Rifky Pratama Wicaksono – Feeding millions is the easy part. Ensuring it changes lives is the real challenge. That is the core obstacle facing the Indonesian government's ambitious Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program, which has been running since January 2025.
The budget allocation for this program is enormous, so the government needs to anticipate risks related to accountability and transparency that could have severe outcomes for MBG's sustainability in the long-term, as well as for the nation's fiscal position and public trust, jeopardising the goals of the program.
According to the state budget (APBN) expenditure figures as of March 12, 2025, the MBG program had by then reached 2,053,248 people, through 726 Nutrition Fulfillment Service Units (SPPG). However, the government intends the program to serve 82.9 million beneficiaries by the end of 2025, a target that has sharply increased from the original target for this period of 17.9 million people.
This scale-up is extremely ambitious – and expensive. With a projected budget requirement of Rp171 trillion by the end of 2025 against an initial allocation of only Rp71 trillion, the government needs to cover a deficit of around Rp100 trillion.
While the purpose of the program deserves applause, its implementation has raised many questions. Is it accountable? More importantly, is it making a difference?
Quantity matters more than impacts
A study by The Center for Indonesian Strategic Development Initiatives (CISDI) has found that the formulation of evidence-based policies in the course of planning the MBG program has not been conducted as well as it should have.
According to CISDI, the lack of access to the MBG program's initial impact assessment study and cost-benefit analysis results are proof of this. In addition, the method for determining the average price units and target groups of the MBG program has not been transparent. It is concerning that a program of this gigantic size is underway without sufficient consultation with experts, academics and the community.
The government's tendency to significantly expand the number of beneficiaries in this initial stage also indicates that the MBG program is quantity-oriented without assessing needs and impact, especially in the Underdeveloped, Frontier, and Outermost (3T) areas.
It would seem obvious that the government should focus on implementing MBG in areas with the poorest access to food and lowest food quality. However, the key engine of the program, the National Nutrition Agency (BGN), has stated that the MBG program is not being delivered in the 3T areas because partners are finding it difficult to establish communal kitchens.
According to the government, funds freed up by 'efficiency cuts' to the state budget (APBN) of to Rp306.69 trillion (mandated by Presidential Instruction 1 of 2025 on Spending Efficiency in the Implementation of the 2025 State and Regional Budgets) are intended as a reserve for funding priority needs, including MBG.
While the cuts aim to create fiscal optimisation and reduction of official travel and ceremonial activities, a Rp50.59 trillion cut in payments to regions (TKD) has the potential to hinder key local development programs and deepening existing inequalities, making MBG delivery in 3T areas even more difficult.
The budget changes prompt concerns about the long-term sustainability of the MBG program. Without a clear and measurable financing strategy, this program risks becoming a long-term fiscal burden.
Why stronger public oversight matters
Additionally, it becomes challenging to gauge the social effectiveness of each Rupiah spent if expansion of coverage is not accompanied by impact evaluation, increased accountability, and efficient distribution. The MBG program will lose public legitimacy if the targeted outputs do not align with the actual results on the ground.
To ensure sustainability and long-term effectiveness, the implementation of the MBG program must be evidence-based, supported by regular cost-benefit analysis, and it must prioritize target groups that are most in need. If not, it risks becoming a short-term political project that sacrifices fiscal stability and other equally important development achievements.
Public money should only be spent to create real change. In the case of MBG, every Rupiah spent should contribute to improving nutritional status, student attendance, and learning achievements. Therefore, performance indicators based on results are absolutely necessary – not just the quantity of food distributed, but also measurable, gradual impact on the quality of life of Indonesian children.
To make the MBG program more effective and accountable, the government must integrate oversight from the design stage to implementation. This should include state oversight institutions such as the Supreme Audit Board (BPK), the Financial and Development Supervisory Board (BPKP), the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), and the Attorney General's Office (AGO). Transparent real-time dashboards are also needed, as is the integration of data from national education databases and regarding stunting prevalence. Civil society participation through organisations like Indonesia Corruption Watch and youth-led initiative such as Think Policy is also vital.
Public participation to surveil the design, monitoring, and evaluation processes of MBG is crucial to ensure that this program is not solely top-down. Community feedback schemes, safe and accessible whistleblowing channels, and scheduled performance reporting would help create an active participation space. They would allow the public to voice concerns, exchange ideas, and oversee the government's accountability in fulfilling its promises. Community involvement not only enhances transparency, but can also foster a sense of belonging and responsibility, thus reinforcing the legitimacy of the program.
The MBG program is an investment, not just an expense. But like any investment, it demands strong governance, before, during, and after implementation. It is about more than just feeding children. It is also about planting the seeds of hope for Indonesia's planned 'golden generation'. Without accountability embedded in every layer, this investment could fail to yield results.
[The opinions expressed in this article are his own and do not represent the official stance of his institutions.]