The costly half-cooked free meal program
Prabowo’s campaign centerpiece is a solution in search of a problem
President Prabowo recently announced budget cuts—referred to as budget refocusing—amounting to a total of Rp 306.7 trillion on national spending to fulfill his campaign promises, with emphasis on funding the Makan Bergizi Gratis (Free Nutritious Meal, or MBG) program. The Ministry of Public works was ordered to cut 80% of its budget (which will impact maintenance spending), and the Health Ministry to cut 18.56% (amounting to IDR 20 trillion) – one of the highest cuts in absolute value.
In the past month, reports on the budget cuts’ impact flooded the internet. At the Ministry of Economic Affairs, lights are turned off even amidst working hours to be more financially frugal. The National Library stated that it would reduce its operational hours. The Ministry of Finance cancelled the Ministerial Scholarship offer for 2025. And notably, the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology has redirected their research expenditure towards the priority intention of “supporting the MBG program” roll out.
Given all this fuss, is MBG really worth the hefty budget cuts?
In this edition of The Reformist, we will look into some of the enquiries that questions the urgency of this program:
Is MBG the right approach to address the problem (and what is even the problem)?
If it is, how can we do it right?
MBG might not be the right solution to the problem it wants to solve
Quoting this state-run information portal, there are at least two outcomes Prabowo hopes MBG will achieve: increasing the IQ levels and the willingness to learn among Indonesian children; as well as reducing the prevalence of stunting.
The Coordinating Ministry for Human Development and Cultural Affairs states that the MBG program is key to enhancing the quality of Indonesia’s human resources through improved nutrition. Somehow, this mission has been translated into an all-encompassing solution to the various challenges (corruption, inadequate education, poor infrastructure) that hinder state development.
Nonetheless, improving nutrition nationwide to prevent stunting has been a long-standing goal of the country due to widespread—albeit declining—rates of stunting. So it’s hard to argue that nutrition is not a central issue in the long-term development of Indonesia.
However, it’s important to note that providing free meals to students will not prevent new cases of stunting, which the Ministry of State Secretariat has acknowledged. As stunting is irreversible after the age of two years old, the MBG program can only reduce the long-term effects of stunting. This is why the MBG program has a dual (although comparatively less covered) focus on expecting mothers, a stream of work which has a direct impact on the prevention of new cases on stunting.
The question remains: is the MBG program the right approach to the problem(s) it wants to address—particularly when it comes at the cost of stripping massive amounts of the state budget?
Let’s look back on how the overarching issue of malnutrition has been previously addressed by the government (spoiler: there have been, in fact, many notable modern efforts).
Past malnutrition intervention programs could be scaled up instead
In the 2000s, Indonesia launched the Posyandu program, where community health posts provide mothers and children with monthly health services. Although the Posyandu system has contributed to a decline in malnutrition rates, challenges with funding and staffing have limited its effectiveness.
Another notable initiative was the Kartu Keluarga Sejahtera (Family Welfare Card) program. Introduced in 2014, this initiative gives cash transfers as financial support so families could improve their access to basic needs, including nutritious foods. However, many used the funds for other urgent needs, so it’s unclear if this initiative achieved its intended impact.
A prominent program that explicitly assists households with food provision is Pemberian Makanan Tambahan (Complementary Food Program, or PMT), which aims to provide a set number of nutritious meals across 90 days for young children and pregnant women. In 2017, the PMT made up 90% of the nutrition budget from the Ministry of Health (key to note, however, that budget execution is poor). It is the only program that focuses on providing nutrition, although the food in question would often look like supplementary biscuits.
Studies have shown that PMT’s success has been limited by its short-term scope and district-level administration, preventing it from scaling to a national level. The program also found limitations wherein PMT biscuits were not consumed by target recipients, but by their family members.
Although these programs were limited, they offer substantive and integrated approaches to malnutrition that could be responsibly scaled up because they have been piloted and understood by local communities.
This raises serious questions about the necessity of the MBG program in its current form, especially given recent data. It’s important to recognize that the term stunting encompasses an amalgamation of issues that must be precisely targeted. So, if MBG seeks to eradicate stunting, there are multiple national programmes that can be improved upon to achieve this goal. If it is to alleviate household financial burdens, they have the option of expanding upon the KKS program. The issue is centered upon MBG not knowing what it is attempting to solve.
Widespread starvation is not a primary issue, MBG is potentially redundant
According to the March 2024 Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (the National Socio-Economic Survey, or SUSENAS) fielded by Badan Pusat Statistik, only 0.99% of Indonesian households experienced at least one day without any meals in the past year due to a lack of money or other resources, and only 7.74% reported that they had experienced at least once of not being able to eat nutritious food because of a lack of money or other resources.
These figures, while still concerning, suggest that widespread starvation is not the primary issue. Therefore, the focus should instead be on improving the quality of diets, a challenge that existing programs like PMT and Posyandu are better equipped to address with proper funding and scaling.
These existing programs have demonstrated positive impacts on nutritional outcomes, which could be improved upon through large-scale funding.
Rather than starting from scratch, it could be more prudent to invest in improving and expanding these proven strategies. MBG aligns perfectly with the focus of programs like PMT and Posyandu, making them a more logical target for increased investment than a completely new, and potentially redundant, program like the MBG.
But can we do MBG right?
Regardless, let’s work under the assumption that the program is needed. How could it be most effectively implemented? Our proposal boils down to this:
Pilot it right through gradual implementation, where it’s needed most. As a byproduct, be able to identify new issues and form solutions.
Empower local economies by making the program locally-driven, and locally-sustainable.
Monitor and evaluate the preparation and outcomes of MBG to optimize impact.
1. Pilot with targeted and gradual intervention
When the MBG program was initially announced, the Indonesian Medical Association advised that the program be prioritized towards Tertinggal, Terdepan, dan Terluar (3T) areas, meaning it would be targeted for the “left-behind” regions where there may be comparatively higher demand for the program.
However, the program’s actual rollout diverged from these recommendations, with majority emphasis on provinces on the island of Java. This is despite the fact that not a single province in Java is among provinces with the highest rates of stunting nationally. Additionally, many of the initial trials did not have assessments or evaluations made available to the public.
When asked why the pilot was not initiated in the 3T regions, the presidential spokesperson responded that the selection of places prioritized areas that were “most ready” in terms of governance, rather than those with the highest need. While these urban areas in Java may include areas where free meals are needed, framing the program as “universal” does not fully address concerns about equitable access.
Additionally, the MBG pilot implementation has been facilitated by an unclear combination of over 300 third-party catering services and military-run kitchens (approximately 200 built by the military) under a ‘centralized kitchen’ system. This system implies that the central government is in charge of mapping where kitchens for this program should be, and the use of the military facilitates locally-aware partnerships.
Other than crowding out small enterprises, ‘centralized kitchen’ systems have not established clear guidelines for program implementation or its cycle: from the kitchen, to transportation method, distribution time, evaluation of beneficiaries, and waste recycling.
Depending on ‘centralized kitchens’ would also do little to encourage the sustainability of the MBG program. After all, malnutrition prevention efforts should focus on sustainability, so empowering local communities to continue the program is paramount.
The centralized nature of the program also means that it is difficult to assess the specifics based on the local students’ nutritional gaps—and to adjust it accordingly. This is particularly hard when there is a lack of data about what local students really need—after all, malnutrition can mean undernutrition, overnutrition, or an inadequate amount of vitamins or minerals.
“Indonesian children suffer from the ‘triple burden of malnutrition’ to various extents: undernutrition (stunting, wasting and underweight), overnutrition (overweight and obesity), and micronutrient deficiency (lack of essential multivitamins and nutrients). However, as socio-economic conditions improve, the prevalence of undernutrition will usually fall, followed by an associated rise in overnutrition. This applies to Indonesia and many other developing countries. In other words, most Indonesian children may be eating enough but not well.”
— Maria Monica and Arianto Patunru in The Fulcrum
To ensure that MBG reaches those who need it most, this large-scale national initiative must be implemented in a structured, phased manner with a well-defined framework that should guide the location of its rollout, understanding local infrastructure to balance efficiency with impact. At this time, while government representatives claim that the program is being gradually implemented, the approach has been to start where it is easiest rather than needed most. Additionally, poorly-targeted MBG implementation risks causing other nutritional issues, such as overnutrition or variations in local nutritional needs.
This calls into question the sustainability of the MBG program, wherein clear monitoring mechanisms have not been created beyond the reception of food, and structured evaluation stages with integrated feedback loops have not been sufficiently considered. Such an approach would not only enhance accountability but also enable continuous program refinement, ensuring long-term benefits for all targeted communities.
2. Partner with local economies and empower communities
Initial plans stated that the MBG program would support local economies by partnering with UMKMs (MSMEs) to prepare and deliver food to recipients. But reality shows the opposite. The program hasn’t been partnering with local enterprises due to “ongoing processes” that cause the MBG program to depend on the aforementioned ‘centralized kitchen’ scheme.
The issue with this is two-pronged.
First, it prevents the program from having the intended dual impact on supporting local economies. Second, it will struggle to implement the local nutritional adjustments that could have the most significant impact for long-term change.
By depending on centralized systems that are blind to local nuances—which include local nutritional gaps and unique local sources of nutrients—the program may end up being inefficient at best, and disastrously misaligned at worst.
The problem with being ‘universal’
The “universality” of the program has already shown misguided practices. For instance, the initial plan to provide milk has been made non-compulsory due to limited availability in some regions (Indonesia produces only 16% of its milk domestically). Outside of milk being virtually unavailable in most parts of the country, Indonesian children have high lactose intolerance.
In 2014, the country actually removed milk from its legendary ‘4 Sehat 5 Sempurna’ nutritional needs campaign (4 is healthy, 5 is complete–the 5 being milk which ‘completes’ one’s daily nutritional needs). If this precedent was set, then why is the government planning to import 1 million dairy cattle over the next five years?
In this sense, a standardized meal plan won’t be able to address these localized needs effectively, and may lead to a situation where the program delivers food, but doesn’t actually improve the nutritional status of the recipients and/or fit the local taste.
Furthermore, relying on centralized kitchens can create logistical challenges, particularly in geographically dispersed or remote areas. Transportation of food over long distances can lead to spoilage, increased costs, and delays in delivery. This can compromise the quality and freshness of the meals, further diminishing their nutritional value and the overall effectiveness of the program.
Already, this has emerged as an issue: in Central Java, several MBG locations had to postpone their pilot due to internal challenges, one of which was because the kitchen was not conveniently located for food deliveries.
In contrast, partnering with local UMKMs would not only stimulate the local economy but also allow for the use of fresh, locally sourced ingredients, potentially leading to more nutritious and culturally-accessible meals. It would also create a more resilient and adaptable system, less vulnerable to disruptions in the nationwide supply chain.
Shifting away from the centralized kitchen model and embracing a decentralized, community-based approach would not only economically empower local economies but also improve the nutritional outcomes for the recipients.
3. Set the goals and monitor their impact
It all should begin, perhaps predictably for The Reformist, with a proper monitoring and evaluation system that has the capacity to track the program’s effectiveness in any given location. This way, we could have the capacity for real-time adjustments and ensure state accountability for application of the budget dedicated to MBG. Without this, the program may become inefficient, or there might be a misallocation of resources in such a way that causes it to fail its goals.
But first, the program must begin with clarifying its core goal.
Although stunting is a clear issue in Indonesia, the majority of the MBG program—which targets school children—does very little to directly address it. If the program, for example, seeks to end hunger, that is a different (although similarly admirable) goal that would assist clear guidelines and evaluations to be shaped.
Depending on the goal, key metrics that can be shaped could look something like:
*We put this while re-emphasizing the earlier statement that the MBG program as it is right now cannot reduce stunting. If the government really did want to reduce stunting through a cohesive program, it’s not only a matter of metrics but a complete shift of the program – the target demographic, nutrient sources, and more would have to be significantly changed.
Outside of metrics, having a clarified goal would help the proper infrastructure to be built in such a way that is conducive to MBG programming.
Let’s take “improve nutrition” as an example. This goal would then intrinsically set the expectation that nutritional assessments must be conducted to ensure that meal plans meet the diverse dietary needs of recipients.
Naturally, this compels local leaders to evaluate the agricultural capability of each location for feasibility of diet and logistics to ensure consistent food quality, timely procurement, and the reliable sourcing of ingredients, which should be key priorities for the current administration.
The government should also ensure that high-quality ingredients and handling procedures are aligned with predetermined standards to avoid food-poisoning outbreaks due to spoiled food among students—which has happened already—and result in meals that fail to deliver the necessary nutrients for students. This could hinder the achievement of the goal.
Other than that, working with nutritionists, regional farmers, fishermen, and food producers to integrate locally available food ingredients would not only make the program more sustainable on a local level, but also reduce the need for long-distance food transport and minimize carbon emissions due to long transportation times or supply chain disruptions.
Supporting metrics to consider
A supporting metric could be added to track the byproducts of the MBG program – such as ensuring not much food is wasted.
Multiple economists have expressed concerns that the program would result in higher food waste, due to already-emerging cases of metals being discarded. It is particularly notable when considering Indonesia’s status as the second largest country in producing food loss and waste per capita. In fact, a study by the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) revealed that from 2000 to 2019, Indonesia generated 184 kilograms of food loss and waste per capita annually.
To mitigate the potential for food waste, it’s important to incorporate strategies such as adjusted portion control, education on food waste reduction among recipients, and perhaps even the use of leftover food for other programs such as composting and feeding agricultural animals. Encouraging schools to track and report food waste can create transparency that reinforces the program’s need.
A costly solution looking for a problem
In its current form, the MBG program seems like a solution in search of a problem. Indonesia’s fight against malnutrition has spanned decades through existing programs such as Posyandu, Pemberian Makanan Tambahan, and Kartu Keluarga Sejahtera – all of which often targeted and scalable interventions. Instead of replacing these efforts, the government perhaps should focus on strengthening and integrating them into a more cohesive, data-driven national strategy.
As the MBG proceeds, it must be implemented with community-first approaches that ensure it is applied to the areas which need it most – not the ones that are easiest to reach. It must also attempt to prioritize decentralization, empowering local MSMEs and driving economic benefits at a grassroots level. Without clear accountability mechanisms, sustainable funding, and a focus on long-term impact rather than short-term political gains, MBG risks becoming a (very, very) costly experiment with limited results.