[Nasional-e] Rice costs up, most lose

[Holy Uncle]

The ministry should have acted long time ago if not of IMF gross 
intervention. The Japanese government protects her rice industrt for 
centuries, the Japanese people never claim 'loses'.

I applaud Ibu Mega's decision and urge the government putting more weight on 
the agro industry. Indonesia must re-start, develop and protect our agro 
industry to gain back the good old days.


http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20021002.E02&irec=1

Rice costs up, most lose
C. Stuart Callison, Chief of Party, Partnership for Economic Growth (PEG), 
Jakarta, stu@pegasus.or.id

The Ministry of Agriculture has proposed a 15 percent increase in the price 
of rice and, in support of this, a 71 percent increase in the tariff on rice 
imports. The Ministry wants to provide incentives for farmers to produce 
more rice and help Indonesia achieve food security. These are worthy goals.

However, it is questionable whether a further increase in the price of rice 
is the best way to achieve them, and the impact of this change on consumers, 
especially poor consumers, should also be considered.
Since the beginning of the economic crisis in mid-1997, the price of food in 
Indonesia has risen more rapidly than any other component of the cost of 
living -- more rapidly than housing, clothing, transport, education, and 
health care. Among food items, the price of rice has risen more than the 
average cost of food. The current price of rice is therefore higher, in real 
terms, than at any time since the world food crisis of the early 1970s, and 
it has been considerably higher than the world market price for rice since 
1999, in contrast to its long-standing parity with the world market price 
before that.

Although most rice farmers are not wealthy, due to the small size of their 
farms, rice farming itself remains a very profitable activity, with profits 
averaging at least 25 percent of production costs in 2001. If this is not 
enough financial incentive to call forth more rice production, another 15 
percent increase in price is not likely to do so, either. The improvement 
and maintenance of rural infrastructure, such as irrigation works, 
farm-to-market roads and post-harvest facilities, especially in the more 
marginal areas of production, is more likely to be successful at raising 
production.

With world rice prices low and more stable than in the past, Indonesia's 
food security can be achieved for much less cost by simply topping off 
domestic production with imports, assured by Indonesia's macroeconomic 
growth and by its own exports of other commodities, both agricultural and 
manufactured.

The vast bulk of Indonesia's domestic rice requirements will continue to be 
met by its main rice producing areas, which can easily compete with foreign 
producers -- who must after all absorb the higher costs of moving such a 
high-bulk, low-value commodity overseas. But if foreign rice producers can 
provide rice more cheaply than the marginal rice farmers in Indonesia, the 
latter should be encouraged, through relative market prices and agricultural 
research, to diversify into higher value crops, both for domestic markets 
and for export. This will not happen if domestic rice prices are maintained 
at artificially high levels.

Indonesian consumers are already paying a very high price, both relative to 
pre-crisis levels and by world standards, for their rice. Research has 
proven that the price of rice plays a significant role in the incidence of 
poverty here, since expenditures on rice alone comprise 20 percent of total 
family budgets of the poor. It has been reliably estimated that a 15 percent 
increase in the retail price of rice would increase the total number of 
Indonesians falling below the poverty line by 3 million. The rural poverty 
rate would increase from 18.7 percent to over 20 percent. The proposed 
increase in rice prices would act like a 3 percent tax on the total 
income/expenditures of these poorest elements of the population (and the 
same tax on higher income groups, although a lower percentage of their 
incomes).

When poor families have to spend more money on their basic staple, rice, 
they have less to spend on other important family needs like health care and 
education, and less to spend on other food items, like eggs and fish and 
vegetables, with negative implications for their own nutrition and health, 
especially for growing children.

Only one third of rural households in Indonesia own enough land to produce a 
surplus of rice for the market. They represent less than 20 percent of the 
total population. Less than 40 percent of the income of rice farmers comes 
from selling rice, more than 60 percent of their income is from other 
activities. Some 45 percent of rural households do not own any land and 
another 20 percent own less than 0.25 hectare, not enough to produce a 
marketable surplus.

Farm families who produce just enough rice for their own consumption 
obviously would not benefit from an increase in rice prices.

Those who must buy additional rice to get through the year would suffer the 
higher price tax like other consumers. Rice farmers who have enough land to 
produce a surplus for the market, while not rich, are not among the very 
poorest families living in rural areas. Raising the price of rice would 
essentially tax all consumers who do not grow enough rice for themselves for 
the benefit of those rice farmers who are generally somewhat better off than 
many of their landless or land-poor neighbors.

Finally, every increase in the cost of food, the real "wage good" in 
economic terms, ultimately leads to demands for higher wages, making 
Indonesian workers and the products they produce less competitive on world 
markets (something Indonesia's competitors, like China, are avoiding). This 
in turn reduces the profitability of enterprises competing against imports 
or producing for export and lowers the attractiveness of Indonesia for new 
investment. This leads to higher unemployment in the future while more 
productive employment is the only way to reduce poverty and improve income 
and welfare for all Indonesians.

If the price of rice is artificially increased, everyone loses except the 
surplus rice producers.

The views expressed here are those of the author, C. Stuart Callison, Ph.D. 
and not necessarily of his affiliated institutions, USAID, or the U.S. 
government.


printer friendly send to a friend



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com