Critical Evaluation of the Free Nutritious Meal Programme: Between National Nutrition Ambitions and Governance Challenges

The Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme is one of the most ambitious public policies ever launched by the Indonesian government in the last decade. With a budget that has significantly increased from Rp71 trillion in 2025 to Rp268 trillion in 2026, the programme reflects the state’s commitment to tackling the stunting and malnutrition problems that still haunt millions of Indonesian children. However, behind these noble ambitions, a number of critical notes have begun to surface — ranging from findings of corruption risks by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), a sceptical public perception, to dynamics of pros and cons within society. This article aims to objectively evaluate the implementation of the MBG programme, identify the governance challenges faced, and offer a constructive perspective based on Pancasila values.

It cannot be denied that the primary goal of the MBG Programme is very noble. Indonesia still faces a double burden of malnutrition — on one hand, there is the problem of stunting that affects children’s cognitive development, and on the other, the problem of obesity that is beginning to rise in urban areas. A programme that provides measured nutritious meals for schoolchildren, if implemented well, can be an effective instrument to improve the nutritional status of the nation’s young generation.

Many countries have successfully implemented similar programmes. Brazil with its Fome Zero programme, India with the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and Japan with its Kyushoku programme, which has been running for decades, show that school meal provision can have a significant positive impact on children’s health, school attendance, and learning achievement. Indonesia, with its complex geographical and demographic challenges, can certainly learn from the experiences of these countries.

However, great ambition requires a strong foundation. A national-scale social programme — especially one involving a budget of hundreds of trillions of rupiah — requires a transparent, accountable, and effective governance system. Without this foundation, even a programme with the best intentions is vulnerable to inefficiency, budget leakage, and irregularities that ultimately harm the intended beneficiaries.

It is in this context that a number of critical notes from oversight bodies become important to take seriously. The KPK, as an anti-corruption agency, has identified eight corruption-prone points in the implementation of the MBG programme. This identification is not an accusation, but rather an early warning that should serve as evaluation material for policymakers.

Additionally, the finding that large sums of funds are sitting idle in management accounts without adequate supervision is also a serious concern. In sound state financial governance, every rupiah of the public budget must be accounted for. The accumulation of large funds without strict oversight mechanisms creates risks that need to be addressed immediately.

Also worth noting are survey results showing that a majority of the public still harbours doubts about the integrity of the programme’s implementation. Public perception is not something that can simply be ignored. In a democracy, public trust in government programmes is a very valuable social asset. When this trust is eroded, the effectiveness of the programme — no matter how good its design — will be disrupted.

One interesting aspect of the MBG implementation is the dynamic of pros and cons within society. On one side, there are civil society groups pushing for a thorough evaluation and even a temporary moratorium on the programme for governance improvements. On the other side, there are community groups that support the continuation of the programme because they feel its direct benefits.

This dynamic is actually very natural in a healthy democracy. Differing views show that the public is actively engaged in overseeing public policy. What is important is how the government responds to this dynamic — not by treating criticism as a threat, but as constructive input for improvement.

The MBG programme should not be seen as a binary issue — between “support” or “reject”. It is more productive to view this programme as a work in progress that requires continuous refinement. This approach allows us to still appreciate the good intentions behind the programme, while honestly acknowledging and fixing the existing shortcomings.

In evaluating the MBG programme, it is worth looking at the experiences of other countries. BBC Indonesia, in one of its reports, noted that similar programmes in various countries provide an important lesson: the design of implementation is just as important as the programme’s initial intent.

India’s Mid-Day Meal scheme, for example, although successful in reaching millions of children, also faced challenges of corruption and inconsistent food quality. The solutions they implemented involved local community participation, transparency in the supply chain, and multi-layered oversight mechanisms. Brazil’s Fome Zero emphasised local economic empowerment — food for schools was purchased from local farmers, so the nutrition programme simultaneously became an economic empowerment programme.

These lessons from international experience are highly relevant for Indonesia. The MBG programme does not have to be designed centrally from Jakarta. Instead, this programme can be an opportunity to empower local economies — by involving cooperatives, MSMEs, and local farmers in the food supply chain. This approach not only increases accountability but also ensures that the programme’s benefits are felt more broadly by the community.