[Lee Hyun-woo’s Crooked Line] Big corporations that abandoned the promise of a 1 trillion won coexistence fund… Answer with ‘true coexistence’

The ‘Rural-Fishery Win-Win Cooperation Fund’ is the minimum compensation for losses suffered by domestic agriculture amid market opening. The national promise to raise 1 trillion won over 10 years has stalled at 320.7 billion won, about 32% of the target, amid indifference from big corporations. The president stepped in directly and ordered a review of a plan to inject 700 billion won in government finances, opening a path forward, but this is also a confession of the government’s policy failure and a warning about the irresponsibility of large corporations. If the fund is not to remain a token budget support measure but to lead to a transition to smart agriculture (AX) and a real increase in farm household income, companies and the government must now properly answer the needs of rural communities.

The 1 trillion won promise spinning its wheels for 10 years… What remains for rural areas sacrificed to openness is a ‘32.1% empty pledge’
The history of South Korea’s agriculture and livestock industry is that of a ‘victim of cruel openness.’ From the Uruguay Round (UR) to the Korea-Chile, Korea-U.S., Korea-EU, and Korea-China FTAs, agricultural and livestock markets were repeatedly thrown in as sacrifices to open export routes centered on manufacturing. Amid the onslaught of imported agricultural and livestock products, our farmers have had to endure the double burden of soaring production costs and collapsing prices with their whole bodies.

The Rural-Fishery Win-Win Cooperation Fund launched by the government in 2017 was the minimum safety device to correct this imbalance. The idea was for companies benefiting from FTAs to create a total fund of 1 trillion won over 10 years, contributing 100 billion won each year, to help improve the fundamentals of rural and fishing communities. However, the loophole of voluntary contributions without enforcement led to indifference and evasion of responsibility by large corporations. As a result of companies thoroughly turning away from paying into the fund, the amount raised so far after several years is only 320.7 billion won (according to the Large & Small Business and Agriculture and Fisheries Cooperation Foundation, as of June 2026).
 

It is somewhat late, but still fortunate, that the president said at a work briefing, “This was not a choice but a promise, and a matter of trust,” and instructed a government-level plan to take responsibility for 700 billion won. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs must reflect this in the 2027 government budget proposal by September 2, when it submits the government budget bill to the National Assembly (120 days before the start of the fiscal year), and the government and the National Assembly must fully gather opinions from the agricultural sector and finalize an effective implementation plan. In a phone call with this newspaper, Jeon Han-young, director general of rural policy at the ministry, said, “We are reviewing both ways for the government to allocate a budget and ways for beneficiary companies to participate in the coexistence fund.”

Move beyond giveaway events and gift certificates… Focus on high-value infrastructure for ‘AX and smart agriculture’
Now that the president has ordered the securing of funds, how this money is used on the ground is also crucial. The uses of the Rural-Fishery Win-Win Fund are specified as: △ education and scholarship programs for the children of farmers and fishers △ projects to improve the welfare of rural and fishing village residents, such as expanding medical services and enhancing cultural life △ rural and fishing area development and revitalization projects, including improving settlement conditions and landscapes △ joint cooperation projects between private companies and rural/fishing communities and farmers/fishers in the production, distribution, and sale of agricultural and fishery products △ gift certificate projects issued by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives.

However, there is criticism that the fund’s uses have been skewed toward populist projects such as support for one-off local government events or the simple issuance of gift certificates. If rural communities, on the verge of collapse due to the climate crisis, aging, and labor shortages, are to change their fundamentals, the budget must be concentrated on building high-value-added infrastructure such as AI transformation (AX), mechanization of field farming, expansion of smart agriculture, and improvement of distribution structures. This is because these are the areas needed by agriculture, rural communities, and farmers for sustainability. If support is difficult due to the limits of current law, revisions to related regulations should proceed in parallel.

Institutionalizing mandatory contributions by large corporations and field-centered execution is the solution
Having the government fill the shortfall with public finances is only a temporary measure. The government’s procurement of the missing 700 billion won also runs counter to the original purpose of fundraising for the coexistence fund. This is why there are calls to establish legal and institutional mechanisms to make beneficiary large corporations, which have enjoyed enormous gains from FTAs, obligatorily participate in contributions to the fund. It is necessary to seek ways to link companies’ contribution records to the Rural-Fishery Win-Win Cooperation Fund with meaningful incentives and penalties.

At the same time, the method of executing the fund must be aligned with the perspective of farmers in the field. The money should be used for the spread of smart farm control technologies that even elderly farmers can easily handle, initial smart greenhouse support for young farmers to settle into farming, and improvements to distribution inefficiencies that raise the real net profits of farm households. Whether the 700 billion won that the government has set in motion will be lost as a mere ‘budget to soothe rural sentiment’ or become a solid catalyst for structural transformation in agriculture will depend on precise project design going forward and the sincere response of companies.