Download the Indonesia Human Development Report 2004. - UNDP

in fact the government had already established the OPKbefore the donors came on the scene, having simplyswitched from one form of price support to another. Thisongoing programme is now called Raskin (from Berasuntuk Rakyat Miskin – rice for the poor).Finally in January 2000, as part of its agreement withthe IMF, the government fully liberalized rice imports.But by this time the world rice price had fallen, so inorder to protect Indonesia’s farmers the governmentapplied a specific tariff of Rp. 430 per kilogram to keepthe price of rice higher than the world price.In early 2004 this meant that while the world price ofrice was Rp. 2,200 per kilogram for Indonesians the pricewas Rp. 2,700. Why do Indonesia’s farmers needprotection? At first glance they should be able to holdtheir own. Yields in Indonesia appear to be relatively high:more than four tons per hectare which by some estimatesis twice as high as in Thailand. 50 The yield per hectaretakes no account of inputs, in terms of irrigation orfertilizers, which will vary from country to country. Butthere seems no reason why, all things being equal, the‘farm gate’ price of rice should be higher in Indonesiathan elsewhere. In terms of value added per worker, forexample, the figures for Indonesia and Thailand aresimilar. 51 The main factor pushing the price up seems tobe post-harvest losses and low milling yields, along withprofiting by traders. However, it is also possible that theworld price is artificially low since the main exportingcountries such as Thailand and Vietnam may be subsidizingexports or selling surplus production on the world marketat lower than their own production costs.How best to help the poorMost middle- and upper-income countries assist thepoor through different forms of cash transfer. ShouldIndonesia do this rather than provide assistance ‘in kind’in the form of rice. Cash transfers are superior in thesense that they offer people greater freedom of choiceand they do not distort the workings of food or othermarkets. Direct transfers of food, however, also haveadvantages: they can encourage households to consumemore and they allow the possibility of giving fortified formsof rice that would include additional nutrients. Moreover,while cash transfers often go to men, food transfers aremore likely to be collected by women who can ensure itis consumed within the family. 52 A transfer in kind mayalso be easier to monitor, and less susceptible tocorruption, since it can be tracked both physically andfinancially.Indonesia’s choice has been to continue with the Raskinprogramme. Although Raskin is not the only form of foodsecurity interventions, for the purpose of analysis, theReport uses Raskin as an example to ilustrate the cost ofmeeting the right to food. In 2004 this programme aimedto provide 20 kilograms of rice to 8.59 million poorhouseholds at a price of Rp 1,000 per kilogram which itwas thought would cover 40% to 60% of their needs. Asdid the OPK, the Raskin programme identifies poorhouseholds who are to receive this rice by using aclassification system devised by the National CoordinatingBoard for Family Planning, BKKBN. This system wasnot originally intended to identify food insecure households,since it measures not income but assets – assessing, forexample, the quality of the family house. Nevertheless itis probably the best available method for identifying poorhouseholds. Bulog distributes the food to communityleaders in proportion to the number of poor families intheir area. They then take the responsibility for distributionto households.This system is far from perfect since in many casescommunity leaders simply share the food out among allhouseholds in their area, on the principle that everyoneshould be entitled to a public benefit. As a result, insteadof 20 kilograms per household the average amount isthought to be somewhere between six and ten kilograms.Nevertheless, 64% of the poor do receive Raskin rice soit is clearly making a substantial contribution. In addition,the World Food Programme runs a similar scheme,delivering a further 60,000 tons through NGOs to 300,000households at a cost of Rp. 170 billion per year.Although the Raskin programme is not based on theincome poverty line, it comes to a similar conclusion onthe number of the poor – those classified as ‘preprosperous’on BKKBN’s system – which amounts to8.6 million households. Assuming an average of 4.75 peopleper family, Raskin would reach 40.8 million people. BPSestimates the poverty rate at 18% so with Indonesia’scurrent population of 210 million this comes to 38 million.Given that the criteria are slightly different, these are notnecessarily the same people, but they indicate a similarscale of poverty.Despite Raskin, 18% of the population are still poor.This is not surprising given Raskin’s limitations intargeting. Although it provides cheap rice to 64% of thepoor it also provides rice to 35% of the ‘non-poor’. Thissounds like a weak performance, until one takes intoaccount the fact that probably around half the populationare at risk of falling into poverty, so if Raskin is alsoreaching these people it is performing a valuable function.Nevertheless, much more could be done to improvetargeting. As indicated earlier, on the basis of the povertygap it would take annual transfers of six to eight trillionRupiah to lift the poor out of poverty. However, consideringonly food poverty on the grounds that many non-foodfood items had been taken into account by the educationand health investments the cost would be Rp 1.09 trillion.If this were to be distributed in the form of food, however,one would need to add the cost of delivery or50 ASEAN (2002).51 World Bank, World Development Indicators.52 Tabor (2000).40National Human Development Report 2004