한국농업의 미래성장을 위한 농업부문 투자 활성화 방안(2/2차년도)

Abstract

한국농업이 성장을 지속해 나갈 수 있는가? 한국농업의 발전을 위해 농업 부문에 적절한 투자가 이루어지고 있는가? 한국농업의 지속가능한 성장을 위해 어떻게 투자를 활성화시킬 것인가? 한국농업에 애정을 가지고 미래를 걱정하는 사람이라면 누구나 한 번쯤은 이 같은 질문을 해보았을 것이다. 한국농업의 성장과정을 돌이켜 보면, 농업 노동력은 지속적으로 감소되었지만 농업 기계화 등 고정자산의 투자를 통해 농업은 지속적으로 성장해왔다. 최근 농지 규모는 축소되었지만, 신품종 개발, 생산기술 개선 등 생산성 향상을 통해 한국농업의 성장을 유지할 수 있었다. 한국농업은 토지와 노동 투입이 감소하는 가운데 자본투입을 확대한 것에 힘입어 성장을 지속할 수 있었다. 이처럼 한국농업의 발전에서 투자는 매우 중요한 역할을 차지했다.

정부도 농업 투자 활성화를 위해 다양한 정책을 펼치고 있다. 각종 정책 자금을 제공하여 농업 투자를 유지하고 있고, 농림수산업자 신용보증 제도를 운영하여 농업경영체가 금융기관을 통해 자금을 쉽게 조달할 수 있도록 돕고 있다. 농식품 모태펀드를 조성하여 높은 수익이 예상되는 농식품 산업 부문에 투자를 촉진하고 있다. 이 같은 정부의 정책이 목적한 성과를 달성하고 있는지 진단하고 개선 방안을 마련한다면 농업 투자 활성화를 통한 농업의 지속가능한 성장에 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

이 연구는 2년에 걸쳐 진행되었다. 1년차 연구에서는 한국농업의 장기 구조 변화, 농업 성장의 요인, 농업 부문 자본 투자의 특성 등을 분석하였다. 2년차 연구에서는 농업경영체의 투자 실태를 분석하고 정부의 다양한 투자 활성화 정책을 진단하여 투자 활성화 방안을 제시하고자 한다.

Purpose of Research This research is conducted to propose appropriate investment directions that help to build a solid foundation for a sustainable growth of agriculture in Korea. Looking at the long-term changes in the structure of Korean agriculture, the research will suggest desirable investment directions in consideration of a variety of factors such as the current status of public and private investments, agricultural production in Korea, and related industries. This research aims further to suggest plans to activate investment in the agricultural sector by investigating how to improve the current investment structure and related systems. In the first year, various studies were conducted on 1) growth of agriculture in Korea and changes in total factor productivity (TFP) 2) changes in the structure by farm type and capital injection 3) structural changes in other countries and their implications 4) future tasks of the Korean agricultural sector to achieve growth and desirable changes in farming conditions. In the second year of research, directions of investment will be set based on the results of the studies conducted in the first year by Hwang Euisik et al. on necessity of investment in each agricultural sector. In addition, activation plans for investment will be proposed based on analyses on the current status of various investors including farmers, agricultural corporations, the government, and fund of funds.

Current Status of Investment of Farm Households As of 2015, the number of young and middle-aged mid- and large-sized farm households decreased by 26%, while that of elderly mid- and large-sized farm households increased by 21%, compared to that in 2010. In particular, mid- and large-sized farm owners aged 50 and under dropped by 40% in the same period. In case this trend lasts, the proportion of large-scale farm households could be reduced, leading to falling productivity of agriculture in the long term. Therefore, it is important to prepare plans to keep utilizing large-scale production infrastructure of retiring elderly farmers by providing the production infrastructure for young and middle-aged farmers. Meanwhile, the proportion of those with a side job takes up 66% in the young and middle-aged small sized group, and has been on the rise. In addition, fixed and liquid assets of mid- and large-sized farm owners aged 50 and under have been reduced by 18% and 7%, respectively, for the last five years. This shows that the young and middle-aged small farm households rely more on their side jobs, and the young and middle-aged mid- and large-sized farm households are passive in terms of agricultural investment. In the mid- and large-sized group, it was observed that the scale of investment in agricultural machines and tools, which have relatively lower update frequency compared to lands and buildings, and that of investment in large animals (tangible assets) significantly increased. This suggests that plans to secure sources of investment for asset renewal should be prepared in order to maintain production scale. According to a survey on farm households, investment resources were comprised of farmers’ own money (56.6%), loans (12.7%), and government loans (30.7%). In other words, the proportion of farmers’ own money was high, but the level of reliance on government loans was not low. However, there are some limiting factors in agricultural investment. About 32% of farmers think the government loans are no longer advantageous than other funds, and 27% of farmers think that it is difficult to obtain loans due to lack of collateral. In general, farmers aged 50 and under showed a weak propensity to make investment. However, it was discovered through a survey on farm households who made investment that the younger the farm households are, the higher propensity for making investment. This means that while farmers aged 50 and under generally avoid investment, scale improvement through investment is being made in some sectors in which returns can be realized with adequate agricultural scale. In activating investment in agriculture, it is a major task to adequately supply funds to the young and middle-aged farm households whose proportion has been decreasing, to those who enter the agricultural sector, and to those farming groups who are in consideration of scaling up their agricultural businesses.

Current Status of Investment in Agricultural Corporations As the number of agricultural corporations has increased since 2010, investment in them has also increased. For means of investment, the proportion of investment other than in-kind investment (e.g. investment in cash/labor/credit) is significantly bigger than that of investment in kind. For investment in agricultural corporations, there exist some contributed shares of farmers, but there are, to some extent, funds attracted from other than the agricultural sector. In other words, growth in the total amount of investment in agricultural corporations has a positive impact on activation of investment in the agricultural sector. The number of agricultural corporations that engage in more than two areas such as crop and livestock industries has increased, and the scale of individual corporations has also been growing. For non-production corporations including distribution corporations, it is observed that those individual corporations’ scale has not been increased, but the number of them has grown. In terms of tangible assets, the proportion of machines and equipment has risen in general. In particular, the proportion of machines and equipment for livestock/processing corporations is considerably large, and it has been rapidly growing. In consideration of the fact that the service life of machines and equipment is generally between 5 and 10 years, and that the service life of machines and equipment for the livestock industry is shorter than that, it can be presumed that investment in renewal of those machines and equipment should be made shortly in the near future. However, it could be difficult to secure investment resources from private financial institutions due to an increasing debt ratio and a decreasing current ratio, amid weak improvement in profitability of agricultural corporations, and livestock and processing corporations in particular. As of 2014, the number of large agricultural corporations with an investment more than 1 billion won is 627, a mere 5% in the total corporations, but the total amount of investment in those large agricultural corporations takes up a whopping 52%. The number of large agricultural corporations has increased by an average of 13% per year since 2013, and the amount of investment per corporation has grown by an average of 3% per year. The number of livestock corporations was the highest among the large agricultural corporations, and the range of increase in investments was the biggest, too. For large agricultural corporations, the proportion of land/building type assets was relatively high as well, while the asset scale of machines and equipment has rapidly increased recently. It is expected to become a pending issue for the large agricultural corporations to locate resources for investment in machines and equipment, which are assets that need to be renewed regularly.

Pending Issues for Agricultural Investment In the national economy in general, it has been verified that investment in equipment has driven the growth of the real economy. Unfortunately, however, investment in equipment has long decreased in the agricultural sector, constricting the potential for agricultural growth in Korea. If this trend of reduced investment in equipment continues, it could be difficult to expect agricultural growth in the future. At a time when the budget for agri-food does not increase, the proportion of capital expenditures has decreased as the ordinary expenditures to stabilize farm incomes have grown. It is imperative to prepare a system that can respond to a changing environment in the future, for example, possible changes in demand for public finance and changes in availability of treasury loans/investment in the agricultural sector. For those venture farmers who cannot afford to make large-scale investment, far from increasing farming scale, it could be difficult to maintain their current scale of farming, if the existing large-scale agricultural infrastructure is not retained. The agricultural production infrastructure can be maintained or expanded when the number of venture farmers who newly enter into the agricultural sector increases. However, the proportion of young and middle-aged farmers under 65 has been reduced regardless of their scale of farming. The fact that most government policies target the existing farmers is another factor that hinders growth of venture farmers. While the scale of land/building type assets is relatively large for both farm households and agricultural corporations, investment in machines and equipment has been expanded recently. Lands are assets that need no additional investment input once purchased. It is also true that unlike machines and equipment, there is no renewal burden for buildings as their service life is relatively long. Therefore, it is needed to come up with plans to activate investment in supply of new facilities, as well as policies to raise effectiveness of the existing agricultural facilities provided with government support. Meanwhile, it is not easy for agricultural management bodies to raise funds through loans from financial institutions due to lack of collateral. Assets owned by agricultural management bodies are not sufficient, but it is also true that farmlands which are included in pledged assets are habitually underestimated for institutional factors including regulations on farmlands. Agricultural management bodies are able to borrow funds based on results of feasibility studies on their investment projects or credit evaluation, but they complain of their low credit ratings and their current environment where there are insufficient institutional devices that help prove their agricultural income, which prevent them from borrowing funds. In the current investment structure of the agricultural sector, means of investment in small-scale startups in the sector are insufficient. In particular, there are not sufficient means to activate investment in startups or to expand new business areas including businesses related to the 6th industrialization which is deeply linked to the agricultural sector. For fund of funds for agri-food, small-scale investment is insufficiently made. For new farm startups with no prior experience of farming, it is difficult to raise investment funds through the Credit Guaranty Funding for Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Producers. Furthermore, it is also difficult to raise funds through private financial institutions at a time when profitability of agriculture-related industries has been not high.

Plans to Activate Agricultural Investment In order to induce the current family farms to engage in management of corporate bodies, a system that allows one family farm to constitute a corporate body should be introduced. This system has already been rooted in France, and through the system, management of agricultural corporations by family farms can be expanded. In addition, effective transfer and succession of assets owned by farm households is also ensured through this system. As agricultural management bodies’ investment in machines and equipment is active recently, plans to supply them effectively should be prepared. Investment burden of agricultural management bodies can be eased if facilities with low operating rates are identified and leased to those agricultural management bodies. Meanwhile, it is desirable to change installation & supply projects for individual management bodies, carried out by the government, into projects that allow local self-governing bodies to operate and manage common-use facilities. The current operation system should be improved to such an extent that the interest rate of policy loans can respond flexibly to changes in conditions including changing open market interest rates. Through this, policy loans can be utilized effectively, and management bodies’ burden of raising policy funds can be adjusted at a reasonable level. It is also needed to create agricultural investment funds to respond to local demands, which are financed by agri-food fund of funds, local self-governing bodies, and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. Local self-governing bodies or the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation in regions can contribute to boosting investment by taking responsibilities for operation of investment made at relatively small scale areas. In Japan, a regionally special fund named A-FIVE (Agriculture, forestry and fisheries Fund corporation for Innovation, Value-chain and Expansion Japan) has been operated since 2013. Expansion of information sharing and activation of investment can be achieved by holding regular briefing sessions on investment in the agri-industry for agricultural management bodies and would-be venture farmers. In case institutions including the Korea Agency of Education, Promotion and Information Service in Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery (EPIS) encourage participation of agricultural management bodies in briefing sessions by preparing business plans to attract investment, performance of the overall briefing sessions could be greatly improved. In addition, it can also raise performance of investment briefing sessions if the Agriculture Policy Insurance & Finance Service and other investment associations, which manage agri-food fund of funds, participate in the briefing sessions as investors.

Researchers: Gouk Seungyong, Kim Meebok, Hwang Euisik, Choi Jiseon, Han Bohyun Research period: 2017. 1. ~ 2017. 12. E-mail address: gouksy@krei.re.kr