JP\/4\/BONI<\/p>\n
Causes of food insecurity<\/p>\n
Bonnie Setiawan
\nProgram Officer
\nStructural Reform and
\nTrade Monitoring
\nInternational NGO Forum
\non Indonesian Development<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>\n
This year's commemoration of World Food Day which falls on
\nOct. 16 should make us reflect on the situation of food in this
\ntime of crisis, where many have become unemployed and live under
\nthe poverty line. However despite the prolonged economic crisis,
\nthis was not what triggered our food crisis.<\/p>\n
The food crisis must instead be traced to the globalization of
\nfood. This refers to market expansion which leads to the surge of
\nfoodstuff imports into developing countries.<\/p>\n
One illustration is Indonesia's data on imports of rice and
\nother foodstuffs, which have increased over the years, with the
\nexception of a slight decline in 1997.<\/p>\n
Data from the secretariat of the World Trade Organization
\n(WTO) show that Indonesia has become the world's largest rice
\nimporter, with 5.8 million tons in the fiscal year of 1998\/1999
\nhence absorbing some 25 percent of the world's rice trade.<\/p>\n
Earlier, Indonesia ranked as the world's ninth highest rice
\nexporter and was also a self sufficient country in regards to
\nrice. The latest data this year shows that our imports of key
\nfoodstuffs -- rice, soybeans, corn, peanuts and wheat -- have
\nreached Rp 11.8 trillion.<\/p>\n
This means foodstuff imports have become increasingly
\ndominant, benefiting importers at the cost of many of our
\nfarmers. This strange phenomenon is not due to the crisis -- but
\nbecause of import liberalization.<\/p>\n
Import liberalization of foodstuffs, particularly rice, was
\nthe initiative of the International Monetary Fund through its
\nLetter of Intent agreed to by the Indonesian government.<\/p>\n
This marked a new phase in the nation's history of rice. The
\nresearcher Kamanto Nainggolan writes that there are three main
\nfactors that have affected rice policy.<\/p>\n
These are, first, the lifting of fertilizer subsidies,
\nfollowed by liberalization of fertilizers (earlier monopolized by
\nthe state fertilizer company Pusri) in December 1998. Hence
\nproduction costs increased, leading to a higher determined price
\nfor unhusked rice.<\/p>\n
Second, the lifting of the rice import monopoly by the State
\nLogistics Agency at the end of 1999, so that any party could
\nimport rice freely.<\/p>\n
And third, the most fatal factor, has been the maximum import
\ntariff set at 5 percent. Import fees for rice, sugar, corn,
\nsoybeans and flour were reduced to zero -- and farmers were
\npainfully hit by the surge in imports of those foodstuffs, even
\nonions.<\/p>\n
Our agricultural system has since then entered the era of the
\nglobalization of food. Decisions about food distribution are now
\nleft to the market, without heed to the farmers' plight.<\/p>\n
IMF's Letter of Intent was only the beginning of the process
\nthat was due to commence in 2003 through the ASEAN Free Trade
\nArea, and in 2004 through the Agreement on Agriculture under the
\nWTO.<\/p>\n
The application of AFTA and AOA pose an increased threat to
\nagriculture, when the market for domestic food products must be
\nopened to all sorts of foodstuffs and other agricultural products
\nfrom outside the country. All our support to farmers so far will
\nbecome meaningless with the reduction of domestic subsidies. All
\nkinds of credits and subsidies for agricultural needs will no
\nlonger be allowed. On the other hand the state will no longer be
\nable to support our farmers' export capacity. Farmers will have
\nto fight alone in the free market.<\/p>\n
The basic thinking behind this liberalization of foodstuffs is
\nthe treatment of foodstuffs and agriculture as industrial
\nproducts which are traded freely like manufactured goods. As the
\nUnited Nations once said, food becomes a commodity, instead of a
\nhuman right; it becomes part of free trade and the free market.<\/p>\n
Agriculture in the U.S. and in EU countries no longer depends
\non the supply of raw materials, but on various non-renewable
\nchemicals. In the U.S., reportedly three-fourths of all processed
\nfood have high artificial content such as orange juice with
\nlittle orange content, and sausages with little meat. The
\nchemical industry has replaced agriculture as the supplier of the
\nfood industry.<\/p>\n
Farmers' incomes become closely tied to those of agro-chemical
\ncompanies such as DuPont, Monsanto, Rohm and Haas, and American
\nCyanamid. The surplus of agricultural products has thus become an
\nimportant element of U.S. international trade, which is also
\npromoted through food aid to poor countries. This aid aims to
\neventually change people's eating patterns through the
\nconsumption of flour and to outdo local producers. This may
\nexplain America's rapid increase in flour exports from 1945 to
\n1985.<\/p>\n
Despite the claimed benefits of \"GM-food\", the monopolisation
\nallowed by the control of such technology would lead to the need
\nfor all farmers of corn, soybean or rice to buy from the firms
\ninvolved -- meaning unlimited markets and extraordinary profits.<\/p>\n
Almost half the patents on \"GM-foods\" are controlled by 14
\nlarge corporations with patents in staples: Rice, wheat,
\nsoybeans, corn, potatoes and sorghum. They are even in the
\nprocess of acquiring patents for the DNA derived from the best
\npart of plants -- including rice. Transnational corporations have
\nstarted to plant such genetically modified foodstuffs in
\ndeveloping countries, such as the planting of cotton in
\nBulukumba, South Sulawesi, by PT Monagro Kimia under Monsanto.<\/p>\n
Traditional agricultural systems in developing countries are
\ntherefore increasingly under threat. In 1993 the Food and
\nAgricultural Organization had warned that research in
\nbiotechnology had not focused on the needs and interests of
\ndeveloping countries.<\/p>\n
\"Researchers are even trying to develop new products and
\nprocesses which can replace highly valued export commodities of
\ndeveloping countries, such as tropical oils and rubber,\" the FAO
\nreport said.<\/p>\n
While developing countries clearly cannot rely on their
\ntraditional agricultural products, they have not been able to
\ndevelop better alternatives.<\/p>\n
Our farmers are still living at a subsistence level, are
\nlargely landless and unorganized; in this condition they must
\nface the expansion of foodstuffs from many giant food
\ncorporations. The former U.S. agricultural minister John Block
\nwas quoted as saying that the idea that developing countries need
\nto be self sufficient is \"an anachronism.\"<\/p>\n
He said they should rely for their food sustainability on U.S.
\nfood products, which were in abundant supply and were often
\ncheaper. We are thus forced not only to depend on Western
\nmanufactured products, but also on their foodstuffs!<\/p>\n
Once it is clear that our food crisis is a direct result of
\nthe globalization of food, we must seek a way out of the problem.<\/p>\n
It would be very dangerous to leave the regulation of food to
\nthe market. Food would be under the interest of speculators,
\ntraders and uncontrolled market fluctuation.<\/p>\n
We need a principle of food sovereignty; one that goes beyond
\nfood security. The provision of adequate and decent food must
\nbecome central to government policy. A nation which cannot
\nfulfill its own needs for food cannot hold its head high among
\nother countries.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp4boni-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}