The ministry if Trade
[kemendag] would foster coordination with businessplayers, especially exporters
to anticipate technical regulation as import barrier by buyer countries. The
coordination outcome would determine the form of facilities prepared by
Kemendag. One thing known was
restriction on calorie content of food for Mexican and Latin American markets.
This was important because non traditional markets were the target markets.
The products targeted were F&B products.”The
technical regulations applied in Mexico included among others calorie content
coffee. Indonesia coffee producers kept probing on the Mexican market. We would
facilitate trade remedies, because there is a special directorate for it. The
Dir. Gen of PEN Nuz Nuzulia told Business News [21/8].
Before requirement for calorie content in F&B
products, the Ministry had to face labeling problem. Some buyer countries tend
to protect their domestic industry with various regulations. The Ministry of
trade smelled out various restrictions, including labeling. “Rules for labeling
is getting more strict. We keep on studying the barrier rules in buyer
countries.”
The Ministry called out market players in managing trade
remedies. Kemendag had set up working groups to aim at export market in Brazil.
Indonesia could use Brazil. Indonesia could Brazil as intermediary to expand to
markets in Latin America, but again Technical Regulation was the barrier.
Even to send sampling of products Indonesia had to pay
the tariff. The Ministry of Trade brought the case to WTO starting with the committee
to handle technical barriers to trade. The case was further brought to panel
dispute settlement body of WTO. The Kemendag Team retaliated to restriction of
import of ex-Indonesia cigarettes. America rated the clove flavor of
Indonesia’s Kretek cigarettes disadvantage young smokers in America. “we argued
that clove was not flavior but part of the cigarette. We brought the case to
WTO and Alhamdulillah [praise God the almighty] we won.
Meanwhile Indonesia for Global justice [IG] urged the
Indonesia Government to fight for agricultural subsidy system for farmers. This
urge was made following India’s step to refuse to sign Trade Facilitation
Agreement when proposal for agricultural subsidy set forth by developing
countries never arrived at any point agreement.
On December3-6 2013 WTO Ministrial Meeting IX in Bali had
come up with an agreement called Bali Package consisting of Trade Facilitation
Package for less developed countries and agro-proposal related to subsidy for
food reserve. “Unfortunately the proposal had not arrived at permanent solution
by requesty of developing countries who proposed elimination on restriction of
subsidy for developing countries” Riza Damanik of IGJ disclosed to Business
News sometime ago.
Meanwhile Trade Facilitation Agreement adopted by WTO on
July 31 2014 and automatically to be implemented on July 31 2015 if 2/3 of WTO
members agreed to it. The Proposal for food Subsidy was proposed by G 33 Group
for public stockholding for food security. The objective was to eliminate
restriction on subsidy giving for public stockholding in helping poor farmers
and increasing food aid for the poor.
Without any permanent solution program from stockholding,
developing countries like India and Indonesia would have to face restricted
domestic support set at 10% on national production value. The subsidy was given
on the basis of price of 1986 – 1988 which was no longer relevant.
In responding to the matter, the Government of RI who was
also Chairman of G33 in WTO, choosed not to support India’s proposition and
even insisted that Trade Facilitation proposition be agreed upon; and yet
Indonesia was facing food problem. For example the case of increasing food
price, dependency on imported food and the problem of farmer’s poverty which
hel back growth of the agricultural sector in Indonesia. “The policy is most
disadvantageous to Indonesia and would push Indonesia deeper into food crisis.”
Since 2010, trading in the agro sector especially the
plantation and horticulture sub-sector was still posting deficit, i.e. USD 4.13
billion in 2010 increasing to USD 6.8 billion in 2013. The condition of farmers
was also still far from prosperous. This was visible in the Farmer’s Exchange
Value [NTP] for the plantation sub-sector which was posting downturn. BPS data
showed that NTP of the Food Plantation Sector of June-July period was
downturning from 98.22 to 98.04.
The agricultural Subsidy Proposal should be an
opportunity to increase quality of development of agriculture sector in
Indonesia. However, the Government had not put agricultural sector as
prioritized issue. This was reflected in Government’s seriousness to solve some
problems in food issue.
In the survey run by IGJ in 2013 on the Effectiveness of
Proposal G 33 in Realizing Indonesia’s Food Souverignity it was disclosed that
so far the Government had not responded to several issues in Indonesia’s Public
Reserves System like [1] public food reserves which was only limited to rice
[related to BULOG’s restriction]; [2] Price of Government’s Buying [HPP] for
rice commodity which was no longer in accordance with farmer’s economical
standard; [3] Absorption mechanism by BULOG and [4] the amount of
Rice-for-the-Poor [Raskin] which was way below demand; all were on account of
food subsidy value which was still low.
Decision of the Government of RI at the WTO IX Ministrial
Meeting in Bali on December 2013 last had stripped off Government‘s
responsibility in food affairs. The government even replaced the Agricultural
Subsidy Proposal with Trade Facilitation Concept which would almost certainly
open Indonesia’s import valve which would increase overseas debt. The Indonesia
Government must be responsible for the decision they made which disadvantaged
farmers.
The above condition must be the underlying consideration
for the next Government to re evaluate their international economy diplomacy
particularly in meeting with WTO. For that matter the Indonesia Global Justice
urge the Indonesian Government:
[1] To fight for the
Proposal for Agricultural Subsidy
[2] To refuse to approve
the Trade Facilitation Agreement
[3] To revise the public
food reserve system into a system which stand on the side of food souverignity.
(SS)
Business News - August 27, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment