1. 17/10/2012
FOOD SECURITY AND POVERTY IN
RURAL OF SOUTH SUMATERA,
INDONESIA
FAHARUDDIN
SRIWIJAYA UNIVERSITY, PALEMBANG
Presented at:
Malaysia Indonesia International Conference
on Economics, Management and Accounting (MIICEMA) 2012
Palembang, 18th-20th October 2012
The definition of food security
UU No. 7 Tahun 1996 memberikan definisi tentang ketahanan
pangan adalah kondisi terpenuhinya pangan bagi rumahtangga
yang tercermin dari tersedianya pangan yang cukup, baik jumlah
maupun mutunya, aman, merata dan terjangkau.
(Food Law No. 7 of 1996: food security defined as 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)
1

2. 17/10/2012
The definition of food security
The widely accepted definition is...
Food security exists when 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
healthy life (FAO, 1996)
Four aspects of food security
• Food availability: the availability of sufficient quantities
of food of appropriate quality, supplied through domestic
production or imports
• Food access: access by individual to adequate resources
for acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet
• Food utilization: utilitization of food through adequate
diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a
state of nutritional well-being where all physicological
needs are met
• Food stability: to be food secure, popolation, household
or individual must have access to adequate food at all
times
2

3. 17/10/2012
The concept of poverty
Poverty encompasses different dimensions
of deprivation that related to human
capabilities including consumption and food
security, health, education, rights, voice,
security, dignity and decent work (OECD)
Interrelated of Food security
and Poverty
Poverty
Food insecurity,
Low productivity hunger and
malnutrition
Poor physical and
cognitive
development
3

4. 17/10/2012
FAO Food Security Framework
NATIONAL, SUBNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY LEVEL HOUSEHOLDS INDIVIDUALS
Socio-economic, Political,
Institutional, Cultural Food Economy
and Natural Environment
Households
(vulnerability context) Livelihood Strategies,
Assets & Activities
Food Availability
Domestic production Food
Import capacity Consumption
Population Food Stock, food aid Household Food Energy intake
Education Access Nutrient
Macro Economy
intake
Natural Resources Stability
Basic Sevices Weather variability Care Practices
Child care Consumption
Market Conditions Price fluctuations
Feeding practices Status
Technology Political factors
Climate Economic factors Nutritional
knowledge Nutritional
Civil Strife
Eating habits Status
HH Characteristics
Livelihood systems Access to Food Intra-household food
Social institutions Poverty distribution Food
Cultural attitudes and Purchasing Power, Utilisation
gender Income, Transport and Health and Sanitation
Market Infrastructure Health care practices Determined
Hygiene, Sanitation, by: Health
Water quality, Food status
safety & quality
Household Food Security
Indicator
Indicators of household food security can be
classified into two groups: process indicators and
outcome indicators Maxwell and Frankenberger
(1992)
• Process indicators describe food supplies and
access to food
• Outcome indicators consist of the direct
indicators and indirect indicators
4

5. 17/10/2012
Some indicator used to measure
household food security
• Nutrient content in household food consumption,
especially calorie and protein
• According to the Widayakarya Pangan dan Gizi VII
(National Workshop on Food and Nutrient) of 2004, the
nutrient adequacy at the individual level is for calorie
intake of 2000 kcal / day and protein intake by 52 grams /
day
• Share of food expenditures on overall household
expenditures
• Combination 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 (Jonsson and Toole (1991) in
Maxwell et al. (2000))
Table 1 . Average of Energy and Protein Intake Per Capita
Per Day, South Sumatera 1996 – 2010
Energy and Protein
1996 1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010
Intake
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
A. ENERGY (kcal)
Urban 2.008,5 1.828,7 1.864,5 1.905,8 2.004,8 2.021,98 1.923,12 1.940,42
Rural 2.173,8 1.918,6 2.002,8 2.035,0 2.091,9 2.159,63 2.035,09 2.019,84
Total 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 57,28 47,42 51,80 56,05 60,37 57,27 54,62 55,74
Rural 55,54 47,02 49,02 53,69 56,85 56,60 52,98 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
5

6. 17/10/2012
Food Security
• The average energy and protein intake consumed by the
population of South Sumatera is likely to increase in the
period 1999 to 2008
• 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
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
6

7. 17/10/2012
Food Security
• The share of food expenditure of the population in South
Sumatera tended to decrease over time
• In the year 1996-1999 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 - 2010 the share of food expenditure went up
• Decline in the share of food expenditure is an indication of
improving the welfare of the population as Engel Law says and
also suggests the improvement of food security at household
level in South Sumatera
• And on the contrary, the decrease in the share suggests the
the deterioration of household food security due to the
decreasing ability of the household economy, so most of the
income used to buy food
Food Security
• 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.
• But, the share of food consumption in rural areas is
greater than urban, means that the economy of the rural
population is lower.
7

8. 17/10/2012
Share of food expenditure and
energy-intake
Food Share
Energy
Intake
< 60 Persen >= 60 Persen
> 80 Persen Food Secure Vulnerable
Food
<= 80 Persen Less Food
Insequre
Food Security
• Household food secure has the ability to meet the adequate
energy-intake 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).
• Household less food 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
8

9. 17/10/2012
Food Security
Based on the above criteria (Jonsson and Toole)
then households in South Sumatera 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.).
2007 2008
50,26
46,70
45,78
44,46 2009 2010
34,71
34,60
30,81
27,54
14,20
13,96
11,11 11,59
8,30
7,92 8,24 9,83
Food Secure Vulnerable Less Food Food Insecure
Figure 1. Percentage of Households By Food Security
Classification, South Sumatera 2007 - 2010
9

10. 17/10/2012
60,91 2007 2008
54,35
53,15 2009 2010
51,56
28,81
28,56
26,06
18,88 16,61
14,56
13,20
7,16 5,09 12,47
5,04
3,61
Food Secure Vulnerable Less Food Food
Insecure
Figure 2. Percentage of Households By Food Security
Classification, Rural of South Sumatera 2007 - 2010
Food Security In Rural SS
• In rural areas (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
10

11. 17/10/2012
Food Security In Rural SS
• 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)
Measurement of poverty
To measure poverty, BPS (Statistics Indonesia) uses the concept
of ability to meet basic needs (basic needs approach) (BPS,
2008), expresses in poverty line
The poor are the people who have expenditures below the
poverty line.
Poverty line = Food Poverty Line + Non-Food Poverty Line
Food Poverty Line is the minimum requirement of food
expenditure that equivalent to 2100 kilocalories per capita per
day. Non-Food Poverty Line is the minimum requirement for
housing, clothing, education, and health.
11

12. 17/10/2012
1.600 40
1.400 35
1.200 30
1.000
23,8722,49 25
21,5420,9221,0120,99
19,1517,73
800 17,04 16,2815,47 20
600 15
400 10
200 5
0 0
Number Percentage
Figure 3. Number and Percentage of Poor People,
South Sumatera 1996-2010
Poverty
• In the period 1999 - 2010 the percentage of poor
in South Sumatra tends to decrease, despite a
decrease in the period 2002-2005 the
percentage of poor people is not statistically
significant
• Since 2006, the percentage of poor people
consistently decreased
12

13. 17/10/2012
Table 3. Poverty Indicators in South Sumatera By Urban-Rural
Classification, March 2007 - March 2010
Indicators / March March March March
Urban-Rural Classification 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percentage of Poor People (P0)
Urban 20,30 18,87 16,93 16,73
Rural 18,43 17,01 15,87 14,67
Total 19,15 17,73 16,28 15,47
Poverty Gap Index (P1)
Urban 4,92 3,82 3,68 2,72
Rural 3,16 2,73 2,67 2,57
Total 3,84 3,15 3,06 2,63
Poverty Severity Index (P2)
Urban 1,63 1,20 1,16 0,71
Rural 0,83 0,64 0,67 0,71
Total 1,14 0,85 0,86 0,71
Source: BPS Sumatera Selatan
Poverty
• 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.
13

14. 17/10/2012
Poverty
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
percent in 2015 (Bappenas, 2007).
Food Security and Poverty
• 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.
14

15. 17/10/2012
Table 4. Percentage of Poor People and Percentage of Households By
Food Security Classifications in Rural South Sumatera, 2007 – 2010
Percentage of Households
Percentage
Year of Poor
People Food Food
Vulnerable Less Food
Secure 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
Source: Calculated from Susenas Panel, 2007 – 2010.
Food Security and Poverty
• The relationship between poverty and food
security in South Sumatera at the macro level are
presented in Table 4.
• 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
15

16. 17/10/2012
Food Security and Poverty
• In the period 2007 - 2010 the percentage of poor
households in rural South Sumatera 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.
Food Security and Poverty
• 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.
16

17. 17/10/2012
Table 5. Percentage of Households By Poverty Categories and Food Security
Classifications in Rural of South Sumatera, 2010
Percentage of Households
Poverty
Indicators
Categories Food Less Food
Vulnerable Total
Secure Food Insecure
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
N 0 46 9 90 145
Poor
(% Row) (0,0) (31,7) (6,2) (62,1) (100,0)
N 225 680 34 108 1.047
Non Poor
(% Row) (21,5) (64,9) (3,2) (10,3) (100,0)
N 225 726 43 198 1.192
Total
(% Row) (18,9) (60,9) (3,6) (16,6) (100,0)
Note:
The Chi-Square statistics is 262,7 with degree of freedom 3 and p-value 0,000
Source: Calculated from Susenas Panel 2010.
Food Security and Poverty
• 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 non-poor 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 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.
17

18. 17/10/2012
Food Security and Poverty
• 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.
Food Security and Poverty
• 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.
18

19. 17/10/2012
Food Security and Poverty
• 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.
Conclusion
• The relationship between poverty and food security is
very strong in the rural South Sumatera, 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.
19

20. 17/10/2012
• 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.
20

21. 17/10/2012
Terima Kasih
21