Revamp needed for food security

IT has been a week since the government decided to scrap approved permits (APs) for food imports. While consumer bodies have lauded the move, there is much unease among small-scale farmers and livestock breeders.

Even before the announcement, there were already reports that many vegetable growers were on the verge of giving up due to the rising costs of production.

There is also much gloom in the poultry sector. Contract broiler farmers have been the hardest hit with hundreds bankrupted by debts owed to feed mills.

Although it is seen as a knee-jerk reaction against high prices and supply shortages, the populist decision to dump APs has boosted Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s credentials.

But how does the supposedly free-for-all food imports integrate with Malaysia’s food security policies and cost concerns?

With the falling value of the ringgit against the US dollar – currently at almost RM4.40 – can we keep importing food and continue to drain our reserves?

Malaysia already imports 60% of its food. Based on 2020 figures, we spent RM55.4bil on items such as mutton, beef, mangoes, cabbage, rice, coconuts and seafood. Latest statistics are not available, but it could well be RM60bil today. Over the past decade, we spent a total of RM482.8bil on food imports or an average of RM48.2bil a year.

Can bringing in more food from abroad solve the problem of high prices? In the long term, with more importers competing against each other, prices could well end up being lower but correspondingly, there is a risk of decimating our farms before this happens.

Let’s look at the self-sufficiency ratio (SSR), which determines the extent of a country’s supply of agricultural produce to meet local demands. Based on data from 2020, we achieved more than 100% SSR for 19 items, ranging from vegetables and fruits to tuna and prawns. Production was sufficient and there was surplus for export for these items.

If all kinds of food are allowed to be imported, what about the items that are now above 100% SSR and the people who produce them?

Lifting the APs might look good as a quick-fix solution, but it cannot be implemented immediately as announced. Food imports are still subject to mandatory sanitary, biosecurity and health certification under the Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations 1985.

For meat, meat-based products and milk, approvals are needed from the Veterinary Services Department and also from the Islamic Development Department (Jakim) for halal certification. These might take as long as six to 18 months, as on-site visits have to be made to the source countries before abattoirs or dairies are endorsed.

A day after the PM’s announcement, the Agriculture and Food Industry Ministry (Mafi) clarified that APs are still needed for rice. There is also confusion over how many items are no longer subject to APs.

According to some reports, there are apparently only five – cabbage, rice, old coconuts, evaporated milk and raw chicken while others cited just four – cabbage, old coconuts, chicken (whole and parts) and milk.

To ensure better transparency and less muddle, Mafi should come out with a full list of products that still require APs.

But irrespective of whether all will be allowed or just a selected number, the move is certain to worsen the woes faced by farmers and livestock breeders.

Besides the soaring costs of fertilisers, pesticides and feed, our farmers are grappling with the shortage of workers, unpredictable weather and poor support from the authorities in the form of scant subsidies.

The price of fertilisers has gone up by between 50% and 100%, and is set to go higher with disruptions in supply from the Russia-Ukraine war.

Russia exported one-fifth of the global supply last year before it was hit by sanctions for invading Ukraine in February. It is also a top exporter of key fertiliser ingredients – ammonia, urea and potash. Both countries are also major sources of agricultural inputs.

The United States, Argentina, Ukraine, Brazil and Romania produce 78.2% of corn. The war has stalled Ukraine’s exports from the Black Sea region. About 1.25 million tonnes of grains are still on ships blocked in Ukrainian ports.

Malaysia has never been short on plans to develop its agriculture sector, but weaknesses in the agricultural value chain have remained unresolved in spite of the billions allocated over the past three decades.

For this year, Mafi received an allocation of RM4.82bil. As stated by Minister Datuk Seri Ronald Kiandee, the objective was to transform the agricultural sector into a more modern and dynamic one and make Malaysia more competitive as a leading world food producer. Like in previous years, the money was meant to drive modernisation, improve food security and safety, generate higher incomes and attract more young people into the sector as entrepreneurs.

Clearly, a total revamp is needed now with the focus on placing agri-food production as the nation’s top priority to ensure adequate supply, especially in the areas where we spend the most on imports.

Mafi needs to do much more to develop the agri-food value chain with farmer-centric financial support models, and introduce automation and mechanisation to reduce the over-dependence of foreign labour. It also has to provide higher subsidies to farmers as well as incentives for local producers of fertilisers, pesticides and other input industries.

Perhaps food security zones could be created in every state and on idle lands all over the country, both in the form of urban farms and agri-food estates where costs can be aggregated and power, water and marketing can be shared.

Media consultant M. Veera Pandiyan likes this quote by Edward W. Stewart: “Agriculture was the first occupation of man, and as it embraces the whole earth, it is the foundation of all other industries.” The views expressed here are the writer’s own.