TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Can the National Food Agency strengthen Indonesia’s food system governance?
For example, a roadblock restricting mobility in one village can obstruct food distribution, cause delays and food loss, reduce access to food, affect food prices and hurt farmers’ incomes.
Change Size
The C0VID-19 pandemic has highlighted the precariousness of Indonesia’s food system, which refers to all of the actors, activities and interconnected processes in production, processing, distribution, consumption and disposal of food products as well as the broader economic, societal and environmental contexts. Disruption in any part of the system can have a ripple effect on the rest of the system and threaten people’s livelihoods and food security.
For example, a roadblock restricting mobility in one village can obstruct food distribution, cause delays and food loss, reduce access to food, affect food prices and hurt farmers’ incomes.
To mitigate the risks of disruption, good governance across the food system is of paramount importance. Yet, major governance gaps still exist in Indonesia’s food system. With this backdrop, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo announced the creation of the National Food Agency (NFA). Can the NFA answer the governance challenges, or will it compound the complexity of the existing governance structures?
Given the broad range of activities in the food system, where at least 12 ministries and agencies are explicitly tasked with regulating and governing portions of the system, from the Agriculture and Marine Affairs and Fisheries ministries to the latest involvement of the Defense Ministry in the food estate program. Not to mention the regional governments, which play a significant role both in policy and implementation, and the National Logistics Agency (Bulog) and state-owned enterprises that execute government interventions. This division of labor is necessary to achieve the immense task of ensuring food security for all Indonesians. However, it can introduce tensions and trade- offs especially when competing interests arise.
The competing interests have resulted in a fragmented and disjointed policy approach to the food system. For example, the Health Ministry’s dietary guidelines popularized through the Isi Piringku (Fill My Plate) campaign promotes diverse consumption of carbohydrates, fruit, vegetables and proteins. However, the Agriculture Ministry prioritizes production of only a few strategic commodities namely rice, maize, soybeans and beef for the sake of self-sufficiency.
The latest food estate program headed by the Defense Ministry also focuses specifically on producing cassava. This strategy has created the unintended consequence of limiting the variety of food. Production of other food items, such as fruits and vegetables, have stagnated or even declined. Now, Indonesia is among the countries with the lowest consumption of fruits and vegetables, far below the WHO’s recommended guideline.
Another area of contention is the frequent disagreement over import decisions. Food imports are needed to supply raw materials for the food and beverage industry and to stabilize market prices, but they are often met with strong pushback. Import decisions on strategic commodities are therefore carefully considered in a closed coordination meeting between the ministries involved. Yet, even with this coordination mechanism, disagreements such as on timing or quota still emerge.
Take these two opposing stories for example: late last year, the industry raised concerns about a potential shortage of sugar because of delayed and uncertain sugar imports. This month, President Jokowi questioned why garlic imports were arriving during harvest season and suppressing prices for farmers. Evidently, the import process is still plagued with inefficiencies that harm both consumers and producers alike.
The NFA was supposedly designed to address the aforementioned coordination issues. Based on Presidential Regulation No. 66/2021, the agency is responsible for ensuring availability and price stability, nutrition and food diversification, logistics of procurement and distribution, and food safety for nine strategic commodities. To do so, the NFA is given the authority to coordinate, set policies, monitor and implement interventions through state-owned enterprises such as Bulog. The functions of the NFA cut across the functions of the 12 existing ministries and agencies and even take over some decision-making authorities.
For example, the NFA can set import/export policies and decisions that are currently under the Trade Ministry’s authority, or price references, which are under the Agriculture Ministry’s scope. While centralizing almost all aspects of the food system under one lead coordinating agency may sound promising, there is skepticism whether this new agency can deliver on the insurmountable task. If not planned carefully, the agency may end up being another bureaucratic barrier in an already complex governance structure.
The NFA’s effectiveness will depend on the leadership, structure and culture of the agency. The development of the NFA is the right moment for the government to transform our food system governance. The Committee on World Food Security’s guideline suggests three principles for effective food governance, that it must be transparent, democratic and accountable. The committee also proposes four general recommendations to improve governance. These recommendations can be adapted for the NFA as well.
First, the NFA should promote policy coordination and coherence by integrating the understanding of food systems and nutrition into local and national development. This starts by conducting a policy stocktaking of the regulations across the different ministries, and resolving any regulatory overlaps, contradictions or gaps between the ministries or between national- subnational governments.
Second, the NFA should strengthen multisectoral, multistakeholder and multilevel coordination and action. To do this, the NFA should not just rely on the ministries and agencies or state-owned enterprises, but should include the wider and deeper participation of the private sector, academics, farmers, fishermen and civil society organizations in policy dialogues, as well as programmatic action. The NFA should consider leveraging the private sector for solutions to the food system challenges.
Third, the NFA should include accountability mechanisms and tools for monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs. Proper monitoring and evaluation are necessary to ensure policies and programs are cost-effective in achieving their intended outcomes. In addition, these mechanisms can mitigate the rent-seeking practices that have historically plagued Indonesia’s food systems, as evidenced by the numerous corruption cases revolving around food commodities.
Last but not least, the NFA should strengthen the participation and inclusion of indigenous peoples and local communities in the food system. Each region has a unique production, distribution and consumption pattern. Therefore, a top-down approach may not be suitable. Considering local knowledge in informing policies and programs is critical. The development of the NFA will determine the future of Indonesia’s food system; hence, it is imperative that we all make it right.
--
Head of research at the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS)
