Search

Agricultural regulation in Indonesia is almost entirely focused on adaptation and food security. Mitigation of emissions from the sector is not presented as an obligation in the country's body of agricultural law. This situation, which emphasizes autarky, does not facilitate a strong agricultural mitigation policy in the country; and, in fact, Indonesia's policies and planned actions on greenhouse-gas-emission reduction in agriculture are narrow, vague, and lacking in ambition. The emphatic adaptation focus of Indonesia's body of agricultural regulation may reflect entrenched values about the role of agriculture in society. An alternative explanation is that the regulatory emphasis on adaptation is an instance of regulatory inertia, sustained by a tradition of agricultural protectionism that deflects risky reforms. Inertia is problematic in itself, as it closes off the sector to innovation. But inertia is not as serious as a values-based resistance in the country to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. A government's mandate in a democratic society to act ambitiously on climate change, in a climate-treaty context that demands little more than "national determination" of ambition, must necessarily be obtained from, in large part, those most directly affected by a regulatory change – in this case, farmers. An inquiry that seeks to elicit their opinion in this respect is overdue. A survey of farmers' views on their willingness to support mitigation of emissions from their sector would add to our understanding of the risks that our slow response to climate change entails, for it is a response that presumes that a significant mitigation contribution will eventually be made by each and every economic sector, including agriculture. If the issue is mere inertia, the outlook is more optimistic than if the issue is active resistance. Because agriculture is still a closed sector, not only in developing but also in developed countries, this article contributes to our understanding of research priorities for climate law around the world. The article is the first in a series this journal will publish under our co-editorship on climate change law in Indonesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that comparisons between the success of Soeharto’s Green Revolution rice production campaign in the early 1980s and the struggles of today’s democratic governments to achieve self-sufficiency in rice are disingenuous, since they fail to take into account the changed structural, economic, and political contexts. Once such changes are adequately considered, especially such key political factors as the lack of support today from the international community in achieving this policy goal, and governance differences between authoritarianism and democracy, Indonesia’s performance in the rice sector should be evaluated more positively than it typically has been. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]