Questioning govt commitment on agricultural development

Questioning govt commitment on agricultural development

Hyginus Hardoyo
Jakarta

At the start of his presidential term a year ago, Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono promised to put the agricultural sector on top
of his government policy agenda with the aim of increasing rural
household incomes from both farm and off-farm activities.

As part of the realization of his promise, Susilo officially
launched in June a revitalization plan for the country's
agricultural development together with two other sectors --
fisheries and forestry -- with the hope of enabling the country
to achieve an economic growth target of 6.6 percent annually over
the next five years and to help reduce unemployment and poverty.

In addition to improving the rural development program as the
main source of the livelihood of the people, the revitalization
plan was needed on the grounds that the country's three sectors
had been lagging behind as compared with other Asian countries.

The government then issued blueprints, which arrange the
provision of fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to encourage
businesses in the three sectors and outline policies to improve
the incomes and productivity of farmers.

At the center of the plan were prioritized measures on several
commodities over the short- and medium-terms, especially rice,
corn, soybeans, sugar and meat, aiming for eventual self-
sufficiency in these areas.

In order to give assurance on the government's seriousness
about the plan, the President even announced at the launching
ceremony of the revitalization program the provision of several
incentives worth some Rp 10 billion (about US$1 million) for
farmers.

It was a bit ironic, though, that at a time when hopes were
pinned on the success of the program, the government tried to
backtrack on its own pledge by announcing it would import 250,000
tons of rice amid good harvests and slightly favorable prices on
the domestic market.

Even though the import plan was also annulled (perhaps only a
delay) soon after strong protests from various circles, including
the rectors of domestic universities, such an inconsistency
really hurt the feelings of the farmers, who account for the bulk
of the country's population.

At a time when farmers were experiencing respite after a
series of bad news, ranging from long droughts to falling
subsidies, scarcity of fertilizer, pest outbreaks to harvest
failures, the intention to import rice by the State Logistics
Agency (Bulog) aimed at increasing the rice stocks for the poor
was feared to further hurt the farmers' feeling.

Both the farmers and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture
have incessantly assured that the country achieved a rice
production surplus this year, so that rice importation was not
necessary, but Bulog said otherwise. It was also important to
note that it was only in June that the government decided to
extend its ban on the importation of rice until the end of the
year. It is not clear here who cheats whom.

The most confusing thing is that Minister of Agriculture Anton
Apriyantono -- who is responsible for and well aware of the rice
condition in the country -- gave his assurance on many occasions
that stocks of the staple food were adequate, so that there was
no need for importation, but the government turned a deaf ear and
easily gave the green light to the rice importation plan.

Indonesia's production of unhusked rice is projected to reach
53 million tons this year, so that there will be an estimated
production surplus of 1.62 million tons of husked rice, according
to data at the Ministry of Agriculture.

The indecisiveness in the import case has sparked allegations
that the government lacks accurate and reliable planning and an
information system with regard to rural development programs.

Are the planning system, prediction, information and stock
management carried out by the government at present really in
such a poor state? Why did the government so readily change its
stance on the condition of rice production and stocks within such
a short period of time?

How can we talk about food security if there is no
synchronization among government institutions in the planning
and management of food stocks? Each institution has its own data,
which can easily be used by certain parties for their own private
interests.

Unfortunately, Bulog, which frequently insists on the
importance of rice imports, reportedly will easily push aside
requests for the institution to buy rice directly from farmers by
making various excuses like the warehouses are already full, the
quality or rice products do not meet the requirements, or the
prices are already higher than the ceiling set by the government.

Even more bizarre is the inability of the Ministry of
Agriculture to argue in front of other institutions, like the
Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Finance and even Bulog. In many
instances with regard to agricultural policies, ranging from the
provision of subsidies, application of value-added taxes to
import tariffs, the Ministry of Agriculture is in the position of
the loser. The latest instance was when the Minister of
Agriculture bowed to pressure and said that he understood the
government's decision to import rice even though, according to
him, stocks on the domestic market were adequate.

The government is good at conceptualizing, but is in poor
form when it comes to implementation. All the concepts are still
at the discourse level as at the grass-roots level there is a
perception about the absence of unity and a "single say" among
Cabinet members on the rural development programs.

Such problems continuously accompany the agricultural
development world in the country. It is not a strange thing as
well that since the establishment of this country up to the
present, problems of food and rice have been widely discussed and
broadly covered by the mass media.

But in line with the age of the nation, the fate of the
farmers has never become a real issue in their own country.

The writer is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.