5. kuliah 5 indev 2012

KEAMANAN PANGAN REGIONAL TANPA KEDAULATAN PANGAN LOKAL: KASUS

PERTANIAN INDONESIA DALAM KONTEKS PANGAN ASEAN

Andre Ardi

Tuesday, October 23, 12

The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008 9

Driving forces of high food prices

As agricultural commodity prices rose sharply in 2006 and 2007 and continued to rise

even further in early 2008, the forces behind soaring food prices were examined from various perspectives in an effort to design response options. This section lists some of the main drivers behind soaring food prices.1 Medium-term projections indicate that, while food prices should stabilize in 2008–09 and subsequently fall, they will remain above their pre-2004 trend level for the foreseeable future.2

The FAO index of nominal food prices doubled between 2002 and 2008. In real terms, the increase was less pronounced but still dramatic. The real food price index began rising in 2002, after four decades of predominantly declining trends, and spiked sharply upwards in 2006 and 2007. By mid-2008, real food prices were 64 percent above their 2002 levels. The only other period of significantly rising real food prices since this data series began occurred in the early 1970s in the wake of the first international oil crisis.

Be they policy measures, investment decisions or emergency interventions, appropriate actions to address the human and economic impacts of soaring food prices require a thorough understanding of the underlying driving forces. These driving forces are many and complex, and they include both supply-side and demand-side factors. Long-term structural trends underlying growth in demand for food have coincided with short-term cyclical or temporary factors adversely affecting food supply, thus resulting in a situation where growth in demand for food commodities continues to outstrip growth in their supply.

agriculture policies in recent years. One result has been significantly lower levels of cereal stocks compared with earlier years. The ratio of world cereal stocks to utilization is estimated at 19.4 percent for 2007/08, the lowest

Supply-side forces

Stock levels and market volatility. Several of the world’s major cereal producers (China, the European Union, India and the United States of America) have changed their

Krisis 73 Krisis 2007


Kerangka Keamanan Pangan Regional Melalui ASEAN: ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS)

2009 ASEAN INTEGRATED FOOD SECURITY (AIFS) FRAMEWORK AND STRATEGIC PLAN OF ACTION ON FOOD SECURITY IN THE ASEAN REGION (SPA-FS) 2009-2013

UNOFFICIAL TEXT · CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW· www.cil.nus.edu.sg Page 12 of 19

CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF THE ASEAN INTEGRATED FOOD SECURTY (AIFS) FRAMEWORK IMPLEMENTATION


Kondisi Keamanan pangan

Pasokan relatif aman untuk lima pangan pertanian prioritas ASEAN (beras, jagung, kedelai, gula, singkong)

Rasio cadangan beras terhadap penggunaan domestik = 20% (22 juta ton), kecuali Indonesia 5%

Rasio produksi terhadap penggunaan domestik = 112%

0

6,000,000

12,000,000

18,000,000

24,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011

TOTAL STOK BERAS ASEAN (ton)

122,000,000

123,500,000

125,000,000

126,500,000

128,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011

TOTAL PRODUKSI BERAS ASEAN (ton)


World Food Summit & MDG’s Target (ASEAN)

South-Eastern Asia10 564.0 105.8 86.0 89.6 77.4 –26.9 Q 24 18 17 14 –42 QCambodia 14.3 3.8 4.7 3.8 3.6 –4.5 Q 38 40 29 25 –33 QIndonesia 224.7 28.9 22.0 30.4 29.7 2.9 Q 16 11 15 13 –17 QLao People’s Dem. Rep. 6.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.1 Q 31 29 26 22 –27 QMalaysia 26.6 ns ns ns ns na Q – – – – na QPhilippines 88.7 15.3 14.1 14.6 11.8 –22.9 Q 24 20 18 13 –44 QThailand 67.0 15.0 11.1 11.5 10.7 –28.9 Q 26 18 18 16 –39 QViet Nam 86.1 21.0 16.7 13.3 9.6 –54.5 Q 31 22 17 11 –64 Q

T H E S T A T E O F F O O D I N S E C U R I T Y I N T H E W O R L D 2 0 1 146

Technical annex

WORLD Region/subregion/country

Total population

Number of people undernourished Proportion of undernourished in total population

2006–08 1990–92 1995–97 2000–02 2006–08 Change so far

Progress towards

WFS target4

1990–92 1995–97 2000–02 2006–08 Change so far

Progress towards

MDG target4

(millions) (millions) (%) (%) (%)

Uzbekistan 26.9 1.1 1.2 4.7 2.8 152.6 Q 5 5 19 11 97 QEastern Asia 1 410.8 215.6 149.5 141.8 139.4 –35.3 Q 18 12 10 10 –44 QChina 1 336.5 210.0 141.7 132.8 129.6 –38.3 Q 18 12 10 10 –46 QDem. People’s Rep. of Korea 23.7 4.2 6.6 7.8 8.4 99.6 Q 21 30 34 35 72 QMongolia 2.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 11.4 Q 28 33 27 27 –5 QRepublic of Korea 48.0 ns ns ns ns na Q – – – – na QEastern Asia - excluding China 74.3 5.5 7.9 9.0 9.8 77.1 Q 8 11 13 13 57 QSouthern Asia9 1 642.8 267.5 269.0 307.9 330.1 23.4 Q 22 20 21 20 –8 QBangladesh 157.7 44.4 54.2 42.3 41.4 –6.8 Q 38 41 30 26 –30 QIndia 1 164.6 177.0 167.1 208.0 224.6 26.9 Q 20 17 20 19 –4 QIran (Islamic Republic of) 72.4 ns ns ns ns na Q – – – – na QNepal 28.3 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.7 13.3 Q 21 20 18 17 –22 QPakistan 173.2 29.5 26.8 36.3 42.8 45.0 Q 25 20 24 25 –1 QSri Lanka 19.9 4.8 4.5 3.9 3.9 –18.4 Q 28 25 20 20 –28 QSouthern Asia - excluding India 478.1 90.5 101.9 99.9 105.5 16.7 Q 26 26 23 22 –16 QSouth-Eastern Asia10 564.0 105.8 86.0 89.6 77.4 –26.9 Q 24 18 17 14 –42 QCambodia 14.3 3.8 4.7 3.8 3.6 –4.5 Q 38 40 29 25 –33 QIndonesia 224.7 28.9 22.0 30.4 29.7 2.9 Q 16 11 15 13 –17 QLao People’s Dem. Rep. 6.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.1 Q 31 29 26 22 –27 QMalaysia 26.6 ns ns ns ns na Q – – – – na QPhilippines 88.7 15.3 14.1 14.6 11.8 –22.9 Q 24 20 18 13 –44 QThailand 67.0 15.0 11.1 11.5 10.7 –28.9 Q 26 18 18 16 –39 QViet Nam 86.1 21.0 16.7 13.3 9.6 –54.5 Q 31 22 17 11 –64 QWestern Asia11 191.3 7.4 12.5 13.9 14.2 93.0 Q 6 8 8 7 32 QJordan 5.9 ns 0.2 0.2 ns na Q – 5 5 – na QKuwait 2.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 –65.7 Q 20 5 6 5 –75 QLebanon 4.2 ns ns ns ns na Q – – – – na QSaudi Arabia 24.7 ns ns ns ns na Q – – – – na QSyrian Arab Republic 20.5 ns ns ns ns na Q – – – – na QTurkey 73.0 ns ns ns ns na Q – – – – na QUnited Arab Emirates 4.4 ns ns ns ns na Q – – – – na QYemen 22.3 3.8 5.0 5.7 6.7 75.3 Q 30 31 31 30 2 Q

ANNEX TABLEPrevalence of undernourishment and progress towards the World Food Summit (WFS)1 and the Millennium Development Goal (MDG)2 targets in developing countries3

NOTES for Table - 1

Key messages

NOTES for Annex table

Key messages

Small import-dependent countries, especially in Africa, were deeply affected by the food and economic crises. Some large countries were able to insulate themselves from the crisis through restrictive trade policies and functioning safety nets, but trade insulation increased prices and volatility on international markets.

High and volatile food prices are likely to continue. Demand from consumers in rapidly growing economies will increase, population continues to grow, and any further growth in biofuels will place additional demands on the food system. On the supply side, there are challenges due to increasingly scarce natural resources in some regions, as well as declining rates of yield growth for some commodities. Food price volatility may increase due to stronger linkages between agricultural and energy markets, as well as an increased frequency of weather shocks.

Price volatility makes both smallholder farmers and poor consumers increasingly vulnerable to poverty. Because food represents a large share of farmer income and the budget of poor consumers, large price changes have large effects on real incomes. Thus, even short episodes of high prices for consumers or low prices for farmers can cause productive assets – land and livestock, for example – to be sold at low prices, leading to potential poverty traps. In addition, smallholder farmers are less likely to invest in measures to raise productivity when price changes are unpredictable.

Large short-term price changes can have long-term impacts on development. Changes in income due to price swings can reduce children’s consumption of key nutrients during the first 1 000 days of life from conception, leading to a permanent reduction of their future earning capacity, increasing the likelihood of future poverty and thus slowing the economic development process.

High food prices worsen food insecurity in the short term. The benefits go primarily to farmers with access to sufficient land and other resources, while the poorest of the poor buy more food than they produce. In addition to harming the urban poor, high food prices also hurt many of the rural poor, who are typically net food buyers. The diversity of impacts within countries also points to a need for improved data and policy analysis.

1. World Food Summit goal: halve, between 1990–92 and 2015, the number of undernourished people.

2. Millennium Development Goal 1, target 1C: halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. Indicator 1.9 Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption (undernourishment). The results are obtained following a harmonized methodology and are based on the latest globally available data averaged over three years. Some countries may have more recent data which, if used, could lead to different estimates of the prevalence of undernourishment and consequently of the progress achieved.

3. Latest report period refers to 2006–08 estimates and baseline refers to 1990–92. For countries that did not exist in the baseline period, the 1990–92 proportion of undernourished is based on 1993–95 and the number of undernourished is based on their 1990–92 population and his proportion.

4. The colour indicator shows the progress that is projected to be achieved by year 2015, if current trend continues:

Target already met or expected to be met by 2015Progress insufficient to reach the target if prevailing trends persistNo progress, or deteriorationCountry has a proportion of undernourishment below 5 percent

Countries revise their official statistics regularly for the past as well as the latest reported period. The same holds for population data of the United Nations. Whenever this happens, FAO revises its estimates of undernourishment accordingly. Therefore, users are advised to refer to changes in estimates over time only within the same The State of Food Insecurity in the World publication and refrain from comparing data published in editions for different years.

Country composition of the special groupings: least-developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing states: 5. Includes: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso,

Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Togo, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia.

6. Includes: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Macedonia (The former Yugoslav Republic), Malawi, Mali, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Nepal, Niger, Paraguay, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

7 Includes: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cape Verde, Comoros, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Fiji Islands, French Polynesia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana , Haiti, Jamaica, Kiribati, Maldives, Mauritius, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent/Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu.

Developing countries for which there were insufficient data are not included in the table.8. In addition to the countries listed in the table, includes: Democratic

Rep. of the Congo, Somalia, Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Guinea Bissau, Sao Tome and Principe, and Seychelles.

9. In addition to the countries listed in the table includes: Afghanistan and the Maldives.

10. In addition to the countries listed in the table, includes: Myanmar, Brunei Darussalam and Timor-Leste.

11. In addition to the countries listed in the table, includes: Iraq and Occupied Palestinian Territories.

12. In addition to the countries listed in the table, includes: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent/Grenadines.

13. In addition to the countries listed in the table includes Belize.14. Includes: Fiji Islands, French Polynesia, Kiribati, New Caledonia, Papua

New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

KEY— Proportion less than 5 percent of undernourishedna Data not availablens Not statistically significant

SOURCESTotal population: UN Population Prospects, 2008 revision.Undernourishment: FAO estimates.

High food prices present incentives for increased long-term investment in the agriculture sector, which can contribute to improved food security in the longer term. Domestic food prices increased substantially in most countries during the 2006–08 world food crisis at both retail and farmgate levels. Despite higher fertilizer prices, this led to a strong supply response in many countries. It is essential to build upon this short-term supply response with increased investment in agriculture, including initiatives that target smallholder farmers and help them to access markets, such as Purchase for Progress (P4P).

Safety nets are crucial for alleviating food insecurity in the short term, as well as for providing a foundation for long-term development. In order to be effective at reducing the negative consequences of price volatility, targeted safety-net mechanisms must be designed in advance and in consultation with the most vulnerable people.

A food-security strategy that relies on a combination of increased productivity in agriculture, greater policy predictability and general openness to trade will be more effective than other strategies. Restrictive trade policies can protect domestic prices from world market volatility, but these policies can also result in increased domestic price volatility as a result of domestic supply shocks, especially if government policies are unpredictable and erratic. Government policies that are more predictable and that promote participation by the private sector in trade will generally decrease price volatility.

Investment in agriculture remains critical to sustainable long-term food security. Such investment will improve the competitiveness of domestic production, increase farmers’ profits and make food more affordable for the poor. For example, cost-effective irrigation and improved practices and seeds developed through agricultural research can reduce the production risks facing farmers, especially smallholders, and reduce price volatility. Private investment will form the bulk of the needed investment, but public investment has a catalytic role to play in supplying public goods that the private sector will not provide. These investments should consider the rights of existing users of land and related natural resources, benefit local communities, promote food security and not cause undue harm to the environment.


Perkembangan Konsep Keamanan Pangan

Keamanan Pangan & Pasokan Pangan

(krisis 1974)

Keamanan Pangan & Entitlement

Kedaulatan Pangan

Kondisi dimana setiap orang

memiliki akses secara fisik, sosial,

dan ekonomi terhadap pangan

sesuai dg kebutuhan gizi

Ketersedian pasokan

pangan pokok sepanjang

waktu

“hak masyarakat untuk memperoleh pangan

yang sehat dan sesuai budayanya, yang

diproduksi melalui metode berkelanjutan dan hak mereka untuk menentukan pangan

serta sistem pertanian mereka sendiri”


Keamanan Pangan (Neoliberal) vs Kedaulatan Pangan

• Liberalisasi perdagangan, privatisasi, dan deregulasi

• Berdampak terhadap spesialisasi dan homogenisasi

pertanian lokal. • Pertanian skala kecil ditransformasi kepada model

pertanian besar yang mempraktekkan monocropping,

padat modal, dan merusak keanekaragaman hayati.

Neolib

VS KEDAULATAN PANGAN

HAK TERHADAP PANGAN

Entitlement individu terhadap makanan

yang aman, sehat , dan sesuai budaya

AKSES TERHADAP

SUMBER DAYA PRODUKTIF

Akses terhadap tanah, air, genetik, dan sumber daya

alam lainnya

PERTANIAN AGROEKOLOGIAplikasi prinsip-prinsip ekologi ke dalam manajemen

agroekologi

PERDAGANGAN DAN PANGAN

Untuk mencegah praktek subsidi ekspor,

dumping, kejatuhan harga, dan elemen

negatif lainnya dari perdagangan

= SMALL FARM


Pertanian Indonesia: Mau Kemana?

16

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

ASEAN Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Philippines Others

2011

2012 (forecast)

Million Tons (Milled Rice)

Figure 8 Amount of rice import (million tons) by selected countries in ASEAN in 2011-2012

Indonesia 1,620,000 43.93%

Malaysia 750,000 20.34%

Singapore 354,456 9.61%

Philippines 911,300 24.71% Others

51,516 1.40%

TTotal 3.69 Million Tons

Indonesia1,620,000

42%

Malaysia850,000

22%Singapore350,000

9%

Philippines500,000

13%

Others547,371

14%

TTotal 3.37 Million Tons

Figure 9 Share of rice import (tons) among Figure 10 Share of rice import (tons) among ASEAN countries, 2011 ASEAN countries, 2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

ASEAN Thailand Vietnam Philippines Indonesia Myanmar Others

2011

2012 (forecast)

Million Tons (Milled Rice)

Figure 11 Amount of ending stock of rice in ASEAN countries 44

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0

ASEAN Indonesia Malaysia Singapore Vietnam Brunei Others

2011 2012 (forecast)

Figure 39 Amount of sugar import (million tons) by selected countries in ASEAN in 2011-2012

Indonesia1,689,000

48.00%Malaysia 1,238,791

35.21%

Singapore 420,000 11.94%

Vietnam 150,000 4.26%

Others 20,596 0.59%

Total 4.32 Million Tons

Indonesia1,689,000

45.35%

Malaysia 1,450,000

38.93%

Singapore 480,000 12.89%

Vietnam 100,000 2.68%

Others 5,500 0.15%


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

ASEAN Thailand Indonesia Vietnam PhilippinesMalaysia Brunei


Figure 42 Amount of ending stock of Sugar in ASEAN countries

Figure 40 Share of sugar import (tons) among ASEAN countries, 2011

Figure 41 Share of sugar import (tons) among ASEAN countries, 2012

30

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

ASEAN Indonesia Malaysia Vietnam Thailand others


Million Tons

Figure 24 Amount of maize import (million tons) by selected countries

in ASEAN in 2011-2012

Indonesia 2,682,000

44.07%

Malaysia2,052,553 33.72%

Vietnam 1,000,000 16.43%

Thailand 300,000 4.93%

Others 51,818 0.85%


Indonesia2,682,000 43.61%

Malaysia 2,100,000 34.15%

Vietnam 1,200,000 19.51%

Thailand 150,000 2.44%

Others 18,000 0.29%


Figure 25 Share of maize import (tons) Figure 26 Share of maize import (tons) Among ASEAN countries, 2011 Among ASEAN countries, 2012

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

ASEAN Myanmar Indonesia Thailand Vietnam Malaysia Others


Million Tons

Figure 27 Amount of ending stock of maize in ASEAN countries

57

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

ASEAN Vietnam Thailand Indonesia Malaysia Others


Figure 53 Amount of soybean import (million tons) by selected countries in ASEAN in 2011-2012

Vietnam2,650,000

40.76%

Thailand1,888,186

29.04%

Indonesia1,440,65922.16%

Malaysia468,5447.21%

Others54,6770.84%


Vietnam2,700,00040.70%

Thailand1,961,00029.56%

Indonesia1,440,65921.72%

Malaysia511,3337.71%

Others21,0490.32%


Figure 54 Share of soybean import (ton) Figure 55 Share of soybean import (ton) among ASEAN countries, 2011 among ASEAN countries, 2012

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.40

ASEAN Thailand Indonesia Cambodia Vietnam


Figure 56 Amount of ending stock of soybean in ASEAN countries

Million Tons

69

051015202530

2010 2011 2012 (forecast)

Tons/Ha

Figure 63 Cassava yield of countries in ASEAN, 2010-2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ASEAN Thailand Vietnam Cambodia Others


Million Tons

Figure 64 Amount of cassava export (million tons) of selected countries in ASEAN in 2011-2012

Thailand 18,028,000

72.52%Vietnam

5,163,750 20.77%

Cambodia 1,665,444

6.70%

Others 920

0.00%


Thailand 18,000,0072.15%

Vietnam 5,164,90 20.70%

Cambodia1,781,550

7.14%

Others 347

0.00%

Total 26.05 Million Tons Figure 65 Share of cassava export (tons) Figure 66 Share of cassava export (tons) among ASEAN countries, 2011 among ASEAN countries, 2012


Pertanian Indonesia: Mau Kemana?

0

750

1500

2250

3000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

GRAFIK IMPOR PUPUK INDONESIA (2007-2011)(Ribu US$)

0

400

800

1200

1600

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Impor Benih (Ribu US$)

penangkapan warga yang berujung pada kriminalisasi, dengan melibatkan aparat negara. Hal

ini berdampak nyata terhadap hilangnya sumber-sumber kehidupan, dan ancaman terhadap

keberlangsungan hidup masyarakat, khususnya perempuan, di mana perempuan lah yang

kemudian harus memikirkan keberlanjutan rumah tangga, keluarga dan anak-anaknya, terkait

tempat tinggal, penyediaan makanan, air bersih dan kebutuhan rumah tangga lainnya.

Keberlanjutan praktik-praktik tersebut akan semakin memiskinkan masyarakat Indonesia.

Tabel 1. Perkembangan Kasus Agraria 2009 - 20112

Tahun Kasus Luasan Lahan

(Ha)

Kriminalisasi

petani

Tergusur Tewas

2007 76 196.179 166 orang 24.257 KK 8 orang

2008 63 49.000 312 orang 31.267 KK 6 orang

2009 24 328.497, 86 84 orang 5.835 KK 4 orang

2010 22 77.015 106 orang 21.367 KK 5 orang

2011 120 342.360, 43 35 orang 273.888 KK 18 orangSumber: SPI, 2008, 2009, 2010, dan 2011 diolah dari berbagai sumber

iii. Hilangnya Hak Petani atas Benih

Bulan Maret 2011 lalu, Indonesia menjadi tuan rumah pertemuan internasional untuk

sumberdaya genetik tanaman untuk pangan dan pertanian (International Treaty on Plant

Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture-ITPGRFA) atau dikenal sebagai traktat benih.

Traktat ini semangatnya adalah untuk mendorong konservasi, penggunaan berkelanjutan dan

pertukaran sumberdaya genetik tanaman dalam hal ini benih untuk menjamin pemenuha

pangan generasi sekarang dan mendatang, juga untuk menjawab perubahan iklim. Traktat ini

mengakui pentingnya peranan petani untuk mencapai cita-cita ini dan menjelaskan mengenai

elemen Hak Petani.

Namun sangat disayangkan dengan perkembangan bioteknologi pertanian, teknologi

rekayasa genetika menjadi salah satu pilihan pemerintah untuk meningkatkan produksi

pangan melalui perbaikan sifat anti terhadap organisame pengganggu tanaman dan juga sifat

adaptasi terhadap tekanan alam.

Terkait teknologi tersebut, pemerintah melalui Kementrian Pertanian pada bulan Oktober

mengeluarkan Permentan No.61/2011 mengenai pengujian, penilaian, pelepasan dan

penarikan varietas. Hal ini menjadi indikasi bahwa pemerintah mengambil ancang-ancang

untuk mengizinkan pangan rekayasa genetika.

Kebijakan pelepasan benih transgenik ini bisa dipastikan akan semakin memuluskan upada

industri benih untuk mengembangkan dan memasarkan benih-benih transgenik, setelah sejak

2001 upaya ini terhenti menyusul berbagai aksi penolakan atas benih kapas transgenik. Saat

2 Tabel ini belum termasuk konflik terakhir antara Masyarakat Tani di Bima, NTB dengan PT. Sumber Mineral Nusantara, yang berakibat tewasnya 3 orang petani dan puluhan orang luka-luka (sumber Komnas HAM Desember 2011)

4

UU 12/1992 & kriminalisasi petani

Petani kecil vs MonsantoMonsanto & bibit transgenik

Impor pertanian & kejatuhan harga


Kontribusi Pertanian

56 industry facts & figures 2012

Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry and Fishery 14%

Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry and Fishery 15%

Mining and Excavating 11%

Manufacture Industry 27%

Electricity, Gas and Clean Water 1%

Construction 8%Trade, Hotel and Restaurant 15%

Transportation and Telecommunication 6%

Leasing Financial and Service 8%

Services 10%

Mining and Excavating 12%

Manufacture Industry 24%

Electricity, Gas and Clean Water 1%

Construction 10%Trade, Hotel and Restaurant 14%

Transportation and Telecommunication 7%

Leasing Financial and Service 7%

Services 10%

Comparison 2007-2011(in percent)

Structure of Gross Domestic Productby Industrial Origin 2007 (%)

Structure of Gross Domestic Productby Industrial Origin 2011 (%)

Source:Statistics Indonesia sorted by Ministry of Industry

JASA15%

KEUANGAN2%

TRANSPORTASI, PERGUDANGAN, KOMUNIKASI5%

PERDAGANGAN21%

KONSTRUKSI5%

LISTRIK, GAS, AIR0%

INDUSTRI12%

PERTAMBANGAN1%

PERTANIAN38%

Proporsi Tenaga Kerja Indonesia 2011


Petani & Kemiskinan

(2011) Penduduk miskin Indonesia: 30,02 juta= 18,97 juta (miskin pedesaan) +

11,05 juta (miskin perkotaan)

petani gurem (hanya punya tanah garapan kurang dari 0,5 ha):

(2003) 13,7 juta kk ☛ (2008) 15,6 juta kk.

ketersediaan petani di lumbung-lumbung pertanian didominasi oleh struktur usia di atas 45 tahun. Krisis petani muda (2011) terjadi di Jawa Barat, Jawa Tengah, Jawa Timur, Nusa Tenggara Barat, dan

Sulawesi


“..kita semua telah mengacaukannya, termasuk saya sendiri, dengan memperlakukan tanaman

pangan seperti TV berwarna dan bukannya sebagai komoditas vital bagi negara-negara

miskin. Pangan bukanlah komoditas biasa. Kita harus kembali kepada kebijakan kemandirian pangan secara maksimal. Adalah gila bila kita berpikir bahwa kita dapat membangun suatu

negara tanpa meningkatkan kemampuan mereka untuk memberi makan diri mereka

sendiri.”


Keamanan Pangan Regional Melalui Kedaulatan Pangan Lokal: Sebuah Kesimpulan

Konsep Keamanan Pangan ASEAN masih merupakan konsep keamanan pangan yang sangat konvensional, yaitu keamanan pangan semata-mata =

pasokan pangan

Harus ada revisi terhadap konsep Keamanan Pangan ASEAN dengan memasukkan konsep Kedaulatan Pangan

Kedaulatan Pangan adalah prasyarat menuju Keamanan Pangan di masa datang

Dibutuhkan pengkajian mendalam dan penajaman strategi, serta koordinasi sehingga konsep ini dapat diterima sebagai landasan kebijakan

Kerawanan Pangan di Indonesia berpotensi menyeret kawasan Asia Tenggara kepada krisis pangan


5. kuliah 5 indev 2012

Documents