People's Democracy

Some Issues In The Struggle For Food Security

Brinda Karat

THE government-convened all-party meeting on the public distribution system (PDS) is to be followed by another one with chief ministers. If the meeting is to be more than a cosmetic exercise with an eye to the forthcoming assembly elections, then what is required is a reversal of the current food policies. 

In fact, the present food policies are a strong indictment of the government since the huge stocks of foodgrains are in terrible contrast to the reality that the majority of Indians are eating less than they were ten years ago. Per capita consumption in rural areas has declined by 300 calories. 

FAILURE OF TARGETING

The ministry of food and consumer affairs had set up a high level committee in 2001 under the chairpersonship of Professor Abhijit Sen to inquire into the different aspects of food policy including procurement, storage and distribution and to make suitable recommendations. The report of the committee was submitted in 2002. Some of the findings and recommendations are very relevant when discussing the weaknesses of the present distribution system.

A most important finding of the official committee substantiates the CPI(M)’s understanding that the targeted system of food distribution has utterly failed. Instead of accurately targeting the poor and ensuring that they get the benefits of the PDS, the targeted system has excluded large sections of the poor. The committee set up by the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation (PIL), filed on the problems of targeting, has also shown the huge discrepancies in identification.

In this context a blame game has started between the centre and the states, with the former blaming the latter for faulty identification. The reality is different and linked intrinsically to the very concept of targeting in a poor country like India where the majority of people require cheap foodgrains. 

The estimates of poverty are not based on assessments of state governments, but on those made by the Planning Commission in 1993-94 and are updated according to the population projections of the registrar general. Thus “quotas’ are given to the different states, and to different districts within states, regardless of whether or not they actually reflect the reality. For example, in the last several years, over 14 states have been drought-hit, gravely affecting agricultural operations. This in turn has led to a sharp decrease in workdays for the rural labour force. The numbers of poor have undoubtedly increased, yet they are not eligible for BPL (below poverty line) cards. In fact, where states have given BPL cards to over the estimated numbers, they have been forced to cut it down.

Further, whereas the Planning Commission has one set of estimates that the government is using to decide the numbers of the poor, other institutions have different calculations. The National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau shows that 48 per cent of all adults are malnourished and data from the National Family Health Survey show that around 47 per cent of children are malnourished.

Data from the National Sample Survey show that the share of expenditure on food is 60 per cent or more for 90 per cent of the rural population and 60 per cent of the urban population. For the poorer landless sections, the percentage on food would be as high as 90 per cent. 

The criteria for identification of BPL, as set by the central government rules, are also dubious. For example, one of the measurements is the number of sarees a woman owns. If she owns more than three, than she is not considered BPL. The questionnaire does not at all take into account the years of saving or even the indebtedness that may have gone into buying a bicycle, mere possession of one could take a family out of the BPL category. Thus the attempt is not to include but to exclude those who require subsidised grain.

Even while the targeting of BPL has excluded the poor, in accordance with the World Bank’s cynical definition of “moderately poor” and “very poor,” the government has started the Antodaya scheme, further dividing the poor and giving some added benefits to those defined as “very poor.” Thus the failure of BPL identification gets further compounded in identification of Antodaya. It is extremely arbitrary and is only causing divisions between the poor.

As far as the APL (above poverty line) sections are concerned, the government has executed a silent coup because the large majority of citizens have been put it in this category and are deprived of any benefits of the PDS. The prices of grains for the APL category are the same as the market prices or have hardly any difference. Moreover, most ration shops do not store foodgrains for the APL sections because of the low offtake. So for all intents and purposes, the PDS has been scrapped for a vast majority of our people.

FOR A UNIVERSAL PDS

The first and most important reform required is to give up the targeted system, so as to ensure that no section of the people is deprived of food. Given the scale of malnutrition and its effects, it is essential to give more weightage to errors that exclude the needy than to any errors that might include the rich. When the needy form as large a group as they do in our country, a universal programme alone can be effective in achieving the desired objective. There is a process of self-exclusion among the better off who rarely avail of the PDS. It is more than likely that the top 20-30 per cent of households will exclude themselves from the PDS for a variety of reasons, including the desire to purchase better and branded products. 

Only a universal PDS can make a significant impact on hunger and malnutrition by making a reasonable proportion of a person’s daily cereal requirements available at affordable prices throughout the year and throughout the country.

Apart from the moral and ethical arguments regarding the minimum human right to food that any civilised country should guarantee to its citizens, there is an economic factor also. The calculations made by economists clearly show that holding of excess stocks as at present cost it the exchequer MORE than, the distribution of foodgrains at lower prices would.

PRICES OF FOODGRAINS 

One of the reasons for the poor offtake of foodgrains for BPL sections is the high prices of foodgrains. In 1996 when the United Front government introduced the targeted system, it cut the prices of rationed foodgrains in the BPL categories by two thirds ---wheat was sold at Rs 2.50 a kg and rice at Rs 3.50.This resulted in an offtake of 80 per cent. The government has raised prices by as much as 80 per cent and as a result the off take is down to a dismal low of 20 per cent. The present central issue price of rice is Rs 5.65 a kg and for wheat Rs 4.15. With the additions made at the state level the prices go up in some states to Rs 5.80 to Rs 6 for rice per kg and to Rs 4.50 upwards for wheat.

Among other factors the main reason is that the poor do not have the purchasing power to buy the foodgrains meant for them. They do not have the cash to buy the whole amount of 35 kg that they are often forced to do. They find it easier to buy small quantities from local shops that often provide them credit also. Further, the quality of the foodgrains is so poor that more time is spent in cleaning it and, even then, it is often not fit for human consumption.

As a first step towards the universalisation of the PDS and making grains accessible to those who require it, the Antodaya and BPL category should be merged and foodgrains given at the Antodaya prices level, that is, at Rs 3 per kg for rice and Rs 2 per kg for wheat.

EXPORT PRICES LOWER

Shockingly the government has exported foodgrains at less than the prices fixed for the poor at ration shops. Wheat that has lost its lustre was sold through ration shops with no concessions whereas it was exported at just Rs 3.90 per kg. Normal wheat was exported at Rs 4.15 to Rs 4.80 and rice at Rs 5.60 to Rs 6.

It is mainly through exports and open market sales at lower prices that the current level of stocks has been brought down from about 60 million tonnes in 2002 to around 36.1 million tonnes in April 2003. 

Whereas over 10 million tonnes were exported at lower prices, the entire amount given to 14 drought affected states was about one third less, just 7 million tonnes. The priorities of the government are clear.

Thus the government preferred to give grain to Indian and foreign traders at cheaper prices than to its own needy people. This is a shocking aspect of the government’s food policies.

The government should use its surplus stocks not for exports at subsidised prices but in a massive programme to ensure foodgrains to the poor.

ROTTING AND “MISSING” FOODGRAINS

The government has admitted that there are huge discrepancies in the accounting of foodgrains. Over half a crore tonnes of foodgrains are unaccounted for. It is reported that the foodgrains were directly exported from Punjab but were wrongly listed in the FCI accounts in Punjab. This aspect needs to be cleared.

A substantive amount of the foodgrains is unfit for consumption. The food ministry has greatly underestimated the amount of rotting foodgrains at around one million tonnes. This is high enough, but the amount would be much higher if one includes the inedible grains that have been disposed of in the name of food for work programmes.

The only way to overcome pilferage and rotting grains is to cut down excess stocks by better and increased distribution and to better utilise the storage capacity of the FCI.

Quotas: As a way to dispose of excess stocks the government increased the quotas from 25 kg per family to 35 kg per family, less than half of what is needed. The minimum individual requirement according to nutritional norms is 125 kg. Instead of family cards, ration cards should be individual based and the quotas must be increased. 

Migrant workers: The crisis in the agricultural sector and the lack of work has led to a huge increase in both long term and short-term migration. This vast section of the working population, which requires cheap foodgrains most, has no access to it. A definite policy for migrant workers has to be chalked out. In some countries, the system of food coupons for migrant workers has been used.

Single women, widows, female-headed families and disabled persons: These are the sections identified by the Sen committee as being most vulnerable and most in need of cheap foodgrains. Indeed the impact of food insecurity on women has been disastrous, making a mockery of the tall talk of women’s empowerment. Studies have shown that food insecurity, hunger and lack of work has led to an increase of women in prostitution, increased trafficking, and led to the sale of girl children.

Thus any food policy has to address the special needs of these sections. 

North east region: One of the most neglected areas, as far as the PDS is concerned, is the north east region. It is indeed shameful that even though this region is not self-sufficient in food and is dependent on supplies from other states, there is no proper policy to increase access. A state like Tripura, which does not have a rail link with other states, is a shocking example of the difficulties faced. The central government must prioritise the strengthening of the PDS in the north east region. There should be a proper network of FCI godowns.

ISSUE OF SUBSIDIES

High subsidies on food policy are quoted by the government to counter the demands to lower the prices of rationed foodgrains. It should be reiterated that of the entire subsidy of around Rs 25,000 crore, less than one third is actually consumer subsidy. Of that the total subsidy to BPL households (including Antodaya) is only Rs 6527.18 crore. In other words, the sections whom the entire system is supposed to serve get less than one fourth of what is spent by the government. Shockingly, because the government continued to hold excess stocks, the amount of subsidy for carrying cost almost doubled to Rs 6,492 crore, almost equalling what it spent for BPL families. 

The government is now thinking of increasing the subsidy for APL families to make the prices of foodgrains for APL less than the market though more than the BPL. However, such negligible changes in the prices will hardly increase the offtake. 

Taking advantage of the inefficiency of the present storage system, some pro-market sections want to scrap it altogether. This will be disastrous. It will affect the guarantee of a buffer stock and will threaten our food self-sufficiency.

While much needs to be done to improve the efficiency of the carrying and storage systems, the approach should be to strengthen it, not weaken it as is being suggested.

The main point is to shift the subsidy to the consumer. At present the food subsidy per kg is around Rs 7. With the use of excess stocks, the subsidy can be brought down. At this level it is possible for the government to put in place a new system based on individual ration quotas priced at the Antodaya level. Assuming that around 70 per cent of the population would avail of the PDS, then even with an annual individual quota of 60 kg the cost would amount to less than Rs 30,000 crore.

The proposed changes would mean only a marginal increase in government expenditure but it would mean a huge difference in the lives of the people.

CHANGES REQUIRED

1. Targeting system to be scrapped. The PDS to be made a universal system.
2. Prices of foodgrains to be cut. As a first step all BPL cardholders to be given grains at Antodaya prices.
3. Individual ration cards instead of family cards.
4. Special policies for migrant workers, disabled persons, single women, female- headed families
5. Steps to strengthen the FCI network and PDS in the north east.
6. Surplus stocks not to be used for subsidized exports and open market sales but for expansion of the PDS.