Content uploaded by Bakri Mat
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bakri Mat on Sep 24, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 37
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
Regional cooperation in addressing food security issues in Southeast
Asia: Malaysian perspectives
Bakri Mat
1,2
, Zarina Othman
1
1
Strategic Studies and International Relations Program, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
2
School of International Studies,
Universiti Utara Malaysia
Correspondence: Bakri Mat (email: bakri303@gmail.com)
Abstract
Food insecurity has long been classified as one of the major threats to human wellbeing. In the field of international
relations, the concept of human security as highlighted by the UNDP is viewed as an alternative to the mainstream
state-centric paradigms designed to tackle the food insecurity issue. In this vein and to address this issue in
Southeast Asia, various initiatives and efforts have been taken at regional levels through ASEAN but due to various
reasons the desired outcomes have yet to be achieved. This article examines the effectiveness of ASEAN food
security framework of cooperation and elucidates the factors that encourage Malaysia to support the existing
mechanism. It is based on descriptive content analysis utilising primary data from field interviews and related
secondary data. The findings show that in addition to the poor commitment of member states, conflicting national
interests between member states are among the major factors that have hindered the regional cooperation framework
from effectively addressing the food security issue, as well illustrated by the 2007/2008 episode of food crisis
experienced by the region. In spite of the relative ineffectiveness, Malaysia continues to support the regional
framework because it does provide a backup strategy in the event of domestic emergencies. Nevertheless, while
working for more effective participations of member countries, the Malaysian government would do well to pay
more serious attention to the nation’s domestic food production sector in the interest of the people.
Keywords: ASEAN, food security, human security, international relations, Malaysia, regional cooperation
Introduction
Food security prevails as one of the major issues that seek to be addressed by any state to uphold the
interests of their people. To date, almost states face problems surrounding food security at different rates
and with different degrees. However, if compared with other more advanced states, developingstates are
found to be more inclined to face a more seriously threatening scenario. Taking into account the food
crisis in 2007/2008, developingstates all over the world, specifically among states that depend on their
import resources, face a more critical situation. The crisis at the time took place due to the large increase
of food prices, especially staple food like rice, wheat and corn. Such an increase leaves a very bad impact
to particularly developingstates, such as Malaysia because Malaysia is a net importer of rice – Malaysia’s
staple food.
To address the crisis, and as a preparation for the possibility of a more serious threat, various
approaches either long term or short term have been adopted by states and organisations, bodies and
regions all over the world. In relation to this, this paper will try to explain the reaction of the regional
statesto the existing framework of cooperation that has been worked on by the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations or ASEAN and the main problems faced in the effort to enhance food security cooperation
in this region. This article also looks into factors that encourage Malaysia to give a full support to the
ASEAN food security initiative.
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 38
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
Food Security threats as a global phenomenon
The issue of food security cannot be discussed without looking into the status of food security at the
global level. Today, the issue of food security or particularly, food crisis has become one of the threats
towards the human security
1
all over the world (Rashila et al., 2012). The experience facing with the
crisis in 2007/2008 is an evidence that without good preparation of policy and planning, the security and
stability of any state will become frail, and even there will be governments who will collapse due to the
pressure exerted by the public who is suffering, as the result of the drastic increase of basic food prices.
The highest increase recorded around that year, is then followed once more with another increase in
2010/2011, clearly giving a warning that the food supply market and resources for the needs of the world
population are unstable and not fully secured as expected (Cribbs, 2011:123). The two-phase increase that
took place in the period of three years clearly explains the reality of the imbalanced supply and demand,
that is still undermined by a lot of parties (Cribbs, 2011).
The phenomenon of food price increase also has prompted many analysts to harsh criticism to
manifest their concern over the current food security issues worldwide (Braun, 2009; Cribb, 2010;
Roberts, 2009). Braun (2009) maintains that food security will become a critical problem at the global
level, thus it impact human security as well. Looking into several aspects such as the existing
technological development, current diet pattern and also negative effect of climate change that sweeping
the globe, the aim of providing food security to all individuals is still far-reaching. A similar statement
was mentioned by the G8 states’ leaders on food security after the July 2008 G8 Summit in Hokkaido,
Japan, expressing a similar concern,
“We are deeply concerned that the steep rise in global food prices coupled with
availability problems in a number of developing countries is threatening global food
security”
2
According to Brüntrup (2008), to see the state of the food security pattern in the world, two things
need to be understood which are the aspect of supply and demand, that become fundamental in economic
debates. In general, the trend of demand in food supply will be determined by several factors, which are
related very closely to one another. There will be several factors that influence the demand of food
supply, among of which, the increase of the total population, urbanization, the increased family income,
and the demand over raw materials. These factors will continuously leave an impact to food supply at
any given time.
History also shows that food issues are always an obstacle and a threat to humans in every corner of
the world. The decline of early civilizations such as Mayan and several others were partly caused by the
depletion of food supply.
3
Succumbing to this reality, the right for food is included in the international
laws of basic rights as part of the basic rights of every individual or human security. In reality, it is also
one of the aspects that have been neglected, despite being given assurance by the government. The
concern arising from the food crisis in the middle of the 1970s also motivates world leaders to
collectively endorse and accept the responsibility of combating famine and malnutrition as the concerted
effort of the international community (Clover, 2003).
According to the FAO, the number of undernourished people in the world remains unacceptably high
at near the one billion mark despite an expected decline in 2010 for the first time. However, the increased
food price that was reported of late especially in 2011, has become an additional barrier towards the effort
1
(which is defined as security for the people rather than state security)
2
Statement of G8 country leaders on the food security issued after the July 2008 G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan. Please refer to
G8 Leaders Statement on Global Food Security, G8 Summit 2008 page 1, retrieved from:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/2008/doc/doc080709_04_en.html (19 October 2011)
3
The Mayan civilization can serve as an exampleto see the impact of soil erosionand serious drought that gives a negative impact
to food production, which finally affects their civilization. Other collapsing civilizations also have a strong link with the two
aforementioned factorssoil erosion andthe reduction of food crop yieldthat lead to the deterioration of their civilizations
(Gugliotta, 2007; Diamond, 2005; Tainter,1998).
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 39
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
to combat global famine. The number of 925 million people represents 13.6 percent from the estimated
world population at the rate of 6.8 billion in 2010 (FAO, 2010).
4
Almost all of them are from developing
states. The number still reaching one billion, although the world has surpassed the phase of crisis in
2007/08, has served as clear evidence that the world actually has a big problem which becomes an
obstacle to any effort to reach international objectives to reduce global starvation, as agreed in The First
Millennium Development Goal (MDG)and the1996 World Food Summit vision [Table 1. below] (FAO,
2010).
Table 1. The number and percentage of individuals with malnutrition up until 2011
Year Number Percent
2010-2011 925 million 13.6
2006-2008 850 million 13.0
2000-2002 836 million 14.0
1995-1997 792 million 14.0
1990-1992 848 million 16.0
1979-1981 853 million 21.0
1969-1971 878 million 26.0
Source: FAO (2010)
In the 2011 report published by theUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), there
was no clear statistics issued about the level of 'under nutrition' of the world population at the moment
(FAO, 2011). The 2011 Global Hunger Index (GHI), in its sixth annual report, reports that although the
effort to eliminate starvation has shown improvement, the actual figure of individuals experiencing
hunger remained high which shows that food security is an issue that needs serious attention. In the last
20 years, the 2011 GHI report records a reduction of almost a quarter of the degree of hunger in 1990,
but at the global level, hunger remained in a serious category. The volatility of the international
economic market also has a significant impact on the poor and hunger (Grebmer et al., 2011).
A sharp contrasting phenomenon at the same time occurs in both developed and developing states. The
issue of obesity and death due to dietary has reached epidemic proportions globally, with more than 1.4
billion adults overweight -- and of these, over 200 million men and nearly 300 million women were obese
-- is a major contributor to the global burden of chronic disease and disability. Often coexisting in
developing states with under-nutrition, obesity is a complex condition, with serious social and
psychological dimensions, affecting virtually all ages and socioeconomic groups. The finding of
research by the World Health Organisation (WHO) shows that more than 1.4billionpeople have an excess
body weight or obese, that is 60% more than those facing starvation (WHO, 2003; 2014). As early as
1987, the mass media in America has started to publicise obesity as an epidemic, and in 2001, WHO had
started to talk about "globesity" (Otter, 2010). The danger that arises out of this scenario is explained as a
public health crisis and is also regarded as the “time bomb” and “the tsunami”, due to several arising
implications like the potential of costs in terms of spending in healthcare, personal in capacity and the loss
of economic productivity (Delpeuch, Maire, Monnier & Holdsworth, 2009).
Today, obesity epidemic is not restricted only to industrialized societies; this increase is often faster in
developing states than in the developed world. Obesity is seen to have achieved the status of epidemic as
it does not just only spreads in America and Western Europe, but also is a phenomenon in other areas like
East Asia, Middle Asia, South America and some regions in Africa. In the Southern Africa, for instance,
30.5% from black women are categorized as obese. Meanwhile, in China, the phenomenon of obesity
among children is also increasing from 1.5% in 1989 to 12.6% in 1997 (Yangfeng, 2006). Although there
is food security issue, obesity remains in certain states.
4
This figure shows that the number of victims in famine has increased since 1995-96 .In 1990, it is esitmated that15-35 people
ran the risk of starvation, 786 million exposed to chronic food deficit, lack of chronic nutrition, and hundreds of million
experiencing the lack of micro-nutrient, diarrhoea, thyphoid, malaria,parasite,and other dietary issues.
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 40
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
The different scenarios of the global hunger and food crisis on one hand and the rising rates of obesity
on the other hand, seem to show a great contradiction. Tounder stand this situation, a study on the issue
of global food security should beseen from various angles, including economics, geopolitics and also the
environment. This scenario also serves as the very basic method to show the actual manifestation of the
inequality of authority and access towards resources at the global level (Otter, 2010).
The 2007-2008 crisis and the reaction of ASEAN States
In facing the crisis as witnessed in 2007/2008, states in the South East Asian region have generally given
some mixed reactions depending on the positions of the respective states, either as an exporter or
importer. There are also states that seize this opportunity to increase the rate of export despite
experiencing the shortage of supply for domestic use.
States being in the group of rice exporters, lead by Thailand and Vietnam, as expected have been able
to benefit from higher prices. Among rice-importing states like the Phillipines and Malaysia, have to
compete to meet the basic food needs domestically and therefore it is a human security issue. Indonesia
which reaps its income from its export of palm oil receives double profit, and also shows increased
spending on rice. Meanwhile, Cambodia uses this opportunity to increase its export of rice, although at
that time its people had to face shortage of rice supply at the domestic level (Arnst, 2009). The reactions
from the South East Asian states over the food crisis can be summarised in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Policy responses to the global food crisis of selected ASEAN countries
Source: Asian Development Bank (2008:31)
In Malaysia, the effect of crisis in 2008 was overwhelming that the government has to take several
drastic measures including by having to make ‘panic’ buying from Thailand to meet the need for rice
reserve that could only last two weeks during the peak of the crisis (Malaysia Information Department,
2009). The Malaysian government has also taken some immediate measures by introducing a short-
term policy named Dasar Jaminan Bekalan Makanan (DJBM) or Malaysia Food Security Policy for two
years which ended in 2010 with an allocation reaching 4 billion (Ringgit Malaysia, RM). The
implementation of this policy is placed on the shoulder of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-Based
Industry, with the aim to address the effect of the crisis and ensure that the food supply is sufficient.
Among other targets are to increase the productivity of the agro-food sector including rice production.
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 41
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
Policy cooperation at the ASEAN level
Malaysia is one of the founding states of ASEAN, which is directly involved with the establishment of
the ASEAN Food Security Reserve (AFSR) since 1979. The mechanism at this regional level is created
to fulfill a number of objectives which are to have an agency which manages the regional emergency rice
reserve, assess in phases the level of food securityin the South East Asian region, and prepare information
about the food security development policy in member states. This initiative is also finally leading to the
setting up of the ASEAN Emergency Rice Reserve (AERR) for use during crisis (Table 3). This reserve
initially stipulated the rate of 50,000 tons to be reserved as stock. Meanwhile, at the time, the quantity
allocated for the emergency rice reserve stayed at 87,000 metric tons (Bello, 2005). The term ‘emergency’
in this context is used to refer to the states or situations in an ASEAN member states, after subjected to
extreme suffering and unanticipated natural disaster or human-made disaster, which are not able to
address such circumstances through national reserves and also unable to cater for the supply need through
normal trade channel. This reserve does not aimed to address food deficit in member states continuously,
which normally can be fulfilled through imports (Bello, 2005).
Table 3. The ASEAN emergency rice reserve system
Country Reserved stock (metric tons)
Brunei Darussalam 3,000
Cambodia 3,000
Indonesia 12,000
Lao PDR 3,000
Malaysia 6,000
Myanmar 14,000
Philippines 12,000
Singapore 5,000
Thailand 15,000
Vietnam 14,000
Total 87,000
Source: APTERR website, http://www.apterr.org/faq (10/4/2014)& Bello (2005).
As the follow-up from the food crisis experienced in 2008, The ASEAN Summit Conference in March
2009 had agreed and endorsedthe ASEAN Integrated Food Security Framework (AFIS), supported by
the Food Security Action Strategic Plan (SPA-FS). This plan contains an activity structure that is more
concrete, if compared to other food security agreements established previously. The main component of
Source: ASEAN Integrated Food security (AIFS) framework 2009-13
Figure 1. ASEAN Integrated Food Security Framework (AIFS)
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 42
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
the AIFS framework contains four main elements namely, (i) emergency aid of food security and
emergency, (ii) strong development of food trade, (iii) development of integrated food security
information system, and (iv) agricultural innovation (Kindly refer to Figure 1.).
Referring to the first component, the main activity is to establish Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR)
for ASEANPlus Three (ASEAN+3). This reserve is built on the East Asian Rice Emergency
Reserveframework (EAERR), which is apioneering project of ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture and
Forestryand Agricultural Ministers plus China, Japanand South Korea (AMAF+3) launched back in
2003.
5
Through the establishment of a larger framework in this context of EAERR, it is hoped that it will
lead to the re-development of ASEAN Emergency Rice Reserve (AERR).
More than that, an EAERR secretariat was set up in Bangkok in 2004 to manage the pilot project and
supervise various social development activities. Although this secretariat is only a small body, its
existence does have a great impact as a series of development to the implementation of agreement at the
ministerial level in the form of institutional body (Yoshimatsu, 2009). Through this APTERR, three main
dialogue partners namely China, Japan and South Korea decided on a contribution of 700,000 tons with
the specific as shown in Table 4. below, other than 87,000 tons contributed by ASEAN states through the
AERR framework. Since its launching, APTERR has successfully played its role, among which helping
the Filipino overcome disasters caused by Haiyan Typhoon, Ketsana Typhoon, MegiTyphoon,La Nina
and flash floods through the contribution of 520 metric tons of rice by Thailand. Other than that, Japan
contributed 347 metric tons to help people affected by natural catastrophes in several areas in Laos due to
Ketsana Typhoon (Trethewie, 2013).
Table 4. The ASEAN plus three emergency reserve system
Country Reserved stock
(metric tons)
Dialogue partners (+3) Reserved stock
(metric tons)
Brunei Darussalam 3,000 China 300,000
Cambodia 3,000 Japan 250,000
Indonesia 12,000 South Korea 150,000
Lao PDR 3,000 Total 700,000
Malaysia 6,000
Myanmar 14,000
Philippines 12,000
Singapore 5,000
Thailand 15,000
Vietnam 14,000
Total 87,000
Source: APTERR web, http://www.apterr.org/faq (10/4/2014)
Secondly, creating a strong trade development to support a fair and balanced food trade at an
acceptable price rate among the member states by means of developing a buffer mechanism- this is the
goal set by the second component. It is hoped to facilitate the process of ensuring that consideration is
given to the effort of balancing the domestic access towards food, intra and extra-regional food trade, also
the criteria and certain requirements that have been agreed to enable the implementation to be done
(ASEAN SPA-FS AIFS 2009-13). Through this second component, member states are required to adhere
to and implement the provision of the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) especially related to
the trade of food products signed on the 26 February 2009 in Cha Am, Thailand. Also, analysis and
assessment will be done on the information of regional and international trade, including those relating to
price, trade quantity, distribution and also logistics (ASEAN SPA-FS AIFS 2009-13).
5
EAERR is a collaborative program seeking to prepare aids and strengthen the level of food security during
emergency through the sharing of rice stock and contribute towards the price stability in this region.
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 43
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
Through the third component, ASEAN Plus Three has reacted to establish the ASEAN Food Security
Information System (AFSIS) in October 2002 motivated by the concern on the food security threat in the
East Asia and the South East Asia. The project that has now gone past the second phase, was carried out
in 2003 and 2012, and was led and coordinated by the Agricultural Ministry and Cooperation of Thailand
with the funding received from Japan through the ASEAN Trust Fund (ASEAN SPA-FS AIFS 2009-13).
The overall objective is to strengthen the level of food security in this region through a systematic
collection, analysis and dissemination of information pertinent to food security. AFSIS is created with
the aim to enable the assessment of the regional food security situation and help identify areas where
food scarcity is a problem, through the joint effort of knowledge sharing and technical collaboration
among ASEAN member states to provide valid and reliable information when necessary (Desker, Teng,
& Caballero-Anthony 2013).Althoughthe AFSIS project witnesses an extraordinary progress in terms of
the handling, the reliability and data quality still remain as causes for concern.
The fourth component, in terms of the agricultural innovation, AIFS has proposed three cores to be
executed, the first is enhancing the infrastructural development to ensure agricultural production system;
reducing loss after harvesting, and reducing business transaction costs; secondly, encouraging a greater
investment in the food sector and basic farming industry, to enhance the level of food security; and
thirdly, to identify and address new emerging issues related to food security, related to increased demand
on the food commodity to producebio-fuel(ASEAN SPA-FS AIFS 2009-13).
The implementation of ASEAN AIFS is supported by the Food Security Action Strategic Plan (SPA-
FS), formulated for a five-year period from 2009-2013 with the objective to ensure food security for the
long termand improve the farmers’ status of living in the South East Asian region.SPA-FS represents a
special strategic plan created to achieve six strategic approaches in four main components of the AIFS.
Through the Food Security Action Strategic Plan (SPA-FS), AMAF has, up until now, successfully
implemented seven most important activities namely, i) sealing the ASEAN APTERR agreement; ii)
solidifying the ASEAN Food Security Reserve System Institute; iii) preparing and consolidating the
ASEAN Food Security Information System (AFSIS); iv) studying the joint study and policy forum
concerning foreign direct investment in the field of agriculture in ASEAN states; v) holding two sessions
of formal negotiations of the government-private sector (AMAF-Private Sector); vi) hold dialogue
sessions in 2011 and 2012; and, vii) having a half-term assessment of the AIFS / SPA-FS (ASEAN
Secretariat, 2012:23-24)
Problems in the implementation of regional cooperation framework
The existence of the regional cooperation framework to address the issue of food security is much needed
this time. However, continued efforts are necessary to increase the capacity to deal with crisis situations.
Currently, the implementation is seen as still hindered by several factors;
Firstly, commitment barriers and excessive concerns among states over their interestsresulting in no
attention being given towards concerted efforts within the region when facing food crisis. AERR was
previously used as a model by South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1987, but
was never effectively usedduring the period of its existence. When global food crisis hit the region during
the 2007/08 period, the amount of rice stored via the AERR scheme only amounted to 87,000 tonnes, was
still considered small since it was barely enough to feed 550 million ASEAN people for less than half a
day. This was similar with the ASEAN Plus Three APTERR which involved commitment from three
nations namely Japan, China and South Korea to contribute a sum of 700,000 tons as an addition to the
existing rate. While it looked interesting, a lesson that can be learned from the crisis is thatit showed that
participatingstates do not see the existing regional rice reserve mechanism as a solution towards food
security problems in their respective states (Chandra & Lontoh, 2010). In this issue, even though ASEAN
introduced food relief emergency system, some researchers viewed this pessimistically since a system that
targets its objective in the event of emergency has the tendency to fail, because the solutions are only for a
short period. The real solution for the issue of food security requires a long-term solution. Thus, it was not
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 44
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
surprisingthat ASEAN states werefacing with the challenge of meeting their population demand for food
to have the tendency to prioritize rice in their food security strategies at national or regional level.
Secondly, tension during the crisis encourages states to take a more urgent and profitable
individualistic approach.This is apparent when facing with the world food crisis, when stateswithin the
region have put aside the spirit of ASEAN solidarity to guarantee the sustainability of food security level
in the region as envisioned by ASEAN AIFS, behind ASEAN desire to establish ASEAN Economic
Community in 2015. For instant, to reap profit from rising global food prices, major rice-producing
countries in Southeast Asia such as Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia had chosen to meet the needs of
other countries globally, as opposed to safeguarding the interests of rice-importing countries which are
the members of ASEAN (Chandra & Lontoh, 2010:3). Producing countries are also beginning to walk
their talk by implementing export controls. This significantly affects rice importing countries in the region
such as Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. Consumers in Malaysia had to deal with price increase
of rice from Thailand during the peak of the crisis which occured on multiple folds. The Malaysian
government had also announced to increase the size of rice stocks held by Padiberas Nasional Berhad
(BERNAS) despite having to pay a very high price (Tengku Mohd Ariff, personal communication, July
15, 2011). Similarly, the Philippines was forced to beg its neighbour, Vietnam to supply the rice needed.
Indonesia had also announced plans to double its rice stockpile of 3 million tons (Timmer, 2008). The
manner the rice producing countries imposed export restrictions on rice did not only affect ASEAN
solidarity, which should be the key component for the 2015 ASEAN Economic Community’s objective,
instead, it has created panic, and promote global rice exporting countries to take the same negative
measures. This affects the chances of importing countries to seek alternative food sources (Chandra &
Lontoh, 2010:3).
Thirdly, the act of creating rice cartel organization known as Organization of Rice Exporting Countries
(OREC) had worsened the solidarityand showcased the low commitment showed by participating
countries towards the existence of regional food security cooperation frameworkor AIFS. Although the
initiative to create OREC was not a new idea, the announcement by the former Prime Minister of
Thailand, Samak Sundrajev during the peak of the crisis in April 2008 had given rise to negative
perceptions from various parties, especially among importing nations. Together with Cambodia, Laos,
Myanmar and Vietnam, Thailand argued that the idea OREC establishment was fair and noble (Timmer,
2008). If examined from another angle, this action had directly denied the importance of the AIFS
framework, which requires a commitment among its members to ensure continuity of food security in
Southeast Asia. It shows the integrated effort to create an exclusive cartel similar to OPEC's role in the
world oil production.Even though OREC did not materialised, subregional agreement between the
Mekong countries (Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar) was signed on November 2010 in Phnom
Penh Declaration to establish Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy,
known as ACMECS. ACMECS Rice Cooperation Mechanism also aims to continue and strengthen the
production of rice and export cooperation between these countries (Arandez-Tanchuling, 2011).
Fourth, the entry of dialog partner states has made the implementation of regional food security
cooperation framework more complicated. At present, apart from membership from ASEAN states, AIFS
is also dominated by three main dialogue partners, hence making it as ASEAN plus Three, namely China,
Japan and South Korea. If the first component of AIFS is referred, namely via the establishment of
ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR) ASEAN Plus Three (ASEAN+3), the reserve
mechanisme which was previously under ASEAN was transferred to East ASEAN Emergency Rice
Reserve (EAERR) as a pilot project for ASEAN Agricultural and Forest Ministersas well as the three
main dialogue partners (AMAF+3) which was launched in 2003. Looking at the tension inherent in the
relationship between the three key ASEAN dialogue partners, it is expected that ASEAN AIFS will be
more difficult to be implementedwithin the region particularly when faced with crisis. Previous
observation associated with the individualistic act of participating states when facing with rising food
price crisis in 2008 showed that there is a strong tendency for these states to take measures which present
more profits to their states individually, rather than collectively as advocated by the ASEAN spirit. The
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 45
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
situation is certainly more difficult with the inclusion of statessuch as China and Japan, or China and
South Korea or Japan and South Korea that currently have a tensed relationship involving various issues.
Malaysia in ASEAN Food Security cooperation
Malaysia in this context is very committed to the efforts of establishing a regional food security
cooperation in ASEAN. This commitment among others is driven by a number of factors that are both
internal and external.
The issue of food security is an issue in Malaysia because Malaysia is a staple food net importer.
Although the domestic agricultural sector had been the food productionguarantorparticularly rice, it can
only meet 70-80 percent of the domestic need. The remaining requirement is obtained by means of import
rights awarded to BERNAS. The 2008 global food crisis had alerted various parties about the weakness of
the food production sector in Malaysia. Domestically, theproduction of food commodities such as rice is
synonymous with issues such as escalating production costs, inefficiencies, competition for resources, and
climate change. All of these factors have affected production capabilities, in addition to making the
overall cost of production at domestic level higher than the price offered by international markets
(Fatimah Mohamed Arshad, personal communication, May 19, 2011). During the height of the crisis,
Malaysia was suddenly hit by the difficulty in obtaining supplies from the international market, especially
during the mid-2008. This experience has led to an immediate response from the government to
implement the Malaysia Food Security Policy (2008-2010) with 100 percent self-sufficiency target. In
other words, the food crisis has managed to reveal the real situation of food security in Malaysia. Support
for the existence of this cooperation framework has a strong connection with this internal factor.
Malaysia's support for the existing ASEAN food security cooperative framework is also driven by our
foreign policy commitments and support for regional organizations. ASEAN had been the centerpiece of
Malaysia's foreign policy. Malaysia sees ASEAN as representing its geopolitical and economic interests
and the same can also be said with other states within this region (KLN, 2014). Thus, as one of ASEAN
founding nations, Malaysia's foreign policy continues to emphasize the relevance and importance of
ASEAN as a forum and catalyst for regional dialogue. This support also includes support on the
mechanism and food security cooperation framework undertaken by ASEAN such as AIFS.
Globally, the issue of food security has become an important theme that affect human security also
prompted Malaysia to take a more proactive action. Similar to the issue offood security at the global
level,the discussion at domestic level also can be seen from various aspects. Taking the example of a food
crisis in 2008, apart from the usual factors such as the competition forproduction factors (such as land,
water, etc.), the unpredictable weather patters and natural disasters as well as competition to acquire food
commodities for the production of bio-fuels also has led to increasingly serious food security issues. This
is then coupled with speculative trading, and panic buying, which caused the price of food increased to
double by multiple folds. The same situation can occur at any time.In the Malaysian context, import
dependence and trade-oriented economic system makes thiscountry more vulnerable to market sensitivity.
Therefore, the existence of a cooperative framework is important as a means of short-term solutions in
facing unexpected possibilities.
Conclusion
In general, cooperative efforts and regional food security established by the ASEAN is an action that is
appropriate in fulfilling the political and global security demands. However, arguments that have been
expressed above truly exhibit a great challenge that must be faced by ASEAN to enable this cooperation
framework to be implemented in the best possible manner. As noted from the very beginning, this article
discusses the above issues based on two premises. The argument put forward is that the concept of
human security must be seen as an alternative paradigm towards the security concept which is ‘state-
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 46
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
centric’ in nature, in addressing issues affecting human security. Based on this argument, all the
problems that hinder the effectiveness of food security cooperation framework in Southeast Asia are
more focused on the question of the conflict of interests between participating states which eventually
preventefficient collaborative efforts. Therefore, emphasis on the foundation or the policy is to be geared
towards the interest of human wellbeing. This is where major deficiencies inherent in realism in the
study of international relations.
Secondly, food security is one of the serious challenges to human security in the country as well as
globally that has to be dealt wisely before the situation turns into a serious threat. Based on these
arguments, results from observation made showed that the effort of establishing ASEAN AIFSwhich led
to the establishment of APTERR is considered as a reasonable and prudent measures because it had
taken into account various issues affecting global food security such as unpredictable climate, natural
disasters, lack of resources such as labor supply and land, competition in acquiring commodities for
biofuel productions and many more. In one way, it was found that APTERR has been able to play its
role to help states affected by natural disasters such as the Philippines and Laos.
The analysis shows that the mechanism of cooperation to address the threat of food crisis in the
ASEAN level was found the be failing to play its function appropriately in urgent situations when faced
with the threat of a crisis as evident in 2008 even though such cooperation has long been established.
Among the factors that hinder the effective functioning of this framework include, first, conflicts of
interest among its members that have hindered the process of co-operation from occurring at an optimal
level when facinga crisis situation. Secondly, this mechanism is exposed to the problem of commitment
from participating states to play their functions effectively. Finally, the ineffectiveness of the
mechanisms is due to their nature as short term support measures.
In the Malaysian context, support for such cooperation framework is very important because it
provides states in the Southeast Asian region a backup strategy in the event of unexpected disasters. It is
suggested that the government continues to place an emphasis on the agri-food sector as a contributor of
food supply at domestic level. At the same time, the regional cooperation should be strengthened
through the dedicated commitment from all countries involved either through their support on existing
mechanism, or through efforts to strengthen intra-regional and inter-regional efforts to enhance human
security.
References
APTERR [cited 10/4/2014]. Available from: http://www.apterr.org/faq.
Arandez-Tanchuling H (2011) Two years after the 2008 rice crisis. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of
Third World Studies 26 (1–2), 295-311.
Arnst R (2009) Business as usual: Responses within ASEAN to the food crisis. A report for focus on the
Global South. Occasional Papers 4. Thailand: Focus on the Global South. Available from:
http://focusweb.org/pdf/occasionalpaper4.pdf.
ADB (Asian Development Bank) (2008) Food prices and inflation in developing Asia: Is poverty
reduction coming to an end? Manila. Available from: http://www.adb.org/Documents/reports/food-
prices-inflation/food-prices-inflation.pdf.
ASEAN Secretariat (2012) ASEAN economic community: Handbook for business 2012. ASEAN
Secretariat, Jakarta.
Bello AL (2005) Ensuring food security - A case for ASEAN integration. Asian Journal of Agriculture
and Development 2 (1&2), 87-108.
Braun J (2009) Threats to security related to food, agriculture, and natural resources - What to do?
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington. Paper work presented in the
Strategic Action Discussions (EADS), Berlin on 26 March 2009 [cited 24/10/2011]. Available from:
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/20090326jvbEADS.pdf.
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 10 issue 6 (37 - 47) 47
© 2014, ISSN 2180-2491
Brüntrup M (2008) Global trends in food security. Rural 21. The international Journal for Rural
Development 42 (3), 8 – 11.
Chandra A, Lontoh LA (2010) Regional food security and trade policy in Southeast Asia: The role of
Asean. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, Canada.
Clover J (2003) Food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Security Review 12 (1), 5-15.
Cribb J (2010) The coming famine: The global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it. University of
California Press, London.
Cribb J (2011) Food Security: What are the priorities? Food Security 3 (2), 123-125.
Delpeuch F, Maire B, Monnier E, Holdsworth M (2009) Globesity: A planet out of control? Earthscan,
London & Sterling.
Desker B, Caballero-Anthony M, Teng P (2013) Thought/issues paper on ASEAN Food Security:
Towards a more comprehensive framework. ERIA Discussion Paper Series [ERIA-DP-2013-20].
Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapura.
FAO (2010) The state of food insecurity in the world 2010: Addressing food insecurity in protracted
crises. FAO, Rome.
FAO (2011) The state of food insecurity in the world 2011. IFAD, WFP & FAO, Rome.
Grebmer KV, Torero M , Olofinbiyi T, Fritschel H et al. (2011). The 2011 Global Hunger Index.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. Available from:
http://cil.nus.edu.sg/rp/pdf/2009%20AIFS%20Framework%20and%20Strategic%20Plan%20of%20A
ction%20on%20Food%20Security%20in%20the%20ASEAN%20Region-pdf.pdf.
Malaysian Information Department (2009) Malaysian food security policy (Dialogue transcription with
YB Dato’ Mustapa Mohamed, Minister of Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry). Malaysia
Information Department, Putrajaya.
Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (KLN) (2014) Strengthening ASEAN [cited 2/6/2014]. Available
from: http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/md-strengthening.
Otter C (2010) Feast and famine: The global food crisis. ORIGINS, eHistory @ The Ohio State
University [cited 21/6/2011]. Available from:
www.ehistory.osu.edu/osu/origins/article.cfm?articleid=38.
Rashila Ramli, Zarina Othman, Nor Azizan Idris, Sity Daud (2012) Towards a modified approach to
human security in Southeast Asia - A perspective from Bangi. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences
and Humanities 20 (3), 577-588.
Roberts P (2009) The end of food: The coming crisis in the world food industry. Bloomsbury, London.
Timmer CP (2008) Causes of high food prices. ADB Economic Working Paper Series No. 128, October
2008. ADB, Manila. Available from:
http://econ.tu.ac.th/archan/rangsun/ec%20460/ec%20460%20readings/Global%20Issues/Food%20Cri
sis/Food%20Price/Causes%20of%20High%20Food%20Prices.pdf.
Trethewie S (2013) Is the ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR) the answer to
Southeast Asia’s food security challenges? NTS Alert no. AL13-02, February 2013 [cited 13/4/2014].
Available from: http://www.rsis.edu.sg/nts/html-newsletter/alert/nts-alert-1302.html.
WHO (2014) Obesity and overweight. Media Centre [cited 25/5/2014]. Available from:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/.
WHO (2014) Obesity and overweight [cited 25/5/2014]. Available from:
www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/media/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf.
Yangfeng W (2006) Overweight and obesity in China. BMJ 33, 362-363 [cited 28/11/2011]. Available
from: http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7564/362.full.
Yoshimatsu H (2009) Japan and regional governance in East Asia. In: Thomas N (ed) Governance and
Regionalism in Asia, pp.66-92. Routledge, London.
