Governance reform vital for building agriculture

Marcellus Rantetana, Jakarta

As new issues have arisen, we have begun to forget about the cases of malnutrition affecting hundreds of children around the country. We should not forget, however, that this problem is still with us and will remain so unless we remove its root cause. Of course, it is difficult to comprehend that children are dying of malnutrition in places like West Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB) and West Sumatra -- two major rice producing areas.

The two are among 10 provinces that account for about 80 percent of the rice produced annually in the country. What went wrong? Who should be blamed? Nature? Of course, the easiest thing is to blame the parents of those unfortunate children for not knowing how to properly feed their children. And it would be somewhat awkward to blame nature at this time of year, when we are not yet at the peak of the dry season.

The root of the problem is the fragmented agriculture development policies and programs of the government. Agriculture development has been reduced to mere production increases of various agricultural commodities such as rice, fruits and vegetables. The green revolution in the 1970s, which promoted the use of modern tools such as fertilizers and pesticides, led to significant increases in the production of various agricultural products. This allowed the country to achieve the much heralded rice self-sufficiency for the first time in 1984.

We tend to consider the success and failure of agriculture programs as the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and related institutions at the central level, as well as in the regions. We fail to realize the importance and impact of macroeconomic policies, such as policies on interest rates and exchange rates on agriculture. Such negligence has resulted in the continuous decline in the terms of trade of agricultural products. This means that farmers in particular and rural residents in general have actually become poorer and poorer by the day.

The use of fertilizers and pesticides in the past increased the productivity of land. The productivity of human resources in rural areas, however, has not changed much despite more than three decades of intensive development efforts. This is reflected in the lack of added value to agricultural products.

Farmers continue to sell their paddy, for example, as dry paddy soon after harvest, as such the added value is enjoyed by rice mill owners -- the wealthy minority in the rural areas. Fruit is sold without any pre-processing such as sorting or grading. In some areas fruit is sold while still on the tree, so the entire added value goes to middlemen.

As the productivity of human resources in rural areas remains unchanged, people remain dependent on land productivity. Their welfare is completely determined by the amount of land owned. As the number of landless people in rural areas increases, including in relatively rich agricultural areas such as NTB, the number of the poor increases as well.

Efforts to develop agriculture in the past have failed to include the voices of farmers. Under the centralized system, almost every program was determined and designed by planners in Jakarta. They determined and decided the seeds, fertilizers and pesticides that would be used, including the suppliers. Officials at the provincial as well as the regency levels practically had no say in formulating these programs.

As such, people in the regions had no ownership of these programs, which were not always in line with the needs of the people in the regions.

Region-specific conditions, both in terms of culture and resources, have also been neglected in the past. Uniform approaches and strategies were used in agricultural development planning, treating the whole country the same.

For example, all provinces were pushed toward rice self- sufficiency. Performances of governors were measured in terms of their ability to meet rice self-sufficiency in their areas; so they all took measures to increase rice production in their areas, regardless of natural conditions or available resources. Local initiatives were completely ignored.

The government has launched a national program to revitalize the agricultural, fisheries and forestry sectors (RPPK). A lot still needs to be done, however, to translate this program into workable plans that will in the end have a meaningful impact on rural residents. At the outset, the program seems to be not much different from programs put in place by previous administrations.

It has been sometime since the program was launched, but until now we have not heard or seen how the government will go about implementing it. We are yet to see financial policies, exchange rate policies or investment policies put in place to support RPPK. Nor do we see any concrete programs from regional governments to put the RPPK into action at the local level. The government seems to again be falling into its old tradition of leaving agriculture solely in the hands of the minister of agriculture and his staff. So it will not be a surprise if the RPPK ends up suffering the same fate as previous agricultural programs.

The recent malnutrition cases are a clear indication of our failure to develop agriculture despite the 4.23 million tons of rice surplus this year. There is no other way to prevent similar cases in the future, but to improve the welfare of the people in rural areas by increasing their productivity. This entails enhancing their knowledge, capability and ability to utilize available resources.

In this regard, agriculture development policies in the future should go back to basics; i.e. responding to the needs of the people instead of the wishes and the interests of a few decision makers at the central as well as the regional levels. In other words, developing agriculture means listening to rural residents. Let them make their own decisions and stop treating them as if they know nothing and must be guided in almost every thing. They are smart enough to make decisions in their best interests.

The government needs only to provide favorable pricing systems, favorable interest rates, good infrastructure, accessible basic services and friendly macroeconomic conditions to enable farmers to thrive. In addition, the government must ensure that under the unavoidable waves of globalization, farmers are not left alone to fight unfair and unequal competition. It is clear to us that our farmers are far from being on a level playing field with their counterparts overseas. In this regard, our hesitation to defend their interests is unforgivable.

The war on poverty to build a new and prosperous Indonesia can only be won by helping rural areas and farmers prosper. So let's put agriculture at the center of our development paradigm.

The writer is senior program manager at the Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia and an observer of agricultural issues. He can be reached at marcellus.rantetana@undp.org.