FOOD SECURITY AND FOOD PRODUCTION

 

Food Security means that not only is there enough food now, but also that likelihood of starvation tomorrow is negligible. Before independence recurrent famines were a regular features of India under British rule.

Is food production still a major problem?

Not in the nation as a whole. By the year of 2002, the nation has over 6.5 crore tones food grains in stock against 2 crore tones required to be in stocks. The grain production in the country rose from 17.5 crore tones in 80’s to 20.6 crore tones in 90’s. There has been a surplus wheat production of 7.5 crore tones and in rice there is 9.0 crore  tones surplus. Remember food grain stock should not be seen as fiscal deficit if government uses it for employment generation, and cost of holding stocks would decrease proportionately. The central problem for the government has become how to manage its stocks. Its costs over 5000 crore to store it alone. And as they have run out of storage space much of it is stored in the open under tarpaulins. The government has therefore decided to export the grains at the subsidized rate so as to manage its stocks. On the surface, but not in real terms. Whereas the grain production has increased, the rate of growth in food grains declined from 3.54% in the 1980’s to 1.8% in the 1990’s. As a result there was a fall in per capita availability of food grain in the economy as a whole-50.5 gms per day in 1997 to 470.4 gms in 1999, to 458.6 gms in 2000. The food grain surplus is due to the inability of the poor to buy food. We are NOT producing enough to meet nutritional needs .

Food security and the subsistence economy

Food supply is a problem in areas of subsistence agricultural. Traditionally a major part of the population did not buy food. They grew it. Or they gathered it. Like the adivasi sections do even today.

The shift to production for the market: once most agriculture was for home consumption. But even in the post independence period, even if there was production for the market, some production essential for food security was for the home. And this was of a mix crops-of different food grains well adapted to that area-indigenous grain species and millets were the most important component of this.

In chattisgarh area for example there are over 10,000 indigenous varieties of rice, many of them were not high yielding but they were less risky and needed less chemical inputs and were well adapted to the climate. As  monocultures of high yield varieties take over, the frequency of crop failure increases, and input costs rice. Inability to use food resources of forest due to its degradation and their being shut out of it and loss biodiversity in reserve forests is an other major reason for the decreased food security for this section.

The High Starvation Areas

Adivasis who once owned good fertile lands were divested of it over the years and now are now working on it as labourers. They no longer gather their foods from the forest or produce it with local knowledge and inputs. They have to busy their food. And the depressed wages do not allow this. So often they migrate in increasing numbers to the cities to work as migrants, returning to their lands and villages for a few months every year when there is work locally. This is typical of all high starvation areas: The Kalahandi-Bolangir-Koraput area of Orissa, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh districts, southern Rajasthan districts and so on. In the 60’s Kalahandi had 1.18 lakh tones surplus and Bolangir had 0.661 tonnes surplus. But the ragi was replaced by oilseeds and pulse production. Over 10,000 indigenous varieties of rice were replaced by soybean in Chattisgarh.

Food Security and the Small Farmer

This is not only in adivasis areas. This is the problem of entire small and marginal peasant families of the country and they constitute the majority of the farming households. Hunger for small farmer is largely a result of

a)      The Shift to commercial crops and contraction of area under food crops.

b)      The decline in grain production for the family’s food security and the technological choices this involves. Earlier on at least part of their production included low risk moderate yielding crop’s which provided enough food for consumption. Now shifting to high risk high yield crops means more frequent crop failure. Earlier, low chemical options were affordable but current high chemical options need timely credit which is often not available.

c)      The tapering of yields-soil, water and pest factors have pushed yields down and the entire small and marginal farmers section becomes a food buyer. All these factors affect the small farmer more. For example, almost all small farmers now have to buy water, whereas two decades earlier it was available in well or shared from tanks.

d)      Small and marginal farmers are forced into distress sale of paddy due to low rates to meet basic needs of oil, clothes, salt; plus low minimum wages; the procurement process is often not accessible to them.

Food security and the landless labourer

This is also the problem of landless agricultural labour and artisans who used to paid in grain. Now are paid in cash and are paid too low. The agricultural labourers are net food buyers. In a bad year jobs are low and price of food is high. Traditional means of food access is lost and they are too poor to access the markets.

Food security and the poor

As for the rest of the poor, the unorganized manufacturing sector workers, the urban workers, all of them are buyers of grain and as food prices go up they are pushed into hunger. The incomes of most people increases slowly if at all. But food has always grown costlier. Wages rise through united action of the workers. And since many sections are unorganized and since there are many hands that seek work and little work available the wages often do not rise as fast as the prices.

New threats to Food Security

The present phase of globalization has many grave consequences for food security. The Agreement on Agriculture   (AOA) under WTO has further skewed the balance against developing countries. India is just beginning to feel the rigours of the Agreement on Agriculture that was part of WTO agreement of 1995. Specifically, the lifting of restrictions on imports, as required by AOA has resulted in widespread disruption of the rural economy. The spate of suicides by farmers in many states is a testimony to the grim situation that is fast unfolding before us. The AoA ensured that subsidies provided to domestic agriculture by developing countries would be phased out while those being provided by developed countries would be retained. This has resulted in exports of primary commodities by developing countries becoming uncompetitive while their domestic markets are being flooded by subsidized imports from developed countries.

This has been compounded  by pressures of the Structural Adjustment Policy(SAP) induced policies to produce for the export market. As a result vast tracts in India now grow “Cash” crops like cotton, tobacco, sunflower etc. We in India would recall the devastation and violent reactions that were provoked by forced indigo cultivation in Bengal in the nineteenth century. The actors that have not changed, only the excuses offered have. Because the global rules of the game are controlled by a few developed countries have fallen steadily. As a result farmers get less and less for their products, while the growth in production of staple food grains has fallen sharply. All these pose a major threat to the sustainability of agriculture in the Third World and to the safeguarding of food security.

Dependence technologies

Control over global agriculture is sought to be exercised by other means too. MNC’s are pushing through a regime that will allow Patenting of seeds. At the same time they are using Biotechnology to research new varieties that are genetically modified. These two measures can allow virtual monopoly to such MNC’s over seed production, and consequently total control over agriculture. Right now, they are certain companies already advented into India. If allowed completely, a handful of companies will decide who will grow what and what will be consumed in the globe. The implications are clear.

Many new seed varieties are such that farmers cannot harvest them and plant them again. Each time seeds have to be bought from the company and they can increase costs. Moreover their seeds require more and more chemical inputs. New seeds are made from germplasm found in related wild varieties and from numerous local varieties. But due to degradation of the ecosystem the wild varieties are being lost. And due to the promotion of monocultures with commercial, often imported seeds the local varieties may lost.

Recent Highlights of the Food Security Bill:

The debate on hunger in the light of the proposed National Food Security Bill is now getting broad based and therefore meaningful. It is moving to learn that the focus is shifting from reformation the Public Distribution System (PDS), from providing food stamps or direct cash transfers as part of food entitlements; to a broader definition of food security that includes physical, economic and social access to food for all for all times to come.

The lane to hell is covered with good intentions. Hunger is also the outcome of our policies (read good intentions), and our inability to accept that the delivery system is not delivering. To improve the delivery system, the government is once again thinking of borrowing ideas from abroad. Replacing the existing subsidy mechanism with coupens/cash transfers directly to the poor household is one such move.

Dr M S Sawminathan has listed the existing programmes to fight hunger, food and nutritional insecurity. The Ministry of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Human Health and Welfare, and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture has this impressive list:

-- Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS).

-- Kishori Shakti Yojna

-- Nutrition Programme for Adoloscent Girls.

-- Rajiv Gandhi Scheme for Empowerment of Adolescent Girls

-- Mid-day Meal programme for schools

-- Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

-- National Rural Health Mission

-- National Urban Health Mission

-- Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna

-- National Food Security Mission

-- National Horticultural Mission

-- Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Mission

-- Total Sanitation Campaign

-- Swarna Jayanthi Gram Rozgar Yojna

-- Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme

-- Targeted Public Distribution System

-- Antyodaya Anna Yojna

-- Annapoorna

Despite such impressive programmes already running, and the Budget allocation for which is enhanced almost every year, the poor still go hungry. The number of hungry and impoverished has increased with every passing year. UNICEF tells us that more than 5000 children die every day in India from malnourishment.

Knowing that the existing programmes and projects have failed to make any appreciable dent, it is high time the opportunity provided by the proposed National Food Security Act be utilised in a realistic manner. It is a great opportunity, and we will fail the nation if we fail to bring about a radical overhaul of the existing approach to fight hunger. The entire debate has to therefore shift from the hands of a few bureaucrats/experts who have monopolised any decision-making when it comes to hunger. It has to be taken to the nation, through a series of regional deliberations.

Poverty line

First and foremost, the time has come to draw a realistic poverty line. The Tendulkar Committee has suggested 37 per cent of the population to be living in poverty. Arjun Sengupta Committee had said that 77 per cent (or 836 million people) of the population is able to spend not more than Rs 20/day. Justice D P Wadhwa Committee has now recommended that anyone earning less than Rs 100 a day should be considered below the poverty line. Knowing that India has one of the most stringent poverty line in the world, I think the fault begins by accepting the faulty projections. During Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s tenure, Planning Commission had even lowered the poverty estimates from 37 per cent to 19 per cent. Poverty estimates were restored back when the new Planning Commission took over. I am sure if we had persisted with the same poverty line of 19 per cent (in the beginning of 1990s), India would have banished hunger in official records by now.

It doesn’t therefore help in continuing with faulty estimates. I therefore suggest that India should have two lines demarcating the percentage of absolute hungry and malnourished from those who are not so hungry. The Suresh Tendulkar Committee suggestion of 37 per cent should be taken as the new Hunger line, which needs low-cost food grains as an emergency entitlement. In addition, the Arjun Sengupta committee’s cut-off at 77 per cent should be the new Poverty line. The approach for tackling absolute hunger and poverty would therefore be different.

Zero Hunger

Like in Brazil, the time has come when India needs to formulate a Zero Hunger programme. This should aim at a differential aproach. I see no reason why in the 600,000 villages of the country, which produce food for the country, people should go hungry. These villages have to be made hunger-free by adopting a community-based localised food grain bank scheme. I agree with Ela Bhatt when she says that the village needs should be met from within a 100-km radius.

In the urban centres and the food deficit areas, a universal public distribution system is required. The existing PDS system also requires to be overhauled, and this can be done. Also, there is a dire need to involve social and religious organisations in food distribution. They have done a remarkable job in cities like Bangalore, and there are lessons to be imbibed. Nothing can succeed if we do not ensure safe drinking water and sanitation to be part of the hunger mitigation programmes.

Food for all

It is often argued that the government cannot foot the bill for feeding each and every Indian. This is not true. Estimates have shown that the country would require 60 million tonnes of foodgrains (@35 kg per family) if it follows a Universal Public Distribution System. In other words, Rs 1.10 lakh crore is what is required to feed the nation for a year. In Budget 2010, Pranab Mukherjee has announced a "revenue foregone" of Rs 5 lakh crore, which means the sales, excise and other tax concessions plus income tax exemption for the industry and business. The annual Budget exercise is of roughly Rs 11 lakh crores. Which means, the government is subsidising almost 50 per cent by way of direct sops to the industry, in addition to the what is provided in the Budget itself. The ’revenue foregone’ is outside the Budget allocations.

 

 

Policy changes

But all this is not possible, unless some other policy changes that do not take away the emphasis on long-term sustainable farming, and stops land acquisitions and privatisation of natural resources. It has to be supplemented by policies that ensures food for all for all times to come. This is what constitutes inclusive growth. A hungry population is an economic burden. It is also a great economic loss resulting from the inability of the manpower to undertake economic activities. The proposed National Food Security Bill provides us an excellent opportunity to recast the economic map of India in such a way that makes hunger history.

For writing this article, I am very much acknowledged to Prajasakti Book House, Hyderabad and certain contents complied from Devinder Sharma’s Article Food Security Act or Food Entitlement Act.

The Author is V.G.Ranganath, Asst.professor, Padala Rama Reddi Law College, Hyderabad and Research Scholar(part-time),Dr.B.R.Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam .

E-mail:ranganathvg@yahoo.com

All form fields are required.

Name Write a Review