Food insecurities

Of every 100 kg of wheat issued against a ration card, only 46 kg actually reaches the consumer. This is a double whammy for the tax payer, who subsidises the wheat by a whopping Rs9 per kg (subtracting the central issue price for below poverty line consumers from the actual cost of the wheat), only to have it disappear!

Small wonder the Planning Commission chairman has declared the performance of the Public Distribution System (PDS) “unacceptable”. The other schemes aimed at enhancing the nutritional status of our chronically hungry sections, like the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Mid-day Meal Scheme (MMS), Nutritional Programme for Adolescent Girls and Annapoorna Yojana, are similarly riddled with leakages.

If our delivery systems were to work, perhaps we would not need a National Food Security Bill, as promised in the Congress manifesto. The main focus appears to be provision for 25kg of rice or wheat at Rs3 a kg every month to Below Poverty Line (BPL) families. Is this different from the half-a-dozen schemes already in place or just another populist measure?

To have any meaning, the bill must redefine the responsibility of the state towards its citizens, by guaranteeing freedom from hunger and malnutrition as a basic human right.( Karnataka was the first to moot such a law, with the Karnataka Food Security Programme Ordinance of 2006.)

The focus should be nutritional security as opposed to food security — address malnourishment and not hunger. As many a parent has discovered, even a fat, calorie-stuffed child can be malnourished.

Secondly in order to avoid the dependency syndrome, it should be based on the concept of food sovereignty. The UPA approach to the food security problem is (i) boost purchasing power and (ii) give cheap wheat and rice to the poor. The NREGA was intended to achieve the first. The National Food Security Bill is intended to achieve the second.

This is a handout-based approach. Thirdly, it should be sustainable. All three are possible if the programme is decentralised and based on local procurement and distribution. Otherwise, it risks re-visiting the inefficiencies of the PDS.

The Karnataka ordinance was ground-breaking as the state accepted responsibility for ensuring access to food, but it was silent on the mechanics of procurement and distribution. This is where the Community Food Bank model comes in. It argues for a decentralised and need-based approach.

Mahatma Gandhi’s ideal production system was one of local production and consumption, with minimum imports into the local area. The Community Food Bank would be maintained by the community with withdrawals according to need in times of stress.

From this evolved the Community Grain Fund model, based on village-level committees comprised mainly of women from economically challenged sections, who brought fallow land under coarse grains and were responsible for the procurement and distribution of the grains.

The subsidy involved was barely Re1 per kg, as compared to the Rs7-10 per kg for wheat currently being shelled out by the Food Corporation of India under various schemes.

This system has the advantage of cutting down on food miles. The shorter the distribution channel or food pipe, the smaller the possibility of leakage. It would also provide traditional, nutritionally superior, culturally acceptable fare based on coarse grains and pulses rather than on wheat and rice. It makes little sense to dole out wheat to a Karnataka family in an area where bajra is the traditional food.

Coarse grains despite their low cost and nutritional superiority have not been a part of the public distribution system on account of their limited shelf life — this argument is easily overcome if production and consumption are local. Experiments to extend the longevity of coarse grains have achieved remarkable results at the National Research Centre for Sorghum, Hyderabad, for example.

The Community Grain Fund model not only caters to the chronically hungry but also empowers them by giving them control over their own food security. Decisions on crops to be planted, procurement prices and beneficiaries would be taken locally, albeit closely monitored by designated government agencies or NGOs.

The “cheap wheat and rice” model under consideration would be more expensive, in terms of economic cost, carrying cost and transportation. The subsidy bill raised by FCI last year was Rs50,000 cr. The “rice and wheat at Rs3” plan is tentatively budgeted at the same figure.

Besides, it ignores nutritional needs and the existing food culture among two-thirds of our population. Also, it artificially inflates the demand for wheat and rice and does not involve or empower the community in any way. It erodes, rather than enhances, self-reliance of rural communities.

The writer is a commentator on social affairs