Seeking the renaissance of agricultural values<\/p>\n
Agus Pakpahan, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Why is agriculture good for civilization but not for farmers?
\nIn aggregate terms, the price index of agricultural primary
\ncommodities declined from 208 in 1960 to 87 in 2000 -- the index
\nvalue of 1990 was 100.<\/p>\n
The above problems have been acknowledged. Developed countries
\nchoose subsidy policy to compensate farmers' income hand-in-hand
\nwith other indirect policies benefiting agriculture. For example,
\ngovernment support for farmers in Organization for Economic
\nCooperation and Development (OECD) countries reached US$24.8
\nbillion between 1999 and 2001 with the European Union (US$ 97.1
\nbillion), Japan ($ 64.4 billion) and the United States ($ 41.8
\nbillion) providing the most support for their farmers.<\/p>\n
On the contrary, developing countries reduced or even
\neliminated agricultural subsidies. In fact, government support
\nfor agriculture has declined steadily. The disorganization of
\nmarkets, agricultural inputs and farmers has caused the
\ndissipation of energy for growth and the development of
\nagriculture.<\/p>\n
The results are the weakening of agriculture in the broadest
\nsense, which has made developing countries' agricultural industry
\nunable to produce enough food and other products for their
\npeople. In Indonesia, such weakening agriculture was explicitly
\nshown by the negative total factor productivity (TFP) growth of
\nagriculture (TFP = 0.1) between 1993 and 2000.<\/p>\n
If we make a list of inputs that we have made available to
\nsupport agriculture, we will have a long list of items. So, we
\nhave an interesting question: Why, if support is satisfactory, is
\noutput unsatisfactory? The only answer is that the available
\nresources are not efficiently and effectively used. And, then we
\ncome to the most important question: What governs
\nthe transformation process in agriculture?<\/p>\n
Agriculture products are the products of millions of people.
\nWhat we rarely see are values and institutions that control or
\ngovern human interdependencies. Command and control methods of
\nagricultural transformation, such as applied in the past, have
\ntreated farmers simply as land or fertilizer. They are only the
\nobject of developmental inputs. What is right or what is good is
\ndetermined by the government. The most dangerous results of
\ncommand and control methods are causing farmers to lose
\ncreativity and become dependent on the institutions above them,
\nsuch as the government.<\/p>\n
Can we rely on farmers creativity and initiatives in spurring
\nagricultural transformation? Let us examine our agriculture data.
\nAlmost all agricultural production is the work of farmers, except
\noil palm. This proves that farmers are full of initiatives and
\ncreativity. Why can they not reach a higher level of productivity
\nand welfare?<\/p>\n
Why do developed countries support farmers and rural
\ncommunities even though they are already industrialized states?
\nThe answer to this question is not economic but more to do with
\nsustainability. For example, a survey conducted by J. Kola, T.
\nYrjvld in the International Food and Agribusiness Management
\nReview Volume 7, Issue 1, 2004 elicited Finland's view on
\nagriculture.<\/p>\n
The Finnish saw that the most important function of
\nagriculture was maintaining the viability of rural areas (28
\npercent), producing high quality food (27 percent) and self-
\nsufficiency in food production (23 percent). A reflection of the
\nabove values is willingness to pay (WTP) to maintain the
\nfunctions of agriculture.<\/p>\n
The Finnish are willing to pay 100 euro, using the mode of
\nWTP, which would yield an aggregate annual WTP of 377 million
\neuro -- population size at the end of 2002 was 3.8 million
\npeople. This situation of value matches with the EU's
\nagricultural supports.<\/p>\n
For a large country like Indonesia, economic transformation
\ncannot take place without a strong and wealthy agricultural
\nindustry. The paradox is that developed countries care for
\nagriculture even though they are already industrialized countries
\nbut we, an agrarian country exploit our agriculture. These two
\ncultures produce opposing results: Strong agriculture and
\nindustry in developed nations and weak agriculture and industry
\nin developing countries.<\/p>\n
We cannot ignore values and institutions in our agricultural
\ntransformation through a revitalization program launched by the
\ngovernment. In fact, we have to rebuild our culture, a new
\nculture of agriculture that supports farmers and the rest of our
\nagricultural communities. We need an agricultural values
\nrenaissance.<\/p>\n
The writer is an economist and chairman of The Union of
\nIndonesian Estate Crop Growers' Associations.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/seeking-the-renaissance-of-agricultural-values-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}