especially issues on tariff reduction and trade facilitation in the ports for export and import. Data analysis did not have further discussion on the incentives of investment, technical trade barrier, services, intellectual property, competition policy, procurement and government investment. Beside those aspects, issues of safeguard, antidumping and countervailing measures, export incentives, domestic support, rules of origin, barrier on rules of origin, technical barrier of trade and sanitary and phytosanitary were not discussed in this research.

In recent decade, either free trade agreement (FTA) or regional trade agreement (RTA) tends to increase in line with the progress of multilateral negotiations in World Trade Organization. The number of FTA by October 2004 reached 300 in entire world. Not only developing countries, developed countries such as USA, Japan, Australia, and UE also eager to establish FTAs.

There are two kinds of Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA), namely: (1) Bilateral, between two countries or groups and (2) Plurilateral, among various groups. Indonesia entered into regional free trade arena through AFTA, ASEAN-China FTA, and Indonesia-China FTA.

Theoretically, it can be said that FTA can create and divert trade inside and outside countries as a member of group. Other benefit that might come from FTA, since Indonesia has been ratified WTO, FTA could be used as milestone for multilateral free trade agreements. Nevertheless, there are four factors that connected each other such as : (1) economic equilibrium under “complicated-second best term”, (2) the dynamic of economic and trade policies that provide reciprocal impacts on economic sectors, (3) property of RTA itself, might be pointed to dual poles “center or axis” and “marginal”, and (4) the deepness and coverage of RTA on product either by sector, tariff, technical trade barriers, services, intellectual property right, foreign policy, or government’s procurement and investment.

Conclusion, Implication, and Policy Recommendation

The rapid economic development in China has stimulated an impact for each ASEAN member countries and gives a sign to ASEAN as a new trade power in Eastern Asia. Regional agreement becomes an opportunity that can be fully used by each member countries in ASEAN including Indonesia. Major exporting commodities from Indonesia were Palm Oil (HS 151110), Natural Rubber in different form such as SIR 20 (HS 400122), sheet (HS 400121) and mixed (HS 400599). Thesecommodities are not yet include in EHP, even though they have big opportunities in their contribution to value of export. From certain major commodities, only coconut oil, palm kernel oil, vegetable oil and fat and margarine which are already includedin EHP Indonesia – China. In the future, the EHP between Indonesia – China could be reconsidered to give more advantages for both countries inmaintaining trade relation that could give win - win benefit for each other. The decision to include which commodities that might have EHP facilitation should be considered all aspects from down stream to up stream industries.

Major importing commodities were horticulture products such as garlic (25.46 percent), and fruits, especially apple, pear and mandarin. Other imported commodities were several productsfrom rubber, sugar, etc. However, most of imported commodities were primary product which is some of those could grow properly in Indonesia. But for pear and garlic, we do not have specific temperature to grow in Indonesia since those commodities need dry temperature and high elevation topography.

Since the implementation of EHP Indonesia – China has been introduced and regulated by the Decree of Ministry of Finance, there was a significant growth on export especially for food crops product and estate crop.

FTA Indonesia – China does not always give a positive impact, in some aspects it is created some loss through reciprocal mechanism. China has been pushed by Indonesia to receive the compensation of zero import tariff for cocoa paste and powder (from Indonesia) and chili paste and powder (from China).

ASEAN member countries used to import estate crop products from Indonesia, but for non estate crops. The number ofexporting countries is limited. Manioc or cassava chips, for example, is only imported by Malaysia and Brunei whilemangoes teen only by Malaysia, Thailand and Brunei.

Palm oil, palm kernel oil and coconut oil are major export commodities from Indonesia to ASEAN countries. However,Indonesia and the farmers do not have big benefit on that as long as we always in the bottom position in the value chain

mechanism (producers). The value added benefit was created along the middle man and processors. The marketing networking and up stream industries should be created and developed.

The shifting to Bilateral Trade Agreement has caused value of import from ASEAN countries increasing sharply; import of mandarin, garlic, Virginia tobacco and oranges has been increased, respectively by 76.40 percent, 73.67 percent, 40 percent and 15.07 percent.

Indonesia is the second largest cassava flour (tapioca) producer in the world after Thailand but in ASEAN region, Indonesia has shown a poor intra industry performance. However, Indonesia has imported cassava starch from Thailand. This condition inspired a caution among the member of small and medium enterprises in HS 11, which is known as ITARA (Industri Tepung Tapioka Rakyat) or Cassava Flour Public Industry, and its member is scattered all over Indonesia in a significant number. In the early stage, bilateral trade agreement (BTA) was facilitated by ASEAN, within the years, the loss from trade activities was tended to increase for several products. Export market for agriculture commodities from Indonesia after BTA is not spread out as expected before the agreement.

In BTA, agriculture product already has modalities in tariff reduction in several aspects, such as tier, implementation period and the reduction stages by introducing several tracks. In this respect, the most important to anticipate is the decision which agriculture products (post tariff) will be put in the tariff reduction program with the availability of current track and their movement from one track to another.

The simulation showed that impact of tariff reduction to production, net export, GDP and welfare has shown a positive sign if China and other member countries in ASEAN implementtariff reduction in the same value and period. However, BTA of Indonesia – China has given more benefit to Indonesia compare to bilateral trade agreement between ASEAN and China in terms of export, welfare, GDP and import, for production the condition is the opposite.

Beside the positive impacts, there were negative impacts as well for several commodities or group of commodities. Balance of trade for paddy became negative in EHP frame, however the indicator of production, import and welfare of the farmer was increased. Within the same commodities (paddy), BTA ASEAN has estimated that import and welfare of their farmers was

Vol. 02 No. 2, June 2008Page 2

decreased and production and balance of trade was increased. For horticulture products, especially vegetables, within the EHP was estimated that production, import and the producer’s welfare was increased, nevertheless export and balance of trade was decreased. BTA ASEAN has forecasted that for all vegetables of all indicators was increased but for oilseeds, the EHP has estimated that production, import and welfare was increased, while export and balance of trade was decreased. On the other hand, BTA ASEAN has estimated that all indicators tend to decrease.

Beside the additional income from foreign exchange as positive impacts, Indonesia should be more careful and prudent in estimating domestic needs for major export commodities in spite of preventing the scarcity of the product to fulfill domestic demand.The fluctuation of world price should become a benchmark for Indonesia in estimating the composition of export and domestic consumption for one product to avoid the domestic fluctuation price which is shown by significant high price for basic commodities.

Before acceptance the offering for any engagement with trading partner in regional free trade or bilateral free trade area, it is important for Indonesia to evaluate and learn its impact to our economies for every agreement that we deal with and also identify which commodities or sector that appropriate and eligible to propose for trade liberalization.

Conduct a comprehensive research with the nomination trading partner within the preferential trade agreement is anothersuggestion that we should prepare before starting the agreement. This is necessary especially for all aspects related with internal economic and trade policies from their perspective; to give a sign whether Indonesia should become an axis or edge in the preferential trade agreement that might be build with. If the result has shown that Indonesia has a potential position as an edge, it is better for Indonesia not to bend them in the preferential trade agreement that was planned before.

Government policy in forecasting tariff reduction in CEPT scheme or EHP will give an impact to the alternative of recommendation that might be considered by the government in focusing which agriculture commodities will determine as exporting commodities, since Indonesia still exporting their commodities in primary product or raw material. If government prefer to increase export in a significant number it means that the slow growth of agro industries sector could not be avoided.

It is necessary, before implementing or negotiating trade liberalization, to discuss the concept or protocol in detail framework in each ministry in which several stakeholders involve, such as decision makers at higher level in the ministry and qualified researchers to strengthen the position of the government for every trade negotiation.

Regarding the participation in preferential free trade area in bilateral or regional scheme, a step to be more careful and prudent is needed especially in a negotiation to decide which commodities will be on the list in early harvest package (tariff reduction program), since most of commodities that produce domestically are primary products not the processed one. However, the increasing of quality is a must, since we have to prepare the condition to enter the competition in a “single ASEAN market” in 2015.

This research has demonstrated that prudential principal in giving a recommendation for a commodity to get tariff reduction scheme (EHP) is very important. Any decision without enriched by detail explanation about the performance of rivalry country for the same commodities within ASEAN member countries or other regions will create a limitation for its commodities to

develop from export or the growth of agro industry based on those commodities in domestic perspective. Thus, the sustainable research topics about the performance of BTA between Indonesia and other countries as a trading partner is strongly recommended, to help the process of negotiation run smoothly and to ensure the position of negotiation will consistently managed from time to time.

Correspondence: Dr. Budiman Hutabarat(budihutabarat@yahoo.com)

RURAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC DYNAMICS: COMPARISON ANALYSIS ON

AGRICULTURAL CENSUS

Introduction

Agriculture sector has its own role in the economy of a nation. How far and how much is the share of agriculture in the economy depends on the economic structure and economic development of the nation. Timmer (1998, 2005) classified the role of agriculture in the economic development into 4 steps: (1) getting agriculture moving- Mosher’s period/era, (2) period/era where agriculture has already related and inter-connected with other sectors - Johnston Mellor’s period/era, (3) period/era where income from agriculture sector is far lagged behind the non-agricultural sector – Schultz’s period/era, (4) period/era where agriculture had already integrated and full-connected with other sectors, including the labor and investment markets – Johnston Gale’s period/era. Understanding each of the four steps could give us the complete understanding that agricultural has played in the development of a nation.

Agriculture sector had been and continues to play a major role in the economic development of Indonesia. The government had been and continues to support the agricultural sector due tofood security reason and majority of its population depend on the sector as their livelihood.

Presently, the facts of agricultural sector in Indonesia are: (1) increasing number of agricultural households whereas the agricultural land is fixed or decreasing in number, (2) young and educated agricultural workers/labors are not interested working in the agricultural sector, (3) share of agriculture in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is decreasing, (4) productivity of agriculture is not increasing due to many constraints

The objectives of this study are to: (1) Analyze the land economy of agricultural households, (2) Analyze the sources of income of rural/agricultural households, (3) Analyze the labor and workers of the rural/ agricultural households, (4) Analyze the adoption of

technology at farmers’ level (fertilizers and seeds), and (5) Formulate policy options for future agricultural development (year 2020).

The data used in this study are: (1) Calculated or summarized data of Agricultural Census of 1983, 1993 and 2003 conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS), (2) Data and information from the published report of CBS, ICASEPS, such as PATANAS (Panel Petani Nasional), (3) Data and information of Agricultural Census 2003, conducted by the PUSDATIN (Pusat Data dan Informasi Pertanian) and CBS, (4) Data from national labors, manpower and workers survey (SAKERNAS) conducted by the CBS on the same year as Agricultural Census. Clarification and verification were carried out in four provinces, namely West Sumatera, West Nusa Tenggara, West Kalimantan, and South Sulawesi.

Page 3Vol. 02 No. 2, June 2008

Generally, descriptive analysis is used to get the rural and agricultural dynamics. Tabulation and the analysis were done and classified as: (1) Java, (2) Off-Java, and (3) Indonesia. However, for the year 2003, the tabulation and analysis were done in a more specific and details due to the data availability. It was based upon sub-sectors within the agriculture’s sector, i.e.,: food crops, horticulture, estate crops, and livestock. Theanalysis on agricultural technology adoption was based on three major commodities on each sub-sector. On food crops sub-sector, the analysis were done on paddy/rice, corn/maize, and soybean; horticultural sub-sector, on potatoes, onion, and chilly/red pepper; and estate crops, on coconut, cacao, and rubber. On livestock sub-sector, the analysis was conducted on cow, goat/sheep, and domestic chicken.

Participatory Prospective Analysis (PPA) was used as a tool to look into the future and analyze the alternative options available. This analysis can be used either as an exploratory tool, anticipating changes through scenarios, or as a normative tool for an action-oriented approach starting from a selected vision of future and determining the path to reach it. The analysis was started with a definition of the system’s limit, which was: “the Indonesian agricultural and rural economic in the year 2020”. It was followed by the identification of variables. The process of variable identification was based on the free expression of individual/each stakeholder’s opinions. The next step was the selection and definition of key variables, including the mutual influence analysis, interpretation of influence/dependence links, interpretation of direct versus indirectinfluence, and definition of the state of variables. The final step was building scenarios. The very final step is left for the policy makers to take action. The result of using the PPA method is the generation of foreknowledge. This is not knowledge about what the future will be but about what it may look like according to how some key variables evolve. We are hoping that stakeholders can be better prepared to face changes in the future.

Research Results

Land Economy

Agricultural land conversion is found increased by 1.3 million hectares within the last three decades. During the first half of the period, the land conversion was found higher in Java (79.3%); and the half last period, the land conversion was found higher in Sumatera (92.3%). The land conversion was occurredin the irrigated/wet land (sawah) areas.

For the last four decades, the Gini ratio as a measurement of land-distribution was found increased. It would mean that the disparity of land ownership is existed. The Gini ratio of agricultural land is found increased from 0.5481 in the year 1973 to 0.7171 in the year 2003. Java’s Gini ratio was found higher than the off-Java’s ratio.

The number of small scale farmers (with holding-size < 0.50 ha) was found increased from 52.66 to 56.20 percent. In 2003, the number was 9,990 households or equal to 74.68 percent of the total households with land assets. This fact indicates that farmactivities could not be the only source for their households livelihood in the rural areas.

Income of Agricultural Households

Within the last three decades, incomes from agricultural sector was still dominated the rural household’s income. Meanwhile,the estate crops’ share was increasing over time, from below 5 to 15 percent to total household’s income.

Share of laborer wages from farm, non-farm and non agricultural activities was decreased from 10.66 to 8.96 percent. During the last decade, income from agriculture sector was

60.49 percent; income from non-agricultural sector was 16.30 percent; whereas income from other sector was 14.96 percent of the total household’s income.

Based on the employment status, majority of the household’s income comes from self-employment activities. The average of agricultural and rural household’s income in 2003 was IDR 8 to 13 million. The majority share came from agricultural sector (70 percent), 24 percent from non-agricultural sector, and 6 percent from other sources (pension, land rent, interest and transfer).

Labor and Workers of the Agricultural Households

In 2003, the agricultural workers/labors in Java were relatively similar to that of off-Java. The growth of workers/labors in off-Java was higher than in Java.

Labor absorption of food crops sub-sector is the highest among sub-sector of agriculture. However, during 1971 – 2000, labor absorption of food crops sub-sector was found decreasing whilst the labor absorption of estate crop and livestock sub-sector was found increasing.

Among food crops sub-sector, 3 main commodities that absorb majority of agricultural workers/labors are paddy/rice, pulses, vegetables and fruits (horticultures). Among estate crops, the three main commodities that highly absorb the agricultural labors/workers are coconut, palm oil, coffee, tobacco, and rubber.

During 1982-2003 there was a significant changes found in the structure of age of the agricultural workers/labors. In 1982, the agricultural workers/labors was dominated by the worker’s age under 30 and elderly workers was only around 7 percent; however in 2003, the workers/labors in agricultural sector was dominated by the worker’s age between 30-44 years and elderly workers was increased. This fact showed that young workers/labors were not interested working in agricultural/farming activities.

According to 2003 Census, high proportion of agricultural workers/labors were in the range of age between 35-54 years, and the proportion of elderly agricultural workers (> 60 years) was found 13 percent of total agricultural workers. Meanwhile,male are found higher than female workers. In Java, elderly agricultural workers were higher in number than that of in off-Java. The same patterns was also found for the landless-agricultural workers in Java and off-Java.

Level of education of agricultural workers was increased during the last three decades with male education higher than female education (measured by number of years of schooling). However, the average education level was only 6 years of primary school.

Most of the female agricultural workers/labors are fall into the category of “disguise unemployment”, meaning that they are not fully working (less than normal work hours), meanwhile, the male workers/labors can be categorized as full workers/labors.

Adoption of Technology

On-farm technology adoption was increased and varied according to the type of planted commodity by the farmers andvaried by location overtime. The technology adoption was measured by the agricultural/rural household’s participation rate and the average application used by the households, i.e.: seeds or certified seeds used, fertilizers applied/used and feed-composition used, specifically for livestock/poultry farming households.

On food crops farming activities, the household’s participation rate for certified seed was increased. The fertilizers applied

Page 4 Vol. 02 No. 2, June 2008

was dominantly by the Urea/Nitrogen up to the maximum and above the dosage requirement, whereas the TSP/SP 36 and KCL participation rate were still below the requirement dosage. However, the trend of fertilizers applied toward the recommendation package was improved during the last threedecades.

On horticulture crops farming activities, the household’sparticipation rate for seed was 74 percent using seed more than 600 kilogram per Ha (for onion) and 72-87 percent using seed between 4-6 kilogram per ha (chili/red pepper). The fertilizer applied was more than 300 kilogram per ha of Urea/Nitrogen. On estate crops farming activities, the same pattern of household participation rate for seed and fertilizer’ applied were found. On livestock/poultry farming activities, however, the feed-composition used or applied less than 651 kilogram per 1000 animal was 97-99 percent. On foliages/green stuffs used as feed composition for ruminant, it was found that the household’s participation rate was high, around 79-94 percent. On poultry farming activities, the feed-concentrate (as liquid concentrate) was used and was varied among location.

Characteristics and Agricultural Household’s Welfare

The characteristics of agricultural and rural households within three decades were changing. The size of households was decreased, however the level of education/schooling was increased. The aging of agricultural workers was also found and minimum/low accessibility of agricultural households to public facilities such as clean water, electricity and health care.

Majority of agricultural or rural households was food crops farmers and estate crops farmers. The number of agricultural and rural households was increased as well as that of horticultural farmers, whereas the number of livestock farmers was decreased.

During the last two decades (1983-2003), the proportion of agricultural and rural households that have access to the public facilities, such as hospital and paramedics were only about 50 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Households in Java were less access than that of off-Java however, households in Java have more access to general practitioners and to paramedics.

More than 60 percent of rural and agricultural households were able to get credit scheme for their financial purposes. This showed that the micro-credit and micro finance had successfully increased their services for the households in the rural areas.

With the high conversion rate at the fertile-irrigated land, the policy implications to anticipate further negative impact of further changes are to: (a) develop and expand the high-value commodity areas in Java with high-tech and modern management to achieve high productivity and efficiency; (b) improve, rehabilitate and increase the irrigation-infrastructure in the rural areas; (c) expand the land-farm areas in the off-Java which still have plenty of arable and cultivated land.

Policy Implication

The policy implication of the uneven land distribution, less than 0.1 ha size of land-cultivated, and increasing number of landless farmers; the government’s role is needed to design pro-poor and small scale’ farmers through extension services, market-oriented activities, strengthening farmers’ association/institution. Above all, the land reformation or land reformation has to be implemented and granted to guarantee the agricultural land allotment to the small scale and poor households in the rural areas.

The fact that there are changes in the farming activities for a more diversified, from food crops towards horticulture, estate crops and livestock/fisheries; the policy implication is the government need to support such agricultural diversification trends and support the non-land based agricultural development.

To address the high dependency of unskilled workers/labors into the agricultural/rural sector, the government needs to build and improve the human capacity of the agricultural workers/labors through schooling, training and agro-industry activities. This policy, in turn, will help increase not-only nominal but also the real incomes of the rural and agricultural households.

Agricultural technology package need to be designed and tailored to be adopted in a more specific time and location, due to the high variation of resources (land, labor/manpower, ecosystem, etc.) spread in Indonesia. National seed system and distribution could also be designed by the government to guarantee to the farmers according to the 5 principles (on time, exact amount needed, exact variety needed, guaranteed/high quality and affordable prices).

The indicator that was used to measure the household’s welfare using the house wall, roofs, floor condition was found inconsistently applied in Indonesia due to differences and uniqueness of each areas. The analysis showed that using single criteria (uniformly) to measure the households’ welfare and applicable to all region/areas all over Indonesia was not appropriate. The indicator should have been adjusted to the local condition and taking into account the socio-cultures of the areas.

Sustainable access of rural and agricultural households to and quality of public facilities and services (clean water, health care, micro-banking) need to be increased and strengthened. Health services for the poor agricultural/rural families are crucial, given their already-poor in health and nutrition status. Assessment and inventory of local and traditional herb-medicines can also be pursued as alternative to high-priced imported medicines. Policies to address issues of safe drinking water and improve the quality of sanitation are important for the government to be put in the priority list.

Pro-poor, pro-village, pro-employment and pro-equity are the appropriate terms to develop policies to help the agricultural and rural households. It could be done if the government is taking steps to address land-consolidation to eliminate land-fragmentation and to increase the non-land base agricultural development.

Correspondence: Dr. Erna Maria Lokollo (emlokollo@yahoo.com)

INPRES NO.1/2008 ON NEW GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PRICE OF PADDY

The government has increased the price of paddy and rice as officially announced the new price level of procurement by the government. The President Instruction (Inpres No. 1/2008) which was effectively applied since 22 April 2008 was officiated

to replace Inpres No. 3/2007. The Inpres mentioned that the farm gate price of harvesting-dried paddy (GKP) with maximum water content of 10% is Rp 2200/kg, an increased by Rp 200/kg compared with that of previous price level set in the Inpres No. 3/2007 (1

Policy Development

Vol. 02 No. 2, June 2008 Page 5

April 2007). Meanwhile, the milling-dried paddy (GKG) with maximum water content of 14% and maximum of empty grain rate (butir hampa) of 3% is Rp 2840/kg at Bulog warehouses. For rice, the new price was Rp 4300/kg (an increased by Rp300/kg compared with the previous price level) at Bulog warehouses (maximum water content 14%, broken 20%, finely ground grain of rice (menir) 2% and clean degree (derajat

sosoh) 95%). The Inpres also mentioned that such procurement will be led by Bulog and at regional level; this procurement will be conducted by both Bulog and local government institutions or food-related organizations in the region. A review on these prices was carried out yearly in response to the increasing prices of input and other required materials from time to time as well as an effort to guard the farmer’s income.

THE PROGRESS OF GOVERNMENT-FUNDED RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 2008

All of the nine tasks conducted by ICASEPS in 2008 are steadily in progress. As listed in our Newsletter No.1, March 2008, five of the tasks are research type of activities, while the rest are mostly desk work and program guarding activities. These government-funded projects is approaching the mid budget year (January to December 2008) and is currently in the stage of data processing and writing the draft report. With internal monitoring and evaluation scheduled in mid of September, all of the tasks are expected to be finalized by December 2008.

RESEARCH COLLABORATION

Cost Effective Biosecurity for Non-Industrial Commercial Poultry Operation in Indonesia

The newly collaboration activity was initiated by ICASEPS and ACIAR with mutual approval of a collaboration research. This research will be conducted through several approaches in relation to biosecurity and poultry operation issues. Avian influenza pandemic is one of the methods used in this research. The excerpt of the proposal:

In Southeast and Eastern Asia, over 200 people have died, and over 200 million poultry have died or been slaughtered, consequent to infection with HPAI virus. Since it was first identified in Indonesia in 2003, HPAI has become endemic in 31 of the 33 provinces. Along with Newcastle disease, Gumboro and other poultry diseases, HPAI is responsible for significant economic loss particularly in the Non-Industrial Commercial Poultry Sector (NICPS, as the commercial poultry farming sector not owned and managed by the seven large, multinational, poultry companies that operate in Indonesia) and village poultry sectors. High mortality rates, decreases in demand for poultry and poultry products in affected areas, continuing human deaths and the risk of a global pandemic, ensure that control of HPAI remains a priority for Indonesia.

Considerable resources are being allocated by the GoI and donor agencies to control HPAI in the village poultry sector. There is, however, increasing realization that more resources should be allocated to the NICPS in order to control HPAI. Improving biosecurity in this sector will reduce the likelihood of flocks becoming infected and, therefore, reduce the risk of large numbers of infected birds being dumped into live bird markets.

The aim of the project is to improve the economic viability of commercial broiler and layer producers through the sustainable adoption of cost-effective biosecurity measures. The project will:

1. Develop an industry-driven and supported approach to improving on-farm biosecurity in the NICPS,

2. Define the biosecurity measures that will improve the biosecurity and the economic viability of NICPS in Indonesia and,

3. Facilitate adoption of cost-effective farm and community biosecurity measures in NICPS.

To achieve this will require government policy support to improve poultry trading systems, particularly with regard to live bird and wet markets. Industry-driven describes the requirement for integration and project ownership by the poultry industry and local communities. It will require inputs from, and the development of partnerships between, all stakeholders from national poultry associations and Sector 1 companies to villagecollectors, wet market operators and farmers. There will need to be significant integration with other donor activities. Multi- and bi-lateral donors are providing various types of support, mostly in Sector 4 but have an increasing interest in Sector 3 stemming from a realisation of its probable role in propagation of HPAI.

It is imperative that the project is embedded in poultry industry institutions, and incentives are built into industry policies and contracts. Industry partnerships at the national level will be managed through the Biosecurity Consultative Group (a subcommittee under the FMPI) and at the provincial level (Bali, South Sulawesi and West Java) through Provincial Steering Committees (PSCs) comprising government, farmer associations, academics and commercial poultry companies. Project activities will be coordinated in each province by Provincial Project Coordinators (PPCs) employed and trained initially by the project under the direction of the PSCs and situated in appropriate support institutions to be determined by the PSC at project inception. By project conclusion these PPCs will be a useful industry resource that will provide potentially fee-for-service training, extension and poultry industry biosecurity advice. The Poultry Biosecurity Centre (PBC) will provide a national level repository and resource for poultry biosecurity advice, information and training.

The project will identify appropriate, efficient and effective poultry biosecurity measures for NICPS farms. Resources will then be devoted to training of farmers and advisors and facilitating the introduction of these biosecurity systems within communities. Trainers will be accredited, farms will be audited and accredited, and the service industry that provides loans, credit, after-sales and membership services to poultry farmers will be encouraged to introduce minimum biosecurity conditions in their contracts and pricing structures.

By the end of the project there will be approximately 200 farm advisors (private and public) trained, 200 farmers trained, 600 farms adopting minimum biosecurity standards and a market in Bali developed for products from HPAI-free

farming systems. There will be communities with private incentives to improve their on-farm biosecurity. There will be advisors providing biosecurity advice to their clients as part of ‘after sales service’ or on a ‘fee for service’ basis. There will be farmers with improved management and production systems better able to control HPAI (and other poultry diseases such as ND and Gumboro) leading to improved income and income stability. There will be a strengthened institutional environ-mental able to support and encourage farmers to improve biosecurity. There will be a reduced likelihood of HPAI

Research Activities

Page 6 Vol. 02 No. 2, June 2008

outbreaks, therefore reduced possibility for pandemic. The project will assist with the GoaI long-term aim of removing the NICPS as a source, or pathway, for HPAI spread.

Existing Indonesian skills in agricultural economics will be developed through the practical research undertaken to select cost-effective, biosecurity measures, monitor and evaluate project activities, develop the post farm-gate market chain and assist with policy development and analysis (ICASEPS, IPB and UNUD). Existing veterinary or animal science skills will be developed by the mentoring provided by Australian veterinary experts. Indonesian participants in the analysis of disease and economic data from poultry farmer groups will be encouraged to write papers suitable for presentation at scientific research conferences or publish in scientific research journals or both.

ICASEPS is responsible for conducting socio-economic research and analysis and providing agriculture economic policy advice. It is also responsible for agriculture program review, and facilitating consultation with all stakeholders in policy formulation.

Correspondence: Mr. Muhammad Iqbal (iqbalrafani@yahoo.com)

Study on HPAI Control Measure in Jakarta

In addition to the current joint HPAI research in cooperation with IDRC, the ICASEPS has also created research collaboration on HPAI with UN FAO. The study was started in December 2007.

HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza) was first broke into Indonesia in 2003 and is currently endemic in 31 of its 33 provinces. It has the potential to cause the significant economic loss for poultry producers (by the reduction of income and protein), consumers (caused by higher prices), and service providers (by decreasing its demand). There is also the continuing risk of a global pandemic since more than 200 million Indonesians live closely with, and have close social and cultural ties with, birds, including poultry.

Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia, is no exception in which HPAI has become endemic in the area and has resulted in poultry and human deaths since 2003. Therefore, local

government of Jakarta Province issued two legislations namely Governor’s Legislation No. 15/2007 and Provincial Government Legislation (Perda) No. 4/2007 on Poultry Raising and Distribution Control. It requires Jakarta residents who raise chickens, ducks, muscovy ducks, geese, pigeons, and quails in residential areas to voluntarily consume, sell, or cull their poultry starting from January 17, 2007. Moreover, people are also banned from raising the above-mentioned poultry in residential areas in Jakarta effective on February 1, 2007. Poultry earmarked for hobby, research, and education owned by a resident or an institution must have an animal certificate. The livestock office of the province has issued health certificates free of charge. Well-managed poultry farms, collection and slaughtering sites, and live poultry selling markets will be relocated to areas outlying and/or outside of Jakarta. The Jakarta administration will issue another regulation to control live poultry distribution. Poultry belonging to violators will be culled.

Based on aforementioned circumstances, the urban and peri-urban poultry markets and communities of poultry keepers and small producers are exposed to ambiguity associated with HPAI control policies and measures to ensure biosecurity. Hence, the study entitles “Livelihood and Gender Impact of Rapid Changes to Biosecurity Policy in the Jakarta Area and Lessons Learned for Future Approaches in Urban Areas” was initiated in order to review the impact of the ban on livelihoods of people and gender issue within the food chain in Jakarta which depend on poultry. The study has been carrying out by ICASEPS funded by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The study applied focused group discussion (FGD), field observation, and survey using structured and unstructured questionnaires as methods of the study. Location of the study was selected in four administrative municipalities (east, west, north, and south) of Jakarta. The draft of final report of the study had been submitted in May 2008. a one day workshop had been held at ICASEPS on August 20, 2008 for validation and socialization of the study.

Correspondence: Mr. Muhammad Iqbal (iqbalrafani@yahoo.com)

Analisis Kebijakan Pertanian Vol. 6 No. 2 2008

1. Kebijakan Produksi dan Peredaran Produk Pertanian Hasil Rekayasa Genetika (PRG) di Indonesia (Production and Distribution Policy of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) in Indonesia) by Dewa K.S. Swastika and Hardinsyah.

2. Ketahanan dan Stabilitas Pasokan, Permintaan, dan Harga Komoditas Pangan (Stability and Security of Food Supply, Demand, and Crop Prices) by Kaman Nainggolan.

3. Penganekaragaman Konsumsi Pangan di Indonesia: Permasalahan dan Implikasi untuk Kebijakan dan Program

(Food Consumption Diversification in Indonesia: Problems and Implications for Policy and Programs) by Handewi P.S. Rachman and Mewa Ariani.

4. Tanggungjawab Sosial Perusahaan (Corporate Social Responsibility) dalam Perspektif Kebijakan Pembangunan Pertanian (Corporate Social Responsibility In Agricultural Development Policy Perspective) by Muhammad Iqbal andTahlim Sudaryanto

5. Membangun Kemandirian Pangan dalam Rangka Meningkatkan Ketahanan Nasional (Food Reliance Development to enhance Nasional Security) by Delima Hasri Azahari.

WORKSHOP ON AI DISEASE CONTROL POLICY: IMPLEMENTATION, IMPACT, AND LESSON LEARNED

As part of research collaboration activities with ACIAR, a workshop entitled: “AI Disease Control Policy: Implementation, Impact, and Lesson Learned” was held at ICASEPS on 22 May 2008 and attended by several related institutions, both national and regional levels. The workshop was intended to

accommodate data and information related to biosecurity and poultry operation in Indonesia. The workshop was officially opened by the Director General of AARD with keynote address hoping for valuable research results. There were three topics discussed during the workshop, namely (a) Policy planning, socialization, and implementation on AI disease control, (b) Studies on AI disease, and (c) Regional government response to policy on AI disease control. Nine papers were presented during the workshop, including a paper titled “Economic and social impact of Avian Influenza outbreak in Bali and Lombok:

ICASEPS Publications

ICASEPS News

Page 7Vol. 02 No. 2, June 2008

What have we learned?” rendered by Dr. Phil Simmons of the University of New England, Australia, representing the ACIAR. The other 8 papers were presented by Indonesian side, including papers from the Directorate of Animal Health, Directorate General of Livestock, MoA (“Planning, socialization, and implementation of AI disease control policy” by Dr. Elly Siregar), ICASEPS (“The Impact of Poultry Legislation on domestic chicken and duck farmers in Jakarta” by Dr. Rozany Nurmanaf), and IPB (“The Impact of AI Outbreak on Indonesia’s macro economy: A CGE model approach” by Dr. Rina Oktaviani). The general conclusion drawn from the workshop was that the coverage of AI disease is highly complex in respect to social, economic, politic, and culture and that the AI outbreak should be managed and coordinated across the institutions and other stakeholders dealing with this phenomenon, both at national and regional levels. This workshop is part of the preliminary activities and is very important in relation to the newly initiated research collaboration between ICASEPS and ACIAR.

VISIT OF REGIONAL PARLIAMENT MEMBERS (CITY OF TASIKMALAYA,WEST JAVA)

On 26 June 2008, ICASEPS received several parliament members of Tasikmalaya City, West Java (B Commission dealing with agriculture and socioeconomic affairs), for an official visit on their view to obtain inputs on planning alternatives for agricultural development. Although Tasikmalaya is said a city, however, factual condition indicates that 2/3 of the City region is considered as agricultural field. Therefore, it makes sense that the parliament members are very concern on the development of agricultural sector in their region. The delegation was headed by Mr. Thonny T. Easy along with a number of government officials (representative from related institutions). During the discussion, Dr. Tahlim Sudaryanto, Director of ICASEPS, explains the main job description of ICASEPS, its role in supporting the Ministry of Agriculture’s policies, and current issues on agro-socioeconomic, institutions, and agricultural development policies. At the end of the discussion, the parliament members express their strong desire to have a close cooperation with ICASEPS through advocacy and technical assistance, particularly in regard to agricultural development planning in Tasikmalaya City.

BEST RESEARCH RESULTS 2007

The Referee Committee of the yearly research evaluation has announced their decision for all research titles conducted in 2007. The five criteria of evaluation applied are: (a) issue relevance, (b) methodology applied, (c) depth and

coverage of the discussion, (d) advantage obtained from the research, and (e) timely report submission. Based on these criteria, the following three research titles have been ranked as the most outstanding research activities: (a) Kaji Ulang Kebijakan Subsidi dan Distribusi Pupuk (Revisiting Subsidy Policy and Fertilizer Distribution) by Dr. Nizwar Syafa’at, et al.;

(b) Analisis Penawaran dan Permintaan Pupuk di Indonesia(Supply and Demand Analysis of Fertilizers in Indonesia) by Mr. Prajogo. U. Hadi, et al.; and (c) Kaji Ulang Program Pembangunan Pertanian (Revisiting Agricultural Development Program) by Dr. Yusmichad Yusdja, et al. In its speech, the Director of ICASEPS expressed his delightful of the results the researchers have achieved and the hard working process of the selection made by the Committee. This research evaluation is intended to motivate each and every one of the researchers to look forward to a better research conduct and timely submission of the report. At the end of the awarding ceremony, the Director presented each research team with letter of appreciation and valuable gifts. Picture: researchers received their award on behalf of each research team. Congrats to all the winners !!!

BRIEF PROFILE

Having introduced in our previous Newsletter, Dr. Benny Rachman, it currently elaborates more about his personal profile. Born in Jakarta on 10 February 1959, Dr. Rachman finished his bachelor degree in statistics from Pajajaran University, Bandung (1984), awarded masteral degree in rural and regional planning and doctoral degree in

resource management and environmental economics from IPB, Bogor (1995 and 1999, respectively). Dr. Rachman started to work at ICASEPS in 1985 and prior to his current main task at ICASEPS, Dr. Rachman was seconded to serve the AARD as the Director of BPTP (Assessment Institute of Agricultural Technology) in Banten Province (2003-2007). Only in early 2008 that he returned to ICASEPS to head the Bidang Pelayanan dan Pendayagunaan Hasil Analisis (Service and Utilization of Analysis Results Division). This division particularly serves ICASEPS in preparing technical assistance on agricultural analysis collaboration, research and policies. The young looking bureaucrat with smiling face, Dr. Rachman is married with two grown-up boys. Among his research colleagues, he is also known with his critical analysis on various issues, especially in his field of interest, institutional economics. As a senior researcher who received the highest achievement functional rank (Peneliti Utama) in 2005, he is serious in research activities but very friendly when discussion turns to daily life issues. Through his brilliant management, as shown during his five year successful service at BPTP, his division at ICASEPS plays a vital role for which many researchers rely on. No doubt that the face of ICASEPS is on his shoulder. We wish all the best for him and his colleagues at the division with breakthrough and innovation they could introduce in the years to come.

Correspondence AddressJalan Ahmad Yani 70Bogor 16161, IndonesiaPh. +622518333964, Fax No. +622518314496E-mail: publikasi_psekp@yahoo.co.idWebsite: http://pse.litbang.deptan.go.id

STAMP

Indonesian Center for Agriculture Socio Economic and Policy StudiesJalan Ahmad Yani 70Bogor 16161Indonesia