End of hunger in India?

It is only a matter of time before the Food Security Bill is approved by the Parliament, since no party is opposed to it. The scheme is hailed as a revolutionary step that could see, if properly implemented, elimination of hunger from this country, which is home to the largest number of poor in the entire world. The argument that when food grain production is on the rise and huge quantities of grain stocks are wasted in several ways, and also at a time when the country's prosperity is seen to be on the upswing, why should millions of its population sleep hungry every night has clinched the issue in favour of the proposal. Here are some thoughts on the idea, including a few which are critical of certain aspects of it Not a sound concept But what is the empirical basis of the claims of widespread and rising hunger in India? While some may view the food security Bill as the instrument of combating poverty, this distinction belongs to the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The proponents of the Food Security Bill at the National Advisory Council have promoted it as the instrument of fighting widespread and rising hunger, instead. But what is the empirical basis of the claims of widespread and rising hunger in India? Surely, we cannot go by the claims of the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Bank and many NGOs who themselves prosper from propagating the view that India and Africa suffer from ever-rising hunger and poverty. It so happens that successive expenditure surveys of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) have asked Indian households whether they have had enough to eat throughout the year. The proportion of those replying in the negative was a high 19% in rural and 7% in urban areas in 1983. But the proportion has steadily shrunken, dropping to less than 3% in rural and less than 1% in urban areas in 2004-05. In what sense then does India suffer from widespread and rising hunger? In their support, the proponents of the food security Bill point to the decline in calorie and protein consumption intake and rise in fat consumption over the years. According to the NSSO, the per-capita calorie consumption across all individuals fell from 2,266 to 2,047 between 1972-73 and 2004-05 in rural India, and from 2,107 to 2,020 in urban India over the same period. A similar trend has been observed in protein intake while the reverse trend has obtained in fat intake. This decline in calorie consumption is, however, reconciled with the sharp decline in the proportion of individuals reporting lack of food once we recognise that economic development has reduced the need for calorie consumption. Thus, increased mechanisation in agriculture and construction improved means of transportation and the shift away from physically-challenging jobs has reduced physical activity. To-date, the groups pushing the food security Bill on the basis of reduced calorie consumption have not explained why the food subsidy in this Bill will reverse the process while exactly the opposite has been the case under the existing public distribution subsidy. The fact of the matter is that subsidised grain, which can be readily converted into cash in the open market, will do precious little to alter the consumption pattern of the beneficiaries. Add to this the possibility that the real nutrition problem for many may be low protein and high fat intake rather than low calorie consumption. Therefore, while food subsidy may make us feel good, it is scarcely the answer to the problem at hand.

It is safety net for all Being a welfare state, the Indian government has a definitive role in treating its citizens as legitimate entitlement holders, and not as passive beneficiaries Aruna Roy , a Raman Magasaysay Awardee, is a political and social activist who founded and heads the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathana. She is leader of the Right to Information movement which led to the enactment of the Right to Information Act in 2005. She resigned from the National Advisory Council recently. The major components of this legislation with cost implications (PDS system, midday meals, ICDS) are already operational and this law is just to give it a legal guarantee framework with enforcement mechanisms. Being a welfare state, the Indian government has a definitive role in treating its citizens as legitimate entitlement holders, and not as passive beneficiaries. The government's vision for the poor should be seen in congruence with ensuring their access to provisions imperative for a dignified life, and not through the prism of doles. Apart from the humanitarian aspect, there are many benefits in investing in the nutrition of the population which may not always be able to be captured in quantitative terms. The economic climate is ripe for such programmes given our growing GDP, growth in public revenue, increase in procurement, growing (and wasted) food stocks and significant improvements in PDS in many states. The Bill requires procurement at levels that are close to existing norms. Further, these procurement levels have been growing at the rate of 5% per year over the last 20 years and this upward trend is likely to continue. So, as per the Food Security Act, the procurement rate does not even have to increase, it just has to be at the level it is. Where there is a bad monsoon and the procurement rates decrease, there are sufficient existing grains in stock (and going to rot) that can be used. Initially, the PDS was intended to have universal coverage. The biggest reason behind the failure in the delivery of food grains to the poorest has been moving from a universal to a targeted system and the consequent errors of targeting. Once the state engages with a process of selecting the intended beneficiaries, the process of identification of the poor turns away from being a purely economic exercise to one fraught with political motives. That is why in states like Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu where PDS is largely universal, one sees such positive results in its implementation. The suggestion of using cash transfers to prevent leakages in the distribution of food grains is completely ill-founded. Cash cannot and should never be a substitute for food grains. Not only will it lead to more leakages, but a system of pegging cash transfers to inflation and rising food prices will have to be devised.

A few facts... The Bill aims to cover about 67.5 per cent of country's 1.2 billion people, targetting about 180 million poorest people who receive about 4 million tonnes of grain every month through licensed Fair Price Shops. About 70 per cent of country's population lives in rural areas. Nearly 75 per cent of the rural population and 50 per cent of urban people will be eligible to receive grains at cheaper rates. The Priority Group will get rice at a fixed Rs 3 per kg, wheat at Rs 2 per kg and coarse grain at Rs 1 per kg. The General category, both in rural and urban areas, will get grains at half of the price the Government sets for payment to farmers. The annual requirement for rice and wheat under the Act will be at least 45.6 million tonnes, calculated on a monthly outlay of 3.8 million tonnes. Budget earmarked for the scheme initially is Rs 27,000 crore per year.

Summary of the Bill 1. Entitlements: Children's Entitlements: For children in the age group of 6 months to 6 years, the Bill guarantees an age-appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi. For children aged 6-14 years, one free mid-day meal shall be provided every day (except on school holidays) in all schools run by local bodies, government and government aided schools, up to Class VIII. For children below six months, "exclusive breastfeeding shall be promoted". Children who suffer from malnutrition will be identified through the local anganwadi and meals will be provided to them free of charge through the local anganwadi. Entitlements of Pregnant and Lactating Women: Every pregnant and lactating mother is entitled to a free meal at the local anganwadi (during pregnancy and six months after child birth) as well as maternity benefits of Rs 6,000, in instalments.

2. Identification of Eligible Households: The Bill does not specify criteria for the identification of households eligible for PDS entitlements. The identification of eligible households is left to state governments. The lists of eligible households are to be placed in the public domain and displayed prominently by state governments. 3. Food Commissions: The Bill provides for the creation of State Food Commissions. The main function of the State Commission is to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the act, give advice to the states governments and their agencies, and inquire into violations of entitlements. 4. Transparency and Grievance Redressal: The Bill provides for a two-tier grievance redressal structure, involving the District Grievance Redressal Officer (DGRO) and State Food Commission. Transparency Provisions: Mandatory transparency provisions include: (1) placing all PDS-related records in the public domain and keeping them open for inspection to the public; (2) conducting periodic social audits of the PDS and other welfare schemes; (3) setting up vigilance committees at state, district, block and fair price shop levels to supervise all schemes under the Act. District Grievance Redressal Officers: DGROS shall be appointed by state governments for each district to hear complaints and take necessary action. If an order of the DGRO is not complied with, the concerned authority or officer can be fined up to Rs. 5,000.

5. Other Provisions: PDS Reforms: Bill states that central and state governments "shall endeavour to progressively undertake" various PDS reforms, including: doorstep delivery of foodgrains; management of fair price shops by women; diversification of commodities distributed under the PDS; and "introducing schemes such as cash transfer, food coupons or other schemes to the targeted beneficiaries in lieu of their food grain entitlements" as prescribed by the central government.

BPL concept is bankrupt Until now, the main beneficiaries of the PDS were 'below poverty line' families. This approach is very unreliable and divisive Jean Dr�ze There has been a growing tendency in recent years to restrict social benefits to those who are 'below the poverty line'. The idea is deceptively simple: focus your resources on the poor. In practice, however, this approach has proved quite problematic, and often counterproductive. This article looks at the problem from various angles and discusses an alternative in the context of the National Food Security Bill. In the good old days, the poverty line was a relatively simple concept. By and large, it was just a statistical benchmark for making 'poverty comparisons' � for instance, to track poverty over time, or to compare poverty levels in different parts of the country. The choice of a poverty line, therefore, was not particularly controversial. One widely used initial benchmark was the level of per capita expenditure required to meet pre-specified calorie norms. Then came the whole idea of 'BPL targeting'. This quietly transformed the poverty line from a statistical benchmark into a real life social division. The division was all the more artificial as the identification of BPL households was highly unreliable. Indeed, the Planning Commission uses one method to count the poor, and the Ministry of Rural Development uses a different method to identify them. The Tendulkar Committee Report further complicated matters by claiming, for the first time, that the poverty line ensures 'adequacy of actual private expenditure� on food, education and health'. That Rs 32 per person per day is wholly insufficient for this purpose is self-evident from a common sense point of view.

The way forward is not to 'fix the poverty numbers' but to find a way out of this bankrupt approach of BPL targeting. That is the appeal of universal entitlement programmes such as school meals, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). Many states are now moving away from BPL targeting in the PDS too. Beyond this, there is a need for informed debate on the future of social support in India. Do we want a divisive, unreliable and exclusionary system of targeted transfers that self-liquidates over time, or to build a comprehensive social security system inspired by constitutional principles, fundamental rights, and ideals of solidarity and universalism? The whole experience of the last twenty years is that over-reliance on economic growth for social progress is a recipe for disappointment. Until now, the main beneficiaries of the PDS were 'below poverty line' families. This approach is very unreliable and divisive. Many states, however, have moved away from BPL targeting in recent years, and extended the PDS well beyond the BPL category. Further, this move seems to have helped them to improve their PDS by creating a broader and stronger constituency for it. The National Food Security Bill threatens to undermine this positive trend. It effectively reimposes BPL targeting under another name that too based on rigid national criteria. There is a simple way out of this mess: abolish the distinction between general and priority groups, and give all households a common minimum entitlement under the PDS unless they meet well-defined 'exclusion criteria'.

Enhances entitlement of poor Nobel laureate Amartya Sen on May 7 sought to blame the opposition for disruption in Parliament, saying they were "bursting debates" and "killing arguments" on the Food Security Bill. Favouring passage of the Bill, he said it would lead to a substantial enhancement of entitlements of the poor through the PDS. The Food Bill aims to give legal right over a uniform quantity of 5 kg food grains at a fixed price of Rs 1-3 per kg via ration shops to 67 per cent of the population. When pointed out that the government is planning to bring an ordinance, Sen said it would not be a happy situation. The question to be asked then would be why did the government have to go the ordinance way and who was responsible for Parliament not functioning, he said.

Food: 40% is wasted Experts estimate that lack of skilled manpower and shortage of infrastructure has been resulting in wastage of up to 40 per cent of the total food produce in India every year. They feel the need to train skilled manpower of around 35 lakh persons in next seven years for the food processing industry besides creating the cold storage chains across the country to cut down the wastage of food including food grain, vegetables and other farm grown items. Minister of state for agriculture and food processing industries Tariq Anwar says that every year India faces a loss of Rs 50 thousand crore worth of both perishable and non-perishable food item.