojev, strojev, organizacijo dela, materialov, nizko plačano delovno silo itd.itd.
2. Kupna moč veliko prebivlastva zlasti v Aziji se je povečala, zato večja potrošnja mesa, mlečnih izdelkov, žitaric itd. itd.
3. Po najbolj črnem, baje obstoječem scenariju pa si “svetovna elita” prizadeva zmanjšati število prebivalcev na Zemlji na cca 1,5 milijardo - potem bi bili po njihovem rešeni vsi problemi z okoljem in prehrano, ali res? - Anika
@anika
Odgovarjam neposredno na vprašanja.
1. Slovenija ima gensko banko rastlin in živali. Na tem se dela že nekaj desetletij, lahko pa bi dobilo tudi več pozornosti javnosti…
2. Prizadevanja za lokalno ali regionalno oskrbo s hrano ter zmanjševanja transporta ni neposreden cilj kmetijske politike. Nasprotno, enotni trg je vzpodbujal velike transporte rastlinskih in živalskih proizvodov po Evropi. Znane so zgodbe, kako krompir, paradižnik, ali mleko krožijo po Evropi. Vsekakor pa se nekaj premika tam, kjer imajo močan drugi steber kmetijske politike, to je razvoj podeželja, kjer je kar nekaj ukrepov, ki vzpodbujajo lokalno proizvodnjo (podpore sledljivosti, podpore okoljskim programo, kmetijstvu na težjih območjih za pridelavo). Še bolj bo v tej smeri delovala ta politika v prihodnje, ko bi naj klimatske spremembe postale pomemben element te politike. Če bomo vzeli to resno, bi morali vzpodbujati ne samo tehnologije, ki zmanjšuje emisije toplogrednih plinov, ampak tudi zmanjševale transport. Potreben je resen zaokret v SKP. Nato plediramo že nekaj časa….
3. V stroki je splošna uporabnost industrijske konoplje poznana že kar nekaj časa. Imeli bi lahko tudi podpore v tej smeri, vendar se ničesar ne spreminja. Preveč prepuščeno privatni inciativi. Establishment (svetovalna služba, raziskovalci) pa se ne lotevajo tovrstnih projektov podpore. Hrvatov pa boljše ne dajati za zgled. Nočem biti nesramen, ampak pri njih je politika bolj zato, da se “dobro sliši”, drugače pa je njihovo kmetijstvo precej na tleh.
Glede rasti cene hrane imate prav, o tem smo že pisali tudi tukaj, še najboljše (kot ponavadi) pa danes povzema Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420). Rast prebivalstva pa je neustavljiva. Leta 2050 nas bo 9 milijard. Hrana in voda pa bosta najbolj strateški surovini (spet).
World food price rises set to hit consumers
Global food prices were under further pressure on Monday as benchmark prices for cereals at much higher levels came into operation, making it almost inevitable that a second wave of food price inflation will hit the world’s leading economies.
In Chicago wheat and rice prices for delivery in March 2008 have jumped to an all-time record, soyabean prices are at a 34-year high and corn prices at an 11-year peak.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/03de.....ck_check=1