Governance reform vital for building agriculture<\/p>\n
Marcellus Rantetana, Jakarta<\/p>\n
As new issues have arisen, we have begun to forget about the
\ncases of malnutrition affecting hundreds of children around the
\ncountry. We should not forget, however, that this problem is
\nstill with us and will remain so unless we remove its root cause.
\nOf course, it is difficult to comprehend that children are dying
\nof malnutrition in places like West Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB) and
\nWest Sumatra -- two major rice producing areas.<\/p>\n
The two are among 10 provinces that account for about 80
\npercent of the rice produced annually in the country. What went
\nwrong? Who should be blamed? Nature? Of course, the easiest thing
\nis to blame the parents of those unfortunate children for not
\nknowing how to properly feed their children. And it would be
\nsomewhat awkward to blame nature at this time of year, when we
\nare not yet at the peak of the dry season.<\/p>\n
The root of the problem is the fragmented agriculture
\ndevelopment policies and programs of the government. Agriculture
\ndevelopment has been reduced to mere production increases of
\nvarious agricultural commodities such as rice, fruits and
\nvegetables. The green revolution in the 1970s, which promoted the
\nuse of modern tools such as fertilizers and pesticides, led to
\nsignificant increases in the production of various agricultural
\nproducts. This allowed the country to achieve the much heralded
\nrice self-sufficiency for the first time in 1984.<\/p>\n
We tend to consider the success and failure of agriculture
\nprograms as the sole responsibility of the Ministry of
\nAgriculture and related institutions at the central level, as
\nwell as in the regions. We fail to realize the importance and
\nimpact of macroeconomic policies, such as policies on interest
\nrates and exchange rates on agriculture. Such negligence has
\nresulted in the continuous decline in the terms of trade of
\nagricultural products. This means that farmers in particular and
\nrural residents in general have actually become poorer and poorer
\nby the day.<\/p>\n
The use of fertilizers and pesticides in the past increased
\nthe productivity of land. The productivity of human resources in
\nrural areas, however, has not changed much despite more than
\nthree decades of intensive development efforts. This is reflected
\nin the lack of added value to agricultural products.<\/p>\n
Farmers continue to sell their paddy, for example, as dry
\npaddy soon after harvest, as such the added value is enjoyed by
\nrice mill owners -- the wealthy minority in the rural areas.
\nFruit is sold without any pre-processing such as sorting or
\ngrading. In some areas fruit is sold while still on the tree, so
\nthe entire added value goes to middlemen.<\/p>\n
As the productivity of human resources in rural areas remains
\nunchanged, people remain dependent on land productivity. Their
\nwelfare is completely determined by the amount of land owned. As
\nthe number of landless people in rural areas increases, including
\nin relatively rich agricultural areas such as NTB, the number of
\nthe poor increases as well.<\/p>\n
Efforts to develop agriculture in the past have failed to
\ninclude the voices of farmers. Under the centralized system,
\nalmost every program was determined and designed by planners in
\nJakarta. They determined and decided the seeds, fertilizers and
\npesticides that would be used, including the suppliers. Officials
\nat the provincial as well as the regency levels practically had
\nno say in formulating these programs.<\/p>\n
As such, people in the regions had no ownership of these
\nprograms, which were not always in line with the needs of the
\npeople in the regions.<\/p>\n
Region-specific conditions, both in terms of culture and
\nresources, have also been neglected in the past. Uniform
\napproaches and strategies were used in agricultural development
\nplanning, treating the whole country the same.<\/p>\n
For example, all provinces were pushed toward rice self-
\nsufficiency. Performances of governors were measured in terms of
\ntheir ability to meet rice self-sufficiency in their areas; so
\nthey all took measures to increase rice production in their
\nareas, regardless of natural conditions or available resources.
\nLocal initiatives were completely ignored.<\/p>\n
The government has launched a national program to revitalize
\nthe agricultural, fisheries and forestry sectors (RPPK). A lot
\nstill needs to be done, however, to translate this program into
\nworkable plans that will in the end have a meaningful impact on
\nrural residents. At the outset, the program seems to be not much
\ndifferent from programs put in place by previous administrations.<\/p>\n
It has been sometime since the program was launched, but until
\nnow we have not heard or seen how the government will go about
\nimplementing it. We are yet to see financial policies, exchange
\nrate policies or investment policies put in place to support
\nRPPK. Nor do we see any concrete programs from regional
\ngovernments to put the RPPK into action at the local level. The
\ngovernment seems to again be falling into its old tradition of
\nleaving agriculture solely in the hands of the minister of
\nagriculture and his staff. So it will not be a surprise if the
\nRPPK ends up suffering the same fate as previous agricultural
\nprograms.<\/p>\n
The recent malnutrition cases are a clear indication of our
\nfailure to develop agriculture despite the 4.23 million tons of
\nrice surplus this year. There is no other way to prevent similar
\ncases in the future, but to improve the welfare of the people in
\nrural areas by increasing their productivity. This entails
\nenhancing their knowledge, capability and ability to utilize
\navailable resources.<\/p>\n
In this regard, agriculture development policies in the future
\nshould go back to basics; i.e. responding to the needs of the
\npeople instead of the wishes and the interests of a few decision
\nmakers at the central as well as the regional levels. In other
\nwords, developing agriculture means listening to rural residents.
\nLet them make their own decisions and stop treating them as if
\nthey know nothing and must be guided in almost every thing. They
\nare smart enough to make decisions in their best interests.<\/p>\n
The government needs only to provide favorable pricing
\nsystems, favorable interest rates, good infrastructure,
\naccessible basic services and friendly macroeconomic conditions
\nto enable farmers to thrive. In addition, the government must
\nensure that under the unavoidable waves of globalization, farmers
\nare not left alone to fight unfair and unequal competition. It is
\nclear to us that our farmers are far from being on a level
\nplaying field with their counterparts overseas. In this regard,
\nour hesitation to defend their interests is unforgivable.<\/p>\n
The war on poverty to build a new and prosperous Indonesia can
\nonly be won by helping rural areas and farmers prosper. So let's
\nput agriculture at the center of our development paradigm.<\/p>\n
The writer is senior program manager at the Partnership for
\nGovernance Reform in Indonesia and an observer of agricultural
\nissues. He can be reached at marcellus.rantetana@undp.org.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/governance-reform-vital-for-building-agriculture-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}