Banning the import of frozen chicken in Iraq raises controversy economy

Baghdad – The Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture banned the import of frozen chicken on September 8, with its decision becoming effective 45 days after its issuance.

Although the stated goal of the decision is to protect the local product and support poultry producers in the country who own about 1,200 farms of laying and broiler chickens (excluding the Kurdistan region), it sparked a wide wave of rejection among a large segment of citizens and merchants alike, who considered the decision “unfair.”

Thoughtful decision

The Technical Undersecretary of the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, Dr. Mithaq Abdul Hussein, says that the decision to ban the import of frozen chicken is a deliberate and necessary regulatory measure, and will not cause any disruption in local prices, adding that this measure will remain monitored and controlled based on supply and demand mechanisms and the volume of local production.

Abdul Hussein told (Al Jazeera Net) that this decision was based on accurate data from the Ministry of Agriculture that confirms the large abundance in the volume of local production of poultry. This data covers all production projects in all governorates, including the Kurdistan region (north of the country), and clearly indicates that the current local production fully meets the need and consumption in Iraq.

He pointed out that the random import of frozen chicken in unknown quantities amounted to commodity dumping, which has maintained the phenomenon of selling live chicken in the markets, which is an unhealthy phenomenon and greatly affects the health of citizens.

He stressed that the abundance resulting from local production forced producers to pump (live) chicken in abundance to the markets, because imported frozen chicken at low prices and lower quality did not leave room for slaughterhouses designated for poultry to carry out their work, which caused huge losses in the slaughterhouse sector.

He added: “Many slaughterhouses have already begun to return to work, activate their production capacities, and employ workers after the issuance of the decision, and they are preparing to raise these capacities as soon as the ban is activated.”

He stressed that the decision represents a regulatory measure that protects the local producer and consumer at the same time, stressing the existence of effective oversight mechanisms to ensure price stability and prevent manipulation through:

• A specialized device to monitor prices, maintain their balance, and prevent commodity dumping caused by importers.
• The Competition and Monopoly Council of the Prime Minister’s Office, which works very efficiently in accordance with the laws to limit any monopoly or manipulation of prices and the flow of goods.
• Daily report by the Price Control Department of the Ministry of Agriculture to closely follow the situation.

Abdul Hussein confirmed that the ban has not been implemented yet, and will be implemented after a period of time exceeding a month to allow sufficient time to prepare and organize the market completely.

Monopoly and high prices

Wholesaler Fahd Al-Obaidi confirmed that the decision to ban the import of frozen chicken, even before it came into effect, caused confusion that led to an increase in prices.

Al-Obaidi told Al Jazeera Net that the local market suffers from the control of poultry production by one or two companies, which opens the way for monopoly and raising prices, especially since local production is not sufficient to cover the entire market’s need for chicken and eggs.

Al-Obaidi pointed out that the merchants’ fear of losing their goods before the decision took effect stopped imports, which caused depression and harm to the citizen due to the rise in prices, calling on the government to monitor field owners, local product traders, and markets immediately to prevent exploitation of the citizen and doubling of prices.

Burdening the citizen

The decision was met with widespread objection and dissatisfaction from citizens, who stressed that the local product does not cover the need and that the ban will lead to exploitation and a significant increase in prices.

Citizen Ammar Aqeel criticized the decision, stressing to (Al Jazeera Net) that the local product “is present, but not in the density that meets the needs of the Iraqi citizen,” which forces him to resort to frozen imported product.

He pointed out that the local product is more expensive than the imported one, which pushes the citizen towards the cheapest, considering that the decision created “greed” in the market, citing the rise in the price of a kilo of chicken from 4,000 dinars (about 3 dollars) to 5,500 dinars (about 4.1 dollars).

He added: “The price of a kilo of local chicken reached the equivalent of $7, describing this as “clear exploitation of the citizen who cannot do without white meat.”

He explained that the greatest harm falls on the Iraqi citizen, whom he described as “the only oppressed one,” while the harm is less on the merchant because he is able to raise prices, indicating that middle-income segments of society, whose monthly salaries do not exceed $400, will be forced to “return to vegetables instead of meat as basic ingredients in their daily meals.”

Weak oversight and corruption

For his part, Karim Al-Jubouri, owner of a food store, blamed the weakness of economic bodies, government oversight, and the control of corruption in many of its joints.

Al-Jubouri told (Al Jazeera Net) that “the price of the local product is supposed to be appropriate and supported by the regulatory authorities,” calling on the government to “study the decision intensively and carefully and the extent of the local product’s ability to cover needs without increasing prices” before implementing it, in addition to providing adequate oversight teams and holding exploiters accountable.

He linked what is currently happening to “a continuation of the scenario of banning some types of vegetables every season,” which leads to prices doubling until imports reopen.

Al-Jubouri stressed that the Ministry of Agriculture should have prepared a “five-year or ten-year plan” instead of “suddenly acting diligently and issuing decisions to ban an imported product,” noting that the local product and agriculture “are not at the required level to cover the market’s needs,” considering the decision “a punishment of the citizen and not a support for the local product.”