Colombia-United States Free Trade Agreement. An observation to the Colombian agricultural microeconomy projected towards development

Through this article, the results of the Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and the United States were addressed, based on its effects on the exports of the Colombian agricultural sector and its repercussions on the rural microeconomy, using the following methods: a) Descriptive b) Comparative Method c) Revealed Comparative Advantages (RCA) and d) Prospective Approach, being the main variables, competition, rural poverty in Colombia, concentration of rural property and the investment budget destined for the vulnerable agricultural sector, observing that Colombia's agricultural products do not have significant comparative advantages to compete with the North American market, which is evidenced in the deficit trade balance. Colombia is the most unequal country in the distribution of land in Latin America where the largest extensions are destined to the production of agrofuels and it is the small farmers who generate the largest number of crops for internal consumption, persisting despite the hostile conditions in the Colombian countryside, and the high rates of monetary and multidimensional poverty. These circumstances pose a risk to the country's food sovereignty by becoming dependent on imports, which is why a legal-economic proposal was made for Colombia based on the United Nations Declaration of the Right to Development.

given the impossibility of producing enough food to satisfy internal demand and become a nation dependent on foreign imports.

Descriptive method.
The methodology of this research is initially developed from the Descriptive Method (Abreu, 2015) aimed at observing the results of the Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and the United States in the agricultural sector, considering the concepts of asymmetries, equity and reciprocity used by the Constitutional Court in its Approving Sentence C-751 of 2008.

Revealed Comparative Advantages Method (RCA).
To calculate the comparative advantages of Colombian products versus those of the United States, the method of the Center for Prospective Studies and International Information-CEPII called Revealed Comparative Advantages (ARC) (Stellian & Danna, 2017) was used. The use of the CEPII method is justified by being the most developed to measure comparative advantages through exchanges, through this, 60 groups composed exclusively of agricultural products were analyzed, according to the Standard Classification for International Trade (SITC) among which are: • 36 groups, whose code starts with 0, made up of live animals and raw or processed food products (except edible oils and water).
• 16 groups, whose code starts with 2, made up of inedible raw materials of animal or vegetable origin (except oils).
• 4 groups, whose code starts with 4, made up of oils of animal or vegetable origin.

Descriptive Analysis -Investment Budget for the Vulnerable Agricultural
Sector.
For the development of this item, a descriptive analysis was carried out comparing the The observation variables that were considered for the analysis were: 1) access to land ownership by agrarian workers 2) reduction of rural poverty (monetary and multidimensional poverty) and 3) boost competitiveness of the vulnerable rural sector (research and technology transfer for food production), duties of the Colombian State based on articles 64 and 65 of the Constitution.

Prospective Approach Method.
To address the variables of rural poverty, forced displacement, concentration of rural property and agricultural microeconomics in Colombia: the prospective approach was used (Zamora & Monterroso, 2017) that allows collecting the perspectives of key actors who intervene in processes of recognition of collective rights, but that do not necessarily converge in the same space, including different instances of regional government, native communities, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and researchers.

Monetary Poverty.
Monetary poverty: occurs when the monthly per capita income of a household is below the monetary poverty line (DANE, 2021 b).

Multidimensional Poverty.
The Multidimensional Poverty Index -IPM-is composed of 5 dimensions and 15 indicators, as follows: 1. Educational conditions (illiteracy, and low educational achievement). 2. Conditions of childhood and youth (school absence, school delay, access barriers to early childhood care services, and child labor). 3. Work (informal work, and long-term unemployment). 4. Health (without health insurance, and barriers to access to health given a need). 5. Conditions of housing and public services (no access to an improved water source, inadequate excreta disposal, inadequate flooring material, inadequate wall material, and critical overcrowding) (DANE, 2020 a).

Effects of the internal armed conflict-Forced Displacement.
To develop this section, the figures reported by the World Report on Internal Displacement (2019) were considered, as well as the results presented by the Law 1448 of 2011 "By which measures of care, assistance and comprehensive reparation to victims of the internal armed conflict and other provisions are issued", according to the Radiography Report on Land Restitution in Colombia (2019).

Concentration of rural property in Colombia.
With the prospective approach method, the figures presented by the Oxfam International

Agricultural Microeconomics.
Small agriculture contributes a significant percentage in the production of food at the national level, this is found in different investigations, such as The Colombian peasant, between the economic protagonism and the ignorance of society (Forero, 2010) who uses the methodology of static comparative to demonstrate the importance of small agriculture in the country, in addition to the research entitled: The economic efficiency of large, medium and small Colombian agricultural producers, carried out by (Forero et al., 2012).

Approval of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Colombia and the United States. Concepts of Asymmetries, Equity and Reciprocity.
The Trade Promotion Agreement between Colombia and the United States entered into force since May 15, 2012 (Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism). Initially, it was mentioned that the treaty implied multiple advantages for Colombia, such as commercial integration with the largest market in the world, permanent preferential access to the United States market and achieving the consolidation of the benefits that at the time were granted by the ATPDEA (Andean Trade Preference Act), in order to turn Colombia into an export platform and an attractive pole for foreign investment (Organization of American States-OAS).
The Constitutional Court of Colombia, in its ruling on the enforceability of the treaty, indicated that the recognition of asymmetries in trade liberalization treaties as a result of the level of growth and economic development of each State Party, guaranteed compliance with the mandates of equity and reciprocity in the promotion of economic and commercial integration, which could be contemplated in the progressive elimination of customs duties on goods originating in both countries, taking into account the reduction list in Annex 2.3, which would allow the use of the comparative advantages of each country (Constitutional Court Sentence C-750 of 2008).

Observation on the economic results of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Colombia and the United States in agricultural matters.
For the entry into force of the treaty in 2012, 87.1% of agricultural products already had a tariff elimination carried out in that year or that would have to be completed no later than in 2017 according to the reduction categories (Annex. 2.3), the remaining 12.9%, has deductions between 8 to 19 years, being some products benefiting from tariff quotas, having free access in both countries as long as they do not exceed the agreed metric tons, otherwise, they must pay the base tariffs according to Annexes 2.3., until the years established in Appendix I of each country are completed, until the annual limit of the quotas is withdrawn and the tariffs reach zero, resulting in a free exchange of products between both countries (Stellian & Danna, 2017), as can be seen: Table 1 Free trade agreement between Colombia and United States: agricultural products protected by provisional tariff quotas Product type (in parentheses: year of elimination of the quota and the corresponding tariffs; "1" = 2012)

Competitiveness of Colombian agricultural products under the FTA.
When applying the Comparative Advantage Indicator (VCR) on 60 agricultural groups according to the Uniform Classification for International Trade (SITC), it was possible to verify the results reveal sustainable comparative advantages over time for only three of them (category K1), while another four have the potential to have them (category K2). The other groups do not present any advantage or present disadvantages, among this category the groups [061] and [062] (sugar and its derivatives) are excepted, where the limit of the quota assigned to Colombia does not disappear, but the initial 50,000 tons are increased by 750 tons per year and continue to do so once year 15 is over.
However, the United States may at its option limit sugar exports by offering a compensation mechanism in any year (Chapter 2. Art. 2.19), which means that Colombia will not be able to freely access the United States market with one of its main products 1 . (Stellian and Danna, 2017).  Note: "E" identifes products that the United States continues to protect (sugar and its derivatives). "C" refers to products with comparative disadvantages (K5 and K6) to which Colombia applies a provisional protectionist regime. (2017).

Colombia-United States Trade Balance 2019-2020.
The trade balance between Colombia and the United States since 2014 has been in deficit, for 2019 it had a deficit of $US -1,079.7 (millions of FOB dollars) and $US -992,7 (millions of FOB dollars) in 2020, it can also be identified that the mainly exported products to that country during this year were primary, like oil, flowers, coffee and mining, with the agricultural sector having a participation of 21.3% (DANE, 2020 a) 2 .

Agricultural subsidies in Colombia vs. agricultural subsidies in the United
States.

Agricultural insurance in Colombia.
The agricultural insurance market has an incredibly low historical performance; Until 2006, the total area covered did not exceed 5,000 hectares, which represents less than 0.

2019.
For the second half of 2019, only 11,480 of the producers with the legal status of natural person had agricultural insurance in the Agricultural Production Unit (UPA) 3,320 had agricultural insurance in another UPA, however, 1,922,944 of producers declare that they do not have agricultural insurance in the agricultural production unit. (DANE, National Agricultural Survey -ENA, 2020b).

Access to machinery, technical assistance and credit.
According to the CNA National Agricultural Census (2016)

Title I: Basic Products-Commodities.
The commodity title authorizes support programs for covered dairy, sugar, and commodities, including major crops of grains, oilseeds, and legumes, as well as agricultural disaster assistance. Major field crop programs include Loss of Price Hedge (PLC), Agricultural Risk Hedge (ARC) and Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL).

Title XI: Crop insurance.
The title of Crop Insurance modifies the Federal Law of Crop Insurance with permanent authorization. The federal crop insurance program offers subsidized policies to farmers to protect against losses in yield, crop income, or farm-wide income.

2014-2018: All for a new country".
In  In the Pluriannual Investment Plan for Peace, an amount of 2,016.2 billion pesos was allocated for the line "Countryside with progress: an alliance to boost development and productivity in rural Colombia" (p. 36), for a total of 14,070 ,2 billion pesos for the National Development Plan in force. The difference between both Investment Plans is considerable.

Monetary Poverty.
In 2019, the percentage of people classified as poor with respect to the total national population was 35.7%. In the municipal capitals this proportion was 32.3% in the populated centers and dispersed rural 47.5%, thus, the incidence of poverty in the populated centers and dispersed rural is equivalent to 1.5 times the incidence in the municipal capitals.
At the national level, in 2020 monetary poverty was 6.8 percentage points higher than the registered in 2019, when it was 35.7%.
The municipal seats registered in 2020 an incidence of monetary poverty of 42.4%. In the populated centers and dispersed rural the incidence was 42.9%. (DANE, 2021b).

Multidimensional Poverty Index.
In 2019, multidimensional poverty in the municipal capitals of the country was 12.3% (0.9 percentage points less than in 2018), and in the populated and dispersed rural centers it was 34.5% (4.1 percentage points below the one registered in 2018) (DANE, 2020 a).  In terms of multidimensional poverty, the highest percentages for 2019, in the Populated and Rural Dispersed Centers are represented by the variables of low educational achievement with 77.6%, school lag with 30.9%, without access to an improved water source with 41.2% and informal work with 90.6%:

Colombia: The Latin American nation with the highest concentration of land
According to the Radiography Report of Inequality prepared by Oxfam International (2017), Colombia is ranked first in the ranking of inequality in the distribution of land, followed by Peru, Chile and Paraguay, in addition to adding that in Colombia, 1% of the largest farms manage more than 80% of the land, while the remaining 99% distribute less than 20% of it (Oxfam, 2017 p. 13).

According to the Analysis of Distribution of Property in Colombia. Methodological
Proposal (2016) The above means that instead of having an equal distribution where 10% of the owners have 10% of the area, it can be observed that between 80% and 90% of the owners barely reach around 10% of the area, which means that the remaining 90% of the area corresponds to 10% of the owners with the largest areas of land.

Accumulation of Agricultural Production Units (UPA).
The classification by size of the Agricultural Production Units (UPA) shows that 70.

Prevalence of agroindustrial crops in Colombia. Results of the National
Agricultural Survey (ENA-2020).
The total area planted in the country during 2019 was 5,311,977 hectares, finding that, agroindustrial crops presented the highest participation with 41.2% and an area of 2,186,389 hectares, followed by cereals that represented the 18.5% with an area of 984,859 hectares and forest plantations with 13.5% and an area of 716,501 hectares. Tubers and banana had a participation of 10.8% and an area of 574,770 hectares, followed by fruit trees with 9.5% and an area of 505,164 hectares, the group of vegetables, vegetables and legumes with 5.4% and an area of 288,212 hectares and the other cultivated areas with 1.1% and an area of 56,083 hectares (ENA, 2020b).

Figures of forced displacement and land restitution in Colombia.
According to the World Report on Internal Displacement (2019) provisions are issued", in its article 208 established that it would be valid for ten (10 ) years, this is until June 10, 2021 and for 2019, restitution sentences were achieved in less than 350 thousand hectares when the problem of dispossession was initially calculated at 6 million hectares, in the same sense, the Restitution Unit de Tierras, has denied more than 63% of the victims access to the judicial restitution procedure (Colombian Commission of Jurists, 2019, p. 12).
By 2018, the restitution order of 4,239 properties plus six ethnic territories had been reached. In other words, 216,000 hectares have been restored so far throughout the country.
In judicial offices there are requests for another 600,000 hectares (El Tiempo, 2018) 3 .

Agricultural microeconomics in Colombia.
For the previous reasons, the question of the efficiency of small farmers in comparison with medium and large agricultural entrepreneurs is raised, research that was carried out by (Forero et al, 2012) using as indicators of economic efficiency the concepts of technical profitability, net profitability and technical efficiency in the use of land.
And the answer, after analyzing the information collected in twelve areas of the country, was that, on average, both large and small producers present relatively similar economic efficiency indicators.

Table 9
Technical profitability, net profitability and technical efficiency in the use of the land, for family producers for ten areas. 2012. (Conventional method)

Coefficients of variation (c.v.c) in italics
Note: LM significant differences between large and medium producers. LS significant differences between large and small producers. MS significant differences between medium and small producers. FS significant differences between familiar and small non-family producers *** at 1% (extremely high level of probability of finding differences) ** at 5% (very high) * at 10% (high). Source: (Forero et al, 2012).

Table 10
Relationship between net agricultural income and the rural poverty line. Colombia ten agricultural areas, 2012 Note: To understand the indicator LM, LS and MS, consider the explanations indicated in Table 7. Source: (Forero et al, 2012).
This study concluded that agricultural producers, regardless of the scale of their productive activity, manage to be efficient when they access favorable environmental conditions, and that small producers, as well as family farmers, clearly show not only efficiency but also the ability to generate economic development and effective solutions to rural poverty 4 .

Importance of small producers in national agricultural production.
According to Leibovich et al., in Perfetti (2013), small producers, considered as those who carry out their activity in farms less than the equivalent of two-Family Agricultural Units (UAF) represent 72% of the 2.9 million workers linked to agriculture and contribute between 50% and 68% of national production (pp 189; 193).

Micro-scale economies.
The micro-scale economies arise from the direct relationship of the small producer with his crop lots and his animals, which leads him to implement specific management practices that result in an efficient use of his labor, as well as of the contracted workers. and the farm's resources (Forero, 2010).
According to Berry (2017) in 2014, small units generated almost all permanent work, those with less than five hectares generated 66% and those with less than 50 hectares 93.7% while occupying only the 24.7% of the territory, the difference corresponding to a work / land ratio 45 times higher in units of less than 50 hectares in relation to those of more than 50.

Discussion and conclusions
Evidently, the results for Colombia derived from the treaty with the United States have been negative, because so far, the country still does not have sufficient comparative advantages to compete with that market, since only 3 of the 60 groups of products analyzed have advantages sustainable comparatives over time, a very minimal amount that is reflected in the limited exportable supply and in turn in the deficit trade balance with the United States.
Otherwise, coverage in subsidies for agricultural insurance, credit, access to machinery and technical assistance is limited at a national level, different from the destination granted with the US Farm Bill (2014-2018; 2018-2023), situations that become complex with the notorious decrease in the budget for investment in the vulnerable rural population in the present National Development Plan. period by the letter t. "The variable denotes the index of country i with respect to the product (or group of products) k in period t (and within the zone)". (Stellian & Danna p. 133) The starting point is , which represents trade in k by all the countries in the zone in period t, denotes total exports by country i in time t, for the K product groups considered in the nomenclature, otherwise ∈ ℝ + represents exports of k (in monetary units) made by country i in time-period t.
Once has been calculated for each k, it is possible to sum 1 + 2 +… and calculate , which represents "global" trade defined as the trade in all K product groups in t by all countries in the zone. The coeffcient is determined by selecting a "reference period" denoted by the letter r. Thus, / is the share of k in global trade in the reference period r. It is assumed that / reflects the structural factors of k trade irrespective of short-term fluctuations.
According to Stellian & Buitrago, i denotes Colombia, to identify Colombia's comparative (dis)advantages in the bilateral trade zone with the United States (then n = 2).
Data for exports and imports are taken from UNCTADstat (unctadstat.unctad.org), supplied according to the three-digit SITC Rev.3 nomenclature.
The evaluation period was from the implementation of the treaty and the joint bias was 2014.

Declarations
Availability of data and material: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).