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.