FOOD SOVEREIGNTY UNDER PRABOWO : BETWEEN AMBITION AND EXECUTION

By KUSNANDAR & CO., Attorneys at Law – Jakarta, INDONESIA

 

The administration of President Prabowo Subianto has launched an ambitious effort to secure Indonesia’s food future. For the first time in years, the national budget for food security has seen a substantial increase. In the 2026 State Budget (RAPBN), the government allocated Rp164.4 trillion (approximately USD 10.6 billion) specifically for food security programs—an 18 percent increase from the previous year. This isn’t just a budgetary increase; it’s a political signal: Indonesia is determined to stand on its own feet when it comes to feeding its people.

 

The allocation covers various aspects of the food system, including increasing agricultural output, strengthening food reserves, and ensuring food access for vulnerable groups. Of this amount, Rp46.9 trillion is earmarked for fertilizer subsidies, and Rp22.7 trillion is allocated to state logistics agency Bulog to manage national reserves and price stabilization. On paper, this looks like a serious effort to achieve food sovereignty.

 

But policy success is measured not by intention, but by execution.

 

According to the Central Statistics Agency (BPS), rice production between January and July 2025 reached 21.76 million tons, up by 14.5 percent year-on-year. Yet, nearly 42 percent of Indonesian regencies remain food-deficit areas. A national surplus does not guarantee local food security. This discrepancy between production and distribution reveals systemic flaws that money alone cannot fix.

 

One of the most controversial efforts revived under the Prabowo administration is the Food Estate program—large-scale agricultural projects in regions like Papua and Kalimantan. President Prabowo has personally visited several of these sites, showing strong political will. However, past failures should serve as a warning. Large-scale industrial agriculture often disregards local wisdom, environmental sustainability, and indigenous land rights. When this happens, food estates become monuments of mismanagement rather than milestones of progress.

 

The government’s new framing of food security as a matter of national defense—"food security is national security"—is both strategic and symbolic. But it raises questions about the future of participatory food governance. Will this approach empower farmers and fishers as the primary agents of food production, or reduce them to passive recipients of top-down programs? The Ministry of Agriculture, whose budget remains significantly smaller than that of subsidy programs, must not be sidelined. Long-term food sovereignty cannot be built on infrastructure and subsidies alone—it requires capacity building, research, and support for smallholders.

 

Meanwhile, the threats of climate change, land conversion, and reliance on imported commodities like soybeans and garlic persist. Market volatility continues to harm both farmers and consumers. When prices fall, farmers suffer. When they rise, consumers struggle. The government must act as a stabilizer, not just a facilitator of the market.

 

Food sovereignty is more than just high yields. It is about who controls the food system, who benefits, and whether the system is ecologically and socially just. President Prabowo’s government now has the budget, the political capital, and the momentum to transform the country’s food system. But this opportunity could be wasted if not accompanied by structural reforms and a shift in priorities—away from optics and toward resilience.

 

In an increasingly uncertain global landscape, securing food is not optional—it is existential. Indonesia has the land, the people, and the potential. What remains to be seen is whether this administration has the courage to transform ambition into lasting change.

K&Co - September 19, 2025