The UPA 2 government has completed its first two years in office. The Food Security Bill continues to elude consensus. Every now and then there is a new announcement that a comprehensive bill is round the corner. In the meantime, foodgrain rots and hunger remains unabated. Uncertainty surrounds even the existing unsatisfactory arrangements. So, what are the key issues that need to be resolved?
First and foremost, the scope of the bill. Should this only cover those who are below poverty line (BPL) or should it also cover the above poverty line (APL) families? After all, the right to food is the universal right of every citizen. It is true that those who are BPL, who are on the edge of hunger, must be our overriding priority. But how can we call something a “right” if everyone does not have it?
Second, what is the methodology which should be used to define BPL? Should this only be based on minimum calorific intake without regard to nutritional efficiencies? It is well-recognised that unless the entitlement covers clean drinking water, sanitation, hygiene and primary healthcare, along with deficiencies of micro nutrients, the absorptive capacity for food would be seriously compromised. So the question is, what do we want to achieve from the Food Security Bill? After all, it must enable every child, woman and man to have an opportunity for a healthy and productive life beyond mere access to calories required for existence. Therefore, the food security legislation should aim at overcoming the challenges of food security without losing sight of the broad definition and components of food security that have come to be accepted across the world. The interrelation between food and social security cannot be ignored and any effort of guaranteeing one without the rest will render food security ineffective
Third, even in the traditional sense in which poverty has been imperfectly defined, there are widely varying estimates of the number of poor people. As far as the number of BPL families are concerned, the Wadhwa committee estimates the number to be 20 crore, the state governments estimate the number as 10.5 crore, the Tendulkar committee put it as 9.5 crore, Arjun Sengupta committee 20 crore, N.C. Saxena 12.5 crore and the Planning Commission puts the figure at 7 crore. Recently, of course, the Planning Commission is inclined to accept the Tendulkar committee report which is half of the number suggested by the Wadhwa committee and is slightly below the state government estimates.
Of course, the financial implications vary dramatically from Rs 82,000 crore under the Wadhwa committee to Rs 18,000 crore under the Tendulkar committee, over and above the present allocations for subsidies. Until recently, poverty was estimated in India by measuring calorie intake, though the Tendulkar committee moved away from that to a broader definition. Methodology for the computation of poverty needs to be restructured by taking into account the new multi-dimensional approach of estimating poverty.
Fourth, related to the above is the issue of whether the entitlement should be 25 kg or 35 kg of foodgrain a month. There could also be a differentiated approach in which only those in the BPL category receive 35 kg, others like APL families receive the lower entitlement of 25 kg only. Price, no doubt, everyone has assumed, should be Rs 3 per kg.
Fifth, a major unresolved issue is the distribution modality since the bill will entail a massive increase in the quantum of foodgrain. Reliance on the public distribution system alone may prove inadequate. Everyone is familiar with the inherent leakages in the existing PDS in terms of quality of foodgrain, bogus ration cards, hoarding, profiteering and multiple ways of denying food to the powerless and disadvantaged. Of course, if the current PDS is to be continued, it will also entail enormous problems of food procurement, storage, transportation and all the other attendant evils we are fully familiar with. So should we not think of more innovative ways of administering food subsidy?
Two types of schemes are being increasingly mentioned. The first is a coupon system in which the intended beneficiary receives a food coupon which carries money value and gives him the option to buy foodgrain from any shop which gives him satisfaction. This creates competition between different outlets and will certainly improve the quality and enlarge consumer choice, minimise misuse and improve productivity. There is the second approach, that is, direct cash transfer by opening a bank account in the name of the intended beneficiary and transferring the money directly to the bank account. Countries like Brazil, which have experimented with conditional cash transfer, have achieved success in administering such schemes more efficiently.
Sixth, production and livelihood of food producers, from the household to the national level, constitute the core element of food security. You cannot provide food to people if you do not first ensure that food is produced in adequate quantities. And to ensure adequate food production, the livelihood of food producers must be ensured. With continuing high growth in population and the stagnant area under foodgrain production, the right to food can only be ensured with a sustained growth in productivity levels, increased food procurement and by containing the colossal wastage of food.
Enacting a Food Security Act cannot be postponed. What kind of superpower can India hope to be if it cannot address the basic issue of starvation and hunger? We cannot afford to hasten slowly.
The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP
First and foremost, the scope of the bill. Should this only cover those who are below poverty line (BPL) or should it also cover the above poverty line (APL) families? After all, the right to food is the universal right of every citizen. It is true that those who are BPL, who are on the edge of hunger, must be our overriding priority. But how can we call something a “right” if everyone does not have it?
Second, what is the methodology which should be used to define BPL? Should this only be based on minimum calorific intake without regard to nutritional efficiencies? It is well-recognised that unless the entitlement covers clean drinking water, sanitation, hygiene and primary healthcare, along with deficiencies of micro nutrients, the absorptive capacity for food would be seriously compromised. So the question is, what do we want to achieve from the Food Security Bill? After all, it must enable every child, woman and man to have an opportunity for a healthy and productive life beyond mere access to calories required for existence. Therefore, the food security legislation should aim at overcoming the challenges of food security without losing sight of the broad definition and components of food security that have come to be accepted across the world. The interrelation between food and social security cannot be ignored and any effort of guaranteeing one without the rest will render food security ineffective
Third, even in the traditional sense in which poverty has been imperfectly defined, there are widely varying estimates of the number of poor people. As far as the number of BPL families are concerned, the Wadhwa committee estimates the number to be 20 crore, the state governments estimate the number as 10.5 crore, the Tendulkar committee put it as 9.5 crore, Arjun Sengupta committee 20 crore, N.C. Saxena 12.5 crore and the Planning Commission puts the figure at 7 crore. Recently, of course, the Planning Commission is inclined to accept the Tendulkar committee report which is half of the number suggested by the Wadhwa committee and is slightly below the state government estimates.
Of course, the financial implications vary dramatically from Rs 82,000 crore under the Wadhwa committee to Rs 18,000 crore under the Tendulkar committee, over and above the present allocations for subsidies. Until recently, poverty was estimated in India by measuring calorie intake, though the Tendulkar committee moved away from that to a broader definition. Methodology for the computation of poverty needs to be restructured by taking into account the new multi-dimensional approach of estimating poverty.
Fourth, related to the above is the issue of whether the entitlement should be 25 kg or 35 kg of foodgrain a month. There could also be a differentiated approach in which only those in the BPL category receive 35 kg, others like APL families receive the lower entitlement of 25 kg only. Price, no doubt, everyone has assumed, should be Rs 3 per kg.
Fifth, a major unresolved issue is the distribution modality since the bill will entail a massive increase in the quantum of foodgrain. Reliance on the public distribution system alone may prove inadequate. Everyone is familiar with the inherent leakages in the existing PDS in terms of quality of foodgrain, bogus ration cards, hoarding, profiteering and multiple ways of denying food to the powerless and disadvantaged. Of course, if the current PDS is to be continued, it will also entail enormous problems of food procurement, storage, transportation and all the other attendant evils we are fully familiar with. So should we not think of more innovative ways of administering food subsidy?
Two types of schemes are being increasingly mentioned. The first is a coupon system in which the intended beneficiary receives a food coupon which carries money value and gives him the option to buy foodgrain from any shop which gives him satisfaction. This creates competition between different outlets and will certainly improve the quality and enlarge consumer choice, minimise misuse and improve productivity. There is the second approach, that is, direct cash transfer by opening a bank account in the name of the intended beneficiary and transferring the money directly to the bank account. Countries like Brazil, which have experimented with conditional cash transfer, have achieved success in administering such schemes more efficiently.
Sixth, production and livelihood of food producers, from the household to the national level, constitute the core element of food security. You cannot provide food to people if you do not first ensure that food is produced in adequate quantities. And to ensure adequate food production, the livelihood of food producers must be ensured. With continuing high growth in population and the stagnant area under foodgrain production, the right to food can only be ensured with a sustained growth in productivity levels, increased food procurement and by containing the colossal wastage of food.
Enacting a Food Security Act cannot be postponed. What kind of superpower can India hope to be if it cannot address the basic issue of starvation and hunger? We cannot afford to hasten slowly.
The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP
No comments:
Post a Comment