Food security and poverty in rural of south sumatera


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Food security and poverty in rural of south sumatera

  1. 1. 17/10/2012FOOD SECURITY AND POVERTY INRURAL 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 2012The definition of food securityUU No. 7 Tahun 1996 memberikan definisi tentang ketahananpangan adalah kondisi terpenuhinya pangan bagi rumahtanggayang tercermin dari tersedianya pangan yang cukup, baik jumlahmaupun mutunya, aman, merata dan terjangkau.(Food Law No. 7 of 1996: food security defined as the condition ofthe fulfillment of food for households, as reflected in theavailability of adequate food, both quantity and quality, safe,equitable and affordable) 1
  2. 2. 17/10/2012The definition of food securityThe widely accepted definition is...Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physicaland economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food thatmeets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active andhealthy 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. 3. 17/10/2012The concept of povertyPoverty encompasses different dimensionsof deprivation that related to humancapabilities including consumption and foodsecurity, health, education, rights, voice,security, dignity and decent work (OECD)Interrelated of Food securityand Poverty Poverty Food insecurity, Low productivity hunger and malnutrition Poor physical and cognitive development 3
  4. 4. 17/10/2012 FAO Food Security Framework NATIONAL, SUBNATIONAL AND COMMUNITY LEVEL HOUSEHOLDS INDIVIDUALSSocio-economic, Political, Institutional, Cultural Food Economyand 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. 5. 17/10/2012Some indicator used to measurehousehold 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 CapitaPer 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 54,67Source: BPS, Susenas Modul konsumsi 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, andSusenas Panel 2007-2010 5
  6. 6. 17/10/2012Food 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 standardTabel 2. Share of Food Expenditure By Urban-Rural Classification,South Sumatera 1996 – 2010U-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 56,97Source: BPS, Susenas Modul konsumsi 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, and SusenasPanel 2007-2010 6
  7. 7. 17/10/2012Food 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 foodFood 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. 8. 17/10/2012Share of food expenditure andenergy-intake Food Share Energy Intake < 60 Persen >= 60 Persen > 80 Persen Food Secure Vulnerable Food<= 80 Persen Less Food InsequreFood 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. 9. 17/10/2012Food 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. 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 - 2010Food 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. 11. 17/10/2012Food 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 povertyTo measure poverty, BPS (Statistics Indonesia) uses the conceptof ability to meet basic needs (basic needs approach) (BPS,2008), expresses in poverty lineThe poor are the people who have expenditures below thepoverty line.Poverty line = Food Poverty Line + Non-Food Poverty LineFood Poverty Line is the minimum requirement of foodexpenditure that equivalent to 2100 kilocalories per capita perday. Non-Food Poverty Line is the minimum requirement forhousing, clothing, education, and health. 11
  12. 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 1996-2010Poverty• 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. 13. 17/10/2012Table 3. Poverty Indicators in South Sumatera By Urban-RuralClassification, 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 0,71Source: BPS Sumatera SelatanPoverty• 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. 14. 17/10/2012PovertyAlthough the percentage of poor in South Sumatrahas seen a decline, but still far from the MDGtargets set out the government of Indonesia is 7.5percent 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. 15. 17/10/2012Table 4. Percentage of Poor People and Percentage of Households ByFood 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 16,61Source: 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. 16. 17/10/2012Food 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. 17/10/2012Table 5. Percentage of Households By Poverty Categories and Food SecurityClassifications 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 0,000Source: 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. 18. 17/10/2012Food 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. 19. 17/10/2012Food 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. 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. 21. 17/10/2012Terima Kasih 21