1. Background
It is recognized that household food security could impact individual nutritional status, and thus, their wellbeing. In Indonesia, it is thus essential to periodically monitor the impact of the global financial crisis and another wave of high food prices on vulnerable populations.
In June 2009, for the first time, a Food and Nutrition Security Monitoring System (FNSMS) at the household level was established in Indonesia. It is expected to be an important tool for the Government for early warning and timely response planning. The FNSMS is led by the Central Food Security Agency. It is implemented by the Food Security Offices of four provinces in 20 districts vulnerable to food insecurity. All districts are located in four islands (East Java, Nusa Tengara Timur or NTT, Central Sulawesi and West Kalimantan). The districts were selected based on the 2005 Indonesia Food Insecurity Atlas. In each province, 250 households living at 10 villages are periodically monitored. Data on household food security are collected on a quarterly basis while data on nutritional status of children under–five and their mothers are collected twice a year.
Four quarterly provincial FSNMS Bulletins will be produced during the pilot phase (May 2009 –May 2010) of the FNSMS. This first Bulletin presents food security data collected from 250 households in 5 selected districts (Parigi Mountong, Buol, Donggala, Morowali and Banggai Kapulauan) of the Central Sulawesi province from mid June to mid July 2009.
The Pilot FNSMS is jointly supported by WFP, UNICEF and ILO. It also benefits technical advice from the National Statistics Agency (BPS), SEAMEO TROPMED, University of Indonesia and Bogor Agriculture University.
2. Highlights
- Overall, 14% of all surveyed households were food insecure, 36% vulnerable and 50% food secure. A higher proportion of food insecure households were found in rural (22%) than in urban area (6%).
- More food insecure and vulnerable households were found among households without regular earnings such as agricultural wage laborers as well as amongst those depending on remittance, sellers of food crops, vegetables or fruits, and nonagriculture skilled wage laborers.
- In both areas, food insecurity was mainly attributed to limited food access due to irregular and low remuneration cash income but also to limited ownership of assets and to low access to land. Moreover, in urban area, as compared to food secure households, a high proportion of food insecure were using cooking fuels other than wood and experienced difficulties in the last three months.
- Unemployment rate was 4% and it was higher in urban (9%) than in rural area(0%). School absenteeism was reported among 23% of households, and it was higher in rural area. The main reason of school absenteeism was official holidays. In total, 1% of households engaged school age children (SAC) in income earning activities, mostly in household chores and agriculture and fishing sector. Out–migration was revealed at 1.2% and in–migration was at 0.8%. Households food security did not vary with unemployment rate, schools absenteeism, out– and in–migration or with SAC engagement in earning activities.
- Between April and June 2009, 30% of rural and 47% of urban households experienced difficulties such as very limited cash, high food prices, sickness/health expenditure.
- Food insecurity in rural area was likely to be chronic than transitory and it was associated with structural factors. In urban setting, it seems to be associated with both, structural and temporary factors.
- When facing difficulties to get food or to cover other essential expenditures, the households opted for short–term strategies to acquire food while seeking to protect their livelihoods. They mainly sought for additional jobs, they changed consumption pattern or they reduced expenditure on health care. Households who struggled the most with food acquisition were those engaged in the sale of vegetables/fruits.
- Government's Subsidized Rice for the Poor program (RASKIN) provided assistance to 60% of households while 33% of them benefited from the Cash Transfer program (BLT). For both programmes, the coverage was higher coverage in rural area. Although these programs might help food insecure households in the short term, they likely have limited impact on root causes.
