Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Song Mi-ryeong is answering questions from lawmakers during a government audit on agricultural and marine affairs issues held at the National Assembly on the 24th of last month. Yonhap News The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs expressed regret on the 22nd over the fact that the opposition parties, including the Democratic Party of Korea, pushed through controversial bills such as the Grain Management Act amendment at the National Assembly’s Agriculture, Food, Rural Affairs, Oceans and Fisheries Committee the previous day. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs strongly criticized the government for the recent decline in rice prices, and strongly objected, calling it a ‘legislative contradiction’ to have passed a bill that solidified rice overproduction and caused a decline in rice prices.
In a statement issued on this day, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs said, “We express deep regret over the fact that four bills were independently processed without sufficient discussion around midnight as they passed through the Agricultural and Marine Affairs Committee of the National Assembly the previous day, the Bill Subcommittee on the day, and the Agenda Coordination Committee.”
At 11:50 p.m. the night before, the opposition party held the National Assembly’s Agricultural and Marine Affairs Committee and announced: △ a partial amendment bill to the Grain Management Act △ a partial amendment bill to the Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution and Price Stabilization Act △ a partial amendment bill to the Agricultural and Fishery Disaster Insurance Act (amendment to the Accident Insurance Act) △ a partial amendment bill to the Agricultural and Fishery Disaster Countermeasures Act (disaster) Amendment to the Countermeasures Act) was passed on its own.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs pointed out the problems with the bill passed the previous day.
First, regarding the amendment to the Grain Act, “It solidifies the structural oversupply of rice, causing the price of rice to continue to fall and preventing farmers from switching to cultivating other crops.” “It neutralizes various policy efforts being pursued,” he said.
The amendment to the Grain Act requires the government to purchase surplus rice and introduces a ‘grain price stabilization system’ so that if the market price of grain falls below the average price, the government will pay the difference.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs also pointed out that since the introduction of the ‘minimum price guarantee system’ is the key to the amendment to the Farm Security Act, it causes a vicious cycle of ‘concentration in production → oversupply → price decline → government preservation’. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs pointed out that once the amendment to the Farm Security Act is implemented, the volatility of agricultural product prices will increase, increasing the burden on farm management and consumer prices.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs also said, “When calculating the insurance premium rate, it contains content that excludes the application of a premium for damage caused by natural disasters,” adding, “The principle is that insurance premiums are calculated in proportion to the risk of disaster occurrence, but if the bill is revised, “There is a problem of equity among insured people,” he pointed out. He continued, “The insurance operations of private insurance companies are not sustainable.”
Regarding the amendment to the Disaster Countermeasures Act, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs said, “In the event of a disaster, it contains provisions to guarantee all or part of the production costs invested before the disaster and apply support standards at the level of actual transaction prices,” adding, “It may not be equitable with support standards in other fields.” In addition, there will be side effects such as moral hazard and decreased motivation to subscribe to insurance,” he said.
According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, about 40 out of 59 farmer groups have expressed opposition to the revised Grain Act and the Farm Security Act. In order to avoid repeating wasteful debate, the government prepared a ‘Korean-style plan to establish a safety net for farmers’ income and management’ last September. The plan to establish a Korean-style farmer income and management safety net includes the full introduction of income stabilization insurance and expansion of the direct payment system by 5 trillion won.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs said, “We earnestly request that we be able to communicate sufficiently during the remaining bill deliberation process, including the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee.”
Reporter Lee Gwang-sik bumeran@hankyung.com
**To Expert 1:** How does the proposed “Korean-style plan” for farmers’ income support aim to address the specific concerns raised by the Ministry regarding rice overproduction and price decline, and how does it differ from the proposed amendments to existing agricultural legislation?
## Interview with Experts on Controversial Agricultural Bills
**Introduction:**
Good evening and welcome to World Today News. Tonight, we’re diving deep into the recent controversy surrounding amendments to key agricultural bills in South Korea. Joining us are two distinguished experts: [**Name of Expert 1**, representing [**Their Affiliation**]]and [**Name of Expert 2**, representing [**Their Affiliation**]].
**Theme 1: Concerns Over Rice Overproduction and Price Decline**
* **[To Expert 1]** The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has expressed strong concerns that the amendment to the Grain Management Act will solidify rice overproduction, leading to further price declines. Can you elaborate on the potential consequences of this for Korean rice farmers?
* **[To Expert 2]** Some argue that the amendment aims to protect farmers from volatile market forces and provide them with a stable income. Do you believe this is a justifiable intervention in the market, or could it lead to unintended consequences?
**Theme 2: The Viability and Stability of the Proposed “Grain Price Stabilization System”**
* **[To Expert 1]** The amendment proposes a “grain price stabilization system” where the government intervenes to ensure a minimum price for rice. Do you think this system is sustainable in the long-term, or could it create dependency and distortions in the market?
* **[To Expert 2]** Proponents of the amendment argue that it will ensure food security and protect consumers from price spikes. How do you weigh these concerns against the potential economic inefficiency of government intervention?
**Theme 3: Impact on Farmer Insurance and Agricultural Disaster Relief**
* **[To Expert 1]** The Ministry also raised concerns about the revision to the Agricultural and Fishery Disaster Insurance Act, specifically regarding the exclusion of certain natural disaster-related damages from premium calculations. How might this impact the stability of insurance operations for farmers and their ability to recover from unexpected events?
* **[To Expert 2]** The amendment also proposes changes to the Disaster Countermeasures Act, including guaranteeing production costs in the event of disaster. Do you see this as a fair and equitable approach, or could it create moral hazard and disincentivize responsible risk management by farmers?
**Theme 4: Alternative Solutions and the “Korean-Style Plan”**
* **[To Expert 1]** The Ministry highlighted their proposed “Korean-style plan” for farmers’ income support, which includes income stabilization insurance and expansion of the direct payment system. How do you assess the potential effectiveness of this alternative approach compared to the controversial amendments?
* **[To Expert 2]** Do you believe there is room for compromise between the government’s plan and the concerns expressed by farmers’ groups? What steps could be taken to achieve a more balanced and sustainable solution for the agricultural sector?
**Conclusion:**
Thank you both for your insightful perspectives on this complex issue. The debate surrounding these agricultural bills highlights the delicate balance between protecting farmers, ensuring food security, and maintaining market efficiency. It’s clear that further discussion and collaboration are essential to finding solutions that benefit all stakeholders.
