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.