---

Government’s Expert Tri Satya Putri Naipospos delivered testimony in judicial review session of Act of Animal Husbandry and Health, on Wednesday (27/4) in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

One of the risks on importing animals from countries affected by foot and mouth disease is infection potentiality, animal husbandry lecturer of Universitas Padjajaran Bandung Rochadi Tawaf delivered in judicial review session of Act No. 41 Year 2014 of Animals Husbandry and Health, on Wednesday (27/4) in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

“Foot and mouth disease will cause huge losses in social and economy,” said Rochadi as Applicant’s Expert of Case No. 129/PUU-XIII/2015.

In front of Justice Panel led by Anwar Usman, Rochadi explained that 98% of beef cattle are conducted by people farms, based on the Statistics Indonesia’s (BPS) survey in 2013. The farms are traditional and small-scale, and tend to supply cattle for cultural ceremony.

“If we look at employment in this sector, there were 4.2 million people employed in 2015, or 11% of total agricultural worker. Their education is very low; only 37.4% of them enrolled in elementary school,” said Rochadi.

Indonesia people farms are vulnerable of some problems, particularly diseases, Rochadi added. Therefore, people farms need to be protected, as stipulated in considerant of Act of Animal Husbandry and Health point b “in organizing animal husbandry and health, maximum security effort towards export and import of animals, animals product, disease prevention….” (“bahwa dalam penyelenggaraan peternakan dan kesehatan hewan, upaya pengamanan maksimal terhadap pemasukan dan pengeluaran ternak hewan, dan produk hewan, pencegahan penyakit hewan …”).

“This considerant implies that the Government should conduct maximum security towards things related to animal husbandry development,” said Rochadi.

Low Production

Meanwhile, Government’s Expert Tri Satya Putri Naipospos delivered that domestic meat production is still insufficient; only produce 439,053 tons while national demand amounted to 674,059 tons. “There is supply shortage. The level of beef consumption in Indonesia is 2.61 kg/capita, so Indonesia has the least beef consumption in Southeast Asia,” said her.

Thus, the Government seeks for alternative supply from other countries. Tri Satya assessed that such opportunity needs to be taken for preventing diseases from countries affected by foot and mouth disease.

“There are many countries that aren’t entirely free from foot and mouth disease, but they make improvement on creating free disease zones. The question is, is the free disease zone created by the Government considered safe? Does it support Applicant’s argument saying importing animal from free disease zone in an affected country may spread foot and mouth disease in Indonesia?” explained the expert of the Center for Indonesian Veterinary Analytical Studies.  

The Government also summoned the Indonesian Meat Processing Industry Association’s chairman Ishana Mahisa. Delivering testimony as witness, he explained that meat import for industrial processing is only obtained from FMD-free-countries. Meat processing industry is in doubt nowadays after his party gets data from the Statistics Indonesia that shows meat import skyrocketed since 2012 to 2015.

Ishana said that the price of imported frozen meat for industry has increased in the last five years. Due to it, meat processing companies begins to shift to chicken-based product. “Our members who processed chicken-based products have more than one factory. Why? Because chicken meat supply is larger than red meat supply,” said Ishana.

As known, Teguh Boediyana , Mangku Sitepu, Gun Gun Muhamad Lutfi Nugraha, Rachmat Pambudy, Mutowif, and Dedi Setiadi considers their constitutional rights are potentially harmed by zone-based provisions in Indonesa as stipulated in Article 36C (1), Article 36C (3), Article 36D (1), Article 36E (1) Act of Animal Husbandry and Health.

They argue their loss is caused by minimum security principle that implemented in zone-based provisions. They also argue the zone system harmed Applicants’ constitutional rights to live healthy and protected from diseases which carried by animals or animal products because of unsafe import from infected zones. They assess the Act broadens import policies amidst high dependency on animal and animal products import. (Nano Tresna Arfana/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

---