{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1504342,
        "msgid": "wto-threatens-ris-rural-poor-1447893297",
        "date": "2004-07-29 00:00:00",
        "title": "WTO threatens RI's rural poor",
        "author": null,
        "source": "JP",
        "tags": null,
        "topic": null,
        "summary": "WTO threatens RI's rural poor Aileen Kwa, Geneva The draft framework which the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued on July 16 is a threat to the poor in Indonesia, especially those already struggling to scrape a livelihood together. The draft was released in preparation for a meeting of WTO members this week (beginning 27th). Indonesia rejected the draft and should be congratulated. It is not being deliberately intransigent or inflexible.",
        "content": "<p>WTO threatens RI's rural poor<\/p>\n<p>Aileen Kwa, Geneva<\/p>\n<p>The draft framework which the World Trade Organization (WTO)<br>\nissued on July 16 is a threat to the poor in Indonesia,<br>\nespecially those already struggling to scrape a livelihood<br>\ntogether. The draft was released in preparation for a meeting of<br>\nWTO members this week (beginning 27th).<\/p>\n<p>Indonesia rejected the draft and should be congratulated. It<br>\nis not being deliberately intransigent or inflexible. The draft<br>\nwhich protects the interests of the European Union and U.S. puts<br>\nin place the legal framework for these two superpowers to<br>\ncontinue the dumping of their cheap agricultural produce on the<br>\ndeveloping world -- with detrimental consequences to the lives of<br>\nordinary people. And Indonesians have already had first hand<br>\nexperience of this.<\/p>\n<p>The sweeping liberalization policies Indonesia put in place in<br>\n1998 -- lowering tariffs as well as the deregulation of BULOG<br>\n(National Logistics Agency) -- provided what the major powers,<br>\nespecially the U.S. wanted -- a big market for its agricultural<br>\nsurpluses.<\/p>\n<p>Indonesia's applied tariff rates were brought down to 5<br>\npercent or less even on staple products. The tariff on soy and<br>\nrice were set at zero and on corn, it was 5 percent. Only after<br>\nsocial and political chaos and rioting was the rice tariff<br>\nadjusted to 30 percent.<\/p>\n<p>The results of liberalization on both these fronts have led to<br>\npandemonium. Imports have not stopped flooding into the country.<br>\nOvernight, rice imports tripled and has now stabilized at about<br>\n3.5 million tons per year (or close to 6 percent of domestic<br>\nconsumption). Sugar imports soared -- from 20 percent of domestic<br>\nconsumption to 50 percent. Soybean imports now also make up at<br>\nleast 50 percent of domestic consumption.<\/p>\n<p>The impact on rural employment is most apparent in soy. Where<br>\nthere were five million soy producers in 1996, by 2001, there<br>\nwere only 2.5 million. Taking one producer to be supporting a<br>\nfamily of four, 10 million people's lives have been affected.<\/p>\n<p>If the urban sector had jobs to offer, no one would be<br>\ncomplaining. If people had the stomach and reserves to undergo<br>\nthis \"structural adjustment\", again, complaints would be muted.<br>\nUnemployment or underemployment is a permanent reality. Half of<br>\nthe 220 million people still live hovering on the poverty line.<\/p>\n<p>The U.S. and EU each provide about US$80-90 billion of<br>\nsubsidies (domestic and export supports) to their producers a<br>\nyear. This is depressing world prices. Countries that have opened<br>\nup their markets, like Indonesia, find that their domestic<br>\nproducers are priced out even of their own local markets.<\/p>\n<p>Rice and soy are staple foods in Indonesia. In the U.S.,<br>\ngovernment subsidies for these crops have soared in recent years.<br>\nIn 2002, rice was produced in the U.S. at $18.26 \/ bushel and<br>\nexported at $11.8. The production price for soy was $7.34 \/<br>\nbushel. It was exported at $5.48 per bushel.<\/p>\n<p>U.S. supports on corn increased from $32 million in 1995 to<br>\n$2.8 billion in 2000. In soy, the corresponding figures were $16<br>\nmillion to $3.6 billion. In rice, where the U.S. is now emerging<br>\nas a leading exporter, supports increased from $11.6 million to<br>\n$763 million by 2001.<\/p>\n<p>The WTO's Draft Framework -- Implications for Indonesia<\/p>\n<p>Instead of rectifying the situation, the WTO's draft agreement<br>\nis reinforcing the distortions.<\/p>\n<p>1) U.S. and EU subsidies will be maintained and in contrast to<br>\nthe rhetoric of protecting the weak through fair rules, the WTO<br>\nis providing legal coverage for this injustice.<\/p>\n<p>2) Despite this dumping, developing countries are asked to<br>\nundertake a comprehensive round of tariff cuts to further open up<br>\ntheir markets.<\/p>\n<p>3) Embedded deep in the trade jargon of the draft text to be<br>\ndebated on this week is a sentence on State Trading Enterprises<br>\nand that \"the future use of monopoly powers will be subject to<br>\nfurther negotiation\". This could severely curtail even the<br>\ncurrent limited powers of BULOG.<\/p>\n<p>This would be a big blow for Indonesia since BULOG's role in<br>\nensuring food security and fair prices for producers before 1998<br>\nhad been critical. Tariffs are an important defense mechanism<br>\nagainst dumping.<\/p>\n<p>However, BULOG's control over import quantities were<br>\nextremely critical and are a more practical tool for the future.<br>\nThis is because tariffs can keep out imports but have the effect<br>\nof inflating domestic prices -- something the government tries to<br>\navoid given the history of rioting and political chaos when food<br>\nprices run amok.<\/p>\n<p>The Indonesian government has been at the forefront<br>\nchampioning the concept of \"special products\" (SP) -- that<br>\nproducts important for food security and rural livelihoods must<br>\nbe exempted from further tariff cuts. However, Indonesian<br>\ngovernment officials would be foolish to base their nation's<br>\nsovereignty and the lives of millions on the hope of having SP<br>\nendorsed for two main reasons:<\/p>\n<p>Firstly, the July draft is a good indication that the<br>\ndeveloped countries are not prepared to concede any ground. U.S.<br>\nand EU have not said yes, only that they would look into the<br>\nmatter.<\/p>\n<p>Secondly, all indications point to a very narrow SP that might<br>\nmaterialize -- eg. three to five products. SP products may also<br>\nhave to face tariff cuts, just by a smaller percentage. Real food<br>\nsecurity cannot be whittled down to a small number of items.<\/p>\n<p>Until Indonesian government negotiators can confidently claim<br>\nthat an agreement will bring equity to agricultural trade, it is<br>\nin the people's best interest that the negotiators reframe from<br>\nagreement this week. A bad agreement will consign many more<br>\nmillion people to misery and unemployment -- something the<br>\ncountry cannot afford.<\/p>\n<p>The writer is a researcher at Focus on the Global South.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/wto-threatens-ris-rural-poor-1447893297",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}