Senin, 01 April 2013

New perspective for food security


New perspective for food security
Dinna Wisnu ;  Co-Founder and Director of Paramadina
Graduate School of Diplomacy, Jakarta
JAKARTA POST, 20 Maret 2013

  
Food security is a strategic issue for countries in ASEAN but its achievement gets harder from year-to-year. According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, 53 percent of Southeast Asia’s 600 million population lives in poverty with an income of less than US$2 per day, while 18 percent of them earn less than $1.25 per day.

With continuously rising food prices and unpredictable food supply, these poor certainly do not earn enough to meet a sufficient daily nutrition intake. This puts Southeast Asia second only to sub-Saharan Africa in terms of poverty levels.

In terms of malnutrition, according to the World Food Program of the United Nations, only in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam is less than 5 percent of the population malnourished. Indonesia is at medium-low with 5-14 percent of its population suffering malnutrition. The Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand record 15-24 percent malnutrition with 25-34 percent malnutrition in Laos and Cambodia. All are poor indicators of food security in the region particularly considering that socioeconomic inequality remains a serious problem here.

Not long ago ASEAN adopted the Framework Action Plan on Rural Development and Poverty Eradication 2011-2015 as the basis for various ASEAN Senior Official Meetings in preparation for the ASEAN Economic Community. The goal is to address the above-mentioned concerns.

This is yet another effort to enhance previous initiatives, such as the ASEAN Emergency Rice Reserve (AERR) agreed in 1979, the study team funded by Japan International Cooperation Agency in 2001 which assessed why AERR was not successful in collecting the minimum rice reserve, the Series of Technical Meetings on Rice Reserves in 2002 which later endorsed the Pilot Project of East Asia Rice Reserve System for three years prior to the establishment of the East Asia Rice Reserve System which then evolved into the ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR).

Then there was the East Asia Emergency Rice Reserve to support rice trading between country members, and the ASEAN Food Security Information System (AFSIS) developed together with the Food and Agriculture Organization, for the exchange of information on agricultural and food commodities.

Will the framework of action plan be any different in enhancing food security in ASEAN? The biggest question one should ask is whether the food security problem in ASEAN is caused by lack of supply of grains (particularly rice). Would pooling rice for emergency times solve the problem of food insecurity or a mere simple non-interventionist way of making leaders of the nations in the region feel assured that they won’t be held accountable for not doing enough on the issue?
People in Southeast Asia are blessed with a diversity of food. Studies on food security across the globe suggest that looking at food security by emphasizing food supply is outdated.

A study by Randy Stringer in Australia (2000) shows that there is actually enough food to feed the world. If proximity to food is key to getting food, think about how Southeast Asia is blessed with fertile soil, rains, tropical weather, ponds, seas, a richness in culinary skills and large numbers of people working as farmers and fishermen.

Even if the problem is with supply, we can’t look at it from the perspective of boosting production alone. There must be an issue of choice, which is made at the level of individual farmers or fishermen, agribusinesses and entrepreneurs, local governments and central governments. Other studies also suggest that consumers often shape the state of food security.

However, with the scale of poverty in Southeast Asia, it is hard to imagine that the problem is with consumers being picky about food. Sure there are people in the region who are influenced by diet, modern lifestyles and personal preferences in food, but there has not been any collective action to shape demand for certain commodities.

It is time that governments in the region started looking at food security from a new perspective. Food security is not purely about supply and demand but also about paths to providing supply of food and ending the mismatch in approaches when handling producers, businesses and consumers.

Cooperation across governments in the region should shift from collecting the output from producers and emphasizing trade, to enabling communities. Certain countries with less capacity to produce may need support in the food trade, but the food trade itself cannot be as fulfilling when producers and agribusiness handle problems in their own (individual) ways.

In supplying food, we should internalize in our minds that farmers and fishermen in Southeast Asia are communities that think, act, learn in traditional ways, not just because many of them are still under-educated but because they value such community-based living. They have survived for generations because they work as groups of people who care for one another. Machines are barely used not only because farmers and fishermen are clusters of poor people, but also because they jeopardize employment for family members and neighbors.

After all, governments in general have yet to develop employment programs in rural areas. Governments may provide subsidized fertilizers and seeds, but farmers have trouble obtaining them. Consequently, even if the national governments call for the production of certain commodities, farmers and fishermen will have trouble meeting them because their tools, knowledge and networks are very limited.

Businesses come between farmers and fishermen, consumers and governments. They want the shortest way to get raw materials and with the least cost.

Unfortunately in most places across ASEAN, logistics is still a big issue. Roads are bad or absent, with heavy traffic congestion, and there are long queues at ports. On top of this, local farmers cannot yet produce reliable volumes and quality of raw materials for agribusiness. Producers of fruit compote (dodol) in Indonesia, for instance, complain that they may pay for 10 fruits but not all meet the requirement for compote production.

The solution proposed by businesses is imports or import quotas. The problem with this is that it does not solve the problem at the producer level.

Imports do not encourage local production and do not guarantee stability of price either. When prices rise, producers are not the happy ones because the benefits go to traders rather than themselves. Worse, with the high cost of food, producers are among the poor experiencing food insecurity. The problems of business are also not solved by imports or import quotas.

Farmers and fishermen should be seen as groups of employers and employees with precious adaptive skills and connections to nature. When facilitated with an array of tools and networks, supported by science and governments who care, they will provide longer-term solutions to food security.

In the meantime, entrepreneurs and businesses in the food sector should be encouraged to work within the frame of community development with producers. Businesses should be facilitated to develop “the conveyor-belt” of production starting from the farm.

In short, food security is an urgent issue, but we cannot handle it with emergency policies. Our viewpoint should be far into the future. Food security is not just about food on the table, but also about securing employment on the farms, ensuring that work as farmers and fishermen is attractive to the younger generations.

If governments cannot guarantee full employment for all citizens, then the least they can do is to ensure that all ASEAN citizens have the options to keep their current jobs on the farms, seas and coastal areas and as agribusiness entrepreneurs. ●

The ICC and the commitment to human rights


The ICC and the commitment to human rights
Mas Achmad Santosa ;  The writer, A Rule of Law Specialist, is currently Deputy Head of the President’s Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight
JAKARTA POST, 19 Maret 2013



There were at least two main reasons for the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). First, the world affirmed that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole namely; the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression, must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the international level and by enhancing international cooperation.

Second, since 1948, when the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the need for a permanent international court to deal with the kind of atrocities which had just been perpetrated. 

This idea of a system of international criminal justice reemerged after the end of the Cold War. Subsequently, an ad hoc international tribunal for serious crimes in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda established by the UN Security Council had the most significant impact on the decision to convene the conference which established the ICC in Rome on July 1998. Currently 122 countries are parties to the Rome Statute.

The Rome Statute recognizes two important principles: non-retroactivity and complementarity. Non-retroactivity means that the ICC has jurisdiction only with respect to events which occurred after the entry into force of its 
statute on July 1, 2002. 

If a state becomes a party to the statute after its entry into force, the court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of the statute for that state, unless that state has made a declaration 
accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC retroactively.

However, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction with respect to events which occurred before July 1, 2002. For a new state party, the statute enters into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

The second most important principle is complementarity which means the ICC does not replace national criminal justice systems — rather, it complements them. States retain primary responsibility for trying the perpetrators of the most serious crimes.

If we fully understand the essence of these two main principles — non-retroactivity and complementarity — the ICC is not a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, but an instrument to pursue global justice and security by ending the impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.

Is there any exception to the principle of complementarity? There are at least four different ways that the ICC can initiate investigation or prosecution.

First, a situation of inability or unwillingness. The ICC can investigate and, where warranted, prosecute and try individuals only if the state concerned does not, cannot or is genuinely unwilling to do so. This might occur where proceedings are unduly delayed or are intended to shield individuals from their criminal responsibility.

In order to determine inability in a particular case, the ICC can only take over the investigation and prosecution if the particular state has suffered a total or substantial collapse in its national judicial system or the system is unavailable thus preventing the state from carrying out its criminal enforcement proceedings. 

To date, none of the cases investigated and prosecuted by the ICC have been based on unwilling-or-unable situations.

Second, by request of the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council, acting under chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations may also request the ICC prosecutor to investigate any serious crime under the Rome Statute whenever such crime appears to have been committed in any country. Such referrals have been made by the UN Security Council on Darfur/Sudan on March 31, 2005 and Libya on Feb. 26, 2011.

Third, referral of a situation by a state party. A state party may voluntarily refer a case to the ICC prosecutor to investigate where one or more serious crimes appear to have been committed. 

As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by supporting documents. There have been at least three referral cases to the ICC; from the government of Uganda (2003), Central African Republic (2004) and Democratic Republic of Congo (April 2004).

Fourth, the ICC Prosecutor’s Initiative to Investigate (proprio motu). The ICC prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu (on one’s own initiative) on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Proprio motu should be based on the seriousness of the information received and there being a reasonable basis to proceed.

If these two elements are satisfied then the prosecutor should request an authorization to the Pre-Trial Chamber, consisting of three independent judges, to get authorization for investigation. Proprio motu has been applied so far in Cote d’ Ivoire (2011) and Mali (2013).

For Indonesia, which has planned to ratify the Rome Statute as outlined in the National Human Rights Action Plan (RANHAM 2011-2014), two of the four ways for the ICC to initiate investigations namely; the unable-or-unwilling situation, and proprio motu (ICC prosecutor’s  initiative), should be studied objectively and carefully, so as to include intensive consultation with the ICC itself (the ICC president and prosecutors) and relevant state parties, particularly parties from ASEAN who have already ratified the statute: the Philippines, Cambodia and Timor Leste.

The government of Indonesia can commission a team consisting of international law and human rights experts who have not been influenced by any predetermined interests to come up with a strong analysis, especially with regard to how the two issues could impinge on national interests and how the risks could be prevented and resolved.

There are some potential benefits for Indonesia ratifying the Rome Statute: Strengthening our commitment to promoting and protecting human rights at the domestic as well as global level; strengthening Indonesia’s commitment to participating actively in creating global peace and security as mandated in the 1945 Constitution; motivating ourselves to protect human rights, uphold the rule of law and strengthen our democratic system through, among other things improving our criminal justice system, and finally widening access to international law and human rights cooperation.

Undoubtedly as a country which is committed to the protection of human rights and an important global player, Indonesia will enjoy benefits from the ratification of the Rome Statute. However, in this context we need to have a clear outline and roadmap for strengthening our democratic system by accelerating the independence of the judiciary, ensuring that the strategy of peaceful social-conflict prevention and resolution as outlined in the law on social conflict handling (Law No. 7/2012) is consistently implemented, and by improving the professionalism, independence and even-handedness of law enforcement.

Close coordination among the executive, legislature and judiciary with support from civil society organizations is a must in order to answer the challenges above. ●