By: Prof. Dr. R. Agus Sartono, M.B.A.
Professor, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Gadjah Mada University
Deputy for Education and Religion, Coordinating Ministry for People’s Welfare/Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia 2010-2014
Providing free nutritious meals, as seen in MBG, is actually a good idea, learned from the experiences of developed countries. This programme offers several benefits, including: first, it improves the nutrition of children during their growth period through adequate intake. Second, it builds social cohesion because children receive the same food at least once during school. The hope is that empathy and social awareness will grow. Third, it teaches children to queue in an orderly manner when taking food and to clean up after eating. Fourth, children are responsible for taking only what they need and not wasting food. Fifth, it provides a multiplier effect on economic growth and reduces inequality. Sixth, it creates jobs and prevents urbanisation.
Implementation Challenges
The problem lies not in the grand idea but in the delivery mechanism, which has recently led to negative perceptions and various cases of poisoning. Looking at the targets to be achieved, there are at least 28.2 million primary school/MI students, 13.4 million junior high school/MTs students, 12.2 million vocational school/MA/SMA students, and 2.3 million Dikmas/SLB students, totaling around 55.1 million who must be served. All of these are spread across 329,000 educational units. This does not include more than 20,000 Islamic boarding schools. With a budget of IDR 15,000 per student, at least IDR 247.95 trillion is needed.
The implementation of the MBG programme, with a budget of Rp247.95 trillion, is significantly larger than the 2025 village fund of around Rp71 trillion. The education budget transferred to the regions in 2025 will be at least Rp347 trillion, resulting in a total of Rp665.95 trillion circulating in the areas. This vast amount will boost consumption and drive economic growth.
Returning to the initial question about the MBG programme, the problem lies in the delivery mechanism. There are already many programs that target students and underprivileged communities, such as the School Operational Assistance (BOS), the Indonesia Smart Card (KIP), the Family Hope Programme (PKH),, and social assistance or social aid. So far, these programmes have targeted at least 20% of underprivileged families. In 2010, the distribution of BOS also experienced problems and was eventually distributed directly to educational units. BOS is given to schools/madrasas/educational units based on the number of students.
So why is the MBG, which has such a good objective, not implemented using the existing mechanism? Doesn’t Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government stipulate that ‘education’ is a concurrent matter and that regions are given authority? Regencies/cities manage primary/junior high schools, provinces manage vocational/senior high schools, and religious-based education is still under the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Therefore, give authority to the regions in accordance with the law, and the National Nutrition Agency (BGN) should only conduct monitoring. Empower local governments, and in this way, coordination and success rates will be significantly improved.
Learning from the Best Practices of Developed Countries|
MBG best practices in developed countries are implemented through school canteens and offer many advantages over the system used in Indonesia. Through school canteens, food remains fresh, avoiding stale food, and the scale is relatively small and more controllable. This should be possible in Indonesia, where schools and school committees are well-equipped to manage it effectively.
Raw material needs are met by MSMEs around the school, creating a healthy economic cycle. Schools receive the full amount of Rp15,000 per portion, rather than the current amount of around Rp7,000 per portion. The second alternative is to give the funds in cash to students. Let parents take the time to prepare meals for their children. BGN only needs to compile technical guidelines and conduct supervision.
Teachers at the school conduct supervision. If a child does not bring lunch, they receive a warning, and after one month, their parents are contacted. If the violation continues, it is stopped. This method not only combats rent-seeking practices but is also believed to be more effective. Funds can be transferred directly to students every month, similar to the KIP, or distributed through the school canteen, as with BOS, if MBG is implemented.
Ending Rent-Seeking Practices, Shortening the Distribution Chain
The issue of poisoning can be traced back to the length of the MBG distribution chain. In addition, the distribution of MBG through the Nutrition Implementation Education Unit (SPPG) primarily benefits large businesses that can participate in this program. It is truly saddening that the unit cost of Rp15,000 per portion per child ends up being only Rp7,000. The Free Nutritious Meals Programme has truly become a ‘Free Profit Scheme’ for large businesses, as they reap huge profits ‘for free’. If the margin per portion is taken as Rp 2,000 and one SPG serves Rp 3,000 portions, then the monthly profit obtained is Rp 150 million, or approximately Rp 1.8 million per year. Nationally, a margin of Rp2,000 from Rp15,000, or around 13%, is a substantial amount.
Therefore, the implementation of MBG by providing cash to students will be able to reduce and eliminate ‘leakage/rent-seeking profits’ amounting to Rp33.3 trillion. It is not too late; let us shorten the MBG distribution chain to make it more effective and eliminate dirty rent-seeking practices. MBG must truly be Free Nutritious Meals for students.
Sustainable Development Goals
