The undersigned has received as a gift a book work in 2 volumes of Norwegian agricultural policy from 1970 to 2010, written by former Secretary Per Harald Grue. This is a very interesting and quite necessary bokverk for those who want to see the major lines in the agricultural policy through these 40 years, including Grue led agriculture negotiations through 29.
This after having been secretary for Øksnes Committee and since absolutely central to the preparation of the White Paper no. 14. Grue’s insider attempt at a professional bird’s eye view. He is, however, open to critical comments.
Long time period
In such a long period, which includes escalation in the late 70s and early 80s, where this became proclaimed reached under the Conservatives Johan C. Løken, etc. through Øyangen downscaling of agriculture and grain prices, which have now resulted in grain area back where it was before the escalation through Gjønnes, who with his message laid the foundation for the radical structural changes within milk production implemented in Sponheim time and yet has reached its climax with Listaug its proposal 1,2 mil liters of quota, to the lost years with Riis Johannsen, Break and Vedum, where a first in recent years had made little-it will of course be different views and different emphases. It only makes sense.
Grue, however, through its systematic review and customary representation, laid a foundation for other interpretations and understandings of what has swept over agriculture in that time period.
I want the basis of this comprehensive book work, encourage others to a review of memory and notes aimed at correcting, supplementing and nuance where Grue has been little precise, distorted or not had notes to build on.
Grue has meant a lot
The undersigned has not expertise or insight to more than a few critical comments. In the big picture is this insignificant detail, yet it is important. When it is published books will just be right. My comments come in three areas, as seen in a context also paints a picture of the author’s emphasis and his somewhat selective memory.
This is still written with the respect Grue deserves for his long efforts and in our view, totally admirable behavior in favor of agriculture in the short and long term. There is no doubt that Grue has meant a lot for agriculture development during this period.
Grues its basis in recent times has always been the standing message from Prime Minister’s Office that all actions should aim towards two things; Cheap food and figures showing income and development in agriculture, on a for state satisfactory level.
In this context, one should read the former secretary general of the Norwegian Farmers’ Union, Amund Venger, its review of the ministry’s many parliamentary bills on agriculture agreements. Always one has added up to a satisfactory level and development in terms of income in agriculture. This despite it has built up a bigger and bigger income distance to other groups. This paper diaper of Venger forwarded Parliament’s Presidency which supposedly should have sent it to the Standing Committee by then leader Ola Borten Moe. But so far one has brought in experience lies untouched and uncertain.
Gal direction?
If one reads agriculture agreements consecutively in Grue its manufacture, will see what this year has found the need to relieve the pressure in the boiler thus giving out any more rope than normal . Or to use Gro Harlem Brundtland their questions to our peasant leaders sometime in the 80s; The direction is wrong or it goes too fast?
We should remember that the Grue who was secretary of Øksnes and author of White Paper. 14, was not the same Grue who assisted Øyangen and Sponheim. Nevertheless everything new that came, just right as the former was wrong. This serves certainly a public official’s power and glory, but he must also allow others to have their say in a better way than through recent statements in Folldal, that some opponents of agricultural policy with the benefit should have been locked up for their views matter.
My first objection is a comment Grue has an episode in Budget Democracy in 2007 if real interest cost. Grue writes that agriculture ministry representative in the usual way (had) raised the issue of considering changing the calculation method for real interest costs because it was large annual changes in the cost calculation due. variation in the CPI. The conclusion became a smoothing over three years. This meant that farm income would emerge about £ 10,000 higher in 2007 than they would otherwise be portrayed as. Over time evens this out, however, and for all parties to smoothing over time an advantage and widely used. So far, so good.
Embellished bride
The example shows, however, clear how Budsjettnemdas requirements for consensus works. A problem may lie there for many years, agricultural production may have taken it up without getting the support of the state’s representatives. But then suddenly fits the state of other considerations to gear a change. Agriculture will then be a problem, they are not really for change, but in the short term decorate this bride and give a misrepresentation. This was the case in 2007 and was the real reason why the change came just then and not last year or the year after. There were no new scientific justification to make this change. It was a political decision. It also showed the fact that the minister personally undertook inquiry on tel. directly to the leader who tried to steer their members in Budget Board. These members, however, had greater loyalty to the Senate in Budget Issues, than his head and got to his reign with him. When former Secretary of State Kongshaug raised the issue in Parliament, so Grue mentions, obscured his minister behavior, rather than to illuminate it, rest is known history.
Expenses for rental of land
A parallel to this would be to look at Budsjettnemdas treatment of the cost of leasing land, as these are recognized in Totalkalylen. Agriculture has taken this up various times over more than 25 years. The state has not found technical reasons change. It did not fit, and now pass it is not coming soon with a billion NOK in new spending for agriculture. That this became loose under the coalition, belonging to one of the many obvious omission.
The above comments, we will never get a unified view on. It is the explosive political force linked to the realities of big. Which, however, it should be possible to agree on what happened during the reorganization of the State Grain Corporation and the formation of new markets of grain.
Grue provides a review of the transition from the Norwegian Grain No to Statkorn Holding A / S. What he does not mention is that this process got OAG rigorous prosecution of covertly supplying Holding Company’s equity in the range of more than 1,000 mil £ related emergency storage of grain. This in addition to the regular open equity of around 800 mil NOK. The then director of the State Grain Holding, Ove Floated Aker, did Director of Felleskjøpet East, Jørn Holene, aware of this fact. With this knowledge, I did as Chairman of Jqs, anskrik in a posting on Bond magazine. This is because Floated Aker and Grue, with these funds in reserve, had as king thought to restructure matmjøl- and grain sales in Norway / Scandinavia. I thought this would distort competition unduly.
End Same as Chairman
As we know, this led to interview my demise as chairman, but it also gave after the said prosecution of OAG. The latter should certainly listen with the Grue its manufacture. Knowingly was tried to lead Parliament deceived, but succeeded only so so. A significant portion of the amount diaper rope again. The fact that Farmers’ Union found this remittance was quite ok, is also part of the picture.
This was incidentally the first time Parliament undertook an extraordinary dividend of a state enterprise, here suggested by the former head of the Norwegian Farmers and Småbrukalag, things man PO Lundteigen. The present head of OAG Per Kr Foss, was unable to refrain from agreeing to this wise suggestion.
In the presentation should also concluded the fact that it envisaged that other than the state could start grain trade, but you did not expect it. It came as a big surprise and led to obstruction in systems that Jqs actually took the opportunity to become grain trades. To date, the final act in this updated on the series, was the way when FK Agri recently undertook their home purchase of Stavanger Harbour Silo, who through Statkorn Holding had came with free of Cermaq and was now in danger of being demolished in favor of housing.
New markets of grain
We then come to the elaboration of new marketing scheme for grain. Here writes Grue on page 304 Volume 2 that it was beforehand that the agricultural organizations would support option where Norwegian Felleskjøp given market regulation responsibilities. From the organizations side was largely a political / strategic choices. Organizations, and especially Norwegian Farmers’ Union and cooperative organizations considered it essential that market regulation was organized on the same pattern as for other products.
So it should have been. Perhaps this is why Grue write it like that. However, it is totally wrong. New market system for grain bucket so it is today, in spite of the Norwegian Farmers’ Union, not because of. In my view failed because the Farmers’ Union leaders Iversen and Verdal separately, and over several years, handed work on the grain sector to General Milli alone. He had put himself in the head to continue the government’s purchase obligation for grain and therefore had to go before state organized market regulation. Millie proclaimed on one occasion towards its Supervisory Board that the purchase obligation was saved. Farmers’ Union went long against handing market regulation to Felleskjøpet. Only when Per Aas in the final phase of the case, got into a subsidiary position in one of Bondelagets Board decision, was the Farmers’ Association on the right path in the case.
Most of the credit for the market scheme diaper guided into the right port , rests in my view, chairman of the interdepartmental working group, deputy director Sverre Kvakkestad. Milli went as Grue enter in this working group. I do not think it would be right to claim that he was a driving force for the solution that eventually collected the Ministry of Agriculture and both research teams. This may Milli even the best comment on.
Resistance of Farmers’ Association
As one of the few, I have combined control and managerial roles in a cooperative organization (Felleskjöpet East / Norwegian Felleskjøp) and the control and deputy positions in the Norwegian Farmers and Smallholders Union. I could follow the grain issues from several angles. It was Norwegian Farmers and Smallholders Union and dealer who ingested a political / strategic standpoint. Unfortunately we had constant resistance over several years from the Farmers’ Union and Bygdemølle teams. Bondelagets and Bygdemølle team appearance in this matter amaze me still. What Tine and Nortura, then thought about the matter, I do not recall. What they expressed above Farmers’ Association is to me unknown but I watched them never Felleskjøp half. For it was well respect for Milli too large.
Market scheme for grain is well the scheme has subsequently been the least contentious, with the exception that Grue rightly reviews from 2001. This was really just teething problems for the market scheme which for other reasons was upsized to a battle for the main agreement from the Norwegian Farmers’ Union’s side.
The books of Grue can advantageously be read with knowledge of Grues work style and knowing that this is his version. When he under section Find T. Isaksen writes that he was one of the best I’ve met who has managed to make himself strong by having good political staff and provide employees, Oddbjørn Nordset and Per Aas, responsibility, elbowroom and trust. so he says a lot about the others who have fronted equivalent positions. On the whole one can read much between the lines, and if one does not agree with everything, so there is much that recalls and much that doctrine.
Proposals ahead of their time
I will eventually remind you that I already under annual meeting dinner for Smallholders on the hill in 1997, suggested that we ought to find 10 mil £ within Agricultural Bank frames and an office the Institute of Soil Research, allowing Secretary to be taken out of active service and placed in historical writing about his tour. The books show that proposal certainly had something special, it was just something ahead of its time.
Good luck with reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment