Jakarta, 5 May 2026 — The Prasasti Center for Policy Studies (Prasasti) highlights that Indonesia’s national protein agenda must move beyond a narrow focus on production and place equal emphasis on distribution, access, regional diversity, and cross‑sector coordination. This conclusion is drawn from Prasasti’s Focus Group Discussion (FGD) on “Strengthening the Distribution and Quality of National Protein,” which brought together policymakers, business associations, industry players, and development partners.

The FGD and subsequent analysis show that Indonesia’s protein challenge cannot be captured by production figures alone. In aggregate, supply for several key commodities is relatively strong, particularly in poultry and fisheries, yet many communities still struggle to access affordable, good‑quality protein. This gap arises from bottlenecks in distribution, uneven inter‑regional connectivity, and limited cold‑chain and logistics capacity, especially between production centers and major consumption hubs.

Prof. Bungaran Saragih, Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia for the 2000–2004 period, described this shift in perspective as essential for future policy. “So far, we often see the protein issue as a production problem: whether we have enough or not. But if we look more closely, our real problem is not a lack of protein at the national level,” he noted. “Indonesia is relatively sufficient overall, but on the ground, some regions have a surplus of fish while others still lack access to affordable animal protein. This means our problem is not merely production, but distribution and how we design policy.”

The FGD underlines that Indonesia’s diversity demands more regionally grounded policies. National averages conceal wide differences in consumption patterns, local production potential, culture, and geography. To address this, Prasasti recommends that the national protein policy be underpinned by a detailed map of regional production and consumption, identifying surplus and deficit areas, preferred protein sources, logistics constraints, and realistic development priorities in each region. Such a map would allow the central government to set a broad direction while giving local governments the flexibility to tailor interventions to their specific context.

In line with this, Prof. Bungaran also called for more adaptive programme design. “We need to allow national protein programmes to be more adaptive to regional needs. It does not mean reducing central programmes, but making them more flexible so that regions can adjust to local potential, community consumption habits, and geographic conditions,” he explained.

Another core finding is that each major protein commodity requires its own development model. Beef, poultry, and fish have different biological characteristics, production cycles, and cost structures, which means policy cannot be one‑size‑fits‑all. For poultry, where value chains are more integrated and cycles are short, the priority is stabilizing feed supply, managing volatility, and protecting smaller producers within partnership schemes. For beef, which still relies heavily on smallholders and imports, a longer‑term strategy is needed that covers breeding, feed, fattening, and guaranteed offtake, while using imports more strategically to support domestic feedlot development. Fisheries, meanwhile, demand a stronger focus on post‑harvest handling, cold chain, inter‑island connectivity, and processing so that abundant production can be converted into reliable access for consumers.

The report also stresses that stronger production systems must be matched by stronger industrial organization and partnership. Given that many protein subsectors remain dominated by fragmented smallholders, meaningful improvements will likely need to be driven by larger companies with the capital, technology, managerial capacity, and market access to scale change. However, this transformation will only be sustainable if small-scale producers are actively included rather than displaced. Prasasti’s analysis points to the need for partnership models that link larger companies with smallholders, supported by finance and public policy, so that technology, standards, and market access can spread throughout the chain rather than remain concentrated among a few large actors.

Above these technical issues sits a broader governance challenge: policy orchestration. The national protein agenda spans agriculture, livestock, fisheries, industry, trade, transport, logistics, finance, regional government, and state‑owned enterprises. Without an actor explicitly responsible for aligning these elements, even well‑designed sectoral measures risk working in isolation.

Piter Abdullah, Policy and Program Director at Prasasti, emphasized this point. “What we really need to study and improve is policy synergy. So far, we have been very weak in terms of orchestration,” he said. “If only one or two sectors move together, for instance, agriculture with industry, it is still not enough. What is needed is an orchestrator that can ensure all policies truly run in alignment and support one another.”

Based on the FGD and analysis, Prasasti outlines several strategic priorities for Indonesia’s national protein agenda:

• Put distribution and logistics—including cold chains—at the core of access, not as an afterthought to production.
• Develop protein policies at the regional level, using detailed production‑consumption mapping rather than national averages alone.
• Differentiate development models across beef, poultry, and fish, aligning policy instruments with each commodity’s risk profile and biological realities.
• Promote industrialization through partnership, ensuring that large firms act as anchors for technology transfer, standardization, and offtake for small producers.
• Strengthen cross‑sector orchestration so that increased demand for protein, including through public programs, is backed by realistic supply‑side capacity and investment.

For Prasasti, these directions indicate that building a resilient national protein ecosystem will require more than new programs; it will require a new way of working: one that integrates data, regional nuance, industrial capabilities, and coordinated policy execution. Insights from this FGD will feed into Prasasti’s upcoming policy brief on strengthening Indonesia’s national protein system as a core pillar of long‑term food security