Funds for cheap rice could be better spent

Funds for cheap rice could be better spent

Alexander Irwan, Sociologist, Jakarta

How did the government come to the conclusion that the
previous Special Market Operation Program (OPK) should be
followed by the newly introduced Rp 4.67 trillion (US$ 449
million) "rice for the poor program?" Did the government do a
representative sampling research or a nationwide survey to find
out the needs of the urban and rural poor? Since the answer is a
definite 'no', then on what rational consideration does the
government base its policy?

The fact that the past OPK failed to reach the targeted poor
people effectively due to inept management and corruption, as
exposed by many non governmental organizations (NGOs) and
admitted by the chief of the State Logistics Agency (Bulog)
Widjanarko Puspoyo himself, has been discussed widely.

It is still fresh in our minds how the poor complained about
the low quality of OPK rice, how non-poor households made their
way onto the recipients list, and how OPK rice ended up on the
local market in large quantities.

There is no need to delve into the mismanagement and
corruption issue further. The more fundamental issue in this
matter is that the government has spent and is currently spending
trillions of rupiah to address an issue that is not even on the
priority list of the urban and rural poor.

A "participatory needs assessment" by overcrowded urban poor
communities such as in Kamal Muara and Kalibaru in North Jakarta,
and Cibangkong in Bandung, for example, did not show the need for
a cheap rice program. The needs assessment in Kamal Muara,
facilitated by an NGO network called COMBINE (Community-based
Information Network), showed that the poor community was
concerned more with an inadequate drainage system that had caused
repeated flooding, a lack of clean water for drinking and
cooking, unhealthy public latrines and pollution from fish
salting processing.

On the top of the list was a landownership problem in one
section of the community called Kampung Baru, which was closest
to the sea. The community is also facing a threat from the
regional government, which has been working with a private
company to redevelop the whole community as a resort area where
people could go sailing to Pulau Seribu and other nearby islands.
The spatial planning was done in a completely top-down manner
without even informing the community.

In Kalibaru, people were concerned more with the difficulty of
obtaining capital to support small businesses, security in their
area and neighborhood, clean water, safe public latrines,
adequate street lights, and public trash cans. On top of the list
was the lack of fire hydrants in the highly crowded slum
community. Without fire hydrants, one small fire could easily
wipe out a large number of houses in a matter of minutes. A
protest that took place in the community recently was not about
food but waste.

The people protested against a public latrine manager for
overcharging and demanded the fee be lowered from Rp 500 to Rp
300 per use. The manager responded that he could not provide
clean water if the fee was just Rp 300, and suggested that the
people should bathe at home.

Do poor people in rural areas really need the heavily
subsidized rice? According to COMBINE, not the poor people in
Bentek and Sesait, two villages in the northern part of West
Lombok. In Sesait in 1999 the chief of the village and the people
decided to sell the OPK rice on the market and use the money to
build a community meeting place, a subdistrict office and an
official house for the village chief.

In Bentek, the most pressing issue is not rice but, again,
land control.

The people of Bentek were concerned more with gaining official
recognition from the regional government on the use of hilly
lands surrounding their village. Since 1998, the people of Bentek
have planted dozens of hectares of the previously bare hills with
fruit trees, which is good for the environment. They did not want
to take over and own the land. They just wanted to utilize the
land in peace. They did not want to see their trees cut down by
the government.

The anecdotal evidence above shows that in spending the more
than Rp 4 trillion rupiah, the government is not driven by a
desire to solve problems at the community level. The logic of the
government remains project oriented in character. Running such a
large project is always profitable for bureaucrats, project
managers and project officers since the monitoring and audit
system have not been able to prevent officers from marking up and
creating fictitious activities.

The "rice for the poor program" will need a nationally
televised campaign, right? Who will be in charge of producing the
program? Who was in charge of producing the nationally televised
campaign for the Social Safety Net program in the past? In
addition, some of the rice used in the "rice for the poor
program" will be imported, and importing rice for the government
has always been a lucrative business.

What is the alternative? Instead of allocating the Rp 4.67
trillion just for cheap rice in a top down manner, the government
could divide it into small amounts of revolving grants to be
invested in economic activities at the community level.

The community should decide where to invest the money and the
terms of repayment. Guidelines should be provided. For example,
the funds should not be invested in privately owned businesses,
but in economic activities that serve the community or economic
activities of a marginalized group. The funds could be invested
in a community micro credit scheme that provides small loans to
poor households and small businesses.

Investment in public latrines is also a good idea because it
generates revenues while helping to create a healthier
neighborhood. An association of organic farmers in Salatiga,
Central Java, is currently running a cow rearing facility and is
in need of investors. They offer a competitive return that is
higher than the current bank interest rates. And the list goes
on.

Instead of pouring Rp 4.67 trillion into a black hole, it
would be much better if the government used the money to increase
communities' self sufficiency. In order to do that, the
government should adopt a bottom up planning process that would
allow communities to identify their needs in a participatory way,
and give them the power to decide what economic activities were
to be supported with the funds.