PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

FOOD SECURITY AND POVERTY IN RURAL OF SOUTH SUMATERA, INDONESIA Faharuddin (Doctoral Student of Agribusiness of Sriwijaya University, Palembang) Andy Mulyana (Head of Agriculture Doctoral Program of Sriwijaya University, Palembang)

ABSTRACT Food security development is very strategic in strengthening rural economic development and poverty alleviation since most of national food productions yielded by small-scaled farmers in rural area. This paper aim is to analyze the relationship between poverty and household food security in rural of South Sumatera, Indonesia. In micro level, we found that there is a significant relationship between poverty and household food security in rural of South Sumatera. Poor household have more risk to become food-insecure and on the contrary, non-poor households tend to be foodsecure. However, the proportion of vulnerable households within non-poor households are found too high where those vulnerable households can sometime be turned into a category food insecure if there is not enough food available in the area level. Keywords: food security, poverty, rural, South Sumatera

KETAHANAN PANGAN DAN KEMISKINAN DI PEDESAAN SUMATERA SELATAN

ABSTRAK Pembangunan ketahanan pangan sangat strategis untuk memperkuat ekonomi pedesaan dan mengentaskan masyarakat dari kemiskinan karena sebagian besar produksi pangan nasional dilaksanakan oleh petani dengan skala usaha kecil di pedesaan. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk melihat keterkaitan antara kemiskinan dengan ketahanan pangan rumahtangga di pedesaan Sumatera Selatan. Pada tingkat mikro, terdapat keterkaitan yang erat antara kemiskinan dan ketahanan pangan di pedesaan Sumatera Selatan. Rumahtangga yang miskin cenderung rawan pangan sebaliknya rumahtangga yang tidak miskin cenderung lebih tahan pangan. Namun demikian, persentase rumahtangga rentan pangan pada kelompok rumahtangga tidak miskin cukup tinggi di mana cukup banyak rumahtangga tidak miskin terkategori rentan pangan sehingga sewaktu-waktu dapat berubah menjadi kategori rawan pangan jika pasokan pangan yang ada kurang mencukupi. Kata Kunci: Ketahanan Pangan, Kemiskinan, Pedesaan, Sumatera Selatan

858

PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

1.

Introduction The issue of food security is now a global issue through which the MDGs have been agreed internationally in 2000, it was determined that one of the millennium development goals is the eradication of poverty and hunger. The two main targets to be achieved in eradicating poverty and hunger are to reduce proportion of people whose income is below US$ 1 per day to be halved in the period 1990-2015 and reduce the proportion of people suffering from hunger by half in the period 1990 to 2015 (UNDG, 2003). Nationwide also has established indicators of achievement of the MDGs targets by 2015, including those relating to food security (Bappenas, 2007). The main goal of food security development in Indonesia is to ensure the availability and consumption of food is sufficient, safe, quality, and nutritionally balanced at the household level, regional, national and evenly over time (DKP, 2009). Given the food is also economic commodities, then its development is associated with market opportunities and increased competitiveness, which is formed of area-specific advantages, superior quality and efficiency with the application of innovative technologies. Furthermore, because of national food production mostly undertaken by small-scale farmers in poor rural communities, the development strategy of food security is to strengthen the rural economy and poverty alleviation. Poverty and food security have a closely relationship. The dimensions of poverty include limitations in terms of human capabilities including food, shelter, clothing, health, education, rights, and in terms of job security. Poverty arose because of the gap between the availability of essential resources to the ability of individuals or households to meet basic needs. Because food insecurity is one aspect of poverty, then the development strategies of food security is also part of poverty reduction strategies (Gross, 2002). 2.

Food Security Food security became popular since the food crisis and famine in the early decades of the 70's (FAO, 2003). Food security term was first used by the UN in 1971 to build an international commitment in addressing food and hunger in Africa and Asia. Understanding of food security initially focused on the conditions of subsistence. United Nations defines food security is an enough food availability at any time and can offset fluctuations in consumption and prices. In 1986 the World Bank defines food security as the access to adequate food by the population in order to perform the activity and a healthy life. Later in the Rome Declaration on World Food Security endorsed at the World Food Summit in 1996, agreed upon definition of food security as a condition in which all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and health life (FAO, 1996). Food Law no. 7 of 1996 also provides a definition of food security is the condition of the fulfillment of food for households, as reflected in the availability of adequate food, both quantity and quality, safe, equitable and affordable. The definition of food security above imply four aspects of food security, namely availability, access, utilization and stability. Food availability is the availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate qualities, supplied through domestic production or imports. Food access is access by individuals to adequate resources to acquire appropriate foods for a nutritious diets. Food utilization is utilization of food

859

PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care. Stability is the stability of the other three dimensions over time. Many indicators are used to look at food security at household level. Maxwell and Frankenberger (1992) classify the various indicators of household food security in two groups: process indicators and outcome indicators. Process indicators describe food supplies and access to food, while the outcome indicators consist of the direct indicators and indirect indicators. However, there is no single best indicator to measure the household food security (Maxwell et al, 2000), so in this paper used a number of indicators taking into account data availability and ease of calculation. One commonly used indicator is the nutrient content in household food consumption, especially calories. According to the Widayakarya Pangan dan Gizi VII (National Workshop of Food and Nutrient) of 2004, the rate of nutrient adequacy at the individual level is for calorie intake of 2000 kcal / day and protein intake by 52 grams / day. This indicator measures the level of food sufficiency in terms of quantity, and quality of food consumption. Share of food expenditures on overall household expenditures is one of the other indicators of household food security. Under conditions of limited incomes, households use income to meet their food needs first, so that in low-income groups will be seen that most of the income used to buy food. Along with increased revenue, then it will gradually shift the decrease in the portion of income spent on food and increased portion of income spent on food instead. Shift in the composition and pattern of expenditure was due to the elasticity of demand for food is generally low, while the elasticity of demand for non-food needs is relatively higher. This implies that higher share of food expenditures means that the level of household food security diminished. This study also used a combined of the two indicators: share of food expenditure and energy-intake to classify household food security into four categories: food-secure, vulnerable, less food and food insecure. The threshold that we used here is 80 percent of the energy adequacy standards combined with the share of food expenditure 60 percent of total household expenditures, following Jonsson and Toole (1991) in Maxwell et al. (2000). Household that have food share 60 percent or less and the adequacy of energyintake above 80 percent categorized as food secure, and if the share of food is above 60 percent and energy-intake over 80 percent of standard categorized as vulnerable, and if the food share is 60 percent or less and the adequacy of energy-intake is 80 percent or less categorized as less food and household having a share of over 60 percent of food and adequacy of energy-intake 80 percent or below categorized as food insecurity. Table 1 gives a trend of average energy and protein intake of the population of South Sumatera period 1996 to 2010. In general, the average energy and protein intake consumed by the population of South Sumatera is likely to increase in the period 1999 to 2008. This increase is one indication of increased in household food security in particular the degree of compliance with the quantity of food consumption of the population. In 2009 the average consumption of energy and protein in South Sumatra declined. In 2010 the average energy consumption in Sumatera Selatan was under the national standard, instead of protein intake was above the national standard. In general, the proportion of food expenditure of the population in South Sumatera tended to decrease over time. In Table 2., it appears that in the year 19961999 the proportion has increased as a result of the economic crisis in Indonesia since 1998. The share of food expenditure fell back in 2002 - 2007, whereas in the year 2008

860

PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

- 2010 the share of food expenditure went up. Decline in the share of course in addition to an indication of improving the welfare of the population as mentioned above, also suggests the improvement of food security at household level in South Sumatra. In contrast to an increase in the share of food expenditure to watch the deterioration of household food security due to the decreasing ability of the household economy, so most of the income used to buy food. In rural areas the food consumption more on foods that have high energy content, while the population in urban areas consume more on foods that have high protein content. However, the average food consumption in rural areas are still above the national standard of nutritional adequacy of both energy and protein consumption. The share of food consumption in rural areas is greater than urban, means that the economy of the rural population is lower. Categorization is based on household food security conditions used here has meaning as follows. Household food secure has the ability to meet the adequate energyintake in addition to having economically access to sufficient food also has a good quality of consumption. Vulnerable households has met the standard conditions of energy sufficiency in the household but the household income is relatively low so that equally harmful to food shortages (low access to food economically). While the less food households have economic access to food but have a low quality of food consumption. Food-insecure households have low access to food both physically and economically, and do not meet the standards of nutritional adequacy. Based on the above criteria then households in South Sumatra in 2010 were categorized as follows: 27.54 percent of the households were food secured, 50.26 percent of households vulnerable to food insecurity, 8.24 percent of household were less food and 13.96 percent food-insecure households (Fig. 1.). Whereas in rural areas in 2010, 18.88 percent of households food secure, 60.91 percent of households vulnerable, 3.61 percent households less food and food-insecure households16.61 percent. In the period 2007 - 2010, the percentage of households less food and food tends to decrease, whereas the percentage of vulnerable households and food insecurity households is likely to increase. Although household food insecurity is relatively small, the percentage of households vulnerable to food insecurity is quite high. The high number of vulnerable food should be wary because of poor household access to food is mainly due to the economic aspects (low purchasing power parity). 3.

Poverty To measure poverty, BPS (Statistics Indonesia) uses the concept of ability to meet basic needs (basic needs approach). With this approach, poverty is seen as the economic inability to meet the basic needs of food and non-food as measured from the expenditure side (BPS, 2008). The method used is to calculate the poverty line, which consists of two components, namely the Food Poverty Line and Non-Food Poverty Line. Food Poverty Line is the minimum requirement of food expenditure is equivalent to 2100 kilocalories per capita per day. Non-Food Poverty Line is the minimum requirement for housing, clothing, education, and health. The poor are the people who have expenditures below the poverty line. In the period 1999 - 2010 in general the percentage of poor in South Sumatra tends to decrease, despite a decrease in the period 2002-2005 the percentage of poor

861

PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

people is not statistically significant (Faharuddin, 2008). Since 2006, the percentage of poor people consistently decreased (Fig. 3.). The poverty rate is not only measured by the percentage of poor population (P0), but also measured by the poverty gap index (P1) and poverty severity index (P2) which is a family of three FGT index (Foster, et al, 1984). Poverty gap index indicates the extent to which expenditure gap of the poor and the poverty line, while the severity of poverty index shows the level of expenditure inequality among the poor themselves. FGT indices according to the rural-urban classification of the South Sumatra 2007-2010 period are presented in Table 3. The percentage of poor people has decreased in the period 2007-2010 in terms of the three indicators, both in urban and rural areas. Poor people in rural areas have a smaller percentage than urban although more numerous as the number of residents in rural of South Sumatera reached 60 percent of the population. The depth and severity of poverty in rural areas is also lower than in urban areas. Although the percentage of poor in South Sumatra has seen a decline, but still far from the MDG targets set out the government of Indonesia is 7.5 per cent in 2015 (Bappenas, 2007).

4.

Food Security and Poverty in Rural of South Sumatera Poverty is indirectly an indication of the weakness of the compliance of food needs at the household level either because of low incomes or because the uneven distribution of food that makes them food-insecure. The relationship between poverty and food security in South Sumatra at the macro level are presented in Table 4. We see that the percentage of poor households is almost equivalent to the percentage of households less food and food insecure. For example in 2007 the percentage of poor people was 18.43 percent while in the same year the percentage of households less food and food insecure at 19.63 percent. In the period 2007 - 2010 the percentage of poor households in rural South Sumatra has a declining trend, from 18.43 percent in 2007 to 117.01 percent in 2008, 15.87 percent in 2009 and 14.67 percent in 2010. However, the decrease in the percentage reduction in poverty do not necessarily represent the increase in food security conditions in South Sumatra. In 2007, the percentage of households less food and food insecure at 19.63 percent. This figure dropped to 18.29 percent in 2008, but again rose to 19.60 percent in 2009 and 20.22 percent in 2010. Decline in poverty in South Sumatra period 2007 - 2010 describes the improved condition of the economy during this period. On the other hand, household food security in addition to be affected by economic conditions (economically access to food) is also influenced by other factors such as availability and distribution of food. Therefore, the improved economic conditions in general not guarantee increased food security conditions if not accompanied by food supply and its distribution is uneven across the region. To see the relationship between poverty and food security at the micro level (households), we performed a cross tabulation between the poor status of the household food security status and continued with the Chi-Square test. Poor households and nonpoor households do not have the obvious difference in food security conditions. Most of poor households categorized food insecure and not found at all poor households that are

862

PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

food-secured. While more than one-fifth of the non-poor household categorized food secure and only a few of them (10.3 percent) are categorized food insecure. In all categories there are very much difference in food security level among poor households than non-poor households. The percentage of food secure households in a group of poor households by 0.0 percent while in non-poor households, the percentage of food secure households reached 21.5 percent. In contrast, in the category of food insecure households, percentage of poor households reached 62.1 percent while non-poor households only 10.3 percent. The above results indicate that there is a strong correlation between poverty and food security. Poor households tend to be food insecure otherwise, non-poor households tend to be more to food secure. In other words, poor household have a greater risk to become household food insecure than non-poor household. By using the Chi-Square test also concluded a highly significant relationship between the value of Chi-Square statistic is very large, namely 262.7 with 3 degrees of freedom and p-value of 0.000. However, more closely observed we will note that, the percentage of vulnerable households within the non-poor households is very high, reaching 64.9 percent. This means that nearly a third of non-poor households are actually categorized vulnerable where can sometimes be turned into a category of food insecure if food supplies are insufficient. Vulnerable households means the condition of the household can still meet the minimum requirement of nutritional adequacy but due to the economic conditions of households are just barely able to lead them into categories of food insecurity when there are changes in food distribution and food prices. The solutions that can be done are improving the household economy in order to increase the ability of households to buy food. 5.

Conclusion The relationship between poverty and food security is very strong in the rural South Sumatra, because of poverty leading to high risk households to be food-insecure households. Poor households tend to be food insecure otherwise, non-poor households tend to be more to food secure. However, percentage of vulnerable households within non-poor households are found too high where those vulnerable household can sometime be turned into a category food insecure if there is not enough food available in the area level. The macro dimensions of food security are economic growth, income distribution and stability of food prices. At the macro level, the strategies achieving food security (especially in rural areas) should include the development of rural economy and agricultural development to stimulate economic growth, poverty alleviation and price stability (Timmer, 2000). Increased productivity in agriculture is driven by the investment of rural infrastructure, irrigation and subsidies to farmers or pricing policy will have a direct impact to economic growth, poverty reduction and price stability. On the micro level (households), to achieve household food security needs to be improved economic access to food through increasing in purchasing power parity. This is also related to the macroeconomic aspects, such a wage policy. High wages would increase workers' earnings, so help them out of poverty or increase their purchasing power parity.

863

PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

Bibliography Bappenas (2007). Laporan Pencapaian Millenium Development Goals Indonesia 2007. Jakarta, Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional. BPS (2008). Analisis dan Penghitungan Tingkat Kemiskinan 2008. Jakarta, Badan Pusat Statistik. DKP (2009). Kebijakan Umum Ketahanan Pangan 2010-2014. Jakarta. Dewan Ketahanan Pangan Faharuddin (2008). Analisis Stochastic Dominance untuk Perbandingan Tingkat Kemiskinan di Sumatera Selatan tahun 2002 – 2005. Tesis S2, Instutut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya. Tidak Dipublikasikan. FAO (1996). World Food Summit. Rome Declaration on Wood Food Security. Foster, J. E., J. Greer, and E . Thorbecke (1984). A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures," Econornetrica, Vol. 52, hal. 761-776 Gross, R (2002). Food and Nutrition Security in Poverty Alleviation: Concepts, Strategies and Experiences at the German Agency for Technical Cooperation. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrients Vol. 11(Suppl), hal. S341-S347. LIPI (2008). Prosiding Widyakarya Pangan dan Gizi VIII. Tahun 2004 Timmer, C. Peter (2000). The Macro Dimensions of Food Security: Economic Growth, Equitable Distribution and Food Price Stability. Food Policy, Vol. 25, hal. 283295. Maxwell and Frankenberger (1992). Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicator, Measurements. A Technical Review. UNICEF-IFAD. Maxwell dkk (2000). Urban Livelihoods and Food and Nutrition Security. International Food Policy Research Institute In Colaboration With Noguchi Memorial Institute For Medical Research World Health Organization. UNDG, 2003. Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals. New York. United Nations.

864

PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

Table 1 .

Average of Energy and Protein Intake Per Capita Per Day, South Sumatera 1996 – 2010

Energy and Protein Intake (1) A. ENERGY (kilocalorie) Urban Rural Total

1996

1999

2002

2005

2007

2008

2009

2010

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

2.008,5 1.828,7 1.864,5 1.905,8 2.004,8 2.021,98 1.923,12 1.940,42 2.173,8 1.918,6 2.002,8 2.035,0 2.091,9 2.159,63 2.035,09 2.019,84 2.123,6 1.891,1 1.953,9 1.990,3 2.058,2 2.106,36 1.991,76 1.989,11

B. PROTEIN (gram) Urban Rural

57,28 55,54

47,42 47,02

51,80 49,02

56,05 53,69

60,37 56,85

57,27 56,60

54,62 52,98

55,74 54,00

Total

56,06

47,14

50,00

54,51

58,21

56,86

53,62

54,67

Source: BPS, Susenas Modul konsumsi 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, and Susenas Panel 2007-2010

Tabel 2.

Share of Food Expenditure By Urban-Rural Classification, South Sumatera 1996 – 2010

U-R Classification

1996

1999

2002

2005

2007

2008

2009

2010

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Urban

53,76

63,96

55,81

50,03

49,88

50,20

50,53

51,02

Rural

70,23

74,28

71,64

68,32

57,33

58,76

62,06

62,36

Total

62,95

70,36

63,75

59,62

53,83

54,80

56,46

56,97

Source: BPS, Susenas Modul konsumsi 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, and Susenas Panel 2007-2010

865

PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

50,26 46,70 45,78 44,46 34,71 34,60 30,81 27,54

2007

2008

2009

2010

60,91 54,35 53,15 51,56

2008

2009

2010

28,56 28,81 26,06 14,20 13,96 11,11 8,30 11,59 7,92 8,249,83

Food Secure

2007

Vulnerable Less Food

18,88

Food Insecure

Food Secure

Figure 1. Percentage of Households By Food Security Classification, South Sumatera 2007 2010

16,61 14,56 13,20 12,47 7,16 5,09 5,04 3,61

Vulnerable Less Food

Figure 2. Percentage of Households By Food Security Classification, Rural of South Sumatera 2007 - 2010

Source: Calculated from Susenas Panel 2007-2010 2.000 1.500 1.000

40 23,87 22,49 21,54 20,92 21,01 20,99 19,15 17,73 17,04 16,28 15,47

500

30 20 10

0

0

Number

Percentage

Figure 3. Number and Percentage of Poor People, South Sumatera 1996-2010 Table 3. Poverty Indicators in South Sumatera By Urban-Rural Classification, March 2007 - March 2010 Indicators / Urban-Rural Classification

March 2007

March 2008

March 2009

March 2010

20,30 18,43 19,15

18,87 17,01 17,73

16,93 15,87 16,28

16,73 14,67 15,47

4,92 3,16 3,84

3,82 2,73 3,15

3,68 2,67 3,06

2,72 2,57 2,63

1,63 0,83 1,14

1,20 0,64 0,85

1,16 0,67 0,86

0,71 0,71 0,71

Percentage of Poor People (P0) Urban Rural Total Poverty Gap Index (P1) Urban Rural Total Poverty Severity Index (P2) Urban Rural Total Source: BPS Sumatera Selatan

Food Insecure

866

PROCEEDING The 13th Malaysia Indonesia Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012

Table 4. Percentage of Poor People and Percentage of Households By Food Security Classifications in Rural South Sumatera, 2007 – 2010

Percentage of Households

Percentage of Poor People

Food Secure

Vulnerable

Less Food

Food Insecure

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2007

18,43

28,81

51,56

7,16

12,47

2008

17,01

28,56

53,15

5,09

13,20

2009

15,87

26,06

54,35

5,04

14,56

2010

14,67

18,88

60,91

3,61

16,61

Year

Source: Calculated from Susenas Panel, 2007 – 2010. Table 5. Percentage of Households By Poverty Categories and Food Security Classifications in Rural of South Sumatera, 2010 Percentage of Households

Poverty Categories

Indicators

(1)

(2)

Food Secure (3)

Vulnerabl e (4)

(5)

Food Insecure (6)

Poor

N (% Row)

0 (0,0)

46 (31,7)

9 (6,2)

90 (62,1)

145 (100,0)

Non Poor

N (% Row)

225 (21,5)

680 (64,9)

34 (3,2)

108 (10,3)

1.047 (100,0)

Total

N (% Row)

225 (18,9)

726 (60,9)

43 (3,6)

198 (16,6)

1.192 (100,0)

Less Food

Note: The Chi-Square statistics is 262,7 with degree of freedom 3 and p-value 0,000 Source: Calculated from Susenas Panel 2010.

867

Total (7)