Tersendatnya kebijakan food estate: evaluasi logic model atas kesenjangan implementasi berjenjang

  • Afif Syarifudin Yahya 
    Institut Pemerintahan Dalam Negeri
    Indonesia
  • Afni Nooraini
    Institut Pemerintahan Dalam Negeri
    Indonesia
  • Lisya Aiza Turrukhana
    Institut Pertanian Bogor
    Indonesia
  • Eko Dharma Putra
    Pemerintah Kabupaten Kapuas
    Indonesia

Abstract

Indonesia's food estate programme has been studied mainly from legal, political-ecological and agronomic perspectives, leaving unexplained where along the policy's causal chain public investment fails to become food security. This study evaluates the food estate policy in Central Kalimantan Province and identifies the points and mechanisms at which the input–activity–output–outcome chain breaks down. A theory-driven qualitative evaluation with a post-positivist stance was applied, using the logic model as the analytical frame. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with purposively selected key informants (provincial and district officials, sub-district heads, extension workers, field supervisors and farmers in Kapuas Regency), field observation and document analysis, and were analysed through open, axial and selective coding with source and method triangulation. The findings reveal a cascading implementation gap. Despite a 2025 budget of IDR 5.1 trillion, only 43 of 156 (27.6%) agricultural machinery units delivered to the province were operational; each extension worker served at least eight farmer groups, twice the ideal ratio; average rice productivity (2–3.5 t/ha) remained below the provincial (3.8 t/ha) and national (5.2 t/ha) averages; the cassava component produced almost nothing; and farm-gate prices exceeded the government purchase price by only 3.9%, a margin eroded by rising production costs. Theoretically, the study introduces the concept of a cascading implementation gap and extends logic-model evaluation into a diagnostic tool by explaining, through implementation and high-modernism theories, why top-down inputs fail to translate into outcomes on fragile peatlands. Practically, it calls for land-suitability-based, participatory and phased intensification instead of massive extensification.

Keywords
  • Food estate policy
  • Peatland
  • Logic model
  • Implementation gap
  • Central kalimantan
Lisensing Information
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References
  1. Ahmad, S. (2024) Kegagalan berulang’ proyek food estate – Ribuan hektare sawah di Kalteng terbengkalai dan beralih jadi kebun sawit, https://www.bbc.com/.
  2. Arnstein, S.R. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
  3. Baringbing, M.S. (2021) ‘Problematika Lingkungan Terhadap Regulasi Food Estate Sebagai Program Strategis Nasional di Desa Gunung Mas & Pulang Pisau Kalimantan Tengah’, in Seminar Nasional Jaminan Perlindungan Hak Konstitusional dan Implementasinya di Masa Pandemi Covid-19. Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/snhunnes.v7i1.710.
  4. Birt, L. et al. (2016) ‘Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation?’, Qualitative Health Research, 26(13). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870.
  5. Chen, H.T. (2023) Practical Program Evaluation: Theory-Driven Evaluation and the Integrated Evaluation Perspective, Practical Program Evaluation: Theory-Driven Evaluation and the Integrated Evaluation Perspective. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071909850.
  6. Clapp, J. et al. (2022) ‘Viewpoint: The case for a six-dimensional food security framework’, Food Policy, 106. Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102164.
  7. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. California: SAGE Publication.
  8. Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2018) Research and Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th edn, Thousand Oaks California. 5th edn. London ;;Thousand Oaks [Calif.]: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  9. Dinas Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah (2024) Optimalisasi Lahan Food Estate Di Kalimantan Tengah, https://disnakertrans.kalteng.go.id/.
  10. Dunsire, A. (1978) Implementation in a bureaucracy (Government and administration series). Martin Robertson.
  11. Fatahullah, F. and Hilmi, M.A. (2024) ‘Food Estate: Ancaman Ataukah Peluang Bagi Ketahanan Pangan Indonesia?’, Jurnal Ekonomi Pertanian dan Agribisnis, 8(4). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21776/.
  12. Food and Agriculture Organization (2021) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021. Available at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/1c38676f-f5f7-47cf-81b3-f4c9794eba8a/content.
  13. Food Security Information Nework (2020) 2020 Global Report on Food Crises. Available at: https://www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2021-08/GRFC_2020_ONLINE.pdf.
  14. Funnell, S.C. and Rogers, P. (2011) Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. Jossey-Bass Publisher.
  15. Hill, M. and Hupe, P. (2014) Implementing Public Policy: An Introduction to the Study of Operational Governance. SAGE Publication.
  16. Hogwood, B.W. and Gunn, L.A. (1984) Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University Press.
  17. Hooijer, A. et al. (2012) ‘Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands’, Biogeosciences, 9(3). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-1053-2012.
  18. Indriani, Y. (2015) Gizi dan Pangan. Lampung: AURA Printing.
  19. Istani, I. et al. (2025) ‘Food Estate Management System and Policies in Pulang Pisau and Kapuas Regencies, Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia’, WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, 21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2025.21.2.
  20. Ito, T., Rachman, N.F. and Savitri, L.A. (2014) ‘Power to make land dispossession acceptable: a policy discourse analysis of the Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE), Papua, Indonesia’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(1). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.873029.
  21. Kementerian Pertanian (2018) Kajian Kebijakan Harga Pembelian Pemerintah dan Harga Eceran Tertinggi Gabah dan Beras.
  22. Kristhy, M.E., Andri, A. and Harefa, F. (2022) ‘Legal Politics in Food Estate Program for Community Welfare’, Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal), 5(2). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v5i2.5328.
  23. Lasminingrat, L. and Efriza, E. (2020) ‘The development of national food estate: The Indonesian food crisis anticipation strategy’, Jurnal Pertahanan dan Bela Negara, 10(3). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33172/jpbh.v10i3.1110.
  24. Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A. and Guba, E.G. (2017) The SAGE handbook on Qualitative Research. 5th edn, Sage Publications. 5th edn. Edited by N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
  25. Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
  26. Masrin, M., Paratmanitya, Y. and Aprilia, V. (2014) ‘Ketahanan pangan rumah tangga berhubungan dengan stunting pada anak usia 6-23 bulan’, Indonesian Journal of Nutrition and Dienetics, 2(3). Available at: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21927/ijnd.2014.2(3).103-115.
  27. Matland, R.E. (1995) ‘Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2). Available at: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037242.
  28. McLaughlin, J.A. and Jordan, G.B. (1999) ‘Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(98)00042-1.
  29. Nagata, J.M. et al. (2019) ‘No TitleFood Insecurity and Chronic Disease in US Young Adults: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health’, Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34(12). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05317-8.
  30. Negara Indenesia (2009) Undang-Undang Nomor 41 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan Lahan Pertanian Pangan Berkelanjutan.
  31. Negara Indonesia (1945) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
  32. Negara Indonesia (2012) Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2012 Tentang Pangan.
  33. Negara Indonesia (2014) Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah.
  34. Negara Indonesia (2020) Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 tentang Cipta Kerja.
  35. Palinkas, L.A. et al. (2015) ‘Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research’, Adm Policy Ment Health, 42(5). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
  36. Pangastuti, I.S., Kusuma, I.F. and Lisa, R.A. (2024) ‘Tanggung Gugat Pemerintah terhadap Kegagalan Program Food Estate di Kabupaten Gunung Mas Kalimantan Tengah’, Journal od Studia Legalia, 5(1). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.61084/jsl.v5i01.88.
  37. Patton, M.Q. (2015) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods Integrating Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
  38. Pramita, D. (2023) Riwayat Food Estate, Menorehkan Sejarah Kegagalan dari Masa ke Masa, https://katadata.co.id/.
  39. Ramadhani, R. (2021) Opini: Pro Kontra Food Estate, Antara Mengatasi Krisis Pangan dan Merealisasi Krisis Ekologi di Indonesia, https://kab.faperta.ugm.ac.id/.
  40. Redi, A. and Mizuno, K. (2025) ‘Benefits and Costs of Legal Policy for the Food Estate Program in Indonesia’, LAW REFORM, 21(1). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v21i1.62903.
  41. Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations 5th edition. New York: Free Press.
  42. Sakharina, I.K. (2020) ‘Hak Atas Pangan di Masa Pandemi Coronavirus Disease Covid-19’, JURNAL LEGISLATIF, 3(2). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20956/jl.v3i2.10476.
  43. Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press. Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/9/9b/Scott_James_C_Seeing_Like_a_State_How_Certain_Schemes_to_Improve_the_Human_Condition_1998.pdf.
  44. Sekretariat Kabinet Republik Indonesia (2022) Program Peningkatan Penyediaan Pangan Berbasis Food Estate, https://setkab.go.id/. Available at: https://setkab.go.id/gallery/program-peningkatan-penyediaan-pangan-berbasis-food-estate/.
  45. Setiawan, A. et al. (2022) ‘The Impact of Local Government Capacity on Public Service Delivery: Lessons Learned from Decentralized Indonesia’, Economies, 10(12). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10120323.
  46. Siborutorop, J. (2023) ‘An Analysis of Indonesia’s National Food Estate Programme from a Food Sovereignty-based Perspective’, Indonesian Journal of Politics, 9(2). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20473/jpi.v9i2.44430.
  47. Smith, L.C. and Haddad, L. (2015) ‘Reducing Child Undernutrition: Past Drivers and Priorities for the Post-MDG Era’, World Development, 68. Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.014.
  48. Suarsana, K. (2020) ‘Ketahanan Pangan Berbasis Adat (Tantangan Penanganan Covid-19 di Bali)’, in Percepatan Penanganan COVID-19 Berbasis Adat di Indonesia. Denpasar.
  49. Sukesi, K. and Shinta, A. (2011) ‘Diversifikasi Pangan Sebagai Salah Satu Strategi Peningkatan Gizi Berkualitas di Kota Probolinggo (Studi Kasus di Kecamatan Kanigaran)’, Jurnal Sosial EKonomi Pertanian dan Bisnis, 7(2). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20961/sepa.v7i2.48892.
  50. Surahman, A., Soni, P. and Shivakoti, G.P. (2017) ‘Are peatland farming systems sustainable? Case study on assessing existing farming systems in the peatland of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia’, Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 15(1). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2017.1412326.
  51. Thea, A. (2024) Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria Catat 4 Masalah Kebijakan Food Estate, https://www.hukumonline.com/.
  52. Toumbourou, T.D. et al. (2024) ‘Principles for equitable and resilient tropical peatland restoration in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia’, Restoration Ecology, 32(7). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14221.
  53. Triswidodo, T. and Faisal, M. (2024) ‘Tinjauan Yuridis Food Estate di Kabupaten Gunung Mas Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah’, Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 8(1). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31004/jptam.v8i1.13678.
  54. Uda, S. mKittie, Schouten, G. and Hein, L. (2020) ‘The institutional fit of peatland governance in Indonesia’, Land Use Policy, 99. Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.031.
  55. United Way of America (1996) Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=slceeval.
  56. W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004) Logic model development guide. Michigan: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Available at: https://www.naccho.org/uploads/downloadable-resources/Programs/Public-Health-Infrastructure/KelloggLogicModelGuide_161122_162808.pdf.
  57. Weiss, C.H. (1998) Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Prencite-Hall.
  58. Yeny, I. et al. (2022) ‘Examining the Socio-Economic and Natural Resource Risks of Food Estate Development on Peatlands: A Strategy for Economic Recovery and Natural Resource Sustainability’, Sustainability, 14(7). Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073961.

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 17 times
PDF
: 9 times