PETER SPENCER NEEDS YOUR HELP

Update November 14 - A new site dedicated to Peter Spencer was launched today. Please go to Peter Spencer versus The Commonwealth

Update November 30 - A new post where daily updates of the court proceedings by Ian Hampton. Please go to  Peter Spencer: Court diary

by Ian Hampton, Cooma, on behalf of Peter Spencer

Tony Abbott as opposition leader at the Peter Spencer
farmers rights rally February 2010
photo sourced farmonline

 Peter Spencer will need financial assistance to enable his “day in court”.  After 8 years of effort, countless directions hearings and a notable success in the High Court of Australia in 2010, his case Spencer v. Commonwealth of Australia will be heard in the Federal Court, Sydney from the 24 November this year.

 Spencer has done his homework and believes he has the ammunition to prove his case, however the problem is that the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund (AFFF) which has been financing Spencer’s courtroom case in the Federal Court has withdrawn its funding with the finish line in sight.  The AFFF have offered no coherent reasoning for this withdrawal of funding and actually state that they are still considering the issue, however the time is now and Spencer needs funding to continue.    

Spencer’s immediate problem is that he is required to pay up-front costs including the expenses of the witnesses he calls, filing, record keeping, printing and stationary costs.  At this time his own finances are exhausted because of the eight year war of attrition he has fought against the might of the Australian Government Solicitor representing Australian Governments of both major parties. The other respondent to the case is the Crown Solicitor’s Office of NSW representing the NSW Government.

As discussed below, this is enormously important for farmers directly affected by native vegetation legislation, and indirectly for all private property owners.

BACKGROUND

Many regional people will remember Peter Spencer's 52 day hunger strike in late 2009 and early 2010 over farmer's property rights and its link to Australia's climate change commitments.  The hunger strike led to a more than 3,000 strong farmers rights rally in front of Parliament House in February 2010 and the Senate Inquiry into Native Vegetation Laws, Greenhouse Gas Abatement and Climate Change Measures later in the same year.

Spencer’s case and the hunger strike arose out of his inability to properly farm his property "Saarahnlee" at Captains Flat near Cooma, NSW following imposition of more stringent native vegetation laws by the NSW Government in the early 2000s.



IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE



Alan Jones with Peter Spencer outside Parliament House, Feb 2010
photo sourced, Farmers’ fight for rights won’t end with protest 

If Spencer wins, the likely outcome is that the case will be treated as a test case which should result in a flow on of compensation to the thousands of Australian farmers who have been similarly affected by the imposition of native vegetation legislation after the meeting of the Kyoto Protocol target in 1999.

 Further, Spencer v. Commonwealth of Australia is the most important property rights case to be heard by any Australian court since Mabo.  If Spencer succeeds this case will re-assert the primacy of the Australian Constitution over the on-going erosion of private property rights by Australian Governments of all persuasions at all levels of government.

CAN SPENCER WIN?

Yes, if the case is truly heard.

Spencer’s case hangs on Section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution which allows the Parliament to make laws for the acquisition of property on just terms from any state or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws.  The issue is that while the Commonwealth must pay compensation, the States are not required to.  The basis of Mr Spencer’s claim is that state and federal governments colluded to introduce land clearing legislation to lock up carbon on Australian farms through native vegetation legislation so Australia could meet carbon targets in the Kyoto protocol.  To win, Spencer must prove the intent of the Commonwealth to obtain carbon credits enabled by the “Australia Clause” inserted into the Kyoto Protocol Agreement in 1999, orchestration by the Commonwealth of the imposition of native vegetation legislation by the NSW Government (in Spencer’s case), and that the Commonwealth actually obtained gain through the resulting carbon credits which are clearly shown in the IPCC carbon accounts following application of the native vegetation legislation.  The IPCC accounts clearly show that these carbon credits have enabled Australia to meet its carbon targets set in the Kyoto protocol.  In essence this is Spencer’s trump card because it can be clearly shown that the Commonwealth has gained through the stored carbon.

The more important issue is that THIS IS A CASE THAT MUST BE HEARD.  This is a once in a generation opportunity for the courts to reassert the primacy of the Australian Constitution over the on-going machinations of Australian Governments at all levels to restrict and control private landowners use of their land.

HOW TO ASSIST

The NSW Regional Community Survival Group Fighting Fund account is now dedicated to assisting Peter Spencer’s court case.  The RCSG is based in Tottenham NSW, and is an incorporated not for profit group with a long history of fighting for farmers rights and assisting farmers.

Electronic transfers to the "Fighting Fund" can be made to the following account:

BSB 032646    Westpac Dubbo

Account No     494974

To enable record keeping - please “label” the transfer with your name.  If you want a receipt – send either an e-mail or fax to Lesley Hillam -

e-mail address lesley.hillam@bigpond.com

fax number 02 6892 4449

 

 

***************    

Property Rights Australia will also accept a cheque in the mail payable to PRA Fighting Fund Account. Please include a note that the funds are earmarked for the Peter Spencer's court case and a return address so that a receipt can be issued.
Send the cheque to PRA Office PO Box 609, Rockhampton Q 4700 and the office will forward the funds on.


UPDATE # 1
On Monday 10 November - Peter Spencer will submit his list of witnesses with the reasons why they are important to the case.
On Wednesday 12 November - Peter Spencer will appear before Justice Mortimer to argue the reasons why he wants to call the witnesses.

UPDATE # 2 Monday 10th November
The hearing on Wednesday 12 November will be at 2:30 PM in the Federal Court, Queens Square CBD Sydney before Justice Mortimer.  Peter Spencer will be arguing the reasons why he wants to call the witnesses on his list.  We can anticipate that the Commonwealth and NSW Government Solicitor will be opposing most if not all of them. 

 

If you are close enough to Sydney and have the time – Peter would really appreciate your presence.  We have a view that the legal system (like any other arm of Government) works best when it is subject to public scrutiny.

UPDATE #3 Tuesday 11th November

Tomorrows Witness Application Hearing has been delayed, and the hearing is now SET TO START AT 4:30 PM.

Tomorrow is not the start of the trial, but it is nevertheless a very significant day. By now, those that Spencer wants to call as witnesses know who they are, and you can bet that the Australian Government Solicitor (for the Commonwealth) and the Crown Solicitor’s Office (for NSW) will be going all out tomorrow to have them all struck off the list.

Win, lose or draw, one of the outcomes is that the Judge will have to read through the reasons WHY Peter Spencer wants to call each one. In other words, the witness list and Spencer’s reasons will paint a picture for the judge of the parts played by all of these “worthies”.

.

Kill Kyoto Liabilities

by Viv Forbes

  

cartoonist Gary Varel

The Kyoto Protocol was dreamed up by the Climate Jet-set in Kyoto, Japan in 1997.

One of the first decisions of born-again-green PM, Kevin Rudd, was to commit Australia to Kyoto Phase 1 in 2007.  This treaty required signatories to reduce production of carbon dioxide to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.

As a late joiner, Australia got a lower target, involving no actual cuts.  And they achieved that easy target by robbing Australian landowners - they stole carbon credits from landowners by imposing tree clearing bans. That larcenous trick can’t be pulled twice.

Ironically, the death notice for the Kyoto misadventure was posted by Japan, the birthplace of Kyoto, when they announced at Cancun in 2010 that Japan would not agree to any further targets. Japan was shocked at the billions in liabilities they had accumulated by not meeting Kyoto 1 target cuts.

Undeterred by this warning, another ALP/Green government agreed to Kyoto 2 in 2012 – 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.

This target, agreed to without due diligence, is dreamland stuff for Australia. Once the growing population is taken into account, this target would require Australians in 2020 to maintain industries and create new jobs using 30% less hydro-carbon energy per capita than was used in 2000.

Mining and mineral processing, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, tourism, electricity generation, cement, forestry and fishing are the backbone industries of Australia. Not one of these industries could maintain production while also significantly reducing their production of carbon dioxide, unless Australia embarks on a crash program of building new hydro and/or nuclear power stations. The chance that green regulators or politicians will allow either of these options any time soon is zero.

The use of carbon fuels, more than any other indicator, measures the growth and health of modern economies. The only way to kill carbon is to kill the economy – close industries or send them overseas. The Global Financial Crisis probably did more to reduce the use of hydro-carbon fuels than Kyoto will ever do.

Japan’s exit from Kyoto obligations was soon followed by Canada and Russia. USA never signed, nor did China, India, South Africa or Brazil.

Thus the four biggest economies in our region (USA, China, Japan and India) are not burdened by Kyoto. Nor are our big competitors - Brazil (iron and beef), Indonesia (coal), Chile (copper) and Canada (wheat). We only have the Kiwis and the faraway Europeans sharing the sinking Kyoto ship.

The Kyoto Agreement is a failure. Australia repealed the costly carbon dioxide tax. Next we should get rid of Kyoto liabilities.

sourced from WUWT

Greenpeace Co-founder Patrick Moore: Greenpeace is evil.

Reposted from the Australian Climate Sceptics blog

Just before he embarks on his Down-under tour (See tour schedule HERE) , Patrick Moore has labelled the body he co-founded - Greenpeace - as evil and guilty of losing its humanitarian roots.

From the MailOnLine:

• •  Co-founder Patrick Moore says organisation doesn't care about people
• •  He cites example of a GM-rice which would help millions if widely produced
• •  Dr Moore says fact that Greenpeace oppose crop shows it is 'evil'
• •  Comes after the ecologist quit the group because it became 'too political'
• 
  
• Ecologist Dr Patrick Moore, who quit Greenpeace in 1986, has launched a scathing criticism of the activist group, which he insisted has lost its humanitarian roots. 

His attack on the organisation he helped create comes as former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson campaigns against the 'self-serving' and 'highly-paid' network of environmental pressure groups he calls the 'green blob'.  (LINK)

Dr Moore told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: 'My problem with Greenpeace is they have lost any humanitarian roots they had. 

'When we started Greenpeace it was to stop nuclear war and the destruction of human civilisation, that of course is the "peace" in Greenpeace. 

'The "green" is the environment and that's good as well, but they lost the concerns for humans... They have turned, basically, into an evil organisation.'

Read More HERE

PRA: Regional Queensland deserves better

Minister for Natural resources & Mines, Andrew Cripps
photo sourced Courier Mail

Regional Queensland deserves better. Agricultural producers did not deserve to be labelled environmental vandals under the previous government and they don’t deserve the slur made by Minister Andrew Cripps when he said [page 3010] that those who did not support the Mineral& Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill were:

 “influenced and misled by green groups or certain law firms whose main interest is to generate community concern and discontent.”

This is clearly quite ridiculous, this polarising of the debate is very unhelpful and the Minister should take the time to read the transcript to the Mackay hearing where landowners took the trouble to point out that they have a legitimate view under no influence from any other sector.

At 4 minutes to midnight Tuesday night September 9^th the Queensland Government sold out rural landowner’s property rights with the passing of the Act complete with amendments [page 3104]

The lead up consultation was a pretence and the parliamentary committee report a farce on a Bill that was so bad that it had the potential without considered and responsible modification to be second only to the notorious vegetation management act of the previous government. But then the last minute amendments presented in block with no scrutiny realistically possible, rammed through on party lines delivered a disastrous outcome that deserves equal notoriety of anything landowners suffered under the Beattie/ Bligh era.

  Across the board in submission and at the hearings [here& here] rural organisations and individual landowners outlined their grave concerns about the Bill and offered constructive suggestions to how improvements could be made. The parliamentary committee chairman, the LNP member for Lockyer, Ian Rickuss failed to make recommendations which took account of these serious concerns.  Numerous submitters and witnesses at public hearings gave personal accounts of the difficulty of securing a satisfactory Conduct and Compensation Agreement (CCA) and the gross imbalance of power. Mr. Rickuss seems to think they were all just whinging. In the debate on Tuesday night Mr. Rickuss displaying his insensitivity to the submissions made said: [page 3061]

Ian Rickuss, member for Lockyer
photo sourced ABC

 

“What I can say about the conduct and compensation agreements for the landholders is that some of the landholders have to grab these and take control of the agenda. This is what it is about. If they sit down and think about what they have to do with these conduct and compensation agreements and get the appropriate advice, these will be a real win-win for the landholders.”

“I ask landholders to put in a lot of effort into these things.”

Mr. Rickuss is urging landholders to get the appropriate advice and yet the Government has left in a primitive clause in this Act which was meant to “modernise” the resources Acts where landowners can “opt out” of conduct and compensation agreements. This will catch out many landowners who lose their ability to access the Land Court and is binding on future title holders. Landowners need to seek legal advice and not to agree to this option as you lose the ability to call on the umpire, the Land Court, which does its best to be fair.

One would wonder who the minister, Andrew Cripps, believes is appropriate to give advice as he repeatedly slandered legal experts experienced in representing landowners who at their own expense wrote submissions and gave evidence at the hearings.  Under parliamentary privilege Minister Cripps stated that certain legal firms were scaremongering lawyers; legal profession with vested interests; encouraging conflict; attracting and/or protecting their business and were irresponsible.

Property Rights Australia believes that it is the Minister that has been highly irresponsible. Not only are these allegations patronising and insulting but plainly untrue. It is negligent behaviour for the Minister and the Government to discourage landowners to trust experienced legal professionals who are essential to protect landowner rights in negotiations.

The Minister has been misleading in his statements not only before the Bill was passed but in defending it afterwards. Most notable was throughout the debate stating clearly that even though the Bill removes objection rights to small mines that objections can still be made on large mines. In his speech introducing the Bill for its second reading Andrew Cripps did foreshadow the later introduction of further amendments but any informed person would have thought what he was talking about was quite different to what he ultimately introduced. Despite his earlier assurances amongst the amendments was one that effectively has removed the right to object to a large mine as the Coordinator General’s conditions will be considered to address the environmental concerns and therefore almost no one will have the right to object to the Environmental Authority. In effect the Coordinator General will be judge and jury without access to appeal of new resource projects.

Small alluvial gold mine north Queensland

 For the government to talk about small mines as low impact mines is nonsense. There are large mines that affect a large number of people, even entire communities right down to small mines that affect fewer landowners. The impact on the few can at times be severe.

Restricted areas have been severely curtailed and will not exist for most infrastructure unless it is negotiated in a CCA.  Again the minister has been misleading on this subject talking about landowners being left with isolated infrastructure; a Swiss chess affect, he called it. The reduction of restricted areas is of benefit to the resource company rather than the landowner who not only loses protection over important essential infrastructure on their land and privacy around their houses but also loses a very real bargaining chip for the landowner during negotiations. 

No reasonable or responsible person, company or government can expect a landowner to accept damage, loss, contamination or interference to their established business to benefit a resource company.

Property Rights Australia believes that at the very minimum landowners with impacts identified in the EIS should be notified by mail, have the ability to make objections and unimpaired access to the Land Court.

Queensland cannot afford to have property rights of landowners to be sacrificed to ensure the prosperity of the resource industries. 

Property Rights Australia submission

Previous related post

PRA: Hearing into new Qld resources bill .

New bill denies natural justice

PRA: Hearing into new Qld resources bill

Qld parliament AREC Chair Ian Rickuss & deputy Chair
Jackie Trand. Photo sourced Qld Country Life

  

On behalf of property Rights Australia, chair Joanne Rea appeared before hearing at MacKay 20th August  into the Mineral & Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill. The following is Joanne's opening statement to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee






Property Rights Australia believes that this Bill severely erodes many of the protections and rights of landowners for the benefit of resources industries. In fact we believe it to be one of the greatest abrogations of landowner rights since the Vegetation Management Act 1999.

Some of our concerns are outlined in our submission but it is not exhaustive. They are concerns that are shared by many landowner representatives and by legal professionals specialising in representing landowners. PRA highly recommends the submission by Shine lawyers.

We have heard the Premier and Ministers say, when asked about landowner concerns that the resources companies and related infrastructure will create very many jobs and the royalties will fund infrastructure. Such statements imply that resource development and landowner concerns are mutually exclusive. This is not the case.

 We are constantly told of the billions of dollars in revenue which will benefit the state and we are well aware of the above average wages and conditions paid to mine workers and contractors. However, landowners are approached with an attitude of penury and meanness.

If resource companies want a relatively trouble free path they should approach landowners with a fair offer of recompense from the beginning, negotiate in good faith, not waste their time, apply pressure, bully, ignore concerns, renege on agreements and use various other bluff and deception tactics. They should also be mindful of local knowledge. Lobbying Government for changes to legislation which erode the rights of landowners because they are getting resistance to their unfair tactics is unacceptable.

Landowners feel that they have been thrown to the wolves with the lack of protection of their property rights under pieces of legislation like this. Commercial agreements alone are not possible without built in protection when one party to negotiations is an unwilling party whose time commitment is a cost and the companies who have full time paid professionals. This factor is frequently taken advantage of.

The balance of power in negotiations with resource companies has always been in favour of the resource companies and changes to legislation including those in this Bill have eroded almost every bargaining chip landowners may have had and handed the entire box and dice to the resources companies.

The superior fire power of the resources sector has won the day with this proposed legislation and the property rights of landowners are being disregarded. This is not the treatment that we expect from any Government which should be should be concerned about private property rights which are the cornerstone of our free market system.

All in all there is too much left to regulation rather than in the legislation, there are too many things which are not defined and landowner’s rights have been severely curtailed. This legislation should be deferred and taken back to the drawing board. It is entirely inappropriate that resource companies have damaged their own reputations as honest and good faith negotiators and then ask the government to fix their problems by legislation which damages landowner’s rights to the enjoyment of their property. It is very obvious that this legislation was “industry directed” for the benefit of resources companies and that landowner rights will be severely damaged. PRA does not support the further erosion of property rights by yet another government. It would appear that there are no major parties whose philosophical principle is to uncompromisingly to protect private property rights, a valuable and recognised cornerstone of our society and the ability of businesses to operate securely.

Powerlink may listen; but do they hear

By Kerry Ladbrook

First published as a letter to the editor, Queensland country Life August 14 2014

 

Image sourced [here]



Reading the CEO of Powerlink Qld Merryn York’s Letter(QCL 31^st July 2014), I must agree Powerlink do listen but do they hear?

As a directly impacted landholder by PQ development and a Board Member for Property Rights Australia, I hear many things both current and in the past on the antics of PQ and the outcomes.

It is fortunate for Powerlink the Woodduck Landholder Group’s independent inquiry by McCullough- Robertson  Lawyers(QCL 24^th July 2014), did not expand into the entire affected North West Surat Basin.  The inquiry would have been more reflective of Powerlink Qld’s pressured and often dishonest consultation practises commonly used in their process.

Jump back in time and there are stories eerily similar to Woodduck where landholders  with powerlines already constructed  are continuing to be ignored by PQ for appropriate compensation payment.

The Acquisition of Land Act 1967 encourages this type of arrogant behaviour when resuming land and easements.   Resumption for commercial activity must be negotiated on a commercial basis with negotiated landholder access(S15 Resumption),  not as compulsory acquisition . Landholders are reluctant sellers and should be compensated as such.  Annual payments should be mandatory, not associated with the dangling of a carrot as is currently occurring with Santos and Origin.

PRA hear continual trouble with the ALA 1967 beyond Powerlink’s activity in the NW Surat basin; Sunshine Coast with Powerlink & SEQ Water/The Ipswich Motorway with Main Roads/ the Gallilee Basin with Rail corridors and  which will also have future development from Powerlink. 

Merryn York, consultation requires much more than just listening and no amount of external reviews will address this unless PQ can be trusted and made responsible for what they say and agree to.  People should not be going through such a difficult process to find a fair outcome.

Ideally Government Owned Corporation Shareholding Ministers Seeney, McArdle & Nichol need to implement changes for which ministerial designation must occur under the Sustainable Planning Act that is more rigorous  than that just the timely supply of infrastructure, in addition to improving the process of deriving a Conduct & Compensation Agreement (CCA) for the project.

As an urgent first step, where the project is for private profit, the State Government needs to at least implement a change to the ALA to ensure that landholders can negotiate both access conditions and compensation(CCA)  in a similar way to the P&G Act, and as a requirement before the Notice of Intention to Resume (NIR) is issued.

Previously published related articles



Powerlink update for the PRA conference field trip

It's time to recognise time  

Petition against abuse of power by Powerlink

Power price rise link to Powerlink 

Scrutiny needed for Powerlink projects

 

State Corporation, Powerlink vs Woodduck Landholder Group

Russian sanctions are the least of our agriculture sector's problems

By Mark McGovern, Queensland University of Technology

First published at The Conversation 

Australia’s dairy sector will lose out due to Russian sanctions,
but there are bigger issues in play. Anatoly Maltsev/AAP

Russia’s targeting of $A400 million of Australian food exports and the government’s muddled response are just the latest setback for a sector struggling under failed policy approaches.

Agriculture is Australia’s only “strongly competitive industry”, according to recent reports from consulting firm McKinsey and the Business Council of Australia (BCA). Yet, the industry is today characterised by high levels of debt, low farm income, depleted reserves, increasing levels of insolvency and rising poverty. Why the mismatch?


Productivity is high in agriculture. Indeed productivity performance has been outstanding. Yet profits and incomes have been miserable for years. To top it off ABARE reports current Queensland farm incomes as the lowest for 37 years (which is when their figures began).

We’re measuring the wrong things

Measures of both competitiveness and productivity can increase when an industry is in decline. Today, agriculture is not where we hoped it would be. Existing policies and thinking have not delivered gains for agriculture in real terms (as evident in the graph) or Australia (as rising net overseas obligations demonstrate). Continuing them is folly.

A rocky path of questionable returns.
McGovern, M. (2013). Repositioning Rural Australia. Choices in Agricultural Policy: Rationalise or Reconstruct? Merredin WA, Muntadgin Profit Farmers.

Disappointingly, this failed stance sits behind the “new“ veneer in the BCA’s “Building Australia’s Comparative Advantage”. Under its dated take on comparative advantage, economies of scale still rule. The productivity mantra is repeated regularly but profit is never mentioned by the BCA, and incidentally mentioned only twice by McKinsey. Yet profit and sustainable incomes lie at the heart of sound business and investment servicing.

It’s 1997 thinking. Then, Minister for Primary Industries John Anderson convened a Rural Finance Summit in Canberra. The thrust was similar. Scale was the saviour and the message was that over a quarter of farmers must go. We overachieved - more than 40% or 103,000 farmers went during the Howard-Anderson era.

The reality is economies of scale require enterprises to increase operational size, utilise the latest technology (such as limited till farming and GPS navigation), employ advanced managerial systems and so on. Increased farm size requires larger machinery and equipment to replace labour intensive farming. All this takes money, yet financial considerations have been essentially absent.

Farm sector reforms have now created a sector with 20% of farmers producing around 80% of output from an increasingly untenable financial basis. Aggregation costs were neglected.

As asset inflation was thought never to end, debt-to-equity loans were not designed to be repaid from income. Capital gains would pick up any shortfall. But as stresses built and the GFC unfolded with pervasive capital losses, the economies of scale arguments and poor lending collapsed. Untenable loan-to-valuation ratios ushered in a financial crisis in national food production.

Large highly mechanised “efficient” enterprises were suddenly expected to repay multi-million dollar debts from insufficient income. Foreign buyers acquired most significant Australian food manufacturers and many farms.

What next?

Untenable financial arrangements need restructuring. The sector needs recapitalisation, new institutional arrangements and, for a time, a hands-on approach from government.

Today, the numbers of bank foreclosures and bankruptcy proceedings challenge the mantra makers. Financial numbers that don’t add up, and often never did, trash empty pseudo-economic rhetoric. Incomes going nowhere will not service the recent debt run up, as is evident in the graph below. Systemic failures allowed this development.

Debt has outpaced the ability to service it.
Ben Rees (2013) Reconstruct or Rationalise Agriculture? Compiled from: NVFP, ABARE, Commodity Statistics, Rural Debt , RBA online, Table D9

Yet, despite Foreign Minister Julie Bishop stating “the Australian government will do everything in its power to minimise the impact on Australian farmers“ of the $400 million disruption from Russia, Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce “would hope that we’re able to manage it without direct assistance”. Ongoing "do nothing (but hope)” emptiness is destructive. Why is abject market appeasement still the first preference in Canberra - but not elsewhere?

The real structural reform needed is in industry, governmental and BCA thinking. Scale and competitiveness policies that have failed to deliver need to be discarded, not re-veneered.

Real solutions require substantial considerations of income, investment and profitability under uncertainty. Finance matters as do market and supply chain realities. Policy makers have avoided these things for too long, to the great cost to agriculture, other infected industries and Australia.

Ironically today, the despised low-productivity small farmer with household off-farm employment may be more solvent than the aggregator or the competitive.


Mark McGovern is an active member of the Rural Finance Roundtable Working Group.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.