-- --------- Forwarded Message --------- DATE: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:32:35 From: "Riza V. Tjahjadi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pesticide Deregulation is Expected to Improve Market Structure? Monopolistic behavior trace by pesticide producers raise the deregulation. The policy is expected to eliminate monopoly practice and help farmer. For months the government going to deregulate this industry, and Friday on 20 July 2001 PAN Indonesia has submitted a second opinion as to response to a draft of ministry-level decree. Deregulation of pesticide is aimed to eliminate current monopolistic market share. This deregulation based on decree UU No. 5 year 1999 about anti trust acts and unhealthily business competition. Therefore, one day every person or legally institution will have an opportunity to produce and to market pesticide, as long their pesticide meet with governments standard and quality. According to Ato Suprapto, Director General of Bina Sarana and Prasarana of Agriculture Department, pesticide deregulation was prepared by government is refer to International s rules. It includes integrated pest control, safety-first aspects, and health and environmental community. PAN Indonesia, on the other hand, suggested several additional points, including the important of safeguarding measures, the need of increasing control and supervision, etc. At the same time PAN Indonesia also demanding a public type-sanction compare to proposed administrative sanction to civil servant suspected to violate the decree. Moreover, PAN Indonesia also perceived the need of a joint ministry-level decree from other department soon after a decree signed on. A response from PAN Indonesia was needed by the minister of agriculture, as the last round, as quoted the secretary of commission of pesticide. The minister just remember in the last minutes, just before he schedule to sign a decree. Meanwhile, PAN Indonesia has met and made discussion with Ato Suprapto on 10 July 2001. Pesticide deregulation package consists of some points: 1. Quality specification of active material. In the previous regulation, there is no Quality specification of active material, in this new regulation it will be arranged based on FAO regulation. 2. Efication test requirement. In the previous policy, efication test is done in two locations, but in this new regulation efication test will be done in one location. 3. Limited time for registration. In the previous policy there was no registration time, but in this new policy registration time will be limited with using a scheme. 4. Content of active material. In the previous policy, pesticide that has an active material content greater than one was forbidden, but in this new policy is acceptable as long there is no antagonist effect and not disturb natural pest enemy and no negative effect for the environment. Governments deregulation on the right of pesticide inventory will change the competition in pesticide market, which has been controlled by only three companies. Besides, the kinds of pesticides available in the market will change significantly, because this new regulation allows producing complex pesticides. For farmers welfare growth, according a news report of agribusiness company, this deregulation according to an agribusiness company, is a very good decision by theoretically, because its simplified procedure will makes marketers who want to invest in this business look an open market opportunity, so automatically creating of free and open competition structure can be real. Creating this market structure automatically will depress pesticide price, where now pesticide price increase gradually and its percentage of increase is higher than other agricultural products. Increasing of agricultural input, which unbalance with increasing of agricultural products has been a cause of decreasing of farmers welfares. But, with its some advantages this deregulation still has weakness such as: Lower price of pesticide will increase pesticide usage excessive. This method of application will make a pest resistance, destroy natural enemy and the environment. More, for pesticide market, excessively pesticide usage will make Indonesias agricultural products difficult to penetrate international market that applied tight control on pesticide residue for agricultural products. An example of this case can be sawn in depending of inorganic fertilizer on the past, because this commodity was cheaper. Depending on inorganic fertilizer caused most farmers used to applied pesticide excessively and made impact on decreasing national productivity (due to poor soil condition) and farmers welfares. More pesticides in the market the more difficult for government to run its control function, then probability of spread of illegal pesticides become larger. Therefore, Kasumbogo Untung, an expert of toxiology of the Gajah Mada University said that to minimize the negative effects on this pesticide deregulation, government should regulate toxin material pesticide usage for the people, increase the advantages, and minimized the risk. He also said that government should implement the regulation over all, even from production side, import, transportation, pesticide waste treatment so negative effect of using pesticide can be reduction. In his addition explanation, Kasumbogo said that to reduce negative effect due to pesticide usage on the environment, an exposure analysis should be conducted as a requirement before those pesticides marketed. If negative effect found due to those pesticide such as bed environment or bed health or treats health against people, then its pesticide producer license should be withdrawal (based on government regulation, pesticide producer license is expired in 5 years). A data compiled by PAN Indonesia show around 37 active ingredients have been banned the government. 1. 2,3,5-The 33. Senyawa arsen 2. 2,4,5-Triklorofenol 34. Senyawa merkuri 3. 2,4,6-Triklorofenol 35. Strikhnin 4. Natrium 4-Brom-2,5-diklorofenol 36. Telodrin 5. Aldikarb 37. Toxaphene 6. Aldrin 7. Arsona 8. Cyhexatin 9. Diklorodifeniltrikloroetan 10. Dibromokloropropan 11. Dieldrin 12. Diklorofenol 13. Dinoseb 14. EPN 15. Endrin 16. Etilen Dibromidal (EDB) 17. Fosfor merah 18. Halogen fenol 19. Heksaklorida (HCH) dan isomernya 20. Heptaklor 21. Kaptafol 22. Klordan 23. Klordimefon 24. Leptofos 25. Lindan 26. Metoksiklor 27. Mevinfos 28. Monosodium metam 29. Natrium Klorat 30. Natrium tribromofenol 31. Paration metil 32. Pentaklorofenol (PCP) and its salts In addition, by January 2000 (last year) it was registered around 114 companies as registration holders, while 594 trademark with 279 active ingredients registered for agricultural purposed (excluded for hygine and sanitation type-pesticide). In February 2001 PAN Indonesia has alerted to public at large whilst urged the government take stern action against illegal (banned) pesticide, and world-wide known as one of the Dirty Dozen, namely Temix 10G, Temix 5G, Temix LD found in East Kalimantan. In West Jawa, PAN Indonesia also found banned pesticides but available in the village kioks, also apply for rice growing. It worthy to note, recently PAN Indonesia in coalition with other NGOs have sue the minister as to annul his decree for limited releasing of a Bollgard cotton variety of Monsanto. That's one of reasons, more legal input perspective proposed to a draft of ministry-level decree on pesticide registration. Jakarta, 24 July 2001 Prepared by Riza V. Tjahjadi assited by Iwan. --------- End Forwarded Message --------- Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulai langganan: kirim e-mail ke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stop langganan: kirim e-mail ke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive ada di http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
