Governance reform vital for building agriculture

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.