KPK Has Submitted Study Results on MBG Governance to BGN

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) states that it has submitted the results of its study on the governance of the government’s priority Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme to the National Nutrition Agency (BGN). Currently, KPK is also preparing a follow-up plan. “This study has been conveyed to BGN, and BGN is now preparing, or in the process of preparing, a follow-up plan based on KPK’s findings,” explained KPK spokesperson Budi Prasetyo to reporters at the Merah Putih Building of the KPK in South Jakarta on Tuesday (11/5/2026). Budi stated that in the submitted study, KPK encourages BGN, as the leading sector in this programme, to collaborate with other parties such as local governments for field implementation and oversight. This is to ensure that central government policies are carried out effectively, with implementation aligned with the technical applications and policy directions. “So that the benefits enjoyed by the community are optimal without any deviations,” said Budi. For information, KPK conducted a study and monitoring of the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme. KPK identified eight points that need improvement regarding MBG governance. These eight findings from KPK were outlined by the KPK Monitoring Directorate. KPK explained that the large scale of the programme and its budget for MBG are not matched by adequate regulatory frameworks, governance, and oversight mechanisms. “This creates risks of accountability issues, conflicts of interest, inefficiency, and potential criminal acts of corruption in its implementation,” stated the KPK Monitoring Directorate as observed on Friday (17/4). Here are the eight KPK findings related to MBG governance: 1. MBG implementation regulations are inadequate, particularly in regulating programme governance from planning, execution, to cross-ministry/institution and local government oversight. 2. MBG implementation through the Government Assistance (Banper) mechanism creates risks of extended bureaucratic chains, potential rents, and reduced portions of food budgets due to operational and rental cost deductions. 3. A centralistic approach with BGN as the sole actor marginalises the role of local governments and weakens check-and-balance mechanisms in determining partners, kitchen locations, and oversight. 4. High potential for conflicts of interest (CoI) in determining SPPG/kitchen partners due to centralised authority and unclear SOPs. 5. Weak transparency and accountability, especially in the verification and validation processes of partner foundations, kitchen location determination, and financial reporting and accountability. 6. Many kitchens do not meet SPPG technical standards, impacting cases of food poisoning in various regions. 7. Food security oversight is not optimal, with minimal involvement of Health Offices and BPOM according to their authority. 8. No success indicators for the MBG programme, either short-term or long-term, and no baseline measurements of nutritional status and academic achievements of beneficiaries. KPK then provided recommendations related to the MBG programme, namely: • Drafting comprehensive and binding MBG implementation regulations, at least at the level of a Presidential Regulation, to regulate planning, execution, oversight, and role division across ministries/institutions and local governments. • Reviewing the Government Assistance mechanism, including cost structures, implementation chains, and budget component reasonableness, to avoid rents and reduce nutritional service quality. • Implementing a collaborative and limited decentralised approach, strengthening the role of local governments in determining beneficiaries, kitchen locations, and operational oversight. • Clarifying SOPs and SLAs for partner foundation/SPPG determination, ensuring selection, verification, and validation processes are transparent and accountable. • Strengthening food security oversight through active involvement of Health Offices and BPOM in certification, kitchen inspections, and food quality monitoring. • Building standard financial reporting and verification systems to prevent fictitious reports, mark-ups, and fund disbursement deviations. • Establishing measurable MBG success indicators, accompanied by baseline measurements of nutritional status and beneficiary achievements as a basis for ongoing programme impact evaluation.