Food Security Act 2013 and its Implications for the Future
At the time when the book is
about to be published, Lok Sabha passed the Food Security Act 2013 on the 27th
August 2013. I thought it appropriate to put this post script at the suggestion
of the publisher’s editor.
The Act made its way in an
otherwise turbulent political environment where the Government has been facing
the House with explanations on various scandals; the fall of the rupee with the
resultant deterioration in the current account deficit and on top of it, the fiscal deficit set to reach an
unsustainable level, if the Food Security Act were to get implemented. All the
parties supported the bill as none would like to be dubbed as anti-poor with
the impending General Elections. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the
pros and cons of the various provisions in the Act in terms of its
implementation.
World Food Summit (13–17 November
1996) defined Food Security as: “Food security exists when all people, at all
times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy
life.” Although India
could distance famines, it could not stall starvation deaths. Its lead in paddy
and wheat production would seem to be at the cost of production in millets and
other course cereals and pulses and oil seeds. Both calories and proteins
remained below the recommended dietary levels. The country acquired the dubious
distinction of housing 300mn poor, by whatever definition one defines the poor.
There has been a multiplicity of schemes that targeted such poor only to ensure
that they remain at that level for granting political largesse through
bureaucratic extravaganza. This contextual frame helps one to look at the Food
Security Act 2013 of Government of India that provided staple food grains to
all the BPL families uniformly across the country. There has been a drubbing by
the Supreme Court over the mounting food stocks in FCI warehouses and people reporting
starvation deaths in one or the other part of the country that speeded up the
legislative process.
The Right to Food as a
fundamental right cannot be ensured by a series of intentions. In a country of
diversities in both economic (size of the poorer sections of population and
their identification differ across the States) and political spectrum, where
the resources for taking care of the poor have to be provided by the States
more than the Centre, a Central Act like the Food Security Act is more a
political gimmick than economic tool. This Act, to quote K.R. Venugopal, “is
like dropping a coin in the Bay of Bengal and searching for it in Indian Ocean.”
Several fundamental needs like water, sanitation and power are as much
essential as mere food and without them the food security could turn out as
insecure. Even after 66 years of independence we have more than 40 percent of
villages not having access to safe drinking water and secured health.
It is unfortunate that the key
observations of FAO in its paper on the State of Food Insecurity in the world
2011 have received only lip service:
"A food-security strategy that
relies on a combination of increased productivity in agriculture, greater
policy predictability and general openness to trade will be more effective
than other strategies;
Safety nets are crucial for
alleviating food insecurity in the short term, as well as for providing a
foundation for long-term development;
High food prices present
incentives for increased long-term investment in the agriculture sector,
which can contribute to improved food security in the longer term. (IFAD, WFP and
FAO, 2011)."
Schedule II of the Act contains provisions relating to reforms to the
agricultural sector that needed attention. Assuring sustained increase in
production consistent with the growing requirements of the Act and the
resources that the States should provide for implementing the Act are vital
components of the agenda but receive scant attention. As the CACP points out “Assured
procurement gives an incentive for farmers to produce cereals rather than
diversify the production-basket…Vegetable production too may be affected—pushing
food inflation further.” If these cereals do not find attractive prices and
specific support prices for those that are part of the food security system,
there would be serious consequences for the farm economy.
“Priority Category”: Definition of the poor has come into serious
controversy lately. The criteria have to be fully in public knowledge. While
the Act specified that the records have to be transparent and in the public
domain, there is no timeframe for doing so by the States. So is the case for
another requirement under the Act: “that the States shall put in place the
needed information, communication and technology systems in place.”
The list of the eligible families
should be displayed at the village Panchayat level and at the ward level in the
urban municipalities. Any divergence of opinion has to be resolved at the
village/ local level within one week of placing the list on notice. Such list
could be prepared through a survey done by NGOs or educational institutions at
the block/ Mandal levels.
All those who are within the
exempted income category for payment of income tax should become eligible for
food entitlement under the food security provisions.
All the tax-payers shall be the
excluded category for two reasons: they have the ability to buy the food
because they have regular income; they are also otherwise covered by some
social security provision or the other.
Nutrition security is the whole
while food security is a part of that, and therefore the law that is being
contemplated should really have been a food-cum-nutrition security law rather
than a mere food security law.
It is also worth
noting at the outset that an important strategy for defending and expanding the
rights of the poor in any scheme that seeks to guarantee a particular right is
to fine-tune it to the other related schemes in a manner that all related
schemes pull together all the rights that govern all the participants in such
schemes. Such a synergy will guarantee all rights essential to the poor, each
right reinforcing the other. Food and nutrition security is no exception to
such a synergy. In fact the most important paradigm that should govern a law
that guarantees food-cum-nutrition security is to define such security as the
sum total of the entitlement that a poor household would access through its
entitlement in all the food and
nutrition related schemes that the Government implements or proposes to
implement and not merely through a single programme like the TPDS.
Unfortunately, the Act failed to provide this comprehensiveness.
The Food Security Act 2013 guarantees 5 kg of rice, wheat
and coarse cereals per month per individual at a fixed price of Rs 3, 2, 1,
respectively, to nearly 75 percent of the rural and 50 percent of the urban population.
The government estimates suggest that food security will
cost Rs 1,24,723 crore per year. But that is just one estimate. Andy Mukherjee, a columnist with
Reuters, puts the cost at around $25 billion. The Commission for
Agricultural Costs and Prices(CACP) of the Ministry of Agriculture in a
research paper titled National Food Security Bill:
Challenges and Options puts the cost of the food security scheme
over a three-year period at Rs 6,82,163 crore. During the first year the cost
to the government has been estimated at Rs 2,41,263 crore.
Economist Surjit Bhalla in a column in
The Indian Express put the
cost of the bill at Rs 3,14,000 crore or around 3 percent of the gross domestic
product (GDP). Ashok Kotwal, Milind Murugkar and Bharat Ramaswami challenge Bhalla's calculation in a
column in The Financial Express and
write, “the food subsidy bill should...come to around 1.35 percent of GDP,
which is still way less than the numbers he [ Bhalla] put out.”
When we look at the Budgeted Receipts of the Government for 2013–14, presuming that such receipts would come even at the declining growth expectations, they are just Rs 11,22,799 crore. The government's estimated cost of food security comes at 11.10 percent (Rs 1,24,723 expressed as a percentage of Rs 11,22,799 crore) of the total receipts. The CACP's estimated cost of food security comes at 21.5 percent(Rs 2,41,263 crore expressed as a percentage of Rs 11,22,799 crore) of the total receipts. Bhalla's cost of food security comes at around 28 percent of the total receipts (Rs 3,14,000 crore expressed as a percentage of Rs 11,22,799 crore). Where do you find the money to implement the schemes?
When we look at the Budgeted Receipts of the Government for 2013–14, presuming that such receipts would come even at the declining growth expectations, they are just Rs 11,22,799 crore. The government's estimated cost of food security comes at 11.10 percent (Rs 1,24,723 expressed as a percentage of Rs 11,22,799 crore) of the total receipts. The CACP's estimated cost of food security comes at 21.5 percent(Rs 2,41,263 crore expressed as a percentage of Rs 11,22,799 crore) of the total receipts. Bhalla's cost of food security comes at around 28 percent of the total receipts (Rs 3,14,000 crore expressed as a percentage of Rs 11,22,799 crore). Where do you find the money to implement the schemes?
The CACP estimates an expenditure of Rs 6,82,183 crore in
the first three years of launching the scheme, with Rs 2,41,263 crore in the
first year itself. If the scheme is initiated in 2013–14, the gross fiscal
deficit of the Centre would substantially shoot-up to 6.7 per cent of GDP, a
level not reached since 1993–94.[1] The
States’ finances are moving at alarming debt rates.
Implementation is at the doorsteps of the State Governments
while the stocks are with the Central Government and the coordination between
the two would require to be non-partisan and wholehearted.
This apart, the administrative expenses for setting up the
State Food Commission, District Grievance Cells, and the Vigilance Teams and
for the implementation of ICT across the State right up to the village level
and integrating with the entire distribution system cutting across panchayats,
cooperatives, private licensed traders, etc. have to be incurred by the State
Governments. CACP has also indicated that additional expenses have to be
incurred for scaling up of operations, enhancement of production, investments
for storage, movement, processing and market infrastructure, etc.”
There is no ballpark figure in the approach papers.
There is no ballpark figure in the approach papers.
As against the NAC recommendation of 35kg of food grains per month, the
Act provides for only 25 kgs in the PDS in one-fourth of the most disadvantaged
districts or blocks in the country in the first year given the fact that an
average household of 5 would need the energy equivalent of around 60 kg of food
grains per month. Therefore the law should have specifically referred to all
the food and nutrition-related schemes as also schemes where the potential
exists for the use of essential commodities (like in the MGNREGA) together and
examine how much a poor household would access through all these programmes
through organically integrating them at the delivery level. Complementarities
of the existing programmes require recognition and integration.
It is important to add that all these programmes need to be predicated
on adequate, decentralized production of food grains which essentially means
that India’s dry land agriculture must receive priority attention by way of a
second green revolution in the vast areas of the country that do not have
assured irrigation facilities. This emphasis is found missing in the Act.
It is essential to change the
provision in the MNREGA in regard to this basic issue from guaranteeing just
100 days of employment to the entire household to guaranteeing 100 days of
employment to every adult in a household. While on this, a point has been made that the
second most important objective of MNREGA, provision of livelihood
opportunities has been almost forgotten goal. It is important to realize that
people should be earning while contributing to production and not just for
attendance. The skewed nature of MNREGA as voiced in the farm sector created
serious imbalances in terms of availability of labour at the time when farmers
require labour. Even the small and marginal farmers are now shifting to
technology and such shift would also have long-term implications to soil
fertility. The deeper the plough the larger would be the deprivation of soil
fertility. The vicious cycle of productivity sets in. This should be avoided
through appropriate policy intervention.
The households living below the
poverty line, identified through transparent
and liberal criteria as such,
through surveys conducted at the grassroots level by agencies of decentralized
governance, with assistance from civil society groups, need a properly
targeted, functioning, and affordable Public Distribution System (TPDS), in
addition to a proper wage employment guarantee programme as described supra, to cope with their food security
needs. To ensure this, the price of food
grains in a well-run TPDS should be determined on the basis of the employment
levels and wage levels obtaining at the relevant time. The size of the family
should be the unit to determine the food requirements of the household,
ensuring interpersonal equity within the household concerning scales. Such
requirement should be guaranteed to a poor household as its non-negotiable
entitlement.
An average household needs to be
supplied 720 kg of cereals per annum to ensure its cereals security (60 kg x
12). The bulk of it must come from the cereal wage component of the MGNREGA
wage. At 200 days of employment the cereals that can be accessed will be 500 kg
(200 x 2.5 kg). In such a scenario the TPDS should provide the balance. The law should have therefore calibrated what
the cereals policy should be in the MGNREGA’s wage composition first before
determining what it should be in the TPDS, for the vast unorganized labour that
participates in the MGNREGA. If the MGNREGA would not provide for an optimum
number of days of guaranteed employment or the cereal wage component, then the
burden of cereals security would fall entirely on the TPDS to the extent of
supplying 60 kg per household per month on an average or to the extent of
non-provision of employment. Sixty kgs is mentioned as an average because household sizes would
obviously differ but the overall national need will have to be calculated on
the basis of the total poor households to be guaranteed food at this scale.
Such planning for all poor households is essential since not all the poor would
be participating in the MGNREGP.
It need hardly be added that
cereals alone do not mean food. To begin with, at least, pulses, edible oil and
iodised salt need to be added to this basket, with emphasis on the supply of
nutritious cereals like jowar, ragi, bajra and other “minor” millets. The
quantity of entitlement and the affordable price fixed should be kept frozen
for the period during which the household remains below the poverty line, the
elimination of such poverty itself being the acid test of the quality and
implementation of the development and anti-poverty strategies drawn up by the
State.
Anthyodaya Anna Yojana scheme
being implemented through Anganwadis and the mid-day meal programme have been
rightly clubbed with the provisions of the Act but the mechanisms are totally
ill-equipped and we have in the recent past instances in Bihar, and elsewhere,
the disasters of several children getting killed after swallowing the meal at
mid-day in the school.
The Targeted Public Distribution
System (TPDS) should thus be looked upon as an alternate market for the poor,
but it can function as a market relevant to the poor only when insulated from
factors of violent fluctuations of supplies and price. It is also desirable to
dispense the ration shops and introduce food coupons with the entitlements
clearly indicated so that the poor can draw their entitlement when they have
income in their hands and at any time during the day. There is merit in this
argument for building into the new law. While the Act does provide for cash
transfers, food coupons and other schemes, this would appear as an
administrative protectionist window.
The Scheme is open-ended and has no specific directions to target the
needy. It also does not have any specific deadlines for setting up various
institutions mentioned in the Act like the District Grievance Cells, State Food
Commission, Vigilance Committees and the setting up of ICT to cope with the
tasks outlined in the Act for the related departments.
The saving grace of the Act has been that the responsibility for
“creating, maintaining, modern and scientific storage facilities at various
levels shall vest with Central Government.” The open warehouses under the
tarpaulins and the poorly maintained FCI warehouses amply demonstrate the
inadequacies of the concerned departments to address this responsibility different
from those that exist currently.
This Act can have the dubious distinction of fixing no accountability for
failure to implement any of the provisions of the Act excepting to state that
malaises in implementation would be dealt with as per the criminal procedure
code. We are aware as to how long would such proceedings take and the impunity
with which the errand can move about until the cases are settled. The Act makes
good politics and bad economics in one stroke. Who can love the poor more than
the politicians of India for in them rests the vote bank still? Everybody wants
food security but along with it think of providing safe drinking water as a
couple of glasses of safe drinking water are as important as nutritious food.
The lactating mothers need it all the more. This should join the mission mode
for ensuring food security.
References
- K.R.
Venugopal, A Comment on the NAC’s Innocence of Food Security Issue, EPW dated 27th November
2010
- K.R. Venugopal, The National Food Security Act, 2010, ‘Social Change’ (Journal of Council for Social Development), December 2010.
- Summary of Discussions of Round Table on
the Draft Food Security Bill, September 2011 held under the auspices of
APSA on the 9 October 2011.
[1] Charan
Singh, Food Security Bill, Where is the Money? The Hindu Business Line, 7 August 2013.